返回总目录
Jam' Al-Qur'an - The Codices of ibn Mas'ud and Ubayy ibn Ka'b
CHAPTER 3:
THE CODICES OF IBN MAS'UD AND UBAYY IBN KA'B
1. ABDULLAH IBN MAS'UD: AN AUTHORITY ON THE QUR'AN TEXT.
No study of the early transmission of the Qur'an would be complete
without an analysis of the contribution of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud,
one of the most prominent of Muhammad's companions. He was one of
his earliest disciples and we are told that he was "the first man
to speak the Qur'an loudly in Mecca after the apostle" (Ibn Ishaq,
Sirat Rasulullah, p.141). Throughout Muhammad's twelve years of
mission at Mecca and until his death at Medina some ten years
later Ibn Mas'ud applied himself very diligently to learning
the Qur'an by heart. There is much evidence to show that he was
regarded by Muhammad himself as one of the foremost authorities
on the Qur'an, if not the foremost, as appears from the following
hadith:
Narrated Masruq: Abdullah bin Mas'ud was mentioned before
Abdullah bin Amr who said, "That is a man I still love,
as I heard the Prophet (saw) saying, 'Learn the recitation
of the Qur'an from four: from Abdullah bin Mas'ud - he
started with him - Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa,
Mu'adh bin Jabal and Ubai bin Ka'b".
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p.96)
The same tradition in the other great work of hadith also
specifically mentions that Muhammad "started from him" (Sahih
Muslim, Vol. 4, p.1312), showing that he was deliberately
mentioned first, indicating that Muhammad regarded him as the
foremost authority on the Qur'an. Among others mentioned is
Ubayy ibn Ka'b who, as we have already seen, also compiled a
separate codex of the Qur'an before it was destroyed by Uthman.
It is significant to find no mention of Zaid ibn Thabit in this
list which shows quite conclusively that Muhammad regarded Ibn
Mas'ud and Ubayy ibn Ka'b as far better read in the Qur'an than
him. In another hadith we find further evidence of Ibn Mas'ud's
prominence in respect of his knowledge of the Qur'an:
Narrated Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) (ra): By Allah other than
Whom none has the right to be worshipped! There is no Sura
revealed in Allah's Book but I know at what place it was
revealed; and there is no verse revealed in Allah's Book
but I know about whom it was revealed. And if I know that
there is somebody who knows Allah's Book better than I, and
he is at a place that camels can reach, I would go to him.
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.488).
In a similar tradition we read that he added to this that he had
recited more than seventy surahs of the Qur'an in Muhammad's
presence, alleging that all Muhammad's companions were aware
that no one knew the Qur'an better than he did, to which Shaqiq,
sitting by, added "I sat in the company of the Companions of
Muhammad (may peace be upon him) but I did not hear anyone having
rejected that (that is, his recitation) or finding fault with it"
(Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p.1312).
Abdullah ibn Mas'ud obviously had an exceptional knowledge of the
Qur'an and, as Muhammad himself singled him out as the first
person to whom anyone should go who wished to learn the Qur'an,
we must accept that any codex compiled by him would have as much
claim to accuracy and completeness as any other. That he was one
of the companions who did in fact collect the Qur'an apart from
Zaid ibn Thabit cannot be disputed. Ibn Abi Dawud devotes no less
than nineteen pages of his work on the compilation of the Qur'an
manuscripts to the variant readings found between his text and
that of Zaid which was ultimately the one standardised by Uthman
(Kitab al-Masahif, pp. 54-73).
Having become a Muslim before even Umar, the second Caliph of Islam,
Ibn Mas'ud had been on the hijrahs to both Abyssinia and Medina and
was one of the highly regarded muhajirun who had followed Muhammad
from Mecca. He participated in both the Battles of Badr and Uhud
and his close association with the Prophet of Islam and prestige
in the knowledge of the Qur'an resulted in his codex of the Qur'an
being accepted as the standard text of the Muslims at Kufa before
the recension done by Uthman. His reaction to Uthman's order that
all codices of the Qur'an other than Zaid's should be burnt is most
informative.
2. IBN MAS'UD'S REACTION TO UTHMAN'S DECREE.
When Uthman sent out the order that all codices of the Qur'an
other than the codex of Zaid ibn Thabit should be destroyed,
Abdullah ibn Mas'ud refused to hand over his copy. Desai openly
speaks of "Hadhrat Ibn Mas'ud's initial refusal to hand over
the compilation" (The Quraan Unimpeachable, p.44), but Siddique,
in his article, prefers to leave the impression that no such
objection from the distinguished companion of Muhammad ever
took place, saying instead, "There is no indication that he ever
objected to the 'text of Hafsah' during the entire Caliphate of
Umar" (Al-Balaagh, op.cit., p.1). But why should he have raised
any objection to Zaid's codex at that time? His own codex had
become well-established at Kufa while Zaid's had receded into
relative obscurity, simply being retained by the Caliph without
any attempt whatsoever to establish it as the standard text for
the Muslim community.
It was only when this codex suddenly came into prominence and
was decreed to be the official text during Uthman's reign that
Ibn Mas'ud found his codex being threatened. He immediately
refused to hand it over for destruction and we are told by
Ibn al-Athir in his Kamil (III, 86-87) that when the copy of
Zaid's text arrived for promulgation at Kufa as the standard
text, the majority of Muslims there still adhered to Ibn Mas'ud's
text. It must be quite obvious to any objective scholar that,
just as Zaid had copied out a codex for Abu Bakr, so Ibn
Mas'ud simultaneously compiled a similar codex and, given the
latter's exceptional knowledge of the Qur'an, his text must
be considered to be as accurate and reliable as that of Zaid.
The two codices were of probable equal authority and
reliability.
Because there are a wealth of evidences of differences between
the two, however, and as it was Zaid's text that became the
standardised text after Uthman's recension and the only one
used to this day in the Muslim world, it is intriguing to find
Muslim writers trying to play down and minimise the importance
of Ibn Mas'ud's codex.
Desai claims that "his copy contained notes explanations as
well. His copy was for his personal use, not for the use of
the Ummah at large" (op.cit., p.45). No evidence is given for
this claim. One of the great deficiencies in Desai's booklet
is the almost total lack of documentation in respect of the
factual allegations the author makes. Virtually nowhere do
we find a reference to the traditional chapter and verse.
The reader is expected to presume that the facts he alleges
are well-founded. Desai leaves no room in his booklet for
references by which a student can check whether the contents
are factually reliable.
In fact it is well known that Ibn Mas'ud's codex, far from
being for his personal use only, was widely used in the region
where he was based and, just as Ubayy ibn Ka'b's codex became
the standard text Syria before Uthman's recension, so Ibn Mas'ud's
likewise became the standard text for the Muslim ummah in and
around Kufa in Iraq (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab, p. 13).
Ahmad Von Denffer likewise attempts to minimise the importance
of the other codices, saying of Ubayy ibn Ka'b's codex that
"it was a mushaf for his own personal use, in other words, his
private notebook" and goes on to say of all the other codices
that these "personal notebooks became obsolete and were
destroyed" (Ulum al-Qur'an, p.49). It is virtually impossible
to understand how whole manuscripts of the Qur'an, carefully
transcribed and widely used in the various provinces, can be
reduced to the status of "personal notebooks", least of all
how such codices could have become "obsolete" at any time.
Muslim writers resort to such strange reasonings solely because
they are determined to maintain the declared textual perfection
of the Qur'an as it stands today to the last dot and letter. As
this text is only a revision and reproduction of the codex of
just one man, Zaid ibn Thabit, they have to circumvent the fact
that other equally authoritative codices of single companions
existed and that all of them, Zaid's included, differed in many
key respects. Thus the text of Zaid has become elevated to
"official" status right from the time of its compilation, the
other texts have been downgraded to the status of "personal
notebooks", and the argument runs that they were destroyed
because they differed from one another without any consideration
for the fact that Zaid's own codex likewise differed from each
of them in turn.
There are solid evidences to show why Abdullah ibn Mas'ud at
first refused to hand over his codex for destruction. While
Desai claims that it was only because he attached sentimental
value to his compilation (p.45) and Siddique states that there
was no difference between his text and Zaid's, we find, in fact,
that it was precisely because the great companion of Muhammad
considered his own text to be superior to and more authentic
than Zaid's that he was angered at Uthman's decree. Before
Hudhayfah had ever gone to Uthman to call upon him to standardise
a single text of the Qur'an, Abdullah ibn Mas'ud had some sharp
words with him and reacted to his proposal that the different
readings in the various provinces should be suppressed.
Hudhaifah said "It is said by the people of Kufa,
'the reading of Abdullah (ibn Mas'ud)', and it is said
by the people of Basra, 'the reading of Abu Musa'.
By Allah! If I come to the Commander of the Faithful
(Uthman), I will demand that they be drowned". Abdullah
said to him, "Do so, and by Allah you will also be drowned,
but not in water". (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.13).
Hudhaifah went on to say, "0 Abdullah ibn Qais, you were
sent to the people of Basra as their governor (amir) and
teacher and they have submitted to your rules, your idioms
and your reading". He continued, "0 Abdullah ibn Mas'ud,
you were sent to the people of Kufa as their teacher who
have also submitted to your rules, idioms and reading".
Abdullah said to him, "In that case I have not led them
astray. There is no verse in the Book of Allah that I do
not know where it was revealed and why it was revealed,
and if I knew anyone more learned in the Book of Allah
and I could be conveyed there, I would set out to him".
(Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.14).
Modern writers such as Siddique and others maintain that the
only differences between the recitations of the text and the
reading of each companion (qira'at) were in pronunciations and
dialectal expressions, yet it is once again obvious that what
Hudhayfah had in mind was the elimination of the actual written
codices being used by Abdullah ibn Mas'ud and the others - you
cannot drown a verbal recitation - and it was this proposal
which so angered Ibn Mas'ud and which proves that the differences
in reading were in the texts themselves. In other traditions we
find clear evidences that he regarded Zaid's knowledge of the
Qur'an, and therefore his written codex of the text, as inferior
to his. After all, Abdullah ibn Mas'ud had become a Muslim at
Mecca before Zaid was even born and he had enjoyed years of
direct acquaintance with Muhammad while the early portions of
the Qur'an were being delivered before Zaid ever accepted Islam.
Abdullah ibn Mas'ud said, "I recited from the messenger
of Allah (saw) seventy surahs which I had perfected
before Zaid ibn Thabit had embraced Islam".
(Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.17).
"I acquired directly from the messenger of Allah (saw)
seventy surahs when Zaid was still a childish youth -
must I now forsake what I acquired directly from the
messenger of Allah?"
(Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.15).
In another source we find that, when Uthman's order came for
the destruction of the other codices and the uniform reading
of the Qur'an according to Zaid's codex alone, Ibn Mas'ud gave
a khutba (sermon) in Kufa and declared:
"The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the
Qur'an. I like it better to read according to the recitation
of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn
Thabit. By Him besides Whom there is no god! I learnt more
than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah,
may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth,
having two locks and playing with the youth".
(Ibn Sa'd, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p.444).
In the light of all these traditions, which can hardly be
discounted, the evasive explanations of modern Muslim writers
cannot be accepted. Abdullah ibn Mas'ud clearly resisted Uthman's
order, not because of sentiment as Desai suggests, but clearly
because he sincerely believed that his text of the Qur'an, gained
firsthand from Muhammad himself, was more authentic than the text
of Zaid. This conclusion cannot seriously be resisted by a sincere
student of the history of the Qur'an text and its initial
compilation.
It is also quite clear that the differences in reading were not
confined to forms of dialect in pronunciation but in the actual
contents of the text itself. An examination of some of these
textual differences will show just how extensive those variant
readings really were.
3. THE VARIANT READINGS IN IBN MAS'UD'S CODEX.
One of the anomalies recorded in respect of Ibn Mas'ud's text is
that it is said to have omitted the Suratul-Fatihah, the opening
surah, and the mu'awwithatayni, the two short surahs with which
the Qur'an ends (Surahs 113 and 114). The form of these surahs
has some significance - the first is purely in the form of a
prayer to Allah and the last two are "charm" surahs, being
recommended incantations of refuge with Allah which Muslims should
recite as protection against sinister forces and practices. One
tradition states that Ubayy ibn Ka'b was at one time challenged
with the suggestion that Ibn Mas'ud had made certain negative
statements about these surahs and he replied that he had asked
Muhammad about them and was informed that they were a part of
the revelation of the Qur'an and should be recited as such
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.472).
The possibility that Ibn Mas'ud may have denied that these three
surahs were a part of the Qur'an vexed early Muslim historians.
The well-known Iranian philosopher and historian Fakhruddin
ar-Razi, who wrote a commentary on the Qur'an titled Mafatih
al-Ghayb ("The Keys of the Unseen") and who lived in the sixth
century of Islam (1149-1209 AD) gave some attention to this
problem and sought to prove that the allegations were unfounded.
Imam Fakhruddin said that the reports in some of the ancient
books that Ibn Mas'ud denied that Suratul-Fatiha and the
Mu'awwithatayni are part of the Qur'an are embarrassing in
their implications... But the Qadi Abu Bakr said "It is not
soundly reported from him that they are not part of the Qur'an
and there is no record of such a statement from him. He omitted
them from his manuscript as he did not approve of their being
written. This does not mean he denied they were part of the
Qur'an. In his view the Sunnah was that nothing should be
inscribed in the text (mushaf) unless so commanded by the
Prophet (saw) ... and he had not heard that it had been so
commanded".
(as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.186).
Another Muslim historian, an-Nawawi, in his commentary on the
Muhaththab said that the Fatihah and the two "charm" surahs
were unanimously regarded by the Muslims as part of the Qur'an
and that what had been said about Ibn Mas'ud was false and
unjustified (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan, p.187). The famous dogmatic
Muslim scholar Ibn Hazm likewise rejected the suggestion that
Ibn Mas'ud had omitted these surahs from his codex:
Ibn Hazm said in the Muhalla, "This is a lie attributed to
Ibn Mas'ud. Only the reading of Asim from Zirr is authentic
and in that are both the Fatiha and Mu'awwithatayni".
(as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.187).
The record goes on to say that Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani however,
in his commentary on the Sahih of al-Bukhari (his famous Fath
al-Baari), accepted these reports as sound, quoting authorities
who stated that Ibn Mas'ud would not include the two "charm"
surahs in his manuscript as Muhammad had, to his knowledge,
only commanded that they be used as incantations against evil
forces. He regarded the isnad (the chain of transmitters) for
this record as totally sound and attempted to harmonise the
conflicting records instead, suggesting that Ibn Mas'ud
accepted the Fatiha and "charm" surahs as genuinely revealed
but was reluctant to inscribe them in his written text.
As Uthman ordered all the codices of the Qur'an other than
Zaid's to be destroyed and as Ibn Mas'ud was eventually
compelled to hand his over for elimination, it cannot be
determined whether the three relevant surahs were actually
included in his codex or not. If they were omitted, the
reason is either that he was unaware that Muhammad had
expressly stated that they were part of the Qur'an text
(as alleged by Ubayy) or, less probably, that Ibn Mas'ud had
actually determined that they were not part of the actual
kitabullah, the Book of Allah, and that the other companions
had assumed they were because they had come to Muhammad in
the same form as the other surahs of the Qur'an.
When we come to the rest of the Qur'an, however, we find that
there were numerous differences of reading between the texts
of Zaid and Ibn Mas'ud. As mentioned already the records in
Ibn Abi Dawud's Kitab al-Masahif fill up no less than nineteen
pages and, from all the sources available, one can trace no
less than 101 variants in the Suratul-Baqarah alone. We shall
mention just a few of the differences here in illustration of
the nature of the variations between the texts.
1. Surah 2.275 begins with the words Allathiina yaakuluunar-ribaa
laa yaquumuuna - "those who devour usury will not stand". Ibn
Mas'ud's text had the same introduction but after the last word
there was added the expression yawmal qiyaamati, that is, they
would not be able to stand on the "Day of Resurrection". The
variant is mentioned in Abu Ubaid's Kitab Fadhail al-Qur'an
(cf. Nöldeke, Geschichte, 3.63; Jeffery, Materials, p.31).
The variant was also recorded in the codex of Talha ibn Musarrif,
a secondary codex dependent on Ibn Mas'ud's text, Taiha likewise
being based at Kufa in Iraq where Ibn Mas'ud was based as governor
and where his codex was widely followed (Jeffery, p.343).
2. Surah 5.91, in the standard text, contains the exhortation
fasiyaamu thalaathati ayyaamin' - "fast for three days".
Ibn Mas'ud's text had, after the last word, the adjective
mutataabi'aatin, meaning three "successive" days. The variant
derives from at-Tabari (7.19.11 - cf. Nöldeke, 3.66; Jeffery,
p.40) and was also mentioned by Abu Ubaid. This variant reading
was, significantly, found in Ubayy ibn Ka'b's text as well
(Jeffery, p.129) and in the texts of Ibn Abbas (p.199) and
Ibn Mas'ud's pupil Ar-Rabi ibn Khuthaim (p.289).
3. Surah 6.153 begins Wa anna haathaa siraatii - "Verily this is my
path". Ibn Mas'ud's text read Wa haathaa siraatu rabbakum - "This
is the path of Your Lord". The variant derives again from at-Tabari
(8.60.16 - cf. Nöldeke 3.66; Jeffery, p.42). Ubayy ibn Ka'b had
the same reading, except that for rabbakum his text read rabbika
(Jeffery, p.131). The secondary codex of Al-A'mash, mentioned by
Ibn Abi Dawud in his Kitab al-Masahif (p.91), also began with the
variant wa haathaa as in the texts of Ibn Mds'ud and Ubayy ibn
Ka'b (Jeffery, p.318). Ibn Abi Dawud also adds a further variant,
suggesting that Ibn Mas'ud read the word siraat with the Arabic
letter sin rather than the standard sad (Kitab al-Masahif, p.61).
4. Surah 33.6 contains the following statement about the
relationship between Muhammad's wives and the believers: wa
azwaajuhuu ummahaatuhuu - "and his wives are their mothers".
Ibn-Mas'ud's text added the words wa huwa abuu laahum - "and he
is their father". The variant was also recorded by at-Tabari
(21.70.8 - cf. Nöldeke 3.71; Jeffery p.75). This variant was
likewise recorded in the codices of Ubayy ibn Ka'b (Jeffery,
p.156) as well as those of Ibn Abbas (p.204), Ikrima (p.273) and
Mujahid ibn Jabr (p.282), except that in these three cases the
statement that Muhammad is the father of the believers precedes
that which makes his wives their mothers. In the codex of
Ar-Rabi ibn Khuthaim, however, where the variant also occurs,
it is placed in the same position in the text as in the codices
of Ibn Mas'ud and Ubayy (p.298). The considerable number of
references for this variant reading argue strongly for its
possible authenticity over and against its omission in the
codex of Zaid ibn Thabit.
These four examples are of texts where the variant consisted of
the inclusion of extra words or clauses not found in Zaid's
codex and, in each case, the variant is supported by inclusion
in other codices, notably those included in Ubayy's text. The
majority of variants, however, relate to consonantal variants
in individual words or different forms of these words. In some
cases whole words were omitted, such as in Surah 112.1 where
Ibn Mas'ud omitted the word qul - "say" as did Ubayy ibn Ka'b
(Fihrist S.26 Z.26 - cf. Nöldeke 3.77; Jeffery, pp. 113 and 180).
In other cases the variant related to the form of a word which
also slightly altered its meaning, as in Surah 3.127 where
Ibn Mas'ud and Ubayy both read wa saabiquu ("be ahead") for
wa saari'uu ("be quick") in the standard text (cf. Nöldeke,
3.64; Jeffery, pp. 34 and 125).
In yet other cases one single word might be added not affecting
the sense of the text, as in Surah 6.16 where once again both
Ibn Mas'ud and Ubayy recorded the same variant, namely
yusrifillaahu - "averted by Allah" - for the standard yusraf -
"averted" (recorded from Maki's Kitab al-Kasf, cf. Nöldeke,
3.66; Jeffery, pp. 40 and 129).
These are but a small selection of the hundreds of variant
readings between the texts of Ibn Mas'ud and Zaid giving a
rough idea of the kind of differences that existed between
their codices. They do serve, however, to show that these
differences in their readings were not purely dialectal or
confined to the pronunciation of the text as is conveniently
suggested by writers like Siddique who are bound to the popular
dogma "one text, no variants", but rather radically affected
the contents of the text itself. The extent of the variant
readings between all the codices in existence at the time of
Uthman before he singled out that of Zaid to be the preferred
text at the expense of the others is so great - they fill up
no less than three hundred and fifty pages of Jeffery's
Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur'an - that one
can understand why the others were ordered to be destroyed.
Far from the Qur'an being universally accepted in a standard
form there were, on the contrary, vast differences in the texts
distributed in the various provinces. Uthman's action brought
about the standardisation of a single text for the whole Muslim
world - it was not a perpetuation of an already existing unity -
and Zaid's codex, which from the evidences we have considered
had no greater claim to authenticity than Ibn Mas'ud's, was
simply arbitrarily chosen as the standard text because it was
close at hand in Medina, had been compiled under official
supervision, and had not become the accepted or rival text of
any one province like some of the others before Uthman's decree.
Before closing this chapter let us give some attention to the
other great compiler of the Qur'an, Ubayy ibn Ka'b.
4. UBAYY IBN KA'B - MASTER OF THE QUR'AN RECITERS.
Among the authorities on the Qur'an other than Abdullah ibn
Mas'ud the most well known was Ubayy ibn Ka'b. There are two
very interesting hadith relating to his prominence as an expert
on the Qur'an text, the first reading as follows:
Affan ibn Muslim informed us ... on the authority of
Anas ibn Malik, he on the authority of the Prophet,
may Allah bless him; he said: The best reader (of the
Qur'an) among my people is Ubayyi ibn Ka'b.
(Ibn Sa'd, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p.441).
In consequence he became known as Sayyidul-Qurra - "the Master
of the Readers". Umar himself, the second Caliph of Islam,
confirmed that he was in fact the best of all the Muslims in
the recitation of the Qur'an (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.489).
The second hadith in this respect reads as follows:
Anas b. Malik reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace
be upon him) said to Ubayy b. Ka'b: I have been commanded
to recite to you the Sura (al-Bayyinah), which opens with
these words Lam yakunal-lathinna kafaruu. He said: Has he
mentioned to you my name? He said: Yes, thereupon he shed
tears of joy. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p.1313).
We are not informed as to why Muhammad considered himself
especially obliged to commit parts of the Qur'an to Ubayy but
these two traditions do serve to show how highly regarded he
was as an authority on the Qur'an. Nonetheless his codex also
contained a vast number of readings which varied from Zaid's
text and, as we have already seen, these readings often agreed
with Ibn Mas'ud's text instead. The addition of the word
mutataabi'aatin in Surah 5.91, which we have already seen was
recorded by at-Tabari as part of the codex of Ibn Mas'ud, was
independently attributed to Ubayy as well (Ibn Abi Dawud,
Kitab al-Masahif, p.53). His order of Surahs, in some ways
similar to Zaid's, was nonetheless different at many points
(as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.150).
Some examples of instances where he agreed with Ibn Mas'ud and
differed in turn from Zaid (there were in fact a very large
number which could be mentioned) are the following:
1. For the standard reading wa yush-hidullaaha in Surah 2.204
he read wa yastash-hidullaaha (cf. Nöldeke 3.83; Jeffery, p.120).
2. He omitted the words in khiftum from Surah 4.101 (cf. Nöldeke
3.85; Jeffery, p.127).
3. He read mutathab-thibiina for muthabthabiina in Surah 4.143
(cf. Jeffery, p.127).
There are a number of cases where whole clauses differed in his
text. In Surah 5.48, where the standard text reads wa katabnaa
'alayhim fiiha - "and We inscribed therein for them (the Jews)" -
the reading of Ubayy ibn Ka'b was wa anzalallaahu alaa banii
Isra'iila fiiha - "and Allah sent down therein to the Children
of Israel" (cf. Nöldeke 3.85; Jeffery, p.128).
From Abu Ubaid we find that, whereas Surah 17.16 in the standard
text reads amarnaa mutrafiihaa fafasaquu, Ubayy read this clause
ba'athnaa akaabira mujri-miihaa fdmakaruu (cf. Nöldeke 3.88;
Jeffery, p.140).
One can go on and on to show how vastly Ubayy's text, like Ibn
Mas'ud's and all the others, is said to have differed from Zaid's
text which ultimately became standardised as the official reading
of the Qur'an, but these examples serve once again to show that
the variant readings were in the contents of the text itself and
not just in niceties of pronunciation and recitation as many
modern Muslim writers choose to assume.
There is a very interesting record of a whole verse which was
found in Ubayy's text and which is not found today in Zaid's text
which we shall consider in the next chapter. We cannot close on
Ubayy, however, without giving some consideration to two extra
surahs which we are told belonged to his codex. We are informed
that, whereas Ibn Mas'ud omitted the two "charm" surahs from his
codex, Ubayy included two extra surahs, al-Hafd (the Haste) and
al-Khal' (the Separation)