In Search of the Original Koran: The True History of the Revealed Text (10 page)

Welch has shown that all the mysterious letters were selected according to a criterion relating to the writing of the Arabic alphabet in the time of Muhammad. In effect, the Arabic alphabet did not possess the diacritical signs that allow a distinction between certain consonants that have the same shape. Thus, the letters b, t, th, and n were written all in the same manner and nothing distinguished one from another until, after several centuries, a reform introduced signs over these letters that finally permitted them to be differentiated. What is remarkable about the mysterious letters is that they include only univocal notations, and in the case of letters whose notation necessitates diacritical signs, a single letter was chosen. Thus, in the example that I have cited, the y was used to the exclusion of other letters. This choice is of course arbitrary. But it is clear that a choice cannot be made unless reading is associated with memory, for as we must remember, nothing distinguished its notation from other similar letters.

Thus we have proof that the mysterious letters were chosen from the perspective of the Koranic texts being put into writing. In my opinion, this is sufficient proof to assert that these letters have a direct link to the process of the formation of surahs.

A new track of clues, which I would like to mention here briefly, might shed some light on the relation between the mysterious letters and the constitution of surahs. It relates to the codicological practice contemporary with Muhammad, by which the letters of the alphabet were in effect used to mark the gatherings that comprised the codices. Georges Ifrah, who has worked on the history of numbers, remarks that "in serto or Jacobite, one of three forms of Syriac writing], as in Nestorian, the letters have served, and sometimes still serve in our day, as signs of numeration, which is confirmed by the fact that, in all the Syriac manuscripts (at least those that are later than the 9th century), the gatherings that constitute the codex are all regularly numbered in such a way as to avoid any error-of omission or introversion-in making up the `book'. The numerical value of the Syriac letters is exactly the same as among the Jews: the first nine ones are associated with single digits, the nine succeeding ones with tens, and the four last with four first hundreds."16

And in effect the mysterious letters must have seen the light of day after the redaction of the compendiums of revealed texts. These compendiums had to conform to the practice proper to the organization of codices of the time, to wit, the insertion at the head of the collection of an introduction containing a brief announcement of its content. These are the preambles of surahs.

It is important to note in this respect that the principal personage entrusted with the collection of the Koran in the time of the first caliphs was Zayd ibn Thabit, one of the last secretaries of Muhammad. It is reported that he "knew how to write Syriac."" This indication is obviously of great importance and it might plead in favor of the Syriac codicological avenue as the model of the elaboration of Koranic compendiums in the time of the Prophet, and even afterward.

This practice of using preambles is even attested in the Essene writings from the Dead Sea that date from six to seven centuries before Muhammad. Thus, the Book of Blessings has as its preamble: "Words of benediction for the intelligent man, in order to bless those who fear God and do his will ..."18 We see that this formula is strangely similar to those Koranic preambles examined above. In the same way, the type of Koranic exordium that begins with "This is a writing ..." is found in the prologue to the Book of Jubilees: "This is the story of the legal and certified division of time ..."19 Finally, let me mention the exordium to a text from Qumran: "Word of blessing from Enoch. Thus he blesses the elect and the righteous who will see on the day of anguish the extermination of all enemies and the salvation of the right- eous."20 There is a strange affinity here between this text from the start of the Christian era and the Koran. The genre of the Koranic preamble manifestly belongs to an old Oriental literary tradition.

The second codicological practice is the signature of the notebooks [cahiers], which consists of assigning them numerical letters. Generally these letters appear in the "upper external angle, which is where a signature was most frequently placed in ancient manuscripts until the middle of the 11th century."" The first Koranic sheets certainly did receive such signatures, that is to say, a numeration by means of letters. During the copying of these first notebooks, the scribes must have had the habit of reproducing these letters that appeared at the head of the manuscript, either out of a concern to identify the surah, or in the belief that they were part of the revealed text. Those surahs bearing the same combination of letters might originally have been part of the same notebook signed with the same letters. Thus, the constitution of surahs in their current aspect would be partly the result of fragmentation in copying the first long compendiums into more reduced notebooks.

Moreover, this fragmentation might be comprehended from the fact that the new Muslim community did not stop growing and enlarging, and therefore required more access to the sacred texts, which were serving as aids for oral learning. These new needs must have been more easily satisfied by breaking up the first long compendiums into more lightweight ones, more suitable for quicker and wider distribution. This shift could only have taken place thanks to a multiplication in the number of reciters (qurra') whose need for sheets was growing. It was only in a third stage that there was the opposite tendency to gather into a single compilation these fragmented surahs. This last phase corresponded to the constitution of the book that today we know under the name of the Koran, al-Qur'an, and whose presumed "collection," according to Tradition, did not take place until well after the death of the Prophet.

Of course, during this last phase, the Prophet was no longer there to authorize the major structural editing that affected the texts as they were being written during his lifetime. All that could be done touched on the placement of those suras-in the first Koranic sense of the term-that had not been classified in the first compilations (phases 1 and 2) and hence were not identified by the introductory formula and/or by the signature-letters. These wandering surahs were either inserted into the compilations of phase 2 (that of the fragmentary collections), or else they were constituted as independent surahs, either grouped or standing alone. Undoubtedly it was in the course of this phase 3 of the constitution of our actual vulgate that the mysterious letters lost their primary importance, since from now on a large number of "unsigned" texts are found.

For if there exist only 29 surahs provided with such groups of letters out of a total of 114, this is due, as we have seen, largely to the chance circumstances of the duplication of the first compilations and to the uncertain awareness that the copyists of this second phase possessed the status of these letters. One proof is that surah 39 is placed in a group having the same letters (H.M.) and the same preamble as it does-except that it is deprived of these letters. So why have the latter disappeared from the vulgate, whereas other recensions like those of Ubayy have kept them?

Moreover, Welch has shown that "most of the groups of letters, when you spell them, introduce the rhyme of the surahs concerned."22 In any case, this correspondence illustrates the original link that existed between the preambles and the first verses (only) of the actual surahs.

The history of the constitution of the actual surahs is evidently complex, since it proceeded by means of divisions of the initial compilations and later regroupings. Under these conditions we should not be at all surprised to observe some preambles actually inside surahs. This is the case of surah 19, where we have noted the existence of a preamble in its middle, at verses 19:64-65, which is the trace of the integration of one collection into another.

Let us take the case of manifest hesitation in integrating surah 9called "al-tawba" or " bara'a" into its precursor, surah 8, called "al- `anfal." The most tangible sign of this hesitation is the absence of the basmala at the head of surah 9, the only one so deprived in the entire Koran. An explanation of this hesitation is attributed to Caliph Uthman: "[The surah] al- `anfal was among the first to be revealed in Medina, and al-bara'a was among the last of the surahs revealed. Due to the fact that the two surahs are similar in theme, I believed that surah 9 belonged to 8. And the Prophet died without confirming this to us. For this reason I did not separate the two surahs by the formula of the basmala."23

Blachere observes that these two surahs were first joined to each other during the classification of surahs according to their decreasing length. Thus, he explains, we have the following sequence: surah 7 takes up thirty-four pages (of the Cairo edition); surah 8 has thirteen pages; surah 9 has twenty-six pages; surah 10 has eighteen pages. He deduces from this that surahs 8 and 9 were welded together during this putting into order.24

Two other cases of division of one group of revelations into two are reported by Tradition and concern brief surahs arranged at the end of the vulgate. Ubayy's collection had presented surahs 105 (al-Fil) and 106 (Quraysh) as a single surah.25 It is related that in the course of a prayer, Caliph Umar recited the two surahs without separating them by the formula of the basmala "in the name of Allah, the Merciful Benefactor."26

According to al-Rani (850-923 CE), surahs 93 ("al-Dhuha") and 94 ("`Alam nashrah") had been originally a single one.2'

We note also that surah 103 ("The Declining Day") was originally only a fragment that could not be integrated into other surahs. In addition, its verse 3 is manifestly a later addition, since it constitutes a development that differs in length very significantly from the two first verses.

Other cases of the integration of some surahs into others may be remarked, like the development that commences in verse 6:92: "And this is a blessed Scripture that we have revealed, confirming what came before it ..." Like the other preambles, this theme about scripture is followed by an exposition of divine omnipotence. Similarly, one may observe in certain short surahs a very clear aggregation of numerous original surahs, as in surah 80 ("`Abasa"), which makes up only a page but is composed of no fewer than four independent subject developments: the first on the incident when the Prophet despised a blind person, the second on Koranic revelation, the third on the arrogance of humanity, and the last on an apocalyptic description of the Day of Last Judgment. These four developments might well have con- situted independent surahs, but no doubt accidents in the history of the transmission of collections ultimately imposed this compositionwhich is, as we have seen, far from an isolated case.

Similarly, one may observe in verses 75 onward of surah 56 ("al- wdgi`a," "The Event") a whole development that begins with a vigorous oath typical of the start of certain Meccan surahs and continues with a genre specific to preambles, the affirmation of the authenticity of scripture (kitdb). It is clear here that the first Koranic compilations were not interested in marking a separation between the revealed parts. This explains the numerous cases of preambles integrated without separation in the midst of actual surahs.

Above we saw the inverse case of surah 9 called "Repentance" ("al-tawba"), the only one in the whole vulgate without the propitiatory formula of the basmala. This might be a matter of an accidental separation due to mistakes in the editing of the copies, unless the omission of the basmala was also not accidental, for errors by copyists were by no means rare.

We may illustrate the latter phenomenon on page 295 of the Kufic manuscript called Samarkand that dates from the second century of the Hijra. Within surah 6 ("al-anam," "Herd"), a development typical of preambles starts at verse 92 in these terms: "This is a blessed Scripture that we have revealed . . ." What is remarkable in this manuscript is that the scribe has proceeded as if it were a matter of the start of a surah. On the one hand, he began this verse at the start of the line, leaving an empty space in the preceding line, while nothing justifies such an arrangement, not even any canonic division at this placement. On the other hand, the coordinating conjunction "wa" was omitted, reinforcing the impression of the start of a surah. We see here clearly the scribe's hesitation to remodel the division of surahs by following his own instinct. The omission of the basmala in surah 9 might originally have been only a mistake deriving from an error by the copyist, comparable to the one we just saw in the manuscript of Samarkand.