The Forgotten Qur’ans of Ibn Mas‘ud and Ubayy ibn Ka‘b
Subtitle: Islam’s Original Versions—Erased, Rewritten, and Buried
Introduction: A Revelation with Amnesia
For a religion that markets itself as the pinnacle of divine preservation, Islam seems to suffer from a severe case of selective memory. You’ve heard it a thousand times: “The Qur’an has been perfectly preserved, word-for-word, letter-for-letter, since the time of Muhammad.” It's a mantra repeated more than recited, blindly believed more than historically investigated. But here’s the rude awakening: There wasn’t one Qur’an. There were several. And two of the most prominent early versions—those of Ibn Mas‘ud and Ubayy ibn Ka‘b—were discarded, rewritten, and ultimately erased from mainstream Islamic consciousness.
So, let’s rip the Band-Aid off. If the Qur’an was perfectly preserved, why were its earliest versions trashed, banned, or burned? Let’s dissect the brutal history of the “Forgotten Qur’ans.”
Section 1: The Myth of a Single, Unchanging Qur’an
The popular Islamic claim of a singular, unchanging Qur’an is built more on repetition than reality. Muslim apologists love to quote Qur’an 15:9: “Indeed, We have sent down the Qur’an and indeed, We will be its guardian.” But what if the guardians themselves couldn’t agree on what the Qur’an even was?
By the time of Muhammad’s death in 632 CE, there was no single written Qur’an. It existed in scattered fragments—on bones, stones, leaves, and the unreliable memories of men. The Islamic sources themselves—yes, the same ones Muslims cite to prove preservation—paint a chaotic and contradictory picture.
Sahih al-Bukhari (6:61:510) makes this confession:
"Many (of the Qur'anic verses) that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama... but they were not known by those who survived."
Let that sink in: portions of the Qur’an were lost because the men who memorized them died. So much for perfect preservation.
Section 2: Ibn Mas‘ud — The Companion Muhammad Endorsed
Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud wasn’t just some back-bencher in early Islam. He was one of Muhammad’s earliest converts and personal scribes. According to Sahih Bukhari (6:61:521), Muhammad explicitly said:
“Learn the Qur'an from four: Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud, Salim, Mu’adh, and Ubayy ibn Ka‘b.”
Notably absent from this list? Zaid ibn Thabit—the man later put in charge of compiling the “official” Qur’an under Caliph Uthman.
Ibn Mas‘ud’s version of the Qur’an was widely known and respected. But there was a problem. His mushaf (codex) did not include Surah al-Fatiha (1), Surah al-Falaq (113), or Surah al-Nas (114). That’s right—the so-called opening and closing chapters of today’s Qur’an were missing.
Islamic scholar Arthur Jeffery documents this extensively in Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an. And even al-Suyuti, a revered classical scholar, acknowledged that Ibn Mas‘ud refused to include these surahs, claiming they were not part of the Qur’anic revelation but merely duas (supplications).[1]
So how did the Islamic world respond to this glaring contradiction?
By crushing it under state power.
Section 3: Uthman’s Qur’anic Coup — Burn the Evidence
Under the third caliph, Uthman ibn Affan, Islam experienced what can only be described as a state-sponsored censorship campaign. Muslims in different regions were reciting different versions of the Qur’an, leading to confusion and division. So, what did Uthman do?
Sahih Bukhari (6:61:510) lays it bare:
“Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burned.”
You read that right: burned.
This wasn’t “preservation.” This was authoritarian standardization. A divine revelation so weak that it required imperial enforcement. If Allah was truly the guardian of the Qur’an, why did his book need a political strongman to survive?
The Qur’an you hold today is Uthman’s version. It’s not Muhammad’s. It’s not Ibn Mas‘ud’s. It’s certainly not Ubayy ibn Ka‘b’s. It’s an edited, redacted, and imposed text.
Section 4: Ubayy ibn Ka‘b — The Qur’an’s Forgotten Giant
Like Ibn Mas‘ud, Ubayy ibn Ka‘b was no small figure. A direct companion of Muhammad, a teacher of the Qur’an, and—according to many hadiths—the best reciter among the companions.
His mushaf contained two additional surahs not found in today’s Qur’an: Surat al-Khal and Surat al-Hafd.[2] These were included in his personal codex, which many early Muslims copied and followed.
What happened to these surahs?
Gone. Erased. Ghosted from Islamic memory. And why?
Because they didn’t fit the political theology of Uthman’s empire.
Section 5: Apologist Gymnastics — The Art of Pretending It’s Fine
When confronted with this mountain of contradictions, Islamic apologists go full Cirque du Soleil in mental gymnastics. The usual excuses:
“Ibn Mas‘ud didn’t reject the surahs, he just thought they were not obligatory!”
“Ubayy’s extra surahs were just duas, not real Qur’an!”
“The companions had personal notes mixed in with the Qur’an!”
None of these excuses survive scrutiny.
If the Qur’an was clearly defined, why were respected companions disagreeing on its content?
If Muhammad supposedly endorsed Ibn Mas‘ud and Ubayy’s versions, why did the later regime overrule them?
And if you need to burn all the other versions just to enforce yours, maybe—just maybe—you’re not preserving revelation. You’re rewriting history.
Section 6: Modern Canon — One Text, Multiple Recitations
Even the current claim of a “single Qur’an” is a recent invention. The 1924 Egyptian edition—known as the Cairo Qur’an—was the first mass-printed, state-sponsored version.
Before that, Muslims used various Qira’at (recitations), with textual differences, vowel changes, and even word substitutions. The existence of these Qira’at undermines the idea of a fixed, unchanging text. And let’s be honest: if Allah’s word can’t even be recited the same way across centuries, what exactly is being preserved?
Section 7: The Elephant in the Room — What Is the Qur’an?
Here’s the fatal question Islam can’t answer: What exactly is the Qur’an?
If Ubayy’s version was Qur’an in his time, why isn’t it now?
If Ibn Mas‘ud’s omissions were legitimate in the 7th century, why are they heresy today?
If Uthman’s version is the only true Qur’an, why did it require fire, force, and censorship to become standard?
No clear answers. Just a trail of burned manuscripts, silenced companions, and theological tightrope walking.
Conclusion: A Perfect Preservation Built on Ashes
The narrative of perfect Qur’anic preservation isn’t just false—it’s a lie cemented by political power, historical revisionism, and blind repetition. The forgotten Qur’ans of Ibn Mas‘ud and Ubayy ibn Ka‘b are not historical footnotes. They are smoking guns.
What Islam claims as divine continuity is, in truth, the aftermath of an intra-Islamic purge. A book assembled not by the decree of heaven, but by the decree of a caliph with a bonfire.
Preserved? Only if you redefine "preservation" to mean censorship by fire.
Islam’s pristine Qur’an is a myth—a myth buried in the ashes of its own internal dissent.
Sources
Arthur Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an. Brill, 1937.
Al-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fi Ulum al-Qur’an, Dar Ibn Kathir, 1993.
Sahih Bukhari (6:61:510, 6:61:521).
Michael Cook, The Koran: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2000.
Gabriel Said Reynolds, The Qur’an and Its Biblical Subtext, Routledge, 2010.
Fred M. Donner, Narratives of Islamic Origins. Darwin Press, 1998.
Disclaimer
This post critiques Islam as an ideology, doctrine, and historical system—not Muslims as individuals. Every human deserves respect; beliefs do not.
No comments:
Post a Comment