In this post I wish to add another element to the discussion of the preservation of the Qur'an. I have searched around but cannot find this issue being discussed. It may well have been but I cannot find it. This issue is, are the chains of narration for the Qur'an reliable?
Normally when Christians and Muslims discuss the reliability of the Qur'an hadiths are quoted to show that the idea that there is one version of the Qur'an and that it has simply been memorised and passed down to us has no historical basis in Islamic history. Here is a summary of the references that are often used.
1. Muhammad did not collect the quran, forgot parts and had seven different versions.
Sahih al-Bukhari: vol. 6, bk. 61, no. 556, Khan
Sahih al-Bukhari: vol. 6, bk. 61, no. 513, Khan
Sunan Abu Dawud: bk. 3, no. 1015, Hasan
Sahih al-Bukhari: vol. 6, bk. 61, no. 514, Khan
Sahih al-Bukhari: vol. 6, bk. 61, no. 509, Khan
Sunan al-Tirmithi: 3103, Kreidly
2. The Qur'an was collected and memorised by his companions but they memorised it differently.
Sahih al-Bukhari: vol. 6, bk. 60, no. 468, Khan
Sahih al-Bukhari: vol. 6, bk. 60, no. 467, Khan
Sahih Muslim: bk. 4, no. 1799-1802, Siddique
Sahih al-Bukhari: vol. 6, bk. 61, no. 527
The librarian, al-Nadim, lists a whole series of books dealing with these different collections and the differences between them. He records that Abdullah ibn Masud version had 110-112 suras while Ubayy ibn Ka'b's collection had 116 suras. (al-Nadim, The Fihrist of al-Nadim - A Tenth Century survey of Muslim Culture, New York: Columbia University Press, pp. pp. 58-61 and 79.)
Arthur Jeffery surveyed the Islamic authorities and found the same result but more so as he identified 15 different collections of the Qur'an with a whole range of variants.
These different collections caused a major problem for early Islam and so,
3. Uthman made one version of the Qur'an and burned the other collections.
Sahih al-Bukhari: vol. 6, bk. 61, no. 510, Khan
Sunan al-Tirmithi: 3104, Kreidly
4. Not all the companions accepted Uthman's version of the Qur'an. In particular Abdullah ibn Masud did not accept it.
Sahih Muslim: bk. 31, no. 6022, Siddiqui
Sunan al-Tirmithi: 3104, Kreidly
Ibn sa'd vol. 2 p. 444, Haq
However, Uthman's version won the day.
I am sure many of us are familar with this story, but the reply I have been told by Muslims is that even if this is the case it does not matter because the version from Uthman is an authentic Qur'an from Muhammad. The existence of all these other versions does not take away from the fact that the Uthman version is true. This is based on the belief that this version of the Qur'an can be authenticated right back to Muhammad through its chain of narrators, and this is what I want to consider, is the chain of narrators for the Qur'an reliable?
The Qur'an is like the Hadith in that each Arabic version (qira'at) of the Qur'an has a chain of narrators which authenticates it. For a chain to be deemed reliable (Saheeh) it must be complete, contain reliable narrators and be historically possible. Here are the chains for the two most common versions of the Qur'an.
THE QUR’AN ACCORDING TO IMAM HAFS
The reading of Aasim Ibn Abî an-Najûd (Aasim Ibn Bahdalah Ibn Abî an-Najûd): He died in the year 127 or 128 H.
He reported from Abû Abd ar-Rahmân as-Solammî and Zirr Ibn Hubaysh.
Abû Abd ar-Rahmân reported from Uthmân and Alî Ibn Abî Tâlib and 'Ubayy (Ibn Ka’b) and Zayd (Ibn Thâbit).
And Zirr reported from Ibn Mas’ud.
THE QUR’AN ACCORDING TO IMAM WARSH
Nâfic died in the year 169 H.
He reported from Yazîd Ibn al-Qaqâc and Abd ar-Rahmân Ibn Hurmuz al-'Araj and Muslim Ibn Jundub al-Hudhalî and Yazîd Ibn Român and Shaybah Ibn Nisâ'.
All of them reported from Abû Hurayrah and Ibn Abbâs and Abdallâh Ibn 'Ayyâsh Ibn Abî Rabî'ah al-Makhzûmî and the last three reported from Ubayy Ibn Ka’b from the Prophet(P).
http ://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Qiraat/hafs.html#4
Notice who the final links in the chains are. For the Hafs Qur'an it includes Ubayy Ibn Ka'b and Abdullah Ibn Masud, and for the Warsh Qur'an it is Ubayy Ibn Ka’b. Now this is historically impossible. There is ample evidence to show that Ubayy Ibn Ka'b and Abdullah Ibn Masud had quite different collections to Uthman's version and that Abdullah Ibn Masud refused to accept Uthman's version. Thus Ubayy Ibn Ka'b and Abdullah Ibn Masud cannot be part of the chain for Uthman's Qur'an. Therefore on historical grounds it seems that the chain of narrators for the Hafs and Warsh versions should be rejected as false. I am not saying that other qira'at are not true but just that these two qira'at have weak chains.
What do people think?