HE CONSIDERED THIS a Christian heresy and cast light on the nature of the relationship between Muḥammad and a certain monk. On this he states the following:

There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites which to this day prevails and keeps people in error … they are called both Agarenes and Ishmaelites … down to the time of Heraclius they were very great idolaters. From that time to the present a false prophet named Mamed[2] has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven.

There are Christian figures who may have influenced Muḥammad’s teachings in one way or another, including Sergius (who changed his name to Nestorius when he met the messenger of the Arabs). ‘Abd al-Masīḥ ibn Isḥāq al-Kindī wrote an Epistle in reply to Abdullah ibn Ismā‘īl al-Hāshīmī, who had invited him to embrace Islam, in response to the latter’s claim concerning the ‘miracle of the Qur’ān’:

You should first know that the reason this book came about was because a Christian monk named Sergius[3] did something that his companions denounced him for. As a result they forbade him from entering the church and shunned speaking to him and addressing him, as is their wont to do in such situations. He regretted what he had done and intended to do something that that would justify himself to his fellow Christians. So he journeyed to Tihāma and toured the region until he reached Makka. He saw that in this land there were two forms of religion: the religion of the Jews and idolatry.

He continued to ingratiate himself with your master and deceive him until he managed to win him over. He gave him the name Nestorius because by changing his name he hoped to firmly establish Nestorius’ views which he had adopted and practiced as his faith.[4]He continually accompanied him and discussed with him in private and explaining things to him until he managed to make him cease his idolatry. He then made him a student of his and a preacher to call others to Nestorianism.[5]

This is the reason why his book [the Qur’ān] makes mention of Christ and Christianity, and defends it, and recommends his people to testify that they bear deep affection towards it, because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.[6]

You know that the first copy was in the hands of the Quraysh, and that ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib gave orders for it to be seized when things became serious in order to prevent anything being added or removed from it.  This was the copy that accorded with the Gospel that had been given to him by Nestorius, that is, Sergius, known as the monk Baḥīra whom his colleagues at times called ‘Jibrīl’,[7] or the ‘Faithful Soul’.

Now is it not commonly circulated in the Islamic tradition that Jibrīl used to appear in the person of Diḥya al-Kalbī, who may be this same monk Baḥīra / Sergius / Nestorius?[8] This is a question that we still await Muslim scholars to respond to.

Now people read it differently. Some read it according to the version of ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib and his followers, and have done so up to the present time[9], others read it according to this version (referring to the reading of ‘Abd Allāh ibn Salām and Ka‘b al-Aḥbār) two Jews who had inserted into it stories from the Old Testament and from themselves. There is also a group who read Ibn Mas‘ūd’s version,[10] since your master [Muḥammad] had said: “Anyone wishing to read the Qur’ān in its pristine purity and freshness, should read from Ibn Umm ‘Abd” [11] … And still others read it according to the version of that Bedouin from the desert. This Bedouin said that he had some passages and verses, or less or more than this, and these were written down without knowing the tale they belonged to or the revealed passage they referred to.

(Who is this Bedouin from the desert who had a version of the Qur’ān all of his own? Another question we still await Muslim scholars to respond to).

And there is another group reading according to the version of Ubayy ibn Ka‘b[12] on the grounds of Muḥammad’s words: “Your best reciter is Ubayy”. The readings of Ubayy and Ibn Mas‘ūd are closely alike. And there is yet another group reading according to the version of Ubayy ibn Ka‘b[13] on the grounds of Muḥammad’s words: “Your best reciter is Ubayy”. The readings of Ubayy and Ibn Mas‘ūd are closely alike.

When ‘Alī said to Abū Bakr “I was busy collecting together the Book”, they said: “You have one version and we have another”. ‘Abd al-Masih al-Kindi then asks: “Is the Book of God something to be ‘collected together’?” He answers this question thus:

Well, they [i.e., the committee for collecting the Qur’ān] gathered and collected together all the pieces that people could remember, such as the sūrat al-Tawba which they took from a certain Bedouin Arab who had arrived there from the desert, and other portions from here and there, and bits that had been written on pieces of cloth or shoulder blades and the like, but which were not written on pages. Now when ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān acceded to power and people differed as to how the Qur’ān should be read, ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib sought grounds to accuse him, citing the errors being made in how the Text was being read and censuring him for this (his purpose being to secure his execution).

This is where the crisis occurs, since the matter reached a point where the Companions ended up fighting each other. This, according to Islamic history, actually took place due to the strife that broke out among Muslims on account of the differences in readings, and due to the burning of the Qur’ān texts during the reign of ‘Uthmān.

Who is this Bedouin from the desert who had a version of the Qur’ān all of his own?

‘Uthmān had been forced to form a committee headed by Zayd ibn Thābit al-Anṣārī and ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbās to compose the Qur’ān, emend it, remove corrupted passages from it and burn six out of the seven recensions.

When they had collated this text from these recensions, four copies were written out in fine script and sent one each to Makka which remained extant up until the time of Abū al-Sarāyā [al-Sirrī ibn Manṣūr ob. 810 AD when Makka was pillaged, and the codex purportedly burnt], one to Madina [since lost during the campaign against Ḥīra during the time of Yazīd ibn Mu‘āwiya], and another to the Levant. The fourth copy was sent to Iraq [subsequently lost during the period of al-Mukhtār].

The recension of ‘Abdullah ibn Mas‘ūd remained with ‘Uthmān, and has been handed down to the present day. The same goes for the recension of ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib among his descendants. But al-Ḥajāj ibn Yūsuf never left a recension without its being collected together and many passages either removed or added: six copies were written in conformity with what al-Ḥajāj wished, one being sent to Egypt, another to the Levant, others to Makka and Madina, the others to Kufa and Basra. He sought out the earlier recensions and burnt them at will, just as ‘Uthmān did.[14]

Suggested Reading

The Qur’ān according to critical research – 13

From the letter of Al-Kindī we may conclude that, following the death of Muḥammad and the monk Nestorius, different recensions of the Qur’ān appeared (termed ‘different readings’ in the Islamic tradition) from authors who differed in doctrine, and that ‘Abd Allāh ibn Salām and Ka‘b al-Aḥbār deliberately inserted into the copy held by ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib – which his master Muḥammad delivered to him as a Gospel – stories from the Torah.

Muḥammad repeated that ‘The Book’ (the Qur’ān) was nought but a confirmation of the ‘earlier Books’ (the Torah and the Gospel) 

This means that the earliest Qur’ān was a Gospel and possibly the Aramaic Gospel according to the Hebrews of the Christian Ebionite heretics and which was in circulation among the Christian-Ebionite monks, or alternatively the Syriac Peshitta (‘simplified’) Gospel known as the Diatessaron that combined together the four gospels into one narration, and which was also in circulation during the era of Muḥammad as research has revealed. Muḥammad repeated that ‘The Book’ (the Qur’ān) was nought but a confirmation of the ‘earlier Books’ (the Torah and the Gospel) for the purpose of proving to people the truth of what he was relating to them from the book which he held and in order to bear witness that his Arabic book was indeed a confirmation of the ‘foreign’ Hebrew book, as a true evidence validating what was in his hands:

He has revealed to you [Muḥammad] the Book with truth, verifying that which is before it, as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel aforetime, a guidance for the people.[15]

[1] St. John Damascene, Περὶ αἱρέσεων ἐν συντομίᾳ ἑκατόν, ὅθεν ἤρξαντο καὶ πόθεν γέγοναν (‘Heresies in Epitome: How They Began and Whence They Drew Their Origin’). The work is from Part Two of his monumental Fount of Knowledge. (Ed.)

[2] Μάμεδ ἐπονομαζόμενος, The text is published in Migne, Documenta Catholica Omnia.p.763 ff. The form Mamed is due to the fact that the Greek script does not have a letter for h or ḥ (Ed.)

[3] That is, Baḥīra.

[4] The Biography of the Prophet (al-Sīra al-Nabawiyya) refers to a monk named ‘Nisṭūr’ who ‘recognised Muḥammad as a prophet’.

[5] The polytheists of Quraysh claimed that some person taught Muḥammad religious doctrine, but the Qur’ān denies this saying: And We know well that they say: Only a man teacheth him. But the speech of him at whom they falsely hint is foreign, whereas this is clear Arabic speech. [Qur’ān XVI (al-Naḥl), 103. The Latin text of the epistle adds: Et ita factum est. ut ab isto monacho aliqua de ueteri et nouo testamento edoctus, ipsa in Alcorano suo fabulose et mendose intexeret (‘and so it was that when he was instructed by this monk in some passages from the Old and New Testament, he deceitfully and fictitiously weaved these into the body of the Qur’ān’) See Fernando González-Muñoz, Exposición y refutación del islam. La versión latina de las cartas de al-Hāšimī y al-Kindī La Coruña, 2005, pp. 67-68. (Ed.)

[6] Al-Kindī is here quoting Qur’ān V (al-Mā’ida), 82]: Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly. (Ed.). Arabic text [Tartar, G –  الحوار ] p.107-114 in Almuslih Library Files in folder The transmission of the Mushaf.

[7] Islamic doctrine has Muḥammad receiving the Qur’ān revealed to him by Jibrīl, i.e. the Angel Gabriel.

[8] The account is in the Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, no. 4980: I was informed that Gabriel came to the Prophet while Um Salama was with him. Gabriel started talking (to the Prophet). Then the Prophet asked Um Salama, “Who is this?” She replied, “He is Diḥya (al-Kalbī).” When Gabriel had left, Um Salama said, “By Allah, I did not take him for anybody other than him (i.e. Diḥya) till I heard the sermon of the Prophet wherein he informed about the news of Gabriel.” (Ed.)

[9] Al-Kindī is here referring to the Shī’a, who are the ‘party of ‘Alī’.

[10] The author of this article refers to Ibn Mas‘ūd as a Jew before his conversion.

[11] Ibn Umm ‘Abd is another name for Ibn Mas‘ūd.

[12] Ubayy ibn Ka‘b was of the Jewish tribe the Banū Khazraj. Ubayy ibn Ka‘b was known as the ‘master of reciters’, c.f Musnad Aḥmad, I, 275.

[13] Ubayy ibn Ka‘b was of the Jewish tribe the Banū Khazraj. Ubayy ibn Ka‘b was known as the ‘master of reciters’, c.f Musnad Aḥmad, I, 275.

[14] See Abd al-Masīḥ al-Kindī’s Epistle in response to ‘Abd Allāh al-Hāshimī’s Epistle on the miracles of the Qur’ān, at the time of the ‘Abbasid caliph al-Ma’mūn. Arabic text and English translation.  

[15] Qur’ān III (Āl ‘Imrān), 3.

Main image: A copy of the Qur’ān held in Tashkent, said to contain blood spots from the occasion of ‘Uthmān’s assassination in 656 AD. Its authenticity, however, is disputed, due to spelling mistakes and the lateness of its Kufic style of script. 

On this essay read the earlier sections: Part One; Part Two; Part Three; Part Four; Part Five, Part Six; Part Seven; Part Eight; Part Nine, Part Ten, Part Eleven