If Muslims today claim the Quran is one perfect
unified book, was that always how things looked
in the early Muslim community? Or do the earliest
sources show something more complicated? Several
prominent early Muslims actually compiled their
own personal collections of the Quran. On its
own, that might not sound like a big deal. People
could say they were just keeping their own notebooks.
But the problem is this. Those collections differed
from one another enough. that they caused real
tension and conflict among Muslims. There were
serious disagreements about what was and was
not truly part of the Qur 'an. Three of the most
important early collections were tied to three
names you hear often in Islamic history. Abdullah
ibn Masud, Ubay ibn Kab, and Zayd ibn Thabit.
Each of these men was respected. Each was close
to the Prophet in different ways, and each had
his own codex or collection of Qur 'anic material.
In the end, A modified form of Zayd ibn Thabit's
collection is what became the standard text that
Muslims around the world use today. Now, Christian
researcher John Gilchrist, in his study titled
Jam al -Qur 'an, The Muslim View of the Quranic
Text, points out something very striking from
early Muslim scholars about these collections.
Let me read you one of the statements he cites.
In the classic work Al -Itqan fi Ulum al -Qur
'an, Written by the famous Muslim scholar Jalal
al -Din al -Suyuti on page 524, Suyuti preserves
a report from Ibn Umar, the son of the second
caliph Umar ibn al -Khattab. The chain goes like
this. It is reported from Ismail ibn Ibrahim,
from Ayyub, from Nafi, from Ibn Umar. And Ibn
Umar said the following, Let none of you say,
I have acquired the whole of the Quran. How does
he know what all of it is? when much of the Quran
has disappeared. Rather, let him say, I have
acquired what has survived. That is Jalal al
-Din al -Suyuti, Al -Itqan fi Ulum al -Qur 'an,
page 524. Just pause on that for a second. This
is not a Christian critic. This is a respected
early Muslim scholar quoting Ibn Umar, a leading
companion and the son of a caliph, saying that
much of the Quran has disappeared. and that a
person should not claim to have the whole Quran,
but only what has survived. Gilchrist also quotes
another early Muslim source, the book Kitab al
-Masahif, which means the book of the manuscripts,
written by Ibn Abi Dawud, the son of the famous
hadith collector Abu Dawud. On page 23 of Kitab
al -Masahif, there is a statement that says this.
Many of the passages of the Qur 'an that were
sent down were known by those who died on the
day of Yamamah. But they were not known by those
who survived them. Nor were they written down.
Nor had Abu Bakr or Umar or Uthman by that time
collected the Qur 'an. Nor were they found with
even one person after them. That is Ibn Abi Dawud,
Kitab al -Masahif, page 23. So what is that saying?
The Battle of Yamama was an early and bloody
battle where many of the Quran reciters were
killed. This report says that many Quran passages
were known by those who died there, but the survivors
did not know them, they were not written down,
and they were not found with anyone afterward.
In other words, some revealed material disappeared
from the community. Now think about how that
fits with the confident modern claim that not
one letter of the Quran has ever been lost. Early
Muslim scholars like Suyuti and Ibn Abi Dawud
are preserving traditions that openly acknowledge
missing material. Gilchrist, in his book Jam
al -Qur 'an, brings these together to show that
the early picture of the Qur 'an is more fluid
and less complete than the polished version you
often hear today. The full reference, again,
is John Gilchrist, Jam al -Qur 'an, often published
by Merkissi, where he cites al -Itqan fi Ulum
al -Qur 'an. by Jalal al -Din al -Suyuti and
Kitab al -Masahif by Ibn Abi Dawud. In this section
of our discussion, what I want you to see is
that several hadith reports and early historical
statements line up with what Gilchrist highlights.
They suggest that some verses and passages known
to early Muslims were later lost, and that not
all collections were identical. This is especially
important because many modern Muslim apologists
insist not only that the Quran is inspired, but
that it is also absolutely complete. They say
no verse is missing. Nothing has been lost. But
if early authorities admit that some of the Quran
has disappeared, that raises serious questions.
And here is where Surah 2, verse 106 comes back
into the conversation. Remember, that verse says
that whenever Allah abrogates a revelation or
causes it to be forgotten, he brings another
like it or better in its place. So if some passages
have vanished and were not replaced by something
similar or better, then the promise of Surah
2 verse 106 has not been fulfilled in those cases.
Another thought follows from this. If some of
the missing passages came late in Muhammad's
life, they may have actually abrogated earlier
verses. If those later abrogating verses are
gone and only the abrogated verses remain, then
Muslims could be following commands that were
once superseded without even knowing it. Since
the text that most Muslims today use is based
on the codex of Zayd ibn Thabit, as standardized
under the Caliph Uthman, it becomes crucial to
examine how that codex was compiled, what other
codices existed, and what early Muslims themselves
said about missing material. That is exactly
why scholars like John Gilchrist in Jamal Quran
and Muslim scholars like Suyuti and Ibn Abi Daud
in their own works spend so much time talking
about these early collections. So the question
I want to leave echoing in your mind is this.
If the earliest Muslim voices could say that
much of the Quran has disappeared and that some
passages were lost with those who died in battle,
Is it really honest today to claim with absolute
certainty that the Quran we hold now is both
perfectly preserved and completely complete?