Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • A Koranic Codex Inherited by Malik From His Grandfather

    Transféré par

    Antek Mula
    171 vues14 pages
    uhiih

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formats disponibles

    PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    uhiih

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    171 vues14 pages

    A Koranic Codex Inherited by Malik From His Grandfather

    Transféré par

    Antek Mula
    uhiih

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 14
    MICHAEL COOK Princeton University A KORANIC CODEX INHERITED BY MALIK FROM HIS GRANDFATHER Everyone has heard of the younger Ibn Rusbd (4595/1198), traditionally known in the West as Averroes. Perhaps justly. his fame has eclipsed that of his grandfather and namesake, the elder Ibn Rushd (4. 520/126). The latter was likewise a Maliki scholar ‘of Cordoba; his reputation, which unlike his grandson's did not extend to Paris, rests largely on his massive work al-Baydin wa'l-tabs, in which he'preserves and comments ‘on a much older Maliki text from Cordoba, the Mustakhraja of Utbi (d, 255/869). At ‘one point ‘thi quotes from a yet earlicr Maliki euthority, ‘Abd al-Rahman iba al-Qasim al-Utaqi (4. 191/806); an account of a copy of the Koran which he and his fellow- students were shown by their teacher, the famous Malik ibn Anas (d. 179/795) of ‘Medina.* This codex, fbn al-Qasim tells us, had belonged to Malik’s grandfather, Malik informed them that it had been written in the time of the Caliph “Uthman (ruted 23-35/644-56) > Malik’s grandfather was Malikibn Abi‘Amiral-Asbabi. We ae told that he belonged toa South Arabian tribe but became a confederate (half) of a Qurashi clan, the Band ‘Taym.” He lived in Medina, He was not old enough to be a Companion of the Prophet, bt he did pass on recollections of the Caliph ‘Umar (ruled 13-23/634-44)° Under “Uthmin he was sufficiently mature to receive a stipend,’ and later he was among those 1. Forhis fe see Toa Rush, el Bayén wash, ed. M. at era, Beirut 1984-91, 111-19 of the ceior’s introduction, with reference to numerous sources. Te Bay was drawn tomy anti by Meibel Fiero. Lam grateful to her and to Michsel Lecker fo comments on dat ofthis aricle 2. On whom se bid, 19-21. 3. On whom see The Encyclopaedia of Islam, second edition, Leyden and London 1960-3817, a “Tom al-Kasin”( Schach, 4, On whom see ii, 6262-5, an. "Malik b. Anas” J. Schacht). We are told that hm a Qasim studied ‘with Malik for twenty yeas (1y8d, Tartib al maddrh, ed. AB. Mami, Bei a. 1234363). 5. Ibn Rushd, Bayan, 17:339. The whole passage, with ba Rush's commentary, is repreduced in ‘Appendix 6. Fochis fll lineage as proudly stated by a member of te family, see Ibn $a al-Taboga al-kabir, . Sacha eta, Leiden 1904-21, 5:45.8; from Qahtin the line goes beck in this version to Abrabam. 7. Wn Sit, Fabagat, 5:45.16; Buk, al-Tarithal-abir, Hyderabad 360-78, 4:1:305 no, 1297; ab Talitha sophie. MI. Zayid, Aleppo aid Caio 1976-7, 11695. Ales Natesing view, held by Ton shiq (4 15071629, saw him as actien (mal) rater than a confederate of Taym (sce MJ. Kistr, “The ‘massacre ofthe Bani Qurayza a re-examination ofa tradition”, JeraaleeStades ix Arabic and [lor 8 (1986), 77-9, ing Ty8d, Madartk, 1-2:104.3, 106.3, 107.6). As Kstr indicates, there seem also to have ‘ben daubts a to wheter the faily were ull members — rather than ciens —of the tribe of Dna Agbab, Kiste’s discussion was drawn to my attention by Michael Lecker ‘8. Malik, Mawoitd, ed. MF, ‘Abd l-BSgh, Csiro 1951, 9n0. 13,81 po. 31;fon Sud. Fabagat, $45.22, 9. Ion Hibbin,Thigat, Hyderabad 1973-83, 5:385.7; Mizz, Tahdhibal-Kaml ed B’A. Ma’, Beirut 1985.92, 27:149.12 Inatraton i Malik’ Mtvard bes seeking stipend fom Uhmn just ate ial 94 MICHAEL COOK ‘who carried the body ofthe slain Caliph tothe grave.!° He is said to have died in the year in which the community agreed on the Caliphate of ‘Abd al-Malik iba Marwan, identified as 74/6936." According to Malik, he was one of those who recited the Koran inthe time of ‘Uthman, and the latter used to have him copy Koranic codices (masa? More specifically, he is said to have been involved in’Uthmin’s collection of the Koran. as one of the scribes to whom the text was dictated." To return fo our account of Malik’s codex, Ibn al-Qasim goes on to give a couple of details regarding its physical form." Tt was decorated with silver, and its covers (aghshiya) had been made out of the cloth covering of the Kaba (kiswat al-Ka'ba).¥* He then provides a list of thirteen readings which he and his fellow-students noted (wajadna) at particular points in the text.'© Before we take up these readings, we need to look at some further accounts of this codex. 1know of several such accounts, and very likely there are more to be found. The first appears inthe same work of ‘Utbi. Here Malik is asked about omamentation (hilya) for Koranic codices, and replies that itis a good thing. In support of this he states that he himself possessed a codex that had belonged to his grandfather, which the latter had ‘written atthe time when Uthman had the codices written, It was heavily decorated with silver — it was so already when he came into it, and he had added nothing to its decoration since then." The remaining accounts known to me are preserved in works of yet another Andalusian scholar, Aba ‘Amr al-Dani (4. 444/1053)." In one, as in the prayerisabout io begin, but we donot eamtbe ontcome 158 no. 45). le has otherreminisencetofUthmsn (ib, 104 no. 8, 981 no. 42: Muslim, Sahih 2. MF. Abd al-Bigh. Caio 1985-6, 207 no. 9) 1M. thn Si, Fabe gas, 355.14; Taba, Trib o-ruad wal mul €4. MJ. de-Gowje et ab, Leyden 1879-1901 series 1, 3048.20; ya, Madar, 12-107 16, 11, Mizz, Tahdhb, 2:149.17.A ate of 112s als given fer his death (see ‘Ty, Madar 1-2-1078), ‘boas Miz says itmust be wrong (ahah, 272150.) fol ha Umaribn’AbWal“Aztz (1. 101/720) 6 said 1 have consulted him C1y34, Madar, 1-2:107 20), presamably while governor of Medina in 87. S9/705E-7F (Khalifa tbo KhayySt, Terk eA. aU, Najaf 1967, 315.15). 12 Ton Abi Dad, Mardi ed. A. Jeffery in is Material forthe history ofthe text ofthe Qurén, Leyden 1997, 26.12;andef Bokh, ol Tithal-kabir,2:30,no, 1982, an Mit. Tah 27- 149 15. 1B. Tb As Dawid, Bfasif 2119, 19, Madart,1-2:107.19. Hisame as given by Tho ABT DEW, however, isa problem: he is refered to as "Malik ibm Anas” hm Abi Dawa explains dat this i Oo _gandfather of Maik, fr ll hat we have noreason to believe that ABW Amis name wes Anas (or what itis Worth, tis ssi to have been “Amr, se Miz, Tahdhib, 27:149.1, A parallel version is given by Dan al. Magri irasm masahifal-ansar, 8.0. Pre, staal 1938.12); here the scribes anonymous but later tuarsmitter this him to be Anas ibn Malik a-Qushaye. This suggests more confusion: the gran ‘Companion ofthis name is more or essa nonemtty, an there is thing to make the ientifieation plausible (Gee, for exatnple, Miz, Tahahib, 3378-80). 14 Ton Rushd, Bayan, 1733.10 1S Take this to refer to the cloth which was used to cover the two wooden boards between which the ‘codex was boond. 16 bid 33.11.38, 17, hid, 18:275.16; i isnot entirely clear who is the immediate transmiter from Malik. Tere is parallel in Soy al-Irgdn f'uliomal-Qurn, ed S.al-Mand, Beir 1996.-4:458f no. 6251, fom the amascere Walid iba Musi (195810). 18, For whom see EP, 2:109f, an. “Diat” (byte editors), |A KORANIC CODEX INHERITED BY MALIK FROM HIS GRANDFATHER, 95 account we owe to Tbn Rushd, Malik displays a codex that had belonged to his ‘grandfather, who had written it atthe time when Uthman had the codices written. This time we learn something about its internal organisation: the ends (kawatim) of the Stiras were indicated, and the verse divisions were marked.!® Another account gives the same information, and mentions the fact that the codex was ornamented with silver.” Tn ‘yetanother account, we are again told thatthe Koranic codex was shown by Malik ois students, and that his grandfather had written itat the time when Uthmin had the codices ‘written, Four ofthe textual variants mentioned in Utbi's account reappear here, while the rest are covered by a general statement! We can retur now to Thn Rushed At the end of the passage he quotes from the ‘Mustakhraja, he adds some comments of his own. First he discusses the readings listed there, concluding that the variants are trivial inasmuch as they have no effect on the sense of the Koran.” He then tums to the decoration of the codex, remarking that he knows of no divergence of views regarding the permissibiicy of using silver for this purpose.” The restof what he has say is about the use of gold, and need not detain us.™* Our concer here is with the thirteen variants noted by Ton al-Qasimn. They are set out in the table below. Tn al-Qusim himself gives only the forms which he and his 19. Dat, of Bayi f'add dy al-Qurn, ed. GQ. a-Hamad, Kuvsait 1994, 1304, from MElik’s pupil Ashhab (d. 204820), Towe my knowledge ofthis edition to Maribel Fierro, This account was cited from manuscript in T. Néldeke e al, Geschicte des Qordn, seco edition, Leipzig 1909-20, 3.259. The Aescription reads: fo refavnd Lorton min bral ‘amal asta flo sar wasrdayuh mej aay bth. For the Kind of band separating 180 Sirs that maybe intended here, se, for example, B. Moritz, Arabic palaeographs, Cairo 1905, plates -2.A quite unambiguoaschain appewsinF Devoche, The Abbasid tradition: Qurans ofthe Sohio Tsk centres AD, London 1992 65, but the fragroent is ate for oor ‘poses, andthe cain does not extend over the full lengitohetine. The usc of dts tomark verse divisions appears alealy in manscip in Hi 20. Dank. ak-Muica f naqy al-masdbi, ed. 7. Hasan, Damascus 1986, 17.15, fem ‘Abdalsh ibn “Aba -Hakam (214829), younger pail of MBTk's. Tam indebted to Shah Abmed or procuring me a.copy ofthe pas ‘his account was transmited not just by Ton al. Qasr, tut iso by two other feadng pupils of Malik, Asbhab and Tha Wahb (2 197813). 22, ton Rushd, Boyde, 17346. The variants tansmived from the old regional exemplars of the “Ushmaniceodexare in general quite minor, AbU Ubaydal-Qisimib Sallra(@. 224838) emacks that with the exception of una in Q57:24, none of them involves more than a single leit (har) (Fad al-Qur'an, Beirut 1991, 200.6) 23, Ton Rush, Bayan, 1734.15. For the decoration of Korans with silver, oe forexample, AbUbayd, Fexta't,242 no. Tbn Aby Dawad, Moga, 152.1. Elsewhereinthe Mustaraa we learn that Malik bad no ‘objection to this practice Iba Rush, Baye, 1:240-1, snd se above, nate 17). 24, Tn Rush, Bayn, 1734 16, alsoibid, 240.17, 18.275 19, [ake the reference tothe Muar to betoMMilk’scommentsattheend ofthe bab boy cl-dhchab Bifida bran wa aya neki al-buy? (alk, Mera’, 636 8:man shard mushafin a sayfan aw Bhitaman wa fshay min dhdlite dhohabaw ida. 1o 90 Know the dent of the anonymous scholar whose inference is pronounced obscure. The ‘hadith fom which Toa Rushd quotes isa ted by he eto, fromanaccountof the Prophets night jouraey (see the version in Muslim, Sahih, 148.7 no, 263), 25. Thave corected what take tobe to errors nthe printed text. The firsts Emin the quotation from (Q42:30 ton Rash, Boyde, 17°34 1), which mst surely berepoeced a-bi-ma. The seconds the superloous ‘sd inthe quotation fom Q5:54 (waman yortadid. iid, 3.13) W would ofcourse, be interesting if we 96, MICHAEL.COOK fellow-studentssaw in Malik’s Koran Yet in each case, he is implicitly noting a divergence from some other known reading; to show what the difference is, I have supplied te alternative reading in parentheses. The significance ofthe line [have drawn between nos. (1)-(9) and nos. (10)-(13) will emerge in due course. (1) Q2:132— wa-awea (not wa-wassd). (2) Q3:133 sari'i (not wa-saria). ©) Q553—_yagiitu (not wa-yagau). (@) Q554. — yartadid (not yartadda). ©) Q8:107 —alfadhina (not wa-ladhina). (©) QU8:36 —minhumd (not minha). ) Q23:85-9 _lillahi thrice (not Lilli, alu, allahu). (8) Q26:217 fartawakkal (aot wa-tawakkal) 40:26 Vwaan (not aw an), 40) 42:30 fa-bi-ma (not bi-ma). (QD) Q43:71“tashraht (not tasheakii). (12) Q57:24 —fainna‘llaha huwa (aot omitting huwa). (13) QUIS wala (not fata. Each of these readings involves a variant to the consonantal skeleton (rasm) of the “Uthmanic text of the Koran, Yet none of them, as we shall see, takes us away from the beaten track of the variants transmitted in the old Muslim scholarly literature. In this respect, then, there is nothing new or surprising here, and we have no reason to disagree swith Tha Rushd’s observation that the variants are without implication for the meaning of the text. But when we examine this set of readings as a whole, a curious puzzle ‘emerges. ~~ Let us go about things by working back in time. For most of us today, the standard Koranic text is the Egyptian Koran. If we check the variants noted by Tba al-Qasim in ‘could take these as variants reported by Tn l-Qlsim. But T have found no mention of sch readings inthe Titeraure on variants (see, for example, the rich compendium of AM, Umar and. Makram, flan alegir at al-Oaranyya, Kuwait 1988, 2218, 691) ane it seems prudent to teat them as copys’ eros. Dan mates no reference to them i his account ofthe codex (ee above, note 20), which strongly suegests that they did nocappear inthe tex or texts available whim. Andyet here anagging doubt with regard othe superfuoes wa appear insome citations in oa text ofTbn AERDEWAG"s Magdhi/(42.12,43 2,43 14). 26, ineach case, he ramesthe Sra, and gives enough ofthe texto identify the verse. He callssome Stas ‘by names which diffe from those now familie us: be refers to Stra 23 al-Muiminar) a5 Qad flea, to ‘Sira.26 (a-Shifari) as Ta-sta-nim BT, t0 Sor 40 (GRA) as oF to Sra 42 (el Share) as Ha: ‘ayrsin gif, endo Sra91 (l-Shars) aso-Shamsi wa-duhad. The consistent preference here fr words ‘which open the Stra (as with tras 23,26, 42) or our very east in it (BILAT, which serves to distinguish ‘ara 26 from he cher Stra opening with T8-in.mim, namely Sts 28, occurs inthe third verse of the Sor, ‘sdoes fawn Sora 40). The addition of wa-duhdhdin the case of Stra 91 is doubtless intended to dstingvish it from Stra $1 (al-Tahwi), which begins id -sharsu hnewirat. In Sus discussion of altemative ames of Sas, the only one of these forms mentioned is al-Fow! (ig, 1-2:153 no. 701). Yon al-Qasim tients the verses order, excep that Q40:26 comes a the end the table, Ihave moved it back is propet place. ‘A KORANIC CODEX INHERITED BY MALIK FROM HIS GRANDFATHER 7 Malik’s codex against the standard Egyptian text, we find that the two texts usually disagree, though there are four exceptions: nos. (7), (10), (12), and (13)27 The firs of an explanation for this is ot hard to supply. The Egyptian Koran follows the Kifan tradition of recitation of Hafs from ‘Asim, which in tur presupposes a KUfan text: s0 Milik's codex agrees with the Egyptian text in precisely those instances in which it happens (0 coincide this Kafan text. What is not immediately obvious is why the agreements should tend to fall towards the end of the Koran.” With ourselves out of the picture, we can go back to Ibn Rushd. What he does in his ‘commentary is to compare the readings reported by Iba al-Qasim with “what is «established between the two boards (bayn al-lawhayn) here among us (indand) in the codices”. For the western Islamic world in which he lived, the standard tradition of Koranic recitation was Medinese, namely that of Warsh from Nafi,?? and this was naturally associated with the Medinese textual tradition.*® Thus Tb Rushd is in effect checking the variants reported by Ibn al-Qasim against the Medinese text familiar to him In the event, for the first nine variants he registers agreement in every case; but when he comes to the last four, he finds disagreement. This is exactly a it should be. In the first nine instances, the readings reported by Ibn al-Qasim are identical with those of the Medinese tradition, whether we access it through the old scholarly literature ot a moder Maghrib Koran; in the last four cases, by contrast, the reported readings isagree with this tradition. But itis striking that the divergences from the Medinese text are so concentrated in the latter part of the Koran — even more so than the agreements with the Kafan text noted above. We are now ready to go back to Ibn al-Qasim. Why does he report the particular variants he does? There are two obvious hypotheses here. The more interesting one would be that he tells us specifically about those readings which deviated from the text the was accustomed to. If this were so, we should be able toidentify the textual tradition 27. For details, see Appendix 28. That is the KOtan Ha bn Sulayrtn (2. . 199805) from the Kufan “Agim dba ABI Naja (. 127785), 29, Inmostinstances, the Egyptian Koran follows the Kf texteven ia eangs which ae unique toi: an exception is Q3635, 30, This bunching effect would be much more srking were it no for nos. (7) and (11, In fact each of these is in one way of anaier anomalous Inthe case of no. (7). the KUfans and the Medinese agree against \whatseems tobe a secondary Bayan innovation (se below, note I).1n the case of no (11), the source ofthe istarbance is interna wo Kis: skhough the Kian text was shia, Hale recited sasha like the “Mecinese and this later is the reading which appears in Une Egyptian Keran (ee Append 3I. Bon Roshd, Baya, 17349, 34.11 32, That ithe Eayptin Uni Said nicknamed Warsh 4, 197/812 “Abd al-Rahni on Abt No'aya (169/785, 33. The Medinese ration was not always o dominant in the Maghrib if we can judge by the evidence ‘rom figiya, where the Iraqi (oslly Basra) text seemnstohave been wellrepresentedinihe catty centries (Gee Hind Shale al. ira bisfgiva min al fath id manta al garn ab-dis a-ha. 1983, 88, 90. 176, 192,200,207. 14. Foe deals from both sources, see Appendix 1 435, ean betaken that he was thoroughly familie with his tex. Weare old hat atthe age of eighteen, be Fro the Medinese NafY ba, 98 MICHAEL COOK which prevaifed where he came from. This would be either Palestine, since he was born in Ramla, or Egypt, where he settled and died. On this basis, we should expect thatthe tradition with which he was familiar would be either Syrian or, just possibly, ‘Medinese.”” But had it been Medinese, there would have been no reason for him to note the first nine variants; and if it was Syrian, the same would have been true forthe simple reason that the Syrian tradition agrees with the Medinese at all these points.*® ‘We might therefore be inclined to opt for a simpler but less interesting hypothesis, namely that Ibn al-Qasim reports on cases where he (and his fellow-students) knew that there was disagreement, irrespective ofthe readings found in the tradition from which he himself came. But this too turns out to be problematic. The total number of points in the Koranic text for which clear-cut, well-attested variant readings are transmitted from the old codices (those of Medina, Syria, Kifa, Basra, and more marginally Mecca) is around forty.” Why then did Ton al-Qasimm confine himself to thirteen of these, and how did he select them? Here a dash of numerology may help us on our way. Unlike twelve, thirteen is not a number with resonance in Islamic culture. Thus what Ibn al-Qésim offers us has the look cof alist twelve items to which a thirteenth has been added as an afterthought. Ifso, the obvious candidate forthe afterthought would be no.(9), since Ibn al-Qfisim adds it atthe nd out of sequence.® But in fact a more likely culprit is no. (7). Here the Medinese reading seems to be the standard one; the variant is not only confined to Basra, but is even there said to be secondary.*! If we remove it, we have a list of twelve points at which there are divergent readings. The justification of our manoeuvre is that this ist will immediately strike confirmed readers of the Muslim scholarly literature on the codices as a familiar one. Itis best known, and most in place, as a list of the points at ‘which there is disagreement between the textual traditions of the Hijis and the Iraqis!” — in effect, the Medinese and the Basrans:" it also appears in other contexts, but in ‘sed 10 complate the recitation of the Koran everyday, znd perhaps every night as well Cy Maddrit, 12:439.14, $40.12, 36. Zod, 433.13, 446.7. He hod already had Syrian and Egyptian teachers before he went to Medina to study with MLK (i, 436.17). 37. Thedge because do not know what extusl tradition ws dominant in Egypt prior othe reception of _Mlikism. Presumably the papye should shed some light on this question. 238, See Appendix I for details. 39. See the lists in Dan, Mugn’, 108-16, and Neko, Geschichte des Qordns, 3:11-14, For the ‘enue of variants tha le outside tis core, see ibid, 15-19 40. Sce above, note 26. 41, See AbU Ubayd, Fadil, 178 no. 71; Dnt, Magn 16.14, 112.7; Naldeke, Geschichte des Qordas, 3:13 ann. 4, One tradition asribes the insertion ofthe to ali into Q23:859 to "Ubaydalth ibn Ziyi ‘who was apoimied governor of Basra in $5674 and killed in 67686; te eter atributes it to the Basan Khe and Koranic expert Nasr ibn ‘Agim al-Layi (2. 8917070. Dani is appaied by these accounts (tug, 112.10), 42, Exacly these evelve points of difference makeup the ist quoted fom lami ibn IsTar (4. 1807960) in bQ‘Ubayd, Fagg, 196.3. and Dan, Magn, 1169. Anoter sich ist from a Him who died in 20978246 is found in hn AbE DEwod, Masabif.42.7.CF also ibid. 39.10, 43, For the rather marginal standing of te Meccan tradition, see NSkicke, Geschichte des Qorins, 3:10, [A KORANIC CODEX INHERITED BY MALIK FROM IS GRANDFATHER 99 these its use seems to be secondary.“ The recourse to this ist by Ibn al-Qsim and his companions thus suggests that the textual traditions in terms of which they were thinking were essentially those of the Medinese and the Basrans."° Finally we come back to Malik ibn Abi‘Amir—assuming, of course, that the codex really did belong tohim, As we have seen, the readings in his codex fall nto two groups, between which Ihave drawn my line. In nos. (1) to (9), we have complete agreement with the Medinese tradition, which i just as we would expect, since Malikcibn Abi" Amir was Medinese. But in nos. (10) to (13), we have the paradox that in every instance the readings go against the Medinese tradition. This distribution can hardly be an accident, and I can see only one way to explain it: the codex which Malik ibn Anas showed to hig students must have been composite, Up to Q40:26, it was a Medinese text; from Q42:30 fon, it was not? Thus we are forced to conclude that the Koran Tbn al-Qasim saw was roughly four-fifths Medinese and one-fifth something else. How would this have come about? We can only speculate, but the most likely scenario is perhaps that a wom Medinese ‘copy had lost its last filth or so; when it was recopied, the missing section was made ‘good from some other source, as it happened using a codex from out of town, Such codices doubtless reached Medina from time to time, for example in connection with the pilgrimage. It may, of course, seem surprising that anyone as closely involved in copying Korans as Malik ibn Abt‘Amic— assuming that he was indeed the copyist — 15. That he Kifans sr no taken to represent Iraqis lear fromm the fact thatthe points at which they dif fom both the Basrans andthe Medinese (see Abd Ubayd, Fadil, 199.11) ae sil ignored in ou Fist. T should note hatin no, 9), against Dai (Mugn 114.1), Thave ken aw an tobe a Basranas well as @ Kf reading. This i onthe srength of Ibn Abi Daw (Marah, 40.2); and we lea Nékleke, Geschichte dor Gondns, 314 n. 1 Abo ‘Ubayd aseribes the reading to “the people of Ira” without distinction (Fad, 1973), 4, Tris found in accounts of the differences beween the Mednese tradition and the orginal codex of “Uthman Ibo Abi DSW04, bosdi, 37.8, 37-21, 41.13. eis wellia thiol, since ineffect these accounts describe Uthmin's codex aan Ira) tent (cf. below, note 48). Less appropriately, the same schema e applied ‘nan account ofthe Syrian text iid, 42.19; here ic nazwaly fils to cover ether he fll set of porns ‘which the Syrian wadition diverges from those of the Iraqis, or the subset st which it diverges from that of he Medinese 45, The ation of no. (7) in Toa 3-Qasim’s list tends to confirm this, since the vatint readings in ‘question area Basran peculiarity (se above, noe 41). 46. What established slowly and pznflly was immediately obvius to Dia. In one of his ascounts of ‘ur coven, he gives ony the lst four readings, and add that the rest agree with what is reported from the codices ofthe Medinese (Muga? 1209 cf above, note 20). 7, we want to select a non-random point of division, i€ could be the end of Q81:46, where the ‘wenty-fourth ofthe hist fascicules (a) ofthe Koran comes toa close, and the twenty fil fasccsle ‘pens; this marks off the last fifth ofthe Koran, But there seems to have ben no tradition of 3 physical vision ofthe Koran into fs. Noinal divisions int ithe are reported by Ibn AbT Di wd (Mai, 214, 126.) and are marked in some old copies (see F. Détoche, "A propos d'une sie de manuseris ‘oraniques ancien nid (6), Les manusris du Moyer-Orien, aris 1989, 110) Buteuch divisions sem to be ltie more tan exercises in applied mathematics, and the lcstion ofthe Break in Malis wade is sccordingy Tikely toe accident. 100 MICHAEL COOK ‘would mix different texts in this way; but itis hard to see any other explanation for the ‘make-up of his codex. ‘But ifthe last fifth of Malik’s codex represents a non-Medinese text, what was its provenance? Clearly it was not Syrian, since in each of nos, (10) to (13) the Syrian ‘adition agrees with the Medinese (just as it does in nos. (1) to (9)). It could have been Kiifan or Basran, or even Meccan. Unfortunately, there is no way to tell which.** By way of conclusion, two final questions are worth addressing. Furst, how should We rate the historical value of the accounts of Malik’s grandfather's codex? Here the composite character of its text can at least help us to assign probabilities. On the one hand, itis hard to see why anyone inventing such accounts in the period from the lori ‘of Ibn al-Qisim tothat of ‘Ubi would have taken the trouble toimagine a composite text; there are no known concerns of scholars in that period to which this would answer. Itis, therefore likely that Malik did indeed produce an old codex for his students. But on the ‘other and, the same composite character of the text makes itunlikely that it was written, atthe time of the collection ofthe Koran in the reign of Uthman.” Though itis possible to devise scenarios in which this might have happened, itis more plausible to assume that enough years had already passed for at least the first generation of codices to be wearing out ‘Second, how should we characterise the Muslim scholarly tradition to Which we owe everything we know of Malik’s codex? It will be obvious that this is a wadition ‘eminently capable of exact scholarship: it can both transmit and compare textual niceties precisely and accurately.‘ Yetit stops there, None of the scholars we have been concerned with went on to draw from the data so carefully transmitted the obvious conclusion that the text of Malik’s codex was composite, or to ask how and why this, 48, A fanher possibility would be‘Uthnan’s own cop, the man, if we eretit those report oft eaings ‘which would show ito have had a text ofan Kai type Gee fon ABI DAWwOd, Mapai 37.8, 37:25, 38.20, 41.13, and Dini, Muga’, 114.3, 120.14; is, ofcourse, an obvious hypothesis thatthe existence of such eports means onl that at some point someone had mistaken an old sql codex for Ushmin’s), Other reports ofthe readings of Uthnin'scodex point toa Medinese ext bid, 108.4, 110.8, 115.1, al fom AbO‘Ubay leave aside Q23:85.9 as not realy diagnostic); and see Neldeke, Geschichte des Qordns, 311-14) Fora seddem discussion of the eports onthe sarvival of ‘this codex, see ibid, 68. Mali’s statement that it bad disappeared (dhcnoba) i tested in 2 very old source, the Jam of Tb Wahl (see the vokime Die Koranwissenschfenin the eition of M. Moranyi, Wiesbaden 1992, 288 line 6). One report hasit tht twas estroyed when Ushmia was kiled (Ibn Shabhe,Tarth al Madina, ed. FM, Shalt, Beit 1990, 7.15). «49. Whenever exact that would be tsa remarkable fet thatthe rich Arabic annals dion seems tohave contained no date for ihe collection ofthe Koran—no tradition, tat, ofthe frm: “Andin this year “Uithmin collected the Koran...” We are left wo infer the date from incidental indications in the various trations describing the process, with contradictory results ‘50. For example, we might envisage the following. Malik ibm AbY Amir wanted 1o make himself a personal copy ofthe Koranatchetime ofthe collection, sohebortowed the copy earmarked forthe Medines. [Before be had finished, however, this copy was taken away from him for some offical purpose he then ‘completed his ext by Borrowing the copy earmarked forthe Basrans. ‘SL. The atibahe texts we no posses of two quite diferent works give ur escenilly the same details regarding the ex of the codex sin ise quite striking, it means not just hat Dn, Toa Rush, and eit predecessors got litle things righ, but that their respective copyists down the ceaturies have not seriously ‘comupted what they sai ‘A KORANIC CODEX INHERITED BY MALIK FROM HIS GRANDFATHER tol peculiar situation might have come about. In short, we have here an apt illustration of both the strengths and the limits of traditional Muslim philology.** Appendix 1 Table of variants (1) Q2:132.wa-awsai (not wa-wagsa), Difference: addition of alif. Egyptian Koran: wa-wassa Tunisian Koran: wa-awyd Medina, Syria: wa-awsé; rest: wa-wassa (M. 108.2). Naf, Ibn “Amir wa-awgd, rest: wa-wassa (S. 171 n0. 48). Toa Rushd: as with us 2) Q3:133 sara not wa-sar*a). Difference: omission of waw. Egyptian Koran: wa-sdr‘t; Tunisian Koran: sr‘ Medina, Syria sar; rest: wa-saria (M. 109.6). afi, Ibn ‘Amir, with codices of Medinese and Syrians: sar; rest: wa-sdrt't (S.216 no. 32) Thn Rusha: as with us. @) 95:53 yagitu (not war yagi. Difference: omission of wav. Egyptian Koran: wa-yagitu; Tunisian Koran: yagi Medina, Mecca, Syria: yagidu; rest: wa-yagittu (M. 110.5). Ton Kathir, Nafi, Tha ‘Amir, with codices of Medinese, Meceans, and Syrians: yagilu; rest: wa-yagilu/va-yaqiila (S. 245 no. 10). Tbn Rushal as with us. 52, Inthe same way. the Muslims scholars sted the variants associated with he old codices, but never

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi