Part three Tampering with word of God: The case of Marwan ibn Hakam

 

Part Three “Tampering with the word of God”

The case of Marwan ibn Hakam

Dr. Khalifa then mentions Marwan ibn Hikam as the final culprit in the “conspiracy” to hide the “true” Quran. Dr. Khalifa alleges ,” One of the first duties he performed was to destroy the original Quran, the one that was so scrupulously written by the Prophet's own hand, "fearing it might become the cause of NEW disputes" He then asks “The question an intelligent person must ask is: "If the original Quran were identical to the Quran in circulation at that time, why did Marwan Ibn Al-Hakam have to destroy it?!"”

Was there an incident in which Marwan ibn Hikam destroyed a Qur’an written by the Prophet Muhammad? Let us explore the history deeper and see if we can come to Dr. Khalifa’s conclusions in a reasonable manner. Dr. Khalifa cites Von Denffer’s book. We opened this book and found Denfffer cited ibn Abi Dawud as the source for the story that Marwan ibn Hakim destroyed a Quran. (Ulum al Qur'an: An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'an, Ahmad Von Denffer, pg. 28)But whose Qur’an did Marwan destroy? Ibn Abi Dawud said he destroyed the Qur’an belonging to Hafsa, after she passed away. Hafsa’s manuscript was the same one given back to her by Uthman. In other words, the Qur’an destroyed by Marwan ibn Hikam was the same manuscript by Zayd ibn Thabit and not “the one that was so scrupulously written by the Prophet's own hand” as Dr. Khalifa alleges. Why did Dr. Khalifa claim that Deffner stated that the Prophet’s Qur’an was destroyed?

On the same page where Van Deffner references the incident of Marwan ibn Hikam, the author relates another incident much more concerning to believers in the authenticity of the Qur’an. Van Deffner’s work is known in the historical-critical method of Quranic studies. Van Deffner relates that ibn Hijajj made eleven changes to the Uthmanic manuscript. The report is related by Ibn Abi Dawud, the same person that reported Marwan ibn Hikam’s burning of the Qur’an. Is Dr. Khalifa willing to trust Ibn Abi Dawud’s report of 11 changes to the Qur’an if he already trusts him to the narration that the holy writ was burned by Marwan ibn Hikam?

Did the incident about Marwan ibn Hikam burning the Qur’an occur? Traditional Islamic scholarship does not always support ibn Abi Dawud’s work despite the fact his illustrious father became the author of “sahih” Dawud. Ibn Abi Dawud’s chain relating the story of ibn Hajjaj was viewed as unreliable by Bukhari. (Did Al-Hajjaj Change The Qur'an? Islamic Awareness https://www.islamic-awareness.org/quran/text/hajjaj.htm) Ibi Abi Dawud’s father went so far as to say “my son is a liar.” A contemporary Islamic scholar, G.F. Haddad, references the ibn Hikam burning of the Qur’an according to ibn Abi Dawud and acknowledges the story. Sayyidina `Uthman’s Preservation of Qur’an — As-Sunnah Foundation of America) (Sayyidina `Uthman’s Preservation of Qur’an Shaykh Gibril Fouad Haddad) Haddad however does not address the criticism of the veracity of the narration by earlier authorities.

Sayyidina `Uthman’s Preservation of Qur’an — As-Sunnah Foundation of Ame...

What was the motivation for Marwan ibn Hakim’s actions? According to Dawud, Marwan ibn Hakim was worried that Hafsa’s manuscript “would lead to new disputes.” What was wrong with Hafsa’s manuscript that would warrant Marwan’s fears of disputation? Haddad reasons that Al Hajjaj must have carried out the task because he saw it as fulfilling Uthman’s mission to destroy unauthorized Qur’ans, despite the Caliph haven given the manuscript back to Hafsa personally. Another possibility is that the Qur’an of Hafsa showed signs of wear and tear. If a manuscript was composed of leather parchments and stored in a home made of mud then then weather conditions could easily destroy the writing. Such items could not be expect to have a long shelf life. If the inks of letters and whole words were dissolved on a page this would create some dispute even given the fact that there was no shortage of hafiz persons out there.

A historian may assert that Marwan’s destruction of Hafsa’s Qur’an is proof of significant discrepancies between that and Uthman’s copies. The only problem with this theory is that Uthman gave the original manuscript back to upon completion of the Scribal tasks. Remember that Uthman had other Qur’ans destroyed in order to ensure uniformity. If Uthman found Hafsa’s Qur’an problematic he could have destroyed it. After the death of Muhammad, Fatima pleaded a case to acquire the land of Fadak, which was placed under the authority of Abu Bakr, the first Caliph. Abu Bakr denied Fatima ownership of Fadak as history attests. For Fatima and many Muslims today, this was a “right” Abu bakr disposed the Prophet’s own daughter of. If a reigning Caliph can deny the prophet’s own family possession of a wealthy piece of land, they could surely deny Hafsa entitlement to the Qur’an manuscript.

Dr. Khalifa claims that one of Marwan’s “first duties” was to destroy the Qur’an. Dr. Khalifa wants us to believe that this was a tragic historical act. But how was Marwan’s actions perceived by his contemporaries? In the first place, there is no historical credence to the destruction of Hafsa’s Quran as being one of Marwan’s “first duties.” Marwan only reigned 11 months prior to his death. As soon as he was made Caliph, Marwan was already in a civil war with other people who did not recognize his authority. Shia scholars have long lampooned Marwan to the point where the Prophet himself was believed to have cursed him. If Marwan’s destruction of the Qur’an was considered a tragedy, Shia polemicists would certainly take advantage of mentioning it. But we cannot find evidence of this. Donner notes the difficulties in assessing Marwan because of the lack of historical documentation. (Donner, Fred M. (2014). "Was Marwan ibn al-Hakam the First 'Real' Muslim". In Savant, Sarah Bowen; de Felipe, Helena (eds.). Genealogy and Knowledge in Muslim Societies: Understanding the Past. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. pp. 105–114.)

Dr. Khalifa claims that the “original” Qur’an was destroyed by Marwan bin Hakam to cover up a discrepancy. Rashad wants us to believe that the “original” Quran “that was so scrupulously written by the Prophet's own hand” did not contain the two “false” verses, was destroyed to cover up this “fact.” But Rashad’s source for this assertion states that the Qur’an in question belonged to Hafsa and was composed by Zayd ibn Thabit. The other source that Dr. Rashad brings down as part of this “conspiracy” testifies to the fact that Zayd ibn Thabit was the person that wrote down the “two false verses.” So if Marwan ibn Hakim destroyed a Qur’an, it was the same Qur’an that already contained that contained the two false verses, since the manuscript of Zayd ibn Thabit, was the only one in Hafsa’s possession.

We see that Dr. Khalifa’s use of Marwan ibn Hakam in the alleged conspiracy to destroy the “original” Quran is baseless. The idea that the Qur’an destroyed by Marwan belonged to the Prophet Muhammad, cannot be based on any historical evidence. Furthermore, it is obvious from the sources Dr. Rashad Khalifa manipulated the information intentionally. If Dr. Khalifa had a disagreement with the information he could have used academic honesty to critique the information. Dr. Khalifa’s statement about the Quran in question, that it was “that was so scrupulously written by the Prophet's own hand” is thus nothing but deception.