Part 27

The Moslems were as far as ever from possessing a uniform text of the Koran. The bravest of their warriors sometimes knew deplorably little about it; distinction on _that_ field they cheerfully accorded to pious men like Ibn Mas'ud. It was inevitable, however, that discrepancies should emerge between the texts of professed scholars, and as these men in their several localities were authorities on the reading of the Koran, quarrels began to break out between the levies from different districts about the true form of the sacred book. During a campaign in A.H. 30 (A.D. 650-651), Hodhaifa, the victor in the great and decisive battle of Nehaveand (see CALIPHATE; and PERSIA: _History_) perceived that such disputes might become dangerous, and therefore urged on the caliph Othman the necessity for a universally binding text. The matter was entrusted to Zaid, who had made the former collection, with three leading Koreishites. These brought together as many copies as they could lay their hands on, and prepared an edition which was to be canonical for all Moslems. To prevent any further disputes, they burned all the other codices except that of Hafsa, which, however, was soon afterwards destroyed by Merwan the governor of Medina. The destruction of the earlier codices was an irreparable loss to criticism; but, for the essentially political object of putting an end to controversies by admitting only one form of the common book of religion and of law, this measure was necessary.

The result of these labours is in our hands; as to how they were conducted we have no trustworthy information, tradition being here too much under the influence of dogmatic presuppositions. The critical methods of a modern scientific commission will not be expected of an age when the highest literary education for an Arab consisted in ability to read and write. It now appears highly probable that this second redaction took this simple form: Zaid read off from the codex which he had previously written, and his associates, simultaneously or successively, wrote one copy each to his dictation. These three manuscripts will therefore be those which the caliph, according to trustworthy tradition, sent in the first instance as standard copies to Damascus, Basra and Kufa to the warriors of the provinces of which these were the capitals, while he retained one at Medina. Be that as it may, it is impossible now to distinguish in the present form of the book what belongs to the first redaction from what is due to the second.

In the arrangement of the separate sections, a classification according to contents was impracticable because of the variety of subjects often dealt with in one sura. A chronological arrangement was out of the question, because the chronology of the older pieces must have been imperfectly known, and because in some cases passages of different dates had been joined together. Indeed, systematic principles of this kind were altogether disregarded at that period. The pieces were accordingly arranged in indiscriminate order, the only rule observed being to place the long suras first and the shorter towards the end, and even that was far from strictly adhered to. The two magic formulae, suras cxiii., cxiv. owe their position at the end of the collection to their peculiar contents, which differ from all the other suras; they are protecting spells for the faithful. Similarly it is by reason of its contents that sura i. stands at the beginning: not only because it is in praise of Allah, as Psalm i. is in praise of the righteous man, but because it gives classical expression to important articles of the faith. These are the only special traces of design. The combination of pieces of different origin may proceed partly from the possessors of the codices from which Zaid compiled his first complete copy, partly from Zaid himself. The individual suras are separated simply by the superscription: "In the name of God, the compassionate Compassioner," which is wanting only in the ninth. The additional headings found in our texts (the name of the suras, the number of verses, &c.) were not in the original codices, and form no integral part of the Koran.

It is said that Othman directed Zaid and his associates, in cases of disagreement, to follow the Koreish dialect; but, though well attested, this account can scarcely be correct. The extremely primitive writing of those days was quite incapable of rendering such minute differences as can have existed between the pronunciation of Mecca and that of Medina.

The Koran not complete.

Othman's Koran was not complete. Some passages are evidently fragmentary; and a few detached pieces are still extant which were originally parts of the Koran, although they have been omitted by Zaid. Amongst these are some which there is no reason to suppose Mahomet desired to suppress. Zaid may easily have overlooked a few stray fragments, but that he purposely omitted anything which he believed to belong to the Koran is very unlikely. It has been conjectured that in deference to his superiors he kept out of the book the names of Mahomet's enemies, if they or their families came afterwards to be respected. But it must be remembered that it was never Mahomet's practice to refer explicitly to contemporary persons and affairs in the Koran. Only a single friend, his adopted son Zaid (xxxiii. 37), and a single enemy, his uncle Abu Lahab (cxi.)--and these for very special reasons--are mentioned by name; and the name of the latter has been left in the Koran with a fearful curse annexed to it, although his son had embraced Islam before the death of Mahomet, and his descendants belonged to the noblest families. So, on the other hand, there is no single verse or clause which can be plausibly made out to be an interpolation by Zaid at the instance of Abu Bekr, Omar, or Othman. Slight clerical errors there may have been, but the Koran of Othman contains none but genuine elements--though sometimes in very strange order. All efforts of European scholars to prove the existence of later interpolations in the Koran have failed.

Of the four exemplars of Othman's Koran, one was kept in Medina, and one was sent to each of the three metropolitan cities, Kufa, Basra, and Damascus. It can still be pretty clearly shown in detail that these four codices deviated from one another in points of orthography, in the insertion or omission of a wa ("and") and such-like minutiae; but these variations nowhere affect the sense. All later manuscripts are derived from these four originals.

Other Editions.

At the same time, the other forms of the Koran did not at once become extinct. In particular we have some information about the codex of Ubay ibn Ka'b. If the list which gives the order of its suras is correct, it must have contained substantially the same materials as our text; in that case Ubay ibn Ka'b must have used the original collection of Zaid. The same is true of the codex of Ibn Mas'ud, of which we have also a catalogue. It appears that the principle of putting the longer suras before the shorter was more consistently carried out by him than by Zaid. He omits i. and the magical formulae of cxiii., cxiv. Ubay, on the other hand, had embodied two additional short prayers, which we may regard as Mahomet's. One can easily understand that differences of opinion may have existed as to whether and how far formularies of this kind belonged to the Koran. Some of the divergent readings of both these texts have been preserved as well as a considerable number of other ancient variants. Most of them are decidedly inferior to the received readings, but some are quite as good, and a few deserve preference.

Ibn Mas'ud.

The only man who appears to have seriously opposed the general introduction of Othman's text is Ibn Mas'ud. He was one of the oldest disciples of the Prophet, and had often rendered him personal service; but he was a man of contracted views, although he is one of the pillars of Moslem theology. His opposition had no effect. Now when we consider that at that time there were many Moslems who had heard the Koran from the mouth of the Prophet, that other measures of the imbecile Othman met with the most vehement resistance on the part of the bigoted champions of the faith, that these were still further incited against him by some of his ambitious old comrades until at last they murdered him, and finally that in the civil wars after his death the several parties were glad of any pretext for branding their opponents as infidels;--when we consider all this, we must regard it as a strong testimony in favour of Othman's Koran that no party found fault with his conduct in this matter, or repudiated the text formed by Zaid, who was one of the most devoted adherents of Othman and his family, and that even among the Shiites criticism of the caliph's action is only met with as a rare exception.

Later History of the Text.

But this redaction is not the close of the textual history of the Koran. The ancient Arabic alphabet was very imperfect; it not only wanted marks for the short and in part even for the long vowels, but it often expressed several consonants by the same sign, e.g. one and the same character could mean B, T, Th at the beginning and N and J (I) in the middle of words. Hence there were many words which could be read in very different ways. This variety of possible readings was at first very great, and many readers seem to have actually made it their object to discover pronunciations which were new, provided they were at all appropriate to the ambiguous text. There was also a dialectic licence in grammatical forms, which had not as yet been greatly restricted. An effort was made by many to establish a more refined pronunciation for the Koran than was usual in common life or in secular literature. The various schools of "readers" differed very widely from one another; although for the most part there was no important divergence as to the sense of words. A few of them gradually rose to special authority, and the rest disappeared. Seven readers are generally reckoned chief authorities, but for practical purposes this number was continually reduced in process of time; so that at present only two "reading-styles" are in actual use,--the common style of Hafs, and that of Nafi'; which prevails in Africa to the west of Egypt. There is, however, a very comprehensive massoretic literature in which a number of other styles are indicated. The invention of vowel-signs of diacritic points to distinguish similarly formed consonants, and of other orthographic signs, soon put a stop to arbitrary conjectures on the part of the readers. Many zealots objected to the introduction of these innovations in the sacred text, but theological consistency had to yield to practical necessity. In accurate codices, indeed, all such additions, as well as the titles of the sura, &c., are written in coloured ink, while the black characters profess to represent exactly the original of Othman. But there is probably no copy quite faithful in this respect. Moreover, the right recitation of the Koran is an art which even people of Arab tongue can only learn with great difficulty. In addition to the nuances of pronunciation already alluded to, there is a semi-musical modulation. In these matters also the various schools differ.

Manuscripts.

In European libraries, besides innumerable modern manuscripts of the Koran, there are also codices, or fragments, of high antiquity, some of them probably dating from the 1st century of the Flight. For the restoration of the text, however, the works of ancient scholars on its readings and modes of writing are more important than the manuscripts; which, however elegantly they may be written and ornamented, proceed from irresponsible copyists. The original, written by Othman himself, has indeed been exhibited in various parts of the Mahommedan world. The library of the India Office contains one such manuscript, bearing the subscription: "Written by 'Othman the son of 'Affan." These, of course, are barefaced forgeries, although of very ancient date; so are those which profess to be from the hand of 'Ali, one of which is preserved in the same library. In recent times the Koran has been often printed and lithographed, both in the East and the West. In Mahommedan countries lithography alone is employed.

Commentators.

Shortly after Mahomet's death certain individuals applied themselves to the exposition of the Koran. Much of it was obscure from the beginning, other sections were unintelligible apart from a knowledge of the circumstances of their origin. Unfortunately, those who took possession of this field were not very honourable. Ibn 'Abbas, a cousin of Mahomet, and the chief source of the traditional exegesis of the Koran, has, on theological and other grounds, given currency to a number of falsehoods; and at least some of his pupils have emulated his example. These earliest expositions dealt more with the sense and connexion of whole verses than with the separate words. Afterwards, as the knowledge of the old language declined, and the study of philology arose, more attention began to be paid to the explanation of vocables. A good many fragments of this older theological and philological exegesis have survived from the first two centuries of the Flight, although we have no complete commentary of this period. The great commentary of Tabari, A.D. 839-923, of which for the last few years we have possessed an Oriental edition in 30 parts (Cairo A.H. 1321 = A.D. 1903), is very full when it comes to speak of canonical law, as well as in its accounts of the occasions of the several revelations; for, as in his great historical work, he faithfully records a large number of traditions with the channels by which they have come down to us (genealogical trees, _isnad_). In other respects the hopes based upon this commentary have not been fulfilled.

Translations.

Another very famous commentary is that of Zamakhshari (A.D. 1075-1144), edited by Nassau-Lees, Calcutta, 1859; but this scholar, with his great insight and still greater subtlety, is too apt to read his own scholastic ideas into the Koran. The favourite commentary of Baidawi (d. A.D. 1286), edited by Fleischer (Leipzig, 1846-1848), is little more than an abridgment of Zamakhshari's. Thousands of commentaries on the Koran, some of them of prodigious size, have been written by Moslems; and even the number of those still extant in manuscript is by no means small. Although these works all contain much that is useless or false, yet they are invaluable aids to our understanding of the sacred book. An unbiased European can, no doubt, see many things at a glance more clearly than a good Moslem who is under the influence of religious prejudice; but we should still be helpless without the exegetical literature of the Mahommedans. Even the Arabian Moslems would only understand the Koran very dimly and imperfectly if they did not give special attention to the study of its interpretation. The advantage of being in a language commonly understood, which the holy book claims for itself, has vanished in the course of thirteen centuries. According to the dominant view, however, the ritual use of the Koran is not in the least concerned with the sacred words being understood, but solely with their being quite properly recited. Nevertheless, a great deal remains to be accomplished by European scholarship for the correct interpretation of the Koran. We want, for example, an exhaustive classification and discussion of all the Jewish elements in the Koran; a praiseworthy beginning was made in Geiger's youthful essay _Was hat Mohamed aus dem Judenthum aufgenommen?_ (Bonn, 1833; the "second revised edition," Leipzig, 1902, is only a reprint). We want especially a thorough commentary, executed with the methods and resources of modern science. No European language, it would seem, can even boast of a translation which completely satisfies modern requirements. The best are in English; where we have the extremely paraphrastic, but for its time admirable translation of George Sale (repeatedly printed), that of Rodwell (1861), which seeks to give the pieces in chronological order, and that of Palmer (1880), who wisely follows the traditional arrangements. The introduction which accompanies Palmer's translation is not in all respects abreast of the most recent scholarship. Considerable extracts from the Koran are well translated in E. W. Lane's _Selections from the Kur-an_. Not much can be said in praise of the complete translations into the German language, neither of that of Ullmann, which has appeared in several editions, nor of that of Henning (Leipzig) and Grigull (Halle), all of them shallow amateurs who have no notion of the difficulties to be met with in the task, and are almost entirely dependent on Sale. Friedrich Rückert's excellent version (published by August Müller, Frankfort-on-Maine, 1888) gives only selections. M. Klamroth's translation of the fifty oldest suras, _Die fünfzig ältesten Suren_ (Hamburg, 1890) attempts successfully to reproduce the rhymed form of the originals. The publication of the translation of the Koran by the great Leipzig Arabic scholar, H. L. Fleischer (d. 1888) has so far unfortunately been delayed. (For modern editions, commentaries, &c., see MAHOMMEDAN RELIGION: _Bibliography_).

Besides commentaries on the whole Koran, or on special parts and topics, the Moslems possess a whole literature bearing on their sacred book. There are works on the spelling and right pronunciation of the Koran, works on the beauty of its language, on the number of its verses, words and letters, &c.; nay, there are even works which would nowadays be called "historical and critical introductions." Moreover, the origin of Arabic philology is intimately connected with the recitation and exegesis of the Koran. To exhibit the importance of the sacred book for the whole mental life of the Moslems would be simply to write the history of that life itself; for there is no department in which its all-pervading, but unfortunately not always salutary, influence has not been felt.

Eternity of the Koran.

The unbounded reverence of the Moslems for the Koran reaches its climax in the dogma that this book, as the divine word, i.e. thought, is immanent in God, and consequently _eternal_ and _uncreated_. This dogma, which was doubtless due to the influence of the Christian doctrine of the eternal Word of God, has been accepted by almost all Mahommedans since the beginning of the 3rd century. Some theologians did indeed protest against it with great energy; it was in fact too preposterous to declare that a book composed of unstable words and letters, and full of variants, was absolutely divine. But what were the distinctions and sophisms of the theologians for, if they could not remove such contradictions, and convict their opponents of heresy?

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The following works may be especially consulted: Weil, _Einleitung in den Koran_ (2nd ed., 1878); Th. Nöldeke, _Geschichte des Qoran's_ (Göttingen, 1860; 2nd ed. by Friedrich Schwally, 1908); the Lives of Mahomet by William Muir and Aloys Sprenger (vols. i.-iii., Berlin, 1861-1865; 2nd ed., 1869); C. Snouck Hurgronje, _Het mekkaansche Feest_ (Leiden, 1880), _De Islam_ (de Gids, 1886, ii. 257-273, 454-498, iii. 90-134); "Une nouvelle biographie de Mohammed," _Revue de l'histoire des religions_, tome 29, p. 48 f., 149 sqq.; Leone Caetani, _Annali dell'Islam_, i. (Milan, 1905), ii.(Milan, 1907); Frants Buhl, _Muhammeds Liv_ (Copenhagen, 1903). (Th. N.; Fr. Sy.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Reproductions of such Ptolemaic and Lysimachan coins are to be found in J. J. Bernouilli, _Die erhaltenen Darstellungen Alexanders d. Gr._ (Munich, 1905), Tab. VIII.; also in Theodor Schreiber, "Studien über das Bildniss Alexanders des Gr." in the _Abh. Sachs. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften_, Bd. xxi. (1903), Tab. XIII.

[2] For the schemes of Nöldeke and Grimm see MAHOMMEDAN RELIGION.

[3] See Bibliography at end.

[4] Since in Arabic also the root [Arabic word] signifies "to have pity," the Arabs must have at once perceived the force of the new name. While the foreign word _Rahman_ is, in accordance with its origin, everywhere in the Koran to be understood as "Merciful," there is some doubt as to _Rahim_. The close connexion of the two expressions, it is true, makes it probable that Mahomet only added the adjective _Rahim_ to the substantive _Rahman_ in order to strengthen the conception. But the genuine Arab meaning of _Rahim_ is "gracious," and thus, the old Mahommedan Arab papyri render this word by [Greek: philanthrôpos].

KORAT, the capital of the provincial division (_Monton_) of Nakawn Racha Sema, or "the frontier country," in Siam; in 102° 5´ E., 14° 59´ N. Pop. about 7000, mixed Cambodian and Siamese. It is the headquarters of a high commissioner and of an army division. It is the terminus of a railway from Bangkok, 170 m. distant, and the distributing centre for the whole of the plateau district which forms the eastern part of Siam. There are copper mines of reputed wealth in the neighbourhood. It is the centre of a silk-growing district and is the headquarters of the government sericultural department, instituted in 1904 with the assistance of Japanese experts for the purpose of improving the quality of Siamese silk. The government is that of an ordinary provincial division of Siam. A French vice-consul resides here. Since the founding of Ayuthia in the 14th century, Korat has been tributary to, or part of, Siam, with occasional lapses into independence or temporary subjection to Cambodia. Before that period it was probably part of Cambodia, as appears from the nature of the ruins still to be seen in its neighbourhood. In 1896 the last vestige of its tributary condition vanished with the introduction of the present system of Siamese rural administration.

KORDOFAN, a country of north-east Africa, forming a _mudiria_ (province) of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. It lies mainly between 12° and 16° W. and 29° and 32½° E., and has an area of about 130,000 sq. m., being bounded W. by Darfur, N. by the Bayuda steppes, E. by the White Nile mudiria and S. by the country of the Shilluks and other negro tribes, forming part of the Upper Nile mudiria.