Tradition Through the Looking Glass: Part 2

Thomas Bauer’s Culture of Ambiguity and how not to talk about Religious Tradition

May 06, 2023

This is part 2 of a what is a long-form review work-in-progress of what may be one the most important Islamic Studies book of the last 10 years in academia. It has already inspired quite a few books.

NB: This is a long-form review as I wanted to wrestle with some of the issues without worrying about details such as word-count, details that are not so lightly dismissed by editors. Perhaps I can spin it off into the wider world, as I would like.

I would also like any feedback for if, as I intend to, seek to publish in a different format, any feedback would strengthen or highlights it’s - I’m sure - many shortcomings.

Part 1 can be found here.

Part 2 can be found here.

Part 3 can be found here.

3. A Scholarly process of Domestication

As Bauer reminds us, ambiguity is not merely the possibility that any given text can encompass two or more different meanings, but also that the same meaning can from different readings. In other words, we can derive reading two meanings from one text, but we can also derive the same meaning from two different texts. We can then see that not only is ambiguity located in various meanings derived from the text, but also located in-the-text-itself. Ambiguity can be said then to reside, in ‘text as an entity itself’. This kind of ambiguity needs to be borne in mind, when we consider Bauer’s discussion of variant recitations of the Quran, comparing contemporary attitudes to those of the past.

There is a widespread misapprehension that the Quran is a book. What we find on the shelf or in the Masjid, Muslims consider to be a mushaf. For Muslims the Quran is found in the ‘hearts of men’ and have been memorized by women and men, orally taught by teachers, generation by generation all the way back to the first. However there is not merely one narration of the Quran, indeed there are multiple or variant recitations of the Quran. As is related in the famous hadeeth narrated by Ibn Abbas that Prophet SAW said: 'Gabriel taught me to recite in one style. I replied to him and kept asking him to give more (styles), till he reached seven modes (of recitation).'

With a little bit of effort, one can find printed mushafs of these variant recitations even though the most widely printed and distributed mushaf is that of Hafs on the narration of Asim. With a bit more effort, one may still find scholars who have specialized in memorizing and teaching the famous 7 recitations of the Quran. The famous Damascene Ibn al-Jazarī (751–833/1350–1429), was known as the Imam of the Quraa (single: Qari single and plural: Qurrai ) and he remains a celebrated figure even now within the Muslim community in a way that few medieval scholars are. Nor is it uncommon for Quran teachers to have memorized al-Jazarī’s famous poem summarizing the rules of tajweed, the art of reciting the Quran properly. What may be surprising however, is that the Imam al-Jazari was greatly annoyed that these recitations were, and continue to be, commonly determined as the canonical recitations of the Quran.

Imam al-Jazarī’s spent considerable effort to demonstrate that the canonical recitations should not be limited to these seven recitations. He argues with some success that the larger tradition never agreed to these seven recitations as being identical to the what was referred to in the famous Prophetic hadeeth “The Quran was revealed in seven aḥruf.’” The idea of recognizing the authoritative recitations as the ‘seven’ mentioned in the hadeeth was in fact initially done by the famous student of Ibn Abbas, the great Mufassir Ibn Mujāhid (245–324/859–936). These seven was further supplemented 3 readings at an early stage accounting for the 10 famous variants within the Muslim community.

Al-Jazarī writes, that the first to compile Quranic readings in a book, was Ibn Qutaybah (d 276/889), who added a further twenty-five readings to the seven. Other authors have also composed books not restricting themselves twenty recitations; Abū l-Qāsim al-Hudhalī d. 465/1072), travelled the entirety of the Islamic world and assembled fifty readings in 1,459 traditions from 365 shaykhs, and only 150 years later, Abū l-Qāsim Īsā ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz al-Iskandarī (d 629/1231) compiled seven thousand traditions of diverse readings. It’s no surprise then that Al-Jazarī observed, were any scholar to conflate the 7 recitation with these ‘ahruf’, would be to fall into a mistake that “only ignorant laymen fall” into. Indeed Al-Jazarī believed that, ‘that the seven readings known today, respectively ten or thirteen of them, are only a fraction of a plenitude, only drops in an ocean, compared to the readings which were known in the first generations of Islam’.

Like use, Ibn al-Jazarī was quick to note the growing proliferation of narrations from one generation to another. This could be accounted by a number of factors, he argued, such as a difference in competence in transmitters, but he also accepted that a certain carelessness may have crept into the discipline. Consequently he argued that this increase in narrations, meant that it was necessity to carefully sift the authentic material from the inauthentic. This is what Ibn al-Jazarī’s great ‘an-Nashr fī l-qirā’āt al-‘ashr' roughly translated as an ‘Examination of the Ten Recitations’, aspires to be, and his master work undermines the very concept of a stable stock of seven ‘canonical’ readings. He examines the entire corpus of Quran readings, accords each of them various degree of probability of correctness, presenting a gradation of the Quranic tradition in degrees of trustworthiness, akin to the science of hadeeth, locating them from ṣaḥīḥ (valid), ḍa’īf (weak), and shādhdh (isolated), to bāṭil (void). In other words, as Bauer notes, instead of declaring recitations to be correct or incorrect, he tenders a continuum of probability that lies not from true and false, but from ‘“indubitably valid” to “indubitably void”.

Bauer argues that the use of such a continuum not only highlights Ibn al-Jazarī precision, but also a humility that was so characteristic of Islamic scholarship, that was conscious not only of the extent of its knowledge, but an awareness of the tradition's limits. He adds, this demonstrates not only the sophistication of Ibn al-Jazarī scholarship, but also the extent to which Quranic scholarship was a rational enterprise, and the degree of self-consciousness eloquently exemplifies the maturity of the discipline. Such a threshold, Bauer charges, is one that modern scholarship has patently failed to reach, let alone surmount.

But then what of the seven recitations? What ought to be their canonical status? Interestingly, despite the fact that Ibn al-Jazarī is tireless in inveighing against the restriction to the famous seven, noting that the additional three are more than an equal to the seven in every way, he doesn’t seek to expand the canon from seven to ten. In many ways the restriction to seven plus three becomes an imperfect solution of managing readings of high authority, both preserving and managing the plural tradition. Yet Ibn al-Jazarī expounds great energy to ensure that this ought not amount to the circumscribing the canon to these seven, and were anyone to do that, he would declare this as proof of their ignorance. He thus approvingly reproduces Abū Ṭālib al-Makkī, (d. 386/996) who states, “that leading scholars mention in their books more than seventy transmitters who have a higher rank and a greater value than those seven”. For Ibn al-Jazari the correct positions is to strike a rare balance; to honour the canon and preserve it as such, but not to forget that the tradition can neither be limited to the seven, let alone be exhausted by it.

Ibn al-Jazarī’s exemplary scholarship is an illustrative example of what Bauer calls a ‘domestication of ambiguity’ that classical Islam was supremely good at. In the face of the proliferation of recitations, there is firstly an a) excess of ambiguity for various Quranic readings, which leads, b) to a crisis. This leads to c) procedure of disambiguation that aims to reduce the ambiguity, by deriving methods or reinterpreting the text to narrow down the degree of ambiguity there can be, as is illustrated by Ibn al-Jazarī’s applied use of continuum of probability to the variant recitations aimed to do. However there will not be total elimination of ambiguity because there is a perceived loss in doing so. So what we have is d) a management of surplus ambiguity that allows a degree of ambiguity but not so much that it becomes unstable, as Ibn al-Jazarī’s retention of the seven plus three formula did on the condition of proper qualifications. Finally, the last step in this managed or domesticated ambiguity, e) this domestication becomes an established cultural element that is well integrated into scholarly consciousness just as Ibn al-Jazarī’s scholarship and conclusion has been widely accepted the summit of scholarship in the field of Quranic recitation.

For readers ignorant of the permutations of these sciences, Bauer does a wonderful job in showcasing the dazzling scholarship of Ibn al-Jazarī . Yet he does not rest on his laurels and, illuminatingly contrasts the scholarship of the 15th century with modern scholarship both East and West. For Bauer, Ibn al-Jazarī is an excellent example of classical scholarship; he celebrates not only the superabundance of meaning that Quran imparts, but also the superabundance of texts or recitations this involves, and indeed presents this as proof of God’s favor. By contrast, Bauer argues, modern scholarship does share this same attitude. For example, he notes how Orientalist scholarship is obsessed to reconstruct the Quran 'as it really was', without really engaging with the idea of variant texts and holding up instead the idea of mythical urtext, the original or the earliest version of a text, to which later versions can be compared. Even more tragically, Bauer presents numerous examples of modern Eastern scholarship, Islamic or otherwise, happy to denude and eliminate the richness of the classical tradition. Yet it must be admitted, while Bauer’s account is superb, there is more than one occasion that he may be guilty of, at best, mischaracterization.

4. Two narratives of the Quranic Codex

Let’s start off by comparing how Bauer presents how the Quran was compiled and codified in the respective accounts of Ibn al-Jazarī and the late Saudi Salafi Muhammad Bin Salih al-Uthaymeen. Both give starring roles to two main characters, the first and third caliph respectively Abu Bakr and Uthman, and yet each have significant differences of emphasis in their respective accounts.

Muslims traditionally recount that the codification story starts with the battle of Yamama right after the death of the Prophet SAW, a battle were scores of huffaz - those who had memorised the Quran - passed away. At the death of so many people who had memorized the Quran, Umar Ibn Al-Khattab successfully persuaded the first caliph Abu Bakr, to scribe the Quran in a written form in order to preserve it. Abu Bakr in turn persuades Zayd Ibn Thabit, to compile a written recension of Quran from the community. After the passing of first Caliph, this copy willed from Abu Bakr to his successor Umar, who then wills it to his daughter Hafsa in turn, and who keeps it in her possession. After Umar’s death, and during the reign of the caliphate of Uthman, serious disputation began to arise over the Quran in the community. The famous companions, Hudhaifa, swiftly rides back from Khorasan, and urges Uthman to create a public copy of the Quran, a disambiguation of the Quran, as Bauer puts it, to ensure Muslim do not fall into a quarrel just as the Christians and Jews had fallen before them. Subsequently, Uthman commissions a committee, recalling Zayd Ibn Thabit once again and instituting him as the chair. He charges the committee to gather all the written accounts extant in the community, and to prefer Abu Bark’s codex and the Quraish dialect in case there’s any differences of any written accounts.

What Bauer does masterfully is to point out the subtle changes of emphasis between Ibn al-Jazarī and al Uthaymeen’s respective accounts. Ibn al-Jazarī account for instance, is incredibly economic and emphasizes the oral modality of the scripture, causally mentioning that writing holds no importance, “[they] relied on memory, not on writing’”. By contrast al Uthaymeen’s account, using the very same sources places greater emphasis on writing “[they] relied more on memory than on writing” [my italics]. al Uthaymeen is quick to point that earliest sources mention written verses on palm leaves, pieces of leather, bones; details that Ibn al-Jazarī clearly held to be unimportant and did not mention. Bauer muses why al Uthaymeen is so eager to stress early written recording of the Quran; would it be to counter Western doubts?, or has he internalized the idea ‘that even in ancient Arabic conditions, scripturality is more reliable than orality and may therefore be better able to vouch for truth’ as Bauer puts it.

Yet Bauer notes that Al Uthaymeen also makes some striking changes in the codification story. Most strikingly the importance of Abu Bark and Uthman changes; for Al Uthayemeen it is Abu Bakr, not Uthman, who takes the starring role, with Uthman merely credited for distributing the recension already made by Abu Bakr. For Al Uthaymeen, Uthmans’ main achievement is unity. Bauer interprets this unity to mean, that Uthman is lauded for being able to unite the whole ummah on a single unified text thereby preventing any potential schismatics. He interprets Al Uthaymeen understanding of unification to be, as he puts it, ‘a political act that constituted the unity of the Muslims altogether and for all times—a single Quranic text establishes the unity of all Muslims who withstand all challenges by enemies as, by extension, does their text’. Significantly, Bauer regards this insistence on uniting everyone on the singular script of the Quran, parallel to the Al Uthaymeen’s partial brand of purist salafism commonly known as wahabism, that in turn wishes to unite the ummah on its own brand of Quran and Sunnah.

We find then that Al Uthaymeen’s account emphasises a) the scriptural construction of the Quran which ends with Caliph Uthman, and b) he emphasizes the political unity that comes from unity of the Quran. Yet as Bauer notes, Ibn al-Jazarī emphasises the ambiguity that Al Uthaymeen’s account leaves out. In turn, his account has a very different role for the Caliph Uthman. And at this point, we begin to see Bauer’s insights on ambiguity bear fruit and truly illuminates Uthman’s achievement.

So what was then Uthman’s role, if it was not distributing Abu Bakr’s original recension? If there was unity, according to Bauer, it was not some vague idea of political unity , but rather a unity generated by creating a public reference and authoritative version that all extant copies of Qur’an could be compared with. In this way, ‘Uthmān’s measures could be interpreted as an act of disambiguation caused by a crisis of ambiguity.

And the idea of a crisis here should not be minimized. Imam Suyuti observed in his Itqaan fee Uloom al-Quran, his classic summation of disciplines related to the Quran, that things became so bad ‘that the boys quarreled with their teachers’. As these accounts show, clearly serious dissension had began to occur, so much so that the Companions feared the possibility of schisms emerging within the nascent Islamic community. What it doesn’t explain is what the basis of this dissension emerged in the first place. To understand this, we need understand the state of Arabic before the revelation of Quran.

4.1 ‘Ambiguity-in-the-Text’

To get a better sense of why variant proliferated we need to return our story back to early Arabia. Only when we understand this early mileu we appreciate how variants proliferated and how exactly a authoritative version of Quran brought unity to the nascent Islamic community.

Early Arabic was primarily an oral culture where only a few people could read. Where there was knowledge, it was passed down mouth to mouth, as the saying goes, there being heavy focus on rote memorization. Yet even if the early Arabs could read, how they memorized very different from the way most people memorise now. Today, the majority of huffaz memorise the entire Quran with a near total reliance on the written mushaf, and this mermorisation is then checked with a teacher. In early Arabia however, memorisation was primarily an oral endeavor where the text acted more like a prompt rather than a script to be memorized. Just as long as these recitations were following the same mnemonic script they would be counted as legitimate.

Yet it’s also important to realize that modern arabic script is very different from their primitive script. It was not yet written with spaces left to distinguish between different words; nor did it have dots to distinguish between letters such as the b from ya, nor were vowels written on the words. This ambiguity meant that different Arabic dialects could simultaneously could read able to read scripts using different sounds just as long as it conformed with the primitive script.

Finally, Bauer notes the presence of different hand written copies of Quran that were circulating. The various companions who may have been taught the Quran in their dialect, wrote it down according to early Arabic script. In turn their students may have copied these versions and these copies would circulate amongst their own students. We have documentary records of certain fragments of those early versions of Quran’s in the earliest sources.

What this means is, that we have milieu, where a culture dominated by oral transmission, that use writing as useful mnemonic prompts, with teachers who speak various Arabic dialects, all of whom were licensed by a primitive Arabic script, and with multiple versions of the Quran in circulatiton, none of whom can be described as authoritative. It was this very real ambiguity-in-the-text that meant it was no real surprise that that Quranic variants proliferated over generations.

4.2 How to resolve a Crisis of Ambiguity

We also have a better understanding why such ambiguity can lead to a ‘crisis’ and thereby be in a better position to understand why one prominent Companion galloped from Khurasan all the way to Medina in order to warn Uthman of a possible splintering of the community. In turn, we can see why for Ibn al-Jazarī’s, that it is Uthman clearly the one most responsible for the codification of the Quran, and not merely as a distributor of Abu Bakr’s earlier work. For us to begin to see this we need we see compare Abu Bakr’s and Uthman’s codex and both see them as what they were, but also understand how Uthman’s actions unified the community under one copy of the Quran accepted by all.

Bauer argues that Abu Bakr’s recension is better understood as akin to private property, whilst Uthman’s recension was public and authoritative for everyone. While some Companions were aware of the codex of Abu Bakr’s codex, it was not used as an arbiter if dispute or contention arose. But then, that’s precisely because it wasn't Uthman’s copy at all. Instead of one companion, not matter how prominent that companion, it was a product of an independent committee of companions.

For the committee to determine what an authoritative retention of the Quran would look like, Uthman set it some guidelines. He ordered the committee to use Abu Bakr’s recension as its mainstay, and if there was any disputation in the language, then it was Qurayshi dialect that was to be reference point But Uthman’s actions didn’t end with sending the copies to various garrisons insisting that this version to be authoritative. He also ordered the burning of all other private recensions and personal notes from even the most prominent companions so only the public version of the Quran was to remain. In Al Jazari’s version, Abu Bakr’s role is an initial compiler and editor of an early resource, while ‘Uthmān’s measures ought to be seen as creating an authoritative and public reference for the Muslim community.

4.3 Surplus Ambiguity; safeguarding the excess of meaning.

Despite the unifying role that Uthman’s codex performed, as Bauer points out, not all ambiguity was eliminated, and nor was that the intention. Indeed, in the early community there was an awareness that many authentic oral recitations existed, even recitations that do not follow the authorized version of Uthmanic script. The caliph Uthman was then deliberate in not eliminating this excess ambiguity, or surplus ambiguity. If he wanted to, Bauer argues, that Uthman could’ve insisted for the Quranic recension to be written with vowels and remove further ambiguity. Vowellised Arabic did in fact exist, even if they were not wholly agreed upon or widespread as archeological evidence shows. However, that the fear was that if a vowels were added, all these authentic recitations would be lost with it.

In another passage, Bauer gives an useful example; he observes that the popularity of the contemporary printed Quran mostly being based on narration of Hafs on the authority of Amm recitation, has led to all other recitations becoming far well less known, with significant hold outs in the Magreb with Warsh and other places. As Bauer notes, it seems Uthman was correct in his fear that if vowels were added, the likelihood would be that many variants would be forgotten, which would be unfathomable loss since some of these recitations were considered as authentic transmissions from the Prophet. The genius of Uthman’s codex is to manage any surplus ambiguity to an acceptable level, wholly eliminating it with all the profound loss that would entail.

It is clear then that the ummah of Muhammad, owes the great Uthman not a small debt. The Uthmanic Quranic codex became authoritative for a number of reasons; it was credible, edited by committee peopled by prominent sahaba, thereby no one could accuse it of being a product of the whimsy of Uthman or his private opinion; it was authoritatively edited and based on the earliest versions; it was a public resource sent it to all garrison towns with all other copies destroyed. Despite all this, it was written in a vowel-less script that could bear enough ambiguity so not to lose multiple authentic variants of the Quran. Once we can see the complex interplay between the oral environment of Early Arabia, and a primitive script, we can see not only how the crisis of ambiguity arose, but also how Uthman domesticated ambiguity through the compilation and dissemination of the Uthmanic Quranic codex, thereby defusing a potentially threat to the unity of the early Islamic community. And in this telling, Bauer provides evidence how the early community sought to domesticate ambiguity not eliminate it, something he argues to be characteristic from the very first generation.

4.4 An anomaly or a Blindspot

Yet Bauer is not finished here. Another point that Bauer is insistent to make is to contrast how the Ibn al-Jazarī’s handling ambiguity is markedly different from the modern Salafi scholar and the Saudi state mufti Sh al Uthaymeen. According to Bauer, the classical heritage of knowledge could more easily accept an ambiguous story of the construction of the Quranic codex, as ambiguity itself was considered a proof of God’s favor. It was seen as proof of God’s mercy, as ambiguity did not narrow the choices or option available and it was intentionally making things easier, and a way to spread God’s favor on diverse mankind. In this telling, it’s the classical attitude towards ambiguity that explains why Ibn al-Jazarī’s acknowledges the existence of these variant narrations and inserts them as part of how explains how the Quran was first compiled. By contrast, Al-Uthaymeen’s account of how the Quran was compiled exhibits a very different attitude. Instead of stressing the multiple variants of the Quran, the focus is very much on reconstructing the origin story and proving that the Quran was preserved from the very first generation and Bauer blames this apparent loss of ambiguity squarely on Al Uthaymeen’s fundamentalism.

Yet such a conclusion is patently dissatisfying. While it may be difficult to disagree that Al Uthaymeen’s account is a more impoverished account in comparison, there is little foundation for Bauer accusation that his version has suppressed the existence of variant narration. What is strange is that Bauer readily admits that if Ibn Uthaimeen isn’t alone in presenting this origin account, and yet Ibn Uthaimeen is presented as an avatar for ‘modern fundamentalism’ for some reason. Yet Bauer acknowledges that he hasn’t read a single modern author that differs from the origin story that Ibn Uthaimeen gives, with little or no mention of multiple variants of the Quran.

Where Bauer may be more closer to the mark is that Al Uthaymeen’s history of the codex may be a reflect of a modern sensibility that places greater reliability on scripture versus orality, and that this may be a result of western influence. Yet if that is the case, and it probably is, Ibn Uthaimeen is not alone in having and a reflection of modern print culture. As Bauer once again acknowledges, pre-modern authors such as Al-Jazaair lived in conditions far closer to the Early Arabia than modern writers, living in an historical era with low literacy and with a far greater emphasis on orality. Contemporary authors are wholly engrossed in a print society, and would find it difficult to appreciate how a primarily oral society views print and would struggle to imagine how primitive scripts can allow for multiple recitation. In addition, Ibn Uthaimeen interpretation of unity as being equivalent to an inchoate political unity may be better explained as the result of an historically impoverished attempt to understand why such a schism would’ve arise through the 20th century lenses. Only with awareness of the historical circumstances of early Arabic, we begin to see not only how the crisis of ambiguity is eventually domesticated, but fully appreciate why the crisis emerges in the first place.

What is odd however is why Ibn Uthaymeen is singled out by Bauer in his remarks. As Oxford lecturer Dr. Usama Al-Azami notes, it is rather curious why Bauer is comparing Al Uthaymeen tafseer, effectively a beginners or introductory textbook, with that of Ibn Al-Jazaar’i’s master text and one of the peaks of medieval Muslim scholarship; one is simply not like the other1.

Even more surprising is Bauer’ odd inference that just because Al Uthaymeen gives a simplistic origin story of the Quranic codex and evokes a certain enthusiasm for Uthman’s political achievement, the inference is made that Al Uthaymeen denies or at the very least inadvertently ‘suppress[es] a central tenet of the Islamic dogma of the Quran, that of the ten variant readings of the Quran’. As al-Azami has pointed out, that this is a rather strange inference to make, and the quickest of google searches2 would’ve found that Al Uthaymeen affirmed the veracity of the 10 recitations. Another Dutch scholar, Pieter Coppens, a lecturer in Amsterdam University, has commented that its not wholly clear how al Uthaymeen's emphasis on the scripturally of early codex should rule out the possibility of 10 others variants existing alongside it3. Coppens adds that perhaps Bauer is unaware that the tradition of memorizing the ten recitations continues to this day, and is relatively common place.4 Now given the meticulous scholarship Culture of Ambiguity displays hitherto, and one really has to read the book to appreciate the best of German scholarship, one cannot be but puzzled with Bauer’s mischaracterization. One is forced ot conclude that, while Bauer is capable of showing great sympathy to his classical forebears, he shows little generosity to Al Uthaymeen, and he is clearly being unfair to him.

What this incredibly erudite chapter, is both a showcase of Bauer’s scholarship and a snapshot of its flaws. Not only does Bauer’s account convey the excellence of Ibn al-Jazarī’s scholarship, through a careful comparison of al-Jazarī and Al Uthaymeen respective account of early Islamic history we may discern that the older account was far more appreciative of ambiguity. Yet the generous reading Bauer extends to classical Islam is for some reason withheld to modern islam. For whilst Bauer is perhaps right in arguing that salafis, indeed all contemporary authors, may be guilty of underemphasizing the role of Uthman and the complex circumstances of how script, transmission and the early community interacted, this can be explained by lacking the proper understanding of the early historical background conditions from which the Quranic codex emerged. What is far harder to explain is Bauer’s rather staunchly uncharitable criticisms towards Al Uthaymeen, in particularly the patently false claim he denied the existence of ten recitations. One can’t help wondering when comparing such a simplistic readings of Al Uthaymeen, alongside the richer historical reading of al-Jazarī, whether it betrays not merely a lack of charity, but even a certain animus on Bauer’s part. It may indeed reveal lack of understanding towards the historical conditions from which contemporary Islamic scholarship, and religious traditions in general change and reform.

Part 3 - Coming soon, hopefully within the next two weeks. Please make share comments and any feedback. Criticisms are especially wanted. As are issues of editing.

Faheem’s Substack

Discussion about this post