THE CHRISTIAN SOURCE:

-------------------there is a persistent tradition in the eastern christian churches,

often
refered to by the oriental christians even at the present day, to
the
effect that early in the VIIIth century there was an exchange of
letters
on the question of the respective merits of christianity and islam,
between the ummayd caliph 'umar II and the byzantine emperor leo
III. the
details of the letter can be seen in an article appeared in harvard
theological review in 1944. in the letter to 'umar II, the
byzantine
emperor leo III writes:
"IN BRIEF YOU ADMIT THAT WE SAY THAT IT (i.e., quraan) WAS WRITTEN
BY GOD,
AND BROUGHT DOWN FROM THE HEAVENS, AS YOU PRETEND FOR YOUR FURQAN,
ALTHOUGH WE KNOW THAT IT WAS 'UMAR, ABU TURAB AND SALMAN THE
PERSIAN, WHO
COMPOSED THAT, EVEN THOUGH THE RUMOUR HAS GOT AROUND AMONG YOU THAT
GOD
SENT IT DOWN FROM THE HEAVENS." [[1], pp. 292]
and this is a rather peculiar statement by leo III and the author
arthur
jeffery admits that in his footnotes on the same page. (by abu
turab, leo
III meant ali (ra) son in law of the prophet).
and continuing the letter of leo III to umar II, we see that:
"AS FOR YOUR (BOOK), YOU HAVE ALREADY GIVEN US EXAMPLES OF SUCH
FALSIFICATIONS, AND ONE KNOWS, AMONG OTHERS, OF A CERTAIN HAJJAJ,
NAMED BY
YOU AS THE GOVERNER OF PERSIA, WHO HAD MEN GATHERED UP YOUR ANCIENT
BOOKS,
WHICH HE REPLACED BY OTHERS COMPOSED BY HIMSELF, ACCORDING TO HIS
TASTE,
AND WHICH HE PROPAGATED EVERYWHERE IN YOUR NATION, BECAUSE IT WAS
EASIER
BY FAR TO UNDERTAKE SUCH A TASK AMONG THE PEOPLE SPEAKING A SINGLE
LANGUAGE. FROM THIS DESTRUCTION, NEVERTHELESS, THERE ESCAPED A FEW
WORKS
OF ABU TURAB, FOR HAJJAJ COULD NOT MAKE THEM DISAPPEAR COMPLETELY."
[[1],
pp. 298]
and in the footnotes jeffery mentions that
"THIS IS A RATHER CONFUSED REFERENCE TO THE WORK OF AL-HAJJAJ ON
THE TEXT
OF THE QURAAN. THE ORTHODOX MUSLIM THEORY ASSUMES THAT THE TEXT AS
CANONIZED BY 'UTHMAN WAS THE FINAL CANONIZATION, BUT THERE IS A
REASON TO
BELIEVE THAT A RECENSION OF 'UTHMAN'S TEXT WAS MADE BY THE
DIRECTION OF
AL-HAJJAJ, SO THAT WE ONLY KNOW OF THE TEXT OF 'UTHMAN IN THIS
LATER

RECENSION. THIS FACT WAS APPARENTLY WELL KNOWN TO ORIENTAL

CHRISTIAN
WRITERS, FOR AL-KINDI IN HIS APOLOGY, SPEAKS OF AL-HAJJAJ NOT
LEAVING A
SINGLE CODEX THAT HE DID NOT GATHER UP, AND LEFT OUT MANY THINGS,
AND OF
WHICH HE SENT OUT COPIES OF HIS NEW RECENSION, AND DIRECTED HIS
ATTENTION
TO DESTROYING THE OLDER CODICES. THIS STATEMENT OF AL-KINDI HAS
ALWAYS
BEEN LOOKED AT ASKANCE AS A PIECE OF CHRISTIAN POLEMIC." [[1], pp.
298]
the author also mentions about the putting of diacritical marks in

the

quraanic text by al-hajjaj to make the reading more certain as

mentioned
in the work of ibn abi dawud (which will be discussed later,
inshallah).
and after this the author went on to say:
"IT WOULD THUS SEEM THAT SOME REVISION OF THE TEXT, AS
CLARIFICATION BY DIVISION AND POINTING, WAS UNDERTAKEN
HAJJAJ, AND
THAT THIS WAS KNOWN TO THE CHRISTIANS OF THAT DAY, AND
EXAGERRATED BY THEM FOR POLEMICAL PURPOSES." [[1], pp.

WELL AS
BY ALNATURALLY
298]

and further
"AS THIS WORK WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BY AL-HAJJAJ DURING THE PERIOD

OF

OFFICE UNDER CALIPH 'ABD AL-MALIK BIN MARWAN WHO DIED IN 86AH =
705AD,
THERE IS NO DIFFICULTY IN SUPPOSING THAT LEO MAY HAVE HEARD OF IT
DURING
HIS OFFICIAL LIFE IN SYRIA." [[1], pp. 298]
it is quite natural to see whether the document between 'umar II
and leo
III is authentic. the author's opinion on this issue is:
"THE QUESTION REMAINS AS TO THE GENUINENESS OF THIS CORRESPONDENCE,

AND

THAT IS A MATTER FOR THE HISTORIANS TO ARGUE ON THE BASIS OF THE

MATERIAL
ITSELF." [[1], pp. 330-331]
and as far as my research goes the genuineness of this
correspondence has
not been established yet. and the next step will be to see the use
of
this material whose genuineness has not been estabhlished by other
authors in proving a point which can not be proven. in his book
"the
quraan as scripture", arthur jeffery seems to miss the point that
is
mentioned in the book "kitab al-masahif" of ibn abi dawud which he
quotes
to support his point of view. he says:

"WHEN WE COME TO EXAMINE THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ACTIVITY OF AL-HAJJAJ

IN THIS
MATTER, HOWEVER, WE DISCOVER TO OUR OWN SURPRISE THAT THE EVIDENCE
POINTS
STRONGLY TO THE FACT THAT HIS WORK WAS NOT CONFINED TO FIXING MORE
PRECISELY THE TEXT OF THE QURAAN BY A SET OF POINTS SHOWING HOW IT
WAS TO
BE READ, BUT HE SEEMS TO HAVE MADE AN ENTIRELY NEW RECENSION OF THE
QURAAN, HAVING COPIES OF HIS NEW TEXT SENT TO THE GREAT
METROPOLITAN
CENTRES AND ORDERING THE DESTRUCTION OF EARLIER COPIES IN EXISTENCE
THERE,
MUCH AS UTHMAN HAD DONE EARLIER. MOREOVER THIS NEW TEXT PROMULGATED
BY
AL-HAJJAJ SEEMS TO HAVE UNDERGONE MORE OR LESS EXTENSIVE
ALTERATIONS."[[2], pp. 99]
it is quite surprising that the author arthur jeffery on one hand
relies on
"kitab al-masahif" of ibn abi dawud and on the other hand always
makes the
statements starting with "HE SEEMS" OR "AL-HAJJAJ SEEMS" to draw
the
attention towards uncertainity of the extent to which al-hajjaj was
responsible for the changes in the text. and note a sharper tone of
the
author in this issue. the author again clarifies the issue of alkindi:
"THE CHRISTIAN WRITER AL-KINDI IN HIS POLEMICAL WORK KNOWN AS THE
"APOLOGY
OF AL-KINDI", MAKES A CONTROVERSIAL POINT OUT OF THE ALTERATIONS HE
CLAIMED THAT AL-HAJJAJ, AS EVERYONE KNEW, HAD MADE IN THE TEXT OF
QURAAN,
BUT THIS WAS REGARDED BY SCHOLARS AS JUST A POLEMICAL EXAGERRATION
SUCH AS
ONE MIGHT EXPECT IN A CONTROVERSIAL WRITING." [[2], pp. 99]
but not everyone takes controversial writing as controversial.
crone and
cook in their book "Hagarism" use the above two christian polemics
to
reconstruct the islamic history.
"NOW BOTH CHRISTIAN AND MUSLIM SOURCES ATTRIBUTE SOME KIND OF ROLE
TO

HAJJAJ IN THE HISTORY OF MUSLIM SCRIPTURE. IN THE ACCOUNT

ATTRIBUTED TO
LEO BY LEVOND, HAJJAJ IS SAID TO HAVE COLLECTED AND DESTROYED THE
OLD
HAGARENE WRITINGS AND REPLACED THEM WITH OTHERS COMPOSED ACCORDING
TO HIS
OWN TASTES." [[3], pp. 18]
and in the book "Discovering the Quran: A Contemporary Approach to
a

Veiled Text" we see a full chapter (Chapter 3: An Alternative

Account
of the Rise of Islam) devoted to refute the book "Hagarism: The
Making of

the Islamic World". so, an orientalist refuting another

orientalist!! and
this point is quite well dealt with in [4].
"THE LETTER ASCRIBED TO POPE LEO MAY SIMPLY BE A CONVENIENT
LITERARY
DEVICE USED BY A CHRISTIAN POLEMICIST LIVING AT A LATER DATE. EVEN
IF IT
IS AUTHENTIC, AND THE ALLEGATIONS WHICH IT CONTAINS HAVE SOME
SUBSTANCE,
THE ACTIVITY OF HAJJAJ MAY HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO DESTROYING THE
SECTARIAN
WRITINGS, AND EARLY CODICES OF THE QURAN WHICH PRESERVED THE SURAHS
IN A
DIFFERENT ORDER." [[4], pp. 56]
and very tersely, Waines in his book "An Introduction to Islam"
says:
"THE CRONE-COOK THEORY HAS BEEN ALMOST UNIVERSALLY REJECTED. THE
EVIDENCE
OFFERED BY THE AUTHORS IS FAR TOO TENTATIVE AND CONJECTURAL (AND
POSSIBILY CONTRADICTORY) TO CONCLUDE THAT ARAB-JEWISH WERE AS
INTIMATE AS
THEY WOULD WISH THEM TO HAVE BEEN." [[5], pp. 273-274]
summarzing the christian sources: we see that the christian sources
from
leo III and abd al-masih al-kindi have a polemical purpose and
exagerration of the events that took place during al-hajjaj's time.
the
saying lacks factual basis and it has been well understood by the
orientalists long back.
also it is important to look at two things when we talk about the
transmission of the quraan. till now the issue has been only with

the

written text. the oral transmission seems to have taken the

backseat and
neglected by arthur jeffery. DID THE CHANGES THAT AL-HAJJAJ MADE
WERE
CONFINED TO THE TEXT OF THE QURAAN OR IT EVEN CHANGED THE ORAL
TRANSMISSION? unless this point is proved by historical evidence we
CAN
NOT say that al-hajjaj CHANGED the quraan. A CHANGE SHOULD REFLECT
IN
TEXTUAL AS WELL AS ORAL TRANSMISSION OF THE QURAAN. and this point
has
been missed by arthur jeffery in his work.
Mr. Saifullah, in attack of my web pages, managed now to discuss and
criticize Leo III, al-Kindi, Crone and Cook (the latter under the
heading
"Christian" even though I am not aware that they make any such claim),
but he is strangly silent about the arguments on my web pages,
particularly
the chapter by John Gilchrist, which makes the bulk of my web material
on
this topic.

Why are you calling me deceitful, and then go on to refute my(?)

material
while not interacting with it at all? If you want to write about Leo
III
(of whom I hadn't even heard before) and al-Kindi of whom I have heard
the name and that is it, then please do so, but keep your personal
attacks on me out of it because I never used this material anywhere.

The Correspondence of Leo III [717-41] and Umar II [717 -20]: Late
Eighth Century to Early Ninth Century, C.E.
The textual history of the correspondence between Leo III and Umar II is very
complicated indeed. Some of the material is very probably of the late eighth / early
ninth century.1[15] The arguments between Leo and Umar throw up some
fascinating problems which have never been satisfactorily resolved. One concerns
the Paraclete.
We recognize, writes Leo in the version recorded by Ghevond, Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John as the authors of the Gospel, and yet I know that this truth,
recognized by us Christians wounds you, so that you seek to find accomplices for
your lie. In brief, you admit that we say that it was written by God, and brought
down from the heavens, as you pretend for your Furqan, although we know that it
was `Umar, Abu Turab and Salman the Persian, who composed that, even though
the rumor has got round among you that God sent it down from heavens. [God]
has chosen the way of sending [the human race] Prophets, and it is for this reason
that the Lord, having finished all those things that He had decided on beforehand,
and having fore-announced His incarnation by way of His prophets, yet knowing
that men still had need of assistance from God, promised to send the Holy Spirit,
under the name of Paraclete, (Consoler), to console them in the distress and sorrow
they felt at the departure of their Lord and Master. I reiterate, that it was for this
cause alone that Jesus called the Holy Spirit the Paraclete, since He sought to
console His disciples for His departure, and recall to them all that he had said, all
that He had done before their eyes, all that they were called to propagate
throughout the world by their witness. Paraclete thus signifies "consoler", while
Muhammad means "to give thanks", or "to give grace", a meaning which has no
connection whatever with the word Paraclete.2[16]
As Jeffery justly remarks, the Koran itself gives clues that some of Muhammad`s
contemporaries knew he had informants of another faith giving him some of his
material. For example, at Koran XXV.4-5, we read: Those who disbelieve say, This
is nothing but a lie that he has forged, and others have helped him at it. In truth it
is they who have put forward an iniquity and a falsehood. And they say, Tales of
the ancients, which he has caused to be written: and they are dictated before him
morning and evening.
We may note that the Muslims scripture is here referred to as the Furqan, and not
the Koran. The former term and its cognates appear several times in the Koran,3
[17] and is the title of Sura XXV. Arabic commentators are puzzled by this word and
take it to mean discrimination, distinction, separation or criterion [of right and

1
2
3

wrong], or the Koran itself. But Heger4[18] has shown very convincingly that it is
derived from the Syriac, and should be taken to be mean redemption, salvation in
the Christian sense. Thus, Sura XXV. 1 is interpreted by Heger as a Christian verse
on Jesus Christ meaning, "Blessed be He, who sent down the redemption on His
servant that he might become a sacrifice for the (two) worlds.
Umar was the second Caliph. Abu Turab is Ali, the Prophets son-in-law and the
fourth Caliph. The treatise Contra Muhammad which is printed at the end of
Bartholomew of Edessa`s Elenchus et Confutatio Agareni 5[19] also speaks of Ali
as the person through whom the Koran was put into circulation. Salman the Persian
is a legendary figure, with many fantastic stories attached to his name. However, as
one scholar put it, In reality, the historical personality of Salman is of the vaguest
and it is with difficulty that one can even admit that his legend is based on the
actual fact of the conversion of a Medina slave of Persian origin.6[20] At any rate, it
is this legend that connects him with the production of the Koran.
Now we come to potentially the most interesting part of Leos letter concerning the
Paraclete. Muslims have often claimed that the promise of the Paraclete found in
John XIV, 16, 26, XV, 26, XVI, 7 is fulfilled in Muhammad.7[21] Muslims point to the
following verse in the Koran to clinch their argument,
LXI.6: And when Jesus son of Mary, said, "O Children of Israel, I am the
messenger of Allah to you, confirming the Torah, now present, and announcing a
messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad [or The Praised One].
The name Ahmad is from the same root as the name Muhammad, both meaning
the praised one, which in Greek would be periklutos. The Muslim claim is that this
Koranic passage is a clear reference to John XIV, XV and XVI:

4
5
6
7