In the name of Allah the Most Gracious the Most Merciful
Yasir Qadhi begins his article titled An Alternative Opinion on the Reality of the ‘Seven Ahruf’ and Its Relationship with the Qira’at by presenting a series of questions related to the Seven Aḥruf, the compilation of the Qurʾān and its preservation, assuming that those who advocate for universally agreed upon stance on oral transmission (qirāʾah bil-talaqqī) cannot provide satisfactory answers. He then presents his theory and addresses these questions. In this article, we aim to clarify the flaws in his theory and provide, with Allah’s help, answers to the questions he posed after first outlining his own responses. The reader will soon recognize the dangers of this theory, the inconsistencies in Qadhi’s arguments, and other elements that cast doubt on the preservation of the Qurʾān.
Qadhi starts off by saying:
We begin with the genre of hadith that mention the con-cept of ‘seven ahruf. Several traditions explicitly mention that the very raison d’être (ʿillah) of the ahruf is to make it easy for the Ummah to recite the Qur’an, for ‘…there are amongst them the old, and young boys and girls, and those who have never read.’
Q1: The question arises as to how exactly the Dictation Model facilitates this ʿillah for such categories of people: what difference do the variations make in the ease of reciting and memorizing?[1]
A1 (YQ): The explicit raison d’être (ʿillah) of the ahruf is obviously and clearly answered in this model, for the whole point of qirā’ah bi-l-mʿanā is that it allows the very old, the illiterate, and the uneducated, to recite to the best of their memory, forgiving any unintentional lapses. No other opinion regarding the reality of the ahruf can explain this plainly stated Prophetic ʿillah more obviously than the Divine Permission model.[2]
A1 (AA): It seems that Qadhi assumes that the sole wisdom behind the revelation of the seven aḥruf was to provide ease, but this is not the only reason. If that were the case, why, as Qadhi claims, do major Sahabah like Ibn Masʿūd and Ubayy read according to personal preference? As Qadhi alleges, the Divine Permission was extended to all the Sahabah, both the learned and the unlearned among them. However, Qadhi’s response here does not account for the senior Qurʾān reciters among the Sahabah, to whom the ten Qirāʾāt are traced.
In reality, as al-Ṭaḥāwī explicitly stated, the principle behind this facilitation was to ease the burden on non-Quraysh Arabs: “for someone fluent in one language finds it exceedingly difficult to switch to another without extensive effort and considerable hardship.”[3] This, then, is the original purpose of the facilitation, and it includes the aforementioned groups. Sahabah such as Ibn Masʿūd, who was not from Quraysh, recited in their own dialects following the tongue of their people, even though there was no pressing need for them to do so, as they were not part of the groups requiring such facilitation.
As for the other wisdom behind the revelation in seven ahruf, the additional variants add layers of meaning, thereby enriching the text’s rhetorical and literary expression.
Q2: Also, within these very traditions there are explicit examples that cannot be taken at face value and must be somehow interpreted, such as the Prophet’s command: ‘… all of the [ahruf] are pure and complete, as if you are saying ‘[Allah is] Hearing and Seeing’ or [Allah is] Majestic and Powerful,’ as long as you do not finish a verse of mercy with [Divine Attributes of] punishment or a verse of punishment with [Divine Attributes of] mercy.’ This tradition, and others, seem to suggest a leeway that the Dictation Model does not allow for.
Within the early tafsir and hadith literature, we have hundreds of examples of ahruf indicating word changes attributed to the Companions. There is the harf of Ubayy ibn Ka’b, and the harf of ibn Mas’ud, and so forth. [4]
A2 (YQ): Of course, the necessary condition would be that the appropriate meaning is conveyed; hence saying ‘[Allah is] Hearing and Seeing’ instead of [Allah is] Majestic and Powerful’ would be such an example if the context of the verse allowed it.[5]
A2 (AA): I am unsure where the facilitation lies in understanding the meaning of those names and then substituting them. It is unfortunate that Qadhi arrives at this conclusion based on a weak hadith, as we previously mentioned. Furthermore, substituting the names of Allah the Exalted does clearly affect the eloquence of the text, since His names are connected to the meanings found within. According to the early senior scholars, the hadith in question pertains to improper pausing (waqf qabīḥ) and not the substitution of words with their synonyms.
Q3: If indeed the origins of these variant words is the Prophet, why attribute the entire harf to only one Companion? And why wouldn’t other Companions at times alternate between these wordings to try to preserve the complete prophetic spectrum of recitation? After all, these same Companions would narrate multiple hadith; surely a fortiori they should also have narrated multiple ahruf emanating from the Prophet?[6]
A3 (YQ): This also explains that various Companions chose certain words as synonyms, especially (but not exclusively) those who belonged to non-Qur’āyshī tribes like Ubayy ibn Ka’b (who was from the Banū Khazraj) or ibn Mas’ūd (who was from the tribe of Hudhayl); and these word choices (viz., their unique harf) were ascribed to them. Hence, only they and their students were known to recite with those choices, and other senior Companions would have no cause to recite the word choices of other Companions.[7]
A3 (AA): The attribution of a particular Qurʾānic reading to a specific companion occurs for various reasons, such as strengthening the legitimacy of the reading or identifying the earliest person known to have recited it. This practice is similar to that of scholars of hadith who say, for instance, “the hadith of Anas,” “the hadith of Ibn ʿUmar,” or “the hadith of ʿĀʾisha” after these individuals became known for narrating those particular hadiths. Interestingly, early scholars would refer to certain Qurʾānic readings as “the recitation of Zayd.” If this reading were the only revealed version—as Qadhi claims based on the codification of the Mushafs according to the Quraysh dialect—why, then, would it be specifically attributed to Zayd, may Allah be pleased with him?
As for the question of why certain Sahabah did not gather multiple aḥruf during the Prophet’s lifetime, peace be upon him, one possible reason is that the revelation had not been completed, and the possibility of abrogation of certain recitations remained. After the Prophet’s passing, another reason could be the reluctance to rely on an intermediary in transmission, similar to the case of Ibn Masʿūd when he was asked to recite according to Zayd’s reading. These obstacles were removed during the time of the Tabiʿūn, which is why some of their prominent figures compiled the various aḥruf. This is narrated about individuals like Mujāhid, Saʿīd bin Jubayr, and the Caliph Yazīd bin al-Walīd.[8] So why would these great Tabiʿūn preserve what Qadhi claims are the “unintentional lapses”[9] by the Sahabah? Did the second generation of Muslims fail to see what Qadhi has supposedly discovered?
As for Qadhi’s question—”After all, these same Companions would narrate multiple hadith surely a fortiori they should also have narrated multiple ahruf emanating from the Prophet?”—I would respond that a companion narrating multiple hadiths on different topics is not analogous to teaching and memorizing the Qurʾān, due to the sheer volume of content in the Qur’an. Thus, drawing an analogy between the Qurʾān and hadith here is incorrect. If Qadhi wished to make this comparison, he would need to provide multiple reports from the same companion attempting to recount everything the Prophet, peace be upon him, said on a particular issue, including all its various wordings.
Q4: To add to this, in the most famous tradition of the ahruf, in which ‘Umar bin al-Khattāb heard Hishām bin Hakim recite Surah al-Furqan with different wordings, why would two people from the exact same tribe be taught different ‘dialects’ if indeed the ahruf were primarily about dialects? And why would Hishām – at this point a new convert – be given the privilege of a private lesson, unbeknownst to even ‘Umar, on another unique harf, while other Companions far senior to him were not given such a privilege?[10]
A4 (YQ): At times, such as the case of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb and Hishām ibn Hakīm, the word variation might be due to a memory lapse, especially as Hishām was a new convert. There was no private lesson that Hishām was given to the exclusion of other senior Companions – hence why when he said, ‘This is how the Prophet taught me,’ the response was not a confirmnation, ‘Yes, I taught you these words,’ but rather, ‘It came down in this manner, for the Qur’ān was revealed in sab’a ahruf,’ meaning in effect: ‘Your recitation is also approved by Allah and is to be considered Qur’ān, because Allah allowed the Qur’ān to be recited in several wordings.’[11]
A4 (AA): Dear reader, observe how Qadhi has fallen into a serious error, to the point where he unintentionally accuses the Prophet, peace be upon him, of dishonesty. It seems he has overlooked Allah’s statement: “Say, it is not for me to change it on my own accord” [Yūnus: 15]. The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, conveyed this hadith numerous times, to the extent of being mutawātir, and never did he state that the revealed forms included forgetfulness on the part of the Sahabah and stating that a companion’s recitation is correct on such a basis.
The matter is much simpler than Qadhi presents. It is possible that Hishām, may Allah be pleased with him, heard the Qurʾān while in the company of Arabs from tribes other than the Quraysh, or that he himself grew up outside of Quraysh and thus adopted their dialect. Therefore, his recitation reflected the dialect of those people.[12] Another possibility is that the variant he heard from the Prophet, peace be upon him, was also in a Qurashī dialect but included other words that impacted the meaning, such as Malik and Mālik (in reference to different meanings of “King” and “Owner”).
Q5: From this same incident, and ‘Umar’s surprise at learning of the existence of the ahruf, how does one explain that manay senior Companions were not aware of the existence of the ahruf during the period of Revelation? After all, if as the Dictation Model suggests, the Prophet was constantly reciting different wordings, why be puzzled with a different wording, especially at such a late stage of the sīrah? Even afterwards, ‘Uthman in his caliphate had to ask people to publicly confirm that the Qur’ān was revealed in seven ahruf.[13]
A5 (YQ): ‘Umar’s surprise at learning of the existence of the ahruf demonstrates that since it was a concession, the Prophet never actively encouraged the Muslims to exercise it, as the default was to conform to the original.[14]
A5 (AA): The astonishment of ʿUmar, may Allah be pleased with him, was due to the delayed revelation of the seven aḥruf, a point Qadhi himself will acknowledge. As for Qadhi’s claim that the Prophet, peace be upon him, did not encourage the Muslims to utilize the different aḥruf, there is no evidence to support this. How could the Prophet not encourage non-Quraysh Muslims to recite in their own dialects after the Qurʾān had been revealed in their tongues?
Qadhi’s statement that ʿUthmān, may Allah be pleased with him, publicly confirmed the revelation of the seven aḥruf is unrelated to astonishment. Furthermore, if one examines the report concerning ʿUthmān and the seven aḥruf—which, as usual, Qadhi neglects to cite—one would find that ʿUthmān only mentioned the hadith as a reminder to someone. The narration states: “ʿUthmān, may Allah be pleased with him, said from the pulpit: I remind a man of Allah who heard the Prophet, peace be upon him, say: ‘The Qurʾān was revealed in seven aḥruf, all of them are complete and sufficient…’”[15] The most that can be said about this report is that ʿUthmān was rebuking someone for objecting to another person’s recitation.
As for Qadhi’s claim that the Prophet, peace be upon him, did not actively encourage the use of the aḥruf, this contradicts his own assertion that the various readings produced by the Divine Permission were abundant.
Q6: The hadith literature also informs us that this concession of the seven ahruf began in the late Madinan period, so what does this imply of the earlier revelations before this concession was given? Were the chapters and verses that had been revealed earlier in only one harf revealed all over again, such that each verse was dictated again?[16]
A6 (YQ): Its allowance in the late Madinan period is understandable since it was at that time that more and more people of different tribes and backgrounds embraced Islam, and the quantity of believers increased exponentially. Hence, the Prophet was gifted the concession of the ahruf when it was needed by the community, and there was no need for it in early Makkah. Since this concession was given to the laity of believers, there was no need to re-reveal all the verses that had been sent before this concession.[17]
A6 (AA): There is no indication in the narrations that the Prophet (peace be upon him) received the seven aḥruf of the Qurʾān through revelation in the form similar to the ringing of a bell or through an angel appearing as a man. Moreover, we do not know whether the Prophet (peace be upon him) received each ḥarf in its entirety and memorized it or if he learned the differences separately. In either case, his memorization of the Qurʾān in its various aḥruf was part of the divine promise granted to him by Allah the Exalted. As He said: “Do not move your tongue with it to hasten it. Indeed, upon Us is its collection and recitation.” Thus, the Prophet’s memorization of the multiple readings of the Qurʾān was not like that of others.
Qadhi did however answer his own Q5 when he asked: “Why be puzzled with a different wording, especially at such a late stage of the sīrah?” Answer: They were revealed late.
Q7: Regardless of the time of concession, one of the perplexing realities of this field is the lack of evidence that the Prophet himself recited the same verse in different ways. As every specialist is aware, to master even the ten qirā’āt requires an immense amount of time; the variations between the ahruf were far more pronounced than the variations between the ten qirā’āt. Yet there does not seem to exist hadith narrations in which the Prophet dedicated such time and effort to meticulously teach the differences in Qur’ānic recitation to the Companions and dictate variant readings.[18]
A7 (YQ): This also explains why the Prophet himself never recited the same verse in different manners.[19]
A7 (AA): Indeed, it has been established that the Prophet (peace be upon him) recited the Qur’an in multiple qirāʾāt, as previously explained. Regarding the method by which the Prophet (peace be upon him) taught the Qurʾān, no one has claimed that he taught a single companion all the revealed aḥruf. Most likely, these aḥruf were distributed among various Sahabah from various tribes. This process was facilitated by first teaching one ḥarf, particularly the Qurashī ḥarf, and then introducing other aḥruf. For example, Ibn Masʿūd may have learned the Qurashī ḥarf during the Meccan period, after which the Prophet (peace be upon him) taught him another ḥarf following the revelation of the additional aḥruf. This method is simpler when compared to learning the first ḥarf, especially when the differences between the aḥruf align with the companion’s native dialect.
It is also important to remember that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was not the only one teaching the people, especially after the Meccan period. The presence of many individuals qualified to teach the Qurʾān greatly facilitated the process of its transmission. Once a companion had mastered the first ḥarf, it was relatively easy for the Prophet (peace be upon him) to teach them another corresponding to their own dialect, whether in terms of foundational principles or specific variant readings.
As for Qadhi’s suggestion that there was limited time and significant effort involved in the teaching process, this would only be true if we assumed that teaching occurred using the least efficient methods, in which the Prophet (peace be upon him) spends all his time teaching all the Companions one ḥarf, then all of them another, until they had memorized all seven.
Q8: Moving on from the time of revelation to the time of compilation, if all seven ahruf were divinely revealed and recited, why would ‘Uthman tell the committee, which was convened to solve the issue of the multiple ahruf and the tensions that were being caused, to write ‘…in the dialect of the Qur’āysh, for it was revealed in that dialect?’ Whence the specificity of only Qur’āysh if multiple wordings were revealed?[20]
A8 (YQ): Since the concession was no longer needed, ‘Uthmān and the Companions agreed to preserve the original wordings of the Revelation, which also had the unique characteristic of being in the dialect of the Qur’āysh…[21]
A8 (AA): The question mistakenly assumes a contradiction between the seven aḥruf and ʿUthmān’s directive to write the Qurʾān in the dialect of Quraysh. Standardizing the written form of the Qurʾān in the Quraysh dialect does not mean completely eliminating other dialectical variations but rather unifying the script while preserving the variations in recitation that align with it. Understanding the historical development of the Qurʾān’s revelation and compilation is essential. The Prophet, peace be upon him, recited in multiple aḥruf, as established in authentic hadiths. ʿUthmān’s statement that “the Qurʾān was revealed in the dialect of Quraysh” refers to its initial revelation in one ḥarf, after which the other aḥruf were added, as mentioned in the narration of Ubayy bin Kaʿb. The Quraysh dialect was the original form, as it was the language of the Prophet and his people, while the additional aḥruf were introduced as a concession and a form of mercy.[22] Though, according to some scholars, what is meant by the report is that most of it was revealed in the Qurashī dialect.[23]
Q9: And a classic controversy that remains perplexing: by what justification did the Companions agree to discard the bulk of the remaining ahruf (or according to another mainstream opinion, six of them), knowing their eagerness to preserve all matters prophetic? On what basis did they choose to discard some and leave others? Even if they felt that the other ahruf were a concession and hence dispensable (as those who subscribe to the Dictation Model explain), it would make sense for them to have explicitly announced this concession and raised the bar of knowledge to preserve all of them, rather than leave it to later scholars to attempt to explain such a permanent and irreversible stance in which Divine Revelation is apparently discarded.[24]
A9 (YQ): …they agreed to discard all the variations that were allowed but did not have the sanctity of the original. There was no need to justify excluding the other ahruf when the explicit goal and conditions of the committee were to meticulously preserve the wordings recited directly by the Prophet himself. In other words, why preserve the choices (harf) of Ubayy or ibn Mas’ud (which were valid and allowed at their times) when they now had the capability of codifying the wordings of the Prophet himself? The ‘Uthmānic project was successful in preserving the original harf in which the Qur’an was revealed. There would, however, be some minor caveats. [25]
A9 (AA): The writing of the Qurʾān in one ḥarf, establishing its script as the official reference in the event of disagreements, and disseminating it across various regions, does not constitute a prohibition of the other aḥruf. At most, it can be said that this process limited the expansion of variant readings. In fact, the other aḥruf were still recited even if they were not written, especially in Kufa among the students of Ibn Masʿūd, and some of these aḥruf were even well-known through Ibn ʿAbbās in Mecca. Moreover, the Qurʾān was written without diacritical marks, allowing for the possibility of multiple aḥruf to be read from the same script. Some of the aḥruf were also preserved in the regional recitations.
As for Qadhi’s claim that ‘Uthmān’s project was successful, it is not entirely accurate if we consider that only one ḥarf was divinely revealed and the others were mere allowances from Allah the Exalted. The fact that today’s recitations include several qirāʾāt with different meanings suggests that these qirāʾāt also fall under the “Divine Permission Model” if we accept Qadhi’s reasoning. This contradicts the characterization of ʿUthmān’s project as wholly successful.
Additionally, Qadhi’s acknowledgment of the non-sacred origins of these differences conflicts with the classification of these variations as part of the Qurʾān and the claim of its miraculous nature.
Perhaps most ironically, al-Ṭaḥāwī, who Qadhi appeals to, also affirms that there were multiple revealed variants for specific verses, as we’re demonstrated in another article. Hence, even alleged proponents of Qadhi’s theory, reject Qadhi’s view that sanctity is limited to one recitation.
Q10: And if they did discard the bulk of the ahruf to unify the Ummah, why are there still variations in the recitations post-‘Uthmānic recension? The purpose of the ‘Uthmānic project, by explicit testimony of the Caliph and the Companions, was to unify the entire Ummah on one recitation. The existence of the variations and the qirā ‘at seems to conflict with that purpose. [26]
A10 (YQ): Arabic, as is the case with any language, has a vast diversity of pronunciations and accents within its many tribal dialects and regional populations, and it is not humanly conceivable, nor even religiously required, to unify the enunciation of every minute vowel or letter. The rules of tajwid and the differences between the specific rules of ghunnah, imālah, idhghām, and other specific issues are examples of this phenomena. As well, the script that was available at the time allowed for a multiplicity of readings of a given skeleton of a word…[27]
A10 (AA): The aim of ʿUthmān’s project (may Allah be pleased with him) was not merely to unite people on a single reading but to establish a script without diacritical marks or dottings, allowing for reciting any reading that aligned with that script. This approach was intended to reduce differences and provide a common reference in the case of disagreements. Evidence of this can also be found in the inclusion of certain variations in the regional codices, reflecting the readings prevalent in those areas.
If Qadhi’s believes that ʿUthmān, may Allah be pleased with him, wanted to completely ban other recitations, then he would have included dots and diacritical marks. To assume that he and his committee didn’t have the foresight to realize that multiple readings would emerge from a dotless text is a grave insult.
Q11: More perplexing still the extremely minute differences between the ‘Uthmānic codices do not seem to have a reasonable explanation. If these differences were intentional, it would perhaps have been judicious for the committee to announce these differences so as not to cause any confusion. Instead, early literature seems to indicate that they were only later noticed, and eventually adopted into the ten qirā at, depending on the regionality of the codex and its proximity to the geographic location of the reciter. Furthermore, why only preserve the most minute of variations (such as an added wāw or a missing alif), while leaving the far more substantive variations that were recorded to have been recited prior to the ‘Uthmānic compilation? And if these differences were unintentional, this would seem to clash with the notion of Divine protection as understood by the proponents of the Dictation Model.[28]
A11 (YQ): …the insignificant variations between the manuscripts contain no substantial differences and are divinely sanctioned by the concession of the ahruf. The unification project of ‘Uthman was completely successful. It is conceivable that ‘Uthmān aimed to eliminate the concession of the ahruf in totality, yet still the concession was manifested in a narrow spectrum: in pronunciations of vowels and syllables, and word-variations that all conformed to the ‘Uthmānic script, and the word differences between the four codices.[29]
A11 (AA): Qadhi assumes that the differences between the Iraqi and Hijazi codices were only discovered later through scholarly exchanges and studies. However, the specific variants found in the Iraqi codices were already present in the Imam’s codex, the one compiled by ʿUthmān in Medina. Therefore, it is impossible for these differences to be unknown to the Sahabah.[30] Early works on Qurʾānic sciences contain reports from the early generations, as early as a Companion like Abū al-Dardāʾ, listing the variations among the codices.[31] Thus, Qadhi’s claim that these differences were only noticed later is unfounded.
Furthermore, Qadhi falls into a clear contradiction by asserting that ʿUthmān’s project succeeded in eliminating the divine permission, while the reality is that the ʿUthmānic codex contains hundreds of examples of variation due to the absence of diacritical marks and dots.
After it has been established that minor variants were intentionally included, any discussion regarding the decision to not include significant variants is futile. Though, one would assume that the disputes between Iraqis and Shamis was initially caused by their ignorance of significant variants. Either way, al-Mahdawī states that the minor variations that were sent to the regions were ones that were already recited in those respective regions, hence, these were intentionally included by ʿUthmān and his committee.[32]
Q12: How does one explain this phenomenon if all qiraʾat were equally divine and prophetic in origin, knowing that they no longer exist? Does this imply that some recitation is lost?[33]
A12 (YQ): It was in this minuscule window that Qur’an reciters and grammarians dedicated their energies to, and so for the first two centuries of Islam, much effort was expended in perfecting the art of recitation and codifying every single word, accent, and even pause. The default of precedence in recitation (al-ittiba) was always maintained, but on relatively few occasions and for a small percentage of words, reciters differed over the specific vocalizations of the ‘Uthmanic script, and in applying competing rules of the Arabic language as demonstrated by tribal dialects and recognized poetry. In these instances where reciters chose specific recitations, as long as general conditions were met, all recitations were accepted…[34]
A12 (AA): The qirāʾāt that are no longer recited today, as mentioned in books of exegesis and Qurʾānic sciences, include both authenticated and rejected readings. Qadhi’s exaggeration and objection pertain only to a very limited number of anomalous (shāḏ) recitations, and this is the subject of the debate. We can also easily say that these anomalous qirāʾāt are well-known and documented, as Qadhi himself acknowledges, so how does he claim that they are lost? The most that can be said is that these qirāʾāt are not recited in prayer today, but this does not imply that any part of the revelation was lost. Though not recited, these qirāʾāt are still referenced by scholars in their legal rulings and found in their books.
It is also noteworthy that Qadhi admits that early scholars recorded and paid great attention to these variations. This serves as evidence against his claim, as there would be no purpose in documenting qirāʾāt that, according to him, resulted merely from a “divine permission” that allowed “unintentionally lapses”. Moreover, the early scholars did not typically differentiate or prefer one reading over another, which indicates that they regarded the multiplicity of revealed aḥruf as valid.
The following answer will address criticisms towards certain qirāʾāt.
Q13: Furthermore, how does one explain the obvious and well-documented interplay between the scholars of qirāʾat and Arabic grammarians in the earliest centuries in which they explained why they chose or rejected a particular recitation? How could so many giants in the field (such as al-Tabarī as one prominent example) consistently reject recitations that are now deemed mutawātir – surely, they cannot be accused of not knowing them? Or Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s problematising the recitation of Hamza – one of the ‘seven’ recitations eventually canonised by ibn Mujāhid – as another example? At times, the back and forth between these scholars appears akin to the interplay between the various legal schools: each one claiming their opinion is correct and the other is not, and justifying grammatically or contextually why that is the case. Yet the Dictation Model tells us that all the qirāʾat emanate from the Prophet, and so they are all equally correct. It is safe to say that almost all early scholars seemed to view the qirāʾat with a very different lens than later ones: why is it that, according to the Dictation Model, so many scholars in early Islam seem to have made some mistakes in their adoption and rejection of recitations, but later scholars are all correct?[35]
A13 (YQ): …on rare occasions, there was debate and controversy. At times, some choices (ikhtiyār) of the reciters were deemed against the acceptable norms of Arabic, or as being not eloquent enough for the Qur’ān. Hence why great giants like al-Tabarī and a host of others of that era, fully aware of the reality of qira’āt, felt no qualms in discrediting specific recitations from otherwise acceptable reciters. This continued back and forth between various authorities until the canonisation project of ibn Mujāhid and its eventual closure by ibn al-Jazarī.[36]
A13 (AA): Qadhi’s alluding to figures such as Imam Aḥmad and al-Ṭabarī is quite ironic, as these scholars advocated for the recitation of the Qurʾān through direct transmission (talaqqī)—a fact well known to Qadhi, who did not include them among those who supported the theory of “divine permission.” These scholars authenticated multiple qirāʾāt of the same verse, and their occasional criticism of certain recitations actually contradicts Qadhi’s theory. According to Qadhi’s theory, there should be no criticism of qirāʾāt resulting from forgetfulness or error, since these are all allegedly permitted by Allah the Exalted. This clearly indicates the theory’s invalidity, a point Qadhi overlooked, confusing two opposing ideas: the critique of specific qirāʾāt and the theory of divine permission, which supposedly permits errors.
As for the issue of criticizing mutawātir qirāʾāt, that lies outside the scope of this discussion, and we may dedicate a separate article to address it in detail in the future. However, we can briefly say that much of the critique stems from the critic’s lack of knowledge regarding the tawātur of a particular qirāʾa—what was mutawātir to some might not have been so to others. Some criticisms are also related to the reciter’s performance, as is the case with Aḥmad’s critique of Ḥamza al-Zayyāt’s qirāʾa, which focused on issues like idghām (assimilation) and imāla (inclination). His criticism had nothing to do with the meanings of the words that Ḥamza recited.[37]
Q14: Another issue is that early hadith literature seems to indicate the exact opposite, as several scholars of the generation of codification (zaman al-tadwin) wrote chapters or treatises in which they attempted to verify the precise recitation of the Prophet, under the genre of ‘qiraʾat al-Nabi’.” In fact, one of the ten famous reciters even authored one such work.’” If all qira’at were equally from the Prophet, surely this entire genre seems superfluous?[38]
A14 (YQ): Concomitant to this project was also the effort of some to see if one could find hadiths that demonstrated the original way in which the Prophet might have recited a word, while acknowledging in light of the concession of ahruf that alternatives were equally valid if the right conditions were met. Hence, even some of the scholars who compiled these very hadith might themselves choose other recitations, since this concession allowed for these variant recitations.[39]
A14 (AA): Al-Dūrī’s collection of narrations regarding the Prophet’s recitation of the Qurʾān does not indicate that other recitations are invalid or belong to the category of “divine permission.” It appears from Qadhi’s response that he noticed that Al-Dūrī diverged from some of what is reported about the Prophet’s recitation in many qirāʾāt, adhering instead to the qirāʾa of Abū ʿAmr and al-Kisāʾī insead. But how could he prefer their qirāʾāt over the Prophet’s recitation?
The clear answer is that Al-Dūrī firmly believed that these two recitations represented a well-established Sunnah, which ultimately traced back to the Prophet (peace be upon him). He considered these recitations more authentic than isolated reports transmitted by single individuals, many of which are not even sound in terms of their chains of transmission. For this reason, Al-Dūrī did not rely on them in his recitation.
Q15: Lastly, the obvious reality that the issue of ahruf and qirāʾat, despite being so central and key to the religion of Islam and mentioned in mutawātir hadiths, remains perplexing to so many scholars. Surely a concept so integral to the Qur’ān and so central to its preservation and recitation should have a simple and obvious answer: an answer that is found in the earliest of sources, and not something ‘dicovered’ after fourteen centuries of ambiguity.[40]
A15 (YQ): This interpretation of the ahruf explains these contentious issues and demonstrates the reality of the qirāʾat as being an extension of them, in a more obvious manner, without the need for unreasonable assumptions or interpretations. Furthermore, this is not some new or unprecedented opinion – one finds it in the earliest of explanations and explicitly quoted and championed by many early icons of this field, and throughout all eras of Islamic thought. In fact, it can be said that one finds only this opinion in the earliest of quotations and references of this field. All that one needs to do is to let the explicit quotations and evidence speak for themselves, rather than attempting to force a later perspective onto each and every point that appears to contradict it. Such an attempt to coerce the modern standard narrative onto the earlier data seems to inevitably leave more gaps than answered questions.
A15 (AA): We have already addressed all those to whom Qadhi falsely attributed this view in another article. Additionally, in a separate article, we clarified that the scholars who listed the various interpretations of the concept of the seven aḥruf did not include the theory of Divine Permission among them.
And Allah knows best. May peace and blessings be upon His Prophet, his family, and all his Sahabah.
Sources:
- Al-Maqdisī, Abū Shāma. al-Murshid al-Wajīz. Beirut: Dār Ṣādir, 1395 AH.
- Al-Safāqisī, Abū al-Ḥasan. Ghayth al-Naf‘ fī al-Qirā’āt al-Sab‘. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1425 AH.
- Al-Ṭabarī, Muḥammad bin Jarīr. Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī. Cairo: Dar Hajar, 1422 AH.
- Al-Ṭaḥāwī, Abū Jaʿfar. Tuḥfat al-Akhyār bi Tartīb Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār. Riyadh: Dār Balansiyyah, 1420 AH.
- Ibn Abī Dāwūd, Abū Bakr. Al-Maṣāhif. Cairo: al-Farūq al-Ḥadithiyyah, 1423 AH.
- Ibn Abī Usāma, al-Ḥārith. Musnad al-Ḥārith. Medina: Markaz Khidmat al-Sunnah, 1413 AH.
- Ibn Abī Yaʿlā, Muḥammad. Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanābila. Cairo: al-Sunnah al-Muḥammadiyyah, 1371 AH.
- Ibn Baṭṭāl, Alī bin Khalaf. Sharh Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. Riyadh: Maktabat al-Rushd, 1423 AH.
- Ibn Sallām, al-Qāsim. Faḍāʾil al-Qurʾān. Damascus: Dār Ibn Kathīr, 1415 AH.
- Qadhi, Yasir. “An Alternative Opinion on the Reality of the ‘Seven Ahruf’ and Its Relationship with the Qira’at.” History of the Quran – Approaches and Explorations, edited by F. Redhwan Karim. Kube Publishing, 2024.
- Qadhi, p. 224 ↑
- Qadhi, p. 270 ↑
- Tuhfat Al-Akhyar bi-Tartib Sharh Muskhil Al-Athaar, 8/148-149 ↑
- Qadhi, p. 224 ↑
- Qadhi, p. 270 ↑
- Qadhi, pp. 224-225 ↑
- Qadhi, p. 270 ↑
- Al-Ṭabarī, 1/47 ↑
- Qadhi, p. 270 ↑
- Qadhi, p. 225 ↑
- Qadhi, p. 270 ↑
- This is a possibility mentioned by al-Safāqisī in Ghayth al-Nafʿ, p. 13. ↑
- Qadhi, p. 225 ↑
- Qadhi, p. 271 ↑
- Ibn Abī Usāma, hadith no. 727 ↑
- Qadhi, p. 225 ↑
- Qadhi, p. 271 ↑
- Qadhi, pp. 225-226 ↑
- Qadhi, p. 271 ↑
- Qadhi, p. 226. ↑
- Qadhi, p. 271 ↑
- Al-Maqdisī, p. 92 ↑
- Ibn Baṭṭāl said: “There is no conclusive evidence that the Qurʾān was fully revealed in the Qurashī dialect, and that there are no other dialects within, for it is confirmed that it includes many hamzas and Quraysh do not use the hamza, and it also includes words and letters that conflict with the dialect of Quraysh.” See: His commentary on al-Bukhārī, 10/219 ↑
- Qadhi, p. 226 ↑
- Qadhi, p. 271-272 ↑
- Qadhi, p. 226 ↑
- Qadhi, p. 272 ↑
- Qadhi, pp. 226-227 ↑
- Qadhi, p. 272 ↑
- Ibn Abī Dāwūd, p. 139 ↑
- Ibn Sallām, p. 330 ↑
- Al-Mahdawi, pp. 102-103 ↑
- Qadhi, p. 228 ↑
- Qadhi, p. 272 ↑
- Qadhi, pp. 228-229 ↑
- Qadhi, pp. 272-273 ↑
- Ibn Abī Yaʿlā, 1/229 ↑
- Qadhi, p. 229 ↑
- Qadhi, p. 273 ↑
- Qadhi, p. 229 ↑