Introduction:
The prominent American Islamic preacher Yasir Qadhi published an article titled, An Alternative Opinion on the Reality of the ‘Seven Ahruf’ and Its Relationship with the Qira’at, which can be found within the recently released History of the Quran – Approaching and Explanations. In this first article of the series, we aim to examine the Prophetic ḥadīth cited by Qadhi and his stance on the ḥadīths that contradict his proposed theory, which he refers to as the ‘Divine Permission’ model. We will also address his position regarding what has been attributed to the Sahabah and the statements of scholars concerning the nature of the aḥruf and readings in other articles.
The Divine Permission Model:
Qadhi states:
Some later scholars coined the term ‘qirā’ah bi-l-ma’nā’ (or: ‘reciting according to the meaning’) to explain this view; it has also been called the ‘Divine Permission’ model. According to this opinion, it was this original harf that was preserved by ‘Uthmān (i.e., only one harf was preserved); since the other ahruf were not recited, there was no ‘discarding’ of the others per se. Rather, the concession of qirā’ah bi-l-ma nā was revoked because there was no need for it. So, the phrase, ‘unzil al-Qur’an ‘alā sab’at ahruf, according to this model, would be understood as: “The permission for the Qur’ân to be recited in several wordings has been revealed.”[1]
In the footnote, Qadhi mentions that this interpretation is attributed to al-Khaṭṭābī and al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ, suggesting that they understood the term “seven” figuratively, to express abundance.
This understanding, of course, contradicts the apparent wording of the narration and what we find in the authentic hadith collections, such as the narration from Ibn ʿAbbās in which the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “Gabriel recited to me on one letter, and I kept requesting him until it reached seven aḥruf.”[2]
Additionally, there is a narration from Ubayy bin Kaʿb, where the Prophet (peace be upon him) was told by Gabriel: “Indeed, Allah commands you to recite the Qurʾān to your Ummah on seven aḥruf.”[3]
As for what was attributed to al-Khaṭṭābī and al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ, it has been refuted in the previous article by Ustadh Waqar Akbar Cheemah titled Sab‘a Ahruf Hadith: Sab‘a Indeed Means Seven, neither of whom expressed this position as their own. In this article, he noted that they related this opinion as being one that is unpopular. Ustadh Waqar also clarified that the number seven is not used to indicate abundance; rather, that connotation applies to the terms seventy (سبعين) and seven hundred (سبعمائة).
Qadhi continues:
…as a default no word or phrase in the Qur’an has been recited in precisely seven ways, hence this fact alone would force us to view the word ‘seven’ as indicating ‘several’ rather than a literal ‘seven’.[4]
This objection is unfounded, as no scholar has claimed that every word must be pronounced in seven dialects, modes, or variations. Many Arabic words have only one pronunciation, so there is no need for multiple revelations in such cases.
A Critique of Qadhi’s Reasoning Based on the Prophetic Hadith:
It is surprising that Qadhi, in his article, relied solely on the following Prophetic hadith as evidence:
“(None of them – meaning the aḥruf – is anything but sufficient and complete. If you say: ‘All-Hearing, All-Knowing’ or ‘Almighty, Wise,’ it is acceptable, as long as you do not conclude a verse of punishment with mercy, or a verse of mercy with punishment).”
Qadhi claims:
This tradition, and others, seem to suggest a leeway that the Dictation Model does not allow for.[5]
His term “the Dictation Model” (namūḏaj al-talqīn) refers to the theory or model that, as Qadhi claimed, contrasts with the theory of Permission (rukhṣah), and it is synonymous with reception (talaqqī).
As for the report that Qadhi referred to, it is a disconnected hadith. Imam Aḥmad stated: “Qatādah did not hear anything from Yaḥyā bin Yaʿmur.”[6] Al-Bayhaqī also said: “Maʿmar narrated it from Qatādah, but he transmitted it as mursal (disconnected).”[7] Therefore, the hadith is not authentic.
It does not support Qadhi’s claim even if we accept its authenticity. The meaning of “as long as you do not conclude a verse of punishment with mercy” refers to an improper pause (waqf qabīḥ) during recitation, as stated by al-Dānī. One such example is from Surah Al-Baqarah: “They are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein forever. And those who believe and do righteous deeds…” Stopping at “those who believe and do righteous deeds” is improper, and the reciter must continue the verse: “Those are the companions of Paradise; they will abide therein forever.” This passage does not suggest that replacing a word with its synonym is permissible, as synonyms are far more limited than substituting all words except those related to mercy and punishment.
As for his statement, “and others (traditions),” Qadhi did not provide any other prophetic reports to support his argument.
Explanation of the Differences Between Umar and Hisham in Recitation:
One of the stranger interpretations that is provided by Qadhi was his explanation of what occurred between ʿUmar bin al-Khaṭṭāb and Hishām bin Ḥakīm. He said:
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 confirmation, ‘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.’[8]
Qadhi has fallen into exactly what he criticizes others for—engaging in unnecessary and strained interpretation of phrases.
ʿUmar, may Allah be pleased with him, describes what transpired between him and Hishām, may Allah be pleased with him, by saying: “He was reciting a sūrah in many different ways that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, had not taught me.” According to Qadhi’s interpretation, this means many mistakes, even though Qadhi refrains from using the word “mistake.”
Hishām, may Allah be pleased with him, then firmly states: “The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, taught it to me.”
ʿUmar then says, “So he recited to the Prophet the recitation I had heard him recite.” This shows that Hishām was confident and precise in what he had heard, without hesitation or doubt, regarding the multiple ḥurūf in which he differed from ʿUmar. This is not the state of someone who forgets or becomes confused in their memorization.
The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, listened to both of them and after hearing their recitations, he affirmed them both by saying: “This is how it was revealed.”[9]
Qadhi distorted this hadith by claiming that the meaning of the phrase “This is how it was revealed” actually means “This is how the concession was granted for what you recited, O ʿUmar.” I am unsure how this interpretation aligns with the language of the hadith and what wisdom there would be in describing this concession as a “revelation” and referring to it as “seven” as has been authentically transmitted from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. It would have been much simpler to say that Allah allowed the Sahabah to make mistakes in what they attributed to Him as long as the mistakes were insignificant—this is the implication of what Qadhi claims.
Qadhi objects:
The response was not a confirmation, “Yes, I taught you these words.”
What Qadhi fails to realize is that the statement “this is how it was revealed” means that this is how Gabriel, peace be upon him, brought it down from Allah Almighty, which is far more profound and eloquent than the interpretation given by Qadhi. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, attributes the recitation to his Lord so that no one would think it resulted from his mistakes, peace be upon him.
Further supporting this understanding is what Ubayy (may Allah be pleased with him) relayed after disagreeing with another companion regarding the recitation of a verse. Their returning to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him after their dispute indicates their certainty about what they had heard from him. Normally, a person in doubt would seek to correct his recitation, especially when being corrected by someone like Ubayy, one of the foremost memorizers of the Qur’an. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, then mentioned what Gabriel said: “Recite the Qur’an in one ḥarf. But Mīkāʾīl said: ‘Ask for more.’ Then [Gabriel] said: ‘Recite it in two aḥruf,’ which continued until it reached seven aḥruf.”[10] This gradual increase also indicates that the number of modes is literal.
And what will Qadhi make of Abu al-Dardāʾ, may Allah be pleased with him, and his recitation of “and the male and the female”? He said, “The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, recited it to me directly, mouth to mouth.” ʿAlqama, in the same narration, states that this was also the recitation of Ibn Masʿūd; may Allah be pleased with him. Was the origin of this recitation their mutual forgetfulness?[11]
No matter how hard he tries, on the surface of these hadiths, Qadhi will not find anything to support what his inclination has led him to accept.
Another one of the surprising claims made by Qadhi was him saying that “one of the perplexing realities of this field is the lack of evidence that the Prophet himself recited the same verse in different ways.”[12]
If he attributes the Companions’ differences in recitation to forgetfulness, it is unsurprising that he disregards these authentic reports that establish otherwise.
A Critique of the Research Methodology and Sources:
In conclusion, the reader should be aware that Qadhi did not base his research on solid foundations. In footnote 15, he dismisses the need to verify the authenticity of the narrations or relying on the sound ones.[13] Instead, he based part of his article on fabricated and baseless reports, as we will further elaborate in upcoming articles. Additionally, he relied on what he found in the Shīa source Al-Kāfi by Al-Kulaynī when discussing the origins of the Qurʾānic readings.[14] It is as if the main hadiths that shaped the Sunni belief regarding the origins of the different aḥruf and qirāʾāt were a thorn in Qadhi’s side.
And Allah knows best. May peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muḥammad, his family, and his companions.
Sources:
Al-Bayhaqī, Aḥmad bin al-Ḥusain. Al-Sunan al-Kabīr. Edited by al-Turkī. Cairo, 1432 AH.
Al-Bukhārī, Muḥammad bin Ismāʿīl. Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. Dār al-Salām, Riyadh, 1419 AH.
Al-Fasawī, Yaʿqūb bin Sufyān. Al-Maʿrifah wal-Tārīkh. Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, Beirut, 1419 AH.
Al-Sijistānī, Abū Dāwūd. Sunan Abī Dāwūd. Dār al-Salām, Riyadh, 1420 AH.
Al-Taḥāwī, Abū Jaʿfar. Tuḥfat al-Akhyār bi Tartīb Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār. Dār Balansiyyah, Riyadh, 1420 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, pp. 230-231 ↑
- Al-Bukhārī, hadith no. 3219 ↑
- Al-Sijistānī, hadith no. 1478 ↑
- Qadhi, p. 231 ↑
- Qadhi, p. 224 ↑
- Al-Fasawī, 2/85 ↑
- Al-Bayhaqī, 4/633 ↑
- Qadhi, p. 270 ↑
- Al-Bukhārī, hadith no. 4992 ↑
- Al-Taḥāwī, 8/149-151 ↑
- Al-Bukhārī, hadith no. 3287, 3761 ↑
- Qadhi, p. 225 ↑
- Qadhi, p. 232 ↑
- Qadhi, p. 257 ↑