In the name of Allah the Most Gracious the Most Merciful
As a continuation of the previously mentioned evidence provided by Yasir Qadhi for what he terms the “Divine Permission Model”, we present here his reliance on the reports from the Sahabah, after he failed to substantiate his theory using the hadiths of the Prophet (peace be upon him). It will soon become evident to the reader that Qadhi has shown little concern for citing authentic narrations even though his conclusions pertain to the integrity of one of Islam’s greatest sanctities: the Word of Allah, the Exalted.
Qadhi cited a number of reports from the Sahabah (may Allah be pleased with them), which we will mention and respond to here. Among these is the report concerning Ibn Masʿūd and his recitation of (Shajarat al-Zaqqūm Taʿām al-Fājir), which was addressed in a previous article and thus does not require repetition.
Qadhi also mentions three reports that have been attributed to Anas bin Mālik:
In another incident, al-A’mash reported that Anas bin Mālik recited: “…they would rush headlong into it” [9:57], which in the ‘Uthmānic recension reads,“la-wallaw ilayhī wa hum yajmahūn,”as“…wa hum yajmizūn.” When informed that the verse actually reads ‘yajmahūn’, he is reported to have said,“Yajmahūn, and yajmizūn, and yashtaddūn are all the same.” In yet another report, Anas bin Mālik recited [73:6], which reads “…wa aqwam qīlā,”as “…wa așwabu qīlā.” When he was told that the correct recitation is aqwam, he replied, “Aswab, aqwam, and ahya’are all the same.” Furthermore, Abān narrates that Anas recited “And We lifted your burdens from you” [94:2], which in the ‘Uthmānic recension reads, “wa wada nā anka wizrak,” as “wa hatatnā ‘anka wiz-rak.” When asked about this, he said, “It’s all the same: wada nā and halalnā and hatatnā. For Jibril came to the Prophet and said, ‘Recite the Qur’ān in sab’a ahruf as long as you don’t mix mercy and punishment, or punishment and mercy.”[1]
These three narrations were all attributed by Qadhi to al-Muḥtasib by Ibn Jinnī, who did not provide their chains of transmission.
Let us begin with the last narration, which is from Abān, reporting from Anas. Abān is accused of lying,[2] while some hadith scholars have a more favorable view of him but still criticize his accuracy.[3] I also found a chain of transmission for the first narration from Anas, but it is also through Abān.[4] Such is the condition of the chains of transmission that Qadhi uses as evidence. While it is possible that these recitations could all be traced back to the Prophet (peace be upon him), there is nothing in these narrations to suggest that Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) recited them based on personal preference. In short, none of these reports can be considered authentic.
Qadhi continues:
In yet another example, Ubayy ibn Ka’b would recite [2:20],which reads,“kul-lamā adā’ lahum mashaw fihi” as, “…kullamā ‘adā’ lahum sa’aw fihī …” or “…kullamā ‘adā’ lahum marrū fihī.” Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr comments,“Ubayy would recite all of these words.” Once again we find synonymous wordings used.[5]
Qadhi cited this from Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, who narrated it in a disconnected manner. These two recitations, namely (marrū fīhi) and (saʿaw fīhi), are not found in the early collections with a connected chain of transmission and, therefore, cannot be used as evidence.
Qadhi furthermore explains what occurred between Ibn Masʿūd and Zayd may Allah be pleased with them as evidence for his theory. He said:
Note that ibn Mas’ud, along with other Companions, would only recite in his manner; had they all viewed these synonyms as being prophetic (viz., the Dictation Model), it would have made sense for the Companions to alternate between the wordings and recite with the wordings of other Companions. Yet, when pressure was put on ibn Mas’ud to conform to the harf of the ‘Uthmānic compila-tion, as is well-known and documented in many narrations, he refused, claiming that he himself had heard the bulk of the Qurān directly from the Prophet, while Zayd (who was tasked with the Uthmānic compilation) was still a child with braids playing with other children. Thus, while he preferred his own recitation for himself and his students, he actively encouraged others to stick to what they had been taught by other Companions, and warned them against fanaticism and differing because of such differences.[6]
This is a strange argument and a puzzling conclusion. Ibn Masʿūd (may Allah be pleased with him) directly heard from the Prophet (peace be upon him), so he would not want to place any intermediary between himself and the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). Qadhi surely knows the great efforts the hadith scholars took in their pursuit of knowledge, including their travels to obtain higher chains of transmission (ʿuluw al-isnād). After reaching the pinnacle, how could Ibn Masʿūd step down from such a position? As for his students, who would willingly shift their students to another teacher after years of instructing them? This is not a criticism of Zayd bin Thābit or others, but rather, it reflects the natural relationship between a teacher and his students.
Among the most peculiar conclusions of Qadhi is the claim that Ibn Masʿūd (may Allah be pleased with him) preferred his own recitation, which Qadhi believes to have fallen into oblivion and is based on personal reasoning and preference, over the recitation of Zayd bin Thābit (may Allah be pleased with him), who, according to Qadhi, “adhered strictly to the prophetic expressions.”
Qadhi states in the footnotes:
These reports, and others, would seem to indicate that ibn Mas’ud is arguing that his words (literally, his ‘harf) is the more authentic one. While he did not claim that Zayd’s harf was invalid, he preferred his wordings. There is no notion that all wordings emanate from the Prophet; rather, ibn Mas’ūd is arguing to preserve his wordings because those wordings (according to his memory) are the original Prophetic ones. As for why ‘Uthmān decided to adopt Zayd’s harf, the answer is obvious and will be mentioned later in this article: ‘Uthmān conditioned an actual written copy of the Revelation dictated by the Prophet himself, while ibn Mas’ud was relying on his memory. A written document is always preferred over oral recollection.
His statement “according to his memory” implies that the memory of Ibn Masʿūd (may Allah be pleased with him) failed him. This claim has major implications on Kufan recitations that heavily rely on Ibn Masʿūd.
Qadhi then mentions a report in order to argue that Ibn Masʿūd permitted ijtihad in recitation:
For example, in one narration it is reported that ibn Mas’ud advised his students, “If you differ about a consonant in the Qur’ān – if it is a yā or a tā – then recite it as masculine (viz., with a yā), because the [default] of the Qur’ān is masculine. ”If each and every letter were always recited with absolute precedence (viz., the Dictation Model), this command would not make any sense.[7]
Before providing clarification and a response to Qadhi, I would like to draw the reader’s attention to the fact that Qadhi cited this report from the Tafsīr section of Al-Jāmiʿ by Ibn Wahb. The report is narrated through ʿĀsim from Ibn Masʿūd, which is, as usual, a disconnected narration.
There are other chains for this report, all of which trace back through Dawūd al-Awdī from al-Shaʿbī, but they differ. One version is narrated by Muhammad bin ʿUbayd from him, from al-Shaʿbī, from either Bisr or Bishr bin al-Ḥārith, from the Prophet (peace be upon him). Another version is narrated by a group from him, from al-Shaʿbī, from Bishr bin al-Ḥārith, from Ibn Masʿūd. There is also a version narrated by ʿUbaydullah bin Mūsā from Dawūd al-Awdī in a connected form.[8]
Dawūd bin Yazīd al-Awdī is almost unanimously considered weak.[9]
As for the intended meaning of this report, it is not what Qadhi claims. It states: “If you differ regarding the yāʾ and the tāʾ…”—the origin of this difference lies in what was heard, not in personal preference—“…then make it a yāʾ.”
Ibn Qutaybah said:
“Its interpretation, in my view, is that if a word in the Qurʾān can be understood as either masculine or feminine, then it should be read in the masculine form. This was also his approach in his recitation. He would read the word ‘angels’ in the masculine form throughout the Qurʾān, reciting: ‘then the angels called him (fa-nādāhu),’ because it is written with a yāʾ connected to it in the script of the Qurʾānic manuscript, in the form of (فناديٰه).”[10]
In other words, the ʿUthmānic orthography facilitated this recitation.
Ibn Qutaybah, as we explained in another article, holds the view that all of these recitations originate from the Prophet (peace be upon him). Thus, according to him, both recitations—“fanādāhu al-malāʾika” (then the angels called him) and “fanādat-hu al-malāʾika” (then the angels called to him)—are among those that were heard from the Prophet (peace be upon him).
He also said, may Allah have mercy on him:
“All of these ḥurūf are the words of Allah the Exalted, revealed by the Trustworthy Spirit (Gabriel) to His Messenger (peace be upon him). This is because Gabriel would review with him each Ramadan what he had of the Qurʾān, and Allah would reveal to him whatever He willed, abrogate whatever He willed, and make matters easier for His servants as He willed. Among this facilitation was that He commanded the Prophet to teach each group of people according to their dialect and the linguistic forms they were accustomed to.”[11]
To conclude, none of the examples presented by Qadhi are sufficient to claim that the Companions ever substituted any words due to their preferences.
And Allah the Exalted knows best. May peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and all his companions.
Sources:
– Ibn Ḥajar, Aḥmad bin ʿAlī. Tahḏīb al-Tahḏīb. Beirut: Muʾasasat Al-Resālah, 1429 AH.
– Ibn Manda, Muḥammad bin Isḥāq. Ma’rifat Al-Sahabah. Al-Ain: United Arab Emirates University, 2005 CE.
– Ibn Qutayba, Abdullah bin Muslim. Gharīb al-Hadith. Baghdad: Al-ʿĀnī Publishing, 1397 AH.
– Ibn Qutayba, Abdullah bin Muslim. Ta’wil Mushkil Al-Qur’an. Beirut: Muʾasasat Al-Resālah, 1432 AH.
– Ibn Wahb, Abdullah. Tafsir Al-Qur’an min Al-Jami’. Beirut: Dar al-Gharb, 2003 CE.
– 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. 233-234 ↑
- Ibn Ḥajar stated: “Al-Khalīlī mentioned in Al-Irshād with a sound chain of transmission that Aḥmad said to Yaḥyā bin Maʿīn—while he was writing from ʿAbd al-Razzāq, from Ma’mar, from Abān in a copy: ‘You are writing this, even though you know that Abān is a liar?’ He replied, ‘May Allah have mercy on you, O Abū ‘Abdullah, I write it and memorize it, so that when a liar narrates it from Maʿmar, from Thābit, from Anas, I can say to him, “You have lied; it is from Abān.”‘ See Tahḏīb al-Tahḏīb 1/56.” ↑
- Ibn ʿAdī said: “Most of what he narrates is not corroborated, and he is borderline in terms of weakness. I hope he does not intentionally lie, but he is confused and makes mistakes. As Shuʿbah said, he is closer to weakness than to truth.” See Tahḏīb al-Tahḏīb, 1/55. ↑
- Ibn Wahb, Tafsir al-Qur’an from Al-Jami’, 3/51. ↑
- Qadhi, p. 234 ↑
- Qadhi, pp. 234-235 ↑
- Qadhi, p. 253 ↑
- Ibn Mandah, 1/258. ↑
- Ibn Ḥajar, 1/572-573. ↑
- Ibn Qutaybah, Gharīb al-Hadith 2/228. ↑
- Ibn Qutaybah, Taʾwil Mushkil Al-Qurʾān, p. 63. ↑