القرآن المحفوظ | The immutable quran

موقع علمي يهتم بقضايا القران الكريم وحفظه
An academic website concerned with issues of
the Noble Quran and its preservation

Yasir Qadhi’s Misrepresentation of the Scholars

Introduction:

After examining what Yasir Qadhi attributed to the scholars regarding the so-called “Divine Permission Model” I found his claims to be misrepresentative, at times even distorting the context of the scholars’ statements. Therefore, I have written this article to defend the scholars against this serious accusation. Although the previous article addressed the scholars’ general definitions of the seven aḥruf, demonstrating their unawareness of this corrupt view, a more detailed response is necessary to dispel the doubts that have taken root in some minds.

For those interested in the harms of Yasir Qadhi’s theory, I refer them to our article on the reality of the so-called “Divine Permission Model.”

Before presenting what Yasir Qadhi has cited from the scholars, we must alert the reader that he has attributed this view to the Sahabah based on some dubious narrations, which have been refuted here.

The Statements of the Scholars:

Al-Zuhrī (d. 124 AH):

Al-Zuhrī, when asked about the permissibility of changing the order of words in hadith, responded, “This is permissible in the Qurʾān, so how could it not be in hadith?”

This is similar to what Yaḥyā bin Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān narrated, which will be discussed later. Al-Zuhrī meant by this that Allah revealed the Qurʾān and permitted transposing words in a few instances, such as in: “And the stupor of death comes with the truth,” [Al-Furqan: 19] and “And the stupor of the truth comes with death”.[1] According to his view, narrating hadith with changes in word order is permissible, as long as the meaning is preserved.

If such transposition were done arbitrarily, we would find hundreds of examples of it in the recitations of the Sahabah and Tab’iun. Yet, barely any of these examples can be considered authentic. This indicates that transposition only occurred based on what was heard directly from the Prophet (peace be upon him).

Al-Zuhrī’s statement clearly permits substituting words in hadith if the meaning is preserved. However, he did not mention that such transposition is allowed in the Qurʾān.

Yaḥya bin Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān (d. 198 AH):

Yaḥyā bin Saʿīd said:

“The Qurʾān holds the greatest sanctity, yet it is permissible to be recited in various forms, as long as the meaning remains the same.”

This statement was reported by al-Khatīb al-Baghdādī in al-Kifāyah, in the chapter discussing those who allowed narrating hadith by meaning (i.e., paraphrasing). He also narrated Yaḥyā’s reaction when he encountered someone who was overly scrupulous about the exact wording of hadith:

“Nothing in people’s hands is more noble or greater than the Book of Allah, yet it has been permitted to be recited in seven aḥruf.”[2]

Yaḥyā indicates that many of the Qurʾānic recitations convey the same meaning, which is correct. The variations in recitations that affect meaning amount to approximately 415 instances,[3] whereas those related to differences in dialects are more numerous. Understanding this helps us see that Yaḥyā meant many recitations share the same meaning, though not all, and that Allah has allowed the people to recite in these various ways. Therefore, narrating hadith by meaning should be considered more acceptable.

The reader should also reflect on how early scholars, like al-Khaṭīb, classified issues related to narrating hadith by meaning or exact wording and the differences of opinion on this matter. This was well-known among them. However, we neither find them discussing the permissibility of narrating the Qurʾān by meaning nor exact wording. The absence of this discussion is in itself proof that there was always one position, which is that the recitation is a Sunnah, one that is learnt, with no room for ijtihad.

Al-Shāfiʿī (d. 204 AH):

Al-Shāfiʿī said:

“Allah revealed His Book in seven aḥruf, knowing that human memory can falter. He permitted them to recite it, even with differences in wording, as long as those differences do not alter the meaning.”

What Al-Shāfiʿī mentioned is close to what Yaḥyā bin Saʿīd stated (refer to the previous section), except that Al-Shāfiʿī’s statement occurs in the context of discussing the Sahabah’s differences in the wording of the tashahhud. He referenced the Qurʾānic recitations to illustrate that people may differ in the wording they narrate from the Prophet (peace be upon him). Al-Shāfiʿī mentioned this idea in two places: in Kitāb al-Risāla and Ikhtilāf al-hadith while discussing the tashahhud. However, Al-Shāfiʿī did not dedicate any chapter in his works to discussing the permissibility of reciting the Qurʾān by meaning.

When mentioning the differences among the Sahabah regarding the wording of the tashahhud, he said:

“It is possible that all of these versions are authentic and that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) taught different forms of the tashahhud to groups and individuals, each memorizing it in a different wording.”[4]

This is exactly what occurred with the Qurʾānic recitations, as Al-Shāfiʿī uses the example of the hadith of ʿUmar and Hishām bin Hakīm (may Allah be pleased with them), in which the Prophet (peace be upon him) confirmed both recitations, describing them as both divinely revealed.[5]

Al-Shāfiʿī also says:

“No one has the right to abandon a single letter of the Qurʾān except due to forgetfulness. This [issue of exactness] is less strict regarding the tashahhud and all forms of dhikr.”[6]

Al-Shāfiʿī’s comparison of the tashahhud to Qurʾānic recitation was a view held by the Sahabah before him. Al-Shāfiʿī narrated with his chain of transmission from Ibn ʿAbbās, who said: “The Prophet (peace be upon him) used to teach us the tashahhud just as he taught us a sūrah from the Qurʾān.”[7] Furthermore, Al-Aswad mentioned that ʿAbdullah bin Masʿūd used to teach them the tashahhud “just as he would teach us a surah from the Qurʾān, correcting us on every letter and conjunction (alif and wāw).”[8]

Al-Shāfiʿī’s position on the tashahhud is similar to that of Aḥmad bin Ḥanbal, although they differed in preference. Al-Shāfiʿī preferred the tashahhud of Ibn ʿAbbās, while Aḥmad preferred the tashahhud of ʿAbdullah bin Masʿūd. Aḥmad said:

“The tashahhud of ‘Abdullah is more pleasing to me, but if someone uses another version, it is still valid because the Prophet (peace be upon him) taught it in different forms, which indicates that all are permissible, just like the different Qurʾānic recitations that are included in the muṣḥaf.”[9]

The fact that both Al-Shāfiʿī and Ibn Ḥanbal compared the tashahhud to the recitations is no coincidence. The similarity is that both were taught word for word by the Prophet (peace be upon him).

Moreover, Al-Shāfiʿī set a condition for narrating hadith by meaning, saying: “If someone narrates a hadith by meaning, without knowing whether the altered meaning changes it, he may unknowingly turn what is lawful into unlawful.”[10]

Is it reasonable to believe that Al-Shāfiʿī would permit the general public—those for whom the seven aḥruf were revealed to ease their recitation of the Qurʾān—to recite the Qurʾān by meaning, while he prohibits this practice in hadith?

Furthermore, reciting the Qurʾān by meaning contradicts Al-Shāfiʿī ’s established position that the Qurʾān is uncreated. Al-Shāfiʿī debated his opponents on this issue and made strong declarations, even going as far as to declare takfīr on those who claimed the Qurʾān was created.[11] Such a belief is irreconcilable with Yasir Qadhi’s view that even human-created words introduced through the so-called “Divine Permission Model” could be considered Qurʾān. It is impossible for Al-Shāfiʿī or any other scholar of Ahl al-Sunnah to believe that interpretive recitations, which include synonyms, could be regarded as uncreated. This would equate human speech with Allah’s speech in terms of its eternal, uncreated nature.

Moreover, Al-Shāfiʿī considered even shaḏ recitations to be Qurʾān. He commented on the recitation “li-qabli ‘iddatihinna” (before their waiting period), saying:

“It is clear—and Allah knows best—in the Book of Allah, through the evidence of the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him), that the Qurʾān and Sunnah states concerning a menstruating woman who has consummated her marriage, as opposed to other divorced women, is that she is divorced before her waiting period.”[12]

This demonstrates that Al-Shāfiʿī regarded the preservation of the Qurʾān’s wording as sacred, even in cases of rare or irregular readings, and underscores his commitment to safeguarding the divine nature of the Qurʾān from any human alteration or interpretation.

I remain astonished by those who have attributed this view to Al-Shāfiʿī, while major Shafi‘i scholars, like Ibn Hibban and al-Suyuti, overlooked it when they listed the scholars’ interpretations of the seven aḥruf.

Note: Yasir Qadhi acknowledges the accuracy of our citation from Ikhtilāf al-hadith, where Al-Shāfiʿī clearly states that the Qurʾānic recitation was transmitted through direct oral instruction (talaqqī), not through interpretation by meaning. However, Qadhi sees no need to reconcile Al-Shāfiʿī ’s statements in al-Risāla with Ikhtilāf al-hadith. He said:

“Rather than try to force harmony between two obviously contradictory passages from two different locations of a work, it can be argued that al-Shāfi’i’s views on the tashahhud varied over time (as did many of his views), and at one instance he held one opinion, and at another he held a second.”[13]

This is unlikely. Al-Shāfiʿī has no ambiguous statement that proponents of this view can rely on, except his statement regarding the tashahhud. Moreover, his remarks in Ikhtilāf al-hadith clarify what he wrote in al-Risāla, leaving no need to claim a contradiction. It is also implausible to suggest that Al-Shāfiʿī, a towering scholar of the second century who lived alongside major Qurʾānic reciters, would so easily contradict himself on such a critical issue.

Al-Shāfiʿī ’s statement at the end of the chapter in al-Risāla supports the notion that multiple versions of a statement could have been transmitted from the Prophet (peace be upon him). For instance, when he preferred Ibn ʿAbbās’ wording for the tashahhud, he said:

“…and I heard it was authentic from Ibn ʿAbbās, and since it included more words than other versions, I adopted it. However, I do not criticize those who adopt other versions authentically transmitted from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him).”[14]

In other words, he would criticize those who adopted other versions of the tashahhud, let alone other recitations, if they were not authentic.

Qadhi said:

“The quote of al-Shafi’i on the ahruf cannot be easily dismissed since it explicitly links the concession of the ahruf to memory lapse: ‘[As a manifestation of] Allah’s mercy towards His creation, He revealed His Book in seven ahruf, knowing that one’s memory can be mistaken, so He permitted them to recite it even if they used a different word if the different word didn’t change the meaning.’”[15]

This does not explicitly indicate that the seven aḥruf were a concession for forgetfulness. At most, it implies that the varying wordings facilitated memorization, especially when the differences aligned with the reciter’s dialect.

Ibn Qutaybah (d. 276 AH):

Yasir Qadhi cites the following statement from Ibn Qutaybah:

Another polymath of that era was ibn Qutaybah (d.276 AH/890 AH). Commenting on the variant recitations ascribed to the Companions, he writes: If someone asks, “Is it permissible for us to read according to all these modes (wujuh)?” The response is as follows: It is permissible for us to read whatever corresponds to our codex and conforms to the ‘Uthmânic script, but we are not allowed to read anything contrary to that (i.e., the ‘UIthmānic script). As for the predecessors from the Companions and the Successors (this does not apply), because they read in their dialects (lughātihim) and remained upon their habits and allowed their natural instincts to take over, so these (variations) were permissible for them, and for some of the reciters after them, who were trustworthy regarding the revelation and aware of its correct interpretation.”

Ibn Qutaybah clearly allows for the first generations what he does not allow for his own and later generations: the ability to recite naturally and with a solid grasp of language, thereby ex-pressing the meaning even if using different wordings.[16]

If Yasir Qadhi intends to suggest that Ibn Qutaybah is saying that the Sahabah and the Tabiʿūn recited by meaning without direct transmission (talaqqī), then this is not found in Ibn Qutaybah’s words. In fact, Ibn Qutaybah clearly states on page 63:

“All of these ḥurūf are the words of Allah Almighty, revealed by the Trustworthy Spirit (Jibreel) to His Messenger (peace be upon him). Each Ramadan, he would review with him whatever had been revealed in the Qurʾān, and Allah would add what He willed, abrogate what He willed, and facilitate for His servants what He willed. Part of this facilitation was that Allah commanded him to teach each people to recite in their own dialect and according to their customary habits.”[17]

This passage makes it clear that Ibn Qutaybah believed that the recitations were directly revealed by Allah and taught by the Prophet (peace be upon him) according to the dialects of different groups. There is no mention of allowing interpretive recitations based on meaning without direct transmission. Instead, Ibn Qutaybah emphasizes that these variations were part of Allah’s divine facilitation for His servants, revealed through Jibreel and directly instructed by the Prophet.

Ismāʿīl al-Qāḍī (d. 282 AH):

Qadhi then presents a quote from Aḥkām al-Qurʾān by Abū Isḥāq Ismāʿīl al-Jahḍamī al-Qāḍī:

In that treatise, he mentions that ‘Umar ibn al-Khațtāb would recite ‘…so rush to the remembrance of Allah ‘(fa-s’aw ilā dhikr Allah) [62:9] as ‘…so come to the remembrance of Allah’ (fa-mdū ilā dhikr Allah.). He then comments:

“The recitation of those who said fa-mdū ilā dhikr-illāh is neither problematic nor rejected, since its meaning is like fa-s’aw ila dhikr Allah. Before the unification of the people upon one mushaf, the reciters from them [viz, the Companions] would differ with one another in this verse, and in other verses, but all the meanings would be similar. And it has been narrated from the Prophet that the Qur’ān has been revealed in seven ahruf, so permission was given for the people regarding differing in some words if the meanings were similar. Then, when the people were gathered together and united upon one mushaf, the recitation was only in accordance with its wording.”

Here once again, similar to previous quotations, we find the sentiment that the ‘seven ahruf’ represent word variations emanating from the Companions, as long as they were synonymous and the original meaning was conveyed.[18]

As Abū Isḥāq mentioned, the allowance for different readings does not mean that the reciter himself substituted words with their synonyms. The variant readings of فامضوا andفاسعوا are indeed close in meaning, and based on the various narrations in this matter, it is apparent that both terms were part of the readings taught by the Prophet (peace be upon him). Abū Isḥāq himself reports this reading from ʿUmar, Ubayy bin Kaʿb, Ibn Masʿūd, and Ibn al-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with them),[19] all of whom recited فامضوا. Is it reasonable to think that all of these senior Sahabah made a mistake or deliberately contradicted what they heard from the Prophet? Or could we say that one of them opted for فامضوا as a concession for any difficulty in reciting فاسعوا? No, the consensus of a group of senior Sahabah on this reading indicates that it was divinely revealed, just as the consensus of ʿUthmān, Zayd, and the other members of the committee on the readingفاسعوا also indicates its divine origin.

What further supports this understanding is that Abū Isḥāq explicitly requires certainty in Qurʾānic recitations and rejects any readings that contradict the muṣḥaf and cannot be verified as authentic. He states:

“Similarly, the reports of the readings of Ibn Masʿūd and others should not be recited today… because the people are uncertain that these are the readings of ʿAbdullah. Rather, these are only transmitted by some narrators of hadith… Thus, abandoning what is certain in favor of what is not definitively known is not permissible.”[20]

The certainty here refers to a recitation being reliably traced back to the Prophet (peace be upon him), not that the recitations were based on the whims or mistakes of the Sahabah. For how could we speak of certainty regarding the readings of the Sahabah if their recitations were merely the result of their personal whims, errors, or “unintentional lapses”?

Abū ʿAwānah (d. 316 AH):

Abū ʿAwānah has a chapter titled:

“Chapter on the Flexibility in Reciting the Qurʾān as Long as the Meaning is Not Compromised and There is No Disagreement on What is Lawful and Unlawful, and that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was Granted a Request for Every Letter.”

Abū ʿAwānah then mentioned hadiths supporting his chapter, including a narration from al-Zuhrī in which he said:

“It has reached me that these seven aḥruf are only in matters that are uniform and do not differ in what is lawful and unlawful.”[21]

That is what he means by saying: “as long as the meaning is not compromised and there is no disagreement on what is lawful and unlawful,” in the chapter title.

He also narrated a hadith from Ubayy, stating that Allah sent a message to the Prophet (peace be upon him): “Recite on seven aḥruf, and for every recitation, you will be granted a request.” The Prophet (peace be upon him) then said: “O Allah, forgive my ummah, O Allah, forgive my ummah, O Allah, forgive my ummah,” and he postponed the fourth request for a day when all creation would need him, even Prophet Ibrāhīm (peace be upon him).[22]

However, did Abū ‘Awānah understand this allowance as unconditional, permitting recitation using synonyms without prior transmission? Referring to the hadiths in this chapter indicates that recitation was only received from the Prophet (peace be upon him). For instance, we find a narration from Hishām bin Hakīm, who said: “The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) recited it to me.” ʿUmar responded: “You are lying, for by Allah, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) recited to me the same sūrah that I heard you reciting.”[23]

Abū ‘Awānah also narrated the hadith of Ubayy in which the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “Jibrīl came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) while he was by the water basin of Banū Ghifār and said: ‘Indeed, Allah commands you to teach your ummah the Qurʾān in one ḥarf… Then, your Lord commands you to teach your ummah the Qurʾān in two aḥruf… Then, Allah commands you to teach your ummah the Qurʾān in three aḥruf… Then, Allah commands you to teach your ummah the Qurʾān in seven aḥruf.’”[24] This confirms that the Qurʾānic recitation was transmitted through direct reception.

There is no evidence in this chapter that recitation was based on personal preference, except for the hadith of Anas, in which it is mentioned: “When the Prophet (peace be upon him) dictated to a scribe the phrase (All-Hearing, All-Knowing), the scribe wrote (All-Hearing, All-Seeing); or when he dictated (All-Knowing, All-Wise), the scribe wrote (All-Knowing, All-Forbearing). The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: ‘Leave it as it is.’”

This hadith does not contradict the previous one. It is possible that the verse was revealed in both recitations: (All-Knowing, All-Wise) and (All-Knowing, All-Forbearing), and the scribe wrote whichever he preferred. This has no bearing on the permissibility of reciting by meaning, as (All-Wise) and (All-Forbearing) do not share the same meaning.

This is the position of a group of scholars regarding this hadith, such as al-Zuhrī, al-Ṭabarī, al-Bayhaqī, Qiwām al-Sunnah, al-Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ, Ibn Taymiyyah, and Ibn Balbān.[25] Therefore, Abū ‘Awānah’s mere mention of this hadith in his chapter does not indicate his acceptance of recitation by meaning.

Al-Ṭaḥāwī (d. 321 AH):

Refer to our article on al-Ṭaḥāwī’s position regarding the seven aḥruf.

Ibn Shanaboodh (d. 328 AH) and Ibn Miqsam (d. 354 AH)

Yasir Qadhi said:

In particular, the famous cases of ibn Shanabūdh and ibn Miqsam should be kept in mind: both of them attempted to defend their views (which clearly stem from the Divine Permission model) and claimed that earlier scholars also adopted their position. However, ibn Muqlah was successful in silencing them and others, either with actual punishments and torture or through threats of it.[26]

What is important in this statement are two points made by Yasir Qadhi: “which clearly stem from the Divine Permission model” and that they “claimed that earlier scholars also adopted their position.”

The first statement implicitly acknowledges that they did not assert the idea of Divine Permission Model. Ibn Shanaboodh recited non-standard variations that differed from the muṣḥaf if the chain of transmission from a companion was authentic. This was essentially leniency in accepting qirāʾāt, for which he was punished, even though it is undeniable that the early generations recited variations that differed from the muṣḥaf in the beginning. Ibn Shanaboodh’s recitation of the Sahabah’s qirāʾāt that differed from the muṣḥaf has nothing to do with the concept of Divine Permission.[27]

As for Ibn Miqsam, he adhered to qirāʾāt that conformed to the muṣḥaf. However, he introduced a reprehensible innovation by permitting recitation according to any valid linguistic expression, even if it was not transmitted from the traditional reciters, as long as it matched the skeletal text. This has no relation to transmission or divine dispensation, nor does it require producing meanings close to the established readings. Furthermore, Ibn Miqsam did not claim that this was the practice of earlier scholars, and even if he had tried to attribute it to them, he would not have been able to substantiate such a claim.[28]

Ibn Khālawayh (d. 370 AH):

Qadhi said:

“As well, the grammarian and linguist ibn Khālawayh (d. 370 AH/980CE) explicitly mentions in his work on qirāʾāt both of these opinions without himself offering his own preference: If someone asks: ‘Did all of these wordings descend down upon the Prophet with all of these differences and variations, or was it only revealed in one wording…’ then the answer to this is that one group said: ‘It was thus revealed, in seven ahruf and from seven doors during the presentations that Jibril would bring down every year…’ And others said, ‘Rather, the Qur’an was revealed in the dialect of the Quraysh, with one harf… then the Prophet commanded, as a concession and ease upon his Ummah, that each group could recite in their dialect…’”[29]

Nothing in this indicates the permissibility of arbitrary recitation based on the personal choice of the reciter. Rather, the context of the discussion suggests that the Prophet (peace be upon him) taught them to recite in their own dialects. What Ibn Khālawayh mentioned is in response to the following question:

فإن سأل سائل، فقال: أهذه الحروف نزلت على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بهذا الاختلاف والوجوه، أم نزلت بحرف واحد، قرأها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم باللغات؟

“If someone were to ask: ‘Were these aḥruf revealed to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) in this diverse manner, or were they revealed in a single harf, and the Prophet (peace be upon him) recited them in multiple dialects?’”[30]

Thus, this was the original question before Yasir Qadhi truncated it. From this, it is understood that Ibn Khālawayh meant that the second opinion also involved transmission (talaqqī), even though it was not considered part of the revelation itself.

Abū al-Layth al-Samarqandī (d. 375 AH):

Qadhi said:

“We find, for example, the famous Hanafi jurist and Qur’an commentator Abū al-Layth al-Samarqandī (d. 373 AH/983 CE) mentioning both of these possibilities (viz., the Dictation Model and the Divine Permission) with regards to the origin of the synonymous readings of the sab’a ahruf: ‘People have differed about verses that are recited according to two readings. Some said that God has revealed one recitation but granted permission for both readings, and some have said He revealed both of them.’”

While he himself goes on to prefer the latter opinion, what is significant is that he appears rather nonchalant with respect to both opinions and considers them to be legitimate opinions.[31]

Here is the full text:

“People differed concerning the verses that were recited in two different ways. Some said that Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, said both. What is confirmed for us, and Allah knows best, is that if each reading has a different interpretation from the other, then He said both, so they became like two verses. An example is His saying: ‘Do not approach them until they purify themselves’ (al-Baqarah: 222). The meaning of the first is until their menstruation ceases, and the meaning of the second is until they have performed the ghusl. Similarly, this applies to all such cases. However, if the two readings have the same interpretation, such as biyūt and buyūt, or muḥṣanāt and muḥṣināt, then He said only one, but permitted us to recite both, allowing each tribe to recite according to their habitual dialect.”[32]

There is nothing in Abū al-Layth’s statement that indicates he believed the Sahabah recited based on personal preference. The discussion revolves around what Allah, the Exalted, has said. The apparent meaning of his words is that Allah revealed one reading and permitted the recitation of the other. Look at the examples al-Samarqandī mentioned, such as biyūt and muḥṣanāt—does this resemble what Yasir Qadhi attributes to him concerning “divine permission” that includes forgetfulness?

Al-Samarqandī further explains the difference in readings for the verse on ablution:

“If each reading has a different meaning from the other, then Allah, the Exalted, said both, and the two readings become like two separate verses. But if the two readings have the same meaning, then Allah, the Exalted, said one, but allowed the recitation of both.”[33]

Ibn Jinnī (d. 392 AH):

Yasir Qadhi claims that Ibn Jinnī was hesitant about whether the synonymous readings had a prophetic origin, stating:

“Ibn Jinnī (d. 391/1102), writing towards the latter part of the fourth century, also seems to vacillate regarding the origins of these different synonyms. Earlier in his seminal work on qirā’āt, in discussing Anas’ variant recitation of [9:57], he writes:

‘It is possible for a critic to find fault regarding the recitation, and for one to say: these wordings are not all from the Prophet, since otherwise it would not be allowed to substitute a word for another…But our assumption regarding Anas is that he must have heard these three synonyms from the Prophet.’

While acknowledging there is no actual evidence to suggest Prophetic origin, ibn Jinnī invokes a theological sentiment that suggests it would be improper to assume qirā’ah bi-l-maʿnā. In other words, despite any evidence to suggest this, ibn Jinnī states that one’s religious notions regarding the Qur’an would want us to prefer the Dictation Model over the Divine Permission one.”[34]

On the contrary, Ibn Jinnī did present his evidence. He said:

“But our assumption regarding Anas is that he must have heard these three synonyms ‘yajmaḥū,’ ‘yajmazūn,’ and ‘yashtaddūn’ from the Prophet (peace be upon him), based on his statement: The Qurʾān was revealed in seven aḥruf, all of them are sufficient and complete.”[35]

The apparent meaning of this narration was sufficient for Ibn Jinnī, as opposed to Qadhi who claimed that “there is no actual evidence to suggest Prophetic origin.”

Furthermore, if these variants originated from Anas, Ibn Jinnī would have regarded it as a corruption of the Qurʾān, stating that substituting synonymous words in poetry is permissible only because it is not a part of religion.[36]

Also, if Qadhi had referred to the introduction of Ibn Jinnī’s work, he would have realized that Ibn Jinnī believed that much of what is termed shādh (irregular readings) is actually established from the Prophet (peace be upon him). He criticized those who avoided these readings, stating: “We believe in the strength of what is called shādh, that it is among what Allah commanded us to accept and act upon its implications, and that it is beloved to Him, and a statement approved by Him.”[37]

This directly conflicts with Qadhi who believes that what does not match the ʿUthmānic skeleton is not from Allah the Exalted.

Qadhi then continued to attempt to establish his case, presenting other variants from Anas, before quoting Ibn Jinnī:

“However, later in the same book, when discussing Anas’ variant recitation of [73:6], he writes:

‘And this leads us to believe that they (i.e., the Companions) would take into account the meanings and stick with that. Once they extracted the meaning and protected it, they permitted themselves to express it otherwise.[38]

Ibn Jinnī’s statement, “And this leads us to believe…” indicates that this is the apparent meaning of the narration from Anas. However, as I previously pointed out, he does not believe this is the actual case, for his good opinion of Anas prevents him from accusing him of corrupting the Qurʾān. This is consistent with Ibn Jinnī’s approach toward all his predecessors, as he also rejects the idea of non-transmitted recitations from figures like Qatādah[39] and al-Aʿmash.[40]

Qadhi continues:

“And when he discusses Anas’ variant recitation of [94:2], in which Anas explicitly links qirā’ah bi-l-ma’na with the hadith of sab’a ahruf, he adds, ‘A similar report has preceded from Anas in this regard, and it is this [incident] and similar ones which has allowed the proliferation of these qirā’āt.’ It is clear that ibn Jinnī himself vacillated between the two models, and the later position he leaned towards was the Divine Permission model.”[41]

This statement does not indicate that Ibn Jinnī explicitly retracted his earlier view. His phrase “and it is this [incident] and similar ones which has allowed the proliferation of these qirā’āt,” can be understood to mean that the meanings are closely related and that the Prophet (peace be upon him) recited them all. If Ibn Jinnī intended to retract his earlier position, he would have pointed that out or deleted his initial commentary before finalizing the text. Reconciling the texts of an author, when possible, should be prioritizes over assuming that they are contradicting themselves, especially when the texts are from the same book.

Abū Shāma al-Maqdisī (d. 665 AH):

Qadhi said:

“For example, Abū Shāma al-Maqdisī (d. 665 AH/1267 CE) in his listing of the opinions regarding the ahruf, clearly references the opinion of al-qirā āh bi-l-maʿnā. He explains:

‘So the meaning of this tradition that ..there are amongst them the old, and young boys and girls, and those who have never read,’ is that a concession was made for them to substi-tute its wordings with other words that would give the same meaning or approximate its meanings -from one different synonym to up to seven. And they were not required to protect one specific wording, since the Qur’ān was revealed to an illiterate nation that was not accustomed to being taught or rote memorization.’”[42]

First, Yasir Qadhi notes in the footnotes of the same page that this is not Abū Shāma’s personal view, and we agree with him on this point. In fact, Abū Shāma affirms recitation by direct transmission (talaqqī) in various places in his works.[43]

As for what Yasir Qadhi cited, it affirms the literal number seven for the aḥruf. Anyone who holds that the number seven is literal must also believe that these aḥruf were transmitted from the Prophet (peace be upon him). It would not make sense to limit the aḥruf to seven if people were free to replace words with synonyms of their own accord. Unless someone argues that each person could replace a word with seven different synonyms—which would be difficult to understand as a facilitation—this would contradict the intent of the ḥadith.

In conclusion, the opinion of recitation by synonyms conflicts with both the notion of a literal seven aḥruf and the tradition of recitation by direct transmission from the Prophet (peace be upon him). Abū Shāma, as a scholar of Qurʾānic recitation, strongly emphasizes that the aḥruf must be traced back to the Prophet, thus rejecting the idea that individuals could recite based on personal interpretation or replacement of words.

Al-Muʿallimī (1386 AH):

Refer to Sheikh Joe Bradford’s article on Al-Muʿallimī’s stance regarding the seven aḥruf here.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, I urge the esteemed reader to exercise caution when encountering theories challenging established principles. By returning to the original sources cited by the author, one will often find that what is attributed to them differs from what they actually said.

Allah, the Most High, knows best. May blessings and peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and Sahabah.

Sources:

  • Abū ʿAwāna, Yaʿqūb bin Isḥāq. Al-Musnad Al-Ṣaḥīḥ Al-Mustakhraj. Medina: Islamic University, 1435 AH.
  • Al-Baghdādī, al-Khaṭīb. Tārīkh Baghdād. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1425 AH.
  • Al-Dānī, Jāmi‘ al-Bāyan fī al-Qirā’āt al-Sab‘. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1426 AH.
  • Al-Jahḍamī, Abū Isḥāq. Aḥkām al-Qurʾān. Sayyed Junaid International Award for the Holy Quran Edition, 1431 AH.
  • Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, Al-Kifāyah. Samanud: Maktabat Ibn ‘Abbās, 2002 CE.
  • Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, Tārīkh Baghdād. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah.
  • Al-Maqdisī, Abū Shāma. Al-Murshid al-Wajīz. Kuwait: Maktabat al-Dhahabi, 1413AH.
  • Al-Maqdisī, Abū Shāma. Ibrāz al-Maʿānī. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah.
  • Al-Qaysī, Makkī bin Abī Ṭālib, Al-Ibanah ‘an Ma’ani al-Qira’at. Beirut: Kitab – Publishers, 1432 AH.
  • Al-Samarqandī, Abū al-Layth. Baḥr al-ʿUlūm. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1413 AH.
  • Al-Samarqandī, Abū al-Layth. Bustān al-ʿĀrifīn. Delhi: Dār al-Fārūq.
  • Al-Shāfiʿī. Muḥammad bin Idrīs. Al-Risāla. Cairo: Dār al-Āthār, 1429 AH.
  • Al-Shāfiʿī. Muḥammad bin Idrīs. Al-Umm. Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 1426 AH.
  • Al-Shāfiʿī. Muḥammad bin Idrīs. Ikhtilāf al-Hadith. Beirut: Muʾasasat al-Kutub al-Thaqāfiyya, 1405 AH.
  • Al-Ṭabarī, Muḥammad bin Jarīr. Jāmiʿ al-Bayān fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1412 AH.
  • Al-Ṭaḥāwī, Abū Jaʿfar. Matn Al-ʿAqīdah Al-Ṭaḥāwiyyah. Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 1416 AH.
  • Al-Ṭaḥāwī, Abū Jaʿfar. Tuḥfat al-Akhyār bi Tartīb Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār. Riyadh: Dār Balansiyyah, 1420 AH.
  • Ibn Abī Shaybah, Abū Bakr, al-Muṣannaf. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1416 AH.
  • Ibn Al-Jazarī, Muḥammad bin Muḥammad. Al-Nashr fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 2011 CE.
  • Ibn Ḥajar, Aḥmad bin ʿAlī. Fatḥ Al-Bārī. Riyadh: Dār al-Salam, 1421 AH.
  • Ibn Jinnī, ʿUthmān. Al-Muḥtasib. Dār Sezgin, 1403 AH.
  • Ibn Khālawayh, al-Ḥusain bin Aḥmad. Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān. Cairo: Maktabat al-Khānjī, 1413 AH.
  • Ibn Qudāma, Muwaffaq al-Dīn. Al-Mughnī. Riyadh: Dār ʿĀlam al-Kutub, 1997 CE.
  • Ibn Sallām, Al-Qāsim. Faḍāʾil al-Qurʾān. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1411 AH.
  • Marʿī, Muhannā Sālim. Al-Rasāʾil wal-Masāʾil Al-Mansūba lil-Imām Al-Shāfiʿī. London: Markaz Takwīn, 1438 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.

 

  1. This second recitation is anomalous, conflicting with the ʿUthmānic codex, and is therefore, not recited today. ↑
  2. Al-Baghdādī, al-Kifāyah 2/25 ↑
  3. This number was determined by Ustadh Fadel Soliman during his work on translating the Qirāʾāt into English. ↑
  4. Al-Shāfiʿī, Ikhtilāf al-Ḥadīth p. 71 ↑
  5. Al-Shāfiʿī, al-Risālah p. 287 ↑
  6. Al-Shāfiʿī, Ikhtilāf al-Ḥadīth 71-72 ↑
  7. Ibid. p. 70 ↑
  8. Ibn Abī Shaybah, 1/262 ↑
  9. Ibn Qudāma, 2/222 ↑
  10. Al-Shāfiʿī, al-Risālah p. 357 ↑
  11. See: al-Rasāʾil wa al-Masāʾil al-ʿAqdīyah al-Mansūbah lil-Imām al-Shāfiʿī pp. 242-247, and pp. 500-504. ↑
  12. Al-Shāfiʿī, al-Umm 2/1934 ↑
  13. Qadhi, pp. 260-261 ↑
  14. Al-Shāfiʿī, al-Risālah, p. 289 ↑
  15. Qadhi, p. 261 ↑
  16. Qadhi, p. 238 ↑
  17. Ibn Qutaybah, p. 32 ↑
  18. Qadhi, p. 239 ↑
  19. Al-Jahḍamī, pp. 193-196. ↑
  20. Al-Qaysī, p. 153 ↑
  21. Abū ʿAwānah, 11/73 ↑
  22. Ibid. 11/71 ↑
  23. Ibid. 11/75 ↑
  24. Ibid. 11/68-69 ↑
  25. See: al-Daʿāwī fī Khabar Riddat Kātibī al-Qurʾān ʿAraḍ wa Naqṣ, Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Ṭāsān, Majallat al-ʿUlūm al-Sharʿīyah, Jāmiʿat al-Qasīm, vol. 15, Issue 2, pp. 566-567. ↑
  26. Qadhi, pp. 255-256 ↑
  27. Al-Baghdādī, Tārīkh Baghdād, 1/296 ↑
  28. Al-Baghdādī, Tārīkh Baghdād, 2/203 ↑
  29. Qadhi, pp. 242-243 ↑
  30. Ibn Khālawayh, 1/18 ↑
  31. Qadhi, p. 242 ↑
  32. Bustān al-ʿĀrifīn pp. 74-75 ↑
  33. Baḥr al-ʿUlūm 1/419 ↑
  34. Qadhi, p. 243 ↑
  35. Ibn Jinnī, 1/296 ↑
  36. Ibid., 1/297-298 ↑
  37. Ibid., 1/33 ↑
  38. Qadhi, p. 244 ↑
  39. Ibn Jinnī, 1/84 ↑
  40. Ibid., 1/85 ↑
  41. Qadhi, p. 244 ↑
  42. Qadhi, p. 246 ↑
  43. Al-Murshid al-Wajīz (pp. 307, 324, 370), and Ibrāz al-Maʿānī (pp. 3, 412). ↑

Posted

in

by

أبو عبد الله

Tags: