The opinions of the scholar Abdul Rahman bin Yahya Al-Muallami on the seven Aḥruf and Quranic readings

Joe Bradford*

Research Summary:

This research deals with the issue of the Seven Aḥruf (Seven Modes) and Qur’anic readings by studying the views of the scholar ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Yaḥyā al-Mu’allamī. The research reviews the concept of the Seven Aḥruf and their interpretation according to al-Mu’allamī, with a focus on his attitude towards Qirā’ah bil-Ma’nā (reading by meaning). The research begins by analyzing the chronology of al-Mu’allamī’s writings, then reviews his views in his various books, with a focus on his book (al-Anwār al-Kāshifah). The research discusses al-Mu’allamī’s vision of the revelation of the Qur’an on an original ḥarf (mode) and six additional aḥruf, and the role of ‘Uthmān’s compilation of the Qur’an in controlling these aḥruf. The research also addresses the ambiguity in some of al-Mu’allamī’s phrases that may suggest his acceptance of Qirā’ah bil-Ma’nā. The research concludes that al-Mu’allamī considers the Seven Aḥruf an integral part of the revelation, and that it is not possible to say with certainty that he supports Qirā’ah bil-Ma’nā in the broad sense. The research concludes that al-Mu’allamī’s words that may suggest acceptance of Qirā’ah bil-Ma’nā are either general statements interpreted by his words in other places, or they are restricted by narrow conditions and limits, which makes it difficult to consider him a supporter of Qirā’ah bil-Ma’nā according to the model of absolute “divine license.”

 

In the name of God, the most Merciful, the most Compassionate

Introduction:

Praise be to God, Lord of the Worlds, and blessings and peace be upon the most honorable of the prophets and messengers, our Prophet Muhammad and his family and companions.

The issue of the Seven Aḥruf and Qur’anic readings is one of the important issues that have preoccupied scholars, both ancient and modern, because of its profound impact on the understanding and recitation of the Holy Qur’an. Debates about it have been renewed in the present era, especially with the emergence of some new views attempting to reinterpret this issue. This includes what the famous author and preacher Dr. Yasir Qadhī published in an article entitled: “The Seven Aḥruf: A Study in Explaining the Relevance of Saying the Divine License in the Aḥruf”.^[1] The author followed the views of Ṣāliḥ ibn Sulaymān al-Rājiḥī on many issues, with the addition of new conclusions that require consideration and discussion.

Amid these discussions, the author introduced a number of names claimed as proponents of his theory of aḥruf. Among them is the scholar ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Yaḥyā al-Mu’allamī al-Yamānī, who was quoted in some sayings about the issue of aḥruf and readings and the position of the Companions on them. Therefore, this research deals with the study of al-Mu’allamī’s views on the issue of the Seven Aḥruf and Qur’anic readings, with a focus on his position on Qirā’ah bil-Ma’nā (recitation by meaning) and then looking at the proximity of the author’s opinion to it or its distance from it.

The author’s use of al-Muallami’s opinion on Qirā’ah bil-Ma’nā^[2]

The author says:

“This view, and what it entails, is also found in the writings of scholars in later periods, up to the modern era. ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Yaḥyā al-Mu’allamī (d. 1966), who has a reputation as an outspoken supporter of the Ahl al-Ḥadīth school, explicitly wrote that the aḥruf represent variations in words that indicate synonymous readings, and sometimes the Companions would substitute words that they did not hear from the Prophet (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him): ‘The condition of the illiterate has necessitated permission for them in general to read by meaning, even if that is in the Qur’an, even though its words are intended for themselves, because it is the word of the Lord of the worlds.’”

As the author says in his comment on the quotes from al-Mu’allamī:

“Note that his position is a modification from what is stated in this article: he claims that one ḥarf was revealed as a default original ḥarf, and that some synonymous words were also read by Jibrīl to the Prophet (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him) who taught these discrepancies to the Companions, but not all the discrepancies that came from the Companions were from the Prophet (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him); He explicitly states that the Companions sometimes used to change the words they used, even if they had not heard these from the Prophet (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him).”

What is noticeable about the author in this paper in general and in this quotation in particular, is the inaccuracy in quoting from those he relied on to support his theory about the aḥruf. This becomes clear to the reader when reading al-Mu’allamī’s own texts, which I quoted in full – as a matter of Academic honesty – for the reader to see and judge for themselves.^[3]

The author’s opinion on the Seven Aḥruf

The author believes that the aḥruf and their interpretation go back to “two models”. In the above text, he says “this opinion”, meaning “the opinion of Qirā’ah bil-Ma’nā” as he claims, which he called in his paper: “the model of divine license” which is “… the alternative model…” to what he called “the instruction model”.^[4]

Therefore, the two models are:

1. (The instruction model) referring to transmission of the Aḥruf,
2. The (divine license model) referring to reading by meaning or Qirā’ah bil-Ma’nā.

Here’s what the author means by each.

The “instruction model” referring to transmission of the Aḥruf

The author defines the “instruction model” as follows: “… The ‘instruction model’ is ‘the prevailing opinion…’ in the eyes of the author, which he defined as: ‘…that the Aḥruf are basically differences between the dialects of the Arabs, and that the third caliph ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān – may Allah be pleased with him – deliberately got rid of most of the Aḥruf, but intentionally preserved some of them as allowed by the written text, and that these preserved discrepancies eventually formed the basis for readings, and that all the discrepancies are within those Aḥruf, and then it can be said that the Prophet (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him) recited all these readings (in total).’”

According to the author, the “instruction model” assumes that the Prophet Muhammad recited all the readings in total, giving them prophetic legitimacy. However, the diversity currently present in the readings represents only a limited part of the original Aḥruf, as a result of the selection process carried out by ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān. However, this definition is incomplete, which leaves the fair observer with questions about what is meant by it, according to the author’s own understanding of the opinion of the masses of scholars, ancient and modern. These questions include:

• Does the author believe that the Aḥruf originated from the diversity of Arabic dialects only or were they revealed from the Lord of the Worlds?
• Does he consider the reception of these readings from the Prophet as his approval of human effort, or were they received from him as revelation?
• What is his stance on the role of revelation in determining these Aḥruf?

There is no doubt that the majority of scholars agree that the source of the Aḥruf is the revelation sent down to Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and that they are divinely ordained by Allah Almighty, not merely a product of Arabic linguistic diversity or human effort. They view these Aḥruf as an integral part of divine revelation, believing that the Prophet received them from Allah and that the Companions received them from him (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) as they were revealed to him, and that his approval of them was by divine command and not by personal effort.^[5]

The “divine license model” referring to Qirā’ah bil-Ma’nā

The “model of divine permission” – as defined by the author – or “divine license” as he called it in places, proceeds from a claim “… that the ‘Seven Aḥruf’ is a divine facility that allowed the companions to recite the Qur’an according to their dialects and according to the purpose of what they can remember, provided that it does not prejudice the meaning. In this model, the Prophet (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him) recited the Qur’an in one way (one letter), but the Companions were authorized to recite it in ‘several modes, and in ‘different forms’, (which is the simplest way to translate the phrase ‘Seven Aḥruf’) as long as the meaning is preserved.”

According to the author’s claim, the Qur’an was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad on one ḥarf, while the other Aḥruf are from the personal efforts of the Companions to approximate the meaning and their attempt to agree with the Prophet’s ḥarf in meaning, which were then approved by the Prophet. This statement — which perhaps no one has ever said in the history of Islam — is considered correct and acceptable (per the author’s claim) when the original meaning of the verses is preserved, even if the words or formulas used differ from what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) recited. According to this view, the Companions were allowed to recite the Qur’an and initiate the use of various words and formulas that correspond to their dialects and what they can recollect, provided that the meaning remains preserved without prejudice.

In other words, the permission to do so was a “divine facilitation” for the sources of the difference in words and the source of the changes in the six extra Aḥruf and therefore in the Qur’anic readings to be human in nature, and these differences stem from two main factors:

First, the difference in dialects and words, which emanates from the personal efforts of the Companions. This difference did not only lead to a diversity in the ways of pronunciation and performance, but also to a difference in the nature of the vocabulary of the verses unless the meaning changed.

Second, the limited ability of the Companions to memorize affected how they remembered and recited verses. This means that some of the differences in Aḥruf and readings — indeed many of them — arose from the human abilities of the Companions, i.e., they came from humankind and not the Lord of mankind.

Therefore, these Aḥruf and their differences – in the author’s opinion – arose from the human abilities of the Companions and not from the revelation received from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

Contradictions between the author’s view and the consensus of scholars

Based on the preceding, there are several fundamental contradictions between the author’s view and the consensus of scholars regarding the Seven Aḥruf:

1. Source of Aḥruf: While the author believes that they originated from the linguistic diversity and human abilities of the Companions, All scholars of Islam consider them to be tawqīfiyyah (divinely ordained) and revelation from Allah Almighty. The scholars of Islam have rejected the notion that the Qur’an has a human source. To illustrate this, it suffices to consider what Imam Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī said in his interpretation of Allah’s words in Sūrat Al-Naḥl: “And We certainly know that they say, ‘It is only a human being who teaches him.’ The tongue of the one they refer to is foreign, and this is a clear Arabic language.” (16:103) Al-Ṭabarī said: “(Allah), exalted be His mention, says: We certainly know that these polytheists say, out of their ignorance: ‘Muhammad is only taught this which he recites by a human being from among the sons of Adam, and it is not from Allah.’ Allah, exalted be His mention, says, refuting them in their statement: ‘Do you not know the falsehood of what you say?’…”^[6].
2. The role of the Prophet: The author assumes that the Prophet recited the Qur’an in one way and authorized the Companions to recite in different ways that arose from themselves, while the position of the scholars of Islam is that the Prophet received all the Aḥruf from the Lord of the worlds and taught them to the Companions as they were revealed to him.
3. The nature of differences: The author considers these differences to be a result of the personal efforts of the Companions and their limited memorization abilities, which includes error, forgetfulness and inability, while the position of Islamic scholars is that they are an integral part of divine revelation.
4. Limits of change: The author allows changing words and formulas as long as the meaning is preserved, whereas the scholars agree that the Aḥruf are divinely ordained and there is no room therein for personal interpretation.

These differences reflect a profound discrepancy in the understanding of the origin and nature of these Aḥruf between the author and Islamic scholars.

[remainder of the research can be found in the Arabic original]

Conclusion on al-Mu’allamī’s position regarding reading by meaning

It is clear from the study of al-Mu’allamī’s views on the issue of Qur’anic Aḥruf and recitations that he considers them an integral part of revelation, not a result of individual effort, nor as the result of error, forgetfulness or shortcomings. It is also evident from al-Mu’allamī’s words that the different readings were a source of concern for some of the Companions at the beginning, until the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) explained to them the validity of all these readings. There was strong objection among the Companions when they heard Aḥruf that they had not heard directly from the Prophet – despite these being among the seven revealed Aḥruf. This indicated their keenness to receive the Aḥruf and that these were specific and known to them, and that any reading outside of them was categorically rejected. It is certain, therefore, that if they had heard readings completely outside the scope of the Seven Aḥruf received from him (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) — let alone personal mistakes or forgetfulness — their rejection of this would have been even stronger and more forceful.

As for quotes from al-Mu’allamī’s that might suggest an unrestricted acceptance of reading by meaning – as claimed by the author Dr. Yasir Qadhī – then such quotes (as demonstrated herein) are either general statements that should be interpreted in light of al-Mu’allamī’s words in other places about the permissibility of reading synonymously within the boundaries of the Seven Aḥruf, and are therefore not a general permission to do so. Even if we were to accept such an idea – they would be restricted by narrow limits and strict conditions as explained, and would not be part of the Quran. It is important to note that al-Mu’allamī did not provide evidence for this, other than summarizing Ibn Ḥajar’s view^[7], which makes us unable to definitively determine al-Mu’allamī’s opinion on the subject.^[8]

The conclusion, then, is the same: we cannot consider al-Mu’allamī to support reading by meaning and thus supporting a “divine license model ” as claimed by the author, neither from near nor from afar.

Final Considerations

Finally, it’s worth noting that if the author, in an attempt to reinforce his purported theory, fails to accurately represent al-Mu’allimī’s opinion despite the abundance and accessibility of his works in both print and digital libraries, how can we trust his claims about the opinions of scholars whose sources are more difficult to verify? The fact that al-Mu’allimī’s works are widely respected, published, and easily accessible, yet we see such inaccurate citation, lack of thorough investigation, and failure to comprehensively analyze readily available material, raises serious concerns. This becomes even more problematic when considering what the author attributes to distinguished scholars who allegedly support his theory, especially if their works are rare or have received little attention.

It’s evident that the author often relies on attributing statements to scholars based on limited, out-of-context quotes, which he may interpret in his own way. This approach is insufficient to establish a theory or attribute an opinion to a scholar. The issue becomes even more critical when he attempts to prove this theory and attribute it to the first generation of Muslims, the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), and those who followed them. He presents only vague generalities that require clarification, or weak, even flimsy evidence, sometimes with no credible source or attribution. Such an approach cannot form the basis for an opinion on minor issues, let alone on a matter as significant as the words of Allah, the Qur’an. This flawed methodology casts doubt on the credibility of the author’s other statements and claims and undermines confidence in his ability to analyze texts and draw sound conclusions.

And Allah knows best.

May Allah’s blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and his companions.

1. It seems that the origin of this article is the translation of an English paper previously presented in an academic workshop. While this is not mentioned in the article, it is probably the main reason for its thinness of style and poor construction in Arabic. ↑
2. – In this English summary, we will use Qirā’ah bil-Ma’nā to refer to the idea that the Quran can be read or recited according to its meaning, not following its revealed text. ↑
3. For the full quotes, please consult the Arabic original. ↑
4. English footnote: It is important to note that this opinion is unique to the author. While scholars of the past spoke about reading by meaning, they did not present this as a competing theory to the transmission of the Aḥruf through instruction. This is an innovation created by the author in contrast to all scholars of Islam. ↑
5. See: Al-Qur’ān wa Naqḍ Maṭā’in al-Ruhbān 1/645 by Ṣalāḥ al-Khālidī, Rasm al-Muṣḥaf wa Ḍabṭuhu bayna al-Tawqīf wa al-Iṣṭilāḥāt al-Ḥadīthah 1/8 by Sha’bān Ismā’īl, Manāhil al-‘Irfān fī ‘Ulūm al-Qur’ān 1/145 by al-Zarqānī, Al-Madkhal li-Dirāsat al-Qur’ān al-Karīm 1/185 by Muḥammad Abū Shahbah, Al-Mawsū’ah al-Qur’āniyyah al-Mutakhaṣṣiṣah 1/116 by a group of authors, Sharḥ al-‘Aqīdah al-Ṭaḥāwiyyah 2/430 by Ibn Abī al-‘Izz, Al-Budūr al-Zāhirah fī al-Qirā’āt al-‘Ashr al-Mutawātirah 1/15 by Abū Ḥafṣ al-Nashshār, and Muqaddimāt fī ‘Ilm al-Qirā’āt 1/15 by a group of authors. ↑
6. Tafsir al-Tabari 17/298 i. Mu’assa al-Risāla. ↑
7. English footnote: It’s important to note that Ibn Ḥajar’s full opinion aligns with other Islamic scholars: Qirā’ah bil-Ma’nā refers to variances in readings that are divinely ordained and revealed by Allah. Al-Mu’allamī, in quoting Ibn Ḥajar, only presents the initial part of his opinion from al-Fatḥ, omitting the portion that limits the general phrases from which this assumption could arise. For why that is, see footnote 8. ↑
8. English footnote: al-Mu’allamī did not provide evidence for this because his point was not to speak on the Aḥruf in particular, but instead about the preservation of the Quran and Sunnah while refuting Abu Rayya’s claims that instances of mistaken attribution in the Sunnah cast aspersions on the Sunnah as a whole. ↑