In answer to the video "Miraculous Preservation of the Quran: Burying the Myth"
The "7 ahruf" which the prophet is reported to have requested from Gabriel is an enigmatic issue upon which very little is known out of all the corpus of reliable hadith. The only description of these 7 ahruf given by the prophet is that it would serve the purpose of accommodating people of different levels of literacy and fluency of the language, in their recital of the Quran. The Muslim scholars did not differ on the purpose of the ahruf but over how they achieved that purpose.
Most of the early opinions, as alluded to by Al Suyuti in his al Itqan are repetitive and overlap. He speaks of around 40 opinions without quoting them all. What he quotes can be summed up as follows.
- The 7 ahruf are ambiguous due to the word harf having different lexical meanings (a letter of the alphabet, a word, a meaning, or a way).
- Harf means a way of pronunciation.
- The 7 ahruf indicate seven meanings
- others say 7 ways of recitation using synonyms
- or 7 of the most eloquent dialects of the Arabs.
- Finally the view of Ibn Qutayba who said the 7 ahruf allowed a range of flexibility in the reading and sometimes the text itself; vocalizations that may or may not change the meaning of a word, letter alterations that may or may not change the meaning and/or the consonantal outline of a word, variations in word orders.
- Harf means a way of pronunciation.
- The 7 ahruf indicate seven meanings
- others say 7 ways of recitation using synonyms
- or 7 of the most eloquent dialects of the Arabs.
- Finally the view of Ibn Qutayba who said the 7 ahruf allowed a range of flexibility in the reading and sometimes the text itself; vocalizations that may or may not change the meaning of a word, letter alterations that may or may not change the meaning and/or the consonantal outline of a word, variations in word orders.
Anyone arguing for a late invention of the 7 ahruf is ignorant of the reality of 7th century Arabia. Arabs were mostly illiterate, with various pronunciations or dialects. It would have been impossible for them to abandon their own dialects and ways of recitation all at once. This means the phenomenon of various modes must have occured in the prophet's life The 7 revealed ahruf are what allowed the oral tradition to be fluid prior to the fixation of the text under Uthman, but without that fluidity stepping outside the limits of divine revelation.
As appropriately noted by professor Déroche
"as long as the prophet was present to validate or not a recitation of one of the companions, the fluidity of the revelation could be preserved without difficulty".
The reported variants attributed to the close companions of the prophet were undoubtedly approved by him.
The scholarly opinions quoted earlier as to the precise nature of the 7 ahruf, all have their strengths and weaknesses, examples and counterexamples. The common denominator is that they are modes, that allow linguistic variations in the manner of reciting the Quran. One mode could allow for more than one recitation. For example if the mode in question is about using synonyms, then one word could be read in more than one way. The recitations resulting from these 7 ahruf are thus generally accepted as 10, going back to the prophet, transmitted through multiple independent channels. If these reciting methods were only reported by a few or single individual on any level of the chain, they were termed shaadh/anomalous. If only a taabi'i would report such readings, they would equally be termed shaadh. Jalal al Din al Bulqini classified the reading of the taabi'i Saeed ibn Jubayr as shaadh. That is why we do not find his reading of 18:79-80 for instance in the canon, nor through any other channel. As a side note in regards to this category of qiraat, they are not completely different qiraat, they in fact overlap with the mutawaatir 10 in the vast majority, just as the mutawaatir overlap among eachother except for a tiny number of words.
Among those that reported the isnad of each reading is ibn Hazm al andalusi. Imam Jazari observed in an-Nashar that:
"Indeed some of the latter scholars had imposed Tawatir on the condition of authenticity of a Qira'ah, they were not only satisfied with authenticity, but believed that Quran could not be confirmed unless with Tawatir and any narration that falls into Ahaad's category could not be confirmed as Quran".
These same people, such as al Jazari or al Shaatibi that clearly attest to the mass transmission of every authentic qira'a, they had limited themselves to a chain of single individuals going to the prophet. This was done for brievty's sake, tracing each reading through notable names.
Recent people with poor knowledge of these well established and extensive scholarly works on the topic, have taken these single reports as proof against the mass transmission of the qiraa'at. This of course is an absurdity. Had it been the case, there would not have been varying levels of authenticity among the qiraa'at, as stated with the shaadh qiraa'at. Also, it is obvious that when people like ibn Masud, who was among the many that learned his reading from the prophet, when he (ibn Masud) moved to Kufa where he taught Aasim who then taught Hafs, the most popular reading today, Aasim in Kufa certainly was not the only one learning from ibn Masud. Ibn Masud had a massive popularity in that city and the people adopted his reading in defiance of the caliphate whose official reading was another authentic one.
Among sunni jurists, Hanbali al-Tufi (d. 716 H) was the one most skeptical in terms of whether the major qiraat were traceable through tawatur to the prophet. But he never denied the Tawatur of the recitations from their eponymous readers. He even criticized those who thought his position implied non-tawatur of the Quran. He notes that this is not the case, because the Quran is not identical with qiraat, and there is consensus on the tawatur of the Quran.
As a side note, ibn Mujahid compiled a popular book in which he only listed 7 readings, which later led to some thinking that the readings were restricted to only 7. The famous qiraat scholar Abu Shamah (665/1267) said
"No one thinks that these seven readings are what is meant in the hadith except the ignorant".
Ibn Mujahid simply wanted to list those he deemed more popular because of the major cities wherein they were most famous, such as Mecca, Medina, Kufa, Basra and Damascus. As noted by ibn Atiyyah, the teachers of these 7 readings used their ijtihad, or religious jurisprudence, to select which among the already existing variants were in conformity with the criteria of authenticity; these being, agreement with the grammar and the Uthmanic recension. The scholars have added 3 other readings on top of those 7, from among the known variants. These 3 additional readings are mutawaatir like the 7, and, similarly, conform to grammar rules and to Uthman's mushaf. Some have counted more than these 10 but their list was disputed by other scholars in light of the aforementioned criteria of authenticity.
Also, anyone can make recital mistakes due to one's own peculiar way of pronouncing certain words and letters. Then transmit those errors to others. This has no bearing on the issue of Quran authenticity unless one can prove that these errors became widespread until assimilated in the approved readings. Or that there was resistance when these errors were pointed and declared inauthentic.
Another thing to note is that ibn Mujahid was not the first to write a book on qira'at. The first compiler of qira'at was Abu Ubayy Qasim ibn Salam, who collected 25 in total, including those famous 7. Then Ahmad bn Jubair al-kufi wrote on only five Qira'at, selecting one reader from each city. Then Ismail ibn Ishaq with his 20 authoritative readers, including the 7 famous ones. At-Tabari recorded 20 Qira'at in his Al-Jami'u fil Qira'at. Tabari affirms the divinity of the qiraat. When discussing 2 variant readings of 37:12, he proposes that multiple readings were miraculously dictated to the Prophet simultaneously, just as has been known in the famous hadith from Hisham.
Then al-Dujuni talked about 11 readers.
Finally came Ibn Mujahid and was the first to restrict his work on the famous 7. We find that the Quran commentators were the ones to report as many readings as they could, regardless of authenticity criteria. Their objective was to give all possible nuances of understanding to certain Quran passages. In addition, several writers of the first two Hijri centuries are mentioned as having produced books on qiraat, though their works did not survive. Among them: Yahia ibn Ya'mur (d. 90 H), Aban ibn Taghlib (d. 141 H), Muqatil ibn Sulayman (d. 150 H), Abu Amr ibn al-'Ala (d. 154 H), Za'idah ibn Qudāmah al-Thaqafī (d. 161 H) and al-Akhfash al-Akbar (d. 177 H).
Uthman's compilation was thus written, as alluded to earlier, in a particular rasm (orthography) which became known as al-rasm al-Uthmani. That orthography included addition, deletion and substitution of letters to make the text easier to read. That rasm made it possible from the beginning for some words to be read in more than one authenticated qiraat/readings/recitations method, going back with strong certainty to the prophet
“I heard Hisham ibn Hakim ibn Hizam reciting Surat al-Furqan (Sura 25) differently from me, and it was the Messenger of Allah who had recited it to me. I was about to rush up to him but I granted him a respite until he had finished his prayer. Then I grabbed him by his cloak and took him to the Messenger of Allah and said, ‘Messenger of Allah, I heard this man reciting Surat al-Furqan differently from the way you recited it to me.’ The Messenger of Allah said, ‘Let him go.’ Then he said, ‘Recite, Hisham,’ and Hisham recited as I had heard him recite. The Messenger of Allah said, ‘It was sent down like that.’ Then he said to me, ‘Recite’ and I recited the sura, and he said, ‘It was sent down like that. This Qur’an was sent down in seven ways, so recite from it whatever is easy for you.’ ”.
This undisputed hadith shows 3 major points; the Quran as we have it today, along with its authentically reported variations is preserved just as it was revealed. The second point is that no companion, including Umar ibn al khattab, the 2nd Caliph, quoted above, mastered all the qiraat/recitation types at once. The final point is that the companions were on the lookout for the slightest unapproved variant in recital.
What had happened to Umar as he came across a mode of recitation other than his for the first time, had also occurred to Ubayy ibn Kaab
"I was in the mosque when a man entered and prayed and recited (the Qur'in) in a style to which I objected. Then another man entered (the mosque) and recited in a style different from that of his companion. When we had finished the prayer, we all went to Allah's Messenger and said to him: This man recited in a style to which I objected, and the other entered and recited in a style different from that of his companion. The Messenger of Allah asked them to recite and so they recited, and the Messenger of Allah expressed approval of their affairs (their modes of recitation)".
We see again the same pattern of the close companions being on high alert at all moments to the matter of the transmission and preservation of the Quran. The matter was so dear to Ubayy that
"there occurred In my mind a sort of denial which did not occur even during the Days of Ignorance".
Although Ubayy did not verbally express his thoughts, the prophet felt his unease
"he struck my chest, whereupon I broke into sweating and felt as though I were looking at Allah with fear".
The prophet engaged him physically so as to bring him out of his state of confusion and make him focus on what he was about to tell him
"He (the Holy Prophet) said to me: Ubayy. a message was sent to me to recite the Qur'an in one dialect, and I replied: Make (things) easy for my people. It was conveyed to me for the second time that it should be recited in two dialects. I again replied to him: Make affairs easy for my people. It was again conveyed to me for the third time to recite in seven dialects And (I was further told): You have got a seeking for every reply that I sent you, which you should seek from Me. I said: O Allah! forgive my people, forgive my people, and I have deferred the third one for the day on which the entire creation will turn to me, including even Ibrahim (peace be upon him) (for intercession)".
This state of momentary doubt is something that might affect any believer of the highest degree, even in the presence of a prophet. It is interesting that Christian critics bring this minor issue up of Ubayy's inner feelings as if it is anything similar to what is depicted in their own books; Peter, the pillar of the church and chief of the apostles forcefully denied Jesus after his arrest. Prior to that, he did Satan's work by being a "stumbling block" to Jesus. Judas explicitly gave Jesus up to the authorities. Eventually all of the close circle "forsook him, and fled".
Another instance involving Umar is when he heard a variant from someone who had studied under Ubay ibn Kaab. He immediately took the man to Ubay for confirmation and even made Ubay testify three times that the variant had come from the prophet, prior to letting the man go. It has also been reported that Ubay read 48:26 with the addition
"and if you had felt disdain like they felt, the masjid e haram would have been corrupted".
Umar was unaware of that reading and again objected, showing once more how the companions never felt complacent in the preservation of their sacred scripture. Umar did not simply let that pass based on the precedent of their being variants he did not know that proved to be true. He went and asked for the testimony of Zayd ibn Thabit, who sided with him. But upon Ubay's insistence, Umar let him read as he pleased, based on his virtues and trustworthiness in the transmission of the Quran (Al Haakim, Al Mustadrak alal sahihayn). What is clear however is that Ubay did not transmit this reading to his students, because it was an exegetical variant, as seen earlier, approved by the prophet but aimed at helping the companion personally in his own understanding and assimilation of the text. This is supported by 2 important points; Umar was not aware of that recitation although he heard this sura directly from the Prophet on the occasion of Hudaybiyya. And second Ubay's reading through Abu Jaafar, Ibn Kathir, and Abu Amr, does not report this addition (Kitab al Mabani, Muqaddimatan 91-93).
There is a reverse case with Umar's reading of 62:9 being dropped in favor of Ubay's. This shows that the rule in regards to readings that changed the structure of a word or verse, was to adopt the consensus reading, and that the companions knew that the permissions the prophet had given them in that regard were meant for their personal use. An explicit example is Bukhari's report of ibn Abbas' reading of 26:214. He is sometimes quoted reciting it with additional words and at other times he recites it exactly as is found in the Uthmanic recension. This is because he was aware the different reading was meant for his personal assimilation and elaboration over the text, and that the consensus was to read it according to what has come down to us, and as massively reported through multiple chains.
And if the companions themselves were not aware of every aspect of all readings approved by the prophet, then it is only natural that their students would sometimes encounter the same problem
"The companions of `Abdullah (bin Mas`ud) came to Abu Darda', (and before they arrived at his home), he looked for them and found them. Then he asked them,: 'Who among you can recite (Qur'an) as `Abdullah recites it?" They replied, "All of us." He asked, "Who among you knows it by heart?" They pointed at 'Alqama. Then he asked Alqama. "How did you hear `Abdullah bin Mas`ud reciting Surat Al-
Lail (The Night)?" Alqama recited: 'By the male and the female.' Abu Ad-Darda said, "I testify that I heard me Prophet reciting it likewise, but these people want me to recite it:-- 'And by Him Who created male and female.' but by Allah, I will not follow them."
Both Alqama and Abu Darda recited 92:3 without "ma khalaqa", as we find in today's Quran. Alqama heard it from his master ibn Masud and Abu Darda confirmed the authenticity of that variant as coming from the prophet. But other readers recited differently, according to what their own masters and companions of the prophet taught them, meaning without those leniencies recited by the prophet to his companions. Since the prophet this time was not present to arbitrate, each side remained on a reading traced to the prophet. However the reading of ibn Mas'ud has reached us today and is called the reading of Shu'ba. Yet we do not find this variant in their recital. This shows that it was eventually dropped in favor of the massive consensus/tawattur, the ultimate criterion of preservation of the Quran. Ibn al Jazari (see his Nashr) was thus completely justified in rejecting that reading of 92:3 based on it being transmitted through ahad/isolated report that contradicts the consensus.
Even Ibn Abbas came across a manuscript thinking the scribe had made an error. These errors, such as 24:27 or 17:23 were simply variants he wasnt aware of. They are all present in today's Quran. When he became aware of the authenticity of these readings, he accepted, them, just as Umar quoted earlier. This is because when ibn Abbas was asked
"Did the Prophet leave anything (besides the Qur'an)?" He replied. "He did not leave anything except what is between the two bindings (of the Qur'an)".
This declaration is significant because it shows that even in the extreme case where ibn Abbas stuck to an exegetical reading, as is reported concerning 4:24, he still ultimately agreed with the consensus reading that has come down to us.
As to 24:27, Al-Tabari reports ibn Abbas' comment on it. Ibn Abbas first quotes the conventional reading, after which he juxtaposes his own reading, showing what is already known about the 2 words tasta'nisu/tasta'dhinu being near synonyms. This also proves that he had approved the conventional reading. The situation is similar with 17:23. At Tabari quotes a report where Nusayr ibn abi Al Ashaab says that a person was given a mushaf by ibn Abbas that read wassa instead of qada as we have today. At Tabari then quotes another report where the same reading was found in a mushaf with Nusayr, who then said that wassa and qada are near-synonyms. This shows again that those companions whose mushaf diverged from the consensus in near-synonyms, ultimately adopted the majority reading.
It would be very far fetched for the different scribes to have copied the same error in all of Uthman's commissioned compilations. Further there are cases of reported scribal errors which were swiftly corrected by Uthman, during his compilation of the mushaf
"I was with ‘Uthmaan when they were presenting the Mus-hafs to him. He sent me to Ubayy ibn Ka‘b with the shoulder blade of a sheep, on which was written, “lam yatasanna” and “laa tabdeelah lil-khalq” and “fa amhil al-kaafireen”. He called for an ink pot and erased one of the two laams (in the word “lil khalq”) and wrote “li khalq-illah (“in the creation of Allah” – referring to the verse “No change let there be in Khalq¬illâh (i.e. the religion of Allâh)” [ar-Room 30:30]). He erased the word fa amhil and wrote “fa mahhil” (“so give respite” referring to the verse“So give respite to the disbelievers” [at-Taariq 86:17]). And he wrote lam yatasannah (“they show no change”, referring to the verse “they show no change” [al-Baqarah 2:259]); he added the letter haa’ to it".
It was the purpose of Uthman's compilation effort, to integrate as many recitations methods as possible in one universal script. Hence the above cases of correction and discarding any defective script that didnt allow that dynamism. Why would he allow a scribal error in all standardized texts to be disseminated when he went to such length in avoiding precisely that?
There are so many ahadith about the revelation of the Quran in the seven ahruf that Abu Ubayd al Qasim Ibn Sallam (224/838) considered them mutawatir. He rejected only one of those, referring to the seven ahruf as being revealed in seven different meanings. Al Suyuti counted twenty companions among the transmitters of those ahadith. Some of these companions had sometimes several students reporting the hadith from their master. As is the case with Ubay's students, Asim, Humayd or ibn Abi Layla, all considered trustworthy narrators, and earlier sources than even al Zuhri. Same is the case with ibn Masud's student abu al Ahwas whose own students al Sabi'i or abi al Hudayl narrated the hadith on the ahruf. There is a hadith about Uthman asking those present at the mosque of Medina if any of them heard the prophet say
"The Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in seven ahruf".
In response, a huge number of them stood up and testified that they had heard this hadith. Uthman in turn testified with them. That is why the prophet, and the scholars have forbidden to argue on this matter or to favor one harf over another
"Verily this Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in seven ahruf, in every harf you recite you have done so correctly. So do not argue, since this may lead to kufr".
And important thing to note is that the very acceptance of the 7 ahruf hadith goes against the natural reaction of a scholar. Reported variations in the text or its reading should be dismissed as human errors, especially when the standard text is overwhelmingly available, spread geographically and accepted by all sects. But all the classical scholars accepted the hadith. They already knew about that pre-existing phenomenon, it didnt spring into existence spontaneously but was progressively transmitted from master to student. And even if they wanted to deny that reality, they could not brush off the undeniable authenticity of the hadith. That is why we find no disagreement as to the reality of the 7 ahruf.
And despite this acceptance the Muslim scholars did not question the perfect preservation of the Quran. Not because of a dogmatic position but because of the traditional and empirical evidence. The Quran we read today is slightly different than the one left by the prophet but this does not mean it is not authentic. This goes back to the issue of approved qiraat/readings going back to the prophet. The prophet himself told the Muslims that the Quran can be recited in different ways. The Uthmanic rasm is different in places than the Quran recited by the prophet because Uthman included more than 1 potential Qiraa in his text. And all these potential qiraat he included go back with absolute certainty to the prophet. The issue of Quranic preservation therefore is not affected by whether the Quran we read today is exactly the same as the last recital of the prophet the year he died. These differences, it is to be kept in mind, affect a tiny fraction of the total words of revelation. They have no bearing on the issues of faith unlike variants we see in the history of the Bible, like a variant reading not containing the resurrection tale (codex sinaiticus), Greek quotes of the HB by Paul that change the original Hebrew, or insertions that imply a trinitarian reading of certain passages.
Further reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment