In answer to the video "Miraculous Preservation of the Quran: Burying the Myth"
Each of the authentic readings is attested all the way to the prophet. So how exactly does an oral phenomenon disprove oral transmission??
It is to be kept in mind that a qiraa is a mode of recitation. A recitation is orally transmitted by one reciter to the next going back to the prophet himself. That is why the fame and spread of a qiraa is in itself testimony of its authenticity and the less it is used the more its legitimacy can be questionned. One cannot create a recital in a vacuum and impose it on the masses, passing it off as authentically received from the prophet. This has never hapenned and never will. The process by which a particular recitation imposed itself was gradual, as it was transmitted from teacher to student. Had there been other mass transmitted qiraat than the 10, it would have been inevitably known. Their spread and use among the Muslims in itself would have provided a major argument for their authenticity, as with the 10.
Sometimes one and the same teacher reciter, taught a different qiraa to a different student. That is nothing new contrary to that youtuber's pompous tone.
Hafs quoted Aasim as saying that the qiraa he taught him was that of as-Sulami, from Ali ibn Abi Talib, from the prophet, while the one that he taught his other main student Shu'ba, was that of Zirr ibn Hubaysh, from ibn Mas’ud, from the prophet. That is why we find that, Shu’ba and Hafs, who studied under the same reciter Aasim, differed from each other in around forty places.
The differences between the 10 readings lie in the manner in which the basic Uthmanic text (absence of vowels and dots) was read. This formidable flexibility of the text allows for people of all cultural-linguistic backgrounds to choose which Quranic Arabic is easier for them to pronounce. As stated earlier, besides the purpose of protecting the text from corruption by locking it with the oral tradition, the defective script allowed the preservation and integration of most authentic readings into the Uthmanic mushaf. Other authentic readings which modified the skeletal text could not be accommodated and thus people progressively ceased reciting them. This is a view shared by al Dani, Ibn al Arabi, Ibn Taymiyya, and Ibn al Jazari.
These readings are preserved till this day, the names of the most prominent teachers, and their illustrous students, eachone reciting exactly as his predecessor taught him. The name given to a particular qira'a/reading was after its most excellent or famous reciter, not necessarily after the one that first transmitted it from the prophet. The various readings, all of which are based on the very same text, are actually an integral part of the Quran's miraculous eloquence, with words carrying multiple but complementary meanings whether in areas of story-telling, beliefs or even divine laws.
What is further remarkable is that there are "only" 10 readings while the basic script allows for many times more reading possibilities, with all of them making sense. This in itself is enough to dispel the notion that the 10 qiraat were due to a defective arabic script, rather than inherited by the oral tradition we already know to exist and is well attested. An evident example to corroborate is that of the skeletal m-l-k in surah fatiha read maalik or malik. The word appears in several other places where both reading could equally be applied yet the only place with divergent readings is sura fatiha. This is because the readers were not free to apply their preferences, they were constrained by the sunna of the qiraat. The Sanaa manuscripts have since confirmed this tradition on the qira'at.
(Nicolai Sinai)"Thus, the Sanaa Palimpsest would appear to provide us with an exciting glimpse at a moment in time at which the hegemony of the Quran’s standard rasm had not yet become fully established. This, it must be said, is in line with the general drift of the Islamic tradition, which reports that during the first decades after Muḥammad’s death a variety of quranic recensions were in circulation. Although none of the exact “companion codices” described by Islamic sources have yet been discovered in manuscript, the general types of textual variants ascribed to them correspond to the types of variants found in the lower layer of the Sanaa Palimpsest. 17 The latter thus lends credence to the idea that there was originally more than one recension of the Quran and that the Islamic literary sources preserve a broadly accurate view of the scale and character of textual variance between these different versions of the Arabic scripture".Among the aspects of the known variant readings confirmed by the most recent scholarly observations is the phenomenon of qira'at tafsiriyya/exegetical recitation. According to Hilali’s general characterization,
“[m]ost of the variations in the lower text include more lengthy text than the corresponding passages in the Cairo edition”.This has led the major works of Hilali and Sadeghi to conclude that
"the lower text of the palimpsest is derivative from the standard recension".Hilali further reflects exactly what the Muslim authorities have stated concerning the shaad qiraat. She opines that the authors of the palimpsest integrated interpretative passages into the text without clearly demarcating the 2 because they did not consider their writings to be transmitted to the general public. Their works were meant for personal use. Ibn al Jazari says that some companions would
“insert exegesis into recitation by way of explanation and clarification because they were endeavoring to ascertain the true meaning of what they received from the Prophet by way of recitation; they were safe from confusion [between the text of scripture and the explanations added to it], but some of them may have written it [the explanations] down together with it [the recitation].”These Recitations were accomodating to the major dialects of the Arabs, thus leading to unifying the Arabic language, and validating all of its variations and subtleties. This not only allowed a faster spread of Islam but also solidified and preserved the language, as part of the divine pledge to protect the Quran. Had there not been approved recital variations, going back to the prophet's time himself, it would have opened the door to tampering with the text to adapt it to different dialects. It would have corrupted the meaning of the text. As time passed, the phenomenon of fame and spread of one religious, political center instead of another led in the Muslim world, movement of students and teachers led to some qiraat being supplanted by others more popular ones. Today the one most spread is that of Aasim through Hafs.
There are several examples, among them the known case of m-l-k in sura fatiha that can be read maalik/possessor or malik/ruler. It might say in the Hafs reading of
2:271 "If you give alms...yukaffir/this will cover up some of your evil deeds"while the Doori reading is
"If you give alms...nukaffir/We will cover up some of your evil deeds".Both readings perfectly complete eachother, with the latter saying Who will provide the covering (God) and the former saying through which action (charity). 9:66 is very similar with Hafs saying
"If we pardon/naafu a group of you we shall punish/nuaadhib another group"while Doori says
"If a group of you is pardonned/yuaafa another group will get punished/tuaadhab".Doori explains what the contrasting behaviors spoken of in the passage will result in (a group will be pardonned while another will be punished) and the Hafs says Who will grant forgiveness or inflict punishment. Another similar complementary example is 2:10 in Hafs
"a painful chastisement in what they lied/yakthibun"while in Doori it is
"a painful chastisement in what yukathibun/they gave the lie/they made a lie".Both readings come together and reveal that their lie is twofold, consisting in knowingly misrepresenting something that is true. One can give the lie to someone or something by exposing the truth about it, which is commendable. One the other hand one might give the lie to someone/something by inventing a falsehood about him/it, which is a twofold crime deserving punishment. Again in 6:115 Hafs
"And the word/kalimatu of your Lord has been accomplished truly and justly; there is none who can change His words"while Doori reads
"And the words/kalimaatu of your Lord have been accomplished truly and justly; there is none who can change His words".The singular kalima refers to God's word in the sense of his promise as amply used in the Quran while the use of the plural kalimaat in the Doori reading reveal that this promise is none other than the words of this book. A last example to corroborate is 43:23 Hafs
"He said/qaala: What! even if I bring to you a better guide than that on which you found your fathers?"While Doori reads
"Say/qul: What! even if I bring to you a better guide than that on which you found your fathers?".Hafs is quoting a prophet, but Doori explains that the words of this prophet were directly inspired by God.
It is also to be noted that despite their claims of variant readings due to alleged different texts, a statement and conclusion they attribute to Ibn Masud and Ubayy Ibn Kaab, the critics, namely Arthur Jeffery failed to produce any statement from either these 2 men implying that what was in the Uthmanic recension was not from the prophet.
In fact from the manuscript evidence shown by his collegue Bergstrasser, Jeffery concedes the lack of textual differences in the 'texts' attributed to Ibn Masud and Ubayy Ibn Kaab when compared to the Uthmanic text. The true difference these 2 mushafs had with the universal form was in their arrangement of suras, which in itself has no bearing on the message of the Quran. Each sura works as an independent unit and does not follow a chronological narrative.
That is why the scholars agree that it isnt compulsory to follow this universal order in recitation, memorization or prayer. The prophet himself is reported to have recited during prayer and at once suras 2 then 4 then 3. Ibn Kaab and ibn Masud might simply have grouped the suras in a sequence they found more suited for their needs and likings. Some reports describe the companions as even excluding certain known and well established suras from their codices, or adding extra chapters and words of ritual prayers.
As to the omissions, a known instance is that of ibn Mas'ud who did not write al fatiha in his mushaf. When asked why, he said that if he were to do so, he would write it before every sura. Ibn Mas'ud thus deliberately left the most famous suras -al fatiha and the muawidatayn- out of his mushaf for the sake of brievty. These 3 suras were so widely memorized, including among children, as is the case today, that he deemed it useless to preserve them in writing. We have early manuscripts (DAM 01-25.1 and DAM 20-33.1) testifying to its presence in the Quran in the 1st century of hijra. It is also immediately followed by al-Baqara.
Again, variant readings go back to the prophet, who even encouraged them. There is a report describing the prophet even praying God to allow those differences. A typical case, as shown earlier from both Muslim and non Muslim scholarship, would be the addition of explanatory words or word substitutions. They have been reported in tafsir and fiqh works, whenever the author wanted to present different opinions. For example Tabari mentions a report where ibn Mas'ud, whose recital he learned from the prophet and which is still preserved today, read 20:96 with the addition of the word "faras". This was an explanatory addition, and the prophet allowed his companions to recite the Quran together with these modifications, additions, word replacement with near-synonyms or substractions to simplify the meaning or the pronounciations. His concern was to get the message through. This leniency was however meant for them because they were under the prophet's supervision, as appropriately noted by professor Déroche quoted earlier. That is why we do not find those readings among the students of the companions. We do not find for instance ibn Masud's slight variant of 51:58 although his recital has reached us, through his own students. And if some exceptions "leaked" from the companion to his student, as was the case of 92:3, then they were eventually dropped in light of the consensus reading as we have it today. See further below on that point.
The important notion to keep in mind is that the companions were not free to invent a reading, unless approved by the prophet. The incident detailed further below, of Umar and Hisham wouldnt have occured had there been individual freedom in the Quran's recitation.
The prophet was not only communicating the Quran, but teaching it as he deemed fit according to his companions' linguistic or comprehension sensitivities. When these modifications were meant as a personal side note, the reciter would not instruct his pupils to include them in their recital. But he would keep using them as a method of elaboration on the meaning of the Quran. One of ibn Abbas' pupils, al-Makhzumi for instance noted that had he learned the qiraa'a of ibn Masud, he would not have asked as many questions as to the meaning of the Quran to his teacher ibn Abbas.
The recital of ibn Mas'ud as we have it today, therefore does not include these modifications. This proves that the "irregular recitations" were never intended to be anything other than oral, serving the purpose of assistance in understanding and memorizing the skeletal text. As noted by al-Tabari, this flexibility was a "rukhsa"/leniency by the prophet and it was not an obligation for all Muslims to learn and transmit them. This leniency by the prophet was not an arbitrary decision but stemmed directly from the Quranic principle that
54:17"We made this Qur'an easy to bear in mind; who, then, is willing to take it to heart?"
The scholars have called these types of variations in the companions' recital qiraa'at tafsiriyya/exegetical recitations. Some of them go back to the prophet, and others dont. For instance 5:89 was discussed by al Ghazzali who argues that this reading, although attributed to ibn Masud is neither part of the Quran, nor going back through tawaatur to the prophet. Consequently, it should be considered as his own legal interpretation/madhab. Al Ghazzali quotes Abu Hanifah as having adopted this madhab although Abu Hanifah too, like al Ghazzali did not accept this addition as part of the Quran. He accepted it as an isolated report that, in his view and because of ibn Masud virtues, was sufficient evidence for practice. Al Ghazzali, contrary to abu Hanifah, argues that this reading cannot even be considered valid for practice because of it being an isolated report. It has not come down to us as a sunnah of the prophet through another chain and in none of the hadith compilations. It is to be noted that None of Abu Hanifah's disciples, including al Shaybani, opposed their teacher's opinion. Neither did any of them argue that this reading had to be part of the canon. The Most of what his successors stated is that the reading did circulate in the prophet's time until its abrogation prior to his passing. But ibn Masud continued using it, not as a canonized reading rather as a legal basis for a specific ruling. As appropriately noted by al Jassas, had this reading of ibn Masud not been abrogated prior to the prophet's passing, then it would not have been an ahad/isolated report. Rather
"it would have necessarily been transmitted to us in the same manner as the rest of the Qur’an: mass-transmission and profuse narration, such that no-one doubts it being a part of it".
On the other hand we have cases of attested textual variants going to the prophet in which the reading elaborates on the generality of the text
"Ibn 'Umar said that Allah's Apostle then recited this verse:" O Apostle, when you divorce women, divorce them at the commencement of their prescribed period".
In this reading of 65:1, the prophet adds the words "at the commencement". This clearly was an exegetical reading to narrow down the application of the verse to the situation to which ibn Umar was confronted. The same was the case with ibn Abbas' reading of 2:198 which al Suyuti rightly categorized as mudraj reading, ie explanatory reading
"If you seek of the bounty Of your Lord (during the Hajj season)".
One should keep in mind, the variant readings whether occuring during or after the prophet have no bearing on the issue of the Quran's authentic transmission. The prophet himself, as already seen, allowed and even prayed Allah to reveal the Quran in different modes/ahruf, of which ibn Masud's reading was part of. The purpose was, as already stated to accomodate each one's eloquence, dialect and understanding of the revelation, which never was supposed to be a rigid text but a multifaceted one. After the prophet's death, when by massive consensus the community agreed upon the Uthmanic recension, whose defective script allowed for many of those readings to be absorbed, either completely or partially, then those readings that did not agree with the Uthmanic recension were marginalized. It is the case of ibn Masud's reading which became obsolete in certain very few instances, such as 5:89 or ibn Umar in 65:1. If such readings were retained by Uthman in the skeletal text, they would have prevented its dynamism, not allowing any other reading in those instances. In ibn Masud's case, even though his reading of 5:89 was generally marginalized by the adoption of the Uthmanic recension, it however kept being used mainly by his students and Kufan partisans, not as part of the canon, but as basis for their legal rulings. None, including ibn Masud, opposed Uthman's consonantal text. Finally, even if a single reading among all those going to the prophet was preserved in the Uthmanic recension, it would still mean that the Quran as we have it today is authentic and approved by the prophet.
Another relevant example is ibn Masud's exegetical reading of 5:38 as aymanihuma/their right hand. That reading narrows down the conventional reading aydiyahuma/their hands which covers a broad range of understandings. It could apply to the left or right hand, not both simultaneously, hence the use of the plural instead of the dual. The prophet applied this penalty and did not cut both hands. The conventional reading could as well apply to any part of the hand from the fingers up to the elbow.
Those who recited the Quran with these modifications, such as ibn Mas'ud or Ubay, were among the comitee in charge of compiling the mushaf of Uthman and never voiced their opposition to it not representing their exegetical recitations. Yet they are known to have argued on different matters relating to the compilation process.
It is to be noted, out of the approximately 500 reported instances of differences with the Uthmanic codex, only 20 are authenticaly traceable to a companion, similar to the case of ibn Mas'ud's recital mentionned earlier. There is a reason why the early bibliographer, ibn an-Nadim reported that among the many codexes attributed to ibn Masud and that sprung up after his death, no 2 were in complete agreement.
No comments:
Post a Comment