ADMITTING CHANGE
IN THE QUR'AN:
The 7 Readings are NOT 'the revealed
Qur'an'
Anyone who intends to uphold the
transmission of the Qur'an MUST be willing to examine the Islamic evidence
AGAINST this. Namely they must consider the fact that if the Qur'an today was
what Muhammad is said to have 'given', then the 7 Readings would have to be the
same as the 7 Ahruf - the 'revealed' Qur'an. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. Let us look
at the speculation as to what they are.
[The following information from a recent Islamic publication upholds the
conclusion of A 'Perfect' Qur'an.]
So much of Islam's defense of the Qur'an is based upon the lack of general
knowledge of the Qur'an's history that it is good to see a follower of Islam
write a little more openly on several aspects of this confusion.
Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi has written An Introduction to the Sciences of the
Qura'aan (al-Hadaayah Publishing, 1999, ISBN - 1 898649 32 4), which houses
the most forthright statements against the Qur'an yet printed in English by a
follower of Islam.
We propose to examine several aspects as presented by Yasir Qadhi.
Transition - 7 Ahruf (Companion
recitations) to present Qur'an:
We will begin at the point in his Chapter 8, The Compilation of the
Qur'an, where he deals with the conflict between the reciters at the
Azerbaijan battle (p. 136) which led to 'Uthman seeking to eliminate the
conflicts between the people.
He states:
"This standard version would serve to unite the
Muslims upon one recitation" (p. 136)
and then he has the Companions agreeing with the move, and 'Uthman stating
"I think we should consolidate the Muslims on one
mus-haf" (p. 136)
On p. 137 he has
"After the committee finished its task, 'Uthmaan
ordered that one copy of this mus-haf be sent to every
province..."
and
"Every Qur'aan written after this time
had to conform letter-for-letter to Uthmaan's mus-haf. By his wise decision
Uthmaan provided a copy of the Qur'aan that would serve as a model for all
future mus-hafs."
But, does he mean all this about 'letter-for-letter
copies of One text', and 'ONE recitation'? As we will see as we progress, the
answer is 'No'. It is simply an attempt to mislead the minds of the ignorant
into thinking he is about to present the standard fare before something quite
different is presented.
As he considers the reason 'Uthman had to do
his work on the Qur'an, we find he does not mention what Tabari does, that
these variations were the differing readings of Ubay and ibn Mas'ud.
Instead, on p. 136 he is vague only stating the usual Hadith about the
Syrians and Kufans arguing - but on p 138 he states that 'Uthman was eliminating
*inauthentic* recitations.
Immediately after he speaks about a SINGULAR
recitation and a SINGULAR text, he
tells us
"Not only did 'Uthmaan send the actual mush-afs to
each province, he also sent Qur'aanic reciters to teach the people the
correct recitation of the Qur'aan." (p.
137)
One would expect him to be referring to several chains of transmission of the
SINGULAR RECITATION which he had just mentioned
when he proceeds to name 4 reciters, being Zaid for Medinah, 'Abdullah ibn
Saa'ib for Meccah, Ibn Shu'bah for Syria and Abu 'Abd ar-Rahman as-Sulamee for
Kufah.
However, to those in the know, this listing of several names is the first
indication of something more than ONE
RECITATION, for these are some of those persons through whom
some of the existing recitations are said to have been transmitted "from
Muhammad" - and they differ quite a bit
consonantally.
However, only on p. 147 do we find a heading indicating openly that the
mushafs were NOT identical asking WERE
THESE MUS-HAFS THE SAME? and the
assertion:
"Did the 'Uthmaanic four or
eight mus-hafs match each other letter for letter? Surprisingly, contrary to
popular opinion, the evidence indicates otherwise. The different
copies that 'Uthmaan ordered to be written differed from
each other in a few letters. There
is no extra verse in any one of the mus-hafs. This was not done accidentally
or by chance. Rather, these slight changes were done on order to accommodate
the variations of a particular verse (the ahruf). If the Prophet had recited
the verse in a number of ways, and it was possible to accommodate all of these
recitations in one particular spelling, then the word was written with that
spelling. The example of 'maaliki' and 'maliki' has already been given before.
However, if the recitations could not all be accommodated in one spelling,
then it was written with one of the recitations in one mus-haf, and another
recitation in another mus-haf. The Companions did not write both recitations
in one mus-haf for fear of confusion between the two." (p. 148)
But, why is there a need to speak now of mushafs
(pl.) and recitations (pl.) when he began with his assertions in the singular?
The 'need' is founded upon his desire to make the contrary evidences of Islam
'appear' to agree.
For Yasir Qadhi, this means making any evidence for
a single text and single recitation 'agree with' the present content of the
texts and recitations, namely that there are many! Also, it means making
it agree WITH his opinion as to what happened to the 7 Ahruf. In his case,
it is a belief that Muhammad at the Final Review received from Jibreel multiple
texts and readings - all semi-mutilated versions of the 'revealed Ahruf'.
It is not an easy issue to reconcile with what others hold.
For example, anyone who has read Von Denffer in his Ulum, may well
recall that under the heading Seven Modes of the Qur'an he states (p.
117):
"While some scholars hold*** that the written
Qur'an now includes only one of the 'seven modes', and the others are
transmitted orally to us..."
In his footnote 51 (which was just denoted by 3 asterisks ***) he writes:
"e.g. Tabari, Jami' al-bayan 'an ta'wil ayat
al-qur'an, Cairo, 1968. See introduction to this tafsir. Zarkashi, Vol. 1, p.
213 says most scholars are of the first view, and that the last double
reading of the Qur'an by Muhammad in the presence of the Angel Gabriel served,
among others, the purpose of eliminating the other six modes."
SO, we have an assertion that the 'majority' of scholars assert that 6 Ahruf
were ELIMINATED at the Final Review, and that a few like Tabari asserted that
instead 'Uthman eliminated these 6 Ahruf without any reference to a Final
Review. These amount to ONE conclusion, namely that 1
Ahruf should remain with one recitation.
HOWEVER as Yasir Qadhi points out:
"If as Tabari holds, only one
harf has been preserved, from where then do the differences in the ten
qira'aat originate from? All scholars are unanimous that these ten
qira'aat originated from the Prophet (pbuh) himself; therefore it seems
apparent that the ten qira'aat have to have some integral relationship with
the ahruf..." (p. 181)
Again he repeats this on p. 200:
"However, this opinion does not seem very
strong, since, if the origin of all the authentic qira'aat is
one harf, then where do all the differences between the qira'aat originate
from? In addition, as was mentioned in the previous chapter, the
opinion that only one harf has been preserved does not seem to be the
strongest."
[We must note that this 'one Harf' opinion is
propogated on the Islamic Awareness Site which quotes Bilal Philips on this
topic.]
The one remaining Harf opinion of Tabari and others,
is listed in this book of Yasir Qadhi's as one of 3 opinions held by scholars.
The other two are 1/ that all of the Ahruf are preserved, and 2/ that the
Ahruf are preserved only in as much as the 'Uthmanic mushafs allowed them to be.
[In these opinions the very definition of the content of the Ahruf differs
vastly.]
In relating his beliefs that the latter of these is the strongests opinion
(although he applies his own history as to how the prsent texts came to be),
Yasir Qadhi lists 4 points which he feels are strong evidence for it. The last
point is:
"4) The different mus-hafs that 'Uthman ordered
to be written were not identical to each other, for in a number of places, the
addition or deletion of a word or letter occurred in some of the mus-hafs.
This change is reflected in the various qira'aat in existence today, for within
the ten qira'aat, there exist word changes and word additions that could not
have originated from the same mus-haf. It seems apparent this was
done with a goal in mind, and the strongest conclusion seems to be that, by
these differences in the mus-hafs, 'Uthman had intended to preserve the
differences in the ahruf.
These same four arguments, however, cannot be used for
the second opinion (that all of the ahruf were actually preserved), because of
the fact that certain variations that the Companions used
to recite as part of the Qur'aan are now no longer a part of the Qur'aan (as
will be explained in the chapter on naskh and qira'aat). These variant
readings can be explained as having been part of the seven ahruf before the
final reading of the Qur'aan by the Prophet (pbuh) to Jibreel.
This reading which took place before Zayd ibn Thaabit, cancelled the ahruf
that 'Uthman did not preserve. Imaam al-Qistillaanee (d. 923 A.H.)
said, "In this (last) recitation of the Prophet (pbuh) to Jibreel, there
were two benefits: First, to strengthen and preserve the Prophet's
memorisation of the Qur'aan, and, second, to affirm those verses that were
not abrogated and to indicate which verses were." (p. 182)
One has to wonder not only why Muhammad's memory would need strengthening
when he was supposedly about to die, but why 7 Ahruf that
were said to have been given to make things easier for the people, suddenly
became such a complex thing as to require, not a removal of 6 Ahruf, but, in
Yasir Qadhi's version, a complete change of texts and readings (vocalisation).
Not only so, but one must wonder if the quotation from Imaam
al-Qistillaanee about affirming "those
verses that were not abrogated and to indicate which verses were"
has been appropriated beyond the standard interpretation of these words (i.e.
those verses that Islam belives were replaced by others), and has become a
useful tool for Yasir Qadhi to apply to his own version of what happened at the
fabled Final Review. In other words, has he not mis-appropriated it to state
that only portions of the various Ahruf were eliminated (abrogated) and other
portions kept in a muddled (semi-abrogated, semi-preserved) form? It seems so.
However, any attempt to relate that several recitations and several texts
were set out by 'Uthman directly contradicts the very words of 'Uthman which the
writer cited earlier that:
"Official copies of the Qur'aan should be
written and sent to all the provinces, and all other copies destroyed, so
that the ummah could have one standard Qur'aan. Therefore, this
standard version would serve to unite the Muslims upon one recitation."
(p. 136)
AND the Companion testimony that:
"We asked him, 'What do you suggest we do?' He
responded, 'I think we should consolidate the Muslims on one
mus-haf, so that there not be any disagreements or disunity.' We said
'Verily, this idea of yours is an excellent idea.'" The action of Uthman
was agreed upon by all of the Companions." (p. 136)
The one version of 'the history of the Qur'an'
asserts that simplicity was the motive, the other that God decided to
change His mind at the last minute and leave the same people with confusion
and complexity!
This is indeed the result of what Mingana stated:
"Not many sacred books are better known that the
Koran, and only a few of them have more obscure origins. ... The first
historical data about the collection of the Koran have come down to us by way
of oral Hadith, and not of history. This is very unfortunate; because a critic
is thrown into that medley and compact body of legends, true or false, genuine
or spurious, which began to receive unchallenged credit at the time of the
recrudence of Islamic orthodoxy ..." (The Transmission of the Koran)
Here it is fulfilled - but not by the *critic* but rather by the scholars of
Islam. Late compiled oral evidence presents the scholars with a myriad of
opinions (ijtihads) but that no actual history can be known from it. Can we
believe that 1400 years after the fact someone will now sort it all out?
As to our present writer, his belief that 'Uthman was
purposefully trying to preserve parts of several Ahruf in some form can be seen
in several places.
We find it in the 4 page section on the differences of
opinion over whether or not the basmalah was a verse of the Qur'an
[where he also acknowledges that the 4 Sunni Imams were divided - Imams Shafi'i
and Ahmad saying it was; Imams Malik and Abu Hanifah saying it was not!] where
he also relates:
"To resolve this difference of opinion, some
scholars claimed that the basmalah was revealed in some of the ahruf of the
Qur'an and not in others! This opinion would perhaps resolve the difference of
opinion, were it not for the fact that the basmalah is written in all the
mush-afs of 'Uthmaan. Had the basmalah been a verse in some
ahruf and not in others, it would have been written in some of the mush-af and
left out of others." (p. 159)
Clearly he wants to attribute to 'Uthman a preserving of some form of several
Ahruf in the mushafs and recitations.
We can see clearly that a great dilemma has been created.
By having Zaid as the LONE WITNESS of the Final Review, ALONE having heard
the Final Text of the Qur'an (which most seem to say was ONE HARF) and this
Final Review text(S) only placed into use much later after Muhammad's death,
Yasir Qadhi has created several problems.
Did Muhammad fail to Implement the Final Review text(s)? Surely this means he
failed in his mission?! In the opinions we will see, the Companions are said to
have gone out under 'Umar with the original Ahruf! Can anyone in Islam admit
that Muhammad failed to teach the Companions the Final Review text, that he
failed in his mission - or will they now instead consider that these 'histories'
do not match?
Again, if Zaid is portrayed by Yasir Qadhi as coming a considerable time
after Muhammad died and ALONE giving to 'Uthman a number of varying texts and
varying recitations then surely there is only one link in the chain of
transmitters between Muhammad and the Companions - namely Zaid. THIS MEANS that
any modern day recitation (and accompanying consonantal text) bearing a chain of
transmission that traces a line directly from Muhammad to a Companion HAS to be
FALSE!!
By acknowledging that the 7 Ahruf are NOT the 7 (or (10) Readings of today,
and admitting that many portions of Companion variations (the revealed 7
Ahruf) that were no longer *close to* Uthman's texts were thus abandonned [we
will note all this further down this page], he asserts that the Final
Review texts were only intending to 'semi-preserve' various parts of the
'original revealed' Qur'an!
What purpose would such a Final Review
serve - except to bring confusion!?! Surely, if it is believed that one Harf was
first 'revealed' and that the other 6 Ahruf had been *revealed* with the purpose
of helping the poor souls (a mere concession), it would end in the same fashion
- simplicity not confusion!
Our writer openly admits this confusion and change in the purported
'revealed' Qur'an by an explicit quotation frmo Makkee ibn Abee Taalib (d. 437)
which records some very direct declarations that the
'original' revelation as given to the Companions came into change [which
of course disproves every assertions that things are letter-for-letter as
Muhammad 'originally' gave it]:
Yasir Qadhi uses it to "summarise the last two chapters" (i.e those
on the Ahruf and the Qira'aat):
"When the Prophet (pbuh) died, many of the
Companions went to the newly-conquered territories of the Muslims, and
this was during the time of Aboo Bakr and 'Umar. They taught them the
recitation of the Qur'aan and the fundamentals of the religion. Each
Companion taught his particular area the recitation that he had learnt from
the Prophet (pbuh) (i.e. the various ahruf). Therefore the recitations of
these territories differed based on the differences of the Companions.
Now, when 'Uthmaan ordered the writing of the
mus-hafs, and sent them to the new provinces, and ordered them to follow it
and discard all other readings, each of the territories continued to recite
the Qur'aan the same way that they had done so before the mus-haf had reached
them, as long as it conformed to the mus-haf. If their recitation differed
with the mus-haf, they left that recitation.
This new recitation was passed on
from the earlier generations to the later ones, until it reached these seven
Imaams (Qaarees) in the same form, and they differed with each others based
upon the differences of the people of the territories - none of whom differed
with the mus-haf that 'Uthmaan had sent to them. This,
therefore, is the reason that the Qaarees have differed with each others...***"
(p. 201f)
Again the asterisks*** in the above quotation refer to a footnote #458 which
reads "Ibn Abee Taalib, Abu Muhammad Makkee: Kitaab al-Ibaanah 'an Ma'ani
al-Qira'aat. ed. Dr. Muhyi Ramadan. Dar al-Mamoon li Thurath, Beirut, 1979, p.
39."
[This is quite likely the same al-Makkee mentioned in the long quote which
was placed in A 'Perfect' Qur'an on p. 25f. If this is so, then one can
understand why he is there found to state that the readings have only a single
transmission and so are not very reliable- they actually started at the issuing
of 'Uthman's texts!]
Can we see this clear admission that the
Companions were forced to leave off from their 'revealed' texts (Ahruf), and
take up 'NEW RECITATIONS', and THESE are what has been handed on to the modern
times? There is no 'preservation of revealed texts' here! Neither can there be
ANY chain of transmission directly from Muhamad to the Companions who held the 7
Ahruf - it is impossible! OF NECESSITY a successor MUST be a link in such a
chain!
According to Yasir Qadhi's version (the changes being know through Zaid from
the Final Review), the variations occurring through 'Uthman's initiative had to
be assimilated by the Companions into their recitations. THIS changed Qur'an is
what he thinks is in circulation now.
However, he has told us that only 4
qira'aat were 'sent out' by 'Uthman - how then does he think the 10 qira'aat he
upholds today came about from only 4? Surely only by further corruption, for
they cannot be attributed to 'Uthman!
Yasir Qadhi states his own cloaked version of all this as:
"When the Companions spread throughout the Muslim
lands, they took with them the variations they learnt from the Prophet (pbuh).
They understood the importance of the oral transmission of the Qur'aan. 'Umar
ibn al-Kittaab, during his caliphate, sent several prominent Companions to
various cities to teach the people Qur'aan; 'Ubaadah ibn as-Saamit was sent to
Hims, Ubay ibn Ka'ab to Palestine, and Aboo ad-Dardaa to Damascus.
Likewise, during his caliphate, 'Uthmaan also realised
the importance of the proper recitation of the Qur'aan, and sent reciters of
the Qur'aan all over the Muslim lands, each with a copy of his official
mus-haf. He kept Zayd ibn Thabit in Madeenah; with the Makkan mus-haf, he sent
'Abdullaah ibn Saa'ib (d. 63 A.H.); to Syria was sent al-Mugheerah ibn Shu'bah
(d. 50 A.H.); Aboo 'Abd ar-Rahmaan as-Sulamee (d. 70 A.H.) was sent to Koofah;
and 'Aamir ibn 'Abdul Qays to Basrah (d. ~ 55 A.H.).
The Companions in turn, recited and taught these
variations to the Successors (tabi'oon), who taught them to the next
generation (atbaa' at-tabi'oon), and so on. Each generation had in its rank
those who were famous for their knowledge of the recitation of the Qur'aan.
...Around the turn of the first century of the hijrah
appeared the scholars of the Qur'aan after whom the qira'aat of today are
named. At this time, along with many other sciences of Islaam, the science of
qira'aat was codified. Thus, members of this generation took from the
Successors the various recitations that they had learnt from the Companions,
and adopted a specific way of reciting the Qur'aan, and this is what is called
a qiraa'a. Each of these persons is called a Qaaree, or Reciter.
...To summarise, the qira'aat...They represent the
various ways that the Companions learnt the Qur'aan from the Prophet
(pbuh)." (p. 185f)
Notice how he has the Companions passing on the altered text and recitation?
The result is the same as with al-Makkee's summary - the Companion Ahruf, the
'revealed' Qur'an was changed.
Of course, this means that the last sentence of this quotation must be taken
as an utter lie in view of the assertion that the Companion recitations changed
with the issuing of the mushafs of 'Uthman! Rather, the Companions had been
forced to reject what they are asserted to have received from Muhammad; forced
to accept something someone else is said he later got from Muhammad! Not one is
asserted to be a pure Ahruf, but all in various states of corruption.
[[NOTE: here we see how the chain of transmission from as-Sulamee who is
credited with the origins of the recitation said to be traceable from Muhammad
to 'Asim breaks down!! We see that in point of fact, as-Sulamee was ONLY the
bearer of an adulterated recitation which came about because of the necessity to
revamp an old recitation onto 'Uthman's mus-haf for Kufah! TO THIS IBN MAS'UD
HAD TO BOW!! The same HAS TO APPLY to every recitation known and sent out by
'Uthman!]]
This is also is also evident in the statement:
"Therefore differences in qira'aat are the remnants
of the differences in the way that the Prophet (pbuh) taught the recitation to
the different Companions, and these differences were among the seven ahruf of
the Qur'aan which Allaah revealed to the Prophet (pbuh). Thus the ten
authentic qira'aat preserve the final recitation that the Prophet (pbuh)
recited to Jibreel - in other words, the qira'aat are manifestations of the
remaining ahruf." (p. 202)
Again concerning the Companion readings (the Ahruf):
"The shaadh qira'aat, in particular, used to form a
part of the seven Ahruf that the Qur'aan was revealed in, but these
recitations were abrogated by the prophet himself, and therefore not preserved
by 'Uthmaan. Under this category fall many of the recitations that are
transmitted with authentic chains of narration from the Companions, and yet do
not conform with the 'Uthmaanic mush-af. These recitations used to form part
of the Qur'aan, and were recited by the Companions, until they were abrogated
by the Prophet before his death." (p. 192)
Despite the admission of corruption, we find that remnants of the 'revealed'
Ahruf, Companion readings, are thought to form the variations in the
qira'aat. This is surely only based on faith NOT on 'proof'.
But, is there any clear definition of
the 7 Ahruf? - "pure folly"
Aside from all this, it is also worth noting what general knowledge (let
alone 'certain knowledge'] there is about the 7 Ahruf. Yasir Qadhi begins the
Chapter on the Ahruf stating:
"Its exact definition in Qur'aanic sciences is the
subject matter of this chapter, and therefore cannot be defined at this
point." (p. 172)
Three pages later he writes:
"As for what is meant by these
seven ahruf, there is a great deal of difference on this issue. Ibn
Qutaybah (d. 276 A.H.) recorded thirty-five opinions on
this issue, and as-Suyootee listed over forty.
Ibn Sa'adan (d. 231 A.H.), a famous grammarian and reciter of the Qur'aan,
even declared that the true meaning of the ahruf was known
only to Allaah, and thus to attempt to investigate into this issue was futile!
On the other hand, Imaam Muhammad ibn al-Jazaree (d. 832 A.H.), perhaps the
greatest scholar of the qira'aat after the era of the salaf, said "I have
sought to discover the meanings of these hadeeth (about the ahruf), and have
pondered over them, and contemplated this topic for over thirty years, until
Allaah opened my mind to that which is the correct answer in this matter.
Inshaa Allaah!"
The reason that such great difference of
opinion exists concerning the exact meaning of the ahruf is due to the fact
that there does not exist any explicit narrations from the Prophet (pbuh), or
the salaf, concerning the exact nature of the ahruf; these various opinions
are merely the conclusions of later scholars, based upon their examination of
the evidences and their personal reasoning (ijtihaad).
Therefore, it should be understood
from the outset that to arrive at one specific conclusion, and claim with
certainty that it alone is correct and all else is wrong, is pure folly."(p.
175 f)
Noone can possible know what the 7 Ahruf were through examining the evidence,
or by any other means.
There are also some definitive statements
concerning the 7 Readings NOT BEING the 7 Ahruf. These Yasir Qadhi
lists under the opinion of some scholars who believed that the 7 Ahruf were the
7 Readings. Of this opinion he states:
"This is contradicted historically as there are
more than 7 qira'aat, and the collection and codification of the qira'aat
occurred four centuries after the Prophet's (pbuh) death. None of the major
scholars of Islaam held this view, as ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 A.H.) said
"There is no difference of opinion among the scholars that the seven
ahruf and not the same as the seven famous qira'aat."
Unfortunately most of the Muslim masses understand the
hadeeth of the ahruf to refer to the qira'aat." (p. 177)
And:
"They are not the same as the seven ahruf, as shall
be elaborated shortly." (p. 186)
In fact, he records the following about sentiment directed at ibn Mujahid who
started the trouble(!):
"He purposely chose seven Qaarees to match the
number of the ahruf the Qur'aan was revealed in. Unfortunately, this led many
people to mistakenly believe that the different qira'aat were the same as the
ahruf that the Prophet (pbuh) referred to in the various hadeeth. This is
obviously false, since Ibn Mujaahid wrote his book four centuries after the
Prophet's (pbuh) death. Due to this misconception, many of the later scholars
took Ibn Mujaahid to task, wishing that he had chosen a different number, so
that this confusion could have been prevented. Ibn al-Jazaree (d. 832 A.H.)
wrote:
Many of the scholar disliked the fact that Ibn
Mujaahid restricted himself to seven qira'aat, and said that he was mistaken
in doing so, and wished that he had chosen a number greater than this, or at
least explained the purpose behind choosing this number, so that those
people who have no knowledge would not be misled."
(p. 186; footnote states "Ibn al-Jazari, p.
39")
Consider these matters carefully.
The confusion shown should warn anyone that the Qur'an is NOT what it is
claimed to be.
Brother Mark
Oct. 20/00