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:
and then he has the Companions agreeing with the move, and 'Uthman stating
On p. 137 he has
and
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
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:
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):
In his footnote 51 (which was just denoted by 3 asterisks ***) he writes:
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:
Again he repeats this on p. 200:
[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:
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:
AND the Companion testimony that:
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:
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:
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):
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:
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:
Again concerning the Companion readings (the Ahruf):
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:
Three pages later he writes:
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:
Unfortunately most of the Muslim masses understand the hadeeth of the ahruf to refer to the qira'aat." (p. 177)
And:
In fact, he records the following about sentiment directed at ibn Mujahid who started the trouble(!):
(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.