An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qurʾān

Contents

The Readings in their First Emergence

The “reading” (qirāʾā) — by which is meant one of the faces the Qurʾānic text may bear — is an old term whose age goes back to the epoch of the first Companions. After the Messenger of God’s (ṣ) passing, a number of the senior Companions set about collecting the Qurʾān into codices — among them ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd, Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, Muʿādh ibn Jabal, al-Miqdād ibn al-Aswad, and their like — and at times they differed in the fixing of the text or in the manner of its reading, so that the codices of the early Companions came to differ; and each region of the Islamic lands would read according to the codex which the Companion resident among them had collected.

The people of Kūfa read by the reading of Ibn Masʿūd; the people of Baṣra by the reading of Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī; and the people of Syria by the reading of Ubayy ibn Kaʿb — and so on, as was set out in detail in Volume One.

This state of affairs continued until the age of ʿUthmān, when the matter of divergence grew grave, and a company of the discerning ones of the Umma — the likes of Ḥudhayfa ibn al-Yamān — took alarm and counselled ʿUthmān to undertake the unification of the codices, before the Book of God should fall prey to divergence and rending apart.

What ʿUthmān did, then, was to order a group to copy out unified codices, to dispatch them to the great cities, and to compel the Muslims to read by them and to cast aside all other codices and readings.

But the group he had deputed lacked the competence for this grave task; and so there fell into those very codices orthographic errors, contradictions, and some divergence — a thing that brought back upon the Muslims their divergence in the reading of the Qurʾān.

ʿUthmān had sent with each codex someone to instruct the people in its unified text — on the supposition that the codices were unified: with the Meccan codex he sent ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Sāʾib; with the Syrian, al-Mughīra ibn Shihāb; with the Kūfan, Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī; and with the Baṣran, ʿĀmir ibn Qays; and so on.¹

These emissaries would instruct the people of each region according to the codex sent to them; and thus the peril of divergence returned, owing to the divergence in the text of those codices² — added to other factors that abetted it.³ The people of each region held to the text in their own codex, and from here arose the divergence of the readings of the great cities (amṣār), in place of the divergence of the readers (qurrāʾ) that had obtained before. Before this event a reading was ascribed to the collector of a codex; now it came to be ascribed to the city to which the ʿUthmānic codex — not perfectly unified — had been sent; and so they would say: the reading of Mecca, of Syria, of Medina, of Kūfa, of Baṣra, and so forth.

And so the aim for which such efforts had been expended, and over whose realization the clamour of groups such as the followers of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd had been raised, did not fully succeed; the factors of disunion and divergence remained, spreading with the length of time. All this was the fruit of the caliph’s laxity in the matter of unifying the codices, for he did not take up in dead earnest so grave an affair, one touching a pillar of the Muslims’ life throughout their abiding history. The caliph himself did indeed sense this flaw in the codex that was raised up to him,⁴

but he paid it no heed and displayed his laxity concerning the correction — a thing for which he is severely to be blamed, and one that further betrays the incompetence of the persons he had deputed for so momentous a task and their unfitness to undertake it. Yet withal the caliph did not reconsider the affair of the Qurʾān; and perhaps it was a precipitancy without reasonable warrant.

Ibn Abī Dāwūd relates that, after they had completed the copying, they raised a codex to ʿUthmān; he looked into it and said, “You have done well and finely; I see in it something of solecism (laḥn), which the Arabs will set straight with their tongues,” then added, “Had the one dictating been of Hudhayl and the scribe of Thaqīf, this would not be found in it.”⁵ We know not the reason for such laxity concerning the Book of God, the Mighty, the Praiseworthy!

Perhaps an objector may say: grant that the caliph was lax concerning the flaw he sensed in the drawn script of the codex — why, then, were the caliphs after him lax in this matter, and especially one like the Imam, the Commander of the Faithful ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (ʿa), who was the most learned of the Companions in the Qurʾān and the most zealous for its preservation and collection?

We say: our answer to that has gone before — namely, that it was not in the interest of the Umma that the Qurʾān be touched thereafter, even by way of correction, at all. Otherwise the people of caprice and innovation would have taken it as a pretext for distorting the Qurʾān and tampering with its noble text under the plea of correcting its error, and the Book would have fallen prey to the greeds and shifting policies that change with the turning of the age.

The first to sense this dread peril was the Imam, the Commander of the Faithful (ʿa); he stood against this door and shut it fast for ever.

They relate that a man recited, within the Imam’s (ʿa) hearing, the verse of the clustered ṭalḥ (56:29);⁶ the Imam fell to murmuring to himself: “What has ṭalḥ to do here? It is rather ṭalʿ (the palm’s spadix), as in His words, “and tall date palms with regularly set spathes” (50:10)⁷.”

This was not, on the Imam’s part, an objection against the reader nor a call to alter the word; it was merely a self-communing that he murmured. But some who heard him rose to suggest: “Shall we not change it?” The Imam recoiled, finding the grave suggestion strange, and spoke his abiding words: “The Qurʾān is not to be stirred up today, nor to be altered.”⁸

This stance of the Imam (ʿa) became an Islamic ordinance for ever: no Muslim has the right to stretch out a correcting hand to the supposed errors of the Qurʾān, whatever his intention, sincere or false. Thereby the Noble Qurʾān came to rest within a frame of complete preservation of its original text, and was kept safe from distortion and alteration for all time.

(A note.) Abū Bakr ibn al-Anbārī has here a comment which, I think, slipped from him unawares. After transmitting the report from the Imam (ʿa) he said: “The meaning of this is that he returned to what is in the codex, knew it to be the correct thing, and annulled that which had slipped from his own saying.”⁹

There is no doubt that such a supposition, in respect of one like the Imam (ʿa), is an impertinence betraying its speaker’s ignorance of the Imam’s standing in relation to the Qurʾān — he who was the most learned of the Companions in the placing of its verses: when, where, and concerning what each was revealed.¹⁰ He beheld the light of revelation and smelt the scent of prophethood; the Messenger (ṣ) said to him, “You hear what I hear and see what I see, save that you are not a prophet”;¹¹ he was the gate of the city of the Prophet’s knowledge, through which it is entered;¹² and so the Companions would refer to him in what perplexed them, while he referred to none of them¹³ — “the flood pours down from him, and the bird cannot soar to him.”¹⁴

Is it, then, in respect of such a personage — resplendent on the horizon of knowledge and of Islam — that such suppositions are entertained? Baseless they are, unless there be in the hearts a disease: “so He made them deaf, and blinded their sight” (47:23)¹⁵; “it is not the eyes that turn blind, but the hearts turn blind, which are in the breasts” (22:46)¹⁶.

Factors in the Rise of Divergence

There is no doubt that the divergence of the codices of the great cities was the weightiest factor in the rise of the variance in reading, for the people of each city held to reading by their codex and under the instruction of their own reciter. Thus Ibn ʿĀmir — the reciter of Syria — read at Āl ʿImrān (3:184)¹⁷ bi-l-zubur, with the bāʾ, because the Syrian codex was so written, while the rest read wa-l-zubur, without it.¹⁸

So too Nāfiʿ and Ibn ʿĀmir read at Āl ʿImrān (3:133)¹⁹ sāriʿū, without the wāw, because the Medinan and Syrian codices were devoid of it — Nāfiʿ being Medinan and Ibn ʿĀmir Syrian — while the rest read wa-sāriʿū, with it, their codices having contained it.²⁰ There are, besides, other factors that abetted the divergence, of which we mention the following.

1. The Rudimentariness of the Script

The script among the Arabs at that time was at a rudimentary stage; its principles were not yet firmly settled, nor were the Arabs acquainted with its arts or with precision in its drawing and correct writing. Often a word would be written otherwise than the measure of its pronunciation — and something of that still lingers in present-day orthography. They would write a word in a form bearing resemblance and admitting several faces: the final nūn was written indistinguishably from the rāʾ, the wāw from the yāʾ; sometimes the final mīm took the shape of a wāw, the dāl the form of the Kūfic kāf, and the medial ʿayn the look of a hāʾ. They would also disjoin the letters of a single word,

writing the yāʾ detached from it, as in yastaḥyī, nuḥyī, and uḥyī, or dropping it altogether, as in īlāfihim, which they wrote without a yāʾ²¹ — a thing that perplexed some readers, so that they read by the drawn form. Abū Jaʿar read li-īlāf Quraysh with the hamza dropped and the yāʾ retained, and “for their accustoming — the journey of winter and summer” (106:1–2)²² with the hamza retained and the yāʾ dropped, while Ibn Fulayḥ read alifihim with the hamza and a quiescent lām. So the readers differed over this one word with a strange divergence, all for want of a precisely fixed drawn form.

Sometimes they drew the tanwīn as a nūn within the word,²³ and conversely wrote a nūn as an alif in many places — among them la-nasfaʿan bi-l-nāṣiya (96:15)²⁴ and la-yakūnan mina l-ṣāghirīn (12:32),²⁵ where the two nūns are the light nūn of emphasis written with the alif of tanwīn; and wa-idhan la-ātaynāhum min ladunnā ajran ʿāẓīman (4:67),²⁶ where they wrote idhan in place of idhin, likening it to the accusative tanwīn.²⁷

They likewise dropped wāws and yāʾs without reasonable cause — among the weightiest factors of obscurity and difficulty in the reading, and indeed in the interpretation too. Thus in His words at al-Taḥrīm (66:4)²⁸ they did not write the wāw of wa-ṣāliḥū l-muʿminīn, writing rather wa-ṣāliḥu l-muʿminīn, whence arose the confusion whether it is a singular by which the genus is intended or a genitive plural.²⁹

They dropped the alif from ʿādan al-ūlā, writing ʿād al-ūlā (53:50), so that one might take it for a verb or a noun;³⁰ and they added an alif in jāʺnā, writing jāʾānā (43:38),³¹ though the word is singular, so that the ignorant might read it as a dual.³²

They also drew an alif after many a wāw they supposed to be a plural wāw, and conversely dropped it. Of the first kind are innamā ashkū bī, wa-fa-lā yarbū, nablū akhbārakum, and mā tatlū l-shayāṭīn; of the second, fāʾū, jāʾū, fa-bāʾū, tabawwaʾū l-dār, saʿaw, and ʿataw — and much else besides.

Hence the early copyists were at times suspected by the copyists of the codices, who deemed the correct form other than what they had written. It is related of Ibn ʿAbbās that he read wa-waṣṣā rabbuka where the codex has wa-qaḍā rabbuka (17:23);³³ it was said to him, “It is in the codex wa-qaḍā,” and he replied, “One of the two wāws stuck to the other, so the people read it wa-qaḍā; had it come down with al-qaḍāʾ (the decreeing), none would have associated aught with Him.”

In the wording of Ibn Ashta: “the scribe drew up much ink, so the wāw stuck to the ṣād.”³⁴

It is related of him too that he read a-fa-lam yatabayyan alladhīna āmanū (13:31)³⁵ where the codex has a-fa-lam yaʾas, and said, “I think the scribe wrote it while drowsy.”³⁶

Ibn Ḥajar authenticated the chains of these reports;³⁷ but the correct view in our judgement — granting the soundness of the chains — is that they are to be construed otherwise than their outward sense suggests, as our discussion in Volume One has shown.³⁸

2. The Absence of Dotting

The pointed letter (al-muʿjam) was written just like the unpointed (al-muhmal), with no dots to distinguish the two. Thus no distinction was made in writing between the sīn and the shīn, nor between the ʿayn and the ghayn, the rāʾ and the zāy, the bāʾ, tāʾ, thāʾ, and yāʾ, the fāʾ and the qāf, the jīm, ḥāʾ, and khāʾ, the dāl and the dhāl, the ṣād and the ḍād, or the ṭāʾ and the ẓāʾ; and it fell to the reader himself to discern, by the available indications, whether a given letter was a bāʾ or a yāʾ, a jīm or a ḥāʾ, and so forth.

An instance is al-Kisāʾī’s reading fa-tathabbatū (“then verify”) at al-Ḥujurāt (49:6),³⁹ where the rest read fa-tabayyanū (“then ascertain”).⁴⁰ Ibn ʿĀmir and the Kūfans read nunshiruhā (“We revive them”), the rest nunshizuhā (“We raise them up”), at al-Baqara (2:259).⁴¹ Ibn ʿĀmir and Ḥafṣ read wa-yukaffiru ʿankum (“and He will absolve you”), the rest nukaffir (“We shall absolve”), at al-Baqara (2:271).⁴² Ibn al-Sumayfaʿ read nunaḥḥīka bi-badanika (“We shall set you aside with your body”), the rest nunajjīka (“We shall deliver you”), at Yūnus (10:92).⁴³ The Kūfans other than ʿĀṣim read la-nuthwiyannahum (“We shall surely lodge them”), the rest la-nubawwiʾannahum (“We shall surely settle them”), at al-ʿAnkabūt (29:58);⁴⁴ and examples of this kind are very many.⁴⁵

3. The Stripping of Vowel-Marks

The word was written bare of the standard vowel-marks, both as to its pattern (wazn) and its case-inflection (iʿrāb), so that the reader might be perplexed over a word admitting several faces. He might not know, for instance, whether iʿlam is an imperative or a first-person imperfect: thus Ḥamza and al-Kisāʾī read iʿlam (“know!”) at al-Baqara (2:259)⁴⁶ in the imperative, while the rest read it in the first person (“I know”).⁴⁷ So too Nāfiʿ read wa-lā tusʾal (“and ask not”) at al-Baqara (2:119)⁴⁸ in the prohibitive, while the rest read it as a passive imperfect (“you shall not be questioned”).⁴⁹ And Ḥamza and al-Kisāʾī read wa-man yaṭṭawwaʿ at al-Baqara (2:158)⁵⁰ with the yāʾ and a doubled ṭāʾ, as a jussive imperfect, while the rest read it with the tāʾ and a fatḥa on the ṭāʾ, as a perfect.⁵¹

Ibn Abī Hāshim said that the cause of the divergence of the seven readings and others is that in each region to which a codex was sent there was a Companion from whom its people took [their reading], the codices being bare of dotting and vowel-marks — and so the divergence arose among the readers of the great cities. Our master, the Imam al-Khūʾī (may God have mercy on him), held that it has not become clear that the readings are a matter of transmission; perhaps, rather, they are the exertions (ijtihādāt) of the readers — a view supported by the explicit statements of some notables, and strengthened when one considers that the very cause of the readers’ divergence was the barrenness of the dispatched codices of dotting and vowel-marks.⁵²

4. The Dropping of Alifs

The Kūfic Arabic script was descended from the Syriac,⁵³ and its writers would not set down the extended alifs within the body of a word;⁵⁴ the Qurʾān too was written in the Kūfic hand on that method, a thing that occasioned confusion in many words. Thus Nāfiʿ, Abū ʿAmr, and Ibn Kathīr read wa-mā yukhādiʿūna illā anfusahum (“and they deceive none but themselves”) at al-Baqara (2:9),⁵⁵ since yukhādiʿūna at the head of the verse had been written without an alif, and they supposed the two words to be of one kind.⁵⁶

So too they wrote wa-ḥarāmun ʿalā qaryatin (“and it is forbidden for a town”) at al-Anbiyāʾ (21:95)⁵⁷ as wa-ḥaram, without an alif, whence Ḥamza, al-Kisāʾī, and Shuʿba read wa-ḥirm, with a kasra on the ḥāʾ and a quiescent rāʾ.⁵⁸ And the Kūfans read a-lam najʿali l-arḍa mahdan (“Have We not made the earth a cradle?”) at al-Nabaʾ (78:6)⁵⁹ instead of mihādan, because it was written in the codex without an alif.⁶⁰

Abū Jaʿar and the Baṣrans read wa-idh waʿadnā mūsā (“and when We appointed with Moses”) at al-Baqara (2:51)⁶¹ — and likewise in al-Aʿrāf and Ṭā Hā — without an alif, because it was so written, while the rest read wa-idh wāʿadnā (“and when We made a tryst”).⁶² Abū ʿAmr and Ibn Kathīr read bal adraka, the rest bal iddāraka ʿilmuhum fī l-ākhira (“nay, their knowledge has failed as to the Hereafter”), at al-Naml (27:66),⁶³ the divergence arising because it was written without an alif, so each read as he saw fit.⁶⁴ And Nāfiʿ read fī ghayābāti l-jubb (a plural), the rest fī ghayābati l-jubb (a singular, “in the bottom of the well”), at Yūsuf (12:10),⁶⁵ for the codex was bare of the alif — written ghayabti — so Nāfiʿ judged it a plural and the others a singular.⁶⁶

These and their likes are the primary factors in the confusion of the text’s reading, for it lacked any distinguishing mark, was bare of dots and vowels, and was disordered in its drawing by omission or addition. Thus the reader might not know whether His words li-takūna li-man khalfaka āya (“that you may be a sign to those after you”) at Yūnus (10:92)⁶⁷ were with a fāʾ (khalfaka) or a qāf (khalqaka); or whether tatlū at Yūnus (10:30)⁶⁸ were tatlū, natlū, or yatlū; or whether yaʿlamuhu were naʿlamuhu, taʿlamuhu, or bi-ʿilmihi.

Add to this certain additions that vitiate the intended sense, when the reader had no acquaintance with the text from an external hearing — as in His words la-uʿadhdhibannahu ʿadhāban shadīdan aw la-adhbaḥannahu (“I will surely punish him severely, or slaughter him”) at al-Naml (27:21):⁶⁹ they added an alif within the single word,⁷⁰ la-ādhbaḥannahu, so that a reader ignorant of the reality might reckon it the negating lā, whereas it is the lām of emphasis, the hamza the first-person marker, and the alif superfluous.

So too, in the word li-shayʾin in His words wa-lā taqūlanna li-shayʾin innī fāʿilun dhālika ghadan (“and do not say of anything, ‘I will surely do that tomorrow’”) at al-Kahf (18:23),⁷¹⁷² they set an alif between the shīn and the yāʾ for no reasonable cause; and in tayʾasū in His words wa-lā tayʾasū min rawḥi llāhi innahu lā yayʾasu min rawḥi llāhi illā l-qawmu l-kāfirūn at Yūsuf (12:87)⁷³ they added an alif after the imperfect-marker in both places — tāyʾasū and yāyʾasu — without warrant.⁷⁴

In any case, the irregularity of the drawn script of the first codex was the foremost factor in the rise of the readers’ divergence.

It fell to the reader himself to choose the kind of letter and its vowelling, to fix the word in its pattern and the manner of its case-ending — besides its pointing and vocalization — according to such indications, circumstances, attestations, and parallels as appeared to him, and the fitness of sense and expression; so he had, of necessity, to weigh all these before choosing the reading he deemed soundest in his own view.

And there is no doubt that tastes and native aptitudes, viewpoints and evidences, differ with persons’ mental casts, their prior acquaintance with the matter, and the extent of their practice in it; hence divergence occurred in the reading of the Qurʾān according to the disparity of these theoretical exertions, each reader resting on grounds and arguments that might differ from another’s.

Many scholars have composed works on the bases of the various readings, setting out their grounds and arguments — among them Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan ibn Aḥmad al-Fārisī in his al-Ḥujja fī ʿIlal al-Qirāʾāt al-Sabʿ, and Abū Muḥammad Makkī ibn Abī Ṭālib al-Qaysī in his al-Kashf ʿan wujūh al-qirāʾāt al-sabʿ wa-ʿilalihā wa-ḥujajihā; and we shall cite specimens of their words, for authorship on the justification of the readings is abundant.

As for transmission or oral reception from the master, it was not perfectly regulated so long as it rested on mere memorization, unfixed in special registers or in the noble codex itself by the drawing of marks; so inevitably much mixing and confusion befell it, the more so as the chains grew long and the interval widened between the first master and the last reader.

Those, then, are the weightiest causes of the divergence in the readings, over and above the theoretical exertions and considerations that the reader would weigh and rely upon in his reading; and we shall detail this aspect in the following chapter.

5. The Influence of Dialect

There is no doubt that every people — even one of a single language — has dialects that differ with the multiplicity of the tribes and the clans branching from them; and so the Arab tribes differed among themselves in dialect, in expression, and in delivery.

An instance is their divergence in the vowels — such as nastaʿīn (“we seek help”), with a fatḥa on the nūn or a kasra: al-Farrāʾ said it is read with a fatḥa in the tongue of Qays and Asad, while others give it a kasra.⁷⁵

Ibn Jinnī said: the people of the desert read al-ḥumadu lillāhi, with a ḍamma on both the dāl and the lām; and one of our associates related to me, as the reading of Ibrāhīm ibn Abī ʿAbla, al-ḥamdi lillāhi, with a kasra on both.⁷⁶

So too their divergence in vowelling and quiescence, as in maʿakum with a fatḥa on the ʿayn, or maʿkum with its quiescence — the poet said: “And whoever is God-fearing, God is with him (maʿhu); and God’s provision comes back to him, and comes with the morning.”⁷⁷

And their divergence in the substitution of letters, as in ulāʾika and ulālika — al-Farrāʾ recited: “Those (ulālika) are my people; they were no motley crowd — and does any admonish the utterly errant save the likes of those (ulālikā)?”⁷⁸

And their divergence in the hamza and its softening, as in mustahziʾūn and mustahzūn (“mockers”); and in metathesis, for al-Mubarrad said: the Arabs say ṣāʿiqa and ṣawāʿiq — this being the way of the people of the Ḥijāz, in which the Qurʾān came down — while the Banū Tamīm say ṣāqiʿa and ṣawāqiʿ.⁷⁹

And their divergence in retention and omission, as in istaḥayt and istaḥyayt, or the substitution of a sound letter for a weak one, as in ammā zayd and aymā zayd;⁸⁰ in inclination (imāla) and fronting (tafkhīm), as in qaḍā and ramā; and in vowelling a quiescent letter with a kasra or a ḍamma, as in ishtarawu l-ḍalāla.

And their divergence in gender, for some of the Arabs say hādhihi l-baqar and some hādhā l-baqar, and hādhihi l-nakhīl and hādhā l-nakhīl; and in assimilation, as in muhtadūn and muhaddūn with a doubled dāl; and in case-inflection, as in mā zaydun qāʾiman and mā zaydun qāʾimun — for the negating mā, among Tamīm, does not govern, while among the Ḥijāzīs it governs as laysa does.

So too their saying inna hādhāni [with the alif], which is the tongue of Banū l-Ḥārith ibn Kaʿb, who do the like with every quiescent yāʾ preceded by a fatḥa; an instance is the verse of one of them, Hūbar al-Ḥārithī: “He bore away from us, between his ears (udhnāhu), a thrust that summoned him to the settling, barren dust.”⁸¹ Some men of letters accounted for this by an explanation that would make it a regular rule.⁸²

And their divergence in the form of the plural, as in asrā and asārā (“captives”); and in full articulation (taḥqīq) — that is, emphasizing a letter or its vowel — as against slurring (ikhtilās): in yaʾmurukum (2:67)⁸³ some fully sounded the ḍamma of the rāʾ while others slurred it, and in fa-man ʿufiya lahu (2:178)⁸⁴ some fully sounded the kasra of the fāʾ while others slurred it; and in the pausal form on the feminine hāʾ, as in hādhihi umma, pausing with a hāʾ, and ummat, pausing on a quiescent tāʾ.

And their divergence in over-lengthening (ishbāʿ) to the point of generating a letter, as in unẓūr for unẓur (“look!”); al-Farrāʾ recited: “God knows that we, at our meeting on the day of parting, incline toward our neighbours; and that wherever desire bends my gaze, from wherever they journey, I draw near and look (fa-anẓūr).”

Abū al-Ḥusayn Aḥmad ibn Fāris said: all these tongues are named and ascribed to their people; but this is a place of concision. Though each belonged to one folk and not another, yet once they had spread, all took them up in turn⁸⁵ — that is, they were not so foreign as to impair the eloquence of the Qurʾān.

Among them, too, is their over-emphasis in sounding the fatḥa-bearing hamza, so that it turns into an ʿayn — a tongue current among Tamīm and Banū Qays ibn ʿAylān, called the ʿanʿana of Tamīm, so that they say ashhadu ʿannaka [for annaka]. Dhū al-Rumma said: “Is it because (a-ʿan) you traced out a dwelling of Kharqāʾ that the water of longing pours from your eyes?” — meaning a-an; and Dhū al-Rumma is an accomplished Bedouin poet of the Islamic period.

Yet it is a censured tongue; hence Ibn Fāris said, in extolling the tongue of Quraysh: do you not see that you find in their speech neither the ʿanʿana of Tamīm, nor the ʿajrafiyya of Qays, nor the kashkasha of Asad, nor the kaskasa of Rabīʿa, nor the kasra you hear from Asad and Qays, as in tiʿlamūn and niʿlam, or shiʿīr and biʿīr.⁸⁶

So too some of the Arabs would “sharpen” (yanbir) the yāʾ or the wāw — that is, turn them into a hamza — whom Sībawayh called ahl al-taḥqīq, those who over-sound the letter. He said it is a poor tongue, and that the Prophet (ṣ) forbade it: a man said to him, “O Prophet of God (yā nabīʾa llāh)”; he said, “Do not sharpen (lā tanbir) my name” — and in one version, “We, the company of Quraysh, do not sharpen (lā nanbir).”⁸⁷

Sībawayh said: it has reached us that a folk of the Ḥijāz, of the people of taḥqīq, fully sound nabīʾ and barīʾa — and that is scanty and poor.⁸⁸ When al-Mahdī performed the pilgrimage and came to Medina, he put al-Kisāʾī forward to lead the people in prayer; al-Kisāʾī sounded the hamza, and the people of Medina reproached him, saying that he was “sharpening” with the Qurʾān in the mosque of the Messenger of God.⁸⁹

Hudhayl, for their part, would turn the kasra-bearing wāw into a hamza, saying iʿāʾ for wiʿāʾ (“vessel”).⁹⁰ This tribal divergence might grow great and intense — as between the ʿAdnānī tribes in the Ḥijāz and the Qaḥṭānī tribes in the Yemen, whether in vocabulary, constructions, or dialects — so much so that Abū ʿAmr ibn al-ʿAlāʾ said: “The tongue of Ḥimyar and the far reaches of the Yemen is not our tongue, nor is their Arabic our Arabic.”⁹¹

In sum, the various dialects of the Arabs had left their mark even upon the reading of the Qurʾān — not only in the dawn of Islam and the days of the Messenger’s (ṣ) life, but even in later ages, when some readers would read according to current tribal dialects. Dr. Shāhīn has set out many reports from the readers whose origin goes back to dialectal considerations that shaped the divergence of the Qurʾānic readings.⁹² And Aḥmad Amīn said that this divergence had its results, among them the divergence of the readings, for the Qurʾān was recited according to the Arabs’ differences in their tongues and dialects.⁹³

Al-Kalbī related — by way of Abū Ṣāliḥ — from Ibn ʿAbbās, who said: “The Qurʾān came down in seven tongues, five of them in the tongue of the ʿajz of Hawāzin.”⁹⁴ Abū ʿUbayd said the ʿajz are Saʿd ibn Bakr, Jusham ibn Bakr, Naṣr ibn Muʿāwiya, and Thaqīf, and that these tribes are those called the ʿUlyā Hawāzin (the upper Hawāzin).

They are the ones of whom Abū ʿAmr ibn al-ʿAlāʾ said that the most eloquent of the Arabs are the upper Hawāzin and the lower Hawāzin, while the lower Tamīm are Banū Dārim.⁹⁵ In another report from Ibn ʿAbbās, the Qurʾān came down in the tongue of the two Kaʿbs — Kaʿb of Quraysh and Kaʿb of Khuzāʿa; asked how, he said, “because the abode is one” — Abū ʿUbayd explaining that Khuzāʿa were the neighbours of Quraysh, so their tongue came easily to them.⁹⁶ Al-Maqdisī said the two Kaʿbs are Kaʿb ibn Luʾayy of Quraysh and Kaʿb ibn ʿAmr of Khuzāʿa.⁹⁷

Al-Suyūṭī explained “tongue” here as the manner of pronouncing in recitation — clear articulation and assimilation, fronting and thinning, inclination, over-lengthening, prolongation and shortening, doubling and lightening, softening and full articulation, and the like.⁹⁸

Perhaps, in this exposition, we have been more expansive than needed; but our aim was to acquaint the reader with two things. First, the extent of dialect’s influence in dividing a single people within its one language. Second, the depth of this influence, such that its traces lingered even into later ages, its roots not torn up despite the Prophet’s prohibition — as in the full sounding of the wāw and the yāʾ that they termed nabr.

These readers — among them the Seven — read by it, a thing that occasions astonishment; al-Kisāʾī’s nabr in the Prophet’s mosque and the Medinans’ reproach of him have already passed, and further examples will reach the reader of the readers’ recourse to this censured — indeed expressly forbidden — tongue. Yet if a dialect is well-known and familiar, there is no harm in it, as comes in the ḥadīth of Abū al-ʿĀliya: “Before the Messenger of God (ṣ) there recited, from every five, one man; they differed in the tongue, and he was pleased with the reading of all of them; and the Banū Tamīm were the most eloquent of the folk.”⁹⁹

And in the ḥadīth of Ibn Arqam: “We were in the mosque of the Messenger of God (ṣ) when a man came and said: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd taught me a sūra, and Zayd taught it to me, and Ubayy ibn Kaʿb taught it to me, and their readings differed — so by whose reading shall I take?” The Messenger of God (ṣ) fell silent, and ʿAlī (ʿa), seated at his side, said: “Let each man recite as he was taught; each is good and fine.”¹⁰⁰ The ḥadīth is to be borne upon the divergence of the dialects in expression and delivery.

What follows is a representative display of readings whose motive was the influence of dialect. Ibn Kathīr read fa-stawā ʿalā sūʾqihi (48:29)¹⁰¹ with a quiescent hamza; Abū Ḥayyān called it a weak tongue,¹⁰² and al-Qasṭallānī spoke of the over-emphasis in sharpening the hamza and pressing its sound until it becomes like the sound of one retching.¹⁰³

The readers afterward agreed to call this taḥqīq in expression, explaining it as pressing a thing to its full limit or its due;¹⁰⁴ and many read by it — al-Kisāʾī, Ḥafṣ, Ḥamza, and Abū Bakr — it being also the way of Warsh.¹⁰⁵

Some read man in tiʾmanhu bi-qinṭār (3:75)¹⁰⁶ with a kasra on the tāʾ, a light yāʾ, a fatḥa on the mīm, and a quiescent nūn; al-Dānī said it is the tongue of Tamīm, and Abū Ḥayyān agreed.¹⁰⁷ Ibn Kathīr also read bi-l-suʾūqi wa-l-aʿnāq (38:33),¹⁰⁸ and Saʿīd ibn Jubayr min iʿāʾi akhīhi (12:76)¹⁰⁹ — the turning of the kasra-bearing wāw into a hamza, a regular dialect among Hudhayl.¹¹⁰

Al-Ḥasan and Abū Rajāʾ read wa-lā adraʾtukum bihi (10:16)¹¹¹ with the hamza, as a first-person perfect; Abū Ḥātim explained that al-Ḥasan turned the yāʾ into an alif, as in the tongue of Banū l-Ḥārith (who say al-salāmu ʿalāka), then sounded the alif with a hamza — the censured nabr of some of Banū Asad and Hudhayl.¹¹² Behold this virtuosity in reading, that leads to tampering with the verses of the Qurʾān according to deviant tastes and aptitudes!

Abū Jaʿfar and al-Ḥasan read wa-idhā l-rusulu wuqqitat (77:11),¹¹³ the dialect of the lower Muḍar; Ṭalḥa ibn Muṣarrif read yuʾnis [for Yūnus] and yuʾsif [for Yūsuf];¹¹⁴ Abū Jaʿfar, Nāfiʿ, and Abū ʿAmr read fa-immā taraʾinna (19:26);¹¹⁵ Ibn Muḥayṣin read baʿda dhālika la-māʾitūn (23:15);¹¹⁶ and al-Kisāʾī read ishtaraʾū l-ḍalālata (2:16)¹¹⁷ with the hamza.

Abū Rajāʾ, Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyab, and al-Aʿmash read kawkabun darrīʾ (24:35)¹¹⁸ — with a fatḥa on the dāl, a doubled kasra-bearing rāʾ, and a hamza on the yāʾ;¹¹⁹ and Abū Jaʿfar read ʿalā kulli jabalin minhunna juzzan (2:260)¹²⁰ with a doubled zāy, lightening the hamza,¹²¹ and likewise juzzun maqsūm (15:44).¹²²

Al-Zuhrī read lakum fīhā diff (16:5);¹²³ Ḥafṣ read aṣḥābu l-mashamma (56:9);¹²⁴ Ibn Muḥayṣin read al-malāʾimīn, assimilating the nūn of min into the lām, for mina l-āthimīn (5:106),¹²⁵ and also yasʾalūnaka ʿallanfāl (8:1);¹²⁶ al-Ḥasan and al-Aʿmash read asāʾū l-sawwā (30:10);¹²⁷ ʿĀṣim and Abū ʿAmr read sayaghghu sharābuhu (35:12);¹²⁸ al-Ḥasan read kamā sīla (2:108);¹²⁹ Yaḥyā and Ibn Muʿtamir read fa-innahum yīlamūna kamā tīlamūna (4:104);¹³⁰ Nāfiʿ read wa-lam yakun lahu kufaʾun aḥad (112:4);¹³¹ and al-Aʿmash read abwunī (2:31).¹³²

6. The Arbitration of Opinion and Ijtihād

This is the greatest of the factors in its influence upon the readers’ choices: each reader had an opinion he relied upon in the reading he chose, and they were sometimes despotic in their opinions, even if the majority or the people of taḥqīq differed from them. The report of al-Kisāʾī’s nabr with the hamza in the Messenger’s (ṣ) mosque, and the Medinans’ reproach of him, has already passed;¹³³ and just as people rejected much of Ḥamza’s readings, he paid them no heed, for the strength of the arguments he saw.¹³⁴

So too Ibn Shanabūdh was despotic in what he held correct, even where it ran counter to the ʿUthmānic drawn text; a session was convened in the presence of the vizier Ibn Muqla to make him recant, and though he spoke harshly at first, the vizier ordered him lashed until he was driven to declare his recantation under compulsion.¹³⁵ Another session was convened for Abū Bakr ibn Miqsam, who would choose, of the readings, whatever seemed to him soundest in Arabic, even if it contradicted transmission or the drawn text of the codex.¹³⁶

Yet the censure of the likes of these was not for their arbitration of opinions and ijtihādī tastes as such, but for their departing from conformity with the drawn script; for a reading, if it accorded with the outward drawn form, was not reckoned objectionable. The distinguishing mark of the Seven and of the other trusted, well-known readers was their adherence to the script — as Makkī relates that Ḥafṣ read kufuwan with a wāw, softening the hamza, rather than transferring its vowel and reading kufʾan, lest he contradict the script. Hence those many attempts to justify the anomalous readings — indeed any readings at all — so long as they accorded with the drawn form.

See how al-Dimyāṭī justifies Ḥamza’s reading wa-ttaqū llāha lladhī tasāʾalūna bihi wa-l-arḥāmi (4:1),¹³⁷ with al-arḥām in the genitive, in apposition to the pronoun governed by the preposition, after the doctrine of the Kūfans;¹³⁸ and Ibn ʿĀmir’s reading zuyyina li-kathīrin mina l-mushrikīna qatlu awlādahum shurakāʾihim (6:137),¹³⁹ where qatlu is nominative as the deputy-agent of the passive zuyyina, awlādahum accusative as its object, and shurakāʾihim genitive as the verbal noun’s annexation despite the separation.¹⁴⁰ Instances of the kind are many.

The books on justifying the readings — especially the anomalous — are many: al-Ḥujja of al-Fārisī, al-Muḥtasab of Ibn Jinnī, Imlāʾ mā Manna bihi al-Raḥmān of Abū al-Baqāʾ, and al-Kashf of Makkī, among much else. Here are specimens of the readers’ grounds. Warsh, Ḥafṣ, and Abū ʿAmr read al-buyūt, al-ghuyūb, al-juyūb, al-shuyūkh, and al-ʿuyūn with a ḍamma on their initials;¹⁴¹ Qālūn and Hishām gave a kasra to the bāʾ of al-biyūt and a ḍamma to the rest; Ḥamza gave a kasra to all their initials; and Ibn Dhakwān, Ibn Kathīr, and al-Kisāʾī gave a ḍamma to the ghayn of al-ghuyūb and a kasra to the rest.

Makkī explained the ḍamma-reading as following the original form — the pattern faʿl takes, in the abundant plural, the form fuʿūl (as in kuʿūb, duhūr), and what has a yāʾ as its second radical was carried upon the same rule lest it differ. The kasra-reading he explained as lighter with the yāʾ and as bringing the vowel near the following letter — as they said shihd and liʿb, and saʿīd and righīf, giving the first a kasra for the sake of the guttural after it. He held the ḍamma the preferred choice, as the original; and Abū Ḥātim held nothing but the ḍamma admissible.¹⁴²

Ibn Kathīr and Abū ʿAmr read fa-lā rafatha wa-lā fusūqa (2:197)¹⁴³ with tanwīn and the nominative, while the rest read with the fatḥa and no tanwīn. Makkī said the ground of the first is that lā is in the sense of laysa, its predicate elided; and the ground of the second is that lā is the negation of the genus, indicating general negation — for the laysa-sense negates only a single instance, whereas the verse intends generality.¹⁴⁴

Al-Kisāʾī and Ḥamza read qul fīhā ithmun kathīr (2:219)¹⁴⁵ with the thāʾ. Makkī derived it from abundance, carried upon the sense: for wine breeds, with its drinking, many sins — idle talk and confusion, reviling and false oaths, enmity and betrayal, neglect of the obligatory duties and of the remembrance of God — so it must be described by abundance; and since He said thereafter wa-manāfiʿu li-l-nās, making “benefits” plural, the sins too must be plural. The rest read kabīr, from magnitude — “in them is a great sin” — since the drinking of wine is among the grave sins, as God described polytheism by magnitude: inna l-shirka la-ẓulmun ʿaẓīm (31:13).¹⁴⁶

Then Makkī said that both readings are good and defensible, but that kabīr is dearer to him, because the majority is upon it, and because of His words ḥūban kabīran (4:2)¹⁴⁷ and wa-l-fitnatu akbaru mina l-qatl (2:217).¹⁴⁸

Behold this clash of opinions and choices, and how one like Abū Muḥammad Makkī intervenes to prefer one of the two readings over the other on grounds and justifications that he too relies upon; so that whoever asserts the tawātur of the readings from the Prophet (ṣ) is wide of the mark.

Add to this that some readings of some of the salaf were pure personal ijtihād, even where they contradicted the well-known transmitted reading. Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ used to read mā nansakhu min āyatin aw nansaʾhā (2:106)¹⁴⁹ — in one version aw nunsaʾhā. Told that Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyab read the well-known aw nunsihā, he said: “the Qurʾān was not sent down upon al-Musayyab nor upon his son; it is only ‘mā nansakhu min āyatin aw nansāhā, O Muḥammad’” — citing sa-nuqriʾuka fa-lā tansā illā mā shāʾa llāh (87:6–7)¹⁵⁰ and wa-dhkur rabbaka idhā nasīta (18:24).¹⁵¹ This is nothing but a strange obstinacy against the well-known reading!

The strange thing is that the books of the readings sometimes mention one of the variant letters without ascribing it to any reader, famous or not, and justify it as, for example, the “license” (ijāza) of such-and-such a grammarian. Al-Kirmānī reported that al-Zajjāj permitted min tafāʾut (67:3)¹⁵² with a hamza, and likewise kufʾan [for kufuwan] with a hamza¹⁵³ — but does a grammarian’s license suffice for the choice of a Qurʾānic reading?!

All this apprises you that their reckoning of “tawātur” in the reading is an honorific, outward manner of speaking, to which neither the ancients nor the moderns paid any practical heed at all. And I find myself in no need to adduce more attestations, since the abundant books composed on justifying the readings, and setting out their grounds and arguments, are within everyone’s reach.

7. Excess in Literary Refinement

Among the factors that would prompt the choice of a reading — even an anomalous one, departing from the well-known reading or contradicting the drawn script — is the reader’s excess (ghulūw) in the Arabic letters in which he was expert. Self-admiring, he would allege the correct thing to be what he himself saw, in accordance with the rules of Arabic, which he took as inviolable universals that could in no wise be breached.

An instance is Abū Bakr al-ʿAṭṭār, the pupil of Ibn Shanabūdh, who was the most learned of his age in grammar and reading; he therefore paid no heed to the transmitted readings and would choose for himself the reading he deemed correct and fitting to the sense of the verse, reading fa-lammā stayʾasū minhu khalaṣū nujuban¹⁵⁴ in place of najiyyan (12:80).¹⁵⁵ The upshot was that the clamour of the jurists rose against him; the emir put him on trial, and, unable to defend himself and faced with a flogging, he at last submitted and was made to recant.¹⁵⁶

We may account for most of the readings of the grammarian-readers, and for their despotism in them — al-Kisāʾī among them — by this: excess in literary refinement, together with a measure of self-admiration. (A note.) Many of the imams of grammar and letters faulted the readers’ readings and charged them with weakness of literary competence, and so struck out whatever readings they saw contradicting the rules of Arabic.

Thus Abū ʿUthmān al-Māzinī faulted the reading of the people of Medina, lakum fīhā maʿāʾish¹⁵⁷ with the hamza, calling it an error not to be heeded, taken from Nāfiʿ ibn Abī Nuʿaym, “who did not know Arabic,” and said he has other letters he reads as solecism, of this kind.¹⁵⁸ And Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Mubarrad said of Medina’s reading hāʾulāʾi banātī hunna aṭhara lakum (11:78),¹⁵⁹ with aṭhara in the accusative, that it is a gross solecism — only the reading of Ibn Marwān, who had no knowledge of Arabic.¹⁶⁰

Abū ʿAmr read mā lakum min walāyatihim (8:72)¹⁶¹ and hunālika l-walāya (18:44)¹⁶² with a fatḥa on the wāw; al-Aṣmaʿī said this is a solecism on his part.¹⁶³ Ibn ʿĀmir read arjiʾhu wa-akhāhu (7:111)¹⁶⁴ with the hamza; al-Fārisī called it a mistake, and Ibn Mujāhid and al-Ḥawfī followed him in the faulting.¹⁶⁵ He also read kun fa-yakūna (2:117)¹⁶⁶ with the imperfect in the accusative; Ibn ʿAṭiyya called it a solecism.¹⁶⁷

Abū ʿAmr read wa-anzala junūdan lam yarawhā (9:26)¹⁶⁸ with the yāʾ; Ibn Mujāhid called it a mistake.¹⁶⁹ Ibn Kathīr and Abū ʿAmr read in ṣaddūkum ʿani l-masjidi l-ḥarām (5:2)¹⁷⁰ with a kasra on the hamza of in;¹⁷¹ al-Naḥḥās rejected it,¹⁷² saying that the eminent scholars of grammar, ḥadīth, and inquiry forbid reading by it, for reasons al-Qurṭubī set out in detail.¹⁷³ Nāfiʿ, Ibn Kathīr, and Ḥamza read a-man huwa qānit (39:9)¹⁷⁴ with a light mīm;¹⁷⁵ al-Akhfash and Abū Ḥātim faulted it. ¹⁷⁶ And ʿĀṣim read nujjī l-muʾminīn (21:88)¹⁷⁷ with a single nūn and a doubled jīm; al-Zajjāj and al-Fārisī faulted it.¹⁷⁸

Abū al-Fatḥ ʿUthmān ibn Jinnī, in his al-Khaṣāʾiṣ, described the generality of the readers as suffering from weakness of discernment, and in al-Munṣif as prone to oversight and error, since they have no [grammatical] analogy to fall back upon.¹⁷⁹

Al-Zamakhsharī assailed Ibn ʿĀmir’s reading with shurakāʾ in the genitive — so as to be the annexed term of “the slaying” (qatl) (6:137)¹⁸⁰ — and charged him with weak insight into the usages of eloquent speech. The separation, he said, of the annexing term from the annexed by something other than an adverbial expression is a thing that, were it in the place of poetic necessity, would be reckoned uncouth and rejected, as was the verse: fa-zajjajtuhā bi-mazajjatin / zajja l-qalūṣa Abī Mazāda (“So I pierced her with a spear-thrust, the piercing of Abū Mazāda’s young she-camel”) — where “the piercing” is annexed to “Abū Mazāda,” with the object, “the young she-camel,” intervening between them.

How uncouth, then, in prose speech, he said — and how much more in the inimitable Qurʾān, with its excellent composition and felicity! What led Ibn ʿĀmir to it was that he saw, in some codices, shurakāʾihim written with a yāʾ; had he read both awlād and shurakāʾ in the genitive — the children being their partners in their wealth — he would have found a way out of the awkward construction.¹⁸¹ At this the rabble of the ignorant raised an uproar, alleging for the reading of Ibn ʿĀmir — one of the Seven — a sanctity that it is forbidden to touch and unlawful to reject; see the words of Ibn Munīr al-Iskandarī in the margin of al-Kashshāf, and what Shaykh Yūsuf al-Baḥrānī adduced in al-Kashkūl.¹⁸² A detailed discussion of this reading, and of what the imams said concerning it, will come.

On this occasion we may recall Ibn Qutayba’s faulting, as solecism, of many readings of famous readers who are among the Seven, and his bias against them — charging them with shortness of reach and love of fame and currency, and alleging that most of what they read is an innovation of their own by which the Messenger (ṣ) never read. He said:

“Likewise the solecism of the solecizing among the later readers is not to be made a proof against the Book. In old times people read according to their own tongues; then folk succeeded folk, of the townsmen and the sons of the non-Arabs, who had neither the natural instinct of the language nor the science of its niceties, so that they blundered in many of the letters, slipped, read anomalously, and marred the reading.”

“Among them is a man” — he means Ḥamza ibn Ḥabīb al-Zayyāt, one of the Seven, over whom God has drawn a veil among the common folk by his piety and endeared to hearts by his religion. “I have not seen, among those whose reading-forms I have traced, any more given to muddling, nor more disordered, than he: he employs in one letter what he abandons in its like, lays down a principle then departs to another without cause, and in many letters chooses what yields to him only by the pursuit of a feeble device.”

“This, besides his casting away the ways of the Arabs and the people of the Ḥijāz — by his excess in prolongation, hamza, and over-lengthening, his grossness in inclination and assimilation, his forcing the learners onto the difficult mount, and his making hard upon the Umma what God had made easy.”

“The common folk and the rabble have grown enamoured of his reading — and only for the hardship they see in it and the long resort of the learner to the reciter over it. For when they see that he has spent ten days over the Mother of the Book, a month over a hundred-verse sūra, and a year over the seven long ones, and see him in his reciting with his jaws awry, his jugulars swollen, and his brows sweating, they fancy that this is some excellence in reading and skill in it. But not thus was the reading of the Messenger of God (ṣ), nor the choice of the salaf, nor of the Successors, nor of the learned readers; rather their reading was easy and flowing.” Then he said: “How few of this class — the readers after the manner of Ḥamza — are free, in their reading, from error and delusion!”

For some of the earlier ones — he means al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī — read mā talawtuhu ʿalaykum wa-lā adraʾtukum bihi (10:16),¹⁸³ sounding the hamza, though it is from daraytu (“you knew”); and read wa-mā tanazzalat bihi l-shayāṭūn (26:210),¹⁸⁴ fancying it a sound plural in wāw and nūn.¹⁸⁵

Another — Ibn Muḥayṣin¹⁸⁶ — read fa-lā tushmit biya l-aʿdāʾa (7:150)¹⁸⁷ with a fatḥa on the tāʾ, a kasra on the mīm, and the accusative, though the form is ashmata … yushmitu. Yaḥyā ibn Waththāb, a well-known Kūfan Successor and reader, read wa-in talwū aw tuʿriḍū (4:135)¹⁸⁸ as though from walāya (“governance”), which has no place here; it is rather talwū, with two wāws, from twisting (layy) in testimony and inclining to one of the two litigants — as God said, yalwūna alsinatahum bi-l-kitāb (3:78)¹⁸⁹ — and al-Aʿmash and Ḥamza followed him.¹⁹⁰

Al-Aʿmash read wa-mā antum bi-muṣrikhiyy (14:22)¹⁹¹ with a kasra on the first-person yāʾ, as though he supposed the bāʾ to put the whole word in the genitive; and Ḥamza followed him.¹⁹² And Ḥamza read wa-makra l-sayyiʾ wa-lā yaḥīqu l-makru l-sayyiʾu illā bi-ahlihi (35:43)¹⁹³ with the hamza quiescent in the first sayyiʾ and vowelled in the second — the dropping of the case-inflection being an error¹⁹⁴ — besides other such instances that Ibn Qutayba sets forth.¹⁹⁵

8. Psychological Anomaly

They have said: among the factors in the choice of an anomalous reading are some that go back to psychological causes — their authors seeking fame by contravening the well-known reading, or driven by inner complexes that erupt against the traditional norms and take shape in the mould of anomalous choices.

Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan — Ibn Miqsam, Abū Bakr al-ʿAṭṭār, the grammarian-reciter (265–355 H) — was pleased by reading with letters that contravened the consensus; so, for causes going back neither to transmission nor to reception from the masters, he would read in many verses what contradicted the well-known reading in substance, even where it accorded with the rasm in script — as in his reading of fa-lammā stayʾasū minhu khalaṣū najiyyan, which he read nujuban, a plural of najīb. His affair became notorious; the sultan summoned him and made him recant, and he complied, writing out a document of his repentance. It is said that he did not truly renounce it, and kept reading by it until he died.

Al-Dānī said: he was learned in Arabic, a memorizer of the language, an excellent author, famed for exactitude and precision — except that he trod the path of Ibn Shanabūdh, choosing letters in which he contravened the imams of the community, and holding that every reading which accords with the drawn text of the codex is permissible to read by, even if it has no [transmitted] substance.¹⁹⁶

Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan, Abū al-Ḥasan, Ibn Shanabūdh (d. 328) was the master of reading-instruction together with Abū Bakr ibn Mujāhid (d. 324). Ibn Shanabūdh was the more learned of the two and of wider acquaintance with the readings, their arts and their kinds, having ranged the lands and roamed the great cities in quest of knowledge and of hearing from the masters — unlike his colleague, who occupied the station of “master of the readers” by appointment of the sultan in Baghdad, yet was of scant acquaintance, did not travel in the quest of knowledge, and had no expertise in the arts of the readings, ancient or modern.¹⁹⁷

Hence there was between them a rivalry after the wont of peers; Ibn Shanabūdh would disparage Ibn Mujāhid, saying, “this ʿaṭshā, whose feet have raised no dust in the quest of knowledge,” and when a man came to read under him he would ask whether he had read under Ibn Mujāhid — and if the man said yes, he would not teach him. So if Ibn Mujāhid gloried in his official post, Ibn Shanabūdh gloried in the station of his learning and the breadth of his acquaintance, and rebuked his colleague without mercy.

Ibn Shanabūdh would read by the well-known and the anomalous alike, and held it permissible to pray with what came in the codices of Ubayy and Ibn Masʿūd, and with what was soundly established in the ḥadīths — though the disagreement over its permissibility was well known among the jurists, of old and of late — and he practised this openly. This was a point of weakness that Ibn Mujāhid held against him; he raised the affair to the sultan, and a session was convened for him — as one had been for Ibn Miqsam — by official order of the master of the readers, Ibn Mujāhid, in the year 323 H.

Al-Dānī said: Abū al-Qāsim ibn Zanjī, the Anbārī scribe, related: I attended the session of the vizier Abū ʿAlī ibn Muqla, vizier of al-Rāḍī bi-llāh the ʿAbbāsid. Ibn Shanabūdh was brought in, and disputations were held with him over certain letters that the witnesses testified he read by, they being anomalous; he acknowledged of them what he had practised, in the presence of the two acceptable witnesses Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Hāshimī and Abū Ayyūb Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad, the judge being ʿUmar ibn Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf, with Ibn Mujāhid and a company of the readers in attendance.

Ibn Shanabūdh spoke harshly to the vizier, the judge, and Ibn Mujāhid, imputing to them scantness of knowledge and [charging] that they had not travelled in the quest of knowledge as he had. So the vizier ordered him struck seven lashes, while he called down upon the vizier that God cut off his hand and scatter his gathering; and they made him recant under compulsion. Ibn Mujāhid wrote out a copy of the record in his own hand, ending: “Ibn Shanabūdh acknowledged what is in this document in my presence — on Saturday, the sixth night of Rabīʿ al-Ākhir, in the year three-and-twenty and three hundred.”

His imprecation against the vizier was answered: [Ibn Muqla’s] hand was cut off and he tasted humiliation; and not a year had passed since this event when Ibn Mujāhid, too, died, in the same year, 324 H.¹⁹⁸ If we review the biographies of the majority of those who read anomalously, we find them virtuous, learned men whom circumstances wronged in their scholarly standing, casting them behind others and advancing the unqualified — whence arose psychological complexes, anomaly, and deviations from the general course.

Moreover, the majority of the readings branded anomalous were not anomalous in their true sense; they were so branded only because they differed from what was familiar to the common folk and to the masters of reading-instruction in the great cities — those who had gained official posts, most of them little-travelled, of short reach in knowledge and breadth of acquaintance. Consider what Badr al-Dīn al-Zarkashī laments — quoting Abū Ḥayyān — of the shortness of aspiration in the quest of knowledge and in travelling to receive the reading from the masters, and the readers’ consequent confining of themselves to what is in al-Taysīr, al-Shāṭibiyya, al-Tabṣira, al-Kāfī and the like — whereas these books did not contain even all the readings transmitted from the Seven, let alone others: they are but little of much, and a trickle of a sea.¹⁹⁹

Hence some masters of reading-instruction would, from time to time, permit a reading branded anomalous if it bore a touch of accepted soundness — as occurred recently (in 1377 H) in Egypt, where two masters permitted, in their good faith, reading by anomalous readings of authentic ancestral pedigree; but public opinion, foremost among them the shaykhs of al-Azhar, rose against them, and they were driven to recant, sentenced to a year’s banishment from the city, the intercession of intercessors availing them nothing.²⁰⁰ We, for our part, hold on the permissibility of the anomalous another view: that we admit in the Qurʾān but a single reading — neither the Seven, nor the Ten, nor any other — of which we shall speak in a coming chapter.

Other Factors

There are yet other factors that they have alleged to bear on the shaping of the reading of the Qurʾān, or on the choice of a reading other than that of others. Among them: the allegation of a copying error — as in the claims of Ibn ʿAbbās and others concerning His words wa-qaḍā rabbuka (17:23), that it was [originally] wa-waṣṣā rabbuka, the scribe having drawn up much ink so that the wāw stuck to the ṣād.²⁰¹

Among them: the mixing of interpretation with the text, as in most of the readings ascribed to Ibn Masʿūd, Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, and others that carry an interpretive addition — such as His words kāna l-nāsu ummatan wāḥidatan [fa-khtalafū] fa-baʿatha llāhu l-nabiyyīn (2:213),²⁰² with “so they differed” interpolated — which a later reader might allege to be a distinct reading; as some read laysa ʿalaykum junāḥun [fī mawāsimi l-ḥajj] an tabtaghū faḍlan min rabbikum (2:198),²⁰³ with “in the seasons of the pilgrimage” interpolated, a reading ascribed to Ibn ʿAbbās.²⁰⁴

Among them: political aims that sought to alter the text according to particular purposes — as one may recall the reading of Ibn al-Khaṭṭāb [ʿUmar]: wa-l-sābiqūna l-awwalūna mina l-muhājirīna wa-l-anṣāru [in the nominative] alladhīna ttabaʿūhum bi-iḥsān (9:100),²⁰⁵ dropping the wāw before alladhīna, for he held that precedence belonged exclusively to the Muhājirūn and that the merit of the Anṣār lay in their following them; he declared this to one who objected to the reading, in a well-known story between him and Zayd and their submitting the matter to Ubayy for arbitration.²⁰⁶

Among them: theological (doctrinal) considerations that would sometimes deem the correct reading to lie in other than the current one — as when some of the Muʿtazila read wa-kallama llāha mūsā taklīman (4:164),²⁰⁷ setting the Divine Name in the accusative,²⁰⁸ alleging that He, the Exalted, does not speak in the literal sense. Yet the grammarians are unanimous, as al-Naḥḥās said, that when one corroborates a verb with its verbal noun it cannot be figurative: just as, in the poet’s line “the trough filled and said, ‘Enough for me!’,” one cannot say the trough “said a [real] saying,” so, when He said taklīman, it had to be real speech — and hence [addressed] to Moses (ʿa).²⁰⁹

Likewise it is ascribed to some that they read fa-tūbū ilā bāriʾikum wa-aqīlū anfusakum (2:54) — “and pardon yourselves” for “and slay yourselves” — on the ground that a command to slay oneself is not sound;²¹⁰ and thus many readings ascribed to holders of particular doctrines contradicted the well-known one. Among them, too: the reader’s weak literary capacity and ignorance of the rules of the language, so that he might commit a solecism in the reading which was then counted a reading on account of his known social standing — as in the readings ascribed to Abū Ḥanīfa, who was famed for solecism in his speech: he is said to have read innamā yakhshā llāhu [nominative] min ʿibādihi l-ʿulamāʾa [accusative] (35:28),²¹¹ reversing subject and object, a reading ascribed to ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz as well;²¹² it has sometimes been justified by taking the “fear” (khashya) here to mean God’s magnifying and honouring of the learned — but this is only an attempt to justify an anomalous reading.²¹³

In sum, these last factors must be struck out in the field of Qurʾānic research: they trace back to no known rule or cause in this domain, and their authors were no specialists in the art of reading, so that their readings were mere chance coincidences, not falling within “the readings of the Qurʾān” in the recognized technical sense. Such readings were but stray notions or psychological promptings that occurred to a non-specialist and were recorded on account of the reader’s standing at the time — as in the reading of Abū Bakr, shortly before his death, wa-jāʾat sakratu l-ḥaqqi bi-l-mawt (50:19),²¹⁴ which was nothing but a verbal slip that ran upon his tongue in a moment of heedlessness.

Readings of this kind are not to be reckoned even among the anomalous readings examined in the study of the kinds of readings; for by “reading,” in the subject of our study, we mean that which is built upon its author’s technical ijtihād — even if it arise from an error in his deduction which he deems correct in his own view — whereas these are no more than slips running upon the tongues of non-specialists, whether through heedlessness or of set purpose, having no connection at all with the principles of the readings. Accordingly, readings of this kind are to be dismissed outright.

A Pause at the Question of the Tawātur of the Readings

1. The Declarations of the Masters of the Discipline

Those matters we set forth in the preceding chapter were the factors in the rise of the divergence among the readers, and they suffice to show that the readers’ choices were of ijtihād, resting on grounds and justifications that the books of the readings have detailed — which is enough to refute those who claim the readings’ mass-transmission (tawātur) from the Prophet (ṣ). For how should it be he (ṣ) who read them in all these various wise, when none took note of them save seven or ten readers who came in later ages?

A tawātur of such a character well deserves that its asserter be charged with extravagance of opinion. Yet there are groups overcome by vulgar thinking, pleased by emotional zeal in every matter touching the religious sanctities, who go on piping and drumming around the notion of the “tawātur of the readings,” and who may even brand its denier with unbelief and obstinacy — so that the truth has become forsaken and buried in the folds of this din and raging dust-storm.

But the truth is worthier to be followed, and reality, in the light of decisive proofs, has the better claim. As we furnish you with proofs sufficient to establish the non-tawātur of the readings — which in no way touches the question of the tawātur of the Qurʾān itself, established with certainty — we present ample declarations from the masters of the discipline, in evidence that the verifying scholars denied the tawātur of the readings outright while acknowledging the tawātur of the Qurʾān, there being no necessary link between the two questions.

The Imam Badr al-Dīn al-Zarkashī said: “Know that the Qurʾān and the readings are two distinct realities: the Qurʾān is the revelation sent down upon Muḥammad (ṣ) for exposition and inimitability, whereas the readings are the variance of the wordings of that revelation, in the writing of the letters or their manner.” Then he said: “The seven readings are mutawātir according to the majority; and it is said, rather, that they are [only] well-known… The verified view is that they are mutawātir [as transmitted] from the seven imams. But their tawātur going back to the Prophet (ṣ) is open to question, for the isnād of the seven imams for these readings is [recorded] in the books of the readings, and it is a transmission of one from one, which does not fulfil the conditions of tawātur in the parity of the two ends and the intermediary — a thing found in their very own books.” Shaykh Shihāb al-Dīn Abū Shāma alluded to something of this in his al-Murshid al-Wajīz.²¹⁵

Abū Shāma said: “As for one who exaggerates in his expression, saying that the seven readings are mutawātir because the Qurʾān was sent down upon seven modes (aḥruf), his error is manifest, for the seven aḥruf are not the seven readings, as was established in the preceding chapters.²¹⁶ And if this speaker were asked about the seven readings he mentioned, he would not know them, nor be able to enumerate them; it is merely a thing that struck his ear and that he uttered without pondering its soundness — the utmost he could do, if he be of the people of this science, being to answer with what is in the book he has memorized.

“The books on this differ, especially the books of the Maghribīs and the Mashriqīs, between which there is divergence in many places: how many a reading in his book has been rejected, and how many a sound reading has escaped it that others recorded! Had he known the conditions of tawātur, he would not have ventured this sweeping statement about every letter of the reading. In sum, we are not of those who hold to tawātur in all the wordings disputed among the readers; rather the readings all divide into the mutawātir and the non-mutawātir — as is clear to whoever is fair, and knows, and peruses the readings and their transmission-lines. The utmost that one who claims the tawātur of the well-known among them can show — such as the assimilation of Abū ʿAmr, the vowel-transfer of Warsh, and the connecting of the plural mīm and the pronominal hāʾ of Ibn Kathīr — is that it is mutawātir up to the imam to whom the reading is ascribed; yet there still remains the tawātur from that imam up to the Prophet (ṣ) in each and every case, and there the tears are shed, for from that point they were transmitted only singly, save a little of them.”²¹⁷

Al-Qurṭubī recounts the collection of the Qurʾān in the time of Abū Bakr, and the Companions’ divergence over the text that led ʿUthmān to unify the codices and cut off the discord, and he follows it with his words: “This is the clearest proof of the falsity of one who says that what is meant by the seven aḥruf is the readings of the seven readers — for the truth is not something over which there is divergence!”²¹⁸

The ḥāfiẓ Ibn al-Jazarī said: “Every reading that accords with Arabic — even in but one respect — and accords with one of the ʿUthmānic codices — even if only possibly — and whose isnād is sound, is the sound reading, whether it be from the seven imams, the ten, or others of the accepted imams; and whenever one of these three pillars fails, it is called ‘weak’ or ‘anomalous’ or ‘void,’ whether it be from the Seven or from one greater than they.”

He said: “This is the correct view according to the imams of verification, of the ancients and the moderns: the ḥāfiẓ Abū ʿAmr al-Dānī declared it, the Imam Makkī ibn Abī Ṭālib set it down in more than one place, as did the Imam Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Mahdawī, and the ḥāfiẓ Abū al-Qāsim, known as Abū Shāma, verified it; it is the doctrine of the ancients, no disagreement with which is known from any of them.”²¹⁹

He said: “Some of the later ones stipulated tawātur in this pillar and were not content with the soundness of the isnād, claiming that the Qurʾān is established only by tawātur and that what comes by way of āḥād does not establish a Qurʾān. The flaw in this is not hidden: for if tawātur is established, one has no need of the last two pillars, since whatever of the variant letters is mutawātir from the Prophet (ṣ) must be accepted and adjudged Qurʾān, whether or not it accords with the rasm; and if we stipulate tawātur in every variant letter, much of the variance established from these seven imams and others falls away.” He added: “I used formerly to incline to this view; then its unsoundness became manifest to me, as did the agreement of the imams, ancient and modern, against it.”²²⁰

Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī said: “Al-Bulqīnī said the reading divides into mutawātir, āḥād, and anomalous: the mutawātir is the well-known readings of the Seven; the āḥād is the readings of the [other] three, to which the reading of the Companions is joined; and the anomalous is the reading of the Successors, such as al-Aʿmash, Yaḥyā ibn Waththāb, and Ibn Jubayr.” Al-Suyūṭī held this to be open to question, and judged the best on the topic to be Ibn al-Jazarī, whom he quoted at length, adding: “the Imam Ibn al-Jazarī mastered this chapter exceedingly.”²²¹

The Imam al-Rāzī said: “Most have agreed that the well-known readings are conveyed by mutawātir transmission. But there is a difficulty in this; for these readings are either conveyed by mutawātir transmission or not. If the former, then it has been established by tawātur that God gave the charged believers a choice among these readings and made them equal in permissibility; and if so, then the preferring of some over others would occur contrary to the ruling established by tawātur, so that those who prefer some over others would be deserving of [the charge of] iniquity, if not of unbelief.

“Yet we see that each of these readers confines himself to a particular kind of reading, imposes it upon the people, and forbids them any other — so that what we have mentioned must follow against them. But if we say that these readings are established not by tawātur but by the way of āḥād, then the Qurʾān ceases to yield firm assurance, decisiveness, and certainty — and that is void by consensus. One may answer this by saying: some of them are mutawātir, over which there is no disagreement in the Umma, with reading by each of them permitted; and some are of the āḥād kind; and the being of some readings of the āḥād kind does not require the Qurʾān’s ceasing, in its entirety, to be decisive. And God knows best.”²²²

I say: he confused the tawātur of the Qurʾān with the tawātur of the readings, and so fell into this last predicament; we shall show that the Qurʾān is one thing and the readings another, so that there is no place for the last branch of the difficulty.

The ḥujja al-Balāghī said: “The seven readings — let alone the ten — lie only in the form of certain words, not in the addition or deletion of a word; and withal they are nothing but āḥād reports from āḥād, yielding neither assurance nor confidence — quite apart from their being weakened by mutual contradiction and by their divergence from the current rasm, mutawātir among the generality of Muslims through the long years. Each of the readers is a single transmitter, whose probity and trustworthiness are not [independently] established, who narrates from single transmitters and from whom single transmitters narrate, often differing in the narration from him — how often did Ḥafṣ and Shuʿba differ in narrating from ʿĀṣim, and Qālūn and Warsh from Nāfiʿ! And not one of the isnāds of these āḥād readings is characterized as sound in the terminology of Ahl al-Sunna in isnād, let alone that of the Imāmiyya. How astonishing, then, is he who describes these seven readings as mutawātir!”²²³

Our master, the teacher, the Imam al-Khūʾī (may God have mercy on him), said: “What is well known among the Imāmī Shīʿa is that the readings are not mutawātir; rather they are [divided] between what is an ijtihād of the reader and what is conveyed by a single report (khabar al-wāḥid).

“A number of the verifying scholars of Ahl al-Sunna have chosen this view, and it is not unlikely that it is the well-known one among them.”²²⁴ He then demonstrated it with an argument whose substance is: first, that the inductive survey of the readers’ circumstances yields the certainty that the readings were transmitted to us by āḥād reports; second, that reflection on the lines through which the readers took them decisively indicates that they were conveyed only by the way of āḥād; third, that the connection of the isnāds to the readers themselves severs the tawātur, even were it realized in all the transmission-layers, since each reader conveys only his own reading; fourth, that each reader’s arguing for the soundness of his own reading and turning away from another’s is decisive evidence that it rests on their ijtihād and not on tawātur from the Prophet (ṣ), for otherwise he would have needed no argument; and fifth, that a number of the notables rejected a number of the readings — which, had they been mutawātir, could not validly have been done.²²⁵

Shaykh Ṭāhir al-Jazāʾirī noted that no explicit affirmation of the tawātur of the readings has come from any of the imams of uṣūl, and that some have declared the verified view to be that the seven readings are mutawātir from the seven imams, while their tawātur going back to the Prophet (ṣ) is open to question, the isnād being a transmission of one from one.²²⁶²²⁷

Al-Zamakhsharī held that the sound reading by which the Messenger of God (ṣ) read is but one in its character, and that the worshipper’s obligation in the prayer is not discharged unless he reads — in whatever is subject to divergence — in all the variant wise, such as malik and mālik, ṣirāṭ and sirāṭ, and the like. Al-Sayyid al-ʿĀmilī observed that this statement of his is directed either to denying the tawātur going back to him (ṣ), or to denying its very basis.²²⁸

Empty Emotional Zeal

Those were ample declarations from the masters of the discipline, ancient and modern, apprising you clearly of a lucid reality that admits of no doubting; and we shall set them beside sufficient proofs, the better to bring the truth to light.

Nevertheless, some grew zealous and excessive in extolling the seven readings, saying: “Whoever alleges that tawātur is not required in the seven readings speaks unbelief, for it leads to the total non-tawātur of the Qurʾān.” This view is ascribed to the muftī of the Andalusian lands, Abū Saʿīd Faraj ibn Lubb, who was greatly zealous for it and composed a large treatise in its support and in refutation of whoever refuted him. But the proof he relied upon does not hold: for holding to the tawātur of the Qurʾān does not entail holding to the tawātur of the readings, given the manifest difference between them. It is entirely valid that the Qurʾān be mutawātir in something other than the seven readings — in the measure agreed upon by all the readers, or in the measure agreed upon by a number whose collusion upon falsehood is precluded, be they readers or not — while the seven readings are not mutawātir, that is, in the measure over which they diverged.²²⁹

So too Ibn al-Subkī went to excess in Jamʿ al-Jawāmiʿ, saying: “The seven readings are mutawātir with a complete tawātur — a multitude transmitted them from the Prophet (ṣ) whose collusion upon falsehood is customarily impossible, [transmitting to] their like, and so on down; nor does it harm that the readers’ isnāds are āḥād, for restricting them to a named group does not preclude the readings’ coming through others — indeed that is the reality.”²³⁰ This may be contested: had they all been mutawātir, the readers would not have differed over any of them; and his last words laid bare his confusion of the tawātur going back to the Prophet (ṣ) with the tawātur going back to the readers.

We have already cited al-Zamakhsharī’s assault on Ibn ʿĀmir’s reading — annexing “the slaying” to “the partners” with the object intervening (6:137) — where he held that the separation of the annexing and the annexed terms, if it occurs, is of poetic necessity and not of eloquent speech, still less of the like of the Qurʾān, inimitable in the excellence of its composition and the felicity of its style; and that what led Ibn ʿĀmir to it was his seeing, in some codices,²³¹ shurakāʾihim written with a yāʾ.²³²

The clamour of the people of blind imitation rose, and their outcry grew loud, [charging] that al-Zamakhsharī had impugned a mutawātir reading and thought ill of the positions of the accepted readers — a thing amounting to apostasy from the religion! Aḥmad ibn al-Munīr al-Iskandarī said, in his gloss on al-Kashshāf: “This, as you see, is a supposition on al-Zamakhsharī’s part that Ibn ʿĀmir read this reading of his by his own opinion, the correct reading being otherwise and the eloquent one the common mass-reading. But he did not know that by this reading it is known of necessity that the Prophet (ṣ) read it to Gabriel just as it was sent down upon him; then the Prophet (ṣ) recited it to the tawātur-number of the imams, and the tawātur-number went on passing it along and reading by it, successor from predecessor, until it reached Ibn ʿĀmir, who read it too just as he heard it. This is the belief of the people of truth regarding all seven wise: that they are mutawātir, in whole and in detail, from the most eloquent of those who spoke the ḍād.”

“Once you know the sound creed,” he said, “there is no heeding, thereafter, al-Zamakhsharī or his likes among those who charged Ibn ʿĀmir with solecism; for the one who censures him censures only what is established, certainly and necessarily, to be free of any fault. And were it not for the excuse that the censurer is not of the people of the two disciplines — the science of reading and the science of uṣūl — it would be feared for him that he had cast off the bond of religion.” He then justified the reading grammatically — the verbal noun, when annexed to its object, being construed as a verb and governing accordingly — adding: “Our aim is not to correct the reading by the rules of Arabic, but to correct the rules of Arabic by the reading; and this much suffices.”²³³

I say: how ignorant is the man of the science of reading and the principles of uṣūl — and yet he impugns the master-scholar of letters and exegesis in that wherein al-Zamakhsharī was the most learned of the people of his age! Behold his ignorance of the question of tawātur: how, even had the Prophet (ṣ) read that reading to the tawātur-number, could this tawātur have grown so lean in bulk and emaciated in body by the time it reached Ibn ʿĀmir, no one else having heard it? Moreover, no master under whom Ibn ʿĀmir studied is known to this day, save the report that he read under ʿUthmān — of whom, in turn, it is not known that he was among the teachers of reading in any phase of his life!

You have now learned that the sound, established creed of the verifiers of the two sciences of uṣūl and readings — whether of Ahl al-Sunna or the Imāmiyya — is that the readings are not mutawātir, neither from the Prophet (ṣ) nor from the first Companions, save a single reading: the reading of Ḥafṣ, which accords with the reading of the generality of the Muslims, inherited hand from hand and generation from generation.

So too Masʿūd al-Taftāzānī grew zealous for Ibn ʿĀmir and rose against al-Zamakhsharī in vain, calling it “the gravest offence” that he impugned the seven readers’ isnād and their transmissions and alleged that they read of their own accord: “this is his wont — he impugns the tawātur of the seven readings and imputes the error now to them and now to their transmitters, and both are error.”²³⁴ Would that he had not meddled in what did not concern him, nor of whose people he was! His counterpart in empty zeal is Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Kawāshī, who launched a reckless assault on al-Zamakhsharī: “his words imply that Ibn ʿĀmir committed something forbidden and is untrustworthy, since he takes the reading from the pages, not from the masters, and yet ascribed it to the Prophet (ṣ); and to impugn Ibn ʿĀmir is to impugn the scholars of the great cities, who made him one of the seven approved readers, and the jurists, who did not reject him but read his reading in their prayer-niches — and God is too generous to gather them upon an error.”²³⁵

I say: no doubt it is so, that God would not gather them upon an error. But perhaps al-Kawāshī did not know that no known master is established for Ibn ʿĀmir; and whence did he learn that the jurists read by his reading, even were it invalid by analogy and contrary to the reading of the generality of the Muslims? As for his designation as one of the Seven, that was the doing of Ibn Mujāhid — under pressure from the ruling authority of the time, on the pattern of the confining of the schools of law to four — and the scholars of the great cities rejected this deed of his, as we have said before.

Stranger and more astonishing is the folly Abū Ḥayyān al-Gharnāṭī perpetrated here, falling to drivel that issued from no reflection at all. “I marvel,” he said, “at a non-Arab weak in grammar who rebuts a pure, genuine Arab over a mutawātir reading whose like is found in the tongue of the Arabs in more than one verse; and I marvel at this man’s ill opinion of the imam-readers whom this Umma chose to transmit the Book of God, east and west, and upon whose transmission the Muslims have relied, for their exactitude, their knowledge, and their piety.” Then he justified the reading with plain arbitrariness: “the separation of two annexed terms is a matter disputed in its permissibility — the Baṣrans, early and late, forbid it and permit it only in poetic necessity, but some grammarians permitted it, and that is the correct view, because of its occurrence in this mutawātir reading of the pure, genuine Arab Ibn ʿĀmir, who took the Qurʾān from ʿUthmān before solecism appeared in the tongue of the Arabs.”²³⁶

I say: first, no known lineage is established for Ibn ʿĀmir. Al-Dhahabī said that his lineage was impugned; and when Sulaymān ibn ʿAbd al-Malik became caliph, he ordered al-Muhājir ibn Abī al-Muhājir to stand behind the imam’s place in the mosque of Damascus and, when Ibn ʿĀmir stepped forward to lead, to seize his garments, pull him back, and say to him: “Stand back — no pretender of doubtful descent shall lead us!”²³⁷

As for his isnād, Ibn al-Jazarī mentioned nine views, all feeble, fallen, and baseless, deeming it most likely that he read under al-Mughīra ibn Abī Shihāb.²³⁸ But who is this al-Mughīra? Al-Dhahabī said he is hardly known except through Ibn ʿĀmir’s reading under him — a thing Ibn ʿĀmir himself claimed.²³⁹ So neither is his Arab identity established — let alone its purity and genuineness — nor is his reading possessed of a known isnād, let alone tawātur.

Second: what of an “Arab” who lived amid mixed, impure milieus, his knowledge of the principles of the eloquent language feeble — whereas al-Zamakhsharī is an acknowledged imam, the master-scholar of his age and the glittering star in the expanse of its sky? The utmost the defenders of Ibn ʿĀmir’s reading have clung to is a line of verse whose author is unknown, and to which no parallel is known in Arabic: fa-zajjajtuhā bi-mazajjatin / zajja l-qalūṣa Abī Mazāda (“So I pierced her with a spear-thrust, the piercing of Abū Mazāda’s young she-camel”). Abū Firās al-Ḥalabī said, in his commentary on al-Mufaṣṣal, that no one has named its author, nor cited any line before or after it,²⁴⁰ it being most likely of the fabricated verse that some of the lesser grammarians of that age resorted to.

Ibn al-Anbārī said that the accusative of awlādahum and the genitive of shurakāʾihim is very weak by analogy, not occurring in choice speech by consensus, its admissibility in poetic necessity being disputed — the Kūfans permitting it, the Baṣrans refusing — so that the reading is weak by analogy, by consensus.²⁴¹ And not the Baṣrans alone forbid it: al-Farrāʾ, the imam of Kūfa, said in the course of his words that the claim it resembles the poet’s verse “is nothing — this is of what the grammarians of the Ḥijāz used to say, and we have found no like of it in Arabic.”²⁴²

Al-Zamakhsharī said, in the chapter on the separation of two annexed terms, that as for the poet’s verse that occurs in some copies of the Kitāb²⁴³ — and he cited the line — “Sībawayh is quit of responsibility for it,”²⁴⁴ which confirms that the verse is fabricated. Abū ʿAlī al-Fārisī said it is “ugly and rare in usage; had one turned away from it, it would have been better.”²⁴⁵ And Makkī ibn Abī Ṭālib said the reading “has weakness in it, for the separation of two annexed terms is permitted only in poetry, and there with adverbials, for their latitude; with the object it is far-fetched in poetry, so permitting it in the Qurʾān is farther still.”²⁴⁶ There are ample such declarations from the imams of language and readings, faulting this reading of Ibn ʿĀmir; we shall not prolong the matter by citing them.

Professor al-Zurqānī has here a wavering in his choice: at first he chose the aforementioned doctrine of Abū Shāma, then retreated from it, alleging in the end a broadening of the horizon of his acquaintance. Yet in his first words there is verification, whereas his retreat is no more than a turn from verification to blind imitation, in empty emotional zeal. He said, at first: “This view of Abū Shāma I used to call, in the first edition, the soundest of the views in my estimation, and that for the following reasons: it rests, in claim and in proof, upon reality — for the seven readings really diverged, now in the pronunciation of the words, now in the delivery of those words, so that the claim accords with reality;

“and his proof rests upon reality also in that some transmissions are unstable in their ascription to the imam-readers — some denying a reading and some affirming it — which is a mark of the absence of tawātur, since agreement in every layer of a group whose collusion upon falsehood is precluded is a concomitant of tawātur, and this agreement is absent here, so that tawātur is absent; and the view issues from a specialist²⁴⁷ skilled in the readings and the sciences of the Qurʾān, namely Abū Shāma, and the master of the house knows best what is in it; and it accords with the verifiers’ well-known criterion, and with their declared division of the readings, by consideration of the isnād, into six kinds.”²⁴⁸

Then he qualified this choice by his later retreat, saying: “But after resuming the inquiry and reflection, and widening the horizon of my acquaintance with what the people of verification have written on this matter, it became clear to me that Abū Shāma missed the truth, and that I erred in following him” — and he set about rebutting his own points: “the veil has been lifted [to reveal] that the seven readings, indeed all ten, are mutawātir in reality” (he did not make clear whether from the Prophet (ṣ) or from the readers); “and the divergence among them does not negate their tawātur” (we do not know by what he lifted this veil, nor did he explain how divergence is not incompatible with tawātur); “and as for Abū Shāma’s being a skilled specialist — glory be to Him who alone has infallibility, perfection belonging to God alone; besides, the one who rebutted him and whose view we have now chosen, Ibn al-Jazarī, is a skilled specialist too; and as for the six-fold division, it pertains to the readings in general, whereas our discussion here concerns specifically the seven readings.”²⁴⁹

Perhaps al-Zurqānī followed the judge al-Bulqīnī in his statement that “the mutawātir is the seven readings” — which al-Bulqīnī’s own pupil al-Suyūṭī struck out, calling it open to question, and choosing instead Ibn al-Jazarī’s doctrine as to the soundness of the mentioned division.²⁵⁰ As for Ibn al-Jazarī’s doctrine in his Munjid al-Muqriʾīn, which pleased the professor: Ibn al-Jazarī himself retreated from it in all his other verificatory books — the reverse of the professor’s course. His position in the Munjid was one in which the emotional side dominated more than the side of verifying reality; but the truth drew him at last to choose what is true and what upright verification requires. He said: “I used formerly to incline²⁵¹ to this view — that is, the view of the tawātur of the Seven — then its unsoundness became manifest, as did the agreement of the imams of the ancients and moderns against it.”²⁵²

So while the Imam Ibn al-Jazarī retreated from his first view — a retreat from emotional zeal to the grasp of reality — his imitator the professor retreated from the verification to which his first following had guided him, toward a misleading partisanship that he alleged to be a broadening of intellectual horizon, when in fact it is nothing but blind imitation. Ibn al-Jazarī is, moreover, known for replacing the condition of tawātur with the condition of a sound isnād alone; he said in his rajaz-poem: “All that accords with a facet of grammar, and possibly comprehends [conformity with] the rasm, and is sound in isnād — that is the Qurʾān; these are the three pillars. And wherever a pillar fails, its anomaly is affirmed, even were it [ascribed] to the Seven.”²⁵³ This doctrine became well-known among ancients and moderns — as you have learned from al-Suyūṭī and others — and even in the later books of the readings.²⁵⁴

A Slip from a Great One

What is well known of the doctrine of the Ahl al-Bayt (ʿa) is that the Qurʾān is one, sent down from One [source]; the divergence, rather, comes from the side of the transmitters, as in the agreed-upon ḥadīth from the Imam al-Ṣādiq (ʿa).²⁵⁵ Upon this the Imāmī jurists proceeded, successor after predecessor, none of them deviating from it, of old or of late. They did, to be sure, take the well-known readings — received with acceptance among the generality of the Muslims — as a path to the Qurʾān revealed to the Prophet (ṣ), holding it permissible to read by what the well-known readers circulate; and by that their ḥadīths from the Ahl al-Bayt accord [with practice], as does their own practice in jurisprudence and deduction.

Shaykh Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭūsī said: “What is customary in the doctrine of our associates, and current in their reports and transmissions, is that the Qurʾān was sent down in a single mode (ḥarf) upon a single prophet; yet they were unanimous on the permissibility of reading by what the readers circulate.”²⁵⁶ You have already learned, in the preceding chapter, the words of the ḥujja al-Balāghī and the Imam al-Khūʾī; and thus you find the words of our scholars agreeing on this throughout their juristic and theological works and their books on the Qurʾān and exegesis.

This being so, a strange statement deviated from the norm, coming from our shaykh al-Shahīd al-Thānī Zayn al-Dīn al-Jubaʿī, who mentioned in his al-Maqāṣid al-ʿAliyya fī Sharḥ al-Alfiyya: “that each one of the seven readings is from God the Exalted, the Faithful Spirit having brought it down upon the heart of the Master of the Messengers (ṣ), as an alleviation for the Umma and a lightening for the people of this creed.”²⁵⁷ This statement, from the like of this great man, is exceedingly strange, and admits of no valid interpretation or plausible construal. I think it slipped from him in the earliest of his writings, without verification — the like of what Ibn al-Jazarī wrote

in his Munjid, from which he then retreated in all his later verificatory books — and hence we see no trace of this [view] in the rest of his weighty later works, such as Masālik al-Afhām fī Sharḥ Sharāʾiʿ al-Islām and al-Rawḍa al-Bahiyya fī Sharḥ al-Lumʿa al-Dimashqiyya. Al-Waḥīd al-Bihbahānī rebutted him, in his gloss on al-Madārik: “It is not hidden that, in our view, the reading was sent down in a single ḥarf, from the One [source], and the divergence came from the side of transmission” — an allusion to the aforementioned ḥadīth of the Imam al-Ṣādiq (ʿa), which the associates received with acceptance.²⁵⁸

Al-Shahīd al-Thānī also said: “What is meant by the tawātur of the readings is not that everything reported from these seven is mutawātir; rather, that the mutawātir is now confined to some of what is transmitted of these readings, for some of what is transmitted from the Seven is anomalous, let alone from others.” His grandson al-Sayyid Muḥammad al-ʿĀmilī remarked, after quoting this from him: “This is exceedingly problematic, since the mutawātir is not confused with other than it.” And al-Sayyid Muḥammad al-Jawād al-ʿĀmilī noted: “This statement of al-Shahīd al-Thānī, in its apparent sense, may contradict his earlier one — though he set both statements down in a single book — yet a reconciliation between them is possible.”²⁵⁹

I say: that is evidence that his first statement issued from him without verification and without serious attention to its purport; else, how [explain] this contradiction? The two statements cannot be reconciled, nor can his first be reconciled with the words of the rest of our eminent scholars. The correct view is that it belongs to the earliest of his juristic writings, for we have found no trace of it in the rest of his works at all. As for the standing of the seven well-known readings in relation to the established Qurʾān whose recitation in prayer is permissible in our view, we shall speak of it in a coming chapter, when we present our own choice regarding the sound reading.

2. Arguments against Those Who Claim Tawātur

The Term Tawātur

Tawātur is a technical term of the discipline of the knowledge of ḥadīth, in which [ḥadīth] is divided into mutawātir, well-known (mashhūr), widespread (mustafīḍ), and single (āḥād); and into sound, fair, disconnected, and weak. The mutawātir ḥadīth is that whose isnād-men, in all the [transmission-]layers, reach a degree of multitude and diffusion such that their collusion in fabricating falsehood is precluded with certainty. Hence the mutawātir ḥadīth requires the fulfilment of the following conditions:

first, the complete connection of the isnād from the last transmitter to the first source of the ḥadīth; second, that the number of transmitters and conveyors reach a degree of multitude and diffusion above mere widespreadness and well-knownness, such that their collusion upon falsehood is precluded; and third, that the same magnitude of transmitters be preserved in every phase and layer, the multitude transmitting from the multitude, and so back to the first source. Accordingly, if the magnitude of the number dwindles in any one of these layers, or comes down to a single transmitter and then takes up diffusion and swelling again, this is not called mutawātir in the technical usage, but enters into the reports of the āḥād.

The notion of the “tawātur of the readings” — if we grant it — is of this last type: they are mutawātir only from the readers themselves; but going back before them, to the layer of the Companions and the age of the Messenger of God (ṣ), they do not exceed āḥād reports — that is, if there be an isnād at all; otherwise the matter is more scandalous still, as will appear through our following inquiries.

Honorific Chains

The authors on the readings adopted the practice of citing the isnād of the readers — especially the Seven — as connected all the way to the Messenger of God (ṣ); yet this is a manifest affectation, for the readers themselves did not adhere to any such connected isnād in most of their choices, citing for them, rather, grounds and justifications that the books of the readings have set forth in detail. Most likely the isnāds cited in some books of the readings — such as al-Taysīr, al-Taḥbīr, and al-Mukarrar — are honorific chains, an attempt to ascribe the readings to the Prophet (ṣ) in exaltation of the reading’s standing as belonging among the affairs of the Noble Qurʾān; otherwise, the least scrutiny of these chains lays bare a scandalous reality.

For instance, ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿĀmir al-Yaḥṣabī (d. 118) — the nearest of the seven readers to the age of the Companions — has no isnād connected to any of the Companions who specialized in the reading of the Qurʾān. Ibn al-Jazarī gave nine views on his isnād, deeming it most likely that he read under al-Mughīra ibn Abī Shihāb al-Makhzūmī, who read under ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān, who read under the Prophet (ṣ) — then reports from some that it is not known under whom Ibn ʿĀmir read at all.²⁶⁰ And who is this al-Mughīra al-Makhzūmī? Al-Dhahabī says: “I suppose he used to teach reading in Damascus in the reign of Muʿāwiya; and he is hardly known except through Ibn ʿĀmir’s reading under him!”²⁶¹

Behold this pale incoherence and scandalous circularity: the isnād of Ibn ʿĀmir’s reading is ascribed to an unknown master who is known only through Ibn ʿĀmir himself. Then whence did they learn that this al-Mughīra read under ʿUthmān? By what isnād did they establish this fabricated pupilage? And when did ʿUthmān take up teaching reading to the people — in the turbulent time of his caliphate, or before it? And who ever described ʿUthmān as a master of reading or reading-instruction, in the Messenger’s (ṣ) lifetime or after his death? Indeed, an isnād thus scandalous calls for no zeal or blind partisanship — let alone its being branded with a lying tawātur!

Āḥād, Not Tawātur

Then, granting the establishment of an isnād between the reader and one of the first Companions, it is still a single (āḥād) chain that does not reach the degree of tawātur, and in which its conditions are not met at all. Here is Ibn Kathīr — the second of the readers in nearness to the age of the Companions (d. 120): they mention in his chain only three men — ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Sāʾib, Mujāhid ibn Jabr, and Dirbās the client of Ibn ʿAbbās. Likewise ʿĀṣim ibn Abī al-Najūd (d. 128): his men are two — Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī and Zirr ibn Ḥubaysh. And the most remote in time from the age of the Companions, al-Kisāʾī (d. 189): they mention for him three men — Ḥamza ibn Ḥabīb, ʿĪsā ibn ʿUmar, and Muḥammad ibn Abī Laylā. Is tawātur established, over so long a span, through three lines or two?

True, they mention five men for Nāfiʿ, seven for Ḥamza, and twelve for Abū ʿAmr; but that too does not establish tawātur, for they remain āḥād in the terminology of the discipline. And this is setting aside the impugning of the men of these chains — some of whom lacked the qualification for reading-instruction, or whose office it was not to undertake teaching reading to the people. They listed, for example, among Ḥamza’s masters “the Imam Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq (ʿa)” — yet the station of his supreme imamate would keep him from undertaking such minor matters; nor have we seen any trace of the Imam’s (ʿa) reading in the reading of Ḥamza, nor did Ḥamza ascribe it to him.

Hence Abū Shāma said: “The utmost the claimant of tawātur can show is that it is mutawātir up to the imam to whom the reading is ascribed, after he exerts himself over the parity of the two ends and the intermediary; yet there still remains upon him the tawātur from that imam up to the Prophet (ṣ)… and there the tears are shed.”²⁶² I say: rather, establishing it is [harder than] stripping the thorns from the acacia.

Moreover, the channels of doubt as to the soundness of those lines are palpable, for they left no trace in the books of the early ones; they are, rather, something fashioned belatedly — in the third century — when the reading and the mastery of its arts became a thriving craft. Nor has it been soundly transmitted that any one of the readers ever traced his reading back to direct audition (apart from ʿĀṣim) or to mutawātir transmission from the Prophet (ṣ) at all. And tawātur requires the parity of the two ends and the intermediary in the number of transmitters, whereas the transmission after the reader terminates in him alone: he is the one who reports having heard it — supposing tawātur — from the Prophet (ṣ) or a Companion, and here the tawātur is severed, the intermediary having become a single person. Hence the Imam al-Khūʾī said: “The connection of the readings’ isnāds to the readers themselves severs the tawātur of the chains — even were their transmitters in all the layers such that their collusion upon falsehood is precluded — for each reader conveys only his own reading, by himself.”²⁶³

Rejections Directed at the Readers

The strongest proof guiding us to the ancients’ non-acknowledgement of the readings’ tawātur is their own rejections of the readings of many famous readers — even the Seven. For how would a conservative Muslim dare to reject a reading he deemed mutawātir from the Prophet (ṣ)? The Imam Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal used to reject many of Ḥamza’s readings and disliked praying behind one who read with Ḥamza’s reading. One wonders: were Ḥamza’s reading — he being one of the Seven — mutawātir from the Prophet (ṣ), read by the Prophet himself and conveyed to Ḥamza in a decisive manner, what would call for disliking it? Would a Muslim dislike a reading the Messenger of God (ṣ) himself read?

Abū Bakr ibn ʿAyyāsh used to say, “Ḥamza’s reading, in our view, is an innovation”; Ibn Durayd said, “I would dearly wish that Ḥamza’s reading were driven out of Kūfa”; Ibn al-Mahdī said, “had I authority over one who reads with Ḥamza’s reading, I would make his back and belly smart”; and Yazīd ibn Hārūn disliked Ḥamza’s reading with an intense dislike.²⁶⁴

It has passed that the imams of grammar and letters faulted many of the great readers’ readings as solecism: al-Mubarrad rejected Ḥamza’s wa-l-arḥāmi (4:1) in the genitive and muṣrikhiyya (14:22) with kasra on the yāʾ;²⁶⁵ the grammarians of the Maghrib, such as Ibn ʿUṣfūr, rejected Ibn ʿĀmir’s qatlu awlādihim shurakāʾihim (6:137); and al-Fārisī deemed Ibn ʿĀmir’s arjiʾhu (7:111) erroneous²⁶⁶ — the detail of which has already passed.²⁶⁷

And would a Muslim dare to fault or reject a reading that is mutawātir from the Messenger of God (ṣ)? If that shows anything, it shows that what they rejected was something ascribed to the readers themselves — a rejection directed against them — not a rejection of something certainly established from the Prophet (ṣ); the justifications given on these occasions in vindication of the rejections confirm it. Thus Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Mubarrad rejected the reading of the people of Medina, hāʾulāʾi banātī hunna aṭhara lakum (11:78), saying: “It is a gross solecism; it is but the reading of Ibn Marwān, who had no knowledge of Arabic”²⁶⁸²⁶⁹ — and the like of that is abundant.

Ibn Qutayba devoted a chapter to specimens of the errors of the famous readers, among them two of the Seven, Ḥamza and Nāfiʿ, saying: “How few of this class are safe, in their reading, from error and delusion!”²⁷⁰ Likewise Muḥammad ʿUḍayma gathered many instances in which the grammarians deemed the readers erroneous and imputed to them scantness of knowledge and weakness of discernment, and quoted Ibn Jinnī’s description of the readers in general — in his al-Khaṣāʾiṣ as [prone to] weakness of discernment, and in his al-Munṣif as [prone to] inadvertence and error, since they have no analogy to which to refer²⁷¹ — and other instances that would take long to recount.

In al-Murshid al-Wajīz there is a chapter on some of what has been ascribed to the readers, containing rejections by the people of language and others — among them the concurrence of two quiescents in al-Bazzī’s tāʾs, for he used to geminate the tāʾ at the beginnings of imperfect verbs in liaison, in thirty-one places of the Qurʾān, as in wa-lā tayammamū l-khabītha (2:267);²⁷² the assimilation of Abū ʿAmr, who assimilated the first of two identical letters meeting from two [separate] words throughout the Qurʾān, as in shahru ramaḍāna (2:185)²⁷³ and dhāti l-shawkati takūnu (8:7);²⁷⁴ and Ḥamza’s fa-mā sṭāʿū (18:97), read with gemination of the ṭāʾ, assimilating the tāʾ into it and joining two quiescents in liaison²⁷⁵²⁷⁶ — the author enumerating many examples in which the readers were deemed erroneous and imputed to delusion and weakness of discernment.²⁷⁷

Add to this the rejections by the generality of many of the Seven’s readings; and they would sometimes compel the readers to descend from their readings in accordance with public opinion — which indicates that their original choice was of ijtihād, nothing else. There has passed the account, in Ibn al-Athīr’s al-Nihāya, of the Medinans’ rejection of al-Kisāʾī’s nabr (hamza-pronunciation) in his reading of the hamz: when al-Mahdī performed the pilgrimage, he put al-Kisāʾī forward to lead the prayer in Medina, and he pronounced the hamza, so the people of Medina rejected it, saying that he was “nabr-ing in the mosque of the Messenger of God (ṣ) in [reciting] the Qurʾān.” Nabr is the hamza-ing of the letter; and Quraysh did not pronounce the hamza in their speech. A man once said yā nabīʾa llāh [with hamza], and the Prophet (ṣ) rebuked him and said: “We, the folk of Quraysh, do not nabr”; and in another transmission: “Do not nabr in my name.”²⁷⁸

Ibn Mujāhid reported that Qunbul, one of Ibn Kathīr’s two transmitters, told him: al-Qawwās said in the year 237, “Meet this man” — meaning al-Bazzī, Ibn Kathīr’s other transmitter — “and tell him: this reading is not of our reading,” meaning wa-mā huwa bi-mayyitin (14:17) with the light form, since one lightens mayt only of one who has already died, whereas one not yet dead takes the doubled form, mayyit. “So I met al-Bazzī and told him, and he said: I have already retracted it.”²⁷⁹²⁸⁰ Were his first choice not of ijtihād, his retraction would not have been valid, nor the rejection against him permissible.

Muḥammad ibn Ṣāliḥ also reported: I heard a man ask Abū ʿAmr ibn al-ʿAlāʾ, “How do you read lā yuʿadhdhibu ʿadhābahu aḥadun wa-lā yūthiqu wathāqahu aḥadun (89:25–26)?” He said, “lā yuʿadhdhib,” with kasra on the doubled dhāl [active]. The man said, “How so, when it has come from the Prophet (ṣ) as lā yuʿadhdhab, with fatḥa [passive]?” Abū ʿAmr answered: “Had I heard the man who heard the Prophet (ṣ), I would take no other from him. And do you know why? Because I regard the anomalous, single reading with suspicion when it runs contrary to what the generality have brought.”²⁸¹²⁸² See how Abū ʿAmr rests his reading on the concord of the generality of the Muslims — which is one of our own criteria in choosing the sound reading, as will come — setting aside the single transmission and paying it no heed.

And yet the fatḥa reading, lā yuʿadhdhab, is that of al-Kisāʾī of the Seven, Yaʿqūb of the Ten, and al-Ḥasan of the Four.²⁸³ Is it conceivable that a mutawātir transmission reached al-Kisāʾī, who was in the latter part of the second century, and did not reach Abū ʿAmr, who was in the fore of that same century?

Ibn al-Jazarī noted that among the readings is some that a trustworthy [transmitter] conveyed but which has no valid basis in Arabic; and this is not accepted even if it accords with the script of the codex, for the like of it issues only by way of inadvertence, error, and want of precision. The verifying imams and the exact memorizers recognize it, and it is very little — indeed, scarcely to be found. Some have counted among it a transmission from Nāfiʿ, maʿāʾish (7:160) with the hamza; what Ibn Bakkār transmitted from Ibn ʿĀmir, a-dariya a-qarībun (21:109) with fatḥa on the yāʾ together with retention of the hamza; and what Abū ʿAlī al-ʿAṭṭār transmitted from Abū ʿAmr, sāḥirāni taẓẓāharā (28:48) with gemination of the ẓāʾ.

And what some commentators on al-Shāṭibiyya mention of Ḥamza’s manner of pausing (waqf): asmāyihim [for asmāʾihim] and ūlayika with a pure yāʾ; shurakāwuhum and aḥbāwuhu with a pure wāw; badākum and akhāhu with a pure alif;²⁸⁴ and rā for raʾā, tarā for tarāʾā, ishmazzat for ishmaʾazzat, and fa-ddāratum for fa-ddāraʾtum — with deletion throughout, of what they call “orthographic lightening,” which is impermissible in any respect of Arabic. He said: “This, even if conveyed from a trustworthy transmitter, is not accepted, since it has no basis.”²⁸⁵ I say: this is the strongest witness that not everything established from the Seven is mutawātir from the Prophet (ṣ); else its rejection would not be valid, and its acceptance would be obligatory without qualification.

Anomalous Readings among the Seven

We have, in addition to what has preceded, readings from the Seven that were branded anomalous for contravening analogy, or for falling under the rejection of the generality of the Muslims — which indicates that they are ijtihād-based choices their authors made in error, or through scant knowledge of the criteria of correct speech; and so the verifying imams and exact memorizers rejected them, they took on the mark of anomaly, and the jurists forbade reading by them, in prayer or elsewhere, under the character of their being Qurʾān.

Among them: the concurrence of two quiescents in the tāʾs of al-Bazzī, holder of Ibn Kathīr’s reading, who geminated the tāʾ at the beginnings of imperfect verbs in liaison, in thirty-one places, as in wa-lā tayammamū l-khabītha (2:267);²⁸⁶ the assimilation (idghām) of Abū ʿAmr when two identical letters meet — within one word, as in manāsikakum (2:200)²⁸⁷ and mā salakakum (74:42),²⁸⁸ and across two [separate] words throughout the Qurʾān, as in fīhi hudan, shahru ramaḍāna, an yaʾtiya yawmun, lā abraḥu ḥattā, yashfaʿu ʿindahu;²⁸⁹ and Ḥamza’s fa-mā sṭāʿū (18:97), turning the tāʾ into a ṭāʾ and assimilating it, with the sīn quiescent as well — an anomalous reading.²⁹⁰

And Abū ʿAmr’s bāriʾkum (2:54)²⁹¹ with quiescence of the hamza, together with yaʾmurkum, taʾmurhum, yaʾmurhum, yanṣurkum, and yashʿurkum wherever they occur — all with the “snatching” (ikhtilās) of the rāʾ’s ḍamma, an anomalous reading;²⁹² Ibn Kathīr’s yā bunayyi lā tushrik bi-llāhi (31:13)²⁹³ with quiescence of the yāʾ;²⁹⁴ and Qunbul’s — Ibn Kathīr’s transmitter — sabaʾ (27:22)²⁹⁵ with quiescence of the hamza.²⁹⁶

And Ḥamza’s makra l-sayyiʾ (35:43) with quiescence of the hamza in liaison;²⁹⁷ Qunbul’s yartaʿī (12:12)²⁹⁸ with retention of the yāʾ after the ʿayn,²⁹⁹ and yattaqī wa-yaṣbir (12:90)³⁰⁰ with retention of the yāʾ after the qāf;³⁰¹ Hishām’s — Ibn ʿĀmir’s transmitter — afʾīdatan mina l-nāsi (14:37)³⁰² with a yāʾ inserted after the hamza;³⁰³ and the reading of Nāfiʿ, Ibn Kathīr, and Ibn ʿĀmir, laykata (26:176; 38:13) with a fatḥa-bearing lām — no hamza after it and no alif before it — and fatḥa on the tāʾ, whereas the rest read al-aykati with the alif and lām, the hamza, and kasra on the tāʾ.³⁰⁴³⁰⁵

And Qunbul’s saʾqayhā (27:44) with a quiescent hamza after the sīn in place of the alif;³⁰⁶³⁰⁷ Ḥamza’s wa-l-arḥāmi (4:1) in the genitive;³⁰⁸³⁰⁹ Ibn ʿĀmir’s kun fa-yakūna (2:117 and elsewhere) in the accusative, al-Kisāʾī following him in al-Naḥl and Yā Sīn only;³¹⁰³¹¹ and, as has passed, his qatlu awlādahum shurakāʾihim (6:137), with the separation between the two annexed terms.³¹²³¹³ These and their like are many, and the researcher finds them in the books of the readings³¹⁴ — anomalies that departed from the criterion of the sound, accepted reading and became an object of rejection by the scholars, one and all, so that their being Qurʾān is not valid, just as their recitation in prayer is not permissible.

Justifications and Grounds of Ijtihād

Abū Muḥammad Makkī ibn Abī Ṭālib, in his large book al-Kashf ʿan Wujūh al-Qirāʾāt al-Sabʿ, set forth comprehensively the grounds and justifications for the various readings³¹⁵ on which the readers relied in their choices — each according to his own ijtihād and his own observation, without regard to transmission or audition. We mention specimens of them:

First, His words āyātun li-l-sāʾilīna (12:7): Ibn Kathīr read it in the singular, āyatun li-l-sāʾilīn, making the whole matter of Joseph a single sign on the whole — even if in detail there were [several] signs, as in wa-jaʿalnā bna maryama wa-ummahu āyatan (23:50), where He used the singular though their matter comprised detail; the rest read it in the plural, on account of the variety of Joseph’s states and his passing from one to another, a sign befalling him in each. Makkī said: “That [plural] is the choice, because the majority are upon it.”^316317318

Second, fī ghayābati l-jubbi (12:10): Nāfiʿ alone read it in the plural, ghayābāti l-jubbi, since every part of the well hidden from sight is a ghayāba, so that Joseph was cast into [several] hidden recesses; the rest read it in the singular, since he was cast into but one.³¹⁹ Third, yartaʿ wa-yalʿab (12:12): the Kūfans and Nāfiʿ read both with a yāʾ, and the rest with a nūn;³²⁰ it is [also] reported of Ibn Kathīr that he read nartaʿ with a nūn and yalʿab with a yāʾ, the two Ḥaramī readers giving kasra to the ʿayn of yartaʿī and the rest making it quiescent.

The ground of him who read with the yāʾ is that he ascribed the verb to Joseph, the reporting of him as at play being fitting for his youth, since blame is lifted from him therein; the ground of him who read with the nūn is that he construed it as a report by Joseph’s brothers concerning themselves — they being no prophets at that time, and play, if not with the vain, being permissible; Ibn Kathīr’s ground is that yalʿab is ascribed to Joseph and nartaʿ to his brothers; the ground of the quiescent ʿayn is that it derives from rataʿa yartaʿu, the jussive answering the request in His words arsilhu maʿanā (12:12); and the ground of the kasra ʿayn is that it derives from raʿā yarʿā, whose final radical is a yāʾ, its deletion being the mark of the jussive.³²¹

Fourth, al-mukhlaṣīn (37:40 and elsewhere): Nāfiʿ and the people of Kūfa read it as a passive, with fatḥa on the lām — al-mukhlaṣīn, “those made sincere” — because God made them sincere, that is, chose them for His worship; the rest read it as an active, with kasra — al-mukhliṣīn, “those who made themselves sincere.” Makkī said: “The fatḥa is dearer to me, since they did not make themselves sincere for the worship of God until after God had chosen them for that and made them sincere.”³²² Fifth, wa-zarʿun wa-nakhīlun ṣinwānun wa-ghayru ṣinwānin (13:4): Ḥafṣ, Ibn Kathīr, and Abū ʿAmr read the four words in the nominative, in apposition to “tracts” (qiṭaʿ); the rest read them in the genitive, in apposition to “grapes” (aʿnāb) — which is nearer to them than “tracts.”³²³³²⁴

Sixth, His words wa-tadʿūnanī ilā l-nāri (40:41): Abū ʿAlī al-Fārisī said the ground of him who gave fatḥa to the yāʾ is that this is the original vowel — for the yāʾ stands parallel to the second-person kāf, so that just as the kāf takes fatḥa, so does the yāʾ; while the ground of him who made it quiescent is that the fatḥa with the yāʾ is disfavoured in speech, as the other two vowels are disfavoured upon it.³²⁵³²⁶

Seventh, His words tanbutu bi-l-duhni (23:20): Ibn Kathīr and Abū ʿAmr read it with ḍamma on the tāʾ and kasra on the bāʾ [tunbitu, “it brings forth”], and the rest with fatḥa on the tāʾ and ḍamma on the bāʾ [tanbutu, “it grows”].³²⁷ Makkī said: the ground of the ḍamma-reader is that he took it as a four-radical verb, making the bāʾ in bi-l-duhni redundant — though the bāʾ [in fact] indicates the concomitance of the bringing-forth with the oil, as in iqraʾ bi-smi rabbika (96:1); and the ground of the fatḥa-reader is that he took it as a three-radical verb, the bāʾ being for transitivity. “The choice,” he said, “is the fatḥa, because the majority are upon it.”³²⁸

Those are seven specimens, sufficient to show the extent to which ijtihād interpenetrates the choice of the readings; and rarely do we find them resting on audition or transmission. There has [also] passed al-Bazzī’s retreat from the reading mayt, when it became clear to him that he had erred in his choice;³²⁹ and were it not for his reliance on ijtihād, his retreat would not have been valid.

Contradiction among the Readings

In the readings carefully transmitted from the imam-readers, the Seven and others, there is much of contradiction and disparity, such that they do not converge upon a single meaning — a thing that is incompatible with the text of revelation, which admits of no divergence at all: “Had it been from [someone] other than Allah, they would have surely found much discrepancy in it.”³³⁰ This is the criterion for knowing the revelation of Heaven; and hence it is not valid to ascribe this divergence to the Prophet (ṣ).

Hence al-Zarkashī deemed strange the justifying of such readings by treating the two readings as two [distinct] verses, for the supposition of two mutually contradictory verses in the Qurʾān is utterly impossible.³³¹ Among them: their divergence in aw lāmastumu l-nisāʾa (4:43) — Ḥamza and al-Kisāʾī reading aw lamastum, the rest aw lāmastumu — upon which the jurists built [the question of] whether the toucher’s ablution is nullified;³³²³³³ and their divergence over intercourse with the menstruating woman when the blood ceases, before her ablution, which looks to ḥattā yaṭṭahharna (2:222) with gemination — the reading of Ḥamza and al-Kisāʾī — or with the light form — the reading of the rest.³³⁴³³⁵

Among them: al-Kisāʾī and Abū Jaʿfar’s a-lā yasjudū li-llāhi (27:25), with the light alā as an inceptive particle, so that it indicates the obligatoriness of the prostration, while the rest read with gemination [allā yasjudū]; al-Farrāʾ said: then it does not indicate obligatoriness.³³⁶³³⁷ And the reading of Nāfiʿ, Ibn ʿĀmir, Ḥafṣ, and al-Kisāʾī, wa-arjulakum (5:6) in the accusative, in apposition to “your hands,” indicating the obligatoriness of washing [the feet], while the rest read it in the genitive, in apposition to “your heads,” indicating the obligatoriness of wiping.³³⁸³³⁹

Among them: wa-ddakara baʿda ummatin (12:45) — “after a [long] while” — or baʿda amahin — “after a forgetting”;³⁴⁰ and rabbanā bāʿid bayna asfārinā (34:19)³⁴¹ — read as a past-tense verb, to be a report of something past, or as an imperative, seeking its occurrence thereafter, that is, a supplication.³⁴² And His words idh talaqqawnahu bi-alsinatikum (24:15) — with gemination of the fatḥa-bearing qāf, meaning “you receive it,” or taliqūnahu with kasra on the lām and a light qāf, from walaqa, “to lie.”³⁴³³⁴⁴

And Nāfiʿ and Ibn ʿĀmir’s wa-ttakhadhū min maqāmi Ibrāhīma muṣallan (2:125) — with fatḥa on the khāʾ, as a past tense reporting what preceded — while the rest read it in the imperative, as an obligation upon this Umma;³⁴⁵³⁴⁶ and al-Kisāʾī’s hal tastaṭīʿu rabbaka (5:112), with the second-person tāʾ and rabbaka in the accusative — a governed noun being elided, “the asking of your Lord” — while the rest read it with the yāʾ and rabbuka in the nominative as agent;³⁴⁷ and the two readings, in their apparent sense, are mutually contradictory.³⁴⁸

And Ibn Kathīr’s ka-annamā yaṣʿadu fī l-samāʾi (6:125), with the light ṣād and ʿayn — the attempt at ascent without exertion — while the rest read with gemination in both, [conveying] the exertion in ascending, as though one burdened himself, bit by bit, with what he cannot bear; and the two are mutually contradictory.³⁴⁹³⁵⁰ And Ibn ʿĀmir’s zuyyina li-kathīrin mina l-mushrikīna qatlu awlādahum shurakāʾihim (6:137): zuyyina as a passive, qatlu in the nominative as deputy-agent, awlādahum in the accusative as object of the annexed verbal noun, and shurakāʾihim in the genitive as annexed to it — a weak reading, owing to the separation of the two annexed terms, and a poor form of language;³⁵¹ while the rest read zayyana as an active, qatla in the accusative as a direct object annexed to “their children,” and shurakāʾuhum in the nominative as agent of zayyana.³⁵²

So in the first reading the “partners” are the agent of the killing, and in the second the agent of the adorning, the polytheists being the killers — and how great the difference between the two! And the Kūfans read qad kudhibū (12:110) with the light form, [meaning] that those to whom the messengers were sent supposed the messengers had been lied to concerning what they charged them with; while the rest read qad kudhdhibū, [meaning] that the messengers supposed their people had disbelieved them; and the two meanings do not agree.³⁵³³⁵⁴

The Qurʾān and the Readings are Two Distinct Realities

The judge Abū Saʿīd Faraj ibn Lubb al-Andalusī said — as his statement passed earlier — “Whoever alleges that tawātur is not required in the seven readings speaks unbelief, because it leads to the non-tawātur of the Qurʾān.”³⁵⁵ This is his exaggerated statement, in which none of the verifiers agreed with him, given the absence of any necessary link between the two matters. And al-Zarkashī’s statement has passed: “The Qurʾān and the readings are two distinct realities: the Qurʾān is the revelation sent down upon Muḥammad (ṣ), whereas the readings are the variance of the wordings of that revelation, in the writing of the letters or their manner.”³⁵⁶

No Muslim has doubted the tawātur of the Qurʾān, whereas none but a few have held to the tawātur of the readings, and the words of the masters on this have passed. Al-Zurqānī said: “The proof on which Abū Saʿīd relied does not hold for him, because of the difference between the Qurʾān and the seven readings: it is valid that the Qurʾān be mutawātir in [something] other than the seven readings, or in the measure agreed upon by the readers, or in the measure agreed upon by a number whose collusion upon falsehood is precluded — be they readers or not — while the seven readings are not mutawātir.” And our master, the Imam al-Khūʾī, said: “The tawātur of the Qurʾān does not entail the tawātur of the readings, because

the divergence in the manner of expressing a word does not conflict with agreement on its root — just as divergence over the particulars of a historical event, the Hijra for instance, does not conflict with the tawātur of the event itself. What reaches us by way of the readers is only the particulars of their readings; but the root of the Qurʾān reaches us by tawātur among the Muslims, the later transmitting from the earlier and guarding it in [their] breasts and [their] writings, the readers in particular having no part in that at all. For this reason the Qurʾān is firmly mutawātir even were we to suppose that these seven or ten readers had never been in the world of existence at all; for the majesty of the Qurʾān and the loftiness of its station are too high to depend on the transmission of that limited band.”³⁵⁷

In our master the teacher’s words there is, in the end, the decisive proof against those who view the tawātur of the Qurʾān only from the angle of the seven readings, and so confine the Qurʾānic text — which is the Book of all the Muslims — within the frame of that scant, meagre band: what a limited and short-sighted view! There is no doubt that the Qurʾān, the text of the wise divine revelation, is mutawātir among the Muslims with a decisive tawātur, in all its sūras, verses, and words, word by word, such that were we to change a single word of it, or move it from its place to another, the Muslims would repudiate it and find it something alien to the style of the speech of God, the Mighty, the Praiseworthy.

Hence the readings that did not accord with the text of the codex were repudiated by the Muslims, common folk and scholars alike, and were reckoned anomalous and rejected. There has passed, in the preceding chapter, the rejection by a number of the great scholars of readers who read outside the familiar norm, and likewise rejections by the generality of the Muslims of famous, great readers; and the jurists did not permit reading by them in prayer, nor did they reckon them Qurʾān from the speech of God the Glorious.

There will come — in the chapter on choosing the sound reading — the conditions for recognizing the mutawātir Qurʾān, agreed upon among the generality of the Muslims. There remains here an objection: that if the readings are not all mutawātir, the Qurʾān becomes, in the verses where the reading has diverged, non-mutawātir — as in mālik and malik (1:4), which has been read in both ways: so which of the two is the text? Ibn al-Ḥājib, in the Mukhtaṣar of his Uṣūl, argued from this to establish the tawātur of the seven readings:³⁵⁸ “Otherwise it would follow that some of the Qurʾān is non-mutawātir; for if the readers differed over a word — ghayāba or ghayābāt, āya or āyāt, malik or mālik, and the like read in two ways or more — then either we hold to the tawātur of all the readings, or [we ask] which of the two is Qurʾān and which not; and wavering over that means wavering over the original text, which does not comport with holding to the tawātur of the Qurʾānic text.”

The answer is: the original text is what is established in the Noble Codex, upon which the Umma agreed as a single text; the divergence came only in the manner of its reading and the mode of its expression — a thing that does not conflict with the establishment of the root’s tawātur, as in much of the verse of the ancient poets, where the root of the line or the ode is established by tawātur even though the transmitters differ over some of the words or the vowels. What we set forth earlier adds clarity: the readers’ divergence was an ijtihād on their part in realizing the word in [its] expression, while the text established in the codex is one; for their divergence arose from the first codex’s bareness of any distinguishing mark — of the vowel-shapes and the dotting, indeed of the alifs — and from possible additions foreign to the mode of correct script, on account of the early Arabs’ ignorance of the principles of exact writing.

For they wrote malik with a mīm, a lām, and a kāf; but since their custom was to delete the alifs — following what is drawn in the Syriac script — some of the readers accordingly exercised ijtihād, alleging that the word was drawn on that same pattern, and read it mālik with the alif, resting on justifications supporting the choice: ʿĀṣim and al-Kisāʾī read mālik, arguing from His words quli llāhumma mālika l-mulki (3:26)³⁵⁹ and other proofs that Makkī set out in detail;³⁶⁰ while the rest read malik, without an alif, following the apparent rasm, and arguing from His words al-maliki l-quddūsi (59:23) and other proofs.³⁶¹

Likewise ghayābati l-jubbi (12:10) was drawn ghybt; Nāfiʿ read it in the plural, ghayābāt, alleging that the alif was deleted in both places, and justifying it [by saying] that every part of the well hidden from sight is a ghayāba, while the rest read the singular ghayāba, [holding] that Joseph was cast into but a single recess.³⁶² And āyātun li-l-sāʾilīna (12:7) was written āyt; Ibn Kathīr read it in the singular, following the apparent script, arguing that the whole matter of Joseph is a single sign — as in His words wa-jaʿalnā bna maryama wa-ummahu āyatan (23:50)³⁶³³⁶⁴ — while the rest read āyāt, relying on the deleted alif and on Joseph’s passing from state to state, a sign befalling him in each.³⁶⁵

So the divergence of the reading is not [something] that harms the unity of the original text, established in the first codex, upon which the Umma has been agreed throughout history. Ibn Ashta reported, in the book al-Maṣāḥif, and Ibn Abī Shayba, in Faḍāʾil al-Qurʾān, through the line of Ibn Sīrīn from ʿAbīda al-Salmānī, who said:

“The reading that was presented to the Prophet (ṣ) in the year in which he died is the reading that the people recite today.”³⁶⁶ To this, too, the ḥadīth from the Imam al-Ṣādiq (ʿa) pointed, where he said: “The Qurʾān is one, sent down from One [source]; but the divergence comes from the side of the transmitters.”³⁶⁷ You may ask: if the reading has diverged over a single text, whence is the original text known, when the script bears both readings?

We say: we shall explain, in a coming chapter, the conditions for choosing the sound reading that accords with the original text — namely, the well-known reading familiar among the people, which the Umma has received with acceptance in all its ages; and hence the readings that departed from the bounds of the general norm fell under their rejection, examples of which have passed.³⁶⁸ And another question: does not the divergence of the early regional codices — as we explained in Volume One — impugn the tawātur of the single original text? I say: no; for the established root among those codices too is what the Umma agreed upon and which fell within their concord and spread and became widely known through history, while what was established otherwise in the remaining codices was forsaken, and hence anomalous and rejected. For example, the codex of Syria diverged from that of Kūfa: the established form of Syria was wa-awṣā bihā Ibrāhīmu (2:132), and that of Kūfa wa-waṣṣā; but the Umma acknowledged the second and cast away the first — decisive evidence that the sound one is the latter, not the former — so it is not permissible to read according to what is transmitted from the codex of Syria in the specific case of this verse.³⁶⁹

In the codex of Medina and Syria there came sāriʿū (3:133) without a wāw, and in the codex of Kūfa and Baṣra wa-sāriʿū — and the consensus of the Umma fell upon the second.³⁷⁰ In the codex of Medina and Syria there came qāla l-malaʾu (7:60) without a wāw, and in the codex of the two Iraqs wa-qāla l-malaʾu — but the consensus fell upon the first.³⁷¹ And in the codex of Medina and Syria there came huwa lladhī yunshirukum (10:22), and in the codex of the two Iraqs huwa lladhī yusayyirukum — the consensus being upon the second; and so forth.³⁷²³⁷³

The upshot is this: our path to knowing the original text is the consensus of the Umma across its various ages; for despite the divergence of its inclinations, it agreed upon its Noble Book, the speech of God, the Mighty, the Praiseworthy, and so preserved its original text, prevailing over every factor of divergence in this domain. And it is nothing but a dazzling Qurʾānic miracle: “Indeed We have sent down the Reminder, and indeed We will preserve it.”³⁷⁴ — that is, [preserved] among you, not [merely] in the Preserved Tablet, as some have alleged; and this eternal divine Book has never ceased, and will never cease, to cleave its way forward, into everlastingness, in peace.

The Seven Aḥruf and the Seven Readings

We have not found, among the scholars of the discipline, anyone who sees any connection between the ḥadīth “The Qurʾān was sent down upon seven aḥruf” and the well-known seven readings — save its circulation on the tongues of the common folk and the rabble, resting on no recognized authority. Many of the critical imams have refuted this widespread supposition — Ibn al-Jazarī, Abū Shāma, al-Zarkashī, Abū Muḥammad Makkī, Ibn Taymiyya, and their like — and Ibn al-Jazarī ascribed this delusion to the ignorant commoners and the unlearned of the base rabble.³⁷⁵

Abū Muḥammad Makkī said: “As for one who supposes that the reading of each one of these readers is one of the seven aḥruf that the Prophet (ṣ) specified, that is a grievous error on his part; for it would then follow that whatever these seven did not read by must be discarded, since they would have monopolized the seven aḥruf that are with the Prophet (ṣ), so that whatever departs from their reading is, in his view, not of the seven.”³⁷⁶ And Abū Shāma said: “A people supposed that the seven readings existing now are those intended in the ḥadīth; but that is contrary to the consensus of the people of knowledge, one and all, and none suppose it save some of the people of ignorance.”³⁷⁷

He also said: “A group of those who have no acquaintance with the principles of this science supposed that the reading of these seven imams is what the Prophet (ṣ) expressed by his words, ‘The Qurʾān was sent down upon seven aḥruf,’ each of their readings being one ḥarf of them; and whoever ascribed this to Ibn Mujāhid has erred.”³⁷⁸ And Ibn Taymiyya said: “There is no dispute among the reputable scholars that the seven aḥruf which the Prophet (ṣ) said the Qurʾān was sent down upon are not the well-known readings of the seven readers; rather, the first to gather these [readers] was Ibn Mujāhid, that it might correspond to the number of the aḥruf upon which the Qurʾān was sent down — not from any belief, his or other scholars’, that the seven readings are the seven aḥruf, or that these seven specified [readers] are the ones outside whose reading it is not permissible to read.”³⁷⁹

What adds to the hideousness of this delusion is that it entails the seven aḥruf whose recitation the Prophet (ṣ) permitted remaining, on this supposition, crouching in a corner of obscurity, unknown, until these seven readers in particular gradually rose to eminence in later ages, and then the seven aḥruf permitted to the whole Umma becoming the monopoly of seven readers alone — whereas there existed readers greater than these seven in rank and mightier in standing, whom [the aḥruf] did not accommodate; as though the Prophet (ṣ) had made a bequest to Ibn Mujāhid, who came at the dawn of the fourth century, to single out these seven alone for those aḥruf and to bar the others, both those before and those after! Abū Muḥammad al-Harawī said: “Let it not be imagined that the ḥadīth of the Seven refers to the reading of seven readers who would be born ages later; for that would lead to the report being stripped of any benefit until they came to be, and to [the conclusion] that it was not permissible for any of the Companions to read save by what they knew the seven readers would later choose. We have mentioned it,” he said, “only because a group of the common folk cling to it.”³⁸⁰

On this occasion, we have deemed it best to devote the following chapter to speaking of the ḥadīth “The Qurʾān was sent down upon seven aḥruf,” by way of clarifying the aspect of its import — which appears ambiguous, the possible interpretations of it having reached forty aspects; as for the aspect of its isnād, it is not established in our view.

Summary of the Inquiry

There is summed up, from the sum of our foregoing inquiries, that the establishing of the tawātur of the readings from the Prophet (ṣ) is a thing that appears impossible. First: there is no proof of it, and short of establishing it, “the tears are shed,” in Abū Shāma’s expression.³⁸¹ Second: the divergence of the readings had intrinsic factors — which we explained in a previous chapter — that were the cause of the rise of disagreement among the readers. Third: the readers’ isnāds to the Prophet (ṣ) are single (āḥād) chains, as found in the books of the readings, and none of them was mutawātir according to the technical term — besides the doubt over the majority of these isnāds, upon which appears the mark of fabrication and forgery: perhaps they are contrived honorific chains with no reality behind them.

Fourth: the rejections by the scholars of the Umma and the leaders of the community of the readings of many eminent readers are a proof that these were not, in their view, mutawātir; else how would a Muslim dare to reject a reading that is mutawātir from the Prophet (ṣ)? Fifth: the existence of readings anomalous [issuing] from the Seven negates the tawātur of their readings one by one. Sixth: the readers’ reliance on rational, theoretical grounds and justifications is a proof that their choices were [products of] ijtihād; else, had their readings been established by tawātur, there would have been no need for any rational justification. Seventh: the existence of contradiction among the readings negates their tawātur from the Prophet (ṣ), since the text of revelation admits of no divergence. Eighth: there is no necessary link between the question of the tawātur of the Qurʾān — acknowledged by all — and the question of the tawātur of the readings, which none but the rabble of the imitators have prattled about. Ninth: there is no relation between the ḥadīth “The Qurʾān was sent down upon seven aḥruf” and the reading of the seven readers; it is but a confusion into which some of the stupid common folk have fallen — in the expression of the Imam Abū al-Faḍl al-Rāzī.³⁸² And praise be to God, first and last. And now, [we present] to you the inquiry into the ḥadīth of the seven aḥruf.

The Ḥadīth of the Seven Aḥruf

The Ḥadīth in the Transmissions of the Ahl al-Bayt (ʿa)

First, Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṣadūq transmitted, by an isnād in which occurs “Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā al-Ṣayrafī” — who is unknown (majhūl) — from Ḥammād ibn ʿUthmān, from the Imam Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq (ʿa), who said: “The Qurʾān was sent down upon seven aḥruf, and the least [that is due] to the Imam is that he give legal opinion in seven ways.”³⁸³ The scholars have interpreted the aḥruf in this ḥadīth in the sense of the inner meanings (buṭūn): that every verse admits [several] aspects of meaning — even if they may be hidden from the generality — but the infallible Imam (ʿa) knows them, and so gives his opinion accordingly.

Second, he also transmitted, by another isnād in which occurs “Aḥmad ibn Hilāl” — who is an extremist (ghālin) impugned in his religion — from ʿĪsā ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Hāshimī, from his father, from his forefathers, who said: The Messenger of God (ṣ) said: “One who comes [an angel] came to me from God and said: God, Mighty and Exalted, commands you to recite the Qurʾān upon a single ḥarf. I said: O Lord, grant ease to my Umma. He said: God commands you to recite the Qurʾān upon seven aḥruf.”³⁸⁴ The aḥruf in this ḥadīth are the various Arabic dialects — as will come in the ḥadīths of Ahl al-Sunna with the same content, the same meaning being intended — for God granted ease to this Umma [in permitting] that it recite the Qurʾān in its various dialects, as we shall mention.

Third, Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Ṣaffār transmitted, by an isnād containing an indecision (thus: “from Ibn Abī ʿUmayr, or another”), from Jamīl ibn Darrāj, from Zurāra, from the Imam Abū Jaʿfar al-Bāqir (ʿa): “The interpretation of the Qurʾān is upon seven aḥruf: of it is what has [already] been, and of it is what has not yet been — and that the Imams know.”³⁸⁵ This ḥadīth is like the first, the aḥruf intended being the aspects that a single verse admits, expressed elsewhere as the buṭūn. Fourth, Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm al-Nuʿmānī transmitted, in mursal fashion, from the Imam, the Commander of the Faithful (ʿa): “The Qurʾān was sent down upon seven divisions, each of them healing and sufficient; and they are: command, prohibition, exhortation, warning, disputation, parable, and narrative…”³⁸⁶ This ḥadīth interprets the seven aḥruf as [various] modes of discourse that the Noble Qurʾān comprised — as is also explicitly stated in the ḥadīth of Ibn Masʿūd and Abū Qilāba, [which is] to come.

The traditionist al-Fayḍ al-Kāshānī said: “The reconciliation between these transmissions is to say: the Qurʾān has seven classes of verses; and seven inner meanings (buṭūn) for each verse; and it was sent down upon seven tongues, that is, dialects.”³⁸⁷ Those are the ḥadīths with the wording “The Qurʾān was sent down upon seven aḥruf,” transmitted from the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt (ʿa) — but by isnāds whose reliability is not established, as our master the teacher pointed out, and before him his shaykh the ḥujja al-Balāghī, and others.

The Ḥadīth in the Transmissions of Ahl al-Sunna

As for the lines of the Jamāʿa, the best of those who gathered its various ḥadīths is the Imam Shihāb al-Dīn Abū Shāma al-Maqdisī, who mentioned them in the third chapter of his book al-Murshid al-Wajīz. He said: The first section, on the recital of the ḥadīths concerning that: First, in the two Ṣaḥīḥs, from Ibn Shihāb, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd Allāh, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbbās, that the Messenger of God (ṣ) said: “Gabriel (ʿa) had me recite upon a single ḥarf, and I kept referring back to him and asking him for more, until he brought it up to seven aḥruf.”³⁸⁸ Second, in both of them, also from Ibn Shihāb: that ʿUmar heard Hishām ibn Ḥakīm reciting in his prayer upon ḥurūf that he did not recognize, and brought him to the Messenger of God (ṣ), who said: “Thus it was sent down; this Qurʾān was sent down upon seven aḥruf, so recite what is [made] easy of it.”³⁸⁹

Third, from Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, who said: I was in the mosque when a man entered and recited in a way I found objectionable; then we all went in to the Messenger of God (ṣ), and a third [man] entered, and each of us recited differently from his fellow. The Prophet (ṣ) began to approve of all of them, and a doubt entered into me over that; and when he saw what had come over me, he struck my chest, and I broke out in sweat³⁹⁰ — then he said: “O Ubayy, my Lord sent to me that I should recite the Qurʾān upon one ḥarf; and I asked Him to grant ease to my Umma, so He sent back to me a second [time]: recite it upon two aḥruf; and I asked Him again, so He sent back to me a third [time]: recite it upon seven aḥruf.”³⁹¹

Fourth, from Ubayy also: The Messenger of God (ṣ) said: “O Ubayy, I was given the Qurʾān to recite upon one ḥarf, and two, and three, until it reached seven aḥruf.” Then he said: “There is none of them but is healing and sufficient — [as] if you end [a verse] with ‘All-hearing, All-knowing’ or ‘All-mighty, All-wise’ — so long as you do not seal a verse of punishment with [a formula of] mercy, or a verse of mercy with [one of] punishment.”³⁹²

Fifth, from him also: that the Messenger of God (ṣ) met Gabriel and said to him: “I have been sent to an unlettered Umma, among them the old woman, the aged man, the boy, the girl, and the man who has never read a book at all.” He said: “O Muḥammad, the Qurʾān has been sent down upon seven aḥruf.”³⁹³ Sixth, from Abū Juhaym al-Anṣārī: that two men differed over a verse of the Qurʾān and walked to the Messenger of God (ṣ), who said: “This Qurʾān was sent down upon seven aḥruf; so do not wrangle over it, for wrangling over the Qurʾān is unbelief.”³⁹⁴

Seventh, from Abū Hurayra: The Messenger of God (ṣ) said: “The Qurʾān was sent down upon seven aḥruf — [as when one ends a verse] ‘All-knowing, All-wise,’ ‘All-forgiving, All-merciful.’”³⁹⁵ Eighth, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd: The Messenger of God (ṣ) said: “The Qurʾān was sent down upon seven aḥruf; each ḥarf of them has an outer aspect (ẓahr) and an inner (baṭn), and every ḥarf a limit (ḥadd), and every limit a place of ascent (maṭlaʿ).”³⁹⁶

Ninth, from him also: The Messenger of God (ṣ) said: “The Qurʾān was sent down upon seven aḥruf, so wrangling over it is unbelief” — three times — “so what you know of it, act by it, and what you are ignorant of, refer it to one who knows it.”³⁹⁷ Tenth, from Zayd ibn Arqam, who said: a man came to the Messenger of God (ṣ) and said: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd, Zayd, and Ubayy have had me recite, and their readings differed — by whose reading shall I hold? The Messenger of God (ṣ) fell silent, and ʿAlī (ʿa) was at his side, so ʿAlī said: “Let each person recite as he has learned; each is good and excellent.” And in ʿAbd Allāh’s ḥadīth: that the Messenger of God (ṣ) whispered to ʿAlī (ʿa), and ʿAlī said: “The Messenger of God (ṣ) commands you that each man of you recite as he has learned.” So we departed, each man of us reciting ḥurūf that his fellow did not recite.³⁹⁸ Al-Ḥākim said: this is a ḥadīth sound of isnād.³⁹⁹

Eleventh, it is transmitted from Ibn Masʿūd, from the Prophet (ṣ), that he said: “The first Book was sent down from a single gate and upon a single ḥarf; but the Qurʾān was sent down from seven gates and upon seven aḥruf: prohibition, command, the lawful, the forbidden, the clear-cut (muḥkam), the ambiguous (mutashābih), and parables…”⁴⁰⁰ Twelfth, from Abū Qilāba, who said: It has reached me that the Prophet (ṣ) said: “The Qurʾān was sent down upon seven aḥruf: command, prohibition, exhortation, warning, disputation, narrative, and parable.”⁴⁰¹

A General Discussion of the Ḥadīth’s Import

Those are the bulk of the ḥadīths of the Jamāʿa; they claimed them mutawātir,⁴⁰² yet they are of divergent import, in a way that does not comport with the technical notion of tawātur — whose mainstay is the unity of content across all the transmissions. Hence the aforementioned ḥadīths divide into four groups. The first means the divergence of dialects in expression and delivery — the ḥadīths numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 10. The second means the permissibility of substituting synonymous words one for another — ḥadīths 4 and 7. The third means the divergence of the meanings of the verses, every verse admitting several, some outer (ẓahr) and some inner (baṭn) — ḥadīths 8 and 9. And the fourth means the diversification of the verses into seven categories — ḥadīths 11 and 12.

However, the majority [of the ḥadīths] are with the first group, and to it the scholars’ view has turned regarding the seven aḥruf by which the Prophet (ṣ) permitted the Qurʾān to be recited; as for the other groups, they are anomalous or void, rejected by the verifying imams. The best of those who have spoken on this subject is the Imam Ibn al-Jazarī, who treated the ḥadīths of the Seven in ten aspects, exhaustively and at length;⁴⁰³ but more fitting is to take each group with what pertains particularly to it, by way of comment and scrutiny. Here it is, in summary.

As for the first group — the divergence of dialects — it is an easing for the Umma in the recitation of the Qurʾān; for the bedouin cannot articulate as the townsman, nor the unlettered attain in his expression [the level of] the cultivated man, nor the young as the old, nor the aged as the youth — besides the divergence of the tribes in expressing a single word, each tribe unable to articulate otherwise than as it has grown accustomed, and the divergence of non-Arab peoples in their ability to pronounce the Arabic words. Were the Umma, in its various peoples, obligated to pronounce [it] uniformly, that would be an imposition of the unbearable — and “Allah does not task any soul beyond its capacity.”⁴⁰⁴

The Imam Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq transmitted, from his forefathers, from the Messenger of God (ṣ): “The non-Arab man of my Umma may recite the Qurʾān in his non-Arab [accent], and the angels raise it up in its [correct] Arabic.”⁴⁰⁵ This is the meaning of his (ṣ) words, “I have been sent to an unlettered Umma, among them the old woman, the aged man, the boy, the girl, and the man who has never read a book at all”: he permitted his Umma to recite upon seven aḥruf according to the divergence of their dialects, not obligated to a particular dialect of which they are incapable — “seven” being an allusion to easing. And his words in another transmission, “so recite however you wish,” mean however you are able; and “let each man of you recite as he has learned” means as he does it well, according to his knowledge and his capacity in expression and delivery.⁴⁰⁶

Of this kind is Abū al-ʿĀliya’s report: from every five men, one recited before the Messenger of God (ṣ), and they differed in the language — that is, the dialect — and he was pleased with the reading of all of them; and Banū Tamīm were the most eloquent in Arabic of the people.⁴⁰⁷ Ibn Qutayba said: “It was part of His (Exalted is He) easing that He commanded him (ṣ) to have each people recite in their own tongue and what their custom had run upon.

Thus the Hudhalī reads ʿattā ḥīnin, meaning ḥattā ḥīnin (23:54)⁴⁰⁸, because that is how he pronounces and uses it; the Asadī reads tiʿlamūna and tiʿlamu with kasra on the imperfect-tāʾ, and tiswaddu wujūhun (3:106)⁴⁰⁹ with kasra on the tāʾ, and a-lam iʿhad ilaykum (36:60)⁴¹⁰ with kasra on the hamza; the Tamīmī pronounces the hamza while the Qurashī does not; and another reads qīla (2:11)⁴¹¹, ghīḍa (11:44)⁴¹², ruddat (12:65)⁴¹³, and mā laka lā taʾmannā (12:11)⁴¹⁴ with a hint (ishmām) of another vowel — which not every tongue can manage with ease.

Were each of these groups commanded to depart from its own tongue and from the habit its custom had run upon — as child, youth, and mature man — that would press hard upon it, and the ordeal would be great, possible only after long disciplining of the self, taming of the tongue, and breaking of habit. So God, in His mercy and gentleness, willed to make for them a latitude in the tongues and a free scope in the vowels, as [part of] His easing of religion upon them.”⁴¹⁵ Ibn Yazdād al-Ahwāzī said: it has come from ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (ʿa) and Ibn ʿAbbās that they said: the Qurʾān was sent down in the tongue of every clan of the Arabs; and in a transmission from Ibn ʿAbbās: the Prophet (ṣ) used to have the people recite in a single tongue, and it pressed hard upon them, so Gabriel descended and said: O Muḥammad, have each people recite in their own tongue.

Abū Shāma said: “This is the truth; for reciting in other than the tongue of Quraysh was permitted only as an easing for the Arabs, and it would not do to ease it for one people and not another, so that none is obligated beyond his capacity. Whoever’s dialect has imāla, or the lightening of the hamza, or assimilation, or the ḍamma of the plural mīm, or the linking of the pronominal hāʾ, or the like — how could he be obligated to other than it? And likewise everyone whose dialect is to pronounce the shīn as [something] like the jīm, as in ashdaq, or the ṣād as [something] like the zāy, as in maṣdar, or the kāf like the jīm, or the jīm like the kāf, and the like: they, in this, are in the position of the lisper (althagh) and the tongue-tied (artt) — one is not obligated to what is beyond his capacity, though it is incumbent on him to learn and strive.”^416417418

This is what we choose in interpreting the seven aḥruf: the divergence of the tongues of the Arabs — that is, their dialects — in expression and delivery. There has passed al-Suyūṭī’s interpretation of “the tongue” as the manner of pronunciation in recitation: clear enunciation (iẓhār), assimilation (idghām), velarization (tafkhīm), attenuation (tarqīq), inclination (imāla), full vowelling (ishbāʿ), prolongation (madd), shortening (qaṣr), gemination (tashdīd), softening (talyīn), full realization (taḥqīq), and the like.⁴¹⁹

“Ḥarf,” in the language, is the edge, the side, the brink. Ibn Sīda said: one says “so-and-so is upon a ḥarf of his affair,” that is, upon a side of it — if he sees something he dislikes, he turns away from it; and in the Mighty Revelation, wa-mina l-nāsi man yaʿbudu llāha ʿalā ḥarfin (22:11) — that is, if he does not attain what he loves, he turns about on his face.⁴²⁰ Al-Azharī transmitted from Abū al-Haytham: as for their calling the ḥarf “ḥarf,” the ḥarf of everything is its side, like the edge of a mountain, a river, or a sword. So a word, if it is expressed in several aspects (wujūh), then each aspect of it is a ḥarf, since the aspect of a thing is its edge from which it appears; and since a reading is one of the aspects of expressing an utterance, it is a ḥarf — the plural being aḥruf.

Al-Azharī also transmitted from Abū al-ʿAbbās that, [when] asked about his (ṣ) words “the Qurʾān was sent down upon seven aḥruf,” he said: they are nothing but [dialectal] tongues; and al-Azharī [noted] that Abū al-ʿAbbās the grammarian — the foremost of his age — approved and endorsed what Abū ʿUbayd held.⁴²¹ And “the tongues” are the tongues of the Arabs — their dialects — in the manner of expression and delivery. Al-Baghawī said: “The most evident of the sayings, the soundest, and the most fitting to the apparent sense of the ḥadīth, is that what is meant by these ḥurūf is the [dialectal] tongues: that each people of the Arabs recite in their own tongue and what their custom has run upon — of assimilation, clear enunciation, inclination, velarization, vowel-blending, full completion, hamza, softening, and other than that of the aspects of the tongues — up to seven aspects of them in a single word.”⁴²²

As for the ḥadīths of the second group — numbers 4 and 7 — they mean the permissibility of substituting a word with its synonym, on condition of preserving the core of the intended meaning, so that a verse of mercy is not turned into one of punishment, nor one of punishment into one of mercy. Ibn Masʿūd was known — as was Ubayy ibn Kaʿb — for holding this substitution permissible. He said: “I have heard the readers and found them close [to one another]; so recite as you have been taught, for it is like your saying halumma and taʿāla [both meaning ‘come’].”⁴²³

Ibn Masʿūd was teaching a non-Arab man the Qurʾān, [reciting] inna shajarata l-zaqqūmi ṭaʿāmu l-athīmi (44:43–44); the man kept saying ṭaʿāmu l-yatīmi and could not manage al-athīmi, so Ibn Masʿūd said to him: say ṭaʿāmu l-fājiri. Then he said: it is not [a case] of error in the Qurʾān that one read, in place of “al-ʿalīm,” “al-ḥakīm”; rather [error is] that one put a verse of mercy in place of a verse of punishment.⁴²⁴⁴²⁵ He would substitute Idrīs for Ilyās, reading salāmun ʿalā idrāsīn (37:130);⁴²⁶ and read baytun min dhahabin for min zukhrufin (17:93);⁴²⁷ and ka-l-ṣūfi l-manfūshi for ka-l-ʿihni l-manfūshi (101:5);⁴²⁸ and nadhartu li-l-raḥmāni ṣamtan for ṣawman (19:26).⁴²⁹

Likewise Ubayy ibn Kaʿb read marrū fīhi and also saʿaw fīhi for mashaw fīhi (2:20);⁴³⁰ and he used to say: “If you say ‘Ever-forgiving, Ever-merciful,’ or ‘All-hearing, All-knowing’ or ‘All-knowing, All-hearing,’ God is [indeed] such — so long as you do not seal a verse of punishment with mercy, or one of mercy with punishment.”⁴³¹ Anas and Abū Hurayra also followed them: Anas read inna nāshiʾata l-layli hiya ashaddu waṭʾan wa-aṣwabu qīlan; when it was said to him that it is wa-aqwamu qīlan (73:6), he said: aqwam, aṣwab, and ahdā are one and the same;⁴³²⁴³³ and Abū Hurayra permitted substituting “ʿalīman ḥakīman” with “ghafūran raḥīman.”⁴³⁴

Likewise Ibn Masʿūd, Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, Ibn ʿAbbās, Ibn al-Zubayr, al-Aʿmash, ʿIkrima, and ʿAmr ibn Dīnār read ḥarthun ḥirjun, while the well-known reading is ḥarthun ḥijrun (6:138);⁴³⁵ Ibn Jinnī said: because the two are one in meaning.⁴³⁶ This, however, is a doctrine rejected in the view of the verifiers, and the mass of the Muslims rejected it throughout history; for every word has its own particular place, which no other word suits — even if it be its synonym, let alone a non-synonym — the place of using “al-ʿalīm al-ḥakīm,” for instance, differing from that of using “al-ghafūr al-raḥīm.”

So too all synonymous words in Arabic: each has a particularity which, if the speaker heeds it, renders his speech exquisite — and by that the eloquent is distinguished from the rest; and in this respect the Qurʾān reached the degree of inimitability (iʿjāz), surpassing the eloquent of the Arabs in the placing of fitting words to a degree that rendered them incapable and subdued them into acknowledging its extraordinary eloquence. How, then, could we permit individual Muslims to substitute for the words of the Qurʾān whatever synonyms they wish? And does anyone know, to the extent of His (Exalted) knowledge, the relative placement of words one to another, [a placement] that reaches the degree of inimitability? Our master the teacher (may God have mercy on him) said: This possibility — that is, of permitting the substitution of the Qurʾān’s words with their synonyms — necessitates the demolition of the foundation of the Qurʾān, the everlasting miracle and the proof against all mankind; and no rational person doubts that it entails the abandonment of the revealed Qurʾān and the neglect of its affair.

And would a rational person imagine the Prophet (ṣ) permitting the reader to recite yā sīn wa-l-dhikri l-ʿaẓīm, innaka la-mina l-anbiyāʾi, ʿalā ṭarīqin sawiyy, tanzīla l-ḥamīdi l-karīm, li-tukhawwifa qawman mā khawwafa aslāfahum fa-hum sāhūn [in place of the revealed words]? Then let the eyes of those who deem such [substitution] permissible be gladdened! Glory be to You — this is a monstrous calumny. It is transmitted that the Messenger of God (ṣ) taught al-Barāʾ ibn ʿĀzib a supplication containing “and [in] Your prophet whom You have sent”; al-Barāʾ [instead] recited “and Your messenger whom You have sent,” whereupon he (ṣ) commanded him not to put “the messenger” in the place of “the prophet.” If this is so with a supplication, how much more with the Qurʾān, the abiding, revealed speech of God.⁴³⁷

Perhaps the Imam al-Ṣādiq’s (ʿa) rejection of the ḥadīth of the Seven looks to its being interpreted in this [meaning-changing] sense, which takes the Qurʾān out of its inimitable original text; for al-Fuḍayl ibn Yasār asked the Imam (ʿa) about this ḥadīth, and he said: “They have lied — the enemies of God — rather, it was sent down upon a single ḥarf, from the One.”⁴³⁸ As for the third and fourth groups, there is no intrinsic objection to them, were their isnāds sound; yet the soundest, as it appears, is the first group, which meant by the aḥruf the divergence of the Arabs’ dialects in expression and delivery.

What is intended by “seven” is relative multiplicity, as in His words “and the sea replenished with seven more seas” (31:27), and like “seventy” in His words “even if you plead forgiveness for them seventy times, Allah shall never forgive them” (9:80).⁴³⁹⁴⁴⁰ (A note: the divergence of dialect in expressing a word, if it does not reach the degree of solecism (laḥn) by the general standard, is permissible — save for one incapable of pronouncing correctly; but for one able, even through learning, the solecistic reading is not permissible.) The Messenger of God (ṣ) said: “Learn the Qurʾān in its [correct] Arabic, and beware of nabr in it”;⁴⁴¹ and the Imam al-Ṣādiq (ʿa) said: “Learn Arabic, for it is the speech of God with which He addressed His creation, and by which He spoke among those of old.”⁴⁴²

And the Imam al-Jawād (ʿa) said: “Two men have never been equal in lineage and religion but that the better of the two, with God, is the more refined in manners.” It was said to him: we already know his merit among the people in the assembly and the gathering — but what is his merit with God? He said: “By his reciting the Qurʾān as it was sent down, and his supplicating in a way free of solecism; for the solecistic supplication does not ascend to God.”⁴⁴³ As for the one incapable, what he does well suffices him, and God does not task any soul beyond its capacity; and in the ḥadīth of the Imam al-Ṣādiq (ʿa) from the Messenger of God (ṣ), “the non-Arab man of my Umma may recite the Qurʾān in his non-Arab [accent], and the angels raise it up in its [correct] Arabic” — and the ḥadīth has passed.

The Kinds of Divergence among the Readings

The kinds of divergence among the readings perhaps exceed enumeration: divergence in the inflectional and structural vowels; fronting and postponement; addition and omission; prolongation and shortening; lightening and gemination; attenuation and velarization; concealment and clear enunciation; disjoining and assimilation; inclination, rounding, and vowel-blending, in their various kinds — and other than that, which the books of the readings have detailed, and over which the imam-readers of old and of late diverged. Some authors attempted to confine them to seven kinds — not from a belief that they are the seven aḥruf that came in the ḥadīth, but perhaps as a seeking of blessing by this number that occurs in the Messenger’s (ṣ) words; yet it is a manifest affectation. We [here] mention a specimen of those attempts, since acquaintance with it is not devoid of benefit.

Ibn Qutayba said: I have pondered the aspects of divergence in the readings and found them seven. The first: divergence in the inflection (iʿrāb) of the word, or in the vowel of its structure, in a way that neither removes it from its form in the writing nor changes its meaning — as in hāʾulāʾi banātī hunna aṭharu lakum (11:78), with aṭhar in the nominative or the accusative;⁴⁴⁴⁴⁴⁵ and wa-hal nujāzī illā l-kafūra and hal yujāzā, with the third-person yāʾ, built for the passive;⁴⁴⁶⁴⁴⁷ and wa-yaʾmurūna l-nāsa bi-l-bukhli and al-bakhal;⁴⁴⁸⁴⁴⁹ and fa-naẓiratun ilā maysarah and maysurah.⁴⁵⁰⁴⁵¹

The second: that the divergence be in the inflection of the word and the vowels of its structure in a way that changes its meaning but does not remove it from its written form — as in rabbanā bāʿid bayna asfārinā, an imperative, while Yaʿqūb read rabbunā bāʿada, a past-tense verb;⁴⁵²⁴⁵³ and idh talaqqawnahu bi-alsinatikum, with shadda on the qāf, and talaqūnahu, lightened;⁴⁵⁴⁴⁵⁵ and wa-ddakara baʿda ummatin, read also amah.⁴⁵⁶⁴⁵⁷ The third: that the divergence be in the letters of the word, apart from its inflection, changing its meaning but not its form — as in wa-nẓur ilā l-ʿiẓāmi kayfa nunshizuhā and nunshiruhā;⁴⁵⁸⁴⁵⁹ and ḥattā idhā fuzziʿa ʿan qulūbihim and furigha;⁴⁶⁰⁴⁶¹ and yaquṣṣu l-ḥaqqa and yaqḍī l-ḥaqqa.⁴⁶²⁴⁶³

The fourth: that the divergence be in the word in a way that changes its written form but not its meaning — as in in kānat illā ṣayḥatan wāḥidatan and zaqyatan wāḥidatan;⁴⁶⁴⁴⁶⁵ and ka-l-ʿihni l-manfūshi and ka-l-ṣūfi l-manfūshi.⁴⁶⁶⁴⁶⁷ The fifth: that the divergence remove both the form and the meaning — as in ṭalḥin manḍūdin and ṭalʿin manḍūdin.⁴⁶⁸⁴⁶⁹

The sixth: that the divergence be by fronting and postponement — as in wa-jāʾat sakratu l-mawti bi-l-ḥaqqi and wa-jāʾat sakratu l-ḥaqqi bi-l-mawti.⁴⁷⁰⁴⁷¹ The seventh: that the divergence be by addition and omission — as in wa-mā ʿamilathu aydīhim and wa-mā ʿamilat aydīhim;⁴⁷²⁴⁷³ and fa-inna llāha huwa l-ghaniyyu l-ḥamīdu and fa-inna llāha l-ghaniyyu l-ḥamīdu;⁴⁷⁴⁴⁷⁵ and inna hādhā akhī lahu tisʿun wa-tisʿūna naʿjatan, with the addition of unthā;⁴⁷⁶⁴⁷⁷ and inna l-sāʿata ātiyatun akādu ukhfīhā, with the addition of min nafsī fa-kayfa uẓhirukum ʿalayhā;⁴⁷⁸⁴⁷⁹ and tajrī taḥtahā l-anhāru and tajrī min taḥtihā l-anhāru.⁴⁸⁰⁴⁸¹

Al-Zarkashī adduced all of this in his Burhān, without mention of the original source; al-Qurṭubī [gave it] in his Tafsīr, from the Qāḍī Ibn al-Ṭayyib, in abridged form;⁴⁸² and Ibn al-Jazarī [cited it] in al-Nashr, in confirmation of what he had mentioned nearby, saying: “Then I came upon the words of Ibn Qutayba, and he had attempted what we attempted, in another manner.”⁴⁸³

Ibn al-Jazarī took Ibn Qutayba to task for his illustration with ṭalʿ and ṭalḥ, since that has no connection with the divergence of the readings. I say: perhaps Ibn al-Jazarī looked, in this, to al-Ṭabarī’s transmission: “A man recited, in the presence of ʿAlī (ʿa), wa-ṭalḥin manḍūd. He (ʿa) said: What has ṭalḥ to do [here]? It is only ṭalʿ. Then he recited wa-l-nakhla bāsiqātin lahā ṭalʿun naḍīd⁴⁸⁴ — or he recited wa-nakhlin ṭalʿuhā haḍīm.⁴⁸⁵ It was said to him: Shall we not alter it? He said: The Qurʾān is not to be stirred up today, nor altered.”⁴⁸⁶ So the transmission does not [actually] state that the Imam (ʿa) read it [thus as his own reading]. But Ibn Khālawayh mentioned, among the anomalous readings: “wa-ṭalʿ, with the ʿayn — ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib read it upon the pulpit; it was said to him: Shall we not change it in the codex? He said: It does not behoove the Qurʾān that it be stirred up” — that is, altered.⁴⁸⁷

Ibn al-Jazarī also said: Had Ibn Qutayba, in place of that, illustrated [the fifth kind] with His words wa-mā huwa ʿalā l-ghaybi bi-ḍanīnin — read also bi-ẓanīnin — and ashadda minkum and ashadda minhum, his account would have held straight and its full moon risen in perfection.^488489490 Yet there escaped him — as it escaped others — most of the principles of the readings: assimilation, clear enunciation, and concealment; inclination, velarization, and the intermediate pronunciation (bayna bayna); prolongation and shortening; some of the rulings of the hamza; and likewise rounding and vowel-blending in their various kinds — all of which belong to the divergence of the readings and the variance of the utterances over which the imam-readers differed.⁴⁹¹

Ibn al-Jazarī said: I traced the readings — their sound and their anomalous, their weak and their disavowed — and [found] that their divergence goes back to seven aspects. The first: [divergence] in the vowels alone, without change in meaning or form — as in al-bukhl, in four forms,⁴⁹² and yaḥsibu, in two.⁴⁹³ The second: with change in the meaning only — as in fa-talaqqā ādamu min rabbihi kalimātun (with ādam in the nominative and kalimāt in the accusative, or the reverse),⁴⁹⁴ and wa-ddakara baʿda ummatin, read also amah.⁴⁹⁵

The third: in the letters, with change in the meaning but not the form — as in tablū and tatlū,⁴⁹⁶ and nunajjīka and nunaḥḥīka.⁴⁹⁷ The fourth: the reverse — change in the form but not the meaning — as in baṣṭatan and basṭatan,⁴⁹⁸ and al-ṣirāṭ and al-sirāṭ.⁴⁹⁹ The fifth: with change in both — as in ashadda minkum and ashadda minhum,⁵⁰⁰ and yaʾtali and yataʾallā,⁵⁰¹ and fa-mḍū ilā dhikri llāhi [for fa-sʿaw].⁵⁰²

The sixth: in fronting and postponement — as in fa-yaqtulūna wa-yuqtalūna [and the reverse],⁵⁰³ and jāʾat sakratu l-ḥaqqi bi-l-mawti.⁵⁰⁴ The seventh: in addition and omission — as in wa-awṣā and wa-waṣṣā,⁵⁰⁵ and wa-l-dhakara wa-l-unthā.⁵⁰⁶ These are seven aspects, from which the divergence does not depart. As for [things] like the divergence of clear enunciation, assimilation, rounding, vowel-blending, attenuation, velarization, prolongation, shortening, inclination, opening, full realization, facilitation, substitution, and transfer — which are termed the “principles” (uṣūl) — this is not of the divergence in which both the utterance and the meaning vary, because these varied qualities in delivery do not remove it from being a single utterance; and if [counted as divergence], it would fall under the first aspect.⁵⁰⁷

I say: if the ḥadīth of the seven aḥruf looks to the diversity of the Arabs’ dialects in expression and delivery — as we have preferred, and as the verifiers of old chose — then what he mentioned last [the pronunciation-principles] is the mainstay of the divergence of the reading; as for the seven aspects he mentioned, most of them do not fall under the dispensation derived from the ḥadīth, and I do not suppose one like him would license them, just as the rest of the verifying scholars did not — so how could the ḥadīth be brought to bear upon them?

The teacher al-Zurqānī said: this excuse that Ibn Qutayba offered for neglecting this aspect does not justify that neglect; for the matter is not one of names and titles — on which it would turn whether the divergence of dialects in a single utterance removes it from being one — but rather one of taking account of an actual fact by which the readings do, in reality, differ. And another matter: the easing upon the Umma is not realized in the most complete manner save by taking account of this aspect — to which al-Rāzī drew attention, and which we shall mention — namely, the divergence of dialects. Indeed, this may be the more deserving of account in the chapter of alleviation; for a person may find it easy to pronounce a word not of his language in its substance, yet not easy to pronounce a word of his own language in a dialect other than his own, the manner of delivery being other than his. For attenuation and velarization, the hamza and its facilitation, clear enunciation and assimilation, opening and inclination, and the like, are subtle matters, attended by something of obscurity and difficulty for one not accustomed to them nor raised upon them.

The divergence of the Arab tribes turns, in many cases, upon dialects; and likewise the divergence of the Islamic peoples, and the regions of a single people, turns in many cases upon the divergence of dialects.⁵⁰⁸ The Imam Abū al-Faḍl al-Rāzī [made] another attempt at confining the aspects of the readings to seven. He said: the divergence of speech does not depart from seven aspects. The first: the divergence of nouns — [between] the singular, the dual, and the plural,⁵⁰⁹ the masculine and the feminine,⁵¹⁰ the intensive form,⁵¹¹ and others. The second: the divergence in the conjugation of verbs and what is predicated of them — the past, the imperfect, and the imperative; the ascription to the masculine and the feminine, to the first person and the addressee, and to the active and the passive.⁵¹²

The third: the aspects of inflection.⁵¹³ The fourth: addition and diminution.⁵¹⁴ The fifth: fronting and postponement.⁵¹⁵ The sixth: inversion and substitution — of one word for another,⁵¹⁶ and of one letter for another.⁵¹⁷ The seventh: the divergence of the [dialectal] tongues — of opening, inclination, attenuation, velarization, full realization, facilitation, assimilation, clear enunciation, and the like.⁵¹⁸

Look at this Imam [al-Rāzī]: he made the divergence of the tongues — the dialects — one of the seven aspects, the very thing Ibn Qutayba left out, though [Ibn al-Jazarī] claimed that al-Rāzī had agreed with Ibn Qutayba in the attempt.⁵¹⁹ The correct [view] — as we have set forth — is that the divergence of dialects is the mainstay of what is envisaged in the ḥadīth of the seven aḥruf, were the isnād sound; and accordingly the meaning of the ḥadīth becomes this: that he (ṣ) granted the Umma a dispensation, in reciting the Qurʾān, to recite it according to what their tongues and dialects comply with in expression and delivery.

The Readings and their Effect on Exegesis and Legal Rulings

We might regard the readings — especially the Seven — as mutawātir, as a people did; and on that [supposition] their effect in exegesis and in the deriving of legal rulings would be manifest. But if we do not regard them all as mutawātir — save for the single reading upon which the generality of the Muslims are agreed, which they have inherited, one eminent authority from another, from the Messenger of God (ṣ), [and which is] realized in the reading of Ḥafṣ from ʿĀṣim from Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī from the Commander of the Faithful (ʿa), and as the Imam al-Ṣādiq (ʿa) said, “The Qurʾān is one, sent down from the One; but the divergence comes from the side of the transmitters”⁵²⁰ — that is, from the divergence of their ijtihād in arriving at that single original text — then there is no place for divergence, neither in the reading nor in the field of derivation and exegesis, and no claim for this inquiry at all.

The discussion is [pertinent] only on the first supposition, and on the supposition that divergence is established — even if only partially: what, then, is its effect in exegesis and in the derivation of rulings? There is no doubt that the effect is manifest on that supposition; for the divergence in expression — [given] that the inflections of words carry, by nature, conflicting meanings — may entail a divergence in exegesis, followed by a divergence in the juristic yield for the rulings. Indeed, the differing readings may become contradictory in purport, like the contradiction of two transmissions that sometimes entails the collapse of the jurisprudence of ḥadīth; so a remedy is indispensable, as [it is] there. Here are specimens of the divergence in reading that entailed a divergence in exegesis, and likewise in the derivation of rulings, according to what they reckoned.

1. His words aw lāmastumu l-nisāʾa… in the two Sūras — al-Nisāʾ 4:43 and al-Māʾida 5:6. Ḥamza, al-Kisāʾī, and Khalaf read lamastumu l-nisāʾ, and al-Aʿmash agreed with them.⁵²¹ They said: on the well-known reading [lāmastum], the meaning is “you had intercourse [with them]”; while on the other reading [lamastum] it admits either intercourse or the [sense] more general than it and than mere touching. From this the jurists differed over the nullification of the ablution by the mere touching of a woman’s skin. Ibn Rushd said: the scholars differed over the obligation of ablution from touching women with the hand or other sensitive members. A group held that whoever touches a woman directly, with no barrier between them, must perform the ablution — as must whoever kisses her, since a kiss, in their view, is a kind of touching, whether he took pleasure or not; and by this view held al-Shāfiʿī and his companions, though he variously distinguished the toucher from the touched, and the wife from other maḥrams, and sometimes made them equal.

Others held it obligatory [only] if pleasure accompanied it or was intended — except the kiss, for which they did not stipulate pleasure — this being the doctrine of Mālik and the mass of his companions; while a group denied the obligation of ablution for touching women altogether, this being the doctrine of Abū Ḥanīfa and of the Companion-forebears.⁵²² Here they transmitted ḥadīths from ʿĀʾisha upon which the marks of weakness appear: by the isnād to ʿUrwa, from ʿĀʾisha, “The Messenger of God (ṣ) kissed one of his wives, then went out to prayer and did not perform ablution. I said: Who is she but you? And she laughed!”; and in another, “The Messenger of God (ṣ) used to pray while I lay reclining between him and the qibla, and when he prostrated he would press my leg”; and other ḥadīths that the imams did not rely upon and the critics of ḥadīth deemed weak.⁵²³

I say: there is no doubt that “touching” and “mutual touching,” in expressions such as these — [carrying the sense of] direct approach to women — is a euphemism for intercourse, in which none doubts. Al-Zamakhsharī said: of the figurative usages, lamasa l-marʾata and lāmasahā mean “he had intercourse with her”; almasanī imraʾatan, “he married a woman to me”; fulānatun lā taruddu yada lāmisin, [said] of the immoral woman; and fulānun lā yaruddu yada lāmisin, of one who has no power of refusal.⁵²⁴ Thus our eminent scholars understood from the verse its euphemistic meaning, well-known among the Arabs — in whose tongue and eloquent modes of speech the Qurʾān was sent down — whether it be read lāmastum or lamastum, since the two are one in meaning by the general usage. Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭūsī said: the touching of women does not nullify the ablution — neither a maḥram nor another, with the hand or other members, with desire or without — because there is no proof for the obligation of nullification, and the verse is a euphemism for intercourse, nothing else; and upon this is the consensus of our jurists.⁵²⁵ And Abū Maryam al-Anṣārī transmitted: I said to the Imam al-Bāqir (ʿa): what do you say of the man who performs the ablution, then calls his slave-girl, and she takes him by the hand until he reaches the mosque? For those among us allege that this is the [nullifying] touching! He (ʿa) said: “No, by God, there is no harm in that, and I may [myself] have done it; and nothing is meant by this — aw lāmastumu l-nisāʾa — except sexual congress.”⁵²⁶

2. His words fa-mā stamtaʿtum bihi minhunna fa-ātūhunna ujūrahunna farīḍatan (al-Nisāʾ 4:24).⁵²⁷ In the reading of Ubayy ibn Kaʿb — and likewise ascribed to Ibn ʿAbbās and Ibn Jubayr — there came fa-mā stamtaʿtum bihi minhunna ilā ajalin musamman fa-ātūhunna ujūrahunna [“what you enjoy of them, up to a stated term, give them their wages”].⁵²⁸ They alleged that the verse, on the well-known reading, means the enjoyment of the wife when he marries her, so that she becomes entitled to her full dower, while the second reading came as a proof for the intent of temporary marriage (al-zawāj al-muʾaqqat).

But they were heedless [of the fact] that the verse itself — even on the first reading — is explicit as to the intent of temporary marriage, in view of the expression with “wage” (ajr) rather than “dower” (mahr); for a wage, [given] in exchange for enjoyment, if it is not conjoined with some other indicant, is apparent in [signifying] the intent of the marriage of enjoyment (nikāḥ al-mutʿa), not the permanent [marriage]. So the second reading came as a witness to this meaning and a clarification of what is intended — as was the custom of the forebears in the exegetical additions [made] during the recitation of the verses, [a practice legitimate] where there is no risk of confusion, as here.

As for interpreting the verse as [intending] the enjoyment of the permanent wife so that she earns the full dower, there is no ground for it, nor any warrant; for the woman becomes entitled to the entire dower by the mere contract of marriage, whether consummated or not, so that were the man to die before consummation she would still be entitled to the full dower,⁵²⁹ and even were the husband an aged elder, or unwilling or unable to have congress with her, she would still be entitled to the full dower on all these suppositions — save in one case, that of his divorcing her, where after consummation she is entitled to the full dower and before it to the half; but that is another matter, unconnected with the verse under discussion. Thus the verse is explicit as to temporary marriage on both readings, and the second reading came as an exegesis or a clarification of the well-known reading, nothing more.

As for the ḥadīth of [its] abrogation — it is a tangled affair. The correct [view] is that no abrogation whatever has been established, and all the transmissions adduced in this matter bear upon them the mark of fabrication, as we have expounded in our book al-Tafsīr wa-l-Mufassirūn.⁵³⁰ They transmitted [it] by the isnād to each of the Commander of the Faithful (ʿa), Salama ibn al-Akwaʿ, and Sabra ibn Maʿbad al-Juhanī. As for the transmission from the Commander of the Faithful, it is belied by [the fact] that he (ʿa) was among the severest of those who resented ʿUmar for his forbidding of the marriage of enjoyment; he said: “Had ʿUmar not forbidden mutʿa, none would have committed fornication save a wretch”⁵³¹ — that is, the anomalous few among the people.

Likewise the transmission from Salama: it is a fabrication fastened upon a great Companion; hence al-Bukhārī did not adduce the transmission of prohibition from him, but rather the opposite — the transmission of permission — despite his framing the chapter for prohibition.⁵³² As for the transmission from Sabra: none transmitted it from him save his son al-Rabīʿ; hence al-Bukhārī did not record it — indeed he recorded nothing for al-Rabīʿ in his Ṣaḥīḥ, nor from his father Sabra, save a suspended report among the ḥadīths of the prophets;⁵³³ and Muslim likewise recorded no ḥadīth for al-Rabīʿ from his father other than the ḥadīth of mutʿa, in no other chapter⁵³⁴ — a thing that should arouse the gravest suspicion.

3. His words yā ayyuhā lladhīna āmanū idhā qumtum ilā l-ṣalāti fa-ghsilū wujūhakum wa-aydiyakum ilā l-marāfiqi wa-msaḥū bi-ruʾūsikum wa-arjulakum ilā l-kaʿbayni… (al-Māʾida 5:6).⁵³⁵ Nāfiʿ, Ibn ʿĀmir, ʿĀṣim (in Ḥafṣ’s transmission), al-Kisāʾī, and Yaʿqūb read wa-arjulakum, in the accusative; while Abū Jaʿfar, Abū ʿAmr, Ibn Kathīr, and ʿĀṣim (in Ibn ʿAyyāsh’s transmission) read wa-arjulikum, in the genitive.⁵³⁶ They reckoned that in the accusative reading there is a conjoining to the object of “washing,” and in the genitive reading a conjoining to the object of “wiping” — and thereby the people of investigation differed: is the washing of the feet obligatory, or the wiping of them? We have set forth the discussion of that,⁵³⁷ [showing] that in both readings alike there is a proof for wiping and nothing else; for the accusative is a conjoining to the [grammatical] place of the genitive word, and it is not permissible [to construe it] as a conjoining to the object of “wash,” in view of the separation by an intervening foreign element — impermissible in the eloquent register of the Arabs’ tongue — so the Qurʾān, sent down in the most eloquent and widespread language, is not to be construed thereon.

4. His words wa-yasʾalūnaka ʿani l-maḥīḍi, qul huwa adhan, fa-ʿtazilū l-nisāʾa fī l-maḥīḍi wa-lā taqrabūhunna ḥattā yaṭhurna, fa-idhā taṭahharna fa-ʾtūhunna min ḥaythu amarakumu llāhu… (al-Baqara 2:222).⁵³⁸ Ḥafṣ and the well-known [reading] read ḥattā yaṭhurna, with sukūn on the ṭāʾ and ḍamma on the lightened hāʾ; while Ibn ʿAyyāsh, Ḥamza, al-Kisāʾī, and Khalaf read ḥattā yaṭṭahharna, with shadda on the ṭāʾ and fatḥa on the doubled hāʾ.⁵³⁹ They said: the purport of the lightened reading is the permissibility of intercourse with the menstruant after the cessation of the blood, even if she has not [yet] performed the major ablution, while on the geminated reading it is not permissible save after her washing from the menses; and thereby the jurists differed.

Al-Shāfiʿī said intercourse with her is not lawful save after she becomes free to perform the prayer; and among the forebears [so holding] were al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, Sulaymān ibn Yasār, al-Zuhrī, Rabīʿa, Mālik, al-Layth ibn Saʿd, and al-Thawrī.⁵⁴⁰ However, the jurists’ disagreement here has no bearing on the side of the reading; it arises rather from the context of the verse — even with agreement upon the lightened reading — since the condition for the permissibility of approaching them was two matters together, the cessation of the blood and the washing, according to the apparent sense of the verse’s expression: for were relations permissible immediately upon the cessation of the blood and before purification, there would be no benefit in the mention of fa-idhā taṭahharna. Thus for the permissibility of intercourse there are two conditions: the stopping of the blood and the washing together.

Abū Muḥammad Makkī ibn Abī Ṭālib al-Qaysī said: the two of the Ḥaramayn, Abū ʿAmr, Ibn ʿĀmir, and Ḥafṣ read it lightened, upon the sense of the rising and cessation of the blood; yet the benefit is not completed save by His words fa-idhā taṭahharna — that is, with water — [and then] “have relations with them.” For the speech is joined, part to part, so it is not fitting that yaṭhurna, lightened, complete the ruling by itself, since that would necessitate approaching the woman once the blood has ceased even if she has not purified with water, rendering fa-idhā taṭahharna of no benefit — for intercourse would then already be complete by the disappearance of the blood. So the joining of fa-idhā taṭahharna to what precedes it is indispensable, and by it the ruling is completed: that the menstruant is not to be had intercourse with save by the cessation of the blood and purification with water.⁵⁴¹

This is the apparent sense of the verse’s expression, if we take each of the two conditions — especially the second — as obligatory, as is the apparent sense of the context, which is the proof according to the explicit declaration of the text. Ibn al-ʿArabī said: the meaning of ḥattā yaṭhurna was “until their blood ceases”; but since He said thereafter fa-idhā taṭṭahharna — meaning “when they have washed with water” — the ruling was suspended upon two conditions, the cessation of the blood and the washing, so that the permissibility of intercourse depends upon both. That became like His words wa-btalū l-yatāmā ḥattā idhā balaghū l-nikāḥa, fa-in ānastum minhum rushdan fa-dfaʿū ilayhim amwālahum (4:6),⁵⁴² where He suspended the handing-over of the property upon two conditions — the reaching of marriageable age and the discernment of mature judgement — so that it is not valid by one alone; and like His words concerning the thrice-divorced woman, fa-lā taḥillu lahu min baʿdu ḥattā tankiḥa zawjan ghayrahu, fa-in ṭallaqahā fa-lā junāḥa ʿalayhimā an yatarājaʿā (2:230),⁵⁴³ where — the Sunna having stipulated intercourse [with the second husband] — the making-lawful was suspended upon both matters together, as here.⁵⁴⁴

Al-Bayhaqī brought out, with his isnād to Ibn ʿAbbās, concerning fa-ʿtazilū l-nisāʾa fī l-maḥīḍi, that he glossed it: keep apart from marital relations with them and do not approach them ḥattā yaṭhurna — meaning, when they have purified from the blood and purified with water, then come to them from where God has commanded. He also brought out, from Mujāhid, that ḥattā yaṭhurna is “until the blood ceases” and taṭahharna is “they have washed”; from al-Ḥasan, that the husband does not come to her until she washes; from Sālim, hearing al-Ḥasan permit relations after the menses on a journey, when no water is present, if she has performed tayammum; and from Mālik, that Sālim and Sulaymān ibn Yasār, asked of the menstruant whose husband approaches her once she sees purity, before she washes, answered: no, until she washes.⁵⁴⁵

As for the jurists: Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, and the mass held it impermissible until she washes; Abū Ḥanīfa and his companions held it permissible if she becomes clean at the maximum term of the menses — ten days, in his view; and al-Awzāʿī [held] that if she washes her private part with water, intercourse is permissible — that is, every menstruant who has become clean, whenever she has — a view Ibn Ḥazm also adopted.⁵⁴⁶ Ibn Ḥazm said: intercourse with her, once she has seen purity, is lawful only if she washes her whole head and body with water, or performs tayammum, or, failing that, performs the ablution of prayer, or, failing that, washes her private part with water — and by whichever of these four she does, intercourse becomes lawful. He said: ʿAṭāʾ, Ṭāwūs, and Mujāhid held our view, as do our companions; nothing has been transmitted from any Companion on the question, nor from any Successor save Sālim ibn ʿAbd Allāh, Sulaymān ibn Yasār, al-Zuhrī, and Rabīʿa — [namely] the prohibition until she washes — and there is no proof in their view even were they alone, still less when the like of them has opposed them.⁵⁴⁷

Among the Imāmiyya, the ʿAllāma Ibn al-Muṭahhar al-Ḥillī said the well-known view is the reprehensibility of intercourse after the cessation of the menses but before the major washing, and that if desire overcome [the husband], he bids her wash her private part, as a recommended act, then has intercourse. Ibn Bābawayh al-Ṣadūq said it is not permissible until she washes, and that if desire overcome him he bids her wash her private part. The ʿAllāma said: our proof is fa-ʿtazilū l-nisāʾa fī l-maḥīḍi — the prohibition being restricted to the time or the place of the menses, which is a “place” for it only while it exists, so that with its absence the prohibition lapses — together with wa-lā taqrabūhunna ḥattā yaṭhurna on the lightened reading, and ʿAlī ibn Yaqṭīn’s report from al-Ṣādiq (ʿa): “When the blood has ceased and she has not [yet] washed, let her husband come to her if he wishes.” The opponent argued from fa-idhā taṭahharna fa-ʾtūhunna min ḥaythu amarakumu llāhu, which suspends the “coming” upon the act of purification — the major washing or the washing of the private part — and from Abū Baṣīr’s report from al-Ṣādiq (ʿa), who, asked of the woman who has menstruated and then seen purity, said: “It is not fitting until she washes,” and answered likewise of one who menstruated on a journey and found no water for a day or two, and from Saʿīd ibn Yasār’s report to the same effect.

The ʿAllāma answered by construing the prohibition-ḥadīths as [expressing] recommendation, reconciling the proofs; the witness being ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Mughīra’s report from the Righteous Servant (ʿa) that the husband is not to have relations with her, when she has become clean but not touched water, until she washes — “yet if he does, there is no harm; that she touch water is more beloved to me” — and ʿAlī ibn Yaqṭīn’s report from Abū al-Ḥasan (ʿa), who, asked whether the husband may approach her before she washes, said: “There is no harm; yet after the washing is more beloved to me.”⁵⁴⁸ I say: our companions’ transmissions here are mutually contradictory, and the preponderance lies with the transmissions of prohibition, for their agreement with the explicit sense of the Book. Thus Ibn Bābawayh al-Ṣadūq held prohibition save under the necessity of overpowering appetite, construing the transmissions of permissibility accordingly; he said: it is not permissible to have congress with the woman during her menses, for God forbade it, saying wa-lā taqrabūhunna ḥattā yaṭhurna, meaning thereby the major washing from the menses; and if the man be of [overpowering] appetite and she has become clean, and he wishes congress before the washing, he bids her wash her private part, then has congress.⁵⁴⁹ So it was not the divergence of the reading that occasioned the divergence of the verdicts — rather, what occasioned it was the divergence of the transmissions!

The Readings between Soundness and Anomaly

The Criterion for Accepting a Reading

The imams of the discipline mentioned three conditions for the acceptance of a reading: first, the soundness of the isnād; second, conformity with the [ʿUthmānic] rasm; and third, the soundness of its aspect in [the grammar of] Arabic. If one of these conditions is lacking, the reading becomes anomalous (shādhdha): it is not sound to recite by it, neither in the prayer nor outside it, and it falls entirely from being regarded as Qurʾān — whether it be [one] of the Seven or of others.

Makkī ibn Abī Ṭālib said: “When three things come together in a reading — the strength of its aspect in Arabic, conformity with the codex, and the concurrence of the generality (al-ʿāmma) upon it, the generality being the people of Medina and the people of Kūfa — then that is, in the [scholars’] view, a strong proof necessitating [its] being chosen. Perhaps by ‘the generality’ is meant the people of the two Ḥarams, Mecca and Medina; and perhaps they made the criterion [to be] what Nāfiʿ and ʿĀṣim agreed upon, for their two readings are the foremost of the readings, the soundest in isnād, and the most eloquent in Arabic — next after them in eloquence being the reading of Abū ʿAmr and al-Kisāʾī.”⁵⁵⁰

Abū Shāma said: “Every reading that the script of the codex supports, together with the soundness of its transmission and its coming according to the eloquent register of the Arabs’ tongue, is a sound and reputable reading; but if these three pillars diverge, that reading is designated anomalous and weak. To this the words of the earlier imams pointed; the reciter-shaykh Abū Muḥammad Makkī ibn Abī Ṭālib al-Qayrawānī set it down in a monograph — the book al-Ibāna — and our shaykh Abū al-Ḥasan mentioned it in his book Jamāl al-Qurrāʾ,⁵⁵¹ saying: ‘tawātur is not required in it; rather, sound solitary transmissions (āḥād), together with wide currency (istifāḍa), suffice’;⁵⁵² and his preceding statement was: ‘And thereupon — that is, failing the establishment of the tawātur of each and every reading back to the Prophet (ṣ) — tears are shed; for [the readings] were, after all, transmitted only as solitary reports, save a few of them.’”⁵⁵³

Ibn al-Jazarī said: “Every reading that accords with Arabic — even in [but] one aspect — and accords with one of the ʿUthmānic codices — even [merely] as a possibility — and whose isnād is sound, is the sound reading, which it is not permissible to reject nor lawful to disavow; rather it is [one] of the seven aḥruf by which the Qurʾān was sent down, and its acceptance is obligatory upon the people, whether it be [transmitted] from the seven imams, or the ten, or others of the accepted imams. And whenever one of these three pillars is defective, [the reading] is designated weak, or anomalous, or void — whether it be from the Seven or from one greater than them. This is the correct view in the estimation of the imams of verification, both forebears and later: the ḥāfiẓ Abū ʿAmr ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd al-Dānī declared it expressly, Makkī ibn Abī Ṭālib set it down in more than one place, likewise Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad ibn ʿAmmār al-Mahdawī, and Abū Shāma verified it; it is the doctrine of the forebears, of which no disagreement is known from any of them.”⁵⁵⁴

These are three conditions that they [also] termed “pillars”: if they are met in a reading, it is sound and accepted, and if one of them is defective, it is anomalous and rejected. I have seen [these conditions] explicitly declared in the words of the imams of the discipline, those to whom recourse is had in this matter. Nonetheless, some non-specialist authors adopted the criterion of tawātur in place of the criterion of the soundness of the isnād. Thus it came in the words of the shaykh Abū al-Qāsim al-Nuwayrī, who said: “The non-stipulation of tawātur is a novel view, contrary to the consensus of the jurists and the ḥadīth-scholars.” The imam Shihāb al-Dīn al-Qasṭallānī refuted him [with the point] that tawātur, if established, has no need of the other two pillars — the rasm and Arabic — because whatever is established as mutawātir is decisively [known] to be Qurʾān, whether it conforms with the rasm or contravenes it.⁵⁵⁵

I say: perhaps the one who stipulates tawātur has confused the question of “the tawātur of the Qurʾān” with the question of “the tawātur of the readings”; and it has [already] passed that these are two distinct realities.⁵⁵⁶ Likewise, the teacher Muḥammad Sālim Muḥaysin — an instructor at the Institute of Readings at al-Azhar — made the condition tawātur in place of the soundness of the isnād,⁵⁵⁷ therein diverging from the express declarations of the verifying imams. Such [scholars] are excused by [their] not being versed in the foundations of the discipline; they did not grasp that stipulating tawātur in each and every one of the letters of divergence would do away with many of the readings established from the Seven and others — as the imam al-Qasṭallānī declared expressly.⁵⁵⁸

Verifying the Three Pillars

Ibn al-Jazarī said: “Our statement in the criterion, ‘even in [but] one aspect,’ [means]: we intend an aspect among the aspects of grammar — whether the more eloquent or [merely] eloquent, agreed upon or disputed with a disagreement the like of which does no harm — provided the reading be of that which is widespread, has circulated, and which the imams have received with a sound isnād; for that [isnād] is the greatest foundation and the most upright pillar. And this is the chosen [view], in the estimation of the verifiers, concerning the pillar of conformity with Arabic.”

For how many a reading did some of the grammarians — or many of them — disavow, and their disavowal was given no weight, while the imams who are taken as exemplars, of the forebears, concurred upon accepting it! — such as the sukūn of bāriʾkum and yaʾmurkum and the like;⁵⁵⁹ sabaʾ, yā bunayy, makra l-sayyiʾ, and nujjiya l-muʾminīna in Sūrat al-Anbiyāʾ;⁵⁶⁰ the joining of two quiescents in al-Bazzī’s doubled tāʾs, the assimilation of Abū ʿAmr, and isṭāʿū for Ḥamza; the sukūn of niʿimmā⁵⁶¹ and yahaddī;⁵⁶² the full pronunciation of the yāʾ in nartaʿī, yattaqī wa-yaṣbir, and afʾidatan mina l-nās; the ḍamma of li-l-malāʾikatu sjudū;⁵⁶³ the accusative of kun fa-yakūna, the genitive of wa-l-arḥāmi,⁵⁶⁴ and the accusative of li-yujzā qawman;⁵⁶⁵ the separation between the two annexed terms in Sūrat al-Anʿām;⁵⁶⁶ the hamza of saʾuqīhā;⁵⁶⁷ the liaison of wa-inna l-yāsa;⁵⁶⁸ the alif of inna hādhāni;⁵⁶⁹ the lightening of wa-lā tattabiʿānni;⁵⁷⁰ and the reading laykah⁵⁷¹ in Sūrat al-Shuʿarāʾ and Sūrat Ṣād — and other than that.⁵⁷²

I say: look at this contradiction in the words of this man, [so] versed in the foundations of the discipline: he curries favor with [certain] scholarly facts here, yet acknowledges them elsewhere! For all that he mentioned here are but anomalous readings, which neither he nor any other of the imams permits reciting in the prayer; and yet he adduced them as evidence for giving precedence to that whose isnād to the reciter is sound over the established rules of the language — a matter we shall [presently] review.

Ibn al-Jazarī said: “By conformity with one of the codices we mean that which is established in some of them but not others — such as Ibn ʿĀmir’s reading qālū ttakhadha llāhu waladan⁵⁷³ without a wāw, and bi-l-zuburi wa-bi-l-kitābi l-munīri⁵⁷⁴ with the addition of the bāʾ to the two nouns, and the like, for that is established in the Syrian codex;⁵⁷⁵ and such as Ibn Kathīr’s reading jannātin tajrī min taḥtihā l-anhāru⁵⁷⁶ with the addition of min, for that is established in the Meccan codex;⁵⁷⁷ and likewise fa-inna llāha l-ghaniyyu l-ḥamīdu⁵⁷⁸ with the omission of huwa,⁵⁷⁹ and sāriʿū⁵⁸⁰ with the omission of the wāw,⁵⁸¹ and minhumā munqalaban⁵⁸² with the dual pronoun⁵⁸³ — and other than that, of many places over which the codices differed, so that the reading came from the imams of those regions in conformity with their [own] codex; and had that not been so in [any] one of the ʿUthmānic codices, the reading thereby would have been anomalous, for contravening the agreed-upon rasm.

He said: “And our statement, thereafter, ‘even as a possibility,’ we mean by it what conforms with the rasm even [only] estimatively; for conformity with the rasm may be by realization — which is explicit conformity — or estimative — which is conformity as a possibility. For the explicit rasm has been contravened, by consensus, in [several] places: such as al-samāwāt and al-ṣāliḥāt,⁵⁸⁴ al-layl,⁵⁸⁵ al-ṣalāt and al-zakāt,⁵⁸⁶ and al-ribā,⁵⁸⁷ and the like of li-nanẓura kayfa taʿmalūna⁵⁸⁸ and jīʾa⁵⁸⁹ in the two places.⁵⁹⁰

And some readings conform to the rasm by realization while others conform to it estimatively — such as māliki yawmi l-dīn: for it is written without an alif in all the codices, so the reading of omission [maliki] accommodates it by realization, as maliki l-nās is written, while the reading with the alif [māliki] is accommodated estimatively, as māliki l-mulk is written, the alif being [taken as] omitted by abbreviation. And likewise al-nashʾah:⁵⁹¹ since it is written with an alif, it conforms to the reading of prolongation [al-nashāʾah] by realization and to the reading of shortening [al-nashʾah] estimatively, for the alif may be the [orthographic] form of the hamza, contrary to analogy, as mawʾilan is written.⁵⁹²

And the divergences of the readings [may] conform to the rasm by realization — such as anṣāru llāhi,⁵⁹³ fa-nādathu l-malāʾikatu,⁵⁹⁴ yaghfiru lakum,⁵⁹⁵ yaʿmalūna,⁵⁹⁶ and hayta laka⁵⁹⁷ — and the like.”⁵⁹⁸

He said: “And our statement, ‘and its isnād is sound,’ we mean by it that that reading be transmitted by the upright, precise [transmitter] from the like of him, and so on until it ends [at its source]; and, together with that, that it be well-known among the imams of this matter who are precise in it, not reckoned by them among error, nor among that with which some [transmitter] stood alone anomalously.

He said: “Some of the later [scholars] stipulated tawātur, [holding] that what came in the manner of solitary reports does not thereby establish Qurʾān. But what is [amiss] in this is not hidden; for tawātur, if established, has no need therein of the last two pillars, the rasm and the rest. For whatever of the letters of divergence is established as mutawātir from the Prophet (ṣ), its acceptance is obligatory and it is decisively [known to be] Qurʾān, whether it conforms with the rasm or contravenes it; and were we to stipulate tawātur in each letter of the letters of divergence, many of the letters of divergence established from these seven imams and others would be nullified. I had, formerly, inclined to this view, then its corruption became apparent to me, together with the agreement of the imams of the forebears and the later [scholars].”⁵⁹⁹

This is the most of what the [scholarly] company mentioned concerning the verification of the three pillars for the acceptance of a reading and describing it as sound. We have quoted the words of Ibn al-Jazarī at length, for his verification was the decisive settlement, known among the imams of the discipline, one later scholar from an earlier; none, so far as I know, added upon it, and the scholars received it with acceptance across the ages. Our ensuing discussion of these pillars will turn upon the points that this verifying imam mentioned, [taken] as a fundamental measure for observing and verifying them in the light of present-day realism, which refuses [all] favoritism in the domain of inquiry and scrutiny.

A Discussion of These Pillars

Those are three conditions (the isnād, the rasm, and Arabic) that the forebears mentioned and the later scholars followed traditionally, without any verification of the reality of the matter. But are these pillars fit to serve as a solution to the problem of “the divergence of the readings”? It is a problem not resolved by such formal questions, ones that have no grounding in reality — as becomes clear when the researcher ranges through the innermost quarters of the matter. The ancient imams themselves sensed the inadequacy of these pillars for truly defining the sound reading, and hence they set about altering and modifying them this way and that, but to no avail; so they substituted, for the condition of tawātur — which had been current on the tongues of the common rabble — the sufficiency of the soundness of the isnād. But when no isnād is to be found for some of the reciters, what then?

And likewise the condition of “conformity with the rasm” — the rasm of which codex? Is it ʿUthmān’s codex, the mother-copy? That was never within reach of the generality. Or is it the earliest codices dispatched to the far horizons? These had no existence after the year 74, when al-Ḥajjāj gathered them by the order of ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Marwān in a general sultanic decree; and some of the imams — the Imam Mālik among them — endeavored to find a copy of them but could not. Furthermore, the qualification “even as a possibility” does away with the effect of this stipulation entirely; while as for the condition of “Arabic,” the qualification “even in one aspect” nullified its effect completely, for there is no anomalous reading but that it has some aspect in Arabic, however remote. This is the summary of our discussion of these points, which they regarded as fundamental conditions for distinguishing the sound reading from the weak. Here now is the detailed treatment.

As for conformity with the rasm — which is the mainstay of the conditions — the mother-codex (ʿUthmān’s own), or the codex of Medina deposited in its mosque, was not within reach of the generality; and besides, what is relied upon, in the [scholarly] company’s own declaration, is the first ʿUthmānic codices absolutely, not the mother-codex specifically. The imam Shihāb al-Dīn al-Qasṭallānī said: as for the statement “and its wording accords with the script of the imam-codex,” there is ground for reconsideration in it, from the standpoint of its being restricted to the imam-codex — ʿUthmān’s own retained copy — since what is relied upon is conformity with any one of the ʿUthmānic codices, as [stated] in al-Nashr and elsewhere.⁶⁰⁰ As proof of that, [note] that they were content with conformity with the rest of the codices, such as those of Syria and Mecca and others.

For they permitted the reading of Ibn Kathīr — the reciter of Mecca — tajrī min taḥtihā l-anhāru, with the addition of min, because the codex of Mecca contained it,⁶⁰¹ even though the codex of Medina lacked it; and Ibn ʿĀmir — the reciter of Syria — read wa-la-dāru l-ākhirati⁶⁰² with a single lām, because the Syrian codex was thus, while the rest read wa-la-l-dāru l-ākhiratu⁶⁰³ with two lāms. So the measure of “conformity with the codex” was not the imam-codex, but all the ʿUthmānic codices — the five or the seven — dispatched to the horizons.

But how is conformity with them to be obtained, when they had ceased to exist before the first century came to an end? For scarcely half a century had passed of their life before time had “eaten and drunk” over them, and no trace of them remained upon the page of existence. This [dates] from when the script — the script of the codex in particular — was transformed from its primitive first state into new stages, in the days of al-Ḥajjāj ibn Yūsuf al-Thaqafī’s governorship over Iraq, from the year 74 onward; for the codices began to develop and improve in their script, their dotting, their vowelling, and all the other refinements. Al-Ḥajjāj dispatched codices of the modern type to the horizons and ordered the gathering of all the remaining codices, among them the first ʿUthmānic ones — so much so that the imam-codex, which had been kept in a receptacle in the Prophetic Mosque (ṣ), the family of ʿUthmān concealed out of jealous attachment to it.

Abū Aḥmad al-ʿAskarī related, in the book al-Taṣḥīf, that the people continued reading in the codex of ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān for forty-odd years, until the days of ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Marwān; then mis-reading (taṣḥīf) grew frequent and spread in Iraq, so al-Ḥajjāj ibn Yūsuf turned in alarm to his scribes and asked them to devise marks for these ambiguous letters.⁶⁰⁴

Muḥriz ibn Thābit, the client of Salama ibn ʿAbd al-Malik, related from his father, who said: I was among al-Ḥajjāj ibn Yūsuf’s guard, and al-Ḥajjāj had the codices written — dotted, vowelled, marked in fifths and tenths, at the hand of Naṣr ibn ʿĀṣim al-Laythī and his companion Yaḥyā ibn Yaʿmar, the two pupils of Abū al-Aswad al-Duʾalī⁶⁰⁵ — then dispatched them to the regions and sent a codex to Medina; but the family of ʿUthmān disliked that. It was said to them: bring out ʿUthmān’s codex, that it may be read from. They said, out of jealous attachment to it: the codex was stricken on the day of ʿUthmān’s slaying. Muḥriz said: and it reached me that ʿUthmān’s codex passed to Khālid ibn ʿAmr ibn ʿUthmān. He said: and when al-Mahdī the ʿAbbāsid was made caliph, he sent a codex to Medina — and it is that from which [people] read there today — while al-Ḥajjāj’s codex was set aside, in the chest that is below the pulpit.

Ibn Zabāla said: Mālik ibn Anas — the imam of the Mālikīs (93–179) — related to me, saying: al-Ḥajjāj sent codices to the mother-towns; to Medina he sent a large one among them — and he was the first to send codices to the towns — and this codex was in a chest to the right of the column made a marker for the standing-place of the Prophet (ṣ); it used to be opened on Friday and Thursday and read from once the dawn prayer had been performed. Then al-Mahdī sent codices of great value, which were placed in a chest; al-Ḥajjāj’s codex was removed from before them and set to the left of the pillar, and pulpits were placed for the new ones upon which they would be read, while al-Ḥajjāj’s was carried away in its chest and placed by the column to the right of the pulpit.⁶⁰⁶

Ibn Wahb said: I asked Mālik about ʿUthmān’s codex, and he said: it is gone.⁶⁰⁷ And al-Shāṭibī transmits from Mālik that he said: “ʿUthmān’s codex has vanished; we have found no report of it among the elders.”⁶⁰⁸ In this statement is the implication that he tried to find it but could not — a thing indicating the complete severance of its trace from the page of existence; for otherwise, had it any existence, it would not have hidden from the like of Mālik.

Such was the state of the first ʿUthmānic codices: no trace of them remained in existence. As for the rest of the codices, they are not fit as a measure of conformity or divergence, because the value of those first codices lay in their belonging to the earliest Companions, whereas for others that standing was never established. Perhaps you will say: it is possible those later codices were written in conformity with the very writing of the first ones, letter for letter. I say: this is a mere possibility, and we cannot rely upon a possibility we merely suppose, so long as we have not made sure of its actual realization with certainty — besides the express report that they were written in a modern style differing greatly from that of the first codices, for otherwise there would have been no need to gather and reissue them; they would merely have been dotted and vowelled. As for their removal from the page of existence, there is no cause for it save the radical change that came about afterward.

Yes — the fundamental orthography of the script, in its primitive form, remained relatively preserved; they did not lay upon it any reforming hand, according to what we have set forth.⁶⁰⁹ Its particulars were recorded by the masters of the science of the codices, such as Ibn al-Anbārī, Ibn Abī Dāwūd, and others; and they were, to some degree, the link of connection between us and the first codices — a thing of whose entirety we cannot be entirely sure.

And finally, the addition of the qualification “even as a possibility” did away with the benefit of this stipulation, since most anomalous readings — indeed, even those rejected by consensus — can be reconciled with the apparent form of the rasm, [given] that there is no dotting, no vowelling, no alifs, nor other distinguishing marks, as has passed. For example: Ibn Miqsam’s reading khalaṣū nujuban⁶¹⁰ with a bāʾ, which the script accommodates; Ibn Muḥayṣin’s fa-lā tushmit biya l-aʿdāʾa with a fatḥa on the imperfect’s tāʾ;⁶¹¹ Abū Ḥanīfa’s innamā yakhshā llāha — nominative — min ʿibādihi l-ʿulamāʾa — accusative;⁶¹² al-Ḥasan’s lā rayban fīhi, with accusative and nunation,⁶¹³ and his ẓulumāt with sukūn on the lām wherever it occurs,⁶¹⁴ and his yikhiṭṭif with kasra on the yāʾ, khāʾ, and ṭāʾ and their doubling,⁶¹⁵ and his wa-ʿullima ādamu built for the passive;⁶¹⁶ al-Muṭṭawwiʿī’s yasmaʿūna kalima llāhi, without an alif and with kasra on the lām;⁶¹⁷ Ibn al-Sumayfiʿ’s nunaḥḥīka with a ḥāʾ;⁶¹⁸ al-Ḥasan’s aw tansahā with the tāʾ of address;⁶¹⁹ Ibn Muḥayṣin’s fa-aḥyā bihu l-arḍa with ḍamma on the pronoun’s hāʾ;⁶²⁰ Qatāda’s fa-aqīlū anfusakum with a yāʾ;⁶²¹ Ibn Zayd’s fa-idhā ʿazamtu with ḍamma on the tāʾ;⁶²² and al-Ḥasan’s faragha ʿan qulūbihim with an undotted rāʾ and a dotted ghayn.⁶²³ All of that the bare script, void of dotting and vowelling, accommodates.

And other than that, of what would take too long to enumerate. Consult the books of anomalous readings, and you will find the majority of them can be reconciled with the apparent form of the first rasm. So where is the fitness of “conformity with the rasm” to serve as a proof for determining the sound reading as against the anomalous?!

As for the condition of “the isnād” — that the readings, one and all, should have an isnād connected right back to the Prophet (ṣ) — this is a thing we cannot even conceive, let alone establish the possibility of proving. First: the reciters differ over the readings, and each has a particular style and a method peculiar to him alone; each has, in every verse, a whole array of the kinds of reading — indeed, in every word he recites according to styles he originates as an art. Is it, then, sound to ascribe all these variegated, many-branched readings, from every reciter, in all the verses of the Qurʾān, to the Prophet (ṣ)?

Can we ascribe the likes of al-Bazzī’s doubled tāʾs,⁶²⁴ Abū ʿAmr’s assimilation,⁶²⁵ Ḥamza’s [use of] sukūn,⁶²⁶ al-Kisāʾī’s glottal stress (nabr),⁶²⁷ and Warsh’s prolongation,⁶²⁸ and other such disapproved innovations of the reciters, to the Messenger of God (ṣ)? Ibn Qutayba said: “The solecism of the solecizing among the later reciters is not to be made a proof against the Book. In olden times the people, in their Bedouin simplicity, used to recite according to their own tongues, in keeping with their innate dialects; then there succeeded, generation after generation, folk of the garrison towns — the urbanized — and the sons of the non-Arabs,⁶²⁹ who had neither the natural instinct of the language nor the learning of studied artifice, so that they blundered in many of the letters, slipped, recited by the anomalous, and fell into defect.”

He continued: “Among them is a man — Ḥamza — upon whom God has cast a veil of good repute for uprightness in the eyes of the common folk, [yet] I have not seen any more given to confusion or more severely disordered than he:⁶³⁰ he cast aside, in his reading, the ways of the Arabs and the people of the Ḥijāz, in his excess in prolongation, hamza, and vowel-satiation, and his gross excess in inclination (iḍjāʿ) and assimilation. The common folk became enamoured of his reading;⁶³¹ they saw him, when he recited, with his jaws aslant, his jugular veins bulging, his brows sweating, and so fancied this a mark of some excellence and skill. But not thus was the reading of the Messenger of God (ṣ), nor of the choicest of the forebears, nor of the Successors.”

He said: “how few of this class were safe from error and delusion! For one of the earlier reciters — he means al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī⁶³² — read mā talawtuhu ʿalaykum wa-lā adraʾtukum bihi⁶³³ with a hamza, whereas it is really from daraytu bi-kadhā, and so without hamza; and al-Ḥasan also read wa-mā tanazzalat bihi l-shayāṭūna,⁶³⁴ fancying it a sound masculine plural with wāw and nūn;⁶³⁵ and another — he means Ibn Muḥayṣin⁶³⁶ — read fa-lā tushmit biya l-aʿdāʾa,⁶³⁷ with fatḥa on the tāʾ, kasra on the mīm, and the accusative of al-aʿdāʾ, whereas it is really from ashmata llāhu l-ʿaduwwa, so that the form is yushmituhu, and one does not say shamata llāhu l-ʿaduwwa; and al-Aʿmash⁶³⁸ read wa-mā antum bi-muṣrikhiyyi,⁶³⁹ with kasra on the yāʾ, as though he supposed the bāʾ to put the whole word in the genitive — and Ḥamza followed him in that.”⁶⁴⁰

And [Ibn Qutayba] went on to enumerate the likes of these strange readings from the imams of the forebears — readings that cannot possibly be traced with certainty to the Messenger of God (ṣ). And after all this: how is it sound for us to ascribe the likes of these oddities — in the name of the seven readings or the seven letters — to the Messenger of God (ṣ)? And is that anything but a rudeness and a wrong against the precinct of his noble sanctity?!

Yes — the utmost there is [to it] is that the masters of the books of readings fabricated, for each reciter, isnāds connected right back to the Prophet (ṣ); but this does not amount to ascribing all of his readings, with their branches and varieties, to him. This [is] besides [the fact] that they are honorific, contrived isnāds — just as no evident isnād was known for some of the reciters, such as Ibn ʿĀmir, as has passed. Secondly: how did the transmission of a given reading remain hidden across scores of years, only to appear at the hand of one of these reciters? For al-Kisāʾī (d. 198) has readings peculiar to him, some of them disapproved: how did they remain hidden from those before him for a century and a half, then appear upon his own tongue? Thirdly: what of those disapprovals directed against many of the Seven’s readings, if their readings were all handed down by sound transmission from the Messenger of God (ṣ)? And what of those rationalizations and ijtihādī arguments for justifying the readings? — for there would be no need of rationalizations had they been transmitted from the Prophet (ṣ) by a sound isnād. The clarification of all that has passed.

As for the stipulation of “conformity with Arabic,” the addition of the qualification “even in one aspect” lowered its value, or nullified its effect altogether — especially with al-Qasṭallānī’s generalization, ‘whether it be preponderant or outweighed.’⁶⁴¹ For there is no reading, however anomalous, but that it has some justification in Arabic, [given] that Arabic’s rules are elastic, admitting of being bent to accommodate the various aspects. Yes — they were obliged to add this qualification, since the readings, especially the Seven, were of an obligatory character that must be borne, so that their acceptance is held obligatory, and hence their justification too becomes obligatory, as far as possible.

These pillars were laid down in the light of the [prior] agreement upon the seven or the ten readings, and hence they must be adjusted to accord with them: they are a remedy devised for the case only after its occurrence. What is [therefore] required is [rather] to intervene in the conditions themselves, in a way that suits the aspects of the readings; it is not the readings that are to be debated in the light of these pillars. For that reason you find them adjusting the bounds of these conditions according to what has come down of the readings of these Seven or Ten, and we never see them debating a reading handed down from these [reciters] in the light of the aforementioned pillars!

Al-Dānī said — after relating Sībawayh’s disavowal of Abū ʿAmr’s [use of] sukūn in the like of bāriʾkum and yaʾmurkum —: yet the sukūn is the sounder in transmission and the more frequent in [oral] performance, and it is that which I choose and adopt. He said: the imams of the reciters do not proceed, in anything of the letters of the Qurʾān, upon what is the more widespread in [general] language or the more analogically regular in Arabic; rather [they proceed] upon what is the more firmly established in transmission and the sounder in narration. A narration, once established from them, no analogy of Arabic and no currency of usage can [avail to] reject, because the reading is a followed sunna, the acceptance of which and recourse to which is obligatory.⁶⁴²

Look at this intransigence and this purely traditional [mode of] choice: if it indicates anything, it indicates only the extent of the pressure of the aforementioned [dogma of] obligatory imposition (taḥmīl). We shall inquire into the originator of this imposition — a thing realized at the hand of Baghdad’s official reciter, Ibn Mujāhid, at the turn of the fourth century — at the very time when, likewise, the schools of jurisprudence were confined to four, and the door of ijtihād, and the freedom to choose a school outside the four, was closed.

Ibn al-Jazarī says: “Our statement in the criterion, ‘even in one aspect,’ [means]: we intend an aspect among the aspects of grammar — whether the more eloquent or [merely] eloquent, agreed upon or disputed with a disagreement the like of which does no harm — provided the reading be of that which is widespread, has circulated, and which the imams have received with a sound isnād; for it (that is, the sound isnād [going back] to the reciter) is the greatest foundation and the most upright pillar. And this is the chosen [view], in the estimation of the verifiers, concerning the pillar of Arabic; for how many a reading did some of the grammarians — or many of them — disavow, and their disavowal was given no weight; rather, the imams who are taken as exemplars, of the forebears, concurred upon accepting it!”⁶⁴³ — then he mentions examples of readings that the imams of grammar disavowed, but which nonetheless found a place of acceptance, because they are handed down from the reciters with a sound isnād; and the examples have already passed.⁶⁴⁴

Likewise al-Qasṭallānī says: “What is meant by the soundness of its aspect in Arabic [holds] whether it be preponderant or outweighed — such as Ḥamza’s reading wa-l-arḥāmi in the genitive, Abū Jaʿfar’s reading li-yujzā qawman built for the passive with the accusative of qawman, and the separation between the two annexed terms in His words wa-ka-dhālika zayyana li-kathīrin mina l-mushrikīna… [to the end of] the verse.”⁶⁴⁵ Look at this incoherence in [their] choosing: you see them not overstepping the bounds of an imitation imposed upon them, all while claiming it [to be] verification in inquiry and freedom in choice.

Most of the readings that appear in the words of Ibn al-Jazarī and others are among the anomalous [ones] that contravene the rules of the language outright; the jurists do not permit reciting by them, in the prayer or outside it — it has passed that the imam Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal disavowed many of Ḥamza’s readings, and others likewise — and yet some [scholars] adopt, toward these readings, the stance of the sharp zealot, without any reasonable warrant. Ibn al-Subkī says: the seven readings to which al-Shāṭibī restricted himself, and the three that are the reading of Abū Jaʿfar, of Yaʿqūb, and of Khalaf, are mutawātir, known from the religion by necessity, and [known] to have been sent down upon the Messenger of God (ṣ); none contends against any of that save an ignorant [man]. Nor is the tawātur of any of it confined to those who recited by the [particular] narrations; rather it is mutawātir in the estimation of every Muslim who bears witness to the two testimonies of faith. And it is the portion and the right of every Muslim that he worship God — exalted is He — and make his certainty resolute that what we have mentioned is mutawātir, known with certainty, no supposition and no doubt finding any way into any of it.

Al-Qasṭallānī then follows up on him: it is thus known that the Seven are mutawātir by common agreement, and likewise the Three; and that the four readings after them are anomalous by agreement.⁶⁴⁶

Look at this blind zeal, upon which the mark of [dogmatic] imposition appears plainly; for otherwise, what is the ground of this confinement to these Seven, when among others there is many a one more excellent than they, more precise, and more deserving? What follows is a brief presentation of anomalous readings that can be justified in accordance with some one of the aspects of Arabic — a thing that suffices you as proof of the collapse of this stipulation and of its unfitness for distinguishing the sound, accepted reading from the anomalous, rejected one:

Abū Ḥanīfa and ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz read innamā yakhshā llāhu min ʿibādihi l-ʿulamāʾa,⁶⁴⁷ with the nominative of the divine name and the accusative of al-ʿulamāʾ;⁶⁴⁸ this reading can be justified by interpreting “fear” (al-khashya) here in the sense of reverence and magnification, not dread.⁶⁴⁹ And al-Ḥasan read huwa llāhu l-khāliqu l-bāriʾu l-muṣawwara,⁶⁵⁰ with fatḥa on the doubled wāw and on the rāʾ; it is thus construed by taking al-muṣawwar as a direct object of al-bāriʾ [“the fashioner”], with “the fashioned thing” intended by it.⁶⁵¹

And al-Aʿmash and al-Ḥasan read wa-huwa yuṭʿamu wa-lā yuṭʿimu,⁶⁵² building the first verb for the passive and the second for the active, the pronoun in wa-huwa being referred back to “a guardian” (waliyyan).⁶⁵³ And Jābir ibn Zayd read fa-idhā ʿazamtu fa-tawakkal ʿalā llāhi,⁶⁵⁴ with ḍamma on the tāʾ of ʿazamtu, on the interpretation: “for when I have guided you to it and made you [one] aiming at it.”⁶⁵⁵ This reading has also been ascribed to the imam Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq (ʿa), but it is not established in our estimation.

And al-Ḥasan read shahida llāhu innahu lā ilāha illā huwa,⁶⁵⁶ with kasra on inna, treating shahida as running in the manner of qāla [“he said”].⁶⁵⁷

And al-Ḥasan and Ibn al-Sumayfiʿ read wa-mā tanazzalat bihi l-shayāṭūna;⁶⁵⁸ al-Farrāʾ said: the shaykh erred; al-Naḥḥās said: this is an error in the estimation of all the grammarians; and al-Mubarrad said: this is an error in the estimation of the scholars — for al-Ḥasan saw at its end a yāʾ and a nūn, so it became confused for him with the sound masculine plural, and he erred. Yet his reading, too, can be justified, however remotely: al-Muʾarrij said: if “the shayṭān” be derived from shāṭa yashīṭu, then their reading has some aspect; and Yūnus ibn Ḥabīb said: I heard a Bedouin say, “we entered gardens (basātīn) behind which were basātūn,” [with the -ūn plural]. So if justification in Arabic — even by a remote or outweighed aspect — be sufficient to render a reading sound, then this reading, which is the most anomalous of the anomalous, has come to have an aspect in Arabic, both by analogy and by attested audition…!

And of the Seven, Ḥamza read wa-ttaqū llāha lladhī tasāʾalūna bihi wa-l-arḥāmi,⁶⁵⁹ with the genitive of al-arḥām, in apposition to the pronoun in bihi;⁶⁶⁰ apposition to the bound pronoun, though reckoned ugly by the Baṣrans, has come in the verses of the Arabs, and the Kūfans permitted it with [a mark of] weakness.⁶⁶¹ And Ibn ʿĀmir read fa-innamā yaqūlu lahu kun fa-yakūna,⁶⁶² with the accusative of fa-yakūna; al-Kisāʾī agreed with him upon the accusative in Sūrat al-Naḥl and Yā Sīn.⁶⁶³ It is a weak difficulty,⁶⁶⁴ yet an aspect in Arabic — and hence al-Kisāʾī also read by it.

And Ibn ʿĀmir read — also — wa-ka-dhālika zuyyina li-kathīrin mina l-mushrikīna qatlu awlādahum shurakāʾihim,⁶⁶⁵ [with] zuyyina for the passive, qatlu in the nominative, awlādahum in the accusative, and shurakāʾihim in the genitive; for he thereby separated the two annexed terms and placed the object before the agent that is [in fact] annexed [to it]. There is weakness in this reading, because of the separating of the annexed from the term annexed to it — a thing permitted only in poetry, and, at most, in poetry only with the adverbials, on account of the poets’ latitude therein; to do it with the direct object even in poetry is remote, and to permit it in the Qurʾān is [all the] more remote.⁶⁶⁶ And Nāfiʿ read fa-bima tubashshirūni,⁶⁶⁷ with kasra on the nūn; Abū Ḥātim declared it an error,⁶⁶⁸ because the nūn of the indicative is not given kasra lest it become an enclitic — yet that has come in poetry.⁶⁶⁹ And Abū Jaʿfar — he is of the Ten — read li-yujzā qawman,⁶⁷⁰ with the ḍamma’d yāʾ and the fatḥa on the zāy, built for the passive, with the accusative of qawman; the interpretation is that the verbal noun be made a deputy for the agent — “that the requital requite” — but it is weak, especially with the object mentioned. So said al-Qāḍī.⁶⁷¹

Readings of this pattern are many, and the attempts at justifying them are more numerous still; indeed the concern with the readings and with justifying them in accordance with the rules of Arabic was a craft reckoned mightier than the justifying of the well-established reading. The imam Badr al-Dīn al-Zarkashī said: “The justifying of the anomalous reading is mightier, in [the] craft, than the justifying of the famous one. Among the best composed on it is the book al-Muḥtasab of Abū al-Fatḥ [Ibn Jinnī], except that he did not exhaust [the subject]; more comprehensive than it is the book of Abū al-Baqāʾ al-ʿUkbarī. The apparent [form] of the anomalous may seem repugnant at first thought, but interpretation repels [that repugnance].”⁶⁷² Then he went on to enumerate examples of the sort we have already presented.

I say: what, then, is the pertinence of stipulating “conformity with Arabic” as a criterion for determining the sound reading as against the anomalous?! For every reading, however anomalous, has a possible interpretation agreeing with some aspect of Arabic, however remote, as has passed; and many of the ancients and later scholars composed treatises for handling the anomalous readings and justifying them from the language of the Arabs — a thing that renders the stipulation of Arabic a pure vanity. Perhaps an objector will say: grant that no one of the three pillars suffices, taken singly, for determining the sound reading; yet taken all together they are fit to fulfil that, since they cannot combine save in a sound reading.

We say: as for the stipulation of the isnād — bid it farewell! — for we do not possess, for the solitary instances of the readings, an isnād connected right back to the Prophet (ṣ), one by one; how, then, [its] soundness or its tawātur! The utmost there is amounts to this: that every reciter has a shaykh, and his shaykh too has a shaykh, and so on; but the claim that all the solitary instances of his reading are each taken from that shaykh of his cannot be established, since the personal ijtihāds of the reciters themselves were among the greatest factors in their choices among the readings. This al-Kisāʾī, for example, took no real account of his chain of shaykhs in [respect of] the aspect he would choose; and likewise others of the reciters, especially the grammarians among them, as will come.⁶⁷³ This is besides the doubt as to the very origin of those isnāds — for perhaps they are contrived honorifically, as has passed.

There remain the other two conditions — conformity with the rasm and with Arabic — except that the qualifications “even as a possibility” and “even in one aspect” nullified their effect, given the possibility of reconciling the anomalous readings with the drawn script and with Arabic, however remotely. So the truth is that these three conditions do not fulfil [the task of] a real treatment of the subject; rather, whoever mentioned them mentioned them only superficially, and others followed him traditionally, without verification.

Our Choice regarding the Criterion of Acceptance

Now, since we hold the Qurʾān to be [a thing] possessed of a fixed reality, self-subsistent, and wholly distinct from the readings, the question of “choosing the sound reading” is, in our estimation, already resolved: it is [that reading] which agrees with the text that is mutawātir among the Muslims, from the first age down to now. The divergence of the readings was nothing but a divergence in the manner of expressing this [one] text, according to the ijtihāds of the reciters — and no weight attaches to them at all; rather, weight attaches only to the original text, preserved in full at the hand of the community across the generations.

The words of the imam Badr al-Dīn al-Zarkashī have already passed: “The Qurʾān and the readings are two distinct realities… [etc.]”;⁶⁷⁴ and [likewise] the words of our master, the professor, the imam al-Khūʾī (may God’s mercy be upon him): “The tawātur of the Qurʾān does not entail the tawātur of the readings, because divergence in the manner of the [oral] delivery of the word does not conflict with agreement upon the word itself… [etc.]”⁶⁷⁵ Thus the Muslims kept faith with the text of the Qurʾān, community after community, by mutawātir transmission in all its existing particularities — its composition and arrangement, its rasm and its recitation — with all fidelity and sincerity across the ages, it being an abiding Qurʾānic miracle: “Indeed We have sent down the Reminder, and indeed We will preserve it”⁶⁷⁶ — that is, kept at the hand of this community, enduring with perpetuity.

Accordingly, the sound reading is [that] which agrees with this text agreed upon among the generality of the Muslims; anything else is anomalous, in no wise permissible — and especially, if it diverges from it substantially, [then] void by consensus. By way of clarifying this summary [statement], there must first be laid a preliminary [treatment], in which we shall elucidate the question of “the tawātur of the Qurʾānic text,” then bend our course toward the question of “choosing the sound reading,” in view of the close relation between the two questions at the very core of this inquiry. And here it is for you, in brief:

The Tawātur of the Qurʾān

Among the things that [call] for pride in the standing of this community is their safeguarding of the Book of God as a single text — just as it was sent down upon the Prophet Muḥammad (ṣ) — throughout all history. The Muslims — for all the difference of their inclinations, the divergence of their opinions, and the multiplicity of their schools — agreed as [with] a single word, from the first age (the era of the earliest Companions), and so on across the generations, community after community, down to the present age (and it will so remain with all time), upon the original text of the Qurʾān, in all its letters and words, its composition and arrangement, and its recitation. They received it from the greatest Messenger (ṣ) and inherited it, hand to hand, with complete circumspection and consummate wariness.

What we recite today is the very same that the Muslims recited in the first age; and what we find today of the text set down between the two covers is that same which the righteous forebears set down, just as they took it from the mouth of the Messenger of God (ṣ) — without any alteration or corruption whatsoever! Muḥammad ibn Sīrīn (d. 110) related, from ʿAbīda al-Salmānī (d. 73), who said: “The reading that was presented to the Prophet (ṣ) in the year in which he was taken is the very reading that the people recite today.”⁶⁷⁷

And Khallād ibn Yazīd al-Bāhilī (d. 220) said: I said to Yaḥyā ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Abī Mulayka (d. 173): Nāfiʿ related to me, from your father, from ʿĀʾisha, that she used to recite idh taliqqūnahu,⁶⁷⁸ with kasra on the lām and ḍamma on the qāf, and [that] she would say it is from walaqa l-kadhib [“he uttered a lie glibly”]! Yaḥyā said: it would do you no harm not to have heard it from ʿĀʾisha; and it would not please me that I should have recited it thus, though I [might gain] such-and-such [for it]! I said: and why so, when you yourself allege that she indeed recited it? He said: because it is other than the reading of the people. As for us, were we to find a man reciting by what is not between the two boards, there would be nothing between us and him but [his] repentance, or else we strike off his neck. We bring it — we [the community] — from the community, from the Prophet (ṣ), from Gabriel, from God, mighty and majestic [is He]; whereas you [others] say: ‘so-and-so the Lame related to us, from so-and-so the Blind, that Ibn Masʿūd used to recite’ [something] not between the two boards, and I know not what [to make of it]! It is, by God, nothing but the striking of the neck or else repentance.⁶⁷⁹

Look at this fine description of the tawātur of the text and its authenticity: a whole community transmits it from a whole community, from the Messenger of God (ṣ) — not “so-and-so from so-and-so”! He makes the criterion for knowing the sound reading to be “the reading of the people,” and makes anything else anomalous, something it is in no wise permissible to recite — or else the neck of its reciter is struck — for no reason other than that it is outside the reading of the people! Hārūn ibn Mūsā al-Azdī, the author of [a work on] the readings (d. c. 200), said: I mentioned that — the reading ascribed to ʿĀʾisha — to Abū ʿAmr ibn al-ʿAlāʾ (d. 154), and he said: I heard this before you were born — but we do not adopt it. And in another narration Abū ʿAmr said: I hold the anomalous individual [reading] in suspicion whenever it is at variance with what the generality has brought.⁶⁸⁰ For Abū ʿAmr made of “the transmission of the generality” a measure for knowing the sound, permissible reading, while anything else is rejected and in no wise permissible to adopt.

And Muḥammad ibn Ṣāliḥ (d. 168) said: “I heard a man say to Abū ʿAmr ibn al-ʿAlāʾ: how do you read lā yuʿadhdhibu ʿadhābahu aḥadun wa-lā yūthiqu wathāqahu aḥadun?⁶⁸¹ He said: lā yuʿadhdhibu, with the kasra.⁶⁸² The man said to him: how so, when it has come from the Prophet (ṣ) as lā yuʿadhdhabu, with the fatḥa! Abū ʿAmr said to him: even had I heard the man who said ‘I heard it from the Prophet (ṣ),’ I would not have adopted it from him. And do you know why? Because I hold the anomalous individual reading in suspicion whenever it is at variance with what the generality has brought.”⁶⁸³ This narration, like its predecessor, [makes] “what the generality has brought” a criterion for knowing the sound reading as against the anomalous.

And Ibn Qutayba (d. 276) said: “Everything of the readings that conforms with our codex, not departing from the drawn script of its writing, it is permissible for us to recite by; but that is not [permissible] for us in what diverges from it — because the earlier [Companions] of the Companions and the Successors recited by their own tongues, went on according to their own custom, and gave themselves and the natural drive of their temperaments free rein; and that was permissible for them, and for a company of the reciters after them who were trustworthy with respect to the Revelation and versed in its interpretation. But as for us — the company of the strained — God has now gathered us, through the goodly choice the forebears made for us, upon a codex that is [conformed] to the final review; and it is not for us to overstep it, just as it was for them to interpret it and [yet] it is not for us to interpret [thus]. And were it permissible for us to recite it at variance with what is established in our codex, it would be permissible for us to write it with divergence, addition, deletion, and transposition — and thereat would befall precisely what the rightly guided imams disliked for us.”⁶⁸⁴

These are the words of a verifying imam who makes of “our codex” — [we] the company of the Muslims — a criterion for knowing the sound reading, and who draws attention to [the fact] that the forebears’ choice “is [that of] the final review,” which cannot be changed at all: “and it is not for us to overstep it.”

And al-Ḥujja al-Balāghī said: “By reason of the tawātur of the Noble Qurʾān among the generality of the Muslims, generation after generation, its substance, its form, and its current recitation continued upon a single mode, so that there affected nothing of its substance or its form [any of] the divergence in its recitation transmitted from some of the people — [including] the well-known seven reciters and others. Thus no reading of any one of them came to dominate its form, in mere following of him, even in some copies; nor, likewise, did there dominate it what has been transmitted of the multitude of readings at variance with it, whose transmission has become widespread in the ḥadīth books, such as the Jāmiʿ of al-Bukhārī and the Mustadrak of al-Ḥākim. And the seven readings — let alone the ten — are concerned only with the form of certain words, not with the addition or deletion of a word; and even so, they are nothing but solitary narrations, from solitary transmitters, that necessitate neither reassurance nor firm trust — besides their frailty through mutual contradiction and their divergence from the current rasm mutawātir among the generality of the Muslims across the long extended years. Hence it is not seemly, in recitation, to swerve away from what is current in the rasm and acted upon among the generality of the Muslims throughout their generations, to the peculiarities of these readings — added to which is that we, the company of the Imāmī Shīʿa, have indeed been commanded to recite as the people recite, that is, as the general kind of the Muslims and their generality.”⁶⁸⁵

The words of our shaykh, the imam al-Balāghī, are the decisive verdict in this arena, and we shall build our choice upon them in this domain.

There indicates to you — also — the tawātur of the extant text, without anything of the divergence of the readings affecting it: those divergences in the drawn script, which were in fact written in accordance with the reading of the generality and which held firm despite the vicissitudes of the ages and the passing of the epochs, so that neither a reciter’s reading nor a scribe’s pen-nib altered them. Of that is His words lam yatasannah (2:259)⁶⁸⁶ — the hāʾ being adjoined for the pause. It was written and recited thus from the first age and held firm across the ages. ʿAbd Allāh ibn Hāniʾ al-Barīzī — the client of ʿUthmān — said: I was with ʿUthmān while they were reviewing the codices, and he sent me with the shoulder-blade of a sheep to Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, on which was written lam yatasann, and lā tabdīla li-l-khalqi llāhi, and fa-amhili l-kāfirīna; Ubayy called for an inkwell and effaced the two lāms and wrote li-khalqi llāhi, effaced fa-amhil and wrote fa-mahhil, and, as for lam yatasannah, he wrote it, adjoining the hāʾ to it.⁶⁸⁷

Had it not been the [matter of] audition from the Messenger of God (ṣ), Ubayy would not have written it with the hāʾ; just so, the divergence of the reciters afterward, and the development of the writing and the script, did not affect the changing of the word from what the earliest Muslims wrote and the forebears recited, and, following them, the generality of the Muslims across the generations. Likewise bimā ʿāhada ʿalayhu llāha (48:10)⁶⁸⁸ and wa-mā ansānīhu (18:63),⁶⁸⁹ with the ḍamma of the pronominal hāʾ in these two places only, not elsewhere in the Qurʾān,⁶⁹⁰ for no cause intelligible to us; and had it not been what is handed down, one later generation from an earlier, there would have been nothing to call for the Muslims’ adherence to it throughout history. And the like of it is sa-nadʿu l-zabāniyata (96:18),⁶⁹¹ with the dropping of the wāw in all the codices, anciently and recently; and His words akramani and ahānani (89:15, 16),⁶⁹² with the dropping of the first-person yāʾ, in pronunciation and in script, in all the codices.

And His words in hādhāni (20:63)⁶⁹³ — thus it held firm in the codices, and the Muslims recited it so from the first age down to now, and none dared change it, even though [some] pretenders alleged it to be a solecism;⁶⁹⁴ so much so that Abū ʿAmr said: I would indeed be ashamed to recite inna hādhāni la-sāḥirāni⁶⁹⁵ — meaning with the doubling of inna together with the alif, at variance with the famous reading. A thing that indicates to us — plainly — that the Qurʾān, in itself, has a fixed reality that the Muslims safeguarded, held far from the reach of the reciters. And likewise His words ujību daʿwata l-dāʿi idhā daʿāni (2:186),⁶⁹⁶ with the omission of the yāʾ from al-dāʿ despite its being definite by the lām, and likewise the omission of the first-person yāʾ from daʿān. The Muslims recited it thus across the ages and set it down so in their codices — and does anyone dare change it? Let the doer do it, if he can! And likewise His words kitābiyah, ḥisābiyah, māliyah, and sulṭāniyah (69:19–29),⁶⁹⁷ with the affirming of the hāʾ of pause, in pronunciation and in script, and the fatḥa-opening of the first-person yāʾ likewise — without the reciters’ having any hand in that; rather it is a pure following of the generality of the Muslims, who inherited it so from the forebears, so that it can never be changed. And the likes of that are many in the Noble Qurʾān.

Moreover, the affair of the vowelling of the codex at the hand of Abū al-Aswad, and its dotting at the hand of the pupils Naṣr ibn ʿĀṣim and Yaḥyā ibn Yaʿmar,⁶⁹⁸ is a decisive proof that the Qurʾān was already possessed of a fixed reality in the breasts of the Muslims, so that its being set down in marks in the codex came at the hand of the leaders of the community, out of fear of some corruption by one who had no prior acquaintance with the Qurʾān. And those codices, drawn according to the first orthographic convention, remain in being: they do not differ, in their inflection, their vowel-marks, and the drawing of their words, from what is in our hands of the present-day codices.

And what adds clarity for you is the existence of Qurʾānic fragments that have come down in the reported words of the forebears — for the purpose of citation, or exegesis, or the like — which do not differ from the extant text: a thing that indicates that general keeping-faith with a single text of the Qurʾān, which the Muslims kept in all the ages. Likewise, certain divergences that ran upon the tongues of some of the forebears fell into a position of disavowal by the generality, and were recognized from the first age as being other than the text of the Revelation, and history recorded them under the heading of anomaly or of pure error.

Of that is the reading of Abū Bakr, when he was dying: wa-jāʾat sakratu l-ḥaqqi bi-l-mawti. Abū Bakr al-Anbārī said: when Abū Bakr was dying, he sent for ʿĀʾisha; and when she came in to him she said: this is as the poet said — “By your life, neither wealth nor riches avail, when, one day, [the soul] rattles in the throat and the breast is straitened by it.” Abū Bakr said: rather — why did you not say, as God has said, wa-jāʾat sakratu l-mawti bi-l-ḥaqqi dhālika mā kunta minhu taḥīdu?⁶⁹⁹ And from that very age, the masters of history, the exegetes, and the ḥadīth-scholars rose up to charge his reading with the anomaly at variance with the rasm;⁷⁰⁰ and had the Qurʾān not possessed a fixed reality, familiar to all, there would have been no evident cause for all this clamor.

And ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb read wa-l-sābiqūna l-awwalūna mina l-muhājirīna wa-l-anṣāru lladhīna ttabaʿūhum bi-iḥsānin (9:100)⁷⁰¹ — with the nominative of al-anṣār and the omission of the wāw from wa-lladhīna ttabaʿūhum — on account of an allegation that he alleged, which has passed;⁷⁰² so Zayd ibn Thābit rose up to dispute with him over this reading of his, it being outside what the generality kept in common; and ʿUmar would not yield to Zayd’s word until he took the matter for judgment to Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, and Ubayy went on citing other verses until ʿUmar accepted.⁷⁰³ And likewise the reading of Abū Ḥanīfa, innamā yakhshā llāhu min ʿibādihi l-ʿulamāʾa, with the nominative of the divine name and the accusative of al-ʿulamāʾ.⁷⁰⁴

And if you observe the ancient antique codices — especially in the eastern parts of the Islamic lands, where lay the seat of civilization and learning — and compare them with the present-day codices, both handwritten and printed, you will find them all one in style and script, with the fixity of the words in their structure and their form and the like. As for the divergence of the vowel-marks, we shall address it. All that is a clear proof of that unity, agreed upon among the Muslims, one and all, in all the ages — a thing that discloses this community’s intense solicitude for guarding its glorious Book, in realization of the miracle of this abiding heavenly Book: “Indeed We have sent down the Reminder, and indeed We will preserve it”⁷⁰⁵ — that is, at the hand of this community, across the passing of the ages and the recurrence of the epochs; it has ever remained, and ever remains, abiding and preserved from every change or alteration, until the Day of Resurrection.

And the divergence of the reciters throughout history was unable to effect any change, neither in its wording nor in its script. What an abiding miracle, calling forth this community’s pride in its Book, kept safeguarding the text of the divine Revelation across the generations! Accordingly, the criterion for determining the reading is its conformity with the original text preserved among the generality of the Muslims, subject to conditions we shall present in the following section, where we shall deal with the question of the conflict of the narration or the language with the handed-down reading. And here is a question: if the present-day reading is what the Muslims kept faith with, community after community, then what is the aspect of its ascription to Ḥafṣ? We shall address the answer by saying that it is an inverted ascription: it is rather Ḥafṣ who sought conformity with the reading of the generality; and hence the masters of the biographies said the reading of Ḥafṣ, from ʿĀṣim, rises in its chain to the Commander of the Faithful, ʿAlī (ʿa);⁷⁰⁶ and there is no doubt that his reading (ʿa) is the reading of the generality of the Muslims, mutawātir from the first age. The detailed resolution of this problem will reach you in a coming section.

The Criterion of a Reading’s Soundness

And after all this — now that the discourse on the tawātur of the Qurʾān and the fixity of its original text throughout the generations has been made clear — it follows that the criterion of a reading’s soundness is its conformity with that text preserved among the generality of the Muslims. And this conformity is realized in a reading whenever the following conditions are met: first, its conformity with the text firmly established and known among the generality of the Muslims — in the substance of the word, its form, and its placement in the existing composition — according to the Muslims’ keeping-faith, one later generation from an earlier; second, its conformity with the more eloquent in language and the more widespread in Arabic, as known by comparison with the rules certainly established from the eloquent classical language of the Arabs; and third, that no decisive proof oppose it — be it a rational demonstration, a mutawātir sunna, or a narration sound in isnād and accepted in the estimation of the imams.

So when all these conditions come together in a reading, then it is the chosen reading, permissible in the prayer and outside it; while a reading lacking all of them, or some of them, becomes anomalous — with, at the least, a ground for doubt as to its being established as Qurʾān — so that it is not permissible to recite it, in the prayer or outside it, under the heading that it is Qurʾān. And by way of clarifying these three points we present the following. As for conformity with the established, known text, that is tested in three matters, as we have indicated:

1. In the very substance of the word — as in the like of His words fa-tabayyanū, from tabayyun [ascertaining], or is it fa-tathabbatū, from tathabbut [verifying]⁷⁰⁷ — which of the two is the original text? And likewise His words nunshizuhā with the zāy, or nunshiruhā with the rāʾ;⁷⁰⁸ and His words idh talaqqawnahu, with fatḥa on the lām and the doubled qāf, from talaqqī [receiving] in the sense of taking, or taliqqūnahu, with kasra on the lām and ḍamma on the qāf, from walaqa l-kadhib [uttering a lie glibly].⁷⁰⁹

And His words wa-ddakara baʿda ummatin, with ḍamma on the hamza and doubling of the opened mīm, in the sense of “a span of time,” or baʿda amahin, with fatḥa on the hamza and lightening of the mīm and the hāʾ, in the sense of “forgetfulness”;⁷¹⁰ and fuzziʿa, with the zāy and the ʿayn, from tafzīʿ [the dispelling of dread], or furrigha, with the rāʾ and the ghayn, from tafrīgh [emptying];⁷¹¹ and yaquṣṣu l-ḥaqqa, with the ṣād, or yaqḍī l-ḥaqqa, with the ḍād and the yāʾ;⁷¹² and wa-mā huwa ʿalā l-ghaybi bi-ḍanīnin, with the ḍād, in the sense of “niggardly,” or with the ẓāʾ [bi-ẓanīnin], in the sense of “suspected”;⁷¹³ and wa-lā yaʾtali ulū l-faḍli minkum, with the hamza before the tāʾ and the light lām, in the sense of “falling short,” or yataʾalla, with the tāʾ before the hamza and the doubled lām, in the sense of “swearing an oath”;⁷¹⁴ and fa-sʿaw ilā dhikri llāhi, or fa-mḍū ilā dhikri llāhi.⁷¹⁵

And of this category is reading with addition and deletion — as in His words wa-mā ʿamilat aydīhim, or wa-mā ʿamilathu aydīhim,⁷¹⁶ with the addition of the pronominal hāʾ; and His words fa-inna llāha huwa l-ghaniyyu l-ḥamīdu, or inna llāha l-ghaniyyu l-ḥamīdu, with the dropping of the pronoun of separation;⁷¹⁷ and His words tajrī taḥtahā l-anhāru, or min taḥtihā l-anhāru, with the addition of min.⁷¹⁸ And many examples of that have already passed.⁷¹⁹

There is no doubt that the sound reading, in the like of that, is only one of the two readings, the other being void — because the codex, when first it was vowelled and dotted, its vowelling and dotting were set upon just one of the two alternatives, namely the one known and kept in common among the generality of the Muslims; and neither Abū al-Aswad nor his two pupils were in any hesitation in placing the aforementioned marks; and the words and letters held firm in accordance with their common mental anchoring, just as they had received them, hand to hand, without any hesitation at all. The divergence came only from the side of the ijtihād of the later reciters — as something outside the original text known among the generality of the people.

And hence, when al-Fuḍayl ibn Yasār asked the imam al-Ṣādiq (ʿa) about the ḥadīth “the Qurʾān was sent down upon seven aḥruf,” he said: “They have lied — the enemies of God! — rather, it was sent down upon a single ḥarf, from the One.” Then, for the determining of this single ḥarf, the imam (ʿa) made the criterion what is familiar to the generality of the Muslims, and said: “Recite as the people recite.” And in another narration: “Recite as you were taught.”⁷²⁰ So he made the criterion “as the people recite” — that is, the generality of the Muslims — and gave no weight to anything of the reciters’ reading; and the other narration is even more explicit, “as you were taught” — that is, what you kept faith with, generation and community from generation and community, not the reading of individuals who are solitary transmitters.

And in the light of this criterion, the reading nunshizuhā with the zāy is the sound one, because the established text of the codex, anciently and recently, and that which the community has kept faith with, is with the zāy. And likewise the sound readings are fa-tabayyanū, baʿda ummatin, fuzziʿa, and yaquṣṣu — and so on, by the same reasoning; while the other reading, in our view, is fallen and in no wise permissible. And likewise the sound reading, in our view, is the reading of Ḥafṣ, wa-mani ttabaʿani (3:20),⁷²¹ with kasra on the nūn, as an indication of the omission of the yāʾ — as against the reading of Nāfiʿ and Abū ʿAmr, wa-mani ttabaʿanī, with the affirming of the yāʾ; because the reading of ʿĀṣim and that of his two transmitters is the one conforming with the rasm of the codex, without a yāʾ.⁷²²

And, also, Warsh read daʿwata l-dāʿī,⁷²³ affirming the yāʾ, at variance with the established text of the codex, which is without a yāʾ; and hence the reading of ʿĀṣim and the rest, daʿwata l-dāʿi, is the decisive proof.⁷²⁴ And Ḥamza and al-Kisāʾī read fa-bi-hudāhumu qtadi,⁷²⁵ omitting the hāʾ of pause affirmed in the rasm of the noble codex; so the reading of ʿĀṣim and the rest, conforming with the established text, was the one to be followed.⁷²⁶ And Abū ʿAmr read inna hādhayni la-sāḥirāni,⁷²⁷ with the doubling and the yāʾ, at variance with the rasm of the codex, which is with the alif; and hence ʿĀṣim and the rest read with the lightening.⁷²⁸ And Ḥafṣ alone read kufuʾan, with two ḍammas and then a wāw; and thus the codex was fixed, while the rest read with something at variance with the drawn script.⁷²⁹

As for the scholarly company — since they found themselves facing a fait accompli, namely the authoritativeness of all the readings, especially the whole Seven — they set about interpreting it by the “pillar of conformity with the codex,” with the addition of the qualification “even as a possibility.” But that is nothing other than a rationalization after the fact, and an application of the criterion to suit the readings — not a setting of the readings before the criterion. But we ourselves are in a state of relief from this predicament, since we do not regard any of the readings as authoritative save one — that which conformed with the established text of the known codex — anything else being fallen outright.

2. In the form of the word — and by it we mean the morphological structure of the word in its derivation — as in the like of His words rabbanā bāʿid bayna asfārinā, in the form of a request, or bāʿada, in the past-tense form,⁷³⁰ where the root material is one and the difference lies in the derivational structure of the word; there the matter wavers, of necessity, in the choosing of one of the two readings. And likewise His words qāla aʿlamu, in the first-person form, or iʿlam, in the imperative form;⁷³¹ and His words wa-hal nujāzī illā l-kafūra, in the first-person active form, or yujāzā, in the third-person passive form;⁷³² and His words ḥattā yaṭhurna, in the triliteral form, in the sense of the cessation of the blood, or yaṭṭahharna, augmented, of the tafaʿʿul pattern, in the sense of purifying oneself with water;⁷³³ and His words aw lāmastumu l-nisāʾa, of the mufāʿala pattern, as a euphemism for [sexual] intercourse, or lamastumu, in the sense of touching absolutely.⁷³⁴

3. And of this kind is the divergence of the word’s inflection in a way that leads to a divergence of meaning — as in His words wa-arjulakum: in the genitive [wa-arjulikum], whereby the wiping of the feet becomes obligatory, or in the accusative, whereby the washing becomes obligatory,⁷³⁵ on an outweighed possibility — construed as an apposition to the object of fa-ghsilū [“so wash”]; and the shaykh Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭūsī has debunked it, with completeness and detail;⁷³⁶ but the accusative, construed as an apposition to the grammatical place of the object of wa-msaḥū [“and wipe”], is the sound, chosen view, as will come. And His words fa-talaqqā ādamu min rabbihi kalimātin: with the nominative of ādamu as agent and the accusative of kalimātin as object; or with the accusative of ādam and the nominative of kalimāt, with the meaning that the words themselves rescued Adam from the wrath of his Lord.⁷³⁷

And His words innamā yakhshā llāhu min ʿibādihi l-ʿulamāʾu: with the nominative of the divine name and the accusative of al-ʿulamāʾ, or the reverse.⁷³⁸ And in the like of this divergence — also — one of the two readings is sound and the other rejected, upon our principles, as has passed. But the manner of choosing here differs from the case of the divergence of the word-material: the manner of choosing may be the general usage, as it was there; or by some decisive consideration; or by a factor that outweighs in favor of a narration sound in isnād; or the like, which we shall review.

Thus, in the like of bāʿid, we choose the form of the request [the imperative], on account of the concurrence of the well-known reciters — their concurrence being a path to knowing the original text known among the generality of the Muslims. And in aʿlamu, we choose the first-person form, since it is the majority reading, and in view of there being no one of whom the knowledge is sought save the speaker himself. And in nujāzī, we deem preponderant the reading with the nūn, by the indication furnished by the beginning of the verse: dhālika jazaynāhum bimā kafarū wa-hal nujāzī illā l-kafūra.⁷³⁹ And in yaṭhurna, we deem preponderant the lightened reading, in view of the fact that the condition for the permissibility of coming to them without reprehensibility is two matters — the cessation of the blood and the ritual washing — whereas, upon the doubled reading, the matter of the cessation of the blood remains passed over in silence. And in lāmastum, the preponderance is with the reading having the alif, because it is the consensus of the verifying jurists, and upon it are the narrations of the People of the House (ʿa).

And in arjulakum, we choose the accusative, because the aspect of the genitive — construed as an apposition to the wording of the preceding genitive — conflicts with the juristic view that holds the obligatoriness of full coverage in the wiping of the two feet lengthwise, in view of the statement of the two bounds of the wiped part in the verse, as will come at the end of the discourse. As for the reading with the accusative of ādam and the nominative of kalimāt, sound taste finds it repugnant — besides its being at variance with what readily comes to the minds of the generality in the like of these constructions; and the like of it is the disapproved reading of Abū Ḥanīfa.

Indeed, the divergence in the like of the reading kufuʾan, or huzuʾan, or hayta laka,⁷⁴⁰ or uff,⁷⁴¹ or in the like of imāla, satiation (ishbāʿ), lightening, [full] realization (taḥqīq), ishmām, and rawm, is not of this meaning-affecting category; for they are divergences in the dialects and in [oral] performance and expression. The Prophet (ṣ) permitted the Arabs to recite the Qurʾān in their various dialects — as we interpreted the ḥadīth “the Qurʾān was sent down upon seven aḥruf,” and as his words (ṣ) came: “so recite as you please.”⁷⁴² Accordingly, by whichever of them it be read, it is sound — save where it departs from what is familiar to the generality, to a degree that is repugnant, as in most of Abū ʿAmr’s assimilations, the excessive prolongation, the extreme realization, the [glottal] stress, and the like; for those are not permissible, and reciting by them in the prayer is in no wise sound.

3. In the placement of the word — the reading that proceeds by transposition is void, because it departs from the rasm familiar among the Muslims, as in His words fa-yaqtulūna wa-yuqtalūna: Ḥamza and al-Kisāʾī read it with the object placed before the agent, and the rest with the agent placed before the object; the second is the famous reading;⁷⁴³ and as in Abū Bakr’s reading wa-jāʾat sakratu l-ḥaqqi bi-l-mawti, whereas the handed-down reading is wa-jāʾat sakratu l-mawti bi-l-ḥaqqi.⁷⁴⁴ And there is no doubt that the preponderance, in the like of this divergence — also — is with the famous reading, the other being void, for its divergence from the rasm and from what is kept faith with among the generality of the Muslims, one and all.

As for conformity with the more eloquent in language and the more widespread in Arabic — that is required because the Qurʾān was sent down at a degree loftier than ordinary eloquence, and it is impossible that it should employ a word that sound Arab taste finds distasteful, or that contravenes an analogy the eloquent Arabs received as a natural, familiar habit. Otherwise the Arabs would have found the Qurʾān strange at the outset of its affair, or would have disavowed of it something whereby the challenge (taḥaddī) that the Qurʾān proclaims openly, before all the witnesses, is invalidated. The permitting of the weak readings, and their ascription to the first age, is a crime with respect to the Noble Qurʾān and a lowering of its precious majesty.

We do not permit the like of al-Bazzī’s doubled tāʾs,⁷⁴⁵ Abū ʿAmr’s assimilations,⁷⁴⁶ al-Kisāʾī’s [glottal] stresses,⁷⁴⁷ Ḥamza’s prolongations, and much of the straining that the reciters innovated in making an art of the Qurʾān⁷⁴⁸ and in departing from what is customary among the Arabs — the Arabs upon whose language, and upon the styles of whose current, eloquent speech, the Qurʾān was sent down. God — exalted is He — has said: “an Arabic Qurʾān, without any deviousness”;⁷⁴⁹ “and this is a Book which confirms it,… in the Arabic language”;⁷⁵⁰ “a Book whose signs have been elaborated,… an Arabic Qurʾān, for a people who have knowledge”;⁷⁵¹ for God willed that there be no crookedness in the Qurʾān — yet the reciters strained and so bent into crookedness many of its straight words!

And in the light of this exposition, we plainly pronounce erroneous many of the readings of the well-known reciters that came at variance with the styles of the eloquent language of the Arabs; for the regard owed to a Book that belongs to a great community is worthier than the regard for a small band who lacked the knowledge of the styles of eloquent speech. It has passed that there was Ibn Qutayba’s impugning of reciters who committed solecism in the reading — those who had neither the natural instinct of the language nor the learning of studied artifice, so that they blundered in many of the letters, slipped, recited by the anomalous, and fell into defect.

For the reading of al-Ḥasan — who is one of the four — wa-mā tanazzalat bihi l-shayāṭūna, is error without doubt.⁷⁵² And likewise the reading of Ibn ʿĀmir — who is one of the Seven — qatlu awlādahum shurakāʾihim,⁷⁵³ by annexing qatl to shurakāʾihim and separating awlādahum — which is the direct object — between the governing annexed term and the annexed agent. Abū al-Barakāt ibn al-Anbārī said: as for the accusative of awlādahum and the genitive of shurakāʾihim, it is exceedingly weak in analogy… and the like of this does not occur in the free choice of speech, by consensus; and they differed over its permissibility under poetic necessity — the Kūfans permitted it and the Baṣrans refused it — and this reading is weak in analogy, by consensus.⁷⁵⁴

And likewise the reading of Ḥamza — one of the Seven — wa-ttaqū llāha lladhī tasāʾalūna bihi wa-l-arḥāmi,⁷⁵⁵ with the genitive of al-arḥām, construed as an apposition to the bound genitive antecedent. Abū Muḥammad said: it is ugly in the estimation of the Baṣrans, scant in usage, and remote in analogy — because the pronoun in bihi is a substitute for the nunation; and because the preserved bound pronoun is not separable from the particle, nor does it fall after the particle of apposition; and because the appended and the appended-to are partners in government, so that just as it is not permissible to say wa-ttaqū llāha lladhī tasāʾalūna bi-l-arḥāmi, likewise the genitive by apposition is not permissible,⁷⁵⁶ because the pronoun to which it is appended — upon this construal — is an antecedent, and the appended term is not fit to take its place.

And the reading of Qunbul — the transmitter of the reading of Ibn Kathīr — arsilhu maʿanā ghadan yartaʿī wa-yalʿab,⁷⁵⁷ with the affirming of the yāʾ in yartaʿī and the sukūn of the bāʾ in yalʿab⁷⁵⁸ — this at a time when the jussive is obligatory in the apodosis of the request. So that he put yartaʿī in the indicative and yalʿab in the jussive is something indicating that he had no knowledge of the foundations of Arabic at all — as Ibn Qutayba said: how few of this class were safe, in their chosen letter, from error and delusion!⁷⁵⁹ And likewise his reading innahu man yattaqī wa-yaṣbir,⁷⁶⁰ with the affirming of the yāʾ in the first verb and the sukūn of the second⁷⁶¹ — and there is no aspect for this splitting, seeing that they are both within the scope of the conditional man, which puts [verbs] in the jussive, as is evidenced by the fāʾ after it.

And the reading of Nāfiʿ, hal ʿasītum,⁷⁶² with kasra on the sīn, is a poor usage… Abū ʿUbayd said: the reading, in our view, is with the fatḥa, because it is the better-known of the two usages… and had the kasra been sound, one would also have read ʿasiya rabbunā;⁷⁶³ but they all concurred there upon the fatḥa. Abū Ḥātim said: there is no aspect for the kasra… Makkī said: the fatḥa is the chosen reading, on account of the concurrence of the reciters upon it, while Nāfiʿ alone diverged from them.⁷⁶⁴ And his reading yakādu l-samāwātu yatafaṭṭarna,⁷⁶⁵ made by analogy with wa-qāla niswatun — but it is a false analogy drawn despite a distinguishing difference, because al-samāwāt is a sound feminine plural — so the sound reading is that of ʿĀṣim and the rest, takādu.⁷⁶⁶

And likewise his reading with the [glottal] stress — as do his two transmitters, Warsh and Qālūn — in the like of al-nabīʾīn, with the hamza, throughout the Qurʾān; this being at variance with the express prohibition of the Prophet (ṣ), who said: “Beware of the [glottal] stress in the Qurʾān.”⁷⁶⁷ And when al-Mahdī performed the pilgrimage, he put al-Kisāʾī forward to lead the people in prayer, and he pronounced with the hamza, so that the generality of the people of Medina disavowed it against him and said: he applies the [glottal] stress, in the Mosque of the Messenger of God (ṣ), to the Qurʾān!⁷⁶⁸ I say: and how could the reciter of Medina apply the stress — that is, the hamza — despite this express prohibition?!

And Ibn ʿĀmir read nujjiya l-muʾminīna,⁷⁶⁹ with ḍamma on the nūn, doubling of the jīm, and sukūn of the yāʾ — as though meaning “the deliverance delivered the believers.” Al-Farrāʾ said: we know no aspect for it save the possibility of solecism.⁷⁷⁰ And Ibn Kathīr read qurūhunna,⁷⁷¹ with two ḍammas — but the more analogically regular in Arabic is the plural of faʿl upon fiʿāl, such as baḥr and biḥār, ʿabd and ʿibād, kaʿb and kiʿāb… Makkī said: the plural upon fuʿul is among the rarities in the speech of the Arabs.⁷⁷²

Many readings have passed that fell into a position of disavowal by the imams of Arabic, readings that were at variance with the rules of the language upon which the eloquent language of the Arabs runs.⁷⁷³ And we do indeed set the rules of eloquent Arabic in judgment over the readings of the reciters, since we do not feel secure about their grasp of the foundations of the language, nor their complete knowledge of the styles of eloquent, articulate speech.⁷⁷⁴

A Flawed Defense

Abū ʿAmr ibn al-ʿAlāʾ read bāriʾkum, yaʾmurkum, yanṣurkum, yashʿurkum, and the like with the sukūn, wherever it occurred in the Qurʾān;⁷⁷⁵ and it is a dropping of an inflectional vowel without any known cause. It was rationalized by the claim that he likened the inflectional vowel to the structural vowel, so that he made the inflectional vowel quiescent, seeking lightness, on account of the succession of several vowels — as the Arabs do say arāka muntafkhan, with the sukūn of the fāʾ.

Abū Muḥammad said: it is weak, disapproved. He said: for there is a difference between the inflectional vowel, which indicates a meaning, and the structural vowel, which does not; and, moreover, the inflectional vowel changes according to the change of the meaning, so it is not permissible that another change should attach to it, whereas the structural vowel is fixed, so that it is permissible for it to be changed by being made quiescent, seeking lightness. So the making quiescent of the letter of inflection is remote and weak, while the making quiescent of the structural vowel, when it is felt to be heavy, is much used. And the chosen reading is the completeness of the vowels, because it is the [grammatical] root, and upon it is the main body of the reciters, and because the making quiescent is a marring of the speech and an altering of the inflection.⁷⁷⁶ And Sībawayh disavowed the reading of making quiescent, and deemed it void in the original doctrine of the Arabs.⁷⁷⁷ This is the poor reading of Abū ʿAmr, and this is the speech of the master experts of the discipline and the great pillars of Arabic, acknowledged in the estimation of the imams, one and all.

But Abū ʿAmr al-Dānī — in his book Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, after mentioning the sukūn of bāriʾkum and yaʾmurkum in the reading of Abū ʿAmr, and after relating Sībawayh’s disavowal of that — said: “yet the sukūn is the sounder in transmission, the more frequent in performance, and it is that which I choose and adopt…” — until he said: “and the imams of the reciters do not rely, in anything of the letters of the Qurʾān, upon the more widespread in language or the more analogically regular in Arabic, but rather upon the more firmly established in transmission and the sounder in narration. A narration, once established in their estimation, no analogy of Arabic and no currency of usage can reject — because the reading is a followed sunna, the acceptance of which and recourse to which is obligatory.”

Al-Zarqānī said — by way of comment upon this speech —: “This is a sound saying; for the scholars of grammar drew its rules only from the Book of God, the sunna of His Messenger, and the speech of the Arabs; so, once the Qurʾānicity of the Qurʾān is established by the accepted narration, the Qurʾān is itself the judge over the grammarians and what they laid down of rules, and it becomes obligatory that they refer their rules back to it — not that we refer the Qurʾān back to their divergent rules, setting them in judgment over it; for otherwise that would be an inversion of the proper relation, and a neglect of the true foundation in the obligatoriness of due regard.”⁷⁷⁸

I say: the reciters’ not relying upon the more widespread in language and the more analogically regular in Arabic is only due to the meagerness of their knowledge of the foundations of eloquent speech; and hence they confused things and blundered — just as Abū ʿAmr al-Dānī confused the question of “the authenticity of the Qurʾān” with the question of “the readings,” and the professor al-Zarqānī followed him in this strange confusion, traditionally, without any real thinking. For that which is followed is the original text of the Qurʾān, mutawātir among the Muslims; and upon it the imams of Arabic relied in the drawing-out of the general rules relied upon. As for the readings, they are a thing that goes back to the ijtihāds of the reciters, among whom solecism is rife, and how few of this class were safe from error and delusion! — and the solecism of the solecizing is not to be made a proof against the Book, in the very expression of Ibn Qutayba.⁷⁷⁹

As for us, if we find a solecism in the reading of a reciter, we rise up against it, in defense of the soundness of the Qurʾān from crookedness — it being known that the Qurʾān was sent down upon the sound, most eloquent Arabic: “an Arabic Qurʾān, without any deviousness.”⁷⁸⁰ And the scholarly company are excused, since they reckoned themselves facing a fait accompli, and hence alleged of every reading that it is a followed sunna; but it escaped them that there is no proper basis for this blind devotion. The Qurʾānicity of the Qurʾān is not established by a reading transmitted from so-and-so or so-and-so; and we have already made clear that there is no isnād for the solitary instances of the readings connected right back to the Prophet (ṣ), nor have they any bearing at all on the question of “the tawātur of the Qurʾān.”

So, then, the setting of the rules in judgment over the readings is not a setting of them in judgment over the Qurʾān; rather it is a setting of them in judgment as a means for reaching the true reality of the Qurʾān. For every reading that conformed with the more eloquent in language and the more widespread in Arabic, and in which the other conditions were met, we regard as sound and receive as Qurʾān — by the disclosure furnished by this conformity. And the rules — which we regard as measures for knowing the Qurʾān — are those acknowledged in the estimation of all, upon which the scholars of language and letters have agreed, drawn from the authentic speech of the Arabs — a thing found among the grammarians of Baṣra in a form more abundant and more precise than what is found among the Kūfans; and hence a standing-in-opposition like that of al-Dānī the Maghribī in the face of the like of Sībawayh is exceedingly strange.

And we ask the scholarly company: on what ground did the imam Aḥmad disavow against Ḥamza his readings — were it not that he found them departing from the styles of authentic Arabic expression, in Ḥamza’s prolongations, the succession of his quiescences, and the like! And shall we receive the reading of him who read qul law shāʾa llāhu mā talawtuhu ʿalaykum wa-lā adraʾtukum bihi,⁷⁸¹ with the hamza — merely because it is the reading of some of the earlier reciters⁷⁸² — while it inverts the meaning of the verse, because it is derived from darā, meaning “to know,” not from daraʾa, meaning “to repel”? And his reading — also — wa-mā tanazzalat bihi l-shayāṭūna, which is pure error.⁷⁸³ And Ibn Muḥayṣin’s reading fa-lā tushmit biya l-aʿdāʾa,⁷⁸⁴ with fatḥa on the tāʾ of the imperfect and the accusative of al-aʿdāʾ — whereas it is really from ashmata llāhu l-ʿaduwwa, and one does not say shamata llāhu l-ʿaduwwa.⁷⁸⁵

And Ibn ʿĀmir’s reading kun fa-yakūna, with the accusative, in Sūrat al-Baqara, Āl ʿImrān, al-Naḥl, Maryam, Yā Sīn, and Ghāfir;⁷⁸⁶ and of the strange things is that the like of al-Kisāʾī followed him in al-Naḥl and Yā Sīn.⁷⁸⁷ And the verifiers have concurred that the accusative here is weak, just as the rest of the reciters agreed upon the nominative — because kun [“Be”] is not truly an imperative in its real nature, for it is not an address to something already existent; rather its meaning is: “and so He merely brings it into being, and it comes to be.”⁷⁸⁸

And thus there are weak readings — some of which have passed — from the Seven and others, that betray the weakness of the competence of their reciters, and which the verifying scholars, the critics, disavowed — whether in the domain of jurisprudence or in the field of lofty letters. So how can we assent to their Qurʾānicity and cast all the foundations and the rules against the wall?! For what the rules of scrutiny require is the looking into the origin of the reading: if it be from a firm support and from a soundly-founded knowledge, it is accepted and its Qurʾānicity acknowledged; but every reading that diverged from the foundations of sound scrutiny is weak, anomalous, and must be rejected outright — whether from the Seven or from others; and the speech of the imams of verification concerning that has passed.

As for the non-opposition by something stronger in proof — that is required because the reading is taken as a proof only when no stronger proof opposes it, according to the law of “equipollence and preponderance” in the science of the [legal] foundations. Thus the like of arjulakum as a reading with the genitive — even though some of the great reciters read by it — since it was opposed by the stronger proof, is rejected, just as the mass of the Muslims rejected it; and the mark of the first established text, upon which the established text of the codices was based, was the mark of the accusative. As for the stronger proof that renders the accusative preponderant over the genitive, it is the juristic consideration of full coverage — lengthwise — in the wiping of the feet, in view of the mention of the bound — both the beginning and the end — in the noble verse (from the tips of the toes to the two ankles).

The root masaḥa [“to wipe”] is transitive by itself to the direct object, and does not need, in effecting its transitivity, the addition of a governing particle before its object. But the addition of the bāʾ in this place of the verse was for a subtle point (nukta): namely, that had it not been added here, the annexation of the verb masaḥa to its object would have called — as a matter of course — for the full coverage by the wiping of its locus, just as in every verb used absolutely with respect to its object; as in fa-ghsilū wujūhakum [“so wash your faces”], which calls for the full coverage by the washing of the entire surface of the face, lengthwise and breadthwise, and as, had the washing of the hands not been restricted by His words ilā l-marāfiqi [“up to the elbows”], it would have called for the full coverage of the entire arm up to the shoulder.

Accordingly, had the bāʾ not been added, and had it merely been said wa-msaḥū ruʾūsakum, it would have called for the wiping of the entire head, like the face, letter for letter. So it was added to be an indication of the sufficiency of mere wiping in contact with the head: so that, were the performer of the ablution to place the tip of his finger upon his head and draw it along in a light drawing, the “contact of the wiping with the head” would thereby be realized; and mere compliance necessitates the discharge of the obligation — as is established in the science of the foundations — and there is no second compliance after the first.

This [is] in the case of the head. As for the case of the foot: since the mention of the bound (ḥadd) for the wiping came there, that was an indication of intending the full coverage of what is between the two bounds — the tips of the toes and the two ankles — lengthwise; and hence arjul is appended to the object of wa-msaḥū without the addition of the bāʾ — that is, in the grammatical place of the genitive, which is outwardly the accusative — and it is the accusative. Indeed, the accusative is not an apposition to the object of fa-ghsilū, as the one who holds the obligatory washing of the feet alleged, relying upon the reading of the accusative text in the verse; for that is an erroneous understanding and a crooked derivation, made after failing to observe that apposition with separation by a foreign term is rejected, or outweighed, in the language, and the Noble Qurʾān is not to be construed upon it.

As for the narrations that have come down from the imams of the People of the House (ʿa), by which the shaykh al-Ṭūsī (may God’s mercy be upon him) held fast⁷⁸⁹ as a proof for the preponderance of the genitive reading: the sound of them contains no indication of that, because they came in the wording “that the Qurʾān was sent down with the wiping”;⁷⁹⁰ and this fits together with the reading of the accusative text, as we have made clear, and there is no indication in it of the intending of the genitive reading! Indeed, a weak narration has come down — with no authoritativeness in its isnād, given the weak transmitters in it — stating that it is read with the genitive;⁷⁹¹ but it is not fit to serve as a support for interpreting the verse contrary to its true aspect! So ponder this. And this is among the instructive contributions of our most illustrious shaykh, the ʿallāma Muḥammad Riḍā al-Iṣfahānī (may his resting-place be sweet).

And there will presently be discussed the reading of Warsh — one of the two transmitters of Nāfiʿ — and Qālūn, and likewise Ibn Kathīr and Abū ʿAmr: wa-mā yukhādiʿūna illā anfusahum,⁷⁹² and it is a gross error, because a person does not try to deceive himself — though he may delude it; as is the case with the hypocrites, who try to deceive the believers, but “and evil schemes beset only their authors.”⁷⁹³ For the reading of ʿĀṣim and his two transmitters Shuʿba and Ḥafṣ, and the rest of the Kūfans, has proved sound — wa-mā yakhdaʿūna — in accordance with what is familiar to the Muslims, who inherited it from the age of the Mission.

And ʿĀṣim, Ḥamza, and al-Kisāʾī read bimā kānū yakdhibūna,⁷⁹⁴ with the lightening; and the rest read with the doubling.⁷⁹⁵ And the lightened reading is the more fitting to the context of the verse, because the hypocrite does not openly give the lie to the truth in the outward aspect of his state; rather he merely lies in his speech. And the Qurʾān has itself borne witness to that: “and Allah bears witness that the hypocrites are indeed liars.”⁷⁹⁶

And ʿĀṣim alone read wa-huwa lladhī yursilu l-riyāḥa bushran bayna yaday raḥmatihi,⁷⁹⁷ with the bāʾ, and likewise in the two Sūras of al-Furqān and al-Naml; and the rest read nushran, with the nūn.⁷⁹⁸ ʿĀṣim argued that the thing which spreads life — that is, which gives life to the earth after its death — is the water that descends from the sky, whereas the winds are bearers of glad tidings, as in Sūrat al-Rūm: “…of His signs is that He sends the winds as bearers of good news.”⁷⁹⁹ And so on, to others of the verses we shall not prolong the discourse by mentioning; for in what has been mentioned there is sufficiency, God willing.

The Chosen Reading

As for the reading that we choose — the one in which all the conditions of acceptance have come together — it is the reading of ʿĀṣim, in the narration of Ḥafṣ specifically; and that is because it is the reading upon which the masses of the Muslims were established, and which they received, hand to hand, from the first age down through the succession of the epochs. And there will presently be mentioned other merits that this reading in particular contained, and not the rest of the readings besides it. This reading has ever been the object of the special care of the scholars and the reciters throughout all the periods of history, and, behind them, the generality of the Muslims in all the far-flung Islamic regions.

This aside — but what is current among the jurists is the permissibility of reciting by any of the Seven, in the prayer and outside it — a thing that can be justified upon the various persuasions of the Sunnī jurists: either on account of their tawātur in their estimation, as some hold, or on account of the applicability of the ḥadīth of the seven aḥruf to them, as others alleged. But the matter remains problematic upon the foundations of our Imāmī jurists, who hold that there is only one Qurʾān, sent down from the One! So what is the aspect of their permitting the reciting by the Seven and others? Let us first mention their statements, then their evidences in this matter.

The shaykh Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭūsī said: the established custom, drawn from the doctrine of our associates, and the current teaching of their reports and narrations, is that the Qurʾān was sent down with a single ḥarf upon a single Prophet; yet they concurred upon the permissibility of reciting by what the reciters circulate, and that a person is given the choice to recite by whichever reading he wishes.⁸⁰⁰ And al-Shahīd al-Awwal said: reciting by the Seven and the Ten is permissible, but not by the anomalous readings; and some of the associates forbade reciting by the Ten.⁸⁰¹ And al-ʿAllāma said: it is obligatory that one recite by the mutawātir of the readings, namely the seven, and it is not permissible that one recite by the anomalous, nor by the Ten.⁸⁰²

And likewise others of our eminent scholars. And in agreement with them upon the permissibility of reciting by any one of the Seven was the author of al-Jawāhir — in a long statement invalidating the claim of the tawātur of the seven or the ten readings — who said: the utmost that can be conceded is the permissibility of acting by them; as for the determining of that to a specific reading, and the prohibition of going beyond it, that is a place of denial.⁸⁰³ And hence the author of al-ʿUrwa said: the more prudent course is to recite by any one of the seven readings, although the stronger view is its non-obligatoriness; rather, reciting according to the Arabic manner suffices, even if it be at variance with them in a structural vowel or in inflection.⁸⁰⁴ Our master al-Ḥakīm commented upon it by stipulating conformity with any one of the readings current in the age of the imams (ʿa); and it is a solid comment.

And likewise our master, the professor al-Khūʾī, said: the apparent ruling is the permissibility of contenting oneself with any reading familiar among the people, even if it be from something other than the Seven. And al-Sayyid al-Iṣfahānī — in al-Wasīla — agreed with the author of al-ʿUrwa, except that our master, the late professor, the imam al-Khumaynī, in al-Taḥrīr, added the point that the more prudent course is non-deviation from what is in the noble codices present in the hands of the Muslims;⁸⁰⁵ and this restriction, too, is solid. This is the summary of the statements of the associates, informing you of a certain precision in the matter of choice.

Let us now look into the evidences for this permitting of choice. It may be said: the ground of it is the belief in the tawātur of the readings, especially the Seven, as passed from al-Shahīd al-Thānī — a thing that does not fit together with the frailty of the case of the tawātur of the seven readings in the estimation of our Imāmī scholars, indeed of the rest of the verifiers among the scholars of Islam. And al-Shahīd, too, retracted it, and his statement was reinterpreted as intending the existence of the mutawātir among the readings in our hands now. But that too is a remote interpretation, since its consequence would be the obligation of precaution in reciting by all the variant aspects, in order to attain the known reality — as the ʿallāma Jār Allāh al-Zamakhsharī drew attention to it in his aforementioned statement: “and the one performing the prayer, his liability is not discharged from the prayer except — where he recites what falls under divergence — by reciting according to all the aspects.”

This is besides the objection that comes against this supposition, namely the impossibility of the mutawātir’s being confused with something other than it — as his grandson raised it against him, and the author of al-Miftāḥ also raised it.⁸⁰⁶ And what is well-known concerning the ground of this choice is what the shaykh pointed to in his aforementioned statement: the concluding of the consensus of the associates upon acceptance, and the concurrence of their narrations upon it. Al-Sayyid al-Jawād al-ʿĀmilī said: the evidence for the obligatoriness of restricting oneself to them is that the certainty of discharge is only attained thereby, on account of the Muslims’ agreement upon the permissibility of adopting them — save what is known to be rejected and anomalous — while the readings other than them are matters of dispute. And it is well known that they are the ones current among the people; our reports have expressly pronounced the command to that, and the consensuses of our associates have been concluded upon adopting it, as you have heard from al-Tibyān, and the like of it Majmaʿ al-bayān, and likewise al-Muntahā. So the permissibility of adopting readings other than them needs its own evidence; and had it not been for that, we would have said, as al-Zamakhsharī said: the liability of the one performing the prayer is not discharged except by his reciting the divergent parts according to all the aspects.⁸⁰⁷

This is the mainstay of the argument for the permissibility of adopting the well-known readings, and it is summarized in three points: first, the established practice (sīra) of the Muslims in adopting them; second, the consensus of the jurists upon the permissibility of that; and third, the mutual corroboration of the texts that have come down from the imams (ʿa) commanding the acting by what is with the people and well-known among the Muslims. And our master al-Ḥakīm critically examined these aspects, holding that what is firmly certain of the practice of the Muslims from the first age is the adopting of whatever reading proved sound in their estimation, and not of the Seven alone — especially given that the well-known Seven postdate the first age. As for the consensus, its support is the narrations, and they do not mean specifically these Seven, whose being-well-known postdates the time of al-Ṣādiq and al-Kāẓim (ʿa), who are the source of those texts. Indeed, their purport is the permissibility of acting by every reading that was well-known in the imams’ age, and no other; so it becomes problematic whether they encompass some of the seven readings that were not current in that age, or that arose later.⁸⁰⁸

And the discussion is solid, except that al-Ḥakīm’s construing the texts as intending the readings current among the reciters — readings whose supports were, for the most part, ijtihādī rationalizations and theoretical or merely preferential weightings — is exceedingly remote. And of the curiosities of the matter is that a group of the ḥadīth-oriented among the jurists construed those texts as pertaining to seeking public welfare (istiṣlāḥ) and going along with the generality. The mawlā Muḥsin al-Fayḍ said: if the divergence of the reading be of the kind that does not carry over into a divergence of meaning, then this is a matter made ample for us to recite by the well-known readings; otherwise, it is to be construed thus: that they (ʿa), since they were not able to bring the people to recite by the sound reading, permitted reciting by others — as their own words point to: “Recite as you were taught, for there will come to you one who will teach you.”

He said: and upon either of the two suppositions, we are in a state of latitude with respect to all of them. And it has become well-known among the jurists that there is an obligation of not departing from the seven or the ten well-known readings, on account of their tawātur and the anomaly of others. But the truth is that the mutawātir of the Qurʾān today is nothing but the common measure among all the readings together, and not their specific solitary instances; for what is firmly certain is nothing but that, since the mutawātir is not confused with anything else.⁸⁰⁹ And the speech of this last one is self-contradictory, or else adds to the obscurity of the matter; for if the mutawātir of the readings be the places upon which the reciters agreed, then the places over which they differed — what is the obligation (taklīf) in them? Is the charged person given the choice in them, or is precaution obligatory upon him? Furthermore, the consequence of his speech is that the places over which they differed are not part of the mutawātir Qurʾān! And if his intent be that the mutawātir is present within these Seven but without determination, then this contradicts his own statement that the mutawātir is not confused with anything else! And hence his speech here is exceedingly obscure.

And the ḥadīth-scholar al-Baḥrānī agreed with him upon this construal, and said: what appears from the reports is the obligatoriness of reciting by these famous readings — not from the standpoint of what they mentioned of their being established and mutawātir from him (ṣ), but rather from the standpoint of seeking welfare (istiṣlāḥ) and dissimulation (taqiyya).⁸¹⁰ I say: what is then incumbent is the looking into the texts that are the mainstay of the whole chapter — and we shall mention them among the ample texts to come — and they came in two expressions: first, the command to recite according to what the people recite; and second, the command to recite by it as they were taught it.

And this means nothing but the command to recite according to what the mass of the Muslims circulated, because they — not the reciters specifically — are the ones meant by “the people,” for there is no warranting aspect for this specification; and especially after you have come to know that the Qurʾān is one thing and the readings another, the first taking its course along the channel of tawātur, while the second are the theoretical ijtihāds. So what is meant by “the reading of the people” must be the mutawātir reading preserved among the generality of the Muslims, which they inherited hand to hand, generation after generation. And by that, too, it becomes clear that what is intended by “being taught” is the mass reception — whether in the houses at the hands of the fathers and mothers, or in the Qurʾān-schools (katātīb) at the hands of the shaykhs and teachers, or in the rest of the general milieus in which the Qurʾān is circulated upon the public stage; and there will presently come further clarification of that.

As for what this reading is — the one that the generality circulated and the Muslims inherited, community after community — there will come the answer that it is the reading conforming with the established present text, letter for letter; and it is the reading by which ʿĀṣim ibn Abī al-Najūd read, in the narration of Ḥafṣ ibn Sulaymān. And the community concurred upon it, on account of merits they found in his reading, to which we have alluded above and the detail of which will reach you, God willing. And there will also come to you⁸¹¹ a model comparison between the reading of ʿĀṣim in the narration of Ḥafṣ and the rest of the readings, so as to be a decisive proof of the superiority of this reading, and of its soundness in particular, and that it is a stronger proof than any other, absolutely.

Résumé of the Inquiry

And what emerges from our preceding inquiries concerning the criterion for choosing the sound reading is the following: first, the consulting of the established text of the codex — transmitted mutawātir, one later generation from an earlier — in the substance of the word, its form, and its particular placement; second, that when two or more aspects are possible, the point of reference is the reading of the generality of the Muslims, community from community, a reading preserved in the breasts and in the generality of the codices, ancient and recent; third, that among the paths to knowing the reading of the generality is the concurrence of the well-known reciters, or the agreement of their preponderant majority; fourth, that if the two possibilities be evenly matched, or the two readings be equal, then the preponderance is with the reading most in accord with Arabic, the more eloquent, and the more widespread in language; and fifth, that if a decisive proof stand in favor of following a particular reading, then it is the more eloquent and the stronger in isnād, inevitably.

This is the cream of the criterion for choosing the reading and distinguishing the accepted from the rejected. And it has thereby become clear that the readings have — in our view — no standing in themselves, save that they are paths to knowing the Qurʾān that is mutawātir among the generality of the Muslims, and that only when the conditions of acceptance are met in them. And hence the chosen reading, in our view, is the reading of ʿĀṣim in the narration of Ḥafṣ, because it is the reading well-known among the Muslims and which the scholars have received with acceptance.

Ample Texts

There have come down from the imams of the People of the House (ʿa) ample texts⁸¹² concerning the Noble Qurʾān that point to the most important topics of our foregoing inquiries, and that betray a depth of insight and a precision of verification that the imams (ʿa) observed concerning this abiding Book, and the extent of their concern for guarding its text far from corruption and distorting interpretation:

1. Muḥammad ibn al-Warrāq said: I presented to Abū ʿAbd Allāh [al-Ṣādiq] (ʿa) a volume in which was a Qurʾān, sealed and marked off in tens with gold, and at its end a sūra written in gold; so I showed it to him, and he found no fault in it except the writing of the Qurʾān in gold, and said: “It does not please me that the Qurʾān be written in anything except black, as it was written the first time.” Look at this precision and intense solicitude for the soundness of the Qurʾān, that it might remain preserved as it was written the first time — even in the color of the script — lest it be confused with anything else, of the later additions and embellishments.

2. And the imam Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī al-Bāqir (ʿa) said: “The Qurʾān is one, sent down from One; but the divergence comes from the side of the transmitters.” That is: a single reading; for the Qurʾān was sent down with a single text, and the divergence is only in the transmission of that text according to the ijtihāds of the reciters. And the following ḥadīth has made it clear: 3. And the imam Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq (ʿa) said: “Rather, it was sent down upon a single ḥarf, from the One.” He (ʿa) meant the negation of the current readings that the people used to allege mutawātir from the Prophet (ṣ), so he denied that, inasmuch as the Qurʾān was sent down with a single text; as for the divergence of the dialects — according to which we interpreted the seven aḥruf — the imam (ʿa) does not negate it, as has come in other narrations.⁸¹³

4. Sālim ibn Salama said: a man recited to Abū ʿAbd Allāh (ʿa) — while I was listening — certain letters of the Qurʾān in a manner not according to what the people recite; so Abū ʿAbd Allāh (ʿa) said: “Desist from this reading; recite as the people recite…” Perhaps the man was reciting according to the reading of the reciters in various aspects, so the imam (ʿa) rebuked him — inasmuch as that leads to a tampering with the text of the Noble Qurʾān — and commanded him to keep to the well-known reading that the people recite, that is, the generality of the Muslims. For the sound reading, commanded in the sacred Law, is the one that the community inherited from the community, from the Messenger of God (ṣ), from Gabriel (ʿa), from God — mighty and majestic. And no weight attaches to the specific reciters, who made a craft of the art of the reading as an innovated craft — save that reading which conforms with the reading of the generality.

5. Sufyān ibn al-Simṭ said: I asked Abū ʿAbd Allāh (ʿa) about the sending-down of the Qurʾān. He said: “Recite as you were taught.” He had asked about the original text upon which the Qurʾān was sent down the first time, since he had found the reciters divergent concerning it; so the imam (ʿa) answered him that it is that which the Muslims keep faith with today; and his words “Recite as you were taught” mean: it is incumbent upon you — in an address to the generality of the Muslims — that you recite the Qurʾān as you inherited it, one later generation from an earlier, from the Messenger of God (ṣ). And concerning that, Aḥmad related in the Musnad, al-Ṭabarī in the Tafsīr, and al-Ḥākim in the Mustadrak — and he declared it sound and al-Dhahabī agreed with him — with the isnād going back to the Commander of the Faithful (ʿa), who said: “Indeed, the Messenger of God (ṣ) commands you to recite the Qurʾān as you were taught.”⁸¹⁴

6. ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥakam said: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Farqad and al-Muʿallā ibn Khunays related to me, and said: we were with Abū ʿAbd Allāh (ʿa), and with us was Rabīʿa al-Raʾy, and we mentioned the merit of the Qurʾān; so Abū ʿAbd Allāh (ʿa) said: if Ibn Masʿūd does not recite according to our reading, then he is astray. Rabīʿa said: astray? He (ʿa) said: yes, astray. Then Abū ʿAbd Allāh (ʿa) said: as for us, we recite according to the reading of Ubayy. Perhaps they had discussed something of Ibn Masʿūd’s un-familiar readings, so the imam (ʿa) alerted them that they are not permissible, and that the sound reading is the reading of the generality of the Muslims; and whoever departs from the general familiar reading is astray, because he has erred from the way of the Muslims, which they inherited, one great predecessor from another, from their mighty Prophet. So if Ibn Masʿūd was reciting at variance with the way of the Muslims — on the supposition of the soundness of the ascription — then he is astray.

For the middle path is the one upon which the body of the Muslims walked, and the one who deviates from the middle highway is astray, inevitably, whoever he be. As for his words “as for us, we recite according to the reading of Ubayy” — that is, Ubayy ibn Kaʿb — it is an allusion to the event of the unifying of the codices in the age of ʿUthmān, in which the one dictating was Ubayy, and the assembled company would write according to his dictation, and would refer back to him in determining the original text when there was divergence.⁸¹⁵ So the extant codex — the one upon which the generality of the Muslims are established — is from the dictation of Ubayy; and thus the reading according to the reading of Ubayy is a metonymy for adherence to what the generality of the Muslims are established upon now.

7. al-Ṣadūq related, from the imam Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq, from his forefathers (ʿa), who said: the Messenger of God (ṣ) said: “Learn the Qurʾān in its Arabic form, and beware of the [glottal] stress in it” — meaning the hamza. The imam al-Ṣādiq (ʿa) said: the hamza is intrusive in the Qurʾān, except the original hamza — such as His words allā yasjudū lillāhi lladhī yukhriju l-khabʾa,⁸¹⁶ and His words lakum fīhā difʾun,⁸¹⁷ and His words fa-ddāraʾtum.⁸¹⁸ It has come in the copies as al-nabz, with the zāy, and it is an error here; rather it is al-nabr, with the rāʾ, as passed from the Nihāya of Ibn al-Athīr; and it was mentioned that al-Kisāʾī used to apply the stress to the Qurʾān.⁸¹⁹ And the command to recite the Qurʾān in a pure Arabic reading is frequent in the ḥadīths of the imams of the People of the House (ʿa),⁸²⁰ out of their solicitude for safeguarding the authentic language of the Qurʾān — which is the eloquent language of the Arabs and their most widespread dialect — so that no solecism might creep into it, nor any change befall it.

The Classes of the Reciters

The Notable Reciters throughout Three Centuries

The foregoing chapter was a fertile display, teeming with the kinds of the readings, which we displayed for the purpose of verifying their value with respect to the tawātur of the original Qurʾānic text. And the inquiry brought forth the result that the readings have — in themselves — no standing, save their disclosing of the original text, and that only when the conditions of acceptance are met in them. And we shall inquire into this aspect — in a coming chapter — when we set forth our stance concerning the reciters and the readings.

And here — in this chapter — we shall try to acquaint ourselves with something of the biographies of the great imams of the reciters, from the first age down to the end of the third century — the period in which their acquaintance with the first established text and their proximity in time to the original text obtained; and hence our benefit from their choices in the readings is great. And this benefit vanishes when we finish with this century, and look out — at the dawn of the fourth century — upon the features of the overwhelming political pressure,⁸²¹ in which came the closing of the doors of choice in the readings,⁸²² its case being like the case of ijtihād in the legal rulings, whose door was shut in that same century, and the jurists — apart from the Imāmī jurists — became pure imitators,⁸²³ confining themselves, in the giving of fatwās from that age on, to what the four imams alone had given as fatwā; and it is a supreme catastrophe that halted the pulse of the Muslims’ life, which had before been advancing forward with wide strides. And of the like was the halting of the Muʿtazilite movement and of the setting of the intellect in judgment in life.⁸²⁴

And another benefit that we aim at behind this presentation is the standing upon the extent of the effect of personal ijtihād in the choices of the reciters. For one of them would study as a pupil under his shaykh in order to acquaint himself with the foundations of the reading, and likewise under another and yet another; but, after information about the foundations of the craft had gathered with him, he would become independent in choosing, and rely, in his readings, upon his own ijtihād. Abū ʿUbayd said — in the Book of the Readings —: al-Kisāʾī used to select among the readings, so he took some of the reading of Ḥamza and left some. And Abū ʿAmr al-Dānī said: al-Kisāʾī recited under Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Laylā, and chose for himself a reading… and so on.⁸²⁵

And this is a natural thing: that the choice of the pupil often differs from that of his shaykh, since there is a divergence of views and of tastes; otherwise, the reading would be merely traditional, circulated shaykh from shaykh without divergence, unto eternity. And thus we find the divergence of some of the reciters — though they be in a single class — from others; or the refutation by one of them against his companion, though the two recited under a single shaykh: all that is a proof of the extent of the role of ijtihād in the choosing of the readings. Of that is what Ibn Mujāhid mentioned, who said: Qunbul said to me, who said: al-Qawwās said to me — in the year two hundred and thirty-seven —: meet this man (meaning al-Bazzī),⁸²⁶ and say to him: this reading of the letter is not part of our reading — meaning wa-mā huwa bi-mayyitin, lightened — for one only lightens into mayt the word for the one who has already died; but as for the one who has not died, it is with the doubling. He said: so I met al-Bazzī and informed him, and he said: I have already retracted it.⁸²⁷

And it is fitting that that anecdote be made — also — a proof against the one who holds the tawātur of the readings,⁸²⁸ as our master, the professor, alerted to it previously.⁸²⁹ And let us now set forth here some of the biographies of the reciters, the well-known imams possessed of specialization in the foundations of the reading; as for those to whom a reading is merely ascribed occasionally, or whose name is merely mentioned in the chains of a reciter, there is not much benefit, in acquainting ourselves with their affair, as regards the aim of the inquiry. And here presented to you are some of the great imams of the reciters, according to the classes:

The First Class

The great ones of the Companions — in his (ṣ) time — used to keep faith with the Qurʾān as it was sent down in their midst, receiving it from the Messenger of God (ṣ) upon its authenticity, fresh and pristine. And the Prophet (ṣ) would sometimes send individuals of them to the tribes and the outlying regions of the lands, to call the people to Islam, recite to them some verses of the Wise Remembrance, and teach them the Qurʾān. Such was the case of the excellent Companions, especially the illustrious among them, may God be pleased with them. But there were specially distinguished from among them a band who were themselves the references for the rest in the spreading of the Qurʾān and its teaching; and they were five: the first of them, and their head, was ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (ʿa); then ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd, and Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, and Abū al-Dardāʾ; and the fifth of them was Zayd ibn Thābit, and he was the youngest of them.

And the historians mention others besides these — such as al-Miqdād ibn al-Aswad, and Abū Dharr Jundab ibn Junāda, and Muʿādh ibn Jabal, and Sālim the client of Abū Ḥudhayfa, and their likes; but they were more fitted for the collecting of the Qurʾān — in the breasts or in the written sheets — than distinguished by any specialist mark of undertaking the teaching of its recitation to the people.

1. As for ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (ʿa): he was the head, and the most knowledgeable of all the Companions in the affairs of the Qurʾān in its various aspects — recitation, exegesis, and inner interpretation. The Companions, one and all, would refer back to him, while he would refer back to none of them at all. And there has already passed the ḥadīth of Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd al-Umawī, from al-Aʿmash, from ʿĀṣim, from Zirr ibn Ḥubaysh, who said: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd said: we disputed with one another about a sūra of the Qurʾān, and we said it is thirty-five or thirty-six verses; so we set off to the Messenger of God (ṣ) and found ʿAlī (ʿa) conversing privately with him. We said: we have differed concerning the reading; and the face of the Messenger of God (ṣ) reddened, and he said: those who were before you perished only by their differing among themselves. Then he whispered something to ʿAlī (ʿa), and ʿAlī (ʿa) said to us: the Messenger of God (ṣ) commands you to recite as you were taught.⁸³⁰

And it is also related, from Zayd ibn Arqam, who said: a man came to the Messenger of God (ṣ) and said: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd taught me a sūra, and Zayd taught it to me, and Ubayy ibn Kaʿb taught it to me — and their readings differed; so by the reading of which of them shall I take? The Messenger of God (ṣ) fell silent, and ʿAlī was at his side; and ʿAlī said: let every person recite as he was taught; each is good and comely.⁸³¹ Al-Zarqānī said — in connection with the imam’s (ʿa) special specialization in the affairs of tafsīr, beyond the rest of the caliphs and the Companions —: “his firm bond with the Messenger of God (ṣ) had a great effect upon the illumination of his soul, the abundance of his material, and the breadth of his knowledge — let alone what God bestowed upon him of a pure innate nature, a rare acumen, and a gifted intellect, so much that the proverb was struck by reference to him in the solving of problems, and it was said: ‘a problem, and no Abū Ḥasan for it!’”⁸³²

And Maʿmar related, from Wahb ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Abī al-Ṭufayl, who said: I witnessed ʿAlī (ʿa) delivering a sermon, saying: “Ask me — for, by God, you will not ask me about anything but that I shall inform you; and ask me about the Book of God, for, by God, there is no verse but that I know whether it came down by night or by day, whether in level plain or in mountain.” And from him (ʿa), who said: “By God, no verse came down but that I already knew concerning what it came down, and where it came down; indeed, my Lord bestowed for me an understanding heart, and a questioning tongue.”

And from Ibn Masʿūd, who said: “Indeed the Qurʾān was sent down upon seven aḥruf, there being not one ḥarf of them but that it has an outer aspect and an inner aspect; and indeed ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib has, with him, both the outer and the inner of it.”⁸³³ I say: no wonder — for there was represented, in his singular personality, the personality of the greatest Messenger; so he was as the very self of the Messenger of God (ṣ), by whom he challenged the Christians of Najrān: “our souls and your souls”⁸³⁴ — meaning ʿAlī (ʿa). For the greatest Messenger (ṣ) reared him from his childhood as one ought, and reared him well, and disciplined him in the noble traits of the character of the prophets, and perfected his disciplining, until he made him his equal and his counterpart, as two matched halves; and so he was a brother to him and his minister in his life, and his legatee and his successor after his death.

He (ʿa) said: “And I used to follow him as closely as the weaned camel follows the track of its mother; every day he would raise up for me a standard of his character, and command me to take him as my exemplar. And he used, every year, to retreat at Ḥirāʾ, and I alone would see him, no other seeing him; and no single house was gathered in Islam in that day except that of the Messenger of God (ṣ), and Khadīja, with me the third of them; I would see the light of the Revelation and the Message, and smell the scent of prophethood. And I heard the moan of Satan when the Revelation came down upon him (ṣ). I said: O Messenger of God, what is this moan? He said: this is Satan, who has despaired of being worshipped. Indeed you hear what I hear, and see what I see, except that you are not a prophet; but you are a minister, and you are truly upon good.”⁸³⁵

And perhaps you — O reader — would find it strange were I to say to you that the reading of our codex today is the reading of ʿAlī (ʿa)! He (ʿa) was ever solicitous for the safeguarding of the original text of the Qurʾān; and there has passed the discourse on the tawātur of the present text, which the Muslims keep faith with generation after generation with all fidelity and sincerity, an abiding Qurʾānic miracle. And the scholarly company found that the present text conforms fully with the reading of Ḥafṣ, and hence they ascribed it to him — an inverted ascription, the detail of which will come. But the thing that we want to establish here is that this text conforms entirely with the reading of Ḥafṣ; and if we join that to what the biographers and the books of the readings say — “the reading that Ḥafṣ ibn Sulaymān took, from ʿĀṣim ibn Abī al-Najūd, rises in its chain to ʿAlī (ʿa)”⁸³⁶ — we may conclude that our reading today is the reading of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (ʿa), established from the first age, which the community keeps faith with, community from community, and abiding with perpetuity.

2. ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd: he was the first Companion to recite the Qurʾān aloud at Mecca and make Quraysh hear it, and he was persecuted, for God’s sake, on account of that. And when he became a Muslim, the Messenger of God (ṣ) took him to himself, so he used to serve him in most of his affairs, and would enter upon him in the house without any veil, so much that some of them supposed that he was of the household of the Messenger of God (ṣ). And he made the two hijras, and prayed toward the two qiblas, and was present at all the battle-scenes with the Messenger of God (ṣ); and he was the most retentive of the Companions, after ʿAlī (ʿa), of the Book of God. And the Messenger of God (ṣ) would love to listen to his recitation, and would say: whoever it pleases to recite the Qurʾān fresh and moist, as it was sent down, let him recite according to the reading of Ibn Umm ʿAbd — meaning Ibn Masʿūd.

Ibn Masʿūd was more inclined toward ʿAlī (ʿa) than toward others. And al-Ṣadūq related that he was one of the twelve who disavowed against Abū Bakr his precedence over ʿAlī (ʿa);⁸³⁷ and he is the one who related, from the Prophet (ṣ), that the imams are twelve. And he repented, at the end, of his alliance with those on the side of the wrongers of the right of the imam, the Commander of the Faithful (ʿa) — according to what al-Sayyid ibn Ṭāwūs related in al-Ṭarāʾif.⁸³⁸ And many attestations indicate his latent devotion to ʿAlī (ʿa).⁸³⁹ He died in the year 33, in consequence of a blow that ʿUthmān struck him, so his death resulted from it (may God’s mercy be upon him).

3. Ubayy ibn Kaʿb: he was the first who wrote for the Messenger of God (ṣ) upon his arrival at Medina; and the Prophet, when Ubayy was not present, would call Zayd to write for him. He was styled “the master of the reciters” (sayyid al-qurrāʾ); and the Messenger of God (ṣ) said: “and the most learned in reciting of them is Ubayy ibn Kaʿb.” And he undertook the dictation of the Qurʾān — in the age of ʿUthmān — when the company were unable to carry out the serious effort of the matter in the event of the unifying of the codices. And Ubayy was also among those who knew the right of the imam, the Commander of the Faithful, and his precedence in the matter of the succession; the transmitters have mentioned his honorable stance after the death of the Messenger of God (ṣ): that he rose up among the twelve who rose against Abū Bakr, according to the narration of al-Iḥtijāj and others.

And Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd and others mentioned Ubayy among those who held back from the oath of allegiance to Abū Bakr. And Ubayy — in the latter days of his life — had firmly resolved to proclaim the truth aloud, and to say concerning ʿUthmān what he would say; but God took him in death a day before his appointed time — and perhaps some sinful hand worked at his destruction.⁸⁴⁰ He died (may God’s mercy be upon him) in the year 30, according to the soundest of the statements.

4. Abū al-Dardāʾ, ʿUwaymir ibn Zayd al-Khazrajī: he was one of the reciters in the time of the Prophet (ṣ); but he only took the chief seat for teaching-recitation, as a specialist, after his (ṣ) death, when he assumed the judgeship of Damascus in the caliphate of ʿUthmān. He used to teach whole companies of pupils, each company containing ten reciters, with each company headed by an overseer-reciter. Abū al-Dardāʾ said: I made a count of those who recited before me, and I numbered them a thousand six hundred and odd; and for every ten of them there was a reciter; and Abū al-Dardāʾ used to superintend over them himself. And he bore in himself a great devotion toward the imam, the Commander of the Faithful (ʿa), as has come in the Tadhkira of Sibṭ ibn al-Jawzī, reporting from al-Tirmidhī: Abū al-Dardāʾ used to say: we — O company of the Anṣār — used to recognize the hypocrites only by their hatred of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (ʿa).⁸⁴¹ He died in the year 32.

5. Zayd ibn Thābit: he was quick of understanding, eloquent; he learned Hebrew and used to write in it for the Messenger of God (ṣ), and would sometimes take up the teaching-recitation in his (ṣ) time; and he undertook the collecting of the Qurʾān by the command of Abū Bakr. Then he headed the committee of the unifying of the codices in the age of ʿUthmān, but he fell short in it at the end, so they sought the aid of Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, according to what has passed in the first part. Zayd took, on the day of the Saqīfa, the stance of the vehement defender of Quraysh, and hence he was a place of trust for Abū Bakr; ʿUmar used to give him precedence in judgment and the giving of fatwās; and ʿUthmān put him in charge of the treasury and loved him with an intense love. The historians described him as having been an ʿUthmānī, and hence he did not take part in any of the battle-stances of the Commander of the Faithful (ʿa). He died in the days of Muʿāwiya, in the year 54 or 55, and Marwān ibn al-Ḥakam prayed over him.

These are the people of this First Class, of reciters who took up the teaching-recitation to the people during the life of the Messenger (ṣ), and upon whom the chains of the readings came to turn thereafter. As for those besides them, of those who collected the Qurʾān in his (ṣ) time or after his death — such as Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī, Muʿādh ibn Jabal, Sālim the client of Abū Ḥudhayfa, and their likes — there is no great standing for them in the affair of the readings. Al-Dhahabī said: since their readings did not come to connect with us in transmission, nor did the chains of the reciters’ readings come to terminate at them thereafter. And hence we fold up the discourse concerning them, our aim having been brevity and restriction to the great, well-known imams in this matter. And here presented to you are the remaining classes:

The Second Class

And they are those who reached the life of the Prophet (ṣ), except that they took the Qurʾān from his early Companions. Among them: 1. ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbbās: the great scholar (ḥibr) of the community, and the most knowledgeable of the people concerning the Book of God. The Prophet (ṣ) prayed for him: “O God, give him understanding in the religion, and teach him interpretation”; and in another narration: “O God, teach him the Book and the wisdom.” And he was specially attached to the Commander of the Faithful (ʿa), drinking from the pure spring of his knowledge throughout his days; and the generality of his knowledge of the Qurʾān was taken from ʿAlī (ʿa), as he himself declared. And he was a master of belles-lettres and the poems of the Arabs, with a rapid memory: he used to memorize the sermons of ʿAlī (ʿa) at his first hearing of them. And he has honorable stances with the adversaries of the Commander of the Faithful, which history has recorded among the earliest of the great Islamic affairs. He died in the year 68.

2. Abū al-Aswad Ẓālim ibn ʿAmr al-Duʾalī: the associate of the Commander of the Faithful (ʿa) and one of his intimates, and the first who laid down the science of grammar — for he took its foundations from his master and patron ʿAlī (ʿa); and the first who added the diacritical points to the codex in the days of al-Ḥajjāj ibn Yūsuf, in a story that has passed. Al-Jāḥiẓ said: Abū al-Aswad was one to be counted among all the classes of the people, foremost in each of them: he was reckoned of the Successors, and among the poets, the jurists, the ḥadīth-scholars, the nobles, the horsemen, the emirs, the grammarians, those ready of reply, and the Shīʿa… and so on. He died in the year 69, being eighty-five years of age. Ibn Ḥajar said: and upon this reckoning, he would have lived more than twenty years during the prophetic days.

3. ʿAlqama ibn Qays al-Nakhaʿī al-Kūfī: he was specially attached to Ibn Masʿūd, and one of the trusted associates of the Commander of the Faithful (ʿa); he was present at the Battle of Ṣiffīn, and one of his legs was injured in it. And he was the most knowledgeable of the people concerning the reading of Ibn Masʿūd, and the most intimate of his associates; Ibn Masʿūd said concerning him: I know nothing but that ʿAlqama knows it. And he was one of the most beautiful of the people in voice with the Qurʾān. Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī relates to us, from ʿAlqama, who said: I was a man to whom God had given beauty of voice with the Qurʾān, so Ibn Masʿūd would send for me, and I would recite to him; and when I finished, he would say: give us more — may my father and mother be your ransom — for I heard the Messenger of God (ṣ) say: beauty of voice is the adornment of the Qurʾān. And he used to recite the Qurʾān in a single night. Abū Isḥāq said, from Murra al-Hamdānī: ʿAlqama was one of the divinely learned; and many of the Companions of the Messenger of God (ṣ) used to ask ʿAlqama and seek his fatwās. And al-Faḍl ibn Shādhān said: one of the great Successors, and their chiefs, and their ascetics, was ʿAlqama. He died in the year 62.

4. ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Sāʾib al-Makhzūmī: he and his father had the companionship of the Prophet. He was the reciter of Mecca, and the people of Mecca took the reading from him; Mujāhid and others recited under him. Ibn Ḥajar said: he is the one who guided Ibn ʿAbbās. And from Abū Mulayka, who said: I saw Ibn ʿAbbās, when they had finished the burial of ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Sāʾib, stand at his grave and pray for him and then depart; and this indicates the goodness of his standing with the People of the House (ʿa). Al-Dhahabī said: he died around the year 70, in the emirate of Ibn al-Zubayr! Ibn Ḥajar said: the ḥadīth of Abū Mulayka indicates that he died some time before Ibn al-Zubayr, because Ibn ʿAbbās died five years before Ibn al-Zubayr.

5. al-Aswad ibn Yazīd al-Nakhaʿī al-Kūfī: one of the great associates of Ibn Masʿūd, and he was older than ʿAlqama by some years. He used to complete the recitation of the Qurʾān every six days, and in Ramaḍān every two nights, while ʿAlqama would complete it in five. He used to fast until his body turned green, and he made eighty ḥajjs and ʿumras — and hence he was counted among the eight ascetics; the shaykh Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭūsī counted him, in his Rijāl, among the associates of ʿAlī (ʿa). He died in the year 75.

6. Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥabīb al-Sulamī: the chief reciter of Kūfa; he was born in the life of the Messenger (ṣ), took the reading from Ibn Masʿūd, and recited the Qurʾān in review before ʿAlī (ʿa), according to what al-Dhahabī mentioned. There took the reading from him ʿĀṣim ibn Abī al-Najūd, Yaḥyā ibn Wathāb, ʿAṭāʾ ibn al-Sāʾib, al-Shaʿbī, and a great many. He used to teach the recitation to the people in the mosque of Kūfa for forty years, from the caliphate of ʿUthmān until he died in the year 74, in the emirate of Bishr over Iraq — and it is also said: at the beginning of the governorship of al-Ḥajjāj.

7. ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAyyāsh ibn Abī Rabīʿa al-Makhzūmī: he was born in Abyssinia during the first hijra. He recited under Ubayy ibn Kaʿb and under his father ʿAyyāsh; and there recited under him his client Abū Jaʿfar Yazīd ibn al-Qaʿqāʿ, Yazīd ibn Rūmān, Shayba, Muslim ibn Jundab, and others. He died in the year 64. 8. Masrūq ibn al-Ajdaʿ al-Hamdānī: he came from the Yemen after the death of the Prophet (ṣ); a Kūfan, a Successor, one of the associates of Ibn Masʿūd; one of those who both recited and gave fatwās, and he was more knowledgeable in fatwās than Shurayḥ the judge. He was the nephew of ʿAmr ibn Maʿdī Karib; he was present, with ʿAlī, at the war of the Khārijites; he died in the year 62.

9. Zirr ibn Ḥubaysh al-Asadī: he was surnamed Abū Maryam — and it is also said: Abū Muṭarrif. He lived in the age of Ignorance but did not see the Prophet (ṣ). And he was one of the great Successors, and one of the trusted associates of the Commander of the Faithful (ʿa); he was excellent, knowledgeable in the Qurʾān. He took the reading from ʿAlī (ʿa) and Ibn Masʿūd; and there took from him al-Shaʿbī, Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī, and ʿĀṣim. And he was one of the most correct in Arabic of the people, so much that Ibn Masʿūd used to consult him concerning points of Arabic. He died in the year 83, at an age that reached 127 years.

10. Abū al-ʿĀliya, Rufayʿ ibn Mihrān al-Riyāḥī: he became a Muslim two years after the death of the Prophet (ṣ), and became one of the great Successors and an imam in the science of the Qurʾān, the exegesis, and religious knowledge. He took the reading from ʿAlī (ʿa), Ibn Masʿūd, Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, Ibn ʿAbbās, and a group of others. Ibn ʿAbbās — even while he was governor over Baṣra — used to come to him, and would seat him upon his own couch and show him honor. He died in the year 93.

11. ʿUbayd ibn Fuḍayla al-Khuzāʿī al-Kūfī, the reciter: he recited the Qurʾān under Ibn Masʿūd and ʿAlqama; and there recited under him Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī, Ḥumrān ibn Aʿyan, and Yaḥyā ibn Wathāb. He was the chief reciter of the people of Kūfa in his time; ʿĀṣim said: he was, by God, a true reciter of the Qurʾān; Ibn Saʿd mentioned him in the First Class of the people of Kūfa. He died in the year 74. 12. ʿAmr ibn Shuraḥbīl al-Hamdānī, Abū Maysara al-Kūfī: one of the six intimates of the associates of Ibn Masʿūd, who both recited the Qurʾān and from whose opinion the people would derive their own. And he was one of the great worshippers: his knee was callused like the knee of a camel, from the abundance of his prayer; and he was a head in the reading. He died in the year 63.

The Third Class

And they are those who did not reach the life of the Prophet (ṣ), and who took the Qurʾān from the early Companions, or from the Successors of the class before them; and they too are Successors, but in a second degree. And here presented to you are some of their notables: 1. Saʿīd ibn Jubayr: the imam, the devout worshipper, al-Asadī, Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Wālibī al-Kūfī. He settled at Mecca; he recited under Ibn ʿAbbās and was specially intimate with him. He was one of the chiefs of the Successors, and of the most excellent of them in knowledge, truthfulness, and worship; it used to be said of him: “the connoisseur of the scholars” (jihbidh al-ʿulamāʾ); and he used to recite the whole Qurʾān in two rakʿas. It was said: there is not upon the face of the earth anyone but that he stands in need of his knowledge. He was one of the five specially attached to the imam Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn, ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn al-Sajjād (ʿa); and from the imam al-Ṣādiq (ʿa): that Saʿīd ibn Jubayr used to follow ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn in prayer, and the imam used to praise him; and al-Ḥajjāj’s killing of him was only on account of this matter.

And when he was brought in before al-Ḥajjāj, al-Ḥajjāj said to him: you are Shaqī [“the wretched”] ibn Kusayr. He said: my mother was more knowledgeable about me; she named me Saʿīd ibn Jubayr. Al-Ḥajjāj said to him: what do you say concerning Abū Bakr and ʿUmar — are the two of them in the Garden or in the Fire? He said: had I entered the two of them, I would have known who is in them. He said: what is your statement concerning the caliphs? He said: I am not a warden over them. He said: which of them is dearer to you? He said: the most pleasing of them to his Creator. He said: and which of them is most pleasing to the Creator? He said: the knowledge of that is with the One who knows their secret and their private counsel. Al-Ḥajjāj said: you refuse to give me a straight answer! He said: nay, rather I did not wish to lie to you.

And the historians described him with uprightness — that is, as being upon the madhhab of the People of the House (ʿa). Al-Ḥajjāj killed him in cold blood, as a bound captive, in the year 95; and he was the last person al-Ḥajjāj killed, for al-Ḥajjāj did not live after him except forty days — and it is also said six months — and he became deranged in consequence of this hideous killing, and would say: what is there between me and Saʿīd ibn Jubayr! — until he perished in the most evil death and joined those he served in a wretched abode.

2. Naṣr ibn ʿĀṣim al-Laythī al-Baṣrī: he was the shaykh of teaching-recitation in Baṣra; most of the reciters of the Fourth Class took the reading from him, and their names will come. He studied as a pupil under Abū al-Aswad al-Duʾalī, the associate of the Commander of the Faithful (ʿa), and was specially intimate with him; and he — and his companion Yaḥyā ibn Yaʿmar — were the first who added the diacritical points to the codex, and marked its fifths and its tenths. He died in the year 100. 3. Mujāhid ibn Jabr al-Makkī, Abū al-Ḥajjāj al-Makhzūmī, the reciter: Mujāhid said: I recited the Qurʾān in review before Ibn ʿAbbās three times, stopping at every verse to ask him concerning what it came down about and how it was. And his role in exegesis was greater than his role in the reading; but with all that, a great many recited under him — among them ʿAbd Allāh ibn Kathīr — as has come in the text of Ibn Ḥajar. He died around the year 102.

4. Yaḥyā ibn Wathāb al-Asadī: the foremost reciter of the people of Kūfa; one of the great notables, according to the expression of al-Dhahabī. Al-Aʿmash said: Yaḥyā was the most expert reciter of the Arabs, and the most beautiful of them in reading; he said: and sometimes I would long to kiss his head; and when he recited, no movement would be sensed in the mosque, as though there were no one in it. He took the Qurʾān from ʿAlqama ibn Qays, al-Aswad ibn Yazīd, and Masrūq ibn al-Ajdaʿ; and he was the utmost example in asceticism and worship.

Abū Muḥammad ibn Ḥayyān al-Iṣbahānī said: Wathāb was one of the people of Qāsān; he came to Ibn ʿAbbās and stayed with him, then asked his leave to return to Qāsān, and was granted it; so he journeyed with his son Yaḥyā, and when he reached Kūfa, his son Yaḥyā said to him: I prefer the portion of knowledge over the portion of wealth, so give me leave to remain here; and he gave him leave. So he stayed in Kūfa and became an imam; and the people of Kūfa put him forward for the leading of prayer in the mosque — until the days of al-Ḥajjāj ibn Yūsuf, when he commanded that no non-Arab should lead the prayer in Kūfa, so Yaḥyā withdrew from it. Al-Ḥajjāj asked about him and said: who is this? They said: Yaḥyā ibn Wathāb. He said: what is the matter with him? They said: you commanded that none but an Arab should lead the prayer! So he said: it was not the barring of the like of this man that I intended. So Yaḥyā led them one day, then said: seek an imam other than me; I only meant that you should not suffer yourselves to be humiliated by an unworthy leader; but now that the matter has come round to me, I shall indeed lead you. He died in the year 103.

5. Muslim ibn Jundab: the Medinan reciter; he recited under Ibn ʿAyyāsh, and Nāfiʿ recited under him; and ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz was schooled at his hands. He was one of the eloquent of the people of his time, and no impugnment of his character is known. He died around the year 110. 6. Ṭalḥa ibn Muṣarrif: a Kūfan reciter; he took the reading from Saʿīd ibn Jubayr, and used to be called “the master of the reciters.” He died in the year 112. 7. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Hurmuz al-Madanī al-Aʿraj: he was abundant in knowledge, prominent in the science of the Qurʾān and the Sunna, and the first who spread the study of Arabic in Medina, having taken it from Abū al-Aswad al-Duʾalī. He took the reading from Ibn ʿAyyāsh, and Nāfiʿ al-Madanī took it from him. He went out to Alexandria, and the appointed term overtook him there in the year 117.

8. ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿĀmir al-Yaḥṣubī: the imam of the people of Syria in the reading; he is one of the Seven, and the nearest of them in time to the early Successors. He said: the Messenger of God (ṣ) was taken in death while I was two years old, and I moved to Damascus while I was nine. He said: and I recited under Muʿāwiya ibn Abī Sufyān. Yaḥyā ibn al-Ḥārith said: Ibn ʿĀmir was born in the year 21 of the hijra. He used to claim that he was of Ḥimyar, but some cast aspersions upon his lineage. He was the judge of the military district and the head of the mosque, tolerating in it no innovation. He sought leave to lead the prayer in the days of ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, but was not given it; then he was the head of the mosque in the days of al-Walīd ibn ʿAbd al-Malik.

He used to lead the people in the mosque; but when Sulaymān ibn ʿAbd al-Malik became caliph, he sent word to Muhājir and said: when it is the first night of Ramaḍān, stand behind Ibn ʿĀmir, and when he steps forward to lead, take hold of his garments and pull him back, and say: step back, no adopted-pretender shall lead us; and you yourself pray as leader, O Muhājir. And he did so. And it is not known under whom Ibn ʿĀmir recited; for everyone who mentioned a shaykh for him only relates it from Ibn ʿĀmir himself. It is said: the most firmly established of the statements is that he recited under al-Mughīra ibn Abī Shihāb. But who is this al-Mughīra? Al-Dhahabī said: he is hardly known except from the reading of Ibn ʿĀmir under him. I say: that is, if his reading under him even proved sound! He died in the year 118.

9. Yaḥyā ibn Yaʿmar, Abū Sulaymān al-Baṣrī: Ibn Saʿd said: he was a grammarian, possessed of knowledge in Arabic and the Qurʾān. He was put in charge of the judgeship of Marw, and used to act as judge in the Yemen; he was one of the eloquent of the people of his time, and the most knowledgeable of them in the language, together with intense scrupulousness — thus the historians described him. He, and his companion Naṣr ibn ʿĀṣim, studied as pupils under Abū al-Aswad al-Duʾalī; and he was a person of standing among the Shīʿa, so al-Ḥajjāj banished him to Marw, and Qutayba ibn Muslim put him in charge of its judgeship. He died around the year 120.

10. ʿAbd Allāh ibn Kathīr ibn al-Muṭṭalib: the imam of the Meccans in the reading; he is one of the Seven, of Persian origin, and was a perfumer at Mecca. Al-Dhahabī said: he is one of the sons of Persia whom Kisrā sent to Ṣanʿāʾ, who drove the Abyssinians out of it. He recited under Ibn al-Sāʾib, Mujāhid, and Darbās the client of Ibn ʿAbbās; and there recited under him Abū ʿAmr ibn al-ʿAlāʾ and a group. He was eloquent, articulate, and fluent of speech, white of beard, tall and corpulent, ruddy, with a bluish tinge in the eyes; he used to dye his hair with henna, and upon him were tranquility and gravity. He died in the year 120.

11. Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sahmī, known as Ibn Muḥayṣin: he is one of the three reciters of Mecca — Ibn Kathīr, Ibn Muḥayṣin, and Ḥumayd al-Aʿraj. And he is one of the four who recited by the anomalous readings accepted in their technical terminology. Ibn Mujāhid said: Ibn Muḥayṣin had a personal choice in the reading upon the madhhab of Arabic, so he departed thereby from the consensus of the people of his town; and the people turned away from his reading and concurred upon the reading of Ibn Kathīr, owing to their following of him. He died in the year 123.

12. ʿĀṣim ibn Abī al-Najūd (Bahdala) al-Asadī al-Kūfī: the reciter, the imam, one of the Seven. He recited under Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī and Zirr ibn Ḥubaysh; and a great many recited under him, and to him the leadership in the reading at Kūfa came to culminate after his shaykh al-Sulamī. He was the most beautiful of the people in voice with the Qurʾān; and he was a grammarian, eloquent — when he spoke, he was renowned for the beauty of his speech; and he was possessed of piety, refinement, and worship. And ʿĀṣim was a Shīʿī, intense in devotion to the Family of the House of the Messenger (ṣ), and well-known for that. The shaykh ʿAbd al-Jalīl al-Rāzī mentioned, in his book Naqḍ al-faḍāʾiḥ, that ʿĀṣim was the imam of the Shīʿa in the reading, on the pattern of the rest of the Kūfan reciters; he said: and most of the reciters of the two Sanctuaries and the two Iraqs are Shīʿa of the Family of the House, well-known for their particular devotion to this lofty House.

And ʿĀṣim himself mentioned that he did not differ from Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī in anything of his reading — and indeed Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān did not differ from ʿAlī (ʿa) in anything of his reading. Then ʿĀṣim taught this reading — the one he had taken from al-Sulamī, from ʿAlī (ʿa) — to his pupil Ḥafṣ, who was loyal to the Family of the House (ʿa). Ḥafṣ said: ʿĀṣim said to me: what I taught you of the reading is the reading that I recited under Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī, from ʿAlī (ʿa). Al-Dhahabī said: and the highest chain by which the Mighty Qurʾān comes down to us is from his direction — that is, from the direction of ʿĀṣim; for I myself recited the whole Qurʾān under Abū al-Qāsim Saḥnūn al-Mālikī, from Abū al-Qāsim al-Ṣafrāwī, from Abū al-Qāsim ibn ʿAṭiyya, from Ibn al-Faḥḥām, from Ibn Naʿs, from al-Sāmarrī, from al-Ashnānī, from ʿUbayd ibn al-Ṣabbāḥ, from Ḥafṣ, from ʿĀṣim, from Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī, from ʿAlī (ʿa); and Zirr from Ibn Masʿūd — both of them from the Prophet (ṣ), from Gabriel (ʿa), from God, mighty and majestic.⁸⁴² I say: and all the codices today, in the eastern part of the Islamic lands, are according to the reading of Ḥafṣ, from ʿĀṣim, from al-Sulamī, from ʿAlī (ʿa); and the exposition of that will follow. He died in the year 127.

13. Shayba ibn Naṣṣāḥ ibn Sarjis al-Madanī: the reciter, the imam, the client of Umm Salama (may God be pleased with her); one of the shaykhs of Nāfiʿ, and the judge of Medina and its chief reciter, together with Abū Jaʿfar. He was far-reaching of renown in the reading, and Nāfiʿ was more given to following him than to following Abū Jaʿfar. He died in the year 130. 14. Ḥumayd ibn Qays al-Aʿraj al-Makkī: he is one of the three reciters of Mecca, and there was not anyone more expert in reciting than he and Ibn Kathīr. He died in the year 130. 15. Yazīd ibn al-Qaʿqāʿ, Abū Jaʿfar the reciter: one of the Ten, a renowned Medinan, lofty of mention; he recited under his patron ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAyyāsh, was the most expert reciter of the people, and took up the teaching-recitation for a long age. He died around the year 130.

16. Yazīd ibn Rūmān al-Madanī: he was a jurist, a reciter, a ḥadīth-scholar, and one of the shaykhs of Nāfiʿ in the reading. He died in the year 130. 17. Ḥumrān ibn Aʿyan al-Shaybānī: a Kūfan Successor, a great reciter, as al-Dhahabī said. And Abū ʿAmr al-Dānī said: he took the reading, both by recitation and by audition, from ʿUbayd ibn Fuḍayla, Abū Ḥarb ibn Abī al-Aswad al-Duʾalī, and Yaḥyā ibn Wathāb; and Ḥamza ibn Ḥabīb al-Zayyāt, one of the Seven, recited under him. He was one of the associates of the two imams al-Bāqir and al-Ṣādiq (ʿa), specially attached to the two of them, and al-Kashshī counted him among their disciples; and al-Ṣādiq (ʿa) bore witness that he is truly of the people of the Garden. He was one of the most knowledgeable of the people of his time, and the most devout and ascetic of them. He died around the year 130.

The Fourth Class

1. Abān ibn Taghlib ibn Rabāḥ: Abū Saʿīd al-Bakrī al-Jarīrī. The shaykh Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭūsī said: he was trustworthy, of exalted rank, of great standing among our Imāmī associates; he met three of the imams and was specially attached to them — the imam Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn, the imam al-Bāqir, and the imam al-Ṣādiq (ʿa) — and he had with them favor and standing. And the imam Abū Jaʿfar al-Bāqir (ʿa) said to him: sit in the mosque and give fatwās to the people, for I love to see the like of you among my Shīʿa. And he was a masterly reciter and a head among the reciters, a jurist, an accomplished philologist; he heard directly from the Arabs and reported from them, and he composed the book al-Gharīb fī l-Qurʾān, adducing therein attestations from the authentic poetry of the Arabs.

And Abān has a distinct reading, well-known among the reciters. The shaykh al-Ṭūsī said: Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Saʿīd informed us of it, saying: Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf al-Rāzī, the reciter, informed us at al-Qādisiyya in the year 281, saying: Abū Nuʿaym al-Azdī, resident of the countryside of Baṣra, related to me in the year 255 at al-Rayy, saying: Muḥammad ibn Mūsā ibn Abī Maryam related to us, saying: I heard Abān ibn Taghlib — and there was not anyone more expert in reciting than he — recite the Qurʾān from its beginning to its end, and I heard him say: the hamza is only a matter of articulatory exercise. And when Abān visited Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Ṣādiq, the imam would make a festive welcome for him and order a cushion for him; and when he entered Medina, the study-circles would break up for him, and the pillar of the Prophet (ṣ) in the mosque would be vacated for him. Abān died in the year 141, in the lifetime of Abū ʿAbd Allāh (ʿa); and when the news of his death came to him, he said: verily, by God, the death of Abān has pained my heart (may God’s mercy be upon him).

2. Sulaymān ibn Mihrān al-Aʿmash: the imam, the teacher, Abū Muḥammad al-Asadī al-Kūfī; his origin was from the districts of al-Rayy. He recited under Ibn Wathāb and Zirr ibn Ḥubaysh, and recited in review before Abū al-ʿĀliya, Mujāhid, and Ibn Bahdala; and he was the most expert reciter of the people in his time. Ḥamza ibn Ḥabīb al-Zayyāt and others recited under him. Ibn ʿUyayna said: al-Aʿmash was the most expert of them in reciting the Book of God, the most retentive of them for the ḥadīth, and the most knowledgeable of them concerning the inheritance-shares. Ibn al-Qaṭṭān said: al-Aʿmash was the savant of Islam. He used to teach the recitation to the people, being a head in it; he was eloquent, and would not commit a solecism, not even in a single letter; and Shuʿba used to prefer al-Aʿmash over ʿĀṣim in the reading. Ibn Yūnus said: we have not seen the like of al-Aʿmash; nor have we seen the wealthy and the kings more contemptible in the eyes of anyone than they were with al-Aʿmash, despite his poverty and his need; for he was one of the ascetic devotees, and when he died, he left behind no one more devout than he.

And he was firm in his faith and his steadfastness upon the true madhhab, a staunch devotee of the imam, the Commander of the Faithful (ʿa). Shurayk the judge said: I was present with al-Aʿmash in the illness in which he was taken, when Ibn Shubruma, Ibn Abī Laylā, and Abū Ḥanīfa came in, visiting him. They asked him about his condition, and he mentioned an intense weakness and what he feared of his sins, and his tenderness overtook him and he wept. So Abū Ḥanīfa turned to him and said: O Abū Muḥammad, fear God and look to yourself, for you are in your last day of this world and your first day of the Hereafter; and you had related, concerning ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, certain ḥadīths that, were you to retract them, it would be better for you! Al-Aʿmash said: the like of what, O Nuʿmān? He said: the ḥadīth of ʿAbāya, “I am the divider of the Fire.” Al-Aʿmash said: and is it to one like me that you say this, O worthless one? Seat me up, prop me up!

So he said: Mūsā ibn Ṭarīf related to me — by the One to whom is my destiny, and I have not seen an Asadī better than he — saying: I heard ʿAbāya ibn Ribʿī, the leader of the quarter, say: I heard the Commander of the Faithful (ʿa) say: I am the divider of the Fire; I say: this one is my friend, so leave him; and this one is my enemy, so seize him. And Abū al-Mutawakkil al-Nājī related to me, from Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī, who said: the Prophet (ṣ) said: when the Day of Resurrection comes, I and ʿAlī shall be seated upon the Path, and it will be said to us: admit into the Garden whoever believed in me and loved the two of you, and cast into the Fire whoever disbelieved in me and hated the two of you. Abū Saʿīd said: the Prophet (ṣ) said: he has not believed in God who has not believed in me, and he has not believed in me who has not taken ʿAlī as his walī; and he recited: “The two of you cast every obdurate ingrate into hell.”⁸⁴³ So Abū Ḥanīfa put his cloak over his head and said: rise, let us go, lest Abū Muḥammad bring us something more calamitous than this.⁸⁴⁴ And al-Aʿmash did not live to reach the evening but that he died, and God poured upon him the showers of His vast mercy. His death was in the year 148.

3. Abū ʿAmr ibn al-ʿAlāʾ al-Māzinī: his name is Zabbān; the chief reciter of Baṣra, and one of the Seven. To him culminated the leadership of Baṣra. He recited under several companies of teachers and acquainted himself with their readings, so he would recite, of every reading, what he saw to be the most excellent of it and the most conformable with Arabic. And he used to say: were it not that it is not permitted to me to recite except by what has already been recited, I would have recited such-and-such — and he mentioned certain letters. And he was one of the notable Shīʿa, and one of the nobles of the Arabs and their men of distinction; he related from the imam al-Ṣādiq (ʿa) and had companionship with him. He died in the year 154.

4. Yaḥyā ibn al-Ḥārith al-Dhamārī: the imam of the Congregational Mosque of Damascus and the chief reciter of the town; he succeeded Ibn ʿĀmir at Damascus and set himself up for the teaching-recitation. He died in the year 145. 5. Nāfiʿ ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, Abū Nuʿaym — and it is also said: Abū Ruwaym — al-Laythī, one of the Seven: he was the chief reciter of the people of Medina, and his origin was from Iṣbahān. He recited under a company of teachers who perhaps reached seventy Successors in number, and he used to select of their readings what he made distinctively his own; and he became the imam of the people in the reading, unopposed. He died in the year 169.

6. Ḥamza ibn Ḥabīb al-Zayyāt: the imam, one of the Seven. Al-Dhahabī said: he was an imam, an authority, upright with the Book of God, retentive of the ḥadīth, discerning of the inheritance-shares and of Arabic, a worshipper, humble, devoutly obedient to God, of a profound scrupulousness, without peer. He recited under al-Aʿmash, Ḥumrān ibn Aʿyan, and Ibn Abī Laylā, and took the chief seat for the teaching-recitation; al-Kisāʾī and a company recited under him. Al-Aʿmash, when he saw Ḥamza approaching, would say: this is the ḥibr of the Qurʾān; and Ibn Mandal said: when the reciters are mentioned, Ḥamza alone suffices you, in the reading and the inheritance-shares. And Abū Ḥanīfa said to Ḥamza: there are two things in which you have overcome us, we do not contend with you concerning them — the Qurʾān and the inheritance-shares. And ʿAbd Allāh ibn Mūsā said: I have not seen anyone more expert in reciting than Ḥamza. And Ḥamza used to say: I have not recited a single letter except by a transmitted trace; Ibn Mujāhid attested that, and likewise Sufyān al-Thawrī attested to his true worth, saying — pointing to Ḥamza — this man has not recited a single letter of the Book of God, mighty and majestic, except by a transmitted trace.

And Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭūsī counted him among the associates of the imam al-Ṣādiq (ʿa), and the masters of the biographical accounts counted him among the men of distinction of the Imāmiyya well-known for their devotion to the Family of the House (ʿa). He died in the year 156. 7. ʿĪsā ibn ʿUmar al-Hamdānī: he recited under ʿĀṣim and al-Aʿmash, and al-Kisāʾī and a company recited under him; he used to teach the recitation to the people of Kūfa when Ḥamza was not present. He died in the year 156.

8. Abū al-Ḥārith ʿĪsā ibn Wardān al-Madanī al-Ḥadhdhāʾ: a leading reciter, skilled, and an accurate transmitter; he recited the reading in review before Abū Jaʿfar and Shayba ibn Naṣṣāḥ, and was one of the most illustrious of the associates of Nāfiʿ. He died around the year 160. 9. Sulaymān ibn Muslim ibn Jammāz, Abū al-Rabīʿ al-Zuhrī al-Madanī: a reciter, masterly and accurate; he recited the reading in review before Abū Jaʿfar Yazīd ibn al-Qaʿqāʿ and Shayba ibn Naṣṣāḥ. He died in the year 170.

10. ʿAlī ibn Ḥamza ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Bahman ibn Fīrūz al-Kisāʾī: Abū al-Ḥasan, the imam, the reciter, the grammarian, the Kūfan, one of the notables and one of the Seven. He recited under several companies, and groups recited under him. He was a brilliant imam who would select for himself a reading from among the readings, taking some of it and leaving some. Ibn Mujāhid said: al-Kisāʾī was one of the people of the reading, and it was his knowledge and his craft; he said: and we have not sat with anyone more accurate than he, nor stronger in reading than al-Kisāʾī. Khalaf said: I used to be present before al-Kisāʾī while he recited to the people, and they would point their codices according to his reading. Al-Kisāʾī was one of the men of distinction of the Imāmī Shīʿa, and he has numerous reports and many stances that are the choicest highlights of the literary and historical encyclopedias. He died in the year 187.

11. Sallām ibn Sulaymān, Abū al-Mundhir al-Muzanī al-Baṣrī, then the Kūfan, the reciter and grammarian, known as al-Khurāsānī, the shaykh of Yaʿqūb al-Ḥaḍramī. He recited under ʿĀṣim, and there was not in his time anyone more knowledgeable than he; and he was eloquent, a grammarian, and used to lead the prayer at the Congregational Mosque of Baṣra. He died in the year 171. 12. Abū Bakr Shuʿba ibn ʿAyyāsh al-Asadī al-Kūfī: the imam, one of the two transmitters of ʿĀṣim. And he is accused of a lack of accuracy — contrary to his colleague Ḥafṣ, the accurate one. And he was given to ingratiating himself with the rulers, as is witnessed by his statement in the presence of al-Rashīd: the Banū Umayya were more beneficial to the people, but you are more upright in the prayer. The leading authorities charged him with instability in the ḥadīth; Abū Nuʿaym said: there was not, among our shaykhs, anyone more given to error than he. He died in the year 193.

13. Sulaym ibn ʿĪsā, Abū ʿĪsā al-Kūfī: the associate of Ḥamza, the most intimate of his pupils with him, the most skilled of them in the reading, and the most upright of them in the transmission of the letter. He succeeded Ḥamza in the teaching-recitation at Kūfa, so much that even his companions in the reading under Ḥamza recited also under him, on account of his precision. Al-Kisāʾī said: I used to recite under Ḥamza, and when Sulaym came, I would defer to him. And he used to say: I recited the Qurʾān under Ḥamza ten times. He died in the year 188.

14. Ḥafṣ ibn Sulaymān al-Asadī, al-Ghāḍirī al-Kūfī: the reciter, the imam, the associate of ʿĀṣim and his stepson. He was the most knowledgeable in the reading of ʿĀṣim, and the leading authorities used to reckon him above his colleague Shuʿba, Abū Bakr ibn ʿAyyāsh. And likewise he took Shīʿism from his shaykh ʿĀṣim, and the shaykh Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭūsī counted him among the associates of the imam al-Ṣādiq (ʿa); and hence the reading that ʿĀṣim taught to Ḥafṣ is the very one that he had taken from Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī, from ʿAlī (ʿa). And Ḥafṣ has a lofty rank with the reciters, together with perpetuity, inasmuch as they have held fast to his reading in the codex familiar among the Muslims, and upon it was the pivot of the general reading; and we shall inquire into this aspect, the allusion to it having already passed in the biography of ʿĀṣim. Ḥafṣ lived ninety years in felicity, and died in the year 180.

15. Ismāʿīl ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Qusṭanṭīn, Abū Isḥāq al-Makhzūmī al-Makkī, the reciter known as al-Qusṭ: the chief reciter of the people of Mecca in his time, and the last of the associates of Ibn Kathīr to die; and he is the shaykh of Muḥammad ibn Idrīs al-Shāfiʿī in the reading. He died in the year 170. 16. Ismāʿīl ibn Jaʿfar al-Anṣārī al-Madanī: he took the reading from Shayba and recited it in review before Nāfiʿ, and excelled in the reading; he settled at Baghdad and spread his knowledge there and taught the recitation there; and there took from him Abū al-Ḥasan al-Kisāʾī, Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallām, Abū ʿAmr al-Dūrī, and a company. He died at Baghdad in the year 180.

The Fifth Class

1. Abū Muḥammad Isḥāq ibn Muḥammad al-Musayyibī al-Makhzūmī, the Medinan reciter: he recited under Nāfiʿ ibn Abī Nuʿaym, and was one of the most eminent of his verifying associates; Khalaf ibn Hishām al-Bazzāz and a group took the reading from him, and Ibn Dhakwān and Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal related from him. He died in the year 200. 2. Ayyūb ibn al-Mutawakkil al-Baṣrī al-Ṣaydalānī, the reciter: he recited in review before Sallām the reciter, before Abū al-Ḥasan al-Kisāʾī, and a company; and he chose for himself a manner of reading, and was a leading, accurate authority, carefully following the transmitted trace; and he was the most expert reciter of his time. He died in the year 200.

3. Yaḥyā ibn al-Mubārak al-Yazīdī: the imam, Abū Muḥammad al-Baṣrī, the grammarian, the reciter. He was known as al-Yazīdī on account of his connection with Yazīd ibn Manṣūr, the maternal uncle of al-Mahdī, whose child he used to school. He perfected the Qurʾān under Abū ʿAmr, and al-Dūrī and al-Sūsī recited under him; and he had a distinctive choice in reading, as al-Dhahabī mentioned, and was a great savant, eloquent, fluent of speech, accomplished in the languages and belles-lettres. He took knowledge from al-Khalīl ibn Aḥmad al-Farāhīdī, so much that it is said he dictated ten thousand leaves; and he has several compositions. He died in the year 202.

4. ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd, Abū Saʿīd al-Miṣrī, the reciter nicknamed “Warsh”: his origin was from Ifrīqiya. He recited the Qurʾān and perfected it under Nāfiʿ in a number of complete recitations, in about the year 155. And it was Nāfiʿ himself who nicknamed him Warsh, on account of the intensity of his whiteness — and “al-warsh” is a thing made from milk; and it is also said that he nicknamed him al-warshān, which is a well-known bird, saying: recite, O warshān; bring it here, O warshān — then it was shortened and so it was said, Warsh. And Warsh used to take pride in this naming, and would say: my teacher Nāfiʿ named me that. To him culminated the headship of the teaching-recitation in the Egyptian lands in his time; al-Dhahabī said: Warsh, when he had gone deep into grammar and mastered it, adopted for himself a manner of reading called “the reading of Warsh.” He died in the year 197.

5. Qālūn, Abū Mūsā ʿĪsā ibn Mīnā: the chief reciter of the people of Medina in his time. It is said he was the stepson of Nāfiʿ, and it was Nāfiʿ who nicknamed him Qālūn for the excellence of his reading — it is a Byzantine word whose meaning is “good”; and he did not cease reciting under Nāfiʿ until he became proficient and skilled. His life grew long and his renown spread far, and companies of pupils recited under him. He died in the year 220. 6. Yaʿqūb ibn Isḥāq al-Ḥaḍramī: the chief reciter of the people of Baṣra in his age; he excelled in the Qurʾān and his renown spread. Abū Ḥātim said: he is the most knowledgeable person I have seen concerning the variant readings, the divergence in the Qurʾān, its grammatical causes, and its doctrines; and the prayer-leader of the Congregational Mosque of Baṣra would recite only by the reading of Yaʿqūb. He never committed a solecism in his speech; Abū Ḥātim al-Sijistānī was among his pupils; and Abū al-Qāsim al-Hudhalī said: none like him was seen in the time of Yaʿqūb. He was knowledgeable in Arabic and its aspects, excellent, pure, and godfearing. He died in the year 205.

7. Abū Yūsuf al-Aʿshā, Yaʿqūb ibn Muḥammad al-Kūfī: he recited under Ibn ʿAyyāsh and took the chief seat for the teaching-recitation at Kūfa, so that al-Ṣayrafī, al-Shammūnī, and others recited under him. Al-Naqqāsh said: al-Aʿshā was possessed of the Qurʾān and the inheritance-shares, and I prefer no one over him in the reading going back to Abū Bakr. He died around the year 200. 8. Shujāʿ ibn Abī Naṣr al-Balkhī: the reciter, the ascetic; he recited the Qurʾān under Abū ʿAmr and perfected it, and al-Qāsim ibn Sallām and Muḥammad ibn Ghālib took it from him. Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal was asked about him and said: excellent, excellent! — and where is the like of him today? He died at Baghdad in the year 190.

9. al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī al-Juʿfī al-Kūfī: Abū ʿAbd Allāh the ascetic, one of the notables. He recited the Qurʾān under Ḥamza and excelled in it, and took up the teaching-recitation after Ḥamza; Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal took it from him and said: I have not seen anyone more excellent than al-Ḥusayn al-Juʿfī. And it was said to Sufyān ibn ʿUyayna, “al-Ḥusayn al-Juʿfī has arrived,” and he sprang up standing and said: the most excellent man that ever is has arrived. Ibn Dāwūd said: I was with Ibn ʿUyayna when al-Ḥusayn al-Juʿfī came to him, and Sufyān rose and kissed his hand. And Ibn Yaḥyā al-Naysābūrī said: if anyone of the abdāl has remained, it is al-Ḥusayn al-Juʿfī. And al-Rashīd asked al-Kisāʾī who was the most expert reciter of the people, and he said: al-Ḥusayn al-Juʿfī. And al-ʿIjlī said: al-Juʿfī used to teach the people, being a head in it, and I have never seen anyone more excellent than he. He died at an age approaching eighty-four, in the year 203, in Dhū al-Qaʿda.

10. ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿIjlī al-Kūfī: the reciter, Abū Aḥmad, one of the great reciters; he recited under Ḥamza, and a company recited under him. He settled at Baghdad in the last of his days and taught the recitation there. He died around the year 220. 11. Yaḥyā ibn Ādam: the imam, Abū Zakariyyā al-Qurashī, the Kūfan, al-Aḥwal, the ḥadīth-memorizer, the reciter. He related the variant readings of ʿĀṣim, though without a full read-out recitation, from Shuʿba. Abū Usāma said: I never saw Yaḥyā but that I was reminded of al-Shaʿbī — meaning his encyclopedic gathering-together of knowledge, and that he was the head of the people of his age. He died at Fam al-Ṣilḥ in Rabīʿ al-Awwal, in the year 203, being in his seventies.

12. ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Mūsā al-ʿAbsī al-Kūfī: Abū Muḥammad, the reciter, the ḥadīth-memorizer, the Shīʿī, the shaykh of al-Bukhārī. He recited the Qurʾān and perfected it under ʿĪsā al-Hamdānī and ʿAlī ibn Ṣāliḥ, and took the variant readings from Ḥamza and al-Kisāʾī. Aḥmad al-ʿIjlī said: he was knowledgeable in the Qurʾān, a head in it; and I never saw him raise his head, and he was never seen laughing. Abū Dāwūd said: he was a deviating Shīʿī — that is, from the doctrine of the generality in their devotion to al-Jibt and al-Ṭāghūt. Al-Dhahabī said: his ḥadīth is in the Six Books with an intermediary, and with al-Bukhārī without an intermediary. And he was possessed of worship, night-vigil, and asceticism; he kept company with Ḥamza al-Zayyāt and took on the mold of his conduct — that is, in devotion to the Family of the House, the madhhab of the generality of the Kūfan reciters. Ibn Saʿd said: al-ʿAbsī died in the year 213, in Dhū al-Qaʿda (may God’s mercy be upon him).

The Sixth Class

1. Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallām: the imam, one of the notables, possessor of many compositions. He took the reading from al-Kisāʾī, Shujāʿ ibn Abī Naṣr, and others, and was an independent jurist who imitated no one in his selections. Ibn Rāhawayh said: we used to stand in need of Abū ʿUbayd, while Abū ʿUbayd did not stand in need of us. And Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal said: Abū ʿUbayd is a master. And Ibn Maʿīn was asked about him and said: is one like me to be asked about Abū ʿUbayd?! Abū ʿUbayd was born at Herāt, and his father Sallām was a slave of some of its people; al-Qāsim set about learning until he excelled in belles-lettres, and attached himself to Thābit ibn Mālik al-Khuzāʿī, who put him in charge of the judgeship of Ṭarsūs for eighteen years. And he used to attach himself to the men of distinction of the Shīʿa and take from them much knowledge — in belles-lettres, the Qurʾān, and the rest of the Islamic sciences, in which the Imāmī Shīʿa were distinguished by their gathering-together and refining of that which is not found with others; and for that reason the ḥadīth-folk charged him with doing everything well except the ḥadīth. And al-Dhahabī reported, from ʿAbbās al-Dūrī, that Abū ʿUbayd used to say: I have not seen a people weaker in one respect, nor more comprehensive of the sciences, than the Rāfiḍa. He died at Mecca in the year 224.

2. Khallād ibn Khālid, Abū ʿĪsā al-Shaybānī al-Ṣayrafī al-Kūfī al-Aḥwal, the reciter, the associate of Sulaym: he took up the teaching-recitation for a period. He died in the year 220. 3. Khalaf ibn Hishām al-Bazzār, the reciter, the Baghdādī, one of the notables: he recited under Sulaym, from Ḥamza, and had a distinctive choice in the reading by which he used to teach. He died around the year 230. 4. Rawḥ ibn ʿAbd al-Muʾmin al-Hudhalī al-Baṣrī, the reciter: he recited under Yaʿqūb al-Ḥaḍramī, and Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in al-Thiqāt. He died in the year 233. 5. Ruways, Muḥammad ibn al-Mutawakkil al-Luʾluʾī al-Baṣrī: a skilled reciter and a well-known accurate transmitter; he took the reading, by recitation, from Yaʿqūb al-Ḥaḍramī, and was one of the most skilled of his associates. He died in the year 238.

6. Isḥāq ibn Ibrāhīm, Abū Yaʿqūb al-Marwazī, known as Ibn Rāhawayh: a resident of Nīsābūr, one of the imams; he traveled about the lands and was the most retentive of memory of his age. Abū Dāwūd said: Ibn Rāhawayh’s memory deteriorated five months before he died, and I heard ḥadīth from him in those days and so cast it away. He died in the year 238. 7. al-Layth ibn Khālid, Abū al-Ḥārith al-Baghdādī: he was possessed of skill and accuracy; he recited in review before al-Kisāʾī and was one of the most illustrious of his associates. He died in the year 240.

8. Abū Yaʿqūb al-Azraq, Yūsuf ibn ʿAmr, the Medinan then the Egyptian: he kept close to Warsh for a long period and perfected the performance from him. He said: Warsh, when he had gone deep into grammar, adopted for himself a manner of reading called “the reading of Warsh”; so when I came to recite to him, I said: O Abū Saʿīd, I would love for you to teach me the reading of Nāfiʿ, unadulterated, and leave me free of what you have deemed good for yourself; so he taught me the reading of Nāfiʿ, and I recited to him twenty complete recitations, between the rapid and the measured. And, at the last, al-Azraq came to stand alone, as distinct from Warsh, in thickening the lāms and thinning the rāʾs; and he succeeded Warsh in the teaching-recitation in the Egyptian lands. He died around the year 240. 9. Ibn Dhakwān, ʿAbd Allāh ibn Aḥmad ibn Bashīr, Abū ʿAmr al-Dimashqī: the chief reciter of Damascus and the prayer-leader of the Congregational Mosque. Abū Zurʿa al-Dimashqī said: there was not, in the Islamic regions in the age of Ibn Dhakwān, anyone more expert in reciting than he. He died in the year 242.

10. Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad al-Qawwās, the reciter, the Meccan: Ibn Mujāhid said: Qunbul said to me: al-Qawwās said to me, in the year 237: meet this man — meaning al-Bazzī — and say to him: this reading is not part of our reading — meaning wa-mā huwa bi-mayt, with the light form — for the light form is used only of the dead person who has already died, but as for one who has not yet died, it is with the stressed form, mayyit.⁸⁴⁵ Qunbul said: so I met al-Bazzī and informed him, and he said: I have already retracted it. Then al-Bazzī came to al-Qawwās the next day and said: regarding what you asked me about this reading — and there were with it two other readings I had objected to, which ʿIkrima ibn Sulaymān had taught me — I have retracted them in favor of your statement. And this indicates the great standing of al-Qawwās, more worthy than Qunbul and al-Bazzī, though the two of them are the canonical transmitters of Ibn Kathīr! Al-Qawwās died at Mecca in the year 245.

11. Abū ʿUmar al-Dūrī, Ḥafṣ ibn ʿUmar al-Azdī: the reciter, the grammarian, the Baghdādī, the blind; a resident of Sāmarrāʾ, the chief reciter of Islam and the shaykh of Iraq in his time. He recited under Ismāʿīl ibn Jaʿfar, al-Kisāʾī, and al-Yazīdī; and it is said that he was the first to gather the readings and set them down in books. His life grew long, so the seekers of knowledge from the distant horizons, and the skilled masters of the craft, made their way to him, for the loftiness of his chain and the breadth of his knowledge. And “al-Dūrī” refers to al-Dūr, a quarter on the eastern side of Baghdad. He died in the year 246. 12. Abū al-Ḥasan al-Bazzī, Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad: the chief reciter of the people of Mecca in his age, and the muezzin of the Sacred Mosque; Persian by origin, said to be from the town of Hamadhān. He recited under Ibn Sulaymān and Ismāʿīl al-Qusṭ, from Ibn Kathīr, and a company recited under him. He was the muezzin of the Sacred Mosque for forty years, and he taught the people to recite with the takbīr from Sūrat al-Ḍuḥā onward. He died in the year 250.

13. Aḥmad ibn Yazīd al-Ḥulwānī, Abū al-Ḥasan, the reciter, one of the great skilled renewers: he recited under Qālūn, Khalaf, and a company, and was much-traveling. He died in the year 250. 14. Abū Nashīṭ, Muḥammad ibn Hārūn al-Marwazī: he recited under Qālūn and was one of the most illustrious of his associates; upon his narration al-Dānī relied in al-Taysīr; and he was one of the ḥadīth-memorizers and the much-traveling scholars in the field. He died in the year 253. 15. Muḥammad ibn ʿĪsā al-Rāzī, then al-Iṣbahānī: the reciter, one of the skilled. He recited the Qurʾān under Naṣīr and Khallād, the two associates of al-Kisāʾī, and composed the book al-Jāmiʿ fī l-qirāʾāt, along with a book on the verse-numbering and on the rasm; and he was a head in grammar. Abū Nuʿaym al-Iṣbahānī said: I do not know anyone more knowledgeable than he in his art — meaning the readings. Al-Faḍl ibn Shādhān, al-Ḥasan ibn al-ʿAbbās, Abū Sahl Ḥamdān, and a company took from him. He died in the year 253.

16. Hishām ibn ʿAmmār al-Sulamī, Abū al-Walīd al-Dimashqī: the preacher of the Congregational Mosque at Damascus; the people gathered to him after the death of Ibn Dhakwān. His life grew long and he became senile in his last days, so he used to become confused in the ḥadīth, so much that Aḥmad said of him: flighty, light-headed. And a story concerning the utterance of the Qurʾān is attributed to him, which Aḥmad disapproved of, saying: whoever prays behind him, let him repeat his prayer. He perished in the year 253. 17. Aḥmad ibn Jubayr al-Kūfī, Abū Jaʿfar, a resident of Antioch: one of the great, skilled, and long-lived reciters; he took the reading, by recitation and audition, from al-Kisāʾī, Sulaym, al-Yazīdī, al-Musayyibī, al-Aʿshā, and their likes. Al-Dānī said: a leading, illustrious, trustworthy, accurate imam; he taught the recitation at Antioch, and a great many related the reading from him. He died in the year 258. 18. Abū Shuʿayb al-Sūsī, Ṣāliḥ ibn Ziyād, the reciter: he recited under al-Yazīdī, and heard ḥadīth at Kūfa from Ibn Numayr and at Mecca from Ibn ʿUyayna. He died in the year 260, having drawn near to ninety.

19. al-Faḍl ibn Shādhān ibn ʿĪsā, Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Rāzī, the reciter: one of the notables, and the shaykh of the teaching-recitation at al-Rayy. Abū ʿAmr al-Dānī said: there was not in his age anyone like him in his knowledge, his understanding, and the excellence of his competence. And he is the shaykh of Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Rāzī, though the masters of the biographical dictionaries of the ḥadīth-men did not mention that, except Ibn Abī Ḥātim himself, in his book al-Jarḥ wa-l-taʿdīl. And Ibn al-Nadīm characterized him with greatness and mentioned him among the imams of the Qurʾān and the narrations — and hence he trusts his transmission more than what he himself saw with his own eye — that being in the chapter on the ordering of the codex of Ibn Masʿūd. Then, among the books composed on the readings, he mentions the Kitāb al-qirāʾāt of al-Faḍl ibn Shādhān; and he says, in category 6 of Treatise 6: “al-Faḍl ibn Shādhān al-Rāzī, and his son al-ʿAbbās ibn al-Faḍl; and he is a private-and-general figure — the Shīʿa claim him, and the Ḥashwiyya, the people of the Sunna, claim him…”

20. And this is other than al-Faḍl ibn Shādhān ibn al-Khalīl, Abū Muḥammad al-Azdī al-Naysābūrī, the great Shīʿī scholar, possessor of the lofty station and the towering greatness in dialectical theology, ḥadīth, and the rest of the foremost Islamic sciences. This latter died in the year 260. As for the one whose biography is given here, Abū al-ʿAbbās, Ibn al-Jazarī said he died around the year 290.

The Seventh Class

1. Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā al-Kisāʾī the Younger: he is one of the most illustrious of the associates of al-Kisāʾī the Elder; Wakīʿ and Abū Bakr ibn Mujāhid recited under him. He died around the year 290. 2. Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, Abū ʿUmar, famed as “Qunbul”: the chief reciter of the people of Mecca, and to him culminated the headship of the teaching-recitation in the Ḥijāz. He took the reading from al-Qawwās and al-Bazzī, and a great many recited under him — among them Ibn Mujāhid and Ibn Shanbūdh. Qunbul assumed charge of the police of Mecca, and his conduct was praised; but he became confused in the latter part of his life and erred in the Qurʾān, so the people forsook him for this and that; and hence he abandoned the teaching-recitation definitively, seven years before his death. Then he became advanced in age and grew old, reaching ninety-six years, and declined severely. He died in the year 291.

3. Sulaymān ibn Yaḥyā al-Ḍabbī, Abū Ayyūb al-Baghdādī: one of the great reciters and one of their scholars; he took up the teaching-recitation at the Congregational Mosque of the City at Baghdad for sixty years, and his life grew to beyond ninety. He died in the year 291. 4. al-Qāsim ibn Aḥmad al-Khayyāṭ, Abū Muḥammad al-Tamīmī al-Kūfī, the reciter, one of the skilled: he recited under al-Shammūnī and taught the recitation for an age; Ibn Dāwūd al-Naqqār, Ibn Shanbūdh, and a company recited under him. Al-Naqqār said: I recited forty complete recitations to him, and I heard the consensus of the people upon the preferment of Qāsim in the reading of ʿĀṣim. He died around the year 292.

5. Hārūn ibn Mūsā, known as Ibn Sharīk al-Akhfash: the shaykh of the reciters at Damascus. He recited under Ibn Dhakwān, and a great many recited under him; and the students journeyed to him from the distant regions, for his precision and deep learning — among them Jaʿfar ibn Abī Dāwūd, Abū al-Ḥasan ibn Shanbūdh, al-Balkhī, al-Baʿlabakkī, and others. Abū ʿAlī al-Iṣbahānī said: Hārūn al-Akhfash was one of the people of excellence; he composed many books on the readings and on Arabic, and to him reverted the leadership in the reading of Ibn Dhakwān. It is said that he saw Abū ʿUbayd at Damascus and asked him a linguistic question — this on account of the antiquity of his time and the length of his life; he lived ninety-two years and died in Ṣafar, in the year 292.

6. Idrīs ibn ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Ḥaddād, the reciter, Abū al-Ḥasan al-Baghdādī: he recited under Khalaf, and the people journeyed to him from the lands for his precision and the loftiness of his chain; Ibn Shanbūdh and Ibn Muqsim recited under him. He died in the year 293. 7. Jaʿfar ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Anṣārī al-Iṣbahānī: the imam and reciter at the Congregational Mosque of Iṣbahān, a head in the sciences of the Qurʾān and in tajwīd; he recited under al-Dūrī, and Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Kisāʾī recited under him. He died in the year 294.

8. Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥīm: the Iṣbahānī reciter, the shaykh of the teaching-recitation in his time; he recited, for the reading of Warsh, under ʿĀmir al-Jurashī, and heard it from Yūnus the associate of Warsh, and was proficient in the knowledge of the reading of Nāfiʿ; Ibn Mujāhid took it from him. The biographee said: I journeyed to Egypt in quest of the reading, and I had with me eighty thousand dirhams, which I spent on eighty complete recitations. He died at Baghdad in the year 296. 9. al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī ibn Ḥammād ibn Mihrān, Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Rāzī, al-Azraq, the reciter: he lived long and taught the people, and settled at Qazwīn; Ibn Shanbūdh, Abū Bakr al-Naqqāsh, and al-Muṭṭawwiʿī recited under him. He came at the last to al-Ahwāz, and was a verifier of the reading of Ibn ʿĀmir. He died around the year 300.

10. Aḥmad ibn Faraḥ ibn Jibrīl, Abū Jaʿfar al-Baghdādī: he recited under al-Dūrī and al-Bazzī, and took the chief seat for imparting knowledge for an age; his renown spread far and his name became famous for the breadth of his knowledge and the loftiness of his age. Al-Muṭṭawwiʿī and a company recited under him; he settled at Kūfa for a period, and its people carried away abundant knowledge from him; and he was trustworthy and reliable. He died in the year 303, having drawn near to ninety. 11. Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad ibn Asad, Abū al-Faḍl al-Ḍarīr al-Naṣībī: he recited under al-Dūrī and was one of the most illustrious of his associates. He died in the year 307. 12. Aḥmad ibn Sahl ibn Fīrūzān, the shaykh al-Ashnānī, Abū al-ʿAbbās, the reciter, the last remnant of the high-chain reciters in the reading: he recited under ʿUbayd, the associate of Ḥafṣ, then later under a company until he excelled in the reading; his life grew long and his mention spread; a company recited under him. He died at Baghdad in the year 307.

13. Abū Bakr ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Mālik, the Egyptian reciter known as Ibn Sayf: the shaykh of the region in the readings in his time; he recited under al-Azraq and lived a long age. He died in the year 307. 14. Isḥāq ibn Aḥmad, Abū Muḥammad al-Khuzāʿī al-Makkī: the imam and reciter at the Sacred Mosque; he recited under al-Bazzī and Ibn Fulayḥ, and was trustworthy, an authority, lofty of mention; Ibn Shanbūdh, al-Muṭṭawwiʿī, al-Rassī, and others recited under him, and he authored the book Ikhtilāf al-Makkiyyīn wa-ttifāquhum. Abū Bakr ibn Mujāhid, Ibn ʿAbd al-Razzāq, and a group took the readings from him; al-Dānī said: he is one of the most firmly-grounded of the people in understanding — informed, accurate, trustworthy, reliable. He died in the year 308.

15. al-ʿAbbās ibn al-Faḍl ibn Shādhān al-Rāzī: the reciter, a verifying and masterly imam; he used to teach the recitation together with his father at al-Rayy, and recited under his father, and took the reading of al-Kisāʾī from Ibn Abī Sarḥ, from al-Kisāʾī; companies recited under him. Al-Khalīlī said: I met at Qazwīn eight of his associates; and he remained until the year 310. 16. Mūsā ibn Jarīr ibn ʿImrān al-Raqqī: the reciter, the grammarian, the blind; he was discerning of the assimilation, skilled in Arabic, of ample dignity, and of many associates. He died around the year 310. 17. Muḥammad ibn Hārūn ibn Nāfiʿ al-Tammār: the chief reciter of the people of Baṣra, and the most discerning of them in the reading of Yaʿqūb; and he is one of the associates of Ruways. A multitude recited under him. He died after the year 310.

18. al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī al-Ṣawwāf: a Baghdādī reciter of great rank, knowledgeable in the art, who took the chief seat for teaching and for imparting knowledge; he recited under al-Dūrī and a company, and al-Muṭṭawwiʿī and companies recited under him. He died in the year 310. 19. Muḥammad ibn Jarīr, Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭabarī, the exegete and historian: he was born at Āmul of Ṭabaristān, and entered upon the pursuit of knowledge when he was twenty; he recited under Sulaymān al-Ṭalḥī, the associate of Khallād, and heard the reading of Nāfiʿ from Yūnus, al-Fazārī, and Ibn Manīʿ; Ibn Mujāhid, al-Dājūnī, and a great many took it from him, and he has, in the transmitted sciences, a firm footing and an excellence. He died in the year 310 at Baghdad. 20. al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī, Abū Bakr al-ʿAllāf al-Baghdādī, the reciter and man of letters: he recited under al-Dūrī, and al-Shanbūdhī recited under him; he lived long. Al-Dhahabī said: I think he was the last to recite the Qurʾān under al-Dūrī. He died in the year 318.

The Eighth Class

These are the remnant of those who lived in the third century and reached some part of the fourth; and they were the last who had a personal choice in the readings. They are a great number, of whom we mention the most important of the well-known ones of that era. 1. al-Zaynabī, Muḥammad ibn Sulaymān al-Hāshimī, Abū Bakr al-Baghdādī: one of those who gave their care to the readings, and an imam in the reading of the Meccans; he recited under Isḥāq al-Khuzāʿī and a company, and Ibn Budhhun, Aḥmad al-Walī, al-Shadhāʾī, and a company recited under him. Al-Dānī said: he died close to the year 320.

2. Nifṭawayh, Ibrāhīm ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿArafa ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-ʿAtakī al-Wāsiṭī. Al-Dhahabī said: he was one of the most intelligent people of the world. Al-Marzubānī said: he was of such purity of character, goodness of companionship, and truthfulness in what he related, as was a state upon which I never observed anyone else; and he was a jurist, a scholar, and a high-chain transmitter of the ḥadīth. Ibn Ḥajar said: trustworthy, very truthful — nothing of what he related may be held against him; he kept company with the kings and the viziers, and he mastered memorizing, together with manliness, chivalry, and refinement. Maslama said: he was much-narrating of the ḥadīth and of the days of the people; and there was in him a Shīʿism. And it is related that he sat for the teaching-recitation for more than fifty years, beginning in his session with something of the Qurʾān in the reading of ʿĀṣim, then teaching the readings of others. He recited under Muḥammad ibn ʿAmr at Wāsiṭ and others, and took the readings from Shuʿayb ibn Ayyūb and Muḥammad ibn al-Jahm; Ibn Saʿīd al-Qazzāz, al-Shanbūdhī, Abū Bakr ibn Shādhān, and companies recited under him. He died at Baghdad in the year 323.

3. Ibn Mujāhid, Aḥmad ibn Mūsā ibn al-ʿAbbās, Abū Bakr al-Baghdādī al-ʿAṭashī, the reciter, “the master” — in the very expression of al-Dhahabī. He was born at Baghdad, at the Sūq al-ʿAṭash, and hence was ascribed to it. He is the one who wrote on the seven well-known readings and confined them to the Seven; and since that era the popular belief spread abroad that the readings are confined to the Seven, and that these are the ones to which the allusion came in the ḥadīth of the Seven. Hence the blame for this false diffusion returns to Ibn Mujāhid, as Dr. Ṣubḥī al-Ṣāliḥ said; and he is the first who attempted to close the door of independent judgment and personal choice in the readings.

Ibn Abī Hāshim said: a man asked Ibn Mujāhid: why does the shaykh not choose for himself a reading upon which others might rely? He said: we stand in greater need of setting ourselves to preserve what our predecessors have passed away upon than of our choosing a reading by which those who come after us might recite. By this purely traditionalist logic he strove with his utmost effort to close the door of choice absolutely; and, on account of his lofty rank in the state and the gathering of the people to him, there was a great effect in the carrying-out of this opinion of his in the decree of the ruling power at that time. For it is related that eighty-four deputies used to attend his circle and receive the recitation from the people on his behalf. And it will come later that the trial of Ibn Shanbūdh and al-Muṭṭawwiʿī was by the instigation of Ibn Mujāhid and his ratification. He died in the year 324.

4. al-Dājūnī the Elder, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad, Abū Bakr al-Ḍarīr: one of those who gave their care to the readings, journeyed to the shaykhs, and gathered the readings; Ibn Mujāhid, al-Qabāb al-Iṣbahānī, Ibn Abī Bilāl al-Kūfī, al-Dājūnī the Younger — al-ʿAbbās ibn Muḥammad — and a company recited under him. He died in the year 324. 5. Mūsā ibn ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Yaḥyā ibn Khāqān, the imam Abū Muzāḥim al-Khāqānī: of the descendants of the viziers; he had excelled in the reading of al-Kisāʾī, and was one of the company of the scholars. He died in the year 325. 6. Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl, the reciter Abū Bakr al-Ādamī, known as al-Ḥamzī, because he was knowledgeable in the reading of Ḥamza ibn Ḥabīb al-Zayyāt: he taught the recitation for a period at Baghdad, in the towers of the Round City, and the people carried knowledge from him for his asceticism and precision. He died in the year 327.

7. Ibn Shanbūdh, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad, Abū al-Ḥasan al-Baghdādī: the shaykh of the teaching-recitation in Iraq. He recited under many of the reciters in the great cities, and traveled about the lands in quest of knowledge; he was a contemporary of Ibn Mujāhid, and more knowledgeable than he in the foundations of the readings, their variant letters, and the taking of them from the great shaykhs. Contrary to Ibn Mujāhid, he made personal choices in the reading: he used to recite by the well-known reading, and would sometimes recite by the anomalous, departing from what the generality were familiar with. A great number recited under him, and Abū ʿAmr al-Dānī and others relied upon his chains in their books; and he held valid the prayer with what had been soundly established from Ubayy and Ibn Masʿūd in their readings, differing thereby from the majority of the jurists. He was trustworthy in himself, righteous, devout, and deeply versed in this art; and he used to disparage the paucity of Ibn Mujāhid’s knowledge and the meagerness of his acquaintance, saying: this ʿAṭashī — his feet were never worn in the quest for knowledge — meaning that he never traveled from Baghdad, apart from his one journey to the Ḥajj. And when a man of the reciters came to him to take the reading, he would ask: have you recited under Ibn Mujāhid? And if he said yes, he would not teach him.

And Ibn Mujāhid bore a grudge against him and began to insinuate against him with the vizier Ibn Muqla, until he stirred him up against him; and what he held against him was his reciting by the anomalous readings. Abū Bakr al-Anharī said: I was present on that day — on which Ibn Shanbūdh was publicly disputed with — together with the whole company of the jurists, while Ibn Mujāhid was before the vizier. Ibn Shanbūdh had been brought in, and disputations passed with him concerning readings reported of him, that he recited by them, they being anomalous; he acknowledged some of them, and the vizier demanded that he desist from reciting by them and bound him to it severely. So he was harsh in his address to the vizier, to the judge, and to Ibn Mujāhid, and charged them with a paucity of knowledge, and that they had not traveled in quest of knowledge as he had traveled. The vizier ordered that he be struck seven lashes, while he was invoking God against the vizier — that God cut off his hand and scatter his fortunes; and at the last he was compelled to repent under duress. So Ibn Mujāhid wrote a document of that, in which was: “Ibn Shanbūdh has acknowledged what is in this note, in my presence” — and Ibn Mujāhid wrote it with his own hand on Saturday, six nights elapsed of Rabīʿ al-Ākhir, in the year three hundred and twenty-three.

It is said that when he was struck with the lash he was stripped and set between the two floggers, and struck about ten lashes, whereupon he suffered pain and cried out and yielded to the recantation; and it is also said that he was banished from Baghdad and went to Baṣra. And his invocation against Ibn Muqla was answered, after three years, in the middle of Shawwāl in the year 326: for in it his hand was cut off, then his tongue was cut out, and he was imprisoned and straitened, and he tasted abasement and humiliation, and died in prison in the year 328 — which is the year of Ibn Shanbūdh’s death also. Likewise, Ibn Mujāhid perished a year after the painful affair of Ibn Shanbūdh, that is, in the year 324.

8. Ibn al-Anbārī, Muḥammad ibn al-Qāsim, Abū Bakr, the reciter, the grammarian, the Baghdādī: he heard from a company, among them al-Karīmī, who is his most senior shaykh; al-Dānī related from him the book al-Waqf wa-l-ibtidāʾ. Abū ʿAlī al-Qālī said: Ibn al-Anbārī used to memorize three hundred thousand verses of poetry as attestations for the Qurʾān, and he used to dictate from his memory. Al-Tanūkhī said: he never once dictated from a notebook; and he used to memorize one hundred and twenty commentaries on the Qurʾān with their chains. It was said to him: the people have said much about your memorized stores — how much do you memorize? He said: I memorize thirteen chests’ worth. He died in the year 328.

9. Abū Isḥāq, Ibrāhīm ibn ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Anṭākī, one of the skilled: he composed the book al-Qirāʾāt al-thamān, and was the chief reciter of Syria in his time, both in knowledge and in chains; al-Dānī said: an illustrious, accurate, well-known reciter. He died in the year 338. 10. Jaʿfar ibn Abī Dāwūd, Abū al-Faḍl al-Naysābūrī, the reciter and tutor, a resident of Damascus: he recited under Hārūn al-Akhfash and was one of the skilled of his associates. He died in the year 339 at Damascus. 11. Aḥmad ibn Yaʿqūb al-Tāʾib, the reciter Abū al-Ṭayyib al-Anṭākī: al-Dānī said: he has a fine book on the readings, and he is an imam in this craft, accurate, discerning of Arabic. He died at Antioch in the year 340.

12. Muḥammad ibn al-Naḍr al-Rabaʿī, the imam Abū al-Ḥasan Ibn al-Akhram al-Dimashqī: to him culminated the headship of the teaching-recitation in Syria, and he had a great circle; he used to memorize much commentary, his life grew long, and the people traveled to him; he was knowledgeable in the causes of the readings, discerning of commentary and Arabic, humble, of good character and great standing. Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī al-Sulamī said: I rose before the pre-dawn call to take my turn in reciting before Ibn al-Akhram, but I found that thirty reciters had preceded me, and my turn did not reach me until the afternoon. Abū ʿAlī al-Iṣbahānī said: Ibn al-Akhram al-Rabaʿī died in the year 341. 13. Abū al-Ḥusayn Aḥmad ibn ʿUthmān ibn Buwayān: the chief reciter of the people of Baghdad in his time; al-Dānī said: a memorizer, accurate, well-known. He died in the year 344.

14. Aḥmad ibn ʿUthmān, Abū Bakr al-Rabaʿī, the Baghdādī reciter known as Ghulām al-Sabbāk: ʿAbd al-Qāhir said: I heard Ghulām al-Sabbāk say: my hearing grew heavy, and there was a handsome youth who used to recite to me, so I would look at his mouth and his tongue in attentiveness to his recitation; and the people would stand looking at him for his beauty, so I was suspected concerning him, and that grieved me, so I asked God to restore my hearing to me, and He restored it to me. He died in the year 345. 15. Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad, Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Kisāʾī al-Iṣbahānī, the reciter: he recited under a company, among them Ibn ʿAsākir and Ibn al-Ṣabbāḥ; and companies recited under him, among them Ibn Ashta, a resident of Egypt. He died in the year 347 at Iṣbahān.

16. ʿAbd al-Wāḥid ibn ʿUmar, Abū Ṭāhir al-Baghdādī, the reciter, one of the notables and the author of the book al-Bayān, and one of those in whom the headship and the skill in the performance of the Qurʾān culminated. Al-Dānī was profuse in describing him — in his knowledge, his understanding, the truthfulness of his speech, and the uprightness of his way; he recited under a great many, and used to adopt the madhhab of the Kūfans in grammar, being accomplished in it. And there was not, after his shaykh Ibn Mujāhid, anyone like him in the readings; and when Ibn Mujāhid died, they agreed to put Abū Ṭāhir forward, so he took the chief seat for the teaching-recitation in his session, and the great ones made for him from every direction. He died in the year 349.

17. Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Muḥammad, Abū Bakr al-Naqqāsh, of Mawṣilī origin and of Baghdādī birth and upbringing, the reciter, the exegete, one of the notables: he traveled east and west in quest of the high chains, and related from several eminent scholars; he wrote down the ḥadīth and composed works on the readings and the commentary, and his days grew long, so that he stood alone in the leadership of his craft — this together with the manifestness of his devotion and scrupulousness, the truthfulness of his speech, the brilliance of his understanding, and the breadth of his knowledge, as al-Dhahabī mentioned. Al-Dānī praised him and vouched for him, saying: I heard ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Jaʿfar say that al-Naqqāsh used to specialize in the reading of Ibn Kathīr and Ibn ʿĀmir, for the loftiness of his chain in the two of them; and he had a house full of books, and companies related the ḥadīth from him, among them his own shaykh, Ibn Mujāhid. And he was known for his Shīʿism in devotion to the Family of the House (ʿa), and used to relate concerning them the ḥadīths from his shaykhs with lofty chains, whence some cast suspicion upon him in the matter of the ḥadīth. Ibn al-Qaṭṭān said: I was present with Abū Bakr al-Naqqāsh as he was giving up his soul, on the third of Shawwāl in the year 351; he began to move his lips, then called out at the top of his voice: “Let all the workers work for the like of this!”⁸⁴⁶ — repeating it three times, and then his noble soul went forth.

The traditionist al-Qummī said: what is apparent is that al-Naqqāsh was a Shīʿī, and the moving of his lips at the moment of his death was an affirmation of the imamate and of the walāya of the friends of God; and his being suspected in the matter of the ḥadīth was for nothing but his transmitting the ḥadīth on the merit of the Family of the House. And that is the ingrained disposition of the lovers of the Household of the Messenger (ṣ) — “a trait I recognize from Akhzam,” as the proverb runs, the son taking after the father. 18. Bakkār ibn Aḥmad ibn Bakkār, Abū ʿĪsā al-Baghdādī, the reciter: one of the great imams of performance, who taught the recitation for about sixty years. He died in the year 353.

19. Ibn Muqsim, Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Yaʿqūb, the imam Abū Bakr al-Baghdādī, the reciter, the grammarian, the druggist: he was among the most retentive of the people of his time for the grammar of the Kūfans, and the most knowledgeable of them concerning the readings — their well-known, their rare, and their anomalous. Al-Dānī said: he is renowned for accuracy and precision, knowledgeable in Arabic, a memorizer of the language, of fine composition in the sciences of the Qurʾān. He had followed the way of Ibn Shanbūdh, and had chosen readings in which he opposed the generality of the reciters; so he was disputed with concerning them, and was compelled to retract and made to repent, at the last, after he had been set up for the beating. He asked Ibn Mujāhid to ward that off from him, and he warded it off — as a favor from him — though it was Ibn Mujāhid himself who had convened this tribunal against him. He used to say: every reading that agrees with the consonantal script of the codex — even if it opposes it in the vowel-substance — the reading by it is permissible. That view spread about him, and a company disapproved of it and raised his matter to the ruling power, which summoned him and made him repent in the presence of the jurists and the reciters. But after the death of Ibn Mujāhid he retracted his repentance, and used to say: since it was permitted to Khalaf ibn Hishām, Abū ʿUbayd, and Ibn Saʿdān to make their own choices — and since that was permissible for them, not disapproved — it is permissible for those who come after them as well. He died in the year 354.

20. Aḥmad ibn al-ʿAbbās: a leading reciter, a shaykh who settled at Baghdad; among those who recited under him was Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī, and he was the sole master of his age in the performance of the readings. He entered Marw and Bukhārā, and it is said that he reached Farghāna, and that the amir Naṣr ibn Nūḥ recited a complete recitation to him and rewarded him with wealth. He was dissolute, squandering whatever he obtained, and his nights were never free of the Ṣūfīs and the devotional singers; and, at the last, he was shrouded as a stranger is shrouded. He died in the year 355. 21. Zayd ibn ʿAlī ibn Aḥmad, Abū al-Qāsim al-ʿIjlī al-Kūfī, the reciter, one of the skilled and the shaykh of Iraq: he recited under Ibn Mujāhid and a company; Bakr ibn Shādhān, Ibn al-Faḥḥām al-Sāmarrī, Ibn Ṣaqr al-Kātib, al-Ṣābūnī, and a company recited under him, and Abū Nuʿaym al-Ḥāfiẓ related from him. He died at Baghdad in Jumādā al-Ūlā, in the year 358.

22. Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, Ibn Budhhun, Abū al-Fatḥ al-Baghdādī, the reciter, a resident of Egypt: he recited under Ibn Mujāhid and Ibn al-Akhram, and became skilled and proficient; his life grew long and he became famous, and he was one of the most pleasant-voiced of the people with the Qurʾān and the most eloquent of them in performance. He died in the year 359. 23. Abū ʿImrān, Mūsā ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Bayrūtī al-Ṣabbāgh, the reciter, the prayer-leader of the Congregational Mosque of Beirut: he was the last high-chain transmitter among the reciters of Syria, and the last to recite the readings under Hārūn ibn Mūsā al-Akhfash. He died around the year 360. 24. Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ashta, Abū Bakr, the grammarian, the reciter, the Iṣbahānī, one of the imams: he recited under Ibn Mujāhid, Muḥammad al-Kisāʾī, and a group, and composed works on the readings. Al-Dānī said: accurate, well-known, trustworthy, knowledgeable in Arabic, discerning of the meanings, of fine composition. He died in Egypt in Shaʿbān, in the year 360; he authored the book al-Muḥabbar and the book al-Mufīd fī l-shādhdh.

25. ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad, Abū al-Ḥasan al-Hāshimī, the reciter, the blind: the shaykh of the teaching-recitation at Baṣra and their last remaining remnant; Abū al-Ḥasan Ṭāhir ibn Ghalbūn recited under him, having journeyed to him. He died in the year 368. 26. ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Ḥasan, Abū al-Qāsim al-Nakhkhās al-Baghdādī, the reciter. The ḥāfiẓ Abū al-Ḥasan ibn al-Furāt said: rarely have I seen among the shaykhs one like him. He died in the year 368.

27. al-Ḥasan ibn Saʿīd, ‘al-Muṭṭawwiʿī,’ Abū al-ʿAbbās al-ʿAbbādānī, the reciter, the long-lived, a resident of Iṣṭakhr: he gave his care to this art and became deeply versed in it, met the great ones, and traveled much in the regions; he recited under Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥīm al-Iṣbahānī and a company, composed works, and lived a long age, so that to him culminated the loftiness of the chain in the readings. His father was a traditionist and a preacher, and was the means of helping him to travel in the quest for knowledge. He came to Iṣbahān in the year 355, and was a head in the Qurʾān and its memorization. Ibn Ḥajar said: he was a head in the readings, and his narrations are mentioned in al-Mubhij, on the eight readings, of the shaykh Abū Muḥammad Sibṭ al-Khayyāṭ al-Baghdādī. The biographee died in the year 371, at an age exceeding a hundred.

28. Aḥmad ibn Naṣr, Abū Bakr al-Shadhāʾī, the Baṣran reciter, one of the well-known reciters: al-Dānī said: renowned for accuracy and precision, knowledgeable in the reading, discerning of Arabic. He died in the year 373. 29. ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Ḥusayn, Ibn Saḥnūn, Abū Aḥmad al-Sāmarrī al-Baghdādī, the reciter, the high-chain holder of the reading in the Egyptian lands. He died in the year 386. 30. Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Ibrāhīm, Abū al-Faraj al-Shanbūdhī al-Baghdādī, the reciter, ‘Ghulām Ibn Shanbūdh’: he recited under Ibn al-Akhram, Nifṭawayh, al-Naqqāsh, al-Khāqānī, and a company; he traveled much in quest of the readings, became deeply versed in them, grew famous, and his life grew long. He had memorized fifty thousand verses of poetry as attestations for the readings. Al-Dānī said: a skilled, proficient memorizer. He used to enter upon ʿAḍud al-Dawla, who would honor him — and this indicates his Shīʿism; indeed, most of the well-known reciters were of the Shīʿa, especially those who were of the people of Iraq. The biographee died in the year 388.⁸⁴⁷

Those are eight classes of the well-known, great reciters, whose biographies we have presented in brief; nor have we exhaustively treated the generality of the reciters throughout these three centuries, since our aim was to present specimens from the lives of well-known reciters — specimens that profit us as regards the aspect of their conduct in personal choice, and in taking the readings from the shaykhs, according to the sequence of time. And important points from the lives of these men will be the site of our study in a coming chapter, when we present the most important causes of the recitational stagnation of the later ages, and the cause of the currency of a single reading down the generations — namely the reading of ʿĀṣim ibn Bahdala, by the transmission of Ḥafṣ ibn Sulaymān. But before we move on to that chapter, it behooves us to speak, in summary, of the cause of the confining of the readings to the Seven — given that the great, well-known reciters were more numerous than that, and that some of them were, perhaps, of loftier standing, greater rank, and higher chain than these Seven, in whose readings alone Ibn Mujāhid confined the accepted reading.

The Recording of the Well-Known Readings

The Muslims in the first age used to recite the Qurʾān as they received it from the Companions of the Messenger (ṣ), and after them from the Successors — from those of the great imams who had settled in their land. Among those who were at Medina were Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyab, ʿUrwa ibn al-Zubayr, Sālim ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-ʿAdawī, Muʿādh ibn al-Ḥārith, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Hurmuz, Muḥammad ibn Muslim ibn Shihāb, Muslim ibn Jundab, and Zayd ibn Aslam. At Mecca: ʿUbayd ibn ʿUmayr, ʿAṭāʾ, Ṭāwūs, Mujāhid, ʿIkrima, and ʿAbd Allāh ibn Abī Mulayka. At Kūfa: ʿAlqama, al-Aswad, Masrūq, ʿAbīda, ʿAmr ibn Shuraḥbīl, al-Ḥārith ibn Qays, al-Rabīʿ ibn Khuthaym, ʿAmr ibn Maymūn, Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī, Zirr ibn Ḥubaysh, ʿUbayd ibn Nuḍayla, Abū Zurʿa, Saʿīd ibn Jubayr, Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī, and al-Shaʿbī. At Baṣra: ʿĀmir ibn ʿAbd Qays, Abū al-ʿĀliya, Abū Rajāʾ, Naṣr ibn ʿĀṣim, Yaḥyā ibn Yaʿmar, and Jābir ibn Zayd. And at Syria: Ibn Abī Shihāb, and Khulayd ibn Saʿd, the associate of Abū al-Dardāʾ. These, and their likes, were the scholars of the Community in the lands and the references of the Muslims in the various domains of the Islamic branches of knowledge at that time — but without any specialization in a single art or a particular discipline of the disciplines known in that era.

Then a people devoted themselves to the art of the reading — the taking, the receiving, and the teaching — with the utmost care, and became famous in the reading of the Qurʾān and its teaching, until they became, in that, imams who are taken as models, to whom one journeys, and from whom the reading is taken. Thus the Muslims of the various lands concurred, and the people of each land would take from the reciter who had settled among them and receive their reading with acceptance, no two differing over them; and, because they had dedicated themselves to the reading, it was ascribed to them. Among those who became famous at Medina were Abū Jaʿfar Yazīd ibn al-Qaʿqāʿ, then Shayba ibn Naṣṣāḥ, then Nāfiʿ ibn Abī Nuʿaym; at Mecca: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Kathīr, Ḥumayd ibn Qays, and Muḥammad ibn Muḥayṣin; at Kūfa: Yaḥyā ibn Waththāb, ʿĀṣim ibn Abī al-Najūd, Sulaymān al-Aʿmash, then Ḥamza, then al-Kisāʾī; at Baṣra: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Abī Isḥāq, ʿĪsā ibn ʿUmar, Abū ʿAmr ibn al-ʿAlāʾ, then ʿĀṣim al-Jaḥdarī, then Yaʿqūb al-Ḥaḍramī; and at Syria: ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿĀmir, ʿAṭiyya ibn Qays, ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Muhājir, then Yaḥyā ibn al-Ḥārith al-Dhamārī, then Shurayḥ ibn Yazīd al-Ḥaḍramī. The reciters after these grew many, and dispersed and spread through the lands, and generations upon generations succeeded them — after their classes had become known, as presented in summary above. Their qualities and their conduct in the taking, the receiving, the reading, and the teaching diverged: among them was the one proficient in the recitation, famed for both transmission and comprehension, and among them was the one restricted to but one of these descriptions. For that reason the divergence grew great among them, the accuracy grew slight, the breach widened, and the false almost became confused with the true — in the expression of Ibn al-Jazarī.⁸⁴⁸ So the expert critics among the scholars of the Community, and the great imams, arose and exerted their utmost effort in sifting and in distinguishing the sound from the ailing, and the well-known from the anomalous, by foundations whose roots they established and rules they set in order; and the reading became thereby an art among the arts, with mastered rules and firm foundations, in which there is room for independent judgment and personal choice. We have explained a portion of that in an earlier chapter.

The first reputable imam who undertook to fix accurately what had been soundly established of the readings, and gathered them in a book in an expansive and detailed manner, is Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallām al-Anṣārī (d. 224), the pupil of al-Kisāʾī. Ibn al-Jazarī said:⁸⁴⁹ and he made them, as I reckon, twenty-five reciters, including among them the Seven who became famous afterward. After him came Aḥmad ibn Jubayr ibn Muḥammad, Abū Jaʿfar al-Kūfī, a resident of Antioch (d. 258), who gathered a book on the readings of five reciters, one from each great city. Then the judge Ismāʿīl ibn Isḥāq, the associate of Qālūn (d. 282), composed a book on the readings in which he gathered the reading of twenty imams. After him the imam Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭabarī (d. 310) gathered an ample book which he named al-Jāmiʿ, containing some twenty-odd readings. Shortly after him, Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Dājūnī (d. 324) composed a book on the readings and included with them Abū Jaʿfar, one of the Ten. And following in his track was Abū Bakr Aḥmad ibn Mūsā, ‘Ibn Mujāhid’ (d. 324), the first who restricted himself to the readings of the Seven only.

The people arose in his time and after him and composed after his fashion — men such as Aḥmad ibn Naṣr al-Shadhāʾī (d. 370); and Aḥmad ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn Mihrān (d. 381), who added to the Seven the rest of the Ten; and Muḥammad ibn Jaʿfar al-Khuzāʿī (d. 408), the author of al-Muntahā, who gathered in it what none before him had gathered; and the people took it upon themselves to compose books on the readings according to what had reached them and been soundly established with them. Thus far. Now, neither al-Andalus nor the lands of the Maghrib had anything of these readings until the end of the fourth century; so those of them who related the readings journeyed to study in Egypt, and Abū ʿUmar Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad al-Ṭalamankī, the author of al-Rawḍa (d. 429), was the first to introduce the readings into al-Andalus. Then he was followed by Abū Muḥammad Makkī ibn Abī Ṭālib al-Qaysī (d. 437), the author of al-Tabṣira and al-Kashf ʿan wujūh al-qirāʾāt al-sabʿ, and other works. Then the ḥāfiẓ Abū ʿAmr ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd al-Dānī (d. 444), the author of al-Taysīr and Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, and other works. And at Damascus the master Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī al-Ahwāzī (d. 446) composed books on the readings and the paths of transmission to them. Around this time Abū al-Qāsim Yūsuf ibn ʿAlī al-Hudhalī (d. 465) journeyed from the Maghrib to the East and traveled about the lands, relating from the imams of the reading until he reached Transoxiana, and recited at Ghazna and elsewhere; he composed his book al-Kāmil, in which he gathered fifty readings from the well-known imams, together with 1,459 transmissions and paths to them. He said: and the total of those whom I met in this science was 365 shaykhs, from the far Maghrib to the gate of Farghāna — right and left, mountain and sea. Then there was Abū Maʿshar ʿAbd al-Karīm ibn ʿAbd al-Ṣamad al-Ṭabarī at Mecca (d. 478), the author of the book al-Talkhīṣ on the eight readings, and of Sūq al-ʿArūs, containing 1,550 transmissions and paths. Ibn al-Jazarī said: these two men are the greatest gatherers, of those we have known, in the field of the readings; we know of no one after them who gathered more than they, except Abū al-Qāsim ʿĪsā ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Iskandarī (d. 629), for he composed a book he named al-Jāmiʿ al-akbar wa-l-baḥr al-azkhar, which contains 7,000 transmissions and paths. He said: and the people have never ceased composing on the readings, the many of them and the few, relating their anomalous and their sound according to what reached them or was soundly established with them, none disapproving of them; rather they follow, in that, the path of the forebears — since the reading is a followed sunna, which the later takes from the earlier — and they recite by what is given in al-Kāmil of al-Hudhalī, or Sūq al-ʿArūs of al-Ṭabarī, or al-Iqnāʿ of al-Ahwāzī, or the Kifāya of Abū al-ʿIzz, or the Mubhij of Sibṭ al-Khayyāṭ, or the Rawḍa of al-Mālikī, and the like, despite what these contain of the weak and the anomalous departing from the Seven and the Ten and others; and we know of no one who disapproved of that, or claimed that it opposes anything of the transmitted variant readings.⁸⁵⁰

The Confining of the Readings to the Seven

The foregoing presentation is a sufficient specimen of the Muslims’ concern, in the generality of their periods, with the readings known from the great imams — memorizing them, recording them, and reciting by them, all together — save that the people of each land had greater concern with those of the imams who had settled in their own land than with others; and neither the common folk nor the elect raised any disapproval of this continuous practice, as was presented just now in the words of Ibn al-Jazarī. Thus the choices of the reciters and their exercises of independent judgment, in the taking and the sifting, were the object of the concern of all the Muslims, who received them and recited by them — yes, within a framework limited by particular conditions, which have also been presented earlier. This continuous practice ran on, on both sides of the reading and the teaching, until the beginning of the fourth century, when there arose at Baghdad a prodigy — in attracting the hearts of the common folk and gaining influence in the minds of the amirs — namely Abū Bakr ‘Ibn Mujāhid.’ He had taken the chair of the shaykh of the reciters — officially, on the part of the state — and the common people gathered about him in clamor and uproar; yet he had rivals more excellent in nobility and in precedence in the Qurʾān, who used to belittle him for the meagerness of his learning, the paucity of his transmission from the shaykhs, his failure to travel in the quest for knowledge, and the weakness of his command of the arts of the reading and their kinds transmitted from the great imams.

Al-Maʿāfī Abū al-Faraj relates: I came in one day upon Ibn Shanbūdh, seated with the cabinet of books before him, and he said to me: O Maʿāfī, open the cabinet. So I opened it, and in it were shelves bearing books, each shelf in one of the arts of knowledge; and I would take no bound volume and open it but that Ibn Shanbūdh would reel it off rapidly⁸⁵¹ as one recites al-Fātiḥa. Then he said: O Maʿāfī, by God, I did not commit it to memory until it had gone with me even into this bath — and yet the market goes to the ʿAṭashī.⁸⁵² Ibn al-Jazarī said: there had arisen between Ibn Shanbūdh and Ibn Mujāhid a rivalry, after the custom of peers, such that Ibn Shanbūdh would not teach anyone who recited under Ibn Mujāhid, and used to say: this ʿAṭashī — meaning Ibn Mujāhid — his two feet have never been worn in this science.

Al-ʿAllāf said: I asked Abū Ṭāhir: which of the two men is the more excellent — Abū Bakr Ibn Mujāhid, or Abū al-Ḥasan Ibn Shanbūdh? Abū Ṭāhir said to me: Abū Bakr Ibn Mujāhid — his intellect is above his knowledge; and Abū al-Ḥasan Ibn Shanbūdh — his knowledge is above his intellect.⁸⁵³ Ibn Mujāhid was eager for rigid strictness, and for holding to the imitation of the forebears in what they had recited. ʿAbd al-Wāḥid ibn Abī Hāshim said: a man asked Ibn Mujāhid — why does the shaykh not choose for himself a reading upon which others may rely? He replied: we stand in greater need of setting ourselves to preserve what our predecessors passed away upon than of choosing a reading by which those who come after us might recite.⁸⁵⁴

And it was he who suggested to the vizier Ibn Muqla the bringing-in of Ibn Shanbūdh⁸⁵⁵ and Ibn Muqsim⁸⁵⁶ in two sessions, and the trial of each of them before a full assembly of the jurists, in order to strike down the hand of personal choice altogether. Dr. Ṣubḥī al-Ṣāliḥ said: and the two sessions were convened by the order of the shaykh of the reciters, Ibn Mujāhid, whom we have known to be the first to gather the seven readings. Now, Ibn Mujāhid had taken the reading from Ibn Shādhān al-Rāzī, from whom both Ibn Muqsim and Ibn Shanbūdh had also taken it; yet the three men’s sharing of a single shaykh did not restrain Ibn Mujāhid from his harshness toward his two colleagues.⁸⁵⁷ The objection of Ibn Shanbūdh to this position of Ibn Mujāhid was severe, as we have mentioned in some of his words; and likewise Ibn Muqsim objected to the closing of the door of personal choice in the reading, saying: since it was permitted to Khalaf ibn Hishām, Abū ʿUbayd, and Ibn Saʿdān to choose — and since that was permissible for them, not disapproved — it is permissible for those who come after them as well.⁸⁵⁸

And thus Ibn Mujāhid struggled with the utmost of his effort to close the door of personal choice in the reading, and was relatively successful in it, since the harsh circumstances through which the caravan of Islam was passing in that turbulent century — with its agitation, its intrigues, and the spread of corruption through the regions — worked in his favor. As for the matter of the confining of the readings to the well-known Seven, that too is of Ibn Mujāhid’s making, and the greater part of the blame for it returns upon him. Dr. Ṣubḥī al-Ṣāliḥ said: the largest share of the blame for this delusion — the delusion that the readings are confined to the Seven — falls upon the shoulder of the great imam Abū Bakr Aḥmad ibn Mūsā ibn al-ʿAbbās, famed as Ibn Mujāhid, who arose, at the head of the year three hundred of the Hijra, at Baghdad, to gather seven readings belonging to seven of the imams of the two Sanctuaries, the two Iraqs, and Syria, who had become famed for trustworthiness, reliability, accuracy, and constancy in the reading; and his settling upon that number came about by mere coincidence and happenstance, for among the imams of the reciters were those of loftier rank than they, and their number was not to be belittled.⁸⁵⁹

And the expression “the seven readings” was not known in the Islamic cities when the scholars first began composing on the readings — scholars such as Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallām, Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭabarī, and Abū Ḥātim al-Sijistānī — for these mentioned, in their compositions, several times over those seven readings, as was presented in the previous chapter; rather the expression began to become famous only at the head of the fourth century, from the time of Ibn Mujāhid, who was not of ample transmission or travel;⁸⁶⁰ and many of the common people, and their rabble, imagined that the seven readings are the very ones intended by the seven aḥruf that came in the Prophetic ḥadīth. And hence the critic-imams rose up to direct their sharp censure at this deluding position of Ibn Mujāhid — the very thing that lowered the dignity of other imams who are of greater standing and mightier rank than these Seven!

Denunciations of Ibn Mujāhid’s Position

This imam — the reciter and exegete — Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad ibn ʿAmmār al-Mahdawī censures Ibn Mujāhid in a very harsh expression, saying: “The one who fixed these seven as a set seven has done what was not fitting for him, and made the matter obscure for the common folk, by causing everyone of slight discernment to imagine that these readings are the ones mentioned in the [Prophetic] report; would that, when he restricted them, he had made them fewer than seven, or more, so as to remove the confusion. And there befell him, too, in his restricting each imam to two transmitters, that whoever heard the reading of a third transmitter, other than the two, came to void it — though it might well be more famous, sounder, and more manifest; and one who does not understand might exaggerate, and so declare it erroneous, or even declare it unbelief.”⁸⁶¹

And Abū Bakr ibn al-ʿArabī said: “These seven are not uniquely determined for permissibility, such that none other than they is permitted — as with the reading of Abū Jaʿfar, Shayba, al-Aʿmash, and their like; for these are their equals, or above them.” Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī said: “And likewise more than one has said — among them Abū Muḥammad Makkī ibn Abī Ṭālib, Abū al-ʿAlāʾ al-Hamdānī, and others of the imams of the reciters.”⁸⁶² And Athīr al-Dīn Abū Ḥayyān al-Andalusī said: “There is not, in the book of Ibn Mujāhid and those who followed him, save the paltry few of the well-known readings. For this very Abū ʿAmr ibn al-ʿAlāʾ — seventeen transmitters became famous from him” — then he listed their names — “yet in Ibn Mujāhid’s book the transmission is restricted to al-Yazīdī alone. And from al-Yazīdī ten persons became famous; so how is one to restrict to al-Sūsī and al-Dūrī, when the two of them have no special merit over the others? — for all of them share in accuracy, precision, and the manner of taking. And I know no cause for this,” he said, “except what was decreed of the deficiency of knowledge.”⁸⁶³

And the imam and master Ismāʿīl ibn Ibrāhīm ibn al-Qarrāb said, at the beginning of his book al-Shāfī: “Now, the clinging to the reading of seven of the reciters, to the exclusion of others, has in it no transmitted trace nor sunna; rather it is a matter of the gathering of some of the later scholars” — he means Ibn Mujāhid — “who had not recited by more than the seven, and so composed a book and named it al-Sabʿa; and that spread among the common folk, who imagined that any increase upon what he mentioned in that book is impermissible, because of the fame of its author. Yet others besides him composed books on the readings, both before him and after, and mentioned, for each of these imams, many transmissions and kinds of divergence; and no one said that reading by those transmissions is impermissible merely because they are not mentioned in the book of that author” — he means Ibn Mujāhid.⁸⁶⁴

And Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad al-Sakhāwī — the shaykh of Abū Shāma — said: “When the fourth age came — the year three hundred and the years near it — Abū Bakr ibn Mujāhid had become the one to whom the headship in the reading had passed, set ahead of the people of his age; and he chose, of the readings, what agreed with the script of the codex, and, of the reciters, those whose reading had become famous; and he saw fit that they be seven — in emulation of the number of the codices that ʿUthmān dispatched to the horizons, and by the saying of the Prophet (ṣ): the Qurʾān was sent down upon seven aḥruf. So he chose these seven as the imams of the cities; and thus Abū Bakr ibn Mujāhid was the first to restrict himself to these seven and to compose his book on their reading, and the people followed him in that, no one having preceded him to the composing of the reading of these seven.”⁸⁶⁵

And Abū Muḥammad Makkī ibn Abī Ṭālib said: “These readings, all of them, are a part of the seven aḥruf by which the Qurʾān was sent down; but as for him who supposed that the reading of each one of these seven reciters is itself one of the seven aḥruf, that is, on his part, a grievous error. For it would then necessarily follow that whatever these seven did not recite by is to be abandoned — since they would have monopolized the seven aḥruf, so that whatever departs from their reading would not be of the Seven; and it would necessarily follow that no reading be related from an eighth reciter, or beyond! And the scholars have mentioned, of the imams, in their books, more than seventy who are of higher rank and loftier standing than these seven; moreover, a company of the scholars have left out, in their books on the readings, the mention of some of these seven, and cast them aside. Abū Ḥātim and others left out the mention of Ḥamza, al-Kisāʾī, and Ibn ʿĀmir, and added about twenty men of the imams who are above these seven; and likewise al-Ṭabarī added, in his book on the readings, about fifteen men beyond the seven; and so too did Abū ʿUbayd and Ismāʿīl the judge. So how is it permissible for a supposer to suppose that the readings of these seven late reciters are the seven aḥruf?! This is a grievous backwardness. Was that by a text of the Prophet (ṣ) — or how else could it be? And how can that be, when al-Kisāʾī was only attached to the seven, as if yesterday, in the days of al-Maʾmūn — the seventh before him having been Yaʿqūb al-Ḥaḍramī — and then Ibn Mujāhid, in the year three hundred or thereabouts, established al-Kisāʾī in the place of Yaʿqūb?” And he prolonged the discourse on that at length.⁸⁶⁶

And the ḥāfiẓ Ibn al-Jazarī said: “It has reached us, from some who have no knowledge, that the sound readings are those which come from these seven. Nay, it has prevailed over many of the ignorant that the sound ones are those in the Shāṭibiyya and the Taysīr — so much so that some of them apply the name ‘anomalous’ to whatever is not in those two, or is not from these seven; and yet much of what is not in the two books, or not from the seven, is sounder than what is in them. What cast these people into the confusion was only that they heard of the sending-down of the Qurʾān upon seven aḥruf, and heard the readings of the seven reciters, and so supposed that these are the ones alluded to in the ḥadīth.” He said: “And for that reason many of the earlier imams disliked Ibn Mujāhid’s restricting himself to seven of the reciters, and faulted him in it, saying: would that he had restricted himself to fewer than this number, or more, or had clarified his intent, so as to deliver from this confusion him who does not know.”⁸⁶⁷ Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī said: “The disapproval of the imams of this field has grown intense against him who supposed the well-known readings confined to the like of what is in the Taysīr and the Shāṭibiyya; and the last to declare that openly is the shaykh Taqī al-Dīn al-Subkī.”⁸⁶⁸

Those, then, are the denunciations of the imams, directed at Ibn Mujāhid in his capacity as the first to gather the readings into the seven and restrict himself to them. But — did those denunciations have any effect? As for the common folk, they ran on in their former practice, ever since the beginning of the fourth century, restricting themselves to the seven reciters in pure imitation. And as for the scholars and compilers who came afterward, they were unable to deviate from the course of the common folk, and so they wove upon their short loom and ran with them into the low point of the watercourse.

For this very Abū Muḥammad Makkī (d. 437) — the most vehement of the denouncers of the confinement to the seven — composed his book al-Kashf ʿan wujūh al-qirāʾāt al-sabʿ on the seven alone. And this very imam Abū ʿAmr ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd al-Dānī (d. 444) composed his book al-Taysīr on the seven readings. And the imam Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Shurayḥ al-Ishbīlī (d. 476) composed his book al-Kāfī on the seven and their transmitters; and likewise the imam Abū Ḥafṣ ʿUmar ibn al-Qāsim al-Anṣārī al-Andalusī composed his book al-Mukarrar on what is multiply transmitted of the seven readings and verified. And the imam Abū Muḥammad al-Qāsim ibn Fīrruh al-Shāṭibī (d. 590) versified his poem al-Shāṭibiyya — also named Ḥirz al-Amānī wa-Wajh al-Tahānī — on the readings of the seven, mentioning for each reciter two transmitters, as the common folk had run in the habit of, in binding imitation of Ibn Mujāhid. And likewise did others than they, of authors, and others than these, of compositions, run on upon the very same pattern, in a restricted confinement.

Yes, some of the later scholars added three reciters, as a completion to make the ten, and mentioned for each of them two transmitters as well, running along with what Ibn Mujāhid had done in the case of the seven. Among these was the imam Shams al-Dīn Abū al-Khayr Ibn al-Jazarī (d. 833), who composed his great book al-Nashr on the ten readings, then al-Taḥbīr on the readings of the ten imams, and versified a poem upon the same pattern, which he named Ṭayyibat al-Nashr, on the ten readings. And those who came after him ran his same course, down to the latest age — as with al-Muhadhdhab fī l-qirāʾāt al-ʿashr, the composition of the contemporary Muḥammad Sālim Muḥaysin. And some of them chose four of the reciters of the anomalous readings, to add to the ten, so that the number of the relied-upon reciters might become, by their reckoning, fourteen; and the book Itḥāf Fuḍalāʾ al-Bashar on the readings of the fourteen, the composition of Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad al-Dimyāṭī (d. 1117), came forth upon this innovated pattern.

As for us — the community of the Imāmiyya, the followers of the madhhab of the Ahl al-Bayt — we possess no proof that would permit us, in this, the excess of mere opinion and unsupported choice, save what has been established for us as sound in accordance with the conditions presented earlier; and it is a single reading, because the Qurʾān is one, sent down from the One. The divergence came only from the side of the transmitters — that is, the reciters, according to their own exertions; and there is no independent weight to be given them in themselves, save the uncovering of the sound reading, which is the origin — and that is when the reciters agree upon it, or the majority is with it, together with the availability of the rest of the conditions.

The Seven Reciters and Their Transmitters

We have mentioned that the confining of the readings to the seven imams was mere coincidence and happenstance, following upon Ibn Mujāhid’s gathering and his restriction to those of the seven readings that had reached him — for he was not of ample transmission and travel, as the imam al-Zarkashī explained it,⁸⁶⁹ or it had no cause for him except the deficiency of his knowledge and the paucity of his acquaintance with the readings of the great imams other than they, as Abū Ḥayyān al-Andalusī explained it,⁸⁷⁰ or he had not recited by more than the seven, as the imam al-Qarrāb held,⁸⁷¹ and the like of that, of explanations that bespeak the shortcoming of Ibn Mujāhid in this matter. There was, therefrom, a falling-short and a belittling of the right of others — those of higher rank and loftier standing than these seven — as came in the words of Abū Muḥammad Makkī,⁸⁷² resentful of the one who fixed the seven as a set seven.

And Makkī mentioned, in explanation of that: that Ibn Jubayr had composed, before Ibn Mujāhid, a book on the readings and restricted himself to five reciters, choosing from each great city one imam — on the consideration that the codices ʿUthmān sent were five, to these five cities. And it is said that he dispatched seven codices — these five, together with al-Yaman and al-Baḥrayn; but when no distinctive report was heard for these two codices, and Ibn Mujāhid wished to observe the number of the seven codices, he substituted, in place of the two lands, two reciters, choosing the two of them from Kūfa as well, so that thereby the number agreed with that by which the ḥadīth of the seven aḥruf had come. He said: and one of the well-known seven had been Yaʿqūb al-Ḥaḍramī; but Ibn Mujāhid established the name of al-Kisāʾī and dropped Yaʿqūb.⁸⁷³

I say: it is a strange explanation. At all events, the readings known across the ages after the event of Ibn Mujāhid are the seven; the others were gradually abandoned, and were on the verge of vanishing with the winds — and that is nothing but an evil trace of that tragedy which Ibn Mujāhid wrought. Hence we, in this age, find ourselves compelled toward these seven and no others; so the duty is to safeguard them, and to study and practice them, lest they be lost as their sisters were lost before.

As for the seven reciters who recited by these remaining readings, their biographies have already been presented in the chapter “The Classes of the Reciters according to the Centuries”; and here now is an index of their names, and the names of two of their transmitters, according to what came in the book al-Sabʿa of Ibn Mujāhid — for otherwise the transmitters from them are more numerous than that. 1. ʿAbd Allāh, “Ibn ʿĀmir” al-Yaḥṣubī, the reciter of Syria (d. 118); his two transmitters are Hishām ibn ʿAmmār and Ibn Dhakwān — though neither lived to reach him, for Hishām was born in 153 and died in 245, and Ibn Dhakwān was born in 173 and died in 242; and so the cause of Ibn Mujāhid’s choosing these two for the transmission from Ibn ʿĀmir is not known. 2. ʿAbd Allāh, “Ibn Kathīr” al-Dārī, the reciter of Mecca (d. 120); his two transmitters are al-Bazzī and Qunbul — and neither lived to reach him either, for the first was born in 170 and died in 250, and the second was born in 195 and died in 291. 3. “ʿĀṣim” ibn Abī al-Najūd al-Asadī, the reciter of Kūfa (d. 128); his two transmitters are Ḥafṣ ibn Sulaymān, his stepson (90–180), and Shuʿba, Abū Bakr ibn ʿAyyāsh (95–193); and Ḥafṣ was the more faithful to the reading of ʿĀṣim.

4. “Abū ʿAmr” ibn al-ʿAlāʾ al-Māzinī — his given name being Zabbān — the reciter of Baṣra (d. 154); his two transmitters are al-Dūrī, Ḥafṣ ibn ʿUmar (d. 246), and al-Sūsī, Ṣāliḥ ibn Ziyād (d. 261) — neither of whom lived to reach him; rather they related from al-Yazīdī, from him. 5. “Ḥamza” ibn Ḥabīb al-Zayyāt, the reciter of Kūfa as well (d. 156); his two transmitters are Khalaf ibn Hishām al-Bazzār (150–229) and Khallād ibn Khālid al-Shaybānī (d. 220), both of whom related from him through an intermediary. 6. “Nāfiʿ” ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Laythī, the reciter of Medina (d. 169); his two transmitters are Qālūn, the stepson of Nāfiʿ — his given name being ʿĪsā ibn Mīnā (120–220) — and Warsh, ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd (110–197). 7. ʿAlī ibn Ḥamza, “al-Kisāʾī,” the reciter of Kūfa as well (d. 189); his two transmitters are al-Layth ibn Khālid al-Baghdādī (d. 240) and al-Dūrī, Ḥafṣ ibn ʿUmar — the transmitter of Abū ʿAmr as well (d. 246).

And the later scholars added three reciters, as a completion to make the ten, and they are: 8. “Khalaf” ibn Hishām, the transmitter of Ḥamza and the reciter of Baghdad (d. 229); his two transmitters are Abū Yaʿqūb al-Marwazī, Isḥāq ibn Ibrāhīm, the copyist of Khalaf (d. 286), and Abū al-Ḥasan, Idrīs ibn ʿAbd al-Karīm (d. 292). 9. “Yaʿqūb” al-Ḥaḍramī, ibn Isḥāq, the reciter of Baṣra (d. 205); his two transmitters are Ruways, Muḥammad ibn al-Mutawakkil al-Luʾluʾī (d. 238), and Rawḥ ibn ʿAbd al-Muʾmin al-Hudhalī (d. 235). 10. “Abū Jaʿfar” Yazīd ibn al-Qaʿqāʿ al-Makhzūmī, the reciter of Medina (d. 130); his two transmitters are Ibn Wardān, ʿĪsā al-Ḥadhdhāʾ (d. 160), and Ibn Jammāz, Sulaymān ibn Muslim al-Zuhrī (d. 170).

And there were appended to these ten four more, who recited by the anomalous readings; yet their reading was regarded as valid, and the common folk accepted it, and they are: 11. “al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī,” son of Yasār, the reciter of Baṣra (d. 110); his two transmitters are Shujāʿ ibn Abī Naṣr al-Balkhī (120–190) and al-Dūrī, Ḥafṣ ibn ʿUmar (d. 246), both of whom related from him through a chain. 12. “Ibn Muḥayṣin,” Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, the reciter of Mecca together with Ibn Kathīr (d. 123); his two transmitters are al-Bazzī, Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad (170–250), and Ibn Shanbūdh, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad (d. 328), both of whom related from him through a chain. 13. “al-Yazīdī,” Yaḥyā ibn al-Mubārak, the reciter of Baṣra (d. 202); his two transmitters are Sulaymān ibn al-Ḥakam al-Khayyāṭ (d. 235) and Aḥmad ibn Faraj al-Ḍarīr (d. 303), both of whom related from al-Dūrī, from him. 14. “al-Aʿmash,” Sulaymān ibn Mihrān al-Asadī, the reciter of Kūfa (d. 148); his two transmitters are al-Shanbūdhī, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Baghdādī (300–388), and al-Muṭṭawwiʿī, al-Ḥasan ibn Saʿīd al-Baṣrī (d. 371), both of whom related from him through an intermediary. These are fourteen reciters and twenty-eight transmitters, whom we have mentioned following what the scholars mentioned, and because of the pressing need to know them specifically, in the particular matter of the current readings existing today.

Brief Observations

1. Abū ʿAmr al-Dānī said: among the seven reciters there are, of the Arabs, none but two — ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿĀmir al-Yaḥṣubī, the reciter of Damascus, and Abū ʿAmr ibn al-ʿAlāʾ al-Māzinī, the reciter of Baṣra.⁸⁷⁴ I say: as for Ibn ʿĀmir, he used to claim that he was of Ḥimyar; yet Ibn Ḥajar mentioned that he is of those whose lineage is impugned.⁸⁷⁵ And likewise Abū ʿAmr ibn al-ʿAlāʾ — it is said that he was of Māzin of Tamīm; but the judge Asad al-Yazīdī related that he was of Fāris — of Shīrāz — from a village called Kāzarūn, which is still inhabited today.⁸⁷⁶

2. Four of the seven reciters are avowedly Shīʿa of the Family of the House (ʿa), and are among the reliable, carefully guarding transmitters: ʿĀṣim ibn Abī al-Najūd, Abū ʿAmr ibn al-ʿAlāʾ, Ḥamza ibn Ḥabīb, and ʿAlī ibn Ḥamza al-Kisāʾī.⁸⁷⁷ One is of the partisans of Muʿāwiya — namely Ibn ʿĀmir, who would not scruple at lying and licentiousness;⁸⁷⁸ and two — Ibn Kathīr al-Makkī and Nāfiʿ al-Madanī — are of veiled condition; perhaps⁸⁷⁹ their position bespeaks something of the madhhab of the Ahl al-Bayt (ʿa), for these four are the foremost of those who knew the truth and sensed it in this direction.

3. Abū Muḥammad Makkī ibn Abī Ṭālib said: “The soundest of the readings in chain are those of Nāfiʿ and ʿĀṣim, and the most eloquent of them are those of Abū ʿAmr and al-Kisāʾī.”⁸⁸⁰ And Ibn Khallikān said: “ʿĀṣim was the one pointed to as the reference in the readings.”⁸⁸¹ And Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal said: “The people of Kūfa used to choose the reading of ʿĀṣim, and I too choose it.”⁸⁸² And al-Khwānsārī said: “His reading remained the current one among the Muslims, and it used to be written in black ink, while the rest of the readings were written in other colors, for distinction.”⁸⁸³ Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn said: “The sound narration that has been related of the reading of ʿĀṣim is the narration of Ḥafṣ.”⁸⁸⁴ I say: and hence the reading known from ʿĀṣim in all the ages is the one by the narration of Ḥafṣ; and that is the subject of our study in the following chapter.

Ḥafṣ and Our Present Reading

The reading current among the Muslims — ever since the first age down to our present age — was, and still is, the reading that accords with the reading of ʿĀṣim by the narration of Ḥafṣ. And there were, for that, two causes. The first is what we have pointed to previously: that the reading of Ḥafṣ was, in fact, the reading of the generality of the Muslims, and that the ascription is inverted; for Ḥafṣ and his shaykh ʿĀṣim were keen to hold to what accorded with the reading of the generality and with the sound, multiply transmitted narration among the Muslims. It is the reading that ʿĀṣim took from his shaykh Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī, from the Imam, the Commander of the Faithful (ʿa); and ʿAlī (ʿa) would recite only by what accorded with the text of the revelation, the multiply transmitted origin among the Muslims. This reading ʿĀṣim taught to his pupil Ḥafṣ; and hence the Muslims relied upon it in the generality of their periods, in view of this accord and concord. Its ascription to Ḥafṣ was a symbolic ascription, merely for the designation of this reading; so the meaning of “choosing the reading of Ḥafṣ” is: choosing a reading that Ḥafṣ [in turn] chose — because it is a reading multiply transmitted among the Muslims ever since the first age.

The second is that ʿĀṣim, among the well-known reciters, was unique in traits and characteristics that made him a landmark pointed to with fingertips; for he was accurate and precise to the utmost, intensely cautious and circumspect concerning him from whom he took the Qurʾān, careful to verify. Hence he took the reading, in its complete form, only from Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī, from ʿAlī (ʿa); and he would review it before Zirr ibn Ḥubaysh, from Ibn Masʿūd. Ibn ʿAyyāsh said: ʿĀṣim said to me — no one taught me a single letter but Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, and Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān had recited under ʿAlī (ʿa); so I would return from him and recite in review before Zirr, and Zirr had recited under ʿAbd Allāh. So I said to ʿĀṣim: you have indeed made it doubly sure.⁸⁸⁵ — the very thing that made him the one pointed to as a reference in the readings, in the expression of Ibn Khallikān.⁸⁸⁶

And thus, in all the periods of history, the reading of ʿĀṣim was the preferred reading that gained currency among the generality of the Muslims, who turned toward it in a collective manner. This al-Qāsim ibn Aḥmad al-Khayyāṭ, the skilled and trustworthy (d. ca. 292), was a leading authority in the reading of ʿĀṣim, and hence the people’s consensus upon giving preference to him in his reading.⁸⁸⁷ And in the circle of Ibn Mujāhid — the reciter of Baghdad at the head of the fourth century — there were fifteen men specially devoted to the reading of ʿĀṣim, whom the shaykh would have recite by this reading only, and no other.⁸⁸⁸ And Nifṭawayh, Ibrāhīm ibn Muḥammad (d. 323), when he sat for the teaching-recitation — and he sat for more than fifty years — would begin with something of the glorious Qurʾān upon the reading of ʿĀṣim only, and then teach by others.⁸⁸⁹ And thus the imam Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal chose the reading of ʿĀṣim over the reading of any other, because the people of Kūfa — and they are people of knowledge and excellence — chose his reading;⁸⁹⁰ and in the wording of al-Dhahabī: Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal said: ʿĀṣim was trustworthy; I choose his reading.⁸⁹¹

And the imams endeavored to make their chains connect to ʿĀṣim by the narration of Ḥafṣ in particular. The imam Shams al-Dīn al-Dhahabī said: and the highest chain by which the Great Qurʾān comes to us is by way of ʿĀṣim. Then he mentioned his chain, connected to Ḥafṣ, from ʿĀṣim, from Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī, from ʿAlī (ʿa), and from Zirr, from ʿAbd Allāh — both of them from the Prophet (ṣ), from Jibrāʾīl (ʿa), from God, mighty and majestic.⁸⁹² This is from one side; and from another, it was Ḥafṣ who spread the reading of ʿĀṣim in the lands. He was known for accuracy and precision, and hence the mass of the Muslims came forward to take the reading of ʿĀṣim from him in particular.

This is besides the fact that Ḥafṣ was the most knowledgeable of ʿĀṣim’s associates in his reading, and was given preference over his colleague Abū Bakr ibn ʿAyyāsh in the memorization and the accurate mastery of the letters of ʿĀṣim. Abū ʿAmr al-Dānī said: Ḥafṣ is the one who transmitted the reading of ʿĀṣim to the people by recitation; he settled at Baghdad and taught by it, and resided at Mecca and taught by it.⁸⁹³ Ibn al-Munādī said: the early ones used to reckon Ḥafṣ, in memorization, above Ibn ʿAyyāsh, and would describe him as having the accurate mastery of the letters he had recited under ʿĀṣim.⁸⁹⁴ Al-Shāṭibī said in verse: “and Ḥafṣ… and in precision he was the one preferred.”⁸⁹⁵ As for the people of criticism and sifting, they hold the narration of Ḥafṣ from ʿĀṣim to be the sound narration. Ibn Maʿīn said: the sound narration that has been related of the reading of ʿĀṣim is the narration of Ḥafṣ ibn Sulaymān.⁸⁹⁶ And hence the reading that gained currency among the Muslims, all of them, is the reading of ʿĀṣim by the path of Ḥafṣ alone. This is besides the fact that the chain of Ḥafṣ — to his shaykh, and thence to ʿAlī, the Commander of the Faithful (ʿa) — is a golden, lofty chain that has no peer in the readings.

Firstly: ʿĀṣim did not recite the complete reading under anyone save his shaykh Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī, the man great in nobility and eminence; he would recite his reading before others only for the purpose of [added] precision. The report of Ibn ʿAyyāsh concerning that has already been presented above.⁸⁹⁷ Secondly: he did not fault his shaykh al-Sulamī in anything of his letters — out of his knowledge that his shaykh did not fault ʿAlī (ʿa) in anything of his reading. He said: I did not oppose Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī in anything of his reading, for Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān did not oppose ʿAlī (ʿa) in anything of his reading.⁸⁹⁸ Thirdly: ʿĀṣim singled out his stepson Ḥafṣ, and no other, with this lofty golden chain. It is a great merit by which Ḥafṣ was distinguished over the rest of the reciters absolutely, and it is what qualified him for the general acceptance of the Muslims toward his reading, and nothing else. Ḥafṣ said: ʿĀṣim said to me: whatever belongs to the reading that I taught you is the reading by which I recited under Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī, from ʿAlī (ʿa); and whatever belongs to the reading that I taught to Abū Bakr ibn ʿAyyāsh is the reading that I used to recite in review before Zirr ibn Ḥubaysh, from Ibn Masʿūd.⁸⁹⁹

Our eminent scholars, of our Imāmī jurists, have never ceased to give preference to the reading of ʿĀṣim by the narration of Ḥafṣ — out of their knowledge that it is the preferred reading, the one according with the reading of Quraysh, in whose tongue the Qurʾān was sent down, and in accordance with their eloquent dialect (al-fuṣḥā), upon which the Arabs and the Muslims all agreed. Abū Jaʿfar Rashīd al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Shahrāshūb (d. 588) said: as for ʿĀṣim, he recited under Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī, and Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān said: I recited the whole Qurʾān under ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (ʿa). [Ibn Shahrāshūb] said: the most eloquent of the readings is the reading of ʿĀṣim, because he came with the origin — for he makes manifest (iẓhār) what others assimilate, pronounces the hamza distinctly where others soften it, and opens with fatḥ what others incline with imāla.⁹⁰⁰ And the ʿAllāma Abū Manṣūr Jamāl al-Dīn al-Ḥasan ibn Yūsuf ibn al-Muṭahhar al-Ḥillī (d. 726) said: the most beloved of the readings to me is the reading of ʿĀṣim.⁹⁰¹

And Abū al-Ḥasan Thābit ibn Aslam al-Ḥalabī, the martyr (d. 460) — one of the great pupils of Abū al-Ṣalāḥ al-Ḥalabī — has an elegant composition on the explanation of the reading of ʿĀṣim and [the demonstration] that it is the reading of Quraysh; al-Ṣafadī mentioned it, and from him al-Dhahabī, in Tārīkh al-Islām.⁹⁰² And al-Mawlā ʿImād al-Dīn ʿAlī Sharīf al-Qārī al-Istarābādī (of the scholars of the ninth century) [wrote] on the reading of ʿĀṣim, the chain of his reading, and the chain of the author’s own reading tracing back to him — a unique epistle that he wrote for the daughter of Shah Ṭahmāsb the Ṣafavid, to which he appended a conclusion on what the Shāṭibiyya had omitted of the reading of ʿĀṣim.⁹⁰³ And al-Mawlā Muṣṭafā ibn Muḥammad Ibrāhīm al-Qārī al-Tabrīzī, a resident of Khurāsān (of the scholars of the eleventh century, born in the year 1007), [wrote] an epistle on the chain of the reading of ʿĀṣim as well.⁹⁰⁴ And thus the scholars, in all the ages, have never ceased to keep pace with the mass of the Muslims in their concern for the reading of ʿĀṣim by the narration of Ḥafṣ — the very thing that gave it preponderance over all the rest of the readings, in addition to the other merits that have passed.

And did Ḥafṣ oppose his shaykh ʿĀṣim in anything of his reading? Ibn al-Jazarī said: Ḥafṣ mentioned that he did not oppose ʿĀṣim in anything of his reading except in the word of [Sūrat] al-Rūm — “It is Allah who created you from [a state of] weakness”⁹⁰⁵ — [for] Ḥafṣ read it with the ḍamm (ḍuʿf), while ʿĀṣim read it with the fatḥ (ḍaʿf).⁹⁰⁶ Abū Muḥammad Makkī said: Abū Bakr and Ḥamza read with the fatḥ of the ḍād in the three occurrences.⁹⁰⁷ And it has been mentioned, from Ḥafṣ, that he related it from ʿĀṣim [with the fatḥ] but himself chose the ḍamm, on the basis of the narration of Ibn ʿUmar, who said: I recited min ḍaʿf, with the fatḥ, before the Messenger of God (ṣ); and the Prophet (ṣ) returned it to me [as] min ḍuʿf, with the ḍamm, in the three occurrences. Makkī said: and it is related, from Ḥafṣ, that he said: I did not oppose ʿĀṣim in anything of what I recited under him except in the ḍamm of these three words.⁹⁰⁸

But the truth is that this ascription is not established; and hence Makkī did not firmly settle the attribution of its chain to Ḥafṣ, but mentioned it with wavering and doubt, in the passive wording — “it was mentioned from Ḥafṣ,” “it was related from Ḥafṣ” — as though its soundness had not been conclusively established with him. This is what we ourselves give preponderance to, in view of the fact that the reliance of one like Ḥafṣ upon Ibn ʿUmar — who wandered in his personal opinions — was not of a degree that would require its being preferred over reliance upon his accurate, reliable shaykh; for the reading of ʿĀṣim rose up to one like ʿAlī (ʿa) in a lofty golden chain of transmission, and ʿĀṣim had mastered it thoroughly and then deposited it with his stepson and trusted one, Ḥafṣ — a matter about which there ought to be no doubt merely on account of a narration related by a man in no way to be relied upon. For how could a matter like this — in the reading of a Qurʾānic verse — remain hidden from the rest of the great, trustworthy Companions, while the Prophet (ṣ) discloses it to Ibn ʿUmar as something particular to him?! And is it reasonable that Ḥafṣ would abandon the reading of his trustworthy shaykh — a reading that is the reading of ʿAlī (ʿa) in all its letters, complete, taken from his shaykh al-Sulamī in sincerity and reliability — merely on account of a narration whose soundness has not been established?! And since we know the extent of the Kūfans’ exactitude — especially in the age of the Successors — the degree of their loyalty to the Family of the House (ʿa), and their impugning of the likes of Ibn ʿUmar, we conclude with certainty the falsehood of the aforementioned chain, and that Ḥafṣ did not oppose his shaykh ʿĀṣim in anything of his letters at all — just as ʿĀṣim did not oppose his shaykh al-Sulamī in anything of his reading, because al-Sulamī did not oppose the Commander of the Faithful, ʿAlī (ʿa). This is the truth with us. So the more likely view is that Ḥafṣ did not read with the ḍamm, and did not oppose his shaykh ʿĀṣim at all.

The Shīʿa’s Firm Bond with the Qurʾān

Nothing prompted us to set up this chapter save that we found, in the words of some who lack freedom in thinking — and who prefer to imitate their forebears in [their] rancor against a great portion of the Community of the Muslims, [who have] no fault save their clinging to the loyalty of the Family of the House of the Messenger (ṣ), acting upon his injunction⁹⁰⁹ and responding to the call of the Noble Qurʾān⁹¹⁰ — that they directed at the Shīʿa many accusations, in calumny and falsehood, of which the Shīʿa are innocent: among them, the ascription to them of a special codex, upon which the accusers conferred the name “the Shīʿī codex,”⁹¹¹ whereas the Shīʿa themselves have not heard of such a codex in all the periods of their glorious history.

A company of the later researchers have met this ascription with severe denial,⁹¹² the most important of them being Goldziher, who treated the Shīʿa’s special relationship with the official Qurʾānic text that is in our hands.⁹¹³ And in elucidation of this aspect — the extent of the Shīʿa’s bond with the extant text — we present the following. When we presented the history of the glorious Qurʾān, and the periods that passed over it generation after generation, we found that this text, in its present state, is the making of the efforts of the Shīʿa in particular; for they are the ones who kept vigil over its preservation, its accurate fixing, and its perfecting, and who labored in its improvement, its vocalization, and its development from the beautiful to the more beautiful, in a continuous work. So the truth — if there were any “Shīʿī codex” — would require that this name be applied to the very codex extant among us, as an ascription to the imams of the Shīʿa, their reciters, their memorizers, and their master-craftsmen across history. Here, in brief, [is the account]:

ʿAlī, the Commander of the Faithful (ʿa), was the first to put forth the idea of gathering the Qurʾān, directly after the death of the Messenger of God (ṣ); and although his gathering was rejected, the idea of gathering had its effect at the same time, [and] the difference between the two compilations was not in the text of the Qurʾān. The principal codices in which the whole Qurʾān was gathered — in that age, before its unification — were those gathered by ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd, Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, Abū al-Dardāʾ, and al-Miqdād ibn al-Aswad, all of them known for a special loyalty to the lofty Prophetic House; the rest of the codices were not of that standing. And the leaves (ṣuḥuf) of Abū Bakr were not arranged between two covers.

The first who came with the idea of unifying the codices, in the time of ʿUthmān, was Ḥudhayfa ibn al-Yamān, in a story [told] earlier; and it was Ubayy ibn Kaʿb who took charge of dictating the Qurʾān to the committee for copying the unified codices, [who] would refer to him regarding what was obscure to them of the fixing of the words. The vocalization (tashkīl) of the codex and its dotting (tanqīṭ) came at the hand of Abū al-Aswad al-Duʾalī and his two pupils Naṣr ibn ʿĀṣim and Yaḥyā ibn Yaʿmar; the first to bring refinement to the writing of the codex and the fine execution of its script was Khālid ibn Abī al-Hayyāj, the associate of ʿAlī (ʿa); then the fixing of the vowel-signs in their present form came at the hand of the great master al-Khalīl ibn Aḥmad al-Farāhīdī, who was the first to lay down [the signs for] the hamza, the tashdīd, the rawm, and the ishmām.⁹¹⁴

As for the readings, it is the Shīʿa who are the ones who studied their foundations, firmly established their rules, and showed creativity in their arts and their phases, in reliability and sincerity. Four — if we do not say six — of the seven reciters were Shīʿa; this is besides others of the great reciter-imams — such as Ibn Masʿūd, Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, Abū al-Dardāʾ, al-Miqdād, Ibn ʿAbbās, Abū al-Aswad, ʿAlqama, Ibn al-Sāʾib, al-Sulamī, Zirr ibn Ḥubaysh, Saʿīd ibn Jubayr, Naṣr ibn ʿĀṣim, Yaḥyā ibn Yaʿmar, ʿĀṣim ibn Abī al-Najūd, Ḥumrān ibn Aʿyan, Abān ibn Taghlib, al-Aʿmash, Abū ʿAmr ibn al-ʿAlāʾ, al-Kisāʾī, Ḥamza, Ibn ʿAyyāsh, Ḥafṣ ibn Sulaymān, and their peers of the great imams — who are chiefs in the reading and the teaching-recitation, in the cities [and] throughout the ages.⁹¹⁵

As for the present reading — the reading of Ḥafṣ — it is a purely Shīʿī reading, which Ḥafṣ related (and he is one of the associates of the Imam al-Ṣādiq (ʿa))⁹¹⁶ from his shaykh ʿĀṣim, who is one of the eminent, illustrious Shīʿa of Kūfa,⁹¹⁷ from his shaykh al-Sulamī,⁹¹⁸ who was one of the intimates of ʿAlī (ʿa), from the Commander of the Faithful (ʿa), from the Messenger of God (ṣ), from God, mighty and majestic.

A Representative Comparison between the Reading of Ḥafṣ and the Readings That Differ from It

The reading of ʿĀṣim — by the narration of Ḥafṣ — was and still is the preferred reading, which the mass of the Muslims followed in all periods and ages, and in all countries and cities, on account of [certain] merits that were in it, the most important of which are: that ʿĀṣim combined eloquence, precision, verification (taḥrīr), and fine execution (tajwīd) — the very quality with which he is distinguished in the description [given] in the books of the reciters’ biographies;⁹¹⁹ and that he was distinguished by the loftiness of the chain and its rising to the Imam, the Commander of the Faithful (ʿa), by a single intermediary — the great Successor Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥabīb al-Sulamī. The reading of the Imam was, without doubt, the reading of the Messenger of God (ṣ), from Jibrāʾīl, from God, mighty and majestic; so it was the authoritative proof. And Ḥafṣ was the most precise of the associates of ʿĀṣim, and the most knowledgeable of them in his reading. Ibn Maʿīn said: the sound narration that has been related of the reading of ʿĀṣim is the narration of Ḥafṣ ibn Sulaymān.⁹²⁰ Al-Shāṭibī said in verse: “…and Ḥafṣ… and in precision he was the one preferred.”⁹²¹

And in the following presentation is a representative comparison between this reading and the rest of the readings that differ from it, so that the extent of its strength and its precision may become clear by the [scholarly] criteria as well — besides the strength of the chain and the precision of its source, as you have known. Here, then, are selections of that, according to the order of the sūras:

From Sūrat al-Fātiḥa

ʿĀṣim and al-Kisāʾī read māliki yawmi l-dīn, with the alif; and the rest read maliki, without the alif. And thus al-ʿAyyāshī related, with his chain to al-Ḥalabī, that the Imam Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Ṣādiq (ʿa) used to read mālik [with the alif], and what is apparent is that this was his regular practice. Yes, he would often read without the alif as well, according to what al-ʿAyyāshī related with his chain from Dāwūd ibn Farqad, who said: I heard Abū ʿAbd Allāh (ʿa) reading [readings] I could not count, [among them] malik yawm al-dīn, without the alif.⁹²²

What is apparent is the permissibility of the reading in both ways — though the more likely, indeed the determined, is the reading of the alif (mālik), on account of its being the one preserved in the breasts of the Muslims, both their common folk and their elect, which indicates that it is the origin, transmitted by tawātur; and because the Imam (ʿa) used to persist upon it, even though it is said that he would sometimes read without the alif — and perhaps this second [practice] was for agreement with the reciters of the Ḥijāz (Mecca and Medina) at that time.⁹²³ [This would be so] unless the matter had become confused for Ibn Farqad, [in that] the Imam (ʿa) used to read with the imāla (inclination) of the alif — as it is the dialect of Quraysh — so that Ibn Farqad reckoned it to be without an alif, in the manner of the custom of the Arabs today, [who] do not pronounce the alif manifestly in the like of that, so that it is supposed to be by elision.

Al-Akhfash gave preponderance to the reading of the alif (mālik), because mālik is annexed, in expression, to all created things: one says “the owner (mālik) of men, jinn, and animals,” and “the owner of the winds, the birds, and all things,” but one does not say malik [of them]. Since that is so, he said, the description by milk (ownership, with kasra of the mīm) is more general than the description by mulk (kingship, with ḍamma), because He owns all that we have mentioned and His power encompasses it. Abū Zurʿa said, commenting on this: our scholars said that milk (with kasra) is the more eloquent in praise, when annexed to God, than the [word] annexed to the created beings — because one of them (a creature) owns [only] some thing and not another, whereas God owns everything.⁹²⁴

I say: al-mulk (with ḍamma) means authority (al-sulṭa), most often the administrative governance of a community or a region of the earth; and hence the dominion of the heavens and the earth is in His hand, exalted: “To Him belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth.” Al-milk (with kasra), by contrast, is more general and more comprehensive, and it is the basis and first origin of al-mulk; in the creature it is accidental and conventional, but in Him, exalted, it is original and real — because He, exalted, came to own all things only by [His] making and bringing them into existence, so that He is the real owner (mālik) of all things, whereas in any other than Him it is purely conventional. Al-Rāghib said: al-mulk (with ḍamma) is the controlling of a thing over which one has disposal by way of governance, while al-milk (with kasra) is like the genus for al-mulk — so every mulk is a milk, but not every milk is a mulk. God, exalted, said: “Say, ‘O Allah, Master of all sovereignty! You give sovereignty to whomever You wish’”;⁹²⁵ and, [of the false gods,] those “who have no control over their own harm or benefit”;⁹²⁶ and He said: “Who controls [your] hearing and sight?”;⁹²⁷ and “Say, ‘I have no control over any benefit for myself, nor [over] any harm.’”⁹²⁸ And so on, in other verses.

And mālik was given preponderance over malik on [several] grounds. Thaʿlab said: mālik is more eloquent than malik, because kingship (al-mulk) may be over those who are not owned — as one says “the king (malik) of the Romans” though he does not own them — whereas one is not an owner (mālik) except over what is owned. Another said: mālik is more eloquent in the praise of the Creator than malik, and malik is more eloquent in the praise of created beings than mālik — because an owner among created beings is often not a king, save in one case out of many; but if God is an owner, He is a king absolutely. The Shaykh [al-Ṭūsī] said: the stronger view is that mālik is more eloquent in praise applied to Him, exalted, because He is alone in [absolute] ownership and owns all things, so it is the more eloquent.⁹²⁹ And Abū ʿAlī al-Fārisī said: what testifies, from the revelation, for the one who read mālik is His saying, exalted, “and all command that day will belong to Allah”⁹³⁰ — because His saying “the command is His” and “He is the master (mālik) of the command” are one in meaning; do you not see that the genitive lām — its meaning is ownership (al-milk) and entitlement?⁹³¹

And finally, what settles the dispute: it is that what is transmitted from the forebears is the reading with the alif (mālik); the Prophet (ṣ), and likewise the great ones of his Companions, used to read mālik with the alif; and the first to read it malik, without an alif, was Marwān ibn al-Ḥakam and those of his ilk in that age; and it is not soundly established, from any other of the great, illustrious Companions and Successors, that he read it without an alif.⁹³²

From Sūrat al-Baqara

Nāfiʿ and his two transmitters (Qālūn and Warsh), Ibn Kathīr, and Abū ʿAmr read wa-mā yukhādiʿūna illā anfusahum⁹³³ [in the form of mutual deception]; and Abū ʿAmr argued that a man [only seeks to] deceive himself but does not [actually] deceive it — that is, he attempts it without its being realized from him. And ʿĀṣim and his two transmitters (Shuʿba and Ḥafṣ), the rest of the Kūfans, and others read wa-mā yakhdaʿūna. Their argument for this is that God informed, concerning the hypocrites, that they seek to deceive God and those who believe — by their saying “We have faith in Allah and the Last Day” — and so He established for them their deceiving of God and the believers; had He then followed it by [saying] that they do not deceive God and the believers but only deceive themselves, that would be a contradiction in the speech, since what He established for them at its beginning would be negated at its end. But if it is read without an alif (yakhdaʿūna), He informs that the [attempted] deception is of their own doing, while the [actual] deceiving befalls only them in particular, and not the believers besides them.⁹³⁴ The clarification of this is that al-mukhādaʿa is the attempting of deception, which may occur and may not occur — He, exalted, said “But if they desire to deceive you”⁹³⁵ — whereas al-khadʿ expresses its realization and the taking-effect of the deception, the very thing that He, exalted, negates with respect to Himself and the believers; and evil scheming befalls only its own authors, the effect of the deception recoiling upon themselves without their having intended it. He, exalted, said: “and evil schemes beset only their authors.”⁹³⁶

Makkī ibn Abī Ṭālib said: the reading of the one who read without an alif (yakhdaʿūna) is stronger in my view, because deception, as their own act, may occur and may not occur, whereas the actual deceiving is an act that occurred without doubt; so when you read wa-mā yakhdaʿūna you have reported an act that befell them without doubt, but when you read wa-mā yukhādiʿūna it is possible that the deception did not befall them — and so yakhdaʿūna is the more feasible in meaning. Abū Ḥātim said: the generality, with us, [read] according to the reading wa-mā yakhdaʿūna.⁹³⁷ Of 2:10 — “…because of the lies they used to tell”⁹³⁸ — ʿĀṣim, Ḥamza, and al-Kisāʾī read yakdhibūna, with the lightening (takhfīf); and the rest read yukadhdhibūna, with the doubling (tashdīd). The reading of takhfīf is the more fitting to the context of the verse, because they were reproved only for their lying and their hypocrisy, and there was no [act of] crying-lies in the apparent sense of the speech — “…the hypocrites are indeed liars”⁹³⁹ — and so the reading of takhfīf is sound, that the speech may be upon a single order.⁹⁴⁰

Of 2:61 — “…and kill the prophets unjustly”⁹⁴¹ — Nāfiʿ and his two transmitters (Qālūn and Warsh) read al-nabīʾīna with the hamz; and it is [an instance] of al-nabr in the Qurʾān, which is explicitly forbidden on the authority of the Prophet (ṣ). It is related that a man said to the Prophet (ṣ), yā nabīʾa llāh [with the hamza]; so he rebuked him and said: I am not the nabīʾ of God but the nabiyy of God; and in another narration: we, the assembly of Quraysh, do not use al-nabr. And when al-Mahdī the ʿAbbāsid performed the pilgrimage, he put al-Kisāʾī forward to lead the people in prayer, and he pronounced [it] with the hamza; so the people of Medina denounced him, saying: he uses al-nabr, in the mosque of the Messenger of God (ṣ), in [reciting] the Qurʾān!⁹⁴² Al-Ṣadūq related, with his chain, from al-Ṣādiq (ʿa), from his forefathers (ʿa), from the Messenger of God (ṣ), that he said: Learn the Qurʾān with its [proper] Arabic, and beware of al-nabr in it — meaning the hamz.⁹⁴³ Al-Ṣādiq (ʿa) said: the hamz is an addition in the Qurʾān, except the radical hamz — as in His saying, exalted, “who brings out the hidden in the heavens and the earth”⁹⁴⁴ (al-khabʾ), and His saying “in which there is warmth for you”⁹⁴⁵ (al-difʾ), and His saying fa-ddāraʾtum fīhā [then you fell to disputing about it] (iddāraʾtum).⁹⁴⁶

ʿĀṣim and the rest of the reciters read al-nabiyyīna [without hamza], upon the customary origin, from the language of Quraysh. Makkī ibn Abī Ṭālib said: Nāfiʿ alone read al-nabīʾ, al-nubūʾa, al-anbiʾāʾ, and al-nabīʾīn with the hamz throughout the whole Qurʾān, except in two places in Sūrat al-Aḥzāb,⁹⁴⁷ for Qālūn did not [pronounce] the hamz in those two;⁹⁴⁸ and this statement implies that Warsh followed Nāfiʿ in the hamz in all of them. And this is strange: how could Nāfiʿ, the reciter of Medina, oppose the view of its Prophet, its people, and the Muslims [at large] concerning al-nabr in the Qurʾān?! Sībawayh said: there is not one of the Arabs but [that] he says tanabbaʾa Musaylima, with the hamz; except that they abandoned the hamz in al-nabiyy, as they abandoned it in al-dhurriyya, al-bariyya, and al-khābiya — save for the people of Mecca, for they pronounce the hamz in these three words and in no other, [thus] opposing the [rest of the] Arabs in that.⁹⁴⁹ So the reading of ʿĀṣim was in accordance with the language of Quraysh, in whose language the Qurʾān was sent down, and in agreement with the eloquent speech of all the Arabs — the Qurʾān having been sent down as Arabic, upon their tongue and dialect; only Warsh and his shaykh Nāfiʿ opposed Quraysh and all the rest of the Arabs. And He, exalted, has said: “brought down by the Trustworthy Spirit… in a clear Arabic language.”⁹⁵⁰

Of 2:67 — “they said, ‘Do you take us in derision?’”⁹⁵¹ — Nāfiʿ read huzʾan [with sukūn on the zāy], and the rest read huzuʾan [with ḍamma], while Ḥafṣ read huzuwan, without hamz and with two ḍammas, because he disliked the hamz after two ḍammas in a single word and so softened it — and it is the [reading] agreeing with the fluent, eloquent language of the Arabs, [and] the reading known among the generality of the Muslims. Makkī said: huzuwan, kufuwan, and juzʾan — Ḥamza read [them] with the sukūn of the zāy and the fāʾ, and the rest with their ḍamma; and all of them pronounced the hamz except Ḥafṣ, for he substituted for the hamza an open wāw, upon the principle of lightening.⁹⁵²

Of 2:119 — “…and you will not be questioned about the inmates of hell”⁹⁵³ — Nāfiʿ read wa-lā tasʾal [as] a prohibition, for which there is no [valid] ground except upon a corrupt view that we have set aside.⁹⁵⁴ ʿĀṣim and the rest read wa-lā tusʾalu — that is, you are not answerable for them — as in His saying, exalted, “admonish—for you are only an admonisher, and not a taskmaster over them”⁹⁵⁵; and it has parallels among the verses of consolation for his (ṣ) heart, for his noble soul would go out to them in pangs of grief that they would not believe in this discourse. Perhaps he (ṣ) feared the [weight of] responsibility, to which allusion came in His saying, exalted: “…and We will surely question the apostles.”⁹⁵⁶

Of 2:165 — “…that all power belongs to Allah, and that Allah is severe in punishment”⁹⁵⁷ — Nāfiʿ and Ibn ʿĀmir read wa-law tarā, as an address to the Prophet (ṣ), whereby the apodosis of the condition is elided and implicit — that is, [you] would have seen a dreadful thing — so that anna l-quwwata remains with no grammatical position for parsing except by the implicit assumption of li-anna l-quwwata; and all of this is [forced] contrivance.⁹⁵⁸ ʿĀṣim and the rest read wa-law yarā, running with the apparent sense of the speech, without contrivance. Of 2:186 — “I answer the supplicant’s call when he calls Me”⁹⁵⁹ — Warsh, from Nāfiʿ, read al-dāʿī with the yāʾ, because it is the base form; and ʿĀṣim and the rest read al-dāʿ without the yāʾ, their argument being that it is thus in the codex, without the yāʾ, so that one ought not to oppose the rasm of the codex.⁹⁶⁰

Of 2:214 — “and they were convulsed, until the Apostle… said”⁹⁶¹ — Nāfiʿ read ḥattā yaqūlu with the rafʿ, claiming that it is in the meaning of qāla, in the past; and ʿĀṣim and the rest read with the naṣb (yaqūla), upon the origin, because what ḥattā governs is a terminus of the convulsion, ḥattā here being in the meaning of “until.”⁹⁶² Of 2:246 — “…you will not fight if fighting were prescribed for you”⁹⁶³ — Nāfiʿ read ʿasītum with the kasra of the sīn, a poor dialectal form; and ʿĀṣim and the rest read with the fatḥ (ʿasaytum), an eloquent form. Abū ʿUbayd said: the reading, with us, is the fatḥ, because it is the better-known of the two forms; and were the kasra sound, ʿasā rabbunā [“Maybe our Lord will give us a better one in its place”]⁹⁶⁴ would [also] be read with the kasra, yet they have agreed there upon the fatḥ, nothing else. Makkī said: the fatḥ in the sīn is the widespread form, upon which the reciters agree — and Nāfiʿ is with them in it elsewhere; it is the [preferred] choice, for the reciters’ consensus upon it with both the implicit and the explicit subject, only Nāfiʿ alone opposing them with the implicit pronoun; and Abū Ḥātim said: there is no ground for the kasra.⁹⁶⁵

Of 2:282 — “…unless it is a ready trade you conduct among yourselves”⁹⁶⁶ — ʿĀṣim read tijāratan with the naṣb, as a predicate, the subject of kāna being implicit, the meaning being: “unless the transaction be a ready trade.” The rest read tijāratun with the rafʿ, taking kāna to be complete [intransitive], by analogy with His saying “and if [the debtor] is in hardship”⁹⁶⁷ before it; but the rafʿ there was to indicate the generality of the ruling — that it includes every person in hardship and is not restricted to the two parties to the sale — and hence they agreed upon the rafʿ there, so there is no basis for analogy with it.⁹⁶⁸ Of 2:283 — “…then a pledge in hand”⁹⁶⁹ — Ibn Kathīr and Abū ʿAmr read ruhun, with the ḍamma of the rāʾ and the hāʾ, a plural of rahn, like saqf and suquf; and ʿĀṣim and the rest read rihān, because the plural of faʿl on the pattern fiʿāl is the more analogical in Arabic — like baḥr and biḥār, ʿabd and ʿibād, kaʿb and kiʿāb, naʿl and niʿāl. Makkī said: the plural of faʿl on fiʿāl is frequent, and on fuʿul rare — only rare instances of it having come in speech — so the Qurʾān is to be carried upon the frequent, widespread pattern, which is fiʿāl, and it is the choice.⁹⁷⁰

From Sūrat Āl ʿImrān

Of 3:13 — “…seeing them as twice their number, to the sight of the eye”⁹⁷¹ — Nāfiʿ read tarawnahum with the tāʾ, building it on [the assumption] that the address is to the Jews;⁹⁷² and ʿĀṣim and the rest read with the yāʾ (yarawnahum). Abū ʿAmr said: were it with the tāʾ, it would have to be mithlaykum; and Makkī said: it would be incumbent upon the one who read with the tāʾ that he also read mithlaykum, and that is not permissible, on account of its opposing the script.⁹⁷³ Of 3:20 — “…I have submitted my will to Allah, and whoever follows [me]”⁹⁷⁴ — Nāfiʿ and Abū ʿAmr read wa-man ittabaʿanī with the yāʾ, contrary to the inscribed script; and ʿĀṣim and the rest read [ittabaʿan, without the yāʾ] in accordance with the script of the noble codex.⁹⁷⁵

Of 3:36 — “…and Allah knew better what she had borne”⁹⁷⁶ — Ibn ʿĀmir read waḍaʿtu with the ḍamma of the tāʾ [“what I delivered”]; and ʿĀṣim — by the narration of Ḥafṣ — and the rest read with the sukūn of the tāʾ (waḍaʿat, “what she delivered”), for were that part of her own speech it would be more fitting for it to be “My Lord, I have delivered her, a female, and You know better what I delivered.”⁹⁷⁷

From Sūrat al-Nisāʾ

Of 4:31 — “…and admit you to a noble abode”⁹⁷⁸ — Nāfiʿ read madkhalan with the fatḥ of the mīm, as a triliteral verbal noun;⁹⁷⁹ and ʿĀṣim and the rest read with the ḍamma (mudkhalan), so that the verbal noun may agree with [its] verb — as in Sūrat al-Isrāʾ, “Admit me with a worthy entrance, and bring me out with a worthy departure”⁹⁸⁰ — [it being] an augmented verbal noun, by the agreement of the reciters. Of 4:43 — Ḥamza and al-Kisāʾī read lamastum⁹⁸¹ without the alif; and ʿĀṣim and the rest read with the alif (lāmastum), their argument being what is related from the Commander of the Faithful (ʿa), his saying: lāmastumu l-nisāʾ means you had intercourse [with them], but God [speaks by] euphemism.⁹⁸²

From Sūrat al-Māʾida

Of 5:6, ʿĀṣim, by the narration of Ḥafṣ, read arjulakum ilā l-kaʿbayn [your feet, to the ankles]⁹⁸³ with the naṣb (arjulakum), as did Nāfiʿ, Ibn ʿĀmir, and al-Kisāʾī; and by the narration of Shuʿba he read with the khafḍ (arjulikum), as did Ibn Kathīr, Abū ʿAmr, and Ḥamza.⁹⁸⁴ We have [already] spoken about the reading of naṣb and its being the chosen [reading], in accordance with the sound madhhab on the wiping (masḥ) of the feet.

From Sūrat al-Anʿām

Of 6:90 — “So follow their guidance”⁹⁸⁵ — Ḥamza and al-Kisāʾī read fa-bi-hudāhumu qtadi; and ʿĀṣim and the rest read iqtadih with the pausal hāʾ retained in liaison, their argument being that it is affirmed in the codex, so that they disliked dropping a letter from the codices.⁹⁸⁶ Of 6:137, Ibn ʿĀmir read qatlu awlādihim shurakāʾihim, annexing the “killing” to the “partners” [in the genitive], with the separation of the direct object — a reading the imams and the rest of the scholars faulted;⁹⁸⁷ and ʿĀṣim and the rest read qatla awlādihim shurakāʾuhum, annexing the “killing” to the “children” and putting the “partners” in the rafʿ as the agent of the verbal noun — as we have discussed in detail.

From Sūrat al-Aʿrāf

Of 7:57 — “He sends the winds as harbingers before His mercy”⁹⁸⁸ (and likewise in al-Furqān 25:48 and al-Naml 27:63, with the bāʾ) — this is the reading of ʿĀṣim alone (bushran). Abū Zurʿa said: his argument is His saying, exalted, “He sends the winds as bearers of good news”⁹⁸⁹ — for the wind gives tidings of the rain; he said: ʿĀṣim used to deny that the wind is what “revives,” saying rather that the rain revives — that is, gives life to the earth after its death, [as] one says nashara and anshara [when] one gives life.⁹⁹⁰ Ḥamza and al-Kisāʾī read nashran; Nāfiʿ, Ibn Kathīr, and Abū ʿAmr read nushuran; and Ibn ʿĀmir read nushran. Their proofs in this are not sufficient.⁹⁹¹

From Sūrat Hūd

Of 11:42 — “O my son! Board with us”⁹⁹² — ʿĀṣim alone read bunayyi-a with the fatḥ of the yāʾ; and the rest read with the kasra (bunayyi). Its parallel comes in Sūrat Luqmān.⁹⁹³

From Sūrat al-Naḥl

Of 16:37, ʿĀṣim, Ḥamza, and al-Kisāʾī read fa-inna llāha lā yahdī man yuḍill [“Allah does not guide those whom He leads astray”]⁹⁹⁴, with the fatḥ of the imperfect prefix and the kasra of the dāl (yahdī); and Nāfiʿ and the rest read lā yuhdā, with the ḍamma of the yāʾ and the fatḥ of the dāl [passive], in the sense that the one whom God has led astray has no guide⁹⁹⁵ — but then the connection of the speech remains inconsistent!

From Sūrat al-Kahf

Of 18:34 and 42, ʿĀṣim alone read thamar [“and he had fruit,” “and his fruit was ruined”]⁹⁹⁶ with two fatḥas; Abū ʿAmr read thumr with a ḍamma then a sukūn; and the rest read thumur with two ḍammas. The analogy is with ʿĀṣim, by the evidence of “Both gardens brought forth their produce”⁹⁹⁷ — the produce (ukul) being the fruit (thamar)⁹⁹⁸ — besides the agreement of the mass of the Muslims. Of 18:59, Ḥafṣ alone read mahlik [“We appointed a tryst for their destruction”]⁹⁹⁹ on the pattern of majlis, with the kasra of the lām; Shuʿba read mahlak with the fatḥ; and Nāfiʿ and the rest read muhlak, with the ḍamma of the mīm and the fatḥ of the lām.¹⁰⁰⁰

From Sūrat Maryam

Of 19:90, Nāfiʿ and al-Kisāʾī read yatafaṭṭarna [“The heavens are about to be rent apart at it”]¹⁰⁰¹ with the yāʾ; and ʿĀṣim and the rest read takādu¹⁰⁰² — which is the more fitting, because the noun [al-samāwāt] is a sound feminine plural, with the alif and the tāʾ, and especially [given] the feminine plural pronoun referring back to it; it would not be so were it a broken plural, even if really feminine, as in qāla niswatun.

From Sūrat Ṭā Hā

Abū ʿAmr read ṭāʾ, hi with the kasra of the hāʾ; Ḥamza and al-Kisāʾī read ṭi, hi with the kasra in both; and Ḥafṣ and the rest read ṭā, hā. Abū Zurʿa said: and it is the origin, because the Arabs say ṭāʾ, hāʾ.¹⁰⁰³ Of 20:63 — “They said, ‘These two are indeed magicians’”¹⁰⁰⁴ — Abū ʿAmr read inna hādhayni la-sāḥirān, with the tashdīd [of inna] and the yāʾ; and ʿĀṣim and the rest read in hādhāni la-sāḥirāni, with the takhfīf and the alif, because it is what agrees with the rasm of the archetype codex.¹⁰⁰⁵ We have already spoken about the details of that in its place; Abū Zurʿa too has a discussion of it.

From Sūrat al-Anbiyāʾ

His saying, exalted, “and thus do We deliver the faithful”¹⁰⁰⁶ — al-Farrāʾ said: the reciters read it with two nūns, though its writing is with a single nūn; that is because the first nūn is voweled and the second quiescent, [so] the quiescent one does not appear manifestly on the tongue, and when it became hidden [in pronunciation] it was dropped [in writing].¹⁰⁰⁷ ʿĀṣim, by the narration of Ḥafṣ, and likewise the rest of the reciters, read with two nūns, concealing the second, in accordance with the Arabs’ custom in pronouncing the quiescent nūn, as the imams of reading — among them Makkī ibn Abī Ṭālib — mention.¹⁰⁰⁸ But Ibn ʿĀmir, and likewise Shuʿba, read nujjī, with the doubling of the jīm and the quiescence of the yāʾ. Al-Farrāʾ said: we know no [valid] aspect for it except the possibility of solecism, because the passive verb, when it stands without an agent, takes a nominative [subject]; and Abū Zurʿa said: they said too that nujjī is a passive verb, whose yāʾ should by rights take a fatḥa (nujjiya), as in ʿuzziya and quḍḍiya.¹⁰⁰⁹

Makkī ibn Abī Ṭālib said: the argument of the one who read with a single nūn is that he built the verb for the passive and made the verbal noun implicit — that is, nujjiya l-najāʾu l-muʾminīn [the deliverance was granted (to) the believers] — so that the verbal noun stands in the place of the agent, putting al-muʾminīn in the naṣb as a direct object; but in this there is difficulty on two counts. The first: the grammatical origin is that the object, not the verbal noun, stands in the place of the agent, so al-muʾminīn ought to be nominative — which opposes the script. The second: the yāʾ of nujjī ought to take a fatḥa, since it is a past-tense [passive] verb, as one says rumiya and kullima, yet he made the yāʾ quiescent, whereas its due is the fatḥa — so this is remote in admissibility. It is said this reading conceals the second nūn in the jīm; Makkī said: this too is remote, for the narration has the jīm doubled, and concealment does not coexist with doubling. And it is said the nūn was assimilated into the jīm; he said: this too has no parallel — the nūn is not assimilated into the jīm anywhere in the speech of the Arabs, given the distance between their points of articulation. The one who read it clung only to its being written with a single nūn in most of the codices; but this reading, so read, is not [firmly] established in Arabic.¹⁰¹⁰

From Sūrat al-Shuʿarāʾ

Ḥafṣ, Abū ʿAmr, Ibn Kathīr, and Nāfiʿ read nazala bihi l-rūḥu l-amīn [“the Trustworthy Spirit brought it down”]¹⁰¹¹ with the lightening of nazala [intransitive] and the rafʿ of al-rūḥu l-amīn; and the rest read nazzala bihi l-rūḥa l-amīn, with the doubling [transitive] and the naṣb¹⁰¹² — that is, God sent the Spirit down with the Qurʾān — and the artificiality in it does not escape [notice].

From Sūrat al-Rūm

Of 30:22 — “therein are signs for those who know”¹⁰¹³ — Ḥafṣ alone read li-l-ʿālimīn with the kasra of the lām — that is, al-ʿulamāʾ (the learned), the plural of al-ʿālim (the knower) — and it is the reading known to the [Muslim] mass. Abū Zurʿa said: it is the [reading] fitting with what precedes the verse — “…for a people who reflect”¹⁰¹⁴ — and what follows it — “…for a people who apply reason.”¹⁰¹⁵

From Sūrat Luqmān

Ḥafṣ alone read yā bunayya¹⁰¹⁶ with the fatḥa of the yāʾ throughout the whole Qurʾān; and the rest read with its kasra in all [places] as well. Ḥafṣ intended yā bunayyāh [O my dear son] and then apocopated it — and it is the more correct in the language of the Arabs and the smoother in expression.¹⁰¹⁷

From Sūrat al-Ṣāffāt

Of 37:123 — “and Ilyās was indeed one of the messengers”¹⁰¹⁸ — Ibn ʿĀmir read without the hamz in Ilyās, claiming that his name was Yās, upon which the article then entered.¹⁰¹⁹ The sound [reading] is that of the rest, with the hamz (Ilyās), by the evidence of what follows: “Peace be to Ilyāsīn.”

From Sūrat al-Najm

Of 53:50, Nāfiʿ and Abū ʿAmr read ʿāda l-lūlā,¹⁰²⁰ assimilating the tanwīn-nūn of ʿādan into the lām of al-ūlā. Abū ʿUthmān al-Māzinī said: Abū ʿAmr, in my view, did ill in his reading, because he assimilated the nūn into the article’s lām, whereas the lām’s vowel was borrowed from that of the hamza and is not an inherent, necessary vowel.¹⁰²¹

From Sūrat al-Wāqiʿa

Of 56:17-22 — “…immortal youths, with goblets and ewers… and big-eyed houris”¹⁰²² — Ḥamza and al-Kisāʾī read wa-ḥūrin ʿīnin with the khafḍ; and ʿĀṣim and the rest read with the rafʿ (ḥūrun ʿīnun). Al-Zajjāj said: the rafʿ is the better of the two aspects. The imams differed over the parsing of that, in both the genitive and the nominative, with a broad detailed discussion.¹⁰²³

From Sūrat al-Maʿārij

Of 70:15-16 — “Never! Indeed it is a blazing fire, which strips away the scalp”¹⁰²⁴ — Ḥafṣ alone read nazzāʿatan li-l-shawā with the naṣb; and the rest read nazzāʿatun with the rafʿ. The naṣb is on the ground that it is a circumstantial accusative (ḥāl), which is apparent and well-known; as for the rafʿ, they differed over it: al-Farrāʾ [held] it a substitute (badal) for laẓā, and al-Zajjāj a predicate after a predicate, without a connecting conjunction — as you say, “it is sweet-sour.”¹⁰²⁵ Makkī mentioned five aspects for the rafʿ¹⁰²⁶ — the very thing that apprises you of its weakness!

From Sūrat al-Muddaththir

Of 74:5 — “and keep away from all impurity”¹⁰²⁷ — Ḥafṣ alone read al-rujz with the ḍamma of the rāʾ, meaning the idol; and the rest read al-rijz with the kasra, meaning the punishment¹⁰²⁸ — that is, its cause — and it is [forced] contrivance.

From Sūrat al-Qiyāma

Of 75:1 — “I swear by the Day of Resurrection”¹⁰²⁹ — Ibn Kathīr read la-uqsimu with a lām of emphasis, so that the conjoined “And I swear by the self-blaming soul” becomes a conjoining of negation upon affirmation, which is [problematic] as you see; and ʿĀṣim and the rest read lā uqsimu, as is the known [reading].¹⁰³⁰ Of 75:27 — “and it is said, ‘Who will take him up?’”¹⁰³¹ — Ḥafṣ alone read man rāq with the manifestation of the nūn, as a notification of its separation from the rāʾ; and the rest read with assimilation. And, again, Ḥafṣ alone read min maniyyin yumnā [“a drop of emitted semen”]¹⁰³² with the yāʾ, because the pronoun refers back to al-maniyy [the semen, masculine]; and the rest read with the tāʾ (tumnā), referring it to al-nuṭfa [the drop, feminine], which is remote.¹⁰³³

From Sūrat al-Muṭaffifīn

Of 83:14 — “rather, their hearts have become sullied”¹⁰³⁴ — Ḥafṣ alone read bal rāna with the manifestation of the lām, because it belongs to one word and rāna is another, and upon this is the reading of the [Muslim] mass; the rest assimilated it.¹⁰³⁵ And, again, Ḥafṣ alone read inqalabū fakihīn [“they would return exulting”]¹⁰³⁶, and the rest read fākihīn. But the analogy of the class faʿila yafʿalu — like fariḥa yafraḥu, [being] intransitive — is that the adjective comes upon the pattern faʿil (like fariḥ); and it is not to be measured by ḥadhir/ḥādhar or ṭamiʿ/ṭāmiʿ,¹⁰³⁷ because those two are transitive.

From Sūrat al-Masad

Of 111:4 — “and his wife, the carrier of firewood”¹⁰³⁸ — ʿĀṣim alone read ḥammālata with the naṣb, as a cutting-off (qaṭʿ) for dispraise, because it is indefinite and cannot fall as an attribute of a definite noun, as al-Farrāʾ said;¹⁰³⁹ and the rest read ḥammālatu with the rafʿ, as a predicate or an attribute, in which there is weakness needing [forced] contrivance.

From Sūrat al-Ikhlāṣ

Ḥafṣ alone read kufuwan with two ḍammas, then the open wāw; Ḥamza read kufʾan with the ḍamma then the sukūn, with the hamz; and the rest read kufuʾan with two ḍammas and the hamz. The reading of Ḥafṣ is the [one] agreeing with the script of the noble codex, with the wāw,¹⁰⁴⁰ besides the agreement of the [Muslim] mass. Abū Zurʿa said: in this Ḥafṣ followed the speech of the Arabs — “so-and-so has no equal (kufuw), no like, and no peer” — and God, majestic and mighty, has no peer and no like.¹⁰⁴¹

This is the last of what we intended to set down in this field; exhaustiveness was not the aim. And praise be to God, and peace be upon His Messenger and the blessed imams.

The Reciters’ Index-Tables

At this point the Arabic original places two index-tables that serve the biographical section “The Classes of the Reciters” presented above. The first, headed “An Index of the Classes of the Great Reciters Whose Biographies Appear in This Field,” runs alphabetically (over four pages of the printed text) through every reciter treated in that section, giving for each name its class — the ṭabaqa, from the first to the eighth — and its serial number within the field. The second, “The Reciters Known by Their Kunyas or Epithets,” performs the same service by way of the teknonyms and bynames — Ibn ʿĀmir, Ibn Kathīr, Abū ʿAmr, Warsh, Qālūn, al-Aʿraj, al-Aʿmash, and their like — referring each back to its bearer’s full name, class, and number.

These two tables are lookup keys arranged in the order of the Arabic alphabet, cross-referencing biographies already set out in full above. Since that ordering does not carry over into an English rendering, and since every reciter’s name, class, and number already stands in the biographical section itself, the tables are noticed here rather than reproduced entry by entry; the substance they index has been given in its place.

The Tajwīd of Recitation

Annexed to the science of the readings is the art of the tajwīd of recitation — the performing of it well in accordance with rules laid down for improving the manner of articulation in reciting the Qurʾān. It is sometimes expressed by tartīl, interpreted as the [correct] rendering of the letters and the observance of the [proper] pauses. The Commander of the Faithful (ʿa) was asked about tartīl in the reading of the Qurʾān and said: the [proper] rendering of the letters and the knowledge of the pauses.¹⁰⁴² From ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd: render the Qurʾān well, adorn it with the best of voices, and pronounce it with correct inflection, for it is Arabic, and God loves that it be [so] inflected.¹⁰⁴³ And from the Messenger of God (ṣ): “God loves that the Qurʾān be recited as it was sent down”¹⁰⁴⁴ — that is, in eloquent Arabic, in the best manner of articulation.

Ibn al-Jazarī said: al-tajwīd is an expression for bringing the reading forth with well-rendered wording, free of any deficiency in articulation; its meaning is the reaching of the utmost in correctness and the attaining of the extreme in refinement.¹⁰⁴⁵ He said: tajwīd is the ornament of recitation and the adornment of reading; it is the giving of the letters their due and the ordering of them in their ranks, the returning of the letter to its point of articulation and its origin, the joining of it to its like, the correcting of its pronunciation, and the refining of its utterance in the state of its [proper] form and the perfection of its shape — without excess or distortion, without exaggeration or affectation.

To this the Prophet (ṣ) alluded in his saying: “Whoever loves to recite the Qurʾān fresh, as it was sent down, let him recite according to the reading of Ibn Umm ʿAbd” — meaning ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd, who was granted a great portion in the tajwīd of the Qurʾān, its precise realization, and its measured recitation, as God sent it down. Enough [to say] that he was a man from whom the Prophet (ṣ) loved to hear the Qurʾān; when he recited, he brought the Messenger of God (ṣ) to tears, as is established in the two Ṣaḥīḥs. And it is related, with a sound chain, from Abū ʿUthmān al-Nahdī: Ibn Masʿūd led us in the sunset prayer with “Say, He is Allah, the One”; and, by God, I could have wished that he had recited Sūrat al-Baqara, from the beauty of his voice and his measured recitation. This, [he said,] is of the custom of God, blessed and exalted, concerning whoever recites the Qurʾān well-rendered and correct, as it was sent down: hearing delights in its recitation and hearts grow humble at its reading, until it well-nigh carries off the minds and seizes the innermost hearts — a secret from among the secrets of God, exalted, that He entrusts to whom He wills of His creatures.

[Ibn al-Jazarī] then mentioned a shaykh of his who had neither a fine voice nor a knowledge of melodies, save that he was excellent in performance and competent in the wording, so that when he recited he delighted the ears and seized the hearts in their depths; people would crowd about him, and multitudes of the elite and the common would gather to hear him — knower of Arabic and non-knower alike — even while they abandoned reciters possessed of fine voices and versed in the modes and melodies, on account of those [reciters’] departure from tajwīd and precision.¹⁰⁴⁶

The Imam Mūsā ibn Jaʿfar (ʿa) was of fine voice and fine reading, and said one day: ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn (ʿa) used to recite the Qurʾān, and it might be that a passer-by would pass by him and swoon at the beauty of his voice. The Imam al-Ṣādiq (ʿa) said: ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn (ʿa) was the finest of people in voice with the Qurʾān, and would raise his voice until the household could hear him; and Abū Jaʿfar al-Bāqir (ʿa) was the finest of people in voice with the Qurʾān, and when he rose in the night and recited he would raise his voice, so that those passing on the road — the water-carriers and others — would halt and listen to his reading.¹⁰⁴⁷

The Mawlā Shaykh Āghā Bozorg al-Ṭihrānī said: the science of tajwīd is the science of the [proper] beautifying of the reading of the Qurʾān and its measured recitation, the [very thing] commanded in the noble verse “and recite the Qurʾān in a measured tone”¹⁰⁴⁸. It is a branch of the science of the reading, one with it in subject-matter; but the inquiry in the science of the reading concerns only the substance of the Qurʾān’s wording and the forms of its letters, whereas in the science of tajwīd there is inquiry into the modes of performing that wording and the qualities of its letters — thinning (tarqīq) and thickening (tafkhīm), manifestation (iẓhār) and concealment (ikhfāʾ), rounding (rawm) and full vowelling (ishbāʿ), assimilation (idghām), nasalization (ghunna), prolongation (madd), the pause (waqf) and the liaison (waṣl), and others.¹⁰⁴⁹ From this it is known that concern with the science of tajwīd, like concern with the science of the reading, is a matter coeval with the life of the Muslims from their first acquaintance with the recitation of the Qurʾān in the age of the [prophetic] mission — and it continues still.

ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd was teaching a man to recite, and the man read “Charities are only for the poor and the needy”¹⁰⁵⁰ plainly, without prolonging al-fuqarāʾ. Ibn Masʿūd said: not thus did the Messenger of God (ṣ) teach it to me. He said: how did he teach it to you, O Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān? He said: he taught it to me li-l-fuqarāʾi wa-l-masākīn, and prolonged it.¹⁰⁵¹ Anas was asked about the reading of the Messenger of God (ṣ) and said: it was [full of] prolongation; then he read bismi llāhi l-raḥmāni l-raḥīm, prolonging Allāh, prolonging al-Raḥmān, and prolonging al-Raḥīm.¹⁰⁵²

From Ibn Masʿūd: “prolongations are the brocades of the Qurʾān”¹⁰⁵³ — that is, its adornments; one says a mudabbaj garment, meaning one adorned with dībāj (brocade), the garments made of raw silk — a Persian word Arabized, pluralized as dayābīj and dabābīj, with the yāʾ or the bāʾ, since its root is dibbāj.¹⁰⁵⁴ The prolongation of the letter adorns it in recitation, and hence the letters of prolongation (madd) and of softness (līn) are frequent in the Qurʾān.

Prolongation is only in the soft letters (wāw, alif, yāʾ) when they are quiescent and the vowel before them is of their own kind. This is fine in recitation, though not fine in the free flow of ordinary speech: one does not prolong in saying “give me water,” yet it is fine in reciting His saying, exalted, “and We send down from the sky purifying water”¹⁰⁵⁵ — the thing the imams encouraged. They mentioned ranks for the prolongation: the first, a little above mere shortening, reckoned at two alif-lengths; the second at three; the third at four; the fourth at five; the fifth at six; and the sixth is the limit of excess. To each rank a group of reciters has inclined, between the one who overdoes and the one who under-does. In the excess there is an ugliness that our master the professor, the Imam al-Khūʾī — may his resting-place be sweet — denounced, and he did not permit reading by it, since it lies outside the customary limit of the early Arabs even in their recitation of [prose] texts; these are but artifices the reciters innovated, with no warrant.

The ḥāfiẓ Abū ʿAmr al-Dānī said, concerning the customary prolongations that do not reach the limit of excess: all of this runs according to [the reciters’] natures and doctrines in the separating of the letters, the [clear] articulating of the quiescents, and the precise realization of the reading and its measured delivery; not one of them holds a doctrine in which he is excessive beyond another to a degree departing from what is customary in the language and known in the reading — rather they are close, one to another, oral demonstration clarifying the reality of it and direct transmission showing its manner.¹⁰⁵⁶ They said: the longest of them in prolongation are Warsh and Ḥamza,¹⁰⁵⁷ and hence it was reckoned a fault. He said: [there] is nothing between tajwīd and the abandoning of it but an exercise for one who reflects, with his jaw.¹⁰⁵⁸

Ibn al-Jazarī said: I know no cause for the attaining of the utmost precision and tajwīd, and the reaching of the goal of correctness and firmness, like the exercising of the tongues and the repetition of the wording received from the mouth of a skilled performer — and, mentioning this saying of Abū ʿAmr, he followed it: he has spoken truly and seen clearly, and been concise without falling short. Tajwīd is not [achieved] by chewing with the tongue, nor by distorting the mouth, nor by twisting the jaw, nor by making the voice tremble, nor by stretching the doubling, nor by chopping the prolongation, nor by droning the nasalizations, nor by grating the rāʾs — a reading from which natures recoil and which hearts and ears reject; rather it is the easy, sweet, pleasant, gentle reading, in which there is no chewing or mouthing, no distortion or affectation, no artifice or over-nicety, and which does not depart from the natures of the Arabs and the speech of the eloquent in any of the modes of the readings and their performance.¹⁰⁵⁹ Then he took up the exposition of this summary at length; we shall pluck some fragments from it.

Let us now look into what the jurists mentioned concerning the application of the arts of tajwīd in the readings.

The Arts of Tajwīd in the Scale of Jurisprudence

What the jurists mentioned is not far from what Ibn al-Jazarī mentioned, in permitting whatever accords with the innate disposition of the Arabs and their manner of articulation, running according to their natures and doctrines in the separating of the letters, the articulating of the quiescents, and the precise realization of the reading and its rapid delivery — without reaching the limit of excess or exaggeration. Al-Sayyid al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī said, in the inquiry on the reading:¹⁰⁶⁰

37. If one omits or corrupts any of the words or letters, or substitutes one letter for another — even the ḍād for a ẓāʾ, or the reverse — his reading is invalid; and likewise if he is deficient in a vowel of structure or of inflection, in an obligatory prolongation, a doubling, or a necessary quiescence; and likewise if he produces a letter from other than its proper point of articulation, such that it ceases, in Arab usage, to be that letter.

38. It is obligatory to drop the conjunctive hamza (hamzat al-waṣl) in connected utterance; if one sounds it, the reading is invalid. And it is obligatory to sound the disjunctive hamza (hamzat al-qaṭʿ); if one drops it in liaison, the reading is invalid. 39. The more prudent course is to avoid pausing on a voweled letter and joining on a quiescent one.

42. The obligatory prolongation is required when, after the letters of prolongation — the wāw, the yāʾ, and the alif, being quiescent and preceded by a vowel of their own kind — a hamza follows, as in sūʾ, jīʾa, and jāʾa; or when a necessary quiescence follows one of them, especially when it is assimilated into another letter, as in al-ḍāllīn. 43. If one prolongs beyond what is customary, the reading is not thereby invalidated — unless the word thereby departs from its Arabic structure and its proper form among the Arabs.

44. In prolongation the measure of two alifs suffices, and its fullest extent is four alifs; the excess does no harm, so long as the word does not cease to be an Arabic word. 45. If a separation occurs between the letters of a word — by choice or under compulsion — such that it ceases to be that word, the reading is invalid.

49. The more prudent course is assimilation (idghām) when, after the quiescent nūn or the tanwīn, one of the letters of yarmalūn follows — with nasalization (ghunna) — except for the lām and the rāʾ, in which there is no ghunna.¹⁰⁶¹ 51. It is obligatory to assimilate the lām of the article into fourteen letters — the tāʾ, thāʾ, dāl, dhāl, rāʾ, zāy, sīn, shīn, ṣād, ḍād, ṭāʾ, ẓāʾ, lām, and nūn — and obligatory to make it manifest (iẓhār) with the remaining letters.

52. The more prudent course is assimilation in cases like idhhab bi-kitābī and yudrikkum, where two like letters meet across two words and the first is quiescent.¹⁰⁶² 53. It is not obligatory to observe the aesthetic embellishments of tajwīd — such as inclination (imāla), full vowelling (ishbāʿ), thickening (tafkhīm), and thinning (tarqīq) — though their observance is better.

54. It is fitting to observe what the scholars of tajwīd said of the quiescent nūn and the tanwīn: their manifestation (iẓhār) before a guttural letter; their conversion into a mīm before the bāʾ, as in min baʿd; their assimilation before one of the letters of yarmalūn; and their concealment (ikhfāʾ) before the remaining letters. 56. It is fitting to thicken the lām of the divine name «Allāh» when a fatḥa or a ḍamma precedes it, and to thin it when a kasra precedes.

All of this is grounded in the fact that it belongs to the law of the language, speech in that manner having been customary among the Arabs — especially in the measured reciting of religious texts, as is the custom among all nations; for the Qurʾān came down in the language of the Arabs and upon the modes of their dialects in the measured recitation of speech.

The Prophet (ṣ) said: “Learn the Qurʾān with its [correct] Arabic, and beware of over-emphatic articulation (nabr) in it” — meaning excessive hamza-ing. Al-Ṣādiq (ʿa) said: the hamza is an addition in the Qurʾān, save for the original hamza — as in “who brings out the hidden in the heavens and the earth”¹⁰⁶³, and “in which there is warmth for you”¹⁰⁶⁴, and “And when you killed a soul…” — fa-ddāraʾtum, “and you disputed about it.”¹⁰⁶⁵ The Commander of the Faithful (ʿa) said: “and perform its recitation well.”¹⁰⁶⁶ And al-Ṣādiq (ʿa) said: “Learn Arabic, for it is the speech of God with which He addressed His creation.”¹⁰⁶⁷

The Imam al-Jawād (ʿa) said: “No two men are ever equal in lineage and religion but that the more excellent of the two, in God’s sight, is the more cultivated of them.” It was said to him: we already know his excellence among the people in the assembly and the gathering; but wherein is his excellence in the sight of God? He said: in the reading of the Qurʾān as it was sent down.¹⁰⁶⁸ And so on to other traditions that attest the imams’ (ʿa) concern with [correct] Arabic, as a safeguard that the Qurʾān be read as it was sent down in its proper Arabic — correct Arabic being a matter only of right articulation and inflection.

Our master the professor [al-Khūʾī] — may his resting-place be sweet — said: correct reading is obligatory, by rightly performing the letters and bringing them forth from their proper points of articulation in the manner required in the Arabs’ language; the form of the word, too, must accord with the Arabic mode — in the vowel and quiescence of its structure, the vowels and quiescences of inflection and structure, and in elision, conversion, assimilation, obligatory prolongation, and the like; if he is deficient in any of that, his reading is invalid.¹⁰⁶⁹ The statements of the jurists on this are corroborating and concordant as to the obligation of correct articulation in accordance with Arab custom where possible; and it is not permissible to depart from it, even by impairing excess, as we have noted.

The Arts of Tajwīd in the Era of Codification

We have mentioned that the matter of tajwīd in the reading and the beautifying of recitation is a thing long prior, which accompanied the teaching of the Qurʾān from the very beginning in the age of the mission, and so continued across the generations. Perhaps the first to concern himself with it, alongside his attention to the science of the readings, was Abū Bakr ibn Mujāhid (d. 324) in his book al-Sabʿa fī al-Qirāʾāt. In it he treated the inclination (imāla) of the alif and lip-rounding (ishmām); the qualities of the letters — the velarized, the whispered, the voiced, and the letters of whistling; assimilation and the reciters’ differences over it; the rulings of the quiescent nūn and the tanwīn, in assimilation and manifestation; the hamza within a word and across two words; prolongation and shortening; and opening and inclination. Then the Imam Abū Zurʿa ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zanjala (d. 410), in his al-Ḥujja fī al-Qirāʾāt, treated aspects of this art — lip-rounding, full vowelling, inclination, and assimilation; the pause and the liaison; shortening and prolongation, and the like.

Likewise the imam and erudite investigator Abū Muḥammad Makkī ibn Abī Ṭālib al-Qaysī (d. 437), in his al-Kashf ʿan Wujūh al-Qirāʾāt al-Sabʿ, made an applied study of the arts of tajwīd throughout every sūra of the Qurʾān, treating prolongation with its causes and principles, the hamz exhaustively, rounding, lip-rounding, and assimilation, the points of articulation, the inclination of the alif with its kinds and causes, nasalization in the quiescent nūn and the tanwīn, the rulings of the rāʾs and pausing upon them, and the thinning and thickening of the lām — and more, at length. The imam Abū ʿAmr ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd al-Dānī (d. 444), in his al-Taysīr, treated assimilation and manifestation, prolongation and shortening, the rulings of the hamza and of the pause, and inclination and opening — whether current among the reciters or peculiar to some — set forth in detail the distribution of the letters (farsh al-ḥurūf) throughout the sūras, and closed with the takbīr in the reading of Ibn Kathīr. After him, Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī al-Gharnāṭī, Ibn al-Bādhish (d. 540), in his al-Iqnāʿ, spoke of the qualities and points of articulation of the letters after Sībawayh, assigned a symbol to each class of letters for ease of mastery, treated the greater and the lesser assimilation and the rulings of the rāʾs, lāms, and hāʾs, and ended with rapid delivery, measured recitation, and precise realization. To the Mawlā Shaykh Aḥmad ibn al-Ḥusayn al-Kūfī al-Hamadānī (d. ca. 753) — an eminent Imāmī exegete, of the descendants of Khuḍayr al-Hamadānī, the Karbalāʾ martyr among the companions of the Imam al-Ḥusayn (ʿa) — belongs an elegant twelve-chapter book on tajwīd, a copy of which (dated 753) is in the Library of the Majlis in Tehran.

As for the imam and ḥāfiẓ Abū al-Khayr Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Dimashqī, renowned as Ibn al-Jazarī (d. 833), he brought the inquiry into the arts of tajwīd to completion and exhausted the subject: first in his al-Tamhīd fī al-Tajwīd, devoted to it, then in his major al-Nashr fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr, where he set it forth in full detail. He said there: let us mention a chapter on tajwīd comprehending the aims and containing the useful points — though we have already devoted to it a separate book, al-Tamhīd fī al-Tajwīd, composed while we were occupied with this science in our years of maturity — since the aim is that this book, al-Nashr, be a comprehensive [treatment of] what the reader and the reading-instructor require.¹⁰⁷⁰

In it he treated the points of articulation after the terminology of al-Khalīl ibn Aḥmad al-Farāhīdī, in detail. He said: the first thing incumbent upon one who desires mastery of the reading is the correct bringing-forth of every letter from its own point of articulation, distinguishing it from what is near it, and the rendering to every letter of its known quality — whisper, voicing, plosiveness, continuance, and the like — setting it apart from what is homogeneous with it, working the tongue and mouth by exercise until this becomes for him second nature. When the reader has mastered each letter singly, giving it its due, let him then master it in composition, for composition brings what isolation does not: many pronounce letters well in isolation yet not in composition — according to the neighbouring letters, homogeneous or near, strong or weak, thickened or thinned — so that the strong draws in the weak and the thickened overcomes the thinned, and the tongue cannot render it rightly save by intense exercise; whoever masters correct utterance in composition attains the reality of tajwīd, through mastery and training.¹⁰⁷¹

He went to such lengths in this that he left no room for laxity. He said of the letter ḍād: there is no letter more troublesome for the tongue, for people’s tongues differ over it and few pronounce it well — some bring it out as a ẓāʾ, some mix it with the dhāl, some make it a thickened lām, and some give it a tinge of the zāy; all of which is impermissible. The saying widely circulated on people’s tongues, “I am the most eloquent of those who pronounce the ḍād,” has no basis and is not sound.¹⁰⁷²

He then treated thickening, thinning, and heavy-thickening; assimilation, concealment, and manifestation; the pause and the beginning; the pause, the cutting-off, and the brief silence; the greater assimilation with its conditions and impediments; rounding and lip-rounding in assimilation; the hāʾ of pronominal reference; prolongation and shortening; and the rulings of the hamza and pausing upon it in the various schools — with sundry scattered questions besides; and he treated the kinds of reading — precise realization, rapid delivery, the intermediate pace, and measured recitation. As for the independent books on the subject, they are beyond enumeration, especially in the later ages.¹⁰⁷³ I single out for mention the erudite investigator al-Sayyid Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī al-Ḥusaynī al-Jurjānī (d. 836), a prominent authority in the Qurʾānic sciences, whose valuable book on tajwīd — an introduction, six chapters, and a conclusion — was printed appended to the Qurʾān at Tehran in 1286 in lectern-format, and independently in several editions, still in the hands of the greatest reciters today; the accomplished Imāmī theologian and reciter Ḥusayn ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī al-Bihishtī, a contemporary of Sulṭān Ismāʿīl al-Ṣafawī and among the greatest scholars of the ninth and tenth centuries, who has an elegant book on tajwīd; and al-Sharīf al-Astarābādī, the reciter ʿImād al-Dīn ʿAlī ibn ʿImād al-Dīn — also an authority of those two centuries — whose book on the arts of tajwīd suffices the one who consults it. Thus the scholars have never ceased investigating and composing on the readings and tajwīd, [enough] to fill the horizons. The best treatise composed of late on the science of tajwīd that I have found is Sirr al-Bayān fī ʿIlm al-Qurʾān by the modern professor Ḥasan Bīglarī, printed in more than ten editions, in good Persian.

The Abrogating and the Abrogated in the Qurʾān

It belongs to the nature of a reformative movement taking its course toward progress in general that a successive abrogation should come, one enactment after another, upon its ordinances, in keeping with its graduated ascent toward the summit of perfection. That is the inescapable nature of a reformative movement — the more so when the nation in which this progressive awakening is stirred is one deeply sunk in error and far removed from the marks of civilization, such that raising it from its abysmal state, into harmony with something other than its savage disposition, seems well-nigh impossible and requires the surmounting of obstacle upon obstacle and stage upon stage.

Thus the Islamic ordinances called for a continual abrogation, from the appearance of the call at Mecca the Ennobled down to what followed the Hijra to Medina the Illumined; and the operative course of abrogation — in what pertains to the verses of the Wise Remembrance — came to an end with his (ṣ) death, at the cessation of revelation. The phenomenon of abrogation was indispensable in any legislation that seeks to fix its features in the depths of a society and to take a benighted nation by the hand up to a lofty level of refined civilization — a thing incompatible with an impossible sudden leap, unattainable but for deliberateness and a continual, gradual, step-by-step advance.¹⁰⁷⁴ Hence abrogation is a real necessity demanded by the interest of the nation itself; and hardly anyone has denied the benefit and returns this religious phenomenon holds for the nation, or how great is the far-reaching divine wisdom within it.

Nor was it hidden from the scholars what the phenomenon of abrogation holds of real wisdom and established truth, from which there is no escape; so they gave it their care and set about studying and investigating it in all its varied aspects. The first to treat the subject technically and gather its foundations into a comprehensive compilation was Abū Muḥammad ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Aṣamm al-Mismaʿī, a companion of the Imam al-Ṣādiq (ʿa), who has a treatise on the abrogating and the abrogated. Then a number of the companions of the Imam al-Riḍā (ʿa) undertook the inquiry, setting the results down in treatises — among them Dārim ibn Qabīṣa al-Tamīmī al-Dārimī, Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿĪsā al-Qummī, and al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī ibn Faḍḍāl.

In the third century, the great Imāmī exegete ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm al-Qummī composed a treatise devoted to the abrogating and the abrogated in the Qurʾān, as did Muḥammad ibn al-ʿAbbās, known as Ibn al-Ḥajjām; Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallām (d. 224); Jaʿfar ibn Mubashshir al-Thaqafī (d. 235); Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (d. 241); and Saʿd ibn Ibrāhīm al-Ashʿarī al-Qummī (d. 301). In the fourth century: Abū ʿAbdullāh Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Ḥazm al-Andalusī (d. 320); Aḥmad ibn Jaʿfar al-Baghdādī, known as Ibn al-Munādī (d. 334); Abū Jaʿfar Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad al-Naḥḥās (d. 338); Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Nīsābūrī (d. 368); Abū Saʿīd al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAbdullāh al-Sīrāfī (d. 368); Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shaybānī the Imāmī, who set it in the introduction to his commentary Nahj al-Bayān ʿan Kashf Maʿānī al-Qurʾān; and Ibn Bābawayh al-Qummī, renowned as al-Ṣadūq (d. 381).

In the fifth century: Hibatullāh ibn Salāma (d. 410), ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī (d. 429), Makkī ibn Abī Ṭālib (d. 437), and ʿAlī ibn Aḥmad ibn Ḥazm al-Andalusī (d. 456). In the sixth: Muḥammad ibn Barakāt ibn Hilāl al-Saʿīdī, author of al-Ījāz fī Nāsikh al-Qurʾān wa-Mansūkhihi (d. 520); Ibn al-ʿArabī (d. 543); and Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597). In the eighth: al-Wāsiṭī (d. 738), al-ʿAtāʾiqī (d. ca. 770), and al-Zarkashī (d. 794) within his al-Burhān. In the ninth: Ibn al-Mutawwaj al-Baḥrānī (d. 836) and al-Abshīṭī (d. 883). In the tenth: al-Suyūṭī (d. 911) within his al-Itqān, and al-Isfarāyīnī. In the twelfth: al-Ajhūrī (d. 1190). In the thirteenth: Ṣiddīq ibn Ḥasan al-Qinnawjī (d. 1307), who wrote Ifādat al-Shuyūkh bi-Miqdār al-Nāsikh wa-l-Mansūkh. And in this last, fourteenth century our master the imam al-Khūʾī treated the abrogating and the abrogated in a deep, thorough study within his valuable al-Bayān; Muṣṭafā Zayd wrote al-Naskh fī al-Qurʾān al-Karīm; ʿAlī Ḥasan al-ʿArīḍ, Fatḥ al-Mannān fī Naskh al-Qurʾān; and Walī-Allāh al-Sarrābī, Naskh al-Naskh ʿan Karāmat al-Qurʾān — and others too many to name.

If this indicates anything, it is the extent of the scholars’ concern for the occurrence of abrogation in the Qurʾān and for distinguishing the abrogating from the abrogated decisively — knowing this to be the foremost preliminary to understanding the settled, continuous Islamic legislation, since no legal ruling can be derived unless one knows the abrogating from the abrogated, and the enduring from the lapsed and discarded. Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī related that ʿAlī (ʿa) passed by a judge and asked him: do you know the abrogating from the abrogated? He said: no. He said: you are ruined, and have brought others to ruin! — for the interpretation of every letter of the Qurʾān rests upon several aspects.¹⁰⁷⁵

Perhaps this judge is the Abū Yaḥyā identified in the reports, as comes in the ḥadīth of Saʿīd ibn Abī al-Ḥasan: he met this Abū Yaḥyā, who said to him, “People know me, people know me, O Saʿīd — I am he!” Saʿīd said: how did I not know you were he? He said: I am he — ʿAlī (ʿa) passed by me while I was judging in Kūfa and said, “Who are you?” I said, “Abū Yaḥyā.” He said, “You are not Abū Yaḥyā, but you say ‘people know me.’” Then he said, “Do you know the abrogating and the abrogated?” I said, “No.” He said, “You are ruined, and have brought others to ruin.” So after that I never again judged over anyone. Does that profit you, O Saʿīd?¹⁰⁷⁶

And the Imam al-Ṣādiq (ʿa) said to one of the would-be jurists of Kūfa: are you the jurist of the people of Iraq? He said: yes. He said: by what do you give them rulings? He said: by the Book of God and the sunna of His Prophet. The Imam said: do you know the Book of God with its true knowledge, and know the abrogating from the abrogated? He said: yes. He said: then you have laid claim to a great knowledge — but God has placed that only with its rightful people.¹⁰⁷⁷ And in the ḥadīth of his (ʿa) argument against the Ṣūfīs: have you knowledge of the abrogating of the Qurʾān and its abrogated? — until he said: be engaged in seeking out the abrogating of the Qurʾān from its abrogated, its clear from its ambiguous, and what God has made lawful in it from what He has forbidden, for that is nearer to God for you and farther from ignorance; leave ignorance to its own people, for they are many and the people of knowledge are few — and God, exalted, has said: “and above every man of knowledge is One who knows best.”¹⁰⁷⁸

A note: what the early authorities meant by ‘abrogation’ is its more general sense, comprising specification and qualification as well as abrogation in the modern technical sense; that is, the lifting of a prior ruling either in its scope — which is specification or qualification — or from its very root, which is abrogation in the technical sense, and it is this with which we are here concerned. In this age the inquiry into abrogation in the Qurʾān has become a subject of fierce dispute, on account of the aspersions the enemies of Islam have cast at this eternal, heavenly Book: how, they ask, can it contain verses whose ruling is abrogated, with no benefit in retaining them beyond bare recitation?

They are heedless — or feign heedlessness — of the fact that the Qurʾānic record was never founded on legislation alone: of its more than six thousand verses, the verses of legal rulings number only about five hundred (a point we shall explain in our rebuttal of the doubts). Some Muslim writers, holding back from rebutting this and like charges, denied that any abrogated verse exists in the Qurʾān — contrary to what we maintain; hence it became necessary for the Muslim researcher to treat the question technically, by the methods of present-day criticism, since it touches the gravest aspect of the Muslims’ life, their inimitable and eternal Book, that he may stand an impregnable barrier before the obstinate and a defender of God’s Glorious Book, “in which there is no doubt,” which “falsehood cannot approach, from before it nor from behind it” — a revelation sent down from One Wise, Praiseworthy.¹⁰⁷⁹ Let our present inquiry, then, be confined to abrogation in the Qurʾān, in its kinds and with its conditions, and not to abrogation in the sharīʿa taken absolutely — a general inquiry of legal theory lying somewhat outside the Qurʾānic character of this book; and from God comes success.

The Definition of Abrogation

The scholars’ definitions of abrogation have come down varying in their adequacy and shortfall before this religious phenomenon; yet they all point to a single reality, which we summarize thus: it is the lifting of a prior enactment — one that, by its outward sense, required permanence — by a subsequent enactment, such that the two cannot coexist, whether in themselves, when the incompatibility between them is evident, or by a particular indicant, a consensus or an explicit text. Thus the lifting of a ruling from some of the individual instances of a general subject is not abrogation in the technical sense, since the prior enactment is not lifted entirely but only restricted to the remaining instances; that is rather a specification within the general, or a qualification within the absolute ruling.

Likewise, if a ruling was expressly limited in duration from the outset, its lapsing at the ending of its term is not abrogation. Abrogation, rather, is the lifting of a ruling that is by nature directed toward permanence and continuance, and would remain so but for the coming of an abrogating enactment with a new declaration. And if an obligation lapses upon the occurrence of hardship, dire necessity, personal harm, or some temporary interest — as the jurists detail — that too is not abrogation in any respect, for none of that is a lifting of the legislation itself, but a change of the subject-matter through the supervening of one of these special titles: as when one in dire straits is permitted to eat of carrion only to the measure that stays his last breath — such a permission does not abrogate the original prohibition, whose subject was the freely-choosing person and has here changed to a person under compulsion.

The Reality of Abrogation

Abrogation, in its primary reality — in the sense of the arising of a new opinion — is impossible for Him, exalted; for in that sense it would entail a change in the Legislator’s opinion through the emergence of an error or deficiency in His prior legislation, come upon belatedly, so that He altered His opinion to another legislation abrogating the first, this last being in His view the complete and correct one — and it would then be admissible that His opinion change a second and a third time, and so on, so long as error is possible in every legislation. This sense pertains only to legislators who do not comprehend the interests and detriments latent behind things with that comprehensive encompassment. But as for the One who knows the hidden and encompasses the sum of realities across the length and breadth of time alike, error in attaining the reality is impossible for Him, as is that a deficiency should escape Him of which He was heedless and then discovered: all of that is impossible with respect to Him, exalted.

The abrogation ascribed to Him, exalted, is therefore an abrogation in outward aspect only; in reality there is no abrogation at all, but a temporary ruling and a legislation limited in duration from the outset, which He did not legislate save while knowing it had a term at which it would end — the real interest having required this temporary legislation, which He, exalted, ordained in keeping with that limited interest from the first. But, for an interest bound up with the obligation itself, He kept hidden the declaration of the term and deferred it to its appointed time; then, at the term’s end, the declaration came to the people that this legislation had ended. So abrogation, in its religious reality, is nothing but the deferral of the declaration of a term fixed from the first — perhaps with an interest for the nation in the deferral, such as testing them by habituation to obedience where the earlier obligation was burdensome, among other interests the Wise Master sees fit. Accordingly, to call this religious phenomenon ‘abrogation’ is an outward expression, in keeping with what people supposed: understanding permanence from the absoluteness of the prior legislation, then, when the declaration of the term came belatedly with a subsequent legislation, they reckoned it a real abrogation of the old — a metaphor in expression, and no part of the reality.

The Difference between Abrogation and Badāʾ

Just as abrogation in legislation — in the sense of the arising of a new opinion — is impossible with respect to Him, exalted, so likewise badāʾ in the created order, in the same sense, is impossible with respect to Him. For there is no difference between abrogation and badāʾ save that the first is proper, by technical usage, to matters of legislation and the second to matters of creation; each, in its original concept — the change of opinion — is precluded by comparison to His eternal, all-encompassing knowledge, without difference. Thus, just as abrogation is used in the sharīʿa in an outward sense — the appearing of a thing after it had been hidden from people — so too is badāʾ the appearing of a matter after concealment; except that the first is the appearing of the term of a ruling known to God but hidden from people, and the second the appearing of a matter or term determined with Him from eternity but hidden from people, which then ‘appeared’ to them — that is, its reality became manifest to them. In sum, badāʾ in creation, like abrogation in legislation, has two senses: in one it is impossible with respect to Him, exalted, and admissible in the other.

And by this admissible sense His saying, exalted, is explained: “Allah effaces and confirms whatever He wishes, and with Him is the Mother Book”¹⁰⁸⁰ — and other verses besides. There is, too, a more precise interpretation of badāʾ, which we have explained in a full article on the aspects of the subject.¹⁰⁸¹

A Flagrant Calumny

It has become clear that the badāʾ which the Shīʿa affirm — and which they base upon the noble verse — is badāʾ in that admissible sense, the counterpart of abrogation, with no difference between them. As for what some early [Sunni] writers ascribed to them, and what the later ones followed without verification — imputing to the Shīʿa the attribution of the impossible badāʾ to God, exalted — that is a pure fabrication and a slanderous calumny. For these theological books of the Shīʿa, and their books of exegesis and ḥadīth besides, are all agreed in interpreting the badāʾ ascribed to God in its admissible sense, the appearing to people after a concealment.¹⁰⁸²

And though we do not find it strange that the early writers should direct fabrications at the Shīʿa — the oppressive milieu having steered them into that mistaken orientation — we do find it very strange that the later writers should follow suit and weave upon that same crooked pattern: men like the professor al-Zarqānī¹⁰⁸³ and the professor al-ʿArīḍ¹⁰⁸⁴ and those who wound themselves in their wrapping, who walked the same mistaken road without verifying the plain truth of the matter — even while these books of the Shīʿa lie scattered at their very fingertips, yet they are heedless of them,¹⁰⁸⁵ confining themselves to relaying those unjust fabrications their forebears recorded under pressure from oppressive governments that would give no scope for the truth to be made plain — a truth that ran counter to their aims in the policy of usurpation.

The Difference between Abrogation and Specification

Applying the term ‘abrogation’ to specification was common in the current usage of the early authorities, and hence they were profuse in reckoning the number of the abrogated verses. It is therefore necessary for the contemporary researcher to know precisely the difference between the two terms, so as to use each in its proper place and not go the way of the old confusions. Abrogation differs from specification in that the first is a complete severing of the prior legislation’s continuance, after the Muslims had acted upon it for a period — long or short; whereas specification is the confining of a general ruling to some instances of its subject and the excluding of the rest from its scope, before the obligated persons have acted upon the general obligation. So abrogation is a restriction of the ruling to some times, and specification a restriction of it to some instances: the one a temporal specification, the other an instantial, neither to be confused with the other.

Yes, they share one common feature: the departure, in each, from an initial apparent sense. The first legislation was by nature outwardly directed toward continuance, so the abrogating enactment came to remove that supposition and make clear that the ruling had been limited from the first, though people did not know it; and likewise specification is a clarification of the true intent of an expression outwardly directed toward generality, the specifier disclosing the intended reality. Each of abrogation and specification, then, is an instrument for disclosing the true intent of the first, wise Legislator.

The Conditions of Abrogation

In the light of what has preceded, we may define abrogation in the Qurʾān, distinguishing it from all that resembles it, by the following conditions. First: that a genuine incompatibility be realized between two enactments occurring in the Qurʾān, such that they cannot coexist in a continuous legislation — whether an inherent incompatibility, as in the verses of the obligation of forbearance alongside the verses of fighting,¹⁰⁸⁶ or by a decisive indicant showing the annulment of the prior legislation by a later one, as in the verse of provision up to the year alongside the verse of the waiting-period of four months and ten days and the verse of inheritances — for a consensus has stood upon the abrogation of the first by the latter two.¹⁰⁸⁷ But where there is no incompatibility between two verses — as with the verse of voluntary spending and the verse of the alms — there is no abrogation technically, even if some have supposed it:¹⁰⁸⁸ spending in the way of God is a fixed and continuous recommendation for all time, and the alms are likewise obligatory, with no eternal incompatibility between the recommendedness of the one and the obligatoriness of the other.

Second: that the incompatibility be total and absolute, not partial and in some aspects only — for the latter is a specification within the general ruling, no part of abrogation. Thus the verse of the aged women who have ceased childbearing¹⁰⁸⁹ cannot abrogate the verse of lowering the gaze,¹⁰⁹⁰ the first being more particular than the second,¹⁰⁹¹ and the particular does not abrogate the general but only specifies it as to what lies outside it; and likewise the permitting of fish and locusts does not abrogate the verse forbidding carrion,¹⁰⁹² even were we to suppose ‘carrion’ truly applied to the fish taken from the water alive and then dying, or the locust taken alive and then dying¹⁰⁹³ — for this would be a specification within the verse, on that supposition, not an abrogation.¹⁰⁹⁴

Third: that the prior ruling not be limited by an explicit term, for such a ruling lapses of itself at its term’s end, with no need of abrogation. Thus His saying, exalted, “fight the one which aggresses until it returns to Allah’s ordinance”¹⁰⁹⁵ admits no abrogation once the transgressing faction returns and submits to God’s ruling. Yes — the like of His saying, “or [until] God appoints for them a way”¹⁰⁹⁶ does admit abrogation when the declaration comes, for the hinting at the ruling’s limit, suspended upon a new declaration, does not require the ruling’s lapse until a new ruling comes; and until the declaration comes, the first ruling stands firm. The limitation incompatible with abrogation, then, is where the ruling lapses of itself at the expiry of a term fixed for it from the first.

Fourth: that abrogation pertain to matters of legislation — there is no abrogation in factual reports. Thus His saying, “a multitude from the former, and a multitude from the latter,”¹⁰⁹⁷ cannot abrogate His saying, “a multitude from the former, and a few from the latter,”¹⁰⁹⁸ contrary to what Muqātil ibn Sulaymān supposed,¹⁰⁹⁹ for the verse is a report about a reality that does not change with differing considerations. Likewise the original permissibility lapses when a legislation comes into being, without that being abrogation, since that permissibility was not by any legislation but by the ruling of natural reason — the rational presumption of non-liability — whose subject is the absence of legislation, so that it lapses upon the legislation’s coming. Thus His saying, “do not sit with them until they engage in some other discourse,”¹¹⁰⁰ cannot abrogate His saying, “the God-wary are not accountable for them in anything,”¹¹⁰¹ for the permissibility of sitting, before the descent of the al-Nisāʾ verse, was not derived from the al-Anʿām verse but rested on the original license; the al-Anʿām verse descended only to repel a supposed prohibition, since the prohibition there was particular to the Prophet (ṣ), and the Muslims supposed it to include the believers as well.¹¹⁰²

Fifth: the preservation of the selfsame subject — for when a ruling’s subject changes to another, the ruling necessarily changes with it, since a ruling is bound to its subject, and this is not abrogation. Thus His saying, “except such as repent, make amends, and clarify,”¹¹⁰³ cannot abrogate His saying, “those who conceal what We have sent down of manifest proofs and guidance,”¹¹⁰⁴ for the one who clarifies is other than the one who conceals;¹¹⁰⁵ and so with every exception or specification laid upon a general ruling that some have wrongly supposed to be abrogation, as will appear. Of this category, too, is the supervening of a secondary title whose ruling differs from the essential, primary one — necessity, hardship, dissimulation — which befalls a thing and renders it permissible after it was, by its essential title, forbidden: as wine becomes lawful for one compelled to drink it. This is not called abrogation, since the first ruling stays fixed for wine by its essential title, while the second, incidental ruling supervenes by the title of necessity and lapses when the necessity lifts — a change of the subject with respect to its supervening states. Accordingly His saying, “But should someone be compelled, without being rebellious or aggressive, there shall be no sin upon him,”¹¹⁰⁶ does not abrogate His saying, “He has forbidden you only carrion and blood”¹¹⁰⁷ — a matter over which many who wrote on abrogation went astray.¹¹⁰⁸

The Kinds of Abrogation in the Qurʾān

Abrogation in the Qurʾān is conceived as being of several kinds, which the ancients and moderns have taken up and over which most researchers have passed lightly — whereas among them is what must be rejected on the stage of investigation, utterly far from the dignity of the Qurʾān, the Book of God, the Mighty, the Praiseworthy. We proceed upon their same division, but follow each kind with what fair criticism and impartial scrutiny require, by His power, exalted.

1 — Abrogation of the Ruling and the Recitation Together

This is that a verse possessed of a legislative ruling should drop from the Qurʾān — a verse the Muslims used to circulate, recite, and act upon — and then be abrogated, its ruling annulled and itself effaced from the page of existence altogether. This kind of abrogation is rejected in our view, and the Mighty Book shuns it — the Book which “falsehood does not approach, from before it nor from behind it” — a revelation sent down from One Wise, Praiseworthy.¹¹⁰⁹ Some of the ancients among the people of ḥadīth,¹¹¹⁰ and likewise a throng of uncritical moderns,¹¹¹¹ have tried to establish this kind in the Qurʾān, on the plea of its coming in a ḥadīth soundly transmitted to ʿĀʾisha, who said: there was, among what was sent down of the Qurʾān, “ten known sucklings that render [marriage] unlawful”; then they were abrogated by five known ones; and the Messenger of God (ṣ) died while they were still among what was recited of the Qurʾān.¹¹¹²

I say: this is a strange thing — how can one who does not hold to distortion of the Qurʾān commit himself to it? For to establish this kind of abrogation comes back to the assertion of distortion: that a verse possessed of a legislative ruling was being recited until the Messenger of God’s (ṣ) death and then was forgotten — which is nothing but the dropping of a verse after his (ṣ) death, a thing the community of the Muslims utterly repudiates. And, strangely, Shaykh al-Zarqānī tried to establish it by the consensus of those Muslims who affirm abrogation, on the alleged evidence of its having occurred by transmission.¹¹¹³

But the [meticulous] investigators nullified this kind altogether: some tried to interpret the ḥadīth away, while others cast it aside entirely, for it is a lone ḥadīth that comes back to a tampering with the Noble Qurʾān. The Imam al-Zarkashī said: they have discussed her words, “and they were still among what is recited” — whose outward sense is the recitation’s continuance, which is not so; some answered that what is meant is the time near the Prophet’s death, while the more apparent view is that the recitation too was abrogated, but this did not reach all the people until after his (ṣ) death, so he died while some were still reciting it. He said: al-Qāḍī Abū Bakr related in al-Intiṣār, from a group, the denial of this category, because the reports on it are solitary, and one may not assert decisively the sending-down of something as Qurʾān and its abrogation on solitary reports carrying no conclusive proof.¹¹¹⁴

Likewise it was alleged that the word mutatābiʿāt (consecutive) was once in the codex and then dropped. Al-Bayhaqī and al-Dāraquṭnī brought it out — the latter declaring it sound — with the chain through Ibn Shihāb, from ʿUrwa, from ʿĀʾisha, who said: the verse was sent down as “whoever of you is sick or on a journey, [then] a number of other days” — consecutive;¹¹¹⁵ then mutatābiʿāt dropped out.¹¹¹⁶ Ibn Ḥazm and al-Bayhaqī construed this as intending abrogation of ruling and recitation together; but that is an unsound construal. The outward sense of her words, if the ḥadīth is sound, intends the dropping said to have occurred in the Companions’ time, especially ʿUthmān’s, in what was dropped from the codex, as they alleged — a claim we have already shown false. Al-Wāḥidī reckoned as of this kind, too, what is related from Abū Bakr, who said: we used to recite “do not turn away from your fathers, for that is disbelief.”¹¹¹⁷

The Imam al-Sarakhsī said: this kind of abrogation in the Qurʾān is not permissible according to the Muslims. And he said: some of the heretics, of those who cloak themselves in a profession of Islam while intending its corruption, [claim] that this is permissible after his (ṣ) death as well, arguing from what is related — that Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq used to recite “do not turn away from your fathers, for that is disbelief on your part”; that Anas used to say, we once recited in the Qurʾān “convey on our behalf to our people that we have met our Lord, and He is pleased with us and has made us pleased”; that ʿUmar said, we recited the stoning-verse in the Book of God and retained it; and that Ubayy ibn Kaʿb said, Sūrat al-Aḥzāb was like Sūrat al-Baqara, or longer!

He said: as for al-Shāfiʿī, one must not imagine any agreement of his with these people in this view, though he did argue by something close to it over the number of sucklings,¹¹¹⁸ for he held sound the report from ʿĀʾisha that among what was sent down in the Qurʾān was “ten known sucklings that render [marriage] unlawful,” then abrogated by five, and that this was still recited after the Messenger of God’s (ṣ) death. He said: the proof of this view’s invalidity is His saying, exalted, “Indeed We have sent down the Reminder, and indeed We will preserve it”¹¹¹⁹ — and it is known that the preservation meant is not with Him, exalted, for He is far above being described with heedlessness or forgetfulness, so the preservation meant is with us. It is established that no revelation descends to abrogate this sharīʿa after the Messenger of God’s (ṣ) death; and were we to allow this in some of what was revealed to him, we should have to allow it in all, leading to the claim that nothing established by revelation remains among the people while obligation endures — and what view is more hideous than this?

Whoever opens this door cannot be secure against the possibility that some — or all — of what is in our hands today is at variance with the Messenger of God’s (ṣ) sharīʿa, God having abrogated it after him and joined people’s hearts upon what contradicts his sharīʿa. For the safeguarding of the religion to the end of time, God announced that He is the Preserver of what He sent down upon His Messenger; and by this it is clear that nothing of it may be abrogated after his death, while what is transmitted by solitary reports is anomalous, hardly any of it sound. And ʿĀʾisha’s ḥadīth can scarcely be sound, for its transmitter said that the sheet was under the bed, and when we busied ourselves with the Messenger of God’s (ṣ) burial a household animal came in and ate it — yet with all this, its preservation in hearts would not be lost, nor its setting-down on another sheet be impossible; so we know there is no basis for this ḥadīth.¹¹²⁰

I say: in this investigator’s words is enough to invalidate the claim, and to show there is no probative force in a lone report in this matter — above all where it touches the Qurʾān’s dignity and entails a tampering with its noble verses after his (ṣ) death, a thing the preservation-verse and God’s guarantee to safeguard His Book from distortion, addition, and diminution invalidate; for His glorious Word must remain an eternal miracle for the eternal religion of Islam. Al-Jazīrī said, in rebuttal: the Muslims are agreed that the Qurʾān is only what is mass-transmitted, so how can it be ruled that this is Qurʾān? It is a plain difficulty, what the ḥadīth-scholars adduce of solitary reports claiming a given verse was Qurʾān and then abrogated; such reports have paved the way for Islam’s enemies to introduce what casts doubt on the Book of God. This and its like — an allusion to ʿĀʾisha’s ḥadīth — pass judgment on the mass-transmitted Qurʾān by solitary reports, and beyond being harmful to the religion, contain a manifest contradiction.¹¹²¹

The professor al-Sāyis said: what Mālik and others related from ʿĀʾisha — that among what God sent down of the Qurʾān were ten sucklings, and so on — is a ḥadīth by which no argument is sound, since all agree that the recitation of nothing in the Qurʾān may be abrogated after his (ṣ) death; and this is the flagrant error.¹¹²² His student, the professor al-ʿArīḍ, said: this is the correct view we hold and by which we render our religion to God, that we may shut the door on those heretics and unbelievers who cast aspersions at the Book of God — who found in this door a chink through which to reach the Noble Qurʾān — and that we may keep God’s Book above the charge of deletion or addition by solitary reports; for whatever is not mass-transmitted concerning the Qurʾān, by affirmation or deletion, carries no weight — and of this category is the abrogation of the Qurʾān by solitary sunna, indeed by mass-transmitted sunna in some views. We reject all the reports adduced in this category — how many they are! — such as what has come regarding Sūrat al-Aḥzāb, Barāʾa, and others.¹¹²³

2 — Abrogation of the Recitation without the Ruling

This is that a verse of the Wise Qurʾān — one being recited and possessed of a legislative ruling — should be forgotten and effaced from the page of existence, while its ruling remains continuous and unabrogated. This kind too is rejected in our view, on the same footing as the first, with no difference; for whoever affirms it merely clings to solitary reports he alleges sound of chain, heedless that the abrogation of a firm verse is something that cannot be established by solitary reports yielding nothing but conjecture — and conjecture avails nothing against the truth. Beyond this, it contradicts the very interest behind the verse’s descent: if the interest requiring its descent was its comprising a fixed legislative ruling, why should the verse alone be lifted while that interest still requires its remaining as a support for the ruling? Hence affirming it has drawn down the vilification of Islam’s enemies upon the Muslims over their glorious Book; and, finally, committing to it — on the explicit purport of those reports — is an explicit commitment to distorting the Noble Qurʾān, far be that from an eternal, divine Book whose preservation is guaranteed. For that reason this view is, for us, the community of the Imāmiyya, invalid altogether, with no justification whatever, over and above its touching the sanctity of the glorious Qurʾān.

Our master the professor (may God have mercy on him) said: the Muslims are agreed that abrogation is not established by a lone report, just as the Qurʾān itself is not. For important matters whose custom is to spread among people, with reports about them diffused widely, are not established by a lone report; the confinement of their transmission to some rather than others is itself an indication of the transmitter’s mendacity or error. On this being so, how can it be established by a lone report that the stoning-verse is part of the Qurʾān and was abrogated? Yes, ʿUmar came with the stoning-verse and claimed it was Qurʾān, but the Muslims did not accept it from him — its transmission being confined to him alone — and so did not set it in the codices; yet the later scholars committed to its being a verse recitation-abrogated but ruling-abiding.¹¹²⁴

Yet the bulk of the Ahl al-Sunna’s scholars — great jurists and investigating imams among them — committed to this view, resting on a throng of solitary reports they alleged sound of chain. This is to sacrifice the Qurʾān’s dignity for reports of no probative force in this domain, even if supposed sound of chain by their own terms; for soundness of chain avails only in the derivative matters of fiqh, not where it touches the Qurʾān’s dignity and paves the way for doubts about the Muslims’ Book. Take this Imam al-Sarakhsī — an investigating jurist of legal theory: while he sharply censured the one who affirms the first kind, here he commits to it in this kind, though by his own argument for the first’s invalidity there is no difference between them.

He said: as for abrogation of the recitation with the ruling abiding, its illustration is what our scholars said — that the fast of oath-expiation is three consecutive days, on Ibn Masʿūd’s reading, a fast of three consecutive days; this was a well-known reading down to Abū Ḥanīfa’s time, yet it lacked the mass-transmission by which the Qurʾān is established. Ibn Masʿūd’s uprightness and precision are beyond doubt, so there is no explanation but to say it was recited in the Qurʾān, as he memorized it, then its recitation was abrogated in the Messenger of God’s (ṣ) lifetime — hearts turned from memorizing it save Ibn Masʿūd’s, that the ruling might remain by his transmission, for a lone report obligates action, and his reading is nothing less than his transmitting; thus the ruling abode after the recitation’s abrogation, by this route.¹¹²⁵ I say: the weakness of this argument and the frailty of this interpretation are not hidden. What follows presents what Ibn Ḥazm al-Andalusī expatiated upon in this matter — he being an investigating imam of his own school and considered judgment, so that this, from him, is very strange indeed.

He said: the view of one who rejects stoning altogether is to be shunned, being contrary to what is established from the Messenger of God (ṣ); a Qurʾān had descended with it, but its wording was abrogated while its ruling remained. Then he relates, through Sufyān, from ʿĀṣim, from Zirr: Ubayy ibn Kaʿb said to me, how many verses do you count Sūrat al-Aḥzāb? I said, seventy-three or seventy-four. He said, it used nearly to equal Sūrat al-Baqara, or was longer, and in it was the stoning-verse. I said, O Abū al-Mundhir, and what is the stoning-verse? He said: “when the elder man and the elder woman commit fornication, stone them both outright, as an exemplary punishment from God; and God is Mighty, Wise.” He said: this is a sound chain, clear as the sun, with no fault in it.

Then he related it by another route, from Manṣūr, from ʿĀṣim, from Zirr, and said: here are Sufyān al-Thawrī and Manṣūr bearing witness of ʿĀṣim, and they did not lie — they being the two trustworthy, leading authorities, the two full-moons — nor did ʿĀṣim lie against Zirr, nor Zirr against Ubayy. Abū Muḥammad said: but its wording was abrogated while its ruling remained; had its wording not been abrogated, Ubayy would surely have had Zirr recite it, but he only told him it used to equal Sūrat al-Baqara, not that it equals it now — so the abrogation of its wording is established. Then he relates the stoning-verse from Zayd and Ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, calling it a good chain; and from ʿĀʾisha, who said: the stoning-verse and the suckling-verse had descended, on a sheet under my bed, and when the Messenger of God (ṣ) died and we were absorbed in his death, a household animal entered and ate it. He said: this is a sound ḥadīth, but not as they supposed — for the stoning-verse, when it descended, was memorized, known, and acted upon by the Messenger of God (ṣ), only the Qurʾān’s copyists did not write it in the codices nor set down its wording; ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb asked for that but received no answer — so the abrogation of its wording is sound, and the sheet remained, as ʿĀʾisha said, and the animal ate it, no one having any need of it.¹¹²⁶

I say: I do indeed find strange this scandalous contrivance in the words of the like of this man, known for investigation, precision, and independent judgment. How can he say ‘no one needs it’ when it is the support of a standing legislative ruling? And how did not one of the scribes of the revelation know the verse or write it — save that it was written on a single sheet deposited with ʿĀʾisha alone — and how did she leave it under her bed for a household animal to eat? All of this is strange, held far-fetched by sound reason. What deluded these people is that these are ḥadīths that came in the Six Ṣaḥīḥ collections and others,¹¹²⁷ which — bound in devotion to what is in them — they must accept with all their faults, however much they contravene the methods of criticism and investigation.

Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī was profuse in relating such worthless reports,¹¹²⁸ and before him his shaykh Badr al-Dīn al-Zarkashī, though with some hesitation;¹¹²⁹ and some modern writers took them for decisive proofs without investigation. One said, bombastically: if the occurrence of these two kinds is established, as you see, their permissibility is established, for occurrence is the greatest proof of possibility; thus is invalidated what the deniers held from the side of the sharīʿa, like Abū Muslim and his followers, and likewise what the deniers held from the side of reason — a party of the Muʿtazila who broke from the community and claimed these two latter kinds rationally impossible.¹¹³⁰ I say: how noble is the ruling of reason — were it not that the likes of al-Zarqānī confined it to the Muʿtazila and set themselves apart from the light of wise reason! As for the professor al-ʿArīḍ, he took here an investigative course and expatiated in rebutting this corrupt view, in defence of the Qurʾān’s dignity, relating that a number of his contemporaries went along with him in this sound opinion.¹¹³¹

3 — Abrogation of the Ruling without the Recitation

This is that the verse should remain fixed in the Book, recited by the Muslims across the ages, except that, in respect of its legislative import, it is abrogated: it may not be acted upon after the coming of the enactment decisively abrogating its ruling. This kind is the one well-known among the scholars and exegetes; all are agreed upon its admissibility in point of possibility and upon its realization in fact — for they affirmed the existence of abrogated verses in the Qurʾān, though they differed as to their number. Yet this kind has three modes, discussion having arisen over the possibility of some of them, which we present as follows.

The first: that the import of a noble verse be abrogated by a definitive sunna or a verified consensus — such as the verse of provision up to the year concerning the widow,¹¹³² which by its outward sense is not incompatible with the verse of the waiting-period and inheritances, yet the definitive sunna and the Muslims’ consensus established its abrogation by them, as has been said, and we shall take it up. Some raised a difficulty against abrogating the Qurʾān by the sunna, since the first is definitive and the second conjectural; the answer is that the case presumed is where the sunna is itself mass-transmitted and definitive of provenance, supported by the nation’s consensus across all ages — as we shall discuss among the abrogated verses of this pattern.

The second: that the import of a verse be abrogated by another verse, such that the second regards the import of the first and lifts its ruling by explicit stipulation — for but for that there would be no occasion for the second’s descent, and it would be idle speech. This is like the verse of confidential consultation (najwā),¹¹³³ which made almsgiving obligatory before conferring privately with the Messenger (ṣ), and which the verse of apprehension abrogated: “Were you apprehensive of offering charities before your secret talks?”¹¹³⁴ This mode they did not differ over.

The third: that a verse be abrogated by another without either regarding the other — save that they found the incompatibility between the two such that they could not be reconciled as legislation, and so took the second, later in descent, as an abrogator of the first. The incompatibility between the two verses must be total — a complete mutual contrariety — not partial and in some respects only, for the latter is more akin to specification than to technical abrogation. Some researchers have been lax, taking an apparent incompatibility — even a partial one — for a proof of abrogation, and so affirmed the abrogation of the general by the particular and of the absolute by the qualified;¹¹³⁵ but the chief excuse for such a one is the lowness of his level in the principles of legal theory.

A note: in this third category there is stipulated the existence of a sound text and an explicit, decisive tradition, supported by the ancients’ consensus. For it is very hard to ascertain the chronology of a verse’s descent, its priority or posteriority; and no reliance is placed on one verse’s being set down before another in the codex, since many abrogating verses stand, in their placement, before the abrogated — as with the waiting-period verse, numbered 234 of Sūrat al-Baqara, which abrogates the verse of provision up to the year, numbered 240 of the same sūra; and this is by consensus. Likewise the incompatibility, in its total aspect, cannot be asserted decisively between two Qurʾānic verses except from an infallible text, for the Qurʾān has an outward and an inward, a clear and an ambiguous, and it is not easy to grasp the essence of a verse, however clear it may seem.

Our master the professor (may God have mercy on him) took from this last point a handhold for denying this third mode of abrogation, saying: the sound finding is that this category does not occur in the Qurʾān — how could it, when God, mighty and exalted, has said, “Had it been from other than Allah, they would have surely found much discrepancy in it”?¹¹³⁶ But we shall show that there is no real incompatibility between the abrogating and the abrogated in the substance of reality; it is only an outward incompatibility, for the abrogated ruling is in truth a ruling limited, in God’s knowledge, from the outset of its legislation, save that its outward sense is permanence — and hence the incompatibility between it and the later abrogator is purely formal, if the abrogation is established. That will appear more clearly in the answer to the third doubt, to come.

Conditional Abrogation

There is, among the kinds of abrogation, what we term ‘temporary’ or ‘conditional’ abrogation.¹¹³⁷ It is where the abrogated ruling was contingent upon circumstances that changed to another state calling for a new ruling, yet remain susceptible of returning to their first state — whether in another region of the earth or in a coming period of time — so that it is part of [divine] wisdom that the abrogated ruling should return to the arena of existence. Each of the abrogating and the abrogated is contingent upon a state proper to it and bound to an interest that coheres with it: while that interest persists the ruling endures, if it passes the ruling passes, and whenever it returns the ruling returns.

Its example is the alms made obligatory in the way of God: the Muslims were bound to equip the financial structure of the state whatever it cost — this is what the Qurʾān often calls ‘spending in the way of God’ — and that was strictly obligatory so long as the need remained. Then, when the zakāt, the fifths of spoils, the land-tax, and the like were imposed and the state no longer needed other provision, that obligation lapsed. But should a calamity befall the nation requiring extra provision, or should something arise calling for greater outlay, the interest requires imposing taxes commensurate with the state’s need, and it falls to the Muslims to discharge that duty. Such rulings, then, are not reckoned abrogated absolutely; they abide, but bound to conditions that, once realized, actualize their rulings — like all rulings consequent upon their subjects, after the manner of ‘real propositions.’ So too the matter of forbearance and gentle conduct with the unbelievers: it was a binding obligation in earliest Islam, when the Muslims were weak; and should Islam ever again become a stranger — God forbid — as it began a stranger, that ruling would inevitably return. Let the masters of the discipline hold this in mind; and God is the All-Knowing.

Gradual Abrogation

It is another kind, in which the ruling was not abrogated explicitly and at the outset, but was subjected to abrogation by paving the way for its enabling causes — a gradual abrogation.¹¹³⁸ This is where the interest called for provisionally confirming a practice prevailing over common life, whose roots could not easily be uprooted save by laying preliminaries that weaken and shake it until it collapses of itself in the end — like the gradation in legislating against wine, and others. And this is like the legislation permitting the striking of wives upon recalcitrance (nushūz): “advise them, and keep away from them in the bed, and beat them.”¹¹³⁹ This was a provisional confirmation of a prior pre-Islamic practice — the men used to domineer over women without concern — so Islam came to limit that ignorant custom, weakening it first little by little, then demolishing it and uprooting it from the foundation.

The people of the Age of Ignorance saw in striking women and causing them pain a means of disciplining them, as though it were part of the husband’s right of guardianship over them — an old idea, entrenched in the depths, that persists even now in tribal circles and even among many town-dwellers of refined cities, where men see it as their lawful right to discipline their wives, even by striking and pain, and find no fault in it. Uprooting so deep-seated a custom was difficult and required suppleness in continuous effort — which is what Islam undertook, among its combating of many domineering pre-Islamic customs.

So he confirmed the practice of striking women not to establish it but to pave the way to its lifting and suppression — and he succeeded in fact, as we observe in his noble conduct and that of his approved Companions and their worthy followers throughout history. For when the verse descended, groups of Muslims hastened to the Messenger of God (ṣ) to discern the truth of the matter, and he made clear to them that it was not as they supposed — only a formal phenomenon, not a licence for striking women or causing them pain — and that a virtuous man finds in himself no justification short of honouring his wife, and that the noble man is he who takes the Messenger as his model in married life, for he (ṣ) was the most dutiful of people toward his wives. He (ṣ) said, rebuking one who would humiliate his wife: “Is not one of you ashamed to strike his wife as he strikes a slave — striking her at the day’s start and lying with her at its end?” Then he said, “Your best men will never strike” — a negation for all time, emphasizing its incompatibility with faith — and of those who struck their women he said, “Those are not your best.”¹¹⁴⁰

And in al-Ṣadūq’s Jāmiʿ al-Akhbār, from the Prophet (ṣ): “I marvel at one who strikes his wife, when he is more deserving of the striking than she. Do not strike your women with wood, for in that lies liability to retaliation; but discipline them by hunger and want, that you may find rest in this world and the next.” And in another ḥadīth: “Keep my counsel concerning your women, that you may be delivered from the severity of the reckoning; and how evil the state, before God, of whoever does not keep it!”¹¹⁴¹ From al-Ṣādiq (ʿa), the Messenger of God (ṣ) said: “The wife is but a cherished charge; whoever takes her, let him not let her go to waste.”¹¹⁴² And he said: “The best of you is the best of you to his household, and I am the best of you to my household” — and in another narration, “to his womenfolk.”¹¹⁴³ And: “Cursed is he who lets go to waste the one he maintains.”¹¹⁴⁴ And in another: “It is ruin enough for a man that he let go to waste the one he maintains.”¹¹⁴⁵ And in the ḥadīth of al-Ḥawlāʾ: “Jibrāʾīl (ʿa) kept enjoining me concerning women until I supposed her husband would not even be permitted to say ‘fie!’ to her.”¹¹⁴⁶

As for the permitting of striking, the Prophet (ṣ) himself interpreted it as a non-injurious (ghayr mubarriḥ) striking,¹¹⁴⁷ the mubarriḥ being the wearying and exhausting. Al-Ḥasan and others said: a non-injurious striking leaving no mark — no trace of redness or blackness — hence a light striking entailing no pain. Qatāda said: not disfiguring, that is, not altering the colour of the skin. Ibn ʿAbbās, asked what the non-injurious striking was, said: the tooth-stick and the like — he may strike her with that;¹¹⁴⁸ and the like is related from Abū Jaʿfar (ʿa).¹¹⁴⁹ In the Fiqh al-Riḍā: “the striking is with the tooth-stick and the like, a gentle striking” — that is, with gentleness and forbearance;¹¹⁵⁰ so it is a stroke of reproof springing from affection, not a stroke of punishment followed by discord. Shaykh Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭūsī said: as for the striking, it is non-injurious, without disagreement¹¹⁵¹ — a proof of the jurists’ consensus upon this interpretation.

Accordingly, the ruling in the verse is an outward permitting of striking, laid down to pave the way for its final, emphatic prohibition — for the requisite of true faith is to follow the Prophet in sunna and conduct: “In the Apostle of God there is certainly for you a good exemplar”¹¹⁵² — over and above the obligation to obey what he says. Thus the verse, in its outward sense, is abrogated, and the Prophet’s own interpretation was the abrogator of this initial apparent sense, in the actual state of affairs.

And likewise the matter of the ownership of slaves (milk al-yamīn): Islam provisionally confirmed it in its outward aspect — not acknowledging it as a system, but to pave the way to its abolition in the end. Islam came when slavery was a system acknowledged throughout the world, an economic and social currency in circulation that all took for granted and none reproved — none even conceiving of changing it, let alone abolishing it. To change or efface such a system needed gradation and deliberateness, perhaps over no short period. The slave, in Roman convention, was a thing, not a human — a chattel with no rights at all, though burdened with every heavy duty.

Islam came to raise the slave, first, to his human level, and second, to make him an equal counterpart to the masters in all his human rights, then to pave the way to his final emancipation and the natural abolition of the system of slavery in the end. In the Treatise of Rights of the Imam Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn (ʿa): “As for the right of the one you own: that you know he is the creation of your Lord, the son of your father and mother, and your own flesh and blood.”¹¹⁵³ It encouraged addressing them with the address of brotherhood, the master saying to his slave, “O my brother!”¹¹⁵⁴ Let none of them say, “this is my male slave, this my female slave,” but rather, “my young man, my young woman.”¹¹⁵⁵

They should share with them in toilsome work and make them their equals in dress, food, and the rest of life’s necessities — as the Imam, the Commander of the Faithful (ʿa), did with his servant Qanbar.¹¹⁵⁶ Al-Ṣādiq (ʿa) said: “Whoever slanders an owned slave is to be disciplined, out of respect for [the sanctity of] Islam.”¹¹⁵⁷ Thus the slave, in the shade of Islam, became a complete human being, possessed of his human dignity and enjoying the rights of the rest of the Muslims equally — so that his leading of prayer became permissible,¹¹⁵⁸ as did his holding high official posts (as when Zayd and his son Usāma were set over the army, with the senior Companions in the ranks);¹¹⁵⁹ and the Prophet (ṣ) established brotherhood between Bilāl and Abū Ruwayḥa al-Khathʿamī, and between Zayd and his own uncle Ḥamza.¹¹⁶⁰

All this constitutes broad steps toward the spiritual freeing of the slave, restoring him to his humanity and treating him as a noble human, and affirming that masters and slaves do not differ in the root of lineage — all are the sons of Adam, and Adam of dust. But Islam would not rest content with this measure, for its supreme foundational principle is the complete equality of human beings, which is the complete emancipation of every human; and all that preceded was a paving toward this noble goal, which the Prophet (ṣ) keenly anticipated. He (ṣ) said: “Jibrāʾīl (ʿa) never ceased enjoining me concerning slaves until I supposed he would set a time at which, once reached, they would all be freed.”¹¹⁶¹

The fundamental thing Islam undertook from the outset was to dry up all the sources of slavery, save one it was not then expedient to dry up: the slavery of war. The prevailing convention in those days was to enslave war-captives or kill them, and this was very ancient; Islam came while people were thus, and wars fell out between it and its enemies, in which Muslim captives were enslaved by Islam’s foes, stripped of their freedom and treated with abasement. It was not in Islam’s power to release the enemy captives who fell into its hand — it is no sound policy to embolden your enemy by freeing his captives while your own people suffer degradation and torment among the foe; reciprocal treatment is here the most just law one can employ, indeed the only law. Worthy of note is that the sole verse dealing with war-captives — “either oblige them or take ransom, till the war lays down its burdens”¹¹⁶² — does not mention enslaving them, lest that become a permanent legislation for humanity, but mentions only ransom or release without recompense; for these two are the permanent laws to which the Qurʾān wishes humanity to confine its treatment of captives. The Muslims adopted enslavement only in submission to a compelling, temporary necessity, not to any text of the Islamic legislation.

Thus Islam did not resort to that path, nor enslave captives on the notion that they are deficient in their humanity, but only by way of reciprocity — making its enslaving of captives contingent on the agreement of the warring states or the exchange of prisoners, as was later agreed and as all states came to practise. And so the researcher finds many pre-Islamic conventions that Islam went along with — but to efface them, not to keep pace with them — as with ẓihār, īlāʾ, and liʿān, for which Islam laid down severe rulings to combat and uproot them; and likewise the clientage of manumission, the clientage of surety for crime, the granting of inheritance-enjoyment, and others.

Doubts concerning Abrogation in the Qurʾān

Before we pass to surveying the verses in which abrogation occurred, or of which abrogation has been asserted, we must take up the doubts the deniers of abrogation adduced, for they alleged its impossibility in God’s sharīʿa and hence its non-occurrence in the Qurʾān. These are varied doubts of differing quality; we mention here the most important. The first: that abrogation in legislation, like badāʾ in creation, is impossible for Him, exalted, since both express the arising of a new opinion and a coming-upon an interest hidden at the outset — whereas His knowledge is eternal, no opinion changing for Him and no knowledge newly arising, so that it is inconceivable He should light upon an error in an old legislation and abrogate it by a new one.

The answer: abrogation, like badāʾ, is not taken in its real sense — the arising of a new opinion — but is only an appearing to people after being hidden from them, for an interest in that concealment at the outset, as already established. The Legislator may lay down a ruling outwardly permanent, in keeping with people’s habit of taking absolute rulings as permanent, yet really limited from the first by a term known to Him and disclosed only when it ends, for an interest in the concealment and the delayed disclosure. Should an objector ask why there is any temporal limit at all — for if the root of the ruling held an interest, let it require permanence, and if none, there was no ground for legislating it — we say: interests differ with circumstances, like the prescriptions of a skilled physician that vary with the patient’s changing states and surroundings; when the reality changes, the interest calls for exchanging a prior legislation for a later one that suits it. And as for why He did not announce the limit from the first — perhaps an interest called for the concealment, such as habituating believing souls and training them in obedience, especially when the first legislation was harder and gave way to an easier, lighter one, as a mercy and an alleviation for the nation.

The second doubt: that the presence of an abrogated verse in the Qurʾān might confuse the obligated, who would suppose it a firm verse and act on it or hold to its import — which would be an enticement to ignorance, and that is something hideous. The answer: the consequences of each person’s ignorance return upon himself, and ignorance has never been an acceptable excuse among the people of reason; if the interest calls for abrogating a prior legislation by a later one, the obligated must be alert to this possibility, especially when the legislation comes at the outset of a reformative movement advancing gradually toward perfection. So the Qurʾān contained abrogating and abrogated, general and particular, absolute and qualified, clear and ambiguous, and none may hastily take up a verse before knowing its category — as numerous ḥadīths from the imams of the religion caution. ʿAlī (ʿa) said to a judge who passed by him: do you distinguish the abrogating from the abrogated? He said, no. The Commander of the Faithful (ʿa) said: then you are ruined, and have brought others to ruin.¹¹⁶³

The third doubt: that affirming abrogating and abrogated verses in the Qurʾān entails an incompatibility among its verses — which His saying contradicts: “Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found in it much discrepancy”¹¹⁶⁴; and by this argument our master the professor (may God have mercy on him) held to denying such abrogation in the Noble Qurʾān.¹¹⁶⁵ The answer: the discrepancy the verse negates is only what is real in the circumstance of reality; but what is formal and in the outward aspect — as between the abrogating and the abrogated — the verse does not contradict at all. Real discrepancy (contradiction) requires eight conditions,¹¹⁶⁶ among them unity of time and unity of criterion and condition; if one is absent there is no incompatibility — as with the abrogating enactment, whose circumstance is later and whose criterion is another interest, changed from a prior one that had called for the abrogated ruling. Thus the incompatibility between abrogating and abrogated is only initial and outward, and after due depth of consideration — observing the two periods of descent and the occasions calling for each — it is lifted entirely.

The fourth doubt: what is the wisdom behind setting down in the codex a verse whose ruling is abrogated, to remain mere words the reciters mouth across the centuries? The answer: the wisdom is to demonstrate the sharīʿa’s suppleness and its policy of keeping pace with the movement of time, above all at the outset of its legislation, confronting the difficulties of implementation and combating them gradually — which Islam endured from its inception to its full manifestation. For the Islamic nation, when the Messenger first proclaimed his call, was undergoing an arduous transition, the hardest part being the abandonment of its beliefs, inheritances, and customs — especially given the Arabs’ zeal for what they held to be their ancestral glories. Had they taken up the new religion all at once, it would have led to the opposite of what was intended and the call would have failed at its dawning, finding no supporters; for a sudden leap is of the impossible that man cannot bear.

Hence the sharīʿa came proceeding with deliberateness, intimate and gentle, leading people gradually toward perfection, ascending with them by degrees, seizing the chances of familiarity and habit to carry them from the easier to the easy, then to the difficult, then to the more difficult — until the matter was completed and Islam succeeded with a dazzling success unmatched in its speed, in the mingling of souls with it, and in the rising of humanity through it. Take as an example the graduality of the prohibition of wine and Islam’s wise stance toward the problem of the Arabs of yesterday’s Ignorance: it was a thoroughly complex problem, for they drank it almost universally and engaged in it not as a mere custom but as a token of strength, a mark of virility, and an emblem of gallantry. Could Islam reasonably have succeeded in weaning them from it had it not first conciliated and dealt gently with them — even granting it to them as a favour at the outset, as though sharing their feeling, declining to prohibit it at a time when some souls were perhaps ready to hear the word of prohibition, when they asked him (ṣ), “They question you concerning wine and gambling”?¹¹⁶⁷ By this method, in tune with people’s souls, Islam overcame deeply entrenched pre-Islamic customs, cutting their branches first that it might uproot them; so let the callers to Islam work likewise. That was Islam’s method in its call to rectitude — with suppleness and deliberateness that guaranteed success — so let it be an object of study for the people of discernment.

A note: perhaps you will find it strange to hear our final word on abrogation in the Qurʾān — that there is no abrogation at all in any Qurʾānic verse in the technical sense, that is, the final lapsing of a verse’s ruling so that another new ruling succeeds it forever. This is not in the Qurʾān, and there is no witness for it, as we shall establish in discussing the verses whose abrogation has been asserted. What the Qurʾān does contain is abrogation in its old, general sense — the specification of a general term or the qualification of an absolute one — which is well known and unobjectionable; and so the roots of the doubt are severed altogether.

A Survey of the Verses Whose Abrogation Has Been Asserted

The inquiry, so far, was directed toward the possibility of abrogation’s occurring in the Qurʾān and the repelling of the doubts adduced by its deniers. Now comes the turn of surveying the verses whose abrogation has been asserted — that their ruling was lifted while their text remained fixed in the Qurʾān. Fierce dispute has revolved between the affirmers and the deniers; let us see with whom the victory lies.

1 — The Verse of Confidential Consultation

The verse enjoins the faithful, when they wish to consult the Apostle privately, to “offer a charity before your secret talk; that is better for you and purer” — while excusing those who lack the means, God being forgiving and merciful.¹¹⁶⁸ The Muslims used to multiply their questions about matters of no import, taking up the Prophet’s (ṣ) precious hours to no purpose; so the verse descended, imposing a single dirham’s charity on each question, laid on the rich and not the poor — and the majority of the Companions grew chary of questioning, out of niggardliness with their wealth.

The exegetes said: none acted on this obligation but the Commander of the Faithful (ʿa) — he had a dīnār, sold it for ten dirhams, and gave them one by one before each question — until the abrogating verse came,¹¹⁶⁹ “Were you apprehensive of offering charities before your secret talks?” bidding them, since they had not done so and God had excused them, to maintain the prayer and pay the zakāt.¹¹⁷⁰ Our master the professor (may his soil be sweet) affirmed the abrogation of the alms-imposition of the first verse, since it is of the ‘regardful’ category he approved.¹¹⁷¹

Yet Abū Muslim denied that the verse could be abrogated, it having been temporary for the purpose of a test — “so that Allah may purge those who have faith”¹¹⁷² — for its term ended when the goal was attained, so this is no abrogation. Fakhr al-Rāzī said: this is a good position, with no fault in it.¹¹⁷³ I say: what Abū Muslim mentioned is exceedingly precise, for the verse is a cultivation of the Muslims, that they not occupy the time of those in authority with consultations most of which have no substance — unless the matter be of real value; and the Muslims became alert, for all time, to this political propriety in dealing with their leaders.

Sayyid Quṭb said: likewise the Qurʾān teaches them a propriety in their relationship with the Messenger of God (ṣ); for there was, it seems, a crowding to gain private audience with him — each wishing to speak of his own concern and take the Prophet’s direction, or simply to enjoy being alone with him — with no regard for the Messenger’s communal duties, no sense of the value of his time or the seriousness of a private audience, which should be only for a matter of moment.¹¹⁷⁴ This imposition and its lifting were like a staged play, through which the necessity of communal cultivation and of proper conduct with the leaders was made manifest — a successful trial in the Muslims’ life of that age, to remain a general constitution for all time; so there was no abrogation here, in the technical sense.

2 — The Verse of the Number of Combatants

The verse bids the Prophet urge the faithful to fight: “if there be twenty patient men among you, they shall overcome two hundred”, and a hundred shall overcome a thousand of the faithless, who are a people without understanding.¹¹⁷⁵ The strength of faith in God required each believer to face ten of the unbelievers, and the verse descended so, imposing jihād where the Muslims were as few as a tenth of the enemy’s combatants. But they showed weakness then, so God lightened it, imposing jihād where they reached half the unbelievers’ number.

The abrogating verse declares, “Now Allah has lightened your burden, knowing that there is weakness in you” — so a hundred steadfast shall overcome two hundred, and a thousand shall overcome two thousand, by God’s leave.¹¹⁷⁶ Likewise it is related from al-Ṣādiq (ʿa) that the ratio of one to two abrogated one to ten.¹¹⁷⁷ If it be abrogation, it must be of the ‘regardful’ category, as the professor said; but he denied the very basis of abrogation here, pleading that there is no temporal gap between the two verses, and citing the outward sense of the context.¹¹⁷⁸

But he (may God have mercy on him) did not clarify how the context indicates that; on the contrary it is more indicative the other way, given the wording, “Now Allah has lightened your burden, knowing that there is weakness in you,” which points to the second verse’s descent after a period — perhaps not short — in which a harsh trial passed, revealing the Muslims’ weakness at facing enemies many times their number and their heaviness at so burdensome a duty, for the flagging of their resolve and the weakness of their faith; nor is there ground for reading the first verse as mere recommendation.¹¹⁷⁹ These two verses, like the two before them, are among the sharp events and trials that passed over the Muslims’ life then, and are an educative model for the nation for all time: in readiness and true sincerity, each faces ten; otherwise, two — for the believer fights on the clarity of truth, while the unbeliever is in dim bewilderment, “a lot who do not understand.”¹¹⁸⁰ Here too is a staged play over which the Muslims’ varying states alternate, from weakness to strength and back, across the span of life: strong, they are held to the higher duty; weak, they are granted relief — so what the verse recounts was the first trial and remains forever, with no abrogating and no abrogated.

3 — The Verse of Provision

The verse provides that those who die leaving wives shall “bequeath for their wives a provision for a year, without turning them out”; yet if the wives themselves leave, no blame attaches for what they honourably do, God being Mighty and Wise.¹¹⁸¹ In the Age of Ignorance the widow’s waiting-period was a full year: when the man died, the woman would cast something behind her back — a piece of dung or the like — saying that remarriage was more contemptible to her than that, and would neither apply kohl nor comb nor perfume nor marry for a year, while the deceased’s heirs kept her in the house and maintained her from his estate throughout — that being her inheritance from her dead husband’s wealth.¹¹⁸²

This verse descended confirming an aspect of that custom, until — on the received view — it was abrogated by the inheritance verse and the waiting-period verse (perhaps a case of the ‘paved,’ gradual abrogation, as we noted). Al-Sayyid ʿAbdullāh Shubbar (may God have mercy on him) said: this verse is abrogated by consensus.¹¹⁸³ In ḥadīth from the Commander of the Faithful (ʿa)¹¹⁸⁴ and the two Ṣādiqs (ʿa),¹¹⁸⁵ in concurrent narrations: it is abrogated — the verse “they shall wait by themselves four months and ten days”¹¹⁸⁶ abrogated it, and so did the inheritance verse.¹¹⁸⁷ The sum of the Sunnī and Shīʿī narrations here may reach mass-attestation,¹¹⁸⁸ the mainstay being the scholars’ consensus and the exegetes’ agreement, from which none deviated.

Thus I used to reckon the verse in the past, disputing it much with my master the professor (may God have mercy on him), who rejected this sense and held the verse firm without abrogation. Now I have become alert to a precise point that makes the preponderance lie with the professor’s view: the verse bade the heirs not turn their father’s wife out of her accustomed living for a year, but did not make her remaining incumbent upon her (for if she leaves, no blame attaches for what she honourably does), which is incompatible with the year being her waiting-period, since she may plainly leave and marry whenever she wishes. What appears is that this is an ethical ruling: that they not hastily evict their father’s wife upon his death, but let her enjoy her accustomed living and part of her own good will, so the family bonds are not severed — and that when she has no child by him. The proof is that the waiting verse, “they shall wait by themselves four months and ten days,” descended before it;¹¹⁸⁹ and another indicant, the bequest for divorced women near the provision verse: “for divorced women there is an honourable provision — an obligation on the God-wary.”¹¹⁹⁰ There is no doubt that the divorcées’ provision is not obligatory¹¹⁹¹ but an ethical grant the husband bestows even after parting; likewise the widow’s year-long provision is a matter the Legislator recommended, as a mercy, not a binding duty that the imposition of inheritance and the inescapable regime of the waiting-period would abrogate.

Our master the professor (may God have mercy on him) affirmed the reading as recommendation, and that is correct; likewise Abū Muslim held the verse unabrogated — a charge of bequest concerning the widow, without being obligatory — and al-Rāzī expounded his view at length, saying finally: this is the establishing of Abū Muslim’s view, and it is of the utmost soundness.¹¹⁹²

4 — The Verse of the Penalty for Indecency

The verse directs that, when women of yours commit the indecency, four witnesses be called against them, and if they testify the women be confined to the houses “until death takes them or God appoints a way for them”; and the two men who commit it are to be hurt, but left alone if they repent and reform, God being ever relenting and merciful.¹¹⁹³ In earlier days, when a woman committed fornication and witnesses testified against her, she was confined to a house and shunned — none coming to her but with food and drink — until she died;¹¹⁹⁴ and the man, when he fornicated, was hurt with reproach, reviling, and ugly words until he repented.¹¹⁹⁵

The Imam al-Ṣādiq (ʿa) said: it is abrogated, and ‘the way’ is the ḥudūd — the flogging and the stoning. The ḥadīths of this purport are concurrent and agreed upon among the exegetes; there is no doubt of it, especially since the standing Islamic legislation for fornicators is flogging and stoning, by the jurists’ consensus, ancient and modern, while none has ever issued a ruling by the verse — a proof of their consensus on its abrogation. ‘The indecency’ is fornication, by the exegetes’ consensus and the agreement of the interpreting narrations;¹¹⁹⁶ yet Abū Muslim alone dissented, holding it to mean female same-sex conduct in the first verse and male in the second.

Al-Ṭabrisī said: this view of Abū Muslim’s contravenes the consensus and the exegetes, who agree that ‘the indecency’ here is fornication;¹¹⁹⁷ and al-Jaṣṣāṣ said: the nation has not differed over the abrogation of these two rulings for the two fornicators.¹¹⁹⁸ Our master the professor (may God have mercy on him), however, held the two verses firm, interpreting the indecency with Abū Muslim — on the evidence of the dual pronoun in the second verse, which serves in turn as an indicant that female same-sex conduct is meant in the first as well; the measure prescribed, he said, is not a ḥadd but a repelling of wrong, obligatory in all grave matters, so there is no clash with the stoning and flogging verses.¹¹⁹⁹

5 — The Verse of Inheritance by Faith

The verse declares of the migrants who fought in God’s way and the helpers who sheltered them that “they are heirs of one another.”¹²⁰⁰ The early Muslims used to inherit by the bond of religious brotherhood, not by kinship: when a believer died, his brother in faith and Hijra inherited, rather than his brother by blood or milk — until this was abrogated by the verse of ‘those related by wombs,’ a matter the exegetes agree upon. Abū Jaʿfar al-Bāqir (ʿa) said: the Muslims used to inherit by the first brotherhood;¹²⁰¹ and ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm said: when a man died, his brother in religion inherited rather than his blood-heirs, for the ruling at the outset of the prophethood was inheritance by brotherhood, not birth.¹²⁰²

Ibn ʿAbbās said: God made the inheritance for the migrants and the helpers, not the blood-relations;¹²⁰³ al-Sayyid ʿAbdullāh Shubbar: they inherited by Hijra and faith, not kinship;¹²⁰⁴ al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī: inheritance in earliest Islam was by Hijra and religious alliance;¹²⁰⁵ and al-Suyūrī: they inherited by Islam and the Hijra, not kinship.¹²⁰⁶ Then, once the Hijra had occurred, migrating became a condition of inheritance beyond faith, God saying, in sequel to the first verse, that of those who believed but did not migrate, “you have no heirdom in relation to them whatsoever until they migrate.”¹²⁰⁷

After the first Battle of Badr came the verse that “the blood relatives are more entitled to inherit from one another” in the Book of God than the believers and the migrants,¹²⁰⁸ abrogating inheritance-by-faith-and-Hijra into inheritance by kinship.¹²⁰⁹ Some, however, say the verse’s wording gives no evidence that inheritance is meant — perhaps it means only help and amicable assistance, as al-Aṣamm holds¹²¹⁰ — especially if the narrations interpreting it by inheritance are judged weak; and perhaps that is the stronger view, God being the All-Knowing.

6 — The Verses of Forbearance

Two verses command forbearance: the first, “to forgive those who do not expect Allah’s days”;¹²¹¹ the second, that many of the People of the Book wish to turn the faithful back to unbelief, yet “excuse them and forbear until Allah issues His edict.”¹²¹² The first commands forbearance with the polytheists, for the believers at Mecca were severely weak; the second, forbearance with the People of the Book at the start of the Hijra, when the bonds of the Muslims’ strength had not yet knit.

On the received view the first was abrogated, first by the permission to fight — “Those who are fought against are permitted to fight, because they have been wronged”¹²¹³ — then by the urging to it, “Urge on the faithful to fight,”¹²¹⁴ and finally by the general command, “kill the polytheists wherever you find them”;¹²¹⁵ and the second was abrogated by the command to fight the People of the Book “until they pay the tribute out of hand,” humbled.¹²¹⁶