how to memorise the

Obviously, it cannot be said for certain that exact wisdom behind any Divine act, for the Creator’s knowledge is infinite. However, the scholars of Islaam have said that the revelation of the Qur’aan in seven ahruf had the following benefits: (1)

1) To facilitate the memorisation of the Qur’aan. This is the only benefit that is explicitly narrated in the hadeeth. The Arabs did not all speak Arabic in the same way; each tribe and locations had slight variations and peculiarities unique to it. If the Qur’aan had only been revealed in one harf, it would have been difficult for the many different Arab tribes to memorise the Qur’aan properly. However, since the Qur’aan was revealed in seven ahruf, this greatly eased its memorisation. This was of primary importance in its preservation and propagation.

2) To prove the miraculous nature of the Qur’aan. For despite all of these differences, the meanings of the ahruf did not contradict one another, but rather were complementary.

3) To prove the truthfulness of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), for despite the fact that he was illiterate, the revelation of the Qur’aan occurred in different tribal dialects and different words, all of which consisted of the most fluent and eloquent speech of his time.

4) To honour the ummah of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), and show its superiority over all other nations. No other nations had been given its book in such a manner, in varying ahruf, to ease the process of preservation. Thus, the revelation of the Qur’aan showed the unique status that the Prophet (PBUH), and his ummah, occupied over other nations. In one hadeeth, the Prophet (PBUH) remarked, “The earlier books would be revealed from one door (of heaven), in one harf, but the Qur’aan was revealed from seven doors (of Heaven), in seven ahruf.”

Part 1:The Ahruf of the Qur’aan

Part 2:What is Meant by the Ahruf of the Qur’aan?

Part 3: Three Categories of Opinions regarding the Ahruf of the Qur’aan

Part 4: Are the Ahruf in existence today?

Footnotes:

(1) cf. Itr, pps. 216-228

Extracted from ‘An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan’

A very crucial question that arises is whether these seven ahruf are still present today.

Of course, this question in essence depends upon how one defines the ahruf. For example, az-Zarqaanee strongly argues that all the ahruf have been preserved, but this goes back to his definition that the ahruf represent seven ways that the verse can be changed (opinion (3) above). Thus, since these variations are still present in today’s qira’aat, he argues that all seven ahruf have been preserved. (1) The present discussion will, of course, utilise the definition that was concluded upon in the previous section.

The scholars of Islaam are divided into three opinions with regards to this issue.

The first group of scholars, composed of at-Tabaree (d. 310 A.H.), at-Tahaawee (d. 321 A.H.), Ibn Hibbaan (d. 354 A.H.) and those who follow them, argue that only one harf is in existence today. At-Tabaree holds that the recitation of the Qur’aan in seven ahruf was a concession given to the Companions at the time of the Prophet (PBUH), but when ‘Uthmaan oficially compiled the Qur’aan, he specifically ordered the committee assigned to write the mus-haf to preserve only one harf. He writes, “The only recitation that the Muslims have today is the one harf that their pious Imaam (‘Uthmaan) chose for them, leaving the remaining six.” (2) He is alluding to the statement of ‘Uthmaan to the committee that wrote the mus-haf, “… if you differ in (the spelling) of a word, then write it in the script of the Quraysh.” (3) Thus, according to at-Tabaree and those who follow his opinion, shows that ‘Uthmaan preserved only one harf.

In response to the question, “How could ‘Uthmaan and the Companions purposely have left out the other six ahruf?” at-Tabaree answers: (4)

“The seven ahruf were revealed by Allaah during the time of the Prophet (PBUH) to facilitate the memorisation of the Qur’aan, since the dialects of the Arabs were many. This facilitation (i.e., the ahruf) was not necessary to preserve, and eventually there was no need of it. In fact, it became the cause of dissension amongst the Muslims, as those people new to Islaam began arguing over the differences in the recitation of the Qur’aan. Therefore, Allaah inspired (5) ‘Uthmaan to discard the other six ahruf and collect the Qur’aan in one harf, so that the ummah would be united in its recitation. The Companions agreed to this action of his, and the agreement of the Companions is binding on the ummah.”

The second group of scholars holds that all of the ahruf are in existence today, and the mus-haf of ‘Uthmaan was written to preserve all seven ahruf. This was the opinion of Aboo Bakr al-Baaqillaani (d. 403 A.H.), and a small group of scholars. They claim that the Companions would never abandon a recitation that they used to recite during the lifetime of the Prophet (PBUH), and that they would not discard any knowledge that the Prophet (PBUH) had given them.

The third group of scholars is composed of Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 724 A.H.), ash-Shaatibee (d. 790 A.H.), ar-Raazee (d. 606 A.H.), Ibn Katheer (d. 774 A.H.), Ibn al-Jazaree (d. 832 A.H.) and others. They argue that ‘Uthmaan preserved the ahruf to the extent that the script of his mus-haf allowed him to do so. Thus, these scholars hold that a portion of the seven ahruf are preserved.

The question then arises: On what basis did ‘Uthmaan decide which portion of the ahruf to preserve? The answer to this is twofold: First, Zayd ibn Thaabit was in charge of the collection of the mus-haf. Zayd had been present when the Prophet (PBUH) recited the whole Qur’aan for the last time, only months before his death. (6) It can be assumed, then, that Zayd was aware of the portions of the ahruf that the Prophet (PBUH) recited, and he must have chosen those to the exclusion of the others. Secondly, the Companions unanimously agreed to discard all readings that conflicted with the mus-haf of ‘Uthmaan. Obviously, they would eliminate only that which they knew was not a part of the Qur’aan, and their consensus is binding on the ummah.

Ibn al-Jazaree (d. 832 A.H.) writes, (7)

“The majority of the scholars of the salaf and the later generations are of the opinion that the ‘Uthmaanic mus-hafs contains of the seven ahruf only that which its script allows. (What is preserved) are the recitations that the Prophet (PBUH) recited to Jibreel (during the last year of his life). The present mus-haf contains all this reading, and not a single letter from it is missing.”

The third opinion (i.e., that a portion of the seven ahruf have been preserved) seems to be the strongest one, for the following reasons:

1) The Companions were meticulous in preserving the knowledge that they recieved from the Prophet (PBUH). They understood their responsibility in transferring this vast knowledge to the ummah. It is because of this concern of theirs that detailed information exists about every topic of Islaam, so much so that the Muslims even know how many while hairs the Prophet’s (PBUH) beard contained! (8)  Therefore, it cannot be said that the Companions purposely left out six ahruf and preserved only one of them in the mus-haf of ‘Uthmaan without bringing forth some strong, unequivocal proof. Al-Qaaree writes,

“This opinion (that the Companions left out six ahruf) is strange, and extremely weak, for it claims that a part of the Qur’aan was removed by consensus of the Companions, since each of the ahruf is part of the Qur’aan. Therefore, how could ‘Uthmaan, or any of the Companions for that matter, or rather all of the Companions, discard something from the Qur’aan without a clear proof from the Creator? Even if we say that the Companions were given the concession of choosing one harf to recite in, as at-Tabaree (d. 310 A.H.) claims, and they were not accountable for all seven ahruf since it was a concession from Allaah, we say: This concession was given so that they could chose to recite the Qur’aan in any one of these seven ahruf, whichever was the easiest for them. There was no concession, however, in preserving these ahruf, rather they were responsible for preserving all of them… that were not abrogated…” (9)

2) The ‘Uthmaanic mus-hafs, as was mentioned earlier, were devoid of dots and vowel points. Since this knowledge was available to the Arabs at that time, (10) it seems likely that the mus-haf was purposely written without these dots or inflection points so that it would encompass different readings, and hence the different ahruf. Also, as was mentioned in the relevant chapter, the script of the ‘Uthmaanic mus-haf was written with specific rules in mind, apparently in order to accommodate the various recitations, and this shows that the mus-haf was written with the intent to preserve more than one harf.

3) If, as at-Tabaree holds, only one harf has been preserved, from where then do the differences in the ten qira’aat originate from? All scholars are unanimous that these ten qira’aat originated from the Prophet (PBUH) himself; therefore it seems apparent that the qira’aat have some integral relationship with the ahruf (as shall be discussed in the next chapter). Concerning this issue, Imaam at-Tabaree is forced to contradict his stance, as Makkee ibn Abee Taalib (d. 437 A.H.) pointed out:

“At-Tabaree concedes to the fact that the various qira’aat that conform to the mus-haf of ‘Uthmaan are a part of the seven ahruf, and this is what we also believe. However, he also claims… that the mus-haf (of ‘Uthmaan) has only preserved one harf, to the exclusion of the other six. These two positions are contradictory…” (11)

4) The different mus-haf that ‘Uthmaan ordered to be written were not identicle to each other, for in a number of places, the addition or deletion of a word or letter occurred in some of the mus-hafs. (12)  This change is reflected in the various qira’aat in existence today, for within the ten qira’aat, there exist word changes and word additions that could not have originated from the same mus-haf. It seems apparent this was done with a goal in mind, and the strongest conclusion seems to be that, by these differences in the mus-hafs, ‘Uthmaan had intended to preserve the differences in the ahruf.

These same four arguments, however, cannot be used for the second opinion (that all the ahruf were actually preserved), because of that fact that certain variations that the Companions used to recite as part of the Qur’aan are now no longer a part of the Qur’aan (as will be explained in the chapters of naskh and qira’aat). These variant readings can be explained as having been a part of the seven ahruf before the final reading of the Qur’aan by the Prophet (PBUH) to Jibreel. This reading, which took place before Zayd ibn Thaabit, cancelled the ahruf that ‘Uthmaan did not preserve. (13) Imaam al-Qistillaanee (d. 923 A.H.) said, “In this (last) recitation of the Prophet (PBUH) to Jibreel, there were two benefits: First, to strengthen and preserve the Prophet’s (PBUH) memorisation of the Qur’aan, and, second, to affirm those verses that were not abrogated and to indicate which verses were.” (14)

Part 1:The Ahruf of the Qur’aan

Part 2:What is Meant by the Ahruf of the Qur’aan?

Part 3: Three Categories of Opinions regarding the Ahruf of the Qur’aan

Footnotes:

(1) az-Zarqanee, v. 1, p. 170-172.

(2) al-Hamad, p. 147.

(3)  See Chapter 8 for a discussion of the collection of the Qur’aan.

(4)  Ubaydaat, p. 162.

(5)  The Arabic is ilhaam, which is the type of inspiration that is given to pious people, and is not the wahy that is given to the prophets. The mother of Moosaa recieved this type of inspiration when she was commanded by Allaah to let Moosaa adrift in the river. Refer to Chapter 3 for more details.

(6)  Actually, the Prophet (PBUH) recited the whole Qur’aan twice to Jibreel, and heard it from him twice. Some scholars held the view that these recitations of the Qur’aan occurred in different ahruf. See Itr, pp. 263-73.

(7)  Ibn al-Jazaree, an-Nashr, v. 1, p. 31, with changes.

(8)  Anas ibn Maalik stated, “I could not count more that fourteen white hairs in the Prophet’s (PBUH) beard and hair.” Reported by at-Tirmidhee in his Shamaa’il, # 31.

(9)  al-Qaree, p. 71.

(10)  Although there is a strong difference of opinion over this. See al-Hamad, p.151, where he tries to prove that this knowledge did not exist until the Muslims invented it.

(11)  al-Hamad, p. 140.

(12)  See Ch. 8, “The Compilation of the Qur’aan”, for further details and examples.

(13)  Ibn al-Jazaree, p. 31.

(14)  Uwais, p. 8.

Extracted from ‘An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan’

In the last post, we mentioned that opinions regarding the seven ahruf of the Qur’aan are divided into three. Below is an explanation of these opinions.

A. THOSE OPINIONS WHICH HAVE NO BASIS WHATSOEVER:

In this category fall those opinions which do not have any hadeeth to support them, nor do they make logical sense. Some of these are:

1) Seven different categories of text. For example: constrained and unconstrained, general and specific, literal and metaphoric, naasikh and mansookh. Other categories include those given by grammarians and linguists, specifying different verb forms.

2) An esoteric interpretation by certain Soofi groups, claiming that there are seven levels of knowledge, or seven degrees of meanings to each verse.

3) Seven different branches of knowledge, such as tawheed, sharee’ah, etc.

All these opinions contradict the purpose of the ahruf, namely to make the recitation of the Qur’aan easier for the Ummah. Also, there is no proof for these opinions, and they contradict common sense.

B. THOSE OPINIONS WHICH HAVE SOME APPARENT BASIS, BUT ARE WEAK OPINIONS:

Included in this category are the following opinions:

1) These ahruf are seven different ways to pronounce the words, without actually changing the letters. However, this opinion contradicts the variations in words that occur in the qira’aat.

2) The ahruf are seven types of verses in the Qur’aan: apparent, command, recommendation, specific, particular, general and parable. There is a weak hadeeth to support this.

3) Similar to the above, and also based on a weak hadeeth, the different types are: commands, prohibitions, promises, occurrences, halaal and haraam, clear and ambiguous. (1)

4) The seven ahruf are the same as the seven qira’aat. This is contradicted historically, as there are more than seven qira’aat, and the collection and codification of the qira’aat occurred four centuries after the Prophet’s (PBUH) death. (2) None of the major scholars of Islaam held this view, as Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 A.H.) said, “There is no difference of opinion among the scholars that the seven ahruf are not the same as the seven famous qira’aat.” (3)

Unforunately, most of the Muslim masses understand hadeeth of the ahruf to refer to the qira’aat.

C. THOSE OPINIONS WHICH HAVE STRONG EVIDENCE:

These opinions are the ones that are worthy of serious inspection, as they have strong evidence historically and from the meanings of the ahaadeeth. There are three opinions in this category.

1) The seven ahruf refer to the seven dialects (lughaat) of the Arabs prevalent at the time of the Prophet (PBUH). Each of these dialects belongs to a tribe among the Arabs, namely, the Quraysh, Hudhayl, Tameem, Hawaazin, Thaqeef, Kinaanah and Yemen. (other scholars gave the names of other tribes). Thus, under this opinion, various verses would be pronounced according to the pronunciation of that particular tribe, and words from one dialect would be replaced by other words used by that particular tribe.

Some scholars say that these seven dialects are spread throughout the Qur’aan, meaning that part of the Qur’aan is in the dialect of the Quraysh, other parts are in the dialect of Hudhayl, and so forth. Others say that the entire Qur’aan is recited in each of these dialects, thus forming the seven ahruf.

This was the opinion of Aboo ‘Ubayd al-Qaasim ibn Sallaam (d. 224 A.H.), al-Bayhaqee (d. 458 A.H.), Ibn ‘Attiyah (d. 541 A.H.) and others.

2) The seven ahruf denote seven ways of recitation (lahajaat) such that words are replaced by their synonyms. In other words, the seven ahruf have the exact same meanings but different wordings.

This was the opinion of Imaam at-Tabaree (d. 311 A.H.), at-Tahaawee (d. 321 A.H.), Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (d. 463 A.H.) and others.

3) The seven ahruf refer to seven different ways that the verse can be changed. In other words, whenever a difference is found between these ahruf, this type of difference will fall into one of the following seven categories: (4)

1. Change in wording. For example, in 101:5, ka al-’ihni il-manfoosh is changed to ka as-soof il-manfoosh, both of which mean the same thing.

2. Differences in wordings or letters such that they conform to the vowelless, dotless script of ‘Uthmaan. (5) For example, fatabayanoo is changed to fatathabatoo in 49:6, just by changing the dots. Also, in Sooral al-Faatihah, maaliki is changed to maliki without any change in the script of ‘Uthmaan.

3. Change in word order. For example, in 2:159, wa qaatalu wa qutilu is changed to wa qutilu wa qaatalu.

4. Addition or subtraction of a letter or word. For example, in 57:24, fa inna Allaahu hoowa al-ghaniyul hameed is recited without the pronoun, fa ina Allaah al-ghaniyul hameed.

5. The form of the word structure is changed. This change could be from plural to singular or dual (or other variations), or from feminine to masculine. For example, in 23:8, the plural li amanaatihim is changed to the singular li amanatihim.

6. Differences in inflection points. For example, 2:125, wa attakhadhoo mim maqaami Ibraaheema musallaa is read in the command wattakhidhoo.

7. Differences in pronunciation. For example, lessening the effect of certain hamzahs (called tas-heel) or pronouncing certain alifs and yaas differently (called imaalah).

This was the opinion of Ibn Qutaybah (d. 276 A.H.), al-Baaqillaani (d. 403 A.H.), Makkee ibn Abee Taalib (d. 437 A.H.), ar-Raazee (d. 606 A.H.), Ibn al-Jazaree (d. 832 A.H.), and others. Some of them give different categories, but their general thesis is the same.

Among these three opinion, the third one seems to have the least weight. Despite the fact that it classifies the differences in the ahruf into ingenious categories, it does not explain the essence of what the ahruf are. In other words, when Hishaam was reciting a different harf from ‘Umar, he was probably differing with ‘Umar in more than one of these seven categories. Therefore, the third definition does not really answer the question as to the meaning of the ahruf.

The first two opinions, on the other hand, have very strong evidences to support them. (6) It seems — and Allaah knows best — that both of these opinions have an element of truth in them, and there does not exist any grounds for rejecting either of them.

Therefore, it is concluded that the seven ahruf represent variations based upon, but not limited to, the most fluent Arab tribes of that time. These variations occurred in words, letters, and pronunciations, such that all these variations made it easier for the Companions to memorise the Qur’aan. These variations did not always reach seven different ways of recitation for each verse, but whenever such variations existed, the different ways of recitation never exceeded seven. (7)

Part 1: The Ahruf of the Qur’aan

Part 2: What is Meant by the Ahruf of the Qur’aan?

Footnotes:

(1)   For a discussion of the weakness in the above two hadeeth, see Itr, p. 138.

(2)   See the next chapter for further details on the qira’aat.

(3) Zarzur, p. 186.

(4) All of these variations, except for the first, are found in the present-day qira’aat.

(5) The manuscript of ‘Uthmaan did not have dots or diacritical marks to distinguish between certain letters and vowels. See Chapter 8, on “The Collection of the Qur’aan.”

(6) See Itr, pps. 168-177.

(7) cf. al-Qaree, p. 79, and al-Hamad’s conclusion, p. 144, which is very similar to this one.

Extracted from ‘An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan’