THE AHRUF OF THE QUR’AAN

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/the-ahruf-of-the-quraan/

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Qiraat/hafs.html

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/the-qiraaat-of-the-quran/

1. The Meaning of the Word ‘Ahruf’

The word ahruf is the plural of harf. Linguistically, ‘harf’ has a number of meanings,
including:

1) ‘A letter or a word.’ Al-huruf al-abjadiyya, for example, means the letters of the alphabet.

2) ‘The border, the edge of something, the brink.’ For example, Allaah says,

ٍ‫ح ْرف‬
َ ‫علَى‬
َ َّ‫َومِنَ النّاسِ مَن َي ْعبُدُ ال‬
“And among mankind is he who worships Allaah (as it were) upon a harf (i.e., upon the very
edge, or in doubt)” [22:11]

3) ‘To swerve from the truth, to distort.’ Allaah says concerning the Jews,

ِ‫ضعِه‬
ِ ‫ن ا ْل َكلِمَ عَن ّموَا‬
َ ‫حرّفُو‬
َ ُ‫ي‬
“…they have displaced (lit., yuharifuna) words from their right places…” [4:46]

Its exact definition in Qur’aanic sciencs is the subject matter of this chapter, and therefore
cannot be defined at this point. However, a temporary definition maybe given as follows: The
ahruf are the various ways that the verses of the Qur’aan are read. Imaam al-Qurtubee (d. 671
A.H.) said, “Every variation of a word in the Qur’aan is said to be a harf. So, for example,
when we say the harf of Ibn Mas’ood, it means the way that Ibn Mas’ood used to recite that
verse or word.” 380

Most English authors translate ahruf as ‘modes’ or ‘dialects.’ However, in this book the
word will be left in Arabic since the meaning is broader than these translated words.

II. The Number of Ahruf of the Qur’aan

The Qur’aan was revealed in seven ahruf. The proof for this is found in many narrations from
the Prophet (PBUH), so much so that it reaches the level of mutawaatir. 381 Jalaal ad-Deen
as-Suyootee lists twenty-one Companions who narrated that the Qur’aan was revealed in
seven ahruf. 382 Some of these narrations are as follows:

1) Ibn ‘Abbaas reported that the Prophet (PBUH) said, “Jibreel recited the Qur’aan to me
in one harf, and I recited it back to him, but I requested him to increase (the number of
harf) and he continued to increase it for me, until we stopped at seven ahruf.” Ibn
Shihaab az-Zuhree (d. 124 A.H.), one of the narrators of the hadeeth, said, “It has reached
me that these seven ahruf are essentially one (in meaning), they do not differ about what
is permitted or forbidden.” 383

2) ‘Ubay ibn Ka’ab reported that the Prophet (PBUH) was once on the outskirts of Madeenah
(near the tribe of Banoo Ghifaar) when Jibreel came to him and said, “Allaah has
commanded that you recite the Qur’aan to your people in one harf.” The Prophet
(PBUH) replied, “I ask Allaah’s pardon and forgiveness! My people are not capable of
doing this!” Jibreel then came again and said, “Allaah has commanded you to recite the
Qur’aan to your people in two ahruf.” The Prophet (PBUH) again replied, “I ask Allaah’s
pardon and forgiveness! My people are not capable of doing this!” Jibreel then came a
third time and said, “Allaah has commanded you to recite the Qur’aan to your people in
three ahruf.” The Prophet (PBUH) replied for a third time, “I ask Allaah’s pardon and
forgiveness! My people are not capable of doing this!” At last, Jibreel came for the fourth
time, and said, “Allaah has commanded you to recite the Qur’aan to your people in seven
ahruf, and in whichever harf they recite, they would be right. 384″

3) ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab narrated, “I was sitting in the masjid when I heard Hishaam ibn
Hakeem recite Soorah al-Furqaan. I was almost about the jump on him in his prayer, but I
waited until he finished, and then grabbed him by his garment and asked him, ‘Who taught
you to recite in such a manner?’” He replied, ‘It was the Prophet (PBUH) himself!’ I
responded, ‘You are mistaken, for indeed I learnt this soorah from the Prophet (PBUH) and it
was different from your recitation!’ Therefore, I dragged him to the Prophet (PBUH) and
complained to him that Hishaam had recited Soorah al-Furqaan in a manner different from
what he (PBUH) had taught me. At this, the Prophet (PBUH) told me to let go of Hishaam,
and asked him to recite Soorah al-Furqaan. Hishaam recited the Soorah in the same way I had
heard him before. When he finished, the Prophet (PBUH) said, ‘It was revealed this way.’ He
then asked me to recite the same soorah. When I had finished, he (PBUH) said, ‘It was (also)
revealed this way. Indeed, the Qur’aan has been revealed in seven different ahruf, so recite
whichever one is easy for you.’” 385

4) In a story similar to ‘Umar’s, ‘Ubay ibn Ka’ab also heard two people reciting the Qur’aan
in a manner different from what he had learnt. After some discussion, both parties went to the
Prophet (PBUH) and recited the same portion to him. He (PBUH) approved of both parties’
recitations. At this point, Ubay narrates, “…there occurred in my mind a sort of denial and
doubt that did not exist even in the time of Jaahilliyah (before Islaam)! When the Messenger
(PBUH) saw how I was affected, he struck my chest, whereupon I started sweating, and felt as
though I were looking at Allaah in fear! Then the Prophet (PBUH) said, ‘O Ubay! A message
was sent to me to recite the Qur’aan in one harf, but I requested (Allaah) to make things
easy on my nation. A second message came that I should recite the Qur’aan in two ahruf,
but I again made the same request. I was then ordered to recite the Qur’aan in seven
ahruf.’” 386

5) Ubay ibn Ka’ab narrates that once the Prophet (PBUH) met Jibreel, and said, “O Jibreel! I
have been sent to an illiterate nation. Among them are old and young men and women, and
those who have never read any writing!” Jibreel answered him, “O Muhammad, the
Qur’aan has been revealed in seven ahruf!” 387

There are many other hadeeth that confirm that the Qur’aan was revealed in seven ahruf, but
these narrations will suffice for the present discussion.

III. What is Meant by the Ahruf of the Qur’aan?

Before discussing the answer to this question, it would be useful to mention some points that
can be inferred from the above narrations:

1) The different ahruf are all directly from Allaah, and not from the Companions. In all the
narrations where the Companions differed from each other, it was clear that each one had
been taught directly from the Prophet (PBUH), who was inspired by Allaah. This is why the
Prophet (PBUH) said to each one of the ahruf recited by ‘Umar and Hishaam, “It was
revealed this way.”

2) The reason the Prophet (PBUH) requested the number of ahruf to be increased was to make
the memorisation and recitation of the Qur’aan easier for his Ummah. The Prophet (PBUH)
prayed to increase the ahruf because in his ummah were “…old and young men and women,
and those who have never read any writing.” Therefore, the limitations of the Qur’aan being
in only one harf have been removed by Allaah as a blessing for this Ummah.

3) The Prophet (PBUH) used to teach the different ahruf to different Companions, depending
on the condition and situation of that Companion. It can be assumed that the Prophet (PBUH)
chose the particular harf to recite to a Companion depending on which one would be the
easiest for that particular Companion to memorise, since the purpose of the ahruf was to
simplify recitation and memorisation. The Prophet (PBUH) did not teach all the ahruf to all
the Companions, for ‘Umar and Hishaam did not know about the existence of the different
ahruf. Also, the cause for Ubay’s doubt was the fact that he was unaware of these ahruf, and
the Prophet (PBUH) had to pray to Allaah to remove his doubts.

4) The differences between these ahruf were not so great as to prevent recognition of what
was being recited. In other words, even though Hishaam was reciting the Qur’aan in a
different harf than ‘Umar, ‘Umar could still recognise that Hishaam was reciting Soorah al-
Furqaan, thus showing that the ahruf were not radically different from each other. Also, the
narration of Ibn Shihaab shows that the basic meaning of all these ahruf was the same.

5) Each one of these ahruf is complete in and of itself. The proof for this is the statement of
the Prophet (PBUH) “…so whichever one of them they recite, they are correct.” This is not to
say that the ahruf do not complement one another in meaning, but rather that the recitation of
the Qur’aan in one harf is sufficient.

6) The number of ahruf is exactly seven - not more, not less. The Prophet (PBUH) asked
Jibreel to increase the number of ahruf until Jibreel reached seven ahruf; therefore
interpretations to the effect that ’seven’ indicates an unspecified plurality (this is the opinion
of Qaadee ‘Iyaad (d. 504 A.H.)) are false.

However, one narration in the Musnad of Imaam Ahmad states that the Qur’aan was revealed
in three ahruf, and yet another narration states that it was revealed in ten ahruf. Some scholars
have tried to explain the first narration as meaning that, in the Makkan stage, the Qur’aan was
revealed in three ahruf, whereas in the Madeenan stage, Allaah increased this to seven ahruf.
Other scholars have given different interpretations to reconcile these hadeeth. 388 However,
there is no need to resort to such explanations, since both of these narrations are weak. 389
Therefore, the Qur’aan was revealed in exactly seven ahruf.

7) The revelation of the Qur’aan in seven ahruf started in Madeenah, after the hijrah. In one of
the narrations, the phrase, “…while the Prophet (PBUH) was on the outskirts of Madeenah,”
indicates that this occurred after the hijrah.
8) A last benefit that can be inferred from these hadeeth (although this is not relevant to the
ahruf) is the concern shown by the Companions in the preservation of the correct recitation of
the Qur’aan. In all the cases quoted above, the Companions were not content with listening to
recitations that were different from theirs - despite the fact that these recitations were said to
have been learnt from the Prophet (PBUH) - until they had taken the matter to the Prophet
(PBUH) himself.

As for what is meant by these seven ahruf, there is a great deal of difference on this issue. Ibn
Qutaybah (d. 276 A.H.) recorded thirty-five opinions on this issue, and as-Suyootee listed
over forty. Ibn Sa’adan (d. 231 A.H.), a famous grammarian and reciter of the Qur’aan, even
declared that the true meaning of the ahruf was known only to Allaah, and thus to attempt to
investigate into this issue was futile! On the other hand, Imaam Muhammad ibn al-Jazaree (d.
832 A.H.), perhaps the greatest scholar of the qira’aat after the era of the salaf, said, “I have
sought to discover the meaning of these hadeeth (about the ahruf), and have pondered over
them, and contemplated this topic for over thirty years, until Allaah opened my mind to that
which is the correct answer in this matter, Inshaa Allaah!” 390

The reason that such a great difference of opinion exists concerning the exact meaning of the
ahruf is due to the fact that there does not exist any explicit narration from the Prophet
(PBUH), or the salaf, concerning the exact nature of the ahruf; these various opinions are
merely the conclusions of later scholars, based upon their examination of the evidences and
their personal reasoning (ijtihaad).

Therefore, it should be understood from the outset that to arrive at one specific conclusion,
and claim with certainty that it alone is correct and all else is wrong, is pure folly. What is
desired, however, is to narrow down the various opinions and eliminate as many as possible
based upon evidences.

All of these opinions can be divided into three broad categories, which are discussed in the
following sections. 391

Revelation Of The Qur'an In Seven Ahrûf

It is a well-known fact that there are seven different ahrûf in which the Qur'an was revealed.
In the Islamic tradition, this basis can be traced back to a number of hadîths concerning the
revelation of the Qur'an in seven ahrûf (singular harf). Some of the examples of these hadîths
are as follows:

From Abû Hurairah:

The Messenger of God said: "The Qur'an was sent down

(P)

in seven ahruf. Disputation concerning the Qur'an is

unbelief" - he said this three times - "and you
should put into practice what you know of it, and
leave what you do not know of it to someone who
does." [1]

From Abû Hurairah:

 The Messenger of God said: "An All-knowing, Wise,
(P)

Forgiving, Merciful sent down the Qur'an in seven

ahruf." [2]

From Abdullâh Ibn Mas ud:

c c

The Messenger of God said: "The Qur'an was sent down

(P)

in seven ahruf. Each of these ahruf has an outward

aspect (zahr) and an inward aspect (batn); each of
the ahruf has a border, and each border has a
lookout." [3]

The meaning of this hadîth is explained as:

As for the Prophet's words concerning the Qur'an,

(P)

each of the ahruf has a border, it means that each

of the seven aspects has a border which God has
marked off and which no one may overstep. And as for
his words Each of the ahruf has an outward aspect
(zahr) and an inward aspect (batn), its outward
aspect is the ostensive meaning of the recitation,
and its inward aspect is its interpretation, which
is concealed. And by his words each border ......
has a lookout he means that for each of the borders
which God marked off in the Qur'an - of the lawful
and unlawful, and its other legal injunctions -
there is a measure of God's reward and punishment
which surveys it in the Hereafter, and inspects it
...... at the Resurrection ...... [4]

And in another hadîth Abdullâh Ibn Mas ud said:

c c

The Messenger of God said: "The first Book came down

(P)

from one gate according to one harf, but the Qur'an

came down from seven gates according to seven ahruf:
prohibiting and commanding, lawful and unlawful,
clear and ambiguous, and parables. So, allow what it
makes lawful, proscribe what it makes unlawful, do
what it commands you to do, forbid what it
prohibits, be warned by its parables, act on its
clear passages, trust in its ambiguous passages."
And they said: "We believe in it; it is all from our
Lord."[5]

And Abû Qilaba narrated:

It has reached me that the Prophet said: "The Qur'an

(P)

was sent down according to seven ahruf: command and

prohibition, encouragement of good and
discouragement of evil, dialectic, narrative, and
parable." [6]
These above hadîths serve as evidence that the Qur'an was revealed in seven ahruf. The
defination of the term ahruf has been the subject of much scholarly discussion and is included
in the general works of the Qur'an. The forms matched the dialects of following seven tribes:
Quraysh, Hudhayl, Thaqîf, Hawâzin, Kinânah, Tamîm and Yemen. The revelation of the
Qur'an in seven different ahruf made its recitation and memorization much easier for the
various tribes. At the same time the Qur'an challenged them to produce a surah like it in their
own dialect so that they would not complain about the incomprehensibility.

For example, the phrase 'alayhim (on them) was read

by some 'alayhumoo and the word siraat (path,
bridge) was read as ziraat and mu'min (believer) as
moomin. [7]

Difference Between Ahrûf & Qirâ'ât

It is important to realize the difference between ahruf and Qirâ'ât. Before going into that it is
interesting to know why the seven ahruf were brought down to one during Uthmân's time.
c (R)

The Qur'an continued to be read according to the

seven ahruf until midway through Caliph 'Uthman's
rule when some confusion arose in the outlying
provinces concerning the Qur'an's recitation. Some
Arab tribes had began to boast about the superiority
of their ahruf and a rivalry began to develop. At
the same time, some new Muslims also began mixing
the various forms of recitation out of ignorance.
Caliph 'Uthman decided to make official copies of
the Qur'an according to the dialect of the Quraysh
and send them along with the Qur'anic reciters to
the major centres of Islam. This decision was
approved by Sahaabah and all unofficial copies of
the Qur'an were destroyed. Following the
distribution of the official copies, all the other
ahruf were dropped and the Qur'an began to be read
in only one harf. Thus, the Qur'an which is
available through out the world today is written and
recited only according to the harf of Quraysh. [8]

Now a few words on Qirâ'ât:

A Qirâ'ât is for the most part a method of

pronunciation used in the recitations of the Qur'an.
These methods are different from the seven forms or
modes (ahruf) in which the Qur'an was revealed. The
seven modes were reduced to one, that of the
Quraysh, during the era of Caliph 'Uthman, and all
of the methods of recitation are based on this mode.
The various methods have all been traced back to the
Prophet through a number of Sahaabah who were most
(P)

noted for their Qur'anic recitations. That is, these

Sahaabah recited the Qur'an to the Prophet or in his (P)

presence and received his approval. Among them were

 the following: Ubayy Ibn K'ab, 'Alee Ibn Abi Taalib,
Zayd Ibn Thaabit, 'Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, Abu ad-
Dardaa and Abu Musaa al-Ash'aree. Many of the other
Sahaabah learned from these masters. For example,
Ibn 'Abbaas, the master commentator of the Qur'an
among the Sahaabah, learned from both Ubayy and
Zayd. [9]

The transmission of the Qur'an is a mutawâtir transmission, that is, there are a large number
of narrators on each level of the chain. Dr. Bilaal Philips gives a brief account of the history of
recitation in his book:

Among the next generation of Muslims referred to as

Taabe'oon, there arose many scholars who learned the
various methods of recitation from the Sahaabah and
taught them to others. Centres of Qur'anic
recitation developed in al-Madeenah, Makkah, Kufa,
Basrah and Syria, leading to the evolution of
Qur'anic recitation into an independent science. By
mid-eighth century CE, there existed a large number
of outstanding scholars all of whom were considered
specialists in the field of recitation. Most of
their methods of recitations were authenticated by
chains of reliable narrators ending with the
Prophet . Those methods which were supported by a
(P)

large number of reliable narrators on each level of

their chain were called Mutawaatir and were
considered to be the most accurate. Those methods in
which the number of narrators were few or only one
on any level of the chain were refered to as
shaadhdh. Some of the scholars of the following
period began the practice of designating a set
number of individual scholars from the pervious
period as being the most noteworthy and accurate. By
the middle of the tenth century, the number seven
became popular since it coincided with the number of
dialects in which the Qur'an was revealed. [10]

The author went on to say:

The first to limit the number of authentic reciters

to seven was the Iraqi scholar, Abu Bakr Ibn Mujâhid
(d. 936CE), and those who wrote the books on Qirâ'ah
after him followed suit. This limitation is not an
accurate reprensentation of the classical scholars
of Qur'anic recitation. There were many others who
were as good as the seven and the number who were
greater than them. [11]

Concerning the seven sets of readings, Montgomery Watt and Richard Bell observe:
 The seven sets of readings accepted by Ibn-Mujâhid
represent the systems prevailing in different
districts. There was one each from Medina, Mecca,
Damascus and Basra, and three from Kufa. For each
set of readings (Qirâ'a), there were two slightly
different version (sing. Riwaya). The whole may be
set out in tabular form: [12]

District Reader First Rawi Second Rawi

Medina Nafî c
Warsh Qâlûn
Mecca Ibn Kathîr al-Bazzî Qunbul
Damascus Ibn Amir Hisham Ibn Dhakwân
Basra Abu Amr c
ad-Dûrî al-Sûsî
Kûfa c
Asim Hafs Sh uba
c

Kûfa Hamza Khalaf Khallad

Kûfa al-Kisâ'i ad-Dûrî Abul-Harîth

Other schools of Qirâ'ât are of:

• Abû Ja far Yazîd Ibn Qa qâ of Madinah (130/747)

c c c

• Ya qûb Ibn Ishâq al-Hadramî of Basrah (205/820)

c

• Khalaf Ibn Hishâm of Baghdad (229/848)

• Hasan al-Basrî of Basrah (110/728)
• Ibn Muhaisin of Makkah (123/740)
• Yahyâ al-Yazîdî of Basrah (202/817)

Conditions For The Validity Of Different Qirâ'ât

Conditions were formulated by the scholars of the Qur'anic recitation to facilitate critical
analysis of the above mentioned recitations. For any given recitation to be accepted as
authentic (Sahih), it had to fulfill three conditions and if any of the conditions were missing
such a recitation was classified as Shâdhdh (unusual).

• The first condition was that the recitation have an

authentic chain of narration in which the chain of
narrators was continuous, the narrators were all known to
be righteous and they were all knwon to possess good
memories. It was also required that the recitation be
conveyed by a large number of narrators on each level of
the chain of narration below the level of Sahaabah (the
condition of Tawaatur). Narrations which had authentic
chains but lacked the condition of Tawaatur were accepted
as explanations (Tafseer) of the Sahaabah but were not
considered as methods of reciting the Qur'an. As for the
narrations which did not even have an authentic chain of
narration, they were classified as Baatil (false) and
rejected totally.
 • The seond condition was that the variations in
recitations match known Arabic grammatical constructions.
Unusual constructions could be verified by their
existence in passages of pre-Islamic prose or poetry.
• The third condition required the recitation to coincide
with the script of one of the copies of the Qur'an
distributed during the era of Caliph Uthmân. Hence c

differences which result from dot placement (i.e.,

ta'lamoon and ya'lamoon) are considered acceptable
provided the other conditions are met. A recitation of a
construction for which no evidence could be found would
be classified Shaadhdh. This classification did not mean
that all aspects of the recitation was considered
Shaadhdh. it only meant that the unverified constructions
were considered Shaadhdh. [13]

The Chain Of Narration Of Different Qirâ'ât

In this section, the chain of narration or isnad of each Qirâ'ât will be presented. It is worth
noting that the chains of narration here are mutawâtir.

Qirâ'a from Madinah: The reading of Madinah known as the reading of Nâfi Ibn Abî Na îm c c

(more precisely Abû Abd ar-Rahmân Nâfi Ibn Abd ar-Rahmân).

c c c

Nâfi died in the year 169 H. He reported from Yazîd

c

Ibn al-Qa qâ and Abd ar-Rahmân Ibn Hurmuz al-'Araj

c c c

and Muslim Ibn Jundub al-Hudhalî and Yazîd Ibn Român

and Shaybah Ibn Nisâ'. All of them reported from Abû
Hurayrah and Ibn Abbâs and Abdallâh Ibn 'Ayyâsh Ibn
c c

Abî Rabî'ah al-Makhzûmî and the last three reported

from Ubayy Ibn Ka b from the Prophet .
c (P) [14]

From Nâfi , two major readings came to us : Warsh and Qâlûn.

c

Qirâ'a from Makkah: The reading of Ibn Kathîr ( Abdullâh Ibn Kathîr ad-Dârî):
c

Ibn Kathîr died in the year 120 H. He reported from

Abdillâh Ibn Assa'ib al-Makhzûmî who reported from
c

Ubayy Ibn Ka b (The companion of the Prophet ).

c (P)

Ibn Kathîr has also reported from Mujâhid Ibn Jabr

who reported from his teacher Ibn Abbâs who reported c

from Ubayy Ibn Ka b and Zayd Ibn Thâbit and both

c

reported from the Prophet . (P) [15]

Qirâ'a from Damascus: From ash-Shâm (Damascus), the reading is called after Abdullâh c

Ibn Aamir.
c

He died in 118 H. He reported from Abû ad-Dardâ' and

al-Mughîrah Ibn Abî Shihâb al-Makhzûmî from Uthmân. c [16]
Qirâ'a from Basrah: The reading of Abû Amr from Basrah: c

(According to al-Sab ah, the book of Ibn Mujâhid page

c

79, Abû Amr is called Zayyan Abû Amr Ibn al- Alâ'. He
c c c

was born in Makkah in the year 68 and grew up at

Kûfah.) He died at 154 H. He reported from Mujâhid
and Sa îd Ibn Jubayr and 'Ikrimah Ibn Khâlid al-
c

Makhzûmî and 'Atâ' Ibn Abî Rabâh and Muhammad Ibn

Abd ar-Rahmân Ibn al-Muhaysin and Humayd Ibn Qays
c

al- A'raj and all are from Makkah.

c

He also reported from Yazîd Ibn al-Qa qâ and Yazîd c c

Ibn Rumân and Shaybah Ibn Nisâ' and all are from
Madinah.

He also reported from al-'Assan and Yahyâ Ibn Ya mur c

and others from Basrah.

All these people took from the companions of the

Prophet . (P) [17]

From him came two readings called as-Sûsi and ad-Dûrî.

Qirâ'a from Basrah: From Basrah, the reading known as

Ya qûb Ibn Ishâq al-Hadramî the companion of Shu bah

c c

(again). He reported from Abû Amr and others. c [18]

Qirâ'a from Kûfah:The reading of Aasim Ibn Abî an-Najûd ( Aasim Ibn Bahdalah Ibn Abî
c c

an-Najûd):

He died in the year 127 or 128 H. He reported from

Abû Abd ar-Rahmân as-Solammî and Zirr Ibn Hubaysh.
c

Abû Abd ar-Rahmân reported from Uthmân and Alî Ibn

c c c

Abî Tâlib and 'Ubayy (Ibn Ka b) and Zayd (Ibn c

Thâbit).

And Zirr reported from Ibn Mas ud. c [19]

Two readings were repoted from Aasim: The famous one is Hafs, the other one is Shu bah.
c c

Qirâ'a from Kûfah: The reading of Hamzah Ibn Habîb (from Kûfah as well)

Hamzah was born in the year 80 H and died in the

year 156 H. He reported from Muhammad Ibn Abd ar- c

Rahmân Ibn Abî Laylâ (who reads the reading of Alî c

Ibn Abî Tâlib (RA), according to the book of Ibn

Mujâhid called al-Sab ah - The Seven - page 74) and
c

Humrân Ibn A'yan and Abî Ishâq as-Sabî'y and Mansur

Ibn al-Mu'tamir and al-Mughîrah Ibn Miqsam and Ja far c
 Ibn Muhammad Ibn Alî Ibn Abî Tâlib from the
c

Prophet . (P) [20]

Qirâ'a from Kûfah: The reading of al-'Amash from Kûfah as well:

He reported from Yahyâ Ibn Waththâb from 'Alqamah

and al-'Aswad and 'Ubayd Ibn Nadlah al-Khuzâ'y and
Abû Abd ar-Rahmân as-Sulamî and Zirr ibn Hubaysh and
c

all reported from Ibn Mas ud. c [21]

Qirâ'a from Kûfah: The reading of Ali Ibn Hamzah al-Kisâ'i known as al-Kisâ'i from
c

Kûfah.

He died in the year 189 H. He reported from Hamzah

(the previous one) and Iesâ Ibn Umar and Muhammad
c c

Ibn Abd ar-Rahmân Ibn Abî Laylâ and others.

c [22]

Now our discussion will be on Hafs and Warsh Qirâ'ât.

Hafs & Warsh Qirâ'ât: Are They Different Versions Of The Qur'an?

The Christian missionary Jochen Katz had claimed that Hafs and Warsh Qirâ'ât are different
'versions' of the Qur'an. A concise and interesting article that the missionary had used to reach
such a conclusion can be found in the book Approaches of The History of Interpretation of
The Qur'an. Ironically, it contained an article by Adrian Brockett, titled "The Value of Hafs
And Warsh Transmissions For The Textual History Of The Qur'an", which sheds some light
on various aspects of differences between the two recitations. It is also worth noting that, in
contrast to Mr. Katz, Brockett used the word transmission rather than text for these two
modes of recitations. Some highlights from the article are reproduced below.

Brockett states:

In cases where there are no variations within each

transmission itself, certain differences between the
two transmissions, at least in the copies consulted,
occur consistently throughout. None of them has any
effect in the meaning. [23]

The author demarcates the transmissions of Hafs and Warsh into differences of vocal form
and the differences of graphic form. According Brockett:

Such a division is clearly made from a written

standpoint, and on its own is unbalanced. It would
be a mistake to infer from it, for instance, that
because "hamza" was at first mostly outside the
graphic form, it was therefore at first also outside
oral form. The division is therefore mainly just for
ease of classification and reference. [24]

Regarding the graphic form of this transmission, he further states:

 On the graphic side, the correspondences between the
two transmissions are overwhelmingly more numerous
than differences, often even with oddities like ayna
ma and aynama being consistently preserved in both
transmissions, and la'nat allahi spelt both with ta
tawila and ta marbuta in the same places in both
transmissions as well, not one of the graphic
differences caused the Muslims any doubts about the
faultlessly faithful transmission of the Qur'an. [25]

And on the vocal side of the transmission the author's opinion is:

On the vocal side, correspondences between the two

transmissions again far and away outnumber the
differences between them, even with the fine points
such as long vowels before hamzat at-qat having a
madda. Also, not one of the differences
substantially affects the meaning beyond its own
context... All this point to a remarkably unitary
transmission in both its graphic form and its oral
form. [26]

He also discusses the Muslims' and orientalists' attitude towards the graphic transmission:

Many orientalists who see the Qur'an as only a

written document might think that in the graphic
differences can be found significant clues about the
early history of the Qur'an text - if Uthmân issued c

a definitive written text, how can such graphic

differences be explained, they might ask. For
Muslims, who see the Qur'an as an oral as well as a
written text, however, these differences are simply
readings, certainly important, but no more so than
readings involving, for instances, fine differences
in assimilation or in vigour of pronouncing the
hamza. [27]

Brockett goes so far as to provide examples with which the interested reader can carry out an
extended analysis. Thus, he states:

The definitive limit of permissible graphic

variation was, firstly, consonantal disturbance that
was not too major, then unalterability in meaning,
and finally reliable authority.

In the section titled, "The Extent To Which The Differences Affect The Sense", the author
repeats the same point:

The simple fact is that none of the differences,

whether vocal or graphic, between the transmission
of Hafs and the transmission of Warsh has any great
effect on the meaning. Many are the differences
 which do not change the meaning at all, and the rest
are differences with an effect on the meaning in the
immediate context of the text itself, but without
any significant wider influence on Muslim thought. [28]

The above is supported by the following:

Such then is the limit of the variation between

these two transmissions of the Qur'an, a limit well
within the boundaries of substantial exegetical
effect. This means that the readings found in these
transmissions are most likely not of exegetical
origin, or at least did not arise out of crucial
exegetigal dispute. They are therefore of the utmost
value for the textual history of the Qur'an. [29]

And interestingly enough the author went on to say:

The limits of their variation clearly establish that

they are a single text. [30]

Furthermore, we read:

Thus, if the Qur'an had been transmitted only orally

for the first century, sizeable variations between
texts such as are seen in the hadîth and pre-Islamic
poetry would be found, and if it had been
transmitted only in writing, sizeable variations
such as in the different transmissions of the
original document of the constitution of Medina
would be found. But neither is the case with the
Qur'an. There must have been a parallel written
transmission limiting variation in the oral
transmission to the graphic form, side by side with
a parallel oral transmission preserving the written
transmission from corruption. [31]

The investigation led to another conviction:

The transmission of the Qur'an after the death of

Muhammad was essentially static, rather than
organic. There was a single text, and nothing
significant, not even allegedly abrogated material,
could be taken out nor could anything be put in. [32]

Finally, we would like to establish Adrian Brockett's conclusion on this matter:

There can be no denying that some of the formal

characteristics of the Qur'an point to the oral side
and others to the written side, but neither was as a
whole, primary. There is therefore no need to make
different categories for vocal and graphic
 differences between transmissions. Muslims have not.
The letter is not a dead skeleton to be refleshed,
but is a manifestation of the spirit alive from
beginning. The transmission of the Qur'an has always
been oral, just as it has been written. [33]

Therefore, it comes as no surprise that Christian missionaries like Jochen Katz find
themselves "refleshing" a dead skeleton in order to comply with their missionary program of
outright deception. Of course, regular participants in the newsgroups have time and again
witnessed Jochen's tiring displays of dialectical acrobatics - the misquoting of references and
the juggling of facts. Surprisingly enough, missionary Katz cannot even support his point of
view using the reference [23], which undermines his missionary agenda of twisting the facts.
The reference [23] has firmly established that:

• There is only one Qur'an,

• The differences in recitation are divinely revealed, not invented by humans
• The indisputable conclusion that the Qur'an was not tampered with.

Recitation Of The Qur'an in Hafs, Warsh & Other Qirâ'ât

A few centuries ago, the Qurra, or reciters of the Qur'an, used to take pride in reciting all
seven Qirâ'ât. In light of this fact, we decided to make an informal inquiry into some the
Qurra who recite in different Qirâ'ât. Two brothers confirmed the following:

Date: 18 Sep 1997 13:44:37 -0700

From: Moustafa Mounir Elqabbany
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam

I can confirm that al-Husarî did in fact record the

entire Qur'an in Warsh, as I have the recording in
my possession. A Somali brother also indicated to me
that he has a copy of the Qur'an recited in Al-Doori
('an Abî Amr) recited, again, by al-Husarî. The
c

Qur'an is very widely read and recorded in Qawloon

in Libya and Tunisia, so it shouldn't be difficult
to acquire those Qirâ'ât either.

And another brother corroborated the following in a private e-mail:

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:59:24 +0100

From: Mohamed Ghoniem
To: Metallica
Subject: Re: readings

Well, before al-Husary, Abdel Bassit Abdus Samad has

recorded the entire Qur'an in Warsh and many
cassettes and CDs are on sale everywhere in the
Egypt and in France as well. I personally have in
Cairo many recordings of other readers such as
Sayyed Mutawally and Sayyed Sa'eed exclusively in
Warsh. I have seen several cassettes in the reading
 of Hamzah (from Khalaf's way) on sale in Egypt and I
have bought a couple of them during this summer.
They were recorded by Sheikh 'Antar Mosallam.

Presently, I have got two CDs recorded by Sheikh

Abdel Bassit gathering three readings (Hafs, Warsh
and Hamzah). These CDs belong to a series of six CDs
on sale publicly in France in the fnac stores.

Printed Edition Of The Qur'an In Various Qirâ'ât

The different Qirâ'ât exist in the printed editions. This would be news for most missionaries,
aside from the ones who bitterly conceal these facts. Most of the masâhif of the Qur'an carry
either in the beginning or in the end the rules of pronunciation of that Qirâ'a as well as the
isnad. This is to enable the readers to properly read the Qur'an.

A few examples of the printed edition of masâhif of the Qur'an in various Qirâ'ât are given
below:

The Ten Mutawâtir Readings

from the ways of ash-Shatbiyyah and ad-Durrah

In the Margin of

The Holy Qur'an

an idea from

c
Alawi Ibn Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Bilfaqih

carried out by

Shaykh Muhammad Karîm Râjih

The Chief Reader in the Syrian land

Dâr al-Muhâjir for Publications & Distribution

This book is a third print published in 1414AH/1994 CE. This book claims as a

...unique and first work of this kind in the field

of Science of the ten Mutawâtir readings from the
 ways of ash-Shatbiyyah and ad-Durrah in the margin
of the Holy Qur'an is now achieved, edited, and
printed. [35]

The 10 readers/transmitters of the mutawâtir readings are below [The Ten Readers & Their
Transmitters]. What is more interesting is that there are reciters even to this day who have
memorised the Qur'an in all the 10 mutawâtir readings.

In the end, I address Shaykh Kurayyim Râjih the Head

of the Readers in the Syrian lands with my gratitude
for carrying out that work and supervising its
course and supplementing it with valuable guidelines
that hardly come from anyone except an expert like
him.

May God reward his kind student and reader Muhammad

Fahd Khârûf who masters the ten Mutawâtir readings
from the ways of ash-Shatbiyyah and ad-Durrah and
at-Tibah for participating to this noble task making
it, with the divine help, a beneficial work for the
holders of God's Almighty Book and his readers. [36]

Conclusions

In light of the above discussion, it is clear that Hafs and Warsh Qirâ'ât are not the different
'versions' or 'texts' of the Qur'an as fantasized by missionary Katz. The mutawâtir follows
directly to the Companions of the Prophet who took the Qur'an from the Prophet himself.
(P) (P)

Thus, the suggestion that a mutawâtir reading was a later invention by the Muslims is to be
dismissed as complete fiction.

The Ten Readers & Their Transmitters

Muhammad Ghoniem & M S M Saifullah

© Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.

First Composed: 8th January 2002

Last Updated: 8th January 2002

The following information is taken from ‘Alawi Ibn Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Bilfaqih's, Al-
Qira'at al-‘Ashr al-Mutawatir, 1994, Dar al-Muhajir.

1. Nafi‘ al-Madani (of Medinah): Ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahman Ibn Abi Na‘im, Abu Ruwaym al-
Laythi, his origin is from Isfahan (70-169 AH).
 Qalun: Abu Musa, ‘Isa Ibn Mina al-Zarqi, the slave of Bani Zuhrah (120-220
AH).

Warsh: ‘Uthman Ibn Sa‘id al-Qutbi, the Egyptian the slave of Quraysh (110-
197 AH).

2. Ibn Kathir, the Meccan: ‘Abdullah, Abu Ma‘bad al-‘Attar al-Dari, the Persian (45-
120AH).

Al-Buzzi: Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdillah, Abu al-Hasan al-Buzzi, the
Persian (170-250 AH).

Qunbul: Muhammad Ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahman, the Makhzumi (by loyalty), Abu
‘Amr the Meccan, known as Qunbul (195-291 AH).

3. Abu ‘Amr Ibn al-‘Ala': Zuban Ibn al-‘Ala' at-Tamimi al-Mazini, the Basran (68-154 AH).

Hafs al-Duri: Abu ‘Amr, Hafs Ibn ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Baghdadi, the
grammarian, the blind. (-246 AH).

Al-Susi: Abu Shu‘ayb, Salih Ibn Ziyad Ibn ‘Abdillah Ibn Isma‘il Ibn al-Jarud
ar-Riqqi. (-261 AH).

4. Ibn ‘Amir of Damascus: ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Amir Ibn Yazid Ibn Tamim Ibn Rabi‘ah al-
Yahsibi (8-118 AH).

Hisham: Abu al-Walid, Hisham ibn ‘Ammar Ibn Nusayr Ibn Maysarah al-
Salami al-Dimashqi (153-245 AH).

Ibn Dhakwan: Abu ‘Amr, ‘Abdullah Ibn Ahmad al-Qurayshi al-Dimashqi.

(173-242 AH).

5. ‘Aasim, the Kufan: Abu Bakr, ‘Aasim Ibn Abi al-Najud al-'Asadi (by loyalty) (-127 AH).

Shu‘bah: Abu Bakr, Shu‘bah Ibn ‘Ayyash Ibn Salim al-Kufi (i.e., the Kufan)
an-Nahshali (by loyalty) (95-193 AH).

Hafs: Abu ‘Amr, Hafs Ibn Sulayman Ibn al-Mughirah Ibn Abi Dawud al-Asadi
al-Kufi (the Kufan). (90-180 AH).

6. Hamzah, the Kufan: Abu ‘Imarah, Hamzah Ibn Habib al-Zayyat al-Taymi by loyalty (80-
156 AH).

Khalaf: Abu Muhammad al-Asadi al-Bazzar al-Baghdadi (150-229 AH).

Khallad: Abu ‘Isa, Khallad Ibn Khalid al-Baghdadi (- 220 AH).

7. Al-Kisa'i, the Kufan: Abu al-Hasan, ‘Ali Ibn Hamzah, the Persian, Asadi by loyalty (119 -
189 AH)

Al-Layth: Abu al-Harith, al-Layth Ibn Khalid al-Baghdadi (- 240 AH).

 Al-Duri: Hafs the transmitter of Abu ‘Amr (see above).

8. Abu Ja‘far: Yazid Ibn al-Qa‘qa‘ al-Makhzumi al-Madani (of Medinah) (- 130 AH).

‘Isa Ibn Wirdan: Abu al-Harith al-Madani (of Medinah by style) (- 160 AH)

Ibn Jummaz: Abu ar-Rabi‘, Sulayman Ibn Muslim Ibn Jummaz al-Madani (of
Medinah) (- 170 AH)

9. Ya‘qub: Abu Muhammad, Ya‘qub Ibn Ishaq Ibn Zayd Ibn ‘Abdillah Ibn Abi Ishaq al-
Hadrami, the Basran, the slave of the Hadramis (117 - 205 AH)

Ruways: Abu ‘Abdillah, Muhammad Ibn al-Mutawakkil, the Basran (- 238

AH).

Rawh: Abu al-Hasan, Rawh Ibn ‘Abd al-Mu'min, the Basran, the Hudhali by
loyalty (- 234 AH).

10. Khalaf the 10th: The transmitter of Hamzah (see above)

Ishaq: Abu Ya‘qub, Ishaq Ibn Ibrahim Ibn ‘Uthman al-Maruzi al-Baghdadi (-
286 AH).

Idris: Abu al-Hasan, Idris Ibn ‘Abd al-Karim al-Haddad al-Baghdadi (189 -
292 AH).

Are Qirâ'ât Due To The Lack Of Vowel & Diacritical Points In The Early Qur'ans?

Samuel Green says:

> ... owing to the fact that the kufic script in which the Koran was
> originally written contained no indication of vowels or
> diacritical points, variant readings are recognized by Muslims as
> of equal authority. (N.J. Dawood, The Koran, Middlesex, England:
> Penguin Books, 1983, p.10, bold added)

He adds further that:

VOWEL DIFFERENCES - In the Arabic script of the modern Qur'an the vowels are
indicated by small symbols above or below the basic printed letters. Again these were not
included in Uthman's edition of the Qur'an.

It is to be made clear that the Arabic script before and during the time of Uthmân was written
c

without vowel and diacritical marks. To say that the vowels and diacritical marks were not
included in the Uthmânic Qur'an actually shows the ignorance of the Christian missionary
c

Samuel Green concerning the evolution of Arabic script. The need for vowel and diacritical
marks arose only after the time of Uthmân to prevent the wrong recitation of the Qur'an by
c

ignorant Arabs and non-Arabs.

Arabic orthography at the time of Uthmân was not yet developed in the way we have known
c

for centuries, particularly in two important areas. There was no distinction between letters of
the alphabet of similar shape and there were no vowel marks. This may now give the
impression that such a system must have given rise to great confusion in reading. This was not
actually the case because the morphological patterns of words in Arabic enable readers to read
even very unfamiliar material without the short vowels being marked. More important,
however, as far as the Qur'an was concerned, was the fact that learning and reading relied
above all on oral transmission. In the Islamic tradition, writing remained a secondary aid;
nevertheless, to ensure correct reading of the written texts of the Qur'an, particularly for those
coming after the first generation of Muslims, steps were taken gradually to improve the
orthography. This started with the two above mentioned areas by introducing dots to indicate
different vowels and nûnâtion and these were put in different coloured ink from that of the
text. There were also dots to distinguish between consonants of similar shape. This work was
carried out chiefly by three men: Abû-l-Aswad al-Du'alî (d. 69 / 688), Nasr Ibn Asim (d. 89 c

/ 707) and Yahya Ibn Ya mur (d.129 /746). Understandably there was some opposition at
c

first to adding anything to the way the Qur'an was written. Ibn Umar (73/692) disliked the
c

dotting; others welcomed it, clearly because it was, in fact, doing no more than ensuring
proper reading of the Qur'an as received from the Prophet , and this view was accepted by the
(P)

majority of Muslims throughout the different parts of the Muslims world, from the time of the
tâbi ûn. The people of Madinah were reported to have used red dots for vowels - tanwîn,
c

tashdîd, takhfîf, sukûn, wasl and madd and yellow dots for the hamzas in particular. Naqt
(placing dots on words in the mushaf), became a separate subject of study with many books
written on it. For details please see the article Qur'anic Orthography: The Written
Representation Of The Recited Text Of The Qur'an.

Further, the conclusions of the missionary is that there was an

... ambiguity as to which vowels should be used. This ambiguity has lead to differences
between the vowels in the different transmissions.

The aim of the Christian missionary here is to show that prior to the introduction of the vowel
and diacritical marks, that is, throughout the period of the Prophet and the Companions, as
(P)

well as the generation immediately following the Qur'an was in undetermined, fluid state, a
kind of limbo, and that it assumed concrete form only with the addition of diacritical marks
and vocalization signs, which of course was long after the age of Revelation. In other words,
for almost a century before Hijra the Qur'an was in the fluid state and as soon as the vowels
and diacritical marks were introduced, the Qur'an started to crystallise in the form that we
have now after going through many 'versions.' For such a situation there is no historical
evidence. Neither, there is historical evidence that Muslims differed over the Qur'an unlike the
Christians who differ over the extent of the canon even to this day. It must be emphasized that
for Muslims down through the centuries the consensus (ijma') of the community has always
been a decisive proof in all matters; and as the community is agreed that man has not
contributed a whit to the Qur'an, the matter may be considered settled. This is precisely the
point which has been noted in the quote of N J Dawood used by the missionary. It is quite
clear that all the Qirâ'ât are given equal authority. The above quote taken from N J Dawood's
translation of the Qur'an is actually in direct contradiction of what Samuel Green had intended
to show in his article, i.e., that the Muslims follow different 'sets of the Qur'an' as if they are
not all authoritative. One wonders why did he choose to quote the material which does not
even serve his purpose!

Further evidence against the view in question may be drawn from the Qirâ'ât themselves. It is
certainly germane to the issue at hand to note that in many instances where the unmarked
Uthmânic canon is capable of being read in diverse ways, we find the Qurra (i.e., the
c

Readers) agreeing on a single reading. Such agreement can most reasonably be accounted for
on the basis of a firmly established oral tradition of recitation. Take for example the verbal
prefixes ta and ya (or tu or yu), which in the unmarked text would be represented by the
same symbol. Taking the form turja ûna and yurja ûna as a case point we note that all the
c c

Qirâ'ât use the first of these forms in 2:245; 10:56; 28:88; 36:22, 83; 39:44; 41:21 and 43:85;
while all use the second in 6:36 and 19:40.

There are also many words in the Qur'an which could be given different form than the one
given in the readings, but in fact are not. For example, the word mukht in 17:106 is so read
by all the readers, although there is no reason why it could not be read as mikth or makth.
The verb khatifa-yakhtafu, which appears in 2:20; 22:31 and 37:10 could be correctly read
as khatafa-yakhtifu, but all the Qirâ'ât keep the former form. A few other examples can be
[3]

shown by refering to the books on Qirâ'ât.

So, if the Qurra invented the Qirâ'ât just because the earliest manuscripts were undotted, why
then we see that they had converged to one single reading many times? The Christian
missionary's last resort will be to invoke two conspiracies on a massive scale from Spain to
India; first, to achieve uanimity on one reading from vastly divergent readings and second, to
fabricate the ijma' on the Qur'an itself after that!

Further reading:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Scribal/haleem.html

Qur'ānic Orthography: The Written Representation Of The Recited Text Of The Qur'ān

M A S Abdel Haleem

Islamic Quarterly, 19??, pp. 171-192

© Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.

"Quick! Help the Muslims before they differ about the text of the Qur'ān as the
Christians and Jews differed about their scriptures".

Thus demanded Hudhayfa bin al-Yamān of `Uthmān, the third Caliph, on returning from
battles in Azerbaijan (25/645). Hudhayfa had become perturbed when he saw Muslim soldiers
from different parts of Syria and Iraq meeting together and differing in their readings of the
Qur'ān[1], each considering his reading to be the correct one. Up to then the only full official
written copy which was made under Abū Bakr (d.13/634) had remained unpublished, kept
first with Abū Bakr, then with `Umar, and after his death with his daughter Hafsa, a widow of
the Prophet[2]. Responding to the urgent demand for help, `Uthmān sent word to Hafsa, asking
for the copy in her possession to be sent to him so that a number of copies could be made of
it, to be publicised and followed as the only authorised Qur'ān in the different parts of the
Muslim world. This prevented the possibility of different versions evolving in time, as
Hudhayfa had feared, when he urged `Uthmān to guard against it.

In the `Uthmānic copies, the Qur'ān was written in a particular rasm (orthography) which
became known as al-rasm al-`Uthmānī (the `Uthmānic way of writing the text of the Qur'ān)
also referred to as rasm al-mushaf. As the copies made at his orders and distributed to various
parts of the Muslim world were meant to be authoritative, it is no wonder that their rasm
assumed authority as the correct way of writing the Qur'ān. Arabic orthography at the time
was not yet developed in the way we have known for centuries, particularly in two important
areas. There was no distinction between letters of the alphabet of similar shape and there were
no vowel marks. This may now give the impression that such a system must have given rise to
great confusion in reading. This was not actually the case because the morphological patterns
of words in Arabic enable readers to read even very unfamiliar material without the short
vowels being marked. More important, however, as far as the Qur'ān was concerned, was the
fact that learning and reading relied above all on oral transmission. In the Islamic tradition,
writing remained a secondary aid; nevertheless, to ensure correct reading of the written texts
of the Qur'ān, particularly for those coming after the first generation of Muslims, steps were
taken gradually to improve the orthography. This started with the two above mentioned areas
by introducing dots to indicate different vowels and nūnātion and these were put in different
coloured ink from that of the text. There were also dots to distinguish between consonants of
similar shape. This work was carried out chiefly by three men: Abū-l-Aswad al-Du'alī (d. 69 /
688), Nasr Ibn `Asim (d. 89 / 707) and Yahyā Ibn Ya`mur (d.129 /746). Understandably there
was some opposition at first to adding anything to the way the Qur'ān was written. Ibn `Umar
(73/692) disliked the dotting; others welcomed it, clearly because it was, in fact, doing no
more than ensuring proper reading of the Qur'ān as received from the Prophet, and this view
was accepted by the majority of Muslims throughout the different parts of the Muslims world,
from the time of the tābi`ūn. The people of Madinah were reported to have used red dots for
vowels - tanwīn, tashdīd, takhfīf, sukūn, wasl and madd and yellow dots for the hamzas in
particular. Naqt[3] (placing dots on words in the mushaf), became a separate subject of study
with many books written on it.[4]

Al-Khalīl Ibn Ahmad (d.170/786) introduced the traditional vowel signs into Arabic
orthography instead of the dots, but tht dotting system continued in writing Qur'ānic material.
Eventually the traditional vowel signs were adopted for the Qur'ān.[5]

It was thus in order to serve the Qur'ān that Arabic orthography was developed. After all, the
Qur'ān, as collected under Abū Bakr, became the first book in the Arabic language. It was in
order to serve the Qur'ān that more and more people began to learn reading and writing; that
the art of calligraphy was developed, which became one of the chief arts of Islam. The Qur'ān,
which unified the Arabic literary language and spread it into areas far beyond Arabia, was in
fact the starting point of all Islamic and Arabic subjects of study[6], One of these subjects in
particular has important bearing on Qur'ānic orthography: that is, Arabic phonetics, which was
developed in `ilm tajwīd al-Qur'ān, the science of the proper articulation and reading of the
Qur'ān. Among other things, this has minutely described and definitively prescribed for
posterity the articulation of consonants and vowels singly and consecutively: the way of
reciting the Qur'ān as received from the Prophet. This requires a degree of exactitude
unmatched in reading any other material in Arabic. Qur'ānic orthographic signs had to be used
with the Qur'ānic rasm and developed to a higher standard of representation than is known or
needed in ordinary Arabic orthography.

Alongside the development of studies in Arabic grammar, Arabic orthography also developed
for linguistic and literary material, and although the `Uthmānic rasm was one of the sources
of ordinary orthography[7] the latter began to differ from the `Uthmānic rasm of the Qur'ān.
The question was asked whether it was admissible to write the Qur'ān itself in the new
orthography. Mālik (179/795) was asked and said: No, the Qur'ān should be written only in
the way of the first writing. He was also asked whether the additional wāw and alif (as in the
word ‫ ) اولوا‬should be deleted since they were not pronounced and said no. Similarly Ibn
Hanbal (244/858) said it was unlawful to deviate in writing the mushaf in wāw, yā, alif or any
other way.[8] In line with such views, it will be seen that adherence to the Qur'ānic rasm has
persisted up to the present.

Along with numerous other aspects of the Qur'ān, its orthography was singled out as a
separate branch of study known as `ilm al-rasm.[9] Abū `Amr Al-Dānī (444/1052) examined in
detail the characteristics of this rasm. His book al-Muqni`[10] remained an important authority -
Suyūtī (909/1503) reduced the rules of Qur'ānic rasm to 6 as follows:*

1. The rule of deletion, hadhf

2. The rule of addition, ziyādah
3. The rule of substitution, badal
4. The rule of the hamza,
5. The rule of joining and separating, al-wasl wa-l-fasl
6. The rule of cases where there are two canonical readings but the text is
written according to one of them, ma fīhi qirā'ātan fa-kutiba `alā ihdāhumā.

CHAPTER 11

THE QIRA’AAT OF THE QUR’AAN

I. The Meaning of the Word ‘Qira’aat’

The word ‘qir’aat‘ is the plural of ‘qiraa’a‘, which comes from the root q-r-a meaning, ‘to
read, to recite’. ‘Qiraa’a‘ means the recitation of something.

In Qur’aanic sciences, it refers to the various ways and manners of reciting the Qur’aan that
are in existence today. As Imaam az-Zarkashee stated, the Qur’aan is the revelation that was
given to Muhammad (PBUH), and the qira’aat are the variations in the words and
pronunciations of this revelation. Thus the qira’aat are the verbalisation of the Qur’aan, and
the Qur’aan is preserved in the qira’aat.

Each qiraa’a has its own peculiar rules of recitation (tajweed) and variations in words and
letters, and is names after the reciter (Qaaree) who was famous for that particular qiraa’a.

II. The History of the Qira’aat

The primary method of transmission of the Qur’aan has always been and always will be oral.
Each generation of Muslims learns the Qur’aan from the generation before it, and this chain
continues backwards until the time of the Companions, who learnt it from the Prophet
(PBUH) himself. As ‘Umar ibn al-Khaattaab stated, “The recitation of the Qur’aan is a
Sunnah; the latter generations must take it from the earlier ones. Thereofre, recite the Qur’aan
only as you have been taught.” 415 This is the fundamental principal in the preservation of the
Qur’aan.

In the last chapter, the revelation of the Qur’aan in the seven ahruf was discussed. As the
Prophet (PBUH) recited the Qur’aan in all of these ahruf, the Companions memorised it from
him accordingly. Some of them memorised only one harf, others more than this. When the
Companions spread throughout the Muslim lands, they took with them the variations that they
had learnt from the Prophet (PBUH). They understood the importance of the oral transmission
of the Qur’aan. ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab, during his caliphate, sent several prominent
Companions to various cities to teach the people the Qur’aan; ‘Ubaadah ibn as-Saamit was
sent to Hims, Ubay ibn Ka’ab to Palestine, and Aboo ad-Dardaa to Damascus. 416

Likewise, during his caliphate, ‘Uthmaan also realised the importance of the proper recitation
of the Qur’aan, and sent reciters of the Qur’aan all over the Muslim lands, each with a copy of
his official mus-haf. He kept Zayd ibn Thaabit in Madeenah; with the Makkan mus-haf, he
sent ‘Adullaah ibn Saa’ib (d. 63 A.H.); to Syria was sent al-Mugheerah ibn Shu’bah (d. 50
A.H.); Aboo ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan as-Sulamee (d. 70 A.H.) was sent to Koofah; and ‘Aamir ibn
‘Abdul Qays to Basrah (d. ~ 55 A.H.). 417

The Companions, in turn, recited and taught these variations to the Successors (Tabi’oon),
who taught them to the next generation (atbaa’ at-tabi’oon), and so on. Each generation had in
its rank those who were famous for their knowledge of the recitation of the Qur’aan.

Thus, among the Companions, there were many who were famous as having heard from the
Prophet (PBUH) most if not all of the Qur’aan. Included in this category are ‘Uthmaan ibn
‘Affaan, ‘Alee ibn Abee Taalib, ‘Ubay ibn Ka’ab, ‘Abdullaah ibn Mas’ood, Zayd ibn Thaabit,
Aboo ad-Dardaa, and Aboo Moosaa al-Ash’aree. These Companions taught those
Companions who were younger or had not had as much exposure to the Prophet’s (PBUH)
recitation, such as Aboo Hurayrah and Ibn ‘Abbaas, who both learnt from Ubay. Some learnt
from more than one Companion, as, for example, Ibn ‘Abbaas also learnt from Zayd ibn
Thaabit.

These Companions then taught the Successors. Since the Companions spread over the various
parts of the Muslim world, each region started developing a specific type of recitation. Again,
all of these various recitations had originated from the mouth of the Prophet (PBUH), and the
Companions spread the different variations throughout the Muslim world.

Those famous among the Successors for the recitation of the Qur’aan are: in Madeenah,
Sa’eed ibn al-Musayyib (d. 90 A.H.), ‘Urwah ibn az-Zubayr (d. 94 A.H.), Saalim (d. 106
A.H.), and ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-Azeez (d. 103 A.H.); in Makkah, ‘Ubayd ibn ‘Umayr (d. 72
A.H.), ‘Ataa ibn Abee Rabah (d. 114 A.H.), Taawoos (d. 106 A.H.), Mujaahid (d. 103 A.H.)
and ‘Ikrimah (d. 104 A.H.); in Koofah, ‘Alqamah ibn Qays (d. 60 A.H.), Aboo ‘Abd al-
Rahmaan as-Sulamee (d. 70 A.H.), Ibraaheem al-Nakhaa’ee (d. 96 A.H.) and ash-Sha’bee (d.
100 A.H.); in Basrah, Aboo al-Aaliyah (d. 90 A.H.), Nasr ibn ‘Aasim (d. 89 A.H.), Qataadah
(d. 110 A.H.), Ibn Sireen (d. 110 A.H.) and Yahya ibn Ya’mar (d. 100 A.H.); and in Syria, al-
Mugheerah ibn Abee Shihaab and Khaleefah ibn Sa’ad. 418

Around the turn of the first century of the hijrah appeared the scholars of the Qur’aan after
whom the qira’aat of today are named. At this time, along with many other sciences of Islaam,
the sciences of the qira’aat were codified. Thus, members of this generation took from the
Successors the various recitations that they had learnt from the Companions, and adopted a
specific way of reciting the Qur’aan, and this is what is called a qiraa’a. Each of these persons
is called a Qaaree, or Reciter. These Qaarees were the most famous reciters of the Qur’aan in
their time, and people from all around the Muslim lands would come to them to learn the
Qur’aan.

To summarise, the qira’aat are particular methodologies of reciting the Qur’aan. They are
named after the Qaaree who recited the Qur’aan in that particular manner, and were famous as
being the leaders in this field. They represent the various ways that the Companions learnt the
Qur’aan from the Prophet (PBUH). They differ from each other in vaious words,
proninciations, and rules of recitation (tajweed). They are not the same as the seven ahruf, as
shall be elaborated upon shortly.

The scholars of the succeeding generations started compiling works on the different qira’aat
that were present in their times. For example, Aboo ‘Ubayd al-Qaasim ibn Sallaam (d. 224
A.H.) compiled twenty-five qira’aat, Ahmad ibn Jubayr al-Koofee (d. 258 A.H.) wrote a book
on five qira’aat, and al-Qaadee Ismaa’eel ibn Ishaaq (d. 282 A.H.) compiled his book on
twenty qira’aat (including the famous ’seven’). Even Muhammad ibn Jareer at-Tabari (d. 310)
compiled a work on the qira’aat. However, the most famous of these books is the one by Aboo
Bakr Ahmad ibn Mujaahid (d. 324), entitled Kitaab al-Qira’aat, in which he compiled seven
of the most famous qira’aat of his time from the major cities of the Muslim world. He was the
first to limit himself to these particular Qaarees, for he wanted to combine the most famous
recitations of Makkah, Madeenah, Koofah, Basrah, and Damascus, for these were the five
territories from which the knowledge of Islaam sprung forth - the knowledge of the Qur’aan,
tafseer, hadeeth and fiqh. 419 He wrote in his introduction,

“So these seven (that I have chosen) are scholars from Hijaaz (i.e., Makkah and Madeenah),
Iraq (i.e., Koofah and Basrah) and Syria (i.e., Damascus). They inherited the Successors in the
knowledge of the recitation of the Qur’aan, and the people all accepted and agreed upon their
recitation, from their respective territories, and the territories surrounding them…”426

He purposely chose seven Qaarees to match the number of ahruf that the Qur’aan was
revealed in. Unfortunately, this led many people to mistakenly believe that the different
qira’aat were the same as the ahruf that the Prophet (PBUH) referred to in the various
hadeeth. This is obviously false, since ibn Mujaahid wrote his book four centuries after the
Prophet’s (PBUH) death. Due to this misconception, many of the later scholars took ibn
Mujaahid to task, wishing that he had chosen a different number, so that this confusion could
have been prevented. Ibn al-Jazaree (d. 832 A.H.) wrote,

“Many of the scholars disliked the fact that Ibn Mujaahid restricted himself to seven
qira’aat, and said that he was mistaken in doing so, and wished that he had chosen a number
greater than this, or less than this, or atleast explained the purpose behind choosing this
number, so that those people who have no knowledge would not have been misled.” 421

Another misconception that arose was that some scholars assumed that these seven qira’aat
were the only authentic qira’aat of the Qur’aan. Thus, these scholars considered any qira’aat
besides these seven to be defective (shaadh) qira’aat. This, too, is a misconception, as there
were other authentic qira’aat that Ibn Mujaahid did not compile.

Due to the popularity and excellence of Ibn Mujaahid’s book, these seven qira’aat became the
most famous qira’aat of that time, 422 and the students of knowledge left other qira’aat to
study these seven. Eventually, except for three other authentic qira’aat, all the other qira’aat
were left, and only these ten were studied. This does not imply, however, that somehow a
portion of the Qur’aan was lost by preserving only these ten. Many of the qira’aat were
merely a mixture of others, so that their loss would not mean a loss of certain pronunciations
or words. The Muslims are assured of the fact that they have the complete revelation that
Allaah revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), for it is Allaah’s promise to protect it:

“Verily, it is We who have revealed the Qur’aan, and surely We will guard it” (Qur’�n, 15:9)

III. The Conditions for an Authentic Qiraa’a

It was mentioned in the last section that, during the first few centuries of the hijrah, there were
many qira’aat that used to be recited. The scholars of the qira’aat therefore established rules in
order to differentiate the authentic qira’aat from the inauthentic ones.

The famous scholar of the Qur’aan, Muhammad ibn al-Jazaree (d. 832 A.H.), said:

“Every qiraa’a that conforms to the rules of Arabic, even if by one manner, and matches
with one of the mus-hafs of ‘Uthmaan, even if such a match is not an obvious one, and has an
authentic chain of narrators back to the Prophet (PBUH), is an authentic qiraa’a. Such a
qiraa’a cannot be refuted or denied, but rather must be believed in, and is amongst the seven
ahruf that the Qur’aan was revealed in. Therefore the people must accept it, whether it be
from the seven qira’aat (mentioned above), or from the ten qira’aat, or even other than these.
And whenever any qiraa’a fails to meet one of the above mentioned three conditions, then it
will be labelled (according to which of the conditions are not met) either weak (da’eef),
irregular (shaadh), or false (baatil). And this (i.e., these conditions) is the strongest opinion
among the scholars of the past and the present.” 423

Therefore, Ibn al-Jazaree mentioned three conditions:

1) The qiraa’a must conform to Arabic grammar. It is not essential, however, that the grammar
used be agreed upon by all Arabic grammarians, or that the qiraa’a employ the most fluent
and eloquent of phrases and expressions. This is the meaning of the phrase, “…even if by one
manner.” The basic requirement is that it does not contradict an agreed upon principal of
Arabic grammar.

Some scholars, however, do not agree with this condition.424 They argue, “If a qiraa’a is
proven to have originated from the Prophet (PBUH), then we cannot apply the rules of
grammar to it. If we were to do this, and presumed an error in the qiraa’a, then we would be
implying that the Prophet (PBUH) made mistakes (Allaah forbid!). Therefore, an authentic
qiraa’a overrides a rule of Arabic grammar!”

What this is implying is that it is the Qur’aan, through any of its qira’aat , that is given
preference over any rule of grammar, for the Qur’aan is the Speech of Allaah, the most
eloquent of Speech, and the rules of grammar must be based on this. Among the scholars of
the Qur’aan who held this view are Makkee ibn Abee Taalib (d. 437 A.H.) and Aboo ‘Amr ad-
Daanee (d. 444 A.H.). For them, the conditions for an authentic qiraa’a are the last two.

Actually, if the practice of the scholars of the Qur’aan is examined, it is apparent that the
above difference is a difference in semantics only, for the first category of scholars (such as
Ibn al-Jazaree) will reject a rule of grammar as invalid if it contradicts any of the ten authentic
qira’aat. Thus, the attempts by some grammarians to invalidate certain qira’aat (such as az-
Zajjaaj’s 425 attempts to invalidate the qiraa’a of Hamzah in verse 4:1) have been rejected by
all the scholars of qiraa’a, whether they include this condition or not. 426 This point will be
discussed in greater detail below.

2) The qiraa’a must conform with one of the mus-hafs of ‘Uthmaan. In the chapter on the
compilation of the Qur’aan, it was mentioned that ‘Uthmaan sent out between four and eight
mus-hafs around the Muslim world. All of them were without dots and vowel marks. Also,
these mus-hafs had minor variations between them.
As long as a qiraa’a satisfied any one of these mus-hafs, it was considered to have passed this
condition, even if it conformed slightly. For example, the word maaliki 427 in Soorah al-
Faatihah is written in all the ‘Uthmaanic mus-hafs as m-l-k [Arabic text here], which allows
for the variation found in other qira’aat of maliki. 428 This is an example where the
conformation is “not obvious.” An example of an explicit conformation is in 2:259, where one
recitation is kayfa nunshizuha, 429 but without a dot over one letter becomes kayfa
nunshiruha. 430 An example of a qiraa’a conforming to one of the mus-hafs of ‘Uthmaan
without the others is the qiraa’a of Ibn ‘Aamir, who read 3:184 as wa bi zuburi wa bil kitaab
instead of wa az-zuburi wal kitaab (i.e., without the bas), since the mus-haf that ‘Uthmaan
sent to Syria had the two bas in it.

An example of a qiraa’a that contradicts all the mus-hafs of ‘Uthmaan is the qiraa’a attributed
to Ibn ‘Abbaas in 18:79, which translates as, “…and there was, behind them, a king who
seized every ship by force,” whereas Ibn ‘Abbas read it, “…and there was, in front of them, a
king who seized every useable ship by force.” The two changes in the recitation of Ibn
‘Abbaas are not allowed by the mus-haf of ‘Uthmaan, and cannot, therefore, be considered an
authentic recitation.

3) The qiraa’a must have an authentic (saheeh) chain of narrators back to the Prophet
(PBUH). This is the most important condition, and guarantees that the variations that occur in
the qira’aat have all been sent down by Allaah as part of the Qur’aan, recited by the Prophet
(PBUH), and passed down to the Muslim ummah without any addition or deletion. As was
quoted from ‘Umar earlier (and this same statement has also been made by Zayd ibn Thaabit,
and many of the Successors), “The recitation of the Qur’aan is a Sunnah; the later generations
must take it from the earlier ones. Therefore, recite the Qur’aan only as you have been
taught.”

However, an important question is: do these chains of narration have to be mutawaatir? The
overwhelming majority of scholars claimed that they did. The only notable exceptions were
from Makkee ibn Abee Taalib (d. 437 A.H.), and later Ibn al-Jazaree (d. 832 A.H.) (whose
definition is being quoted). Both of these scholars are highly respected, classical scholars in
the field of qira’aat.

Ibn al-Jazaree wrote, “Some of the later scholars have presumed… that the Qur’aan can only
be proven with mutawaatir narrations! The flaws in this opinion are obvious… ” 431

However, this opinion itself goes againt the consensus (ijmaa’) of almost all the other
scholars. Imaam an-Nuwayree (d. 897 A.H.), a commentator of Ibn al-Jazaree’s work, wrote:

“This opinions is a newly-invented one, contradicting the consensus (ijmaa’) of the jurists
and… the four madh-habs… and many scholars, so many that they cannot even be counted,
such as Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, Ibn ‘Atiyyah, Ibn Taymiyyah, Imaam Nawawee, al-Azraa’ee, as-
Subkee, az-Zarkashee, Ibn al-Haajib, and many more besides these. As for the reciters of the
Qur’aan, they were agreed on this since the earliest times, and the only one to contradict them
in the later times are Makkee ibn Abee Taalib 432 and those who followed him (i.e., Ibn al-
Jazaree).” 433

In reality, Ibn al-Jazaree’s opinion seems to have more theoretical than realistic value, for
even he admits, in another of his works, that the ten qira’aat are all mutawaatir. He states,
“Whoever says that the mutawaatir qira’aat are unlimited, then if he means this in our times,
this is not correct, for today there are no authentic mutaawatir qira’aat besides these ten;
however, if he means in earlier times, then it is possible that he is correct… ” 434 Therefore,
Ibn al-Jazaree was of the view that is was not neccessary for a qiraa’a to be mutawaatir for it
to be accepted, but at the same time he did believe that the ten qira’aat were all mutawaatir.

Ibn al-Jazaree’s conditions were perhaps applicable in his time, when there existed numerous
qira’aat besides the ten that are present today. According to him, such qira’aat could be recited
as long as they had an authentic chain of narrators back to the Prophet (PBUH), even if such
chains were ahaad. Most of the other scholars of qiraa’a, however, did not agree with him on
this point. 435 However, since in our times, only these ten qira’aat are in existence, this issue
becomes more theoretical than practical, as most of the scholars are in agreement that these
ten qira’aat are all mutawaatir.

In conclusion, the conditions for an authentic qiraa’a is that it must be mutawaatir, and
conforms to atleast one of the mus-hafs of ‘Uthmaan. Any time such a qiraa’a exists, it
overides any rule of Arabic grammar.

It should be mentioned, however, that there has never existed any mutawaatir qiraa’a that
contradicted any rule of Arabic grammar. 436 Al-Qaarree writes, 437

“If we ponder over this issue, and reflect over these conditions, we finds that this last
condition (i.e., the qiraa’a must conform with Arabic grammar) is, in reality, not a ‘condition’
in the sense of the word, meaning that if this ‘condition’ is not met, the qiraa’a is rejected, for
two reasons:

Firstly, such a case has never occurred, meaning that there is no authentic, mutawaatir qiraa’a
that conforms to the ‘Uthmaanic mus-hafs that has no basis in Arabic grammar.

Secondly, even if we allow for the possiblity that there exists such a qiraa’a - and authentic,
mutawaatir qiraa’a conforming to the script, yet not having any basis that we can discover in
Arabic grammar - then this too does not imply the rejection of the qiraa’a. This is because our
ignorance of such a gramatical basis does not rule out the possibility of such a basis, since no
matter how much our knowledge encompasses, it will still be limited. Also, whenever a
qiraa’a has a mutawaatir chain of narrators and conforms with the ‘Uthmaanic script, this is
unequivocal proof that it is a part of the Qur’aan, and therefore there cannot be any argument
against it.

To conclude, therefore, we say: This last condition (meaning the condition of a qiraa’a with
Arabic grammar) is in reality a neccessary by product of the other two conditions, and is not a
‘condition’ per se.”

As has already been alluded to, there are ten qira’aat that meet the above requirements, and
these will be discussed below, Taqee ad-Deen as-Subkee (d. 756 A.H.) stated,

“The seven qira’aat that ash-Shaatibee compiled 438 along with the other three qira’aat are all
authentic mutawaatir qira’aat. This has been recognised by all, and every letter that any of
these qira’aat have differed with the others in, is recognised to have been revealed to the
Prophet (PBUH). None can reject this fact except the ignorant.” 439

Theoretically, it is possible for there to still exist other authentic qira’aat besides these ten,
since there is no divine law regulating that there can only be ten qira’aat. Realistically,
however, such an existence is impossible, as the scholars of the Qur’aan would have known of
them by now.

IV. The Other Types of Qira’aat

If a qiraa’a fails to meet any of these conditions, it is classified in a different category.

Different scholars have adopted different classifications for defining those qira’aat that do not
meet the above three conditions. One of the simpler ones is as follows: 440

1) The Saheeh (Authentic) Qira’aat: These are the ten authentic qira’aat, and the conditions of
acceptance were discussed above.

2) The Shaadh (Irregular) Qira’aat: These qira’aat have an authentic chain of narration back to
the Prophet (PBUH) and conform to Arabic grammar, but do not match the mus-hafs of
‘Uthmaan. In addition, they are not mutawaatir. In other words, they employ words of phrases
that the ‘Uthmaanic mus-hafs do not allow. Most of the time (but not all, see Suyootee’s
classification below) this type of qira’aat was in fact used by the Companions as explanations
to certain verses in the Qur’aan. For example, ‘Aa’ishah used to recite 2:238 ‘ …wa salat al-
wusta’ with the addition ’salat al-asr.’ The meaning of the first is, “Guard against your prayers,
especially the middle one.” ‘As’ishah’s addition explained that the “middle prayer” alluded to
in this verse is in fact the ‘Asr prayer. There are numerous authentic narrations from the
Companions of this nature, in which they recited a certain verse in a way that the mus-haf of
‘Uthmaan would not allow.

Another explanation of this type of qira’aat is that they were a part of the ahruf that were
revealed to the Prophet (PBUH) but later abrogated, and thus not preserved in the mus-haf of
‘Uthmaan.

3) The Da’eef (Weak) Qira’aat: These qira’aat conform with Arabic grammar and are allowed
by the mus-haf of ‘Uthmaan, but do not have authentic chains of narrations back to the
Prophet (PBUH). An example of this type is the recitation of 1:4 as malaki yawmu deen, in
the past tense.

4) The Baatil (False) Qira’aat: These qira’aat do not meet any of the three criterion mentioned
above, and are rejected completely, even as tafseer. For example, the reading of 35:28 as
inama yakhsha Alllaahu min ‘ibadhil ‘ulama, changes the meaning from, “It is only those who
have knowledge amongst His slaves that truly fear Allaah,” to, “All�h is afraid of the
knowledge of His slaves!” (All praise be to Allaah, He is far removed from all that they
ascribe to Him!!)

The ruling concerning these last three types of qira’aat, the shaadh, the da’eef and the baatil,
is that they are not a part of the Qur’aan, and in fact it is haraam (forbidden) to consider such
a qiraa’a as part of the Qur’aan. If it is recited in prayer, such a prayer will not be acceptable,
nor is one allowed to pray behind someone who recites these qira’aat. However, the shaadh
and the da’eef qira’aat may be studied under the science of tafseer (and other sciences, such as
the science of grammar, or nahw) as long as they are identified as such. The shaadh qira’aat,
in particular, used to form a part of the seven ahruf that the Qur’aan was revealed in, but these
recitations were abrogated by the Prophet (PBUH) himself, and therefore not preserved by
‘Uthmaan. Under this category fall many of the recitations that are transmitted with authentic
chains of narrations from the Companions, and yet do not conform with the ‘Uthmaanic mus-
haf. These recitations used to form a part of the Qur’aan, and were recited by the
Companions, until they were abrogated by the Prophet (PBUH) before his death.

As-Suyootee, 441 following Ibn al-Jazaree (d. 832), classifies the various qira’aat into six
categories, which are briefly:

1) Mutawaatir: These are the seven qira’aat compiled by Ibn Mujaahid, plus the other three.

2) Mash-hoor (Well-known): These are some of the variations found within the ten authentic
qira’aat, such as the differences between the raawis and turuqs (to be discussed below).

3) Ahaad (Singular): These are the qira’aat that have an authentic chain of narration, but do
not conform to the mus-haf of ‘Uthmaan, or contradict a rule of Arabic grammar (the same as
shaadh above).

4) Shaadh (Irregular): These are the qira’aat that do not have an authentic chain of narration
back to the Prophet (PBUH) (the same as da’eef above).

5) Mawdoo’ (Fabricated): These are the qira’aat that do not meet any of the three conditions
(same as baatil above).

6) Mudraj (Interpolated): In this category, as-Suyootee classified those readings that the
Companions used to add of the sake of interpretation. For example, the verse,

“…and he has a brother or sister…” (Qur’�n, 4:12)

was recited by Sa’eed ibn Abee Waqqaas as, “…and he has a brother or sister from the same
mother.”

These types of additions are explained as having been heard by that Companion from the
Prophet (PBUH), either as an explanation of the verse (in which case it was assumed by the
Companion to be part of the verse), or that this was one of the ahruf of that verse that was
later abrogated by the Prophet (PBUH) during his final recitation to Jibreel. 442

As-Suyootee stated that the first two types, mutawaatir and mash-hoor, are considered part of
the Qur’aan, and can be recited in prayer, but the last four types are not a part of the Qur’aan.

V. The Authentic Qira’aat and the Qaarees

Now that the various types of qira’aat have been discussed in detail, it is time to look at the
ten authentic qira’aat, and the Qaarees whom they are named after. 443 The first seven are the
ones that Aboo Bakr ibn Mujaahid (d. 324 A.H.) preserved in his book, and which ash-
Shaatibee (d. 548 A.H.) versified in his famous poem known as ash-Shaatibiyyah.

1) Naafi’ al-Madanee:

He is Naafi’ ibn ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Abee Na’eem al-Laythee, originally from an Isfahanian
family. He was one of the major scholars of qira’aat during his time. He was born around 70
A.H., in Madeenah, and passed away in the same city at the age of 99, in 169 A.H. He learnt
the Qur’aan from over seventy Successors, including Aboo Ja’far Yazeed ibn al-Qa’qa’ (d.
130 A.H.), who took his recitation from Aboo Hurayrah, who took his recitation from Ubay
ibn Ka’ab, who took his recitation from the Prophet (PBUH). After the era of the Successors,
he was taken as the cheif Qaaree of Madeenah. Eventually his qiraa’a was adopted by the
people of Madeenah.

Among his students was Imaam Maalik (d. 179 A.H.). Imaam Maalik used to recite the
Qur’aan in the qiraa’a of Naafi’, and he used to say, “Indeed, the qiraa’a of Naafi’ is the
Sunnah,” 444 meaning that this qiraa’a was the most liked by him.

The two students who preserved his qiraa’a are:

i) Qaloon: He is ‘Eesaa ibn Meena az-Zarqee (120-220 A.H.). He was the stepson of Naafi’,
and lived his whole life in Madeenah. After Naafi’ died, he took over his position as the
leading Qaaree of Madeenah.

ii) Warsh: He is Aboo Sa’eed ‘Uthmaan ibn Sa’eed al-Misree (110-197 A.H.). He lived in
Egypt, but travelled to Madeenah in 155 A.H. to study under Naafi’, and recited the Qur’aan
to him many times. Eventually, he returned to Egypt, and became the leading Qaaree of
Egypt.

2) Ibn Katheer al-Makkee:

He is ‘Abd Allaah ibn Katheer ibn ‘Umar al-Makkee, born in Makkah in 45 A.H. and died
120 A.H. He was among the generation of the Successors (he met some Companions, such as
Anas ibn Maalik and ‘Abdullaah ibn az-Zubayr), and learnt the Qur’aan from the early
Successors, such as Abee Saa’ib, Mujaahid ibn Jabr (d. 103 A.H.), and Darbaas, the slave of
Ibn ‘Abbaas. Darbaas learnt the Qur’aan from Ibn ‘Abbaas, who learnt it from Zayd ibn
Thaabit and Ubay ibn Ka’ab, who both learnt it from the Prophet (PBUH).

Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee (d. 204 A.H.) used to recite the qiraa’a of Ibn Katheer, 445 and once
remarked, “We were taught the qiraa’a of Ibn Katheer, and we found the people of Makkah
upon his qiraa’a.” 446

The two primary Qaarees who preserved his qiraa’a are:

i) al-Buzzee: He is Abul Hasan Ahmad ibn Buzzah al-Makkee (170-250 A.H.). He was the
mu’adh-dhin at the Masjid al-Haraam at Makkah, and the leading Qaaree of Makkah during
his time.

ii) Qumbul: He is Aboo ‘Amr Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Rahmaan (195-291 A.H.). He was the
leading Qaaree of the Hijaaz. He was also one of the teachers of Aboo Bakr ibn Mujaahid (d.
324 A.H.), the author of Kitaab al-Qira’aat.

3) Aboo ‘Amr al-Basree:

He is Zabaan ibn al-’Alaa ibn ‘Ammaar al-Basree. He was born in 69 A.H. and passed away
in 154 A.H. He was born in Makkah, but grew up in Basrah. He studied the Qur’aan under
many of the Successors, among them Aboo Ja’far (d. 130 A.H.), and Aboo al-’Aaliyah (d. 95
A.H.), who learnt from ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab and other Companions, who learnt from the
Prophet (PBUH).

The two primary Qaarees who preserved his qiraa’a are:

i) ad-Doori: He is Hafs ibn ‘Umar ad-Doori (195-246 A.H.). He was one of the first to
compile different qira’aat , notwithstanding the fact that he was blind.

ii) as-Soosee: He is Aboo Shu’ayb Saalih ibn Ziyaad as-Soosee (171-261 A.H.). he taught the
Qur’aan to Imaam an-Nasaa’ee (d. 303 A.H.), of Sunan fame.

4) Ibn ‘Aamir ash-Shaamee:

He is ‘Abdullaah ibn ‘Aamir al-Yahsabee, born in 21 A.H. He lived his life in Damascus,
which was the capital of the Muslim empire in those days. He met some of the Companions,
and studied the Qur’aan under the Companion Aboo ad-Dardaa, and al-Mugheerah ibn Abee
Shihaab. He was the Imaam of the Ummayad Mosque (the primary mosque in Damascus)
during the time of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-’Azeez (d. 103 A.H.), and was well-known for his
recitation. Among the seven Qaarees, he has the highest chain or narrators (i.e., least number
of people between him and the Prophet (PBUH)), since he studied directly under a
Companion. He was also Chief Judge of Damascus. His qiraa’a became accepted by the
people of Syria, He died on the day of ‘Aashoora, 447 118 A.H.

The two primary Qaarees who preserved his qiraa’a are:

i) Hishaam: He is Hishaam ibn ‘Ammaar as-Damishqee (153-245 A.H.). He was well-known

for his recitation, and his knowledge of hadeeth and fiqh, and was one of the teachers of
Imaam at-Tirmidhee (d. 279 A.H.).

ii) Ibn Zhakwan: He is ‘Abdullaah ibn Ahmad ibn Zhakwan (173-242 A.H.). He was also the
Imaam of the Ummayad Mosque during his time.

5) ‘Aasim al-Koofee:

He is ‘Aasim ibn Abee Najood al-Koofee, from among the Successors. He was the most
knowledgable person in recitation during his time, and took over the position of Imaam of the
Qaarees in Koofah, after the death of Aboo ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan as-Sulamee (d. 75 A.H.). He
learnt the Qur’aan from Aboo ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan (who studied under ‘Alee ibn Abee Taalib,
and was the teacher of al-Hasan and al-Husayn), and from Zirr ibn Hubaysh (d. 83 A.H.) and
Aboo ‘ Amr ash-Shaybaanee (d. 95 A.H.). These learnt the Qur’aan from Ubay ibn Ka’ab,
‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan, ‘Alee ibn Abee Taalib, and Zayd ibn Thaabit, who all learnt from the
Prophet (PBUH). He passed away 127 A.H.

He taught the Qur’aan to Imaam Aboo Haneefah (d. 150 A.H.), who used to recite in the
qiraa’a of ‘Aasim. Imaam Ahmad ibn Hambal (d. 204 A.H.) was once asked, “Which of the
qira’aat do you prefer?” He replied, “The qiraa’a of Madeenah (i.e., Naafi’), but if this is not
possible, then ‘Aasim.” 448

His two students who preserved his qiraa’a are:

i) Shu’ba: He is Shu’ba ibn ‘Iyaash al-Koofee, born 95 A.H. and passed away 193 A.H.

ii) Hafs: He is Aboo ‘Amr Hafs ibn Sulaymaan al-Asadee al-Koofee (90-180 A.H.), a step-son
of ‘Aasim. He was the most knowledgable person of the qiraa’a of ‘Aasim.

6) Hamzah al-Koofee:
He is Hamzah ibn Habeeb al-Koofee, born 80 A.H. He met some of the Companions, and
learnt the Qur’aan from al-Amash (d. 147 A.H.), Ja’far as-Saadiq (d. 148 A.H.) (the great-
grandson of Husayn), and others. His qiraa’a goes back to the Prophet (PBUH) through ‘Alee
ibn Abee Taalib and ‘Abdullaah ibn Mas’ood. he passed away 156 A.H.

The two primary Qaarees through whom his qiraa’a is preserved are:

i) Khalaf: He is Khalaf ibn Hishaam al-Baghdaadee (150-227 A.H.). He memorised the

Qur’aan when he was ten years old.

He also has his own qiraa’a, different from the one he preserved from Hamzah (see below).

ii) Khallaad: He is Aboo ‘Eesaa Khallaad ibn Khaalid ash-Shaybaanee. he was born 119 A.H.
and passed away 220 A.H.

7) Al-Kisaa’ee

He is Alee ibn Hamzah ibn ‘Abdillaah, born around 120 A.H. He was the most knowledgable
of his contemporaries in Arabic Grammar, and is considered one of the classical scholars in
this field. He authored numerous books, and excelled in the sciences and recitation of the
Qur’aan. Students used to flock to him to listen to the entire Qur’aan, and they even used to
record where he stopped and started every verse. The Caliph Haroon ar-Rasheed used to hold
him in great esteem. He passed away 189 A.H.

His two primary students who preserved his qiraa’a are:

i) al-Layth: he is al0Layth ibn Khaalid al-Baghdaadee. He died 240 A.H.

ii) ad-Dooree: He is the same ad-Dooree who is the student of Aboo ‘Amr al-Basree
(mentioned above), for he studied and preserved both of these qira’aat.

These are the seven Qaarees whom Ibn Mujaahid compiled in his book Kitaab al-Qira’aat. Of
these, all are from non-Arab backgrounds except Ibn ‘Aamir and Aboo ‘Amr. The following
three Qaarees complete the ten authentic qira’aat.

8) Aboo Ja’far al-Madanee:

He is Yazeed ibn al-Qa’qa’ al-Makhzoomee, among the Successors. He is one of the teachers
of Imaam Naafi’, and learnt the Qur’aan from ‘Abdullaah ibn ‘Abbaas, Aboo Hurayrah and
others. he passed away in 130 A.H.

His two primary students who preserved his qiraa’a were ‘Eesaa ibn Wardaan (d. 160 A.H.)
and Sulaymaan ibn Jamaz (d. 170 A.H.)

9) Ya’qoob al-Basree:

He is Ya’qoob ibn Ishaaq al-Hadhramee al-Basree. He became the Imaam of the Qaarees in
Basrah after the death of Aboo ‘Amr ibn ‘Alaa. he studied under Aboo al-Mundhir Salaam ibn
Sulaymaan. His qiraa’a goes back to the Prophet (PBUH) through Aboo Moosaa al-Ash’aree.
He was initially considered among the seven major Qaarees by many of the early scholars, but
Ibn Mujaahid gave his position to al-Kisaa’ee instead. He passed away in 205 A.H.
His two primary students were Ruways (Muhammad ibn Muttawakil, d. 238 A.H.) and Rooh
(Rooh ibn ‘Abd al-Mu’min al-Basree, d. 235 A.H.), who was one of the teachers of Imaam al-
Bukhaaree (d. 256 A.H.).

10) Khalaf:

This is the same Khalaf that is one of the two students of Hamzah. He adopted a specific
qiraa’a of his own, and is usually called Khalaf al-’Aashir (the ‘tenth’ Khalf).

His two primary students who preserved this qiraa’a were Ishaaq (Ishaaq ibn Ibraaheem ibn
‘Uthmaan, d. 286 A.H.) and Idrees (Idrees ibn ‘Abd al-Kareem al-Baghdaadee, d. 292 A.H.)

All of these ten qira’aat have authentic, mutawaatir chains of narration back to the Prophet
(PBUH). Each qiraa’a is preserved through two students of the Imaam of that qiraa’a. Of
course, these Qaarees had more than just two students; the reason that the qira’aat are
preserved through only two is that Aboo ‘Amr ‘Uthmaan ibn Sa’eed (d. 444), better known as
Imaam ad-Daanee, selected and preserved the recitation of the two best students of each
Qaaree in his book, Kitaab at-Tayseer fee al-Qira’aat as-Saba’. These two students are each
called Raawis (narrators), and they occasionally differ from each other. Thus, although other
Raawis also narrated each qiraa’a, only the recitation of two main Raawis have been
preserved in such detail. References to the recitation of other Raawis are, however, to be
found in the classical works of qira’aat.

These Raawis learnt the qiraa’a from their Imaam, and each preserved some of the variations
of the recitation of the Qaaree. Sometimes, the Qaaree taught different qira’aat to each Raawi.
Hafs quoted ‘Aasim as saying that the qiraa’a he taught him was that of Aboo ‘Abd al-
Rahmaan as-Sulamee (d. 70 A.H.) from ‘Alee ibn Abee Taalib, while the one that he taught
Aboo Bakr ibn ‘Iyaash (i.e., Shu’ba, the other Raawi of ‘Aasim) was that of Zirr ibn Hubaysh
(d. 83 A.H.) from Ibn Mas’ood. 449

However, typically the variations between the Raawis are minor when compared to the
differences between the qira’aat themselves (although usually there are differences in the rules
of tajweed of the Raawis). For example, Shu’ba and Hafs differ from each other in around
forty places in the whole Qur’aan. 450 To preserve even these differences, however, the
qira’aat are always mentioned including the Raawis. So, when someone recites the qira’aat of
Naafi’, for example, he should mention whether it is through Warsh or Qaloon (for example,
by saying, “The qira’aat of Naafi’ through the riwaayah of Warsh,” or, “The qiraa’a of Warsh
‘an Naafi’ ” for short). 451

Most of the time, these students, who were Qaarees in their own right, studied directly under
the Qaaree whose qiraa’a it was. Thus, for example, Warsh and Qaloon both studied under
Imaam Naafi’, as did Shu’bah and Hafs with Imaam ‘Aasim. However, sometimes, there was
an intermediary (or even two) between these students and the Imaam. When this occured, as
for example with Ibn Katheer, the intermediary was not mentioned above, so as not to prolong
the discussion. The interested reader may consult any of the references mentioned in the
beginning of this section.

There are four shaadh qira’aat (following the original defination above). These are not
considered as part of the Qur’aan, but maybe used as tafseer, and, according to some of the
madh-habs, as a basis for fiqh rulings as well. 452 The Qaarees whom they are named after
are:
1) al-Hasan al-Basree: This is the famous Successor, Hasan ibn Abee al-Hasan Yassaar Aboo
Sa’eed al-Basree. He passed away 110 A.H.

2) Ibn Muhaysin: He is Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Rahmaan as-Suhaymee al-Makkee. He was

one of the Chief Qaarees of Makkah, along with Ibn Katheer. He passed away 123 A.H.

3) Yahya al-Yazeedee: He is Yahya ibn al-Mubaarak ibn al-Mugheerah. He passed away 202
A.H.

4) al-Shamboozee: He is Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Ibraaheem al-Shamboozee. He passed

away 388 A.H.

These four qira’aat contain most of the qira’aat that were recited by the Companions and did
not conform to the mus-haf of ‘Uthmaan. Of course, these four qira’aat did not contradict the
mus-haf of ‘Uthmaan in every single verse; only occasionally is there a conflict.

VI. The Qira’at Today

The qira’aat were once a vital part of the Muslim ummah, and each part of the Muslim world
used to recite according to one of the qira’aat. Not surprisingly, the people of a particular city
would recite in the qiraa’a of the Qaaree of that city. Thus, for example, Makkee ibn Abee
Taalib (d. 437 A.H.) reported, in the third century of the hijrah, that the people of Basra
followed the recitation of Aboo ‘Amr, those of Koofah followed ‘Aasim, the Syrians followed
Ibn ‘Aamir, Makkah took after Ibn Katheer, and Madeenah followed Naafi’.

Eventually, however, most of the other qira’aat died out and were replaced by other ones.
Thus, the situation today is that the vast majority of the Muslim world recites only the qiraa’a
of ‘Aasim through the riwaya of Hafs (Hafs ‘an ‘Aasim). However, there are certain areas in
the world where other qira’aat are prevalent, and a rough breakdown is as follows:

This is obviously a rough very breakdown, based on the population in these respective
countries. 453

The qira’aat today are as a whole only memorisedin specialised institutions of higher learning
throughout the Muslim world (or, a student may study privately under a scholar who has
memorised these qira’aat). A student of the Qur’aan who wishes to memorise the qira’aat
must, of course, have already memorised the entire Qur’aan in atleast one qiraa’a. There are
two primary ways of memorising these qira’aat, and both involve memorising lengthy poems
that detail the rules of recitation (tajweed) of each qiraa’a, and the differences between them.

The first way is to memorise the Shaatibiyyah (its actual name is Hirz al-Amaanee wa Wajh
at-Tahaanee), which is a poem consisting of 1173 couplets, written by Imaam Qaasim ibn
Ahmad ash-Shaatibee (d. 548 A.H.), and then to memorise the Durrah (short for ad-Durrah al-
Madhiyyah) by Muhammad Ibn al-Jazaree (d. 832 A.H.). The first poem deals with the first
seven qira’aat. After a student of the Qur’aan has memorised this, he then moves on to the
second poem, which deals with the last three qira’aat. This is the primary method by which
the qira’aat are taught throughout the Muslim world.

The second method is to learn all ten qira’aat simultaneously, by memorising the Tayyibah
(short for Tayyibah an-Nashr fil Qira’aat al-’Ashr), which is a poem that deals with all ten
qira’aat , also by Muhammad ibn al-Jazaree. 454
VII. The Relationship of the Ahruf with the Qira’aat

The relationship of the ahruf with the authentic qira’aat must by essence depend upon what
the definition of ahruf is, and whether one believes that the ahruf are still in existence today.
Therefore, the scholars of Islaam have defined this relationship depending upon their
respective definitions of the ahruf. The three major opinions on this issue are as follows: 455

1) The opinion of Imaam at-Tabaree (d. 310 A.H.), Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (d. 463 A.H.), and others,
is that all the authentic qira’aat are based upon one harf of the Qur’aan. This is because, as
was mentioned in the last chapter, they hold that the mus-haf of ‘Uthmaan eliminated the
other six ahruf and preserved only one harf.

However, this opinion does not seem very strong, since, if the origin of all of the authentic
qira’aat is one harf, then where do all the differences between the qira’aat originate from? In
addition, as was mentioned in the previous chapter, the opinion that only one harf has been
preserved does not seem to be the strongest.

2) The opinion of al-Baaqillaani (d. 403 A.H.) and a few scholars is that all of the seven ahruf
are preserved in the qira’aat, such that each harf is found scattered throughout the qira’aat.
Therefore, there is no single qira’aat that corresponds exactly to any one harf, but each qiraa’a
represents various ahruf such that, in the sum total of the qira’aat, the ahruf are preserved.

This opinion also is based upon these scholars’ belief that all of the ahruf have been
preserved. This opinion seems like a strong opinion, except for the fact that there exists many
narrations in which the Companions used to recite differently from any of the present qira’aat
(these are today present in the shaadh qira’aat). It seems that they were reciting a peculiar harf
of the Qur’aan, but this was not preserved in the qira’aat. 456

3) The opinion of Makkee ibn Abee Taalib (d. 437 A.H.), Ibn al-Jazaree (d. 832 A.H.), Ibn
Hajr (d. 852 A.H.), as-Suyootee, and others, and the one that is perhaps the strongest, is that
the qira’aat represent portions of the seven ahruf, but not all of the seven ahruf in totality. The
differences between the qira’aat, even the most minute of differences, originate from the
seven ahruf, but not every difference between the seven ahruf is preserved in the qira’aat. This
goes back to our position on the existence of the ahruf today: that they exist inasmuch as the
script of the mus-haf of ‘Uthmaan allows them to. In the last chapter, the methodology that
the Companions used to decide which ahruf to preserve was discussed. Those ahruf that were
preserved are the ones that are in existence today, through the variations in the qira’aat.

To summarise the last two chapters, we quote Makkee ibn Abee Taalib (d. 437 A.H.), who
wrote,

“When the Prophet (PBUH) died, many of the Companions went to the newly conquered
territories of the Muslims, and this was during the time of Aboo Bakr and ‘Umar. They taught
them the recitation of the Qur’aan and the fundamentals of the religion. Each Companions
taught his particular area the recitation that he had learnt from the Prophet (PBUH) (i.e., the
various ahruf). Therefore the recitations of these territories differed based on the differences
of the Companions.

Now, when ‘Uthmaan ordered the writing of the mus-hafs, and sent them to the new
provinces, and ordered them to follow it and discard all other readings, each of the territories
continued to recite the Qur’aan the same way that they had done so before the mus-haf had
reached them, as long as it conformed to the mus-haf. If their recitation differed with the mus-
haf, they left that recitation…

This new recitation was passed on from the earlier generations to the later ones, until it
reached these seven Imaams 457 (Qaarees) in the same form, and they differed with each
other based upon the differences of the people of the territories - none of whom differed with
the mus-haf that ‘Uthmaan had sent to them. This, therefore, is the reason that the Qaarees
have differed with each other…” 458

Therefore, the differences in the qira’aat are ramnants of the differences in the way that the
Prophet (PBUH) taught the recitation of the Qur’aan to the different Companions, and these
differences were among the seven ahruf of the Qur’aan which Allaah reevaled to the Prophet
(PBUH). Thus, the ten authentic qira’aat preserve the final recitation that the Prophet (PBUH)
recited to Jibreel - in other words, the qira’aat are manifestations of the remaining ahruf of the
Qur’aan.

VIII. The Benefits of the Qira’aat

Since the qira’aat are based on the ahruf, many of the benefits of the qira’aat overlap with
those of the ahruf. Some of the benefits are as follows.

1) The facilitation of the memorisation of the Qur’aan. This includes not only differences in
pronunciations that the different Arab tribes were used to, but also the differences in words
and letters.

2) Proof that the Qur’aan is a revelation from Allaah, for notwithstanding the thousands of
differences between the qira’aat, not a single difference is contradictory.

3) Proof that the Qur’aan has been preserved exactly, as all of these qira’aat have been recited
with a direct, authentic, mutawaatir chain of narrators back to the Prophet (PBUH).

4) A further indication of the miraculous nature (’ijaaz) of the Qur’aan, because these qira’aat
add to the meaning and beauty of the Qur’aan in a complementary manner, as shall be shown
in the next section.

5) The removal of any stagnation that might exist with regards to the text of the Qur’aan. In
other words, there exist various ways and methodologies of recitaing the Qur’aan that are
different from each other in pronunciation and meaning, and thus the text remains vibrant and
never becomes monotonous. 459

IX. Some Examples of the Different Qira’aat

It is appropriate to conclude this chapter by quoting various verses that demonstrate some of
the differences in the qira’aat, with a discussion of the various meanings. 460 Four verses
were chosen, the first of which deals belief, the second and third with stories, and the last with
laws. In each verse, it will be seen that, far fromcontradicting each other, the qira’aat taken
together add much deeper meanings and connotations than any one of them individually. In
fact, the various readings between the qira’aat are considered - in terms of extracting rulings
from verses - as two seperate verses, both of which must be looked into, and neither of which
can abrogate the other.
The scholars of this century, Muhammad Ameen ash-Shanqeetee (d. 1393 A.H.), said in his
famous tafseer, Adwaa al-Bayaan, “In the event that the different qira’aat seem to give
contradictory rulings, they are considered as different verses…” 461 meaning that both of
them must be taken into account for the final ruling to be given. This same principal applies in
verses that deal with stories or belief, as the example below will show.

1) Soorah Faatihah, verse 4.

The first reading, that of ‘Aasim and al-Kisaa’ee, is maaliki yawm ad-deen. This is the
recitation that most of the readers will be familiar with. The word maalik means ‘master,
owner,’ and is one of the Names of Allaah. The emaning of this name when attributed to
Allaah is that Allaah is the one who Possesses and Owns all of the Creation, and therefore He
has full right to do as He pleases with His creation, and He has the power to do what He
pleases with His creation, and no one can stop or question Him.

The verse therefore translates, “The Only Owner of the Day of Judgement.” This name
(maalik) is also mentioned in,

“Say: O Allaah! Maalik (Possessor) of (all) Kingdoms!” (Qur’�n, 3:26)

Allaah is the Owner who Possesses all things, and on the Day of Judgement, He will Own
Rulership and Kingship. As Allaah says,

“The sovereignty on that day (i.e., the Day of Judgement) will be the true (sovereignty),
belonging to the Most Beneficent” (Qur’�n, 25:26)

If Allaah is the only Maalik on the Day of Judgement, this automatically implies that He is the
Maalik before the Day of Judgement also, since the one who is the Maalik on that day must be
the Maalik of all that was before that Day!

The second reading, that of Naafi’, Aboo ‘Amr, Ibn ‘Aamar, Ibn Katheer and Hamzah, is
maliki yawm ad-deed, without the alif. The word ‘malik’ means, “king, sovereign, monarch,”
and is also one of the Names of Allaah. This also has the connotation of the one who has
power to judge. A king (Malik) possesses not only wealth and property (like a Maalik), but
also the authority to rule, judge and command. The verse therefore translates, “The King (and
the Only Ruling Judge) of the Day of Judgement.” Malik, as one of the names of Allaah, is
mentioned in the Qur’aan:

“…the King…” (Qur’�n, 59:23)

and also

“The King of men” (Qur’�n, 114:2)

The name of All�h ‘Malik’ is a description of Allaah (i.e., sifah dhaatiyyah), since He is ‘The
King’; whereas the name ‘Maalik’ is a description of Allaah and His actions (i.e., sifah
fi’liyyah), since He is ‘The Owner’ of all of His creation. 462

It can be seen that the two readings increase the overall meaning of the verse, each giving a
connotation not given by the other, and thus increasing the beauty and eloquence of the verse.
“The result of the two qiraa’a is that Allaah is the Maalik on the Day of Judgement, and the
Malik. So on that Day, He will be the Owner (Maalik) of the Day of Judgement - no other
person will be an owner besides Him in Judgement, even though they might have been
owners of judgement in this world. And Allaah is the King (Malik) of the Day of Judgement,
besides all else of His creation, who, in this world, were mighty and arrogant kings…so on
this day, these (kings) will know for sure that they are in reality the most humiliated of
creation, and that the true Might, and Power, and Glory and Kingship belongs only to Allaah,
as Allaah, all Glory and Praise be to Him, has said,

“The Day when they will (all) come out, nothing of them will be hidden from Allaah. Whose
is the Kingdom on this day?! (Allaah Himself will reply:) It is All�h’s, the Unique, the
Irresistible” (Qur’�n, 40:16)

So, All�h has informed us that He is the Malik of the Day of Judgement, meaning that He is
the only one whom Kingship belongs to, besides all the kings and rulers of this world, and on
this day these kings and rulers will be in the greatest humiliation and disgrace, instead of their
(wordly) power and glory…

And All�h has informed us that He is the Maalik of the Day of Judgement, meaning that He
is the only one whom Ownership belongs to. So, there is none that can pass judgements or
rule on that Day except Him.” 463

2) Soorah al-Baqarah, verse 259.

This verse tells the story of a man who passed by a deserted town, and wondered how All�h
would ever bring it back to life. Thus, as a miracle for him, Allaah caused him to die for a
hundred years, then brought him back to life. Allaah also brought the man’s donkey back to
life in front of his eyes.

The first reading of the relevant part of the verse, by al-Kisaa’ee, Ibn ‘Aamir, ‘Aasim and
Hamzah, is, “kayfa nunshizuha”. This is in reference to the resurrection of the donkey. The
word nunshizuha means, “to cause to rise.” The verse therefore translates , “Look at the bones
(of the Donkey), how We raise them up,” meaning, “…how We cause the bones to join one
another and stand up again (from the dust).”

The second reading, by Aboo’ Amr, Naafi’ and Ibn Katheer, is, “kayfa nunshiruha”. The word
nunshiruha means, “to bring to life, to resurrect.” The verse then translates, “…how We
resurrect it and bring it back to life.”

Again, both readings give different meanings, but put together these readings help form a
more complete picture. The bones of the donkey were ‘raised up’ from the dust and
‘resurrected’ (meaning clothed with flesh) in front of the man. Each reading gives only a part
of the picture, but put together, a more graphic picture is given.

3) In the last portion of the same verse, the readings differ as follows:

The first reading, that of Naafi’, Ibn Katheer, ‘Aasim, Ibn ‘Aamir and Aboo Amr, is “Qaalaa
a’lamu ana Allaaha ‘alaa kulli shayin qadeer”. This translates as, “He said, ‘I (now) know that
Allaah is indeed capable of all things.’” This shows that, after this miraculous display, the
man finally believed that All�h could bring the dead back to life, and repented from his
previous statement.
The second reading, that of Hamzah and al-Kisaa’ee, is, “Qala ‘lam ana Allaaha…” which
translates as, “It was said (to him): ‘Know that Allaah is capable of all things.’” In this
reading, after the resurrection of the donkey was shown to him, he was ordered to believe that
Allaah was indeed All-Powerful.

Once again, each reading adds more meaning to the overall picture. After this miraculous
display, the man was commanded to know that Allaah is indeed capable of all things. He
responded to this command, and testified that, indeed, Allaah is capable of all things. 464

4) Soorah al-Maaidah, verse 6.

For the last example, it will be seen that even different fiqh ruling are given by the differences
in the qira’aat.

The relevant verse discusses the procedure for ablution (wudoo). In the reading of Naafi’, Ibn
‘Aamir, al-Kisaa’ee and Hafs, the verse reads as follows: “O you who believe! When you
intend to pray, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, wipe your heads, and (wash)
your feet up to the ankles…” The word ‘feet’ is read arjulakum, and in this tense, it refers
back to the verb ‘wash.’ Therefore, the actual washing of the feet is commanded, according to
this recitation.

The remaining qira’aat pronounce the word arjulikum, in which case it refers back to the verb
‘wipe,’ so the verse would read, “…wash your faces and hands up to the elbows, and wipe
your hands and feet…” According to this recitation, washing is not obligatory, and wiping is
sufficient.

This is an apparent contradiction between the qira’aat. Does one ‘wipe’ his feet (meaning pass
water over it, similar to how the head is wiped in ablution), or does one actually wash his feet
(like the hands and face are washed)? In fact, there is no contradiction whatsoever, for each
recitation applies to a different circumstance. In general, the ablution is performed by
‘washing’ the feet. However, if a person is wearing shoes or socks, and he had ablution before
putting them on, he is allowed - in fact even encouraged - to ‘wipe’ over his feet, and is not
obliged to wash them. 465 Az-Zarkashee said, “These two verses can be combined to
understand that one reading deals with wiping over the socks, while the second reading deals
with washing the feet (in case of not wearing socks).” 466

Therefore, each of these recitations adds a very essential ruling concerning the ablution, and
there is no contradiction between them.

It can be seen from this section that the qira’aat are a part of the eloquence of the Qur’aan,
and form an integral factor in the miraculous nature of the Qur’aan. For indeed, what other
book in human history can claim the vitality that is displayed in the qira’aat - the subtle
vatiations in letters and words that change and complement the meaning of the verse, not only
in story-telling but also in beliefs and commands and prohibitions! To add to this miracle, all
of these changes originate from the one script of ‘Uthmaan! Indeed, there can be no doubt the
Qur’aan is the ultimate miracle of the Prophet (PBUH).

Notes and References

415 Itr, p. 244

416 Wohaibee, p. 46

417 az-Zarqaanee, v.1, p. 404.

418 It should be kept in mind that this is a partial list and is far from exhaustive. Those who
are interested may consult Ubaydaat, p. 164, Qattaan, p. 170, and az-Zarqaanee, v.1, pps. 414-
416.

419 Uwais, p. 16.

420 Ibn Mujaahid, p. 87.

421 Ibn al-Jazaree, p. 39.

422 This is very similar to what happened in the history of hadeeth. The reason that six
particular books of hadeeth (a-Bukhaaree, Muslim, Aboo Daawood, at-Tirmidhee, an-
Nasaa’ee and Ibn Maajah) are known as the “Sihaah Sitta” or the “Six Authentic Books”, is
because of one book on the ‘Names of Narrators’, Asmaa ar-Rijaal, written by ‘Abd al-
Ghanee al-Maqdisee (d. 600 A.H.). Due to the throughness of this work, people started
classifying these six books separately from other works of hadeeth, and many considered
these six books as authentic (saheeh). This description, however, is only applicable on the two
saheeh collection of al-Bukhaaree and Muslim; the rest of these works contain both authentic
and inauthentic ahaadeeth.

423 Ibn al-Jazaree, p. 9. I have paraphrased from the Arabic.

424 cf. az-Zarqaanee, v.1, p. 422.

425 He is ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Ishaaq az-Zujjaaj al-Nihawandee (d. 332), a noted Muslim
grammarian.

426 az-Zarkashee, Bahr, v.1, p. 471.

427 The qiraa’a of ‘Aasim and al-Kisaa’ee

428 The qiraa’a of Warsh, Ibn Katheer, Ibn ‘Aamir, Hamzah and Aboo ‘Amr.

429 The qiraa’a of ‘Aasim, and others

430 The qiraa’a of Naafi’, and others

431 Ibn al-Jazaree, p. 13.

432 Makkee ibn Abee Taalib is quoted as having been the first to hold this opinion in all the
works that I have come across discussing this topic (also see, al-Qadhi, p. 8). However, I
came across another work of his entitled Kitaab al-Ibaanah ‘an Ma’aani al-Qira’aat, in which
he clearly states that any qiraa’a must be mutawaatir for it to be accepted. For example, on p.
43, while discussing the shaadh qira’aat, he states, “…and the Qur’aan cannot be confirmed
with an ahaad narration;” on p. 31, “…and this (i.e., taking a shaadh qira’aat) implies
confirming the Qur’aan with an ahaad narration, and this is not allowed by any of the people
(of knowledge).” Elsewhere (p. 39), he clearly states concerning this opinion “…and this is
the opinion we believe and hold to.” I did not see any of the other books that I read mention
these quotes, so I do not know whether this was his earlier opinion, or his later one, nor could
I ascertain when he wrote the book. In any case, further research must be done to ascertain
whether this really was the final opinion of Makkee ibn Abee Taalib.

433 al-Qadhi, p.8.

434 Uwais, p. 12, quoting from Ibn al-Jazaree’s Munjid al-Muqreen. Also, see Uwais’
discussion on this point, pps. 11-14.

435 Other scholars make a differentiation between the Qur’aan and the qira’aat, and state that,
in order for the Qur’aan to be accepted, the narrations must be mutawaatir, but in order for a
qiraa’a to be accepted, an ahaad narration will suffice. However, this differentiation does not
seem to solve the problem, for the qira’aat are the Qur’aan, and the Qur’aan is preserved in all
of the qira’aat. Therefore, if a qiraa’a is substantiated as authentic, that automatically implies
that it is part of the Qur’aan.

436 This is not to say that there have not existed qira’aat that Arab grammarians have not
found fault with. There have been numerous attempts to prove various grammatical ‘faults’ in
the qira’aat, but other grammarians have always proven that such readings do have
grammatical basis for them. cf. al-Qaaree, Abd al-Aziz: Hadith al-Ahruf as-Saba’ah, in
Majalah Kulliyah al-Qur’aan al-Kareem, v. 1, 1983, p. 115, for examples.

437 al-Qaaree, p. 116, with paraphrasing. The addition in brackets are mine.

438 Qaasim ibn Ahmad as-Shaatibee (d. 590 A.H.) compiled the seven qira’aat of Aboo Bakr
ibn Mujaahid in a poem known as the Shaatibiyah to facilitate its memorisation.

439 as-Suyootee, v.1, p.82

440 Ubaydaat, p. 178

441 as-Suyootee, v.1, p. 102

442 cf. as-Suyootee, v.1, p. 102

443 All of the biographical information in this section, unless otherwise referenced, was taken
from al-Banna v.1, pps. 19-32, az-Zarqaanee, v.1, pps 456-477, and al-Haashimee, pps. 39-
155.

444 al-Haashimee, p. 39

445 Hence his opinion of the origin of the word ‘Qur’aan’; cf, Ch.2, ‘The meaning of the
word ‘qur’aan’.

446 al-Haashimee, p. 59

447 The tenth of Muharram

448 al-Haashimee, p. 116

449 Wohaibee, p. 106

450 Meaning that they differ from each other in forty words, but since these words occur a
total of around five hundred times in the Qur’aan, it might appear that their differences are
many. cf. al-Qaaree, p. 140

451 Actually, there is a third level of narration, below that of raawi, called tareeq (path). Each
raawi has two tareeqs. The differences between the turuq (pl. of tareeq) are negligible for our
purposes, concentrating mainly on where to stop, certain variations in the particulars of
pronunciation, etc. However, on some occasions there are noticeable differences. For
example, compare a Qur’aan printed in Pakistan (Taj Company, for example) and one printed
in Saudi Arabia or Egypt, and see 30:54. The difference in the words Da’fin and Du’fin are
due to the differences in the turuq of the qiraa’a of Hafs ‘an ‘Aasim!

452 cf. az-Zarkashee, Bahr, pps, 474-480, for a discussion of this point.

453 The table was taken from al-Habash, p. 50. In this author’s opinion, he has greatly
exaggerated the predominance of the qiraa’a of Ibn ‘Aamir; ad-Dooree’s percentage should
also be less; Qaloon should be more than 0.7%. In addition, Hafs is probably closer to 97 than
95%, and Allaah knows best.

454 The Tayyibah is more advanced than the Shaatibiyyah-plus-Durrah combination, since
Ibn al-Jazaree recorded more differences between the various turuq than ash-Shaatibee did.

455 cf. Itr, pps. 346-357

456 See the chapter entitled, “The Ahruf of the Qur’aan,” for a discussion of the existence of
the ahruf today.

457 Actually, until it reached the ten Qaarees, and not just seven.

458 Ibn Abee Taalib, Abu Muhammad Makkee: Kitaab al-Ibaanah ‘an Ma’ani al-Qira’aat. ed.
Dr. Muhyi Ramadaan. Dar al-Mamoon li Thurath, Beirut, 1979, p. 39

459 This is not to imply that the Qur’aan would have become monotonous had the qira’aat not
existed, but rather that the different qira’aat are one of the factors that contribute to this
miraculous effect. Any person who has dealth with the qira’aat knows this feeling.

460 Many of the differences in the qira’aat do not affect the meaning of a verse, but rather
change only the pronunciation of certain vowels and letters. However, this section discusses
only those differences that result in a change in meaning.

461 Adwaa al-Bayaan, v. 6, p. 680

462 al-Hamood, p. 88

463 Baazmool, v. 1, p. 403

464 In this verse in particular, the i’jaaz of the Qur’aan can be felt, for the very same verse is
the command and response!
465 See Fiqh as-Sunnah, v.1, pps. 44-46, for further details on this issue.

466 az-Zarkashee, v.2, p. 52

Nuffnang Ads