In the name of Allah the Most Gracious the Most Merciful
Introduction:
Two years ago, we authored an article titled “Classifications of the Seven Ahruf Don’t Include QBM,” in which we clarified that works on the sciences of the Qurʾān do not mention either of these theories among their categories. For instance, Ibn Ḥibbān (d. 354 AH) lists thirty-five different opinions on the definition of the seven aḥruf, from which Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597 AH) selected those he deemed credible. Later, Al-Suyūṭī (d. 911 AH) listed sixteen opinions, none of which include interpretive reading. Today, the American preacher Yasir Qadhi introduces his theory of Divine Permission into this long-standing discussion…
He said:
But what of the reference works of ulūm al-Qur’ān, such as the Burhān of al-Zarkashī or the Itqān of al-Suyūți? Surely the Divine Permission model, even if they did not agree with it, could not have been ignored by them in their lists of opinions? When one re-reads these classics, it becomes apparent that this opinion is mentioned quite explicitly. For example, al-Zarkashī in his Burhān discusses the various interpretations of ahruf and actually cites al-Tahawī by name, and mentions (in opinion five) that the reality of ahruf are word synonyms. He cites many of the same examples of the variants of the Companions mentioned previously in this article, and he explicitly claims that ‘Uthmān only preserved one harf. Al-Suyuti in his Itqān famously lists thirty-five opinions on what the ahruf might be, of which number nine is precisely this opinion: that the ahruf represents synonymous wordings. He too quotes al-Tahawi’s claim that early generations could not read or write, so it would have been difficult for them to memorise one wording. He illustrates this opinion with the incident of ibn Mas’ud instructing the man to recite ta’am al-fajir in lieu of ta’ām al-athīm. Perhaps because neither of these authors mentioned the phrase al-qirā’ah bi-l-ma’na nor explicitly stated where these synonyms originated from, it became easier to gloss over these explicit references and assume – as many later authorities did – that the reference here was to synonyms that the Prophet himself recited (i.e., the Dictation Model). But by quoting al-Tahawī, who states that only one wording was revealed and the rest came from the Companions, clearly these authorities did not intend what others seem to have understood from them.[1]
Ibn Kathīr was among those who preceded Al-Zarkashī and Al-Suyūṭī in attributing this opinion to Ibn ʿUyaynah, Ibn Wahb, Al-Ṭabarī, and Al-Ṭaḥāwī. However, Qadhi limited himself to mentioning that Ibn Kathīr attributed this view to Al-Ṭaḥāwī alone.
General Response:
Qadhi claims that “it becomes apparent that this opinion is mentioned quite explicitly,” the alludes to the fifth opinion by al-Zarkashī and ninth by Al-Suyūṭī, neither of which have anything to do with his “Divine Permission Model.”
He also said: “Perhaps because neither of these authors mentioned the phrase al-qirā’ah bi-l-ma’na nor explicitly stated where these synonyms originated from, it became easier to gloss over these explicit references and assume – as many later authorities did – that the reference here was to synonyms that the Prophet himself recited (i.e., the Dictation Model).”
They did not mention QBM, reciting as per one’s whims, reciting based on personal reasoning, recitations affected by forgetfulness, or “divine permission”. Rather, they provided examples of synonymous readings with close meanings, which also occur in readings transmitted by direct teaching (talaqqī). In Al-Zarkashī’s work, we find examples that contradict this theory. One such example is the narration of Abu Bakra (may Allah be pleased with him), where Jibrīl (peace be upon him) said, “Recite on one ḥarf,” to which Mīkāʾīl responded, “Ask for more,” until it reached seven aḥruf.[2] Another example is the narration where the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “O Ubayy, I was taught the Qur’an, and I said: ‘On one or two aḥruf?’ The angel said: ‘On two aḥruf,’ and I said: ‘On two or three aḥruf?’ And it continued like this until it reached seven ahruf.”[3]
Both hadiths are explicit about the number of aḥruf, and the second clearly refers to the transmission through teaching (talaqqī). How, then, did Qadhi overlook these narrations? And how can he claim this to represent his theory when there is evidence that Al-Zarkashī and Al-Suyūṭī did not intend it?
Moreover, specifying the number as seven directly contradicts the theory of Divine Permission, as forgetfulness cannot be limited to a specific number.
Additionally, both Al-Zarkashī and Al-Suyūṭī extensively discussed the meanings of the aḥruf. Al-Zarkashī even considered Al-Ṭaḥāwī’s statement—that the seven aḥruf had been abrogated and returned to a single ḥarf—as an independent opinion.[4] So, how could they neglect something more significant, such as the theory of Divine Permission?
Detailed Response:
To trace the origin of this opinion, namely the fifth opinion according to Al-Zarkashī and the ninth according to Al-Suyūṭī, we must return to the original source of the transmission. These two sections are largely based on what was presented in Al-Tamhīd by Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, as most of their content stems from his words and citations for those who examine them closely.[5]
Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr was the first to attribute this opinion to Sufyān bin ʿUyaynah, Ibn Wahb, Al-Ṭabarī, and Al-Ṭaḥāwī. Al-Zarkashī and Al-Suyūṭī subsequently followed his lead in this attribution.
So, does Qadhi truly believe that the concept of divine permission is firmly established among these prominent scholars? If that were the case, why did he not attribute this view to them, as he did with Al-Shafi’ī, Yaḥyā bin Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān, Abū Isḥāq al-Qāḍī, and Abū ʿAwāna? Regarding Sufyān and Ibn Wahb, they are known to have said very little on the matter, making it difficult to ascertain their exact stance. As for Al-Ṭabarī, there is no doubt about his position on recitation by direct transmission (talaqqī). This is evident from his preference for specific readings, his acceptance of different wordings in the same context, and his statement: “The Prophet (peace be upon him) commanded that both readings be recited.”[6]
As for Al-Ṭaḥāwī, Qadhi clung to him when he encountered certain expressions that suggested Al-Ṭaḥāwī allowed the substitution of synonyms. However, all such claims have been refuted in another article. When Qadhi found Al-Ṭaḥāwī mentioned among one of the opinions, he hastily asserted that this opinion was none other than the Divine Permission Model. But, upon returning to the original context of this view, the true intention behind Al-Ṭaḥāwī’s mention becomes clear.
Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr mentioned these four scholars and clarified their statements’ commonalities. He narrated with his chain of transmission from Sufyān bin ʿUyaynah that when he was asked whether the differences between the Madinans and Iraqis fell under the seven aḥruf, he replied: “No, the seven aḥruf are like their saying: Halumma, Aqbil, Taʿāl (come)—whichever of these you say suffices.”
Abū Ṭāhir commented: “And Ibn Wahb said the same.”
Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr also quoted the explanation of Al-Asbahānī, the reciter, who said:
“The meaning of Sufyān’s statement is that the differences between the Iraqis and the Madinans pertain to one of the seven aḥruf.”
So where, in this, is the notion of QBM or Divine Permission? Is there any mention of the Sahabah forgetting or exercising their own reasoning in their recitations? Rather, Sufyān’s response was solely about the differences between the Madinans and Iraqis, and his statement that the seven aḥruf are “like saying Halumma, Aqbil, Taʿāl” clearly indicates that the seven aḥruf are synonymous expressions with similar meanings.
Al-Asbahānī’s explanation is crucial here, as he clarified that what is intended are words that differ in form but are close in meaning. Since the ‘Uthmānic codex was written in one of the seven aḥruf, people could no longer read in a way that differed in form.
Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr then said: “This was also the view of Muḥammad bin Jarīr al-Ṭabarī.”[7]
This is clearly evident in the introduction to his exegesis, where, after acknowledging that the seven aḥruf refer to different dialects,[8] he notes that what we have today is only one of these ahruf, following the compilation of the Qurʾān by Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him.[9] This does not include variations in recitation that involve differences in case endings (nominative, genitive, or accusative), the pronunciation of vowels (whether a letter is silent or vocalized), or the substitution of one letter for another while maintaining the same script.[10] Examples of such variations include expressions like “Halumma,” “Aqbil” “Taʿāl,” “Ilayya,” “Qaṣdī,” “Naḥwī,” “Qurbī,” and so on.[11] This closely aligns with what Ibn ʿUyaynah mentioned when discussing the differences between the recitations of Iraqis and Medinans, and it has no connection to the Divine Permission.
Then, he cited the words of Al-Ṭaḥāwī:
“These seven aḥruf in recitation were permitted for the people due to their inability to learn the Qur’an in a uniform manner, as they were mostly illiterate, with only a few among them able to write. It would have been difficult for each individual, accustomed to a particular dialect, to shift to another. Even if they tried, they could only do so with great hardship. Thus, there was a concession for them in the variation of expressions as long as the meanings matched. This continued until the number of those who could write increased, and the people’s dialects gradually conformed to the language of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. At that point, they read the Qurʾān with care to preserve its exact pronunciation, and they were no longer permitted to recite it in any other way. What we have explained makes clear that the allowance for reciting in seven aḥruf was temporary due to a specific necessity, which has since been lifted. Consequently, the ruling of these seven aḥruf no longer applies, and the recitation has returned to a single form.”[12]
This statement is similar to Al-Ṭabarī’s view on the origin of the seven letters, where he also explains that they represent different dialects and that people eventually reverted to a single dialect. For this reason, Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr mentioned him along with the other scholars, in the same section. However, Al-Ṭaḥāwī’s definition is more comprehensive, as explained in a separate article.
Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr then succinctly summarized his purpose in referencing these four prominent scholars—though we do not fully agree with him—by saying:
“This is the meaning of the seven aḥruf mentioned in the hadiths, according to the majority of scholars of jurisprudence and hadith, and the muṣḥaf of ʿUthmān, may Allah be pleased with him, which is in the hands of the people today, represents only one of these aḥruf.”[13]
This is the common thread among these statements, and it has nothing to do with reciting by meaning, personal preference, forgetfulness, individual reasoning, or a divine permission, as Qadhi has concluded.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, Qadhi has no right to claim that scholars such as Ibn Kathīr, Al-Zarkashī, Al-Suyūṭī, and others who compiled definitions of the seven aḥruf included the concept of “divine permission” within their explanations. Forcing this theory into their discussions and into the list of theories is nothing but a display of Qadhi’s scholarship.
And Allah knows best. May peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad and his family and companions.
Sources:
- Al-Qaysī, Makkī bin Abī Ṭālib, Al-Ibanah ‘an Ma’ani al-Qira’at. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, 1432 AH.
- Al-Suyūṭī, Jalāluddīn. Al-Itqan fi ‘Ulum al-Qur’an. Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1429 AH.
- Al-Ṭabarī, Muḥammad bin Jarīr. Tafsir al-Tabari. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 1412 AH.
- Al-Ṭaḥāwī, Abū Jaʿfar. Tuḥfat al-Akhyār bi Tartīb Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār. Riyadh: Dār Balansiyyah, 1420 AH.
- Al-Zarkashī, Badr al-Dīn. Al-Burhan fi ‘Ulum al-Qur’an. Beirut: Al-Maktabah al-ʿAṣriyyah, 1435 AH.
- Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, Abū ʿUmar. Al-Istiḏkār. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, 1423 AH.
- Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, Abū ʿUmar. Al-Tamhīd limā fī al-Muwattaʾ min Maʿānī. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1423 AH.
- Qadhi, Yasir. “An Alternative Opinion on the Reality of the ‘Seven Ahruf’ and Its Relationship with the Qira’at.” History of the Quran – Approaches and Explorations, edited by F. Redhwan Karim. Kube Publishing, 2024.
- Qadhi, pp. 248-249 ↑
- Al-Zarkashī, 1/158; Al-Suyūṭī, p. 108. ↑
- Al-Zarkashī, 1/158 ↑
- Ibid., p. 160. ↑
- Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Al-Tamhīd, 4/281-286. ↑
- Al-Ṭabarī, 10/476 ↑
- Makkī bin Abī Ṭālib cites Al-Ṭabarī opposing this view. See: Al-Ibānah, p. 152. ↑
- Al-Ṭabarī, 1/43. ↑
- Ibid., 1/48 ↑
- Ibid., 1/56 ↑
- Ibid., 1/48 ↑
- Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Al-Tamhīd, 4/286. ↑
- Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Al-Istiḏkār, 2/483. ↑