After coming across false attributions by contemporaries of the concept of Qirāʾah bil Maʿna (or QBM) and the permissibility of altering words based on personal preference to earlier scholars, I examined what both early and later scholars have discussed regarding the definition of the seven aḥruf. I was struck by their lack of mention of this unconventional theory. This contrasts with their approach to a similar issue—narrating hadiths by meaning and wording—where Al-Khaṭīb Al-Baghdādī, for example, provides accounts of those who adhered to each of these views. Among these is the statement of Ibn ‘Awn:
“I encountered six individuals; three were strict regarding the wording, while three permitted it upon the meaning. Those strict with the wording were Al-Qāsim bin Muḥammad, Rajāʾ bin Ḥaywah, and Muḥammad bin Sīrīn, while those cared only about the meaning were Al-Ḥasan, Al-Shaʿbī, and Al-Nakhaʿī.”[1]
The absence of such information in the writings of scholars concerning QBM or DP leads us to two possibilities: first, that there was consensus among the Qurʾān reciters from among the Sahabah, Tabiʿūn, and those who came after that recitation was solely through direct transmission, or second, that they unanimously accepted QBM. It would have been documented if the matter were truly a point of contention.
The first, more widely accepted view, supported by a group of the Sahabah and the Tabiʿūn, asserts that “recitation is a matter of tradition.”[2] This view is well-known among many of them, who adhered closely to the readings of their teachers. For instance, some explicitly stated that they did not deviate from their teacher’s reading even in a single word, such as Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī with ʿAlī.[3] Similarly, ʿĀṣim only differed from his teacher, Abū ʿAbd al- Raḥmān, when it came to one word,[4] and Ḥafṣ maintained the same adherence to ʿĀṣim.[5]
As for the second view, no explicit statement from the early reciters supports it. However, some contemporaries often attribute these opinions to them. Unfortunately, some have recklessly ascribed this view to a group including al-Shāfi‘ī, Yaḥyā bin Saʿīd, al-Zuhrī, Abū ʿAwānah, and al-Ṭaḥāwī.
Due to the abundance of these attributed opinions, one might mistakenly think that this is the majority view. However, the reality is otherwise. Here we find Ibn Ḥibbān (d. 354 AH) listing the opinions of scholars regarding the definition of the seven aḥruf, mentioning thirty-five different views, none of which suggest that the ahruf permit recitation using synonymous words. Could it be that Ibn Ḥibbān was unaware of what proponents of these views claim to be the most famous and authentic opinion, to the extent that he prioritized thirty-five other views over it?[6]
Then came Ibn al-Jawzī, who stated:
“Abū Ḥātim Ibn Ḥibbān, the hadith scholar, mentioned that the scholars differed in their interpretation of its meaning, citing thirty-five opinions, which he listed. Among them are views that are not suitable to rely upon in interpreting the hadith. Others mentioned additional opinions, and I have selected from all the opinions those that are worth mentioning and will clarify the most accurate one, Allah willing.”[7]
He did not mention the permissibility of reciting using synonyms.
After him came Al-Suyūṭī (d. 911 AH), who reduced the number of opinions to sixteen, yet none of them indicated the permissibility of reciting using synonyms. However, he did mention in the second opinion something that some use as evidence, stating:
“The second opinion is that the term ‘seven’ does not literally refer to a specific number but rather signifies ease, facilitation, and broad allowance. The term ‘seven’ is often used to imply a large number, much like how ‘seventy’ is used for multiples of ten and ‘seven hundred’ for multiples of one hundred, without intending a precise count. This interpretation was favored by al-Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ and those who followed him.”[8]
We concede that rejecting the literal meaning of the hadith and interpreting the number as figurative is a prerequisite for the Divine Permission model and QBM. However, this is merely one aspect of the theory, as there is no inherent contradiction between such an interpretation and the idea that the modes of recitation were transmitted directly from the Prophet (peace be upon him). This is the position of al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ, who explicitly stated:
“Consensus has been established on the prohibition of altering the Qurʾān. If any Muslim were to add even a single letter to a word, lighten what is emphasized, or emphasize what is light, people would immediately reject it. How much more so if many of its words were altered?”[9]
It should be noted that al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ did not definitively endorse the view that the number seven is figurative; rather, he mentioned it while reviewing the various opinions. He said: “Some have claimed it is a definite number, which is the opinion of the majority, while others said it implies ease and facilitation without intending a specific number.”[10]
It is noteworthy that Al-Suyūṭī did not find this opinion mentioned among the early scholars; after all, al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ belonged to the sixth century, making this view a very late one. It should not be given much weight since Ibn Hibban did not mention it, nor was it asserted by any of those to whom the theory of Divine Permission or QBM has been attributed.
Moreover, in Al-Itqān, Al-Suyūṭī did not differentiate between Al-Taḥāwī’s view and that of others concerning the meaning of the seven ahruf.[11] He simply described it as seven aspects of similar meanings expressed through different wordings, grouping Al-Taḥāwī with Al-Bāqillānī, who is well known for his stance that the recitations were transmitted directly.[12] I highlight Al- Taḥāwī specifically because he is among those most frequently accused of this view by some contemporaries—may Allah guide them.
As with the case of Ibn Ḥibbān, it is unreasonable to believe that the concept of synonymous recitation could have been a well-known and accepted position yet remain unknown to Al- Suyūṭī, such that he would not reference it in any way. This suggests that attributing this view to earlier scholars is certainly false, based on a superficial reading of classical texts, and through the singling out of short passages.
And praise be to Allah, the Lord of all worlds.
Note: This article was initially written in the Arabic language years ago here and we have found that Yasir Qadhi has attempted to respond to sections of it in his latest article. Our response to his failed attempt can be found here.
Sources:
- Al-Baqillānī, Al-Intiṣār. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1433 AH.
- Al-Dānī, Jāmi‘ al-Bāyan fī al-Qirā’āt al-Sab‘. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1426 AH.
- Al-Dhahabī, Ma‘rifat al-Qurrā’ al-Kibār. Tanta: Dar al-Sahabah, 1428 AH.
- Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, Al-Kifāyah. Samanud: Maktabat Ibn ‘Abbās, 2002 CE.
- Al-Suyūṭī, Al-Itqān fī ‘Ulūm al-Qurʾān. Beirut: Mu’assasat al-Risālah, 1429 AH.
- Al-Yaḥṣubī, Ikmāl al-Muʿlim bi-Fawā’id Muslim. Mansoura: Dār al-Wafāʾ, 1419 AH.
- Ibn al-Jawzī, Funūn al-Afnān fī ‘Uyūn ‘Ulūm al-Qur’ān. Beirut: Dār al-Bashāʾir, 1408 AH.
- Ibn Mujāhid, Al-Sab‘a fī al-Qirā’āt. Cairo: Dar al-Ma‘arif, 1972 CE.
- Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, Al-Kifāyah, vol. 1, p. 553. ↑
- Ibn Mujāhid, Al-Sab‘a, pp. 50-52. ↑
- Al-Dhahabī, Ma‘rifat al-Qurra’ al-Kibar, p. 18. ↑
- Al-Dānī, Jami‘ al-Bayan, p. 609. ↑
- Ibid., p. 532. ↑
- Al-Suyūṭī, Al-Itqān, pp. 110-112. ↑
- Ibn al-Jawzī, Funūn al-Afnān, p. 200. ↑
- Al-Suyūṭī, Al-Itqān, p. 105. ↑
- Al-Yaḥṣubī, Ikmāl al-Mu‘lim, vol. 3, pp. 191-192. ↑
- Ibid., Ikmāl al-Mu‘lim, vol. 3, p. 187. ↑
- Al-Suyūṭī, Al-Itqān, p. 107. ↑
- Al-Bāqillāni, Al-Intiṣār, pp. 284-285. ↑