ناصر الدين ابو المعالي بركه خان 🇲🇳 🇸🇴 🇵🇸🏴

Refutation of Allāhyārī's Claim That the Abandonment of The Six Aḥruf Proves the Corruption of the Qur'an, from Imam Al Ṭabarī's Tafsir The objection concerning the preservation of the Qur'an arises from the authentic reports that Allah revealed it upon seven aḥruf. If the Prophet ﷺ permitted the Companions to recite according to seven aḥruf, yet ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān رضي الله عنه subsequently restricted the Muslims to one, does this not establish that six parts of the revelation were lost? Imam Abū Jaʿfar al Ṭabarī (d. 310 AH) answers this objection by distinguishing between the obligation to preserve the Qur'an and the permission to recite it according to different aḥruf. The seven aḥruf were not seven separate collections of the Qur'an, each containing revelation absent from the others. Rather, the differences concerned alternative expressions through which the same verses could be recited. These differences were permitted by the Prophet ﷺ, but the Muslims were not obligated to preserve every alternative as an independent mode of recitation. (Jāmiʿ al Bayān ʿan Taʾwīl Āy al Qurʾān, al Ṭabarī, 1/ 50–53) The Seven Aḥruf Were Different Expressions, Not Seven Separate Qur'ans The claim that the seven aḥruf consisted of seven languages distributed throughout different verses of the Qur'an cannot explain the disagreements that occurred among the Companions. If each passage had been revealed in one particular language, there would have been no reason for two Companions to dispute the recitation of the same passage. But the Companions disagreed over particular recitations, referred their disagreements to the Prophet ﷺ, and received his approval for what each had been taught. This shows that the differences occurred within the recitation of the same verses. The distinction can be seen through expressions such as halumma (come), taʿāl (come), and aqbil (approach). Although their wording differs, they convey a corresponding meaning. Likewise, ilayya (towards me), qaṣdī (in my direction), and naḥwī (towards me) are distinct expressions communicating closely corresponding meanings. The existence of alternative expressions does not establish the existence of seven separate Qur'anic texts, each containing different portions of revelation. It establishes that the same revealed verses could be recited through different authorised wordings. (Jāmiʿ al Bayān ʿan Taʾwīl Āy al Qurʾān, al Ṭabarī, 1/ 51–52) The Permission to Recite in Seven Aḥruf Was Not an Obligation to Preserve All Seven The error in Allāhyārī's allegation is the assumption that permitting seven forms of recitation makes the continued preservation of every form obligatory (meaning it must remain). The Prophet ﷺ permitted the Companions to recite according to the aḥruf they had learned. He did not require each Muslim to recite every verse in all seven forms. This permission was therefore an instance of ibāḥah wa rukhṣah (permission and concession), not ījāb wa farḍ (obligation). A Muslim who recited the Qur'an according to one authorised ḥarf had fulfilled the command to recite it, even though he did not employ the remaining alternatives. Had the seven forms been individually obligatory, every Muslim would have been required to learn and transmit them all, and abandoning any one of them would have constituted neglect of a religious obligation. However, the original command did not impose such a requirement. (Jāmiʿ al Bayān ʿan Taʾwīl Āy al Qurʾān, al Ṭabarī, 1/ 53, 59) The Analogy of Expiation for Breaking an Oath The distinction between a permitted choice and a binding obligation is established through kaffārat al yamīn (expiation for breaking an oath). Allah permits the person who must fulfil this expiation to choose between freeing a slave, feeding the poor, or clothing them. If the Ummah agreed to fulfil the expiation through feeding the poor, without performing the other two alternatives, they would not have abandoned Allah's command. The obligation is to perform one of the permitted alternatives, not all three collectively. Likewise, if Allah permitted the Qur'an to be recited through seven aḥruf, reciting through one authorised ḥarf does not constitute neglect of His command. The abandonment of other permissible alternatives is not equivalent to abandoning an obligation. (Jāmiʿ al Bayān ʿan Taʾwīl Āy al Qurʾān, al Ṭabarī, 1/ 53) Why ʿUthmān رضي الله عنه Restricted the Muslims to One Ḥarf During the caliphate of ʿUthmān رضي الله عنه, disagreements concerning recitation became increasingly severe. Teachers instructed their students according to the readings they possessed, while other teachers transmitted different authorised readings. Their students subsequently disputed with one another, and the disagreements eventually reached the point where some accused others of disbelief. Ḥudhayfah ibn al Yamān رضي الله عنه witnessed these disputes among the Muslims from Syria and Iraq during the campaigns involving Armenia and Azerbaijan. He feared that the Ummah would fall into disagreements resembling those of the Jews and Christians concerning their scriptures. He therefore urged ʿUthmān to intervene before these disputes became more destructive. (Jāmiʿ al Bayān ʿan Taʾwīl Āy al Qurʾān, al Ṭabarī, 1/ 55–57) The Prophet ﷺ had already prohibited the Companions from condemning legitimate recitations taught to one another. But the continuation of different readings was now producing precisely the disputes against which they had been warned. The Ummah was therefore faced with preserving a permissible plurality of recitations at the expense of serious religious division, or uniting upon one authorised recitation to prevent Muslims from condemning one another. The obligation to safeguard the Ummah from such harm was more pressing than continuing to exercise every permissible alternative. (Jāmiʿ al Bayān ʿan Taʾwīl Āy al Qurʾān, al Ṭabarī, 1/ 58–60) The Standardisation Did Not Introduce a New Qur'an, or a Corrupted Qur'an as Allāhyārī claims The Qur'an had already been collected during the caliphate of Abū Bakr رضي الله عنه, following ʿUmar's concern that the deaths of its memorizers could endanger its preservation. Zayd ibn Thābit رضي الله عنه was instructed to gather the Qur'an, and the collected sheets subsequently remained with Abū Bakr, then ʿUmar, and finally Ḥafṣah رضي الله عنها. (Jāmiʿ al Bayān ʿan Taʾwīl Āy al Qurʾān, al Ṭabarī, 1/ 54) ʿUthmān later requested these sheets and arranged for authorised copies to be prepared, which Allāhyārī's claim that the Sahabah did not believe the Qur'an was complete, since what Zayd ibn Thābit رضي الله عنه collected was indeed the entire Qur'an. ʿAbd Khayr reports that ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib رضي الله عنه said: "The person who has the greatest reward concerning the written copies of the Qur'an is Abū Bakr. He was the first to collect the Qur'an between two covers." (Tafsīr al Qur'ān al ʿAẓīm by Ibn Kathīr 1/128) islamweb.net/ar/library/cont… Al Dhahabī graded its chain ḥasan, while Ibn Kathīr said its chain authentic. So if ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib رضي الله عنه confirmed the compilation of Abū Bakr رضي الله عنه, and this copy was also used by ʿUthmān رضي الله عنه, which he took from Ḥafṣah رضي الله عنها, to standardise the Qur'an, we can therefore conclude that the Qur'an was not corrupted by ʿUthmān as the Shīʿa claim. The recitation was standardised using the existing collection and the knowledge of the Companions. The resulting copies were distributed to the Muslim regions, and competing copies were withdrawn to prevent further disagreement. The decision therefore concerned which authorised recitation the Muslims would collectively follow, rather than the composition of a new Qur'an or the invention of a previously unknown revelation. (Jāmiʿ al Bayān ʿan Taʾwīl Āy al Qurʾān, al Ṭabarī, 1/ 55–58) The Companions Agreed Upon Abandoning the Other Six Aḥruf The Companions who accepted ʿUthmān's decision were aware that the Prophet ﷺ had permitted the Qur'an to be recited upon seven aḥruf. They nevertheless agreed upon restricting the public recitation to one. Had preserving and transmitting all seven been obligatory, their abandonment would have constituted disobedience to Allah and His Messenger ﷺ. However, the original permission did not require every ḥarf to remain in use, and the Companions considered their agreement upon one authorised recitation necessary to prevent greater harm. Their decision prioritised an obligation over the continued exercise of a concession. As al Ṭabarī explains, their action was undertaken to protect Islam and its people from the destructive consequences of mutual accusations of disbelief. (Jāmiʿ al Bayān ʿan Taʾwīl Āy al Qurʾān, al Ṭabarī, 1/ 58–60) Did the Other Six Aḥruf Actually Disappear? Al Ṭabarī acknowledges that the Ummah abandoned the recitation of the other six aḥruf, and this is where vers made a major blunder, by saying this is not the belief of the Sunnis. Al Ṭabarī says that knowledge of them subsequently disappeared among the Muslims and that their remaining traces were lost. He does not argue that every one of the seven aḥruf survived independently within the standardised muṣḥaf. His response is that the disappearance of those permitted alternatives does not establish the loss of something the Muslims were obligated to preserve. An objection may be raised: If Allah revealed all seven aḥruf, and the Prophet ﷺ commanded their recitation, how could the Muslims abandon six without disobeying Allah? The answer is that the aḥruf were not abrogated, nor did the Ummah neglect an obligation to preserve them all. Rather, Allah commanded the preservation of the Qur'an while granting permission to recite according to the seven aḥruf. When the Ummah united upon one authorised ḥarf, it continued preserving and reciting the Qur'an according to a form Allah had revealed. The loss of knowledge concerning the other six modes was therefore not equivalent to the corruption or abandonment of the Qur'an that Allah had commanded the Muslims to preserve. (Jāmiʿ al Bayān ʿan Taʾwīl Āy al Qurʾān, al Ṭabarī, 1/ 52–53, 59–60) The Remaining Differences in Recitation Do Not Necessarily Represent the Other Six Aḥruf The standardisation did not eliminate every difference in pronunciation or recitation. Differences involving grammatical inflection, the placement of vowels, the movement or stillness of letters, and certain alterations compatible with the same written form could remain. However, these differences must not automatically be identified with the six aḥruf whose recitation had been abandoned. Al Ṭabarī distinguishes such variations from the particular differences associated with the original concession of seven aḥruf. Thus, the survival of recitational variations within the agreed written text does not mean that all seven original aḥruf continued to be preserved independently. The Ummah retained the authorised written Qur'an while accepting compatible differences in recitation. (Jāmiʿ al Bayān ʿan Taʾwīl Āy al Qurʾān, al Ṭabarī, 1/ 60) Jāmiʿ al Bayān ʿan Taʾwīl Āy al Qurʾān, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Jarīr al Ṭabarī, 1/50–62