joshim

quran

Some Muslims may be surprised to learn that there are multiple variants of the Quran being recited today. Whilst something like 95% of the world’s Muslims adopt one recitation, there are at least three variants recited by the remainder, mostly in Northern and Central Africa. According to Traditionalism, all these variants, known as qirāʼāt, are valid and were all taught by the Messenger himself. This obviously contradicts the story most Muslims grow up with: that the Quran is one, revealed to the Messenger, preserved word for word, syllable for syllable.

The author and vlogger Farid al-Bahraini gives an overview of the variant qirāʼāt in a short video [^1], and uses the following diagram to illustrate how they emerged:

farid_aḥruf_qiraat

So the variants of the Quran, the qirāʼāt, came from seven “modes” of the Quran. But what are these “modes”, or so-called aḥruf? The problem is, no one really knows. There are, according to Yasir Qadhi, up to forty different opinions on the matter [^2]. In his book An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan, he suggests the correct opinion is that the seven aḥruf are seven different dialects the Quran was revealed in [^3]. He lists Quraysh, Ḥudhayl, Tamīm, Hawāzin, Thaqīl, Kinānah and Yaman as the seven, but then notes that “other scholars gave the names of other tribes.” [^4] Renowned Hanafi Jurist Taqi Usmani, in his book An Approach to the Qurānic Sciences, does list two different sets of tribal dialects, but then rejects the theory with the following. Why seven in particular, when there were many more Arabian dialects? [^5]

Another view that Qadhi details is the seven refer to the different ways verses can be changed. The list goes: change in wording; differences in wording or letters; change in word order; addition or subtraction of a letter or word; the form of the word structure is changed; differences in inflection points; differences in pronunciation. Qadhi argues that this opinion “seems to have the least weight…[and] does not really answer the question as to the meaning of the aḥruf.” [^6] However, Usmani thinks this is actually along the right lines and offers a scheme for the seven types of variations he believes to be correct: variation in numbers; variation in gender; variations in placement of diacritical marks; variation in verb; variation in syntax; variations caused by transposition; variations of pronunciation or accent. [^7] In responding to the likely objection that this view is conjectural and hypothetical, the Mufti points out that “this can be said of the opinions of all of them.” [^8]

In June 2020 Qadhi stated in a video interview that the standard narrative of Quran preservation with regards to the aḥruf and qirāʼāt “has holes in it”. [^9] His comments had inadvertently exposed how the laity had been kept at arm’s length from the issue because of the challenges in pinning down a coherent explanation. Given this, I was surprised to learn recently that opponents of Quranism are actually choosing to bring up aḥruf and qirāʼāt as a proof for Traditionalism. The argument goes that if you don’t believe in these vaguely worded hadiths and the range of contradictory opinions derived from them, then you have no way of knowing if the qirāʼāt in circulation today are all really from the Messenger!

I would argue that there is only one Quran, and the story of multiple recitations revealed by God or delivered by the Messenger, whether called aḥruf or qirāʼāt, are false. The one Quran is the one recited almost universally. Any variants which differ in wording to this one, whether recited today or in history, are deviations. We can know this by making a few simple observations.

To begin with, the Quran is a mass recited and memorised text. For Muslims, this process is institutionalised, which is one example of the devotion Muslims have for the Quran. We can also note that this devotion is not a modern innovation – we know Muslims historically have been memorising the Quran. From this we can move on to a second set of observations. Muslims also have historically been divided on many major issues. Hadith literature, for example. If one were to even take a cursory look at the development of hadith texts within Sunniism, it’s apparent the process of canonisation was highly contested. Furthermore, the Sunni and Shia groups have their own respective collections, with entirely different methodologies for authentication and application. The emergence and distribution of schools of theology and jurisprudence can be characterised in similar terms.

Map_of_the_Muslim_world_by_jurisprudence

This is entirely expected and normal for a civilisation spanning over a thousand years and multiple continents. These divisions happened organically, and certainly not borne of a controlled process. What’s more, we can also observe that Muslims have shown devotion to their respective groups within these divisions. Sunnis and Shia on the whole have not abandoned their own team in favour of the other. Adherents of the different schools of fiqh have also held to their respective positions. And so on.

This second set of observations gives us a useful point of reference when considering the transmission of the Quran. We know that the canonisation of the Quran was under control from the very beginning, because if it wasn’t, it would have had a variation and spread like hadith texts. If there really were seven versions of the Quran, or ten variant recitals, one recitation could not have reached 95% adoption. Because if all the readings were divine as Traditionalists claim, the devotion and dedication shown by Muslims today to the Quran must have extended to all the variants from the beginning. There is no scenario where Muslims reciting a variant Quran would have abandoned their recitation in favour of a different one. We know this because, as already mentioned, Muslims of different groups have refused to abandon their camps in lesser matters.

In short, the recitation of 95% of the world’s Muslims is the preserved Quran. This is a manifestation of al-dhik’ri l-marfūʿ, the most elevated remembrance, which is how the Quran describes itself in ʿabasa⋆80/14. It is not a coincidence or an accident of history that Muslims would converge on one recitation in this way.

As a final point, there is no evidence from the Quran that God revealed it as a multiform text. In fact, it repeatedly refers to itself in the singular form dhik’r. And one last quote from Yasir Qadhi on the strength of evidence available to Sunnis: “…there does not exist any explicit narration from the Prophet, or the salaf concerning the aḥruf: these various opinions are merely the conclusions of later scholars, based upon their examination of the evidences and their personal reasoning (ijtihaad).” [^10] Traditionalists who push the seven aḥruf stories are on dangerous ground – it is no trivial matter to attribute actions to God without evidence. The Quran says in al-isrā⋆17/36, “And do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed, the hearing, the sight and the heart – about all those (one) will be questioned.” And al-nūr⋆24/15 says, “…when you cast it with your tongues and say with your mouths that which you have no knowledge of, and you consider it insignificant, but with God it is immense.”

◆◆

Tagged: #ahruf #qiraat #quran-preservation

Notes:

[^1]: al-Bahraini, F. [Farid Responds]. (2020, June 29). Are the Qiraat mistakes? [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K11XfOfTFAU [^2]: Qadhi, Y. (1999). An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan. (p.175). Birmingham, UK: Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution. [^3]: Ibid. p.179 [^4]: Ibid. p.177 [^5]: Usmani, M.T. (2000). An Approach to the Qurānic Sciences. (p.109). Pakistan, Karachi: Darul-Ishaat. [^6]: Qadhi, p.178 [^7]: Usmani p.114 [^8]: Usmani p.123 [^9]: Wikimedia Foundation. (2025, April 29). Yasir Qadhi. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasir_Qadhi [^10]: Qadhi p.176

The Quran declares in al-nisāa⋆4/80 that “whoever obeys the messenger then surely he obeyed God.” This is because the messenger was instructing and guiding people with the Quran, which is made clear in numerous verses like yūnus⋆10/15:

๏ And when Our āyāt are recited upon them as clear evidences, said those who do not hope for the meeting with Us: “Bring us a qur’ān other than this or change it!” Say: “It is not for me that I change it of my own leaning, I follow nothing except what is revealed to me. Indeed I fear, if I should disobey my lord, a punishment of a tremendous day.” ๏

The messenger declares here that he can neither change the āyāt he is reciting nor bring them anything different, and that he follows nothing but the āyāt revealed to him.

In ib’rāhīm⋆14/52, the Quran is described as balāgh, a conveyance or notification, by which mankind may be warned and guided. In al-naḥl⋆16/35 the Quran says:

๏ And said, those who associate partners: “If God willed, not would we have worshipped other than Him anything, we nor our fathers, nor would we have made sacred other than Him anything!” Thus did do those before them. So what is there upon the messengers except the clear conveyance (al-balāghu l-mubīn)? ๏

From this we understand that to deliver the balāgh clearly (mubīn) is the only duty the messenger has. The messenger does not act as a secondary or alternative source of divine law.

This is definitive. However, the question as to why this wording was chosen does come up. Why does the Quran tell us to obey God and the messenger? Saying one or the other would have sufficed, surely?

There are a few reasons this might be. One is that God’s guidance comes via multiple channels, which means obedience to God is not just via the āyāt of the Quran. al-baqarah⋆2/164, speaks of God’s āyāt in nature. An example of this is the winds in al-naml⋆27/63, sent to people in darkness. In āl ʿim’rān⋆3/190 God says the succession of the night and the day are also “āyāt for those of understanding”. God’s signs are in the heaven and the earth according to yūsuf⋆12/105, and in fuṣṣilat⋆41/53 God shows His signs in our own selves and upon the horizon. This could be something as common as love and companionship (al-rūm⋆30/21), or other instances we may be prone to overlook (al-māidah⋆5/31). And aside from the Quran itself being guidance (al-baqarah⋆2/185), we know awwala bayt mentioned in āl ʿim'rān⋆3/96–97 is guidance to all mankind.

To obey God is to heed to His āyāt wherever they become apparent to you. And so we see the overall picture emerging from this is that to obey God and obey His messenger is in fact a singular obedience. The Quran reminds us through this wording that a believer must heed the guidance of God however it may manifest, and to obey the messenger is to heed the āyāt of the Quran he recites to you. All the āyāt are from God.

◆◆

tagged: #quran #messenger #obey


Evollaqi on natural reading

“A common argument Qur'anis make is that “obey the Messenger” only means 'obey the Message he brought', which means 'only obey the Qur'an'. Or that when we're told to have the Prophet adjudicate our affairs and listen to his instructions, he is only going to adjudicate and instruct based on the Qur'an. Or when we're told to follow the Prophet, this just means follow the Qur'an (as that's only what he's brought and that only what he's living and teaching). Or that purifying us, teaching the wisdom, and other things the Messenger is instructed to do are all just different aspects of giving us the Qur'an, nothing further.

In response one could say, sure, this is all linguistically possible, but it's always possible to say that a reference to a term A is in in fact always exclusively a reference to a term B, as term A is only meant qua term B. B-aloneism is always linguistically possible.

To illustrate this, we could be Sunnah aloneists and read everything in the Qur'an accordingly. We could say “obey God” in the Qur'an exclusively means 'obey the teachings and practices of the human He told us to obey', “follow the Book” doesn't mean 'follow the Book per se' but 'follow the human it grants authority to', and so on. This would be an implausible reading, albeit linguistically possible. And that's the point. A more natural reading of a text we believe is word-for-word perfect and from God is that means what it apparently says, rather than using a number of convoluted synonyms, and adding superfluous words, and leaving out words which would be needed to specify a general statement. The Qur'an doesn't only say obey the Qur'an but “obey God and the Messenger” – suggesting two different sources of speech to be obeyed.”

This was part of a much longer thread going through the arguments for the classical Sunni doctrine. I felt like commenting on this specific point about natural reading. The argument is that to read “obey God and His Messenger” as one obedience is not the natural way to read it, and while linguistically possible, is implausible.

One way to assess this claim is to think about al-tawbah⋆9/3:

๏ And an announcement [adhānun] from God and His Messenger to mankind (on the) day of al-ḥaji l-akbar: that God is disassociated of al-mush'rikīn and (so) is His Messenger. So if you repent, then it is good for you. But if you turn away then know that you never escape God. And give tidings of a painful punishment to those who conceal. ๏

Notice that there is only one announcement, adhān, yet it is said to come from God and His Messenger. If the explicit mention of God and His Messenger “suggest[s] two different sources of speech to be obeyed,” how do we understand one adhān coming from them both? Did they make the adhān in unison? Or were they co-authors of the announcement?

No one interprets it like this because the natural reading is that the announcement is God’s and His Messenger delivered it. And I don'’t know of any commentators who thought this phrasing was even worth explaining. So what Evollaqi dismisses an implausible reading is the most natural one here – and arguably any alternative would be implausible. This is evident again in al-anfāl⋆8/20:

๏ O you who have believed! Obey God and His Messenger and do not turn away from him [ʿanhu] while you hear. ๏

Traditionists believe it is possible to obey the speech of God but disobey the speech of the Messenger, however, the above verse doesn't seem to see it that way. It identifies both God’s as well as His Messenger’s obedience but ends in the singular pronoun, and not a dual one – “and do not turn back from him while you hear”. The pronoun in the singular is for the Messenger to whom the Believers are asked to listen to attentively.

A final thought about this part:

“A more natural reading of a text we believe is word-for-word perfect and from God is that means what it apparently says, rather than using a number of convoluted synonyms, and adding superfluous words, and leaving out words which would be needed to specify a general statement.”

As is typical in these sorts of polemics, people seem to lose track of their own arguments. Further down the thread, Evollaqi says:

“When the Qur'an says it is enough, in context what it is saying is that it is enough as a miracle – ie that it is enough to evidence the truthfulness of the Prophet saw. He doesn't need to part waters or restore sight to the blind to establish he should be followed.”

So what happened to the text means what it apparently says? The Quran never says it is “enough as a miracle” but it does say its qaṣaṣ are “a detailed explanation [tafṣīla] of all things [kulli shayin] and a guidance and mercy for a people who believe” (yūsuf⋆12/111). If contextual reading allows Sunnis to opt for interpretations other than the most apparent meanings of the text, perhaps this is something others are allowed to do too?

Obviously none of this is actually about the language of the Quran. It’s more than just plausible to take ”obey God and His Messenger” as a single obedience, but this reading undermines traditional doctrine – which is what’s really at stake here.

◆◆

Tagged: #quranism #tradition #quran

Nouman Ali Khan does not like Quranism. He says in a 2010 lecture on chapter 114, [^1] that Quranists have a simplistic understanding of the Quran and that reading the Quran without hadiths can cause confusion (minute 4:00 onward). In a 2011 lecture on chapter 2, [^2] he argues that rejecting hadiths is nothing more than an attack on the Quran itself (minute 15:00 onward). In fact, he goes further and accuses Quranists of being munāfiqīn: “One of the movements within hypocrisy, even at the time of the Prophet, you know what it was? it was to separate the Quran from the Messenger, the Quran from the Sunnah… That ancient movement of hypocrisy is still alive today.”

Forward to 2015 and not much has changed. A lecture in Malaysia titled The Quran Defends the Sunnah, [^3] and more recently a video presentation titled Why do we need Hadith if the Quran is enough? [^4] sees him repeat his dislike. “There’s no way someone can actually say that they believe in the Quran and they don’t believe in the Sunnah,” he says. “The only way they can really say that is if they don’t study the Quran.”

On the point of hypocrisy, Farouk A. Peru confronts Khan’s accusation in an excellent and comprehensive video series [^5] by demonstrating that a) the Messenger is not represented by the Sunnah but rather by the Quran, and b) chapter 17 verse 36 commands people to question that which they do not understand. Thus, questioning the Messenger in order to distinguish between the words of the Quran and his own words cannot be hypocrisy. As far as I know, the ustadh has never directly responded to Farouk’s videos, although I suspect he knows of them. In his two recent presentations he argues again – now using chapter 4 verse 65 – that a true believer does not in fact question the Messenger but submits to his judgements completely. This could be a coincidence, but if it isn’t, it suggests the ustadh is receptive to criticisms of his work.

In this spirit, I have a few criticisms of my own. Specifically, his interpretation of al-nisāa⋆4/65. The verse says:

๏ But no, by your lord, they do not believe until they make you a judge concerning what arises between them. Then after they find not in themselves any constraint about what you decided, and incline peacefully, fully submissive. ๏

Due to his repeated claim that Quranists do not read the Quran carefully, I was interested to see his take on this verse so I could learn what a careful reading looked like. He starts by telling us he doesn’t know who the verse is talking about:

“The first thing [Allah] says is ‘lā yu’minūna’ – they don’t believe. […] By the time you read this much, and I read this much, we’re supposed to get really worried. Because He doesn’t say who they are. He just says they don’t believe. I don’t know who they are.”

This might be because Khan didn’t read the verses prior to this one. We can know who verse 65 is referring to if we read from verse 60:

๏ Do you not look toward those who claim that they believe in what is revealed to you, and what was revealed from before you? They wish to judge for each other toward the worst transgression. And surely they were ordered to conceal it, for wishes al-shayṭān to mislead them to far error. ๏

The passage continues to focus on these people, which leads to the verse in question: “But no, by your lord they do not believe until…” There’s no mystery here. Verse 60 tells us explicitly who “they” are: those who profess faith in what is revealed to the Messenger but do not judge by it, and who judge amongst each other to facilitate the worst transgressions. By not paying attention to the progression of the passage, the ustadh is able to generalise verse 65 to include whoever he imagines. He continues:

“They don’t believe until they make you the judge. […] The Quran is saying, not: ‘they don’t have any īmān until they make the Quran the decision maker’ [or] ‘they don’t have any īmān until they take the revelation and make it the decision maker’. Allah is saying they have no shred of īmān – and He swears by Himself – until they make you ṣalla l-lahu ʿalayhi wasallam, you, the decision maker. How personal is that?”

The suggestion here is that if Allah meant the Quran should be the judge, He wouldn’t have implied it, rather He would have said so explicitly. From the ustadh’s perspective, the correct understanding here is that to make the Messenger the judge means to obey all judgements attributed to him beyond those found in the Quran. It follows from this that we must submit to verdicts found in authentic hadiths, the main textual vehicle of the Sunnah.

Of course, the verse doesn’t explicitly support his own interpretation either. It makes no mention of obeying ḥadīthu l-rasūl or sunnatu l-nabiy, or anything similar, but he is happy to infer as much. Clearly his own interpretation is not subject to the standards he believes should apply to a Quranist reading.

I think it’s fair to ask: what if it had said ‘until they take the revelation and make it the decision maker’? Would he have agreed with the Quranists then? Further into the chapter in verse 105, the Messenger is said to have been sent the book, “so that you may judge [litaḥkuma] between the people with what God shows you.” And again in al-māidah⋆5/48: “and We sent down to you the book with truth, confirming for what was before his two hands of the book, and a guardian over it. So judge [uḥ’kum] between them with what God has sent down…” So the Quran does say what Khan says it doesn’t.

These verses, and many others, support the Quranist interpretation of al-nisāa4/65. To make the Messenger the judge is to judge by the Quran, since this is where the Messenger’s judgements came from. For me, a brief breakdown of the passage of al-nisāa4/65 looks like the following, beginning with verse 58:

๏ Indeed, God orders you (plural) to deliver the trusts to their folk. And when you (plural) judge between the people, to judge with justice. Indeed, God excellently instructs you (plural) in it. Indeed, God is hearing, seeing. ๏

Here, we understand that the people can administer justice so long as they heed God’s excellent instructions. This concept continues in verse 59, which mentions obedience to ulī l-amr – those of legitimate authority. Then, as we touched on earlier, verse 60 speaks of those who do not accept sound judgements, even though they claim to believe in the revelation. They desire exclusivity in the laws they follow and reject ulī l-amr. Not surprisingly, they are called hypocrites in the next verse. In verse 62 they are shown to only reach out to the people when they taste disaster, but their oaths are false. Verse 63 tells us their intentions are not hidden from God. Verse 64 says that if they had genuinely come to you for protection and the Messenger had sought protection for them, they would have found God forgiving.

This is the context of verse 65. The hypocrisy of those of verse 60 is observable and can be tested, and one of those tests is in verse 65: they have no faith until they stop judging for each other and instead submit to the judgement of the Messenger.

Tagged: #NoumanAliKhan #quran #quranism

Notes:

[^1]: Khan, N. A. (2010). Bayyinah Podcast. Tafseer Surah 114 – Nas Part 1 by Nouman Ali Khan [Audio file]. Retrieved from http://podcast.bayyinah.com/2010/06/29/114-nas-pt-1/

[^2]: Khan, N. A. (2011). Bayyinah Podcast. Tafseer of Surah Al-Baqarah by Ustadh Nouman Ali Khan Ayahs 26 to 29 [Audio file]. Retrieved from http://podcast.bayyinah.com/2011/12/03/study-of-the-quran-surah-al-baqarah-4/

[^3]: Khan, N. A. [Bayyinah Institute]. (2016, February 08). The Quran Defends the Sunnah — Nouman Ali Khan – Malaysia Tour 2015 [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp98wb123ik

[^4]: Khan, N. A. [Bayyinah Institute]. (2016, May 03). Why do we need Hadith if the Quran is enough? — Nouman Ali Khan [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB4cARWalY4

[^5]: Peru, F. A. [QuranistsNetworkTv]. (2014, April 14). Quranists Responses to Critics – Nouman Ali Khan Pt 1. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHvQhbIchaI