IBN QUTAYBAH'S CONTRIBUTION TO QUR'ANIC EXEGESIS, CH. II

CHAPTER II
IBN QUTAYBAH'S REFUTATION OF ALLEGATIONS OF
SOLECISM, CONTRADICTION AND
AMBIGUITY IN THE VERSES
OF THE QUR’ĀN

A.Variant Readings in the Qur’ān

There has never been any disagreement among the ‘ulamā’ that the Qur'ān was revealed in seven ah.ruf (lit., "let¬ters"), as it was reported by many s.ah.ābah, such as ‘Umar, ‘Uthmān, Ubayy ibn Ka‘b, Abū Huray¬rah, ‘Abd Allāh ibn ‘Abbās, and ‘Abd Allāh ibn Mas‘ūd 1 in many h.adīths. One of these h.adīths runs as follows:
[from ‘Umar b. al-Khat.t.āb]

I heard Hishām b. H.ākim 2 recite the sūra of the Furqān (25) during the lifetime of the Messen¬ger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace. I listened to his recitation, and [no¬ticed that] he was reciting according to many h.arfs in which the Messenger of God had never had me recite. I was about to grab hold of him in [the middle of his] prayer, but I waited till he had recited the final salutations. When he had finished, I seized him by his robe and said: 'Who taught you to recite the sūra which I have just heard you recite?' He said: 'The Messenger of God taught me to recite it.' I said: 'You are lying. By God, the Messenger of God himself taught me to recite this sūra which I have just heard you recite.'

So I hurriedly took him to the Messenger of God and said: 'O Messenger of God, I have heard this man recite the sūra of the Furqān in h.arfs in which you never taught me to recite, and it was you yourself who taught me to recite the sūra of the Furqān.' (...) The Messenger of God said: 'Let him go, ‘Umar; and you Hishām, recite.' So he recited for him the recitation I had heard him recite and the Messenger of God said: 'It was sent down like that.' Then the Messenger of God said: '[Now] you recite, ‘U¬mar', and I recited it as the Messenger of God had taught me. Then the Messen¬ger of God said: 'It was sent down like that.' Then the Messen¬ger of God said: 'Indeed, this Qur'ān was sent down in seven h.arfs. You should recite which¬ever comes easily to you.'[15]3

But the ‘ulamā’ have different opinions on the meaning of the term ah.ruf in these h.adīths. According to al-H.āfiz. Abū H.ātim ibn al-H.ayyān al-Bustī (d. 354/965) as reported by al-Qurt.ubī, there are 35 different opinions, but al-Qurt.ubī himself mentions five opinions only.4

The term h.arf (pl. ah.ruf) means "an edge", "an aspect", "a boundary", "a margin", "a side", and "a part of something". A letter is called h.arf because it is a part of the alpha¬bet.5 The example of the word h.arf meaning wajh (an aspect, a side) in the Qur’ān is as follows: وَمِنَ النَّاسِ مَنْ يَعْبُدُ اللَّهَ عَلَى حَرْفٍ فَإِنْ أَصَابَهُ خَيْرٌ اطْمَأَنَّ بِهِ وَإِنْ أَصَابَتْهُ فِتْنَةٌ انْقَلَبَ عَلَى وَجْهِهِ ... (الحج : ١١) "And there is, too, among men many a one who worships God on the border-line [of faith]: thus, if good befalls him, he is satisfied with Him, but if a trial assails him, he turns away utterly,..." (Q. 22:11, Asad). Here worshipping Allah when one is only in favour¬able conditions or in doubt is called "worshipping Allah one-sided¬ly".6

As many different views exist concerning what the seven ah.ruf correspond to, some important ones are mentioned here, as follows:

a. As the term ah.ruf is applicable to the alphabet, the word, the meaning and the side, it is considered ambiguous, so the seven ah.ruf is ambiguous. This is the view of the grammarian Ibn Sa‘dān.7

b. They are the seven dialects of the Arabs in which the Qur’ān was revealed, among which was the dia¬lect of the Quraysh. The other dialects are those of the Hudhayl, Thaqīf, Hawāzin, Kinānah, Tamīm, and Yamān. 8 This is the correct view according to al-Bayhaqī. However, according to Abū H.ātim al-Sijistānī, the seven dialects are: the Quraysh, Hudhayl, Tamīm, al-Azd, Rabī‘ah, Hawāzin, and Sa‘d ibn Bakr. Ibn Qutaybah, who rejects this view, insists that the Qur’an was re¬vealed in the language of the Quraysh, citing the Qur’anic verse: وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا مِنْ رَسُولٍ إِلَّا بِلِسَانِ قَوْمِهِ ... (إبراهيم : ٤) "And never have We sent forth any apostle otherwise than [with a message] in his own people's tongue, …" (Q. 14:4, Asad)9.

c. They are the seven categories of the contents of the Qur’ān, namely: nahy (prohibiting), amr (commanding), h.alāl (lawful), h.arām (unlawful), muh.kam (clear), mutashābih (ambiguous), and amthāl (parables). Another view is that they are: amr, zajr (reprimand), targhīb (encouragement of good), tarhīb (dis¬couragement of evil), jadal (dialectic), qas.as. (narrative), and mathal (par¬able, pl. amthāl)10 . Yet another view is that they are: wa‘d (promise), wa‘īd (threat), h.alāl, h.arām, mawā‘iz. (exhor¬tations), amthāl, and ih.tijāj (protest). Several catego¬ries are also included by some scholars, such as nāsikh (abrogating) and mansūkh (abrogated).

d. They are dialectal readings for a single expression or a single word, with different vowelisations, but have the same meaning, such as the expression "come!" can be expressed in many different dialects, such as: halumma, aqbil, ta‘āl, iyyāya, qas.dī, nah.wī, and qurbī. This view is attributed by Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr to the majority of the ‘ulamā’, pointing out the h.adīth reported by Ah.mad and al-T.abrānī on the authority of Abū Bakrah, as follows: The Prophet said: "Gabriel said: 'O Muh.ammad, recite the Qur’ān according to one h.arf.' Michael said: 'Request more [than this for him].' He said: '[Recite] according to two h.arfs.' [This continued] until it reached seven ah.ruf. Each one is curative and sufficient - as long as one does not finish up a verse of punishment with a verse of mercy, or a verse of mercy with one of punishment - as if one were to say ta‘āl, aqbil, and halumma (all meaning 'come')..." 11 This type of variant reading was permitted at first, since it was difficult for the early Muslims to recite the Qur’ān with one reading due to their illiteracy and lack of ability to grasp and memorise the Qur’ānic verses perfectly. For example, Ibn Mas‘ūd was reported to have read to an un¬identified person the verse إِنَّ شَجَرَةَ الزَّقُّومِ طَعَامُ الْأَثِيمِ (الدخان : (٤٣-٤٤ "Verily, [in the life to come] the tree of deadly fruit will be the food of the sinful." (Q. 44:43-4, Asad). But the man read t.a‘ām al-yatīm ("the food of the orphan"). When Ibn Mas‘ūd failed to correct him, he said: "Can you read t.a‘ām al-fājir ("the food of the insolent)?" When the man said "yes", he said: "So, do it!" Later, when the one reading became easy for people, these variant readings became abrogated. This is the view of Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah, Ibn Wahb, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, al-T.ah.āwī, al-Bāqillānī, al-T.abarī and others.12 In other words, in the early period of Islam, those Arabs who could not memorise or recite correctly the Qur’ān, due to reasons such as illiteracy and lack of memory or ability to articulate properly, were temporarily permitted to recite it in their own words and languages, provided that they did not change the meaning. Once they could recite it properly as taught by the Prophet, they had to adhere to it, and their former readings became abrogated and later called qirā’āt munkarah ("rejected readings"). This is apparently what al-T.abarī meant when he stated that the ‘Uthmānic recension contained one reading only.

e.They are seven variant readings based on seven aspects. According to Ibn Qutaybah, they are as follows:

1. The variant i‘rāb (desinential or grammatical inflection, rules governing vowel endings) of the word or the vowelisation of its letters which changes neither its s.ūrah (form) nor its meaning, such as the reading wa hal yujāzá illā ’l-kafūru, meaning "Is ever any requited [thus] but the utterly ingrate?" instead of wa hal nujāzī illā ’l-kafūra, meaning "But do We ever requite [thus] any but the utterly ingrate?" (Q. 34:17, Asad). Both readings convey the same idea and mean¬ing, namely, only the ingrate - like the people of Sheba whose ungratefulness led to the downfall of their kingdom Sheba, as mentioned in the previous verses - will be requitted by Allah. 13 The first reading belonged to Ibn Kathīr, Nāfi‘, Abū ‘Amr and Ibn ‘Āmir, while the second reading belonged to H.amzah, al-Kisā’ī, H.afs. and ‘Ās.im.14

2. The variant i‘rāb of the word and the vowelisation of its letters which change its meaning only, not its s.ūrah, such as the reading of rabbunā (in the nominative) and bā‘ada (in the indicative) instead of rabbanā (in the vocative) and bā‘id (in the imperative) in the verse rabbunā bā‘ada bayna asfārinā, meaning "long has our Sustainer made the distance between our journey-stages!" instead of rabbanā bā‘id bayna asfārinā, meaning "Our Sustainer! Make long the distances between our journey-stages." (Q. 34:19, Asad). According to Ibn Qutaybah, these two variant readings serve dual purposes: describing the prayer of the people of Sheba (Saba’) and the answer to this prayer.15 The first reading belonged to Abū S.ālih., Muh.ammad ibn al-H.anafīyah, Abū al-‘Āliyah, Nas.r ibn ‘Ās.im and Ya‘qūb. It was also reported that Ibn ‘Abbās said that the people of Sheba complained that Allah had made their journey-stages long, although Allah had shortened the journey for them. They made this statement arrogantly and discontentedly (أَشَـرًا وَبَطَـرًا). This reading was chosen by Abū H.ātim who said that the people of Sheba did not ask Allah to lengthen their journey-stages but rather to shorten them.16 The second reading was that of the masses (qirā’at ’l-‘āmmah) according to al-Qurt.ubī. It was the reading of Nāfi‘, ‘Ās.im, Ibn ‘Āmir, H.amzah and al-Kisā’ī according to Ibn Mujāhid.17

3. The variant letters of the word which change its meaning only without changing its i‘rāb and s.ūrah, such as wa’nz.ur ilá ’l-‘iz.āmi kayfa nunshiruhā, meaning "and look at the bones how We revive them", instead of kayfa nunshizuhā, meaning "how We put them together" (Q. 2:259, Asad).18 The first reading belonged to Ibn Kathīr, Nāfi‘ and Abū ‘Amr, whereas the second belonged to ‘Ās.im, Ibn ‘Āmir, H.amzah and al-Kisā’ī.19

4. The variant words which change the s.ūrah, but not the meaning, such as the variant reading of Ibn Mas‘ūd as well as ‘Abd al-Rah.mān ibn al-Aswad in kānat illā zaqyatan wahidah instead of s.ayh.atan wāh.idah both readings mean "Nothing was [needed] but one single blast [of Our punishment]" (Q. 36:29, Asad), since the word zaqyah is the synonym of s.ayh.ah (lit. "a shout").20

5. The variant words which change its s.ūrah and meaning, such as ‘Alī's reading of wa t.al‘in mand.ūd, meaning "and a clustered spadix" instead of wa t.alh.in mand.ūd, meaning "and a clustered acacia" (Q.56:29).21 However, according to Abū Bakr al-Anbārī, ‘Alī went back to the Qur’ān (‘Uthmānic recension) accepting that wa t.alh.in was the right reading. When it was read to him wa t.alh.in mand.ūd he said: "Why don't you read wa t.al‘in?" and cited the verse lahā t.al‘un nad.īd "(and tall-palm-trees) with their thickly clustered dates." (Q. 50:10, Asad). Qays ibn ‘Abbād said to him: "O Prince of the believers, shall we rub it off from the mus.h.af?" He answered: "Today the Qur’ān (meaning the ‘Uthmānic recension) is not to be disturbed (لَا يُهـَاجُ الْقُرْآنُ اْليَـْوم)."22

6.The variant reading by means of inversion (الإخْتِلاَفُ بِالتَّقْدِيْـمِ وَالتَّأْخِيْر), such as Abū Bakr's reading of wa jā’at sakrat ’l-h.aqq bi ’l-mawt, meaning "and the agony of truth comes in death," instead of wa jā’at sakrat ’l-mawt bi ’l- h.aqq, meaning "and the agony of death comes in truth." (Q. 50:19, Pickthall).23 Al-Qurt.ubī states that Ibn Mas‘ūd also read the above verse the same as the reading of Abū Bakr and that we should not follow this reading. He contends that there are two reports about Abū Bakr's reading: one which is the same as the one in the mus.h.af, and that is what we should follow, and the other is what is mentioned above and should be rejected; probably he forgot when he read that reading, or the narrator might have made mistakes in narrating this report. Moreover, as reported by Abū Bakr al-Anbārī, Masrūq said that when Abū Bakr was dying, he called his daughter ‘Ā’ishah. When she saw him she said: "This is like what the poet said: إذَا حَشْرَجَتْ يَوْمًا وَضَاقَ بِهَا الصَّدْرُ ‘... a day when she rattled in her throat (in dying) and the heart became annoyed with it'". Abū Bakr told her: "Why don't you read wa jā’at sakrat ’l-mawt bi ’l- h.aqq?" Here he did not read the verse with inversion.24

7.The variant reading by means of addition and omission (الْإِخْتِلاَفُ بِالزِّياَدَةِ وَ (النُّقْصاَن, such as ‘amilat (with the omission of h) instead of ‘amilathu in the verse wa mā ‘amilathu aydīhim, meaning "and their hands made it not" (Q. 36:35).25 The first reading belonged to H.amzah, and al-Kisā’ī, whereas the second belonged to Ibn Kathīr, Nāfi‘, Abū ‘Amr, Ibn ‘Āmir and H.afs. who took it from ‘Ās.im.26 Another example cited by Ibn Qutaybah is the addition of unthá ("female") according to Ibn Mas‘ūd's variant reading at the end of the verse إِنَّ هَذَا أَخِي لَهُ تِسْعٌ وَتِسْعُونَ نَعْجَةً (ص : ٢٣), meaning "Behold, this is my brother: he has ninety-nine ewes." (Q. 38:23, Asad).27

The variant readings which have different meanings as mentioned above belong to the category of ikhtilāf taghāyur (difference by variation) which serve as complements or commentary to the others. With regard to the variant readings which contradict each other which belong to the category of what Ibn Qutaybah called ikhtilāf tad.ādd (difference by contradiction) this kind of reading is not permissible; it does not exist except in verses dealing with injunction or prohibition among abrogating (nāsikh) and abrogated (mansūkh) verses. 28

Although Muslim scholars have different interpretations regarding the meaning of the seven variant readings of the Qur’ān, they all agree to its validity as part of revelation. A question arises whether the seven variant readings are included in the present ‘Uthmānic recension. Some scholars among the fuqahā’ (Muslim jurists), qurrā’ (Qur’ān reciters), and mutakallimīn (Muslim scholastic theologians), such as Ibn H.azm, confirm it, contending that they are part of the revelation, and as such, are also preserved by Allah, based on the Qur’ānic verse: إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ (الحجر: ٩) ".... Lo! We verily are its Guardian" (Q. 15:9).29

The second view is that of the great majority of the ‘ulamā’. They say that the ‘Uthmānic recension contains the seven variant readings which agree to the rasm (orthography) - also called s.ūrah or shakl (consonantal outline, consonantal skeleton) - of this recension only, compiled according to the Prophet's last presentation of the Qur’ān to Gabriel.30 Any other variant reading which is different from the rasm of the ‘Uthmānic recension is unacceptable. Moreover, reading the variant readings based on dialects was permitted only in the beginning of Islam, when the Arabs had difficulty in using the Quraysh dialect.31

The third view is that of al-Qāsim ibn Farh. al-Shāt.ibī (d. 590/1194) who said that the seven ah.ruf were included in Abū Bakr’s compilation, but only one variant reading in the ‘Uthmānic recension.32

Based on this statement of Ibn Qutaybah, the possible readings are those belonging to aspect one (such as wa hal yujāzá illā ’l-kafūru instead of wa hal nujāzī illā ’l-kafūra) and two (such as rabbunā bā‘ada instead of rabbanā bā‘id), and probably also aspect three (such as nunshiruhā instead of nunshizuhā) of his categorization. However, according to Muslim scholars who advocate the seven variant readings based on the seven Arabic tribal dialects, the only remaining reading in the ‘Uthmānic recension is the language of the Quraysh tribe to which the Prophet and the people of Makkah belonged. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the Prophet's order to read the Qur’ān with the seven variant readings was only permitted to ease the burden for the illiterate and non-Qurayshī Arabs with their different tribal dialects.

After the death of the Prophet, the s.ah.ābah still read the Qur’ān in seven variant readings according to the readings they had received from him. Disputes concerning these variant readings appeared and later became intense and almost caused fitnah (dissention), especially among Muslim armies stationed far away from Makkah and Madīnah. This happened in 30/651 during the campaign of Azerbaijan and Armenia when the people of Shām (Syria) and Iraq met and listened to each other's reading of the Qur’ān. When they heard the difference in their readings they disagreed and almost accused each other of infidelity. In the meantime, the number of variant readings was increasing in the course of time until it reached about thirty, spreading throughout the Muslim lands.

This incident was witnessed by Hudhayfah al-Yamān who became alarmed and feared of the spread of this fitnah. He went back to Madīnah and told ‘Uthmān: "Rescue this community before they disagree like the disagreement among the Jews and the Christians." This news so shocked ‘Uthmān that he immediately acted accordingly.

It was to prevent this fitnah that ‘Uthmān ordered Zayd ibn Thābit, ‘Abd Allāh ibn al-Zubayr, Sa‘īd ibn al-‘Ās. and ‘Abd al-Rah.mān ibn al-H.ārith ibn Hishām to copy the texts of the Qur’ān from the authorized copy kept by H.afs.ah, the Prophet's wife and ‘Umar's daughter. He said that if the three last scribes disagreed with the former (Zayd ibn Thābit) about the texts of the Qur’ān, they should write them in the dialect of the Quraysh, as the Qur’ān was revealed in their dialect.33 Then ‘Uthmān sent four copies to different cities accompanied with a qāri’: to Makkah with ‘Abd Allāh ibn al-Sā’ib, to Syria with al-Mughīrah ibn Shihāb, to Bas.rah with ‘Āmir ibn ‘Abd al-Qays, and to Kūfah with Abū ‘Abd al-Rah.mān al-Sulamī. In Madīnah two copies were kept, one with Zayd ibn Thābit, and another by ‘Uthmān for himself. These qurrā’ taught people in their respective cities the variant readings which had been confirmed being from the Prophet, reported by a h.adīth mutawātir (a h.adīth handed down by many chains of unimpeachable transmitters), and in agreement with the rasm of the copy (of the ‘Uthmānic recension) they possessed. They did not teach them the abrogated readings nor those which had been reported with a h.adīth āh.ād (a h.adīth reported by one chain of transmitters), although it agreed with the rasm of the copy. In so doing, the variant readings reported with tawātur and which agreed with the rasm of the copy were recorded and preserved. It was reported that ‘Uthmān also sent a copy to Yaman (Yemen) and Bahrayn. He ordered all other copies to be burnt, including the mus.h.af of Ibn Mas‘ūd and of Ubayy ibn Ka‘b.

As the ‘Uthmānic recension was written without dots and vowelisation it included all mutawātir readings from the Prophet, such as fatabayyanū (Q. 4:94) which was the reading of all qurrā’ (as in our present mus.h.af) except H.amzah who read fatathabbatū.34 Similarly, bushran (Q. 7:57) which was the reading of ‘Ās.im (as in our present mus.h.af) is also read nashran, which was the reading of A‘mash and H.amzah; bushr is the easing (takhfīf) of bushur, the broken plural of bashīr; nashr is the mas.dar of the verb nashara (to spread). 35 These variant readings were not the result of an ijtihād in finding possible readings in ‘Uthmānic recension, but rather from the readings taught by the Prophet himself to the s.ah.ābah. The s.ah.ābah, in turn, taught them to the people of the next generation, the tābi‘īn until they reached us. Abū ‘Amr ibn al-‘Alā’ (d. 154/771), who was one of the seven qurrā’ and one of the leading grammarians of Bas.rah, said that if he were allowed to read other than what had already been read and taught he would have read a different reading. When he was asked by al-As.ma‘ī how to make the distinction between wa taraknā ‘alayh (Q. 37:108) and wa bāraknā ‘alayh (Q. 37:113) since both were written orthographically the same in the ‘Uthmānic codices, he answered that it could only be known by hearing it from the early mashāyikh (scholars). This also indicates that variant readings had already existed earlier than the ‘Uthmānic recension, and therefore, were not the product of it.36

We have noticed that among the seven variant readings advocated by Ibn Qutaybah which could be included in the ‘Uthmānic recension are three readings only. They are those which do not change in the rasm, although they change in the i‘rāb, the meaning or the wording. What happens, then, with the rest of the variant readings? They are found in the books of tafsīr.

We have also noticed that there are many interpretations regarding the meaning of the term ah.ruf. The Qur’ānic commentators know that it has something to do with reading the Qur’ān, as the Prophet allowed us to read whichever is convenient for us among the seven ah.ruf. The term "seven" itself does not necessarily mean the exact number. It could be a metonym for "several", since this term is often synonymous with "several" in Arabic usage. Likewise, the term "seventy" and "seven hundred" could mean respectively "many" and "very many." 37 According to (al-Qād.ī) ‘Iyād. (d. 544/1149), the term "seven", "seventy", and "seven hundred" indicates the greatness in number of units, tens and hundreds respectively.38 It is not surprising, then, that the grammarian Ibn Sa‘dān (d.230/845) suggests that the term ah.ruf meant in the h.adīth is ambiguous.39

It is noteworthy to include the views of two contemporary scholars regarding the meaning of seven ah.ruf and their existence or non-existence in the ‘Uthmānic codices. They are Mannā‘ al-Qat.t.ān and Muh.ammad ‘Abd al-‘Az.īm al-Zarqānī. According to the contemporary scholar Mannā‘ al-Qat.t.ān the more acceptable view is that the seven ah.ruf are the seven languages of the Arabs for one meaning, such as aqbil, ta‘āl, halumma, ‘ajjil and asri‘. They are different words for one meaning, namely, "come!” This is the view of Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah and Ibn Jarīr al-T.abarī.

Among the arguments of followers of this view are as follows:

(1). A man read a different reading from what ‘Umar had learned from the Prophet. The Prophet told them that both were correct, and said that the Qur’ān is correct as long as the verse of mercy is not substituted with that of punishment and vice versa. (Reported by Ah.mad ibn H.anbal with reliable transmitters as well as al-T.abarī).

(2). Busr ibn Sa‘īd said that Abū Juhaym al-Ans.ārī told him that two men disagreed on a verse, each claimed to have received it from the Prophet. When they asked him about it he said that the Qur’ān was sent down with seven ah.ruf, that they should not dispute over the Qur’ān, for disputing over it could lead to infidelity (kufr). (Reported by Ah.mad).

(3). Al-A‘mash said that Anas read inna nāshi’at al-layl hiya ashaddu wat.’an wa as.wabu qīlā (Q. 73:6). When he was told that it should be wa aqwamu qīlā he said that aqwamu, as.wabu and ahya’u are the same. (Reported by al-T.abarī, Abū Ya‘lā and al-Bazzār with sound transmitters).40

(4). The tābi‘ī Muh.ammad ibn Sīrīn said that he was told that Gabriel and Michael came to the Prophet. Gabriel told the Prophet to read the Qur’ān in two h.arfs. Michael told Gabriel to give him more which he did until it reached seven ah.ruf. Muh.ammad ibn Sīrīn said further that there is no variance of reading in the matters of h.alāl, h.arām, amr or nahy. It is like saying ta‘āl, halumma and aqbil. We read in kānat illā s.ayh.atan wāh.idah (Q. 36:29 and 53), whereas Ibn Mas‘ūd read in kānat illā zaqyatan wāh.idah. (Reported by al-T.abarī, the h.adīth is mursal as the name of the s.ah.ābah was not mentioned in the isnād).41

The argument against the view that the seven readings are seven languages (dialects) of the Arabs is that there are more than seven languages of the Arabs. In addition, ‘Umar and Hishām ibn H.ākim who had different readings belonged to the same Quraysh tribe and language. It was unlikely that ‘Umar would reject his own language. Therefore, the difference was in wording but the same in meaning as mentioned above.42

Al-T.abarī who has the same view answers a hypothetical question: "Where can we find in the Qur’ān a single reading read in seven different languages with different wordings but agree in meaning?" He says: "We do not claim that they still exist nowadays." "What, then, would happen to the other six variant readings?", another hypothetical question. He answered that the Muslim community was ordered to preserve the Qur’ān and was given a choice in reading and keeping any of the seven ah.ruf. 43 At the time of ‘Uthmān, the situation necessitated adherence to one reading only in order to avoid the fitnah (civil strife). The Muslim community which is immune from error (ma‘s.ūm) agreed to this decision.44

The third view is that the seven ah.ruf are the seven aspects: amr, nahy, h.alāl, h.arām, muh.kam, mutashābih and amthāl. The argument against this view is that since the Muslims are allowed to choose any of the seven ah.ruf, they may choose the h.arām aspect of a particular verse, whereas others choose its h.alāl aspect. It is inconceivable that the legal judgment of something could be halal and h.arām at the same time. Moreover, the flexibility in the possibility in reading up to seven ah.ruf would not be in turning something h.alāl, for example, into h.arām, or changing its meaning. The h.adīth mentioned before stated that the Prophet confirmed that variant readings would not be contradictory to each other.45

The fourth view says that the seven ah.ruf are based on seven aspects (similar to Ibn Qutaybah's view). However, al-Qat.t.t.ān states that some of these variant readings claimed by the followers of this view are of āh.ād (reported by one chain of authority), whereas there has never been any disagreement among Muslim scholars that the accepted readings of the Qur’ān are those reported in mutawātir (many chains of authority). Furthermore, the majority of the claimed variant readings vary only in the vowelisation of consonants of the words and the way of expressing them, like the variant i‘rāb, tas.rīf (conjugation), tafkhīm (emphatic pronunciation), imālah (inclining), iz.hār (clear pronunciation), idghām (contraction) and ishmām (giving "the flavour" of one sound to another). These types of variant readings do not change the wording or the meaning, and therefore belong to one word.46

Al-Qat.t.ān states further that the upholders of this fourth view believe that the ‘Uthmānic codices include all these seven ah.ruf. Since the ‘Uthmānic codices write لأمنتهم without alif following letter mīm, it can be read either in singular (li’amānatihim) or in plural (li’amānātihim). The same with بعد which is written without alif after letter bā’, so that it can also be read bā‘id. However, this cannot be applied to variant readings based on addition (ziyādah) and omission (naqs), such as wa a‘adda lahum jannātin tajrī tah.tahā ’l-anhār (Q. 9:100) and min tah.tihā ’l-anhār with the additional min. Another example is the reading wa mā khalaqa ’l-dhakara wa ’l-unthá (Q. 92:3) and wa ’l-dhakara wa ’l-unthá with the omission of mā khalaqa. Similarly, the variant reading based on inversion and substitution cannot be included in the ‘Uthmānic codices.47

Al-Qat.t.ān contends that should the seven ah.ruf be included in the ‘Uthmānic codices, the ‘Uthmānic codex - the copy kept by ‘Uthmān himself which is also called al-Mus.h.af al-Imām, the Master Copy of the Qur’ān - would not have become conclusive in settling the conflict in difference of readings. This conflict was permanently settled only by uniting people in one of the seven ah.ruf revealed in the Qur’ān. Otherwise, the conflict would have remained unsettled and there would not have been any difference between ‘Uthmānic compilation and that of Abū Bakr. The permission to read in seven ah.ruf was only given in the beginning to obviate inconvenience. This permission was no longer needed in the time of ‘Uthmān. The compilation of the Qur’ān in one reading by ‘Uthmān was agreed by the s.ah.ābah. It was such a great work, al-Qat.t.ān contends, that it ended the conflict in variant readings and united the community.48

Another contemporary scholar, Shaykh Muh.ammad al-Zarqānī, chooses the view of Abū al-Fad.l al-Rāzī regarding the seven ah.ruf which is almost similar to that of Ibn Qutaybah. Al-Zarqānī quoted al-Rāzī's view as follows:

1) The variation of number and gender of the noun: singular, dual or plural, masculine or feminine, such as the reading لأمنتهم (liamānātihim) in plural and (liamānatihim) in singular.

2) The variation in tenses of the verb: mād.ī (past), mud.āri‘ (imperfect) and amr (imperative), such as reading qālū rabbanā bā‘id bayna asfārinā and ...rabbunā ba‘‘ada...

3) The variation in wujūh al-i‘rāb (aspects of grammatical inflection), such as wa lā ["not" indicating negation] yud.ārru kātibun wa lā shahīd and wa lā ["not" indicating prohibition] yud.ārra... (for being majzūm by lā)

4) Variation by means of omission and addition, such as wa mā khalaqa ’l-dhakara wa ’l-unthá and wa ’l-dhakari wa ’l-unthá with the omission of mā khalaqa.

5) Variation by means of inversion, such as wa jā’at sakratu ’l-mawt bi ’l- h.aqq which is also read wa jā’at sakratu ’l- h.aqq bi ’l-mawt.

6) Variation by means of substitution, such as munshizuhā and nunshiruhā, as well as wa tal h.in and wa tal‘in.

7) Variation of languages (dialects) in fath., imālah, tarqīq (softening the pronunciation), tafkhīm, iz.hār and idghām, such as the opening and shading in reading atá and mūsá in the verseهَلْ أَتَاكَ حَدِيثُ مُوسَى (Q. 79:15) and وَهَلْ أَتَاكَ حَدِيثُ مُوسَى Q. 20:9), so that it is read atá and até as well as mūsá and mūsé. Similarly, the word balá is read balá as well as balé in balá qādirīn (Q. 75:4).49

One of the main differences between al-Razi's view and that of Ibn Qutaybah is that Ibn Qutaybah does not include the variation of dialects in pronouncing words as one of the seven ah.ruf. The reason is that despite these variations, such as the Hudhalīs in pronouncing letter h.ā’ of h.attá sounding like the letter ‘ayn and read ‘attá h.īn for h.attá h.īn, they still belong to the same word and meaning. On the contrary, al-Rāzī counts it as one of the seven ah.ruf to which al-Zarqānī leans, since the difference among the Arab tribes in the past was mainly in dialects.50 Al-Zarqānī quotes Ibn H.ajar who stated that al-Rāzī adopted and edited Ibn Qutaybah's view on the seven a h.ruf.51

According to al-Zarqānī the seven ah.ruf in al-Rāzī's view were included in the ‘Uthmānic codices. Each of these codices contained the rasm which agrees with all or some of the seven ah.ruf, so that each codex contained at least one h.arf. The word liamānatihim (Q. 70:32), for example, both in singular or in plural are included in these codices, because it was written in the singular, but a small alif was added to it to indicate that it can be read in plural.52 The word ya‘kifūna and ya‘kufūna, rabbanā bā‘id and rabbunā bā‘ada, as well as wa lā yud.ārru and wa lā yud.ārra are all included in these codices, since they contained no vowel signs.53

With regard to the fourth variant reading which is variation by means of addition and omission al-Zarqānī gives an example other than that given above. It is wa a‘adda lahum jannātin tajrī tah.ahā ’l-anhār and ...min tah.tihā... with the addition of min, both readings are mutawātir, and both agree with the rasm of the mus.h.af. The reading with the addition of min agrees with that in the Meccan codex (the mus.h.af sent to Makkah), whereas that with the omission of min agrees with that of other codices. Any reading which does not agree with the rasm of any of the ‘Uthmānic codices are abrogated by the last reading read by Gabriel to the Prophet - then the Prophet to Gabriel - at the year of his death. This includes Ibn ‘Abbās's reading wa kāna warā’ahum malikun ya’khudhu kulla safīnatin s.ālih.atin ghas.ban with the addition of s.ālih.atin. All of the s.ah.ābah agreed that this reading had been abrogated.54

With regard to the fifth variant reading which is variation by means of inversion, al-Zarqānī states that the example given above which is wa jā’at sakratu ’l- h.aqq bi ’l-mawt (the inversion of ...al-mawt bi ’l- h.aqq) is also abrogated. A similar abrogated inverted reading is idhā jā’a fat h .u ’llāh wa ’l-nas.r (the inversion of ... nas.ru ’llāh wa ’l-fat h.). The valid example given by al-Zarqānī for the inverted reading is fayaqtulūna wa yuqtalūna and fayuqtalūna wa yaqtulūna. Both reading are mutawātir, and agree with the rasm of the ‘Uthmānic codices, since they contain no vowel signs.55

With regard to the sixth variant reading which is variation by means of substitution, al-Zarqāni states that some readings of this genre are acceptable which agree to the rasm of the ‘Uthmānic codices, like fatabayyanū and fatathabbatū, for both are written with the same rasm, namely, without dots. Other readings such as ka ’l-s.ūfi ’l-manfūsh rather than ka ’l-‘ihni ’l-manfūsh and fa’md.ū ilá dhikri ’llāh rather than fa’s‘aw ilá dhikri ’llāh, these readings are abrogated and do not agree with the ‘Uthmānic codices.56

With regard to the seventh variant reading which is the variation of languages or dialects, these readings do not change the words and therefore also agree with the rasm of the ‘Uthmānic codex. One example is the verse hal atāka h.adīth mūsá (Q. 20:9) in which the letter yā’ is written instead of alif in atāka and mūsá, namely, and موسى to indicate that both words can be read with imālah, namely, atéka and musé.57 The letter yā’ in words such as mūsá ‘īsá and mus.t.afá is called alif maqs.ūrah (lit., "a shortened alif") and phonetically written with letter a with an accent aigu on it (á) according to McGill University transliteration system. (See the table of the transliteration system on p. v above).

We have seen how al-Zarqānī explained and defended the view of al-Rāzī concerning the seven ah.ruf and their inclusion in the ‘Uthmānic codices. He has proved that variation of readings by means of inversion, substitution as well as addition and omission which could not take place in the ‘Uthmānic codices according to al-Qa t.t.ān could and did occur. This argument can also be used to justify Ibn Qutaybah's view which, as mentioned earlier, is very similar to that of al-Rāzī.
Al-Zarqānī rejects the view of al-T.abarī and Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah that the seven a h.ruf are the seven dialects of one word with the same meaning. It is like the reading of halumma, aqbil, ta‘āl, ‘ajjil, asri‘, qas.dī and nah.wī used when we call someone to come to us as mentioned before. All these, al-Zarqānī contends, belong to one variant reading only, namely, the substitution of the words in general which is broader than the substitution with exclusively synonymous words.58

Al-Zarqānī also rejects the view that there was only one reading that remained in the ‘Uthmānic codices and the rest were abrogated and excluded from them with the approval of the s.ah.ābah. He states that these are false arguments. Even in the time of the Prophet people disagreed on reading the Qur’ān in variant readings. The Prophet confirmed to them the existence of these variant readings which are a mercy for them and for the Muslim community at large. When he was told to read the Qur’ān to his people with one reading, he asked for more and said that his community could not bear it. As his community will remain till the Resurrection Day, and so their inability to bear only one reading will also remain. If Muslim nations have problems with the correct pronunciation of some letters of the Qur’ān and some dialects, how could it be possible that the s.ah.ābah who were living in the best generation close this door of mercy and lenience that had been opened by Allah to the Muslims? How could they disagree with the Prophet's guidance in his asking lenience for his community with variant readings? How could they disagree with the Prophet in his confirming the existence of these variant readings (rather than limiting them to one reading) in settling the disagreement among people in his community? How could ‘Uthmān do such things without any action from the s.ah.ābah to prevent him from doing these deeds? In addition, how could the ijmā‘ (agreement) take place on keeping one h.arf and abandoning the other six a h.ruf when the meaning of ah.ruf itself had not been agreed upon? Had this actually happened, why did not ‘Uthmān allow these six ah.ruf to remain in history, not to be totally forgotten, since they were not abrogated? Why did not history keep them, when the s.ah.ābah kept in history the abrogated and isolated readings, even fabricated traditions that reach us today and will reach people in the future?59

We have seen how al-Qat.t.ān and al-Zarqānī adopted different views about the seven ah.ruf and how these two scholars defended their respective views. Al-Qat.t.ān adopted the view of al-T.abarī and others that the seven ah.ruf were seven synonyms of a word, and only one reading existed in the ‘Uthmānic codices, as the other six were only optional. On the other hand al-Zarqānī adopted al-Rāzī's view which is similar to that of Ibn Qutaybah, and contended that the seven ah.ruf which are seven aspects of readings existed in the ‘Uthmānic codices.

B.Ungrammatical Usage in the Qur’ān

Ibn Qutaybah mentions five main grammatical errors (alh.ān, sing. la h.n), in the Qur’ān alleged by his opponents. They are as follows:
1. إِنَّ هَذَانِ لَسَاحِرَانِ (طه: ٦٣)for هذيْن(Q. 20:63)
2. إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آَمَنُوا وَالَّذِينَ هَادُوا وَالصَّابِئُونَ (المائدة: ٦٩) for وَالصَّابِئِيْنَ (Q. 5:69)
3.وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ ... وَالْمُقِيمِينَ الصَّلَاةَ (النساء: ١٦٢) for وَالْمُقِيمُونََ (Q. 4:162)
4. وَكَذَلِكَ نُجِِّي الْمُؤْمِنِينَ (الأنبياء: ٨٨) for نُجِِّي الْمُؤْمِنُونَ (Q. 21:88)
5. فَأَصَّدَّقَ وَأَكُنْ مِنَ الصَّالِحِينَ (المنافقون: ١٠) for وَأَكُونَ (Q. 63:10)
He cites the statement of ‘Ā’ishah on the authority of Abū Mu‘āwiyah Muh.ammad ibn H.āzim al-Tamīmī (d. 193/809), from Hishām ibn ‘Urwah ibn al-Zubayr (d. 146/763-4) and from his father from ‘Ā’ishah who said that there were three scribes' errors in the Qur’ān, mentioning the first three errors above.60 He also cites the statement of ‘Uthmān who said: "I see a solecism in it, and the Arabs will correct it with their tongue (أَرَى فِيْهِ لحَنْاً وَسَتُقِيْمُهُ اْلعَرَبُ بِأَلْسِنَتِهَا); so, he did it, but kept the rasm as it was. Moreover, al-Hajjāj was reported to have assigned ‘Ās.im, Nājiyah ibn Rumh., and ‘Alī ibn As.ma‘ to trace any Qur’ānic book which did not agree with the ‘Uthmānic recension, to destroy it and to give its owner sixty dirhams as compensation.61

1. إِنَّ هَذَانِ لَسَاحِرَانِ
Regarding the first alleged solecism, namely, inna hādhāni lasāh.irān, Ibn Qutaybah mentions three views, as follows:

a. According to grammarians whom Ibn Qutaybah does not identify, among whom was al-Kisā’ī, it is the dialect of the Balh.arth (Banī ’l-H.ārith) ibn Ka‘b tribe who express the dual with alif in all of the three cases. They say, for example, marartu birajulān, qabid.tu dirhamān, and jalastu bayna yadāh.62 The example in poetry is as follows: تَزَوَّدَ مِنَّا بَيْنَ أُذُنَاهُ ضَرْبَة * دَعَتْهُ إلىَ هَابِ التُّرَابِ عَقِيْم "He was hit with a blow that led him to a barren, dusty place." Here bayna udhunāhu is used instead of bayna udhunayh.63

b. It is the error of the scribe and therefore should be read inna hādhayn lasāh.irān. This is the view of Abū ‘Amr al-‘Alā’ and ‘Īsá ibn ‘Umar among the qurrā’ who affirm ‘Ā’ishah's statement, and ‘Ās.im ibn Abī al-S.abāh al-Jah.darī who explicitly supports ‘Uthmān's statement mentioned before. ‘Ās.im al-Jah.darī, the muqri’ and mufassir of Bas.rah, in his mus.h.af (codex) followed the ‘Uthmānic recension, but read inna hādhayn, wa ’l-s.ābi‘īn, wa ’l-muqīmūn, and wa ’l-s.ābirūn.64

c. Some unidentified qurrā’ read in hādhān sāh.irān based on Ubayy ibn Ka‘b's reading in his mus.h.af, in dhān illā sāh.irān, as well as that of ‘Abd Allāh ibn Mas‘ūd who read an hādhān sāh.irān.65

Commenting on this reading Ibn Khālawayh states that the qurrā’ unanimously agree in reading inna except Ibn Kathīr and H.afs. from ‘Ās.im, both read in; they read hādhān (with alif) except Abū ‘Amr who read hādhayn (with yā’). They agree in reading with the light nūn in the dual form hādhān, except Ibn Kathīr who read it with a stressed nūn, namely, hādhānn.66

The argument of those who read inna hādhān is the report of al-D.ah.h.āk from Ibn ‘Abbās who said that Allah revealed the Qur’ān in the language of all the tribes of the Arabs, and in this case, in the language of the Balh.arth ibn Ka‘b tribe that uses alif invariably in the dual form. The argument of those who read in is that by reading inna with the light nūn, it invalidates its grammatical function, so that hādhayn in the accusative case returns to its original nominative case hadhān. Therefore, there is no solecism in this case. Moreover, another argument is that the word in here does not mean "verily", but rather mā (not), and the letter lām means illā (except), so that the reading إنْ هـذَانِ لَسَاحِرَان means مَا هـذَانِ إلّا سَاحِرَان ("These two people are none but two magicians"). The example from the Qur’ān is the verse إِنْ كُلُّ نَفْسٍ لَمَّا عَلَيْهَا حَافِظٌ (الطارق : ٤) meaning مَا كُلُّ نَفْسٍ إلَّا عَلَيْهَا حَافِظٌ ("No human soul but has a guardian over it." Q. 86:4).67

Abū al-‘Abbās al-Mubarrad interprets the meaning of inna in this reading as na‘am (yes). He says that when a Bedouin came to Ibn al-Zubayr saying: "May Allah curse the camel that carried me to you," he answered inna wa rākibuhā, meaning na‘am wa rākibuhā ("yes, and its rider"). As a shāhid, he cites the poems of ‘Ubayd Allāh ibn Qays as follows:

بَكَرَ اْلعَوَاذِلُ بِالضُّحَى * يَلْحَيْـنَنِيْ وَ أَلُوْمُهُنَّـه
وَ يَقُلْنَ شَيْبٌ قَدْ عَلا * كَ وَقَدْ كَبَرِتَ فَقُلْتُ إنَّه
("My reprovers came early in the morning abusing me and I blamed them; they said, 'Hoariness has come upon you, and you have become old,' and I said 'yes'").68

The argument of those who read hādhayn is the afore-mentioned statement of ‘Uthmān who considered hādhān to be a solecism and stated that the Arabs would correct it with their tongues. If it were said that ‘Uthmān was more entitled to correct the solecism, it would be said that the solecism is not an error, but rather a deviation from using the Qurayshī dialect.69 The argument of those who read hādhānn is that the stress on the letter nūn serves as a substitute for the missing alif as an indication that a letter is missing in that word. Therefore, this stress indicates that the word hādhān is made of incomplete letters and to distinguish it from words made of complete letters. In other words, as the wordهذان is the combination of هذا and the dualان , one of its two alifs is replaced with the stressed nūn.70

Ibn Qutaybah states that the word hādhān was written in the ‘Uthmānic codex (Mus.h.af al-Imān) without alif, and in fact, the dual is always written in it without alif, such as qāla rajulāni (قَالَ رَجُلن Q. 5:23), fa’ākharāni yaqūmāni ( فآخَرن يَقُوْمَانQ. 5:107). 71 Moreover, it is reported by ‘Abd Allāh from ‘Amr ibn ‘Abd Allāh al-Awdī from Wakī‘ from al-A‘mash from Ibrāhīm who said that people thought that in reading, the letter alif and the letter yā’ were the same, and that inna hādhāni and inna hādhayni were identical when reading.72

Al-Farrā’ gives three reasons for reading inna hādhān in the above verse: (a) It is the language of the Banī al-H.ārith as mentioned earlier; (b) When the Arabs say muslimūn they added in the written word the letter waw after a d.ammah on the letter mīm that preceded it. When they say muslimīn, they added the letter yā‘ after putting a kasrah on the letter mīm. However, when they say ithnayn, if they put the letter yā‘, it would not be preceded by a kasrah, but by a fath.ah. Therefore, they keep the letter alif as it is and write ithnān; similar to the case of ithnān is hādhān (c) The letter alif is a support for the word hādhā. In the dual number only one letter is added to it, namely, the letter nūn, so that it becomes hādhān in all cases. It is like al-ladhī in which the letter yā’ remains after adding the letter nūn in the plural, so that it becomes al-ladhīn, except for the Banī Kinānah who read it as al-ladhūn.73

Al-Suyūt.ī mentions five views given by Arabic grammarians as well as by himself in justifying the above reading as follows:

a. It is the language of the Kinānah and the Banī ’l-H.ārith to always put the letter alif in the dual form as mentioned earlier.

b. The word inna means "yes", which is the view of Abū ’l-‘Abbās and al-Mubarrad as mentioned earlier, so that it does not affect the inflection of words which follow it, namely, hādhān remains as it is.

c. The whole expression hādhān las.āh.irān - which consists of mubtada’ (subject) and khabar (predicate) - is the khabar of the hidden mubtada’, namely, the d.amīr al-sha’n (the pronoun indicating circumstances) which serves as the ism of inna. Therefore, the full expression is إنَّهُ هَذَانِ لَسَاحِرَان .

d. The same as above, except that sāh.irān is the khabar of the hidden mubtada’, so that the full expression isإنَّهُ هَذَانِ لَهُمَا سَاحَرَان .

e. The letter hā’ in hādhān should be joined with inna instead of dhān, so that it is read إنَّهُ ذَانِ لَسَاحِرَان.

f. According to al-Suyūt.ī, the significance of the alif of the dual in hādhān is that it rhymes together with the word that follows it, namely, sāh.irān as well as yuridān, so that they all rhyme together. As evidence, he gives similar examples from the Qur’ān. The use of tanwīn (nunation) with the additional alif in the word salāsil - so that it becomes salasilan - will make it rhyme with the word that follows it, namely, aghlālan and sa‘īran (Q. 76:4). Similarly, the nunation of Saba’ changes it to Saba’in to rhyme with binaba’in and yaqīnin. (Q. 27:22).74

Al-Zarqānī gives four variant readings of إِنَّ هَذَانِ لَسَاحِرَانِ as follows:

(a) إِنَّ هَذَانِwas the reading of Nāfi‘ and others; (b) إنْ هذاَنِّ was the reading of Ibn Kathīr; (c) إنْ هذَانِ was the reading of H.afs.; and (d) إنَّ هذَيْنِ was the reading of Abū ‘Amr. As the ‘Uthmānic codices contained the seven ah.ruf the word hādhān was writtenهذن without alif or yā’, so that it could be read with the four variant readings mentioned above. 75

2. وَالصَّابِئُونَ

With regard to the verse إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آَمَنُوا وَالَّذِينَ هَادُوا وَالصَّابِئُونَ وَالنَّصَارَى ... (المائدة : ٦٩) "Lo! those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Sabaeans, and Christians..." (Q. 5:69, Pickthall), Ibn Qutaybah gives us the reasons for reading al-s.ābi’ūn without falling into a grammatical error, as follows: The word al-s.ābi’ūn is marfū‘ (in the nominative case),76 because it is radd ‘alá mawd.i‘ (a return to the position) of the whole expression inna ’l-ladhīna āmanū, namely, in the nominative case. The assertive particle inna does not affect the meaning of the sentence. Therefore, it is possible to say, for example, إنَّ عَبْدَ اللهِ قَائِـمٌ وَزَيْدٌ .This expression conveys the same meaning as عَبْدُ اللهِ قَائِـمٌ وَزَيْدٌ (except for emphasis which Ibn Qutaybah does not mention). Other "sisters" of inna do affect the meaning of the sentence, so that the word after the conjunction must also be affected; for example, لَعَلَّ عَبْدَ اللهِ قَائِمٌ وَزَيْدًا. Here the word zaydun has to be put in the accusative case, because la‘alla affects the meaning of the sentence, namely, the existence of doubt in it, whereas inna does not. Ibn Qutaybah contends further that according to the grammarian al-Kisā’ī of the Kūfan school, it is possible to say إنَّ عَبْدَ اللهِ وَزَيْدٌ قاَئِمَانِ or إنَّ عَبْدَ اللهِ وَزَيْدٌ قَائِمٌ. This is also the view of the grammarians of the Bas.ran school. They say it is possible to read inna ’llāha wa malā’ikatuhu (instead of malā’ikatahu) yus.allūna ‘alá ’l-nabiyyi (Q. 33:56), and cite the following poem of D.ābi’ al-Burjumī as a shāhid: "Faman yaku amsá bi ’l-madīnati rah.luhu, fa’innī wa qayyārun [instead of qayyāran] bihā lagharību.77

According to al-Farrā’, since the subject al-ladhīna is indeclinable, the effect of inna on it is weak, therefore the word al-s.ābi’īn which is connected to it is also weak and can be ignored; consequently, it is possible to read al-s.ābi’īn in the nominative case, namely, al-s.ābi’ūn. However, he disagrees with al-Kisā’ī in the possibility of using the expression إنَّ عَبْدَ اللهِ وَزَيْدٌ قاَئِمَانِ. Because the word ‘abd is declinable, the effect of inna cannot be weak on it as well as on the word connected to it, namely, zayd; therefore, zaydan should be used here. He contends further that the afore-mentioned poem of al-Burjumī does not support al-Kisā’ī's view in accepting zaydun in the above example. The reason is that qayyār is connected to the pronoun ī in innī, an indeclinable, and metonymically expressed word, whereas zayd is connected to a declinable word ‘abd. Similarly, it is not possible to read inna ’llāha wa malā’ikatuhu (Q. 33:56) for the same reason. In addition, it is more likely and permissible to say qayyārun (besides the usual reading qayyāran) than al-s.ābi’ūn. The reason is that the word al-ladhīna with which it is connected can be read as al-ladhūna in the nominative case.78

Another reason for justifying the reading al-s.ābi’ūn is that, according to al-Kisā’ī, the word is following the noun in the term hādū, which does not mean "the Jews" as usually interpreted, but "the people who repented and returned to the right way", an interpretation similarly given to the verse innā hudnā ilayka ("behold, unto Thee have we turned in repentance!" Q. 7:156, Asad). Since some of the Sabaeans were included among "the people who repented and returned to the right way", the word al-s.ābi’ūn is placed in the nominative case. Al-Kisā‘ī probably means that al-s.ābi’ūn is in the nominative case because this term is connected to people who are following the right path, namely those who are hādū as well as āmanū. Again, al-Farrā’ rejects this view stating another interpretation that the believers in the beginning of the verse refer to the pretending believers only and not the sincere ones, then the Jews and Christians are mentioned. The verse continues with مَنْ آَمَنَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآَخِرِ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحًا فَلَا خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ "... whosoever [among them, i.e., the pretending believers,79 the Jews, the Sabaeans and the Christians] believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doth right - there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve." (Q. 5:69, Pickthall). 80 It means that whoever among those people, whether they disbelieve or pretend to believe, will be safe if they become believers.

Al-Zamakhsharī gives us the reason for reading al-s.ābi’ūn instead of al-s.ābi’īn in the above verse: it is the mubtada’ (subject) of a hidden khabar (predicate) kadhālik ("like that"). It is like saying إنَّ الَّذِيْنِ آمَنُوْا وَالَّذِيْنَ هَادُوْا وَالنَّصَارَى كُلُّهُمْ كَذَا وَالصَّابِئُوْنَ كَذلِكَ ("Lo! those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Christians, all of them will be so-and-so, and the Sabaeans will also be like that"). Al-Zamakhsharī rejects the view that al-s.ābi’ūn should be ma‘t.ūf to the phrase إنَّ الَّذِيْنَ, because this could occur only after the completion of the sentence, namely, after mentioning the predicate. Therefore, according to him, it is wrong to say, for example, إنَّ زَيْدًا وَعَمْرُو مُنْطَلِقَانِ, (but rather, إنَّ زَيْدًا مُنْطَلِقٌ وَعَمْرُو).81

Al-Suyūt.ī mentions five views reported from Abū al-Baqā’, including the three views mentioned above. The two remaining views are as follows:

a. Inna in the verse in question means "yes", and the words that follow, including al-s.ābi’ūn, are in the nominative case. As a shāhid, the poem of ‘Ubayd Allāh ibn Qays mentioned before was cited.82

b. Al-s.ābi’ūn is a plural treated as a singular number, and its letter nūn is the letter of the inflection (أَنَّهُ عَلَى اِجْرَاِء صِيْغَةِ الْجَمْعِ مَجْرَى اْلمُفْرَدِ وَالنُّوْنُ حَرْفُ الإعْرَابِ). There is no further comment from al-Suyūt.ī. 83 This means that al-s.ābi’ūna, being treated as a singular noun, its letter wāw remains, although the word is in the accusative case; instead, its letter nūn is inflected with fath.ah, so that it becomes al-s.ābi’ūna. It is like the term Fir‘awnu (in the nominative case) and Fir‘awna (in the accusative case).84

3. وَالْمُقِيمِينَ الصَّلَاةَ

The verse in question runs as follows:
لَكِنِ الرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ مِنْهُمْ وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِمَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكَ وَمَا أُنْزِلَ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ وَالْمُقِيمِينَ الصَّلَاةَ وَالْمُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآَخِرِ أُولَئِكَ سَنُؤْتِيهِمْ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا (النساء : ١٦٢).

"But as for those from among them who are deeply rooted in knowledge, and the believers who believe in that which is revealed unto thee, and that which was revealed before thee and those who are [especially] constant in prayer, and those who pay the poor-due, and the believers in Allah and the Last Day - these it is unto whom We shall grant a mighty reward." (Q. 4:162)

Following the ‘Uthmānic recension it is written wa ’l-muqīmīn al-s.alāh (in the accusative case) in the above verse rather than wa ’l-muqīmūn al-s.alāh (in the nominative case). The latter is grammatically considered the correct one, as it is connected to al-mu‘minūn which is also in the nominative case. Ibn Qutaybah mentions five different views among the grammarians concerning wa ’l-muqīmīn al-s.alāh in the above verse, as follows:

a. The expression is ma‘t.ūf (conjoined) with the pronoun ka in ilayka, so that the verse means يُؤْمِنُونَ بِمَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكَ ... وَإلىَ الْمُقِيمِينَ الصَّلَاةَ ("...,they believe in that which has been revealed unto thee, ... and unto those who were constant in prayer"). This view, however, is rejected by the grammarians of the Bas.ran school. They contend that a noun cannot be connected with a pronoun in the genitive case, unless it is accompanied by the preposition of that pronoun. In this case, the verse should be read wa ilá ’l-muqīmīn al-s.alāh. The absence of the preposition ilá in the Qur’ānic text wa ’l-muqīmīn al-s.alāh indicates that there is no such connection as mentioned above.85

b. The expression is ma‘t.ūf with the pronoun ka in qablika, so that the verse means وَمَا أُنْزِلَ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ وَمِنْ قَبْلِ الْمُقِيمِينَ الصَّلَاة ("... and in that which was revealed before thee and before those who were constant in prayer"). This view is also rejected by the grammarians of the Bas.ran school on the same argument mentioned above. In this case, the term qabl is not mentioned in al-muqīmīn al-s.alāh.86

c. The expression is ma‘t.ūf with mā unzila ilayka, so that the verse means يُؤْمِنُونَ بِمَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكَ وَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْمُقِيمِينَ الصَّلَاةَ ("... believe in that which is revealed unto thee ... and believe in those who are constant in prayer"). This is the view of al-Kisā’ī. As a shāhid it is mentioned in the Qur’ān وَيُؤْمِنُ لِلْمُؤْمِنِيْنَ ("and trusts the believers", Q. 9:61, Asad) which means يُؤْمِنُ بِاْلمُؤْمِنِيْنَ .

d. The expression is in the accusative case because it is a praise (هُوَ نَصْبٌ عَلَي اْلمَدْح), as if it is said أَمْدَحُ الْمُقِيمِينَ الصَّلَاةَ ("I praise those who are constant in prayer"), or أَعْنِي الْمُقِيمِينَ الصَّلَاةَ ("I mean those who are constant in prayer"). According to Sībawayh and others among the grammarians of the Bas.ran school the transition of a noun into the accusative case is a legitimate grammatical device to emphasise its significance, in this case, those who are constant in prayer.87 Asad, Pickthall and Ali follow this view by adding the term "especially" - between parenthesis by Asad and Ali - in translating this expression (al-muqīmīn al-s.alāh).

e. The expression is in the accusative case as a break required after using long successive words in the nominative case. Then the expression goes on and returns to the nominative case. This is the view of Abū ‘Ubaydah.88

Al-Suyūt.ī mentions six views, including those mentioned above except the view of Abū ‘Ubaydah. The remaining two views are as follows:

a. The expression is ma‘t.ūf with the word qabl in qablika, so that the verse means وَمَا أُنْزِلَ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ وَمَا أُنْزِلَ مِنَ الْمُقِيمِينَ الصَّلَاةَ ("... and that which was revealed before thee and that which was revealed to those who were constant in prayer").

b. The expression is ma‘t.ūf with the pronoun hum in minhum, so that the verse means الْمُقِيمِينَ الصَّلَاةَ لَكِنِ الرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ مِنْهُمْ ... ومنَ "But as for those from among them who are deeply rooted in knowledge ... and from among those who are constant in prayer"). 89 This view, as mentioned earlier, is rejected by the grammarians of the Bas.ran school, since the Qur’ānic text does not say wa min al-muqīmīn al-s.alāh.

Al-T.abarī gives us some views on the verse in question. He says that Qur’ānic commentators do not agree that al-rāsikhūn fi ’l-‘ilm and al-muqīmīn al-s.alāh mentioned in the above verse relate to the same category of people. Those who say so maintain that al-muqīmīn al-s.alāh is in the accusative case for the following reasons:

a. It was the scribe's error and should be al-muqīmūn al-s.alāh. This is the view of Abān ibn ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān and ‘Ā’ishah; it is also the reading of Ibn Mas‘ūd in his codex.90

b. The expression is s.ifah (the characteristic) of al-rāsikhūn fī ’l-‘ilm. It is because of the length of the verse that al-muqīmūn al-s.alāh is changed into the accusative case (i.e., al-muqīmīn al-s.alāh) as a praise. This is the view of some grammarians of the Bas.ran and the Kūfan schools. They say that the Arabs occasionally change the i‘rāb of the middle s.ifah of something they are praising or blaming, and finally return to the i‘rāb of the first s.ifah.91

Other grammarians say that al-muqīmīn al-s.alāh is not the s.ifah of al-rāsikhūn fī ’l-‘ilm, although the latter are also found among the former. In this case, al-muqīmīn al-s.alāh is in the genitive case (khifd.). Al-T.abarī gives us some views in understanding the verse, some of which have already been mentioned by Ibn Qutaybah and al-Suyūt.ī above. Their different understandings of the verse are as follows:

a. وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِمَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكَ وَمَا أُنْزِلَ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ وَبِإِقَامِ الصَّلاةِ("... and the believers believe in that which is revealed unto thee, and that which was revealed before thee and [believe] in [the injunction of] performing prayer..."). Al-mu’tūn al-zakāh is in the nominative case because it is ma‘t.ūf with al-mu’minūn, so that the verse means وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِمَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكَ ... هُمُ اْلمُؤْتُوْنَ الزَّكَاةَ ("and the believers believe in that which is revealed unto thee ... they are those who pay the poor-due").

b. وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِمَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكَ وَمَا أُنْزِلَ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ وَباِلْمَلائِكَةِ ("...and the believers believe in that which is revealed unto thee ... and in angels"), so that the al-muqīmūn al-s.alāh are the angels who pray to Allah by glorifying Him and asking forgiveness for people on the earth.

c. (اْلمُؤْتُوْنَ الزَّكَاةَ وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِمَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكَ ... (وَيُؤْمِنُوْنَ بِالْمُقِيْمِيْنَ الصَّلاةَ هُمْ وَ"... and believe in those who are constant in prayer, they and those who pay the poor-due..."). Those who are constant in prayer in the above view are the angels or the prophets - or the infallible imāms according to the Shī'īs as mentioned by al-T.abarsī.92

d. الْمُقِيمِينَ الصَّلَاةَ لَكِنِ الرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ مِنْهُمْ ... ومنَ "But as for those from among them who are deeply rooted in knowledge ... and from among those who are constant in prayer" as mentioned by al-Suyūt.ī (b) above.

e. وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِمَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكَ ... وَإلىَ الْمُقِيمِينَ الصَّلَاةَ ("..., and the believers believe in that which has been revealed unto thee, ... and unto those who were constant in prayer"), as mentioned by Ibn Qutaybah (a) above.

The best view according to al-T.abarī is the second view (b) above which is that of al-Kisā’ī. Therefore, the verse means وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ مِنْهُمْ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِمَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكَ يَا مُحَمَّدُ مِنَ اْلكِتَابِ وَبِمَا أُنْزِلَ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ مِنْ كُتُبِيْ وَ بِالْمَلائِكَةِ الَّذِيْنَ يُقِيْمُوْنَ الصَّلاةَ ("... and the believers of them believe in that which is revealed unto thee O Muhammad from the Book, and that which was revealed among My Books before thee, and in the angels who are constant in prayer."). If we go back to the s.ifah of al-rāsikhūna fi ’l-‘ilm, the verse means لَكِنِ الرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ مِنْهُمْ وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْكُتُبِ وَبَالْمَلائِكَةِ وَالْمُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآَخِرِ... ("But as for those from among them who are deeply rooted in knowledge, and the believers in the Books, and the angels, and those who pay the poor-due, and the believers in Allah and the Last Day...").93

If we examine the view chosen by al-T.abarsī for the interpretation of the verse in question, it contains the pillars of faith and of Islam. The belief in Allah, His angels, His messengers - as angels and messengers are those who are constant in prayer 94 - His revealed Books, and the Last Day mentioned in the verse, are among the pillars of faith. The five pillars of Islam are represented by establishing the obligatory prayers and paying the zakāt mentioned in this verse as well as other verses scattered throughout the Qur’ān.

If we look into the meaning of the verse in question, we find that they are almost identical to those of verses 2-5 of sūrat al-Baqarah. These verses run as follows:

الم.ذَلِكَ الْكِتَابُ لَا رَيْبَ فِيهِ هُدًى لِلْمُتَّقِينَ.الَّذِينَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْغَيْبِ وَيُقِيمُونَ الصَّلَاةَ وَمِمَّا رَزَقْنَاهُمْ يُنْفِقُونَ.وَالَّذِينَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِمَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكَ وَمَا أُنْزِلَ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ وَبِالْآَخِرَةِ هُمْ يُوقِنُونَ. أُولَئِكَ عَلَى هُدًى مِنْ رَبِّهِمْ وَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ .
"This is the Book wherein there is no doubt, a guidance for those who fear Allah (al-muttaqīn), who believe in [the existence] of that which is beyond the reach of human perception (al-ghayb), and are constant in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them, and who believe in that which is revealed unto thee, and that which was revealed before thee, and are certain of the Hereafter. These are rightly guided by their Lord, and these shall surely prosper (al-muflih.ūn)." (Q. 2:2-5).

The similarity between the two groups of verses is as follows:
Q. 2:2-5 Q. 4:162
a. اِلْمُتَّقِينَ a. الرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ مِنْهُمْ وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ
b. يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْغَيْبِ b. الْمُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ
c. يُقِيمُونَ الصَّلَاةَ c. الْمُقِيمِينَ الصَّلَاةَ
d. مِمَّا رَزَقْنَاهُمْ يُنْفِقُونَ d. الْمُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ
e. يُؤْمِنُونَ بِمَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكَ e. يُؤْمِنُونَ بِمَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكَ
f. وَمَا أُنْزِلَ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ f. وَمَا أُنْزِلَ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ
g. َبِالْآَخِرَةِ هُمْ يُوقِنُونَ g. وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ (بِاللَّهِ) وَالْيَوْمِ الْآَخِرِ
h. أُولَئِكَ عَلَى هُدًى مِنْ رَبِّهِمْh. أُولَئِكَ سَنُؤْتِيهِمْ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا
وَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ .

We have noticed that the meaning of the two groups are almost identical. The expression yu’minūna bimā unzila ilayka wa mā unzila min qablika is found in both groups. The term al-ākhirah (the Hereafter) in Q. 2:4 is itself al-yawm al-ākhir (the Last Day) in Q. 4:162. As those who are constant in prayer in Q. 2:2-5 are the muttaqīn it is highly probable that those who are constant in prayer in Q. 4:162 are the al-rāsikhūn fi ’l-‘ilm and al-mu’minūn. For this reason, I lean to the view of Sībawayh, al-Farrā’, Khalīl and the grammarians of the Bas.ran school in general, that al-muqīmīn al-s.alāh is in the accusative case because it indicates praise as mentioned above. There are many ways to emphasise a statement: we highlight it, underline it, or write it in italics. One of many ways to emphasise a statement in the classical Arabic literature as well as in the Qur’ān is by changing its case, as we have noticed above.

4. نُجِِّي الْمُؤْمِنِينَ

With regard to the verse kadhālika nunjjī ’l-mu’minīn ("thus We save believers" Q. 21:88), Ibn Qutaybah says that although it is written in the mus.h.af with one letter nūn, all the qurrā’ read it with two nūns, namely, nunjī, except ‘Ās.im who read it nujjī with one nūn. 95 The reason for dropping the second nūn, in their view, is that this letter nūn is hidden in the letter jīm, or, as al-T.abarī put it, is not clearly pronounced, as is in allā (originally an lā), so that this letter nūn is dropped. The subject is then Allāh, and the object is al-mu’minīn which is in the accusative case.96

On the other hand, ‘Ās.im’s reading is acceptable among some grammarians, such as al-Farrā’, Abū ‘Ubayd, and Tha‘lab. They base their view on the assumption that there is a hidden mas.dar (verbal noun) after the verb which serves as the subject in the verse, namely, al-najā’, so that the verse reads nujjī ’l-najā’u ’l-mu’minīn which later becomes nujjī ’l-mu’minīn. It is like the expression d.uriba al-d.arbu zaydan which later becomes d.uriba zaydan; the more acceptable expression is man kadhaba kāna sharran lahu ("whoever lies it is bad for him") in which the subject al-kadhib (lying) is not expressed but understood. As a shāhid in poetry they cite the satiric poem of Jarīr ridiculing Farazdaq, as follows: وَ لَوْ وَلَدضتْ قُرَيْفضةُ جَرْوَ كَلْبٍ - لَسُبَّ بِذَلِكَ الْجَرْوِ اْلكِلابَا ("Even if Qufayrah [Farazdaq's mother] bore a dog's cub, dogs would be cursed of that cub"). La subba ... al-kilābā here means la subba al-sabbu ... al-kilābā, so that al-kilābā remains in the accusative case. 97 Abū ‘Ubayd who chooses ‘Ās.im's reading says that he (Abū ‘Ubayd) does so, because he does not like to disagree with the text of the mus.h.af; moreover, there is also a variant reading similar to this verse, namely, li-yajziya qawman bimā kānu yaksibūn ("so that He may requite people according to what they have earned." Q. 45:14). This verse is read by Abū Ja‘far al-Madanī li-yujzā qawman, meaning li-yujzā ’l-jazā’u qawman.98

The use of the mas.dar of a verb as a subject in the above examples is unacceptable according to al-Zajjāj and Abū H.ātim, because it only repeats the meaning of the verb. They say that it is not possible to say d.uriba zaydan meaning d.uriba ’l-d.arbu zaydan, because the verb d.uriba has already indicated the action of beating (al- d.arb), and therefore, the use of al- d.arb is redundant. They reject ‘Ās.im’s reading nujjī ’l-mu’minīn as a solecism, because the noun al-mu’minīn is in the accusative case where no subject is mentioned. Therefore, the proper expression with nujjī is al-mu’minūn, like the expression kurrima ’l-s.ālih.ūn. 99

Another view of Abū ‘Ubayd is that the reading nujjī is originally nunjī, and the second nūn is contracted with the letter jīm. However, the idea of contraction (idghām) is rejected by al-Nah.h.ās who says that because the articulation of the two letters is very different no grammarian allows the contraction of nūn with jīm. For example, the verse man jā’a bi’l-h.asanah (Q. 6:160, 27:89, and 28:84) is never read maj jā’a bi ’l-h.asanah. The best explanation for this, according to al-Qurt.ubī, is that of ‘Alī ibn Sulaymān al-Akhfash. He says that due to the combination of two letter nūns in nunjī the second nūn is dropped. It is like wa lā tafarraqū (Q. 3:103) which is originally wa lā tatafarraqū.100

Another view worth mentioning is that of Abū ‘Alī who says that ‘Ās.im should have read nunjī with two letter nūns, but only one nūn was clear. People who heard his reading thought that there was a contraction between the letter nūn and the letter jīm. Therefore, they changed it with one letter nūn.101

If we look into the present Qur’ānic text based on the variant reading of ‘Ās.im we find that a small lone letter nūn is put after the letter nūn in n-j-y. Its purpose is to help the reader in reading the word, so that he will read it نُنْجِي rather than ُنجِّي . However, since this lone nūn is not joined with the rasm of the word, the rasm is not affected or changed. It is written like this: . Therefore, I lean to the view of Abū ‘Alī above. It means that ‘Ās.im did really read nunjī like the other qurrā’. The only difference is that he did not pronounce the second nūn clearly, since it was not written in the ‘Uthmānic recension.

5. فَأَصَّدَّقَ وَأَكُنْ مِنَ الصَّالِحِينَ

According to Ibn Qutaybah most of the qurrā’ read fa’as.s.addaqa wa akun (without waw) rather than wa akūna. 102 He states that the reason for reading akun is that according to some grammarians the word akun takes the position of fa’as.s.addaqa, namely, in the apocopate form (jazm). Without فَ (fā’) the word أَصَّـدَّقَ has to be in the apocopate form, namely, as.s.addaq. Originally, the expression is law lā akhkhartanī ... atas.addaq wa akun min al-s.ālih.īn. As a shāhid they give the following example in poetry: فَأَبْلُوْنِيْ بَلِيَّتَكُمْ لَعَلِّي - أُصَالِحْكُمْ وَأَسْتَدْرِجْ نَوَيَّا ("Give me your camel so that I may leave you and go back to my way," namely, "treat me well and bring back your kindness to me, for this may induce me to make peace with you and bring me back to what I used to be"). Without la‘allī it is read us.ālih.kum in the apocopate form, and that is the reason astadrij is also in the apocopate form. However, it is also possible to read wa akūna which is the reading of Abū ‘Amr ibn al-‘Alā’ according to Ibn Qutaybah, and of Ibn Mas‘ūd and other qurrā’ according to al-Farrā’. 103 Ibn Mas‘ūd maintains that this reading is correct and not disagreeing with the rasm of the mus.h.af, since the letter waw may be dropped in the text while it remains there in the reading. It is like the letter alif which is dropped in al-Rah.mān (الرَّحْمن) and Sulaymān (سُليمن). 104

C. Contradiction and Disagreement in the Verses of the Qur’ān

There are some Qur’ānic verses in which, to some people, contradiction (تَنَاقُض) seems to occur. In other verses disagreement (اخْتِلاف) seems to occur because of (a) not noticing the existence of relevance, (b) misunderstanding the words, or (c) misunderstanding the expression used in these verses. To prove the absence of such contradiction and disagreement in these verses Ibn Qutaybah explains them one by one, among which are as follows:

1. Contradiction

a. فَيَوْمَئِذٍ لَا يُسْأَلُ عَنْ ذَنْبِهِ إِنْسٌ وَلَا جَانٌّ (الرحمن: ٣٩) ("For on that Day neither man nor invisible being will be asked about his sin." Q. 55:39, Asad) seems to be contradictory with فَوَرَبِّكَ لَنَسْأَلَنَّهُمْ أَجْمَعِينَ.عَمَّا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ (الحجر: ٩٢-٩٣) "But by thy Sustainer! [On the Day of Judgment] We shall indeed call them to account, one and all, for whatever they have done!" )Q. 15:92-93, Asad). Ibn Qutaybah's commentary is that the Resurrection Day (يَوْمُ اْلقِيَامَة) will last fifty thousand years. 105 On that day people will be and then will not be questioned. They will be questioned and put on trial in Allah's court. After the completion of reckoning good and bad deeds they have done on the earth, then what Allah described when He said فَإِذَا انْشَقَّتِ السَّمَاءُ فَكَانَتْ وَرْدَةً كَالدِّهَانِ (الرحمن: ٣٧) "When the sky is rent asunder and becomes red like [burning] oil" (Q. 55:37, Asad) will take place. The talking and arguing will cease, the faces of the blessed will turn white and of the damned will turn black (Q. 3:106-7 and 39:6). The two parties will be identified with marks; the leaves containing the record of their deeds will fly from their hands; the blessed will be sent to Heaven and the damned will be sent to Hell (Q. 56:8-9 and 41). This is the moment where neither man nor invisible being (jinni) will be questioned about his sin as mentioned in the above verse.106

b. It is stated in one verse قَالَ لَا تَخْتَصِمُوا لَدَيَّ وَقَدْ قَدَّمْتُ إِلَيْكُمْ بِالْوَعِيدِ (ق: ٢٨) "[And] He will say: 'Contend not before Me, [O you sinners,] for I gave you a forewarning [of this Day of Reckoning].'" (Q. 50:28, Asad), whereas in the other it is stated: ثُمَّ إِنَّكُمْ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ عِنْدَ رَبِّكُمْ تَخْتَصِمُونَ (الزمر: ٣١) "And then, behold, on the Day of Resurrection you all shall place your dispute before your Sustainer." (Q. 39:31, Asad). Ibn Qutaybah's commentary is that people will argue against each other where the wronged will complain against the wrong-doers, and when the disputes are settled Allah will tell them not to speak, argue or make any excuse any longer, for their arguments and excuses will be of no avail. Ibn Qutaybah presents one interpretation given by ‘Ikrimah on the verse هَذَا يَوْمُ لَا يَنْطِقُونَ. وَلَا يُؤْذَنُ لَهُمْ فَيَعْتَذِرُونَ (المرسلات :٣٥-٣٦) "That Day on which they will not [be able to] utter a word, nor be allowed to proffer excuses!" (Q. 77:35-36, Asad) and the verse Q. 39:31 above. ‘Ikrimah said that on that Day they will argue with each other, then Allah will seal their mouths, and their hands and legs will talk.107

2. Disagreement

a. Not noticing the existence of relevance, as follows:

(1) The verse وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا تُقْسِطُوا فِي الْيَتَامَى “And if you have reason to fear that you might not act equitably towards orphans,” continues with فَانْكِحُوا مَا طَابَ لَكُمْ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ مَثْنَى وَثُلَاثَ وَرُبَاعَ (النساء: ٣) “then marry from among [other] women such as are lawful to you - [even] two, three, or four" (Q. 4:3, Asad) which seems irrelevant. Ibn Qutaybah's explanation is that if you fear that you might not deal fairly with the orphans that are assigned to you, then fear also that you might not do justice among women if you marry them. Therefore, marry two, three or four wives and not more. Otherwise, you will not be able to do justice among them. The verse continues with: "But if you have reason to fear that you might not be able to treat them with equal fairness, then [only] one - or [from among] those whom you rightfully possess." It means that if you still fear that you would not be able to do justice with two, three or four wives, then marry one wife only, or confine yourself to your imā’ (slave girls) whom your right hand possesses. This is more appropriate, so that you would not become unfair with them. Quoting Ibn ‘Abbās Ibn Qutaybah said that like the orphans, women are also under the protection of men. Since justice is highly required from the guardians of orphans towards these orphans, so it is with the husbands towards their wives. Therefore, the number of wives is limited to four and not more to avoid injustice.108

(2) One verse reads: جَعَلَ اللَّهُ الْكَعْبَةَ الْبَيْتَ الْحَرَامَ قِيَامًا لِلنَّاسِ وَالشَّهْرَ الْحَرَامَ وَالْهَدْيَ وَالْقَلَائِدَ "God has laid down that the Ka‘bah, the Inviolable Temple, shall be a symbol for all mankind; and [so, too] the sacred month [of pilgrimage] and the garlanded offerings," then the verse continues with ذَلِكَ لِتَعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ يَعْلَمُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ (المائدة : ٩٧) "that these [are symbols] meant to make you aware that God is aware of all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth, and that God has full knowledge of everything." (Q. 5:97, Asad). The second part of the verse seems to be irrelevant to the first part.

In order to show the existence of relevance between the two parts of the above verse, Ibn Qutaybah described at first the condition of the Arabs before the advent of Islam. He said that the Arabs in the pre-Islamic era were accustomed to waging war among themselves, shedding blood and taking others' property unjustly, frightening travellers, seeking vengeance and killing an innocent person rather than the killer in revenge. They even killed a close friend or a relative in retaliation for another close friend or relative. An example can be seen with Tawbah ibn al-Mud.arris al-‘Abasī who wrote a poem consoling his mother after killing his own maternal uncle in revenge for his brother's assassination. They might kill three, four or more persons in revenge for one person. An unidentified poet wrote a poem regarding such an event when he said هُمْ قَتَلُوْا بِظِنَّةِ وَاحِدٍ - ثَمَانِيَةً ثُمَّ اسْتَمَرُّوْا فَارْتَعُوْا "They accused )you( of killing one of their men; in revenge, they killed eight men )of yours(; then they continued tending (their camels) fearlessly (of any retaliation from you)." For this reason Allah made the Ka‘bah, the Inviolable Temple and the sacred territory (al-h.arām) around it, so that people who were afraid for themselves could take refuge within this sacred territory. Allah made the sacred month so that when it arrived people and their property became safe again. After they had sacrificed or put the garland around the neck of the animals to be sacrificed they would be free to go and travel in search of their subsistence which would make them prosper and safe from poverty. If Allah had left these Arabs in their state of ignorance and continuous state of hostility, travelling and trade would have stopped and they would have become extinct. Allah did not want this to happen. He did what He did because He knew what was good for them and wanted us to know that Allah is aware of all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth and has full knowledge of everything.

b. Misunderstanding the words, as follows:

(1) The word kuffār in the following verse is misunderstood by some people as "infidels" rather than "tillers". The verse runs as follows: كَمَثَلِ غَيْثٍ أَعْجَبَ الْكُفَّارَ نَبَاتُهُ (الحديد : ٢٠ ) "Its parable is that of [life-giving] rain: the herbage which it causes to grow delights the tillers of the soil..." (Q. 57:20, Asad). They wondered why the verse specified the infidels alone in rejoicing on seeing the growth of the plants when the believers would not have their faith decrease if they shared the infidels' joy. Ibn Qutaybah states that the word kuffār in the above verse means "the farmers", as the root-meaning of the word kafara from which kuffār is derived means "to cover". The farmer who sows the seeds is called kāfir, because he covers them with soil when he plants them. The night is called kāfir because it covers everything with its darkness. It is in this sense that the pre-Islamic poet Labīd said فِيْ لَيْلَةٍ كَفَرَ النُّجُوْمَ غَمَامُهَا “...in a night where the clouds covered its stars". In addition, another Qur’ānic verse mentions the word zurrā‘ (farmers) instead of kuffār, as follows: كَزَرْعٍ أَخْرَجَ شَطْأَهُ فَآَزَرَهُ فَاسْتَغْلَظَ فَاسْتَوَى عَلَى سُوقِهِ يُعْجِبُ الزُّرَّاعَ (الفتح : ٢٩) "... [they are] like a seed that brings forth its shoot, and then He strengthens it, so that it grows stout, and [in the end] stands firm upon its stem, delighting the sowers..." (Q. 48:29, Asad).109

(2) The word subātan in the following verse is misunderstood by some people and translated as "sleep" rather than "rest". The verse reads as follows: وَجَعَلْنَا نَوْمَكُمْ سُبَاتًا (النبأ: ٩) “And [We] made your sleep for rest." (Q. 78:9, ‘Ali). Therefore they wonder how sleep is made for sleep. Ibn Qutaybah explains that subātan in the above verse means "rest", so that the verse means "and We made sleep for rest for your body". Saturday is called يَوْمُ السَّبْتِ meaning "the day of rest" on which the children of Israel have rest. The word sabt originally means "stretching" from which it becomes "rest". The expression سَبَتَتِ الْمَرْأَةُ شَعْرَهَا means "the woman undid the plait of her hair". However, sleep is sometimes called subāt because sleep occurs with stretching.110 Another meaning of subāt is given by al-Qurt.ubī which is "cutting" (الْقَطْع). The expression سَبَتَ شَعْرَهُ means “he cut his hair,” and if someone sleeps he cuts his relation with people and his work.111

c. Misunderstanding the expression in the verses, as follows:

(1) The verse وَأَكْوَابٍ كَانَتْ قَوَارِيرَاْ “... and goblets that will [seem to] be crystal" (lit., "and goblets which were crystal"), then the verse continues with قَوَارِيرَاْ مِنْ فِضَّةٍ (الإنسان: ١٥-١٦) “Crystal-like, [but] of silver" (Q. 76:15-6, Asad) (lit., "crystal [made] of silver"). To some people the two verses seem to disagree. The first verse mentions goblets made of crystal, then in the second, the crystal is made of silver. Ibn Qutaybah's explanation is that everything in Paradise such as beds and cups are different from what we have in this world. Allah mentions what we know in this world to indicate what we do not know in the next world. Referring to Ibn ‘Abbās's statement, Ibn Qutaybah says that there is nothing in this world similar to that in Paradise except in names. The goblets in this world are made of crystal or of silver. In Paradise these goblets are white as silver and pure as crystal. The verse, then, means according to Ibn Qutaybah "crystal as if it were silver" rather than "crystal-like, [but] of silver" as viewed by Ibn Kathīr and translated by Asad above.112

(2) The verse لِنُرْسِلَ عَلَيْهِمْ حِجَارَةً مِنْ طِينٍ (الذاريات: ٣٣) “That We may send upon them stones of clay" (Q. 51:33, Pickthall). This verse seems to indicate that the stones were made of clay. Referring to Ibn ‘Abbās's interpretation, Ibn Qutaybah says that these stones are ājurr (baked bricks), for it is as hard as stone.113

D. The Ambiguity of the Verses of the Qur’ān

1. The meaning of ambiguity

The word tashābuh (similarity, resemblance, likeness), which is the mas.dar of the word mutashābih (ambiguous, obscure) as explained by Ibn Qutaybah, is the resemblance of a word with another in its appearance (في الظاهر) when they differ in meaning. For example, the fruit of Paradise resembles that of the earth, but the taste is different, as mentioned in the following verse: (البقرة: ٢٥) وَأُتُوا بِهِ مُتَشَابِهًا ("It is given to them [namely, the people of Paradise] something resembling it." Q. 2:25). The verb tashābaha ("to resemble one another") in the verse تَشَابَهَتْ قُلُوبُهُمْ (البقرة: ١١٨) "their hearts are all alike" (Q. 2:118) means "their hearts resemble each other in infidelity and in harshness". The verb ishtabaha ("to resemble one another") in the expression اشْتَبَهَ عَلَيَّ اْلأَمْرُ ("the matter is obscure to me") means "it resembles another matter, so that I can hardly make any distinction between the two". The verb shabbaha ("to liken, to make equal or similar") in the expression شَبَّهْتَ عَلَيََّ ("you made me uncertain") if you covered the truth with falsehood (لَبَّسْتَ الْحَقَّ بِاْلبَاِطِل). Magicians (أَصْحَابُ اْلمَخَارِق) are called أَصْحَابُ الشَّبَه ("dubious persons"), because they make falsehood seem reality.114

The word mutashābih may also be applied to something ambiguous (mysterious) and subtle, even if it does not make us confused with its resemblance to something else. The letters of the alphabet at the openings of many chapters of the Qur’ān, known as al-h.urūf al-muqat.t.a‘ah (lit., "disjoined letters"), are sometimes called mutashābih since they resemble other letters. These ambiguous letters will be dealt with in chapter four of this study.

2. Muh.kamāt and Mutashābihāt

There has never been any dispute among Muslim scholars regarding the existence of muh.kamāt (clear verses) as well as mutashābihāt (ambiguous verses) in the Qur’ān. The Qur’ān itself affirms their existence as follows: هُوَ الَّذِي أَنْزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آَيَاتٌ مُحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ (آل عمران: ٧) “He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Book, containing verses that are clear in and by themselves [namely, precise in meaning] - they are the essence of the Book - and others allegorical..." (Q. 3:7). But they disagree in regard to the verses which are considered to belong to the mutashābihāt and in the possibility of knowing their ta’wīl. The Ash‘arīs and the Mu‘tazilīs believe that the mutashābihāt are explained by the muh.kamāt, but what is ambiguous (mutashābih) according to the Ash‘aris is clear (muh.kam) according to the Mu‘tazilīs and vice versa. For example, the Qur’ānic verse فَمَنْ شَاءَ فَلْيُؤْمِنْ وَمَنْ شَاءَ فَلْيَكْفُرْ (الكهف : ٢٩) “Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve;" (Q. 18:29, Pickthall), and وَمَا تَشَاءُونَ إِلَّا أَنْ يَشَاءَ اللَّهُ (الإنسان : ٣٠) “Yet, you cannot will, except by the will of Allah." (Q. 76:30, Dawood). According to the Ash‘arīs, the first verse is mutashābih because they do not believe in the infinite free-will, while the second one is muh.kam. The Mu‘tazilīs hold the opposite view, because they do not believe in finite free-will.

Generally speaking, the muh.kamāt are verses which decide clearly and elaborately with clear evidence the ruling of something whether it is h.alāl (lawful, permissible), h.arām (unlawful, prohibited), wa‘d (promise), wa‘īd (threat), thawāb (reward), ‘iqāb (punishment), amr (command), zajr (reproof), khabar (news of the past), mathal (parable), ‘iz.ah (sermon, advice), ‘ibar (deterrent examples), etc. These muh.kamāt verses are the mother of the Book, namely, the foundation (origin, source) of the Book, wherein the religion of Islam, the religious obligations (al-farā’id.), penal laws (al-h.udūd), and matters concerning Muslims' religious affairs are found. However, there are different opinions among the ‘ulamā’ on what is precisely meant by muh.kamāt and its relation to mutashābihāt, among which are as follows:

a. The muh.kamāt are verses which are to be acted upon (al-ma‘mūl bihā) and abrogate others, while the mutashābihāt are verses which are abrogated and which are not to be followed. Among the followers of this view are Ibn ‘Abbās, Qatādah, al-Rabī‘, and al-D.ah.h.āk ibn Muzāh.im.

b. The muh.kamāt are verses in which h.alāl and h.arām are explained; the rest are mutashābihāt. This is the view of Mujāhid. 116

c. The muh.kamāt are verses which have no more than one ta’wīl, while the mutashābihāt are those which are subject to many interpretations. This is the view of Muh.ammad ibn Ja‘far ibn al-Zubayr.117 Al-Sayyid al-Murtad.á who supports this view states that the majority of the mutashābihāt have many meanings. It is difficult to know which of these interpretations is meant by Allah.118

d. The muh.kamāt are verses which deal with stories of nations and messengers sent to them which were elaborately told to the Prophet and then to his followers. The mutashābihāt are those which are ambiguous due to the repetition of the stories in different chapters of the Qur’ān; some stories are related in the same wording with different meanings, but others in different wording but with the same meanings. This is the view of Ibn Zayd who cites the verse: الر كِتَابٌ أُحْكِمَتْ آَيَاتُهُ ثُمَّ فُصِّلَتْ مِنْ لَدُنْ حَكِيمٍ خَبِيرٍ (هود : ١) "A-L-R. (This is) a Book, with verses that have been made clear in and by themselves, and then have been distinctly spelled out from One Who is wise and all aware." (Q. 11:1). One example of the mutashābihāt given by Ibn Zayd is the story of Prophet Moses mentioned in many chapters in the Qur’ān with different wording but with the same meanings (ideas). Another example is the use of فَاسْلُكْ فِيهَا (المؤمنون : ٢٧) ("introduce therein" Q. 23:27) which has the same meaning with احْمِلْ فِيهَا (هود : ٤٠) ("load therein" Q. 11:40), اسْلُكْ يَدَكَ (القصص : ٣٢) ("thrust thy hand" Q. 28:32) which has the same meaning with وَأَدْخِلْ يَدَكَ (النمل : ١٢) ("put thy hand into" Q. 27:12), and حَيَّةٌ تَسْعَى (طه : ٢٠) ("a snake, moving rapidly", Q. 20:20, Asad) has the same idea with ثُعْبَانٌ مُبِينٌ (الأعراف : ١٠٧) ("a serpent, plainly visible", Q. 7:107, Asad).119

e. The muh.kamāt are verses whose meanings and interpretations are known by the ‘ulamā’, while the mutashābihāt are those whose interpretations are known to Allah alone, such as the time of the coming of the Doomsday, and al-h.urūf al-muqat.t.a‘ah. This is the view of Jābir ibn ‘Abd Allāh ibn Rubāb to which al-T.abarī leans.120

3. The ta’wīl of the mutashābihāt

One of the big issues in the course of the history of the Qur’ānic exegesis is whether the al-rāsikhūn fī ’l-‘ilm (those who are deeply rooted in knowledge) know the ta’wīl of the mutashābihāt or not. One group, such as Ibn H.azm, says that the al-rāsikhūn fī ’l-‘ilm do not know the ta’wīl of the mutashābihāt. The other group, such as Ibn Qutaybah, believes that they know them. The discrepancy lies in their way of reading and understanding the following verse: فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاءَ الْفِتْنَةِ وَابْتِغَاءَ تَأْوِيلِهِ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلَّا اللَّهُ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آَمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِنْ عِنْدِ رَبِّنَا وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلَّا أُولُو الْأَلْبَابِ (آل عمران : ٧) " But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that which is allegorical seeking (to create) dissension and seeking its interpretation. None knoweth its interpretation save Allah. And those who are deeply rooted in knowledge say: ‘We believe in it; it is all from our Lord’; but only the wise take heed." (Q. 3:7)

The core issue in the above verse is lā ya‘lamu ta’wīlahu illā ’llāh wa al-rāsikhūn fī ’l-‘ilm yaqūlūn āmannā bihi. Those who assert that the al-rāsikhūn fī ’l-‘ilm do not know the ta’wīl of the mutashābihāt, in reading the above verse, make a pause in illā ’llāh, and then start a new sentence with wa al-rāsikhūn fī al-‘ilm, as translated above. Asad, Ali, Pickthall and Dawood all make a full stop after translating illa ’llah. Among those who hold this view are: Ā‘ishah, ‘Urwah ibn al-Zubayr, al-H.asan al-Bas.rī, Mālik, al-Kisā’ī and al-Farrā’. But those who assert that the al-rāsikhūn fī ’l-‘ilm know the ta’wīl of the mutashābihāt, instead of making that pause, they continue the reading with wa ’l-rāsikhūn fī ’l-‘ilm, which, in so doing, becomes connected with Allāh by means of the conjunction wa ("and"). Consequently, the meaning of the verse becomes that beside Allah, the al-rāsikhūn fī ’l-‘ilm also know the ta‘wīl of the mutashābihāt. Among those who hold this view are Ibn ‘Abbās, al-Rabī‘ and Muh.ammad ibn Ja‘far ibn al-Zayd.121 Ibn al-Anbārī accepts both interpretations and includes this verse among the al-ad.dād in his work al-Ad.dād. However, he states that the majority of scholars hold the first view.122

Ibn Qutaybah maintains that the significance of the mutashābihāt in the Qur’ān is that as the Qur’ān was revealed in the language of the Arabs with its own way of expression and style, such as the use of brevity, elaborateness, emphasis, symbolic expression, the concealment of meanings at one time and then revealing it at another, it can be understood by quick-understanding people only. Otherwise, every verse would be clear to everybody, disregarding his level of understanding. Consequently, there would be neither rivalry for precedence (tafād.ul) among people, nor diligent study (to understand the Qur’ān), and ideas would become dead. Similarly, in every branch of knowledge, there are things which are sublime and subtle through which students should pass, so that they will ascend from one level to another, until they reach its highest level. In this way, scholars will possess the merit of insight and good judgment, for which they will be rewarded by Allah.123

Ibn Qutaybah gives many examples from the hadīths, the sayings of the s.ah.ābah, poetry and Arabic expressions to indicate the existence of difficult expressions which cannot be easily understood, similar to the mutashābihāt in the Qur’ān. One of them is the saying of the Prophet, as follows: "Women who dress and at the same time are naked will not enter Heaven," meaning that women who wear very thin or skimpy clothes which reveal the outline of their bodies are effectively naked. Such women will not enter Heaven.124

Ibn Qutaybah explicitly asserts that he does not belong to "those who claim that the mutashābih in the Qur’ān is unknown to the al-rāsikhūn fī ’l-‘ilm". His arguments are as follows:

a. Allah would not reveal anything in the Qur’ān except for the benefit of mankind, and that He would expose what He meant by what He had revealed.125

b. It is impossible to believe that the Prophet himself did not know the ta’wīl of the mutashābihāt. Since he knew the mutashābihāt, despite the verse "None knoweth its interpretation save Allah" it is possible that his elected s.ah.ābah would also have known it. He taught ‘Ali the tafsīr. Ibn ‘Abbās, for whom the Prophet had prayed to become expert in the ta’wīl of the Qur’ān, was reported to have said that he knew everything in the Qur’ān except four things which he knew later, namely: غِسْلِين (الحاقة : ٣٦) (filth, Q. 69:36), حَنَانًا (مريم : ١٣) (compassion, Q. 19:13), لَأَوَّاهٌ (التوبة : ١١٤)(soft of heart, Q. 9:114), and الرَّقِيمِ (الكهف : ٩) (inscription, Q. 18:9).126

c. If the al-rāsikhūn fī ’l-‘ilm did not know the ta’wīl of the mutashābihāt, they would not have any supremacy over seekers of knowledge, or even the ignorant among Muslims, because all of them say, "We believe in it; it is all from our Lord."
d. The word yaqūlūn in the verse is a hāl (an adverb or a circumstantial phrase) to the verb ya‘lamu. It is like the expression لَا يَأْتِيْكَ إِلَّا عَبْدُ اللهِ وَزَيْدٌ يَقُوْلُ أنَا مَسْرُوْرٌ بِزِيَارَتِكَ "Nobody comes to you except ‘Abd Allāh and Zayd says 'I am happy to visit you.'"), meaning لَا يَأْتِيْكَ إِلَّا عَبْدُ اللهِ وَزَيْدٌ قَائِلاً أنَا مَسْرُوْرٌ بِزِيَارَتِكَ ("Nobody comes to you except ‘Abd Allāh and Zayd, saying 'I am happy to visit you.'" As a shāhid from poetry Ibn Qutaybah cites the poem of Yazīd ibn Mufarrigh al-H.imyarī lamenting an unidentified person, or satirising ‘Ubbād ibn Ziyād according to S.A. S.aqr, or regretting the loss of his servant Burd by selling him out of necessity according to al-T.abarsī. 127 The poem reads as follows:
أَصَرَمْتَ حَبْلَكَ من أُمامَهُ - من بَعْدِ أَيَّامٍ بِرامَهْ
وَالرّيْحُ تَبْكِيْ شَجْوَهَا - وَالْبَرْقُ يَلمَعُ فِيْ غَمَامَه
"You have cut your tie with Umāmah after weary days, and the wind is weeping its grief, and the lightning is illuminating (in) a cloud."

It means "the lightning illuminating the cloud is also weeping its grief". If the lightning did not share with the wind in its grief, it would not have made any sense (لَا مَعْنَى) to mention it in the poem.128

Ibn Qutaybah considers the term mushkil as a synonym of mutashābih. He states that since the word mushkil literally means "something which makes a form" (ashkala), namely, "it takes the form of something else", it resembles it. 129 He believes that the al-rāsikhūn fī ’l-‘ilm know the ta’wīl of the mutashābihāt. With this in mind, Ibn Qutaybah calls his book which is being studied here Ta’wīl Mushkil al-Qur’ān.

It is worthy to mention here the arguments of a scholar who held a different view, living in a different time and place, to compare it with those of Ibn Qutaybah. The person was Ibn H.azm, an advocate of the Z.āhirī school who lived in Andalusia (Muslim Spain) in the fifth/eleventh century, two centuries after Ibn Qutaybah's time. Ibn H.azm insisted that the al-rāsikhūn fī ’l-‘ilm do not know the ta’wīl of the mutashābihāt. His main argument is as follows:

a. The word al-rāsikhūn fī ’l‘ilm in the verse in question is the subject of a new sentence. The conjunction wa ("and") in the verse joins two sentences instead of two nouns, as translated above.

b. Allah prohibited people from seeking the ta’wīl of the mutashābihāt, for He said in the verse that those who seek and follow its ta’wīl are those in whose hearts is perversity and are creators of fitnah.

c. Had the al-rāsikhūn fī ’l-‘ilm known the ta’wīl they would have explained it to the people, because they are enjoined by Allah to do so, or they would be cursed by Him. He said: إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَكْتُمُونَ مَا أَنْزَلْنَا مِنَ الْبَيِّنَاتِ وَالْهُدَى مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا بَيَّنَّاهُ لِلنَّاسِ فِي الْكِتَابِ أُولَئِكَ يَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّهُ وَيَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّاعِنُونَ (البقرة: ١٥٩) “Those who hide the proofs and the guidance which We revealed, after We had made it clear in the Scripture: such are accursed of Allah and accursed of those who have the power to curse." (Q. 2: 159, Pickthall).130 If they explained it to the people, these people would have the same knowledge of it with the explainer, so that it would not become mutashābih any longer. In other words, there would be no more mutashābihāt left unexplained. Yet, the Qur’ān states the existence of the mutashābihāt in the Qur’ān. Since the al-rāsikhūn fī ’l-‘ilm would never conceal the ta’wīl of the mutashābihāt if they knew it, for fear of Allah’s curse, and since no ta’wīl has been given, it means that the do not know it.

d. ‘Ā’ishah reported that the Prophet, after reading the verse in question, said: "If you see people who follow what is mutashābih [in the Qur’an], they are those whom Allah called as such [namely, those in whose heart is doubt]. Therefore, beware of them." 131

Both Ibn al-Anbārī and Ibn Qutaybah regarded al-h.urūf al-muqat.t.a‘ah as mutashābihāt. For the former, they are the only ambiguous contents of the Qur’ān,132 whereas for the latter their interpretation is known by the al-rāsikhūn fī ’l-ilm which will be dealt with in due course.

Among the arguments given by those who assert that the al-rāsikhūn fī ’l-‘ilm do not know the ta’wīl of the mutashābihāt are the following:

a. Ibn Mas‘ūd's variant reading of Q. 3:7, as reported by Ibn Dā’ūd on the authority of al-A‘mash, is as follows: وَإنْ تَأْوِيلُهُ إِلَّا عِنْدَ اللَّهِ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آَمَنَّا بِهِ ("and those al-rāsikhūna fī ’l-‘ilm say: 'We believe in it.'" 133 Nobody knows its interpretation except Allah.

b. Ubayy ibn Ka‘b's variant reading is وَإنْ تَأْوِيلُهُ إِلَّا عِنْدَ اللَّهِ وَيَقُوْلُ الرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ آَمَنَّا بِهِ ("Its interpretation is with Allah only, and the al-rāsikhūn fī ’l-‘ilm say 'We believe in it'")134.

c. In the codex of Ibn ‘Abbās it is written wa yaqūlu ’l-rāsikhūna fī ’l-‘ilm.135

d. A h.adīth reported by al-Bukhārī, Muslim and Abū Dā’ūd on the authority of ‘Ā’ishah that the Prophet, after citing the verse in question (Q. 3:7) warned the Muslims not to seek the ta’wīl of the mutashābihāt in the Qur’ān.

e. A h.adīth reported by Ibn Mardawayh from ‘Amr ibn Shu‘ayb from his father who reported from his (‘Amr's) grand-father, that the Prophet said: "The verses of the Qur’ān were not revealed to contradict one another; therefore, act upon what you know in it, and believe in what is ambiguous in it." 136 A similar h.adīth was also reported by al-H.ākim on the authority of Ibn Mas‘ūd, and by al-Bayhaqī on the authority of Abū Hurayrah.

f. It was reported by Ibn Abī H.ātim that ‘Ā’ishah said: "Their [i.e., al-rāsikhūn fī ’l-‘ilm's] soundness of instruction is that they believe in its (the Qur’ān's) mutashābihāt without knowing their ta’wīl.

g. Al-Dārimī in his Musnad reported from Sulaymān ibn Yassār that ‘Umar beat S.abīgh ibn ‘Isl for his questioning about the ta’wīl of the mutashābihāt in the Qur’ān. 137

h. Ibn ‘Abbās's statement that tafsīr is divided into four categories: known by everybody, known by the Arabs through their language, known by scholars, and known by Allah alone.138

i. If the seeking of the ta’wīl of the mutashābihāt were permitted, Allah would not have denounced it, as mentioned in the beginning of the verse in question (Q. 3:7).

j. It would not be eloquent to begin the sentence in the verse in question with yaqūlūn āmannā bihi; instead, wa hum yaqūlūn…or wa yaqūlūn… would be proper. 139 Moreover, it would be stylistically deviating from the ostensible meaning of the text to consider the expression yaqūlūn āmannā bihi as a h.āl for exclusively al-rāsikhūn fī ’l-‘ilm with the exclusion of Allāh.140

k. If the al-rāsikhūn fī ’l-‘ilm knew the ta’wīl of the mutashābihāt with a dalālah (an indicant, a hint), their faith in the mutashābihāt would have been like that in the muh.kamāt; therefore, this faith of theirs in the mutashābihāt would not have been highly praised.

l. The expression kullun min ‘indi rabbinā ("it is all from our Lord") in the verse indicates that the al-rāsikhūn fī ’l-‘ilm believe in what they know in detail and what they do not. Otherwise, the expression would not have any meaning.

Among the arguments given by those who assert that the al-rāsikhūn fī ’l-‘ilm know the ta’wīl of the mutashābihāt are the following:

a. A h.adīth stating that the Prophet prayed to Allah for Ibn ‘Abbās that He would teach him the ta’wīl of the Qur’ān.

b. A statement of Ibn ‘Abbās, as reported by Mujāhid, that he was one of the al-rāsikhūn fī ’l-‘ilm who knew the ta’wīl of the mutashābihāt.

c. The statement of Ibn Mas‘ūd that he knew the asbāb al-nuzūl of the verses of the Qur’ān.

d. The statement of al-H.asan that he would like to know the meanings and the asbāb al-nuzūl of the verses of the Qur’ān.

e. The s.ah.ābah asked the Prophet or the more knowledgeable among themselves, such as Ibn ‘Abbās, the meaning of verses unclear to them. Moreover, they learned from the Prophet not more than ten verses at one time and acted according to their contents. Then they learned about ten other verses until they learned the whole Qur’ān.

f. Allah enjoins the Muslims to ponder the meanings of the Qur’ānic verses without restriction to the muh.kamāt.

g. The s.ah.ābah and the tabi‘īn gave their commentary on all the verses of the Qur’ān, with the exception of some mutashābihāt. However, it does not mean that nobody knows their ta’wīl. The ‘ulamā’ among these people have agreed that the Qur’ān is understandable and explicable, and the existence of the mutashābihāt in it does not necessarily mean that Allah conceals His knowledge of them from people.

h. Allah mentions in the Qur’ān that its verses, without exception, are bayān (explanation), hudan (guidance), shifā‘ (healing) and maw‘iz.ah (advice). These can only be achieved by understanding their meanings.

i. It would be unreasonable that Allah would reveal to the Prophet through Gabriel something which neither Gabriel nor the Prophet could understand. Since the purpose of sending His revelation is to be understood, it would be useless to reveal something which is beyond human understanding.

j. It is true that some knowledge is kept by Allah Himself, such as the time of the occurrence of the Doomsday, but such things are not revealed in the Qur’ān, which are not meant to be known by mankind.

k. Assuming that some Qur’ānic verses are mutashābihāt the ta’wīl of which is known by Allah alone could be abused as a pretext to avoid complying with many Qur’ānic verses.

l. Allah in the verse in question denounced exclusively those in whose hearts is perversity, due to their ignorance and evil intention, for they do not want to find the truth, but to create dissension (fitnah). To these people the ta’wīl of the mutashābihāt would not be known, but rather to the al-rāsikhūn fī ’l-‘ilm.

Al-Farrā’'s position on this issue is clear, namely, al-rāsikhūn fī ’l-‘ilm do not know the ta’wīl of the mutashābihāt. He states that al-rāsikhūn is marfū‘ by yaqūlūn, and not by ya‘lamu. It is similar to the verse لَا يَرْتَدُّ إِلَيْهِمْ طَرْفُهُمْ وَأَفْئِدَتُهُمْ هَوَاءٌ (إبراهيم : ٤٣) "..., their gaze returning not to them, and their hearts as air" (Q. 14:43), where af’idatuhum is marfū‘ by hawā’, not by lā yartaddu.141 Here "their hearts" is a subject for a new sentence, and is not connected with "their gaze".

Abu ‘Ubaydah’s position on the above issue is not clear. He does not give us his commentary on Q. 3:7 except that the al-rāsikhūn fī ’l-‘ilm are the ‘ulamā’ who are also of sound faith (وَرَسَخَ أَيْضًا فِي اْلإْيمَان).142 It is possible that his position is like that of al-Farrā’, or else, he would have said that the al-rāsikhūn fī ’l-‘ilm also know the ta’wīl of the mutashābihāt. If it is so, then Ibn Qutaybah disagrees not only with al-Farrā’, but also with Abū ‘Ubaydah, two of his prominent teachers.

The complexity of the issue is that there is no indication that the verse in question limits the division of the Qur’ānic verses into exclusively muh.kamāt and mutashābihāt. Moreover, the ‘ulamā do not agree as to what belongs to the category of mutashābihāt as well as their interpretation. However, the effective enquirers (al-muh.aqqiqīn) among the mufassirīn bring about reconciliation between the two contending views by accepting both of them with the following explanation:

The Qur’ānic verses in their relation to each other can be divided into three categories: absolutely clear (مُحْكَمٌ عَلىَ اْلإطْلاق), absolutely ambiguous (مُتَشَابِهٌ عَلىَ اْلإطْلاق), and partly clear and partly ambiguous (مُحْكَمٌ مِنْ وَجْهٍ وَ مُتَشَابِهٌ مِنْ وَجْهٍ). The nature of the ambiguity of the mutashābihāt is either in wording (lafz.), such as the word abb (fodder - which is an uncommon word among the Arabs - in Q. 80:31); in meaning (ma‘ná), such as the attributes of Allah; or in both wording and meaning, such as the injunction on fighting the idolators in Q. 9:5. These mutashābihāt in their relation to human level of understanding are divided into three categories: things which are completely unknown by people and beyond human understanding, such as the appearance of the beast as one of the signs of the Doomsday mentioned in Q. 27:82; things which can be known by people, such as uncommon words and some laws; and lastly, things which are known by exclusively the al-rāsikhūn fī ’l-ilm. In other words, they know some mutashābihāt and do not know some others which belong to the first category. This type of knowledge is the one which the Prophet had prayed for, his cousin Ibn ‘Abbas. When the al-rāsikhūn fī ’l-‘ilm said āmannā ("we believe"), they believed in the mutashābihāt regardless whether they knew the ta’wīl of them or not.

ENDNOTES TO CHAPTER II
1. Al-Suyūt.ī mentions also other s.ah.ābah, all twenty-one in number, see al-Itqān, vol. 1, p. 131. Ibn al-Jazarī also mentions the same names, but excludes Sulaymān ibn Surād, see al-Nashr fī ’l-Qira’āt al-‘Ashr, ed. by Muh.ammad ‘Alā’ al-D.abbā’ (Egypt: al-Maktabah al-Tijāriyyah al-Kubrá, n.d.), vol. 1, p. 21.
2. Hishām ibn H.ākim ibn H.izām ibn Khuwaylid al-Qurashī al-Asadī was one of the s.ah.ābah. He belonged to the Quraysh tribe of Banī Asad (ibn Khuzaymah); see Ibn H.ajar al-‘Asqalānī, Kitāb al-Is.ābah fī Tamyīz al-S.ah.ābah 4 vols. (Baghdād: Dār al-‘Ulūm al-H.adīthah, n.d.), vol. 3, p. 603.
3. Al-T.abarī, Jāmi‘, vol. 1, p. 10; John Cooper, The Commen¬tary of the Qur’ān by Abū Ja‘far Muh.ammad b. Jarīr al-T.abarī, being an Abridged Translation of Jāmi‘ al-Bayān ‘an Ta’wīl Ay al-Qur’ān, with introduction and notes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), vol. 1, p. 17; Ibn Qutay¬bah, Ta’wīl, pp. 34-35; and al-Bukhārī, S.ah.īh., vol. 6, p. 100.
4. Al-Qurt.ubī, al-Jāmi‘, vol. 1, pp. 42-46. Al-Suyūt.ī says that there are forty differ¬ent opin¬ions, but he mentions sixteen opinions only, then he mentions the thirty-five different opinions given by Ibn H.ibbān al-Bustī, see al-Itqān, vol. 1, pp. 131-141.
5. Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr, vol. 1, p. 23.
6. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, pp. 35-6. Lane's translation of the above verse is as follows: "And of men is he who serves God standing aloof with respect to religion, in fluctuating state, like him who is in the outskirts of the army, who, if sure of victory and spoil, stands firm, and otherwise flees." See Edward W. Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, Book 1, 8 pts. with continuous pagination (New York: Fredrick Ungar Publishing Co., 1956), pt. 2, p. 550. For further details, see al-T.abarī, Jāmi‘, vol. 17, pp. 93-94; see also J. Cooper, Commentary, vol. 1, pp. 29-30.
7. Al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān, vol. 1, p. 131.
8. Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr, vol. 1, p. 24.
9. Al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān, vol. 1, p. 135.
10. The two views are based on h.adīth, see al-T.abarī, Jāmi‘, vol. 1, p. 24; and J. Cooper, Commentary, vol. 1, p. 29.
11. J. Cooper's translation, see Cooper, Commentary, vol. 1, p. 21; see also al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān, vol. 1, p. 134.
12. Al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān, vol. 1, pp. 134-135. According al- al-T.abarī, the person was Abū al-Dardā’ rather than Ibn Mas‘ūd, see Jāmi‘, vol. 25, p. 78
13. bn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, p. 36.
14. See Abū Bakr Ibn Mujāhid, Kitāb al-Sab‘ah fī ’l-Qirā’at, verified by Dr. Shawqī D.ayf, 2nd ed. (Cairo: Dār al-Ma‘ārif, 1400/[1979-1980]), pp. 528-529. Al-Farrā’ also mentions the two variant readings without giving any details of it, see Abu Zakariyā Yah.yá al-Farrā’, Ma‘ānī ’l-Qur’ān, ed. A.Y. Najātī and M.A. al-Najjār , 3 vols. (Egypt: al-Hay’ah al-Mis.riyyah al-‘Āmmah lil-Kuttāb, 1972-1980), vol. 2, p. 359. Another example is the verse wa ya’murūna ’l-nāsa bi ’l-bakhli instead of bi ’l-bukhli; both have the same meaning, namely, "and bid others to be niggardly" (Q. 4:37 and 57:24, Asad). The mas.dar (verbal noun) bakhal is the root of the verb bakhila and bakhala, whereas bukhl is that of bakhula. The other similar variant reading is ilá maysurah instead of ilá maysarah (Q. 2:280), see Ibn Qutaybah Ta’wīl, p. 36; it is like the terms maqbarah and maqburah, and mashraqah and mashruqah, see al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, vol. 1, p. 181.
15. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, pp. 36-37 and 41. Another example cited by Ibn Qutaybah which belongs to this category of vari¬ant reading is the reading of Ibn ‘Abbās wa’ddakara ba‘da amahin, meaning "and he remembered after forgetting" instead of wa’ddaka¬ra ba‘da ummatin, meaning "he remembered after a long period of time" (Q. 12:46). The two readings mean that the man who had been released from prison remembered the case of Prophet Joseph after a period of time and after he had forgotten it. Both readings, Ibn Qutaybah as¬serts, were revealed to the Prophet to include these two meanings, ibid., pp. 37 and 40.
16. See al-Qurt.ubī, al-Jāmi‘, vol. 14, pp. 290-291. The first reading is also chosen by Asad in translating the verse in question, see The Message, p. 34.
17. See al-Qur t.ubī, al-Jāmi‘, vol. 14, p. 290; Ibn Mujāhid, Kitāb al-Sab‘ah, p. 529. Apart from the variant readings rabbanā bā‘id and rabbunā bā‘ada, al-Farrā’ also mentions rabbanā ba‘‘id, rabbanā ba‘uda, and rabbunā ba‘‘ada, see Ma‘ānī ’l-Qur’ān, vol. 2, pp. 359-360. They are all written in one rasm, namely ربـنـا بـعـد .
18. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, pp. 37 and 41. Another example is the reading of furrigha ‘an qulūbihim, meaning "fear is emptied [i.e., freed] from their hearts" instead of fuzzi‘a ‘an qulūbihim, meaning "the terror [of the Last Hour] is lifted from their hearts." (Q. 34:23, Asad), see ibid., pp. 37 and 42. The latter reading belongs to the seven qurrā’ except Ibn ‘Āmir who read fazza‘a; see Ibn Mujāhid, Kitāb al-Sab‘ah, p. 530.
19. See Ibn Mujāhid, Kitāb al-Sab‘ah, p. 189.
20. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, p. 37; al-T.abarī, Jāmi‘, vol. 1, p. 18 and al-Qur t.ubī, al-Jāmi‘, vol. 15, p. 21. Another example is the reading of ka ’l-s.ūf al-manfūsh instead of ka ’l-‘ihn al-manfūsh, both have the same meaning, namely, "like fluffy tufts of wool." (Q. 101:5, Asad), see Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, p. 37.
21. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, p. 37. Instead of wa t.al‘in mand.ūd, Ibn al-Jazarī who quoted Ibn Qutaybah's view mistakenly put wa t.al‘in nad.īd which he himself rejected and said that this reading has nothing to do with the varying of readings (لَا تَعَلُّقَ لَهُ بِاخْتِلاَفِ اْلقِرَاَءات); see Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr, vol. 1, pp. 27-28. Al-Suyūt.ī correctly quoted the same variant reading, see al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān, vol. 1, p. 132.
22. In another report when ‘Alī was asked whether the term wa t.alh.in should be replaced with wa t.al‘in in the mus.h.af, he answered: "The Qur’ān should be neither disturbed nor replaced" (لاَ يَنْبَغِيْ أَنْ يُهَاجَ اْلقُرْآنُ وَلَا يُحَوَّل); see al-Qurt.ubī, al-Jāmi‘, vol. 17, pp. 208-209.
23. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, pp. 24 and 37; and al-T.abarī, Jāmi‘, vol. 26, p. 100.
24. See Abū al-Fidā Ismā‘īl Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-‘Az.īm, with introduction by Dr. Yusūf ‘Abd al-Rah.mān al-Mur‘ishī, 4 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-Ma‘rifah, 1407/1987), vol. 4, p. 240; and al-Qurt.ubī, al-Jāmi‘, vol. 17, pp. 12-13. It is also the view of Ibn H.azm that the above variant reading of Abū Bakr belonged to the category of the qira’āt mun¬karah. He asserts that anybody other than the Prophet could make mistakes and should not be fol¬lowed; see Abū Muh.ammad ‘Alī Ibn H.azm, al-Ih.kām fī Us.ūl al-Ah.kām, ed. Ah.mad Shākir, 8 vols. in 2 bindings (Cairo: Mat.ba‘at al-‘Ās.imah, n.d.), vol. 4, p. 537.
25. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, p. 38.
26. See Ibn Mujāhid, Kitāb al-Sab‘ah, p. 540.
27. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, p. 38; and al-Qurt.ubī, al-Jāmi‘, vol. 15, p. 174. The addition of unthā (female) and dhakar (male) for emphasis is common among the Arabs; they say, for example, هَذَا رَجُلٌ ذَكَرٌ ("this is a male man"), see al-T.abarī, Jāmi‘, vol. 23, p. 91.
28. See Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, p. 40; and al-Tirmidhī, Sunan, vol. 5, pp. 193-194 (h.adīth no. 2943).
29. Ibn H.azm, al-Ih.kām, vol. 4, pp. 520-521.
30. Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr, vol. 1, p. 31.
31. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, p. 42.
32. See al-Zarkashī, al-Burhān, vol. 1, p. 223.
33. Ibn H.azm, al-I h.kām, vol. 4, p. 523.
34. See al-Qurt.ubī, al-Jāmi‘, vol. 5, p. 337.
35. Al-Qurt.ubī mentions seven variant readings of bushran. They are: (1) bushran itself and (2) nashran, as mentioned above; (3) nushuran which was the reading of Abū ‘Amr and the people of the two holy cities, Makkah and Madinah; nushur is the broken plural of nāshir in the pattern of shāhid and shuhud; (4) nushran which was the reading of al-H.asan and Qatādah; nushr is the easing (takhfīf) of nushur, like reading kutb and rusl for respectively kutub and rusul; (5) bushrá which was the reading of Muh.ammad al-Yamānī; (6) bashran; bashr is the mas.dar of bashara which means bashshara (to bring good news); and (7) bushurá. Al-Qurt.ubī does not give us the names of the qurrā’ to whom the last two variant readings belong; see al-Jāmi‘, vol. 7, pp. 228-229.
36. See the introduction of Dr. Shawqī D.ayf (ed.) in Ibn Mujāhid, Kitāb al-Sab‘ah, p. 12.
37. See Ibn Manz.ūr, Lisān, vol. 8, pp. 145-146.a
38. See al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān, vol. 1, p. 131.
39. Ibid.
40. Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, vol. 4, p. 465.
41. See Mannā‘ al-Qat.t.ān, Mabāh.ith fī ‘Ulūm al-Qur’ān. 19th edition (Beirut: Mu’assasat al-Risālah, 1406/1983), pp. 162-163.
42. Ibid, p. 163
43. See al-T.abarī, Jāmi‘, vol. 1, p. 20.
44. There is a h.adīth stating that "the community of Muh.ammad (or, in another version, 'my community') will never agree on an error". (Reported by al-Bukhārī, al-Tirmidhī, Ibn Mājah, and Ah.mad ibn H.anbal).
45. Al-Qat.t.ān, Mabāh.ith, pp. 164-165.
46. Ibid., pp. 165-166.
47. Ibid., p. 166.
48. Ibid., pp. 1 and 666-667
49. See al-Zarqānī, Manāhil al-‘Irfān, vol. 1, pp. 155-157.
50. Ibid., pp. 161-163.
51. Ibid., p. 158.
52. The reading li’amānatihim in the singular is that of Ibn Kathīr, whereas the rest of the qurrā’ read li’amānātihim in the plural. Al-T.abarī states that the correct reading is li’amānātihim in the plural. Dr. Labīb al-Sa‘īd criticises al-T.abarī in this and other cases where correct readings were considered wrong by him. Al-Sa‘īd contends that this reading of Ibn Kathīr was also transmitted with tawātur (handed down by many chains of unimpeachable transmitters). Moreover, like the rest of the qurrā’, Ibn Kathīr read al-amānāt and amānātikum in the plural in Q. 4:58 and Q. 8:27 respectively. He could have read both in the singular as he did in Q. 70:32 above, had it been from his own whim rather than from Allah. See Dr. Labīb al-Sa‘īd, Difā‘an al-Qirā’āt al-Mutawāti¬rah fī Muwājahat al-T.abarī ’l-Mufassir (A Defence on the Mutawātir Qirā’āt in Countering the Commentator al-T.abarī) (Cairo: Dār al-Ma‘ārif, [1398]/1978), p. 116. It is noteworthy that al-T.abarī lived in the period of ikhtiyār ("choice"). It was the period where scholars of the Qur’ānic text chose their own readings in verses written in ambiguous rasm. The choice was governed by three criteria: the rasm of the mus.h.af, the Arabic language and the isnād. This period of ikhtiyār ended in 322/934 when Ibn Mujāhid's choice of the seven variant readings of the text (qirā’āt) of the seven qurrā’ was declared canonical by the authorities in Baghdād, as they were qirā’āt with mutawātir isnāds. See A. Jones, "The Qur’ān - II," in Arabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad Period, eds. A.F.L. Beeston et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 241-242. Al-T.abarī chose the readings based on his knowledge of the Arabic language, whereas many other readings were later accepted and included in the seven qirā’āt. Al-T.abarī passed away earlier in 310/923. Had he lived and witnessed the canonisation of the seven qirā’āt, he would not have chosen or preferred one among the seven canonised qirā’āt.
53. Al-Zarqānī, Manāhil al-‘Irfān, vol. 1, pp. 169-170.
54. Ibid., p. 170. Quoting from Abū ‘Amr al-Dānī (d. 444/1052) in his work al-Muqnī‘, A.T. Welch mentioned variant readings among the ‘Uthmānic codices. For example, it was written in the standard codex in Madīnah وَالزُّبُرِ وَاْلكِتَابِ (Q. 3:184) and مِنْهُمْ (Q. 40:21), whereas in the mus.h.af sent to Damascus it was written وَبِالزُّبُرِ وَبِاْلكِتَابِ (with the additional bi) and مِنْكُمْ . Similarly, it was written in the standard codex عَمِلَتْـهُ (Q. 36:35) and وَ أَنْ (Q. 40:26), whereas in the mus.h.af sent to Kūfah it was written عَمِلَتْ (with the ellipsis of hu) and أَوْ أَنْ (with the addition of alif). These brought Welch to the following conclusion: "Such variations can best be explained as resulting from carelessness on the part of the scribes or lack of concern for exact uniformity among the authorities." See A.T. Welch, "al-Ķur’ān", EI2, p. 408. The reading wa bi’l-zubur wa bi’l-Kitāb was that of Ibn ‘Āmir and was written in the mus.h.afs of the people of Syria; see al-Qurt.ubī, al-Jāmi‘, vol. 4, p. 296. The reading ‘amilat was that of the Kūfans, whereas the rest read ‘amilathu, including ‘Ās.im, as in the Egyptian standard edition of the mus.h.af issued in 1924, and Nāfi‘; see Mus.h.af al-Jamāhīrīyah bi-Riwāyat al-Imām Qālūn (Tripoli: Jam‘iyat al-Da‘wah al-Islāmīyah al-‘Ālamīyah, 1395/1986), p. 442. The reading أَوْ أَنْ was that of ‘Ās.im, as in the Egyptian standard edition, whereas وَ أَنْ was that of Nāfi‘ as in the Mus.h.af al-Jamāhīrīyah, p. 469. This finding supports the view that the variant readings were kept in the ‘Uthmānic codices, and that they were not the outcome of the scribes' negligence or "lack of concern for exact uniformity among the authorities" as assumed by Welch.
55. Ibid., pp. 170-171.
56. Ibid., 171.
57. Ibid.
58. Ibid., p. 175.
59. Ibid., pp. 177-178.
60. This report was narrated by Is.h.āq ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Mukhlad, known as Is.h.āq ibn Rāhawayh (d. 238/853), one of Ibn Qutaybah's teachers. See Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, pp. 25-26.
61. Ibid, p. 51. This is probably what was meant by Ibn Abū Dā’ūd when he said that al-Hajjāj ibn Yūsuf "has changed in the ‘Uthmānic codex eleven ah.ruf ", such as lam yatasanna became lam yatasannah (Q. 2:259) and biz.anīn became bid.anīn (Q. 81:24); see Abū Bakr ‘Abd Allāh Ibn Abī Dā’ūd, Kitāb al-Mas.āh.if, ed. Arthur Jeffery (Egypt: al-Mat.ba‘ah al-Rah.mānīyah, 1355/1936), pp. 117-118. Instead of changing the ah.ruf in the ‘Uthmānic codex which seemed to be in the above statement, al-Hajjaj changed the ah.ruf that did not agree with the ‘Uthmānic codex as stated by Ibn Qutaybah above. Al-T.abarsī and Saqr reject the genuinness of the stories concerning the statements of ‘Ā’ishah and ‘Uthmān mentioned above and considered them fabricated ones; see al-T.abarsī, Majma‘ al-Bayān, vol. 2, p. 139; and Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, p. 26, n. 3.
62. See Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, p. 20; and Ibn Fāris, al-S.āh.ibī, p. 20. According to al-Suyūt.ī, it is also the dialect of the Banī Kinānah, see al-Itqan, vol. 2, pp. 273-274. Abū al-Khat.t.āb claimed to have heard the Kinānah tribe using alif invariably for the dual; see Abū ‘Ubaydah, Majāz al-Qur’ān, ed. Dr. M.F. Sezgin (Egypt: Muh.ammad Sāmī Amīn al-Khānjī, n.d.), p. 21. Besides the Balh.arth, al-T.abarī mentions also the Khath‘am and the Zubayd tribes in Yemen, see his work, Jāmi‘, vol. 16, p. 121. According to Ibn Jamā‘ah, among the grammarians who state that the Banī al-H.ārith use alif invariably in the dual number is al-Kisā’ī. Other tribes mentioned by al-Kisā’ī are the Khath‘am, the Zubayd and the Hamadān. Abū Khat.t.āb mentioned the Kinānah; others mention the Banī al-‘Anbar, the ‘Udhrah, the Murād and others; see Dr. ‘Abd al-‘Al Mukarram in his note in Abu ‘Abd Allāh ibn Khālawayh, al-Hujjah fī ’l-Qirā’āt al-Sab‘, ed. and annot. Dr. ‘Abd al-‘Alī Sālim al-Mukarram (Beirut and Cairo: Dār al-Shurūq, 1399/1979), p. 242, n. 6, quoting Ibn Jama‘ah's marginal notes on the commentary on Ibn al-H.ājib's al-Shāfiyah (N.p.: Mat.ba‘at Dār al-T.ibā‘ah al-‘Āmirah, n.d.), vol. 1, p. 277.
63. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, p. 50;and al-Zabīdī, Tāj al-‘Arūs, 10/405. According to Ibn Manz.ūr, the poem belonged to Hawbar al-H.ārithī who mentioned udhunayh instead of udhuynāh, see Lisān, vol. 10, p. 64, vol. 9, p. 163, and 20, p. 226. Another example from poetry is as follows: إنَّ أَبَاهَا وَأَبـَا أَبـَاهَا * قَـدَ بَلَغَا مِنَ اْلمَجْـدِ غَايَتـَاهَا in which abā abāhā and ghayatāhā are used respectively for abā abīhā and ghayatayhā; see Ibn Khālawayh, al-H.ujjah, p. 242; and al-T.abarsī, Majma‘ al-Bayān, vol. 4, p. 16.
64. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, p. 51.
65. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, p. 52; and Abū Zakariyā Yah.yá ibn Ziyād al-Farrā’, Ma‘ānī ’l-Qur’ān, ed. A.Y. Najātī and M.A. al-Najjār, 3 vols. (Egypt: al-Hay’ah al-Mis.riyyah al-‘Āmmah lil-Kuttāb, 1972-1980), vol. 2, pp. 183-184. The variant reading in hādhān lasāh.irān and in hādhān sāh.irān are also attributed to Ibn Mas‘ūd, see A. Jeffery, ed. Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’ān: The Old Codices (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1937), pp. 146 and 60.
66. Ibn Khālawayh, al-H.ujjah, p. 242 and Ibn Mujāhid, Kitāb al-Sab‘ah, p. 419.
667. Ibn Khālawayh, al-H.ujjah, pp. 242-243 and 368.
68. Ibid., p. 243. The view that particle inna in the verse inna hādhān means "yes" is rejected by al-T.abarsī with the following argument: (a) If it was so, hādhān would become mubtada’ and lasā h.irān its khabar with the emphatic la. This emphatic la in the khabar in the Arabic language should not occur with a simple mubtada’, except in an isolated case or necessity. In other words, the mubtada’ has to be emphasised first, then the emphatic la can be added to its khabar; (b) Quoting Abū ‘Alī, translating inna with "yes" in the above verse does not fit in the structure of the sentence. It is not correct to say "yes, these two are surely sorcerers" confirming Prophet Moses's statement in verse 61: قَالَ لَهُمْ مُوسَى وَيْلَكُمْ لَا تَفْتَرُوا عَلَى اللَّهِ كَذِبًا فَيُسْحِتَكُمْ بِعَذَابٍ وَقَدْ خَابَ مَنِ افْتَرَى (طه: ٦١) "Woe unto you! Do not invent lies against God, lest He afflict you with most grievous suffering: for He who contrives [such] a lie is already undone!" (Q. 20:61, Asad). It is also improper to say "yes ..." after the statement: فَتَنَازَعُوا أَمْرَهُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ (طه: ٦٢ ) "So they debated among themselves as to what to do; but they kept their counsel secret" (Q. 20:62, Asad). See al-T.abarsī, Majma‘ al-Bayān, vol. 4, pp. 15-16.
69. Ibn Khālawayh, al-H.ujjah, pp. 243-244.
70. Ibid., p. 121.
71. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, p. 57. This is also apparent in the mus.h.af of Madīnah. See Mus.h.af al-Jamāhīrīyah, pp. 111 (Q. 5:25) and 125 (Q. 5:109) which is based on the reading of Nāfi‘, the qāri’ of Madīnah. However, in the Egyptian mus.h.af which is based on the reading of ‘Ās.im, the qāri’ of Kūfah, the alif of the dual is written in rajulān and fa’ākharān yaqūmān.
72. Ibn Abī Dā’ūd Sulaymān al-Sijistānī, Kitāb al-Mas.āh.if, p. 104. This is also the view of al-T.abarsī who said that the best view is that inna hādhān lasāh.irān belongs to the language of the Kinānah tribe, or, according to Abū al-H.asan and Abū ‘Alī al-Fārisī, the language of the Banī al-H.ārith; see Majma‘ al- Bayān, vol. 4, pp. 16-17.
73. See al-Farrā’, Ma‘ānī ’l-Qur’ān, vol. 2, p. 184.
74. Al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān, vol. 2, pp. 573-4. However, the variant reading salāsilan belongs to Nāfi‘, al-Kisā’ī, Abū Bakr from ‘Ās.im, and Hishām from Ibn ‘Āmir. The reading of Qunbul, Ibn Kathīr and H.amzah is salāsila’ (with waqf, a slight stop) without alif or tanwīn. The rest of the qurrā’ also read salāsila’ but with the additional alif. See al-Qurt.ubī, al-Jāmi‘, vol. 19, p. 123. Following the variant reading of the qāri’ of Madīnah, Nāfi‘, the mus.h.af printed by the Islamic Call Society in Libya in 1986 writes salāsilan. On the other hand, the mus.h.af printed in Egypt, which is largely circulated in the Muslim world, writes salāsila’, following the reading of ‘Ās.im, the qāri’ of Kūfah. See Mus.h.af al-Jamāhīriyyah, p. 575 (Q. 76:4). For the Egyptian mus.h.af see the text of the Qur’ān in the translation of Asad, Ali, or Pickthall. A similar example is the reading of Nāfi‘ qawārīran and of ‘Ās.im qawarira’ (Q. 76:15).
75. See al-Zarqānī, Manāhil al-‘Irfān, vol. 1, pp. 373-374 and 393.
76. However, ‘Ā’ishah, Ubayy and others are reported to have al-s.ābi‘īna in their codices, see Ibn Abī Dā’ūd al-Sijistānī, Kitāb al-Mas.āh.if, p. 232.
77. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, pp. 52-53. The poem was cited by D.abī ibn al-H.ārith al-Burjumī in his prison when he was jailed in the time of ‘Uthmān for slandering women of unblemished reputation (qadhf al-muh.s.anāt). It means: "Whoever makes Madinah his final destination, [as for me] I and [my riding animal] Qayyār are strangers in it." Qayyār was the name of his horse or his camel. See al-Farrā’, Ma‘ānī ’l-Qur’ān, vol. 1, p. 311, n. 2.
78. Al-Farrā’, Ma‘ānī ’l-Qur’ān, vol. 1, pp. 310-311.
79. Similarly, it is said that the believers in the verse: وَتُوبُوا إِلَى اللَّهِ جَمِيعًا أَيُّهَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُون (النور :٣١) "And [always], O you believers - all of you - turn unto God in repentance, so that you might attain to a happy state!" (Q. 24:31, Asad) are pretending believers only, namely, the hypocrites; see al-Zarkashī, al-Burhān, vol. 2, p. 220. However, al-Qurt.ubī does not include hypocrites in the term al-mu’minūn ("the believers") in this verse and states that asking for repentance is incumbent exclusively on believers; see al-Jāmi‘, vol. 5, p. 90, and vol. 12, p. 238. The Prophet was reported to have said in one h.adīth on the authority of Ibn ‘Umar as follows: "Verily, I turn unto Him in repentance a hundred times every day" (Reported by al-Bukhārī, Ibn H.anbal and al-Bayhaqī).
80. See al-Farrā’, Ma‘ānī ’l-Qur’ān, vol. 1, p. 312. An almost identical verse with the word al-s.ābi‘īna (in the accusative case) put after, rather than before, the word al-nas.ārá (the Christians), and with the addition of "surely their reward is with their Lord" is found in Q. 2:62. Nāfi‘ read al-s.ābūn and al-s.ābīn without hamzah in the Qur’ān, whereas other qurrā’ read them with hamzah, namely, al-s.ābi’ūn and al- s.ābi’īn; see Ibn Mujāhid, Kitāb al-Sab‘ah, p. 158; see also Mus.h.af al-Jamāhīriyyah, pp. 120 (Q. 5:71) and 10 (Q. 2:61).
81. See al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, vol. 1, p. 373.
82. This poem is also used as a shāhid in dealing with the verse inna hādhān lasāh.irān, see p. 63 above.
83. Al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān, vol. 2, p. 274.
84. There are many different views about the Sabaeans. According to Abū ‘Ubaydah, they were people who changed their religion. The root meaning of s.aba’a is "to rise, to grow". The expression تَصْبُوْا النُّجُـْومُ مِنْ مَطَالِعِهَا means "the stars rise from their points of rising", and s.aba’at sinnuh means "his tooth is growing"; see Majāz al-Qur’ān, vol. 1, p. 172. The Sabaean is called S.ābi’ (pl. S.ābi‘ūn) as well as S.ābin (pl. S.ābūn) which is the variant reading of Nāfi‘. The root meaning of s.abā (present: yas.bū) is "to lean". According to al-Suddī and Ish.āq ibn Rāhawayh, they are a sect among the people of the Book. According to Abū al-‘Āliyah and al-D.ah.h.āk they belonged to a sect among the people of the Book who read the Psalms (al-Zabūr), and for this reason, Abū H.anīfah and Ish.āq ibn Rāhawayh allowed the Muslims to eat their slaughtered animals and to marry their women. On the other hand, according to al-Qurt.ubī they were people who believed in one God but believed also in the stars' influence, and for this reason, Abū Sa‘īd al-Istakhrī stated that they were non-belivers. Al-Khalīl said that they claimed to be the followers of Prophet Noah. According to Mujāhid, al-H.asan and Ibn Abī Nujayh, they are people who mix Judaism with Magian. According to Qatādah and al-H.asan, they worship angels, face the Qiblah in their five daily prayers and read the Psalms. According to Ibn Kathīr, the right view is that of Mujāhid and Wahb ibn Munabbih who said that they were neither Jews, Christians, Magians nor polytheists, but rather people who remained in their nature and did not follow any particular religion. Therefore the polytheists called a person who converted to Islam a Sabaean, namely, a person who was not a follower of any religion on earth at that time. See al-S.ābūnī, Mukhtasar, vol. 1, p. 72; and al-Qurt.ubī, al-Jāmi‘, vol. 1, pp. 434-435. B. Carra de Vaux divides the Sabaeans into two groups: the followers of Prophet Yah.yá (John the Baptist), and the pagan Sabaeans who lived under the Muslim rule. For further details, see B. Carra de Vaux "al-Sabi‘a", SEI, pp. 477-8. See also M. Asad, The Message, p. 14, n. 49.
85. See al-T.abarsī, Majma‘ al-Bayān, vol. 2, p. 139.
86. Ibid.
87. This is also the view of al-Farrā’ according to Ibn Qutaybah; see Ta’wīl, pp. 53-54; al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, vol. 1, p. 366; al-T.abarsī, Majma‘ al-Bayān, vol. 2, p. 139; al-Qurt.ubī, al-Jāmi‘, vol. 6, p. 13; and al-Zarqānī, Manāhil al-‘Irfān, vol. 1, p. 388.
88. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, p. 53; Abū ‘Ubaydah, Majāz al-Qur’ān, vol. 1, p. 142. Similar to al-muqīmīn is al-s.ābirīn in Q. 2:177. Of all the qurrā’ only ‘Ās.im al-Jah.darī read it as al- s.ābirūn, although in writing, he kept it as al- s.ābirīn for the same reasons mentioned before. For further details, see Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, pp. 53-54.
89. These views are reported by Abū al-Baqā’. See al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān, vol. 2, p. 274; see also al-T.abarsī, Majma‘ al-Bayān, vol. 2, p. 139.
90. Al-T.abarī, Jāmi‘, vol. 6, p. 18. This is also the reading of Ubayy, Anas, ‘Ās.im al-Jah.darī, Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr, and others. See Arthur Jeffery, ed., Materials, pp. 38 and 216. Al-Zamakhsharī mentions that this reading is that of Mālik ibn Dīnār, ‘Ās.im al-Jah.darī and ‘Īsá al-Thaqafī, as written in the codex of ‘Abd Allāh (ibn Mas‘ūd); see al-Kashshāf, vol. 1, p. 336. According to al-Qurt.ubī, the reading of Ubayy is al-muqīmīn, as in the ‘Uthmānic recension; see al-Qurt.ubī, al-Jāmi‘, vol. 6, p. 13. This is also the reading of Abu ‘Amr in one report, see al-Zarqānī, Manāhil al-‘Irfān, vol. 1, p. 388.
91. Al-T.abarī, Jāmi‘, vol. 6, p. 18.
92. See al-T.abarsī, Majma‘ al-Bayān, vol. 2, p. 140.
93. For further details, see al-T.abarī, Jāmi‘, vol. 6, pp. 19-20.
94. See al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān, vol. 2, p. 274.
95. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, p. 54; and Ibn Mujāhid, Kitāb al-Sab‘ah, p. 430. Beside ‘Ās.im, Ibn ‘Āmir also reads nujjī with one nūn; see al-T.abarsī, Majma‘ al-Bayān, vol. 4, p. 60.
96. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, p. 55; Ibn Khālawayh, al-H.ujjah, p. 250; and al-T.abarī, Jāmi‘, vol. 17, p. 65.
97. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, pp. 55-56; al-Farrā’, Ma‘ānī ’l-Qur’ān, vol. 2, p. 210; and al-Qurt.ubī, al-Jāmi‘, vol. 11, p. 335.
98. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, p. 55; and Ibn Khālawayh, al-H.ujjah, p. 250.
99. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, p. 55, n. 1.
100. See al-Qurt.ubī, al-Jāmi‘, vol. 11, p. 335.
101. See al-T.abarsī, Majma‘ al-Bayān, vol. 4, p. 60.
102. The text says فَـأَصَّدَّقَ أَكُـْن without وَ , but this must be misprinted, as none of the qurrā’ read it that way. It should be فَـأَصَّدَّقَ وَ أَكُنْ , and the expression "without wāw" is meant by Ibn Qutaybah the absence of wāw in أَكُـنْ , namely, not أَكُوْنَ . See Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, p. 56, al-Farrā’, Ma‘ānī ’l-Qur’ān, vol. 1, pp. 87-88; and vol. 3, p. 160, and Ibn Khālawayh, al-H.ujjah, p. 346.
103. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, p. 56; Abū ‘Ubaydah, Majāz al-Qur’ān, vol. 2, p. 259; and Ibn Mujāhid, Kitāb al-Sab‘ah, p. 637. Besides Ibn Mas‘ūd, according to the codex of Ibn ‘Abbās it is read wa akūna. The codex of Ubayy ibn Ka‘b reads fa’atas.addaqa. Ibn Mas‘ūd's variant reading is فَأَتَصَدَّقَ وَ أَكُوْنَ مِنَ الْمُصْلِحِيْنَ . See A. Jeffery, Materials, pp. 171 and 206.
104. See A. Jeffery, Materials, pp. 171 and 206. See also al-Farrā’, Ma‘ānī ’l-Qur’ān, vol. 1, pp. 87-88 and vol. 3, p. 160.
105. Ibn Qutaybah is referring to the Qur’ānic verse: تَعْرُجُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ وَالرُّوحُ إِلَيْهِ فِي يَوْمٍ كَانَ مِقْدَارُهُ خَمْسِينَ أَلْفَ سَنَةٍ (المعارج : ٤) "Whereby the angels and the Spirit ascend unto Him in a Day whereof the span is fifty thousand years." (Q. 70:4). This is the interpretation of ‘Ikrimah, Qatādah and Ibn ‘Abbās as reported by al-T.abarī. However, in another report attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās he was asked about the day in which the span is fifty thousand years. He asked the questioner about the day in which the span is one thousand years mentioned in Q. 32:5). When the questioner declined to answer, Ibn ‘Abbās told him that both days were mentioned by Allah in the Qur’ān, and He Himself knew them best. Ibn ‘Abbās did not want to give any commentary on them. See al-T.abarī, Jāmi‘, vol. 29, p. 45.
106. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, p. 65. According to Qatādah, the questioning will occur before their mouths were sealed, their hands spoke and their feet testified as mentioned in Q. 36:65. See al-Qurt.ubī, al-Jāmi‘, vol. 17, p. 174; and Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, vol. 4, p. 295.
107. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, p. 66. See also Q. 36:65. In the Hereafter the wronged will dispute against the wrong-doers, the speakers of truth against the liars and non-believers against believers and the weak against the arrogant; see al-Qurt.ubī, al-Jāmi‘, vol. 15, p. 254.
108. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, pp. 72-73. This is also the view of Qatādah and Mujāhid. This is one interpretation given by al-T.abarī. The other interpretation is that of ‘Ā’ishah who says that the verse deals with the guardians of orphans who intend to marry them for their wealth and beauty with lower than the minimum dowry. The verse prohibits them from doing so unless they pay the dowry in full, or marry other women. For further details, see al-T.abarī, Jāmi‘, vol. 4, pp. 155-160; al-Qurt.ubī, al-Jāmi‘, vol. 5, p. 11; and Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, vol. 1, pp. 459-461.
109. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, pp. 75-76; and al-Qurt.ubī, al-Jāmi‘, vol. 17, p. 255.
110. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, pp. 79-80; and al-Qurt.ubī, al-Jāmi‘, vol. 19, p. 171.
111. Al-Qurt.ubī, al-Jāmi‘, vol. 19, p. 172.
112. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, p. 80. Al-Qurt.ubī and Ibn Kathīr also mention Ibn ‘Abbās's interpretation with the addition that Ibn ‘Abbas makes the exception with the crystal that it is of silver. But he says further that the crystal of Paradise is like silver (in its whiteness) with the purity of crystal. See al-Qurt.ubī, al-Jāmi‘, vol. 19, p. 141. Ibn Kathīr also quotes Ibn ‘Abbās's statement who says that the goblets are of silver but transparent so that its content can be seen through it; such goblets will not be found in this world. See Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, vol. 4, p. 486.
113. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, p. 81. Al-Qushayrī states that the verse said "stones of clay" to distinguish it from the "stones of water" which are hail stones. See al-Qurt.ubī, al-Jāmi‘, vol. 17, p. 48.
114. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, pp. 101-102.
115. Al-T.abarī, Jāmi‘, vol. 3, pp. 114-115.
116. Ibid., p. 115.
117. Ibid., pp. 115-116. This is also the view of Abū ‘Alī al-Jubbā’ī, according to al-T.abarsī, see Majma‘ al-Bayān, vol. 1, p. 409.
118. See al-Murtad.á, al-Amālī. vol. 2, p. 97.
119. Al-T.abarī, Jāmi‘, vol. 3, p. 116; and al-T.abarsī, Majma‘ al-Bayān, vol. 1, p. 409.
120. Al-T.abarī, Jāmi‘, vol. 3, pp. 116-117; and al-T.abarsī, Majma‘ al-Bayān, vol. 1, p. 409.
121. Al-T.abarsī, Majma‘ al-Bayān, vol. 1, p. 410.
122. Ibn Al-Anbārī, al-Ad.dād, pp. 424-425.
123. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, p. 86.
124. For further details and more examples, see Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, pp. 87-98.
125. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, p. 98.
126. Ibid., p. 99.
127. Ibid., p. 101, n. 2; and al-T.abarsī, Majma‘ al-Bayān, vol. 1, p. 410.
128. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, p. 101. See also Ibn al-Anbārī, al-Ad.dād, p. 424. For further details on this poem, see al-Murtad.á, al-Amālī, vol. 1, p. 44; and Abū al-Faraj al-As.bahānī, Kitāb al-Aghānī, ed. Rudolph E. Brünnow, 20 vols. (Leiden: E.J. Brill), vol. 17, pp. 53-55.
129. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, p. 102.
130. Many interpretations are given on his verse: (a) It is about the Jewish rabbis and the Christian priests who concealed the prophecies about Prophet Muh.ammad; (b) It is about the Jews of Madīnah who concealed the law of stoning; (c) It is applicable to anyone who conceals the truth or the teachings of Islam. This verse is the reason why Abū Hurayrah narrated the h.adīths of the Prophet. See al-Qurt.ubī, al-Jāmi‘, vol. 2, pp. 184-185. Another Qur’ānic verse referred to by Ibn H.azm is as follows: وَإِذْ أَخَذَ اللَّهُ مِيثَاقَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ لَتُبَيِّنُنَّهُ لِلنَّاسِ وَلَا تَكْتُمُونَهُ ... (آل عمران : ١٨٧) "And (remember) when Allah laid a charge on those who had received the Scripture (He said): Ye are to expound it to mankind and not to hide it...." (Q. 3:187, Pickthall).
131. For further details on Ibn H.azm's view on the mutashābihāt, see al-Ih.kām, vol. 4, pp. 489-494.
132. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 44 and vol. 4, p. 491.
133. A. Jeffery, Materials, p. 32; and al-Farrā’, Ma‘ānī ’l-Qur’ān, vol. 1, p. 191.
134. Jeffery, Materials, pp.123-4; and al-Farrā’, Ma‘ānī ’l-Qur’ān, vol. 1, p. 191.
135. Jeffery, Materials, p. 196. See also al-T.abarī, Jāmi‘, vol. 3, p. 113; and al-S.ābūnī (ed.), Mukhtas.ar, vol. 1, p. 265.
136. Al-S.ābūnī, Mukhtas.s.ar, vol. 1, p. 265
137. See Ibn Taymiyyah, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Ikhlās., p. 130.
138. Al-S.ābūnī, Mukhtas.ar, vol. 1, p. 265; Ibn Taymiyyah, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Ikhlās., p. 136; and Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmū‘ Fatāwá (Muqaddimat al-Tafsīr), vol. 13, p. 375.
139. This is also the view of S.ābigh ibn ‘Isl who was beaten by ‘Umar when he said that if the wāw is wāw ‘at.f (wāw of conjunction) between the two nouns and not wāw isti’nāf (wāw of continuation between two sentences or phrases), the verse would have said wa yaqūlūn; see Ibn Taymiyyah, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Ikhlās., p. 130. For further details on S.abīgh, see Abbott, Qur’ānic Commentary, pp. 107-10.
140. At least two Qur’ānic verses use the same style as the verse (Q. 3:7) in question, and therefore, weaken this argument. One of them is وَجَاءَ رَبُّكَ وَالْمَلَكُ صَفًّا صَفًّا (الفجر : ٢٢) "And thy Lord shall come with angels, rank in rank" )Q. 89:22, Pickthall) in which "rank in rank" is attributed to the angels only. The other verse deals with the distribution of the fay’ (the spoils) of the Banī al-Nad.īr among the three groups of people, namely, the muhājirīn, the ans.ār (Q. 59:8-9), and وَالَّذِينَ جَاءُوا مِنْ بَعْدِهِمْ يَقُولُونَ رَبَّنَا اغْفِرْ لَنَا ... (الحشـر : ١٠) "...and those who came (into the faith) after them, say: 'Our Lord! Forgive us...'" Q. 59:10, Pickthall).
141. Al-Farrā’, Ma‘ānī ’l-Qur’ān, vol. 2, p. 78, and vol. 1, p. 191.
142. Abū ‘Ubaydah, Majāz al-Qur’ān, vol. 1, p. 86.