Meezan - Tadabbur-e Quran (Understanding the Quran)
Meezan and Furqan, Disputes of recitation. Lecture. 13 A. 12-04-2002
Scholar. Javed Ahmed Ghamidi
[Javed Ahmed Ghamidi] Alhumdulillah All Praise is due to Allah,
Peace and Blessings be upon His Trustworthy Prophet Muhammad.
I seek refuge with Allah from the accursed Satan.
In the name of Allah, Most Beneficent and Ever Merciful.
Ladies and gentlemen,
In the debate about Meezan and Furqan,
we have been studying the various points of views about Qiraat of the Quran.
We saw in it that even though it is usually thought that
there is more than one single recitation of the Quran,
but when we look at it in light of the Quran itself
as well as in light of the entire history which we have with us,
when we study this whole issue, then an entirely different scenario emerges.
Hence we also saw in great detail
what the Quran itself says about its recitation and
its process of compilation and order.
We then also saw that the corpus that we possess with us with respect to
Uloon-ul-Quran (sciences of the Quran),
what are the historical traditions written in it conveying?
From that it became clear that one reading of the Quran is that
in which it was being revealed during the first stage.
After that, Allah Himself gave it a new order and arrangement.
And based on that order, a second recitation of the Quran was revealed.
And even in that, due regard was taken to reveal that second recitation twice.
And there was a group from among the Companions
who were present with the Prophet (pbuh) during that event
when in the last year of the Prophet's life, Archangel Gabriel recited it twice.
Along with this historical record, we had also seen previously
that the Quran itself says the same thing about itself.
And it has made it absolutely clear
that the Almighty also knew what the contemporary situation was,
and is revealing the Quran accordingly.
And 'Sanuqri'uka fala tansa Illa masha'allah
innahoo ya'lamul jahra wa ma yakhfa'.
And later, the things which were hidden
those which were not told to the Prophet or the Companions,
but which Allah is well aware of,
and the tribulations which the Muslims will be faced with till Judgement Day,
which Allah knows too,
hence taking into consideration these factors,
He would give the whole of Quran a new order.
This is something which the Quran has stated itself.
It has also made it clear that it then becomes imperative
that only the second recitation should be followed.
So this second recitation which is termed as arzah al-akhirah (final presentation),
we have read about this in great detail.
Towards the end of it, this question had come up that
what would be said about that narration
which is written in the books of Hadith
about the Quran being revealed in Seven Ahruf.
Thus we were highlighting certain critical points about this narration
based on the contents of its text.
In this, two aspects had come under discussion.
The first point that came under discussion was that
there is no doubt that this narration can be found
in the primary books of Hadith.
At the moment, the science of Hadith which we have with us,
in light of that, the chain of transmission of this narration
cannot be brought under question in a way that would
make it stand abolished or rejected.
In its chain of transmission, such trusted personages are found
whole reports are generally considered trustworthy and acceptable.
Nor is there any kind of a break in the chain of transmission, apparently.
But what does it mean? What is the meaning of this report?
The report does not mean anything in itself.
There is a verse of the Quran and if no one in the world
can understand its meaning, then what opinion can be formed about it?
What exactly is it then?
So the first thing we read about it was, what is its subject matter?
What is its meaning?
What is it trying to say? What does 'Seven Ahruf' in it imply?
When it is said that the Quran is revealed in Seven Ahruf (Seven Ways),
there must be some referent in light of which this claim is being made.
What is it? So we saw that in the last fourteen centures,
no consensus has been achieved about it.
Moreover, it is a wilderness of opinions in which ones finds himself confounded.
Hence I had stated that Al-Suyuti who is a very well read and erudite person,
in fact it is absolutely correct about Imam Ibn Taymiyyah and Al-Suyuti,
that in our historical corpus and in our traditions,
if they don't know something, then it is not known to anyone else either.
Both of them are very widely read and erudite.
It is a very famous saying about Imam ibn Taymiyyah,
that 'Ammal Hadees fala yaa'rifu ibn Taymiyyah falaysa bi-Hadees.'
It means that a Hadith not known to ibn Taymiyyah,
is simply not a Hadith report.
It speaks of his reach and erudition. And the case with al-Suyuti is the same.
One can have a discussion about his understanding,
the way he collated information, and his method of critique and analysis used,
those can be discussed too.
But he too was an extremely well read and erudite.
In his book Al-Itqaan,
and Al-Itqaan which we have,
in addition to al-Burhan by Zarkashi,
and Al-Itqaan by Suyuti,
these two books are actually central to the discipline of Uloom ul-Quran.
So they are the primary texts,
Al-Itqaan by Suyuti, and al-Burhan by Zarkashi.
Uloom ul-Quran means that whatever commentaries and materials
we have with us about the Quran, all of it is collated together.
About how the Quran was revealed, which verses are there in it,
what is the history of its compilation and arrangement,
what have been the different styles of commentaries on it,
and what is the issue around its recitations.
All of these aspects are brought together under a discipline,
and these two texts are the primary books of that discipline.
So naturally Suyuti has discussed about it in his Al-Itqaan.
It is a very comprehensive debate in which he elaborates
on what this narration says, and what is its subject matter.
So in that he acknowledges the fact that there are about forty different opinions
which have been formed about the narration up till then.
But not even a single opinion is such which does not fall short of adequate.
At the very first glance it can be seen that it is not a suitable stance.
That the narration is still an enigma.
It is as if an utterly senseless opinion has been given
only to satisfy oneself, but that has not worked successfully.
This is what Suyuti himself has acknowledged!
And after that acknowledgement, the last point he has made
in his commentary on Al-Muwatta, titled Tanwir al-hawalik,
so he has a commentary on Al-Muwatta as well.
And the text which I have cited from the narration is from Al-Muwatta.
I have also mentioned that this text can be found in other Hadith collections too.
But since Al-Muwatta is the primary book, so I have copied the text from it.
And Suyuti's Tanwir al-hawalik is the commentary of that very book.
So when he has come to this narration in his book,
he has acknowledged that it must be accepted that
even though this narration exists,
but it must be regarded as being from the matters which are mutashabihat.
It means that no one can know what it means. This must be accepted.
And if the meanings cannot be known, then the debate comes an end here.
What can be further said about this narration?
Because whatever we have to believe or know about the narration,
has to be based on its very meaning.
The narration has been written down, and it can remain there.
This is the first point, that no one has succeeded in offering an explanation
of its meaning.
Even the people who have worked extraordinarily hard for it.
In the modern era too, the scholars who believe this narration to be true,
or based on this narration they hold a positive viewpoint
regarding multiple recitations.
I have seen all of their reasonings as well.
And even in that, there is the same kind of acknowledgement to be found.
Even in our contemporary times, the people who wrote some books
on Uloom ul-Quran, including the ones written in Urdu,
they too find themselves forced to admit that it has no meaning.
What the meaning of the narration is, is hard to figure out.
Then it also happens that they sometimes consider a worthless opinion
to be the closest to being adequate.
That is, comes close to being the correct understanding. Yes?
[Student] Sir when people say about this narration that it is hard to understand,
do they still abide by the idea that it was revealed in seven ways?
[Ghamidi] Well their being convinced by this notion is a separate story.
I am only talking about what the meaning of this narration is.
Everyone actually accepts it,
we have already stated that previously and we will summarize it again later on.
There is no dispute among people when it comes to believing in it.
But what is the meaning of this narration?
[Student] His question was that if we say that
this narration is such that no one can understand its meaning,
then on what basis do they claim to abide by the Seven recitations?
[Ghamidi] What do you mean by Seven recitations?
No one believes in seven recitations.
People believe in dozens of recitations actually.
[Student] That there is another recitation of the Quran apart from this one reading.
[Ghamidi] Yes that is what you should say.
About that, people say it exists.
And I have already discussed that and explained to you that they say it exists.
And those other readings people are relating and they are found in some books,
and some people are narrating it with its oral chain of transmission,
or someone is teaching it. People do say all these things.
In fact I have already told you that on the basis of it
an official Quran has been published in our contemporary times.
I have placed that Quran before you as well.
So there is no denying that other readings exist.
And based on the fact of their existence,
people believe that these recitations exist.
It is something which is lying before us.
And some people present this narration too as a source of that.
What I am saying is that this narration should not be a matter of confusion.
[Student] So people cite this report as as a support for other recitations?
[Ghamidi] No there is no need to present it as a support,
but since there is a mention of difference over recitations,
it naturally becomes a matter of concern for us, doesn't it?
It would be presented as a supportive evidence when it would have any meaning.
So firstly the meanings should be clear. Does it even mean something?
You might have missed this sentence.
I had started the debate about this narration by saying that
here it is possible that the narrative on the Seven Ahruf
might cause some confusion for some people in this regard.
So it is quite possible that after listening to this whole debate on Qirat,
one might say this narration which is found in the books of Hadith
that there was a dispute which arose over the recitations of the Quran,
or disagreements of this kind were present,
so could it be referring to those very disagreements?
That is possible right?
So we have to discuss this narration from that aspect.
On the basis of this narration, I have told you
what can anyone say, for people had to acknowledge
that it holds no meaning at all.
So how can anyone present it as an evidence?
Since it does not seem to have any meaning in its substance.
Whatever this narration is conveying, that itself is impossible to determine.
Hence we must acknowledge that it is from the verses related to mutashabihat matters
and its meaning is only known to Allah.
Because we know about the mutashabihat
that it is said that their meanings are known only to God.
So when something can be known by God alone,
there is no way after the finality of Prophethood to know its meaning.
Only after the veil of the Judgement Day will be lifted,
and we will have the honor to talk to Allah,
does it seem possible that its meaning can be conveyed.
As of now, it holds no meaning.
This is what I am saying about this narration.
The second point about this which I had presented before you was,
that one explanation of this narration is there which could have been plausible.
And people did try to explain it that way.
That explanation could have been that actually the disagreement which is in it,
where Syedna Umar heard the recitation and
Hisham ibn Hakeem ibn Hizam was reciting,
which Umar felt was different from his own and he responded angrily.
He dragged Hisham over to the Prophet (pbuh).
So this actually wasn't a dispute over the meanings or of the words,
but rather was one of pronunciation.
This could have been a very plausible explanation.
Because disagreements over pronunciations in reading a language
or in speaking it, is a very natural thing which can occur.
If the people of one geographical area speak a word in one way,
people from another area can pronounce it in another way.
Even today we see that the same Arabic is written, and the word Hajj is there,
but Egyptians will still pronounce it as 'Hagg'.
The reason for that is that they cannot pronounce the letter 'J'.
Similarly you can see in Urdu language,
the people from Hyderabad will pronounce 'K' as 'kh' only.
You can force them as much as you want,
but that is the sound they produce.
So this is the case with pronunciations and dialects.
Even with Arabs, they have numerous dialects.
A lot of people are there, when we read the history of Arabic language,
or the history of their dialects,
a lot of books have been published on this.
So from those we know that for instance the people from Banu Taym tribe,
on the contrary to the people from the Hijaz,
like we say in Arabic, 'akram tuk'.
'I give you respect, I hold you in high esteem.'
So in the Hejazi dialect, this sentence is enough to convey this.
But the Banu Taym people will say 'akram tukas'.
So in their dialect, after the sentence is said, a sound of 's' is produced.
Even though they are saying that same Arabic sentence.
Similarly, there are many Arabic dialects in which
the letters 'alif' and 'laam' of Arabic,
turns into 'alif meem'.
That famous incident is there when some people came to the Prophet (pbuh),
and 'laysam im birrim tamum bi l safar'.
'Laysa minal birri taamu fi l safar'
So 'alif laam' became 'alif meem' in their dialect.
This incident has been recorded in the Hadith as well.
So this is not an isolated incident, there are numerous dialects in fact.
Even in the current era you can see, there are so many dialects of English,
even Urdu has some dialects although there are not many.
And Punjabi of course has many.
You can see the Punjabi of Khushab, or the one spoken in Majha,
or in Kallar, or you can see the Punjabi inspired by Gulabi Urdu of Lahore.
So there are dozens of dialects of the Punjabi language as well,
in which people converse.
So this could have been a plausible explanation,
that Syedna Umar felt that Hisham is not reading the Quran in our dialect.
This could have been a very probable reasoning.
And this could be conveyed in Arabic by saying that
I heard him reciting the Quran in a different way.
This can be said.
When we Hindi speaking people speak Arabic,
so if we do not speak Arabic with the Arabs' pronunciation,
or if we haven't practiced it well, then they would find it hard to understand us.
This is what we call tajweed. What exactly is it?
It is actually an imitation of the Arabic dialect.
What is the Arabic dialect? That is what we train ourselves to speak in,
as a proper science. Even in that, how far we manage to succeed,
that is a separate debate, but the fact is we have to learn it.
The art of Qirat, of Tajweed, this is the reason we have to learn these things.
So this could have been a plausible explanation, it could have been acceptable
had it been said that there was a difference of dialect
between these two Companions.
One was from the tribe of Quraysh and the other was from Banu Taym.
Or one was a Qurayshi and the other was from Banu Hudhayl.
Or one was a Qurayshi and the other had migrated from somewhere in Iraq,
or from Syria. So since there was a difference between their pronunciations,
hence Syedna Umar felt a difference in recitation.
And that is a very natural fact, it is not something improbable.
But then, the text of the narration,
as I had said, it dismisses this explanation.
The reason for that is that both the Companions were Qurayshi.
So either one of the individuals would have to be changed in the narration.
For it is not possible that people of the same community, of the same tribe,
have such a difference in their pronunciations.
To make a mistake is a separate thing,
but the dialect simply cannot be distinct.
And it was not like a modern nation or community,
where 'community' is used to refer to a population of 140 million people.
These were people living in the same area, in the same village.
After all, what was the total population of Mecca?
Despite their best efforts, how many fighters could the Quraysh bring together
in the battles of Badr and Uhad?
You can get an idea of their population from this.
The men of fighting age who came on the battlefield,
their numbers were not more than a thousand.
So within such a small community, that difference is simply not possible.
It is the same tribe, and they have such a small population,
and for them to have such a huge difference in their dialect is impossible.
So this explanation does not seem acceptable to the text of the narration.
If you were to remove the names of both of the Companions from the report,
and for instance the situation is that one person learnt the Quran from someone,
and heard another person reciting it, and felt there was a difference in dialect.
Then this explanation would become acceptable.
After this, the third aspect towards which I have tried to bring your attention,
in relation to this narration,
is that
suppose for a while that this was in fact a difference of pronunciations.
Let us ignore the obvious contradictions.
Ignore for a while the fact that both the Companions were Qurayshi.
And let us accept this explanation, let us suppose it for the sake of argument
for a while we accept that it was the case.
But the narration does not speak of a difference in their dialects.
The narration says that the Quran itself was revealed in a different dialect.
This is what the narration is saying.
That one Quran was revealed in one way,
and the other Quran was revealed in another way.
So now naturally if it were to be said
that the people were permitted to recite the Quran in various ways and dialects,
for this is what would follow right?
That there were different pronunciations,
if someone wants to read it in the Iraqi dialect, he may.
Or someone else can recite it in the Egyptian dialect if he wants to.
They why is the word 'unzila' (revealed) used in the narration?
This makes no sense, no matter what explanation you offer.
The reason being that its revelation is something entirely different.
The revelation has been done in the language of the Quraysh.
It is absolutely correct that the people were told
that you may recite it with your own pronunciations and in your own dialects.
Bismillah. But to say that Quran itself has been revealed in various dialects,
what is the reason for that claim?
One fails to understand this.
So these are the three aspects which are in the way of introduction to this debate.
But the last aspect which calls for serious deliberation,
and which holds extraordinary elegance,
is that the Companion Hisham ibn Hakeem ibn Hizam,
the one about whom it is being narrated
that Syedna Umar heard him reciting the Quran.
About him, all the historians who have
collected material about the lives of the Companions,
all of them agree on the fact that Hisham converted to Islam
on the day Mecca was conquered.
Hisham ibn Hakeem ibn Hizam, the person who is reciting the Quran,
converted to Islam on the day Mecca was conquered.
This means that he converted in eighth Hijri year.
That is what it would imply right?
Now imagine for a while, that there is no need for a debate
about this fact of Quran's revelation that it was revealed to the Prophet (pbuh)
for ten years while he was in Mecca.
More or less.
After that, till the day Mecca was conquered, eight more years had passed.
So this means that there is a long period of Quran's revelation
which has already passed.
And this is also well known that there was very little Quran
which was revealed after that period.
The inherent testimony of the Quran itself tells us
how much it was revealed after Mecca was conquered.
After that event, there would be at most one or two Surahs
which were revealed. Most of the Quran had already been revealed.
Now who was Hazrat Umar?
About him too, there is no debate about when he came to Islam.
He certainly did not convert on the day Mecca was conquered.
He was among one of the first few people of Mecca who converted.
He was among those who did not travel anywhere after he converted.
He stayed with the Prophet (pbuh) day and night.
He spent the Meccan era with the Prophet (pbuh),
he migrated to Medina with him.
He used to be with the Prophet (pbuh) in such a way that
historians relate that the situation was such that
people would say, the Prophet (pbuh) had come along with Abu Bakr and Umar.
The Prophet (pbuh) had come along with Abu Bakr and Umar, always.
That is, he was a Companion of the Prophet (pbuh) and such a close one too.
He was present in all the battles, he heard all the Friday sermons,
he heard the Prophet's (pbuh) call to embrace Islam.
He was among the Huffaaz (memorizers of the Quran),
he learnt the Quran from the Prophet (pbuh) himself.
He read the Quran. This was his extraordinary station.
Syedna Umar is not some common man.
So can it be accepted that Quran was being revealed in more than one Qirat,
and it did not come to Umar's knowledge for eighteen years?
Eighteen years is not a small period of time.
It would mean that if he would not have prayed Salat behind Hisham ibn Hakeem,
and if two more years would have passed,
then suddenly fifteen more people could have claimed that
the Prophet (pbuh) was teaching us the Quran in secret on a different Qirat.
And is the Quran something to be taught in secret?
Whoever will read the Quran will know that it is not a book
that a writer is writing it while sitting in isolation.
The situation with the Quran is that those Surahs are being read
before its addressees.
So debates are being held about those Surahs, questions are raised about them,
all of these things are happening constantly.
So if it was stated that in the Meccan period itself
one Qirat was revealed at one point of time and another at a different time,
alright, we will hold our tongue about it for sometime.
But this narration itself is telling us that for eighteen years,
even Syeda Umar did not know of it.
And if Syedna Umar did not come to know of it,
when and where did this whole incident take place?
Where exactly did that revelation take place then?
On a rational plain, this narration is so improbable,
that it cannot be accepted under any circumstances.
Either one has to believe that Syedna Umar did not hear of it.
So the one listening to the recitation by Hisham was not Syedna Umar.
Either one has to believe this.
Or you would have to believe that Syedna Umar also converted that very day.
If you look at all the narrations about the recitations of the Quran,
all of them go back to Syedna Umar himself!
That is, he is among the great Ulama of the Quran.
He was a Companion of the Prophet (pbuh) day and night.
He has been granted the great honor of being buried next to the Prophet (pbuh).
So what is this incident that has occurred?
What does it mean exactly?
What impression does the narrator of this report intend to convey?
Does he want to say that the Prophet (pbuh) used to teach the Quran
to some people separately in secret with a different recitation?
And neither Abu Bakr, nor Umar, nor any other people found out about it?
What does it mean to say that Umar did not know of it?
It means that he never heard the Prophet (pbuh)
recite the Quran in a different way in the Friday sermons,
nor did he see him read it differently during the prayers.
This is what it would mean right?
But Syedna Umar is one who used to read behind the Prophet (pbuh)
day and night. And we know about the Prophet (pbuh)
that he would recite the Quran for a long time.
Moreover, he was one of those Companions who would join the Prophet (pbuh)
during Tahajjud prayers!
'Taa'ifatum minallazina ma'ak'.
During which the Prophet (pbub) would recite approximately the entire Quran.
He is also among those Companions whom the Prophet (pbuh) would often call
to listen to and to recite the Quran.
So this incident does not make sense in any way.
Only if someone closes his eyes to the truth of the matter,
can he possibly come to believe it.
But it cannot be taken to make sense otherwise.
Hence I have written about it here,
Fourthly, it is known that Hisham had accepted Islam
on the day Mecca was conquered.
This is on page number thirty one.
Fourthly, it is known that Hisham had accepted Islam
on the day Mecca was conquered.
Hence if this Hadith is accepted, it would mean that even after the conquest of Mecca
that is, for 18 years, the illustrious Companions of the Prophet (pbuh)
and even a close associate like Umar was unaware of the fact
that the Prophet (pbuh) secretly taught the Quran in some other form and reading
from the one openly heard from him for about twenty years
and preserved it in writing and in memory according to his guidance.
So the Quran was being heard all the time, was being recited,
it has been read out loud during prayers,
its preservation has always been ensured properly.
There is this whole chronicle on the one hand,
and on the other hand is this Hadith narration.
Every person can realize how grave this claim is
and how far reaching its affects are.
The outcome of this can be imagined by every intelligent person.
Hence this narration, about the Quran being revealed
in Seven Ahruf (Seven ways),
cannot be acceptable in any sense of the term.
It is logically flawed, it is meaningless from a scholarly view,
and there is no circumstance in which it can be accepted.
It would be akin to saying that with regards to the narrations,
we decide that if its chain of transmission is reliable,
then it should be seen as an authentic report.
And then just like Suyuti we acknowledge that only Allah knows its meaning.
There is that one position where one can make peace with this narration.
But if one tries to determine its meaning,
then after that one would have to let go of the entire religious tradition.
For then one would have to accept that nothing remains in it anymore.
Because if Syedna Umar did not know even after twenty years
that Quran was being revealed in another recitation as well,
then how can we rely on anyone else's knowledge at all?
What is there to believe at all then?
Even he was not aware. And as I said, if two more years had passed
and there wouldn't have been anyone going to the Prophet (pbuh) to ask!
What has happened right now is that the narration tells us
that Umar took Hashim to the Prophet (pbuh).
And you can listen to this as well with bated breath.
This narration which I have taken, since it relates to Syedna Umar
and therefore I have taken this as the topic.
Otherwise this same narration about multiple recitations,
becomes even more preposterous with respect to another Companion.
That narration says that when Hazrat Ubay Bin Ka'ab
saw a similar incident before him,
naturally when this would be seen to be happening after 19 or 20 years,
what would happen?
So he too went to the Prophet (pbuh) in a similarly agitated manner.
And he asked the Prophet (pbuh) about what this is.
And that is what he should have asked too.
Because for twenty years I was reading the Quran in a certain way,
but some person is reading the Quran in a different manner.
So the Prophet (pbuh) told him, the Quran was revealed thus.
Just like it says in this narration too.
He told them both that it was revealed thus.
So he said that 'I felt I have lost my faith'.
The narration says that 'I felt that I am no longer a believer'.
So you can imagine his condition yourself.
So after that the Prophet (pbuh) touched my chest and I was cured.
Because it was imperative to cure him,
and without a healing touch, our minds wouldn't believe that miracle.
There was no other way to play it out.
There was no other option, and the reason for that is
that this situation gives rise to such a delicate question,
that after that question, only that action should have followed,
which has been narrated in that report.
One figures from this that the people who have written this narration,
they themselves realized what would follow as a consequence.
So they have provided a cure for it in this other narration.
That if your faith too comes under doubt, you can know that
it will be only by the Prophet's (pbuh) touch.
There is no other way for it to go.
Because one cannot convince oneself based on reason and rationality.
The reaction of Syedna Umar too which has been mentioned here
is similarly grave and extreme.
In this narration, he says it was difficult for him,
if you were to believe the tradition,
he says he finished his prayers with much difficulty,
and then he dragged Hashim to the Prophet (pbuh).
In a way saying, come with me, I will teach you a lesson.
Just imagine for a while, it has been twenty years,
and it is the Quran after all.
If someone had said to Syedna Umar, and it has happened,
that for instance some people said to Syedna Umar,
that the Prophet (pbuh) had said that if you go to visit someone at their house,
and you knock there three times, but you get no response,
then turn around and come back.
So Umar investigated this, because this is a statement
which can be said to anyone.
It is something which can be told to one person as advice.
A person like Syedna Umar can be unaware of it.
That does not go against reason.
One statement related to etiquette the Prophet (pbuh) told to someone,
and Umar did not hear about it.
And even in that the reaction he had, it is said that he ordered the man,
bring a second witness otherwise I will teach you a lesson.
Because you people relate such reports, then bring another witness.
Even in this he reacted, although one cannot rationally object to that,
for it is possible it could have happened.
There are many such things that could occur.
For instance I have told you something and no one else hears of it.
And it is related to general etiquette. But the Quran!
That Quran about which it says itself that the Prophet (pbuh)
took the trouble to convey each and every word of it to the people.
It was being recited, it was being conveyed, it was being read aloud.
And this narration tells us that for twenty years he was unaware of it.
Who? Umar was not aware of it!
So if Umar was not aware of it, then keep these recitations at your home.
The ones that Umar was unaware of, for twenty years!
So no thread of this narration is correct.
In every sense, it is an unacceptable opinion to hold.
After that, I have written that same is the case of the narratives,
similar is the case of the narratives
which in the time of the Caliphs Abu Bakr and Uthman,
record the collection and arrangement of the Quran in the books of Hadith.
If you go to this chapter in the books of Hadith,
you will see that the way this narration is utterly opposed to reason,
it goes against all knowledge.
And to go against reason and knowledge does not mean
that it is against the knowledge of Einstein.
It is against the common sense, which God has given to every human being,
and in light of which we believe in the religion of Allah, Islam.
This narration is akin to saying that for twenty three years
the Prophet (pbuh) taught about prophethood,
and all of a sudden, after twenty three years Umar found out that
God have mercy, he was teaching about idolatry!
This narration creates a similar outrageous kind of situation.
So a scenario of this kind which we have seen in this narration,
exactly the same situation is of those narrations too
in which the account of the compilation and arrangement of Quran is given.
The Quran is being recited day and night, it is being memorized by the people,
the Quran is being read in prayers.
On the one hand we see the Quran is making a claim
that O Prophet, you need not worry at all,
for We will compile the entire Quran and the situations you are unaware of,
that is, the Prophet was receiving the Quran is his own time and age,
but the other situations God knows very well.
So accordingly We will give it to you again with another recitation.
And after arranging it, the second recitation is the one you have to follow.
All of this the Quran has stated itself.
Compiling it, ordering and arranging it.
In fact it even says that if there is a question you still have about this,
if there is still a doubt you have not understood,
then We will clarify that for you as well.
This is what the Quran is telling us.
And this is just what history also tells us,
that there was only one recitation according to which
Abu Bakr read the Quran, and Umar and Uthman did too.
We have already studied all this in the previous session.
All of this can be seen. After that what suddenly happens is,
that the work of compiling and arranging the Quran is being done,
but sometimes a verse is misplaced and can't be found,
or some Surah is missing and that is being searched.
Sometimes two or four went missing.
This was the story that we confront after this.
And then, in the time of Syedna Uthman, there is this same story again.
Same is the case of the narratives which
in the time of the caliphs Abu Bakr and Uthman,
record the collection and arrangement of the Quran in the books of Hadith.
These narrations too...
Well the implication of the usage of this word is that
it has come through different chains. Otherwise the narration is the same.
Actually the narration is the same in its substance.
So it is just one same narration, and I have not done any debate about it here.
The reason for that is that
it would come under the topic of compilation and arrangement of the Quran,
but I am only discussing about the recitations of the Quran here.
Otherwise I would have shown you that it is word for word the same one.
So those things are found in its very text, the same as in this narration.
That you can try your best to explain it by saying that
it is a difference of pronunciation and dialect,
but the very text of the narration is telling us that that cannot be the case.
The same is the situation with the other narration.
As mentioned in the beginning of this discussion, the Quran specifies clearly
that it was arranged and collected under the direct guidance of Allah,
during the lifetime of the Prophet (pbuh).
So in this regard, there is no need to even turn to any historical narration.
Quran itself makes it very clear.
The Quran has told us, it has made it absolutely clear,
that We will recite the entire Quran for you,
and then you will read the Quran according to that recitation,
and its compilation and the second reading, that is Our responsibility.
In fact, if there is a need to further elaborate and explain anything,
that too will be our responsibility.
[Student] If this narration has been under question,
why didn't the scholars simply reject it then?
[Ghamidi] Let it remain, how is it bothering you?
It is enough that we have critiqued it.
As mentioned in the beginning of this discussion,
the Quran specifies clearly that it was arranged and collected
in the lifetime of the Prophet (pbuh) under the direct guidance of Allah.
On the other hand, these narratives present an entirely different picture
which is not only against the Quran but also against common sense.
In 'si'aah',
'Si'aah' means the six canonical books of Hadith,
which are considered the most reliable ones based on their chain of transmission.
The principles which the scholars of the science of Hadith have laid down
to evaluate the chain of transmission,
based on those the books of Hadith which are available to us today,
they are not one or two but are dozens of them.
But out of them, six books have the stature of credibility,
for most of the narrations in them are reliable.
And in Bukhari and Muslim collections, there are very few narrations
about which one can debate the credibility of their chain of transmission.
Otherwise usually, they are reliable as far as their Isnaads go.
Therefore those books are called 'si'aah'.
In the six canonical books this particular narrative as well as the other narrations,
in the six canonical books they are primarily recorded
on the authority of Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri.
So these are the few words about the chain of transmission of the narration.
You know about this chain that even if it might have begun with Umar or Abu Bakr,
the question is how did it reach us?
Yes?
I mean according to the Muhaddisiin (Hadith experts).
According to the Muhaddisiin, it is not an objectionable narration.
They accept the authority of Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri.
I am going to talk about him now, and the Muhaddisiin say about him
that he is ameer-ul-momineen fil hadith (chief of Muslims in hadith).
But listen to a few things about him.
In the six canonical books, these narrations are primarily recorded
on the authority of Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri.
That is, he is the one who has narrated them, really.
If you were to compile all the chains of transmissions,
then they are the actual reliable ones. The only authentic ones.
So there are some other chains of transmissions as well.
But in the primary canonical texts, they have come from him.
Yes? Yes, those are the reports which have come down from him.
In the six canonical books, these narrations are primarily recorded
on the authority of Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri.
Scholars of rijaal, the people who are
authorities on the research regarding rijaal (Narrators),
all fully concur on the fact that Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri
is guilty of two things for certain.
One is tadlis (hiding mistakes) and the other is idraaj (interpolation).
Tadlis is a terminology of the science of Hadith.
Tadlis means that the one who is narrating,
hides a link in the chain of transmission, i.e. a name of one person, in the report.
In the chain of transmission, he does not want to mention the authority of someone.
If that link in the chain is mentioned, it might create some issues.
This is called tadlis.
It is something that calls for strong condemnation.
You are narrating a report, so you must say from whom you have heard it.
If there is an opportunity that someone in the chain will be removed, then he is.
What does it mean to say 'if there is an opportunity'?
For instance, these two people are contemporaries of each other.
I have actually gotten this narration from this person.
And he has gotten it from this other person.
But since I knew that people will object to the authority of the first person,
when I related the narration, I say I got it from him instead.
Now it is not so easy to catch this deception.
The reason for that is, all of us are contemporaries.
And there is proof of my meeting with both these gentlemen.
So one would think that alright, it is fine.
The narration is correct, there can't be a break in it.
So this is just one example, but it happens in many different ways too.
Yes. So doing this is naturally a crime. But it occurs in many other forms.
I have only told you this as an example, that the narrator is concealed.
For instance, Hazrat Imam Malik in his al-Muwatta,
related at some places that the narration I am doing is 'amman assiku-hu'.
That is, I am referring to the authority of someone who I consider trustworthy.
He has said this himself. There are many narrations in
al-Muwatta of Imam Malik, in which he has said 'amman assikuhu'.
Now when Imam Malike says 'amman assikuhu',
then of course many people of subsequent generations
wanted to see who that narrator was.
So that 'amman assikuhu' in al-Muwatta of Imam Malik
refers to Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri ninety nine percent of the time.
Now this is not something over which there is any need to investigate.
Because for all those narrations, we know from their other chains of transmissions
through other sources, and the latter Muhaddisiin have mentioned them.
Imam Malik's 'Amman assikuhu' is referring to Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri usually.
Similarly, what Imam Malik sometimes does is that
he removes the narrators in the middle of the chain,
and after that he would relate it on the authority of the original source.
That he heard it directly from so and so. This is called 'balaaghaat-e Imam Malik'.
So in that he does not convey the entire chain of narration,
but rather removes one or two people from the middle.
Moreover, in his time since this science hadn't been fully established,
so this was not considered objectionable.
So leave it aside. Because back then people used to think
that a statement has reached them and they have related it.
This can be placed in the category of having an 'opitimistic view' of someone.
But phrase 'amman assikuhu' itself is telling us
that others object to it but he himself did not.
And this truth will be revealed to you soon enough.
In the 6 Hadith books they are recorded on the authority of Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri.
All of these narrations, so the ones about the compilation of the Quran,
as well as these ones have in reality come from him.
And I will tell you the truth of this 'in reality' that I have said as well.
When an absurd narration such as this one comes from somewhere,
then to legitimize it, a lot of chains of transmissions are invented.
But that is a separate debate.
So actually they come on the authority of Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri.
Authorities of rijaal regard him to be guilty of tadlis.
Tadlis I have already explained to you. Let us also see what idraaj means.
Both of these terms, usually one reads in the books of rijaal
that so and so used to do tadlis, or someone else did idraaj,
and the reader thinks tadlis must be a great thing.
Because after all it used to be acceptable.
But tadlis is in fact worthy of great condemnation.
Even about tadlis some people keep an optimistic view,
some of the experts of the science of Hadith,
that since this science was not established in that time,
so it is possible that the narrator was not removed from the middle
with any bad intention.
So this is fine, this can be said.
But nevertheless, why was someone removed at all?
What was the reason? This question remains right?
And if the narration that is being related, is this one,
then that creates a lot of issues.
So this is one aspect. The meaning of idraaj is,
suppose I am narrating a tradition.
I started relating a statement of the Prophet (pbuh).
In between I added my own words.
Or added some explanation.
And I did not specify if the Prophet (pbuh) had said it or I am saying it.
Similarly, I got part of a narration from him, and then from him,
and some parts from a third and a fourth person.
Now the science of Hadith requires that whatever I have gotten from him,
I should specify it. And then specify what I got from the second person.
And then again relate the part I got from the third person separately.
So when I am relating a narration,
and I am not talking about the issues which arise about it today.
Today we talk from the standpoint of meaning.
But when I am narrating a Hadith about the Prophet (pbuh),
I would mention all this right?
I would tell that I got this part of the narration from so and so person,
and this much from a second person.
But Imam Zuhri did not follow this protocal. Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri.
What he evidently does is that he would combine narrations of 4 people
and make a story out of it and then relate it.
Hence, a very evident example of this is Hadith al-ifk in Bukhari.
The infamous incident about Syeda Ayesha that she was subject to an accusation
and the Quran then clarified the incident.
That narration also comes from Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri.
So this accusation against Syeda is also related by him.
So if you open Bukhari, you'll find that this narration starts like this...
he is saying that I heard from so and so,
and I left something from the first narration, added something to the second,
and bringing it all together I am relating this narration to you.
These are the actual words in the text.
So he is stating his 'idraaj' himself.
The way it is mentioned in the Quran about the Prophet (pbuh),
he told one of his wives a secret and she did not keep the secret.
So he reprimanded her a little and then did not share the whole secret with her.
That is a very laudable thing in that situation, but here,
what are you narrating?
The story you are making up would completely change the events as a result.
You must relate all four reports separately first.
And only after that you can give it a comprehensive form.
Then we will have a way to investigate what you have added into it.
So these are the various ways of doing idraaj.
Authorities of rijaal concur on the fact that he was guilty of tadlis and idraaj.
The scholars of rijaal, the authorites of the science of rijaal,
Zuhri is their ameer-ul- momineen fil hadith as well,
and simultaneously they hold him guilty of these two acts too.
There is no dispute about this, every single person concurs with this.
No one defends it. And defense is what I already told you.
That he is from among the learned men of that era,
about whom it is better to hold a favorable opinion.
And because the science of Hadith hadn't been born yet.
Alright, let us accept this reasoning for a while
and look upon it favorably since in that time, the methodology hasn't established
and people used to convey such narration without proper regard.
Let us accept it. But what he narrates is always of this nature. Why so?
Be it is the absurd, illogical account of the accusation on Syeda Ayesha,
or this narration regarding the Quran,
or whether it was about the Prophet (pbuh) on his deathbed,
asking for a sheet of paper, and the reply of Syedna Umar Farooq,
'God's refuge! God have mercy! He seems to be in delirium'.
Why are there always these kinds of narrations by him?
By Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri. And why doesn't anyone else relate such things?
When we look at any narration, there is either Hazrat Umar being reproached,
or Syeda Ayesha is being accused. What is the reason for this?
This is the question and I have placed it before you.
Authorities of rijaal regard him to be guilty of tadlis and idraaj.
Yes?
Authorities of rijaal mean the scholars
who study and investigate the narrators in a Hadith's chain of transmission.
They tell you who that person was, can he be considered trustworthy,
what was the reliance over his memory, they study all this.
This is an extraordinary discipline. Something we Muslims can take pride in.
See nothing is devoid of flaws, but it is an esteemed science,
and a lot of work has been done in this.
To determine the life conditions of 32,000 people, to convey them,
and then to investigate them as far as possible, is an immense task.
So this is one thing. This is something which the Muhaddisiin state themselves.
The authorities of rijaal state this themselves
that he was guilty of both tadlis and idraaj.
Both of these things have been established about him.
This debate, the one about tadlis and idraaj,
if you want to read it in great detail,
and of course most of these are in Arabic language,
and in the books of rijaal which are of a very specialized nature,
and in which the method of debate is also very technical and specialized,
so a common man does not find it easy to read them.
But two people have done extraordinary debates about these.
First are the scholars who have written about hadith al-ifk in our times,
among them is Hakeem Niaz Sahab too who has a book as well
about the incident of Ifk (slander against Ayesha).
There are other scholars too who have written about it.
So naturally he had to address the whole debate.
So he has collected a lot of material about it.
And the second, and a lot of people would know about it,
that there is a great esteemed scholar from our Punjab itself,
who has written a great book entitled Ruhama'u Baynahum.
It is about the interpersonal relations of the Companions.
He has written about that. Usually, since in the later eras,
the discord among them became the main subject of discourse,
so he has focused on their relations.
Even in that, since most of the narrations about the Companions
which are the basis of reproach against them, come from him only,
so Maulana Muhammad Nafe' also wrote three or four volumes
of Ruhama'u Baynahum, in which he has done a very refined discussion
about Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri.
So if anyone wants to read about it in more detail, you can refer to those books.
Yes Tamanna Imadi also has a whole book, but who will read him?
The issue with Tamanna Imadi is that he is a great researcher,
a highly esteemed person, but it seems that there is a junkyard of information,
of ideas and thoughts, of critique and analysis,
which he has dumped onto some pages.
Now it is your tenacity whether you can manage to comprehend it.
So there is no style of composition, of compilation or order to be found in it.
So it is quite difficult to read.
Yes? No his book is in Urdu.
That is why I said that the ones who want to read in Urdu, they can.
Along with this, so it is a given that both of these things are there.
Tadlees and idraaj are a given.
There is no dispute about them.
Besides these, if some other facets of his personality are kept in consideration,
which are referred to by Imam al-Layth ibn Sa'd in his letter to Imam Malik,
then none of the narratives reported by him regarding such important issues
can be seen as acceptable.
Imam al-Layth ibn Sa'd himself is an Imam of the same stature as Imam Malik.
He is among the most esteemed scholars.
Imam al-Layth ibn Sa'd wrote a letter to Imam Malik,
which has been archived in our historical records.
And here I have cited it as well, you can see the whole letter yourself.
It is available written in his own hand.
In that, he has commented upon Zuhri as well.
And it seems that since Imam Malik trusted Zuhri,
and Imam al-Layth ibn Sa'd used to criticize him.
So because of this, Imam Malik used to be unhappy with Sa'd.
So this letter has been written in the backdrop of this entire context.
I have excerpted a part of the letter here.
This is the letter of Imam al-Layth ibn Sa'd,
and the book is I'lamul Muqayin, written by Ibn-e-Qayyim.
Two pronunciations of this book title are correct,
I'lamul Muqayin and I'lamul Muwaqi'in.
The reason for that is I'qaa and tau'qee are synonyms,
which mean mul'himeen.
So this is the book by Ibn-e Qayyim.
In its third volume, on page numbers 84 and 85, this whole letter is copied.
Now see what he writes.
He says about Ibn Shihab, that I do not consider him worthy of consideration.
I do not accept anything that he says.
And he says to Imam Malik that this distresses you,
this attitude of mine. And I will tell you the reason for it.
So the reason he gives is, 'wakaana yakoon min Ibn Shihab
ikhtilaf katheer iza laqeenahu.'
When we would meet Ibn Shihab, there arose a difference of opinion in many issues.
But that is no big deal.
He then says, 'wa iza kaatabahu baazuna farubamaa katabaa alayhi fi l shayl
wahid ala fazil raai'hi wa ilmihi bisalasaati anwa yanquzu
baazahu baaza.'
In that era, knowledge comprised of collecting these narrations.
So he says that when any one of us would ask him in writing about some issue,
in spite of being so learned, and he certainly was a learned scholar,
he would give three very different answers to the same question,
each of which would negate the other.
So if I asked something he would give one answer,
if someone else asks the same thing he would give another answer.
And by a different answer I mean the Hadith narrations.
So he would give one narration to someone and another to someone else.
This was his response.
And then he says that the situation was that
'wala yashiro billazii maza min raa'i fi zalik.'
So what opinion and statement he had given prior to that,
and what he had told us earlier, he would not even be aware of that.
This was the situation. Then he writes 'fahaaz alladi yadooni ila tarki ma'an
tartu tarki-iyaa.'
It is because of these things that I had left him,
something which you did not like.
This issue with him, is actually the cause of me leaving him.
And now in the contemporary times, the books about Shia Rijaal are known too,
earlier there weren't many that we knew about,
so this too you must know that Shias consider him as one of their Imams.
The way we consider him as our ameer-ul-momineen fil hadith,
he is one of their Imams of Hadith too.
So this session comes to an end. I think time is up?
Now there is a half hour break.