MEEZAN - Preamble - Part 25 - Principles of Understanding Quran - Javed Ahmed Ghamidi

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.