No explicit report came from the Prophet ﷺ that defines the meaning of the seven aḥruf, and none of the narrators defined it either. Ibn al ʿArabī (d. 543 AH) said: “No explicit report and no trace has come regarding the meaning of these seven, and people differed about specifying them.” (al Zarkashī, al Burhān fī ʿUlūm al Qurʾān, 1/212.)

Delaying clarification beyond the time of need is not permissible, and the first generation needed to understand the concession of reciting upon the seven aḥruf in order to act upon it.

Since the Companions acted upon the concession and no report shows them asking about its meaning, the closer conclusion is that the meaning was clear to them, so no separate explanation was needed. (ʿAbd al ʿAzīz al Qāriʾ, Ḥadīth al Aḥruf al Sabʿah wa Ṣilatuhu bi al Qirāʾāt al Qurʾāniyyah, pp. 77–78; Muḥammad Sālim Muḥsin, al Qirāʾāt wa Atharuhā fī ʿUlūm al ʿArabiyyah, 26/1.)

The seven aḥruf are not the same as the well known “seven recitations” that later became famous in various regions. Those seven recitations are part of the seven aḥruf, not identical to them.

Many earlier imams disliked Ibn Mujāhid limiting public attention to seven reciters, because it caused confusion for those who did not know the reality of the matter. (Ibn al Jazarī, al Nashr fī al Qirāʾāt al ʿAshr, 1/36; Ibn al Jazarī, Mujid al Muqriʾīn, p. 54; Makki ibn Abī Ṭālib, al Ibānah ʿan Maʿānī al Qirāʾāt, p. 38; Mannāʿ al Qaṭṭān, Mabāḥith fī ʿUlūm al Qurʾān, p. 162.)

Many explanations were offered for the seven aḥruf, reaching around forty views, and the strongest readings of the hadith remain bound to what the narrations point to: disagreement occurred within the wordings of recitation and performance, not within rulings and legal meanings. (Ghānim Qaddūrī, Rasm al Muṣḥaf, pp. 142–144; ʿAbd al ʿĀl Sālim Makram, al Qirāʾāt al Qurʾāniyyah wa Atharuhā fī al Dirāsāt al Naḥwiyyah, p. 27.)

The chosen view on the meaning of the seven aḥruf

The view that is most consistent with the hadiths is that the seven aḥruf are revealed, differing ways of recitation. Any of them may be recited, and each is revealed Qurʾān.

The number “seven” is intended as a highest limit: the revealed ways can reach up to seven ways in a single Qurʾān word within a single type of variation, without requiring that every place reaches that limit. (ʿAbd al ʿAzīz al Qāriʾ, Ḥadīth al Aḥruf al Sabʿah, pp. 78–79.)

This meaning is strengthened by the hadith wording about increase, mode after mode, until reaching seven, and by the frame of the concession as ease in recitation, not as a licence to abandon revealed forms.

Ibn Ḥajar al ʿAsqalānī (d. 852 AH) indicated this meaning explicitly: “The Qurʾān was revealed upon seven aḥruf, meaning upon seven ways, it is permissible to recite with every way from them… it is intended that the highest number that the recitations in the one word reached is seven.” (Ibn Ḥajar al ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ al Bārī, 23/9.)

The correct understanding remains inside the circle of transmitted recitation, because the hadith concession does not go beyond recitation. (Ghānim Qaddūrī, Rasm al Muṣḥaf, p. 144.)

Examples of the seven aḥruf

Examples clarify the definition by showing how multiple revealed wordings occur in a single place, with correct, mass transmitted forms.

“Master of the Day of Judgement” has two mutawātir recitations, “Mālik” and “Malik”, each transmitted by recognised imams. (Ibn Mihrān, al Ghāyah fī al Qirāʾāt al ʿAshr, p. 75; Ibn al Jazarī, al Nashr fī al Qirāʾāt al ʿAshr, 1/273.)

“So do not say ‘uff’” has three mutawātir ways in wording and vocalisation, showing plurality within the limits of recitation. (Ibn al Jazarī, al Nashr fī al Qirāʾāt al ʿAshr, 2/301–307; Ibn al Jazarī, Taḥbīr al Taysīr, p. 135.)

The word “Jibrīl” has multiple mutawātir ways and additional irregular ways that are not recited as Qurʾān, so the total illustrates how the “seven” can appear when irregular forms are counted for knowledge, while recitation remains with the mutawātir. (Ibn al Jazarī, al Nashr fī al Qirāʾāt al ʿAshr, 2/219; Ibn al Jazarī, Taḥbīr al Taysīr, p. 95; ʿAbd al Fattāḥ al Qāḍī, al Budūr al Zāhirah, p. 37; ʿAbd al Fattāḥ al Qāḍī, al Qirāʾāt al Shādhdhah wa Tawjīhuhā min Lughat al ʿArab, p. 31.)

The Seven Ahruf and Their Relationship to the 10 Mutawatir Qira’at (Recitations)

The ten mutawātir recitations represent what remained from the seven aḥruf in the final review. A portion of the seven aḥruf was abrogated in that final review, so not everything once permissible remained for recitation after it. (Muqaddimāt fī ʿIlm al Qirāʾāt, pp. 13–28.)

Allah united the ummah upon the last review by means of the agreed muṣḥaf; what contradicted the agreed script fell under what was lifted and abrogated, and what is between the two covers is what Allah preserved for the servants. (Abu Shāmah, al Murshid al Wajīz, p. 144.)

Every correct mutawātir recitation is from the seven aḥruf, but not everything from the seven aḥruf is mutawātir, because some was abrogated in the final review. (Dr ʿAbd al ʿAzīz al Qāriʾ, Ḥadīth al Aḥruf al Sabʿah, pp. 123–124.)

Claims that the ʿUthmānī muṣḥafs contain all seven aḥruf in every sense are rejected, because some transmitted forms that contradict the script were authentically reported from the Companions and from the Prophet ﷺ, yet they were not written because recitation with them ended after the final review. (Ibn al Jazarī, Munjid al Muqriʾīn, p. 21.)

Therefore no mutawātir recitation remains today beyond the ten. (Ibn al Jazarī, Munjid al Muqriʾīn, p. 16.) Whatever lies beyond the ten is shādhdh, not Qurʾān, and not recited as Qurʾān. (Muqaddimāt fī ʿIlm al Qirāʾāt, pp. 13–28.)

The Difference Between the Qur’an and the Qira’at Recitations

The Qurʾān is the revealed Speech of Allah, miraculous, recited as worship, transmitted by mass transmission from Al Fātiḥah to Al Nās. (Muqaddimāt fī ʿIlm al Qirāʾāt, pp. 39–41.)

Al Zarkashī (d. 794 AH) distinguished between Qurʾān and qirāʾāt by defining the Qurʾān as the revelation sent down for clarification and miracle, and defining qirāʾāt as the differences in the wordings and performance qualities within that revelation, such as easing and strengthening and related manners of pronunciation. (al Zarkashī, al Burhān, 1/318.)

Complete separation is not intended, because the correct mutawātir qirāʾāt accepted by the ummah are part of the Qurʾān, while shādhdh qirāʾāt are not Qurʾān.

The Qurʾān is broader, containing both places of agreement and the correct places of transmitted difference, while “qirāʾāt” as a term includes both mutawātir and shādhdh, so the term is broader than the Qurʾān in category but narrower in actual Qurʾān content, because only the mutawātir portion is Qurʾān. (Dr Muḥammad Sālim Muḥaysin, al Qirāʾāt wa Atharuhā fī ʿUlūm al ʿArabiyyah, 1/17–18; Dr Shaʿbān Muḥammad Ismāʿīl, al Qirāʾāt: Aḥkāmuhā wa Maṣdaruhā; Dr Ḥāzim Saʿīd Ḥaydar, ʿUlūm al Qurʾān bayna al Burhān wa al Itqān, pp. 224 and 225.)

Alleged Contradiction in the Meaning of the Recitations

Goldziher (d. 1339 AH) claimed contradiction between two forms at the opening of Sūrah Al Rūm, using one mutawātir reading and one shādhdh reading as though both were equal. (Goldziher, Madhāhib al Tafsīr al Islāmī, p. 29.)

The response is that the shādhdh reading is not Qurʾān and is not permissible to recite as Qurʾān, so it cannot be set against the mutawātir. (al Qasṭallānī, Laṭāʾif al Ishārāt, 1/72.) Therefore, only one correct recitation stands in that place, and the other does not hold as a recitation of Qurʾān. (Ibn al Jazarī, al Nashr, 1/49; ʿAbd al Qayyūm al Sindī, Ṣafaḥāt fī ʿUlūm al Qirāʾāt, p. 134.)

Even on the assumption of accepting the second wording as correct, reconciliation remains possible by placing each wording upon a distinct event and time, since contradiction only occurs when two opposites fall upon one matter in one time. (ʿAbd al Fattāḥ al Qāḍī, al Qirāʾāt fī Naẓar al Mustashriqīn wa al Mulḥidīn, pp. 111–122; Aḥmad al Baylī, al Ikhtilāf bayna al Qirāʾāt, pp. 98–101.)

No example exists of opposition between two mutawātir recitations; differences are differences of variety, not contradiction. (Dr al Sayyid Rizq al Ṭawīl, fī ʿUlūm al Qirāʾāt, p. 27.)
The Qurʾān itself negates internal contradiction: “وَلَوْ كَانَ مِنْ عِندِ غَيْرِ اللَّهِ لَوَجَدُوا فِيهِ اخْتِلَافًا كَثِيرًا” “If it had been from other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.” (An Nisāʾ: 82.)

Alleged Irregularities of Some Recitations to the Arabic Language

Some grammarians criticised certain recitations because they conflicted with what was dominant in their grammatical approach. (Dr al Sayyid Rizq al Ṭawīl, fī ʿUlūm al Qirāʾāt, p. 66; Dr Maḥmūd al Ṣaghīr, al Qirāʾāt al Shādhdhah, pp. 518–532.)

All correct mutawātir recitations agree with Arabic, even if by a single eloquent way, and agreement with Arabic is a condition of an accepted recitation. (Abu Shāmah, al Murshid al Wajīz, p. 171.)

The language is broad, containing what is famous, weak, rare, and strange, so a recitation conflicting with one grammatical path does not mean conflict with the language itself.

A sound approach makes the recitations a foundation for grammatical principles, not the reverse, and reliable grammarians followed this approach, including Ibn Mālik (d. 672 AH), Abū Ḥayyān (d. 745 AH), and Ibn Hishām (d. 761 AH). (Muqaddimāt fī ʿIlm al Qirāʾāt, pp. 48–51.)

The recitation of Ḥamzah (d. 156 AH) regarding “wal arḥām” with the genitive is supported by recognised Arabic usage and by evidence from prose and poetry, so rejection is dangerous. (Ibn Khalawayh, al Ḥujjah fī al Qirāʾāt al Sabʿ, p. 118; Abū Zurʿah, Ḥujjat al Qirāʾāt, p. 190.)

Ibn Mālik affirmed this permissibility in his Alfiyyah. (Ibn Mālik, Alfiyyat al Naḥw wa al Ṣarf, p. 48.) This reading was not confined to one reciter, because many recited with it, so rejection becomes rejection of a transmitted Prophetic recitation, and grammar imams are not followed in such a place. (Ibn al Jazarī, Ghāyat al Nihāyah, 1/315 and 343; Ibn al Jazarī, al Nashr, 1/165; al Qurṭubī, al Jāmiʿ li Aḥkām al Qurʾān, 4/5.)

The recitation of Ibn ʿĀmir (d. 118 AH) in “شُرَكَائِهِمْ” “shurakāʾihim” “their partners” is explained linguistically and supported by recognised Arabic evidence, even if the Basran path treated such separation as restricted. (Abū al Barakāt ibn al Anbārī, al Bayān fī Gharīb Iʿrāb al Qurʾān, 1/343; al Dānī, al Muqniʿ, p. 103.)

The recitation “إِنَّ هَٰذَانِ لَسَاحِرَانِ” “inna hādhāni la sāḥirāni” “indeed these two are surely magicians” carries more than one grammatical explanation, including dialect grounds and structural explanations, so the criticism returns upon the critic. (Ibn Hishām al Anṣārī, Mughnī al Labīb, 1/37–39; Dr Aḥmad al Ghāmidī, Takhrīj Awjuh al Iʿrāb, pp. 72 and 73.)

The Madhhahib of the Ulama on What Is Intended by the Seven Ahruf in the Hadith

The ulama differed greatly over what is intended by the seven aḥruf, reaching around forty views. (Tafsīr al Qurṭubī, al Jāmiʿ li Aḥkām al Qurʾān, 1/42; al Suyūṭī, al Itqān, 1/48.) Most of those views are not preferred. (Fatḥ al Bārī, 9/16.)

A ranking is set: madhhahib with no proof, madhhahib with a resemblance of proof, and madhhahib that carry proof in general, moving from weaker to stronger until reaching the weighty view indicated by the hadith texts. (al Aḥruf al Sabʿah wa Manzilat al Qirāʾāt minhā, 121–169.)

Madhhahib That Have No Proof

Some explanations attach the seven aḥruf to categories of rulings and meanings, to rhetorical categories, to conduct paths, or to “seven sciences” within the Qurʾān.

These explanations share one defect: no Sharia proof clarifies that such categories are intended by “seven aḥruf”, and the method of reaching them is unclear, while the hadiths indicate recitation and pronunciation differences as the root of the matter. (al Burhān, 1/224–226; al Itqān, 1/48.)

Such definitions also conflict with the greatest wisdom behind the concession: ease for an ummah that includes the elderly, the young, and the unlettered, so reducing the aḥruf to abstract categories does not achieve facilitation in recitation. (al Aḥruf al Sabʿah wa Manzilat al Qirāʾāt minhā, 121–169.)

Madhhahib That Have a Resemblance of Proof

Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Saʿdān al Naḥwī (d. 213 AH) said the hadith was difficult to understand and its meaning unknown because “ḥarf” is a shared term that can carry multiple meanings. (al Burhān, 1/213.)

The response is that a shared term is guided to one meaning by contextual clues, and here the clues prevent meanings such as “poem” or “alphabet letter” or “meaning”, leaving “direction” as the intended sense. (Manhaj al Furqān fī ʿUlūm al Qurʾān, p. 60.)

Another madhhab, linked to Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ (d. 544 AH), treated “seven” as a non literal expression meaning abundance and breadth. This was adopted by some later writers and was used by orientalists to argue instability in the matter. (al Itqān, 1/45–46; Mabāḥith fī ʿUlūm al Qurʾān, Dr Ṣubḥī al Ṣāliḥ, p. 104; Goldziher, Madhāhib al Tafsīr al Islāmī.) The response is the gathered hadith evidence about gradual increase until reaching seven, making the number intended as the number between six and eight. (al Itqān, 1/45–46.)

Other proposed explanations are also rejected: treating “ḥarf” as “recitation” in a way that requires seven readings for every differing word; limiting aḥruf to pure pronunciation features like idghām and iẓhār; restricting the seven to a few verses; or treating “apparent and hidden” as the aḥruf themselves rather than descriptions attached to them. (al Burhān, 1/223; Tafsīr al Ṭabarī, 1/22–23; Tafsīr al Ṭabarī, 1/72.)

The Madhhahib That Have Proof In General

A strong group of explanations treats the aḥruf as revealed ways of difference in recitation. Abū Ḥātim al Sijistānī (d. 255 AH) linked the seven to major directions of language difference and gave wide examples for synonym substitution, letter substitution, word order changes, addition and omission, vowel differences, grammatical inflection, and dialect performance features. (Muqaddimāt Kitāb al Mabānī, pp. 221–228.)

Ibn Qutaybah (d. 276 AH) and al Bāqillānī (d. 403 AH) treated the seven as faces drawn from transmitted qirāʾāt differences, including advance and delay, addition and omission, form changes with meaning changes, letter differences that preserve the script, and other categories that appear across the recited tradition, while affirming that no binding report specifies each ḥarf precisely. (Muqaddimāt Ibn ʿAṭiyyah, p. 265; Muqaddimāt Kitāb al Mabānī, pp. 215–217; al Burhān, 1/334 and what follows.)

Objections are raised against this group of definitions: leaving out foundational performance matters such as lengthening and inclination; making the system too technical for the unlettered; and sometimes relying on shādhdh material. (Maʿnā Qawl al Nabī ﷺ: Unzila al Qurʾān ʿalā Sabʿat Aḥruf, pp. 34–37.)

Abū al Faḍl al Rāzī (d. 454 AH) offered a broader classification of seven categories, explicitly including dialect performance as a category, while admitting that his arrangement can gather both mutawātir and shādhdh within the scope of “difference”, which becomes a weakness. (Kitāb Maʿānī “Unzila al Qurʾān ʿalā Sabʿat Aḥruf”, pp. 45–46.)

Ibn al Jazarī (d. 833 AH) reduced the differences found in recitations to seven faces, but excluded pure performance qualities on the ground that they do not remove a wording from being one wording. (al Nashr fī al Qirāʾāt al ʿAshr, 1/26–27; al Itqān, 1/46; Manāhil al ʿIrfān, 1/152; Manāhil al ʿIrfān, 1/154.)

Evidence is used by some for explaining “ḥarf” as “face” or “direction”, including the Qurʾān verse “وَمِنَ النَّاسِ مَن يَعْبُدُ اللَّهَ عَلَىٰ حَرْفٍ” “And among people is the one who worships Allah on a ḥarf.” (Al Ḥajj: 11.)

Yet there still remains some strong objections: lack of stability in defining exactly seven faces, disagreement among proponents, the possibility of grouping into more or less than seven, and the need for an answer that would end the Companions’ dispute with a meaning immediately understood. (Muqaddimāt Kitāb al Mabānī, p. 221; Tafsīr al Ṭabarī, 1/51–52.)

Alongside these, a madhhab interprets the aḥruf as near synonymous wordings with one meaning, supported by narrations such as the report of “All of it is healing and sufficient…”, yet this line implies that multiple aḥruf were later left, so detailed examination is required. (Tafsīr al Qurṭubī, 1/142; al Burhān, 1/220.)

Within the earlier chosen structure, the most weighty conclusion remains tied to recitation: the seven aḥruf are revealed ways of reciting Qurʾān wordings, reaching a highest limit of seven ways in a single word within a single type of variation, while the ten mutawātir qirāʾāt represent what remained from the seven aḥruf after the final review, and shādhdh is not Qurʾān and is not recited as Qurʾān. (ʿAbd al ʿAzīz al Qāriʾ, Ḥadīth al Aḥruf al Sabʿah, pp. 78–79; Dr ʿAbd al ʿAzīz al Qāriʾ, Ḥadīth al Aḥruf al Sabʿah, pp. 123–124; Ibn al Jazarī, Munjid al Muqriʾīn, p. 16.)

Full Article

Muqaddimāt fī ʿIlm al-Qirāʾāt

First Segment: This first segment of this article will be passages taken from Muqaddimāt fī ʿIlm al-Qirāʾāt by A Group of Authors.

**https://foulabook.com/ar/book/%D9%85%D9%82%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A1%D8%A7%D8%AA-pdf**

Statements of the ulama on the meaning of the seven aḥruf (modes)

Before beginning the review of the statements of the ulama on the meaning of the seven aḥruf, several questions must be placed before the topic, as a preface to clarify the meaning that appears most weighty.

Did the Prophet ﷺ explicitly state the meaning of the seven aḥruf, and did any of the narrators of the hadith explicitly state it. Did the noble Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, the first generation, know its meaning, or was its meaning unclear to them.

As for the answer to the first 2 questions, the Prophet ﷺ did not explicitly state the meaning of the seven aḥruf, and none of the narrators of the hadith explicitly stated it either.

Ibn al ʿArabī (d. 543 AH) said: “No explicit report and no trace has come regarding the meaning of these seven, and people differed about specifying them.” (al Zarkashī, al Burhān fī ʿUlūm al Qurʾān, 1/212.)

As for whether the noble Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, knew its meaning or did not know it, it must be said from the outset that delaying clarification beyond the time of need is not permissible.

There is no doubt that the ummah, at that time, needed to know the meaning of the seven aḥruf in order to be able to act upon the concession (rukhṣah), which is reciting in accordance with the seven aḥruf, and the Companions acted upon this concession.

For that reason, the Prophet ﷺ and the noble Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, did not explain its reality to anyone for 1 of 2 matters, with no third possibility.

The first matter is that the meaning of these seven aḥruf was clear to them, which made it not in need of clarification and explanation. For that reason, in none of the hadith narrations about its multiplicity and abundance is it reported that anyone asked about its meaning. They knew it and acted upon it, and this is the closer of the 2 matters to the narrations that have come about the meaning of the seven aḥruf.

The second matter is that the meaning of these seven aḥruf was unclear to them, with difficulty in understanding it due to its abundance and the branching of its details, and that later people then needed to research and examine it.

This claim contradicts the meaning of a concession and facilitation for the ummah, because they understood its meaning and acted upon it, and its purpose was achieved. (ʿAbd al ʿAzīz al Qāriʾ, Ḥadīth al Aḥruf al Sabʿah wa Ṣilatuhu bi al Qirāʾāt al Qurʾāniyyah, pp. 77–78; see also Muḥammad Sālim Muḥsin, al Qirāʾāt wa Atharuhā fī ʿUlūm al ʿArabiyyah, 26/1.)

Attention must be drawn to the fact that the seven aḥruf with which the Qurʾān was revealed are not the 7 recitations that became well known in the regions by agreement of the reciters, but rather those 7 recitations are part of the seven aḥruf.

Ibn al Jazarī quoted from more than one of the scholars that they disliked what Ibn Mujāhid did, and he said: “For that reason, many of the earlier imams disliked Ibn Mujāhid limiting it to 7 of the reciters, and they considered him mistaken in that.

They said: if only he had limited it to fewer than this number, or increased it, or clarified his intent, so that the one who does not know would be saved from this confusion.” (See this matter in the general works of recitations and Qurʾān sciences, including Ibn al Jazarī, al Nashr fī al Qirāʾāt al ʿAshr, 1/36; Ibn al Jazarī, Mujid al Muqriʾīn, p. 54; Makki ibn Abī Ṭālib, al Ibānah ʿan Maʿānī al Qirāʾāt, p. 38 and what follows; Mannāʿ al Qaṭṭān, Mabāḥith fī ʿUlūm al Qurʾān, p. 162.)

These are the most important statements that were said about the meaning of the seven aḥruf, and they reached 40 statements, as al Qurṭubī and al Suyūṭī and others mentioned.

The hadith is from the difficult and ambiguous matters whose meaning is not known, because “ḥarf” is a shared term that applies to many meanings. This is attributed to Ibn Saʿdān al Naḥwī.

This view is examined by saying that the seven aḥruf are modes of performance that the Companions acted upon, and they transmitted them across the lands by narration, memorisation, and performance.

If it were from the ambiguous matters whose meaning is not known, they would not have acted upon it. Being able to act upon the concession, which is the revelation of the Qurʾān upon 7 aḥruf, requires knowing its meaning, or knowing how to perform it, so it is far from likely that the seven aḥruf are from the ambiguous matters whose meaning is not known.

The reality of the number is not intended, because the word “7” in the speech of the Arabs is used while intending abundance in units. This view is attributed to Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ (d. 544 AH).

This view is examined by saying that the number is intended in the hadith, because the Prophet ﷺ sought increase, mode after mode, and Jibrīl عليه السلام increased him. If the number were not intended, the number would not have stopped at 7.

The intended meaning is 7 categories of meanings and rulings, such as the lawful and the unlawful, command and prohibition, the clear and the ambiguous, and parables. It was also said: the lawful and the unlawful, the clear and the ambiguous, parables, composition, and information. It was also said: abrogating and abrogated, specific and general, concise and clarified and explained. It was also said: promise and threat, unrestricted and restricted, explanation, grammatical inflection, and interpretation, and other than that.

This view is examined by saying that the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, differed and took their dispute to the Prophet ﷺ, as is established in the hadith of ʿUmar and Hishām, and Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, and Ibn Masʿūd and ʿAmr ibn al ʿĀṣ, and others.

They did not differ about its explanation and they did not differ about its rulings, but they differed about the recitation of its letters, and the way it is performed.

Some used as evidence for this view what is narrated from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd, may Allah be pleased with him, from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, that he said: the first Book was sent down from 1 gate upon 1 ḥarf, and the Qurʾān was sent down from 7 gates upon 7 aḥruf, as prohibition and command, lawful and unlawful, clear and ambiguous, and parables.

So treat its lawful as lawful, treat its unlawful as unlawful, do what has been commanded, and stop at what has been forbidden, take lessons from its parables, act upon its clear, believe in its ambiguous, and say: “We believe in it, all of it is from our Lord.” (al Zarqānī, Manāhil al ʿIrfān, 1/172.)

This hadith was answered in three ways.

The first is that these 7 are other than the 7 aḥruf mentioned by the Prophet ﷺ in the hadiths, because he explained them in this hadith as the lawful and the unlawful, then he confirmed that with the command: “Say: we believe in it, all of it is from our Lord.” This shows that these are other than the recitations.

The second is that the 7 aḥruf in this hadith are an explanation of the 7 gates, and they are not the same as the seven aḥruf.

The third is that the phrase “the lawful and the unlawful” has no connection to the 7 aḥruf and no connection to the 7 gates, but it is information about the Qurʾān, meaning, it is such and such.

The intended meaning is 7 languages from the eloquent languages of the Arabs, and the Qurʾān was sent down with them, distributed within it, so some is in the language of Quraysh, some in the language of Hudhayl, some in the language of Hawāzin, and some in the language of Yemen. This is the view of Abū ʿUbayd al Qāsim ibn Sallām (d. 224 AH).

This view is examined by saying that there are words that are not from the languages they counted, because the Qurʾān was revealed in many different languages that are not restricted to what they mentioned. For example, Allah said:

وَأَنتُمْ سَمِدُونَ
“And you are heedless.” (al Najm 61)

The word “samidūn” is in the Ḥimyarī language, and “rafat”, meaning intercourse, is in the language of Madhḥij, and so on.

The intended meaning is 7 languages from the languages of the Arabs, then they differed about specifying them. Some said: Quraysh, Hudhayl, Thaqīf, Hawāzin, Kinānah, Tamīm, and Yemen. Others said: 5 languages from the sides of Hawāzin, Saʿd and Thaqīf, and Kinānah and Hudhayl and Quraysh, and 2 languages from the rest of the tongues of the Arabs.

The 4th and 5th views are examined by saying that ʿUmar ibn al Khaṭṭāb, may Allah be pleased with him, and Hishām ibn Ḥakīm, may Allah be pleased with him, differed in reciting Surah al Furqān, as is established in the authentic sources, and both of them are Qurashī from one language and one tribe.

If the intended meaning of the seven aḥruf were the different languages, or if they were distributed languages, the 2 Qurashīs would not have differed, and their language is 1. It becomes clear that the intended meaning of the seven aḥruf is something other than the languages of the Arabs. (al Zarqānī, Manāhil al ʿIrfān, 1/180; al Ḥākim said that the hadith is authentic in isnād, in al Mustadrak ʿalā al Ṣaḥīḥayn, 1/739.)

The intended meaning is 7 languages that occur in the 1 word in the 1 ḥarf, with different wordings and agreement in meanings, like someone saying: “تعال — taʿāl — come”, “أقبل — aqbil — approach”, “هلم — hallum — come here”, “إلي — ilayya — towards me”, “قصدي — qaṣdī — my intention”, “قربي — qurbī — my closeness”, “نحوي — naḥwī — towards me”, and so on.These 7 wordings have 1 meaning, which is requesting and approaching. This is attributed to the majority of the people of fiqh and hadith, including Sufyān al Thawrī (d. 161 AH) and Ibn Wahb (d. 197 AH), and it is the view of Ibn Jarīr al Ṭabarī.

They used as evidence what came in the hadith of Abū Bakrah, may Allah be pleased with him: “All of it is healing and sufficient, as long as a verse of punishment is not ended with mercy, and a verse of mercy is not ended with punishment.”

They also used what came in the hadith of Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, may Allah be pleased with him, that he used to recite: “Whenever it lit up for them, they walked in it”, and “they passed through it”, and “they hurried through it”. They also used what came from Ibn Masʿūd, may Allah be pleased with him, that he used to recite: “For those who believe, wait for us”, and “give us time”, and “delay us”.

This view is examined in several ways.

The first is that what is mentioned in the hadiths is not a restriction of the seven aḥruf, but rather an example of what came down of the Qurʾān.

This is supported by the statement of Ibn ʿAbd al Barr (d. 463 AH): he intended by this an example for the letters upon which the Qurʾān was revealed, that they are meanings whose understanding is agreed upon, while their heard forms differ.

None of them contains a meaning and its opposite, and no form contradicts the meaning of another form by negating it and opposing it, like mercy, which is the opposite of punishment. (al Zarkashī, al Burhān, 1/221.)

The second is that the real reality of the recitations established from the Prophet ﷺ contradicts what they went to in a clear contradiction, because many types of variation do not enter under the meaning of synonymy that they limited the seven aḥruf to. The slightest reflection on the 10 mutawātir recitations shows that this variation goes beyond verbal synonyms. (al Zarqānī, Manāhil al ʿIrfān, 1/174 and what follows.)

The third is that this view implies that the ummah dropped and abandoned 6 aḥruf and chose 1 ḥarf. This contains disregard of much of what is established from the Prophet ﷺ.

Rather, what is correct is that ʿUthmān, may Allah be pleased with him, gathered the people upon the final review, which the Prophet ﷺ reviewed with Jibrīl عليه السلام, and he did not leave out a single ḥarf from it.

It was not for him, may Allah be pleased with him, nor for anyone else to do that, because the Qurʾān with its multiple forms is revealed, and it has been transmitted to us by tawātur (mass transmission).

How can the ummah agree upon leaving 6 aḥruf, and everyone agree upon this leaving.

The intended meaning of the seven aḥruf is the categories by which variation and difference occur in Qurʾān words, and they do not go beyond them. Then they differed about specifying them and limiting them.

According to Abū al Faḍl al Rāzī, for example, they are 7 categories.

First: variation in the patterns of nouns, from singular, dual, and plural.

Second: variation in verb conjugation and what it is attributed to, like past, future, and command, and attribution to masculine and feminine, speaker and addressee, subject and object.

Third: grammatical inflection.

Fourth: addition and omission.

Fifth: bringing forward and putting back.

Sixth: reversal, and replacing a word with another, or a letter with another.

Seventh: variation of dialect performance, like opening and imālah, thinning and thickening, full articulation and easing, assimilation and clarity, and similar.

Close to what Abū al Faḍl al Rāzī went to is what Ibn Qutaybah (d. 276 AH) went to.

Imām Ibn al Jazarī studied the ways of recitation and found that they do not go beyond 7 types.

The first type: difference in grammatical inflection in a way that does not remove its written form and does not change its meaning. Its example is: “هؤلاء بناتي هن أطهر لكم — hāʾulāʾ banātī hunna aṭhar lakum — these are my daughters, they are purer for you”, and another form: “أطهر — aṭhar — purer”.

The second type: difference in the inflection of the word and the vowel movements of its structure in a way that changes its meaning but does not remove it from its form. Its example is: “ربنا باعد — rabbanā bāʿid — our Lord, distance”, and another form: “ربنا باعد — rabbanā bāʿad — our Lord, distance”.

The third type: difference in the letters of the word, without its inflection. Its example is: “انظر إلى العظام كيف ننشزها — unẓur ilā al ʿiẓām kayfa nunshizuhā — look at the bones, how We raise them”, and another form: “ننشرها — nunshiruhā — We spread them”.

The fourth type: difference in the word in a way that changes its form and its meaning. Its example is: “طلح — ṭalḥ — talḥ”, and in another place: “طلح — ṭalḥ — ṭalḥ”.

The fifth type: difference in the word in a way that changes its written form but does not change its meaning. Its example is: “إن كانت إلا صيحة واحدة — in kānat illā ṣayḥah wāḥidah — it was not but one cry”, and “صيحة — ṣayḥah — a shout”.

The sixth type: difference by bringing forward and putting back. Its example is: “وجاءت سكرة الحق بالموت — wa jāʾat sakrat al ḥaqq bi al mawt — the agony of truth came with death”, and “وجاءت سكرة الموت بالحق — wa jāʾat sakrat al mawt bi al ḥaqq — the agony of death came with truth”.

The seventh type: difference by addition and omission. Its example is: “وما عملت أيديهم — wa mā ʿamilat aydīhim — and their hands did”, and “وما عملته — wa mā ʿamilat — and it did”.

This view, with what it contains of details, examination of Qurʾān recitations, and attempt to define the meaning of the seven aḥruf, is the closest of the views to the meaning of the seven aḥruf. However, it does not give a fully comprehensive definition of the reality of the seven aḥruf.

Despite the many directions that the early ulama mentioned about the meaning of the hadith, reaching around 40 views as al Suyūṭī mentioned, the hadith, with its various narrations, does not explicitly state any of them.

It is also not established with an authentic route that each ḥarf from these aḥruf is specified. Much of it is unknown in attribution to a specific imam, and it is only deduction that the narrations can carry.

The correct understanding of the hadith cannot be reached if it steps outside the circle that the narrations point to, which is that the disagreement was within the limits of the wordings of recitation, and that the concession that the hadith spoke about does not go beyond the limits of recitation.

From here, it can be said that the concession in the hadith is nothing but these different ways of recitation that the reciters transmit generation after generation until they reach the Companions who heard them from the Prophet ﷺ. (Ghānim Qaddūrī, Rasm al Muṣḥaf, pp. 142–144; and close to it is what ʿAbd al ʿĀl Sālim Makram mentioned in al Qirāʾāt al Qurʾāniyyah wa Atharuhā fī al Dirāsāt al Naḥwiyyah, p. 27.)

The chosen view on the meaning of the seven aḥruf

The previous views are not free from examination and back and forth, and they do not define the reality of the seven aḥruf and they do not clarify its meaning.

For that reason, the view that appears consistent and in harmony with the hadiths that came about the meaning of the seven aḥruf is what Dr ʿAbd al ʿAzīz ibn ʿAbd al Fattāḥ al Qāriʾ reached with precision and detail.

The seven aḥruf are multiple differing revealed ways of recitation. Any of them can be recited, and it is then a recitation of revealed Qurʾān. The number is intended, meaning that the highest limit that the revealed Qurʾān ways can reach is 7 ways, in the 1 Qurʾān word, within 1 type of variation and difference.

It is not required that the ways reach this limit in every place of the Qurʾān. (ʿAbd al ʿAzīz al Qāriʾ, Ḥadīth al Aḥruf al Sabʿah, pp. 78–79; and he reached the same overall conclusion as Muḥammad al Majālī in his published research in Majallat Dirāsāt, issue 23, titled Maʿnā al Aḥruf al Sabʿah; and Ḥāzim al Karmī suggested shortening this definition by deleting some of its parts in ʿUlūm al Qurʾān bayna al Burhān wa al Itqān, p. 173.)

Close to that is what Dr ʿAbd al Ṣabūr Shāhīn reached when he said: what represents dialect differences and the difference in performance levels that emerge from differences of tongues and differences of learning, and also what includes some word differences and sentence order, without changing the intended meaning.

Professor Dr Ghānim Qaddūrī al Ḥamd comments on Dr ʿAbd al Ṣabūr Shāhīn’s words and says: the meaning of the hadith continues to point to that concession that came for facilitation and to solve the problem that the Muslim group faced, without specifying the limits of that concession, but it does not leave the frame of the transmitted recitation ways. (Ghānim Qaddūrī, Rasm al Muṣḥaf, p. 144.)

Dr Nūr al Dīn ʿItr defined the seven aḥruf in technical usage by saying: they are 7 correct ways from languages and recitations that the Noble Qurʾān was revealed upon, and this is consistent with what Dr al Qāriʾ reached. (Nūr al Dīn ʿItr, ʿUlūm al Qurʾān, p. 136.)

Ibn Ḥajar al ʿAsqalānī also indicated the previous meaning, and his exact words are: “Chapter: The Qurʾān was revealed upon 7 aḥruf, meaning upon 7 ways, it is permissible to recite with every way from them. It is not intended that every word and every sentence from it is recited upon 7 ways. Rather, it is intended that the highest number that the recitations in the 1 word reached is 7.” (Ibn Ḥajar al ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ al Bārī, 23/9.)

The proof for the chosen view on the meaning of the seven aḥruf is taken from the meaning of the hadiths that came about it, and from the established mutawātir Qurʾān recitations, within the following points.

The ḥarf means the way connected to recitation, and they are ways of reciting the 1 Qurʾān word, shown by the difference between Hishām ibn Ḥakīm and ʿUmar ibn al Khaṭṭāb, may Allah be pleased with them, and their dispute before the Prophet ﷺ.
These ways were described as multiple because the Qurʾān was not recited in 1 way. The description “differing” points to the ways of difference between these ways, whether it is difference in wording only with agreement in meaning, though there is no Qurʾān ḥarf that matches another in every way.There must be an increase in meaning, because an increase in structure carries an increase in meaning. Or, the difference is in wording and meaning. Among its examples in the Qurʾān is what is recited in mutawātir form:

رَبَّنَا بَعِدْ بَيْنَ أَسْفَارِنَا
“Our Lord, increase the distance between our journeys.” (Saba 19)

The meaning in this ḥarf is that, due to their rebellion and tyranny, they asked their Lord, mighty and majestic, to increase the distance between their journeys. It is recited in another ḥarf: “Our Lord, distance between our journeys”, with emphasis in the command, and the meaning points to their insistence and persistence in this request.

It is recited in a third mutawātir ḥarf: “Our Lord distanced between our journeys”, as a past tense verb, and its meaning is that it informs about what occurred from them of complaint and regret when that happened and they saw what followed from hardship and difficulty. This is difference in meaning, as is clear, and it is also difference in wording. (See this detail in ʿAbd al ʿAzīz al Qāriʾ, Ḥadīth al Aḥruf al Sabʿah, pp. 97–99.)

In what preceded is a response to the one who limited the difference between the ways to 1 type only, which is synonymy, and that is the view of Ibn Jarīr al Ṭabarī and those who agreed with him.

These ways were described as revealed. This is proof that the concession was in recitation, and using these ways when needed. This does not mean, at all, that it is permissible to do without any of them, because all these ways are revealed. Jibrīl عليه السلام teaches them to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and makes him recite them, then the Prophet ﷺ conveys them to the Companions so they memorise them and teach them. He selects for each of them what he wishes according to what he sees from their conditions, readiness, languages, and dialects.
The phrase “ways of recitation” is used because it came in the hadith, as preceded, in the Prophet’s ﷺ statement: “Jibrīl made me recite upon 1 ḥarf”, and in the statement of Jibrīl عليه السلام: “Allah commands you to make your ummah recite the Qurʾān upon 7 aḥruf”, and the Prophet’s ﷺ statement: “So recite what is easy from it”. These wordings are explicit that the aḥruf are something connected to recitation.
Any of them can be recited, and it is then a recitation of revealed Qurʾān, shown by the Prophet’s ﷺ statement: “Whichever ḥarf they recite, they have been correct”, meaning, they have been correct in the Qurʾān.It is not permissible to abandon any of them by opinion or control, as might be understood from some views that were said about the meaning of the seven aḥruf, by claiming that all are sufficient and healing and there is no preference of any over another. They are parts of the Qurʾān, and it is made up of their totality. For that reason, ʿUthmān, may Allah be pleased with him, was eager when writing them in the muṣḥafs to establish them by 1 script, so that no one would think there is preference of some over others.
The number is intended. All narrations explicitly mention the number 7, shown by the gradual increase in the revelation of the seven aḥruf that came in the hadith of Ibn ʿAbbās, may Allah be pleased with them both, in which: “Jibrīl made me recite, and I kept asking him for increase, and he increased me, until he ended at 7 aḥruf.” This gradual increase has no benefit if the number is not intended. The Prophet ﷺ reviewing with Jibrīl عليه السلام is another proof of that.

Some ulama derived from the Prophet’s ﷺ phrase “upon 7 aḥruf” that his use of the preposition “upon” points to a condition, and the meaning is: your ummah may recite the Qurʾān with multiple aḥruf, on the condition that it does not go beyond 7 aḥruf.

The highest limit that the revealed Qurʾān ways can reach is 7 aḥruf. The one who follows the authentic mutawātir Qurʾān recitations finds them in 2 categories.

The first is places of agreement, in which only 1 way came, and this is most of the Qurʾān.

The second is places of difference. These begin from 2 ways and more and reach 7 ways. By examining the mutawātir recitations, the highest that can be reached is 6 ways, and it can reach 7 in some cases if the irregular narrations are added. (ʿAbd al ʿAzīz al Qāriʾ, Ḥadīth al Aḥruf al Sabʿah wa Ṣilatuhu bi al Qirāʾāt al Qurʾāniyyah, pp. 79–87.)

This is in the 1 Qurʾān word, within 1 type from the types of difference and variation. The 7 were limited as a highest limit to the one Qurʾān word within the 1 type of variation and difference, as a protection against the branches that the reciters branch out, fearing combination in routes. The word can contain two places or more of difference, and each place enters under a type from the types of variation. If all the ways are gathered without considering the types, a large number of ways is produced.

Further clarification of this point is given by two examples.

The first example is Allah’s statement:

الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ ۝ مَلِكِ يَوْمِ الدِّينِ
“The Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate. Master of the Day of Judgement.” (al Fatihah 3–4)

In the yāʾ of “الرحيم — al raḥīm — the Most Merciful” when stopping, there are three recited ways: shortening, medium, and lengthening.

Then, in the mīm of “الرحيم — al raḥīm — the Most Merciful” with the mīm of “ملك — malik — King”, there are 2 ways, assimilation and clarity, along with the 2 other ways in “مالك — mālik — Master” with an alif and “ملك — malik — King” without it.

If these ways are gathered as though they are 1 place, the total becomes 7 ways. However, counting these places as 1 place is an error.

The yāʾ of “الرحيم — al raḥīm — the Most Merciful” is an incidental lengthening at stopping, and it is an independent place with 3 ways.

The 2 matching mīms between “al Raḥīm” and “Malik” are an independent place with 2 ways. The ways of incidental lengthening are not gathered with the ways of the 2 matching mīms. (ʿAbd al ʿAzīz al Qāriʾ, Ḥadīth al Aḥruf al Sabʿah, pp. 90–93.)

Incidental lengthening is one type of variation, the meeting of the 2 matching mīms is another type of variation, and the 2 ways in “Malik” are a third type of variation.

The second example is Allah’s statement:

فَتَلَقَى ءَادَمُ مِن رَبِّهِ كَلِمَتِ
“Then Adam received words from his Lord.” (al Baqarah 37)

In this verse there are several places where difference occurs. The word “آدم — ādam — Adam” is in the accusative case with “كلمات — kalimāt — words” in the nominative case, and this is the recitation of Ibn Kathīr.

The rest of the 10 reciters recited “آدم — ādam — Adam” in the nominative case and “كلمات — kalimāt — words” in the accusative case, and both are 2 correct recited ways in this place.

Also, the alif in “فتلقى — fatalaqqā — then he received” has three recited ways: opening, slight inclination, and inclination. In it, in terms of lengthening, there are three ways: shortening, medium, and lengthening.

Also, in the substitute alif in “آدم — ādam — Adam” there are 3 recited ways: shortening, medium, and lengthening. Between the mīm of “آدم — ādam — Adam” and the mīm of “من — min — from” there are 2 ways: clarity and assimilation.

If these ways are gathered, they become more than 10. For that reason, every type of variation must be considered separately.

The difference in the words “آدم — ādam — Adam” and “كلمات — kalimāt — words” by nominative and accusative, and the opposite, is 1 type of variation. The ways in “فتلقى — fatalaqqā — then he received” are 1 type of variation in opening, slight inclination, and inclination, and another type in the amount of lengthening in it.

The ways of substitute lengthening are an independent type of variation. Each type of these is like multiple forms from the seven aḥruf in the 1 word within the independent type of variation, in each of the previous types.

Examples of the seven aḥruf

Limitation is made to 3 examples that clarify the intended meaning.

Allah’s statement:

مَلِكِ يَوْمِ الدِّينِ
“Master of the Day of Judgement.” (al Fatihah 4)

It has 2 mutawātir correct recitations. The first recitation is “Mālik” with an alif after the mīm, and it is the recitation of ʿĀṣim and al Kisāʾī and Yaʿqūb and Khalaf. The other recitation is “Malik” without an alif, and it is the recitation of Nāfiʿ and Abū ʿAmr and Ibn Kathīr and Ibn ʿĀmir and Ḥamzah and Abū Jaʿfar. (Ibn Mihrān, al Ghāyah fī al Qirāʾāt al ʿAshr, p. 75; Ibn al Jazarī, al Nashr fī al Qirāʾāt al ʿAshr, 1/273.)

These 2 ways are from the seven aḥruf that the Qurʾān was revealed with as facilitation for the ummah, and here they reached 2 aḥruf.

Allah’s statement:

فَلَا تَقُل مَا أُن
“So do not say…” (al Isrāʾ 23)

It has 3 mutawātir correct ways.

The first way: with a strengthened qāf and its kasrah, with tanwīn, “أفٍّ — uffin — uff”. This is the narration of Nāfiʿ and Ḥafṣ from ʿĀṣim, and Abū Jaʿfar.

The second way: with a fatḥah on the fāʾ without tanwīn, as lightening, “أفَّ — affa — uff”. This is the recitation of Ibn Kathīr and Ibn ʿĀmir and Yaʿqūb.

The third way: with a kasrah on the fāʾ without tanwīn, “أفِّ — iffi — uff”. This is the recitation of the rest of the 10. (Ibn al Jazarī, al Nashr fī al Qirāʾāt al ʿAshr, 2/301–307; Ibn al Jazarī, Taḥbīr al Taysīr, p. 135.)

In this example, the 3 ways are from the seven aḥruf that the Qurʾān was revealed with, and here they reached 3 aḥruf.

Allah’s statement:

مَن كَانَ عَدُوًّا لِلَّهِ وَمَلَكَتِهِ وَرُسُلِهِ، وجبريل
“Whoever is an enemy to Allah, and His angels, and His messengers, and Jibrīl…” (al Baqarah 98)

It has 5 mutawātir correct ways and 2 irregular ways that are not recited with, so the total is 7 ways.

As for the recited ways, they are.

The first way: “جبريل — jibrīl — Gabriel”, with kasrah on the jīm and the rāʾ, removing the hamzah, and keeping the yāʾ. It is the recitation of Nāfiʿ and Abū ʿAmr and Ibn ʿĀmir and Ḥafṣ from ʿĀṣim, and Abū Jaʿfar and Yaʿqūb.

The second way: “جبريل — jibrīl — Gabriel”, with fatḥah on the jīm and kasrah on the rāʾ, and keeping the yāʾ without hamzah. It is the recitation of Ibn Kathīr.

The third way: “جبريئيل — jibrīʾīl — Gabriel”, with fatḥah on the jīm and the rāʾ, keeping the hamzah with kasrah, and the yāʾ as sākinah. It is the recitation of Ḥamzah and al Kisāʾī and Khalaf.

The fourth way: like the previous way, with removing the yāʾ after the hamzah. It is the narration of Abū Bakr ibn ʿAyyāsh from ʿĀṣim.

The fifth way: the previous way at stopping, with easing the hamzah between the hamzah and the yāʾ, and this is the way of Ḥamzah. (Ibn al Jazarī, al Nashr fī al Qirāʾāt al ʿAshr, 2/219; Ibn al Jazarī, Taḥbīr al Taysīr, p. 95; ʿAbd al Fattāḥ al Qāḍī, al Budūr al Zāhirah, p. 37.)

As for the 2 irregular ways that are not recited with.

The first way: “جبرأيل — jibrāʾil — Gabriel”, with an alif before the hamzah and removing the yāʾ. It is the narration of al Ḥasan al Baṣrī.

The second way: “Jibrīl”, with fatḥah on the jīm and the rāʾ, and a hamzah with kasrah, and a strengthened lām. It is the narration of Ibn Muḥayṣin from al Mubhij. (ʿAbd al Fattāḥ al Qāḍī, al Qirāʾāt al Shādhdhah wa Tawjīhuhā min Lughat al ʿArab, p. 31.)

In the previous example, the meaning of the seven aḥruf with which the Qurʾān was revealed becomes clear: they are multiple differing ways that the Qurʾān was revealed with, reaching, at their highest limit, 7 ways in the 1 word within the 1 type of difference, as preceded.

It also becomes clear that the highest number of aḥruf in the mutawātir is 6 aḥruf. In this example there are 5 mutawātir ways, and they are from the seven aḥruf that the Qurʾān was revealed with, meaning that the word “Jibrīl” has 5 mutawātir ways of recitation, and 2 other ways that are irregular.

Makki ibn Abī Ṭālib gave an example of the seven aḥruf in Surah al Fatihah, and he said: an example of the difference of the reciters in Surah al Fatihah, from what is part of the seven aḥruf, from what is narrated from the well known 7, from what does not contradict the script of the muṣḥaf, from what was recited.

ʿĀṣim and al Kisāʾī recited: “مالك يوم الدين — mālik yawm al dīn — Master of the Day of Judgement” with an alif, and the rest of the reciters, meaning from the 7, recited “ملك — malik — King” without an alif.

Ibn Kathīr, in the narration of Qunbul from him, recited “الصراط — al sirāṭ — the path” and “صراط — sirāṭ — path” with sīn, and Ḥamzah, in the narration of Khalaf from him, recited “الصراط — al ṣirāṭ — the path” between ṣād and zāy, and the rest of the reciters recited it with a pure ṣād.

Ḥamzah recited “عليهم — ʿalayhim — upon them” with ḍammah on the hāʾ, and the rest of the reciters recited it with kasrah.

Ibn Kathīr and al Ḥulwānī from Qālūn from Nāfiʿ recited “عليهم — ʿalayhim — upon them” with ḍammah on the mīm, and connected it with a wāw in connection only.

Abū ʿAmr, meaning from the narration of al Sūsī from him, recited “al Raḥīm Malik” with assimilation, and the rest of the reciters recited with clarity. (Makki ibn Abī Ṭālib, al Ibānah ʿan Maʿānī al Qirāʾāt, pp. 131–135.)

Muqaddimāt fī ʿIlm al-Qirāʾāt by A Group Of Authors pg 13–28

The Seven Ahruf and Their Relationship to the 10 Mutawatir Recitations

It has preceded that the seven ahruf (modes) are the different ways with which the Noble Qurʾan was revealed, and that some of them were abrogated in the final review. It also became established, as will come, that the 10 recitations are the mutawatir (mass transmitted) ones, and that they are the totality of what remained in the final review. (It has preceded the statement of Imam al Tabari that the seven ahruf are 1 harf that ʿUthman, may Allah be pleased with him, selected. On that basis, the 10 mutawatir recitations are considered 1 harf from the seven ahruf. This statement was examined in its place, and its weakness became clear.)

Accordingly, the 10 mutawatir recitations are the totality of what remained from the seven ahruf, and they are the final form of the Book of Allah, mighty and majestic.

Al Baghawi (d. 516 AH) said: “Allah, exalted, united the ummah, through the good choice of the Companions, upon 1 muṣḥaf, and it was the last of the reviews to the Messenger of Allah. Abu Bakr al Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him, ordered it to be written, as a collection after it had been scattered across sheets, so that it would be a foundation for the Muslims, to which they return, and upon which they rely.

ʿUthman, may Allah be pleased with him, ordered it to be copied into muṣḥafs, gathered the people upon it, and ordered whatever was besides it to be burned, to cut off the cause of disagreement.

So whatever contradicted the agreed script was in the ruling of what is abrogated and lifted, like everything else that was abrogated and lifted from it by the agreement of the Companions. What is written between the 2 covers is what Allah, mighty and majestic, has preserved for the servants, and it is the imam of the ummah.” (Abu Shamah, al Murshid al Wajiz, p. 144.)

The seven ahruf are broader, and more specific than them are the 10 mutawatir recitations, and more specific than them are the 7 mutawatir recitations. Whatever is besides the 10 mutawatir recitations is shadhdh (irregular), and it is not Qurʾan, and it is not recited.

Accordingly, the 7 and 10 mutawatir recitations are a part of the seven ahruf that were revealed to the heart of the beloved Chosen One, because a part of them was abrogated in the final review.

For that reason, the following rule can be set: every correct mutawatir recitation is from the seven ahruf, and not everything from the seven ahruf is mutawatir, because a part of it was abrogated in the final review.

Ibn al Jazari said: “The ʿUthmani muṣḥafs were not containing all the seven ahruf with which the recitation of the Qurʾan was permitted, as a group from the people of kalam and others said, built upon their view that it is not permissible for the ummah to neglect transmitting anything from the seven ahruf.”

He also said: “Because if it is said that the ʿUthmani muṣḥafs contain all the seven ahruf that Allah, exalted, revealed, then whatever contradicts the script is decisively graded as not being from the seven ahruf.

This is a prohibited statement, because much of what contradicted the script has been authentically transmitted from the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, and from the Prophet ﷺ.” (Ibn al Jazari, Munjid al Muqriʾin, p. 21.)

Then Dr ʿAbd al ʿAziz al Qariʾ commented on Ibn al Jazari’s statement and said: “This is what careful verification requires, because some individual parts of the seven ahruf had their recitation abrogated in the final review, and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ did not recite with them after it, so they are not considered Qurʾan after that.

For that reason, they were not written in the ʿUthmani muṣḥafs, because ʿUthman, may Allah be pleased with him, and his group, may Allah be pleased with them, used to be extremely careful to write what was established in the final review.

The truth that every verifier knows is that what was affirmed in this review from the ahruf of the Qurʾan, which represents the complete final form of the Qurʾan, was all written in the ʿUthmani muṣḥafs, and nothing of it was left.

The verifiers agreed that what the 10 imams narrated has encompassed all of these ahruf, and they agreed that what others narrated, beyond what they narrated altogether, is either shadhdh, or rejected, or weak, or fabricated.” (Dr ʿAbd al ʿAziz al Qariʾ, Ḥadith al Ahruf al Sabʿah, and its Relationship to the Qurʾanic Recitations, pp. 123–124.)

Ibn al Jazari said: “The sixth chapter: that the 10 are a part of the seven ahruf, and that they are mutawatir in foundations and wordings…” (Ibn al Jazari, Mujid al Muqriʾin, p. 54.)

He also said: “The statement of the one who said: the mutawatir recitations have no limit, if it is intended in our time, then it is not correct, because today there is no mutawatir recitation beyond the 10. If it is intended in the earliest period, then it is possible, if Allah wills.” (Ibn al Jazari, Munjid al Muqriʾin, p. 16.)

Imam Makki ibn Abi Talib said: the recitations, all of them, that people recite with today, and whose transmission from the imams is authentic, are only a part of the seven ahruf with which the Qurʾan was revealed, and their wording agreed with the script of the muṣḥaf, the muṣḥaf of ʿUthman, which the Companions and those after them agreed upon, and whatever besides it, that contradicts its script, was set aside.

He gathered the Muslims upon it, and prevented reciting with what contradicted its script, and around 12,000 of the Companions and the Followers assisted him in that. A group of Muslims after him followed him upon that, and the recitation, according to all the ulama, with what contradicts it became an innovation and an error, even if it is authentic and narrated. (al Ibānah ʿan Maʿani al Qiraʾat, verification of Dr ʿAbd al Fattah Shalabi, pp. 33–35.)

Imam al Baghawi said: the muṣḥaf upon which the matter became established is the last of the reviews to the Messenger of Allah. ʿUthman ordered it to be copied into muṣḥafs, gathered the people upon it, and removed whatever was besides that, to cut off the cause of disagreement.

So whatever contradicts the script of the musḥaf is in the ruling of what is abrogated and lifted, like everything else that was abrogated and lifted. It is not for anyone to rely in the wording upon what is outside the script. (Ibn Hajar al ʿAsqalani, Fath al Bari Sharh Sahih al Bukhari, 9/30.)

Abu al ʿAbbas Ahmad ibn ʿAmmar al Mahdawi (d. 440 AH) said: “The most correct view, according to the skilled people of examination regarding its meaning, is that what is used in the present time from these recitations is a part of the 7 ahruf upon which the Qurʾan was revealed.”

Abu Shamah said: these recitations that are recited with are a part of the 7 ahruf upon which the Qurʾan was revealed. They were used because they agreed with the muṣḥaf upon which the ummah united, and what was besides them from the 7 ahruf was left because it contradicted the drawn script of the muṣḥaf.

It is not obligatory to recite with all the 7 ahruf upon which the Qurʾan was revealed. The Prophet ﷺ made it permissible to recite with some of them without others, due to the statement of Allah, exalted:

فَاقْرَؤُوا مَا تَيَسَّرَ مِنْهُ
“So recite what is easy of it.” (al Muzzammil 20)

So this recitation used in the present time is what became easy due to what the Salaf of the ummah, may Allah be pleased with them, narrated about gathering the people upon this muṣḥaf, to cut off the disagreement that occurred between the people, and the takfir of some of them against others. (Abu Shamah, al Murshid al Wajiz, pp. 141–142, and see: Khalid al Sabt, Manahil al ʿIrfan by al Zarqani, Study and Evaluation, 1/372.)

Muqaddimāt fī ʿIlm al-Qirāʾāt by A Group Of Authors pg 39–41

The Difference Between the Qur’an and the Qira’at Recitations

(See this matter: Dr Muhammad Salim Muhaysin, al Qira’at wa Atharuha fi Ulum al Arabiyyah, pp. 16–18.)

The Noble Qur’an is the Speech of Allah, exalted, the miraculous, worship is done through its recitation, transmitted to us by mass transmission, beginning with Surah al Fatihah and ending with Surah al Nas. Accordingly, the Noble Qur’an is the revelation that Allah, mighty and majestic, sent down to the heart of Muhammad ﷺ, and it was transmitted by mass transmission.

Is there a difference between the Qur’an and the recitations, while it is known that the recitations are the ways of performing the words of the Qur’an, and their differences are attributed to the one who transmitted them, and among them are the mass transmitted and the irregular, as will come.

From the outset, it must be said that Al Zarkashi (d. 794 AH) held that the Qur’an and the recitations are two differing realities, and he said: “Know that the Qur’an and the recitations are 2 differing realities.

The Qur’an is the revelation sent down to Muhammad ﷺ for clarification and miracle. The recitations are the difference in the wordings of the mentioned revelation in the letters and their manner, such as lightening and strengthening.” (al Zarkashi, al Burhan, 1/318.)

From that also are lightening, hamzah, easing, full articulation, opening, inclination, and other ways of difference, whether they occur in foundational matters or in the individual words.

Al Zarkashi was followed in this view by al Qastallani (d. 923 AH) in Lata’if al Isharat, and Shaykh Ahmad ibn Muhammad al Dimyati (d. 1117 AH), the author of Ithaf Fudala’ al Bashar.

This wording from Al Zarkashi gives the meaning that the Qur’an and the Qira’at (recitations) are two different things, different in an absolute way from every aspect. If this is what the he intended, then it is not correct, because the correct mass transmitted recitations that the ummah received with acceptance are only a part of the Noble Qur’an, so there is a strong connection between them, the connection of a part to the whole.

It is possible that Al Zarkashi intended that there is a strong connection between them, and an overlap that is not denied, when he said: “This does not deny the overlap of the Qur’an with the recitations, since there must be a strong connection between them.

Despite that, the difference still remains between them, meaning that each of them is something different from the other. This overlap does not have the strength to make them 1 thing. The Qur’an is only composition and wording. The recitations are only wording and its pronunciation. The difference between this and that is clear, and between.” (The previous source.)

What appears is that the Qur’an and the recitations are not completely different, but they are different from one aspect, because the Qur’an includes the places of agreement and difference that are correct and mass transmitted from the Prophet ﷺ, and the recitations are the ways of difference, whether they are mass transmitted or irregular, and it is known that the irregular is not correct to be Qur’an.

They are also not in full agreement, but they are also in agreement from one aspect. The Qur’an is the revelation sent down to the Prophet ﷺ, and the correct mass transmitted recitations are a part of this Qur’an.

Dr Muhammad Salim Muhaysin held that the Qur’an and the recitations are 2 realities with 1 meaning, meaning that they are 1 thing, and his proof is that each of them is a revelation sent down to the Messenger.

What appears is that this view is not correct, for what follows. (al Qira’at wa Atharuha fi Ulum al Arabiyyah, 1/17–18; Dr Shaban Muhammad Isma’il, al Qira’at: Ahkamuha wa Masdaruha; Dr Hazim Sa’id Haydar, Ulum al Qur’an bayna al Burhan wa al Itqan, pp. 224 and 225.)

First: the recitations, with their different categories, do not include all the words of the Qur’an, because they exist in some of its words, so how can it be said that they are 2 united realities.

Second: the definition of recitations includes the mass transmitted and the irregular. The mass transmitted recitations are from the Qur’an with certainty, and the irregular recitations are not considered Qur’an, so how can it be said that the Qur’an and the recitations, in this absolute sense, are 1 united reality.

Accordingly, the one who follows the narrations of the 7 modes, and what they contain of meanings and indications, finds that they show that the Noble Qur’an is the revelation that Allah, mighty and majestic, sent down to His Prophet ﷺ for clarification and miracle, including within it the ways of difference that were mass transmitted, and they are the 7 modes whose meaning has already been clarified, and they are different ways of performing the words of the Noble Qur’an.

Among these ways is what was abrogated and did not become mass transmitted, and among them is what was correct and mass transmitted from the Prophet ﷺ, and it is the totality of what remained from the 7 modes.

The careful examiner of the mass transmitted words of the Noble Qur’an finds that they are divided into 2 sections.

The first section: the words that were sent down only in 1 way, and in 1 manner, and they are most of the Noble Qur’an.

The second section: the words that were sent down in several ways, and they are the totality of what remained from the 7 modes, and they are the ways of difference that the reciters transmit by mass transmission, generation after generation.

Accordingly, the Qur’an and the mass transmitted recitations are 1 reality, considering that both are revelation from Allah, blessed and exalted, because the mass transmitted recitations, and the established difference from the Prophet ﷺ in some words, are a part of the revelation sent down to the Prophet ﷺ.

The Qur’an and the recitations are 2 differing realities, considering the nature of each of them. The Qur’an is everything sent down from Allah, mighty and majestic, whether it is 1 way or several ways, transmitted by mass transmission, and in both cases it was sent down for miracle and clarification.

The recitations are of two types, mass transmitted and irregular, and they are the words in which there is difference. For that reason, the Noble Qur’an is broader than the mass transmitted Qur’anic recitations.

The irregular recitations are not from the Qur’an. The mass transmitted Qur’anic recitations are a part of the Qur’an. There is no contradiction between them.

Every correct recitation established from the Prophet ﷺ is a part from the parts of the Noble Qur’an, sent down as a concession and ease upon the ummah, as is established in the hadiths of the 7 modes.

Muqaddimāt fī ʿIlm al-Qirāʾāt by A Group Of Authors pg 48–51

Alleged Contradiction in the Meaning of the Recitations

The orientalist Goldziher (d. 1339 AH) claimed that there is contradiction in meaning between the recitations. He used as evidence 2 recitations that he said are contradictory at the beginning of Surah al Rum.

The first is “غُلِبَت — ghulibat — was defeated” with the passive form, and “سَيَغْلِبُون — sayaghlibūn — they will overcome” with the active form.

The second is with “غَلَبَت — ghalabat — overcame” in the active form and “سَيُغْلَبُون — sayughlabūn — they will be defeated” in the passive form.

He claimed that these 2 are opposed in meaning. (Goldziher, Madhahib al Tafsir al Islami, p. 29.)

غُلِبَتِ الرُّومُ ۝ وَهُم مِّن بَعْدِ غَلَبِهِمْ سَيَغْلِبُونَ ۝ فِي بِضْعِ سِنِينَ
“The Romans have been defeated. Yet after their defeat they will prevail, within a few years.” (al Rum 2–4)

The Response to This Objection

The first recitation, with “ghulibat” in the passive form, is the correct mutawatir (mass transmitted) recitation. As for the second recitation, with “ghalabat” in the active form, it is an irregular (shadhdh) recitation.

The irregular recitation is not strong enough to oppose the correct recitation, and it is not suitable to be set against it, because the irregular recitation is not Qur’an. It is not permissible to recite it as Qur’an, or to give the listener the thought that it is Qur’an. It is only narrated for legal and linguistic evidence, or for knowledge of it. (al Qastallani, Lata’if al Isharat, 1/72.)

For that reason, it should not be said that there are 2 recitations in this place. Rather, there is 1 correct recitation, and the other does not hold, and it is not counted as a recitation. (Ibn al Jazari, al Nashr, 1/49; ʿAbd al Qayyum al Sindi, Safahat fi Ulum al Qira’at, p. 134.)

Even if its correctness were accepted, it is possible to reconcile the 2, by saying that each speaks about an event.

The first speaks about the victory of the Persians over the Romans, and it gives glad tidings of the victory of the Romans over the Persians within a few years, and that this promised victory will come together with another victory for the Muslims over the idolaters.

This occurred, because the victory of the Romans over the Persians came together with the Battle of Badr, in which the Muslims defeated the idolaters.

As for the second, it informs that the Romans defeated the greater part of al Sham, and it gives glad tidings to the Muslims of victory over the Romans after that within a few years. The Muslims fought the Romans in the ninth year after the revelation of the verse, and they opened some of their lands.

This meaning does not contradict the meaning of the first, because contradiction only occurs when 2 opposite matters fall upon 1 matter, in 1 time. If it is said, “Zayd attended and ʿAmr left, and ʿAmr attended and Zayd left, at the same time,” then leaving and attending have come together in 1 time, and this is contradiction.

If it is said, “Zayd attended and ʿAmr left yesterday, and ʿAmr attended and Zayd left today,” then there is no contradiction, because the 2 matters occurred in 2 different times. (ʿAbd al Fattah al Qadi, al Qira’at fi Nazar al Mustashriqin wa al Mulhidin, pp. 111–122; Ahmad al Bayli, al Ikhtilaf bayna al Qira’at, pp. 98–101.)

Reality did not aid this orientalist in finding even 1 example of opposition between 2 mutawatir recitations. If he had found it, he would have been delighted by it, and he would have hurried to spread it and publicise it.

The differences of the recitations are differences of variety and difference, not differences of opposition and contradiction. (Dr al Sayyid Rizq al Tawil, fi Ulum al Qira’at, p. 27.)

وَلَوْ كَانَ مِنْ عِندِ غَيْرِ اللَّهِ لَوَجَدُوا فِيهِ اخْتِلَافًا كَثِيرًا
“If it had been from other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.” (al Nisa 82)

Alleged Irregularities of Some Recitations to the Arabic Language

A number of Arabic language scholars and others criticised some ways of the recitations, thinking that they go against the language, or because they go against what is well known from their linguistic approach. (Dr al Sayyid Rizq al Tawil, fi Ulum al Qira’at, p. 66; Dr Mahmud al Saghir, al Qira’at al Shadhdhah, pp. 518–532.)

From that is their criticism of Hamzah (d. 156 AH) in reciting “والأرحام — wa al arḥām — and the ties of kinship” with genitive case, and their criticism of Ibn ʿAmir” (d. 118 AH) in “شركائهم — shurakāʾihim — their partners” with ya, and their criticism of “إنَّ هذان لساحران — inna hādhāni la sāḥirāni — indeed these two are two magicians” with the strengthening of “إنَّ — inna — indeed” and with alif after the dhal, and other recitations, due to their irregularities of what is well known from grammatical principles.

The Response to This Objection

All correct mutawatir recitations agree with the Arabic language, even if by 1 eloquent way, or by a more eloquent way, and this is 1 of the conditions of an accepted recitation. (Abu Shamah, al Murshid al Wajiz, p. 171.)

The scholars followed all recitations that some grammarians and others criticised or rejected, and they clarified their linguistic basis. A recitation’s going against 1 linguistic way does not mean that it goes against the language.

The language is broad, and within it are what is well known, what is weak, what is rare, and what is strange.

The grammarians who hurried to reject some ways of recitation should have corrected their approach, and made what the recitation came with a foundation for grammatical principles, not the opposite. A number of reliable grammarians held this approach, such as Ibn Malik (d. 672 AH), Abu Hayyan (d. 745 AH), and Ibn Hisham (d. 761 AH).

As for Hamzah (d. 156 AH) reciting “wal arham” with genitive case in the statement of Allah, exalted:

وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ الَّذِي تَسَاءَلُونَ بِهِ وَالْأَرْحَامِ
“And fear Allah, by whom you ask one another, and the ties of kinship.” (al Nisa 1)

This is by joining “الأرحام — al arḥām — the ties of kinship” to the attached pronoun, which is the “ه — hāʾ — his” in “به — bihi — in him”.

It is permissible according to the Kufans. They used as evidence the recitation of Hamzah, and a number of examples from Arab prose and poetry, including the poet’s statement:

“Today you have come close, mocking us and insulting us, so go, for what is with you, and the days, is a wonder.”

The word “the days” is in the genitive case by being joined to the “ka” in “with you”, and the meaning is “with you and with the days”. (Ibn Khalawayh, al Hujjah fi al Qira’at al Sabʿ, p. 118; Abu Zurʿah, Hujjat al Qira’at, p. 190; and other sources.)

For that reason, Ibn Malik (d. 672 AH) held that this kind of joining is permissible, and he said in his Alfiyyah:

“The returning of the preposition when joining is not, in my view, always necessary, because a genitive pronoun has been made joined, in correct prose and poetry, as something established.” (Ibn Malik, Alfiyyat al Nahw wa al Sarf, chapter on joining, p. 48.)

Daring to reject this recitation is dangerous. It is not the recitation of Hamzah alone. It was linked to him due to his fame with it.

Many recited with it, including al Aʿmash (d. 148 AH), Ibn Abi Layla, Talhah ibn Musarrif, Jaʿfar al Sadiq (d. 148 AH), Humran ibn Aʿyan, al Aswad ibn Yazid ibn Qays, Zur ibn Hubaysh, ʿAlqamah ibn Qays (d. 62 AH), Zayd ibn Wahb, and Masruq ibn al Ajdaʿ (d. 63 AH. ) (Ibn al Jazari, Ghayat al Nihayah, 1/315 and 343, and other places; Ibn al Jazari, al Nashr, 1/165.)

All of these are from the shuyukh of Hamzah, so it is established from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. Whoever rejects it has rejected the Prophet ﷺ, and this is a dangerous place in which the imams of language and grammar are not followed. (al Qurtubi, al Jamiʿ li Ahkam al Qur’an, 4/5.)

As for the recitation of Ibn ʿAmir (d. 118 AH):

وَكَذَٰلِكَ زَيَّنَ لِكَثِيرٍ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ قَتْلَ أَوْلَادِهِمْ شُرَكَاؤُهُمْ
“And likewise, to many of the idolaters, their partners made the killing of their children seem pleasing.” (al Anʿam 137)

In it, there is separation between the genitive construction and what it is joined to by the object, and this is not permitted according to the Basrans except in necessity. (Abu al Barakat ibn al Anbari, al Bayan fi Gharib Iʿrab al Qur’an, 1/343.)

A number of imams disagreed with them and held it permissible, relying on this recitation. This is the recitation of Ibn ʿAmir, the eloquent Arab, the highest of the 10 reciters in chain, and his recitation agrees with the recitation of the people of al Sham, and it agrees with the script of the Shami mushaf, “شركائهم — shurakāʾihim — their partners” with ya. (al Dani, al Muqniʿ, p. 103.)

It is supported by a number of examples, including the poet’s statement:

“I carried to him, from my tongue, a garden, which intelligence watered with the watering of meadows by clouds.” (The line is by Abu al Tayyib al Mutanabbi, Diwan al Mutanabbi, p. 228.)

Meaning, “the watering of clouds to the meadows”.

As for the recitation “inna hadhani lasahirani” (Ta Ha 63), with the strengthening and with alif:

إِنَّ هَذَانِ لَسَاحِرَانِ
“Indeed, these two are surely two magicians.” (Ta Ha 63)

This was recited by Nafiʿ, Ibn ʿAmir, Shuʿbah, Hamzah, al Kisa’i, Abu Jaʿfar, Yaʿqub, and Khalaf the tenth. This recitation carries more than one grammatical explanation, including: (Ibn Hisham al Ansari, Mughni al Labib, 1/37–39; Dr Ahmad al Ghamidi, Takhrij Awjuh al Iʿrab, pp. 72 and 73.)

It came upon the dialect of Banu al Harith ibn Kaʿb, Khathʿam, Zubayd, and Kinanah, who keep the dual with alif in every case, so they say: “the two Zayds came”, “I saw the two Zayds”, and “I passed by the two Zayds”.

“إنَّ — inna — indeed” is with the meaning of “yes”, so it does not act. “هذان — hādhāni — these two” is a subject, and “ساحران — sāḥirāni — two magicians” is a predicate for an omitted subject, and the meaning is “they are two magicians”.

The sentence is the predicate of “هذان — hādhāni — these two”. “الساحران — al sāḥirāni — the two magicians” is not the predicate of “هذان — hādhāni — these two”, because the introductory lam does not enter upon the predicate of the subject.

Its origin is: “Indeed, it is these two, they are two magicians.” The pronoun of the matter, which is the name of “إنَّ — inna — indeed”, was removed. What follows is a subject and predicate, and the sentence is in the place of a raised predicate of “إنَّ — inna — indeed”.

Then the second subject, which is “هما — humā — they two”, was removed.

By that, it becomes clear that the criticism directed at the recitations returns upon the one who said it. All recitations agree with the language of the Arabs.

The grammarians should have avoided this error and made the recitations a foundation for grammatical principles. It is strange that grammarians establish a linguistic form by 1 line of poetry or 1 phrase that might be from an unknown person, yet they do not establish it by the mutawatir recitation from the imams of the Salaf.

Muqaddimāt fī ʿIlm al-Qirāʾāt by A Group Of Authors pg 228–231

al-Aḥruf al-Sabʿah wa Manzilat al-Qirāʾāt minhā

The second segment is going to be passages from al-Aḥruf al-Sabʿah wa Manzilat al-Qirāʾāt minhā (The Seven Aḥruf and the Status of the Qirāʾāt in Relation to Them) by Hasan Diya al-Din Itr

**https://belief.univeyes.net/academy/quraan00000/quran100001/quran00579.pdf**

The Madhhahib of the Ulama on What Is Intended by the Seven Ahruf in the Hadith

The ulama differed over what is intended by the seven ahruf (modes), and their statements branched out and became many, until they reached, in some statements, 40 views. Some of them are suitable for consideration and examination, and some are views whose speakers said them without having any reliable basis.

Al Qurtubi (d. 671 AH) said: “The ulama have differed over what is intended by the seven ahruf on 35 views.” (Tafsir al Qurtubi: al Jamiʿ li Ahkam al Qur’an, 1/42.)

Al Suyuti (d. 911 AH) said: “The meaning of the hadith has been differed over on around 40 views.” (al Itqan, by al Suyuti, 1/48, Mustafa al Babi al Halabi edition, year 1951.)

Al Mundhiri (d. 656 AH) said: “Most of them are not preferred.” (Fath al Bari, 9/16, al Khishshab edition.)

The most important of these views will be set out, and they will be examined, and the view that the earlier Prophetic hadith texts indicate will be made weighty.

These views will be listed according to their rank, from the weakest to the strongest, until reaching the weighty view, beginning with the following.

First: the madhhahib that have no proof.

Second: those among them that have a resemblance of proof.

Third: the weakest to the strongest among what has consideration in general.

Madhhahib That Have No Proof

A brief setting out is made here of madhhahib for which it is not correct to use anything as evidence, then the response to all of them is summarised with 1 response.

The First Madhhab

The intended meaning of the hadith is 7 matters: the unrestricted and the restricted, the general and the specific, the explicit and the interpreted, the abrogating and the abrogated, the concise and the explained, exception and its categories. Abu al Maʿali (d. 478 AH) narrated it with a chain from the imams of the fuqaha.

The Second Madhhab

It was related from the people of language that the intended meaning is deletion and connection, bringing forward and putting back, reversal and metaphor, repetition and allusion, literal and figurative, concise and explained, apparent and strange.

The Third Madhhab

It was related from the grammarians that they are masculine and feminine, condition and result, morphology and grammatical inflection, oaths and their answers, gathering and separating, making small and making great, and difference of tools in what differs in meaning, and what does not differ in performance and wording altogether.

The Fourth Madhhab

It was related from some Sufis that the intended meaning of the ahruf is 7 types of conduct and exchange, which are: renunciation and contentment, with certainty and firmness, and service with modesty, and generosity and noble character with poverty, and striving and watchfulness with fear and hope, and humble pleading and seeking forgiveness with acceptance, and gratitude and patience with self accounting, and love and longing with witnessing.

The Fifth Madhhab

The intended meaning of the aḥruf is 7 sciences contained in the Qur’an:

“إِنَّ فِي خَلْقِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ”
“Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth…” (Al ʿImran 190).

“قُلْ هُوَ اللَّهُ أَحَدٌ”
“Say: He is Allah, One.” (Al Ikhlāṣ 1)

“وَإِلَٰهُكُمْ إِلَٰهٌ وَاحِدٌ”
“And your God is One God.” (Al Baqarah 163)

“أَفَمَن يَخْلُقُ كَمَن لَّا يَخْلُقُ”
“So is the One who creates like the one who does not create.” (Al Naḥl 17)

“لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ”
“There is nothing like Him.” (Al Shūrā 11)

“وَلِلَّهِ الْعِزَّةُ”
“And to Allah belongs might.” (Yūnus 65)

“الْمَلِكُ الْقُدُّوسُ”
“The King, the Most Pure.” (Al Ḥashr 23)

“وَمَن يَغْفِرُ الذُّنُوبَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ”
“And who forgives sins except Allah.” (Al ʿImran 135)

“وَأَقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ”
“And establish the prayer.” (Al Baqarah 43)

“وَلَا تَأْكُلُوا الرِّبَا”
“And do not consume usury.” (Al ʿImran 130)

“وَمَن يَغْفِرُ الذُّنُوبَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ”
“And who forgives sins except Allah.” (Al ʿImran 135)

“نَبِّئْ عِبَادِي أَنِّي أَنَا الْغَفُورُ الرَّحِيمُ ۝ وَأَنَّ عَذَابِي هُوَ الْعَذَابُ الْأَلِيمُ”
“Inform My servants that I am the Most Forgiving, the Most Merciful. And that My punishment is the painful punishment.” (Al Ḥijr 49–50)

“إِنَّ السَّاعَةَ آتِيَةٌ”
“Indeed, the Hour is coming.” (Ṭā Hā 15)

“اقْرَأْ كِتَابَكَ كَفَىٰ بِنَفْسِكَ الْيَوْمَ عَلَيْكَ حَسِيبًا”
“Read your book. Your own self is sufficient against you today as a reckoner.” (Al Isrāʾ 14)

“يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ”
“O believers, obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those in authority among you.” (Al Nisāʾ 59)

“وَمَن يُشَاقِقِ الرَّسُولَ”
“And whoever opposes the Messenger…” (Al Nisāʾ 115)

“كُنتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ”
“You are the best community…” (Al ʿImran 110)

A Summary Response to the Previous Views

These views, and what resembles them, which was left unmentioned, in addition to what will be mentioned, complete the number of views on the meaning of the seven ahruf to 40 views, which al Suyuti counted in detail in his al Itqan. The response to the previously mentioned madhhahib, and what resembles them, is as follows. (al Burhan, 1/224–226; al Itqan, 1/48.)

They do not rest on a Sharia proof that makes clear that they are the intended meaning of the seven ahruf. Their speakers did not bring a clear scholarly method for reaching them. Rather, each one made the ahruf match what fits his scholarly direction.
They do not agree with what the hadiths of the seven ahruf indicate, which were mentioned earlier. Rather, what the hadiths indicate confirms that the matter of the seven ahruf is connected to recitation and the ways of pronouncing the words of the Noble Qur’an.This is what caused the difference between the Companions. As for the categories mentioned by the speakers of those views, difference in recitation does not occur in them. For that reason, they are far from the meaning and subject of the seven ahruf.
Defining the ahruf by what they mentioned goes against the greatest wisdom of the revelation of the Qur’an on 7 ahruf. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ asked for easing and lightening for his ummah, so that all of its people can recite the Qur’an. His statement ﷺ to Jibril عليه السلام clearly stated this: “O Jibril, I was sent to an ummah who cannot read, among them is the old woman, the old man, the boy, the girl, and the man who has never read a book at all.”He said: “O Muhammad, the Qur’an was revealed on 7 ahruf.” (See the twelfth hadith and what is taken from it in the first discussion, p. 81.) So defining the seven ahruf by what they mentioned does not bring easing for the ummah and does not broaden it in reciting the Book of the Lord, blessed and exalted.
Some of the views they went to are similar, and some of them overlap with others, in a manner that makes it difficult to treat many of them as separate independent views. (See Manahil al ʿIrfan, 1/176.)

Al Suyuti related the statement of al Sharaf al Muzani al Mursi: “These ways, most of them overlap. Their basis is not known, and it is not known from whom they were taken. It is not known why each one of them specified the seven ahruf with what he mentioned, while all of them exist in the Qur’an, so the meaning of specifying is not known.

Among them are things whose meaning is not understood in reality, and most of them oppose the hadith of ʿUmar and Hisham ibn Hakim, which is in the Sahih, because they did not differ in its explanation or its rulings, rather they differed in reciting its letters. Many common people thought that what is intended is the 7 recitations, and that is ugly ignorance.”

He also related the statement of Ibn Hibban (d. 354 AH):

“These are 35 views of the people of knowledge and language about the meaning of the revelation of the Qur’an on 7 ahruf. They are statements that resemble one another. All of them are possible, and other than them is also possible.” (al Itqan, 1/49.)

Madhhahib That Have a Resemblance of Proof

Among the madhhahib are views that have a resemblance of proof, whether their evidence is taken from hadith, or transmitted recitations, or language.

The First Madhhab

Abu Jaʿfar Muhammad ibn Saʿdan al Nahwi (d. 213 AH) held that the hadith of the seven ahruf is difficult and its meaning is not known. He used as evidence that “harf” in language can be used for 4 meanings.

The Arabs call the whole poem a “word”, and they call this composed word a “harf”.
“Harf” is used for each letter of the alphabet.
“Harf” in language can also mean “meaning”.
It can also mean “direction”. (al Burhan fi ʿUlum al Qur’an, by Imam Badr al Din Muhammad ibn ʿAbd Allah al Zarkashi (d. 794 AH), 1/213, first edition, year 1376 AH, 1957, ʿIsa al Babi al Halabi. Abu Jaʿfar Muhammad ibn Saʿdan al Nahwi was one of the reciters. He used to recite with the recitation of Hamzah, then he chose for himself a recitation attributed to him. He died in the year 213 AH. Inbah al Ruwat, 3/14.)

So Ibn Saʿdan held that “harf” is a shared term and its intended meaning is not known.

The shared term, in the terminology of the usulis, is “a word that was placed for 2 or more meanings, with multiple placements from the start, without moving from 1 meaning to another.” (Tashil al Wusul ila ʿIlm al Usul, Muhammad ʿAbd al Rahman al Mahlawi, p. 81, Mustafa al Babi al Halabi edition, year 1341 AH.)

This applies exactly to the word “harf”.

The response to Ibn Saʿdan is that the word “harf” being a shared term does not require difficulty that prevents understanding the intended meaning, because a shared term becomes weighted towards 1 of its meanings through a wording clue or a situational clue.

Here, the clues determine 1 meaning and prevent what is besides it. It is not correct to intend “word” by “harf” due to the situational clue, which is that the Qur’an is composed of many words, not only 7.

It is also not correct to intend “alphabet letter”, because it is composed of all alphabet letters, not only 7. It is also not correct to intend “meaning”, because the meanings of the Noble Qur’an are very many and exceed 7.

So the intended meaning becomes “direction”, and by that, the view that the meaning of the hadith is difficult becomes invalid. (Manhaj al Furqan fi ʿUlum al Qur’an, by Shaykh Muhammad ʿAli Salamah, p. 60, first section, Matbaʿat Shira, year 1938.)

Al Suyuti went far in his book Zahr al Ruba Sharh Sunan al Nasa’i, when he said: “This Qur’an was revealed on 7 ahruf. There are more than 30 views on what is intended, and I related them in al Itqan. What I choose is that it is from the ambiguous, whose interpretation is not known.” (Zahr al Ruba, Sharh Sunan al Nasa’i, Jalal al Din al Suyuti, 1/150, al Matbaʿah al Yamaniyyah. His phrase there says: I related it in al Ittifaq, and it is clear that “al Ittifaq” is a mistaken form for “al Itqan”.)

What is held is that it is not correct to treat the word “harf” as ambiguous, because it does not carry that description. It is not unclear to the point that nothing is understood from it, like the openings of some surahs, for example. It is also not impossible to intend 1 of its language meanings. So it leaves the category of ambiguous.

The hadiths of the 7 ahruf came with clear indications with no confusion. The Messenger ﷺ issued his ruling in the dispute of those who differed in reciting the Qur’an, ʿUmar and Hisham, and Ubayy ibn Kaʿb and the worshippers, by his statement: “This Qur’an was revealed on 7 ahruf.”

Since this statement solved a problem and ended a dispute with a ruling that removed the causes of disagreement and argument, how can it be imagined that it is ambiguous, its meaning unknown, and no ruling taken from it.

They accepted, based on it, the difference in their recitation of the Qur’an, treating every recitation as Qur’an that Allah, exalted, revealed to His Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. So the hadith means that the Qur’an was revealed on 7 directions from Arabic speech, and in clearer wording, on 7 languages from the languages of the Arab tribes.

The Second Madhhab

This is the madhhab of Qadi ʿIyad (d. 544 AH) and those who followed him.

The people of this madhhab held that what is intended by “7” in the hadith is easing, facilitation, and breadth, and what is intended is not the reality of the number. Their evidence is that the word “7” is used in language to mean abundance in units, just as “70” is used in tens, and “700” is used in hundreds, without intending a specific number. (al Itqan fi ʿUlum al Qur’an, Jalal al Din ʿAbd al Rahman al Suyuti, volume 1, third edition, year 1370 AH, 1951, Mustafa al Babi al Halabi in Egypt.)

Muhammad Jamal al Din al Qasimi (d. 1332 AH) leaned to this view in the introduction to his tafsir, and he attributed it to the author of al Itqan, with wording that gives the impression that he adopted it.

Al Qasimi said: “What is intended by the 7 is not the known number. Rather, it is the abundance of ways by which the word is recited, as easing, facilitation, and breadth, as in al Itqan.

What is more apparent is what we mentioned, that 7 means abundance, not limitation, so it includes what Ibn Qutaybah and others mentioned.” (Mahasin al Ta’wil, Muhammad Jamal al Din al Qasimi, 1/287, ʿIsa al Babi al Halabi wa Shurakah edition.)

The late Mustafa Sadiq al Rafiʿi (d. 1356 AH) took this approach, relying on the claim that 7 symbolises perfection among the Arabs, so the revelation of the Qur’an on 7 ahruf makes it reach a limit of breadth and comprehensiveness, gathering the sides of Arabic speech and including all of its limits and doors. Al Rafiʿi said:

“The Arabs did not understand by ‘harf’ in speech except language. It was made 7 as a symbol of strength, from the meaning of perfection in this number, especially in what is connected to matters of belief, like the 7 heavens, the 7 earths, the 7 days in which creation was made, the doors of Paradise and Hellfire, and similar. These are limits that contain what is beyond them, however far it reaches.

This symbol is from the gentlest meanings and the most precise of them, because it makes the Qur’an, in its language and composition, as though it is the limits and doors of all speech.” (Iʿjaz al Qur’an, Mustafa Sadiq al Rafiʿi, Matbaʿat al Istiqaamah, Cairo, sixth edition, 1375 AH, 1956.)

The orientalists took this view with strong support and treated it as evidence that the issues of the Qur’an are floating and not built on a strong foundation. Goldziher (d. 1339 AH) said in Madhahib al Tafsir al Islami: “It does not appear to be assumed that the intent is a fixed mathematical limitation that is understood from the number 7 in this hadith. Rather, what is intended by this number, even when it is used as evidence for differences of text (difference of recitations), is conveying abundance.

So the Qur’an was revealed on ahruf that are many in number, each of them equally representing the miraculous Speech of Allah.” End.

It appears that most orientalists followed this approach. This Islamic encyclopaedia, in the French language, makes weighty and states that the number “7” has a magical effect in the souls of the Semites. (Mabahith fi ʿUlum al Qur’an, Dr Subhi al Salih (d. 1407 AH), p. 104, Dar al ʿIlm lil Malayin, Lebanon.)

The response to this view is the hadiths mentioned in the first discussion, because they came together and supported one another in indicating that what is intended by 7 is the reality of the number, limited to it.

From them are the hadiths of Ubayy, may Allah be pleased with him, with Muslim, al Nasa’i, Abu Dawud, Ahmad, and al Tabari.

From them is the hadith of Ibn ʿAbbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, in al Bukhari and Muslim and others, that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “Jibril taught me to recite on 1 harf, and I kept asking him for more, and he increased me, until it ended at 7 ahruf.”

Likewise, the hadith of Abu Bakrah and the hadith of Ibn Masʿud, and what came in them of dialogue between the Messenger and the 2 angels.

The indication of the hadiths was detailed, including that the Messenger ﷺ asked Jibril for more, harf after harf, and this is a clue that defines the meaning of “7”, and makes clear that what is intended is the number that lies between 6 and 8. (al Itqan fi ʿUlum al Qur’an, by al Suyuti, 1/45–46. He said: “And in the hadith of Abu Bakrah: he approved it.” Then he said: “I looked at Mika’il and he was silent, so I knew the number had ended.” I say: this addition was not found in the books of Sunnah after returning to them.)

The Third Madhhab

It was related from al Khalil ibn Ahmad (d. 170 AH) that what is intended by the hadith, “The Qur’an was revealed on 7 ahruf”, is that the Qur’an was revealed to be recited on 7 recitations. So “harf” here means “recitation”.

Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al Tayyib (d. 403 AH) said: “A people claimed that every word in which the recitation differs is on 7 ways, otherwise the meaning of the hadith becomes invalid.” They said: “Some ways are known by the coming of a report about them, and some are not known if no report about them comes.” (Muqaddimat Ibn ʿAtiyyah, p. 267.)

The response is refusing this, because no word in the Qur’an reaches 7 recited ways except a small amount.

The Fourth Madhhab

The response to the earlier objection is as follows.

The hadith “The Qur’an was revealed on 7 ahruf” does not mean that every word has 7 recitations. Rather, a word may be recited in 1 way, or 2, or 3, or more, up to 7.

Since this response contains a new understanding of the 7 ahruf, different from the previous view, it is suitable to treat it as another view, and al Subki (d. 756 AH) also classified it as such.

The response is that it is not accepted, because among the words of the Qur’an are words that are recited in many ways that exceed 7, like His statement, exalted, “عَبَدَ الطَّاغُوتَ” “ʿabada al taghut” “slave of false gods” (al Ma’idah 60).

It is recited in 22 ways. In the word “أُفٍّ” “uff” (al Isra 23), there are 37 ways. (See al Itqan, by al Suyuti, 1/26; Manahil al ʿIrfan, 1/166, third edition, 1372 AH, ʿIsa al Babi al Halabi wa Shurakah.)

The fifth Madhhab

What is intended by the seven ahruf in the hadith is 7 ways that are limited to the manner of pronunciation in recitation, such as assimilation and clarity, thickening and thinning, inclination and lengthening, lengthening and shortening, strengthening and lightening, softening and full articulation.

This was related from some reciters.

The response is that all these ways return to 1 type, which is difference of dialect performance. Interpreting the hadith of the seven ahruf by them becomes too limited to include the categories of recitations whose source is difference of wordings by replacement, or bringing forward and putting back, or omission and addition, and what resembles that.

Al Zarqani (d. 1367 AH) mentioned in Manahil, while responding to the fifth view, that the number of ways in it exceeds 7. (al Itqan fi ʿUlum al Qur’an, by al Suyuti, 1/26; Manahil al ʿIrfan, 1/167; al Burhan, by al Zarkashi, 1/226.)

I say: rather, they are only 6 in the doubled count, according to the madhhahib of the first section, and they were mentioned earlier.

The Sixth Madhhab

What is intended by the seven ahruf is limited to some verses, which are recited on 7 ways. This is not common in the whole Qur’an. Rather, it is in what resembles His statement, exalted, “أُفٍّ لَّكُمْ” “uff lakum” “Ugh for you”, whose recitation is correct on 7 ways, with accusative, genitive, and nominative, and each with tanwin and without it, and the seventh is jussive.

And what resembles His statement, exalted, “وَتُسَاقِطْ عَلَيْكِ — wa tusāqiṭ ʿalayki — and it will drop upon you” (Maryam: 25), and similar.

It is possible that in the Qur’an there are 9 ways, and this does not exist in most verses. (See al Burhan fi ʿUlum al Qur’an, 1/223.)

Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al Tayyib al Baqillani (d. 403 AH) related this view from a group, and said: “A people said: the apparent meaning of the hadith requires that there exists in the Qur’an 1 word or 2 words that are recited on 7 ways, so if that occurs, then the meaning of the hadith is achieved.” (Muqaddimat Ibn ʿAtiyyah, p. 267.)

Ibn ʿAbd al Barr (d. 463 AH) responded to it by saying that what is intended by the seven ahruf is not the multiplicity of ways of reciting some verses up to 7, and the hadith indications support that, because limiting the meaning of the ahruf to this does not achieve the wisdom of broadening and easing for the ummah in reciting the Qur’an, because the verses that can be recited on 7 ways are few. Ibn ʿAbd al Barr said:

“They agreed that it is not permissible, in all of its letters, words, and verses, that the Qur’an be recited on 7 ahruf, nor any part of it.

That cannot occur.

Rather, no word in the Qur’an is found that can be recited on 7 ways except a small amount, like ‘عَبَدَ الطَّاغُوتَ’ ‘ʿabada al taghut’ ‘slave of false gods’ (al Ma’idah 60),

and ‘تَشَابَهَ عَلَيْنَا’ ‘tashabaha ʿalayna’ ‘it became similar to us’ (al Baqarah 70),

and ‘عَذَابٌ بَئِيسٌ’ ‘a miserable punishment’ (al Aʿraf 165), and similar.

That is not this.”

The Seventh Madhhab

What is intended by the ahruf is: apparent and hidden, obligation and recommendation, specific and general, and parables, and similar. (al Itqan fi ʿUlum al Qur’an, 1/49.)

Evidence may be used for this view from what follows.

From ʿAbd Allah, meaning Ibn Masʿud, that the Prophet ﷺ said: “The Qur’an was revealed on 7 ahruf. Every verse has an apparent and a hidden.” He forbade that a man recline, I think he said, in the masjid, and place 1 of his legs over the other. Al Bazzar and Abu Yaʿla narrated it in al Kabir. In another narration with him: “Every harf has a hidden and an apparent.”Al Tabarani narrated it in al Awsat, with the end shortened. The men of 1 of the 2 routes are reliable. The narration of al Bazzar is from Muhammad ibn ʿAjlan, from Abu Ishaq. He said at the end: “Muhammad ibn ʿAjlan did not narrate from Ibrahim al Hijri except this hadith.” Al Haythami said: “I say: Muhammad ibn ʿAjlan only narrated from Abu Ishaq al Sabiʿi. If he is Abu Ishaq al Sabiʿi, then the men of al Bazzar are also reliable.” (Majmaʿ al Zawa’id, 7/152. Ahmad Muhammad Shakir said in a marginal note on Tafsir al Tabari, 1/3, that it is authentic and established. Ibn Hibban narrated it in his Sahih, number 74.)
Al Tabari narrated: Muhammad ibn Humayd al Razi narrated to us. Jarir ibn ʿAbd al Hamid narrated to us, from Mughirah, from Wasil ibn Habban, from someone who mentioned it to him, from Abu al Ahwas, from ʿAbd Allah ibn Masʿud, who said: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “The Qur’an was revealed on 7 ahruf. Every harf has an apparent and a hidden. Every harf has a limit, and every limit has an ascent.”

He also mentioned another chain: Ibn Humayd narrated to us. Mihran narrated to us. Sufyan narrated to us, from Ibrahim al Hijri, from Abu al Ahwas, from ʿAbd Allah ibn Masʿud, from the Prophet ﷺ, with its like. (Tafsir al Tabari, 1/22–23. Ahmad Muhammad Shakir said: It is 1 hadith with 2 chains that are weak. The word “ascent” is with a strengthened ta and a fatḥah on the lam. In al Nihayah, 2/132, it means: for every limit there is a way upward that one ascends through, towards knowing its knowledge. The ascent is the place of looking from a high place. It is said: the ascent of this mountain is from such and such a place, meaning its way upward and its rising place. Then he said: it is permissible that every limit has an ascent on the pattern of “rising place”, with its meaning.)

Al Tabari said in interpreting this hadith:

As for his statement ﷺ about the Qur’an: “Every harf has a limit”, it means: every direction from its 7 directions has a limit that Allah, exalted, set. It is not permissible for anyone to go beyond it.

His statement: “Every harf has an apparent and a hidden.” Its apparent is what is apparent in recitation, and its hidden is what is hidden in its interpretation.

His statement: “Every limit has an ascent.” It means that every limit from the limits of Allah that He set in it, from lawful and unlawful and the rest of His Sharia, has an amount of reward and punishment from Allah, which will be witnessed in the Hereafter, and will be seen and met on the Day of Standing, as ʿUmar ibn al Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, said: “If I had what is in the earth of gold and silver, I would ransom myself with it from the horror of the ascent.”

He meant by that what a person will see, overlook, and suddenly face, from the command of Allah after death. End. (Tafsir al Tabari, 1/72. The editor said in the marginal note: what is apparent is what the Arabs know from their speech, and what no one is excused for being ignorant of, from lawful and unlawful. The hidden is interpretation that the ulama know through deriving and fiqh.)

I say: these narrations do not indicate what they went to, because the meaning is that every harf from the 7 ahruf with which the Qur’an was revealed is described as having an apparent and hidden, a limit, and an ascent. These are descriptions of the ahruf, not the ahruf themselves. By that it becomes clear that their view has no share of correct evidence.

The Eighth Madhhab

Its people hold that what is intended by the ahruf is the endings of verses. So a reciter can replace “غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ” “ghafur rahim” “Most Forgiving, Most Merciful” with “سَمِيعٌ بَصِيرٌ” “samiʿ basir” “All Hearing, All Seeing”, and similar.

I say: evidence may be used for this view by what resembles the hadith: “The Qur’an was revealed on 7 ahruf: ‘عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا’ ‘ʿalim hakim’ ‘All Knowing, All Wise’, ‘غَفُورًا رَحِيمًا’ ‘ghafur rahim’ ‘Most Forgiving, Most Merciful’.”

The response is that the hadith only came with an example of the seven ahruf, and it did not list all of them. So it is not evidence for limiting them to verse endings.

Ibn ʿAbd al Barr said about the meaning of the hadith:

“He only intended by this an example for the ahruf on which the Qur’an was revealed, that they are meanings whose understanding is agreed upon, and whose heard forms differ, and none of them contains a meaning and its opposite, and no direction opposes the meaning of another direction by opposition that negates it and opposes it, like mercy, which is the opposite of punishment.” (al Burhan fi ʿUlum al Qur’an, 1/221.)

This view is also responded to by the consensus that changing a word from the Qur’an is prohibited. (al Minhaj Sharh Sahih Muslim ibn al Hajjaj, by al Nawawi, 6/102.)

The ninth madhhab: What is intended by the seven ahruf is 7 categories of meanings that Allah revealed the Qur’an upon, and these categories are: command and prohibition, promise and threat, lawful and unlawful, clear and ambiguous, and parables.

The people of this view used as evidence the following hadiths.

Al Tabari narrated: Yunus ibn ʿAbd al Aʿla narrated to me. Ibn Wahb narrated to us. He said: Haywah ibn Shurayh narrated to me, from ʿAqil ibn Khalid, from Salamah ibn Abi Salamah ibn ʿAbd al Rahman ibn ʿAwf, from his father, from Ibn Masʿud, from the Prophet ﷺ, that he said:

“The first Book was revealed from 1 door, on 1 harf. The Qur’an was revealed from 7 doors, on 7 ahruf, as prohibition and command, lawful and unlawful, clear and ambiguous, and parables.

So treat its lawful as lawful, treat its unlawful as unlawful, do what has been commanded, stop at what has been forbidden, take lessons from its parables, act upon its clear, believe in its ambiguous, and say: ‘آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ رَبِّنَا’ʿ

‘We believe in it. All of it is from our Lord.’” (Al ʿImran 7). (See Tafsir al Tabari, Jamiʿ al Bayan ʿan Ta’wil al Qur’an, hadith 67, 1/28, Dar al Maʿarif edition. See also Muqaddimat Kitab al Mabani, p. 208–209. The editor Arthur Jeffery ضبط the wording “zajir” with a kasrah, and that is an error. Al Hakim narrated it from ʿAli ibn Hamshadh al ʿAdl, ʿAbd Allah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Abu Hammam, Ibn Wahb, with its chain, with the wording: “zajiran wa amran, halalan wa haraman, muhkaman wa mutashabihan, wa amthalan…”

Al Hakim said: the chain is authentic, and they did not narrate it. Al Dhahabi approved it. Al Tabarani narrated something similar from Ibn Masʿud. Al Haythami said: in it is ʿAmmar ibn Matar, and he is very weak, and some graded him reliable. Al Zarkashi said in al Burhan: Ibn ʿAbd al Barr said: it is a hadith that does not hold, and it is agreed upon that it is weak.

In al Fath, Ibn ʿAbd al Barr said: it does not hold, because Abu Salamah ibn ʿAbd al Rahman did not meet Ibn Masʿud. A group of the people of examination responded to it, including Abu Jaʿfar Ahmad ibn ʿImran. Then the Hafiz said: Ibn Hibban and al Hakim graded it authentic, and that grading has examination, due to the interruption between Abu Salamah and Ibn Masʿud. Al Bayhaqi narrated it through another route from al Zuhri, from Abu Salamah, as a mursal, and he said: this is a good mursal.)

I say: the essence of the study is that the hadith is rejected and is not used as proof.

Imam Ahmad narrated in his Musnad: ʿAbd Allah narrated to us. My father narrated to me. Abu Kamil narrated to us. Zuhayr narrated to us. Abu Hammam narrated to us, from ʿUthman ibn Hassan, from Falfalah al Juʿfi, who said:

“I was among those who rushed to ʿAbd Allah about the muṣḥafs, and we entered upon him. A man from the people said: We did not come as visitors, rather we came when this news frightened us. He said: The Qur’an was revealed on your Prophet ﷺ from 7 doors on 7 ahruf, or he said: letters. The Book before it used to be revealed from 1 door on 1 harf.” (Musnad Imam Ahmad, 1/445.)

Al Haythami mentioned it in Majmaʿ al Zawa’id from Falfalah al Juʿfi, then he said: I did not find it in the Sahih other than this. Ahmad narrated it. In it is ʿUthman ibn Hassan al ʿAmiri. Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned him and did not criticise him and did not grade him reliable. The rest of its men are reliable. (Majmaʿ al Zawa’id, 7/152.)

Al Tabari said in his tafsir: It was narrated from Abu Qilabah, from the Prophet ﷺ, as a mursal, with other than that. Muhammad ibn Bashshar narrated to us. ʿAbbad ibn Zakariyya narrated to us, from ʿAwf, from Abu Qilabah, who said: It reached me that the Prophet ﷺ said: “The Qur’an was revealed on 7 ahruf: command and prohibition, encouragement and warning, argument and stories, and parable.” (Tafsir al Tabari, 1/69, hadith 68.)

This hadith is mursal and is not used as proof.

Al Tabari narrated: Abu Kurayb narrated to me. Muhammad ibn Fudayl narrated to us, from Ismaʿil ibn Abi Khalid, from ʿAbd Allah ibn ʿIsa ibn ʿAbd al Rahman ibn Abi Layla, from his father, from his grandfather, from Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, who said:

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said to me: “Allah commanded me to recite the Qur’an on 1 harf.” I said: My Lord, lighten for my ummah. He said: “Recite it on 2 ahruf.” I said: My Lord, lighten for my ummah. So He commanded me to recite it on 7 ahruf from 7 doors of Paradise, all of it is healing and sufficient. (Tafsir al Tabari, hadith 69, 1/69. Ahmad Muhammad Shakir said: this chain is authentic. The Hafiz pointed to it in al Fath, 9/21. In copies of al Tabari here it appears “ʿUbayd Allah ibn ʿIsa”, and that is an error. Its correct form is “ʿAbd Allah”, as in the earlier narration, hadith 32, because there is no ʿUbayd Allah ibn ʿIsa in the narrators’ biographies. Also here it says: from his father, from his grandfather, and it appears to be an error, because the hadith is narrated by ʿAbd Allah ibn ʿIsa from his grandfather directly, as passed, and as in Muslim, 1/225, for that hadith.)

Al Tabari said in his tafsir: it was narrated from Ibn Masʿud, from his own statement, unlike all of that: This is what Abu Kurayb narrated to us. Al Muharibi narrated to us, from al Ahwas ibn Hakim, from Damrah ibn Habib, from al Qasim ibn ʿAbd al Rahman, from ʿAbd Allah ibn Masʿud, who said: “Allah revealed the Qur’an on 5 ahruf: lawful and unlawful, clear and ambiguous, and parables.

So treat the lawful as lawful, treat the unlawful as unlawful, act upon the clear, believe in the ambiguous, and take lessons from the parables.” (See Muqaddimat Kitab al Mabani, p. 208. Tafsir al Tabari, 1/69, hadith 70. Ahmad Shakir said: this is stopped at Ibn Masʿud, from his own words, as al Tabari clearly stated by his statement: “and it was narrated from Ibn Masʿud, from his own statement.” Ibn Kathir mentioned it in Fada’il, p. 66, after hadith 67, the earlier one here, and he made it another narration from him, and he said: “Then he narrated it from Abu Kurayb… from Ibn Masʿud, from his own words, and that is more fitting.”)

I say: since the hadith is from Ibn Masʿud’s own statement, it is from his understanding and his scholarly effort in classifying the meanings of the Qur’an. The 2 categories that he mentioned in his raised hadith and left out here are prohibition and command.

It is possible that he shortened it due to their entering, to him, under lawful and unlawful, because leaving what is commanded is unlawful, and doing it is lawful, rather it is obligatory, and doing what is forbidden is unlawful, and leaving it is lawful, rather it is obligatory as well.

Examining the Ninth Madhhab

The hadith of Ibn Masʿud, raised to the Prophet ﷺ, was criticised by some ulama and they did not accept its authenticity.

The statement of Ibn ʿAbd al Barr about its weakness was mentioned earlier. Even if its authenticity is accepted, interpreting the ahruf in it as command and prohibition, lawful and unlawful, clear and ambiguous, and parables, is an interpretation that has examination.

Ibn ʿAbd al Barr said that a people of examination responded to it, including Ahmad ibn ʿImran, who said: whoever interprets it by that, then it is corrupt, because it is impossible that 1 harf among them is unlawful while what is besides it is not, or that it is lawful while what is besides it is not, because it is not permissible that the Qur’an be recited as though it is all lawful, or all unlawful, or all parables. Al Tahawi related this from him, and he said: it is as he said. (al Burhan fi ʿUlum al Qur’an, by al Zarkashi, 1/216.)

It is held that the view that what is intended by the seven ahruf is command and prohibition, and similar, clashes with the Noble Qur’an, with the authentic hadiths, and with the consensus of the Muslims.

First: its clash with the Noble Qur’an.

Al Tabari (d. 310 AH) said in his tafsir:

It is known that their arguing and difference, if it were arguing and difference over what their recitations indicate of making lawful and making unlawful, promise and threat, and similar, then it would be impossible that all of them are approved and that every reciter is ordered to remain on his recitation in that manner.

Because if that were permissible as correct, it would be necessary that Allah, mighty and majestic, commanded doing 1 matter itself and made it obligatory in the recitation that indicates its obligation, and forbade that same matter itself and prohibited it in the recitation that indicates forbidding and prohibition, and permitted and released doing that same matter itself and made it a choice for whoever wished among His servants, in the recitation that indicates choice. (Tafsir al Tabari, 1/48.)

Al Tabari also clarified that this interpretation of the seven ahruf leads to giving the thought of contradiction in the Noble Qur’an, and that is decisively negated from it by Allah, blessed and exalted. Al Tabari said: this is, from the one who says it, affirming what Allah, exalted, negated from His revelation and the ruling of His Book. He said, exalted:

أَفَلَا يَتَدَبَّرُونَ الْقُرْآنَ وَلَوْ كَانَ مِنْ عِندِ غَيْرِ اللَّهِ لَوَجَدُوا فِيهِ اخْتِلَافًا كَثِيرًا
“Do they not reflect on the Qur’an. If it had been from other than Allah, they would have found in it much contradiction.” (al Nisa 82)

In Allah’s negation of that from the ruling of His Book is the clearest proof that He did not reveal His Book on the tongue of Muhammad ﷺ except on 1 ruling that is agreed upon in all creation, not on different rulings among them.

In the correctness of that, there is what invalidates the claim of the one who claimed other than what is said in interpreting the statement of the Prophet ﷺ, “The Qur’an was revealed on 7 ahruf”, about those who disputed and came to him due to their difference in reciting.

He ordered all of them to remain on their recitation, and he approved the recitation of every reciter, even though it differed from the recitation of his opponents.

If that approval were approval of differing meanings, and if his statement ﷺ, “The Qur’an was revealed on 7 ahruf”, were informing them that it was revealed on 7 different directions and 7 separated meanings, then that would be affirming what Allah negated from His Book, and negating what He made obligatory for it of agreement.

In the established proof that the Prophet ﷺ did not rule, in 1 matter at 1 time, with 2 different rulings, and he did not permit that for his ummah, there is what removes the need to lengthen proofs that this is negated from the Book of Allah. (Tafsir al Tabari, 1/48–49.)

Its clash with authentic hadiths.

The view that the seven ahruf are 7 categories of meanings clashes with hadiths established in the 2 Sahihs and others. That is clear from the difference of ʿUmar ibn al Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, with Hisham ibn Hakim about reciting the Noble Qur’an, and from Ubayy, may Allah be pleased with him, disapproving the recitation of the 2 men in the masjid.

It was clarified in the hadith indications that this was in prayer, and prayer is not a place for explaining meanings, rather for reciting the words of the Noble revelation.

This view also clashes with what reached Ibn Shihab in the hadith of Ibn ʿAbbas with Muslim.

Ibn Shihab said: it reached me that those 7 ahruf are only in a matter that is 1, and does not differ in lawful or unlawful.

Using what reached Ibn Shihab as evidence, Ibn Hajar (d. 852 AH) firmly stated in al Fath that his statement عليه السلام “prohibition and command” is not an explanation of the ahruf. (Fath al Bari, 9/24.)

It was said in Muqaddimat Kitab al Mabani:

It is far that what is intended by the seven ahruf is what they went to of considering meanings, from lawful and unlawful, promise and threat, and similar, because the reports about the dispute of ʿUmar ibn al Khattab and Hisham ibn Hakim ibn Hizam, and the difference of Ubayy and the Ansari, may Allah be pleased with them, in recitation, indicate that their difference was in wordings, not meanings. For that reason, he said: “So recite what is easy from it”, and he said: “All of it is sufficient and healing.” (Muqaddimat Kitab al Mabani, p. 210. In the printed version it has: Ubayy and the Ansarah.)

Its clash with consensus.

Ibn ʿAtiyyah (d. 546 AH) said: this view is weak, because these are not called ahruf, and also because there is consensus that the broadening did not occur in making lawful into unlawful, or making unlawful into lawful, and not in changing anything from those mentioned meanings. (Muqaddimat Ibn ʿAtiyyah, p. 265. Tafsir al Qurtubi, 1/46.)

Al Nawawi (d. 676 AH) said:

Al Mazari (d. 536 AH) said: as for the statement of those who said that what is intended is 7 different meanings, like rulings, parables, and stories, then it is an error, because he pointed to the permissibility of reciting every 1 of the ahruf and replacing 1 harf with another.

The consensus of the Muslims has been established that replacing a verse of parables with a verse of rulings is prohibited. (Sharh al Nawawi for Sahih Muslim, chapter of the 7 ahruf, 6/100.)

Al Zarkashi related something similar in al Burhan from al Mawardi (d. 450 AH). (al Burhan, 1/217.)

This madhhab is also responded to by the fact that it leads to accusing the Companions of taking some of the Book and leaving some.

In the hadith of Hudhayfah, may Allah be pleased with him, it came that the Messenger ﷺ said: “Whoever recites on 1 harf, let him recite as he was taught, and let him not turn away from it.” This was narrated by al Tabari as stopped at Ibn Masʿud: “Whoever among you recites on 1 harf, let him not turn away.” (It was narrated by Ahmad as raised, and by al Tabari as stopped at Ibn Masʿud, 1/51.)

Al Hakim narrated, in his raised hadith from ʿAbd Allah ibn Masʿud, that the Messenger ﷺ said: “Indeed, those before you were destroyed by disagreement.”

Then he whispered to ʿAli, and ʿAli said: “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ commands you that every man among you recite as he was taught.” So we left, and each man among us recited letters that his companion did not recite.

It is not possible that the Prophet ﷺ commanded some of his Companions to learn the Qur’an as though it is only command, and commanded others to learn it as though it is only lawful or unlawful, and that they remain on that, not needing what is besides it from the Speech of Allah and His Sharia.

Al Tabari said: Does the one who claims that interpreting the statement of the Prophet ﷺ, “The Qur’an was revealed on 7 ahruf”, is that it was revealed on the 7 directions that were mentioned, from command and prohibition, promise and threat, argument and stories, and parable, think that Mujahid and Saʿid ibn Jubayr did not recite from the Qur’an except what was from two of its directions, or its five directions, without the rest of its meanings.

If that is his thought, then he has thought about them other than what they are known for, from their rank in the Qur’an and their knowledge of the Furqan. (Tafsir al Tabari, 1/53.)

Al Tabari also said after mentioning the stopped hadith of Ibn Masʿud: “Whoever recites on 1 harf, let him not turn away from it.”

It is known that ʿAbd Allah did not mean by that: whoever recites what is in the Qur’an of command and prohibition, let him not move from it to reciting what is in it of promise and threat. And whoever recites what is in it of promise and threat, let him not move from it to reciting what is in it of stories and parables.

Rather, the meaning, may Allah have mercy on him, is that whoever recites with his harf, meaning his recitation, and the Arabs say about a man’s recitation: “the harf of so and so”, let him not move away from it to another, out of dislike for it.

So whoever recites with the harf of Ubayy, or the harf of Zayd, or the harf of 1 of those who recited with some of the 7 ahruf from the Companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, let him not move away from it to another, out of dislike for it, because disbelief in some of it is disbelief in all of it. (Tafsir al Tabari, 1/51–52.)

From all of this examination, the invalidity of the view that what is intended by the seven ahruf is 7 categories of meanings that the Qur’an was revealed upon becomes clear.

The Intended Meaning of the Hadith

Even if the hadith is accepted as authentic and established, it is not about the ahruf (modes) that are being examined here. The statement ﷺ, “prohibition and command”, is not an explanation of the seven ahruf. Rather, that was assumed only because the number matches. Instead, it is the start of another sentence about the Qur’an itself, meaning: the Qur’an is prohibition and command, and so on.

This is supported by the previously mentioned narration of al Hakim, because it came with the accusative form, “as prohibition and as command”, meaning: the Qur’an was revealed as prohibition and as command.

So the hadith lists the aims of the Qur’an. Abu ʿAli al Ahwazi (d. 446 AH), Abu al ʿAla al Hamadani (d. 569 AH), and others leaned to this view. (al Itqan, 1/449. Fath al Bari, 9/24.)

The ulama took 3 paths in explaining what is intended by the hadith.

First: Abu ʿAli al Ahwazi and others, that the statement “prohibition and command” is not an explanation of the ahruf, but the start of another sentence returning to the Qur’an, as clarified above.

Second: al Baqillani (d. 403 AH) and al Bayhaqi (d. 458 AH), that “harf” in the hadith means a direction, or a method, or a type.

The intended meaning of the hadith is listing the aims, or the core purposes, in the Qur’an. Al Baqillani said: “So the meaning of this hadith is on 7 methods, such as making lawful and making unlawful, and other than that.” End.

Al Bayhaqi said in “al Madkhal”: “If this is authentic, then the meaning of ‘seven ahruf’ is 7 faces, and what is intended by it is not what came in the other hadith of the revelation of the Qur’an on 7 ahruf. Rather, what is intended is the languages for which recitation was made permissible.” (A claim of this permissibility is an assumption with no proof from the Qur’an or Sunnah. A detailed response will come later, pp. 234–245.) “What is intended is the types upon which the Qur’an was revealed.” End. (See Muqaddimat Ibn ʿAtiyyah, p. 266. Al Burhan, 1/216–217. Tafsir al Tabari, 1/96. Fath al Bari, 9/24.)

Third: al Tabari (d. 310 AH) and Abu Shamah (d. 665 AH), that the statement “prohibition and command” is an explanation of the doors, not the ahruf. The Qur’an was revealed from 7 doors and upon 7 ahruf. So the overall meaning of the hadith is that Allah revealed the Qur’an containing these categories of speech, and it was not limited to 1 of them, unlike other heavenly books.

Al Tabari examined the statement that what is intended by the seven ahruf in the hadith is 7 categories, and he made clear that there is no proof for it from the Qur’an, the Sunnah, or the statements of the Salaf and the imams.

Then he said: “The 7 ahruf are what was said: the 7 tongues. The 7 doors of Paradise are the meanings in it, from command and prohibition, encouragement and warning, stories and parables, which, if a person acts by them and stops at their limits, Paradise becomes deserved. There is, praise be to Allah, no disagreement from the early ones about what was said.” (See al Itqan, 1/148. Muqaddimat Kitab al Mabani, pp. 210–211. Tafsir al Tabari, 1/47. Review the hadith text, p. 137.)

The Madhhahib That Have Proof In General

Among the madhhahib are views that have proof in general. These views will be examined, and the weighty view will be made clear from the weaker view, with evidence.

The first madhhab:

A group of ulama explained the seven ahruf as 7 faces from languages and recitations upon which the Qur’an was revealed. The people of this madhhab have different scholarly efforts in defining these faces. Their statements are listed fully, in their historical order.

The Statement of Abu Hatim al Sijistani

Abu Hatim al Sijistani (d. 255 AH) held that the seven ahruf are the faces by which the languages of the Arabs differ, and their number is 7, as the hadith states. Then he defined them through another classification.

He said: “Then I reflected on the faces in which the languages of the Arabs differ, and I found them to be 7 directions, not increasing and not decreasing, and with all of that the Qur’an was revealed.

The first face: replacing 1 word with another word of its level.

Among them are those who hardly know anything but “حوت — ḥūt — fish”, and among them are those who say “سمك — samak — fish”, and hardly say “حوت — ḥūt — fish”. Among them are those who say “عشب — ʿushb — grass”, and another says “كلأ — kalaʾ — pasture”, and another says “حشيش — ḥashīsh — grass”.

Among them are those who say: so and so “نام — nām — slept”, and hardly say “رقد — raqad — slept”, while others say “رقد — raqad — slept”, and they know it.

In the desert, while speaking to some Bedouins, it was said: this is a “وعر — waʿr — rough” path. He said: what is “وعر — waʿr — rough”. It was said: “خشن — khashin — rough”. Then it was said to him: is there “وعر — waʿr — rough” in your speech. He said: no, and we do not know anything but “خشن — khashin — rough”.

It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him, that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “Whoever is made a judge has been slaughtered without a knife.” Abu Hurayrah said: that was the first time “سكين — sikkīn — knife” was heard. Only “مدية — midyah — knife” used to be known.

In the Qur’an:

فَاسْعَوْا إِلَىٰ ذِكْرِ اللَّهِ
“Hasten to the remembrance of Allah.” (al Jumuʿah 9)

ʿUmar ibn al Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, recited: “fa mdu” to the remembrance of Allah.

“Fa mdu” in Arabic: “proceed”.

And He, mighty and majestic, said:

وَتَكُونُ الْجِبَالُ كَالْعِهْنِ الْمَنفُوشِ
“And the mountains will be like fluffed wool.” (al Qariʿah 5)

Ibn Masʿud, may Allah be pleased with him, recited: “ka al suf al manfush”.

“Al suf” in Arabic: “wool”.

And He said:

إِن كَانَتْ إِلَّا صَيْحَةً وَاحِدَةً
“It was only one blast.” (Ya Sin 29)

Ibn Masʿud, may Allah be pleased with him, recited: “zakiyah wahidah”.

“Zakiyah” in Arabic: “a single cry”.

The second face: replacing a letter with a letter, like their statement: “أعطيت — aʿṭaytu — I gave”, and among the Arabs are those who say “أنطيت — anṭaytu — I gave” with nūn.

They say: so and so “قهرني — qaharani — overpowered me”, and among them are those who say “كهرني — kaharani — overpowered me”.

They say: “مدحت — madaḥtu — I praised” and “مدهت — madahtu — I praised”, “هرقت الماء — haraqtu al māʾ — I poured the water” and “أرقت — araqtu — I poured”, “سحقت الزعفران — saḥaqtu al zaʿfarān — I ground the saffron” and “سهكت — sahaktu — I ground”, and similar.

Like it is that some replace the “ال — al — the” of the definite article with “أم — am — the”. It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him, that he said on the Day of al Dār to ʿUthmān, may Allah be pleased with him: “طب أم مضرب — ṭaba am maḍrab — ṭaba al maḍrab”, meaning: “طاب المضرب — ṭāba al maḍrab — the place became good”.

It was narrated from him that he said: the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “ليس من أم بر أم صيام في أم سفر — laysa min am birr am ṣiyām fī am safar — it is not from righteousness to fast during travel”, on the language of Daws.

Also Tamīm replace the hamzah with ʿayn, and they recite from Dhū al Rimmah:

“أعن ترسمت من خرقاء منزلة

ماء الصبابة في عينيك مسجوم

Did you trace from Kharqāʾ a dwelling while the water of longing is poured in your eyes”

Its meaning: “Did you trace, from Kharqāʾ, a dwelling, while the water of longing is poured in your eyes.”

From that is what was narrated from ʿUmar, may Allah be pleased with him, that he said: do not sell gold for gold except like for like, and do not sell silver for silver except like for like, and do not add some of it over some, and do not sell anything of it deferred for immediate except hand to hand. If he says: wait for me until I enter my house, then do not wait for him, because there is fear of “الرُّما — al rumā — interest”, meaning: “الرِّبا — al ribā — interest”.

It can be said: “لازم — lāzim — necessary” with the meaning of “لازب — lāzib — attached”. In the Qur’an, “الصراط — al ṣirāṭ — the path” has been recited with ṣād and sīn together.

Those who wrote the muṣḥaf differed over “التابوت — al tābūt — the chest” and “التابوه — al tābūh — the chest”. This type, which is replacing a letter with a letter in the language of the Arabs, is not little.

The third face: bringing forward and putting back, either in the word, or in letters.

As for in the word, this is common among the Arabs. It is said: Zayd stripped his garment, and the garment of Zayd was stripped. The 2 meanings are 1. Sometimes the meaning differs through a kind of slight difference that is hardly a difference.

Like their statement: I offered the she camel to the trough, and I offered the trough to the she camel. Some Arabs may keep, in examples like these, a specific order of wording, while others bring forward letters. So that becomes difference in language from this face.

In the Qur’an:

لَا يَنَالُ عَهْدِي الظَّالِمِينَ
“My covenant does not reach the wrongdoers.” (al Baqarah 124)

This is the recitation of the people.

It was also recited: “al ẓalimun”.

It was recited:

فَتَلَقَّىٰ آدَمُ مِن رَّبِّهِ كَلِمَاتٍ
“Then Adam received words from his Lord.” (al Baqarah 37)

With the verb for Adam.

It was also recited with Adam in the accusative and “words” in the nominative, so that the words were the ones that met him.

It was recited: “fa yaqtulun” and “wa yuqtalun”, and similar.

فَيَقْتُلُونَ وَيُقْتَلُونَ
“Then they kill, and they are killed.” (al Tawbah 111)

As for in letters, it is like their statement: “صعق — ṣaʿaq — was struck” and “صقع — ṣaqaʿ — was struck”, “جذب — jadhb — pulling” and “جذب — jadhb — pulling”, “بئر عميقة — biʾr ʿamīqah — a deep well” and “بئر معيقة — biʾr maʿīqah — a deep well”, “أحجمت — aḥjamtu — I held back” and “أجحمت — ajḥamtu — I held back”, “ما أطيبه — mā aṭyabah — how good it is” and “ما أيطبه — mā ayṭabah — how good it is”, “رجل أعزل — rajul aʿzal — a defenceless man” and “رجل أزعل — rajul azʿal — a defenceless man”, “اعتقه — iʿtaqahu — he freed him” and “اعتقه — iʿtaqah — he freed him”, “اعتم — iʿtam — he wrapped” and “اعتمى — iʿtamā — he wrapped”, and similar. This is difference in language with no doubt.

In the Qur’an:

أَفَلَمْ يَيْأَسِ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا
“Have those who believe not despaired.” (al Raʿd 31)

It was also recited: “أفلم يتبين — afalam yatabayyan — then did it not become clear”.

Also:

عَذَابٍ بَئِيسٍ
“A miserable punishment.” (al Aʿraf 165)

With bringing forward the hamzah over the yāʾ on the pattern of “فعل — faʿil — pattern faʿil”.

And “بيأس — biyās — despair” with delaying the hamzah after the yāʾ on the pattern of “فعال — fiʿāl — pattern fiʿāl”.

The fourth face: adding a letter or removing it.

This is like the statement of some Arabs: “تعرفنه — taʿrifinah — you know him”, “تعطينه — tuʿṭīnah — you give him”, “مالية — māliyyah — wealth related”, “دارية — dāriyyah — knowing”.

In the Qur’an:

مَا أَغْنَىٰ عَنِّي مَالِيَهْ ۝ هَلَكَ عَنِّي سُلْطَانِيَهْ
“My wealth did not benefit me. My authority has perished from me.” (al Haqqah 28–29)

Among them are those who drop some letters as shortening.

Allah said:

فَلَا تَكُ فِي مِرْيَةٍ مِّنْهُ
“So do not be in doubt about it.” (Hud 17)

It was narrated from Arakah, from ʿAli, may Allah be pleased with him, that he said: the Prophet ﷺ was heard reciting:

يَا مَالِ لِيَقْضِ عَلَيْنَا رَبُّكَ
“O Mal, let your Lord finish us.” (al Zukhruf 77)

Without kaf.

It was narrated from the Prophet ﷺ with kaf, and this is what the people are upon.

The Arabs say: “يا صح — yā ṣaḥ — O companion”, meaning: “يا صاحب — yā ṣāḥib — O companion”, and “يا حر — yā ḥar — O Ḥārith”, meaning: “يا حارث — yā ḥārith — O Ḥārith”. They say: “عم صباحاً — ʿim ṣabāḥan — good morning”, meaning: “أنعم صباحاً — anʿim ṣabāḥan — have a pleasant morning”.

As for hamzah, among the Arabs are those who use it, and they are Tamim and those who agree with it. Among them are those who use it less, and they are Hudhayl and the people of al Hijaz.

Hamzah is a letter that some add and some remove. Some remove lengthening in places while others keep it, and lengthening is a letter.

Difference in The Vowels of Word Formation.

Like the statement of some Arabs in answering: “نعم — naʿam — yes”, and some say: “نعم — niʿam — yes”. Like “البخل — al bukhl — miserliness” and “البخل — al bukhul — miserliness”, “الكبد — al kabid — liver” and “الكبد — al kubd — liver”, “ميسرة — maysarah — ease” and “ميسرة — maysarah — ease”. Like some say “يحسب — yaḥsib — he thinks” with kasrah on sīn in the present, and some say “يحسب — yaḥsab — he thinks” with fatḥah. From that is that some break the first letter of the present tense verb and say “يعلم — yaʿlam — he knows” and “اعلم — iʿlam — know”, and similar.

From it is that some indicate a ḍammah smell in His statement:

وَإِذَا قِيلَ
“And when it is said…” (al Baqarah 11)

And in His statement:

وَغِيضَ الْمَاءُ
“And the water subsided.” (Hud 44)

And similar.

The sixth face: difference in grammatical inflection.

Like the statement of a Hudhali: “ma za’id ḥaḍir”.

Allah said:

مَا هَٰذَا بَشَرًا
“This is not a human.” (Yusuf 31)

Ibn Masʿud, may Allah be pleased with him, recited, on the language of Hudhayl: “ma hadha bashar”.

It was mentioned from the language of Banu al Harith ibn Kaʿb that they say: I passed by “رجلاً — rajulan — a man”, and I took from him “درهماً — dirhaman — a dirham”, and I sat between “يديه — yadayh — his two hands”, and I rode “عليه — ʿalayh — upon him”. They recited:

“فأطرق إطراق الشجاع ولو ترى مساغاً لنابيه الشجاع لصمّما

“So he lowered his head like a brave one and if the brave one saw a way for his fangs, he would bite”

Its meaning: “So he lowered his head like a brave one, and if the brave one saw a way for his fangs, he would bite.”

In the Qur’an:

إِنْ هَٰذَانِ لَسَاحِرَانِ
“Indeed, these 2 are magicians.” (Ta Ha 63)

The seventh face: is lengthening the sound with thickening and clear articulation, or making it moderate with thinning, and assimilation. Most thinning is in “hum”, and the language of al Hijaz is on thickening.

It was narrated from Zayd ibn Thabit, may Allah be pleased with him, that he said: the Qur’an was revealed with thickening.

What was intended, here, is the final review in which the Qur’an was reviewed with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, with Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, may Allah be pleased with him.

If the Messenger of Allah ﷺ had not inclined in some places when reciting, no group would have used inclination in the Qur’an, and it would not have been written in the muṣḥafs with ya in examples like:

وَالضُّحَىٰ ۝ وَاللَّيْلِ إِذَا سَجَىٰ
“By the morning brightness. And by the night when it grows still.” (al Duha 1–2)

Thickening is higher and more common in the speech of the eloquent Arabs, and it is the foundation, and inclination enters into it.

Thickening and inclination are not difference in the essence of the language. Rather, it is difference in tone and in the measuring of sound. Every group of the Arabs chose what matched their nature, and followers from others followed them in their differences.

Likewise, assimilation is common among the Arabs. It is seen that no one among them leaves assimilation of the lam of the definite article with letters that come from the tip of the tongue, like ta, tha, dal, dhal, nun, and similar.

Likewise, none of the Arabs leave assimilating a still ta before a ta, and a still tha before a ta, like His statement:

أَحَطتُ بِمَا لَمْ تُحِطْ بِهِ
“I have encompassed what you have not encompassed.” (al Naml 22)

And His statement:

وَقَالَت طَّائِفَةٌ
“And a group said…” (Al ʿImran 72)

And similar.

The tongue can hardly manage clear articulation in such places except with severe strain.

Likewise, the still lam before ra, like His statement:

قَالَ رَبِّي يَعْلَمُ الْقَوْلَ
“My Lord knows the statement.” (al Anbiya 4)

And His statement:

بَلْ رَانَ
“No, rather, rust has covered.” (al Mutaffifin 14)

Even though among the people of al Hijaz there are those who show the lam here.

The approaches of the Arabs differ in assimilation and clear articulation in many letters. This is also beautifying sound and improving tone. It is not difference in the foundation of language. Yet since they differ in it, it is counted as part of the difference of their languages.” (See the full text in Muqaddimat Kitab al Mabani, pp. 221–228.)

The Statement of Ibn Qutaybah and al Baqillani and Others

These imams held that the seven ahruf are 7 faces.

Since al Baqillani followed Ibn Qutaybah completely in defining these faces, his statement is quoted, because his exact words were found in his important book “al Intisar lil Qur’an”, which is in manuscript form.

Al Baqillani explained that no report exists that establishes proof for defining the exact ahruf, or the categories of their differences, and the methods of languages within them, and that the ummah did not agree in any era upon a binding agreement on that. Then he said:

Even so, it can be said that the seven ahruf and languages upon which the Qur’an was revealed are limited and known in a way that comes close to what is intended by the report, and it is not far. From these faces are the following.

The first: difference in recitation in bringing forward and putting back, like His statement:

وَجَاءَتْ سَكْرَةُ الْمَوْتِ بِالْحَقِّ
“And the stupor of death comes with the truth.” (Qaf 19)

It was recited: “وجاءت سكرة الحق بالموت” “and the stupor of truth comes with death”. This is difference by bringing forward and putting back.

The second: difference between 2 recitations by addition and omission.

Like His statement:

وَمَا عَمِلَتْهُ أَيْدِيهِمْ
“And what their hands have made.” (Ya Sin 35)

And it was recited: “and what their hands made”, by omitting ha.

And His statement in 1 place:

وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ الْغَنِيُّ الْحَمِيدُ
“And that Allah is the Free of need, the Praiseworthy.” (al Hajj 64)

And His statement in another place:

فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ لَغَنِيٌّ حَمِيدٌ
“Then indeed Allah is Free of need, Praiseworthy.” (Ibrahim 8)

By omitting “huwa”.

Some recited: “ya mal” in the place of “ya malik”, by omitting kaf.

From that is also His statement: “عظاماً نخرة — ʿiẓāman nakhirah — bones, decayed”

and “نخرة — nakhirah — decayed”,

and “سراجاً — sirājan — a lamp”

and “سراجاً — sirājan — a lamp”, and similar.

It was narrated that some of the early ones recited after His statement:

إِنَّ السَّاعَةَ آتِيَةٌ أَكَادُ أُخْفِيهَا
“Indeed, the Hour is coming, I almost conceal it.” (Ta Ha 15)

He recited: “I almost conceal it from Myself, so how would I show it to you.”

Some also recited after His statement:

إِنَّ هَٰذَا أَخِي لَهُ تِسْعٌ وَتِسْعُونَ نَعْجَةً
“Indeed, this is my brother. He has 99 ewes.” (Sad 23)

He added: “99 female ewes.”

This difference was not established. It is difference by addition and omission.

It is said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ recited with bringing forward sometimes, and with putting back another time, and with addition sometimes, and with omission another time, and that was known if this category is established in difference and it is narrated from him ﷺ.

The third: difference in recitation that changes the word form and its meaning.

Like His statement:

وَطَلْحٍ مَّنضُودٍ
“And clustered talh.” (al Waqiʿah 29)

In the place of: “and clustered ṭalʿ”.

If this is established, then he ﷺ recited both and it was revealed to him like that.

It was narrated from some of the Salaf that they said: ṭalʿ and ṭalḥ are 1 meaning and 2 names for 1 thing.

If that is so, then they are like “العهن — al ʿihn — coloured wool” and “الصوف — al ṣūf — wool”, and “الأثيم — al athīm — the sinful” and “الفاجر — al fājir — the wicked”. So it is from what changes its spoken form but does not change its meaning.

The majority of people said other than this. They said that the Arabs call a man “طلحة — ṭalḥah — Talhah” as a likeness to the great, pleasing tree. If that is so, then “طلع — ṭalʿ — spadix” and “طلح — ṭalḥ — talḥ”, if recited, are from what changes its form and its meaning.

The Fourth: Difference in 2 recitations by Difference in the Letters of a Word, in a Way that Changes its Meaning and its heard Wording, but Does not Change its Written Form, Meaning it Does not Change the ʿUthmani script, because Agreement with the Script of the Muṣḥaf of ʿUthman is a Condition for Accepting a Recitation, due to the Tawatur of its Script and The Consensus upon It.

Like His statement:

وَانظُرْ إِلَى الْعِظَامِ كَيْفَ نُنشِزُهَا
“And look at the bones, how We raise them.” (al Baqarah 259)

With zay.

“Inshaz” is creating and giving life after death.

The Qur’an was revealed like that, because they are created, spread, and given life after death. So the 2 meanings were intended in the 2 recitations.

The fifth: difference between Two Recitations by Difference in Word Formation and its Form, in a Way That Does not Remove it From its Written Form and Does not Change its Meaning.

Like His statement:

هَلْ نُجَازِي إِلَّا الْكَفُورَ
“Do We recompense except the ungrateful.” (Saba 17)

And “هل يجزى — hal yujzā — will it be recompensed”.

Its form in writing is 1.

Like “البخل — al bukhl — miserliness” with ḍammah and “البخل — al bakhl — miserliness” with fatḥah, and “ميسرة — maysarah — ease” with naṣb and ḍamm, and “يعكفون — yaʿkufūn — they remain devoted” with rafʿ and kasr. The form is one, and there are many examples.

From that is also “فومها — fūmihā — its garlic” and “ثومها — thūmihā — its garlic”, and similar.

The Sixth: Difference between Two Recitations in a Way that Changes its Written Form but Does not Change its Meaning.

Like:

وَتَكُونُ الْجِبَالُ كَالْعِهْنِ الْمَنفُوشِ
“And the mountains will be like fluffed wool.” (al Qariʿah 5)

And: “like fluffed wool”, meaning “like fluffed wool”.

And:

إِن كَانَتْ إِلَّا صَيْحَةً وَاحِدَةً
“It was only 1 blast.” (Ya Sin 29)

And: “it was only 1 cry”.

And:

إِنَّ شَجَرَتَ الزَّقُّومِ ۝ طَعَامُ الْأَثِيمِ
“Indeed, the tree of zaqqum is the food of the sinner.” (al Dukhan 43–44)

And: “the food of the wicked”.

This is like it, where the forms and letters differ while the meaning does not differ.

Allah revealed these because among the Arabs are those for whom it is easy to leave their habits and their speech patterns and say “wool” in place of “fluffed wool”, and “cry” in place of “blast”. So Allah revealed the 2 recitations and made them permissible as a concession and easing for His servants, while safety and correctness are present, and while concession is intended for them.

The Seventh: Difference between 2 Recitations by difference in Grammatical inflection of a Word, and the Vowels of its Formation, in a Way that Changes its Meaning But does Not Remove it from Its Written Form.

Like His statement:

رَبَّنَا بَاعِدْ بَيْنَ أَسْفَارِنَا
“Our Lord, make the distances between our journeys far.” (Saba 19)

On the path of report.

And:

رَبَّنَا بَاعِدْ بَيْنَ أَسْفَارِنَا
With “rabb” in rafʿ and “baʿada” as a past verb.

And:

رَبَّنَا بَعِّدْ بَيْنَ أَسْفَارِنَا
With fatḥah and kasrah.

And His statement:

وَاذْكُرْ بَعْدَ أُمَّةٍ
“And remember after a time.” (Yusuf 45)

And:

وَاذْكُرْ بَعْدَ أُمَّهٍ
Meaning: after forgetting.

This is correct, because it means: remember after a time, and remember after forgetting.

Allah combined the 2 meanings in the 2 recitations.

In His statement “ربنا باعد — rabbanā bāʿid — our Lord, distance”, with kasrah, its meaning is request and supplication from the people of Saba, that Allah separate them and make their journeys far. That is what they asked, and it happened.

From that is also “يعكفون — yaʿkufūn — they remain devoted” with ḍamm and “يعكفون — yaʿkifūn — they remain devoted” with kasr, while the written form is one.

So Allah related the request from them in “make the distances far”, and He related the report from them that their journeys were made far, because among the people of Saba were both matters.

They asked Allah to separate them and make their journeys far, so Allah related this. When Allah did it to them and answered them, they spoke about themselves that Allah answered them and made their journeys far. So Allah related that about them.

Likewise His statement:

وَلَقَدْ عَلِمْتَ مَا أَنزَلَ هَٰؤُلَاءِ
“You have certainly known that none sent these down.” (al Isra 102)

Because Pharaoh said to Musa عليه السلام: what came is magic and illusion. So Musa عليه السلام said, reporting about himself: what came are only signs and clear proofs.

He also said to Pharaoh another time: you have known that what came are clear proofs and signs, not magic. So Allah related both matters, and both are correct, established, not contradictory and not conflicting, and so is everything in this category.

This, and Allah knows best, is the explanation of the seven ahruf.” (al Intisar lil Qur’an, by al Baqillani, manuscript, 1/172–128, from the private library of the verifying scholar Sayyid Safar. Al Burhan, 1/334 and what follows, and p. 214. Muqaddimat Kitab al Mabani, pp. 215–217. Muqaddimat Ibn ʿAtiyyah, p. 265.)

Objections to the View of Ibn Qutaybah and Those With Him

This view is criticised from several directions.

First: it neglected the foundations of the qira’at (recitations), like lengthening, thickening, hamzah, inclination, and other than that, even though they enter into difference of languages, and they stop at revelation, and there is no scope for scholarly effort in them, because they are transmitted to us with authentic reports as a followed Sunnah, and they enter into the seven ahruf upon which the Qur’an was revealed. This will be detailed later.

Leaving these matters out of Ibn Qutaybah’s classification shows that he did not reflect as he claimed. So deficiency enters into his explanation of the seven ahruf, because he did not include all of them in his explanation.

Second: the faces he defined are only understood by those highly skilled in writing and reading. So how is there easing in them for the unlettered.

Abu al Fadl ʿAbd al Rahman al Razi (d. 454 AH) criticised Ibn Qutaybah’s view. He said: “He forced himself into what he forced himself into regarding the 7 faces, because he took a path in what he extracted that is hard to grasp even for the sharp scholars of writing who extract the subtleties in scripts, so how would it be for the unlettered one who does not know writing at all.

This is what Ibn Qutaybah mentioned in explaining the seven ahruf, such as vowels of word formation and grammatical inflection, and dotting letters, and removing word forms in writing or not removing them. If an unlettered person tried to reach what he extracted from the 7 faces, he would never reach it.

Remaining upon 1 harf would be easier than following that explanation in the manner he mentioned. If the places of the ahruf and their aim were only what he extracted, that would be closer to restriction than broadening, since they only came for broadening and concession.”

Third: defining the ahruf in this way makes the path to knowing some of them cut off from the Messenger ﷺ, because he ﷺ was unlettered and did not read and did not write. This is impossible, because it would mean they were not conveyed to the people either.

ʿAbd al Rahman al Razi said: “The belief is that knowledge of the meaning of the report is not outside the consensus of the ummah, and not outside the Prophet ﷺ. If it were as Ibn Qutaybah arranged it, some of that would be hidden from the Messenger ﷺ, and that is what he mentioned relating to writing.” (Both earlier quotations are in the book “Maʿna Qawl al Nabi ﷺ: Unzila al Qur’an ʿala Sabʿat Ahruf”, pp. 34–37, by Abu al Fadl ʿAbd al Rahman al Razi, manuscript. It will be published with verification soon, Allah willing.)

These objections also apply to some faces defined by others besides al Baqillani and Ibn Qutaybah, which will be listed later.

The Statement of Abu al Fadl al Razi

Among the explanations that the report can carry, without an earlier explanation organising it, is that every harf from the seven revealed ahruf is a category that has 1 type of difference.

The first: difference in the patterns of nouns, such as singular, dual, plural, masculine, feminine, emphasis, and other than that. (An example was given by His statement: “and those who are to their trusts and their covenant keeping”, and it was recited “to their trust”, as singular.)

The second: difference in verb forms and what they are attached to, such as past, present, and command, and that it can be attached to masculine, feminine, speaker, addressee, doer, and object. (An example was given by His statement: “Our Lord, make the distances between our journeys far”, and it was recited “Our Lord, it became far”, with “rabb” in rafʿ and making “baʿada” a past verb.)

The third: faces of grammatical inflection. (An example was given by His statement: “and let no writer and no witness be harmed”, and it was recited with fatḥah and ḍamm on ra. And His statement: “Possessor of the Glorious Throne”, with “glorious” in rafʿ and in jarr.)

The fourth: addition and omission. (An example was given by His statement: “and by the One who created the male and the female”, and it was recited “and the male and the female”.)

The fifth: bringing forward and putting back. (An example was given by His statement: “and the stupor of death comes with the truth”, and it was recited “and the stupor of truth comes with death”.)

The sixth: reversal and replacement, in replacing 1 word with another, or letters with other letters. (An example was given by His statement: “and look at the bones how We raise them”, with zay, and it was recited with ra.)

The seventh: difference of languages. (Like His statement: “Has there come to you the story of Musa”, with fatḥah and inclination in “ata” and in “Musa”.)

So this is the widest face. Nothing from difference of wording is missed at all, after the established point that the source of the report was only the difference of those who came to the Prophet ﷺ over the wording of the Qur’an.

So this explanation gathered irregular recitations, famous recitations, and abrogated recitations, whether agreeing with the script or opposing it. All speech cannot be free from these 7 categories.

If this explanation matches the report, then it is correct. If it does not match it, then the meaning of the report still enters under these faces, even if it is not arranged upon them. (Kitab Maʿani “Unzila al Qur’an ʿala Sabʿat Ahruf”, by al Razi, pp. 45–46, manuscript.)

A major similarity becomes clear between the madhhab of Ibn Qutaybah and the madhhab of al Razi. Ibn Hajar al ʿAsqalani (d. 852 AH) explained this by saying that al Razi took the view of Ibn Qutaybah and refined it. (Fath al Bari, 9/23–124. Al Itqan, 1/149. Manahil al ʿIrfan, 1/149.)

A sufficient objection against al Razi is that he relied, in some faces, on irregular qira’at.

The Statement of Ibn al Jazari

Ibn al Jazari (d. 833 AH) said, in explaining what is intended by the hadith “The Qur’an was revealed on 7 ahruf”: this hadith remained difficult for more than 30 years, with reflection and close examination, until Allah opened a view that can be correct, Allah willing. That is that the qira’at were followed, their authentic, irregular, weak, and rejected. Their differences returned to 7 faces of difference that do not go beyond them.

First: difference in vowels with no change in meaning and form, like “البخل — al bukhl — miserliness” in 4 faces, and “يحسب — yaḥsib — he thinks” in 2 faces.

Second: difference in vowels with change in meaning only, like “فتلقى آدم من ربه كلمات — fatalaqqā ādam min rabbihi kalimāt — then Adam received from his Lord words”, with “آدم — ādam — Adam” in rafʿ and “كلمات — kalimāt — words” in naṣb, and the reverse.

Third: difference in letters with change in meaning, not form, like “تبلو — tablu — it tests” and “تتلو — tatlu — it recites”, and “فاليوم ننجيك ببدنك لتكون لمن خلفك آية — fa al yawm nunajjīka bi badanika li takūna liman khalfaka āyah — so today We will save you with your body so that you may be a sign for those after you”, and “ننجيك — nunajjīka — We will save you” and “ننحيك — nunḥīka — We will rescue you”.

Fourth: difference in letters with change in form, not meaning, like “بسطة — basṭah — expansion” and “بسطة — basṭah — expansion”, and like “الصراط — al ṣirāṭ — the path” and “السراط — al sirāṭ — the path”.

Fifth: difference in letters with change in form and meaning, like “فاسعوا — fa sʿaw — so hasten” and “فامضوا — fa mḍū — so proceed”.

Sixth: difference by bringing forward and putting back, like “فيقتلون ويقتلون — fa yaqtulūn wa yuqtalūn — they fight and are fought”, and “وجاءت سكرة الحق بالموت — wa jāʾat sakrat al ḥaqq bi al mawt — and the stupor of truth comes with death”.

Seventh: difference by addition and omission, like “أوصى — awṣā — he instructed” and “وصّى — waṣṣā — he emphasised instruction”.

Ibn al Jazari said: these are 7 faces that difference does not go beyond. (al Nashr fi al Qira’at al ʿAshr, by Muhammad ibn Muhammad al Dimashqi, known as Ibn al Jazari, 1/26–27, al Matbaʿah al Tijariyyah in Cairo. Al Itqan, 1/46. Manahil al ʿIrfan, 1/152.)

The Difference Between the Statement of al Razi and the Statement of Ibn al Jazari

The difference between the classification of Ibn al Jazari and the classification of al Razi is that Ibn al Jazari did not include the seventh face that al Razi included, meaning difference of dialect performance in fatḥah, inclination, thinning, thickening, assimilation, and clear articulation.

Ibn al Jazari said what shows that he did not count this as part of the ahruf, because he said:

“As for difference in clear articulation and assimilation, and “روم — rām — partial pronunciation” and “إشمام — ishmām — lip indication”, and lightening and easing, and transfer and replacement, this is not the type of difference that varies in wording and meaning, because these performance qualities do not remove it from being one wording.” (Al Itqan, 1/46. Manahil al ʿIrfan, 1/154.)

The Relationship Between the Four Statements

These statements formed in different eras.

The first is the view of Abu Hatim al Sijistani (d. 255 AH).

The second is the view of ʿAbd Allah ibn Muslim ibn Qutaybah (d. 276 AH).

Qadi Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn al Tayyib al Baqillani (d. 403 AH) came in the fourth century and supported Ibn Qutaybah.

The third is the view of al Razi, who came after Ibn Qutaybah and benefited from his view.

The fourth is the view of Muhammad ibn Muhammad al Dimashqi, known as Ibn al Jazari (d. 833 AH).

Ibn Qutaybah studied under Abu Hatim al Sijistani, and it appears that he saw his view on the seven ahruf, then benefited from it in shaping the faces he defined in the manner he preferred and hoped was correct.

The differences between the 2 madhhahib include the main field of deriving these faces.

Abu Hatim derived them from differences of languages, so he limited the faces of language differences to 7 and treated them as the seven ahruf. So he said: “Then I reflected on the faces in which the languages of the Arabs differ, and I found them to be 7 directions, not increasing and not decreasing, and with all of that the Qur’an was revealed.” (Muqaddimat Kitab al Mabani, p. 221.)

Ibn Qutaybah sought the seven ahruf in the faces of differences in Qur’an recitations transmitted from the Prophet ﷺ. He made that clear by his statement: “I reflected on the faces of difference in the qira’at, and I found them to be 7 faces.” (Ta’wil Mushkil al Qur’an, p. 28.)

This difference in the field of review reflects difference in interpreting the meaning of “ahruf”. Abu Hatim treated them as 7 faces of languages, and Ibn Qutaybah treated them as 7 faces of qira’at.

Al Baqillani followed Ibn Qutaybah in full. (Muqaddimat Kitab al Mabani, p. 215 and what follows. Fath al Bari, 9/25.)

This difference in explaining the meaning of “ahruf” led to difference in the faces they defined. Some faces resemble others. An example is that the second face for al Sijistani matches the second face for Ibn Qutaybah.

Ibn Qutaybah also placed a face: difference in a word in a way that changes its form and meaning, like “clustered ṭalʿ” in the place of “clustered ṭalḥ”. This is included under the second face for al Sijistani through the broad wording of that face.

This new face that Ibn Qutaybah added was balanced by his leaving out what Abu Hatim treated as the seventh face, meaning: difference of dialect performance, such as lengthening and thinning. Ibn Qutaybah and those with him did not treat that face as part of the seven ahruf.

Then al Razi came and took the view of Ibn Qutaybah and refined it, as Ibn Hajar said, and he altered the 7 faces to be broader and more precise. He returned the seventh face, meaning: dialect difference, to being counted as part of the seven ahruf.

As for Ibn al Jazari, he followed the qira’at, their authentic, irregular, weak, and rejected, and he found that their differences return to 7 faces that he treated as the seven ahruf intended by the hadith.

He did not count dialect performance differences among them, because they do not create differences where wording and meaning vary, so he agreed with Ibn Qutaybah in leaving that out.

Evidence for Explaining “Ahruf” as “Faces”

Evidence is used for explaining the seven ahruf as the seven faces by what follows.

First: explaining the word “harf” as “face” agrees with His statement, exalted:

وَمِنَ النَّاسِ مَن يَعْبُدُ اللَّهَ عَلَىٰ حَرْفٍ
“And among people is the one who worships Allah on a harf.” (al Hajj 11)

So explaining the hadith of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ by what the Book of Allah is explained with is more fitting than explaining it by other than that.

Second: the hadiths of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ indicated it in what occurred between ʿUmar ibn al Khattab and Hisham ibn Hakim, and between Ubayy and those praying in the masjid.

Ibn Qutaybah said: “The explanation of his statement ‘the Qur’an was revealed on 7 ahruf’ is on 7 faces from languages, spread through the Qur’an. Evidence for that is the statement of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ: ‘so recite what is easy from it’.” (This wording is not found in the hadiths listed earlier. It is possible that Ibn Qutaybah quoted it from memory, so it came in the form that matched what settled in his mind from the meaning of the hadith, or he saw a narration that was not reached here.)

ʿUmar, may Allah be pleased with him, said: Hisham ibn Hakim ibn Hizam was heard reciting Surah al Furqan in a way unlike what was being recited, even though the Prophet ﷺ had taught it. He was brought to the Prophet ﷺ and the matter was mentioned.

He said to him: “Recite”, so he recited, and the Prophet ﷺ said: “It was revealed like that.” Then he said: “Recite”, so it was recited, and he said: “It was revealed like that.” Then he said: “This Qur’an was revealed on 7 ahruf, so recite what is easy from it.”

Then it was said: whoever recites it with the recitation of ʿAbd Allah has recited with his harf, and whoever recites with the recitation of Ubayy has recited with his harf, and whoever recites with the recitation of Zayd has recited with his harf. (Ta’wil Mushkil al Qur’an, by Ibn Qutaybah, pp. 34–35. The last statement, “whoever recites…”, is his own statement, not the statement of ʿUmar, because it was not found when returning to the Sunnah sources. The wording of the hadith from the 2 Sahihs and others has already been fixed.)

These ahruf were taken from review of what was transmitted from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ of qira’at. That indicates that they are intended, because they were derived from differences in the transmitted qira’at, and because review itself is evidence if it fulfils its conditions. (Al Zarqani explained that review is evidence relied on if it fulfils its conditions. Manahil al ʿIrfan, 1/157, third edition.)

Third: the strength and weight of this explanation is supported by the statement of the people: the harf of Ubayy, and the harf of Ibn Masʿud.

The face upon which Ubayy recited was called a harf, and the face upon which Ibn Masʿud recited was also called a harf. So the ahruf are the faces in people’s understanding. So these 7 faces must be identified from the totality of qira’at transmitted from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.

Al Baqillani supported this explanation by the earlier 2 proofs. He said:

“As for the 7 ahruf, the Messenger ﷺ approved reciting with all of them. They are what he reviewed and was increased in, and what was made easy for him, because Allah knew their differences in languages.

So they are 7 faces and 7 different recitations and methods that are recited with, in their difference, in all of the Qur’an or most of it, as the wording indicates in his statement ‘the Qur’an was revealed’, meaning the whole or the majority. So it is permissible that these faces are recited with, in their differences.

This is indicated by the statement of the people: the harf of Ubayy, and the harf of Ibn Masʿud. In general: the Qur’an was revealed on 7 ahruf from languages, grammatical inflection, and changing names and forms. This is spread through the Book of Allah. It is not found in 1 harf and 1 surah in a way that decisively confirms that all of it is gathered in it.” (Muqaddimat Ibn ʿAtiyyah, pp. 266–267.)

Rejecting the Explanation of “Ahruf” as the Listed Faces

Explaining the seven ahruf as the listed faces is opposed by several strong proofs. The most important are the following.

First: what is intended by “ahruf” in the hadith does not match what they went to, that it is 7 faces from differences of languages, because of the strain in that explanation.

Rather, if the ahruf are assumed to be 7 faces or directions of Arabic speech, then they should be understood, here, as 7 languages from the Arab tribes, because that would be directions and faces of the general Arabic tongue. The dialect, meaning the language of a tribe, is a branch and a face from the faces of Arabic.

Ibn Sidah (d. 458 AH) said: “What came in the hadith, in his statement ﷺ, ‘the Qur’an was revealed on 7 ahruf, all of it is healing and sufficient’, he intended by harf: language.” (See Lisan al ʿArab and Taj al ʿArus, by al Zabidi, under the entry “harf”.)

Second: the response of the Messenger ﷺ to those who came in dispute, “This Qur’an was revealed on 7 ahruf”, does not prove the correctness of explaining it as the 7 faces, because if that were what was intended, it would not have ended their dispute or solved their problem.

Rather, it would have caused a stronger reason for asking the Messenger ﷺ about what the 7 ahruf or the 7 faces mean, due to the lack of clarity of that answer. So “ahruf” must be explained with a common meaning known to them, so that answering with it ends the problem and removes dispute, as it did. This supports explaining “ahruf” as languages.

Third: as for the claim of al Zarqani in Manahil that what al Razi did is a review of the qira’at, and review is a binding rational proof, so it must be accepted that the 7 ahruf are the 7 faces that he listed, then this is refused, because reviewing the faces of differences in qira’at, or reviewing the faces of differences in Arabic languages, only obliges acceptance that what they reached are faces of qira’at differences or language differences. As for saying that these faces of difference are the seven ahruf, then this is a claim that needs a reliable proof. Where is the proof.

Fourth: the statement of the people: the harf of Ubayy, and the harf of Ibn Masʿud, is not proof by itself that the ahruf are 7 faces. The meaning of “the harf of Ubayy” is: the recitation of Ubayy. Al Tabari stated this, and it was mentioned earlier.

Fifth: the differences between the people of this madhhab in defining the 7 faces leaves no doubt that explaining “ahruf” as “faces” is highly flexible, in a way that does not settle, and does not produce a clear meaning of the hadith.

Sixth: the faces they listed can be grouped as 7, or more, or less. There is no reason to limit them to 7, and no reason to treat them as what is intended by the hadith.

Seventh: some of these faces are only supported by examples from irregular, weak, or rejected qira’at. Ibn al Jazari and others stated this earlier.

Allah knows best.

The Second Madhhab

What is intended by the seven ahruf in the hadith is that the Qur’an was revealed on 7 faces of close meanings, with different wordings, like “aqbil”, “hallum”, “taʿal”, “ʿajjil”, “asriʿ”, “unẓur”, “akhkhir”, “am’hil”, and similar.

This is the view of many of the people of knowledge, like Sufyan ibn ʿUyaynah (d. 198 AH), ʿAbd Allah ibn Wahb (d. 197 AH), Ibn ʿAbd al Barr (d. 463 AH), al Tahawi (d. 321 AH), and others. Al Qurtubi (d. 671 AH) chose it and attributed it to Ibn Jarir al Tabari. Al Zarkashi (d. 794 AH) followed that attribution in al Burhan, and al Suyuti (d. 911 AH) followed it in al Itqan. This attribution is incorrect. The real direction of al Tabari in his tafsir will be made clear later.

Ibn ʿAbd al Barr used as evidence that the ahruf upon which the Qur’an was revealed are meanings whose understanding is agreed upon while their heard forms differ. He used as evidence the hadith of Sulayman ibn Surad from Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, may Allah be pleased with him, who said:

“I recited a verse, and Ibn Masʿud recited it differently, so I came to the Prophet ﷺ and I said: did you not teach me the verse so and so. He said: yes. Ibn Masʿud said: did you not teach it to me so and so. He said: yes. ‘Both of you have done well and have done correctly.’ I said to him, and he struck my chest, and he said:

‘O Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, I was taught the Qur’an, and it was said to me: on 1 harf, or on 2 ahruf. The angel with me said: on 2 ahruf, so I said: on 2 ahruf. It was said: on 2 ahruf or 3. The angel with me said: on 3, so I said: on 3, until it reached 7 ahruf.

None of them is except healing and sufficient. If you say “Most Forgiving, Most Merciful”, or you say “All Hearing, All Knowing”, or “All Knowing, All Hearing”, then Allah is like that, as long as you do not end a verse of punishment with mercy, or a verse of mercy with punishment.’”

Abu Dawud narrated it, and Imam Ahmad narrated it, and the wording is his.

Al Tahawi used as evidence for it the hadith of Abu Bakrah: “Jibril عليه السلام said: O Muhammad, recite the Qur’an on 1 harf. Mika’il عليه السلام said: ask for more. So he asked for more. He said: recite it on 2 ahruf. Mika’il said: ask for more. So he asked for more, until it reached 7 ahruf.

All of it is healing and sufficient, as long as you do not end a verse of punishment with mercy, or a verse of mercy with punishment, like saying: “تعال — taʿāl — come” and “أقبل — aqbil — approach” and “هلم — hallum — come here” and “اذهب — idhhab — go” and “أسرع — asriʿ — hurry” and “عجّل — ʿajjil — hasten”.

Imam Ahmad narrated it, al Tabari narrated it, and al Tabarani narrated it, and the wording is that of Ahmad.

Evidence is also used by what Warqaʾ narrated, from Ibn Abi Najih, from Mujahid, from Ibn ʿAbbas, from Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, that he used to recite “لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا انظُرُونَا — lilladhīna āmanū unẓurūnā — for those who believe, wait for us” as: “أمهلونا — amhilūnā — grant us time”, “أخرونا — akhkhirūnā — delay us”, “ارقبونا — irqubūnā — watch for us”.

And by what was narrated with the same chain from Ubayy, that he used to recite “كُلَّمَا أَضَاءَ لَهُم مَّشَوْا فِيهِ — kullamā aḍāʾa lahum mashaw fīhi — whenever it lit for them, they walked in it” as: “مرّوا — marrū — they passed”, “ذهبوا — dhahabū — they went”, “أسرعوا — asraʿū — they hurried”. (Tafsir al Qurtubi, 1/142. Al Burhan, 1/220.)

Based on this view, only 1 harf remains in the muṣḥaf of ʿUthman that is in the hands of the people. A full examination of this view will come with the examination of al Tabari’s view later.

The Third Madhhab

What is intended by the seven ahruf in the hadith is 7 languages.

The statements of the people differed in 2 directions in defining what is meant by the revelation of the Qur’an as “languages”. Some authors did not distinguish well between these 2 directions, such as al Suyuti, al Zarkashi, and al Qurtubi. (Tafsir al Qurtubi, 1/142. Al Burhan, 1/220.)

al-Aḥruf al-Sabʿah wa Manzilat al-Qirāʾāt minhā by Hasan Diya al-Din Itr 121–169n

Author

ISHAQ. K

Navigation Menu: Summary

Navigation Menu: Full Article

Summary

Statements of the ulama on the meaning of the seven aḥruf

The chosen view on the meaning of the seven aḥruf

Examples of the seven aḥruf

The Seven Ahruf and Their Relationship to the 10 Mutawatir Qira’at (Recitations)

The Difference Between the Qur’an and the Qira’at Recitations

Alleged Contradiction in the Meaning of the Recitations

Alleged Irregularities of Some Recitations to the Arabic Language

The Madhhahib of the Ulama on What Is Intended by the Seven Ahruf in the Hadith

Madhhahib That Have No Proof

Madhhahib That Have a Resemblance of Proof

The Madhhahib That Have Proof In General

Full Article

Muqaddimāt fī ʿIlm al-Qirāʾāt

Statements of the ulama on the meaning of the seven aḥruf (modes)

This hadith was answered in three ways.

The chosen view on the meaning of the seven aḥruf

Examples of the seven aḥruf

The Seven Ahruf and Their Relationship to the 10 Mutawatir Recitations

The Difference Between the Qur’an and the Qira’at Recitations

Alleged Contradiction in the Meaning of the Recitations

The Response to This Objection

Alleged Irregularities of Some Recitations to the Arabic Language

The Response to This Objection

al-Aḥruf al-Sabʿah wa Manzilat al-Qirāʾāt minhā

The Madhhahib of the Ulama on What Is Intended by the Seven Ahruf in the Hadith

Madhhahib That Have No Proof

The First Madhhab

The Second Madhhab

The Third Madhhab

The Fourth Madhhab

The Fifth Madhhab

A Summary Response to the Previous Views

Madhhahib That Have a Resemblance of Proof

The First Madhhab

The Second Madhhab

The Third Madhhab

The Fourth Madhhab

The fifth Madhhab

The Sixth Madhhab

The Seventh Madhhab

The Eighth Madhhab

Examining the Ninth Madhhab

Its clash with authentic hadiths.

Its clash with consensus.

The Intended Meaning of the Hadith

The Madhhahib That Have Proof In General

The Statement of Abu Hatim al Sijistani

Difference in The Vowels of Word Formation.

The Statement of Ibn Qutaybah and al Baqillani and Others

Objections to the View of Ibn Qutaybah and Those With Him

The Statement of Abu al Fadl al Razi

The Statement of Ibn al Jazari

The Difference Between the Statement of al Razi and the Statement of Ibn al Jazari

The Relationship Between the Four Statements

Evidence for Explaining “Ahruf” as “Faces”

Rejecting the Explanation of “Ahruf” as the Listed Faces

The Second Madhhab

The Third Madhhab

Author

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Related Post

Discover more from ATHARI ARCHIVE