Additional Evidence for the Meaning of Ḥarf
I have argued that the key term Ḥarf referred to a pre-standardization Qirāʾa (recitation) associated with a certain companion i.e. the specific wording by which a companion recited the Qur’an was his Ḥarf.
Some of the evidence to support this has already been presented in a previous installment, and I have encountered additional evidence in this regard:
(a) When ʿUthmān (d. 35) resolved to establish a standard Muṣḥaf he wrote a letter to the provinces explaining his rationale as follows:
To proceed: Individuals from different towns gathered in my presence and began reciting the Qur’an but they differed widely.
One of them said, ‘I learnt it from Abī al-Dardāʾ’, another said, ‘I learnt it per the Ḥarf of ʿAbdallāh b. Masʿūd’, while yet another said, ‘I learnt it per the Ḥarf of ʿAbdallāh b. Qays (i.e. Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī)’.
When I heard their variation in the Qur’an – with the separation from the Messenger of Allah being so recent – I deemed it to be something reprehensible.
I took pity on this Umma because of their differing in the Qur’an and I feared that they will come to differ in their religion …[1]
It is clear that the Ḥarf of ʿAbdallāh b. Masʿūd here means the Qirāʾa of ʿAbdallāh b. Masʿūd and so on.
(b) When Ibn ʿAbbās (d. 68) heard a man use the term ‘the former Ḥarf’ he asked:
What is the former Ḥarf?
The man responded:
ʿUmar had sent Ibn Masʿūd as a teacher to the residents of Kufa and they memorized his Qirāʾa, then ʿUthmān changed the Qirāʾa (i.e. to the standard Muṣḥaf) so they refer to it (i.e. Ibn Masʿūd’s Qirāʾa) as ‘the former Ḥarf’
Ibn ʿAbbās proceeds to defend Ibn Masʿūd’s Qirāʾa or Ḥarf, which are clearly being used synonymously, by stating:
Gabriel used to present (the Qur’an) (to) the Messenger of Allah (for review) once every Ramadan, but he presented (it) to him twice in the year in which he died, and it (i.e. Ibn Masʿūd’s Qirāʾa) is the last Ḥarf which the prophet was presented with[2]
(c) When the Kufan jurist Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī (d. ca. 96), who studied under the students of Ibn Masʿūd and sought to maintain his legacy, was confronted with the question of maintaining the status quo or shifting to the ʿUthmānic standard he ruled that:
A man should not shift from one Qirāʾa to another Qirāʾa
Abū Ḥanīfa (d. 150) glosses this statement as follows:
He means, the Ḥarf of ʿAbdallāh, the Ḥarf of Zayd, and the like[3]
This should put the matter to bed.
It is only with this understanding that the reports found in the traditional literary sources (including those cited in this article) make any sense.
From Many Aḥruf to One
I have also argued that it is these substantial differences at a textual level between the Qirāʾāt of the companions, with each companion claiming to have heard his version from the prophet, which lay behind the circulation of the Seven Aḥruf reports, since these reports legitimize the differences as being divine in origin by asserting that the Qur’an was revealed per multiple Aḥruf/Qirāʾāt.
But this solution which required tolerating the different Qirāʾāt as equally valid did not last long and we encounter a very fraught situation in the time of ʿUthmān.
The Basran Tābiʿī, Abū Qilāba (d. ca. 107), reports:
In the days of the Caliphate of ʿUthmān a teacher would be teaching the Qirāʾa of one man, while another teacher would be teaching the Qirāʾa of a different man. The students would meet up and proceed to differ (in their recitation) until the matter would be referred back to the teachers so they began disbelieving each other’s Qirāʾa[4]
The Medinan Tābiʿī, Bukayr b. ʿAbdallāh b. al-Ashajj (d. 127), expands on this:
There were people in Iraq who would ask someone about a certain verse, so when he (i.e. the one asked) recites it they would say, ‘I disbelieve in this one!’ This (practice) spread among the people and they differed in Qirāʾa[5]
It is in light of such an unsustainable situation that ʿUthmān took the fateful step of uniting them all upon a single Ḥarf or Qirāʾa (as contained in the standard Muṣḥaf) at the expense of all other alternatives which were destroyed.
The Egyptian jurist, al-Layth b. Saʿd (d. 175), summarizes this step as follows:
Ḥudhayfa b. al-Yamān came to ʿUthmān and said, ‘O Commander of the Faithful, I have heard the people differing in the Qur’an – a man among them says (to another), “My Ḥarf which they taught me is better than your Ḥarf!”
ʿUthmān sent (a message) to Ḥafṣa so that it, that is the Muṣḥaf (in her possession), be brought to him.
She said, ‘On the condition that you return it me’. He said, ‘Yes’.
He copied (from it) the Maṣāḥif (i.e. official copies) which he sent to the different regions, and he ordered them to dispatch to him what they have of them (i.e. their personal copies), then he ordered these to be burnt and declared, ‘Whoever keeps to himself anything of them then it (i.e. his personal copy) is stolen property (Ar. ghulūl)!’[6]
This, then, is the watershed moment when the other Aḥruf or Qirāʾāt which were being recited by the companions and which deviated from the ʿUthmānic standard became relegated to non-canonical status, surviving only in the memory of those acquainted with them as the following report illustrates:
Ḥumayda, the daughter of Abī Yūnus (a Mawla of ʿĀʾisha), states:
My father recited to me, and he was eighty years old (at the time), from the Muṣḥaf of ʿĀʾisha: inna-llāha wa-malāʾikatahū yuṣallūna ʿala n-nabiyy yā-ayyuha lladhīna āmanū ṣallū ʿalayhi wa-sallimū taslīma wa ʿala lladhīna yaṣilūna ṣ-ṣufūfa l-ūlā
Ḥumayda then adds:
This was before ʿUthmān revised (lit. changed) the Maṣāḥif[7]
The revision spoken of here refers to the Caliphal edict to destroy or erase any codex which contained wordings that differ from the standard official codex.
As, Mālik, the grandfather of the famous Mālik b. Anas (d. 179), reports:
He (i.e. ʿUthmān) wrote to the people of the different towns, ‘I have done the following: I have effaced what is with me (i.e. the Maṣāḥif accessible to me) so efface what is with you’[8]
Ibn Masʿūd’s Dissent
What was the reaction to ʿUthmān’s decision?
Unlike later portrayals of inter-companion harmony and mutual agreement, we have evidence of a very clear instance of dissent by a companion of the caliber of ʿAbdallāh b. Masʿūd (d. 32).
Khumayr b. Mālik uses the same expression as Ḥumayda above in his report:
When it was ordered that the Maṣāḥif be revised (lit. changed) this displeased ʿAbdallāh b. Masʿūd and he said, ‘Whoever among you is able to conceal (Ar. yaghlul) his Muṣḥaf then let him do it, for the one who conceals (Ar. ghalla) a thing will come with what he has concealed (Ar. ghalla) on the Day of Judgment (allusion to Q. 3:161)’[9]
Then he said, ‘I learnt seventy chapters of the Qur’an from the mouth of the Messenger of Allah when Zayd was not but a child – should I abandon what I received from the mouth of the Messenger of Allah?!’[10]
Ibn Masʿūd felt that the state was coming for his Muṣḥaf in which his Ḥarf was recorded and the only way out was to hide it so that the authorities could not get their hands on it.
The Kufan Tābiʿī, Abū Fākhita reports:
ʿUthmān sent (a message) to ʿAbdallāh (i.e. Ibn Masʿūd) that he should hand over the Muṣḥaf to him.
He (i.e. Ibn Masʿūd) said, ‘Why?’
He (i.e. the messenger) said, ‘Because the Qur’an has been written per the Ḥarf of Zayd’
He (i.e. Ibn Masʿūd) said, ‘As for (the demand) that I should give him the Muṣḥaf then I will not give it to you! And whoever is able to conceal something then he should do it!
I swear by Allah that I learnt seventy chapters from the mouth of the Messenger of Allah when Zayd was just (a child) with two side-locks playing in Medina!’[11]
Ibn Masʿūd’s evocative description of Zayd’s hairstyle as a child with ‘two side-locks’ was not coincidental but meant to cast aspersion on Zayd’s background as someone who was brought up a Jew in Medina before his conversion to Islam[12] as the following report reveals:
Someone[13] heard it being put to Ibn Masʿūd:
Will you not recite per the Qirāʾa of Zayd?
Ibn Masʿūd responds:
What do I have to do with Zayd or the Qirāʾa of Zayd?!
I took seventy chapters from the mouth of the Messenger of Allah when Zayd was a Jew with two side-locks![14]
This is the only variant throughout the whole corpus which preserves Ibn Masʿūd’s original intent, otherwise the word ‘Jew’ was censored by all other compilers in their versions.
Abū Wāʾil Shaqīq b. Salama (d. 82), a long-term disciple of Ibn Masʿūd, reports that the latter ascended the Minbar in Kufa to explain why he felt that his Ḥarf was superior:
I swear by Allah that nothing from the Qur’an was revealed except that I know for what reason it was revealed.
There is no one more knowledgeable about the Book of Allah than I, even though I am not the best of you.
If I come to know of someone who is more knowledgeable about the Book of Allah than me, living in a place which the camels can reach, I would go to him!
Abū Wāʾil comments:
So when he descended from the Minbar I sat in the different study-circles (in the Masjid) and there was no one who repudiated what he had said[15]
Indeed, Ibn Masʿūd is depicted as already opposed to the idea of imposing a single standard when the companion Ḥudhayfa (d. 36) first suggested it to him way before the official edict was passed.
Abū al-Shaʿthāʾ al-Muḥaribī (d. 82) reports that they were seated in the Masjid listening to ʿAbdallāh b. Masʿūd when Ḥudhayfa came and said:
The Qirāʾa of Ibn Umm ʿAbd (i.e. ʿAbdallāh)! The Qirāʾa of Abī Mūsā al-Ashʿarī!
I swear by Allah that if am given life until I meet the Commander of the Faithful – that is ʿUthmān – I will instruct him to make it a single Qirāʾa!’
Abū al-Shaʿthāʾ continues:
ʿAbdallāh became furious and spoke harsh words against Ḥudhayfa while Ḥudhayfa kept quiet[16]
A variant of this report preserves the ‘harsh words’ in question. It begins by quoting Ḥudhayfa who declared:
The people of Kufa say “The Qirāʾa of ʿAbdallāh!” while the people of Basra say “The Qirāʾa of Abī Mūsā!”
I swear by Allah that if I reach the Commander of the Faithful I will instruct him to drown them (i.e. the alternative codexes)!
Ibn Masʿūd responds:
I swear by Allah that if you were to do that then Allah would drown you in other than water (i.e. in fire)![17]
Being rebuked by Ibn Masʿūd did not dissuade Ḥudhayfa from his plans.
ʿAmr b. Murra al-Jamalī (d. 116) notes:
The people would deem Ḥudhayfa to be the one who acted on him (i.e. ʿUthmān) until he came up with a single Ḥarf[18]
But it would be mistaken to think that opposition to this decision was confined to Ibn Masʿūd alone.
ʿUthmān’s Assassination
A number of important but overlooked reports depict this step as one of the main grievances of the rebels who besieged the Caliph.
Juhaym al-Fihrī narrates that he was an eye-witness when ‘they’ i.e. the rebels said to ʿUthmān:
We hold against you that you made the Ḥurūf a single Ḥarf!
ʿUthmān defends himself by throwing Ḥudhayfa under the proverbial bus:
Ḥudhayfa came to me and said, ‘What are you going to do when it will be said “the Qirāʾa of so-and-so” (not) “the Qirāʾa of so-and-so” the way the People of the Book (i.e. the Jews and the Christians) have differed?’
So if it is correct (decision) then from Allah, and if it is an error then from Ḥudhayfa![19]
The junior Kufan Tābiʿī Ismāʾīl b. Abī Khālid (d. 146) reports:
When the Egyptians decamped at Juhfa rebuking ʿUthmān – ʿUthmān ascended the Minbar and said, ‘May Allah reward you evil on my behalf O companions of Muḥammad for you have publicized evil, concealed good, and instigated the foolish among men!
Which one of you will go to this group (to ask them) what grievance they have and what it is that they want?’
ʿAlī stood and said, ‘I’
ʿUthmān said, ‘You are closest to them and most deserving of that’
So he (i.e. ʿAlī) went to them.
They welcomed him and said, ‘No one would have come to us more beloved than you’
He said, ‘What is your grievance?’
They said, ‘Our grievance is that he effaced the Book of Allah, Mighty and Majestic …
ʿUthmān’s response to this grievance which is mentioned first was:
As for the Qur’an then it is from Allah.
I prohibited you because I feared dissension among you but now recite per any Ḥarf which you wish …[20]
Notice how similar ʿUthmān’s statement ‘recite per any Ḥarf which you wish’ is to the wording of many Seven Aḥruf reports. This is a clue into how the Seven Aḥruf reports were being employed at this time.
The report further indicates that ʿUthmān was even willing to go back on his initial prohibition in his negotiation with the rebels, and we are not to know whether he would have actually followed through on this if his life was not cut short soon after.
In fact, a statement repeated by the assailants when they finally invade the Caliphs’ home can be interpreted as directly related to this decision.
The senior Tābiʿī Qays b. Abī Ḥāzim (d. 97 or 98) narrates as part of a long account of the murderous episode:
The group entered, and there was no one from the companions of the prophet or their sons among them.
When they reached him they stood behind him bearing weapons and said, ‘You have transformed the Book of Allah and changed it!’
Then Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr enters the room, proceeds to grab ʿUthmān by his beard and drags him from the middle of the room to the door while saying:
You have transformed the Book of Allah and changed it O Naʿthal![21]
Controversy over ʿUthmān’s decision did not end with his death but remained a live-wire issue long after.
Sawwār b. Shabīb narrates that he entered with a group to see Ibn al-Zubayr, presumably sometime in the latter’s counter-Caliphate (64-73), in order to ask why ʿUthmān
Tore up the Maṣāḥif
At which point Ibn al-Zubayr exclaims:
Stand up and leave for you are Kharijites![22]
This must be what the Basran Tābiʿī Abū Mijlaz Lāḥiq b. Ḥumayd (d. 106) means when he states:
Look at their foolishness! They faulted ʿUthmān for tearing up the Maṣāḥif but they have found security in what he wrote for them (i.e. the standard codex)![23]
ʿAlī’s Reaction
What was ʿAlī’s reaction to ʿUthmān’s decision?
This quickly became a point of great contention, especially because many of ʿAlī’s partisans and foes saw him as anti-ʿUthmān, something that the growing ‘orthodoxy’ who portrayed all the Rāshidūn as rightly guided and sharing friendly relations felt they had to push back against.
It is therefore no surprise to find an apologetic report purporting to answer this question by depicting ʿAlī as wholly supportive of the decision and vehemently defending ʿUthmān to his Kufan followers.
Al-ʿAyzār b. Jarwal al-Tinʿī narrates:
When Mukhtār b. Abī ʿUbayd arose, we – that is, this clan[24] – were among those who hastened to (support) him.
News of this reached Suwayd b. Ghafala al-Juʿfī so he came to us in our Masjid and said, ‘O assembly of Tinʿa, you have a right over us, are related to us, and are our neighbours – it has reached me that you have hastened towards this man (i.e. Mukhtār).
I swear by Allah that I will not narrate to you except what I heard from him (i.e. Mukhtār)!’
Suwayd proceeds to narrate the following incident:
While I was walking on a road in Mecca I felt someone prodding me with a stick between my shoulders (i.e. from behind), I turned (to look) and (found that) it was al- Mukhtār b. Abī ʿUbayd.
He said to me, “What do you say, old man, about that old man?” I said, “Which old man?” He said, “ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib” I said, “What dare I say about him?! I make Allah my witness that I love him with all my hearing, sight, tongue and heart!” He said, “But I bear witness that I hate him with all my sight, tongue and heart!”
Al-ʿAyzār recalls the audience’s resentment at what Suwayd was attempting to do:
The group (assembled) said to Suwayd, ‘By Allah – you want nothing more than to discourage us from (aiding) the family of Muḥammad and to lure us to accept the ‘Incinerator of the Maṣāḥif’ (i.e. ʿUthmān)!’
Suwayd said (in response), ‘If you have spoken this then I swear by Allah that I will not narrate to you except what I heard from ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (himself)!’
They said, ‘What did you hear from him?’
It is at this point that Suwayd quotes the following speech of ʿAlī which he claims to have heard:
O people! Allah Allah (beware) of exaggerating about ʿUthmān [and do not say ‘Incinerator of the Maṣāḥif’][25] for I swear by Allah that he did not burn them except after consultation with us the companions of Muḥammad.
He (i.e. ʿUthmān) gathered us and said, ‘What do you say about Qirāʾa concerning which the people have differed? A man encounters another man and says, “My Qirāʾa is better than your Qirāʾa! My Qirāʾa is superior to your Qirāʾa!” and this is close to being Kufr (disbelief)! And if you differ today, then, those who come after you will be even more severe in difference!’
We said, ‘What, then, is the resolution O Commander of the Faithful?’
He said, ‘I resolve to gather all the people upon a single thing’
We said, ‘You have resolved correctly!’
So he (i.e. ʿUthmān) sent for Zayd b. Thābit and Saʿīd b. al-ʿĀṣ and said, ‘One of you will dictate while the other writes, and if you differ in something then refer it back to me’[26]
I swear by Allah that they did not differ except concerning a single word in the Book of Allah in Sūrat al-Baqara, one of them said “Tābūt” while the other said “Tābūh”, they referred it back to him (i.e. ʿUthmān) and he said, “It is Tābūt”
Suwayd has ʿAlī conclude his speech by stating:
I swear by Allah that if I were given to rule as he was given to rule then I would have done as he did!
Al-ʿAyzār notes the audience’s skepticism for they were not just willing to accept Suwayd’s words at face-value but made him swear an oath:
So the group said to Suwayd, ‘(Do you swear by) Allah – other than whom there is no god – that you heard this from ʿAlī?’
He (i.e. Suwayd) said, ‘(I swear by) Allah – other than whom there is no god – I did hear this from ʿAlī, peace be upon him’[27]
This report is self-consciously an anti-Mukhtār polemic in which Suwayd is attempting to convince the Tinʿīs to abandon their backing of Mukhtār.
I consider it to be apologetic, in spite of all the pious swearing, because it is very difficult to believe that Mukhtār, and even if we accept his opponents’ depiction of him as a charlatan, would be so daring as to openly reveal his true feelings about ʿAlī to someone like Suwayd who was an influential authority, especially if this was done when Mukhtār was simultaneously calling to himself on the basis of defending the Alids.
Another potential issue is that Suwayd is considered to be one of the Muʿammarūn (i.e. those who lived an unnaturally long life). If his own testimony is accepted then he was only 2 years younger than the prophet,[28] even if he is not considered a Ṣaḥābī since he never saw the prophet and supposedly only reached Medina on the day when they were burying the prophet in the year 11.[29]
Now Suwayd is said to have died in the year 82,[30] this would mean that he lived for approximately 132 years![31] He would have been 116 years old when attempting to convince the Tinʿīs to abandon Mukhtār whose uprising began in 66. Can we trust the mental faculty of a 116 years old person attempting to remember a speech ʿAlī gave more than 25 years earlier?!
Sensitive to questions surrounding his longevity, Sunni works of narrator criticism include testimony lauding his undiminished physical and mental prowess, attempting to portray how capable he was even at such an advanced age. Thus, a report has him leading the lengthy nightly prayers in the month of Ramadan when he was 120![32] Another report has him deflowering a virgin in the last year of his life![33]
But such testimony notwithstanding, there is every reason to doubt the historicity of Suwayd’s attribution of these words to Ali[34] even if the report does inadvertently reveal the height of emotion against ʿUthmān’s decision, confirming that the label ‘Incinerator of the Maṣāḥif’ was being used for him by a significant proportion of the Kufan Shia.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, a report found in an early Shīʿī work depicts ʿAlī’s reaction to ʿUthmān’s decision as being wholly negative.
ʿAbd al-Malik, a son of Abū Dharr al-Ghiffārī, narrates:
The Commander of the Faithful (i.e. ʿAlī) summoned me on the day that ʿUthmān had the Maṣāḥif torn up and said, ‘Call your father!’
My father (i.e. Abū Dharr) came to him in haste.
He (i.e. ʿAlī) said, ‘O Abā Dharr! A grave thing has occurred in Islam on this day!
The Book of Allah has been torn up and iron has been used for it.
It is only right for Allah to inflict iron upon the one who tears up his Book with iron![35]
Thus ʿAlī predicts ʿUthmān’s death by the sword as a consequence of what he did to the Book of Allah.
Is Banana Mentioned in the Qur’an?
There exists an extremely significant report which potentially reveals ʿAlī’s attitude to the ʿUthmānic standard and its integrity.
First, consider this passage in Q. 56:27-31 which describes the pleasures of Paradise that the Aṣḥāb al-Yamīn will enjoy:
And the companions of the right; what of the companions of the right? [27] Amidst thornless lote trees [28] Ranged ṭalḥ [29] Extended shade [30] Flowing water
The word طَلْحٍ (ṭalḥ) appears only this one time in the whole Qur’an and caused some consternation as to its exact identity.
The early exegete Qatāda (d. 118) says:
It would be narrated to us that it is the banana tree[36]
Ibn Wahb quotes his teacher Mālik b. Anas (d. 179) as saying:
I heard that it is the banana tree[37]
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Zayd b. Aslam (d. 182) comments:
Allah knows best – but the people of Yemen refer to the banana tree as ṭalḥ[38]
We would not expect such hesitation if we were dealing with something that was common knowledge.
Nevertheless, that ṭalḥ means the banana tree became the predominant view among the exegetes and statements to this effect are attributed to a number of early authorities including Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī, Abū Hurayra, Ibn ʿAbbās, ʿAlī, Mujāhid, ʿAṭāʾ, and Qasāma.[39]
But the hesitation we’ve seen is more than justified when we shift to the opinions of early grammarians and philologists who reveal that they had not encountered such usage among the Arabs.
Khalil b. Ahmad (d. ca. 175) says:
Ṭalḥ is the acacia tree. Its thorns are bent. It is that species of the ʿiḍāh (spiniferous trees) which is the largest in its thorns, the hardest in respect of its wood, and the best in respect of its gum. Its singular is ṭalḥa. The ṭalḥ in the Qur’an is the banana tree[40]
Al-Farrāʾ (d. 207) says:
al-Kalbī mentioned that it (i.e. ṭalḥ) is banana. It is also said that it is the ṭalḥ which is well-known to you (i.e. acacia)[41]
Abū ʿUbayda Maʿmar b. al-Muthannā (d. 209) states:
The exegetes asserted that it is the banana tree, but as for the Arabs then ṭalḥ for them is a huge tree with a lot of thorns
Abū ʿUbayda proceeds to quote a pre-Islamic poet as proof:
Her guide gave her the good news and said
tomorrow you will see ṭalḥ and the flowers[42]
Al-Zajjāj (d. 311) states:
It has come in the Tafsīr that ṭalḥ is the banana tree, but ṭalḥ is also the acacia tree, and it is permitted for this (latter) tree to be meant (i.e. in the Qur’an), because it has flowers which are very pleasant in odour[43]
Al-Naḥḥās (d. 338) states:
The Arabs know ṭalḥ to be a tree with a lot of thorns … the exegetes (on the other hand) say that ṭalḥ is banana.
I heard ʿAlī b. Sulaymān say, ‘It is possible that this (i.e. ṭalḥ being banana) is among that which the experts on the Gharīb (rare terms) did not transmit down (to us), and the names of plants are exceedingly plentiful such that the linguists say, “It is not held against someone who errs in the names of plants because of their plentitude”’[44]
But even if we accept that this was a rare usage which for whatever reason did not come down to the linguists, how is the Qur’an using a term to mean one thing, when most Arabs from the earliest of times took it to mean something else entirely?
One explanation that accounts for the rise of this alternative identification of ṭalḥ as the exotic banana tree is the exegetes’ sensitivity towards the perceived flaws of the acacia and the implausibility of it being found in Paradise.
After all, the acacia tree is devoid of edible fruits and is known for its thorns which can cause injury to a careless handler, not something one expects to encounter in Paradise!
Thus al-Zajjāj is forced to defend his preferred interpretation by saying:
It is permitted for it to be in Paradise with its thorns removed[45]
But if this is the case then it is certainly strange that this has not been made explicit in the Qur’an, especially because the preceding verse (no. 28) does so for the lote tree!
However, even the banana tree is not free of its own problems, with detractors noting that it has a temporary life-cycle, does not have a sturdy trunk and barely provides any shade, something which is incongruent with the subsequent verse (no. 30)!
It is after noting the problems with both acacia and banana that we move on to an intriguing report preserved in the Sunni corpus.
The great exegete al-Ṭabarī (d. 310) transmits the following report from the Tābiʿī Qays b. ʿUbād (d. after 80):
A man recited in the presence of ʿAlī – wa ṭalḥin manḍūd
ʿAlī said, ‘What does ṭalḥ have to do with it? Rather it is wa ṭalʿin manḍūd’
Then he recited ‘wa nakhlin ṭalʿuhā haḍīm’ (26:148)
So we said, ‘Shouldn’t we change it?’
He said, ‘The Qur’an is not to be disturbed today or changed’[46]
We see that ʿAlī deemed طَلْعٍ to be the correct word as opposed to طَلْحٍ
The transformation of the last letter from a ḥa to an ʿayn changes everything since ṭalʿ unlike ṭalḥ is a word that appears more than once in the Qur’an.
Ṭalʿ are the clusters of dates (fruits of the date-palm tree), 12 of which can be counted in the image below:
The well-known philologist and grammarian, Ibn al-Anbārī (d. 328), narrated a variant of this report in his now-lost Kitab al-Maṣāḥif as quoted by al-Qurṭubī (d. 671):
Qays b. ʿUbād said: I recited in the presence of ʿAlī, or it was recited in the presence of ʿAlī [the doubt is from the sub-narrator Mujālid] – wa ṭalḥin manḍūd
So ʿAlī said, ‘What does ṭalḥ have to do with it? Will you not recite it as wa ṭalʿin?’
Then he recited, ‘lahā ṭalʿun naḍīd’ (50:10)
It was said to him, ‘Should we efface it from the Muṣḥaf – O Commander of the Faithful?’
He said, ‘The Qur’an is not disturbed today’[47]
In each of the two reports above, ʿAlī adduces a parallel verse (Q. 26:148 & Q. 50:10 respectively) to support his case.
Consider these verses side by side incorporating ʿAlī’s proposed emendation for Q. 56:29:
|
Q. 26:148
|
وَزُرُوعٍ وَنَخْلٍ طَلْعُهَا هَضِيمٌ
wa-zurūʿin wa-nakhlin ṭalʿuhā haḍīm And cornfields and date-palm trees whose clusters are interwoven |
|
Q. 50:10 |
وَالنَّخْلَ بَاسِقَاتٍ لَّهَا طَلْعٌ نَّضِيدٌ wa-n-nakhla bāsiqātin lahā ṭalʿun naḍīd And lofty date-palm trees having clusters arranged |
| Q. 56:29 |
وَطَلْعٍ مَنْضُودٍ wa-ṭalʿin manḍūd Ranged clusters |
The concordance between Q. 50:10 and Q. 56:29 is especially striking because the adjectives used to describe the ṭalʿ or date clusters in the two different verses are two forms of the same root-word: naḍīd and manḍūd
When we note how miraculously one part of the Qur’an explicates another then we have a very strong case for there being a mistake in the Muṣḥaf at Q. 56:29.
And this is what the audience listening to ʿAlī understood from his words, proceeding to ask him if he would do something to correct it.
Emending the Qur’an
Now this report was problematic for obvious reasons, after all, positing a mistake in the ʿUthmānic standard quickly became heresy and an interpretation to explain away this report had to be found.
This is Ibn al-Anbārī’s attempt:
The meaning of this (report) is that he (i.e. ʿAlī) returned back to what is found in the Muṣḥaf and realized that it is correct, and he recanted what had unthinkingly escaped him in his statement[48]
According to Ibn al-Anbārī, by refusing to correct the Muṣḥaf ʿAlī had acknowledged that he was mistaken in proposing an alternative wording, but this is not the sense one gets from the report.
It is highly presumptuous to imagine that ʿAlī did not know what is found in the Muṣḥaf in the first place, nor can one accuse ʿAlī of a slip of tongue and a lack of propriety when it comes to the Qur’an!
Furthermore, a careful consideration of ʿAlī’s words shows that he was not rejecting the possibility of correction outright, only that this would be inappropriate ‘today’. The fact that ʿAlī entertains this possibility is very significant and a probable insight into his thinking will be given in the next section.
Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr (d. 463) takes a different approach, beginning by confirming that ʿAlī did indeed recite it in this way:
As for wa-ṭalʿin manḍūd then that is how ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib and Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad recited it. This (recitation) has been narrated from ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib via Ṣaḥīḥ and Mutawātir chains[49]
As for ʿAlī’s statement, ‘It is not appropriate for the Qur’an to be disturbed’, Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr understands it to mean:
It is not appropriate for it (i.e. the Qur’an) to be changed since it (i.e. ṭalḥ) is permissible (to be recited) among (the versions) per which the Qur’an was revealed, even if ʿAlī would prefer other than it among (the versions) per which the Qur’an was also revealed[50]
Thus, the reason ʿAlī did not change the wording is because the Qur’an came down with both versions (per the Seven Aḥruf reports), saying ṭalʿ one time and ṭalḥ the other, both can therefore be recited, even if they have very different meanings.
Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr also reiterates what he had argued as part of his larger discussion which is that a companion like ʿAlī could have personal preference for one wording (ṭalʿ in this case) out of the equally legitimate and divine wordings, but that should not cast doubt on any of the other wordings.
The problem with this seemingly neat solution is that it has to be read into the report, for the report when read in isolation shows no awareness of the possibility of both wordings being equally valid, indeed ʿAlī’s tone is quite flippant which is not something we would expect if he felt the alternative wording was also divinely revealed.
Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr’s variant also misses the important word ‘today’ which implies that ʿAlī could have changed it if only the standardization had not already been put into effect.
Both these interpretations are seen to be ultimately unsatisfactory and perhaps there was no other option than to reject the report wholly.
Thus the Muʿtazilī exegete al-Ḥākim al-Jishumī (d. 494) states:
These reports are Akhbār Āḥād (solitary reports) the like of which cannot be used to determine the (text of the) Qur’an.
How could ʿAlī have said that when all the Maṣāḥif have it as ḥā?!
And the Muṣḥaf of ʿAlī also has it as ḥā!
And this is the consensus of all the reciters in the verse.
So we can be certain that this is not authentic from al-Ḥasan and ʿAlī.
A remote possibility is to re-interpret it to mean that he (i.e. ʿAlī) was clarifying that it is permissible if recited that way[51]
al-Ḥākim al-Jishumī considers the report to be Āḥād (solitary), but I have already quoted Ibn Abd al-Barr’s assessment that it is Mutawātir to Ali. Furthermore, al-Ḥākim does not have access to the Muṣḥaf of ʿAlī to know what is found in it or not![52]
The near-contemporary scholar al-Ālūsī (d. 1270) comments:
This report is not Ṣaḥīḥ as was pointed out by al-Ṭībī.
How can the Commander of the Faithful, may Allah the Exalted honour his face, acknowledge the occurrence of Taḥrīf in the Book of Allah the Exalted which is circulating among the people?!
How can he suppose that the previous transmitters of the Qur’an, its narrators, and its scribes did this either deliberately or by mistake?!
This, after Allah the Exalted has guaranteed to protect it (i.e. the Qur’an)!
Surely this is a mighty slander![53]
There is no real argument to be found here apart from emotive protestation.
Not Today
What lies behind ʿAlī’s statement that the Qur’an is not to be changed ‘today’?
After all, if the previous Caliph had canonized a standard and imposed it upon the Umma, after rejecting the many Aḥruf that were floating around at the time in favour of one, then what prevents the new Caliph from making minor modifications to that standard?
This is a legitimate question which Ibn al-Anbārī raises, arguing that if ʿAlī made no changes to the Qur’an, as is historically demonstrable, then this must mean that he had no qualms with the ʿUthmānic standard whatsoever.
Here is a quotation of his from the now-lost Kitāb al-Maṣāḥif as preserved by al-Maqrīzī (d. 845) in the context of discussing the additional wording in Q. 103 – wa-l-ʿaṣr wa nawāʾib al-dahr innal-insāna la-fī khusr – that was attributed to ʿAlī:
When the Caliphate transferred to ʿAlī after ʿUthmān, and he became the Imam of the Muslims and their leader, and if he knew that wa-l-ʿaṣr in the Muṣḥaf of ʿUthmān which he (i.e. ʿUthmān) had united the Muslims upon is missing wa nawāʾib al-dahr he would not have permitted a mistake to remain in the Muṣḥaf and for there to be (in it) missing words whose absence causes the reward of a reciter to be reduced and the meaning intended by Allah to be lost.
So the very fact that ʿAlī left wa-l-ʿaṣr in the Maṣāḥif of the Muslims as is, knowing no other, is an evidence that the one who narrated wa-l-ʿaṣr wa nawāʾib al-dahr has lied or erred …
In addition, ʿAlī used to lead the Muslims in Ṣalāt al-Maghrib, Ṣalāt al-ʿIshāʾ and Ṣalāt al-Ṣubḥ, and he used to recite the Qur’an and the people behind him would be listening to his recitation.
So if he had differed with ʿUthmān, Abū Bakr and ʿUmar in a single word or more – the people would have rushed to ask him about it, and to accept it from him, and to change their Maṣāḥif to it in his presence, but when they heard his recitation throughout his Caliphate, and did not encounter any strange word, and did not change anything of the Muṣḥaf based on what they heard from him, then this is the evidence that the Qirāʾa of ʿAlī is the Qirāʾa of Abī Bakr, ʿUmar and ʿUthmān …
If they (i.e. the people) would have encountered in it (i.e. ʿAlī’s recitation) an additional word or a dropped phrase they would have asked ʿAlī about it and would have recorded it in the Maṣāḥif as per his directive and what he orders to be inscribed (in writing), because of his high station and elevated rank …[54]
The critical flaw with Ibn al-Anbārī’s line of reasoning is to imagine that ʿAlī had the political power to stamp his authority and impose a correction on the whole Umma.
As opposed to the lofty words that Ibn al-Anbārī uses to describe the Muslims’ high-view of ʿAlī, in reality, the rule of ʿAlī was a period of intense civil war almost throughout, beginning with the significant rebellion by important companions like ʿĀʾisha, Ṭalḥa and Zubayr and ending with large swathes of territory ruled by the governor Muʿāwiya who held ʿAlī to be responsible for ʿUthmān’s murder.
To suppose that ʿAlī would have the backing to impose a revised standard that would be accepted by all Muslims is folly of the highest order. A standard had been canonized in the untroubled times before the first Fitna, reopening the question in a period of internal strife would only harm Islam since any such attempt by ʿAlī would likely lead to there being rival standards, thereby causing an irreparable rift among the Muslims.
Consider the reaction when ʿAlī attempted something as minor as putting a stop to the innovation of superegatory congregational prayers during the month of Ramaḍān.
A direct descendent of ʿAlī, Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq (d. 148), reports:
When the Commander of the Faithful came to Kufa he ordered al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī to announce to the people that there is no prayers to be performed in the mosques in congregation during the month of Ramaḍān.
Al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī announced to the people what the Commander of the Faithful had ordered him to, but when the people heard what al-Ḥasan had said they began shouting, “O ʿUmar! O ʿUmar!”
When al-Ḥasan returned to the Commander of the Faithful, he (i.e. Ali) asked him, ‘What is this noise?’ He (i.e. al-Ḥasan) said, ‘The people are shouting, “O ʿUmar! O ʿUmar!”’
Then the Commander of the Faithful said, ‘Say to them, “Pray”’[55]
The same idea is advocated in that early polemical tract, Kitāb Sulaym, which has ʿAlī saying in a speech:
The rulers who came before me performed some acts in which they contravened the Messenger of Allah, deliberately seeking to contravene him, breeching his trust, and changing his Sunna.
If I had prompted the people to abandon these, and transformed them back to their appropriate places and to how they were in the time of the Messenger of Allah – my army would disperse from me until I remain alone or with only a few of my Shia …
ʿAlī proceeds to list numerous innovations and incorrect policies which he ideally wanted to correct during his rule but for which he lacked popular support, before concluding with this example:
I swear by Allah that I instructed the people not to congregate in the month of Ramaḍān except for the obligatory prayer, and I informed them that their congregating for the superegatory is an innovation, so some of the soldiers who would fight for me began calling out, ‘O people of Islam, the Sunna of ʿUmar has been changed! He prohibits us from praying in the month of Ramaḍān!’ to the extent that I feared a part of my army would revolt …[56]
If such was the reaction when attempting to change a recommended practise then what of an attempt to emend the text of the Qur’an?!
Whither the Ḥarf of ʿAlī?
If it has been demonstrated that ʿAlī had his own rendering of certain verses (i.e. his Ḥarf) then what happened to it?
Was it lost like those of other companions whose Aḥruf did not make it into the ʿUthmānic standard?
In the next and final installment I will argue that ʿAlī inscribed his Ḥarf in the first Muṣḥaf of Islam which he presented to Abū Bakr for adoption immediately after the death of the prophet but which was rejected.
But this does not mean that this Muṣḥaf was lost to time!
It can be shown that this document was passed down to his descendants who did quote from it at times and their transmission has reached us.
Consider the following report:
Yaʿqūb b. Shuʿayb narrates:
I said to Abī ʿAbdillāh – wa-ṭalḥin manḍūd?
He said: No, rather it is – ṭalʿin manḍūd[57]
This is a striking correspondence between the Sunni and Shia corpus.
But even more striking is how the Alid Imams viewed the Ḥarf of Ali in relation to the Seven Aḥruf reports!
Their radical theory has not been factored into scholarly discussions on this topic until now.
To be continued …
Footnotes
Shiitic Studies 