For any piece of writing, coherence between the preceding and succeeding lines within a paragraph and the organization of different parts have a seminal role to play. When this belief gets credence that the Qur’an that we have today is different from the version of the Prophet that some of his Great Companions had compiled according to the information available to them, it naturally paved the way for the potential problem encountered by Jurists and exegetes arising out of the arrangement of lines in different orders. The source of the debates relating to the abrogator and the abrogated, and the occasion of revelation of verses is basically inherent in this notion. And as the understanding of a definitive entity like the Qur’an through the means of a fictive (zinni) tool like history could have created immense possibilities of needless debates, the Qur’anic sciences and the books of exegesis became a fertile ground for unnecessary, non-Qur’anic and mythological debates. This belief gained currency that if we could determine the correct order of verses and that of surahs in the Qur’anic Text, and all the historical controversies regarding it can be converged on one point, then the Qur’an would be able to guide us in the way it had guided Prophet’s Companions in an earlier age. In other words, through these traditions, the notion of a hidden Qur’an made its place in our conceptual world. Among the Shias, the notion of the so-called text of Ali travelled from generation to generation until it disappeared at the hands of the hidden imam (imam-e ghaib). And their imams and thinkers exhorted them to manage with the Othmanic version. The Ahl-e Sunnat Wal-Jama’t does not believe in any lost text on principle. Nevertheless the Sunni thought structure that is formed through the traditions in the Sahah Sitta, the books of exegesis and the Qur’anic sciences, is somehow undercut by this supposed defect of the Othmanic version. Here, the difference between the original version and the Othmanic version may not be as glaring as in the case of the Shias. However, this has to be accepted that those who consider the traditions reported by Shahab Zahri found in Bukhari and Tirmizi as genuine, should consider the current Qur’anic Text only as the ‘Siddiqi version’ or the ‘Othmanic version’ the defects of which have been drawn attention to at places in the same traditions.

Leave aside the common people who treat the Sahah Sitta as oracles, and their attitude towards the interpretation of the ancients is one of reverence, even servility. However, if a leader of Islam like Ibn Taimia appears to be a victim of such misconceptions, one realizes the gravity of the situation. In one of his edicts, he clearly mentioned that in the compilation of the surahs in the Qur’an, ijtihad rather than nass (text from which the law is derived/ a textual ruling) had a role to play. He also claimed that the majority of the scholars of Hambali, Shafi’i and Maliki schools had the same view. As regards the current Othmanic version, one had to follow this, as the Prophet’s Companions agreed on this, and following the tradition laid down by the Sahabas is obligatory (wajib). Nevertheless according to him, for the purposes of analysis, interpretation or getting access to meaning and significance of the verses, it is not essential for anyone to stick to the arrangement in the current version[1].   Taking this view of the Imam as true would amount to putting the seal of approval on the misdirected notion of a hidden version of the Qur’an. The logical and immediate step after this should be to search out the version with the original arrangement of the surahs. For the sake of elucidation and interpretation, if it is allowed to change the order of sentences/ surahs in the current version, and it paves the way for a newer understanding of the Qur’an, then it can be said with confidence that the search for the original arrangement would help us in accessing meaning of the Qur’an that would prove its definitiveness. A certain confidence that would certainly go beyond the arrangement of the verses and the surahs in a certain order. But the problem is that, according to Muhammad, “I instructed Akrama to arrange it according to the chronological order of revelation. At this, Akrama replied – if all human beings and Jinns come together and ask me to do this, even then it would be beyond my ability to do so.”[2]

These notions have kept the thinkers and the exegetes busy searching for the supposed original Qur’an. The Orientalists had taken upon themselves the responsibility of compiling a new Qur’an different samples of which have been presented in the name of historical criticism by them from time to time. The Muslim thinkers and exegetes have done the same job in the name of organizing the surahs of the Qur’anic Text in accordance with the chronology and the site of revelation. To provide a possible historical and social context and to formulate rules and regulations according to them is, in fact, an effort at organizing the text according to revelation. It would not be possible for the exegetes to unravel the complex configurations of meaning without first resolving this issue.

Once the Divine Revelation was accepted as the ‘Othmanic collection’ or the ‘Othmanic version’, it left the door open for the conjecture that the form in which it has come to us also incorporates the editorial and organizational intervention of the later generations. It was claimed that as the Othmanic version was devoid of points and diacritical marks, countless errors had crept into the way it was read.[3]  Thus, to start with, about two thousand errors were alleged to have been removed at the instruction of Zayd (d. 67 H.E.).[4]  The next person to try his hand on the already corrected Qur’anic Text was Hajjaj bin Yusuf who is supposed to have corrected at least eleven very obvious errors[5]. It was also claimed that at the instance of Hajjaj bin Yusuf, Nazr bin Amir embellished the text with points and other diacritical marks.[6]  According to these traditions, the story of human interventions on the Divine Revelation does not stop here. To take the task to its logical conclusion, the character of Abul Aswal Al Daula was brought to the fore. Beside him, the names of Yahya bin Ya’mar (d.39 H.E.), Nasr bin Asim Al Laisi (d. 89 H.E.) also cropped up in connection with the compilation and elucidation of the text.[7]  Despite the presence of hadith alluding to the Qur’an as a text equipped with diacritical marks in the books of traditions, the idea that the Qur’an was devoid of points and diacritical marks was accepted and it was asserted that Abul Aswad was led to undertake the task because of the erroneous reading of the Qur’an by people. For instance, a person was heard to read the verse – ان الله برى من المشركين ورسوله [8], that totally distorted the intended meaning of the verse, that is, to be accountable neither to the polytheists nor to the Prophet. In other words, there was enough scope for such semantic distortions in the Othmanic version, and Abul Aswad was brought on the scene to rectify these. The question still remains that human intellect and wisdom, even if it reaches its uttermost limit, can never attain the status of a sacred text. Thus the supposed intervention by human compilers and linguists left this open to conjecture as to how fallible these interventions were. Then if something as hallowed as the Divine Revelation is mediated to the people through an evil personality and an oppressor like Hajjaj, then its authenticity becomes a big question mark by itself, as history presents us the image of Hajjaj as an extremely unreliable person. Some people even had no qualms in declaring him a Kafir.[9] One consequence of bringing down the grandeur of the Divine Word to the level of a version by Hajjaj was that even respectable people were invaded by doubts and misgivings about the certitude of the Qur’an. Some people reached the conclusion that the Qur’an as it was revealed to the Prophet had undergone the process of annulment and distortion in his own lifetime. And in the later years, if it had emerged as a definitive text, then its only witness was Abdullah bin Masu’d.[10]  In some traditions, this position was given to Zayd bin Sabit.[11]  Even this was said that he was with the Prophet when it was taking its final shape under the supervision of Gabriel. The participation of Zayd bin Sabit, to some extent, gives credibility to the Othmanic version, but the reference to Abdullah bin Masu’d robs it of any credibility as his disagreements regarding the Othmanic version have been recorded in details in the books of history and traditions. Then, is the definitive text of the Qur’an of the later stage, different editions of which are attributed to different companions of the Prophet in the books of history, is still beyond our reach? Our interpretive literature gives such an impression about the Divine Revelation.

The so-called ‘Othmanic Text’ whose supposed defects have been dealt with so far in considerable details has, according to the learned exegetes, remained a controversial version, both historically and ideologically. A famous but fabricated tradition has played an important role in rendering this version suspect in the eyes of the people. Apart from Bukhari, Muslim and other books of traditions, it has found place even in Muwatta  Imam Malik. According to this tradition, the Prophet said: انزل القران على سبعة احرف فاقروا ماتيسرمنه .A group of religious scholars say that in the Siddiqi version, the Divine Revelation was preserved in all its grandeur, i.e., it was preserved in seven levels (ahraf).[12] However, in the period of Othman, because of serious disagreement among people, the Prophet’s companions were compelled to organise the Qur’an on only one level (haraf).[13] The second group of scholars opine that as the Othmanic version was devoid of points and diacritical marks, it was possible to read or interprete it in all the seven potential ways, with the seven level intact.[14] If so, has the consensus of the Prophet’s Companions in the Othmanic period or in the later days the intervention of linguists, resulted in the loss of six levels of the Qur’an? Well, the logical implication of giving credence to the tradition relating to the preservation of the seven levels cannot be this only. Some scholars strike a middle path. They say that the remaining six levels of the Qur’an has not been lost, but are there inherent in the current text, but we cannot pin them down with any degree of certainty.[15] We feel that these three conjectures, even if they accept the fact of the remaining six levels being lost or being retrievable, point to the loss of a significant segment of the Qur’an. To accept this view would mean our loss of faith in the inviobality and absolute purity of the Qur’an.

Ibn Jareer Tabari has dealt with the concept of  سيعة احرفin considerable detail. He reached the conclusion that the six other levels of the Qur’an were interchangeable with the first. When the people accepted one level consensually, the remaining six levels became redundant.[16] According to him, just as in the case of a minor penance, one can choose among a number of actions like freeing a slave, feeding ten destitute or making a gift of clothes to them, in the same way, to stay in the way of faith it is enough if one chooses one among the seven levels. But Tabari’s view did not stop the floodgates of interpretations regarding the seven levels. Almost every interpreter of the Qur’an and exegete considered it his duty to jump into the fray. Even after fourteen centuries, our exegetes even today are unable to explain what the seven levels really are. The disagreement among the ulama on this issue recorded in the books of exegesis would make it clear that not only the debate has remained inconclusive, but it has left a trail of grave doubts about the ‘reductive’ nature of the current Qur’anic Text, and the preservation of both the Word and the meaning in it.

We have already discussed in the earlier chapters, with reference to the mystic interpreters of Torah, how the Jewish scholars had divided the Divine Revelation on the Mount Sinai into light and voice. It was said that the light stood for the written Torah whereas voice stood for the oral Torah. It was also asserted that every letter revealed or every voice heard on Mount Sinai had 70 dimensions or levels, on the basis of which there could be 70 interpretations of the Divine Revelation[17].  The simultaneous and multiple interpretation of Divine Revelation was an activity through which one could introduce variations or new elements in it easily. The Jewish scholars who had created a strong barrier of interpretive literature around Torah were quite adept in the process of the art indicated in يكتبون الكتاب بايديهم. We feel that those who propagated the idea of the revelation of the Qur’an on seven levels or those among us who tried to give this notion respectability by presenting this statement as that of the Prophet, may not have been totally unaware of similar interpretations in the cases of the earlier divine texts. If one takes a look at the differing and contradictory views presented in the exegetical literature of Islam that has become a part of our cultural inheritance, one soon realizes that these traditions are foregrounded on the dilution and distortion of Divine Revelation. To accept them would amount to reducing a hallowed text like the Qur’an to the level of a plaything for children.

According to Zohar’s Sufic interpretation, every letter in the revelation on Moses could be divided into 70 voices. In our case also, there is a ‘continuous’ tradition attributed to Ibn Masu’d, where it is said that the earlier texts or scrolls were revealed through a ‘single door’; as opposed to this, the Qur’an was revealed through seven doors and on seven levels, and they are: zajir (predictions), amir (ruler) halal (permissible), haram (forbidden), muhkam (inherently clear, and not susceptible to abrogation), mutashabih (Equivocal and ambiguous; susceptible to different interpretations because of lack of precedent in usage) and imsaal (parables).[18] Even though this traditions did not gain the approval of the scholars of traditions, but such denigrating efforts point to the fact as to how the fanciful accounts of the seven interchangeable levels, i.e., seven sets of interchangeable Divine Revelations were fabricated in an effort to distort and change a sanctified book like the Qur’an. It was said that in the Qur’anic revelations, the status of the words is not absolute and final. As it was revealed on seven levels, one word can very well be replaced by one of its synonyms that would make no difference. For example, a group of ulama said that any word out of a list that contains ‘aqbal’, ‘hallam’ and ‘ta’al’ could be used interchangeably. It makes no difference if one uses ‘asra’h’ in place of ‘a’jl’, and that if anyone uses ‘amhal’ in place of ‘unzur’ or ‘akhkhar’ in the Qur’an, it would mean the same.[19]  However, Tabari reminds us of the only caveat that relates to the Prophet’s instruction to Omar. The Prophet is reported to have said: “O Omar, you can use any sort of word in the Qur’an on the condition that you do not change the word ‘rahmat’ with ‘azab’ and ‘azab’ with ‘rahmat’.[20]  The concept of ‘seven levels’ has reduced the Qur’an from the status of the Divine Word to a text that should be read only for the meaning. Some ulama even expressed the view that in the reading of a verse, if there is change in the meaning of the text because of change in the diacritical marks, it did not really matter, because the reading would still be within the purview of the seven levels. For example, it was said that if the verse – فتلقى آدم من ربه كلمة فتاب عليه (Al Baqara: 27) is read as –  فتلقى آدم من ربه كلمة فتاب عليه , both the readings would be considered as valid.[21]  As there was a great probability to read ‘وعلمون’ as ‘تعلمون’ in the versions without points and diacritical marks, this kind of readings were also sought to be validated with the argument of the ‘seven levels’.[22] Similarly, in the verse –  والذين هم لاامانتهم واهديهم راعون (Al Muminoon: 8), it was considered permissible to read the word  لاامانتهمin the singular as لا امانتهم.[23]  If one wanted to read the Qur’an in the lingo of his tribe by interchanging synonyms, for example, كالفراش المبثوث for كالعهن المنفوش (Al Qareah), this was also sought to be approved through taking recourse to the seven levels.[24] At times, even the copyist’s errors and the misreading born out of the absence of diacritical marks were also considered permissible. For example, it was considered valid to read وطلح منضود (Al Waqeah: 29) as وطلح منضود.[25] It was said with reference to Imam Malik that he continued to read ‘فمضوالى ذكرالله’ in place of ‘fasu’a’ in the verse 9 of the surah Jum’a.[26]   Similarly, such readings where changing the order of sentences do not effect any significant change in the meaning were also considered permissible. For example, in the verse – يقاتلون فى سبيل الله فيقتلون ويقاتلون (Al Tauba: 111), if one changes the order of فيقتلون and  يقاتلون, then, according to the interpretation of seven levels, it does not make any difference.[27]  About a less-known reading, it was claimed with reference to Abu Bakr that he used to read the verse – وجاء ت سكرة الموت بالحق (Qaf: 19) as  وجاء ت سكرة الحق بالموت.[28] As to the question of the use of preposition, such Qur’anic readings, as the addition of ‘من’ before the phrase ‘تحتهاالانهار’ in the verse – جنت تجرى تحتهاالأنهار (Tauba: 100) were accepted quite liberally as within the ambit of the seven levels of interpretation, and such multiple readings of the Qur’an were claimed to be validated by ‘continous traditions’ (mutawaterah), and in accordance with the Othmanic text.[29]