[1] the misconception about the tradition regarding “سبعة احرف” as being a reputed one having a continuous chain of transmitters thrived because of an event recorded for the first time by Abu Ya’la Mausli (d. 207 H.E.) in his book, المسند الكبير. As a result of constant reporting and copying by people it had assumed a dimension of a ‘continuous’ tradition. The event has been described as follows: Once, during his discourse from the pulpit in the Prophet’s mosque, Othman had declared “I want all those who have heard the tradition regarding ‘ سبعة احرفfrom the Prophet himself to swear by Allah.” In reply such a large number of the Prophet's Companions stood up to bear witness to the tradition that it was difficult to count them. At this Othman said, “I have also heard the tradition from the Prophet.” In this event, the fact that a large number of the Prophet's Companions stood up right in the Prophet’s mosque presented such a spectacle that could be cited as an evidence of the tradition being authentic and continuous. However, if one investigates into the real incident, the entire account will be found to fall in the category of “artificial continuity” (tawatur masnu’i). One thing, the account of so many of the Prophet's Companions standing up to bear witness regarding this tradition comes to us for the first time in the 3^rd century H.E. through the writing of an author. Apart from this, reliable books of history and reports are devoid of any reference to this event, so much so that the editors of Sahah also do not make any reference to this significant event. Of course, they have recorded this tradition in their books from other sources. Thus, there seems to be no reason why they should ignore this event of collective corroboration by the Prophet's Companions. One comes across references to this discourse by Othman in the books of reports wherein he stressed the importance of removing the prevalent disagreements regarding the Quranic Text, at the time of victory in Armenia. It is said that as a consequence of his initiative that the Othmanic version, i.e., the current version of the Quranic Text came into being. This event cannot be considered reliable on the parameters of both reporting (rawayat) and  intuition (darayat). We have already demonstrated in the last chapter, through internal evidence in the Qur'an and historical facts, that before the Othmanic period the Qur'an had already come into existence as a Book under the supervision of the Prophet himself. As to the question that seeing much disagreement among people regarding the Quranic Text Othman asked people to bear witness in public to the fact that according to the Prophet’s own admission the Qur'an was revealed on seven levels, this claim runs counter to the same traditions because in them it has been claimed that Othman’s distinction lay in the fact that by removing disagreements on the Qur'an and the Quranic Text, he brought people together on one level. The following statement by Ali is also proferred in supporting this supposed initiative by Othman: لاتقولوا فى عثمان الاخيرا فوالله مافعل الذى فعل فى المصاحف الا عن ملامنا… (Kitab Al-Musahif Al-Ibn Abi Dawood, p. 22, Egypt, 1355 H.E., and Fathul Bari, Vol. 9, p. 15). It passes understanding how a person who has been alleged to have done away with six levels, can be credited with taking people’s evidence regarding the fact that the Quranic Text contains seven levels, because this would go against his stance. Othman’s supposed discourse regarding the compilation of the Qur'an cannot be considered reliable for the additional reason that the timeline described in the tradition is inconsistent.  The victory of Armenia pertains to the period after 25 H.E., and in the discourse by Othman reported by Ibn Abi Dawood, Othman is purported to have said, “O my people, it is just thirteen years that the Prophet has departed from us, and you have started disputes on the Quranic Text!” the period of thirteen years after the death of the Prophet was to be completed on the martyrdom of Othman. Granted that in his address while holding the office of the caliph, Othman might refer to the period of 13 years; however, the victory of Armenia which, according to the historians, took place between 25 H.E. and 30 H.E. can, in no way, be put back to 23 H.E. This is the state of affairs so far as the claim to ‘continuity’ and historical authenticity are concerned. Besides, if one undertakes a comparative and critical study of the traditions related to this event, their inconsistency casts a shadow of doubt on their authenticity.

First of all, it must be pointed out that Shahab Zahri figures in the chain of transmitters of both the reports regarding “سبعة احرف” in Bukhari. His unreliability as a transmitter may not have been apparent to the compilers of Sahah Sitta but the later researches have cast serious doubts on him. We have already drawn attention to the fact that in the books of traditions Shahab Zahri remains the main source of many of the controversial traditions such as those related to compilation of the Qur'an, disagreements about different kinds of reading (qir’at), the abrogator and the abrogated, Ayisha’s (un)chastity (ifk), mutual disagreement among the Prophet's Companions, the supposed bickering between Abu Bakr and Ali, and so on and so forth. Being a member of Zahra tribe, known for its unruly behaviour and mischief-making, he became famous as ‘Zahri’; however, people commonly thought him to be a member of Quraish tribe or from Madina, and because of this supposed cultural lineage and his supposed  spatial proximity with the Prophet scholars of traditions regarded his reports as being reliable. But it has been written very clearly in “Tahzeeb Al-Tahzeeb” – كان الزهرى يكون بايلا وللزهرى هناك ضيعة وكان يكتب عنه هناك الماجثون…, i.e., Zahri lived in Ila, he had property there and from there he wrote the traditions under the name, Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah bin Abi Salma al-Majithun. In the context of the compilation of the Qur'an, Zahri has referred to Abdullah bin Mas’ud’s frustration for not being included in the committee formed for compiling the Qur'an, and that he spread the word among the people of Kufa that in comparison with Zayd bin Sabit he was far more deserving of this honour. Rather, according to a report in Tirmizi, he was in favour of keeping intact the older text and instructed people to keep it hidden, presenting the following verse in support of his view – ومن يغلل يات بما غل يوم القيامة ثم توفى كل نفس ما كسبت وهم لا يظلمون… (Aale Imran: 16), though, as a matter of fact, this verse warns people against hiding the Quranic Text. Not only that the traditions attributed to Shahab Zahri cast aspersions on the characters of the Prophet's Companions, but he can be said to have been responsible for distortion of meaning, if it is proved for a fact that these traditions have really been reported by him. (Quoted in Tamanna Imadi, Jama’ Al-Qur’an, p. 239). As he was among the early compilers of the traditions, scholars of traditions have given him considerable importance. This could have been also for the reason that they wrongly took him to be an inhabitant of Madina, thus enjoying spatial proximity with the Prophet.

Now we may turn attention to the inconsistencies found in these traditions and decide for ourselves how reliable they can be. The following is the text of the hadith recorded in Bukhari through Ibn Abbas: حدثنا سعيد بن عفير قال حدثنى عقيل عن ابن شهاب حدثنى  عبيد الله بن عبيد الله أن ابن عباس رضى الله عنهما حدثه أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: أقرأنى جبريل على حرف فراجعته فلم أزل أستزيده ويزيدنى حتى انتهى الى سبعة أحرف   (“Fazail Al-Qur’an”, Fathul Bari, vol. 8, p. 639, hadith no. 4991)

The second tradition has been recorded through Omar and contains a detailed account of the incidents involving Hisham bin Hakim: حدثنا سعيد بن عفير قال حدثنى الليث حدثنى عقيل عن ابن شهاب قال حدثنى عروة بن الزبير أن المسور بن مخرمة وعبدالرحمن بن عبدالقارى حدثاه أنهما سمعا عمر بن الخطاب يقول سمعت هشام بن حكيم يقرأ سورة الفرقان فى حياة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فاستمعت لقراء ته فاذا هو يقرأ على حروف كثيرة لم يقرءنيها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم. فكدت أساوره فى الصلاة فتصبرت حتى سلم فلببته بردانه فقلت: من أقراك هذه السورة التى سمعتك تقرأ؟ قال: أقرانيها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقلت: كذبت فان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قد أقرانيها على غير ما قرأت. فانطلقت به أقوده الى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقلت: انى سمعت هذا يقرأ بسورة الفرقان على حروف لم تقرءنيها. فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: أرسله اقرأ ياهشام. فقرأ عليه القراءة التى سمعته يقرأ فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: كذالك أنزلت. ثم قال: اقرأ يا عمر. فقرأت للقرء ة التى اقرأنى فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: كذلك أنزلت  أن هذالقرآن أنزل على سبعة أحرف فاقرأوا ماتيسر منه.(“Fazail Al-Qur’an”, Fathul Bari, vol. 8, p. 639-640, hadith no. 4992)

If one studies these two traditions, one feels that Omar had taken Hisham bin Hakim to the Prophet to resolve the dispute regarding the reading/s of the Qur'an. This was an issue that basically arose from Hisham’s disagreement about the reading of the Qur'an, and the hadith regarding “sab’ ahraf” is said to be a response to this. In Sahih Musim, this event has been reported through Abi bin Ka’b, as follows:  Abi bin Ka’b was in the mosque when he heard someone reciting the Qur'an during salat that he felt to be different from the way it was normally recited. Shortly, another person entered the mosque and he recited it in another manner. Ka’b took both of them to the Prophet and mentioned their different readings of the Qur'an. The Prophet heard both the reciters separately and appreciated both of them. This incident created serious doubts in Ka’b’s mind about the Prophet’s genuineness. According to these reports, the Prophet could understand Ka’b’s state of mind and thumped his chest that sent him reeling and he felt as though he was having a vision of Allah. The Prophet reassured Ka’b and said, “I was instructed to read the Qur'an only on one level (haraf). But I appealed to Allah against it, and thus got His permission to read it on two, three, four … even up to seven levels (ahraf).

(Sahih Muslim, vol. 2, p. 390, hadith no, 1787; English translation, Abdul Hamid Siddiqui, Beirut, op. cit)

First, it is difficult to understand whether this incident involved Ka’b or Omar. According to the report in Bukhari, Omar was engaged in salat when Hisham heard him reciting the relevant verse, whereas the reports in Muslim have it that two unknown persons had recited the Qur'an loudly during salat in the mosque. Neither these two persons have been named, nor has it been clarified whether the custom of performing the salat by the Prophet's Companions individually or separately was in vogue in the Prophet’s mosque during his lifetime. If it was an additional prayer (salat nafil) for earning merit, then there was no question of reading the verses aloud; and if it was an obligatory prayer (salat farz), then why did they pray alone, because at least Ka’b was present there when they performed the prayer, and he should have prayed along with them. There are other inconsistencies as well in the traditions pertaining to “sab’ ahraf” that affect their reliability. In Muslim itself, it has been recorded through Abi bin Ka’b that Gabriel had come down to the earth with the permission of “سبعة احرف” at a spot where the pond of Banu Ghaffar was situated. (Sahih Muslim, vol. 2, p. 391, hadith no. 1789; English translation, Abdul Hamid Siddiqui, Beirut). As opposede to this, Tirmizi has recorded it through none other than Abi Ka’b himself that this incident involving Gabriel’s appearance had occurred near the rocks of Marwah. (Ref. Al-Nasr fi Qir’at ‘Ashr, vol 1, p. 20). According to a tradition recorded in Masnad Ahmad, through Abu Bakr, the request to read the Quran on more than one level was done by Michael on behalf of the Prophet, as can be seen here – أن جبريل قال اقرأ القرآن على حرف قال ميكاءيل: استزده حتى بلغ سبعة احرف.…. Those who are adept at reconciling these contradictions among the traditions might very well draw a comprehensive perspective where all these conflicting views could be accommodated, but despite reconciling these contradictions it would be difficult to make a breakthrough as far as the understanding of “سبعة احرف” is concerned. Even after continuous debates and thoughtful and scholarly researches spanning over twelve centuries the ulama are still not in a position to solve the riddle of “سبعة احرف”. Let alone the question of solving the riddle, those who make tall claims regarding their expertise in the art of ‘discrimination’ (tatbeeq) have not yet been successful in presenting an interpretation of this fabricated tradition that would be consistent with their own reports, and that would accept the fact that each letter of the Quran has come from Allah and has remained inviolate.

In the latter part of the tradition from Masnad Ahmad to which an allusion has been made above, it has been said further that one can read the Quran on seven levels as long as he does not replace the verse related to blessings with the verse related to penalty. This hadith goes so far as to assert, through examples, that one can also use synonyms for the original word, for example, as synonyms for “ta’al” one can use “aqbal” “halam”, “azhab”, “asra’” or “ajl” in its place. This gives the impression that the seven levels or “sab’ ahraf” has not come from Allah, but that people have been given permission for these alternative readings of the Quran. There is certainly the caveat that one should not be too liberal in one’s use of synonyms so that a verse related to blessings is changed into a verse related to penalty. If one goes by the tradition recorded in Muslim, the Prophet’s alleged act of sending back Gabriel again and again despite Allah’s clear instruction to read the Quran on one level, extracting more concessions for his followers on the plea that they are weak, or if one goes by the tradition in Tirmizi, the Prophet’s statement to Gabriel that he (the Prophet) has been sent among the unlettered people who include decrepit old men, old women and raw young people who deserved some benevolent treatment, or by another tradition from Tirmizi that make the Prophet say, “I have been sent to a community that had never had any truck with books” – لم يقرأ كتابا قط… --- give one the image of a Prophet who (May Allah save us from such abominations) interferes again and again in Allah’s Will to extract concessions for his followers. How does it behove a Prophet who has been sent down to the world to guide people till the Day of Judgement and whose area of operation extends far beyond Mecca to take issue with Allah’s instructions again and again in an effort to alter them rather than obey them unquestioningly? We feel that this supposed image of the Prophet seems to be a copy of the Israeli prophets who had been entrusted with the task of leading the Israelites and finding their lost sheep. In this context, if one keeps in mind the fabricated event related to the Prophet’s celestial journey during which (it is alleged that), according to the instruction of Moses, he persuaded Allah to reduce the number of daily prayers, it becomes easier to understand how the same Israeli psychology with its specific tone and tenor is active behind all such fabricated traditions that sometimes present the image of Muhammad as a Prophet who was inferior in intellect and experience to Moses, and at other times reduce the international stature of the Prophet to the local environs of Mecca and Medina.

We feel that for dismissing the concept of “سبعة احرف” this argument is enough that it directly harms the concept of the Quran as an immutable text. If the Quran, invested with seven levels, has been reduced to a text with just one level because of the interference by Othman and other companions of the Prophet, then it must be taken as a much inferior text. Conversely, if we accept the view that all the seven levels have been preserved in the script of Othmanic version encompassing dialectal differences, use of vowel points and diacritical marks and other linguistic particularities, it would amount to a wishful thinking and a vast claim that cannot be proved on the crucible of intellection. Further, these trivial claims will also pave the way for distortion in the Qur'anic text. If one wants to have an idea of the dangerous implications inherent in this, he can read Kitab Al-Masahif by Ibn Abi Dawood, which is regarded as a path-breaking book on the subject. The author has shown how the same verse has been reported through different sources and by different companions of the Prophet, that if one begins to believe in these traditions then one is sure to lose faith in the idea of the Quran as an immutable text, each word of which comes from Allah.

Besides this, there is so much inconsistency in different versions of the verses, their past scripts, calligraphy and reading that it is difficult to quantify it. Books like اتحاف الفضلاء البشر فى القرأت اربعة عشر and النشر فى القرأءة العشر seems to have been written with the specific objective of preserving the fabricated verse related to “سبعة احرف” and the disputes surrounding it in the pages of history. The points of disagreement on this issue among known scholars reach close to one lakh, and the disagreements that have acquired the ‘continuous’ status at some stage would also number close to a thousand, according a conservative estimate. As for those people who wished to reduce “سبعة احرف” to seven levels of reading (sab’ qirat), there are references to about ten thousand points of disagreement in their books. The source of all these manufactured and fabricated disagreements is the tradition regarding “سبعة احرف” that had provided justification for change and distortion in the Divine verses. In the light of the dangerous implications of this issue we have just two options – either we take all these reports to be true and declare the current Othmanic Version of the Qur'anic text as the version of Hajjaj bin Yusuf, and also admit the fact that there are some superfluous verses in it, as it is said about the mauzatain on the supposed authority of Abdullah bin Mas’ud; similarly, we also accept facts that the ayah rida’at has been wasted, ayah rajm could not be incorporated in the text, and surah Ahzab could not be had in the complete form because of the martyrdom of some of the Prophet's Companions in the battle of Imama. Otherwise the presence of these fabricated verses in the books of recitation and the existence of the rejected verses in the footnotes of the books of exegesis would keep our scholars, as they had kept Ibn Taimiya, under the delusion that “the non-Othmanic readings gain in importance and they become even necessary when they pertain to matters of sharia or commands (ahkam).” To restore faith in the Quran it is essential that we declare these fabricated verses and fabricated readings available in all kinds of books to be unreliable. It can be possible only when we display the courage to totally dismiss the fabricated tradition of “sab’ ahraf”, at least to preserve the sanctity of the Quran.
[2] See, Tafsir Ibn Jareer
[3] Imam Tahawi, Mushkil Al-Athar, vol. 4, pp. 185-186; Dairatul Ma’rif, Hyderabad, Deccan, 1323 H.E.
[4] Abul Khair Muhammad bin Al-Jazri, النشر فى القرأة العشر, vol. 1, p. 31
[5] Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 18-19
[6] Ibn Hazm, المفصل فى الملل والاهواء والنحل, Baghdad: Maktaba Al-Mashi, vol. 2, pp. 77-78
[7] Abul Walid Al-Baji, Al-Muntafi: Sharah Muatta, Egypt, 1331 H.E. vol. 1, p. 347
[8] Abu Hamid Ghazali, Al-Mustashfa, Egypt, 1356 H.E., vol. 1, p. 65
[9] Mulla Ali Qari, Marqa Al-Mafatih, Multan, 387 H.E., vol. 5, p. 16
[10] Shah Waliullah, Al-Musaffa, Delhi: Matbua Faruqi, p. 187
[11] Anwar Shah Kashmiri, Faiz Al-Bari, vol. 3, pp. 321-322