Unfencing the fences around the Quran

By Rashid Shaz

The Qur’an is the undistorted, immutable and perfect manifestation of Divine Revelation that still stands in its entirety, purity, and pristine glory among Muslims. Despite this, if the chosen community is undergoing the pangs of decline, then the cause for this can be traced back to their attitude towards Divine Revelation, the attitude that was formed, to a great extent, by the massive tomes of interpretive literature that took centuries to evolve. The deviation from the principle laid down in the Qur’an, however, had already begun in the second and third centuries of Islam. Though the Divine Text still exists amongst us in its entirety in undiluted form, it has really become a captive to thick volumes of commentaries on it. It is not easy to surmount the barrier of interpretation put up by hordes of commentators. This, by itself, is such a great challenge that our success in this sphere will create a veritable tempest in the world of thoughts and ideas.  It will bring glad tidings to the people about a bright future just as the emergence of a Prophet dispels the darkness of a realm, plagued by evil. If the Qur’an suffices prophet hood in absentia الرسلحجة من بعد , then one cannot dismiss such a possibility.

Divine Revelation is not a common occurrence. We have stressed it in the earlier chapters that Divine Revelation and Apostleship are instances of direct divine intervention in human history. Its presence with the Israelites ensured that they remain in the seat of leadership. However, when they began to regard the tablets of Moses as holy relics, they lost sight of the actual functional value of Divine Revelation. Wishful longings made inroads into their hearts and minds and they could not even defend the holy relics from their victorious enemy. This is evidenced by the spoilage of Jerusalem for the second time, as recorded in the Jewish history and as alluded in the Qur’an: أن يا تيكم التابوت فيه سكينة من ربكم وبقية من آل  موسي وآل هارؤن (Al Baqara:248). That is to say, Bakht Nasr was in the know that the greatness of the Israelites was inextricably linked to the tablets of Moses that were given to them. If they fell from the exalted position despite the presence of these tablets, the reason should be traced back to their changing attitude towards them. Rather than actualising the Divine Revelation in their day-to-day life, they relegated them to the magic potion of barakah, that is to say, for earning material prosperity. The decline of Muslims, despite the presence of the Divine Text among them, should also be considered from this perspective.

The Qur’an is the foundational document for Muslims. If people begin to entertain any sort of doubts about this document or have misgivings about its functional role, it will have the effect of undercutting the mission statement itself, throwing its followers in complete disarray. Unfortunately, the large number of volumes of Qur’anic literature that have piled up, are not only an impediment in understanding the Book but also can be instrumental in creating doubts and misgivings in our minds.

The Divine Revelation has been embodied in the form of the Qur’an that is with us in all its glory. Regarding its essence or real import, if we give credence to reliable and verified transmissions, it will amount to interrogating the authenticity of Divine Revelation. Stating the principle of Divine Revelation Allah says in the Qur’an that no human being can hold direct dialogue with him. It has taken place only through the means of Divine Revelation, from behind a veil or through angels [1] . Divine Revelation is a felt act, certain and definitive, in which the recipient has firm faith in its occurrence and the infallibility of the message transmitted to him. This is something beyond the stages of illumination (ilham), inspiration (ilqa) or vision (royay-e sadeqa). In case of ilham and ilqa, the recipient cannot be sure about their source from Allah. He can characterize even the most obvious and transparent words communicated to him as a message from the Unseen. As opposed to this, Divine Revelation is palpably felt and experienced and the recipient is fully aware of his position in the Divine Scheme of things. The Qur’an has specified three distinct modes of Divine Revelation. There is no reason to surmise that any other mode, apart from these three, was adopted in case of Muhammad [2] . But those who were inclined to discount the prophetic mediation and see Divine Revelation on the ordinary human plane, either fabricated such accounts regarding Divine Revelation or naively believed in them, whereby Divine Revelation transmitted to the last Prophet took on the aspect of ordinary illuminations, inspiration or visions. Someone said that Divine Revelation began with visions, his dream appeared to him as clear as the morning light. [3] Others said that some invisible angel planted some message in his mind. [4] Still others said that at the time of Divine Revelation he could hear a voice ringing in his ear [5] , and this voice had no direction. Some opined that this voice was an unintelligible sound that the Prophet heard but could not properly appreciate at the first hearing. The message sunk in his mind by and by [6] . This was reported with reference to Omar that whenever the Divine Word was revealed to him, one could hear a sound like the humming of bees around his illumined face. [7] Such traditions not only caused harm to the real import of Divine Revelation but the very act of revelation and its reception were linked to a state of delirium that overcomes a patient suffering from epileptic fits. In the books of history and traditions one finds description of such states at the time of Divine Revelation. [8] Such fanciful accounts not only took away from the exalted status of Divine Revelation and created misgivings in people’s minds, but also opened the floodgates of visions for apprehending Divine Revelation. It is stated in Bukhari that now onwards, for all succeeding generations the only legacy of Apostleship would remain in the form of mubashshirat (good tidings) and mubashshirat means visions. [9] In another hadith of Bukhari it is said that any vision by a believer was 46^th part of Apostleship. [10] A similar tradition from this group reports that among the Israelites there were such people who were not Prophets but God spoke to them. “If there is any such person among my followers, it is Omar.” [11] These traditions led some religious scholars to believe that though the Apostleship had come to an end, the tradition of divine communication in the form of ilham was still there and would continue to be there. On this premise, some Sufis have endowed the seers (Auliya) with extraordinary powers to ‘hear’ and ‘see’ (‘basheer o nazeer’ [12] ). According to them, there is just one difference between the Prophets and the seers and that is – while the former bring a system of law (sharia) with them the latter do not. As for the relationship with the heavens, the Prophetic revelations are as relevant for the Prophet as illuminations, inspiration and visions for the seers.

When Allah’s angel came to the Prophet with the message, “Read”, it was a felt experience and an actual occurrence through which Muhammad was given the tidings of his Apostleship. But the traditions have cast a shadow of doubts and misgivings on the Apostleship of Muhammad. The books of history and biography are replete with accounts that describe how the Prophet was overwhelmed by a sense of awe and fear after the first revelation. He returned home with all kinds of apprehensions in his mind. Some reliable biographers of the Prophet went so far as to record that the Prophet had his suspicions about whether the angel instructing him to “read” was, in fact, an angel or a spirit or a follower of the satan. [13] It is Khadija’s belief that whatever occurred in the cave of Hera would lead to good consequences that reassured the Prophet and gradually put his mind at rest. Soon, this belief of Khadija was corroborated by a close relative of hers, Wirqa bin Nafl, who was a Jewish scholar. It seems surprising that the Prophet himself lacked knowledge about this momentous event, and he needed Khadija and Wirqa to confirm that it was indeed a Divine occurrence actualised through an angel. In some books of traditions one finds references to a long period of gap between the first revelation and the second; it is also said therein that the Prophet had strong misgivings about this disconnect with the Divine world. These misgivings reached to such an extreme extent that he even thought of giving up his life by jumping down from a mountain cliff. Right at that moment Gabriel was sighted, sitting in a chair suspended in the air, and the cycle of Divine Revelation resumed. Numerous traditions contain references to the Prophet’s misgivings after he received the first message. There are traditions that record the Prophet’s apprehension. This apprehension was not limited to the heavenly angel whom he suspected to be a spirit or ghost, but extended so far as to make the Prophet feel that the shaft of light, mediated through Gabriel, that illumined his mind and heart and dazzled his eyes might well have been the shadow of a spirit! That is why, in many traditions, one finds mention to the fact that when the Prophet returned home in a panic-stricken state, he appealed to Khadija by uttering “cover me, cover me” (زمّلوني زمِّلوني ). Although the Prophet’s reaction is understandable in the context of his sudden awareness of the grave responsibility of Apostleship bestowed upon him by Allah, the transmitters have ignored this vital aspect of the Prophet’s reaction and showed their penchant for spinning fanciful yarns that have certainly taken away from the momentousness of this event and made it appear trivial and less credible. If the Prophet himself was not sure whether the mediator was an angel or an evil spirit, what impression can the common people form about it? It is surprising that the Qur’an should strongly contradict the allegations [14] that the Prophet was frenzied [15] or fanciful like a poet [16] , and the Prophet himself should imagine himself as such. These allegations against Islam hurled by our enemies that have crept into the definitive texts of Islam in the form of traditions have cast a shadow of doubt over such an absolute and incontrovertible fact as Divine Revelation. In spite of the Qur’anic assertionما ضلّ صاحبكم  وما غوى وما ينطق عن الهوي اِن هوالاّ وحيّ يوحي:(Al-Najm:2-4) if such traditions are there in our books that claim that the Prophet was not sure of his Apostleship in the beginning, that he could believe in the authority of the angel from heaven and in his own Apostleship only slowly and over a period of time, what other possible objectives can such traditions have except creating doubts in the mind of the people about Divine Revelation.

Some traditions in the Books of Commentaries have not only reduced a definitive and decisive occurrence to a vague heavenly signal but also engendered doubts about the real source of the words and meaning of the Qur’an. Ibn Abi Hatim has reported it through Aqeel who drew it from Zahiri that Divine Revelation is the text that God sends to a Prophet and gets it imprinted in his mind. The Prophet then utters the text with his own tongue and gets it recorded. This is called the Word of God. [17] Some said that Gabriel only revealed the meaning, which the Prophet, having thoroughly internalised it, would then convey through the Arabic language. [18] The advocate of this view adduced the verse sopport نزل به الروح الا مين علي قلبك    his view. Such statements created a climate of opinion whereby doubts were expressed as to whether the text of the Qur’an is the Prophet’s own construction of meaning of the Divine message in Arabic, or whether both the meaning and the text should be considered as emanating from Allah. Instead of critically looking at these hypotheses and striving to remove the ambiguity created by words such as نزل به الروح الا مين علي قلبك in the light of other verses on the theme from the Qur’an itself, the scholars of Islam expended all their energies in tatbeeq and interpretation. This is the starting point of the philosophical debates regarding the Qur’an being immutable or created. For the sake of establishing harmony between word and meaning, some divided the Divine Revelation in two groups [19] : the meaning-oriented Divine Revelations were classified as wahi ghair matlu and the Divine Revelation encompassing both words and meaning constituted the Qur’an. This kind of discrimination (tatbeeq) gave rise to complex questions regarding the meaning of Divine Revelation. If the Qur’an embodied both the text and the meaning of Divine Revelation, the Prophet did not leave any reliable collection of meaning-oriented Divine Revelation behind him for his followers. When both the sets of Divine Revelation emanated from Allah, how can one set be appreciated in isolation from the other? The real problem was – though the Qur’an, embodying both text and meaning, was there, the meaning-oriented Divine Revelations were scattered here and there in the form of stray accounts. The large number of false narrators and fabricators made the matter worse. In the debates regarding Qur’anic knowledge, first, questions were raised regarding words and meaning that created the doubt whether the words of the Qur’an were really from Allah. Then the Divine Revelations were divided into two to facilitate the process of ‘discrimination’ (tatbeeq). One part is preserved in the form of the Qur’an; about the other part it was told that it was scattered in the vast array of narrative accounts. This hypothesis, later, delimited the scope of human intellect and wisdom in the area of compiling and editing of Divine Revelation by the succeeding generations.

The grandeur and magnificence of Divine Revelation is such that if it were revealed on a mountain, it would have gone to pieces and shreds. [20]   There can be no question about the fact that Divine Revelation is an extraordinary honour that Allah has bestowed on the Muslim community through Muhammad. This is an occurrence of universal dimension where the merit of a person, his claims, his questions and answers have absolutely no role to play. Its heavenly and universal dimension is hidden in the fact that not only the first generation of Muslims, but up until the end of this world, people of faith would excavate it to find answers to their questions, and this text would continue to guide them in all ages and epochs. It is a pity that our commentators have treated this universal and heavenly text as a mere social document. For most of the verses, the dates and occasions of their revelation have been rigorously determined. This tendency to provide the Qur’an a historical perspective became so strong that it was considered necessary to explore the historical context of revelation of all the verses. Rather, some verses were construed as direct response to the questions raised by the Prophet’s Companions. At times these traditions even suggested that Omar was intellectually superior to the Prophet himself! For instance, describing the occasion for revelation of the verse ولا تصل على أحد منهم مات أبدا ولا تقم على قبره (Al-Tauba: 84) – it was asserted that it was revealed when the Prophet gave his consent to the funeral prayer of the hypocrite (munafiq) Abdullah bin Abi and Omar opposed the Prophet’s decision in public. The verse was revealed promptly, as it has been claimed, in support of Omar’s point of view, and the Prophet was compelled to change his stand on the issue. [21] Providing this kind of socio-historical context to Divine Revelation not only negates its universal and timeless dimension and reduces its scope and meaning, but also it runs counter to the concept of Apostleship found in the versesما ضل صاحبكم وماغوى  (Al-Najm: 2) in the Qur’an. Omar’s mature attitude may have its own merit, but it can never claim precedence over the Prophet’s opinion; nor can it be surmised that Allah would reveal a verse in support of Omar who is locked in a contentious argument with the Prophet himself. The pity is that our hallowed books have encouraged this tendency of looking at Divine Revelation in terms of their social contexts. This would give one the impression that this Text was not conceived and executed in heaven but on the earth itself. For instance, about the verse واتخذ وامن مقام ابراهيم مصلى  (2/145), it is recorded in Sahih Bukhari that it was revealed in response to Omar’s query or suggestion given by him to the Prophet at the time of the circumambulation of the Ka’ba. It is recorded in Bukhari on the authority of Anas that Omar had said –“My Lord agreed with me on three things: one, declaring Abraham’s house as the direction of prayer; second, instruction for veil for women; and third, the warning to the Prophet’s wives that if the Prophet divorced them, He would provide him with better wives.” [22]   If we understood Divine Revelation as espousing Omar’s views, it would mean that Omar had a better understanding of Allah’s Will than the Prophet. It would also demonstrate how a heavenly Text was subservient to social imperatives and reactions. This does not end here, as many Qur’anic verses seem to be copies of sayings by Omar and some other Companions of the Prophet. Ibn Abi Hatim has reported a saying by Omar that when the verse ولقد خلق الانسان من سلالة من طين (Al-Muminoon: 12) was revealed, he said  فتبارك الله احسن الخالقين( Al-Muminoon: 14) and then the verse فتبارك الله احسن الخالقين was revealed. [23] Similarly, it is reported by Abdur Rahman bin Aili that when a Jew had said to Omar about Gabriel that “He who your friend names is our enemy”, Omar said in reply:
من كان عدوالله وملائكته ورسله وجبريل وميكائيل فان الله عدوللكافرين
-Baqara: 98). The transmitter claims that just after that Allah revealed the verse having the same words uttered by Omar. [24] Similarly, Sa’d bin Ma’z’s quick reaction regarding ifk (scandal against Aisha)سبحانك هذا بهتان عظيم (Al-Noor: 16) later became a part of the narrative of Qur’anic revelation. [25] It is said that in the battle of Ahd, Mas’ab bin Amir was the flag-bearer of the Islamic army. When his right hand was chopped off, he held the flag in the left hand. When the left hand too was slashed, he continued to hold the flag with his two mutilated hands and held it straight by pressing it to his chest and uttered the following in a heroic and high-flown voice: وَمَا محمد الاّ رسول قَدخَلَت مِنْ قبله الرسل اَفاِن مات اَوْ قُتِلَ انْقَلَبْتُم علي أعقابكم  (Aal-e Imran: 144). He died in this condition. The transmitter says that the above verse that became a part of the Qur’an later was revealed after this incident. [26] To accord the slightest credence to such claims would amount to a dilution of the status of the Qur’an as a definitive, universal and heavenly text, making it appear to be a social document recording the reactions of the first generation of Muslims. It is a matter of concern that even reliable books of Qur’anic knowledge and Commentaries are not entirely free from such untenable transmissions and fanciful anecdotes.

When an exalted means of transmission like Divine Revelation is brought down to the level of vague tidings (mubashshirat), unintelligible voice and visions, the definitiveness, which is the hallmark of a Divine Text is brought to doubt. Not only that a loose interpretation/concept of the process of revelation caused doubt about both the words and the meaning emanating from Allah, but also it made space for fabricated traditions that consistently and repeatedly suggest that Qur’anic revelations were incomplete, defective and suspect. There is no dearth of such traditions in the Books of Commentaries, attributed to renowned scholars of traditions, which, if taken at their face value, would, logically lead us to entertain suspicions about the authenticity of Qur’anic revelations. There are such traditions in Bukhari, Muslim and Tirmizi, which run counter to the concept of the Qur’an as an unadulterated and immutable text. [27] Even for the conventional exegetes who, faced with such a situation, cannot stop at exhibiting their erudition in the art of ‘discrimination’ (tatbeeq), it has not been possible to totally dismiss these reports. Thus, the doubts and misgivings that had crept into public perception about the Qur’anic Text stayed as before.

We do not find evidence of any doubts regarding the Qur’anic text or its readings till the end of the first century H.E. It was Shahab Zahri who first reported disagreements among the Prophet’s Companions about the Qur’anic text, the seven levels of reading and interpretation  (sab’ qirat/ahraf) and the attribution of the task of compiling the Qur’an to Othman. After Shahab Zahri, a veritable floodgate of falsehood, half-truths and suspicion opened up and gradually they crept into our cultural and civilizational inheritance. Ironically, they have now become a part of the repertoire of authentic knowledge. In the Commentaries from the time of Tabari to modern times, the single-transmitter traditions have always been alluded to by the Commentators on the authority of Sahah Sitta and are regarded as part of the authentic interpretive literature in Islam. If a community comes to entertain the slightest doubt regarding its Divine Text, that distortions and defects may have crept into it at any stage, then it cannot accept that text as the immutable and indisputable source of its intellectual and cultural life. On the contrary, any doubt about the validity of the Divine Text as a Book of Guidance would actuate people to seek guidance from other known and secular sources. If one finds advocacy or acceptance of non-Biblical or secular values rather than disdain among its high priests, its main cause lies in the fact that they have lost faith in their Divine Revelation as a complete and immutable text. As a result, the sea of faith that had once enveloped them has now receded to the shore. If even the orthodox Israelites are compelled to attach more importance to the interpreters of Torah and the compilers of Mishnah than to Pentateuch, the reason lies in the fact that they do not regard Pentateuch as a self-contained body of Divine Revelations and their conviction that the enormous treasure of interpretive and Juristic literature actually represents an effort to preserve Pentateuch. If a community falls a prey to doubts and misgivings about its revealed text, and feels that it has undergone distortion or tempering at any stage, it leads to a spurt in the growth of human commentaries and interpretations, in isolation from the revealed text. This is the point that marks the growth of non-scriptural or secular traditions. Gradually the Divine Text is relegated to the status of a sacred relic providing spiritual solace, and the actual life is governed by non-scriptural and secular values.

In comparison with the earlier texts or scrolls, the Qur’an has this unique distinction that its Sender had taught the recipient the use of pen علّم بالقلم.  Apart from its preservation through memorizing, special arrangements were made for its preservation through a written text. There is enough textual evidence to which we will allude later, where it has been referred to as a text within two covers. The word “book” has been used for the Qur’an for about 70 times in the Book. It has been variously referred to as “Al-Kitab”, “Kitabul Mubeen”, “Kitab Al-Hakeem”, “Kitab Al-Azeez”. In surah Tur, it has been referred to as a “Book on Parchment Paper” .كتاب مستور في رق منشور For such a planned, well-thought-out and thoroughly executed book, our commentators believed in such unreliable and inauthentic traditions, which cast a shadow of doubt over such a basic book. Disagreements on verses, loss of certain verses, tracing out some verses after a long search, and even after all this, the inability to incorporate all the verses in the Othmanic version – these are the yarns and anecdotes with which the Islamic exegetes filled the margins of their commentary books.

One of the traditions transmitted by Shahab Zahri goes so far as to claim that some verses of the Qur’an that were revealed could not be recorded as those who memorized it died on the day of the Battle of yamama ولم يعلم بعدهم ولم يكتُب   In other words, that part of the Qur’an to which only they were privy could not be incorporated in the text because of their death. Ibn Maja contains a tradition attributed to Ayisha that the text containing verses related to stoning to death and relationship between foster mother and foster child (rada’ kabeer) were eaten up by a goat when people were busy during the funerals of the Prophet. That is why those verses could not be incorporated in the Qur’an. [28] Another reason for the verse related to stoning to death not finding entry into the Qur’an was purported to be the fact that at the time of compilation of the Qur’an whoever brought some part of the text had to produce a witness to verify it. Omar who brought in the verse in question could not produce a witness for its verification. Hence it remained outside of the Qur’anic text. [29] Tafsir Ibn Kathir  also mentions why Abdullah bin Mas’ud’s “Mauzatain” (surah Falaq and surah Naas) were not considered a part of the Qur’an. [30] Regarding “Mauzatain”, it is recorded in Bukhari with reference to Abi bin Ka’b that he used to read قل اعوذ برب الفلق and قل اعوذ برب الناس without the prefatory “qul” (“say”). In other words, he would say -- اعوذ برب الفلق and اعوذ برب الناس. [31] About Abi bin Ka’b it was recorded that he used to read the verse  ولاتقربوالزناانه كان فاحشة وساء سبيلا(Al Isra: 32) as ولاتقربوالزناانه كان فاحشة ومقتا  وساء سبيلاالاَ مَن تاب فاِنَّ الله كان غفورارحيما It is said that despite Omar’s instruction to the contrary, he insisted on reading the verse in the same way. It was also said that Abdullah bin Masu’d would read the verse in Surah zariat ان الله هو الرزاق ذوالقوة المتين, (Al Zariyat:58)asاني انا الرزاق Similarly, as regards the verse in Surah “Fatah” اذ جعل الذين كفروا في قلوبهم الحمية حمية الجاهلية فانزل الله سكينته على رسوله وعلى المؤمنين والزمهم كلمة التقوي وكانوا احق بها واهلهاوكان الله بكل شي عليماّ (Al Fatah: 26) it is recorded that Abi Ka’b would read  ولو حميتم كما حموا نفسه لفسد المسجد الحرام  after the phrase “حميةالجاهلية”. [32] One tradition goes so far as to assert that the Prophet said to Abi bin Ka’b, “I have been instructed to read the Qur’an before you”, and read the verse – ان ذات الدين عندالله الحنفية لاالمشركة ولااليهودية ولاالنصرانية ومن يعمل خيرا فلن يكفرله and then he also read – لوكان لابن آدم وادلابتغي اليه ثانيا ولو اعطي اليه ثالثا ولا يملا جوف ابن آدم الا التراب ويتوب الله من تاب. The second part appended to the verse cannot be found in the Qur’an now. [33] It is recorded in Tirmizi that Abdullah bin Masu’d and Abu Darda used the verse --  ماخلق الذكر والانثى’…. in the Surah “Wal Lail” as “والذكر والانثى’”. [34] Similarly, it is recorded in Bukhari that some people, particularly, Ibn Abbas [35] would add – فى مواسم الحج while reading the verse –عليكم جناح أن تبتغوا فضلا من ربكم   ليس ….(Al Baqara: 198). There are such traditions recorded in Al Itqan, Kanz-ul Ummal etc. that when Omar made enquiries about some verses, he was told, “these verses were with the person who died in the battle of Yamama.[36] At this Omar simply muttered انالله وانااليه راجعون

These fanciful accounts that came in circulation after the first century H.E. to prove that the Qur’an was a defective text made their way into the margins of interpretive literature. This not only engendered doubts into the minds of common people about the Divine Text, but it happened in many cases that the fabricated verses became a means of interpreting the original verses. For instance, if the majority of commentators today interprete the verse – حافظوا على الصلوات والصلوة الوسطى… (Al Baqara: 238) as pointing to ة العصر‘صلو, then they cannot escape the allegation that they got this idea from the fabricated traditions where it was asserted that when Abu Bakr had it declared publicly that those who had any verse of the Qur’an with them should bring it over to him for compilation, then Hafsa had said, “When you reach الوسطى  حافظوا على الصلوة then send for me.” As the scribe reached الوسطى  حافظوا على الصلوةand she was sent for, she said, “If you have reached الوسطى  حافظوا على الصلوةwrite وهى صلوة العصر fter it. Omar objected, “Do you have any proof of this additional part?” When no proof was presented, Omar declared, “By Allah, something brought over by a woman without any proof or witness cannot be incorporated into the Qur’an.” And that part was not incorporated. However, even though the phrase, العصر  صلوةwas not incorporated into the Qur’anic Text, Commentators till today generally take salat al wusta to meanصلوة العصر

Even though the earlier versions of the Qur’an or other hypothetical readings of it by the Prophet’s Companions apart from the version compiled by Othman did not succeed in making inroads into the Qur’anic text, they (the fabricated verses) certainly influenced the way we understand and interpret the Qur’an. Even in the most reliable Books of Commentaries, there is evidence that the commentators have used the ideas and suggestions contained in the fabricated verses. For instance, verse 79 of Surah “Kahaf "– وكان ورآء هم ملك ياخذ كل سفينة غصبا ,… is said to be –وكان امامهم ياخذ كل سفينة صالحة غصبا  according to the version/ reading of Ibn Abbas, or the verse –ما الغلا م فكان ابواه مؤمنين وأ … in which the phrase’وكان كافرا’ was prefixed. The impact of these fabricated verses can be gauged from the fact that in most of the old or new Books of Commentaries, it has been assumed that the slave (ghulam) must be an infidel (kafir).[37]

It is taken as an established fact that in Books of Commentaries and traditions [38] that the present version of the Qur’an is the Othmanic version compiled by Abu Bakr with the advice of Zaid bin Sabit and Omar, after the death of the Prophet. Othman got copies of this version of the text made during his caliphate. It is also said that at the time when it was copied during the period of Othman some verses were traced out after long search and were incorporated into it. For example, only Abu Khuzaima was in possession of the last part of Surah “Burrat”[39] Some traditions mention that the verse –من المؤمنين   from Surah “Ahzaab” was lost. [40] It is also claimed that the concluding verses of Surah “Ahzaab” were not there in the version compiled by Abu Bakr. They were found after a thorough search during the caliphate of Othman and were incorporated. [41] In some traditions, the Othmanic version was not simply claimed as an enlarged version of Abu Bakr, but totally deny the existence of any version by Abu Bakr at all! As it is reported by Ibn Sa’d and Mustadrak, according to Muhammad bin Sireen, the compilation of the Qur’an was not completed before death of Omar. [42]   According to these traditions, after the preparation of the Othmanic version of the Qur’anic Text, Othman had ordered that all other versions/ parts found in the Muslim world be destroyed or burnt so that no dispute or controversy arises in future.[43] By quoting and referring to such traditions and incorporating them into their books, our scholars of traditions and the commentators have brought down an exalted and definitive text like that of the Qur’an to the level of the King Jame’s version of the Bible.

The Othmanic version that is regarded as the enlarged version of Abu Bakr is said to have been compiled/ edited by Othman, Omar and Zaid bin Sabit. It is said that the main reason for the last two verses of Surah “Tauba” to be a part of that surah was the view expressed by Omar. He is reported to have said, “If there were three verses, we would have incorporated them in a new Surah.” As the verses were only two they were tagged on to Surah “Taubah”. [44] It was also claimed that while the Qur’an was being written down, adequate care was taken that the text conformed to the pattern of speech and convention of pronunciation prevalent among members of the Quraish tribe. According to these traditions, Othman’s view was that as the text was revealed to a member of the Quraish tribe, it should be recorded according to the phonetics and speech conventions of that tribe. It has also been recorded that while copying the text Zaid bin Sabit remembered a particular verse of Surah “Ahzaab”. After a search it  من المؤمنين رجال was found with Khozama bin Sabit and was incorporated. Tirmizi records that there was disagreement among three copyists about the word, “taboot” as to whether it should be written as “taboot” or “tabooh”. Othman decided to have it written as “taboot”.[45] It is also part of this lore that during the copying of the Qur’anic text, Khozama bin Sabit Ansari raised the objection that the copyists had left two verses. When he pointed them out as – لقد جاء كم رسول من انفسكم عزيز عليه ماعنتم حريص عليكم بالمؤمنين رؤف رحيم  … (Al-Tauba: 128), they were accepted for copying. But the problem as to where to place them still remained. Khozama suggested that the surah should end with the verses. Thus, the verses became the concluding part of Surah Barah.[46] These traditions have not only weakened the faith of the ordinary people, but many great scholars and experts of traditions also could not save themselves from misgivings and hesitancy. The logical corollary of taking the traditions regarding the versions of the Qur’anic text by Abu Bakr and Othman that have crept into Bukhari, Muslim and Tirmizi and other books of authentic traditions as true would be the loss of faith in the Qur’an’s status as a definitive text. A great scholar of tradition like Ibn Hajr who had undertaken a thorough process of discrimination (tatbeeq) and elucidation (ta’wil) of the tradition related to the versions by Abu Bakr had to admit to the fact that even though the entire Qur’an had been written down during the Prophet’s lifetime, it was not put together in one volume, nor was there any chapter-wise division لكن غيرمجمؤع فى موضع واحد ولا مرتب السور [47] Moreover, even in the case of the Othmanic version, the editors seemed to have been more casual than cautious. It is said that when the text was ready, Othman looked over it and remarked, “You have done a good job, but there are some inadequacies of ‘Arabiat’ in it which the Arabs can rectify on their own.”رى’ شيأ من اللحن مستقيمة العرب بالسنتها ا ….) [48]

To substantiate the claim that it emanated from Allah the Qur’an had proffered this argument that had it not been from Allah people would have found contradictions and inconsistencies in it. These traditions related to the organization and compilation of the Qur’an have almost succeeded in creating such a situation. Not only that the seminal status of the Prophet’s Companionsوالذين معه   was compromised, but also they (these traditions) project such an image of the holy people (qudsi) that was similar to what the Qur’an characterized as  ان الذين اختلفوا فى الكتاب لفى شقاق بعيد … (Al Baqara: 176). As a matter of fact, a minimal awareness of historical criticism and the critical tool of ‘Antecedents’ (ilm al-rijal) devised by the scholars of traditions themselves would have been enough to refute these traditions. Then, apart from the debate about the process of accessing traditions, these accounts have enough internal evidence to prove that they were fabricated and fanciful. It is difficult to understand that despite this how the compilers of the three Genuine Books of traditions incorporated them in their volumes, an act which was in direct opposition to the promise of اناله لحافظون made in the Qur’an. Some people suggest that such traditions may have been interpolated in the later stages. Whatever the case may be, by accommodating them in their margins through attributing them to reliable and unreliable sources, the Books of Commentaries have ensured that they stay in circulation forever. Our reliable books contain such accounts which, not to speak of traditions, cannot even qualify to be called  ‘observations’ (mashahida). For instance, it is recorded in Sahih Muslim that it was revealed in the Qur’an that ten sips of milk are enough to establish the relationship between the foster mother and the foster child (rida’), then it was rejected, and in its place the verse alluding to ‘five sips’ خمس رضعات معلومات يحرمن was revealed, which is read even today. Howevermuch we tried, we could not locate this verse in the Qur’an. Apart from Muslim, the tradition has been recorded by Nasaei too. [49]

The attitude adopted by our commentators towards history and tradition has largely been responsible for rendering the absolute nature of the Qur’an suspect. Tabari holds a key position in literature on commentaries, and is justifiably regarded as the greatest pioneer of this art. His excessive dependence on history in determining the meaning of the text often becomes reductive, either delimiting the meaning or rendering it stagnant or directionless. In analysing and interpreting Qur’anic verses he takes recourse to such an excessively wide gamut of historical accounts and traditions that in spite of subjecting these traditions to the strictest scrutiny and their summary rejection in the end, the impact left by them cannot be totally obliterated. In the context of the compilation of the Qur’an, if the fabricated tales regarding the Siddiqi version or the Othmanic version have become a part of our consciousness, it is due to the fact that despite the contradiction among the traditions and an awareness of their disastrous consequences, the reader, wittingly or unwittingly, becomes a captive of that mythical world and then he cannot grasp even the most transparent and obvious meaning of the Qur’anic text, and he loses the ability to analyse events in the light of the internal evidence contained in the Qur’an. If the unreliable accounts regarding the Siddiqi version and the Othmanic version are still being quoted in our new Commentary Books, through the Six Authentic Books of Tradition (Sahah Sitta), the reason for it goes back to the climate of myth-making through fanciful and fabricated accounts taken recourse to in an earlier age. Our interpreters and commentators have not been able to come out of it yet. Otherwise, the internal evidence contained in the Qur’an is enough to dismiss these fabricated accounts out of hand.

The Qur’an asserts in clear terms –  انه لكتاب عزيز لاياتيه الباطل من بين يد يه ولا من خلفه تنزيل من حكيم حميد … (Fussilat: 42). It is not an ordinary book but the “Dearest Book” (kitab al-azeez). Nothing wrong can enter it either from the front or from behind. This is because it is revealed by Allah, the Judge (hakeem) and the Most Praised (hameed). Its protection is guaranteed by Him in unambiguous words – اناله لحافظون. He reassures His Prophet thus: وتمت كلمة ربك صدقا وعدلا لا مبدل لكلماته… (Al In’am: 115), i.e., “This Text of your Lord is so completely just and true that no one can effect any change in it. The Prophet himself took utmost precaution to preserve it both through written and verbal means. As the Qur’an states: بل هو قرأن مجيد فى لوح محفوظ …. (85/21-22); at another place the written Qur’an has been alluded to as كتاب مسطورفى رق منشور (Al Tur:2-3). Besides this, scholars had preserved it in their memory. بل هو أيات بينت فى صدور الذين أوتوالعلم (Al Ankaboot: 49). It cannot be imagined that a text about which all kinds of precautions – verbal and written – were undertaken, should face a crisis because a man who memorized it died in the battle of Imama. This is beside the fact that, historically, apart from Salim Maula Abu Huzaifa, one finds the name of no other known reciters/ scholars of the Qur’an (qurra) in the list of martyrs who died in the battle of Imama. For the Prophet, preservation of Divine Revelation was one of the most important and delicate tasks. He could not have put up with any kind of laxity and lack of rigour in this task. This is also because the Qur’an termed the earlier divine texts as distorted, and the Qur’an itself contained references to the distortion in language and meaning with reference to the Israelites: يحرفون الكلم عن مواضعه and يكتبون الكتاب بايديهم And it is a historical truth that the Prophet and his Companions were very careful about protecting the Qur’an from such intrusions. Allah Himself appreciates the way the Prophet safeguarded the Qur’an as كتاب مسطور فى رق منشور (Al Tur:2-3), in the Qur’an as follows: فى صحف مكرمة مرفوعة مطهرة بايدى سفرة كرام بررة … (Abasa: 13). This Text was being written down by those who were men of piety, and were worthy of respect and honour. In other words, those who had the honour to memorise and copy it were not ordinary people who would be lax or who would exercise lack of caution while copying down the word of Allah. Rather, Allah Himself vouches for their honesty and integrity. Despite the presence of such crystal clear verses, if our commentators take these copyists of the Divine Revelation to be angels who, according to them, copied it sitting in some baitul muazzam, the basic reason for such interpretations is that these interpreters are not ready to come out of the mythical world created by traditions, and read the text of the Qur’an as an independent corpus of knowledge. Right from Tabari down to the modern commentators such as Abul Ala Maududi, all take the copyists of the Qur’anic Text to be angels, and in their translations add ‘angels’ in parenthesis, that lifts the whole scenario from the Prophet’s time to a world of which we have no idea, and we feel constrained to approach the commentators for any details that we want to know about that world. A similar scenario obtains in the case of laohe mahfooz as well which we have dealt with in the earlier chapters. It is amazing how this text within two covers (raqqim manshoor) has been transported into another world through the imaginative flights of our commentators, a world where the Qur’an was indeed being written down, but we cannot have any access to it .

Even a man of ordinary intelligence could have asked the question that if the the Qur’anic Text did not exist in the Prophet’s time, then how was the verse – رسول من الله يتلو صحفا مطهرة فيها كتب قيمة …. (Al Bayyinah: 2) read and understood by the people? If the Prophet did not have the sacred Text with him, then how did he read out from it? And a text for which it was said that there are innumerable laws written in it. However, those who considered the Prophet illiterate, who insisted that he had nothing to do with reading and writing, [50] that “ امى” (as he was called) meant illiterate, for them it is not sifficult to believe in such fanciful accounts, despite clear indications to the contrary. For them, it is enough that these accounts are found in reliable books of traditions and the exegetes have made them a subject of their debate. Those who study the Qur’an with open eyes soon realize not only the true nature of the promise made in the verse – اناله لحافظون. Soo, it also becomes a part of their belief that beside safeguarding the protection of the Qur’anic Text through both written and oral means, the process of compiling and organizing the text was also divinely undertaken. As Allah says in the Qur’an: انا علينا جمعه وقرأنه … (Al Qiyamah: 17). Like the older divine texts, the job of safeguarding the Qur’an was not left to scholars and community leaders. In the Qur’an there are clear suggestions that despite their best efforts, the scholars and leaders of the Israelites did not succeed in protecting the Torah. والربنيون والاحبار بما استحفظوا من كتب الله وكانوا عليه شهداء … (Al Maeda: 44). That is why Allah took upon Himself the responsibility of protecting the last Divine Revelation. He gave it to the Prophet of the علم بالقلم fame and revealed it to a society that had a tradition of reading and writing. Well, Divine Revelation is a noble thing. The Qur’an exhorts the believers to write down even the mundane transactions of everyday life [51] . There is enough internal evidence in the Qur’an that refers to the society at Madina as one that had a culture of books and pen and that mentions the Qur’an as a definitive book in that society. It is surprising that those who take the book alluded to in the entire verse – فلا اقسم بمواقع النجوم وانه لقسم لو تعلمون عظيم انه لقرأن كريم فى كتاب مكنون لايمسه الا المطهرون تنزيل من رب العالمين … (Al Waqeah: 75-80) to be the book, which is protected in the distant skies, should think that the Qur’anic commandment of لايمسه الاالمطهرون should be valid for the people on the earth. If this book is protected in another world, how does the question of laying hands on it here arise, for which the condition of purity was laid down? But as the exegetes are accustomed to transport all such verses to another world, even this internal evidence contained in the Qur’an cannot release them from the stranglehold of fabricated accounts. There is such a strong hold of the earlier exegetes, particularly Tabari, on the Islamic interpretive literature (tafsiri adab) that apparently all those comments written with the objective of creating an alternative perspective to Tabari, eventually turned out to be only an extension of the same intellectual flights taken recourse to by Tabari. We have become so accustomed to depend on the interpretive literature that we ignore the internal evidence contained in the Qur’an and cannot muster up enough courage to dismiss the role of human endeavours in compiling and organizing a definitive and divinely executed text like the Qur’an. Truly speaking, the books of interpretive literature and traditions have weakened our faith (iman) to a considerable extent.

We have already alluded to the view expressed by Hafiz Ibn Hajr Al-Asqalani that the Qur’an had not been compiled during the Prophet’s lifetime, that the verses were scattered here and there, that the chapters (surah) were not organised etc.; all these, according to him, were done later by the Prophet’s Companions according to their best judgement. Of course, he is not alone in expressing this view about the Qur’anic Text. A large number of renowned scholars of traditions and exegetes have shown themselves to be victims of such misconceptions about the final Divine Text. It is a commonly held belief that the organization of the surahs was not divinely executed, but was done by the Prophet’s companions according to their best understanding of them (the verses) in the overall scheme of the Qur’an. There is no dearth of such traditions also that extend this idea even to the arrangement of verses within a surah. For instance, the following objection raised by Ibn Abbas found place in many reliable traditions: he had asked Othman why Surah “Al Infal” and “Barah” were not separated by “Bismillah”, and why instead they were incorporated into “the seven big surahs”, Othman’s reported reply was – as there was similarity in the theme of “Al Infal”. Surah Barah was revealed last of all, and the Prophet died before making any statement about it. That is why I thought Barah is just a part of “Infal” and did not have “Bismillah” written between them”. [52] (Surah Barah, also called alTaubah, is next to Surah Al-Infal. As Barah is the only chapter that starts without a bismilla, which also is taken asa separator. The two suras, if taken together - because of the absence of aseparator bismilla- ranks among the seven long suras of the Quran. The idea that Quran has seven long suras occurred important to those who attach special significance to number seven. However, there is no such scheme or implication in the text. In this surah if the bismilla is missing in the beginning perhaps because this surah has bismillah in the text inside It is said that when Khusaima bin Sabit Ansari presented the verse – لقد جاء كم رسول من انفسكم … (Al Tauba: 128) and Othman stood witness to it, the problem arose as to where to place it. Placing it at the end of surah Barah was also said to be the result of the judgement of the Prophet’s Companions. [53] Such traditions placed Othman on a much higher pedestal, from the simple compiler of the Qur’anic Text to an editor or adjudicator. Because of the presence of such unreliable accounts in the genuine books of traditions this Divine Text came to be regarded as an Othmanic text, and the status of Othman as the compiler of the Qur’an became a part of the belief and knowledge of the majority of Muslims.

When any credence is given to the fact that the human mind/intelligence had any role to play in the organization and compilation of the Divine Text, then naturally a question arises as to why the Divine Text should not be found out in its pristine form, so that the dilution and distortion that may have occurred to it through human intervention is discounted and access is gained to the authentic Divine Word. In reliable books of the Qur’anic knowledge, evidence of efforts to pin down the exact timing of the revelation of each surah can be found. What should be the proper arrangement for them according to the chronology of revelation? Reservations were also expressed about the mixing of verses revealed at Mecca and Madina in the same surah, and it was suggested that unless the verses are arranged chronologically (rather than thematically), it would lead to grave complexities in the understanding of Divine Revelation. Scholars of traditions and exegetes have made their own listing of the surahs according to their time and place of revelation for a new organization of the Qur’an. There were serious disagreements among them about the exact chronology and placement of the surahs. The list prepared by Ibn Nadeem and Itqan created a situation whereby people were ready with their own manuscripts of the Qur’anic Text, which they arranged on the basis of various traditions. As each group had a set of traditions to offer in support of its view, it was not possible to either accept or reject any version solely on the basis of such traditions. Sometimes, differing and conflicting versions of the same tradition was attributed to the same transmitter. The belief that the Qur’an was the complete, final and unadulterated version of the Word of God died a natural death under the weight of such traditions.

It is claimed that the current version of the Qur’an is different from the version available at the time of the Prophet. It is certainly true about the arrangement of the text, if not the text itself. Even those who opposed this propaganda ultimately accepted the fact that the Prophet organised some surahs and the rest of the surahs were arranged by his Companions. Imam Malik, Qazi Abu Bakr and Ibn Farsi were said to be of this view. [54]   Different versions were attributed to Ali, Abdullah bin Masu’d, Abi bin Ka’b, Abdullah bin Abbas and Muhammad bin Noman bin Basheer. [55] It had been said repeatedly about Ali and Abdullah bin Masu’d that even after the Othmanic version was completed, these gentlemen held on to their own versions and instructed their disciples to read the Qur’an in their versions. Tabari made a special mention of the fact that in the version prepared by Ibn Masu’d, Surah Yunus figured at no. 10. Ibn Nadeem’s Al-Firhist where one cannot find the listing of  Ali’s version of the Qur’anic Text, draws attention to the fact that among the different versions prepared by Ibn Masu’d there were no two versions that were perfectly identical [56] in their principle of organization. This sort of irresponsible statements about the Divine Word engendered doubts in the mind of even knowledgeable people about the definitiveness of the Qur’anic Text. As our attitude towards history was more reverential than critical, we accepted hl accounts and traditions as essential tools in our understanding of an absolute entity like Divine Revelation. Once these anti-Qur’anic views sneaked into reliable books of traditions and exegesis, later generations found it difficult to get rid of them. They had just one option open to them to prove the weakness of such traditions, and that was to search out the comparatively unreliable transmitters. But in an environment where hundreds of hypocrites (munafiq) in the guise of scholars of traditions were propagating false information day and night, it was not difficult for a few to circumvent such a critical scrutiny (of identifying false transmitters). That is why this process of scrutiny and evaluation, despite being objective and scientific to a great degree, could not establish high standard of intuitive knowledge (darayat). The veracity of this can be established if we undertake a comparative study of the Book of Tas’a (Kutb-e Tas’a). Even if Imam Muslim has been successful in keeping the fabricated traditions regarding the compilation of the Qur’an at arm’s length, they have made their way into Bukhari, Tirmizi, and other books through different means.

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 [57] .   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.” [58]

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. [59]   Thus, to start with, about two thousand errors were alleged to have been removed at the instruction of Zayd (d. 67 H.E.). [60]   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 [61] . It was also claimed that at the instance of Hajjaj bin Yusuf, Nazr bin Amir embellished the text with points and other diacritical marks. [62]   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. [63]   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 [64] , 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. [65] 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. [66]   In some traditions, this position was given to Zayd bin Sabit. [67]   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). [68] 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). [69] 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. [70] 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. [71] 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. [72] 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 [73] .  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). [74] 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. [75]   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’. [76]   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. [77]   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’. [78] 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. [79]   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. [80] 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. [81] 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. [82]    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. [83]   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. [84] 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. [85]  

Our exegetical books often vouch for the frequent occurrence (tawatur) and reliability of the fabricated tradition regarding the seven levels. [86] It has opened the floodgates of controversy regarding not only the Qur’anic interpretation but the text as well. Instead of one Qur’an we had numerous texts produced on the plea/ basis of the seven levels. It happened because, in principle, we accepted the fact that in the Qur’anic verses it is not only permissible to create newer version through the use of synonyms, making changes in the diacritical marks and sonic pattern, all this would be considered as divinely executed according to the seven levels of interpretation. Thus, the possibility opened up for one verse to have not only seven versions but many more, in geometric progression. This is how the concept of the Qur’an as a definitive and inviolable text that was firmly planted in the mind of Muslims of the first century H.E., particularly in the period of the Prophet’s Companions, was gradually weakened. This explains the change of our attitude towards the Qur’an as a Book that was invested with honour and heavenly grandeur, after the passing away of the first generation of the Prophet’s followers. From Tabari, down to the contemporary exegetes, and from Bukhari to to the current scholars of tradition, there would be only a miniscule section that regards the Qur’anic text, letter by letter, from Allah. Those who believe in the concept of seven levels of meaning and the other detailed, interpretive accounts in support of the fabricated tradition found in the Sahah Sitta, however much capable they are to undertake a comparative study (tatbeeq) of these traditions they would find it difficult to derive the concept of an undistorted Qur’an from them.

We have already recorded Ibn Jareer’s statement that according to the consensus arrived at by the Prophet's Companions arrived at the remaining six levels (ahraf) have been done away with. According to this view, out of the seven levels, Muslims now inherit just one. [87]   Imam Tabari reaches the conclusion that the remaining six levels were rejected in the later years, and that the seven possible readings of the Qur’an were allowed only in the initial years, even though the Qur’an was revealed according the language of the Quraish tribe. [88] Even if one accepts this hypothesis, it does not lead us to the concept of the Divine Revelation where both the words and the meanings have equal importance. Then, we have to accept the fact that in the later years the Qur’an came to its final shape through a process of evolution. To think of Divine Revelation in these terms is nothing short of dangerous. Then, historically, there is a problem with this view and it is this: there is no evidence of any clear instruction regarding the rectification or distortion in that part of the Qur’anic Text that was with the émigrés (muhajireen) from Ethiopia (Habsha) in the initial years or the parts that were scattered among other tribes through various means. Abul Khair Al-Jazri has tried to a comparatively moderate path. He said that the Othmanic version incorporates all the seven levels and it is not permissible for Muslims to bypass any of the levels out of the seven. [89]   Apparently, this view seems to strive for a synthesis but, in actual practice, to incorporate all the different seven levels in one verse, and to separate them by means of reading and interpretation seem an impossible task. Only those speak in these terms who, instead of identifying the real nature of a problem and suggesting ways to solve it, are more interested in finding an escape route. Abul Hasan Ashari who is known in our history of thought as someone who wanted to determine the majority view of our debates on the Qur’an and who is known for his predilection to strike a middle course on knotty issues, he too expressed the view that the current version of the Qur’an incorporates all the levels. At the same time, he admitted the fact that one cannot identify all the seven levels with any measure of certainty. [90]   Ashari’s statement also leads one to conceive of a text, a major part of which is still outside the human ken because of its unknowability. Allama bin Hazm, known for challenging conventional views and striking his own path, made the sweeping statement that if Othman had rejected the six levels he would have been ejected from Islam forthwith, but even his critical ken failed to grasp the far-reaching implications of the seven levels. He remained steadfast to his view of the seven levels being present and protected in the current text [91] but could not illustrate the existence of all the seven levels with the help of any verse. A similar stance was adopted by Abul Waleed Baji Malki, the interpreter of Muwatta who believe in the presence of the seven levels in the light of the Divine promise of protection and preservation of the Book (انا له لحافظون), but instead of pointing them out in the current text, he takes it to denote different readings of the text. [92] Among the votaries of the seven levels, the names of Imam Ghazali [93] and Mulla Ali Qari [94] are quite important. However, in the later centuries, when the concept of the seven readings became known, some people took the seven levels to mean seven different readings. They consider seven readings as the highest number, but they do not limit this number. According to Shah Waliullah, the no. 7 cannot be used to indicate uppermost limit. That is why, he says, there is consensus among the imams on ten readings. [95] Anwar Shah Kashmiri who assumed importance because of the honour he received from Deoband as a scholar of traditions says that in the Qur’an the seven levels or the seven shades of meaning are intact even today which, probably, Tabari was unaware of. [96] But he seemed unable to adduce any evidence in support of his statement. For the scholars of the Qur’an, this has remained a complex problem from the days of Tabari up until modern times, as to how they should harmonise the tradition alluding to the seven levels to the current Qur’anic Text. On the one hand, the Qur’anic assertion – اناله لحافظون compels them to believe that the Qur’an has remained inviolable, that each and every letter of the Qur’an comes from Allah and has remained unchanged; on the other hand, the tradition relating to the seven levels constantly whispers it into their ears that whatever they are reading in the current text, equipped with diacritical marks, is only one layer out of the seven. These seven levels not only imply seven versions but they contain limitless forms of Divine Revelation of which they are still unaware. One has yet to identify and assess the possibility of these limitless hidden texts that this tradition points to. As long as the current Qur’anic Text does not clearly contradict the concept of these limitless potential texts and reject this notion conclusively, the definitiveness and finality of the Qur’an would not be firmly imprinted in our mind, nor will our misgivings and worries about Divine Revelation, brought on by our ancient scholars and exegetes, be removed. In our considered view, we can make Divine Revelation an issue for debate without necessarily believing in its definitiveness, finality and inviolability, but we cannot make it a source of guidance for us.