Posted by admin on Apr 13, 2013 in Meditations | 1 comment

Bismi Rabbi ãl-Husayn (Ṣ)

و الصلوة و السلام على سيدنا محمد و آله الطيبين الطاهرين، و لعنة الله و الخلق على أعدائهم أجمعين

Dear Friends in Walāyaḧ,

This is Part III of our continuing discussion on the ikhtiyār of Imām Ṣādiq (Ṣ) with respect to the recitation of Ḥamzaḧ ibn Habīb al-Zayyāt, one of the famous Seven Reciters.[1.  The last previous edit of the original draft of this note was published privately on Facebook on Wednesday, July 7, 2010. The following is an updated draft, and includes minor changes and improvements.] In Part I and Part II we covered some relevant cosmological and historical background. In this installment we continue with some important historical background.

The Four Maṣāḥif and the Withdrawal of the Muṣḥaf of ʿAlī

The Qurʿān was compiled by a number of companions of the Prophet. Four of them were apparently complete and play an important role in history. For details see Study of the Noble Qurʿān by Ayatullah Sayyid Jalali:

1. Ubayy ibn Kaʿb al-Anṣārī (passed away 32 AH);
2. ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd (32 AH);
3. ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (40 AH);
4. Zayd ibn Thābit al-Anṣārī (passed away 45 AH).

Some points:

1. Each of these four worked as scribes for the Prophet as well as recorders of the revelation.
2. The Prophet (Ṣ) reserved particular praise for Ubayy and Ibn Masʿūd as experts on the recitation of the Qurʿān. For example, he said: “If any of you wishes to recite the Qurʾān freshly, exactly as it has been sent down, then read according to the recitation of Ibn Umm ʿAbd (i.e., Ibn Masʿūd)!” This is a famous ḥadīth.
3. Ubayy’s muṣḥaf was one of the compilations that was seized and burned by ʿUthmān.
4. Ibn Masʿūd refused to give up his muṣḥaf to ʿUthmān. This led to a clash between him and ʿUthmān, and this was one of the contributing factors when the people of Kufa rebelled against ʿUthmān.
5. Imām ʿAlī (Ṣ) withdrew his compilation from circulation early on. According to Imām Ṣādiq (Ṣ): When ʿAlī finished compiling his muṣḥaf

…he brought it out to the people and told them,

This is the Book of Allah – in his Might and Majesty – compiled in accordance to its inzāl upon the Prophet (Ṣ). Surely I have collected it from the Two Tablets.

The people [most likely Abū Bakr and ʿUmar] replied,

We already have a complete muṣḥaf [most likely the first compilation of Zayd ibn Thābit], and have no need of yours.

ʿAlī (Ṣ) responded,

Very well, then. By Allah, you will not ever see it after today! My only job was to inform you once I collected it, and to give you the opportunity to read it.

Other versions of this story state that the Imām (Ṣ) brought the muṣḥaf out on the back of a camel to show the people. In any case, this muṣḥaf was never seen again, a fact over which early scholars such as Ibn Sīrīn – a contemporary of Imām Baqir (Ṣ) – lamented.

1. As we have discussed, it is the Muṣḥaf of Zayd ibn Thābit that survives as the official recension of the Qurʾān.

This raises a question: Given the presence of ʿAlī (Ṣ), Ibn Masʿūd, and Ubayy; given their compilations of the Qurʿān; given that these three were the undisputed masters of the Qurʿān within the Muslim community:

Then why didn’t Abu Bakr or ʿUthmān make use of them and their knowledge?!? When this question is answered, it becomes easier to make sense out of the confusion surrounding the collection of Zayd at the bequest of Abū Bakr and later ʿUthmān.

The answer is political:

1. If the task were delegated to ʿAlī, then the whole political structure established at Saqīfaḧ would be undermined. If you can’t put together a muṣḥaf without ʿAlī, then what is the foundation of your rule?!?
2. The Maṣāḥif of ʿAlī, Ibn Masʿūd, and Ubayy contained something that, at this stage of the disussion we will call notes – sometimes called “lexical paraphrases” –, many of which relate to the walāyaḧ of Imām ʿAlī and the AhlulBayt (Ṣ). Some of these notes have survived and are known to scholars of both schools.For example, in Sūrah Māʾidaḧ, after the ayah
   

   Announce what has been revealed to you from your Lord…

   Ibn Masʿūd adds the note

   the fact that ʿAlī is the Mawlā of the Believers,

This explains in part why ʿUthmān had the other maṣāḥif burned: To remove traces of the notes in the compilations of Ibn Masʿūd and Ubayy regarding AhlulBayt (Ṣ). This is related to the reason that the rulers initially forbade the writing of aḥādīth.

This also explains why the rulers chose to have Zayd ibn Thābit put together the official recension. As a relatively young man not under the influence of ʿAlī (Ṣ), Ubayy, or Ibn Masʿūd, they could trust him. Indeed, one of the things Abu Bakr says to Zayd when requesting the first private compilation was “we have no suspicions about you”.

Ibn Masʿūd and His Muṣḥaf

An important point: Ibn Masʿūd was one of the earliest companions of the Prophet (Ṣ) – one of the first ten in fact, perhaps even earlier than Abū Bakr. He was so close to the Messenger that people would say he was virtually one of AhlulBayt (Ṣ). By his own account, he learned 70 sūraḧ’s directly from the mouth of the Messenger (Ṣ), and he learned the rest from Imām ʿAlī (Ṣ). He moved to Kufa during the time of ʿUmar and became the veritable marjaʿ of the community there, and with his companions developed the sciences of tajwīd and qirāʾaḧ.

So Ibn Masʿūd was quite indignant that ʿUthmān would appoint a young Medinan upstart like Zayd ibn Thābit to head the committee for establishing the benchmark muṣḥaf. He used to say,

I was reciting the Qurʾān while Zayd was in the street playing with toys.

In any case, Ibn Masʿūd refused to give up his muṣḥaf to be burned, telling his students,

Hide your maṣāḥif from ʿUthmān!

He became an opponent of ʿUthmān, even helping Abū Dharr against him. Finally ʿUthmān brought Ibn Masʿūd to Medina and had him beaten till he broke his ribs; Ibn Masʿūd died soon thereafter.

Ibn Masʿūd ‘s followers were outraged. This is one of the reasons Kufa became a bastion of Tashayyuʿ; it’s people were devoted to Ibn Masʿūd, and were among the quickest to pledge allegiance to Imām ʿAlī (Ṣ). Many of the Imām’s closest companions in Kufa, such as Zirr ibn Hubaysh, ʿAlqamah ibn Qays, and Rabīʿ ibn Khuthaym, were originally close students of Ibn Masʿūd. They preserved his original muṣḥaf, which survived in the Muslim world through the time of Ḥajjāj the Accursed, who spared no effort to destroy every trace of it, even going so far as to threaten anyone reciting it with the loss of his neck, and the use of the rib of a pig to erase any trace of Ibn Masʿūd’s qirāʾah from any muṣḥaf that contained it.

Rabīʿ ibn Khuthaym’s copy of Ibn Masʿūd’s muṣḥaf survived for many years, and even today it is possible to reconstruct much of Ibn Masʿūd’s muṣḥaf. Shīʿī scholars such as al-Aʿmash – one of the famous 14 reciters – did all they could to preserve Ibn Masʿūd’s muṣḥaf and qirāʾah. Al-Aʿmash and another famous scholar Saʿīd ibn Jubayr – murdered by Ḥajjāj the same way as was his dear friend Kumayl – used to recite both the Muṣḥaf of Zayd ibn Thābit and the Muṣḥaf of Ibn Masʿūd.

Finally, in the wake of Ḥajjāj’s pogroms Imām Ṣādiq (Ṣ) requested the Shīʿaḧ to stick to the Muṣḥaf of Zayd:

مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحُسَيْنِ، عَنْ عَبْدِالرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ أَبِي هَاشِمٍ، عَنْ سَالِمِ بْنِ سَلَمَةَ ، قَالَ: قَرَأَ رَجُلٌ عَلَى أَبِي عَبْدِاللهِ ـ ع ـ وَ أَنَا أَسْتَمِعُ حُرُوفاً مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ لَيْسَ عَلَى مَا يَقْرَأُهَا النَّاسُ؛ فَقَالَ أَبُو عَبْدِ اللهِ ـ ع ـ:

كُفَّ عَنْ هَذِهِ الْقِرَاءَةِ! اقْرَأْ كَمَا يَقْرَأُ النَّاسُ حَتّٰى يَقُومَ الْقَائِمُ ـ ع ـ فَإِذَا قَامَ الْقَائِمُ ـ ع ـ قَرَأَ كِتَابَ اللهِ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ عَلَى حَدِّهِ؛ وَ أَخْرَجَ الْمُصْحَفَ الَّذِي كَتَبَهُ عَلِيٌّ ـ ع ـ.

وَ قَالَ: أَخْرَجَهُ عَلِيٌّ ـ ع ـ إِلَى النَّاسِ حِينَ فَرَغَ مِنْهُ وَ كَتَبَهُ، فَقَالَ لَهُمْ:

هَذَا كِتَابُ اللهِ ـ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ ـ كَمَا أَنْزَلَهُ اللهُ عَلٰى مُحَمَّدٍ ـ ص ـ وَ قَدْ جَمَعْتُهُ مِنَ اللَّوْحَيْنِ.

فَقَالُوا: «هُوَ ذَا عِنْدَنَا مُصْحَفٌ جَامِعٌ فِيهِ الْقُرْآنُ لَا حَاجَةَ لَنَا فِيهِ». فَقَالَ:

أَمَا وَ اللهِ مَا تَرَوْنَهُ بَعْدَ يَوْمِكُمْ هَذَا أَبَداً! إِنَّمَا كَانَ عَلَيَّ أَنْ أُخْبِرَكُمْ حِينَ جَمَعْتُهُ لِتَقْرَءُوهُ.

Sālim ibn Salamaḧ says: A man read the Qurʾān in front of Imām Sadiq (Ṣ), and I heard him read in a way different from the way the people read [i.e., different from the Muṣḥaf of Zayd ibn Thābit]. So the Imām said,

Leave this manner of recitation for now! Recite the way the people recite until the coming of the Qāʾim (AJ). When the Qāʾim (AJ) arises he will recite the Qurʿān precisely and exactly, and he will bring out the Muṣḥaf that ʿAlī (Ṣ) transcribed.

Then the Imām said: He brought [that Muṣḥaf] out to the people and told them,

This is the Book of Allah – in his Might and Majesty – compiled in accordance to its inzāl upon the Prophet (Ṣ). Surely I have collected it from the Two Tablets.’

The people [most likely Abū Bakr and ʿUmar] replied,

We already have a complete muṣḥaf [most likely the first compilation of Zayd ibn Thābit], and have no need of yours.’

Ali (Ṣ) responded,

Very well, then. By Allah, you will not ever see it after today! My only job was to inform you once I collected it, and to give you the opportunity to read it’.

“The Way the People Recite”

According to my research, by ‘the people’ and ‘the way the people recite’ the Imām (Ṣ) is referring to the Muṣḥaf of Zayd ibn Thābit and the majority of the community who follow it. So, in effect, the Imām (Ṣ) appears to be saying,

Don’t worry about recitations according to the maṣāḥif of Ibn Masʿūd or ʿAlī (Ṣ); when al-Qāʾim (AJ) comes he will bring the most precise muṣḥaf; till then, reading the Muṣḥaf of Zayd ibn Thābit is sufficient.

This is important because there are recitations of AhlulBayt (Ṣ) that are not in 100% accordance with the Muṣḥaf of Zayd ibn Thābit. For example, Imām ʿAlī (Ṣ) used to recite a word with ʿAyn, while in the Muṣḥaf of Zayd there is Ḥaa. But he would not allow anyone to change the Ḥaa to ʿAyn in the Muṣḥaf of Zayd ibn Thābit, although in his own muṣḥaf it was written with ʿAyn.

Finally, the Shīʿaḧ of Kufa did the following: Read the consonantal text of Zayd ibn Thābit, but use the methods of recitations of Ibn Masʿūd and ʿAlī ibn Abi Talib (Ṣ) for vowelizing and dotting that muṣḥaf.

Distinctions

So we have the following distinctions to keep in mind as we continue this discussion:

1. The four maṣāḥif of old, of which the Muṣḥaf of Zayd ibn Thābit is the current among Muslims;
2. Recitation of Ahlulbayt (Ṣ) according to the Muṣḥaf of ʿAlī (Ṣ);
3. Recitation of Ahlulbayt (Ṣ) according to the Muṣḥaf of Zayd (Ṣ);
4. Recitation of the Shīʿaḧ of the Muṣḥaf of Ibn Masʿūd;
5. Recitation of the Shīʿaḧ of the Muṣḥaf of Zayd ibn Thābit.

Given the command, or at least strong recommendation of the Imām, we are interested in 3) and 5). That is:

Given the Muṣḥaf of Zayd ibn Thābit; given the command of the Imām to read the Qurʾān according to the Mushaf of Zayd; and given the various legal modes of reciting the Muṣḥaf of Zayd ibn Thābit accepted by the ʿĀmmaḧ and Shīʿaḧ – 10 in all:

What is the mode of recitation that is closest to that of ʿAlī ibn Abi Talib?

That is where we want to go next, inshāAllāh.

In Walāyaḧ

Idris Samawi

Some Notes on the Above Meditation[2.  Some of the comments below have been slightly edited for style. Bracketed interlinear comments are mine.]

 

From a Sister:

Thank you for the historical notes. I thought what we learn today is the closest mode of recitation to that of Imām ʿAlī, but from what you are saying above does that mean we are reciting according to the Muṣḥaf of Zayd ibn Thābit? Where you mention:

…Rabīʿ ibn Khuthaym’s copy of Ibn Masʿūd’s muṣḥaf survived for many years, and even today it is possible to reconstruct much of Ibn Masʿūd’s muṣḥaf. Shīʿī scholars such as al-Aʿmash – one of the famous 14 reciters – did all they could to preserve Ibn Masʿūd’s muṣḥaf and qirāʾah.…

Are there any copies available today? Wouldn’t we need this if we wanted to get as close as possible to the mode of recitation of Imām ʿAlī?

My Reply

The Aʾimmaḧ (Ṣ) have apparently requested us to recite according to the Muṣḥaf of Zayd ibn Thābit, known as the Muṣḥaf of ʿUthmān or the Muṣḥaf Imām, until the rise of al-Qāʾim (AJ).

Are there any copies available today? Wouldn’t we need this if we wanted to get as close as possible to the mode of recitation of Imām ʿAlī?

Unfortunately, the suppression of the Muṣḥaf of Ibn Masʿūd by Ḥajjāj and others in power means that it lost tawātur, the consecutive transmission that is so crucial for being able to depend on it as Qurʾān. So, aside from the recommendation/order of the Imām (Ṣ), even if we could reconstruct the Muṣḥaf of Ibn Masʿūd we could not treat it as Qurʾān (unless a trove of ancient manuscripts was discovered).

On the other hand, the fragments that have survived from the other maṣāḥif and qirā’āt are useful for tafsīr; scholars from both schools of thought have done this over the centuries. For example, the fact that Ibn Masʿūd mentions ʿAlī explicitly — at least in the margins of his muṣḥaf if not in the actual text — is historically very important.

I will share one famous incident. The last scholar to continue reading from the muṣḥaf of Ibn Masʿūd openly was Ibn Shanabūdh (d. 328/939), 300 years after the Prophet (Ṣ). He was one of the greatest scholars of the Qurʾān of his time – perhaps the greatest –, and he is still recognized in the chains of narration of the scholars of qirāʾaḧ. Anyway, he was brought to trial and ordered beaten by the famous vizier and calligrapher Ibn Muqlaḧ (who established the rules of calligraphy as practised today). During his beating to force him to stop reading from the muṣḥaf of Ibn Masʿūd, Ibn Shanabūdh called out to Allah (SWT) to cut off the right hand of Ibn Muqlaḧ. Within a few months, Ibn Muqlaḧ actually lost his right hand due to his role in some political intrigue in the Imperial Court of the King. “A rare direct answer to prayer”, as the contemporary and famous bibliographer Ibn Nadīm wrote.

Imām ʿAlī (Ṣ) accepted the Muṣḥaf of Zayd ibn Thābit in lieu of releasing his own – and most of Ibn Masʿūd’s students became the former’s students and read the Qurʾān with him. After the pogroms of Ḥajjāj and the Umayyads against the Reciters of the Qurʾān – including Kumayl, Saʿīd ibn Jubayr, and others who tried to preserve the Muṣḥaf of Ibn Masʿūd – Imām Ṣādiq (Ṣ) requested the Shīʿaḧ to stick to the Muṣḥaf of Zayd ibn Thābit, presumably for the sake of Muslim unity and for taqiyyaḧ. So today, only the Muṣḥaf of Zayd ibn Thābit is mutawātir.

So the question remains: What is the mode of recitation of the Muṣḥaf of Zayd ibn Thābit, the mutawātir so-called Imām Muṣḥaf, that is closest to that of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib?

I thought what we learn today is the closest mode of recitation to that of Imām ʿAlī

I don’t buy it. It’s a convenient story but it has holes, serious holes. We will discuss this further soon, inshāAllāh.

In Reply to Brother ʿAlī Husayni

Even the fact that Imām Ṣādiq (Ṣ) ordered us to stick to Zaid’s Muṣḥaf is sad.

There is a musnad tradition in Biḥāru ãl-Anwār that the Imām (Ṣ) said,

If the cushion (of wilayah/authority) were turned over to me, and if my right were fully recognized, then I would bring out the muṣḥaf that I transcribed and which the Messenger (Ṣ) dictated to me.

So the question arises: Why didn’t the Imām release it when he became ruler? The answer is because his wilāyaḧ/walāyaḧ in the full sense of the word ‘*mawlaa*’ was never fully recognized even by most of those who gave the Imām (Ṣ) bayʿah, not to mention those who did not. To release his muṣḥaf under those circumstances would have been very counterproductive.

It’s important to note that the majority of people who gave the Imām bayʿah were not Shīʿī in the sense we understand that word today. Some were, but only a minority.

It shows the level of brutality against Shiies that existed during his time.

Indeed! For the record, note that poor Ibn Shanabūdh was not even Shīʿī as far as we can tell. Up to his time, there were even ʿĀmmaḧ who wanted to preserve the recitation and Muṣḥaf of Ibn Masʿūd. Ibn Shanabūdh argued that the readings of Ibn Masʿūd had sound chains of transmission and therefore should still be read. That’s 300 years after the Prophet (Ṣ)!

From a Dear Colleague (Dr Tariq al-Jamil)

It is my understanding that Aʾimmaḧ rejected the reading of Ibn Masʿūd and evidence to the contrary is largely based on Sunni narratives that were mistakenly attributed to the Imāms. In particular from Ibn Masʿūd’s reading adding the ahl al-bayt to those of Abraham and Imran in 3:33 (see: al-Kafi, ed. ‘A.A. Ghaffari (Tehran, 1377=79/1957-59), and the mention of the ahl al-bayt in other cases, to insertion of the name of Imām ʿAlī (as) in some verses, to the claim that the Qurʾānic verses in the original text were greater in number than those in the present Qurʾān, to, to the assertion that the original text including the stoning verse, and the verse on the “two fields” as part of Surah al-Ahzab, to the point that Surahs al-Ahzab and al-Bayyinah were originally much longer than they are now-all of these opinions had been circulating in Sunni circles for almost two centuries before they were introduced into Shi’i works and ascribed to Shi’i authorities with and sometimes without pseudo-Shi’i chains of authority. Many of the Sunni narratives on the corruption of the text of the Qurʾān were introduced into Shi’i literature by, and under the authority of ḥadīth transmitters like Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Sayyārī, who is the ultimate authority for more than one-third of all the material on this subject in Shi’i works, and Muhammad b. al-Hasan b. Jumhur al-‘Ammi al-Basri (both from the mid-3rd century) and al-Mufaḍḍal b. Umar al-Ju’fi, Yunus b. Zabyan, and Munakhkhal b. Jamil al-Kufi (all of from the late 2nd century). By the first half of the 3rd century the results of the efforts of these transmitters can be seen in al-Sayyārī’s, Kitab al-Qira’al (Kitab al-Tanzil wa’l-taḥrīf) and countless other later works. These ideas have risen and fallen in popularity among our Shi’i scholars over the centuries and until the present day there is clearly no unanimity on the issue of the integrity of the ‘Uthmanic codex among the scholarly community. What do you make of the arguments above which are essentially just a few of the points made in Hossein Modarressi al-Tabataba’i’s, “Early Debates on the Integrity of the Qurʾān”? It certainly does suggest that these ideas are Sunni accretions gradually propagated by ghulati Shi’is that somehow over the centuries made their way into the mainstream but were rejected by the Imāms and their contemporaries. I am not in principle opposed to these ideas since I have been accused of extremism in the past but how would you respond to the research my esteemed teacher?

I should also say that I am clear about the Aʾimmaḧ’s disagreement with the arrangement of the ‘Uthmanic codex. That is, Surahs al-Fil and al-Quraysh being a single surah and likewise Surahs al-Duha and al-Sharh.

My Reply to my Esteemed Colleague: Some Working Categories of Discourse

You have raised some very important questions. A full scholarly article or book is needed to fully address the issues you raise in detail. But, with your indulgence, I’ll offer an outline based on my own research into the matter.

By the way: Sayyid Jalali’s book

دراسة حول القرآن الكريم

A Study of the Noble Qurʾān

is an excellent resource for this kind of research. Indeed, I think it’s the best of recent Shīʿī scholarship on the topics it covers; the author, a student of Sayyid Khu’i and and Agha Buzurg Tehrani – traveled the world to collect much of his information. (I’m not saying I necessarily agree with everything in it but it’s a very important contribution and benchmark).

Addressing my esteemed colleague’s points, let’s note some working distinctions, perhaps loosely expressd; in a more scholarly article or book we would make these distinctions more precise of course. Some of these distinctions you already know all too well, but for the benefit of others and to make myself clear I’ll go over them.

1. There is taḥrīf (corruption) and tartīb (organization).Taḥrīf refers to a change of the Qurʿān by addition of something not a part of it or omission of something belonging to it.Tartīb refers to internal arrangement of the sūraḧs as well as the organization of the sūraḧs with respect to one another.
2. There is Sunni and Shīʿī – or, as I prefer, following the terminology of the Imāms (Ṣ) – ʿĀmmaḧ and Shīʿaḧ. (After all, if “Sunnis” follow the Sunnah, then what the heck are the Shīʿaḧ doing? If the Shīʿaḧ are the real people of the Sunnah then it makes no sense acquiesing to let the ʿĀmmaḧ hold an exclusive claim to that title).The second distinction is obvious, but the key point here is that it took nearly three centuries for the ʿĀmmaḧ-Shīʿaḧ distinction to fully develop into roughly what we have today. Before the time of Imām Ṣadiq (Ṣ) there was a lot of fluidity. Most early Shīʿī narrators occur in ʿĀmmī chains and vice versa. Loyalties are not always easily determined. After Imām Ṣadiq (Ṣ) the general separation lines become more clear, and the centrifuge separating the two communities continues for another century and more till they metamorphize into what we know today. So dogma etc. is not yet fully established.So let’s make some more distinctions:
3. Early-Shīʿī and early-ʿĀmmīThe generations of scholars and reciters of to the time of Imām Ṣadiq (Ṣ) can loosely be categorized as one or the other. Some can be categorized as belonging to both (since the full development into sects had not yet taken place). Ibn ʿAbbās is a good example of someone who fits into both categories.
4. Proto-Shīʿī and proto-ʿĀmmīThese are the companions of the later Imāms after ał-Ṣādiq (Ṣ) as well the leader of the four ʿĀmmī schools of law and their immediate followers etc.
5. Modern-Shīʿī and modern-ʿĀmmīThis includes scholars from the immediate post-Ghaybaḧ-Sughrā period and beyond. Ashʿarī and his school of Kalām etc. belong to this period. This is also about the time that the ʿĀmmaḧ closed the door to ijtihād as well as also to ikhtiyār in the recitation of the Qurʿān. (We will explain ikhtiyār in recitation later, inshāAllāh).

A Note From Our Brother Tariq, and a Reply

I think I would agree with your chronological categorization of the stages in the development of the so-called Sunni and Shi’i distinction in substantive terms but I would argue that the Shi’i-‘Ammi binary simply reproduces the polemical nomenclature of the traditional discourses. We should perhaps resist this if there is an alternative to khass-amm. But that is another discussion entirely.

You may be right of course, but since we are having a private conversation between friends – the audience of this Ḥusayniyyaḧ is private and I’ve asked everyone to respect the privacy of the forum – I can be more relaxed, inshāAllāh.

Let us now add yet more distinctions:

1. Early-Shīʿī may be divided into political Shīʿī and ideological Shīʿī: These are not mutually exclusive of course.
2. Proto-Shīʿīs are all ideological Shīʿīs. They may be divided into cosmological Shīʿī and dispensational Shīʿī: again, not mutually exclusive.

Dispensational Shīʿīs tend to focus their interests and research on the walāyaḧ tashrīʿiyyaḧ (ritual, legal, and ethical commands of the Sunnah as conveyed by the Imāms (Ṣ)).

Cosmological Shīʿīs tend to focus their interest and research on the walāyaḧ takwīniyyaḧ (cosmological role of AhlulBayt (Ṣ) in the origin, meaning/purpose, and destiny of microcosm (human being) and macrocosm (world at large)).

Sayyid Modarressi (closer in spirit to dispensational Tashayyuʿ) and Amir-Moezzi (closer in spirit to cosmological Tashayyuʿ) each note this distinction in his own way.

Did the Aʾimmaḧ (Ṣ) Really Reject the Qirāʾaḧ Ibn Masʿūd?

Quoting Brother Tariq:

It is my understanding that Aʾimmaḧ rejected the reading of Ibn Masʿūd and evidence to the contrary is largely based on Sunni narratives that were mistakenly attributed to the Imāms.

This depends on what one means by rejecting the recitation of Ibn Masʿūd:

If it means that Ibn Masʿūd did not read the Qurʾān correctly, that is not the case:

1. The Prophet (Ṣ) himself endorsed the recitation of Ibn Masʿūd and praised him highly;
2. Ibn Masʿūd loved Imām ʿAlī (ʿA), and, while serving as the virtual marjaʿ of Kufa, used to say that the only one he referred to for knowledge of the Qurʾān and Sunnah was ʿAlī;
3. During his khilafah, when asked to eulogize Ibn Masʿūd the Imām (Ṣ) said, “He recited the Qurʾān, and knew the Sunnah; in that statement is sufficient praise”.
4. There is one cryptic ḥadīth I am aware of that may give pause. It was said under taqiyyaḧ, because of the presence of one of the famous members of the ʿĀmmaḧ in the room:
   

   If Ibn Masʿūd did not read according to our qirāʾaḧ, then he was astray… As for us, we read according to the qirāʾaḧ of Ubayy [ibn Kaʿb]”

   i) From the research of later scholars we know that wording and consonantal structure of Ubayy’s and Ibn Masʿūd’s muṣḥaf‘s were quite similar in areas of departure from the Muṣḥaf of Zayd.

   ii) The sentence of the Imām contains a conditional phrase, ‘If Ibn Masʿūd did not read according to our qirāʾaḧ’. The Imām never says that he did not read according to their recitation. Some of our scholars believe that the Imām was praising Ibn Masʿūd using dissimulation/_taqiyyaḧ_, which was a common device of the Imām as we all know.

   iii) The Aʾimmaḧ had their own qirāʾaḧ/manner of recitation… What do they need to refer to Ubayy for? It appears that this is taqiyyaḧ to say that the recitations of Ubayy and Ibn Masʿūd are close to that of AhlulBayt (Ṣ).

   iv) The recitations of the Muṣḥaf of Zayd which were popular in Medina, such as that of Nafiʿ (still quite popular in North and West Africa) traced their chains of transmission back to Ubayy. So the ‘we’ of the Imām in, “we read according to the qirāʾaḧ of Ubayy,” may be referring to the people of Medina, which was the residence of the Imām as well.

5. This is not to say that the Aʾimmaḧ (Ṣ) never criticized certain peculiar views of Ibn Masʿūd. They did on occasion (just as they criticized their own close companions on occasion), and I will have something important to say about this at a later point, inshāAllāh.
6. This is very crucial: Many of the closest companions of Imām ʿAlī (Ṣ) were students of Ibn Masʿūd and maintained the muṣḥaf of the latter. Even Ibn ʿAbbās said he preferred the muṣḥaf/*qirāʾaḧ* of Ibn Masʿūd. If the Imām (Ṣ) had rejected it, so many of his closest Shīʿaḧ – in the early ideological as well as political sense – would not have stuck to it so closely. I give just two examples:Zirr ibn Ḥubaysh was one of Ibn Masʿūd’s closest students and an expert on the dialects of the Arabs; Ibn Masʿūd would discuss and consult with Ibn Hubaysh as Ibn Masʿūd was developing the sciences of qirāʾaḧ and tajwīd. After the Imām (Ṣ) came to Kufa, Zirr ibn Ḥubaysh read the entire Qurʾān from beginning to end in front of the Imām. He became an ideological Shīʿī. We have no narration or evidence that the Imām asked him (or anyone else) to stop reading the recitation of Ibn Masʿūd. Indeed, Zirr ibn Ḥubaysh is most famous for preserving his teacher’s recitation. He lived to be 120 and apparently was killed fighting Ḥajjāj at the battle of Jamajim (at age 120!!).Saʿīd ibn Jubayr – originally Ethiopian – was one of the most important scholars of the generation after the Companions (Tabiʿūn). He was an authority in early ʿĀmmī thought, and was posthumously claimed by Imām Ṣadiq (Ṣ) to be an ideological Shīʿī, killed by Ḥajjāj only because of his love for and loyalty to Imām Sajjād (Ṣ). Saʿīd ibn Jubayr is famous for leading the ṣalāh in Ramadan during his hiding from Ḥajjāj after the battle of Jamājim. One night he would read the Muṣḥaf of Zayd ibn Thābit; the other night, he would read the Muṣḥaf of Ibn Masʿūd. Again, we have no evidence that the Imāms ever asked him to stop this.Zirr ibn Ḥubaysh and Saʿīd ibn Jubayr, amongst the most prominent of the first rank (*ṭabaqaḧ*) of the Tabiʿūn, can be ranked as both early-Shīʿī as well as early ʿĀmmī, according to the distinctions I explained earlier. Indeed, they are both early ʿĀmmī and ideological Shīʿīs as well. This means that the ʿĀmmaḧ recognizes them both as pillars of their school of thought, despite their ideological and political Tahsayyuʿ.

What we can draw from this is that the love of Ibn Masʿūd and his muṣḥaf was not a sectarian issue: Both early ʿĀmmaḧ and early Shīʿaḧ shared this. As I mentioned in an earlier comment, Ibn Shanabūdh, the last great scholar of the Qurʾān to insist on reciting the recitation and Muṣḥaf of Ibn Masʿūd himself was a proto/modern-ʿĀmmī scholar. And he learned it probably during his extensive travels to Kufa, the bastion of Tashayyuʿ in those days (many of the ʿĀmmī teachers of the Qurʾān in Baghdad had teachers from Kufa).

Furthermore, before the time of Imām Ṣadiq (Ṣ) we see no evidence that the Imāms asked their followers to stick to the Muṣḥaf of Zayd ibn Thābit. Even the ḥadīth I quoted in the main note does not explicitly mention the Muṣḥaf of Ibn Masʿūd. The reciter the Imām advises may have been intending to read the Qirāʾaḧ of AhlulBayt (Ṣ). One could even argue that the Muṣḥaf of Ibn Masʿūd at that time was still well known to ‘the people’ and therefore not subject to the recommendation or command of the Imām…

But I hold that, by ‘the people’, the Imām meant the followers of the Muṣḥaf of Zayd ibn Thābit and all the circumstantial evidence would seem to support that in my view and according to my research. I have a secondary interpretation of the above ḥadīth that I intend to explain and which will make more sense at a later point below, inshāAllāh.

In any case, there is a difference of emphasis between, “Stick to the common muṣḥaf till the coming of the Qāʾim”, and, “Don’t read the Muṣḥaf of Ibn Masʿūd”. After all, the Imām was also implying that we not read the Qirāʾaḧ of AhlulBayt (Ṣ) either, much of which survives up to today. If we suggest that the Imāms were rejecting the Muṣḥaf of Ibn Masʿūd, then we have to also say they were rejecting the Qirāʾaḧ of AhlulBayt (Ṣ), which is impossible. Rather, during this period of difference and ikhtilāf we stick to the common muṣḥaf.

A Critique of Modarressi’s View, Part I

According to Modarressi, in an academic article,

From Ibn Masʿūd’s reading adding the House of the Prophet to those of Abraham and ‘Imrān in 3:33 and the mention of the House of the Prophet in other cases, to the insertion of the name of ʿAlī in some verses…

…all of these opinions had been circulating in Sunni circles for almost two centuries. The only difference was that they were now found in Shi’ite works and ascribed to Shi’ite authorities with, and sometimes without, pseudo-Shi’ite chains of authority.

Briefly: From what I can tell, it is not accurate to speak of strict ʿĀmmī or Shīʿī circles two centuries before the main compilations of Shīʿī aḥādīth began. Zirr ibn Ḥubaysh, Saʿīd ibn Jubayr, Sulayman al-Aʿmash, and other sources for the Recitation and Muṣḥaf of Ibn Masʿūd were both Shīʿī as well as ʿĀmmī authorities. (Indeed, I find it very odd that S Modarressi does not list al-Aʿmash as one of the early Shīʿī authors in his biographical work of early Shīʿī authors). Rather, both schools drew on the early material in their own way, and the influence was dialectical, not one way. For example, some of Bukhari’s teachers were hard-core proto-Shīʿīs, such as ʿUbaydullāh ibn Mūsā al-ʿAbsī (also a student of Ḥamzaḧ ał-Zayyāt).

Modarressi:

Many of the Sunni narratives on the corruption of the text of the Qurʾān were introduced into Shi’i literature by, and under the authority of ḥadīth transmitters like Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Sayyārī, who is the ultimate authority for more than one-third of all the material on this subject in Shi’i works, and Muhammad b. al-Hasan b. Jumhur al-‘Ammi al-Basri (both from the mid-3rd century) and al-Mufaḍḍal b. Umar al-Ju’fi, Yunus b. Zabyan, and Munakhkhal b. Jamil al-Kufi (all of from the late 2nd century).

I submit to Sayyid Jalali’s rule of thumb in the Science of Dirāyah: It does not matter too much what any biographer says about someone else. One cannot make a determination of trustworthiness without examining the traditions of the transmitter directly. With the indulgence of Brother Tariq: I strongly disagree with part of S Modarressi’s methodology which seems to

1. brand a transmitter as a ghālī at the slightest provocation;
2. assume from that branding that the transmitter is unreliable.

Recall an earlier-mentioned distinction: cosmological Shīʿī and dispensational Shīʿī. Both Modarressi and Amir-Moezi have discussed this distinction, each in their own way. The former’s work is closer in spirit to the dispensational sense; the latter’s work is closer in spirit to the cosmological sense. The former tends to delegitimize cosmological Tashayyuʿ; the latter tends to denigrate dispensational Tashayyuʿ (I may be oversimplifying but not by much, as anyone who has read both carefully will probably agree, inshāAllāh).

As a methodological premise, I hold, based on Sayyid Jalali’s rule of thumb, that one cannot start off that way. One cannot assume that the dispensationally minded Shīʿīs are the honest ones and the others are lying ghulāt. And vice versa: One cannot assume that the cosmologically minded Shīʿīs are the honest ones and the others are narrow-minded legalists.

Rather: Each transmitter has to be evaluated on a critical evaluation of what he narrates, not what a – perhaps ideologically opposing – narrator says.

In my own estimation, Jabir ibn Yazīd and Mufaḍḍal ibn ʿUmar, among others, were among the greatest Shīʿī transmitters, whose works are crucial to our knowledge of the very essence of cosmological walāyaḧ, which is the very heart of dispensational walāyaḧ. As Imām Ṣadiq (Ṣ) said:

One group of people have Imān in the Zāhir and reject the Bāṭin; this will not benefit them in the least.

Then after them came another group who believe in the Bāṭin and reject the Zāhir; this will not benefit them in the least.

Rather: There is no Iman in the Zāhir except by Iman in the Bāṭin; and no Iman in the Bāṭin except by Iman in the Zāhir!”

Just because some biographer accuses a Shīʿī transmitter of ghuluww does not make it so. And even if a transmitter is guilty of ghuluww it does not make him a liar! Even the later Imāms have told us:

Accept their aḥādīth and reject their beliefs [all else being equal of course].

And as Imām ʿAlī (Ṣ) famously emphasized,

Look at what is said, and not who has said it.

Consider your own comment:

I am not in principle opposed to these ideas since I have been accused of extremism in the past

Well, you certainly know your own views better than your detractors, think of so many early Shīʿīs called extremist and vilified, but in their works one asks, “What’s all the fuss?” Think of the politics, the people at different levels of understanding, the misunderstandings, and all the related sad but unavoidable facts of human social life.

In my own estimation S Modarressi makes serious errors in his bibliograhy of early Shīʿī literature by too easily branding this or that transmitter as an extremist and thus implicitly unreliable. Ayatullah Sayyid Jalali, in my many sessions with him, has said again and again that we too easily condemn important early scholars and transmitters by taking the words of their detractors more than examining their works for ourselves.

In the case of Yunus b. Zabyān, Kashshī excoriates him, but I’ve read some of the most beautiful aḥādīth that he has narrated, which appear impossible to have come out of the mouth of anyone but the Imām, and which contain no doctrinal deviance whatsoever. Maybe he was as Kashshi says, maybe not, but we have to evaluate his aḥādīth on more than just the word of Kashshi (or other biographers).

As a later contemporary of Imām Ṣadiq (Ṣ), and a resident of Kufa, the home of Ibn Masʿūd, Mufaḍḍal knew the last generation of the Tābiʿūn personally, including those who maintained Ibn Masʿūd’s Muṣḥaf tradition. How could he not? To say that he or others took ʿĀmmī traditions and inserted them into Shīʿī texts is to take an almost anachronistic view of the matter.

I have not said anything up to now on the traditions which indicate taḥrīf or corruption of the Qurʾān. That is a separate topic mostly. I am only addressing the issue of the Muṣḥaf of Ibn Masʿūd. It was a known commodity to the Kufan community regardless of political or ideological persuasion, and influenced scholars of both schools of thought. Many followers of the Imāms read it and preserved it, including al-Aʿmash, one of our greatest scholars and a student of Imām Ṣadiq (Ṣ). Abān ibn Taghlib was one of the Imām’s most important students and companions, and a top student of al-Aʿmash in reciting the Qurʾān. I see no evidence that Aban, who passed away rather young it seems, and before both al-Aʿmash and al-Ṣadiq (Ṣ), ever said the Imāms rejected the recitation or Muṣḥaf of Ibn Masʿūd.

On Sayyārī

I have read Sayyārī. Basically his is an attempt to collect all the tradtions he could find on the Qirāʾaḧ of AhlulBayt (Ṣ). The original title of his book is not Book of Taḥrīf or the like; its original title was simply Book of Recitations. If he were a liar and not a scholar he could have fabricated sound chains of transmission. But he honestly gives the chains exactly as he has them, including many with missing links etc. It is to all appearance an honest work of scholarship on his part, not some book of ghulāt lies. Some of the traditions in his book are quite valuable, and some are even confirmed in ʿĀmmī sources. But that does not mean that he smuggled ʿĀmmī sources into Shīʿī literature. Otherwise we have to throw away most of the Ethics in Volume 2 of Uṣūlu ãl-Kāfī. Nearly every ḥadīth on ethics can also be found in Bukhari, Muslim, other ʿĀmmī sources, etc…

A Comment From a Brother

These ideas have risen and fallen in popularity among our Shi’i scholars over the centuries and until the present day there is clearly no unanimity on the issue of the integrity of the ‘Uthmanic codex among the scholarly community.

That’s an important point. The fact of the Shīʿaḧ being treated as second-class citizens of Dāru ãl-Islām over the centuries and hence always ultra-sensitive about the attitudes of the ʿĀmmaḧ has played a role as well.

My own current opinion is as I’ve said: The Muṣḥaf we have today is, in its consonantal outline, virtually identical to that of Zayd ibn Thābit. The Imāms (Ṣ) have asked us to read it and honor it, while maintaining that the most precise muṣḥaf is with them. Ubayy and, to an even greater degree, Ibn Masʿūd, recited in such a way that included lexical paraphrases and notes on the walāyaḧ of Amīr al-Muʾminīn (Ṣ).

A Critique of Modarressi’s View, Part II

From Ibn Masʿūd’s reading adding the House of the Prophet to those of Abraham and ‘Imrān in 3:33 and the mention of the House of the Prophet in other cases, to the insertion of the name of ʿAlī in some verses…

Consider for the sake of discussion that this view originates with the ʿĀmmaḧ. That gives us even more confidence in its truth, for they have every reason to suppress this fact! Actually, the ʿĀmmaḧ also report that Ibn Masʿūd recited, “Āla Muḥammadin”, in place of “Āla ʿImrān”, not just after it: That’s tantalizing! But what exactly are its implications? Ah, would that his Muṣḥaf survived intact so we could have real ʿilm of the matter!

Moving on: According to Modarressi,

The Imāms rejected the reading of Ibn Masʿūd (144) which in
some places departed significantly from the official text.”

His sole reference for this claim appears to be the same ḥadīth I mentioned earlier:

If Ibn Masʿūd did not read according to our qirāʾaḧ, then he was astray… As for us, we read according to the qirāʾaḧ of Ubayy [ibn Kaʿb].

As explained, this ḥadīth is ambiguous. It introduces a conditional clause, and does not say that Ibn Masʿūd did not read according to “our qirāʾaḧ”.

Also, one of the conversants, Rabīʿaẗu al-Raʾy, belonged to the proto-ʿĀmmaḧ. The ambiguous wording of the ḥadīth indicates that there is some kind of taqiyyaḧ going on. He is not the narrator of the tradition. It is the narrator who makes the point that the Imām (Ṣ) said this in the presence of the ʿĀmmī scholar Rabīʿaẗu al-Raʾy, who was probably also opposed to the Muṣḥaf of Ibn Masʿūd.

The last part of Modarressi’s statement reads

which in some places departed significantly from the official text

But the same is true of the Muṣḥaf of Ubayy, whose qirāʾaḧ the Imām (Ṣ) appears to endorse in this very ḥadīth! And the Muṣḥaf of Ibn Masʿūd and that of Ubayy agree on many of these departures from the Muṣḥaf of Zayd ibn Thābit.

So if we accept the surface meaning of the statement that, “As for us, we read according to the qirāʾaḧ of Ubayy”, that means the Imām (Ṣ) is saying we accept a reading whose origin lies in a muṣḥaf, namely, that of Ubayy, that departs from the Muṣḥaf of Zayd ibn Thābit. So this very ḥadīth, which Modarressi adduces as evidence that the Imāms “rejected” the qirāʾaḧ of Ibn Masʿūd, also undercuts Modarressi’s very next sentence to the effect that the Imāms absolutely accepted the integrity of the Muṣḥaf of Zayd ibn Thābit.

It appears to me that, by itself and in the absence of supporting, unambiguous aḥādīth, it is hard to base too much of anything on this particular tradition. But this is the only direct evidence Modarressi adduces to support his thesis that the Imāms (Ṣ) explicitly rejected the Muṣḥaf of Ibn Masʿūd. It appears to me that much more evidence would be needed to make that contention, given the strong presence of and attachment to the Muṣḥaf of Ibn Masʿūd amongst the early Shīʿaḧ — including the ideological Shīʿaḧ — and some of the early ʿĀmmaḧ.

Further evidence for the taqiyyaḧ observed by the Imāms (Ṣ) on this issue is provided by the following ḥadīth:

Ibn Abī Yaʿfūr [an important companion of Imām Ṣādiq (Ṣ)] narrates:

I visited Imām Ṣādiq (Ṣ) and he asked me, “Have you been reading the Qurʾān?”

“Yes”, I replied, “this qirāʾaḧ” [probably the mushaf of Zayd ibn Thabit].

The Imām said, “Sure, I’m only asking you about this qirāʾaḧ, not any other”.

I asked, “Why is that [ie, why don’t you ask me about any other qirāʾaḧ]?”

The Imām replied,

Because Moses brought his people a Divine News that they could not handle, and some of them came out against him and fought him, so he had to fight back and kill them.

This is a very interesting ḥadīth, which also shows elements of taqiyyaḧ (for example, the code word ‘this qirāʾaḧ‘). It appears to me that the Imām is saying, “Stick to this qirāʾaḧ (Zayd ibn Thabit) and avoid the others — such as Ibn Masʿūd and even our own — because the people just can’t handle it and will shed blood over it.”

When we consider Ḥajjāj’s pogroms and the beating met out to Ibn Shanabūdh we can see the meaning of this ḥadīth in action, inshaaAllah.

A Point From Brother Tariq

Tariq Al-Jamil says,

Time permitting I would like to reply to the forum concerning some of the important points you raised with regard to the categories of devotion to the Ahl al-Bayt (s) in the first centuries. Far before any kind of wilayah takwiniyyah and wilayah tashr’iyyah distinction can be made it is very difficult to distinguish among companions and their followers and where they fit on the scales of walayah to the Ahl al-Bayt (s) even well after al-ghaybah al-kubra. Much more precise work needs to be done using the methods of ‘ilm al-hadith and ‘ilm al-rijal. Some of this work has been undertaken by al-Sayyid Abu’l-Aziz al-Tabataba’i though most of this work on the subject has yet to be published. I have read the manuscript of his first volume on the subject in which he tries to establish a basis for distinguishing between early Shi’i and the early “awwam”. Insha’Allah I am crafting my response in particular with reference to my teacher’s method of defining ghuluww in the first centuries and filing in the gaps in his references for the A’immah’s rejection of Ibn Masud’s qira’ah.

Also, are we not addressing the question of tahrif? Since according to the collective memory of the early community one’s position on this can be considered as one of the bases for determining whether one belongs among the ghulah.
Though admittedly this is not a firm basis by any means as the charge of ghuluww was always socially and historically contingent. I would need more evidence from rijal works to support a stronger claim.

Back to the sources.

My Reply

Brother Tariq says,

Far before any kind of wilayah takwiniyyah and wilayah tashr’iyyah distinction can be made it is very difficult to distinguish among companions and their followers and where they fit on the scales of walayah to the Ahl al-Bayt (s) even well after al-ghaybah al-kubra.

I agree with you on the application. My own distinction is mainly a loose “working distinction” as described above, one roughly consistent with a similar one made by Modarressi in Crisis and Consolidation, and in Amir-Moezzi’s The Divine Guide in Early Shiʿism. As a way of cross-communication of the issues, I introduced a sort of methodological “meta-distinction” to embrace both and to situate my own responses to each of them at the abstract level of principle.

But determining exactly where a given narrator stands is a difficult business, hence the emphasis on Sayyid Jalali’s rule of thumb. So just because someone allegedly believes in taḥrīf does not automatically make them a ghālī or unreliable. A person’s beliefs can never be the sole factor in making the determination of scholarly honesty (though it can be a factor if it can be reliably determined).

For example, Sayyārī hardly says directly that he believes in taḥrīf (ok, this is a bit pedantic); his is a collection of aḥādīth not much different from than that of Baṣā’iru ãł-Darajāt or Tafsīr Qummī. Indeed, from the point of view of style and “doctrine”, I would say the three of them are “sister works”.

On the other hand, I take strong exception to aspects of the way Amir-Moezzi introduced this work in his edition, so much so that I’m tempted to re-edit Sayyārī myself. For example, he and Kohlberg spill pages of ink giving the western doubts about the genuineness of the Qurʾān, but hardly a paragraph on the views or rebuttals of Muslim scholars, ʿĀmmī or Shīʿī. On the other hand, the edition assumes the Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim reading for the ʿUthmānic text, which seems quite arbitrary and anachronistic for a work of this type.

Also, are we not addressing the question of taḥrīf? Since according to the collective memory of the early community one’s position on this can be considered as one of the bases for determining whether one belongs among the ghulah.

Two things:

1. We can in principle distinguish the following: a) the existence of multiple maṣāḥif/compilations at the passing of the Prophet (Ṣ); vs. b) taḥrīf in the muṣḥaf of Zayd ibn Thābit.Many scholars, from the Shīʿaḧ and the ʿĀmmaḧ, including Sayyid Jalali amongst the contemporary Shīʿaḧ, recognize the multplicity of qirāʾāt/*maṣāḥif* without believng in taḥrīf. The ʿĀmmaḧ who accept the existence of the other maṣāḥif do this largely through the “Seven Aḥruf” theory, which is largely rejected by Shīʿī scholars.
2. My immediate objective in this discussion is not to show taḥrīf. Rather, our discussions of taḥrīf in the comments to these meditations are mostly tangential to the main discussion on the method of recitation endorsed by Imām Ṣadiq (Ṣ). Of course, the question of taḥrīf becomes unavoidable when talking about the maṣāḥif, but inshāAllāh I want to avoid getting too deep into that quicksand at the moment.Put another way: The issue of taḥrīf – and where one comes down on that matter – ultimately has no bearing on the main thesis I’m looking forward to sharing with you all, as I’ll start to explain in a coming meditation, inshāAllāh.

The current meditation seeks to answer one, almost impractical, question:

Which muṣḥaf should we read? Answer: The muṣḥaf of Zayd ibn Thābit. [There is virtual unanimity on this throughout the Muslim world, although that was not always the case, especially amongst some of the scholars of Kufa, whether early Shīʿī or early ʿĀmmī.]

Given that fact, what is the mode of recitation of the muṣḥaf of Zayd ibn Thābit that is closest to Imām ʿAlī’s recitation of the muṣḥaf of Zayd ibn Thābit (Ṣ)? I think we’ve discovered a very strong candidate for the answer, inshāAllāh, and it’s not Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim!

Muṣḥaf vs. Mode of Recitation of Muṣḥaf

For precision, there is one more distinction to observe:

The word ‘*qirāʾaḧ*’ can be used to refer to either

1. Recitation of of a certain muṣḥaf. So we speak of the Qirāʾah of Ibn Mas3ud, the Qirāʾah of Ubayy or the Qirāʾah of Zayd ibn Thābit; meaning, reciting according to the muṣḥaf of each. Or
2. A mode of recitation within a given muṣḥaf. So we have the famous 7, 10, or 14 recitations of the Muṣḥaf of Zayd ibn Thābit. In early times there were many more modes of reciting it.

When the word ‘*qirāʾaḧ*’ is used in the early traditions of the Muslim community – ʿĀmmaḧ or Shīʿaḧ –, we have to be careful to know the context: recital of a given muṣḥaf or a mode of recital within a given muṣḥaf. Determining the answer is not necessarily trivial!

A Final Note on Ibn Masʿūd

Let us reconsider the following tradition:

If Ibn Masʿūd did not read according to our qirāʾaḧ, then he was astray…

Here is a line of reasoning inspired in part by what some of our scholars have said about this ḥadīth:

1. The proposition is clearly a conditional one, as we mentioned above. In logic there is a rule: If the consequent of a conditional proposition is false, it follows that the antecedent is also false. This is because a false proposition cannot be implied by a true proposition.
2. The proposition “Ibn Masʿūd is astray” is false. There is a wealth of evidence that Ibn Masʿūd loved and was loved by Imām ʿAlī (Ṣ), that he referred to him (Ṣ), etc, that he died in his walāyaḧ, etc. There is the ḥadīth of Imām ʿAlī (Ṣ)
   

   The Earth was created for seven individuals: Through them the people are provided for, through them the rain falls, and through them help comes. They are Abū Dharr, Salmūn, Miqdūd, ʿAmmūr, Hudhayfaḧ, and ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd. And I am their Imām… They are the ones who attended the Ṣalāẗu ãl-Janāzaḧ for Fāṭima (Ṣ).

   In a separate ḥadīth the Imām describes the unique qualities (*faḍāʾil*) of each of these individuals. For Ibn Masʿūd the Imām gives a wonderful one:

   As for Ibn Masʿūd, he did qirāʾaḧ of the Qurʾān such that it descended unto him” (قرأ القرآن فنزل عنده).

   From the point of view of ʿirfān this is extremely important. To explain it in detail would be a long discussion but the crux is that when a person truly recites the Qurʾān he will actually hear its revelation and descent. This is a high stage.

   This plus much other evidence makes it clear that Ibn Masʿūd was not astray.

3. Since the proposition “Ibn Masʿūd is astray” is demonstrably false, it follows that the proposition, “Ibn Masʿūd did not recite according to our qirāʾaḧ” is also false.
4. Thus the Imām was saying, in the guise of taqiyyaḧ, that Ibn Masʿūd (and Ubayy) recited according to the qirāʾaḧ of AhlulBayt (Ṣ). The Imām was thus not rejecting the qirāʾaḧ of Ibn Masʿūd, he was confirming it!

The subtlety of the Imām (Ṣ) is amazing, and I will recite a loud ṣalawāt here!

A Note From Sayyid Sajjad Rizvi

I’m beginning to write my review of the Sayyārī – real problem. While the edition of the text and notes on it are quite excellent from what I can discern thus far, the introduction is poor – part simple summary of the sceptical position on the collation of the text summarising Alfred de Premare’s position in this work:

I have a copy of it in my office – simple and begs way too many questions. I also have a copy of the Reynolds ed vol on the desk whose review I keep putting off – both the reviews are likely to annoy many colleagues who work on early Islam as I cannot fail to notice the thinly disguised ideological position, the orientalist salafism embedded in these studies.

AdP’s conclusion is that the rasm and indeed the determination of the text is due to the work of three individuals (and the committee under Zayd and other stories about masahif are pious myths to ensure a connection back to the time of the prophet): ‘Ubaydullah b. Ziyad, Ḥajjāj b. Yusuf and ‘Abd al-Malik. Astonishing! Now if they were indeed responsible for what I think simplistically is called taḥrīf why are they never accused of it in our sources – surely one would expect to see them named and shamed?

But more than that it begs the question: what is subject to taḥrīf – the introductory sections assume that taḥrīf or the ‘falsification’ of the revelation is a central and natural feature of religious tradition (merely quoting Mani constitutes for me not even the semblance of evidence). Why so? For the simple and rather old view that memory is fallible and ‘text’ that is not written is unstable? But if the text is not primarily written anyway, in what sense can something be said to falsify it? Changing a reading?

A further question: is there a singular qira’a of the ahl al-bayt? by analogy to the ḥadīth literature, surely the different times requires different emphases – and then further where does that leave the muhkam/mutashabih dichotomy? Then where does that leave the command for adhering and cleaving to the Q as well as the ahl al-bayt if the former is not possible and certainly not without the latter – what sort of command is it?

My Reply

Thank you, Sajjad, for sharing your notes on Sayyārī here. I agree with you that the introduction to the Moezzi-Kohlberg edition is problematic in many ways. I also like your locution, “orientalist salafism”.

‘Ubaydullah b. Ziyad, Ḥajjāj b. Yusuf and ‘Abd al-Malik

Three villains hated by Shīʿaḧ, ʿĀmmaḧ, Khawārij, the Reciters of the Qurʾān (Qurrāʾ), the Traditionists… If these people really had the role claimed by our “orientalist salafis” the stench would have reached to high heaven across our sources!

On Sayyārī, I agree that Kohlberg’s notes are excellent. OTOH, he could have used more familiarity with the traditional science of qirāʾaḧ, because he makes some simple mistakes that could have easily been avoided… The text is also excellent, but using Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim to dot and vowelize the text seems arbitrary and done with no scholarly justification other than convenience. The question of which system Sayyārī himself used was not investigated at all. This is almost another example of “orientalist salafism” because the Saudis et al, when they edit old books on the Qurʾān, almost invariably (“stupidly” as Arthur Jeffrey would say) change the qirāʾaḧ used by the original manuscripts to that of Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim, leading to misleading results sometimes. For example, an author is criticizing a particular qirāʾaḧ of a particular word, and that word is written using Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim in the edition of the author’s work, so the whole point of the author is lost….

But more than that it begs the question: what is subject to taḥrīf – the introductory sections assume that taḥrīf or the ‘falsification’ of the revelation is a central and natural feature of religious tradition (merely quoting Mani constitutes for me not even the semblance of evidence).

I tend to agree with you here. Besides, the editors are [apparently, anyway] engaging in a sophistical inductive exercise, reasoning from Mani to the conclusion that the Qurʾān is also corrupted…

Why so? For the simple and rather old view that memory is fallible and ‘text’ that is not written is unstable? But if the text is not primarily written anyway, in what sense can something be said to falsify it? Changing a reading?

That would seem to be the case… In the case of the multiple readings of the Qurʾān in early times – many more than we have today –, that would certainly fit. Although the Seven Aḥruf theory of the ʿĀmmaḧ is rejected by the Imāms (Ṣ), there seems to be some evidence to the effect that some – not all but some – of the Companions and their students did not consider lexically equivalent readings of the Qurʾān to be a form of corruption. I am not stating this for a fact, but there is enough evidence out there to warrant more investigation.

At the same time, a tradition quoted by both Kulayni and Sayyārī, each of whose isnād goes to Jamīl b. Darrīj and from him to al-Baqir (Ṣ), states that

The Qurʾān is one; it descended from One Lord upon one Prophet (Ṣ). However, the differences [in recitation] are a consequence of the narrators (*ruwāt*).”

This ḥadīth, if authentic, appears to suggest that the recitation/_muṣḥaf_ is a riwāwaḧ or narration, and that there is no blasphemy in that. If there was, we would be in real trouble given the 7 or 10 legitimate modes of recitation, not to mention others….

So the question comes: When does a change in reading (*qirāʾaḧ*) entail a falsification (*taḥrīf*) of the text? The scholars of this science have given three benchmarks for authenticity of a recitation, each of which appears to be confirmed to one degree or other by our Imāms (Ṣ) as well:

1. Agreement with Arabic prosody and linguistic tradition;
2. Sound chain of narration;
3. Agreement with the Muṣḥaf of Zayd ibn Thābit.

According to the consensus of the scholars of the science of Qirāʾaḧ: As long as a reading/recitation meets these three criteria, it must be considered authentic and must not be rejected.

If the third is missing, it may possibly be authentic, but cannot be recited during ṣalāḧ – that’s where poor Ibn Shanabūdh got into trouble.

In any case, the question of where variation-in-reading ends and falsification begins is a twilight zone and needs more ijtihād and study. Not enough work has been done on this question, as far as I can tell. As Sajjad says, the term “*taḥrīf*” is not the most useful here.

Imām Khumayni brings up an important ʿirfānī point that allows us to take this discussion from the binary opposition of qirāʾaḧ vs taḥrīf and raise it to a higher level. Not so useful for a secular history of the Muṣḥaf but we have to rise above historicism if we are going to have any hope of solving the problem, as Henry Corbin would certainly agree.