Thread by @ShAmmarKhatib1

I received some questions regarding the recent interview with Dr. Shady Nasser in which he covered many complex topics related to ahruf, Qira'at.

https://twitter.com/BottldPetrichor/status/1297189730086457344

1. Some listeners were confused regarding the hadiths of the 7 ahruf and the possibility of contradiction with another hadith which was mentioned in the interview. The hadith stated that the Qur'an was revealed in 3 ahruf:

In short, I explained before in different threads that the Hadith about the 7 ahruf was widely attested and multiply transmitted from the earliest period in Islamic history.

The fact that the earliest Muslim community understood the Qurʾān to be a multiform recitation cannot be logically disputed even by the most skeptical historian.

I think the most comprehensive book in which the author studied and analyzed all the narrations on the 7 ahruf is the one by Dr. Al-Qari':

As for the hadith of Samurah:

There is a good hadith analysis by the mohaqiqin of Musnad Ahmad. They concluded that the isnad is weak.
Also, we have another narration from Samuram that the Qur'an was revealed on 7 ahruf.

For the sake of argument, let's assume the hadith of Samurah that the Qur'an was revealed in 3 ahruf was authentic, I don't find this problematic at all.

This hadith can be interpreted that the Qur'an was revealed in 3 ahruf in the beginning until it reached 7 ahruf.
In Al-Murshid Al-Wajiz, Abu Shamah pointed out to this interpretation:

This is what the second narration of Samurah indicates.

2. Is it true that some scholars are of the opinion that the Qur'an was revealed in 1 harf?

This is a well known opinion among Shi'ah and not among the Sunni school of thought.

Some Shi'ah scholars rejected the fact that the Qur'an was revealed in 7 ahruf...see for example what Al-Khu'i said about the narrations of the 7 ahruf:

3. I also keep receiving questions about wether or not the differences between the 'Uthmanic Mushafs were scribal errors.
I talked about about this here:

https://twitter.com/ShAmmarKhatib1/status/1221086886787108864?s=19

I think some scholars were misquoted for being of the opinion that the few differences between the 'Uthmanic Mushafs were scribal errors.
For example, Ibn Khaldun criticized the scribes of the 'Uthmanic Mushafs for their "bad" writing. He gave examples like adding

an extra alif or ya' etc...
However, these were normal writing practices even before the time of 'Uthmanic Mushafs. This has nothing to do with the differences between the 'Uthmanic Mushafs...
Many years before the time of Ibn Khaldun other scholars such as Al-Farra'

criticized the way the scribes wrote specific words throughout the Qur'an.
Again this spelling practice was around in even pre-islamic inscriptions and it's not related to the issue of the differences between 'Uthmanic Mushafs.

Regarding "scribal errors" in the Qur'an, I like the quote from Ibn Qutaybah:

@therealsidky posted this translation before:
"Even if it were a scribal error... God is not to blame, nor his messenger. And if it were the Quran's fault, then it would be faulted for all scribal errors that ever occur when copying a mushaf!"

This quote might answer a question similar to the issue we're discussing; why did some scholars reject some authentic readings?
It's clear that those scholars were questioning the reader not the Qur'an.
More to come on this...

4. Many people are inquiring about the issue of the preservation of the Qur'an.
It was mentioned in the interview that classical Muslim scholars never said that the Qur'an is a word for word preservation...At-Tabri was mentioned among other names.

This is incorrect. At-Tabri included a narration which goes back all the way to As-Suddi:

Ar-Razi also mentioned this opinion:

Al-Baqillani in Al-'intisar:

Al-Qadi 'iyadh in Ash-Shifa:

I must add here that according to many early scholars, it was not necessary for 'Uthman to include all valid readings in the 'Uthmanic Mushafs. Thus, many readings were left out and eventually became extinct.

Does this opinion compromise the concept of preservation of the Quran?

The license of the 7 ahruf was simply a concession (rukhsah) and therefore it wasn't mandatory for Muslims to learn and transmit all readings.

Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the Qur'an wasn't preserved because the 'Uthmanic Mushafs didn't include all readings before the standardization of the text.

This still meets the criteria of the Qur'an being preserved.

For more details on this, please visit the following thread:

https://twitter.com/ShAmmarKhatib1/status/1273922380650274816?s=19

I just read this comment here:

It seems like no one knows for sure what Dr. Nasser really meant by what he said regarding early scholars and the concept of the preservation of the Qur'an.

The statement of Ar-Razi is very clear.

Also, Al-Qurtubi's name was mentioned. Al-Qurtubi has a clear statement:

In Al-i'lam, Al-Qurtubi said:

He is saying that the Qur'an are s preserved by Allah...no one is able to change a single word, despite that many [people] sought to change it...