Series of Answers by the Eminent Scholar, Ata Bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah, Ameer of Hizb ut-Tahrir To the questions of the visitors to his Facebook page "Fiqhi"
To Tariq Mahmoud
Question:
Assalamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh,
My honorable Sheikh, may Allah grant you health and well-being, support you with the strong and pious among the Muslims, and bring victory at your hands, Ameen, O Lord of the Worlds.
My honorable Sheikh, while reading the books of the scholars, I came across texts narrated by some of the Sahaba, such as Abdullah ibn Mas’ud or the Mother of the Believers Aisha (may Allah be pleased with them), which were considered Quranic verses. However, they were not taken or considered part of the Quran because they were reported through solitary (ahad) narrations. It is well known that the Quran is not established by ahad reports, as they are speculative in their transmission (dhanni ath-thubut).
However, how do we deal with these texts given that they are authentic (sahih) and narrated by those who are trustworthy, just, and precise? Although they were not established via tawatur (concurrent transmission), they were established by the preponderance of probability (ghalabat ad-dhann). Are these texts considered by the Jurists and Mujtahideen as Shar’i texts from which legal rulings are derived, or are they disregarded as if they were never narrated?
May Allah bless you, and apologies for the length.
Answer:
Wa Alaikum Assalam Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh,
May Allah bless you for your kind prayers for us, and we pray for goodness for you as well.
As for your question regarding the Noble Quran, before answering, I will quote the following from our books:
- It is stated in the book The Islamic Personality (Ash-Shakhsiyyah al-Islamiyyah), Volume 3, in the chapter "What is Considered Binding Evidence from the Quran":
"Only what has been transmitted to us from the Quran via mutawatir transmission, and which we know is from the Quran, constitutes binding evidence (hujjah). As for what has been transmitted from it via solitary (ahad) reports, such as the Mushaf of Ibn Mas’ud and others, it is not a hujjah. This is because the Prophet (saw) was tasked with delivering what was revealed to him of the Quran to a group whose word constitutes definitive evidence (hujjah qati'ah). It is inconceivable for such a group to agree on not transmitting what they heard. Thus, if something is found to be from the Quran but was not transmitted by those whose word constitutes definitive evidence, and was only transmitted via solitary reports, it is not considered part of the Quran. This is because it contradicts what the Messenger (saw) was tasked with regarding the solitary nature of its transmission, and contradicts the manner in which the Quran was delivered by the Messenger to a number of Muslims who memorized it and were among those whose word constitutes definitive evidence, alongside his command to write it down. In such a situation, it is not possible for an individual or a number of people who do not constitute definitive evidence to be alone in transmitting anything from the Quran. Therefore, what is transmitted from the Quran via ahad reports is absolutely not a hujjah."
- It is also stated in the same source:
"...As for the differences in the Mushafs, those that are from solitary reports are not from the Quran and do not constitute a hujjah. Those that are mutawatir are part of it and are a hujjah. The issue is not related to the Mushaf itself, but rather to the verses it contains. If the verse was transmitted from the Messenger (saw) via mutawatir transmission—meaning it was received from the Messenger (saw) by a number that reached the level of tawatur, such that their word constitutes definitive evidence—then it is considered part of the Quran and is a hujjah. What is not like that is not considered part of the Quran. For this reason, the Mushaf of Uthman is entirely Quran because all the verses it contains were transmitted via mutawatir transmission by those whose word constitutes definitive evidence. However, the Mushaf of Ibn Mas’ud is examined: what it contains of verses transmitted via mutawatir transmission is considered part of the Quran, and what it contains of verses transmitted via solitary reports—such as the verse:
فَصِيَامُ ثَلَاثَةِ أَيَّامٍ مُتَتَابِعَاتٍ
'Fasting for three consecutive days.' (Based on the reading of Ibn Mas’ud for Surah Al-Ma’idah [5]: 89)
—is not considered part of the Quran and does not constitute a hujjah.
Accordingly, the objection regarding the memorizers of the Quran and the manuscripts of the Sahaba is refuted, and it is established that the Quran is only what was transmitted via mutawatir transmission, and what was transmitted via solitary reports is not part of the Quran. What must be noted is that the Quran was transmitted through observation from the Messenger (saw) from the Revelation when it descended, and it was recorded in writing alongside its memorization. The Sahaba (ra) did not narrate (riwayah) the Quran from the Messenger; rather, they transmitted (naql) it, meaning they transmitted the exact essence of what the Revelation brought down and what the Messenger (saw) ordered to be written. This is unlike the Hadith, which was narrated from the Messenger (saw) as a narration (riwayah) and was not recorded at the time of its utterance or its narration; rather, its documentation and recording took place during the era of the Taba' al-Tabi'in. As for the Quran, it was documented and recorded when the Revelation descended, and the Sahaba transmitted the exact essence of what the Revelation brought; therefore, it is said that the Sahaba transmitted the Quran to us."
- It is stated in The Islamic Personality, Volume 3, in the chapter "The Abrogator and the Abrogated (Al-Nasikh wal-Mansukh)":
"The second point is that what is meant is the abrogation of the ruling of the verse, not the abrogation of its recitation. This view is the one chosen by the majority and is what is relied upon. It is supported by the fact that all verses of the Quran are established by definitive evidence (dalil qati’). Anything not established by definitive evidence is not considered part of the Quran. The abrogation of the recitation of any verse of the Quran has not been established by definitive evidence. Any speculative evidence (dalil dhanni) regarding the existence of abrogation of recitation has no value in considering abrogation; because the definitive is not abrogated by the speculative, and it is only abrogated by that which is definitive, like it or above it. No definitive evidence has been reported for the abrogation of recitation, which confirms that what is meant is the abrogation of the ruling, not the recitation."
- It is also stated in the same source:
"As for the abrogation of the Quran's recitation (naskh al-tilawah), it is forbidden and not permissible, and its occurrence has not been established by definitive evidence. The evidence for its impermissibility is that the verse that established the permissibility of abrogation says:
نَأْتِ بِخَيْرٍ مِنْهَا أَوْ مِثْلِهَا
'We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it.' (QS Al-Baqarah [2]: 106)
And the entire Quran is good without variation. If the meaning of abrogating a verse was its removal from the Preserved Tablet (Al-Lawh al-Mahfuz) and writing another in its place, the description of 'better' would not be fulfilled. Thus, it means the ruling and not the verse itself. Furthermore, the descent, preservation, and writing of the Quran have been established via tawatur, and believing in it in this manner is a matter of creed (aqidah), which can only be taken from evidence that is definitive in its provenance (qati’ ath-thubut) and definitive in its meaning (qati’ ad-dalalah). This has not happened, as no definitive evidence has come to show the permissibility of abrogating the Quran's recitation; therefore, it is not permissible to abrogate its recitation. As for the non-occurrence of the abrogation of the Quran's recitation, the evidence is that no definitive proof has established that any of its verses—established by definitive evidence—have been abrogated. As for what was narrated from Zaid ibn Thabit, who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) saying:
الشَّيْخُ وَالشَّيْخَةُ إِذَا زَنَيَا فَارْجُمُوهُمَا الْبَتَّةَ. فَقَالَ عُمَرُ: لَمَّا أُنْزِلَتْ هَذِهِ أَتَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ﷺ فَقُلْتُ: أَكْتِبْنِيهَا
'The old man and the old woman, if they commit adultery, stone them definitively. Umar said: When this was revealed, I came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and said: Write it down for me.' (Narrated by Ahmad)
And what Aisha narrated when she said:
كَانَ فِيمَا أُنْزِلَ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ عَشْرُ رَضَعَاتٍ مَعْلُومَاتٍ يُحَرِّمْنَ، ثمَّ نُسِخْنَ بِخَمْسٍ مَعْلُومَاتٍ
'Among what was revealed of the Quran were ten known breastfeedings that made (marriage) prohibited, then they were abrogated by five known ones.' (Narrated by Muslim)
And what was narrated from Ubayy ibn Ka’b and Ibn Mas’ud that they read: 'Fasting for three consecutive days,' and what was narrated that Surah Al-Ahzab was equal to Surah Al-Baqarah, and other such reports—all of these are solitary (ahad) reports that do not constitute evidence for abrogating the definitive (qati’). This is because they are speculative (dhanni) reports, and the definitive is not abrogated by the speculative, but only by the definitive. It must be established by definitive evidence that a verse was revealed in order to believe it is from the Quran, and then it must also be established by definitive evidence that it was abrogated. This has never occurred. Consequently, the abrogation of the Quran's recitation has not taken place."
- Based on this, here are the answers to your questions:
a- The Noble Quran is defined as follows: (It is the word of Allah revealed to His Messenger Muhammad (saw) via the Revelation 'Jibril' (as), in word and meaning, miraculous, whose recitation is a form of worship, and which has been transmitted to us via mutawatir transmission). Thus, it is the Quran revealed to our master Muhammad (saw), and it is what has been transmitted to us between the two covers of the Mushaf via mutawatir transmission. This definition applies perfectly to the Mushaf of Uthman (ra), meaning the Mushaf that was copied during the era of the Rightly Guided Caliph Uthman ibn Affan into several copies from the sheets collected by Abu Bakr (ra) from what was written in front of the Messenger (saw). Uthman (ra) sent these copies to the Muslim centers, and the Sahaba of the Messenger (saw) reached a consensus (ijma’) upon it, as explained in detail in our books...
b- This means that what was transmitted to us from the Quran via solitary reports, such as the Mushaf of Ibn Mas’ud and others, is not Quran and does not constitute binding evidence (hujjah). Likewise, it is not considered from the Sunnah because it was narrated as being from the Quran and was not narrated as a Hadith of the Prophet (saw). As long as it is not Sunnah, it is not permissible to use it as evidence for Shar’i rulings or any other matters that should be derived from Shar’i evidences.
c- Reciting the Quran with such narrations and irregular (shadh) readings is not valid. We have mentioned what points to this in the answer to a question dated 18 Dhu al-Qi'dah 1434 AH - 24 September 2013 CE, which stated:
"As for reciting the Quran with non-mutawatir readings, whether they match the script of the Uthmanic Mushaf or not, it is not permissible to recite with them. They are not Quran; rather, the Quran is only what has been transmitted via tawatur from the Messenger of Allah (saw)."
d- As long as these texts narrated as solitary reports of the Quran are not proven to be from the Quran, and they are also not considered Sunnah from the Prophet (saw) because they were not narrated as Sunnah, then the most they can indicate is that they are considered a form of the Sahabi's interpretation (tafsir) and clarification of the Quran. That is, they are considered the words of the Sahabi who narrated them to clarify the meaning of the verse to which this addition or reading relates. He read the verse and then interpreted it without separating the verse from his interpretation, so they were transmitted consecutively, leading the listener to think they were part of the Quran. They were not from the Quran but were the Sahabi's interpretation according to his opinion. This is how they can be interpreted and cannot go beyond that in any way. Thus, the reading of Ibn Mas’ud, for example, "Fasting for three consecutive days," with the addition of "consecutive," is a statement by Ibn Mas’ud clarifying the obligation of succession in the fast of the expiation for an oath. The addition is an explanation of the ruling of succession according to the opinion of Ibn Mas’ud (ra), which does not exceed being an ijtihad and understanding of a Sahabi, and does not take the ruling of a Shar’i evidence from the Sunnah.
e- Accordingly, every ahad text regarding the Noble Quran that contradicts the definitive (qati’) text is examined:
- If its chain of transmission (sanad) is weak, it is rejected for its weakness.
- If its chain of transmission is authentic (sahih), it is rejected based on critical analysis (dirayah) for its contradiction with the definitive.
- I mention the following from what has appeared in some books of the Muslim Jurists regarding such matters, for informational purposes:
a- It is stated in the Kuwaiti Fiqh Encyclopedia (p. 11908):
"The Quran is what has been transmitted to us between the two covers of the Mushaf via mutawatir transmission. It is restricted to the Mushafs because the Sahaba (ra) went to great lengths in its transmission and stripped it of anything else, even disliking the tenth-verse markers and dots so that it would not be mixed with anything else. Thus, we know that what is written in the agreed-upon Mushaf is the Quran, and what is outside of it is not part of it, as it is impossible according to custom and habit—given the strong motivations to preserve the Quran—that any part of it would be neglected and not transmitted, or that something not from it would be mixed with it."
The Encyclopedia continues:
"There is no dispute that everything that is part of the Quran must be mutawatir in its origin and its parts. As for its placement, position, and order, according to the verified scholars of the Ahl al-Sunnah, it is likewise required to be mutawatir. It is stated in Musallam al-Thubut and its commentary Fawatih al-Rahamut: 'What is transmitted via solitary reports is definitively not Quran, and no dispute has been known regarding this from any of the followers of the schools of thought (madhahib).' This is argued on the basis that the Quran is something for which there are strong motivations for transmission because it contains the Challenge (At-Tahaddi), and because it is the source of rulings regarding both meaning and structure, such that many rulings are attached to its structure. It is also used for blessings in every era through recitation and writing. Thus, the effort of the Sahaba in preserving it via definitive tawatur is known. Everything for which there are strong motivations for transmission is customarily transmitted via mutawatir. Therefore, its existence necessitates tawatur according to everyone customarily. If the necessity—which is tawatur—is absent, then the necessitated is definitively absent. Thus, what is transmitted via solitary reports is not mutawatir, and therefore it is not Quran..." (End quote).
b- It is stated in the book Al-Itqan fi Ulum al-Quran (1/279) by Al-Suyuti:
"Abu Ubayd said in Fada’il al-Quran: The purpose of the irregular (shadh) reading is to interpret the famous reading and clarify its meanings, such as the reading of Aisha and Hafsa:
وَالصَّلَاةِ الْوُسْطَى صَلَاةِ الْعَصْرِ
'And the middle prayer, the Asr prayer.' (Based on the reading of Aisha and Hafsa for Surah Al-Baqarah [2]: 238)
And the reading of Ibn Mas’ud:
فَاقْطَعُوا أَيْمَانَهُمَا
'So cut off their right hands.' (Based on the reading of Ibn Mas’ud for Surah Al-Ma’idah [5]: 38)
And the reading of Jabir:
فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ مِنْ بَعْدِ إِكْرَاهِهِنَّ لَهُنَّ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ
'Then surely Allah, after their being compelled, is for them Forgiving and Merciful.' (Based on the reading of Jabir for Surah An-Nur [24]: 33)
He said: These letters and their like have become interpretations of the Quran. Such reports were narrated from the Tabi’un regarding tafsir and were viewed favorably, so how about when they are narrated from the senior Sahaba...?"
I hope this answer is sufficient. Allah is Most Knowing and Most Wise.
Your brother, Ata Bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah
22 Dhu al-Hijjah 1443 AH Corresponding to 21/07/2022 CE
Link to the answer from the Ameer's Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/HT.AtaabuAlrashtah/posts/596521192035254
Link to the answer from the Ameer's website: http://archive.hizb-ut-tahrir.info/arabic/index.php/HTAmeer/QAsingle/4268