Waqar Akbar Cheema

1. Introduction

While orientalists—often representing a culturally colonial mindset, as critiqued by Edward Said in Orientalism—have largely dismissed both classical and contemporary Muslim scholarship, they tend to approach Islamic traditions through a lens that imposes Western assumptions and overlooks the depth of Muslim intellectual history. Said’s critique highlights how such academics have historically portrayed Eastern cultures, in general, and Islamic tradition, in particular, as static and inferior, which continues to shape how many orientalists disregard Muslim scholarship that challenges their conclusions.[1]

In parallel, a modern Muslim, even one trained in traditional sciences, who lacks solid confidence in the inherited intellectual tradition, may fall for superficial impressions generated by the increasing availability of vast source texts in recent decades. This creates a feeling that past scholars did not fully appreciate or analyse these texts. Coupled with the pervasive influences of modernity, this often propels them to pronounce their immediate impressions as results of ‘original academic inquiry,’ which risks undermining, even ignoring, the robust yet succinct traditional engagement with these matters.

This phenomenon is especially prevalent in Qur’anic textual history, where modern editors and researchers often focus narrowly on isnad criticism, zeroing in on the chain of narrators and their credibility.[2] While this is important, such isolated analysis can foster weak interpretations that feed into the biases of those trapped in academic posturing. A holistic approach incorporating traditional hermeneutics and epistemological frameworks is necessary to appreciate the depth of transmitted knowledge and avoid superficial conclusions.

Here, we present a translation of the correspondence between two prominent scholars from the early twentieth-century Indian subcontinent. Their discussion revolves around concerns that arise from critical reflections on certain narrations from early Muslims regarding how the Qur’an is transcribed and recited in the mushaf. Presenting this correspondence in full, rather than merely summarising its conclusions, offers a rare insight into the minds of Muslim scholars who did not shy away from challenging questions. Their engagement, however, was deeply rooted in trust and confidence in traditional hermeneutics, avoiding the pitfalls of undue scepticism.

2. Thanawi – Saharanpuri Correspondence

In this rare piece, Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanawi (d. 1943) [also spelt as Thanwi] presents the queries that popped into his mind to another prominent scholar, his senior contemporary, Maulana Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri (d. 1927), who seeks to suggest possible solutions and takes follow-up questions until he can satisfy the questioner. The correspondence took place in March-April 1907 and is preserved in Fatawa Mazahir al-‘Ulum[3] and Imdad al-Fatawa.^[4]

Besides addressing the subject, one must appreciate that the exchange reflects the mutual respect and humility between Thanawi and Saharanpuri. It exemplifies how scholarly inquiry can be pursued with rigour and grace, offering a valuable lesson in preserving intellectual integrity while fostering unity within the tradition. The passages below strictly translate the exchange except for the headings that have been added to aid reading.

2.1 Thanawi Raises a Critical Question

“In Al-Durr Al-Manthur, I came across the following narrations. The principled response, no doubt, is that these narrations are solitary (ahad) reports which cannot be relied upon against the mass-transmitted recitations (qira’at e mutawatira). However, I cannot think of a compelling response should a detractor press upon these narrations. If you know one, please let me know. The narrations are as follows:

وأخرج الفريابي ]وسعيد بن منصور ، وعَبد بن حُمَيد ، وَابن جَرِير ، وَابن المنذر ، وَابن أبي حاتم ، وَابن الانباري في المصاحف[ والحاكم وصححه والبيهقي في شعب الايمان والضياء في المختارة من طرق عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما في قوله {لا تدخلوا بيوتا غير بيوتكم حتى تستأنسوا وتسلموا على أهلها} قال : أخطأ الكاتب انما هي حتى تستأذنوا.

Al-Firyabi, (Sa’id ibn Mansur, ‘Abd ibn Humayd, Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn al-Anbari in Al-Masahif) Al-Hakim, who authenticated it, Al-Bayhaqi in Shu‘ab al-Iman, and Al-Diya in Al-Mukhtara narrated through different chains from Ibn ‘Abbas regarding the verse, “Do not enter any houses, other than your own houses unless you announce your presence (tasta’nisu) and greet their inmates.” (Qur’an 24:27). He said: The scribe made a mistake; it should be “until you ask permission (tasta’dhinu).”

وأخرج ابن جرير ، وَابن الأنباري في المصاحف عن ابن عباس – رضي الله عنهما – أنه قرأ [ أفلم يتبين الذين آمنوا ] فقيل له : إنها في المصحف {أفلم ييأس} فقال : أظن الكاتب كتبها وهو ناعس.

Ibn Jarir and Ibn al-Anbari in Al-Masahif narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas that he recited, “Do not those who believe know that” (Q 13:31) and was told: “It is written in the Mushaf as “Have those who believe not yet given up’.” He replied: I think the scribe wrote it while drowsy.

وأخرج ابن أبي داود عن يحيى بن يعمر قال : قال عثمان : إن في القرآن لحنا وستقيمه العرب بألسنتها.

Ibn Abi Dawud narrated from Yahya ibn Yamar that Uthman said: “There are solecisms (lahn) in the Qur’an. However, the Arabs will correct it with their tongues.”

وأخرج ابن أبي داود عن قتادة أن عثمان لما رفع إليه المصحف قال : إن فيه لحنا وستقيمه العرب بألسنتها.

Ibn Abi Dawud narrated from Qatada that when Uthman was presented with the Mushaf, he said: “There are solecisms (lahn) in it. However, the Arabs will correct it with their tongues.”

وأخرج ابن أبي داود عن عكرمة قال : لما أتى عثمان بالمصحف رأى فيه شيئا من لحن فقال : لو كان المملي من هذيل والكاتب من ثقيف لم يوجد فيه هذا.

Ibn Abi Dawud narrated from ‘Ikrima that Uthman noted some kind of solecism when the mushaf was brought to him. He remarked, “Had he who dictated it been from Hudhail and the scribe from Thaqif, this would not have happened.”

وأخرج أبو عبيد ]في فضائله وسعيد بن منصور ، وَابن أبي شيبة ، وَابن جَرِير ، وَابن أبي داود ، وَابن المنذر[ عن عروة قال : سألت عائشة عن لحن القرآن (إن الذين آمنوا والذين هادوا والصائبون) (المائدة الآية 69) {والمقيمين الصلاة والمؤتون الزكاة} وإن هذان لساحران) (طه الآية 63) فقالت : يا ابن أختي هذا عمل الكتاب أخطأوا في الكتاب

Abu Ubaid [in his Fada’il, Sa’id ibn Mansur, Ibn Abi Shayba, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Dawud, and Ibn al-Mundhir] narrated from Urwa who said:  I asked ‘Aisha – may Allah be pleased with her – regarding [apparent] grammatical irregularities in the Qur’an: regarding “inna hadhani la-sahiran,” (20:63) and “wal-muqimin al-salata wal-mu’tun al-zakat” (4:162), and “walladhina hadu wa al-sabi‘un,” (5:69) She said: “Nephew! This is the handiwork of the scribes. They erred in the writing.””

2.2 Saharanpuri Responds with Insight

“Your esteemed letter was received with honour. I have come across the narrations from Al-Durr Al-Manthur previously. Aside from the response you have provided, another answer is that these Companions had not known the particular qira’at (recitations) as mutawatir (mass-transmitted), nor had they heard them directly from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). Accordingly, when they came across these as solitary reports and found them to be contrary to the conventional rules of the language, or when they deemed their apparent meanings incorrect, they rejected them.

For example, a narration in the canonical hadith works has ‘Aisha expressing her disdain for the reading “(the prophets) thought that they had been lied to” (wa ẓannū annahum qad kudhibū) (Q12:110).[5] In my estimation (for the preceding consideration), she was excused in this. Please say if you agree with my opinion or can think of a better response.”

— Saharanpur, Friday, 7th Safar, 1325 AH (i.e., March 22, 1907)

2.3 Thanawi Seeks Further Clarification

“Your letter has honoured me, and I was delighted with your response. It is straightforward and free of pretensions. However, after some time, a certain doubt arose, which I had meant to write about daily, but today, Friday, I finally found the opportunity to express it.

The issue is this: Certainly, the recitations (qirā’āt) recorded in the mushaf were also mutawātir (mass-transmitted) at that time. Even if these Companions had not known the specific details, they knew at the very least that a mutawātir recitation existed therein. They were obligated to inquire and learn it, as it is impermissible to include anything other than the Qur’an in the Qur’an. Thus, if they did not inquire, it implied neglecting an obligation.

Furthermore, if they understood these recitations to be according to the conventional rules, but both in reality and in the companions’ estimation, they were not established through transmission, this would have necessitated including something non-Qur’anic in the Qur’an.

Had they sought the established recitation, then naturally, only the truly established one would have been identified. Therefore, rejecting a recitation solely on linguistic grounds was not a valid reason. This contrasts with the rejection of ‘Aisha, as the recitation she adopted was also valid and established. Furthermore, since multiple recitations are not necessary in every case, she was not obligated to seek or know the other recitation, nor was she led to believe, based on any conclusive evidence, that another recitation existed, such that seeking it would be obligatory.

The means through which the “kudhibu” (rather than kudhdhibu) recitation was transmitted to her were not definitive; besides, there was an apparent difficulty in meaning associated with it, which justified her rejection. Hence, the rejection of ‘Aisha cannot serve as a valid basis for the rejections (in other reports) we are discussing.

Otherwise, even today, anyone could reject a recitation they wished to because it had not been definitively transmitted to them in person, considering general knowledge insufficient. Moreover, this could lead to rejecting an authentic recitation simply because of some linguistic or semantic issue, which is unacceptable.”

2.4 Saharanpuri Provides a Detailed Response

“I feel ashamed to respond, as, by Allah’s grace, you are an expert in these higher sciences, while I am almost entirely unfamiliar with them. However, in response to your request, I will briefly present whatever thoughts have passed through my mind, whether right or wrong. If there is any mistake, it can be corrected.

In my view, the essence of the matter is this: there are two ways for something in the Qur’an to attain definitive certainty. The first is by direct reception from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ); the second is through mass transmission (tawatur). For the Companions, either of these two routes could establish certainty. However, for the Successors (tabi‘in) and those who came after them, only the route of mass transmission remained.

When the Companions heard a verse or its specific rendering from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), it became definitive (qat‘i) for them. Later on, if that same reading was passed on by mass transmission, its definitiveness continued. However, in cases where mass transmission was interrupted, the definitiveness also ceased. Therefore, in the instances being discussed, it is possible that ‘Aisha and others like her did not receive the reading that is now mass-transmitted, such as “wal-muqimīn” and similar cases. However, they may have heard the alternate form, such as “wal-muqimūn,” directly from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). Thus, they were not obligated to seek out the mutawatir reading, as they already knew a definitive reading. Accordingly, to maintain the distinction between Qur’anic and non-Qur’anic readings, they rejected what they did not recognise. In short, since the chain of mass transmission did not continue from them, it did not remain definitive for those who came after them. Hence, Aisha knew with certainty from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) that the reading “kudhdhibū” was correct, but “kudhibū” was neither mass-transmitted to her nor had she directly heard it from the Prophet, so she rejected it.

Incidentally, the kudhdhibu remained mutawatir afterwards, and even if it had not, there would have been no harm since she already possessed certainty through another means. In conclusion, whether a reading was subsequently mass-transmitted or not did not hinder the Companions’ certainty, so both the object and subject of the analogy (maqis and maqis ‘alayh) were equal in this case.

However, this possibility does not apply to those who came after the Companions because they had no source of certainty except through mass transmission. Therefore, if they were to reject a recitation, it would lead to rejecting something definitive without reliance on anything definitive. In some cases, however, it would be more appropriate if their rejection is understood to be about the orthography only.”

2.5 Thanawi Continues to Probe for Clarity

“Due to my limited knowledge, one lingering concern remains from your previous response. Suppose we assume that in instances like the ones under consideration when these Companions heard the words directly from the Prophet (ﷺ), were they hearing Qur’anic verses or not? If what they heard from him was (invariably) the Qur’an, this inevitably means that certain parts of the Qur’an were lost. If the second option is correct, this necessitates incorporating something non-Qur’anic into the Qur’an. Both scenarios are incorrect, unlike the case of the recitations of kudhdhibu and kudhibu, where both are Qur’an and have been preserved. This is my current confusion. If any further thoughts arise, I will present them.

I apologise for repeatedly troubling you, but the maxim (given in hadith), “the only cure for perplexity is to ask,”[6] allows me to bother you repeatedly.”

2.6 Saharanpuri Clarifies Further

“Your esteemed letter, written on Sunday, has graced me. Regarding the concern raised, in my limited understanding, if we choose the first possibility, namely that the words in the disputed instances received directly from the Prophet (ﷺ) were indeed Qur’anic but were later abrogated or were revealed by way of creating ease—for which the hadith “The Qur’an was revealed in seven ahruf” serves as evidence—and later, this ease was withdrawn due to the cessation of the cause for it. If the Companions were not informed of this abrogation or the ease withdrawn, they held firm to what they had definitively heard.

Now, if the mass-transmitted recitation had not reached them with certainty, the only concern is that after abrogation, they still regarded something non-Qur’anic as Qur’anic. However, they were naturally excused. Accordingly, there is a narration from ‘Aisha regarding the abrogation of the ruling of ten sucklings and the retention of five sucklings despite the abrogation of the latter also.[7] Another example is in Abdullah ibn Mas’ud’s recitation of wal-dhakari wal-untha (instead of wa ma khalaqa al-dhakara wa’l-untha) and the statement about it (by Abu al-Darda), “By Allah, I will not follow them.”[8] Additionally, it is possible that they later became aware of the mass-transmitted recitation, and their rejection occurred before that awareness, as some narrations in al-Durr al-Manthur indicate.

This is my understanding. I submit this respectfully, acknowledging that I am not worthy of taking your query.”

— Monday, 1st Rabi’ al-Awwal, 1325 AH (15 April 1907)

2.7 Thanawi Confirms Understanding

“By the grace of Allah, your response has effectively demolished the very foundation of the doubt. The thought had indeed crossed my mind when I wrote the objection, but now it has been clarified and completed with more detail. May Allah grant blessings in your noble effulgence.”

— 4th Rabi’ al-Awwal, 1325 AH (18 April 1907)

3. Conclusion

Thanawi and Saharanpuri’s approach to Companion reports critical of established recitations is based on a clear rationale: They rejected specific qira’at when they had not encountered them through definitive transmission. Confident in the certainty of their version, they saw no need to explore other recitations. As Companions, they held a unique position, receiving the prophetic tradition firsthand and having direct access to the Prophet (ﷺ) for clarifications. Additionally, Saharanpuri suggested that some of these critiques might have been tied only to orthographic differences in the script (rasm). In any case, they were excused for their impulsive reactions, and such reports cannot be extrapolated to question broader facts of the established tradition.

For subsequent generations, however, the method of validation relied solely on the profused (mutawatur) transmission, as they did not have the same direct access to the Prophet (ﷺ). Any qira’at that did not conform to the mutawatir standard lacked the definitive status needed for their practice and understanding. Authenticity was anchored in widespread and mass transmission, a measure designed to safeguard the integrity of the Qur’anic text. One may, however, add that for later generations, similar doubt could arise due to an incomplete understanding of the extent and breadth of the transmission’s profusion, leading to questions about certain recitations.

This approach highlights a more profound truth: traditional scholarship’s engagement with complex issues has always involved a careful balance between reverence for inherited knowledge and a readiness to question interpretations. In contrast to the modern academic preference for quick, isolated textual analyses, the traditional method promotes a comprehensive understanding of religious texts. This approach requires humility, scholarly rigour, and profound respect for the sources that have conveyed knowledge across generations.

Notes & References:

[1] See for instance, Al-A‘zami, Muhammad Mustafa, The History of the Qur’anic Text from Revelation to Compilation(Riyadh: Azami Publishing House, 2011) 201

[2] For a case in point, see al-Suyuti, Jalal al-Din, al-Itqan fi ‘Ulum al-Qur’an, Edited by Markaz al-Dirasat al-Qur’aniyya (Madina: King Fahad Complex for Printing of the Holy Qur’an, 2005) Vol.4, 1236-7 (it is about a report mentioned in the correspondence below)

[3] Saharanpuri, Khalil Ahmad, Fatawa Mazahir al-‘Ulum, (Karachi: Maktaba al-Shaikh, 1983) Vol.1, 385-390

[4] Thanawi, Ashraf Ali, Imdad al-Fatawa, (Karachi: Makataba Darul ‘Ulum, 2010) Vol.6, 255-259

[5] Al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, Hadith 3389, 4525, 4695

[6] Abu Dawud, al-Sunan, Hadith 337; Ibn Majah, al-Sunan, Hadith 572; Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 3056

[7] Muslim b. Hajjaj, al-Sahih, Hadith 1452 (24) [3597];  For a critical analysis of the report and its explanation, see our article, Reality of the ‘Missing’ Qur’anic Verse on Suckling

[8] Al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, Hadith 4943-4