Waqar Akbar Cheema

Abstract

Amid emerging debates about the nature of the sab‘a ahruf and the foundations of multiplicity of Qur’anic recitations, one early narration has been almost entirely overlooked despite its potential to reshape how the discussion is framed. Narrated on the authority of Ibn Mas‘ud, it links every harf to a defined boundary and a pattern of continued recognition, offering a clearer lens on what the ahruf actually permitted and how their limits were maintained. Drawing on the insights of classical scholars, this article revisits that neglected report and explores how it challenges modern assumptions influenced by other scriptural traditions. The picture that emerges complicates the innovative “divine permission” model and instead confirms the traditional, anchored, precedent-bound understanding of recitational variation.

1. Introduction

The discussions on the sab‘a ahruf often revolve around the better-known reports concerning the scope of recitational variance and the Prophet’s (ﷺ) validation of multiple authorised forms. Yet as contemporary debates continue to develop regarding the nature and extent of the relaxation afforded through the ahruf system vis-à-vis the explicit Prophetic precedent underlying the various recitations, it has become increasingly important to revisit lesser-discussed narrations that offer sharper conceptual tools. Scattered across the early corpus are reports that not only shed light on how the ahruf operated but also on how their boundaries were recognised and preserved. One such narration, underexamined in both classical and modern treatments, explicitly ties each harf to a defined boundary and to a pattern of continued recognition within the community. This report, narrated on the authority of Ibn Mas‘ud, provides an interpretive key that complements the Prophetic-precedent framework developed in earlier articles and helps clarify the relationship between ahruf, established recitations, and the broader dynamics of transmission. The hadith of our focus goes as:

عن عبد الله ابن مسعود قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: أنزل القرآن على سبعة أحرف، لكل حرف منها ظهر وبطن، ولكل حرف حد، ولكل حد مطلع

~

Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud reported that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “The Qur’an was revealed in seven ahruf. Each harf has an apparent (zahir) and a deeper (batin) aspect, each harf has a prescribed limit (hadd), and each prescribed limit has someone who observes it ”

(For the shift from the locus noun matlaʿ to the agent noun muttaliʿ, see Section 3.2 below.)

The report thus appears in the works of Abu Ya‘la (d. 307/920), al-Tabari (d. 310/923), al-Tahawi (d. 321/933), and al-Baghawi (d. 516/1122).

2. Isnad analysis

The report always comes through Abu al-Ahwas ‘Awf b. Malik al-Kufi (d. ca 85/705). One of the narrations with al-Tabari comes through an unnamed narrator from Abu al-Ahwas,[1] and the other through Ibrahim al-Hajari (d. ca 145/762), who is generally viewed as a weak narrator.[2] Accordingly, Ahmad Shakir (d. 1958) graded them both as da‘if(weak).

However, Abu Ya‘la[3] Al-Tahawi,[4] and al-Baghawi’s[5] narrations give us the name of the one unnamed with al-Tabari. He is ‘Abdullah b. Abi Hudhail (d. ca 110/720). Accordingly, Shu‘aib al-Arna’ut (d. 2016) et al. graded the report as “sahih ‘ala shart Muslim,” i.e., authentic as per the standards of Sahih Muslim.[6] Likewise, the editor of Musnad of Abu Ya‘la, Hussain Salim Asad (d. 2021), classified it as sahih.[7] Lately, ‘Abdullah b. Yusuf al-Judai‘ has also graded it as sahih in his dedicated work on sab‘ah ahruf hadith reports.[8]

Earlier, Abu al-Faid al-Ghumari (d. 1960) also graded it as sahih.[9] Al-Tha‘labi (d. 427/1035) stated that Abu al-Hasan al-Aqt‘ (d. ca 300/900) had also mentioned it to be authentically narrated from the Prophet (ﷺ) (ṣaḥḥa ‘an an-nabī ṣallallāhu ‘alaihi wa sallam).[10]

The narration is recorded by al-Tabarani (d. 360/971) as well but only as a saying of Ibn Mas‘ud rather than of the Prophet (ﷺ):

عن عبد الله بن مسعود قال: إن هذا القرآن ليس منه حرف إلا له حد ولكل حدٍ مطلعٌ.

~

‘Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud said: “There is no harf in this Qur’an except that it has a prescribed limit (hadd), and each prescribed limit (of harf) has someone who observes it.”[11]

It is also related as a mursal report of Hasan al-Basri.

عن الحسن، قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: «ما أنزل الله عز وجل آية إلا لها ظهر وبطن، وكل حرف حد، وكل حد مطلع

~

Al-Hasan reported that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “There is no verse that Allah has revealed except that it has an apparent (zahir) and a deeper (batin) aspect, and each harf has a prescribed limit (hadd), and each prescribed limit has someone who observes it.”

It is thus related from al-Hasan through ‘Ali b. Zayd (b. Jud‘an),[12] al-Mubarak b. Fudala,[13] Hisham b. Hassan,[14]and Yunus b. ‘Ubaid.[15]

While it comes in the form of mursal, it is instructive to note that Abu al-Ahwas, who is the only known narrator from Ibn Mas‘ud for this hadith, was also a source of Hasan al-Basri for some other Ibn Mas‘ud reports.[16] Therefore, it is quite possible that Hasan al-Basri also heard this narration of Ibn Mas‘ud from Abu al-Ahwas.

Hasan al-Basri’s mursal reports have been a great contention among hadith scholars. Hatem al-‘Awni, a contemporary hadith master, has exhaustively reviewed the material on this issue and concluded that Hasan’s mursal reports are among the strong in the category.[17]

There is one version of the report that is recorded as coming from Shaqiq from Ibn Mas‘ud, without attributing it to the Prophet (ﷺ), which includes the final phrase:

وإن علي بن أبي طالب عنده علم الظاهر والباطن

~

Indeed ‘Ali b. Abi Talib has knowledge of the apparent and the deeper/hidden aspects.[18]

This narration, however, comes through Muhammad b. Marwan [al-Qattan al-Kufi] and his son, Ishaq. Regarding Muhammad b. Marwan, al-Daraqutini said, “A shaykh from the Shi‘a, indiscriminate in what he collects, abandoned (in hadith), and he scarcely narrated from a reliable transmitter.”[19] Likewise, his son, Ishaq, was also not a reliable narrator.[20] Another narrator in its chain, ‘Ubaida b. Mu‘attib al-Dabbi, was also recognised as extremely weak (da‘if jiddan).[21] Moreover, there are other narrators in its isnad whose reliability is not verifiable.[22] Accordingly, this odd narration does not deserve any serious engagement.[23]

3. Meaning and significance of key terms

The element of interest in this report is the final part, which says, “Every harf has a hadd, and each hadd has a matla‘.” In the narrations above, I have translated it as follows: “Every harf has a prescribed limit (hadd), and each prescribed limit has someone who observes it.”

3.1 Meaning of hadd for ahruf

Al-Baghawi (d. 510/1117) explains the concept of hadd in recitation by emphasising that it cannot go beyond what has been firmly established in both the Mushaf and the transmitted interpretations (tafsir). He writes:

وقوله: «لكل حرف حد» أراد به: له حد في التلاوة والتفسير لا يجاوز، ففي التلاوة لا يجاوز المصحف وفي التفسير لا يجاوز المسموع، وقوله: «لكل حد مطلع» ، أي: مصعد يصعد إليه من معرفة علمه، ويقال: المطلع الفهم، وقد يفتح الله على المدبر والمتفكر في التأويل والمعاني ما لا يفتحه على غيره، وفوق كل ذي علم عليم، وما توفيقي إلا الله العزيز الحكيم.

~

The Prophet’s (ﷺ) statement: “For every harf, there is a prescribed limit,” means that there is a limit in recitation and interpretation that should not be exceeded. In recitation, one should not go beyond the Mushaf; in interpretation, one should not go beyond what has been reported (from the Prophet and early scholars). His statement: “For every prescribed limit, there is someone who observes it (matla’),” refers to the approach from which one can ascend through the levels of knowledge in its meaning. It is also said that the matla’ is understanding. Allah grants deep insights into interpretation and meanings to the one who reflects and ponders insights that others may not have, as above every knowledgeable person; there is one more knowledgeable.[24]

Here, the limit (hadd) reflects a clear boundary in recitation, adhering strictly to the Mushaf, while interpretation remains tied to the transmitted knowledge. Al-Baghawi emphasises that understanding deeper meanings is always based on the foundation of the received tradition and is open to further insights for those who ponder deeply.

Al-Muzhiri (d. 727/1327) takes a more specific approach, linking the hadd to articulating each letter in the Qur’an and its preservation through precisely regulated recitation. He notes:

وفي بعض الروايات: “لكل حرف حَدٌّ، ولكل حَدٍّ مُطَّلَع” يعني: حدُّ كلَّ حرف معلومٌ في التلاوة، ولا يجوزُ مخالفتُها؛ مثل: عدم جواز إبدال الضاد بحرف آخر، وكذلك الظاء، وغير ذلك من الحروف، ولا يجوز إبدال حرف بحرف إلا ما جاز في القراءة، وكذلك أحكام الشرع معلومة لا يجوز مخالفتُها، وكذلك سبب نزول كل آية وسورة وقصصها، لا يجوز إبدالُ شيء منها بغيرها، وكل ذلك حَدُّ القرآن

~

In some narrations, (there are words), “For every harf, there is a hadd, and for every hadd, there is a matla’:” The hadd of every harf is known in recitation, and it is not permissible to deviate from it, such as replacing the letter ‘ḍad’ with another letter, or the letter ‘ẓa’,’ and so forth with other letters. Replacing one letter with another is not permissible unless it is allowed in (another) recitation. Similarly, the rulings of the Shari‘ah are known and cannot be deviated from, as well as the causes for the revelation of each verse and surah and the chronicles therein. None of these can be substituted with anything else, and all of these constitute the limits of the Qur’an.[25]

Discussing the various interpretations of hadd, al-Judai‘, in his recent work, contends that none align with the context of revelation and the sab‘a ahruf except the interpretation advanced by al-Baghawi and further developed by al-Muzhiri.[26]

3.2 Meaning of matla’

Whereas rendering hadd as a prescribed limit is straightforward, let’s qualify the interpretation of matla’.

After mentioning the report from Hasan al-Basri, Abu ‘Ubaid Qasim b. Sallam records:

قال: قلت: يا أبا سعيد , ما المطلع؟ قال: يطلع قوم يعملون به

~

The narrator noted, I asked, “Abu Sa‘id (i.e., Hasan)! What is the matla’  here and he responded, “A people acting upon it will always come about.”[27]

Abu ‘Ubaid traces the origin of this interpretation in a saying of Ibn Mas‘ud and compares it with the general meaning of the word;

قَالَ أَبُو عُبَيْدٍ: فأحسب قَول الْحَسَن هَذَا إِنَّمَا ذهب بِهِ إِلَى قَول عَبْد اللَّه بْن مَسْعُود فِيهِ حَدَّثَنِي حجاج عَن شُعْبَة عَن عَمْرو بْن مرّة عَن عَبْد اللَّه قَالَ: مَا من حرف أَو قَالَ آيَة إِلَّا وَقد عمل بهَا قوم أَو لَهَا قوم سيعملون بهَا فَإِن كَانَ الْحَسَن ذهب إِلَى هَذَا فَهُوَ وَجه وَإِلَّا كَانَ المطلع فِي كَلَام الْعَرَب على غير هَذَا الْوَجْه وَقد فسرناه فِي مَوضِع آخر وَهُوَ المأتى الَّذِي يُؤْتى مِنْهُ حَتَّى يعلم علم الْقُرْآن من كل ذَلِك المأتى والمصعد.

~

Abu Ubaid said: In my view, al-Hasan’s comment here goes back to the statement of ‘Abdullah b. Mas‘ud, as narrated to me by Hajjaj from Shu‘bah, from ‘Amr b. Murrah, from Abdullah: “There is no verse or harf except that a people have acted upon it or a people will act upon it.” While al-Hasan likely meant this,  and it is a plausible interpretation, in the language of the Arabs, matla’ can also carry another meaning. We have explained it elsewhere as referring to the starting point from which something is approached (al-ma’tā) until one attains knowledge of the Qur’an from all its outward (al-ma’tā) and deeper limits (al-mas‘ad).”[28]

The general meaning aligns seamlessly with Hasan’s interpretation, rooted in Ibn Mas‘ud’s statement, suggesting that there will always be people who observe and act on the meaning of every harf, not only engaging with its outward, apparent meaning but also grasping and appreciating its deeper, more profound dimensions.[29]  While the transmitted rasm of the hadith appears as matlaʿ – denoting a point or station of ascent – Abu ʿUbaid’s own explanation demonstrates how this lexical sense naturally extends to an agentive one. A matlaʿ is a place one ascends to, and the one who reaches it and comes upon its meaning is a muttaliʿ. This shift from locus to agent is precisely what Abu ʿUbaid makes when he glosses the term through the behaviour of “a people who will come and act upon it,” grounding his interpretation in the explicit statements of Ibn Mas‘ud and Hasan al-Basri. This is especially significant, since Ibn Mas‘ud is the very companion who narrated the hadith, and Hasri al-Basri also narrated it. Abu ʿUbaid’s linkage, therefore, justifies reading the term in its functional sense as muttaliʿ, capturing not only the station of access to meaning but the individuals who continually rise to it, preserve it, and embody its significance.

4. Significance of the report

The significance of this narration for discussions on the ahruf and qira’at lies in its treatment of hadd and muttali’. Scholars understood hadd as a boundary fixed by established precedent. This framing underscores that Qur’anic recitation operates within defined limits, limits represented by the authorised forms transmitted through reliable authorities and preserved in the canonical codex (mushaf al-imam).

The narration also indicates that each precedent-based reading within the ahruf system will continue to have individuals who recognise and uphold it. Limited visibility of an authorised harf, whether because it is less commonly encountered or less frequently cited, is therefore not grounds for doubting its legitimacy. The Prophet (ﷺ) affirmed this when he validated the differing recitations learned by the companions and instructed them to adhere to what they had received. He also warned them not to object to another’s recitation without consulting someone more knowledgeable.[30]

What applied to the companions naturally extended to the early generations after them. Even as the various authentic readings were gathered and codified, some remained less familiar in certain regions or scholarly circles. Such uneven familiarity does not diminish the legitimacy of any authorised harf grounded in Prophetic precedent.

These points take on greater relevance in light of contemporary discussions. Questions about the nature of the ahruf, the scope of recitational relaxation, and the origins of the canonical qira’at are sometimes approached through assumptions shaped by the fluid textual history of biblical literature. This narration helps correct that framing by showing that the ahruf represent a structured, precedent-bound allowance. Their visibility may rise or recede, but their legitimacy remains rooted in the Prophet’s (ﷺ) own teaching and transmission, not in unanchored or open-ended permission.

5. Conclusion

The Ibn Mas‘ud narration, read alongside the Prophetic-precedent framework developed in earlier articles, offers a clear conceptual key for understanding how the ahruf functioned and how their limits were maintained. Its use of hadd points to boundaries grounded in established precedent in both recitation and transmitted interpretation. Its treatment of muttali’, particularly as explained through the readings of Ibn Mas‘ud, Hasan al-Basri, and Abu ‘Ubaid, highlights continuity within those boundaries. Every authorised harf will have individuals who recognise and uphold it, even when its visibility varies across regions or generations.

Together, these elements reinforce that the ahruf are anchored in explicit Prophetic precedent at every stage of their practice and preservation. They define the nature and scope of authorised recitational variance in a manner that safeguards the integrity of the Qur’anic text as it was taught, received, and preserved from the earliest community onward.

Notes and References:

[1] al-Tabari, Abu Ja’far, Jami‘ al-Bayan fi Tafsir ay al-Qur’an, Ed. Mahmud Muhammad Shakir (Beirut: al-Resalah Publishers, 2000) Vol.1, 22 no. 10;

[2] al-Tabari, Jami‘ al-Bayan Vol.1, 23 no. 11;

[3] al-Mawsali, Abu Ya‘la, al-Musnad, Ed. Hussain Salim Asad (Damascus: Dar al-Ma’mun, 1984) Vol.9, 80 Hadith 5139 – graded as sahih.

[4] Al-Tahawi, Abu Ja‘far, Sharh Mushkil al-Athar, (Beirut: Resalah Publishers, 1994) Vol.8, 109 Hadith 3095;

[5] Al-Baghawi, Abu Muhammad. Ma‘alim al-Tanzil fi Tafsir al-Qur’an, Edited by ‘Abd al-Razzaq al-Mahdi (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ al-Turath al-‘Arabi, 2000) Vol.1, 68-69

[6] Al-Tahawi, Sharh Mushkil al-Athar, Vol.8, 88

[7] See footnote 3 above. Al-Albani’s (d. 1999) observation that it is not problem-free because of Mughira b. Al-Muqsim relating it ambiguously (with ‘an) is not of much significance as the Ibrahim al-Hajari link with al-Tabari does not come through Mughira, and together, all these links mitigate any concerns on individual links. See, al-Da‘ifa no. 2989. Moreover, concerns about Mughira’s reports this way are relevant only with regard to his narrations from Ibrahim al-Nakha‘i, which is not the case here. See, Ibn al-‘Iraqi, Abu Zur‘a, al-Mudallisin, (Mansura: Dar al-Wafa’, 1995) 93-94 no. 63

[8] Al-Judai‘, ‘Abdullah b. Yusuf, Hadith al-Ahruf al-Sab‘a Diraya wa Dalala, (Leeds: Mo’assasa al-Rayan, 2025) 31-32

[9] al-Ghumari, Abu al-Faid, al-Mudawi li-‘Ilal al-Jami‘ al-Saghir wa Sharhaiy al-Munawi, (Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Makkiyya, 1996) Vol.3, 80-82;

[10] Al-Tha‘labi, Abu Ishaq, al-Kashf wa al-Bayan ‘an Tafsir al-Qur’an, (Jeddah: Dar al-Tafsir, 2015) Vol.7, 219; for Abu al-Hasan al-Aqt‘ see, al-Sahmi, Abu al-Qasim Hamza, Tarikh Jurjan, (Beirut: ‘Alam al-Kutab, 1987) 100 no. 77

[11] al-Tabarani, Abu al-Qasim, al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir, (Cairo: Maktaba Ibn Taimiya, 1994)  Vol.9, 136 Hadith 8668;

[12] Abu ‘Ubaid, Qasim b. Sallam, Fada’il al-Qur’an, (Beirut: Dar Ibn Kathir, 1995) 98; Al-Baghawi,  Abu Muhammad, Sharh al-Sunnah, (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islami, 1983) Vol.1, 262 no. 122. While ‘Ali b. Zaid b. Jud‘an (d. 131/749) has been criticized by many, the most plausible and balanced conclusion appears to be the one reached by al-‘Awni that except when at odds with a narrator more reliable his reports are worthy to be considered hasan, especially when he relates from al-Hasan al-Basri. See al-‘Awni, Hatem Sharif, al-Mursal al-Khafi wa ‘Ilaqatuhu bi al-Tadlis, (Riyadh: Dar al-Hijra, 1997) 306-322;

[13] Abu ‘Ubaid, Fada’il al-Qur’an, 97. Al-Mubarak b. Fudala’s reports are deemed reliable when he relates from al-Hasan al-Basri. See al-‘Awni, al-Mursal al-Khafi wa ‘Ilaqatuhu bi al-Tadlis, 365

[14] Ibn al-Mubarak, Abu Abd al-Rahman, al-Zuhd wa’l-Raqa’iq, mulhiq: Ma rawa-hu Nuaym ibn Hammad fi nuskhatihi za’idan ala ma rawa-hu al-Marwazi an Ibn al-Mubarak fi Kitab al-Zuhd, ed. Habib al-Rahman al-Azami (Beirut: DKI, 2004) 23 no.93; al-Hakim al-Tirmidhi, Nawadir al-Usul fi Maʿrifat Ahadith al-Rasul, ed. Tawfiq Muhammad Taklah (Beirut: Dar al-Nawadir, 2010) Vol.7, 187 no. 1631; also see, Al-San‘ani, ‘Abdul Razzaq, al-Musannaf, (Dabhel: Majlis al-‘Ilmi, 1983) no. 5965

[15] Al-Zabidi, Murtada, Takhrij Ihya’ ‘Ulum al-Din, (Riyadh: Dar al-‘Asima, 1987) Vol.2, 711 no. 856 citing al-Faryabi.

[16] al-‘Awni, al-Mursal al-Khafi wa ‘Ilaqatuhu bi al-Tadlis, 1704-5, 1708

[17] al-‘Awni, al-Mursal al-Khafi wa ‘Ilaqatuhu bi al-Tadlis, 452-4

[18] Al- Asbahani, Abu Nu‘aim, Hilya al-Awliya, (Cairo: al-Sa‘adah, 1974) Vol.1, 65;  Ibn ‘Asakir, Abu al-Qasim, Tarikh al-Damishq, (Beirut: Dar al-Fekr, 1995) Vol.42, 400; Ibn al-Jazari, Muhammad ibn Muhammad, Manaqib al-Asad al-Ghalib Mumazziq al-Kata’ib wa-Muzhir al-‘Aja’ib Laith ibn Ghalib Amir al-Mu’minin Abi al-Hasan ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, ed. Tariq al-Tantawi (Cairo: Maktabat al-Qur’an, 1994), 33 no. 33 – graded as da‘if jiddan.

[19] Al-‘Asqalani, Ibn Hajar, Lisan al-Mizan, (Beirut: Dar al-Basha’ir al-Islamiya, 2002) Vol.7, 498 No. 7394

[20] Al-‘Asqalani, Lisan al-Mizan, Vol.2, 77 No. 1069

[21] Ibn Sa‘d, al-Tabaqat a-Kubra, (Beirut: DKI, 1990) Vol.6, 239 (no. 2575); Al-Dhahabi, Shams al-Din, Mizan al-I‘tidal fi Naqd al-Rijal, ed. ‘Ali Muhammad al-Bajawi (Beirut: Dar al-Ma‘rifah, 1963) Vol.3, 25-26

[22] IslamQA, Fatwa No. 289278, “Unzila al-Qur’an ‘ala sab‘at ahruf, likulli ayatin minha zahr wa-batin”, https://islamqa.info/ar/answers/289278 (accessed May 3, 2025)

[23] Al-Judai‘, ‘Abdullah b. Yusuf, Hadith al-Ahruf al-Sab‘a Diraya wa Dalala, 62, 201-202

[24] Al-Baghawi, Ma‘alim al-Tanzil fi Tafsir al-Qur’an, Vol.1, 69. Abu Musa al-Madini (d. 581/1185) echoed the same. See, Al-Madini, Abu Musa, Al-Majmu al-Mughith fi Gharib al-Quran wa al-Hadith, (Jeddah: Dar al-Madani, 1988) Vol.2, 392

[25] Al-Muzhiri, Al-Hussain bin Mahmud, Al-Mafatih fi Sharh Al-Masabih, (Kuwait: Dar Al-Nawadir, 2012) Vol.1, 333

[26] Al-Judai‘, ‘Abdullah b. Yusuf, Hadith al-Ahruf al-Sab‘a Diraya wa Dalala, 194-196

[27] Abu ‘Ubaid, Qasim b. Sallam, Fada’il al-Qur’an, (Beirut: Dar Ibn Kathir, 1995) 98

[28] Abu ‘Ubaid, al-Qasim b. Sallam, Gharib al-Hadith, ed. Muhammad ‘Abd al-Mu‘id Khan, (Hyderabad: Da’irat al-Ma‘arif al-‘Uthmaniyyah, 1964) Vol.2, 12; for the Ibn Mas’ud report see also, Abu ‘Ubaid, Fada’il al-Qur’an, 99

[29] This is at variance with al-Tabari’s eschatological reading of maṭṭalaʿ. Against this, I prefer the interpretation traced by Abu Ubaid to that of Ibn Mas‘ud, the companion who narrated the hadith. This latter view understands it as the recurring emergence of people who act upon and appreciate the true significance of each harf. While the two interpretations differ in scope—one pointing to the Hereafter, the other to unfolding engagement in this world—they share a semantic foundation in the root ṭ-l-ʿ, which connotes the rising into view of what was previously concealed, whether as divine consequence or human awareness.

[30] For details see a previous article in this series; Seven Ahruf Scheme and the Centrality of the Prophetic Precedent