Waqar Akbar Cheema
Some revisionists twist a narration of the sab‘a ahruf hadith related by Ubayy b. Ka‘b, arguing that a clear Prophetic precedent was not required under the scheme. This paper deals with contentions to this end. Based on a systematic analysis of the word forms the hadith has been reported in, its rhetorical flow, and a reconsideration of relevant spelling conventions, it has been shown that far from proving otherwise, the very narration is another proof of the precedent anchoring under the ahruf framework of Qur’anic readings.
Previously we have discussed narrations that cause some doubt about the Prophetic precedent condition in their isolated apparent reading. We now turn to a long-shot revisionist contention around a seven ahruf hadith narration to the same end.
A rather ingenious revisionist argument undermining the centrality of the Prophetic precedent in the ahruf scheme involves a narration of the well-known hadith of Ubayy b. Ka‘b, wherein the Prophet (ﷺ) described to Ubayy how the archangel Jibril came to him in iterations and finally told him that the Qur’an was revealed in seven ahruf. As recorded in Sahih Muslim, it goes as:
وحدثنا أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة، حدثنا غندر، عن شعبة، ح وحدثناه ابن المثنى، وابن بشار،
قال ابن المثنى: حدثنا محمد بن جعفر، حدثنا شعبة، عن الحكم، عن مجاهد، عن ابن أبي ليلى، عن أبي بن كعب، أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كان عند أضاة بني غفار، قال: فأتاه جبريل عليه السلام، فقال: إن الله يأمرك أن تقرأ أمتك القرآن على حرف، فقال: «أسأل الله معافاته ومغفرته، وإن أمتي لا تطيق ذلك»، ثم أتاه الثانية، فقال: «إن الله يأمرك أن تقرأ أمتك القرآن على حرفين»، فقال: «أسأل الله معافاته ومغفرته، وإن أمتي لا تطيق ذلك»، ثم جاءه الثالثة، فقال: إن الله يأمرك أن تقرأ أمتك القرآن على ثلاثة أحرف، فقال: «أسأل الله معافاته ومغفرته، وإن أمتي لا تطيق ذلك»، ثم جاءه الرابعة، فقال: إن الله يأمرك أن تقرأ أمتك القرآن على سبعة أحرف، فأيما حرف قرءوا عليه فقد أصابوا.
Abu Bakr b. Abi Shaiba related to us: Ghundar related to us: [and similarly] Ibn al-Muthanna and Ibn Bashshar related it to us.
Ibn al-Muthanna said, Muhammad b. Ja‘far [Ghundar] related to us: Shu‘ba related to us, on the authority of al-Hakam, on the authority of Mujahid, on the authority of Ibn Abi Laila, on the authority of Ubayy b. Ka‘b that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was near the tank of Banu Ghifar that Jibril came to him and said: Allah commands you that your people recite the Qur’an in one ahruf. Upon this, he said: I ask from Allah pardon and forgiveness. My people are not capable of doing it. Jibril then came for the second time and said: Allah commands you that your people recite the Qur’an in two ahruf. Upon this, he (the Prophet) again said: I seek pardon and forgiveness from Allah; my people would not be able to do so. Jibril came for the third time and said: Allah commands you that your people recite the Qur’an in three ahruf. Upon this, he said: I ask pardon and forgiveness from Allah. My people would not be able to do it. He then came to him for the fourth time and said: Allah commands you that your people recite the Qur’an in seven ahruf, and in whichever harf they would recite, they would be right.
The translation above is the way the revisionists understand this report. They bask upon the following part of it;
إن الله يأمرك أن تقرأ أمتك القرآن على سبعة أحرف
Allah commands you[sing] that your ummah recite (taqra’ ummatuk) the Qur’an in seven ahruf.
Based on this reading of the narration of the hadith, revisionists like Muhammad Salih al-Rajhi (d. 2022) claim that people were not obliged to recite the Qur’an as taught by the Prophet (ﷺ) verbatim; instead, they were free to recite it as they found convenient as long as it did not change the meanings.
It is undoubtedly a long shot both in terms of the plausibility of this reading and its implications. While the desperate nature of this argument is evident, there is a lot more to prove that it does not hold.
It needs to be clarified at the outset that notwithstanding other details to it, the reading “taqra’ ummatuk al-qur’an ‘ala sab‘a ahruf” (that your community recite the Qur’an in seven ahruf) is no evidence against the Prophetic precedent (talaqqi) condition. It is, at best, mute about it, which explains why some scholars accepted it as such. In view of overwhelming evidence for the precedent condition in other reports on sab‘a ahruf, there is no justification for seeking room for an interpretation otherwise based on extraneous considerations. But now that some are misconstruing this construction to an altogether different end, it is imperative to engage with it on multiple levels.
2. Taqra’ or Tuqri’ ? Variance across narrations of a sab’a ahruf hadith
The narrations of the hadith are inconsistent on this point. Whereas some sources have a narration of the hadith rendered as above, most sources record it as:
إن الله يأمرك أن تقرئ أمتك القرآن على سبعة أحرف
Verily Allah orders you that you teach your community to recite (tuqri’ ummatak) the Qur’an in seven ahruf.
The critical difference between the narrations or renderings thereof is, therefore, about “an taqra’ ummatuk” (that your community recite) vs “an tuqri’ ummatak” (that you teach your community to recite).
The report always comes through Hakam – Mujahid link related by Shu‘ba b. al-Hajjaj or Muhammad b. Juhada.
2.1 Narration from Shu‘ba b. al-Hajjaj
From Shu‘ba, there are at least six people who narrate this hadith.
i) Muhammad b. Ja‘far, Ghundar: Whereas his report in Sahih Muslim has the word taqra’ that the revisionists use, several sources record it as tuqri’ from him. Al-Tabari has it as tuqri’. Most manuscripts of Sunan al-Nasa‘i, too, have it thus. Ibn Abi Shaiba also relays it as tuqri’. The same is true for Musnad of Ahmad, of which only an odd manuscript has it as taqra’.
Al-Fakihi’s narration reads, “Allah commands you to recite it (taqra’hu) in seven ahruf.” So with the Prophet (ﷺ) — an individual – commanded to recite in seven ahruf; the precedent condition is also implied in this version.
ii) Abu Dawud al-Tiyalisi: In his work, it reads as tuqri’; “Allah commands you to teach your ummah (tuqri’ ummatak) the Qur’an in seven ahruf.”
iii) Sa‘id b. ‘Amir al-Duba‘i: His narration from Shu‘bah comes with the words, “Allah commands you that you recite the Qur’an (taqra’ al-qur’an) in seven ahruf.” There is no mention of ummah here that the instruction may be deemed specific to them – albeit by relaxation – to the exclusion of the Prophet (ﷺ).
iv) ‘Abdul Rahman b. Ziyad,
v) Shababa b. Sawwar, and
vi) Yahya b. ‘Abbad, all three of them relate the hadith with the words, “Allah commands you and your ummah to recite the Qur’an (anta wa ummatak an taqra’ al-qur’an) in seven ahruf.” Here again, the Prophet (ﷺ), an individual, also commanded to recite the Qur’an in seven ahruf, presumes the precedent condition.
The revisionists use this version to undermine the Prophetic precedent even though it clearly instructs the Prophet (ﷺ) to recite in seven ahruf. At the same time, they rest their case on the claim that the Prophet (ﷺ) was not subject to the instruction.
All the narrations of the report except the one through Ghundar consistently prove the Prophetic precedent condition in affirming the tuqri’ rendering. Even from Ghundar, some narrations have it the same way, though it appears as taqra’ in most manuscripts and all the prominent editions of Sahih Muslim. Moreover, at least one manuscript of Sahih Muslim has it as tuqri’. Several secondary sources also quote it as tuqri’ from Sahih Muslim, namely Jam‘ bain al-Sahihain by al-Jawzaqi (d. 388/998), al-Atraf al-Sahihain by Khalf al-Wasiti (d. 401/1010-11), and Fath al-Bari by Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani (d. 852/1449).
2.2 Narration from Muhammad b. Juhada
Ibn Juhada’s narration from al-Hakam b. ‘Utaiba also confirms the tuqri’ rendering of the hadith. While only ‘Abdul Warith b. Sa‘id reports it from Ibn Juhada; there are at least four students of ‘Abdul Warith who narrate this hadith from him, all giving the tuqri’ rendering. They include; ‘Abdul Samad [b. ‘Abdul Warith], Abu Ma‘mar ‘Abdullah b. ‘Amr b. Abi al-Hajjaj, Muhammad b. ‘Umar b. Hafs al-Asfahani, and Ja‘far b. Mihran al-Sabbak.
2.3 Narration of ‘Abdullah b. ‘Isa
Al-Rajhi seeks to neutralize the impact of Muhammad b. Juhada reports by suggesting that the narration of ‘Abdullah b. ‘Isa, another student of Ibn Abi Laila, has the word taqra’. For this, he cites an earlier edition of Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaiba, which has a manifest omission leading to the mixing of the narration of ‘Abdullah b. ‘Isa with the subsequent narration of Mujahid through Shu‘ba. The citation (vol. and page no.) provided suggests he used the old edition produced by Sa’id al-Laham. Multiple subsequent editions of Ibn Abi Shaiba’s Musannaf have pointed out the omission and have given ‘Abdullah b. ‘Isa’s narration as;
حدثنا محمد بن بشر , قال : حدثنا إسماعيل بن أبي خالد ، قال : حدثني عبد الله بن عيسى ، عن عبد الرحمن بن أبي ليلى ، قال : أخبرني أبي بن كعب ، أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : إن ربي أرسل إلي : أن اقرإ القرآن على سبعة أحرف.
Muhammad b. Bishr related to us: Isma‘il b. Abi Khalid related to us: ‘Abdullah b. ‘Isa related to us, on the authority of ‘Abdul Rahman b. Abi Laila who said: Ubayy b. Ka‘b informed me that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: My Lord has commanded me to recite (an aqra’) the Qur’an in seven ahruf.
Other sources also record ‘Abdullah b. ‘Isa’s narration the same way. It also confirms the precedent condition: the Prophet (ﷺ), an individual under Allah’s promise for memorizing the Qur’an, was asked to recite the Qur’an in seven ahruf. It certainly would not be required if it was not for the Prophet (ﷺ) to teach the specifics of the ahruf to the people. Moreover, it vindicates Muhammad b. Juhada’s narration against al-Rajhi and co.’s attempt to downplay it.
2.4 Narrations from Mu‘adh b. Mu‘adh and others
After recording the report as mentioned above, Muslim b. al-Hajjaj notes:
وحدثناه عبيد الله بن معاذ، حدثنا أبي، حدثنا شعبة، بهذا الإسناد مثله
Moreover, ‘Ubaid Allah b. Mu‘adh related it to us: my father (Mu‘adh b. Mu‘adh) related it to us: Shu‘ba related to us, through this isnad, a similar report.
Al-Rajhi claims that Mu‘adh b. Mu‘adh’s narration in Sahih Muslim has it as taqra’, but this is an ill-informed claim. Muslim b. al-Hajjaj mentions the Mu‘adh-Shu‘ba link but does not record the complete narration through this link. For the narration before it, Muslim b. al-Hajjaj gave three links to Ghundar and specified that he was quoting the words from the Ibn al-Muthanna-Ghundar link, which reflects his careful methodology in attributing specific words to individual narrators. Therefore, it is not right to claim that the particular words given in Sahih Muslim could be attributed to Ibn Abi Shaiba-Ghundar and Muhammad b. Bashar-Ghundar link, much less to Mu‘adh-Shu‘ba link.
Moreover, this way, one would have to count [Muhammad] Ibn Abi ‘Adi, Shababa b. Sawwar, and Musa b. Dawud among the narrators from Shu‘ba giving the tuqri’ version as with al-Tabari.
3. Import of the rhetorical context
Not only is the “an taqra’ ummatuk” (that your community recite) rendering odd in terms of narrative authority and manuscript evidence, it does not fit the rhetorical flow and context of the report. Each time the phrase is used, it culminates the sentence, “Allah commands you [sing.] (O Prophet) that …” If the command was to the Prophet (ﷺ), he must have a role in its fulfilment. Accordingly, it makes absolute sense to read it as “Allah commands you (O Prophet) that you teach your community to recite the Qur’an …” but it is clunky to read it as “Allah commands you (O Prophet) that your community recite the Qur’an …” Abu al-Hasan al-Sindi (d. 1138/1726), therefore, noted.
أمر أحد بفعل غيره غير مستحسن
Commanding one for the action due upon others is not proper.
On top of it, it is absurd to suggest that Allah commanded the Prophet (ﷺ) that his community does something while using it to imply against the Prophet’s (ﷺ) essential role in the people doing it.
Some revisionists are aware of this point and seek to neutralize it by alluding to a hadith report in which the Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Jibril came to me and said, Allah, commands you that you tell your companions to raise their voices (inna Allah ya’muruka an ta’mura ashabak an yarfa‘u aswatahum) in talbih and ihlal.” Notwithstanding the difference between the ahruf scheme encompassing the entire Qur’an and talbih and tahlil being a few specific words already known to the Companions, this hadith only confirms our reasoning above. Moreover, it could only be relevant if it read, “Allah commands you that your companions raise their voices (inna Allah ya’muruka an tarfa‘u ashabak aswatahum) ….”
Al-Rajhi’s awareness of the strength of the argument, on the other hand, is conspicuous by his failure to face it. He, therefore, clings to qualifying statements in certain other narrations of the seven ahruf hadith in which Jibril tells the Prophet (ﷺ) that the Qur’an has been revealed in seven ahruf so that his community read the Qur’an thus in seven ahruf, or that in whichever ahruf they recite, it would be valid. But, naturally, none of this goes against the precedent condition in the ahruf scheme. On the contrary, these statements presume the precedent-predicated framework.
4. Reconciling the two renderings – reconsidering the spelling convention
Whereas the rendering “an tuqri’ ummatak” clearly supersedes “an taqra’ ummatuk” in terms of narrative authority and rhetorical context, is the latter due to be discarded or ignored? In my estimation, it is not necessary. However, given the proximity of the script of the words in Arabic and that quite a few hadith works have manuscripts varying on this particular word, one is intrigued to dig deeper.
The variance on this point is also found in different editions of Sunan Abu Dawud. The critical editions produced by the Dar al-Ta’sil research team and Muhammad ‘Awwama have it as أن تقرأ أمتك (an taqra’ ummatuk). In contrast, the editions produced by late Shu‘aib al-Arna’ut and co.  and ‘Isam Musa Hadi have it as أن تقرئ أمتك (an tuqri’ ummatak) .” Moreover, al-Arna’ut and co. mentioned that they have based their edition on the manuscript copy written in Ibn Hajar’s hand , but the said manuscript has it as ان تقرا امتك, though without any diacritical marking. When the learned scholar ‘Isam Musa Hadi was asked about the issue, he noted that it was not about the skeletal form in the manuscript but the way it had been received orally through the teachers of the text. His observation thus alerts us to the spelling conventions.
As evident, the two phrases are similar in skeletal text form. One is أن تقرأ أمتك (an taqra’ ummatuk), and the other is أن تقرئ أمتك (an tuqri’ ummatak). Since such works typically did not have the diacritical marks for pronunciation, all of it boils down to how the letter hamza was put in its word-end position. The common practice broadly systematized over time is that the final hamza takes its form based on the haraka or pronunciation of the letter before it. If it is a fatha, it is written over an alif (أ); if it is a kasra, it is put over a ya (ئ). But this has not always been the case. The philologist Al-Fara’ (d. 207/822) mentions that the hamza was always over an alif in the mushaf attributed to Ibn Mas‘ud. Likewise, Ibn Qutaiba (d. 276/889) noted that some people in his time always wrote hamza over an alif. Therefore, while final hamza changing its forms due to diacritics may be conventional, it has not always been the rule.
The early modern Indian editions of Sunan Abu Dawud confirm this. In the edition produced by the celebrated Mahmud al-Hasan (d. 1920) of Deoband, often remembered as Shaikh al-Hind, and likewise in the edition published by Nawal Kishore Press, Lucknow, the phrase appeared as تُقرِأ أمَّتَك (i.e., with diacritics) making it read as أن تقرئ أمتك (tuqri’ ummatak).
Naturally, the same applies to the report in Sahih Muslim. Accordingly, at least one manuscript of Sahih Muslim has it thus. It is a manuscript of Sahih Muslim preserved in Muhammad Bashir Shendi’s Hadith collection in Maktaba al-Iskandriyya (No. 776). It was copied in Shawwal 910/April 1505.
It assures us that even when the skeletal form of the word is تقرأ أمتك, as in most manuscripts and all the editions of Sahih Muslim, it can still be read as “tuqri’ ummatak.” Accordingly, the hadith reads, “Verily Allah commands you (O Prophet) that you teach your community to recite the Qur’an in seven ahruf.” The three well-known published English translators of Sahih Muslims put it on the same lines.
It is, therefore, safe to assume that the variation in manuscripts of Sahih Muslim and some other works on this particular word resulted from unsystematic spelling used by some scribes over time. This, however, was not always the case. For example, with al-Shashi (d. 335/946) and Ibn Hibban (d. 354/965), the narration through Ibn Juhada uses both تقرأ and تقرئ in the mention of Jibril’s iterations with the command to read in an increasing number of harfs. Strikingly, however, despite variation across them, the two works consistently have تقرئ when it is about the Community (ummah).In al-Shashi’s work, it mentions تقرأ القران with the instruction to recite in one harf and تقرئ أمتك القران with the instructions to recite in two, three, and finally in seven ahruf. Likewise, in Ibn Hibban’s work, it is either تقرئ أمتك هذا القران (tuqri’ ummatak hadha al-qur’an) or تقرأ هذا القران (taqra’ hadha al-qur’an). This is a case of advanced accuracy (ziyada al-dabt) bearing on the point at hand and confirming the abovementioned case.
The hadith of Ubayy is clear proof of the precedent anchoring in the seven ahruf scheme for the recitation of the Qur’an. The desperate revisionist attempts at ignoring this evidence and twisting it otherwise lack substance. The rendering of the hadith as “inna Allah ya’muruka an taqra’ ummatuk al-qur’an ‘ala sab‘a ahruf” (Allah commands you that your Community recite the Qur’an in seven ahruf) is odd in terms of the number of narrators relaying it as such. The oddness of narrative authority is also reflected in an inappropriate expression of commanding a person (i.e., the Prophet) for the action due upon others (i.e., the community). It reflects especially when the focus is on removing the connection between the two. Finally, a reconsideration of the spelling convention around the forms the letter hamza takes in its word-end position confirms تقرأ أمتك is just another way to write تقرئ أمتك (tuqri’ ummatak). Accordingly, the hadith in both the word forms means, “Allah commands you (O Prophet) to teach your community to recite the Qur’an in seven ahruf.” All of it lays bare the absurdity of revisionist contention besides highlighting the desperate nature of arguments being pulled at in the name of academics.
Notes and References:
 Muslim b. al-Hajjaj, al-Sahih, (Beirut: al-Resalah Publishers, 2016) Hadith 1906 (274-821)
 al-Rajhi, Salih b. Suleman, al-Masa’il al-Kubra allati Khalafa fiha al-Qurra’ al-Muta’khirun Ijma‘ al-Mutaqaddimin min al-Qurra’, (Riyadh: Dar a-Somaie, 2021) 224-228; Al-Harithi, Salwa bt. Ahmad Muhammad, “Daf‘ al-Ta‘arud wa al-Mushkilat bain Ahadith al-Ahruf al-Sab‘a wafaq Manahij wa Tatbiqat al-Muhaddithin”, Mujalla Kulya Usul al-Din wa al-Da‘wah, Asyut: Al-Azhar University, 38:3 (Summer-Autumn 2020),866-874
 See for instance, Ibn Raslan, Abu al-‘Abbas, Sharh Sunan Abi Dawud, (Cairo: Dar al-Falah, 2016) Vol.7, 213; l-al-Athyubi Wallawi, Muhammad ibn ‘Ali, al-Bahr al-Muhit al-Thajjaj fi Sharh Sahih al-Imam Muslim bin al-Hajjaj, (Dammam: Dar Ibn al-Jawzi, 1431 AH) Vol.16, 524-525
 For details see our article, “Seven Ahruf Scheme and the Centrality of the Prophetic Precedent”
 Al-Tabari, Jami‘ al-Bayan, Vol.1, 40 No. 35; the Rajhi-Harithi duo signally does not take into account the version with al-Tabari.
 Al-Nasa’i, Abu ‘Abdul Rahman, Kitab al-Mujtaba / al-Sunan al-Sughra, (Beirut: Dar al-Ta’sil, 2012) Vol.2, 362 Hadith 951; See also, Al-Nasa’i, Kitab al-Sunan / al-Sunan al-Kubra, (Beirut: Dar al-Ta’sil, 2012) Vol.3, 167 Hadith 1104
 Ibn Abi Shaiba, Abu Bakr, al-Musannaf, Vol.15, 504 Hadith 30745
 Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, (Beirut: al-Resalah Publishers, 2001) Vol.35, 103-104, 108 Hadith 21172, 21176; at both the instances the editors have mentioned in the footnotes that one of the manuscripts at al-Zahiriyya, Damascus, have it at taqra’. It is, however, important to note that the editors have mentioned fifteen manuscripts from al-Zahiriyya out of which at least two (no. 2 and 5) cover the reports of Ubayy. See, Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Vol.1, 117-122;
 Al-Fakihi, Abu ‘Abdullah, Akhbar Makkah, (Beirut: Dar Khadir, 1414 AH) Vol.5, 97-98 Hadith 2904
 On this point see our article, “Seven Ahruf Scheme and the Centrality of the Prophetic Precedent” (Section 6)
 Al-Tiyalisi, Abu Dawud, al-Musnad, (Cairo: Dar Hijr, 1999) Vol.1, 452-453 Hadith 559
 al-Shashi, Huthaim b. Kulaib, al-Musnad, Ed. Mahfuz al-Rahman Zain Ullah (Madina: Maktaba ‘Ulum wa al-Hikam, 1410 AH) Vol.3, 343-344 Hadith 1455
 Al-Tahawi, Abu Ja‘far, Sharh Mushkil al-Athar, (Beirut: al-Resalah Publishers, 1994) Vol. 8, 125-126 Hadith 3117;
 Al-Tahawi, Sharh Mushkil al-Athar, Vol. 8, 125-126 Hadith 3117; al-Shashi, al-Musnad, Vol.3, 344 Hadith 1456
 al-Baihaqi, al-Sunan al-Kubra, (Beirut: DKI, 2003) Hadith 3988
 On this point see our article, “Seven Ahruf Scheme and the Centrality of the Prophetic Precedent” (Section 6)
 Al-Harithi, “Daf‘ al-Ta‘arud wa al-Mushkilat bain Ahadith al-Ahruf al-Sab‘a wafaq Manahij wa Tatbiqat al-Muhaddithin”, 871 cf. 873
 See footnotes, 2-5 above.
 Muslim b. al-Hajjaj, Sahih Muslim. Manuscript, fol. 6. Alexandria: Maktabat al-Iskandariyyah, Shendi/Hadith, no. 776. Copied Shawwal 26, 910 AH. (April 1505). For more on this see section 4 below.
 Al-Jawzaqi, Abu Bakr Muhammad b. ‘Abdullah, Kitab al-Sahih min al-Akhbar fi Dhikr Ahadith al-Nabi al-Mukhtar: al-Jam‘ bain al-Sahihain, Manuscript, fol. 192. Damascus: Maktabat Dar al-Kutab al-Zahiriyya al-Ahliyya. No. 203. Copied Muharram 28, 716 AH (Jan. 1316)
 Aiman Hamid ‘Ali Nasir, “Kitab Atraf al-Sahihain: Talif; Abu Muhammad Khalf b. Muhammad b. ‘Ali b. Hamdun al-Wasiti – Tahqiq wa Dirasa” Masters diss. (University of Alexandria, 2019) 157
 Al-‘Asqalani, Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari bi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, (Beirut: Dar al-Ma‘rifa, 1379) Vol.9, 24, 28
 Al-Tabari, Jami‘ al-Bayan, Vol.1, 38 No. 34
 Al-Tabari, Jami‘ al-Bayan, Vol.1, 46 No. 46; al-Dani, Jami‘ al-Bayan fi Qira’at al-Sab‘a, 95 Hadith 38; Al-Dani, al-Ahruf al-Sab‘a li al-Qur’an, Hadith 3; Abu ‘Awana, Ya‘qub b. Ishaq, al-Mustakhraj, (Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifa, 1998) Hadith 3843; al-Qurtubi, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, al-Tamhid lima fi al-Muwatta min al-Ma‘ani wa al-Asanid, Vol.8, 287;
 Abu ‘Awana, al-Mustakhraj, Hadith 3843;
 Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 21177; Al-Busti, Ibn Hibban, al-Sahih, Hadith 738; Al-Tabarani, al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir, Vol.1, 199 Hadith 535; it may be pointed out that in the work of al-Qati‘i the narration from al-Sabbak has the word taqra’ instead of tuqri’. See, al-Qati‘i, Abu Bakr, Juz’ al-Alf Dinar wa huwa al-Khamis min al-Fawa’id al-Muntaqat wa al-Afrad al-Ghara’ib al-Hisan, (Kuwait: Dar al-Nafa’is, 1993) 45 Hadith 28. This, however, does not count because it is related on the authority of ‘Abdullah b. Ahmad and ‘Abdullah’s narration both in Musnad Ahmad (Zawa’id) and with al-Tabarani has the word tuqri’. Moreover, every other narration of the hadith consistently has tuqri’.
 Ibn Abi Shaiba, al-Musannaf, Vol.15, 504 Hadith 30745
 Ibn Abi Shaiba, al-Musannaf, Ed. Sa‘id al-Laham (Beirut: Dar al-Fekr, 1994) Vol.7, 182
 Ibn Abi Shaiba, al-Musannaf, Ed. Hamd b. ‘Abdullah al-Jum‘a and Muhammad b. Ibrahim al-Luhaidan (Riyadh: Maktaba al-Rushd, 2004) Vol.10, 247 Hadith 30622; See, also Ed. Abu Muhammad Usama (Cairo: Dar al-Faruq, 2007) Vol.10, 46 Hadith 30726; Ed. Muhammad ‘Awwama (Beirut: Dar Qurtuba, 2006) Vol.15, 504 Hadith 30744; Ed. Sa‘d b. Nasir al-Shathri (Riyadh: Dar al-Kunuz al-Eshbelia, 2015) Vol.16, 451 Hadith 32119. Another instance in the Musannaf where this hadith appears confirms the mistake in edition referred by al-Rajhi and co. See, Vol.7, 432 (Ed. Al-Laham); Vol.16, 473 Hadith 32401 (Ed. Awwama); Vol.10, 397 Hadith 32341 (Ed. Abu Muhammad Usama); Vol.17, 456 Hadith 33904 (Ed. Al-Shathri); Vol.11, 40 Hadith 32276 (ed. Al-Juma‘a/al-Luhaidan)
 Al-Tabari, Jami‘ al-Bayan, Vol.1, 36-38 No. 30-32; Vol.1, 69 No. 69; Muslim b. al-Hajjaj, al-Sahih, Hadith 1904 (273-820); Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 21171, 21179; Abu ‘Awana, al-Mustakhraj, Hadith 3844; Al-Busti, Ibn Hibban, al-Sahih, Hadith 740; al-Baihaqi, al-Sunan al-Kubra, Hadith 3987
 Muslim b. al-Hajjaj, al-Sahih, Hadith 1907 (821)
 Al-Tabari, Jami‘ al-Bayan, Vol.1, 40 No. 36-37
 Al-Nasa’i, Abu ‘Abdul Rahman, Sunan al-Nasa’i bi Sharh Hafiz Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti wa Hashia Imam al-Sindi, Ed. Abdul Fattah Abu Ghodda (Beirut: Dar al-Basha’ir al-Islamiyya, 1994) Vol.2, 152
 Al-Harithi, “Daf‘ al-Ta‘arud wa al-Mushkilat bain Ahadith al-Ahruf al-Sab‘a wafaq Manahij wa Tatbiqat al-Muhaddithin”, 873-874. Cf. Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 16568
 Al-Harithi, “Daf‘ al-Ta‘arud …”, 872-873
 Al-Sijistani, Abu Dawud, al-Sunan, (Beirut: Dar al-Ta’sil, 2015) Vol.3, 356-357 Hadith 1471
 Al-Sijistani, Abu Dawud, al-Sunan, Ed. Muhammad ‘Awwama (Jeddah: Dar al-Qibla, 1998) Vol.2, 279 Hadith 1473
 Al-Sijistani, Abu Dawud, al-Sunan, Ed. Shu‘aib al-Arna’ut (Beirut: al-Resalah Publishers, 2009) Vol.2, 603 Hadith 1478
 Al-Sijistani, Abu Dawud, al-Sunan, Ed. ‘Isam Musa Hadi (Jubail: Dar al-Siddiq, 2013 ) 346 Hadith 1478
 Al-Sijistani, Abu Dawud, al-Sunan, Ed. Shu‘aib al-Arna’ut (Beirut: al-Resalah Publishers, 2009) Vol.1, 64 (Muqaddima)
 Al-Sijistani, Abu Dawud, Kitab al-Sunan, Manuscript, fol. 94. Istanbul: Koprulu Kutuphanesi, Ahmad Pasha/Hadith no. 294. Scribe: Ahmad ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani. Copied Rabi-I 26, 800 AH (December 24, 1397)
 He said:
“هذه لا علاقة لها باختلاف النسخ وإنما في ضبط النص والذي نص عليه الشراح مما تلقوا السنن سماعا”
I am grateful to Br. Farid al-Bahraini for reaching out to Sh. ‘Isam and sharing his reasoning.
 Al-Bayya‘, Khalidiya Mahmud, al-Hamza fi al-Lugha al-‘Arabiyya, (Beirut: Dar wa Maktaba al-Hilal, 1995) 242
 Al-Fara’, Yahya b. Ziyad, Ma‘ani al-Qur’an, (Cairo: al-Ha’iya al-Misriyya, 1972) Vol.3, 136
 Al-Dainawari, Ibn Qutaiba, Adab al-Katib, (Beirut: Al-Resalah Publishers, 1982) 262
 ‘Abd al-Tawwab, Dr. Ramadan, Mushkila al-Hamaza al-‘Arabiyya, (Cairo: Maktaba al-Khanji, 1996) 16-18
 Al-Sijistani, Abu Dawud, al-Sunan, Edited by Shaikh al-Hind Mahmud al-Hasan Deobandi (Multan: Maktaba Haqqaniya, n.d.) Vol.1, 215; al-Sajistani, Abu Dawud, Sunan Abu Dawud, (Lucknow: Nawal Kishore, 1305 AH) Vol.1, 209
 Siddiqi, Abdul Hamid, Sahih Muslim: Rendering into English, (Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1990) Vol. 1.B, 456-457 Hadith 821; al-Khattab, Nasiruddin, English Translation of Sahih Muslim, (Riyadh: Darrusalam Publishers, 2007) Vol.2, 338-339 Hadith 1906; al-Sharif, Muhammad Mahdi, Sahih Muslim: The Authentic Hadiths of Muslim, (Beirut: DKI, 2012) Vol.1, 778-779 No. 274-(821)
 al-Shashi, al-Musnad, Vol.3, 345-346 Hadith 1457; al-Shashi, al-Musnad al-Kabir, Ed. Hamid ‘Abdullah al-Mahallawi (Beirut: DKI, 2012) 488 Hadith 1384
 Al-Busti, Ibn Hibban, al-Sahih, Hadith 738; /al-Busti, Ibn Hibban, al-Musnad al-Sahih ‘ala al-Taqasim wa al-Anwa‘, Ed. Mehmet ‘Ali Sönmez (Beirut: Dar Ibn Hazm, 2012) Vol.4, 459 Hadith 3768