Genesis Of A Holy Book

APPENDIX 1: On the Seven “Ahruf”

That myriad “ahruf” (seven of them officially recognized) emerged so quickly illustrates that maintaining perfect fidelity via orality (that is: during an ad hoc process of oral transmission) was an intractable task.

The seven major “ahruf” [variants] are conventionally taken to be Qurayshi, Tamimi, Hatheel, Azad, Rabiyyah, Hawazen, and that of Sa’d ibn Bakr.  ALL FOUR “sahih” Hadith (Bukhari, Muslim, Al-Nasa’i, and Abu Dawood) mention the existence of disparate “ahruf” during the earliest period of oral transmission.  At best, this indicates that the “Recitations” were inconsistent.  More likely, it indicates that several different versions of the recitation emerged…and then circulated amongst the earliest narrators.  These variants–whatever they may have been–were invariably supplemented with whatever else each amanuensis saw fit to add in the intervening time.

For the first generation (prior to Zayd’s compilation of the so-called “Uthmanic” version of the “Recitations”), ALL of these variations were approved.  They subsequently proliferated in spite of the fact that they didn’t coincide with one another.*  The fabled “Uthman Koran” was intended to resolve this issue once and for all.

In order to legitimize such discrepancies in the early “Recitations” (which were supposed to be transcriptions of god’s speech), apologists typically use the following rationalization: MoM specifically REQUESTED that his (purported) revelations be delivered to him in seven “ahruf” (variants based on stylization more than substance).  So the story goes, he did this in order to make things “easier” for his diverse Hijazi audience.  That is to say: It was done in order to accommodate the different dialects found in Arabia at the time.  The problem with this rationalization, of course, is that denizens of the Hijaz at the beginning of the 7th century primarily spoke vernaculars of SYRIAC; not of Classical Arabic…which did not yet exist. (!)

The claim is that the discrepant phrasing is hermeneutically isomorphic.  In other words, there is exegetical parity between the different versions.  Therefore the discrepancies ultimately don’t matter.  But this does not square with the claim that the wording of every passage is perfect.

Granted, the discrepancies between the seven “ahruf” are relatively minor.  That is to say: They do not amount to significant differences in SUBSTANCE.  The point, though, is that they are INDICATIVE, not DEFINITIVE.  In other words, they are likely the remnants of far more significant variants…which have been long lost to (read: deleted from) history.  Indeed, these (more trivial) variations survive because that is all that those keeping track of the “isnad” ALLOWED to survive.  It’s not that larger discrepancies never existed; it’s that such discrepancies would not have survived the winnowing process orchestrated by the powers-that-be.

Regardless, the existence of these RESIDUAL variations is sufficient to illustrate the fact that variation abounded as time progressed–as is ALWAYS the case when orality is involved.

The explanation for the various dialects is straight-forward.  During the time the “Recitations” were being orally transmitted and curated (then passed along orally again and again, invariably with tweaking at the occasion warranted), Classical Arabic was still being developed as a language.  The “Recitations” STARTED in Syriac, and only later would have been rendered in the new liturgical language.  (For more on this, see my essay on “The Syriac Origins of Koranic Verse”.)  Such post hoc rendering was bound to yield discrepancies.

Hence the seven “ahruf” should not be taken as the LIMIT OF said variation, but as an indication that variation–to whatever degree–existed; and that variation likely occurred far beyond what was permitted to remain in the official record.  For the variations that remain are easy to gloss over–which is exactly why THEY are the ones that are still acknowledged to this day.

Today, the standard rationalization used by Islamic apologists is that the different “ahruf” represented merely variations in SEMANTICS, not variations in MEANING.  (Again: Any discrepant phrasing was hermeneutically isomorphic.)

Muslims deserve answers to important questions about their scripture; and the Ummah will benefit greatly from being disabused of any spurious bits of “conventional wisdom” that have for so long prevailed in Dar al-Islam.  In terms of early variants of the “Recitations”, the seven “ahruf” are merely the tip of what was almost certainly a gigantic, long-since submerged iceberg.

{* A worthwhile piece on this topic is a masters thesis done by Safi al-Shehada: http://www.alfatihonline.com/en/articles/ahruf.htm.  Various other interesting discussions of the “ahruf” can be found by other religious apologists.  For example, see John Gilchrist’s “Jam Al-Qur’an” section at http://answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Jam/chap5.html.  Considering the former is an Islamic apologist and the latter is a Christian apologist, it is safe to assume that each commentary on this topic is biased (in one way or the other).  So both should be taken with a grain of salt.}