Dr. Ramon Harvey’s book ‘Transcendent God, Rational World’ came out fairly recently. Dr. Harvey’s work is indeed impressive in the coverage of topics, sources, as well as his interesting takes on fusing aspects from Maturidian tradition with modern philosophy. May Allah reward Dr. Harvey for his efforts and accept from him whats good and allow him to correct/finetune some of the issues. It has started occurring more frequently among muslims in academia, that an impressive work contains a fundamentally problematic theological stance, embedded in few lines.
In case of Dr. Harvey’s work, he explains the Maturidian stance on the speech of Allah and then links it with Abu Hanifa’s opinion of fiqh, and then links it to Qira’at. For readers to understand the background of the issue, I will explain his take.
Kalam of Allah in Maturidian school:
It is uncontroversial in Maturidian school that there is eternal Kalam of Allah that does not consist of letters and sounds, while the letters/sounds are creations by Allah. These created letters/sounds describe the meanings intended by the eternal speech of Allah. Now if you are a Salafi, you will take an offense with this position. But my blog-post is not about proving why Maturidian stance is better than the Taymiyyan stance or the Hanbali stance. Ash’aris also have a stance that similar to Maturidis. My contention is with a specific point of Dr. Harvey, which goes as follows:
Dr. Harvey’s opinion
Dr. Harvey in his book connects these opinions in the following manner.
- The words of the Qur’an are created and not identically same as the eternal speech of Allah. Rather, these words describe the eternal speech of Allah. (This is accepted in Maturidi school).
- The real Mu’jizah (miracle) of the Qur’an is in its Ma’na (meanings) that is related with the eternal speech of Allah, not in the created Nazm (composition). (This is where Dr. Harvey misrepresented Maturidis)
- The variant readings that are derived from Ahruf, could then simply have arisen due to Sahaba and later reciters reciting the revealed words in their equivalent synonymous words. Dr. Harvey provides a metaphysical basis for such a position using the earlier two premises. Thus, what is between the two covers (Qur’an) could very well contain text that Sahaba or later reciters inserted as synonyms out of their own ijtihad, while the original words revealed to Muhammad(sa) could have been different. One would ask then, how is the Qur’an still considered preserved ? I would assume that Dr. Harvey would answer by saying that its underlying meanings intended by the eternal speech of Allah is preserved in what we have between the two covers. (This is where Dr. Harvey’s assertion becomes hugely problematic).
The audience can now appreciate the enormous consequences of what Dr. Harvey treated in a single chapter of his book. Lets start with the second claim of Dr. Harvey. As he puts it, the earlier Maturidi/Hanafi figures agreed with the claim that the miracle of Qur’an is in meanings, not in composition. From earlier Maturidis, Dr. Harvey presents al-Maturidi himself, al-Kasani, al-Sarakhsi, and Ibn Yahya al-Bashaghiri (early Maturidi figure) alongside al-Rustughfani (student of al-Maturidi) to support his claims. According to Dr. Harvey, these were the mid to later Maturidis whose opinion changed (like al-Bazdawi, Abu Shakur Al-Salimi and thereafter) and it kept that way until our day.
My methodology of critique is simple, I will simply verify and cross-check if what Dr. Harvey attributes to these early Maturidi figures is indeed a correct representation of their position, or is it a misrepresentation or misunderstanding, and there is more to it.
Meanings being miraculous independently does not negate miraculous nature of composition
Perhaps, the most fundamental fallacy that Dr. Harvey fell into, is his non-sequitur that if Hanafi/Maturidi authorities argued that the meaning of Qur’an is a miracle independently, then they somehow negate the composition being miraculous. Whereas, what is very clear is that these authorities considered that the meanings of the Qur’an are independent miracle, while also affirming that the arabic composition used to represent those meanings is also miraculous as another layer.
So for example, if a non-Arab asks you: “What is miraculous about the Qur’an” ? One can easily give lots of examples like the perfection of attributes of Allah in the Qur’an, Tawhid, refutation of Polytheism and other types of Shirk, the Ahkaam, etc, which can be understood by anyone in any language. And most of the non-Arab non-muslims who convert to Islam generally do not have access to the miraculous composition of the Qur’an in Arabic, they follow the miraculous meanings conveyed by the composition. This is the part that Maturidis are keen on asserting, in which, I support their view.
This is also because, for Maturidis, the a key criteria of differentiating between a false claimant to prophethood who has some magical tricks and a true prophet with miracles, is rational argumentation about message, character of Prophet, etc. Also, Maturidis affirm that notions like Tawhid, accountability, etc, can be proven from Aql (intellect), thus, they can be used as prior criterion in some sense to distinguish a false claimant from a true Prophet.
However, all of this discussion, does not lead to the conclusion that the composition used by Allah to represent these meanings, is not miraculous. I will briefly analyze Dr. Harvey’s citations.
Al-Sarakhsi’s view
Let me present the case of Al-Sarakhsi, whom Dr. Harvey quotes in his work. Note, that I am pasting screenshots from a pdf version that I obtained, but I also bought the book personally, so I hope that there is no unethical copyright violation. Dr. Harvey writes:
Yes, al-Sarakhsi emphatically argues that the meaning is miraculous by itself and he does quote it as a possible justification for Abu Hanifa’s fiqhi opinion, but he also affirms miraculous nature of nazm (composition) unequivocally in another place
أن الوَحْي المتلو نظمه معجز والَّذِي هُوَ غير متلو نظمه لَيْسَ بمعجز
That the recited revelation—its composition is miraculous, and what is not recited (Hadith) is not miraculous in composition.
https://app.turath.io/book/6301?page=446
This second citation of al-Sarakhsi is so clear, that it categorically contradicts Dr. Harvey’s portrayal of al-Sarakhsi’s view that the I’jaz (miracle) of the Qur’an is solely in Ma’na (meaning), not in composition. Dr. Harvey even goes as further as pinning the alleged view of al-Sarakhsi on “early Samarqandi Hanafi” tradition, while even al-Sarakhsi himself is not on board with the miracle solely in meaning. So for example, he quotes the position of lot of Hanafi Mashaykh that the miracle is in meaning and composition both:
ثمَّ قالَ كثير من مَشايِخنا إن إعجاز القُرْآن فِي النّظم وفِي المَعْنى جَمِيعً
Yet, later on argues that all of them did not mean to say that meaning independently is not a miracle.
والَّذِي يَتَّضِح لي أنه لَيْسَ مُرادهم من هَذا أن
المَعْنى بِدُونِ النّظم غير معجز فالأدلة على كَون المَعْنى معجزا ظاهِرَة
In al-Sarakhsi’s view, all these scholars held the opinion that the composition of Qur’an is miraculous, while also believing meaning to constitute miracle independently. Basically, Dr. Harvey makes a conclusion from al-Sarakhsi’s opinion that is not necessitated. Someone holding the opinion that meanings of Qur’an independently constitute miracle does not imply that the miracle is “solely” in meaning, while composition is not miraculous. He can affirm miracle in composition on top of it, like al-Sarakhsi.
Kasani’s view
Dr. Harvey quotes al-Kasani’s possible justification of Abu Hanifa’s view. He also speculates that Abu Hanifa’s opinion might have been ‘suppressed’ and he might uncover that suppression. While quoting al-Kasani, what Dr. Harvey does not mention that in the same paragraph from where he quotes al-Kasani, he affirms the miraculous nature of the composition. Al-Kasani responds to the objection that if the Salah was permissible with recitation in Farsi, the recitation would not be miraculous in composition. He agrees with that, then says that reciting what is miraculous in composition is not a condition of Salah fiqh-wise. Meaning, that he agrees with miraculous composition in Arabic, while still deems it not problematic fiqh-wise to do Salah in Farsi, thus negating the link that Dr. Harvey keeps making.
إنّ الإعْجازَ مِن حَيْثُ اللَّفْظُ لا يَحْصُلُ بِالفارِسِيَّةِ – فَنَعَمْ لَكِنَّ قِراءَةَ ما هُوَ مُعْجِزُ النَّظْمِ عِنْدَهُ لَيْسَ بِشَرْطٍ
https://app.turath.io/book/8183?page=112
Thus, al-Kasani’s view is reduced to a weird opinion fiqh-wise, that should not be linked with his view on whether the miracle of Qur’an is in composition or not, because he accepts that, and al-Kasani’s fiqh position is not connected with the Ahruf/Qira’at story that Dr. Harvey provides. This is a very important point as well, the opinion in fiqh that one could in need recite Qur’anic translation in Salah, is not linked with one’s view of miracle of Qur’anic preservation or the Ahruf/Qira’at issue, as al-Kasani’s case demonstrates. Abu Shakur al-Salimi also has similar comments that the recitation in persian is more to do with fiqh, then redefining that the Qur’an in Arabic is “identical” (ayn) of any translation.
Al-Rustughfani / Ibn Yahya’s view
Dr. Harvey also brings this text from Sharh of Al-Jumal Min UsulilDeen, written by Ibn Yahya al-Bashaghiri, of Abu Salamah’s text.
In this particular quote
فلو جاز أن يكون مخلوقا لم يثبت الإعجاز لأنه يخلو عن لطف الربوبية فما يبقى إلا النظام بالعربية والخطباء والفصحاء لا يعجزون عن الإتيان بمثله فإذا عجزوا دل أن كلامه منه والوهية والله المسدد
Ibn Yahya is refuting Mu’tazillah and doing an ilzam against them, here again, it is not necessitated that according to Ibn Yahya, there is no miracle in Quranic composition. This particular part of text is a bit ambiguous, but in light of what Ibn Yahya has written in the same book, what could be said is that the miracle of composition stands like layer on top of the miracle of meaning, because if you have gibberish, no amount of awesome composition will elevate gibberish to a miracle. So this particular argument against Mu’tazillah goes like this: If Quran is not the eternal speech of Allah then it is not linked to Allah’s attributes, the meaning then cannot be miraculous, if the meaning cannot be miraculous, then the miracle of composition also collapses like the gibberish. Whether Ibn Yahya’s argument against Mu’tazilah is good enough, thats another matter, but lets move a few pages down in the same book to get more clear picture of his views.
What clarifies Ibn Yahya’s understanding and that of al-Rustughfani (direct student of al-Maturidi) is found in the exact same book. Where al-Rustughfani is quoted by Ibn Yahya saying that Quran is miraculous in three aspects; one of it is that it is specific to the eternal speech of Allah, the second is that the orators and litterateurs were unable to match it, and third is how remains infallible for the Ummah of Rasulullah(sa) in seven ways…., where he then mentions its protection as well.
هذا الفصل سمعته من الفقيه الإمام أبي الحسن يقول: ألا إنّ معجزة رسول الله يَة الأصلية كان هو القرآن كلام الله لثلاثة أوجه: أحدها: أن يكون مخصوصاً بمعجز غير مخلوق. والثاني: أنه أعجز الخطباء الفصحاء لأنهم كانوا هم الرؤساء حتى لا يحتاج إلى الاتباع باسكاتهم. والثالث: ليكون من بعده عصمة لأمّته من سبعة أوجه بايراد الإيمان بالقرآن وبتعلمه وبتلاوته وبعلمه بما فيه وبالعمل بما فيه ويحفظ حرمته بتعليمه لمن استعمله ولأن يصير سبباً للهدى والنجاة.
The inability of orators to match the Qur’an is separately described by al-Rustughfani in Ibn Yahya’s Sharh, which indicates that its both in meanings and composition on top of meaning. Likewise, al-Rustughfani also answers the question of why Qur’an is a miracle for non-Arabs in a manner that does not appeal to the miracle of meanings—which is testimony of Arabs for non-Arabs that they could not bring anything like it. So if the non-Arabs were in the time and place of Arabs, they too would be unable. Not only that Qur’an is miraculous in meaning that is understood by Arabs and non-Arabs alike, its miraculous composition is also a proof for the non-Arabs via testimony of Arabs.
سئل الفقيه وا الإمام أبو الحسن: أن القرآن معجز للعرب أو للعجم؟ فقال: إنه معجز لأهل اللسان أولاً وعجز العرب الذين هم أهل اللسان دلّ العجم على أنهم لو كانوا من أهل لسانهم يعجزوا أيضاً فإذا عجز أهل اللسان فنحن أعجز فصار معجزاً للكل
176
If as Dr. Harvey portrays the opinion of al-Rustughfani and earlier Maturidis, the miracle was solely in meaning, then meaning is accessible to Arabs and non-Arabs in somewhat of a comparable manner. However, if the miracle is also in composition, then that particular miracle is accessible to Arabs directly, but it is only accessible to non-Arabs via testimony of Arabs, as al-Rustughfani argues. Proving that earlier Maturidian figures affirmed the miraculous composition.
Upto now, Dr. Harvey’s citations of al-Kasani, al-Sarakhsi, Ibn Yahya and al-Rustughfani have been answered, there remains the Imam himself—al-Maturidi and his views on the matter.
Al-Maturidi’s view on preservation of Qur’an
Dr. Harvey’s citations of al-Maturidi
There is no controversy about this part at all, al-Maturidi also argues from the verse
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ آمِنُوا بِمَا نَزَّلْنَا مُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا مَعَكُم
O you who were given the Scripture, believe in what We have sent down [to Muhammad], confirming that which is with you[4:47]
That this conformation of Qur’an with earlier scripture is in meanings and rulings, not in the composition and language (obviously). And from here, he tried to argue in support of Abu Hanifa’s view of permissibility of reciting in Persian in Salah. However, I still fail to understand that how does this equivocate to Dr. Harvey’s statement that “what is essential to the Qur’an is not the outward lingusitic form”, as we have noted earlier that al-Kasani and al-Sarakhsi both argued for this opinion, yet affirmed the miraculous composition in Arabic. Moreover, when Dr. Harvey links this to Ahruf and replacement of synonymous words by ijtihad, it begs a bigger question; “Can meanings be originally transmitted while compromising composition ?” This is where I bring more citations from al-Maturidi to make his view clearer.
ثم قوله: (مُصَدِّقًا لِما مَعَكُمْ) أي: موافقًا لما معكم، وإنّما كان موافقًا لما معهم بالمعاني المدرجة فيه والأحكام، لا بالنظم واللسان؛ لأنه معلوم أن ما معهم من الكتاب مخالف للقرآن نظمًا ولسانًا، وكذلك سائر كتب اللَّه – تعالى – موافق بعضها بعضًا معاني وأحكامًا، وإن كانت مختلفة في النظم واللسان؛ دل أنها من عند اللَّه – تعالى – نزلت؛ إذ لو كانت من عند غير اللَّه كانت مختلفة؛ ألا ترى أنه قال: (ولَوْ كانَ مِن عِنْدِ غَيْرِ اللَّهِ لَوَجَدُوا فِيهِ اخْتِلافًا كَثِيرًا)، ففيه دليل لقول أبي حنيفة – حيث أجاز الصلاة بالقراءة الفارسية؛ لأن تغير النظم واختلاف اللسان لم يوجب تغير المعاني واختلاف الأحكام، حيث أخبر – أنه موافق لما معهم، وهو في اللسان والنظم مختلف، والمعنى موافق
Al-Maturidi’s argument against Baatiniyyah
Perhaps, the most explicit passage from al-Maturidi comes in the explanation of the verse
لَا تُحَرِّكْ بِهِ لِسَانَكَ لِتَعْجَلَ بِهِ
Move not your tongue with it, [O Muhammad], to hasten with recitation of the Qur’an.[75:16]
Al-Maturidi clearly says that Qur’an refers to both the composition and letters, as well as the meanings conveyed by them, it becomes a proof via its composition and letters, and also by the meaning conveyed by the composition.
ثم القرآن قصد به الوجهان جميعا: ضبط حروفه ونظمه، وتعرف ما أودع فيه من المعاني؛ إذ صار حجة بنظمه ولفظه، وبالمعاني المودعة فيه
Moreover, what also al-Maturidi alludes further in the quote[1] is that the protection of meaning is compromised if the composition is not preserved. A logical question that emerges from the understanding of Dr. Harvey, is that if the later companions and later Qurraa had the leeway to describe the Qur’an into their own words and repalce some words with equivalent meanings, then this flexibility should have been allowed for Rasulullah(sa) himself ? He(sa) is more worthy of describing whats revealed to him(sa) in his words. While, there is some possibility of these later reciters doing mistakes, but not in case of Rasulullah(sa). Was that flexiblity afforded to Rasulullah(sa) ?
Here al-Maturidi argues that the moving of blessed lips of Rasulullah(sa) is a proof of him doing an effort to memorize the exact words, except that Allah(swt) took it upon Himself to do that for him(sa). And al-Maturidi argues this against Batiniyyah who took the position that Qur’an was not revealed to Rasulullah(sa) in composition, rather it was revealed as thought, which he later penned down, that others were unable to match. So if only the meaning is meant for preservation without precise composition of arabic words, then why delay or push forward the “ijithadi” element to Sahaba or reciters, why can’t one start this Ijtihad in choosing composition from the time of Rasulullah(sa) by Rasulullah(sa) himself ? But there is no evidence for it, instead, the evidence is against it, and the evidence is that Rasulullah(sa) exerted himself in memorizing the composition, meaning that it was meant to be preserved and transmitted, otherwise, makes no sense to worry about repeating words.
The moving of lips argument is a brilliant argument by al-Maturidi and truly establishes the importance of the composition and shatters this position of Baatiniyyah, as well as those denying the preservation of exact composition.
The second argument of al-Maturidi is again brilliant, he brings the verse pagans accused Rasulullah(sa) of obtaining the Qur’an from a non-Arab.
وَلَقَدْ نَعْلَمُ أَنَّهُمْ يَقُولُونَ إِنَّمَا يُعَلِّمُهُ بَشَرٌ ۗ لِّسَانُ الَّذِي يُلْحِدُونَ إِلَيْهِ أَعْجَمِيٌّ وَهَٰذَا لِسَانٌ عَرَبِيٌّ مُّبِينٌ
And We certainly know that they say, “It is only a human being who teaches the Prophet.” The tongue of the one they refer to is foreign, and this Qur’an is [in] a clear Arabic language.[16:103]
If the matter was as the Baatiniyyah posited, that Rasulullah’s(sa) heart was given the thoughts of the Qur’an which he composed in Arabic, then he(sa) could have obtained from a non-Arab same things, and the argument of Qur’an itself won’t stand. This particular argument of Qur’an rests upon the uniqueness of Arabic Nazm.
Our central point of contention with the school of thought that Dr. Harvey supports is:
“Is preservation of composition and preservation of exact of words of Qur’an as revealed to Rasulullah(sa), a necessary requirement for preservation of Qur’an ?”
and there are few more voices somewhat similar to Dr. Harvey’s approach, like Dr. Akram Nadwi (with whom Dr. Harvey is associated) as well as presumably Dr. Qadhi.
We say, that if the composition was not included in the definition of preservation, then Baatiniyyah can also claim that Qur’an is preserved according to their understanding. And if the composition was not included in the definition, then Rasulullah(sa) would’nt try hard to move his lips to memorize and there would be no stringent effort to preserve the composition from the first day. Among many other evidences.
Al-Maturidi’s definition of Tahrif
While describing the Tahrif of the people of the book. Al-Maturidi mentions two possibilities: (1) them changing the interpretation and claiming the interpretation to be from Allah(swt) and (2) them changing the composition and whats recited, erasing it, and writing something else.
وقوله – ﷿ -: (يُحَرِّفُونَ الكَلِمَ عَنْ مَواضِعِهِ)
يحتمل أن يكونوا يغيرون تأويله ويقولون: هذا من عند اللَّه.
ويحتمل التحريف: تحريف النظم والمتلو، ومحوه، ويكتبون غيره.
How exactly is the view of Dr. Harvey different than what al-Maturidi condemns as Tahrif ? Now, Dr. Harvey can say that his definition of the Qur’an necessitates preservation of composition to the extent that meaning is not compromised. So he would negate that any complete Surah or Ayah has been lost and re-inserted by a scribe or a Qaari.
But he may affirm that these scribes or reciters or companions had the flexibility to insert synonyms in a way that does not distort the meanings in their respective viewpoints/ijtihad, but who exactly made sure that the synonyms were inserted in a perfect manner that did’nt distort the meanings intended by the eternal Kalam of Allah ?”
Was it some kind of Holy Ghost ? Because, some one can insert a synonym thinking it keeps the meaning same, but someone else comes around and claims that the meaning has been altered with the synonym ! This position does not stand, since, there can be Ahkaam and theological doctrines that are contingent upon a letter. The most recent example of such is “Shaykh”, aka. the charlatan—Imran Hossein claiming to know the meaning intended by Allah, which in his view was altered by the ijtihad of “Ajami” reciters, and he put it back into its place. I ask the readers:
Al-Maturidi’s discussion on miraculous aspects of Qur’an.
In his Book of Monotheism, al-Maturidi also counts the Nazm as one of the miraculous aspects of the Qur’an. (وُجُوه الحجَج بِالقُرْآنِ إذْ هِيَ من وُجُوه أحدها بنظمه).
Summary
It is clear from the preceeding discussion, that Hanafi-Maturidi figures like al-Kasani, al-Sarakhsi, al-Maturid himself, al-Rustughfani and Ibn Yahya did not deny the miracle of composition of Qur’an, and instead accepted it. Dr. Harvey’s speculation that the “early Samarqandi” view was suppressed is unfounded. And later scholars like al-Bazdawi correctly describe the miracle of Qur’an to be in meaning as well as in composition, and Dr. Harvey thinks that al-Bazdawi caved in to Ash’aris and became theologically inconsistent !!!!
Further Clarifications
It could be the case that Maturidian view would imply that the meanings intended by the eternal Kalam of Allah are necessarily miraculous, since they are unique only to Allah. However, as for the composition of created words/letters that Allah uses for His eternal speech, they are miraculous, if Allah chooses so, not by necessity. Abu Shakur al-Salimi argues that previous scripture like Injil and Torah were not miraculous like the Qur’an which is miraculous in meaning and composition both.
Another important point is that these questions:
- Was composition miraculous ?
- Is preservation of composition and exact words necessary for Kalam of Allah ?
- The validity of reciting translation in Salah.
- The nature of Ahruf and Qira’at.
These are separate questions with some linkage, but they do not follow each other’s conclusions. So someone could believe that composition of Quran was miraculous for 7th century Arabs, yet he may not hold preservation of exact words to be necessary for the definition of preservation of Qur’an. Because, he may hold the preservation of miracle of meaning sufficient and he may be fine with loosing miraculous composition. If someone holds this position, we will counter this by saying that if words are not preserved, the meaning is also compromised.
Someone could hold that the composition was not miraculous, yet hold that words have to be preserved in order for us to know the meanings intended by Allah. We will counter this by saying that if the words were preserved, then those same words establish the belief that composition in Arabic was also miraculous. Like various verses in the Qur’an.
Likewise someone could separately hold the position of validity of reciting in Farsi in Salah. This view can be criticized in Fiqh terms, and Abu Hanifa’s(rh) view was not accepted, and according to some, he also retracted to some extent. But, one could strongly oppose Kasani’s view on allowing recital in Farsi or even a previous scripture (like Injil or Torah) if its Sanad is established (which is impossible to establish), yet that would not necessitate that Kasani held the view that composition is not miraculous or that the words were not preserved.
Dr. Harvey establishes links between these questions, that are clearly not established, and his citations of Hanafi/Maturidi authorities on this very important issue are careless. Maturidi-Hanafis like Kasani, Sarakhsi, Rustughfani, Ibn Yahya, or Maturidi himself. Infact, the very sources that Dr. Harvey relies upon (the early figures in Maturidi school before the supposed capitulation to Ash’arism began), do not support Dr. Harvey’s very speculative conjecture.
Other evidences in support of the composition’s miraculous nature
The opinion of deeming composition not miraculous has been attributed to deviant sects، specifically to al-Nazzam, Abu Musa al-Mardar, that the miracle of Qur’an is in its news of unseen, etc, but not in its composition. This is referenced by Ash’ari Shafi’i Mutakallim Heresiologist and Mathematician—Abu Mansur Abdul Qahir al-Baghdadi in his work “Kitab UsululDeen”. He presents a verse as an evidence:
فَأْتُوا بِعَشْرِ سُوَرٍ مِثْلِهِ مُفْتَرَياتٍ
“Then bring ten surahs like it that have been invented”[11:13]
Then argues that Allah(swt) is challenging the Arab Pagans to even bring 10 Surahs “Muftarayat”, that you generate from your own lies. Abu Mansur (Baghdadi) asserts that such a challenge can only be given in composition, and this is mentioned as one possible opinion by al-Maturidi in his tafsir, that Allah(swt) is saying to them; “If it is as you claim that Muhammad(sa) is lying, then you can also lie and bring something like the Qur’an, while your language and his language is the same”. Basically, Allah(swt) relaxed them the condition of bringing news of unseen and other aspects of I’jaz but asked them to produce even a lie of comparable composition, proving Qur’an’s I’jaz in Nazm as well.
إن لسانكم مثل لسان مُحَمَّد، فإن قدر هو على الافتراء افترى مثله من عنده، فتقدرون أنتم على افتراء مثله: فأتوا به، وادعوا أيضًا من لسانه مثل لسانكم حتى يعينوكم على ذلك، إن كنتم صادقين أنه افتراه، واللَّه أعلم.
The issue of Ahruf/Qira’at and Ibn Mas’ud
Dr. Harvey also brings in Ibn Mas’ud’s ‘alleged’ view on Ahruf and Qira’at, this post is not meant to refute that. What is presented is enough already. However, I would like to request Dr. Harvey to reconsider his approach and position. Specially, to think twice and thrice on out-of-the-norm issues. And to not engage in speculative sort of detective work on sensitive areas of belief.
As it is clear that Dr. Harvey did not present in this particular book (regardless of his personal prowess), any investigation into the various narrations about the Ahruf and the opinions of many Salaf who have explicit quotes that had one of them not received an oral transmission, he would have recited in so and so manner. Thus proving that these Salaf did not replace synonyms out of their ijtihad. There are many other facets to this discussion, such as tafsiri markers used by Sahaba, etc, and the whole issue with Ibn Mas’ud(ra). Likewise, the rukhsah of reciting by replacing with equivalent words with same meanings was allowed for Sahaba according to one scholarly position, but this permission was taken away within the lifetime of Rasulullah(sa).
[EDIT] However, I must here clarify that Dr. Harvey’s claims surrounding Ahruf/Qir’at are separate from the central contention of this post. Which is clearly shown is that Dr. Harvey misrepresented earlier Maturidi figures surrounding the question of I’jaz of Nazm. Its not as if he made X claim and I showed contradiction in Y. Let me rephrase:
“I claim that al-Sarakhsi, al-Kasani, al-Rustughfani, Ibn Yayha, al-Maturidi held the Nazm of Qur’an to be miraculous, whereas Dr. Harvey claims that these figures did not hold the Nazm of Qur’an to be miraculous”.
So this is a direct contradiction, either I am wrong, or he misrepresented these figures, or I misunderstood him (unlikely) and the way to check the claims are open for anyone who understands Arabic, since the sources are provided. As for, whether his thesis overall is right or wrong on Ahruf/Qira’at/Preservation, that is another matter to discuss.
Conclusion
- According to Maturidis (earlier and later), the miracle of the Qur’an is in meanings as well as composition, and Dr. Harvey missed out on key citations.
- Dr. Harvey’s citations of early Hanafi-Maturidi authorities on this matters are weak.
- Saying that the composition has no miracle, this is a serious Aqidah issue.
- Dr. Harvey’s treatment of Ahruf and Qira’at is insufficient, and the position of reciting with equivalent words, is not thought out.
- The protection of meanings of Qur’an on our side requires protection of composition and words.
References
[1]
فإذا كان المراد يتوجه من الكلام إلى ما ذكرنا، – فقيل: لا تعجل بتحريك اللسان كما يفعل من يريد التقاء الكلام الذي يلقى إليه؛ فإنك وإن أحوجت إلى حفظ نظمه وحروفه، فقد كفيت حفظه بدون تحريك اللسان.
وجائز أن يكون نُهي عن تحريك اللسان والمبادرة إلى حفظه قبل أن يُقضى إليه بالوحي؛ لما فيه من ترك التعظيم لمن يأتيه بالوحي، فأمر أن يصغي إليه سمعه، ويستمع إلى آخره؛ تعظيما للذي أتاه بالوحي، وتوقيرا له.
ثم هذه الآية تنقض على الباطنية قولهم؛ لأن من قولهم: إن القرآن لم ينزل على رسول اللَّه – ﷺ – مؤلفا منظوما؛ بل أنزل على قلبه كالخيال، فصوره بقلبه، وألفه بلسانه؛ فأتى بتأليف، عجز الآخرون عن أن يؤلفوا مثله.
ونحن نقول: بل أنزل هذا القرآن مؤلفا منظوما على رسول اللَّه – ﷺ -، ولم يكن التأليف من فعله؛ والذي يدل على صحة مقالتنا قوله تعالى: (لا تُحَرِّكْ بِهِ لِسانَكَ)؛ لأن التأليف لو كان من فعله – عليه السلام – لكان لا يوجد منه تحريك اللسان وقتما تزل عليه؛ لأنه إذا كان كالخيال فهو يحتاج إلى أن يصوره في قلبه، ثم يصل إلى التأليف بعد التصوير، وتتأتى له العبارة باللسان، وإنما يقع التحريك من مؤلَّف منظوم؛ ثبت أنه أُنزل هذا مؤلف منظوم.
والثاني: أنه قال: (ولَقَدْ نَعْلَمُ أنَّهُمْ يَقُولُونَ إنَّما يُعَلِّمُهُ بَشَرٌ لِسانُ الَّذِي يُلْحِدُونَ إلَيْهِ أعْجَمِيٌّ وهَذا لِسانٌ عَرَبِيٌّ مُبِينٌ)، فهذه الآية نفت طعن أُولَئِكَ الكفرة الذين زعموا أن هذا ليس بقرآن، بل إنما علمه فلان، وكان لسان ذلك البشر أعجميا، وهذا القرآن عربي؛ فكيف يستقيم أن يعلمه ذلك البشر، ولسانه غير هذا اللسان، ولو كان هذا القرآن وقتما أنزل كالخيال، لكان ذلك الطعن قائما؛ لأنه كان يؤلفه، ويجمعه باللسان العربي، وإن علم بالأعجمية لما قدر أن يؤلفه، وينظمه بعد أن كان خيالا باللسان العربي.
[2]
وُجُوه الحجَج بِالقُرْآنِ إذْ هِيَ من وُجُوه أحدها بنظمه
والثّانِي بَيان جَمِيع الأُمُور الَّتِي بها علم العلماء أهل الكتاب
والثّالِث الإخْبار بِما يكون لَهُ من الفتُوح ودخُول الخلق فِي دينه أفْواجًا وإظْهار دينه على الأدْيان
والرّابِع أن الله تَعالى جمع فِي القُرْآن أصُول جَمِيع النَّوازِل الَّتِي تكون إلى يَوْم القِيامَة دلّ أنه عالم الغَيْب حَتّى أعلمهُ أصُول ذَلِك
وأيْضًا ما أظهر من مُوافقَة القُرْآن سائِر كتب الله وبَيان نعت مُحَمَّد ﷺ وأمته كَقَوْلِه
والأصْل فِي هَذا أن رَسُول الله ﷺ بعث فِي عصر لم يعرف فِيهِ التَّوْحِيد بل كانَ عباد الأوْثان والأصنام والنيران فَجمع ما أنزل عَلَيْهِ من القُرْآن هُوَ من أنجح ما لَو اجْتمع موحدو العالم من مضى مِنهُم ومن يكون أبدا على إظْهار أدلته ما احتملت بُلُوغ عشرها فضلا عَن الإحاطَة فِي ذَلِك الزَّمان الَّذِي لا يقدر على موجد واحِد ولا قُوَّة إلّا بِاللَّه
وأيْضًا أن القُرْآن أنزل فِي عشْرين سنة فَصاعِدا بالتفاريق ما خرج كُله على وزن واحِد من النّظم وعَلى مُوافقَة بعضه بَعْضًا مِمّا لَو احْتمل كَون مثله عَن الخلق لم يمْتَنع من الخلق من الإختلاف فِي شَيْء من ذَلِك
دلّ أنه أنزل من عِنْد علام الغيوب ولا قُوَّة إلّا بِاللَّه
Site Title 