Variant Readings of the Qur’ān and Farāhī School’s Tafsīr Bātinī:

A Reading of Jāvēd Aḥmad

Muḥammad Yaḥỳa Cheema

[www.yahyacheema.com]
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Abstract:
This paper contends, through a critical analysis of Jāvēd Aḥmad Ġāmidī’s essay entitled ‘Variant Readings’ that Fārahī
School of the Sub-Continent has no academic or scholarly basis to reject the popular variant readings of the Qur'ān in
circulation today. Qur'ān and Qirā'ah are two different terms, and refer to two different aspects: the skeletal text of the
Qur'ān is multiformic and can be read differently across the variant readings, which were kept in the last recitation of the
Prophet (saw) with Ǧibrīl (as), called al-’Arḍa al-Akẖīra. Ġāmidī’s red herrings about these variant readings being a
specialised field of academic study are dismantled in the course of this study and his claim that these variant readings are
a later concoction in the tradition as a result is shown to be a false claim, devoid of any scholarship. To prove the falsity
of his claims, the paper looks at the Ḥadīṯ of Seven Āḥruf, establishing its authenticity as mass-transmitted Prophetic
tradition and shows how the Fārahī School rejects this Mutawatir Ḥadīṯ in order to propagate Imām Fārahī’s Qur'ān-only
ideology through its esoteric exegesis of the Verses from Surah Qỳamaht.
 Cheema, Muhammad Yahya | 2

-1-
Difference Between the terms Qur'ān and Qirā'ah
Ġāmidī starts his essay with a bold claim that…

…the Qur'ān is what is recorded in the muṣḥāf, and which, except for some parts of Africa and a few
other areas, is recited by a vast majority of the Muslim ummah without the slightest variation.1

His claim is that the Qur'ān is only what is available to us today in mass-printed, standardised form of a single edition,
available to most of the Muslims. He does hint in the passing at the fact that these prints could differ across different
editions based on different Qirā'āt, but the reader would probably not pick up on this elusivity. This is his way of
asserting that the Qur'ān is only what is written down in one, standard muṣḥāf, without paying any heed to the very
important fact that the Qur'ān’s skeletal text is multiformic2, and it is, unlike any other book, read in a certain way, across
variant recitations, with specialised intonation and enunciation specific to each of these . This loaded sentence presumes
erroneously that Qur'ān and Qirā'ah are both one and the same, whereas these are two different realities:

Az-Zarkašī 3 notes in his book al-Burhān fi ‘Ulum al-Qur'ān that Qur'ān and Qirā'āt are two different
realities altogether. As far as the term Qur'ān is concerned, it is applied to the Revelation bestowed
upon the Prophet (saw) for promulgation of the message and establishment of the miraculousness;
whereas the term Qirā'āt is applied to variations in the very words of this Revelation or variant
vocal/auditory renderings of these words pertaining to dialectical, intonational or enunciational
differences like takhfīf or tashdīd etc. And the seven modes of recitations are (altogether)
mass-transmitted according to the jamhur (majority)4.

This is further elaborated by the definition of the term Qur'ān as put forward by the scholars:

And they (scholars) define the term Qur'ān in a way which is closer to the true meanings of the word
itself, and which distinguishes it from everything else, so they say: (Qur'ān is) Allah’s Speech,
bestowed upon Muḥammad (saw), reciting which is an act of Worship5.

Notice the addition of the clause about its recitation being an act of Worship. Without this addition, the definition cannot
be deemed comprehensive. This mention of the recitational clause, consequently, excludes the Šūwāḏ Qirā'āt, and hints
upon the validity of the mass transmitted variant readings.

And we (scholars) define the term Qur'ān as: that which has been revealed upon our Prophet (saw), by
Allah Almighty. Its recitation is an act of Worship. It is written in multiple editions (according to the
variant readings), authenticated through mass transmission. It is indeed a miracle in its eloquence,
stylistics and message etc and is agreed upon by the whole of Muslimhood6.

This is the scholarly, agreed upon, definition of the term Qur'ān. Notice how it indicates multiplicity of the printed
editions of the Qur'ān, saying maṣāḥif (plural), instead of muṣḥāf (singular), in the definition. Unless Ġāmidī can prove to
the contrary, his definition of the term Qur'ān holds no scholarly merits whatsoever. It is a misled venture in vain to assert
his School’s ideology. This important difference between the two terms is the reason that the scholars have said:

1
Ġāmidī, ‘Variant Readings’.
2
Cfr. Dutton, ‘Orality, Literacy and the “Seven Āḥruf” Ḥadīth’. Also see section 4 of this paper.
3
Referring to az-Zarkašī, al-Burhān fi ‘Ulum al-Qur'ān, 1:318.
4
as-Suỳỳuti, Al-Itqān Fi ‘Ulum ul-Qur'ān, 1:237.
5
al Qaṭṭān, Mabāhiṯ fi ‘Ulūm ul-Qur'ān, 17.
6
Ja’far, Al-Qur'ān wal-Qirā'āt wal-Āḥruf as-Sab’aht, 31.
 Cheema, Muhammad Yahya | 3

The verdict of authenticity in transferring the Qur'ān (written or vocal) rests on the learning by heart
(memorization) and not on (mere) preservation of maṣāḥif or books. This is, indeed, a great honour
bestowed upon this Ummah by Allah Almighty 7.

This is a fundamental difference between the Muslim and Western epistemologies and anyone not taking into account the
validity of Muslim oral tradition is simply falling a prey to the Western propaganda, which asserts the intellectual and
academic superiority of their scholarship, failling to understand how Muslim academia is being colonized8 in today’s
scheme of affairs. Furthermore, there is an inherent flaw in his line of argumentation. If his intention is to prove to the
reader that the only authentic Qur'ān is the one readily available in majority markets of today in printed form (based on
Ḥafs an 'Aāsim riwāỳah), then the very mention of ‘some parts of Africa and a few other areas’ 9 is a blatant
self-contradiction already. What is the view of Fārahī School on these Muslims who are an ‘exception’ to Ġāmidī’s own
definition? Are they Muslims according to Fārahī School or do they indulge in an ‘un-Islamic’ act by reciting something
other than the Qur'ān? Believing in the Qur'ān as the unchanged final Word of Allah‫ ﷻ‬is one of the fundamentals of
Muslim belief system and cannot be taken lightly10. So those, according to Ġāmidī, who believe in the multiform of the
skeletal Qur'ānic text and variant readings should be regarded as non-Muslims?

No matter how much he tries to run from the fact in the succeeding paragraphs of his essay, he has to, nevertheless,
account for this very obvious, extremely important factor of the definition of the term Qirā'ah. We find him trying to
tackle this unavoidable detail in the latter half of his essay:

No doubt, it is also called the riwāỳah of Ḥafs (d. 180 AH) but this should not be a cause of any
misconception because mere reading or intonation is one thing and reading or intonation in the accent
of the Arabs in a pleasing way by giving due regard to technical subtleties like imalah, tafkhim, ishba‘,
ikhtilas-i silah, ishmam, rawm, tarqiq and taghliz that does not alter the meaning of the discourse in any
way is another thing. It is this second aspect which is acquired from the riwāỳah of Ḥafs in this Qur'ān,
and ascribed to him on this basis.11

He finally agrees that this muṣḥāf that he is trying to justify as the only valid rendition of the text of the Qur'ān is,
nevertheless, based but on one Fixed riwāỳah from the canon of the Qirā'āt, and, by extension, has to consent to the fact
that other maṣāḥif are just as authentic12, based on other riwāỳāt. In hindsight, he wastes a lot of time, indulging in red
herrings here and there, only to finally accept the fact himself later, a fact which he is trying to build a case against in the
first place. This initial avoidance of the established facts seems quite deliberate on his part, to propagate his school’s
ideology and lure the audience into believing in a fixed non-variant text. Notice, also, how he tries to, then, brush the
issue aside by proclaiming that a riwahay’s sole purpose is to add intonation to the Arabic, in other words the tajwīd. This
seems quite unscholarly, for a riwāỳah is not solely about tajwīd. It includes both Usool and Farš al-Ḥurūf. It differs not
only to the other riwāỳah of the very Qirā'ah, but also differs to other Qirā'āt in the Ten Qirā'āt canon. This is a simple
fact that Ġāmidī either appears to be ignorant of (which is highly doubtful, as he himself notes these variants in his very
essay), or is deliberately trying to downplay, thence, trying to deceive his readers. A simple example to elaborate on the
point that a riwāỳah is more than mare intonational nuances is that of the mufrad Mālik13: the mufrad can both be read as
Malik and Mālik across the Qirā'āt14. Ḥafs reads it as Mālik and not Malik, because 'Aāsim differs on this mufrad from

7
al-Jazari, an-Našr fil-Qirāʼāt al-ʻAšr, 1:6.
8
Cfr. Joseph E. B. Lumbard, “Decolonizing Qurʾanic Studies,” Religions 13, no. 2 (February 2022): 176,
https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13020176.
9
Ġāmidī, ‘Variant Readings’.
10
Cfr. ibn-Ḥazam, Marātib al-Ijmā’ fill-’Ibadāt wal-Mu’āmalāt wal-E’tiqadāt, 270.
11
Ġāmidī, ‘Variant Readings’.
12
Because if he is taking one riwāỳah, what is stopping him from taking the other riwayāt, for the obvious reason that he gives no
proof how one riwāỳah alone can be authentic, and all other riwāỳāt inauthentic? If we are applying his methodology on the Seven
Āḥruf, every riwāỳah becomes weak. No matter what you say about a particular riwāỳah’s proliferation then, it wouldn’t matter,
because according to his methodology, each transmission is to be judged based upon the chain from the Qari to his teachers, and his
teachers to companions, so on and so forth.
13
Qur'ān, 1:3
14
Cfr. al-Khatīb, Mo’ǧam al-Qirā'āt, 1:8-13
 Cheema, Muhammad Yahya | 4

other qurrā'15. Saying that riwāỳah of Ḥafs only deals with certain intonational nuances is far from truth, let alone
holding any scholarship.

-2-
The Red Herring of Specialisation
There does not seem to be much scholarly merit to most of the arguments presented in this essay, and you will find
Ġāmidī resorting to red herrings, time and again, in order to try and make his point appear with some attributes of
scholarship. One of these red herrings is his claim that these variant readings of the Qur'ān were, from the very
beginning, a specialised field of academic study:

…the earliest Muslim authorities had formed the opinion that though it is not essential for the common
man to acquire knowledge through the akhbar-i ahad, it is essential for the scholars and the select to
accept them16...

He formulates the thesis that the scholars of Islam, from the very beginning, bifurcated the knowledge in jurisprudence17
into ‘ilm al ‘āmmah (knowledge for lay people) and ‘ilm al khaṣṣāh (knowledge for the select few), thence legitimising
the specialised secret knowledge that only a select few possessed, and the lay people would not have an access to. Before
coming to his quotation from ar-Risālah, however, let me first address the issue of akẖbār al-aḥād. Kẖabar aḥād is a
Ḥadīṯ generally understood to be a narration by a single person, which cannot be defined as mass transmitted18. The
thesis Ġāmidī is trying to formulate is: that the variant readings are all akẖbār il aḥād and, consequently only a select few
took these traditions and formulated a specialised field of study of the variant readings, whereas the lay people always
recited the Qur'ān on one, unified Qirā’ah ‘Aāmmaht 19. But there are multiple problems with this thesis. First and
foremost, the burden of proof is on Ġāmidī20 concerning the status of narrations pertaining to the Ten Qirā'āt. There are,
definitely, akẖbār il aḥād which authenticate some turuq, but to assert that none of the Qirā'āt are authenticated through
mutawātir (mass transmitted) narrations is definitely without academic proof 21. These akhbar el aḥād then, become
corroborating evidence, and when looked upon as a whole, the Ten Qirā'āt altogether reach the status of mass
transmision22, because the qurrā' corroborate each other on the mufradat 23. Ġāmidī needs to show us which of these
turuq or riwāỳāt are authenticated through akhbar aḥād alone, and, thence, are to be dismissed, in seclusion24.

15
Only 'Āsīm, Kisa’i, Ya’qūb and Khalaf read it as Mālik, the rest read it as Malik (without an alif). Cfr. an-Naššār, al-Budūr uz-Zahira
fi al Qirā'āt al ’Ašr al Mutawātirah 1:116.
16
Ġāmidī, ‘Variant Readings’.
17
Since he quotes as-Šāfi’ī, who is a jurist, and the provided quote is from the chapter on Qiyās. For more on this please see the
discussion that proceeds.
18
Cfr. al-Tuhān, Taysīr Mustalih al-Ḥadīṯ, 27-.
19
See section 4.
20
One could cite Saleem, History of the Quran - A Critical Study, a book written by one of Ġāmidī’s students, trying to bring evidence
to prove the claim mentioned above. It is, however, a self-published work and fails to bring the said on many levels. Nasser, The
Second Canonization of the Qurʾān, is a much more scholarly work in this regard, yet still fails to achieve the said task, primarily
because of his application of the ‘common link’ (madār) theory to the isnād bundle, as is shown in detail by al-Bahraini, “A Critique
of Shady Nasser’s Treatment of the Ḥadīth of Seven Aḥruf.”. Consequently, the burden still remains on Ġāmidī to prove, beyond the
shadow of a doubt, that every single one of these turuq is akẖbār il aḥād.
21
The differences between the tradition and Farāhī school here could be attributed to methodological approaches: cfr. “The decisive
element in judging the authenticity of a narrative has been criticism on its matn and not criticism on its isnād” Saleem, History of the
Quran - A Critical Study, 25; and “This study will initially be confined to a critical inquiry into the upper-isnāds of these readings. In
other words, the isnād from each of the seven readers to the respective companion(s) on which their isnād terminates shall be
examined.” Ibid, 758. Also note that while indulging in isnād criticism, Saleem uses Shiite rijāl criticism to criticise Sunni sources (for
example, al-Khū’ī features 88 times in his book, quoted, multiple times, for rijāl criticism, see page 635 of his book for example. Also
note that even Nasser accepts al-Khū’ī’s criticism as a try at systemically undermining the tradition of Seven Āḥruf: Nasser, The
Second Canonization of the Qurʾān, 131.) and resorts to many Shiite primary sources to establish the inauthenticity of Sunni tradition
of Seven Āḥruf (al-Majlisī, for example, features 41 times in his book). To bring Shiite criticism to Sunni tradition definitely seems
like resorting to desperation, a trait known to be unscholarly which even Nasser is not devoid of in his published work. This is just one
aspect, there are many other aspects to his biasness (bringing evidence from known Ḥadīṯ rejectors like Tamannā ‘Imādī, who features
164 times in his book, is another of these examples)
22
Cfr. Khatib and Khan, “The Origins of the Variant Readings of the Qur'ān.”
23
Cfr. al-Khatīb, Mo’ǧam al-Qirā'āt.
24
Reiterating to reinforce the vital point of corroboration among the turuq themselves.
 Cheema, Muhammad Yahya | 5

Secondly, the quotation he provides has no mention of the Qirā'āt being akhbar aḥād at all. It is, in fact, not even
remotely connected to the discussion at hand and is a complete red herring. He needs to show us where imām Šāfi’ī
mentions the Qirā'āt as being a specialised branch of knowledge or where the scholars have classified the knowledge
from all categories of akhbar aḥād (not akhbar al-khaṣṣāh) as ilm khaṣṣāh. The quotation he provides is as follows:

And the specialised knowledge is that which is gained from khabar al-khaṣṣāh, known by the academic
scholars, and is not known by others (working outside the academia). (Even within this circle of
specialised academia) this reliable source of information (a narration the source of which can be traced
back to the Prophet (saw)) is sometimes present only in certain (related) disciplines. (If reliable,) it is
mandatory (for the scholars) to be adhered to25.

The quote, without any contextualization26, may not make a lot of sense for the reader. This is a quotation from the
Imām’s discussion on the topic of qiyās. What he is saying here has no relevance to the subject of Qirā'āt at all. We shall
see, shortly, how Ġāmidī contrives to make a relevance, and fails, for the subject of popularisation of variant readings has
nothing to do with qiyās or iǧtihād. Also, note that khabar al-khaṣṣāh is not exactly the same as khabar al-aḥād, for this
term is classified as a term of Fiqh, coined by the Imām for a specific meaning27:

[khabar al-khaṣṣāh] is a term coined by Šāfi’ī to denote a type of narration. He uses this term for every
narration which is known only to the academics, as opposed to khabar al-‘aāmmah (which is known to
people outside the specialised fields of academia). Examples of these could be found in narrations
pertaining to the matters of everyday trade. And Šāfi’ī has distinguished between the two terms when
applied to matters of jurisprudence. Consequently, according to him, it is excusable if someone rules on
a matter erroneously because he/she was unaware of a khabar al-khaṣṣāh related to the matter, unlike
someone ruling erroneously on a matter because they were unaware of a khabar al-‘aāmmah , which is
inexcusable28.

Whereas the khabar al-aḥād is a term from the academic discipline of ‘ilm usūl al-Ḥadīṯ, further divided into three
subcategories of gharīb, azīz and mashūr29. These are not treated in synomity by the scholars, even if Ġāmidī is pointing
out that Šāfi’ī is using it as a synonym to khabar al-aḥād. These are two separate branches of academic tradition and
differ in their epistemological structuration. Šāfi’ī’s explanation in the chapter about akhbar el-aḥād 30 elaborates on his
prerequisites for acceptance of a given report, which is not mass transmitted. In the quotation above, he is explaining the
concept of iǧtihād and why scholars differ on a given matter31. Besides, the original question still remains, what does this
have to do with the subject at hand? Ġāmidī tries to come up with an answer:

The reason for this was evident: if they did not accept these reports regarding the Qur'ān, they would
also not have any basis to accept reports which depicted the Prophet’s (saw) deductions, verdicts,
explanations and exemplary character except if they were deemed to be against a Qur'ānic verse. The
proliferation of variant readings took place because of this opinion of the tabi‘un (followers of the
companions)32.

Notice the non-sequitur. Ġāmidī is trying to make these variant readings a matter of jurists’ academic discourse relating
to matters in Islamic Law alone, which, in turn, gave rise to the proliferation of these variants, erroneously. His line of
argumentation is that the jurists took these narrations because they had to take those narrations which aided greatly in the
matters of Islamic Law and Jurisprudence and, consequently, were not able to discard these based solely on this premise

25
al-Šāfi’ī, Ar-Risālah 478-79.
26
The full quote: as-Šāfi’ī, Ar-Risālah 478-79.
27
The following quote is not a word for word translation, but an explanation of the text.
28
Mo’ǧam Muṣtaliḥāt al-’Ulūm as-Shar’iỳỳah, 2:734.
29
Cfr. Mo’ǧam Muṣtaliḥāt al-’Ulūm as-Shar’iỳỳah.
30
al-Šāfi’ī, Ar-Risāla, 370-72.
31
Just for the sake of discussion, even if we accept that Šāfi’ī considered academic scholarship through aḥād narrations as specialised
and unattainable by the masses (for that is the far reaching implication), it is but the opinion of one imām. Does not mean this was the
generally accepted bifurcation among Muslim scholars.
32
Ġāmidī, ‘Variant Readings’.
 Cheema, Muhammad Yahya | 6

of their handicap, for if they had rejected these narrations, they had to reject all other narrations as well. In order for us to
take this line of argumentation seriously, Ġāmidī needs to prove how all of these reports about variants originated after
the death of the Prophet33 (saw) and, more importantly, how the proliferation of variant readings was actually caused by
these opinions of the followers of the companions, referring to the discussion of khabar al-khaṣṣāh above. It is not
enough to argue this point using a single term, coined by a single scholar, as a blanket for forming a thesis about the vast
subject of variant readings as a whole. One concedes, however, that there definitely are reports about certain variations in
the skeletal text of the Qur'ān deemed inauthentic by the scholars of Ḥadīṯ and Qirā'āt, which form the corpus of Šūwāḏ,
and are not included in the authentic corpus of established Qirā'āt. These Šūwāḏ, which go against the text of 'Uṯmānic
Codex, are looked at in detail by our scholars who assert that the differences worth looking at do not exceed 20 in total34
by Ḥadīṯ standards. These Šūwāḏ have their place in the academic fields of jurisprudence, exegesis, etc. If Ġāmidī is
hinting at this phenomenon, he needs to clarify it and not create confusion concerning the canonical Ten Qirā'āt.

But Ġāmidī does not mean to denote these Šūwāḏ alone here. He is trying to paint the whole tradition with his school’s
bāṭinī35 brush, using the academic topic of Šūwāḏ as an excuse, which appears to be academically dishonest to say the
least. He is trying to equate the academic field of study of the Qirā'āt scholarship with the existence of these variants
themselves, since the time of the Prophet (saw), as taught by himself , as bestowed upon him by Allah Himself. It is a
known fact that these variants were in popular circulation and it has nothing to do with the scholarly study of these
variants and their transmissions in academia. The attempt to confuse these separate matters can well be equated with an
attempt of someone proclaiming that the matter of Tawhīd is a specialised field of study and the lay Muslim who believes
in Tawhīd today is because these scholars took some specialised narrations for their academic discourse and that is how
later it became popular. Similar to the concept of Tawhīd which does have its own niche in the academic discourses
relating to the field of Kalām studies36, the Qirā'āt became a subject of vigorous academic study in the tradition. But that
has nothing to do with the fact that the variant readings were well-known among Muslims from the very beginning and
were in popular circulation, each believed to be the Word of Allah Himself. Also note how my analogy highlights the fact
that every field of study has its publicly understood and academically dwelled into sides. Tawhīd has certain academic
topics that no non-academic dare indulge into, for example, and so does the field of Qirā'āt. Saying that this is because of
scholars’ distinction between khaṣṣāh and ‘aāmmah is far from truth. It is similar to someone asserting that one needs to
become an electrical engineer in order for one to be able to turn the light switches in one’s bedroom on and off.

-3-
The Ḥadīṯ of al-Āḥruf as-Sab’aht
To discern the falsity of the claim, that reports of variant readings were only taken because the select few had to take
other narrations from these narrators, does not need much academic deliberation. The Ḥadīṯ of al-Āḥruf as-Sab’aht is a
well known Prophetic Tradition that establishes the Divine Origin of these variant readings and shows clearly that these
variants were taught by the Prophet (saw) himself. This is not a khabar al-khaṣṣāh or an aḥād or a weak narration. This is
a mutawātir tradition (mass transmitted) proving without a shadow of a doubt that these variants were in popular
circulation among the Companions of the Prophet (saw) and were taught by himself (saw). The question is, if one is able
to discern the absolute authenticity of this Ḥadīṯ, are we left with any valid reasons to discard the variants, or to propose
that the text of Qur'ān is fixed? No matter how much we try to weaken the individual reports through contrived
arguments, the variants’ status as Divine would remain untouched 37. This report authenticates these variants and
establishes their status as Divine: the Qur'ān that was bestowed upon the Prophet (saw). There is no way around this but

33
Which definitely has no academic proof.
34
Cfr. al-Ṭāsān, al-Masāḥif al-Manṣūba lis-Ṣaḥābah wa-al-Radd ʿalā Shubuhat al-Muthāra Ḥaulaha.
35
More on this in section 5
36
An avid example would be the vast scholarship available on philosophical inquisitions like Waḥdat ul-Wuǧūd and Waḥdat us-Shahūd
alone.
37
And, as a consequence of this Ḥadīṯ, we will have to look at these reports, which were in popular circulation, and discern through
academic discourse which of these is authentic and which is not, something that our scholars have done, and this is how the Ten Qirā'āt
canon is established in the tradition.
 Cheema, Muhammad Yahya | 7

to discard the Prophetic (saw) tradition altogether38 and resort to Quran-only propaganda using the deviant methods of
esoteric exegeses (tafseer bāṭinī), if one is to claim that the variants are only a later concoction/interpolation.

Take the narration of ‘Umar, for example, about the famous incident that occurs between him and Ḥishām. While
listening to Ḥishām’s recitation of Surah al-Furqān, 'Umar picks up variants in his Qirā'ah which were not taught to him
by the Prophet (saw). Consequently ‘Umar takes Ḥishām to the Prophet (saw) who authenticates both Qirā'āt, saying ‘this
is how it was revealed’39, thence assigning Divine Status to variants read by both ‘Umar and Ḥishām. This narration,
alone, reaches the rank of mutawātir. Then there's this very famous Ḥadīṯ by 'Uṯmān where he asks one day from the
pulpit, addressing the mass-audience in general gathering, to rise whomsoever had heard the Prophet (saw) proclaim that
the Qur'ān was revealed upon seven Āḥruf. An uncountable number of people stand up and give testimony to the fact that
they had indeed heard the Prophet (saw) proclaim that the Qur'ān was revealed on seven Āḥruf. ‘Uṯmān then adds ‘and I
testify with them’40.

Albānī is an authority on Ḥadīṯ classification in our times and this discussion would be incomplete if I did not bring
evidence from his research. He has listed many narrations in this regard in his famous Ṣilsila al-Aḥadīṯ as-Ṣaḥiḥa, one of
which I quote below:

Indeed this Qur'ān was revealed in Seven Āḥruf. Whichever from these you recite upon, you will reach
the truth. And do not argue in it (relating, especially, to the matters of Āḥruf), for arguing in it is Kufr41.

This Prophetic tradition (as a whole, taking into account all narrations about the seven Āḥruf) is recorded to have been
narrated by so many companions, that no doubt can be brought up against its authenticity:

The Ḥadīṯ that the Qur'ān was revealed upon Sab’aht Āḥruf has been authenticated through multiple
chains of narration in the six primary books of Ḥadīṯ as well as other Ḥadīṯ books. Multiple Sahaba
have narrated this Ḥadīṯ from the Prophet (saw), some of which are: Ubayy bin Ka’ab, Anas, Huzaifa
bin Al Yaman, Zaid bin Arqam, Samurah bin Jundab, Sulaiman bin Sard, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Mas’ud,
Abdirrahman bin A’uf, 'Uṯmān bin Affan, Umar ibn Al Khattab, Umar bin abi Salmah, Amr bin Al A’as,
Moaaz bin Jabal, Ḥishām bin Hakeem, Abu Bakrah, Abu Juham, Abu Saeed Al Khudri, Abu Talha Al
Ansari, Abu Hurairah and Abu Ayyub. And Imām Suỳỳuti counted them in his book al Itqān and said:
these are twenty one Sahabah in total42.

Many scholarly resources43 collect isnād for these narrations and dwelling into each of these is outside the scope of this
paper. The evidence presented suffices to ascertain the Divine Status of variant readings of the Qur'ān and any assertion
to suggest later conspiracies, interpolations and/or concoctions holds no scholarship.

38
If a mutawātir (mass transmitted) narration is not reliable enough for Fārahī School, then, really, there is no scope for other types of
narrations to have any chance. The Fārahī School, it seems thence, can accept or reject any and all prophetic traditions based on its
own bāṭinī exegeses of the Qur'ān, calling it a ruling from the Qur'ān itself. This is what the Quran-only sect is popular for. See, for
example, the wikipedia page on Quranism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quranism. For scholarly discussions on the Qur'ān-Only Sect,
you can refer to many books I list in Works Consulted for this paper.
39
Al-Bukhāri: 2419, 4992, 5041, 6936, 7550; Muslim: 818; Sunan abi Dawūd: 1475; Sunan at Tirmaḏī: 2943; Sunan an Nisāī: 936,
937, 938; Mūwaṭṭa Imām Mālik: 540; Musnad Imām Aḥmad ibn Hanbal: 158, 277, 296, 2375.
40
al-Jazarī, an-Našr fil-Qirāʼāt al-ʻAšr, 1:21.
41
al-Albānī, Ṣilsila Al-Aḥadīṯ as-Ṣaḥiḥa, 4:26. #1522
42
al-Qaṭṭān, Nuzūl Al Qur’ān ’Ala Sab’aht Āḥruf, 19-20.
43
See for example: al-Jazarī, an-Našr Fī al-Qirāʼāt al-ʻAšr, 1:21; and: az-Zurqānī, Manāhil ul-’Irfān fi ’Ulūm al-Qur'ān 1:139. Also
look at al-Bahraini, “A Critique of Shady Nasser’s Treatment of the Ḥadīth of Seven Aḥruf.”, in which the researcher furnishes a
complete isnād tree for this Prophetic Tradition.
 Cheema, Muhammad Yahya | 8

-4-
The Multiformic Skeletal Text of the 'Uṯmānic Codex and
‘al-’Arḍa al-Akhīra’
A pertinent question we should ask at this point is: can there be a ‘Qur'ān’ without ‘Qirā'āt’? Without authentic vocal
renditions of the text, can the skeletal text exist on its own? Looking at the subject academically, we can easily formulate
an educated answer: without authentic chains of oral transmission, the skeletal text of the Qur'ān cannot ‘exist’, for then
we are allowing uncountable variants since anyone can read the skeletal text as he/she deems suitable44. It is important to
note, then, that the Qur'ān we buy from the market today, in printed form, is primarily a fixed reading, a Qirā'ah of the
Qur'ān, and not the text that ‘Uṯmān codified, in written form. As confessed by Ġāmidī himself, the Qur'ān that he is
propagating to be the only true Word of God, without any variants, is the Fixed Text based on Ḥafs an 'Aāsim reading, as
opposed to the multiformic text of 'Uṯmānic Codex45. Let me refresh my readers’ memory by pointing them to a quote
previously discussed, by al-Jazarī: ‘The verdict of authenticity in transferring the Qur'ān (written or vocal) rests on the
learning by heart (memorization) and not on maṣāḥif or books’. A Qirā'ah, hence, is the authenticated transmission of the
Qur'ān as taught by the Prophet (saw) to his companions, and from his (saw) companions to their companions, so on and
so forth, through verified chains of narration, in our oral tradition. It is not a matter of Iǧtihād or even Khiyār46 in its
basic, authenticated form. We run into a major problem relating to the authenticity in this regard, if we discard the
canonical Ten Qirā'āt. These Ten Qirā'āt, when put together, through corroboration, authenticate each other, and,
consequently, render the multiformic skeletal text of the Qur'ān as mutawātir (mass transmitted). If we discard this
tradition, we have absolutely no way of authentically proving that the Qur'ān is the unchanged Word of God. Take Ḥafs
for example, a rāwi from 'Aāsim, upon which Ġāmidī places the burden of authenticating the Qur'ān in its entirety. Let
me show my readers what Imām ‘Uqỳlī collects about Ḥafs in his book of validation and invalidation:

Ḥafs bin Sulayman al-Asadi al-Muqri Kufi: we were told by Abdullah bin Aḥmad who said he was told
by his father, who said he was told by Yahya al-Qattan who said: Sho’ba said about Ḥafs bin Sulayman:
he used to take books from people and pass them as his own. And Sho’ba said: Ḥafs bin Suleyman took
a book from me and never returned it, and he used to take books from people (to not to return these).
We were told by Abdullah who said he heard from his father say: Ḥadīṯ is not to be taken from Ḥafs bin
Suleyman abu ‘Umar al-Qari. We were told by Muḥammad bin Abdul Hameed as-Sahmi who said: we
were told by Aḥmad bin Muḥammad al-Hadrami who said: I asked Yahya bin Maeen about Ḥafs bin
Suleyman abu ‘Umar al-Bazzar, he replied: he has no status. We were told byAḥmad bin Mahmood
al-Harawi who said: we were told by ‘Uṯmān bin Saeed, who said: I asked Yahya bin Maeen about
Ḥafs bin Suleyman al-Asadi al-Kufi relating his status as a Ḥadīṯ narrator. He replied: he is
untrustworthy. We were told by Adam bin Musa who said: I heard al-Bukhari say: we do not take from
Ḥafs bin Sulyman and Ḥafs bin Abi Dawood al-Asadi. We were told by Muḥammad bin Ismaeel who
said he was told by Al-Hasan bin A’li who said he was told by Shababah who narrated: I (once) asked
Abu Bakr bin Ayyash: Have you ever seen Abu ‘Umar (Ḥafs bin Suleyman) with 'Aāsim (studying
under him)? He replied: this has been asked by many, and I know everyone who has studied from
'Aāsim and I have never seen this man with 'Aāsim47.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. We find Albānī quoting people like Yahya ibn Maeen and ibn Khirash even calling
him a blatant liar:

44
The multiformic skeletal text of the Qur'ān itself is based on these transmissions, as I argue.
45
Please see fig 1
46
Khiyār is when one Rāwi from a Qirā'ah choses to read and transmit a particular variant from his teacher, as opposed to the other
variant/s. Going into details about this is outside the scope of this paper. Suffice to note here that Khiyār and iǧtihād/qiyās are very
different concepts. Qirā'āt are not iǧtihād or qiyās but are all based on sound evidence to indicate their validity and authenticity as
Divine, as has been argued. Also cfr. al-Jazarī, an-Našr fil-Qirāʼāt al-ʻAšr, 1:35.
47
al-‘Uqỳlī, ad-Ḍu’afā al-Kabīr, 1:270.
 Cheema, Muhammad Yahya | 9

[Yahya] ibn Maeen said about him: he was a liar… and ibn Khirash said: he is a liar, he fabricates the
Ḥadīṯ48.

When the Qirā'āt scholars say that Ḥafs might be matrūk in Ḥadīṯ but is trustworthy in Qur'ān narration49, how do they
discern his trustworthy status? Because his riwāỳah is corroborated not only by Sho’ba (the other rāwi from 'Aāsim) but
also by other rūwāt and turuq in other Qirā'āt. Without this corroboration available to us, we have absolutely no grounds
to stand upon and claim that it is the verbatim Word of God that we hold in our hands today50. This point is well
understood by the scholars, but unfortunately is a difficult one to understand for an ultracrepidarian venturing in this
‘specialised field of study’, as Ġāmidī puts it. Even if you want to discard the variants, you will still have no way of
authenticating the Qur'ān but through these chains of narrations. And when one goes back to these chains, one has no
choice but to also concede to the fact that the variants exist, and they exist absolutely as Word of Allah Himself.

It is interesting to see how Ġāmidī tries to grapple with this conundrum, that he has created for himself:

He was taught this reading from his teacher ‘Āsim ibn Abi al-Najud (d. 127 AH) who in turn was a
student of the celebrated follower Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Sulamī (d. 74 AH). Al-Sulamī taught its
subtleties in Kufah to various students for almost forty years. About him, Abu Bakr ibn Mujāhid (d. 324
AH), the first person to have selected the seven canonical readings, has specified that he did not teach
his own preferential reading but the very one on which ‘'Uṯmān (rta) had striven to gather the ummah
on51.

The quotation he provides from ibn Mujāhid is this:

First one to teach a recitation according to the multiformic text of ‘Uṯmān in Kufah, upon which he
gathered the peoples, was abu Abdurrahman as-Sulamī 52.

Notice how Ġāmidī tries to use this quotation to prove, unsuccessfully, that the Qirā’ah that as-Sulamī taught was the
only Qirā’ah of the 'Uṯmānic Codex that could have been taught, and all other Qirā'āt in popular circulation in Kufah and
elsewhere were only limited to specialised fields of academia. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are multiple
factors to note here: a) Ġāmidī is quoting from a book that began the canonisation of the Qirā'āt: how could this quote,
then, go against the validity of seven Qirā'āt (at least, for ibn Mujāhid canonised the Seven, later ibn Jazari canonised an
additional three) when the author of the book is academically indulging into the contrary?; b) the term Qirā’ah is used
here in the context of naskh (abrogation) in the 'Uṯmānic Codex and encompasses all authentic wujūh ul-Qirā'āt, referred
to as the Qirā’ah ‘Aāmmah that 'Uṯmān brought the Ummah together upon, as I will demonstrate; c) this is what ibn
Mujāhid is telling us about Kufah, so then what about Makkah and Madinah for example? were the Qirā'āt being taught
in those regions not authentic (especially according to ibn Mujāhid who himself is canonising these)?; and d) maybe
Ġāmidī forgets that other people can read and understand Arabic as well when he quotes this without quoting the
paragraph just a few lines above:

And as far as the Kufans are concerned, most of them used to recite the recitation of Abdullah ibn
Mas’ud, because ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb had posted him there as the teacher and so the Kufans used to
learn from him (ibn Mas’ud) before 'Uṯmān (became the Caliph and) gathered people on one
multiformic text53.

It is in this context that ibn Mujāhid is placing as-Sulamī, not in the ‘thematic structure’54 that Ġāmidī is trying to create
through cherry-picked quotations. The text of the Qur'ān was not codified and systematised in the time of ‘Umar and it is

48
Shakokānī and Al-Luhām, Mū’ǧam Asāmi Ar-Rūwāt Alladheen Tarjama Lahum al-’Allama Muḥammad Nasir-Ud-Din Albānī
Jarhan Wa Ta’deelan, 1:529.
49
Cfr. al-’Asqalānī, Taqrīb uṯ-Tahḏīḅ, 172.
50
As mentioned in footnote 24, the methodology applied, begs the question of authenticating the Qirā’ah ‘Aāmmah itself through
ascending isnād criticism alone.
51
Ġāmidī, ‘Variant Readings’.
52
ibn Mujāhid, Kitāb as-Sab’a fil-Qirā'āt, 67.
53
Ibid, 66.
54
The word is used here to also hint at the fictitious nature of Ġāmidī’s thesis
 Cheema, Muhammad Yahya | 10

a well known fact that Abdullah ibn Mas’ud kept his own muṣḥāf in which he kept his learnt variants55. Hence, when
‘Uṯmān collected the Qur'ān in the official Codex, all other maṣāḥif were abrogated56. This abrogation is what is hinted at
here, and in the later quote as well57. This is what is known as Qirā’ah ‘Aāmmah in the tradition, i.e., the standardised
multi-variant reading of the multiformic text of the codex58. Ibn Mujāhid then continues about as-Sulamī:

And he took (his recitation/variant reading) from ‘Uṯmān, and from ‘Ali bin abu-Talib and Zaid ibn
Thabit and Abdullah ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy ibn Ka’ab59.

And we have already proven what the Companions read in times of the Prophet (saw) himself through the discussion on
the seven Āḥruf Ḥadīṯ. Ibn Mujāhid is clearly hinting at the fact that as-Sulamī was well versed in these variants. See for
example as-Sindi:

And the Qirā'āt of the Companions differed among themselves, some reciting on one Harf and others
on two or more, and from here the different aspects of Variant Readings began to take their course in
the narrations and its path in transmissions was set (as the Companions are the origin), and the
phenomenon of Variant Readings has been common among masses since the era of the Prophet (saw)
himself, as is evident from the differences between the readings of ‘Umar and Ḥishām bin Hakeem, and
between Ubayy bin Ka’b and others, and between ibn Mas’ud and other Companions60.

Why does ibn Mujāhid mention that as-Sulamī took his variant readings from these Companions? Obviously these are his
isnād, but notice the hint at the fact that as-Sulamī was quite familiar with and knowledgeable of these Variant Readings
prevalent within the Muslim Ummah of that day, as well. And so when ibn Mujāhid is saying that he was the first of the
reciters to teach them the Qirā'ah of the 'Uṯmānic Codex, he is not suggesting that he did not teach according to Variant
Readings or that Qur'ānic text is a fixed text61. Instead he is establishing the canon and telling us how the variant reading
that we know through 'Āsīm today, came to Kufah. Ibn Mujādi continues:

And only a few Kufans learnt 'Aāsim’s Qirā'ah62.

He is canonising the variant readings and telling his readers about the famous teachers in Qirā'āt and how these variant
readings reached different regions in the whole of the Muslim world, contrary to what Ġāmidī would have us believe in
the name of a specialised academic niche. Looking at the Qirā'ah of 'Āsīm, we discern with authority that indeed
as-Sulamī taught a particular variant reading from the canonical Ten Qirā',āt and that is what is referred to by the term of
Qirā’ah ‘Aāmmah: the ‘authenticated’ Qirā’ah of the multiformic 'Uṯmānic Text. Ibn Mujāhid then continues:

And the dominant recitation among Kufans, till this day, became the variant reading of Ḥamza bin
Ḥabib az-Ziyat63.

So the first one to teach the Qirā'āt according to the 'Uṯmānic Codex was as-Sulamī, then Ḥamza az-Ziyat. How the
quotation that Ġāmidī brings as proof of his propaganda relates, then, to what he is saying, is beyond me. Looking at the
promulgation of these Qirā'āt according to the 'Uṯmānic Codex, as-Sindi notes the names of the following Companions
who popularised specific variant readings, according to the multiformic text of the Codex, as they were sent to these
regions with the official copies of the said:

55
Cfr. as-Saǧistānī, Kitāb Al-Maṣāḥif and at-Ṭāsān, al-Masāḥif al-Manṣuba lil-Ṣaḥābah wa-al-Radd ʿalā shubuhat al-Muthāra
Ḥauliha.
56
Referred to the burning of the maṣāḥif by‘Uṯmān in Islamic tradition
57
See footnotes 60
58
Cfr. al-Qaỳsī, al-Ibānah ʿan Maʿānī al-Qirāʾāt, 68.
59
ibn Mujāhid, Kitāb as-Saba’ fil-Qirā'āt , 68.
60
as-Sindi, Ṣafẖāt fi ’Ulūm al-Qirā'āt, 35.
61
The Ten Qirā'āt Canon is based on the very multiformic text of 'Uṯmānic Codex, as has been iterated and reiterated. Any variant that
goes against this skeletal multiformic text is considered Šāḏ (inauthentic).
62
ibn Mujāhid, Kitāb as-Saba’ fi al-Qirā'āt , 71.
63
Ibid.
 Cheema, Muhammad Yahya | 11

In Madina: Muaz bin Al Haris Al Qari, Saeed bin Al Musayyab, Urwa bin Az Zubair, Umar bin Abdul
Aziz, Ata’ bin Yasaar, Ab Ar Rahman Al A’raj, Ibn Shahaab Az Zahri, Zaid bin Aslam , etc. In Makkah:
Muhajid bin Jabar, Ta’oos bin Kaysaan, Ata’ bin Abi Rabaah, Akrama Maula ibn Abbas , etc. In Kufah:
'Amr bin Sharjeel, Alqamah bin Qayss, Masrooq bin Al Ajda', Abu Abdur Rahman AsSulamī, Al Aswad
An Nakh'ee, Zarr bin Hubaish, Ibrahim An Nakh'ee, etc. In Basrah: Al Hasan Al Basri, Muḥammad bin
Sirin, Qatada bin Di'ama as Sadosi, Nasr bin 'Aāsim, Yahya bin Ya'mur, etc. In Shaam: Al Mugheerah
bin Abi Shahab Al Makhzumi, Khalifa bin Sa'ad Sahib Abi Ad Dardaa', Abdullah bin A'amir Al
Yahsabi, At'yah bin Qayss Al Kilabi etc64.

Is this what ibn-Mujāhid is telling us in his book or is Ġāmidī trying to falsely accuse ibn-Mujāhid of lying and deceiving
the Muslim Ummah all this time where what he really meant was that there was just one fixed Qira’ah ‘Aammah and his
whole charade of the canonization of the Seven Qirā'āt was actually a smoke screen, meant to keep scholars from getting
to the bottom of the matters until ‘Allama Fārahī arrived on the scene and magincally cracked the code? Ibn-Mujāhid is
definitely quoted by Ġāmidī out of context. But this is not the only instance where we find this malpractice upheld by the
author of the essay. He quotes az-Zarkašī completely out of the context next:

He is the same person who upon seeing the proliferation of various readings among people had said65:

His quote from az-Zarkašī is as follows:

Abu Abdurrahman as-Sulamī said: the reading (of the skeletal multiformic text) of abu Bakr and ‘Umar
and ‘Uṯmān and Zaid ibn Thabit, and the Muhajireen and the Ansar was one (and the same, without
any differences in the skeletal text itself). They read (the Qur'ān) upon the same popular recitation that
was read by the Prophet (saw) twice upon Ǧibrīl (for affirmation) in the year that he passed away. And
Zaid witnessed the ’Arḍa al-Akhīra and used to teach the masses based on this final vocal rendering (of
the multiformic skeletal text، in variant readings) until his death. This is the reason that (abu Bakr)
as-Siddiq trusted him for his collection of the Qur'ān and ‘Uṯmān handed him the responsibility to
compile the Codex66

I have already quoted67 az-Zarkašī showing how he establishes the absolute authenticity of the Qirā'āt canon. But this is a
leitmotif in Ġāmidī’s research, to quote out of context and try to push the ideological agenda of Fārahī School based on
cherry-picked misquotations. Notice how he is now trying to portray a quote from a scholar who has written independent
chapters68 in the very book on variant readings, in terms of negating the variants from his very own writing. This is
definitely far from any form of scholarship. It's like trying to bring a quote from Derrida, for example, to show that he did
not believe in concepts like différance etc. This quotation is from the section of Abrogation in the manuscripts. Allow me
to bring the deliberately omitted context to this quotation: the author begins this section by telling his readers that
although the Qur'ān was available in scattered form in the time of the Prophet (saw) , yet unlike the prevalent belief, the
first ever compilation of the Qur'ān took place in the time of abu-Bakr, whereas the abrogation happened in the time of
‘Uṯmān because the compilation of 'Uṯmānic Codex happened through proper discussions among the Companions and
the evidence presented through memorization. az-Zarkašī then says:

Al-Qāḍī abu Bakr said in Intīsār69: ‘Uṯmān’s did not intend what abu-Bakr intended when he compiled
the Qur'ān in a singular binding (which was to preserve the Qur'ān and its arrangement, lest no one
remained with its complete memorization70).‘Uṯmān’s intention (in his compilation) was to gather them
(meaning the whole of the Ummah) upon the Qirā'āt which were proven (through authenticated chains
of narrations) and were well-known to have been taught by the Prophet (saw) himself, and,
consequently, cancelled out (abrogated) the inauthentic Qirā'āt. So he produced a codex in which the

64
as-Sindi, Ṣafḥāt fi ’Ulūm al-Qirā'āt, 35-36.
65
Ġāmidī, ‘Variant Readings’.
66
az-Zarkašī, al-Burhān fi ‘Ulūm al-Qur'ān 237.
67
See footnote 3
68
Cfr. Chapters 22 and 23 in the book. In these chapters az-Zarkašī even refers to the well known Qirā'āt books by ad-Dānī and
as-Shātibī.
69
Referring to Bāqilānī, Al-Intiṣār Lil-Qur’ān 1:56-.
70
Cfr. Bāqilānī, Al-Intiṣār Lil-Qur’ān, 1:56-57
 Cheema, Muhammad Yahya | 12

original arrangement was preserved, there was no margin for esoteric (erroneous) interpretation; the
multiformic skeletal text was authenticated through evidence upon what was originally revealed (to the
Prophet (saw)) and what was later abrogated (through Divine decree, cemented and authenticated by
al-’Arḍa al-Akhīra); it was in a validated font-system, mandatory to be read (according to the authentic
Qirā'āt). He (‘Uṯmān) preserved it (in his codex unlike abu Bakr) fearing that later interpolations and
corruptions might enter (the multiformic skeletal text of the Qur'ān) and that later generation might
doubt the authenticity of the Qur'ān itself71.

The ’Arḍa al-Akhīra did not (could not have!) abrogate(d) the Āḥruf (Variant Readings) altogether72, contrary to what
Ġāmidī might have his readers believe. Does the above quotation look like it was written by someone who believed in a
fixed text of the Qur'ān (without any Variant Readings)? And yet Ġāmidī brings the evidence from this very book to
prove his case of a fixed text, which is quite strange to say the least. Whether this is deliberate or not, I have only
guessed. What is factual, nonetheless, is that Ġāmidī’s case holds absolutely no merit.

-5-
The Bāṭinī Tafsīr of Fārahī School
The essay’s concluding paragraph reads:

Here a person can pose the question: if despite all these facts, the academic tradition of the Muslims
accepted all the reports related to ‘ilm al-khāṣṣah, why has the Fārahī School adopted a different stance
in this regard? Our answer is that it is not easy for any person of learning to disregard reports narrated
by reliable narrators; this needs an explicit Qur'ānic directive. Thus if the true meaning of the relevant
verses of Surah Qiyamah had become evident at the very beginning, Muslim scholars, jurists and
exegetes would probably have adopted the same stance as the scholars of the Fārahī School. imām
Hamid al-Din Fārahī (d. 1930 AD) has explained the true meaning of these verses. Hence, that explicit
Qur'ānic directive has become available on the basis of which it can be said that even if all the
narratives which depict the variant readings of the Qur'ān are correct, they have been abrogated by the
reading of the ardah akhirah for the universal addressees of the Qur'ān; hence they cannot be accepted
in any way whatsoever. It is a directive of the Qur'ān that after its collection and arrangement, Muslims
will be bound till the Day of Judgement to read it on the reading it was read by the Almighty after this
collection. No Muslim can dare deviate from this directive of the Qur'ān73.

Notice how Ġāmidī now tries to impose his School’s ideology on the whole tradition, hoping to sneak his way out of the
problematic paradigm he has built himself, resorting to the esoteric exegesis (tafseer bāṭinī) of imām Fārahī. After all his
arguments have been dismantled, we find ourselves now looking at this matter from a whole new perspective: the
perspective of the menace of tafsīr bāṭinī in the Islamic tradition. No exoteric exegesis by any reputable exegete has ever
interpreted the said Verses of the Qur'ān in meanings that Fārahī derives from them. Notice how Ġāmidī proclaims that
Muslim scholarship of over 1400 years was erronous in this regard (cfr. ‘if the true meaning of the relevant verses…’,)
and it was only Imām Fārahī who, somehow magically, possessed the key to unlocking this mystery, kept from the whole
of the Ummah since the time of the Prophet (saw) . This rejection of the Prophetic (saw) tradition of highest status
(mutawātir) based on its own esoteric exegesis of the Qur'ān surely seems like a Qur'ān-Only ideology.

This mujaddidi complex is nothing new or unique. In recent history, this has been something academics needed engaging
with every now and then. The tradition of tafsīr bāṭinī, however, goes back much further. In the words of ibn-Taỳmiỳỳah,
it started with the Mu’tazilites74.

71
az-Zarkashī, al-Burhan fi Ulum al-Qur'ān 1:235-36.
72
Cfr. al-Qaṯāmī, al-’Arḍa al-Akhīra: Dalatuha wa Athariha’ 28-29.
73
Ġāmidī, ‘Variant Readings’. Verses referred to are: Qur'ān 75:16-18.
74
Which is amusing in a way because imām Fārahī is reported to have been influenced by Sir Syyed Aḥmad Khan, who was a
neo-Mu’tazilite.
 Cheema, Muhammad Yahya | 13

Ibn-Taỳmiỳỳah divides types of exegesis into two broad categories: the exegesis done through the authentic narrations (be
it Qur'ān or Sunnah or the sayings of the Companions etc.), and the exegesis done through one’s own intellect, the latter
being further bifurcated into praiseworthy (mostly consisting of exegesis based on the latest scientific discoveries) and
non-praiseworthy types. The non-praiseworthy type of this kind of exegesis is also known as tafsīr bir Ra’ī al-mujarrad
which means interpreting with one’s intellect and ideas alone without taking into consideration the already available
scholarship or the tradition. Once one discards the tradition, an empty space is created in which these kinds of
interpretation can find their unjustifiable existence75. Tafsīr bāṭinī is a subcategory of this untrustworthy type of exegesis.
This type of exegesis is deemed absolutely Haram76. Ibn-Taỳmiỳỳah writes:

The ones who made grave errors in interpreting the self-proclaimed evidence are great innovators in
Deen and have chosen the opposite of what the moderate Ummah believes, like the leaders and
forefathers of the Islamic Tradition. So they resorted to the Qur'ān (to come up with some kind of
evidence in support of their misadventures) and interpreted it according to their own opinions (hinting
at the fact that mostly these are Qur'ān-only propagandists). Some resort to quoting verses in support of
their doctrine and there is no evidence (to support their claims), and some (others) interpret what
contradicts their doctrine by distorting words from their places (resorting to root-structure study).
Examples of people like these can be found among the Khawarij, Rafidiyyah, Jahamiyyah, Mu’tazilah,
Qadariyyah and Murji’ah etc… and some later Shiites (as well as the earlier ones from Ghulat,
Rawafidh, Qaramitiyyah etc.) agree with them (on this manhaj)77.

The imām is describing the formation of esoteric exegesis and its most fundamental principles. Many scholars have
noted similar observations in their books78. Az-Zurqāni notes in regards with the bāṭinī Sect:

The bāṭinī sect rejected the evident (apparent, obvious) of the Qur'ān and said that the Qur'ān has
obvious and not so obvious meanings and the intended is what is hidden away (in layers and layers of
so called deeper interpretive paradigm) and not the apparent79.

When Ġāmidī’s quotes the translation of the said verses according to imām Fārahī:

[To acquire] this [Qur'ān] swiftly [O Prophet!] do not move your tongue hastily over it. [It will be
revealed like this. Rest assured] its collection and recital is Our responsibility. So when We have recited
it [at that time], follow this recital,80

notice the words ‘recital’ and ‘We’ paying heed to the implication: that Allah Himself came down to the Prophet (saw),
and read the final recitation to him. Notice that without this assertion, the claim cannot stand, for otherwise there are no
differences between the beliefs held by Farāhī school and the tradition. Unless Farāhī school asserts that Allah Himself
read the final reading upon the Prophet, thence abrogating everything else, there is no point in claiming anything other
than the traditionally understood exoteric meanings of the Verses (‘to read it on the reading it was read by the Almighty’).
Here is the Ṣaḥīḥ International translation for example:

Move not your tongue with it, [O Muḥammad (saw)], to hasten with it [i.e., recitation of the Qur’ān].
Indeed, upon Us is its collection [in your heart] and [to make possible] its recitation. It is surely
undertaken by Us to store it (in your heart), and to let it be recited (by you after revelation is
completed).81

Or Abdullah Yusuf Ali:

75
Cfr. MYC Podcast, [S01] [E39-40] Dr. Hany Atchan (Marvelous Quran) Organic Quranic Methodology (English Podcast),
YouTube Video, 2:08:34 -, 2022, https://youtu.be/5vf99fPakEc.
76
Cfr. ibn-Taỳmiỳỳah, Muqaddimah fi Usūl at-Tafsīr, 46.
77
Ibid., 35.
78
Please refer to the Works Consulted.
79
az-Zurqānī, Manāhil ul-’Irfān fi ’Ulūm al-Qur'ān, 2:74.
80
Ġāmidī, ‘Variant Readings’. Verses referred to are: Qur'ān 75:16-18.
81
“Surah Al-Qiyamah - 1-40,” Quran.com, accessed April 17, 2022, https://quran.com/al-qiyamah.
 Cheema, Muhammad Yahya | 14

Move not thy tongue concerning the (Qur'ān) to make haste therewith. It is for Us to collect it and to
promulgate it. But when We have promulgated it, follow thou its recital (as promulgated).82

Notice how Fārahī School’s exegesis goes against the established tradition where Muslims believe that the Qur'ān was
read upon the Prophet (saw) through Ǧibrīl83 and not by Allah Himself directly. Is Fārahī school now suggesting that
Allah Himself came down to the Prophet (saw), sat with him, and read the Qur'ān to him? What does Ġāmidī exactly
mean when he says ‘to read it on the reading it was read by the Almighty’? Maududi notes in a footnote to his translation
of this Ayah:

Although it was Angel Gabriel who recited the Quran to the Prophet (saw), since he recited it on behalf
of Allah and not on his own behalf, Allah said: When We have recited it. 84

The tradition is unanimous in the understanding of this verse, based on the evident belief that the Qur'ān was read upon
the Prophet (saw) through Ǧibrīl, except for the Fārahī school, which is trying to indulge in an esoteric (bāṭinī) exegesis,
proclaiming that the Qur'ān was read by Allah Himself upon the Prophet (saw) in a single Qirā'ah. Moreover, was this
Qirā'ah by Allah Himself before or after the al-’Arḍa al-Akẖīra? Because notice the self-contradiction: Ġāmidī asserts
that according to these verses’ exegesis by Imām Fārahī, all variant readings got abrogated in al-’Arḍa al-Akẖīra
(‘Hence, that explicit Qur'ānic directive has become available on the basis of which it can be said that even if all the
narratives which depict the variant readings of the Qur'ān are correct, they have been abrogated by the reading of the
ardah akhirah…’), whereas al-’Arḍa al-Akẖīra is clearly understood to have been the final recitation between the
Prophet (saw) and Ǧibrīl85. So was the ’Arḍa al-Akẖīra the final reading, or did Allah come down afterward to bestow
His Own (another) final reading upon the Prophet (saw)? Clearly the verse referred to was revealed before al-’Arḍa
al-Akẖīra. Also, if those narrations, as is accepted by Ġāmidī himself (‘even if all the narratives which depict the variant
readings of the Qur'ān are correct’), are indeed correct, then Allah was coming down every now and then to first recite
upon different Āḥruf, and then came down finally to recite the whole of the Qur'ān on one reading and then finally the
al-’Arḍa al-Akẖīra happened which wasn’t even with Allah Himself but Ǧibrīl? This is, indeed, a shining example of the
problems that arise when someone with a mujaddidi complex indulges into the bāṭinī Tafseer. Note how this relates to
what ibn-Taỳmiỳỳahhas told us above. This definitely seems pseudo-scholarly to say the least. No matter how hard
Ġāmidī tries, there is no way out of this for him and his school.

In conclusion, for the sake of argument, let us, for a minute, agree that all of the Qirāʼāt are aḥād. What does, then,
Ġāmidī propose we bring as evidence for authentication of the skeletal text of the Qur’ān today? No matter how many
evading techniques he uses, the Qirā’ah ‘Āmmaht has reached us (according to Ġāmidī) through Ḥafs an 'Aāsim. No
matter how many excuses he or Dr. Shehzad Saleem try to make up about this Qirā’ah being transmitted from generation
to generation, they will have to consent to the fact that the isnād it has, nevertheless, reach us through Ḥafs. And so if all
the Qirāʼāt and riwāỳāt are aḥād, then this includes the riwāỳah of Ḥafs as well. How then, are we to authenticate the
Qur’ān today? It is an important little detail that he has, perhaps, missed, for saying that this has been transferred to us
through generations is not enough unless you render empirical proof (scientific data collection: the chains of narration or
isnād). And when one goes towards the empirical proof through isnād, one finds that there is no other way but to attest to
the fact that these Qirāʼāt authenticate each other, through corroboration and, consequently, authenticate the multiformic
skeletal text of the Qur’ān. And if he is trying to sneak his way out by relying solely on his tradition argument, then the
question arises why the Farāhī School accepts tradition in this regard and rejects tradition in almost all other matters of
importance86? Is it, then, not justified to suggest that the Farāhī School is inconsistent in its standards, and unscholarly in
its approach?

It is evident from the discussion above that Ġāmidī’s essay holds no scholarly merit. His thesis is shown to be flawed and
arguments but few, clearly not in support of any of his claims. Qur'ān and Qirā'ah are two different terms and a distinction

82
Ibid.
83
And it was only Ǧibrīl who brought the seven Āḥruf to the Prophet (saw). Cfr: Jami` at-Tirmidhi, 2944; Sunan an-Nasa'i, 939, Sahih
Muslim, 821a.
84
Ibid.
85
Cfr. Ġāmidī’s own quotation of Az-Zarkašī about ’Arḍa al-Akhīra.
86
For example in matters of punishment for apostasy, for drinking alcohol, for committing adultery etc., on which the school holds
radically different opinions? The verdict of scholars in these matters has also reached us through tradition, passed on from one
generation to another, through mass transmission!
 Cheema, Muhammad Yahya | 15

should be made between the two: the variant readings of the Qur'ān are what authenticate it as the final Word of God and
we would have no basis for this claim if we do away with the canonical tradition of Ten Qirā'āt. The variant readings
were surely not a later concoction, as has been demonstrated through the discussions on the Ḥadīṯ of Seven Āḥruf, and
through exposing the red herrings and non sequitur arguments that Ġāmidī brings to the table in a pseudo-scholarly
fashion. Finally The School’s bāṭinī exegesis is demonstrated to be incorrect and against any established traditions of
Islam.
 Cheema, Muhammad Yahya | 16

Works Cited
Albānī, abu ‘Abdurraḥmān Muḥammad Nāṣir ad-Dīn al-. Ṣilsila Al-Aḥadīṯ as-Ṣaḥiḥa. 1st ed. 6 vols.
Riyadh, KSA: Maktaba al Ma’arif, 1996.
Asqalānī, abu al-Faḍl Aḥmad bin ’Alī bin Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin Ḥaǧar al-’. Taqrīb uṯ-Tahḏīḅ. 1st
ed. Syria: Dar ur-Rašīd, 1987.
Bahraini, Farid al-. “A Critique of Shady Nasser’s Treatment of the Ḥadīth of Seven Aḥruf”, January 1,
2020. https://www.academia.edu/44605621/
Bāqilānī, al-Qaḍi abu-Bakr. Al-Intiṣār Lil-Qur’ān. 1st ed. 2 vols. Beirut, Lebanon: Dar ibn-Ḥazam, 2001.
Dutton, Yasin. ‘Orality, Literacy and the ‘Seven Āḥruf” Ḥadīth’. Journal of Islamic Studies 23, no. 1
(1 January 2012): 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1093/jis/etr092.
Ġāmidī, Jāvēd Aḥmad. ‘Variant Readings’. In Selected Essays of Jāvēd Aḥmad Ġāmidī, translated by Dr.
Shehzad Saleem, 12–16. Al-Mawrid, 2015.
https://www.javedahmedghamidi.org/#!/books/5aa954f7b6705dbd7ccbf6a0?chapterNo=4.
Ḥazam, abu Muḥammad bin ’Alī bin ’Aḥmad bin Sa’īd ibn-. Marātib Al-Iǧmā’ fil-’Ibādāt
wal-Mu’amalāt wal-I’tiqadāt. 1st ed. Beirut, Lebanon: Dar ibn-Ḥazam, 1998.
Ja’far, Dr. Abd al-Ġufūr Maḥmūd Mustafa. Al-Qur'ān wal-Qirā'āt wal-Āḥruf as-Sab’aht. 1st ed. Cairo,
Egypt: Dar as-Salam, 2008.
Jazarī, Abu al-Khỳr Šamsuddīn Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn ’Alī ibn Yūsuf al-.
an-Našr Fī al-Qirāʼāt al-ʻAšr. 2 vols. Beirut, Lebanon: Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah, n.d.
Khatib, Ammar, and Nazir Khan. “The Origins of the Variant Readings of the Qur'ān.” Yaqeen Institute
for Islamic Research, July 2020.
https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/paper/the-origins-of-the-variant-readings-of-the-quran.
Khatīb, Dr. Abdullatīf al-. Mo’ǧam al-Qirā'āt. 10 vols. Damascus, Syria: Dar Sa’d-ud-Din, 2000.
Mo’ǧam Mustalihat al-Ulum as-Shar’iỳỳah. 2nd ed. 4 vols. Riyadh, KSA: Maktaba al-Malik Fahad,
2017.
Mujāhid, Abu Bakr Aḥmad ibn Mūsa ibn al-’Abbas ibn-. Kitāb as-Saba’ fil-Qirā'āt . Egypt: Dar al-
Ma’arif, 1979.
Nasser, Shady. The Second Canonization of the Qurʾān (324/936): Ibn Mujāhid and the Founding of the
Seven Readings. Brill, 2020.
Naššār, abu Ḥafs Siraǧuddīn 'Umar bin Zainuddīn Qasim ibn Muḥammad bin ʾAlī al Ansāri an-.
al-Budūr uz-Zahirā fil Qirā'āt al-ʻAšr al Mutawātirah. 2 vols. Beirut, Lebanon: ’Alim al Kutub,
2000.
Qaỳsī, Makkī bin Abī Ṭālib al-. al-Ibānah ʿan Maʿānī al-Qirāʾāt. Egypt: Dār Nahḍaht Miṣr, 1977.
Saleem, Dr. Shehzad. History of the Quran - A Critical Study. Lahore, Pakistan: Al-Mawrid, 2019.
Kindle.
https://www.amazon.com/History-Quran-Critical-Shehzad-Saleem-ebook/dp/B086QPNWZZ
Šāfi’ī, Abu Abdullah bin Idrīs bin al-Abbīs bin 'Uṯmān bin Safe’ bin Abdul Muṭṭalib bin Abd Munāf ash-.
ar-Risālah. 1st ed. Egypt: Maktaba al Halabi, 1940.
Saǧistānū, abu Bakr bin abi Dawūd ‘Abdullah bin Sūlỳmān as-. Kitāb Al-Maṣāḥif. 1st ed. Cairo, Egypt:
al-Fārooq al Ḥadīṯah, 2002.
Shakokānī, Aḥmad Ismā’īl, and Saleh 'Uṯmān Al-Luḥam, eds. Mo’ǧam Asami Ar-Ruwat Alladheen
Tarjama Lahum al-Allama Muḥammad Nasir-Ud-Din Albani Jarhan wa Ta’deelan. 1st ed. 4 vols.
Beirut, Lebanon: Dar ibn-Ḥazam, 2000.
Sindī, Dr. ’abdul Qaỳỳum ’abdul Ġafoor abu Tāhir as-. Ṣafẖʼāt fi ’Uloom al-Qirā'āt. 1st ed. Makkah tul
Mukarramah, KSA: Maktabah al-Imdadiỳỳah, 1994.
 Cheema, Muhammad Yahya | 17

Suỳỳutī, ‘Abdurraḥmān bin Abi Bakr Jalāluddin as-. Al-Itqān Fi ‘Ulum Al-Qur'ān. 4 vols. Egypt: ‫الهيئة‬
‫( المصرية العامة للكتاب‬General Egyptian Book Organisation), 1974.
Ṭāsān, Muḥammad bin ʿAbd ul-Raḥmān bin Muḥammad at-. al-Masāḥif al-Manṣuba lil-Ṣaḥābah
wa-al-Radd ʿalā shubuhat al-Muthāra Ḥauliha. 1st ed. Riyadh, KSA: Dar al-Tadmuriyyah, 2012.
Taỳmiỳỳah, Taqīuddin abu al-’Abbas Abdullah bin abi Qasim bin Muḥammad ibn-. Muqaddimah fi
Usool at-Tafsīr. Beirut, Lebanon: Dar Maktabah al-Ḥaỳāẗ, 1980.
Ṭuḥan, abu Ḥafs Maḥmood bin Aḥmad bin Maḥmood al-. Tỳsīr Musṭaliḥ al-Hadiṯ. 10th ed. Riyadh,
KSA: Maktaba al Ma’arif, 2004.
Qathāmi, Dr. Nasir bin Saud bin Hamud al-. ‘al-‘Ardah al-Akhirah: Dalatuha wa Athariha’. Majallah
Ma’hd al-imām as-Shatibi lid-Dirasaat al-Qur'āniyyah 8, no. 15 (May 2013): 13–69.
Qattan, Dr. Manna’ bin Khalil al-. Mabahith Fi U’loom al Qur'ān. 3rd ed. Beirut, Lebanon: Maktaba al
Ma’arif, 2000.
--------. Nuzul Al Quran ’Ala Sab’a Āḥruf. 1st ed. Cairo, Egypt: Maktaba Wahbah, 1991.
U’qaỳli, abu Ja’far Muḥammad bin A’mr bin Musa bin Hammad al-. ad-Ḍu’afā al-Kabīr. 1st ed. 4 vols.
Beirut, Lebanon: al-Maktaba al-I’lmiyyah, 1984.
Zarkashī, Abū Abdullāh Badr ad-Dīn Mohammed bin Abdullah bin Bahādir az-. al-Burhan fi Ulum
al-Qur'ān. 4 vols. Beirut, Lebanon: Dar ul-Ma’rifa, 1957.
Zurqanī, Muḥammad abdul Azīm az-. Manahil ul-’Irfān fi ’Uloom al-Qur'ān. 3rd ed. 2 vols. Cairo,
Egypt: Maktaba ’Eēsa al-Bābi al-Ḥalabī wa Šurakahu, 1943.
 Cheema, Muhammad Yahya | 18

Works Consulted

Al Mawrid Hind. Why Do You Reject Hadith | Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, 2016. YouTube Video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wYiOdR4ePI.
Baġdadī, abdul-Qahir bin Tahir al-. Al-Farq Baỳn al-Firaq. Lebanon: al-Maktaba al-A’sarỳỳah, 2004.
Farid Responds. Exposing Harvard Professor Shady Hekmat Nasser, 2021. YouTube Video.
https://youtu.be/SRvc6YARzRY.
Ghamidi Center Of Islamic Learning. Kia Rasool Allah Nay HADEES Ki HIFAZAT Ka Ahtamam Kiya -
Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, 2022. YouTube Video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z2nnWCpHa8.
---------. Kya Sirf QURAN Aur SUNNAT Deen Kay Sources Hain - Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, 2022.
YouTube Video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5Gpf3MOzig.
Hajir, Jamāl bin Muḥammad bin Aḥmad. Al-Qur’āniỳỳun al-Ārab Wa Muaqqafihim Min at-Tafsīr. 1st ed.
Jeddah, KSA: Dār ut-Tafsīr, 2015.
“History of the Quran by Dr Shehzad Saleem - YouTube.” Accessed April 23, 2022. YouTube Playlist.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBlLCVQiApQ2rDFSXx2agObVSuob98Ejc.
Ilahi-Baksh, Khadim Husaỳn. Al-Qur’āniỳỳun Wa Shubuhatuhum Ḥawl as-Sunnah. 2nd ed. Kigdom of
Saudi Arabia: Maktaba as-Siddiq, 2000.
Javed Ahmad Ghamidi Short Clips. Are There Multiple Versions of QURAN ?? | Mulhideen & 7 Qirat Ki
Haqeeqat | By Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, 2020.YouTube Video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh5FiiCi-R0.
Mufti Abu Layth. Dr. Shehzad Saleem | the Preservation of the Quran & the Problem of Qira’at |
MindTrap with Mufti#26, 2020. YouTube Video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2BcGWatU5g.
onmirza. Islamic System - Dr Israr Ahmed vs Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, 2020. YouTube Video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZmbTvkTCgE.
Shaharstānī, abu al-Fataẖ Muḥamman bin abdul-Karīm as-. Al-Milal Wan-Niḥal. 2nd ed. Beirut,
Lebanon: Dar Al Kotob Al Ilmỳỳah, 1992.
Suỳỳuti, Abdurrahman bin Abi Bakr Jalaluddin as-. Miftaḥ Ul-Ǧannah fil-Iḥtiǧāǧ bis-Sunnah. 1st ed.
Beirut, Lebanon: Dar Al Kotob Al Ilmỳỳah, 1987.
 Cheema, Muhammad Yahya | 19

Figures and Images

Figure 1. The Birmingham Quran manuscript radiocarbon dated to between 568 and 645 CE (source:
Wikipedia)