Why is Sh Hasan Ali after Shaykh Imran Hosein?
Why is Sh Hasan Ali after Shaykh Imran Hosein?
He has repeatedly done takfir on the Shaykh. He claims that the Shaykh has rejected a word of the Quran (43:61). Why doesn’t he speak clearly? Why the ambiguous statements?
Here is the truth folks:
The Quran is not just a single rigid text. The Quran as we know it today comes with 10 variant readings (Qira’at). For centuries the ulema differentiated between the Quran (the uncreated, eternal speech of Allah swt) and the Qira’at. We find very important Mufassiroon like Imam Tabari (who happens to be the pioneer of the Science of Qira’at), Ibn A’tiyyah and Zamakhshari criticize and even ridicule certain Qira’at that later on were accepted as Mutawattir (unanimously accepted). They use words like ‘ghalat’ (wrong), lahn (grammatical mistake) for Qira’at that are now considered Mutawattir. Read Tafsir Tabari, Al Muharrar of Ibn Atiyyah and Kashaaf.
Moving on. We find the expert and pioneer of the science of Qira’at who compiled 7 famous recitations, Ibn Mujahid also criticize and reject Qiraat that were later considered Mutawattir. Infact he says in his book Sab’ah fil Qira’at that the ulema differed regarding the recitations profusely just like they differed in Fiqh and ahkam. Meaning that the classical scholars considered the issue of Qiraat to be an ijtihadi/fiqhi issue. You cannot criticize something which is divine. The fact that they are vehemently criticized and rejected certain Qira’at proves that they did not consider them to be divine and infallible.
Ibn A’tiyyah writes in his Muharrar al wajiz 1/48) that the seven readings originated due to the “ijtihad of the Qurra (recitors)” from the Uthmanic text based on the narrations that reached them.
Moving on, even the Qurra themselves, the people who have transmitted the Quran to us criticize the Qira’at of each other and do so vehemently. Abu Amr ibn A’la (one of the Mutawattir recitors) objected to the reading of Hamza (another mutawattir recitor) in 18:44 of “hunalika al wilayatu” and “maa lakum min wilayatihim” (8:72) as opposed to the common al walayatu and walayatihim. He regarded it as lahn (mistake). (AI Nashr fil Qira’at al A’shr, 2:277; AI Bahr al Muhit, 6:130) Take note of the work “mistake”.
Moving on. Ibn Jazari, the giant of Qira’at Sciences who compiled and popularized the 10 mutawattir recitations changed his opinion regarding whether the Qira’at meet the standards of Mutawattirah. He said that even if a Qira’ah isnt mutawattir but it has a sound chain of transmission, it is correct. He also considered A’mash (the recitor) to be popular and authoritative. The Qira’ah that Sh Imran Hosein chooses for 43:61 is by A’mash and it has a strong chain of transmission from Abdullah ibn Abbas. Then why the issue?
Ibn Taymiyyah writes how the Qira’at were NOT recited by the Prophet (saw) himself, but he ALLOWED the sahaba to recite differently.
It is a fact of history that one of the Mutawattir Qari, Hamzah Zayyaat was greatly disliked by Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal and his recitation was considered a ‘bid’ah’ for 100 years because he repeatedly does Imalah (A to E transition, so while we read Wa Dhuhaa, he reads Wa Dhuhayy). This is one of the Mutawattir recitations that has been vehemently criticized by emminent scholars. Read Dhahabi’s Siyar Alam an Nubala and Ibn Hajar Tahdhib.
Thus we conclude that the classical ulema considered the issue of Qiraat to be an ijtihadi issue that was open to debate and the rejection of a Qira’at did not imply the rejection of the Quran. WHy? Because the classical ulema differentiated between the Qiraat and the Quran. You cannot criticize the divine. The Quran is divine and infallible whereas the Qiraat are a human effort to approach the divine. Thus they didn’t have any problem in criticising/rejecting Qira’at. Sh Imran’s approach is in line with them.
It was only after the 15th century that scholars refused any debate on the Qiraat. This is a fact of history. The notion of viewing the variant readings to be divine is a later development not an early imperative.
Note that the great early scholars who vehemently criticized/rejected certain Mutawattir Qira’at also believed that the Quran is 100 % preserved and protected. They were not heretics but the best of our scholars. But clearly we can see that their notion of preservation is different.
The Quran is preserved 100%. Shaykh Imran Hosein has never said that the Quran has a mistake. No. Anyone who says that, is lying.
Sh Imran Hosein like the classical ulema is critical of a Qira’ah and prefers another Qira’ah in its place, just like classical scholarship. What are his reasons? Same as that of classical ulema. Why did the classical ulema reject certain Qira’at?
When they felt that a particular reading is not appropriate and fitting well with the overall scheme/grammar and context of the Quran, they rejected it and chose a different one from the pool of other readings. In the same way Sh Imran considers that the reading of Hafs a’n Asim for 43:61 is not coherent with the Quran and creates ambiguity. Thus he chooses the Qira’ah that is in harmony with the rest of the Quran as the Quran has no contradictions. His reasons are completely Quranic and his action is in line with the methodology of the classical scholarship.
So if Hasan Ali wants to do takfir on Sh Imran, let him be consistent and first do takfir on Imam Tabari, Ibn A’tiyya, Ibn Muhahid, Imam Ahmed, Shu’bah, Abu A’mr and the list is really long. Because all these ulema have openly criticized/rejected mutawattir Qira’at. This is a fact of history and the texts are witness to it.
May Allah humiliate those who try to defame and humiliate other Muslims and obstruct Da’wah efforts. Shaykh Hasan Ali and the Shaykh from Hanafi Fiqh Channel etc need to stop this takfiri movement against their fellow Muslim. The Prophet (saw) warned us against this dangerous attitude of calling each other kafir when he said that the one who does takfir on a Muslim has become kafir himself. Please pay heed.
