Variant Readings Of Quran: Invalid Reference Used In Book Meezan?
From where have you concluded that this is talking about order of Quran only and not the Qirat? because there is no such segregation made in the original statement itself. Because when something is being read, it logically conveys both the sequence and the way to read it as well i.e. Qirat. If prophet Muhammad (sws) read it twice in his last year, then it means the same was propagated w.r.t both the sequence and Qirat by Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Zayd ibn Thabit and all the Muhajirun and the Ansar.
Dear Umer Quraishi, I am raising that question based on the context of the statement in Burhan. I had attached the page and also referenced the video. I am attaching it again with some highlighting this time. Note that the green box is the reference that Ghamidi sahib has used in the book. The text just before that is talking about ‘tarteeb un nazool’ being different than ‘tarteeb ut tilawah’ and that the sahaba agreed upon that order. Following that al-Zarkashi brought this reference from Abu Abd Rahman asSalamah. However, in that reference the last sentence is not copied over in the book “Meezan”. That is continuing the statement and saying that “it is the same what Abu Bakr adapted in his collection and then Usman put in a mushuf by Usman. I understand one reason this might have been omitted in Meezan because Ghamidi sahib takes a stance that the Prophet himself had collected the Quran in a mushuf form. However, it also points the fact that the reference is about the order of the aayats as mushuf can not preserve the ‘qirat’, but only the order. If we continue on the page that I attached.. after the reference from Abu Abd Rahman, the next line is talking about ‘jum-ul Quran’. It is this context that leads me to raise the question that al-Zarkashi in this section of his book is talking about the order of Quran, not the specific pronunciation and rules of tilawat. If only looking at the partial statement that Ghamidi sb has quoted in Meezan, one can infer that it may also mean that ‘qirat’ is also covered by the statement but the context doesn’t allow it. Jazak Allah for your time and attention
The reference clearly uses the words: ‘Tarteeb-ul-Tilawah’ and ‘Qirat-ul-Aama’, and these are well known words for Qirat which is being read and referred to as ‘Arza-e-Akhira’. Secondly, it is true that Ghamidi Sahab is of view that Quran was available in a book form even during the lifetime of the Prophet (sws), however, he never holds it as a primary source of transmission, the primary source of perpetual transmission was Qirat done by the Prophet (sws) himself; b ecause when something is being read, it logically conveys both the sequence and the way to read it as well i.e. Qirat. If prophet Muhammad (sws) read it twice in his last year, then it means the same was propagated w.r.t both the sequence and Qirat by Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Zayd ibn Thabit and all the Muhajirun and the Ansar; a nd the same Qirat was later perpetually transmitted from generation after generation till this day. And the same Qirat was given a physical form by Hazrat Uthman (rta) when the need arose to disseminate Qirat-ul-Aama to settle the differences that arose because of many different Qirats. But if you still think that this criticism of Dr. Zubair holds any merit, please feel free to register for next AG live session with Ghamidi Sahab to ask him this question personally: Discussion 57612