This is in response to Dina Zoubi / Arabi Bin Qahtan's letter at the end of the first part of this correspondence.
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 97 From: email@example.com (Newton) To: yasmeen@IDT.NET Subject: *in* or *inna* ? Dear 'Arabi bn Qahtan Thank you for your recent reply regarding error 3. I agree with you that according to the present reading that would not be an error, except that we have the following in favour of considering it an error. I am sure you are aware when the Qur'an was first written, the words were written without the fatha, dummah etc. This took place later on. The question now what was the original reading? Was it *in* or *inna*? I contend that it was inna from the following evidence: 1. My evidence comes from the testimony of Sheikh "Abi al_Baqa' 'AbdAllah Ibn al-Husein Ibn 'Abd Allah al-Ka'bari in his book "Imlaa' Ma Manna Behi Arr-hamaan min wojouh al-I'raab wal-Qeraa'at fi Jamee' al-Qur'an" (Dar al_Hadith, Cairo, 1961). This work is a reproduction of his work first published (538-616 H). Sheikh Abi al_Baqa' al-Ka'bari was one of the best Arabic scholars in his time . This man is not an avarage scholar, for apart from his work on parsing the Qur'an in the above work, he also undertook the task of parsing al-Hamasa poetry and even parsing the Hadith in his work Kitab I'rab al-Hadith that is to mention three of his 8 (eight) works on some branch of the Arabic language. This great Muslim scholar wrote on page 123 of part 2: "Qawlohu ta'ala (inna hazaini)". yoqra' be-tashdeed inna wa bel yaa' fi hazain wa heya 'alamat an-nasb. Wa yoqra' inna bet-tashdeed wa hazani bel-'alef ..." The word of the Mosthigh, "inna hazaini" is read by stressing the "n" (that is "inna") and by the sound "yeh" in "hazaini" and the "yeh is the sign of the accusative mode. It is also read by stressing "n" and by the sound "a" in haz-a-ni. He then went on to explore a couple of possibilities under this reading (Inna hazani) but concluded that both readings were weak. BUT so far he chose "inna" for both readings "hazaini" and "hazani". Then he went on "wa yoqra' *in* betakhfif" (deluted form of inna) ... and this reading is also weak in authority. (i) Please note that Shikh Abi al_Baqa' al-Ka'bari stated that in the first two readings "inna" toqra' be-tashdeed, "inna" thus stressing the "n". And hence he found it to be a grammatical error and he had no difficulty discarding "inna hazan" by stating that QAWLOHU TA"ALA is (a) "inna" and (b) "hazain". (ii) Shikh Abi al_Baqa' al-Ka'bari was aware of other possibilities and the possibility of "in" almokhafafah (deluted form of inna) but he rejected this reading of "in" as weak (da'eef). Da'eef is hardly a description of the famous reading. 2. Razi (544-604 H) stated that: "The famous reading is "inna hazani lasaheran". But some have rejected this reading. Other posibilities were mentioned by Razi. First: qara' 'Abou 'Amr wa 'Isa bn 'Amr (inna hazaini lasaheran) they argued that this was the reading of 'Uthman's, 'Aa'isha, Ibn az-Zubeir, Sa'eed bn Gabeer, and al-Hasan" (R.A.'A). 'Abou 'Amr wa 'Isa argued that Hisham bn 'Awra 'an abieh 'an 'Aa'isha (R.A.'A) that she was asked concerning (Inna hazani lasaheran) and as-sabe'ouna in Q. 5:69 and al-moqimiin in Q. 4:162. She replied: "O son of my brother, this is an error from the scribe." And it is reported 'an 'Uthman that he looked at the Mushaf and said I see mistakes (lahnan) in it but the Arabs will correct it with their tongues. And 'an Abi 'Amr that he said "I would be embarrassed to read 'inna hazan lasaheran'" (see Razi) Why did the readings of all the above mentioned people contain "hazain" instead of "hazan"? The only reason is that it was preceeded by "inna" not "in". Had it been "in" all the above mentioned people would have read it "hazan" and no dispute would have arisen. Indeed Abi 'Amr said "I would be embarrassed to read 'inna hazan lasaheran' ". Why? If it was "in" there would be nothing to be embarrassed about. But because it was "inna" he was embarrassed to read "inna hazan... ." 3. Razi then went on to mention other posibilities to harmonise "in/inna" and "hazani". So he mentioned that Ibn Kathir read it with "in" (betakhfif "inna") (deluted form of inna) and Ibn Mas'oud read "an hazan saheran" and Abi Ka'b read "ma hazan illa saheran..." BUT then he summed up all these readings as these are the ABNORMAL readings of that verse. (emphasis mine) In other words according to Razi both "hazaini" and "in" al mokhafafa are abnormal readings (qera'ah shazah). So what is left is "inna hazani" as the famous reading. I repeat if it had been "in hazan" no dispute over that verse would have arisen at all. 4. My fourth piece of evidence that it was "inna" comes from the commentry of Imam Tabari (224-310 H). This is the mother of all commentries and the earliest and closest to the source. Tabari wrote: "qad ikhtalafat al-qorra' fi qera'at qawlehi "inna hazani lasaherani" faqara'at-ho 'aamat qorra' al-'amsar inna hazani betashdeed inna wa bel-'alef fi hazani..." 'The readers differed in the reading (recitation) of inna hazani lasaherani. The masses of readers everywhere read it "inna hazani" by stressing the "n" in "inna" and by the "a" sound in haz-a-ni...' According to Tabari's statement "inna" almoshadadah is the famous reading as Razi stated earlier. And remember Tabari was also aware of the reading of "in". Yet his statement is clear: "the populace of readers read it as "inna". But that is not all. Tabari continues: "Qal abu Ja'far wa as-sawab min al-qera'eati fi zaleka 'endana inna betashdeed nouneha wa hazani bel-'alef le'ijmaa' al-hojja min al-qorraa' 'aliah wa 'innahu kazalik howa fi khat al-Mus-haf." "Abu Ga'far said, 'the correct reading in our opinion is "inna" with stressed "n" [you can actually see the shaddah over the "n" in the text] and "hazani" with the "a" sound of "haz-a-ni" because of the consensus of the authoritative proof from the readers on that reading and that it is so written in the Mus-haf." Here is a testimony before the year 310 H that the famous (mashour) reading is "inna hazani". And that IT IS SO WRITTEN IN THE MUS-HAF. If it were not written so in the Mus-haf, Imam Tabari would have denied such testimony and corrected it as you did mine when I wrote "inna" but it is written "in" in the Masahef now. According to Shikh Abi al_Baqa' al-Ka'bari (538-616 H) and Imam Razi (544-604) the reading of "in" is both "da'eef" and "shaz" that is weak and abnormal. And according to the evidence supplied by Imam Tabari "inna" is the famous reading everywhere and that it is thus written in the Mus-haf. But true to 'Uthman's words: 'I see grammatical errors in it [the Qur'an], and the Arabs will read it correctly', the Arabs did even more than correct it with their tongues. They have changed "inna" to "in" by the means of ink on paper. Abu Ja'far's testimony that IT IS SO WRITTEN IN THE MUS-HAF is a clear proof that the present Masahef have been changed to cover up that error in the Qur'an. Rewriting history is bad enough.... Let us now consider some undeniable facts: 1. Both Tabari and "Abu Ga'far testified that 'the correct reading in our opinion is "inna" with stressed "n". You can actually see the shaddah over the "n" in the text in Tabari's commentery and that it is so written in the Mus-haf. 2. We have ample evidence from Sheikh Abi al_Baqa' al-Ka'bari, Razi and Tabari that inna is the famous reading. And that this reading is attested to by 'Aa'isha and 'Uthman. So both the famous early recitations everywhere and the early copies of al-Mushaf with Abu Ja'far and Tabari had "inna" not "in". It is undeniable that the preservation of the text of the Qur'an depended almost entirely on the reciters. And remember the Qur'an is a recitation before it became written. Razi refused to accept the abnormal readings of "in" and "hazain", why? He said that if we change it that will permit addition, subtraction and change in the Qur'an and that will stop the Qur'an being authoratative (hujjah). Also if we judged this reading "inna hazani" to be wrong considering that the transmission of this reading (inna hazani) is just as famous as the transmission of the Qur'an itself, then this will apply to the whole of the Qur'an and thus we will be slandering "tawater" and in turn this will slander the whole of the Qur'an. With the above two facts in mind and according to Imam Razi's reasoning, the present copies of the Qur'an are all guilty of this slander. Sincerely, M. Rafiqul-Haqq & P. Newton
Articles by M. Rafiqul-Haqq & P. Newton