False reports than attribute some linguistic errors to the Holy Qur’an
Question

                I came across these reports regarding the compilation of the Mus-haf of ‘Uthmaan: It was narrated that after reviewing the first copy of the Qur’an. ‘Uthmaan said: I see some linguistic errors in it, but the Arabs will recite it in the correct manner, because it was revealed in their language. Then after that it was said that Ibn al-Khateeb, who mentioned the above report in his book al-Furqaan, mentioned another report from ‘Aa’ishah, according to which one of the wives of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: There are three linguistic errors in the Qur’an, such as when Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“They said: Verily! these are two magicians [inna haadhaani la saahiraan]. Their object is to drive you out from your land…”

[Taa-Haa 20:63]

“Surely, those who believe (in the Oneness of Allah, in His Messenger Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and all that was revealed to him from Allah), those who are the Jews and the Sabians [wa’s-saabi’oona] and the Christians, - whosoever believed in Allah and the Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve”

[al-Maa’idah 5:69]

“But those among them who are well-grounded in knowledge, and the believers, believe in what has been sent down to you (Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)) and what was sent down before you, and those who perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah) wa’l-muqeemeena as-salaata wa’l-mu’toona az-zakaata wa’l-mu’minoona Billaah…], and give Zakaah and believe in Allah and in the Last Day, it is they to whom We shall give a great reward”

[an-Nisa’ 4:162].

I read a refutation of the specious arguments in the book Qiraa’aat al-Qur’an, by Ahmad ‘Ali al-Imam, but I think that this argument was fabricated by some Christian missionaries. I would like you to shed some light on whether these reports are sound or not.
Praise be to Allah.
	When answering 
	this question, we cannot hide our extreme astonishment that this specious 
	argument was accepted by some researchers and educated people. In fact we 
	cannot hide our astonishment at how anyone could let this specious argument 
	confuse him in the first place, not only because the Muslims should accept 
	the infallibility of the Qur’an because Allah promised to preserve it, but 
	also because we see that this specious argument has no sound rational or 
	logical basis.

	We may sum up 
	our refutation of this argument in the following points:

	I.

	We should 
	realise that the rules of grammar are only based on the styles of expression 
	that have been transmitted to us from the eras that are regarded as 
	authoritative, and there is no difference of opinion among linguists 
	concerning the fact that the era of Prophethood is one of the authoritative 
	eras. Any word narrated soundly to us (from that era) constitutes a valid 
	linguistic proof; rather it is valid to be accepted as forming a foundation 
	for some rule of Arabic grammar.

	II.

	To clarify that 
	further, we may say: is it valid for a researcher to quote some lines of 
	verse from Imru’ul-Qays that the scholars narrated from him, and there is no 
	doubt concerning its narration, then think that there is some grammatical or 
	linguistic error in his view, and thus conclude that Imru’ul-Qays made some 
	grammatical errors in his poetry?!

	Is that not 
	undermining the foundation on which the rules of grammar are based, and 
	demolishing this entire branch of knowledge itself? So how about if some 
	ignorant person concluded that there is a linguistic or grammatical mistake 
	in the Holy Qur’an, when the noble Sahaabah and Taabi‘een transmitted the 
	Qur’an during the authoritative era and during the time when everyone spoke 
	correct Arabic (fus-ha), and in fact the scholars, grammarians and people of 
	eloquence recited the Qur’an and transmitted it, without anyone among them 
	raising any objection, with a few exceptions with regard to some modes of 
	recitation that did not reach some grammarians via chains of transmission 
	that reached the level of tawaatur.

	Is it not the 
	case that this ignorant person is more deserving of criticism and being 
	described as mistaken than the pure Arabs, on whose speech the rules of the 
	language are based?

	III.

	If we reflect 
	upon the verses in which they think there was a mistake, we will realise 
	that they are in fact in harmony with some known grammatical rules, and that 
	his thinking that there is a mistake in those verses is very far-fetched.

	As-Suyooti (may 
	Allah have mercy on him) said:

	The scholars of 
	Arabic language spoke about these verses, and they found an explanation for 
	their grammatical structure.

	As for the verse 
	(interpretation of the meaning), “Verily! 
	these are two magicians [inna haadhaani la saahiraan]” 
	[Taa-Haa 20:56], there are several explanations:

	1.
	
	It is in 
	accordance with a dialect in which the dual form always appears with the 
	alif [i.e., -aani rather than –ayni] in all three cases [nominative 
	(subject), accusative (object) and genitive (possessive)]. This is the 
	well-known dialect of Kinaanah and, it was said, of Banu’l-Haarith.

	2.
	
	The subject of
	inna (translated here as Verily), which is omitted, is in the 
	accusative [in accordance with grammatical rules], so the sentence is 
	subject and predicate, the predicate of inna.

	3.
	
	What is meant by
	inna is kadhaalika (moreover). The word saahiraan (two 
	magicians) is the predicate of a hidden [or omitted] subject [and therefore 
	appears in the nominative form, in accordance with the rules of Arabic 
	grammar]. The implied meaning is: they are indeed two magicians.

	4.
	
	What is meant by
	inna in this instance is “Yes”.

	5.
	
	The first 
	syllable of the word haadhaani [these two] is a pronoun, and the 
	words “dhaani la saahiraan” are the subject and predicate of inna. 
	But we have explained above that this is not possible, because inna 
	is written on its own and the syllable haa- is connected to the rest of its 
	word, therefore the way it is written in the Mus-haf does not allow this 
	interpretation.

	I – that is, 
	as-Suyooti – say: It seems to me that there is another possible explanation, 
	which is that the reason why the alif is used here is so as to make the word
	saahiraan rhyme with the word yureedaan (they [dual form] 
	want). A 
	similar example is seen in the words “and 
	I have come to you from Saba' (Sheba) with true news [min sabaa’in bi 
	nabaa’in]” 
	[an-Naml 27:22].
	

	With regard to 
	the words “and 
	those who perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah) wa’l-muqeemeena as-salaata” 
	[an-Nisa’ 4:162], there are also several explanations for it:

	1.
	
	It is 
	disconnected from the context, as if it is saying: And I praise… – because 
	that is more eloquent.

	2.
	
	It is connected 
	to the phrase “believe 
	in what has been sent down to you” 
	that is, and they believe in those who perform as-Salaah [the prayer], 
	namely the Prophets or, it was said, the angels. It was said that what is 
	meant is that they believe in the religion of those who perform the prayer, 
	so what is meant thereby is the Muslims.

	3.
	
	It is connected 
	to the word “before”, that is, before you and before those who perform the 
	prayer.

	4.
	
	It is connected 
	to the pronoun “you” in the phrase “before 
	you”.

	5.
	
	It is connected 
	to the pronoun “you” in the phrase “to 
	you”.

	6.
	
	It is connected 
	to the pronoun “them” in the phrase “among 
	them”.

	These 
	possibilities were narrated by Abu’l-Baqa’.

	With regard to 
	the words “and 
	the Sabians [wa’s-saabi’oona]” [al-Maa’idah 5:69], 
	there are also several interpretations:

	1.
	
	It is a subject 
	of which the predicate is omitted; in other words, and the Sabians are also 
	like that.

	2.
	
	It is connected 
	to the particle inna and the word which follows it (alladheena 
	– those who), which together form the subject, and it is the predicate, 
	therefore it appears in the nominative [in accordance with the rules of 
	Arabic grammar]. 

	3.
	
	It is connected 
	to the subject of the verb haadu, which means to be Jewish (“those 
	who are the Jews”).
	

	4.
	Inna 
	here means Yes. So the words “those who believe” and what comes after that 
	are nominative, and the words “and 
	the Sabians [wa’s-saabi’oona]” 
	are connected to that.

	5.
	
	It is like using 
	the plural form when referring to the singular.

	These 
	explanations were narrated from Abu’l-Baqa’.

	End quote from
	al-Itqaan fi ‘Uloom al-Qur’an (1247-1249), ed by Markaz ad-Diraasaat 
	al-Qur’aniyyah.

	We realise that 
	explaining these grammatical possibilities may take a long time, and many 
	readers may not understand them because of their subtlety, but we have 
	quoted them here so that the ignorant ones who try to undermine the Holy 
	Qur’an will realise the extent of their ignorance of Arabic grammar and 
	language, and thus they may know their limits and not go beyond the dictates 
	of sound reasoning.

	IV.

	With regard to 
	the reports narrated from some of the Sahaabah and Taabi‘een about this 
	topic, there are many such reports, which were compiled by al-Haafiz 
	as-Suyooti in his book al-Itqaan fi ‘Uloom al-Qur’an (p. 1236-1257), 
	where he discuss them in detail. We will limit it here to discussing the 
	hadiths mentioned in the question, which were narrated from ‘Aa’ishah and 
	‘Uthmaan (may Allah be pleased with them) concerning this matter.

	The first report 
	was narrated from ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her).

	It was narrated 
	by Hishaam ibn ‘Urwah from his father, who said:

	I asked 
	‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) about the grammatical mistakes in 
	the Qur’an: “Surely, 
	those who believe, those who are the Jews and the Sabians [wa’s-saabi’oona]”
	
	[al-Maa’idah 5:69]; 
	“and those 
	who perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah) wa muqeemeena as-salaata 
	wa’l-mu’toona az-zakaata” [an-Nisa’ 4:162]; 
	and “Verily! 
	these are two magicians [inna haadhaani la saahiraan]” [Taa-Haa 20:63]. 
	She said: O son of my sister, these are the mistakes of the scribes; they 
	made a mistake when writing.

	This report was 
	narrated from Hishaam ibn ‘Urwah by two of the Kufi narrators:

	1.
	
	Abu Mu‘aawiyah 
	ad-Dareer

	It was narrated 
	by Sa‘eed ibn Mansoor in as-Sunan (4/1507, no. 769) with this 
	wording. It was also narrated by Abu ‘Ubayd in Fadaa’il al-Qur’an (p. 
	229, no. 556) and via him by Abu ‘Amr ad-Daani in al-Muqni‘ (p. 119). 
	It was narrated by Ibn Jareer at-Tabari in Jaami‘ al-Bayaan (9/359) 
	and Ibn Abi Dawood in al-Masaahif (p. 43).

	2.
	
	‘Ali ibn Mas-har 
	al-Kufi

	As was narrated 
	by ‘Umar ibn Shubbah with his isnaad in Tareekh al-Madinah 
	(3/1013-1014).

	Such a report 
	that has such an isnaad is not sound. The problem with it is that the 
	critics spoke ill of the reports narrated by Hishaam ibn ‘Urwah himself when 
	he was in Iraq. Even though he was a trustworthy scholar, and in principle 
	what he narrated is to be taken as sound and acceptable, he made a few 
	mistakes that the scholars could notice by examining the text of the hadith 
	and researching other corroborating reports and similar reports. Because in 
	the text of this report there is something that is clearly odd, and there is 
	no corroborating report narrated via any other chain of narrators, we can 
	say that there is a mistake in it.

	Imam adh-Dhahabi 
	(may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

	When he – i.e., 
	Hishaam ibn ‘Urwah – came to Iraq at the end of his life, he taught a great 
	deal of knowledge, but there were a few hadiths that he reported (during 
	that teaching) that were not sound. Such a thing could happen to Maalik, 
	Shu‘bah, Wakee‘ and other trustworthy and prominent scholars.

	End quote from
	Mizaan al-I‘tidaal (4/301). See the annotation of Sunan Sa‘eed ibn 
	Mansoor by Dr. Sa‘d al-Humayd (2/659). See also the commentary by Dr 
	Sa‘d al-Humayd (may Allah preserve him) on this report in his annotation of
	Sunan Sa‘eed ibn Mansoor (4/507-514).

	If someone were 
	to ask: How could al-Bukhaari (may Allah have mercy on him) and Muslim, in 
	their Saheehs, narrate hadiths from Hishaam ibn ‘Urwah from the 
	Iraqis, and narrate from Abu Mu‘aawiyah, yet here you are rejecting them, 
	even though as-Suyooti classed this report as saheeh in al-Itqaan (p. 
	1236) and said that it meets the conditions of the two shaykhs (al-Bukhaari 
	and Muslim)? The answer to that is that we are rejecting this report here 
	because the text is obviously odd. It is unlikely that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah 
	be pleased with her) had not heard these verses with this grammatical 
	structure from the lips of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon 
	him), and thought that the mistakes had occurred at the hands of the scribes 
	of the Holy Qur’an.

	If the critics 
	find something definitely odd in a text, they examine the isnaad, looking 
	for some subtle problem with it because of which this problem occurred in 
	the text. Here the problem is that it is a hadith from Hishaam ibn ‘Urwah 
	when he was in Iraq.

	The second 
	report is narrated from ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan (may Allah be pleased with 
	him).

	It was narrated 
	from him by a number of narrators:

	1.
	
	‘Ikrimah the 
	freed slave of Ibn ‘Abbaas.

	He said: When 
	the Mus-hafs had been written, they were shown to ‘Uthmaan and he found in 
	them some grammatical mistakes, but he said: Do not change them, for the 
	Arabs will change them – or will read them correctly. If the scribe had been 
	from Thaqeef and the one who dictated it had been from Hudhayl, these 
	mistakes would not have occurred.

	Narrated by Abu 
	‘Ubayd in Fadaa’il al-Qur’an (2/103, no. 562); Ibn Abi Dawood in 
	al-Masaahif (1/235, no. 110). They attributed it to as-Suyooti in 
	al-Itqaan (p. 1239); to Ibn al-Anbaari in ar-Radd ‘ala man khaalafa 
	Mus-haf ‘Uthmaan; and to Ibn Ashtah in al-Masaahif – the latter 
	are two lost books. This is a da‘eef (weak) report, because the narration of 
	‘Ikrimah from ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan is mursal, as is his narration from Abu 
	Bakr, ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib and the wives of the Prophet (blessings and peace 
	of Allah be upon him). See: Jaami‘ at-Tahseel (p. 239). Abu ‘Amr 
	ad-Daani clearly stated in al-Muqni‘ (p. 115) that there is an 
	interruption of the chain of narration between ‘Ikrimah and ‘Uthmaan. 
	Moreover, ‘Ikrimah is referred to by Ibn Abi Dawood in al-Masaahif as 
	at-Taa’i and not as the freed slave of Ibn ‘Abbaas, and we have not come 
	across his biography.

	2.
	
	Yahya ibn Ya‘mur

	He said: It was 
	narrated by Ibn Abi Dawood in al-Masaahif (1/233) and Ibn Ashtah in
	al-Masaahif, as as-Suyooti mentioned in al-Itqaan (p. 1240). 
	This is also a mursal report, because it does not seem from the biography of 
	Yahya ibn Ya‘mur that he was a contemporary of ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan (may 
	Allah be pleased with him). See his biography in Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb 
	(11/305). al-Bukhaari deemed it to be munqati‘ in at-Tareekh al-Kabeer 
	(5/170). Moreover, there is some confusion about the isnaad, as sometimes it 
	is narrated from Yahya ibn Ya‘mur from ‘Abdullah ibn Futaybah or ibn Abi 
	Futaymah, and sometimes it is the other way round, so it is narrated from 
	Ibn Futaymah from Yahya ibn Ya‘mur, as in Tareekh al-Madinah 
	(3/1013). Qataadah sometimes narrates from Nasr ibn ‘Aasim from Yahya, and 
	sometimes he narrates from Yahya directly, without mentioning Nasr; or there 
	may be two other narrators between him and Yahya, as in the place referred 
	to above in Tareekh al-Madinah. Al-Baaqillaani pointed out these 
	differences in al-Intisaar li’l-Qur’an (2/136-137).

	3.
	
	‘Abd al-A‘la ibn 
	‘Abdullah ibn ‘Aamir

	It was narrated 
	by Ibn al-Anbaari in ar-Radd ‘ala man khaalafa Mus-haf ‘Uthmaan, as 
	was mentioned by as-Suyooti in al-Itqaan (p. 1240). The biography of 
	‘Abd al-A‘la is in Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (87/6). In the book there is 
	nothing to suggest that any of the scholars regarded him as a sound 
	narrator.

	4.
	
	Qataadah

	It was narrated 
	by Ibn Abi Dawood in al-Masaahif. This version says: When ‘Uthmaan 
	(may Allah be pleased with him) was given the Mus-haf to check it, he said: 
	There are mistakes in it, but the Arabs will recite it correctly. There is 
	some ambiguity in its chain of narration about one of the narrators, because 
	it says: our companions told us.

	From the above 
	it may be understood that the isnaads of this report are not sound, and 
	weakness of the isnaad leads to doubt concerning the texts of the report and 
	regarding the source of those texts.

	V.

	The scholars 
	discussed the way these reports should be understood, as we will highlight 
	here in brief, then follow that with lengthy quotations from the scholars 
	for anyone who wants this benefit.

	1.
	
	The fact that 
	all the Mus-hafs that the Sahaabah had agreed on the way these verses were 
	written, and that all the Muslims agreed on their recitation, generation 
	after generation, proves that there was no grammatical mistake on the part 
	of the scribe. Rather this is how it was heard from the Prophet (blessings 
	and peace of Allah be upon him).

	2.
	
	The fact that 
	the Sahaabah and Taabi‘een were very keen and devoted a great deal of effort 
	to transmitting the Holy Qur’an, and indeed to transmitting details of the 
	Prophet’s Sunnah and serving this religion, offering their souls and their 
	wealth, means that it is not possible for mistakes to have been made by the 
	scribes who wrote down the Holy Qur’an, then for no one after them to have 
	corrected them until the present day.

	3.
	
	It is not 
	possible that ‘Uthmaan (may Allah be pleased with him) could issue orders 
	that copies of the Qur’an be made and distributed to many regions, so as to 
	put an end to disputes between reciters, then leave these mistakes caused 
	the scribes in the Mus-hafs, and not issue orders that they be corrected. 
	Believing that is contrary to sound reasoning.

	4.
	
	It is possible 
	to interpret ‘Uthmaan’s words, when he referred to mistakes, as referring to 
	mistakes in recitation because the way some words are written may be unclear 
	to some people, at some times. Therefore he reassured the people by saying 
	that the Arabs’ understanding of the language would make them correct anyone 
	who made a mistake in reciting the words of the Qur’an. This is how Abu ‘Amr 
	ad-Daani interpreted this report.

	5.
	
	It is also 
	possible to interpret the words of ‘Aa’ishah as meaning that she thought 
	that if other modes of recitation had been chosen (to write the Mus-haf in 
	accordance therewith), that were in accordance with the rules of the Arabic 
	language with which ordinary people were familiar, that would have been 
	better. So her regarding what is written as wrong means that it was 
	different from the recitation that is known and common among the Arabs.

	Ibn Jareer 
	at-Tabari (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

	In the 
	recitation of Ubayy ibn Ka‘b it says: “wa’l-muqeemeena 
	as-salaata (and those who perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah))”
	[an-Nisa’ 4:162]. That is how it was written in his Mus-haf, as some 
	have narrated. If that was a mistake by the scribes, then what must have 
	been the case is that this should have meant that all the other Mus-hafs, 
	apart from our Mus-haf, must have the same mistake, in a manner contrary to 
	what is in our Mus-haf. The fact that our Mus-haf is the same as the Mus-haf 
	of Ubayy proves that what is in our Mus-haf in that regard is correct and is 
	not wrong. Moreover, if that was a mistake in writing, the Companions of the 
	Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), from whom it 
	was learned, would not have taught the Muslims to recite in an incorrect 
	manner, and they would have recited it correctly and would have taught the 
	ummah the correct way of reciting it. The fact that the Muslims transmitted 
	the recitation of these verses in the way they are written is the strongest 
	evidence that what is written is sound and correct, and that there is no 
	mistake on the part of the scribe.

	End quote from
	Jaami‘ al-Bayaan (9/397). See also: al-Kashshaaf by 
	az-Zamakhshari (1/590).

	Abu ‘Amr 
	ad-Daani (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

	If someone were 
	to ask: What do you say about the report that they narrated from Yahya ibn 
	Ya‘mur and ‘Ikrimah the freed slave of Ibn ‘Abbaas from ‘Uthmaan (may Allah 
	be pleased with him), that when copies were made of the Qur’an, they were 
	shown to him and he found some grammatical mistakes in them, but he said: 
	Leave it, for the Arabs will be able to recite it correctly – and this 
	indicates that there were some mistakes in the writing?

	I say: This 
	report, in our view, cannot be raised to the level of constituting proof, 
	and it is not valid to quote it as evidence, on two counts:

	Firstly: in 
	addition to the flaws in its isnaad and the problems with its wording, it is 
	also mursal, because Ibn Ya‘mur and ‘Ikrimah did not hear anything from 
	‘Uthmaan and did not see him.

	Also, the 
	apparent meaning of the wording cannot have been said by ‘Uthmaan (may Allah 
	be pleased with him), because this report implies criticism of him, and how 
	could that criticism be valid when he is known to have attained a high level 
	of religious leadership, a high status of service to Islam, great sincerity 
	towards the ummah and great efforts to do that which is in the best 
	interests of the Muslims? It is not possible that he could have compiled the 
	Mus-haf with the help of other righteous Sahaabah, so as to put an end to 
	differences concerning the Qur’an among them, then despite that leave in it 
	grammatical mistakes so that someone else (after he was gone) would have to 
	take on the task of changing it, who would no doubt not be able to reach his 
	calibre or level of knowledge. This is something that no one could accept 
	(because it does not make sense), and it is not permissible for anyone to 
	believe it.

	If he were to 
	ask: 

	How can you 
	understand the report if it was soundly narrated from ‘Uthmaan (may Allah be 
	pleased with him)?

	I say:

	The way we may 
	understand it is that what ‘Uthmaan (may Allah be pleased with him) meant by 
	the grammatical mistakes mentioned is mistakes in recitation, not in the way 
	it was written, because in many places in the Qur’an, if the words were to 
	be recited as they were written, that would give the opposite meaning and 
	would change the wording. Do you not see the verses in which it says: 
	“la adhbahannahu (I 
	will surely …slaughter him)” [an-Naml 27:21], “min naba’ il-mursaleen (the 
	information (news) about the Messengers)” [al-An‘aam 6:34], 
	and other examples in which an additional alif, yaa or waw appears in the 
	way it is written. Anyone who recites these words who is not familiar with 
	how they are usually written will add to the pronunciation something that is 
	not part of it, so he will have made a mistake that is clear to anyone who 
	hears him, even though the way it is written is valid and was common. So 
	when he realised that, ‘Uthmaan (may Allah be pleased with him) said that 
	whoever is not familiar with the way of writing (some particular words) and 
	does not have knowledge of that among those who come after him, will learn 
	that from the Arabs, because the Qur’an was revealed in their language, so 
	they will teach him the correct recitation, and will explain to him the 
	validity of the way in which it is written. This is how it is to be 
	understood in my view. And Allah knows best.

	If it is said: 
	what is meant by the words of ‘Uthmaan (may Allah be pleased with him) at 
	the end of this report, “If the scribe had been from Thaqeef and the one who 
	dictated it had been from Hudhayl, these mistakes would not have occurred”?

	I say: What it 
	means is that it would not be written in that way, because Quraysh and 
	others who took charge of writing the Mus-hafs from people other than 
	Quraysh used to write these words in this manner, and this way of writing 
	these words was common among them, but Thaqeef and Hudhayl, despite their 
	good command of Arabic, did not use this way of writing these words. 
	Therefore if they – and not the Muhaajiroon and Ansaar – had been in charge 
	of writing the Mus-hafs, they would have written all these words as they are 
	pronounced, not on the basis of their meaning, because that was the usual 
	practice among them and was common. This is how we may understand the 
	comment of ‘Uthmaan in my view, if it is proven and anyone can prove it. And 
	Allah is the source of strength.

	If it is said: 
	Then what is the meaning of the report that you also narrated from Hishaam 
	ibn ‘Urwah, from his father, that he asked ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased 
	with her) about grammatical mistakes in the Qur’an, about the verses, “Verily! 
	these are two magicians [inna haadhaani la saahiraan]” [Taa-Haa 20:63], “and 
	those who perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah) wa’l muqeemeena as-salaata 
	wa’l-mu’toona az-zakaata wa’l-mu’minoona Billaah…], and give Zakaah” 
	[an-Nisa’ 4:162] 
	and “Surely, those who believe (in the Oneness of Allah, in His Messenger 
	Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and all that was 
	revealed to him from Allah), those who are the Jews and the Sabians 
	[wa’s-saabi’oona]” [al-Maa’idah 5:69], 
	and she said: O 
	son of my brother, this is the work of the scribes; they made mistakes in 
	writing?

	I say:

	Its meaning is 
	clear: ‘Urwah did not ask ‘Aa’ishah about the written letters that may be 
	added for a reason or taken away for a reason, so as to make things clear 
	(when adding) or to make writing easier (when taking away). Rather he was 
	asking her about the modes of recitation in which words may differ, which 
	may lead to different meanings, according to the dialects in which Allah 
	permitted His Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and his 
	ummah to recite the Qur’an, and to adhere to whichever mode of recitation 
	they wanted, so as to make things easy for them. If this is the case, then 
	there is no room for mistakes, error, confusion and slips, for these 
	dialects are widely known and clear in the Arabic language. If this is the 
	case, then she was not referring to the meaning of what is written and it 
	has nothing to do with that at all. Rather ‘Urwah called that a mistake, and 
	‘Aa’ishah called the way it is written a mistake, but they did not literally 
	mean it was a mistake; rather it was by way of exaggeration, because that 
	was contrary to their way and was not something that they would have chosen 
	themselves. That was more appropriate in their view and was what was more 
	common in their view, although not in a definitive way, because of what we 
	explained above about that being valid and common in the language, and it 
	being common usage in the Arabic language. Furthermore there was consensus 
	that these words were to be recited as such and not as they (‘Aa’ishah and 
	‘Urwah) thought they should be, except for the odd view of Abu ‘Amr ibn 
	al-‘Ala’, who thought that it was to be recited inna haadhayni in 
	this particular instances. [This refers to “Verily! 
	these are two magicians [inna haadhaani la saahiraan]” [Taa-Haa 20:63]]. 
	This is how we should understand this report. But we cannot be certain that 
	the Mother of the Believers (may Allah be pleased with her), despite her 
	high status and prominence, and her vast knowledge of Islam and the language 
	of her people, would accuse the Companions of making grammatical mistakes 
	and accuse the scribes of making errors, when she was of such a high level 
	of eloquence and knowledge of Arabic, as was well known and no one would 
	ignore or deny it. That is not appropriate and cannot be true. Some of our 
	scholars interpreted the words of the Mother of the Believers, They made a 
	mistake in writing, as meaning that they made a mistake by not choosing what 
	is more proper of the seven modes of recitation with which the people were 
	familiar, not that what they wrote was a mistake and was not valid, because 
	what is not valid is to be rejected by all. no matter how long a time has 
	elapsed since the error was made and no matter how widespread it has become. 
	Some interpreted the word lahn,  translated here as grammatical 
	error, as referring to recitation and dialect, such as when ‘Umar (may Allah 
	be pleased with him) said: Ubayy is the best reciter among you, even though 
	we overlook some of his lahn – i.e., his way of recitation and 
	dialect. This is clear. And Allah is the source of strength. End quote from
	al-Muqni‘ (118-119).

	As-Suyooti (may 
	Allah have mercy on him) said:

	These reports 
	are very problematic.

	How can it be 
	thought of the Companions, first of all, that they made grammatical mistakes 
	when speaking, let alone when reciting Qur’an, when they were the most 
	eloquent of people in Arabic!

	Secondly, how 
	can it be thought that they made grammatical mistakes in the Qur’an which 
	they learned from the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) as 
	it was revealed, and they memorised it and were very precise with regard to 
	it?

	Thirdly, how 
	could it be thought of them that they would all make the same mistake and 
	write it in a mistaken way?

	Moreover, how 
	can it be thought that they would not notice that and correct it?

	Then how can it 
	be thought that ‘Uthmaan would forbid them to correct the mistake?

	Then how could 
	it be thought that the recitation of the Qur’an would continue on the basis 
	of that mistake, when the Qur’an was transmitted via tawaatur, one 
	generation after another?

	This is 
	impossible on the basis of rational thinking and Islamic teachings and on 
	the basis of how things are.

	The scholars 
	responded to that on three counts:

	1.
	
	That was not 
	soundly narrated from ‘Uthmaan. Its isnaad is weak (da‘eef), flawed 
	(mudtarib) and interrupted (munqati‘). Moreover, ‘Uthmaan intended to make 
	the Mus-haf the reference point to be followed, so how could he see in it 
	grammatical mistakes and leave them for the Arabs to correct them when they 
	recited it. If those who were charged with collecting the Mus-haf and 
	putting it together in one book, who were the best of people, did not 
	correct it, then how could others do that?!

	Moreover, 
	‘Uthmaan did not only make one copy of the Qur’an; rather he made many 
	copies. So if it is said that there were grammatical mistakes in all of 
	them, it is very far-fetched to suggest that the same mistake would be 
	repeated in all of them, or if the mistake happened in some of them, then 
	this is an acknowledgement that some were correct. But none of the reports 
	said that this mistake was in one Mus-haf and not another. The Mus-hafs 
	never differed, except in cases where there is an alternative mode of 
	recitation, and that is not a grammatical error.

	2.
	
	If we assume 
	that the report is sound, then it is to be interpreted as referring to the 
	signs or symbols showing where something is omitted, such as the long alif 
	in words such as al-kitaab (the book), as-saabiroon (the 
	patient ones) and so on.

	3.
	
	It may be interpreted as referring to words where the way in 
	which they are pronounced is different from the way in which they are 
	written. For example, they wrote “la adhbahannahu (I 
	will surely …slaughter him)” 
	[an-Naml 27:21], 
	with an alif after the laam, and “bi aydin (With power)” [adh-Dhaariyaat 
	51:47] with two yaas. If these words to be recited as they are written, 
	that would be a grammatical mistake. 

	This response 
	and the previous one were given by Ibn Ashtah in Kitaab al-Masaahif.

	Ibn al-Anbaari 
	said in ar-Radd ‘ala man khaalafa Mus-haf ‘Uthmaan, concerning the 
	hadiths narrated from ‘Uthmaan about that:

	They do not 
	constitute proof, because their isnaads are interrupted and are not intact. 
	No man of common sense and reasoning could accept that ‘Uthmaan – who was 
	the caliph of the ummah and the leader of the people of his time – could 
	unite them in accepting the Mus-haf which was the main reference, then 
	realise that there were mistakes in it and mistakes in the way in which it 
	was written, then not correct them. No, by Allah, no one who is fair minded 
	and possesses understanding could think such a thing. He could not believe 
	that he would leave the mistake in the books of the people after him to 
	correct it, when the people who would come after him would have no choice 
	but to refer to it and go by it. Whoever claims that when ‘Uthmaan said, “I 
	see mistakes in it,” he mean, I see mistakes in the way it is written, then 
	if we recite it correctly the mistake in writing will not matter in the 
	sense of distorting the words and going against grammatical rules, is 
	mistaken, because the way it is written is the way it is to be recited and 
	pronounced. So whoever makes a mistake in writing will make a mistake in 
	what he utters. ‘Uthmaan would never have delayed correcting a mistake 
	concerning the words of the Qur’an, whether in the way they are written or 
	the way they are pronounced. It is well-known that ‘Uthmaan was constantly 
	in contact with the Qur’an, and was skilled in reciting it in accordance 
	with the way it was written in the copies of the Qur’an that were sent to 
	the various regions. He (as-Suyooti) supported that with what Abu ‘Ubayd 
	narrated. He said: ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn Mahdi told us, from ‘Abdullah ibn 
	Mubaarak: Abu Waa’il, an old man from Yemen, told us, from Haani’ 
	al-Barbari, the freed slave of ‘Uthmaan, who said: I was with ‘Uthmaan when 
	they were presenting the Mus-hafs to him. He sent me to Ubayy ibn Ka‘b with 
	the shoulder blade of a sheep, on which was written, “lam yatasanna” and 
	“laa tabdeelah lil-khalq” and “fa amhil al-kaafireen”. He called for an ink 
	pot and erased one of the two laams (in the word “lil khalq”) and wrote “li 
	khalq-illah (“in the creation of Allah” – referring to the verse 
	“No 
	change let there be in Khalq¬illâh (i.e. the religion of Allâh)” 
	[ar-Room 30:30]). 
	He erased the word fa amhil and wrote “fa mahhil” (“so give respite” 
	referring to the verse“So 
	give respite to the disbelievers” 
	[at-Taariq 86:17]). 
	And he wrote lam yatasannah (“they show no change”, referring to the verse
	“they 
	show no change” 
	[al-Baqarah 2:259]); 
	he added the letter haa’ to it. 

	Ibn al-Anbaari 
	said: How can it be claimed that he saw some mistakes and let them pass, 
	when he was checking what was written and disputes between scribes were 
	referred to him so that he could judge on the basis of truth, and he would 
	compel them to write what is correct and make it final?

	This is also 
	supported by what Ibn Ashtah narrated in al-Masaahif. He said: 
	al-Hasan ibn ‘Uthmaan told us: ar-Rabee‘ ibn Badr informed us, from Siwaar 
	ibn Shubayb, who said: I asked Ibn az-Zubayr about the Mus-hafs and he 
	said:  A man went to ‘Umar and said: O Ameer al-Mu’mineen, the people are 
	arguing about the Qur’an. ‘Umar thought of collecting the Qur’an and making 
	it according to one recitation, but then he was fatally stabbed. During the 
	caliphate of ‘Uthmaan, that man stood up and spoke to him about the issue, 
	and ‘Uthmaan collected and made copies of the Mus-hafs. Then he sent me to 
	‘Aa’ishah, and I brought the pages and showed them to her so that she could 
	correct them, then he ordered that all other copies be destroyed. This 
	indicates that they checked it and verified it, and they did not leave 
	anything that needed to be corrected but they corrected it.

	Then Ibn Ashtah 
	said: Muhammad ibn Ya‘qoob informed us: Abu Dawood Sulaymaan ibn al-Ash‘ath 
	informed us: Ahmad ibn Mas‘adah informed us: Ismaa‘eel informed us: 
	al-Haarith ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahman told me, from ‘Abd al-A‘la ibn ‘Abdullah ibn 
	‘Aamir who said: When the writing of the Mus-haf was finished, it was 
	brought to ‘Uthmaan and he looked at it, then he said: You have done well. I 
	see something but we will be able to correct it according to our dialect.

	There is no 
	problem with this report, and it explains the meaning of what appears above. 
	It is as if it was shown to him immediately after the writing of it was 
	finished, and he saw something in it that was written differently from the 
	way Quraysh would pronounce it, as happened with the word taaboot 
	[which may be written with taa’ marbootah or taa’ maftoohah], so he promised 
	to correct it according to the dialect of Quraysh. Then he fulfilled that 
	promise when he examined it and verified it, and he did not leave anything 
	(that needed to be corrected but he corrected it). Perhaps the one who 
	narrated those reports quoted above distorted what he heard and did not 
	remember it precisely as ‘Uthmaan had said it, which resulted in this 
	confusion. This is the best answer that could be given for this problem, to 
	Allah be praise.

	So none of these 
	responses is sound with regard to the hadith of ‘Aa’ishah.

	With regard to 
	the response that classes it as da‘eef (weak), that is to be rejected 
	because its isnaad is saheeh (sound) as you see. 

	As for the 
	response which speaks of signs or symbols showing where something is 
	omitted, ‘Urwah’s question about the words mentioned does not fit that 
	discussion.

	Ibn Ashtah said 
	– and Ibn Jabbaarah followed him in Sharh ar-Raa’iyyah, that what is meant 
	by her saying, They made a mistake means: in choosing that which was more 
	appropriate of the seven modes of recitation, according to which all people 
	could recite. It does not mean that the way they wrote it is wrong and is 
	not permissible. He said: The evidence for that is that whatever is not 
	permissible is to be rejected by all, regardless of the passage of time 
	since that mistake was made.

	He said: With 
	regard to the view of Sa‘eed ibn Jubayr about it being a lahn on the part of 
	the scribe, perhaps what he meant by lahn is recitation and dialect, meaning 
	that this is the dialect of the one who wrote it and the way he recited it, 
	and there is another way to recite it .

	Then he narrated 
	from Ibraaheem an-Nakha‘i that he said: “inna hadhaani la saahiraan” 
	[Taa-Haa 20:63] and “inna hadhayni la saahiraan” are the same. 
	Perhaps they wrote alif instead of yaa, and in “wa’s-saabi’oona” [al-Maa’idah 
	5:69] they wrote waw instead of yaa’.

	Ibn Ashtah said:

	That is, it is 
	akin to replacing a letter when writing it with another letter, as in the 
	words salaah, zakaah and hayaat [which in the Qur’an are written with a waw 
	although they are pronounced as if they are written with a long alif].

	And I say: This 
	answer could be fine if it was recited with a yaa’, but the way it is 
	written is different. As recitation is done according to the way it is 
	written, there is no comparison between the two.

	End quote from
	al-Itqaan fi ‘Uloom al-Qur’an (p. 1241-1247).

	See also: 
	Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (15/252-255)

	And Allah knows 
	best.