actual words, not in the way they were pronounced, and that these were the J:tarfs in which the Quran was revealed.

٤. The word seven, as this interpretation explains it, is different from the apparent sense of the traditions and, in some cases, their explicit statements.

٥. The corollary of this opinion is that it is permissible to use the different dialects in reciting the Quran. This is certainly against the absolute practice of all Muslims. It is not possible to claim the abrogation of the permission to read in the one desig‌ nated dialect, because such an opinion is baseless. Nor is it possible for those who maintain such a view to argue for the abrogation on the basis of a definite consensus on the issue, because the consensus is, rather, on the absence of definite proof that the Quran was revealed according to different dialects. In addition, if it is hypotheti‌ cally agreed that such a thing is established, as maintained by those who subscribe to this opinion, how can a consensus be reached in this matter and, more so, in view of the fact that the Prophet insisted that the Quran [was revealed] in seven /:tarfs to make matters easy for the Muslim community. How can it be possible that this should be confined to the short period after the revelation of the Quran, and how can it be correct that a consensus or any other proof was established to that effect? More important, it is evident that the Muslim community was even more in need of a respite in the later period because those who adhered to Islam in the earlier period were few indeed. Thus, it was possible for them to agree on a single dialect for reading the Quran. This was unlike the situation of the Muslims in subsequent periods [who were far more numerous]. We shall limit our discussion to the views already cited, for they make it unnecessary to mention the rest and refute them.

In conclusion, the notion that the Quran was revealed in seven /:tarfs cannot be ex‌ plained satisfactorily. Consequently, it is necessary to reject the traditions support‌ ing such a view, especially since the traditions of the Imams Mui)ammad al-Baqir and Jafar al-Sadiq have proved their falsity, and have established that the Quran was revealed in one /:tarf, and that the differences originate with the transmitters [of the text of the Quran].

NOTES

١. For the lexical meaning of this term, see chapter ٥, note ٧.-Trans.
٢. This tradition and traditions ٢ to ١٠, cited below, are all related in Tabar!, Tafslr, pp.
٢٢-٢٤, ٣٩-٥٠. Tradition ١١ is related in Qurtubi, Tafslr, vol. ١, p. ٤٣.
٣. Muslim b. I:Iajjaj al-Qushayri, al-Jami al-Sablb, ٨ vols. (Dar al-Khilafat al-Aliyya
[Istanbul]: Al-Matbaat al-Amira, ١٩١١-١٢) vol. ٢, p. ٢٠٢.
٤. Bukhan, Sablb, vol. ٦, pp. ٤٨١-٨٢.
٥. Cited in Tabarf; Tafslr; but in Muslim, Sablb, vol. ٢., p. ٢٠٣, it is "two barfs."
٦. Muslim, Satzrb. vol. ٢, p. ٢٠٣.
٧. This last sentence means that the difference in the dialectical recitations is a difference of words, not of meaning, just as halumma and taala mean the same thing.-Trans.
٨. Muslim, SatlTtz, vol. ٢, p. ٢٠٢; Bukhari, Sablb, vol. ٣, p. ٩٠; vol. ٦, p. ٤٨٢; vol. ٨,
pp. ٥٣, ٢١٥; and Mul)ammad b. lsa al-Tirrnidhi, Sunan al-Tirmidhl wa Huwa al-Jami al-