Was the Qur’an revealed with 17,000 verses?
- Anonymous
- Apr 26, 2024
- 12 min read
Updated: Jun 12
Introduction
A popular report often cited by opponents of the Shi’a and proponents of tahrif claims that the Qur’an was originally revealed with 17,000 verses, and since we only have around 6,000 verses left, it means that the Qur’an has suffered a distortion of nearly 11,000 verses. This hadith can be read from Kitab al-Kafi, Vol. 2, Book 3, Ch. 14, H. # 28:
عَلِيُّ بْنُ الْحَكَمِ عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ سَالِمٍ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ الله (علَيهِ السَّلام) قَالَ إِنَّ الْقُرْآنَ الَّذِي جَاءَ بِهِ جَبْرَئِيلُ (عَلَيهِ السَّلام) إِلَى مُحَمَّدٍ (صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وآلِه) سَبْعَةَ عَشَرَ أَلْفَ آيَةٍ.
Ali ibn al-Hakam has narrated from Hisham ibn Salim from Abu ‘Abdillah who said:
“The Quran that Jibril (Gabriel) brought to Muhammad ﷺ had seventeen thousand verses.”
Investigating the Ḥadīth's Reliability
Now the chain quoted here is not the full one, as there’s ta’liq (summarizing) in the chain. In the hadith just before it, we find the full chain; H. # 27. So that makes the full chain the following;
مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ الْحَكَمِ عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ سَالِمٍ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ الله (علَيهِ السَّلام).
Muhammad Ibn Yahya from Ahmad Ibn Muhammad from Ali Ibn al-Hakam from Hisham Ibn Salim from Abi ‘Abdillah (as).
At first glance, this chain seems authentic as all the narrators are well-known here, except that it is falsely assumed that Ahmad Ibn Muhammad is Ibn ‘Isa, who is a well-known reliable narrator. However, upon further investigation we can prove it to be a different narrator with the same name - Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Sayyar (known as al-Sayyari).
Firstly, by referring back to Fehrist al-Tusi, pg. 66 we find that: Muhammad Ibn Yahya (al-Attar) used to narrate from Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Sayyar and that he had a book titled ‘Kitab al-Qira’at.
Al-Shaykh al-Najashi also mentioned this in his Rijal al-Najashi, pg. 429 - 430, Bio. # 192.
Both scholars considered him weak in hadith and associated him with the ghulat, and Ibn al-Ghada’iri likewise did too in his Kitab al-Dhu’afa, Book 2, Bio. # 11. Al-Najashi further mentions that Ibn al-Walid al-Qummi (رحمه الله) considered him from amongst the narrators that he weakened, and al-Shaykh al-Saduq (رحمه الله) followed him alongside in that opinion in Rijal al-Najashi, pg. 348, Bio. # 939 under the tarjama of Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Ibn Yahya.
In a hadith recorded in Rijal al-Kashi, pg. 315, Bio. # 407 it is attributed to what it says Imam al-Jawad (as), but Allama al-Tustari (رحمه الله) says this is a mistake and should actually says Imam al-Askari (as):
قال: قرأت في رقعة مع الجواد عليه السلام، يعلم من سأل عن السياري، انه ليس في المكان الذي ادعاه لنفسه، وألا تدفعوا إليه شيئا.
He (the narrator) said: I read in a document with Imam Al-Jawad (as), that he informed those who asked about Al-Sayyari, that he was not in the place he claimed to be and not to give him anything.
So this narrator is most certainly an unreliable hadith transmitter, and likely a liar as his status was very low. Now, we must note that the uniqueness of the Shi’a hadith corpus to the Jewish, Chrsitian and Sunni corpus is that our sources were passed down via writings & books rather than being orally transmitted. So when al-Kulayni (قدس الله روحه) quotes a narrator, it is likely he is quoting his book and not directly hearing it from the person.
Fortunately, we have this book preserved today, and when we read through the book we find the same narration on Sayyari’s Kitab al-Qira’at, H. # 16, pg. 9. It is the same exact chain and same exact content, making it certain that the narrator here is Ibn Sayyar and not Ibn ‘Isa, as commonly assumed.
Why Did Scholars Authenticate the Report?
If someone asks: How come scholars like ‘Allama al-Majlisi (طيب الله أثاره) did not pick up on that, and graded it as sahih?
We reply: This book was not considered to be a book of usul (i.e. reliable sources of early scholars) and was not even read or perhaps considered by many of the later scholars. However, we find this book today and hence it removes any doubt of the narrator.
The polemicists from twelvershia.net, made silly objections in response to this, insisting that the narrator here is actually Ibn ‘Isa. They said:
‘However, as any student of Shia hadith will know, when Al-Kulayni doesn’t include the full name of a narrator, it is because he is referring to the most famous narrator with that name.’ ‘The existence of Al-Sayyari’s book has proven to be a double edged sword. For starters, the existence of this narration in the book of Al-Sayyari does prove that Al-Sayyari did narrate it. However, it does not prove that Ahmad bin Mohammad in Al-Kafi is Al-Sayyari as well. It is quite possible that both men narrated the same hadith.’
This pathetic response is so weak, their own friends have acknowledged it. The so-called ‘big fish’ Farid himself said in one of his tweets that this argument (i.e. that the hadith is weak) was very convincing. This is him essentially admitting that their (or his) article’s response was not good enough as it could not convince him.
For starters, this so-called rule is not necessarily true at all times, as we can find other examples where Sayyari is quoted without being mentioned by name.
For example, this hadith in al-Kafi, Vol. 1, Book 4, Ch. 108, H. # 46 is narrated by Ali Ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi, from Ahmad Ibn Muhammad, from Muhammad Ibn Khalid - who is also known as al-Barqi - until the end, does not mention which ‘Ahmad Ibn Muhammad’ in the chain, however this same hadith can be found in Kitab al-Qira'at, pg. 165 H. # 601.
Another example is in al-Kafi, Vol. 8, H. # 439 where Kulayni narrates from Muhammad Ibn Yahya al-Attar again, from Ahmad Ibn Muhammad, from al-Husyan Ibn Sayf until the end, which does not specify which ‘Ahmad Ibn Muhammad’ but is clearly Sayyari as this hadith can also be found in his Kitab al-Qira’at, pg. 21, H. 66.
These examples show us that Kulayni does not always indicate which Ahmad Ibn Muhammad is in the chain, making their counter-argument effectively meaningless.
Now as for the possibility of both of them narrating the same hadith, this is an absurd assumption to make, especially since they failed to provide any proof for such a possibility. Then they go on to show examples of other narrations indicating tahrif, which we can’t find in Sayyari’s book, however those are separate issues that are unrelated to this particular hadith. Those desperate attempts in trying to weaken the hadiths by those examples they used, just shows how unobjective our opponents are, and unable to admit their incorrectness of their argument.
Did al-Kulayni Believe in Tahrif?
Now, if someone asks: Does this mean al-Kulayni believe in tahrif?
We reply: Merely narrating a hadith in your book does not indicate that you necessarily believe in it, nor is it sufficient to assume what their interpretation of the hadith would have been. Otherwise we can go and accuse any sunni scholar of believing in tahrif!
For example, in Sunan Ibn Majah 1944 it reads:
“The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.”
Regardless of what grade a Sunni wants to give this report, Ibn Majah reported it, so does that mean he believed in tahrif as it states a sheep ate a verse that does not exist in the Qur’an, meaning we have lost a verse!
As another example, a famous hadith whose sources can be found here reads:
قَالَ لِي أُبَيُّ بْنُ كَعْبٍ: " كَأَيِّنْ تَقْرَأُ سُورَةَ الْأَحْزَابِ؟ أَوْ كَأَيِّنْ تَعُدُّهَا؟ " قَالَ: قُلْتُ لَهُ: ثَلَاثًا وَسَبْعِينَ آيَةً ، فَقَالَ: قَطُّ ، لَقَدْ رَأَيْتُهَا وَإِنَّهَا لَتُعَادِلُ سُورَةَ الْبَقَرَةِ
Ubayy ibn Ka‘b said to me: How long is Soorat al-Ahzaab when you read it? Or how many verses do you think it is? I said to him: Seventy-three verses. He said: Only? There was a time when it was as long as Surat al-Baqarah.
This was reported by al-Hakim, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Abdul Razzaq and others, who did not give their commentary or understanding of this verse. Does that mean they believed that verses were lost? If you object with it being abrogated, then so could I and claim that Kulayni believed those verses were abrogated or whatever other interpretations exist. The point being, you can’t simply assume the author’s interpretation if he hasn’t given it, so claiming he believed in tahrif because of that is baseless.
Scribal Error Discussion
Some scholars have also considered the possibility of this hadith having an addition made to it that would change it from 17,000 to 7,000 because the word عشر was an addition made in some manuscripts. For example, the editors of this hadith in al-Kafi, Vol. 4, pg. 675 record the hadith as 7,000 without the addition of 17,000 as some manuscripts / editions of al-Kafi don’t have it, mainly in Faydh al-Kashani’s al-Kafi manuscripts that he recorded in his al-Wafi. They also quote:
وقال المحقق الشعراني : أقول : أما كلمة سبعة عشر ألف آية في هذا الخبر ، فكلمة «عشر» زيدت قطعاً من بعض النساخ أو الرواة . وسبعة آلاف تقريب ، كما هو معروف في إحصاء الأمور لغرض آخر غير بيان العدد، كما يقال : أحاديث الكافي ستة عشر ألف، والمقصود بيان الكثرة والتقريب لا تحقيق العدد ؛ فإن عدد آي القرآن بين الستة والسبعة آلاف». وللمزيد راجع : شرح المازندراني
Muhaqiq al-Al-Shu'arani said: I say: As for the phrase "seventeen thousand verses" in this report, the word "عشر" has certainly been added by some copyists or narrators. And seven thousand is an approximation, as is well known in the enumeration of matters for a purpose other than stating the exact number. It is said: The traditions of Al-Kafi are sixteen thousand, and the intention is to indicate the abundance and approximation, not to achieve the exact number; for the number of Quranic verses is between six and seven thousand. For more information, refer to: Sharh Al-Mazandarani.
When we go back to the original source of this hadith in Kitab al-Qira’at, pg. 9, we also find that the Muhaqiq mentions that there are manuscript differences with some having the variant of 7,000 as well, hence putting this into question. However, other manuscripts and sources do still say 17,000 which still makes the possibility of either one still present.
The Logical Problem
In case our viewers are dissatisfied with dismissing this hadith as being unreliable, we would invite them to reflect on the following if they regard this as proof of tahrif:
For the Qur’an to lose nearly 11,000 verses, surely we would find many people reporting this and narrating about this, yet we find no historical report nor corroborating reports that indicate any of that sort. Such a significant task would surely have been noted down in history, yet isn’t it odd how somehow it got past everything and went completely unnoticed?
Such a significant loss in the Qur’an requires clear intent, and can not be a mere accident. What possible reasoning would the people who tampered with the Qur’an have? Many like to accuse Abu Bakr & ‘Umar of doing such, but no logical or reasonable explanation exists in support of that.
Did they aim to remove their own vices and faults mentioned in the Qur’an? In that case, they would’ve failed as we still find these faults mentioned all over the Qur’an including the incidents of their cowardness in battles, signs of nifaq (hypocrisy) and insults to the Prophet (saw) made by them.
Did they aim to remove the virtues of the Ahlul-Bayt (as)? In this case, they would’ve failed more than in the previous possibility as ⅓ of the Qur’an today is still about the Ahlulbayt (as). Hundreds of verses in both Shi’a and Sunni tafsir can be related to the Ahlul-Bayt (as), so how could this have been their intent?
Did they aim to change the laws of the Qur’an for their own politics? Definitely not, for the laws that Sunnis have changed still remain in contradiction with the Qur’an, such as the Ayah of Wudhu which serves as proof that they did not tamper with the Qur’an for politics. The verses about prophetic inheritance of Zakariyya (as) & Sulaiman (as) still remained intact even when Abu Bakr was in power, yet he did not remove them despite it posing an obvious problem to him usurping Fadak.
If these people just wanted power, then there could not be a single reason for them to want to change the Qur’an, as they would be hated by the people and called out for it. This is contrary to what people who want to remain in power would do, for the masses would have criticized them for it and posed a threat to their leadership.
The mass transmission of the Qur’an, as memorized by many companions and Tabi’een, would make it impossible to be tampered with during the later periods of the caliphs of Uthman or Banu Umayya, ruling out this possibility entirely.
It is inconceivable to think that 11,000 verses could possibly go missing in a mere moment of time, without anyone from the thousands of companions and Muslims ever noticing or reporting about it.
Alternative Interpretations
Instead of seeing this hadith as indicating that over a 1/3 of the Qur’an has gone missing, other scholars have understood these verses differently. Some say how with each verse that comes down, Jibra’il (as) would teach the Prophet (saw) both to the tanzil (the ayah itself) and the ta’weel (the interpretation of the ayah). So when it says 17,000 verses, it includes both parts of the ayah where multiple verses could have multiple ta’weels.
Another point to consider, is that the verse mentions how the Qur’an was initially ‘revealed’, this means it includes all abrogated verses, separately revealed verses such as in Ayat al-Tathira which had two parts revealed separately, or like verse 65:4 in which Abu Zakariyya al-Fara’ reports it to be revealed in multiple parts in Ma’ani al-Qur’an, Vol. 3, pg. 163.
سأل معاذ بن جبل النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال: "قد عرفنا عدة التي تحيض، فما عدة الكبيرة التي قد يئست؟" فنزل "فعدتهن ثلاثة أشهر" فقام رجل فقال: "يا رسول الله! فما عدة الصغيرة التي لم تحض؟" فقال: "واللائي لم يحضن بمنزلة الكبيرة التي قد يئست عدتها: ثلاثة أشهر." فقام آخر فقال: "فالحوامل ما عدتهن؟" فنزل: "وأولات الأحمال أجلهن أن يضعن حملهن" فإذا وضعت الحامل ذا بطئها حلت للأزواج، وإن كان زوجها الميت على السرير لم يدفن.
Mu'adh bin Jabal asked the Prophet (s): "We know the waiting period of menstruating women, but what is the waiting period for older women who have ceased menstruation?". So the verse was revealed: "And those who no longer expect menstruation, among your women - if you doubt, then their period is three months."
Then a man stood up and asked: "O Messenger of Allah, what about the waiting period for young girls who have not yet menstruated?" The Prophet (s) replied: "Their waiting period is the same as that of older women who have ceased menstruation: three months."
Then another man asked: "What about pregnant women?" So the verse was revealed: "And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth." When a pregnant woman gives birth, her waiting period ends, and if her husband is deceased, he is not to be buried while she is still pregnant.
In this well-known narration in books of tafsir, it is mentioned that this verse (65:4) was revealed in different consecutive parts after people asked questions, as you can see, the verse did not come in full form at once but only after people asked their questions it formed into one complete verse.
Other surahs/verses also have been revealed multiple times. Fakhruddin al-Razi for example stated that Surah Fatiha descended in Mecca and Medina in his Tafsir al-Kabir. Vol. 1, pg. 184:
القول الثالث: قال بعض العلماء، هذه السورة نزلت بمكة مرة، وبالمدينة مرة أخرى، فهي مكية مدنية، ولهذا السبب سماها الله بالمثاني، لأنه ثنى إنزالها، وإنما كان كذلك مبالغة في تشريفها
The third opinion: Some scholars said, "This Surah was revealed once in Mecca and once in Medina, so it is both Meccan and Medinan. For this reason, Allah named it 'Al-Muthani' (the repeated), because He repeated its revelation. However, this was only an exaggeration in honoring it."
Thus, all these factors combined can reach a total of 17,000 verses.
Lastly, the strongest alternative interpretation of this hadith in my opinion comes from Shaykh al-Saduq (قدس الله روحه) in his I’tiqadat al-Imamiyah, pg. 252, where he states that the meaning is that the total amount of revelation that Rasulullah (saw) has received that includes wahi such as hadith al-Qudsi, divine inspirations, knowledge given through dreams and so on, all amounts to 17,000 in total.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this hadith remains insufficient as evidence to negate the preservation of the Holy Qur’an, and is in fact logically impossible to be true. If this hadith was true in the way it was transmitted, then alternative interpretations may suffice in explaining it, but aside from that, the most likely possibility in regards to this hadith is that it is untrue. The fault most likely lies in the way it was transmitted. Either Sayyari fabricated it, as he is the source of many pro-tahrif reports and ghalis were famously known to advocate for tahrif as their beliefs lacks any backings within the Qur’an, or he intentionally or unintentionally wrote it down incorrectly whether due to summarizing a longer report or a list of other possible explanations that do not need to be investigated.
MashAllah
Ahhsantom
Mashallah great work sayed may Allah reward you for this .