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: (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.


M. Rafiqul-Haqq & P. Newton

Articles by M. Rafiqul-Haqq & P. Newton