(Original Source: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?id=20466&hd=7&cate=24&t=rss )

Question:

Salam ua alaykum,

We discussed in Lesson 2's session that the Quran is mutawatir.  However there is a debate amongst the scholars about whether the basmala is part of the Fatiha or not.  Hence the reason why the Hanafi's do not recite it out loud in salah while the Shafi's do.  So if the the Quran is mutawatir such that there is no doubt, why is there doubt here about what should be recited aloud?

Answer:

[This answer was originally posted as a response to a student question in the course, Hadith and its Disciplines (HDT111).]

In the Name of Allah, Most Merciful and Compassionate

wa `alaykum as salam wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh

1. Summary of Disagreement

There are two kinds of basmala's in the Quran: one basmala that occurs in the middle of Sura al-Naml, and 113 others that occur at the beginning of every sura of the Quran except Sura al-Tawba. There is scholarly consensus that the first basmala is part of the Quran. Scholars differ regarding the Quran-ness of other basmala's. [1]

The fact that scholars differ on the Quran-ness of these basmala's is is not a new discovery--scholars have learned and taught it as a matter of fact for over a thousand years and it is found in standard textbooks of a variety of scholarly disciplines, including Islamic Law (fiqh), legal methodology (usul al-fiqh), and Quranic exegesis (tafsir). This well-known fact has never caused a stir Muslims' minds because when properly understood, it reveals itself as a mere legal difference that has nothing whatsoever to do with the preservation of the text.

Before I explain why that's the case, I'd like to correct a mistake in your question. You are correct in observing that scholars of the Hanafi school hold that the basmala is optimally recited quietly (and not out loud) before the Fatiha in the ritual prayers. You are incorrect, however, in inferring from this that they don't hold the basmala to be a verse of the Quran. The one does not imply the other.

The official position of the Hanafi school is that the basmala at the beginning of suras is a verse of the Quran, but that it is a single verse that was revealed once and assigned as a separator between suras. [2] The Shafi`i school also holds that the basmala at the beginning of suras is a verse of the Quran, but differs from the Hanafi school by holding that each basmala is actually the first verse of the sura that it commences, not merely for separation. [3] So the Hanafi--Shafi`i disagreement on whether or not the basmala should be recited out loud before the Fatiha during the ritual prayers has nothing to do with whether or not the basmala is a verse of the Quran. It is related instead to their disagreement on whether or not the basmala is a verse of the Fatiha.

The dissenting school on this issue is actually the Maliki school. Scholars of legal methodology ascribe the position of the non-Quran-ness of these 113 basmala's to the great Maliki jurist and theologian, Abu Bakr al-Baqillani, who--like the Hanafis--held that these basmala's were inscribed in copies of the Quran for separation but--unlike the Hanafis--that they are not Quranic verses. [4]

2. Understanding the Disagreement

The basmala's at the beginning of suras are divine revelation that is mass-transmitted (mutawatir) from the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace). He taught his Companions that these basmala's come before the suras, the Companions hence inscribed them in the copy of the Quran that they compiled, and Muslims have inscribed them in every copy of the Quran since. This is acknowledged by everyone--even the Malikis.

What, then, did Abu Bakr al-Baqillani mean when he denied the Quran-ness of these basmala's? Ghazali explains in his Mustasfa that Baqillani "acknowledged that the basmala was revealed to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) with the beginning of every sura [5], and that it was inscribed with the Quran in the same script as the rest of the Quran [6] by the command of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace)," but that "it is not impossible for non-Quranic revelation to be revealed to [the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)]." [7]

In other words, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) received two kinds of revelation from Allah Most High: (1) recited revelation and (2) unrecited revelation. The Quran is revelation from God, and in addition to being divine revelation, its ritual recitation is an act of worship. The revelation that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) received from God was not confined to the Quran--his sunna is also divine revelation. The difference between the sunna and the Quran is that the ritual recitation of the sunna is not an act of worship.

The Malikis, then, agree with the rest of the Muslims that the basmala's that come before the suras are divine revelation that has been mass-transmitted to us from the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace). Their point of difference is not whether these basmala's are revelation, nor is it whether they have been mass-transmitted from the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace). Their point of difference is whether or not the ritual recitation of this meticulously preserved divine revelation is an act of worship. This then leads to certain legal differences, such as whether major ritual impurity makes it impermissible to recite these basmala's, or whether the basmala should be recited along with the rest of the Fatiha in the ritual prayer. This is why Taj al-Din al-Subki said that investigating this issue is "the job of the jurist," and that its proper place is books of Islamic Law, not books of belief or legal methodology. [8]

3. Conclusion

An explanation of the detailed proofs of each side is beyond the scope of this short answer. What is important to understand is not why they disagree, but what they disagree about. Once that is understood, it becomes clear that the difference has nothing whatsoever to do with the mass-transmission of the Quranic text, and that there is no doubt at all that the Quran we have before us today is exactly the same as the Quran that proceeded from the blessed mouth of the Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace).

And Allah Most High knows best.

Hamza.


[1] Taj al-Din al-Subki, Raf` al-Hajib `an Ibn al-Hajib, Mabhath al-Kitab, Fasl: Ma nuqila ahadan fa laysa bi quran.

[2] `Ala al-Din al-Haskafi, al-Durr al-Mukhtar, Fasl: Wa idha arada al-shuru`a fi al-salati kabbar. Ibn `Abidin confirms this as the strongest position of the Hanafi school in his monumental Hashiya on Haskafi's work.

[3] Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, Tuhfat al-Muhtaj fi Sharh al-Minhaj, Bab Sifat al-Salat

[4] Taj al-Din al-Subki, Raf` al-Hajib `an Ibn al-Hajib, Mabhath al-Kitab, Fasl: Ma nuqila ahadan fa laysa bi quran.

[5] i.e., except for Sura al-Tawba

[6] The inscription of the basmala distinct from the suras that it precedes was not done by the Companions and only initiated later on.

[7] Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, al-Musasfa min `ilm al-usul, al-Qutb al-Thani fi Adillat al-Ahkam, al-Asl al-Awwal, Mas'ala: al-Basmalatu Ayatin Min al-Quran

MMVIII © SunniPath.
All rights reserved