Harut & Marut - Were Kings - Not Angels ?

[NasirMuzaffar]

Tafseer of [2:102]


Q. Is anyone aware of any scholar who says that :

Harut and Marut were kings and not angels ?

And the the word in the ayah "malikaynee" doesn't mean angels, rather two kings ?



What I know is that Imam Tabari (r) was of the opinion that they were not angels only humans

but I haven't read anyone saying they were kings


My Nigerian friend in university quotes his Shaykh Jafar Mahmud Adam (r), who did bachelors in tafseer from IU of Madinah, for the king opinion


Curious for some insightful info on this issue

[Sr.Sara]

I think it might be in our Rays of Faith notes.

Insha'Allah I'll take a look at them and see what we discussed of it.

[Sr.Sara]

I think it might be in our Rays of Faith notes.

Insha'Allah I'll take a look at them and see what we discussed of it.here is what I found in our Rays of Faith notes:

" in a different Qir’aat they said “ ‘alal MalAkaini” (meaning : “two kings”) and the different Qir’aa says “Maleekaini” angels (just another opinion, mentioned in Tafsir by Ibn Abi Hatim) -some say those two kings were from the Jinn and they taught magic ( Ibn Hazm supported this very strongly)

-Al Qurtubi said “maa” should mean to “negate” not to affirm ( b/c it can have two meanings)

-besides these opinions, most of the major Tafsir say: “they were angels” and this doesn’t contradict the characteristics of angels bc they were listening to the command of Allah and they were doing it as a TEST"

Wa Allahu A'lam.

Perhaps other can share details they have on this matter, although I personally don't think it's of much importance as long as we understand the last line in the quoted text above.

[AkheeAB]

Tafseer of [2:102]


Q. Is anyone aware of any scholar who says that :

Harut and Marut were kings and not angels ?


And the the word in the ayah "malikaynee" doesn't mean angels, rather two kings ?





What I know is that Imam Tabari (r) was of the opinion that they were not angels only humans

but I haven't read anyone saying they were kings


My Nigerian friend in university quotes his Shaykh Jafar Mahmud Adam (r), who did bachelors in tafseer from IU of Madinah, for the king opinion


Curious for some insightful info on this issue
the above word means, two angles. In the Arabic grammer, there are nouns in the dual form. When the noun is in the nominative case (in arabic مرفوع) the dual (مثن) way to see it is 'malikan' (ملكان). In addition, in the accusative form (منصوب), the dual form of two angels is (ملكين). Finally, in the genetive case (مجرور) it is the same as the accusative form (ملكين). Hence, it does sound like to two kings; rather, it means two kings because a preposition follows it. (علي) in Arabic is a preposition (حرف جر) and it makes the noun (اسم مجرور)that follows it genetive. I hope this little bit of infomartion suffices your wonderful question; baraka Allahu feek.

[AkheeAB]

+

http://www.searchtruth.com/tafsir/Quran/2/index_html_684d3706.jpg

http://www.searchtruth.com/tafsir/Quran/2/index_html_m128a98be.jpg

[99-103] We have sent down to you Revelations that clearly expound the Truth, and none but the disobedient reject them. Has it not always been so that every time they made a covenant, some of them set it aside? Nay, most of them never believe in it sincerely. And whenever a Messenger came to them from Allah, confirming that Scripture which they already possessed, some from among the people of the Book threw the Book of Allah behind their backs as though they knew nothing about it. (Instead of this,) they began to follow that (magic) to which the devils falsely attributed (the greatness of) the kingdom of Solomon.104 (http://www.searchtruth.com/tafsir/Quran/2/index.html#sdfootnote104sym) In fact Solomon .was never involved in any practice of disbelief, but the satans, who taught magic to the people were themselves guilty of disbelief. They were after that thing which was sent to Harut and Marut, the two angels at Babylon. Whenever these two angels taught black art to anyone, they would always give a clear warning beforehand, saying, "We are merely a trial for you; so you should not commit blasphemy.105 (http://www.searchtruth.com/tafsir/Quran/2/index.html#sdfootnote105sym) But in spite of this warning, those people used to learn from the angels the art which caused division between husband and wife.106 (http://www.searchtruth.com/tafsir/Quran/2/index.html#sdfootnote106sym) Although it was obvious that they could not do any harm to anyone by means of this magic without Allah's permission, yet they learnt that art which could not be profitable even for them but was actually harmful. Moreover, they knew it full well that anyone, who purchased that art, would have no share in the Hereafter. What a vile commodity it was for which they sold off their souls, if they had but known it! Had they believed in Allah and practised piety, they would have received a far better reward from AIIah, if they had but known it.

[NasirMuzaffar]

shaykh waleed said that the recitation that says malikayni is not authentic


Muhammad Asad in his commentary of the Qur'an:


As regards the designation of Harut and Marut, most of the readings of the Qurlan give the spelling malakayn ("the two angels"); but it is authentically recorded (see Tabari, Zamakhshari, Baghawi, Razi, etc.) that the great Companion of the Prophet, Ibn `Abbas, as well as several learned men of the next generation - e.g., Al-Hasan al-Basri, Abu '1-Aswad and AdDahhak-read it as malikayn ("the two kings").

Is Sh. Waleed (hz) saying that the authenticity of these recitations as malikayn ("the two kings") by Ibn `Abbas, Al-Hasan al-Basri, Abu '1-Aswad and AdDahhak, etc is weak ?

[NasirMuzaffar]

I have uploaded the Urdu Tafseer of [Surah Baqarah:102] written by Allamah Badeuddin Shah As-Sindee (r).


Allamah Badeuddin Shah As-Sindee (r) was writing his Tafseer in the local Sindhi language....... he could only complete (15 Juz if I am not mistaken) before his death.

This tafseer has been translated from Sindhi to Urdu.

The name of the file is Qissa Haroot Maroot aur Jadoo Ki Haqeqat.pdf
(in english it means : Story of Harut & Marut & Reality Of Magic)


It can be downloaded from: [mod edit: links removed]

It's a 124 pages long !

Allamah Badeuddin Shah As-Sindee (r) was of the opinion that Harut & Marut were humans and not angels.


And Allah (SWT) knows best.

[abu_musab461]

(They followed what the Shayatin (devils) gave out (falsely of the magic) in the lifetime of Sulayman) means,

"`During the time of Prophet Solomon.' Beforehand, the devils used to ascend to heaven and eavesdrop on the conversations of the angels about what will occur on the earth regarding death, other incidents or unseen matters. They would convey this news to the soothsayers, and the soothsayers would in turn convey the news to the people. The people would believe what the soothsayers told them as being true. When the soothsayers trusted the devils, the devils started to lie to them and added other words to the true news that they heard, to the extent of adding seventy false words to each true word. The people recorded these words in some books. Soon after, the Children of Israel said that the Jinns know matters of the Unseen.

When Solomon was sent as a Prophet, he collected these books in a box and buried it under his throne; any devil that dared get near the box was burned. Solomon said, `I will not hear of anyone who says that the devils know the Unseen, but I will cut off his head.' When Solomon died and the scholars who knew the truth about Solomon perished, there came another generation. To them, the devil materialized in the shape of a human and said to some of the Children of Israel, `Should I lead you to a treasure that you will never be able to use up' They said. `Yes.'

He said, `Dig under this throne,' and he went with them and showed them Solomon's throne. They said to him, `Come closer.' He said, `No. I will wait for you here, and if you do not find the treasure then kill me. ' They dug and found the buried books, and Satan said to them, `Solomon only controlled the humans, devils and birds with this magic.' Thereafter, the news that Solomon was a sorcerer spread among the people, and the Children of Israel adopted these books. When Muhammad came, they disputed with him relying on these books. Hence Allah's statement,

﴿وَمَا كَفَرَ سُلَيْمَـنُ وَلَـكِنَّ الشَّيْاطِينَ كَفَرُواْ﴾

(Sulayman did not disbelieve, but the Shayatin (devils) disbelieved)

[abu_musab461]

(They followed what the Shayatin (devils) gave out (falsely) in the lifetime of Sulayman.) means, magic. Solomon neither disbelieved nor did Allah send magic with the two angels. However, the devils disbelieved and taught magic to the people in the Babylon of Harut and Marut, meaning Gabriel and Michael, for Jewish sorcerers claimed that Allah sent magic by the words of Gabriel and Michael to Solomon, son of David. Allah denied this false claim and stated to His Prophet Muhammad that Gabriel and Michael were not sent with magic. Allah also exonerated Solomon from practicing magic, which the devils taught to the people of Babylon by the hands of two men, Harut and Marut. Hence, Harut and Marut were two ordinary men (not angels or Gabriel or Michael).'' These were the words of At-Tabari, and this explanation is not plausible.

Many among the Salaf, said that Harut and Marut were angels who came down from heaven to earth and did what they did as the Ayah stated. To conform this opinion with the fact that the angels are immune from error, we say that Allah had eternal knowledge what these angels would do, just as He had eternal knowledge that Iblis would do as he did, while Allah refered to him being among the angels,







(And (remember) when We said to the angels: "Prostrate yourselves before Adam.'' And they prostrated except Iblis (Satan), he refused) (20:116) and so forth. However, what Harut and Marut did was less evil than what Iblis, may Allah curse him, did. Al-Qurtubi reported this opinion from `Ali, Ibn Mas`ud, Ibn `Abbas, Ibn `Umar, Ka`b Al-Ahbar, As-Suddi and Al-Kalbi.

[abu_musab461]

(But neither of these two (angels) taught anyone (such things) till they had said, "We are for trial, so disbelieve not (by learning this magic from us).)

Abu Ja`far Ar-Razi said that Ar-Rabi' bin Anas said that Qays bin `Abbad said that Ibn `Abbas said, "When someone came to the angels to learn magic, they would discourage him and say to him, `We are only a test, so do not fall into disbelief.' They had knowledge of what is good and evil and what constitutes belief or disbelief, and they thus knew that magic is a form of disbelief. When the person who came to learn magic still insisted on learning it, they commanded him to go to such and such place, where if he went, Satan would meet him and teach him magic. When this man would learn magic, the light (of faith) would depart him, and he would see it shining (and flying away) in the sky. He would then proclaim, `O my sorrow! Woe unto me! What should I do.'' Al-Hasan Al-Basri said that this Ayah means, "The angels were sent with magic, so that the people whom Allah willed would be tried and tested. Allah made them promise that they would not teach anyone until first proclaiming, `We are a test for you, do not fall into disbelief.''' It was recorded by Ibn Abi Hatim. Also, Qatadah said, "Allah took their covenant to not teach anyone magic until they said, `We are a test. Therefore, do not fall in disbelief.'''

Also, As-Suddi said, "When a man would come to the two angels they would advise him, `Do not fall into disbelief. We are a test. ' When the man would ignore their advice, they would say, `Go to that pile of ashes and urinate on it.' When he would urinate on the ashes, a light, meaning the light of faith, would depart from him and would shine until it entered heaven. Then something black that appeared to be smoke would descend and enter his ears and the rest of his body, and this is Allah's anger. When he told the angels what happened, they would teach him magic

[dildarkhan]

Who were Haroot and Maroot? Angels! No

And started pursuing what the evil ones had spread in the kingdom of Sulie'maan. {Ill doings of evil mongers do not implicate the Ruler therefore} It was not Sulie'maan who denied [to abhor magic tricks in line with teaching of Musa] but it were the evil-ones {in his kingdom} who denied and in addition to telling magic/illusionary tricks told people such things as someone had transpired to the Malakain [two men of position] Ha'root and Ma'root at Babylon. And Ha'root and Ma'root used not to teach these to anyone without both telling him; "We are the skilled/specialists; so you do not deny [it's possibility]" For reason, people learned from them the techniques to sow discord between husband and wife though they could not thus harm anyone except if Allah's permission was also there. And they learned what harmed them, not what profited them. And they knew that the one would have no share in the happiness of the Hereafter who made it a profession/business activity. And vile was the price for which they did sell their souls, if they but knew! [2:102]

Who were هَارُوتَ وَمَارُوتَ Haroot and Maroot?
Were they two angels or two men of authority

Grand Qur'an, while giving an account of the psyche and conduct of Bani Israel in time and space, has disclosed that:
وَاتَّبَعُواْ مَا تَتْلُواْ الشَّيَاطِينُ عَلَى مُلْكِ سُلَيْمَانَ
"And they started pursuing what the evil ones narrated in the kingdom of Suleiman".

This is the news regarding the physical conduct of some members of community, named Bani Israel; and what they followed/pursued in action was not something stated by pious men or angels but it were the assertions of Satan-natured people made in the kingdom of Suleiman.

وَمَا كَفَرَ سُلَيْمَانُ وَلَـكِنَّ الشَّيَاطِينَ كَفَرُواْ
{Ill doings of evil mongers do not implicate the Ruler therefore} It was not Suleiman who denied [to abhor magic in line with teaching of Musa] but it were the evil-ones {in his kingdom} who denied.

It is told that Suleiman had not refused/denied; refusal and denial is always about something believed/or asked. By giving this news it has been clarified that what someone attributes to Suleiman regarding his denial is factually incorrect. In fact it were evil mongers who had denied. What was that which they denied? Action/conduct of people reflects regarding what they accept and what they deny/refuse. What were Satan-natured people doing?

يُعَلِّمُونَ النَّاسَ السِّحْرَ وَمَا أُنزِلَ عَلَى الْمَلَكَيْنِ بِبَابِلَ هَارُوتَ وَمَارُوتَ
They were telling people the art of creating illusions [magic tricks] AND such things as someone had transpired [perhaps hypnosis] to الْمَلَكَيْنِ Harut and Marut at Babylon.

The word أُنزِلَ is الماضى المجهول, past, passive, singular masculine third person. "that what descended upon the two مَلَكَيْنِ " Its Root is ن ز ل and basic perception infolded is to descend from above. It is used to deliver to someone something from external source. Words derived from this Root have been used in the Grand Quran for 293 times and nowhere it is used with relation to descending something upon مَلَآئِكَةٌ . They themselves descend and are the carriers for descending things/messages/book upon others.

الْمَلَكَيْنِ Dual تثنية [Two] : معرفة with definite article ال. This word can be derived either from Arabic Root أ ل ك or م ل ك
The basic perception/meaning infolded in the Arabic Root أ ل ك is "chewed or champed-the process of biting, or grinding something vigorously, noisily, or the sound that this makes"; a message or communication sent from one person/party to another.
For conveying the message to someone the messenger needs to retrieve the message from memory. The message will come to the messenger's chest, the vocal cord will be vibrated creating/converting/translating the message into sound which will have to be articulated in the mouth with the help of two lips and tongue before the messenger could emit/throw [يَلْفِظُ ] from the mouth shaping it in the words of the language of person for whom the message was intended.

The statistics of words derived from this Root mentioned in the Grand Qur'an is as under:-
The word مَلَكٌ has appeared 6 times [6:08, 50; 11:12,31; 12:31; 25:07]
The word مَلَكًا has appeared 3 times [6:08, 09; 17:95]
The word مَّلَكُ has appeared once in [32:11]
The word مَالِكُ [with injector يَا} has appeared once [43:77} Only Angels are Guardians of Hell.
The word مَّلَكٍ has appeared once [53:26]
The word الْمَلَكُ has appeared twice [69:17; 89:22]
The word الْمَلاَئِكَةِ has appeared 25 times
The word الْمَلآئِكَةُ has appeared 33 times
The word الْمَلاَئِكَةَ has appeared 9 times[3:80;6:11;15:08;16:02; 25:22;37:150;39:75;43:19;53:27]
The word مَلَآئِكَةٌ has appeared twice [17:95; 66:06]
The word مَلَائِكَةً has appeared 4 times[23:24;41:14;43:60; 74:31]
الْمَلَكَيْنِ Dual تثنية [Two] has been used apart from for Haroot and Maroot it has only once been in the Grand Quran and that is with reference to the Root م ل ك.
َقَالَ مَا نَهَاكُمَا رَبُّكُمَا عَنْ هَـذِهِ الشَّجَرَةِ
Iblis said ; "Your Sustainer Lord has not restrained both you two from this particular female tree
إِلاَّ أَن تَكُونَا مَلَكَيْنِ
except for reason that you both might become two rulers
أَوْ تَكُونَا مِنَ الْخَالِدِينَ
or you both attain/become perpetual beings. {Refer 07:20]
It is a matter of common sense that telling a man, that restriction is imposed for fear of his becoming an angel, cannot create any sensation and fascination for a man who already knows that he is superior to angels since all the angels collectively have already bowed before him. Notwithstanding Iblis suffers from delusion of grandeur he is not such a fool to have suggested such non sensational thing for deception.

فَوَسْوَسَ إِلَيْهِ الشَّيْطَانُ قَالَ يَا آدَمُ هَلْ أَدُلُّكَ عَلَى شَجَرَةِ الْخُلْدِ وَمُلْكٍ لَّا يَبْلَى
"For deceiving, he fascinated him by saying, "O Adam, may I guide/lead/disclose you the tree of perpetual existence/permanence and مُلْكٍ the kingdom that never fades/weakens/decays? "

It is thus manifest that مَلَكَيْنِ is from the Root م ل ك meaning Ruler/prominent men of a territory/people.

[NasirMuzaffar]

Who were Haroot and Maroot? Angels! No

And started pursuing what the evil ones had spread in the kingdom of Sulie'maan. {Ill doings of evil mongers do not implicate the Ruler therefore} It was not Sulie'maan who denied [to abhor magic tricks in line with teaching of Musa] but it were the evil-ones {in his kingdom} who denied and in addition to telling magic/illusionary tricks told people such things as someone had transpired to the Malakain [two men of position] Ha'root and Ma'root at Babylon. And Ha'root and Ma'root used not to teach these to anyone without both telling him; "We are the skilled/specialists; so you do not deny [it's possibility]" For reason, people learned from them the techniques to sow discord between husband and wife though they could not thus harm anyone except if Allah's permission was also there. And they learned what harmed them, not what profited them. And they knew that the one would have no share in the happiness of the Hereafter who made it a profession/business activity. And vile was the price for which they did sell their souls, if they but knew! [2:102]

Who were هَارُوتَ وَمَارُوتَ Haroot and Maroot?
Were they two angels or two men of authority

Grand Qur'an, while giving an account of the psyche and conduct of Bani Israel in time and space, has disclosed that:
وَاتَّبَعُواْ مَا تَتْلُواْ الشَّيَاطِينُ عَلَى مُلْكِ سُلَيْمَانَ
"And they started pursuing what the evil ones narrated in the kingdom of Suleiman".

This is the news regarding the physical conduct of some members of community, named Bani Israel; and what they followed/pursued in action was not something stated by pious men or angels but it were the assertions of Satan-natured people made in the kingdom of Suleiman.

وَمَا كَفَرَ سُلَيْمَانُ وَلَـكِنَّ الشَّيَاطِينَ كَفَرُواْ
{Ill doings of evil mongers do not implicate the Ruler therefore} It was not Suleiman who denied [to abhor magic in line with teaching of Musa] but it were the evil-ones {in his kingdom} who denied.

It is told that Suleiman had not refused/denied; refusal and denial is always about something believed/or asked. By giving this news it has been clarified that what someone attributes to Suleiman regarding his denial is factually incorrect. In fact it were evil mongers who had denied. What was that which they denied? Action/conduct of people reflects regarding what they accept and what they deny/refuse. What were Satan-natured people doing?

يُعَلِّمُونَ النَّاسَ السِّحْرَ وَمَا أُنزِلَ عَلَى الْمَلَكَيْنِ بِبَابِلَ هَارُوتَ وَمَارُوتَ
They were telling people the art of creating illusions [magic tricks] AND such things as someone had transpired [perhaps hypnosis] to الْمَلَكَيْنِ Harut and Marut at Babylon.

The word أُنزِلَ is الماضى المجهول, past, passive, singular masculine third person. "that what descended upon the two مَلَكَيْنِ " Its Root is ن ز ل and basic perception infolded is to descend from above. It is used to deliver to someone something from external source. Words derived from this Root have been used in the Grand Quran for 293 times and nowhere it is used with relation to descending something upon مَلَآئِكَةٌ . They themselves descend and are the carriers for descending things/messages/book upon others.

الْمَلَكَيْنِ Dual تثنية [Two] : معرفة with definite article ال. This word can be derived either from Arabic Root أ ل ك or م ل ك
The basic perception/meaning infolded in the Arabic Root أ ل ك is "chewed or champed-the process of biting, or grinding something vigorously, noisily, or the sound that this makes"; a message or communication sent from one person/party to another.
For conveying the message to someone the messenger needs to retrieve the message from memory. The message will come to the messenger's chest, the vocal cord will be vibrated creating/converting/translating the message into sound which will have to be articulated in the mouth with the help of two lips and tongue before the messenger could emit/throw [يَلْفِظُ ] from the mouth shaping it in the words of the language of person for whom the message was intended.

The statistics of words derived from this Root mentioned in the Grand Qur'an is as under:-
The word مَلَكٌ has appeared 6 times [6:08, 50; 11:12,31; 12:31; 25:07]
The word مَلَكًا has appeared 3 times [6:08, 09; 17:95]
The word مَّلَكُ has appeared once in [32:11]
The word مَالِكُ [with injector يَا} has appeared once [43:77} Only Angels are Guardians of Hell.
The word مَّلَكٍ has appeared once [53:26]
The word الْمَلَكُ has appeared twice [69:17; 89:22]
The word الْمَلاَئِكَةِ has appeared 25 times
The word الْمَلآئِكَةُ has appeared 33 times
The word الْمَلاَئِكَةَ has appeared 9 times[3:80;6:11;15:08;16:02; 25:22;37:150;39:75;43:19;53:27]
The word مَلَآئِكَةٌ has appeared twice [17:95; 66:06]
The word مَلَائِكَةً has appeared 4 times[23:24;41:14;43:60; 74:31]
الْمَلَكَيْنِ Dual تثنية [Two] has been used apart from for Haroot and Maroot it has only once been in the Grand Quran and that is with reference to the Root م ل ك.
َقَالَ مَا نَهَاكُمَا رَبُّكُمَا عَنْ هَـذِهِ الشَّجَرَةِ
Iblis said ; "Your Sustainer Lord has not restrained both you two from this particular female tree
إِلاَّ أَن تَكُونَا مَلَكَيْنِ
except for reason that you both might become two rulers
أَوْ تَكُونَا مِنَ الْخَالِدِينَ
or you both attain/become perpetual beings. {Refer 07:20]
It is a matter of common sense that telling a man, that restriction is imposed for fear of his becoming an angel, cannot create any sensation and fascination for a man who already knows that he is superior to angels since all the angels collectively have already bowed before him. Notwithstanding Iblis suffers from delusion of grandeur he is not such a fool to have suggested such non sensational thing for deception.

فَوَسْوَسَ إِلَيْهِ الشَّيْطَانُ قَالَ يَا آدَمُ هَلْ أَدُلُّكَ عَلَى شَجَرَةِ الْخُلْدِ وَمُلْكٍ لَّا يَبْلَى
"For deceiving, he fascinated him by saying, "O Adam, may I guide/lead/disclose you the tree of perpetual existence/permanence and مُلْكٍ the kingdom that never fades/weakens/decays? "

It is thus manifest that مَلَكَيْنِ is from the Root م ل ك meaning Ruler/prominent men of a territory/people.

What's the source of this article ?
And who is it's author ?

[dildarkhan]

Borrowed it from another forum where the author himself had posted it, not directly from his Site. Any comment, or any thing wrong in it so that the author could be requested through e.mail to elaborate. Thanks.

[NasirMuzaffar]

I too came across it on another forum ............ but the problem is that my friend considered this to be an article authored by a "Quranite/ Munkar-e-Hadeeth"

I hope you can enquire regarding his stance towards the Sunnah ?

[dildarkhan]

I too came across it on another forum ............ but the problem is that my friend considered this to be an article authored by a "Quranite/ Munkar-e-Hadeeth"

I hope you can enquire regarding his stance towards the Sunnah ?
It is amazing allegation. There are so called pseudo intellectuals who, when cant answer or rebut, start such irrational and irrelevant accusations and spread confusion. Why cant we study a simply worded article right before our eyes and decide whether he has said some thing quite logical or just conjecture. In the Article he has given all the evidence from the Quran e Majeed.

I have read his articles in Urdu about the Last Messenger sallaAllah alahi wasalam and I say it with 200 percent certainity that none has written such praise of the beloved Messenger, what ever I have read so far, and interestingly all is said and quoted by him from the Quran e Majeed. If you can read urdu I will post some. In one article, quoting from Quran he said that one is blind of heart who can not feel the presence of the Messenger with him, since he says Noor never fades away, it remains present. In one article he said that if you find a "little word" written about the Last Messenger, immediately delete and strike it out, if the book is your own, without hesitation disregarding who wrote it.

I am sure this man who objected if asked will not be able to confirm that he believes in ALL the hadith included in 6 famous books, since I have not heard a single Maulana who believes in ALL hadith.

[NasirMuzaffar]

from Ma'alim at-Tanzil, 2:102:
قوله عز وجل { وَمَآ أُنزِلَ عَلَى ٱلْمَلَكَيْنِ بِبَابِلَ } أي ويعملون الذي أنزل على الملكين أي إلهاماً وعلماً، فالإِنزال بمعنى الإِلهام والتعليم، وقيل: واتبعوا ما أنزل على الملكين وقرأ ابن عباس والحسن الملِكين بكسر اللام، وقال ابن عباس: هما رجلان ساحران كانا ببابل، وقال الحسن: عِلجان لأن الملائكة لا يعلمون السحر.


Is the bold part Saheeh ?


A brother said that he could not find this recitation in any of the 10 qira'at.

[Abd- Allah]

All 10 recitations are authentic and accepted.

[NasirMuzaffar]

All 10 recitations are authentic and accepted.


Apart from the 10 famous authentic Qir’aat of the Quran there are some Daeef and Shaadh Qir’aat as well

[NasirMuzaffar]

I will not speak on behalf of Sheikh Waleed; however, it is a well-established fact that the recitation of al-Hasan, may Allah have mercy upon him, is in fact a weak one. Additionally, as regards the recitation of Ibn 'Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, it is not mutawaatir, but it is mashhoor. This means that it is authentically narrated, but not at a level high enough, ie through not enough chains, to be taken without question; therefore, there is a difference of opinion amongst the jurists and mufassiroon regarding the permissibility of deriving rules from it.

This is not because of the source of the recitation (ie 'Ibn Abbas, al-Hasan, etc.), but rather somewhere else down the chain, there is a weak narrator.


JazakAllah Khair akhi.

As to what I've deduced from your post is that

"the recitation of Ibn 'Abbas (ra) has been authentically transmitted but it isn't one of the 10 famous authentic Qir’aat of the Quran.

Rather, it falls under the category of Daeef Qir’aat (not Shaadh Qir’aat). "


If there is any mistake in my interpretation of your post, please correct me.

[Yusuf513Khan]

بسم الله الرحمان الرحيم

السلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته

الحمد الله

Allāh سبحانه و تعالى tells us,

وَاتَّبَعُوا مَا تَتْلُو الشَّيَاطِينُ عَلَىٰ مُلْكِ سُلَيْمَانَ ۖ وَمَا كَفَرَ سُلَيْمَانُ وَلَـٰكِنَّ الشَّيَاطِينَ كَفَرُوا يُعَلِّمُونَ النَّاسَ السِّحْرَ وَمَا أُنزِلَ عَلَى الْمَلَكَيْنِ بِبَابِلَ هَارُوتَ وَمَارُوتَ ۚ وَمَا يُعَلِّمَانِ مِنْ أَحَدٍ حَتَّىٰ يَقُولَا إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ فِتْنَةٌ فَلَا تَكْفُرْ ۖ فَيَتَعَلَّمُونَ مِنْهُمَا مَا يُفَرِّقُونَ بِهِ بَيْنَ الْمَرْءِ وَزَوْجِهِ ۚ وَمَا هُم بِضَارِّينَ بِهِ مِنْ أَحَدٍ إِلَّا بِإِذْنِ اللَّهِ ۚ

“They followed what the Shayāṭīn (devils) gave out (falsely of the magic) in the lifetime of Sulaymān (Solomon). Sulaymān did not disbelieve, but the Shayāṭīn (devils) disbelieved, teaching men magic and such things that came down at Babylon to the two angels, Hārūt and Mārūt, but neither of these two (angels) taught anyone (such things) till they had said, “We are only for trial, so disbelieve not (by learning this magic from us).” And from these (angels) people learn that by which they cause separation between man and his wife, but they could not thus harm anyone except by Allāh’s Leave…”[1] (http://tafseerulquran.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/were-harut-and-marut-angels-or-kings/#_ftn1)

The word Allāh سبحانه و تعالى has used to mention about the Hārūt and Mārūt is الْمَلَكَيْنِ. The root of this word is مَلَكَ which means an Angel. But, Imām al-Baghawī رحمه الله mentions in his tafsīr that cAbdullāh bin cAbbās رضي الله عنهما, Al-Ḥasan رحمه الله and Imām Fakhrud-Dīn ar-Rāzī رحمه الله mentions that aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk رحمه الله used to recite the word as الْمَلِكَيْنِ [2] (http://tafseerulquran.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/were-harut-and-marut-angels-or-kings/#_ftn2)whose root is مَلِكَ with a kasraħ on lām rather than fatḥaħ. This fact is also mentioned in Tafsīr al-Kashshāf by Imām az-Zamakhsharī

One might wonder, the Qur’ān is in different recitations? The answer to this question is yes, it has reached to us in ten different but authentic Qiracāħ. Before we study the variant recitation of the verse, lets give a brief introduction to the different Qiracāħ of the Qur’ān.

A Qiracāħ is, for the most part, a method of pronunciation used in the recitations of the Qur’ān. These methods are different from the seven forms or modes (ḥurūf) in which the Qur’ān was revealed. The seven modes were reduced to one, that of Quraysh, during the era of Caliph cUthmān رضي الله عنه when he ordered that the Qur’ān be copied in the Qurayshī dialect and distributed among the Islāmic centers of the time. Hence, only the Qurayshī mode remains today and all of the methods of recitation are based on this mode. The various methods have all been traced back to the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم through a number of the Ṣaḥābaħ رضي الله عنهما who were most noted for their Qur’ānic recitations. That is, these Ṣaḥābaħ رضي الله عنهما recited the Qur’ān to the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم or in his presence and received his approval. Among them were the following: Ubayy ibn Kacb, cAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, Zayd ibn Thābit, Ibn Mascūd, Abū ad-Dardā’, and Abū Mūsa al-Ashcarī رضي الله عنهما. Many of the other Ṣaḥābaħ رضي الله عنهما learned from these masters. cAbdullāh Ibn cAbbās رضي الله عنهما, the master commentator of the Qur’ān among the Ṣaḥābaħ رضي الله عنهما, learned from both Ubayy and Zayd رضي الله عنهما. [3] (http://tafseerulquran.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/were-harut-and-marut-angels-or-kings/#_ftn3)

Among the next generation of Muslims, referred to as the Tabicūn there arose many scholars who learned the various methods of recitation from the Ṣaḥābaħ رضي الله عنهما and taught them to others. Centers of Qur’ānic recitation developed in Madīnaħ, Makkaħ, Kūfaħ, Baṣraħ, and ash-Shām (Greater Syria), leading to the evolution of Qur’ānic recitation into an independent science.[4] (http://tafseerulquran.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/were-harut-and-marut-angels-or-kings/#_ftn4) By the mid eighth century CE, there existed a large number of outstanding scholars, all of whom were considered specialists in the field of recitation. Most of their methods of recitation were authenticated by chains of reliable narrators, ending with the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم. Those methods on each level of their chain were called Mutawātir and were considered to be the most accurate. Those methods in which the number of narrators were few or one on any level of the chain were referred to as Shādh.

However, some of the scholars of the following period began the practice of designating a set number of individual scholars from the previous period as being the most noteworthy and accurate reciters. By the middle of the tenth century CE (6th century AH), it became a popular convention to limit the number of best reciters to seven, since this number coincided with the number of ḥurūf in which the Qur’ān was revealed.

Similarly, during this period the number of schools of Islāmic law (Madhhab) were reduced to the famous four after a period in which there were many. The first to limit the number of authentic reciters to seven was the cIrāqī scholar, Abū Bakr ibn Mujāhid رحمه الله (d. 936 CE), and those who wrote books on Qiracāħ after him followed suit.[5] (http://tafseerulquran.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/were-harut-and-marut-angels-or-kings/#_ftn5) This limitation is not an accurate representation of the classical scholars of Qur’ānic recitation. There were many others who were as good as the seven and a number who were greater than them. In fact, the classification of scholars was really a classification of how well their methods of recitation were preserved. Hence, the famous seven were those early scholars from different generations whose methods of recitation had the most chains of narrators with many narrations on each level of the chain. However, there were other classical scholars whose methods of recitation were just as authentically (Mutawātir) recorded as the famous seven. A list of the ten scholars of Qur’ānic recitation whose methods were best preserved is as follows:

1. Abū cAmr ibn al-cAlā (d. 771 CE/154 AH) of Baṣraħ

2. Ibn Kathīr (d. 738 CE/119 AH) was among the students of the Ṣaḥābaħ رضي الله عنهما of Makkaħ.

3. Nāfic (d. 786 CE/169 AH) was originally from Iṣfahān, and his recitation, as transmitted by Warsh (d. 812 CE/196 AH), was of Madīnaħ.

4. Ibn cĀmir (d. 737 CE/118 AH) was the chief judge (Qāḍī) of Damascus during the reign of al-Walīd ibn cAbdul Mālik, who, along with the other Umayyad caliphs, made that city his capital.

5. cĀṣim (d. 746 CE/128 AH) of Kūfaħ was the narrator of the dominant recitation in current use. His narration, as transmitted by Ḥafṣ, is the most common method of narration used in the Muslim world today with the exception of Africa.

6. Ḥamzaħ (d. 773 CE/156 AH) of Kūfaħ.

7. Al-Kisā’ī (d. 805 CE/189 AH) of Kūfaħ was one of the foremost grammarians. He played a major role in the formulation of Arabic grammar rules.

8. Abū Jacfar (d. 750 CE/132 AH) of Madīnaħ.

9. Yacqūb (d. 820 CE/204 AH) of Baṣraħ.

10. Khalaf (d. 844 CE/229 AH) of Baghdād رحمهم الله

At the same time that scholars of ḥadīth laid down conditions to determine the authenticity of statements or actions attributed to the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم, scholars of Qur’ānic recitation also formulated conditions to facilitate critical analysis of the existing recitations. For any given recitation to be accepted as authentic (Ṣaḥīḥ), it had to fulfill three conditions. If any of the conditions were missing, such a recitation was classified as Shādh (unusual). The first condition was that the recitation have an authentic chain of narration; that is, that the chain of narrators had to be unbroken, that the narrators were known to be righteous, and that they were known to possess good memories. It was also required that the recitation be conveyed by a large number of narrators on each level of the chain of narration below the level of the Ṣaḥābaħ رضي الله عنهما (the condition of Tawātur). Narrations which had authentic chains but lacked the condition of Tawātur were accepted as explanations (Tafsīr) of Ṣaḥābaħ رضي الله عنهما, but were not considered as methods of reciting the Qur’ān. As for narrations which did not even have an authentic chain of narration, they were classified “bāṭil” (false) and rejected totally.

The second condition was that the recitations’ variations match known Arabic grammatical constructions. Unusual constructions were verified by their existence in passages of pre-Islamic prose or poetry.

The third condition required the recitation to coincide with the script of one of the copies of Qur’ān distributed during the era of Caliph cUthmān رضي الله عنه. Hence, differences which result from dot placement (e.g. taclamūn and yaclamūn) are considered acceptable, provided the other conditions are met. If no support for an unusual condition could be found, the recitation of that construction would be classified Shādh. [6] (http://tafseerulquran.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/were-harut-and-marut-angels-or-kings/#_ftn6)

This classification did not mean that all aspects of the recitation were considered Shādh; in fact, none of the accepted ten methods are totally free from some Shādh constructions. Shādh narrations of this type also serve as explanations for the authentic narrations, as they are obviously statements of the Ṣaḥābaħ رضي الله عنهما.

Now back to the issue of variant recitation. The answer to this question is that it is an odd recitation that has was rejected by Imām Aṭ-Ṭabarī رحمه الله although it was transmitted in authentic chain from cAbdullāh bin cAbbās رضي الله عنهما. This recitation is both Shadhaħ and Mashhuraħ at the same time as it is a recitation that that is according to Arabic language and match the writings of the cUthmānī script written words that comes in authentic chain but did not reach level of Tawātur. And, it is not one of the ten famous Qiracāħ that are known famously. This ayaħ’s tafsīr been disputed by the scholars of the past so it is not possible to say which of the tafsīrs is stronger. And indeed, Allāh سبحانه و تعالى knows best.

[1] (http://tafseerulquran.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/were-harut-and-marut-angels-or-kings/#_ftnref1) Sūraħ al-Baqaraħ, 2:102 [2] (http://tafseerulquran.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/were-harut-and-marut-angels-or-kings/#_ftnref2) Mcālim at-Tanzīl

[3] (http://tafseerulquran.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/were-harut-and-marut-angels-or-kings/#_ftnref3) Al-Itqān

[4] (http://tafseerulquran.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/were-harut-and-marut-angels-or-kings/#_ftnref4) Ibid

[5] (http://tafseerulquran.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/were-harut-and-marut-angels-or-kings/#_ftnref5) Ibid

[6] (http://tafseerulquran.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/were-harut-and-marut-angels-or-kings/#_ftnref6) Ibid

Here's a lil something from the net.