Ibn alJazari, al-Nashr (1/51):

“Everything authentically narrated from the Prophet is obligatory to be accepted; no one from this ummah has the choice to reject it. Believing in it is imperative, as all of it is revealed from God. Every recitation from amongst these recitations with regard to the other is like a verse with regard to another verse; believing in all of them is obligatory, and following the meanings contained therein through knowledge and action is obligatory as well.

It is not permissible for a person to leave off one of them because of their assumption that there is a contradiction between it and another. This was referred to by Abdullah Ibn Masood when he said, “Do not differ in the Quran and do not dispute about it, as it does not differ nor does it fail. Do you not see that the Sharia of Islam therein is one? Its boundaries, recitation, and God’s commands therein are one? If there had been two modes (harfan), one mode (harf) ordering something and the other forbidding it, then there would be a difference between the two. However, all of this is encompassed in its entirety. So whoever recites a certain recitation, he should not leave it off out of disdain for it, because whoever disbelieves in one mode (harf) has disbelieved in all of them.”

I, Al-Jazari, say, “And in this regard, the Prophet referred to this when he said to one of those who had disputed, ‘You have done well,’ and in another narration, ‘You are correct,’ and then in another narration, ‘Like this it was revealed.’” The prophet affirmed the correctness of each recitation of those who disputed, stating unequivocally for them that this had all been revealed from God.

In this regard, the differences between the Qira’at are different from the legal differences between jurists. Regarding the differences between the Qira’at, each one of them is correct and true, revealed from God, and it is His speech in which there is no doubt. The differences between jurists are differences based on their juristic/legal acumen, while the truth amongst these opinions is only one. So every juristic school is correct about the other, with the possibility of being incorrect. However, every recitation concerning the other recitation is true and correct at the same time.

We say this unequivocally and believe in it. And believe that the meaning of each mode (harf) of these different modes of recitation is related to the other, and their relationship to whom they are attributed to from amongst the companions and others is specifically related to those that were most proficient at, recited the most, and taught the recitation thereof, adhering to and preferring more; nothing else.

Similar to this is attributing the modes of recitation and their respective recitals to the imams of recitation and their narrators. What is meant by this is that the reciter or that particular Imam chose to read according to a particular linguistic selection as recited by him, preferring that over other methods and adhering thereto. He [one of the Imams or reciters] would stick to this until he became famous for this, it being well known from him. He would be sought out by such people, taking that recitation from him. Because of this, that recitation was then attributed to him to the exclusion of others. Such an attribution is an attribution of selection, consistency, and adherence, not an attribution of invention, opinion, and Ijtihad.”

النشر لابن الجزري (١/٥١)

” وكُلُّ ما صَحَّ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ ﷺ مِن ذَلِكَ فَقَدْ وجَبَ قَبُولُهُ، ولَمْ يَسَعْ أحَدًا مِنَ الأُمَّةِ رَدُّهُ ولَزِمَ الإيمانُ بِهِ، وإنَّ كُلَّهُ مُنَزَّلٌ مِن عِنْدِ اللَّهِ، إذْ كُلُّ قِراءَةٍ مِنها مَعَ الأُخْرى بِمَنزِلَةِ الآيَةِ مَعَ الآيَةِ يَجِبُ الإيمانُ بِها كُلِّها واتِّباعُ ما تَضَمَّنَتْهُ مِنَ المَعْنى عِلْمًا وعَمَلًا، ولا يَجُوزُ تَرْكُ مُوجِبِ إحْداهُما لِأجْلِ الأُخْرى ظَنًّا أنَّ ذَلِكَ تَعارُضٌ، وإلى ذَلِكَ أشارَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مَسْعُودٍ – رضي الله عنه – بِقَوْلِهِ: «لا تَخْتَلِفُوا فِي القُرْآنِ ولا تَتَنازَعُوا فِيهِ؛ فَإنَّهُ لا يَخْتَلِفُ ولا يَتَساقَطُ، ألا تَرَوْنَ أنَّ شَرِيعَةَ الإ

سْلامِ فِيهِ واحِدَةٌ، حُدُودُها وقِراءَتُها وأمْرُ اللَّهِ فِيها واحِدٌ، ولَوْ كانَ مِنَ الحَرْفَيْنِ حَرْفٌ يَأْمُرُ بِشَيْءٍ يَنْهى عَنْهُ الآخَرُ كانَ ذَلِكَ الِاخْتِلافَ، ولَكِنَّهُ جامِعٌ ذَلِكَ كُلَّهُ، ومَن قَرَأ عَلى قِراءَةٍ فَلا يَدَعْها رَغْبَةً عَنْها، فَإنَّهُ مَن كَفَرَ بِحَرْفٍ مِنهُ كَفَرَ بِهِ كُلَّهُ».

(قُلْتُ): وإلى ذَلِكَ أشارَ النَّبِيُّ ﷺ حَيْثُ قالَ: لِأحَدِ المُخْتَلِفِينَ: «أحْسَنْتَ»، وفِي الحَدِيثِ الآخَرِ: «أصَبْتَ»، وفِي الآخَرِ: «هَكَذا أُنْزِلَتْ». فَصَوَّبَ

النَّبِيُّ ﷺ قِراءَةَ كُلٍّ مِنَ المُخْتَلِفِينَ، وقَطَعَ بِأنَّها كَذَلِكَ أُنْزِلَتْ مِن عِنْدِ اللَّهِ، وبِهَذا افْتَرَقَ اخْتِلافُ القُرّاءِ مِنَ اخْتِلافِ الفُقَهاءِ، فَإنَّ اخْتِلافَ القُرّاءِ كُلٌّ حَقٌّ وصَوابٌ نَزَلَ مِن عِنْدِ اللَّهِ وهُوَ كَلامُهُ لا شَكَّ فِيهِ واخْتِلافُ الفُقَهاءِ اخْتِلافٌ اجْتِهادِيٌّ والحَقُّ فِي نَفْسِ الأمْرِ فِيهِ واحِدٌ، فَكُلُّ مَذْهَبٍ بِالنِّسْبَةِ إلى الآخَرِ صَوابٌ يَحْتَمِلُ الخَطَأ، وكُلُّ قِراءَةٍ بِالنِّسْبَةِ إلى الأُخْرى حَقٌّ وصَوابٌ فِي نَفْسِ الأمْرِ.

نَقْطَعُ بِذَلِكَ ونُؤْمِنُ بِهِ، ونَعْتَقِدُ أنَّ مَعْنى إضافَةِ كُلِّ حَرْفٍ مِن حُرُوفِ الِاخْتِلافِ إلى مَن أُضِيفَ إلَيْهِ مِنَ الصَّحابَةِ وغَيْرِهِمْ، إنَّما هُوَ مِن حَيْثُ إنَّهُ كانَ أضْبَطَ لَهُ وأكْثَرَ قِراءَةً وإقْراءً بِهِ، ومُلازَمَةً لَهُ، ومَيْلًا إلَيْهِ، لا غَيْرَ ذَلِكَ. وكَذَلِكَ إضافَةُ الحُرُوفِ والقِراءاتِ إلى أئِمَّةِ القِراءَةِ ورُواتِهِمُ المُرادُ بِها أنَّ ذَلِكَ القارِئَ وذَلِكَ الإمامَ اخْتارَ القِراءَةَ بِذَلِكَ الوَجْهِ مِنَ اللُّغَةِ حَسْبَما قَرَأ بِهِ، فَآثَرَهُ عَلى غَيْرِهِ، وداوَمَ عَلَيْهِ.

ولَزِمَهُ حَتّى اشْتَهَرَ وعُرِفَ بِهِ، وقُصِدَ فِيهِ، وأُخِذَ عَنْهُ؛ فَلِذَلِكَ أُضِيفَ إلَيْهِ دُونَ غَيْرِهِ مِنَ القُرّاءِ، وهَذِهِ الإضافَةُ إضافَةُ اخْتِيارٍ ودَوامٍ ولُزُومٍ لا إضافَةَ اخْتِراعٍ ورَأْيٍ واجْتِهادٍ.”