The hadith scholar Abd al-Ghanī ibn Sa‘īd (1) also narrated a report from Qatāda, from Abd al-Rahmān ibn Abī Bakr (2), from his father, who said: “The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, recited with elongated vowels, without melodic repetition.”
They said: Melodic repetition and embellishment entail inserting glottal stops where there are none, lengthening sounds that should not be lengthened, and repeating a single alif as several alifs, a wāw as several wāws, and a yā as several yās. This results in additions to the Quran, which is impermissible.
They said: There is no defined boundary between what is permissible in this and what is not. If a specific boundary is imposed, that would amount to arbitrarily imposing rules upon Allah’s Book and His religion. If no boundary is imposed, this would give the practitioner free rein to repeat (3) sounds, multiply melodic repetitions, and vary the kinds of rhythms and melodies resembling singing, just as singers do with verses of poetry—as (4) is done by many
(1) Al-Qurtubī cites it from him in his Tafsīr. It is also transmitted by Ibn ‘Adī in al-Kāmil, in the entries for ‘Umar ibn Mūsā (7:311) and al-Walīd ibn al-Qāsim al-Hamdānī (10:281), and by al-Tabarānī in al-Awsat (no. 4747). Al-Dāraqutnī states in al-‘Ilal (no. 2524): “‘Amr (sic) ibn Mūsā is abandoned as a narrator, and the report is not authentically transmitted from Abū Bakrah.” Al-Bukhārī states in al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr (6:197): “He is al-Wajīhī …, a narrator of objectionable hadith.” See also Mīzān al-I‘tidāl (3:224) and Lisān al-Mīzān (6:148–151).
(2) This is the reading in all manuscript and printed copies, as well as in three of the four manuscripts used to establish the text of al-Qurtubī’s Tafsīr. The correct reading is “Abī Bakrah,” as found in the sources transmitting the report.
(3) ج reads “bi-hi Zayd” (“with it, Zayd”), an amusing corruption of “tardīd” (“repetition”). The same reading appeared in its sister copy ص but was subsequently corrected.
(4) The printed editions read “wa-kamā” (“and as”). Whoever added the conjunction mistakenly thought that this “kamā” (“as”) was coordinated with the preceding “kamā.”