I Introduction

Certain narratives inform us that the sūrahs were arranged in different sequences in the masāhif of ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd (rta) and Ubayy ibn Ka‘b (rta). These arrangements have been reported primarily in two sources: al-Fihrist1 of Ibn Nadīm (d. 380 AH) and al-Itqān2 of al-Suyūtī (d. 911 AH). Whilst the former source contains two eye-witness accounts of the masahif attributed to ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd (rta) and Ubayy ibn Ka‘b (rta) respectively, the latter source quotes another source (Ibn Ahshtah’s Kitāb al-masāhif) which merely reports in two separate narratives the arrangements of the masahif attributed to them.

In this article, an analysis of these narratives will be conducted. 

II. Scheme of the Masāhif of Ubayy (rta) and Ibn Mas‘ūd (rta)

The following chart gives us the details of the schemes of the masāhif of ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd (rta) and Ubayy ibn Ka‘b (rta). The numbers referring to sūrah numbers found in the existing sequence shows how the two differed from one another in this regard.

III. Analysis of Ubayy’s Mushaf

A. Analysis of the Matn

The following questions arise on the matn of the narratives which report this arrangement:

i. It is strange that none of Ubayy’s students have reported from him his differently arranged codex having two additional sūrahs.29 It is almost two centuries after him that we find al-Fadl ibn Shādhān (d. 260 AH) finding a mushaf attributed to him with such an arrangement. Similarly, it is Ibn Ashtah (d. 360 AH)30 in his Kitāb al-masāhif who records this arrangement on the authority of Abū Ja‘far al-Kūfī (third century).31

ii. A simple glance at the lists of al-Itqān and al-Fihrist show that they do not correspond with one another. After the first twenty entries, the lists do not tally with one another. Which of them should one believe?

iii. How can one conclude that this arrangement of the sūrahs was the final one written by Ubayy (rta)? If at all it has any basis, it could merely be a list written before the al-ardah al-akhīrah (the final review).

iv. As indicated earlier, in the arrangement given by Ibn Nadīm, Sūrahs Tīn and ‘Abas are repeated twice.

v. In al-Fihrist it is written at the end of the list that the total number of sūrahs is 116. Counting shows that there are actually only 104 indicating the defective nature of the list.

vi. According to both al-Fihrist and al-Itqān, two extra sūrahs were present in the mushaf of Ubayy (rta): Sūrah Khal‘ and Sūrah Hafd.

Following are the primary points of criticism raised by al-Bāqilānī32 on the presence of Sūrahs Khal‘ and Hafd in Ubayy’s mushaf:

i. Had these sūrahs been part of the Qur’ān, they would have been regarded so by the Prophet (sws) and would have been transmitted the way the Qur’ān is.

ii. There is no narrative which says that Ubayy (rta) regarded these sūrahs to be part of the Qur’ān. All we have are reports which say that they were written in his mushaf. This of course is not a certain proof of them being part of his Qur’ān.

iii. If Ubayy’s mushaf had these sūrahs, it was but natural for ‘Uthmān (rta) to have gotten hold of it as soon as possible and have it destroyed because it was against his mushaf. He would have been more desperate to acquire it than the rest of the masāhif. There is also a narrative33 from Muhammad and Tufayl, the two sons of Ubayy (rta), who were asked about the mushaf of their father. They replied that it had been confiscated by ‘Uthmān (rta). Now if this narrative is true, then how come people say that they saw it and that it was the mushaf of Anas ibn Mālik (rta) that contained the du‘ā of qunūt.

iv. It is not merely enough for a book to be attributed to a person unless this attribution is based on reports that are widespread and extensive and this is not the case with Ubayy’s copy of the Qur’ān.

v. Some Mu‘tazilites have narrated from ‘Ubayd ibn ‘Umayr that he had seen a mushaf which belonged to Anas ibn Mālik (rta) and which he had read out to Ubayy (rta) and that it contained the du‘ā of qunūt. While negating this, al-Bāqilānī says that Abū al-Hasan ‘Alī ibn Ismā‘īl al-Ash‘arī is reported to have said that he had seen the mushaf of Anas (rta) with one of his children and it was exactly the same as all the rest.

Al-Bāqilānī goes on to say that if it is to be in anyway considered that there were reasons for these sūrahs to be present in the mushaf of Ubayy (rta), then it could be because of many reasons. One of the reasons he cites is that Ubayy (rta) wrote the sūrahs of qunūt while knowing that they were not part of the Qur’ān at the end of his mushaf or somewhere in between – in between if the Qur’ān he had written was incomplete and had not been arranged in the right sequence.

Schwally has commented in some detail on the “Qur’ānicity” of these sūrahs. He dismisses the notion that they were part of the Qur’ān on the basis of linguistic reasons. In the following paragraphs, I will first present his critique and then later analyze it.

While referring to the text of these sūrahs, Schwally quotes their text on the authority of various sources. He points out that they have been variously called as Sūrah Khal‘ and Sūrah Hafd, Sūrahs of Qunūt, even Sūrah Qunūt, Du‘ā al-Qunūt, Du‘ā al-Fajr and al-Du‘ā. The last three names showing that they are not sūrahs of the Qur’ān; they are only supplications.

Regarding the texts of the sūrahs, Schwally says that people who have quoted them are al-Suyūtī (d. 1510 AD), Tashkubrizādah (d. 1560 AD) and Birgili (d. 1562 AD).34 The authorties quoted by al-Sūyūtī all belong to the first century.35

The texts are:

Sūrah Khal‘

بسم الله الرحمان الرحيم36

اللهم إنا نستعينك37 ونستغفرك38 ونثني عليك39 ولا نكفرك40 ونخلع ونترك من يفجرك

Sūrah Hafd

اللهم إياك نعبد ولك نصلي41 ونسجد وإليك نسعى ونحفد  نرجو رحمتك ونخشى عذابك42 إن عذابك بالكفار43 ملحق

Text given by Tashkubrizādah44 

Sūrah Khal‘

بسم الله الرحمان الرحيم

اللهم إنا نستعينك ونستغفرك ونثني عليك ولا نكفرك ونخلع ونترك من يفجرك

Sūrah Hafd

بسم الله الرحمان الرحيم

اللهم إياك نعبد ولك نصلي ونسجد وإليك نسعى ونحفد  نرجو رحمتك ونخشى عذابك إن عذابك بالكافرين ملحق

The first person to publish the texts of these sūrahs in the West was Purgstall Hammer.45

While criticizing the provenance of these sūrahs, Schwally46 basically raises linguistic issues and says that his critique differs from that of the Muslim scholars, whose critique is that if these sūrahs are accepted then the sanctity of the ‘Uthmānic text is put into jeopardy. His points of criticism are:

i. There is only one other instance in the Qur’ān where the word إستعان  occurs with an object and that is in Sūrah Fātihah.

ii. The verbأَثْنىَ  has not been used in the Qur’ān although words having similar meanings like كَبَّرَ and سَبَّحَ and  حَمِدَ are used in the Qur’ān.

iii. The verb  حَفَدَdoes not occur in the Qur’ān as well.

iv. The verbسَعَى  occurs many times in the Qur’ān; however, it has never occurred with the words إلَى اللهِ. The Qur’ānic expression فَاسْعَوْا إلَى ذِكْرِ اللهِ (62: 9)  cannot be quoted in its support.

v. The verbفَجَرَ  is used transitively here in the qunūt; however, it is used intransitively in the Qur’ān (75:5 and 91:8).

vi. The verb  خَلَعَ occurs just once in the Qur’ān (20:12) being used in its literal sense in contrast to its metaphorical sense in which it is used here.

vii. A suspect use is that of نَكْفُرُكَ. The verb كَفَرَ in the meaning of أَنْكَرَ (rejection) is only used in the Qur’ān with the preposition ب appended to nouns of a living being.

Schwally says that for these reasons it is not possible to regard these sūrahs as part of the Qur’ān and it is even difficult to regard them as supplications of the Prophet (sws). Perhaps they were supplications that were generally used in the time of the Prophet (sws) and some narratives47 say that ‘Umar (rta) and Ubayy (rta) recited them in the qunūt prayers. A narrative48 says that these sūrahs were also found in the mushaf of Abū Mūsā al-‘Ash‘arī (rta) and it is also known that Ibn ‘Abbās (rta) followed49 the recital of Abū Mūsā (rta). It is further said50 that ‘Alī (rta) transmitted these sūrahs to ‘Abdullāh ibn Zurayr al-Ghāfiqī.

Now as far as Schwally’s textual criticism on Sūrah Khal‘ and Sūrah Hafd are concerned, the following questions arise on it:

i. If the word إِسْتَعانَ is used in the Qur’ān with an object just once [in Sūrah Fātihah], then this usage itself proves that in classical Arabic this verb takes a direct object. Thus, for example, lexicons specify that it does take a direct object.51

The example of the verb taking an object through a preposition is found in the Qur’ān itself:

قاَلَ مُوسَى لِقَوْمِهِ اسْتَعِيْنُوْا باللهَ وَاصْبِرُوا (٧:١٢٨)

Here the word أللهَ is the object of the verb اسْتَعِيْنُوْا; only here the verb اسْتَعِيْنُوْا has used the preposition ب with its object.

ii. The fact that words like حَفَدَ andأثْنَى  have never been used in the Qur’ān is not a valid criticism. If a word can be classified as belonging to classical Arabic, then just one instance of its use is enough to regard it as the Qur’ān. It is common knowledge that both حَفَدَ andأثْنَى  are classical Arabic words. If someone contends otherwise, the onus of proof rests on him.

iii. In the constructionإِلَيْكَ نَسْعَى  the governing noun (mudāf) is actually suppressed – a common feature of Qur’ānic Arabic. The implied meaning is إِلَى رَحْمَتِكَ نَسْعَى (towards your mercy do we run). As examples, of a suppression of a governing noun when the governed noun is God, consider the verses:

وَ جَاهِدُوا فِي اللهِ حَقَّ جِهَادِهِ (٢٢: ٧٨)

فَظَنُّوْا أَنَّهُمْ مَانِعَتُهُمْ حُصُوْنُهُم مِنَ اللهِ (٥٩: ٢)

The first is actually: وَ جَاهِدُوا فِي دِيْنِ اللهِ حَقَّ جِهَادِهِ and the second is: فَظَنُّوْا أَنَّهُمْ مَانِعَتُهُمْ حُصُوْنُهُم مِن بَأسِ اللهِ, as specified by Abū Hayyān.52

iv. As far as the use of the verbفَجَرَ  is concerned, in the Qur’ān also it is used transitively, the only thing is that its object is suppressed. In the very first example cited by Schwally, this is the case:

The verse reads:

بَلْ يُرِيْدُ الإنْسَانُ لِيَفْجُرَ أمَامَهُ (٧٥: ٥)

In the opinion of Islāhī,53 the object of the verb is God and the meaning implied is:

بَلْ يُرِيْدُ الإنْسَانُ لِيَفْجُرَ اللهَ أمَامَهُ

In fact, man wants to show disobedience to God before himself.

In the second example quoted by Schwally, the word is used as a noun and not as a verb; hence the example itself is erroneous. The verse reads:

فَأَلْهَمَهَا فُجُوْرَهَا وَ تقْوَاهَا (٩١: ٨)

v. The fact that the word خَلَعَ has never been used in its metaphorical sense in the Qur’ān is no critique. Its metaphorical use is quite common in classical Arabic. Muhalhal ibn Rabī‘ah, a poet of the jāhiliyyah period says:54

خلع الملوك و سار تحت لوائه

شجر العرى و عراعر الأقوام

(He disaffiliated himself from the kings and below his flag gathered useful people like the tree of al-‘arā and chiefs of nations.)

At another place, he says:55

ولست بخالع درعي و سيفي

إلى أن يخلع الليل النهار

(I am not going to take of my amour and my sword until the night sheds the day.)

In the first couplet, the metaphorical use is evident; while in the second one it is used in this sense in the second hemistich.

vi. What Schwally has said about the word نَكْفُرُكَ is correct. However, why should it be taken to mean “rejection” here. The word also means “ingratitude” and its placement adjacent to the word نَشْكُرُكَ (we are grateful to You) suggests in some textual variants56 of the qunūt that here it is used in this meaning.

All in all, none of the points raised by Schwally seems to hold water.

Moreover, a look at the narratives which mention the qunūt show that they are generally of two categories:

Firstly, narratives which mention that the qunūt was read in the prayer by various Companions.57

Secondly, narratives which mention that the qunūt was found written in the masāhif (or reading) of some Companions.58

As far as reading the qunūt as a supplication in the prayer is concerned, it cannot be objected to and the practice can still be found among Muslims and traced back to earlier times.

If the qunūt was also written in the masāhif of some Companions (rta), then this does not necessarily mean that it was written as part of the Qur’ān. As pointed out by al-Bāqilānī, it could be written there merely for remembrance and it was known that it was not part of the Qur’ān. Why it was written in the Qur’āns of some Companions (rta) can also be gauged. It was frequently read by Muslims in the prayer. Thus for example, al-Suyūtī writes: “Muhammad ibn Nāsr al-Marūzī records in his Kitāb al-Salāh that Ubayy (rta) would read the qunūt in the prayer, then he mentioned the two and that he would write them in his mushaf.”59

B. Analysis of the Isnād

The isnād of narration of of the reports which record the mushaf of Ubayy (rta) as per al-Fihrist and al-Itqān are as follows:

Isnād according to al-Fihrist

قال الفضل بن شاذان أخبرنا الثقة من أصحابنا قال كان تأليف السور في قراءة أبي بن كعب بالبصرة في قرية يقال لها قرية الأنصار على رأس فرسخين عند محمد بن عبد الملك الأنصاري أخرج إلينا مصحفا وقال هو مصحف أبي رويناه عن آبائنا …

Al-Fadl ibn Shādhān said that one of his trustworthy associates informed him that the scheme of arrangement of the sūrahs according to the reading of Ubayy was found in the village of al-Ansār situated two farsakhs from Basrah with a person called Muhammad ibn Malik al-Ansārī. He brought a copy of the Qur’ān to us and said that this is the mushaf of Ubayy which has been narrated by our generations from our forefathers…60

Isnād according to al-Itqān

قال ابن أشتة في كتاب المصاحف أنبأنا محمد بن يعقوب حدثنا أبو داود حدثنا أبو جعفر الكوفي قال هذا تأليف مصحف أبي

Ibn Ashtah has said in Kitāb al-masāhif: “We were informed by Muhammad ibn Ya‘qūb that Abū Dā’ūd narrated to us that Abū Ja‘far al-Kūfī said: ‘Following is the arrangement of Ubayy’s mushaf...’”61

In al-Fihrist, al-Fadl ibn Shādhān who died in 260 AH62 reports seeing a mushaf belonging to Ubayy (rta). We do not find the name of the person from whom al-Fadl reports. Similarly, Ibn Nadīm (d. 385 AH) has not disclosed his source from whom he acquired these words of al-Fadl ibn Shādhān.

In al-Itqān, Ubayy’s sūrah arrangement is attributed to ibn Ashtah’s Kitāb al-masāhif. In the Kitāb al-masāhif itself a chain of narration is given for this arrangement. This chain obviously is broken because it begins with someone (see below) who is the informant of Abū Dā’ūd Sulaymān ibn al-Ash‘ath who died in 257 AH.

The informant of Abū Dā’ūd Sulaymān ibn al-Ash‘ath is Abū Ja‘far al-Kūfī. I will now attempt to identify him. Research shows that following are the Abū Ja‘far al-Kūfīs which are his informants.

i. Ahmad ibn ‘Umar ibn Hafs ibn Jahm ibn Wāqid ibn ‘Abdullāh al-Kindī (d. 235 AH)63

ii. Muhammad ibn Tarīf ibn Khalīfah al-Bajlī (d. 242 AH)64

iii. Muhammad ibn ‘Ubayd al-Muhārabī (d. 245 AH)65

iv. Muhammad ibn Sawwār ibn Rāshid al-Azdī (d. 248 AH)66

v. Muhammad ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Sulaymān al-Kindī al-Bazzāz al-Darīr (d. 248 AH)67

vi. Muhammad ibn ‘Uthmān ibn Karāmah al-‘Ijli al-Warrāq (d. 256 AH)68

Needless to re-iterate that in all of the above six possibilities, the narrative is broken and almost two centuries separate each of the six and Ubayy (rta).

IV. Analysis of ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd’s Mushaf

Before I analyze the text and content of the narratives, here is some more information about the codex of ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd (rta) as recorded in the various sources indicated:

Al-Fihrist

Ibn Nadīm69 has recorded the following further information about Ibn Mas‘ūd’s codex:

i. There were a total of 110 sūrahs in the mushaf.

ii. According to another report, Sūrah Tūr preceded Sūrah Dhāriyāt.

iii. Abū Shādhān reports from Ibn Sīrīn that Ibn Mas‘ūd would neither write the mu‘awwidhatayn nor Sūrah Fātihah in his mushaf.

iv. Al-Fadl has reported from his chain from A‘mash that in the reading of ‘Abdullāh it was حم سق.

v. Muhammad ibn Ishāq [Ibn Nadīm] said: “I have seen many masāhif which their scribes attribute to Ibn Mas‘ūd but no two masāhif agree with one another … I have seen a mushaf which was written about 200 years earlier in which Sūrah Fātihah was written.”

vi. The following sūrahs are recorded with variations from the standard ones respectively. The variations are different in different published versions:

Sūrah ‘Asr

Standard Version / Dār al-Ma‘rifah’s Version70

وَالْعَصْرِ إِنَّ الْإِنسَانَ لَفِي خُسْرٍ  إِلَّا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ وَتَوَاصَوْا بِالْحَقِّ وَتَوَاصَوْا بِالصَّبْرِ (١٠٣: ١-٣ )

Flugel’s Version71 / Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah’s Version72

وَالْعَصْرِ لَقَدْ خَلَقْنَا الْإِنسَانَ لَفِي خُسْرٍ وَ إنَّهُ فِيْهِ إِلَى آخِرِ الدَّهْرِ إِلَّا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَتَوَاصَوْا بِالتَّقْوَى وَتَوَاصَوْا بِالصَّبْرِ

Sūrah Kāfirūn

Standard Version / Dār al-Ma‘rifah’s Version

قُلْ يَاأَيُّهَا الْكَافِرُونَ  لَا أَعْبُدُ مَا تَعْبُدُون  وَلَا أَنْتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ  وَلَا أَنَا عَابِدٌ مَا عَبَدتُّمْ وَلَا أَنْتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ (١٠٩: ١-٦)

Flugel’s Version / Dār al-Kutub al- ‘Ilmiyyah’s Version

قُلْ لِلَّذِيْنَ كَفَرُو لَا أَعْبُدُ مَا تَعْبُدُون 73

Sūrah Lahab

Standard Version / Dār al-Ma‘rifah’s Version

تَبَّتْ يَدَا أَبِي لَهَبٍ وَتَبَّ  مَا أَغْنَى عَنْهُ مَالُهُ وَمَا كَسَبَ  سَيَصْلَى نَارًا ذَاتَ لَهَبٍ  وَامْرَأَتُهُ حَمَّالَةَ الْحَطَبِ فِي جِيدِهَا حَبْلٌ مِنْ مَسَدٍ (١١١: ١-٥)

Flugel’s Version / Dār al-Kutub al- ‘Ilmiyyah’s Version

تَبَّتْ يَدَا أَبِي لَهَبٍ وَ قَدْ تَبَّ مَا أَغْنَى عَنْهُ مَالُهُ وَمَا كَسَبَ وَامْرَأَتُهُ حَمَّالَةَ الْحَطَبِ

Sūrah Ikhlās

Standard Version / Dār al-Ma‘rifah’s Version

قُلْ هُوَ اللَّهُ أَحَدٌ اللَّهُ الصَّمَدُ لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ وَلَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌ (١١٢: ١-٤)

Flugel’s Version / Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah’s Version

اللَّهُ وَاحِدْ الصَّمَدُ 74

Absence of Fātihah and the Mu‘awwidhatayn

According to Ibn Sīrīn, Ibn Mas‘ūd would not write Fātihah and the mu‘awwidhatayn in his mushaf.75

The above narrative as recorded by Abū ‘Ubayd is as follows:

حدثنا إسماعيل بن إبراهيم عن أيوب عن ابن سيرين قال: كتب أبي بن كعب في مصحفه فاتحة الكتاب و المعوذتين و اللهم إنا نستعينك و اللهم إياك نعبد و تركهن ابن مسعود و كتب عثمان منهن فاتحة الكتاب و المعوذتين

Ibn Sīrīn said: Ubayy wrote in his mushaf Sūrah Fātihah, the mu‘awwidhatayn and و اللهم إنا نستعينك و اللهم إياك نعبد and Ibn Mas‘ūd wrote none of them. ‘Uthmān, however, wrote from these Sūrah Fātihah and the mu‘awwidhatayn.76

Schwally77 says that al-Itqān78 mentions that in the Qur’ān of Ibn Mas‘ūd (rta), there were 112 sūrahs except the mu‘awwidhatayn. This shows that Sūrah Fātihah was found in his mushaf. Schwally says that three other narratives quoted by al-Suyūtī also corroborate this fact.

Existence of basmalah at the beginning of Barā’a

This is recorded by al-Suyūtī.79 He says that the author of al-Iqnā‘ has reported that the basmalah was written at the beginning of Sūrah Barā’a in the mushaf of Ibn Mas‘ūd and the author then says that this view should not be considered.

Let us now turn to the analysis of these historical reports.

A. Analysis of the Matn

i. No student of ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd (rta) reports this differently arranged mushaf from him. It is only in the third century that we find al-Fadl ibn Shādhān (d. 260 AH) and Jarīr ibn ‘Abd al-Hamīd (d. 188 AH) report this list for the first time.80

ii. A simple glance at the lists of al-Itqān and al-Fihrist show that they do not correspond with one another. After the first eleven entries, the lists do not tally with one another.

iii. Jeffery has pointed out the defective nature of the list. Whilst the text of al-Fihrist at the end says that there are 110 sūrahs in all, there are actually 105 to be found in the list.81

iv. Ibn Nadīm himself has commented at the end of the list he has given that he had seen many masāhif which were attributed to Ibn Mas‘ūd (rta) but no two agreed.

v. How can one conclude from this list that it was the final one written by Ibn Mas‘ūd? If at all it has any basis, it could be a list written before the final presentation (al-ardah al-akhīrah).

B. Analysis of the Isnād

Let us now look at the chains of narration of the narratives which refer to Ibn Mas‘ūd’s mushaf both from al-Fihrist and from al-Itqān.

Isnād according to al-Fihrist

قال الفضل بن شاذان: وجدت في مصحف عبد الله بن مسعود تأليف سور القرآن على هذا الترتيب …

Al-Fadl ibn Shādhān said: “I found the arrangement of the Qur’ānic sūrahs in the mushaf of Ubayy to be the following…”82

Al-Fadl ibn Shādhān, we know, died in 260 AH.83 Moreover, Ibn Nadīm has not quoted his informant from whom he acquired these words of al-Fadl ibn Shādhān.

Isnād according to al-Itqān

قال ابن أشته أيضا وأخبرنا أبو الحسن بن نافع أن أبا جعفر محمد بن عمرو بن موسى حدثهم قال حدثنا محمد بن إسماعيل بن سالم حدثنا علي بن مهران الطائي حدثنا جرير بن عبد الحميد قال تأليف مصحف عبد الله بن مسعود

Jarīr ibn ‘Abd al-Hamīd said: “[This is the] arrangement of the mushaf of ibn Mas‘ūd …”84

Jarīr ibn ‘Abd al-Hamīd died in 188 AH at the age of 71.85 This means that it is for the first time in the second century that this arrangement came to surface.

V. Conclusion

These reports about the alleged masāhif are not strongly grounded. The text and chain of the narratives have severe flaws in the presence of which the content they reflect cannot be regarded as reliable.

1 Abū al-Faraj Muhammad ibn Ishāq ibn Nadīm, Al-Fihrist,2nd ed. (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 2002),

2 Jalāl al-Dīn ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn Kamāl al-Dīn Abī Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn Sābiq al-Dīn al-Suyūtī, Al-Itqān fī ‘ulūm al-Qur’ān, 1st ed., vol. 1 (Baydār: Manshūrāt al-radī, 1349 AH.), 222-224.

3 The text at this place says that from here begin the al-tuwal sūrahs.

4 The text at this place says that from here begin the al-mi’īn sūrahs.

5 The words written here are that the author is not exactly sure if it is Sūrah Yūnus which is the tenth sūrah.

6 The text at this place says that from here begin the al-mathānī sūrahs.

7 The words mentioned are al-zumar awwaluhā hamīm. It is known that Sūrah Zumar does not contain the word hamīm. There can be two possibilities: Either the words awwaluhā hamīm are a scribal error and hence should be ignored, or they refer to another sūrah. Jeffery has adopted the first of these possibilities and Schwally the second. Schwally is of the opinión that these words either refer to Sūrah Fussilat (41) or to Sūrah al-Zukhruf (43). See: Theodore Noldeke and Fredrich Schwally, Geschichte des Qorans (Tarīkh al-Qur’ān), trans by Georges Tamer, 1st ed. (Beirut: Konrad-Adenauer-Stitfung, 2004), 264; Arthur Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Koran, 1st ed. (Netherlands: 1936), 115.

8. The actual words are hamīm al-tanzīl. In all probability, this refers to Sūrah Jāthiyah (45) since all other hammīm sūrahs are already mentioned. Schwally and Jeffery also hold this view. See: Theodore Noldeke and Fredrich Schwally, Tarīkh al-Qur’ān, 264; Arthur Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Koran, 115.

9. The actual word written is Tāsīn Sulaymān. This refers to Sūrah Naml.

10. The actual word written is Dā’ūd. This refers to Sūrah Sabā’.

11. The actual words written are al-hāwāmīm al-musabbihāt which as observed by Jeffery is “an introductory title to the group of six succeeding sūrahs.” See: Arthur Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Koran, 22.

12. The text at this place says that from here begin the hawāmīm.

13. The actual word written is al-Malā’ikah. This refers to Sūrah Fātir.

14. The actual words written are sabbaha hashr which as observed by Jeffery are “part of the title of the sūrah” and have bothered both Schwally and Flugel. See: Arthur Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Koran, 22.

15. The actual word written is الطهار which in all probability is الظهار. This is the name of sūrah 58 also called al-Mujādalah.

16. The text at this place says that from here begin the al-mufassal sūrahs.

17. Sūrah 80 is mentioned again after Sūrah 88 below.

18. Sūrah 95 is mentioned again after Sūrah 105 below.

19. The actual words are al-nabī ‘alayh al-salām. Both Schwally and Jeffery also interpret this to refer to Sūrah 65. See: Noldeke and Schwally, Tarīkh al-Qur’an, 263; Arthur Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Koran, 115.

20. The actual words mentioned at the place of Sūrah 98 (al-Bayyinah) are لم يكن أول ما كان الذين كفروا. The words أول ما كان are not found in the Qur’āns of today.

21. The text mentions at this point that the sūrah has three verses.

22. This seems to be another name for Sūrah Hafd. The text at this point mentions that this sūrah has six verses. The first of these six is اللهم إياك نعبد  and the last of them is بالكفار ملحق.

23. This sūrah is mentioned with a variant text which is discussed in a later section.

24. Ibid.

25.This sūrah is mentioned with a variant text which is discussed in a later section.

26. The list ends on the words: “all this comes to 116 sūrahs.”

27. The list ends on the words: “all this comes to 110 sūrahs.”

28. The text at this place says that Sūrah Fātihah and Sūrahs Falaq and Nās (the mu‘awwidhatayn) do not exist in this list.

29. Some of his famous students include ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abbās (rta), Anas ibn Mālik (rta), Abū Mūsā al-Ash‘arī (rta), Abū Hurayrah (rta), Zirr ibn Hubaysh and Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyib. See: Abū al-Hajjāj Yūsuf ibn al-Zaki al-Mizzī, Tahdhīb al-kamāl fī asmā’ al-rijāl. 1st ed., vol. 2 (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-risālah, 1980), 263-264.

30. See: Jalāl al-Dīn ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn Kamāl al-Dīn Abī Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn Sābiq al-Dīn al-Suyūtī, Bughyah al-wu‘āt fī tabaqāt al-lughwiyyīn wa al-nuhāt, vol. 1 (Beirut: Al-Maktabah al-‘asriyyah, n.d.), 142.

31. For the complete chain of narration, see below: Analysis of the Isnād.

32. Qādī Abū Bakr ibn Tayyib al-Bāqilānī, Al-Intisār li al-Qur’an, 1st ed., vol. 1 (Beirut: Dār Ibn Hazm, 2001), 268-274.

33. Reference is to: Abū Bakr ‘Abdullāh ibn Abī Dā’ūd Sulaymān ibn al-Ash‘ath, Kitāb al-masāhif, 1st ed. (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 1985), 43.

34. For texts quoted by these three authors, see below.

35. Reference is to people like ‘Abdullāh ibn al-Zubayr (d. 81 AH), ‘Ubayd ibn ‘Umayr (d. 64 AH), Umayyah ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Khālid ibn Usayd (d. 84/85 AH) and Maymūn ibn Mihrān (d. 117 AH).

36. The basmalah is not present in the text cited by al-Zamakhsharī in his exegesis of Sūrah Yūnus, in a narrative given in al-Itqān (No. 2) and in the Landberg Manuscript (343) (Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5). See: Noeldeke and Schwally, Tārīkh al-Qur’ān, 267.

37. Birgili has the word نستهديك  و after نستعينك. See: Noeldeke and Schwally, Tārīkh al-Qur’ān, 267.

38. Landberg Manuscript (343) (No. 6) has the words نؤمن بك و نخضع لك and Birgili has ونستهديك و نؤمن بك و نتوب إليك و نتوكل عليك. See: Noeldeke and Schwally, Tārīkh al-Qur’ān, 267.

39. A narrative in al-Itqān (vol. 1, 227) has the word  خيراafter this and Birgili adds after this الخير كله نشكرك. See: Noeldeke and Schwally, Tārīkh al-Qur’ān, 267.

40. Birgili adds و نخضع لك after this. See: Noeldeke and Schwally, Tārīkh al-Qur’ān, 267.

41. Tashkubrizādah does not give this part. See: Noeldeke and Schwally, Tārīkh al-Qur’ān, 267.

42. A narrative in Itqān (vol. 1, 227) and the Manuscript 343 of Landberg (Nos 1, 3) places ونخشى عذابك before نرجو رحمتك. See: Noeldeke and Schwally, Tārīkh al-Qur’ān, 267.

43. This is the text in al-Itqān, al-Fihrist, al-Kashshāf, Landberg Manuscript (343) (Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6) and Birgili. In contrast, a narrative in al-Itqān (vol. 1, 226), Landberg Manuscript (343) (Nos. 1, 3) and Tashkubrizādah have بالكافرين. See: Noeldeke and Schwally, Tārīkh al-Qur’ān, 267.

44. Ahmad ibn Mustafā Tashkubrizādah, Mawsū‘ah mustalahāt miftāh al-sa‘ādah wa misbāh al-siyādah bi mawdū‘āt al-‘ulūm, 1st ed., vol. 2 (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 1985), 358.

45. Purgstall Hammer, Literaturgeschichte der Araber, 1st ed., vol. 1 (Wien, 1850), 576.

46. Noeldeke and Schwally, Tārīkh al-Qur’ān, 267-268. As a secondary criticism, he says that the absence of the word qul in these prayer like sūrahs casts doubt on their Qur’ānic status.

47. Al-Suyūtī, Al-Itqān, vol. 1, 226-227.

48. Ibid.

49. Ibid.

50. Ibid., vol. 1, 226.

51. See, for example: Muhammad ibn Mukarram ibn Manzur, Lisān al-‘arab, 1st ed., vol. 13 (Beirut: Dār sādir, n.d.), 298.

52. Abū Hayyān Muhammad ibn Yūsuf, Al-Bahr al-muhīt fī al-tafsīr, vol. 7 (Beirut: Dār al-fikr li al-tabā‘ah wa al-nashr wa al-tawzī ‘, 2000), 539; Ibid., vol. 10, 138.

53. Amīn Ahsan Islāhī, Tadabbur-i Qur’ān, 2nd ed., vol. 9 (Lahore: Faran Foundation, 1986).

54. Muhalhal ibn Rabī‘ah, Dīwān, (n.p.: Al-Dār al-‘ālamiyyah, n.d.), 82.

55. Muhalhal ibn Rabī‘ah, Dīwān, 34.

56. See for example: ‘Abd al-Razzāq ibn Hammām al-San‘ānī, Musannaf, vol. 3 (Beirut: Al-Maktab al-islāmī, 1403 AH), 144 (no. 4978); Abū Ja‘far Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Salāmah al-Tahāwī, Sharh mushkil al-āthār, 1st ed., vol. 1 (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-risālah, 1987), 249, (no. 1370).

57. ‘Umar (rta) read it in the fajr prayer. See, for example: Abū Bakr Ahmad ibn al-Husayn al-Bayhaqī, Al-Sunan al-kubrā, vol. 2 (Makkah: Maktabah dār al-Bāz, 1994), 211, (no. 2963); Al-Tahāwī, Sharh ma‘ānī al-āthār, 1st ed., vol. 1 (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 1399 AH.), 249, (no. 1370); Ibn Abī Shaybah, Musannaf, vol. 6, 90 (no. 29719). ‘Alī (rta) read it in the fajr prayer. See, for example: ‘Abd al-Razzāq, Musannaf, vol. 3, 114, (no. 4978); Ibn Abī Shaybah, Musannaf, vol. 6. 90, (29717). Abū ‘Abd al-Rahmān says that Ibn Mas‘ūd (rta) taught them the qunūt to be read in the witr prayer. See, for example Abū Bakr ‘Abdullāh ibn Muhammad ibn Abī Shaybah, Al-Musannaf fī al-hadīth wa al-athār. 1st ed., vol. 6 (Riyād: Maktabah al-rushd, 1409 AH), 89, (no. 29708).

58. Ibn Sīrīn reported: “Ubayy wrote in his mushaf Sūrah Fātihah, the mu‘awwidhatayn and و اللهم إنا نستعين و اللهم إياك نعبد.” See: Abū ‘Ubayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallām, Fadā’il al-Qur’ān, 1st ed. (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 1991), 189-190. Maymūn ibn Mihrān says that he read the qunūt in the mushaf of Ubayy (rta). See: Abū ‘Ubayd, Fadā’il al-Qur’ān, 190. Hishām reports from Muhammad that Ubayy wrote in his mushaf five things: the umm al-kitāb, the mu‘awwidhatayn and the two sūrahs and Ibn Mas‘ūd left out all of them. And ‘Uthmān wrote the umm al-kitāb and the mu‘awwidhatayn and left out the two sūrahs. See: ‘Umar ibn Shabbah, Akhbār al-Madīnah, vol. 2 (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 1996), 126, (no. 1751). ‘Azrah ibn ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn Zurārah says that he read the qunūt in the mushaf of Ubayy. See: Abū ‘Ubayd, Fadā’il al-Qur’ān, 190. Abū ‘Amr Muhammad ibn Ishāq al-Rashādī reports that he read qunūt in the mushaf of Ubayy. See: Al-Suyūtī, Al-Durr al-manthūr, vol. 8 (Beirut: Dār al-fikr, 1993), 697. A narrative records that the mushaf of Ibn ‘Abbās was on the reading of Ubayy and Abū Mūsā al-Ash‘arī which contained the qunūt. See: Al-Suyūtī, Al-Itqān, vol. 1, 227; Muhammad ibn Durays, Fadā’il al-Qur’ān, 1st ed. (Damascus: Dār al-fikr, 1988),), 157-158.

59. Al-Suyūtī, Al-Itqān, vol. 1, 227.

60. Ibn Nadīm, Al-Fihrist, 42.

61. Al-Suyūtī, Al-Itqān, vol. 1, 222.

62. ‘Ināyatullāh ibn ‘Alī al-Quhpā’ī, Majma‘ al-rijāl, 2nd ed., vol. 5 (Qum: Mu’assasah matbū‘āt ismā‘īliyān, 1364 AH), 27.

63. Abū al-Hajjāj Yūsuf ibn al-Zaki al-Mizzī, Tahdhīb al-kamāl, 1st ed., vol. 1 (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-risālah, 1980), 412.

64. Abū al-Fadl Ahmad ibn ‘Alī al-‘Asqalānī ibn Hajar, Tahdhīb al-tahdīb, 1st ed., vol. 9 (Beirut: Dār al-fikr, 1984), 209.

65. Abū ‘Abdullāh Shams al-Dīn Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn ‘Uthmān ibn Qāyamaz ibn ‘Abdullāh Al-Dhahabī, Al-Kāshif, vol. 2 (Jeddah: Dār al-qiblah al-thaqāfah al-islāmiyyah, 1992), 198.

66. Ibn Hajr, Tahdhīb al-tahdīb, vol. 9, 185.

67. Al-Dhahabī, Al-Kāshif, vol. 2, 153.

68. Ibid., vol. 2, 200.

69. Ibn Nadīm, Al-Fihrist, 42.

70. Ibn Nadīm, Al-Fihrist, 1st ed., Beirut: Dār al-ma‘rifah, n.d.

71. Ibn Nadīm, Kitāb al-fihrist, ed., Gustav Flugel, 1st ed., vol. 1 (Leipzig: 1871), 26.

72. Ibn Nadīm, Al-Fihrist, 2nd ed., Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 2002.

73. This is the only text that is quoted and in all probability shows that the rest of the text is the same as the standard version.

74. Again, this truncated text in all probability shows that the rest of the text is the same as the standard version.

75. See: Ibn Nadīm, Kitāb al-fihrist, ed., Gustav Flugel, 1st ed., vol. 1 (Leipzig: 1871), 26.

76. Abū ‘Ubayd, Fadā’il al-Qur’ān, 189-190. Ismā‘īl ibn Ibrahīm is most probably: Abū Bishr Ismā‘īl ibn Ibrāhīm known as Ibn ‘Ulayyah and is trustworthy.

77. Noeldeke and Schwally, Tārīkh al-Qur’ān, 273.

78. The reference is to Al-Suyūtī, Al-Itqān. vol.1, 226.

79. Al-Suyūtī, Al-Itqān, vol. 1, 225.

80. For the complete chain of narration, see below: “Analysis of the Isnād”.

81. Arthur Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Koran, 22.

82. Ibn Nadīm, Al-Fihrist, 42.

83. Al-Quhpā’ī, Majma‘ al-rijāl, vol. 5, 27.

84. Al-Suyūtī, Al-Itqān, vol. 1, 223.

85. Ibn Hajar, Tahdhīb al-tahdhīb, vol. 2, 65; Abū al-Fadl Ahmad ibn ‘Alī al-‘Asqalāni ibn Hajar, Taqrīb al-tahdhīb, 1st ed. (Syria: Dār al-rashīd, 1986),139.