Introduction

It is recorded in history that copies of the Qur’ān sent by ‘Uthmān (rta) to various parts of his empire had variations in certain recitals:1 these copies were not exactly similar to one another.

In this article, an analysis shall be conducted of these variations in the following order:

First, these variations as recorded by ‘Imādī2 shall be tabulated.

Second, a comprehensive survey of these variations whall be illustrated.

Third, how these variations have been interepreted by some authorities shall be discussed.

Fourth, these variations shall be critically analyzed together with the various interpretations of these variations.

II. The Recorded Variations

‘Imādī3 while quoting from Ibn Abī Dā’ūd’s Kitāb al-Masāhif enlists the differences which existed in the ‘Uthmānic copies sent to various areas of the empire. They are reflected in the following chart:

III. A Comprehensive Survey of the Variations

Before any analysis on the discrepancies is presented, it would be appropriate to first present these discrepancies in a comprehensive way since the ones presented by ‘Imādī have some errors and are also not comprehensive.

I shall use the abbreviations of the following three sources to cite these differences.4

Fadā’il al-Qur’ān5 by Abū ‘Ubayd (d.224 AH) = Fd

Kitāb al-masāhif6 of Ibn Abī Dā’ūd (d. 316 AH) = Ma

Al-Muqni‘7 by al-Dānī (d. 444 AH) = Mq

The numeral after these symbols (eg. Fd1 or Ma1 or Mq 1) represents the serial no of that narrative in a particular book. The relevant isnāds of these texts are quoted in a later section of this article which conducts isnād analysis. The texts themselves are represented in the chart below.

It is evident from the three sources quoted above that the copies were sent to Makkah, Madīnah, Kūfah, Basrah and Syria. In addition, ‘Uthmām (rta) kept a copy with himself that was called the imām (chief codex). One of the sources (Ma16) also speaks of an imām each of Hijāz and Irāq while many speak the masāhif / reading of the people of Hijāz and Irāq (Fd1, Fd2, Ma12, Ma14, Ma16, Ma17, Mq1, Mq2a).

IV. Interpretations of the Variations

According to Abū ‘Ubayd14 (d. 224 AH), these variations are part of the Qur’ān and have been copied from the imām written by ‘Uthmān (rta). Except for one instance,15 in which a word has been added, in all others the difference is just between one letter. In other words, these are very minor differences in his opinion and as such, no one should reject them in any way.

According to al-Dānī16 (d. 444 AH), ‘Uthmān (rta) collected the Qur’an in masāhif and preferred to write it in accordance with the dialect of the Quraysh. It was a proven fact to him that these variations in the readings of a word were actually revealed from God and heard from the Prophet (sws) and it was also not possible for him to write the variations of one word in the same codex except if he repeated the words; this would obviously cause confusion and ambiguity. So he distributed these variations in various copies, writing them out in some and omitting them from some others so that the ummah was able to preserve them the way they were heard from their Prophet (sws).

According to al-Zurqānī17, in order to accommodate the Seven Ahruf in the copies made by him, ‘Uthmān (rta) did two things:

1. He wrote out the copies without any diacritics and vocal signs so that one category of variations could be accommodated within the script. For example, the following two variants could be accommodated within the script if it was devoid of diacritics and vocal signs:

وَانْظُرْ إلَى العِظَامِ كَيْفَ نُنْشِزُهَا (٢: ٢٥٩)

وَانْظُرْ إلَى العِظَامِ كَيْفَ نُنْشِرُهَا (٢: ٢٥٩)

2. He wrote out these copies such that some of them had one reading and others another. This was done for the category of readings which could not be accommodated within the script of the mushaf.

For example:

وَأَوْصَى بِهَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ (١٣٢:٢)

وَوَصَّى بِهَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ (١٣٢:٢)

In this case, ‘Uthmān (rta) could have written the variations adjacent to one another; this would, however, give the erroneous impression that the variations had been revealed simultaneously; in this regard, the correct opinion is that one set of variations covering the whole of the Qur’ān was revealed once and then the next set.

He could also have written the variations on margins but did not do so lest people thought that the reading(s) written on the margins were corrections of the ones found in the text.

Muhammad Hādī Ma‘rifah18 has criticized the committee instituted by ‘Uthmān (rta) for not checking the copies made for discrepancies and it was these discrepancies which were a primary source of variant readings that sprung forth later. He asserts that the copies should have been the same and uniform and since this was not so, the reading of Makkah and the reading of Madīnah and the reading of Basrah and the reading of Kūfah and the reading of Syria sprung forth. Ma‘rifah criticizes the viewpoint of al-Zurqānī according to whom the variations in the copies were deliberate in order to accommodate the Seven Ahruf. He says that the narratives of the Seven Ahruf are all suspect.

V. Critical Evaluation

Certain questions arise on the matn (text) and isnād (chain of narration) of the narratives which depict variations in the copies made by ‘Uthmān (rta). In the following paragraphs a matn and isnād analysis of these narratives will be presented.

A. Matn

The questions which arise on the matn of these narratives are as follows:

1. It is generally believed that the source of the variations in the ‘Uthmānic copies was the Prophet (sws) himself. It is he who read out variously to his companions who then transmitted these variations to later generations. Now a look at the variations themselves shows that there is no novelty or meaninfulness in them which sense and reason demand should be the case if the Prophet (sws) wanted to communicate the same verse in different styles or ways. Contrary to this, the variations are quite trivial. So what exactly was the purpose of the Prophet (sws) in reading a verse variously when the variation itself is not meaningful? In most cases, the meaning is not even slightly changed.

2. If it is accepted that the Prophet (sws) read some verses with the variations cited earlier, then did he do it out if his own discretion or was it God who communicated a verse variously? Obviously, the Prophet (sws) could not have introduced variations without God’s permission, as the Qur’ān (10:15) has strictly forbidden him to effect any change in the revelation. So it has to be understood that the variations were from God Himself. The same question now stares us in the eye: Can God be expected to introduce such variations which seem purposeless and have no uniqueness or meaningfulness in them?

3. If the committee formed by ‘Uthmān (rta) was entrusted to make copies of the mushaf compiled by Abū Bakr (rta) which was in the safe keeping of Hafsah (rta), how could the copies reflect something that was not in the original?19 Surely, the original mushaf did not have any variations because it was written in one single reading. Or should it be construed that the original too had these variations? In case this is true, why does not any source substantiate this fact?

4. If these variations existed in the ‘Uthmānic copies, why is it that we do not find the Qur’ān being read according to these variations in these lands ever since? Where have these variations gone?

Thus, according to the chart tabulated earlier:

i. According to entry no. 3, in the masāhif of Syria, Makkah and the Madīnah it was written: يَقُولُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوْا (5: 53) and so was the oral reading of the people of Syria and Madīnah. However, today what is actually written and orally read in these three areas is: يَقُولُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوْا (5: 53) وَ.

ii. According to entry no. 5, in the masāhif of Madīnah and Basrah it was written: لَّئِنْ أَنْجَيُتَنَا (63:6) and so was the oral reading of these areas. However, today what is actually written and orally read in these areas is: (63:6) لَّئِنْ أَنجَانَا.

iii. According to entry no. 6, in the masāhif of Syria, Makkah (since Makkah is also a part of Hijāz) and Madīnah it was written: الَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُواْ مَسْجِدًا ضِرَارًا (107:9) and so was the oral reading of Syria and Madīnah. However, today the recital actually written and orally read in these three areas is: (107:9) وَالَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُواْ مَسْجِدًا.

iv. According to entry no. 7, in the masāhif of Syria, Makkah and Madīnah it was written: خَيْرًا مِّنْهُما مُنقَلَبًا (36:18) and so was the oral reading of Syria and Madīnah. However, today the recital actually written and orally read in these three areas is: (36:18) خَيْرًا مِّنْهَا مُنقَلَبًا.

v. According to entry no 14, in the masāhif of Madīnah and Basrah it was written: قُلْ رَبِّي يَعْلَمُ (4:21) and so was the oral reading of these areas. However, today the recital actually written and orally read in both these areas is: (4:21) قَالَ رَبِّي يَعْلَمُ.

vi. Although in entry no 15, the difference is not exactly ascribed to the three cities under discussion (viz. Madīnah, Kūfah and Basrah), the objection still holds that today in all three of these areas the recital actually written and orally read is: قُلْ إِنَّمَا أَدْعُو رَبِّي (72: 20).

vii. According to entry no 18, in the masāhif of Kūfah it was written: وَمَا عَمِلَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ (35:36) and so was the oral reading of this area. However, today the recital actually written and orally read in Kūfah is: (35:36) وَمَا عَمِلَتْهُ أَيْدِيهِمْ.

viii. According to entry no. 19, in the masāhif of Makkah and Kūfah it was written: فَهَلْ يَنظُرُونَ إِلَّا السَّاعَةَ أَن تَأْتِهِمْ بَغْتَةً (18:47). However, today the recital actually written and orally read in Makkah and Kūfah is: فَهَلْ يَنظُرُونَ إِلَّا السَّاعَةَ أَن تَأْتِيَهُمْ بَغْتَةً (18:47).

ix. According to entry no. 20, in Madīnah the recital was: وَسَيَعْلَمُ الْكَافِرُ (42:13). However, today the recital actually written and orally read in Madīnah is: (42:13) وَسَيَعْلَمُ الْكُفَّارُ.

x. According to entry no. 21, in the masāhif of Syria and Hijāz it was written: وَبالذُّبُرِ وَبِالكِتَابِ (184:3). However, today the recital actually written and orally read in these areas is: (184:3) وَالزُّبُر ِوَ الكِتَابِ.

xi. According to entry no. 22, in the masāhif of Syria it was written: مَا فَعَلُوهُ إِلاَّ قَلِيلاً ( 66:4). However, today the recital actually written and orally read in Syria is: ( 66:4) مَا فَعَلُوهُ إِلاَّ قَلِيلٌ.

xii. According to entry no 25, in the masāhif of Syria and Hijāz, it was written: ثُمَّ كِيدُونِي فَلاَ تُنظِرُونِ (195:7). However, today the recital actually written and orally read in Syria and Hijāz is: ثُمَّ كِيدُونِ فَلاَ تُنظِرُونِ (195:7).

xiii. According to entry no 26, in the masāhif of Syria, it was written: مَا كَانَ للِنَبِيٍّ (67:8). However, today the recital actually written and orally read in Syria is: (67:8) مَا كَانَ لِنَبِيٍّ.

xiv. According to entry no 27, in the masāhif of Syria, it was written: هُوَ الَّذِي يُنْشِرُكُمْ فِي الْبَرِّ وَالْبَحْرِ (22:10). However, today the recital actually written and orally read in Syria is: هُوَ الَّذِي يُسَيِّرُكُمْ فِي الْبَرِّ وَالْبَحْرِ (22:10).

xv. According to entry no 32, in the musahaf of Makkah, it was written: فَآمِنُواْ بِاللّهِ وَرَسُوْلِهِ (171:4). However, today the recital actually written and orally read in Makkah is: وَرُسُلِهِ فَآمِنُواْ بِاللّهِ (171:4).  ِ

xvi. According to entry no 33, in the masāhif of Makkah, it was written: تَجْرِي مِنْ تَحْتَهَا الأَنْهَارُ (100:9). However, today the recital actually written and orally read in Makkah is: تَجْرِي تَحْتَهَا الأَنْهَارُ (100:9).

xvii. According to entry no 35, in the masāhif of Kūfah it was written: (23: 112) قُلْ كَمْ لَبِثْتُمْ. However, today the recital actually written and orally read in Kūfah is: (23: 112) قَالَ كَمْ لَبِثْتُمْ.

xviii. According to entry no 36, in the masāhif Kūfah it was written: (23: 114) قُلْ إِنْ لَبِثْتُمْ. However, today the recital actually written and orally read in Kūfah is: قَالَ إِنْ لَبِثْتُمْ (23: 114).

xix. According to entry no 38, in the masāhif of Basrah, it was written: (112:21) قُلْ رَبِّ احْكُم بِالْحَقِّ. However, today the recital actually written and orally read in Basrah is: قَالَ رَبِّ احْكُم بِالْحَقِّ (112:21).

xx. According to entry no 42, in the masāhif of Syria, Makkah (as it is included in Hijāz) and Madīnah it was written: يَا عِبَادِي لاَ خُوْفٌ عَلَيْكُمْ (43: 68 ) and so was the oral reading of the people of Madīnah. However, today the recital actually written and orally read in these areas is: (43: 68 ) يَا عِبَادِ لاَ خُوْفٌ عَلَيْكُمْ.

xxi. According to entry no 48, in the masāhif of Syria it was written: وَلَدَارُ الْآخِرَةُ (6: 32). However, today the recital actually written and orally read in Syria is: (6: 32) وَلَلدَّارُ الْآخِرَةُ.

xxii. According to entry no 49, in the masāhif of Syria it was written: إِنَ اللّذِيْنَ حَقَّتْ عَليْهِمْ كَلِمَاتُ رَبِكَ (10: 96). However, today the recital actually written and orally read in Syria is: إِنَ اللّذِيْنَ حَقَّتْ عَليْهِمْ كَلِمَةُ رَبِكَ. (10: 96).

xxiii. According to entry no 50, in the masāhif of Syria it was written: إِنَّناَ لَمُخْرَجُوْنَ (27: 67). However, today the recital actually written and orally read in Syria is: لَمُخْرَجُوْنَ (27: 67) أَئِنَّا.

xxiv. According to entry no 51, in the masāhif of Makkah it was written: أًلَمْ يَرَالذِيْنَ كَفَرُوا (21 : 30). However, today the recital actually written and orally read in Makkah is: أًوَلَمْ يَرَ الذِيْنَ كَفَرُوا (21 : 30).

xxv. According to entry no 52, in the masāhif of Makkah it was written: وَنُنْزِلُ المَلآئِكَةَ (25:25 ). However, today the recital actually written and orally read in Makkah is: (25:25)  وَ نُزِّلُ المَلآئِكَةُ.

xxvi. According to entry no 53, in the masāhif of Makkah it was written: أَوْ لَيَاْتِيَنَّنِي (21:27). However, today the recital actually written and orally read in Makkah is: (21:27 ) أَوْ لَيَاْتِيَنِّي.

xxvii. According to entry no 54, in the masāhif of Makkah it was written: قَالَ مُوْسى رَبِّي أَعْلَمُ (28: 37). However, today the recital actually written and orally read in Makkah is: وَ قَالَ مُوْسى رَبِّي أَعْلَمُ (28: 37).

xxviii. According to entry no 55, in the masāhif of Syria it was written: تَجْرِي تَحْتِهَا الأَنْهَارُ (43:7). However, today the recital actually written and orally read in Syria is: تَجْرِي مِنْ تَحْتِهَا الأَنْهَارُ (43:7).

xxix. According to entry no 56, in the masāhif of Syria it was written: لَلْتَّخَذْتَ عَلَيْهِ (18 :77). However, today the recital actually written and orally read in Syria is: لَتَّخَذْتَ عَلَيْهِ (18 :77).

xxx. According to entry no 57, in the masāhif of Syria it was written: إِذَا أدْبَرَ (74: 33). However, today the recital actually written and orally read in Syria is: إِذْ أدْبَرَ (74: 33).

xxxi. According to entry no 58, in the masāhif of Madīnah it was written: وَ قَالَ المَلِكُ اِتُونِي (12: 54). However, today the recital actually written and orally read in Madīnah is: وَ قَالَ المَلِكُ اِئتُونِي (12: 54).

xxxii. According to entry no 59, in the masāhif of Makkah it was written: فَئَامِنُوْا بِاللهِ وَ رُسُلُهِ (4: 171). However, today the recital actually written and orally read in Makkah is:   فَئَامِنُوْا بِاللهِ وَ رَسُولِهِ (4: 171).

In short, in all these areas (Makkah, Madūnah, Kūfah, Basrah and Syria) there exists no variation at all. Each has the same reading. Moreover, there is no historical record to support the possible assumption that these readings were revoked at one time in these places and some other reading was enforced in their place.

5. Only the variations in the masāhif of Syria have been reported by narrator(s) who could be considered contemporaneous to the events they report (see: Fd2, Mq1(a), Mq4).20 However, all these isnāds are not free from weaknesses viz a viz their narrators. As far as variations reported in the masāhif of other areas is concerned, people who for the first time report these changes belong to the second or third century. (for details, see: the forthcoming section on “Analysis of Isnād”). The question arises that if these variations were present since the time of ‘Uthmān (rta), then why were they generally reported after a lapse of at least one century?

6. Regarding the justifications put forth by various scholars, Abū ‘Ubayd is of the view that the differences were very minor and except for one place only existed in single letters being added or suppressed. Notwithsanding the fact that his information is not totally correct,21 the fact that these variations existed is subject to the questions raised above.

Al-Dānī’s and al-Zurqānī’s contention that the variations were distributed in various copies so that the ummah could preserve them is also subject to the above questions. Ma‘rifah’s critique is very valid.22

7. One of the narratives (Ma16) speaks of the imām (primary codex) of Hijāz and the imām of Irāq. It is known that Makkah and Madīnah (both belonging to the territory of Hijāz) had separate imāms which differed with each other too at certain places; similarly, it is known that Kūfah and Basrah (both belonging to the territory of Irāq) also had separate imāms which differed with each other too at certain places. We do not know of any individual imām of Hijaz or that of Irāq. Perhaps the only possible solution to this is that the imām of Irāq implies both the imām of Kūfah and and that of Basrah and the imām of Hijāz implies the imām of Makkah and that of Madīnah). However, if this is the case, then we find many contradictions in the narratives.23

8. We also find that there exist internal contradictions in the narratives which report these variations. They include:

i. وَأَوْصَى بِهَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ (2: 132)  / وَوَصَّى بِهَا

According to entry no 1, Mq1 says that only the Madīnan and Syrian codices hadوَأَوْصَى بِهَا and all the rest had وَوَصَّى بِهَا; however, Ma16 says that the codex of Hijāz (which includes Makkah) also had وَوَصَّى بِهَا.

ii.)  سَارِعُواْ إِلَى مَغْفِرَةٍ مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ (133:3 / سَارِعُواْ وَ

According to entry no 2, Mq1 says that only the Madīnan and Syrian codices had سَارِعُواْ إِلَى مَغْفِرَةٍ and all the rest hadوَسَارِعُواْ إِلَى مَغْفِرَة ٍ; however, Ma16 says that the codex of Hijāz which includes Makkah also had سَارِعُواْ إِلَى مَغْفِرَةٍ.

iii. ( مَن يَرْتَدِدْ (5 4:5 / مَن يَرْتَدَّ

According to entry no 3, Mq1 says that only the Madīnan and Syrian codices had مَن يَرْتَدِدْ and all the rest had مَن يَرْتَدَّ; however, Ma16 says that that the codex of Hijāz which includes Makkah also had مَن يَرْتَدِدْ. Mq1(f) says that mushaf of ‘Uthmān (rta) had مَن يَرْتَدِدْ, while Ma1, Ma2 and Ma11 say that it had مَن يَرْتَدَّ.

iv. )  فَتَوَكَّلْ (26: 217/ وَتَوَكَّلْ

According to entry no 8, Mq1 says that only the Madīnan and Syrian codices had فَتَوَكَّلْ and all the rest had وَتَوَكَّلْ; however, Ma16 says that the codex of Hijāz (which includes Makkah) also hadفَتَوَكَّلْ ْ.

v. ) وَأَنْ يُظْهِرَ فِي الْأَرْضِ (26:40 / أَوْ أَنْ يُظْهِرَ

According to entry no 9, Mq1/Mq1(i) say that only ‘Uthmān’s codex and the Kūfan codex had أَوْ أَنْ يُظْهِرَ and all the rest had وَأَنْ يُظْهِرَ فِي الْأَرْضِ; however, Ma9 says that both Kūfan and Basran codices had أَوْ أَنْ يُظْهِرَ; similarly, Fd1, Ma12, Ma14, Ma16, Mq2(a) say that those of Irāq (which includes Kūfah and Basrah) also had أَوْ أَنْ يُظْهِرَ. Also, Ma1, Ma2 and Ma11 say that the mushaf of ‘Uthmān (rta) also had أَوْ أَنْ يُظْهِرَ.

vi. ) وَمَا أَصَابَكُم مِّن مُّصِيبَةٍ بِمَا كَسَبَتْ (30:42 / فَبِمَا كَسَبَتْ

According to entry no 10, Mq1 says that only the Madīnan and Syrian codices hadوَمَا أَصَابَكُم مِّن مُّصِيبَةٍ بِمَا كَسَبَتْ and all the rest had فَبِمَا كَسَبَتْ; however, Ma16 says that the codex of of Hijāz (which includes Makkah) also had بِمَا كَسَبَتْ.

vii. ) فِيهَا مَا تَشْتَهِيهِ الْأَنفُسُ (71:43 / تَشْتَهِيِ الْأَنفُسُ

According to entry no 11, Mq1 says that only the Madīnan and Syrian codices had فِيهَا مَا تَشْتَهِيهِ الْأَنفُسُ and all the rest had تَشْتَهِيِ الْأَنفُسُ; however, Ma16 says that the codex of Hijāz (which includes Makkah) also had فِيهَا مَا تَشْتَهِيهِ الْأَنفُسُ.

Mq1(k) says that the mushaf (imām) of ‘Uthman (rta) had تَشْتَهِيهِ الْأَنفُسُ while Ma1, Ma2, Ma11 and Mq6 say that it had تَشْتَهِيِ الْأَنفُسُ.

viii. ) فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ الْغَنِيُّ الْحَمِيدُ (24:57 / فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ الْغَنِيُّ الْحَمِيدُ

According to entry no 12, Mq1 says that only the Madīnan and Syrian codices had فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ الْغَنِيُّ الْحَمِيدُ and all the rest had فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ الْغَنِيُّ الْحَمِيدُ; however, Ma16 says that the codex of of Hijāz (which includes Makkah) also had فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ الْغَنِيُّ الْحَمِيدُ.

ix. ) فَلَا يَخَافُ عُقْبَاهَا (15:91 / وَلَا يَخَافُ

According to entry no 13, Mq1 says that only the Madīnan and Syrian codices hadفَلَا يَخَافُ عُقْبَاهَا and all the rest had وَلَا يَخَافُ; however, Ma16 says that the codex of Hijāz (which includes Makkah) also had فَلَا يَخَافُ عُقْبَاهَا.

x. ) لله ، لله ، لله (23: 85،87،89 / لله ، الله ، الله

According to entry no 1, as per Mq1 only the codex of Basrah had لله ، الله ، الله; and all others had لله ، لِلَّهِ ، لِلَّهِ; however, according to Ma14, Ma16 and Fd2, the codex of Irāq (which includes Kūfah) also had لله ، الله ، الله.

According to Ma14, the codex of Irāq (which includes Kūfah and Basrah) had لله ، الله ، الله while Ma9 and Ma19 say that the mushaf of Kūfah had لله ، لله ، لله. Ma18, on the other hand, says that the mushaf of Kūfah had لله ، لله ، الله.

xi. ) وَوَصَّيْنَا الْإِنسَانَ بِوَالِدَيْهِ إِحْسَانًا (15:46 / بِوَالِدَيْهِ ِحُسْنًا

According to entry no 17, as per Mq1 all except the Kūfan codex had بِوَالِدَيْهِ ِحُسْنًا; however, according to Ma19 the Basran codex had بِوَالِدَيْهِ إِحْسَانًا.

xii. ) فَهَلْ يَنظُرُونَ إِلَّا السَّاعَةَ أَن تَأْتِهِمْ بَغْتَةً (18:47

According to entry no 19, According to Ma9 and Mq1(l) the above was the reading of the Makkans and Kūfans, and according to Ma19 and Ma20, the above was also the reading of the Kūfans.

However, ‘Alī ibn Hamzah al-Kasā’ī says that he has not heard any of the Kūfans read it as تَأْتِهِمْ.24

Similarly, Khalf ibn Hishām says that he does not know any of the Makkans read it as تَأْتِهِمْ.25

xiii. ) وَبالذُّبُرِ وَبِالكِتَابِ (184:3 / وَالكِتَابِ وَالزُّبُر ِ

According to entry no 21, Ma16, Fd2, Mq1, Mq1(a), Mq1(b) and Mq4 say that the Syrian codex had وَبِالكِتَابِ وَبالذُّبُرِ while Mq1(c) and Mq1(d) say that the Syrian codex had وَالكِتَاب  وَبِالزُّبُرِ.

Mq1 says that all except the Syrian codex had وَالزُّبُر ِوَالكِتَابِ while Ma16 says that the codex of Hijāz hadوَبالذُّبُرِ وَبِالكِتَابِ .

xiv. ) زُيّنَ لِكَثِيرٍ مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ قَتْلُ أَوْلاَدَهُمْ شُرَكَآئِهِمْ (138:6 /زَيَّنَ لِكَثِيرٍ مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ قَتْلَ أَوْلاَدِهِمْ شُرَكَآؤُهُمْ

According to entry no 23, Mq1 says that all except the Syrian Codex hadزَيَّنَ لِكَثِيرٍ مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ قَتْلَ أَوْلاَدِهِمْ شُرَكَآؤُهُمْ while Ma16 says that the codex of Hijāz codex had زُيّنَ لِكَثِيرٍ مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ قَتْلُ أَوْلاَدَهُمْ شُرَكَآئِهِمْ.

xv. ) وَإِذْ أَنجَاكُم مِّنْ آلِ فِرْعَونَ (141:7 / وَإِذْ أَنجَيْنَاكُم

According to entry no 24, Mq1 says that all except the Syrian Codex had وَإِذْ أَنجَيْنَاكُم while Ma16 says that the Hijāz codex had وَإِذْ أَنجَاكُم.

xvi. ) كَانُوا هُمْ أَشَدَّ مِنْكم (21:40 / كَانُوا هُمْ أَشَدَّ مِنْهُمْ

According to entry no 28, Mq1 says that all except the Syrian Codex had كَانُوا هُمْ أَشَدَّ مِنْهُمْ while Ma16 says that the Hijāz codex had كَانُوا هُمْ أَشَدَّ مِنْكم.

xvii. ) وَالْحَبُّ ذَا الْعَصْفِ (12:55 / وَالْحَبُّ ذُو الْعَصْفِ

According to entry no 29, Mq1 says that all except the Syrian Codex had وَالْحَبُّ ذُو الْعَصْفِ while Ma16 says that the Hijāz codex had وَالْحَبُّ ذَا الْعَصْفِ.

xviii. ) تَبَارَكَ اسْمُ رَبِّكَ ذُوْ الْجَلَالِ (78:88 / ذِي الْجَلَالِ

According to entry no 30, Mq1 says that all except the Syrian Codex had ذِي الْجَلَالِ while Ma16 says that the Hijāz codex had تَبَارَكَ اسْمُ رَبِّكَ ذُوْ الْجَلَالِ.

xix. ) وَكُلًّ وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الْحُسْنَى (10:57 / وَكُلًّا وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الْحُسْنَى

According to entry no 31, Mq1 says that all except the Syrian Codex had وَكُلًّا وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الْحُسْنَى while Ma16 says that the Hijāz codex had اللَّهُ الْحُسْنَى وَكُلًّ وَعَدَ.

xx. ) والجَارِ ذَا القُربَى والجَار الجُنُبْ (4: 36 / والجَارِ ذِي القُربَى

According to entry no 34, Ma9 and Mq1(e) say that some of the Kūfan copies read والجَارِ ذَا القُربَى while Ma19 says that the Kūfan copies read والجَارِ ذِي القُربَى. Also, ‘Alī ibn Hamzah al-Kasā’ī26 says that he does not know anyone among the Kūfans read it except والجَارِ ذِي.

xxi. ) قَالَ سُبْحَانَ رَبِّي (93:17 / قُلْ سُبْحَانَ رَبِّي

According to entry no 37, Mq1 says that all codices except Syria and Makkah hadقُلْ سُبْحَانَ رَبِّي. Ma18 says that the codex of Kūfah had قَالَ سُبْحَانَ رَبِّي.

xxii. ) (76: 15-16 قَوَارِيْرَا قَوَارِيْرَا  / قَوَارِيْرَا قَوَارِيْرَ

According to entry no 39, as per Ma9 and Ma14 the Madīnan codex had قَوَارِيْرَا قَوَارِيْرَا while according to Ma19 the Madīnan codex had قَوَارِيْرَا قَوَارِيْرَ.

According to Ma14 the Irāqan codex had قَوَارِيْرَا قَوَارِيْرَ. Now this should include Kūfah and Basrah; however Ma9 and Ma19 say that the Kūfan codex had قَوَارِيْرَا قَوَارِيْرَا.

xxiii.  (35: 33) وَلُؤْلُؤًا / وَلُؤْلُؤ

According to entry no 41, Ma14 says that the codex of Irāq (which includes Kūfah and Basrah) had وَلُؤْلُؤ while Ma9 and Ma18 say that the codex of Kūfah had وَلُؤْلُؤًا.

xxiv. ) قَالُوْا اتَخَذَ اللهُ وَلَدًا (2: 116 / وَقَالُوْا اتَخَذَ اللهُ وَلَدًا َ

According to entry no 43, Mq1 says that all except the Syrian codex had وقَالُوْا اتَخَذَ اللهُ وَلَدًا, while Ma16 says that the codex of Hijāz had قَالُوْا اتَخَذَ اللهُ وَلَدًا.

xxv. ) قَلِيْلاً مَا يَتَذَكَّرُوْنَ (7: 3 / قَلِيْلاً مَا تَذَكَّرُوْنَ

According to entry no 44, Mq1 says that all except the Syrian codex had قَلِيْلاً مَا تَذَكَّرُوْنَ while Ma16 says that the codex of Hijāz had قَلِيْلاً مَا يَتَذَكَّرُوْنَ.

Fd2 says the Syrian codex hadقَلِيْلاً مَا تَتَذَكَّرُوْنَ . Mq4 and Ma16 say that the Syrian codex had قَلِيْلاً مَا يَتَذَكَّرُوْنَ.

xxvi. مَا كُنَا لِنَهْتَدِيَ (7: 43 / مَا كُنَا لِنَهْتَدِيَ وَ

According to entry no 45, Mq1 says that all except the Syrian codex hadوَ مَا كُنَا لِنَهْتَدِيَ  while Ma16 says that the codex of Hijāz had مَا كُنَا لِنَهْتَدِيَ.

xxvii. ) وَقَالَ المَلَأُ الَّذِيْنَ اسْتَكْبَرُوْا مِنْ قُوْمِهِ (7: 75 / قَالَ المَلَأ

According to entry no 46, Mq1 says that all except the Syrian codex had قَالَ المَلَأُ while Ma16 says that the codex of Hijāz had وَقَالَ المَلَأُ. Fd2 says that the Syrian codex also had قَالَ المَلَأُ.

xxviii. ) مَا مَكَّنِي فِيْهِ رَبِي خَيْر (18: 95 / مَا مَكَّنَنِي فِيْهِ رَبِي خَيْر

According to entry no 47, Mq1 says that all except the Makkan codex had مَا مَكَّنِّي. However, Ma17 says that that of Irāq had مَا مَكَّنَنِي.

Abū Hayawah Shurayh ibn Yazīd27 said that he has not heard any one except Mubashshir ibn ‘Ubayd read it مَا مَكَّنَنِي فِيْهِ.

xxix. (39: 64)  تَاْمُرُونِّي أَعْبُدُ

According to entry no 60, Mq1 says that all except the Syrian codex had the words تَاْمُرُوْنَنِي أَعْبُدُ (39: 64) while Ma16 says that the Syrian codex hadتَاْمُرُونِّي أَعْبُدُ (39: 64) ُ as well.

xxx. According to (Fq3) quoted by Abū ‘Ubayd,28 there were only five differences in the codices of Kūfah and Basrah.29 However, a recourse to the chart above shows that there were a total of thirteen differences, only five of which have been referred to by Abū ‘Ubayd.30

xxxi. A narrative (Ma9) quoted by Ibn Abī Dā’ūd31 after enumerating the differences between the codices of Madīnah, Kūfah and Basrah says that it has comprehensively covered all the differences between these codices. However, a recourse to the chart above shows that there are seven32 other instances in which the codices of Madīnah differed from those of Kūfah and Basrah. (This is assuming the fact that the word Hijāz encompasses the codices of Makkah and Madīnah also and the word Irāq encompasses the codices of Kūfah and Basrah also)

B. Isnād33

In the following paragraphs, a bookwise analysis of the isnād of all the narratives which depicte these variations shall be conducted.

1. Ma = Kitāb al-masāhif (Ibn Abī Dā’ūd)

Ma1

حدثنا أبو بكر عبد الله بن أبي داود ، حدثنا يونس بن حبيب ، عن قتيبة بن مهران ، حدثنا إسماعيل بن جعفر ، وسليمان بن مسلم بن جماز الزهري قالا : سمعنا خالد بن إياس بن صخر بن أبي الجهم ، يذكر أنه قرأ مصحف عثمان بن عفان رضي الله عنه ، فوجد فيه مما يخالف مصاحف أهل المدينة اثني عشر حرفا ، منها

Ismā‘īl ibn Ja‘far and Sulaymān ibn Muslim ibn Jammāz said: “We heard Khālid ibn Iyās ibn Sakhr mention that he read the mushaf of ‘Uthmān and found that it differed with the masāhif of the people of Madīnah in twelve recitals. They include …”34

Khālid ibn Iyās ibn Sakhr al-Madīnī (who according to al-Mizzī,35 is actually Khālid ibn Ilyās ibn Sakhr) is very suspect:

Al-Mizzī36 has recorded the following information about him: al-Bukhārī and Ahmad ibn Hanbal regard him to be munkar al-hadīth. The latter has also regarded him to be matrūk al-hadīth. Al-Bukhārī and Yahyā ibn Ma‘īn say that he is laysa bi shay’ and the latter also says about him: lā yuktabu hadīthuhū. Abū Hātim has regarded him to be da‘īf al-hadīth and munkar al-hadīth. Abū Zur‘ah says that he is laysa bi qawī, da‘īf. Abū Nu‘aym says that his Hadīth are not worth two pennies. Al-Nasā’ī says that he is matrūk al-hadīth, laysa bi thiqah, lā yuktabu hadīthuhū.

Ibn Hibbān says that he narrates from trustworthy people what is fabricated and one is led to believe that he himself is the fabricator; it is not allowed to write his Hadīth except to express wonder!37

According to Ibn Hajar,38 he is matrūk al-hadīth, belonging to the seventh generation, which is the generation of the senior followers of the followers (طبقة كبار أتباع التابعين). He also records:39 in the opinion of al-Tirmidhī, he is regarded da‘īf by the ahl al-hadīth; al-Sājī says that he is da‘īf al-hadīth jiddan; al-Bazzār says that he is laysa bi al-qawī. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr says that all of them regard him to be da‘īf.

We find the following comments about him by Ibn Abī Dā’ūd:

هو في الحديث ضعيف ، وفي القراءة له موضع

He is weak in matters of Hadīth but in matters of Qur’ānic readings holds a position.40

Ma 2

حدثنا عبد الله قال حدثنا أحمد بن إبراهيم بن المهاجر قال : حدثنا سليمان بن داود الهاشمي ، حدثنا إسماعيل بن جعفر ، عن خالد بن إياس بن صخر بن أبي الجهم العدوي ، وسليمان بن مسلم بن جماز : إن هذه الحروف مكتوبة في مصحف عثمان بن عفان رضي الله عنه ، وهي تخالف قراءة أهل المدينة ومصاحفهم ، وهي اثنا عشر حرفا :

Ismā‘īl ibn Ja‘far reports from Khālid ibn Iyās ibn Sakhr and Sulaymān ibn Muslim ibn Jammāz: “These readings are written in the mushaf of ‘Uthmān and they differ with the reading of the people of Madīnah and their masāhif; they are twelve in number…”41

No biographical information exists on Ahmad ibn Ibrāhīm ibn al-Muhājir. No one mentions him even by name except Ibn Abī Dā’ūd. According to ‘Abd al-Subhān,42 the Chester Beatty text of Kitāb al-masāhif has al-Muhājirī instead of al-Muhājir.

No jarh or ta‘dīl exists on Sulyaman ibn Muslim ibn Jammāz.43 He died after 170 AH.44 According to ‘Abd al-Subhān,45 the Chester Beatty text of Kitāb al-masāhif has Jammān instead of Jammāz.

Khālid ibn I[l]yās ibn Sakhr is very weak as pointed out under Ma1.

Ma 3

حدثنا عبد الله قال حدثنا محمد بن عرفة ، حدثنا إبراهيم بن الحسن ، حدثنا بشار بن أيوب قال : حدثني أسيد بن يزيد قال: في مصحف عثمان بن عفان رضي الله عنه : سيقولون لله ، ثلاثتهن بغير ألف

Usayd ibn Yazīd said: “The word لله was written [in verses 85, 87 and 89 Sūrah Mu’minūn] in the mushaf of ‘Uthmān without alif.”46

No biographical accounts are available of Muhammad ibn ‘Arfah and Ibrāhīm ibn al-Hasan. No jarh or ta‘dīl is available on Bashshār ibn Ayyūb and Usayd ibn Yazīd al-Madīnī.

Ma4

حدثنا عبد الله قال حدثنا محمد بن عرفة ، حدثنا إبراهيم بن الحسن ، حدثنا بشار بن أيوب قال : حدثني أسيد بن يزيد ، أن في مصحف عثمان بن عفان : وَقُلْنَ حَشَ لِلَّهِ ، لَيْسَ ألف "

Bashshār ibn Ayyūb said: “Usayd ibn Yazīd narrated to me that in the mushaf of ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān it was written وَقُلْنَ حَشَ لِلَّهِ. [The word حَشَ was written] without alif [in verse 31 of Sūrah Yūsuf].”47

The isnād is the same is Ma3.

Ma5

حدثنا عبد الله قال حدثنا أبو حاتم السجستاني ، حدثنا يعقوب ، عن بشار يعني الناقط ، عن أسيد قال : " في مصحف عثمان وَوَصَّى بِغَيْرِ أَلِفٍ "

Usayd ibn Yazīd said: “The verse (2: 132) وَوَصَّى بِهَا was written without alif in the mushaf of ‘Uthmān.”48

Ya‘qūb ibn Ishāq al-Hadramī has generally been regarded as trustworthy. However, Ibn Sa‘d says that he used to narrate from people whom he met when he was young and that he is laysa huwa ‘indahum bi dhaka al-thabt.49

No jarh or ta‘dīl is available on Bashshār ibn Ayyūb al-Nāqit and Usayd ibn Yazīd al-Madīnī.

Ma6

حدثنا عبد الله قال حدثنا محمد بن عرفة ، حدثنا إبراهيم بن الحسن ، حدثنا بشار بن أيوب قال : سمعت أسيدا يقول : وَاشْهَدْ بِأَنَّنَا مُسْلِمُونَ، في مصحف ابن عفان ثلاثة أحرف

Bashshār ibn Ayyūb said: “I heard Usayd ibn Yazīd say: ‘The verse وَاشْهَدْ بِأَنَّنَا مُسْلِمُونَ occurs thrice in the mushaf of ‘Uthmān.’” 50

The isnād is same as Ma3.

Ma7

حدثنا عبد الله قال حدثنا أحمد بن محمد بن الحسين بن حفص قال : حدثنا خلاد ، حدثنا عيسى بن عمر الهمداني قال : أخبرني محمد بن عبيد الله ، عن صبيح ، عن عثمان أنه سمعه يقرأ: وَلْتَكُنْ مِنْكُمْ أُمَّةٌ يَدْعُونَ إِلَى الْخَيْرِ وَيَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ المُنْكَرِ وَيَسْتَعِيْنُوْنَ الله عَلَى مَا أَصَابَهُمْ وَأُولَئك هُمُ المُفْلِحُوْن

Sabīh ibn Sa‘īd reports that he heard ‘Uthmān recite: “وَلْتَكُنْ مِنْكُمْ أُمَّةٌ يَدْعُونَ إِلَى الْخَيْرِ وَيَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ المُنْكَرِ وَيَسْتَعِيْنُوْنَ الله عَلَى مَا أَصَابَهُمْ وَأُولَئك هُمُ المُفْلِحُوْن.”51

Sabīh ibn Sa‘īd al-Najāshī is da‘īf.52 Although he has narrated from ‘Uthmān (rta),53 Ibn Hibbān records that he would report narratives from the Companions which would not be their narratives and Yahyā ibn Ma‘īn has called him a liar (kadhdhāb).54 Abū Dā’ūd says that he laysa bi shay’.55 Yāqūt records that he concocts Hadīth.56

Ma8

حدثنا عبد الله قال حدثنا أحمد بن محمد ، حدثنا خلاد قال: سمعت سفيان الثوري يسأله عن هذا الحديث

Khallād said: “I heard Sufyān al-Thawrī ask him [ie. Sabīh ibn Sa‘īd al-Najāshī] about this narrative.”57

Ma9

حدثنا عبد الله قال حدثنا محمد بن يحيى الخنيسي ، حدثنا خلاد بن خالد المقرئ ، عن علي بن حمزة الكسائي قال : اختلاف أهل المدينة ، وأهل الكوفة ، وأهل البصرة ، فأما أهل المدينة

‘Alī ibn Hamzah al-Kasā’ī said: “[These are the] differences between the people of Madīnah and the people of Kūfah and the people of Basrah …”58

No jarh or ta‘dīl is available on Muhammad ibn Yahyā al-Khunaysī.

‘Alī ibn Hamzah al-Kasā’ī, a reciter of Kūfah, died in 189 AH.59 Following is the jarh on ‘Alī ibn Hamzah al-Kasā’ī:

Yāqūt al-Hamawī (d. 626 AH) records:

حكي عنه أنه أقام غلاما ممن عنده في الكتاب وقام يفسق به وجاء بعض الكتاب ليسلم عليه فرآه الكسائي ولم يره الغلام فجلس الكسائي في مكانه وبقي الغلام قائما مبهوتا فلما دخل الكاتب قال للكسائي ما شأن هذا الغلام قائما قال وقع الفعل عليه فانتصب

It is narrated from him that he made one of his slaves stand and committed sodomy with him. Another slave came to him to pay salutations to him. Al-Kasā’ī saw him but that slave did not see him; so al-Kasā’ī sat down at his place while that slave kept standing in an astounding state. The slave who came to al-Kasā’ī asked him: “What is the matter with that slave?” So al-Kasā’ī answered: “The act has been done on him; so he has stood up.”60

وحدث المرزباني فيما رفعه إلى ابن الأعرابي قال كان الكسائي أعلم الناس على رهق فيه كان يديم شرب النبيذ ويجاهر باتخاذ الغلمان الروقة إلا أنه كان ضابطا قارئا عالما بالعربية صدوقا

Ibn al-A‘rābī said: “Al-Kasā’ī was the most knowledgeable person though with some bad habits. He was chronic drinker of al-nabīdh and was openly famous for keeping beautiful boys except that he had a sound memory, was a reciter and a competent scholar of Arabic and a truthful person.”61

Al-Suyutī (d. 911 AH) records:

وقال ابن الأعرابي: كان الكسائي أعلم الناس، ضابطاً عالماً بالعربية، قارئاً صدوقاً، إلا أنه كان يديم شرب النبيذ، ويأتي الغلمان

Ibn al-A‘rābī said: “Al-Kasā’ī had a sound memory, was a competent scholar of Arabic, a reciter and a truthful person except that he was drinker of al-nabīdh and would sodomize boys.”62

Ma10

حدثنا عبد الله قال حدثنا محمد بن يحيى قال : حدثني خلاد بن خالد ، عن خالد بن إسماعيل بن مهاجر قال : قرأت على حمزة الزيات وَالجَارِ ذِي القُربى ، ثم قلت ، إن في مصاحفنا (ذَا ) أفأقرءوها ؟ قال : لا تقرأها إلا ( ذِي )

Khālid ibn Ismā‘īl said: “I read out to Hamzah al-Zayyāt: وَالجَارِ ذِي القُربى and then I said that in our masāhif, it is written as ذَا. Should I read it thus?” He replied: “Only read it as ذِي.”63

No biographical information is available on Khālid ibn Ismā‘īl ibn Muhājir. Also No jarh or ta‘dīl is available on Muhammad ibn Yahyā al-Khunaysī.

Hamzah al-Zayyāt was born in 80 AH and died in 156 or 158 AH.64 Al-Mizzī records the following jarh on Hamzah:65

Yazīd ibn Hārūn sent a message to Abū al-Sha‘thā’ in the city of Wāsit that no one should recite the reading of Hamzah in their mosque; according to Ahmad ibn Sinān, Yazīd held Hamzah’s reading in great abhorrence; Ahmad ibn Sinān also reports that he heard ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn Mahdī saying that had he authority over those who recited the reading of Hamzah he would have hurt his back and stomach.

Al-Dhahabī records:66 according to al-Sājī, he is sadūq sayy al-hifz; Ahmad ibn Hanbal disliked the reading of Hamzah; Abū Bakr ibn ‘Ayyāsh regarded the reading of Hamzah as bid‘ah.

Ibn Hajar records:67 Yazīd ibn Hārūn greatly hated the reading of Hamzah; Ahmad ibn Hanbal disliked praying behind an imām who would read Hamzah’s reading; Ibn Durayd desired that the reading of Hamzah be expelled from Kūfah.

Ma11

حدثنا عبد الله قال حدثنا أحمد بن إبراهيم بن المهاجر ، حدثنا سليمان بن داود ، حدثنا إسماعيل بن جعفر ، عن خالد بن إياس بن صخر بن أبي الجهم العدوي ، وسليمان بن مسلم بن جماز ، " أن أهل المدينة ، يخالفون الاثني عشر حرفا التي هي مكتوبة في مصحف عثمان بن عفان ، فيقرءون بعضها بزيادة وبعضها بنقصان

Ismā‘īl ibn Ja‘far reports from Khālid ibn Ilyās ibn Sakhr and Sulaymān ibn Muslim al-Jammāz that the people of Madīnah differed in ten recitals from what was written in the mushaf of ‘Uthmān; they would read some with additions and some with deletions …68

No jarh or ta‘dīl exists on Sulyaman ibn Muslim ibn Jammāz.69 He died after 170 AH.70 Khālid ibn I[l]yās ibn Sakhr is very weak as pointed out under Ma1.

Ma12

حدثنا عبد الله قال حدثنا عمرو بن عثمان بن سعيد بن كثير بن دينار ، حدثنا أبي قال سألت قارئين لأهل المدينة فلم ألوه عما اختلفا فيه من الإعراب من أهل الشام وأهل المدينة وأهل العراق ، فزعما أن قراءتهما على قراءة أهل العراق غير أن اثني عشر حرفا وافقونا فيها وخالفوهم

‘Uthmān ibn Sa‘īd ibn Kathīr ibn Dīnār said: “I asked two reciters – and I did not leave out [anything in noting what they said] – from among the people of Madīnah in which they differed in declensions from the people of Syria and the people of Madīnah and the people of Irāq; they were of the opinion that their reading was according to the people of Irāq except in twelve recitals in which the people of Iraq were in conformity with them and but were at variance with the people of Syria and Madīnah.”71

‘Uthmān ibn Sa‘īd ibn Kathīr ibn Dīnār died in 209 AH.72

Ma13

حدثنا عبد الله قال حدثنا أبو حفص عمرو بن عثمان الحمصي قال : أهل الشام يقرءون …

‘Amr ibn ‘Uthmān said: “The people of Syria woud read …”73

‘Amr ibn ‘Uthmān died in 250 AH.74

Ma14

حدثنا عبد الله حدثنا كثير بن عبيد ، حدثنا المعافى بن عمران الظهري ، حدثنا إسماعيل بن عياش ، عن سوادة بن زياد البرحي قال : هذا ما اختلفت فيه أهل المدينة وأهل العراق من حروف القرآن 

Sawādah ibn Ziyād said: “These are the recitals in which the people of Madīnah and people of Irāq differed with one another…”75

No jarh or ta‘dīl is available on Sawādah ibn Ziyād. According to Ibn Hajar,76 Ismā‘īl ibn ‘Ayyāsh died in 182 or 183 AH at the age of a little over seventy. Thus we can have a fair idea of the period of Sawādah.

Ma15

وقال كثير بن عبيد في إمام أهل الشام : مَا كاَنَ لِلنَّبِّي أَنْ يَكُونَ لَهُ أَسْرَى

Kathīr ibn ‘Ubayd said: “It is written in the imām of the people of Syria مَا كاَنَ لِلنَّبِّي أَنْ يَكُونَ لَهُ أَسْرَى.” 77

According to Ibn Hajar,78 Kathīr ibn ‘Ubayd ibn Numayr belonging to Hims died after 250 AH.

Ma16

حدثنا عبد الله قال حدثنا محمد بن صدقة الجبلاني الحمصي ، وكان في سوق يهود وكان معلما ، وحدثنا شريح بن يزيد أبو حيوة ، عن أبي البرهشم " في اختلاف أهل الشام وأهل العراق ، …

Abū Birhasham said: “About the differences between the people of Syria and the people of Irāq … 79

Ibn Abī Dā’ūd,80 has specified that Abū Birhasham is actually Jarīr ibn Ma‘dān al-Hadramī al-Himsī and is actually the nephew of Mu‘āwiyyah ibn Sālih a reciter of Hims.

According to Ibn al-Jazari,81 he is actually ‘Imrān ibn ‘Uthmān.

Morever, Abū Hayawah Shurayh ibn Yazīd died in 203 AH,82 which means that Abū al-Birhasham lived in the second century.

The other possibility is that he lived much earlier but between him and Shurayh there were other narrator(s). We find a person called Jafshīsh ibn Nu‘mān al-Kindī who is called Jarīr ibn Ma‘dān.83 He came to visit the Prophet (sws) in the delegatiom from Kindah. If it is this person who is implied in the narrative, then obviously there are missing narrators between him and Shurayh.

Moreover, in both cases, we do not have any jarh or ta‘dīl available on him.

Ma17

حدثنا عبد الله حدثنا محمد بن صدقة ، حدثنا أبو حيوة ، حدثنا مبشر بن عبيد قال : في إمام أهل الشام وأهل الحجاز مَا مَكَّنِّي فِيْهِ رَبِي خَيْر (18: 95) قال مبشر: في إمام أهل العراق: مَا مَكَّنَنِي فِيْهِ رَبِي خَيْر

Mubashshir ibn ‘Ubayd said: “In the imām of the people of Syria and Hijāz, it was written: مَا مَكَّنِّي فِيْهِ رَبِي خَيْر (18: 95). In the imām of people of Irāq, it is written: مَا مَكَّنَنِي فِيْهِ رَبِي خَيْر.84

Mubashshir ibn ‘Ubayd is totally unreliable. According to Abū Hātim,85 he is munkar al-hadīth jiddan and da‘īf al-hadīth. Ibn Hajar86 has called him matrūk. Al-Mizzī records:87 according to Ahmad ibn Hanbal, he is laysa bi shay’and fabricates hadīth; al-Bukhārī regards him to be munkar al-hadīth; al-Dāraqutnī says he is matrūk al-hadīth.

Ibn Hibbān says that he narrates fabricated Hadīth from trustworthy people; it is not allowed to write his narrative except to express wonder.88

According to Ibn Hajar,89 he belongs to the seventh tabaqah, which is the generation of the senior followers of the followers (طبقة كبار أتباع التابعين).

Ma18

حدثنا عبد الله قال سمعت أبا حاتم السجستاني يقول : " بين مصحف أهل مكة وأهل البصرة اختلاف حرفان ، ويقال خمسة أحرف : … وبين مصحف أهل الكوفة وأهل البصرة حرفان وقال قوم بل عشرة أحرف ويقال أحد عشر حرفا … وقال آخرون بل هي عشرة أحرف

Abū Hātim al-Sajistānī said: “There were two recitals in which the mushaf of the people of Makkah differed from the mushaf of the people of Basrah; another opinion is that there are five such places … Between the mushaf of the people of Kūfah and the mushaf of the people of Basrah also the difference was in two recitals; a group of people said that they in fact differed in ten recitals; another opinion is that they differed in eleven recitals … and some others said that these are ten recitals…90

Abū Hātim al-Sajistānī (Sahl ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Uthmān) died in 255 AH.91

Ma19

قال أبو بكر بن أبي داود وذكر بعض أصحابنا عن محمد بن عيسى القارئ الأصبهاني ، عن محمد بن سفيان الكوفي قال : سمعت علي بن حمزة يعني الكسائي قال : " في مصاحف أهل الكوفة

‘Alī ibn Hamzah al-Kasā’ī said: “In the masāhif of the people of Kūfah especially …”92

The isnād contains an unknown person and hence is not reliable. About Muhammad ibn Sufyān ibn Wardān, Ibn Hibbān93 says yukhtī wa yahim. Abū Hātim and Abū Zur‘ah regard him to be sadūqun fī al-hadīth.94

‘Alī ibn Hamzah al-Kasā’ī, a reciter of Kūfah, died in 189 AH.95 The jarh on him has been presented earlier.

Ma20

قال محمد هو ابن عيسى سمعت خلفا يقول في مصاحف أهل مكة

Muhammad ibn ‘Īsā said that he heard Khalf ibn Hishām say: “In the masāhif of the people of Makkah …96  

The narrative is broken. This is evident from Ma19 from which it is known that that Ibn Abī Dā’ūd does not directly narrate from Muhammad ibn ‘Īsā. The word قال also corroborates this as Ibn Abī Dā’ūd has not specified that he heard this narrative from Muhammad ibn ‘Īsā.

It is evident from al-Dānī’s al-Bayān97 that Khalf is Khalf ibn Hishām. He was a famous reciter of Baghdād who died in 229 AH.98

2. Fd = Fadā’il al-Qur’ān (Abū ‘Ubayd)

Fd1

حدثنا إسماعيل بن جعفر المديني: أهل الحجاز و أهل العراق إختلفت في هذه الحروف  …

Abū ‘Ubaid said that Ismā‘īl ibn Ja‘far ibn Abī Kathīr narrated to us: “The People of Hijāz and the people of Irāq differed with one another in these readings …”99

Ismā‘īl ibn Ja‘far ibn Abī Kathīr died in 180 AH.100

Fd2

حدثنا هشام بن عمار ، عن أيوب بن تميم ، عن يحيى بن الحارث الذماري ، عن عبد الله بن عامر اليحصبي ، قال هشام وحدثناه سويد بن عبد العزيز أيضاً ، عن الحسن بن عمران ، عن عطية بن قيس ، عن أم الدرداء ، عن أبي الدرداء : أن هذه الحروف في مصاحف الشام ، وقد دخل حديثُ أحدهما في حديث الأخر ، وهي ثمانية و عشرون حرفاً في مصاحف أهل الشام.

This can be represented in the following two isnāds:

(I)

Abū al-Dardā’

Umm al-Dardā’

 ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Āmir

Yahyā ibn al-Hārith

Ayyūb ibn Tamīm

Hishām ibn ‘Ammār

Abū ‘Ubayd

(II)

Abū al-Dardā’

Umm al-Dardā’

Atiyah ibn Qays

-Hasan ibn ‘Imrān

Suwayd ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz

Hishām ibn ‘Ammār

Abū ‘Ubayd

Suwayd ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz is totally unreliable. According to Ibn Hajar,101 he is da‘īf. Abū Hātim says that he is layyin al-hadīth and fī hadīthihī nazr.102 Al-Mizzī records:103 Yahyā ibn Ma‘īn has called him da‘īf, laysa bi thiqah and laysa bi shay’. Ibn Sa‘d says that he narrates ahādīth munkarah; al-Bukhārī says fī hadīthihī manākīr ankaraha Ahmad, fī hadīthihī nazr lā yuhtamal; al-Nasā’ī says he is da‘īf and laysa bi thiqah; in the opinion of Ya‘qūb ibn Sufyān he is mastūr, fī hadīthihī layyin, da‘īf al-hadīth.

Ibn Hibbān records: kāna kathīr al-khatā’ fāhish al-wahm104 and that his narratives contain examples of such maqlūb narratives that the listener is led to believe that they have been intentionally concocted.

In the opinion of Ibn Hajar,105 Hasan ibn al-‘Imrān is layyin al-hadīth. According to al-Tabarī, he is majhūl.106

As is evident from the words of the narrative, it is not known which of the contents have been reported by which of the two isnāds. Since one of them is not reliable, hence one cannot rely on the contents.

Fd3

This has no isnād.

3. Mq = al-Muqni ‘ (al-Dānī)

Mq1

No isnād: al-Dānī says that he has heard these differences from many of his informants. We do find narrative isnāds about some of the differences:

Mq1(a) ) وَبالذُّبُرِ وَبِاالكِتَابِ (184:3

كذا رواه لي خلف بن ابراهيم عن احمد بن محمد عن علي عن ابي عبيد عن هشام بن عمار عن ايوّب ابن تميم عن يحيى بن الحارث عن ابن عامر ، وعن هشام عن سويد بن عبد العزيز عن الحسن بن عمران عن عطية بن قيس عن امّ الدرداء عن ابي الدرداء عن مصاحف اهل الشام

Yahyā ibn al-Hārith reports from Ibn ‘Āmir that it was written as وَبالذُّبُرِ وَبِاالكِتَابِ … Umm al-Dardā reports from Abū al-Dardā’ from the masāhif of the people of Syria [that it was written:] وَبالذُّبُرِ وَبِاالكِتَابِ. 107

In the first isnād, Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Abī al-Mawt al-Makkī, according to al-Dhahabī, is a little weak (da‘īfun qalīlan).108

In the second isnād, Suwayd ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz and Hasan ibn ‘Imrān are weak as shown under Fd2.

Mq1(b) ) وَبالذُّبُرِ وَبِاالكِتَابِ (184:3

و كذلك حكى ابو حاتم انهما مرسومان بالباء في مصحف اهل حمص الذي بعث عثمان الي الشام…

Similarly, Abū Hātim narrates that وَبالذُّبُرِ وَبِاالكِتَابِ was written with ب at both places in the mushaf of Hims which ‘Uthmān sent to Syria.109

Abū Hātim al-Sajistānī (Sahl ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Uthmān) died in 255 AH.110

Mq1(c) ) وَباِلذُّبُرِ وَالْكِتَابِ (184:3

وقال هرون بن موسى الاخفش الدمشقي ان الباء زيدت في الامام يعني الذي وُجّه به الى الشام في "وبالزبز" وحدها

Hārūn ibn Mūsā al-Akhfash said: “The letter ب was only added to the word وبالزبز in the imām which was sent to Syria.”111

The isnād is incomplete and Hārun ibn Mūsā died after 170 AH.112

Mq1(d) ) وَباِلذُّبُرِ وَالْكِتَابِ (184:3

وروي الكسائى عن ابي حيوه شريح بن يزيد ان ذلك كذلك في المصحف الذي بعث به عثمان الى الشام

Shurayh ibn Yazīd reports that it was written وَباِلذُّبُر in the mushaf which ‘Uthmān sent to Syria.113

Shurayh ibn Yazīd died in 203 AH.114

Mq1(e) )  والجَارِ ذَا القُربَى والجَار الجُنُبْ (4: 36

وفي النساء قال الكسائي والفرَّاء في بعض مصاحف اهل الكوفة وَالجَار ِذالقُربَي

Al-Kasā’ī and al-Farrā’ said: “In some of the masāhif of Kūfah it was written وَالجَار ِذالقُربَي in Sūrah Nisā’.”115

‘Alī ibn Hamzah al-Kasā’ī, a reciter of Kūfah, died in 189 AH.116 Yahyā ibn Ziyād al-Farrā’, who belonged to Kūfah and was a famous authority on syntax, died in 207 AH. 117

The jarh on al-Kasā’ī has been presented earlier.

Mq1(f) )   مَنْ يَرْتَدِدْ (5: 54

قال ابو عبيد و كذا رأيتها في الإمام بدالين

Abū ‘Ubayd said: “I saw it written [as مَنْ يَرْتَدِدْ] with two dāls in the imām.”118

Abū ‘Ubayd died in 224 AH.119

Mq1(g)

قال ابو عبيد و كذالك رأيت ذالك في الإمام

Abū ‘Ubayd said: “In the imām of ‘Uthmān too, it was written as (23: 85،87،89)  لله ، لله ، لله.”120

Abū ‘Ubayd died in 224 AH.121

Mq1(h) ) قَالَ كَمْ لَبِثْتُمْ (23: 112 / ) قَالَ إِنْ لَبِثْتُمْ (23: 114

وينبغي ان يكون الحرف الاول في مصاحف اهل مكة بغير الف والثاني بالالف لان قراءتهم فيهما كذلك ولا خبر عندنا في ذلك عن مصاحفهم الاّ ما رويناه عن ابي عبيد انه قال ولا اعلم مصاحف اهل مكة الا عليها يعني على اثبات الالف في الحرفين.

And it is appropriate that in masāhif of the people of Makkah, in the first of these recitals (ie. 23:112) it should be without alif (ie. قُلْ كَمْ لَبِثْتُمْ) and in the second of these recitals  (ie. 23:114) it should be with alif (ie.  قَالَ إِنْ لَبِثْتُمْ) because this what their reading was in these two recitals; however, we do not have this information about their masāhif except what has been narrated to us from Abū ‘Ubayd who said: “I do not know of the masāhif of the people of Makkah except that they read both recitals with alif ie. قَالَ كَمْ لَبِثْتُمْ and قَالَ إِنْ لَبِثْتُمْ.”122

Abū ‘Ubayd died in 224 AH.123

Mq1(i) (26: 40)  أَوْ أَنْ يُظْهِرَ

وروى هرون عن صخر بن جويرية وبشار الناقط عن اسيد ان ذلك كذلك في الامام مصحف عثمان ابن عفان رضي الله عنه وفي سائر المصاحف وَأَنْ يُظْهِرَ بغير الف. …

Sakhr ibn Jawayriyyah and Bashshār al-Nāqit report from Usayd that in the imām mushaf of ‘Uthmān it was written as أَوْ أَنْ يُظْهِرَ while in all the other masāhif it was written without alif as وَ أَنْ يُظْهِرَ.124

No jarh or ta‘dīl is available on Bashshār ibn Ayyūb al-Nāqitand Usayd ibn Yazīd al-Madīnī.

Mq1(j) ) يَا عِبَادِي لاَ خُوْفٌ عَلَيْكُمْ (43: 68

وكذا ينبغي ان يكون في مصاحف اهل مكة لانَّ قراءتهم فيه كذلك ولا نص عندنا في ذلك عن مصاحفهم الا ما حكاه ابن مجاهد ان ذلك في مصاحفهم بغير ياء ورأيت بعض شيوخنا يقول ان ذلك في مصاحفهم بالياء واحسبه اخذ ذلك من قول ابي عمرو اذ حكى انه رأى الياء في ذلك ثابتة في مصاحف اهل الحجاز ومكة من الحجاز والله اعلم. وحدثنا محمد بن علي قال حدثنا محمد بن قطن قال حدثنا سليمان بن خلاد قال حدثنا اليزيدي قال قال ابو عمرو "يعبادي" رأيتها في مصاحف اهل المدينة والحجاز بالياء.

Al-Dānī said: “And it is appropriate that it should be thus [ie. يَا عِبَادِي لاَخُوْفٌ عَلَيْكُمْ] in the masāhif of the people of Makkah because this is what their reading is and we do not have any explicit source of this in this regard about their masāhif except what has been reported by Ibn Mujāhid that it was written in their masāhif without  ياء [ie. يَا عِبَادِ لاَخُوْفٌ عَلَيْكُمْ]. And I have seen some of our teachers say that it was written in their masāhif with ياء. I think that this has been taken from what Abū ‘Amr has said when he reported that he saw ياء written in the masāhif of the people of Hijāz and Makkah from among Hijāz. And Muhammad ibn ‘Alī narrated to us from Muhammad ibn Qutan who narrated from Sulaymān ibn Khallād who narrated from al-Yazīdī that Abū ‘Amr said: ‘I saw it with ياء in the masāhif of the people of Madīnah and Hijāz.’”125

Abū ‘Amr here refers to Abū ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ulā (d. 154 AH). This is evident from the fact that Yahyā ibn Mubārak al-Yazīdī recited the Qur’ān before Abū ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ulā who recited before Mujāhid who recited before ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abbās (rta).126

It may be noted that according to Abū Khaythamah Zuhayr ibn Harb, Abū ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ulā did not have a good memory.127

Mq1(k) (43: 71) فِيهَا مَا تَشْتَهِيهِ الْأَنفُسُ )

قال ابو عبيد وبهاء ين رأيته في الامام

Abū ‘Ubayd said: “I saw the word تَشْتَهِيهِ with ha at two places in the imām.”128

Abū ‘Ubayd died in 224 AH.129

Mq1(l) )  أَن تَأْتِهِمْ بَغْتَةً (18:47

وفي القتال قال خلف بن هشام البزار في مصاحف اهل مكة. و الكوفيون

وقال الكسائي ذلك كذلك في مصاحف اهل مكة خاصة قال خلف بن هشام ولا نعلم احدا منهم قرأ به ، حدثنا الخاقاني قال حدثنا احمد قال حدثنا علي قال حدثنا القاسم قال قال الكسائي في مصاحف اهل مكة "ان تأتهم" بالكسر مع الجزم.

Khalf ibn Hishām said that in the masāhif of the people of Makkah and Kūfah it was written أَن تَأْتِهِمْ بَغْتَةً in Sūrah Qitāl. Al-Kasā’ī said: “It was like this in the masāhif of the people of Makkah specially.” Khalf ibn Hishām said: “I do not know anyone among them who read it.” Al-Kasā’ī said: “In the the masāhif of the people of Makkah it was written أَن تَأْتِهِمْ بَغْتَةً. 130

Khalf ibn Hishām, a reciter of Baghdād, died in 229 AH.131

‘Alī ibn Hamzah al-Kasā’ī, a reciter of Kūfah, died in 189 AH.132 The jarh on al-Kasā’ī has already been presented earlier.

No info is available on Khalf ibn Khāqān al-Misrī. Ahmad ibn Muhmmmad ibn Abī al-Mawt al-Makkī (261-351 AH) is da‘īfun qalīlan.133

Mq1(m) (  وَالْحَبُّ ذُو الْعَصْفِ (12:55

قال أبو عبيد و كذلك رأيتها في الذي يقال له الامام مصحف عثمن رضي الله عنه

Abū ‘Ubayd said: “This is what I saw in what is called the imām of ‘Uthmān.”134

Abū ‘Ubayd died in 224 AH.135

Mq2(a)

 حدثنا خلف بن ابراهيم قال حدثنا احمد بن محمد قال حدثنا علي ابن عبد العزيز قال حدثنا القاسم بن سلام قال حدثنا اسمعيل بن جعفر المدني ان اهل الحجاز واهل العراق اختلفت مصاحفهم في هذه الحروف قال القاسم وهي اثنا عشر حرفا …

Ismā‘īl ibn Ja‘far reported that the masāhif of the people of Hijāz and Irāq differed in these recitals. Qāsim ibn Sallām said that they are twelve in number …136

Ismā‘īl ibn Ja‘far ibn Abī Kathīr died in 180 AH.137 Moreover, according to al-Dhahabī, Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn al-Makkī is a little weak (da‘īfun qalīlan).138

Mq2(b)

حدثنا احمد بن عمر قال حدثنا محمد بن احمد قال حدثنا عبد الله بن عيسى قال حدثنا قالون عن نافع ان الحروف المذكورة في مصاحف اهل المدينة على ما ذكر اسمعيل سواء …

Nāfi‘ reports that these recitals are memtioned in the masāhif of the people of Madīnah as mentioned in the previous narrative by Ismā‘īl ibn Kathīr…139

The full names of the above narrators can be gathered from the following two sources of al-Dānī.

فاما رواية قالون عنه فحدثنا بها أحمد بن عمر بن محمد الجيزى قال حدثنا محمد بن أحمد بن منير قال حدثنا عبد الله بن عيسى المدنى قال حدثنا قالون عن نافع140

حدثنا أحمد بن عمر القاضي قال نا محمد بن منير قال حدثنا عبد الله بن عيسى قال نا قالون أن في مصاحف اهل المدينة ما كان من حرف مشدد فعليه دال وفتحه الدال فوق قال وإن كان يرجع الى الكسر فمن تحت الحرف قال أبو عمرو ولم يذكر قالون الضم141

The first two narrators are:

Ahmad ibn ‘Umar ibn Muhammad al-Jīzī (d. 399 AH).142

Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Munir (d. 339 AH).143

No jarh or ta‘dīl is available on al-Jīzī.

Al-Dhahabī has recorded that according to Ibn Yūnus Abdullāh ibn ‘Īsā (195-282 AH) would narrate manākīr.144

Mq3

حدثنا محمد بن علي قال حدثنا ابن مجاهد قال في مصاحف اهل مكة…

Ibn Mujāhid said: “ It is found in the masāhif of the people of Makkah …”145

If we combine the info in the following two notes we find that Abū Muslim al-Kātib and Muhammad ibn ‘Alī al-Kātib are the same person.

 ابن مجاهد: وحدث عنه ابن شاهين والدارقطني وأبو بكر بن شاذان وأبو حفص الكتاني وأبو مسلم الكاتب وعدة146

حدثنا محمد بن علي الكاتب قال نا أبو بكر بن مجاهد قال قال خلف يعني ابن هشام البزار كنت أحضر بين يدي الكسائي وهو يقرأ على الناس وينقطون مصاحفهم بقراءته عليهم147

It is evident from Lisān al-mizān that the full name of Abū Muslim al-Kātib is Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn ‘Alī148 and he is a student of Abū Bakr ibn Mujāhid.

This narrator has been regarded as da‘īf.149

Abū Bakr ibn Mujāhid (Ahmad ibn Mūsā ibn al-‘Abbās ibn Mujāhid) died in 324 AH.150

Mq4

 وحدثنا ابن غلبون قال حدثنا عبد الله بن احمد قال حدثنا احمد ابن انس قال حدثنا هشام بن عمار قال حدثنا سويد بن عبد العزيز و ايوب بن تميم عن يحيى بن الحارث عن عبد الله بن عامر (ح) وحدثنا الخاقاني قال حدثنا احمد قال حدثنا علي قال حدثنا ابو عبيد قال حدثنا هشام بن عمار عن ايوب بن تميم عن يحيى بن الحارث عن عبد الله بن عامر قال ابو عبيد و اللفظ له قال هشام (ح) وحدثنا سويد بن عبد العزيز ايضاً عن الحسن بن عمران عن عطية بن قيس عن ام الدردا عن ابي الدرداء ان هذه الحروف في مصاحف اهل الشام وهي ثمانية وعشرون حرفا في مصاحف أهل الشام …

‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Āmir and Abū al-Dardā’ report that these are the readings of the masāhif of the people of Syria. And these are twenty eight recitals in the masāhif of the people of Syria …151

Isnād 1

The first narrator is Abū al-Hasān Tāhir ibn Ghalbūn.152 The second narrator is: Abū Ahmad ‘Abdullāh ibn Ahmad famous by the name Ibn al-Mufassir.153 Both are reliable.

The jarh on Suwayd ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz has already been presented earlier.

Ahmad ibn Anas ibn Mālik al-Muqrī al-Dimashqī is one of the shuyūkh of al-Tabarānī (260-360 AH). Hishām died in 245 AH and it is known that in his last years he had been afflicted with a bad memory. It seems from this data that in all probability Ahmad ibn Anas heard from Hishām in his old age. If this is so, then the narrative becomes even from unreliable, as here are the details about Hishām in his old age as recroded by al-Mizzī:154 Abū Dā’ūd says that Hishām has narrated four hundred narratives supported by isnād which have no basis; Abū Hātim says that when he grew old he was afflicted with a bad memory and would pass on everything that was given to him and every time he was suggested something, he would accept it without investigation (kullamā luqqina talaqqana).

Isnād 2

No info is available on Khalf ibn Khāqān al-Misrī.

One can gather from al-Dānī’s al-Bayān155 that ‘Alī (in al-Muqni‘) is actually ‘Alī ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz.

Ahmad ibn Muhmmmad ibn Abī al-Mawt al-Makkī (261-351 AH) is da‘īfun qalīlan.156

Isnād 3

The jarh on Suwayd ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz has already been presented earlier.

In the opinion of Ibn Hajar,157 Hasan ibn al-‘Imrān is layyin al-hadīth. According to al-Tabarī, he is majhūl.158

Mq5

حدثنا الخاقاني قال حدثنا احمد قال حدثنا علي قال قال ابو عبيد اختلفت مصاحف اهل العراق و الكوفة والبصرة في خمسة احرف

Abū ‘Ubayd said: “The masāhif of the people of Irāq and Kūfah and Basrah differed in five readings …”159

No info is available on Khalf ibn Khāqān al-Misrī.

Ahmad ibn Muhmmmad ibn Abī al-Mawt al-Makkī (261-351 AH) is da‘īfun qalīlan.160

Abū ‘Ubayd died in 224 AH.

Mq6

قال ابو عمرو وروي لنا عن ابن القاسم واشهب وابن وهب انهم رأوا في مصحف جدّ مالك بن انس الذي كتبه حين كتب عثمن بن عفان رضي الله عنه المصاحف اخرجه اليهم مالك …

Abū ‘Amr said: “And it was narrated to us from Ibn al-Qāsim and Ashhab and Ibn Wahb that they saw in the mushaf of the grandfather of Mālik ibn Anas which he wrote at the time when ‘Uthmān wrote out the masāhif – this mushaf was shown to them by Mālik ibn Anas …”161

The narrative is broken as Abū ‘Amr al-Dānī has not indicated the complete isnād from which he received this narrative.

‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn al-Qāsim al-Misrī died in 191 AH.162

Ashhab ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz died in 204 at the age of 64.163

‘Abdullāh ibn Wahb died in 197 AH.164

Mq7

وقال ابو حاتم في مصحف اهل المدينة في يوسف …و في مصحف أهل حمص الذي بعث به عثمان إلى الشام في الأعراف …

Abū Hātim said: “In the mushaf of the people of Madīnah in Sūrah Yūsuf it was written … and the mushaf of the people of Hims which ‘Uthmān sent to Syria, in Sūrah A‘rāf, it was written …”165

Abū Hātim al-Sajistānī (Sahl ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Uthmān) died in 255 AH.166

Mq8

وروى الكسائي عن أبي حيوة الشامي أن في المصحف الذي بعث به عثمان إلى الشام

Al-Kasā’ī reports from Abū Haywah Shurayh ibn Yazīd al-Shāmī that in the mushaf which ‘Uthmān sent to Syria …167

The chain of narration is broken. The jarh on al-Kasā’ī has already been presented earlier.

Abū Haywah Shurayh ibn Yazīd died in 203 AH.168

__________

The above anaylsis can be summarized in the following brief survey which depicts the weaknesses in these narratives with regard to the three books in which they are reported:

1. Kitāb al-Masāhif (Ma)

Ma1, Ma2, Ma3, Ma4, Ma5, Ma6, Ma7, Ma17, Ma19 and Ma20 have weak chains of narration.

The weakness in Ma9, Ma10, Ma11, Ma14 and Ma16 is that not only they have weak chains of narration, they are also reported by narrators belonging to the second or third century; the weakness in Ma12, Ma13, Ma15 and Ma18 is that they are reported by narrators belonging to the third century.169

It may be noted that Ma 8 does not relate to variations.

2. Fadā’il al-Qur’ān (Fd)

Fd2 has a weak chain of narration; Fd3 has no chain of narration.

The weakness in Fd1 is that it is reported by a narrator belonging to the second century.170 

3. Al-Muqni‘ (Mq)

Mq1(a), Mq1(i), Mq1(j), Mq2(b), Mq3, Mq4 and Mq6 have weak chains of narration.

The weakness in Mq1(c), Mq1(e), Mq1(l), Mq2(a), Mq5 and Mq8 is that they not only have weak chains of narrations, they are also reported by narrators belonging to the second or third century; the weakness in Mq1(b), Mq1(d), Mq1(f) and Mq7 is that they are reported by narrators belonging to the third century.171

It may be noted that Mq1(g), Mq1(h), Mq1(k) and Mq1(m) do not reflect any variation and only depict what was found in the imām of ‘Uthmān (rta). All these narratives depict readings of the imām that are being read even today in Madīnah – the place of origin of the imām.

VI. Conclusion

The narratives which report variations in the copies of the ‘Uthmānic codices are subject to many objections and questions both with regard to their text and chains of narration. They have been discussed in detail in this article.

Besides other objections, it has been shown that contradictions are found in entry nos 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 37, 39, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 60. On the basis of these contradictions, the readings found at these entries cannot be established at the places they were allegedly supposed to have been read. It has also been shown that entry nos 3, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 18, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 42, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59 present readings which have strangely vanished from the areas they were read (Makkah, Madīnah, Kūfah, Basrah and Syria); no historical record exists which shows that they were revoked at some time and replaced by the reading which is currently found in these areas – which incidentally is the same in all these areas.

In other words, there is some issue or the other with all the entries.172

In the wake of all this, these narratives cannot be regarded as reliable reports of the content they mention.

However, if there is some truth in the existence of these variations in the ‘Uthmānic copies, then their most plausible explanation keeping in view their trivial nature is that they represent scribal or aural errors – with one of the variations representing the true reading and other(s) its defectively transmitted form.

_______________

1. References forthcoming.

2. Tamannā ‘Imādī, Jam‘ al-Qur’ān, 2nd ed. (Karachi: al-Rahmān Publishing Trust, 1994), 351-352..

3. Ibid., 351-352.

4. Ma4 and Ma7 are not reflected in this chart because they do not relate to variations in the ‘Uthmānic copies. The texts of these narratives are quoted later in this chapter.

5. Abū ‘Ubayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallām, Fadā’il al-Qur’ān, 1st ed. (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 1991), 196-200.

6. Abū Bakr ‘Abdullāh ibn Abī Dā’ūd Sulaymān ibn al-Ash‘ath, Kitāb al-masāhif, 1st ed. (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 1985), 46-58.

7. Abū ‘Amr ‘Uthmān ibn Sa‘īd al-Dānī, Al-Muqni‘ fī ma‘rifah masāhif ahl al-amsār, 2nd ed., (Damascus: Dār al-fikr, 1983Al-Dānī, Al-Muqni‘), 102-113.

8. Neither Basrah nor Kūfah nor Madīnah (which are the cities under discussion) are specified regarding these options. It is stated that each differed from the other in this. See: Ibn Abī Dā’ūd, Kitāb al-masāhif, 50; Ibid., 58.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid.

14. Abū ‘Ubayd, Fadā’il al-Qur’ān, 200.

15. The people of Syria would read فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ الْغَنِيُّ الْحَمِيدُ (24:57) while the people of Irāq would read فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ الْغَنِيُّ الْحَمِيدُ (24:57).

16. Al-Dānī, al-Muqni‘, 115.

17. Muhammad ‘Abd al-‘Azīm al-Zurqānī, Manāhil al-‘irfān fī ‘ulūm al-Qur’ān,  2nd ed. (Beirut: Dār ihyā’ al-turāth al-‘arabī, 1998), 185-186.

18. Muhammad Hādī Ma‘rifah, Al-Tamhīd fī ‘ulūm al-Qur’ān, vol. 1, (Qum: Matba‘ah mahr, 1396 AH), 349-351.

19. I have already shown elsewhere that the primary narrative which describes the ‘Uthmānic collection and other related historical reports are suspect and unreliable. See: Shehzad Saleem, “Collection of the Qur’ān: A Critical and Historical Study of Al-Farāhī’s View” (Ph.D. diss., University of Wales, 2010), 167-243.

20. These isnāds are discussed later in detail. Briefly put, they are:

Fd2 speaks only of the twenty eight places in which the the masāhif of Syria were different. The narrators are Abū al-Dardā’ (d. 32 AH) and ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Āmir (21-118 AH).

Mq1(a) only relates to one verse وَبالذُّبُرِ وَبِاالكِتَابِ (184:3) which was found in the masāhif of Syria. The narrator is Abū al-Dardā’ (d. 32 AH).

Mq4 also relates to the twenty eight places in which the masāhif of Syria were different. The narrators are Abū al-Dardā’ (d. 32 AH) and ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Āmir (21-118 AH).

21. See entries no 33 and 55 in the above chart. There is a variation of the preposition مِنْ.

22. I have attempted to show elsewhere that the Seven Ahruf narratives are not only questionable with regard to their texts but also with regard to their isnād. See: Shehzad Saleem, “A Critical Evaluation of the Seven Ahruf Narratives” (Unpublished), Lahore: Al-Mawrid, 2012.

23. The next point (ie. no. 8) mentions these contradictions as well as other ones.

24. Ibn Abī Dā’ūd, Kitāb al-masāhif, 50, 58.

25. Al-Dānī, Al-Muqni‘, 107.

26. See: Ibn Abī Dā’ūd, Kitāb al-masāhif, 50.

27. Ibn Abī Dā’ūd, Kitāb al-masāhif, 55.

28. Abū ‘Ubayd, Fadāi’l al-Qur’ān, 199.

29. These five are represented by nos. 5, 14, 17, 35 and 36 of the chart above.

30. The other seven are represented by nos 15, 16, 18, 19, 38, 39, 41 in the chart above.

31. Ibn Abī Dā’ūd, Kitāb al-masāhif, 49-51.

32. These eight are represented by nos. 2, 20, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 47.

33. In most cases, only the isnād and the initial words of the text are reproduced and the remaining texts are reflected in the chart tabulated earlier in this article.

34. Ibn Abī Dā’ūd, Kitāb al-masāhif, 46. The differences that are mentioned in the text that follows are reflected in the chart tabulated earlier in this article.

35. Abū al-Hajjāj Yūsuf ibn al-Zakī al-Mizzī, Tahdhīb al-kamāl fī asmā’ al-rijāl. 1st ed., vol. 8 (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-risālah, 1980), 29.

36. Ibid., vol. 8, 30-31.

37. Abū Hātim Muhammad ibn Hibbān al-Bustī, Al-Majrūhīn min al-muhaddithīn wa al-du‘afā’ wa al-matrūkīn, 1st ed., vol. 1 (Halab: Dār al-wa‘y, 1396 AH), 261.

38.Abū al-Fadl Ahmad ibn ‘Alī ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī, Taqrīb al-tahdhīb, 1st ed. (Syria: Dār al-rashīd, 1986), 187.

39. Abū al-Fadl Ahmad ibn ‘Alī ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī, Tahdhīb al-tahdhīb, 1st ed., vol. 3 (Beirut: Dār al-fikr, 1984), 70.

40. Ibn Abī Dā’ūd, Kitāb al-masāhif, 51.

41. Ibn Abī Dā’ūd, Kitāb al-masāhif, 46-47.

42. Dr Muhib al-Dīn ‘Abd al-Subhān, Dirasatun wa Tahqiq wa Naqd ‘ala Kitab al-Masahif, 2nd ed., vol. 1 (Beirut: Dār al-Bashā’ir al-Islāmiyyah, 2002), 249.

43. Rijāl and biographical works do mention him, but without any jarh or ta‘dīl. See for example: ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn Abī Hātim, Al-Jarh wa al-ta‘dīl, 1st ed., vol. 4 (Beirut: Dār al-ihyā’ al-turāth al-‘arabī, 1952), 142; Abū Sa‘d ‘Abd al-Karīm ibn Muhammad ibn Mansūr al-Sam‘ānī, Al-Ansāb, 1st ed., vol. 2 (Beirut: Dār al-fikr, 1998), 81; Shams al-Dīn Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Rahmān al-Sakhāwī, Al-Tuhfah al-latīfah fī tārīkh madīnah al-sharīfah, 1st ed., vol. 1 (Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 1993), 422.

44. Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Alī ibn Yūsuf al-Jazarī, Tahbīr al-taysīr fi al-qirā’āt al-‘ashr, 1st ed., vol. 1 (Amman: Dār al-furqān, 2000), 113.

45. Ibn Abī Dā’ūd, ed. ‘Abd al-Subhān. Kitāb al-masāhif, vol. 1, 245.

46. Ibn Abī Dā’ūd, Kitāb al-masāhif, 47. See also: al-Suyūtī, Al-Dur al-manthūr, 6, 112.

47. Ibn Abī Dā’ūd, Kitāb al-masāhif, 47. See also: al-Suyūtī, Al-Dur al-manthūr, 4, 531.

48. Ibn Abī Dā’ūd, Kitāb al-masāhif, 47-48. See also: al-Suyūtī, Al-Durr al-manthūr, 1, 336.

49. Ibn Hajar, Tahdhīb al-tahdhīb, vol. 11, 335.

50. Ibn Abī Dā’ūd, Kitāb al-masāhif, 48. The three instances referred to are 3:52, 3:64 and 6:111. See also: al-Suyūtī, Al-Durr al-manthūr, 2, 223.

51. Ibn Abī Dā’ūd, Kitāb al-masāhif, 48.

52. Abū al-Hasan Muhammd ibn Abī al-Karam Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Jazarī, Al-Lubāb fī tahdhīb al-ansāb, vol. 1, (Beirut: Dār Sādir, 1980), 456.

53. Abū al-Fadl Ahmad ibn ‘Alī ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī, Lisān al-mīzān, vol. 3 (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-a‘lamī li al-matbū‘āt, 1986), 181.

54. Ibn Hibbān, Al-Majrūhīn, vol. 1, 378

55. Abū ‘Abdullāh Shams al-Dīn Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn ‘Uthmān ibn Qāyamaz ibn ‘Abdullāh al-Dhahabī, Mīzān al-i‘tidāl fī naqd al-rijāl, 1st ed., vol. 3 (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 1995), 421.

56. Abū ‘Abdullāh Yāqūt ibn ‘Abdullāh, al-Hamawī, Mu‘jam al-buldān, vol. 5 (Beirut: Dār al-fikr, n.d.), 382.

57. Ibn Abī Dā’ūd, Kitāb al-masāhif, 48.

58. Ibid., 49.

59. Abū ‘Abdullāh Muhammad ibn Ismā‘īl al-Bukhārī, Al-Tārīkh al-kabīr, vol. 6 (n.p.: Dār al-fikr, n.d.), 268.

60. Yāqūt al-Hamawī, Mu‘jam al-udabā’, vol. 4. 102-103.

61. Ibid., vol. 4. 89.

62. Jalāl al-Dīn ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn Kamāl al-Dīn Abī Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn Sābiq al-Dīn al-Suyūtī, Bughyah al-wu‘āh fī tabaqāt al-lughwiyyīn wa al-nuhāt, vol. 2 (Beirut: Al-Maktabah al-‘asriyyah, n.d.), 72.

63. Ibn Abī Dā’ūd, Kitāb al-masāhif, 51.

64. Ibn Hajar, Taqrīb al-tahdhīb, 179.

65. Al-Mizzī, Tahdhīb al-kamāl, vol. 7, 317.

66. Al-Dhahabī, Mīzān al-i‘tidāl, vol. 2, 378.

67. Ibn Hajar, Tahdhīb al-tahdhīb, vol. 3, 24.

68. Ibn Abī Dā’ūd, Kitāb al-masāhif, 51.

69. Rijāl and biographical works do mention him, but without any jarh or ta‘dīl. See for example: Ibn Abī Hātim, Al-Jarh wa al-ta‘dīl, vol. 4, 142; al-Sam‘ānī, Al-Ansāb, 1st ed., vol. 2 (Beirut: Dār al-fikr, 1998), 81; al-Sakhāwī, Al-Tuhfah al-latīfah fī tārīkh madīnah al-sharīfah, vol. 1, 422.

70. Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Alī ibn Yūsuf al-Jazarī, Tahbīr al-taysīr fi al-qirā’āt al-‘ashr, vol. 1, 113.

71. Ibid., 52.

72. Ibn Hajar, Taqrīb al-tahdhīb, vol. 1, 383.

73. Ibn Abī Dā’ūd, Kitāb al-masāhif, 52.

74. Ibn Hajar, Taqrīb al-tahdhīb, 424.

75. Ibn Abī Dā’ūd, Kitāb al-masāhif, 53-54.

76. Ibn Hajar, Taqrīb al-tahdhīb, 109.

77. Ibn Abī Dā’ūd, Kitāb al-masāhif, 54.

78. Ibn Hajar, Taqrīb al-tahdhīb, 460.

79. Ibn Abī Dā’ūd, Kitāb al-masāhif, 54-55.

80. Ibid., 55.

81. Ibid., 55.

82. Abū ‘Abdullāh Shams al-Dīn Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn ‘Uthmān ibn Qāyamaz ibn ‘Abdullāh al-Dhahabī, Al-Kāshif fī ma‘rifah man lahū riwāyah fī al-kutub al-sittah, 1st ed., vol. 1 (Jeddah: Dār al-qiblah al-thaqāfah al-islāmiyyah, 1992), 484.