What the readings change

The word sawā‘iq (“thunder-clap”) was read by al-Ģasan al-Bašrī as sawāqi‘ (“thunder”), a possible example of linguistic metathesis. (For more discussion about these dialectical differences, see the comment on Q 2.19)

Among the various readings, different word choice—probably from scribal error—greatly affects meaning:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads yay’ās (“despair”) with a hamza.

Majority reading is yay’as (“despair”) with a hamza.

Ibn ‘Abbās, ‘Alī Ibn Abī Ţālib, ‘Ikrima, ‘Āšim al-Jiģdarī, Ibn Mas‘ūd, Mujāhid, Sa‘īd Ibn Jubayr, ‘Abd Allah Ibn Kathīr, Ibn ‘Āmir, and others read yatabayan (“discern”).

The word yay’ās/yay’as in this verse, translated by Palmer and other translators as “know,” does not match the current Arabic Qur’ān and the majority readings, which use the word “despair.” Khalifa provides the closest meaning among the translators to these two readings: “Is it not time for the believers to give up and realize that if GOD willed….” (Khalifa trans.)

Islamic scholars claim that this word yay’ās/yay’as means “know” in the al-Nakh‘ dialect,but the highly regarded Arab scholar and linguist al-Kisā’ī rejects this explanation: “I have absolutely not found any Arabic use of despair to mean “know”. According to al-Ţabarī, there is a credible chain of narrators who state Ibn ‘Abbās read the verse with the word yatabayan (“discern”) instead of yay’ās/yay’as (''despair”) found in the current Arabic Qur’ān and the majority readings. Ibn ‘Abbās states that the scribe wrote the word while he (the scribe) was sleepy. Ibn Jurayj reports that the reading of Ibn ‘Abbās agrees with several other readings by prominent readers and major Companions, such as Muhammad’s son-in-law ‘Alī Ibn Abī Ţālib.

Regarding the reading and opinion of Ibn ‘Abbās (“discern”), several Islamic scholars offer their reactions: Abū Ģaīyān rejects the statement “that the scribe wrote this [word] while sleepy…[claiming it] is a statement of an unbelieving atheist". Al-Rāzī does not accept the statement about the opinion of Ibn ‘Abbās “because that would imply the current Qur’ān contains corruption ….”. Ibn Jurayj states that the authentication that al-Ţabarī provided concerning Ibn ‘Abbās “was utterly rejected by a group that has no knowledge of al-rijāl [science of the oral chain of authentication]".

It is clear that Ibn ‘Abbās was certain of the word change and sure enough to accuse the scribe of being sleepy. It is noteworthy that Ibn Mas‘ūd and a large number of readers support the reading of Ibn ‘Abbās as yatabayan (“discern”).

The disagreement over this verse’s wording in the variant readings was compounded with the compilation of the ‘Uthmānic codex, which inscribed the problematic expression as . Because the codex did not employ clarifying dotting and hamzas, this word could be read as yatabayan (يتبين or “discern”) or yay’ās/yay’as (/ييئس or “despair”). Notice that both the current Arabic Qur’ān and the majority readings include a hamza ! (See the article “Compilation of the Qur’ān”)

Questions: (1) What is the verse stating? Is it asking about the discernment of the believer concerning the hope of guiding the entire world to the religion of Islam? (2) Or, is it expecting that the believer should despair from trying to guide the world to Islam?

Among the various readings, different diacritical marks and the transposition of words affect meaning:

Majority reading is ’ašluhā thābitun (“whose root is firm”).

Anas Ibn Mālik read thābitin ’ašluhā (“firm is its root”) as a description of the tree.

The difference is that Anas Ibn Mālik’s reading talks about the tree itself whereas the majority reading focuses on the root of the tree. The difference in the diacritical marks between these two readings confirms this difference in meaning.

The reading of Anas Ibn Mālik means that the tree is firmly steadfast and immovable regardless of the conditions that surround it.

The majority reading suggests that the stock of the tree (meaning its root or seed) is fixed and does not change. Based on this understanding of the verse, Islamic commentator Ibn ‘Āshūr explains that the good tree is the Qur’ān. By stating that the good, solid tree is a metaphor for the Qur’ān, Ibn ‘Āshūr makes a comparison that contradicts a narration by Zirr, an early Muslim, about ’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b, an early follower of Muhammad and one of the four trustworthy keepers of the Qur’ān, regarding the inconstancy of the Qur’ān:

’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b said to me [Zirr]: How do you read Surat al-Ahzāb [Q 33]? And how do you count it? I [Zirr] said to him: Seventy-three verses. He said: Only?! I have seen it and it was as long as Surat al-Baqarah [Q 2, which has 286 verses, the longest sura in the Qur’ān], and we read in it: “The old man and the old woman, if they commit zina [unlawful sexual relations], then stone them both, a punishment from Allah, and Allah is All-Knowing, Most Wise.”

According to this narration (recounted after Muhammad’s death), this particular sura, Q 33, once contained the stoning verse and an additional two hundred verses during Muhammad’s time.

Question: Despite the slight differences in these readings, how can the Qur’ān be compared to a strong tree or a tree with strong roots if its content is subject to substantial change?

Among the various readings, different wording in some of the readings affect eloquence:

Majority reading is Wa mathalu kalimatin khabīthatin (“And the likeness of a bad word is as a bad tree…”).

’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b read (according to al-Naģģās) Wa ďaraba mathala kalimatin khabithin (“And gave an example, a bad word is as a bad tree…”), which includes ďaraba and the use of mathalu (“the likeness”).

’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b read (according to Abū Ģaīyān) Wa ďaraba Allahu mathalan kalimatan khabithatan (“And Allah gave an example, a bad word is as a bad tree…”), which includes ďaraba Allahu (“Allah gave”) and other Arabic grammatical differences.

Question: Considering the status of esteemed scribe ’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b, do these two readings attributed to him show that the verse in the majority reading has at least one missing word, ďaraba, an omission that might have occurred during the compilation of the Qur’ān to avoid repetition (Q14.24, 26) and improve eloquence?

Among the various readings, different family recipients are presented regarding Abraham’s pardon request:

Seven Readers read wa li-wālidayya (“and my parents”), referring to the parents of Ibrāhīm.

Ibn Mas‘ūd and others read wa li-waladayya (“and my two sons”), referring to Ishmael and Isaac.

Codex of ’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b reads wa li-’abawayya (“and my parents”).

Some of the codices read wa li-dhurrīyatī (“and my descendants”).

The difference in these readings concerns the intended parties included in Abraham’s pardon request: Abraham’s “parents,” “two sons,” or “descendants.” The difference here is not related to the presence or absence of one of the letters because there is a drastic change in the words and their meanings.

Besides the existing ambiguity in this story regarding this pardon, the Qur’ān does not mention the historical events of the story of Abraham in a chronological order. (This lack of chronology is found in other Qur’ānic stories, with the exception of Joseph, Q 12.) Thus, the pardon ambiguity and lack of chronology make it very difficult to precisely ascertain when Abraham asked for forgiveness for himself and his family members. Consequently, the readings suggest the reliance on the personal perception of each reader; some readers determine that Abraham asked pardon for his parents before he disowned his father, as stated in Q 9.114: “Nor was Abraham’s asking pardon for his father aught else but through a promise he had promised him; but when it was made manifest to him that he [Abraham’s father] was an enemy to God, he [Abraham] cleansed himself of him….” This view reflects Ibn Kathīr’s interpretation of the verse.

Those who read wa li-waladayya (“and my two sons”) believe that the parents of Abraham do not deserve pardon, in accordance to Q 4.48: “Verily, God pardons not associating aught with Him, but He pardons anything short of that to whomsoever He pleases….” With this understanding, these readers consider the phrase “and my two sons” to mean “my offspring,” which is consistent with the context of the previous verse (Q 14.40): “O my Lord! make me steadfast in prayer, and of my seed likewise! O our Lord! and accept my prayer!”

Obviously, with all these differences in the readings regarding vocabulary and their variant meanings, which, if any, was taken from Muhammad?

It is possible to understand and justify that the difference between the seven readings and the reading of Ibn Mas‘ūd is because of the absence of diacritical marks and the alif al-madd (middle alif). However, it is difficult to understand the existence of vocabulary that is distinctly different in meaning, as in the other two readings from the codices. These problems raise doubts about the authenticity of the Qur’ānic text.

Among the various readings, differences in key words can greatly affect the literal or figurative action:

Majority reading is wa-in kāna makruhum.

Note: Palmer translation does not adequately reflect the issue in the majority reading. See instead Khalifa’s translation: “They schemed their schemes, and GOD is fully aware of their schemes. Indeed, their schemes were sufficient to erase mountains”.

Ibn Mas‘ūd (and his codex), ‘Alī Ibn Abī Ţalīb, and ‘Umar Ibn al-Khaţţāb read the word kāda (“almost”) and not kāna (“were”) found in the majority reading.The difference is that the word kāda suggests a figurative comparison or hyperbole; the word kāna is a past tense verb, which typically would indicate that the action actually took place.

To confirm the majority reading, Islamic scholars tried to find justifications for the “schemes” that the mountains would be erased. They use unconvincing justifications, such as relying on fables, to explain away the problem.

Al-Rāzī’s commentary on this verse favors Ibn Mas‘ūd’s reading as the authentic one: [W]hat is intended by these words is not to report that the incident took place, but for exaggeration and hyperbole and similar to his [Allah’s] saying, “The heavens well-nigh [takādu] burst asunder thereat [Q 19.90]”.

Ibn ‘Abbās, Qatāda, al-Ģasan al-Bašrī, al-Ďaģģak, all close Companions of Muhammad, explain that in the verse Q 14.41, the verb kana means kāda, or “almost”.

Question: Is not the reading of Ibn Mas‘ūd stronger—more eloquent and consistent—than the majority reading of the Qur’ān (especially when the Qur’ān, as explained by al-Rāzī’s commentary, uses the verb kāda in other verses, such as Q 19.90)?

Among the various readings, differences in the spelling of a word shed light on its chronology and perhaps its origin:

Majority reading is Qur’ān, with a hamza (ٔ ).

‘Abd Allah Ibn Kathīr and Ibn Muģayšin read the word as Qurān.

What is clear is that the reading of ‘Abd Allah Ibn Kathīr kept the word’s original form before philologist al-Khalīl Ibn Aģmad al-Farāhīdī later refined the diacritical marks and introduced the hamza to the words of the Qur’ān.

The earlier original reading is supported by the majority of researchers who believe that the word, qurān, comes from the Syriac qiryān, which means reading or recitation. (See the section Names of the Qur’ān in the article “Introduction”.

Among the various readings, differences regarding a key phrase affect meaning and tone:

Majority reading is nuzzila ‘alayhi (“has been sent down on him”), and means “came upon or alighted”.

Zayd Ibn ‘Alī read ulqīya ilayhi (“has been thrown down to him”) and means “cast”.

Al-A‘mash read ulqīya ‘alayhi (“has been thrown down on him”) and also means “cast”.

According to Islamic scholars, the majority reading relates the mocking tone of the speakers in this verse, the Quraysh, who did not believe in the revelations to Muhammad, their fellow tribesman. However, if the Quraysh were truly mocking, then the second part of the verse (“…thou art possessed”) should have conveyed a sarcastic “positive” description, i.e., “thou art enlightened,” a structural style seen in other verses. For example, in Q 11.87, the people of the prophet Shu‘ayb (or Sho’hâib) mocked him, saying, “Thou art, forsooth, the clement and straightforward one!” In Q 44.49, the angels mock the position and status of some of the people of hell with similar sarcasm: “Taste! verily, thou art the mighty, the honourable!” Based on these examples and the previous context of Q 15.6, the final line of this verse does not follow this pattern of sarcastic mockery.

Both the readings of Zayd Ibn ‘Alī and al-A‘mash do show consistency in both parts of the verse, however. The jeering remarks of the Quraysh are reflected in the first part of the verse with the expression ’ulqīya ‘ilayhi/‘alayhi, or “has been thrown down to/on him.” By saying that the revelations were “thrown down” on Muhammad both belittles his claim of prophethood and suggests that the “revelations” are silly or unimportant. The scorn in the first part of the verse is matched by the second part (“…thou art possessed”). The negative pattern of sarcasm set up in these two readings can be seen in other Qur’ānic verses, such as Q 54.25, where the people of Thamūd reject their prophet’s divinely given authority and prophetic gifts: “‘Is the warning cast on him alone among us? nay, he is an insolent liar!”

In this verse, these two variant readings are more sound and fitting than the majority reading.

(For discussion about the terms nazzala and ’anzala, see the section Dilemma of Nazzala Versus [’]Anzala in the critical analysis of Q 3.3-4).

Among the various readings, different word choices affect meaning:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads sukkirat (“intoxicated”) by doubling the consonant k, meaning that they (their eyes) were prohibited from seeing. It also could mean covered or clouded.

’Ābān Ibn Taghlib read suģirat (“bewitched”), meaning that magic was cast on their eyes.

The reading of ’Ābān Ibn Taghlib agrees with the ending of the verse, mashurūn (“enchanted”), and is clearer than the majority reading.

Among the various readings, different Arabic spellings with supposedly the same meaning challenge the immutability of the Qur’ānic text:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads al-’aykati (“the Grove”) with a hamza (ٔ ) and a kasra ( ِ   ) with the ending consonant t (ِـة).

Nāfi‘ read (according to Warsh) laykati (“the Grove”) without the hamza.

The differences in the readings of this word occur elsewhere in the Qur’ān:

“The Grove”: Variant Readings

Qur’ānic Text

Verse

Palmer translation

‘Uthmānic

codex

Transliteration

Reading

Ģafš

Warsh

Q 15.78

And the fellows of the Grove too were unjust

al-’aykati

al-’aykati

al-’aykati

(laykati)

Q 26.176

The fellows of the Grove called the apostles liars

la’aykati

al-’aykati

laykati

Q 38.13

and Thamûd and the people of Lot, and the fellows of the Grove, they were the confederates too.

la’aykati

al-’aykati

laykati

According to Islamic references, the revelation of the above verses came in this chronological order: (1) 38th for Q 38 (Sura Šād); (2) 47th for Q 26 (Sura al-Shu‘arā’); (3) 54th for Q 15 (Sura al-hijr).

Islamic references do not differentiate between the Arabic words al-’aykati and laykati. The reading of Ģafš relies on the consonantal scripting (rasm) of the word in Q 15 while the reading of Warsh from Nāfi‘ relies on the rasm of the word in both Q 26 and Q 3

The differences in the writing of the word indicate that, over time, acoustic and phonetic developments occurred in the Arabic language, and the Qur’ānic texts were influenced by these developments. Despite the widespread Islamic belief that the current Qur’ān is an identical copy of the eternal Preserved Tablet, most probably an error occurred during the compilation of the ‘Uthmānic codex. The error could have occurred if the scribe had inserted the alif twice to the word laykati before and after the consonant lām (ل) in Q 15: laykati > āl-’āykati. Or, the errors could have occurred if the alif had been omitted twice in Q 26 and Q 38: āl-’āykati > laykati.

Among the various readings, differences in written word choices demonstrate textual inconsistencies and challenges authenticity:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads wa-alnujūmu (“and the stars”).

Ibn Mas‘ūd read wa-alriyāhu (“and the winds”) and not wa-alnujūmu (“and the stars”) as the ones subjected to Allah’s bidding.

Not only is there no similarity in meaning between these two words, there is also no visual or phonetic similarity. What might explain these differences? Perhaps the writers chose words according to their personal literary taste and understanding.

Another possibility is that these readings were heard directly from Muhammad, but that he was forgetful of the verse’s exact reading when he dictated to one Companion, such as Ibn Mas‘ūd, and the reading he dictated to others. This possibility gains credence from Q 87.6-7: “We will make thee recite, and thou shalt not forget, save what God pleases....” The phrase, “save what God pleases,” suggests that Muhammad may not always remember a reading or its exact text because Allah may make him forget.7 (For more discussion about Muhammad’s forgetfulness, see the section Arrangement and Compilation of the Qur’ān Based on the Probable in the article “Chronological Sequence of the Qur’ān).

Question: If the prophet Muhammad, who received the revelations from Allah, forgot parts of a reading—“what God pleases”—how can his followers be expected to be less forgetful?

Among the various readings, different wording, however slight, suggest reader influence on—or foreign origin of some words or expressions in—the text:

Majority reading is mā tusirrūna wa mā tu‘linūna (“God knows what ye keep secret and what ye disclose”).

Al-A‘mash read al-ladhī tubdūna wa mā tuktimūna (“God knows that ye show, and what ye hide”).

Ţalha Ibn Mišrif read mā yukhfūna wa mā yu‘linūna (“God knows what they cover, and what they disclose”).

Even though there is not much difference among the readings in terms of the meaning, their differences concern the styling of the phrases, clearly indicating writing choices and style influenced by individual readers during the codification of the Qur’ān.

During the compilation of the Qur’ān, many of its words were written in foreign characters and foreign language. Later, these foreign words were Arabicized by more than one translator, which explains the choice of different synonyms for the same expressions or words. Linguist Abū ‘Ubayd al-Qāsim Ibn Sallām refers to this Arabization of some foreign words that existed in the early codices or were inserted later in the Qur’ān:

For me, the correct doctrine is the one that accepts both sayings…because these characters have foreign origins, in accordance to the scholars. But when the Arabs found them, they Arabicized them in their tongues and adapted them from foreign words to their own wordings and they became Arabic.

Among the various readings, different wording affects meaning:

Majority reading is la-nubawi’annahum (“we will surely establish them”).

Abū Ja‘far read la-nubawyannahum (“we will surely establish them”) with a consonant y instead of a guttural stop, the hamza.

‘Alī Ibn Abī Ţalīb, Ibn Mas‘ūd, and others read la-nuthwiannahum (“we will surely make their abiding [stay] long”), which means that their stay in the world would be honorable.

Both la-nubawi’annahum and la-nubawyannahum have the same meaning, but the use of the hamza in the majority reading indicates that it is a more recent, and most probably, a less reliable reading.

The phrase nubawi’annahum/nubawyannahum is a derivative of the noun tabawū’ and means “to make them dwell or inhabit a place”. However, the meaning of the third reading, la-nuthwiannahum, is “to make their stay long”, which mentions the length of the stay. Additionally, this reading is similar to Q 12.23, where the same word combination—good and abiding—is used in the same manner: “…my Lord has made good my abiding…” (emphasis added). This part of the verse means that Allah has taken care of the speaker during her long stay.

Thus, the reading ‘Alī Ibn Abī Ţalīb and Ibn Mas‘ūd is the best reading because it points to a longer and a more honorable period, which agrees with the ending of the verse having to do with life in the hereafter, “the hire of the future, life is greater,” described as a better dwelling place.

Among the various readings, the lack of a clear antecedent for the variable pronoun (“they/you”) affects clarity:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads yaraū(ā) (“they…regard”), concerning “those who were so crafty in evil” (Q 16.45). (This reading is the same as the majority of the readers of Hijaz, Medina, and Basra.)

Some of the readers of Kūfa read taraū(ā) (“you…regard”) because a second-person possessive pronoun (“your”) is used in the preceding verse (“…your Lord is kind, merciful”). In this reading the addressees are the Muslims who are reminded to think about Allah’s creation.

The identity of the addressees in the verse is not clear. Are they the ones who are “so crafty in evil” or the Muslims? This quandary occurs because the early Qur’ānic codices lack dotting, so the authoritative readers read according to their personal literary taste and their comprehension of the verse’s meaning.

The problem of an ambiguous antecedent is repeated here with yaraū(ā) (“they…see”) and taraū(ā) (“you…see”). (See the comment on Q 16.48). Again, the identity of the subject is unclear. Who does not see the birds? The Muslims or others?

Among the various readings, differences in word choices affect preciseness in the verse’s context:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads yawma…yawma (“on the day ye move…and the day”).

Codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd reads ģīna…yawma (“at the time ye move…and the day”).

The reading according to Ibn Mas‘ūd’s codex means an unspecified period of time, meaning it can be applied to any and all periods of time, long or short.

The current Arabic Qur’ān reading of “day” is a known measure: from sunrise to sunset.

The word day could also be substituted with the word when. For example, Q 19.33 (“…the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised up alive”) could easily be read and mean “…when I was born, and when I die, and when I shall be raised up alive” (emphasis added).

The context of the verse is concerned with the period of carrying the leather-made dwellings during travel. Since the verse describes these dwellings as “light,” the verse is not only addressing the issue of untying the dwellings and erecting them but also their necessary transport before their reassembly at the time of encampment. Given the meanings of the words yawma or ģīna (“day” or “at the time”), which reading is better? Was the period of travel less than a day, considering that the verse addresses the time of assembling and reassembling tents made of animal skins?

Ibn Mas‘ūd’s codex avoids repetition and reflects more accurately the time element involved with disassembling and moving tents: “…at the time ye move your quarters and the day when ye abide….” His codex reading is more fitting given the context than the reading of the current Arabic Qur’ān.

In this verse, different readings use a different ending for a certain word—the consonant t or h, (ni‘mat and ni‘mah), both of which mean “grace” and translated by Palmer as “favours.” This particular problem is repeated in previous suras.

In this verse, the variant readings present two issues:

Pronoun inconsistencies

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads la-najziyanna (“we will recompense”). The word najziyanna begins with the consonant n for the first-person plural pronoun, the n (“we” of majesty) to represent Allah speaking in this verse. Abū Ģaīyān states that this is the reading of ‘Āšim Ibn Abī al-Nujūd and ‘Abd Allah Ibn Kathīr.

Nāfi‘, Ģamza, and others read la-yajziyanna (“he will recompense”), in the third person.

Codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd reads la-yuwaffiyanna (“he will repay in full”).

The readings that use the third-person pronoun with yajziyanna (“he will recompense”) or la-yuwaffiyanna (“he will repay in full”) are more compatible with the other verses within the same passage that talk about Allah:

Q 16.92: “God [he] only tries you” (yablūkum, or “he tries you”); “He will make manifest” (yubayyinanna, or “he will make manifest”).

Q 16.93: “He leads astray (yuďillu, or “he leads astray”)…[He] guides…” (yahdī, or “[he] guides”).

The context of the passage Q 16.92-96 shows clearly that the use of third-person pronouns is the consistent pattern. Q 16.96 breaks this pattern by using third-person and then first-person pronouns: “…[B]ut what God [he, third person] has endures; and we [we, first person] will recompense the patient with their hire for the best deeds they have done.” With the first-mentioned pronoun (“God/he”), Allah is being spoken about; with the second-mentioned pronoun (“we”), Allah is speaking.

If Q 16.96 is to reflect the same pronoun pattern used in the other preceding verses, it should read, “…[B]ut what God [he, third person] has endures; and he [he, third person] will recompense the patient with their hire for the best deeds they have done.”

Al-Makkī acknowledges that most readers use third-person pronouns for Q 16.96.

If al-Makkī’s comment is the opinion of Islamic scholars, then why does the current Arabic Qur’ān reading use a first-person plural pronoun (plural to show majesty) to refer to Allah? Is it to emphasize the divinity of the text and thus thrill the Muslim reader? Or is this pronoun difference among the readings the result of the undotted early codices of the Qur’ān?

Word choice

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads la-najziyanna (“we will recompense”). The verb root is jazā, and all its forms in Arabic can be used for either positive or negative compensation.

Nāfi‘, Hamza, and others read la-yajziyanna (“he will recompense”). The verb root is jazā, and all its forms in Arabic can be used for either beneficial or punitive compensation (similar to the current Arabic Qur’ān).

Codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd reads la-yuwaffiyanna (“he will repay in full”). The verb root is wafā, and all its forms in Arabic are only used for positive reimbursement.

The reading according to Ibn Mas‘ūd’s codex presents a clear difference in word choice and the meaning because the word yuwaffiyanna (“he will repay in full”) always has a positive connotation (e.g., Q 4.173, Q 11.111, Q 24.25, Q 35.30, Q 46.19 and others). However, the word yajziyanna (“he will recompense”) bears both negative and positive meanings, as clearly seen in these examples:

Q 3.87 (Arberry trans.): “Those—their recompense is that there shall rest on them the curse of God and of the angels and of men, altogether” (emphasis added).

Q 18.106 (Arberry trans.): “That is their recompense—Gehenna [hell] for that they were unbelievers and took My signs and My messengers in mockery” (emphasis added).

Q 18.88 (Arberry trans.): “But as for him who believes, and does righteousness, he shall receive as recompense the reward most fair, and we shall speak to him, of our command, easiness” (emphasis added).

Q 16.31 (Arberry trans.): “Gardens of Eden they shall enter, underneath which rivers flow, wherein they shall have all they will. So God recompenses the god fearing” (emphasis added).

Q 53.31 (Arberry trans.): “To God belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth, that He may recompense those who do evil for what they have done, and recompense those who have done good with the reward most fair” (emphasis added).

Since the codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd presents both pronoun consistency and precise word choice (yuwaffiyanna) in this verse, matching the context and pattern of the preceding verses (Q 16.92-93), this reading is more fitting and eloquent than the other readings, especially the reading of the current Arabic Qur’ān.