What the readings change

The current Arabic Qur’ān reading uses al-Qur’ān ( الْقُرْءآن) with the hamza whereas ‘Abd Allah Ibn Kathīr and Ibn Muģayšin read al-Qurān without the hamza .

Among the various readings, differences in phrasing produce problems in eloquence and clarity:

Majority reading is adhāqahā…libāsa al-jū‘i wa al-khawfi (Arberry trans. “taste…the garment of hunger and fear”).

’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b read adhāqahā libāsa al-khawfi wa al-jū‘i (“taste…the garment of fear and hunger”), with the words fear and hunger transposed.

It is narrated that Ibn Mas‘ūd read adhāqahā al-khawfa wa al-jū‘a (“taste…fear and hunger”) without the word libāsa (“the garment of”).

The reading of Ibn Ka‘b proves that the readers freely arranged words in the Qur’ān as they saw fit. The reading of Ibn Mas‘ūd is different from that of Ibn Ka‘b in that it lacks the phrase “the garment of,” which does not agree with the preceding verb adhāqahā (“he made her [the city] taste”), mistranslated by Palmer as “and God made it feel.” Recognizing the problem with “tasting” clothing, al-Qurţubī attempts to solve this dilemma by stating that the object of the tasting is affliction. In other words, one can borrow the expression “to taste” to express tasting affliction. Thus, the phrase would become “and Allah afflicted her [the city] with the garment of fear and hunger".

Despite al-Qurţubī’s attempt to justify the use of libāsa (“the garment of”) by presenting a metaphor, the reality is that the two words, affliction and clothing, do not fit together. However, Ibn Mas‘ūd’s reading with the absence of libāsa (“the garment of”) does not change the general meaning of the verse.

Among the various readings, differences in wording affect meaning:

Majority reading is innamā ju‘ila al-Sabtu (“The Sabbath was only made”).

Al-Ģasan al-Bašrī read innamā ja‘ala al-Sabta (“but he made the Sabbath”).

Al-A‘mash read innamā anzalnā al-Sabta (“but we inspired the Sabbath”), with anzalnā (“inspired”) and not ju‘ila (“made”).

Ibn Mas‘ūd read innā anzalnā al-Sabta (“we indeed have inspired the Sabbath”).

The majority and second readings use the word ju‘ila/ja‘ala, which means that Allah instituted the Sabbath and prescribed its observance as a holy day. But the readings of al-A‘mash and Ibn Mas‘ūd, with their use of anzalnā, means Allah inspired the commandment in the Torah (which is the fourth commandment among the Ten Commandments in Judaism) concerned with keeping the Sabbath holy.

Among the various readings, the differences in the singularity or plurality of a noun affect meaning:

Majority reading is al-kitābi (“the Book”), using the singular form.

Abū al-‘Ālīa and Sa‘īd Ibn Jubayr read al-kutubi (“the books”), using the plural form.

The word al-kitābi (“the book”) here means the Torah. The plural al-kutubi (“the books”) means other books besides the Torah.

This difference is the result of the scripting in the ‘Uthmānic codex. The problematic Word came without the middle alif al-madd ( ا ), an almost universal characteristic in the early codices of the Qur’ānic manuscripts. Thus, it is difficult to determine whether the word should be in a plural form as it appears in the script or its singular form, as it appears in the majority reading

? Question: Is the Qur’ān referring to the Torah only—or the Torah, the Psalms and others

Word choice

Majority reading is ‘ibādan (“servants”).

Al-Ģasan al-Bašrī and others read ‘abīdan (“slaves”).

The word ‘ibādan is the plural of ‘ābid (“worshipper”), while the word ‘abīdan is the plural of ‘abdun (“slave”). The word ‘abīdan is often used in the Arabic language in general to describe the possessed slaves, but the word ‘ibādan refers to the devout believers.

The word ‘abīdan (“slaves”) is a Qur’ānic description that refers to people in general but evildoers in particular. (See Q 3.182, Q 8.51, Q 22.10, Q 41.6, Q 50.29.) The word ‘ibādan is coupled in the Qur’ān with righteous people. (See Q 2.186, Q 25.63, Q 37.40, 74, 128, 160.) In Q 37, four verses (40, 74, 128, and 160) all repeat the same phrase: Allah’s “sincere servants” (‘ibādan). In his interpretation of the expression yā ‘ibādi (“O my servants”) in Q 43.68, Islamic judge, scholar, and commentator al-Bayďāwī states that the word ‘ibādi “describes every enslaved creature of the creatures of Allah Almighty; however, the intended of it [‘ibādi] are the righteous ones.” He adds that “the great Qur’ān usually allots the word ‘ibād to the righteous believers” (emphasis added).

Therefore, the context of Q 17.5 does not match with the word ‘ibād because nothing in the verse indicates that the violent spies had faith in Allah. They are characterized as “infidels” by al-Zamakhsharī and also by al-Ģasan al-Bašrī. Some commentators surmise that the attackers were the soldiers of Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar and his troops, or the Giants. Another opinion is that the attackers killed the scholars of the Children of Israel and “burned the Torah, vandalized the mosque [synagogue], and captivated seventy thousand of them”.

Question: If these violent attackers were infidels, would the Qur’ān describe them as “servants of ours,” which means “righteous believers”?

Word choice

Majority reading is fa-jāsū(ā) (“and they searched”). The verb jāsū means to go back and forth or to thoroughly search an area for something.

Ibn ‘Abbās and others read fa-hāsū(ā), which is said to mean the spreading of the raid, the killing and the marching accordingly. It is said to similarly mean smiting the enemy during the war.

The meaning of jāsū(ā) is clearly different from hāsū(ā) because the verse’s context speaks about invasion. Thus, the reading of Ibn ‘Abbās is closer to the verse’s intended meaning with its context of invasion. However, there is no dotting in the early Qur’ānic codices (mašāhif) that could definitively corroborate either reading.

Among the various readings, differences in words and phrases do not clearly represent the evildoers: Current Arabic Qur’ān reads ’amarnā mutrafīhā fa-fasaqū(ā) (“we bade the opulent ones thereof; and they wrought abomination therein”). ’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b read ba‘athnā fīhā ’akābira mujrimīhā fa-makarū(ā) fīhā (“we sent to it the leading criminals; and they plot therein”). The current Arabic Qur’ān reading states that the destruction will fall on the city as a result of the abomination of the opulent ones, while the reading of ’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b means that the city’s leading criminals are the ones who plot against it—they are the ones who spread abomination. His reading is more objective because it points directly to the criminals, people who commit evil actions regardless of their financial status. Strong support of ’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b’s reading is evident in Q 6.123 (Rodwell trans.): “Even so have we placed in every city, ringleaders of its wicked ones, to scheme therein: but only against themselves shall they scheme! and they know it not.” The current Arabic Qur’ān reading unfairly classifies all those who live a luxurious life to be evildoers—a judgment based on wealth rather than evidence of evil actions.

Among the various readings, differences in word choice affect meaning:

Majority reading is ’akbaru (“larger”), though translated by Palmer as “greater.”

It was read ’aktharu (“more”), as in number.

The word ’akbaru is a description of size rather than number whereas the opposite is true for the word ’aktharu. (See the comment on Q 2.219).

Word choice

Majority reading is wa qaďā Rabbuka (“Thy Lord has decreed”).

Ibn ‘Abbās read wa waššā (“has commanded”).

’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b read wa waššā (“has commanded”).

Codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd reads wa waššā (“has commanded”).

Al-Ďaģģāk and Ibn Muzāģim read wa waššā (“has commanded”).

In his explanation of his reading, Ibn ‘Abbās states that the origin of the undotted word is (ووصى), or wa waššā (“has commanded”), but the letter wa (و) in the word waššā (وصى) became attached to the following consonant š (ص). The reader was left with no other choice but to read , or qaďā (“decreed”). Ibn ‘Abbās justifies his reading of wa waššā (“has commanded”): “[I]f it was a decree, no one would disobey Allah at all…because contradicting what Allah has decreed is not possible”. Companion Abū ‘Ubayd confirms this opinion and reading of Ibn ‘Abbās.

Q 2.117 and Q 46.15 are helpful examples to better show the meaningful difference between wa qadā (“has decreed) and wa waššā (''has commanded”), respectively. For instance, Q 2.117 shows that whatever Allah creates, his action cannot be repressed, stopped, or undone: Whenever Allah''…decrees a matter He doth but say unto it, ‘BE,’ and it is.” On the other hand, Q 46.15 shows that

wawaššā does not carry the absolute binding of waqadā: “We have commanded man [to show] kindness to his parents…” (Sale trans.). Though kindness to one’s parents is commanded by Allah, a person can disobey and, in this way, the commandment is not fulfilled.

Muslim scholars reject the reading of Ibn ‘Abbās as an official reading. Al-Rāzī speculates on this rejection:

[K]now that this opinion is very far because it opens the door to [saying] that corruption [tahrīf] and alterations have touched the Qur’ān. If we allowed for that, the security of the Qur’ān would be removed and removes it from being a valid proof [hujja]. No doubt this is a great stab to the religion.

In other words, al-Rāzī is suggesting that it is paramount to maintain safety for the credibility of the Qur’ān rather than to investigate (and correct?) the possible errors within it.

Al-Rāzī’s explanation of Ibn ‘Abbās’s rejected reading clearly exposes the embarrassment of Muslim scholars over the dilemma of dissimilar scripting in the codices (mašāģif). In contrast, Ibn ‘Abbās, the highly esteemed Companion and “Interpreter of the Qur’ān,” boldly defends his position without caring that he is confirming that the Qur’ān has undergone alterations. And, as he himself rightly explains, in this verse Q 17.23, the word waššā (“commanded”) is stronger and more logical than qaďā (“decreed”).

Questions: (1) Why do Muslim scholars find this reading of Ibn ‘Abbās a danger and a violation against the sanctity of the Qur’ān? (2) Is their rejection based on his description of an apparent alteration to this verse? (3) Why is he singled out and criticized for his reading, when other readings use his same exact wording?

Emphasis

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads yablughanna (“reach”) with emphasis.

Codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd reads yablughāni (“reach”) with no emphasis.

In the current Arabic Qur’ān, the reading of this verse emphasizes the word “reach” (yablughanna), which means that the honoring of the parents occurs when they “reach old age.” Such a condition seems odd. Shouldn’t parents be honored all during their lives? The codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd does not place any emphasis anywhere in this verse. Yet, if there should be an emphasis—and the emphasis in the current reading seems misplaced—what placement would make better sense?

The Palmer English translation provides a clue, with its exclamation after the word, “Fie!” The most fitting emphasis would be “say not to them, ‘Fie!’” In this proposed reading, the parents would be honored regardless of their age and their children are strongly admonished to never speak disrespectfully to them:

Q 17.23: Where Is the Proper Emphasis?

Current Arabic Qur’ān (emphasis on “reach”)

...“whether one or both of them reach old age with thee; and say not to them, ‘Fie!’....”

...’immā yablughanna ‘indaka al-kibara ’aģaduhumā ’aw kilāhumā, fa-lā taqūl lahumā ’uffin….

Proposed reading (emphasis on “say not”)

...“whether one or both of them reach old age with thee; and say not to them, ‘Fie!’....”

...’immā yablughāni ‘indaka al-kibara ’aģaduhumā ’aw kilāhumā, fa-lā taqūlanna lahumā ’uffin….

Repetition and word choice

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads ’ahaduhumā ’aw (“whether one of them or both of them”). (Palmer trans. “whether one or both of them....” )

Codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd reads ’immā wāhidun wa ’immā (“whether one or whether both of them”). The codex repeats the word ’immā (“whether”) and uses the word wāhid (“one”) instead of ahaduhumā (“one of them”).

Even though these readings are not significantly different in meaning, these readings do not serve the idea of the oneness of the Qur’ānic text because they are different in scripting and wording.

Question: Where is the sanctity of the Qur’ānic text in the presence of variant readings like these, especially when the conflict is between two codices (mašāhif), taking into account that Muhammad ordered the Muslims to take the Qur’ān from Ibn Mas‘ūd?

Majority reading is wa qaďā Rabbuka (“Thy Lord has decreed”).

Ibn ‘Abbās read wa waššā (“has commanded”).

’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b read wa waššā (“has commanded”).

Codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd reads wa waššā (“has commanded”).

Al-Ďaģģāk and Ibn Muzāģim read wa waššā (“has commanded”).

In his explanation of his reading, Ibn ‘Abbās states that the origin of the undotted word is (ووصى), or wa waššā (“has commanded”), but the letter wa (و) in the word waššā (وصى) became attached to the following consonant š (ص). The reader was left with no other choice but to read , or qaďā (“decreed”). Ibn ‘Abbās justifies his reading of wa waššā (“has commanded”): “[I]f it was a decree, no one would disobey Allah at all…because contradicting what Allah has decreed is not possible”. Companion Abū ‘Ubayd confirms this opinion and reading of Ibn ‘Abbās.

Q 2.117 and Q 46.15 are helpful examples to better show the meaningful difference between wa qadā (“has decreed) and wa waššā (''has commanded”), respectively. For instance, Q 2.117 shows that whatever Allah creates, his action cannot be repressed, stopped, or undone: Whenever Allah''…decrees a matter He doth but say unto it, ‘BE,’ and it is.” On the other hand, Q 46.15 shows that

wawaššā does not carry the absolute binding of waqadā: “We have commanded man [to show] kindness to his parents…” (Sale trans.). Though kindness to one’s parents is commanded by Allah, a person can disobey and, in this way, the commandment is not fulfilled.

Muslim scholars reject the reading of Ibn ‘Abbās as an official reading. Al-Rāzī speculates on this rejection:

[K]now that this opinion is very far because it opens the door to [saying] that corruption [tahrīf] and alterations have touched the Qur’ān. If we allowed for that, the security of the Qur’ān would be removed and removes it from being a valid proof [hujja]. No doubt this is a great stab to the religion.

In other words, al-Rāzī is suggesting that it is paramount to maintain safety for the credibility of the Qur’ān rather than to investigate (and correct?) the possible errors within it.

Al-Rāzī’s explanation of Ibn ‘Abbās’s rejected reading clearly exposes the embarrassment of Muslim scholars over the dilemma of dissimilar scripting in the codices (mašāģif). In contrast, Ibn ‘Abbās, the highly esteemed Companion and “Interpreter of the Qur’ān,” boldly defends his position without caring that he is confirming that the Qur’ān has undergone alterations. And, as he himself rightly explains, in this verse Q 17.23, the word waššā (“commanded”) is stronger and more logical than qaďā (“decreed”).

Questions: (1) Why do Muslim scholars find this reading of Ibn ‘Abbās a danger and a violation against the sanctity of the Qur’ān? (2) Is their rejection based on his description of an apparent alteration to this verse? (3) Why is he singled out and criticized for his reading, when other readings use his same exact wording?

Among the various readings, pronoun inconsistency affects meaning and highlights possible problems with coherence:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads yaqūlūna (“they say”) in both verses 42 and 43 (though the Palmer translation is “ye say” and “they say,” respectively.)

hamza, al-Kisā’ī, Khalaf and al-A‘mash read taqūlūna (“ye say”) in both verses.

Nāfi‘, Abū ‘Amr Ibn al-‘Ālā’, Abū Ja‘far, Ya‘qūb and Ibn ‘Āmir read taqūlūna (“ye say”) in verse 42.

Nāfi‘, Abū ‘Amr Ibn al-‘Ālā’, Abū Ja‘far, Ya‘qūb and Ibn ‘Āmir read yaqūlūna (“they say”) in verse 43.

At first glance, the problem in the readings for these two verses seems to concern the use of different pronouns—“ye say” vs. “they say”—and how these pronouns change the nature of the receivers of the speaker’s address from second person to third person. For instance, in verse 42, Allah is directly speaking to the nonbelievers (Quraysh) through Muhammad. However, in verse 43, Allah is not the speaker, according to some readers, but is the subject of the address, and the address is about the nonbelievers but not directed to them.

Yet, to focus only on this pronoun variance in these two verses misses a much deeper problem in the full context of the passage, Q 17.40-17.43. When reading these four verses sequentially, the possible cause of the problem in verses 42 and 43 occurs in verse 41. In Q 17.41, Allah is speaking to Muhammad about the nonbelievers. Its structure and tone do not match verses 40, 42, and 43, raising the prospect that verse 41 was added later.

If verse 41 was removed from this passage and the remaining verses (Q 17.40, 42, and 43) followed the readings of Ģamza, al-Kisā’ī, Khalaf and al-A‘mash (taqūlūna, or “ye say”), the passage would then consistently show that Allah is directly addressing the nonbelievers through Muhammad. By maintaining the style, structure, and form of address throughout the passage, their readings surpass the others in clarity and eloquence.

Among the various readings, differences regarding pronoun gender and codex discrepancies challenge the unity of the Qur’ānic text:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads tusabbih (“extol”) in the feminine form in Arabic. (Arberry trans.: “The seven heavens and the earth, and whosoever in them is, extol Him; nothing is, that does not proclaim His praise; but you do not understand their extolling. Surely He is All-clement, All-forgiving.”)

‘Abd Allah Ibn Kathīr, Nāfi‘ and others read yusabbih (“extol”), using the masculine form in Arabic.

Codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd reads Sabbahat lahu al-arďu wa sabbahat lahu al-samawātu (“The earth extolled His praises and the heavens extolled His praises”). The feminine verb sabbahat (“extolled”) is in the past tense and repeated twice. The expression lahu (“for him”) is repeated twice. The word order is also different and the word “seven” is absent.

Those readings using the feminine form are following gender agreement, as the Arabic word al-samā’ (“heaven”) is feminine. The other readings consider the heavens genderless and thus use the masculine form, which follows the Arabic grammatical rule. The difference between the current Arabic Qur’ān reading and the reading of ‘Abd Allah Ibn Kathīr likely occurred because of the absence of dots and diacritical marks in the early copies of the Qur’ān. However, the difference between them and the codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd indicates that the early readers had great freedom to choose the appropriate reading according to their opinions and personal taste before codifying them in their codices (mašāhif).

Among the various readings, differences regarding pronoun gender and codex discrepancies challenge the unity of the Qur’ānic text:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads tusabbih (“extol”) in the feminine form in Arabic. (Arberry trans.: “The seven heavens and the earth, and whosoever in them is, extol Him; nothing is, that does not proclaim His praise; but you do not understand their extolling. Surely He is All-clement, All-forgiving.”)

‘Abd Allah Ibn Kathīr, Nāfi‘ and others read yusabbih (“extol”), using the masculine form in Arabic.

Codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd reads Sabbahat lahu al-arďu wa sabbahat lahu al-samawātu (“The earth extolled His praises and the heavens extolled His praises”). The feminine verb sabbahat (“extolled”) is in the past tense and repeated twice. The expression lahu (“for him”) is repeated twice. The word order is also different and the word “seven” is absent.

Those readings using the feminine form are following gender agreement, as the Arabic word al-samā’ (“heaven”) is feminine. The other readings consider the heavens genderless and thus use the masculine form, which follows the Arabic grammatical rule.

The difference between the current Arabic Qur’ān reading and the reading of ‘Abd Allah Ibn Kathīr likely occurred because of the absence of dots and diacritical marks in the early copies of the Qur’ān. However, the difference between them and the codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd indicates that the early readers had great freedom to choose the appropriate reading according to their opinions and personal taste before codifying them in their codices (mašāhif).

In this verse, the variant readings present two issues:

Subject pronouns

Majority reading is yad‘ūna (“they call”) with the subject a third-person plural pronoun and refers to “the angels”.

Ibn Mas‘ūd, Ibn ‘Abbās, and others read tad‘ūna (“you call”), which uses a second-person pronoun and refers to “polytheists”.

Al-Ţabarī presents a comment by al-A‘mash on this verse:

There was a group of humans who worshipped the jinn. The jinn became believers, but the humans remained in their disbelief. Therefore, Allah the exalted sent down [this verse, ‘Those on whom they call, seek themselves for a means of approaching their Lord...’], meaning the jinn.

Question: Which addressee is correct— Muhammad, according to the reading of Ibn Mas‘ūd, or those who call on the jinn, as the majority reading suggests?

Possessive pronouns

Majority reading is rabbihimu (“means of approaching their Lord”), which means “to the lord of the angels”.

Ibn Mas‘ūd read rabbika (“means of approaching your Lord”), addressing Muhammad and means “to the lord of Muhammad”—in other words, Allah.

From the last part of Q 17.57 (“the torment of thy Lord”) and an earlier verse, “thy Lord best knows” (Q 17.55), the use of the possessive pronoun “thy” (“your”) suggests that Muhammad is the addressee. Based on this structure, the reading of Ibn Mas‘ūd rabbika (“thy Lord”) is in line with this context and pattern.

Unfortunately, the variety of indefinite pronouns (for both the subject and possessive pronouns) among the readings for Q 17.57 leads to ambiguous antecedents for these pronouns, thus compounding the difficulty in determining the best reading. The possible antecedents range, according to Islamic commentators, from “angels,” “prophets,” “polytheists,” lord of the polytheists,” and “Lord of Muhammad.”

The lack of consistency Among the various readings of these pronouns can be partially attributed to the challenge of uniform memorization of the Qur’ānic text by Muhammad’s Companions. This method of preservation raises questions about reliability, especially because of the samples of errors and variant readings already presented here. This situation is especially troubling in light that the Qur’ān, for Muslims, contains the most important words of Allah.

Question: Don’t all these differences among the numerous variant readings dispute the claim that the Qur’ānic text was faithfully preserved in the hearts of Muhammad’s early Companions?

Among the various readings, even slight differences in the spelling of a word can create major differences in meaning and raise concerns about the sources and the claimed preciseness of the Qur’ānic text:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads khilāfaka (“after thee”). Arab philologist Ibn al-Anbārī mentions that khilāfaka means mukhālafataka, or “in opposition to you”.

Some others read khilfaka without an alif, “which might mean ‘follow you”.

Nafi‘, ‘Abd Allah Ibn Kathīr, and Abū ‘Amr Ibn al-‘Ālā’ read khalfaka (“behind you”).

An early reader ‘Aţā’ Ibn Abī Rabāģ read ba‘daka (“after you”).

Some Islamic scholars interpret khilāfaka as “after you”1 as in the reading of ‘Aţā’ Ibn Abū Rabāh, and the reading of Nāfi‘ and ‘Abd Allah Ibn Kathīr, which is khalfaka, or “behind you.” The meaning of the reading of khilfaka differs a little because it refers to a person who succeeds someone else or took that person’s place.

Two reasons account for these variant readings: (1) The early codices of the Qur’ānic manuscripts have no diacritical marks or alif al-madd (ā, or ا) in the middle of the word, which produces multiple textual possibilities, and (2) early readers had the freedom to choose whichever word they believed suitable within the text, such as the reading of ‘Aţā’ Ibn Abū Rabāh, which differs completely from the scripted text but matches the meaning of the readings.

Among the various readings, differences in gender agreement (or disagreement) of subjects and their verbs show a lack of unity in the Qur’ānic text:

Majority reading is tusqiţa al-samā’a (“thou make the sky to fall down”), where the subject is “thou” and the object is “sky”. In this reading, Muhammad’s opponents are challenging Muhammad to make the sky fall on them.

Mujāhid read yasquţa al-samā’u (“the sky falls”), where a masculine verb is used with the sky, which in Arabic should take a feminine verb, and “sky” is the subject instead of “thou” in the majority reading. To justify the use of the masculine form for “sky,” it is explained that “sky” is figuratively feminine, or that “sky” is like a roof. Since the word “roof” is masculine, the verb was made masculine.

Mujāhid and others read tasquţa al-samā’u (“the sky falls”). Here, the verb is feminine and “sky” is the subject.

In the majority reading, Muhammad’s opponents are challenging Muhammad to make the sky fall down upon them. In the second and third readings of Mujāhid, the challenge is directed to the sky to fall down on Muhammad’s opponents.

These variant readings, with their different subjects and gender agreement problems, produced different meanings for this verse. These problems resulted from the lack of dotting and diacritical marks in the early Qur’ānic codices.

Question: Where is the eloquence and clarity in the verse in these readings?

Among the various readings, differences in word choice affect the tone and meaning:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads zukhrufin (“house of adornable materials”).

Ibn Mas‘ūd read dhahabin (“house of gold”).

Given the context of this verse, Ibn Mas‘ūd’s reading correctly matches the tone of the Quraysh challenges, a reading that most English translations follow, including Palmer. (See the critical analysis of Q 17.92-93.) Their challenges require Muhammad to possess superhuman powers or receive divine assistance. Ibn Mas‘ūd’s reading (“house of gold”) requires a miracle because of the rarity and high cost of gold in this desert environment. In contrast, the reading of the current Arabic Qur’ān describes a house with adornable materials, which some Islamic commentators explain are gold ornaments. Still, if these ornaments are made of gold, they do not compare to a house built entirely of gold. The current Arabic Qur’ān reading is a much “softer” challenge and not beyond the realm of possibility.

Either way, Muhammad failed to address and meet their demands and demonstrated that he was not part of the line of prophets who performed miracles for their people.

Among the various readings, the use of the later-introduced hamza in this verse challenges the authenticity of the Qur’ānic text:

Majority reading is fa-s’al (“then ask”). This reading uses a hamza.

Prophet Muhammad read fa-sāla (“then he asked”) in the past tense. This reading has no hamza, which is consistent with the Quraysh language according to Islamic scholars.

The early Qur’ānic codices do not include the hamza, which raises questions about the majority reading: Why is the hamza applied here? The insertion of the hamza here and in other verse readings has led to corruption in some Qur’ānic words. (See the comment on Q 12.16). In fact, the hamza was introduced by al-Farāhīdī to the Arabic language more than a century after Muhammad’s death.

According to Ibn ‘Umar (son of the second caliph ‘Umar), “The Prophet of Allah [ Muhammad]...never used the hamza and also Abū Bakr, ‘Umar, and the rest of the [early] caliphs, and the hamza is a heresy that was invented after them”.

If this reading is Muhammad’s reading, then why do Muslims today read with a reading that does not agree with Muhammad’s own reading, especially as they regard him as the receiver of the Qur’ān that comes from the Preserved Tablet delivered by Jibrīl?