What the readings change

Among the various readings, differences in voice—active vs. passive—greatly affect meaning:

Majority reading is ghalabū(ā) (“[they] prevailed”) with “they” as the subject.

Al-Hasan al-Bašrī and others read ghulibū(ā) (“they were prevailed upon”), using passive voice with “they” as the object of the action.

The majority reading implies that structures were built over graves to glorify their deceased dwellers and to pray in them. This reading seems supported by the last part of the verse, “…‘We will surely make a mosque over them.’” Some Muslim exegetes quote this verse to allow the building of mosques over graves and visiting them, which explains the existence of mosques on special graves, such as Al-Hussein Mosque, Al-Saīyda Zaīnab Mosque, and El Sayeda Eisha Mosque. (These deceased people are all descendants of Muhammad and are buried in Cairo, Egypt.) Al-Ţabarī supports this opinion, stating that Muslims believe they have the rightful authority to build a mosque over the dead to pray in it and worship Allah because the dead are Muslims.

Other Islamic scholars disagree about the meaning of the majority reading. They state that the building of shrines over graves is not permissible because they view that those “who prevailed” are the infidels. Al-Qurţubī states that using graves by building a mosque or additional buildings over them, or praying over the grave or doing any other activity forbidden in the Hadith literature “is prohibited and not permissible” (emphasis added). Al-Qurţubī also refers to Ibn ‘Abbās, stating that Allah curses the visitors of graves and those who build mosques over them. Supporters of this opinion base their argument upon certain hadīths narrated by ‘Ā’isha, Muhammad’s favorite wife, to support his opinion:

Um Salama told Allah’s Apostle [ Muhammad] about a church which she had seen in Ethiopia and which was called Mariya. She told him about the pictures which she had seen in it. Allah’s Apostle said, “If any righteous pious man dies amongst them, they would build a place of worship at his grave and make these pictures in it; they are the worst creatures in the sight of Allah.”

[When Muhammad was near death, he] said, “May Allah curse the Jews and the Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of their Prophets.”

Islamic scholars differ regarding the identity of those who prevailed: Muslims or infidels? Consequently, Muslims disagree regarding the lawfulness of building mosques over graves. This conflict arises from the ambiguity of this verse, which does not resolve the identity of those who prevailed.

The reading al-hasan al-Bašrī (“they were prevailed upon”) supports the prohibition of building mosques on top of graves, according to the opinion of Abū haīyān: “…The meaning is that the [defeated] group, which [eventually] agreed to the mosque, did not [originally] want anything to be built on them”. In other words, this group did not want to build over the cave people’s graves. When they were defeated, they chose to build over the graves—under the condition that the building would be a mosque.

Questions: (1) How does one reconcile the opinions that forbid the building of mosques over graves and the actions of today’s Muslim pilgrims, who visit al-Masjid al-Nabawī (the Prophet’s Mosque) and pray in it even though it contains Muhammad’s burial site? (2) What authority do Muslims have to include Muhammad’s grave to the Prophet’s Mosque when originally it was outside this mosque until AH 91/AD 710? (3) According to the aforementioned ģadīths as narrated by ‘Ā’isha, does Muhammad’s curse on Jews and Christians for building religious sites over graves include Muslims as well? (4) Isn’t it a double standard when the majority of Muslims will curse Jews and Christians for worshipping and praying over the graves of their prophets but feel blessed themselves for carrying out the same actions?

Majority reading is thalātha mi’ātin sinīna (“three hundred years”).

Hamza and al-Kisā’ī read thalātha mi’āti sanīna (“three hundred years”).

Al-Ďahhāk read thalātha mi’āti sanūna (“three hundred years”).

’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b read thalātha mi’āti sanatin (“three hundred year”).

Codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd reads thalātha mi’āti sanatin (“three hundred year”).

Arabic grammar, unlike English grammar, calls for a singular noun, or “year,” to be paired with the adjectival “three hundred.” In other words, the grammatically correct phrase should be “three hundred year” in Arabic and not “three hundred years.”

Despite the obvious grammatical error in the ‘Uthmānic codex, some of the aforementioned readings (majority, Hamza and al-Kisā’ī, al-Ďahhāk) read the word sinīna (“years”) as given in the script (), without acknowledging or correcting the error.

Yet this verse in ’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b’s reading and Ibn Mas‘ūd’s codex do follow this grammatical rule, which is still in use to this day: thalātha mi’āta sanatin. So why does the majority reading deviate from this rule?

Majority reading is labithū(ā) (“They tarried…”).

Ibn Mas‘ūd and his codex read wa-qālū(ā) labithū(ā) (“they said they tarried”) with the phrase “they said”.

According to Ibn Mas‘ūd, the people are the ones who made the statement about the number of years. However, in the majority reading, Allah is the one who informs about the number of years.

Majority reading: Abser bhi wa Asme ("by him you see and hear"). A metaphor for being astonished. Some scholars suggest that the tense in the two verbs is in the imperative form. Essa Ibn 'Umar reads Asma bhi wa Absar ("he heard and saw") where verbs are in the statement form. That raises the likelyhood that readers enjoyed the freedom to choose the best reading that fits their personal preference

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

Majority reading is yuhāwiruhu (“… he was conversing with him…”).

Note: Palmer mistranslates the phrase “who was his next-door neighbour,” an error likely caused by misreading the letter ģā’ (ح) as the letter jīm (ج). See instead Arberry’s translation: “... as he was conversing with him….”

’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b read yukhāsimuhu (“… he was quarreling with him…”).

Thābit al-Bunānī read yuhāwiruhu waylaka (“as he was conversing with him, [saying,] ‘Woe to you’”) with the expression, “Woe to you”. This phrase means that the one conversing was rebuking the other.

Depending on the reading, the dialogue mentioned in this verse is described as either a conversation or an argument. The full context of the verse (see verses 32-44) suggests friction between the two fellows. Al-Rāzī supports this meaning in his interpretation of this verse, indicating that the dialogue between the two fellows escalates to the point of expulsion and reproach.

The reading of ’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b aligns with a context of an antagonistic interaction; the reading of al-Bunānī, with its expression waylaka (“woe to you”), strengthens this perception. Together, these readings indicate that the dialogue is adversarial in nature and not an informal conversation as presented in the majority reading.

Question: Was the expression waylaka (“woe to you”) accidentally omitted during the compilation of the ‘Uthmānic codex?

Among the various readings, differences in wording affect the unity of the Qur’ān’s text:

Majority reading is al-walāyatu lillahi al-haqqi (“the patronage is God’s, the true”) where al-haqqi (“the true”) is an adjective describing God.

Abū Ģaywa and others read al-walāyatu lillahi al-haqqa (“the patronage belongs to God the truth”).

’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b read al-walāyatu al-haqqu lillahi (“the true patronage is God’s”), where “the true” describes the patronage.

Ibn Mas‘ūd read al-walāyatu lillahi wa huwa al-haqqu (“the patronage is God and he is truth”) with the words wa huwa (“and he is”).

The variant readings of this verse show differences in word arrangements as well as word additions, inconsistencies that void the claim of the sanctity of the Qur’ānic text. (See the section Differences in the Readings in the article “Variant Readings of the Qur’ān).

The majority reading is tazruhu 'l-riah ("that the winds scatter")

Ibn Masud, Ibn Abbas, and others read: tuzrihi 'l-rih ("that the wind scatters")

Al-Riah versus Al-Rih: The Majority reading is the plural word riah ("winds") while the readings of Ibn Masud and Ibn Abbas use the singular form Al-Rih instead. One can justify these variants by the readers' conviction regarding adding or deleting the extended Alef, which was rarely used in the early Masahif.

Tazruhu versus tuzrihi ("scatter"): Another variant between these readings demonstrating how the early Muslims exercised the freedom of omission, commission, or syntactic reorder. They even burnt versions of the Qur'an ('Uthman's campaign) and performed major modifications (Al-Hajjaj Ibn Youssef 'l-Thaqqify).

The question is: Do Muslims today dare to alter even one letter in the Qur'an without having to face the possibility of being hurt? When did the today-claimed text holiness and literality become the standard?

Among the various readings, differences in wording affect the unity of the Qur’ān’s text:

Majority reading is al-walāyatu lillahi al-haqqi (“the patronage is God’s, the true”) where al-haqqi (“the true”) is an adjective describing God.

Abū Ģaywa and others read al-walāyatu lillahi al-haqqa (“the patronage belongs to God the truth”).

’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b read al-walāyatu al-haqqu lillahi (“the true patronage is God’s”), where “the true” describes the patronage.

Ibn Mas‘ūd read al-walāyatu lillahi wa huwa al-haqqu (“the patronage is God and he is truth”) with the words wa huwa (“and he is”).

The variant readings of this verse show differences in word arrangements as well as word additions, inconsistencies that void the claim of the sanctity of the Qur’ānic text. (See the section Differences in the Readings in the article “Variant Readings of the Qur’ān).

Among the various readings, differences in syntax show a lack of unity within the Qur’ānic text:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads ’illā al-shaytānu an adhkurahu (“but it was only Satan…lest I should remember it”).

Codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd reads an adhkurahu illā al-shaytānu (“lest I should remember it, but it was only Satan”), which employs a different word arrangement.

Though there is no significant difference in meaning between the two readings presented here, a difference in the verse’s word arrangement is obvious. This syntax difference clearly shows that the most important early prominent readers did not seem bound to a strict rendition of the Qur’ānic text, focusing more on meaning rather than a precise word-by-word transcription.

Among the various readings, differences in wording affect meaning:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads li-tughriqa ’ahlahā (“[so that you] drown its crew”) with the t of the second person meaning “you.” Here Moses is addressing the good servant who is the subject of the verb.

Al-Hasan al-Bašrī and Abū Rajā’ read li-tugharriqa ’ahlahā (“so that you may make them drown [more and more]).” This reading has the t of the second person, meaning “you,” but also has the doubling of the r for emphasis to multiply the action of the verb on the object.

Hamza, al-Kisā’ī, Khalaf, and others read li-yaghraqa ’ahluhā (“so [they] its folks drown”) with the y of the third person meaning “they”. This reading “is the reading of all the readers of Kūfa [and means] the folks are the ones who drown”.

Though all these readings match the scripting (rasm) of the ‘Uthmānic codex, their different renditions can be traced to the absence of dots and diacritical marks from the early codices of the Qur’ān. Consequently, these readings show that each reader read according to his linguistic taste and understanding of the verse.

Among the various readings, one word in this verse is read at least seven different ways even though it has the same meaning:

Majority reading is ’ān yanqaďďa (“fall to pieces”).

’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b read ’ān yunqaďa (reportedly recited similarly by Muhammad himself).

Ibn Mas‘ūd read li-yunqaďa with the consonant l (lām, or ).

‘Alī Ibn Abī Ţālib and ‘Ikrima read ’ān yanqāša.

Al-Zahrī read ’ān yanqāďa.

Al-Zahrī and Yaģyā Ibn Ya‘mur read ’ān yanqāďďa.

Yahyā Ibn Ya‘mur read ’ān yanfāďa.

The existence of seven variant reading forms for the one word reveals that the absence of dotting and diacritical marks in the early Qur’ān gave the reader wide margins in determining the reading. The absence of the original reading forced the readers to read as he understood the context of the verse. It is noteworthy that there is a reading that goes back to Muhammad himself.

Questions: (1) If one of these readings is reportedly from Muhammad himself, what is the validity of the other readings? (2) Do the other readers consider their readings more accurate than Muhammad, the receiver of Islamic revelations?

Majority reading is li-masākīna (“to poor people”).

‘Alī Ibn Abī Ţālib read li-massākīna (“to the sailors”). It is also said that the word massāk (singular form of massākīna) means one who dyes leather. The difference in reading leads to a difference in the narrative’s details. Who are the owners of the ship? The poor, the sailors, or those who dye leather?

Could it be possible that an accidental switch occurred concerning the consonants m (م) and s (س)? (For a similar example, see the comment on Q 22.27). The intended word is likely li-sammākīna, or “for fishers,” (meaning “for fishermen”), which is supported by the context of the verse. Additionally, the word samak (“fish'') was a known word at the time, which means it cannot be ruled out as a possible word choice. Evidence of its use at that time can be found in a response from Ibn ‘Abbās when he was asked about the disciples of Jesus: “They were named [hawariyn] because of the whiteness of their clothes, and they were fishermen [sayādī al-samak]” (emphasis added).

Majority reading, warā’ahum (“behind [them]”).

Ibn ‘Abbās, ’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b, Ibn Mas‘ūd and others read ’āmāmahum (“in front of them”) Even though “behind” is the opposite of “in front of,” Muslim exegetes state that “behind them” can be said about the back and the front, and it means in this verse “in front of them”. By this opinion, the difference between the two readings is removed; however, dotting cannot be blamed here. The difference here goes back to the decision of the reader to choose whichever word to express the meaning.

Majority reading is kulla safīnatin (“who seized on every bark”).

’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b, Ibn Mas‘ūd, ‘Uthmān Ibn ‘Affān and others read kulla safīnatin šālihatin (“who seized on every good bark”) with the adjective šāliģatin (“usable”).

Ibn ‘Abbās and others read kulla safīnatin šahīhatin (“who seized on every strong bark”) with the adjective šaģīģatin (“functional”) instead.

The majority reading indicates that the king commandeered every ship regardless of its condition. The other readings, with the adjectives šālihatin or šahīhatin, are more explicit; the king selects only seaworthy ships. These more descriptive readings better illustrate the unjustly action of the king, who takes by force only the sturdy or fit ships from the poor people.

Majority reading is ’abawāhu mū’minayni (“his parents were believers”).

Ibn ‘Abbās read kāfiran wa kāna ’abawāhu mū’minayni (“he was a misbeliever but his parents were believers”).

Codex of ’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b reads ’abawāhu mū’minayni wa kāna kāfiran (“his parents were believers but he was a misbeliever”).

The phrase “he was a misbeliever” (an infidel) exists in the reading of Ibn ‘Abbās and the codex of ’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b. This phrase in these readings thus establishes the youth as an infidel when he was a juvenile whereas the less definitive majority reading suggests that the youth was killed as a preventive measure to protect his parents should he become a rebellious infidel as an adult.

Unlike the majority reading, the other two readings offer a clear justification for the killing of the youth, claiming that he already was an infidel. However, this justification is unacceptable because it denies the possibility that the youth may later discard his misbelief as he matures. Where is the justice and mercy by “the good servant,” who kills a young boy—whether or not he is an infidel, depending on the reading—before he reaches adulthood?

Questions: (1) Is this story a justification to kill infidels even when they are still young? (2) Is it ever acceptable to kill anyone because of his belief or disbelief in Allah?

Majority reading is fa-khashīnā (“and we feared”).

Ibn Mas‘ūd (and his codex) and ’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b read fa-khāfa rabbuka (“but your lord feared”).

Islamic commentators disagree about the identity of the speaker in the majority reading (fa-khashīnā). Some state that the speaker is Allah—and al-Khidr is speaking on Allah’s behalf—while others believe that the speaker is al-Khidr himself. Though the reading of Ibn Mas‘ūd determines that the speaker is “the good servant” because of the phrase “your Lord,” both readings agree nevertheless to the idea that Allah fears and is afraid, according to the Qur’ānic expression. Questions: (1) If Allah fears that the son will become an infidel and harm his parents with his infidelity, why then did Allah create the boy in the first place? (2) Does it properly befit an All-Knowing, All-Powerful God to characterize him as fearful or frightened, even if for a metaphoric purpose?

Among the various readings, word choice differences may be synonymous but they still demonstrate a lack of unity in the Qur’ānic text:

Majority reading is khayran minhu zakātan…wa-‘aqraba…ruhman (“a better one than him in purity…and nearer…filial affection”). The term “filial affection” here means that the newborn son who comes after the killed one will be more merciful than his older brother, the misbeliever.

Ibn ‘Abbās read ‘azkā minhu…wa-‘awšala…rahiman (“purer than him…and nearer…filial affection”). In this reading, the term “filial affection” means that the newborn son will be more attached to his parents than his killed older brother, which means that he will regularly visit them.

Whether or not the correct reading is the majority reading or the reading of Ibn ‘Abbās, the dilemma still exists: How can the author of the Qur’ān allow the killing of a child based on the child’s possibility to become a misbeliever in the future? (See the critical analysis of Q 18.80.) Can this rationale be used as justification for Muslims to kill misbelievers (non-Muslims)?

It should also be noted that the reading of Ibn ‘Abbās maintains the general meaning of the verse, but the wording does not exactly reflect the scripting (rasm) found in the ‘Uthmānic codex. This lack of exactitude only shows that the early readers were inattentive or indifferent to the literal form of the Qur’ān in contrast to the current Muslim belief that the Qur’ān is written on the Preserved Tablet; the early readers were actually more committed to the overall meaning in most of the readings.

Among the various readings, the presence or absence of the hamza raises questions about textual dating and validity:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads ‘aynin Hami’atin (“in a black muddy spring”).

Ibn Mas‘ūd read ‘aynin Hāmyatin (“in a hot spring”).

The two readings give two different mental images of the spring. According to most Islamic interpretations, the word hami’atin means “black mud,” while the word hāmiyatin means “hot.” However, the reading of Ibn Mas‘ūd (Hāmyatin) more closely mirrors the early Qur’ānic codices (which lack hamzas, dotting, and diacritical marks) because it does not use the hamza (ء and shown as an apostrophe in transliterated Arabic). The current Arabic Qur’ān reading (Hami’atin) does include the hamza, a marking that was introduced to the written Arabic language by al-Khalīl Ibn Aģmad al-Farāhīdī more than a century after Muhammad’s death.

Additionally, Turkish researcher and scholar Tayyar Altıkulaç (who has edited one of the oldest extant Qur’ānic codices, the Topkapi manuscript) comments that “there is no place for any hamza in any place of the mušhaf”.

Note: Regarding the presence or absence of the hamza in the Qur’ān, the Quraysh, Muhammad’s tribesmen, did not use this sound in their dialect.

Question: What explains the presence of the hamza in the current Arabic Qur’ān reading, when the hamza was not applied in the early Qur’ānic codices?

(See the tables “Comparison between Original Arabic and Classical Arabic Language,” “Comparison between Two Classical Arabic Readings,” and “Samples of Words Changed over Time,” in the article “Variant Readings of the Qur’ān).

Among the various readings, imprecise word choice affects clarity and meaning:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads al-saddayni (verse 93), translated by several translators as “the two mountains,” but the words may better be translated as the “two palisades” (Khalifa trans.) or “the two barriers” (Arberry trans.). Ibn Manžūr defines this word as “two barriers” or “two mountains”. It is reported that Ibn ‘Abbās stated that the barriers are the two mountains of Armenia and Azerbaijan. In the following verse (94), the Arabic saddan (essentially the same word), is translated by the most prominent translators as “barrier.”

Abū ‘Amr Ibn al-‘Ālā’ read al-sūdayni (verse 93). This word means “two mountainsides of al-sawadi, meaning the mountainside that is tapered to the ground, which is coarse and black”. For verse 94, Abū ‘Amr Ibn al-‘Ālā’ read saddan.

Verses 83 through 98 tell the Qur’ānic story of Dhū al-Qarnayn (“he of the two horns”), who built a barrier of iron and copper between two mountains, in order to put Gog and Magog under siege so that they do not transgress upon their neighbors. Within this passage, two types of barriers are mentioned: the natural mountain walls (verse 93) and the human-made rampart (verse 94) constructed by Dhū al-Qarnayn. By using the same word (al-saddayni / saddan) in these verses, the current Arabic Qur’ān reading requires further interpretation by Islamic scholars to differentiate the two types of barriers.

On the other hand, the reading of Abū ‘Amr Ibn al-‘Ālā’ (al-sūdayni / saddan) for these two verses establishes that the first barriers (verse 93) are a general description of two foothills, clearly a natural wall. His use of saddan only in verse 94 to describe Dhū al-Qarnayn’s wall removes the uncertainty present in the current Arabic Qur’ān reading, which uses one word to mean two types of barriers.

Majority reading is Hadhā rahmatun (“‘This is a mercy…’”), meaning “this landfill is mercy,” and the speaker in the verse is Dhū al-Qarnayn.

Ibn Abī ‘Abla read, Hadhihi rahmatun (“This is a mercy…”), using the demonstrative feminine form hadhihi (“this”) instead of the demonstrative masculine form hadhā (“this”). In this reading, the verse would mean that “this grace [or blessing] is a mercy.…”