What the readings change

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

Majority reading is kathīrun (“many”).

Janāh Ibn hubaysh read kabīrun (“great or large”).

The word kabīrun refers to size rather than number whereas kathīrun refers to number rather than size. (See the comment on Q 2.219). The majority reading may have been acceptable in this verse if the expression kathīrun haqa ‘alayhimu (“many they deserve”) was there instead of kathīrun haqa ‘alayhi (“many he deserves”). (Palmer tries to solve this problem by translating “many he deserves” as “many a one deserves”).

If the reading of Janāh Ibn Hubaysh (kabīrun) is considered more acceptable in this context, it brings up another question: Who is this “great” one mentioned in this verse? Is it Iblīs (Satan) or someone else?

Among the various readings, pronoun-antecedent disagreement shows grammar inconsistencies in the Qur’ānic text:

Majority reading is ikhtašamū (“[they] dispute”) in the plural.

Ibn Mas‘ūd and Ibn Abī ‘Abla read ikhtašamā (“[they both] dispute”) in the Arabic dual form, a reading that takes into consideration the demonstrative pronoun at the beginning of the verse: hadhān (“these…two”).

Al-Rāzī admits that the verse is about two dueling groups, yet he defends the majority reading, which uses a pronoun plural form indicating more than two parties, or ikhtašamū. While the use of hadhān (Arabic dual form for “they,” which means two parties) follows Arabic grammatical rules, al-Rāzī explains that the use of the more-than-two plural form (ikhtašamū) refers to all the members of the two groups and is the underlying meaning in the verse. Curiously, al-Rāzī, in his explanation to justify the majority reading’s use of the multi-plural form, uses himself the proper Arabic dual form in the present tense (yākhtašimān).

The majority reading, with ikhtašamū, uses a form that is not accepted according to Arabic grammatical rules.

Among the various readings, the numerous variations themselves challenge the unity of the Qur’ānic text:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads lū’lū’an (“pearls”) with hamzas (’). Palmer translates this word as “pearls”.

Other readings are lūlūā, lūlū’an, and lū’lūan.

All these aforementioned readings match the ‘Uthmānic codex, which scripts this word as لُولُوا.

The following readings have almost the same meaning, but they differ scripturally to some degree from the consonantal script (rasm) in the early Qur’ānic codices.

Other Variant Readings of Word “Pearls”

Variant Readings

Arabic transliteration

Script

Comment

Script similar to

rasm in ‘Uthmānic codex

lū’lū’in

لُؤْلُؤٍ

Missing alif (ﺍ)

lūlū

لُولُو

Missing alif (ﺍ)

lūlū’

لُولُؤ

Missing alif (ﺍ)

Script dissimilar to

rasm in ‘Uthmānic codex

lūliyan

لُوليًا

—

liyaliyan

لِيَليًا

—

lūlin

لُولٍ

—

As a result of these variant readings, the readers disagree regarding the pronunciation of this word, offering more than ten variant readings, including lū’lū’in, lūlū’an, lū’luwan, lūliyan, liyaliyan, lūlin, lūluwā, lūlū, and lūlū’.

Both the current Arabic Qur’ān and those readings that include the hamzas (lu’lu’an) do not match the ‘Uthmānic codex because the hamza was added later by philologist al-Farāhīdī. He added the new hamza sign and “the script of the hamza became widespread. However, the people refused for a while to insert it [al-Farāhīdī’s script] into the mušhaf, considering it to be bid‘a [heresy]”.

This application of the hamza may have contributed to all the variant readings of this word. The readings without hamzas should be considered more authentic.

Despite all these subsequent variant readings, the meaning of the word does not necessarily change. However, these variations in readings raise questions about the original reading—the reading that was said to be revealed by Allah to Muhammad. How was this word originally read? How was this word originally written?

Subject pronoun

Majority reading is ya’tīna (“[they] come”).

Ibn Mas‘ūd read ya’tūna (“they come”).

The difference between those two readings is that the majority reading refers to the weak horses and camels because of the long distances, whereas Ibn Mas‘ūd’s reading refers to the Muslims who were called to pilgrimage. This difference is best understood in Pickthall’s translation: “And proclaim unto mankind the pilgrimage. They will come unto thee on foot and on every lean camel; they will come from every deep ravine” (emphasis added). The inclusion of camels here only describes a mode of transportation and is unrelated to religious duty. Thus, the reading of Ibn Mas‘ūd is better than the majority reading because it refers to those concerned with the command (i.e., pilgrimages as a religious obligation) and not the mode of transportation.

Majority reading is ‘amīqin (“deep”) according to the language of hijāz. This reading is the same in all Arabic dialects.

Ibn Mas‘ūd read ma‘īqin (“deep”). The oldest source for the reading of Ibn Mas‘ūd is Muslim scholar al-Zamakhsharī (d. AH 538/AD 1144), who lived more than four centuries after this Companion. Al-Zamakhsharī suggests that ‘amīqin (majority reading) and ma‘īqin have the same meaning. Later scholars al-Rāzī (d. AH 604/AD 1209), Abū haīyān (d. AH 745/AD 1362) and al-Khaţīb (d. AH 1401/AD 1981) agree, influenced by al-Zamakhsharī’s suggestion, though the most contemporary scholar, al-Khaţīb, adds that ma‘īqin is from the Tamīm language.

The word ‘amīqin, derived from ‘umqu, means “the distance to the bottom.” It is said that ‘amīqin is the bottom of a well, the area between two mountains, or a gully (wadi).

The supposed Tamīm word ma‘īqin in the reading of Ibn Mas‘ūd appears to be a transposition of the first two letters of the hijāzī word used in the majority reading. But why would Ibn Mas‘ūd use words from the Tamīm language, a small local dialect, rather than classic Arabic? Perhaps Ibn Mas‘ūd really meant mu’iq, a common Arabic word. Its meaning (“very rugged and dangerous”) works not only very well in this verse but even better than “deep” in this context.

Questions: (1) What is the correct wording in this situation—the depth of the area between two mountains that the pilgrims must cross in the bottom of the wadi or the distance between their homeland and the location of hajj (Mecca)? (2) Could the word have been mu‘īq (“very rugged and dangerous”), describing terrain conditions that would exhaust and thus weaken the camels?

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

Majority reading is šawāffa (“stand in a row”), meaning the camels are lined up.

Al-hasan al-Bašrī and others read šawāffī (“consecrated”), meaning that the bulky camels belong to Allah with no one else having a part in them as Allah’s partner.

Ibn Mas‘ūd and Ibn ‘Abbās read šawāfina (“ready for slaughter”). Qatāda mentions that this reading matches the script in Ibn Mas‘ūd’s codex. This word means the camel is standing on all four legs. Ibn ‘Abbās interprets it to mean “hobbled or tied up,” explaining that the camel is standing on three legs with the front leg bent and tied, stating this position is the way a camel is slaughtered. This interpretation is confirmed by Ibn Mas‘ūd.

Al-Ţabarī favors the majority reading (šawāffa) because of the readers’ consensus on the reasoning for it.

The changes to the word by the various readers produce different meanings:

Majority reading means the camels are in a row.

Second reading means the camels are consecrated to Allah alone.

Third reading means the camels are ready for slaughter.

These obvious differences in meaning challenge the claim that the Qur’ān exemplifies clear rhetoric. Each of these readings depicts a different scene of sacrificial offering. Unfortunately, historical records cannot determine the precise nature of the sacrificial offerings in Mecca during this time or if they were similar to the formalized system of rituals eventually organized and practiced during the tashrīq days, or the three feast days following the Muslim religious holiday ‘Īd al-Aďhā (“Feast of the Sacrifice”). (See Table 2. Islamic Holidays in the Summary of Resources and References).

Interestingly, archaeological discoveries at the foot of Mount Horeb in today’s Saudi Arabia indicate that the Israelites, led by Moses during their sojourn in the wilderness after their exodus from Egypt, conducted their sacrificial offerings to God by lining up the sacrifices in a row.

Though the majority reading, with the camels lined up in a row, may describe the ancient Israelites’ sacrificial rituals, it does not correctly reflect the customary manner of animal sacrifice by Muslims. With large animals, e.g., cattle and camels, the animals are hobbled, in no particular arrangement, to keep them immobile for efficient, quick slaughter. Most sacrifices, however, use smaller animals, e.g., sheep and goats, which are placed, haphazardly, on the ground on their sides, held down by a man’s hand or knee.

Thus, the reading of Ibn Mas‘ūd and Ibn ‘Abbās best represents the traditional Islamic practices regarding animal sacrifices.

The majority reading: Lan yanala Allaha luhumuha wala dema'uha walaken yanaluhu at-taqwa ("It is not their meat nor their blood, that reaches Allah: it is your piety that reaches him."). We notice the ya sound which is a masculine clitic.

The readings of Al-A'araj, Al-Zuhari, Ibn Abi Abla and others: Lan tanala Allaha luhumuha wala dema'uha walaken yanaluhu at-taqwa ("It is not their meat nor their blood, that reaches Allah: it is your piety that reaches him.") The ta sound is a feminine marker where the antecedent is luhumuha wala dema'uha ("their meat nor their blood")

Zayd Ibn Ali reads: Lan yanala Allahu luhumuha wala dema'aha walaken yanaluhu at-taqwa ("God shall not have their meat nor their blood, It is your piety that God shall reach."). Here the meat and the blood occur in the object position. Al-Alusi reads that as yunala Allahu ("God will be reached").

In the readings of the majority and Al-A'araj, the meat and the blood occur as a subject. The context supports the interpretation that man is seeking to gain God's favor using those sacrifices, not the other way around. Moreover, the proper grammatical gender mark for meat and blood in Arabic should be the feminine "ta". Al-A'araj's reading supports that. However, Zayd Ibn Ali's reading using the masculine clitic "ya or yu" makes God the doer which is fitting with the context. The latter reading does not fit with the calligraphy of the word "dema'aha" (their blood" in the object position. That use indicates that God is trying to reach their blood). Therefore, the readings of Al-A'araj and Al-Zhuri are likely the correct reading.

Among the various readings, their numerous differences concerning a puzzling word undermine confidence in the unity of the Qur’ān’s text:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads salawātun (“prayers”). Palmer translates this word as “synagogues.”

Seventeen variant readings for this word include šuluwātun, šilwātun, šulawātun, šalwātun, šulūtun, šulūtay, šulūthu, šulūthay, šilwīthī, šulwāthu, šilwāthu, šulūbu, šulwātun, šalwīthī, šaluthī, šalūtu, and šulūlay.

Because the word salawātun literally means “prayers'' but is placed in this verse within a series of worship places (Palmer trans. “cloisters and churches and…mosques''), Islamic commentators disagree regarding the intended meaning of the word šalawātun. They present several opinions, such as churches, synagogues, temples of the Sabaeans (Sābi’a), and mosques of the Muslims. These opinions are but desperate attempts to ascribe a different meaning to this word, such as “houses of prayer,” when it always means “prayers” or “blessings” in other verses. (See Q 2.157, Q 2.238, Q 9.99, and Q 23.9). This disagreement regarding the meaning of šalawātun, as well as the uncertainty of Muslim exegetes and readers regarding the meaning of its scriptural form صلوٮ)), explains this huge number of variant readings.

Perhaps the word šalawātun (“prayers”) was originally paired with another word buyūt (“houses”), which would create a term for another type of worship place, or “houses of prayer” (بيوت صلوات), in the verse. During transcription, the word buyūt may have been inadvertently omitted, resulting in just the word šalawātun, which does not logically correspond with the other places of worship listed in the verse. Unfortunately, only Allah knows the real reason for this problematic word in this verse.

Among the various readings, agent (subject) differences affect clarity:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads Huwa (“He has”).

’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b read Allahu (“Allah”).

In the current Arabic Qur’ān reading, “He has” (Huwa) could mean either Allah has named the people Muslim, or it could be understood that Abraham, not Allah, is the one who called on Allah to make him and his descendants Muslim, as can be seen in Q 2.128: “Our Lord! make of us Muslims, bowing to Thy (Will), and of our progeny a people Muslim, bowing to Thy (will)” (Yusuf Ali trans.). Highly respected linguist al-Farrā’ supports that the pronoun “He” in the verse refers to Abraham because of its close proximity.

However, the majority of Islamic commentators agree that Huwa refers to Allah. To those who claim that the pronoun “He” refers to Abraham, al-Ţabarī responds that “this is not correct because it is known that Abraham did not name this nation in the Qur’ān as Muslims". Yet his comment does not remove guesswork from the current Arabic Qur’ān reading: Does Allah or Abraham name the nation?

’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b’s reading is the better reading because it removes this speculation, leaving no room for doubt that the namer is Allah.

Among the various readings, ambiguity concerning the singularity or plurality of words affects meaning:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads li’amānātihim (“[for] their trusts”), in the plural.

Nāfi‘ and ‘Abd Allah Ibn Kathīr read li’amānatihim (“for their trust”) in the singular. Al-Rāzī states, “[K]now that the thing that is entrusted and the thing that is covenanted are called a trust and a covenant”. In the ‘Uthmānic codex, the transcription for this expression “for their trust(s)” does not resolve whether the word should be singular or plural; the alif (ا) after the consonant nūn (ن) in Arabic, which would make it plural, is not found in the script here or in Q 70.32 (where the same word is transcribed the same way, or). However, the phrase “and…their…covenant” is in the singular, as can be seen in the translations of Pickthall, Sale, Arberry, and others that agree here with the Arabic. There is no wāw (و) in the ‘Uthmānic transcription in the word “covenant,” which would make the word plural, or “covenants.” The word “observe” in Q 23.8 encompasses every covenant and trust. Since the fellows of paradise (Q 23.10-11)—a title given to those holding a high rank in al-Janna—are carrying out this observation, these fellows must be trustworthy with everything.Because the ‘Uthmānic script does not resolve whether the expression is “trust” or “trusts” while the word “covenant” is clearly singular, it indicates that the intent is the kind of task—meaning, it covers all covenants. Therefore, the expression in question () may well be in the singular, or “trust,” which encompasses all sorts of trusts.

Among the various readings, differences in wording affect this description of human embryonic development:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads thumma khalaqnā al-nuţfata ‘alaqatan fa-khalaqnā al-‘alaqata muďghatan fa-khalaqnā al muďghata ‘ižāman fa-kasawnā al-‘ižāma lahman (“then we created the clot congealed blood, and we created the congealed blood a morsel; then we created the morsel bone, and we clothed the bone with flesh; then we produced it another creation….)”

Ibn Mas‘ūd read thumma ja‘alnā al-nuţfata ‘ažman wa ‘ašaban fa-kasawnāhu lahman (“then we made the congealed blood a bone and a nerve and we clothed it with flesh…”).

Ibn Mas‘ūd read (according to al-Ţabarī) thumma khalaqnā al-nuţfata ‘ažman wa ‘ašaban fa-kasawnāhu lahman (“then we created the congealed blood a bone and a nerve and we clothed it with flesh…”), with the pronoun “it” in kasawnāhu (“we clothed it”) referring to the infant.

Ibn Mas‘ūd read (according to Ibn Khālawayh) fa-kasawnāhu al-‘ižāman lahman wa ‘ašaban (“and we clothed the bones with flesh and nerve...”).Muslim exegetes unanimously agree that the word al-‘alaqa in the verse means “a piece of [congealed] blood,” and the word al-muďgha means “a piece of flesh”.

The three major readings of Ibn Mas‘ūd for this verse have the following variances:

They do not have the repetitive phrasing found in the current Arabic Qur’ān reading, i.e., “then we…and we created…then we created….”

Some of the stages of embryonic development that were known in that time period and mentioned in the current Arabic Qur’ān are missing.

They mention adding sinew to the flesh, which is not mentioned in the current Arabic Qur’ān reading. Question: Can the Qur’ān’s description of the development of the embryo be considered a scientific explanation?. This question is important because the majority of Muslims who believe in the Qur’ān maintain that Allah was the first to reveal scientific facts, revealing them in this book as proof to believers that the Qur’ān is indeed a divine book from him. The Qur’ān’s description of the development of the embryo is one of the most famous examples offered as evidence for the scientific i‘jāz (“inimitability”) of the Qur’ān. This teaching, the inimitability of scientific wonders of the Qur’ān, is promoted and propagated by Muslims who believe that these “scientific” verses are proof that Allah reveals mysteries that were not known to the people who lived in the seventh century AD.

Tanbutu belduhn ("Which produces oil")

The majority reading Tanbutu belduhn ("produces oil")

Abi Ibn Ka'ab reads: Tuthmir belduhn ("germinates oil")

Ibn Mas‘ūd read: Tukhreg Elduhn ("brings out oil")

According to Al-Tabari, the preposition ba occurring as a clitic in the word "oil" is unnecessary addition; as we can say in Arabic "I took his garment" (with no ba before garment) or "I took (ba) his garment." However, the preposition "ba" is not the only problem. The Arabic word Duhn ("oil") is posing another challenge as oil is not germinated or produced from a tree but extracted (e.g. from olives). When reflecting upon the extra ba preposition, one could conclude that a word may be missed between the verb Tanbut ("produce") and Duhn ("oil"). We notice that Al-Tabari brings up that meaning in phrasing the sentence as: "This tree produces the fruit of oil." It seems that the word "fruit" or a synonym may have been omitted from the original text of the Qur'an. So, a fuller reading would be: "produces the fruit or seed of oil."

Islamic commentaries are not clear if Ibn Mas‘ūd reading contains the phrase "springing out of Mount Sinai." If that is the case, it would be poor Arabic wording as the verbs "spring out and produce" (these the same verbs in Arabic here) are repeated in the same sentence. The text likely used to read: "a true produces oil and relish for those who use it for food." It is known that olive trees have never grown on the mount of Sinai at any time. The Qur'an supports that interpretation as it tells us in 3 verses that God gave the Israelites Al-Manna and quails. If there were olive and trees, why would there be a need for Manna and quails?

Islamic scholars realized this issue so they attempted various interpretations for "Mount of Sinai". For example, Al-Tabari and Al-Qurtubi list several possibilities for "Mountain of Sinai" and "Sinai":

Mount of Sinai:

The Mount of Sinai

The Mountain on which God spoke to Moses

Al Tor Mountain in Syria

The Mountain of Jerusalem

A mountain between Egypt and Eilat in Al-'Aqaba

A mountain covered with trees

Sinai:

Katadah: means "beauty" In such a case, the Tor should be treated as a nominative (as beauty becomes the adjective)

Mujahid: means "blessed"

Firqah: means "trees" In such a case, Tor should be treated as nominative

Popular: The name of the mount (like when you say "Mount of Kelemangaro")

Also, Mujahid: A specific stone used in a genitive structure with the Mount.

Muqatil: Every mount carrying fruits is considered "Sinai" (which is "beautiful"

Al-Akhfash: A non-Arabic noun

In light of these many diverse interpretations of "Mount of Sinai" and Sinai, where can we find the eloquence in that verse?

"… and relish for those who use it for food."

The majority reading: "…and relish for those who use it for food."

Amer Ibn Abd Qais reading: "and to be dipped into by those who want to eat it." Ibn 'Ashour said: Al-Sebgh ("the dye") is what is used to change the color of something. Oil is a dye because it changes the color when we dip bread into it. The new meaning suggested by Ibn Qais only emphasizes that he found the word unacceptable as it is not matching with how the word is written in Al-Mushaf nor being synonymous with the word "relish." The reality is that word choices of original readers of the Qur'an were not governed by specific guidelines. That calls into question the idea that they perceived the Qur'an as a holy text.

Among the various readings, differences in the readings appear to be affected by different vowel endings in the Qur’ānic manuscripts:

Majority reading is al-mala’ū(a) (“the chiefs”).

Hamza and Hishām read al-malawū (“the chiefs”).

The scripted al-mala’ū(a) or ٱلۡمَلَؤُاْ (“the chiefs”), appears in two forms in the ‘Uthmānic codex:

al-mala’ū(a) (الْمَلَؤُا) with the ending vowel wāw (و), as in Q 23.24

al-malā’u (الْمَلَأُ) with the ending vowel alif (ا), as in Q 23.33

No convincing explanation is given by Islamic scholars as to when the ending vowel should be a wāw or an alif. Perhaps these differences in the ‘Uthmānic codex have affected the reading of Hamza and Hishām, and the same problem is repeated in several places in the Qur’ān.

One example of this problem is Q 5.18: Wa qālati al-yahūdu wa al-našāra naģnu abnā’ū(a) Allahi wa aģibba’ūhu… (“But the Jews and the Christians say, ‘We are the sons of God and His beloved’...” ). By studying the early manuscripts, one sees that the word abnā’ū(a) (أَبْنَؤُا) in this verse is scripted with a wāw in the ‘Uthmānic codex, while the Cairo manuscript shows instead the same word scripted with an alif ().

The same problem exists in another verse, Q 26.6, in the same manuscripts: Fa-qad kadh-dhabū fa-saya’tīhim anbā’ū(a) mā kānū bihi yastahzi’ūna (“They have called (thee) liar! but there shall come to them a message of that at which they mocked”). The word anbā’ū(a) (أَنۢبَٰٓؤُاْ) is scripted in the Cairo manuscript with an alif (ا) but scripted with a wāw (أَنْبَؤا) in the ‘Uthmānic codex. Question: What is the explanation for these different vowel endings with the wāw (و) and alif (ا) in the various Qur’ānic manuscripts and the ‘Uthmānic codex?

Among the various readings, the same word may be pronounced differently, suggesting different language origins:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads hattā (“for a time”). (Palmer’s translation is “for a season.”)

Ibn Mas‘ūd read ‘attā (“for a time”).

Among the various readings, the use of repetition suggests unnecessary redundancy and diminishes the eloquence of the Qur’ānic text:

Current Arabic Qur’ān repeats the word ‘annakum (“that ye shall”) twice. The first incidence occurs after “Does he promise you…” and is often not found in the English translations (including Palmer). The second incidence occurs after the word “bones”.

Ibn Mas‘ūd read ‘annakum once, after the word “bones”.

In explaining the current Arabic Qur’ān reading, al-Ţabarī states that “if you were to remove the first or the second ‘annaka it would be correct, and if they were both kept, it would be correct. But, if nothing came between the two [‘annaka], it would not be proper”.

Therefore, if the first ‘annakum was omitted, based on al-Ţabarī’s explanation, then one of the ‘annakum in the verse is extra. This view explains why Ibn Mas‘ūd chose not to include the unnecessary repetition found in the ‘Uthmānic codex by reading only one ‘annakum in Q 23.35 to remove the redundancy of the word in verse 35 (twice) but also a third repetition in the preceding verse (34). Thus, his reading is smoother, free of the unjustifiable redundancy found in the ‘Uthmānic codex.

Among the various readings, the same word may be pronounced differently, suggesting different language origins:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads hattā (“for a time”). (Palmer’s translation is “for a season.”)

Ibn Mas‘ūd read ‘attā (“for a time”).

Among the various readings, the inclusion of the hamza questions authenticity:

Majority reading is yaj’ārūn (“they cry for aid”) with the hamza (ء), shown here in English with an apostrophe.

Hamza read yajarūn (“they cry for aid”).

There is no alif (ا) or its semblance in the ‘Uthmānic codex transcription here for that would indisputably prove the existence of a hamza. If a hamza was part of this word, then the meaning of it would be “to plead with Allah and cry out to him in prayer of supplication”.

Regarding this word yaj’ārūn in the majority reading, some Islamic scholars suggest these interpretations to describe the action of the “affluent ones” in this verse:

They are crying for help.

They are screaming.

They are making loud noises.

They are raising their voices, bellowing like a bull.

They are panicking.

As demonstrated, the word yaj’ārūn has several meanings. However, in this word there was no alif in the early Qur’ānic manuscripts, and, furthermore, the hamza was not yet introduced to Arabic writing. 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”.

Thus, the origin of the word likely must have been yajarūn because it agrees with the ‘Uthmānic codex transcription for it does not include either the alif or the hamza.

Among the various readings, differences in the choice of the second-person pronoun (singular or plural “you”) affect meaning:

Majority reading is sāmiran (“[you] talking idle talk at night”) in the singular, which means one person is talking. (The Arabic language separates the personal pronoun “you” into singular, dual, and plural forms.)

Ibn Mas‘ūd, Ibn ‘Abbās, and others read summarān (“[you] talking idle talk at night”) in the plural, which means a group of people is talking. (The word summarān is the plural of sāmir.

Ibn ‘Abbās also read summāran (“[you] talking idle talk at night”), the plural of sāmir.

It has also been read summaran (“[you] talking idle talk at night”), which could be the plural of either samīr or sāmir.

With the exception of the majority reading, all the readings of this word use the plural form of samīr or sāmir, which aligns with the context of the verse. In using the singular form (sāmiran) the majority reading does not take into consideration the phrase mustakbirīna bihi (“big with pride at it”) nor the following phrase tahjurūna (Khalifa trans. “you definitely disregarded them”), both of which use the Arabic plural form. Accordingly, the readings with the plural form are more appropriate. Still, all the readings do not resolve the ambiguity regarding the verse’s meaning.

One of the verse’s problems concerns the phrase mustakbirīna bihi (“big with pride at it”), which indicates a stance of being proud and arrogant. However, this phrase does not include the target of this attitude. What is the antecedent for “it” in bihi (“at it”)? This missing antecedent prompted Islamic scholars to suggest that it is the Sacred Mosque (Masjid al-Haram) to explain bihi (“at it” ), when this place was controlled by idolaters, who offered their sacrifices to and worshipped their idols there.

However, this suggestion is misguided, as nothing in the context surrounding this verse refers to the Sacred Mosque. As a matter of fact, the context refers to the Qur’ān: “My signs [the Qur’ān] were recited to you” (verse 66) and “Is it that they did not ponder over the words [the Qur’ān], whether that has come to them which came not to their fathers of yore?” (verse 68). (Al-Ţabarī and Ibn Kathīr confirm that the referent in verse 68 is the Qur’ān.)

But if the verse’s context is really about the Qur’ān, it would be illogical for these idolaters to be “big with pride” about the Qur’ān because they did not believe in Islam. Likely, the problematic word sāmiran in the phrase bihi summaran (“in it [you] talking idle talk”) originally was bihi shamaran, which means “in it you misbelieve.” With the undotted early Qur’ānic codices, the word shamaran became incorrectly dotted during later transcriptions. This word shamaran derives from the Chaldean word shamara (). It means “seduced” or “misled”. With this correction, the meaning of the verse would be “they were misled from it (the Qur’ān) and disregarded it with pride” or “at it (the Qur’ān) they misbelieved and proudly disregarded it”.

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

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads al-šūri (“the trumpet shall be blown”), which uses a singular noun.

Ibn ‘Abbās, al-Ģasan al-Bašrī, and Ibn ‘Ayyāď read al-šūwarī (“the forms blown into [by angel’s breath]”), a reading that uses a plural noun.

According to the majority of Islamic scholars, this verse is speaking about the Day of Judgment or the Coming of the Hour, and that an angel named Israfil shall blow twice: (1) The first blowing is for the cessation of being and (2) the second blowing is for the resurrection into being.

The reading of Ibn ‘Abbās, al-hasan al-Bašrī, and Ibn ‘Ayyād differs from the current Arabic Qur’ān reading because it uses a plural noun that represents organic beings. Unlike the Qur’ān’s reading, their reading of this verse means the angel will blow the breath of life into the dead bodies. Al-Rāzī supports this explanation with his comments concerning a similar verse, Q 20.102 (“On the day when the trumpet shall be blown…”). He mentions that al-hasan al-Bašrī read al-šūwarī there (and not al-šūri or “the trumpet”), with the meaning that “the spirit will be blown into the dead bodies”. (Al-Khaţīb reports that Ibn ‘Abbās, al-hasan al-Bašrī, and Ibn ‘Ayyāď all read Q 20.102 with the word al-šūwarī.)

In fact, these readers’ use of the word al-šūwarī to mean “the forms or images” is not limited to this one verse. These readers—and others—together or in part, consistently use al-šūwarī to mean “the forms or images” instead of the singular inanimate object “trumpet” in similar verses.

Despite the obvious agreement of several reputable readers that the word in question is al-šūwarī (and means “the forms or shapes”), support for the word al-šūri by Islamic scholars remains steadfast. Ibn Manzūr (d. AH 711/AD 1311) mentions that the Muslim scholar Abū al-Haytham (d. AH 226/AD 840) rejected the reading of Ibn ‘Abbās (d. AH 68/AD 687), al-hasan al-Bašrī (d. AH 110/AD 728), and Ibn ‘Ayyāď; he even claimed that it was a grave mistake, a distortion of Allah’s words. Abū al-Haytham added that whoever read it as “And when, al-šūwarī [meaning, “the forms”] shall be blown [into]…” was lying and changing Allah’s book.

Some Islamic scholars, such as al-Qurţubī (d. AH 671/AD 1273), hold the opinion that the angel shall blow into a horn of light. They point to Muhammad, who stated that the trumpet is a horn. Some people object and deny that the trumpet is a horn.

Others note that būq and abūāq are the common Arabic words for trumpet and trumpets, respectively. (Even Ibn Manzūr includes these words in his lexicon). Some linguistic scholars state that al-šūri is actually the plural form of al-šūra, which means “the image”. Even if al-šūri means “the trumpet” in the Qur’ān, according to Islamic scholars, this definition for this word is apparently unique to the Qur’ān.

Readers’ Use of al-šūwari (“forms/images/shapes”)

Sample Verses

Readers

Q 6.73

al-Hasan al-Bašrī, ‘Amr Ibn ‘Ubayd, and others

Q 18.99

al-Hasan al-Bašrī

Q 20.102

al-Hasan al-Bašrī, Ibn ‘Abbās, Ibn ‘Ayyāď, and others

Q 23.101

al-Hasan al-Bašrī, Ibn ‘Abbās, and Ibn ‘Ayyāď

Q 27.87

al-Hasan al-Bašrī

Q 36.51

al-A‘raj, Qatāda, and Abū Hurayra

Note: Al-Khaţīb mentions that al-šūwarī means “spirits or forms of human beings.”

Q 39.68

Al-

Hasan al-Bašrī, Qatāda, and Zayd Ibn ‘Alī

Q 50.20

Al-

hasan al-Bašrī

Q 69.13

Abū ‘Amr Ibn al-‘Ālā’, al-Kisā’ī, and Ibn ‘Āmir

Q 78.18

Ibn ‘Abbās and others

Note: Abū Haīyān defines al-šūwarī, “which means Allah returns spirits to the bodies [forms].

The trumpet’s description may have been inspired from the New Testament: “in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet shall sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed” (NIV, 1 Cor. 15.52; compare with Rev. 8-11.). Perhaps Islamic scholars were influenced by these passages, as Christianity was prevalent during and after Muhammad’s time in the Arabian Peninsula. The current Arabic Qur’ān reading fails to provide evidence that al-šūri means “the trumpet” in the Arabic language. On the other hand, the reading of Ibn ‘Abbās, al-hasan al-Bašrī, and Ibn ‘Ayyād uses a well-known Arabic word that fits the context of this verse without contrivance. Furthermore, many of these readers, especially the esteemed Ibn ‘Abbās, were Companions of Muhammad, which makes them all closer to the source of the Qur’ān than their critics, i.e., Abū al-Haytham and Ibn Manzūr, etc. who lived centuries after Muhammad’s death.

Among the various readings, numerous differences in just one word undermine the alleged integrity of the Qur’ānic text:

Majority reading is talaqqawnahu (“you received it”). (Palmer’s translation is “…ye reported it….” )

The readings of this word are numerous and exceed these eleven variant readings:

Ibn al-Samayfi‘ and ‘Umar Ibn al-Khaţţāb read tulqūnahu, explaining, “The present tense of al-qā [throw], from casting something when you throw it”.

Ibn al-Samayfi‘ and Mu‘āwīya read talqawnahū, using “the present form of laqiya [to meet]”.

It is narrated that Ibn al-Samayfi‘ read tulaqqawnahu.

’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b and Ibn Mas‘ūd read tatalaqqawnahu “with two t’s”.

‘Ā’isha and others read taliqūnahu, “according to the Arab saying waliqa al-rajul, meaning ‘he lied”.

Al-Zajjāj mentions that ‘Ā’isha read tulīqūnahu from “walaqa or “yaliqu, when one rushes to lie”. This reading agrees with the meaning in the context.

Zayd Ibn Aslam and Abū Ja‘far read ta’liqūnahu “from al-alaq, which is lying”.

It is said of Zayd Ibn Aslam and Abū Ja‘far read tīliqūnahu, “which is lying”.

Ya‘qūb read (according to al-Māzinī) tīlaqūnahu.

Al-‘Ukbarī mentions several readings, which include “talqūnah, tulqawnah, yatalqqawnah, talfūnah, and tulfūnah”.

Ibn Jinnī mentions two readings: tataqaffawnahu and tathaqqafūnahu.

The presence of many variant readings for the one word talaqqawnahu leads to differences and clear contradictions in the meaning of the verse, which makes it ambiguous and open to questions concerning its soundness and authenticity.