What the readings change

Among the various readings, this verse has two issues:

Letter transposition

Majority reading is wa-lā ya’tali (“swear not”).

Ibn ‘Aīyāsh Ibn Rabī‘a and others read wa-lā yata’lla (“pledge not”) with “the present tense of ta’alla, meaning he vowed”.

Al-Nahhās states that “the meaning of the two readings is the same”. Though the two readings present the transposition of some letters (metathesis), the meaning does not change.

However, the reading of Ibn ‘Aīyāsh Ibn Rabī‘a and others does not agree with the consonantal script (rasm) in the ‘Uthmānic codex. This disparity indicates that the early readers were more committed to the meaning of the word rather than its literal scripting. This commitment is apparent in the readings of Ibn Mas‘ūd and ’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b as well. (For a comparative example regarding the use of ‘amīqin and ma‘īqin, see the comment on Q 22.27).

Addressee attributes

Majority reading is ulū al-faďli minkum wa al-si‘a (“who are blessed with graces and wealth)”. (Palmer’s translation is “…who have plenty and ample means….”)

Abū Ja‘far, al-hasan al-Bašrī, and others read ulū al-‘aqli minkum wa al-si‘a (“who are blessed with brains and wealth”).

The majority reading favors that the addressees are those who are known for their generosity and wealth whereas the reading of Abū Ja‘far addresses those who are wise and wealthy.

According to Islamic sources, the historical context of the verse suggests that the specific addressee was Abū Bakr, who, in a state of rage, vowed by Allah not to help his poor cousin because his cousin was among those who spoke against his daughter ‘Ā’isha, the wife of Muhammad. (See the special feature “The Slander: Al-’Ifk Incident,) Given this context, it makes most sense that Abū Bakr’s explosive anger and punitive response toward his cousin (and not his well-known generosity) are the grounds for the criticism—and the correction—in this verse. Therefore, the reading of Abū Ja‘far, al-hasan al-Bašrī, and others—unlike the majority reading—is the better reading because it mentions not only wealth but wisdom for those who may consider withholding their generosity to their kinsmen. It takes a calm, insightful mind to control emotional impulses, manage personal and financial resources, in order to achieve the mind-set to forgive and pardon others.

Among the various readings, differences in the grammatical use of a word affect meaning:

Majority reading is yūfīhimu Allahu dīnahumu al-haqqa (“God will pay them their just due”).

’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b and Ibn Mas‘ūd read yūfīhimu Allahu al-haqqu dīnahum (“Allah the just will pay their due”). Al-Khaţīb adds that “it is as such in their codices [mašāhif], and it was [physically] seen this way by Jarīr Ibn Hāzim in the codex [mušhaf] of ’Ubayy”. Ibn Khālawayh adds that this second reading came from Muhammad himself.

In the majority reading, al-haqqa is an adjective to describe “due,” while in the reading of ’Ubayy and Ibn Mas‘ūd, al-haqqu (“the just” or “the true”) describes an attribute of Allah. Their reading is supported by other verses in the Qur’ān testifying that Allah is al-haqqu (“the just/the true”):

Q 10.32: “That is God, your true Lord!....”

Q 22.6: “That is because God, He is the truth….”

Q 31.30: “That is because God, He is true….”

Therefore, the reading of ’Ubayy Ibn Ka’b and Ibn Mas‘ūd is more probable than the majority reading—especially if Ibn Khālawayh is correct in stating that this reading came from Muhammad.

Among the various readings, different wording shows a lack of consistency and possible error in the Qur’ānic text:

Majority reading is tasta’nisū. (Palmer’s translation is “…you have asked leave….”)

Warsh and others read tastānisū.

Ibn ‘Abbās, Ibn Mas‘ūd (and his codex), ’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b, and others read tasta’dhinū (“you ask permission”).

Islamic scholars unanimously agree that the word tastā’nisū(a) means tastā’dhinū(a). According to Qatāda, hatta tastā’nisū(a) means “until you ask permission (tasta’dhinū(a)) and salute [the people].

Yet Ibn ‘Abbās, who is considered trustworthy among all Muslim sects, maintains that the wording tasta’dhinū (“ask permission”) is the correct reading. He states that tasta’nisū was incorrectly written down. He read “until you ask permission and salute the people” and claims that “it [tasta’nisū] is a mistake made by the scribes” and “the correct word is tasta’dhinū”.

Ibn ‘Abbās’s statement is an important testament to the existence of errors during the transcription of the Qur’ānic text. His frankness raises the question about the accuracy, proficiency, and carefulness of the Qur’ān’s compilers during the codification of its text.

Despite such testimony from the esteemed Ibn ‘Abbās, as well as differences in the codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd and readings of ’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b and others on this and other verses, Islamic scholars still defend the integrity of ‘Uthmān’s codex to protect it from allegations that the Qur’ān has been altered or distorted.

Noun singularity or plurality

Majority reading is al-ţifli (“the child”) in the singular. Palmer translates this word as “children” in the plural.

Codex of hafša and the codex of ’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b use the word al-’aţfāli (“the children”) in the plural. Though the use of al-ţifli (“the child”) to represent a singular category of person is linguistically permissible, why didn’t Zayd Ibn Thābit, appointed leader of the compilation committee, use the word al-’aţfāli (“the children”) as written in the codex of hafša, which was the basis for their committee work? (See the article “Compilation of the Qur’ān”), This word change impugns Zayd’s accuracy and integrity, especially when a Companion and reader as significant as ’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b also read the word al-’aţfāli (“the children”), confirming its likely origin as a plural word.

Majority reading is ’Ayyuha (“O you”). (Palmer’s translation is “…O ye….”)

Ibn ‘Āmir read ’Ayyuhu (“O you”).

Abū Ja‘far, Nāfi‘ and others read ’Ayyuh (“O you”).

Abū ‘Amr Ibn al-‘Ālā’, al-Kisā’ī and Ya‘qūb read ’Ayyuhā (“O you”), with the alif as the ending consonant.

The scripting of this word as ’ayyuha () in the current Arabic Qur’ān is present in this form in the Qur’ān in only three verses. The scripting of the word as ’ayyuhā (أَيُّهَـا), with the alif as the ending consonant, is present in this form in more than one hundred Qur’ānic verses. The table below provides some examples:

Scriptural Differences of Same Expression in Qur’ān

Sample: ’Ayyuha vs. ’Ayyuhā

’Ayyuha (أَيُّهَ)

Note: Verses with this particular script = 3 only

Qur’ānic verse

Script

English translation

Q 24.31

أيُّهَ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ

O you believers (Khalifa trans.)

Q 43.49

يَأَيُّهَ السَّاحِرُ

O you magician (Khalifa trans.)

Q 55.31

أَيُّهَ الثَّقَلَانِ

O you two armies (Shakir trans.)

’Ayyuhā (أَيُّهَا)

Note: Verses with this particular script = 100+

Q 5.41

يَأَيُّهَا الرسول

O you messenger (Khalifa trans.)

Q 5.67

يَأَيُّهَا الرسول

O you messenger (Khalifa trans.)

Q 8.64

يَأَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ

O you prophet (Khalifa trans.)

...

...

...

Question: In the entire Qur’ān, why do only three verses use ’Ayyuha, an incorrect spelling of this expression, when over one hundred verses use the correct spelling, ’Ayyuhā?

One logical explanation is that the early scribes originally wrote down this expression according to its pronunciation. When more formal grammatical and spelling rules were eventually introduced to the Arabic language and applied to the Qur’ānic text, later scribes fixed the misspellings in all the occurrences except three. This human oversight resulted in this difference—’Ayyuha and ’Ayyuhā—an irregularity that has disconcerted later readers over the centuries.

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads li-yu‘lama mā yukhfīna min zīnatihinna (“that their hidden ornaments may be know)”.

Ibn Mas‘ūd read li-yu‘lama mā surra min zīnatihinna (“that their secret ornaments may be known”) instead.

Though both readings express the same meaning, the different but synonymous adjectives in these readings suggest that the early readers had the freedom and permission to choose words that they considered appropriate for the context without being obligated to maintain the literalism of the text.

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads li-yu‘lama mā yukhfīna min zīnatihinna (“that their hidden ornaments may be know)”.

Ibn Mas‘ūd read li-yu‘lama mā surra min zīnatihinna (“that their secret ornaments may be known”) instead.

Though both readings express the same meaning, the different but synonymous adjectives in these readings suggest that the early readers had the freedom and permission to choose words that they considered appropriate for the context without being obligated to maintain the literalism of the text.

Scriptural differences of same word

Majority reading is ’Ayyuha (“O you”). (Palmer’s translation is “…O ye….”)

Ibn ‘Āmir read ’Ayyuhu (“O you”).

Abū Ja‘far, Nāfi‘ and others read ’Ayyuh (“O you”).

Abū ‘Amr Ibn al-‘Ālā’, al-Kisā’ī and Ya‘qūb read ’Ayyuhā (“O you”), with the alif as the ending consonant.

The scripting of this word as ’ayyuha () in the current Arabic Qur’ān is present in this form in the Qur’ān in only three verses. The scripting of the word as ’ayyuhā (أَيُّهَـا), with the alif as the ending consonant, is present in this form in more than one hundred Qur’ānic verses. The table below provides some examples:

Scriptural Differences of Same Expression in Qur’ān

Sample: ’Ayyuha vs. ’Ayyuhā

’Ayyuha (أَيُّهَ)

Note: Verses with this particular script = 3 only

Qur’ānic verse

Script

English translation

Q 24.31

أيُّهَ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ

O you believers (Khalifa trans.)

Q 43.49

يَأَيُّهَ السَّاحِرُ

O you magician (Khalifa trans.)

Q 55.31

أَيُّهَ الثَّقَلَانِ

O you two armies (Shakir trans.)

’Ayyuhā (أَيُّهَا)

Note: Verses with this particular script = 100+

Q 5.41

يَأَيُّهَا الرسول

O you messenger (Khalifa trans.)

Q 5.67

يَأَيُّهَا الرسول

O you messenger (Khalifa trans.)

Q 8.64

يَأَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ

O you prophet (Khalifa trans.)

...

...

...

Question: In the entire Qur’ān, why do only three verses use ’Ayyuha, an incorrect spelling of this expression, when over one hundred verses use the correct spelling, ’Ayyuhā?

One logical explanation is that the early scribes originally wrote down this expression according to its pronunciation. When more formal grammatical and spelling rules were eventually introduced to the Arabic language and applied to the Qur’ānic text, later scribes fixed the misspellings in all the occurrences except three. This human oversight resulted in this difference—’Ayyuha and ’Ayyuhā—an irregularity that has disconcerted later readers over the centuries.

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

Majority reading is ‘ibādikum (“your servants”).

Mujāhid and al-Hasan al-Bašrī read ‘abīdikum (“your slaves”), “with a ya’ [ī] instead of an alif [ā].”

The word ‘abīd more frequently refers to people owned by a master whereas ‘ibād means pious believers. This description is found in al-Baydāwī’s commentary on Q 43.68 in explaining the phrase ‘ibād:

The expression al-‘ibād, even if it may be said of all that is owned and created by Allah most high, yet the intended by it are those who are pious, especially when it is mentioned after the previous verse. Typically, the Great Qur’ān has an ongoing habit of allocating the expression al-‘ibād to the pious believers.

The context of the verse is more about slavery as seen from the word “maidservants” in addition to referring to their poverty and weakness. Therefore, the reading of Mujāhid and al-Hasan al-Bašrī (‘abīd) is more precise than the majority reading (‘ibād) and more appropriate to the intended meaning.

Allah’s nature

Majority reading is Allahu nūru (“God is light”) with “God” and “light” as the subject and predicate nouns, respectively.

‘Alī Ibn Abī Ţālib and others read Allahu nawwara (“God lighted”), which pairs the subject “God” with the past tense verb, “lighted”.

The majority reading implies that Allah himself is the light whereas the second reading implies that Allah lit up the darkness. Al-Baydawī does not accept the statement that Allah can be called light except metaphorically; Allah can use light for lighting up the heavens, like an overseer. Light can be perceived by the eyes, but Allah cannot be perceived by the eyes, according to Q 6.103: “Sight perceives Him not, but He perceives men’s sights; for He is the subtle, the aware.”

Therefore, the reading of ‘Alī Ibn Abī Ţālib is better than the majority reading as it avoids the similarity or comparison that contradicts the Qur’ān in Q 42.11: “…There is naught like Him….”

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads mathalu nūrihi kamishkātin (“His light is as a niche in which is a lamp…”).

Islamic scholars report multiple readings attributed to ’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b, considered “the master of Muslims”.

He read mathalu nūri al-mu’mini kamishkātin (“the light of the believer is as…”), replacing the possessive “his” (found in the current Arabic Qur’ān reading) with the singular word “believer”.

He read mathalu nūri al-mu’minina kamishkātin (“the light of the believers is as…”).

He read mathalu nūri man amana bihi kamishkātin (“the light of the one who believed in him is as…”).

He read mathalu nūri man ’unira bihi kamishkātin (“the light of whom he shined through is as…”).

The majority reading (“His light is as a niche in which is a lamp…”) likens the light of Allah to a lamp inside a niche whereas the readings of ’Ubayy liken the light of the believer(s) to that of a niche’s lamp. His readings agree with the logic of the Qur’ān that there is nothing like Allah, as seen in Q 42.11: “…There is naught like Him….” Furthermore, Muhammad said “my friends [the believers] are like stars—whichever one you follow, you will be guided”.

Given al-Bayďāwī’s earlier rejection (comparison of Allah as light), the readings of ’Ubayy become more favorable than the current Arabic Qur’ān reading. Interestingly, the numerous readings given for this verse by ’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b are all better than the current Arabic Qur’ān reading.

Why the multiple readings for a verse by one reader? Is this situation—attributing additional readings to the same reader—an attempt to diminish the quality of a reading and the authority of the reader, even if he is a leading Companion, in order to uphold or favor the authenticity of the current Arabic Qur’ān reading? The readings of Ibn Mas‘ūd as well as ’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b have been discredited in this way, with alleged multiple readings for one verse. (See the comment on Q 19.34)

It is noteworthy that even though both Ibn Khālawayh and al-Khaţīb include these multiple readings in their commentaries, they mention their doubts about the validity of some of them.

Among the various readings, differences in wording affect the precision of the Qur’ānic text:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads yamshī ‘alā’ arba‘ (“...walk on four”).

Codex of ’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b reads yamshī ‘alā akthar (“…walk on more”).

Al-Naqqāsh tries to defend the restrictive current Arabic Qur’ān reading, attacking the reading of ’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b for its wording “walk on more”:

[ Muhammad] was satisfied in his statement in mentioning what walks on four rather than mentioning that which walks on more…because every animal relies on four; they are the foundation of its walk. The many legs in some are an addition in its creation. That animal does not need them all for it to walk.

Ibn ‘Atīya refutes al-Naqqāsh’s reasoning, saying that “it is apparent that those many legs are not useless but are needed in the animal’s movement. They all move according to its disposition”. Clearly, Ibn ‘Atīya disagrees with al-Naqqāsh’s view that the additional legs over four are not needed by the animal for its mobility. Al-Naqqāsh’s statement that the additional legs are unnecessary lessens the precision and wisdom of Allah and disregards his purposeful intent in his creation, as stated in Q 23.115: “Did ye then reckon that we created you for sport….” Even though Q 24.45 does not mention the word animal, as al-Naqqāsh tries to insinuate, it does mention the word al-dābba (“the beast”). The word dābba, according to Lisān al-‘Arab, means “…all that walks on the earth: dābba and dabīb”.

Because the reading of ’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b is more encompassing of all the beasts of the earth, it is thus more precise and more inclusive than the majority reading.

Among the various readings, the absence or presence of a preposition greatly affects meaning:

Majority reading is an yaďa‘na thiyābahunna (“that they put off their clothes”).

Ibn Mas‘ūd, ’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b, and Ibn ‘Abbās read an yada‘na min thiyābihunna (“that they put off from their clothes”), which includes the word min (“from”). Ibn ‘Abbās states that the clothing here is the jilbāb, a loose-fitting cloak or coat.

It is narrated that Ibn Mas‘ūd read an yada‘na min jalābibihunna (“that they put off from their clothes”). The majority reading (“to put off their clothes”) includes all types of clothes, making the verse vague and puzzling. The reading of Ibn Mas‘ūd (“from their jalābīb [plural of jilbāb]”) clearly explains the intended clothing being the jalābīb, which does not include all the clothing. Therefore, the use of the preposition min (“from”) in the two readings of Ibn ‘Abbās and Ibn Mas‘ūd makes the verse clear and comprehensible.

Among the various readings, different wording affects meaning and emphasis:

Majority reading is baynakum (“amongst yourselves”) and written .

Al-Hasan al-Bašrī and Ya‘qūb read nabīykum (“your prophet”) and wrote .

The reading of al-Hasan al-Bašrī differs from the majority reading in meaning because it describes Muhammad as more than just a messenger—he is the prophet to his people, the Arab nation. In Islamic doctrine, a messenger is someone who is selected by Allah, i.e., Moses, David, Jesus, and Muhammad, to deliver a universal message. On the other hand, Islam defines a prophet as someone who is sent from Allah to address a particular group of people. Islam considers thousands of people as prophets, who lived before Muhammad. Muhammad is considered the “Seal of the Prophets,” or the final one.

So using both “messenger” (Palmer trans. “Apostle”) and “your prophet” in this reading by al-Hasan al-Bašrī better supports the verse’s request for Muslims to use a special salutation when addressing Muhammad to show respect. In the majority reading, the use of “amongst yourselves” is a redundancy in this verse and does not elevate Muhammad’s status beyond his role as messenger.

This difference between the majority reading and other readings is mainly due to the absence of dotting in the early Qur’ānic codices. Such differences question the Qur’ān’s claim of infallibility and thus its authenticity.

Among the various readings, the indeterminate nature of a noun (singularity vs. plurality) greatly affects meaning:

Majority reading is ‘alā ‘abdihi (“to His servant”), with a singular noun.

‘Abd Allah Ibn al-Zubayr and ‘Āšim al-Jihdarī read ‘alā ‘ibādihi (“to his servants”), with a plural noun.

Mu‘ādh Abū Halīma and Abū Nahīk read ‘alā ‘abīdihi (“to his slaves”).

Discussion is available elsewhere in this book regarding the difference between the terms ‘ibādihi and ‘ābīdihi. (See the comment on Q 17.5 and Q 24.32). Given that ‘ibādihi and ‘ābīdihi refer to righteous believers and slaves, respectively, as supported by the discussion presented in Q 17.5 and Q 24.32 and the context of this verse, clearly Q 25.1 is referring to righteous believers and not evildoers. Therefore, the reading of Mu‘ādh Abū Halīma and Abū Nahīk (‘ala ‘ābīdihi) is inaccurate.

So, which of the remaining readings is the better fit for this verse? Unfortunately, the scripting in the early Qur’ānic codices, with their absence of the vowel alif al-madd (ﺁ) as well as any diacritical marks, does not decisively indicate the singularity or plurality of words. So, because of this aspect the first two aforementioned readings, one singular and one plural, are still acceptable.

According to the majority of Islamic commentators, the singular “servant” in the majority reading refers to Muhammad. However, the context of the verse casts doubt upon their view. The word al-furqān (Palmer trans. “the Discrimination”; Yusuf Ali trans. “the Criterion”; Arberry trans. “the Salvation”) appears in other Qur’ānic verses coupled with the prophet Moses (and sometimes Aaron) but never directly Muhammad, as exemplified in Q 21.48: “We did give to Moses and Aaron the Discrimination...” (emphasis added). (See Q 2.53.)

Those Islamic scholars who support the view that the singular ‘abdihi (“his servant”) refers to Muhammad base their opinion on the expression nazzala l-furqāna (“sent down the Criterion”) in this verse. They suggest this expression is a reference to the Qur’ān, which Muslims believe came down in separate pieces. According to Ibn Kathīr, the prior divine books were sent down in one piece, but the Qur’ān was sent down in scattered pieces.1 This view is supported by al-Rāzī, who also states that the use of al-furqān “without dispute” means the Qur’ān.11

Al-Rāzī’s conclusion, that al-furqān means the Qur’ān, is weak because Q 25 was supposedly revealed to Muhammad while he was in Mecca, many years before the entire Qur’ān was revealed to him. According to Ibn ‘Āshūr, this sura is the forty-second revealed chapter of the Qur’ān, with seventy-two chapters yet to come. Furthermore, Islamic scholars define al-furqān in Q 2.53 and Q 21.48 as “the book” (Mujāhid) and “the Torah” (Abū Šālih and Qatāda), sacred books in existence centuries before Muhammad’s birth and the revelation of the Qur’ān. In other verses, the word al-furqān means “escape,” “a way out,” or “salvation” by Islamic commentators, as in Q 8.29: “O believers, if you fear God, He will assign you a salvation” (Arberry trans.; emphasis added). This word has Semitic roots as it is present in the rabbinical literature as פרְקָז, which means “to save” or “to redeem”. According to al-Ţabarī, the phrase yawm al-furqān (“day of al-furqān”) in Q 8.41 refers to the Day (Battle) of Badr, the day the early Muslims, led by Muhammad, won their first victory against the pagan Quraysh.

These Qur’ānic verses, with their multiple meanings by Islamic commentators regarding the word al-furqān, clearly show that this word does not definitively mean the Qur’ān. Thus, concluding that Muhammad is the singular “servant” mentioned in the majority reading of Q 25.1 is not supported by associating the word al-furqān with al-Qur’ān.

So, what can be stated about the remaining reading (‘alā ‘ibādihi or “to his servants”), which uses the plural noun “servants?” Interestingly, one of the readers, ‘Abd Allah Ibn al-Zubayr, is suggesting a reading that differs from the current Arabic Qur’ān, which claims its text is based on the ‘Uthmānic codex (c. AH 30/AD 650); Ibn al-Zubayr was a selected participant on the committee that compiled the ‘Uthmānic codex. Which source—current Arabic Qur’ān or the reading of committee member Ibn al-Zubayr—should be considered the more reliable?

Among the various readings, differences in subject pronouns affect meaning:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads ya’kulu (“he…to eat”). (Though ya’kulu literally means “he eats,” Palmer translates this verbal as an infinitive, or “to eat.”)

Hamza and others read na’kulu (“we eat”). According to Islamic commentaries, the Quraysh demanded that Muhammad bring down upon them a garden from heaven to prove his prophethood. This bestowal of a heavenly garden would serve as evidence to the veracity of Muhammad and would follow the precedent of miracles performed by earlier messengers. Thus the hearts of his followers would be at peace.

In the current Arabic Qur’ān reading, the expression ya’kulu (“he eats'') refers to Muhammad. It means that Muhammad alone eats from this heavenly garden. However, the reading of Hamza and others is na’kulu (“we eat”), which means that this heavenly garden is for the benefit and sustenance of all. A heavenly garden for all people instead of just one (the prophet or messenger) agrees more closely to the actions of the earlier prophets. For example, Moses saved his people, the Israelites, from Pharaoh’s aggression by parting the sea and feeding the Israelites quail and heaven-sent manna from God. Jesus healed the sick and raised the dead, miracles that benefited his people. Therefore, the reading of Hamza is more appropriate to the demand by the people of Mecca for Muhammad to perform a miracle like the messengers who preceded him—if indeed he was a messenger from Allah.

Among the various readings, numerous differences with just one word raise serious doubts about the immutability of the Qur’ān’s text:

Majority reading is nuzzila (“shall be sent down”).

Eleven variant readings mentioned for this expression: nunzilu, nazzala, anzala, unzila, nazala, tanazzalu, nuzzilu, nunazzilu, tanazzalat, nuzzilat, and nuzila.

Whether the meanings are the same or different for all these readings, all these variant readings came from Muhammad himself, according to those who read these readings. If so, does that mean Muhammad narrated to each reader a variant reading unique to that reader and to those who read after that reader by his reading? Or, did Jibrīl recite all these variant readings to Muhammad? Or, is the issue the difficulty of reading and comprehending the Qur’ānic text?

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads al-qur’āna with a hamza. ‘Abd Allah Ibn Kathīr read al-qurāna without the hamza.

See the comment on bushran (“to give glad tidings”) in Q 7.57.

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

Majority reading is burūjan (“zodiacal signs”) or constellations.

Ibn Mas‘ūd read qusūran (“palaces”).

The majority reading aligns with the verse’s text given in the classical Tafsir al-Jalālayn (fifteenth century AD), a significant and popular exegesis of the Qur’ān: “…‘Blessed, magnified, is He Who has placed in the heaven constellations, twelve [of them]: Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo (al-sunbala), Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius and Pisces….’ It is acceptable, even modern, reading.

However this explanation does not agree with the majority of earlier Islamic commentators. For example, al-Ţabarī explains the meaning of the word burūj as “mansions” or “palaces.” He mentions the opinion of Abū Šāliģ that the word means the major stars. Al-Ţabarī also gives Mujāhid’s opinion that they are the planets and Qatāda’s opinion that they are stars. However, al-Ţabarī returns to the opinion of Abū Ja‘far, adopting that burūj are “palaces in the sky because it is as such in the Arabs’ talk”. Al-Ţabarī offers Q 4.78 as support for his view: “Wheresoe’er ye be death will overtake you, though ye were in lofty towers…”  (Palmer trans.). Here in this verse the word “towers” is burūj in Arabic.

Though some Islamic commentators state that burūj means stars and planets, the majority hold that they are lofty structures shaped like palaces. If this matter concerns paradise (al-Janna), this interpretation would be acceptable. However, Muslim exegetes base their explanation on the Qur’ānic text and the general beliefs of Arabs during the time of Islam’s appearance, as evident from the opinion of Abū Ja‘far. The Qur’ān informs in Q 52.4 that there is a house called “the frequented house” without specifying the identity or location of the house. This description leads the exegetes to agree that this house is found in heaven. Al-Qurţubī states, “‘Alī, Ibn ‘Abbās, and others said ‘it is a house in the heavens vis-à-vis the Ka‘ba, entered every day by seventy thousand angels”.

It is clear from several Islamic sources that the early Islamic commentators defined burūj in this verse as sumptuous physical structures in the sky, a description that, not surprisingly, reflected the Arabs’ beliefs and knowledge of astronomy during the seventh century AD. The majority reading, however, defines burūj as zodiacal signs in the heavens. Such a definition exhibits a more modern and scientific understanding of astronomy and is evidence of change in the meaning of words in the Qur’ān over the centuries.

Questions: (1) Why did the meaning of the word burūj change from “palaces” to “zodiacal signs” over the centuries? (2) Is this change a natural linguistic evolution or an attempt by Islamic interpreters to update the Qur’ānic text so that it better coincides with scientific advances and knowledge?