What the readings change

Unlike the current Arabic Qur’ān’s reading “and Imran’s people,” Ibn Mas‘ūd reads “and the family of Muhammad,” which was also read by some of the Shiite readers.The historical and doctrinal difference between “the family of ‘Imrān” and the “family of Muhammad” is clear without needing to explain.

Ibn Mas‘ūd recorded in his Qur’ān, “Gabriel called unto him, while he was standing in prayer in the chamber.” According to the reading of the Qur’ān in Arabic, there are a group of angels (Yusuf Ali trans.): “While he was standing in prayer in the chamber, the angels called unto him.” In the codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd it is one particular angel: Gabriel.

The Arabic of the current official Qur’ān literally reads, wa irka‘i ma‘a al-Rāki‘īn (“and kneel down with those who kneel”). The codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd reads, “O Mary! Worship your Lord devoutly, wa isjudi fī al-sājidīn (“and bow down among those who bow down”).

Question: According to these readings, there is a difference in the form of worship that is required of Mary. Should she kneel or bow?

The verse talks about Christ as he enumerates the miracles that he would perform. He declares, “I have come to you, with a sign from God.” However, the codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd reads, “I have come to you, with Signs from your Lord” instead of “with a sign.”

It appears that Ibn Mas‘ūd found that the singular does not fit with the Qur’ānic context that says, “I have come to you, with a sign from God, [1] namely, that I will create for you out of clay as though it were the form of a bird,…[2] and I will heal the blind from birth, and lepers; [3] and I will bring the dead to life….[4] and I will tell you what you eat and what ye store up in your houses.” Hence, he wrote, “I have come to you, with Signs” instead of “I have come to you, with a Sign.”

Ibn Mas‘ūd, Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b, and others read, “And when God took the covenant of those who were brought the Book [i.e., People of the Book]….” Mujāhid said, “The Qur’ān is as such, and affixing “the prophets” is a mistake made by the scribes….”

The disagreement is about whether the phrase was concerning “the prophets” or “those who were brought the book [i.e., People of the Book].” At the same time, Ibn Mas‘ūd interchanges “the prophets” and “those who were brought the Book” in different verses, so instead of “When God took the compact from those who have had the Book” (“those who were brought the book”) in Q 3.187, he and Ibn ‘Abbās read, “When God took the compact of the prophets….” It appears that Ibn Mas‘ūd and others hold that verse 81 belongs at 187, and verse 187 belongs at 81.

‘Uthmān Ibn ‘Affān and Ibn Mas‘ūd and others read “and forbidding what is wrong, and seeking Allah’s help with what had befallen them…” adding “wa yasta‘īnūna Allaha ‘ala mā as.ābahum (“and seeking Allah’s help with what had befallen them”). Others read with a reading similar to Ibn Mas‘ūd’s, substituting the word nāhūna (“forbidders”) for yanhawna (“forbidding”).

Ibn Mas‘ūd read the verse in a different order: “wa Allahu bas.īrun bimā ta‘malūna: and God sees what you do.” In Ibn Mas‘ūd’s codex the word basīrun (“sees”) comes after Allah and not at the end of the verse as it appears in the current official Qur’ān.

Ibn ‘Abbās and Ibn Mas‘ūd read “and consult them in some of the affairs” by adding ba‘d. (“some.”) The difference is that the verse in the Qur’ān asks Muhammad to consult his Companions about his different matters; whereas, it commands him, according to the reading of Ibn ‘Abbās and Ibn Mas‘ūd, to consult them in some of his matters.

We have two readings here that belong to two separate historical occasions:

The first, the reading of the Qur’ān: yaghulla (“to cheat”).

This is a reading of a group of readers from the H. ijāz and Iraq schools. The word yaghulla means “to betray.” Those readers said that a plush (blanket trimmed with fringes) went missing from among the loot after the Battle of Badr. Some of them said that maybe Muhammad took it. A lot of clamor arose concerning the issue. Therefore, the verse came to deny that Muhammad would have covertly taken anything.

The second reading: “yughalla.”

This reading has several different meanings. The first meaning is “to be betrayed.” Hence, the phrase in the verse would mean that no prophet would be betrayed by his Companions. The second meaning of yughalla is “to be accused of betrayal.”

A third meaning, offered by al-Tabarī in his commentary, interprets yughalla as “to withhold from giving.” According to al-Tabarī, Muhammad sent a vanguard before one of the battles. While they were absent, the Muslims were able to loot. Muhammad did not give any share to the vanguards, so the verse came to show that what he did was wrong.

The first reading acquits Muhammad of the stealing charge, whereas the second reading has three meanings. It could deny that Muhammad faced betrayal by his Companions, that he should not be accused of betrayal, or that he should not be accused of withholding from giving. Thus, there are a total of four meanings to this word. These readings are attributed to two different events with different conclusions.

Question: Does the verse deny that Muhammad stole, or does it only call what he did wrong?

Ibn Mas‘ūd, Ibn ‘Abbās, and others read yukhawifikum awliyā’ah, meaning “his votaries frighten you.” Whereas, the verse in the current Arabic Qur’ān reads yukhawifu awliyā’ahu (“frightens his friends [or votaries]”). Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b, as well as others, read yukhawifikum bi-awliyā’ihi (“he frightens by his votaries”).

The reading of the Qur’ān means that Satan scares his votaries (devotees). Whereas, the reading of the others means that Satan scares the Muslims by the power of his votaries.

Further, we have another reading: “yukhawifikum awliyā’uhu,” which makes the subject of the verb, the “votaries of Satan.” The meaning thus becomes that the votaries of Satan cause Muslims to fear. So, who scares who? Is it Satan who scares his votaries? Or, does Satan scare the Muslims by his votaries? Or do the votaries of Satan themselves scare the Muslims? The difference is quite grave among the three meanings.

Ibn Mas‘ūd read, “Count not that those who rejoice in what they have produced, and love to be praised for what they have not done, are in safety from woe…” by omitting the second fa-lā tah sabannahum (“[count or] think not that they.”)

The verse appears in a different form in the codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd. He substitutes the

singular for the plural throughout the verse: “Whoever unjustly eats up the property of

orphans, eats up a fire into his own belly, and he will be broiling in flames.”

Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b read this as “and he has a brother or a sister from the mother...”

by adding “from the mother.”

Ibn Mas‘ūd and Sa‘d Ibn Abī Waqqās remove the definite article “the” and read this

phrase as “and he has a brother or a sister from a mother.” Others read it as “and he has a brother or a sister from his mother.”

The disagreement here is that the verse in the Qur’ān discusses who would get a

portion of the inheritance and mentions “have a brother or a sister” without specifying

from which parental side of the family. The other readings, however, specify that the

siblings are from the mother’s side.

Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b read this as “unless they commit an abominable act against you,”

by removing “manifestly.” This reading gives the abominable act a specific meaning,

which is mistreating the husband.

On the other hand, Ibn Mas‘ūd, Ibn ‘Abbās and others read this as “unless they

yafhashna (“commit abomination,”) by removing “manifestly.” This reading gives

abomination a wider meaning, which would be anything outside the moral boundaries.

Ibn Mas‘ūd read this as “even if ye had given the latter a whole treasure of gold for

dower,” by adding “of gold.”

Ibn Mas‘ūd, Ibn ‘Abbās and others read this as “but such of them as ye have enjoyed

until a mentioned time, give them their hire as a lawful due.” Ibn ‘Abbās ascertains that

this is the correct reading.

The difference between the two readings is that the Qur’ān’s reading refers to marriage

in general, which is why the Sunnīs explain that the wages are the marriage dowry.

However, the reading that adds “until a mentioned time” connects the verse with the

temporary marriage, al-mut‘a.This variance means that either the Sunnīs removed the

phrase to confirm their saying that the mut‘a marriage has been abrogated, or that the

Shiites added the phrase to bolster their saying that the mut‘a marriage is religiously legal.

Either way, one sect of the Muslims altered the wording in the Qur’ān to shape opinion

regarding the mut‘a marriage. (See the article “Women in the Qur’ān” on page 117.)

Ibn ‘Abbās read this as “We will cover from your offences...” by adding “from.”

In the Qur’ān’s verse, the promise is to expel or remit all the evil, whereas the promise,

according to the reading of Ibn ‘Abbās, is to expel or remit part of the evil.

Ibn Mas‘ūd read the verse as “and the virtuous women, devoted, careful (in their

husbands’) absence, as God has cared for them. Therefore, be good unto them.” Though it is not visible in English, this reading uses the broken plural fāl-sawālih qawānit hawāfiz.

instead of the sound feminine plural found in the Qur’ān fāl-sālihāt qānitāt hāfizāt.

It is noteworthy that the reading of Ibn Mas‘ūd differs in two ways:

He followed different grammatical rules, which makes one wonder which form of

plural is the appropriate one here?

He added, “Therefore, be good unto them.”

Question: Did Ibn Mas‘ūd add to the Qur’ān, or did others remove from it?

Ibn Mas‘ūd read it as “Allah is not unjust, not even the weight of namla [“an ant”].

The Arabic word used in the Qur’ān is dharratin, which was understood to mean the

“smallest ant.” Today, this word dharra(tin) is used as an equivalent to the English word

“atom.” There is no disagreement between the two readings with regard to the meaning.

However, the difference is actually in the technical form of the expression. What is also

interesting is that the readers chose the words according to their artistic taste, which

shows how individual differences in reading styles can affect the recording of the Qur’ān.

The majority of the readers read this as “they wish,” meaning non-Muslims, while

some read this as “You wish,” where the Muslims are the addressee.

Question: Who is being addressed, the Muslims or the non-Muslims?