What the readings change

Ibn Mas‘ūd and others read this as “[b]ut those who believe and do deeds of

righteousness, he shall soon admit to Gardens...he shall admit them to shades, cool

and ever deepening.”

There is a difference with regard to the person. In the Qur’ānic text, Allah is the

speaker, whereas, according to Ibn Mas‘ūd’s reading, another person is talking about Allah.

Ibn Mas‘ūd read it in a different form: “Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, which was an oppressor.”

Ibn Mas‘ūd read this verse, adding the following text: “so we die naturally and not be

killed lest the enemies rejoice at that.”

In the codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd, this verse reads as “from thy (own) soul, however I

ordained it to you,” by adding wa innamā qad. aytuhā ‘alayk (“however I ordained it to

you”). Ibn ‘Abbās read it in the same manner as well.

It is also said that both Ibn ‘Abbās and Ibn Mas‘ūd read this text as “from thy (own)

soul, but I wrote it upon you,” by adding wa anā katabtuhā ‘alayk (“but I wrote it upon

you”). It is further told that Ibn Mas‘ūd and Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b read this verse as “from

thy (own) soul and I enumerated it upon you,” by adding wa anā ‘adadtuhā ‘alayk

(“and I enumerated it upon you”).

These variant readings are trying to correct a contradiction between verses 78 and 79

in the current Arabic Qur’ān, as described in the previous comment. (See the critical

analysis of Q 4.78-79, page 345.)

Some of the Shiite readers read this verse as “Never should a believer kill a believer;

not even by mistake.”

The reading of this verse by the majority of readers is wa lā tahinū (“and do not give

way”) from wahina, meaning to be weak. But, ‘Ubayd Ibn ‘Umayr read this as wa lā

tūhānū from ihāna, which means “insult.” This reading prohibits, then, that a Muslim

would act in such a way that would bring insult to him.

Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b read this verse as “as it [as if she] were a prisoner.” He used the

phrase kal masjūna (“as it [as if she] were a prisoner”) instead of the current Arabic

Qur’ān’s kal mu‘allaqa (“as it [as if she] were in suspense”).

In their codices Ibn Mas‘ūd and Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b wrote wa al-muqīmūna al-salāt

(“and the steadfast in prayer”) according to what preceded it: al-rāsikhūna (“who are

firm in knowledge”), which was also the reading of other readers. The reading of the

current Arabic Qur’ān is wa al-muqīmīna al-salāt (“and the steadfast in prayer”),

contradicting the rules of grammar.

‘Ā’isha said that writing this Arabic word with the “ي :ī ” is a mistake made by the writers

of the codices. The readings of Ibn Mas‘ūd and Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b correct that mistake.

The majority read this phrase as shown above, where Allah is the speaker, or subject,

and Moses is the object, or person being addressed. However, we have a Mu‘tazilite

reading: “And spoke to Allah Moses direct,” where Allah is the object and Moses is the

subject.

This reading was also the way it was read by ‘Amr Ibn ‘Ubayd, Ibrāhīm al-Nakh‘ī,

and Yah. yā Ibn Wathāb.

The majority’s reading shows Allah as the subject of the verb, whereas the Mu‘tazilite

reading shows Moses as the subject of the verb.

Question: Who is the subject—Allah or Moses?

In the current Arabic Qur’ān, aāmmīna means “those who sojourn.” Using other

codices of the Qur’ān, Ibn Mas‘ūd and others read aāmmīna as aāmmī by dropping

the final “na”, which is based on Arabic grammar rules. The scholar, Ibn Khalawayh,

considers aāmmī a proper reading, but he has reservations about it because it is not

found in the current official Qur’ān.

Question: Why was the better quality reading not written in the Qur’ān?

The current Arabic Qur’ān uses mutajānifin (“inclined”). However, some readers

remove the Arabic alif (long “ā” sound) and say mutajanifin, a reading considered by

Ibn Jinnī and other scholars to be more eloquent. Does this preference imply that the

Qur’ān does not contain the most eloquent forms, which is contrary to the prevalent

opinion that it is the measuring scale for eloquence?

Various opinions have arisen as to which actions apply for each part of the body.

For example, in the last part of the verse, the Arabic does not have the word “wash”

in it, omitting the verb entirely. So what action should be applied to “your feet”? The

Sunnīs believe the word “wash” is a good choice because the Arabic word for “feet”

is shown in the objective (accusative) case wa’arjulakum, and the Arabic words for

“faces,” “hands,” and “elbows” in the first part of the sentence are also shown in the

objective case. Thus, they believe this verb should apply to “feet” as well. Hence, the

Sunnī jurisprudents rule that the feet should be washed.

However, a large group of readers use a variant reading of this verse, linking the

possessive case of “your feet,” wa’arjulikum, with the verb “wipe.” Thus the meaning

becomes “wipe your feet” rather than “wash your feet.” They believe that because the

verb “wipe” in “wipe your heads” comes just before the words “your feet,” it makes more

sense to associate these two elements together. Al-T. abarī leans toward this reading.

The differences between the readings have led to differences in the rituals of wud. ū’

(ablutions or washings). Should the feet be washed as the Sunnī scholars say, according

to the context of “wash your faces, and your hands...and your feet”? Or should they

be wiped, as the Shiites mandate, based on the context of “and wipe your heads and

your feet to the ankles”?

This issue is important because the principle of wud. ū’ (“ablutions”) for the Islāmic

Prayer requires fastidious attention to the minutest detail concerning these rituals.

Prayers cannot be performed properly and receive acceptance without proper wud. Ū’.

Some authoritative readers pronounce the Arabic word for “favour” as ni‘mata with

an ending “ta”, according to the language of Tai’. It is written this way in the current

Arabic Qur’ān. On the other hand, others use a variant reading and pronounce this

word as ni‘mah (“his favor”) with an “h”.

Question: Why did this word get written according to the language of Tai’, which is

contrary to the common rules of the Arabic writing? Does that choice not indicate the

absence of systematized editing of the Qur’ān?

According to the codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd, the reading of this verse is “Then said two

men of those who fear,-God had been gracious to them both,-‘Woe to you! Enter ye

upon them by the door....’” This reading has the additional word in Arabic, wailakum,

which means “woe to you.”

This verse in the current Arabic Qur’ān does not specify which hand is to be cut off,

leaving it to the reader’s speculation. However, the codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd specifies that

the right hand is the one that should be cut off.

Despite determining which hand is to be cut off, the codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd still

offers two variant readings of this verse: “The man thief and the woman thief, cut off

their right hands” (aymānahum—in the plural form) and “their right hands of both”

(aymānahumā—in the dual form).

The word translated as “a law” is written in the ‘Uthmānic codex, the official Qur’ān,

as sharī‘atan. But, al-H. ajjāj (AH 40-95/AD 660-714) changed it to the current

shir‘atan.Both words have the same meaning. However, this explanation tells us

that the Qur’ānic revision process continued to take place until half a century after the

death of Muhammad.

The codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd shows this verse in the plural: “Those with whom Allah was angry, he transformed them into apes and swine.”

However, in the current Arabic Qur’ān, the verse has the tenses mixed: “Whomsoever

God has cursed and been wroth with-and he has made of them apes and swine.” The first part of the verse in the Arabic is read in the singular, “the one,” while the last part is read in the plural, “apes and swine.”

There are other differences between the current Arabic Qur’ān and the codex of Ibn Mas ‘ud:

In the current Arabic reading of the Qur’ān, the word “Allah” precedes the verb

“become angry.”

The pronoun attached to the preposition “against” is in the singular; the codex of

Ibn Mas‘ūd uses a plural pronoun.

“He made of them” (verb and preposition with pronoun) is read “he made them”

(verb and pronoun) in the codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd.

“Apes and swine” have definite articles in the current Arabic Qur’ān but not in the

codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd.

The most common reading is lā yatanāhawna (“they forbid not one another”).

However, a variant reading of Zayd Ibn ‘Alī is lā yantahūna (“they seize not”). The

variance centers on the reading of the verb: tanāha means “to forbid one another,”

whereas intaha means “to stop something, to seize, end, or finish.” The reading of the

current Arabic Qur’ān says that the mentioned group’s members do not forbid one

another from committing the iniquities, while the reading of Zayd Ibn ‘Alī means they

do not stop committing iniquities.

Question: Which meaning is correct?

The reading from the codex by Ibn Mas‘ūd is “What cause can we have not to believe

in Allah and what our Lord brought down upon us of truth....” The codex of Ibn

Mas‘ūd varies from the ‘Uthmānic codex by adding “what our Lord brought down

upon us,” meaning revealed to us