What the readings change

Ibn Mas‘ūd read the verse in a different form by adding wa lā dhimmatun (“nor a pact”).

It is also said that he read it by substituting lilmushrikīna (“for the idolaters”) with lahum (“for them”) and adding wa lā dhimmatun (“nor a pact”) to the verse.

Ibn ‘Abbās and a group of readers read it masjid (“mosque”) in the singular instead of

masājid (“mosques”). The same variation is repeated in Q 9.18: “He only shall repair

to the mosques of God,” which was read by some as masjid (“mosque”).

Those who preferred to read it in the singular interpreted the reference to mean

al-Masjid al-HArām (the Sacred Mosque).

Question: Do the verses speak of one specific mosque or a group of mosques as the current Arabic Qur’ān states?.

Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b read the verse in a different form by substituting zuhūruhum (“their

backs”) with butūnuhum (“and their abdomens”). He made the punishment fall on the abdomens, whereas the current Arabic Qur’ān’s reading makes it fall on the backs.

This verse has two issues regarding the variant readings:

. The reading of the current Arabic Qur’ān, yudallu (“to lead astray”), means that

the transposing of al-Nasī’ led “those who misbelieve” astray. In addition to this

reading, there are the following variant readings:

yudillu (“they mislead”) means that the unbelievers use the transposing to

mislead their followers.

nudillu (“we mislead”) means here that Allah is the one doing the misleading.

Question: Does the transposing mislead the pre-Islāmic Arabs, do the unbelievers

use it to mislead the people, or does Allah use it to mislead?

2. Most readers read the phrase as it appears in the current Arabic Qur’ān zuyyina

(“[was made] seemly”) in the passive form. It is said that Allah is the one that

makes it appealing, while others said that Satan is the one. Ibn Mas‘ūd and others

read it zayyana (“he made it appealing”). According to the reading of Ibn Mas‘ūd, the subject of the verb is Allah. Compare this reading with the comment on Q 3.14: “Seemly unto men is a life of lusts”.

This verse has two issues regarding the variant readings:

1. In the codex of Hafsa (who was one of Muhammad’s wives), it was written “then

Allah sent down His peace upon them both, and strengthened them both with

forces which you did not see....”

The reading in the current Qur’ān uses the singular “him,” which means

the peace came upon one person. The commentators said that it was either

Muhammad or Abū Bakr. However, according to the reading in the dual (“them”),

Hafs.a’s reading, the meaning is that the peace came upon both of them together,

Muhammad and Abū Bakr.

2. This part of the verse appears differently in the codex of Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b: “and humbled to the depths the word of the Unbelievers. But made his word exalted....”

In the current Arabic Qur’ān it is written ya‘lamū (“they...know”) with a “y”,

where the context is about the enemies of Muhammad. Others, however, read it with

a “t”, ta‘lamū (“you...know”). Some said that the ones addressed are the enemies of

Muhammad, yet others said it was the Muslims. In the codex of Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b

it is ya‘lam (“he knows”) with a “y”, but others read it ta‘lam (“you know”). The

commentators said that Muhammad is the one addressed in both of those readings,

while some said that any hearers are the intended audience.

Question: Is the address in the verse directed to non-Muslims, Muslims, Muhammad, or to the hearer of the verse?.

The Shiites read “strive hard against the unbelievers by the hypocrites”.

It seems that this reading is an attempt to avoid the problem in the verse. When the

scholars discussed jihād against the hypocrites, they said that warring against non-Muslims is a certain matter because the non-Muslims openly reject Islām. However, the hypocrites are the ones who outwardly declare Islām. How then could one fight someone who has not openly shown himself to be non-Muslim?

Hence, the commentators offer the following explanations for the reading of this

verse:

The verse stipulates fighting the unbelievers and speaking harshly to the hypocrites.

The verse demands jihād against the unbelievers and hypocrites, since jihād is not

limited only to the sword and the tongue but has other tools as well.

The punishments of Islām must be carried out against the hypocrites.

But these opinions did not settle the discussion for the following reasons:

Since the hypocrite does not show his rejection of Islam, how is he to be rebuked

or have jihād carried out against him?

Applying the punishment of the sharī‘a is not limited to the hypocrites alone but is

on all those who are under the authority of a Muslim country.

All these endeavors in exegeses fail when compared to the Shiite reading of the verse:

“strive hard against the unbelievers by the hypocrites”.

Yet this reading, in turn, is not free of the issue of how to know the identity of the

hypocrites so they can be pushed to fight the unbelievers. If they are known to the

Muslims, wouldn’t there be fear that they would join the enemy’s camp instead of

sacrificing their lives for the cause of Islām, in which they do not believe anyway?

The verse thus remains a conundrum in both the Sunnī and the Shiite readings.

The majority read ya‘lamū (“they...know”) with a “y”, where the context is about the

enemies of Muhammad and the expression is in the interrogative, with the intention to

rebuke. Whereas, the rest of the readers read ta‘lamū (“you...know”) with a “t”, where

the Muslims are the ones intended.

Question: Does the verse address the Muslims or their enemies?.

‘Umar Ibn al-Khattāb read this text “the first of those...the helpers who followed

them” without the waw (“and”). So the phrase “who followed them” becomes a

description of the Ansār.

According to most of the readers, the verse mentions three groups: al-Muhājirūn

(“the Emigrants”), al-Ansār (“the Helpers”), and those who followed Muhammad.

However, ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattāb comments that the verse deals with two groups only:

al-Muhājirūn and al-Ansār.

The majority reading is sanu‘adhibuhum (“we will torment them”) with an “n”, where

the speaker is Allah. It was written in the codex of Anas Ibn Mālik as sayu‘adhibuhum

(“he will torment them”) with a “y”, the report being about Allah. Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b read

satu‘adhibuhum (“they [lit. she: feminine singular used grammatically for nonhuman

plural] will torment them”) with a “t”, with the interpretation that the angels, or the

keepers of hellfire, will torment them.

Therefore, there are three possibilities for the explanation of the verse: Allah is the

one speaking, Allah is the one spoken about, or the angels are the ones spoken about.

Ibn Mas‘ūd read it differently: “and Allah is forgiving merciful”.

The verse was read in a different form. Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b read it with the addition

of qawā‘iduhu (“his bases”) and the feminine singular of the verb fa-inhārat (“they

crumbled”), which is grammatically used for nonhuman plural, instead of the current Arabic Qur’ān’s masculine singular fa-inhāra (“[it] crumbles”), in reference to the

wall of sand. Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b read “and doth his bases crumbled [fem.] to pieces with

him, into the fire of hell.” Ibn Mas‘ūd read the verb in the singular, like the current Arabic Qur’ān, but added qawā‘iduhu (“his bases”) like Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b.

‘Umar Ibn al-Khat.t.āb and others read it differently, replacing bi-anna lahumu

al- jannata (“for the paradise they are to have”) with bi-l-jannati (“by the garden”).

Ibn Mas‘ūd read it by removing kāda (“had well-nigh”) and replacing the word

fariqin (“a part of them”) with tā’ifa (“a sect”).

The term kāda means to almost do the act without actually doing it. The meaning of

it in the verse is that their hearts were close to having gone amiss but had not. However,

according to the reading of Ibn Mas‘ūd, their hearts did go amiss from the truth. There is a clear difference between the one who almost went amiss and those who actually did go amiss. What a difference of condition and implications the two recitations present.

Most read al-sādiqīna (“those who speak the truth”) in the plural, as it is in the

current Arabic Qur’ān. We have a reading for some of the readers that reads al-sādiqayni (“the two who speak the truth”) in the dual form. It is said that the two are Allah and Muhammad, yet others say the two are Abū Bakr and ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattāb.

In addition to that, there is a reading attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās and to Ibn Mas‘ūd that

reads al-sādifīna with an “f”. This reading means those who turned away from both

falsehood and those who ascribe to falsehood.

Thus, the readings disagree about the command given to Muslims:

Muslims should be with those who speak the truth, in general.

Muslims should be with Allah and Muhammad or with Abū Bakr and ‘Umar Ibn

al-Khattāb.

Muslims should be with those who turn away from falsehood.

However, there are those who reject all these readings because Ibn Mas‘ūd and Ibn

‘Abbās read it from Muhammad as min al-sādiqīna (“from those who speak the truth”)

instead of the Arabic Qur’ān’s ma‘a al-sādiqīna (“with those who speak the truth”).

They consider that a person can be ma‘a al-sādiqīna (“with those who speak the

truth”) without being true himself. But the reading min al-sādiqīna (“from those who speak the truth”) means that one is to be with them and one of them.

The current Arabic Qur’ān reads awa lā yarūna (“Do they not see”), which goes

back to Q 9.125: “...but as for those in whose hearts is sickness....”

On the other hand, Ibn Mas‘ūd and others read awa lā tarā (“Do you not see”),

where Muhammad is the one addressed. It is also said that Ibn Mas‘ūd wrote in his

codex awa lam tara (“have you not seen”), where Muhammad is also addressed.

Question: Who is addressed here—Muhammad or those “in whose hearts is a sickness”?

The majority of the readers read min anfusikum (“from amongst yourselves”) as it

is in the current Arabic Qur’ān. Ibn ‘Abbās and a group of readers read min anfasikum,

meaning “the most esteemed or the noblest.” They said that Muhammad, his daughter

Fātima, and his wife, ‘Ā’isha, read by this reading.

Is it reasonable that what is written in the Qur’ān is different from what Muhammad

himself read, as well as his daughter and his wife? For after Muhammad used to read

min anfasikum, meaning that he is of a higher status, the editors of the Qur’ān wrote,

min anfusikum, “from amongst yourselves,” meaning from “you”.

In the Qur’ān, it appears min anfusikum (“from amongst yourselves”) goes back to the

comprehension of the editing committee of the Qur’ān that Muhammad was not from

the social or financial elite of the Quraysh. So they corrected the Muhammadan claim

by making him one of them, instead of one of their nobles. If that had not been done,

the claim would had been confirmed and established by making the reading of the word according to the way Muhammad and his house read it.

The majority of readers read al-‘azīmi (“the mighty”) with a kasra (“i”), making the

word an adjective of the word al-‘arshi (“the throne”), according to Arabic grammar.

Other readers read it al-‘azīmu (“the mighty”) with a damma (“o” or “u”), making the

word an adjective of the word rabbu (“Lord”).

Does the adjective al-‘azīm (“the mighty”) describe the lord or the throne?

Question: Is it permissible to mention the lord without the adjective of exaltation,

when the throne is exalted? If not, why do Muslims, even today, read this verse which gives exaltation to the throne yet neglects the reading that gives exaltation to the lord?