What the readings change

Among the various readings, possible additions or omissions affect clarity and understanding:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads wa-’ātānī raḥmatan min ‘indihi, fa-‘ummiyat (“and there come to me mercy from him, and [though] ye are blinded to it”) with the second clause in the passive voice, meaning that “it became ambiguous to you”.

‘Abd Allah Ibn Kathīr and others read wa-’ātānī raḥmatan min ‘indihi, fa-‘amiyat (“...though ye are blind to it”), in the active voice in the Arabic language, meaning “it was hidden from you”.

Al-A‘mash narrates another reading: wa-’ātānī raḥmatan min ‘indihi, wa-‘amiyat (“...and ye are blind to it”), which matches the meaning of the reading of ‘Abd Allah Ibn Kathīr.

Other readings for this verse contain more or less words:

Ibn Mas‘ūd does not include the phrase wa-’ātānī raḥmatan min ’indihi (“…and there come to me mercy from him...”), which results in this reading: “He said, ‘O my people! let us see! if I stand upon a manifest sign from my Lord, and ye are blinded to it….”

Abū Zar‘a reports a different reading in the codex of ’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b: …fa-‘ammāhā Allahu (“...though Allah blinded ye to it”), which includes the name of “Allah” as the agent.

The existence of the phrase, “and there come to me mercy from him,” has caused confusion in the text. Its presence makes it then difficult to know whether the blindness refers to mercy or the manifest sign—or both of them.

Islamic commentators disagree regarding the meaning of mercy in this verse. Some state that it means the prophethood or the miracle that refers to the prophethood. Al-Ṭabarī states that it means success, prophethood and wisdom. Al-Qurṭubī states that it means “the guidance to Allah through evidence, and it is said: faith and Islam”!

However, the reading of Ibn Mas‘ūd indicates that blindness refers to the “manifest sign,” where the adjective “manifest” means to make known or easily evident by the senses, particularly sight.

Ibn Mas‘ūd’s reading completely clears the confusion produced by the other readings; the additional phrase in the other readings, i.e., “and there come to me mercy from him,” does not serve the text. At best, this phrase is unnecessary, and at worst, it is detrimental to a straightforward understanding of this verse.

Among the various readings, different wording produces different meanings regarding the parental lineage of Noah’s “son”:

Majority reading is ibnahu (“his son”).

Ibn ‘Abbās read ibnah (“his son”).

Al-Suddī read ibnāh (“his two sons”).

‘Alī Ibn Abī ṬālibN1 read ibnahā (“her son”), meaning the wife’s own biological son and not from Noah’s own seed.

There has been controversy among some of the readers regarding the lineage of this son (biological son or rabīb, meaning stepson, of Noah) and his religious beliefs (an infidel like his mother). One reader, al-Ḥasan Ibn ‘Alī, “swore” that this boy was not Noah’s biological son. Unfortunately, al-Ḥasan Ibn ‘Alī does not elaborate on his certainty. Perhaps he was guided by the following verse (Q 66.10):

God strikes out a parable to those who misbelieve: the wife of Noah and the wife of Lot; they were under two of our righteous servants, but they betrayed them: and they availed them nothing against God; and it was said, ‘Enter the fire with those who enter.’

Q 66.10 states that the wife of Noah betrayed him. The “betrayal” of a wife to her husband is understood to mean adultery, which brings in another possibility for the lineage of Noah’s son: Is Noah’s stepson an illegitimate son?

In response, commentator Ibn ‘Aṭīya cites Ibn ‘Abbās: “There is no wife who has ever [sexually] betrayed a prophet”. Perhaps this statement was an attempt to confirm the virtue of prophets’ wives and to rule out the charge by some Shiites that Muḥammad’s favorite wife, ‘Ā’isha, committed adultery during their marriage. (See the special feature “The Slander: Al-’Ifk Incident” at the end of Q 24).

Question: Is this young man Noah’s own offspring, his stepson, or an illegitimate “son” through adultery?

Among the various readings, the lack of a clear pronoun referent produces ambiguity:

Majority reading is min qabl hadhā (“before this”).

Codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd reads min qabl hadhā al-Qur’ān but includes the word al-Qur’ān after “before this” to read “before this Qur’ān”.

In his commentary on this verse, Ibn ‘Āshūr explains that in the phrase “before this”, there are three possible referents for the pronoun “this”: (1) the Qur’ān, (2) the current time, or (3) story or news.

The lack of clear prose or helpful context to determine an irrefutable referent for “before this” is yet another example of obscure Qur’ānic text.

Question: Was the wording al-Qur’ān, found in the codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd and provides a clear pronoun referent for “before this,” somehow inadvertently dropped by inattentive members of ‘Uthmān’s committee compiling the ‘Uthmānic codex? (See the section ‘Uthmān’s Compilation in the article “Compilation of the Qur’ān)

Among the various readings, the numerous variations themselves question the complete textual authenticity of today’s Qur’ān:

Majority reading is Wa imra’ātuhu qā’imatun (“And his wife was standing by”).Codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd reads Wa imra’ātuhu qā’imatun wa huwa qā‘idun (“And his wife was standing by, and he was sitting”) with the phrase “and he was sitting”.

It is narrated that Ibn Mas‘ūd read Wa hiya qā’imatun wa huwa jālisun (“And she was standing by, and he was sitting”).

Al-Khaṭīb criticizes these readings of Ibn Mas‘ūd, stating, “I did not find these two readings [codex and narrated readings listed above] in the printed copy of his codex, and they both should be considered as interpretative readings; most of the readings narrated from him are of this sort”.

Al-Khaṭīb insinuates that the two readings of Ibn Mas‘ūd are not true readings. Under scrutiny, however, al-Khaṭīb’s analysis lacks substance:

Al-Khaṭīb’s statement about “the printed copy of his codex” means the extant or available parts of Ibn Mas‘ūd’s codex included in a chapter of a scholarly reference on the Qur’ān, Kitāb al-Maṣāḥif, by al-Sijistānī. However, this book is not a comprehensive record for all the texts of the copies of the Qur’ān; it only contains parts of them. Since this book does not contain the complete codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd, then al-Khaṭīb has not seen Ibn Mas‘ūd’s codex in its entirety. Al-Khaṭīb’s comment distorts the facts and misleads the reader.

Al-Khaṭīb’s complaint notwithstanding, the Ibn Mas‘ūd reading does exist in some copies of the Qur’ān, such as the codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd and the codex of ’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b. Their value cannot be discounted, especially in present times, when modern research of the ancient Ṣan‘ā’ manuscripts has shown that these “first-generation” copies of the Qur’ān include many differences from later copies, including the current Arabic Qur’ān. For example, Q 9.107 reads in the Ṣan‘ā’ manuscript as “…and His Apostle before; they surely swear by Allah what we wished…,” whereas the current Arabic Qur’ān reads “…and His Apostle before; they surely swear, ‘We only wished for what is good….’” This example, one of too many textual differences, points out that the current Arabic Qur’ān does not exactly align with these early codices, which are now available for definitive review, study, and comparison. (See the section Early Qur’ānic Manuscripts in the article “Variant Readings of the Qur’ān: Study Update, and the comment on Q 18.53).

The expression “interpretive reading” does not exist. A reading is just “a reading”. If there is an explanation, then it is a simplified explanation, as given in Tafsīr al-Jalālayn, a classical, concise study of the Qur’ān. The only acceptable use of this term “interpretive reading” is when the reader is unknown. (See the comment on Q 54.7).

Besides dismissing Ibn Mas‘ūd’s readings (listed earlier) as nonexistent or “interpretative,” al-Khaṭīb curiously mentions in a footnote yet another reading for this verse in Ibn Mas‘ūd’s codex, according to al-Mughīra: Wa imra’ātuhu qā’imatun wa huwa jālisun (“And his wife was standing by, and he was sitting”). This footnote is a surprising statement and brings up another controversial matter. How can there be different readings in the same codex? Ibn Mas‘ūd would have had just one reading for the same verse in his own codex; who would claim there is another reading and why?

What is known is that Ibn Mas‘ūd, who was handpicked by Muḥammad to act as one of only four supreme authorities to protect and uphold the Qur’ān’s text, was not invited by ‘Uthmān Ibn ‘Affān (third caliph after Muḥammad’s death) to serve on his committee to compile and unify the Qur’ān (c. AH 30/AD 650), an exclusion that deeply embittered him. After the task of compiling the Qur’ān was completed, ‘Uthmān sought to destroy all other codices in order to make his compiled copy the only official codex. Ibn Mas‘ūd strongly objected to the destruction of all these other codices and never accepted the ‘Uthmānic codex. In fact, Ibn Mas‘ūd “requested his supporters to resist and furtively hide their Korans”. (For more discussion, see the article “Compilation of the Qur’ān”), Given this history, is it not plausible that those who would want to protect the authority and “authenticity” of the “official” Qur’ān (‘Uthmānic codex) might wish to diminish or discredit Ibn Mas‘ūd’s readings? By disparaging Ibn Mas‘ūd and his readings—no matter the quality—his critics can bolster their claim that the Qur’ān is one Qur’ān without variations.

see Q 10.33

Among the various readings, vowel differences in certain words and the presence or absence of certain phrases affect meaning:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads ’āsri…wa lā yaltafit minkum ’āḥadun ’illā imra’ātaka (“then travel with thy people in the darkness of the night, and let none of you look round except thy wife”).

Ibn Mas‘ūd read fa’āsri…’illā imra’ātaka (“then travel with thy people in the darkness of the night, except thy wife”) without the phrase, “and let none of you look round”.

‘Abd Allah Ibn Kathīr and others read ’āsri…wa lā yaltafit minkum ’āḥadun ’illā imra’ātuka (“then travel with thy people in the darkness of the night, and let none of you look round except thy wife”), pairing the vowel ḍamma (ُ) and not fatḥa (َ) on the consonant t (تُ) in the word imra’ātuka (“thy wife”), but Abū ‘Ubayda refutes this reading.

A further clarification of these readings will better explain their differences in meaning according to Arabic grammar:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reading, with the word imra’ātaka (“thy wife”), uses the vowel fatḥa on the consonant t (ت), which indicates that the exception is connected to the travel. In other words, Lot and all his people are to travel without his wife.

Reading of Ibn Mas‘ūd also uses the word imra’ātaka (“thy wife”) with a fatḥa on the consonant t (ت) like the current Arabic Qur’ān, which means Lot’s wife is clearly excluded from the departing group of Lot and his people. This reading also removes the confusing part about looking behind.

Reading of ‘Abd Allah Ibn Kathīr, however, uses the word imra’ātuka (“thy wife”) with a ḍamma on the consonant t (ت), which means that the “exception” is that Lot’s wife is the only one who looked around.

It is worth mentioning that the phrase “and let none of you look round” can also be found in another account about Lot in Q 15.65: “Travel then with thy family in the deep darkness of the night, and follow thou their rear; and let not any one of you turn round to look; but go on to where ye are bidden.” Ibn Mas‘ūd read it with emphasis on the word “look”: wa lā yaltafitanna minkum ’āḥadun.

The story of Lot and his people are mentioned in two other passages: Q 26.170-171 and Q 37.134-135. Curiously, these passages do not include any command to not look around. These passages do mention that an “old woman…who lingered” does not escape perdition. Islamic commentators disagree about the identity of this old woman. Some state she is Lot’s wife, but others state she is just one of the old women who perished in the city. Those scholars who believe this woman is Lot’s wife do not explain why she was not given the same chance to escape with the rest of the family.

The story of Lot is recounted in the Old Testament (Torah) but with more detail. Two angels command Lot to “take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city [Sodom] is punished” (NIV, Gen. 19.15). Two verses later, after the angels have safely led Lot, his wife, and their daughters out of the city, one of the angels admonishes Lot and his family to flee for their lives, saying, “Don’t look back, and don’t stop anywhere on the plain!”

In this biblical passage, none of Lot’s family members is excluded from the opportunity to safely depart Sodom and escape from its punishment. The command of not looking around occurs after Lot and his family have traveled some distance away from the city. The angel’s command is directed to everyone, including Lot’s wife. However, Lot’s wife does not heed this directive and decides to look back and becomes “a pillar of salt” (Gen. 19.26).

The Qur’ān’s four brief recounts conflict on several points with the one extensive account of Lot in the Old Testament. More importantly, the Qur’ān’s four accounts and their variations conflict with each other, most notably the final actions and consequences of Lot’s wife: whether she looked around, and whether she was saved from God’s annihilation of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Questions: (1) For a sacred book “in plain Arabic language” (see Q 26.195), why would these four versions about Lot and his wife in the Qur’ān not align on some of the most important points of this story—the actions and fate of Lot’s wife? (2) Why do two of the passages about Lot single out an old woman and her death by God’s punishment of the city’s people?

Among the various readings, differences in initial consonants and final endings in one word affect meaning:

Majority reading is baqīyatu (“residue”). Islamic commentator Ibn Kathīr offers several meanings for “residue,” such as the bounty of Allah, the commandment of Allah, the obedience to Allah, and the like.

Ibn ‘Abbās read taqīyatu with the consonant t instead of b. The intended meaning is the reverence of Allah.

This phenomenon of different words and letters among the variant readings of this and other verses in the Qur’ān is a continual problem. This problem stems from the lack of dotting in the early codices of the Qur’ān. Without these definitive dots for guidance, readers developed their readings based on their personal taste, skill, and understanding.

Question: Which word—baqīyatu or taqīyatu—is the original word and its intended meaning?

Among the various readings, differences in the singularity or plurality of a noun affect meaning:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads ghayābati (“the bottom”).

Ibn Mas‘ūd (and his codex) and others read it with a closed (ة) instead of an open (ت) consonant t for this word.

Nāfi‘ and Abū Ja‘far read ghayābāti (“the bottoms”) with a plural noun.

The interchanging of singular and plural nouns is very common in the readings. The main reason for these fluctuations is that the alif (ا) in the middle of the word rarely appears in the earliest codices, which lack dots and diacritical marks. This situation creates ambiguity in the ‘Uthmānic codex and thus does not resolve whether the word is singular or plural in this verse. This confusing dilemma remains here in this verse and many other places.

Among the various readings, the differences in wording produce different meanings:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads yarta‘ wa yal‘ab (“to enjoy himself and play”; Yusuf Ali trans.).

Ibn Ibn Abī ‘Abla read yar‘a wa yal‘ab (“to go to pasture and to play”).

Muqātil Ibn Ģaīyān read nalhū wa nal‘ab (“amuse ourselves with play”).

The differences in these readings indicate that every reader read according to his own imagery and understanding of the text and not to a particular inspiration. For instance, the current Arabic Qur’ān reading refers to Joseph and uses the word yarta‘ (from al-rat‘u), which means eating and drinking happily in the countryside.7 The second reading refers to Joseph, who shepherds the flock and plays. The third reading refers to Joseph and his brothers, who amuse themselves and play.

In analyzing the different word choices in the readings, the word yarta‘, or “enjoys” in the sense of eating and drinking, lacks persuasive power because it would be more reasonable for the young Joseph to eat and drink at home. Similarly, the brothers’ request to their father to let Joseph help them with their flocks seems most unusual and, again, unpersuasive given his youth and inexperience. Therefore, the reading in which the brothers wish to play and have fun with their young brother seems the most logical in this scenario and the most persuasive in cajoling a doting father into letting his son go with them.

Question: Which of the three meanings is the verse’s true communication?

Among the various readings, different word choices affect meaning:

Majority reading is ‘ishā’an (“at eve”), which is the beginning of the evening’s darkness.

Al-Ģasan al-Bašrī, al-A‘mash, al-Muţţawwi‘ī, Ibn al-Samayfi‘ and others read ‘ushā’an (“darkness”).

Al-Ģasan al-Bašrī is said to have read ‘ushān (عُشًا), which is the plural of ‘āshin (“one who had dinner”).

It is rather surprising that some Islamic commentators, such as al-Qurţubī, try to justify the existence of the word ‘ishā’an (“at eve”) in the context of the verse, although the meaning of the word is clear. Al-Qurţubī states in his interpretation that ‘ishā’an means “in the night…because it is easier to apologize in the darkness”. Al-Qurţubī’s view might be reasonable if the loss was a replaceable possession, but the context here is related to the loss of Jacob’s most beloved son, a catastrophe that cannot be eased by choosing a particular time to announce it. It is difficult to imagine any father able to control his reaction while receiving such catastrophic news just because darkness has fallen.

The third reading, which has no hamza, aligns with the consonantal scripting (rasm) in the ‘Uthmānic codex (عسا), which also has no dots, diacritical marks, or hamzas (ٔ ). The context of the verse shows that Joseph’s brothers wanted to deceive their father. By only dotting the first consonant of the word, it becomes ghishān (غشًا), which means “deceiving or cheating.” This word ghishān perfectly matches the context, resulting in the proposed following verse: “And they came to their father deceiving and weeping” (emphasis added). (Remember, Joseph’s brothers deceived their father by claiming that the wolf had eaten Joseph.) Christoph Luxenberg, a scholar of ancient Semitic languages, points out that by adding this dot to the originally unmarked word to make it ghishān, the verse becomes clearer in meaning and closer to the context and reflects the personalities of the brothers more eloquently and accurately than “And they came to their father at eve and weeping.”

The reading by Luxenberg, with his theory about ghishān, is more convincing and more appropriate contextually than the attempt provided by al-Qurţubī.

Majority reading: qaddat ("she tore"). Abu Hayan interprets the verb qad as the ("tear or split.) Most commonly used for vertical tear."

Al-Hassan's reading is qattat. Abu Hyaan "…the 'qat' is for sideway tear"

Al-Hassan also read it "Ottat" where "Al-Ott" is a linear tear/cut. It is also said: "Al-Att is tearing a garment or others without specifying the direction."

Among the various readings, the use of unusual words that are not of the common Arabic vernacular is one of the puzzling features of the Qur’ān:

Majority reading is alfayā (“they met”).

Ibn Mas‘ūd read this word as wajadā (“they found”), instead of alfayā (“they met”). While there is not a difference in the meaning of the verse, wajadā is the commonly used expression in the Arabic language.

Questions: (1) Why is the majority reading alfayā, an expression rarely used by the typical Arabic speaker? (2) Did Ibn Mas‘ūd decide to change alfayā to wajadā for this reason, or did he hear wajadā directly from Muģammad and did not dare change it with another reading? (3) If the reading of Ibn Mas‘ūd (one of only four authoritative readers specifically designated by Muģammad) is authentic—the true words of the Qur’ān—why do the other readings deviate from it?

Among the various readings, differences in the type of noun—common or proper—affect meaning:

Majority reading is wa qulna ģāshā li-lāhi (“and [they] said, ‘God forbid!”).

Al-Ģasan al-Bašrī read wa qulna ģāshā al-’ilāhi (“and [they] said, ‘the god forbid!”).

The majority reading indicates that when the Egyptian women saw Joseph, they said “God forbid!” as if they believed in the God of Joseph. However, historical sources, artifacts, and hieroglyphics indicate that the ancient Egyptians believed in pagan gods and did not know—let alone, believe—in this God of Joseph. Therefore, the reading of al-Ģasan al-Bašrī more accurately expresses an exclamation made by people living in a culture that worships idols.

Among the various readings, different pronunciations of the same word prompt some Islamic scholars to suggest different language origins:

Majority read ģattā (“until a time”).

Ibn Mas‘ūd read it as ‘attā (“until a time”).

It is noteworthy that Ibn Mas‘ūd consistently read the word ‘attā wherever it is found in the Qur’ān: Q 12.35, Q 23.25 and 54, Q 37.174 and 178, and Q 51.43. ‘Umar Ibn al-Khaţţāb, the second caliph, asked him to read as the majority reading in these verses, but the codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd still contains this word ‘attā in these verses.

Al-Khaţīb (quoting Ibn Jinnī) explains that ‘attā is in a different language:

[O]f such a thing is what has been related concerning ‘Umar that he heard a man reading, “…‘attā ģīn….” He said [to the man], “Who makes you read it so?” The man replied, “Ibn Mas‘ūd.” So, he [‘Umar] wrote to him [Ibn Mas‘ūd]: “Allah...sent down the Qur’ān, making it Arabic. He sent it down in the language of the Quraysh. So, make the people read according to the language of the Quraysh, not by the language of Hudhayl....”

Because Ibn Mas‘ūd was from the Hudhayl tribe, perhaps ‘Umar assumed the word ‘attā was from the Hudhayl language.

Questions: (1) Was the use of this non-Quraysh word ‘attā a linguistic choice made by Ibn Mas‘ūd or was this word given to him by Muģammad? If the latter, why would Muģammad use such a word? (2) Was ‘Umar’s request to Ibn Mas‘ūd to change his reading just one of other requests? (3) How do such requests and possible changes affect the belief that the Qur’ān’s text is divine revelation, the exact words of Allah?

In this verse, the variant readings present two issues:

Word choice

Majority reading is khamran (“wine”).

’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b and Ibn Mas‘ūd read ‘inban (“grapes”).

There is a problem here because khamran (“wine”) can be made from the juice of grapes, dates, figs, or any other fruit. However, according to the second reading, it is specifically the making of grape juice. This reading reflects the same meaning as presented in the Joseph story in the Torah: “Pharaoh’s cup was in my hand, and I took the grapes, squeezed them into Pharaoh’s cup and put the cup in his hand.” (NIV, Gen. 40.11; emphasis added).

One scholarly opinion suggests that “wine” means “grapes” in the Omani language.30 But the Arabic, and not the Omani language, is supposedly the language of the Qur’ānic text; Omanis were not Muslim when the verse was given.

Still, the majority reading has its own problems.

Questions: (1) How can one squeeze wine, which has already been squeezed? (2) What is the wine’s source: apple, grapes, or some other fruit?

Word choice

Majority reading is khubzan (“loaves”).

Codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd shows the word scripted instead as tharidan (“bread soaked in broth”).

Was Ibn Mas‘ūd’s reading influenced by the culinary taste of his time (seventh century AD) because Arabs preferred tharīd over similar foods? It is known that Muģammad commanded Muslims to take the Qur’ān from few individuals—among them, Ibn Mas‘ūd—who had served Muģammad and heard the Qur’ān directly from him. (See the article “Compilation of the Qur’ān,” Qur’ān Dilemma 1: 47.) Even if this variant reading from the codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd comes directly from Muģammad, perhaps ‘Uthmān’s committee changed it when it realized that tharid was not among the foods known to the Egyptians during Joseph’s time.

Among the various readings, differences in wording—perhaps caused by deliberate alterations to the text—produce differences in meaning:

Majority reading is unabbi’ukum (“I will inform you”).

Al-Ģasan al-Bašrī is said to have read ’ujibkum (“I reply to you”).

’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b and others read ’ātīkum (“I will bring to you”).

Ibn al-Khaţīb states in his book Al-Furqān that al-Ģajjāj Ibn Yūsuf al-Thaqafī changed Q 12.45 to “I will inform you of the interpretation” from its codex script, which was “I will bring to you the interpretation.”40 (See inset text “Human Tampering of the Qur’ān: Cross Accusations,” page 74.) Al-Sijistānī confirms this statement in his book Kitāb al-Mašāģif.

This alleged change, the phrase ’unabbi’akum (“I will inform you”), unfortunately does not correspond well with the entire context of the Joseph story. In the story, Joseph is imprisoned with two men, the Pharaoh’s chief cupbearer and baker. When they are troubled by dreams, Joseph offers to interpret these dreams. He tells the cupbearer he will soon be freed and resume his prior position but tells the baker he will soon be executed. Joseph’s interpretations are fulfilled just as he said. When Pharaoh is troubled by his own dreams, the cupbearer says to him ’unabbi’akum (“I will inform you”), according to this (majority) reading, which means the man is incorrectly saying that he—and not Joseph—is the interpreter of dreams.

Ibn al-Khaţīb states that the codex script, “I will bring you the interpretation” means “I will bring someone who will interpret for you”—in other words, Joseph. Ibn al-Khaţīb reasons that in al-Ģajjāj’s efforts (after consultations with noted scholars and readers) to remove textual corruption and faulty scribal transmission from the Qur’ān, he inadvertently made this verse even less clear.

Questions: (1) Several Muslim scholars have documented this deliberate change to the Qur’ān by al-Ģajjāj. Is it reasonable to assume that other changes to the Qur’ān have been made by humans? (2) If the Qur’ānic text has been changed—for better or for worse—by humans, why not allow scholars to freely study the Qur’ān on scientific grounds, away from fanaticism and arrogance, to correct or improve the parts that have been changed?

Among the various readings, differences in voice—active or passive—and parallelism change meaning:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads ya‘širūna (“they shall press”), which means that they shall press the grapes.

Ibn ‘Abbās and others read ta‘širūna (“you shall press”).

Ja‘far Ibn Muģammad, al-A‘raj and ‘Īsā al-Bašra read yu‘šarūna (“they shall be pressed”), in the passive voice.

‘Īsā also read tu‘šarūna (“you shall be pressed”), in the passive voice.

The current Arabic Qur’ān reading, ya‘širūna (“they shall press”), uses a third-person pronoun, where Allah is speaking. The reading of Ibn ‘Abbās, ta‘širūna (“you shall press”), uses a second-person pronoun, which means that Joseph, the prophet of Allah, is the speaker, addressing Pharaoh and his people.

The variant third and fourth readings that use “they shall be pressed” and “you shall be pressed” mean that Pharaoh and his people will experience hard times. But these readings, stating that the people will be hard-pressed, conflict with the overall context of this verse, which describes a positive year where the people “shall have rain” (Palmer trans.) or “will be succoured [relieved]” (Arberry trans.).

The most likely cause of this jarring juxtaposition is the lack of dotting and diacritical marks47 in the early codices, leading to this strange pairing by these readers, guided only by their own preferences and understanding.

To make the verse congruent and parallel, both of its parts should describe either a positive or a negative year. With different dotting of the problematic word, two possibilities emerge for making the verse sound:Positive form: “Then...will come after that a year in which men shall be relieved [yughāthu: يُغَاثُ] and in which they/you shall press [ta‘širūna: تَعْصِرُونَ].”

Negative form: “Then...will come after that a year in which men shall be disgraced [yu‘ābu: يُعَابُ] and in which they/you shall be pressed [tu‘šarūna: تُعْصَرُونَ].

Still, even if the verse’s two parts are resolved in the variant third and fourth readings by following the negative form, it means an eighth year of hard times. An extra year of hard times does not agree with the preceding verses, which mention seven plentiful years and “seven severe” years. (See Q 12.47-48.) Among all the four readings, the reading of Ibn ‘Abbās most closely fits the context of this passage. It also shows parallelism with the preceding verses by repeating the positive-form pattern established in Q 12.47 (tazra‘ūna: “you shall sow”; ta’kulūna: “you shall eat”) and Q 12.48 (tuģšinūna: “you shall preserve”) with ta‘širūna (“you shall press”) in Q 12.29.

Among the various readings, possible word omissions and incompatible grammatical forms reduce eloquence and affect meaning:

Majority reading is ’āwā ’ilayhi ’abawayhi (“he took his father and mother into his arms”).

Note: Palmer incorrectly translates ’abawayhi (“his two parents”) as “his father” in this verse. See instead Arberry’s translation: “So, when they entered unto Joseph, he took his father and mother into his arms saying, ‘Enter you into Egypt, if God will, in security”.

Ibn Mas‘ūd and his codex read ’āwā ’ilayhi ’abawayhi wa ’ikhwatihi (“he took his father and mother and brothers into his arms”).

If Joseph is addressing only his two parents, as mentioned in the majority reading, then why doesn’t the Qur’ān use the Arabic dual formD1 in his invitation, “Enter you both into Egypt”? (Unlike the English language, the Arabic language uses a form of “you” to mean only two subjects.)

The codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd uses the Arabic plural form (more than two subjects) in Joseph’s invitation, “Enter you into Egypt,” which perfectly matches the number of subjects in his reading: “his father and mother and brothers.”

Questions: (1) Was the phrase “his brothers” omitted from the ‘Uthmānic codex? (2) Or was the committee of Zayd Ibn Thābit inattentive during the compilation of the early Qur’ān regarding the grammatical form of this verse?

For this verse, the variant readings present two issues:

Textual differences

Majority reading is lahu mu‘aqqibātun min bayni yadayhi wa min khalfihi (“Each of them has pursuers before him and behind him”).

’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b read (...) min bayni yadayhi wa raqībun min khalfihi with the word raqīb (“overseer”) before the word “behind”: “Each of them has pursuers before him and [an] overseer behind him….”

Ibn ‘Abbās read (...) min bayni yadayhi wa ruqabā’un min khalfihi with the word ruqabā’ (“overseers”) before the word “behind”: “Each of them has pursuers before him and overseers behind him….”

Abū Ģātim read (...) min khalfihi wa raqībun min bayni yadayhi (“Each of them has pursuers behind him and [an] overseer from between his hands”). Instead of “behind him,” the overseer (“raqīb”) is between his hands.

The role of the “pursuers” (Islamic scholars suggest they are angels) is not clear in the verse, though the use of the word “overseer(s)” in some of the readings does explain the role of the “pursuers.” This alteration in the text demonstrates that the text is subject to the literary convictions of the writer, rather than the text being a divine text written exactly as it was revealed.

Islamic commentator Abū Haiyān explains that these differences in the readings should be viewed as commentary and not as the literal authentic Qur’ānic text because these readings are different than all the major codices accepted by Muslims. His explanation thus means that every reading that differs from the ‘Uthmānic codex is therefore not an authentic reading of the true Qur’ān.

However, new discoveries, such as the Šan‘ā’ manuscripts, reveal many differences between these ancient manuscripts and the ‘Uthmānic codex. One example can be seen in Q 9.80. (Emphasis added in red to indicate difference):

Differences between Early Qur’ānic Manuscripts

and ‘Uthmānic Codex: Example Q 9.80

Current Arabic Qur’ān

(Arberry translation)

Šan‘ā’ Manuscripts19

Ask pardon [forgiveness] for them, or ask not pardon for them; if thou askest pardon for them seventy times, God will not pardon them; that, because they disbelieved in God and His Messenger; God guides not the people of the ungodly.

Ask pardon [forgiveness] for them, or ask not pardon for them; if thou askest pardon for them seventy times, God does not pardon them; verily, God guides not the people of the ungodly.

اسْتَغْفِرْ لَهُمْ أَوْ لَا تَسْتَغْفِرْ لَهُمْ إِن تَسْتَغْفِرْ لَهُمْ سَبْعِينَ مَرَّةً فَلَن يَغْفِرَ الله لَهُمْ ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ كَفَرُوا بِالله وَرَسُولِهِ وَالله لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الْفَاسِقِينَ

اسْتَغْفِرْ لَهُمْ أَوْ لَا تَسْتَغْفِرْ لَهُمْ إِن تَسْتَغْفِرْ لَهُمْ سَبْعِينَ مَرَّةً لا يَغْفِرَ اللَّهُ لَهُمْ إن الله لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الْفَاسِقِينَ

Questions: (1) If these early codices (with readings from Ibn Mas‘ūd, ‘Alī Ibn Abī Ţālib, ’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b, etc.) cannot be considered “The Qur’ān” because they contain textual differences from the ‘Uthmānic codex, what are they and how should they be treated? (2) How should early Qur’ānic manuscripts of the Qur’ān, such as the Šan‘ā’ manuscripts, be classified when parts or verses may be completely different in script and meaning from the current Arabic Qur’ān?

Prepositional differences

Majority reading is yaģfažūnahu min ’amri Allahi (“[they] keep guard over him at the command of God”).

‘Alī Ibn Abī Ţālib, Ibn ‘Abbās, and others read bi (“by”) instead of the word min (“from” or “at”): “…to keep guard over him by the command of God….” A third reading uses min (“at”) instead of li (“for”).

Another reading attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās (min amri Allahi yaģfažūnahu) uses a different verb order: “…from the command of Allah they keep guard over him….”