Textual History of the Qur'an: Difference between revisions

Before Caliph [[Uthman_ibn_Affan|Uthman]] standardised the Quranic consonantal text (QCT) around 650 CE, large numbers of variants later documented by Muslim scholars were read by various companions of Muhammad, often differing in whole words and phrases. Academic experts have found material support for such reports in some of the oldest Quran manuscripts. There are also hadith reports that substantial numbers of verses had already been lost. The fear of permanently losing verses is said to have motivated the initial collection of the Qur'an under Caliph [[Abu_Bakr_Abdullah_ibn_Uthman|Abu Bakr]]. Notwithstanding a number of scribal errors during the initial copying process, Uthman was essentially successful in stabilising the QCT, or rasm. However, due to limitations in the early stage of Arabic orthography in use at that time, a wide variety of oral readings (qira'at) within this standardised rasm was possible. This continued until the oral readings too were stabilised over centuries and orthography developed to more fully document them. Tens of thousands of variants are attributed to readers of the first couple of centuries, which include Muhammad's companions and early reciters, within and outside the standard rasm, besides those found in the ten canonical readings and their transmitters. The vast majority of recitation and printed Qurans in use today are based on the transmission of Hafs from the reading of 'Asim.

===Uthman (or 'Abd al-Malik b. Marwan) destroys Zayd's original Qur'an compilation===

However, some time after standardisation and her death, they were handed over to the Caliph by her brother and deliberately destroyed. Sean Anthony and Catherine Bronson note: "Zuhrī—the  earliest known scholar to emphasize the importance of Ḥafṣah’s codex for the collection of the caliph ʿUthmān’s recension—also serves as the authority for the accounts of the destruction of Ḥafṣah’s scrolls (ṣuḥuf). Hence, we are likely dealing with two intimately intertwined narratives that originated with Zuhrī and his students." On the identity of the Caliph, they note "at least four versions of the Zuhrī account assert that the caliph ʿUthmān (and not  Marwān) requested ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar to hand over Ḥafṣah’s muṣḥaf after his sister’s death, whereupon the codex was either burned or erased." In the other versions, "Marwān has the codex either erased by washing the parchment (ghasalahā ghaslan), torn to shreds (shaqqaqahā wa-mazzaqahā), or burned to ashes (fashāhā wa-ḥarraqahā)" and "Marwān himself cites 'the fear that there might be a cause to dispute that which ʿUthmān copied down because of something therein.'"<ref>Sean W. Anthony, and Catherine L. Bronson. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5913/jiqsa.1.2017.a006 Did Ḥafṣah Edit the Qurʾān? A Response with Notes on the Codices of the Prophet’s Wives] Journal of the International Qur’anic Studies Association, vol. 1, International Qur’anic Studies Association, 2016, pp. 93–125, https://doi.org/10.5913/jiqsa.1.2017.a006. (pp. 108-114)</ref>

 

:The variant is mentioned in Abu Ubaid's Kitab Fadhail al-Qur'an.<ref>As can be seen on [https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/2/vers/275 Corpus Coranicum]</ref><ref>Noldeke, History of the Qur'an p.433</ref><ref>Jeffery, Materials, p.31</ref> The variant was also recorded in the codex of Talha ibn Musarrif, a secondary codex dependent on Ibn Mas'ud's text, Talha likewise being based at Kufa in Iraq where Ibn Mas'ud was based as governor and where his codex was widely followed.<ref>Jeffery, Materials, p.343</ref>

*{{Quran|5|89}}, in the standard text, contains the exhortation ''fasiyaamu thalaathati ayyaamin'', meaning "fast for three days". Ibn Mas'ud's text had, after the last word, the adjective ''mutataabi'aatin'', meaning three "successive" days.<ref>As can be seen on [https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/5/vers/89 Corpus Coranicum]</ref>

He has noted that the famous "Birmingham Quran" too has these spelling idiosyncracies and therefore is "clearly a descendant of the Uthmanic text type".<ref>[https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1220812853495640066 Twitter.com] - Dr. Marijn van Putten ([https://web.archive.org/web/20200124212157/https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1220812853495640066 archive])</ref> It is a two page fragment (Minghana 1572a), now known to be part of a longer manuscript fragment held in Paris (BNF Arabe 328c). In her PhD thesis, Alba Fedeli showed that the combined manuscript contains numerous variants, including some which affect meaning (especially the subject or object of verbs) and a few that had been reported in the qira'at literature. These mainly involve alifs and the limited consonantal dottings present in the manuscript.<ref>Fedeli calls the combined fragments of this manuscript in Birmingham and Paris MS PaB.<BR />"A comparison between the copy of MS PaB and the Medina muṣḥaf leads to a number of differences being identified. These variants can be understood as a mirror of the linguistic competence of the copyist and his linguistic context, in that the manuscript bears some phonetic, orthographic, morphologic and syntactic variants, but also a few lexical variants, among which there are variants related to the voice and recipient of the message and some variants due to mechanical errors during the copying activity. Lastly, the manuscript exhibits a few peculiar features as regards the subdivision of the Qur’ānic text into verses. Furthermore, the analysis of the manuscript text compared with the literature of the Islamic tradition reveals a few qirā’āt that are substantiated through the manuscript itself."</BR />See pp. 147-199 of Alba Fedeli, (2014). [https://etheses.bham.ac.uk//id/eprint/5864/1/Fedeli15PhD.pdf EARLY QUR’ĀNIC MANUSCRIPTS, THEIR TEXT, AND THE ALPHONSE MINGANA PAPERS HELD IN THE DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL COLLECTIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM] (PDF) (Ph.D.). Birmingham University.</ref>

The strongest tradition holds that four copies were made, one each for Medina in the Hijaz, Syria (Hims, or less likely, Damascus<ref name="Sidky2020">Sidky, H. (2020) [https://www.academia.edu/49523638/ On the Regionality of Qurʾānic Codices] Journal of the International Qur’anic Studies Association, 5(1) doi:10.5913/jiqsa.5.2020.a005</ref>), Basra and Kufa in modern day Iraq. As mentioned above, Michael Cook identified that these 40 or so variants form a stemmatic relationship that indicates a written copying process between the four codices.<ref name="Cook"/> His list was based on al-Dani's work (d. 444 AH) and can also be read online in a paper by van Putten.<ref>See the Appendix in Van Putten, M. (2020) [https://www.academia.edu/41712793/Hi%C5%A1a_ms_%CA%BEIbra_ha_m_Evidence_for_a_Canonical_Quranic_Reading_Based_on_the_Rasm Hišām's ʾIbrāhām: Evidence for a Canonical Quranic Reading Based on the Rasm] Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 30(2), 231-250. doi:10.1017/S1356186319000518</ref> Compiling a similar but improved list of the regional variants widely attested by Muslim scholars, Hythem Sidky reconstructed the same stemma as found by Cook for what must have been four regional exemplar codices.<ref name="Sidky2020" /> This is mainly derived due to the twelve variants shared by Syria and Medina to the exclusion of Basra and Kufa, fifteen isolated Syrian variants and three isolated Kufan variants.<ref>ibid. p. 143</ref> Sidky also found an "excellent agreement" between these reports and the earliest manuscripts. In additon, Sidky was able to reproduce the stemmatic result by means of a phylogenetic analysis of these regional differences within the earliest manuscripts (except that Kufa did not achieve a separate node since only one early Kufan manuscript is available). Sidky also found that "a comparison of literary reports against the earliest manuscripts reveals that knowledge of the regional variants does not date back to the time of canonization but was accumulated over time through careful scrutiny of regional muṣḥafs". This indicates that the Uthmanic committee were unaware or did not share information about these differences. He has also commented separately on this topic that further reasons for believing them to be scribal errors are that they are so few in number in what were obviously and reportedly intended to be identical copies, and that they are so insignificant, looking like typical scribal errors that occur in later copying, especially compared to the kinds of more meaningful variants found in companion readings (see earlier section on these above).<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210723202034/https://twitter.com/therealsidky/status/1418667335251075075 Archived Twitter thread] - "How do we know that the variants between the Uthmanic codices are scribal errors?", Hythem Sidky, 23 July 2021</ref>

Since Sinai's articles, further evidence in support of an Uthmanic standardisation has been identified by van Putten proving that all known Quranic manuscripts  (except Sanaa 1) must descend from a single archetype (see above). Shoemaker notes van Putten's evidence could fit either theory. However, the archetype necessarily would have to be earlier still than the earliest surviving manuscripts or fragments. This seems to favour an Uthmanic codification, since while Shoemaker and others are very critical of the reliability of manuscript radio carbon dating, the paleographic dating (study of handwriting and ornamentation, supported by dated inscription evidence) would also have to be later than supposed to allow time for a c. 700 CE archetype. Defenders of radio-carbon dating would point out that the three most reputable testing laboratories in the world (Arizona, Zurich and Oxford) concur on a first half of the 7th century date for the Sanaa 1 palimpsest, the most repeatedly tested Quranic manuscript. Another subsequent consideration must be van Putten's work on the Hijazi dialect of the QCT (see below and pages 220-221 of his book), which fits al-Zuhri's account that Uthman instructed for the codices to be written in the Quraysh dialect. Hythem Sidky's work published in 2021 (see above) confirms that four regional exemplar codices were sent out and found that the Syrian codex was likely sent to Hims (modern day Homs) rather than Damascus (as sometimes assumed, with virtually no evidence). Among other evidence he notes that a Hims copy fits a version of the Uthmanic codification account recorded by Sayf b. ʿUmar al-Tamīmī (d. ca. 180/796). It could also perhaps be argued that an Umayyad standardisation would have first ensured that one of the few exemplar copies would go to Damascus had it occured under their reign since this had been their power base since Mu'awiya (661 CE). Also of likely relevance is that in 2006, Fred Leemhuis noted that the Dome of the Rock (built 692 CE) exhibits a probably short-lived orthographic convention in which the letter qaf was distinguised by a dot below the line, and that this convention is also found in four of the oldest Quran manuscripts.<ref>Fred Leemhuis (2006) 'From Palm Leaves to the Internet' in McAuliffe J. D. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to the Qur'an, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 47-48</ref>

As mentioned above, numerous possible oral readings of the Qur'an can be and were imposed upon the Uthmanic rasm (an early stage of Arabic orthography, which lacked diacritics such as short vowel signs, most word-internal ʾalifs, and only to a limited extent included dotting to distinguish certain consonants). Today we have seven or ten canonical qira'at, which are slightly different early oral recitations or readings of the Qur'an by famous readers. There were once many more qira'at, from which twenty-five were described by Abu 'Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam two centuries after Muhammad's death, and restricted to seven after three centuries following a work by Abu Bakr ibn Mujahid (d.936 CE). A further three qira'at were added to the canon many centuries later by Ibn al-Jazari (d.1429 CE) - those of Abu Jafar, Ya'qub and Khalaf. These three had been popular since the time of the seven<ref>Various sized selections of qira'at were published over the centuries. Ibn Mihran (d. 991) was the first to choose the same set of ten. See Christopher Melchert (2008) [https://www.jstor.org/stable/25728289 The Relation of the Ten Readings to One Another] Journal of Qur'anic Studies Vol.10 (2) pp.73-87</ref>, and provide additional variants.<ref>See for example 19:25, 82:9, and 21:104 on [https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/ corpuscoranicum.de]</ref> Some scholars regarded them as having a somewhat less reliable transmission status than the seven.<ref>Ahmad 'Ali al Imam (1998), "Variant Readings of the Quran: A critical study of their historical and linguistic origins", Institute of Islamic Thought: Virginia, USA, pp.126-133</ref> Ibn al Jazari lamented that the masses only accepted the seven readings chosen by Ibn Mujahid.<ref>Shady Hekmat Nasser, [https://books.google.com/books?id=Kx7i2Y56WuYC&pg=PA57&dq=aasim+qira%27ah&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=aasim%20qira'ah&f=false ''The Transmission of the Variant Readings of the  Qur'an: The Problem of Tawaatur and the Emergence of Shawaadhdh''], p. 64. Leiden: Brill Publishers, 2012.</ref>

Each of the Qira'at has two canonical transmissions (riwayat) named after its transmitters, one of which is the basis for any particular text (mushaf) of the Qur'an. For example, the mushaf used mainly in North Africa is based on the riwayah of Warsh from Nafi (the reading of Nafi transmitted by Warsh). As Nasser explains, the two-Rawi canon for ibn Mujahid's choice of seven readings was effectively canonized due to the popularity both of a simplified student Qira'at manual by al-Dani (d.1053 CE; who in another more complicated work documents a larger range of transmissions for each reader), and a poetic form of this manual by al-Shatibi (d.1388 CE).<ref>Nasser, S.H. (2013) "The Two-Rāwī Canon before and after ad-Dānī (d. 444/1052–3): The Role of Abū ṭ-Ṭayyib Ibn Ghalbūn (d. 389/998) and the Qayrawān/Andalus School in Creating the Two-Rāwī Canon", ''Oriens'' 41 (1-02), 41-75</ref> The canonical transmitters all differ in their readings, even when they transmit from the same reader. This two transmitter system was expanded when Ibn al Jazari canonized the three readers after the seven mentioned above, giving twenty canonical transmitters for the ten readers in total.

A related question on which scholars differed was whether or not all the ahruf were preserved. One group including Ibn Hazm (d.1064 CE) believed that all seven ahruf were accomodated by the Uthmanic rasm (consonantal skeleton), finding it unimaginable that anything would be omitted.<ref>Nasser, S. [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mRAzAQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover ''The Transmission of the Variant Readings of the Qurʾān: The Problem of Tawātur and the Emergence of Shawādhdh''], Leiden, Boston:Brill, 2013, p.83</ref>. Al-Tabari argued that only one harf was preserved by Uthman (which he interpreted to mean the dialect of the Quraysh), while Ibn al Jazari said the view of most scholars is that only as many of the ahruf as the Uthmanic rasm accommodated were preserved<ref>Ahmad 'Ali al Imam (1998), "Variant Readings of the Quran: A critical study of their historical and linguistic origins", Institute of Islamic Thought: Virginia, USA, pp.65-67</ref>. Indeed, this latter view is more viable theologically, for the non-Uthmanic companion readings must be fraudulent under the first view, and problems with the second view include those mentioned above.

As part of the majority view reported by Ibn al Jazari, the Uthmanic codex was based on the harf of the "final review" or final revealed version of the Quran<ref>Ibid. p.66</ref>. However, there were around 40 scribal errors in the official copies of the Uthmanic text (see below).<ref>See the list in Cook, M. (2004) “The Stemma of the Regional Codices of the Koran,” ''Graeco-Arabica'', 9-10 or Nasser, S. "The Second Canonization of the Qurʾān (324/936)" Brill, 2020, pp.143-150</ref> Canonical qira'at were required to comply with this range rather than an entirely unified text. Indeed, in some cases they even strayed beyond these boundaries.<ref name="li-yahaba-li-nahaba">See for example {{Quran|19|19}}, where Abu Amr and the transmission of Warsh from Nafi have Gabriel saying to Mary li-yahaba ("that he may give") instead of li-'ahaba ("that I may give") [https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/19/vers/19 corpuscoranicum.de]. The ya consonant for this variant is sometimes written in red ink on manuscripts or superscript in print.<BR>The non-canonical Ṣan'ā' 1 palimpsest solves the theologically awkward reading in another way, using li-nahaba ("that we may give") - See p.64, line 15 of Folio 22B in  

Muslims are commonly told that the differences between the Qira'at can be explained away as styles of pronunciation or dialect and spelling rules. Called uṣūl, these are rules that apply to the entire reading, causing tens of thousands of tiny differences with no impact on meaning. Yet there is another category, called farsh, of individual differences that cannot be generalised in rules, which also includes changes in wording. In a few cases the variants added or omitted words, and others are completely different words or contradict each other in meaning. The Corpus Coranicum database<ref>[http://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/1/vers/1 Corpus Coranicum - Variants tab]</ref>, the Encyclopedia of the Readings of the Quran database<ref>[https://erquran.org/ https://erquran.org] to see the variants in Arabic script and transliterated, including non-canonical variants</ref>, and the nquran website<ref>[http://nquran.com nquran.com] to see the variants in Arabic script</ref> can be used as neutral online sources for verifying the existence of such variations in the Qira'at. The Bridges translation of the Quran by Fadel Soliman was published in 2020 and highlights words with canonical variants, listing them in English with their readers as footnotes. It is available as a free Android/iOS app or can be purchased as a pdf or hard copy. An interesting example is given below, and more of them are listed in the tables in the next sections.

Apart from other earlier variant readings, and those of al-Duri from Abu Amr still used in Sudan, and of Hisham from Ibn Amir still used in parts of Yemen, there are two different readings of the Qur'an currently widespread in printed text (mushaf), named after their respective 2nd-century transmitters: Hafs from Asim (one of the Kufan readers) and Warsh from Nafi (of Medina).  

|[[:File:Bridges 2 125.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/2/vers/125 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=2&aya=125 nquran.com]

|[[:File:Bridges 2 140.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/2/vers/140 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=2&aya=140 nquran.com]

|[[:File:Bridges 2 184.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/2/vers/184 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=2&aya=184 nquran.com]

|[[:File:Bridges 3 146.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/3/vers/146 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=3&aya=146 nquran.com]

|[[:File:Bridges 7 57.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/7/vers/57 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=7&aya=57 nquran.com]

|[[:File:Bridges 19 19.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/19/vers/19 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=19&aya=19 nquran.com]

|[[:File:Bridges 21 4.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/21/vers/4 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=21&aya=4 nquran.com]

|[[:File:Bridges 30 22.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/30/vers/22 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=30&aya=22 nquran.com]

|[[:File:Bridges 43 19.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/43/vers/19 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=43&aya=19 nquran.com]

|[[:File:Bridges 57 24.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/57/vers/24 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=57&aya=24 nquran.com]

|[[:File:Bridges 5 6.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/5/vers/6 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=5&aya=6 nquran.com]

|[[:File:Bridges 17 102.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/17/vers/102 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=17&aya=102 nquran.com]

|[[:File:Bridges 20 96.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/20/vers/96 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=20&aya=96 nquran.com]

|The three Kufans (Asim, Hamza, and al-Kisa'i) read yarta' wa-yal'ab (he may eat well and play)

|[[:File:Bridges 12 12.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/12/vers/12 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=12&aya=12 nquran.com]

|[[:File:Bridges 12 49.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/12/vers/49 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=12&aya=49 nquran.com]

|[[:File:Bridges 12 63.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/12/vers/63 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=12&aya=63 nquran.com]

|These variants give rise to conflicting instructions from the angels to Lot<ref>See the explanation in [https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=11&tAyahNo=81&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2 Tafsir al-Jalalayn], which is also common among early commentators and grammarians, who clearly did not hold the centuries later view that every variant is divine. Much later, for example, Abu Hayyan claimed that in both readings the exception refers to Lut's wife looking back, despite the contradiction with other surahs mentioning that she stayed behind, and despite Ibn Mas'ud's version which omits the look back part, and despite the fact that a variant wasn't needed (and the embarassement could have been avoided) if they both meant the same thing.</ref><ref>Regarding this variant see also [https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1452668408269520904 The story of Lot (...) finds clear parallels with the story as told in Gen. 19. A thread on a specific reading variant."] Twitter.com thread by Dr. Marijn van Putten - 25 October 2021 ([https://web.archive.org/web/20211026204953/https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1452668408269520904 archive])</ref>

|[[:File:Bridges 11 81.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/11/vers/81 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=11&aya=81 nquran.com]

|[[:File:Bridges 37 12.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/37/vers/12 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=37&aya=12 nquran.com]

|[[:File:Bridges 2 116.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/2/vers/116 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=2&aya=116 nquran.com]

|[[:File:Bridges 19 25.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/19/vers/25 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=19&aya=25 nquran.com]

|[[:File:Bridges 21 96.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/21/vers/96 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=21&aya=96 nquran.com]

|[[:File:Bridges 23 115.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/23/vers/115 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=23&aya=115 nquran.com]

|[[:File:Bridges 59 14.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/59/vers/14 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=59&aya=14 nquran.com]

Altogether, there are around 1,400 words with variants among the canonical readings of the Quran<ref>Marjin van Putten has suggested the number of farsh variants is about 1,400 based on one counting method - see this [https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1619296362910351366 twitter.com thread] - 28 January 2023 ([https://web.archive.org/web/20230205001535/https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1619296362910351366 archive])</ref><ref>See the tables of variants in Abu Fayyad, Fawzi Ibrahim (1989) [http://theses.gla.ac.uk/78058/ The Seven Readings of the Qur'an: A Critical Study of Their Linguistic Differences]. PhD thesis, University of Glasgow.</ref>, about two percent of the total. These are the farsh differences mentioned above. Some are regarded as dialect differences, while others including vowel differences affect grammar and meaning. Around 300 involve different consonantal dotting, generally changing attached pronouns or sometimes producing a different root word. In addition, there are around 40 variants arising from the regional Uthmanic codices (see below), in a few cases adding or omitting insignificant words. It is common for a word to have more than two variants, with no obvious intention in so much variety.<ref name="19.25">A good example is {{Quran|19|25}}, where [https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/19/vers/25 corpuscoranicum.de] shows four canonical readings for the word "it will drop": Ya'qub's yassāqaṭ where "it" refers to the (masculine) trunk, and three other forms such as tassāqaṭ where "it" refers to the (feminine) palm tree (as mentioned for this verse in [http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume4/00000103.pdf Lane's Lexicon p.1379]), with or without shaddah to emphasise the number of dates falling. It further documents several non-canonical variants for this same word.</ref>  

In terms of the material evidence, virtually all known manuscripts are of the Uthmanic text type, the oldest of which lack diacritics and therefore limits the ability to identify variants. Early vocalised manuscripts with diacritics tend to mainly involve canonical variants (albeit the reading as a whole is rarely recognisable as belonging to any known reader). However, as noted above, the Sanaa 1 palimpsest is known for having dozens of non-Uthmanic variants similar to those reported of the companions. In addition, a PhD thesis by leading Quranic manuscript expert, Alba Fedeli, describes a few of the very early Mingana collection manuscripts (including the famous Birmingham fragment, which is now known to be actually part of a larger manuscript). This was notable in that most of the recognisable qira'at variants therein complied with the Uthmanic rasm standard, but were mostly not canonical, matching instead variants reported of companions or (more commonly) early non-canonical reciters.<ref>Alba Fedeli (2014). [https://etheses.bham.ac.uk//id/eprint/5864/1/Fedeli15PhD.pdf EARLY QUR’ĀNIC MANUSCRIPTS, THEIR TEXT, AND THE ALPHONSE MINGANA PAPERS HELD IN THE DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL COLLECTIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM] (PDF) (Ph.D.). Birmingham University. <BR>See the Qira'at sections for the three manuscripts on pp. 170-172, 227-235 and 308-309. These are identifiable sometimes from consonantal dottings, but mostly by the variant usage of word-internal ʾalifs, which was considered to comply with the Uthmanic rasm at that time. Short vowels marks were not yet in use at the time of these manuscripts.</ref>

This would be an extraordinary coincidence if the variants are entirely due to oral transmissions going back to the recitations of Muhammad (though certainly the general agreement between readings where the rasm is ambiguous demonstrates that there was also oral transmission <ref>{{citation |last1=Van Putten |first1=Marijn |date=April 2020|title=Hišām's ʾIbrāhām : Evidence for a Canonical Quranic Reading Based on the Rasm |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338434122_Hisam%27s_Ibraham_Evidence_for_a_Canonical_Quranic_Reading_Based_on_the_Rasm |journal=Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society |volume=30 |issue=2 |pages=251 |access-date=7 July 2020}} pp.15-16 of the open access pdf</ref>). Instead, the regional correspondence of rasm and oral reading variants is easily explained if the readings were adapted to fit the codices given to those regions. By analysing the reported variants between regional codices, modern scholarship has confirmed that they form a stemma (textual tree relationship), suggesting that those particular variants did not originate in oral transmission.<ref>Ibid. pp.14-15 of the open access pdf in which the important stemmatic work of Michael Cook is highlighted.</ref> Van Putten sets out these and other arguments that the readings depend not just on oral transmission but also to an extent on the rasm in his open access book ''Quran Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions''.<ref>Van Putten, Marijn, [https://brill.com/view/title/61587 Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions], Leiden: Brill, 2022, pp. 52-55 isbn: 9789004506251</ref>

If qira'at variants could sometimes arise from variants in the rasm, we should also expect this to occur even in places where the rasm did not vary. Munther Younes highlights a particularly interesting example among the hundreds known.<ref>Younes, M., [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eQuWDwAAQBAJ&pg=PR1 ''Charging Steeds or Maidens Performing Good Deeds. In Search of the Original Qur'an''], London:Routledge, 2018 p. 3</ref> In {{Quran|4|94}} we have the canonical variants fa-tabayyanū or fa-tathabbatū. In this case, the variant root words do not share even a single consonant in common (bāʼ-yāʼ-nūn  versus thāʼ-bāʼ-tāʼ), but nevertheless both variants fit the defective script of early Quran manuscripts, which lacked most consonantal dots (becoming even scarcer in the 2nd century) and had no short vowels. Other examples of variants with the same rasm include {{Quran|6|57}}, where 4 of the canonical 7 qira'at have yaqḍi l-ḥaqqa  "He judges the truth" rather than yaquṣṣu l-ḥaqqa  "He declares the truth"<ref>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/6/vers/57 Corpus Coranicum]</ref> and {{Quran|10|30}} where two readers have tatlū (recounts, recites), whereas the other five have tablū (tests) <ref>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/10/vers/30 Corpus Coranicum]</ref>. In these examples the similarity between the variant readings is graphic (how the rasm looks) rather than phonic (how they sound) and involve consonantal dotting differences that transform one word into another, though short vowel differences make up the bulk of variants.