6-a) Qālūn: He was trustworthy in Qirāʾa, but not very much in Ḥadīth. Aḥmad b. Ṣāliḥ was asked about Qālūn’s trustworthiness in ḥadīth; he laughed and said: “Do you write down ḥadīth from anyone? Qālūn was deaf, but he was able to read people’s lips and correct their mistakes”. p.134
6-b) Warsh: He did not feature in Ḥadīth biographical dictionaries and there were no negative statements about him. p.134
7) Al-Kisāʾī: Ibn al-Aʿrābī praised al-Kisāʾī’s knowledge and said: He was the most knowledgeable of people, despite being a liar/impudent ( rahaq). He used to consume alcohol and accompany young beautiful boys, yet he was a great Qurʾān reciter. It was related that one day he led some people in prayers and recited using Ḥamza’s System of recitation. After he finished the prayer, the people in the mosque beat him up with their fists and shoes. When asked why, he replied that it was because of the decadent/lowly Reading of Ḥamza ( Qirāʾat Ḥamza al-radīʾa). p.134-135
7-a) Abū l-Ḥārith al-Layth b. Khālid: No negative statements were mentioned about him. p.135
7-b) al-Dūrī: Mentioned above in 4-a). p.135
Rāwīs & Moral Integrity p.135-136
Several Eponymous Readers and Rāwīs faced criticism for lacking moral integrity. Muslim scholars often applied different standards of ʿadāla (moral integrity) to Qurʾān and Ḥadīth transmitters, as trustworthiness could vary between disciplines. However, issues like lying, corruption, and fabricating isnāds undermine credibility across fields. For instance, Ḥafṣ, whose Qurʾānic reading is now the most widely accepted, was listed by Ibn al-Jawzī as a known liar and fabricator in Ḥadīth. Such critiques have raised questions about the reliability of these canonical figures, though some scholars caution against accepting these accusations without thorough investigation.
However, it is worth noting that several Eponymous Readers and Rāwīs did not hold a secure position when it came to their moral integrity. We may agree with how Muslim scholarship tried to separate Qurʾān from Ḥadīth in terms of the criteria of their transmitters’ ʿadāla. One could be trustworthy in Ḥadīth but weak in Qirāʾāt and vice versa. Specialization necessitated applying different standards of scrupulousness to each discipline. Nonetheless, how can we accept that the moral integrity and character of the individual were judged according to different standards based on the discipline? The aforementioned descriptions of lying, corruption, selling ḥadīth, consuming alcohol, and fabricating isnāds are at the core of a transmitter’s moral integrity, be it in Ḥadīth, Qurʾān, or court testimony. Take the case of Ḥafṣ, for example, whose rendition of the Qurʾān is the most widely accepted Qirāʾā today in most Muslim countries. In addition to the statements mentioned about him earlier, Ibn al-Jawzī listed him in his al-Ḍuʿafāʾ wa-l-matrūkīn, describing him as kadhdhāb (liar) who fabricated ḥadīth (yaḍaʿ al-ḥadīth). Appalled by these statements, the editor notes the following in a footnote: “being accused of lying must be thoroughly investigated, but God forbid, he [Ḥafṣ] would not do such a thing”. p.135-136
Anecdote Of Quran Preservation from al-Qurṭubī
Moreover, the Qurʾān was held to be protected from corruption and falsification by the oral tradition, contrary to the scriptures of Jews and Christians. Under the commentary of (Q. 15:9) “ innā naḥnu nazzalnā ‿dh-dhikra wa-innā lahu la-ḥāfiẓūna” (Lo! We, even We, reveal the Reminder, and lo! We verily are its Guardian), al-Qurṭubī mentioned the following anecdote: a well-spoken, eloquent Jewish man entered the court of al-Maʾmūn (r. 198–218/813–833), who was impressed by his demeanor and diction. Al-Maʾmūn asked him to convert to Islam, but the man refused. After a year, the Jew paid another visit to al-Maʾmūn, but as a Muslim this time. When asked about the reason for his conversion, he said: “I wanted to put the different religions to the test. I made copies of the Torah, the Bible, and the Qurʾān, but I added and omitted words and phrases. The Jews and Christians bought my copies without noticing the changes I introduced. On the other hand, the Muslims recognized them [in the Qurʾān] and refused to buy my copies. I then realized that the Qurʾān was a preserved and protected scripture. Thus, I converted to Islam”. p.140
The Case of Ibn Shanabūdh (d. 328/939)
Professor Nasser cites the incident between Ibn Mujāhid and Ibn Shanabūdh as highlighting a pivotal conflict in early Qirāʾāt tradition. Ibn Shanabūdh supported the use of shawādhdh (anomalous) readings associated with figures like Ibn Masʿūd and Ubayy b. Kaʿb, claiming sound transmission chains to legitimize them. However, Ibn Mujāhid had him tried, flogged, and forced to repent, insisting on strict adherence to the ʿUthmānic codex, which was seen as authoritative over oral variations.
Despite Ibn Shanabūdh’s respected status as a meticulous and pious scholar and his supposedly sound transmission, his severe punishment raises questions about the treatment of trusted individuals. This incident underscores the early scholarly consensus on the ʿUthmānic rasm as the definitive written standard for Qurʾānic recitation, indicating that fidelity to the written text was prioritized over other reputable oral transmissions. The lesson here is the enduring precedence of the ʿUthmānic text, establishing the principle that adherence to a standardized text, rather than alternative readings, defines orthodoxy in Qurʾānic recitation.
The incident between Ibn Mujāhid and Ibn Shanabūdh has been frequently discussed in scholarship, making it unnecessary to go into it in much detail. In short, Ibn Shanabūdh advocated for the liturgical use of the shawādhdh readings attributed to Ibn Masʿūd and Ubayy b. Kaʿb. He recited these anomalous readings in public and argued that he was in possession of sound chains of transmission, which would readily give these readings legitimacy. Nevertheless, Ibn Mujāhid brought him to trial, after which he was flogged, forced to repent, and pledged that thereafter he would adhere to the rasm of the ʿUthmānic codex.12 The first observation to be made about this incident is the importance of adhering to the written ʿUthmānic recension, which obviously superseded the sound oral transmission for which Ibn Shanabūdh and other Qurʾān readers argued. This does not come as a surprise, for the consensus to adhere to the ʿUthmānic rasm was established very early on. p.141-142
The second observation I want to make concerns the ʿadāla of Ibn Shanabūdh. Scholars held him in high regard as a Qurʾān reader. Al-Dhahabī described him as trustworthy and meticulous in his scholarship ( itqānihi wa- ʿadālatihi). He was thiqa, pious, righteous, and possessed immense knowledge in the discipline of Qirāʾāt ( mutabaḥḥir). That being said, the trial and humiliation to which Ibn Shanabūdh was subjected, and his denunciation by the Qurrāʾ community, contradicted how a ʿadl, trustworthy individual should have been treated. Ibn Shanabūdh was allegedly stripped naked, flogged, put in a “breaking wheel” (i.e., a Catherine wheel), tortured, and ostracized from Baghdād; all this took place under the nose of his colleagues, the Qurrāʾ. p.142
Human Elements in the Transmission of the Qurʾānic Recitations
The Qurʾān was largely transmitted with certainty, with most variations tied to specific readers or regional traditions. Although tawātur implies a flawlessly preserved oral transmission, Qirāʾāt literature reveals notable disagreements and discrepancies among readers and transmitters. This suggests that the early period of Qirāʾāt involved significant interpretation and adaptation, with readers occasionally forgetting, erring, or adjusting their readings, underscoring the human element in the transmission process.
The vast majority of the Qurʾān was agreed upon and transmitted with certainty. Even the variant readings themselves were, to a large extent, associated with certain Eponymous Readers or Canonical Rāwīs or even regional schools of recitation. The theory of tawātur, or the verbatim oral transmission of the Qurʾān from master to student, assumed an intact, absolutely verified text that was known down to its smallest detail by the professional circle of the Qurrāʾ, let alone the larger Muslim community. Nonetheless, Qirāʾāt literature tells us another story. The disagreements amongst the rāwīs and the discrepancies in the transmission of the “performed” text of the Qurʾān on the level of the Eponymous Readers, their Rāwīs, and their Ṭuruq, suggest that the formative period of Qirāʾāt literature was a time of robust deciphering of the text of the Qurʾān, its meaning, and its performance. Readers of the Qurʾān were human beings and not mechanical audio recorders; they forgot, hesitated, made mistakes, and modified their system-Reading(s) accordingly. p.172
Once Vowels Introduced, Variants Stopped
The important question to be asked is the following: had Arabic and the Qurʾānic text been fully standardized and systematized in the 7th century, would vowels and diacritics be needed to read the text consistently without variations? In other words, why did variants stop emerging after the 4th/10th century? Were we to give the contemporary text of the Qurʾān, stripped of vowels and diacritics, to a trained, professional Qurʾān reciter, would he be as confused as the early Muslim reciters and read ملك ( mlk) as malīki or mallāki or milki or malki, or would there be no doubt in his mind that it is either maliki or māliki? p.183
Familiar Notions and Proper Nouns p.187-189
Some variants raise the question of the standardization of the Arabic language and the Qurʾānic text, rather than the extent of dialectical variations and the impact of the script’s deficiency. While it might be acceptable to argue that variations in articulation and vocalization occurred due to differences in the Arabic dialects, it would be difficult to accept that the same process happened in variations of proper nouns and common notions, especially those whose pronunciation was systematized later on in the Islamic tradition. I believe that the most important word in this regard would be ‘ Qurʾān’ itself. All Readers articulated the hamza of Qurʾān except Ibn Kathīr, the Meccan, who read Qurān. Was this a dialectal variation of the word “ Qurʾān” that we can assume only existed in the time the Prophet? Should one not assume that the word itself was well-known amongst Muslims, that there was no need to introduce a particular pronunciation just to conform to a Reader’s own style of recitation? Even the Readers who were notorious for softening the hamza, such as Abū ʿAmr, always articulated the hamza of the Qurʾān. Was “ Qurān” the actual reading of the Prophet and the Meccans to whom the Qurʾān was first revealed? Similar proper nouns and common notions raise the same question. Most Arabs and Muslims are familiar with the name of Gabriel as Jibrīl or Jibrāʾīl, which were also the forms in which the name generally appears in Islamic sources. However, the name has many more variants, all of which are “canonical”: Jabrīl, Jabraʾīl, and Jabraʾil. It seems that mispronouncing the name of Gabriel, a quintessential figure in Islam, was controversial and unsettling enough that a dream was attributed to Ibn Kathīr in which he allegedly saw the Prophet reciting wa-Jibrīla, contrary to the Ibn Kathīr’s standard reading, transmitted as wa-Jabrīla. The variant readings of these important names and common notions are intriguing. They invite us to investigate the significance of these variations, particularly when, how, and in what context they permeated the Islamic tradition. Were Muslims in the 1st/7th century well-educated in terms of the terminology of the Qurʾān, its concepts, and the Islamic narrative itself, including its essential concepts and key figures? The following examples indicate the opposite:
(Q. 2:62) and (Q. 5:69) wa-ṣ-ṣābiʾīna and wa-ṣ-ṣābiʾūna (the Sabaeans). All the Readers articulated the hamza except N, who read wa-ṣ-ṣābīna and wa-ṣ-ṣābūna.
Similar to Jibrīl in (Q. 2:98), three different pronunciations were recorded for Michael: Mīkāl, Mīkāʾīl, and Mīkāʾil.
Throughout (Q. 2, al-baqara), Ibn ʿĀmir read Ibrāhām, while the rest of the Readers read Ibrāhīm
Nabī (Prophet): none of the Readers articulated the hamza of nabī and its variant forms ( al-nabiyyīn, al-nubuwwa, al-anbiyāʾ) except Nāfiʿ who read nabīʾ, al-nabīʾīn, al – nubūʾa, al-anbiʾāʾ, etc., as in (Q. 2:61), (Q. 3:79), (Q. 3:113), and (Q. 3:68).
Zakariyyā (Zechariah): a hamza was articulated in some variants, reading either Zakariyyāʾu or Zakariyyāʾa in (Q. 3:37).
Abrogation: the “abrogation verse” (Q. 2:106) reads mā nansakh min āyatin aw nunsihā (And for whatever verse We abrogate or cast into oblivion). IK and AA read nansaʾhā (to delay) instead of nunsihā, which stirred an exegetical debate about abrogation and whether God would make the Prophet forget previously revealed verses or merely delay their revelation.
The Mysterious Letters: despite the general agreement to recite these letters as disjoint from one another, a considerable amount of variation was reported on behalf of each Reader. In particular, refer to the ten different combinations of (Q. 19:1) k-h-ʿ-y-ṣ.
(Q. 4:163) All Readers read Zabūr (Psalms), except H, who read Zubūr.
Elisha: all Readers read al-Yasaʿ, as in (Q. 6:86) wa-l-Yasaʿa, except H and K, who read his name as al-Laysaʿ: wa-l-Laysaʿa
Diptotes: some nouns had not been properly categorized as diptotes yet, and thus some Readers treated them as such, while other Readers vocalized them as regular triptotes. Examples include (Q. 9:30) ʿUzayrun vs. ʿUzayru, (Q. 11:68) Thamūda vs. Thamūdan, and (Q. 27:15) Sabaʾa, Sabaʾin, and Sabaʾ.
Al-nasīʾ (The month postponed/Postponing): a pre-Islamic practice which continued shortly after Islam until year 9 after the hijra. The word was pronounced differently by the Readers ( nasīʾ, nasʾ, nasiyy, and nasy), perhaps indicating unfamiliarity with both the concept and the term itself.
Gog and Magog: all Readers read (Q. 18:94) Yājūj and Mājūj without articulating the hamza, except ʿĀṣim, who read Yaʾjūj and Maʾjūj.36
Sinai: It was read either Sīnāʾ or Saynāʾ in (Q. 23:20).
Elias: It was read with and without the articulation of hamza; all Readers read (Q. 37:123) wa-inna Ilyāsa, except IA, who read wa-inna ‿l-Yāsa.38 Similarly, another variation appears a few verses later in (Q. 37:130), where N and IA read salāmun ʿalā āli Yāsīna (Peace be upon the followers of Elias) whereas the rest of the Readers read salāmun ʿalā il Yāsīna (Peace be upon Elias).
The name of the pre-Islamic idol Manāt was read Manāʾata by Ibn Kathīr in (Q. 53:20). Similarly, Wadd was read as Wudd in (Q. 71:23) by Nāfiʿ only; A → Shuʿba → Burayd → Abū l-Rabīʿ also read Wudd, but Ibn Mujāhid deemed the transmission to be wrong.
The last example would be (Q. 111:1) Abī Lahab, the name of the Prophet’s uncle, where it was read Abī Lahb only by the Meccan Ibn Kathīr.