Differences Among the Qur’anic Reading Traditions

Introduction

Many Muslims maintain that the Qur’an has been preserved verbatim, free of any addition, omission, or alteration, citing the verse: “Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an, and indeed, We will be its guardian” (al-Hijr 15:9). A comparative examination of the printed mushafs (Qur’an editions) in circulation today among Muslims themselves, editions issued under the authority of recognized official religious institutions in the Muslim world, reveals, however, a range of textual differences from one riwayah (transmitted reading) to another. This study examines these differences against the specifically Islamic definition of the term “tahrif,” as formulated by Muslim scholars themselves, applying an internal rather than an externally imposed standard, and then presents, in the interest of scholarly fairness, the response that scholars of qiraat (the Qur’anic reading sciences) offer to this line of argument.

The method followed here rests on a simple inferential principle: the argument invokes the qur’anic text itself, in Surat Al-Nisa: “Then do they not reflect upon the Qur’an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction [ikhtilafan kathiran]” (Al-Nisa 4:82), treating this as a criterion the text sets for testing its own claim to divine origin. The question this study poses are whether the qur’anic text, in its several forms currently in circulation, withstands the test that it itself establishes.

Tahrif in Islamic Technical Usage

Before presenting the examples, it is necessary to fix the terminology on which this study is built, so that judgment on the examples that follow rests on a definition Muslim scholars themselves accept, rather than on an external standard.

1. Sequential Corruption (al-tahrif al-tartibi)

This refers to relocating a verse from its original position to another position in the text’s order.

2. Corruption of Meaning (tahrif al-mana)

This includes diverting a verse from the apparent sense of its wording to a meaning that contradicts it, a category that includes interpretation by mere opinion (tafsir bil-ray) unmoored from recognized principles of exegesis. On this understanding, anyone who assigns a verse a meaning other than its true one has, by this definition, committed a form of tahrif. Al-Zamakhshari records in al-Kashshaf (3:146) a saying attributed to the Prophet: “Whoever interprets the Qur’an by his own opinion, even if he arrives at the truth, has erred.”

3. Corruption of the Wording (tahrif al-lafz)

This is the category on which the present study is built, and it comprises four types:

a. Corruption by addition: that the transmitted text contains something that was not part of the revealed word, whether the addition is a single letter or more, a word or more, an entire surah, or additions across the corpus of surahs as a whole.

b. Corruption by omission: that something of what was revealed has dropped out of the transmitted text, whether deliberately or through forgetfulness, whether the loss is a letter or more, a word or more, an entire verse, or an entire surah.

c. Substitution of one word for another.

d. Substitution of one letter for another, or of one vowel/inflectional marking for another.

These are the definitions Muslim scholars themselves have formulated for the term “tahrif,” and it is against this definition that the central question of this study is posed: do these criteria apply to the texts currently in the hands of Muslims?

The Multiplicity of Mushafs in Circulation

Muslims today circulate several officially sanctioned printed editions of the Qur’an, issued under the authority of recognized religious institutions, the most prominent being:

1. The mushaf according to the reading of Asim in the transmission of Hafs, issued under the supervision of al-Azhar in Cairo in 1924, and circulated in most Islamic countries except for the countries of the Arab Maghreb.
2. The mushaf according to the reading of Nafi’ in the transmission of Warsh, issued in Algeria in 1905, and circulated in the countries of the Arab Maghreb apart from Libya and Tunisia.
3. The mushaf according to the reading of Nafi’ in the transmission of Qalun, circulated in Libya and Tunisia.
4. The mushaf in the transmission of Khalaf from Hamzah.

Other transmissions and readings exist beyond these, but the examples presented in this study are confined to comparisons among these four.

A Sample of Textual Differences Among the Transmissions

Below are eleven passages that show differences among the transmissions named above, with a brief analysis of the nature of each difference considering the classification set out above.

1. Surat Al-Imran, verse 146

Transmission	Text
Hafs ‘an Asim	“How many a prophet fought [qatala] alongside him a large company of religious scholars…”
Qalun ‘an Nafia	“How many a prophet was killed [qutila], [and] alongside him fought a large company of religious scholars…”

The difference between the active form “qatala” (he fought) and the passive form “qutila” (he was killed) is not merely a difference of inflectional vowel; it is a difference in the verb and its meaning: whether the prophet was one who fought, or one who was killed, is a distinction in meaning that cannot be glossed over.

2. Surat Al-Imran, verse 125

Transmission	Text
Hafs	“…your Lord will reinforce you with five thousand angels musawwimin [marking themselves out, active]”
Qalun	“…your Lord will reinforce you with five thousand angels musawwamin [marked out, passive]”

The active participle “musawwimin” (those who mark) is opposed by the passive participle “musawwamin” (those who are marked), a structural distinction between subject and object.

3. Surat Al-Imran, verse 161

Transmission	Text
Hafs	“It is not for a prophet to defraud [yaghulla]…”
Qalun	“It is not for a prophet to be defrauded [yughalla]…”

Here again the same pattern recurs: the active form “yaghulla” (that he defraud) versus the passive form “yughalla” (that he be defrauded), a difference in the verb’s grammatical voice, not a mere vowel mark.

4. Surat Al-Zukhruf, verse 19 (verse 18 in Qalun’s numbering)

Transmission	Text
Hafs (v.19)	“…they made the angels, who are servants of the Most Merciful, females. Ashahidu [Did they witness]…”
Qalun (v.18)	“…they made the angels, who are servants of the Most Merciful, females. Ash’hidu [were they made to witness]…”

Beyond the difference in verse numbering between the two transmissions, there appears a difference in the vocalization of the shin (with a fatha in Hafs, and a sukun in Qalun), yielding two distinct readings of the verb.

5. Surat Al-Zukhruf, verse 24 (verse 23 in Qalun’s numbering)

Transmission	Text
Hafs (v.24)	“He said [qala], ‘Even if I brought you better guidance than that upon which you found your fathers?’”
Qalun (v.23)	“Say [qul], ‘Even if I brought you better guidance than that upon which you found your fathers?’”

The difference between the past-tense form “qala” (he said) and the imperative form “qul” (say) is not a marginal phonetic difference but a shift in the verb’s tense and mood, paired with a difference in verse numbering.

6. Surat Al-Baqarah, verse 119 (verse 118 in Qalun’s numbering)

Transmission	Text
Hafs (v.119)	“…and you will not be asked [tus’alu] about the companions of Hellfire”
Qalun (v.118)	“…and do not ask [tas’al] about the companions of Hellfire”

Between the passive form “you will not be asked” (a statement about what will happen to the addressee) and the imperative/prohibitive form “do not ask” (a command to the addressee) lies a clear difference in meaning that affects the sense of the address itself.

7. Surat Al-Baqarah, verse 191

Transmission	Text
Hafs	“…and do not fight [tuqatilu] them near al-Masjid al-Haram until they fight [yuqatilukum] you there; but if they fight [qatalukum] you, then kill them…”
Khalaf ‘an Hamzah	“…and do not kill [taqtulu] them near al-Masjid al-Haram until they kill [yaqtulukum] you there; but if they kill [qatalukum] you, then kill them…”

This passage carries particular significance in debates about verses on warfare, since defenders of the text ordinarily distinguish between “qital” (mutual combat/fighting) and “qatl” (direct killing), citing verses such as al-Tawbah 9:29, which uses the form “fight [qatilu]” rather than “kill [uqtulu].” Yet the transmission of Khalaf from Hamzah uses, in this very passage, forms from the root q-t-l unmodified by the mutual-action pattern, which makes reliance on the lexical distinction between the two roots inconsistent across transmissions.

8. Surat al-Baqarah, verse 184

Transmission	Text
Hafs	“…whoever volunteers [tatawwa’a] excess good… the feeding of a poor person [miskin, singular]”
Khalaf ‘an Hamzah	“…whoever volunteers [yattawwa’] excess good… the feeding of a poor person [miskin, singular]”
Qalun ‘an Nafi’	“…whoever volunteers [yattawwa’] excess good… the feeding of poor people [masakin, plural]”

Two distinct differences converge here: first, between the past-tense form “tatawwa’a” and the jussive present-tense form “yattawwa’,” distinguishing Hafs from both Khalaf and Qalun; and second, between the singular “miskin” and the plural “masakin,” distinguishing Hafs and Khalaf from Qalun.

9. Surat al-Baqarah, verse 285

Transmission	Text
Hafs	“…he believes in Allah, His angels, His books [wa-kutubihi, plural], and His messengers…”
Khalaf ‘an Hamzah	“…he believes in Allah, His angels, His book [wa-kitabihi, singular], and His messengers…”

The difference between the plural “His books” (referring to the totality of the revealed scriptures) and the singular “His book” (referring, by the Qur’an’s predominant usage of the singular form, to the Qur’an alone) is a difference that touches the doctrinal content asserted by the verse itself, not merely its phonetic shape.

10. Surat al-Hadid, verse 24 (verse 23 in Qalun’s numbering)

Transmission	Text
Hafs (v.24)	“…then indeed, Allah is [huwa] the Self-Sufficient, the Praiseworthy”
Qalun (v.23)	“…then indeed, Allah [is] the Self-Sufficient, the Praiseworthy” (without “huwa”)

Here the matter is not confined to a difference in wording; an entire word (“huwa,” “He/is”) is absent from Qalun’s transmission relative to Hafs’s — a case that, under the definition of “corruption by omission” set out above, falls under the dropping of a word from the text.

11. Surat Maryam, verse 19

The wording of this verse varies among the reading traditions and exegetical sources as follows:

• The reading of Hafs: “He said, ‘I am only the messenger of your Lord to bestow [li-ahaba] upon you a pure boy.’”
• The reading of Nafi, Abu ‘Amr, Qalun, and Warsh: “…that He may bestow [li-yahaba] upon you a pure boy.”
• Al-Bahr al-Muhit and al-Kashshaf record a third form: “…He commanded me to bestow [amarani an ahaba] upon you a pure boy.”

Here the wording multiplies into three forms: the first assigns the act of bestowal directly to the speaker (“that I may bestow”), the second assigns it to Allah in the third person (“that He may bestow”), and the third inserts an entire mediating clause (“He commanded me that”) absent from the other two forms.

These eleven examples are not an exhaustive inventory of every difference found among the transmissions; they are a selected sample for the purposes of this study, and there are dozens, if not hundreds, of other passages that would warrant independent treatment.

Analysis and the Logical Conclusion Drawn

If the Islamic definition of tahrif set out in Section I is accepted, and that definition is applied literally to the examples above, this line of reasoning concludes as follows: differences exist among the transmissions currently in official use that fall, by that very definition, under the category of addition (as in example ten), under the category of substitution of wording and morphological form (as in most of the other examples), and under the category of differing inflectional vowels. Proponents of this argument then return to Surat Al-Nisa 4:82 to conclude that the presence of such lexical and semantic variation among the circulating copies poses a difficulty, by the very standard the qur’anic text sets for itself, for the claim of a single, unified divine source.

This is a summary of the argument as advanced by those who cite these examples. Scholarly integrity, however, requires presenting the opposing position advanced by scholars of the qiraat, which follows below.

The Counter-Position: Mutawatir Readings and Tahrif in the View of Qiraat Scholars

Muslim scholars of the qiraat draw an explicit methodological distinction between “tahrif” in the technical sense defined above and the phenomenon of “mutawatir” (multiply, reliably transmitted) readings, and regard conflating the two as a conflation of two different categories, for the following reasons.

First, the science of qiraat rests on the hadith of “the seven ahruf (modes),” related by al-Bukhari and Muslim from Umar ibn al-Khattab and Ubayy ibn Kaab, according to which the Qur’an was revealed to the Prophet in multiple modes of recitation from God from the outset, not that such variation arose afterward through the actions of copyists or transmitters. On this view, a given reading is not a corrupted alternative to a single original, but one of the modes in which the revelation was originally given.

Second, scholars of the qiraat sciences set three conditions, jointly required, for accepting any reading as canonical: conformity to at least one attested form of Arabic grammar; conformity, even if only possible, to the Uthmanic consonantal skeleton (rasm); and a sound chain of transmission established as mutawatir back to the Prophet. The ten canonical readings (including the transmissions of Hafs, Qalun, Warsh, and Khalaf from Hamzah cited in this study) are held by the majority of scholars to have met this chain-of-transmission test, in contrast to “tahrif,” which is defined precisely as an unattested change, i.e., one lacking a reliable, continuous chain of transmission.

Third, these scholars hold that many of the differences presented above are differences in inflectional vowel marks or in closely related morphological forms (such as the distinction between active and passive voice), and that the original qur’anic consonantal skeleton, unmarked by diacritical dots or vowel signs, admitted such multiple recitational possibilities from the outset, such that the selection of one of several possibilities inherent in the skeleton itself does not constitute a subsequent loss or alteration, but rather the actualization of a possibility already present in the written form.

Fourth, it is likewise noted that the differing verse numbering among the mushafs (as in examples four, five, six, and ten above) reflects differences among scholars of verse-counting (add al-ay) in dividing certain long verses, not a difference in the substance of the text itself, and that this type of variation was known and documented in works on verse-counting centuries before the advent of modern printing.

Fifth, regarding example ten (the absence of the word “huwa”), this is a case, for those who hold both transmissions to be sound, in which the third condition (chain-of-transmission authentication) is satisfied for each, such that each transmission is treated as an independent, self-standing qur’anic mode rather than as a deficient copy of the other.

نتیجه گیری

The researcher stands here before two interlocking disputes: a textual dispute over the nature of the differences among the transmissions, and a definitional dispute over whether these differences fall under the label “tahrif” at all or instead constitute the distinct phenomenon of “mutawatir readings,” which qiraat scholars themselves define as separate from tahrif. Resolving this dispute depends on whether one accepts or rejects the evidentiary weight of the hadith of the seven ahruf and the chains of transmission on which the ten canonical readings were built, a question that is purely one of transmission-criticism (isnad and hadith studies), independent of the question of omission or addition considered in isolation. The careful reader is accordingly invited to weigh both lines of argument by consulting the primary sources named here (works on the sciences of the Qur’an, treatises on the qiraat sciences such as Ibn al-Jazari’s al-Nashr fil-Qiraat al-Ashr, and works on the causes of variation in verse-counting) before adopting either conclusion.