Book Review
Quran, where one can view the book as not a
The Transmission of the Variant
Readings of the Quran: The problem of
Tawatur and the Emergence of
Shawadhdh
Shady Hekmat Nasser
Brill 2013
Summary: Whilst it’s strengths lie in pulling together a wide
variety of the primary, secondary texts and sources, the
thesis makes fundamental mistakes which undermine it’s
sceptical conclusion such as:
a) misrepresentation of quotes from classical texts (eg Ibn
Atiyyah and Imam Suyuti1).
b) misunderstanding the definition of a ‘reading’
[recitation] which is a ‘choice’ of transmitted variants [not
a free creative exercise].
c) falsely and inconsistently excludes corroborative
evidence for each reading where existing [such as where
different isnads from different Quran’ic readers (eg Nafi’)
match each other’s choices].
d) misunderstands the nature of a registered isnad as
meaning no other isnads exists [hence falsely concluding
tawatur does not exist when it does].
e) Exaggerates the impact of the recitations which affect
0.9% of the Qur’an’s words.
Published in 2013 by Brill as a PhD thesis by
the Lebanese Shady Hekmat Nasser, this
exhaustive work has the all-round feeling of a
professionally researched piece and is imbued
throughout with references and citations. The
thesis itself, ambitious in its aim, focuses on the
question of the integrity and immutability of
the Muslim holy book, the Quran. Where
previous attempts at historical criticism has
been absent and advanced in hadith literature,
by names such as Goldziher, Schacht and
Juynboll, Hekmat wishes to import the
revolution here onto lost primary ground.
Hekmat aims to cast his critical eye on this
seemingly fertile topic to answer this question
of the qira’at or the multiple recitations of the
Qur’an which the revelation is said to have
been revealed in Muslim belief.
The central theme or question raised is do
Muslims, like Christians, need to embrace a
1 Mujāhid’s Kitāb al-sab’ah fī al-qirā’āt by the total number of
See footnotes 10 and 11
2 َُ
Mutawatir (‫واتر‬ِ ‫ مت‬meaning "successive") narration. A
successive narration is one conveyed by narrators so numerous
that it is not conceivable that they have agreed upon an
untruth thus being accepted as unquestionable in its veracity.
The number of narrators is unspecified.
3 ‘A rough approximation can be obtained by dividing those 703
places wherein a different reading is listed in the index to Ibn
more nuanced view of their holy book, the
fully bound literal word of God in letters and
words, but actually a book where debate and
probability inhere. The chapters elucidate the
topic in a logical order focusing the first
chapter on the traditions and background of
variant readings and seven ahruf (modes), the
second to Ibn Mujahid’s work and definition of
Tawatur/Mutawatir2 (multiply attested
narration). The third chapter goes into looking
at the definitions in Fiqh (Jurisprudence) and
Usul ul Fiqh (Principles of Jurisprudence) of
the Quran. The fourth discusses the recitations
(qira’at) schematically and analyses the claim
of tawatur according to the previously
discussed definitions. The last chapter (s)
discusses the nature of variants and a
comparative analysis of a case study poem.
As with all high calibre academic studies the
writer commences the topic in the first chapter
recalling all the pertinent traditions and
narratives in Muslim discourse about what we
call ‘variant’ narrations. In other words, hadith
that focus on the Qur’an which detail a context
where there is more than one possible reading
of a word. The frequent example quoted is the
word ‘malik’ and ‘maalik’ in chapter 1 of the
Quran(surah fatihah). These are called the
recitations (qira’at) and represent under one
percent (0.9%) of the total wording of the
Quran3. Hadith and narrations detailing also
the ahruf (modes/wording) are quoted
although Muslim tradition has never
unanimously equated these with the qira’at.
The author brushes through several
interesting themes as he navigates the subject
matter.
The Qurra Vs the Usuliyeen Debate4
Hekmat rightfully points early on, a debate
within Muslim scholastics pitting the
usuliyeen5 (jurists of foundational
jurisprudence) on one side and the qurra6
(reciters) on the other. The essence of this, in
his view, is that the usuliyeen stipulated an
artificially high standard of tawatur for the
qira’at for which the qurra just were not in
words in the Qur’an (surpassing 77,400), in order to arrive at
0.9% of words with an alternative reading’ For these numbers
see Yasin Dutton, “Orality, Literacy and the ‘Seven Aḥruf’
Hadith,” Journal of Islamic Studies 23, no. 1 (2012): 10
4 Scholars who deal with the Islamic legal reasoning process.
5 Examples of which are Dabbusi, Ghazali, Juwayni, Amidi etc
6 Examples would be Imam Shatibi, Imam Jaziri etc.
agreement with7. But if we maybe rewind and
rhetorically enquire: is the author saying in
actuality, that the usuliyeen are saying the
Quran is certain (definite) whereas the reciters,
on the other hand believed the Quran was just
probabilistic and hence only probably the
Word of God? It is this misunderstanding that
sets the scene for conflation, mistake and
contradiction that form a thread that runs
throughout the book. Hekmat clings to a
conception of a Muslim orthodoxy that
simulatenously and paradoxically expressed a
definitive belief and definition (hadd) of a
uncontestably transmitted Book (mutawatir)
yet whose recitations come through probable
chains (Ahad). The solution to this confusion
may lie in a more nuanced and intelligent
reading of what was going on in early Islamic
circles. Like hadith early Muslims were not
obsessed with the need to recite with a certain
(yaqeen) or definitive (qati) reading but were
happy with a reading as long as it had a stamp
of trustworthy transmitted authority. In
parallel, but not paradoxically, they were still
insistent on being able to identify red lines and
the definitive areas and recitations. As ibn
Tamiya put it:
‘The position held by the majority of scholars is that it is not
obligatory to take the stance which unequivocally declares
such things to not be part of the seven ahruf. That is because
this issue is not one which requires us to take a definitive
position”8.
Recent work by other academics point this out
such as the contemporary Shaikh Mansees’s
work ’The Impact of the Differences of the
Fourteen modes of recitation on the Islamic
Creed and Jurisprudence’. Still Hekmat seems
not to register this point and it seems lost on
him further setting the stage for a false
7 Hekmat is alluding to the fact the qurra (reciters) never
stipulated or expected the recitations to be anything other than
just probable and doubtful.
8 “The position held by the majority of scholars is that is not
obligatory to take the stance which unequivocally declares such
things to not part of the seven ahruf. That is because this issue
is not one which requires us to take a definitive position”.
[Majmoo’ al-Fataawaa 13/393-394]
9 Ahad or khabar wahid is a solitary report which is narrated by
people whose number does not reach that of the Mutawatir
case.
10 Shadh (irregular): A form of Quran’ic qira'at that does not
fulfill one or more of the three requirements: Conforming with
Uthmanic consanants, in line with Arabic Grammar or/and does
not have a trustworthy chain of narration.
11 Note107 - https://yaqeeninstitute.org/ammar-khatib/the-
origins-of-the-variant-readings-of-the-quran/
12 Shady says a highly exaggerative statement: “those who
memorised the whole Qur’an..possibly only
foundational dichotomy. One only need to
examine Ibn Jaziri’s work, claimed albeit with
a bit of liberal interpretation, on a change of
mind from the need for a recitation to be
mutawatir (definitive). Hekmat seems to
understand it to be a change of mind on the
classification of the existence of mutawatir
recitations. In doing so the work misses the
essence of the debate between the qurra and
the usuliyeen. It was not a debate on the
existence of the mutawatir recitations, but
whether an authentic yet singular/solitary
(ahad)9 or non multiply attested (shadh)10
recitation could also be treated, in a practical
manner such as in prayer, as ‘Qur’an’.
There is also more to be said about referencing.
Hekmat builds his referencing on this
questionable understanding leading him to
reading somewhat into the classical works.
Take Ibn Atiyyah, as an example, Hekmat
quotes the scholar as a proponent of the
qira’aat as human creativity rather than
necessarily being divinely revealed. However,
Yaqeen Institute’s paper on the Quran’ic
variants, criticises in a footnote11, Hekmat’s
reading into Ibn Attiyah’s words. As the author
points out:
“However, in the provided reference, Ibn Aṭiyyah actually
says nothing of the sort. What Ibn Aṭiyyah actually says is
that the seven canonical readers used their ijtihād to select
whatever variation from the aḥruf they found would
conform to the mushaf, not that the variation itself was
invented by ijtihād. Ijtihād was thus in selection, not
invention. See Ibn ʿAṭīyah, al-Muḥarrar al-wajīz (Beirut:
DKI, 2001), 1:48.”
This misrepresentation is present also where
Imam Suyuti12 is utilised to undercount the
number of full memorisers of the Qur’an which
seems to be a point actually Suyuti is arguing
four”companions”p129. He references Itqan: 1/460. He then
omits to say Suyuti also elucidates he doesn’t agree with this in
the same book, for example on p177 of the English translation
of Itqan: “I (Suyuti) have become aware of a woman from
among the companions of the Prophet(Saw) who had
memorised the Qur’an, with whom none of those who have
dealt with this matter have mentioned”.
And he says on p170:“ Al Qurtubi said that 70 readers were
killed on the day of Yamama and in the lifetime of the Prophet
(saw) a similar number perished in Bi’r Ma’una. He also quotes
Abu Ubayd in Kitab al Qir’aat saying “Abu Ubayd mentioned
that the reciters from the Prophet of God (saw) companions
were from among the Muhajirun; he counted the first four
Rightly guided caliphs along with Talha, Sa’ad, Ibn Masud
Hudhayfa, Salim and Abu Hurayra, Abd Allah ibn Sa’ib, Al
Ibadila, Aisha, Hafts and Umm Salamah. Among the Ansar, he
counted Ibadah ibn SAmit, and Mu’adh, Mujammi ibn Jariya,
Fadala ibn Ubayd and Maslama ibn Mukhallad.”
against. This is shown in the pages after the
statement in ‘Itqan’ where Suyuti gives an
example of non famous Sahabah who
memorised the Qur’an. The above points
exemplifies a theme underscoring a recent
trend in modern academic endeavours, which
is failing to keep up to speed with the depth of
actual traditional Islamic learning. For
example, the idea evident in some academic
arenas that the conception of
tawatur/mutawatir was brought into Islamic
discourse 300 years after the Prophet
Muhammad (saw). An idea any cursory
reading or glance at 2nd and 3nd century
works or texts such as Al Umm by Imam Shafi
or those of Ibn Aban the Hanafi judge easily
and solidy challenges and disproves.
Corroboration
The picture presented by the raw data of
readings and recent research in Hijazi and Kufi
manuscripts such as by Yasin Dutton13 and
Marijn Van Putten14 and the very existence of
the shawadhdh15 alongside the mutawatir
readings (referred to in academic speech as
‘canonical’) also give us a picture that
undermines the very title of the project. There
is so no issue with the existence of both the
Shawadhdh nor the Tawatur. It is simply not
viewed as a problem. The shawadhdh, as
pointed out earlier, in many views and
especially the Athari/Hanbali view, was never
meant to be rejected but just identified as
either probabilistic recitations and/ or
recitations that were abrogated16. Therefore,
in these terms the shawadhdh is a pseudo
problem. But within the shawadhdh therein
‘lies the rub’ as well as the woods blocked by
Hekmat’s trees. The precise existence of so
13 An Early Muṣḥaf According to the Reading of Ibn ʿĀmir ,
Yasin Dutton, Journal of Qur'anic Studies,Vol. 3, No. 1 (2001),
pp. 71-89
Red Dots, Green Dots, Yellow Dots and Blue: Some Reflections
on the Vocalisation of Early Qur'anic Manuscripts — Part I &
Part II, Yasin Dutton. Journal of Qur'anic StudiesVol. 1, No. 1
(1999), pp. 115-140
14 For example: “The Grace of God” as evidence for a written
Uthmanic archetype: the importance of shared orthographic
idiosyncrasies, Marijn van Putten.
15
Plural of Shadh (see footnote 9)
16 “The position held by the majority of scholars is that is not
obligatory to take the stance which unequivocally declares such
things to not part of the seven ahruf. That is because this issue
is not one which requires us to take a definitive position”.
[Majmoo’ al-Fataawaa 13/393-394
17 Examples of these are Yazidi and Abu Amr.
18 Abu Hayyan also mentioned Nakhai and Qatadah
19
Khalaf > Yakuub al A’asha > Shuba > Asim > Zer bin Hubaish >
Ibn Masud > Prophet (saw)
many shawadhdh chains of narrations is itself
the antidote to the problem. The shawadhdh
and the ten 'canonical' recitations overlap so
much17 and individual variants match through
so many of the chains that makes each variant
multiply attested, certain and definitive (qati).
For example, let us take Surah Nisa verse 1
Arhaam [ recited by 9 of the 10 reciters]
Arhami [recited by Hamza of the 10]
Of course even a ultra sceptical Hekmat could
not deny the word ‘arham’ being mutawatir as
its reading has at least 9 of the 10 mutawatir
reciters. However, the word ‘arhami’ also has
not just the reciter Hamza to vouch for it.
Scratching further though we would also find
this word narrated by many shawadhdh for
example ‘Amash and Mutawai amongst
others18.
Case Study – Surah Fatihah
Let us take a case study to demonstrate the
problem with Shady’s ultra-scepticism. Let us
consider the isnads for each reading of M-L-K
(‫‘ )ملک‬maalik/malik’ in Fatihah, verse 4:
• ‘Maalik ‘
– narrated numerous ways, via the readers, in
at least two separate cities (Kufa and Basra19)
and also in other areas and independent routes
through other sources eg. Hadith in Sahih
Muslim, Imam Wahidi’s Asbab al Nuzul20. This
is not to mention of course of many, many
other places registered and also unregistered.
• ‘Malik’
Kisai > Jafar as Sadiq > Muhamad Baqir > Zayn Abidin > Husain >
Ali > Prophet (saw)
Yakub > Abi Ashab al Atarij + Abu Rajah Atariji > Abu Musa
Ashari > Prophet (saw)
Asim > Zer bin Hubaish > Ibn Masud> Prophet (saw)
20
Imam Muslim > Ishaq ibn Ibrahim Hunuzayl Sufyan Uyaynah
> Al Alai ibn Abdur Rahman > His Father > Abu Hurarira>
Prophet (Saw)
Imam Wahidi (Asbab Nuzul)> Abu 'Uthman Sa'id ibn
Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Zahid > his grandfather> Abu 'Amr
al-Hiri >
Ibrahim ibn al-Harith and 'Ali ibn Sahl ibn al-Mughirah > Yahya
ibn Abi > Isra'il>
Abu Ishaq> Abu Maysarah ['Amr ibn Shurahbil]
> Prophet (saw)

- Narrated21 within the Quranic readers in
different cities: Madinah, Makkah, Damascus,
Basra and again in a plethora of separate
hadith literature etc.
• ‘Sirat’ (‫)صراط‬
– Here we have many isnads that reinforce the
majority reading of Sirat with a (‫ )ص‬rather
than a (‫)س‬. But then we have historical
artifacts e.g. the rock found22 (Saudi Arabia, Al-
Namas Governorate) that dates to 130AH
[concurrent and even earlier than some of the
famous readers] that seems to show the use of
a (‫ )ص‬saad. Of course Shady Hekmat doesn’t
mention this corroboration nor does he give an
explanation how all these geographical places
could have independently have had the same
reading.
One can only wonder how, even with a
Pyrrhonian scepticism, can Shady Hekmat
doubt that there is some basis for both these
words to have a link to the actual concluded
source, namely the Prophet Muhammad (saw).
Or is he positing separate readers fabricating
the same readings in different geographical
areas separately? It sounds a bit far fetched by
any standard.
It is therefore profoundly difficult to see how
Hekmat’s doubts could be applied practically
both where there is agreement within the 10
reciters but also otherwise. There are further
examples of this such as ‘Khatam’ (33:40) and
the like, these variants will always have similar
corroborating chains of narration through
shawadhdh narrations.
21
Ibn Amir > Abu Darda/ Mughairah ibn Abi Shihaab > Uthman
ibn Affan > Prophet (saw)
Abu Jafar > Abu Hurairah + Ibn Abbas + Ibn Ayyash
Makhzoumi> Ubay ibn Kaab + Zayd ibn Thaabit > Prophet (saw)
Nafi> Abu Jafar + al Aaraj> Abu Hurayra + Ibn Abbas + Zaid ibn
Thabit /Ubay ibn Kaab > Prophet (saw)
Ibn Kathir> Mujahid ibn Jabr/Darbas > Ibn Abbas/ Abdullah ibn
Saib > Zayd ibn Thabit + Ubay ibn Kaab> Prophet (saw)
Ibn Muhaysin > Mujahid bin Jubair > Derbas > Ibn Abbas/Zaid
ibn Thabit/Ubay ibn Kaab > Prophet (saw)
Al-Hasan > Hattan bin Abdullah al-Raqadi > Abu Musa al-Ash'ari
> Prophet (saw)
The Registered Isnaad (Chain of Narration)
This seemingly text book error in confusion of
looking at the recitations (qira’at) as divine
permutations rather than looking at individual
variants leads Hekmat to set the stage of
constructing a false paradigm. This is further
seen in the ‘registered’ isnad or chain of
narration. Through analysis the study
concludes that each ‘recitation’ is solitary
(ahad) rather than mutawatir. The beautiful
diagrams of sprawling isnads dotting the pages
of Chapter 3 graphically tell a story of the chain
of registered narrations being ahad or solitary
and so only probabilistic. Hekmat is adamant
we can only identify maybe a handful of people
who figure on each chain of narration (isnad)
of the eponymous reciters using an ijaza
system. But beneath the web of beautiful
drawn isnads there seems a very problematic
assumption: are the only people who know a
qir’aat the ones who appear on a formal isnad?
Hekmat doesn’t address this question, if for
example he had consulted books such as Ibn
Asakir’s Tarikh he would know the assumption
to be historically problematic and false23. Such
an exclusive and inflexible view furthermore
would lead us to conclude that today maybe
only a handful, even only 5 people in a world of
1 billion Muslims, know the Quran. This is
since a reciter, a specialist held in high esteem
in Muslim tradition, is only a representative of
many multitudes of everyday people who
recite the Qur’an. An example of that is the late
Damascene Shaikh Tarbishi and currently
Shaikhs Ghalban and Misbaah. Would it then
be pertinent to think that these Imams, who
figure on a documented chain of narration
linking them through 24 and 25 people to the
Prophet Muhamad (saw), are just a few from a
handful in the 21st century to know Asim’s
recitation? Of course this type of conclusion is
Abu Amr > Abu Jafar /Abu Aaliyah > Umar ibn Khattab >
Prophet (saw)
Hamza > Jafar Sadiq > Muhamad Baqir > Zain Abieen > Hussain
> Ali >Prophet(saw)
Amash > Abu aliya > Umar ibn Khatab/Zaid ibn Thabit >
Prophet (saw)
Yazidi > Abu Amr > Mujahid Abdullah bin Abbas > Abi bin
Kaab/Zaid bin Thabit > Prophet (saw)
22https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PGW86hHW_s
23The book mentions Ibn Amir as an example being one of
1,600 students of Abu Darda (ra) hence far from being ahad.
highly absurd in any standard of the meaning.
This simple point is enough to show the perils
of an over rigid and exclusiveness in viewing
chains of narrations. In the same manner all
the selections chosen by the 10 reciters were
recited daily, weekly and monthly by a
generation of Muslims spanning a geography
crossing continents and millions of people. Had
the research of this work gone a little further
into the literature the distinction between a
formal ‘registered’ isnad would have been
noted. Even consulting recent academic works
in the field such as Shaikh Maneesse’s
‘Fourteen Recitations’ and also other seminal
works such as the commentary on Bukhari by
Allamah Anwar Shah that categorises tawatur
into Sanadi Tawatur24 and non-chained Qarni
Tawatur (perennial)25 would have put the
point across 26.
Choice and Selection
The study also strangely misses the correct
conceptualisation of the word ‘qira’at’. For
anyone conversant with qira’at literature it is
known that the word ‘ijtihad’ or ‘recitations
denotes a human 'choice from transmitted
variants. Take for example ibn Jaziri27 who
24
Tawatur that have registered-documented isnads.
25
Tawatur that has and does not need chains of narrations
registered or examined eg China’s existence, World War II
occurence etc.
26 Allamah Shabbur Ahmad Uthmani, Idarah ulum shariyyah
karachi, vol 1, p119
27 Ibn alJazari, al-Nashr (1/51):
“Everything authentically narrated from the Prophet is
obligatory to be accepted; no one from this ummah has the
choice to reject it. Believing in it is imperative, as all of it is
revealed from God. Every recitation from amongst these
recitations with regards to the other is like a verse with regards
to another verse; believing in all of them is obligatory and
following the meanings contained there through knowledge and
action is obligatory as well.
It is not permissible for a person to leave off one of them
because of their assumption that there is contradiction between
it and another. This was referred to by Abdullah Ibn Masood
when he said "Do not differ in the Quran and do not dispute
about it as it does not differ nor does it fail. Do you not see that
the Sharia of Islam therein is one? Its boundaries, recitation,
and God's commands therein are one? If there had been two
modes (harf), one mode (harf) ordering something and the
other forbading it then there would be difference between the
two. However, all of this is encompassed in its entirety. So
whoever recites upon a certain recitation he should not leave it
off out of disdain for it because whoever disbelieves in one
mode (harf) has disbelieved in all of them."
I [alJazari] say: And in this regards, the Prophet referred to this
when he said to one of those who had disputed "You have done
well," and in another narration "you are correct," and then
another narration "like this it was revealed." The prophet
affirming the correctness of each recitation of those who
elucidates what he means by a ijtihad which is
not an attempt at coining a new word eg
‘malaka’ from the consonants: M-L-K (‫)ملک‬
rather it is to choose from a transmitted word
learnt during training in the craft..i.e. malik or
maaliki which are both transmitted. The
'recitation' therefore of a master reciter is just
that. When viewed from this lens one avoids
the pitfalls of contradictions and
inconsistencies. It is not a human invention of
consonants. That further explains why
recitations such as Khalaf matches completely
Hamza, Kisai or Asim’s choices28. How then is
it meaningful to talk about different
recitations? Even looking at the irregular
recitations (shawadhdh) eg Yazidi, matching
almost completely Abu Amr’s recitation with
an exception of only 10 words. Hekmat seems
to gloss over the actual subject matter or the
raw data which it seems would have alerted
him with the paradox of his doubt.
Concluding Points
In summary, following in a line of historical
critical pieces, the “The Transmission of the
Variant Readings of the Quran” is a better
and deeper work than its forerunners in the
disputed, stating unequivocally for them that this had all been
revealed from God.
In this regards, the differences between the Qira'at are different
than legal differences between jurists. Regarding the
differences between the Qira'at, each one of them is correct and
true, revealed from God, and it is His speech in which there is no
doubt. The differences between jurists are differences based on
their juristic/legal acumen, while the truth amongst these
opinions is only one. So every juristic school with regards to the
other is correct, with the possibility of being incorrect. However
every recitation with regards to the other recitation is true and
correct at the same time.
We say this unequivocally and believe in it. And believe that the
meaning of each mode (harf) of these different modes of
recitation being related to the other and their relationship to
whom they are attributed to from amongst the companions and
other than them is specifically related to those that were most
proficient at, recited the most, and taught the recitation
thereof, adhering to and preferring more; nothing else.
Similar to this is attributing the modes of recitation and their
respected recitals to the imams of recitation and their
narrators. What is meant by this is that the reciter or that
particular Imam chose to read according to a particular
linguistic selection as recited by him, preferring that over other
methods, adhering thereto. He [one of the Imams or reciters]
would stick to this until he became famous for this, it being well
known from him. He would be sought out for such, people
taking that recitation from him. Because of this, that recitation
was then attributed to him to the exclusion of others. Such an
attribution is an attribution of selection, consistency, and
adherence, not an attribution of invention, opinion, and
Ijtihad.”
28 ’ The Impact of the Differences of the Fourteen modes of
recitation on the Islamic Creed and Jurisprudence’ , Dr Waleed
al Manesee, section on Khalaf and Yazidi.
parallel sphere of Hadith studies eg. Schacht,
Juynboll and Goldziher. It also manages to
achieve something not done by many other
academic studies in that it brings a lot of the
material regarding the qira’at and ahruf in one
place in a more clearer and easier to navigate
manner than works such as “Variant Readings
of the Quran” by Ahmad Ali Al Imam. However,
with its mixture of liberal referencing, glossing
over the more nuanced points, such as the
meaning of ‘selection’/’choice’, isnad
registration and election overlap, it fails to
make a case for a human production reading or
a case against the textual integrity of the
Qur’an. It seems historically improbable, or
impossible, that the 0.9% of the Qur’anic
words that the qira’at affect differ any more
than the 99% Hekmat seems to not have
devoted his study to.