WHICH KORAN?

Which Koran?
by Ibn Warraq

"It is an extraordinary thing that we still have no critical text of the Qur`an for common use' --- Arthur Jeffery, 1937 [1]

There is no such thing as the Koran. There is no, and there never has been a, textus receptus ne varietur of the Holy Book of the Muslims. We have two kinds of evidence for this claim. One which comes from Muslims themselves. Many Classical Muslim scholars-Koranic commentators, collectors of hadith, lexica and Qirä’ät books, for example - have acknowledged not only that many verses revealed to Muhammad have been lost, and hence the Koran that we possess is incomplete, but also that the Koran assembled, whether by Abü Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Alï or ‘Uthmän, is capable of being read in different ways, in other words that variants exist. There are a number of hadiths that recount “the loss, withdrawal, or forgetting of this or that ‘verse’ said to have been revealed to the Prophet but not figuring”[2] in the Koran as it now exists. The other comes from extant Koranic manuscripts, inscriptions and coins.

...


Variants in Extant Printed Korans from the Islamic World.


[1] I.4: Mäliki is written defectively with a dagger alif in the Saudi Koran I. According to Muhammad Ali (see Koran number 3 in above list), there is a world of difference between mälik and malik, the former signifying master and the latter king; a master being more than a king. God is more than a king, and hence "master" is the correct translation. Many early Koranic manuscripts do not have the plene alif.

[2] I.6: As-siräta is written defectively with a dagger alif in the Saudi Koran I. The verb hada is differently vowelled, ihdina in the Istanbul Koran but ahdina in the Saudi Koran.

[3] II.72: faddära'tum is written defectively with a dagger alif in the M. Ali Koran, while Warsh II has the scriptio plena, i.e. the alifs in faddära'tum are made explicit. There is also a discrepancy in the verse numbering, II.72 as opposed to II.71 respectively.

[4] II.125: The Hafs is in the Imperative ['attakhidhü], and means, "Take [as your place of worship the place where Abraham stood]. The Warsh is in the simple past ['attakhadhü], meaning "They have taken ..."

[5] II.132: Yusuf Ali has wa -wassä as opposed to wa-'awsä. i.e., Yusuf Ali Koran lacks an alif after the wäw at the beginning of the verse. Both Warsh and Yusuf Ali have 'Ibrähïmu written defectively. As Puin pointed out, it is clear that in a certain phase of the orthographic development of Arabic, it was no longer understood that Yä' in the Arabic script was nothing other than /a:/ The original pronunciation of Abrähäm had to be altered, according to which Yä' now stood for / i :/ or / ay/ .[36]

[6] II.140: 'am taqülüna as opposed to 'am yaqülüna, giving the meaning "do you say ...?" or " do they say ...? respectively.

[7] II.259: nunsizuhä , as opposed to nunsiruhä.

[8] III.13: yarawnahum (they saw them) as opposed to tarawnahum (you saw them). This verse is a said to be a reference to the miracle of the battle of Badr, when Muslims putatively defeated forces twice their own number. However, this interpretation is much easier if we read the verb as saying "you saw them" tarawnahum, as in the Warsh reading, and not yarawnahum (they saw them) as in the Hafs reading. Warsh gives us a miracle, Hafs gives us a confusion of pronouns. See discussion of this verse above, p.17.

[9] III.37: yä maryamu is written defectively with a dagger alif in the Yusuf Ali Koran, the alif is made explicit in the Istanbul Koran.

[10] III.80 / 81:

wa'id 'akhada l-lähu mïtäqa -n-nabiyyina lamä 'ataytukum M.Ali Koran III,80

wa-'ida 'akhada l-lähu mïtäqa –n-nabiyyina lamä 'ataynäkum Warsh I : III,81.

wa-'id / wa-'ida ; 'ataytukum / 'ataynäkum ; mïtäqa written defectively in Warsh I, and notice the difference in verse numbering.

[11] III.133: wa -säri‘ü [M. Ali Koran III, 132] as opposed to säri‘ü [Warsh I:III,133]

[12]. III.146 [M. Ali Koran] Hafs: Simple past tense giving the reading "fought "[qätala], while Warsh I is in the passive, meaning "were killed" [qutila]: an enormous difference in meaning. "And how many a prophet have there been a number of devoted men who fought (beside him)" or "...who were killed beside him.” respectively.

[13]III, 158: lä 'ila as opposed to la'ila; the extra alif connected with läm in Yusuf Ali is not read. lä is normally the negative particle, and if read as such would give the reading "not to God;" it is read as "certainly to God.”

[14]III, 167: lä 'attaba‘näkum as opposed to la-t-taba‘näkum . See note for III, 158 above.

[15] V, 53 / V, 56. Yusuf Ali [V, 56, note the difference of verse numbering] has wa-yaqülu, Warsh I [V, 53] lacks the wäw in front of yaqülu.

[16]V, 54 / V, 57. Yusuf Ali has [V, 57] yartadda, and Warsh I [V, 54] yartadid.

[17] VII. 57 MWL Koran has bushran [Good News] and Warsh I Nushran [spread out / diffuse]

[18]IX, 47: lä –'awda‘ü as opposed to la'awda‘ü. See note to III, 158 above.

[19]IX, 107: wa-l-ladïna as opposed to 'ilìïna.

[20]XVIII, 36: minhä as opposed to minhumä.

[21]XXI, 4: Istanbul: qäla; M.Ali: qäla written defectively with dagger alif; Warsh I: qul.

[22] XXI, 112: Istanbul: qäla ; M.Ali: qäla written defectively with dagger alif; Warsh I: qul.

[23] XXIII, 8: wa-l-ladïna hum li-'amänätihim wa- ‘ahidihim rä‘üna, written defectively in Muhammad Ali Koran. The scriptio plena of the Istanbul Koran in the writing of li-'amänätihim and rä‘üna. Note li'amänätihim as opposed to 'alimänätihim Warsh II.

[24] XXIII, 112 M. Ali: qäla, written defectively, translated by M. Ali as "He will say"; Warsh: qäla, written with scriptio plena.

[25] XXIII, 114 M. Ali: qäla, written defectively, translated by M. Ali as "He will say"; Warsh: qäla, written with scriptio plena

[26] XXVI, 217 wa – tawakkal [M. Ali] as opposed to fa-tawakkal [Warsh I]

[27] XXVII, 21: lä- adbahannahu [M. Ali], where lä is not be read as the negative particle; la-'aìbahannahu [Flügel]. Ibn Khaldün wrote: "No attention should be

paid in this connection to the assumption of certain incompetent (scholars) that (the men around Muhammad) knew well the art of writing and that the alleged discrepancies between their writing and the principles of orthography are not discrepancies, as has been alleged, but have a reason. For instance, they explain the addition of the alif in la-'adbahannahu "I shall indeed slaughter him" as an indication that the slaughtering did not take place (lä - adbahannahu). The addition of the yä' in bi-ayydin "with hands (power),” [LI,47, see below at 29. LI,47] they explain as an indication that the divine power is perfect. There are similar things based on nothing but purely arbitrary assumptions. The only reason that caused them to (assume such things) is their belief that (their explanations) would free the men around Muhammad from the suspicion of deficiency, in the sense that they were not able to write well. "[37]

[28] XXXVII, 68 lä 'ila [M. Ali, with extra alif] la-'ila [Iranian]

[29] XL, 26 'aw 'an [M. Ali] as opposed to wa- 'an [Warsh I]

[30] XLII, 30 mä 'asäbakum ...fa-bi-mä [ M.Ali , scriptio plena for the word Æaæäbakum, using the alif, while Warsh I has the defective alif; Warsh has bi-mä as opposed to fa-bi-mä in M. Ali]

[31 ]XLIII, 68 yä ‘ibädi [M. Ali] as opposed to yä‘ibädï [Warsh I, note the long –ï] [32] LI, 47 bi-'aydin [M. Ali] as opposed to bi-'ayydin [Warsh I, has an extra yäÆ]. See Ibn Khaldün's comments above at 24. XXVII, 21.

[33] LVII, 24: huwa –l-ghaniyyu [M. Ali, has an extra word huwa] as opposed to al-ghaniyyu [Warsh I].

[34] LXXII, 16

M. Ali: wa –'an lawi staqämu ‘alä t-tarïqati la- 'asqaynähum mä'an ghadaqan

Istanbul: Has the plene alif for both staqämu and 'asqaynähum

Saudi 2.: Lacks the word Æan before lawi staqämu; the latter word is also written

defectively, with a dagger alif.

[35] LXXXV, 22 [M. Ali] mahfüzin as opposed to mahfüzun [Warsh I].

The M. Ali Koran has mahfüzin, the genitive, giving the meaning "It is a glorious Koran on a preserved tablet." This is a reference to the fundamental Muslim doctrine of the Preserved Tablet. But the Warsh transmission has the nominative ending -un, and we get "It is a glorious Koran preserved on a tablet." Did the doctrine arise out of the reading, or did the doctrine influence the choice of the reading?



Pertinent Links:

1) Which Koran?