An Early Muṣḥaf According to the Reading of Ibn ʿĀmir / ‫مصحف من وقت مبكر بقراءة ابن عامر‬

Author(s): Yasin Dutton and ‫ياسين داتون‬

Source: Journal of Qur'anic Studies , 2001, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2001), pp. 71-89
Published by: Edinburgh University Press on behalf of the Centre for Islamic Studies
at SOAS

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/25728018

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Edinburgh University Press and are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Journal of Qur'anic Studies

This content downloaded from

154.59.124.32 on Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:08:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 An Early Mushaf According to the
Reading of Ibn c Amir
Yasin Dutton
THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH

The recent publication of the facsimile edition of MS Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale,

Arabe 328a by Frangois Deroche and Sergio Noja Noseda1 has made accessible to the
general reader what is probably one of the earliest Qur'anic manuscripts in the librari
of Europe. Written in the script known as Hijazi, or mall,2 this manuscript is dated
Deroche and others to the early 8th century AD, i.e. around the turn of the 1st centu
AH, although some authorities have expressed doubt about such an early date.3

MS Paris, BN, Arabe 328a is particularly interesting in that, although by no means

complete copy of the Qur'an, it nevertheless contains seven extensive, continuous
portions of the text, namely:

(i) Q.2:275-3:43 (ff. 1-3)

(ii) Q.3:84-5:33 (ff. 4-22)
(iii) Q.6:20-8:25 (ff. 23-40)
(iv) Q.9:66-10:77 (ff. 41-48)
(v) Q. 12:84-15:87 (ff. 49-54)
(vi) Q.35:13-41 (f. 55)
(vii) Q.38:66-39:15 (f. 56).

There is thus enough material here to give a good, overall impression of the nature o
the mushaf and, in particular, enough material to be able to ascertain the reading
represented.

As is usual for early Qur'anic manuscripts in ma'il or Hijazi script, no vowels (naqt)
are given, and diacritical points (i 'jam) only very rarely,4 and thus such details of th
reading cannot be ascertained. However, there is, of course, the consonantal outlin
of the text and, in a series of fragments as extensive as these, there are, fortunately
enough consonantal variants to enable a precise ascertainment of the reading, which,
as will be demonstrated shortly, accords remarkably well with that of Ibn cAmir (d.
118/736),5 the chief Qur'an-reader of Damascus in his day and one of the Seve
Readers chosen by Ibn Mujahid (d. 324/926) in his Kitab al-sabcafi 'l-qira'at,6 an
thus one of those whose reading has been and is accepted by the Muslims up until
today as a valid mutawatir reading of the Qur'an. This assessment is based on t

This content downloaded from

154.59.124.32 on Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:08:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 72 Journal of Qur'anic Studies

thirteen substantive consonantal variants7 that occur within the portions of text covered
by the manuscript,8 six of which are uniquely associated with the reading of Ibn c Amir,
and all of which are consistent with his reading as detailed in the books dealing with
qird'dt, such as Ibn Mujahid's Kitab al-sabca (Seven Readings), Ibn Mihran's (d.
381/991) Mabsuf and Ibn al-Jazarf s (d. 833/1429) Nashr10 (Ten Readings), al
Banna"s (d. 1117/1705) Ithdffudald' al-bashar11 (Fourteen Readings), and others.

In the following paragraphs we give details of these thirteen variants, relying on the
four above-mentioned books for knowledge of the different readings (of which, for
the present purposes, fourteen are assumed). For the sake of simplicity, references to
the facsimile edition of the manuscript are by folio rather than page number, as the
folio numbers are clearly indicated in the printed edition. It should, however, be noted
that all references to Qur'anic verses in these paragraphs assume the Kufan system of
verse-numbering in common use today, although this is often not appropriate for this
particular manuscript. (We shall return to a consideration of the actual verse-number
ing system used in this manuscript later in this article.)

1. Q.3:133 (f. 6a, 1. 7): sdricu, without an initial wdw, which is the reading of Ibn
cAmir and the two Madinans (Abu Jacfar and Nafic), "and thus it is in the mushafs of
Madina and Syria (al-Sham)", rather than wa-sdri?u, with an initial wdw, which is the
reading of the others, "and that is how it is in the mushafs of Makka and Iraq".12

2. Q.3:184 (f. 8b, 1. 21): wa-bi 'l-zuburi wa-'l-kitdbi 'l-munir, with a ba" before al
zubur, which is the reading of Ibn c Amir, and, Ibn Mihran tells us, "This is how I have
seen it in the mushafs of Syria".13 Ibn Mihran also notes that some people have relat
ed bi- 'l-zuburi wa-bi- 'l-kitdb, with a bd' in both cases from the people of Syria, but
that the people of Syria do not accept this and consider it to be a clear mistake, to
which he adds: "I have looked carefully at their mushafs and have seen al-kitdb with
out a bd' and bi-'l-zuburi with a bd'."14

3. Q.4:66 (f. 14b, 1. 1): ilia qalllan minhum, which is the reading of Ibn cAmir, and
"thus it is in the mushafs of Syria and the mushaf of Anas, may Allah have mercy on
him, with an alif, whereas the rest read ilia qalilun minhum.15

4. Q.6:32 (f. 23a, 1. 23): wa-la-ddru 'l-akhirati, with one lam before the ddl, which
is the reading of Ibn cAmir, "and thus it is in the mushafs of the people of Syria",
whereas the others read wa-la 'l-ddru 'l-dkhiratu, with two lams in front of the ddl,
"and thus it is in their mushafs"}6

5. Q.6:63 (f. 24b, 1. 16): la-'in anjaytand, with three "teeth", representing a yd', a td'
and a nun, between the jim and the final alif, which is the reading of all the non
Kufans, "and thus it is in their mushafs". (The Kufans read anjdnd, represented by
only two "teeth" between the jim and the alif, i.e. the first representing a yd', for alif

This content downloaded from

154.59.124.32 on Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:08:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 An Early Mushaf According to the Reading of Ibn c Amir 73

maqsitra - and pronounced with imdla by all the Kufans exceptc Asim - and the sec
ond a nun)}1

6. Q.6:138 (f. 28a, 1. 8): shurakd'ihim, written with what is presumed to have been
an original yd' as a bearer of the hamza, and thus indicative of the reading of Ibn
cAmir, as opposed to shurakd'uhum, with a wdw as a bearer of the hamza, which is
the reading of the rest.18 It should be noted in this instance that, although no yd' is
actually visible in the manuscript as we have it at present, there is clearly no wdw after
the alif either. Furthermore, there is a gap at this point in the line, which is not the
case in other instances of the same word,19 and it looks very much as if there was an
original yd' there which was later rubbed out. Whether or not this is the case, the
absence of a wdw - and of the space necessary for one - suggests greater inconsis
tency with the reading of the majority than with that of Ibn c Amir.

7. Q.7:2 (f. 30a, 1. 14): yatadhakkaruna, with two initial "teeth", which is the read
ing of Ibn cAmir, as opposed to either tadhdhakkaruna (the HijazTs, the Basrans,
Shucba from cAsim, and, presumably, al-Acmash) or tadhakkaruna (Hafs from
cAsim, Hamza, al-Kisa'i and Khalaf), in both cases with only one initial "tooth".20

8. Q.7:43 (f. 31b, 1. 24): ma kunnd li-nahtadiya, without an initial wdw, which is the
reading of Ibn c Amir, "and thus it is in the mushafs of the people of Syria", as opposed
to wa-md kunnd li-nahtadiya, with an initial wdw, which is the reading of the others.21
It should be noted, however, that in this instance there is a wdw written above the main
line of the text between the alif at the end of the preceding li-hddhd and the mim of ma.
However, the fact that this wdw is above the line, and that the spacing between the alif
of li-hddhd and the mim of ma is the same as that at any other word- or word-cluster
boundary, seems to me to be a clear indication that the wdw is additional, and that the
original text was intended to be read li-hddhd: ma kunnd... etc, without the wdw.

9. Q.7:75 (f. 33b, 1. 1): wa-qdla 'l-mala'u, with the initial wdw, which is the reading
of Ibn 0 Amir, and how it is written "in the mushajs of the people of Syria", as opposed
to qdla 'l-mala 'u, without the initial wdw, which is the reading of the rest.22

10. Q.7:141 (f. 36a, 1. 2): wa-idh anjdkum, with one "tooth" marking the yd' for the
alif maqsura in anjd, which is the reading of Ibn cAmir, as opposed to anjayndkum,
with two "teeth" marking the yd' and the nun, which is the reading of the rest.23

11. Q.9:100 (f. 43a, 1. 9): tajri tahtahd, which is the reading of everyone except the
Makkans Ibn Kathir and Ibn Muhaysin, who read tajri min tahtihd, with min, which
is how it is "in the mushafs of Makka".24

12. Q.9:107 (f. 43b, 1. 2): alladhina 'ttakhadhu, without an initial wdw, which is the
reading of Ibn cAmir and the two Madinans, "and thus it is in the mushafs of the

This content downloaded from

154.59.124.32 on Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:08:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 74 Journal of Qur'anic Studies

people of Madina and Damascus", rather than wa 'lladhina 'ttakhadhu, with the ini
tial wdw, which is the reading of the others.25

13. Q. 10:22 (f. 46a, 1. 6): yanshurukum, with a single "tooth" for the nun followed
by three smaller "teeth" for the shin, which is the reading of Ibn cAmir, Abu Jacfar
and al-Hasan, as opposed to yusayyirukum, with the order of these "teeth" reversed,
which is the reading of the others.26

None of the other thirty-eight distinctive consonantal variants (see n. 8 above) are
present in this particular set of fragments.

From the above it can be seen that at least six of the thirteen variants (i.e. Nos. 2, 3,
4, 7, 9 and 10) are specific to, and thus diagnostic of, the reading of Ibn cAmir; two
others (i.e. Nos. 6 and 8) are almost definitely indicative of the reading of Ibn c Amir,
although with a slight question-mark over this assumption; and the other five (i.e.
Nos. 1, 5, 11, 12 and 13), while not so distinctive, are nevertheless consistent with the
reading of Ibn c Amir. It is thus with considerable confidence that we can say that this
mushaf was written according to the reading of Ibn cAmir.

Verse-numbering
There is a further feature of interest in this connection, and that is the verse-number
ing. Traditional sources on this subject divide the various systems into seven main
divisions: Kufan, Basran, early Madinan, later Madinan, Makkan, Damascene and
Himsi.27 When the Kufan and Basran systems are the same, they are referred to as the
Iraqi system; when the two Madinan and the Makkan systems are the same, they are
referred to as the Hijazi or, sometimes, the Harami system; and when the Damascene
and HimsT systems are the same, they are referred to as the Syrian system. Of these,
the one most prevalent today and in use in the majority of printed Qur'ans is that of
Kufa, and Deroche, as is to be expected, has indexed the fragments in the facsimile
of the present manuscript according to the Kufan numbering-system. However, this
system is frequently not the one used in early Qur'anic manuscripts and it is not the
one used in the present manuscript, as is clear from the verse-marking: as is normal
in most early Qur'anic manuscripts, clusters of five and ten verses are marked here by
five- and ten-verse "rosettes" which, in this instance take a rather unsophisticated
form of stylised alifs with small black dashes around them for the five-verse endings,
and small circles with small black dashes around them and a letter of the alphabet
written inside them for the ten-verse endings. In addition, single verses are marked by
six dashes arranged in three horizontal pairs or, occasionally, three or four single
dashes arranged vertically, or six or eight dashes in vertical pairs.28 These markers
thus enable us to build up a picture of which numbering-system is actually in use in
the manuscript. The following paragraphs give an indication of the system of verse
numbering used by considering in turn each of the sixteen suras represented.

This content downloaded from

154.59.124.32 on Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:08:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 An Early Mushaf According to the Reading of Ibn c Amir 75

1. Surat al-Baqara (Q.2:275-286) (f. 1).

The alif at the end of the final verse (f. lb, 1. 22) suggests that the intended number
ing here is 285 verses, which is the total number according to the Syrian and Hijazi
systems, although one source indicates 284 verses in the Syrian count.29

2. Surat Al-cImrdn (Q.3:l-43, 84-200) (ff. 2-3, 4-9).

This sura well illustrates the potential problems with the verse-numbering in this
manuscript. Almost all sources are agreed that this sura contains 200 verses, although
there is dispute about the exact marking of seven of these.30

In the present manuscript, the first five verse-endings marked are:

(i) al-rahim (f. 2a, 1. 1), i.e. the end of the basmala, which is not counted as an
dya in any system (and may simply be being marked here rather than counted
as an dya)?1
(ii) wa-anzala fal-furqdn (f. 2a, 1. 4), which comes mid-way through dya no. 4 in
the Kufan system.
(iii) dhu 'intiqdm (f. 2a, 1. 6), which is the end of dya no. 4 in the Kufan system.
(iv) wa-la fi 'l-samd' (f. 2a, 1. 7), which is the end of dya no. 5 in the Kufan system.
(There is no clear gap for a verse-marker after al-samd', but a verse-ending has
been marked by what seem to be four or six strokes arranged vertically.)
(v) al-hakim (f. 2a, 1. 8), which is the end of dya no. 6 in the Kufan system.

From here until the end of the first fragment of this sura (i.e. f. 3b), all the five- and
ten-verse markers are consistently one verse behind the Kufan system.

If we look in more detail at these first five dyas, we note that alif-ldm-mim (Q.3:l),
which is considered as an dya in the Kufan - and only the Kufan - system, has not
been marked (f. 2a, 1. 1), whereas wa-anzala l-furqdn (Q.3:4), which is considered
as an dya in every system but the Kufan, has been marked (f. 2a, 1. 4). Furthermore,
wa-anzala 'l-tawrdta wa 'l-injil (Q.3:3), which is considered as an dya in all systems
except the Syrian,32 has not been marked here (f. 2a, 1. 3). Together, then, these two
features would suggest the Syrian system.

In the second fragment from this sura (Q.3:84-200; ff. 4-9), we find that hattd tun
fiqu mimmd tuhibbun (Q.3:92) is marked as an dya (f. 4a, 1. 15), as is also maqdmu
Ibrahim (Q.3:97; f. 4b, 1. 1). The first is considered as an dya by the Hijazis (except
for Abu Jacfar) and the Damascenes, while the second is considered as an dya by the
Syrians in general and by Abu Jacfar.33 Again, these two features would suggest a
Syrian, or, more specifically, the Damascene, system.

The problem with this second fragment is that the numbering indicated by the rosettes
does not always accord with the "actual" numbering. After verse 97, all systems

This content downloaded from

154.59.124.32 on Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:08:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 76 Journal of Qur'anic Studies

should agree as there are no disputed verse-endings in the second half of the sura.
However, in this manuscript we find that there are two rosettes to indicate 100 verses,
one after kafirun (f. 4b, 1. 9 = Q.3:100), which is what one would expect, and one after
mustaqim in the following verse (f. 4b, 1. 12 = Q.3:101), which is what actually
follows on logically from the verses marked as 85 (yan^uriin; f. 4a, 1. 8 = Q.3:88), 90
(calim; f. 4a, 1. 16 = Q.3:92, since minima tuhibbun has been counted as dya no. 89
here), and 95 (maqdmu Ibrahim; f. 4b, 1. 1 = middle of Q.3:97). From this second 100
verse rosette through to the rosette for 150 verses, which comes after al-^alimin (f. 6b,
1. 22 = Q.3:151), the numbering of the manuscript is consistently one dya behind that
of the Kufan system, but then the alif indicating verse 155 occurs after only four dyas
(halim; f. 7a, 1. 20 = Q.3:155), from which point the numbering coincides with that of
the Kufan system until the end of the sura, which is what one would normally have
expected after verse 97. It would thus seem that, although the overall pattern of verse
numbering suggests the Syrian (or, more specifically, Damascene) system, the actual
marking of this system has not been done in any systematic or accurate fashion.

3. Surat al-Nisd' (Q.4:1-176; ff. 9b-20b).

According to the traditional sources, this sura contains 175 verses in the Hijaz! and
Basran systems, 176 in the Kufan, and 177 in the Syrian, the differences stemming
from whether an tadillu 'l-sabil (Q.4:44) and ?adhdban aliman (Q.4:173) are consid
ered as verse-endings or not. (The first is considered as an dya in the Kufan and
Syrian systems; the second only in the Syrian system.)34 In the present manuscript,
which we might expect to represent the Syrian system, there is indeed a suitable space
left after an tadillu 'l-sabil (f. 13a, 1. 13) but no verse-marking and no obvious sign
of there having been any. However, shortly before, in Q.4:43, the word sabilan has
been marked as a full verse-ending, with a suitable gap as well (see f. 12b, 1. 7),
although this is not accepted as a verse-ending in any of the systems mentioned in the
sources, and one can only assume this has been done erroneously in place of (or in
addition to?) an tadillu 'l-sabil. With regard to Q.4:173, there is no such suitable gap
after the word aliman, but a verse has been marked there by the inclusion of four
dashes arranged vertically one above the other (f. 20b, 1. 2). To further complicate
matters, the overall numbering, as with Surat Al Tmrdn above, seems to be confused.
Up to and including verse 40, the ten-verse rosettes in the manuscript are, as one
would expect, in accord with the Kufan system, although the (presumably erroneous)
inclusion of sabilan in verse 34 means that there are actually eleven verses marked
between the 30- and 40-verse rosettes. However, after an tadillu 'l-sabil, which, as we
have seen, is supposed to be counted as a verse-ending by both the Kufans and the
Syrians, the ten-verse rosettes in the manuscript are consistently one verse behind the
Kufan system up until Q.4:151 (marked as 150 in this text; see f. 19b, 1. 3). From that
point on there is further confusion: what seems to be considered a verse ending at

This content downloaded from

154.59.124.32 on Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:08:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 An Early Mushaf According to the Reading of Ibn c Amir 77

ghafuran rahlman (Q.4:152; f. 19b, 1. 5), and is transcribed by Deroche as one, seems
not to be clearly marked as such, although there is certainly a suitably large gap.
There are then a further four verse-endings before the next alif, marking 155 verses,
which occurs after yaqinan (Q.4:157; f. 19b, 19). This "addition" of a verse, howev
er, is offset by there being only four verses between this alif and the next ten-verse
rosette, which occurs at cadhdban aliman (Q.4:161; f. 20a, 1. 5), so that, where
Q.4:151 (in the Kufan numbering) was marked by a ten-verse rosette, Q.4:161 is also
marked by a ten-verse rosette. The next alif occurs after six verses at ba?ldan
(Q.4:167; f. 20b, 1. 14), followed by a ten-verse rosette after only four verses at
wakllan (Q.4:171; f. 20b, 1. 24). This is followed by an alif at the very end of the sura,
although, if we include the four dashes marked after aliman in verse 173 (see above),
six verses have in fact been marked rather than just five. It could thus be maintained
that, in accordance with the Syrian system of numbering, both an tadillu 'l-sabil and
?adhdban aliman have been marked, the one by a gap and the other by four vertical
ly arranged dashes, and that this is a representation of the Syrian system.
Furthermore, if we also count the gap indicated at ghafuran rahlman (see above) as
an dya, we then have a total of 177 dyas marked, which again indicates the Syrian
system. However, the placing of the five- and ten-verse markers is not in accord with
this and shows a general inaccuracy which rules out any reliance on it as a clear indi
cation of the actual expectations of the original scribe (assuming that the verse num
bering - though not, of course, the gaps - was added by a later hand).

4. Surat al-Md'ida (Q.5:l-33; ff. 20b-22).

According to the traditional sources, this sura contains 120 dyas in the Kufan system,
122 in the Hijazi and Syrian systems, and 123 in the Basran system.35 In this frag
ment, the relevant dyas about which there is dispute are:

(i) bi yl-cuqud (Q.5:l), which is not considered an dya in the Kufan system, but is
according to the others. It is marked here in the standard way, and with a suit
ably large gap (f. 20b, 1. 15).
(ii) wa-yacfu can kathir (Q.5:15), which is not considered an dya in the Kufan sys
tem, but is according to the others. The text appears damaged at this point, but
there is a suitably large gap after the word kathir (f. 22a, 1. 2). (Deroche does
not mark a verse-ending here in his transcription.)
(iii) fa-innakum ghdlibun (Q.5:23). Again, there is a suitable gap at this point,
which is considered a verse-ending only by the Basrans, but the text seems
damaged and no dashes are visible. (As in the previous example, Deroche does
not mark a verse-ending here in his transcription.)

The apparent verse-marking here, therefore, seems once again to be inaccurate, or at

least inconsistent with the expectations raised by the traditional literature, since one

This content downloaded from

154.59.124.32 on Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:08:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 78 Journal of Qur'anic Studies

would expect either both (i) and (ii) to be marked and not (iii) (= Hijazi and Syrian
numbering), or, perhaps, all three to be marked (= Basran numbering). One could per
haps argue that the three gaps evident indicate the Basran system, but this is coun
tered by the fact that only the first is clearly marked with dashes.

5. Surat al-Ancam (Q.6:20-165; ff. 23-30a).

Again we are faced with an anomaly here. According to the traditional sources, this
sura contains 165 dyas in the Kufan system, 166 in the Syrian and Basran systems,
and 167 in the Hijazi system.36 In this manuscript, an alif at the very end of the sura
(f. 30a, 1. 8) suggests the Kufan counting of 165 dyas, but the absence of marking of
bi-wakil in Q.6:66 (f. 24b, 1. 22) - which the Kufans accept as an dya - as also of any
suitable gap to indicate a verse-ending, along with the marking of kun fa-yakun in
Q.6:73 (f. 25a, 1. 17) and of sirdtin mustaqim in Q.6:161 (f. 29b, 1. 21), both of which
are discounted as verse-endings by the Kufans, suggests that (a) this sura is not num
bered according to the Kufan system, despite the final alif and (b) that, once again,
the person responsible for indicating the verse-numbering has not done so in a recog
nisably systematic fashion.

6. Surat al-Acrdf (Q.lr: 1-206; ff. 30a-39b).

According to the traditional sources, this sura contains 205 verses in the Basran and
Syrian systems, and 206 in the Kufan and Hijazi systems, with differences relating to
five verse-endings.37 In this manuscript, neither alif-lam-mim-sad (Q.7:l) nor tacudun
(Q.7:29), both of which are accepted as verse-endings in the Kufan system, are
marked (see ff. 30a, 1. 10 and 31a, 1. 12), whereas lahu 'l-dln (in Q.7:29), which is
accepted as a verse-ending in the Basran and Syrian systems, is (f. 31a, 1. 12). The
specifically Hijazi endings of dicfan min al-ndr (Q.7:38; f. 31b, 1. 13) and either al
husnd 'aid Ban! Isrd'U or yustadcafun (both in Q.7:137; f. 35b, 11. 13 and 15) are
unmarked. There also seem to be five verses coming after the ten-verse rosette mark
ing 200 verses, thus indicating a total of 205 verses, although there is no obvious alif
to indicate this.

The above features in this sura are thus consistent with the Syrian (and Basran) num
bering system.

7. Surat al-Anfdl (Q.8:l-25; ff. 39b-40b).

None of the distinctive endings in this sura3S are present in this particular fragment.

8. Surat al-Tawba (Q.9:66-129; ff. 41a-44b).

The only verse-ending about which there is dispute in the portion of the sura here rep
resented is at verse 70, where the Hijazis count wa-cAdin wa-Thamud as an dya.39 It
is not marked here (f. 41a, 1. 12). A ten-verse rosette at the very end of the sura
(f. 44b, 1. 19) indicates a count of 130 verses, which accords with the systems of all

This content downloaded from

154.59.124.32 on Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:08:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 An Early Mushaf According to the Reading of Ibn c Amir 79

except the Kufans (who count only 129 verses). This would again indicate either the
Syrian or Basran system.

9. Surat Yunus (Q. 10:1-77; ff. 44b-48a).

In this fragment neither lahu 'l-din (Q. 10:22) nor li-ma fi 'l-sudur (Q. 10:57), which
are said to be specifically Syrian, are marked, either by dashes or by a gap (see ff. 46a,
1. 10 and 48a, 1. 1), whereas min al-shakirin (Q.10:22), which is said to be counted by
all except the Syrians, is marked (f. 46a, 1. 11). This numbering would thus seem to
be inconsistent with the Syrian system, but consistent with all other systems.40
However, al-Jacbari notes an opinion that lahu l-din and li-ma fi 'l-sudur are only
counted by the Damascenes, with the implication that min al-shakirin is counted by
all except the Damascenes (rather than "the Syrians"), which thus allows the possi
bility of this being according to the HimsT system.41

10. Surat Yusuf (QA2:S4-llU ff. 49a-49b).

There is no dispute about the verse-numbering in this sura41

11. Surat al-Racd (Q.13:l-43; ff. 49b-51b).

Our sources agree that this sura contains 43 verses in the Kufan system, 44 in the
Hijazi system, 45 in the Basran system, and 47 in the Syrian system.43 In the present
manuscript, both khalqin jadid (Q.13:5) and wa 'l-nur (Q.13:16), which are counted
by all except the Kufans, are marked (see ff. 50a, 1. 10 and 50b, 1. 8). In the latter
verse, wa 'l-basir, mentioned by al-Jacbari and al-Banna' as a feature of the
Damascene system and by cUmar ibn Muhammad as Syrian,44 is not marked (f. 50b,
1. 8). A suitable gap after wa 'l-batil in verse 17 (f. 50b, 13) suggests the Himsi system
referred to by al-Jacbari and al-Banna'45 (and is indicated as a verse-ending in
Deroche's transcription, although no actual dashes seem visible from the facsimile),
but neither lahum su'u 'l-hisab (Q.13:18) or min kulli bdb (Q. 13:23), the first a specif
ically Syrian feature and the second common to both the Iraqi and Syrian systems, are
marked (see ff. 50b, 1. 18 and 51a, 1. 2). To further enhance the confusion, the verse
marked by a ten-verse rosette as verse 40 (wa-cindahu cilmu 'l-kitab = Q. 13:39) is fol
lowed three verses later by a five-verse alif after li-man cuqba 'l-dar, following which
the final verse could be considered as either no. 44 (four verses after the ten-verse
rosette) or no. 46 (one verse after the five-verse alif).

All in all, the verse-numbering in this sura in particular seems inconsistent with any
system, let alone a Syrian one.

12. Surat Ibrahim (Q.14:l-56; ff. 51b-53b).

According to cUmar ibn Muhammad and al-Banna', this sura contains 51 verses in
the Basran system, 52 in the Kufan, 54 in the Hijazi, and 55 in the Syrian 46 However,
according to al-Jacbari, it is only the Damascene system that counts 55 verses while

This content downloaded from

154.59.124.32 on Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:08:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 80 Journal of Qur'anic Studies

the Himsi system agrees with the Hijazi in having 54 dyas.41 The relevant dyas about
which there is dispute are:

(i) al-ndsa min al-zMlumdti ild 'l-nur (Q.14:l; f. 51b, 1. 23), and
(ii) qawmaka min al-iulumdti ild 'l-nur (Q.14:5; f. 52a, 1. 4), which are both con
sidered dyas in the Hijazi and Syrian systems, and are marked here.
(iii) wa-cAdin wa-Thamiid (Q.14:9; f. 52a, 1. 12), which is considered an dya in the
Hijazi and Basran systems, and is not marked here.
(iv) bi-khalqin jadid (Q.14:19), which is considered an dya in the Kufan, early
Madinan and Damascene systems (and perhaps the Himsi system as well),48
but is not marked here (f. 52b, 1. 9).
(v) wa-farcuhd fi 'l-sama' (Q. 14:24), which is considered an dya in all except the
early Madinan system, and is marked here (f. 52b, 22).
(vi) al-layla wa 'l-nahdr (Q. 14:33), which is considered an dya by everyone except
the Basrans,49 and is marked here (f. 53a, 1. 8).
(vii) cammd yacmalu 'l-^dlimun (Q.14:42) which is an dya according to the Syrian
system, and is marked here (f. 53a, 1. 22).

Assuming the information in our sources is accurate - and, as is apparent from the
above (see n.49), these sources sometimes exhibit a fair amount of confusion - the
variants in this sura would seem to indicate a Syrian system of numbering, or more
specifically the Himsi system, if we allow, following al-Jacbari and al-Banna', that bi
khalqin jadid is not a verse-ending in the Himsi system. Moreover, there is a ten-verse
rosette after al-qahhdr (Q. 14:48; f. 53b, 1. 7), after which there are a further four vers
es to the end of the sura, which would indicate a total of 54 verses, which, as we have
noted, may be indicative of the Himsi system (as well as of the Hijazi system).
However, if we count the actual number of verses marked we find that, although 54
verses seem to have been marked, the total number actually comes to 55, which is the
number of dyas in what is described as either the Damascene, or, more generally, the
Syrian system. In fact, this whole sura illustrates the problems with the verse-mark
ing in this manuscript: the first ten-rosette, after hamid (Q.14: 8) comes after 10 dyas
(f. 52a, 1. 11), but the second, after ghaliz, (Q.14:17), comes after only 19 (f. 52b, 1.
5). The alif marking 25 verses in fact comes after another seven verses at yatad
hakkarun (Q. 14:25; f. 52b, 1. 23), while the following 30-verse marker comes after a
further four verses at al-bawdr (Q.14:28; f. 53a, 1. 1). The next alif (for 35 verses)
comes seven verses later at al-asnam (Q.14:35; f. 53a, 1. 11), while the next rosette
(for 40 verses) comes only three dyas later at7? 'l-samd' (Q. 14:38; f. 53a, 1. 18). The
next alif (for 45 verses) comes seven verses later at zawdl (Q.14:44; f. 53b, 1. 1), and
the last rosette (for 50 verses) comes four dyas later at al-qahhdr (Q. 14:48; f. 53b,
1. 7), with, as noted above, the whole sura ending four verses later. It is abundantly
clear from this and the other examples above, that the system of five- and ten-verse

This content downloaded from

154.59.124.32 on Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:08:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 An Early Mushaf According to the Reading of Ibn cAmir 81

markers is far from accurately applied in this particular manuscript. However, we can
at least say that, whether the sura is actually marked as having 54 or 55 verses, both
figures accord with a, if not the, Syrian system.

13. Surat al-Hijr (Q.15:l-87; ff. 53b-54b).

There is no dispute regarding the number of verses in this sura.50

14. Surat Fatir (Q.35:13-41; f. 55a-55b).

Again, there is confusion in our literary sources with regard to the details of the verse
numbering in this sura. Some say that the Syrian and later Madinan systems count 46
dyas while everyone else counts 45 ;51 others say that it is only the Damascenes among
the Syrians who count 46 and that in the Himsi system there are only 44 verses.52 As
for the dyas about which there is dispute, they would seem to number nine altogeth
er, although, once again, our texts exhibit some confusion on this point.53 However,
as the beginning and end of this sura are missing in this fragment, only five of these
disputed endings occur here, namely:

(i) bi-khalqin jadid (Q.35:16), which is considered an dya in every system except
the Basran and, possibly, the Himsi,54 and is not marked here (f. 55a, 1. 6).
(ii) al-acma wa ' l-basir (Q.35:19), and
(iii) wa-ld 1-nur (Q.35:20), both of which are considered dyas by everyone except
the Basrans, and both of which are marked here, although in the former case
there is no large gap after the word basir and the six dashes are arranged ver
tically rather than horizontally (f. 55a, 1. 11, for both).
(iv) fi 'l-qubur (Q.35:22), said to be considered an dya either by everyone except
the Damascenes55 or by everyone except the Syrians.56 Here there is clearly a
suitably large gap for an dya break, but no obvious signs of any dashes (see f.
55a, 1. 14).
(v) ilia nadhir (Q.35:23), said to be considered an dya in all systems except that
of Hims.57 It is marked here (f. 55a, 1. 14).

From the above, it would seem from nos. (i), (ii) and (iii), taken together, that the sys
tem being used is described in the sources as being that of Hims. However, while no.
(iv) could be interpreted as supporting the Himsi system in that a verse-gap is clear
ly evident, no. (v), which implies a non-Himsi system, would seem to militate against
this understanding. Once again, we seem to have clear "Syrian" features, but nothing
that could be considered a consistent marking of the same.

15. Surat Sad (Q.38:66-88; f. 56a).

According to the sources, this sura contains 85 verses in the Basran system (or,
according to al-Jacbari and al-Banna', that of al-Jahdari among the Basrans), 86 in the
Hijazi and Syrian systems (and also, according to al-Jacbari and al-Banna', that of

This content downloaded from

154.59.124.32 on Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:08:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 82 Journal of Qur'anic Studies

Ayyub among the Basrans), and 88 according to the Kufans.58 Here the sura seems to
be marked as having 85 dyas, since, although there is no a//f-marker as such at the end
of the final dya, there is what looks like a small square of dots with a slight tail at the
top right, in addition to which this dya comes five verses after the rosette marking 80
verses. According to al-Jacbari and al-Banna', naba'un cazxm (Q.38:67) is counted as
an dya by everyone except the Himsis, while wa 'l-haqqa aqul (Q.38:84) is counted as
an dya by the Kufans, the Himsis, and Ayyub among the Basrans.59 As neither are
marked in the present manuscript (see f. 56a, 11. 2 and 15), there might seem to be a
major inconsistency here, since the former suggests the Himsi system while the latter
denies it. However, in Umar ibn Muhammad's ?Add al-dy we find that the ending
naba 'un a^im is not even mentioned and that wa 'l-haqqa aqul is considered as an dya
only by the Kufans, which at least allows for consistency with what is presumably
considered to be the Syrian system in that source. Having said which, the total of 85
verses suggests the numbering of the Basrans, or at least of al-Jahdari among them,
rather than that of any Syrian system, which leaves us again with our inconsistencies.

16. Surat al-Zumar (Q.39:l-15; f. 56a-56b).

Three disputed verse-endings60 occur in the portion of the sura represented here:

(i) fihi mukhtalifun (Q.39:3), which is considered an dya by all but the Kufans,
and is marked here (f. 56a, 1. 25);
(ii) mukhlisan lahu 'l-din (Q.39:11), which is considered an dya by the Kufans and
the Damascenes, and is not marked here (f. 56b, 1. 24);
(iii) lahu dim (Q.39:14), which is considered an dya by the Kufans, and is not
marked here (f. 56b, 1. 27).

From these three one can only say that the system being used is clearly not Kufan,
and presumably not that of Damascus either.

Conclusion
At one point in his Introduction, Deroche questions whether "the rigorous norms
which regulated the practice of copyists" were imposed right from the beginnings of
the written tradition in the middle of the lst/7th century: "nothing", he says, "is less
certain".61 It would seem from the above, however, that we already have at the time of
this manuscript (whenever that may be) a very accurate portrayal?at least as far as the
consonantal outline of the text is concerned?of one of the readings later to be declared
indisputably mutawdtir by Ibn Mujahid in the 4th/llth century, namely, that of Ibn
cAmir. At the same time the inaccuracies in the verse-numbering suggest a very dif
ferent approach to that aspect of the manuscript tradition?at least, for this particular
manuscript.62 Thus while the accuracy of the early textual tradition is given great credi
bility by this find, as also the literary tradition associated with the science of Qur'anic

This content downloaded from

154.59.124.32 on Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:08:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 An Early Mushaf According to the Reading of Ibn c Amir 83

readings, the same cannot be said for the numbering system employed, which, as we
have seen, manifests a large number of inaccuracies and/or inconsistencies.

The two main questions about such a manuscript, though, will remain those of date
and provenance. As far as the second is concerned, Ibn Mujahid notes that Ibn
cAmir's reading was the dominant reading amongst the people of "Syria and the
Jazira" (i.e. the Levant and Upper Mesopotamia) in his day,63 while Ibn al-Jazari says
that it continued to be the reading used by the people of Syria "up until around the
year 500", at which time it was replaced by the reading of Abu c Amr.64 One thus feels
justified in saying that this manuscript almost definitely originated somewhere in this
region. This would seem to be the obvious presumption from the reading, and,
although the verse-numbering is not, as we have seen, altogether conclusive, it does
seem as if, despite the inconsistencies, there is some sort of "Syrian" stamp to it,
which at least ties it in with the Syrian nature of the reading. This also enables us to
confirm the perhaps obvious point that "Hijazi" script should not be understood to
refer geographically only to the Hijaz.65

As for the question of date, Deroche states that the Hijazi script "was certainly
employed for copying the Qur'an in the 7th century AD and may have continued to
be used in the 8th", adding that it illustrates "the first stage in the history of Qur'anic
calligraphy".66 He also accepts that the use of parchment and a vertical format are
generally indications of an early date, although this does not preclude the possibility
that (a) some horizontal format Qur'ans are also early, and (b) that some "Hijazi"
Qur'ans also date from a later period.67 Indeed, he is prepared to date our present
manuscript, as we saw at the beginning of this article, to the early 8th century. If, how
ever, we accept that such vertical-format "Hijazi" Qur'ans are generally earlier than
the horizontal-format "Kufic" Qur'ans common in the 2nd-4th centuries AH (which
Deroche prefers to refer to as "Abbasid" since most of them derive from that
period),68 and if we further accept that the "Kufic" (or "Abbasid") scripts exhibited
by these Qur'ans were already being used in the latter part of the Umayyad period at
the beginning of the 2nd or even end of the 1st century AH (e.g. MS Sanaa, Dar al
Makhtutat, 20-33.1 [see n. 3 above], which is in a standard "Abbasid" script akin to
Deroche's Type C.I), then we are left with some interesting possibilities: the mushaf
represented by MS Arabe 328a might not only date from the latter part of Ibn c Amir's
(d. 118/736) life, but also, conceivably, to an earlier period closer to the time of
cUthman's promulgation of a "standard" text (albeit with some regional variations),
before "Kufic" scripts such as Deroche's C.I began to be commonly used - assuming
that such "Kufic" scripts did only develop later, after the "Hijazi" ones. In other
words, if "Kufic" scripts developed after "Hijazi" ones, and some "Kufic" scripts
were already in use in the second half of the Umayyad period, then some "Hijazi"
scripts must date from an earlier period, including, as von Bothmer suggests, the first

This content downloaded from

154.59.124.32 on Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:08:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 84 Journal of Qur'anic Studies

half of the 1st century AH.69 The present manuscript could thus conceivably be a
Syrian copy made from, or close to the time of, one of the cUthmani originals, rather
like the copy possessed by Malik (d. 179/795) that his grandfather had written "at the
time when cUthman wrote the mushafs".10 At the very least it would seem reasonable
to assume that it was a copy made in Syria during Umayyad times, which, put differ
ently, means that it was a copy made in Syria at the time when the seat of the caliphate
was in Syria - which could prove to be significant if questions of cost and patronage
are at issue.

If, on the other hand, Ibn cAmir's reading was not really fixed until the time of those
later considered as the main rawis from him, i.e. Hisham (d. c. 245/859) and Ibn
Dhakwan (d. 242/856),71 then this could simply be a late (i.e. Abbasid) example of a
parchment, vertical-format, Hijazi manuscript, as suggested by Deroche's caveat
above.

As for the anomalous verse-numbering, an early date could help to explain this too.
Since the Qur'an was in its early stages primarily a "spoken" document, and since one
can expect the possible stopping-places (waqafat) to have been far more fluid in a
spoken text than the actual words, then it makes sense that an early manuscript such
as the present one should exhibit a much more anomalous numbering-system, with
numerous inconsistencies, than later copies. Indeed, that regional norms of verse
numbering were not set until some time in the second century AH - in Syria, at least
- and that this manuscript therefore predates that time, is suggested by the attribution
of the Damascene system to Ibn cAmir (d. 118/736) and Yahya al-Dhamari (d.
145/762), and of the Himsi system to Shurayh (Abu Haywa) (d. 203/818).72 By con
trast, the reading - or at least its consonantal representation - is, as we have seen,
remarkably consistent with one of the known mutawatir readings. Perhaps the possi
bility should also be borne in mind that this was a private copy (as with Malik's
grandfather's above) and that, although the main text was correctly copied, less care
was taken with the verse-numbering, either because it was less important, or perhaps
because, as suggested above, there was simply less knowledge about it and regional
norms had not yet been fixed.

It is of course dangerous to generalise from one specific instance, and even more so
when there is a fair measure of speculation thrown in, but one hopes that, with the
continued publication of facsimiles such as the present one, further details will come
to light which will enable us to build up a clearer picture of the earliest stages in the
textual history of the Qur'an.

This content downloaded from

154.59.124.32 on Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:08:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 An Early Mushaf According to the Reading of Ibn c Amir 85

NOTES

1 Francis Deroche and Sergio Noja Noseda (eds.), Sources de la transmission man
texte coranique. I. Les manuscrits de style higazi. Volume 1. Le manuscrit arabe 32
Bibliotheque nationale de France (Fondazione Ferni Noja Noseda, Leda, and Bibli
nationale de Paris, 1998. ISBN 88-87281-00-9). I am grateful to Dr. Colin Baker of th
Library, London, for allowing me access to a copy of this book before it had been
by the Library.
2 Deroche draws a fine distinction between these two terms: "Hijazi" scripts where
acteristic sloping alif has a return at the base (as in our present manuscript), he des
Hijazi I, while similar scripts where the same sloping alif 'has no return at the base (as
Library MS Or. 2165, illustrated, for example, in Nabia Abbott, The Rise of the Nor
Script and Its Kur'anic Development [Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1939], Pla
1), he designates as Hijazi II, which, he says, "is more generally known as ma'il"(see
Deroche, The Abbasid Tradition: Qur'ans of the 8th to the 10th Centuries A.D. [Lon
Oxford: The Nour Foundation, in association with Azimuth Editions and Oxford U
Press, 1992], p. 28). Others, however, consider both terms to refer effectively to the sa
(e.g. Gerd-R. Puin, "Observations on Early Qur'an Manuscripts in Sanca'", in Ste
[ed.], The Qur'an as Text [Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996], p. 108).
3 See Deroche, Abbasid Tradition, p. 32, Cat. 1, referring to a single folio from
mushaf in the Nasser David Khalili Collection in London (Accession No. KFQ60).
Vida was also prepared to accept that the single folio in the Vatican Library from
mushaf (MS Vat. Ar. 1605) was one of the oldest Qur'anic fragments known, and t
well date from the second half of the 1 st century AH, although he acknowledged tha
early date was "not unanimously accepted by scholars" (see Giorgio Levi dell
Frammenti Coranici in Carattere Cufico nella Biblioteca Vaticana. Codici Vatic ani A
e 1606 [Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1947], p. 2, also vii-ix). Similar
manuscripts found in the Sanaa collection are dated by von Bothmer to the 1st centur
for example, Hans-Caspar Graf von Bothmer, "Fruhislamische Koran-Illumin
Meisterwerke aus dem Handschriftenfund der Grossen Moschee in Sanaa/Yemen",
Antiquitaten, 1 [1986], p. 25, Plate 3; idem, "Masterworks of Islamic Book Art:
Calligraphy and Illumination in the Manuscripts found in the Great Mosque in
Werner Daum [ed.], Yemen: 3000 Years of Art and Civilisation in Arabia Felix [Innsb
Frankfurt/Main: Pinguin-Verlag and Umschau-Verlag, 1987(?)], p. 179). De Slane, h
dated MS Paris, BN, Arabe 328a to the 3rd century AH, basing his assessment on the a
that leaving a space at the beginning of a sura for the title, as occurs in this manuscr
introduced only at the end of the 2nd century (see M. Le Baron de Slane, Catalogue
uscrits arabes de la Bibliotheque nationale (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1883-95), p
latter argument, however, would seem to be very weak, especially in the light of the
coveries in Sanaa where at least one manuscript (i.e. MS Sanaa, Dar al-Makhtutat
dated by von Bothmer to the Umayyad period - and quite possibly, to the reign of al-
cAbd al-Malik (r. 86-96/705-715) - clearly displays this feature (see for examp
Casper Graf von Bothmer, "Architekturbilder im Koran: Eine Prachthandsch
Umayyadenzeit aus dem Yemen", Pantheon 45 [1987], pp. 4-20, esp. Plates 10, 11
17-20, 23, 24; idem, "Fruhislamische Koran-Illuminationen", p. 31, Plate 11; al
"Masterworks", p. 179).
4 Occasionally one finds a number of examples on one folio, e.g. one stroke above th
for the nun in minhu in f. 10a, 1. 17; two strokes above the "tooth" for the ta' in t
taraku in f. 10a, 11. 16 and 21; and three strokes above the "tooth" for the tha" in kath
10a, 1. 17; but such pointing is very infrequent elsewhere in the manuscript.

This content downloaded from

154.59.124.32 on Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:08:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 86 Journal of Qur'anic Studies

5 For Ibn 'Amir, see, for example, al-Dhahabl, Macrifat al-qurra' al-kibdr ?ala'l-tabaqat
wa'l-?asdr, ed. Muhammad Sayyid Jad al-Haqq (2 vols., Cairo: Dar al-Kutub al-Haditha, c.
1969), i. 67-70 (esp. pp. 68 and 69, where he is described as having headed [ra'asa] the
mosque in Damascus from the time of cAbd al-Malik [d. 86/705] onwards); Ibn al-Jazari,
Ghdyat al-nihdya ft tabaqdt al-qurra'x ed. G. Bergstrasser (2 vols., 3rd edn, Beirut: Dar al
Kutub al-cIlmiyya, 1402/1982), i. 423-5.
6 Ibn Mujahid, Kitab al-Sabca fi'l-qira'at, ed. Shawqi Dayf (Cairo: Dar al-Macarif, c.
1400/1980).
7 By "substantive" we exclude simple spelling variants such as those involving the absence of
a medial alif in words such as qdla, kitab, etc, of which there are many examples in this man
uscript. (For this feature in the early manuscripts found in the Great Mosque in Sanca\ see
Puin, "Observations", p. 108).
8 These thirteen variants are culled from the list provided in Bergstrasser's update of
Noldeke's Geschichte des Qorans (Theodor Noldeke, Geschichte des Qorans, Band III: Die
Geschichte des Qorantexts, 2nd edn revised by Gotthelf Bergstrasser and Otto Pretzl [Leipzig:
Dieterichsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1926-36], 11-14) which in turn is based on al-Danl's
Kitab al-Muqni?, where a total of thirty-eight such variants are listed for the whole of the
Qur'an (see al-Danl, Kitab al-Muqnic ft rasm masdhif al-amsar, ed. Muhammad Sadiq
Qamhawi [Cairo: Maktabat al-Kulliyyat al-Azhariyya, n.d.], pp. 106-112).
9 Ibn Mihran, al-Mabsut fi'l-qira'at al-'ashr, ed. Subayc Hamza Hakimi (Damascus: Majmac
al-Lugha al-cArabiyya, ca. 1981).
10 Ibn al-Jazari, al-Nashrfi'l-qira'at al-?ashr, ed. All Muhammad al-Dabbac (2 vols., Beirut:
Dar al-Fikr, n.d.; originally Damascus, 1927).
11 al-Banna', Ithdf fudald' al-bashar fi'l-qira'at al-arbac ?ashr, ed. 'All Muhammad al
Dabbac (Beirut: Dar al-Nadwa al-Jadlda, n.d.; originally Cairo: Matbacat Abd al-Hamld
Hanafi, 1359 [1940]).
12 See Ibn Mihran, Mabsut, p. 169; also: Ibn Mujahid, Sab?a, p. 216; al-Danl, Muqni0, pp.
106, 113, 114-115; Ibn al-Jazari, Nashr, ii. 242; al-Banna', Ithdf pp. 179, 185.
13 Mabsut, p. 172. See also Ibn Mujahid, Sabca, p. 221; al-Dani, Muqnic, pp. 106, 115; Ibn
al-Jazari, Nashr, ii. 245; al-Banna', Ithdf, pp. 183, 185.
14 Mabsut, p. 172. Ibn Ghalbun (d. 399/1009), in his Tadhkira, says that the reading wa-bi'l
zuburi wa-bi'l-kitdb is the reading of Hisham (d. c. 244/858), from 'Irak ibn Khalid (d. before
200/815), from Yahya ibn al-Harith al-Dhamari (d. 145/762), from Ibn cAmir, whereas wa-bi'l
zuburi wa- 'l-kitdb is the reading of Ibn Dhakwan (d. 242/856), from Ayyub ibn Tamlm (d.
198/813), from Yahya ibn al-Harith al-Dhamari, from Ibn cAmir (see Ibn Ghalbun, al-Tadhkira
fi'l-qira'at al-thaman, ed. Ayman Rushdl Suwayd [2 vols., Jeddah: al-Jama'a al-Khayriyya li
Tahfiz al-Qur'an al-Karim, 1412/1991], ii. 300, also 188). Ibn al-Jazari, in a long discussion on
this point which relies partly on al-Dani (see Nashr, ii. 245-6; cf. al-Danl, Muqni0, pp. 106,
115), supports this basic distinction but points out that there is a difference of opinion on
Hisham's reading of this phrase, with almost all transmissions from him via al-Hulwanl read
ing wa-bi'l-kitdb, but certain others from him reading wa'l-kitdb. Ibn al-Jazari also notes, again
following al-Dani, that this phrase was written as wa-bi'l-kitdb "in the mushaf of the people of
Hims which cUthman sent to the people of Syria", adding that he himself had seen it that way
"in the Syrian mushaf in the Umayyad Mosque". He further notes that "in the mushaf of
Madina" he had seen the first ba' (i.e. that in wa-bi'l-zuburi) written, but not the second (i.e.
that of wa-bi'l-kitdb). (For this last point, see also al-Banna', Ithdf, p. 183.)
15 See Ibn Mihran, Mabsut, p. 180; also: Ibn Mujahid, Sabca, p. 235; al-Danl, Muqni0, pp.
107, 115; Ibn al-Jazari, Nashr, ii. 250; al-Banna', Ithdf, pp. 192, 197.

This content downloaded from

154.59.124.32 on Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:08:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 An Early Mushaf According to the Reading of Ibn c Amir 87

16 See Ibn al-Jazari, Nashr, ii. 257; also: Ibn Mujahid, Sabca, p. 256; Ibn Mihran, Mabsut, p.
193; al-Dani, Muqnic, pp. 107, 115; al-Banna', Ithaf pp. 207, 221.
17 See Ibn al-Jazari, Nashr, ii. 259; also: Ibn Mujahid, Sabca, pp. 259-60; Ibn Mihran,
Mabsut, pp. 195-6; al-Dani, Muqnic, pp. 107, 116; al-Banna', Ithaf, pp. 210, 221.
18 See Ibn Mujahid, Sabca, p. 270; Ibn Mihran, Mabsut, p. 203; al-Dani, Muqnic, pp. 107,
115; Ibn al-Jazari, Nashr, ii. 263-5; al-Banna', Ithaf, pp. 217-18, 221.
19 No other instances of this word show such a gap, although they show slight variations of
spelling. Thus, for example, shuraka'ukum is spelt with an alif and a wdw in ff. 23a, 1. 4
(Q.6:22), and 46b, 1. 9 (Q. 10:28); shuraka'uhum is spelt with a wdw but no preceding alif in f.
46b, 1. 10 (Q. 10:28); shuraka'akum is spelt simply with an alif and no sizeable following gap
in ff. 39b, 1. 2 (Q.7:195) and 48b, 1. 9 (Q.10:71); shuraka'ina is spelt with a and no pre
ceding alif in f. 28a, 1. 5 (Q.6:136); shuraka'ikum is spelt with an alif and a following ;ya' in ff.
46b, 1. 23 (Q. 10:34) and 47a, 1. 2 (Q. 10:35); and shurakd'ihim is spelt with a yd' and no pre
ceding alif in f. 28a, 11. 5 and 6 (Q.6:136). (All of these instances are spelt with an alif in stan
dard modern editions.)
20 See Ibn Mujahid, Sabca, p. 278; Ibn Mihran, Mabsut, p. 207; al-Dani, Muqnic, pp. 107,
115; Ibn al-Jazari, Nashr, ii. 267; al-Banna', Ithaf, pp. 222 (where the four readings beyond the
Ten are only implicitly mentioned and not overtly stated), 235.
21 See Ibn Mujahid, Sabca, p. 280; also: Ibn Mihran, Mabsut, p. 208; al-Dani, Muqnic, pp.
107, 115; Ibn al-Jazari, Nashr, ii. 269; al-Banna', Ithaf, pp. 224, 235.
22 See al-Dani, Muqnic, pp. 107-8, 115; also: Ibn Mujahid, Sabca, p. 284; Ibn Mihran,
Mabsut, p. 210; Ibn al-Jazari, Nashr, ii. 270; al-Banna', Ithaf pp. 226, 235.
23 See Ibn Mujahid, Sabca, p. 293; Ibn Mihran, Mabsut, p. 214; al-Dani, Muqnic, pp. 108,
115; Ibn al-Jazari, Nashr, ii. 271; al-Banna', Ithaf pp. 229, 235.
24 See Ibn Mihran, Mabsut, p. 228; also: Ibn Mujahid, Sabca, p. 317; al-Danl, Muqnic, pp.
108, 114; Ibn al-Jazari, Nashr, ii. 280; al-Banna', Ithaf pp. 244, 246.
25 See Ibn Mujahid, Sabca, p. 318; also: Ibn Mihran, Mabsut, p. 229; al-Dani, Muqni0, pp.
108, 115; Ibn al-Jazari, Nashr, ii. 281; al-Banna', Ithaf pp. 244, 246.
26 See Ibn Mujahid, Sabca, p. 325; Ibn Mihran, Mabsut, p. 233; al-Dani, Muqnic, pp. 108,
115; Ibn al-Jazari, Nashr, ii. 282; al-Banna', Ithaf pp. 248, 254. This is one of the readings that
al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf (d. 95/714) is said to have changed in "the mushaf 'of Uthman", preferring
yusayyirukum to yanshurukum (see Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-masahif, ed. Arthur Jeffrey, in
idem, Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur'an [Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1937], Arabic text,
p. 49).
27 See, for example, al-Banna', Ithaf, pp. 118-119.
28 For three dashes arranged vertically, see, for example, f. 10a, 11. 15, 18 and 20; for four, ff.
9b (several instances) and 20b, 1. 2; for what seem to be six, ff. 2a, 1. 7, and 55a, 11. 11 and 26;
and for eight, f. 9b, 1. 9. For illustrations of the general style of verse-numbering in this manu
script, the reader is also referred to Levi della Vida, Frammenti, Plate 1, and Deroche, Abbasid
Tradition, p. 32, Cat. 1.
29 See al-Jacbari (d. 732/1332), Husn al-madad fi macrifat fann al-cadad, British Library,
London, MS Or. 12854/1, f. 16a; al-Banna', Ithaf, p. 125; also Ibn Mihran, Mabsut^ p. 90, n. *.
The figure of 284 verses is given by Abu '1-Qasim cUmar ibn Muhammad ibn cAbd al-Kafi
(d. c. 400/1009) (whose information derives, via one intermediary, from the same Ibn Mihran
who is the author of the Mabsut), in his ?Add al-ayfi suwar al-Qur'an (= MS British Library,
London, Or. 14501, f. 12a). However, this and certain other anomalies in this manuscript cause
one to doubt its reliability at times.

This content downloaded from

154.59.124.32 on Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:08:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 88 Journal of Qur'anic Studies

30 See al-Jacbari, Husn al-madad, f. 18a; al-Banna', Ithdf, p. 169; also Ibn Mihran, Mabsut,
p. 160, n. *. Umar ibn Muhammad, however (cAdd, f. 14a), says that the Syrians only count
194 verses in this sura.

31 Although the basmala seems to have been counted, as well as marked, as an dya here, it is
clear that in other instances it is not counted, although it is marked (e.g. Surat al-Ma?ida, Surat
al-Anfal, Surat Yunus, Surat al-Racd, Surat Ibrahim, Surat al-Hijr and Surat al-Zumar). In two
instances (Surat al-Nisa' and Surat al-Acrdf), the basmala is not given a verse-marker at all.
(Puin notes ["Observations", p. 110] that, in some of the "Hijazi" fragments found in Sanca',
"the Basmalas at the outset of the Suras are always marked by a verse separator.")
32 See al-Jacbari, Husn al-madad, f. 18a; al-Banna', Ithdf p. 169; also Ibn Mihran, Mabsut,
p. 160, n. *.
33 See al-Jacbari, Husn al-madad, f. 18a-b; al-Banna', Ithdf, p. 169; also Ibn Mihran, Mabsut,
p. 160, n. *.
34 See cUmar ibn Muhammad, cAdd, f. 15a; al-Jacbari, Husn al-madad, f. 19b; al-Banna',
Ithdf, p. 185; also Ibn Mihran, Mabsut, p. 175, n. *.
35 See cUmar ibn Muhammad, ?Add, f. 16a; al-Jacbari, Husn al-madad, f. 20b; al-Banna',
Ithdf, p. 197; also Ibn Mihran, Mabsut, p. 184, n. *.
36 See cUmar ibn Muhammad, cAdd, f. 17a; al-Jacbari, Husn al-madad, f. 21b; al-Banna',
Ithdf p. 205; also Ibn Mihran, Mabsut, p. 191, n. *.
37 See cUmar ibn Muhammad, ?Add, f. 18a; al-Jacbari, Husn al-madad, f. 22b; al-Banna',
Ithdf p. 222; also Ibn Mihran, Mabsut, p. 207, n. *.
38 See cUmar ibn Muhammad, cAdd, f. 19a-b; al-Jacbari, Husn al-madad, f. 24a; al-Banna',
Ithf p. 235; also Ibn Mihran, Mabsut, p. 220, n. *.
39 See cUmar ibn Muhammad, cAdd, f. 19b; al-Jacbari, Husn al-madad, f. 24b; al-Banna',
Ithdf pp. 239-40; also Ibn Mihran, Mabsut, p. 225, n. *.
40 See cUmar ibn Muhammad, cAdd, f. 20b; al-Jacbari, Husn al-madad, f. 25b; al-Banna',
Ithdf p. 246; also Ibn Mihran, Mabsut, p. 231, n. *.
41 See al-Jacbari, Husn al-madad, f. 25b.
42 See, for example, al-Banna', Ithdf p. 261; also Ibn Mihran, Mabsut, p. 244, n. *.
43 See cUmar ibn Muhammad, cAdd, f. 23a; al-Jacbari, Husn al-madad, f. 27b; al-Banna',
Ithaf, p. 269; also Ibn Mihran, Mabsut, p. 251, n. *.
44 For references, see previous note.
45 See al-Jacbari, Husn al-madad, f. 27b; al-Banna', Ithdf p. 269.
46 See cUmar ibn Muhammad, cAdd, f. 23b; al-Banna', Ithdf p. 271; also Ibn Mihran, Mabsut,
p. 256, n. *.
47 See al-Ja?bari, Husn al-madad, f. 28a.
48 Al-JacbarT (Husn al-madad, f. 28a) and al-Banna' (Ithdf, p. 271) say "early Madinan, Kufan
and Damascene", whereas cUmar ibn Muhammad (cAdd, f. 23b) says "Kufan, Syrian and Yazid
[i.e. Abu Jacfar = early Madinan]".
49 See cUmar ibn Muhammad, cAdd, f. 23b; Ibn Mihran, Mabsut, p. 256, n. *. In al-Jacbari's
Husn al-madad (f. 28a) the relevant text reads "?wa-farcu-ha fi fl-sama'? ghayr al-awwal wa
ghayr Basri, ?al-layla wa'l-nahar? wa-Shdmi [sic], ?camma yacmalu 'l-^dlimun?\ while in al
Banna" s Ithdf (p. 271) it reads "?wa-farcu-hd fi 'l-sama'? ghayr awwal wa-ghayr Basri, ?wa
sakhkhara lakumu 'l-layla wa'l-nahdr? Shami, ?camma ya?malu 'l-zdlimun? Shdmf, both of
which texts seem to exhibit clear corruption. If we compare these references with cUmar ibn

This content downloaded from

154.59.124.32 on Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:08:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 An Early Mushaf According to the Reading of Ibn c Amir 89

Muhammad's cAdd al-dy and Ibn Mihran's Mabsut it becomes clear that the text in both cases
should in fact read something like "?wa-farcu-ha fi 'l-sama'? ghayr [al-]awwal, ?[wa
sakhkhara lakumu] 'l-layla wa'l-nahar? ghayr Basri, ?camma yacmalu ,l-z,alimun? Shamt\
50 See, for example, al-Banna', Ithaf\ p. 274; also Ibn Mihran, Mabsut, p. 259, n. *.
51 See cUmar ibn Muhammad, cAdd, f. 37a. Cf. Ibn Mihran, Mabsut, p. 366, n. *.
52 See al-Jacbari, Husn al-madad, f. 40a; al-Banna', Ithaf, p. 361.
53 cUmar ibn Muhammad (cAdd, f. 37a) says "seven", but only mentions six; al-Banna' (Ithaf,
p. 361), says "seven", but then seems to mention nine (a confusion between the numbers
"seven" [sabc] and "nine" [tisc] in Arabic is of course easily explained by their orthographic
similarities); al-Jacbari (Husn al-madad, f. 40a) says "nine" and mentions nine. Cf. Ibn Mihran,
Mabsut, p. 366, n. *, who mentions six disputed endings without, of course, mentioning those
that are specific to the (or a) Syrian system.
54 ?Umar ibn Muhammad (cAdd, f. 37a) mentions this as being counted by all except the
Basrans. Al-Jacbari (Husn al-madad, f. 40a) and al-Banna' (Ithaf, p. 361), mention it as being
counted by all except the Basrans and the Himsis.
55 al-Jacbari, Husn al-madad, f. 40a; al-Banna', Ithaf, p. 361.
56 cUmar ibn Muhammad, cAdd, f. 37a.
57 al-Jacbari, Husn al-madad, f. 40a; al-Banna', Ithaf, p. 361. Cf. cUmar ibn Muhammad,
cAdd, f. 37a, where this possible ending is not mentioned.
58 See cUmar ibn Muhammad, cAdd, f. 39a; al-Jacbari, Husn al-madad, ff. 41b-42a; al
Banna', Ithaf, p. 371. Cf. Ibn Mihran, Mabsut, p. 380, n. *.
59 This is the view of al-Jacbari (Husn al-madad, ff. 41b-42a) and al-Banna' (Ithaf, p. 371).
cUmar ibn Muhammad (cAdd, f. 39a) simplifies the position by not specifically mentioning
either the Himsis or an "Ayyubid" position among the Basrans. For this "simplified" Basran
position, see also Ibn Mihran, Mabsut, p. 380, n. *.
60 For these, see cUmar ibn Muhammad, cAdd, f. 40a; al-Jacbari, Husn al-madad, f. 42b; al
Banna' Ithaf, p. 374; also Ibn Mihran, Mabsut, p. 383, n. *.
61 Deroche and Noja Noseda, Le manuscrit arabe 328 (a), p. xvii.
62 Puin notes ("Observations", p. 110), with regard to the verse-numbering of the Sanca' man
uscripts, that there is often "no thorough correspondence with any of the ... traditional sys
tems".

63 Ibn Mujahid, Sabca, p. 87.

64 Ibn al-Jazari, Ghaya, i. 424, 292; also idem, Nashr, ii. 264.
65 Cf. Deroche and Noja Noseda, Le manuscrit arabe 328 (a), p. xxiv, n. 18.
66 Deroche, Abbasid Tradition, pp. 28, 32.
67 Deroche and Noja Noseda, Le manuscrit arabe 328 (a), p. xiii.
68 Deroche, Abbasid Tradition, p. 34.
69 See von Bothmer, "Masterworks", p. 179.
70 See Ibn Rushd al-Jadd, al-Baydn wa'l-tahsil wa'l-sharh wa'l-tawjih wa'l-taclil li-ma fi
masd'il al-Mustakhraja, ed. Muhammad Hajji (20 vols., 2nd edn, Beirut: Dar al-Gharb al
Islaml, 1408/1988), xviii. 275 (also xvii. 33); al-Dani, Muqni, p. 116.
71 For these two rawis, see, for example, Ibn Ghalbun, Tadhkira, i. 25-29; Ibn al-Jazari,
Nashr, i. 135-146; al-Banna', Ithaf, p. 7.
72 See al-Banna', Ithaf, p. 119.

This content downloaded from

154.59.124.32 on Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:08:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms