172 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 12:2 critical edition of the text of the Qur'an." 12 Jeffery, in fact, intended to pub­ lish a critical edition featuring one column of Kiifi script facing a critical­ ly edited ijaf~ text on the opposite page. 13 In his attempt to introduce "rival codices"14 to the Uthmanic Codex on the basis of variant readings mentioned in works by Muslim scholars, he produced approximately fifteen ''primary" codices and thirteen "sec­ ondary" codices. The fifteen primary codices are ascribed to 'Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud, Ubayy ibn Ka'b, 'Ali ibn Abii Talib, 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas, Abu Musa, ijaf~ah, Anas ibn Malik, 'Umar ibn al Kha.t.tab, Zayd ibn Thabit, 'Abd 'Allah ibn Zubayr, Ibn 'Amr, 'A'ishah, Salim, Umm Salamah, and 'Ubayd ibn 'Umayr. He also ascribed some secondary codices to mem­ bers of the next generation, among them al Aswad 'Alqamah, iji_t,tan, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, Talbah, 'Ikrimah, Mujahid, 'A.ta' ibn Ab1 Rabab, al Rabi' ibn Khuthaym, al A'mash, Ja'far al Sadiq, Sa.lib ibn Kaysan, and al ijarith ibn Suwayd. In addition, he lists some unnamed codices with a number of variant readings. It should be remembered that not every person purported to have a certain codex actually possessed a personal copy of the Qur'an. However, based on some variant readings ascribed to these individuals that differ from the reading of the 'Uthmanic Codex, Jeffery assigns to each of them a rival codex, regardless of whether or not the person con­ cerned claimed or insisted upon a particular reading ascribed to him/her after the appearance of the official recension. It is also worthy of mention that none of these rival codices, some of which were said to exist in the Kitiib al Ma~ii.hif1 5 and other sources16 before the time of the official recen­ sion, have survived until our own time. As Jeffery says: "It is unfortunate that not sufficient [material] has survived to enable us to get a real picture of the text of any one of them."11 Nevertheless, "in some cases, Jeffery was able to determine the primary codex from which a secondary one was d • d 1118 enve . Orthographic Peculiarities of the 'Uthmanic Recension In his attempt to revive precanonical readings, Jeffery seems to be very concerned about lbn Shanabudh (d. 328 A.H.) and lbn Miqsam (d. 362 A.H.), who were not allowed uncanonical readings or to make use of the old variants that existed before the fixing of the text. 19 He is also very crit­ ical of lbn Mujahid (d. 324 A.H.), who settled on seven reading styles and decreed that only they were the canonical and permissible ways of vow­ elling and reading the 'Uthmanic recension.20 It is important to note that in some later works on reading styles, some Muslim scholars added three and others even seven more reading styles to the seven of Ibn Mujahid. However, all of these readings conformed to the 'Uthmanic text's orthog­ raphy, and the major interests of the reciters (qurra') were confined to questions of orthography (rasm) and pause (waqf). Chaudhary: Orientalism on Variant Readings 173 Jeffery, while dealing with the orthographic peculiarities of the 'Uthmanic recension, calls them "oddities" and "mistakes." He criticizes al Dan1 (d. 444 A.H.) who, in his al Muqni, which is a book of instructions for Qur'anic scribes, insists on the following spellings: .:.,.,.:,.J with final .::. in 19:1, ~ with along I ahfinsteadofthenorrnal ~ in 18:36,l"~instead ofl"1~14in 20:95, 1:i... Jt...instead of t:i+J 1..o in 18:47, and ~4 Ji instead of ~l}t in 37:130.21 Without going into the issue of whether the 'Uthmanic script is God-given (tawqifi) or not, it is necessary to point out that it is confirmed by the unanimous judgment (ijma') of the Companions and the following generation.22 It is also important to note that, in most cases, the peculiari­ ties of the 'Uthmanic script represent non-Quraysh-1 dialects. For example, the Banii Tayy wrote the final -:. rather than o (ta' marbu_tah). 23 We can conclude the discussion on orthographic variants by saying that the peculiarities of the 'Uthmanic script, like writing ~a/at and zakii.t with a waw, should not be overemphasized and exaggerated. Doing so runs counter to conventional orthography only in the case of certain spe­ cific words that can be singled out easily for explanation. Variant Readings of al FatiJ:iah To analyze critically Jeffery's treatment of various Qur'anic readings, it seems better to use one surah as an example. We will use Surah al F iitihah. He states that 'Abd Allah ibn Mas'iid is reported to have read: dL. for l!l}G. G.if,'.,i for GJA! 0.o for 0:!J1 and Ji:. for ;;. 24 Ubayy ibn Ka'b is reported to have read ~ and ~ for ~r. J~~ for J~! ~ and t!J for G,.u! 25 ~I.bl .>"""' for ~I .bl.,.-JI ',. :ill IJ'!, for ',. jjl 1...1:!. and ,, . for ;.; 26 .>!;&- 'An ibn Ab1 Talib is reported to have read: ~ and r-~ ~ for ~i:.. ~ for ~! ,~d :fa.. for ;.; z1 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas is reported to have read: .i..1J:"" for 11->:"" all through the Qur'an.28 'Umar ibn al Kha.t.tab is reported to have read: ~ for ~r.. ;;. for ~Ji , and ~i:...11 ;;c.J for ~t....11 {, 29 , r 'A'ishah and Sa'ad ibn Ab1 Waqqa~ are reported to have read: ~ for~~ ID 174 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 12:2 Some of Jeffery's secondary codices followed the primary codices in variant readings of al Fatibah. Abu Rab1 ibn Khuthaym, who generally fol­ lowed 'Abd Allah ibn Mas'iid in variant readings, 1s reported to have read ..bl_,.:,JI for 11_,.....J1 in al Fatibah and in the rest of the Qur'an.31 Al A'mash, another follower of Ibn Mas'iid, is also reported to have read .bl.JI for .bl.,.....JI throughout the Qur'an.32 With regard to al Fatibah, in addition to what Jeffery has mentioned in his Materials, many other variant readings have been mentioned by Muslim scholars on the various reading styles (qirif iit). For example, Abu Mubammad Mak.1(1 ibn Ab-1 Talib al Qays-1 (d. 437 A.H.) along with many other variants of this surah, ascribes some more readings to the Compan­ ions. He says that Abii Hurayrah is reported to have read ~ for .:J}l.'.. , 33 and 'Abd Allah ibn al Zubayr (as well as 'Umar ibn al Kha.t.tab) to have read ~i::;.11);"" for~1 ~:J,·i.rJ:"". 34 He has also mentioned that Yabya ibn Waththab, a member of the following generation, has read ::,::_.~·. ~· with kasrah on the first nun for::,::_.~·.~. withfiitihah on the first nun, and that Abu Sawar al Ghanaw1, one of the most eloquent Arabs in history, read ::ii;:.j~::ii;:. for::J~J,~::l~!. 35 Ibn Khalawayh (d. 376 A.H.), on the authority of al A~ma1., says that Abu 'Amr read 11J?1 for .bl~l. 36 Other variant readings of al Fatibah have been given by Jeffery. In view of its central character in the Qur'an and because of its encompass­ ing central theme of the unity of God, he tries to make it a counterpart to the Lord's Prayer of Christianity and concludes: [The Fatibah], when we examine it, proves to be more or less a cento of ideas and expressions taken from other parts of the Qur'an. It is possible, of course, that as a prayer it was con­ structed by the Prophet himself, but its use and its position in our present Qur'an are due to the compilers, who placed it there, per­ haps on the fly-leaf of the Standard Codex.37 In this article, he reproduced a variant text of al Fatibah from some Shti traditions.38 The text reads as follows: He then introduces another unauthentic version of this surah that, comprised of variant readings, is different from the 'U thmanic recension in a most sensational and journalistic way. This new version does not have a complete chain of narrators, although it has "survived" to our day. Moreover, the dates of the manuscript and the name of the scribe are not ascertainable. Jeffery says: Chaudhary: Orientalism on Variant Readings Last summer in Cairo I came across a similar variant version. It is given in a little manual of fiqh, whose beginning, unfortunately, is missing, so that we do not know the name of the author. It is a quite unimportant summary of Shafi1 fiqh, written, if one may venture a judgement from the writing, about one hundred and fifty years ago, perhaps a little earlier, in a clerkly hand, and the vari­ ant version is written on the inside cover under the rubric: qirii.' at shiidhdhah Ii al F ii ti bah. The MS is in private possession, and though the owner was willing to lend me the copy of the passage, and use it if I saw it fit, he was not willing that his name be revealed, lest he come into disrepute among his orthodox neigh­ bors for allowing an unbeliever to see such an uncanonical version of the opening Sura of their Holy Book.39 175 The text of this variant has some certain similarities to that already given, and runs40 : ~)11>"""')1...UI~ ~ ', :iii J;.... ... .: ... 11 ~ G'..!...t· i . · - : ~ d1· ~ ~ di . · J.11 .!J)G.. 'I -,~. 'I . 0JwJI £.. ...U J.<>.:JI ~ .. r--- .. , J ~ :.., • • v.! ('".J:!, ~.)' "'J.)' - , - , ' ' .'·'.rr....;.J1j' • ..:r~...,- ~:11' - ' .• :.,-:. ~ Jr;----~~ f';-"' He goes on to say that under the text there is a state,aent about its chain of transmission: ~i ~ J.!.LJI 0&-1i4j)I (J&. .;1~1 ~IJLA......11 l:Fj (J&. ~1"*11 (J&. '!""'_,....JI~ (J&. J~I ~11:Fi ~l,JJ and, in the end, concludes: "[It is] quite possible that Khalil had access to good old tradition as the primitive reading of the Fatil)a. I can make noth­ ing of the rest of the isnad from Khahl to al-Jubba\ and possibly it is much later than the matn from Khalil." 41 Sab'at Al)ruf When analyzing the above-mentioned variant readings in the opening surah of the Qur'an, it seems imperative to discuss how they arose. This subject has been discussed abundantly in the Kitiib al Ma$iibif, the M uqaddimatan, and other books on variant readings. These are also the sources used by Jeffery in his studies. The Prophet is reported to have said that the Qur'an was revealed to him in seven ways (in seven abruf, plural of barf), by which he meant dialects or seven different ways of recitation.42 It is narrated by lbn 'Abbas that the Prophet said: "Gabriel recited the Qur'an to me in one way. Then I requested him (to read it another way), and continued asking him to recite it in other ways. He recited it in sever­ al ways till he ultimately recited it in seven different ways (abruf)."43 To make it easier for the elderly, the illiterate, and the nomadic people to recite the Qur'an, the Prophet allowed them to recite various dialectal vari­ ants in their own way, which eventually led to diversification in reading 176 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 12:2 styles. The books on variant readings show that the Companions used this concession fully and continued to do so until 'Uthman finalized the codex and issued an official recension that abrogated all other readings and dialectal usages and maintained the readings used by the Prophet. It is reported that Anas ibn Malik recited .:.li.u .:tu:. ~ .:JJ..l,o..Q & c:.y.!..j r-11 (94: 1-2). When this was objected to, he said lt:..j. ~. cit.. all the various different readings [dialects] from the same.4 ~ On the authority of Ibn Sirin, it is narrated that Ibn · Abbas said that JL.w ·t1' and J.;.il are one and the same.4 -~ It is said that Ubayy ibn Ka'b was teaching a Persian Surah 44:44 r-f,':JI tw. tiijl1 ·~ u1 • The man said repeatedly ~1 tw. . When the Prophet learned of this, he asked him to recite r,JU;JI tw. instead of r-f,':JI tw. , which was easier for him.46 Dialectal Variants in the Arabian Peninsula The interaction and overlapping of various Arabian dialects has been a complex issue in the history of the Arabic language. Jeffery, a western scholar who lacked facility in Arabic, could not understand the extent of dialectal variants and their usages in the times of the pre-'Uthmanic recen­ sion. Therefore, after seeing a variety of variant readings ascribed to the Companions, he developed the idea of introducing "rival codices" to the 'Uthmanic recension. To understand the extent and role of various Arabic dialects as regards the various reading styles without going into dialectal details, it is impor­ tant to point out that it is generally accepted that the Qur'an was revealed in the common Arabic (al lughah al 'Arahzyah al mushtarakah), a lan­ guage understood throughout the peninsula and used by poets and orators as a medium of communication.47 As this common Arabic, which was the vehicle for Qur'anic expression, had a vivid impress of the Quraysh-1 dialect on it, it is generally assumed that the Qur'an was revealed in that particular dialect. A small book on the dialects used in the Qur'an,48 ascribed to Ibn 'Abbas (d. c. 68 A.H.), 49 and transmitted by Ibn ijasnun, contains numerous entries from different tribal dialects. Although proba­ bly not comprehensive, the work determines the dialectal origin of at least 265 words used in the Qur'an. Of these, 104 are derived from the dialect of the Quraysh, 45 from the Hudhayl, 36 from the Kinanah, 23 from the I:Iimyar, 21 from the Jurham, 13 from the Tam-1m and the Qays 'Ilan, 6 from the 'Amman, the Azd Shanu'ah, and the Khath'am; 5 from the Tay', the Midhl)aj, the Madyan, and the Ghassan; 4 from the Banu ijan1fah, the I:Iac,lramawt, and the Ash'ar; 3 from the 'Ammar; 2 from the Khuza'ah, the Saba', the Yamamah, the Muzaynah, and the Thaq1f; 1 from the Azd; 1 from the Khazraj; and 1 from the al 'Amaliqah, Sadiis, and Sa'ad al 'Ash1rah. 50 It should also be kept in mind that while the Qur'an represented an amalgam of Arabian dialects, it was in the most eloquent and inimitable style and was a code of life and a book for everybody. All who adhered to Chaudhary: Orientalism on Variant Readings 177 Islam, whether illiterate, bedouin, or non-Arab, was expected to recite it. The hadith dealing with the seven accepted reading styles (sab'at a~ru/) and many other stories51 indicate that the Prophet, while teaching the Qur'an, always made sure that the message was understood by those who were being addressed. In such a situation, especially in the early years of Islamic history, it seems very natural to have variant readings or to use synonyms when necessary. The topic of tribal dialects and their appreciation in pre-Islamic and early Islamic times can be understood better by narrating a frequently repeated story concerning a man of the Bam1 Kilab or the Banii 'Amir. This man visited Dhii Jadan, a king of Yemen·, who was sitting on a raised platform. The king said to him: "Thib" ( ~ ), i.e., which means "sit," in the Yemeni dialect. The visitor understood it as meaing "jump" (from wathaba, yathibu) and therefore jumped from the platform and died.52 In another report, it is said that one day when Abu Hurayrah was with the Prophet, the latter dropped a knife and said to him: " ~ 1 i}1(:. ." Abu Hurayrah did not understand, and so the Prophet repeated his request. At last Abu Hurayrah asked: " ~~) ~j~u ." .. Sikkin is a Hijaii word and does not appear in the Azdl dialect, where the relevant word is mudyah.53 It is thus clear that not all Arabs in preofficial recension times understood the implications of the Qur'an's vocabulary and, "logically, they would feel more inclined to read it if the text were closer to their own dialect. The orthographic variations of the rival codices, which have not been recorded in the 'Uthmanic codex (i.e., reading al sira.r with ~ad, fin, and za' in the opening sitrah), and the use of synonyms (i.e., reading ~ and lilt.. for the 'Uthmanic text's 1;:.~.;., in Surah 94) can be under­ stood in the light of the statement by Ibn Jinn1 (d. 392 A.H.): .::,lc4JI .::,W ~ u''-! JJi d)j u~ J.:a.1..,11 ~I J.c:-1.W~I .::,Jf.. L..kJ "Wherever there are more words to give the same meaning, there is every likelihood that those words are representing different dialects [and linguistic units)."54 He also cites, on the authority of al A~ma\ an inter­ esting controversy between two men over the word ~aqr. One pronounced it with a ~ad while the other used a sin. They decided to ask for a third opinion. The third man, who pronounced it with a za', differed from both of them. What this shows is that each individual was using his own dialect to pronounce the word in question. 55 Jeffrey's claim that "the mass of variant readings that has survived to us from the codices of Ubayy and Ibn Mas'O.d shows that they were real tex­ tual variants and not mere dialectal peculiarities"56 indicates that the substi­ tution of one word with a synonym57 from another dialect in the rival codices led him to the above conclusion. He does not seem to have under­ stood the Prophet's permission for new Muslims, many of whom were elderly, illiterate, bedouin, and without any background in Arabic,· to use variant readings. It is also evident from the above-mentioned example of Ubayy and the Persian who could not pronounce a certain word. In an oft- 178 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 12:2 quoted hadith on the seven reading styles mentioned in Sahib al Bukhari, it is very clear that the Prophet, after listening to Hisham ibn J:Iak1m's and 'Umar ibn al Kha,t.tab's differing recitations of Siirah al Furqan, approved each reading. In fact, it is recorded that the Prophet had taught these differ­ ent readings to them. He said: "This Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ahruf (ways), so recite it whichever (way) is easier for you."58 Pearson seems to have difficulty in understanding the word ahruf and says: 'The meaning of this expression in the hadith is uncertain, the term abruf being the plural of ba,f, 'letter.' "59 Nevertheless, lbn Mujahid has made it quite clear that it means "seven readings,"60 regardless of whether they belong to different dialects or are different dialectal readings for the same word.61 It is interesting to note that Jeffery, in view of the unauthenticated chain of transmissions that accompany such uncanonical variant readings, could not venture to bring any reading par excellence with that of the 'Uthmanic text. On the contrary, he says that "some of the variants, in the form in which they have survived to us, seem linguistically impossible, and in certain cases this has been noted in the source which quotes the variant. "62 He concedes further that Bergstrasser in his preliminary collection of the uncanonical read­ ings of Ibn Mas'iid and Uba'i made an attempt to estimate the value of these two texts as compared with the 'Uthmanic text. With the increase of material one feels less inclined to venture on such a judgment of the value.63 He tries to explain the variants found in the uncanonical codices as being improvements on the 'Uthmanic text, as Ibn Mas'ud and Ibn 'Abbas are reported to have read ~ instead of Lo~ in 2:137. Jeffery sug­ gests further that these Companions may have suggested such variants out of piety.64 One should be aware, however, that when Jeffery deals with any aspect of Islam, he does so through a Christian paradigm. For example, he states that Islam, like Christianity, has a sacred book but never goes on to say that it is one of the three Abrahamic religions.65 In the case of the New Testament, it is generally held that all the gospels originally circulated anonymously. Authoritative names were later assigned to them by unknown figures in the early church. In most cases the names are guesses or perhaps the result of pious wishes.66 In order to equate the Qur'an with the Bible, Jeffery suggests that some of the Companions made "changes and improvements" in the Qur'anic text based on "motives of piety." Unfortunately for him, he seems to have missed the fact that any addition or deletion to the Qur'an is such a heinous crime that one cannot imagine that a Companion would do such a thing. It also would not have been tolerated by his/her fellow Companions. Chaudhary: Orientalism on Variant Readings 179 Conclusion We can sum up the discussion in the following points: 1. It is clear that variant readings, such as pronouncing al ~ira.t in Surah al Fatibah with a ~iid, a s7n, or a zii' or Ibn Mas'iid's reading of 1ftii. for hattii in Surah 12:35, reflect the tribal dialect of the individual reciter.67 It should be noted that ba and 'ayn, as well as a/if and qaf, are interchanged in various Arab dialects.68 Similarly, the readings of iyyaka, '1-viyyiika, and hayyiika in al Fatibah are dialectal variants, as the a/if is interchanged with the wiiw and the hii' in various dialects.6 1} The reading of nista'inu with kas­ rah on the first nun is also a dialectal variant, as yi1 lamuna is read for ya' lamuna in Surah 2:56 and tiswaddu for taswaddu in Surah 3: 106 in the Banii Asad dialect.70 The readings of malik, mallak, malk, malik, and mafik in Siirah al Fatibah are also dialectal variants and represent allowed read­ ing styles. These dialectal variants of malik have been ascribed to the Prophet, who is reported to have read them.11 Had these variants been inad­ missible, the Companions would not have differed in their recitation of this most-repeated surah. The substitution of ihdina and la with their respective synonyms arshidna and ghayra in Siirah al Fatibah also represent dialectal variants that are among the permitted recitations. Jeffery, in his attempt to intro­ duce rival codices, has ignored the facts that this surah is recited out loud in most of the daily prayers and that a reading not allowed by the Prophet would not have been allowed or perpetuated. Moreover, Jeffery has failed to bring any objection from a Companion that this surah, as it appears in the 'Uthmanic recension, was not in accord with the Prophet's recitation. 2. While creating doubts and making insinuations about the 'Uthmanic recension and despite his acceptance that the transmission of the variants is through weak chains of transmission, Jeffery is nevertheless hesitant to admit the reality of the Muslim world consensus (ijm[l) on it. If we sup­ pose that some variants are genuine and were used in pre-'Uthmanic recen­ sion times due to their confonnity to the seven permissible readings, even then a text transmitted through one narrator (ahiid) cannot be preferred to a text handed down by one generation to the next (tawiitur). 12 3. While dealing with the variant readings, Jeffery has ignored com­ pletely the important factor of the Qur'an's oral transmission. The 'Uthmanic recension was not just another official document to be shelved after the committee had completed it. The canonical version was avail­ able to everyone. One copy of the official recension (al Mu~haf al Imam) was kept in Madinah, while copies were sent to other cities in the Islamic state of that time. Thousands of Companions who had memorized most, if not all, of the Qur'an and who had first-hand knowledge of how the Prophet had recited the Qur'an, were in Madinah. It must also be remem- 180 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 12:2 bered that all of the Companions, despite the fact that the scribes and many Companions had written materials with them, approved the 'Uthmanic recension as the recitation of the Prophet and accepted its authenticity and accuracy. 4. In his zealous drive to introduce rival codices, Jeffery ignored the fact that lbn Mas'iid, although after some hesitation, surrendered his codex to 'Uthman73 and thereafter never appears to have insisted on any reading ascribed to him. Moreover, Jeffery has failed utterly to produce any statement from lbn Mas'iid implying that what was in the 'U th manic recension was not from the Prophet. After Ibn Mas'iid, Ubayy ibn Ka'b is the second Companion to whom a bulk of variant readings has been ascribed. Although Jeffery recognizes that all secondary codices have been derived from lbn Mas'iid's and that no codex has been derived from Ubayy's, he gives primary importace to the variants ascribed to the lat­ ter and thus ignores the fact that Ubayy participated in the gigantic task of completing the 'Uthmanic recension. 'Ah ibn Ab1 Talib, who is held to have had a codex before the official recension, is reported to have showed his gratitude and satisfaction with the 'Uthmanic recension by saying: "If I were in command in place of 'Uthman, I would have done the same. "74 5. Despite his admission that many variant readings have been invent­ ed by later theologians, philologers, and grammarians and then ascribed to early authorities in order to gain prestige,75 Jeffery is still interested in restoring the "original reading" of the Qur'an.76 More recently, two other orientalists-John Burton and John Wansbrough-have concluded that all of the accounts about "Companion codices," "metropolitan codices," and individual variants were fabricated by later jurists and philologers.77 Jeffery has also ignored the fact that the earliest basic sources for variant readings are the reports of Ibn Ab1 Dawiid (d. 316 A.H.), Ibn al Anbar1 (d. 328 A.H.), and Ibn al Ash.tab (d. 360 A.H.). Howeve"r, their reports do not have proper narration chains and are not supported by genuine transmis­ sion chains. 6. As was the case with his predecessor Bell, Jeffery has failed to camouflage his prejudice against Islam and the Qur'an when dealing with its compilation. Following Bell,78 he declares that the recension of Abu Bakr was his own purely private affair. 79 It is very surprising to note that he accepts as valid all of the variants indicated in the Muqaddimatiin and the Kitiib al Ma~iihif but ignores (without explaining why) these same sources' assertion about Abu Bakr's collection of the Qur'an, a fact that has been supported powerfully by early sources of history and hadith.80 Nevertheless, it is indubitable that the Qur'anic recension pre­ pared by Abu Bakr served as the principal basis for the 'U thmanic recen­ sion. Chaudhary: Orientalism on Variant Readings 181 7. Jeffery has also failed to understand 'Uthman's reasons for under­ taking his recension and to acknowledge the factors of propagating dialectal variants and 'Uthman's concern with complaints stemming from variant readings. Abu Mubammad Makki, like other Muslim exegetes, makes it clear that 'Uthman sought to deal with this issue by codifying the Qur'anic text (the Prophet's reading) and abrogating all other readings, even if they had been permitted by the Prophet during his lifetime. 81 Al Qays1 also mentions that a team of at least twelve thousand Companions and Followers (Tiibi'in) worked on the official recension and destroyed the uncanonical versions.82 It is inconceivable that such a large team of eminent Muslims could enforce a recension containing readings that, although ascribed to the Prophet, were of a doubtful nature. 8. Despite his claim, Jeffery could not observe the principles of high­ er criticism while dealing with the Qur'an and its variant readings. In his lecture on "The Textual History of the Qur'an," delivered in Jerusalem (1946) and published in his The Qur'an as Scripture (1952), he fails to mention the Archive's conclusion regarding the collection of the Qur'an and the textual differences in various versions. Dr. Ham1dullah, who had met Dr. Pretzl when the latter came to Paris to collect photocopies of the Qur'anic scriptures available in the libraries there,83 says that Pretzl told him: "Our institute (Archive) has collected the photographs of 42,000 copies of the Qur'an and we are collating them "84 and that, after accom­ plishing this task before its destruction, issued a "provisional report" that, according to him, reads: The work of collation of various copies of the Qur'an is not com­ pleted yet. However, on the basis of the work accomplished so far, we can say that there are occasional mistakes of the copyists, but there is no textual difference found [in the 42,000 copies of the Qur'an, which have been collated].85 Jeffery, in his treatment of the Qur'an, talks exclusively about the Archive and his collaboration with Professors Bergstrasser and Pretzl, but surprisingly omits the mention of the Archive's report and findings. 9. Finally, it seems appropriate to suggest that such orientalists as Pearson, who continues to pursue Jeffery's mission to invalidate the char­ acter of the Qur'an as an unadulterated revealed book, should apply the principles of higher criticism in an affirmative way. By so doing, they would discover for themselves the truth of the Qur'anic claims: "Had it been from other than Allah they would surely have found much discrep­ ancies and contradictions in it" (4:82) and "We have, without doubt, sent down the message [Qur'an] and We will surely guard it (from corruption and adulteration)" (15:9). 182 Endnotes The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 12:2 1. Arthur Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur'an (London: E. J. Brill, 1937). This book, edited by Jeffery, appeared in one volume with the Kitab al Ma~iihif by Abo Bakr 'Abd Allah ibn Ab-1 Dawfid Sulayman al Sijistan-1 (d. 316 A.H.). Jeffery also edited two other manuscripts under the title of Muqaddimatiin fl 'Ulum al Qur'iin, 2d ed (Cairo: Maktabat al Khanji, 1972). This book deals with the collection and variant readings of the Qur'an. One portion contains the Muqaddimah Kitiib al Mabani, whose author is unknown (the manuscript lacks the essential first folio). However, on the second page of the manuscript, the author mentions that he started writing his book in 425 A.H. and entitled it Kitiib al Mabiini ft Na;m al Ma'iini. The second portion, entitled al Jiimi' al Mubarrar, is by Ibn 'AJiyah (d. c. 543 A.H.), who wrote it as an introduction to his Qur'anic commentary. Both Noeldeke and his pupil Schwally have based their research on these works. The language, style, and chains of transmission employed there· in reveal that the authors of these works belonged to Muslim Spain. 2. For details, see Journal of Biblical Studies, 79 (March 1960): 1:viii-ix. 3. Arthur Jeffery, The Koran - Selected Suras (New York: Heritage Press, 1958), 20. 4. For a detailed account of orientalists, see 'Abdur Ral)man Momin, "Islamic Fun­ damentalism," Hamdard Islamicus IO, no. 4 (Winter 1987): 35-40. 5. Arthur Jeffery. The Qur'an as Scripture (New York: Russell F. Moore Co., 1952), 1. 6. Ibid. 7. Jeffery, Koran, 14-15. 8. Ibid., 15. See also Jeffery, Qur'an as Scripture, 93-97. 9. Jeffery, Materials, viii. 10. Jeffery, Koran, 21. 11. Jeffery, Materials, viii. 12. Jeffery, Qur'an as Scripture, 103. 13. Ibid. 14. Jeffery calls the personal collections of some Companions "rival codices." These collections were surrendered to 'Uthman after the official recension had been compiled. Some details can be seen in the work edited by Jeffery himself: lbn Mas'Od surrendered his codex to 'Uthman. See Jeffery, Muqaddimatan, 95. Pearson also classifies the personal col­ lections of the Companions in the preofficial recension period as "rivals." He has relied mainly on Jeffery's Materials when dealing with variant readings in his essay "Al-Kur'an," in The Encyclopedia of Islam (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981), 5:406-8. 15. According to lbn Ab-, DawOd, Abu Bakr was the first to collect the Qur'an. He mentions the names of ten Companions said by Jeffery as having "primary codices." Although lbn Ab·1 Dawfid never implies that all of them had written copies of the Qur'an, he mentions variant readings ascribed to them under the title of M u~baf He also uses such phrases as jama'a al Qur'iin (lit., "he collected the Qur'an") for one who has memorized it. See Ibn Ab1 Dawud, Kitiih al Ma$abif, ed. by Arthur Jeffery 1st ed. (Cairo: 1936). 5, 10, 50-87. lbn Ab1 Dawiid has made it even clearer by saying that he uses the word mu$baf to mean ba,f or qirii'ah (reading) so that the variants he quotes need not be regarded as com­ ing from actual written codices. See Jeffery, Materials, 15. 16. For a detailed account of the recensions of Abu Bakr and 'Uthman, see Mui)am­ mad 1:lani1dullah, Khu/uhiit-e-Bahawalpur (Bahawalpur, Pakistan: Islamic University, 1401 AH), 3·29. 17. Jeffery, Materials, x. 18. Pearson, "Al-Kur'an," 407. 19. Jeffery. Materials. 1-3. 20. These seven systems are ascribed to Nafi' of Madinah (d. 169 A.H.), lbn Kathir of Makkah (d. 120 A.H.), Ibn 'Amir of Damascus (d. 118 A.H.), Abii 'Amr of Ba~rah (d. 154 A.H.), ·A~im of Kufah (d. 128 A.H.), l:lamzah of Kufah (d. 158 A.H.), and al Kisa'i of Kfifah (d. 189 A.H.). Chaudhary: Orientalism on Variant Readings 183 21. Jeffery, Qur'an as Scripture, 100-102. 22. For details, see Labib al Sa·"td, The Recited Koran. trans. Bernard Weiss, M. A. Rauf, and Morroe Berger (Princeton: The Darwin Press, 1975), 45-50. 23. Ibid .. 49-50, 139. 24. Jeffery, Materials, 75. 25. While enlisting t~e variants, Jeffery has read it incorrectly: t.:.jAJ :1~ t.i:i for t.:.,1.1! J~ w'J . See Jeffery. Materials, 117. As Jeffery never gives the sources of his entries in Materials, it cannot be determined from where he has taken the phrase t.:.,1.1! :1~ t.i:i , which obviously seems to be incorrect. 26. Ibid. 27. Ibid., 185. 28. Ibid., 195. 29. Ibid., 220. 30. Ibid., 233. 31. Ibid., 287-88. 32. Ibid., 314-15. 33. Abo. Mubammad al Qaysi, Kirah al lbanah fl Ma'ani al Qira'at, 1st ed. (Damas- cus: 1979): 94. 34. Ibid., 96. 35. Ibid., 94. 36. Ibn Khalawayh, /'rah Thalath"in Surah min al Qur'an al Karim (Cairo: Dar al Kurub al Mi~nyah, 1941). 28-30. 37. Arthur Jeffery, "A Variant Text of the Fatiha," The Moslem World, 29 (1939): 158. Jeffery, although he included the translation of al Fatibah and al Mu'awwadhatan (Two Charms) in The Koran - Selected Surahs, does not consider them to be part of the Qur'an: "The form in which we have it [i.e., al-Qur'an l comprising one hundred and eleven suras" and says in the introduction to the translation of al Fatibah: "This short Sura does not belong to the Qur'an proper, but [isl a little prayer, a kind of cento made up of Koranic phrases, placed as an introduction to the Book, and commonly recited before the reading of any portion thereof." Jeffery, Koran, 15, 23. 38. Published in Mubammad Baqir Majlisi, Tadhkirat al A 'immah (Tehran: 1331 A.H.) p. 18. It has not been ascribed to 'Ah ibn Ao1 Talib. 39. Jeffery, "A Variant Text," 159. 40. Ibid .. 159. 41. Ibid., 160-62. 42. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, trans., Saf:iif:z al Bukhiiri (Riyadh: Maktabat al Riyadh al HadHhah, 1981), 6:483; lbn Jafir al Tabari, Tafsir al Taha,1 (Cairo: Dar al Ma'arif, 1946), 1:32; Jeffery (ed.), Muqaddimatan, 207,234. 43. Khan, Saf:zif:z, 481-82. 44. Jeffery, Muqaddimatiin, 229. 45. lbid. 46. Ibid., 229-30. 47. 'Abd al Wabid Wafi, Fiqh al Lughah, 8th ed. (Cairo: n.d.), 108; Ibrahim Anis, Ft al Lahajiit al 'Arabiyah (Cairo: 1965). 40. For characteristics of common Arabic, see "2ur0f Takawwun al 'Arabiyah al Fu~ba wa Kha~a'i~uha," in 'Abd al Tawwab Ramac;Ian, Fu~ul fl Fiqh al 'Arabiyah (Cairo: 1973), 62-78. 48. There are discussions on this topic scattered throughout the various books on the Arabic language. Al SuyO..ti has a detailed chapter on it in his al l!qiinfi 'Ulfim al Qur'cin. 49. 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas, Kz?ab al Lughiit fl al Qur'iin, ed. Salab al Um al Munajjid (Cairo: 1946). 50. Ibid., 5-7. 51. For details, see Jeffery (ed.), Muqqadimatiin, 229-30. 52. Anis, Ft al Lahajiit al 'Arahiyah. 117; Sub}:i"i al SaliQ, Diriisiit fl Fiqh al Lughah (Beirut: 1978), 300. 53. 'Abd al ijamid al Shalqan-1, Riwiiyat al Lughah (Cairo: 1971 ), 336-37; F;Iasan :?:aia, Kaliim al 'Arab min Qacfayii al Lughah al 'Arab1yah (Beirut: 1976), 104. 184 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 12:2 54. lbn Jinn1, al Kha$a'i$, 1:374 55. Ibid. 56. Jeffery, Qur'an as Scripture, 97. 57. In a number of cases, variants in the old codices are merely synonyms for words used in the 'Uthmanic text. Jeffery, Materials, 16. 58. Khan, Saf1b, 6:482-83. 59. Pearson, "AI-Kur'an," 408. 60. Ibid., 409. 61. For details, see Jeffery, Muqaddimatiin, 218-30. 62. Jeffery, Materials, 16. 63. Ibid. 64. Ibid. 65. Jeffery, Qur'an as Scripture, I. 66. Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels (New York: Macmillan, 1993), 20. 67. Jeffery, Materials, 49. See also lbn Maniur, al lisiin (Beirut: Dar Sadir, n.d.), 14: 163-64. 68. For example, in SOrah 77:11, uqqitat is read as wuqqitat by lbn Mas'Od. Jeffery, Materials, 107. In the same way, waw and a/if are interchangeable, as in wujuh and 'ujuh. See lbn Maniur, al lisan, 2: 107-8 (w-q-t). 69. Ibn Maniur, al Lisiin. See Al-A/if al layyinah and ayii, 15:427, 438-441. 70. Jeffery, Muqaddimatiin, 220. 71. lbn Khalawayh, /' rah, 22-24. 72. For details, see Jeffery, Muqaddimatiin, 38; al Qays1, al lbiinah, 73. 73. Jeffery, Muqaddimatiin, 95. 74. lbn Ab1 Dawud, Kitiih al Ma$cibif, 23. 75. Jeffery, Materials, 2, 15. 76. Ibid., 16. 77. Pearson, "AI-Kur'an," 407-408. For details, see also John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an (Cambridge: 1977), 199-212; John Wansbrough, Qur'an Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation (Oxford: 1977), 44-46, 202-7. 78. See, for example, W. Montgomery Watt, Bell's Introduction to the Qur'an (Edin- burgh: 1977), 43. 79. Jeffery, Materials, 6-7. 80. See, for example, Khan, Sa!Jih, 6:476-80. 81. al Qays1, al lhiinah, 96-97. 82. Ibid., 22-23. 83. ijam·1ctullah, Khutubat, 15-16. 84. Ibid., 16. 85. Ibid., 15-16.