Textual History of the Qur'an: Difference between revisions

This article examines the transmission history of the [[Quran]]. The perfect preservation of the Quran is an article of faith for most schools and sects of Islam and figures highly in the beliefs of Muslims around the divine nature of their religion. The orthodox Islamic scholars argue that the Qur'an today is identical to that received by Prophet [[Muhammad]]. This contention however is challenged both by parts of the Islamic tradition itself and the findings of modern scholarship.

Before Caliph [[Uthman_ibn_Affan|Uthman]] standardised the Quranic consonantal text (QCT) around 650 CE, large numbers of variants later documented by Muslim scholars were read by various companions of Muhammad, often differing in whole words and phrases. Academic experts have found material support for such reports in some of the oldest Quran manuscripts. There are also hadith reports that substantial numbers of verses had already been lost. The fear of permanently losing verses is said to have motivated the initial collection of the Qur'an under Caliph [[Abu_Bakr_Abdullah_ibn_Uthman|Abu Bakr]]. Notwithstanding a number of scribal errors during the initial copying process, Uthman was essentially successful in stabilising the QCT, or rasm. However, due to limitations in the early stage of Arabic orthography in use at that time, a wide variety of oral readings (qira'at) within this standardised rasm was possible and continued to occur until the oral readings too were stabilised over centuries and orthography developed to more fully document them. Tens of thousands of variants are attributed to readers of the first couple of centuries, which include Muhammad's companions and early reciters, within and outside the standard rasm, besides the ten canonical readings and their transmitters. The vast majority of recitation and printed Qurans in use today are based on the transmission of Hafs from the reading of 'Asim.

Unfortunately, at no time during Muhammad's life did he ever order the Quran to be compiled into a single book.<ref name="Abu Bakr">"''...Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected." I said to 'Umar, "How can you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" 'Umar said, "By Allah, that is a good project...''" - {{Bukhari|6|61|509}}</ref>. Many Qurra' (“reciters”) had died before the Quran had been compiled in written form<ref>"''...Umar has come to me and said: "Casualties were heavy among the Qurra' of the Qur'an (i.e. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yalmama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra' on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost...''" - {{Bukhari|6|61|509}}</ref>, so Abu Bakr asked Zaid bin Thabit to collect it into a book.<ref>"''...Then Abu Bakr said (to me). 'You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle. So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur'an and collect it in one book)." By Allah If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur'an...''" - {{Bukhari|6|61|509}}</ref> Zaid was reluctant, for Muhammad had never ordered such an action to be taken.<ref name="Abu Bakr"></ref> He stated, "I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palm-leaf stalks, thin white stones, and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last [two] verse[s] of Surat at-Tauba (repentance) with Abi Khuzaima al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him."<ref name="Zaid bin Thabit">"''...I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palm-leaf stalks, thin white stones...''"{{Bukhari|6|61|509}}</ref>

The above quoted story of the Uthmanic standardisation is considered by academics to be relatively early and mentions the manuscripts possessed at that time by Hafsa, which were reportedly those compiled by Zayd under Abu Bakr twenty years earlier. It records that she allowed Uthman to borrow and return them. Some time after standardisation and her death, her mushaf was handed over to the Caliph by her brother and deliberately destroyed. Sean Anthony and Catherine Bronson note: "Zuhrī—the  earliest known scholar to emphasize the importance of Ḥafṣah’s codex for the collection of the caliph ʿUthmān’s recension—also serves as the authority for the accounts of the destruction of Ḥafṣah’s scrolls (ṣuḥuf). Hence, we are likely dealing with two intimately intertwined narratives that originated with Zuhrī and his students." On the identity of the Caliph, they note "at least four versions of the Zuhrī account assert that the caliph ʿUthmān (and not  Marwān) requested ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar to hand over Ḥafṣah’s muṣḥaf after his sister’s death, whereupon the codex was either burned or erased." In the other versions, "Marwān has the codex either erased by washing the parchment (ghasalahā ghaslan), torn to shreds (shaqqaqahā wa-mazzaqahā), or burned to ashes (fashāhā wa-ḥarraqahā)" and "Marwān himself cites 'the fear that there might be a cause to dispute that which ʿUthmān copied down because of something therein.'"<ref>Sean W. Anthony, and Catherine L. Bronson. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5913/jiqsa.1.2017.a006 Did Ḥafṣah Edit the Qurʾān? A Response with Notes on the Codices of the Prophet’s Wives] Journal of the International Qur’anic Studies Association, vol. 1, International Qur’anic Studies Association, 2016, pp. 93–125, https://doi.org/10.5913/jiqsa.1.2017.a006. (pp. 108-114)</ref>

*An example involving multiple companions is found in two consecutive verses. Bukhari and Muslim record that ibn 'Abbas and Sa'id b. Jubair respectively added the word "servicable" to describe the boats in {{Quran|18|79}}, and added the words, "the boy was an unbeliever" to {{Quran|18|80}}.<ref>"''...Ibn `Abbas used to recite:-- 'And in front (ahead) of them there was a king who used to seize every (serviceable) boat by force. (18.79)...and as for the boy he was a disbeliever.''" {{Bukhari|6|60|251}}</ref><ref>Similarly, in Sahih Muslim "''...Sa'id b. Jubair used to recite (verses 79 and 80 of Sura Kahf) in this way: There was before them a king who used to seize every boat by force which was in order, the boy was an unbeliever.''" {{Muslim|30|5864}}</ref> Al Tabari's tafsir for these verses include reports that ibn Mas'ud too narrated them this way.

:Al-Tabari's tafsir for verse 4:24 includes narrations saying that ibn 'Abbas, ubayy ibn Ka'b, and Sa'id ibn Jubayr (others too in other tafsirs) included the words 'until a prescribed period' ('ila ajal musamma') after the words 'whom you profit by'.

Some Muslim scholars sought to explain the reported differences in the mushafs (codices) of the companions as merely being their own exegetical glosses. Such an explanation may be possible in some instances, but certainly not in others such as when pronouns or grammatical forms are changed or words are reported to have been simply omitted, for example in {{Quran|112|1}} where Ibn Mas'ud and Ubayy omitted the word "Say" (qul)<ref>Noldeke, T. et. al. (1909, 1919) "The History of the Qur'an" Ed. and trans. by Behn W. H. (2013) Brill: Leiden pp.443 and 453<BR>His lists of companion variants are based on al Zamakhshari's tafsir, with further sources in footnotes as appropriate (p.431, footnote 280)</ref><ref>Jeffrey, Materials pp.114 and 180</ref>, or ibn Mas'ud's omission of the entire verse {{Quran|94|6}}.<ref>Noldeke, History of the Qur'an p.442</ref><ref>Jeffrey, Materials pp.110</ref> Other explanations were that these they were variations in the revelation ("ahruf", discussed in a section below) or abrogated versions of the verses, which encounter some of the same problems as just mentioned, as well as the issue of their sheer quantity and the difficulty of explaining the purpose of the less clear or specific wordings of the same sentences in the Uthmanic Qur'an.

It was widely reported that Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud's Qur'anic text omitted surah al-Fatiha and the mu'awwithatayni (surahs 113 and 114).<ref name="Itqan ibn Masud">"''Imam Fakhruddin said that the reports in some of the ancient books that Ibn Mas'ud denied that Suratul-Fatiha and the Mu'awwithatayni are part of the Qur'an are embarrassing in their implications... But the Qadi Abu Bakr said "It is not soundly reported from him that they are not part of the Qur'an and there is no record of such a statement from him. He omitted them from his manuscript as he did not approve of their being written. This does not mean he denied they were part of the Qur'an. In his view the Sunnah was that nothing should be inscribed in the text (mushaf) unless so commanded by the Prophet (saw) ... and he had not heard that it had been so commanded.''" - as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.186</ref>  Ibn Mas'ud's denial that the last two surahs were part of the Qur'an is also recorded in Sahih Bukhari.<ref>"''Narrated Zirr bin Hubaish:''

*Ibn 'Abbas is widely reported in al Tabari's tafsir to have said that "ascertain welcome" (tasta'nisu) in {{Quran|24|27}} was a scribal error, and instead should say "ask permission" (tasta'dhinu), a subtly different meaning in Arabic. This narration was also reported elsewhere and classed sahih by al-Hakim, Dhahabi and ibn Hajar<ref>Hadith 3496 in the Al-Mustadrak collection of Hakim al-Nishapuri [http://islamport.com/d/1/mtn/1/22/473.html Islamport.com]</ref>. Ubayy and ibn Mas'ud (the latter with different word order) are also reported in al-Tabari's tafsir to have read tasta'nusu. The ibn Mas'ud wording (except singular instead of plural) is also found in the lower text of the Sana'a palmpsest.<ref>See p.92, line 1 of Folio 11 A in  

Islamqa.info, the popular fatwah website [https://islamqa.info/en/197942 accepts the hadith] and that the verses were lost on the authority of the scholars. Its isnad was graded by al-Tabari and al-Albani as sahih, even more emphatically by ibn Hazm, “sahih, as clear as the sun” (إسناده صحيح كالشمس), and hasan (good) by ibn Kathir and ibn Hajar.  

Corroborating evidence is given by Qurtubi at the beginning of his tafsir for Surah al-Ahzab. He records this recollection by 'A'isha, although the chain includes ibn Lahee'ah, who many consider weak for having an unreliable memory:

We know that, whereas Ibn Mas'ud omitted three surahs (al-Fatihah, 113 and 114) from his Qur'an mushaf (codex), Ubayy ibn Ka'b had 116 surahs in his, including two extra short surahs, al-Hafd (the Haste) and al-Khal' (the Separation), which he placed between what are surahs 103 and 104 in Uthman's Qur'an<ref name="Noldeke">Both al-Suyuti's Itqan and ibn Nadim's Fihrist have this sequence in their (otherwise slightly different) lists of the surahs found in Ubayy ibn Ka'b's mushaf according to Theodor Nöldeke et. al. (1909, 1919) "The History of the Qur'an" 2nd Edition, Ed. and trans. by Behn W. H. (2013) Brill: Leiden p. 243-244</ref>.

According to some early sources<ref>See pp.78-79 in Sean Anthony, [https://www.academia.edu/40869286/Two_Lost_S%C5%ABras_of_the_Qur%CA%BE%C4%81n_S%C5%ABrat_al_Khal%CA%BF_and_S%C5%ABrat_al_%E1%B8%A4afd_between_Textual_and_Ritual_Canon_1st_3rd_7th_9th_Centuries_Pre_Print_Version_ Two ‘Lost’ Sūras of the Qurʾān: Sūrat al-Khalʿ and Sūrat al-Ḥafd between Textual and Ritual Canon (1st -3rd/7th -9th Centuries) [Pre-Print Version]], Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 46 (2019)</ref>, ibn Mas'ud  too included Khal' and Hafd in his Qur'an mushaf (codex)<ref>see also al-Suyuti in his Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Volume 4 page 421</ref>, as also did Ibn 'Abbas in his mushaf, though its presence in Ubayy's is much more widely documented. One hadith records that Uthman recited them as supplications <ref>according to hadith 7032 in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah</ref>, as did Umaya bin Abdullah and Umar according to Al-Suyuti.<ref name="SuyutiItqan"></ref> One hadith says that these were du'as given by the angel Jibreel to Muhammad.<ref>“While the Messenger of Allah - peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- was supplicating against the Mudhar, Gabriel came to him and signaled him to remain silent, so he became silent. Then Gabriel said, “O Muhammad, Allah has not sent you to disparage or condemn, rather he has sent you as a mercy. And he has not sent you to bring torment. ‘Not for you, [O Muhammad, but for Allah], is the decision whether He should [cut them down] or forgive them or punish them, for indeed, they are wrongdoers.’ [Qur’an 3:128] Then he taught him this supplication, ‘O Allah! We beg help from You alone …’” Sunan al-Kubra, Hadith 3142</ref> Al-Suyuti quotes another scholar saying that Surah al-Khal' and Surah al-Hafd were removed from the Qur'an and are now used as du'as.<ref>"''l-Husain b. 'l-Munadi in his work l-Nasikh wa l-Mansukh said: of the material that was removed from the Qur'an but not from memory are the two chapters of the qunut supplications that are recited in the witr prayer; they were named l-Khal`a and l-Hafd''" p.15 of the chapter on Nasikh and Mansukh in the abridged English translation of Al-Itqan by Muneer Fareed</ref><ref>A longer quote of al-Munadi's words is even more revealing: "''Az-Zarkashi said in al-Burhaan (2/37): The leading hadeeth scholar Abu’l-Husayn Ahmad ibn Ja‘far al-Manaadi said in his book an-Naasikh wa’l-Mansookh, concerning that which has been abrogated from the Qur’an but was not erased from what people had learned by heart, that this included the two soorahs that are recited in Qunoot in Witr prayer. He said: There is no difference of opinion among the earlier scholars that these two soorahs were written down in the mushafs that were attributed to Ubayy ibn Ka‘b, and it was narrated from the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) that he recited them, and they were called the soorahs of al-Khal‘ and al-Hafd.''" https://islamqa.info/en/195880</ref>

It doesn't seem that there was agreement among the Muslims on whether these were just du'as or parts of the Qur'an, particularly given that such an important figure as Ubayy ibn Ka'b (possibly ibn Mas'ud and ibn 'Abbas too) recorded them in his widely reported Qur'an codex.  

Nor does it seem there was complete agreement on whether other surahs that resemble du'as belonged in the written Qur'an given that ibn Mas'ud left out of his mushaf Surahs Al-Fatihah, and 113 and 114 (called Al-Mu'awwidhatan), as mentioned above. Al-Qurtubi's tafsir contains a narration from ibn-Mas'ud that he omitted Al-Fatihah for brevity<ref>“’Abdullah bin Mas’ud was asked as to why he did not write al-Fatiha in his Mushaf. He replied, ‘If I were to write I would write it before every surah.’” Abu Bakr al-Anbari explains this saying every raka’ah (in prayers) starts with al-Fatiha and then another surah is recited. It is as if Ibn Mas’ud said, ‘I have dropped it for the sake of brevity and I have trusted its preservation by Muslims (collectively).’ (al-Qurtubi, al-Jami al-Ahkam al-Qur’an. Dar al-Kutab al-Misriyah, Cairo, 1964 vol.1 p.115)</ref>, and there was a theory to explain his omission of surahs 113 and 114<ref name="Itqan ibn Masud"></ref>. The canonical Qira'at (recitations of the Qur'an) of the Kufan readers include all 3 surahs yet have ibn Mas'ud in some chains of their isnads. However, it is known that the canonical reader Hamza made use of ibn Mas'ud's readings (via his teacher, al A'mash) only insofar as they complied with the Uthmanic rasm.<ref>Shady Hekmat Nasser, [https://books.google.com/books?id=Kx7i2Y56WuYC&pg=PA57&dq=aasim+qira%27ah&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=aasim%20qira'ah&f=false ''The Transmission of the Variant Readings of the  Qur'an: The Problem of Tawaatur and the Emergence of Shawaadhdh''], pp.57-58. Leiden: Brill Publishers, 2012.</ref>

As mentioned above, numerous possible oral readings of the Qur'an can be and were imposed upon the Uthmanic rasm (an early stage of Arabic orthography, which lacked diacritics such as short vowel signs and with scarce use of dotting to distinguish certain consonants). Today we have seven or ten canonical qira'at, which are slightly different early oral recitations or readings of the Qur'an by famous readers. There were once many more qira'at, from which twenty-five were described by Abu 'Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam two centuries after Muhammad's death, and restricted to seven after three centuries following a work by Abu Bakr Ibn Mujahid (d.936 CE). A further three qira'at were added to the canonical seven many centuries later by ibn al-Jazari (d.1429 CE) - those of Abu Jafar, Ya'qub and Khalaf. These three were popular since the time of the seven<ref>Various sized selections of qira'at were published over the centuries. Ibn Mihran (d. 991) was the first to choose the same set of ten. Christopher Melchert (2008) [www.jstor.org/stable/25728289 The Relation of the Ten Readings to One Another] Journal of Qur'anic Studies Vol.10 (2) pp.73-87</ref>, and provide additional variants<ref>See for example 19:25, 82:9, and 21:104 on [https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/ corpuscoranicum.de]</ref>. Some scholars regarded them as having a somewhat less reliable transmission status than the seven.<ref>Ahmad 'Ali al Imam (1998), "Variant Readings of the Quran: A critical study of their historical and linguistic origins", Institute of Islamic Thought: Virginia, USA, pp.126-133</ref> Ibn al Jazari lamented that the masses only accepted the seven readings chosen by ibn Mujahid.<ref>Shady Hekmat Nasser, [https://books.google.com/books?id=Kx7i2Y56WuYC&pg=PA57&dq=aasim+qira%27ah&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=aasim%20qira'ah&f=false ''The Transmission of the Variant Readings of the  Qur'an: The Problem of Tawaatur and the Emergence of Shawaadhdh''], p. 64. Leiden: Brill Publishers, 2012.</ref>

Al Zarkashi (d.1392 CE) argued that even the differences in the canonical readings are mutawatir (mass transmitted), despite each only having one or a small number of single chains of transmission between Muhammad and the eponymous reader, because the inhabitants in the cities in which they were popular also heard them. Professor Shady Nasser finds it hard to accept al Zarkashi's argument since in that case "variants within one Eponymous Reading should not have existed", as well as due to the presence of multiple popular readers in each city.<ref>Shady Hekmat Nasser, [https://books.google.com/books?id=Kx7i2Y56WuYC&pg=PA57&dq=aasim+qira%27ah&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=aasim%20qira'ah&f=false ''The Transmission of the Variant Readings of the  Qur'an: The Problem of Tawaatur and the Emergence of Shawaadhdh''], p. 103. Leiden: Brill Publishers, 2012.</ref> As noted above, most canonical readings are not found in early vocalised manuscripts. Ibn al-Jazari subsequently obtained a fatwa (from ibn al Subki) declaring that all 10 readings were fully mutawatir, though later he changed his mind.<ref>Ibid. p.36</ref>

Each of the Qira'at has two canonical transmissions (riwayat) named after its transmitters, one of which is the basis for any particular text (mushaf) of the Qur'an. For example, the mushaf used mainly in North Africa is based on the riwayah of Warsh from Nafi (the reading of Nafi transmitted by Warsh). As Nasser explains, the two-Rawi canon for ibn Mujahid's choice of seven readings was effectively canonized due to the popularity both of a simplified student Qira'at manual by al-Dani (d.1053 CE; who in another more complicated work documents many more transmissions), and a poetic form of this manual by al-Shatibi (d.1388 CE).<ref>Nasser, S.H. (2013) "The Two-Rāwī Canon before and after ad-Dānī (d. 444/1052–3): The Role of Abū ṭ-Ṭayyib Ibn Ghalbūn (d. 389/998) and the Qayrawān/Andalus School in Creating the Two-Rāwī Canon", ''Oriens'' 41 (1-02), 41-75</ref> The canonical transmitters all differ in their readings, even when they transmit from the same reader. This two transmitter system was expanded when ibn al Jazari canonized the three readers after the seven mentioned above, giving twenty canonical transmitters for the ten readers in total.

A related question on which scholars differed was whether or not all the ahruf were preserved. One group including ibn Hazm (d.1064 CE) believed that all seven ahruf were accomodated by the Uthmanic rasm (consonantal skeleton), finding it unimaginable that anything would be omitted.<ref>Nasser, S. [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mRAzAQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover ''The Transmission of the Variant Readings of the Qurʾān: The Problem of Tawātur and the Emergence of Shawādhdh''], Leiden, Boston:Brill, 2013, p.83</ref>. Al-Tabari argued that only one harf was preserved by Uthman (which he interpreted to mean the dialect of the Quraysh), while Ibn al Jazari said the view of most scholars is that only as many of the ahruf as the Uthmanic rasm accommodated were preserved<ref>Ahmad 'Ali al Imam (1998), "Variant Readings of the Quran: A critical study of their historical and linguistic origins", Institute of Islamic Thought: Virginia, USA, pp.65-67</ref>. Indeed, this latter is more viable theologically, for the non-Uthmanic companion readings must be fraudulent under the first view, and problems with the second view include those mentioned above.

As part of the majority view reported by ibn al Jazari, the Uthmanic codex was based on the harf of the "final review" or final revealed version of the Quran<ref>Ibid. p.66</ref>. However, there were around 40 scribal errors in the official copies of the Uthmanic text (see below).<ref>See the list in Cook, M. (2004) “The Stemma of the Regional Codices of the Koran,” ''Graeco-Arabica'', 9-10 or Nasser, S. "The Second Canonization of the Qurʾān (324/936)" Brill, 2020, pp.143-150</ref> Canonical qira'at were required to comply with this range rather than an entirely unified text. Indeed, in some cases they even strayed beyond these boundaries.<ref name="li-yahaba-li-nahaba">See for example {{Quran|19|19}}, where Abu Amr and the transmission of Warsh from Nafi have Gabriel saying to Mary li-yahaba ("that he may give") instead of li-'ahaba ("that I may give") [https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/19/vers/19 corpuscoranicum.de]. The ya consonant for this variant is sometimes written in red ink on manuscripts or superscript in print.<BR>The non-canonical Ṣan'ā' 1 palimpsest solves the theologically awkward reading in another way, using li-nahaba ("that we may give") - See p.64, line 15 of Folio 22B in  

Apart from other earlier variant readings, and those of al-Duri from Abu Amr still used in Sudan, and of Hisham from ibn Amir still used in parts of Yemen, there are two different readings of the Qur'an currently widespread in printed text (mushaf), named after their respective 2nd-century transmitters: Hafs from Asim (one of the Kufan readers) and Warsh from Nafi (of Medina).  

Professor Shady Nasser shows that at the time when ibn Mujahid wrote his ''Kitab al Sab'ah'' selecting the 7 eponymous readings that later became canonical, adherence of readings to the Uthmanic rasm and good Arabic grammar were already important criteria <ref>Nasser, S. [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mRAzAQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover ''The Transmission of the Variant Readings of the Qurʾān: The Problem of Tawātur and the Emergence of Shawādhdh''], Leiden, Boston:Brill, 2013, p.53</ref>, but ibn Mujahid restricted his selection to just 7 by choosing the consensus readings from each of Mecca, Medina, Basra, Damascus and the 3 most popular readers from Kufah, where the legacy of Ibn Mas'ud's (now banned) reading meant that there was no dominant Uthmanic reading in that city.<ref>Ibid. pp. 47-61</ref>.

Nasser has shown that grammarians such as al-Farra<ref>Nasser, S. [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mRAzAQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover ''The Transmission of the Variant Readings of the Qurʾān: The Problem of Tawātur and the Emergence of Shawādhdh''], Leiden, Boston:Brill, 2013, p.167</ref>, and scholars such as al-Tabari readily criticised variants in these same readings shortly before they were canonized<ref>Ibid. pp.41-47</ref> (as did al-Zamakhshari 200 years afterwards)<ref>Ibid. pp.6-7</ref>). Even Ibn Mujahid said variants now considered canonical were wrong.<ref>Ibid. pp.59-61 (for specific examples of him criticising such variants, many of which are unique to particular canonical readers or transmitters, see the list and summary table in chapter 2, pp.64-89 of Nasser's follow-up book Nasser, S. H. "The Second Canonization of the Qurʾān (324/936)" Brill, 2020; Similarly, see the [https://brill.com/downloadpdf/book/9789004412903/back-1.xml open access appendix] from Nasser's book and search for the word "wrong" to see which of the variants documented by ibn Mujahid were described as such, whether in terms of transmission or the reading variant itself being wrong; or see the examples given by van Putten on Twitter.com [https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1296392400735277057 here] and [https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1090545330402267136 here]</ref> After ibn Mujahid's book, a genre of literature arose that "''indicates the rising need to provide grammatical and syntactic proofs in order to back up the arguments necessary to assess the superiority of one reading over another.''" <ref>Ibid. pp.60-61 (see also the footnote on p.61)</ref>. Ibn Mujahid's decision to select just 7 readings drew frequent criticism after its publication<ref>Ibid. p.64</ref>. The consensus notion that all variants in these 7 were divinely preserved in a chain back to the Prophet himself only came about later, by which time there was of course no room for arguments and reasoning to try to prove the superiority of one variant over another.<ref>Ibid. pp. 59-61</ref> As Nasser writes, "''The problem that caused heated discussion for centuries afterwards was the origin and transmission of the eponymous Readings; were these Readings transmitted through tawātur or single chains of transmission? Are there Readings better than others or are they equally divine?''"<ref>ibid. p.65</ref>.