Sanaa 1 and The Origins of The Qur'An

an 1 and the Origins of the Qurn
B e h n a m S a d e g h i and M o h s e n G o u d a r z i 1
Stanford University / Harvard University
Abstract
The lower text of an 1 is at present the most important document for the
history of the Qurn. As the only known extant copy from a textual tradition
beside the standard Uthmnic one, it has the greatest potential of any known
manuscript to shed light on the early history of the scripture. Comparing it with
parallel textual traditions provides a unique window onto the initial state of the
text from which the different traditions emerged. The comparison settles a perennial controversy about the date at which existing passages were joined together to
form the sras (chapters). Some ancient reports and modern scholars assign this
event to the reign of the third caliph and link it with his standardizing the text of
the Qurn around AD 650. However, the analysis shows that the sras were
formed earlier. Furthermore, the manuscript sheds light on the manner in which
the text was transmitted. The inception of at least some Qurnic textual traditions must have involved semi-oral transmission, most likely via hearers who
wrote down a text that was recited by the Prophet. This essay argues for these
1
) We are grateful to Christian Robin, the Noja Noseda Foundation, and

CNRS (UMR 8167, Orient et Mditerrane) for giving us their photographs and
ultraviolet images of the DAM 0127.1 folios. We thank Michael Cook, David Powers, Patricia Crone, and Ursula Dreibholz for reading the essay and providing
valuable written comments. We thank Ursula Dreibholz for graciously agreeing to
be interviewed by telephone, and Ursula Dreibholz, Lily Feidy, Sharif Kanaana,
Sari Nusseibeh, Ghassan Abdullah, Lawrence Conrad, and Alexander Stille for
patiently answering our questions by e-mail. We also thank the following persons
for their help with various other aspects of the project: Uwe Bergmann, the
anonymous owner of the Stanford 2007 folio, Mette Korsholm of the David Collection, Michael Cooperson, Devin Stewart, Robert Waltz, Scott Lucas, M.S.M. Saifullah, Sarah Kistler, Bryce Cronkite-Ratcliff, Robert Gregg, Burak Keskin-Kozat,
the staff at the Abbasi Program in Islamic Studies at Stanford University, Ceci
Evangelista of the Office of Development at Stanford University, and the staff at
Stanford University Libraries and the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory.This essay was submitted for publication on August 31, 2011.
Der Islam Bd. 87, S. 1129
Walter de Gruyter 2012
ISSN 0021-1818
DOI 10.1515/islam-2011-0025
Behnam Sadeghi and Mohsen Goudarzi
conclusions by considering the broad features of the text. The essay also presents
the edited text of the folios in the Dr al-Makht, an,Yemen, in addition to
four folios that were auctioned abroad. A systematic analysis of all the variants is
postponed to future publications.
Introduction
The Manuscript and the Field of Qurnic Studies
Scholarly approaches to the early history of the standard text of the
Qurn can be enumerated in a broad and rough manner as follows:
There is the traditional account that is associated with most premodern scholars. They held that the Prophet Muammad (d. AD 632)
disseminated the Qurn gradually. Some of his Companions compiled
copies of the scripture. These codices had differences. Motivated by the
differences and seeking uniformity among Muslims, the Caliph Uthmn
(d. AD 656), himself a Companion, established a standard version. He
or, more precisely, a committee of Companions appointed by him did so
by sending master copies of the Qurn to different cities codices that
themselves differed slightly in a small number of spots and people in
turn made copies of them. In subsequent decades and centuries, this
standard text was read differently by different readers. For example,
they often vowelled and pointed the consonants differently, but many of
these readings including those of the famous Seven Readers adhered to the undotted consonantal skeletal form of the original master
codices. Here, skeletal form requires explanation: one does not know
the spelling of every word in the original codices of Uthmn. For example, in most cases it is not known whether the sound in the middle of a
word was represented by the letter alif. However, at the very least we
know the text at the skeletal-morphemic level.2
2
) The Islamic scholarly tradition does not purport to have preserved the
spelling of every word in the codices sent out by Uthmn. Rather, Muslim tradition preserves the original Uthmnic codices at least at the skeletal-morphemic
level, that is, with respect to features of the skeletal (unpointed) text that would
necessarily change a word or part of word (morpheme) into something else if
they were different. Some skeletal variations, such as different spellings of a
word, are not skeletal-morphemic because they do not necessarily change a
word. Moreover, differences in the way consonants are pointed may change a
word, but they are not skeletal-morphemic either since they do not change the
skeleton. Normally, a reading is said to differ from the standard Uthmnic rasm
It is convenient to call the adherents of this account traditionalists.

The narrative continues to be fairly popular among the specialists in the
Muslim world, in part because most of them have not come to entertain
radical doubt about the broad outlines of early Islamic history. By contrast, scholars located in Europe and North America generally do not accept this account (which is not to say that they reject it). This is due to a
prevailing distrust in the literary sources on which it is founded. These
sources were compiled long after the events they describe, and the extent to
which they preserve truly early reports has been the subject of an evolving
academic debate.This Euro-American majority falls into two main groups.
The first group, a minority, consists of the revisionists, that is, those
who consider the traditional narrative as wrong. They reject the idea
that Uthmn attempted to fix the text, or they hold that there continued to be major changes in the standard text after Uthmn, or, in the
case of Wansbroug h, they think it may be anachronistic to speak of
the Qurn at the time of Uthmn in the first place, since the text coalesced long after. Notable revisionists include John Wansbrough,
Patricia Crone, Alfred-Louis de Prmare, and David Powers.3 The
degree of textual stability that according to the traditional account had
been reached by ca. AD 650 was according to John Wansbroug h attained no earlier than the ninth century AD. Most revisionists are more
conservative in their dating, focusing on the reign of the Umayyad caliph
Abd al-Malik, that is, AH 6586/ AD 685705 as the date of textual finality and/or canonization. Revisionists tend to support their views by
citing documentary evidence, Christian sources, and Muslim traditions.
Their use of the Muslim reports constitutes what they regard as judicious reading between the lines, but what their opponents view as marshaling cherry-picked, decontextualized, and misinterpreted reports.
The second group of scholars, the skeptics, is by far larger. Its
members likewise do not accept the traditional account, considering it
unreliable along with nearly every report in the Muslim literary sources
only if it changes both the skeleton and the word, that is, if the change is skeletal
and morphemic. All of this has been well-understood for many centuries and is
simply taken for granted in the way most Muslim Qurn specialists have written about the different readings (qirt). (We are setting aside a caveat concerning cases in which nonetheless the original Uthmnic spelling or pointing is
knowable.)
3
) For their contributions, see the Bibliography. P. Crones approach in her
1994 essay is different from the others we list (or from her 1977 work) in that
she provisionally suggests the late canonization of a largely stable text rather
than a late date for the attainment of textual stability.
bearing on Islamic origins. But they do not subscribe to the theories of

the revisionists either, which they consider to be unsupported by the
evidence. The scholars in this group are agnostics, so to speak. They may
not assert that the standard text came into being or changed significantly after Uthmn, but they do not deny that it could have. They may
be adamant that they are not revisionists, but they are de facto revisionists in respect of their attitude towards the literary sources. They may be
called skeptics inasmuch as they are equally unconvinced by traditional and revisionist narratives. They tend to not publish much on
Islamic origins, since as skeptics they have few firm beliefs to write
about. This belies the fact that they form the larger group. An indication
of their size is given by what has not been published: in recent decades,
European and North-American academics have written relatively few
accounts of the initial decades of Islamic religion based on the literary
sources. Many academics have simply moved to later periods (focusing
on how the initial decades were remembered), other topics, or languages
other than Arabic.
There is also a minority among scholars in North America and
Europe who support key features of the traditional narrative as recounted above. They do not take all the reports in the later sources at
face value, but they believe that critical and detailed analysis of the literary evidence confirms elements of the traditional account. These
scholars have their counterparts in the Muslim world. Notable members
of this group include Michael Cook, Muammad Muaysin, and Harald Motzki, the first one being a defector from the revisionist camp. 4
One may call scholars who support the traditional account based on a
critical evaluation of the literary sources neo-traditionalists. They are
traditionalists who argue for the traditional account rather than take it
for granted as a self-evident part of our scholarly heritage.5
We do not believe that this climate of disagreement reflects sheer
underdetermination of theory by evidence. This is not a case of takfu
4
) For their works on the Qurn, see the Bibliography. For a brief discussion of
Muaysins work, see Behnam Sadeg hi, Criteria for Emending the Text of the
Qurn, in Law and Tradition in Classical Islamic Thought, ed. Michael Cook, et al.
(New York: Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming, 2012). For a summary and discussion of
Cooks work, see Sadeg hi and B ergmann, The Codex, 364, 3679.
5
) The labels traditionalist, revisionist, skeptic, and neo-traditionalist are
merely convenient names for the four groups. We do not use these terms in their
literal senses or imply other associations. For example, we do not imply that the
traditionalists are attached to tradition or that the skeptics are philosophical
skeptics.
al-adilla: the arguments for the different sides are not equal in strength.
We also do not believe that the relative size of each group of scholars
mirrors the quality of the evidence in its favor, or that the disagreements
will dissolve completely if very strong new evidence were to surface in
favor of a particular position, or that if a consensus were to emerge, that
would necessarily signify a lack of ambiguity in the evidence. Patterns of
human adherence to paradigms depend on sociological, psychological,
and other irrational factors as well as on the quality of the evidence. 6
Nonetheless, it also goes without saying that any evidence that can potentially shed further light on early Islam will be of great interest to
historians and may sway at least some of us.
The Qurn under study is one such piece of evidence. an 1 is a
palimpsest, that is, a manuscript of which the text, lower writing, was
erased by scraping or washing and then written over. Recycling parchment in this manner was not uncommon. It was done, for example, for an
estimated 4.5% of manuscripts from the Latin West produced from AD
400 to AD 800,7 though one should not rashly generalize this figure since
the frequency of palimpsesting varied greatly depending on time and
place.8 Beside an 1, we know of several other Arabic palimpsests.9
6
) The irrational factors have been famously emphasized in Thomas Kuhn,

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1970). In the field of Islamic studies, the irrational factors that affect whether
one accepts an authors work include, for example, the eminence of the author,
the authors religious background, whether scholars whom one admires agree
with the author, whether ones mentors and peers agree with the author, whether
the authors work agrees with the consensus, the authors rhetorical strategies,
and whether the authors positions match those of a particular academic, religious, philosophical, or ideological movement.
7
) Georges Declercq, Introduction: Codices Rescripti in the Early Medieval West in Early Medieval Palimpsests, in Early medieval palimpsests, ed.
Georges Declercq (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols Publishers, 2007), 12.
8
) Declercq,Introduction, 1113.
9
) There are two Arabic palimpsests in the Monastery of St. Catherine in the
Sinai Peninsula. They are discussed in Aziz S. Atiya, Arabic Manuscripts of
Mount Sinai: A Hand-list of the Arabic Manuscripts and Scrolls Microfilmed at
the Library of the Monastery of St. Catherine, Mount Sinai (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1955), 19, 24; and Aziz S. Atiya,The Monastery of St. Catherine and
the Mount Sinai Expedition, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society
96.5 (1952): 57886. One palimpsest, no. 514, has five layers of text in three languages: two Arabic, two Syriac, and one Greek. Its top writing, consisting of a
Christian hagiography and the Book of Job, is in the middle Kufic of the eighth
to early ninth century, while its second layer, another Christian text, is in ar-
In an 1, as with some other palimpsests, over time the residue of

the ink of the erased writing underwent chemical reactions, causing a
color change and hence the reemergence of the lower writing in a pale
brown or pale gray color. Color change is normal for metal-based ink.
Thus, a black ink may turn brown over time, and the traces of ink buried
deep in the parchment can bring an erased text back to life. Transition
metals like iron, copper, and zinc are implicated in corrosion and color
change.10 All three metals are present in the inks of both layers of an 1,
chaic Kufic of the first century of the Hijra, that is, seventh to eighth century
AD. (Atiya, Arabic Manuscripts of Mount Sinai, 19). The image of a folio
(Atiya, Monastery of St. Catherine, 584) shows that in the top writing the
verses are separated by a number of dots, a feature found in early Qurns. The
second Arabic palimpsest, no. 588, has three layers of Christian writing. The top
th
layer is in Arabic and dates from about the 10 century AD. Underneath, there is
a Syriac text. Underneath, a third layer of Arabic could be traced in some
places (Atiya, Arabic Manuscripts of Mount Sinai, 24).
There is a palimpsest in the University Library of Cambridge that has a
Qurnic lower text in the ijz script. It is discussed in the following publications: Alphonse Mingana and Agnes S. Lewis, Leaves from Three Ancient
Qurns, Possibly Pre-Othmnic (Cambridge: University Press, 1914); Muammad Muaf al-Aam, The History of the Qurnic Text, 2nd ed. (Riyadh: Azami
Publishing House, 2008), 3425; Alba Fedeli, Early Evidences of Variant
Readings in Qurnic Manuscripts, in Die dunklen Anfnge: Neue Forschungen
zur Entstehung und frhen Geschichte des Islam, ed. Karl-Heinz Ohlig et al.
(Berlin: Verlag Hans Schiler, 2007), 2937; Alba Fedeli, Mingana and the
Manuscript of Mrs. Agnes Smith Lewis, One Century Later, Manuscripta Orientalia 11.3 (2005): 37. Fedeli and al-Aam both find Minganas transcription
completely unreliable. Fedeli could verify only thirteen of thirty-seven readings
given by Mingana (Fedeli,Mingana, 7). In addition, Minganas characterization of the text as possibly pre-Othmnic is unwarranted. (We came to know
of the following useful contribution too late to incorporate its contents about
the Cambridge and other palimpsests: Alba Fedeli,The Digitization Project
of the Qurnic Palimpsest, MS Cambridge University Library Or. 1287, and the
Verification of the Mingana-Lewis Edition: Where is Salm?, Journal of Islamic
Manuscripts 2.1 (2011): 100117.)
There are several other palimpsests in the Dr al-Makht in an, all relatively late, and all represented by no more than a few pages apiece (Ursula Dreibholz, interview, July 30, 3011). The picture of a page from one of them appears as
image 043020C.BMP in a CD published by the UNESCO. Both layers of text are
Qurnic and seem later than the palimpsest under study in this essay, though the
lower writing looks like it could be as early as the late first century AH.
10
) Christoph Krekel,The Chemistry of Historical Iron Gall Inks, International Journal of Forensic Document Examiners 5 (1999): 548.
though the lower ink has somewhat more copper and a much greater
quantity of zinc than the upper one.11
Both layers of writing are Qurns, and each layer appears to have
once constituted a complete codex.12 The upper text is from the standard
textual tradition and was probably written sometime during the seventh
or the first half of the eighth century AD. With future advances in paleography and the application of other methods, it may become possible to
obtain a more precise date than this. Its verse division pattern displays a
11
) The scientific analysis of the inks on the Stanford 2007 folio was conducted by Uwe Bergmann. The details may be published separately. Cf. Behnam
Sadeg hi and Uwe B ergmann, The Codex of a Companion of the Prophet
and the Qurn of the Prophet, Arabica 57.4 (2010): 348, 357.
12
) In addition to the writings corresponding to the putative full codices,
there are occasional interpolations by different hands. For example, an upper
modifier filled gaps in the upper writing where the text had faded.There is also a
hand (or possibly more than one hand) on a few folios that we call the lower
modifier(s), responsible for jottings that occasionally either modified the lower
writing or filled its gaps where the text had faded or been erased irremediably.
The lower modifier is black and was written with a narrower pen than all the
other scripts. It appears on folios 2, Stanford 2007, David 86/2003, 22 (possibly
different hand), and possibly 23. It dates from a period after the complete erasure
of the lower writing, the addition of the upper writing, and the resurfacing of the
lower writing. Four considerations establish this dating: First, the fact that the
writing is black proves that it does not belong to a reemerged text, since lower
writings in palimpsests come to light as pale brown or pale gray if they reappear
at all. This argument alone is conclusive. Second, Uwe Bergmanns examination of
the Stanford 2007 folio has established that the lower modifiers ink has no iron,
copper, or zinc, the transition metals responsible for corrosion and color change
over time (see above, footnotes 10 and 11), confirming that the script has not
resurfaced and thus was never erased to begin with. The ink appears to be based
on carbon and is thus relatively inert, invulnerable to corrosion-related color
change and more easily erased or worn out than metal-based ink. This consideration, too, is conclusive by itself. Third, in terms of calligraphic style, width of the
pen stroke, and the chemical composition of the ink, the upper writing is much
closer to the lower writing than to the lower modifier, which again supports its
predating the lower modifier. Fourth, the lower modifiers calligraphic style suggests that it does not belong to the first two centuries AH. On folio 22, however,
the calligraphic style looks early: either this is a different hand, or it is the same
lower modifier hand as found on the other folios but is influenced here by the
ijz script it modified. Cf. Sadeg hi and B ergmann, The Codex, 3578,
especially footnote 12.
marked affinity for the schemes reported for the ijz, but not precisely
enough to distinguish between Mecca and Medina.13
The lower Qurn is of enormous interest because it is so far the only
manuscript that is known to be non-Uthmnic, that is, from a textual
tradition other than the standard one. One of us previously did a detailed
study of this codex based on four folios.14 We now extend the analysis to
all the folios except one (of which the image we do not have). In this essay,
we focus on the broad features of the text, postponing to future publications a systematic textual analysis of all the variants. We shall argue below
that regardless of the date of the lower codex, the textual tradition to
which it belonged and the Uthmnic tradition must have diverged sometime before the spread of the Uthmnic tradition in the mid-seventh century AD. Therefore, comparing these two traditions opens a window onto
the earliest phase of the Qurns history. We shall also argue, based on just
such a comparison, that, contrary to a common view, the existing pieces of
revelation were joined to form the sras prior to Uthmns famous and
fairly effective attempt to standardize the text.
The date of origin of the textual tradition to which the lower text belongs, of course, is a different matter than the date of the lower writing
itself. The lower writing, on paleographic and art-historical grounds, is
almost certainly from the seventh century AD, and probably not from the
latter part of that century. More precision may be obtained by radiocarbon dating, which assigns the parchment, and hence the lower codex, to
the period before AD 671 with a probability of 99% (before 661 with the
probability of 95.5%, and before 646 with a probability of 75%).15 This
makes it significantly earlier than the few other Qurns that have been
radiocarbon-dated.16 The manuscript was not written long before the
13
) See Appendix 2. This conclusion was reached previously based on an

analysis of a more limited set of thirteen folios in Sadeg hi and B ergmann,
The Codex, 37783.
14
) Sadeg hi and B ergmann,The Codex.
15
) Radiocarbon dating was performed on a sample from the Stanford
2007 folio. For the details, see Sadeg hi and B ergmann,The Codex, 3524.
On the assumption that the codex was not made a long time after the parchment
was prepared, see The Codex, 354.
16
) Yasin Dutton, An Umayyad Fragment of the Quran and its Dating,
Journal of Quranic Studies 9.2 (2007): 5787; Efim Rezvan, On the Dating of
an Uthmnic Qurn from St. Petersburg, Manuscripta Orientalia 6.3 (2000):
1922; Hans-Caspar Graf von Bothmer, Die Anfnge der Koranschreibung:
Kodikologische und kunsthistorische Beobachtungen an den Koranfragmenten
in Sanaa, Magazin Forschung (Universitt des Saarlandes), 1 (1999): 45.
Prophet Muammads death in AD 632, since it contains the ninth sra,

which includes some of the last passages he disseminated.17
The manuscript may be, from a textual-critical standpoint, the most
important one among those discovered in 1972 between the ceiling and
the roof of the Great Mosque of an.18 It seems that the other ones in
the collection, including the many others from the first century in the
ijz and Kf scripts, may all belong to the standard tradition.19 The
collection includes some 12,000 Qurnic parchment fragments.As of 1997,
all but 15002000 leaves or fragments were assigned to 926 distinct
Qurnic manuscripts, none complete, and many containing only a few
folios.There are about 150 non-Qurnic parchment fragments, and a large
number of fragments written on paper. Among the Qurn manuscripts,
twenty-two are in the ijz script, and therefore are probably from the
17
) On the problems of the relative chronology and composition of the

Qurn, see Behnam Sadeg hi, The Chronology of the Qurn: A Stylometric
Research Program, Arabica 58 (2011): 21099. See that essay also for references
to the works of Theodor Nldeke and Mehdi Bazargan. For two different evaluations of Nldekes efforts, see Nicolai Sinai, The Quran as Process, in The
Qurn in Context: Historical and Literary Investigations into the Qurnic
Milieu, ed. Angelika Neuwirth, Nicolai Sinai, and Michael Marx (Leiden: Brill,
2010), 40740; and Emmanuelle Stefanidis, The Quran Made Linear: A
Study of the Geschichte des Qorns Chronological Reordering, Journal of
Quranic Studies 10.2 (2008): 122.
18
) This paragraph and the next one on the project to preserve the manuscripts are based on the following sources: Bothmer,Die Anfnge der Koranschreibung, 406; Ursula Dreibholz, telephone interview, July 30, 2011, and emails dated July 20, August 3, 4, 8, 10, and 27, 2011; Bothmer, telephone interview,
August 26, 2011; Ursula Dreibholz,Preserving a Treasure: The an Manuscripts, Museum International (UNESCO, Paris), No. 203 (Vol. 51, No. 3, 1999):
215; Ursula Dreibholz,Treatment of Early Islamic Manuscript Fragments
on Parchment, in The Conservation and Preservation of Islamic Manuscripts,
Proceedings of the Third Conference of al-Furqn Islamic Heritage Foundation,
ed. Yusuf Ibish et al. (London: al-Furqn Islamic Heritage Foundation,
1417/1996), 13145; Claudia Brettar, UdS: Neues Zentrum fr Koranforschung? Teil 1, Campus 29.3 (July 1999), http://www.uni-saarland.de/verwalt/
presse/campus/1999/3/20-UdS_neues_zentrum.html.
19
) In a response to a query from a historian, of which we were given a copy,
Gerd-Rdiger Puin wrote that the palimpsest is the only manuscript in the Dr
al-Makht with significant textual variants. We are unable to verify this because, like everyone else, we are denied access to the microfilms prepared by
H. Bothmer, and because we have not been able to travel to an. The claim, however, is consistent with a few images published of other folios in the ijz script.
10
first century AH (7th century and early 8th century AD).20 All but eight of
these twenty-two ijz manuscripts are in the vertical format, that is,
are longer in height than width. There are also many manuscripts in the
Kf script, some of which are probably from the first century AH.
In 1980, a project was initiated to restore and preserve the parchment manuscripts. It was launched under the auspices of the Yemeni
Department for Antiquities. The Cultural Section of the German Foreign
Ministry funded the work, providing 2.2 million German marks (about
1.1 million Euros). Albrecht Noth (University of Hamburg) was the director of the project. Work on the ground began in 1981 and continued
through the end of 1989, when the project terminated with the end of
funding. Gerd-Rdiger Puin (University of Saarland) was the local director beginning with 1981. His involvement came to an end in 1985,
when Hans-Caspar Graf von Bothmer (University of Saarland) took over
as the local director. Bothmer left an in the following year, but continued to run the project from Germany, traveling to the site almost
every year. Beginning in 1982, Ursula Dreibholz served as the conservator for this project, and worked full time in an until the end of 1989.
She completed the restoration of the manuscripts. She also designed the
permanent storage, collated many parchment fragments to identify distinct Qurnic manuscripts, and directed the Yemeni staff in the same
task. The manuscripts are located in the House of Manuscripts, the Dr
al-Makht (DAM), in an,Yemen. After 1989, Bothmer would visit
the collection periodically. In the winter of 19967, he microfilmed all of
the parchment fragments that have been assigned to distinct Qurnic
manuscripts. Of the remaining 15002000 fragments, he microfilmed a
group of 280. The microfilms are available in an in the House of
Manuscripts.
Not all of the manuscript under study is in Yemen. The largest portion is there, in the House of Manuscripts, bearing the catalog number
01-27.1. However, before the piles of manuscripts discovered in the
Grand Mosque were secured, some folios must have been pilfered, as they
eventually found their way to auction houses abroad. Between 1992 and
20
) Puin wrote that there are about 90 ijz manuscripts (Gerd-Rdiger

Puin,Observations on Early Qurn Manuscripts in an, in The Qurn as
Text, ed. Stefan Wild (Leiden and New York: E.J. Brill, 1996), 108). This estimate
is wrong by a factor of four. Bothmer cites Puins error and corrects it, mentioning that the correct number is twenty-two (Bothmer,Die Anfnge der Koranschreibung, 46, footnote 28).
11
2008, four folios from the palimpsest were auctioned in London. It is

convenient to refer to them as Christies 2008, Stanford 2007, David
86/2003, and Bonhams 2000.21 Because the label DAM 01-27.1 applies
only to the leaves located in the House of Manuscripts, it is necessary to
have a label for the entire manuscript that covers also the other four
folios and any others that may surface in future. We call the whole manuscript an 1.
Scholars have not yet been granted access to the microfilms that
have been in the possession of Puin and Bothmer, nor has any author
traveled to an and published a study using the microfilms or manuscripts there. As a result, the first public discussions of the lower text
were based on the images of the four folios that were auctioned in London, and which therefore were readily available. Short entries in the auction house catalogs briefly addressed paleographic and art historical
aspects.22 Subsequently, Sergio Noja Noseda (who made an independent set of photos of the DAM 01-27.1 manuscript), Yasin Dutton, and
Alba Fedeli announced the non-Uthmnic status of the folios they
examined.23 Alba Fedeli published the first article discussing the
lower text. She focused on two folios (Bonhams 2000 and David 86/2003),
noted some important variants, and pointed out three variants that are
also reported as having been in certain Companion codices. She also has
21
) On the history of these folios, see Sadeg hi and B ergmann,The Codex, 3545. Even though the upper writing in the Stanford 2007 and David
86/2003 folios is in a different script, it is almost certain that these four folios
and the DAM 0127.1 folios are from the same manuscript. The Stanford 2007
and David 86/2003 folios share a number of features with the other folios: the
size of the folios is the same, the same intricate and colored ten-verse markers
appear in the upper codex, and the lower modifier is found in Stanford 2007 and
David 86/2003 as well. The same script seems to be used in the lower codex, but
this provisional impression requires careful verification. It is apparent that
scribes took turns to write the upper codex, a common practice, about which see
Sadeg hi and B ergmann,The Codex, 357, and the references listed there.
22
) See the references in Sadeg hi and B ergmann,The Codex, 354 (footnotes 7 and 8), 360 (footnote 22).
23
) Sergio Noseda,La Mia Visita a Sanaa e il Corano Palinsesto, Istituto
Lombardo (Rendiconti Lett.) 137 (2003): 4360; Anonymous, The Quran:
Text, interpretation and translation 3rd Biannual SOAS Conference, October
1617, 2003, Journal of Qurnic Studies 6.1 (2003): 1435 (mentioning Duttons paper, Three Possibly pre-Uthmnic Folios of the Qurn); Fedeli,
Early Evidences.
12
an article in Italian that mentions the 01-27.1 folios.24 An extended

study by Behnam Sadeghi focused on history, the role of orality, and
textual criticism.25
In 2007, S. Noja Noseda and Christian Robin took an independent
set of pictures of DAM 01-27.1. It is conceivable that this stirred the
Puins, who had not published anything on the palimpsest since G.
Puin had become acquainted with it about twenty-six years earlier.
Beginning in 2008, nineteen years after all the parchment manuscripts
in an had been restored, in three successive articles published at the
rate of one per year, Elisabeth Puin (the wife of Gerd-Rdiger Puin)
transcribed the lower text of three and a half folios (folios 2, 5, 6A, and
20).26 Her first essay (2008) mentioned the pictures takenrecently by S.
Noja Noseda and added that they might be published soon.27 The transcriptions are positive contributions, though the articles are not free
from errors.28 In the third article (2010), she states views (not found in
24
) Fedeli,Early Evidences. For the contribution in Italian, see the Bibliography.

25
) Sadeg hi and B ergmann,The Codex.
26
) Elisabeth Puin is an external lecturer in the Department of Evangelical
Theology in Saarland University in Saarbrcken. Her publications are as follows: Elisabeth Puin,Ein frher Koranpalimpsest aus an (DAM 0127.1),
in Schlaglichter: Die beiden ersten islamischen Jahrhunderte, ed. Markus Gro et
al. (Berlin: Hans Schiler, 2008), 46193; Elisabeth Puin, Ein frher Koranpalimpsest aus an (DAM 0127.1) Teil II, in Vom Koran zum Islam, ed. Markus Gro et al. (Berlin: Hans Schiler, 2009), 52381; Elisabeth Puin,Ein frher
Koranpalimpsest aus an (DAM 0127.1) Teil III: Ein nicht-umnischer
Koran, in Die Entstehung einer Weltreligion I: Von der koranischen Bewegung
zum Frhislam, ed. Markus Gro et al. (Berlin: Hans Schiler, 2010), 233305.
These articles are not cited in Sadeg hi and B ergmanns Codex, which was
completed in 2008 and modified and submitted for publication in 2009 before
the authors became aware of Elisabeth Puins 2008 essay.
27
) E. Puin,Koranpalimpsest [Teil I], 462, footnote 2.
28
) Among the errors in E. Puins work, three are particularly significant.
(1) The first one concerns the hand called the lower modifier. Preoccupied with
the theme of textual suppression, E. Puin misses the signs that the lower modifier came after the upper text had been written and the lower writing had resurfaced (see above, footnote 12). She asserts that the lower modifiers jottings were
introduced before the lower text was fully erased and the upper text was written
(E. Puin,Koranpalimpsest [Teil I], 474;Teil II, 524;Teil III, 2346, 253). The
lower modifier occupies a prominent place in her discussion, signifying a progressive canonization of the text (Teil III, 2356). (2) The second significant
error concerns what she takes to be the standard text of the Qurn. When a
13
her first two essays and presented without justification) that mirror the
conclusions of Sadeghi and B ergmanns Codex essay. She thereby
moves away from the prevailing revisionist outlook of the authors in the
Inrah series in which her previous two articles appeared.29
word in a manuscript is spelled differently than it is in her Saudi Qurn, she
calls that a deviation from the standard text. Needless to say, many spelling
variations in manuscripts do not match her Saudi Qurn, and so her essays are
filled with statements like these:even in the upper writing there are numerous deviations from the standard text with respect to spelling (Koranpalimpsest [Teil I], 462), and the spelling variant of the defective alif occurs
frequently in Hijz manuscripts (Teil II, 539). All of this points to a misunderstanding: she thinks that Muslim tradition has a standard text that purports to give the spelling of words in the original codices sent out by Uthmn.
She makes this explicit by referring to the Standard text which according to
Muslim tradition reproduces the Qurn in wording and spelling exactly as it
had been specified by the redaction of the caliph Uthmn(Teil II, 524). On
why this is wrong, see above, footnote 2. (3) The third notable error is her view
that David 86/2003 and Stanford 2007 are possibly not from the same manuscript as the other folios ( Teil III, 248; 251, footnote 30; 258, footnote 38). On
this matter, see footnote 21, above.
29
) In her third article, Teil III, Elisabeth Puin does not cite Sadeg hi
and B ergmanns Codex and does not include it in her bibliography. However,
she may have read it, at least in draft form, as she seems aware of its contents.
She mentions Stanford five times and correctly identifies the folio studied at
Stanford as the one formerly auctioned at Sothebys in1993. The study of that
folio at Stanford University was first mentioned in Sadeg hi and B ergmanns Codex. Indeed, she calls it the Stanford folio, a name that was given to
it in The Codex. E. Puin mistakenly thinks that the folio is located permanently at Stanford University (Teil III, 248), which may have led her to think
of its presence at Stanford as public knowledge, known independently of The
Codex essay. In fact, the folio was brought to Stanford only briefly for X-Ray
Fluorescence imaging. In any case, Sadeghi promptly sent G. Puin a copy of The
Codex.
We welcome the new elements in Elisabeth Puins third essay (Teil III)
that parallel Sadeg hi and B ergmanns Codex: (1) In her first two essays,
E. Puin did not use the label non-Uthmnic, nor discuss Companion codices,
the existence of which is questioned by skeptical and revisionist scholars. In
The Codex, Sadeg hi explained why the lower writing corroborates the reality of the Companion codices, and called the lower writing non-Uthmnic,
preferring it to the oft-used pre-Uthmnic. In her third essay, E. Puin says
that the lower writing confirms the reality of the Companion codices, and likewise calls it non-Uthmnic (Teil III, 2337). (2) Sadeg hi wrote that the
lower writing represents a codex other than those of Ibn Masd and Ubayy b.
14
Elisabeth Puin worked with inferior,small and 6 6 photographs in

black and white, taken by Dr. Gerd-R. Puin and Dr. Hans-Caspar Graf
von Bothmer.30 This may explain why her transcriptions have, by our
count, forty-one errors. (Based on better photographs and ultraviolet
images, our edition includes new transcriptions of the three and a half
folios discussed by E. Puin.) It is surprising that in the seventeen years
during which G. Puin had the opportunity to take (or have his colleagues take) adequate pictures of the palimpsest for his own use, he did
not do so.31 Although media interviews with G. Puin over a decade ago
Kab. E. Puin says the same thing in her third article (Teil III, 235), but not in
her earlier essays. (3) Sadeg hi argued at length that orality played a role
(The Codex, 344) in generating the differences between the lower writing and
the Uthmnic Qurn. In her third essay, E. Puin says, without providing any
justification, that oral tradition indeed played a role (Teil III, 237). She had
not mentioned orality in the first two essays. (4) Sadeg hi provided a detailed
classification of variants (The Codex, 41736). E. Puin does so in her third
essay,Teil III, 26276, but not in the first two. (5) E. Puin mentions that the
upper and lower writing seem to have been written perhaps in the same kind
of ink (Teil III, 241) without explaining how she could determine the kind of
ink. It is chemical analysis, as described in The Codex, 3678, that reveals the
inks as alike in being metal-based, and as different from the non-metallic inks of
the lower modifier and upper modifier hands. (6) Sadeg hi compared the sra
sequences in the folios with those reported for the codices of Ibn Masd and
Ubayy b. Kab. E. Puin does this in her third essay (Teil III, 257) but not in
the earlier ones.
30
) Elisabeth Puin,Koranpalimpsest [Teil I], 4612, footnote 2.
31
) In a written response to a query sent to him by a historian, of which we
were given a copy, G. Puin attributed the poor quality of the microfilm pictures
to obstacles erected by the Yemeni authorities, who, he stated, were not interested in the success of the documentation project. The problems caused by the
Yemenis are a common motif in media interviews given by G. Puin for stories
that suggest that the Yemenis sought to suppress evidence (see Andrew
Higg ins, The Lost Archive, The Wall Street Journal, January 12, 2008; Toby
Lester,What is the Koran?, The Atlantic Monthly (January 1999), 44; see also
the next footnote). It should be noted, however, that scholars who had much
more limited access to the manuscripts than G. Puin was granted, and much less
time, took much better photographs of the palimpsest. An ordinary camera
should suffice for taking adequate pictures. A more plausible explanation than
Yemeni obstructionism is that G. Puin did not seriously plan to study the lower
writing of the palimpsest in the 1980s and the 1990s and therefore did not try to
take, or have his colleagues take, adequate photographs. When eventually his
wife decided to transcribe the text in the late 00s, shortly after Noseda had
photographed the palimpsest, she had to rely on the pictures prepared by
15
described him as thrilled about studying the an texts and erroneously blamed the lack of published studies on the Yemeni authorities, it
seems that serious study of the lower writing of the palimpsest was not
on his agenda at that time.32
Textual-Critical and Historical Implications

Before the advent of the printing press, book manuscripts formed
lineages. Like animals and plants, they were subject to heredity and
mutation. Typically, a book manuscript was a copy of an earlier one,
which was in turn a copy of an even earlier one, and so forth. As a book
was copied, textual variants could arise that would be passed to its offspring.
The analogy with nature extends to questions of method. Biologists
usually learn about the past in two ways. One way is to find a specimen
that can be dated on external grounds, for example, by using radiocarbon
dating or other paleontological methods to establish the date of a fossil
(and, in rare cases, recoverable DNA within it). The equivalent in our field
is to find an old dated or datable manuscript or inscription. In the last
several decades, some scholars in the field of Islamic studies have come
to consider only such documentary sources as valid evidence for early
G. Puin and H. Bothmer in the previous decades. These may be fine for many of
the other manuscripts and for the upper writing of the palimpsest, but they are
inadequate for the lower writing.
32
) Relying on interviews with G. Puin, Toby Lester wrote:detailed examination is something the Yemeni authorities have seemed reluctant to allow.
Lester added that Puin and Bothmer have been reluctant to publish partly
because they felt that the Yemeni authorities, if they realized the possible
implications of the discovery, might refuse them further access. Lester adds that
the microfilming of the manuscripts was completed in 1997. This means that
soon Von Bothmer, Puin, and other scholars will finally have a chance to scrutinize the texts and to publish their findings freely, a prospect that thrills Puin.
Lester thus implies that, as of 1999, G. Puin had not had the opportunity to
scrutinize the texts. In fact, Puin had this opportunity since 1981 when he
began working with the manuscripts, or since 1989 when the restoration of the
parchment fragments was complete, or since early 1997 after the microfilms
were made. See Lester,What is the Koran?, 44. For G. Puins publications, see
below, footnotes 33 and 78. For the theme of Yemeni obstructionism, see the
previous footnote and the section below entitled, The Media and Manuscripts.
16
Islam. Accordingly, their impression that there are not many early copies
of the Qurn or other documentary evidence is one of the contributing
factors to the common pessimism in early Islamic studies about our ability to learn much about the first century or two of Islam. Setting aside
the revisionists and skeptics undervaluation of the potential of the late
literary sources, it is noteworthy that they do not always recognize that
the earliest manuscripts can be used to work ones way back in time. Our
knowledge can extend to the period before the manuscripts.
This brings us to another method biologists use to learn about the
past. They begin with known organisms, modern ones and fossils, and
group similar ones together, forming hierarchies of clusters and subclusters that correspond to trees of descent. By comparing sub-branches,
they are able to learn about the branches from which they must have
diverged. In this manner, they recursively work their ways back to earlier
stages, identifying ancient species and their characteristics or the archaic attributes of extant species. With a number of important caveats, a
similar method works in the study of manuscripts and is commonly used
in textual criticism. One may use textual variants to group manuscripts
into clusters corresponding to the branches of a family tree. One can also
compare the offspring to learn about the progenitors. In the case of
an 1, this method is a more fruitful method of discovery than radiocarbon dating, impressive as the results of radiocarbon dating may be.
As with other widely transmitted books, codices of the Qurn fall
into clusters, called text types, when compared for textual similarity.33
33
) Not everybody who has written on the anmanuscripts thinks in

terms of text types. For an approach that disregards the notion, see GerdRdiger Puin, Observations on Early Qurn Manuscripts in an, in The
Qurn as Text, ed. Stefan Wild (Leiden and New York: E.J. Brill, 1996), 10711.
In this article, G. Puin reaches a striking conclusion based on the discovery of
two variants. He writes,In 19:62 [the] original l tasma was later corrected to l tasmana (instead of the usual l yasmana). Instead of qul ja laqqu in 34:49 we find qla ja l-aqqu.The systems of the seven, ten or
14 Qirt are, consequently, younger than the variants observed in San. Puin
does not say whether these readings appear in just one manuscript apiece. If
they do, as seems likely, the only way in which his theory that these readings give
the original text could be sustained is for all the other manuscripts to represent
a later state of the text, an improbable scenario, and an impossible one if these
other manuscripts have variants of their own, which would make them the original texts by Puins method. To avoid such contradictions, scholars normally take
a singular reading to be a relatively late development or a scribal error, unless it
occurs in a branch of the textual tradition that is different from all the others,
17
By far the best-known cluster is the standard one, called the Uthmnic
text type. We give it this name as a label of convenience because early
Muslims believed that its ancestors were the manuscripts that the caliph
Uthmn (d. AD 656) had sent to the main cities of the state sometime
around AD 650 as part of his attempt to establish a standard text. We
accept this early dating for the spread of the text type, and in this essay
we take it as a given. We do not provide an argument for it here, since one
of us has already done so in a previous essay on the basis of the work
done by Michael Cook, Yasin Dutton, Hossein Modarressi, and
other scholars.34 Regardless of the date one assigns to its origin, it cannot be denied that the Uthmnic text type represents a distinct branch
of the textual tradition. That is so because it forms a genuine cluster:
the differences between the texts within the text type are small compared to the texts outside it. The lower writing of an 1 clearly falls
outside the standard text type. It belongs to a different text type, which
we call C-1.
The relatively small number and scope of the variations within
the standard (Uthmnic) text type entails a critical conclusion with
also unlikely in this case. (For the treatment of singular readings in New Testament scholarship, see the references cited in Sadeg hi and B ergmann, The
Codex, 3878, footnote 84. In some circumstances, pre-modern adth specialists
also viewed singular features in adth variants in a similar light.) Textual critics
usually begin by grouping texts into text types before evaluating what is early
and what is late. By contrast, Puin begins with the assumption that the standard reading is a corruption in every case in which there is some other reading in
any manuscript. He holds to this premise so firmly that even what is on the face
of it a scribal error is for him the original text: the second variant mentioned
above is a scribal error on the face of it since it does not fit the context. (On
scribal errors, see, e.g., Alba Fedeli,A.Perg.2: A Non Palimpsest and the Corrections in Qurnic Manuscripts, Manuscripta Orientalia 11.1 (2005): 207;
Sadeg hi and B ergmann,The Codex, 372, footnote 53.) Furthermore, Puin
does not even allow for the possibility that a standard reading and a variant
reading could have at some point existed simultaneously: the standard one is for
him automatically a later corruption, hence his conclusion that the readings in
the qirt literature are younger [i.e., later] than the variants he has mentioned.
34
) Sadeg hi and B ergmann,The Codex, 36470. Another indication, beside those given in the preceding reference, for the early date of the spread of the
Uthmnic textual tradition is the significant number of first-century Uthmnic manuscripts.
18
important ramifications: the splitting off of the Uthmnic and other

textual traditions occurred no later than the spread of the Uthmnic
text type. The innumerable Uthmnic manuscripts and the different
Uthmnic readings preserved in the literary sources provide a very
clear picture of the degree and types of change that could arise during
the period in which the Uthmnic tradition flourished. These changes
are small enough in scope and few enough in number to be compatible
with written transmission or with dictation in which the result is
checked against the original. The standard tradition thus appears to
have achieved a high level of transmission fidelity already around the
mid-seventh century AD. This Uthmnic cluster and the textual traditions that fall significantly outside it, such as the C-1 tradition to which
the lower writing belongs, must have parted ways prior to the proliferation of the Uthmnic tradition. This conclusion depends on the premise
that once people began transmitting the scripture with a high level of
accuracy, as in written transmission, a drastic reversion did not occur to
a previous, less precise form of transmission, one that could have generated the differences of the sort seen between C-1 and the Uthmnic text
type. This premise, although not certain, is highly probable. It is, for example, natural to assume that once written transmission began, it continued. Incidentally, one can see a similar trend in New Testament manuscripts and adth variants.35
The conclusion that C-1s origin must have predated ca. AD 650 is
largely independent of the date of an 1. For example, it would not be
invalidated if it were found that the lower an 1 codex was produced,
say, in the eighth century AD. This codex would still be only a representative of a C-1 text type, and the late date of the manuscript would still
beg the question of when this textual tradition originated. The codex
would have shared a common ancestor with its contemporaneous
Uthmnic cousins, a progenitor which would have dated from before
the spread of the Uthmnic tradition. Moreover, since the differences
between the C-1 text type and the Uthmnic text type outstrip in
magnitude and number the range of differences expected to arise in the
period after ca. AD 650, most of these differences must have originated
before then.
Until recently, no Qurn manuscript was known outside the Uthmnic
tradition. Non-Uthmnic Qurns were known only through descriptions
35
) Sadeg hi and B ergmann,The Codex, 396, footnote 103.
19
of them in the literary sources. According to these accounts, some

Companions of the Prophet had compiled complete Qurn codices of
their own. Three Companions are frequently named: Abdallh b. Masd,
Ubayy b. Kab, and Ab Ms al-Ashar.The variants of the codices of the
first two are reported, while almost nothing seems to be remembered
about the third. However, because the sources quoting these variants were
written a long time after the Prophet Muammad, scholars such as John
Wansbroug h and John Burton took the position that the Companion codices never actually existed they were concepts that allowed Muslims to assign their interpretations to fictive versions of the scripture.36
These scholars saw the reported textual differences not as genuine variants of the sort that normally arise in the course of transmission, but as
instances of exegesis (or desired doctrines, for Burton) transformed into
scriptural text. This view is implausible for a number of reasons. A small
fraction of the variants do make a difference in meaning. But most variants do not affect the meaning significantly enough to warrant such a
theory, and many variants do not change the meaning at all. Furthermore,
most textual differences are candidates for being the products of assimilation of parallels, harmonization to context, or simple omission phenomena that characterize genuine transmission.37 The one reason that is most
relevant for our purposes, however, is that an 1 constitutes direct
documentary evidence for the reality of the non-Uthmnic text types
that are usually referred to as Companion codices.
Table 1 gives a few examples, in English translation, in which C-1 differs from the standard text.38 The C-1 type shares a number of variants
36
) John Burton, The Collection of the Qurn (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1977), 228; John Wansbroug h, Qurnic Studies (Amherst,
NY: Prometheus Books, 2004), 445, 2035. Wansbroughs book was originally
published in 1977.
37
) For the assimilation of parallels and harmonization to context in the
Jewish Bible, see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2nd rev.
ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 2613. For the literature on the assimilation of parallels and nearby terms in New Testament manuscripts, see the references given in Sadeg hi and B ergmann, The Codex, 388, footnotes 85 and
87. For assimilation of parallels and nearby terms generating differences between Companion codices, see Sadeg hi and B ergmann, The Codex, 388,
3912, 4013. For a likely example of assimilation of parallels in the adth literature, see Behnam Sadeg hi, The Traveling Tradition Test: A Method for
Dating Traditions, Der Islam 85.1 (2008): 222.
38
) For a few other variants translated into English, see Sadeg hi and
B ergmann,The Codex, 355.
20
with those reported for the codices of Abdallh b. Masd and Ubayy b.
Kab, and these are listed in Appendix 1. These constitute a minority
among its variants, as C-1 does not share the vast majority of its variants with these codices. Nor are most of their variants found in C-1.Thus,
C-1 represents a text type of its own, a distinctCompanion codex.39
C-1 confirms the reliability of much of what has been reported about
the other Companion codices not only because it shares some variants
with them, but also because its variants are of the same kinds as those
reported for those codices.40 There are additions, omissions, transpositions, and substitutions of entire words and sub-word elements (morphemes). A large number of these variants involve minor elements of
language such as suffixes, prefixes, prepositions, and pronouns. Many
variants involve changes of person, tense, mood, or voice (passive or active), or the use of different words having the same root.41 Furthermore,
the variants in C-1 and other Companion codices richly display the phenomena of assimilation of parallels whereby a scribe's writing of a
verse is affected by his or her memory of a similar verse elsewhere in the
Qurn and assimilation of nearby terms, whereby a scribes writing is
influenced by nearby expressions. The fact that all these features are
found both in the codex of Ibn Masd, as described by al-Amash, and in
C-1 establishes that the literary sources preserve information about
codices that actually existed. The question remains whether these real
codices originated at the time of the Companions, which is what early
Muslims recalled. A positive answer to this question is supported by textual criticism, as described above, which assigns the beginning of the C-1
text type to the period before the spread of the standard text type, that
is, before ca. AD 650. In sum, the Companion codices indeed existed at
the time of the Companions, as the literary sources maintain.
39
) Sadeg hi and B ergmann,The Codex, 344, 360, 3904.

) Sadeg hi and B ergmann,The Codex, 345, 3904. There is, however, a
conspicuous difference between C-1 and the codex of Ibn Masd: C-1 has a lot
more variants by a rough estimate perhaps twenty-five times as many.
41
) Sadeg hi and B ergmann,The Codex, 3904, 389 (Table 6), 393 (Table 7).
40
21
Table 1. Examples of Major Variants

Variant description
The text of the standard

tradition
The text of the C-1

tradition
In Q 2.196, C-1 does not

have the word
rusakum.
Do not shave your

heads until the offering
reaches its destination.
Do not shave until the

offering reaches its
destination.
In Q 2.196, C-1 has

fa-in kna aadun
instead of the standard
fa-man kna.
If any of you be sick
Should one of you be

sick
In Q 2.196, C-1 has aw

nusukin instead of the
standard aw adaqatin
aw nusukin.
fasting, or alms, or an
offering
fasting or an offering
In Q 2.201, C-1 has

wa-l-khirati instead of
the standard asanatan
wa-f l-khirati
asanatan.
There are people who

say, Our Lord, give us
in this world, and they
have no portion in the
world to come. Then,
there are those who say,
Our Lord, give us good
in this world and good
in the next.
There are people who

say, Our Lord, give us
in this world, and they
have no portion in the
world to come. Then,
there are those who say,
Our Lord, give us in
this world and the
next.
In Q 63.7, C-1 has min

awlihi after yanfa.
They are the ones who

say, Do not spend
(alms) on those who are
with the Messenger of
God in order that they
may disperse.
They are the ones who

say, Do not spend
(alms) on those who are
with the Messenger of
God in order that they
may disperse from
around him.
C-1, when combined with the other textual traditions, can shed light
on the state of the text from which they all descended, that is, the prototype disseminated by the Prophet Muammad. The literary sources provide fairly systematic information about the codex of Ibn Masd, allowing one to compare it with C-1 and the Uthmnic text types. It emerges
that where the texts of Ibn Masd, C-1, and Uthmn disagree, usually
the Uthmnic version is in the majority: that is, the Uthmnic text
agrees with one of the others against the third. This is compatible with
two scenarios. First, the Uthmnic text may be a hybrid formed on the
basis of a number of Companion codices (and, conceivably, partial codi-
22
ces and free-standing copies of sras) in which preference was usually

given to the majority reading. This hybridity thesis happens to fit some
early Muslim reports about the formation of the text. Second, the Uthmnic Qurn could have been a self-contained, existing codex like those
of Ibn Masd and C-1, the three text types being distinct descendants of
a common source, the Prophetic prototype. In this scenario, the fact that
the Uthmnic text is usually in the majority suggests that it is overall a
better reproduction of the common source.42 These broad, initial conclusions may be refined or even significantly modified once we have finished the detailed study of all the variants and performed a statistical
comparison of C-1 and the Uthmnic text.43 As another refinement,
it may become necessary to come to terms with the fact that different
sras in a codex could have had different transmission histories before
they came to be incorporated in a Companion codex. As explained in a
previous essay, this likelihood arises since a Companions codex may have
taken different sras from different scribes.44 This possibility now seems
particularly relevant, since, as compared to the other sras in C-1 found
in the fragment, sra 20 in C-1 shows a greater affinity to the codex of
Ubayy b. Kab.45 Finally, one should investigate the extent to which the
variants may be due to the Prophet reciting different versions.46
Analysis resolves a fundamental question about the early history of
the Qurn: who joined the existing verses to form the sras (chapters)
and when? Many scholars and some early reports hold that this was
accomplished after the death of the Prophet by the committee that
42
) Sadeg hi and B ergmann,The Codex, 343436. We owe the hybridity

hypothesis to Michael Cook.
43
) The work is in progress, and it involves comparing C-1s text with the
Uthmnic Qurn. The key question relating to the problem of textual priority
is whether one text type has significantly more irreducible pluses than the
other. Aplus of a text type is a word or a phrase found in it that is missing from
the other text type (without some other word or phrase taking its place). It is
irreducible if it cannot be explained as an addition resulting from assimilation
of parallels or nearby terms. Having more irreducible pluses is a sign of textual
priority. Such an analysis was conducted previously on the variants in the four
folios of an1 auctioned abroad (Sadeg hi and B ergmann, The Codex,
38590, 399405), but, obviously, the results might be different once all the folios
have been analyzed.
44
45
) See Appendix 1.
46
23
Uthmn charged with the task of standardizing the Qurn. Some other
early reports however indicate that this was done already by the Prophet
himself. This last view is now found to be better supported. It follows
from the fact that the Uthmnic Qurn, C-1, and the Companion codices generally have the same passages within the sras, that the sras
were fixed before these various textual traditions branched off, in particular before the spread of the Uthmnic version. With only a few exceptions, the differences among the codices are at the level of morphemes, words, and phrases not at the level of sentences or verses. The
exceptions in C-1 include the very short consecutive verses 31 and 32 in
sra 20, which are three words long apiece, and which appear in C-1 in
reverse order. Literary sources record that these verses were also transposed in the Codex of Ubayy b. Kab.47 Another exception concerns verse
85 of sra 9, which is missing. At sixteen words, this omission is found to
be an outlier when compared to the sizes of other missing elements in
C-1, which are much shorter. The anomaly may be explained by the common phenomenon of parablepsis, a form of scribal error in which the eye
skips from one text to a similar text, in this case, from the instance of
na followed by a verse separator and the morpheme wa at the end of
verse 84 to the instance of na followed by a verse separator and the
morpheme wa at the end of verse 85. The conclusion that the sras were
constituted prior to the Uthmnic text helps one assess the accuracy of
some early Muslim accounts. It disproves the reports that imply that it
was under Uthmn that the sras were assembled from the preserved
pieces of the revelation.48
There are some traditions about Uthmns team finding the last two
verses of sra 9 with a man named Khuzayma, or Ab Khuzayma, or Ibn
Khuzayma.49 C-1 has these verses in the expected place. Since they are
also found in the Uthmnic Qurn, and since it is not reported that any
Companion codex was without them, these verses must have belonged to
the prototype from which the C-1 and Uthmnic text types emerged.
Therefore, one should not read too much into the report.
47
) Abd al-Laf al-Khab, Mujam al-qirt (Damascus: Dr Sad al-Dn),

5:430.
48
) For a summary of traditions suggesting that the sras were fixed only
after the Prophets death, see Hossein Modarressi, Early Debates on the
Integrity of the Qurn: A Brief Survey, Studia Islamica 77 (1993): 813. Modarressi questions their accuracy and calls themextremely problematic (p. 14).
49
) Mamd Rmyr, Trkh-i Qurn, 2nd ed. (Tehran: Amr Kabr, HS
1362/1983), 3136.
24
The order in which the sras were put together is a different matter.
Different Companion codices had different sra sequences, indicating
that the order was not completely fixed at the time of the Prophet.50
This is supported by C-1, which adopts a non-standard sra order. In a
previous article, one of us mentioned three sra transitions found in the
lower writing, and subsequently another author mentioned two more.51
In Table 2 we present a complete table of the eleven sra transitions in
the extant folios of an 1. (For convenience, in the table and elsewhere
in this article, the sra numbers give the Uthmnic rank.) Al-A am
has made the astute point that a non-standard sra transition does not
entail a non-standard Qurn if it occurs in a pamphlet with a selection
of sras.52 However, the point does not apply to the lower writing: it covers too much of the Quran, including some of the largest sras; its wording establishes its non-Uthmnic status; and its sra ordering is too
similar to those reported for other Companion codices.
One may make three observations about C-1s sra ordering. First,
some transitions are found only in Ubayy b. Kabs codex, others only in
Ibn Masds codex, and yet others in no reported sra ordering. Second,
the ordering is closer to those of Ibn Masd and Ubayy b. Kab than to
that of Uthmn. This pattern is so strong that one would expect it to
hold in the lost remainder of the codex as well. Third, the ordering is
closer to the one reported for Ubayy b. Kab than to that of Ibn Masd;
but the pattern is not strong enough and the sample size is not large
enough to provide an inkling of whether that was also the case in the
rest of the codex.
50
) Sadeg hi and B ergmann,The Codex, 40910.

) Sadeg hi and B ergmann,The Codex, 393 (Table 8); E. Puin,Teil II,
2567.
52
) Al-A am, History, 7781.
51
25
Table 2. The sra orders in C-1, Ibn Masd, and Ubayy b. Kab. The numbers are
the Uthmnic ranks. The sequences in the Fihrist of Ibn al-Nadm and
the Itqn of al-Suyt differ due to errors in the transmission of the reports about sra orders.
C-1
Ibn Masd
Ubayy b. Kab
Fihrist: 9, 16, 11, nine

intervening sras, 8, 19
Fihrist: 55 8, 9, 11, 19
Itqn: 54 9, 16, 11, fourteen

intervening sras, 8, 19
Itqn: 56 8, 9, 11, 19
Fihrist: sra 18 is omitted;

12 is followed by 17
Fihrist: 12, 18
Itqn: 12, 18, 17
Itqn: 12, 18
Fihrist: sra 15 is omitted
Fihrist: 15, ten intervening sras, 25
Itqn: 25, 15
Itqn: sra 25 is omitted
20, 21
Fihrist: sra 20 is omitted
Fihrist: 20, 21
Itqn: 21, 20
Itqn: 20, 21
34, 13
Fihrist: 13, 34
Fihrist: 13, four intervening sras, 34
Itqn: 13, 34
Itqn: 34, two intervening sras, 13
Fihrist: 39, 40
Fihrist: 39, five intervening sras, 40
Itqn: 39, 40
Itqn: 39, six intervening sras, 40
11, 8, 9, 19
12, 18
15, 25
39, 40
63, 62, 89, 90
53
Fihrist: 63, 62, twenty-nine Fihrist: 63, 62, 65, 89 (sra 90 is omitintervening sras, 89, 85, 84, ted, unless l uqsimu refers to it
96, 90
rather than to sra 75, in which case
it comes at eleven removes after
sra 89.)
Itqn: 63, 62, twenty-seven
Itqn: 63, 62, 66, 89, 90
intervening sras, 89, 85, 84,
96, 90
One report ascribes to Uthmns team the decision to place sra 9 after sra 8, and to do so without inserting between them the basmala,In
53
)
)
1:176.
55
)
56
)
54
Ibn al-Nadm, Kitb al-Fihrist, ed. Ri Tajaddud (n.d. and n.p.), 29.
Al-Suy, al-Itqn f ulm al-Qurn (Beirut: Dr al-Fikr, 1416/1996),
Ibn al-Nadm, al-Fihrist, 2930.
Al-Suy, al-Itqn, 1:1756.
26
the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful, a formula found at

the beginning of all the other sras.57 The evidence of an 1 adds a
nuance to this claim. The transition point between sras 8 and 9 happens
to be part of the surviving fragments of the lower codex, and it lacks the
basmala like the Uthmnic text. In putting sra 9 right after sra 8, the
manuscript agrees with the codices of Uthmn and Ubayy b. Kab, but
not that of Ibn Masd, which places sra 8 at many removes after sra 9.
It is unlikely, then, that the decision of Uthmns team was an innovation.
As mentioned above, most of the differences between C-1 and the
other text types must have arisen at the branching off of the textual
traditions. This happened probably as the Prophet recited the text and a
Companion wrote it down. Purely written transmission can be discounted due to the significance of the variants in number and nature.
Purely oral transmission can be ruled out, too, for several reasons. The
variations that arose in the adth literature during the first century AH
provide a good idea of what to expect from purely oral transmission:
entire paragraphs would be worded differently, with additions, omissions,
and transpositions at the sentence and paragraph levels. The differences
seen in C-1, rather, compare to adth variants arising in the late second
century AH, when the use of writing was common. (Against this, one
might object that the transmission of the Qurn would have required a
high standard of memorization, and, therefore, perhaps memorization
could convey the text with precision. The objection is moot to a degree,
however, given that the C-1 variants show that the text was in fact not
transmitted precisely. Besides, the thousand or so pointing and vocalization variants of the written Uthmnic text highlight the fallibility of
oral transmission, and certain Uthmnic variant readings presuppose a
written skeletal text that was on occasion read seemingly without a
memory of the spoken form: take inda versus ibd in Q 43.19, yaquu
versus yaqi in Q 6.57, and yusayyirukum versus yanshurukum in Q
10.22.) Another indication of the use of writing is that the textual variants in C-1, while numerous, remain the exception rather than the norm.
This holds even for minor elements of language, including particles,
prepositions, suffixes, etc.58 Moreover, even a careful memorizer who reproduces the words exactly is prone to getting the order of the verses
wrong; yet C-1 has the same verses and the same order of verses as the
standard Qurn.
57
) Rmyr, Trkh-i Qurn, 429.

58
27
The frequency and nature of the variants indicate that the branching
off of the C-1 and the Uthmnic text types must have involved semi-oral
transmission, that is, some combination of written and oral transmission.
Ascertaining the precise manner in which orality and writing were combined requires a considerable amount of research. For now, two different
hypotheses may be advanced. One theory would be that transmission
involved the reciting of the text and the simultaneous writing down of
the recitation by a Companion, but not precise, word-for-word dictation.
The variants indicate a recitation that was performed faster than a
hearer could take down with complete fidelity. The second theory would
be that a Companion with a good memory wrote down a sra not simultaneously with hearing it, but after the recitation had been complete, for
example, after he went home. He could have taken notes during the recitation that would serve as a mnemonic. The use of such notes, the scribes
good memory, and his prior familiarity with the Qurn may explain why
most of the text remained unchanged, even when it came to the relatively
small linguistic elements, while the time gap between the hearing and
writing would explain the differences that arose.
There are several possible explanations for why the leaves of the
original manuscript were reused to prepare a new one. The original codex
may have been worn out due to extensive use over a number of decades.
Just how quickly the pages were worn out would depend on how often
the manuscript was used, something that we are not in a position to
know. In addition, the orthographic and paleographic differences between the two layers are consistent with their being separated by a period long enough for the codex to have been worn out: though both
scripts are ijz, the upper writing is more compact, uses more alifs,
and uses more dots for distinguishing the consonants.59 Alternatively,
part of the lower codex may have been damaged in an accident. As a
third possibility, the fact that the lower writing belongs to a nonUthmnic textual tradition may have been the motive, since C-1 would
have become obsolete as the parallel Uthmnic tradition came to be
regarded as the standard. These explanations, of course, are not mutually
exclusive.60
Some scholars will consider only a narrative of suppression. Indeed, it
is possible that the original owner(s) recycled the codex due to a preference for the Uthmnic version. However, this would not necessarily
mean that the scribe considered the lower writing wrong or illegitimate.
59

60
28
Early traditions preserve a wide spectrum of attitudes towards the codices of Ibn Masd and other Companions, some depreciatory, some adulatory, and some neutral. Many reports imply the legitimacy of Ibn
Masds codex or other Companion codices. Even some of the reports
that express preference for the standard text do so. However, we are
aware of only one report that denies the basic legitimacy and divine
origin of Ibn Masds codex. Kfans who held Ibn Masd (d. AH 33) in
high esteem quoted the statement from al-ajjj (d. 95). The latter was
notorious for his opposition to Ibn Masds codex, and he was not remembered fondly for that in Kfa, where the local school of law saw Ibn
Masd as its founder, where Sulaymn al-Amash (d. 147) continued to
recite Ibn Masds codex alongside the Uthmnic text and transmit its
variants, and where important Qurn reciters such as Ibrhm alNakha (d. 96), Ibn Waththb (d. 103), ala b. Muarrif (d. 112), alAmash (d. 147), and amza (d. 156) were influenced to varying degrees
by Ibn Masds text type even when they were reciting Uthmns text. 61
On closer examination, the quotation from al-ajjj appears as a possible exaggeration by Kfan Qurn reciters, fashioned to make al-ajjj
appear all the more outrageous.62
61
) For an example of Ibn Masds influence on Uthmnic readings in Kfa,

see Sadeg hi,Criteria for Emending the Text of the Qurn.
62
) The report was transmitted through the Kfan Qurn reciter Ab Bakr
b.Ayysh (d. AH 193) from the well-known Kfan Qurn specialists im b. Ab
al-Najd (d. 128) and Sulaymn al-Amash (d. 147). Here are two representative
versions: (Version 1) Ibn Masd says (or thinks) that his Qurn is from God.
By God, it is nothing but Bedouin rajaz poetry (m hiya ill rajaz min rajaz alarb); God almighty did not send it to his Prophet. (Version 2) Ibn Masd recites the Qurn, versifying it as the Bedouin recite rajaz poetry, and calls this
[reciting] the Qurn (yaqrau al-Qurn rajzan ka-rajz al-arb wa-yaqlu hdh
al-Qurn). See Ibn Askir, Tarkh madnat Dimashq, ed. Al Shr (Beirut: Dr
al-Fikr, 1415/1995), 12:15962; Ab Dwd al-Sijistn, Sunan, ed. Sad
Muammad al-Lam (Beirut: Dr al-Fikr, 1410/1990), 2:400. The first version
quoted above is surprising as it depicts Ibn Masds codex as different in kind
from the Uthmnic Qurn. That goes against everything else that has been
related about that codex, including the detailed account provided by al-Amash,
whose authority this tradition invokes. (On al-Amashs description of Ibn
Masds codex, see Sadeg hi and B ergmann,The Codex, 3913.) It is possible that this anomalous version adapts and embellishes the second version,
which says something quite different and less unexpected. In the second version
quoted above, the issue is not the contents of Ibn Masds codex, but rather the
manner in which he (and presumably his followers) recited the Qurn. He is
accused of having recited it in the way a Bedouin would recite poetry, presuma-
29
One idea that seems to have been in fairly wide circulation already in
the first century of Islam was that the Qurn was revealed in Seven
Modes (sabat aruf).63 Translated from the language of metaphysics into
that of history, this notion entails that the Companion codices were all
legitimate despite their differences, as they ultimately represented what
the Prophets scribes wrote down, and as they all enjoyed the Prophets
endorsement. Such codical pluralism being an early notion, those who
sought to elevate the Uthmnic version above the others could not simply declare the other codices non-Qurnic. Some early scholars found a
solution by making use of an existing tradition that said that the
bly a sacrilege. Another version of al-ajjjs speech transmitted through a

Baran isnd also suggests that the issue was the manner of recitation: it says
that Ibn Masd would recite the Qurn as if it were Bedouin rajaz poetry
(yaqrau l-Qurn ka-annahu rajaz al-arb; Ab l-asan al-Masd, Murj alnd
dhahab, ed. Ysuf Asad Dghir, 2 ed. (Qum: Dr al-Hijra, 1409), 3:143). The
possibility that reciting the Qurn like poetry was controversial is confirmed
by another Kfan tradition on the authority of Ibn Masd that discourages
reciting the Qurn like poetry (wa-l tahudhdh l-Qurn ka-hadhdh al-shir,
wa-l tanthur nathr al-daqal, quoted in Ibn Ab Shayba, Muannaf, ed. Sad alLam (Beirut: Dr al-Fikr, 1409/1989), 7:186). A related point of controversy
was the chanting or singing of the Qurn. See Muammad b. Yaqb al-Kulayn,
th
al-Kf, 4 ed. (Tehran: Dr al-Kutub al-Islmiyya, HS 1365), 2:614; al-Suy,
Itqn, 1:243; M. Talbi,La qira bi-l-aln, Arabica 5 (1958): 18390. (We owe
the last reference to Michael Cook.) In sum, one version of the report perhaps
rearranges the words of a more primitive version and in doing so exaggerates the
virulence of al-ajjjs words, an unsurprising transformation given that the
tradition circulated in a milieu that was hostile to al-ajjj. If, however, one
considers the more audacious version as representing the original wording, then
it should be considered as hyperbole, since it goes against the available evidence.
63
) Seven Modes (sabat aruf) traditions include Prophetic and nonProphetic reports. For an overview of the matns and isnds of the Prophetic
adths, see Abd al-Azz Abd al-Fatt al-Qri, adth al-aruf alsaba: dirsa li-isndihi wa-matnihi wa-khtilf al-ulam f manhu wa-ilatihi
bi-l-qirt al-Qurniyya (Beirut: Muassasat al-Risla, 1423/2002), 941. Abd
al-Fatts work has the merit of including related traditions that do not use the
words sabat aruf, and the demerit of excluding non-Prophetic thr. For the
English translation and brief discussion of a Seven Modes report that quotes
Ibn Masd instead of the Prophet, see Sadeg hi and B ergmann,The Codex,
4123. A detailed analysis of the Seven Modes traditions needs to be conducted.
In the meantime, our impression is that the idea dates from the first century
AH.
30
Prophet used to present the Qurn to the angel Gabriel every year. They
linked these successive presentations with the different Companion codices, and they said that the Uthmnic text was the last presentation,
implying that it superseded the others.64 The admirers of Ibn Masd
responded by pointing out that his reading would surely have been updated if a text had been abrogated, or they reacted by simply making
Ibn Masds Qurn the final presentation. 65 Both sets of traditions
accepted that the Prophet introduced multiple versions of the Qurn as
the text was updated annually, and both took it for granted that Companion codices represented legitimate recordings of the revelations; they
disagreed only over which codex was the last version.
The codex of Ibn Masd eventually lost popularity, but codical pluralism did not vanish altogether. Although many different interpretations of the Seven Modes arose over time, many scholars continued to
regard them as encompassing the Companion codices. Ibn al-Jazar (d.
AH 833) wrote that the majority of scholars held that the Seven Modes
are not limited to the master codices Uthmn sent to the cities that is
to say, they can include non-Uthmnic variants and that they held the
Uthmnic codices to constitute precisely the Prophets final presentation.66 He thus found some Companion textual variants acceptable
(yuqbal) even though he disapproved of reciting them in prayers. He
64
) See, for example, Ibn Ab Shayba, Muannaf, 7:205; Ibn Sad, al-abaqt
al-kubr (Beirut: Dr dir, 1968), 2:195; Muammad b.Abd Allh al-kim alNaysbr, al-Mustadrak, ed. Ysuf al-Marashl, Beirut: Dr al-Marifa (n.d.),
2:230; Amad b. Al al-Nas, al-Sunan al-kubr, ed. Abd al-Ghaffr al-Bandr
(Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, 1411/1991), 5:712; Jall al-Dn al-Suy,
al-Durr al-manthr f l-tafsr bi-l-mathr (Beirut: Dr al-Marifa li-l-iba
wa-l-Nashr, 1979), 1:106.
65
) Ibn Ab Shayba, Muannaf, 7:205; al-kim al-Naysbr, al-Mustadrak,
2:230; al-Suy, al-Durr al-manthr, 1:106.
66
) Ibn al-Jazar writes, Most scholars from earlier and more recent times
and the imams of the Muslims have held that these Uthmnic codices contain
only that portion of the Seven Modes that fits their rasm (wa-dhahaba jamhr
al-ulam min al-salaf wa-l-khalaf wa-aimmat al-muslimn il anna hdhihi
l-maif al-uthmniyya mushtamila al m yatamiluhu rasmuh min alaruf al-saba faqa), and adds that the Uthmnic codices constitute precisely
the Prophets final presentation of the text to Gabriel. See Ibn al-Jazar,
al-Nashr f l-qirt al-ashr, ed. Al Muammad al-abb (Beirut: Dr alKutub al-Ilmiyya, n.d.), 31. I was led to this reference by a forthcoming essay of
Yasin Dutton, entitled,Orality, Literacy and the Seven Aruf adth.
31
mentions however that some other scholars did endorse the use of Companion codices in worship.67 Many pre-modern scholars, if they were with
us today, might have looked reverentially at the lower writings variants
as instantiations of the Seven Modes while perhaps denying the text the
status of the Uthmnic Qurn in prayers. In sum, neither in early Islam
nor later did the preference for the standard text always entail a dismissal of the Companion codices.
The Media and Manuscripts

As much as we would like to disregard the media, it is difficult to do
so. Academic publications increasingly rely on them, and professors assign newspaper articles for their classes. Moreover, it is instructive to
take note of the rumors that circulate among modern academics and the
journalistic articles that mirror and feed them. Stories, after all, spread
better if they capture the worldviews, hopes, and fears of their host
populations.
In the late 1990s, a narrative swept a number of Western universities,
and it can be epitomized by one word: suppression. One version was that
Yemen was prone to concealing the precious newly-discovered manuscripts in its possession, leading the Europeans who were restoring the
parchments to keep their secrets under wraps for the time being. One
journalist, Toby Lester, asserted as much based on interviews with
G. Puin.68 He added that detailed examination is something the
67
) For Ibn al-Jazars views on the Seven Modes and legitimate recitations,
see Ibn al-Jazar, al-Nashr, 79, 1415, 268, 313, 44. He holds that any reading
is authoritative and belongs to the Seven if (i) it is in good Arabic, (ii) it does not
differ skeletally-morphemically from one of the Uthmnic regional codices, and
(iii) it is transmitted soundly from individuals. If the reading does not fit the
Uthmnic text (kha al-muaf) but the other two conditions are satisfied, then
it is accepted, but not recited in rituals (p. 14). He writes that, unlike him, some
scholars permit the recitation of such Companion variants in ritual prayers,
while others take the middle ground by allowing their use in worship except in
the case of the Ftia (pp. 134).This opens the door to the acceptability of some
non-Uthmnic variants even in his relatively restrictive approach, and he gives
as examples two acceptable Companion variants that differ significantly from
the Uthmnic text at the phrase level. Cf. Abd al-Azz al-Qri, adth alaruf al-saba, 458.
68
) Toby Lester,What is the Koran?, 44.
32
Yemeni authorities have seemed reluctant to allow.69 A more forward

version of the motif had Yemen prevent the publication of manuscripts
outright. In any case, the narrative implied that European academics
had met the resistance and intolerance of people who are beholden to
religious dogma and unaccustomed to rational inquiry.
The media weaved the suppression motif within martyrologies and
harrowing tales of victimization. 70 Reports touching the an manuscripts mentioned the Rushdie affair and the persecution of Nar
mid Ab Zayd.71 The New York Times presented as fact hearsay
about a Palestinian scholar of early Islam, Suliman Bashear, being
injured when his students threw him out of a second-story window. 72
(Several people who were close to the late Bashear told us that the event
never happened. For example, Bashears wife, Dr. Lily Feidy, in an
e-mail message dated August 14, 2011, wrote,Please note that Suliman
was never attacked or injured by his students; nor was he physically
attacked by anybody else. I have been asked this question a million
times). The New York Times made much of a book of Christoph Luxenberg being turned down by a publisher.73 The Wall Street Journal
related an account narrated by G. Puin about Yemen seizing the images
of the an manuscripts that Bothmer had prepared.74 (In a tele69
) Toby Lester,What is the Koran?, 44. See above, footnotes 31 and 32,
for assertions about Yemeni obstructionism.
70
) Lester,What is the Koran?; Alexander Stille,Scholars are Quietly
Offering New Theories of the Koran, The New York Times, March 2, 2002; Higg ins, The Lost Archive. Nicholas Kristof,Islam, Virgins, and Grapes, The
New York Times, April 22, 2009; Nicholas Kristof, Martyrs, Virgins, and
Grapes, The New York Times, August 4, 2004. With the exception of Higgins
story, these articles celebrate revisionist scholarship.
71
) Lester,What is the Koran?, 45, 50. Compare to Kristof,Islam, Virgins and Grapes.
72
) Stille,Scholars are Quietly Offering New Theories of the Koran.
73
) Stille,Scholars are Quietly Offering New Theories of the Koran. Stille
assumes that publishers normally accept a book if there is some good scholar
somewhere who likes the book. Thus, the fact that there may be some scholars
who like Luxenbergs book is for Stille proof of discrimination. Incidentally, one
of the scholars who, according to Stille, praised Luxenbergs book is Patricia
Crone.Yet, in reference to the works by Gnter Lling and Christoph Luxenberg,
Crone writes, both books are open to so many scholarly objections (notably
amateurism in Luxenbergs case) that they cannot be said to have done the field
much good (Patricia Crone,What do we Actually Know about Mohammed?,
http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed_3866.jsp).
74
) Higg ins,The Lost Archive.
33
phone interview on August 26, 2011, Bothmer called the account ridiculous and blamed the journalist). And the New York Times reported
that Euro-American academia is experiencing a chill due to Muslim
threats of violence.75
The narrative of oppression resonates with the self-image of academics as upholders of reason and with archetypical notions about the conflict between rationality and traditional religion, a clash that is most
commonly symbolized in modern culture by Galileos struggle with the
Church.76 The suppression motif also seemed to resolve a conspicuous
75
) Stille writes that Muslim threats of violence have sent a chill through
universities around the world that has affected non-Muslim scholars in Western countries (Stille, Scholars are Quietly Offering New Theories of the
Koran). However, he does not mention any instance of a European or North
American university professor receiving a threat or being harmed. According to
an anonymous researcher in the U.S. whom he quotes, the situation is so bad
that its not possible to say anything other than sugary nonsense about Islam.
Yet, most academic publications are non-sugary, and some are even sensible.
Stilles examples include the striking rumor about Bashear, beside Luxenbergs
initial difficulty in finding a publisher. His picture of Euro-American scholarship may not be real, but it probably accurately reflects the siege mentality of
some of his informants. Stilles, Lesters, Higgins, and Kristof s portrayals of the
state of scholarship in the Muslim world suffer from similar shortcomings.
76
) The historian of skepticism, Richard Popkin, has highlighted how European skeptics selectively appropriated and imagined Galileos experience to
make it a symbol for an essential conflict between reason and religion. See Richard Popkin,Scepticism, Theology and the Scientific Revolution in the Seventeenth Century, in Problems in the Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the
International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965, volume 3,
ed. Imre Lakatos et al. (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing, 1968), 128. It
should be noted that while a general attitude of unease with religion best explains the wide acceptance of the medias claims among academics, some of the
interlocutors target Islam in particular rather than religion in general. G. Puin,
for example, frames his work as a reaction against Muslim criticisms of Christianity that focus on the textual issues of the Gospels an approach that was
made popular in the mid-1980s among English-speaking Muslim non-specialists
by a meagerly-trained charismatic speaker named Ahmed Deedat. Puin goes on
the counterattack with a tu quoque argument about textual corruption in the
Qurn:Muslims like to quote the textual work that shows that the Bible has
a history and did not fall straight out of the sky, but until now the Koran has
been out of this discussion. The only way to break through this wall is to prove
that the Koran has a history too. The Sanaa fragments will help us do this
(Puin, quoted in Lester,What Is the Koran?, 44).
34
paradox: on the one hand, it was indicated that the an manuscripts

refuted core religious doctrines; on the other hand, it was not explained
how they did so, as nothing was revealed about the manuscripts beyond
the finding that there are variants, a banal observation from the standpoint of traditional Muslim scholarship.77 The mysterious information gap
was explained by putting the responsibility at the door of Yemen and its
presumed propensity for withholding purportedly embarrassing evidence.
The suppression narrative is inaccurate. It is true that G. Puin did
not share his photographs with scholars who asked for them, nor publish
a great deal on them himself,78 but this was his personal choice (to which
77
) The journalists and some of their academic informants suggest that Muslim scholars are unaware of textual variants. They disregard the dozens of volumes written on variants and the textual-critical discussions about them in the
tafsr genre and other sources. They also imply that it is only Western scholars
who are now applying proper analytical tools to the Qurn (Kristof,Islam,
Virgins, and Grapes). The journalists disregard evidence that complicates their
narrative that modern scholarship has upended core Muslim beliefs. Those who
discuss both Wansbroughs theories and early manuscripts do not draw the elementary inference that the latter refutes the former: they are interested in the
manuscripts only because they believe they refute traditional views. They also
do not note that the palimpsest undermines the modern theory that the Companion codices were fictitious. Evidence is deemed interesting only when there is
at least a vague sense that it supports revisionist theories.
78
) G. Puins scholarly output on the ancollection consists of three publications in which he says very little about the manuscripts and does not discuss
the palimpsest: Gerd-Rdiger Puin,Observations, cited above in footnote 33;
Gerd-Rdiger Puin, ber die Bedeutung der ltesten Koranfragmente aus
Sanaa (Jemen) fr die Orthographiegeschichte des Korans, Magazin Forschung,
Universitt des Saarlandes, 1 (1999): 3740, 46; Gerd-Rdiger Puin,Die Utopie
einer kritischen Koranedition, in Schlaglichter: Die beiden ersten islamischen
Jahrhunderte, ed. Markus Gro et al. (Berlin: Hans Schiler, 2008), 51671.
In the first article, Puin writes,My observations do not claim to be either
new or unexpected, except for the last paragraph which discusses the different
arrangements of the Srahs (p. 108). This refers to his idea that sra transitions
in the manuscripts that do not match the standard sra ordering point to nonstandard textual traditions. However, the author does not reveal any information that can be used to evaluate the evidence (Are the manuscripts in question
early or late? Do their texts support a non-Uthmnic classification? Is there
any indication that the manuscripts constituted complete codices or simply
selections of sras?). For more on this article, see above, footnote 33.
G. Puins second article focuses on the already well-known fact that in ancient orthography a tooth could signify the sound. He says that the tooth
35
he was entitled), not the doing of Yemen. Furthermore, there was nothing
to prevent other scholars from going to Yemen to study the folios and
write about them. The manuscripts and microfilms remained available to
visitors. In 2007, Sergio Noja Noseda and his erstwhile student Mounir
Arbach freely prepared images of the DAM 01-27.1 folios as part of a
project founded by Christian Robin. When we asked Robin whether
Yemen tried to hinder such work, he answered in the negative and told us
corresponding to the second in Ibrhm and the ay in Shayn were originally

pronounced as , yielding Abrhm and Sn, but that these pronunciations
were forgotten later. In fact, several reciters, including one of the Seven, the Syrian Ibn mir (d. 118), read the name as Ibrhm, as noted, for example, in alKhab, Mujam, 1:187, 2:600, which in any case does not prove that this was
the name in early seventh-century Mecca. In addition, Puin notes that the ambiguity of the tooth means that the word ilh (),God, could, in principle, be
spelled in the same way as the word ilayh (),towards Him.This leads him to
propose,hypothetically, an emendation that replaces ilayh with ilh in l ilha
ill huwa ilayhi l-mar (Q 40.3), which means,There is no god but Him; to Him
is the journey. The substitution yields l ilha ill huwa ilhu l-mar, which
means, There is no god but Him, the god of destiny. Puin exclaims, What a
beautiful Qurnic sense! What a beautiful Biblical sense as compared to the
traditional interpretation! But then he immediately rejects his hypothetical
proposal, stating,the link between the word destiny and the preposition il is
so well-established in many parallel passages of the Qurn that one should
consider the interpretation God of destiny as a hasty conclusion. Indeed, Puin
is right that the proposal is wrong (see Q 3.28, 24.42, 35.18, 5.18, 31.14, 42.15,
64.3, 22.48, 31.14, 50.43, 2.285, 60.4).
Puin thus imagines an emendation to a verse that is fairly clear and
straightforward, expresses excitement about the proposed reading, and then
says that his proposal cannot be right. What might bring about such an
approach? The verse in question may be among those that Puin considers as
incomprehensible and hence in need of emendation. He avers that a large part
of the Qurn simply doesnt make sense (Puin, quoted in Lester, What is
the Koran?, 54), and he holds that Muslims, too, think of much of the Qurn as
meaningless. These premises have led to further conclusions: This is what has
caused the traditional anxiety about translation. If the Koran is not comprehensible if it cant even be understood in Arabic then its not translatable.
People fear that (ibid.). This theory features a key idea in Puins conceptual
repertoire, namely that of the suppression of embarrassing data: it attributes
the Muslims misgivings about translations to the fear that the scripture will be
exposed for the largely meaningless text they recognize it to be.
G. Puins third article, by way of new information, mentions some spelling
variations in the manuscripts.
36
that they were granted greater access than would have been possible in
some European libraries. Robin and his colleagues have the blessing of
the Yemeni authorities to publish the images. We also asked Ursula
Dreibholz, the conservator for the restoration project, whether the
Yemeni authorities hampered research. She said no, and described the
Yemeni authorities as supportive.79
Moreover, other participants in the project in Yemen do not confirm
G. Puins statement that Yemeni authorities want to keep this thing
low-profile or that they dont want it made public that there is work
being done at all.80 Ursula Dreibholz continued working on the project in Yemen for four more years after the end of Puins involvement.
She spent more time on the project than anybody else, and for the last
three years she was the only foreigner to work fulltime in the Dr alMakht. She told us that Yemeni authorities were very grateful for
the work done by the foreigners. They were proud of their treasures,
and they brought school children, university students, foreign delegations, religious dignitaries, and heads of state, like Franois Mitterrand,
Gerhard Schrder, and Prince Klaus of the Netherlands, to see the collection.81 Although the Yemeni authorities openness proved a boon to
scholarship, they were to be punished for it. The American media amplified the erroneous words of G. Puin, purveying a narrative that belittled
Yemen and misrepresented the work done there. The Arab press in turn
exaggerated the American story. The outcome was a media discourse in
Yemen borne of three stages of misrepresentation. This embarrassed the
Yemeni authorities responsible for the House of Manuscripts, and the
Head of the Antiquities Department had to defend before Parliament
the decision to bring in the foreigners.82
79
) The only credible instance of obstruction of which we know was related

to us by Dreibholz: a librarian claimed to have lost the key (to the study room, if
we recall correctly) (Dreibholz, telephone interview, August 8, 2011). Bothmer
volunteered that the key remained lost for a week (Bothmer, telephone interview, August 26, 2011). We have not interviewed the librarian, and, in any case,
this incident was an aberration.
80
) Puin, quoted in Lester,What Is the Koran?, 44.
81
) Dreibholz, telephone interview, July 30, 2011.
82
) We rely on Dreibholz for the controversy inside Yemen (telephone
interview, July 30, 2011, and e-mail dated August 8, 2011).
37
A Note on the Edition

In late 2009, when we asked Robin for the photographs and the ultraviolent images of DAM 01-27.1, he agreed immediately and went
through some expense and trouble to make them available. The present
essay would not have been possible without Christian Robins initiative
and his exemplary openness and generosity. This edition of the lower
writing of an 1 is based on all the folios except one, namely folio 21 of
DAM 01-27.1, a picture of which we do not have. The folios are listed in
the following table.
Table 3. The Folios of an 1
Name
Lower Text
Upper Text
Surviving
Fraction
2A
2.872.96
6.1496.159
(almost) all
2B
2.962.105
6.1597.11
Stanford 2007 recto
2.1912.196
2.2652.271
Stanford 2007 verso
2.1972.205
2.2712.277
David 86/2003 recto
2.2062.217
2.2772.282
David 86/2003 verso
2.2172.223
2.2822.286
Bonhams 2000 recto
5.415.48
4.334.43
Bonhams 2000 verso
5.485.54
4.434.56
4A
11.10511.112
14.3214.41
4B
11.1208.3
14.5215.16
5A
8.739.7
16.7316.89
5B
9.79.16
16.8916.102
6A
9.179.26
16.10216.118
6B
9.269.34
16.11817.6
20A
9.709.81
30.2630.40
20B
9.819.90
30.4030.54
21A
9.1069.113
31.2432.4
21B
9.1149.120
32.432.20
22A
9.12119.5
32.2033.6
22B
19.619.29
33.633.18
23A
19.2919.53
33.1833.29
23B
19.5419.74
33.3033.37
7A
22.1522.26
17.4017.58
7B
22.2722.39
17.5917.77
(almost) all
(almost) all
(almost) all
less than
(almost) all
(almost) all
more than
?
more than
more than
about
38
31A
12.1712.20
43.6343.69
31B
12.2712.31
43.8944.11
32A
12.11118.5
47.1547.20
32B
18.1518.18
47.3248.2
13A
16.2616.37
21.4221.72
13B
16.3716.59
21.7221.92
14A
16.6816.69
21.11122.1
14B
16.7816.79
22.1522.16
9A
33.5133.57
19.3819.64
9B
33.5733.72
19.6419.98
25A
39.2539.36
37.3837.59
25B
39.4239.47
37.7337.88
26A
39.5139.70
37.10237.134
26B
39.7040.8
37.13437.172
15A
20.2320.61
25.1025.34
15B
20.6120.80
25.3425.59
30B
20.12220.133
42.3842.48
30A
21.521.19
42.2142.29
10A
? 24.13
20.120.43
10B
24.1324.23
20.4420.74
11A
24.2324.32
20.7420.98
11B
24.3224.40
20.9820.130
33A
34.1334.23
55.1656.4
33B
34.2334.33
56.556.69
34A
34.4034.47
57.157.10
34B
13.113.5
57.1657.22
35A
13.613.14
57.2758.6
35B
13.1613.21
58.1158.22
36A
13.2513.31
59.159.10
36B
13.3313.40
59.1460.1
16B
28.1928.24
26.19826.221
16A
28.3028.35
26.15526.176
28A
37.1537.33
41.1741.27
28B
37.4337.68
41.3341.43
29A
37.8237.103
41.4742.5
29B
37.11837.144
42.1042.16
18A
15.415.33
28.5828.74
less than
less than
(almost) all
less than 1/10
about
less than
less than
(almost) all
about
more than
(almost) all
about
about
about
about
about 1/10
about 1/3
about 1/3
(almost) all
39

18B
15.3315.74
28.7428.86
19B
15.8725.8
29.4329.54
19A
25.1425.27
29.2929.40
24A
illegible
34.5235.9
24B
30.3830.50
35.1035.18
3A
illegible
9.1129.115
3B
35.3935.49
9.1249.127
Christies 2008 verso
63.162.11
5.35.9
Christies 2008 recto
62.118990.6
4.1715.3
1A
illegible
6.496.61
1B
illegible
6.616.73
8A
illegible
18.22
8B
illegible
18.32
12A
illegible
21.1621.19
12B
illegible
21.3821.42
17A
no guess
27.2527.29
17B
no guess
27.4627.49
27A
illegible
38.7338.75
27B
illegible
39.6
about
about
less than 1/10
(almost) all
(almost) all
less than 1/10
less than 1/10
less than 1/10
less than 1/10
The order in which we transcribe the folios in our edition is given in

the above table, and it broadly follows the sra arrangement of the codex
of Ubayy b. Kab as an approximation to that of C-1. The DAM 01-27.1
folios are designated by numbers referring to their order in the upper
text. When we cite a sra number, it refers to the Uthmnic rank. When
we give a verse number, we follow the Kfan scheme used in most of the
Qurns printed in the Middle East.
Since they postdate the upper text, the lower modifier hand(s) that
are in black are not included in the edition.83 By contrast, apparent insertions or corrections that predate the upper writing or have a chance
of predating it are discussed in the footnotes. In particular, we discuss a
greenish script that occasionally modifies the lower text. We are not sure
whether it came before or after the upper text.
In the case of the three and a half folios that were transcribed by
Elisabeth Puin, despite numerous differences, our transcriptions and
commentary overlap with hers to a significant degree. Moreover, Alba
Fedeli has identified and discussed a number of important variants.
83
) On the lower modifier, see footnote 12 above.
40
Rather than cite every instance of overlap with their works individually
in the footnotes, we have acknowledged their contributions in a collective
manner above, and we do so also here and in the Bibliography below.
Reading the lower writing is a difficult and tedious task, and errors
are inevitable. Pictures taken under a brighter light and with a higher
resolution than those we have used for the 01-27.1 folios should allow
more accurate readings. For these folios, ultraviolet photographs
proved very useful. The method that will achieve the highest accuracy
is X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) imaging, and one only hopes that someday it will be used for the entire manuscript. Uwe Bergmanns application of the technique to Stanford 2007 revealed features of the text
that are otherwise invisible, bringing to light the residues buried in the
parchment of iron, copper, and zinc from the ink. For the Stanford 2007
and David 86/2003 folios, we had access to high-resolution, bright photographs. The images available to us for the Christies and Bonhams
folios are low-resolution. It is our hope that greater effort by other
scholars and better images yielding more accurate readings will render
this edition obsolete.
Symbols and Conventions

(X)
[X]
{ }
~~~
The text is only partly visible, but enough is visible to give a

good reason for the reading X.
Some visible traces of ink are consistent with the reading X.
However, they may also be consistent with other readings.
Hence, the reading is conjectural.
The folio is physically present but there is barely any trace
of text. No letter of the alphabet is recognizable. The space
between the slashes is approximately proportional to the size
of the lacuna.
The folio is physically missing. The space between the curly
brackets is approximately proportional to the size of the
lacuna.
Verse division. The absence of this symbol normally does not
mean that a verse division is lacking in the lower text; it only
means that one is not visible.
Decoration.
41
The Lower Text of an 1

)Folio 2 A (Q 2.872.96
1
)//( ][ )( } {
)( )(][ )( )( )( //][)( )( ][} {
][) //( )( ][ } {
)( )(][ ][ )(][ ] [ } {
][][ ][ ][// ][ } {
][)( )( )( )( } {
][][ }{
)( )(][ / /
)(
10
][
11
)( )( )(
12
)(
13
)(][
14
][ ][
15
)(
16
)( ][
17
][ )( )(
18
)( ][ )(
19
)( / /
20
][ / /
21
][ ][ )( }{
22
)//( } {
23
)( )( )( } {
24
)( ][ )//( ] [ } {
25
][ ][)(} {
26
][ ][)(][ ][ } {
27
// ][ ][)(][ ][} {
84
84
) There are traces above the tooth that may belong to consonantdistinguishing marks for the letter t.
42
{ } ( )// ][ )( / /( )( )(][ )( ] [)
{
}// )( ][//[ )( ]
28
29
Folio 2 B (Q 2.962.105)
[ ]/ /} {][ )(][ )(
)( )( )( ][ / / / / (} {][)
][ ][][)( )( )( / / //{ }
[ ]/ / // )( )( )( ][ )(][)( ][ / /{ }
] [ 90/ / ][)( )( )( 89[]/ /{ }
][ )( )( )( )( ) ( )( / /{ }
)(][ / / [}{][ ][ )( ]
][)( )(
87
85
86
88
/ ][ / / ) ( ][
)( ][ ][)( ][ )( )(][ )(
][)( ][)( ] [ )( ][) (
10
)(][)( )(
11
)( ][ ][ )(
12
][)( )(
13
85
92
91
) The illegible space before is too small for the grapheme . Perhaps
the word is bi-munziihi, which is reported for Ibn Masds codex here.
86
) The text seems to have wa-m llhu bi-ghfilin amm yamalna.
87
) There are two small, disc-shaped traces of ink above the tooth. The function of these dots is not clear.
88
) Another word is written slightly below the line, below wa-bushr.This
word appears to be hud. There is enough room before this word for wa, though
such a morpheme is not visible. It is not clear whether the scribe was adding the
putative hud to wa-bushr, or was trying to replace bushr with hud.
89
) The text might have an additional qul at the beginning of this verse.
90
) This word may be anbiyihi.
91
) Since the last word in this line uses a second-person pronoun, the verb
here is also probably in the second person, i.e., hadtum.
92
) The text seems to differ from the standard reading, because a visible vertical stroke in the second half of the illegible part cannot belong to the word
farqun. Maybe the text is ifatun instead of farqun, in which case the vertical
line would belong to .
43
14
/ / [)( )( ][ ) ( )(]
15
][)( )(][)( / / ][)(
16
)( / / []/ / / / )(93/
94
95
17
)( )(
18
( ][ )(][)
19
}{
20
][)(][ )(][][ / / ][ / / (} {)
21
( )( )( )( 99 )/ / } {)(
22
} { )( ) ( )( ][ )(
23
][ )( // )( )( //{ }
24
} { ][)( ][ )( )(
25
)( //[ )( ]/
96
98
93
97
) The illegible part is big enough to accommodate the standard text between yuallimna and al-malakayn. However, the few remaining traces in this
part do not quite match the standard text. Specifically, the first word does not
seem to be al-ns (it might be al-yahd).
94
) The traces do not match . The first letter is tooth-shaped (but may also
be r, or a lm the upper part of which is erased). The last letter may be mm
since there is a small horizontal line at the end that resembles the tail of a mm.
95
) The traces in the preceding illegible part are perplexing. The first letter
in this part is f, but it seems to be a later addition. It is written in a script
similar to that of the lower text, but appears in a slightly different color (with a
stronger green hue), and its shape suggests it has been inserted later. (Similar
additions appear in Folio 10 A (line 7) and Folio 11 B (line 14).) It is not clear if
the lower text initially had fitna or not. Traces of a consonant-distinguishing
mark for the letter t (after f) suggest the text had fitna from the start, but
these traces too can be later additions (their color is not quite clear). One possibility is that the text had mina because the traces after the inserted f conform to . Muqtil b. Sulaymn cites an exegetical tradition from al-asan alBar, who interprets fitna as mina (See Muqtil b. Sulaymn, Tafsr Muqtil b.
Sulaymn, ed. Amad Fard (Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, 2003), 1:69).
96
) The word is probably yaurrni.
97
) Only a small portion of the upper part of this putative alif is visible; the
rest is covered by an upper text alif. The amount of space before this putative
alif and the traces suggest that the text cannot be la-bisa m. It might be a
connected bisam ().
98
) This verse separator has a special shape for marking the 100th verse.
99
) The illegible part preceding this alif is small, implying man instead of
annahum man.
44
26
27
} {][ ][ ] [
} {)( ][)( )(/ /
100
}{
28
)( ][ ) / /(]/ /[ { } / /
/ / )()/ /( } {
)(
)( / /)(
)( )( )( )(
][)( ][ //
)( )( ) / /( / /
][ ][
{ /
101
)( )(] / /[ )( } {
)Folio Stanford 2007 Recto (Q 2.1912.196
102
/ / )(
10
/ /
11
) / /(
12
)( )(
13
)(/ /
14
105
104
103
)( )( )( / /
15
][)(//
16
17
// )(
18
)(
106
107
109
108
][//
100
) This word may be allh.

. ) The few remaining traces in this part match
102
) Only one dot is visible above the first tooth.
103
) There does not seem to be an alif at the end of this word.
104
) Only one dot is visible above shn.
105
) The small space after mm suggests there is no alif here.
106
) The word asin does not seem to end with an alif.
107
) A tooth is missing.
108
) It cannot be ruled out that the scribe wrote aqm and then corrected it
to atimm.
109
) There might have been a f before alif.
101
45
19
)(
20
)(//
21
/ / )() / /(
22
23
24
} { { }/ /
25
} { / / /
110
/ /
) /( )(][ )( ) / /( } {
111
)Folio Stanford 2007 Verso (Q 2.1972.205

1
} { )( )( / / 112)( // ][][
)( } { ][]//[ ) / /( ][
)( )(
/ /
)( )( )(
][
10
11
12
13
] [
14
15
)(
16
//
113
)(][ )(
110
) The third letter is probably th, even though only two consonantdistinguishing marks are visible above it.
111
) The text seems to be inna llha instead of the standard wa-lam anna
llha.
112
) This word might be maddt.
113
) There is less room than expected for min al-ns. It is possible that the
text is minhum, although there is more space than is needed for this word.
46
17
/ / ][
18
19
/ / )(
20
/ /
21
][)( ] [
22
}{ / / ][
23
114
} {
115
}{
)Folio David 86/2003 Recto (Q 2.2062.217

1
}{ // )( ][// )( ][)( / / )/ /( ) // ( )({ }/ /
][] [ ) ( )// ( )( )( ) ( ) / /( / / {} / /
) //( ][ )( ][)()//( )( ][ ][ )( ][][ ][ //
]//[ )( ][ )( ][ )(
][]//[ )( ][ ][ ) ( )( ][ )( //
)(// )( ][ ][ // ) ( )( )( ][ ][//
) ( )( )( )( )(][ ][//
][ )( )(][ )//( )/ /( ][ )(
)// (][ )( ][ // )( ][
10
)( )( )( )( ][ )( )( ][//
11
][ )( ][ )()( )( )( )( ][) (] [
12
)( )( )( ) //( ][ ][)( )( )(][
13
) ( )( ][)( ) ( ) (][ )(
14
][)( )( )()( )( ][ )( // )( ][//
15
)(] [ )( )( )( // ][ )( // )(][
16
][)( )( )( ][ )(
17
)( )( )( )( // )( ] [ )(
116
)(/ /
114
) This verse separator has a special shape for marking the 200th verse.
) The next line is only partially visible due to the fact that a horizontal
strip has been cut off from the bottom of the folio. The traces suggest that there
is inna before allh unlike the standard text. The last word on this partially
visible line seems to be al-fasd, followed by an end-of-verse marker.
116
) This has a tail similar to that of a final ayn.
115
47
)( )(][ // //][) (
18
{} / / )(][ )( )( )( )(
19
/ / [ )(] [ )( )( )( )(][ )(][ )( )(]/ /
20
/ / () ( )( ][) ( )( )( )(][)( )( )( )//
21
/ / ( ) ( )( ][ )( )//[][ ]/ /
22
{ }/ /[] //[][ ) ( )( )( )( )( ]
23
{ }/ / // ( )/ /( )( )( ][ ][)( )( )(][ ][ ) / /
24
{ }/
/ ()
117
(][ )( )( )( ][ )( ][)//
119 118
{ }/
/ ( )/ /( ) - /
/ ][ )(][ / / { }
25
26
Folio David 86/2003 Verso (Q 2.2172.223)

/ 120 [} { ]
// )( ][ / / )(][)( )(
)( / / ][ ][ // ( )/ / ][ )(][ /
()
124
117
123
122
( )//[ )(]
121
) Traces of a word are visible above fhi. Its first letter is f/qf and its
second letter is a medial lm. It is not clear what this word is, or whether it belongs to the present or the previous line.
118
) The space here is not sufficient for sabl allh.The traces match sablihi.
119
) The phrase wa-kufrun bihi is not present immediately before al-masjid.
Either it is missing or it (or a smaller phrase such as wa-kufrun) is written at the
beginning of the line, before wa-addun.
120
) There are traces before ayn that resemble an isolated r or an initial
mm. The traces might belong to a word that the scribe had initially written
here.
121
) The initial kf might be preceded by a tooth.
122
) Traces of an alif are visible over nn. The alif has a darker, green hue
than the other characters. It is possible that the nn, a likely scribal error, was
corrected later.
123
) A vertical stroke (possibly belonging to an alif) is visible in the middle
of the illegible part preceding nn, suggesting the text may differ from the standard reading.
124
) In criticizing Fedeli, Sadeghi previously assumed that this nn belongs
to the word an in an dnihi. However, this is not certain. Nor is there any reason
for believing that an dnihi is missing from the text as Fedeli assumed.The text
is largely illegible, and it is difficult to conclude much. See Sadeg hi and
B ergmann,The Codex, 363.
48
][ )(][)( ) ( )( )( ) (
125/ ]//[
)( ) //( /
)()( ][ )( ][ )/ /( ) ( )( )( )(
)()( )( / / )()( // )( //
)( )(// ][ )( )( )( // )( ][} {
126
][ ][ )( ][
) //( ][ )( / /
10
)( )( )() //( ][ ) ( )()//( / /
11
)( )( )( ][ ) ( // 128 )(} {
12
)( )()( )( )(
13
)( ][ ][]//[ )(][)( )(][
14
) / /()( )( )( ][ )( )(
15
)//( )( )( )( )(
16
// )( )( )( )( / /
17
/ / ][)( )( ][ )(
18
]//[ ][ )( ][)( ][ /
127
][][ )//(][ )(
129
19
/ / ][
20
} { ) / /( )( )()// ( ][)(][ )(
21
} { )//( )( )( )( )(
22
} {/
130
)( ][ )( )( ][)(
] /[ ]/ /[ ) (][]//[ ] / /[) ( ][ ) (][ { } / /
125
) There is not enough room for the standard text between this point and
ista in the previous line.
126
) The verb jhad is either absent or written after f sabli llhi.
127
.The text may be ytihi. ) There is perhaps insufficient room for
128
) The morpheme hum has a dark greenish hue similar to the alif on line 2.
129
) The traces and insufficient space suggest that the word li-l-ns is missing.
130
) It is not clear whether this verse starts with wa-.
49
Folio Bonhams 2000 Recto (Q 5.415.48)

{ } // (}{ ) ( )( )( )( )
{}( )( )( )( ][)/ / ( )
)(
/ ][ / / ( )// ][ ][
{} )( / / ][ )( )( // ( )
{}/ / //[]/
/ )(][
{}/ / )(] [ )( ][ ][ / / [ )( ]//[ ]
{} )( / /[ ]/ /( )/ / ()/
// / [ ][ ) (]
/ / )( )( ][)( ] [ ][) ( )( )( ][ // ()
{} / / ][)( ) ( ][ )( ][ )(
{} ( ][ ][ )/ / )(
{}
133
132
/ / (][ )( )
10
{} / / [)( ) (]//( ) / / ()
11
/ /[ ] [ )( ]// )(
12
[]/ / ( )( )( )( )(][ )
13
/ /()( )( )(][)( )
14
{} [][ )( ][ ]
/
/
135
//
134
/ ()( ][ )( )( ][ )
16
17
/ [ ]/ /[ ]
18
/[ ) ( ][) ( ]/
137
/ )(
138
][ /
15
/ )( ][ ][ )( )( )(
131
131
136
) The last letter might be a final t instead.

) The letter before mm may be lm or a tooth-shaped letter. The letter after mm may be ww, f, qf, or even dl. A vertical stroke is visible next. If it
belongs to a letter of this word, then the word cannot be bi-l-muminn. However,
if it is a smudge or a corrected letter, then the word may be bi-l-muminn.
133
) The first letter in the illegible part might be h, in which case the word
may be ihtadaw instead of aslam.
134
) This ww has a slightly darker hue.
135
) There is less room than would normally be expected for a grapheme such as
.
136
) The free space here is unusually large.
137
) Considering the available space after the word jur on the previous line,
there seems to be more room here than would be required for the standard text.
138
) Apart from the traces of ink belonging to anzala, there are other traces.
There might be a ww slightly above the second grapheme. Perhaps the scribe
had initially written a different word here, such as aw. Alternatively, the extra
traces may be smudges.
132
50
19
)()( 139 ][/
20
] / /[)/ /( ]/ /[ ) ( / /
21
) ( / / )( )(] //[ } { / /
22
)(] / /[ )( )( ][ } {
23
)( )( ] / /[ )(} {
24
)( )( ][ )( ][ ][} {
25
)( ][ )( )( ) ( ][)( ][{ } / /
140
26
} {
} {/
} {] / / [][ ][)( )(][ ][) (
} { / /][ ) ( ][)( ) (] [)(
} {) / /( ][)( ][ ] [ )( ][)( ][ )( )(
} {) / /(][ ) ( )( )(][)( ]/ /[ )(
} {) / /(][ )(] []//[)( ) ( )( ][ )(
}{]/ / [)(]/ /[ )(] [)(] []//[ ][ )(][ ][)(
141
) / ( ] [] / /[ { } / /
)Folio Bonhams 2000 Verso (Q 5.485.54

]/[ /
]/[ ]/ /[ ] / /[
142
}{]//[
}{] // [)( ][ )( ][ )( ][ )(
10
}{ ][ )( ) ( ][ )(][ )( ) (
11
}{/ /][ )(] [] [ )(] [ )( ][
12
) / /(][ )( ][]/ / [ )( ]/ /[ ) (][] / /[) (/ /
13
143
][)(] [ ] / /[ )(][ ) ( ][)( ][
] /[ )( ) (] [ )( ][ ][)( )(
139
) The distance between the initial lm and the is unusually long.

) This missing part is too small for the word ahl, and the word seems to be
missing.
141
) This part at the beginning of the line appears empty, perhaps because
writing here would have interfered with the previous line.
142
) A portion of the upper part of the text on this line is physically missing,
since a strip has been cut off from the top of the folio.
143
) The traces and amount of space suggest fa-kum instead of wa-ani
kum.
140
51
14
15
) / /(// ]/ /[][ ) ( ]/ /[ )( ][) (][/ /
) / (][ )( ] [ )(]//[ // )( )(] [
16
17
18
19
20
)// { }/ / ( ) / / () / /( //][ )(][ )( ) (][
21
} { )( ][)( )( ] / /[ )(/ / )(][
22
} {/
23
} {] / /[) ()/ /( )( ][ )( ][ )( )(
24
} { )( ] / / [ )(][ )( ][ )(
25
} { ][)( ][ )(][) / /( ][ )( )/ /(
) /()/ /( )(][ ][ / /
/ ][)//( ][ )( )/ / ( ) (][
] /[ )( ] [) ( ][ ] / /[ )(
/
144
)( / /
145
][ ) / /( ] [ )( ][) (][)(
/ )()/ /( )(] [)/ /(
146
)( )(]//[
26
}{
27
}{
{]//[} { / / )( )(}148
{ ] / /{ }//[]//[ )(}
{][/{} 149
] /[ }
{][ )( } / /
{/
{ ) / /( ] / /[) (][ }
{]/ /[ ]//{}//[ )(] //[ )( }
][]/ / [
147
)( ][ )(][ ) (
][) (] [
)Folio 4 A (Q 11.10511.112
{
{
{
{
{ )( ][] / /[ } / /
] /[] //[ }
] /[ /
{
{
144
) There is not enough room for allhu an. Perhaps the scribe forgot to
write an.
145
. ) The traces here do not quite match
146
) This word may be ruam.
147
) Before the final alif, two vertical strokes are visible that may belong to a
lm and a .
148
) The text may be man adhina lahu instead of bi-idhnihi.
149
) This letter may be the nn of the word khlidn.
52
}[ ]/ / [{]
} ][//[]//{
10
/{
11
/ [{]
12
()/ /{
13
{
{
}/ / [ ] /
}/
} ( )/ /[ ]/ /
150
Folio 4 B (Q 11.120123 8.13)

{
} ( 151{)
} 152{
}{ )(][][
} / /[ )(]/ / ({ )
} )( // {
} / /{} / / ({)
}(] [ ) //{ )(
}/ / ({~~ )(][ )
}{ )( )( ][)(
10
11
}[{ )( )( ]
12
}154 )( //{
13
{
{
153
{
{
{
} ({][ )( ][ )
{
{
150
}{}{
) There are traces before ww that resemble a tooth, which would not
match the standard text. Otherwise, this may be the conjunctive ww preceding
l taghaw.
151
) This grapheme may belong to the word nuthabbitu.
152
) A horizontal line is visible here beneath dl. This line could belong to a
final y.
153
) The text may be inn maakum muntairn.
154
) The upper section of a vertical stroke is visible the lower part of which is
in the physically missing part. This stroke probably belongs to an alif. There are
two possibilities: First, there may be another alif after ytin (there is enough
space for such an alif), in which case the word here may be izdd. Second, a
tooth may come before the alif preceding the missing part, in which case the
word could be zidnhum.
53
14
15
{ } )( ][ ][ )(
{ }[ )( )( ][ ][]
{ }/ / [ )(][ ][)(][ ]/ /
{ } [ ]/ /( )/ /{ }// )(
// )( ][ )(
)( ][ )( ][ ][ )(
-----------------------------------------
)( ] [ ][ )( )(] [ )(
][ )( )(
)(
10
[ )( ][ )( )( )()( ]
11
( )( )( )(][ )
12
// ( ][ }{ ) (][)
13
}[ ]//{
155
//{
Folio 5 A (Q 8.7375 9.17)
156
157
155
) The space between the beginning of the verse (alladhna) and the present point seems larger than would be needed for yuqmna l-alta.
156
) There is no decoration here, only a horizontal line.
157
) Pale traces of the grapheme and another grapheme ending in a final lm are
visible exactly above the word sra. These traces may belong to the word al-anfl.
Slightly above these traces are others that are not quite legible, but might belong to
another instance of the word sra.Therefore, the end of line 8 contains traces for three
words: al-anfl, sra, and another word that is also possibly sra. Traces of this latter
word and al-anfl are paler than those of the first instance of sra. Considering that
the next line begins with the grapheme , the following conjectural scenario can
explain the situation at the end of line 8:The scribe first wrote the word al-anfl there,
forgetting to write sra. He then added the word sra to the text, slightly above alanfl. However, this made the text cluttered, so he erased both al-anfl and sra (explaining why they are pale), and wrote the phrase srat al-anfl anew, the part
being written on line 9. He then wanted to write l taqul bi-smi llhi after this end-ofsra caption, but mistook the of al-anfl (which was on line 9) with the graphically
identical l taqul. Therefore, he wrote bi-smi llhi immediately after this . Consequently, the text came to be short of one instance of .
54
14
)( )( )(][) ( } {
15
][ )(][ )// ( ) ( )( ) ( ][ ][ ) / /( )//( } {
16
][ )//( )(] [ ) ( ]/ /[ )(][ )( } {
17
)( )( ][ )( )( )( )/ /(
18
][ )(
19
)(][ )( )()( )( / /
20
][ )( / /
21
][ ][//)( )( ][ ][ /
22
)( ][ )( )( )( )(
23
)(
24
)( )( ][ ) / /(}{
25
/ /
26
]//[ )( ][ ][ }
27
28
159
)( // }{ )(}
158
{ / /
{ ][
} { ][ ][)( ][ ) / /(]//[ { }/ /
}
{]//[
160
)(/
/ } {
)Folio 5 B (Q 9.79.16
1
} { )(
} {// )(][ ]//[
} {][ )( )( ][}{][ ][
} { )( )(
)( )(][ )(
161
)(][ ][
158
, and the traces do not match it. The ) There is not enough space for
text may be thaqiftumhum instead of wajadtumhum.
159
)) This comparatively small r is written very close to the next letter (
and is slightly above the line, suggesting that the scribe had initially forgotten
to write it.
160
) Although the missing part at the beginning of the line is rather large,
the text is not necessarily longer than the standard one. The previous lines text
starts somewhat after the beginning of the line. The same could hold in the present line.
161
) The illegible letter before kf may be a tooth-shaped one instead of lm.
55
][ )( ][
][)( ][
][ )( ][ ][ ][ ][)//(
10
11
)( )( ][
12
][ ][
13
} { )( // )( )( )( )(][
14
} {][][ //][ ][][)( ][
15
)( ][ ) (
16
)(][ )( )( )(
17
// ][ )( )(
18
][
19
20
)(
21
162
][
163
)( ][
22
][}
23
][ )( ) ( )( ][ / / / /
24
} { //)(
{ / / }{ )(
)Folio 6 A (Q 9.179.26
1
}{ ][ } {
][ ][ / / ][ )( { }/ /
)( )( ][ )( } {
)(][ ][ ][)( ] [ )(][ )( } {
)(][ )( { }//
// )(
164
][// )( )( } {
162
) Only one consonant-distinguishing mark is visible above the first tooth.

) One consonant-distinguishing mark is visible above each tooth. Slightly
above these marks is an upper text grapheme that probably covers the second
mark of each tooth.
164
) There are traces above the tooth preceding mm that may belong to consonant-distinguishing marks for the letter t.
163
56
)( )(
165
/ /( )
)( ][ ][
][ ][ )( )( / /
167
[ ) (][)( ][ ]/ / 166[ ][)( )( ]
{} []//[ ]// ( )//[][ )(][)( ] // / /( )
{ } [ ) (]/ / )( ][ / /
{ } [ )( ]// )(
{ } )( )( )( ] [
[ ][ ][][ )( ]
[ )( )( ] [ ][ )(][ ]
/ /[][ ) ( ]// [ )( ]168
)( / /( ][ )( )// )( //}{ ][
/ /}{ ][ ][ )(][
(][ ) // }{ ][ ][)( ][ ][
)( ][ / / (}{ )( )( )( ][ ][)
{ } ][/
/ 169}{ )(][
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
)(
165
) The letters ww and alif are written in the small space available after
dl, suggesting that the scribe had not written them initially. This emendation is
wrong, however, as the plural jhad does not agree with the singular pronoun
man preceding it. Perhaps the scribe conflated this word with the next verses
jhad, which should be in plural.
166
) It seems a different word had been initially written in place of daraja.
One can see the remnants of an alif and another letter (possibly an initial lm)
exactly where the grapheme is written.
167
) Traces that match the phrase inda llhi are visible beneath the word
ulika. Perhaps the scribe first wrote inda llhi, but then erased it and wrote
ulika in its place.
168
) Traces of an initial ayn are visible here. Perhaps the scribe began writing
ashratukum, which is the next word, but then erased it and wrote azwjukum. In
other words, the scribe may have caught himself in the course of an inadvertent
omission.
169
) There are two strokes above the preceding tooth that might be consonant-distinguishing marks for the letter th. The two strokes are not placed
vertically above each other; one is to the right and slightly lower than the other.
57
{ } 170/ / }{ )( ][ )(][ )( ][
} ][) ( ] [ ) (][)( / / / / (][ )// []/ /{ }
{
} 173/
/ 172[]//171 { }
24
25
26
Folio 6 B (Q 9.269.34)
{} ( ][ )( ][) / / [} { ] [ ][ ][) ( ]
[ )(]/ / } {][ ) (] [ ][ ) (] [
[ )( ] [ ][ )(]//[ )( ]// [ ]/
/(} { )
[] // [ ] / / ( )/ / [ ]// []/ / [ ]/ /[} { )(]
[)(]/ / []/
/ ()// } {
/ [} { ][ )( ]
/ [ ] //[ ]/ / } {
/[ ]/ /[) ( ]//[ ]/ / [] / /()
/(][ ) /
(][)/ / []// []//[)( ]
175
/ / ( )/
/[ ]/ /[ ]/
/[ ]/
176
/ / ] [ )(][
/
170
/ [)( ]
174
177
/178[ ]/
/[ ]/
/ [] [ ]
) One can see traces matching an initial . In light of the first visible letters on the next line, it seems the scribe initially attempted to write here but
then changed his mind, erased what he had written, and wrote on the next
line. This suggests the folio was physically incomplete at the end of this line
already when the scribe was writing the text, because if the folio were complete,
it would have enough room for the grapheme .
171
) Nothing is written at the beginning of this line due to lack of space.
Space opens up further to the left due to the upward slope of the previous line.
172
) The text seems to have al-saknata instead of saknatahu.
173
) The legible letters on lines 25 and 26 (and also the first letters on side B)
suggest nothing was written on the triangle-shaped missing part of the folio.
Therefore, this part of the folio was probably missing or damaged already when
the lower text was being written.
174
) The traces at the beginning of this part do not quite match fa-l. The
second letter may be dl, kf, or d.
175
) There is not enough room for sawfa yughnkum, and the meager traces
do not match this phrase.The text may be fa-sa-yughnkum.
176
) Assuming the putative in the middle of the line belongs to the word
akm, and considering the traces in the next line, there might be more space
than is needed for the standard text.
177
) There is less room than expected for wa-l bi-l-yawmi. Perhaps the text
has wa-bi-l-yawmi instead.
178
) This letter probably belongs to the word rasluhu.
58
[ ] [)( ]/ / [ ]/ /[ ] / /[][ )( ][ ) (]
10
] [ ][ / / ()// ( )// (][)//[ ]/ / []
11
[] /
/ [ ]/
/ [ ]/
/ []// [ ] / /[] // []// ( )/ / [ ]//{ }
14
/ / [ )()( ]/ / [ ]//[]// [][ )( ][)( ]//[]
15
/
/ []/
{} [ ] /
{} )( /
/ ( )/ / ( )/
/ /
/[ )( ] //[ )(]/
/ [ )( ] [ )( ]/ /
16
/ // []
17
/ 182[]// / / ()
18
/ [ )( ] /
181
/ 183[)(]/
/ [)( ]
185
/
/ []
/ [ ]/
{} )( /
{} []/
180
/ /
19
20
( )/ /
21
/ }{ )( ][
22
/[ ] // [} { ]
23
/ ( ][ )/ / []
/ [ ]// [ ][ ]/
{} )( /
179
12
13
[ ]//[]/
/ / () (][)
/ [} { ][ )( ][ ]
/} { ][
[]/
179
/ []/
186
/ ( )/ /
/ []/
/ [ ]/
184
/ [ ]/
()
188
187
) This word is probably yattakhidhna.

) The traces here do not quite match .
181
) At the beginning of this part is a vertical line leaning to the right. It
probably does not belong to an initial lm, which would lean to the left. Maybe
the text is an yabud instead of li-yabud.
182
) This word might be allh.
183
) Considering the traces and the amount of space, the text might be
li-yabud llha l ilha ill huwa subnahu wa-tal. That is, it probably lacks
ilhan widan (having instead allh), but has an additional wa-tal after
subnahu.
184
) There is more space between this spot and r in the previous line than
needed for .
185
) The traces at the beginning of this part do not match an yufi. They
might belong to li-yufi.
186
) The illegible part is too small for wa-yab llhu ill an yutimma. Moreover, the first letter seems to be alif, not a tooth-shaped letter. The text could be
wa-llhu yutimmu nrahu/mutimmu nrihi.
187
) Traces resembling an initial or medial h appear exactly above the
verse division marker. Perhaps the scribe initially forgot to put the verse division marker and wrote huwa, but then erased huwa and added the marker. This is
not very probable, however, since there is enough room before this spot for a
verse division marker. Alternatively, the traces may belong to a special symbol
for designating the thirtieth verse. Or else, the traces may be smudges.
188
) This wa- is probably non-standard.
180
59
{} /
/ [ ][ ] /
/ [} { ] [ )( ]
24
25
26
}][ // )(//[} {][]
}( )( )( )// [)( ]// )( )(][ //[} {][ ) ( ][ ]
{ } ( ) // ( ][ )/ /
189
/ / [ ]/ / {
{ } )( ][ )(][ )( / / /
/ [ ]/ /
190
Folio 20 A (Q 9.709.80)
{
{
})( ) ( ] [ ][ )( )(][) (
} )( )( )( )(
}// )( ][ )( )(
{
{
// ()
()
}[ )( )( )( )( ]
{
{
193
}[ )( ]
192
}] [)( ][ //][ ][
}()( ) ( )( )( )( ][ )
10
}[ )( )( )( )( )( )( )(]/ /[ ]
11
( )// [ ][ ][ )( )(][ )( )( ) (][ ][ ][ ]//
12
[ ]//( )( ][ )( ][ )( ][)( )//
13
(][ )( )( )( ][ )
14
/ /( ][ )/ /][
15
{
194
189
191
) The traces before nn match the graphemes and (less likely) .

Therefore, the word is probably yakhudhna.
190
) The placement of the graphemes in the last three lines suggests that the
triangular missing part of the folio at the bottom-right corner was missing or
damaged already when the lower text was being written.
191
) This word is probably fa-aadda.
192
) There are traces above the second tooth that may belong to consonantdistinguishing marks for the letter t.
193
) There is not enough room for the phrase al-kuffra wa-l-munfiqn. The
text might lack either al-kuffr or al-munfiqn. The limited space favors alkuffr, which is shorter.
194
) There is not enough room in this physically missing part for the standard text between ql and hamm. Perhaps the phrase wa-kafar bada islmihim is absent.
60
/ / )( )(196/ / 195 ][ )( )( //
16
[ )( ] // ] [
17
( ][)( )( )( ) ( )
18
/ / [ )( )( )( ]/ /)(
19
)(][
20
//[ )( ][ )( )( ]
21
[ )( )( ]
22
//[} {)( )( )( )(][ )(][ )(]
23
// ( )( )198[ ] / / } {][)( ][)(
24
//[ ][ )( )( )( )( )(]
197
{ }
25
/ ( )/ / ( )(][)( ][ )/ / ({ )( ][)( )
( )//(][ ][ ][ )// (][ )/ /(][ )/ /{
/{
} ][ //[]// ] [
199
Folio 20 B (Q 9.819.90)
{ } [ ][ )( ]201( )/ /()( )( ) / /[ ]200{
/
195
) There are traces above the tooth that may belong to consonantdistinguishing marks for the letter t.
196
) There is not enough room for a final ww and an isolated nn. It seems
that the scribe wrote an accusative ending (n) here, but this was changed later,
since there are traces above the verse division marker that match the letter nn.
These traces are darker than the other characters and have a green hue.
197
) This verse division marker is placed above the previous letter. Since
there is little space between the previous and next letter, it seems the scribe
initially forgot to write the marker and added it later.
198
) The folio is partly missing here, but traces are visible that may belong to
nn and alif.
199
) Nothing is written before this point due to lack of space. Space opens up
further to the left due to the upward slope of the previous line.
200
) Since this missing part has enough room for faria, it is not clear what is
written on the last third of the last line of side A. Either the latter part of line 25
on side A was damaged already when the lower text was being written, and
therefore contains no text, or the text is longer than the standard one.
201
) This word may be qaad.
61
)( // )(][ 202( )/ /({)( )
( )// ][)(][)(][) (][ )( //[]//{
][ )( / / { )(
{][ )(
[{ )( )( )( ][ ]
{][ )( ][ )( )( )(
[{ )( )( ][ ) ()( )( ][)(]
10
[{ )( )( ][)( )( ]
11
12
203
13
// )( ][ ) ( ] [ )( ][ ][/ /
14
[ )( ]/ / () ( ] [)( )( )( ][ )
15
] [ ][ ) (][)( ][
16
][ )( ][)( ] [ ] [ ][)( ][
17
[)(]/ / //[]//[][ )( ][ ][ ][ )( ]/ /
18
/ / )( )( )( ) (][)( ][ )(
19
()( ][ )( )(][ )( ) //()/ /
20
)( ] [ )( )(][ ][) ( ][ //
21
( ][ ][) 206/ /[ ) (]205/ / ( ][ ) (][ )/ /
22
][ ) ( ][) (][ )( ) ( ][ )(][ //{

] [ )(][ ][ )(][ )(][ )( ][ )(
204
202
) The text seems to have been al-nru Jahannama, the definite article being a scribal error. There are traces after the alif of the definite article, placed
rather close to it, that might represent a nn or lm. These traces have a high
likelihood of being a smudge, but if not, then the putative letter may have been
part of a correction to inna nra or, less likely, qul nru.
203
) Verse 85 is missing. The omission may represent a scribes eyes skipping
from the instance of na followed by a verse separator and the morpheme wa at
the end of verse 84 to the instance of na followed by a verse separator and the
morpheme wa at the end of verse 85.
204
) The letter after h is more similar to ww than mm.
205
) There are no traces of the letter ww in this part, and there is not
enough space for either. There are traces that may belong to the letter jm
and others that match a final alif, but the space between them is rather large, as
if another letter were written between them.
206
) The space after the putative mm is larger than is needed for ayn and
dhl. Perhaps the word is al-mutadhirn, which is reported here for Ibn Masd
and Sad b. Jubayr (al-Khab, Mujam, 3:436).
62
23
] [}{][ ) ( ][ ) ( // )( ) (
24
) //( } { ][)//( )( )( )(]//[ ) ( )( } {
25
207
)(] //[ ] //[] //[ ) ( ][ } {
)Folio 22 A (Q 9.121129 19.15

1
} { )( )//( )(][ ][) / /( }
)( ][ ][ )( )()//() //( }
)( ][ }
)( )( ][ )( }
{
{
)( )( ][) / /()(
)( )(][ )( ][ ][)(
) ( )( ][
)( )( ][ )(][
10
)( )( )(
11
)( )( ][ )(
12
)( )( ][)(//
13
)( ][ )(][ ][ / /
14
)( )( ][]/ /[
15
)( )( ) ( ][ )(][
16
)( )(//
17
][)( )( )( // ) (]//[
18
)( )( )( )(
208
)( )( ][ ][ ) ( }/ /
209
) ( ] [ // )( / /
210
207
) In this line, the text starts almost halfway through the line. The reason
why is that the previous line begins close to the bottom of the folio and gradually moves upward, freeing space for another line beneath it.
208
. Perhaps better than ) Traces in the illegible part after lm match
the word is li-yafqah.
209
) The distance between and dl is large, suggesting another letter was
written between them. It is possible that the word is yatadhirn, which is synonymous with yadharn.
210
) A shape resembling a medial ayn is visible above and slightly to the
right of mm. This v-shaped figure may belong to a word the scribe had initially
written here.
63
[ ][ ][ ]211 )(][)(
19
)( ][)( )(][ )(/ / ][
20
/ / / / )( ][ )(
21
[)(]// )( )( / /( ][)
22
[)( ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ )( )(]
23
//[ ][ ][ )( ]
24
} { )( ][ ][ )(
25
{} (} { )( )
26
212
{ }
27
{ }
28
{ )(
//{)( )(
{ ][
{)(][ ][
//{ ) ( )(
{ }// )( ][ ][
{ } ][ )(][)( / /[ ]/ / ()
213
Folio 22 B (Q 19.619.29)
{ } ( )( )//({ ) (][)

217
)( )(//
216
215
)( ][ )( ][
211
214
218
) This word is probably annatakum.

) There are traces that match the word rabb, but the traces before the putative rabb do not match wa-huwa, nor is there enough room for it.
213
) Writing before this point would have interfered with the text from the
previous two lines.
214
) It seems another letter, possibly or ayn, had initially been written in
place of lm.
215
) There is enough room between sn and mm for one letter. Moreover,
there are traces before the initial sn that match a tooth. Either the word is not
samiyyan, or the scribe had initially written another word (such as shabhan)
before replacing it with samiyyan.
216
) Considering the traces, the missing parts in lines 2 and 3 might have had
y Zakariyy inn and bi-Yay lam najal lahu respectively.
217
) It seems the scribe initially wrote walad here, but then erased it and
wrote ghulm instead.
218
) Considering the length of the physically missing part at the beginning of
the line, the text probably lacks the phrase wa-knat imraat qiran.
212
64
)( )( )( )( 220// )( )( 219[} {]
) ( )(][)( )( )()(
/ /)( ][ )( )(
)( ][
10
][ // )( )( )( ][ )(
11
221
[ ]
222
12
)( ][ )( )( )(
13
)( )( )( //
()( )( )
225
()// //[]// ()
224
()/ / / /
14
][// 227 )( // ( )(][ )// )(/ /
15
][ ][)( )( ][
226
/ ][ ][ ) (//[]
16
()//][)(
17
)( ][ )(
18
)( )( )(//()
19
//( )/
)(
219
223
228
) This word may be thumma.

) The traces after mm are more similar to an initial or medial h than a
final one. Perhaps the scribe first wrote a medial h but then tried to change it
to a final h.
221
) The tooth-shaped letter is followed by an alif or a lm. After this letter
are some traces that are below the line and may belong to a third or fourth letter, perhaps a final or ghayn (these traces do not seem to belong to the next
line). It is possible that the scribe initially wrote (part of) a word here and
erased it later, since both the tooth-shaped letter and the traces after it are paler
than the adjacent words. Alternatively, these traces may constitute a word (e.g.
balgh). This second scenario is unlikely, however, since such a word should be in
the accusative, whereas the traces do not seem to include an accusative ending.
222
) This alif is probably a scribal error.
223
) There are traces above the second tooth that may belong to consonantdistinguishing marks for the letter t.
224
) A small dash, such as appears in end-of-verse symbols or consonantdistinguishing marks, is visible slightly to the right of f.
225
) This alif may be preceded by one or two letters.
226
) The traces before lm cannot belong to an initial qf alone. They may belong to a f and a qf (in which case the word would be fa-qlat), or to a qf and
an alif (in which case the word would be qlat, spelled with alif).
227
) There is a small chance that the dash above the first tooth is a smudge
rather than a consonant-distinguishing mark.
228
) Traces of a final y are visible immediately after lm. It is not clear if
the scribe wrote alayya and changed it to alayhi or the other way around.
220
65
// )(][ )(][
20
/ /
21
// //// ][ )( //
22
][) ( )( )( //[ ][ )( )( )( ]// ][ // //[ ] //
23
) ( )( // ( )
)( )( ][ //
230
229
24
) ( )( ][ // ( ][) ( ][)// / /
25
{ } (][ )// ()( ][ )( )( ][ ) // ()// [] / / []/ /{ }
26
{ } [) ( )( ]/ / [ ] / / [} { ]
27
][
) (][ )( ] [) (/ / (] [ )( ][)/
231
Folio 23 A (Q 19.2919.54)
{
} ( ][)/ /(][ } { )(][ )/ / ( ][)232( )//{ }

{
} / / [ ]/ / [ )( ][ ]
}//[ ]/ /[ )( )( ][ )( ] [)(]// ( )
} / / ( )( )/ /( )( )( ) ( ][ )
} )( )( ][ )( // ][
][ )( ][ )( )( ][)(
{
{
{
234
229
/[ ][ ]//][ )(
} / /[]/
233
/[ ]/
) There are traces in the middle of this part that might belong to a lm.
There is also a long horizontal line with some traces above it the line and the
traces match a final kf.The word may be malak.
230
) It is not clear if sn is preceded by a letter or not.
231
) There are no traces of a f before the initial lm, and there is little free
space before lm.
232
) This word might be bi-dh.
233
) The missing part has enough room for three words. Therefore, the putative lm preceding this part probably belongs to the verb jaalan from verse 30
(not the one in verse 31). If we take the barely visible letters preceding this lm
to belong to the word al-kitb, then it seems there is enough room between this
hypothetical al-kitb and wa-jaalan for another word. The text might have wal-ikma after al-kitb.
234
) Considering the presence of kna, it is possible that the text has kna lnsu in addition to the standard text. Ubayy b. Kabs codex reportedly had this
phrase (al- Khab, Mujam, 5:366).
66
][ ) (
)( )( ][ )(
10
)(][ ][ )(
11
) (
12
)( )( ][ )( ) (][
13
][
14
)( )( )( ][ ][
15
// )( )( )(
16
][ ][)(][
17
)(
18
)( ][)(][
19
][)( )(
20
)( ][ ][ )(
21
] [ )(][ )( ][/
)/ (]//[ ][
235
)(][)( ][/
22
]//[ ] [
23
)(/
24
)( )( )( )( ][ )(/ /
25
) //( )( )( )( //
237
236
][ )(][ )(
) /( )//( / /
26
27
]/ /[/
28
// )( )( )( / /
] /[ )( 238 / /
) /( /
) /(]/ /[/ /
239
235
) If this letter is wa-, then perhaps the sentence preceding it is not interrogative. It might be y Ibrhmu anta rghibun an lihat.
236
) This illegible part seems longer than needed for the standard text.
Traces of a horizontal line, visible at the beginning of this part (and even before
it, beneath lain), might belong to a final y; yet the corresponding standard
text does not feature a final y.
237
as well. ) The traces conform to
238
) The word in the preceding illegible part may be bashsharnhu.
239
) This line has more room than needed for the corresponding standard
text. Also, the traces do not match that text.
67
{} / / ][ } { / / [ ]241/
/ ( )/ / 240 / /{ }
29
/{ }
30
/{
][ )( ][ ) ( )( / / {
)( )( )( //({][ )( )(][ )
][ ][// // ][ 245/ /{
][ )( //] [ )( ][ ][ )(//{
] [ ][ )( ][][)( / /[ )( )( ]
)( )( )( )( )( )( ][ // )(
)(][ ][ )( ][ )(
][ ] [)( // ][
10
)( )( )(][
11
)( )( )(
12
{} / / ][ //[ ]/ / ( )( } {)/
242
Folio 23 B (Q 19.5419.70)
{}[ ]/ /[{ ]
) ( ][ ][ ][
][ /
)/ /][ )(
13
)( ][ //( )( )( )( )/ /
14
][)(
240
244-243
()/ /( )// ()/ / (
247
246
) There is enough room between kna (on the previous line) and the endof-verse marker for approximately two words.
241
) If the first word of the verse is inn, the following word could be a verb
the object of which is Moses.
242
) The text does not seem to have qarrabnhu najiyyan. There might be another phrase in its stead, for which see the previous footnote.
243
) The traces do not match either raslan or nabiyyan. Also, the missing
and illegible parts together have more room than is needed for the phrase wakna raslan nabiyyan.
244
) There is no trace of an end-of-verse marker after alif, and the proximity
of alif with the following letter suggests that perhaps there is no such marker
here.
245
) Some of the traces are consistent with aliyyan.
246
) This word may be bi-l-ghayb.
247
) The letter before the tooth may be mm. The word may be munimn, or,
less likely, muttakin.
68
][ )( / /[][][ ]
16
( )// ][ )( )( / /
17
[)(][ )( )( )( )()( )( ]//
18
][ ][ )( )( )( )( )( )()(
19
)( ][ ][ )( )( )( )(
20
][ )( )( )( )( )(
21
][ )(][ )(][ )( //][ )( ] [
22
23
//) (][)( ][)(][ ) ( ][)( ][ )(
24
)(][ )( ][ )( )( ][ / /
25
/ /(][ )
][)( )( ][)( )(
26
][ ) ( // ] [ //( )254[]//] [ )(
27
][ )( )( )(][ )( )( ][ // [ ]/ / {}
28
)( ][)( )( )(250/ / )( )( 249()// /

251
/ /][)( ][
253
252
{ } )( ) ( )( ][)( /
248
15
[][)( )( ][ )(]
][ )( / / //
248
/ ////(}{ )
29
) This letter may be mm instead.

) There are traces above the line after the initial that may belong to
consonant-distinguishing marks for the letter th.
250
) The traces after the tooth do not quite match ;they may belong to the
grapheme . This word may thus be la-nufrighanna, yielding, We shall surely
pour out from every sect of them the most obstinate ones in rebellion against
the Beneficient.
251
) The last grapheme does not seem to be an independent predicate. Therefore, the ww preceding it probably is not conjunctive.The ww and the following
grapheme probably form a single word, waliyyan or, less likely due to lesser
conformance to the rhyme, wiliyyan. It is noteworthy that the corresponding
word in the standard text puzzled the readers, who read it variously as iliyyan,
aliyyan or uliyyan. Ibn Mujhid said that this word was not known to him at
all (al-Khab, Mujam, 5:384).
252
) The presence of two teeth before nn instead of one is a scribal error.
253
) There is not enough room after lm for the word al-limn. Considering
the remaining traces, the word here may be al-kuffr.
254
) In the middle of the illegible part, there are traces above the line that
may belong to consonant-distinguishing marks for the letter t.
249
69
Folio 7 A (Q 22.1522.26)
257
{ } [{ ][ )( ][ ]
[ ]/ / {][ )( ][
{ ][ ][)( ][ ][)(
{][) ( )(
[ ) (]/ / [)(]// / /{
255//)(][ //({ ][)
)( / / [{ ]
{ )(][)( )( ][
//[ )(]//{
/ / / /({ )
10
11
12
} ( ] [ )(][)
13
//() ( )// ( } {)( )/ /{ } (][)// )( / /()
14
)( ][ )(][ 263 / /( ][ )/ / //( )/ / )(
15
[ ]//( )/ / )( ][
16
/ /[ )( ][ ]/ /( ) / /{ }[ ][)( ][ )( ]
17
/ /( )( )( )
256
() ( )( )( )
259
260
)( //[)( )( ]
258
[ ][ ]////{
261
/ / ][ //({)(][)( )
// )( ][
262
{ ][
} [{]
/[ ][ ]
18
/[)( ) ( ]
19
[][ ][ )( ][ ]// / /[ )(]/

/ /(][ )( ) // / /)(
255
264
) This word may be dnihim.

) This word may be taraw/yaraw.
257
) The last letter may be dl or b. The word may be yukhbitu. Alternatively, it is possible that the scribe mistakenly wrote instead of .
258
) This word may be al-shajar.
259
) Considering the visible words on lines 8, 9, and 10, the missing part on
this line may contain the nouns al-nujm and al-dawbb as well as an additional
item.
260
) The traces here match an isolated r, but could also represent the beginning of an isolated b.
261
) The text may be fa-l mukrima lahu instead of fa-m lahu min mukrimin.
262
) There are traces after r that might belong to a ww.
263
) The text may be idh hamm instead of the standard kullam ard.
264
) There are greenish traces here that may belong to an isolated ww or r.
256
70
[ ]// ][ )( )( / /[ ) ( ] / / ()
20
/ / [ )( ][ ]// [ ) ( ]/ /( )
21
22
/(][ )/ /[]//
23
()( ][ )// ][ )(// ][) ( ) (/ / )(
24
)( )( ][ )(/ / ( ][ )// / /()
25
/ /[ )( ]// ( )( )//(][ ][ ) ( ][)/ /[]

/ /( ) / /[]//( )() /
/ /[]//[ ]/ /( ][)//[]
266
265
{ } ][ ][)( //( )
{ } / /[]/ /[ )( ]/ /( ) (][ )
26
27
Folio 7 B (Q 22.2722.39)
{
} )( ][ )(] [)( / / []/ / [ ]/ /
{
{
)( / /
}[]//)( //[][ )( ) (]//
} )( //[)( )( ]
{
{
[]
}/ /( )( )( ) // )(
} // ][ )(
}( )//() //()( ][ )( )
})( )( )( ][
)( ][ )( )( )(
10
{
{
{
{
} (][)
{
270
[{ )( ]
269
11
} (][ )() ( )( )( ][ )
12
}[)(][)( )( )( ]
13
}(( ][ )( ][ )
265
268
} [ )()( ]
// ( ][)/ /
})( )( ][)( )(
267
271
) The text may have wa-add instead of wa-yauddna.

) The hole in the parchment in front of wa- seems to have been there already, because the lower hand avoided it.
267
) The letter preceding nn may be mm or ayn.
268
) This word may be maddt.
269
) Considering the words on lines 25, the text may be wa-li-yashhad
manfia lahum f ayymin maddtin wa-li-yadhkur sma llhi al m
razaqahum min bahmati l-anmi wa-li-yakul minh wa-li-yuim l-bisa lfaqra.
270
) This word may be yakhirru.
271
) The presence of nn instead of y might be a scribal error.
266
71
14
)( )( ]/ /[)/ /( /
{ )( ) 272(
15
][ )( ][ ][ ] [ )(][ )(
}/
16
)(][)( ][ )()( ] [}{ / /
17
)( ) ( } {)( ][ )( ][ ]/ /[
18
) //( )()( )//( // )( } { )( )( )(
19
)( ][ ) ( / /)(][ )()( )( ][ )( )()(
20
][ )( )( )/ /( )()//( )(
21
]/ /[ ][)(][ )( )( )( )(//
22
) ( )(][]//[ ][)() //( )( )(] [)(
23
)( ) (][ ][ )( ][
24
][ )(//)( )( // )(][) ( )( ][
25
) //( )( )( ][ // )()()(
26
][ ][ } {
27
276
273
)( )( ][ ) (][
274
275
) ( ][ ][
][ ][ )( ][ )( )(
28
)/ /() //( ][ ][)( / / )(][
277
)Folio 31 A (Q 12.1712.20
1
)( //][ )( ][) / /
][ )( )( / / )( )(] // [ )( ][ }
)( ][ // )( }{ }
{ ][ ]// [ }
{ ) ( ][) / /(/
{ )(][ ][ /
{ ) / / (/
{
]/[ }/ /
]/[ ) ( }
{
{
] /[)( ][ )(][)( ] //[ )( }

278
( )// ( }
{
{
{
272
) The text here may be mansakan hum nsikhu.

) The word following ummatun may be widatun.
274
). Alternatively, it (pl. of fina ) This word is probably awfina
, or a scribal error for awfiya or awf , awfiyan may be awfin
. See al-Khab, al-Mujam, 6:1157.
275
) The absence of nn is probably a scribal error.
276
seems damaged. ) The area after
277
) The text here seems to be yuqtilna f sabli llhi.
278
) The alif might be connected to the previous letter, in which case the
word would be fa-arsal instead of wa-arsal.
273
72
Folio 31 B (Q 12.1712.31)
}
}( )/ /[ ) (]/ /[ ]/ / / / {
} (][ )(][ ) // ({ )
}[)( ]// (][ )/ /[{ ][ )( ) ( ]
} [ )(][ )( )( ][]// ({ ][ )
()/ / )( 281)(// 280[) ()(][ )(]279 / /{
}/
{
{
{
{
][
282
/{
/ /[ )(][)( ][ ) (]// {
()/ / ()// //( )/ /( )/ / )(} { )(/

()/ / (} {)/
{ } {}
284
283
Folio 32 A (Q 12.111 18.15)

{
{
{
{
{
279
[{ )(]
}[ )( )( ]// ({ ][)
}//
285
} ({][ )
}( )( ) ( )( )
} )( ][ ) () (
}/ /(][ ) ( )/ / ][// ()/ /()
})( ][)(][ ) (
286
) The space between al-madna in the previous line and qad in the present
line is too small for the corresponding standard text. Perhaps the phrase
turwidu fath an nafsihi is absent.
280
) In addition to the traces that may belong to the word ubb, there is a
small horizontal line slightly above the line, near the end of the word. The function of this line is not clear. It may belong to a letter initially written but subsequently erased.
281
) The text may be qad shaghafah ubbu fath.
282
) The initial mm does not seem to be preceded by a tooth.
283
) The area preceding this point appears empty, perhaps because writing
here would have interfered with the previous line.
284
) The area before this point may be empty, perhaps because writing here
would have interfered with the previous line.
285
) The text might have tafl al-kitbi instead of tafla kulli shayin.
286
) The first letter in this illegible area might be an initial ayn, and the last
letter may be alif.The text may be amil instead of yamalna.
73
/{ }
10
}[{ ]
} [{][ )(]
}{)( )(
} [)(]/ /{)(
{ )(
{ }[{ ) ( ]
({ )( )()
] [ ) ( )( / /{ ) (
[ ]//({)( ][ ) ( )
10
} { )( / / [{ ][)(]
11
} ] [)( )(/
}/ /[]
288
287
//{ }/ /{
()/ /{
Folio 32 B (Q 18.1518.18)
{
{
289
290
287
291
) The space available between li-yundhira from the previous line and the
present point is too small for the corresponding standard text. The phrase m
lahum bihi min ilmin wa-l li-bihim may be missing.
288
) If the preceding alif belongs to the word kadhiban, it should be noted
that there is no trace of an end-of-verse marker after alif, which is very close to
the letter that follows it.
289
) The particle ill is missing before allh. Perhaps the text has min dni
llhi instead of ill llha.
290
) Pale traces of two other letters are visible here: a dl (after ww), an alif
(immediately before dl). Perhaps the scribe initially wrote here, forgetting
the initial alif of idh, but realized his mistake, deleted these two letters and
wrote idh again.
291
) The text seems to have min dnihi in addition to the standard text.
74
Folio 13 A (Q 16.2616.37)
/ / /
)(][ / /
294
/[][ )( ]// / /{ }
[]//[]/ / []/ /[ ]/ / / /( ) / / ()/ / ( ][)/ /[ ]/ /
/()/ /( )( ) /
292
293
/ (] [ )
298
[ ]/ /
/ / /()( )
( ][ )// )( )( // ( )//( ][) ( )( )/ /
/ / /
297 296
/ / / )( ][)(
(][)/ /( )/ /[ )( ][)(]/
[ ][ )( ]302( )/
/ /()
292
/( ][ )/
/ ()/ / 301/ / ( )300/ / 299/
[]/ /() ()( )/ /[)( ]/ /{ }
/ / )( / /[ ] [ )( ][ ) ( )(][ ]/ /
//( ) // ()( )/ /[ ]// ()

304
295
303
) If the visible mm is part of the word al-qiyma, it is rather distant from

the lm of the article.
293
) The putative ww and qf do not seem to be connected. Therefore, this
word might be something other than tushqqna.
294
) The traces here do not quite match fhim.
295
) The traces in the illegible part are compatible with al-hud.
296
) The traces at the beginning of this illegible part match the grapheme
better than .
297
) The presence of this dl establishes that the text differs from the standard reading. This dl might belong to the word al-adhb (the traces before dl
match lm and ayn). However, it is not clear what precedes this putative aladhb.
298
) This putative mm might belong to the word al-yawm. Considering the
traces in the previous line, the text after al-ilm may be inna l-sa wa-l-adhba
l-yawma al l-kfirna.
299
) Considering the initial tooth and the other traces, the text might have
yulqna instead of the standard fa-alqaw.
300
) The illegible space after the initial lm is rather large for a medial sn.
301
) The traces here do not quite match kunn (they are compatible with
nakun).
302
) The letter alif suggests the text may have san instead of min sin.
However, the illegible space before alif is rather large for the grapheme .
303
) The illegible space is small, suggesting this word may be fa-bisa instead
of fa-la-bisa.
304
) The available space here is rather small for li-lladhna.
75
/[] [ )( ]
10
()/ /
/ /
11
12
13
/ [)( ] / /[]
14
/ / 306[ ]/ /( )// [ )(][ ) ( ][ ) ( ) ( ]305/

//( ][)//[ )(]/
309
/[ )( ) (]/ /(][ )//( )/
/ / ][ ) ( / /[]//[][ )(][ )( ]
/ / []// //][ //[]
310
308
307
//( ) / / [ )( ][]/
//[ ][ ][)( ][ ][ )( ]// //()/ / ][/

//[ )( ]//(][ ) ( )
311
15
16
[ ] 312/ /[ )( ][)( )( ]/ / ( )/ /[ )( )(]//()(][ )
17
/ ) (// [ ]/ / //[ )( ]/ / //[ ]/
/ /( ) //[ ) (]/ /[][)( ]/ /[ )( ]// / /[]// /

315
/ //
(] [)/
/ ()
314
/ /[ ][)( )( ][ ]/
/ / ()( ) //()(][ ] [)
305
317
/ / / }{ )(
18
/ [ ]// ( )/ / (} {)
19
313
/ ][
316
// / /{ }
20
) Considering the traces at the end of the previous line, the text might
have li-man amila followed by a noun such as al-liti instead of the standard
li-lladhna asan. However, the traces at the beginning of this line do not quite
match al-lit.
306
) The traces represented by this ww are close to the next word. Therefore,
this word may be wa-la-nima or fa-la-nima.
307
) This word may be khlidna.
308
) This word may be fh.
309
) It is not clear whether another grapheme is written after alladhna or
not.
310
) It seems the text has wa-qla instead of yaqlna.
311
) The available space is rather large for yatiya. The word may be
yatiyahum.
312
) The letter preceding this illegible part is certainly not alif. It may be
kf, in which case the text may have kafar instead of ashrak.
313
) The traces are compatible with ashrakn.
314
) This word may be arramn.
315
) This space is rather small for the phrase min shayin nanu. The text
might have shayan instead of min shayin.
316
) Considering the presence of ww here, this word may be al-rasl instead
of al-rusul.
317
) There does not seem to be a definite article before the tooth preceding
this part, and there is not sufficient space there for an article.
76
/ ( )/ / ) (319[ ) ( ] / / [) ( ]// )( 318/ /} {

/
/{ }
22
[ ] / /[]//[} {]
23
/[ )( ][ ]/ / //[ ][]/ /( )/
/ / )( )( ][ //[ )( ] [)(]/ /
320
21
/[} { ]
24
/()
/ []/ /
// []
()
{ } ( ] [)// ][ ) ( ][ ) () ( )( ][) ( )( ][
{ } / /( )// [ ]/ /[ ][ ]//[ ][ ] /
Folio 13 B (Q 16.3716.59)
{ } //[ ]//(][ ) ( )// [ ]/
/ /[][]
321
(] [ )/
/( )(][ )/
/[ ]/ / [ ]/ /[ ]/
/()/
] [ ][ ][ )( / /[ )(] [)(][ )( ]/
/ /( )//[ ]/ / ( )/
323
()//() ()
322
[ ]/ / [)( ]/ / [ ]/ / / / )( ] [ )( /
//[][ ]/ / ()// ][ /
)(
326
/ /( )/
325
[) ( ]// ( ][ )// )( / / // ( ( )
//[ )( ] //( ) //][/
318
/ [)( ]
)//( )
329
/(] [)
330
324
328
327
/ // / ()(] [ )//
) Perhaps f umamin is followed by min qablikum.

) There does not seem to be more than two teeth between and the putative ww.
320
) This word may be fa-l-yasr.
321
) There is no trace of an alif after wad, and there is not quite enough
room for it.
322
) Considering the alif at the end of the previous line and the traces in this
part, the text may be ikhtalaf fhi instead of yakhtalifna fhi.
323
) This word may be wa-li-yalamanna.
324
) This verse does not seem to begin with a ww.
325
) Traces of an initial /jm are visible exactly where the initial h is
written. Perhaps the scribe first wrote jhad but then changed it to hjar.
326
) This letter may be ww or f. However, the traces following it suggest
the text here is f sabli llhi, which would require this letter to be f.
327
) This word may be mubawwaan.
328
) The illegible part seems to begin with a tooth. However, the toothshaped traces may also be part of a letter such as d or kf. The traces at the
end of this part resemble a final nn, but can also be part of a final sn/shn or
d/d.
329
) This phrase may be la-mubawwauhum or la-mathwhum f l-khirati
khayrun.
330
) This word may be rijlan, spelled as .
319
77

331
/ / [][ ][ )( )( ] [ ]// ()/ / ()( )() // )(
332
/ / / / []// ( )//( ) // ( )( ][)() ( )//()
/ / ()
333
[ ]/ / // ) (][ ) ( / / (][][ )
/ /[ ]// ][
)( )
11
12
)(// (][ )( )( )( )//[ ]//[]
13
/ / // ( ][ )( )( ][ ) // []//
14
334
/ / ( )// [ )( ][ ]//
10
335
[ ]/ /(][ )// //)( ][) ( )(][) (/ /
] [ / /
[(]
15
/ / (][ ][ )( ][ )( )( )/ /
16
/ /
17
/ /
18
(][)//( )// ][ )()( ][ //[ ] [ )( ]/ /

19
)( ][/ /[ )( ][ )( )( ]// // [ ]// [ )(]341/ /
20
337
336
/ / (][ ][)( ][ ][) ( ) ( ][)( )

/ /][)( )( // [ ]//[ ]//[)( ]/ /[ ][ ] // ( )/ /[]
338
339
][)( )( )( / /
[][ ][)( ]
342
340
// /
/ (][ )( ][ )/ / / /(][ )( )// ()
{} ()(] [ ) // []// ) ( )( /
/ ( )// 343)( )( //[ ]/ /[]//
21
22
/ / / ) ( ][/ /
23
{ } // [ ]/ /( ] [)//( ][)// ()/ /[ ]/ /[)(] [)( ][ ]/ /
24
{ }[ ]/
/[ )(]/
{ } / / [ )(][)( ]//[]
331
( )( )( ) /
344
25
) The traces match alayka better than the standard ilayka.

) This word may be yamkurna.
333
) This word may be yatiyannahum.
334
) This word may be yubahum.
335
) The traces following the tooth are more similar to h than kf.
336
) Considering the space available at the end of the previous line and beginning of this line, the text may be a-lam yaraw/taraw.
337
) This word may be bi-l-ghuduwwi, and the next word may be wa-l-li.
338
) Considering the following words, the beginning of the verse may be wakullu.
339
) Considering the context, the phrase li-llhi wa-l might be written between and the putative yastakbirn.
340
) The initial lm and the putative h seem to be separated by a letter,
possibly a tooth representing the long vowel .
341
) Perhaps the scribe wanted to write innam an llhu, but mistakenly
wrote huwa before an.
342
) No ww seems to be written here.
343
) It is not clear if alif is attached to the previous letter or not.
344
) This word may be juzan.
332
78
{ }( ][ )/ /[ ]/ / )(][ // ][ ][ )( )( //[ 345]

{ }/
{ } ][
/ ()/ / ( )(][ ][ ) // / / ][ ) ( ][ ) ( / / {}
26
27
/ / ( ][)// [ ] [ ) (][ )( )(]/ / )( ][ /
28
{ } / / //( ] [)
29
/{
} { ][
}// { ][
[{ ]
}[ ] // [{ ]
} [ ]/ / ) (] [ / /)( )( ][ )( ][
346
347
( )/ / // )( /
Folio 14 A (Q 16.6716.69)348
{
}/
}// ( )//({ )
Folio 14 B (Q 16.7716.79)
{
}/
} [{][]
}//
{
/{
349
Folio 9 A (Q 33.5133.57)
{
)( ] [][
/ /( )( )
()( )( )( ][ ][ ) ( )
() ( )( )( )( )
{ } ()( ][ )( )( ][][)//[)(][ ]
345
350
) The traces match an m as well.

) This word may be khizy.
347
) This word may be imm, in which case the text may have imm yumsikuhu instead of a-yumsikuhu.
348
) The meagerness of the text makes it difficult to rule out that it belongs
to a different part of the Qurn.
349
) The text may have al-baar instead of the standard al-abr.
350
) Traces of a lm are also visible at the beginning of this grapheme. Perhaps the scribe made a mistake and corrected it later.
346
79
)( ][
) ( ][ / /][) ( )( } {
][ )( )( ][ )( }
)( )( )(}
10
) ( // ][ / / ] [ )(][ )(}
11
)( )( )( }
12
)( )( ][ ][ )( )( }
13
) ( )( / / )(}
14
)(][ )( )(}
15
)( )( )( )( }
16
)( )( }
17
)(][ ][) ( }
18
)( )( }
19
/ / ) ( ][}
20
) (
351
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
) ( }
21
) (}
22
}//
23
{ ][ ) ()// (}
24
{ ][ } / /
} { )( )() (][]//[ ][)( )(
} { )( )( ] [ )()//( )( )()/ /(
)( )( )(][ )( )(
)( )( )( ][)( )( )(
{ ) (][ )(}
{ ][ )( ][ )(}
{
{
{
)Folio 9 B (Q 33.5733.72
{ ][ )( )(]//[ )( ][ ) ( ]//[ ][ )( )(
351
) The text may be wa-l bnyi, with the hamzat al-wal having been
dropped and the hamza at the end turned into y. Softening (tashl) is reported
for the hamza at the end of the instance of abn that is followed by ikhwnihinna (al-Khab, Mujam, 7:311). Alternatively, maybe the scribe wanted to
write ban, which is also a plural of ibn, but made a mistake and wrote alif before
y.
80
)( )( )( )( )()//(
)( )( // ][ ][ )(][ )( )(
} { ][ )//( )( ][ )(][ ][
} {][ )( )( )( )( )( )( )( ][
10
{)( ][ )( )( )( )(
11
12
{ )( )( ][
13
{ )( )(
14
{) ()(
15
{ )(][ )( )( )( /
16
{ )( )(][
17
{ )( )( )( )( //)(
18
{) / /(][/ / ] [ ]/ /[ )( ][ //][
19
{][]/ /[ ][ )( )(
20
{)( ][ // )( )( ][
21
22
23
352
{][ )( ][ )( )( )(
{)//( ][ )( ][ // //
{ ][)(
353
) //( ) ( ][ )(][
{)( ][ )(} { / /
24
{) ( ][ ][ / / }
{/ /
25
{ ][)( ) / /( }/ /
26
}/
} { )// ( ][}
//] //[ )(][)( ] [ ) (}
)(] //[)/ /( )( }
) ( )( ][ }
)( )( ] //[ / / )(][ )/ /( }
{/
)Folio 25 A (Q 39.2539.36
{
352
) The final nn is not separate from the previous letters, suggesting that
this word is al-munfiqn, which would be grammatically incorrect.
353
) This is an error of the hand generated by the assimilation of a nearby
term.
81
{ )( ][ / /]/ /[/
10
{)(][ / / ) / /(][ / /
11
12
13
14
{)( ][ / / )(} {
{ )( ) // ( ][)( // )(
{ )( // )( ][ ][
{ )( )( )(
][ ][ )(}
)( ][ }
)( }
)( )( ][}
10
} { )( } / /
11
} { )( ][ ) (}
12
} {)( ][)( }//
{ ][] / /[] / /[ / // /}
{ ) ( / /] [ )( ][/
{ /
) /( ][ / /
) /( ][) / /(
{ ) / /( /
{ }/
{) / /(] [) //(
354
/][
{ / / /
355
][} / /
}//
{ ) ()( }/ /
{
{
)Folio 25 B (Q 39.4239.47
{ ][ )( )(][ )(
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
354
) The text may have kadhlika najz l-musinna instead of dhlika jazu
l-musinna.
355
) The letter before mm might be h instead, in which case this grapheme
may be part of the word yajziyahum.
82
)Folio 26 A (Q 39.5139.70
1
{ )(
{ )( )( )(][
{ )(][][
{) / /( )(
{) //(][ )( ) (][
{ ][ ) (][ )(
{ ) / /()( //
{][ )( )(
{)( ) ()(
10
{ )( )( )( )(
11
{)( ][ //
12
{)//(][
13
{)( // )(
14
{ )( ][ ][
15
{ )( )(][ )(
16
17
{][// )(
18
{ )(
19
{][)( )()( )(
20
{ ) ( ][//
21
{ )( ][/ /
22
23
{) / /( )()//( )(
24
{)( )( )(][//
25
{)( )()//(
26
{ )( )(//
357
356
)(
358
356
) Considering this letter and the length of the physically missing part of
line 2, the text may be wa-llhu instead of a-wa-lam yalam anna llha.
357
) The first tooth is preceded by a letter that might be sn. The word may
be fa-nastah.
358
) The text seems to have fhim instead of f l-samwti wa-l-ari.
83
// {)(
27
/ /{
28
29
/( ][)/ /
} [ ] [ ) (]/ /
} ( )////)( )( // ( )//
}/ /() 361/ / )(
}[ )( ]/ /[)(] [ ]
} ][ // ][
} ][ )( //()
} / / ][
}/ / [)( ]
} ) (
10
} )(
11
}( )/ /( )( )
12
}( ) / /( )
13
}()(][ )
14
})( ][)(
15
}) ( )(
16
} / / ( ][ )/ /
17
}//() ( )
18
} ][ //[)(]
19
} // )(][
20
({ )
359
Folio 26 B (Q 39.7075 40.18)

{
}/
360
{
{
{
362
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
359
) The text may have tiyat instead of wuffiyat. Cf. Q 32.13.

) The text may have al-nri instead of Jahannama.
361
) Considering the traces and the amount of space, there may be yundhirnakum adhba rabbikum instead of the standard text between minkum and
ql.
362
) The last letter in this illegible part may be alif or lm. The text after
al-janna might be zumaran att idh jh wa-qla lahum khazanatuh
udkhulh salmun alaykum ibtum fh khlidn.
360
84
{
{
{
}// )( ) (
21
}[]// ][ / /
22
[]//
23
} ( ][ )//
24
} ] [ ) (
25
}/ / )(
{
{
[]
26
}// //
27
}] [ / /
28
}(][ ][ )(][ )/ / {}
29
][)(
365
{
{
{
363
364
Folio 15 A (Q 20.2320.61)
/
/ ( ) / / [ ][ ] [)( ][ )(] / /( ][ )( ][ )366()/ / ][
[ ) (]// ()( )// [ ]
/ / // // []/ / ( )/ / ( ][ )// )(
)(][ )(
)( )( ]// ) ( // [ )( ]//( ][ )( )//(][ )// / /()
([ )( ][ )
/ / /[]/ / ( ][ )/ /[ ][)( ][)( )( ]/ / (] [)
( )/
[ ) ( ][)( ) (]/ /( )( ][)( )( ][ )( )//
()
( )( )( ) 368[ ][ )( )( )(][ )( ][)( } { )( ]/ /
)( // ][ ) (][
367
/ /( )(][ )/ / ( ] [ )/ /( )( ][ )(} {)/ /(] [ )//

/ / ] [ )( / / ( )369//[ ] / /{ }( )//(] [ )( )( ) /
363
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
) The missing part on line 22 has much more space than is needed for
al-aqq and fa-akhadhtuhum.
364
) The missing part on line 25 is rather small for the standard text between
wa-man and li-lladhna. Perhaps the phrase wa-yuminna bihi is absent.
365
) The text may have li-man f l-ari instead of li-lladhna man.
366
) Perhaps the text is kay nuriyaka instead of li-nuriyaka.
367
) The first letter in the illegible part may be d/d or kf. The last letter
may be b/t/th.
368
) This word may be tratan.
369
) The text seems to have lan instead of the standard l.
85
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
/ )/ /() 370( ][ 371 ][)//(
]/[ / / ) (]/ / [/
/
][]// [)(
] / /[)/ /( ]//[ ]//[)/ / ( ] //[)() // 372( ] [)( ][ ) / /(
) (
] /[ )()//(/ /{ }/ / ] 373/ /[]/ /[}{)( )//( ] [ //)// (
/
) (
/)( ][ ) (/
] / [ ) / /( / /][ ) //{}//(/
/
/
][)( ] [ ] / /[ )( ] [ )(][ ) ( } {)//(] 374[ ) ()/ /( )// (
] [
] [ ] / / [ ) / /(// )(][ }{) //(] [)( ][/ / ][
375
)/ ( )/ /( ][ )/ /( ][ )/ /( ][ ][ )( )/ /( ) // (
/
][// )( )(
][ ]/ /[)( ) 376/ /( / / ][ ) (} { ) ( ][
/ )( ][)( } { )( ][ )( )( ][)
] [) / /( ) //( ] //[)(/ 377
(
] /[ )() / /( )//( ) / /( ][
]/[ ) (]//[ )//( /
/
][)(
) {}/ /( ] / /[ ]/ /[ / / )( ) / /(] [ ]/ /[) 378( ][)()// (
][ ][
) /(][ ) ( ][ //
){ }/ / ( )( ]// [] // [ )(][ /{ }/ /
)(
379
)/( ] / / [ // ][)( ) // (
){ }/()/ /( /
/
22
23
) / /( ][ } { ] 381 [ )( ] []//[ ]/ / [ ) / /( ][ )( ] //[ //
24
] { }/[ ] / /[ )/ /( )()//(][ ]/ /[ ]/ /[
380
][)//(
) / ( ][)( ) / /( ] [ )( ] [)( ] []/ /[ ]/ /[ )//(/ /
The text might have na instead of idh.

This word may be taawwafu.
This word may be fa-radadnka.
The last letter in this part may be mm.
This word may be bi-ytin.
The text is probably wa-an instead of aw an.
The last letter in this part might be kf.
The text might have ilayka an arsil instead of fa-arsil.
The text seems to have fa-m instead of fa-man.
This y may belong to f (verse 52).
The text may have arsala instead of anzala.
There seems to be fa-akhraja instead of fa-akhrajn.
370
)
)
372
)
373
)
374
)
375
)
376
)
377
)
378
)
379
)
380
)
381
)
371
86
25
26
]/ /[ /
] /[]//[ /
/
] /[ )(] // [ ) //( ] [ )( ) //(]//[ ][)(

) 383/()/ /( ][ ][ //
] /[ )//( ][ )(/ 382//
27
28
]/[ ] //[ )( ]//[ //]//[ ]//[ )( ][ ) / /(][

]//[ )( )//(/
][ / / 384/ / / / )( ][ ) / /( ] [ ]/ / [
29
/ )( /
30
/]/ /[ )()//(] [ ]/ /[ ]/ /[)( ][ )(]// [
][ ]//[ )(] //[ )//(] //[ ) ( )//( /
31
] / [)( )(][/ /
) /( ]/ /[)( )/ /(/
385
]/[
386
{ }/
)Folio 15 B (Q 20.6120.80
1
][) ( ][ ] / / [) ( ][ /
][ ][ ][ ) //( )( ] [) (][) ( )( ) ( ][)(
)( ) ( ][ ) ( ] [) ( )( ) ( )(
][) ( ][) (][ )( )( ) ( // ] [
)( )(][ )( )(// ][ } { )( ][)(][)( // )( )( ) ( ][
)( )()( )( ][ ][ ][)( ][} {] [ ) ( ][/ /
][ ][)( ][ )(][} { )/ /( ) ( )( ][] //[/ /
/ ][) //() //()//(//
387
)( ) (][ )( ]//[/
// ) ()( )(}{)(] [][ ][)( ][}{ )( //][
388/)(} { )( ][) //( )(
10
11
)( )( )/ /( // / /
12
)( ][]//[ ] //[ ) ( )( ) / /( // ] [ )(
13
389
][) (] [ ){ }/ /( ][ / /
)(
392
391
390
)/ /() //( ] [
) ( ][)( ][ ][ )(}{)(
)( )(] //[) ( ) //( ][ ) ( ) / /(][ ) (/ /
382
) This word may be a-ataytan.

) This part may contain bi-sirika.
384
) The last letter in this part may be kf.
385
) The text may be y waylakum.
386
) The text may have ifkan instead of the standard kadhiban.
387
) This word may be sirihim.
388
) Considering the amount of space, the word khfah may be missing.
389
) This word may be amil.
390
) This word might be innahu. See the parallels in Q 6.21, 6.135, 10.17,
23.117, 28.37, and 30.45.
391
) The text may be fa-alq m maahu.
392
) The scribe has copied qla twice.
383
87
14
)(][) ( ][] //[)(}{)( ) ( ] //[)( )( }{) //(
15
)(][ )()( )( }{)//(]/ / [)( ][) ( ][ )( ][) ( )//(/ /
16
// ] [ )( ] / /[ )( )( )( ][ / /
17
][)( )(//
18
) () / /( )(][ )//(][ )( ] [ ] []/ / [ / /
19
][ )(][)( )( ][ )( )(][)( ] [ )( ][/ /{ }/ /
20
) ( )//(][ //
393
][]// [ )(][ )()( ) / /(][ / /
394
)( ][ )( ][ )( ][} { ][} { )(
21
][)/ /
22
][ )/ / ( ][ ) / /( )( )( )( )( ][ ][ ][)( / /
395
( )( ] [ ][)( ][ ][ )( ][} {] [)//(
23
24
)( ] [) / /(][ ][ )()( ]// [ )( } {]/ / [ ][
25
) /()//( ][ )( ][ // ][)( )()( ] [ ]//[)( )//(
] [ )( ) / / ( ][ )( ][ } {] / / [ /
396
26
] / / [) / /(]// [)(][ ) ( ][ ) / /( ][ /
27
][ ] / / [ ][][)(][ )( ][] / /[] //[] / /[
28
} {][/
// ][ )( /
)/ /( ][ )( ][ }
)( ][/
/ ][] //[ }/ /
] [)/ /( ][)/ /()//( ][ }/ /
] /[/
)( / /
397
/) (][)(
/
] /[] // [ )( / / )( /
)Folio 30 B (Q 20.12220.133
{
}/
]/[)//(] 398[ )( }
}/
{
{
393
) This word may be tn.

) This word is probably saarn/saarn.
395
) The text may have inn qad iya ilayn in addition to the standard
text. Cf. Q 20.48.
396
) This putative alif may be disconnected from the previous letter, in which
case the previous letter would be wa-.
397
) The text seems to have fa-awayn instead of wa-laqad awayn.
398
) Considering the traces, the text might have ihbi minh ajman instead
of ihbi minh jaman. Also, the phrase baukum li-bain aduwwun is either
missing or precedes the putative ihbi.
394
88
) / /( )(] //[ )(][ }/ /
][ // )( )(} / /
) ( ) (] //[ }
10
][)( ][ )( )(] / /[][}
11
]//[
12
)( / /][][ ) ( } / /
13
][ ]//[) //(][)( ][ )( )( ][}/ /
14
][][ ) // (][ ][ ][] [ }
15
][ )( ][ // )(][ )( ][ )( ][ )( }/ /
16
} {][ )(][ )( / / )(][)( ] [ )(][ }
17
399
) / /( ][/ /
400
)( ][ } //
} {}{][ } {][
401
402
{
{
{
] [ }
{
{
{
)Folio 30 A (Q 21.521.19
1
{ ]// [)(
{//][ )( ][ )( ][
{ ]/ / [) //( //)(
{ )()(
{ )( )( //)(
{ )( )( )( ]//[
{ ) //( ) (
10
{] / /[ ][ )()//( ) (][
11
{]//[ )( )( ][ / /) (
12
{ ][ ][ )( )( )( ][
13
{/
) /( / /
{ // )( )//( )( )(
{/
403
) /( )() / /(][
This word may be ajalan.

This word may be fa-abir.
The text appears to have li-ukmi rabbika instead of al m yaqlna.
The text might be li-l-birri wa-l-taqw (cf. Q 5.2 and 58.9).
The text might be wa-hdh kitbun anzaln alaykum.
399
)
)
401
)
402
)
403
)
400
89
][//[][ ] [ ]// {
14
({ )( )(][ )( )( ] [ )
15
[]/ / (][)//(][ )() // ) ( / / {
16
17
18
( ][)// [ ) (]/ / ( ][ ][ )/
404
{ } ][ //({ )
Folio 10 A (Q ? 24.113)
/ /{
}/
/ /{
}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~{
/ /{
}({ ][ )
}({)( )(][ )
/ /{
}//{ ) (
/ /{
} { ][)( )(
} / /
} ( )( )( ] [)
/ /{
/ /()// {
405
/ / () / / {
}//)( ) (
} { ][ )( ][ // [)( )( )( ]
10
/ /[]/
11
({ }{)( ][ )
/ [ )( ][ ][)(]
/
12
) ( / /[) ( ]
13
(][ )( )( )( )( )
14
[ )( ]/
[ ][)(]/
404
/ {
/ )(
15
) No text seems to be written before the present point, as writing here

would have interfered with the previous line.
405
) This tooth looks like an insertion. Also, the grapheme seems to have
been added after the mm that follows . These additions have the same thickness and curvature as the usual script, but have a dark greenish hue. The word
may have been muminn before these changes. It is less certain what the modifier wished to turn this word into. In light of the addition of a tooth before the
initial , the first guess would be bi-muminn. But the greenish traces that
follow the second mm conform to better than they do to . Perhaps the
modifier conflated the first mm with ww (due to not seeing the ww that follows it), and tried to make the remaining legible traces conform to the word
tuminna.
90
( 406 ) / / ()( )( )/ /()

/ / (][ )( ) /
/ ][
16
17
407
/ / ( )
18
/ ( )( ) ( )/ / )(
19
{ }[ ] / / [ ][ )(]
20
} ][][ ) ( ][
21
{ } )( ) ( } { )(][ )(
22
{ }( ) / / [)(][)( ]
{ }/
{
[ ]
23
{ } ( )( )( )( ][ ) ( )
24
}// / /[ ]
408
//{ }( )/ /( ][ )
25
} ][ )( )( )( / /()
26
{ }][ ][ ) ( ][ )( )( / /[]
27
{
{
409
Folio 10 B (Q 24.1324.23)
} // { }
/{
} / /
{ } {
{ }[{ )(]
} //
{ } )(][ //{
}/ /[][ ]
({ )( )
} (][ )
({ ][ )
} / /()/ /[]
{ } 410()/ / ()/ /[{ ]

{ }/ //
{ )(][

406
411
}( )( ][)/
/ / )( } { /
/()
) The traces match both inn and innan.

) This alif has a dark green hue like the tooth at the beginning of line 7.
408
) The traces here could also represent four teeth, in which case the word
would be insn.
409
) The missing and illegible parts together can accommodate no more than
four letters.Therefore, minhum is probably missing.
410
) This alif might be the last letter of bi-l-shuhad, although the illegible
part preceding it seems rather small for the grapheme .
411
) The traces here do not quite conform to ;they are closer to .
407
91
10
11
)( /
12
][ )( ][ ][ ][ )( ][
13
] / / [ )( ] [ )( ) ( )(
14
)( ) ( )(][ ][
15
] // [ ) / / ( )/ /( ][ )( ][
16
} { ][ ][ )(
17
} {][ ][ )( )(][ )( )(
18
} { ][ )( ]/ /[ ][ )(
19
} { ) / / ( ][ )( )(
20
{ ][ )(
21
{ )( )( ][
22
{][ )( )( ][ )( ][
23
{ ][ ][
24
{ )( )(][ // ][
25
/ )( )( 412 ][ ][
) / ][ ][ )(
{ ][)( / / )(/ /
414
413
)( )(
)Folio 11 A (Q 24.2324.32
1
)( ][ )( ] [ ][ ) //( ]/ / 415[
][ // ][
// )( )( ][][ )(
)( ) ( ][ )( ][)( )( ][ // } {
][)( ][ ][)( )(][ ][ ][
)( )({ } / /
][ )( )( ][//
416
][ ][ ) (
412
) There might be another tooth before this nn, in which case the word
would be li-yatabayyana.
413
) This word could be yaqdhifna.
414
) There is enough room in the illegible area before dl for two letters. The
word may be al-mutaaddiqti.
415
) The pale traces in the illegible part preceding mm are more likely to be. long to two graphemes than one. Specifically, they might belong to
416
) This word may be ajr.
92
{ } / / ][ ][ ][ )(
( )// ( ][ )( )(][ )
[ ][ ][ } { )( )(]
10
[]/ /[ )( ][ )( ][)( ]//) (
11
][ ) ( )( ][ ][ //)( ][ )(
12
)( )( ][)( )(
13
() // / /// ()/ / / /][)(
14
[ )(]// )(][ )(/ / // ( ][ )/ / //
15
[ ]417)( )(][ ][ ][)( ][
16
)( // ][ )( //[ )(]// ][ / /[ ][ ][ ] //()
17
[]/ /
18
[]//
19
) ( ][ )( )(//
20
} { )( ][//[ )( ][)(][ ]
21
[ )( } {)( ]
22
//()// )( ] [ )( )( / /[]//
23
][ //] [)( ][
24
][)(][ ][ ][ ][)( )(
25
][ ) ( } { )( )( )(/ /
26
{ })( )( ][ ][ )( )( )( )(
{} ][
420
419
418
/ /
27
(} {][)//[]//[} {]
28
)(][
{}// (][ ][)( }{] [ }{ )/ /[]/ /(][ )
417
422
421
) The use of the masculine pronoun here is a scribal error.

) The traces preceding the putative mm do not quite conform to .
419
) The traces after the tooth match a medial h better than a medial ayn.
Perhaps the scribe made a mistake and wrote h here.
420
) There is probably one letter between the first lm and , because they
are not very close to each other. The second illegible part contains one letter
which can be f or qf or any of the tooth-shaped letters. Maybe the scribe
wanted to write al-ifl, but conflated it with al-wildn, writing an extra . The
gap between the first lm and may also be explained by this scenario: the
scribe first wrote a dl (belonging to al-wildn) after this lm but then erased it
and wrote slightly after this dl.
421
) The nn seems to be connected to a letter before it, and the traces before
nn conform to better than to .
422
) The text here might be bauhum baan.
418
93
Folio 11 B (Q 24.3224.40)
)( )( 423/ / } { ) (][
][ )()( )( )( )( ][
)( )(/ /( )( ][)( )//}{ ][ )(][
][)( ][ )( )(
)(// )(
)( ][ ][ )( / / (}{ )
} {)( )( )( ][ )( )(
][ )(// )( ][)( )( 425 )( )(
][)( )( ][)( ][)( ][)( 426( ][ )
)( )( ] [ )( ][// [ ]//{}
)( )( )( ][ //
[)( ][ )( )( )( )( )( )(]//
427 )( ][ )(//
)( )( )( //
)(][)( ][ //()( ][ ) //][ )( )( )( //
[ ][ )( )(][ ][ ]// )( )( ][/ /{ }
[ )( ]/ / } { )(
][ // ( )//{}
)( )( ][)( ][ )( )( //[)( ]
( )//[} { )( ]// [)(]//[ ][ ]
/ / ( ][ } {][ )( )428/ /
423
/ /)( )(][
( ][ ][)
424
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
) The traces before r match better than .

) The last letter looks more like a final b/t/th than a final f.
425
) It seems that the scribe forgot to write this r initially, as it is written
slightly above the line, in the small space available between the last letter of
ghafr and the of ram.
426
) There are three small marks above the mm, arranged vertically on top
of one another. They resemble the dashes used for distinguishing consonants or
separating verses.The lowest dash overlaps with mm.Their function is not clear.
427
) This word appears to have been at first, as the horizontal traces of a
final y are visible beneath the initial tooth and d. However, the word was
modified to by adding a tooth and alif at its end. These modifications
appear greenish, similar to those seen in other folios (e.g. folio 10 A, line 7).
428
) The traces match better than .
424
94
[)(][ )( ][ )( ]
[][ )( ][ )(][ ][ )( ] // []
429
[) (][ )( )( ]
()( )( )( )( )( )( )( ][ )//{}
[ )( )( ]430( )(][)//{}(}{)
}
{
} 432/ / [ ][ }{]431{
23
24
25
26
27
28
Folio 33 Recto (Q 34.1334.23)

}
( )//{
}][ )( //( ][)/ /[ )( } {][ )( } { } { ]//{
)( ][][ )(][ ] [/ / / /() (][ )/ /{ }
{
{
{
{
} ()( )/ /{
} //[ )(]/ / { ][
} {
}
433
}/ /() // { ][)( ][)( ][ ) (][ ) ( ] [
{ } )(//[ )( )(]//[)(]
][ ][ )( ][ / /{
434
)( )(][ )( ][ / / ][ )( )()(][ / /[)( ]

{ } ][ //( ][ ) //( ][ )/ / [][ )( ]
435
/ /{) ( )(
/ [} { ]
/ []/ /
10
/ [ ]/ /( )/ /
11
/ )(][ )( / / [} {]
12
436
{ } //[] // )( ][ )( ][ )( ][ ][)( /
{
{
{
}[)( ]/ /[] //[ ]/ / [ ]/ /[] /

}//() // ][// ( )( ][ )( ][ )/
}/ / ()/ / [)(]/ / ()( ][ ) //( )/

{
{
429
}/
}[)( ]/
/ []// [ ]/
/[ )(][)( ][ )( ]/ /( ] [)/
/ ( )/ /{
13
/{
14
) This letter might be connected to the previous letter, in which case they
would form the grapheme .
430
) It seems that the scribe initially forgot to write mm but added it later.
431
) The scribe has left the beginning of the line empty to avoid interfering
with the previous line.
432
) The traces do not match min. The first letter is round, but does not seem
to be mm (it might be ww or f/qf).The second letter might be h.
433
) If this r belongs to qudr, the following alif may be a scribal error.
434
) The text may have something like wa-hum kn yamalna lahu awlan
in addition to the standard reading.
435
) This word may be yuallimuhum, the subject of which could be Sulaymn.
436
) The text may have an shimlin wa-yamnin.
95
15
16
/{
17
/{
18
19
20
21
22
/{
23
/{
/{
/{
}[)( ][ ][ )(][ )( ]//[ ) (][)( ]/ / ( )//{ }
{ } ////][
}/ / [ ]/
{
{
/ [ ] / /{
/ ()/
/{
}( )/
{ }[)(] //[ ]//[ ]/

{ } ()/ /( )/ /[ ][ ]/
/{
437
438
( )// [ ) ( ][)( ]/
/{
{ } / / ( )// ( ][ )/
{ }/
{
/{
/{
}/
/{
}/
/{
}/
}[{)(]
/{
}/
Folio 33 Verso (Q 34.2334.33)

{
}/
{
{
{
}/
/{
/{ }/ /{ }/ /{ }//[] [ )(]/
} [][) ( ]// ( ) ( ][ )// ( ][)( )/

439
440
()/ / )( ][)( )(
/
)( ][ ][ //( )( )( )( )( )(][ )//
//)(][ ) (][ )(][/ / ( )( 443)/ /{ }
][ )( // ( )( )
{ }
437
}/
/ /
445
444
442
441
)/
/ /[ ]// ][ )(][)( //{ }
) The text seems to have f shakkin minh instead of minh f shakkin.

) The text might have wa-lladhna yadna/tadna instead of qul id
lladhna zaamtum.
439
) The text might be wa-inn wa-iyykum la-imm al hudan.
440
) This word may be rabbun.
441
) Considering the amount of space before this word, the phrase thumma
yaftau baynan may be missing.
442
) A small dash above the tooth means that perhaps t is pointed.
443
) The traces before mm match better than .
444
) This word may be yashkurna or yatafakkarna.
445
) The first letter in the preceding illegible part may be ww or f/qf. This
word may be wa-qla or fa-qla.
438
96
}( )446)(/ / ( )/ /)( // [} { ][ )(][ )( )(]
{
{
11
12
()/ /({ )
13
][ ////(][ )( )( )//{
14
15
( )/ / ()(][ )/ / )(// )( ][ //(} { )
16
}/
/ ()// [} { )( )( )( ]
17
/ ( )/ / [][)( ]//()/ / )( //()
18
} ][//[][) ( ][ )( )(] /
448
[]/ /()// //[ ]/ /[]
{
{
} [][ )( ]/ / [ ] / / (] [)/
}//
449
447
/{
/{
}[ ][ )(]/ / ( ][)( ][)/ / ) ( ][ //( ][ )/ /{

{
}/ /
450
{
{
}/ /{}/
{
10
}/
/{
}/
/ [) ( )( ]/ /
19
}/
/{ }/
/ )( )( / /{}
20
}/
/{
}/ /(}{ )
21
}// 451
}/ / [)( ]
}[]//
}// [ )( ]//
}// [ ]/ /[]
Folio 34 Recto (Q 34.4034.47)

{
{
{
{
{
446
}/
}/
} )( /
) There is a small chance that the letter preceding dl is ayn. The illegible
part preceding mm may contain one or two letters. There are also traces there
above the line that resemble lm. Perhaps the scribe added lakum to the text later.
447
) The traces match better than .
448
) The text may have yulq bauhum.
449
) The letter before d may be ayn. It seems that the scribe made a mistake and wrote ayn before d instead of after it.
450
) The presence of this alif suggests that the text is different from the
standard reading.
451
) This grapheme may belong to a-huli.
97
} / /453 452 / / { }
}/ / / /() ( )()/ / //{
10
} [ ]/ /( )( )( ][)//{
11
12
{
{
454
/ / )(][ )( ][)(] [ )( //{
455
}{][)( )( )( )(
13
}( )/ / ( )/ / ( )/ /{
14
15
{ )(
)( //{
()/ /{][ )(
[{ )(]
[]//({][ )
{ ][
[{ ][)( ]
//[{ ]
{ } {)( )(
10
11
12
}// )(][ / /
456
Folio 34 Verso (Q 13.113.5)

~~{
457
{ }[{ )( ][ )(][) ( ]
{
452
} ) ( ][
458
) Considering the traces on the neighbouring lines, this instance of kafar

does not seem to belong to verse 43. Maybe verse 44 features alladhna kafar.
453
) It is not clear if this mm is initial, medial, final, or isolated.
454
) The text may have fa-amlaytu li-lladhna kadhdhab/kafar in addition
to the standard reading.
455
) The traces before alif match better than .
456
) Nothing is written before this point, since writing here would have interfered with the previous line.
457
) Considering the legible words, the text might have wa-jaala fh min
kulli l-thamarti wa-anbata/wa-jaala fh min kulli zawjayni thnayni instead
of the standard text between al-nahr and yughsh.
458
) The phrase wa-janntun min anbin might follow wa-zarun rather than
precede it.
98
}({ )( )()(][ )
13
} )( // ({][)
14
15
}()
} ()(][ )
}() // (][ } { )( ) //
}][ )( )()( )(
}/ / )( // ( ][)//{ }
459
// ][/ / [{][ ]
Folio 35 Recto (Q 13.613.14)

{
{
{
460
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
)(][ //{}// ) (
} (][ )/ / ( ][ )(][)// )(
10
})( )(
462
[]/ /[ )(]/
][ )( ][
11
} ()( )(][ )
12
}[ )( ]
13
}[)( )()(]
14
} } {)(} {)(
15
{
{
459
/{ }
}/ /
461
463
) This word may be mitn.

) Assuming that the visible letters on line 2 belong to al-iqb (verse 6),
the letters on the present line cannot belong to kafar, which is only two words
away, unless kafar appears in a different place than it does in the standard text.
Also, lines 2 and 3 have less room than expected for the text between al-iqb and
tagh (verse 8).
461
) Considering the traces on the next line, the text following muaqqibt
may be min khalfihi wa-min bayni yadayhi or even a longer phrase such as min
khalfihi wa-raqbun min bayni yadayhi, which is reported for Ibn Abbs (alKhab, Mujam, 4:394).
462
) The text may have yarqubnahu instead of yafanahu.
463
) The following missing part is rather small for the standard text between
bi-qawmin and min wlin.
460
99
}({ )
16
} [{ ) (]
17
({ ] [ ][)( ][)( ][)
/ / )( ][)(//[]// (] [ )//[{][ )( ]
( )( ][) ( )/ /{
][ ) ( //{
10
11
(] [ )(][ )( ][ )//{
12
{ ][ )(
13
}{ )(
14
}// {
15
}[)(]/ /{
16
} 465//()//({ )
/ { } ()/ / [{ )( ]
Folio 35 Verso (Q 13.1613.21)

/ /{
(} {][ )// [{]
/ /{
} {][ )( ][
{ } ({ }{)( } { )( ][)
)( ][ //()/ / ({ )
{ )( ][ ) ( ][
)( ][
{ }/ /{
{
{
464
Folio 36 Recto (Q 13.2513.31)

{
{
}/
}()(][ )
{
464
//{ } //({ )
466
} [{)( ][ )( ][ ]
) The text is uncertain. It might have yastakhrijhu or li-yastakhrijhu as

a plus. Alternatively, it may have la-yastakhrijhu instead of la-ftadaw bihi.
465
) The first and second lm might be connected, in which case this word
may be allh.
466
) This word may be fari (verse 26).
100
}/ / / / } { /
/ )( ][)( // (} { ][)
( )(][ )( ) / /{ }/
/ [ )(]/ /[ ][ )(]/ / { }
//[)( ] //[ ] / / [}{]/ / ] [ / / () //()( ] [)
} ) ( ][ / / {
/
//
467
/( )/
/{}/ /{ }/
()(][)//( )/
{ }/
/{
/{
{ }/
/( ][)( ][)( )
}[ )( ] //{}//
10
}/ /( )( ][)//} { )(//
11
12
13
14
}/ / (][ )//()
15
}/ / ()
16
} /// /{ }
17
({)
} //[ ]//{ }// {][
}// [{ ]
()// ( )// { } / / [{ )()(]
/{
}[ ]/
{ } ][ )(][ ][// [{ ]
}/
{ }/ / / /()/ / {
{ }/ / /
/{
{ }[ ]/
/{
}/
}/
/ [{ ]
468
Folio 36 Verso (Q 13.3313.40)

{
} [)( ]//{
}[{ )( ]
} (][ )(} {)( ][ )

{
{
{
467
}//[]//{
}// [{]
}//
470
469
) The missing and illegible areas before this word are much larger than is
needed for qad khalat min.
468
) Assuming that the grapheme near the end of the previous line is l, the
visible mm here might belong to tubuhum or bi-m. However, the space between the putative l and the present point is too small for the standard text
between l and tubuhum. Perhaps the text has alam (which features mm)
instead of kafar, a reading reported for Ibn Masd and Mujhid (al-Khab,
Mujam, 4:427).
469
) Assuming that the putative f at the end of line 2 belongs to fa-m, the
missing parts at the end of line 2 and beginning of line 3 have much more space
than is needed for the remainder of verse 33.
470
) The text might have ukuluh wa-illuh dimun.
101
{ } ) ( // } {][ //[ ) (]// []/ /{ }
//
][ ) ( / /()//(} { )/ / ( )//[) ( ]
{ }()( )( )// //(} { )// [)( ][ )(]

][)( )( )(
][ )( ][
/{
)( }{//{
{ }{][ ][ )( ][
/
/ ( )(][)/ /
10
}/
/ [][ )(]
11
}/
/ ][/ /
12
/ {}} {
13
}/
/{} //{ }
14
}/
/{ }
15
/(} { )
16
} / / [] / /{ }
17
//( }{ ) /
472
473
/{
/ / {
()//{
471
}/
}/
//{
/{ }
18
/{ }
19
{ }({ )
{ }{ )(
)( //{
( ][)( )//{
/ / {)( )( ][
{ )(][ )(
[{ )( ]
{ }[{)( ) ( ]
{ }//
)(/ /{
{ }[ ]/ /{
}/
}/
Folio 16 Verso (Q 28.1928.24)
471
474
{ )(
) The traces here might belong to an alif, in which case the text may have
t instead of taynhum.
472
) The additional text may begin with kullun yad il janbihi/jnibihi.
473
) The traces before h do not quite match . Specifically, the letter before h may be lm instead of b.
474
) The horizontal line between lm and the tooth is darker than the other letters.
10
{ )( ][} {
11
{ )( } {
} {]// [ }//
][)( }
)( )( )( }
)( ][ )()( }
)( }
)( ][}
} {)( )( }
} {)( )( ][}
} {][ )(}
10
} { )()// (}
11
} {)()( }
} {)( } {// )( / / ]/ /[ )(} {
}{ )(][)( // )()/ /( ] / /[ ] / /[ ][
102
)Folio 16 Recto (Q 28.3028.35

{
{
{
{
475
{
{
{
{
{
)Folio 28 Recto (Q 37.1537.33
} { ][ ][ )( )(}
{ )( )(
} { ][ )(][
) // ( )( )() // ( ]{ }/ /[ ) / /() //(
][)//( /
)(][)( ]
)( )( }//
476
] / /{ }/[
) /(][ )( )( )(
477
478
[}
{ )(]//[) ( //
{ )( ][/ /
{/
475
) This word may be qamika.

) The text may have muarn instead of yanurn.
477
) This word may be ibath.
478
) The space between the putative nn and mm is rather small for the twocolumn verse separator symbols used in this folio.
476
103
) ( )( }479/ /
10
)(]/ /[)( )( ) (][ }/ /
11
)( }{ )( ][]//[ }
12
) ( }/ /
13
)( )( ][][}
14
)/ /( )( }//
15
)( ]// [ )( ][}//
{/
{
{
{
{
{
{
)Folio 28 Verso (Q 37.4337.68

1
} { )( ][)( / / ][ ][)(} {][ )(
][)( ] [)(][]/ /[)( ][] //[ )( )(][ }{
][ )(} {]/ /[ )( ][ )( )(][ ][ )( ][} {
/ /][)( ][ }
)(][) () (}
{)// () ( )( )()( )( } {
{ ) ( ) (
][}
)(// )( }
)( // }
] [ )(][ )(}
10
)/ /(][ ) //(}
{ )( )( )( ) (
11
{ ][ )(][ )( ][)(][
12
{ ][ )( ][ // } {][
13
{)/ / ( ] //[] //[
14
{ ][ )/ /(// ][
15
{ )(// )( //
16
} {)( )( / / )( ][}
} { )( )( / / ][ }
{ ][ )( )(][ ][)( )(
{ / /)( ][)( )(][ )(
{ )( )(] [ )(
{][ )( )( )(
{ ][ )(
)Folio 29 Recto (Q 37.8237.103

{
{
479
) This word may be tanarn (with the alif spelled) or tatanarn,

which is reported for Ibn Masd (al-Khab, Mujam, 8:20).
104
} {)( )( )( ][ }
} { )( ][)// ( ][)()( )( ][} //
} {) //( ) (][} { ][ ][ ][][ }//
} {][ )()(] //[]{ }/ /[ ][ ][][ }
)( ] / /[ / / )(]/ /[ ][}/ /
) ( ] / /[ )()(][ ) ( ][}/ /
10
11
)() (} {][ ) / /( }//
12
)( } {)( )( )(]//[ }/ /
13
// )(][ )( }/ /
14
)( )//( ) ( }//
15
)( ) ( }
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{) // ( )(][ )( ) / /( }//
{
{ )(][ )( )( ]//[ }/ /
{
{
{
{
{
16
}/
{ )( /
{) //( )//( ] //[][ )( )( ][ )( } {
{//)()( )( ][ ) (] []//[} {
{ )( )( )(][ ) / /( } {
{ )(][ ) ( } { )( )(][{ }/ /
{ )(][)( )(} {][// ][ )( ][)( ) //(} {
{] / / [ ) ( } {][)( )( ] []//[)(][
{ )( )( ] [] / /[} {)( ][
10
{ )(
11
12
13
)Folio 29 Verso (Q 37.11837.144

]/[ } {
{ )( / / )()( )( ][)(][]{}//{}//{}//[
{ )( ][ )(][ ][ )( }
480
{ )( ) / /(][ // )(} {
{ ] / /[)()( ][} {] [
{ )( }{][ ][ )(
480
) Considering the amount of space before the putative dl, the text may
have kadhlika instead of inn kadhlika.
105
14
{][ ] [ ][][
15
{)( ] [ )(
16
{][ / /)( / /
} {/
][)( ]//[ // )( )( ) ( ][ } {
)Folio 18 A (Q 15.415.33
] /[ )( )( / / )//(][ )( )/ /( /
{}/
} / /
)// (}
][ )( )()( ][ )( )//( ][)( ) () //( )// (//

)(}{
)()( )( )( //} {
)( ][ ) ( } {
) (][)(][ ]/ /[ // )( )( } {
} {][)( ][)( )( // )( )( ][)(
10
][ )( } {
481
{][ )(][) (][ )( )()(][ )( )(][ } {

{)( ][ ) (][ ][ )(][ )( )( )( } {
482
} {
11
12
)( ][ )( ) ( } {
13
)/ /( )( )( )( } {
14
)()( ][ ) ( / / )( ] //[ )( )({ } //
15
][ )(][ )( )( )( ]//[ )( / /
)( } {
16
)(][ ) ( )( )( 485 ][ } {
17
)( ) (][ )( )( )( ][ )( } {
18
)( ][)( ]//[ ) ( ][ )( )( / / )( ][)(

)(][ } {
483
) ( )( )( )( ][ )( )( )( ][ } {
484
)( ][
486
481
) The traces here match al-qurn better than al-dhikr.

) A horizontal line is visible beneath f and the tooth. Perhaps the scribe
first wrote f here but then changed it to fhi.
483
) There is no trace of a ww after r, nor is there enough room for a letter.
484
) The traces here match m better than in.
485
) It seems the scribe made a mistake here, writing one tooth instead of
two at the beginning of the word.
486
) It is not clear if a tooth precedes the initial or not.
482
106
19
) ( ][)( ) (][)( )( )( ][ } {
20
][ / / )( // ][ ][)(]//[ )( } {
21
)(}{ //][)( )( )( ][ )( } {
22
)( / / )( )( )( )( ][ )( ][ } {
23
)( )( / /][ )(][ )( ) ()( ) ( } {
24
) // ( )(][ )( )( ][ } {
25
][ )( )(][ )( ][} {
26
] //[ ) ( ) ( )( ) (][ )( )( } {
27
][ )( ][ )(][ ][ )( )( ) / /( { }/ /
)Folio 18 B (Q 15.3315.74
1
} { ][ / / ] [) ( ][ )( / /{ }487
} {
)( )( )( )( )(
} { )( )( )(} {][)(
} { )( )( ][ ] / /[ / /
} { )( ][ ][ )(
488
} {) ( )( //
489
)()(
490
} {)(
} {]//[ ][ ) ( )()( ][ ]/ /[)( / / )(} {
} {)( )( //)( )( ][ )( )(
10
} {][ ] [)( )( )( ][
11
} {)(
491
493
)( )( } {
492
)(
][ )( ][ )( )( //)(
487
) The traces before h do not quite match an initial mm followed by a

tooth.They match one mm, or two teeth, or a lm and a tooth.
488
) It is not clear if this alif is connected to a letter before it or not.
489
) It seems the scribe initially forgot to write al here, since it is written
slightly above the line, in the small space available between ir and mustaqm.
490
) The letter nn may be pointed, as there is a small dash inside it.
491
) This word may be minhum, in which case the sentence would be awkward, or alayhim, in which case this would be a scribal error, since alayhim appears again after laka.
492
) This word may be sabl.
493
) The shape of this alif suggests it is not part of a l. Perhaps the text has
m here.
107
12
} { )( ][ ) //( )( )( )(
13
} { )( )( )( )(
14
} {][)( )( )( )(
15
} { ][ )( )( )( // )(
494
)( )( )(
16
} {][ ][
17
} {][ )( ][ )( ) ( )(][
18
} {][ )( ][ // ) ( / /
19
} {][ / / ) ( ][//
20
} { )( )( )( )( ) (
21
} {][ )( )( ) ( )( )( )(
22
} { )/ /( ][
23
} {][ )( )( )( )( )(/ /
24
} {)/ /( )( ][
25
} {][ ][
26
} { / / ][// )( )( ) (
27
} { )( )(// )(
495
496
)( ) ( )( ) ( )(
)( )( ]{ }//[
28
} {]//[ ][ )( )( )(][ )(
29
} { // )(][ ) ()// ( ][)//( ]//[)// (//][
497
)Folio 19 B (Q 15.8799 25.18

1
{ )( ][ ][/ /
{][ )( ][][
{ )
498
( ][ //
{ )( ][// ) ( ][ ][
{ ) ( )/ /(
494
) The letter nn may be pointed, as there is a small dash above the tooth.
) The final alif is rather pale except its base. Maybe the scribe erased it.
496
) It seems the scribe initially wrote ww at the end of this grapheme, but
changed it to r later.
497
) There is no trace of a tooth before h. This word may be sukrihim, which
is reported for al-Amash here (al-Khab, Mujam, 4:577).
498
) The text seems to have nadhrun mubnun.
495
108
({][ )
/ / )( //{][ )(
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~{
10
()/ / ( )/
/( ][ ) //[)( ]//[{]
11
)( )( ][)(][ )( // ()//{
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
{ } )( ][)( )( / /({][ ][ )
19
{ } { )( )( )( ][
20
{ } ({ )( )( ][ )
21
{ }( )//({ ] [ )
22
23
/// /][ //[ ]// / /{

/ / [{ )( ) (][ )( ]
()// )( )( / /
500
( )/ /[]
501
][ // []
499
][)( )( ][ //
503
502
[{]
{)( ) ( )(
{ } ( )( )
505
][
504
{ } { )( )(][ )( )(][ )( )(
( )( ) / /
506
()//()//({ )( )( )( )( )

[{)( ][ )( ][ )()( )( ]
{ } (} { ) ( }{)//{ )(][
499
) It is not clear whether the initial mm is preceded by a tooth or not.

) It is not clear whether something is written here. There are traces at the
beginning that might belong to an alif.
501
) This word may be al, in which case the word al-furqn is probably written after abdihi.
502
) The missing part on this line is bigger than is needed for the phrase
wa-l-ari wa-lam. Perhaps the text has an additional phrase, such as wa-m
baynahum, after wa-l-ari.
503
) The phrase wa-lam yakun lahu sharkun f l-mulki appears to be missing.
504
) This physically missing part would have had room for about three words.
Perhaps here the text has yakhluqna shayan wa-l.
505
) It is not clear if mm is preceded by a letter or not.
506
) The distance between and lm is rather long, but it is not clear if a
letter is written between them.
500
109
Folio 19 A (Q 25.1425.27)
{
} ( )
} ( )(][ )
}( )(][ )( )( )/ /
}// )(
} )( ][
} ( )
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
][
10
} )( )(
11
} )( )(
12
}( )( )
} )(][ )( ][
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
507
)(
13
}(} {][ )( )( )() ( )
14
}} {)( )( )(][ )(
15
}( ][)( )( )
16
} } {][ )( )( ][ )(
17
} } { ][
18
} )( / /} { )(
19
}(} { }{)(} { ] [ ][ )
20
508
507
509
} {
})(
510
21
) The physically missing part of the previous line would have had room
for about four words, hardly enough for the standard text before arfan. Perhaps
the phrase bi-m taqlna is missing.
508
) One can see a pale, horizontal line touching alif. Perhaps the scribe first
wrote a final b here but then erased its tail and added an alif instead.
509
) Considering the visible words, the physically missing part may have contained l narj liqa llhi att, or l numinu laka att.
510
) There is no writing in this line before this point, perhaps since it would
have interfered with the previous line.
110
Folio 24 Verso (Q 30.3830.50)

(][ )/ /{][ )(
{][ )( )( )( ][)( ][
[] [ )( ] //( )//({)
({ ][ ][)
/ /({) (] [ )
)(/ /({][ )
/({)
( ) (][ ][)/ /[{ ][) ( ]
( )(][)/ /{)(][ )(
{)( )( ) (
10
{ }({ ][ )()( )
11
{ } ( )
({ )()
12
{ }({][ ][) ()
13
{ }//{}// )( ][ //[]/ /{
14
/ )(/ /{
15
()// ( )( )/ / )(/ /{
16
{)(][ )( ][][)(
17
/()//( ][ )//({)
18
/({ ) ( )
19
/[{ ][)( ]
20
//(] [ )/ /{
21
{ } ][}{][/ /( ][ ) //[{]
22
][ / / )( /
511
513
512
{ }// ( )/
514
(][ )/
[]/
)( /
][ / /
516
511
515
) The text seems to have yamaln instead of amil.

) The text might have fa-aqm awjuhakum or fa-aqm wajhakum
(Ubayy b. Kab reportedly had awjuhakum instead of wujhakum in Q 4.43 (alKhab, Mujam, 2:81)).
513
) The phrase an yatiya appears to be missing.
514
) The text may have f l-bar in addition to the standard reading.
515
) The text may have huwa instead of allhu.
516
) The text might have fa-yabsuuhu f l-sami kisafan.
512
111
23
{/ / ] [ )( ]// [ }{
24
{} /
25
{][)( )/ /( }
] /[ ][ )(}
][ ) ()( )( )/ / ( ][ )/ /( )( ][ ) ( //][ / /
/ /
{ ][/
{)(
517
][)//(// ] //[] //[} {
)Folio 3 Verso (Q 35.3935.40

{
{} / /
{ }/ /
{/
{ / / // }
{)(][//
518
{
{
{
][)( ][)(}
{/ /][ ]/ /[ }
{
{
)Folio Christies 2008 Verso (Q 63.111 62.111

519
][) ( ][ )( )( ][ ]//[ )( /
)( ][)( )(]// [ ][ )( ][ / /
)( / / ) ( )(][)( // // )( / /
// ) ( // ][ )( / / ][ / /
7
8
520
] [ // ) ( ) ( // ][/ /
)(]//[ // )( ] [
// )( ] // [ )( // ][//
)( ] //[/ /
/)( ]/ /[ ) (][ /
)( ]//[) ( /
) (
521
) /( ][) (
517
) This letter might belong to alayhim, in which case min qablihi would be
missing.
518
) The text may have anzaln alayhim instead of taynhum.
519
) The text may have shahid instead of ql nashhadu.
520
) The text seems to have thumma zdd kufran in addition to the standard reading.
521
) This word may be fa-dharhum.
112
9
10
11
12
13
14
] /[// )( ][
][)( / / / / // / / ][ ][/
][
][ ][ ][ // )( //)()( )( ] / /[ // // ) (
/ /
][ / / ][ )( ][][ )( ][ )( ][ ] / /[
)( ][
][ )( )( )( )/ / ( )/ /( 522)( ][ )( )(
] / /[ ]//[
) ( ][ ][)( )( ][ ][ )(][]//[ ][ ][ )(
][/ /
)(][ )( ][)()// ( )//( )( // / / )( ][
) (][
15
) ( // ][) //( ][ ][)( ][ ) / /( ][ / /][ )( / /
16
][ ][ ) (][ ) ( ] [ / / ][ ] / /[ / / ][ )(
)(
524
523
) (/ / ][)/ /( ] [ ] [] // [ ][][ )(
)( ][
525
]/ /[ ][)( / / )(][ )(// ][ ]//[// // ][ ][
)(][) ( / /
)(/ /)( ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ][) (][
/ /
// ] [ ) (][)( ][ ) ( )( ] [ ) (// )
() //(
//] [ ][ )( ][ ]/ /[ )( ] [ ][) //(
////)(
)//( // ][ )(][ / / )//(][)(][ // )( ][ )( )(//
)(][)(
][ ) //( ][]/ /[ /
/ / / ) 526/ /(]//[ )//(]//[ )( ][)( /// /
)( )( )//(
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
522
. ) The illegible part preceding ww is rather large for the grapheme

Moreover, there are traces at its beginning that might belong to an alif. There
may be an aw in addition to the standard text.
523
) This word may be akhkhartan as in Q 4.77.
524
) This word may be wa-akna.
525
) This word may be yaja.
526
) The text might be wa-kharna minhum min badihim.
113
24
][ )(][)( )(] [ ] / /[)( ]//[ )( )() // ( )( ][

)( / /
]/ / [ // )(] / /[ ][ ][ ] [] / /[]/ / [ )(][ ][
)( )(][
26
)( / / ) ( ) / /(] [ ][ / / )(][ ) ( ] [ )(
25
27
)(][// // /
28
)(][ / / )( )(][ ) / / (]// [ / / )(
29
] //[) ( ][ //][ ][ ][][)//( ][ )(
30
/ / ) //( ][)( )// ()( ] [ ][ ) // (]/ /[

][)(
31
][][ )//( //][ // ][ / / ) ( ][ )(
32
)// (]//
33
][ ][ ][][ ][)( ][ )() // ( ][)( )(][ )( ][)( /

]/[
527
/ )( ) ( )( ][ )(//][ ]//[ ][
[) (][ ) (][] [ ] //[ )(
34
} { )( /
35
} { )( )( ][ )( / /) / /( ) //( /
)(][ )(} {
528
// ][)(
/ ) ( ] [ ) // ( )//( ] [
/)( ][
)Folio Christies 2008 Recto (Q 62.11 89.130 90.16

1
/ / / / ][ ][ )(][ /
/ /][ //][][ ][ ) ( ][][ )() / /( ][] / /[/
/ /][ )(][ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
)/( // ][ / / )(][
) /(/ /
][ ][ ) //( //][ ] / /[ )( )( ]//[ // ][
7
8
) /( ][ )(][ / / ) //() / /( )( )(/
) /( )( ] [ )//( ][ ][ // )(
)( )(][ 529/ / /
)/ /( ][ /
/][ //][/
]/[// / / / /
/) / /( ][ )//(] 530[ ) ( ] [
527
) This word may be bi-l-alti.

) This dl is unusually long and therefore resembles an initial kf.
529
. ) The letters after mm might be
530
) The verse seems to begin with aw tara (paralleling a-lam tara from
verse 6).
528
114
][)( ][ 531(][ ][ )//( )/ / ][ // ( )/ / )( )( //

)(//[]
/
10
[ )( ][)( ][ ][ ]// / / ( )/ / / /
11
[ )( ] // // / / / / ][)(][ )(][ // [ ] //
12
// // ( ) / / [ ]//][ ][ //// )(/
)( ][ / / )( //( )// / /( )/ /
533
532
()/ / ( ][)(][ )//
13
/ () //
14
( )( ) / / //[ ]/ / ][ //[ ) ( ]/ /[]//
15
( ][ )// // ( )( ] [ )/ / //(][ )
16
( )( )// ][//( )( )// ][ )( )(
17
[ )( )( )( )(]// / /[ ]/ / [ ][]
18
( ][) ( )/ / ( ][)
534
// ][ /
/ ][ // ( )
19
][ )( // ( )// )( )( ][ / /( )/ / [)(]
20
/ / / / []
21
[ )( )( ]// ( )(][ ][)//[ ]/

[ )( )( ]/ /(][ ][ )/ /
535
22
/ / ()( ][)
23
[]/ / )( ][ / / []// / /[]
24
// ()/ /( )/ /( ) //( ) // [ )(] // [ )( ]// )(// //
25
/ / ][ / / )( // ) ( / / [ ]//[ ]/
//( )// / / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
( )/ / )( / /
538
{} / / // ][ / / ][ /
531
537
536
/( )//[ ]/ /} {
26
) The traces match as well.

) The word following wa- may be a verb, the object of which could be the
pronoun hu referring to al-insn. The penultimate letter of this word may be an
initial , a medial ayn, or a tooth-shaped letter.
533
) This letter may be f instead.
534
) Perhaps no verse separator was written here, since there is not quite
enough room for the type of two-column separator used in this folio.
535
) This word may be al-mina, which is reported for Ubayy b. Kab here
(al-Khab, Mujam, 10:432).
536
) It is not clear whether this alif is preceded by fa-.
537
) The text after khtima may be al-fajri wa-laylin ashrin.
538
) The traces after match better than . The text may be read as lauqsimu or l uqsimu.
532
115
Folio 17 Recto ()539

{
}{][
}( )//{
}541//{
} //(][ )//{
} 540()/ / {
{
} / / {
{
{
Folio 17 Verso ()
{
{
542
}
{
//({ )
543
}{ )(
{
} {
Appendix 1: On the Lower Text

The following table identifies readings ascribed to the Companions
and other authorities that match a non-standard reading in the lower
text. The following abbreviations are used: MQ = al-Khab, Mujam
al-Qirt; KM = Ibn Ab Dwd, Kitb al-Maif (Beirut: Dr
al-Bashir al-Islmiyya, 2002); IM-A = the reading of Ibn Masd
according to the report of al-Amash quoted in KM, 1:30238.
In the cases of Q 2.96, 9.90, 19.24, and 90.1, the corresponding footnotes in the edited text explain how the lower text differs from the standard one. The variants in Q 2.217, 2.222, and 5.45 have been mentioned
already in Fedeli,Early Evidences, 293316.
539
) Due to the meager amount of text, we have not yet identified the pas-
sage.
540
541
) The letter before alif may be or a tooth-shaped one.

) Either ayn and dl are connected or a tooth-shaped letter is between
them.
542
) This word may be bi-suln or a conjugation of istaa.

) It is not clear whether and are connected or not.This word may be
abiat, aat, aatu, or khib, among other things.
543
Sra.verse,
Folio:line
116
2.96,
2A:28
Lower Text
Standard
Text
[ )( )(]al
/( )( ] [)aytin
( ][ )/
//
2.96,
2B:1
[ ]/ / bimuzaziihi
2.98,
2B:6
( )Mkla
2.105,
2B:26
wa-l
)( l-mushrikna
Readings Similar to the Lower Text
Ubayy b. Kab: al l-ayti (MQ, 1:156).
Ibn Masd: bi-munziihi (MQ, 1:156).
Ibn Muayin: Mikayl (MQ, 1:160).This word has

been read in many ways, but Ibn Muayins reading is the only one compatible with the rasm in C-1.
Al-Amash: wa-l l-mushrikna (MQ, 1:169).
2.217,
David
r:25
][ )( qitlin fhi Ibn Masd, Ibn Abbs, Ikrima, al-Amash, alRab: an qitlin fhi (MQ, 1:298). IM-A: an qitlin
(][)
fhi (KM, 1:307).
2.222,
David
v:19
/ { } (][)
)( /
)(
)//()
(
[][)(]
2.222,
David
v:20
[ ][)(]yahurna
fa-tazil l- Ibn Masd and Anas: wa-l taqrab l-nisa f

nisa f l- maihinna wa-tazilhunna att yataahharna
mai
(MQ, 1:3089).
wa-l
taqrabhunna
att
yahurna
5.45,
[]/ / ( )waBonh. )( )( katabn
r:13
alayhim
5.48,
Bonh.
v:4
[ ] shiratan
The reading yataahharna is reported for Ibn

Masd,Anas, and Ubayy b. Kab, while yaahharna
is reported for amza, al-Kis, im (via Ab
Bakr and al-Mufaal), al-Amash, al-Jadar, Ibn
Muayin, and Khalaf (MQ, 1:308).
Ubayy b. Kab: wa-anzala llhu al Ban Isrla
(MQ, 2:278).
An early Baran who apparently hat sharatan in
his own copy of the Qurn accused al-ajjj of
having changedthe Qurn and written the
synonym shiratan instead. On a discussion of the
report about al-ajjj, see Sadeghi and Bergmann, Codex,365, footnote 36; cf. MQ, 2:286.
Sra.verse,
Folio:line
Lower Text
Standard
Text
][aizzatin
5.54,
Bonh.
v:26
117
Ibn Masd: ghulaa; al-Mward: ghuluin (MQ,

2:294)
8.2,
4B:12
[ )( ]wajilat
Ibn Masd: fariqat; Ubayy b. Kab: faziat (MQ,

3:258).
9.90,
20B:22
Ibn Masd and Sad b. Jubayr: al-mutadhirna

(MQ, 3:436).
/[ ) (]al ][ muadhdhirna
9.126,
22A:13
( )/ / [ ]a-wa-l
yarawna
19.19,
22B:15
li-ahaba
().
Al-Amash: a-wa-lam taraw/yaraw; Ibn Masd: awa-lam tara (MQ, 3:482). IM-A: a-wa-lam
tar/tara (KM, 1:318).
Ab Amr: li-nahaba; Ibn Masd, Ubayy b. Kab,
and several other readers had li-yahaba (MQ,
5:3489).
()// huwa
)(alayya
hayyinun
The reading wa-huwa alayya hayyinun is reported for al-asan al-Bar for Q 19.9 (MQ,
5:344).
19.23, //( )fa-ajah

22B:19
Ubayy b. Kab: fa-lamm ajah/jah (MQ,

5:350).
19.21,
22B:17
19.24, )(][ fa-ndh Ibn Abbs: fa-ndh malakun min tatih (MQ,
22B:20 / / min tatih 5:353).
19.26,
22B:24
( )(][ )awman
(] [)
19.34,
23A:6
)( alladh fhi Ubayy b. Kab: alladh kna l-nsu fhi yamta{

} yamtarna rna (MQ, 5:366).

Anas b. Mlik: awman wa-umtan and awman

umtan; Ubayy b. Kab: awman umtan;Anas,
Ubayy, Ibn Masd, and Ab Razn al-Uqayl:
umtan (MQ, 5:359).
19.59,
23B:9
][ al-alta
Ibn Masd, al-asan,Ab Razn al-Uqayl, alak, and Ibn Miqsam: al-alawt (MQ, 5:376).
19.63,
23B:15
][ tilka l jannatu
llat nrithu
al-Amash: nrithuh instead of nrithu (MQ,

5:378).
19.67,
23B:21
)( yadhkuru
Ubayy b. Kab and Ab l-Mutawakkil: yatadhakkaru; Ibn Kathr,Ab Amr, amza, al-Kis,
Khalaf,Ab Jafar, and Yaqb: yadhdhakkaru
(MQ, 5:382).
Sra.verse,
Folio:line
118
Lower Text
Standard
Text
22.23,
7A:19
[]// waluluan
Ibn Kathr,Ab Amr, Ibn mir, amza, alKis, ala, Ibn Waththb, al-Amash, Warsh, alasan: wa-luluin (MQ, 6:97).
22.35,
7B:18
)(wa-l( )muqm l ][ alti
Ibn Masd, al-Amash, and Ibn Muayin (via

al-Bazz): wa-l-muqmna l-alta; wa-l-muqmna
l-alti is also reported by al-Ukbar (MQ, 6:113).
22.36,
7B:20
)(awffa
()
22.39,
7B:28
/ /()/ / yuqta )( ][lna

/ /(][)
[)(]
18.16,
32B:2
} {][ ill llha

[)(]
Ibn Masd: min dni llhi, min dnin (MQ,

5:161).
16.37,
13A:
24
/[ ][ ] in tari
/
Al-Nakha: wa-in tara (MQ, 4:627).
Ibn Masd, Ibn Abbs, Ibn Umar, Ibrhm,

Qatda, Mujhid, A, al-ak, al-Kalb, alAmash, and Ab Jafar: awfina (MQ, 6:116).
Ab Amr, Ibn Kathr, im (via Ab Bakr),
amza, al-Kis, Khalaf, and Yaqb: yuqtilna
(MQ, 6:121).
16.38,
13B:2
( ][ )wadan
16.44,
13B:
10
][ )( wa-l( )zuburi
The reading bi-l-zuburi instead of wa-l-zuburi is

reported in Q 3.184 for the codices of the Shm
and the following readers: Ibn Abbs, Ibn mir,
Ibn Dhakwn, Hishm, and al-ulwni (MQ,
1:638).
33.51,
9A:4
)( bi-m
)(taytahunna
Ibn Masd: bi-m tna (MQ, 7:304). IM-A: bi-m

tna (KM, 1:330).
33.53,
9A:13
yastay
()
Al-ak: wadun (MQ, 4:630).
The majority have read yastay, which is compatible with the lower texts spelling, and is considered a ijz pronunciation (lugha), whereas
Ibn Kathr, Ibn Muayin,Yaqb and Mujhid
have read yasta, which is considered a Tamm
way of reading this word (MQ, 1:67; 7:310).
Sra.verse,
Folio:line
Lower Text
Standard
Text
33.67,
9B:18
/ /[ )(]/ / al-sabl
20.31,
15A:4
/ (] [)
][)( /
][)(
/ /[)( ]
][
()
20.40,
15A:10
20.63,
15B:3
20.63,
15B:3
Ibn Masd reportedly had here, in

verse 10 and in verse 66 (MQ, 7:257).The
following Kfan and Baran readers also reportedly did not pronounce the final alif either in
waqf or wal for verses 10, 66, and 67: amza,
Ab Amr, al-Jadar,Yaqb, and al-Amash
(MQ, 7:256). IM-A: al-rasla (KM, 1:330).
ushdud
Ubayy b. Kab: ashrikhu f amr wa-shdud bihi
bihi azr
azr (MQ, 5:430).
wa-ashrikhu f
amr
// ( ) fa( ][)rajanka
Ubayy b. Kab: fa-radadnka (MQ, 5:434).
)( in hdhni Ubayy b. Kab: m hdhni/hdh ill sirni, in

( ) la-sirni dhni/hdhni ill sirni, in dhni la-sirni;
Ibn Masd: in dhni/hdhni ill sirni, an
hdhni ill sirni, inna dhayni/dhni lasirni (MQ, 5:4523).
()( )
][) (
][)
[(]
wayadhhab
bi-arqatikumu
l-muthl
20.128, /( )( )a-fa-lam
30B:8
/ yahdi
24.27,
11A:8
119
][ att
][ tastanis
)( wa-tusallim al
ahlih
Ibn Masd, Ubayy b. Kab,Abdallh b. Amr,Ab

Raj al-Urid: wa-yadhhab bi-l-arqati
(MQ, 5:453).
Ibn Masd: a-wa-lam yahdi (MQ, 5:512).

Ibn Abbs and Ibn Masd: att tusallim/yusallim al ahlih wa-tastadhin/wa-yastadhin;
Ibn Abbs and Ubayy b. Kab: att tusallim
aw tastanis; Ubayy b. Kab: att yusallim
wa-yastadhin, att tastadhin lakum. In addition to Ibn Abbs, Ibn Masd, and Ubayy b.
Kab, the readers al-Amash and Sad b. Jubayr
also reportedly had tastadhin instead of
tastanis. Ibn Abbs reportedly said that
tastanis was the result of a scribal error
(MQ, 6:2524).
Sra.verse,
Folio:line
120
24.31,
11A:25
24.31,
11A:26
Lower Text
Standard
Text
( ][)m yukh fna min

)(znatihinna
ayyuha
Ibn Masd: m surra min znatihinna

(MQ, 6:259).
Ab Amr, al-Kis, and Yaqb: ayyuh

(MQ, 6:260).
34.14,
33A:5
/{
}
][ ][/
[ )( ]
//[ )(]
()
//[)(]
)(
fa-lamm
kharra
tabayyanati
l-jinnu
34.24,
33B:3
[ ) ( ]//
][)// ()
} [( ]
( )//{
wa-inn
Ubayy b. Kab: wa-inn aw/wa iyykum la-imm
aw iyyal hudan; wa-inn aw iyykum imm al hudan
kum laal (MQ, 7:3701).
hudan
Ibn Masd reportedly had wa-hum yadabna

lahu awlan in addition to the standard text.Alabar gives the following reading for Ibn Masd:
fa-makath yadabna lahu min badi mawtihi
awlan kmilan (Jmi al-bayn, 19:242).The
following reading featuring awlan is also reported for Ibn Masd, Ibn Abbs, and Ibn Shannabdh: tabayyanati l-insu anna l-jinna law kn
yalamna l-ghayba m labith awlan
(MQ, 7:350).
13.11,
35A:8
[]/ /[ )(]muaqqi}/ / btun min

{ ) (bayni
yadayhi
wa-min
khalfihi
Ibn Abbs,Ab Abdallh: muaqqibtun min

khalfihi wa-raqbun min bayni yadayhi; Ibn
Abbs and Ubayy b. Kab: muaqqibtun min
bayni yadayhi wa-raqbun min khalfihi. Ibn
Abbs: muaqqibtun min bayni yadayhi
wa-ruqabu min khalfihi (MQ, 4:394).
37.25,
28A:9
/ / ( )tanarna
Ibn Masd and Khlid: tatanarna

(MQ, 8:20).
37.56,
28B:8
15.54,
18B:15
)( la-turdni
// a-bashshartumn
Ibn Masd: la-tughwni (MQ, 8:31).

Al-Amash and al-Araj: bashshartumn
(MQ, 4:562).
Sra.verse,
Folio:line
15.66,
18B:
24
15.72,
18B:
28
25.19,
19A:8
25.25,
19A:
19
Lower Text
Standard
Text
)( ][
][

][
wa-qaayn ilayhi
dhlika
l-amra
anna
dbira
huli
maqun
121
Ibn Masd: wa-qaayn ilayhi dhlika l-amra

wa-quln lahu inna dbira huli maqun
(MQ, 4:573).
[ )(]sakratihim Al-Amash: sukrihim (MQ, 4:577).

()
Ibn Masd: fa-m yastana laka/lakum; Ubayy
} { fa-m
tastana b. Kab: fa-m/fa-l yastana laka; al-Amash:
arfan
fa-m yastana lakum (MQ, 6:334).
nuzzila
l-malikatu
Ubayy b. Kab: nazalati/nuzzilati/tanazzalati/

tunazzalu/tatanazzalu l-malikatu; Ibn Masd:
nazalati l-malikatu;Ab Amr: tanazzalu/
tunazzilu l-malikatu (MQ, 6:3424).
30.43,
24B:
12
{
} fa-aqim
( )()wajhaka
30.49,
24B:25
( } {)alayhim
//)(//[ ]min
qablihi
la-mublisna
Ibn Masd: alayhim la-mublisna

(MQ, 7:170).
63.7,
Chris.
v:11
( )att
][][ yanfa
)( ][
The phrase att yanfa min awlihi appears

in a report about the shan al-nuzl of this verse,
and is ascribed to Ibn Masd and Zayd b. Arqam.
Ibn ajar questions the ascription to Ibn
Masds codex (MQ, 9:4745).
63.10,
Chris.
v:17
] [ fa-aaddaqa
63.10,
Chris.
v:17
[ ]//[ ] wa-akun
Ubayy b. Kab reportedly had awjuhakum instead

of wujhakum in Q 4.43 (MQ, 2:81).
Ibn Masd, Ubayy b. Kab, and Sad b. Jubayr:

fa-ataaddaqu (MQ, 9:478).
The reading wa-akna is reported for Ibn Masd,
Ubayy b. Kab, and all the readers except for Ibn
Kathr, Nfi, Ibn mir, im, amza, and alKis. Ubayd b. Umayr: wa-aknu (MQ, 9:47980).
Sra.verse,
Folio:line
122
Lower Text
Standard
Text
89.27,
Chris.
v:20
][ )(y ayyatuh
89.27,
Chris.
v:20
/ / [ ]al-nafsu
/ / / l-muma[]/ innatu
89.28,
Chris.
r:21
irji il
rabbiki
90.1,
Chris.
r:24
[]/ / l uqsimu
Zayd b. Al: y ayyuh (MQ, 10:431).
Ubayy b. Kab: al-nafsu l-minatu l-mumainnatu, al-minatu l-mumainnatu (MQ, 10:432).

Ubayy b. Kab: t rabbaki (MQ, 10:433).
Ibn Kathr, al-asan, al-Amash, Ikrima, Mujhid,Ab Imrn,Ab l-liya: la-uqsimu (MQ,
10:437).
Appendix 2: On the Upper Text

At a number of points, the upper text differs with every codex described
in the literary sources in adding or omitting a verse division. Its unique
additions are as follows: Q 2.267 (tunfiqna), 2.285 (wa-l-muminna), 6.157
(yadifna), 32.22 (al-mujrimna), 33.35 (wa-l-birna). The last two endings might be scribal errors. Its unique omissions are as follows: Q 33.4,
55.44, 55.46, 55.47, 55.48, 56.41, 56.43.The four omissions in sra 55 all occur
in folio 33A, lines 178. These two lines are much more compact than usual
and contain no visible verse endings. It seems the scribe initially forgot to
write part of the text, and thus later deleted these two lines and rewrote the
text compactly so as to make it fit. The verse endings may have been omitted to save space.
The following table gives the disputed verse divisions in the upper
text based on the works by al-Dn and Spitaler (for which see the
Bibliography). When there are different reports about a city, Spitaler
labels them (a), (b), (c), etc. We imitate him. We use the following abbreviations:Y = there is a verse division; N = there is no verse division; M =
Medina; C = Mecca; K = Kfa; B = Bara; D = Damascus; = im.
123
Disputed Verse Division
Up.Text

Cities like the Upper Text
Cities unlike the

Upper Text
2.282 (wa-l shahdun) N M, K, B, C (a), D,
C (b)
4.44 (al-sabla)
N B, C, M
K, D,
5.1 (al-uqdi)
Y B, C, M1, M2, D,
6.66 (bi-waklin)
N B, C, M1, M2, D,
6.73 (fa-yaknu)
Y B, C, M1, M2, D,
6.161 (mustaqmin)
Y B, C, M1, M2, D,
7.1 (ALM)
N B, C, M1, M2, D,
14.33 (wa-l-nahra)
Y K, C, M1, M2, D,
19.41 (Ibrhma)
Y C, M2
K, B, M1, D,
19.75 (maddan)
Y B, C, M1, M2, D,
20.1 (H)
N B, C, M1, M2, D,
20.33 (kathran)
Y K, C, M1, M2, D,
20.34 (kathran)
Y K, C, M1, M2, D,
20.39 (f l-yammi)
N K, B, C, M1, M2, D
20.39 (minn)
Y C, M1, M2, D,
K, B
20.40 (tazana)
N K, B, C, M1, M2, (a)
D, (c)
20.40 (futnan)
N K, C, M1, M2
B, D,
20.40 (madyana)
N K, B, C, M1, M2, (a)
D, (c)
20.41 (li-nafs)
N B, C, M1, M2
K, D,
20.77 (Ms)
N K, B, C, M1, M2, (a, c)
D, (e)
20.78 (m ghashiyahum)
N B, C, M1, M2, D,
20.86 (asifan)
Y C, M1,
K, B, M2, D
20.86 (asanan)
N K, B, C, M1, D (a, b, c),

(a, c)
M2, D (d), (e)
20.87 (al-Smiriyyu)
Y K, B, C, M1, D (a, b), (a, c)
M2, D (c, d), (b, d, e)
20.88 (Ms)
N K, B, M2, D,
C, M1
20.88 (fa-nasiya)
Y K, B, M2, D,
C, M1
20.89 (qawlan)
N K, B, C, M1, D (a, d), (a, c,

e)
M2, D (b, c), (b, d)
20.92 (all)
N B, C, M1, M2, D,
20.95 (Smiriyyu)
Y K, B, C, M1, M2, D (a, c, d), D (b) and (b)

(a, c, e)
20.106 (afafan)
N C, M1, M2
K, B, D,
20.123 (hudan)
Y B, C, M1, M2, D, (b)
K, (a, c, e)
Disputed Verse Division
Up.Text
124
Cities like the Upper Text
Cities unlike the

Upper Text
20.124 (ankan)
N K, B, C, M1, M2, D, (e)
(a, b, c)
21.66 (yaurrukum)
N B, C, M1, M2, D,
29.29 (al-sabla)
Y C, M1, M2,
K, B, D
35.7 (shaddun)
N K, C, M1, M2
B, D,
55.35 (nrin)
N K, B, D,
C, M1, M2
55.43 (al-mujrimna)
N B
K, C, M1, M2, D,
56.8 (fa-abu
l-maymanati)
Y B, C, M1, M2, D,
56.15 (mawnatin)
Y K, C, M1, M2, (a)
B, D, (b)
56.18 (wa-abrqa)
Y C, M2
K, B, M1, D,
56.22 (nun)
N B, C, M2, D,
K, M1
56.25 (tathman)
N C, M1
K, B, M2, D,
56.27 (wa-abu
l-yamni)
Y B, C, M1, D,
K, M2
56.35 (inshan)
Y K, C, M1, M2, D,
56.47 (yaqlna)
N K, B, M1, M2, D
C,
56.48 (al-awwalna)
Y K, B, C, M1, M2, D
56.49 (wa-l-khirna)
N M2, D,
K, B, C, M1
56.50 (la-majmna)
N K, B, C, M1
M2, D,
The upper text has a number of unique skeletal-morphemic features.

It has instead of ( Q 16.116), instead of ( Q
20.86), and instead of ( Q 33.14). There are also a number of
unique morphemic (pointing) features, such as nadhraukum in Q 42.11.
There are also skeletal-morphemic features that match some cities but
not others.These are given in the following table:
Disputed
Point
Upper Text
6.63
anjaytan ()
7.3
tadhakkarna
()
wa-nuzzila ()
25.25
43.68
47.18
55.78
, but the final

y looks like a later
addition
an tatiyahum (
)
dh l-jalli ()
Cities like Upper

Text
All the other
cities
All the other
cities
All the other
cities
Medina, Shm
Mecca, and
maybe Kfa
All the other
cities
125
Cities unlike Upper Text
Kfa: anjn ()
Shm: yatadhakkarna
()
Mecca: wa-nunazzilu ()
Kfa, Bara, and maybe
Mecca: y ibdi ()
All the other cities: in
tatihim ()
Shm: dh l-jalli ()
Bibliography
Abd al-Azz Abd al-Fatt al-Qri. adth al-aruf al-saba: dirsa
li-isndih wa-matnih wa-ikhtilf al-ulam f manh wa-ilatih bi-l-qirt
al-Qurniyya. Beirut: Muassasat al-Risla li-l-iba wa-l-Nashr wa-l-Tawz,
1423/2002.
Ab Dwd, Sulaymn b. al-Ashath al-Sijistn. Sunan Ab Dwd. 2 vols.
Edited by Sad Muammad al-Lam. Beirut: Dr al-Fikr, 1410/1990.
Anonymous,The Quran: Text, Interpretation and Translation 3rd Biannual
SOAS Conference, October 1617, 2003, Journal of Quranic Studies 6.1
(2003): 1435.
Atiya, Aziz S. The Monastery of St. Catherine and the Mount Sinai Expedition. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 96.5 (1952): 57886.
Atiya, Aziz S. Arabic Manuscripts of Mount Sinai: A Hand-list of the Arabic
Manuscripts and Scrolls Microfilmed at the Library of the Monastery of
St. Catherine, Mount Sinai. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1955.
nd
A am, Muammad Muaf al-, The History of the Qurnic Text, 2 ed.
Riyadh: Azami Publishing House, 2008.
Bothmer, Hans-Caspar Graf von. Die Anfnge der Koranschreibung: Kodikologische und kunsthistorische Beobachtungen an den Koranfragmenten in
Sanaa, Magazin Forschung (Universitt des Saarlandes), 1 (1999): 406.
Brettar, Claudia.UdS: Neues Zentrum fr Koranforschung? Teil 1. Campus
29.3 (July 1999), http://www.uni-saarland.de/verwalt/presse/campus/1999/
3/20-UdS_neues_zentrum.html.
Burton, John. The Collection of the Qurn. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1977.
126
Cook, Michael. The Stemma of the Regional Codices of the Koran. GraecoArabica 910 (2004): 89104.
Cook, Michael.A Koranic Codex Inherited by Mlik from his Grandfather. In
Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress on Graeco-Oriental and African Studies, Graeco-Arabica. Edited by Vassilios Christides and Theodore
Papadopoullos, VIIVIII, Nicosia, 78 (19992000): 93105.
Crone, Patricia and Michael Cook. Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Crone, Patricia. Two Legal Problems Bearing on the Early History of the
Qurn. Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 18 (1994): 137.
Crone, Patricia. What do we Actually Know about Mohmammed? openDemocracy (http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed
_3866.jsp).
Dn, Ab Amr Uthmn b. Sad al-. Al-Bayn f add y al-Qurn. Kuwait: Dr
al-Nashr, 1414/1994.
Declercq, Georges. Introduction: Codices Rescripti in the Early Medieval
West in Early Medieval Palimpsests. In Early Medieval Palimpsests. Edited
by Georges Declercq, 722.Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols Publishers, 2007.
Dreibholz, Ursula.Preserving a Treasure: The Sanaa Manuscripts. Museum
International (UNESCO, Paris), No. 203 (Vol. 51, No. 3, 1999): 215.
Dreibholz, Ursula. Treatment of Early Islamic Manuscript Fragments on
Parchment. In The Conservation and Preservation of Islamic Manuscripts,
Proceedings of the Third Conference of al-Furqn Islamic Heritage Foundation. Edited by Yusuf Ibish and George Atiyeh, 13145. London: al-Furqn
Islamic Heritage Foundation, 1417/1996.
Fedeli, Alba.Early Evidences of Variant Readings in Qurnic Manuscripts.
In Die dunklen Anfnge: Neue Forschungen zur Entstehung und frhen Geschichte des Islam, edited by Karl-Heinz Ohlig and Gerd-Rdiger Puin, 293
316. Berlin: Verlag Hans Schiler, 2007.
Fedeli, Alba. Mingana and the Manuscript of Mrs. Agnes Smith Lewis, One
Century Later. Manuscripta Orientalia 11.3 (2005): 37.
Fedeli, Alba. I Manoscritti di Sanaa: Fogli Sparsi che Diventano Corani.
Quaderni di Acme 101 (2008): 2548.
Fedeli, Alba. A.Perg.2: A Non Palimpsest and the Corrections in Qurnic
Manuscripts. Manuscripta Orientalia 11.1 (2005): 207.
Fedeli, Alba.The Digitization Project of the Qurnic Palimpsest, MS Cambridge University Library Or. 1287, and the Verification of the MinganaLewis Edition: Where is Salm? Journal of Islamic Manuscripts 2.1 (2011):
100117.
kim al-Naysbr, Muammad b.Abd Allh b. amdya al-. Al-Mustadrak. 4 vols.
Edited by YsufAbd al-Ramn al-Marashl, Beirut: Dr al-Marifa (n.d.).
Higg ins, Andrew.The Lost Archive. The Wall Street Journal, January 12, 2008.
Ibn Ab Dwd. Kitb al-Maif. 5 vols. 2nd ed. Edited by Muibb al-Dn Wi.
Beirut: Dr al-Bashir al-Islmiyya, 1423/2002.
Ibn Ab Shayba, Ab Bakr Abd Allh b. Muammad b. Ibrhm b. Uthmn.
127
Muannaf Ibn Ab Shayba f al-adth wa-l-thr. Edited by Sad al-Lam.

8 vols. Beirut: Dr al-Fikr, 1409/1989.
Ibn Askir, Ab l-Qasim Al b. al-asan b. Hibat Allh. Tarkh madnat Dimashq.
70 vols. Edited by Al Shr. Beirut: Dr al-Fikr, 1415/1995.
Ibn al-Jazar, Ab al-Khayr Muammad b. Muammad al-Dimashq. Al-nashr f
al-qirt al-ashr. 2 vols. Edited by Al Muammad al-abb. Beirut: Dr
al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya. (n.d.).
Ibn al-Nadm, Ab l-Faraj Muammad b. Ab Yaqb Isq, Kitb al-Fihrist.
Edited by Ri Tajaddud (n.p. and n.d.).
Ibn Sad, Ab Abd Allh Muammad. Al-abaqt al-kubr. 8 vols. Beirut: Dr
dir, 1968.
Khab,Abd al-Laf Muammad al-. Mujam al-qirt. 11 vols. Damascus: Dr
Sad al-Dn, 1422/2002.
Krekel, Christoph.The Chemistry of Historical Iron Gall Inks. International
Journal of Forensic Document Examiners 5 (1999): 548.
Kristof, Nicholas.Martyrs, Virgins, and Grapes. The New York Times, August
4, 2004.
Kristof, Nicholas.Islam, Virgins, and Grapes. The New York Times, April 22,
2009.
nd
Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2 ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.
Kulayn, Muammad b. Yaqb al-. al-Kf, 4th ed. 8 vols. Tehran: Dr al-Kutub
al-Islmiyya, HS 1365.
Lester,Toby.What is the Koran? The Atlantic Monthly, January 1999, 4356.
Masd, Ab al-asan Al b. al-usayn b. Al al-. Murj al-dhahab wa-madin
al-jawhar. Second printing, edited by Ysuf Asad Dghir. Qum: Dr al-Hijra,
1409.
Mingana, Alphonse and Agnes S. Lewis. Leaves from Three Ancient Qurns,
Possibly Pre-Othmnic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914.
Modarressi, Hossein.Early Debates on the Integrity of the Qurn: A Brief
Survey. Studia Islamica 77 (1993): 539.
Motzki, Harald. The Collection of the Qurn: A Reconsideration of Western
Views in Light of Recent Methodological Developments. Der Islam 78
(2001): 134.
Muaysin, Muammad Slim. Al-Fat al-rabbn f alqat al-qirt bi-l-rasm alUthmn. Saudi Arabia: Jmiat al-Imm Muammad b. Sad al-Islmiyya,
1415/1994.
Muqtil b. Sulaymn. Tafsr. 3 vols. Edited by Amad Fard. Beirut: Dr alKutub al-Ilmiyya, 1424/2003.
Nas, Amad b.Al b. Shuayb al-. Al-Sunan al-kubr. 6 vols. Edited by Abd alGhaffr Sulaymn al-Bandr. Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, 1411/1991.
Noseda, Sergio.La Mia Visita a Sanaa e il Corano Palinsesto. Istituto Lombardo (Rendiconti Lett.) 137 (2003): 4360.
Popkin, Richard. Scepticism, Theology and the Scientific Revolution in the
Seventeenth Century. In Problems in the Philosophy of Science: Proceedings
128
of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965,

volume 3, edited by Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, 128. Amsterdam:
North-Holland Publishing, 1968.
Powers, David. Muammad is not the Father of any of Your Men: The Making of
the Last Prophet. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009.
Prmare, Alfred-Louis de.Abd al-Malik b. Marwn et le Processus de Constitution du Coran. In Die dunklen Anfnge: Neue Forschungen zur Entstehung
und frhen Geschichte des Islam, edited by Karl-Heinz Ohlig and GerdRdiger Puin, 179210. Berlin: Hans Schiler, 2007.
Prmare, Alfred-Louis de. Les fondations de lislam: Entre criture et histoire.
Paris: Le Seuil, 2002.
Puin, Elisabeth. Ein frher Koranpalimpsest aus an (DAM 0127.1). In
Schlaglichter: Die beiden ersten islamischen Jahrhunderte, edited by Markus
Gro and Karl-Heinz Ohlig, 46193. Berlin: Hans Schiler, 2008.
Puin, Elisabeth.Ein frher Koranpalimpsest aus an (DAM 0127.1) Teil
II. In Vom Koran zum Islam, edited by Markus Gro and Karl-Heinz Ohlig,
52381. Berlin: Hans Schiler, 2009.
Puin, Elisabeth.Ein frher Koranpalimpsest aus an (DAM 0127.1) Teil
III: Ein nicht-umnischer Koran. In Die Entstehung einer Weltreligion I:
Von der koranischen Bewegung zum Frhislam, edited by Markus Gro and
Karl-Heinz Ohlig, 233305. Berlin: Hans Schiler, 2010.
Puin, Gerd-Rdiger.Observations on Early Qurn Manuscripts in an. In
The Qurn as Text, edited by Stefan Wild, 107111. Leiden and New York:
E.J. Brill, 1996.
Puin, Gerd-Rdiger. ber die Bedeutung der ltesten Koranfragmente aus
Sanaa (Jemen) fr die Orthographiegeschichte des Korans. Magazin Forschung, Universitt des Saarlandes 1 (1999): 3740, 46.
Puin, Gerd-Rdiger.Die Utopie einer kritischen Koranedition. In Schlaglichter: Die beiden ersten islamischen Jahrhunderte, edited by Markus Gro and
Karl-Heinz Ohlig, 51671. Berlin: Hans Schiler, 2008.
Rmyr, Mamd. Trkh-i Qurn, 2nd ed.Tehran: Amr Kabr, HS 1362/1983.
Sadeg hi, Behnam.The Traveling Tradition Test: A Method for Dating Traditions. Der Islam 85.1 (2008): 20342.
Sadeg hi, Behnam, and Uwe B ergmann.The Codex of a Companion of the
Prophet and the Qurn of the Prophet. Arabica 57.4 (2010): 343436.
Sadeg hi, Behnam.The Chronology of the Qurn: A Stylometric Research
Program. Arabica 58.4 (2011): 21099.
Sadeg hi, Behnam.Criteria for Emending the Text of the Qurn. In Law and
Tradition in Classical Islamic Thought, edited by Michael Cook, et al. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming 2012.
Sinai, Nicolai. The Qurn as Process. In The Qurn in Context: Historical
and Literary Investigations into the Qurnic Milieu, edited by Angelika
Neuwirth, Nicolai Sinai, and Michael Marx, 40740. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Spitaler, Anton. Die Verszhlung des Koran nach islamischer berlieferung.
Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1935.
129
Stefanidis, Emmanuelle.The Quran Made Linear: A Study of the Geschichte

des Qorns Chronological Reordering, Journal of Quranic Studies 10.2
(2008): 122.
Suy, Jall al-Dn Abd al-Ramn b. Ab Bakr al-. Al-Durr al-manthr f altafsr bi-l-mathr. 6 vols. Beirut: Dr al-Marifa li-l-iba wa-l-Nashr, 1979.
Suy, Jall al-Dn Abd al-Ramn b. Ab Bakr al-. Al-Itqn f ulm al-Qurn.
2 vols. Beirut: Dr al-Fikr, 1416/1996.
abar, Ab Jafar Muammad b. Jarr al-. Jmi al-bayn an tawl y
al-Qurn. 30 vols. Edited by idq Jaml al-Ar. Beirut: Dr al-Fikr
li-l-iba wa-l-Nashr wa-l-Tawz, 1415/1995.
Talbi, M.La qira bi-l-aln. Arabica 5 (1958): 18390.
Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2nd rev. ed. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2001.
Wansbroug h, John. Qurnic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2004.

Sanaa 1 and The Origins of The Qur'An

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Sanaa 1 and The Origins of The Qur'An

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Sanaa 1 and The Origins of The Qur'An

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

an 1 and the Origins of the Qurn

) We are grateful to Christian Robin, the Noja Noseda Foundation, and

Behnam Sadeghi and Mohsen Goudarzi

an 1 and the Origins of the Qurn

It is convenient to call the adherents of this account traditionalists.

Behnam Sadeghi and Mohsen Goudarzi

bearing on Islamic origins. But they do not subscribe to the theories of

an 1 and the Origins of the Qurn

) The irrational factors have been famously emphasized in Thomas Kuhn,

Behnam Sadeghi and Mohsen Goudarzi

In an 1, as with some other palimpsests, over time the residue of

an 1 and the Origins of the Qurn

Behnam Sadeghi and Mohsen Goudarzi

) See Appendix 2. This conclusion was reached previously based on an

an 1 and the Origins of the Qurn

Prophet Muammads death in AD 632, since it contains the ninth sra,

) On the problems of the relative chronology and composition of the

Behnam Sadeghi and Mohsen Goudarzi

) Puin wrote that there are about 90 ijz manuscripts (Gerd-Rdiger

an 1 and the Origins of the Qurn

2008, four folios from the palimpsest were auctioned in London. It is

Behnam Sadeghi and Mohsen Goudarzi

an article in Italian that mentions the 01-27.1 folios.24 An extended

) Fedeli,Early Evidences. For the contribution in Italian, see the Bibliography.

an 1 and the Origins of the Qurn

Behnam Sadeghi and Mohsen Goudarzi

Elisabeth Puin worked with inferior,small and 6 6 photographs in

an 1 and the Origins of the Qurn

Textual-Critical and Historical Implications

Behnam Sadeghi and Mohsen Goudarzi

) Not everybody who has written on the anmanuscripts thinks in

an 1 and the Origins of the Qurn

Behnam Sadeghi and Mohsen Goudarzi

important ramifications: the splitting off of the Uthmnic and other

) Sadeg hi and B ergmann,The Codex, 396, footnote 103.

an 1 and the Origins of the Qurn

of them in the literary sources. According to these accounts, some

) John Burton, The Collection of the Qurn (Cambridge: Cambridge

Behnam Sadeghi and Mohsen Goudarzi

) Sadeg hi and B ergmann,The Codex, 344, 360, 3904.

an 1 and the Origins of the Qurn

Table 1. Examples of Major Variants

The text of the standard

The text of the C-1

In Q 2.196, C-1 does not

Do not shave your

Do not shave until the

In Q 2.196, C-1 has

If any of you be sick

Should one of you be

In Q 2.196, C-1 has aw

In Q 2.201, C-1 has

There are people who

There are people who

In Q 63.7, C-1 has min

They are the ones who

They are the ones who

Behnam Sadeghi and Mohsen Goudarzi