Sadeghi-Goudarzi sana-Origins-of-the-Quran

Ṣan‘ā’ 1 and the Origins of the Qur’ān
B e h nam Sadeg h i and Moh s e n Gou darz i 1

Stanford University / Harvard University
Abstract
The lower text of Ṣan‘ā’ 1 is at present the most important document for the history
of the Qur’ān. As the only known extant copy from a textual tradition beside the
standard ‘Uthmānic 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 sūras (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 Qur’ān around AD 650. However, the analysis
shows that the sūras were formed earlier. Furthermore, the manuscript sheds light on
the manner in which the text was transmitted. The inception of at least some Qur’ānic
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 Méditerranée) for giving us their photographs and ultraviolet images of
the DAM 01–27.1 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, Burçak 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. 1–129 DOI 10.1515/islam-2011-0025

© Walter de Gruyter 2012
ISSN 0021-1818
conclusions by considering the broad features of the text. The essay also presents the
edited text of the folios in the Dār al-Makhṭūṭāt, Ṣan‘ā’, Yemen, in addition to four folios
that were auctioned abroad. A systematic analysis of all the variants is postponed to
future publications.
2 Behnam Sadeghi and Mohsen Goudarzi
Introduction
The Manuscript and the Field of Qur’ānic Studies
Scholarly approaches to the early history of the standard text of the Qur’ān
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 Muḥammad (d. AD 632) disseminated the
Qur’ān 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 ‘Uthmān (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 Qur’ān 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 ‘Uthmān. For example, in
most cases it is not known whether the ā 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.1
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
1 ) The Islamic scholarly tradition does not purport to have preserved the spelling of
every word in the codices sent out by ‘Uthmān. Rather, Muslim tradition preserves
the original ‘Uthmānic 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 ‘Uthmānic rasm
Ṣan‘ā’ 1 and the Origins of the Qur’ān 3
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 ‘Uthmān
attempted to fix the text, or they hold that there continued to be major changes
in the standard text after ‘Uthmān, or, in the case of Wansbrough, they think it
may be anachronistic to speak of the Qur’ān at the time of ‘Uthmān in the first
place, since the text coalesced long after. Notable revisionists include John
Wansbrough,
Crone Prémare Powers
Patricia , Alfred-Louis de , and David .3 The degree of textual
stability that according to the traditional account had been reached by ca. AD
650 was according to John Wansbrough 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 65–86/ AD 685–705 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 Qur’ān specialists have written about the different
readings (qirā’āt). (We are setting aside a caveat concerning cases in which nonetheless
the original ‘Uthmānic spelling or pointing is knowable.)
3
) For their contributions, see the Bibliography. P. Crone’s 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 ‘Uthmān, 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, Muḥammad Muḥaysin,
and Ha- rald Motzki, the first one being a defector from the revisionist camp. 2
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.3
We do not believe that this climate of disagreement reflects sheer
underdetermination of theory by evidence. This is not a case of takāfu’ 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 Qur’ān under study is one such piece of evidence. Ṣan‘ā’ 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
2 ) For their works on the Qur’ān, see the Bibliography. For a brief discussion of
Muḥaysin’s work, see Behnam Sadeghi, “Criteria for Emending the Text of the Qur’ān,” 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 Cook’s work,
Sadeghi Bergmann
see and , “The Codex,” 364, 367–9.
3 ) 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.
should not rashly generalize this figure since the frequency of palimpsesting
varied greatly depending on time and place. 8 Beside Ṣan‘ā’ 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 author’s work
include, for example, the eminence of the author, the author’s religious background,
whether scholars whom one admires agree with the author, whether one’s mentors and
peers agree with the author, whether the author’s work agrees with the consensus, the
author’s rhetorical strategies, and whether the author’s 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,” 11–13.
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): 578–86. 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 Ṣan‘ā’ 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 Ṣan‘ā’ 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 Qur’āns. The second Arabic palimpsest, no. 588, has three
layers of Christian writing. The top layer is in Arabic and dates from about the 10 th
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 Qur’ānic lower
text in the Ḥijāzī script. It is discussed in the following publications: Alphonse Mingana
and Agnes S. Lewis, Leaves from Three Ancient Qurâns, Possibly Pre-‘Othmânic
(Cambridge: University Press, 1914); Muḥammad Muṣṭafā al-A‘ẓamī, The History of the
Qur’ānic Text, 2nd ed. (Riyadh: Azami Publishing House, 2008), 342–5; Alba Fedeli, “Early
Evidences of Variant Readings in Qur’ānic Manuscripts,” in Die dunklen Anfänge: Neue
Forschungen zur Entstehung und frühen Geschichte des Islam, ed. Karl-Heinz Ohlig et al.
(Berlin: Verlag Hans Schiler, 2007), 293–7; Alba Fedeli, “Mingana and the Manuscript of
Mrs. Agnes Smith Lewis, One Century Later,” Manuscripta Orientalia 11.3 (2005): 3–7.
Fedeli and al-A‘ẓamī both find Mingana’s transcription completely unreliable. Fedeli
could verify only thirteen of thirty-seven readings given by Mingana (Fedeli, “Mingana,”
7). In addition, Mingana’s characterization of the text as “possibly pre-‘Othmānic” 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 Qurānic Palimpsest, MS Cambridge University Library Or. 1287,
and the Verification of the Mingana-Lewis Edition: Where is Salām?,” Journal of Islamic
Manuscripts 2.1 (2011): 100–117.)
There are several other palimpsests in the Dār al-Makhṭūṭāt in Ṣan‘ā’, 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 Qur’ānic 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): 54–8.
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 Qur’āns, 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
Sadeghi Bergmann
and Uwe , “The Codex of a Companion of the Prophet and the Qur’ān 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 Bergmann’s examination of the Stanford
2007 folio has established that the lower modifier’s 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 modifier’s 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
Sadeghi Bergmann
Ḥijāzī script it modified. Cf. and , “The Codex,” 357–8, especially
footnote 12.
marked affinity for the schemes reported for the Ḥijāz, but not precisely enough
to distinguish between Mecca and Medina.4
The lower Qur’ān is of enormous interest because it is so far the only
manuscript that is known to be non-‘Uthmānic, 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.5 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 ‘Uthmānic
tradition must have diverged sometime before the spread of the ‘Uthmānic
tradition in the mid-seventh century AD. Therefore, comparing these two
traditions opens a window onto the earliest phase of the Qur’ān’s history. We
shall also argue, based on just such a comparison, that, contrary to a common
4 ) See Appendix 2. This conclusion was reached previously based on an analysis of a
Sadeghi Bergmann
more limited set of thirteen folios in and , “The Codex,” 377–83.
5 ) Sadeghi and Bergmann, “The Codex.”
view, the existing pieces of revelation were joined to form the sūras prior to
‘Uthmān’s 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%).67 This makes it significantly earlier than the few other
Qur’āns that have been radiocarbon-dated. 89 The manuscript was not written
long before the Prophet Muḥammad’s death in AD 632, since it contains the
ninth sūra, 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 Ṣan‘ā’.18 It seems that the other ones in the
collection, including the many others from the first century in the Ḥijāzī and Kūfī
scripts, may all belong to the standard tradition. 19 The collection includes some
12,000 Qur’ānic parchment fragments. As of 1997, all but 1500–2000 leaves or
fragments were assigned to 926 distinct Qur’ānic manuscripts, none complete,
and many containing only a few folios. There are about 150 non-Qur’ānic
parchment fragments, and a large number of fragments written on paper.
Among the Qur’ān manuscripts, twenty-two are in the Ḥijāzī script, and
therefore are probably from the
17
) On the problems of the relative chronology and composition of the
Qur’ān, see Behnam Sadeghi, “The Chronology of the Qur’ān: A Stylometric Research
Program,” Arabica 58 (2011): 210–99. See that essay also for references to the works of
Theodor Nöldeke and Mehdi Bazargan. For two different evaluations of Nöldeke’s efforts,
see Nicolai Sinai, “The Qur’an as Process,” in The Qur’ān in Context: Historical and
Literary Investigations into the Qur’ānic Milieu, ed. Angelika Neuwirth, Nicolai Sinai, and
Michael Marx (Leiden: Brill,
6 ) Radiocarbon dating was performed on a sample from the “Stanford

Sadeghi Bergmann
7 ” folio. For the details, see and , “The Codex,” 352–4. On the
assumption that the codex was not made a long time after the parchment was prepared,
see “The Codex,” 354.
8 ) Yasin Dutton, “An Umayyad Fragment of the Qur’an and its Dating,” Journal of
Qur’anic Studies 9.2 (2007): 57–87; Efim Rezvan, “On the Dating of an ‘ʿUthmānic
Qur’ān’ from St. Petersburg,” Manuscripta Orientalia 6.3 (2000):
9 –22; Hans-Caspar Graf von Bothmer, “Die Anfänge der Koranschreibung:
Kodikologische und kunsthistorische Beobachtungen an den Koranfragmenten in Sanaa,”
Magazin Forschung (Universität des Saarlandes), 1 (1999): 45.
2010), 407–40; and Emmanuelle Stefanidis, “The Qur’an Made Linear: A Study of the
Geschichte des Qorâns’ Chronological Reordering,” Journal of Qur’anic Studies 10.2
(2008): 1–22.
18
) This paragraph and the next one on the project to preserve the manuscripts are
based on the following sources: Bothmer, “Die Anfänge der Koran- schreibung,” 40–6;
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 Ṣan‘ā’ Manuscripts,”
Museum International (UNESCO, Paris), No. 203 (Vol. 51, No. 3, 1999):
21–5; 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-Furqān Islamic Heritage Foundation, ed. Yusuf Ibish et al.
(London: al-Furqān Islamic Heritage Foundation,
1417/1996), 131–45; Claudia Brettar, “UdS: Neues Zentrum für 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-
Rüdiger Puin wrote that the palimpsest is the only manuscript in the Dār al-Makhṭūṭāt
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 Ṣan‘ā’. The claim, however, is consistent with a few images
published of other folios in the Ḥijāzī script.
first century AH (7th century and early 8th century AD).10 All but eight of these
twenty-two Ḥijāzī manuscripts are in the “vertical format,” that is, are longer in
height than width. There are also many manuscripts in the Kūfī 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-Rüdiger 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 Ṣan‘ā’ in the following year, but continued to run
the project from Germany, traveling to the site almost every year. Beginning in
10 ) Puin wrote that there are about 90 Ḥijāzī manuscripts (Gerd-Rüdiger Puin,
“Observations on Early Qur’ān Manuscripts in Ṣan‘ā’,” in The Qur’ān 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 Puin’s error and corrects it, mentioning that the correct
number is twenty-two (Bothmer, “Die Anfänge der Koranschreibung,” 46, footnote
28).
1982, Ursula Dreibholz served as the conservator for this project, and worked
full time in Ṣan‘ā’ 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 Qur’ānic manuscripts, and directed the
Yemeni staff in the same task. The manuscripts are located in the “House of
Manuscripts,” the Dār al-Makhṭūṭāt (DAM), in Ṣan‘ā’,Yemen. After 1989,
Bothmer would visit the collection periodically. In the winter of 1996–7, he
microfilmed all of the parchment fragments that have been assigned to distinct
Qur’ānic manuscripts. Of the remaining 1500–2000 fragments, he microfilmed a
group of 280. The microfilms are available in Ṣan‘ā’ 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 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. 11 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 Ṣan‘ā’ 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 Ṣan‘ā’
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. 12 Subsequently, Sergio Noja Noseda
(who made an independent set of photos of the DAM 01-27.1 manuscript),
Sadeghi Bergmann
11 ) On the history of these folios, see and , “The Codex,” 354–5.
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 01–27.1 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
Sadeghi Bergmann
common practice, about which see and , “The Codex,” 357, and the
references listed there.
Sadeghi Bergmann
12 ) See the references in and , “The Codex,” 354 (footnotes 7 and
8), 360 (footnote 22).
Yasin Dutton, and Alba Fedeli announced the non-‘Uthmānic status of the folios
they examined.13 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 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 Ṣan‘ā’ had been restored, in three successive
articles published at the rate of one per year, Elisabeth Puin (the wife of Gerd-
Rüdiger 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 taken “recently” 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
) Sadeghi and Bergmann, “The Codex.”
26
) Elisabeth Puin is an external lecturer in the Department of Evangelical Theology in
Saarland University in Saarbrücken. Her publications are as follows: Elisabeth Puin, “Ein
früher Koranpalimpsest aus Ṣan‘ā’ (DAM 01–27.1),” in Schlaglichter: Die beiden ersten
islamischen Jahrhunderte, ed. Markus Groß et al. (Berlin: Hans Schiler, 2008), 461–93;
Elisabeth Puin, “Ein früher Koranpalimpsest aus Ṣan‘ā’ (DAM 01–27.1) – Teil II,” in Vom
Koran zum Islam, ed. Markus Groß et al. (Berlin: Hans Schiler, 2009), 523–81; Elisabeth
Puin, “Ein früher Koranpalimpsest aus Ṣan‘ā’ (DAM 01–27.1) – Teil III: Ein
nicht-‘uṯmānischer Koran,” in Die Entstehung einer Weltreligion I: Von der koranischen
Bewegung zum Frühislam, ed. Markus Groß et al. (Berlin: Hans Schiler, 2010), 233–305.
Sadeghi Bergmann
These articles are not cited in and ’s “Codex,” which was completed in
2008 and modified and submitted for publication in 2009 before the authors became
aware of Elisabeth Puin’s 2008 essay.
27
) E. Puin, “Koranpalimpsest [Teil I],” 462, footnote 2.
28
13 ) Sergio Noseda, “La Mia Visita a Sanaa e il Corano Palinsesto,” Istituto Lombardo
(Rendiconti Lett.) 137 (2003): 43–60; Anonymous, “‘The Qur’an: Text, interpretation
and translation’ 3rd Biannual SOAS Conference, October 16–17, 2003,” Journal of
Qurʾānic Studies 6.1 (2003): 143–5 (mentioning Dutton’s paper, “Three Possibly pre-
ʿUthmānic Folios of the Qurʾān”); Fedeli,
“Early Evidences.”
) Among the errors in E. Puin’s 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 modifier’s 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,” 234–6, 253). The lower modifier occupies a prominent place in her
discussion, signifying a “progressive canonization” of the text (“Teil III,” 235–6). (2) The
second significant error concerns what she takes to be the standard text of the Qur’ān.
When a
her first two essays and presented without justification) that mirror the
Sadeghi Bergmann
conclusions of and ’s “Codex” essay. She thereby moves away
from the prevailing revisionist outlook of the authors in the Inârah series in
which her previous two articles appeared. 29
word in a manuscript is spelled differently than it is in her Saudi Qur’ān, she calls that a
“deviation from the standard text.” Needless to say, many spelling variations in
manuscripts do not match her Saudi Qur’ān, 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 Hijāzī 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 ‘Uthmān. She
makes this explicit by referring to “the Standard text … which according to Muslim
tradition reproduces the Qur’ān in wording and spelling exactly as it had been specified
by the redaction of the caliph ‘Uthmān”(“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 Sadeghi and Bergmann’s
“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
Sotheby’s in1993. The study of that folio at Stanford University was first mentioned in
Sadeghi and Bergmann’s “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 Puin’s third essay (“Teil III”) that parallel
Sadeghi Bergmann
and ’s “Codex”: (1) In her first two essays, E. Puin did not use the label
“non-‘Uthmānic,” nor discuss Companion codices, the existence of which is questioned
by skeptical and revisionist scholars. In
“The Codex,” Sadeghi explained why the lower writing corroborates the reality of the
Companion codices, and called the lower writing “non-‘Uthmānic,” preferring it to the
oft-used “pre-‘Uthmānic.” In her third essay, E. Puin says that the lower writing confirms
the reality of the Companion codices, and likewise calls it “non-‘Uthmānic” (“Teil III,”
233–7). (2) Sadeghi wrote that the lower writing represents a codex other than those of
Ibn Mas‘ūd and Ubayy b.
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.” 14
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.15 Although media interviews with G. Puin over a decade ago
Ka‘b. E. Puin says the same thing in her third article (“Teil III,” 235), but not in her earlier
essays. (3) Sadeghi argued at length that “orality played a role” (“The Codex,” 344) in
generating the differences between the lower writing and the ‘Uthmānic Qur’ān. 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)
Sadeghi provided a detailed classification of variants (“The Codex,” 417–36). E. Puin does
so in her third essay, “Teil III,” 262–76, 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,” 367–8, 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) Sadeghi compared the sūra sequences in the folios with those
14 ) Elisabeth Puin, “Koranpalimpsest [Teil I],” 461–2, footnote 2.

15 ) 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 Higgins, “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
reported for the codices of Ibn Mas‘ūd and Ubayy b. Ka‘b. E. Puin does this in her third
essay (“Teil III,” 257) but not in the earlier ones.
described him as “thrilled” about studying the Ṣan‘ā’ 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. Puin’s 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 Manus- cripts.”
Islam. Accordingly, their impression that there are not many early copies of the
Qur’ān 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 one’s 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
Ṣan‘ā’ 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 Qur’ān fall into
clusters, called text types, when compared for textual similarity. 16 By far the
best-known cluster is the standard one, called the ‘Uthmānic 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 ‘Uthmān (d. AD 656) had sent to
the main cities of the state sometime around AD 650 as part of his attempt to
16 ) Not everybody who has written on the Ṣan‘ā’manuscripts thinks in terms of text
types. For an approach that disregards the notion, see GerdRüdiger Puin,
“Observations on Early Qur’ān Manuscripts in Ṣan‘ā’,” in The Qur’ān as Text, ed.
Stefan Wild (Leiden and New York: E.J. Brill, 1996), 107–11. In this article, G. Puin
reaches a striking conclusion based on the discovery of two variants. He writes, “In
19:62 [the] original ‫ ال تسمع‬lā tasma‘ was later corrected to lā tasma‘ūna (instead of
the usual lā yasma‘ūna). Instead of qul jā’a lḥaqqu in 34:49 we find ‫ قيل جا الحق‬qīla
jā’a l-ḥaqqu. The systems of the seven, ten or 14 Qirā’āt are, consequently, younger
than the variants observed in San‘ā’.” 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 Puin’s 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,
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
Cook Dutton Modarressi
the work done by Michael , Yasin , Hossein , and other
scholars.34 Regardless of the date one assigns to its origin, it cannot be denied
that the ‘Uthmānic 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 Ṣan‘ā’ 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
(‘Uthmānic) text type entails a critical conclusion with
also unlikely in this case. (For the treatment of singular readings in New Testament
Sadeghi Bergmann
scholarship, see the references cited in and , “The Codex,” 387–8,
footnote 84. In some circumstances, pre-modern ḥadīth specialists also viewed singular
features in ḥadīth 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 Qur’ānic Manuscripts,” Manuscripta Orientalia 11.1 (2005): 20–7;
Sadeghi Bergmann
and , “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 qirā’āt literature are “younger
[i.e., later] than the variants” he has mentioned.
34
Sadeghi Bergmann
) and , “The Codex,” 364–70. Another indication, beside those
given in the preceding reference, for the early date of the spread of the ‘Uthmānic
textual tradition is the significant number of first-century ‘Uthmānic manuscripts.
important ramifications: the splitting off of the ‘Uthmānic and other textual
traditions occurred no later than the spread of the ‘Uthmānic text type. The
innumerable ‘Uthmānic manuscripts and the different ‘Uthmānic 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 ‘Uthmānic
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 ‘Uthmānic 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 ‘Uthmānic
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 ‘Uthmānic 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 ḥadīth variants.17
The conclusion that C-1’s origin must have predated ca. AD 650 is largely
independent of the date of Ṣan‘ā’ 1. For example, it would not be invalidated if
it were found that the lower Ṣan‘ā’ 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 ‘Uthmānic cousins, a progenitor which would have
dated from before the spread of the ‘Uthmānic tradition. Moreover, since the
differences between the C-1 text type and the ‘Uthmānic 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 Qur’ān manuscript was known outside the ‘Uthmānic
tradition. Non-‘Uthmānic Qur’āns were known only through descriptions of
them in the literary sources. According to these accounts, some Companions of
the Prophet had compiled complete Qur’ān codices of their own. Three
Companions are frequently named: ‘Abdallāh b. Mas‘ūd, Ubayy b. Ka‘b, and Abū
Mūsā al-Ash‘arī. 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
Muḥammad, scholars such as John
Wansbrough Burton
and John 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. 18 These scholars saw the
reported textual differences not as genuine variants of the sort that normally
Sadeghi Bergmann
17 ) and , “The Codex,” 396, footnote 103.
18 ) John Burton, The Collection of the Qur’ān (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1977), 228; John Wansbrough, Qur’ānic Studies (Amherst, NY: Prometheus
Books, 2004), 44–5, 203–5. Wansbrough’s book was originally published in 1977.
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. 19 The one reason that is
most relevant for our purposes, however, is that Ṣan‘ā’ 1 constitutes direct
documentary evidence for the reality of the non-‘Uthmānic 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.20 The C-1 type shares a number of variants with those
reported for the codices of ‘Abdallāh b. Mas‘ūd and Ubayy b. Ka‘b, 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
distinct“ Companion codex.”21
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.22 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,
19 ) 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), 261–3. For the literature on the assimilation of parallels and
Sadeghi
nearby terms in New Testament manuscripts, see the references given in and
Bergmann
, “The Codex,” 388, footnotes 85 and 87. For assimilation of parallels and
Sadeghi
nearby terms generating differences between Companion codices, see and
Bergmann
, “The Codex,” 388, 391–2, 401–3. For a likely example of assimilation of
parallels in the ḥadīth literature, see Behnam Sadeghi, “The Traveling Tradition Test:
A Method for Dating Traditions,” Der Islam 85.1 (2008): 222.
Bergmann
20 ) For a few other variants translated into English, see Sadeghi and , “The
Codex,” 355.
Sadeghi Bergmann
21 ) and , “The Codex,” 344, 360, 390–4.
Sadeghi Bergmann
22 ) and , “The Codex,” 345, 390–4. There is, however, a
conspicuous difference between C-1 and the codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd: C-1 has a lot more
variants – by a rough estimate perhaps twenty-five times as many.
mood, or voice (passive or active), or the use of different words having the same
root.23 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
Qur’ān – and assimilation of nearby terms, whereby a scribe’s writing is
influenced by nearby expressions. The fact that all these features are found
both in the codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd, as described by al-A‘mash, 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.
Table 1. Examples of Major Variants
Variant description The text of the standard The text of the C-1
tradition tradition
In Q 2.196, C-1 does not Do not shave your heads Do not shave until the
have the word ru’ūsakum. until the offering reaches offering reaches its
its destination. destination.
In Q 2.196, C-1 has fa-in If any of you be sick Should one of you be sick
kāna aḥadun instead of
the standard fa-man
kāna.
In Q 2.196, C-1 has aw fasting, or alms, or an fasting or an offering
nusukin instead of the offering
standard aw ṣadaqatin
aw nusukin.
In Q 2.201, C-1 has wa-l- There are people who say, There are people who say,
ākhirati instead of the “Our Lord, give us in this “Our Lord, give us in this
standard ḥasanatan wa-fī world,” and they have no world,” and they have no
l-ākhirati ḥasanatan. portion in the world to portion in the world to
come. Then, there are come. Then, there are
those who say, “Our Lord, those who say, “Our Lord,
give us good in this world give us in this world and
and good in the next.” the next.”
Sadeghi Bergmann
23 ) and , “The Codex,” 390–4, 389 (Table 6), 393 (Table 7).
In Q 63.7, C-1 has min They are the ones who They are the ones who
ḥawlihi after yanfaḍḍū. say, “Do not spend (alms) say, “Do not spend (alms)
on those who are with the on those who are with the
Messenger of God in order Messenger of God in order
that they may disperse.” 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 Muḥammad. The literary sources provide fairly
systematic information about the codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd, allowing one to compare
it with C-1 and the ‘Uthmānic text types. It emerges that where the texts of Ibn
Mas‘ūd, C-1, and ‘Uthmān disagree, usually the ‘Uthmānic version is in the
majority: that is, the ‘Uthmānic text agrees with one of the others against the
third. This is compatible with two scenarios. First, the ‘Uthmānic text may be a
hybrid formed on the basis of a number of Companion codices (and,
conceivably, partial codices and free-standing copies of sūras) 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 ‘Uthmānic Qur’ān could have been a self-contained, existing codex
like those of Ibn Mas‘ūd and C-1, the three text types being distinct descendants
of a common source, the Prophetic prototype. In this scenario, the fact that the
‘Uthmānic text is usually in the majority suggests that it is overall a better
reproduction of the common source. 24 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
‘Uthmānic text.25 As another refinement, it may become necessary to come to
terms with the fact that different sūras 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
Sadeghi Bergmann
24 ) and , “The Codex,” 343–436. We owe the hybridity hypothesis
to Michael Cook.
25 ) The work is in progress, and it involves comparing C-1’s text with the ‘Uthmānic
Qur’ān. The key question relating to the problem of textual priority is whether one
text type has significantly more “irreducible pluses” than the other. A “plus” 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 Ṣan‘ā’1 auctioned abroad
Sadeghi Bergmann
( and , “The Codex,” 385–90, 399–405), but, obviously, the results
might be different once all the folios have been analyzed.
Companion’s codex may have taken different sūras from different scribes.26 This
possibility now seems particularly relevant, since, as compared to the other
sūras in C-1 found in the fragment, sūra 20 in C-1 shows a greater affinity to the
codex of Ubayy b. Ka‘b.27 Finally, one should investigate the extent to which the
variants may be due to the Prophet reciting different versions. 28
Analysis resolves a fundamental question about the early history of the
Qur’ān: who joined the existing verses to form the sūras (chapters) and when?
Many scholars and some early reports hold that this was accomplished after
the death of the Prophet by the committee that ‘Uthmān charged with the task
of standardizing the Qur’ān. 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 ‘Uthmānic Qur’ān, C-1, and
the Companion codices generally have the same passages within the sūras, that
the sūras were fixed before these various textual traditions branched off, in
particular before the spread of the ‘Uthmānic 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 sūra 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.
Ka‘b.29 Another exception concerns verse 85 of sūra 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 ūna followed by a verse separator and the morpheme wa at the end
of verse 84 to the instance of ūna followed by a verse separator and the
morpheme wa at the end of verse 85. The conclusion that the sūras were
constituted prior to the ‘Uthmānic text helps one assess the accuracy of some
early Muslim accounts. It disproves the reports that imply that it was under
‘Uthmān that the sūras were assembled from the preserved pieces of the
revelation.30
Sadeghi Bergmann
27 ) See Appendix 1.
Sadeghi Bergmann
29 ) ‘Abd al-Laṭīf al-Khaṭīb, Mu‘jam al-qirā’āt (Damascus: Dār Sa‘d al-Dīn), 5:430.
30 ) For a summary of traditions suggesting that the sūras were fixed only after the
Prophet’s death, see Hossein Modarressi, “Early Debates on the Integrity of the
Qur’ān: A Brief Survey,” Studia Islamica 77 (1993): 8–13. Modarressi questions their
accuracy and calls them “extremely problematic” (p. 14).
There are some traditions about ‘Uthmān’s team finding the last two verses
of sūra 9 with a man named Khuzayma, or Abū Khuzayma, or Ibn Khuzayma. 31 C-
1 has these verses in the expected place. Since they are also found in the
‘Uthmānic Qur’ān, 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 ‘Uthmānic text types emerged. Therefore, one should not read too
much into the report.
The order in which the sūras were put together is a different matter.
Different Companion codices had different sūra sequences, indicating that the
order was not completely fixed at the time of the Prophet. 32 This is supported by
C-1, which adopts a non-standard sūra order. In a previous article, one of us
mentioned three sūra transitions found in the lower writing, and subsequently
another author mentioned two more. 33 In Table 2 we present a complete table
of the eleven sūra transitions in the extant folios of Ṣan‘ā’ 1. (For convenience,
in the table and elsewhere in this article, the sūra numbers give the ‘Uthmānic
rank.) Al-A‘ẓamī has made the astute point that a non-standard sūra transition
does not entail a non-standard Qur’ān if it occurs in a pamphlet with a selection
of sūras.34 However, the point does not apply to the lower writing: it covers too
much of the Qur’an, including some of the largest sūras; its wording establishes
its non-‘Uthmānic status; and its sūra ordering is too similar to those reported
for other Companion codices.
One may make three observations about C-1’s sūra ordering. First, some
transitions are found only in Ubayy b. Ka‘b’s codex, others only in Ibn Mas‘ūd’s
codex, and yet others in no reported sūra ordering. Second, the ordering is
closer to those of Ibn Mas‘ūd and Ubayy b. Ka‘b than to that of ‘Uthmān. 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. Ka‘b
than to that of Ibn Mas‘ūd; 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.
Table 2. The sūra orders in C-1, Ibn Mas‘ūd, and Ubayy b. Ka‘b. The numbers are the
‘Uthmānic ranks. The sequences in the Fihrist of Ibn al-Nadīm and the Itqān of
al-Suyūtī differ due to errors in the transmission of the reports about sūra
orders.
C-1 Ibn Mas‘ūd Ubayy b. Ka‘b
31 ) Maḥmūd Rāmyār, Tārīkh-i Qur’ān, 2nd ed. (Tehran: Amīr Kabīr, HS 1362/1983),
313–6.
Sadeghi Bergmann
32 ) and , “The Codex,” 409–10.
Sadeghi Bergmann
33 ) and , “The Codex,” 393 (Table 8); E. Puin, “Teil II,” 256–7.
A‘ẓamī
34 ) Al- , History, 77–81.
11, 8, 9, 19 Fihrist: 35 9, 16, 11, nine Fihrist: 37 8, 9, 11, 19

intervening sūras, 8, 19
Itqān: 36 9, 16, 11, fourteen Itqān: 38 8, 9, 11, 19

intervening sūras, 8, 19
12, 18 Fihrist: sūra 18 is omitted; Fihrist: 12, 18
12 is followed by 17
Itqān: 12, 18, 17 Itqān: 12, 18
15, 25 Fihrist: sūra 15 is omitted Fihrist: 15, ten intervening sūras, 25
Itqān: 25, 15 Itqān: sūra 25 is omitted
20, 21 Fihrist: sūra 20 is omitted Fihrist: 20, 21
Itqān: 21, 20 Itqān: 20, 21
34, 13 Fihrist: 13, 34 Fihrist: 13, four intervening sūras, 34
Itqān: 13, 34 Itqān: 34, two intervening sūras, 13
39, 40 Fihrist: 39, 40 Fihrist: 39, five intervening sūras, 40
Itqān: 39, 40 Itqān: 39, six intervening sūras, 40
63, 62, 89, 90 Fihrist: 63, 62, twenty-nine Fihrist: 63, 62, 65, 89 (sūra 90 is
intervening sūras, 89, 85, 84, omitted, unless lā uqsimu refers to it
96, 90 rather than to sūra 75, in which case it
comes at eleven removes after sūra
89.)
Itqān: 63, 62, twenty-seven Itqān: 63, 62, 66, 89, 90

intervening sūras, 89, 85, 84,
96, 90
One report ascribes to ‘Uthmān’s team the decision to place sūra 9 after
sūra 8, and to do so without inserting between them the basmala, “In the Name
of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful,” a formula found at the beginning of
all the other sūras.39 The evidence of Ṣan‘ā’ 1 adds a nuance to this claim. The
transition point between sūras 8 and 9 happens to be part of the surviving
fragments of the lower codex, and it lacks the basmala like the ‘Uthmānic text.
In putting sūra 9 right after sūra 8, the manuscript agrees with the codices of
‘Uthmān and Ubayy b. Ka‘b, but not that of Ibn Mas‘ūd, which places sūra 8 at
many removes after sūra 9. It is unlikely, then, that the decision of ‘Uthmān’s
team was an innovation.
35 ) Ibn al-Nadīm, Kitāb al-Fihrist, ed. Riḍā Tajaddud (n.d. and n.p.), 29.
36 ) Al-Suyūṭī, al-Itqān fī ‘ulūm al-Qur’ān (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1416/1996), 1:176.
37 ) Ibn al-Nadīm, al-Fihrist, 29–30.
38 ) Al-Suyūṭī, al-Itqān, 1:175–6.
39 ) Rāmyār, Tārīkh-i Qur’ān, 429.
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 ḥadīth 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 ḥadīth 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 Qur’ān 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
‘Uthmānic text highlight the fallibility of oral transmission, and certain
‘Uthmānic variant readings presuppose a written skeletal text that was on
occasion read seemingly without a memory of the spoken form: take ‘inda
versus ‘ibād in Q 43.19, yaquṣṣu versus yaqḍi 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.40 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
Qur’ān.
The frequency and nature of the variants indicate that the branching off of
the C-1 and the ‘Uthmānic 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 sūra 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
Sadeghi Bergmann
40 ) and , “The Codex,” 385–90.
such notes, the scribe’s good memory, and his prior familiarity with the Qur’ān
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 Ḥijāzī, the upper writing is more compact, uses more
alifs, and uses more dots for distinguishing the consonants. 41 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 non‘Uthmānic textual
tradition may have been the motive, since C-1 would have become obsolete as
the parallel ‘Uthmānic tradition came to be regarded as the standard. These
explanations, of course, are not mutually exclusive. 42
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 ‘Uthmānic version. However, this would not necessarily mean that the
scribe considered the lower writing wrong or illegitimate.
Early traditions preserve a wide spectrum of attitudes towards the codices of
Ibn Mas‘ūd and other Companions, some depreciatory, some adulatory, and
some neutral. Many reports imply the legitimacy of Ibn Mas‘ūd’s 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 Mas‘ūd’s codex. Kūfans who held Ibn
Mas‘ūd (d. AH 33) in high esteem quoted the statement from al-Ḥajjāj (d. 95).
The latter was notorious for his opposition to Ibn Mas‘ūd’s codex, and he was
not remembered fondly for that in Kūfa, where the local school of law saw Ibn
Mas‘ūd as its founder, where Sulaymān al-A‘mash (d. 147) continued to recite
Ibn Mas‘ūd’s codex alongside the ‘Uthmānic text and transmit its variants, and
where important Qur’ān reciters such as Ibrāhīm alNakha‘ī (d. 96), Ibn
Waththāb (d. 103), Ṭalḥa b. Muṣarrif (d. 112), alA‘mash (d. 147), and Ḥamza (d.
156) were influenced to varying degrees by Ibn Mas‘ūd’s text type even when
they were reciting ‘Uthmān’s text. 61 On closer examination, the quotation from
al-Ḥajjāj appears as a possible exaggeration by Kūfan Qur’ān reciters, fashioned
to make al-Ḥajjāj appear all the more outrageous. 62
41 ) Sadeghi and Bergmann, “The Codex,” 358–60.

42 ) Sadeghi and Bergmann, “The Codex,” 370.
61
) For an example of Ibn Mas‘ūd’s influence on ‘Uthmānic readings in Kūfa, see
Sadeghi, “Criteria for Emending the Text of the Qur’ān.”
62
) The report was transmitted through the Kūfan Qur’ān reciter Abū Bakr b. ‘Ayyāsh
(d. AH 193) from the well-known Kūfan Qur’ān specialists ‘Āṣim b. Abī al-Najūd (d. 128)
and Sulaymān al-A‘mash (d. 147). Here are two representative versions: (Version 1) Ibn
Mas‘ūd “says (or thinks) that his Qur’ān is from God. By God, it is nothing but Bedouin
rajaz poetry (mā hiya illā rajaz min rajaz ala‘rāb); God almighty did not send it to his
Prophet.” (Version 2) Ibn Mas‘ūd “recites the Qur’ān, versifying it as the Bedouin recite
rajaz poetry, and calls this [reciting] the Qur’ān (yaqra’u al-Qur’ān rajzan ka-rajz al-a‘rāb
wa-yaqūlu hādhā al-Qur’ān).” See Ibn ‘Asākir, Ta’rīkh madīnat Dimashq, ed. ‘Alī Shīrī
(Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1415/1995), 12:159–62; Abū Dāwūd al-Sijistānī, Sunan, ed. Sa‘īd
Muḥammad al-Laḥḥām (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1410/1990), 2:400. The first version quoted
above is surprising as it depicts Ibn Mas‘ūd’s codex as different in kind from the
‘Uthmānic Qur’ān. That goes against everything else that has been related about that
codex, including the detailed account provided by al-A‘mash, whose authority this
tradition invokes. (On al-A‘mash’s description of Ibn
Sadeghi Bergmann
Mas‘ūd’s codex, see and , “The Codex,” 391–3.) 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 Mas‘ūd’s codex, but rather the manner in which he (and presumably
his followers) recited the Qur’ān. He is accused of having recited it in the way a Bedouin
would recite poetry, presuma-
One idea that seems to have been in fairly wide circulation already in the
first century of Islam was that the Qur’ān was revealed in Seven Modes ( sab‘at
aḥruf).43 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 Prophet’s scribes wrote
down, and as they all enjoyed the Prophet’s endorsement. Such codical
pluralism being an early notion, those who sought to elevate the ‘Uthmānic
version above the others could not simply declare the other codices non-
43 ) Seven Modes (sab‘at aḥruf) traditions include Prophetic and nonProphetic

reports. For an overview of the matns and isnāds of the Prophetic ḥadīths, see ‘Abd
al-‘Azīz ‘Abd al-Fattāḥ al-Qāri’, Ḥadīth al-aḥruf alsab‘a: dirāsa li-isnādihi wa-matnihi
wa-khtilāf al-‘ulamā’ fī ma‘nāhu wa-ṣilatihi bi-l-qirā’āt al-Qur’āniyya (Beirut:
Mu’assasat al-Risāla, 1423/2002), 9–41. ‘Abd al-Fattāḥ’s work has the merit of
including related traditions that do not use the words sab‘at aḥruf, and the demerit
of excluding non-Prophetic āthār. For the English translation and brief discussion of a
Seven Modes report that quotes
Sadeghi Bergmann
Ibn Mas‘ūd instead of the Prophet, see and , “The Codex,” 412–3. 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.
Qur’ānic. Some early scholars found a solution by making use of an existing

tradition that said that the
bly a sacrilege. Another version of al-Ḥajjāj’s speech transmitted through a Baṣran isnād
also suggests that the issue was the manner of recitation: it says that Ibn Mas‘ūd would
“recite the Qur’ān as if it were Bedouin rajaz poetry (yaqra’u l-Qur’ān ka-annahu rajaz
al-a‘rāb; Abū l-Ḥasan al-Mas‘ūdī, Murūj aldhahab, ed. Yūsuf As‘ad Dāghir, 2nd ed. (Qum:
Dār al-Hijra, 1409), 3:143). The possibility that reciting the Qur’ān like poetry was
controversial is confirmed by another Kūfan tradition on the authority of Ibn Mas‘ūd that
discourages reciting the Qur’ān like poetry (wa-lā tahudhdhū l-Qur’ān ka-hadhdh al-shi‘r,
wa-lā tanthurū nathr al-daqal, quoted in Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, ed. Sa‘īd alLaḥḥām
(Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1409/1989), 7:186). A related point of controversy was the chanting
or singing of the Qur’ān. See Muḥammad b. Ya‘qūb al-Kulaynī, al-Kāfī, 4th ed. (Tehran:
Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmiyya, HS 1365), 2:614; al-Suyūṭī, Itqān, 1:243; M. Talbi, “La qirā’a bi-l-
alḥān,” Arabica 5 (1958): 183–90. (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-Ḥajjāj’s words, an unsurprising transformation
given that the tradition circulated in a milieu that was hostile to al-Ḥajjāj. 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.
Prophet used to present the Qur’ān to the angel Gabriel every year. They linked
these successive presentations with the different Companion codices, and they
said that the ‘Uthmānic text was the last presentation, implying that it
superseded the others.4445 The admirers of Ibn Mas‘ūd 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 Mas‘ūd’s Qur’ān the final
presentation.46 Both sets of traditions accepted that the Prophet introduced
multiple versions of the Qur’ān 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 Mas‘ūd 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-Jazarī (d. AH 833) wrote that the
majority of scholars held that the Seven Modes are not limited to the master
44 ) See, for example, Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, 7:205; Ibn Sa‘d, al-Ṭabaqāt al-
kubrā (Beirut: Dār Ṣādir, 1968), 2:195; Muḥammad b. ‘Abd Allāh al-Ḥākim
alNaysābūrī, al-Mustadrak, ed. Yūsuf al-Mar‘ashlī, Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifa (n.d.),
45 :230; Aḥmad b. ‘Alī al-Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, ed. ‘Abd al-Ghaffār al-Bandārī (Beirut:
Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 1411/1991), 5:71–2; Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī, al-Durr al-manthūr fī
l-tafsīr bi-l-ma’thūr (Beirut: Dār al-Ma‘rifa li-l-Ṭibā‘a wa-l-Nashr, 1979), 1:106.
46 ) Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, 7:205; al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī, al-Mustadrak, 2:230;
al-Suyūṭī, al-Durr al-manthūr, 1:106.
codices ‘Uthmān sent to the cities – that is to say, they can include
non-‘Uthmānic variants – and that they held the ‘Uthmānic codices to constitute
precisely the Prophet’s “final presentation.” 47 He thus found some Companion
textual variants “acceptable”
(yuqbal) even though he disapproved of reciting them in prayers. He mentions
however that some other scholars did endorse the use of Companion codices in
worship.48 Many pre-modern scholars, if they were with us today, might have
looked reverentially at the lower writing’s variants as instantiations of the Seven
Modes while perhaps denying the text the status of the ‘Uthmānic Qur’ān 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
47 ) Ibn al-Jazarī writes, “Most scholars from earlier and more recent times and the
imams of the Muslims have held that these ‘Uthmānic codices contain only that
portion of the Seven Modes that fits their rasm” (wa-dhahaba jamāhīr al-‘ulamā’
min al-salaf wa-l-khalaf wa-a’immat al-muslimīn ilā anna hādhihi l-maṣāḥif
al-‘uthmāniyya mushtamila ‘alā mā yaḥtamiluhu rasmuhā min alaḥruf al-sab‘a
faqaṭ), and adds that the ‘Uthmānic codices constitute precisely the Prophet’s final
presentation of the text to Gabriel. See Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr fī l-qirā’āt al-‘ashr, ed.
‘Alī Muḥammad al-Ḍabbā‘ (Beirut: Dār 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 Aḥruf’ Ḥadīth.”
48 ) For Ibn al-Jazarī’s views on the Seven Modes and legitimate recitations, see Ibn
al-Jazarī, al-Nashr, 7–9, 14–15, 26–8, 31–3, 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 ‘Uthmānic regional codices, and (iii) it is
transmitted soundly from individuals. If the reading does not fit the ‘Uthmānic text
(khaṭṭ al-muṣḥaf) 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 Fātiḥa (pp. 13–4).
This opens the door to the acceptability of some non-‘Uthmānic variants even in his
relatively restrictive approach, and he gives as examples two acceptable Companion
‘Abd
variants that differ significantly from the ‘Uthmānic text at the phrase level. Cf.
al-‘Azīz al-Qāri’
, Ḥadīth alaḥruf al-sab‘a, 45–8.
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.49 He added that “detailed examination … is something the Yemeni
authorities have seemed reluctant to allow.” 50 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.51 Reports touching the Ṣan‘ā’ manuscripts
mentioned the Rushdie affair and the persecution of Naṣr
Ḥāmid Abū Zayd 52
. 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. 53 (Several people who were
close to the late Bashear told us that the event never happened. For example,
Bashear’s 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. 54 The Wall Street Journal related
49 ) Toby Lester, “What is the Koran?,” 44.

50 ) Toby Lester, “What is the Koran?,” 44. See above, footnotes 31 and 32, for
assertions about Yemeni obstructionism.
51 ) Lester, “What is the Koran?”; Alexander Stille, “Scholars are Quietly Offering
New Theories of the Koran,” The New York Times, March 2, 2002; Higgins, “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.
52 ) Lester, “What is the Koran?,” 45, 50. Compare to Kristof, “Islam, Virgins and
Grapes.”
53 ) Stille, “Scholars are Quietly Offering New Theories of the Koran.”
54 ) 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 Luxenberg’s
book is for Stille proof of discrimination. Incidentally, one of the scholars who,
according to Stille, praised Luxenberg’s book is Patricia Crone. Yet, in reference to
an account narrated by G. Puin about Yemen seizing the images of the Ṣan‘ā’
manuscripts that Bothmer had prepared.55 (In a tele-
the works by Günter Lüling and Christoph Luxenberg, Crone writes, “both books are
open to so many scholarly objections (notably amateurism in Luxenberg’s 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).
Higgins
55 ) , “The Lost Archive.”
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 Galileo’s struggle with the
Church.56 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 “it’s not possible to say anything other than sugary
nonsense about Islam.” Yet, most academic publications are non-sugary, and some are
even sensible. Stille’s examples include the striking rumor about Bashear, beside
Luxenberg’s 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. Stille’s, Lester’s, Higgins’, and Kristof’s portrayals of the state of
scholarship in the Muslim world suffer from similar shortcomings.
paradox: on the one hand, it was indicated that the Ṣan‘ā’ 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
56 ) The historian of skepticism, Richard Popkin, has highlighted how European
skeptics selectively appropriated and imagined Galileo’s 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), 1–28. It should be noted that while a
general attitude of unease with religion best explains the wide acceptance of the
media’s 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 Qur’ān: “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 Sana’a fragments will help us do
this” (Puin, quoted in Lester, “What Is the Koran?,” 44).
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 tafsīr genre and other
sources. They also imply that it is only Western scholars who are now applying proper
“analytical tools” to the Qur’ān (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 Wansbrough’s 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. Puin’s scholarly output on the Ṣan‘ā’collection consists of three publications in
which he says very little about the manuscripts and does not discuss the palimpsest:
Gerd-Rüdiger Puin, “Observations,” cited above in footnote 33; Gerd-Rüdiger Puin, “Über
die Bedeutung der ältesten Koranfragmente aus Sanaa (Jemen) für die
Orthographiegeschichte des Korans,” Magazin Forschung, Universität des Saarlandes, 1
(1999): 37–40, 46; Gerd-Rüdiger Puin, “Die Utopie einer kritischen Koranedition,” in
Schlaglichter: Die beiden ersten islamischen Jahrhunderte, ed. Markus Groß et al. (Berlin:
Hans Schiler, 2008), 516–71.
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 Sūrahs” (p. 108). This refers to his idea that sūra transitions in the manuscripts that
do not match the standard sūra 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-‘Uthmānic classification? Is there any indication that the manuscripts constituted
complete codices or simply selections of sūras?). For more on this article, see above,
footnote 33.
G. Puin’s second article focuses on the already well-known fact that in ancient
orthography a tooth could signify the ā sound. He says that the tooth
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 ī in Ibrāhīm and the ay in Shayṭān were originally

pronounced as ā, yielding Abrāhām and Sāṭān, but that these pronunciations were
forgotten later. In fact, several reciters, including one of the Seven, the Syrian Ibn ‘Āmir
(d. 118), read the name as Ibrāhām, as noted, for example, in alKhaṭīb, Mu‘jam, 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 ilāh (
‫)اله‬, “God,” could, in principle, be spelled in the same way as the word ilayh (‫)اليه‬,
“towards Him.” This leads him to propose, “hypothetically,” an emendation that replaces
ilayh with ilāh in lā ilāha illā huwa ilayhi l-maṣīr (Q 40.3), which means, “There is no god
but Him; to Him is the journey.” The substitution yields lā ilāha illā huwa ilāhu l-maṣīr,
which means, “There is no god but Him, the god of destiny.” Puin exclaims, “What a
beautiful Qur’ānic 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 ilā is so well-established in many
parallel passages of the Qur’ān 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 Qur’ān “simply doesn’t make sense” (Puin,
quoted in Lester, “What is the Koran?,” 54), and he holds that Muslims, too, think of
much of the Qur’ān 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 can’t even be understood in Arabic – then it’s not translatable.
People fear that” (ibid.). This theory features a key idea in Puin’s 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. Puin’s third article, by way of new information, mentions some spelling variations
in the manuscripts.
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.57
Moreover, other participants in the project in Yemen do not confirm G.
Puin’s statement that Yemeni authorities “want to keep this thing low-profile”
or that “they don’t want it made public that there is work being done at all.”58
Ursula Dreibholz continued working on the project in Yemen for four more years
after the end of Puin’s 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 Dār alMakhṭūṭāt. 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 Franҫois Mitterrand,
Gerhard Schröder, and Prince Klaus of the Netherlands, to see the collection.” 59
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. 60
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 Robin’s initiative and his exemplary openness
and generosity. This edition of the lower writing of Ṣan‘ā’ 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 Ṣan‘ā’ 1
57 ) 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.
58 ) Puin, quoted in Lester, “What Is the Koran?,” 44.
59 ) Dreibholz, telephone interview, July 30, 2011.
60 ) We rely on Dreibholz for the controversy inside Yemen (telephone interview,
July 30, 2011, and e-mail dated August 8, 2011).
Name Lower Text Upper Text Surviving

Fraction
2A 2.87–2.96 6.149–6.159 (almost) all
2B 2.96–2.105 6.159–7.11
Stanford 2007 recto 2.191–2.196 2.265–2.271 (almost) all
Stanford 2007 verso 2.197–2.205 2.271–2.277
David 86/2003 recto 2.206–2.217 2.277–2.282 (almost) all
David 86/2003 verso 2.217–2.223 2.282–2.286
Bonhams 2000 recto 5.41–5.48 4.33–4.43 (almost) all
Bonhams 2000 verso 5.48–5.54 4.43–4.56
4A 11.105–11.112 14.32–14.41 less than ½
4B 11.120–8.3 14.52–15.16
5A 8.73–9.7 16.73–16.89 (almost) all
5B 9.7–9.16 16.89–16.102
6A 9.17–9.26 16.102–16.118 (almost) all
6B 9.26–9.34 16.118–17.6
20A 9.70–9.81 30.26–30.40 more than ¾
20B 9.81–9.90 30.40–30.54
21A 9.106–9.113 31.24–32.4 ?
21B 9.114–9.120 32.4–32.20
22A 9.121–19.5 32.20–33.6 more than ¾
22B 19.6–19.29 33.6–33.18
23A 19.29–19.53 33.18–33.29 more than ¾
23B 19.54–19.74 33.30–33.37
7A 22.15–22.26 17.40–17.58 about ¾
7B 22.27–22.39 17.59–17.77
31A 12.17–12.20 43.63–43.69 less than ¼

31B 12.27–12.31 43.89–44.11
32A 12.111–18.5 47.15–47.20 less than ¼
32B 18.15–18.18 47.32–48.2
13A 16.26–16.37 21.42–21.72 (almost) all
13B 16.37–16.59 21.72–21.92
14A 16.68–16.69 21.111–22.1 less than 1/10
14B 16.78–16.79 22.15–22.16
9A 33.51–33.57 19.38–19.64 about ¾
9B 33.57–33.72 19.64–19.98
25A 39.25–39.36 37.38–37.59 less than ¼
25B 39.42–39.47 37.73–37.88
26A 39.51–39.70 37.102–37.134 less than ½

26B 39.70–40.8 37.134–37.172
15A 20.23–20.61 25.10–25.34 (almost) all
15B 20.61–20.80 25.34–25.59
30B 20.122–20.133 42.38–42.48 about ½
30A 21.5–21.19 42.21–42.29
10A ? – 24.13 20.1–20.43 more than ¾
10B 24.13–24.23 20.44–20.74
11A 24.23–24.32 20.74–20.98 (almost) all
11B 24.32–24.40 20.98–20.130
33A 34.13–34.23 55.16–56.4 about ¾
33B 34.23–34.33 56.5–56.69
34A 34.40–34.47 57.1–57.10 about ¼
34B 13.1–13.5 57.16–57.22
35A 13.6–13.14 57.27–58.6 about ¼
35B 13.16–13.21 58.11–58.22
36A 13.25–13.31 59.1–59.10 about ½
36B 13.33–13.40 59.14–60.1
16B 28.19–28.24 26.198–26.221 about 1/10
16A 28.30–28.35 26.155–26.176
28A 37.15–37.33 41.17–41.27 about 1/3
28B 37.43–37.68 41.33–41.43
29A 37.82–37.103 41.47–42.5 about 1/3
29B 37.118–37.144 42.10–42.16
18A 15.4–15.33 28.58–28.74 (almost) all
18B 15.33–15.74 28.74–28.86
19B 15.87–25.8 29.43–29.54 about ½
19A 25.14–25.27 29.29–29.40
24A illegible 34.52–35.9 about ½
24B 30.38–30.50 35.10–35.18
3A illegible 9.112–9.115 less than 1/10
3B 35.39–35.49 9.124–9.127
Christies 2008 verso 63.1–62.11 5.3–5.9 (almost) all
Christies 2008 recto 62.11–89–90.6 4.171–5.3
1A illegible 6.49–6.61 (almost) all
1B illegible 6.61–6.73
8A illegible 18.22 less than 1/10
8B illegible 18.32

12B illegible 21.38–21.42
17A no guess 27.25–27.29 less than 1/10
17B no guess 27.46–27.49
27B illegible 39.6
The order in which we transcribe the folios in our edition is given in the
above table, and it broadly follows the sūra arrangement of the codex of Ubayy
b. Ka‘b 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 sūra number, it refers to the ‘Uthmānic rank. When we give a verse number,
we follow the Kūfan scheme used in most of the Qur’āns 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. 61 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.
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 Bergmann’s 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.
61 ) On the lower modifier, see footnote 12 above.

Symbols and Conventions

(X) The text is only partly visible, but enough is visible to give a good
reason for the reading X.
[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.
The Lower Text of Ṣan‘ā’ 1
Folio 2 A (Q 2.87 – 2.96)
} { ‫(ٮٮـ ا) مو سی ا لکٮٮ و ٯٯٮـ[ٮـ ا] علی (ا) ٮر‬// ‫و ا د ا‬ 1

} {]‫ٮـ[ٮـ](ٮ)ـ (و) ا [ٮـ‬//‫ٮا لر سل (و) ا (ت)ٮـ[ٮـ ا] (عٮـ)سى ا (ٮـں) مر (ٮـ م) ا ل‬ 2
} { ‫ (و) ح ا لٯد (س) ا ٯـکل[م ا] حا کم ر‬//]‫ٮه ٮا [ل‬ 3
} { ]‫ل (ٮـم ا) ال (ٮـ)ه[و] ی ا [ٮـ]ٯـسکم ٯر (ٮـ)[ٯـ ا] کد ٮٮم [و ٯر‬ 4
} { ]‫ع ا [ل له‬//]‫ٮـ[ٯـ]ٮـل[و] ں ۝ و ٯا ل[و] ا ٯلو ٮٮا علڡ ٮل [ط‬ 5
} { ‫عل[ٮـ](ه)ا ٮـ(ط)لمهم ٯٯـل(ٮـ ال) ما ٮو مٮو ں ۝ و لما حا هم (کٮٮ)ـ‬ 6
}{ ‫مصد ٯ لما معهم و ٯد کا ٮو ا مں ٯٮل ٮـستٯـ[ت]ح[و] ں‬ 7
/ / ‫علی ا لد (ٮـں) کٯر و ا ٯلما حا هم ٯـ(ع)[ر]ـ ٯو ه‬ 8
‫آٯـ(ر) و ا ٮه ٯلعٮه ا هلل علی ا لکٯر ٮـں ۝ ٯٮٮسما‬ 9
]‫سر و ا ٮه ا ٮٯسهم ا ں ٮکٯر و ا ٮما ا ٮر ل ا لل[ه‬ 10
‫ٮـعٮـ(ا) و عد و ا ا ں ٮٮر ل ا ل(ل ه) (مں) ٯصله علی‬ 11
‫مں ٮسا مں عٮد ه ٯٮا (و) ٮعصٮ علی عصٮ و‬ 12
‫للکٯر ٮـں عد ا ٮ ا (ل)[ٮم] ۝ و ا د ا ٯٮل لهم ا‬ 13
]‫مٮو ا ٮما ا ٮر ل ا هلل ٯا لو ا [ٮو] مں ٮما ا [ٮر‬ 14
)‫ل علٮٮا مں کٮٮ و ٮکٯر و ں ٮما و ر ا ه و هو (ا‬ 15
]‫لحٯ مصد ٯا لما معهم ٯل ا (ٯـ)ٮٯٮلوـ ں ا ٮٮٮا ا ل[له‬ 16
)‫مں ٯٮل ا ں کٮٮم مو م[ٮـ]ٮـں (۝) و لٯد حا کم م(و‬ 17

)‫ ٮـم ا ل(ع)حل مں ٮـعد ه [و] (ا‬62‫سی ٮا لٮٮٮٮ ٮم ا ٮـحد‬ 18
/ /‫ٮٮم طلمو ں ۝ و ا د ا حد ٮا مٮٮٯکم و (ر) ٯـ‬ 19
/ / ]‫ٯو ٯکم ا لطو ر حد و ما ا ٮٮٮـکم ٮٯو [ه‬ 20
}{ )‫ا سمعو ا [ٯـ لو] ا سم[ع]ٮاـ و عصٮٮا و ا شر ٮو (ا‬ 21
} { )‫(ه‬// ‫ٯی ٯلو ٮهم ا لعحل ٮکٯر هم ٮٮسماـ ٮا مر کم‬ 22
} { )‫ا ٮمٮکم ا (ں) کٮٮم مو مٮٮـں ۝ ٯل ا ں آ(ٮٮ) لک(م‬ 23
} { ‫(ں) [د و] ں ا‬// ]‫ا لد ا (ر) ا ال حر ه عٮد ا لل[ه‬ 24
} {)‫ل[ٮـ]ا س ٯٮمٮو ا ا لمو ٮ ا ں کٮٮم صد ٯـ[ٮـ](ں‬ 25
} { ‫و [ال] ٮـ[ٮـ](مٮـ)[و]ـ [ٮـ]ه ا ٮد ا ٮما ٯد مٮ ا ٮد‬ 26
} {]‫ٮـں [۝] و ل[ٮـ](ح)[د] ٮهم ا حر [ص‬//‫و ا هلل علٮم ٮا لطلـ‬ 27
} { )‫ و م(ں‬//‫ [ه] ا ل(د) ٮٮـ‬/ /)‫ا لٮا س (ع)لى (ه)[د] (ه) [ ا ل](حٮـ‬ 28
} {//‫ (هم) لو [ٮـ]ع‬//]‫لد ٮـں ا سر کو ا (ٮو)ـ [د ا ح‬ 29
Folio 2 B (Q 2.96 – 2.105)
63
‫مں ا ل[ع](د)ـ ا ٮ ا ں ٮـ(ع)مر و ما‬ ]‫ ح[ه‬/ /‫}[ه] و (م)[ا] (ه و) ٮـ‬ { 1
65
‫ ۝ ٯل (مں) کا ں عد (و) ا لح[ٮـ ر] ٮل‬64‫ ٮـ(ع)ملوـ ں‬/ / ‫ل‬/ / )‫{ }[ل](له‬ 2
‫ ل[ه] علی [ٯـ]ل[ٮـ](ک) ٮـ(ا) د ں ا هلل (ه) د ی‬/ / ‫ه ا‬//} { 3
66
]‫ں [۝‬/ /‫ م‬//‫ ٯـ(ا) لما (ٮٮـ ں) ٮد (ٮـ ه) [و] (ٮـ)[س](ر)ـ [ی] للم‬/ /} { 4
‫ [و ر] سله‬68/ / ‫ کا ں [ع](د) و ا هلل (و) ملٮـک(ٮه) و ا‬67]‫[ں‬/ /} { 5
‫[ر] (ٮـ ل) (و) مکٮـ(ل) (ٯا) ں ا هلل ع( د و) للک(ٯر) ٮـں ۝ و‬/ /} { 6
‫ٮٮٮ ما ٮـ(ک)ٯـ[ر] ٮـهں ا ال ا لٯسٯو‬/ / ]‫{}[ل]ٯد ا ٮر ل[ٮـ ا] (ا) [ٮٮ‬ 7
62 ) There are traces above the tooth that may belong to consonant-
distinguishing marks for the letter tā’.
63 ) The illegible space before ḥā’ is too small for the grapheme ‫مر حر‬. Perhaps the
word is bi-munziḥihi, which is reported for Ibn Masʽūd’s codex here.
64 ) The text seems to have wa-mā llāhu bi-ghāfilin ʽammā yaʽmalūna.
65 ) There are two small, disc-shaped traces of ink above the tooth. The function of
these dots is not clear.
66 ) Another word is written slightly below the line, below wa-bushrā. This word
appears to be hudā. 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
hudā to wa-bushrā, or was trying to replace bushrā with hudā.
67 ) The text might have an additional qul at the beginning of this verse.
68 ) This word may be anbiyā’ihi.
70
‫مٮکم‬ / / ‫ عه[د] ا‬69/ / ‫( ں ۝ ا) [و] کلما عهد‬ 8
‫(ٮل) ا کٮر ه[م] ال [ٮـ](و) م[ٮـو] ں (و) لما حا (ه)[م]ـ ر (س) و ل‬ 9
‫[مص](د)ـ ٯ لما معهم [ٮٮـ](د) ٯـ[ر ٮـ ٯ] مں (ا) [ه]( ل ا) لکٮٮ‬ 10
‫(آ)[ٮـ](ٮ) ا هلل (و) ر ا طهو ر هم کا ٮهم ال ٮعلمو‬ 11
‫ں (۝) و ا [ٮـ]ٮعوـ ا ا ما ٮـ[ٮـ لو] ا ا لسٮـط(ٮـ ں) علی ملک سلٮـمں‬ 12
‫و ما کٯر [س]ل(ٮـم ں) و لکں ا لس(ٮـ)طٮـں کٯر و ا ٮعلمو‬ 13
‫ (ه ر) و ٮ‬/ / ]‫[ا‬/ / ‫ں‬/ /‫ ا (ل)مل‬93/ /‫ںا‬ 14

94
/ / ‫(و) مر و ٮ و ما ٮـعلم(ں) [م ں] (ا حد) حٮا (ٮـ)[ٯو]ـ‬ 15
‫ ٯال ٮـ(ک)[ٯـ](ر) و ا ٯٮٮعلمو ں مٮهماـ ما‬71)‫[ٮـ](ه‬/ / )‫ا ٮما [ٮـ](ح ں‬ 16
‫ں ا لمر (و) ر و‬//]‫ و ما (ٮٯر)ـ ٯ [ٮـ‬/ / 17
72
‫(حه) و ما ٮصر ں ٮه (م ں) ا حد ا ال ٮا د ں ا هلل‬ 18
‫و ٮٮعلمو ں ما ٮصر ه[م] و ال ٮـنٯعهمـ و لٯد (ع)ل[م](و)ـ‬ 19
‫{}ا لمں ا سٮر ی ٮه ما له ٯی ا ال حر ه مں حلق‬ 20
74
‫ ٮه ا ٮـ[ٯـس](ه)[م]ـ لو کا ٮو ا (ٮـ)[ع]لم[و]ـ ں ۝‬/ / ‫ ٮسر‬73]‫[ا‬/ / )‫{ }(و‬ 21
69 ) Since the last word in this line uses a second-person pronoun, the verb here is
also probably in the second person, i.e., ʽāhadtum.
70 ) 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 farīqun.
Maybe the text is ṭā’ifatun instead of farīqun, in which case the vertical line would
belong to ṭā’.
71 ) The traces in the preceding illegible part are perplexing. The first letter in this
part is fā’, 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 tā’ (after fā’) 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 miḥna because the traces after
the inserted fā’ conform to ḥā’. Muqātil b. Sulaymān cites an exegetical tradition
from al-Ḥasan alBaṣrī, who interprets fitna as miḥna (See Muqātil b. Sulaymān, Tafsīr
Muqātil b. Sulaymān, ed. Aḥmad Farīd (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʽIlmiyya, 2003), 1:69).
72 ) The word is probably yaḍurrāni.
73 ) 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-bi’sa mā. It might be a connected bi’samā (
‫)ٮٮسما‬.
74 th
) This verse separator has a special shape for marking the 100 verse.
‫ و) ا ٮٯو ا لم(ٮـ و) (ٮه) (م ں) ا هلل حٮر‬75‫ (ا‬/ / ‫{ }(و) لو ا‬ 22

‫{ }و (آ ا) ٮـ( و ا) ٮـ(ع)لموـ ں [۝] ٮا (ٮـه ا) ا لد ٮـں ا مٮـو ا ال‬ 23
‫[ا] (و) ا سمع‬// ‫و ل(و) ا ر عٮا و (ٯـ و) لو ا ا ٮطر‬//} { 24
‫} لل[ک]ٯـ(ر) [ٮـ]ں عد (ا) ٮ ا ل(ٮـ م) ۝ ما ٮو د ا‬ { 25
93
) The illegible part is big enough to accommodate the standard text between
yuʽallimūna 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-nās (it might
be al-yahūd).
94
) The traces do not match ‫ال‬. The first letter is tooth-shaped (but may also be rā’, or
a lām the upper part of which is erased). The last letter may be mīm since there is a small
horizontal line at the end that resembles the tail of a mīm.
‫}[د] [ٮـ ں] کٯر و ا[ مں] ا هل ا لکٮٮ ا و ا لمسر‬ { 26
}{ ‫ مں حٮر و لکں‬76/ /)‫}(کو)ـ ں ا ں ٮٮر ل علٮکم [م](ں) ا (ل‬ { 27
} { ‫ [ٮسا] و (ا) هلل‬/ /)‫ ر ح(مٮـ ه) (م‬77/ / ‫}ا هلل‬ { 28
Folio Stanford 2007 Recto (Q 2.191 – 2.196)
} { / / ‫[ٮـ]مو هم و ا حر حو‬/ /)‫ (ٮـ‬/ / ‫و (ا) ٯـتل[و] هم‬ 1

‫(ه) ا { } سد‬/ /)‫ کم و ا (ل‬/ / ‫مں حٮٮ ا حر‬ 2
78
‫مں ا ل(ٯـ)ٮل و ال ٮـٯـتلو هم عند ا لمسحد‬ 3
‫ ٮٯٮـ(لو) کم ٯا ں ٯتلو کم ٯا ٯتلو‬/ /‫(ا) لحر م ح‬ 4
79
‫(ه م) (د) لک جز ا ا لکٯر ٮں ۝ ٯا (ں) ا نت(ه)وـ‬ 5
‫له عٯور رحٮم ۝ و ٯتلو هم حتا‬// ‫[ٯـ](ا) [ں] ا‬ 6
‫ و ٮکو ں ا لد ٮں کله‬/ /)‫ (ٯـ‬/ / ‫(ال) ٮـک(و)ـ‬ 7
‫ل[ل ه] ٯـ[ا] ں ا ٮتهو ا فال عد و ں ا ال علی‬ 8
‫ ا لحر م با الشهر ا لحر‬80‫ں ۝ ا ل(س)هر‬/ /‫ا لظل‬ 9
‫ لحر مت ٯصص و من ا عتد ی علٮکم‬/ / ‫م و‬ 10
‫ (و) علٮه بمثل ما ا عتد ی علٮکم ٮه‬/ /‫ٯا عٮـ‬ 11
75 ) The illegible part preceding this alif is small, implying āmanū instead of annahum
āmanū.
76 ) This word may be allāh.
77 ) The few remaining traces in this part match ‫ٮدحل ٯـى‬.
78 ) Only one dot is visible above the first tooth.
79 ) There does not seem to be an alif at the end of this word.
80 ) Only one dot is visible above shīn.
‫‪42‬‬ ‫‪Behnam Sadeghi and Mohsen Goudarzi‬‬
‫و (ا) تٯـ(و) ا ا هلل و ا علمو ا ا ں ا هلل‬ ‫‪12‬‬

‫(م)‪81 / /‬لمتٯـٮـ(ں) ۝ و (ا) ن(ٯـ)‪ / /‬ا ٯی سٮٮل ا هلل و ال‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫ٮلٯو ا ٮا ٮد ٮکم ا لی ا لتهلکه و ا‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫‪84‬‬
‫ح[س](ن)‪82 //‬ا ں ا هلل ٮحٮ ا لمحسٮں‪ 83‬۝ و ا ٮمو‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫ا ا لحح و ا لعمر ه هلل ا‪ 85‬ں ا حصر [ٮـ]‪//‬‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫ٯـم‪ //‬تٮسر مں ا لهد ی و ال تحلٯو ا حتا ٮٮـل(ع)ـ‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫ا لهد ی محله ٯا ں کا ں ا حد مٮـک(م) مر‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫ٮضا او ٮه ا ذ ی مں ر (ا) سه ٯد ٮه‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫مں صٮم ا و نسک ٯا ذا ا منتم ٯمں ٮـم(ٮـ)‪//‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫ٮعمر ته ا لی ا ‪ / /‬ٯما تٮسر مں ا (ل)‪( / /‬ی)‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫ٯمں لم ٮحد ٯصٮم ثلته‪ 86‬ا ٮم ٯی ا لحح ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫سبعه ا ذ ا ر حعتم تلک عشر ه کمله‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫{ } د لک لمں لم ٮکں ا هله حضر ی ا لم‪} {/ /‬‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫‪87‬‬
‫‪( /‬ا) ا (لل)[ه]ـ (ا) ‪( / /‬ا) { }‬ ‫{ } ا لحر ‪ / /‬و ‪/‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫)‪Folio Stanford 2007 Verso (Q 2.197 – 2.205‬‬
‫{ } (ا) سهر (مع)‪ / /‬ٮ‪ 88‬ٯـم(ں) ٯـ‪ //‬ص [ٯـ]ٮـ[ه ں] ا لحح‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫ٯـ(ال) ر { } ٯٮ [ٯـ]‪[//‬ه]ں و ال ٯسو ‪( / /‬و) ال [حد] ل ٯی‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫ا (لح ح) (و) ما ٮعملوـ ا مں حٮر ٮعلمه ا هلل و ٮر و د و ا‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫ا ں حٮر ا لر د ا لٮٯو ی و ا ٮٯو‪ / /‬ٮا و ال ا ال لٮٮ ۝‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫لٮس علٮکم حٮح ا ں ٮٮٮعوـ ا (ا) (ل)ٯصل مں (ر) ٮکم ٯا‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫د ا ا [ٯـ]صٮم مں عر ٯٮ ٯا د کر و ا ا هلل عٮد‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫‪/‬و‬ ‫ا لمسعر ا لحر م و ا د کر و ه کما ‪/‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫‪81 ) The small space after mīm suggests there is no alif here.‬‬
‫‪82 ) The word aḥsinū does not seem to end with an alif.‬‬
‫‪83 ) A tooth is missing.‬‬
‫‪84 ) It cannot be ruled out that the scribe wrote aqīmū and then corrected it‬‬
‫‪to atimmū.‬‬
‫‪85 ) There might have been a fā’ before alif.‬‬
‫‪86 ) The third letter is probably thā’, even though only two consonant-‬‬
‫‪distinguishing marks are visible above it.‬‬
‫‪87 ) The text seems to be inna llāha instead of the standard wa-ʽlamū anna‬‬
‫‪llāha.‬‬
‫‪88 ) This word might be maʽdūdāt.‬‬
‫‪Ṣan‘ā’ 1 and the Origins of the Qur’ān‬‬ ‫‪43‬‬
‫ا ں کٮٮم ٯٮله لمں ا لصلٮں ۝ ٮم ا ٯٮصو ا مں حٮٮ‬ ‫‪8‬‬

‫ا ٯص ا لٮا س و ا سٮعٯر و ا ا هلل ا ں ا هلل‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫عٯو ر ر حٮم ۝ و ا د ا ا ٯصٮٮم مٮسککم ٯا‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫د کر و ا ا هلل کد کر کم ا ٮا کم ا و ا سد‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫‪89‬‬
‫مں ٮٯول ر ٮٮا ا ٮٮا ٯی (ه)[د] (ه)‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫د کر ا و ‪/‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫[لحٮو ه] ا لد ٮٮا و ما له ٯی ا ال حر ه مں حلٯ ۝ و‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫مٮهم مں ٮٯول ر ٮٮا ا ٮٮا ٯی ا لد ٮٮا و ا ال حر ه‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫و ٯـ(ٮـ ا) عد ا ٮ ا لٮا ر ۝ ا و لٮک لهم ٮصٮٮ‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫م‪//‬ا کسٮو ں و ا هلل سر ٮع ا لحسا ٮ ۝ و ا د‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫کر ‪ / /‬ا ا هلل ٯی ا [ٮـ م] معد و د ٮ ٯمں ٮعحل ٯی‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫ٮو مٮں ٯال ا ٮم علٮه و مں ٮا حر ٯال ا ٮم علٮه‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫‪ / /‬ا ٮٯی و (ا) ٮٯو ا ا هلل و ا علمو ا ا ٮکم ا‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫‪ / /‬ٮحسر و ں ۝‪ 90‬و مں ا لٮا س مں ٮعحٮکـ ٯو‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫[ل](ه)ـ ٯی [هد ه] ا لحٮو ه ا لد ٮٮا و ٮسهد ا هلل‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫‪ /‬و هو ا لد ا لحصٮـ[م] ۝ و ا د ا‬ ‫{} علی ما ٯی ‪/‬‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫‪91‬‬
‫{ }و لی سعی ٯی ا ال ر ص لٮٯسد ٯٮها و ٮهلک { }‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫)‪Folio David 86/2003 Recto (Q 2.206 – 2.217‬‬
‫‪} {/‬‬ ‫{} ‪ //‬د (ا) [ٯـ]‪//‬ل له ا ٮٯ (ا) [ل](له) ا حد ‪ / /‬ا ‪(/ /‬ر) ‪( //‬ٮا ال) ٮم (ٯـح)‪/‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫لٮٮس ا [ل]مه[ د ۝] و م( ں ا) ‪(//‬ٮا س) مں ٮـ(س ر) ی ٮـٯـ(س ه) (ا ٮـ)ٮعا ‪( / /‬ص)‪ / /‬ا ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫{}‬
‫‪( //‬ا) هلل [ر] و (ڡ) ٮا [ل](ع)‪(//‬د)ـ ۝ ٮـ(ا) [ٮـه ا] ا لد [ٮـ ں] ا مٮـ(و) ا ا د [ح]ل[و]ـ ا‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫[ٯی] ‪//‬‬
‫‪[//‬س لم] (آ ا) ٯه و ال ٮـ[ٮـ]ٮـعوـ ا حطو ٮ ا لس(ٮـط)ں ا ٮه لک[م] عد (و)‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫[م]‪[//‬ٮـ ں] ۝ ٯا ں (ر) للتم [م ں] [ٮـ عد] ما( ح ا) کم ا ل(هد) [ی] ٯا علمو ا (ا) ں ‪//‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫(ل)‪//‬ه (عر) ٮـ[ر] حکٮم [۝] هل ٮـ‪//‬طر ( و ں) ا ال ا ں (ٮـ ا) ٮـ(ٮـ)کم ا هلل ٯـ[ى] ط[ل]‪//‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫‪89 ) There is less room than expected for min al-nās. It is possible that the text is‬‬
‫‪minhum, although there is more space than is needed for this word.‬‬
‫‪90‬‬ ‫‪th‬‬
‫‪) This verse separator has a special shape for marking the 200‬‬ ‫‪verse.‬‬
‫‪91 ) 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
‫‪allāh unlike the standard text. The last word on this partially‬‬
‫‪visible line seems to be al-fasād, followed by an end-of-verse marker.‬‬
‫(مں ا) لعم(م) و ا لملٮکه و (ٯـ)صى ا ال (م ر) و ا لی ا هلل ٮر (ح)[ع] ا ال [م]‪//‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬

‫[ر] ۝ سل ٮٮی ا سر ٮل آ(م) ا ٮـ(ٮـ)ٮـه[م] مں ا ‪(//‬ه) ‪(/ /‬ٮـ ه) [و] مں ٮٮد ل (ٮـعم ه) ا هلل‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫‪(//‬ں ٮـ)[ع د] ما حا ٮه ٯا ں ا هلل س(د) ٮد ا لعٯٮ ۝ ر ٮں لل[د] ‪//‬ں آٯـ(ر) [و]‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫(ا) ا لح(ٮـ)و ه ا (ل د) (ٮـ)ٮا و ٮـسح[ر] (و) ں مں ا لد ٮں ا مٮوـ ا و ا لد (ٮں) ا [ٮٯـ]‪//‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫[ا] (ٯـ و) ٯـه[م] ٮو م ا ل(ٯـ)ٮـ(مه) و ا هلل ٮر (ر) ٯ (م)ں ٮـ(س)ا ٮـ[ع]ٮـ(ر ح)[سٮـ ۝]‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫کا (ں) ا ل(ٮـ ا) س ا مه و حد ه (ٯـ ا) ‪( //‬س ل) ا هلل ا لٮـ[ٮـ]ٮـں م[ٮـ](س ر) (ٮں) و م(ٮـ)[د]‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫(ر ٮں) و ا ٮر ل مع(ه م) ا لک[ٮـ](ٮ) ٮا لحٯ ل(ٮـحکموـ ا ٮـ)ٮں ا لٮا (س ٯٮـ)[م ا] (ا)‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫[حٮـ]ل(ٯو) ا ٯٮه و (م)ا ا (حٮـ)ل(ڡ) ٯـ(ٮه) ا [ال] ا (ل)‪ //‬ٮں ا و ٮو ه (مں) [ٮـ]‪//‬د‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫(م)[ا ح]ا (ه م) ا لٮـ(ٮـٮـ)ٮتـ ٯهد ی ا لل(ه) ا لد ‪//‬ں ا [مٮـ و] ا (ل)م‪ //‬ا حٮـ(لٯـ)[و]‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪/‬‬ ‫[ٯٮـ](ه)ـ مں ا لحٯ ٮا (د) ٮه و ا لل(ه) [ٮـ هد] ی مں ٮـ(س ا) ا لی صر ط‪( 92‬م)‪/‬‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫(ا) (حس)ٮٮم ا ں ٮد حلو ا ا ل(ح)ٮه و لما (ٮـ ا) ‪//‬ک م م(ٮـ ل) ا ل د[ ٮں] (م)ں‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫[ٯٮـ]لک م( مسٮهم) ا لٮسا و ا لص‪ //‬ا و ‪ //‬لر ل(و) ا حتی (ٮـٯـ)[و]ـ ل ا لر‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫(س)[و] ل و ا لد ٮں ا م(ٮـ و) ا مع(ه) متی ٮصر ا لل(ه) ا ال ا ں ٮـص(ر) ا ‪}{ / /‬‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫‪( / /‬ٮـ)[ٮ ۝] ٮـ(سا) لو ٮک (م ا) (د) ا ٮـ(ٮٯٯـ)[و]ـ ں ٯل ما ا ٮٯٯـ(ٮـ)[م]ـ (م)ں (ح)[ٮر]ـ ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪(//‬د ٮں) و ا ال ٯـ(ر) [ٮٮـ]( ں و) ا لٮٮـ(م ى) و (ا) ل(م)س[ک](ٮـ ں) و ا (ٮـ ں) ا ل(سٮٮـ)ل‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫(و) ‪/ /‬‬
‫‪[/ /‬ع]لو ا مں ح[ٮـ]‪ //‬ٯا ں ا لل ه( ٮه) علٮم (۝) آٮـ[ٮ] (ع)لٮکم ا لٯٮل (و) ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫‪} {/‬‬ ‫[کر] ه لکم و( عس ى) ا ں ٮـ(کر) ه(و) ا (س)ٮا و (هو) حٮر ل[کم و ع]‪ [//‬ى ا]‪/‬‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫‪( /‬ں) ‪ //‬ٮـ‪} {/ /‬‬ ‫‪( / /‬س)ٮا و ه(و) [سر] ل[ک](م) (و) ا هلل ٮـ(ع)ل[م] و ا ٮٮـ[م] (ال ٮـ)‪/‬‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫‪} {/‬‬ ‫ٯـ(ل) ‪/‬‬ ‫‪117‬‬
‫‪[//‬و] ٮک (ع ں) ا ل(س)هر ا لحر (م) [و] ع(ں) ٯٮل ٯـ[ٮـ](ه)‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪} {/‬‬ ‫‪( /‬ا) ‪/‬‬ ‫‪94-93/‬و ا لم(سحد ا ل)‪/‬‬ ‫{ } ‪[ / /‬و] (ص)[د] عں ‪/‬‬ ‫‪26‬‬
‫)‪Folio David 86/2003 Verso (Q 2.217 – 2.223‬‬
‫‪[ /‬ا] (ل)[ٯٮٮـه] ا ‪ / /‬مں (ا) ‪[//‬ٯٮـ ل] [و] ال ‪( / /‬لو) ں‬ ‫{ } [کٮر] ‪95‬عٮد ا ‪/‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪98‬‬
‫‪( 123/‬ں)‬ ‫ٮـ(ٯـ)[ٮـ]ل(و) ٮکم (حٮـ ى) ‪( / /‬د) [و] آ‪ 96//‬ا ں ا (س)ٮـط[ع]‪( //‬ں)‪/ 97‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫‪92 ) This ṭā’ has a tail similar to that of a final ʽayn.‬‬

‫‪93 ) The space here is not sufficient for sabīl allāh. The traces match sabīlihi.‬‬
‫‪94 ) 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-ṣaddun.‬‬
‫‪95 ) There are traces before ʽayn that resemble an isolated rā’ or an initial mīm. The‬‬
‫‪traces might belong to a word that the scribe had initially written here.‬‬
‫‪96 ) The initial kāf might be preceded by a tooth.‬‬
117
) Traces of a word are visible above fīhi. Its first letter is fā’/qāf and its second
letter is a medial lām. It is not clear what this word is, or whether it belongs to the
present or the previous line.
‫[ک] ا صحٮ‬//‫ ا و ل‬99/ / 3
‫ا [ل]ٮا ر هم (ٯـ)[ٮـ](ه)ا حل( د و) ں (۝) ا ں ا لد (ٮـ ں) (ا مٮو) ا و هحر‬ 4
‫ ح[و]ـ ں ر [حم ه] (ا) [ل]له‬100/ / )‫ (ٯی‬// )‫(و‬ 5
‫(س ا) لو (ٮک ع ں) (ا) ل(حم ر) (و) ا‬/ / ‫و ا (ل)ل(ه) ع[ٯو] (ر) [ر] حٮم‬ 6
‫هما‬//‫ س (و) ا ٮـ‬//‫ و م(ٮـ)ٯـ(ع) للٮـ‬/ /‫(ل)م(ٮـ)سر ٯل ٯٮهما ا ٮم (آ)ٮـ‬ 7
} {]‫ ں (ٯـ)ل ا لع[ٯـ‬//‫ا و [ٮـ]سا ل(و) ٮـ(ک) م(د) ا ٮٮـٯٯـ‬//‫(ا) کٮر مں (ٮـٯـ)عه‬ 8
‫(ٮـ)ٯـک[ر] و ں (۝) ٯی‬// ]‫ [ل]عل[ک م‬101/ / ‫ (لک) ٮٮٮں ا لل[ه] لک(م) ا‬//‫آ‬ 9
/ /‫(ى) ٯـ‬//)‫ (ه) [و] ٮسا ل و( ٮک) عں ا ل(ٮٮـ‬//)‫(ا) ل(د) ٮٮا و ا ال (ح‬ 10
} {)‫ و ا (لل‬102‫هم‬// )‫(ا) صل(ح) له(م) حٮر و ا [ں] تحلطو هم ٯـ ا( حو‬ 11
‫(ٮـع لم) ا ل(م)ٯـس(د) مں ا لمصل(ح) و ل(و) سا ا هلل ال‬ 12
]‫[م] ۝ و ال ٮـ(ٮـ)[ک](حو)ـ ا ا ل(م)[سر‬//]‫عٮٮـ(کم) ا ں ا لل[ه] عر ٮر ح[ک‬ 13
‫ (ح)ٮـ(ى)ـ ٮو مں (و) ال مه م(و) [م ٮه] (ح)ٮر مں م(س ر) که و‬/ / 14
‫(و) ا عح(ٮٮـ)کم و ال ٮـ(ٮـ)کحوـ ا ا لمسر (آ)ٮں (حٮی) ٮو مٮو‬// 15
‫کم‬/ /‫ و لعٮد م(و) مں حٮـ(ر) م(ں) مسر ک و ل(و) ا ع‬// 16
)‫ لٮک ٮد [ع](و)ـ ں ا لی ا لٮا ر و ا لل(ه) ٮد ع[و]ـ (ا‬/ / 17
103
/ / ]‫[ى] ا لحٮه و ا لم[ع]ٯر ه (و) [ٮـ]ٮـ(ٮـ ں) ا [ٮـ ٮه‬// 18
97 ) Traces of an alif are visible over nūn. The alif has a darker, green hue than the
other characters. It is possible that the nūn, 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 nūn, suggesting the text may differ from the standard reading.
98 ) In criticizing Fedeli, Sadeghi previously assumed that this nūn belongs to the
word ʽan in ʽan dīnihi. However, this is not certain. Nor is there any reason for
believing that ʽan dīnihi is missing from the text as Fedeli assumed. The text is largely
Bergmann
illegible, and it is difficult to conclude much. See Sadeghi and , “The Codex,”
363.
99 ) There is not enough room for the standard text between this point and
istaṭāʽū in the previous line.
100 ) The verb jāhadū is either absent or written after fī sabīli llāhi.
101 ) There is perhaps insufficient room for ‫ال ٮٮ‬. The text may be āyātihi.
102 ) The morpheme hum has a dark greenish hue similar to the alif on line 2.
103 ) The traces and insufficient space suggest that the word li-l-nās is miss-
ing.
‫‪ / /‬و ں [۝] ‪( 104‬ٮـس ا) لو [ٮـ]ک عں ا لمحٮص ٯل (هو) ا (د) ی [ٯـ](ال)ـ‬ ‫‪19‬‬

‫{ } ‪( / /‬ٮو)ـ ا ا ل(ٮـس ا) ٯی (محٮـص)‪(//‬ں حٮـ ى) ٮـ[ٮـ]ط(ه)[ر]ـ ں ٯا د ا (ا) طهر‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫{ } ‪(//‬ا) ٮـ(و) هں مں حٮٮ ا (م)ر آ(م) ا هلل ا ں ا هلل ٮـ(ح)ٮ ا‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫‪[ /‬ٮـس](ا کم) [حر] ( ٮ ل)[کم] ‪} { / /‬‬ ‫‪[ /‬و] ‪[/ /‬ٮ] ( ا ل)[م]‪[//‬طهر] ‪/‬‬ ‫{ }‪/‬‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫)‪Folio Bonhams 2000 Recto (Q 5.41 – 5.48‬‬
‫{} ٮطهر ٯلو ٮهم له م( ٯی) ا لد ٮٮـ(ا) حر (ی) و (ٯـ ى) (ا) ‪} { //‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫ه لهم عد (ا) ‪ / /‬عطٮم (۝) ٮـس(م)عو ں للک(د) ٮ ا آ[لٮـ](ں){}‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫‪105‬‬
‫ٯا حک(م) ‪//‬ٮٮـه[م] ا (و) ا عر (ص) و ا ‪( / /‬ٮعر)ـ ص عٮهم {}‬ ‫للس(ح)ر‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫‪[/‬ه]‪ //‬ٮا ل‪}{/ /‬‬ ‫ال ٮـ[ص ر] و [ک] س‪//‬ا و ا (ں) ‪[/ /‬مٮ] ٯا ‪/‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫‪(/‬ں) ‪( / /‬آٮـ)‪ / /‬ٮـح[ک]‪( / /‬ٮک) و {}‬ ‫ا ں ا (ل)ل[ه] ٮحٮ ا ‪/‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫لٮو ر ٮه [ٯـ]‪//‬ها حک(م) [ا] ‪( / /‬ع)[ٮد هم] ٮـ(م) ٮـ[ٮـ]و ل[و] ں م‪}{/ /‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫‪106‬‬
‫۝ (و) ا ‪ / /‬ل[ٮا] ا ل[ٮو] ر ٮـ(ه) {}‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪/‬م‪/‬‬ ‫د لک ٯـم[ا] (ا و ل)[ٮک] ‪/‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫ٯٮـ(ها) ‪(//‬و) ر (و) [ه](د) [ی ٯٮـح]کم [ٮـ](ها ا) ال (ٮـ ٮٮا) (ا) لد [ٮں] ا ‪}{ 107/ /‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫ا و ا لد [ٮـ](ں) هد (و ا) ٮـحک[م]و (ں) ٮـ[م ا] ٮر ل ا لل(ه) ٯٮـه‪}{ / /‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫ٮـحک[م] ٮها (ا) ل(ر) ‪/ /‬و ں و‪ 108‬ا ال ‪[ 109//‬ٮـم ا] ا سٮـحٯـط(و) ا م[ں] آ[ٮٮ] {}‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫لل(ه) ‪ / /‬کا ٮو ا( عل)‪(//‬ه) سهد ا ٯال ٮحسو هم و ( ا ح)[سو] ‪}{ / /‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫و ال ٮـ(س)ٮـ‪[ //‬و ا] ٮا ٮٮٮی ٮـمٮـ(ا) ٯلٮال و مں لم ٮحکم [ٮـم]‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫ا ٮر (ل) ا ل(ل)ه (ٯـ ا) و لٮک هم ا لک(ٯـ)[ر] و ں ۝ (و) ‪[/ /‬ٮٮٮا]ـ‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫‪/‬‬ ‫(ع)لى ٮـ(ٮـ ى) ا سر ٮل ٯٮها ا ں ا (ل)[ٮـٯـ](س)ـ ٮا ل(ٮـ)‪/‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫‪/‬‬ ‫لعٮـ(ں) [ٮـ ا] لعٮں و ا ال ٮـ(ڡ) ٮـ(ال) ٮـ[ڡ] و (ا) ‪/‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪110‬‬
‫‪/‬‬ ‫(د) [ں] و ا ل[س ں] (ٮـ)ا ل(س ں) (و) ا لحر و ‪/‬‬ ‫ٮال‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫‪111‬‬
‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪ ( /‬ا ں) [ٮـ](صد ٯـ و) ا ٮها [ٯـ]‪/‬‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫‪104 ) It is not clear whether this verse starts with wa-.‬‬

‫‪105 ) The last letter might be a final tā’ instead.‬‬
‫‪106 ) The letter before mīm may be lām or a tooth-shaped letter. The letter after‬‬
‫‪mīm may be wāw, fā’, qāf, or even dāl. A vertical stroke is visible next. If it belongs to‬‬
‫‪a letter of this word, then the word cannot be bi-l-mu’minīn. However, if it is a‬‬
‫‪smudge or a corrected letter, then the word may be bi-l-mu’minīn.‬‬
‫‪107 ) The first letter in the illegible part might be hā’, in which case the word may be‬‬
‫‪ihtadaw instead of aslamū.‬‬
‫‪108 ) This wāw has a slightly darker hue.‬‬
‫‪109 ) There is less room than would normally be expected for a grapheme such as‬‬
‫‪.‬حٮر‬
‫‪110 ) The free space here is unusually large.‬‬
/ / ‫ (ا) هلل‬112‫ [ٮـم ا] ا ٮر ل‬/ / ]‫ ل[م‬/ /]‫لکم و [م‬ 18

/ /]‫ ں ۝ و ٯٯٮٮا علی ا ٮر هم [ٮـ‬113)‫هم ا لــ(ط)لم(و‬ 19
/ / )‫[ص د] ٯا لما ٮٮں ٮد ٮه م( ں ا‬/ / )‫(م‬/ /]‫ [م‬/ / ‫ا‬ 20
/ / } { ]‫ [ر‬//)‫ ا ال ٮـحٮـ(ل) ٯٮه هد ی و (ٮـ‬/ / )‫ٮه (و ا‬ 21
} { ]‫ [ٯا] لما (ا) ٮر (لٮـ ا) مں ا لٮو ر [ٮه‬/ /)‫م(ص‬ 22
114
} {‫ [و] (ل)ٮـحک‬/ / ‫و مو عطه لٯو (م) ٮو (م)ٮو ں‬ 23
} {]‫ا ال (ٮـ)حٮـل ٮما ا ٮر ل ع(لٮـهم) ٯـ[ٮه] (و) [مں] ل[م‬ 24
} { / /]‫ٮـ(حکم) ٮما [ا] (ٮـ ر) (ل) ا هلل (ٯا و) [لٮـ](ک) [ه‬ 25
115
} { / / ]‫ [لٮک‬/ /]‫ (و ا) [ٮر ل‬/ / } { 26
Folio Bonhams 2000 Verso (Q 5.48 – 5.54)

116
‫ [م] ں ا‬/ / ]‫[د‬/ / ]‫[ں‬/ / ]‫[ٯ‬/ /} { 1
‫ [و مه]ٮـ[مٮـ ا] [ع](لٮـهم) ٯا (ح)[کم]ـ ٮٮـ[ٮـه](م ٮـم ا) ا ٮر ل‬/ /} { 2
‫ لل[ه] (و ال) [ٮٮٮـ](ع) ا ه(و ه)[م ع](ں) ما حا ک مں ا‬/ /} { 3
‫ (و) [لک](ل) [مٮهم] حعلٮا [سر ٮعه] (و) [مٮـه](حا) [و] (ل و) (س) ا ا‬/ /} { 4
‫[و] کم ٯٮـ(م)ا‬/ / ‫ (لحعل)[کم] ا (مه و) حد (ه) و (ل)[ک](ں)ـ‬/ /} { 5
)‫[ٮـ](ٯو) ا ا( لحٮر ٮ ٮم) ا (لی) ا لل[ه] م(ر‬//]‫ (ٮٮـ)[کم]ـ (ٯـ)[ا س‬/ /} { 6
)‫[ٮم] ٯٮـ[ه] (ٮـحٮـل)[ٯو] ں ۝ [ٯـ](ا‬//]‫[ا] (ٯـ)[ٮٮٮکم ٮـ](م)[ا آ‬/ /)‫[کم ح](م‬/ /}{ 7
117
‫ [ٮر] ل ا (لل)[ه] (و ال) [ٮٮٮـ](ع)ـ ا [هو] هم‬/ / ]‫[ٮـٮـ](ٮـ)[هم ٮما‬ ]‫[کم‬//}{ 8
‫ [ ا ح](د) [ر] ا (ں) [ٮٯٮٮو]ـ ک (ع ں) ٮـ[عص] ما ا (و) حی‬//}{ 9
111 ) Considering the available space after the word jurūḥ on the previous line, there
seems to be more room here than would be required for the standard text.
112 ) Apart from the traces of ink belonging to anzala, there are other traces. There
might be a wāw slightly above the second grapheme. Perhaps the scribe had initially
written a different word here, such as awḥā. Alternatively, the extra traces may be
smudges.
113 ) The distance between the initial lām and the ẓā’ is unusually long.
114 ) This missing part is too small for the word ahl, and the word seems to be
missing.
115 ) This part at the beginning of the line appears empty, perhaps because
writing here would have interfered with the previous line.
116 ) 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.
117 ) The traces and amount of space suggest fa-ḥkum instead of wa-ani
ḥkum.
‫{} [ا] (هلل) ا ل(ٮک ٯا ں) [ٮو] (ل)[و] ا (ٯـ ا) ٮما (ٮر ٮد)‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫{}‪/ /‬ل[ه] (ل)[ٮصٮٮهم ٮٮـ]ع[ص د ٮو] (ٮـه)[ م و] ا (ں) آ[ٮٮر] ا مں‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫‪( / /‬ل)[ٮا] (س) [لٯـ]‪[/ /‬و ں] ۝ (ا) ‪[/ /‬م] (ا لح)[هل]‪[ / /‬ٮٮـ](عوـ ں و م)‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫‪[ /‬حکما] (مں) ا (هلل ل)[ٯو م] (ٮو) [مٮو] ں ۝ [ٮـ](ا) ٮـ(ه)ا‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫‪ ( /‬ا م)[ٮو] (ا) ال [ٮٮحد و] ا ا (ل)‪[//‬ه]‪ //‬د (و) ا (ل)[ٮـصر ی]‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫‪( / /‬ل)‪//‬ا ‪[/ /‬ص]ک[م] (ا و ل ٮا) ‪[/ /‬ص] (و) [م](ں ٮو ل)[ٮـه]‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪( /‬م)‪(/ /‬م) ا ں ا هلل ال (ٮـه)[د] ی ا ل[ٯـ و] ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫‪ /‬۝ [ٯـ]‪(//‬ر) ی ا [لد] (ٮں) ٯی ‪(/ /‬لو ٮـه م) (مر ص ٮـ)س[ر]‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫‪[ /‬ٮٯو] (لو) [ں ٮـ](حسى ا ں) ٮـ[ص]ٮٮٮاـ د ‪[ / /‬ه] (ٯعسی)‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫‪( 118/‬ٮا) ‪[ 119/ /‬ٮا] ‪( / /‬ا) [و ا مر] (م ں) [ع](ٮدـ ه ٯـٮـ)[ص]ٮـح(و)ـ‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫‪ (// } {/ /‬ا ا) ‪( / /‬ا ٯـ)‪( / /‬ا) ‪//‬ٯـ[سهم] (ٮـ)[د] (مٮں) ۝ (و ٮـ)[ٯو]‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫{ }د (ٮں) ا [مٮـ](و) ا (ا) ‪[ / /‬ال] ا (ل)‪/ /‬ں ا (ٯـ)[سم و] ا‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫‪ /‬ا (ٮـم)‪(/ /‬هم) ا ٮهم ل(م)[عکم ح]‪(/ /‬ط)ٮ ا‬ ‫{ }‪/‬‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫{ }‪[ / /‬ٯـ](ا ص)‪(/ /‬و) ا (حسر) [ٮـ ں] (۝) [ٮـ ا] (ٮها) ا لد ٮں ا (مٮو)‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫{ } (مں) ‪[ / /‬ٮد د] (مٮـ)[کم] عں (د) [ٮٮه] ٯسٮٮی ا لل(ه)‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫{ } [ٮـٯـ](و)ـ [م] (ٮـح)[ٮـه]‪( / /‬و) [ٮحٮو] (ٮه) ‪(/ /‬ا)‪( 120‬علی) ا (ل)‪[//‬و]‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫[م]‪[/ /‬ٮں علط]ا‪( 121‬علی) ا لک[ٯر] (ٮـح)[هد] ( و ں)‬ ‫{}‬ ‫‪26‬‬
‫ٯی [سٮٮـ](ل ا ل)[له و ال]‬ ‫{}‬ ‫‪27‬‬
‫)‪Folio 4 A (Q 11.105 – 11.112‬‬
‫}‬ ‫}‪[//‬م]{ }‪ / /‬ا (ال) مں (ا)‪{122‬‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫}‬ ‫} ا ‪[ / /} {//‬س]‪[//‬و]ـ (ا){‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫‪123‬‬
‫}‬ ‫‪[ /‬د] {‬ ‫{}‪/‬‬ ‫}[ں]‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫}‬ ‫‪{/‬‬ ‫}[ٮـ]ک (ا) ‪/‬‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫}‬ ‫} (ا) [لح]‪[ / /‬حل د] ‪{ / /‬‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪118 ) There is not enough room for allāhu an. Perhaps the scribe forgot to‬‬
‫‪write an.‬‬
‫‪.‬ٮی ‪119 ) The traces here do not quite match‬‬
‫‪120 ) This word may be ruḥamā’.‬‬
‫‪121 ) Before the final alif, two vertical strokes are visible that may belong to a‬‬
‫‪lām and a ẓā’.‬‬
‫‪122 ) The text may be man adhina lahu instead of bi-idhnihi.‬‬
‫‪123 ) This letter may be the nūn of the word khālidīn.‬‬
} { ]‫ [سا‬//]‫ [م‬/ / ]‫ [ص‬/ /} { 6

} { ]‫ [م](ما ٮـ)[عٮـد‬/ / )‫ (مر‬/ /} { 7
} { )‫ [مں] ٯٮـ(ل‬//)‫[ا] (ه‬//}{// ]‫[د‬/ /} { 8
} {]‫ [ٮٮـ‬/ / ]‫}ل[ٯد‬ { 9

} { ‫ [سٮـ]ٯٮ‬//]‫[لم‬//} { 10
} {/ / ]‫ [و ا ں‬/ /} { 11
} {/ / ]‫}[ه‬ { 12
} { )‫ (ا‬/ /]‫ [ٮـ‬/ / 124)‫(و‬/ /} { 13
Folio 4 B (Q 11.120–123 – 8.1–3)
} { )‫ ٮه‬125‫}ٮٮـ(ٮ‬ { 1
126
} { ‫} مو عطه و د‬ { 2
]‫} ں ا (ع)[م]ل[و‬ { 3
} {‫ا‬
{127/ /]‫ (مع)[ک‬/ / )‫} (ا‬ { 4
}
} { ‫ (ال) ر ص‬// ‫} و‬ { 5
} {‫ آ‬/ /}{ ‫ و‬/ / )‫}(د‬ { 6
)‫م ه[ سو ر] (ه ا‬//‫} هد (ه) ح‬ { 7
} {
{/ / )‫}~~ ٮـ(س)[م]ـ ا هلل ا ل(ر‬ { 8
}
)‫} ٮٯـ(ل) ٯـ(ل) ا ال [ٮٯـ](ل‬ { 9
} {‫ل‬
} {‫}ا{}اٮ‬ { 10
{ )‫}[و] (مٮـ)ٮں [۝] ا ٮـم(ا‬ { 11
}
} {]‫} (هلل) ٯـ(ر) ٯـ[ٮ‬ { 12
124 ) There are traces before wāw that resemble a tooth, which would not match the
standard text. Otherwise, this may be the conjunctive wāw preceding lā taṭghaw.
125 ) This grapheme may belong to the word nuthabbitu.
126 ) A horizontal line is visible here beneath dāl. This line could belong to a final yā’.
127 ) The text may be innā maʽakum muntaẓirūn.
{128 ‫هم ا ٮـ(ٮٮـ ا) ر د‬//} { 13

}
} {]‫لو ں ۝ ا لد [ٮـ‬//} { 14
129
‫و مما ر ر‬ //} { 15
} {‫ٯٮـه‬
Folio 5 A (Q 8.73–75 – 9.1–7)
} { ‫ٯی ا ال ر (ص) ٯـس[د] ا کٮٮر ۝ و ا [لد] ٮـں ا (مٮو)ـ ا و‬ 1

} {]‫ا و حه(د) و ا ٯی سٮٮـ(ل) ا هلل ٮا [مو] لهم و ا [ٮـ]ٯـس[ه‬ 2
} {/ / ]‫ لٮک هم ا لمو مٮٮـں ح(ٯـ)[ا] لهم م[ع](ٯـ)[ر] ه [و‬/ / ‫و ا‬ 3
} { ]‫ و ا [و‬/ /)‫ ٮـں ا مٮو ا مں ٮعد و (ه‬/ /} {// ‫آ(ر) ٮم ۝‬ 4
‫ حم‬// ‫حه(د) [و] ا معکم ٯـ(ا) و لٮک مٮکم و او لی ا ال‬ 5
‫ٮـعص(ه م) ا [و] ل(ٮا) [ٮـ]عص ٯی کٮٮ ا لل[ه] (و) ا ں ا هلل‬ 6
130
----------------------------------------- ‫ٮکل سا ی علٮم ۝‬ 7
131
‫۝ ه[د] (ه) (حٮـ)[مه سو] (ر) ه ا‬ ]‫ٮسم ا هلل ا لر ح(م ں) ا ل ر[ حٮم‬ 8
128 ) 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 āyātinā (there is enough space for
such an alif), in which case the word here may be izdādū. Second, a tooth may come
before the alif preceding the missing part, in which case the word could be
zidnāhum.
129 ) The space between the beginning of the verse (alladhīna) and the present point
seems larger than would be needed for yuqīmūna l-ṣalāta.
130 ) There is no decoration here, only a horizontal line.
131 ) Pale traces of the grapheme ‫ اال‬and another grapheme ending in a final lām are
visible exactly above the word sūra. These traces may belong to the word al-anfāl.
Slightly above these traces are others that are not quite legible, but might belong to
another instance of the word sūra. Therefore, the end of line 8 contains traces for
three words: al-anfāl, sūra, and another word that is also possibly sūra. Traces of this
latter word and al-anfāl are paler than those of the first instance of sūra. Considering
that the next line begins with the grapheme ‫الٮٯل‬, the following conjectural scenario
can explain the situation at the end of line 8: The scribe first wrote the word al-anfāl
there, forgetting to write sūra. He then added the word sūra to the text, slightly
above alanfāl. However, this made the text cluttered, so he erased both al-anfāl and
sūra (explaining why they are pale), and wrote the phrase sūrat al-anfāl anew, the
‫ الٮٯل‬part being written on line 9. He then wanted to write lā taqul bi-smi llāhi after
this end-ofsūra caption, but mistook the ‫ الٮٯل‬of al-anfāl (which was on line 9) with
the graphically identical lā taqul. Therefore, he wrote bi-smi llāhi immediately after
‫ال ٮٯل ٮسم ا هلل ٮـ[ر] ا (ه) مں ا هلل و ر سو ل(ه) ا لی ا لد‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫ٮـں (عهد) ٮـم مں ا لمسر کٮـں ٯلسٮحو ا ٯی ا ال ر ص‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫ا (ر) [ٮـع ه] ا سهر و لٮـعل(م و) (ا) ا ٮهم عٮر (م)عح(ر) ی ا لل[ه]‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫و ر سو له (و) ا ں ا هلل محر (ی) ا لک(ٯـ)[ر] ٮـں ۝ و ا ( د ں)‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫مں ا هلل و ر سو ل[ه] {} ا لی (ا ل)[ٮـ](ا س ٮو) ‪ //‬ا لحح‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫ا ال کٮر ا (ں) ا هلل ٮر ی م(ں) ا (ل)[م](سر کٮـں) و ر { }‬ ‫‪14‬‬

‫س[و] (ل)[ه]ـ ‪(//‬ا ں) ٮٮـ و( ٮـ و) ا ٯـ(هو) ح(ٮر لهم و) ا [ں] ٮٮـ[و]ـ ‪( / /‬ا) ‪(//‬ا) { }‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫ٮـه[م] ‪(//‬ٮر) مع(ح)[ر ٮـ ں] ا هلل (و ر) ‪[/ /‬و] (ل)[ه] ٯٮسر ا (ل)د ٮـں { }‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫کٯر و ا ٮـع(د) ا ٮ ا ل(ٮم) ۝ ا ال ا ل[د] (ٮـ)ں عه(د) ٮـ(م) ‪(/ /‬ں)‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫ا لمسر کٮـں ٯلم ٮٮٯصـ[و]ـ کم سٮا و لم ٮـ(ط)هر و ا‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫(ع)ل[ٮـکـ م] ا حد ا ٯو ٯو (ا) ا ل(ٮـ)ه(م) عهد هم ا ل(ى) ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫ٮهم ا ن ا هلل [ٮـ]حٮ ا لمٮٯٮـں ۝ ٯا د ا ا ٮسلح (ا) ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪132‬‬
‫‪/‬‬ ‫سهر ا لحر [م] ٯا [ٯـ]‪//‬ل(و) ا ا ل(م)سر آ[ٮـ]ں حٮـ[ٮ] ‪/‬‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫هم و حد و هم (و) ا ح[ص ر] (و) هم (و) ا ٯـع(د) و ا (لهم)‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫کل مر صد ٯا ں ٮا ٮو ا (و) ا ٯمو ا ا لصلو ه‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫و ا (ٮـ و) ا ا (لر) کو ه ٯـحل[و] ا سٮٮلهم ا ‪( / /‬ا){} هلل‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫‪133‬‬
‫}‪ / /‬ک‬ ‫حٮم و ا (ں) ا حد ‪//‬ں ا ل{}سر (آ){‬ ‫عٯـ‪ / /‬ر‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫} م[ا] مٮه‬ ‫ٯا حر ه حٮا ‪[//‬سمع] (آ لم) ا لل[ه] ٮـ[م] ا {‬ ‫‪26‬‬
‫} [ٯو] م ال ٮـ[ع](ٯـلو) [ں] ‪( / /‬آ)‪[//‬ڡ] ‪} {/ /‬‬ ‫د لک ٮا {‬ ‫‪27‬‬
‫}‬ ‫‪ /‬ا هلل {‬ ‫}‪[//‬س ر] کٮـں‪( 134‬ع)ه‪/‬‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪28‬‬
‫)‪Folio 5 B (Q 9.7 – 9.16‬‬
‫} سو له ا ال ا لد ٮـں عهد ٮم (ع)ٮد ا لمسحد‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫‪135‬‬
‫ٯا (سٮـ)[ٯـ م] ٮهم ا ں ا لل[ه]‬ ‫{ }‪//‬ر م ٯما ا (سٮٯـ)[مو]ـ ا ‪[//‬ک]‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫‪.‬الٮٯل ‪. Consequently, the text came to be short of one instance of‬الٮٯل ‪this‬‬
‫‪, and the traces do not match it. The text‬وحد ٮمو ‪132 ) There is not enough space for‬‬
‫‪may be thaqiftumūhum instead of wajadtumūhum.‬‬
‫‪133 ) This comparatively small rā’ is written very close to the next letter (ḥā’) and is‬‬
‫‪slightly above the line, suggesting that the scribe had initially forgotten to write it.‬‬
‫‪134 ) 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 line’s text starts‬‬
‫‪somewhat after the beginning of the line. The same could hold in the present line.‬‬
‫‪135 ) The illegible letter before kāf may be a tooth-shaped one instead of lām.‬‬
‫{ }[ٮ] ا ل(مٮـ)ٯٮـں ۝ و کٮـ(ڡ) ا ں ٮطهر و ا [ع]ل{}[کم]ـ ال [ٮر]‬ ‫‪3‬‬

‫{ } ٯٮو ٮکم ا ال و ال د مه ٮر صو ٮـ(ک م) ٮا ل(سٮـ)ٮهم‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫و ٮا ٮی ٯلو ٮـه(م) و ا کٮر هم ٯـ(س)[ٯو] ں ۝ ا سٮر (و) ا‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫[ٮـع هد] ا ل(ل ه) و ا ٮمٮهم ٮمٮا ٯـل[ٮـ ال] ٯصد و ا عں‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫س[ٮـ](ٮـ ل) ا هلل ا ٮهم سا ما کا ٮو ا ٮعملو ں ۝ ال ٮـ[ر]‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫ٯٮو ں ٯی مو [م ں] ا ال و ال (د) [مه] ا و ل[ٮـ]ک ه[م] ا لم[ع]‪(//‬د)‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫و ں ٯا ں نبو‪ 136‬ا و ا ٯمو ا ا لصلو ه و ا ٮو ا ا‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫لر کو ه ٯا حو ٮکم ٯی ا لد ٮں و مو لٮکم‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫ٮٯـص(ل) ا هلل ا ل(ا) ٮٮ لعلکم ٮعٯلـ[و]ـ ں ۝ و ا ں ٮکٮوـ‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫ا ا ٮمٮهم مں ٮعد عهد ه[م] و طعٮوـ ا ٯـ[ى] د‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫{ } ٮٮکم ٯٯٮلو ا ا (ٮـم)‪ //‬ا لک(ٯـ)ر ا ٮـ(ه) ال ا ٮـ(مں) ل(ه)[م]‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫{ }[ع]ل[ه]‪ //‬ٮٮٮـه[و]ـ ں ۝ و ما لکم ا ال [ٮـ]ٯـ[ٮـ]ل(و)ـ ں ٯو [م ا]‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫(ٮکٮو)ـ ا ا ٮـم[ٮـ هم] و هم ٮد و کم ا و ل مر (ه و)‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫(ه)م[و]ـ ا ٮـ(ا) حر ح ا لر سو ل ا ٮـح(سو) ٮهم ٯـ(ا) هلل‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫‪ //‬حٯ ا ں ٮحسو ا ا ں آ[ٮـٮـ]م مو م(ٮـ)ٮـں (۝) ٯٮلو هم ٮعد ٮهم‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫[ا] هلل ٮا ٮد ٮکم و ٮحر هم و ٮٮصر کم علٮهم‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫و ٮد هٮ عٮط صد و ر ٯو م مو مٮٮں ۝ و ٮد‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫هٮ عٮط ٯلو ٮهم (و) ٮٮو ٮ ا هلل علی مں ٮسا و‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪137‬‬
‫کو (ا) [و] لما‬ ‫ا هلل عل[ٮـ م] حکٮم ۝ ا ٯحسٮٮم ا ں ننر‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫}‪ / /‬ا {}د ٮں حهد و ا مٮکم ٯی سٮٮلـ(ه) و‬ ‫ٮـ[عل]{‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫لم ٮٮحـ[د] و (ا) مں د و ں ا لل( ه و) ال (ر) [س و] له ‪ / /‬ال ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫{ } لمو مٮٮں و لٮحه و ا هلل ح‪//‬ٮـ(ر) ٮما ٮعملو ں ۝‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫)‪Folio 6 A (Q 9.17 – 9.26‬‬
‫}‬ ‫{} ما کا ں للمسر کٮں ا ں ٮعمرـ و ا مسحد ا لل[ه] س{‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫علی ا [ٮـ]ٯـسهم [ٮـ]ا ل‪ / /‬ا و لٮک ا لد [ٮـ ں] (حٮـ)طٮ ا ‪} {/ /‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫ٯی ا ل(د) (ٮٮـ ا) و ا ال حر [ه] و ٯی ا ل(ٮـ ا) ر هم حلد و ں ۝ ا { }‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫‪136 ) Only one consonant-distinguishing mark is visible above the first tooth.‬‬
‫‪137 ) 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.‬‬
} { )‫ٮـ(ع)م[ر] مسحد ا لل[ه] مں ا [م](ں) ٮا هلل و ا لٮـ[ و م] ا ال (ح)[ر]ـ (و‬ 4

} {//‫حهد (ٯـ)[ى] سٮٮل ا هلل و لم ٮحس ا ال ا لل(ه) ٯعسی ا و لٮـ‬ 5
138
} { )‫ه ا ل(ح ا) ح (و‬//]‫س[ٯـ‬ ‫ ٮو ا مں ا لمٯلحـ(ٮـ) ں ۝ ا حعلٮم‬//‫ا ں ٮـک‬ 6
‫عمر ه ا لم(س)حد ا لحر م (آ)مں ا مں ٮا هلل و ا لٮو م ا‬ 7
139
‫ٯی سٮٮل ا هلل ال ٮسٮو ں عٮـ(د) ا هلل‬ ‫ و حهد و ا‬/ /)‫ال (ح‬ 8
‫(ا) ں ا هلل ال ٮهد ی ا لٯـ[و] م ا لطلمٮں ۝ ا لد ٮں ا [مٮو] ا‬ 9
‫ و ا [و] حه[د] و ا ٯـ(ى) سٮـ(ٮـ ل) ا هلل ٮا مو لهم‬/ /‫و ه‬ 10
141 140
]‫ه[م] ا لٯـ[ٮر‬ )‫ (ا و ل)[ٮـ](ـک‬/ / ‫و ا ٮٯسهم ا [ع](طم)ـ (د) ر ح[ه]ـ‬ 11
}{ ‫[ٮ]ـ‬//]‫ [ح‬// )‫ (ں‬//]‫ه[م] ٮر (ح)[م](ه) [مٮه و ر ص‬// ‫ر هم ر‬/ /)‫و ں ۝ ٮـ(ٮـ‬ 12
} { ]‫ (ا ں ا لل)[ه‬/ / ‫ها ٮعٮم مٯٮم ۝ ه(م) [ٯٮـه ا] حلد و‬/ / ‫لهم‬ 13
} { ]‫ٮـحد و (ا) [ا‬// ‫ه ا ح(ر) عطٮم ۝ ٮا ٮها ا لد ٮں ا مٮو ا ال‬ 14
} {‫کم (و) ال ا ٮٮا کم و ال ا حو ٮـ(ک)م ا (و) ل[ٮا ا] ں ا سٮحـ‬ 15
]‫ا ا لکٯـ[ر] علی ا ال ٮمں و مں ٮٮو ل[ٮـ]ه[م] ٯا (و) لٮک ه[م‬ 16
]‫ا لطلمو ں ۝ ٯل ا ں (آ)ا ں ا (ٮا) آ[ م و] ا [ٮٮـ ــا] (آ)[م] و [ا‬ 17
/ /]‫[ک م] و (ا مو) ل ا [ٯـ‬// ]‫ر (و) حکم و [عسٮر‬ 168
‫حو ٮکم و ا‬ 18
‫ں (ٮر) صو ٮها‬/ /)‫ [ه] ٮحٯو ں آ(س د) ها و (م‬//‫ ها (و) ٮـح‬//‫{} ٯـ[ٮـ]م‬ 19
/ /‫{} ا [حٮ] ا لٮـ[کم] مں ا (ل)ل[ه] و ر سو له و حهد ٯی سٮٮـ‬ 20
)‫ل[ه] (ال ٮهد ی‬// ‫{} ٯـ[ٮر] ٮصو ا ح[ٮـ](ى)ـ [ٮـ ا] [ٮـ ى] ا هلل ٮا مر ه ا ں ا‬ 21
‫ ط(ں) [کٮٮـ]ـ ر ه‬/ / )‫{} ا لٯو م ا لٯسٯٮں (۝) لٯد (ٮـ)صر (آ م) ا لل[ه] [ٯـ](ى‬ 22
142
} { ‫ [ٮـع]ں‬/ /‫ٮـ‬ ‫{} و ٮو م حٮٮں ا د ا عح(ٮٮـ)[ک]م کٮر‬ 23
138 ) There are traces above the tooth preceding mīm that may belong to con-
sonant-distinguishing marks for the letter tā’.
139 ) The letters wāw and alif are written in the small space available after dāl,
suggesting that the scribe had not written them initially. This emendation is wrong,
however, as the plural jāhadū does not agree with the singular pronoun man
preceding it. Perhaps the scribe conflated this word with the next verse’s jāhadū,
which should be in plural.
140 ) 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 lām) exactly where
the grapheme ‫ حه‬is written.
141 ) Traces that match the phrase ʽinda llāhi are visible beneath the word ulā’ika.
Perhaps the scribe first wrote ʽinda llāhi, but then erased it and wrote ulā’ika in its
place. 168
) Traces of an initial ʽayn are visible here. Perhaps the scribe began writing
ʽashīratukum, which is the next word, but then erased it and wrote azwājukum. In other
words, the scribe may have caught himself in the course of an inadvertent omission.
142 ) There are two strokes above the preceding tooth that might be consonant-
distinguishing marks for the letter thā’. The two strokes are not placed vertically
above each other; one is to the right and slightly lower than the other.
} { 170/ / ‫{} عٮکم سا ی (و) [ص]ٯٮ (ع)ل[ٮـ]کم ا ال ر (ص) [ٮما] ر‬ 24

} { ‫ [ٮـ]( م ا) [ٮر ل] ( ا ل)[ل](ه) ا‬/ / ‫ مد ٮر‬/ / )‫[م] (و‬// ]‫[ٮ‬/ /} { 25
145 144 143
} { / / ]‫[سـكـٮـٮـه‬// } { 26
Folio 6 B (Q 9.26 – 9.34)
}{ )‫ [ٮر] (و) [ه]( ا و‬/ / ]‫} [ا لمو مٮٮں و] ا [ٮر] ل [حٮـ]( و د) [ا‬ { 1
]‫ ۝ (ٮـ)[م‬/ / ]‫{ }[ٮ] ( ا ل)[د ٮں کٯر و] ا [و] ( د ل)[ک حرا ا لکٯـ ر‬ 2
]‫ م(ں) [ٮسا و] ا [هلل] (عل)[ٮم‬//]‫ (لک) [عل‬// ‫ [ٮعد]ـ‬/ /)‫{ } (ٮ ا لل‬ 3
]‫[مسر کو‬// ]‫ [ا ٮما ا‬/ / )‫ (ا‬/ / ]‫ [لد‬// ]‫[ا‬/ / ]‫ ۝ [ٮا‬/ /]‫{ } (ح)[ک‬ 4
]‫(ه)[م‬/ / ]‫[عد‬/ /)‫[د] ( ا ل‬/ / ]‫ (ا) [ا‬146/ / )‫(حس‬// ‫{ } ں‬ 5
147
)‫[ل](ه‬/ / ]‫[ں‬// ]‫[ه‬//]‫(ا) [ل‬ / /]‫ [ٯـ‬/ /]‫ [ع‬/ / ]‫{ } [هد] (ا) [و‬ 6
148
/ / )‫ (ا‬/ /]‫ [ح‬/ / ]‫ [ا ں ا‬//]‫ [س‬/ / ‫{ } ا‬ 7
149
/ / ‫[ا ال] (ح)[ر] و‬ / /]‫ [ل‬/ /]‫(و ں) [ٮـ‬//]‫ [م‬/ / ]‫[ ں ال‬/ /)‫(ل‬ 8
/ /150]‫ [ل‬/ /]‫ [لل‬/ / ]‫[ٮحر مو] ں [ما‬ 9
170
) One can see traces matching an initial ḥā’. In light of the first visible letters on the
next line, it seems the scribe initially attempted to write ‫ حٮٮ‬here but then changed his
mind, erased what he had written, and wrote ‫ حٮٮ‬on the next line. This suggests the folio
was physically incomplete at the end of this line already when the scribe was writing the
143 ) 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.
144 ) The text seems to have al-sakīnata instead of sakīnatahu.
145 ) 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.
146 ) The traces at the beginning of this part do not quite match fa-lā. The second
letter may be dāl, kāf, or ṣād.
147 ) There is not enough room for sawfa yughnīkum, and the meager traces do not
match this phrase. The text may be fa-sa-yughnīkum.
148 ) Assuming the putative ḥā’ in the middle of the line belongs to the word ḥakīm,
and considering the traces in the next line, there might be more space than is needed
for the standard text.
149 ) There is less room than expected for wa-lā bi-l-yawmi. Perhaps the text has
wa-bi-l-yawmi instead.
150 ) This letter probably belongs to the word rasūluhu.
text, because if the folio were complete, it would have enough room for the grapheme
‫حٮٮ‬.
]‫ [ا ا لک](ٮٮ) [مں‬/ / ]‫ [ا‬/ /]‫ [مں ا ل‬/ /]‫[ں] (د) [ٮں] ( ا ل)[ح‬ 10
‫ [عں ٮد] و هم [صع] ر و‬/ / )‫(حر‬// )‫ (ا‬// )‫[ط](و‬//]‫ [ٮـ‬/ / ]‫[ٯٮلکم‬ 11
]‫[ ر ی‬/ / ]‫ [ا‬/ / ]‫ [و‬/ / ]‫[ں‬/ / ]‫{ } [ٯلٮ] (ا) [لٮـه و] [د عر‬ 12
]‫[هم‬/ /‫ ل‬/ / )‫ (ا‬/ / )‫ (ا‬/ /‫{ } [ل]م‬ 13
]‫ [ا‬//]‫[ه‬/ / ]‫[ں‬// ]‫ [و ا‬/ /]‫[ں ک‬// ]‫[د‬// )‫ (ا‬/ / ]‫و [ں‬//} { 14
‫ و ر‬/ / ‫( ا ح)[ٮـ](ر)ـ‬ 179
/ / ]‫ (ٮـ)ٮـح(د) [و‬/ / ]‫ [ں‬//]‫[ک‬// ]‫[ه] (ا) [ٮـ](ى) [ٮو‬//]‫[ل‬ 15
/ /]‫ (و) [ ا ل‬//]‫ (ل)[ل‬/ / ]‫هم (ا) [ر ٮٮا] (مں) [د‬/ / 16
151
/ / ]‫ (ا) [ا ال‬/ / ‫ ما ا‬// ]‫ [ٮم‬180/ / 17
153 152
/ / ]‫[ر‬/ / ]‫(ل)[ى‬/ / ]‫[ه‬//‫ ل‬/ / )‫(و‬ 18
}{ ]‫ [ٮا ٯو‬/ / ]‫ (ر) [ا‬155/ / )‫ [و] (ں‬/ / ]‫ [ٮر‬154/ / 19
}{ ‫(ر) و‬/ / ]‫ [ا‬// ]‫ [لو] ک[ر‬/ / ]‫ [ٮو‬156/ / ]‫ و [ا‬/ / 20
}{ ‫ (و) د‬/ / ]‫ ا [ر‬/ / )‫ (ا‬/ / 158)‫ (و‬157)‫ (۝‬/ / 21
}{ ‫ (و) لو‬/ / ]‫[ى‬/ / ]‫{} ٮں (ا) [لح ٯ‬ 22
}{ ]‫[ں‬/ / ]‫ [ں‬/ /]‫ [ ا ل‬// ]‫{ } [کر‬ 23
179
) This word is probably yattakhidhūna.
151 ) At the beginning of this part is a vertical line leaning to the right. It probably
does not belong to an initial lām, which would lean to the left. Maybe the text is an
yaʽbudū instead of li-yaʽbudū.
152 ) This word might be allāh.
153 ) Considering the traces and the amount of space, the text might be li-yaʽbudū
llāha lā ilāha illā huwa subḥānahu wa-taʽālā. That is, it probably lacks ilāhan
wāḥidan (having instead allāh), but has an additional wa-taʽālā after subḥānahu.
154 ) There is more space between this spot and rā’ in the previous line than needed
for ‫کوں‬.
155 ) The traces at the beginning of this part do not match an yuṭfi’ū. They might
belong to li-yuṭfi’ū.
156 ) The illegible part is too small for wa-ya’bā llāhu illā an yutimma. Moreover, the
first letter seems to be alif, not a tooth-shaped letter. The text could be wa-llāhu
yutimmu nūrahu/mutimmu nūrihi.
157 ) Traces resembling an initial or medial hā’ 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.
158 ) This wa- is probably non-standard.
180
) The traces here do not quite match ‫اٮـں مر‬.
}{ / / ]‫ [م ں] [ا ال‬/ / ]‫{ } [ا مٮو] ا (ا) [ں‬ 24
} { )‫ (لٮا س‬// )‫ [م و] (ل‬/ / 159‫ ں‬/ / ]‫ [ٮا‬/ / ‫} لر‬ { 25
} {‫ و (ں) [ع ں] (سٮـ)[ٮل] (ا) ل‬/ /‫ ٮـص‬/ / ]‫ [لٮا‬/ / 160 } { 26
Folio 20 A (Q 9.70 – 9.80)
} {‫[ٮـطلمهم]ـ و ل‬// )‫ ٮا لٮٮٮٮ ٯما کا ں ا (ل له‬//]‫{ }[س]ل[ه‬ 1

} {)‫ ل(م)و م(ٮٮٮ) (ٮـع‬// ]‫(ٮں) [و‬//‫ ں (۝) ا (ل)[مو]ـ م‬//]‫{ }[و] (ا ا) [ٮٯسهم]ـ ٮـطل[م‬ 2
} {‫(م ں) ٮـع(ص ٮا) [مر و] ں ٮـل[معر] و (ڡ) و (ٮٮـ)[ه](وـ ں) عں ا لمٮـ‬ 3
{} ‫ا لصل(و) ه و ٮو ٮو (ں) ا لر آ(و) ه و ٮـطٮـع(و) ں ا ل‬ 4
} {//‫سو له او لٮک سٮر حمه(م) ا هلل [و] ا لل(ه) (ع)ل‬ 5
161
} { ‫ا هلل للمو مٮٮں و ا لمو مٮٮٮ حٮٮ‬ ‫د‬// )‫(ٯا‬ 6
162
} {]‫ا ال ٮهر حلد ٮن ٯٮها و (م)سک ں ط[ٮـ‬ )‫ٮـحٮـ(ها‬ 7
163
} {]‫عد (ں) د لک ا ل(ٯو) ر ا ل(ع)طٮـم ۝ ٮا ٮها ا لٮٮـ(ى) ح[ه‬ 8
} {‫ه م[ و م](و) [ٮـ هم] ا لٮا ر و ٮٮس ا ل‬//‫[و] ا علط [ع]ل‬ 9
164
} {)‫ٮٯسمـ(و) ں ٮا لل(ه م ا) (ٯـ)ا ل(و) ا و ل(ٯـ د) ٯا [لو] ( ا آ‬ 10
} ‫ (ا) ٮـم(ا) ل(م) ٮٮـل(و) ا و (م ا) ٮـٯـم(و) ا ا ال ا ں ا ع(ٮـ)[ٮـ]{ـ‬/ /]‫و [ه‬ 11
)‫ (ں‬// ]‫ [سو] ل[ه] (م ں) ٯـ(ص)ل[ه] و ا (ں) ٮٮـ(و)ـ ٮـ و( ا ٯـه)[و] حٮـ[ر] له[م] [و‬// ‫و‬ 12
]‫ [ه‬//)‫و (ل و) ٮعد ٮـه[م] ا لل(ه) ٯی ا ل[د] ٮٮا و (م ا) لهم [ٯـ](ى) ا ال (ح‬// 13
)‫[مں] و لی و ال ٮـ(ص)ٮر ۝ و مٮـ(ه م) مں ٮـع(ه د) ا هلل ل[ٮـ]ں ا ٮٮٮٮا (مں‬ 14
/ /)‫ لٮٮصد ٯـں و ل[ٮـ]کو نں مں ا لصلحٮـں ٯلما ا (ٮٮـ‬/ /‫[ٯـ]ص‬ 15
159 ) The traces before nūn match the graphemes ‫ حد‬and (less likely) ‫حدو‬. Therefore,
the word is probably ya’khudhūna.
160 ) 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.
161 ) This word is probably fa-aʽadda.
162 ) There are traces above the second tooth that may belong to
consonantdistinguishing marks for the letter tā’.
163 ) There is not enough room for the phrase al-kuffāra wa-l-munāfiqīn. The text
might lack either al-kuffār or al-munāfiqīn. The limited space favors alkuffār, which is
shorter.
164 ) There is not enough room in this physically missing part for the standard text
between qālū and hammū. Perhaps the phrase wa-kafarū baʽda islāmihim is absent.
/ /‫ ۝ ٯـ(ا) (ع)ٯـ‬166/ /‫ لو معر ص‬165‫ لل[ه] مں ٯـصل(ه) ٮحلو (ا) ٮه و ٮو‬// 16

]‫ ٮـل(ٯـ و) ٮه د لک ٮما ا حـل[ٯو ا‬// ‫[ا هلل] ٮٯٯا ا لی ٮو‬ 17
)‫ا ل[ل](ه) ما و عد (و) ه و ما کا (ٮـ و) ا ٮکد ٮـ(و ں) ۝ ا و (لم‬ 18
/ / ]‫ ا ا ں ا هلل ٮـعل(م) سر ه(م) و (ٮـح)و هم و ا ں [ا‬/ /‫ٮـ(ع)ل‬ 19
167
//]‫ا ل[د] (ٮـ ں) (ٮـ)لمر (و) ں ا لمٮطو عٮـ(ں) مں ا (ل)[م‬ ‫علم ا ل(عٮـ)[و] ٮ ۝‬ 20
//]‫مٮٮں ٯی ا ل(ص د) ٯـ[ٮ] و ا ل(د) ٮں ال ٮحد و ں ا (ال) [حه‬ 21
]‫هم سح(ر) و ا مٮهم ٯسحر ا هلل مٮهم و لهم (ع)د ا [ٮ‬ 22
‫ر‬//]‫{ }(ا) ل(ٮم) ۝ ا سٮعٯرـ ل(ه م) ا و ال ٮـ(س)ٮـع[ٯـ]ر ل(ه)[م] ا ں ٮـ(سٮـ)[ع‬ 23
// )‫ (ل له) ال ٮـ(هد‬168]‫ ال ٮعٯر ا هلل لهم ا [ں ا‬/ / ‫{ }[له](م) [سٮـعٮـ](ں) مر‬ 24
169
/ /} { ‫[ں] ۝‬//]‫[ٯـسٯـ‬// ‫[ا لٯو م] ا‬ } { 25
Folio 20 B (Q 9.81 – 9.90)
} { ]‫ حل[ڡ] ر س(و) [ل‬171)‫ و (ا‬/ /)‫ل(ٯـ و) (ں) ٮا ں( ٯـ‬/ /]‫ ا [ل‬170} { 1

/ / )‫ م(و‬/ / )‫ (ٮـح)[ه](د) [و] (ا‬/ / )‫} و (کر) [ه](و)ـ ا (ا‬ { 2
)‫ (و‬//)‫[له] و ٯـل[و] ا [ال] (ٮٮـٯـ‬// )‫[ٮٮل] (ا‬/ /)‫[م] (ٯـ‬/ /} { 3
165 ) There are traces above the tooth that may belong to consonantdistinguishing
marks for the letter tā’.
166 ) There is not enough room for a final wāw and an isolated nūn. It seems that the
scribe wrote an accusative ending (īn) here, but this was changed later, since there
are traces above the verse division marker that match the letter nūn. These traces
are darker than the other characters and have a green hue.
167 ) 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.
168 ) The folio is partly missing here, but traces are visible that may belong to nūn
and alif.
169 ) 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.
170 ) Since this missing part has enough room for fariḥa, 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.
171 ) This word may be qaʽadū.
‫ ل(و) کا‬// ‫ (حه)[ٮـم] ا سد حر‬172)‫ (ر‬/ /)‫}(ل)حر و ا (ل‬ { 4

)‫ ا کٮٮر (ا‬//‫ ں ۝ [ٯـ](لٮـ)[ص](ح)[ک](و ا ٯـلٮـ)[ال] (و) لٮٮـک‬//]‫[ه‬//} { 5
‫ ر ح[ع]ک ا ل(ل ه) ا لی‬/ / ‫} کٮو (ا) ٮعملو ں ۝‬ { 6
‫}[هم] ٯا سٮد ٮو ک ٯی ا لحر و ح ٯـ(ٯـ)ل‬ { 7
]‫}و ا معی ا ٮد (ا) و (لں) ٮـٯـ(ٮـ لو) ا م[ع ى] عد [و‬ { 8
‫}[م] ر صٮٮم ٮا لٯـ(ع د) ه ا و [ل] (م ر) ه (ٯا) ٯـ(ع)د‬ { 9
]‫} ا لحلٯـ(ٮـ ں) (۝) [و] ال (ٮصل ع)ل(ى) ا (حد) م[ٮـ](ه)[م‬ { 10
]‫} ٮد (ا) و (ال) ٮٯم علی ٯـ[ٮـ](ر) ه ا ٮـ(هم) [کٯر و‬ { 11
‫[له] (و ر) [س](و ل)[ه] (و) ما ٮو (ا و) ه[م] ٯـس(ٯـ)[و] ں ۝‬//} { 12
‫[و ا د] ا (ٯـٮـ)[ل] ا مٮوـ ا [ٮا] ل(ل)[ه] و ح(ه)[د] و (ا) [م ع] ر (س)و‬173 13
‫ ا‬//‫ (ا) سٮد [ٮـ]ک (ا و) [لو ا] ا (لط و) ل مٮـه[م] و [ٯـ]ل‬/ / 14
‫ (ٮـ)ا ں ٮکو [ٮو]ـ‬/ / )‫(د ر) [ٮا ٮـ]ک(ں) (م ع) (ا) لٯعد ٮں ۝ [ر] ص(و‬ 15
‫[ ا م ع] ا لح[و] ل(ڡ ٯـ)[ط](ٮـع) [ع]لى ٯلو ٮهم ٯهم‬ 16
‫۝ ل[ک](ں) [ا لر] س[ و ل] و ا لد [ٮـ](ں) ا م[ٮو] ا‬ )‫ال ٮـٯـٯـ[ه و] (ں‬ 17
]‫(ٮـٮـ)[ل‬/ / ‫م ٯی‬//]‫[س‬//]‫[ه] (حهد) و ا [ٮا] م[و] له[م] و (ا) [ٮـ‬/ / 18
174
/ /‫ا لل(ه) ا و ل(ٮک) ل(هم) (ا لح)[ٮـ](ر)ـ [ٮ] و ا و لٮـ(ک) ه‬ 19
)‫(و) [ں] (ا) عد ا (لل)[ه] ل(هم) حٮٮ ٮـح( ر ی‬//)‫(ـٯـل‬/ / 20
‫کا‬ ]‫(ں) ٮـح[ٮـها ا] (ال) (ٮـ)[هر] حلد ٮں [ٯٮـ](ها د) [ل‬// 21
176 175
)‫[ر] و ں [م](ں ا ال‬ / /]‫( ا ل)[م‬ / / )‫ [ر] ( ا ل)[عطٮـم] (۝‬/ / 22
172 ) The text seems to have been al-nāru 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 nūn or lām. 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 nāra or, less likely, qul nāru.
173 ) Verse 85 is missing. The omission may represent a scribe’s eyes skipping from
the instance of ūna followed by a verse separator and the morpheme wa at the end
of verse 84 to the instance of ūna followed by a verse separator and the morpheme
wa at the end of verse 85.
174 ) The letter after hā’ is more similar to wāw than mīm.
175 ) There are no traces of the letter wāw in this part, and there is not enough
space for ‫ و حا‬either. There are traces that may belong to the letter jīm and others
that match a final alif, but the space between them is rather large, as if another letter
were written between them.
176 ) The space after the putative mīm is larger than is needed for ʽayn and dhāl.
Perhaps the word is al-muʽtadhirūn, which is reported here for Ibn Masʽūd and Saʽīd
b. Jubayr (al-Khaṭīb, Muʽjam, 3:436).
‫[عر ٮ ل]{}[و] ( د ں) له[م] (و ٯـع)‪ //‬ا ل(د) ٮـ ں( کد)‬ ‫‪23‬‬

‫} [ل]‪(//‬ه) و ر س(و) ل(ه) سٮـ(ص)‪[//‬ٮ] ( ا ل د) (ٮں) { }‬ ‫ٮـ‪( //‬ا) {‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫‪177‬‬
‫آ(ٯـ)‪[ //‬و] ‪[ //‬ع]‪[ //‬ا] (ٮ ا) [لٮم] ۝ { }‬ ‫}‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫)‪Folio 22 A (Q 9.121–129 – 19.1–5‬‬
‫}‬ ‫‪( /‬ال) {‬ ‫{ } و (ال) ٮـ‪(//‬ٯٯـ)و ں ٮـ(ٯـ)[ٯـ ه] [ص]عٮـ‪/‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫}‬ ‫ں و (د) ٮا ا [ال] آ[ٮـ ٮ] له(م) (ل)‪(//‬ح)‪( //‬ٮـ هم) {‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫}‬ ‫(م ا) کا ٮو ا ٮعملو ں ۝ ما [آ]ا ں ا ل{‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫}‬ ‫(آ ا) (ٯه) [ٯـ لو] ال ٮٯر مں کل ا م(ه) {‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫}‬ ‫‪/‬هو ا‪ 178‬ٯی ا ل(د) ٮـ(ں) [و] لٮٮد [ر] (و ا) ‪{/ /‬‬ ‫ل‪/‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪179‬‬
‫(ر و) ں [۝ ٮا ٮـه]‪ //‬ا ل(د) ‪/ /‬‬ ‫(ر) حعو ا (ا) [ل]‪( / /‬لع)ل(هم) ٮـحـــد‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫ا م(ٮو) ا ٯـٮـ(ل)[و] ا ا لد (ٮـ ں) ٮلو ٮـ[کم] مں ا [لک](ٯر) و‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫ل(ٮحد و) ا ٯٮکم علطه و ا عل(م و) ا [ا] ں ا هلل مع‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫ا لمٮـ(ٯـٮـ ں) ۝ (و) ا د ا ا ٮر لٮ سو [ره] (ٯـ)[مٮـ]هم‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫‪180‬‬
‫(م ں) ٮٯو ل ا ٮـ(ک م) (ر) ا د ٮه هد ه ا ٮمٮا ٯا ما‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫ا لد ٮں ا مٮو ا ٯر ا د ٮـ(هم) ا (ٮـ)مٮـا و ه[م] ٮـسٮـٮـ(سر)‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫و ں ۝ و ا (م ا) ا لد (ٮـ ں) ٯی ٯلو ٮهم ر حس ٯر د [ٮـ](ه)‪//‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫ر حر ا ا لی (ر) حس[ه م] و ما ٮو ا و هم ٯـ(سٯـ)[و] ں ۝ ا [و] ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫(ٮر) و ا ٮـه(م) [ٮـٯـ]‪[/ /‬و] ں ٯی کل عا م مر ه ا و مر ٮٮں ٮـم‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫ال ٮـ(ٮـ)و ٮو ں و ال ٮـ(ٮـ د) کر و ں (۝ و) ا د ا ا [ٮـ ر] (ل)[ٮ]ـ‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫سو ر ه ٮطر ٮعصهم ا لی (ٮعص) هل ٮر ٮٮا مں ا (ح)‪//‬‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫ٯا ٮـ[ص](ر) ٯـ(و) ا ٯصر ڡ ا هلل ٯلو (ٮـه)‪ //‬د لک ٮـ ا( ٮـ)‪[//‬م]‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫(ٯـ و) م ال ٮٯٯهو ں ۝ (و) لٯد حا (کم) ر سو ل مٮـ(ک)م‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫‪177 ) 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.‬‬
‫‪. Perhaps the word‬ٮٮٯٯـ ‪ better than‬ٮٯٯـ ‪178 ) Traces in the illegible part after lām match‬‬
‫‪is li-yafqahū.‬‬
‫‪179 ) The distance between ḥā’ and dāl is large, suggesting another letter was‬‬
‫‪written between them. It is possible that the word is yaḥtadhirūn, which is‬‬
‫‪synonymous with yaḥdharūn.‬‬
‫‪180 ) A shape resembling a medial ʽayn is visible above and slightly to the right of‬‬
‫‪mīm. This v-shaped figure may belong to a word the scribe had initially written here.‬‬
]‫ حر ٮص [ع]لٮکم ٮا ل[مو] مٮٮں ر [و‬181‫عر ٮر (ع)ل[ٮـ](ه)ـ ما عٮٮکم‬ 19

‫ (ٮـ و) لو ا [ع](ٮـ)ک ٯٯل ح(س)[ٮـ ى] ا ل(ل)ه‬/ / ‫ڡ ر حٮـ[م] ۝ ٯا‬ 20
182
/ / ‫ کلٮ‬/ / ‫(ا) لد ی ال ا ل[ه] ا ال ه(و) علٮه‬ 21
‫(ٮـ)[و]ـ‬// ‫ (ه د) ه حٮـم(ه) سو ر ه ا‬/ /)‫ا لعر س ا ل[ع](ـط‬ 22
‫(ٮـ ه) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ـ ٮـ(س م) ا هلل ا لر (ح)[مں]ـ‬ 23
//]‫ا لر حٮم آهٮـعص د کر [ر] ح[م ه] ر ٮک عٮد ه (ر) [آ‬ 24
‫{ } (ٮا) ا د ٮا د ی ر ٮک ر آ[ر] ٮا ٮد ا حٯـٮـ[ا] (۝) و ٯل ر ٮی‬ 25
}{ )‫{ } ا سٮعل ا لر ا س سٮٮا و لم ا کں ر ٮ ٮـ(د) عا (ک‬ 26
} {//‫سٯٮا ۝ و ح(ٯـ)ٮ ا لمو ل مں و [ر] ا ی [و] آ‬ } { 27
} { ‫ [عٯـ ر] ا (ٯـ)[ه](ٮ)ـ لی مں لد ٮک‬/ /]‫ [ٮـ‬/ / )‫(ا‬183 } { 28
Folio 22 B (Q 19.6 – 19.29)
} { )‫ ٮ و ا حعله ر ٮ ر ص(ٮـ ا) (۝‬//)‫} ا (ل ٮـ)[ع](ٯـ‬ { 1

184
‫علما ر کٮا ۝ و ٮسر ٮه‬ ‫} (ٯد) و هٮٮا لک‬ { 2
187
‫ى ٮـ(ک)وـ ں لی (ع)لم‬// ‫ ٯل ر ٮ ا‬186‫ ۝‬185‫مٮـا‬//‫}(ه) مں ٯـٮـ(ل) س‬ { 3
‫ (ٯـ ل) کد لک ٯل [ر] ٮـ(ک) ه[و] علی‬188‫} ل[ک]ٮر عٮٮا ۝‬ { 4
‫}(حل)ٯـ[ٮـ] ک مں ٯٮل و لم ٮک سا ی [۝] ٯل ر ٮ ا‬ { 5
‫ل سو ٮا ۝‬//‫}ـل ا ٮٮک (ا ال) ٮکلم ا لٮا س ٮـل(ٮ) ل‬ { 6
181 ) This word is probably ʽannatakum.

182 ) 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.
183 ) Writing before this point would have interfered with the text from the previous
two lines.
184 ) It seems another letter, possibly ḥā’ or ʽayn, had initially been written in place
of lām.
185 ) There is enough room between sīn and mīm for one letter. Moreover, there are
traces before the initial sīn that match a tooth. Either the word is not samiyyan, or
the scribe had initially written another word (such as shabīhan) before replacing it
with samiyyan.
186 ) Considering the traces, the missing parts in lines 2 and 3 might have had yā
Zakariyyā innā and bi-Yaḥyā lam najʽal lahu respectively.
187 ) It seems the scribe initially wrote walad here, but then erased it and wrote
ghulām instead.
188 ) Considering the length of the physically missing part at the beginning of the
line, the text probably lacks the phrase wa-kānat imra’atī ʽāqiran.
(
‫ مں ا لم(ح ر ٮ ا (و) ح(ى) ا ل(ٮـ هم) ا ں سٮحو‬220//‫ حر ح (ع)لى ٯـ(و) م‬219]‫}[م‬ { 7
‫ا ٮکر ه و( عسٮـ)ا (ٮـٮـح)[ٮـ](ى) ا ح(د) ا ل(ک)ٮـ(ٮ)ـ ٮٯو ه و علمٮه ا‬ 8
221
/ /‫ل(ح)کم صٮٮا ۝ حننا مں لد ٮا [و] (ر) آ(و) ه و کا ں ٮٯٮا ۝ و ٮر ا ٮـ‬ 9
‫ٮو لد ٮه (و) لم ٮک حٮر ا [عص]ٮا ۝ و علٮه ا لسلم ٮو م و لد‬ 10
‫ٯی ا لک[ٮٮ]ـ‬ 222
‫[عٮ] حٮا ۝ و ا د کر ا‬//‫و ٮـ(و) م ٮـ(مو)ـ ٮ (و) ٮـ[و] (م) ٮـ‬ 11
‫ا (۝) (ٯـ ا) (ٮـ)حد ٮ مں‬//‫ ت مں ا هلها مکٮا سر ٯـ‬223‫مر ٮم ا د ا ٮـٮـبذ‬ 12
)‫ٯـ(تم ثل) لها ٮسر (ا) س(و‬ 225
)‫(ا‬// ‫ا ا لٮها ر و‬//]‫[ل‬// )‫(ر‬ 224
‫(د) [و] (ٮـ)هم حح(ٮـ ا) (ٯـ)ا‬ 13
‫ ا [ٮـ ى] ا [ع](و)ـ د ٮا ل(ر) حمں [مٮـ]ک ا ں کٮٮ ٮٯٮا ۝ ٯل ا‬226)‫(لٮ‬/ / ‫ ۝‬/ / 14
‫ى [ٮـ]کو‬// ‫لک علما ز کٮا ۝ ٯلٮ ا‬ 227
‫ ٮـ(ک) لنهب‬// )‫ (س)[و]ـ (ل‬// )‫ا ا (ٮـ ا‬/ / 15
‫ و لم ا ک ٮعٮا ۝ ٯل کد لک‬//)‫ (ٮـس‬/ /‫ [ع لم] [و] ل م( ٮـم)س‬//]‫[ں ل‬ 16
‫ه(ٮـ ں) ۝ و لٮحعله ا ٮه للٮا س و ر حمه مٮا‬ 228
)‫(ه‬//‫[ٯـ](ل) ر ٮک و هو عل‬ 17
‫(و) [ا] مر ا مٯصٮا ۝ ٯحملٮ ٯا ٮـتبذ ٮ ٮه م(کٮـ ا) ٯصٮا ۝‬ 18
‫ ا حا ها ا لمحص ا لی حد ع ا لٮـحل(ه) ٯـل(ٮ) ٮلٮٮٮی (م)ٮ‬//)‫(ٯـلم‬ 19
219
) This word may be thumma.
220
) The traces after mīm are more similar to an initial or medial hā’ than a final one.
Perhaps the scribe first wrote a medial hā’ but then tried to change it to a final hā’. 221
) The tooth-shaped letter is followed by an alif or a lām. After this letter are some
traces that are below the line and may belong to a third or fourth letter, perhaps a final
ḥā’ 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. balīgh). 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 tā’.
224
) A small dash, such as appears in end-of-verse symbols or
consonantdistinguishing marks, is visible slightly to the right of fā’.
225
) This alif may be preceded by one or two letters.
(
226
) The traces before lām cannot belong to an initial qāf alone. They may belong to
a fā’ and a qāf (in which case the word would be fa-qālat), or to a qāf and an alif (in
which case the word would be qālat, 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 yā’ are visible immediately after lām. It is not clear if the scribe
wrote ʽalayya and changed it to ʽalayhi or the other way around.
//‫ٯٮل هد ا ا ل(ٮـ)[و] م و کٮٮ ٮسٮا مٮسٮا ۝ (ٯـ)ٮـ[د] ٮها مں ٮـحٮـه‬ 20
‫ ٮک ٮـحٮـ(ک س ر) (ٮـ) ا ۝ و هر ی‬// )‫ ا ال ٮحر ٮی ٯد حع(ل‬189/ / 21
‫ک (ر) ط(ٮـ)ا حنٮا ۝ [ٯـ]کا لی‬//‫ عل‬190‫سٯـط‬// //‫حل‬//‫ [لٮـ]ک ٮحد (ع) ا ل‬// 22
)‫ [ٮـ]( ں مں) ا ل(ٮـس ر) ا حد ا ٯـ(ٯو‬//]‫ [ی] ع(ٮٮـ ا) ۝ ٯـ(ا) م(ا) [ٮـ‬//‫ [و] ٯـ‬//‫ ٮـ‬//]‫ [ ا س‬// 23
‫لی‬
‫ ا کلم ا لٮو [م] ا‬191‫(ں ص)[و] (ما) [و صم](ٮا ل)ں‬/ / )‫[ د ر] (ٮ) [ل](لر‬/ / 24
‫(حمله ٯلو) ا ٮـ(م ر) ٮـ[م] لٯد ا تٮـت‬// )‫ا [ٮـ](ت ٯو) [مه](ا‬// ‫ ۝‬/ / 25
} { )‫[و] (ا‬// )‫(ٮ) هر [و] ں (ما) کا (ں) ا ٮو [ک] (ا ٮا‬// )‫(ا‬// ]‫[ ا ۝‬/ / ]‫[ا‬/ /} { 26
} { ]‫( ا ۝ ٯا سر) ٮ ا (لی) [د‬/ / ]‫ [ا مک‬/ / ]‫{ } [و ما‬ 27
Folio 23 A (Q 19.29 – 19.54)
} { )‫ [ٮـ](د‬/ /)‫[لو] { } (آ)[ٮڡ] ٮـ(ک‬/ / )‫ ا ل[مه](د‬192)‫د (ی‬//} { 1

193
} {/ /]‫[ل‬/ /]‫ ل[ک‬/ /]‫د [ا] ل[ل‬//‫[ا] (ٮا) ع‬ 2
189 ) There are traces in the middle of this part that might belong to a lām. There is
also a long horizontal line with some traces above it – the line and the traces match a
final kāf. The word may be malak.
190 ) It is not clear if sīn is preceded by a letter or not.
191 ) There are no traces of a fā’ before the initial lām, and there is little free space
before lām.
192 ) This word might be bi-dhī.
193 ) The missing part has enough room for three words. Therefore, the putative
lām preceding this part probably belongs to the verb jaʽalanī from verse 30 (not the
one in verse 31). If we take the barely visible letters preceding this lām to belong to
the word al-kitāb, then it seems there is enough room between this hypothetical al-
kitāb and wa-jaʽalanī for another word. The text might have wal-ḥikma after al-kitāb.
‫}‬ ‫کا اٮٮما آٮـ(ٮ) [و] ا مر ٮی [ٮا] ‪[ / /‬ه] ‪{ / /‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬

‫}‬ ‫د م(ٮ) ‪//‬ٮا ۝ و ٮر ا ٮـ(و) ل(د) [ٮی] (و) ل م[ ٮـ]ح(ع)ل[ٮـ]‪[ / /‬ح]‪{//‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫}‬ ‫ا ل(س لم) (ٮـ و) (م و) لد ٮ [و] (ٮـ)‪ / /‬ا (م)و ٮ (و) ‪{ / /‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪194‬‬
‫}‬ ‫د ل[ک] ع‪//‬سى ا (ٮـ ں) مر ٮم ٯو ل (ا) ل[ح]ٯ ا ل(د) ی کا ں {‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫ٮمٮر و ں ما [آ ا] (ں) ا لل[ه] ا ں ٮٮحد (و) ل(د) ا [س](ٮـح)ٮه ا د ا ٯصی‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫ا مر ا ٯا ٮما ٮٯو ل له کں ٯـٮـ[ک]و ں ۝ ا ں ا لل( ه ر ٮی و ر‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫ٮـ(ک م) (ٯـ ا) عٮد [و] ه هد ا صر ٮط م(سٮٯـ)ٮم ۝ ٯا حٮلڡ ا ال‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫حر ٮ ٮٮٮـ(ه)[م]ـ عں ا مر هم ٯو ٮل للد ٮں آ[ٯر] و ا (م ں) مسهد‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫ٮو م عطٮم ۝ ا سمع ٮهم و ا ٮصر ٮو (م ٮـ ا) ٮو ٮٮا لکں ا‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫لطل(م)و ں ا لٮو م ٯی صلل مٮـ(ٮـ ں) ۝ ٯا ٮد [ر] (هم) ٮو م ( ا ل)ح[س]ر‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫ه ا د ٯصی ا ال مر و هم ٯی عٯله و هم ال ٮو مٮـ[و]ـ ں ۝ ا‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫ٮا ٮحں ٮـ(ر) ٮ ا ال ر ص و مں علٮها و ا لٮـ(ٮـ ا) ٮر حع(و) ں ۝ [و] ا [د]‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫آ‪ //‬ٯی (ا) ل(ک)ٮٮـ ا ٮر هٮم ا ٮه کا (ں) صد ٮٯا نٮٮا ا د ٯل ال‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫ٮه ٮا ٮٮ لم ٮعٮد ما ال ٮسمع و ال ٮٮصر [و] ما ال [ٮـ](ع)[ٮـ]ى‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫(ع)ٮک سٮا ۝ ٮا ٮٮ ا ٮی ٯد حا ٮی مں ا لعلم ما لم ٮا ٮک‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫ٯا ٮٮعٮی ا (ه)د ک صر ٮطا سو ٮا ۝ ٮا ٮٮ ال ٮعٮد ا ل[سٮـ](ط)[ں]‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫ا ں ا لسٮطں کا ں للر حمں عصٮا ۝ ٮا ٮٮ ا [ٮـ](ى) ا ح(ڡ) ا ں‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫ٮـ(مس)کـ عد ا [ٮ] مں ا لر حمں ٯٮکو ں للسٮطں [و] لٮا ۝ (ٯل)‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪236‬‬
‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪(/‬ں ا له)‪[//‬ى] [و]‪( 235‬ل)[ٮـ](ں)ـ [ل]‪/‬‬ ‫[ٮا ٮر] (ه)[ٮم] (ا) [ٮـ]‪/‬‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫هحر ٮی ملٮا ۝ ٯل سل[م] علٮک سا (س)ٮـعٯـ[ر]ـ (لک)‬ ‫‪237‬‬
‫ح‪[//‬ٮـ]ک [و ا]‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫‪( /‬ں) ‪(//‬ں) ‪/ /‬‬ ‫ر ٮی اٮه کا ں ٮی حٯٮا ۝ و ا عٮر لکم و ما (ٮـ)‪/‬‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫و ں (ا) لل(ه) و ا د عو ا ر ٮی (و) عسی ا (ں) ال ا کو ں [ٮـ د] (ع)‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫ٮی سٯٮا ۝ ٯلما ا عٮر له‪( //‬و) ما ٮعٮد و ں (م)ں (د) و (ں) ‪//‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪[ /‬ٮا] س(ح)ٯـ‪ 238‬و ٮعٯو ٮ و کال حعلٮا ٮٮٮاـ ‪/ /‬‬ ‫هلل ‪/‬‬ ‫‪26‬‬
‫‪239‬‬
‫‪( /‬ل)‪[/ /‬ا]‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪( /‬ا) ‪/‬‬ ‫‪[/ /‬ل]‪/‬‬ ‫‪27‬‬
‫‪194 ) Considering the presence of kāna, it is possible that the text has kāna lnāsu in‬‬
‫‪addition to the standard text. Ubayy b. Kaʽb’s codex reportedly had this phrase (al-‬‬
‫‪Khaṭīb, Muʽjam, 5:366).‬‬
(
/ / ‫د ٯ (ع)لٮا ۝ و ا د کر ٯـ(ى) ا لکٮـ(ٮ) مو سی ا ٮه کا ں‬// 28
235
) If this letter is wa-, then perhaps the sentence preceding it is not inter-
rogative. It might be yā Ibrāhīmu anta rāghibun ʽan ālihatī.
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 la’in), might belong to a final yā’; yet the corresponding standard
text does not feature a final yā’.
237
) The traces conform to ‫ ٯا‬as well.
238
) The word in the preceding illegible part may be bashsharnāhu.
239
) This line has more room than needed for the corresponding standard
text. Also, the traces do not match that text.
}{ / / ‫ [ٮٮه] مں حٮـ{ } ا لطو‬/ / ]‫ [و‬196/ / )‫ (ا‬/ /‫۝ ا‬195 / /} { 29
}{ / / ‫[ا] ۝‬//]‫ [ٮـٮـ‬/ / )‫ مں ر حمٮٮاـ (ا) حا ه { }(ر‬/ / ‫ و‬197/ /} { 30
Folio 23 B (Q 19.54 – 19.70)
}{]‫ ا سمعٮل ا ٮه کا ں صد ٯ ا لو ع[د‬/ /]‫} [ع‬ { 1

‫( و آ)ا ں [ٮـ ا] [مر] ا هل[ه] ٮا لصلو‬199-198‫ [و] ا‬/ /} { 2
‫[ا] (ں) [عٮد] ر ٮـ ه( مر) صٮا ۝ و ا د آ(ر) ٯی‬/ / } { 3
‫(ا) ۝ (و) ر ٯـع(ٮـ) ه ا‬//)‫}[س] ا ٮـ(ه) کا ں (ص)[د] ٮٯا (ٮـٮـ‬ { 4
195 ) There is enough room between kāna (on the previous line) and the endof-verse
marker for approximately two words.
196 ) If the first word of the verse is innā, the following word could be a verb the
object of which is Moses.
197 ) The text does not seem to have qarrabnāhu najiyyan. There might be another
phrase in its stead, for which see the previous footnote.
198 ) The traces do not match either rasūlan or nabiyyan. Also, the missing and
illegible parts together have more room than is needed for the phrase wakāna
rasūlan nabiyyan.
199 ) 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.
‫}‪/ /‬ا‪[ 200‬۝] ا و ل‪//‬ک ا لد ‪//‬ں ا ٮعم ا لل[ه] عل[ٮـ]هم‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫}‪ [//‬ں] (د) [ر] ٮه ا د م و [م]مں (حم)ل‪//‬ا [م ع] ٮو ح و (مں) د‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫ر ٮه ا ٮر ه(ٮـ م) و (ا) [سم]‪/ /‬ل [ و م]مں هد ٮٮا [و] (ا) [ح]ٮـ[ٮـ](ٮٮـ ا) ا د‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫ا ٮـٮـ(ل)ى عل‪(//‬ه م) ا ٮٮ ا ل(ر) ح(م)ں ح(ر) و ا (س)حد ا (و) ٮـ[کٮـ] ا ۝‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫ٯحلڡ ٮـ(ع)[د]ـ ه[م] حلڡ ا ص(ع)وـ ا ا ل[ص لو] ٮ و ا ٮـٮـع(و) ا‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫ا لسهو ٮ ٯـ[س و] ڡ ٮلٯو ں ‪[//‬ٮـ ا] ۝ ا ال مں ٮا ٮ و [ ا م](ں) و‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫عمل صلحا ٯا (و) لٮک ٮد حل(و) ں ا ل(ح)[ٮـ ه] و ال ٮطلمو ں‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫سٮا ۝ حٮٮ ا لحلد ا لٮی و (ع د) ر (ٮـ)ک ع(ٮـ د) ه ا ں و عد‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫[ر] ٮک (آ)ا ں ٮا ل‪(/ /‬ٮ‪ 201‬م ا ) ‪(/ /‬ا) ‪( //‬م)‪(/ /‬ٮں)‪[ 202‬ٯـ](ٮـه ا) علی ا ال ر ٮک‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫‪ / /‬ٮسمعوـ ں ٯٮـ(ه)ا لع(و) ا و ال ٮا ٮٮما (و) ل(ه)‪ //‬ٯـ(ٮـ ها) [ر] ر‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫[ٯـ]ه[م] ٮکر ه و [ع]‪/ /‬ٮا ۝ [ٮـ]لک ٮو ر ٮها (مں عٮد ٮا مں کا ں‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪203‬‬
‫‪[/‬ں] ا (ٮـ د) ٮکم و‬ ‫ر ‪//‬ک له م‪/‬‬ ‫[ٮـ](ٯـٮـ ا) ۝ و ما ٮٮـ(ٮـ ر) ل ا ال ٮـ[ا] (م)[ر]‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫‪ / /‬حلٯکم و ما ٮٮـ[ں] د لک و ما (آ ا) (ں) ر ٮک ٮـسٮـ‪ //‬۝ ر ٮ (ا)‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫‪(//‬س)[مو] ٮ (و) ا ال (ر) ص و م(ا) ٮٮـ(ٮـ)ه(م ا) ٯا عٮـ(د) ه و ا صط[ٮر]‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫[لعٮد] ٮـ[ه] (و) ال (ٮـس)ر (ک) ٮـ(ه) هل ٮـعل(م) له (س)م(ٮـ ا) ۝ و ٮٯو‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫(ل) [ا] ال [ٮـس ں] ا د ا مٮ و (آ)ٮٮـ (ٮـ ر) ٮا و عطم(ا) ا ٮی لمٮـ(ع)و‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫[ٮ] ح(ٮـ ا) (۝) ا و ال ٮـ(ٮـ د) کر ا ال ٮـ(س ں) ا ٮا حلٯٮه مں (ٯٮل) و‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫ل[م] ٮک (س)ٮا ۝ ٯـ[ و ر] ٮک ل‪[//‬ح]سر ٮـ(ه)[م]ـ و (سٮـ)ط[ٮـٮـ]همـ ح(و) ل‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫‪ /‬ح‪(//‬ٮا)‪( 204‬۝) ٮـ(م) لٮـ‪( 205/ /‬ع ں) مں کل سٮـ[ع](ه) مں کا (ں) ا سد (ع)لى‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫‪200 ) Some of the traces are consistent with ʽaliyyan.‬‬

‫‪201 ) This word may be bi-l-ghayb.‬‬
‫‪202 ) The letter before the tooth may be mīm. The word may be munʽimīn, or, less‬‬
‫‪likely, muttaki’īn.‬‬
‫‪203 ) This letter may be mīm instead.‬‬
‫‪204 ) There are traces above the line after the initial ḥā’ that may belong to‬‬
‫‪consonant-distinguishing marks for the letter thā’.‬‬
‫‪; they may belong to the‬ٮر ‪205 ) The traces after the tooth do not quite match‬‬
‫‪. This word may thus be la-nufrighanna, yielding, “We shall surely pour‬ٯر ‪grapheme‬‬
‫‪out from every sect of them the most obstinate ones in rebellion against the‬‬
‫”‪Beneficient.‬‬
(
206
‫ا‬//‫۝ و) ل[ٯـ](د) عل[مٮـ ا] ا و لٮکم ٮها (و) صل‬ ( ]‫(ا لر ح)[م](ں)ـ [ع](ٮـ)[ٮـ ا‬ 24
‫ ں (م)[ٮـ]کم (ا) ال و [ر] د (و) ها و آ(ا) ں علی ر [ٮک]ـ حٮما‬/ / 25
208 207
‫ ۝‬/ /‫[ٯٮـ](ه ا) [ح]ٮـ‬ / /)‫[و] ٮد ر ا (ل‬ ‫[مٯـصٮـ](ا) ۝ (ٮم) [ٮـٮـ](حى) ا ل(مٮٯـ)ٮٮں‬ 26
]‫[ں‬// ‫[ٮ ٯـ ا] ل ا لد‬//)‫ (ٮٮـ‬209]‫[ٮا‬//‫ [د ا ٮٮـ]لى علٮـ(ه م) ا ٮـ‬27 ‫و ا‬
‫آٯـ ر( و ا) للد‬
‫[ٮو] ا (ا) ٮٮا (ح ٮر) (م)[ٯـم ا] و (ا) حسں ٮد ٮا ۝ (و) [کم] ا‬// ]‫ [ا‬/ / }{ 28
} { ‫(ں) ٯـ ر( ں هم) ا حسں (ا) ٮٮا و ر [ٮـ](ا) ۝‬/ /‫ ٯٮـ‬//‫کٮـ‬//)‫ {} (ه‬29
206 ) The last grapheme does not seem to be an independent predicate. Therefore,
the wāw preceding it probably is not conjunctive. The wāw and the following
grapheme probably form a single word, waṣliyyan or, less likely due to lesser
conformance to the rhyme, wiṣāliyyan. It is noteworthy that the corresponding word
in the standard text puzzled the readers, who read it variously as ṣiliyyan, ṣaliyyan or
Khaṭīb
ṣuliyyan. Ibn Mujāhid said that this word was not known to him at all (al- ,
Muʽjam, 5:384).
207 ) The presence of two teeth before nūn instead of one is a scribal error.
208 ) There is not enough room after lām for the word al-ẓālimīn. Considering the
remaining traces, the word here may be al-kuffār.
209 ) In the middle of the illegible part, there are traces above the line that may
belong to consonant-distinguishing marks for the letter tā’.
Folio 7 A (Q 22.15 – 22.26)
} { ]‫} ں لں ٮٮصر [ه] (ا) [هلل] ٯی [ا‬ { 1

]‫ ل[ٮٯـطع‬/ / ]‫}[ٮ] (ا) لی ا ل[س ما‬ { 2
‫} [م ا] [ٮـع](ٮط) کد ل[ک] ح[ع]ل(ٮـ)هاـ‬ { 3
‫}[ه](ـ د ی) مں ٮر ٮد ا ں ا (ل د) ٮں‬ { 4
]‫ (و ا ل)[محو‬/ / ]‫(ص)[ر‬//‫ و ا ل‬/ /‫} ا لصٮـ‬ { 5
‫ ا ں‬210//‫(ه)[م]ـ ٯی د ٮٮـه‬//)‫} ٮٯصل [ٮـ](ٮـ‬ { 6
212
/ /)‫ ا (ں) ا ل(ل ه) ٮـ(ح‬211‫ (و) ا‬/ / ]‫} ا ل[م‬ { 7
‫} ر ص و ا (ل)[س](مس) و (ا) ل[ٯـم]ر‬ { 8
214
)‫ (و ا) ل(طٮـر) و (ا) لحٮـ( ا ل‬213//]‫ (ل)[سح‬//} { 9
215
/ / ‫ ا‬/ /)‫} حٯ علٮـ ه( ا ل‬ { 10
‫(ل) ما‬//]‫ (ا) ں ا ل(ل ه) ٮـ[ٯـ‬216]‫ [م] ل[ه‬//‫ک‬//} { 11
/ / ‫ [ٯا] لد‬//)‫}(ح)[ٮـص](مو)ـ ا ٯی (ر ٮـه‬ { ]‫}[د‬ {‫ٮـ‬ 12
217
// ‫ٮصٮ ٯـ(و) [ٯ] ر‬ ‫} مں [ٮـ ا] ر‬ { ‫کٯر [و ا] (ٯـط)[ع](ٮ)ـ‬ 13
‫ د‬//)‫(طو ٮهم) و ا لح(ل‬// )‫ { }(ه) ما (ٯی‬/ /} { )‫[م]ٮـ(م‬//‫ (ا) ل‬/ /)‫(س‬ 14
218
‫ا (ں) [ٮـح ر] (ح)[و]ـ ا‬ ‫ ا‬/ /)‫ [ا] ه(م‬/ / ‫ ۝ ا‬//)‫ مں حد (ٮـ‬/ /‫و له(م) م‬ 15
]‫ ا [ٮ‬//)‫ ٯو ا (ع‬/ / ]‫مٮـه(ا) مں عم ا عٮد و ا ٯٮـ[ه ا‬ 16
/ /]‫ (ا) [مٮو]ـ ا و [عم‬/ /)‫ ( ا ل‬/ /} {]‫لحر [ٮـ](ٯ) [۝] ا (ں) [ا هلل ٮـ‬ 17
210 ) This word may be dīnihim.

211 ) This word may be taraw/yaraw.
212 ) The last letter may be dāl or bā’. The word may be yukhbitu. Alternatively, it is
possible that the scribe mistakenly wrote ‫ ٮحسد‬instead of ‫ٮسحد‬.
213 ) This word may be al-shajar.
214 ) Considering the visible words on lines 8, 9, and 10, the missing part on this line
may contain the nouns al-nujūm and al-dawābb as well as an additional item.
215 ) The traces here match an isolated rā’, but could also represent the beginning of
an isolated bā’.
216 ) The text may be fa-lā mukrima lahu instead of fa-mā lahu min mukrimin.
217 ) There are traces after rā’ that might belong to a wāw.
218 ) The text may be idhā hammū instead of the standard kullamā arādū.
(
]‫[ں] ٮـحٮـ[ها] ا (ال) ٮـه[ر] ٮحلو [ں‬// ‫ ٮحر ی‬/ /]‫ (ح)[ٮـ‬/ /]‫ا [ا] ل[ص‬ 18
/ /)‫[و] (و) لٮـ(سهم ٯـ‬// ‫ و لو‬/ /‫ (م ں) د ه‬219/ /]‫ٯـ(ٮـ)ه ا م( ں ا) [س‬ 19
219 ) There are greenish traces here that may belong to an isolated wāw or rā’.
]‫ [ا‬//‫ طٮـ[ٮ] مں (ا) لٯو ل (و) هد‬/ /]‫ ۝ (و هد و ا) [ ا ل‬/ / )‫ح(ر‬ 20

/ / ]‫ں آ(ٯـ ر) [و] ا [و‬// ]‫ (و ا) ل[د‬/ /)‫ا لی صر ط ا ل(ح‬ 21
/ /]‫ (ا) [ل‬// )‫ (ا) ل(حر‬//)‫[ل] ا ل[ل ه] (و ا) لم[س](ح‬/ /]‫ [عں س‬220‫و ا‬ 22
/ /)‫ (و ا ل‬/ /]‫[ک‬//)‫ سو ا (ٯـ)ٮـ ه( ا ل‬/ /)‫[ه] (ل‬/ /]‫[ع‬// 23
)‫(ں) [عد] ا (ٮ‬// )‫[د] (ٯـ ه‬// ‫ د [ٯـ](ٮه ٮـ ا) (لحد ٮـ)طلم‬/ / )‫(م ں‬ 24
‫ (ال) ٮر ه(ٮـ)م مک[ں] ا لٮـ(ٮـ)ٮ‬/ / )‫ [ٮـ]و (ا‬// ‫ و ا‬/ /)‫( ا ل‬ 25
/ /]‫[ط‬//]‫ [ل‬/ ‫ـ‬/)‫ [ٮـ](ٮـ‬//]‫ ط[ه‬221} { ‫ [ک] ٮی [س](ا) ی و‬//)‫ا ں (ال ٮـس‬ 26
} { / /]‫[ح‬/ /]‫ (ا) [ل‬/ /)‫و ا لعکٯٮں و ( ا ل)ٯـ[ٮـم]ٮں و ( ا ل‬ 27
Folio 7 B (Q 22.27 – 22.39)
{ ‫ (لٮا) [س] (ٮـ)[ا لح](ح) ٮا‬/ / ]‫[ى‬/ / ]‫ [ں‬/ / 1

}
{‫ آ(ل) ٯـ(ح) [عم](ٮٯ) ۝ (و) ل‬222‫ں‬// )‫ [ٮـ](ٮں‬/ / 2
}
} { ‫ (و) ا ا‬//]‫ (و) ل(ٮـ د) [آ‬223‫د و (د) ٮ‬/ / 3
{]‫[ه‬//‫(و) ا م‬//]‫[ه]ٮمه (ا) ال ٮعم ( و ل)[ٮـک‬// ‫مں‬ 4
}
} { ]‫ ۝ و ل(ٮـ)ٯـ(صو) ا ٮٯٮهم [و‬224]‫[لٯٯٮر‬ 5
} {/ /)‫ا (لٮـ)ٮٮ ا (لع)ٮٮٯ ۝ ( د ل‬// ‫(ٯو) ا‬ 6
} { ‫ ا حلٮ‬// ‫ٯـه[و] حٮر له (عٮـ د) ر ٮه‬ 7
{)‫ (ح‬//)‫(ٮوـ ا ا ل‬//)‫ٮـ(ٮـل ى) [ع]لٮـکم (ٯـ ا) (حٮـ‬ 8
}
} {‫(ٯو) ل ا (لر) و ر ۝ ح(ٮٯـ)ا لل[ه] ع‬ 9
220 ) The text may have wa-ṣaddū instead of wa-yaṣuddūna.

221 ) The hole in the parchment in front of wa- seems to have been there already,
because the lower hand avoided it.
222 ) The letter preceding nūn may be mīm or ʽayn.
223 ) This word may be maʽdūdāt.
224 ) Considering the words on lines 2–5, the text may be wa-li-yashhadū manāfiʽa
lahum fī ayyāmin maʽdūdātin wa-li-yadhkurū sma llāhi ʽalā mā razaqahum min
bahīmati l-anʽāmi wa-li-ya’kulū minhā wa-li-yuṭʽimū l-bā’isa lfaqīra.
‫ٮسر (ک) [ٮـ ا] هلل (ٯـک ا) (ٮـم ا) (ٮـح)ر‪[ 225‬م](ں) {‬ ‫‪10‬‬

‫}‬
‫}‬ ‫ا و ٮـ(هو ں‪ 226‬ٮه) ا [ل ر] (ٮح) [م]ں مک(ں){‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫}‬ ‫[س]عٮر ا (ل)ل ه( ٯا) ٮـ(ه)ا م(ں) [ٮٯو]ـ ی (ا) {‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫} (ا) لٮٮٮ [ا]‬ ‫(ٯـ)[ٮـ](ه)ا م(ٮٯـ ع) ا لی ا حل م(سم ى) ٮم م[ح]{‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫‪227‬‬
‫(ٮد)‬ ‫} ٮـس(ک)ـ و ه‬ ‫‪{/‬‬ ‫‪[/‬ع]‪(/ /‬ا) ‪/‬‬ ‫لعٮٮٯ (۝) و (لک ل) ا م‪/‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫آ[ر] و ں ا سم ا ل(له) [ع]لى [م ا] [ر ر] ٯـ(ه)[م] مں ٮهٮمه ا (ال)‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫(ٮـ)[ع](م)ـ [و] ا م(ٮـ)ک(م) ا مه [ و ح]{} ‪( 228/ /‬و) ا لهکم ا (ل ه) [و]‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫(حد ٯـ)ل[ه]‬
‫ٯا س(لمو) ا و ٮسر ا لمخٮـ(تٮں ۝) ا ل{ }(ں) ا [د] (ا) [د] ‪[/ /‬ر] ا هلل‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫‪( //‬ح)لٮ (ٯـ)ل(و) ‪(//‬ه)‪ //‬و ا ل(ص)ٮر ٮں علی { } (ا) ص(ٮـه)م و ا‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫لمٯـ(ٮـ)مٮں ۝‬
‫(ا) [لصلو] ه و( مم ا) ‪ / /‬ٯٮـ(ه)[م] (ٮٮـ)ٯـ(ٯـ و) (ں) [۝] (و) ا لٮد ں‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫(ح)علٮـ(ه ا) لکم‬
‫‪229‬‬
‫مں س[عٮر] ا هلل (ٯـ ا) د کر و ا (ا) ‪(/ /‬م) ا هلل (ع)ل‪(//‬ه)ا صو (ٯـ)ں‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫ٯا د ا و حٮٮ ‪[/ /‬ٮـ و] ٮها [ٯـ]ک(ل)[و] (ا) مٮهاـ (و) ا طعم(و) ا ا ل(ٯـ)‪//‬ع‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫(و ا) ل(م)[ع]‪[//‬ر] کما [س](ح)‪( //‬ه)ا ل(ک م) مں ٯٮل لعل(ک)[م ٮـس](ک‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫ر) و ں ۝‬
‫‪230‬‬
‫(ا) ں ا( لل)[ه] ال ٮٮـ[ل ه] لحو م(ها) و ال [د] مو ها و لک‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫[ٮٮـ له] ا لٮٯو ی (م)‪//‬ک(م) ٯـک(ٮـ)‪ //‬و ا ا (ل)[ل](ه ع)لى (م)ا ه[د] ا کم‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫‪( //‬س)حر لکم مں ا لس(م ا) و ا (ال) ر ص و ٮـ[س]‪ //‬ا (ل)م(حس)ٮـ(ٮـ)ـ ں‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫۝‬
‫[ا] ں ا هلل [ٮد] { } ‪231‬ٯع عں ا لد ٮـ( ں ا) [م ٮو] [ا] ا ں ا هلل‬ ‫‪26‬‬
‫ال ٮحٮ کل [ح و] ا [ں] آٯـ(و) ر ۝ و ا د [ں] (ل لد) (ٮں)‬ ‫‪27‬‬
‫‪225 ) This word may be yakhirru.‬‬

‫‪226 ) The presence of nūn instead of yā’ might be a scribal error.‬‬
‫‪227 ) The text here may be mansakan hum nāsikūhu.‬‬
‫‪228 ) The word following ummatun may be wāḥidatun.‬‬
‫‪). Alternatively, it may‬صافنة ‪ (pl. of ṣāfina‬صوافن ‪229 ) This word is probably ṣawāfina‬‬
‫‪, or a scribal error for ṣawāfiya or ṣawāfī‬صوافيا ‪, ṣawāfiyan‬صواف ‪be ṣawāfin‬‬
‫‪. See al-Khaṭīb, al-Muʽjam, 6:115–7.‬صوافي‬
‫‪230 ) The absence of nūn is probably a scribal error.‬‬
‫‪ seems damaged.‬ٮد ‪231 ) The area after‬‬
232
]‫ ا (لل)[ه‬/ /)‫ (ں) [ٯـ ى] [س](ٮـ‬//)‫(ل‬/ / 28
Folio 31 A (Q 12.17 – 12.20)
} { ‫[ٮ ٮمو]ـ‬// ]‫} [ا‬ { 1

} {/ / ]‫[د‬/ /)‫ (ٯـم‬/ /]‫} (و ه) ع[ل‬ { 2
} { ‫[کم] ( ا م ر) ا‬/ / ‫} (ل)[ٮ] ل[کم] ا‬ { 3
} { )‫ [۝] (و‬// ‫ [ع](لى) [ما] (ٮـص)[ٯـ](و)ـ‬/ /)‫ ( ا ل‬/ / } { 4
} {‫( و ا) و ر د ه‬//‫ ر) س‬233‫ (و ا‬/ /]‫ ٮـع[ص] (ا) ل[س‬//)‫(علٮـ‬ 5
} { ‫ [ى هد] (ا) [علم] و ا‬//)‫ و ٯـ(ل) ٮٮـ(س‬/ / )‫د ل[ى] (د) ل(و‬ 6
} { ‫م ٮـم(ا) ٮٯعلو{}ں ۝ و سر و‬//‫ٮصعه و (ا) ل[له] عل‬ 7
Folio 31 B (Q 12.17 – 12.31)
{ }/ /{ } 1
} {)‫ (۝‬/ /]‫ ا لص د( ٯـ)[ٮـ‬/ /]‫ [م‬/ /‫ ه‬/ / } { 2
} { )‫[ه] (آ)[ٮد]ـ آ( ں ا‬// )‫} (ٯل ا‬ { 3
} {]‫(ـد) [ٮٮـ‬// )‫[ٯـ ر] (ی‬/ /]‫} [ص] (عں) ه د( ا و ا) [س‬ { 4
} { ]‫ (ٯـ)[ل] ٮسو (ه) مں ا (هل) ا لمد [ٮـ]ٮـ[ه‬// )‫} [ں] (۝‬ { 5
)‫(ى‬/ /‫ (ا) ٮا لٮر ٮـه‬236‫(ه)ا‬//‫ ٯٮـ‬235]‫ٯـ(د س)ع(ٯـ)[ها] (ح)[ٮ‬234 / /} { 6
‫ [ه ں] ا ر سلٮ ا‬237‫ مکر‬/ /]‫ (م)[ٮٮـ](ں)ـ [۝] (ٯلما سم)[ع‬// } { 7
)‫(ل‬/ / )‫(ٮ‬// ‫ و ا‬//)‫ (مٮـک‬/ /)‫ ل(ه‬/ /‫ (و){ } ح(ع)ل‬/ /238 } { 8
232 ) The text here seems to be yuqātilūna fī sabīli llāhi.

233 ) The alif might be connected to the previous letter, in which case the
word would be fa-arsalū instead of wa-arsalū.
234 ) The space between al-madīna in the previous line and qad in the present line is
too small for the corresponding standard text. Perhaps the phrase turāwidu fatāhā
ʽan nafsihi is absent.
235 ) In addition to the traces that may belong to the word ḥubb, 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.
236 ) The text may be qad shaghafahā ḥubbu fatāhā.
237 ) The initial mīm does not seem to be preceded by a tooth.
238 ) The area preceding this point appears empty, perhaps because writing here
would have interfered with the previous line.
)‫(لٮ‬/ / )‫{ }(ا‬/ /239 } { }{ } { 9
Folio 32 A (Q 12.111 – 18.1–5)
} { )‫}[ا] ٮٯٮر (ی‬ { 1

} {// 240‫} ا (ل)[کٮٮ]ـ‬ { 2
} {]‫ (ه) ٮـ(و) س[ڡ‬// ‫} [س](و)ـ‬ { 3
} {)‫ٮسم (ا) لل(ه ا لر) ح(م)ں ( ا ل‬ 4
} { ‫ا (ٮـ ر) [ل] (ا لکٮٮ ع)ل ى( عٮد) ه‬ 5
} {/ /)‫[ا] سد ٮد ( ا م ں) (ل‬/ / ]‫ [ٮـ ا‬// )‫(د‬/ /)‫(ل‬ 6
241
} {‫(ا) [لص](لح)[ٮ] ( ا ں) ل‬ / / 7
} {‫ [ا ٮـ](د) ا ۝ و (ل)ٮٮـ‬/ /} { 8
242
} { ‫کٮر ٮ‬ //} {/ /} { 9
243
} {/ /]‫[ٯـ‬ )‫(ا‬/ /} { 10
Folio 32 B (Q 18.15 – 18.18)
} {]‫} کد ٮـ[ا‬ { 1
} {244]‫}[د] و ں ا (ل)[له‬ { 2
} {‫}(م) م(ں) ر حمٮـ‬ { 3
} { ]‫(م)[س‬/ /‫}(ر) ی ا ل‬ { 4
239 ) The area before this point may be empty, perhaps because writing here would
have interfered with the previous line.
240 ) The text might have tafṣīl al-kitābi instead of tafṣīla kulli shay’in.
241 ) The first letter in this illegible area might be an initial ʽayn, and the last letter
may be alif. The text may be ʽamilū instead of yaʽmalūna.
242 ) The space available between li-yundhira from the previous line and the present
point is too small for the corresponding standard text. The phrase mā lahum bihi min
ʽilmin wa-lā li-ābā’ihim may be missing.
243 ) 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.
244 ) The particle illā is missing before allāh. Perhaps the text has min dūni llāhi
instead of illā llāha.
} { ‫ ا عر ٮٮ‬245‫} (و) ا د‬ { 5
} {]‫} (ٯحو ه ٮٮں) د لک د [لک‬ { 6
)‫} هلل (ٯـه و) ا لم(ه)ٮـ د( و مں‬ { 7
246
‫و لٮا مر سد ا ۝ و‬ ‫} د و ٮه‬ { 8
‫[م د ا] (ٮ ا) لٮـمٮـ(ں) و‬/ /‫} ر ٯـ( و د) ٮٯـل‬ { 9
]‫ ص[ٮد‬//)‫}(ـهم) ٮـس[ط] (د ر عٮه) ٮا (ل‬ { 10
‫ { } (و) لملٮٮ‬/ / ‫} لو لٮٮ [م]ٮـ(ه)[م]ـ‬ { 11
Folio 13 A (Q 16.26 – 16.37)
292
/ /‫ ٮـ‬/ /)‫(م‬/ /)‫ (ں) ۝ و (ٮو م ا ل‬/ /]‫[ٮ] (ال) [ٮـ‬//‫ ح‬/ /} { 1
]‫ (ل)[د‬/ / 247/ / 293]‫[و‬//]‫[ٯـ‬/ / ]‫[م‬/ /]‫ [آ‬/ /‫ ٮـ‬/ /)‫ ( ا ل‬/ / )‫(ا‬/ / )‫ [س](ر‬/ /]‫ [ٮـ‬/ / 2
‫ٮں‬
/ /250‫د‬249/ / ‫ ا‬/ / )‫ (و) ا ل[ع]ل(م ا‬248/ / )‫[ا و] ٮـ(و‬ 3
)‫[ل]م(ى‬/ /)‫ (لملٮـک‬/ /]‫ ٮں (۝) ا لد ٮں ٮـ[ٮـ]ل(ٯـ)[ٮـه‬/ /)‫ [ا] (ل‬/ / 251]‫ [م‬/ / 4
]‫ ٮـل[ى] (ا) [ں‬255)‫ (ا‬/ / )‫(ل‬/ /‫ ٮـ‬254/ / )‫ (ما‬253‫لم‬/ /‫ ا ل‬252/ /‫ ٮـ‬/ /)‫(ا) ٮـ(ٯـ‬ 5
245 ) Pale traces of two other letters are visible here: a dāl (after wāw), an alif
(immediately before dāl). Perhaps the scribe initially wrote ‫ د ا‬here, forgetting the
initial alif of idhā, but realized his mistake, deleted these two letters and wrote idhā
again.
246 ) The text seems to have min dūnihi in addition to the standard text.
247 ) The traces here do not quite match fīhim.
248 ) The traces in the illegible part are compatible with al-hudā.
249 ) The traces at the beginning of this illegible part match the grapheme ‫ لسو‬better
than ‫لحر ی‬.
250 ) The presence of this dāl establishes that the text differs from the standard
reading. This dāl might belong to the word al-ʽadhāb (the traces before dāl match
lām and ʽayn). However, it is not clear what precedes this putative alʽadhāb.
251 ) This putative mīm might belong to the word al-yawm. Considering the traces in
the previous line, the text after al-ʽilm may be inna l-sū’a wa-l-ʽadhāba l-yawma ʽalā
l-kāfirīna.
252 ) Considering the initial tooth and the other traces, the text might have yulqūna
instead of the standard fa-alqawū.
253 ) The illegible space after the initial lām is rather large for a medial sīn.
254 ) The traces here do not quite match kunnā (they are compatible with nakun).
255 ) The letter alif suggests the text may have sū’an instead of min sū’in. However,
the illegible space before alif is rather large for the grapheme ‫سو‬.
)‫ [ٮو]ـ (ٮ‬// ‫ ٯا (د) ح(ل و) ا‬// )‫ (ں‬//)‫ ح[ٮٮـ](رـ ٮـم ا) (کٮٮم) ٮـع(مل‬/ / 6
‫ل للد‬//)‫ (و ٯـ‬// )‫کٮـ(ر) ٮـ(ں‬/ /]‫ ا [ل‬// )‫ (مٮو‬256]‫[س‬/ /)‫(ها ح)ل(د) ٮں (ٯـ‬/ /]‫(ٮم) [ٯـ‬/ /} { 7
/ /)‫ (عم‬257/ /‫ (ا) ل‬/ /]‫ [ٮٯو ا] (ما) د [ا] ا ٮر (ل ر) ٮکم (ٯـ)ل[و] ا [ح‬/ / 8
292
) If the visible mīm is part of the word al-qiyāma, it is rather distant from the lām
of the article. 293
) The putative wāw and qāf do not seem to be connected. Therefore, this word
might be something other than tushāqqūna.
/ /‫ ل‬258]‫ [و‬/ /)‫ (ح‬// ]‫ (ٯـ)[ى] (هد ه) حسٮـ[ه] (و ا) لد ا (ر ا ال) [حر‬305/ / 9
//)‫ [ح](ل‬//]‫ (ٮـ)[ه‬/ /]‫ (ٮـح ر) (ی مں ٮـحٮـ)[ه‬/ /)‫[ٮ]ـ (ع‬//)‫ (ح‬/ /]‫[د ا ر] (ا) [ل‬ 10
261
/ /‫ [۝] (ا لد) ٮـ‬/ /]‫[ٯٮـ‬//]‫ [ا] ٮد ا کد لک (ٮـ)[ح ر] (ی) ا هلل ا ل[م‬260)‫(ا‬/ /‫ ٯـ‬259/ / 11
/ / ]‫[و‬//‫ ا د ح‬//‫[م] علٮـک‬//]‫ [س‬262//)‫ٮں (و ٯٮـ‬/ / ]‫ (ا) [لم]لٮـک[ه‬/ / 12
‫ ا‬//]‫ [هل] ٮٮـ[ط](ر)ـ [و] ں ا ال ا [ں] ٮـ(ا) ٮٮـ[ه‬// ‫ ں‬//)‫(ل‬/ /‫ [ٮـ]ع‬/ / 13
//]‫ کد ل(ک) [ٯـع‬//)‫ ٮـع[ص] (ا ٮـ)ٮ ر (ٮـه‬263/ / ]‫(که) [ا و‬/ /]‫[لم‬ 14
/ / )‫ ل(کں آ ا‬// ]‫ ا ل[له‬/ /‫ طلم‬//]‫ (و) [م‬/ /‫ ٯٮـل‬//]‫ [م‬/ / 15
/ /)‫ (ا و ح‬//]‫ م(ا ع)م[ل‬/ /]‫[ه](م) [سٮٮـ‬/ /]‫ (ٯا) [ص‬// ‫ ں‬/ /]‫[ل‬//‫ ٮـ‬/ / 16
]‫ [ا لو‬264/ /]‫ (۝) و [ٯـ](ل) ا لد (ٮں) [آ‬/ / )‫ (و‬/ /]‫ ٮو (ا) ٮـ(س)[ٮـ‬//)‫ٮـ(ه)[م]ـ م(ا آ‬ 17
256 ) The illegible space is small, suggesting this word may be fa-bi’sa instead of fa-
la-bi’sa.
257 ) The available space here is rather small for li-lladhīna.
258 ) The traces represented by this wāw are close to the next word. Therefore, this
word may be wa-la-niʽma or fa-la-niʽma.
259 ) This word may be khālidīna.
260 ) This word may be fīhā.
261 ) It is not clear whether another grapheme is written after alladhīna or not.
262 ) It seems the text has wa-qīla instead of yaqūlūna.
263 ) The available space is rather large for ya’tiya. The word may be ya’tiyahum.
264 ) The letter preceding this illegible part is certainly not alif. It may be kāf, in
which case the text may have kafarū instead of ashrakū.
267
/ / ‫ں د و ٮه‬// 266‫[ر مٮـ](ا)ـ‬/ / )‫ (و‬265/ /‫ م‬/ / ‫{} س(ا) ا‬ 18
/ /]‫ [ٮـ](ں) م(ں) ٯٮلهم و [ه ل] [عل‬/ / ]‫ا ٮا [کد‬// )‫ (ا‬/ / )‫{ }(و‬ 19
/ / )‫(ا) ٯـ ى( ا مم‬//)‫ (ل)ٯـ[د] ا [ ر س](ل‬269/ /‫ ا [ال] ٮـ‬268// ‫و‬/ /} { 20
305
) Considering the traces at the end of the previous line, the text might have li-man
ʽamila followed by a noun such as al-ṣāliḥāti instead of the standard li-lladhīna aḥsanū.
However, the traces at the beginning of this line do not quite match al-ṣāliḥāt.
/ / )‫ (ه‬/ /‫ ( ا ل)ط‬271]‫ (و ا) حٮـ[ٮو ا‬/ / ]‫(د و ا) [ا‬//‫ (ا) ں ا ع‬270/ /‫{ }ل‬ 21
/ /]‫ (حٯـ ٮ) عل[ٮه] ا [لص‬/ /‫ م‬//]‫ و [م]ٮـ[ه‬/ /)‫ (ل‬/ /} { 22
/ / ‫ و (ا) آٮـ(ڡ) آ[ا] ں‬//]‫ ا (ال) ر [ص ٯـ](ل)ٮٮـ[ط‬/ / 272]‫ [و ا‬/ /]‫[س‬//]‫{ }[ل‬ 23
} { / /)‫ (ل‬// ]‫ [ں‬/ /]‫ ص علی ه[د] ٮـ[ه‬//]‫ [و] ا ں[ ٮـح‬/ /]‫{ } [لمک‬ 24
Folio 13 B (Q 16.37 – 16.59)
} { //]‫ [لل‬//)‫[ں] ۝ و (ا ٯـ)سمو ا (ٮـ‬// ]‫ ٮـ[صر‬/ /)‫ (م)[ا] (ل‬/ / 1

/ ‫ـ‬/]‫[ع]ل[ٮـ‬273 )‫[لى و] (عد‬/ /]‫ [م‬/ / ]‫ [ا‬/ /]‫ [ٮٮـ‬/ /)‫(م‬/ /)‫(ح‬ 2
]‫[ں له م] [ا] ل[د‬/ /]‫ (ل)[ٮا س ال ٮـع](ل)[مو] (ں) ۝ [لٮـ‬/ / 3
‫(ی) ا‬
/ /)‫ (ٮٮـ‬//]‫ [آ‬/ / )‫ (کا‬/ / 275)‫(ں‬//)‫ ( و ل)ٮـع(ل‬274/ / 4
265 ) The traces are compatible with ashraknā.

266 ) This word may be ḥarramnā.
267 ) This space is rather small for the phrase min shay’in naḥnu. The text might have
shay’an instead of min shay’in.
268 ) Considering the presence of wāw here, this word may be al-rasūl instead of al-
rusul.
269 ) 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.
270 ) Perhaps fī umamin is followed by min qablikum.
271 ) There does not seem to be more than two teeth between ḥā’ and the putative
wāw.
272 ) This word may be fa-l-yasīrū.
273 ) There is no trace of an alif after waʽd, and there is not quite enough room for
it.
]‫ [کں‬/ / ]‫(و) [ل‬/ / ]‫ [ں‬/ /‫ سٮـ‬/ / ‫(ا) [ا د ا] (ا) ر د‬/ / ]‫[ٮما‬/ / 5

//]‫[م] [مٮـ‬/ / )‫ٮـ(و‬//‫ ا لل[ه] ل‬/ / 278‫ و (ا) ٯـ‬277/ /)‫ (ه‬/ / ]‫(ا) [ں‬276 // ]‫ٯٮـ[کو ں‬ 6
]‫ع(لموـ ں) [۝‬// )‫ [ٮو]ـ (ا‬//‫ (لو) آ‬/ /‫ ح‬// )‫ ٯی ا ال) ح(ر‬281‫ ٮـ(هم‬//)‫ و لم(ٮـ‬280/ / 279)‫(ا‬ 7
)‫ ر س لٮا[ م](ں‬// ]‫ا [لد] ٮـ(ں ص)ٮر و [ا] ( و ع)ل( ى ر) ٮهم ٮٮـ(و) [آ](لو ں) ۝ (و) [م ا‬ 8
}{
//]‫ (ا) [لد آ‬//)‫ ا ( ا ه‬//‫[س]ل‬/ /)‫ ٮـ [ و ح](ى ا ل‬282/ /‫ٮـ‬/ / ‫ک ا] (ال)ـ‬ [)‫(ل‬//‫ٯـ‬ 9
274 ) Considering the alif at the end of the previous line and the traces in this part,
the text may be ikhtalafū fīhi instead of yakhtalifūna fīhi.
275 ) This word may be wa-li-yaʽlamanna.
276 ) This verse does not seem to begin with a wāw.
277 ) Traces of an initial ḥā’/jīm are visible exactly where the initial hā’ is written.
Perhaps the scribe first wrote jāhadū but then changed it to hājarū.
278 ) This letter may be wāw or fā’. However, the traces following it suggest the text
here is fī sabīli llāhi, which would require this letter to be fā’.
279 ) This word may be mubawwa’an.
280 ) The illegible part seems to begin with a tooth. However, the toothshaped
traces may also be part of a letter such as ṣād or kāf. The traces at the end of this
part resemble a final nūn, but can also be part of a final sīn/shīn or ṣād/ḍād.
281 ) This phrase may be la-mubawwa’uhum or la-mathwāhum fī l-ākhirati khayrun.
282 ) This word may be rijālan, spelled as ‫رحٮال‬.
283
/ / ]‫[ٮٮـ ٮ] [و] (ٮا) لر ٮـ(ر) [و ما ا ٮـ ر] [لٮا‬// )‫(ا‬/ / )‫(ٮم) ال (ٮـ)عل(مو ں‬//‫ا (ں) آ‬ 10
‫ ا‬284‫ و ں‬/ /‫ ٮـم‬/ / ]‫[د‬// )‫ (ا‬//)‫ (ا ٯـم‬// )‫ ا (ال) [ل](ع)ل(کم ٮد آ ر) و (ں‬//)‫(ا لد آ‬ 11
285
/ / )‫(ا‬ ‫ ٮٮـ[ٮـهم]ـ‬/ / ‫ و‬// ‫س(ڡ ا ل)ل[ه] ٮهم (ا ال) ر ص‬/ / )‫[لس]ٮٮـ[ٮ]ـ ( ا ں‬ 12
286
/ /]‫ ٮـ[م‬//‫ٯی ٮٯـلٮـ[هم] ٯما ه‬ ‫(ص)ٮٮهم‬// )‫[ٮ] (ال) ٮـ(س)عر و (ں) ۝ ا (و‬//]‫ [ح‬//]‫[م‬ 13
287
/ / )‫ (ا‬// ]‫ و (ڡ) [ر] ح[ٮم‬//‫ل‬ / /‫ ٮـ‬// )‫ ا و [ٮا] (ح د) کم (عل ى) ٮحو [ڡ] ( ا ں‬// ]‫[ں‬// 14
(‫ (و) ا ال‬289]‫ [و‬/ /)‫[ا] (ل‬// ‫ه‬//‫(ا) [ٯـ]( ى ا) ال ر ص (ٮـ)[ٮٯـ](ٮا ط)ل‬/ / 288‫ [و] ا‬/ / 15
‫[مٮں] [و] عٮد ا لس(مٮـل) [لل]ه سح(د) ا و هم‬/ / 16 ]‫ص)[ل عں‬
/ / )‫(د) حر و ں (۝‬
/ / )‫ [م ں] [ٯـ](ى) [ا] ل[س](مو ٮ) و ا ال (ر ص و) ا ل[م](ل)ٮکه سحد و (ں‬290/ / 17
291
/ /‫[ٯـع](ل و) (ں) م‬// ]‫م [و‬//]‫ [ٯـ‬//]‫(ں) [ٯـ‬/ /]‫ [ٮحٯو]ـ ں [ر ٮـ‬// )‫ و (ں‬/ /]‫[ٮـس‬ / / 18
292
‫[ٮـ](ں) ا ٮـم(ا) ه(و) ا‬/ / ‫ا‬ )‫[ه]ٮـ(ں‬//)‫ (ل‬// ‫[ه] ال (ٮٮـ)ح(د)ـ [و] ا‬//]‫ [ ں ۝] (ٯل) ا [ل‬/ / 19
293
‫ ٮ‬/ /]‫ (ں) ۝ [و] (ل ه) (ما) ٯی ا ل[س‬//‫ هٮـ‬// ]‫ى ٯـ[ا‬// ]‫(ٯـ)[ا‬ / / 20 ‫ٮا ا‬
‫و م(ا) [ٯـ]ى‬
]‫[م ا] [ٮـ](کم)ـ [مں‬294 // ‫ ں‬/ / )‫[ا] (ا) ٯـع[ٮر] (ا‬/ / ‫ و‬/ /)‫[ه] (ا) لد (ٮـ‬// )‫(ال ر ص و‬ 21
}{ )‫(ح)[ر و ں] (۝ ٮم‬// ]‫[ه‬//‫ (ا لص ر) (ٯا) ل‬/ / )‫ (ا‬// 295‫(ں) ا هلل (و) ا‬//]‫ [ٯـ‬/ /]‫[ع‬// 22
} {]‫ [کو‬/ /]‫ (م)[ٮـ‬/ / ‫م‬/ / ]‫ (ا کسڡ) ا ل[ص ر‬/ / 23
} { // ]‫ [ں‬/ /)‫ [ڡ ٮـع](ل‬//)‫ [ٯـ](س‬// )‫(و‬/ /]‫ ٯـل[ٮٮـم‬/ /]‫(ٯـ)[ر و ا ٮـ](ا) [ل د] ی ا [ٮٮـ‬/ / 24
283 ) The traces match ʽalayka better than the standard ilayka.
284 ) This word may be yamkurūna.
285 ) This word may be ya’tiyannahum.
286 ) This word may be yuṣībahum.
287 ) The traces following the tooth are more similar to hā’ than kāf.
288 ) Considering the space available at the end of the previous line and beginning of
this line, the text may be a-lam yaraw/taraw.
289 ) This word may be bi-l-ghuduwwi, and the next word may be wa-l-āṣāli.
290 ) Considering the following words, the beginning of the verse may be wakullu.
291 ) Considering the context, the phrase li-llāhi wa-lā might be written between
‫ سحدون‬and the putative yastakbirūn.
292 ) The initial lām and the putative hā’ seem to be separated by a letter, possibly a
tooth representing the long vowel ā.
293 ) Perhaps the scribe wanted to write innamā anā llāhu, but mistakenly wrote
huwa before anā.
294 ) No wāw seems to be written here.
295 ) It is not clear if alif is attached to the previous letter or not.
} {‫ لٮـس‬/ / ]‫ ر ر (ٯـ)[ٮـه](م) [ٮا‬//]‫ [مم‬296)‫ لما (ال) ٮـ(ع)لمو ں( حر ا‬/ / 25

} {)‫ [و] (ل‬/ /]‫ [سٮـح‬/ /‫ (لل)[ه] ا لٮٮـ‬// ‫[ٮم] ٮٯٮـ[ر] (و) ں ۝ (و) حعلو‬//]‫ آ‬297‫[عما‬ 26
} {/ / )‫(ى‬/ / )‫ (ح)[د]ـ ه[م] ٮـ( ا ال‬// ‫ر‬/ /‫ [ٮسٮهو] ( ں ۝) [و] (ا د ا) ٮـ‬/ / }{ 27
} { ]‫ [م ا‬298‫ ی‬/ / )‫ [م](ں‬// ]‫ ٮٮـ[ و ر] ( ی م)[ں] (ا) ل(ٯـ)[و‬/ /‫ (و) ه[و] آط‬/ / 28
} {/ / ‫ر ٮ‬//)‫ ٮد [سه ٯـ](ى ا ل‬299)‫ (ما‬/ / ‫ ں‬//‫ (علی) ه‬/ / 29
Folio 14 A (Q 16.67 – 16.69)300
{ }/ /{ } 1
} { ‫} [ں] ا ٮحد‬ { 2
} {// ‫} ۝ ٮم [آ]لى‬ { 3
} {// )‫ (ح‬//)‫} ٮـ(ح‬ { 4
Folio 14 B (Q 16.77 – 16.79)
{ }/ /{ } 1
} { ]‫}[هٮـ]ک[م‬ { 2
301
} {// ]‫} ا لٮـص[ر‬ { 3
} {]‫ [ ا ل‬// ]‫} [و‬ { 4
Folio 9 A (Q 33.51 – 33.57)
} { ]‫ [ٮسا‬/ /‫ (و ٮـ)[ و ی] ا لٮک م‬/ /‫(ٮـ)ر ح(ى) [مں] ٮـ(سا) [مٮـ]ه‬ 1

} { ‫(ر) [ل ٮ] (ٯـ ال) (ح)ٮح [ع]ل[ٮـ](ک)ـ‬//]‫ (م)م[ں] ا [ع‬302‫و م(ا) [ا ٮٮـ]ع[ٮـ]ٮ‬ 2
‫ ں و ٮر‬/ /)‫د لک ا د ٮی ا (ں) ٮٯر ں عٮو ٮهں و ال (ٮـ‬ 3
296 ) This word may be juz’an.
297 ) The traces match ʽan mā as well.
298 ) This word may be khizy.
299 ) This word may be immā, in which case the text may have immā yumsikuhu
instead of a-yumsikuhu.
300 ) The meagerness of the text makes it difficult to rule out that it belongs to a
different part of the Qur’ān.
301 ) The text may have al-baṣar instead of the standard al-abṣār.
)‫ص(ٮـ ں) ٮـ(ما) ا و (ٮٮـ ں) کلهں و ا لل[ه] ٮـعل[م] م(ا ٯـ ى) (ٯلو ٮکم‬ 4

)‫( و آ ا) (ں) ا هلل عل(ٮـ)ما حلٮما ۝ (ما) ٮحل لک ا لٮسا (مں‬ 5
302 ) Traces of a lām are also visible at the beginning of this grapheme. Perhaps the
scribe made a mistake and corrected it later.
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪8‬‬
‫‪9‬‬
‫ٮعد و ال ا ں ٮٮد ل م(ں) ا ر و حا و لو ا [ع]حٮکـ‬
‫حسٮـه ں( ا ال) ما مل[ک]‪ / /‬ٮـ[مٮٮـ](کـ و آ)ا ں ا لل(ه) عل{‬
‫} کل [س ا] ی ر (ٯـ)ٮٮا ۝ ٮا ٮـ(ه ا) [ا] لد ٮں ا مٮو (ا) ال{‬
‫}‬ ‫} حلو ا ٮٮو ٮ ا (ل)ٮٮی ا ال ا (ں) ٮو د ں لکم ا (لی){‬
‫}‬ ‫عٮر ٮطر ٮں (ا ٮـ)ٮـ‪ //‬و ل[ک]‪ / /‬ا [د ا] د (ع)[ٮٮـ]م (ٯا){‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫}‬ ‫ٯا د ا (طع)مٮم (ٯـ ا) (ٮٮـ)سر و ا و ال مسٮٮـ{‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫}‬ ‫ا ں (د) لکم (آ ا) [ں] ٮو د [ی] ا ل(ٮٮـ ى) (و) ٮـسٮـح{‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫}‬ ‫ال ٮسٮحٮی (مں ا) لح(ٯ) ‪ / /‬د ا س(ل){‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫}‬ ‫(ه)[ں] مں و را ححٮـ(ٮ) د لک ا ط(ه){‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫}‬ ‫ٮـ(هں) و م(ا) کا ں ل(کم) ا ں (ٮو) د و ا{‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫}‬ ‫ال (ٮٮـ)کحو ا ا (ر) و حه مں ٮعد ه{‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫}‬ ‫(ع)[ٮـ د] ا هلل عطٮما ۝ ا ں ٮـ[ٮـ]( د و) ا {‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫}‬ ‫ں ا هلل کا ں ٮـ(ک ل) سا ی علٮـم(ا) {‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫}‬ ‫ٮٮـه‪ / /‬و ال ا ٮٮا ٮـ(هں و) ال ا [ح]{‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫}‬ ‫ٮـه ں( و ٮٮا) ی‪ 303‬ا ح و( ٮـ)هں و ال{‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫}‬ ‫} (و ا ٮـ)[ٯٮں] ا هلل (ا){‬ ‫(ا ٮـ){‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫}‬ ‫} [ں] (ا) [هلل] (و){‬ ‫‪{//‬‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫}‬ ‫} [ٮں] ( ا م)‪ (//‬و ا){‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫}‬ ‫‪{/‬‬ ‫} [ا] ‪/‬‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫)‪Folio 9 B (Q 33.57 – 33.72‬‬
‫‪303 ) The text may be wa-lā bnāyi, with the hamzat al-waṣl having been dropped‬‬
‫‪and the hamza at the end turned into yā’. Softening (tashīl) is reported for the‬‬
‫‪hamza at the end of the instance of abnā’ that is followed by ikhwānihinna (al-‬‬
‫‪Khaṭīb, Muʽjam, 7:311). Alternatively, maybe the scribe wanted to write banī, which‬‬
‫‪is also a plural of ibn, but made a mistake and wrote alif before‬‬
‫‪yā’.‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪8‬‬
‫‪9‬‬
‫} [عد] (ٮا) م(هٮـ)‪[//‬ا] (۝) [و] (ا لد) ‪[//‬ں] ٮو د [و] (ں) ا (ل)مو‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫{ } مٮٮں (و) ا لمو (م)ٮٮـ(ٮـ ٮـ)[ع]‪[//‬ر] ما [آ](س)ٮو ا (ٯٯد)‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫ا حٮـ(م لو) ا ٮهٮٮـ(ا)ـ و [ا ٮـ ما] (م)‪(//‬ٮـ)ٮا ۝ (ٮـ ا) ٮها ا (ل)‪(/ /‬ى)‬ ‫{}‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫ٯل ال ر و حک و ٮٮـ(ٮـ)ک و ٮـ(س ا) ا ل(م)[و]ـ مٮـ(ٮں) ٮد (ٮـ)ٮں‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫علٮهں (مں) ح(ل)ٮٮٮهںـ د ل(ک) ا د ٮی ا ں ٮـ[ع](ر) ٯں ٯـ(ال) ٮـ(و) د ٮں‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪304‬‬
‫و کا ں ا لل(ه) عٯو (ر) ا ر ح(ٮـم ا) ۝ لٮں لم ٮٮٮـ(ه)ـ ا لم(ٮـ)ٯٯـ‪(//‬ں)‬
‫(و) ا ل(م)‪ //‬حٯو ں ٯـ[ى] ا ل[م د] (ٮـ)[ٮه] (و) ا لد ٮں ٯی ٯلو (ٮـ)هم‬
‫{ } [ص] لٮـ‪(//‬ر) ٮـ(ٮک) ٮـه[م] (ٮـ)[م] ال [ٮـ]حو رو ٮک ٯٮها ا ال‬
‫}[ال] ۝ ملع(و) ٮـ(ٮـ ں) ا ٮٮـ(م)ا ٮٯـ(ٯـ و) ا ا (ح د) (و) ا (و) ٯـ[ٮـ لو] ا‬ ‫{‬
‫}(۝) [سٮٮ]ـ ا لل(ه) ٯی ا لد ٮں (م ں) ٯٮـ(ل) و لں ٮحد لسٮـ(ه)‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫}[د] (ٮـ ال) [۝] ٮـ(سل)ک ا ل(ٮا) س عں ا لسا (عه) ٯل‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫} عٮد ا هلل (م ا) ٮد ر ٮک لع(ل) ا لسا [ع]ه‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫} ا ں ا ل(ل ه) لعں ا ل(کٯـر) ٮں و ا عد لهم‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫} ں( ٯـ)ٮـه(ا) ا ٮد ا ال ٮحد و ں و لٮا و‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫‪/‬و‬ ‫} ٮـ(ٯـ)ل[ٮ] و ح(و) هه(م) ٯـ(ى) ا ل‪/‬‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫} طعٮـ(ا) ا (ل)ل[ه] و ا طعٮا ا لر سو‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫} ا (ٮا) ع(صٮـ)ٮاـ و (ا) طعٮا (س ا) د ‪//‬ٮـ(ا)‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫}‪( / /‬ل)[س]‪/ /‬ل [۝ ر] ‪[/ /‬ا] (ا) ٮـ[ه]‪ //‬صع[ٯـ]ٮں مں‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫}[ل]‪[/ /‬م] ل[عٮـ]ا آٮٮـ(ر) ا (۝) ٮا ٮها ا لد ٮں‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫}(ل د) [ٮں] ‪ //‬د و (ا) مو سی ٯٮر (ا) [ه] ا‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫}‪(//‬ٮد) ا [ل له] و ح(ٮـ ها) ٮا [ٮـ]ه‪ //‬ا لد ‪//‬ں‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫} [ٯـ](و) ال‪ 305‬ٯـ‪( //‬ال) س د( ٮد) ا [۝] (ٮـ)صل[ح]‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫}(د) ٮو ٮکم و مں ٮـط[ع] ا (ل){ } ‪/ /‬‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫‪304 ) The final nūn is not separate from the previous letters, suggesting that‬‬
‫‪this word is al-munāfiqīn, which would be grammatically incorrect.‬‬
‫‪305 ) This is an error of the hand generated by the assimilation of a nearby‬‬
‫‪term.‬‬
6
7
8
9
/ /} {‫ ا ا‬/ / ]‫}( ا ۝) [ا] ٮا ع[ر‬ { 24
} {/ / )‫ (ا‬/ / )‫} [ٯـ](ا‬ { 25
{ }/ /{ } 26
Folio 25 A (Q 39.25 – 39.36)
} {]‫(ر و ں) [۝‬//‫{ } حٮٮ ال ٮـس‬ 1

} {)‫ [و] (ل)[ع](د) [ٮ ا] ( ال ح‬//‫ٮـ‬// ‫ا لد‬ 2
} { ‫(ا) للٮا (س) ٯی‬/ /]‫ [ص‬//)‫و ل(ٯـ‬ 3
} { ]‫لعلهم ٮد کر و ( ں ۝) ٯر (ٮـ ا) [عر‬ 4
} { ‫(ال) ر‬/ / ]‫ ا (لل)[ه‬/ / ]‫ [صر‬// )‫ٮـع(ٯـل و) (ں‬ 5
} {‫ٮـ‬/ /‫ ٮـ‬/ /]‫ [ه‬/ /]‫ [ل‬/ /]‫} [سل‬ {
/ / ]‫ (ں) [۝‬/ /]‫ م[ٮٮ و] (ا) ٮـ[ه‬/ /‫} (۝ ٯـ ا) ٮـ‬ {
)‫ (ا‬/ /]‫ (ں) ۝ [ٯـ‬/ /‫} ٮکم ٮـح‬ {
/ /]‫[ص‬/ /‫ ٮـ‬/ /]‫} (و) [آ‬ {
/ / ]‫ (ل)[د‬/ / ‫ ۝‬/ /]‫}(لک)[ٯـ‬ { 10
} {/ / )‫ (ا‬/ / } { 11
} {/ /]‫ ا [ل‬306)‫ (ی‬//]‫ (ل)[ک ٮـح‬/ /} { 12
} {// 307‫ ٮـ[ٯـ]م‬/ / ‫ ا‬/ /} { 13
} {/ /‫} ( ا ل)ل(ه) ٮـ‬ { 14
Folio 25 B (Q 39.42 – 39.47)
} {)‫ ا ں ٯی (د‬/ /]‫}(ـل) م[س‬ { 1
306 ) The text may have kadhālika najzī l-muḥsinīna instead of dhālika jazā’u
l-muḥsinīna.
307 ) The letter before mīm might be hā’ instead, in which case this grapheme
may be part of the word yajziyahum.
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪8‬‬
‫‪9‬‬
‫} (ں) ‪( //‬و ا) [ٮـح](د) ‪ //‬ا م(ں) د و‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫} (لو) کا ‪//‬و (ا) [ال] ٮـ[م]لکو‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫}ٯل ا ں (ا) لسٯـ(ع)هـ هلل ح(م)ٮعاـ‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫} [ر] ص و ا ل(ٮـ ه) ٮر (حع)[و]ـ (ں) ۝ و‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫}‬ ‫ا د ا [د] کر ٮ ا هلل و حد [ه] ا (س){‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫}‬ ‫(ٮ) ا لد ٮں ال [ٮـ]و مٮـ{‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫}‬ ‫و ٮه ٯا د ا (هم) {‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫}‬ ‫(ا) لسم(و) ٮ و ا [ال]{‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫}‬ ‫{ } ا (ٮـ)ٮـ ٯا حکم ٮٮـ‪{ / /‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫}‬ ‫{ }ـٮلٯو ں ۝ (و) لو [ا] (ں ل){‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫}‬ ‫{ }(ص) حم[ٮـع](ا) ‪{//‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫)‪Folio 26 A (Q 39.51 – 39.70‬‬
‫‪308‬‬
‫} و ما هم ٮمعحر ٮں ۝ (و)‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫} ٯی د ل(ک) ال ٮـ(ٮ) ل(ٯـ)[و]‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫} علی ا ٮـ(ٯـ)[س]ه[م]ـ ال‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫}ٮـ‪( / /‬ا) ل(د) ٮو ٮ حمٮعا‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫}‪( //‬ٮـ)[ٮٮـ و] ا (ا) لی ا( لل)[ه] و ا‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫} [ٮ] ٮـ م( ال ٮٮـ)ص[ر] (و) ں ۝‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫} ‪( / /‬ٯـ)ٮـ(ل) ا ں ٮا ٮـ‪//‬کم‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫}[۝] و ٮـ(ٯـ و) ل ٮٯس ٮـح(س)ر‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫}(آ)ٮٮ (مں ٯـ)ٮـ(ل) لمں ا‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫} ٯا کو ں (م ں) (ا) ل(م)ٮٯٮں (۝)‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫}(ں) لی کر [ه] ٯـ‪ //‬کو‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫}‪(//‬ٮـ)[ٮـ]ها‪( 309‬و) ا سٮکٮرـ‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫}م(ه) ٮـ‪ //‬ی ا ل(د) ٮں‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫} ا (و) ل[ٮـ]س ٯی حهٮـ[م]‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫} ٮـ(ٯو) ا ٮـ(م)[ٯر] ٮـه(م)‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫} ا هلل حلٯ کل‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫}[ٯـ]ل‪//‬د ا لس(مو) ٮ‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫}م ا ال حسر (و) ں ۝‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫}[ه](ا)ـ ا (ل)حهل(و)ـ ں (۝)‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫} ٯٮـل(ک لٮں) ا [س]‪//‬‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫}ر ٮـ(ں) ۝ ٮل ا [ل]‪/ /‬‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫} ر و ا ا هلل‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫}‪( / /‬ا) ل(ٯـ)‪(//‬م ه) (و)‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫}(و) ٮعلی ع(م ا) (ٮـ)[س]‪//‬‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫‪310‬‬
‫}ع(ٯ)ـ مں (ٯـ)ٮـ‪(//‬م)ا‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪308 ) Considering this letter and the length of the physically missing part of line 2, the‬‬
‫‪text may be wa-llāhu instead of a-wa-lam yaʽlamū anna llāha.‬‬
‫‪309 ) The first tooth is preceded by a letter that might be sīn. The word may be fa-‬‬
‫‪nasītahā.‬‬
‫‪310 ) The text seems to have fīhimā instead of fī l-samāwāti wa-l-arḍi.‬‬
//)‫}ی ٯا (د) ا (ه‬ { 26

// ‫}(ٮـ و) ر ر ٮها‬ { 27
/ /‫}ـهد ا و ٯـ‬ { 28
311
‫کل‬ ‫} ٮٮـ(ٮ)ـ‬ { 29
Folio 26 B (Q 39.70–75 – 40.1–8)
} {/ /)‫ ما ع[م](ل‬/ / 1
312
} { ]‫ [ا ا ل ى] ( ا ل)ٮـ[ا‬/ /‫ٮں آ‬ 2
} { )‫ (ا‬//‫ه‬//‫(ل) ح(ر) ٮـ‬// )‫ (و‬//‫ٮـه‬ 3
} {/ /)( 313/ / ‫عد (ٮ) ر‬ 4
} {]‫ ۝ (و) [ٯـ‬/ /]‫ع(ل)[ ى ا] ل[کٯـ‬ 5
‫ [ا] (ا) لی ا‬//)‫(ٮٯـ‬ 7} {‫ ٯٮٮـ[س] مٮو‬//‫ٮں [ٯٮـ]ه‬ 6
} {‫لحٮـ‬
} {314/ / ‫ا د حل[و] ها‬ 8
} {/ / ]‫ل(حمد) لل[ه‬ 9
} {‫ٯی (ا ال) ر ص ٮـ‬ 10
} { ‫حر ا لعمل(ٮـ ں) ۝‬ 11
} {)‫ (ں‬/ /)‫ر ٮـه(م) ٮـ(سٮـ‬ 12
} {)‫ و ٯٮـ( ل ا‬/ /)‫ٮا (ل‬ 13
} {)‫(حٮـ)[مه]ـ سو (ر ه‬ 14
} {‫ٮـ(سم) ا [ل]ل(ه) ا ل‬ 15
} {‫م( ں ا) ل(ل ه) ا ل‬ 16
} { / / )‫ [ٮ] (سد‬/ /‫ل‬ 17
} {//)‫(و ا) لٮه ا ل(م‬ 18
311 ) The text may have ūtiyat instead of wuffiyat. Cf. Q 32.13.
312 ) The text may have al-nāri instead of Jahannama.
313 ) Considering the traces and the amount of space, there may be yundhirūnakum
ʽadhāba rabbikum instead of the standard text between minkum and qālū.
314 ) The last letter in this illegible part may be alif or lām. The text after al-janna
might be zumaran ḥattā idhā jā’ūhā wa-qāla lahum khazanatuhā udkhulūhā
salāmun ʽalaykum ṭibtum fīhā khālidīn.
} {‫ [و] ا ٯال ٮـ‬//]‫(آ)[ٯـ‬ 19

} { // ‫ٯـ(ٮـ)[ل هم] ٯو‬ 20
} {// )‫(کل) ا م ه( ٮـ ر‬ 21
} {]‫[ه‬// ‫د [حصو] ا‬/ / 22
} {/ / ‫ (آ)ا ں‬315]‫[ٮڡ‬// 23
} { )‫ لد ٮں آ[ٯر] (و‬// 24
} { )‫[ا لعر] (س و م ں‬ 25
317 316
} { ‫ل[م](ں) ٯی ا ال‬ ]‫[ں‬ 26
} {// ‫ ر حمه و‬// 27
} {‫ک و] ٯـه‬ [/ / 28
} {)‫[د] ں [ا] (ل)[ٮـ ى] و (ع‬/ / }{ 29
Folio 15 A (Q 20.23 – 20.61)
)‫ ( ں ا‬/ / ]‫ ی [ٯـ ا] [ د ه](ٮ)ـ [ا] (ل)[ى ٯر‬/ /)‫ [م ں] (ا) [ٮٮـ]ٮا ا (ل‬318)‫(ک‬/ / ‫[آ ا] ی‬ 1
/ /
)‫ ( ا ح‬// )‫(ر) ی (۝‬// ]‫ لی [ا‬319/ / ‫ ا‬// ‫ ی ۝‬// ]‫[د‬/ / )‫ ح ل(ى‬/ / )‫ [ٮ] (ا‬// )‫(ٯـ ل‬ 2
]‫[لل‬
‫(عٯـ)[د] ه (م)ں‬
( )‫(ل ى‬// ‫ (ٮر ا م ں) ا‬// ]‫ل (ل ى) [و‬//)‫ [ل ى] ۝ (و) ا (ح‬//)‫[ٯٯهو] (ٯـ‬// ‫ى ۝‬/ /)‫(ل‬ 3
)‫۝) [هر و] (ں) [ا] حی (۝‬
/‫ آ‬/ /]‫[ٮـح‬/ / )‫ [ٮه] ا ر ر ی (۝‬/ /]‫ [ٯـ](ى) ا [م](ر) ی ۝ (و) ا [س‬/ / )‫[و ا س](ر‬ 4
)‫ ا (۝‬/
]‫ (ا ۝) [ٯـ](ل) ا (و ٮٮـ)[ٮ‬/ /)‫ ٮد (کر) ک [آ](ٮٮر)ـ ا ۝ ا (ٮـ)ک [آٮـ ٮ] (ٮٮـ ا) ٮـ(ص‬// 5
)‫(سو‬
315 ) The missing part on line 22 has much more space than is needed for al-ḥaqq
and fa-akhadhtuhum.
316 ) The missing part on line 25 is rather small for the standard text between wa-
man and li-lladhīna. Perhaps the phrase wa-yu’minūna bihi is absent.
317 ) The text may have li-man fī l-arḍi instead of li-lladhīna āmanū.
318 ) Perhaps the text is kay nuriyaka instead of li-nuriyaka.
319 ) The first letter in the illegible part may be ṣād/ḍād or kāf. The last letter may be
bā’/tā’/thā’.
‫‪[ / /‬ٮمو] (سی) ۝ (و) ل(ٯـ)[د] مٮـ(ٮـ ا) [ع]ل(ٮـ)کـ { } (ر) [ه]‪ 320‬ا (ح ر) (ی) ۝ (ا‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫د)‬
‫‪[//‬ک م ا] (ٮـ)‪/ /‬ى ا ں ا (ٯد) ٯـ[ٮه] (ٯی){ }‬ ‫[ا] ( و ح)ٮـ[ٮا]ـ ا ‪(//‬ى) ا ‪7‬‬
‫(ل)‪/ /‬و [ٮ ٮم] (ا) ‪ / /‬ٯٮه (ٯـ)[ى] ا (ل)‪/ /‬‬
‫‪[/ /‬ٯه ا] لٮم (ٯی) ا ل(سح ل) ٮا( ح)‪( //‬ه){ }‪[ / /‬و ل]‪//‬ا‪( 321‬و) ‪ / /‬و ل[ ه‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫‪[/‬ه] ‪/ /‬ى ( و ل)‪[/ /‬ع ع]ل‪/ /‬ى ‪(/ /‬ں)‪( 322‬ٮطو)ـ‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫و] (ا) ل‪/ /‬ٮ ‪9‬‬
‫[ڡ]‪ 323‬ا [ح]‪(//‬ک)ـ‬
‫[ٯٮـ]‪[//‬و ل ه](ل)‬
‫‪(/‬لى) ‪[//‬ں] ‪[//‬ک]‪(/ /‬ه ٯر د) ‪[ //‬ٮـ](ک)‪( // 324‬ل ى) [ ا م](ک) [کی] ‪( / /‬ع ٮٮا)‬ ‫‪[ / /‬ل]‪/‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫(و ال)‬
‫‪[ 325/‬ٯـ]‪[/ /‬ٮـ]{}(ک) ‪(//‬ں) ا ل عم[ و] ‪//‬ٮـ‪(//‬ک ٯـ ٮو)‬ ‫‪[ /‬و] (ٯـ)‪(//‬ل)‪/ /} {/ /‬ا ‪/‬‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫(ٮا و)‬
‫‪ /‬س(ى) ۝ [و] (ا صط)‪/‬‬ ‫‪[ /‬ا هل] ‪( / /‬ٮـ ں) ‪ / /‬ح[ٮٮ] ‪( //}{//‬ٯـ)‪/‬‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫‪/‬ک‬
‫[لٮٯـس](ى) [ٯا د] ‪[ / /‬ا] (ٮٮ) [و ا] (ح)[و]ـ (ک ٮا) { }‪(//‬ا)‪[ 326‬و] (ال ٮـ)‪(/ /‬ا) ‪ (//‬ى د)‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫[آ ر] ی ۝ ا د‬
‫[هٮ ا لی ٯر] ‪ [ / /‬ں ا] ‪( / /‬ط)‪//‬ى (ٯٯـ)[و] ال {}‪( //‬ٯـ)[و ال لٮٮـ](ا) [ل]‪/ /‬ه ٮٮد [کر] ا‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫‪327‬‬
‫‪ (/‬ى ۝) ‪(/ /‬ال) [ر] ‪(/ /‬ا) [ا] ‪(/ /‬حا) [ڡ] ا ں [ٮٯر]ـ (ط) عل‪(/ /‬ا) ‪ ( //‬ا ں)‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪328‬‬
‫ٮـ[ط]‪//‬ى (۝) ٯل آ(ال) ‪[ 16‬ا] ‪[/ /‬کم](ا) ‪( / /‬ا) ‪ / /‬ا [ر] (ی ٯا ٮٮـ){ } ٯٯو ال (ا‬
‫ٮا) ر [سو] ال ر ٮک‬
‫‪ /‬ا س(ر) [ٮـ](ل) { } (ال) [ٮعد]ـ (ٮـ هم) (و) ا [ٮٮٮـ]‬ ‫[ ا ل]‪( / /‬ا) ‪( //‬ا) ‪[ //‬س](ل)ـ‪/ 329‬‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫(ک ٮا)‬
‫‪[ /‬ا] (ل)‪( / /‬ی) ۝ ا ‪(//‬ا) ‪( / /‬ا) [و] حی ا‬ ‫‪[/‬ک] (و ا ل)‪[//‬لم] ‪(//‬لى) ‪/‬‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫‪330‬‬
‫ل[ٮـ]ٮـ(ا) ‪( }{/ / 19‬ا) ‪[ / /‬ٮ] ‪[/ /‬ى] ‪ / /‬کد (ٮ) ‪( / /‬ل)[ ى ۝] ‪[/ /‬م](ا ر)‬
‫[ٮـ](ک)‪(//‬ا ٮـم و)‬
‫[س ى] [۝]‬
‫‪320 ) This word may be tāratan.‬‬

‫‪321 ) The text seems to have lanā instead of the standard lī.‬‬
‫‪322 ) The text might have ḥīna instead of idh.‬‬
‫‪323 ) This word may be taṭawwafu.‬‬
‫‪324 ) This word may be fa-radadnāka.‬‬
‫‪325 ) The last letter in this part may be mīm.‬‬
‫‪326 ) This word may be bi-āyātinā.‬‬
‫‪327 ) The text is probably wa-an instead of aw an.‬‬
‫‪328 ) The last letter in this part might be kāf.‬‬
‫‪329 ) The text might have ilayka an arsil instead of fa-arsil.‬‬
‫‪330 ) The text seems to have fa-mā instead of fa-man.‬‬
/ /} {/ / ]‫ [سا ی] (حلٯـ)[ه‬//]‫[طى آ‬// )‫{ }(ا م ں) (ا‬/ / 20

‫ و‬//]‫(ٯـ)[م ا] ٮا (ل ا) ل[ٯـ‬
‫(ں) ا ال‬
331
]‫ ر [ٮـ‬//]‫ [ال ٮـص‬/ / )‫(ى‬/ / )‫(ا‬/ /)‫{ }(ل‬/ / 21
‫ (ال ٮٮسی) ۝ ا لد ی‬// )‫(ى‬
/ ]‫[ال‬/ / ]‫(ه)[ا‬//)‫(ل)ک (ٯـ‬/ / ]‫ [ا‬/ / ]‫{ } [ص‬/ / 22
‫(ه) ا ا‬//]‫ [ٯـ‬332]‫[سل‬/
‫[ٮی‬/ / ]‫[ٮ‬//]‫ ٯٮها ا ر و] (حا) [مں ٮـ‬333‫ (ا) [ٯا] { } [ح‬/ / 23
‫ ا‬//]‫ [ع‬// )‫ (ا) [و] (ا‬/ / ]‫۝‬
‫ (لک) [ال ٮٮ] (ال) [ و ل](ى) [ ا‬/ / )‫ ( ا ں) [ٯـ](ى‬/ / 24
/ /)‫(ل‬// ]‫[ه ا‬/ / ]‫[ى‬/ /]‫ل‬
( ]‫ (ا) [حر ی‬// ]‫ [ٮا ر‬//‫ [ٮحر] (ح)ک‬/ / ]‫[ها‬/ / 25
‫[د] ا ر [ٮٮـ](ه)ـ‬//)‫ (ل‬// )‫۝‬
‫(ى) ۝ [ٯـ ل] ا‬// ]‫ [ا‬/ / ]‫[ا‬//]‫ [آل‬/ / 26
335 334
// ]‫(ا) [م ں] [ا‬/ /)‫ (ل‬/ / //)‫ٮـ(ٮٮـ‬
/ ]‫[ل‬/ / ]‫(ل)[ه ٯـ ا‬//)‫[ر] (م‬/ /‫ ٮـ‬/ / )‫ى (۝‬/ / 27
]‫[ٮـک مو‬//)‫[ٮـ](ا) [و] (ٮـ‬/
]‫[و‬// ]‫[ا‬//‫ک‬// ]‫[ٮ‬// )‫ [ال] (ا‬// ]‫[ں‬/ /)‫(حل‬// )‫[د] ا (ال‬// 28
‫ (ع)[د]ـ‬/ / ]‫(ی) [ٯل‬
/ ]‫ (ا) ل[ٮا س‬/ / ]‫ و (ا) [ں‬/ /‫ ل‬/ / 336/ / ‫[کم] و‬ 29
]‫[ ى ۝‬/
‫ [مو‬/ / )‫(ى‬// )‫ [ه] (ٮم ا‬//)‫(ٮـ‬// ]‫ [ں‬//)‫[ر] (ع‬// ]‫[ٯحمع‬ 30
337
/ /]‫س](ى) ٮو (ٮـ)[ل‬
} {/ / 338]‫[کا‬/ /)‫(ل‬/ / )‫[ل](ى‬/ / )‫ (و‬/ / 31
Folio 15 B (Q 20.61 – 20.80)
//)‫(ه‬//)‫ (ٮٮـ‬//)‫ (ه‬//]‫ ا [م‬/ /‫ [ ٮ م]( ں ا) [ٯٮر] ی ٯٮـ‬/ / ]‫[ٮـع](د ٮ و) [ٯد‬ 1
331 ) This yā’ may belong to fī (verse 52).

332 ) The text may have arsala instead of anzala.
333 ) There seems to be fa-akhraja instead of fa-akhrajnā.
334 ) This word may be a-ataytanā.
335 ) This part may contain bi-siḥrika.
336 ) The last letter in this part may be kāf.
337 ) The text may be yā waylakum.
338 ) The text may have ifkan instead of the standard kadhiban.
‫ٮم [ٯـ ا] [مو] ا [و] ‪( //‬س ر) (و) [ ا م](ں د و ٮـ)[هم]( ا ا) ل(ٮـح و) (ی ۝) ٯا [ل](و) ا‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫(م ا) د ا ں ا ال (سحر ں) [ٮر] (ٮد ں) لٮـح[ر حک](م م)ں ا (ر) ص(کم و) ٮد ه(ٮا)‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫مٮـ[ک](م ٮـ)ا ل[ط](ر ٮٯـ)[ه]ـ ا ل(م)ٮلی ۝ (ٯا) حمع(و ا آ)ٮـ‪ //‬کم ٯا [ٮو ا]‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫ص(ٯـ ا) و (ٯـ)[د] ا ٯـ(ل ح) ا (ل)‪//‬و [م] م{ } (ا) [س](ٮـ)[ع](ل)‪ //‬۝ (ٯـ ا) (لو) ا (ٮموـ‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫سی) [ا]‬
‫(ٮـ)حں (ٮـ)ل(ٯی) ا (و) ا [ٮـ ٮ] [ا] و ل [م](ں) [ا]{ }[ٯی ٯل] ا (لٯو ا) ٯا [لٯـ]‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫‪339‬‬
‫‪/‬‬ ‫ٯا د [ا] ح[ٮـ](ٮـله)م [و] (عص)ٮـ[ه]{ } ‪(/ /‬ٮل) ا ل(ٮه ا) ٮـ(ها) [م]‪[ //‬سح]‪/‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫‪ 340/‬ٯـ(ل){ } (ٮمو)ـ [س]‪( //‬ال) ٮـ(ح)ڡ‬ ‫ٮـ(س)عى ۝ (ٯا و ح)[س]ـ (ٯی) ٮـ‪[//‬س]‪/‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫‪ //‬ٮک ا ٮـ(ٮ ا ال ع)ل(ى) ۝ ٯـ(ا){}(ل)[ ٯ م][ا] [مع](ک)ـ [ٮـل]{}ڡ (ما) ‪//‬م[لو]‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫‪343342‬‬
‫ال ‪(/ /‬ل)‪( //‬ا) [لسحر حٮٮ]‬ ‫ا‪ 341‬ا [ٮـم](ا عمل)[و ا کٮد] ‪(} {/ /‬و) [ا] ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪344‬‬
‫ٯـ ا( لٯڡ) [م](ا) ع[م]لو ا [و] ا (ل){}(ى) ا‬ ‫ا (تی) ۝ ٯـ(ا) ‪(/ /‬ى) ‪//‬ا م‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫ل(سح ر) ه [س]‪[//‬د] ‪[ //‬و] (ٯا لو) ا (ا) ‪( / /‬ٮـ)‪ //‬ٮ [هر و ں و مو س ى] ۝ (ٯـ)ل‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫ٯـ(ل)‪ 345‬ا (مٮـ ٮم) (ل)‪[ //‬ٯـ](ٮل ا) ‪( //‬ا) [د] (ں لکم ا) ‪( / /‬ل)[کٮٮر] (کم ا ل)‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫(ع)[لمک]( م ا) ل[سح]‪[ //‬ٯـ]سٮـ(عل){}(و)ـ ں (۝ ال) ‪[ //‬ٯـ](طعں) ا (ٮد) ٮـ{}‪( //‬و) ا ر‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫حل(ک)[م]ـ مں (ح)ل(ٮـ)ڡ (و) ال{}‪(//‬ل)‪[/ /‬م ٯـ](ى) [ح]( د و) [ع] (ا) ل[ٮـح]( ل و)‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪(//‬ٮـ)‪/ /‬‬
‫‪/‬ک‬ ‫ا ٮـ‪//‬ا [ا س د] عد (ٮا) ‪[ / /‬ٮٯـ ى] ۝ ٯا (لو) ا (ال) ص(ٮر) ل[ں] ‪/‬‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫‪346‬‬
‫مں ا ل[ٮٮـ]‪[//‬ٮ و] ا (ل)[د] ی (ٯـ)ط(ر) ٮا ‪( / /‬ٯـ)[ص] ‪/ /‬‬ ‫[ع]ل(ى) ما ا (ٮـ)‪//‬ٮا‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫(ا ٮـ)‪( / /‬ٯص) ا (ٮـ)[ما] ‪(//‬ٯـص)[ى] (ٯی) ه[ د ه] ا [لحٮو ه ا ل]‪ [/ /‬ا ا] ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫ٮـ[طمع] ا ں (ٮـع)[ٯـ](ر)ـ ل(ٮـ ا) [ر] (ٮٮـ ا) (ح)[طٮٮـ](ا)ـ [ و م ا] (ا) [آ]‪/ /} {/ /‬‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫(و م ا) ‪(//‬س)[حر] ‪//‬ا‪ 347‬و (ا) لل[ه] حٮر (و) ا ٮـ[ٯـ ى] ۝ ا (ٮا) ٯـ[د]{ } [ح]{ } (ا)‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫[ل]‪(/ /‬ا‪ 348‬ا) ٮه (م ں) مٮ [محر م ا] [ٯـ](ا) [ں] ل[ه] (حهٮـ م) [ال]{ }[مو ٮ ٯـ]‪(//‬ه ا)‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫‪339 ) This word may be siḥrihim.‬‬

‫‪340 ) Considering the amount of space, the word khīfah may be missing.‬‬
‫‪341 ) This word may be ʽamilū.‬‬
‫‪342 .117, 28.37, and 30.45.‬‬
‫‪343 ) This word might be innahu. See the parallels in Q 6.21, 6.135, 10.17,‬‬
‫‪344 ) The text may be fa-alqā mā maʽahu.‬‬
‫‪345 ) The scribe has copied qāla twice.‬‬
‫‪346 ) This word may be ātānā.‬‬
‫‪347 ) This word is probably saḥarnā/saḥḥarnā.‬‬
‫‪348 ) The text may have innā qad ūḥiya ilaynā in addition to the standard text. Cf. Q‬‬
‫‪20.48. 396‬‬
‫ ٯا‬/ /)‫ (ح ا) ر (ٮه) م(و) م(ٮا) (ٯـ د) [ع]ملـ [ا] ل[ص](ل‬/ / ]‫( ى ۝) [و‬/ / ]‫و [ال‬ 22
‫(حٮـ)ها‬// ‫[ح](ر) ی‬// ]‫ٮ ا ل[ع](ل ى) ۝ (ح)ٮـ(ٮ) [عد ں‬// ]‫(م) [ا] (لد) [ر‬//)‫ (ل‬/ / 23
349
‫ا‬/ / )‫ (و‬396]‫[ ى ۝] ٯـ[ا‬/ /} { )‫[ ر ا] (مں‬// ‫ (حل)[د] ٮـ[ں] (ٯٮـ)ه(ا) د لک‬/ /]‫(ا) [ال ٮـ‬ 24
‫ا‬/ /‫ [صر ٮ] له‬/ /} { ]‫ ( ا ں) [ا] سر ٮـ(عٮـ د) ی ل[ٮال‬/ / )‫[ا لی] (مو‬ 25
‫ ٯـ ا( ٮـ)[ٮـع](ه)مـ‬/ / ]‫ (و) [ال‬/ / ]‫[سا ال ٮـ](ح)[ڡ]ـ (ٯٮه د) [ر‬//)‫ (ٮـ‬/ /]‫ [ ا ل‬/ / 26
]‫ [و‬/ /]‫ [عسٮـه‬//]‫ [م‬/ /]‫ [ٯر عو] ں ٯـ[ع]س[ٮـ](ه)[م]ـ م(ں) ا [ل‬/ / ‫[ٮحٮو]ـ‬ 27
/ / )‫ى ا (سر‬/ / ‫ [و ما] (ه د) ی‬//]‫ [م‬/ /]‫ [ع‬/ /]‫{ }[ص‬ 28
Folio 30 B (Q 20.122 – 20.133)
{ }/ / 1
} { )‫ [۝] ٯـ(ا‬350)‫(ٮں‬//]‫[م‬/ /‫ا م‬ 2
} {/ / )‫ل [و] (ال‬//‫ٮـ‬ 3
} { ]‫(ه) صٮـ[ک ا] (و) [ٮحسر‬/ /‫مع‬ 4
} {/ / ]‫ [و‬//]‫ ا ع[م‬/ /]‫(لم) [حس‬ 5
} {/ /‫(ه ا) [و] آ‬//)‫(ٮـ‬/ /]‫(ا) [ٯـ‬/ /]‫[ا ٮـ‬ 6
} {/ / ]‫ [ڡ] و (ل)[م‬//)‫ (م ں) ا (س‬/ / 7
} {/ /)‫ و ا ٮٯی ا و (لم) ٮـ(ه‬//]‫[س‬ 8
} { ]‫ [ا‬//‫و ں( ٮمسو) ں ٯـ(ى مسکٮـ)ه‬ 9
} ‫ [س]ٮٯـ[ٮ]{ـ‬/ /‫ا [لٮـ](هى) [و] (ل و) ال (آ)ل‬ 10
} {353// ]‫ ل(حکم) [ر‬352/ /]‫ (ٯـ)ا ص[ط‬/ /‫ م‬351]‫[ال‬// ‫ا‬ 11
} {/ / ‫ ل[س]م[س] (و ٯـ)ٮل‬/ /‫ٯٮل (ط)ل‬ 12
} {/ /]‫ (ل)[ع]ل(ک)ـ [ٮـ ر] (صی) و (ال) ٮـ[م‬//]‫[ه‬//‫طر [ڡ] ا ل‬ 13
} { ]‫ ( و ح)[ا] مں ر [هر] ه ا [ل]ح[ٮوـ ه‬// ‫م[ٮـ]ه[م] ا‬ 14
) This putative alif may be disconnected from the previous letter, in which case the
previous letter would be wa-.
349 ) The text seems to have fa-awḥaynā instead of wa-laqad awḥaynā.
350 ) Considering the traces, the text might have ihbiṭū minhā ajmaʽīn instead of
ihbiṭā minhā jamīʽan. Also, the phrase baʽḍukum li-baʽḍin ʽaduwwun is either missing
or precedes the putative ihbiṭū.
351 ) This word may be ajalan.
352 ) This word may be fa-ṣṭabir.
353 ) The text appears to have li-ḥukmi rabbika instead of ʽalā mā yaqūlūna.
‫}‬ ‫و [ر] (ر) [ٯ] ‪ //‬ٮک (حٮـ)[ر]ـ (و) [ا] (ٮٯـ ى) [۝] و (ا) ‪{/ /‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫}‬ ‫{ }[و] ا ص(ط)[ٮر] (عل)‪ / /‬ال (ٮـ)[س]ل(ک)ـ [ر ر] (ٯـ)[ا] {‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫}‬ ‫}[و] ا لٮٯو ی‪ 354‬۝ و [ٯلو ا] {‬ ‫{ }ل{}[ٯـ]ٮه ال {‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫)‪Folio 30 A (Q 21.5 – 21.19‬‬
‫‪( /‬ٯال) ‪/ /‬‬ ‫}‪/‬‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫} ٯـ‪[//‬لک م](ں) ٯر‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫}‪//‬ٮـ[ا] ٯٮـل(ک) [ا] (ال) [ر]‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫} ‪[/ /‬د آ]‪( //‬ا) ‪ //‬آٮٮـ(م)‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫} کلو ں ا ل(ط)ع(م) و ما‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫} ‪//‬و (عد) ٯا ‪(//‬ح)ٮٮا مں (ٮـس ا) (و)‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫‪355‬‬
‫} (کٮٮ) ا ٮر (لٮـ)‪ //‬علٮـک(م)‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫} (و) کم ٯصمٮا (م ں) ٯـ(ر) ‪[//‬ه]‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫} ‪( //‬ٮسا) ٮا ٮعد ها ٯـ(و م)ا‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫}‪[ / /‬سٮـ ا] ا د ا ه[م] (م)‪(//‬ه ا) ٮـ(ر آ)[ص]و‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫}‪[//‬و] ا ا (ل)ى م(ا) ا [ٮر] ‪ / /‬ٯـ(ٮه و)‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫} [ٯـ لو] ا [ٮـ و] ٮلٮـ(ا) ا ٮـ(ا) آ(ٮـ)ا طل[مٮـ]ں‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫‪( /‬حٮا) ح(عل)ٮـ‪( / /‬ح)[ص]ٮد ا‬ ‫}‪/‬‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫} ‪[//‬س]مو ٮ و ا ال ر ص [ و م ا] [ٮٮـ]‪[//‬ه]ما‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪14‬‬

‫} (ا) ں (ٮٮـ)[ح د] لهو ا (ال) ٮـح(د) [ٮه م ں] (لد ٮا ا ں)‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫} ‪ (/ /‬د ڡ) ٮا ‪[//‬حٯ] (ع)ل ى( ا ل)‪[//‬ط](ل) ‪[/ /‬د]‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫‪[ /‬ر] ه[ٯ] (و) ‪ ( / /‬ا ل)[و] ‪//‬ل [مم](ا)ـ‬ ‫} ‪/356‬‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫} ٮـص(ٯـ)‪ //‬ں ۝ و ل[له] مں ٯی ا لسمو { }‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫)‪Folio 10 A (Q ? – 24.1–13‬‬
‫}‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪{/‬‬ ‫} الر ‪/‬‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫‪354 ) The text might be li-l-birri wa-l-taqwā (cf. Q 5.2 and 58.9).‬‬
‫‪355 ) The text might be wa-hādhā kitābun anzalnā ʽalaykum.‬‬
‫‪356 ) No text seems to be written before the present point, as writing here would‬‬
‫‪have interfered with the previous line.‬‬
/ /{ }~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~{ } 2
/ /} {)‫}۝ سو ر ه ا [ٮر] لٮـ(ه‬ { 3
/ /} {)‫}(ٮ) (مٮـ)[ٮـٮـ]ٮ لعلکم ٮد (آ‬ { 4
/ /} {//‫} (حلد و) ا کل و ح‬ { 5
/ /} { ‫} [ح](د) کم ٮهماـ (ر) ا ٯه‬ { 6
357
/ /)‫(ه‬// } {‫ں ٮا هلل و ا ل‬/ /‫ٮـ مو م‬ 7
/ / )‫(کح ا‬/ / } { )‫طا (ٮٯه) (م)ں ا ل[مو مٮـ](ٮں ۝‬ 8
)‫}ٮکح {}(ا) ال ر [ٮـ]ا (او‬ {//‫(ٮـ)ٮه ا و (مسر که) و ا لر ٮـ‬ 9
‫{ } ل[مو] (مٮٮں)ـ [۝] و الدٮں‬// ]‫(مسر) کا و (حر) م (د) ل[ک‬ 10
/ /]‫[ه‬/ / ]‫ٮر مو ں ا لمو مٮٮـ و لم (ٮا) [ٮـ و] ا [ع](ل)[ٮهں‬ 11
]‫ ال (حد) [مٮهم‬/ / ‫ا ٯا حلد و هم ٮمٮٮں حلد ه و ال‬ 12
‫ (ا ال ا) لد ٮں‬/ /]‫(سهد ه) ا ٮد ا و ا و لٮک هم ا لٯـ[س‬ 13
)‫[ٮـ ا] (ٮـ)و ا و (ا) صلحو ا ٯا (ں) ا هلل (عٯو) ر ر (حٮم ۝ و ا لد ٮں‬ 14
‫ ا اال ا [ٮـ](ٯـ)[سهم]ـ‬/ / ‫ٮر مو ں ا ر و حهم و (لم) ٮکں لهم‬ 15
358
‫لمں) ا‬ ‫ (ا ٮی‬/ / )‫(ه)د ه ا حد هم ا ر ٮع (س)هد ٮ (ٮا‬/ /)‫(ٯـ‬ 16
/ / )‫[ٮه] (ا) ں آ( ا ں‬/ / ‫لصد ٯٮں ۝ و ا لحمس[ه] ا ں لعٮه ا‬ 17
} {)‫ (ٮسهد ا ر‬/ / ]‫ (ع)[ٮـ](ها) ا لعد ا [ٮ‬359‫ ا‬/ / )‫الکد ٮٮں ۝ (و‬ 18
} {/ / )‫ (لمں) ا لکد (ٮٮں ۝) و (ا‬/ / ‫سهد (ٮ) ٮا هلل ا‬ 19
} {]‫ [ و ل‬/ / ]‫عصٮ ا هلل علٮها ا ں کا ں [م ں] ا (ل)[صد‬ 20
} { ‫ٯصل ا هلل [ع]ل[ٮـ]کمـ و (ر حمٮه) ما ر کی م[ٮکم] مں‬ 21
} { ‫ا ٮد ا (و) لکں ا هلل (ٮو ا ٮ حک)ٮـم { } و (ا)[ں] (الد) ٮں‬ 22
357 ) This tooth looks like an insertion. Also, the grapheme ‫ ٮوں‬seems to have been
added after the mīm that follows ‫مو‬. These additions have the same thickness and
curvature as the usual script, but have a dark greenish hue. The word may have been
mu’minūn 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 ‫مو‬, the first guess
would be bi-mu’minīn. But the greenish traces that follow the second mīm conform
to ‫ ٮوں‬better than they do to ‫ٮٮں‬. Perhaps the modifier conflated the first mīm with
wāw (due to not seeing the wāw that follows it), and tried to make the remaining
legible traces conform to the word tu’minūna.
358 ) The traces match both innī and innanī.
359 ) This alif has a dark green hue like the tooth at the beginning of line 7.
‫}‬ ‫‪ /‬ما ا آٮـس‪{//‬‬ ‫ٮال ٯک عصٮه لکل ا [مر] ‪360‬ں [م]‪/‬‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫ا ال (ٮـ)م ال ٺح(سٮـو) ه هو سر ل(ک م) [ٮـ ل] (هو ح ٮر) (لکم) { }‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫‪361‬‬
‫}‬ ‫له عد ا ٮ عطٮم ۝ لو {‬ ‫لد ی [ٮـ و] (ل)‪( / /‬آ){ }‪//‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫}‬ ‫(سمع)‪ / /‬ه طں ا [لمو] م(ٮـٮـ)ں و ا ل(مو) م(ٮٮ) ٮا {‬ ‫‪26‬‬
‫}‬ ‫‪[/‬ا] [و] (ٯلو ا) [هد] (ا) ا ٯک م(ٮـٮـ)ں ۝ لو ال ح{‬ ‫[ح]‪/‬‬ ‫‪27‬‬
‫)‪Folio 10 B (Q 24.13 – 24.23‬‬
‫‪(/‬ا)‪} { 362‬‬ ‫} [ٮا]‪(/ /‬ا) ‪/‬‬ ‫{ } ‪{ //‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫‪ /‬ال ‪} { / /‬‬ ‫}‪/‬‬ ‫ل‪{ / /‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫}د ٮٮا و ا ال حر ه { }‬ ‫هلل {‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫} عد ا ٮ (عط)[ٮم]{ }‬ ‫‪{ //‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫}‪( //‬ل)[و]ں ٮا ٯو هکم ما { }‬ ‫[ا] د [ٮـ]‪{/ /‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫} ٮه ه(ٮـٮـ ا) (و هو عٮد)‬ ‫[لٮس] (لکم) {‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫} د سمعٮمو ه ٯـلٮـ[م] (ما)‬ ‫‪(/‬ط)‪{ / /‬‬ ‫[ ا ل]‪/‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫} ا سٮحٮک (ه)[د]ا ٮهٮں‬ ‫‪ /‬لٮا ا (ں) [ٮـٮـ](ک){ـ‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫‪(/‬له) { } ں ‪ 363/ /‬و ا لمٮله ا‬ ‫(ع)‪/‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫‪ /‬کٮٮم مو مٮـ(ٮں) ۝ و لٮـٮـٮـ(ں)‪ 364‬ا هلل لکم [و] ا [ل]له‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪( /‬اں ا لد [ٮـ ں] [ٮحٮو]ں ا ں (ٮـسٮـ ع) ا لٯحسه‬ ‫(علٮم) ‪/‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫[ٯی] ا (لد) [ٮں] ا [مٮو]ـ ا ل[هم] عد ا ٮ عطٮم (۝) [ٯـ]ى‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫‪[ / /‬ٮٮا و] (ا) [ال حر] (ه) (و ا) هلل ٮعلم و (ا) ٮٮم ال‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫(ٮعلمو)ـ ں ۝ (و لو) ال ٯصل ا هلل علٮـ(ک)[م] و ر حم[ٮه]‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫‪(/‬ٮم) [۝] ٮا (ٮها) ا لد ٮں ا م[ٮو] ا‬ ‫‪[ //‬ا ں ا] ‪( / /‬ر و) ڡ ‪/‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫{ } ٮٮٮعوـ ا [حطو] ٮ ا لسٮطں [و] مں ٮٮٮعـ حطو (ٮ)‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫‪360 ) The traces here could also represent four teeth, in which case the word would‬‬
‫‪be insān.‬‬
‫‪361 ) The missing and illegible parts together can accommodate no more than four‬‬
‫‪letters. Therefore, minhum is probably missing.‬‬
‫‪362 ) This alif might be the last letter of bi-l-shuhadā’, although the illegible part‬‬
‫‪.‬ٮالسهد ‪preceding it seems rather small for the grapheme‬‬
‫‪.‬ٮعد ‪; they are closer to‬ٮعود ‪363 ) The traces here do not quite conform to‬‬
‫‪364 ) There might be another tooth before this nūn, in which case the word‬‬
‫‪would be li-yatabayyana.‬‬
‫{ }[سٮطں] ٯا [ٮه] ٮا (مر) ٮا لٯـح(س)[ا] (و) ا لمٮـک(ر) و لو ال‬ ‫‪17‬‬

‫} ا [لل]ه علٮـ(کم) و ر ‪[/ /‬مٮـ ه] [ما] ر (آ ى) مٮکم مں ا‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫} ا ‪( / /‬ا و) لکں ا هلل [ٮـ ر] (آ ى) مں ٮسا (و) ا‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫} سمٮع علٮم ۝ و ال ٮا [ٮل] ا و ال ا لٯـ(صل)‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫} و ا لس(عه) ا (ں) ٮو ٮو ا ا لٯـ[ٯـ]ر ا و ا‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫}[آ]ٮں و ا لمه(ح)ر ٮـ(ں) ٯی [سٮـ]ٮل ا (هلل) و لٮـع[ٯـ]و‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫} لٮصٯحو ا ا ال [ٮـح]ٮو ں ا ں ٮعٯر ا لل[ه] لکم‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫‪365‬‬
‫} (ا) هلل عٯو ر ر (ح)[ٮـ]م ۝ و ا لد ٮں ٮـ‪//‬د ٯـ[و] ں‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫} ل[م](ح)صٮـ‪ / /‬ا لعٯلٮ ا ل(م)‪/ /‬د‪ 366‬ٯـ(ٮ) ل(عٮو) ا‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫)‪Folio 11 A (Q 24.23 – 24.32‬‬
‫(ٯی) ا لد [ٮـٮـ ا] (و) ا [ال حر ه و] لهم [عد] ‪( //‬ٮ) ‪[/ /‬م‪ 367‬۝]‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫ٮو م ٮسهد علٮهم [ا] ٯو ههم و ا ٮد ‪//‬هم و ا ر حله[م]‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫‪ //‬حلو (د) هم ٮما کا ٮو ا ٮکسٮوـ ں ۝ ٮو (م) ا د [ٮـ]ل[ٯو] (ں)‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫(ا) هلل (ٯر د) ی ٯـٮـ[و] ٯـٮـه(م) د ٮـ[ٮـ]ه(م) (و) ٮـعلم[و] ں ا ‪//‬ه ا { }‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫[لح](ٯ) ا ل[مٮـ]ٮں ا [لخٮـ]ٮـ(ث)ت لل(ح)ٮٮٮـ[ٮـ]ں و ا لح[ٮٮٮـ]وـ ں للحٮٮٮـ[ٮ]‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫و ا لطٮٮو ں للطٮٮٮ و ا لطٮٮٮ ل(لطٮٮٮـ)ں ا و ل(ٮـ)‪} { / /‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫‪368‬‬
‫آ[ر] ٮـ[م] ۝ (و ال)‬ ‫مٮر و ں مما ٮٯو لو ں له[م] (مع)ٯر ه (و) ا [ح]‪//‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫ٮد حل[و] ا ٮٮٮا ح[ٮـ ا] ٮسلمو ا علی ا هل[ه] و ٮـس(ٮـد) ٮـو ا‪} { / /‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫لکم حٮر لکم ل[ع]لکم ٮٮد کر و ں ۝ (ٯـ)ا ں (ل)[م] (ٮحد) ‪( //‬ا)‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫ٯٮه ا ح[د] ا ٯال ٮد حلو ا حٮا ٮو د ں [لک م] { } ں ٯٮـ(ل) (ل)[کم]‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫(ا ر) حع‪ //‬ا (ٯا) [ر] (ح)عو ا هو حٮر لکم ا ں ا ل[ل](ه) [ح]‪[/ /‬ر]‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫(ٮـ)ما ٮـعمل[و]ـ ں (۝) ل‪[//‬س] (علٮکم حٮـ)ح ٯی (ٮٮٮ) [عٮر] م[ع]مو ر ا‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫ٮـ(د) حل(و ه) [ٯٮـ](ه) م(ٮع) لکم ا ں ا هلل ٮعلم ما ٮٮد و ں و ما‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫ٮـ[ک](ٮمو)ـ ں ۝ ٯل لل‪ / /‬م‪(/ /‬ں) ‪//‬ع‪ / /‬ا مں ا ٮصر هم و ٮـح‪(//‬طو ا)‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫‪365 ) This word could be yaqdhifūna.‬‬

‫‪366 ) There is enough room in the illegible area before dāl for two letters. The‬‬
‫‪word may be al-mutaṣaddiqāti.‬‬
‫‪367 ) The pale traces in the illegible part preceding mīm are more likely to be-‬‬
‫‪.‬الٮـ ‪long to two graphemes than one. Specifically, they might belong to‬‬
‫‪368 ) This word may be ajr.‬‬
‫ا (ٮـص)[ٮعو]ـ‬// )‫ ا ں ا ل(ل)[ه] (ٮـع لم‬/ / ‫ کی‬// )‫ [د] لک (ا‬/ /‫ و حه‬//‫ٯـ‬ 15

]‫ و ٮحٯطں [ٯرو‬369‫(ں) ۝ و ٯل (لل)[مو] [مٮـ]ٮٮ [ٮـع]ص(ص)ں مں ا ٮـص[ر] هم‬ 16
‫(صر) ٮـں‬//‫ [مٮـ]ها (و) ل‬//]‫ا (ط)[ه‬// ‫[ه ں] ا ال‬/ /]‫ [و] ال ٮـ[ٮـ]د ٮـں [ر ٮـ‬//)‫ح(ه‬ 17
} {‫ (ه ں) (ع)لی ح[ٮـ]وـ ٮـهں و ال ٮٮـ[د] (ٮـ ں) ر ٮـ(ٮٮـ)هں (ا) ال (ال) ر و ح‬370]‫[مر‬/ / 18
}{ ‫ ل[ٮـ]هں ا و‬371]‫[و‬//‫ا و ا ٮـٮـهں ا و ا ٮا ٮعو لٮـهں او ٮٮی ٮـ‬ 19
‫( ى ا) [حو] ٮـهں ا (و) ٮـ(ٮـ)ى‬//‫ا ٮـٮـهں او ا حو ٮـهں ا و ٮـ‬ 20
‫ { } ا و ال ا ال ر ٮـ(ه) [م]ں‬//]‫ا حو (ٮـه ں) ا و ا [لٮـٮـ](ع)[ٮـ ں] [عٮـ‬ 21
]‫ا لر حل ا و ما ملکٮ (ا) { }(ه ں) ا لد ٮـں ل[م‬ 22
372
‫ل‬//)‫(ط‬//‫ (و) ا علی ع[و ر] ه ا لٮـ(س ا) ا (و) ا لو ا ل‬/ /]‫[ط‬// 23
‫و ا ا لحلم ا و ٮسٮـهں [و] ال‬//‫[ ا ل](د) [ٮـ ں] لم ٮـٮـل‬ 24
‫[ٮـ](ص)[ر] [ٮـ ں] ٮا ر [حله ں] لٮعلم ما ح[ٯـ](ی) مں ر (ٮـٮـٮـ)هں و‬ 25
‫[و] ا ( ا ل ى) { } (ا) هلل (حمٮـ عا) ا ٮها ا ل(م)و‬/ / 26
‫ (ل)[ع]لکم ٮٯلحو ں ۝ و ا ٮکحو ا ا ال ٮمی‬373‫ں‬/ / 27
}{// )‫[ں] [م](ں) {}[ٮـد کم] {} (ا‬/ /]‫[ل‬/ /)‫ [و] ( ا ل‬374)‫{ }[عص](ا‬//]‫[ه‬//]‫{ }[کم ٮـع‬ 28
Folio 11 B (Q 24.32 – (24.40
‫ ٮـ(ں) ٮعٮهما ا هلل مں (ٯـ)صله و ا‬375‫ر‬/ / ‫{ } ں( ٮکو ٮـ)[و] ا‬ 1

)‫ ا ل[د] ٮـں ال ٮـس[ٮـ]طٮـع(و‬376/ /‫(هلل) و سع علٮم ۝ و ل(ٮـ)س[ٮـع]ٯـ‬ 2
‫[ں] ٮکحا م(ٮـ)ک(م) حٮا (ٮـ)عطهم ا هلل (مں) (ٯـ)صله [و] ا‬ 3
‫ (ا) ٮـم(ٮـک)م‬/ /)‫ ں (ا) ل[ک]ٮـ(ٮ)ـ مما م(ل‬//‫{}د [ٮـ ں] (ٮـ)ٮـ[ٮـ]ع‬ 4
369 ) The use of the masculine pronoun here is a scribal error.

370 ) The traces preceding the putative mīm do not quite conform to ‫ٮـح‬.
371 ) The traces after the tooth match a medial hā’ better than a medial ʽayn.
Perhaps the scribe made a mistake and wrote hā’ here.
372 ) There is probably one letter between the first lām and ṭā’, because they are not
very close to each other. The second illegible part contains one letter which can be
fā’ or qāf or any of the tooth-shaped letters. Maybe the scribe wanted to write al-ṭifl,
but conflated it with al-wildān, writing an extra ‫الو‬. The gap between the first lām and
ṭā’ may also be explained by this scenario: the scribe first wrote a dāl (belonging to
al-wildān) after this lām but then erased it and wrote ṭā’ slightly after this dāl.
373 ) The nūn seems to be connected to a letter before it, and the traces before nūn
conform to ‫ مٮـٮـ‬better than to ‫مٮو‬.
374 ) The text here might be baʽḍuhum baʽḍan.
375 ) The traces before rā’ match ‫ ٯٯـ‬better than ‫ٯٯٮـ‬.
376 ) The last letter looks more like a final bā’/tā’/thā’ than a final fā’.
‫[ٯـ]ک(ٮٮو)ـ هم ا ں [ع]لمٮـم ٯٮهم (حٮـ ر) (ا) و ا عطو هم‬ 5

‫ٮکم (ع)لى‬//‫مما ر ر ٯکم ا (هلل) و ال ٮکر هو ا ٯـٮـ‬ 6
‫ا ا ں ا (ر) [د] ں ٮحصٮا ل[ٮٮٮـع و] ا عر (ص) ا‬/ / )‫{} (ا‬ 7
‫{ }(ٮو) ه ا لد (ٮٮا)ـ و مں ٮـ(کر) هه[ں] ٯا (ں) ا هلل (ٮـع)د‬ 8
377
‫[ٮ] (ٮـ)ٮٮٮ‬// ‫حٮم (۝) و ل[ٯـ](د) (ا) ٮر لٮا ا‬ ‫ا (آ)ر ههں عٯو (ر) ر‬ 9
378
‫ا لد [ٮـ](ں) حل(و) [م](ں) ٯٮلکم و [م](و) ع[ط](ه) للمٮـٯٮـ ں ۝‬ )‫و [مٮـ]ال م(ں‬ 10
‫ (ال) ر ص م(ٮل) [ٮو ر] (ه) [آ]مسکوـ‬// ]‫له ٮور السمو ٮ [و‬//}{ 11
‫ (ٯـ)ٮها مص(ٮح) و ا لمصٮح ٯی (ر) ححه و ا لر حح[ه] کا‬// 12
]‫(ه ا) کو [کٮ] (د) ر ی ٮـ(و) (ٯـ)د مں سح(ر) ه (مٮر)ـ که ر ٮـ(ٮـ)[و‬// 13
379
‫مں ٯٮل‬ ‫ ال سر ٯٮه و (ال) عر [ٮـ]ٮه ٮکا د ر ٮٮهاـ ٮـص(ٮـ)ا‬// 14
‫ (ں) ٮمسه ٮا ر ٮو ر ع(ل ى) ٮو ر ٮهد (ی) ا هلل ٮٮو ر ه‬// 15
‫ل (لل)[ٮـ](ا) [س] لعلهم‬//)‫(ه) [ا] ( ال م‬//‫[ں] ٮـ(س ا) (و) ٮـ(ص ر) ٮ ا ل‬// 16
]‫ٮو [ٮ] ا د (ں) ا (لل)[ه] ا ں [ٮـ ر] ٯـ[ع‬// ]‫ (و) ں (۝) [ٯـ ى‬/ /} { 17
]‫مه ٮـس(ٮـ)ح ٯٮها ٮا لعد و [و‬/ / ‫{ } ٮد کر ٯـ(ٮـه ا) ا‬ 18
‫ح[ر] ه و ال ٮٮع عں‬// )‫ ال صل ر حٮل ال ٮـلهٮـ(هم‬//}{ 19
‫ ا (لل ه) و ا (ٯـ م) ا ل[ص]ل(و) [ه] (و) ا (ٮـ)ا ا لر کو‬//]‫(د) [آ‬ 20
)‫ (۝‬//]‫{ } ا ل(ٯـل و) ٮ و ا ال ٮـ[ص‬// ]‫(ٯـ)ل[ٮ‬//]‫ٮحٯو ں ٮو [م]ا [ٮـ‬ 21
380
/ / )‫[ٮهم] ا هلل ا ح{ }[ں] (م ا) عملو ا ا و ٮر ٮد ه(م‬ / / 22
]‫(ٯـ)[صله] (و) ا هلل ٮر [ر] ٯ مں ٮسا ٮعٮر حسا (ٮ) [۝‬ 23
]‫[د] (ٮـں) آ[ٯر] و ا ا عمل(ه)[م] آس[ر] (ٮ) ٮـٯـٮـع ه[ ٮحسٮه‬// ]‫[ا‬ 24
381
]‫(ا لط)[مں] ما (حٮـ ا) ا د ا حا ه لم ٮحد س(ٮا) و [و‬ 25
377 ) It seems that the scribe forgot to write this rā’ initially, as it is written slightly
above the line, in the small space available between the last letter of ghafūr and the
ḥā’ of raḥīm.
378 ) There are three small marks above the mīm, arranged vertically on top of one
another. They resemble the dashes used for distinguishing consonants or separating
verses. The lowest dash overlaps with mīm. Their function is not clear.
379 ) This word appears to have been ‫ ٮصی‬at first, as the horizontal traces of a final
yā’ are visible beneath the initial tooth and ṣād. However, the word was modified to
‫ ٮـصـٮـا‬by 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).
380 ) The traces match ‫ حر‬better than ‫لٮحر‬.
381 ) This letter might be connected to the previous letter, in which case they would
form the grapheme ‫ٯو‬.
‫ا ٮ ۝‬//}{)‫ {}( ا ل‬27 )‫(د) ا (هلل) ع(ٮـد) ه ٯو ٯـ(ٮـ)ه ح(سٮـ ه) (و) ا لل(ه) [سر] ٮـ(ع‬//}{ 26
]‫ ٯی ٮـ(حر) ل(ح ى) ٮـع[سه‬382)‫ا و آط(ل)[م](ٮ‬
384
} { / / ]‫ مں ٯو ٯه م[و] {}[ح‬383} { 28
Folio 33 Recto (Q 34.13 – 34.23)
} { )‫(ـل) و حٯـ(ں‬/ /} { ‫} ما ٮسا‬ { 1

} { ‫ ا‬//]‫ (س)[ک‬/ / ‫} [د] ا‬ { ‫ ا ر‬385)‫ (ر‬//} { 2
} {‫[ه] (ا) لم‬//)‫ [ع](ل‬/ /]‫ (ی) ا ل{ }[ک و] (ر) { } ٯـ{ } [ٯـص‬//} { 3
} {/ /)‫(ل م‬// ]‫} [ع]ل(ى) [م](و) [ٮه] (ا ال د ٮـ)[ه] (ا ال ر) [ص ٮـ ا‬ { 4
386
{ )‫ ا ل(ح ں‬//]‫ا ح(ر) ٮـ(ٮـ)ٮـ[ٮـ‬//]‫(ٯـ)[ل‬ ‫ [ا] ٮـ[ع]ملو ں ل(ه) [حو] ال‬/ /} { 5
}
‫ (ا) ل(ع)[د] (ا) [ٮ] ا‬/ / ‫[ٮ] (م ا) (ل)ٮـ(ٮـ)[و]ـ ا‬/ /]‫ (ا) [ل‬387/ /‫}(و آ)ا ں (ٮـع)ل‬ { 6
‫ (ٯی) [مسک]ٮـ[هم] ا (ٮـ)[ه]ـ حٮٮـ[ں ع]ں‬/ /‫ ل‬/ /)‫(ں ل)[ٯـ د] (آ‬/ /} { 7
} { ‫ [و] ا‬//)‫ [و] (ا سک‬//)‫ [ر] (ٮـک‬/ / ]‫ [م ں] (ر) [ر‬388‫ ا‬/ / ]‫{ } س[مل‬ 8
} { ‫ ا‬//]‫[ر ص‬// ‫ (و) [ر] (ٮ) [عٯو] (ر) ۝ [و] ل[م](ا) ا‬/ / 9
} {]‫(ٮں) د [و‬/ /]‫[هم ح‬//]‫ [ل‬/ / ]‫ [و‬/ /]‫[ل ا ل‬/ / ]‫[ا‬/ / ‫ا‬ 10
} {//)‫(ل د ل‬//‫ [ٯـ]ل‬// )‫ (و) [س]ا (ی) م[ں] (سد‬/ / ]‫ [و‬/ /)‫ (ح‬/ / ‫ا‬ 11
} {/ / )‫(ل‬/ / ‫(ٯـ)[و]ـ‬/ / )‫(ر) [ی] (ا ال ا‬//)‫ (ٮـ‬/ / ‫ (آ)[ٯر] (و) ا‬/ / ]‫{ }[هم‬ 12
} {]‫(ا) [ٯـ‬/ / ]‫[ر‬// ]‫ ل[ٮی‬/ / )‫ (و‬/ /} { 13
} {/ /]‫ (س)[ٮـ](ر)ـ [و] (ا) ٯـ[ٮـ‬/ /)‫ [ ا ل](س‬/ /} { 14
} {/ / ]‫ [سٯر‬/ / ]‫ [ر ٮٮا‬/ /} { 15
} { / )‫(م‬/ /} { 16
} {)‫ (ٯـ‬/ /} { 17
382 ) It seems that the scribe initially forgot to write mīm but added it later.
383 ) The scribe has left the beginning of the line empty to avoid interfering with the
previous line.
384 ) The traces do not match min. The first letter is round, but does not seem to be
mīm (it might be wāw or fā’/qāf). The second letter might be hā’.
385 ) If this rā’ belongs to qudūr, the following alif may be a scribal error.
386 ) The text may have something like wa-hum kānū yaʽmalūna lahu ḥawlan in
addition to the standard reading.
387 ) This word may be yuʽallimuhum, the subject of which could be Sulaymān.
388 ) The text may have ʽan shimālin wa-yamīnin.
} {]‫(ط)[ـ ں ا‬//]‫ [س‬//]‫ [م‬/ /} { 18

} {389)‫(ا‬/ /)‫ (م‬/ /]‫ [ٯـ ى] [س‬/ /} { 19
390
)‫ (ں‬// ]‫ ٮـ د( عو) ں [م](ں) [د‬/ /} {/ /} { 20
{ 22 } { / / ‫ (ال)ـ‬// )‫ [لس]مو (ٮ‬/ /} {/ /} { 21
} {/ /} {/ /}
} {]‫}(حٮـ)[ى‬ {/ /} { 23
Folio 33 Verso (Q 34.23 – 34.33)
{ }/ /{ }/ /{ } 1
} {/ /} {/ /} {/ /} {//]‫[لى ا] (ل)[کٮـ‬/ /} { 2
} {391]‫[ک]( م ال) [ما‬// )‫ (ا ٮـ ا) [و] (ا‬// )‫ [ٯـ](ل) ا ل(له‬/ /} { 3
} {]‫(ں) [۝] ٯل [ال] (ٮـس)ل[و]ـ (ں) [عم‬//]‫ (ٯی ا ل)[ص](ل)ل م[ٮـ‬/ / )‫ (ی‬//} { 4
392
} { ‫ا‬//‫ٮـ‬//‫ٮـحم[ع] ٮـ‬ )‫(ٮا‬/ / ‫(ح ر) مٮا و ال [ٮـ](س ل) عما ٮحر م(و) ں ۝ ٯل‬ 5
‫ [ٮی] (ا) لٮی‬// )‫ ح ا لعلٮم (ٯـ ل) ا (ر‬394‫ و هو) ا لٯٮا‬393‫ا ل(حٯ‬/ / 6
‫ (ا) ل[ع ر] [ٮر] ا‬//)‫ (لح)ٯٮم (ٮـ)ا هلل سر (آ ا) ٯـ(ل) کال (ه)[و] ا ل(ل‬// 7
‫ ا و‬//‫س آ)[ا] ٯه (ٮـ)[س]ٮـ‬ (‫(ل)[ٮـ]ک ا ال للٮـ ا‬/ / ‫ ۝) و م(ا) ا‬395‫(م‬/ /} { 8
397 396
} { ‫مٮی‬ ‫ل‬/ / ‫۝‬ ‫ر و ں‬/ /]‫ا س ال [ٮـ‬//‫ ا و ل[ک ں] ا (آ)[ٮـ](ر)ـ ا ل‬//} { 9
398
} {)‫(ٮـ‬ ‫(م)د‬/ / )‫ (ٯل‬/ /‫(د) ٯٮـ‬// ]‫} [ا] (ل)[و] (عد) ا ں (آ)[ٮٮم‬ { 10
} { ]‫[ٯد] م(و) ں ۝ [و‬/ / ]‫ [و ال‬/ / )‫[ه س](ا‬/ /} { 11
389 ) The text seems to have fī shakkin minhā instead of minhā fī shakkin.
390 ) The text might have wa-lladhīna yadʽūna/tadʽūna instead of qul idʽū lladhīna
zaʽamtum.
391 ) The text might be wa-innā wa-iyyākum la-immā ʽalā hudan.
392 ) This word may be rabbunā.
393 ) Considering the amount of space before this word, the phrase thumma yaftaḥu
baynanā may be missing.
394 ) A small dash above the tooth means that perhaps tā’ is pointed.
395 ) The traces before mīm match ‫ آ‬better than ‫آٮـ‬.
396 ) This word may be yashkurūna or yatafakkarūna.
397 ) The first letter in the preceding illegible part may be wāw or fā’/qāf. This word
may be wa-qīla or fa-qīla.
398 ) There is a small chance that the letter preceding dāl is ʽayn. The illegible part
preceding mīm may contain one or two letters. There are also traces there above the
line that resemble lām. Perhaps the scribe added lakum to the text later.
} { ‫ ی [ٮـ]ٮں‬//]‫[ه](د ا ا) لٯـ[ر] (ں) و ال (ٮـ)[ا ل‬/ /} { 12

} { 400]‫صه[م‬/ /)‫ل(ٯـ‬// ‫ ں‬//]‫ [ٯـ‬/ /]‫ [م‬399)‫(ں‬/ /)‫} (ل‬ { 13
401
} {//‫لل‬ ‫[و] ا‬//‫ص‬//)‫[و] ل (ا) ل(د) ٮں ا (سٮـ‬//‫} ٮـ‬ { 14
} {]‫ [و] (ٯـ)[ل‬/ / ‫ا [م](و) [مٮٮـ](ں)ـ‬/ /‫ (ال ا) [ٮٮم]ـ ل‬//)‫ [و] ا (ل‬/ /} { 15
} {/ / 402)‫ (ا‬/ / )‫(ع)[ٯو]ـ ا (ا‬/ /‫ں ا (س)ٮـ‬// ‫(ر) [و] ا للد‬//)‫{ } (آ‬ 16
} {/ / )‫(ل‬// ]‫{ } (لهد) ی ل(م ا) (ح ا) [کم‬ 17
} {/ /}{/ / )‫ (ا‬/ / ]‫[ٯـ](و) ا لل[د‬//)‫(ص‬/ / ‫ (ٮـ ں) ا‬//)‫(ل‬ 18
} {/ /} {/ / ]‫( ل و) ا لٮـ(هر) ا [د‬/ / 19
} {/ /} {/ / ‫(ع)ل ل(ه) ا‬/ /}{ 20
} {/ /} {/ /)‫{} (ل‬ 21
Folio 34 Recto (Q 34.40 – 34.47)
} {// 403‫ال‬ 1
} {/ / ]‫ٮـ(و) [ا‬ 2
} {]‫[ع‬// ‫ٮملک‬ 3
} {// ]‫د (ٮ) [ا‬// 4
} {‫ٮـ‬// ]‫ [ا‬/ /]‫[عل‬ 5
{ }/ /
6 { }/ /
7
} { ‫(ں) و‬/ / 8
399 ) The traces match ‫ لطلمٮں‬better than ‫لطلمو ں‬.

400 ) The text may have yulqī baʽḍuhum.
401 ) The letter before ḍād may be ʽayn. It seems that the scribe made a mistake and
wrote ʽayn before ḍād instead of after it.
402 ) The presence of this alif suggests that the text is different from the standard
reading.
403 ) This grapheme may belong to a-hā’ulā’i.
/ /405‫ م‬404‫ ٮں کٯر و ا‬/ / } { 9

)‫(ں مں‬/ / ‫ ا‬//} { 10 } {
} {/ /‫ م‬/ /)‫ٯـ(ٮـ)ل(ه‬
406
} { ]‫ ل[ل‬/ /)‫ ٮـ(و) ا ر سل(ى) ٯا [م](ل‬//‫} آ‬ { 11
} { 407‫ا‬/ / ‫ (آ)[ا] (ں) [ٮـک](ٮـ)[ ر ۝] (ٯـ ل) ا‬//} { 12
} {‫}[م](و) ا لل(ه) (م ٮٮا) (و) ٯر دی ٮم‬ { 13
} {)‫ ٮر ٮٮـ(ں‬/ / )‫ ا (ال‬/ / )‫ ا (ں‬/ /} { 14
} {//‫ (م)[ا] سا ل‬/ /408 } { 15
Folio 34 Verso (Q 13.1 – 13.5)
~~{ } 1
‫} ا (لک)ٮٮ‬ { 2
‫(ں) ا کٮر‬//} { 3
)‫(مو‬/ /‫}[ع] (ا) ل‬ { 4
‫} ا ل(ٯـ)[مر]ـ‬ { 5
]‫[م‬//)‫}[ٮ] ل(عل‬ { 6
‫} ا ال [ر] ص‬ { 7
]‫}ـل ٯـ[ٮـ](ه)ا م[ں‬ { 8
409
//]‫} کل رو حٮں ا [ٮٮٮـ‬ { 9
} { )‫}(ں) ٯی د لک ال (ٮـ ٮ‬ { 10
} {]‫} ا ال (ر) [ص] (ٯـ)[ط](ع مٮـ)حو ر [ٮ‬ { 11
404 ) Considering the traces on the neighbouring lines, this instance of kafarū does
not seem to belong to verse 43. Maybe verse 44 features alladhīna kafarū.
405 ) It is not clear if this mīm is initial, medial, final, or isolated.
406 ) The text may have fa-amlaytu li-lladhīna kadhdhabū/kafarū in addition to the
standard reading.
407 ) The traces before alif match ‫ مٮـ‬better than ‫ٮـم‬.
408 ) Nothing is written before this point, since writing here would have interfered
with the previous line.
409 ) Considering the legible words, the text might have wa-jaʽala fīhā min kulli l-
thamarāti wa-anbata/wa-jaʽala fīhā min kulli zawjayni thnayni instead of the
standard text between al-nahār and yughshī.
} { ‫ (و ا) لٮحل صٮو [ٮـ ا] و عٮر‬410‫}ـٮ‬ { 12

} {)‫} حد و (ٮٯـص ل) (ٮـع)ص(ه)[م]ـ ع(ل‬ { 13
} {‫ لک ال ٮٮ لٯـ(و) م‬// )‫}[ٯـ](ى‬ { 14
} { 411‫ا‬//‫ [م]ٮـ‬/ / ]‫}[ٮ] ٯو [لهم ا‬ { 15
Folio 35 Recto (Q 13.6 – 13.14)
} {)‫(و‬ 1
} {‫لع‬ 2
412
} { ‫وا‬ 3
} { )‫(ٮـع)[ٮص]ـ (ا ال‬ 4
} {)‫(لم ا‬// )‫ٮـ[د] { } ٮـ(م ٯد) (ر ۝‬// 5
} {‫۝ س(و) ا‬ )‫ل[کٮـ ٮر] (ا) ل(م)ٮـع(ل‬ 6
} {/ /‫ (ا) ه‬// )‫ [ح](هر‬//} { 7
} {/ / 461]‫[ٮ‬/ /]‫ (م)[ع‬/ /} { 8
} {‫ (م ں) ا (م) ر ا‬413‫ (ٯـ)[ٮو]ـ ٮه‬//}{// )‫ٮـ د( ٮـ ه‬ 9
} { )‫[ٮر] و (ا‬/ / ‫ [م] (ح)[ٮـ](ا)ـ‬//‫ما (ٮـ)ٯـ‬ 10
} { 414‫ر [ا] د (ا) [ل له] ٮٯو م‬ 11
} { )‫م(ں) و ا ل ۝ (ه)[و] ا ل(د‬ 12
} {]‫طمعا و (ٮٮـس ى) ا لس[ح‬ 13
410 ) The phrase wa-jannātun min aʽnābin might follow wa-zarʽun rather than
precede it.
411 ) This word may be mitnā.
412 ) Assuming that the visible letters on line 2 belong to al-ʽiqāb (verse 6), the
letters on the present line cannot belong to kafarū, which is only two words away,
unless kafarū 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-ʽiqāb and taghīḍ (verse
8). 461
) Considering the traces on the next line, the text following muʽaqqibāt may be
min khalfihi wa-min bayni yadayhi or even a longer phrase such as min khalfihi wa-
Khaṭīb
raqībun min bayni yadayhi, which is reported for Ibn ʽAbbās (al , Muʽjam, 4:394).
413 ) The text may have yarqubūnahu instead of yaḥfaẓūnahu.
414 ) The following missing part is rather small for the standard text between bi-
qawmin and min wālin.
{ ‫ { }(ٯـ){ }(ٮ) ٮه‬15 } {]‫ٮـح(مد) ه و ا ل(م)ل(ٮـ)[ک‬ 14

{ ]‫} ( ا ل)[د‬ { 17 } {)‫} (و ا هلل‬ { 16 }
}
Folio 35 Verso (Q 13.16 – 13.21)
/ /{ } 1
)‫{ }[س ا] (ی‬// ]‫}[ٯ‬ { 2
/ /} { ‫}[ٮر] (ل) [م] ں ا‬ { 3
)‫} [ ر ه ا] [ٯـ](ا) [حٮـم](ل) ا ل[سٮـ](ل‬ { 4
/ / )‫(ا) [ح]ل(ٮـ ه‬//]‫[ٮـ‬// )‫[ ا ر] (ا‬//]‫}[لٮه] (ٯـ ى) [ ا ل‬ { 5
} { )‫}صر ٮ ا هلل ا ل{}(ٯ) { } (ا) لٮـ[ط](ل‬ { 6
‫ (ا) لٮـ[ا] س‬//)‫(ٯـ‬/ / )‫} و ا (ما‬ { 7
‫} ٮـ(ص ر) ٮ ا [لل ه] (ا ال) م[ٮـ]ل‬ { 8
)‫ (ا) ل[ح](سٮی و) ا لد (ٮں‬/ /} { 9
‫[ا] (ٯی ا) ال ر ص‬//} { 10
415
‫و ا و ل(ٮک) ل[ه]م‬ ‫} حو ه‬ { 11
)‫[ م و] (ٮٮـ)[س] (ا) لم[هد] (۝‬//} { 12
‫} ر ٮـ[ک] ا (ل)حٯ کمں هو‬ { 13
} {/ /} {‫} لد ٮـ(ں) ٮـ‬ { 14
} {// ‫} لد‬ { 15
} {]‫(ه)[م‬/ /} { 16
Folio 36 Recto (Q 13.25 – 13.31)
} { ‫ ا‬416//)‫(ل‬//)‫} (ل‬ { 1
} {/ /} { )‫(و‬/ / ]‫} (ا) [ں‬ { 2
415 ) The text is uncertain. It might have yastakhrijūhu or li-yastakhrijūhu as a plus.

Alternatively, it may have la-yastakhrijūhu instead of la-ftadaw bihi.
416 ) The first and second lām might be connected, in which case this word may be
allāh.
} {)‫ (ٮـ)[ا] (ل‬417//} { //)‫} (و ٯـ‬ { 3

} { ]‫}(ا) [ٯی] (ا) [ال] حر [ه‬ { 4
} { ‫( ں ر) ٮـ[ه] ٯل‬/ / } { 5
} {/ / ‫ ا‬/ / ‫ { } ا ٮا‬/ / ‫(ں) ٮـ[س](ا) و‬// )‫} ٮـ[ص](ل‬ { 6
)‫ ا (لل)[ه] ا (ال) ٮـ د( کر‬/ /} {/ / ]‫ (ٯـل)[و‬/ /]‫ ا [و] (ٮـ)[طم‬/ / } { 7
//]‫(و) ا [و عمل‬//]‫ [ا م‬/ / ]‫{}[د‬/ / ‫ل[ و ٮ] و‬/ / )‫( ں ا‬//)‫(ا) ل له[ ٮـط](م‬ 8
/ /)‫ (آ‬/ /}{/ /} {/ /)‫ا [ل]ص(لح ٮ) [ط](و) ٮـ(ى ل‬ 9
418
// )‫(ل)[ه](ا‬//)‫ (ٯـ‬/ /} {]‫ (ٯی) ا [مه ٯـ‬//}{//‫س‬ 10
} {/ /} {/ /)‫ (ا) [ع](ل‬//‫{ } (لٮٮـ)ل‬// 11
} {/ /} {]‫ [ٯل‬/ / 12
} { ]‫ ٯـ[ر] ٮا (س)ٮـ[ر]ـ ٮ [ٮـ ه‬// ]‫} [ا‬ {/ / ‫کلٮ‬ 13
} {/ /‫ ا ل‬/ /)‫(ل‬/ / } {/ /‫ا‬ 14
} {/ / ‫ ا‬/ /} {/ / )‫[ه] (ا‬//)‫(ل‬ 15
} {]‫ [ال‬/ /} {/ / )‫ل(و‬ 16
} {/ / ]‫} [ا‬ {419//‫م‬/ /} { 17
Folio 36 Verso (Q 13.33 – 13.40)
} { ]‫(ں) [للد‬//} { 1
} {]‫} (لل ه) [ٯـ‬ {//]‫[ں‬//} { 2
420
} { )‫[۝] (ل){ }(د) [ٮ] (ٯی‬ )‫}(د‬ { 3
} {‫ ل‬//]‫ [م‬//} {// ‫}[ر] ه ا‬ { 4
} {// ]‫} ا لٮی و [عد ا‬ { 5
417 ) This word may be fariḥū (verse 26).
418 ) The missing and illegible areas before this word are much larger than is needed
for qad khalat min.
419 ) Assuming that the grapheme near the end of the previous line is lā, the visible
mīm here might belong to tuṣībuhum or bi-mā. However, the space between the
putative lā and the present point is too small for the standard text between lā and
tuṣībuhum. Perhaps the text has ẓalamū (which features mīm) instead of kafarū, a
reading reported for Ibn Masʽūd and Mujāhid (al-Khaṭīb, Muʽjam, 4:427).
420 ) Assuming that the putative fā’ at the end of line 2 belongs to fa-mā, 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.
} {// ]‫}[ى‬ {// 421)‫(م‬// )‫ (ا‬// } { / / ‫}ا (آ)ل(ه)[ا]ـ‬ { 6
} { ‫ ۝ (و ا) لد ٮں ا‬// ‫{ }[ں] ا لٮا‬//]‫ و عٯٮی ( ا ل)[ک‬// ]‫[و‬/ /} { 7

} {)‫(ک) مں (ر) ٮـ(ک‬//‫ ا ٮر ل ا ل‬//)‫{ } (ٮـم‬// ]‫ (ا) ل[کٮٮ]ـ (ٮـ)ٯـ[ر‬422// 8
‫[صه] آ ل( ٮـ د) عو ا ا‬/ /)‫(ک‬//)‫{ } (ٮـ‬/ / )‫ (ٮ‬//]‫(مں ا ال) [ح‬ 9
423
‫[ٯـ](ل) ا ٮـ(م ا) ا مر (ٮ) ا ں‬ //)‫ {} ( ا ه‬/ / )‫ (ح)[ٮٮـ](ه‬/ / 10
‫ ا [د] (عو) ا [و] ا لٮه‬424‫ه‬/ /} {/ / ]‫[عٮد] ا (لل)[ه‬ 11
‫ عر ٮٮا و لٮـ(ں) {}ا‬//} {/ / ‫ [ٮ]۝‬/ / 12
} {‫}[ک] م[ں] (ا) ل[ع]ل‬ {/ / }{‫{ } ا‬ 13
/ /} {/ /}{ ‫ا‬//} { 14
‫ ما کا ں‬/ / } {/ /} { 15
)‫(ل‬//‫} هلل ل‬ {/ /)‫{ } (ح‬ 16
//‫} و عٮـ‬ {/ / ]‫[ل ا‬/ /} { 17
‫ (م)ا‬/ /} {/ /} { 18
} {]‫ا [ٮ‬/ /} {/ /} { 19
Folio 16 Verso (Q 28.19 – 28.24)
} {)‫}کو (ں‬ { 1
} {‫}ـد ٮٮه ٮـ(س)عى ٯل‬ { 2
‫لو ک ٯا (ح) ر ح‬//} { 3
‫ [م](ٮـ ها) حٮٯا ٮٮـ(ر)ـ‬//} { 4
/ / ]‫}(ا) لحطٮں (۝) و ل[م ا‬ { 5
‫} (ٮـه)[د] ٮٮی (س و) ا ا‬ { 6
]‫} حد علٮـ(ه) ا م[ه‬ { 7
} {]‫}(هم) ا م( ر ا) ٮـ[ٮں‬ { 8
421 ) The text might have ukuluhā wa-ẓilluhā dā’imun.

422 ) The traces here might belong to an alif, in which case the text may have ūtū
instead of ātaynāhum.
423 ) The additional text may begin with kullun yadʽū … ilā janbihi/jānibihi.
424 ) The traces before hā’ do not quite match ‫ا لٮـ‬. Specifically, the letter before hā’
may be lām instead of bā’.
‫}ا ٮں ٯـلــ(ٮـ)ا‪} {// 425‬‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫}ا سٮـ(ح) [آ]{ }‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪10‬‬

‫}ل و (ٯل) { }‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫)‪Folio 16 Recto (Q 28.30 – 28.35‬‬
‫}‬ ‫{ }‪ [//‬ا ا] هلل ر ‪{//‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫}‬ ‫ها ٮـ[ه](ٮـ ر) کا {‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫}‬ ‫ٮـ(مو) سی ا (ٯٮـ ل) (و) {‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫‪426‬‬
‫}‬ ‫ٮـ(د) ک [ٯـ ى] (ٯـم)ٮـ(ص) {‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫}‬ ‫(ص مم) ا لٮک حٮـح{‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫}‬ ‫ر ٮک ا لی (ٯـ ر) [ع]{‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫}‬ ‫ٯـ{ }(ٯـ)ٮں ۝ (ٯل) ر ٮ{‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫}‬ ‫{ }(و) ا حی هر (و) [ں]{‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫}‬ ‫{ }[ص د] ٯٮی ا (ٮی){‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫}‬ ‫{ } (ح)‪(//‬ک و ٮـح){‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫}‬ ‫{ }(ٮـ)ٮٮـ(ٮـ ا) ا ٮٮـ{‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫)‪Folio 28 Recto (Q 37.15 – 37.33‬‬
‫}‪//‬ٮٮں ۝ (ا) د ا ‪/ /‬ا ‪[/ /‬ٮا] ٮر ٮـ(ا){ }‬ ‫{ }(و) ٯلو ا هد ا {‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫‪(/‬و) ں ۝ ا و ‪[ / /‬و] ‪[ / /‬و] لو ں [۝]‬ ‫{} (ع)[ط](ما)ـ ا ‪//‬ا (ل)‪/‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫} ح(ر) ه (و)‬ ‫{ } ٯل ٮعم و ا ٮـ[ٮـ م] [د] حر و ں (۝) ٯا (ٮـ){‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫‪[ / /} {/‬ٮو]ـ ٮلٮا‬ ‫{ } حد ه ٯا د ا ه[م] مح(ص)[ر]‪/ 427‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫}[صل] ‪( / /‬ل)‪( //‬ی)‬ ‫ه‪( //‬ا ٮـ و) (م) ا لد ٮں ۝ (ه)‪( //‬ا ٮو) ‪{/ /‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪428‬‬
‫} (ط)‪[//‬م]( و ا) ‪//‬‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪( /‬ٮـ)[و] ں (۝) ا ٮـ(عٮـ و) (ا)‬ ‫آ[ٮـ]‪(//‬م) ‪/‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫‪425 ) The horizontal line between lām and the tooth is darker than the other letters.‬‬
‫‪426 ) This word may be qamīṣika.‬‬
‫‪427 ) The text may have muḥḍarūn instead of yanẓurūn.‬‬
‫‪428 ) This word may be ibʽathū.‬‬
‫} (ٯا) [ه]‪/ /‬‬ ‫ما کا ٮو ا (ٮـ)[ع](ٮد) و ں[ ‪429‬مں د]{‬ ‫‪7‬‬

‫‪/‬‬ ‫}‪/‬‬ ‫ه(م) ا لی صر ٮط ا (لح)حٮم ‪{//‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫‪430‬‬
‫‪/‬‬ ‫}‪/‬‬ ‫ل(و ں ۝) ملکم ال ٮٮٮصر (و) ‪{ / /‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫}‬ ‫(م)‪[/ /‬ٮـس]ل(مو)ـ ں (۝) ٯـ ا( ٯـ)ٮـ[ل] ‪{/ /‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫}‬ ‫(ٯـ ا) {}و ا ا (ٮکم) [آ]‪[//‬ٮم] {‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫}‬ ‫ٮل لم ٮـک و( ٮـ و) ا ‪{/ /‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫}‬ ‫(مں) سلط(ں) ٮل [آ]ٮـ[ٮـ]{‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫}‬ ‫ل ‪(/ /‬ٮـ ا) ا ٮـ(ا) ‪{//‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫}‬ ‫(عو) ‪ [//‬ں ۝] (ٯا) [ٮـ]‪{//‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫)‪Folio 28 Verso (Q 37.43 – 37.68‬‬
‫}[۝] ٮطا ڡ علٮـه(م)‬ ‫{ } حٮٮ (ا) [ل](ٮـع)‪ / /‬۝ عل[ى] سر ر مٮـ[ٯـ]ٮـ(ل){‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪[/‬ٮـ](صا) لد ه لل[س]‪[ //‬ٮٮـ]ں (۝) ال (ٯـ)[ٮـ]ها عو {}‬ ‫س م[ں م](ع)[ٮـ]‪/‬‬ ‫[ٮـ](ک ا)‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫ل و [ال] (ه){ }‪[/ /‬ا] ٮٮـ(ر) ٯـ[و] (ں) ع(ٮـ)[د]ـ ه[م] (ٯـص ر) ٮ ا لط[ر]{ }‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫}‪(//‬ص مک)ٮـ(و ں) ۝ (ٯا) ٯٮل (ٮـ)عص(ه)م (ع)ال { }‬ ‫‪ / /‬ع[ٮـ](ں)ـ ۝ آ[ا] ٮـ{‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫} ٮـ ل( مٮـ هم) ا ٮی کا ں لی ٯر ٮـ( ں ۝) ٮٯو‬ ‫(ٮـ)[ع](صـ ٮـ)ٮـسل(و ں){‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫} ٯـ[ٮـ ں] (۝) ا د ا (م)ٮـ[ٮـ ا] و [آ](ٮـ ا) ٮـ(ر) ٮا و‬ ‫ل ا ٮک لم[ں]{‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫} ‪ / /‬ٯـه(ل) ا [ٮـ](ٮم) مطل(ع)[و]ـ ں (۝) ٯا طلع‬ ‫(ع)ط‪//‬ا ا (ٮـ ا) {‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫} (۝) ٯل ٮا هلل ا ں (آ)[ د ٮ] ل(ٮـع و) ٮں‬ ‫(ٯر) ا ‪ //‬ٯی {‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫}[آ]ٮٮ مں ا لمح(ص ر) ٮـ(ں) ۝ و م(ا) ٮحں‬ ‫[۝ و] (ل)[و]ـ (ال){‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫} ل(ى) و ما (ٮـح ں) ٮـم(ع د) (ٮٮں ۝) ا ں‬ ‫‪(/ /‬ٮٮـ)[ں] ‪( //‬ا){‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫} [۝] ل(م)[ٮـ]ل ه(د) ا ٯـل[ٮـ](ع)[م] ل ا‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫} [ا] (م) [سح]‪ //‬ه ا لر{ }[ٯـ] و م‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫}‪(/ /‬ا سحر) ‪[ //‬ٮـح]‪[ //‬ح] ٯی‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫} [س] ا ل‪(/ /‬ط)‪//‬ں [۝] ٯا‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫} ا (ل)‪//‬طو ں (۝) ‪ //‬م ا‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫} ا [ں] مر حعه(م)‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫‪429 ) The space between the putative nūn and mīm is rather small for the two-‬‬
‫‪column verse separator symbols used in this folio.‬‬
‫‪430 ) This word may be tanāṣarūn (with the alif spelled) or tatanāṣarūn,‬‬
‫‪which is reported for Ibn Masʽūd (al-Khaṭīb, Muʽjam, 8:20).‬‬
‫)‪Folio 29 Recto (Q 37.82 – 37.103‬‬
‫}‬ ‫{ }(ا) ال حر ٮں ۝ و ا ں مں (س)ٮـع‪ / /‬ال (ٮر) [ه]{‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫}‬ ‫{ } ٮه ٮٯلٮ سلٮم ۝ ا (د) ٯل (ال) ‪ / /‬و [ٯو] {‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫}‬ ‫{ }ٮـ(ع)ٮد و ں ۝ ا (ٮـ)ٯکا د و (ں) ا هلل ا له[ه] {‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫}‬ ‫{ } (م ا) [ط]‪(//‬کم ٮر ٮ) ا [لع]ل(م)ٮـ(ں) ۝ ٯـ(ٮـط ر) ٮـ[ط]‪{ //‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫}‬ ‫{ }‪( //‬ٯل) ا (ٮی س)ٯٮـ[م]{ } ٯـ[ٮـ]و ل[و] ا [ع]ٮـ[ه] ‪{//‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫}‬ ‫{ }[ا] لی ا ل(ه)ٮـ(ه)‪[ //‬ٯـ]‪[} {/ /‬ا] ال [ٮـ ا] [آ]ل[و] {‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫}‬ ‫(ں) ‪[ / /‬ٯر] ‪/ /‬لٮهم (ص)‪[/ /‬ا] ٮا ل[ٮـ]‪{/ /‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫}‬ ‫( ٮر ٯـ و) ‪[ / /‬۝] ٯل ا (ٮـ)ع(ٮـ)[د]ـ ( و ں) ما ٮـ[ٮـح]‪{/ /‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫}‬ ‫ٯ۝ ـ ا) (ل)[و]ـ ا (ا) ‪( / /‬ا) ‪{//‬‬ ‫}‪( //‬ں‬ ‫و م{‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫}‬ ‫} (ٯـ)[ا] (ر) د و (ا) ‪[//‬ه] ‪{/ /‬‬ ‫ٯی ا {‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫}‬ ‫(س)ٯـلٮـ( ں ۝){ }[ل] ا ٮی د ه‪( / /‬ا) ‪{//‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫}‬ ‫لی مں (ا) { }(ص)لحٮں (۝) (ٯٮـ)‪[//‬ر] ‪{/ /‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫}‬ ‫مع‪ //‬ا (ل)س[عى] ٯل ٮٮٮی (ا) ‪{/ /‬‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫}‬ ‫د (ٮـ)حک ‪(//‬ا) ٮـ(طر م ا) ‪{//‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫}‬ ‫(س)ٮحد ٮی ا (ں س ا) {‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫{‬ ‫‪}/‬‬ ‫‪/ 16‬‬
‫)‪Folio 29 Verso (Q 37.118 – 37.144‬‬
‫‪[/‬م] ۝ و ٮر کٮا { }‬ ‫} ا ل(ص ر) ‪/‬‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫}‪( //‬ح ر) ‪(//‬ں) ‪[ //‬س]ل[م] (ع)لى (مو)ـ [س ى] و هر (و) ں ۝ کد { }‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫}‪//‬س(ٮـ)ٮـ(ں) ۝ ا ٮهم م(ں) عٮـ[د] ٮا ا( لم)[و م]‪[//‬ٮـ]{ }‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫} م(ں) ا لمر سلٮں ۝ ا د (ٯل) ل(ٯـ)[و] ‪( / /‬ا) { }‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫}‬ ‫} ں (ٮـ)[ع ال] و ٮد (ر و) { } ا حس(ں) ا لح(ل)[ٯٮـ]‪{/ /‬‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫}‬ ‫} ا ٮا (ٮـ)[ک](م) ا (ال){ }[ل]‪//‬ں [۝] ٯـ(ک د) [ٮـ](و) ‪( //‬ٯـ){‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫}‪ [ / /‬ں ۝] (ا ال) { }[ٮـ](د)ـ ا لل(ه) [ ا ل]‪[//‬ح]ل(ص)ٮـ[ں] ۝ و‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫‪431‬‬
‫} (ال) حر ‪ / /‬۝ (س)ل(م) عل(ى) ا [ل](ٮـ)[سٮـ]‪[}{//}{//}{//‬د] لک‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫‪431 ) Considering the amount of space before the putative dāl, the text may‬‬
‫‪have kadhālika instead of innā kadhālika.‬‬
‫} کا ں (م ں) عٮد ٮـ(ا) [ ا ل]‪[ / /‬م]{ }(ں) [۝] و‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪9‬‬

‫} (و) ا‬ ‫} (ا) ل[مر] س(لٮـ)[ں] ۝ [ا] (د) {‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫} (ا) ‪( / /‬ل)[عٮـ]‪ //‬ٮں ۝ (ٮـ)م{ } مر ٮا ا‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫} ‪[ / /‬ع](لٮـ)ه(ا)ـ [مص]{ }[ٮں ۝] و ٮا لٮل‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫} (ٮـ و) {}[س] لمں [ا] (لم ر) سلٮں‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫}[س]حو [ ں ۝] ٯـ[س]ه[م] ٯکا ں‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫}ـ(و) ٮ [و هو] مل(ٮم) ۝‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫}[ل]‪ / /‬ٯـ(ى) ٮـ‪ / /‬ا‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫)‪Folio 18 A (Q 15.4 – 15.33‬‬
‫‪}{/‬‬ ‫‪[ /‬ا] (ال) و ل(ه)‪ / /‬کٮٮ م‪(//‬ل)[و]ـ (م) ‪(/ /‬ا) ‪/‬‬ ‫{ }‪/‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫[حله](ا) و ‪[//‬ا] ‪//‬سٮحر و ں ۝ (ٯـ)لو ا ٮا ٮـه(ا) ا لد (ی ا ٮر ل) علٮـ[ه] { }‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫۝ ل)[و] ما ٮا ٮـ(ٮـ)ٮاـ ٮا ل(مل)ٮـ(ک)[ه] (ا)‬ ‫‪[} {432/ /‬ک] (ل)[م](حٮو ں‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫ں (آٮـ)[ٮ]ـ { }‬
‫}(ں) [۝] ( و م)[ا] ٮٮر [ل] ا (ل)ملٮـ[ک ه] ا ال (ٮـ ا) (لحٯ) و م(ا) کا‬ ‫‪(//‬ں ا ل){‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫{}‬
‫ٮـ[و] (ا) ا د ا (م)ٮطر(ٮـ ں) [۝] (ا) ‪(//‬ا) ٮحں [ٮـ]ٮر(ل) ا ل(د آ)‪( //‬و) ا ‪(//‬ا ل)‪//‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫ل(ح)ٯـط{}‬
‫ں ۝ و لٯد ا ر سلٮا مں (ٯٮـ)ل(ک) ٯی سٮع ا ال و ل(ٮـ)ں (۝) و ما ٮـ‪ //‬ٮٮـه{ }‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫مں ر سو ل ا ال (کا) [ٮو] (ا ٮـ ه) ٮسٮهر و ں ۝ کد لک سلکه { }‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫ٯی ٯلو ٮ ( ا ل)[م](ح)[ر] ‪[/ /‬ں] ‪ //‬ال ٮو م(ٮـ و) ا ٮه و ٯد حلٮ سٮـ(ه) ا ال { }‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫‪433‬‬
‫ٮعر {‬ ‫{ }[ٮـ](ں) ۝ و لو ٯـ[ٮـ]ح(ٮـ ا) (ع)لٮـه‪ //‬ٮا (ٮا) م(ں) ا لسما ٯـ[ٮـ](طلو) ا ٯٮه‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫}‬
‫۝ لٯـل[و] ا ا ٮما س(ک ر) ٮ ا ٮصر ٮا ٮل ٮحں ٯو م مسحو { }‬ ‫حو ں‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫ر ‪ (434‬ں ۝ و) ل(ٯـ)د ح(ع)لٮاـ ٯی ا (لس ما) ٮر [و] ح(ا) و (ر) ٮٮها لل(ٮـ)طر [ٮـ ں]‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫۝و{}‬
‫ح(ٯـط)ٮها مں کل سٮطں [ر] (حٮم) ۝ (ا ال) مں ا سٮر ٯ ا لسمع { }‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫ٯا ٮٮعٮه سهٮا م‪(/ /‬ں) ۝ (و) ا ال ر ص مد د ٮـ(ه ا) (و) ا لٯٮـ{ }‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫‪432 ) The traces here match al-qur’ān better than al-dhikr.‬‬

‫‪433 ) A horizontal line is visible beneath fā’ and the tooth. Perhaps the scribe‬‬
‫‪first wrote fī here but then changed it to fīhi.‬‬
‫‪434 ) There is no trace of a wāw after rā’, nor is there enough room for a letter.‬‬
‫(ٯـ)ٮـ(ه ا) [ر] (و سی) و ا ٮٮٮا ‪/ /‬ٮها مں کل سا ی (مو)ـ ‪[ //‬و] ں (۝) و حع(لٮـ)‪} { //‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫‪435‬‬
‫م(ں) سا‬ ‫ل[ک م] (ٯـ)[ٮـ]ها معٮـ(س)ـ و مں لسٮم ل(ه) ٮر (ر) ‪[//‬ٮـ ں] ۝ (و) ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫[ی]‬
‫(ا) { }‬
‫ال (ٮـ)[ا] ٮد ٮٮا ح ر( ٮٮـ ه) و (م ا) ٮر (له)‪ 436‬ا ال ٮٯد [ر] معلو م ۝ و ا ر { }‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫(س)لٮا ا لر ٮح ل و( ٯـ)[ح] ٯا (ٮـ ر) (لٮـ ا) (م ں) ا لسما ما ٯـ[ا] (س)ٯٮٮکموـ { }‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫ه (و) [م](ا) ا ‪[//‬ٮم] ل ه( حر‪[ )437‬ٮٮـ ں] ۝ و ا ٮا ٮحں ٮـحٮـ(ى) و (ٮـ)م‪ / /‬و (ا) [ٮـ]‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫(ا) ل(ٮـ)ح[ں] { }‬
‫ا ل و( ر ٮو ں) ۝ و ا [ٮـ](ا) لٮـع لم( ا ل)[م](س)ٮٯدـ (مٮں) م(ٮکم) و ٮـ[ع لم] ا { }‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫لمس[ٮحر] ٮں ۝ و ا ‪ / /‬ر ٮک (ل)ٮحسر ه‪ //‬ا [ٮه] ل[ح](ک)‪[//‬م] علٮم (۝) و { }‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫(ل){}‪ //‬ح[ل](ٯٮـ)ا (ا) ال ٮسں م(ں) صلصل مں [ح]ما م(س ٮو) ں ۝ و { }‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫ا (ل)حں حلٯـ‪ / /‬مں ٯٮـ(ل) (م ں) (ٮـ ا) ر (سم و) [م] (۝) و ا د ٯل ر ٮـ[ک] { }‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫لل(م)لٮـکه ا (ٮـ)‪ / /‬حل[ٯ] ٮـ(س)[ر] (ا) م(ں ص)ل(ص)ل مں حما مسٮـ(و ں) { }‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫ٯـ‪( //‬د ا) سو ٮٮه و ٮٯـحٮ (ٯٮـ)[ه]ـ (م ں) ر و ح(ى) ٯٯـ[ع]وـ له { }‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫سحد ٮں [۝] ٯسحد ا ل(م)لٮـکه آ(ل)[هم] (ا) حمعٮں ۝ ا ال ا ٮـلٮـ[س]{ }‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪[ //‬ٮی] ( ا ں) ٮـک(و ں) م(ع) ( ا ل)[سحد] ٮں ۝ ٯـ(ل) ٮا ٮـلٮـ(س) ما لک{ }‬ ‫‪26‬‬
‫[ا] (ال) ٮکو [ں] مں ا (ل)[سحد] ٮـ[ں] (۝) ٯـ(ل) لم ا ‪( / /‬ال) ‪} {/ /‬‬ ‫‪27‬‬
‫)‪Folio 18 B (Q 15.33 – 15.74‬‬
‫{ } لٮـ[سر] حلٯـ‪ / /‬مں صل[صل م](ں حما) مسٮو ں ۝ ٯل [ٯـ ا] (حر) ح ‪/ /‬ه‪} {438‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫{ }ا‪ 439‬ٮک (ر) حٮم (۝) و ا ں علٮک لعٮـ(ٮٮـ ا) ا لی ٮو م ا لد (ٮـ ں) (۝) ٯل‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫{ }ٮ ٯا ٮطر ٮی ا لی ٮو م (ٮـ)ٮعٮو ں ۝ ٯل ٯا ٮک م(ں) (ا){ }[ٮـ](ں) ۝‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫{ } لی ٮو م ا لو (ٯـ)ٮ ا لمعلو م ۝ ٯل (ر) ٮ ٮما [ا] ‪[ / /‬ٮٮـ]‪ / /‬ال ر‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫{ }ـں لهم ٯی ا ال (ر) ص و ال عو ٮٮهم ا [حم]عٮـں ۝ ا [ال] (ع)ٮا‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪435 ) The traces here match mā better than in.‬‬

‫‪436 ) It seems the scribe made a mistake here, writing one tooth instead of‬‬
‫‪two at the beginning of the word.‬‬
‫‪437 ) It is not clear if a tooth precedes the initial ḥā’ or not.‬‬
‫‪438 ) The traces before hā’ do not quite match an initial mīm followed by a tooth.‬‬
‫‪They match one mīm, or two teeth, or a lām and a tooth.‬‬
‫‪439 ) It is not clear if this alif is connected to a letter before it or not.‬‬
‫{ }( د ک) مٮـه(م) ا لمحلصٮں ۝ ٯل هد ا صر ط ‪//‬لى‪( 440‬م)سٮـٯٮـ(م)ـ ۝ ا ں‪ 441‬عٮد ی‬ ‫‪6‬‬

‫{ }ٮـه(م)‪ 442‬ل(ٮس) لک علٮهم (س)لطں و ال س{ }ل‪ 443‬ا ال مں ا ٮـ(ٮـع)ک مں‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫۝ و) ا ں حهٮم (م)ع(ٮـ)دـ ه[م] ا ‪[/ /‬عٮـ](ں)‪ / /‬لها سٮعه ا ٮـ(و){ }‬ ‫{ }‪[//‬ع و] [ٮـ ں] (‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫{ }آ(ل) ٮـ(ا) ٮ م‪//‬ه(م) حر (مٯسو) [م] ۝ ا ں ا ل(م)ٮٯٮں ٯی حٮٮ (و)‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫{ }[ٮو] ں ۝ ا [ د ح]ل(و) ها ٮـ(س لم) ا م(ٮـ)ٮں ۝ ا حو ٮا علی سر ر مٮـ[ٯـ]ٮلٮں ۝‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪444‬‬
‫ٮمسهم ٯـ[ٮـ ها] (م ں) ٮـ[ص]ٮ و م(ا) هم مٮها ٮـ(م)حر حٮں ۝ ‪//‬ٮـ(ى) عٮد ی‬ ‫{ }(ا)‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫{ } ٮی ا ٮا (ا) ل[عٯـ و] ‪( //‬ا) لر (حٮـ م) (۝) و ا ں عد ٮی هو ا لع(د) ا ٮ‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫{ } لٮم (۝) و ٮٮـ(ٮـ هم) عں (ص)ٮڡ ا ٮر هٮم ۝ ا د د حلو ا علٮـ(ه)‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫{ }ـ[ٯـ](ل)و ا سل(م)ا (ٯـ ل) ا (ٮـ ا) مٮکمـ‪ 445‬و حل(و) ں ۝ ٯلو ا ال ٮو (ح ل) (م)ٮا‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫{ } [ٮا] ٮٮسر ک ٮـعل(م) عل(ٮم) (۝) ٯل ٮسر ٮموـ ‪//‬ى علی ا ں م(سٮـ)ى‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪446‬‬
‫ٮٮـ(س ر) و ں (۝ ٯـ لو) ا (ٮـ)ٮسر ک ٮا لحٯ ٯـ ال( ٮـ)کں (م)ں‬ ‫{ }[ا] ل[ک]ٮر ٯٮما‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫{ }[ا] لٯٮـط(ٮـ ں) ۝ ٯل [و] مں ٮٯٮط مں ر ح(م ه) ر ٮه (ا ال) ا ل(ص)ل[و] ں ۝‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫{ }[ٯل] (و) [م]‪ //‬حطٮکم ا ٮه ا لم(ر س)لو ں ۝ ٯلو ا ا ٮا ا ر ‪/ /‬لٮا ا‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫{ }[ى] ‪ / /‬م محر مٮں ۝ ا ال ا ل لو ط ا ٮا مٮـح(و ه م) ا ح[م]‪//‬ٮں ۝ ا ال‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫{ } (مر) ٮهم ا ٮـ(ه)ا (آ)ا ٮٮ مں ا لعٮر ٮں ۝ ٯلما حا ا (ل) ل( و ط) ا‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫{ }[مر] سل(ٮـ ں) ۝ ٯل ٯـ(و) م (مٮکر و) ں (۝) ٯلو ا (ٮـ ل) حٮٮک ٮما (آ ا) ٮو‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫{ } ‪(/ /‬ه) ٮـمٮـ[ر]‪ 447‬و ں ۝ و ا ٮٮٮکـ ٮا لحٯ و ا ٮا ل(صد) ٯـ(ٮں) ۝ ‪[} {//‬س]ر‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫{ }[ا] هلک ٮـ(ٯـ)طع (م ں) ا لٮل و ا ٮـ(ٮـ ع) ا د ٮر (ه م) و ال ٮـ(ل)‪/ /‬ٮ‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫{ }‪(/ /‬ک م) ا حد و ا مصو ا حٮٮ ٮا مر و ں ۝ (و) ٯـ[صٮـ]ٮا ا لٮه‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫{ }[د] لک ا ال مر و ا ں د ٮر هو ال مٯـ[ط و] ع مصٮحٮں ۝ و حا ا‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫{ }‪ / /‬ا لمد ٮٮه ٮـس[ٮـ]‪//‬سر و ں ۝ ٯل صٮٯی ٯال ٮـٯـ(صح)و ں (۝) و ا ٮـ(ٯو ا)‬ ‫‪26‬‬
‫‪440 ) It seems the scribe initially forgot to write ʽalā here, since it is written slightly‬‬
‫‪above the line, in the small space available between ṣirāṭ and mustaqīm.‬‬
‫‪441 ) The letter nūn may be pointed, as there is a small dash inside it.‬‬
‫‪442 ) This word may be minhum, in which case the sentence would be awkward, or‬‬
‫‪ʽalayhim, in which case this would be a scribal error, since ʽalayhim appears again‬‬
‫‪after laka.‬‬
‫‪443 ) This word may be sabīl.‬‬
‫‪444 ) The shape of this alif suggests it is not part of a lā. Perhaps the text has mā‬‬
‫‪here.‬‬
‫‪445 ) The letter nūn may be pointed, as there is a small dash above the tooth.‬‬
‫‪446 ) The final alif is rather pale except its base. Maybe the scribe erased it.‬‬
‫‪447 ) It seems the scribe initially wrote wāw at the end of this grapheme, but‬‬
‫‪changed it to rā’ later.‬‬
)‫ں ۝ ٯل هو (ال‬//‫{ } هلل ٯال ٮحر و ں ۝ ٯلو ا ا و لم ٮٮهکـ (ع ں) ا ل(ع)لم‬ 27

448
/ / )‫[ٮی] ا [ں] کٮٮم ٯعلٮں ۝ ل(ع)مر ک ا ٮـه(م) لٯی (س)[کر]ـ ه(م‬//} { 28
‫ل[ه]ا‬//)‫(ها ا س‬//]‫[ل‬// )‫(لٮـا‬//]‫(ں ۝ و) [ح‬//)‫ حد ٮهم ا لص(ٮـ)ح[ه]ـ م(سر ٯـ‬//} { 29
Folio 19 B (Q 15.87–99 – 25.1–8)
/ /]‫} (ا) ں [ا] ل[عط‬ { 1

‫}[م] و ال (ٮحر) ں [ع]لٮـ[هم]ـ‬ { 2
‫ر لٮا‬// ‫ ۝) [آم ا] ا‬449‫} ٮر (مٮٮں‬ { 3
]‫۝ و) [ر] ٮـ[ک‬ ( ‫ں‬//]‫}ـٯر (ا) ں [عص‬ { 4
)‫(ا‬/ / )‫} ٮعملو ں ۝ ٯا (صد ع‬ { 5
//‫ں‬/ /‫[ٮٮـ]ک ا لمسٮـ‬//]‫ا [آ‬// ‫ں ۝ ا‬/ /} { 6
/ / ]‫} لٮـ(ه ا) ا (حر ٯـ)[س و] ڡ ٮعلمو (ں) ۝ [و‬ { 7
)‫(ک‬// ‫ لو ں ۝ ٯـ(س)ٮح (ٮحمد) ر‬/ / 450)‫}[ک] م(ا‬ { 8
451
/ / ‫ک ا لٮٯٮـ(ں) ۝‬//‫}[ع]ٮد ر ٮک (ح)ٮا ٮا ٮـ‬ { 9
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~{ } 10
)‫ (ه‬/ /]‫ [ع‬452)‫(ى‬/ / )‫ (ل‬/ /)‫ [ک] ( ا ل‬//]‫(م) ۝ [ٮٮـ‬//]‫}[ح‬ { 11
‫(ر) ا ۝ ا لد ی (له) [م](ل)[ک] (ا) لسمو ٮ‬// )‫(د‬//} { 12
453
‫ل[ٯ] کل‬// ]‫[و‬ ‫[ٮـ](ه) و (ال) [و] لد ا‬//‫ٮٮحد ص‬ 502
]‫}[م‬ { 13
‫}(و) ا ٮحد و ا مں (د و) ں ا ل(له) ا لهه ال‬ { 14
} { )‫ مو ٮا و ال ح(ٮو) ه و ال ٮسو ر ا (۝‬455‫ [م]لکں‬454} { 15
} { ‫} (ا) ا ں (ه)[د]ـ ا ا (ال) ا (ٯـ)[ک] (ا) ٯٮر (ٮـ ه) و‬ { 16
448 ) There is no trace of a tooth before hā’. This word may be sukrihim, which
is reported for al-Aʽmash here (al-Khaṭīb, Muʽjam, 4:577).
449 ) The text seems to have nadhīrun mubīnun.
450 ) It is not clear whether the initial mīm is preceded by a tooth or not.
451 ) It is not clear whether something is written here. There are traces at the
beginning that might belong to an alif.
452 ) This word may be ʽalā, in which case the word al-furqān is probably written
after ʽabdihi. 502
) The missing part on this line is bigger than is needed for the phrase wa-l-arḍi
wa-lam. Perhaps the text has an additional phrase, such as wa-mā baynahumā, after
wa-l-arḍi.
453 ) The phrase wa-lam yakun lahu sharīkun fī l-mulki appears to be missing.
)‫ (و) ر (ا ۝‬/ / 456)‫(ا‬//)‫(ل‬//)‫} (حر) ٮں (۝) ل(ٯـ د) (ح ا) و ا (ط‬ { 17

‫}(ں) ۝ ا آ[ٮٮٮـ ها] ٯـه(ى) [ٮـم]لى‬ { 18 ‫و ٯلو‬
]‫(ع)لٮـ(ه)ـ ٮـ(ک ر) ه [و‬
} { ‫ ٯـ(ى) ا ل[س](م ا) (و) ا ال‬/ /)‫}[ه] ا لد ی ٮـعل[م] ا (ل‬ { 19
} { ]‫} (ا) ر حٮما ۝ (و) ٯلو ا مل (هد) ا ا [ل ر‬ { 20
} { )‫}سى ٯی ا ال (س و) ٯ ل(و) ال ا [ٮـ ر] (ل‬ { 21
23 } {)‫ (ا‬//)‫} ٮد ٮر ا ۝ ا [و ٮکو] ں له آ(ٮـ‬ { 22
– (25.27 } { )‫} ( ا ں) {}ٮٮـع(و‬ {//‫}ـٮها و ٯل ا (ل)[ط]ل‬ {
Folio 19 A (Q 25.14
} { )‫و (ا د‬ 1
} { )‫ا (لح)ل[د] ا لٮـ(ى‬ 2
} {)‫ (مص)[ٮر]ـ ا (۝) له(م) ٯٮـ(ه‬/ / 3
} {// ‫(ع د) ا مسو ال ۝ و ٮو م‬ 4
} { ‫ا ٮٮم ا صلل(ٮـ م) [ع]ٮٮد ی هو‬ 5
} { ‫ٯلو ا ر ٮٮا ما کا ں ٮٮٮعی‬ 6
} { )‫مں ا و لٮا و لکں مٮعٮـ هو (ال‬ 7
} {‫کر و کا ٮو ا ٯو ما ٮو ر ا ۝ ٯـ‬ 8
} {)‫ لک صر ٯا و ال ٮـص(ر) ا و م(ں‬457‫ں‬ 9
} { ‫ (آ)ٮٮـ[ر]ـ ا ۝ و ما ا (ر) [س]لٮا‬458‫عد ا [ٮـ]ا‬ 10
} { ‫ا ال مں ه(و)ـ ٮا (آ ل) مں ا لطعم و‬ 11
} {‫و (ح)علٮا ٮعصهم لٮعص ٯٮٮه ا (ٮـ)ص‬ 12
459
} {‫ال ٮـ‬ ‫ٮصٮر (ا) ۝ و ٯل ا لد ٮں کٯر و ا‬ 13
454 ) This physically missing part would have had room for about three words.
Perhaps here the text has yakhluqūna shay’an wa-lā.
455 ) It is not clear if mīm is preceded by a letter or not.
456 ) The distance between ẓā’ and lām is rather long, but it is not clear if a letter is
written between them.
457 ) The physically missing part of the previous line would have had room for about
four words, hardly enough for the standard text before ṣarfan. Perhaps the phrase
bi-mā taqūlūna is missing.
458 ) One can see a pale, horizontal line touching alif. Perhaps the scribe first wrote a
final bā’ here but then erased its tail and added an alif instead.
} {)‫{ }[ٮـ]ٮر ل ا لمل(ٮـک ه) (ل)ٯد ا (س)ٮـکٮـ( ر و) ا ٯـ(ى‬ 14

} {‫{ }عٮـ(و) ا آٮـ(ٮـ ر) ا ۝ و (ٮـ)[و] م (ٮٮر) ل ا لمل‬ 15
} {)‫مٮد [ل]لمح(ر) مٮں و ٯا لو ا ححر ا محح(و) ر (ا‬ 16
} { ‫{ }[لو] ا (م ں) (عم ل) ٯـح[ع]لٮه هٮا مٮٮوـ (ر) ا ۝‬ 17
} { ‫} حٮـ[ر] مسٮٯر ا و ا حسں مٯٮال ۝‬ { 18
} { ‫ (ٮـ)ال ۝ ا‬/ /‫} (و) ٮر لٮ ا لملٮکه ٮـ‬ { 19
} {)‫} حمں و {}(ا){ }لى ا لک[ٯر ٮـ ں] [ٮـ و] (ما‬ { 20
} { ‫} علی ٮده ٮٯو‬ {‫(ا) ل‬460 } { 21
Folio 24 Verso (Q 30.38 – 30.50)
)‫ٮـ[ل] (د‬/ /‫}[م]سکٮں (و) ا ٮں ا ل‬ { 1

‫}[ه] (ا) لل(ه) و (ا) و ل[ٮـ](ک) [ه]م‬ { 2
]‫[ر ٮو] ا ٯی (ا) [مو ل‬//)‫ (ل‬//)‫}(ٮـ‬ { 3
)‫} و [م ا] ا ٮٮٮهمـ مں ر [آ](و‬ { 4
/ /)‫} ا( و لٮـ)[ک هم] ا (لم‬ { 5
‫م ٮم (ٮـح)ٮکم‬/ /)‫}[ٮم] (ٮـم‬ { 6
‫[ٮحٮه] و ٮعلی‬/ / ‫(ا) ی‬/ /)‫}(ل‬ { 7
{ 9 )‫ و ( ا ل)[ٮحر] ٮـ[م](ا‬/ /]‫} [ٯـ]( ى ا) [ل‬ { 8
461
)‫ ا لد ی ٮـ(ع)[م](لو‬/ /‫}(ه)[م]ـ (ٮـ)ع‬
‫}(ر) و ا (ٯی) ا (ال ر ص) ٯا‬ { 10
} {)‫} لد ٮں [م ں] ٯـ(ٮـ)ل(ه م) کا (ں‬ { 11
463 462
} { )‫ٯٮل (ٮو‬ )‫} ا و (ح)ه(کم‬ { 12
} {)‫}[د] عو ں ۝ مں آ[ٯـ](ر ٯـ)عل(ٮه‬ { 13
} {//}{//‫ (ٮـمه د) [و] ں ۝ ل‬//]‫[ه‬/ /} { 14
459 ) Considering the visible words, the physically missing part may have contained
lā narjū liqā’a llāhi ḥattā, or lā nu’minu laka ḥattā.
460 ) There is no writing in this line before this point, perhaps since it would have
interfered with the previous line.
461 ) The text seems to have yaʽmalūn instead of ʽamilū.
462 ) The text might have fa-aqīmū awjuhakum or fa-aqīmū wajhakum (Ubayy b.
Khaṭīb
Kaʽb reportedly had awjuhakum instead of wujūhakum in Q 4.43 (al , Muʽjam,
2:81)).
463 ) The phrase an ya’tiya appears to be missing.
} {// )‫ (ا‬/ / )‫(لح ٮ‬/ /} { 15

)‫(ح‬// )‫ (ا) ل(ر‬/ / )‫ (ٮـ ر‬/ /} { 16
464
‫}ل(ٮـ)ح[ر]ـ ی (ا) [ل]ٯـ[ل](ک) ٯی ا‬ { 17
)‫[کر] (و‬/ /)‫(ل‬//)‫ [و] (ل‬//)‫}(ل‬ { 18
]‫[هم‬/ /)‫} (ر سال) ا (ل‬ { 19
‫(و) ا‬/ /]‫} [م](ں) [ ا ل‬ { 20
{ 22 ‫ [ی] ٮر‬/ / ‫ ا‬465//)‫[ٮں ۝] (ه‬/ /} { 21
]‫ا [د ا‬/ /} { 23 } {466‫ [آ]{}[ٯـ]ا‬/ /)‫ [ٯی] ( ا ل‬//]‫}[ط‬
}{ ]‫[ٮ ٮه‬// )‫(ا‬
}{ / /]‫} ٮـ[سٮـ‬ { 24
467
} {]‫ [ٮـ‬//]‫ [ٯـ‬// ‫ں‬//‫(ل)س‬//]‫ل[م‬ )‫}(م‬ { 25
Folio 3 Verso (Q 35.39 – 35.40)
{ } / /{ } 1
} {/ /‫} ا ل‬ { 2
} { ‫(ٯـ ر) هم‬/ / )‫}[ٯـ](ر‬ { 3
} {)‫ [م ں] د [و] (ں‬/ /} { 4
} { ‫ لهم‬// ‫ ص ا‬/ /} { 5
468
} {‫آ[ٮـ](ٮـ ا) [ٯـ](ه)م‬ //]‫}ـل(ٮـ)[ه‬ { 6
} {‫[ص] ا ا‬/ / ]‫ص[هم‬/ /} { 7
Folio Christies 2008 Verso (Q 63.1–11 – 62.1–11)
‫د‬/ / ‫ لم[ٮٯـ ٯو] ں‬// ‫(م) ۝ (ا) [د] ( ا ح ا) ک‬/ / ]‫( ں ا) ل[ر‬/ / )‫[ٮسم] ( ا ل)ل(ه) ا ل(ر‬ 1
469
‫وا‬
464 ) The text may have fī l-baḥr in addition to the standard reading.
465 ) The text may have huwa instead of allāhu.
466 ) The text might have fa-yabsuṭuhu fī l-samā’i kisafan.
467 ) This letter might belong to ʽalayhim, in which case min qablihi would be
missing.
468 ) The text may have anzalnā ʽalayhim instead of ātaynāhum.
469 ) The text may have shahidū instead of qālū nashhadu.
‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪/‬‬
‫‪/‬‬ ‫ر [س]( و ل) ا لل[ه] (و) ا لل(ه) [ٮـ]علم ا ٮک ر سو له و ‪[//‬س هد] ا (ں) ا ‪/‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫لکد ٮو ں (۝) ا ٮحد و ا ا ٮـ[مٮـ](ه م) (ح)‪[//‬هـ ٯـ]صد و ا [ع ں] سٮٮـ(ل) ا هلل ا [ٮـ هم] ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫م(ا) کا ٮو ا ‪/ /‬ملو ں( ۝ د) لک ٮا ٮهم ا مٮو ا ٮم (آ)[ٯـ](ر) و ا ‪//‬م ا ‪ //‬د د و (ا) ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫ا‪ 470‬ٯـطٮـ[ع ع]لى ٯلو ٮهم د ‪//‬ک ٮا ٮهم ٯو م (ال ٮٯـ)ٯهو ں ۝ (و ا) ‪ //‬ا حا و ک [ٮـعح]‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫ا حسم‪//‬م و ا ں ٮٯو لو (ا ٮـس)مع ل‪//‬و ل[ه م] (کا) ٮـ‪ / /‬حسٮ مسٮد ه ٮـح[سٮو] ں ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫صٮحه ‪//‬لٮـهم (ه م) ا لع‪[ //‬و ٯـ ا] (ح د) ‪ //‬و [ه]‪( 471//‬ٯـ)ٮـل‪[//‬م] ا ل‪//‬ه ا ٮی ٮـ(و) ٯکو [ ں‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫۝]‬
‫(و) ا د ‪[ //‬ٯـ]‪/ /‬‬
‫‪( /‬و) [س](هم و) ر ٮٮهم ٮصد‬ ‫‪ /‬ل(کم) ‪[/ /‬و] (ل ا لل)[ه] ل‪/‬‬ ‫له(م) ‪[//‬ع]ل( و ا) ٮـ‪/‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫وں‬
‫هم)‬ ‫(و)‬
‫‪[ /‬ٮـس]ٮـع‪//‬ر (له م) لں ٮـ[ع]ٯر‬ ‫م[س](ٮـک)‪ / /‬ں ‪ / /‬ا ‪//‬ل‪ / /‬ا سٮعٯر [ٮ] ل[ه]‪/‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫ا هلل ل[هم]‬
‫ا [ں] ا لل[ه] ال ٮـ[ه د] ‪ //‬ا لٯـ(و) م ‪ //‬لٯـ(س)ٯـ(ٮـ)ں ۝ ه(م) ا لد ‪[ / /‬ٮٯـ]‪ //‬ل‪ //‬ں (ال‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫ٮـ)ٮٯٯوـ ا علی ‪/ /‬‬
‫‪[ /‬ٮ]‬ ‫[ع]ٮـ‪ / /‬سو ل ا [ل]له حٮـ(ا) ٮٮـ[ٯـ]ص[و] ا مں ح(و) [ل ه] (و) هلل حر ٮـ[ں] ا ل‪/‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫و‬
‫(ا) ال ر [ص]‬
‫‪472‬‬
‫ل(و) [ں] (ال) ں ر (ح)عٮا ا‬ ‫‪(/‬و)‬ ‫و [لک ں] (ا) ں ا لم(ٮٯـ)ٯٮں (ال)ـ ‪(/ /‬هو ں) ۝ ‪/‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫لی ا لم‪[ / /‬ٮٮه] ل‪[//‬ح]ر‬
‫(حں ا) ال [ع ر] [م](ٮـه ا) ا ال (د) ل و لل[ه] ا لع[ر] ه (ح)[م]‪[//‬ع ا] [و] للر [س و] ل و ا‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫ل(م و)‬
‫[م]‪/ /‬‬
‫و (ل)[ک]ں (ا) ل[م](ٮٯٯـ)‪ (//‬ں ال) ‪(//‬ع)لموـ ں ۝ ٮـ(ا) ٮـه‪ //‬ا لد ٮـ‪ / /‬ا مٮـ(و) ا ال [ٮـ]لهکم‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫ا‬
‫(مو ل)[کم]‬
‫و (ال ا) ‪ //‬لد [آ]‪( //‬عں) د کر ا ل[له] و [م](ں) ٮٯـ[عل] د ل‪( / /‬ٯـ ا) [و] ل‪ / /‬ه[م] (ا) ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫[و] ں ۝ [و] (ا ٮـ)ٯٯـ[و] ا م ں( ٯٮل ا) [ں ٮا] ‪ / /‬ا حد کم [ا] ل‪[ / /‬ٮ] و ‪ / /‬ل [ر] ٮـ(ٮـ‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫ا)‬
‫‪470 ) The text seems to have thumma zdādū kufran in addition to the stan-‬‬
‫‪dard reading.‬‬
‫‪471 ) This word may be fa-ḥdharūhum.‬‬
‫‪.‬ٮٯـ ‪472 ) The illegible part preceding wāw 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.‬‬
‫(لو)‬
‫‪474‬‬ ‫‪473‬‬
‫ا لی ا حل [ٯـ]‪(/ /‬ٮ) ٯـ ا[ ٮصد] ٯ و [ ا آ]‪[ //‬ں م ں ] ا‬ ‫ال ( ا ح)‪/ /‬ا‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫ل[ص]ل[حٮں] (۝) و (لں) ٮو حر [ا]‬
‫‪475‬‬
‫ا ح(ل)[ه] و ا هلل (ح)‪//‬ٮر [ٮـ ما] ‪[//‬ع]‪//‬ل‪ //‬ں ۝ [ه د]‬ ‫هلل ‪[/ /‬س ا] [ٮـ](عد) ا ں ٮـح‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫[ه]‬
‫(حٮـ)[م](ه سو) ‪/ /‬‬
‫ا (ل)‪/ /‬ٯـ(ٯٮـ ں) ۝ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ـ [ٮـس](م ا ل)‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫[له] ا لر حم‪/ /‬‬
‫ل‪ //‬حٮم [۝ ٮـ]سٮح هلل ما ٯی ا( لس)[م](ا) [و] (ٮ و) ما ٯی ا (ال)ـ [ر ص] ( ا ل)‪//‬لک (ا‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫لٯـ)‪( //‬و)‬
‫‪[/‬ٮ] ٯی ا ال مٮـ(ں) [ ر س و] ال مٮهم ٮـ[ٮـ]ل‪//‬‬ ‫س ا ‪//‬ع[ر ٮر] ا ل[ح]کٮم (۝) ا [لد] ‪/‬‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫(ا)‬
‫‪//‬ل‪//‬ه(م) ا ٮٮه‬
‫و ٮر آ‪(//‬ه)‪ //‬و [ٮـ]علمهم ا (ل)[ک]‪ / /‬و ا ‪(//‬ح)[ک](م)[ه] ‪ //‬ا ں کا ٮو (ا) [مں] ٯـ(ٮل)‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫ل(ٯـ)‪//‬‬
‫(ص)[ل](ل)‬
‫‪/‬ں ‪/ /‬د ‪( 476/ /‬ل)‪[//‬ا] ‪(//‬ل)‪[//‬ٯو] (ا) [ٮـ](هم) ‪ //‬ه‪/ /‬‬ ‫مٮـ[ٮں] ‪( //‬و) ا [ح]‪[/ /‬ں] ‪/‬‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫لع(ر) ٮر (ا) ل‪(//‬ک)ٮم ۝‬
‫[د] لک (ٯـ)[ص](ل)ـ ا (ل)[له ٮو] ‪[ / /‬م](ں) ‪[//‬س ا] (و) ا ل(ل)‪( //‬د و ا) لٯـص(ل) ا‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫لعطٮـ[م]‬
‫(۝) ‪ / /‬ل ا‬
‫‪ [/‬ل ا] (ل)[حمٮـ ر]‬ ‫ل‪[/ /‬ں حم]ل‪ //‬ا ا (ل)‪[ / /‬ر] ٮـ[ه] ٮـ[م] ل م[ ٮـح]‪[ / /‬ه]‪/‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫[ٮـح]مل ا‬
‫(س)ٯر ا (ٮٮـ)[س]‬
‫مٮل (ا) ل‪ / /‬م (ا لد) ‪( / /‬آ)[د ٮو] ا ٮـ[ا] ‪ / /‬ا ل(ل)[ه] و ا( هلل) ال ٮهد ی ا لٯـ[ و م] (ا)‬ ‫‪26‬‬
‫‪ /‬ا ل(د) ٮں (هد و) ا ا (ں) [ر] (ع)‪//‬ٮـ[م] ا ‪[//‬کم] ا و لٮا [ا] هلل ٯی‬ ‫ل(ط)ل[م]‪//‬ں ‪ //‬ٯل ‪/‬‬ ‫‪27‬‬
‫ا ال‬
‫(ح)[ر] ه مں ‪ / /‬ں ا لٮا س (ٯـ)ٮمٮو ا ا ل(م)[و] ‪( / /‬ا ں آ)‪[//‬ٮم صد] ‪ / /‬۝ (و) لں ٮٮمٮو‬ ‫‪28‬‬
‫ه‬
‫ا ٮد ‪[ //‬ٮـم](ا ٯد مٮ) ا [ٮـ]د ‪//‬ه[م] و ا [ل]له علٮم ٮا ل[ط]ل[م]‪(//‬ں) [۝] (ٯل) ا ں ا لمو ٮ‬ ‫‪29‬‬
‫ا‬
‫لد ی ‪/ /‬ر ‪( //‬ں) [م]ٮـ(ه) ٯا ‪(//‬ه م)لٯٮـک(م) ٮم ٮر د [ و ں] ا ل[ى] عل‪ ( //‬ا ل)‪[/ /‬ٮ] و ا‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫ل[سه](د) ه‬
‫‪473 ) This word may be akhkhartanā as in Q 4.77.‬‬

‫‪474 ) This word may be wa-akūna.‬‬
‫‪475 ) This word may be yajī’a.‬‬
‫‪476 ) The text might be wa-ākharīna minhum min baʽdihim.‬‬
‫[ٯـ]ٮٮٮٮـک[م]ـ ٮـ‪(//‬ا) آ‪//‬ٮـ[م] ‪//‬عملو [ں] ‪/ /‬ا ٮها ا لد (ٮں ا) م[ٮو]ـ (ا) ا د ا ٮو دی‬ ‫‪31‬‬
‫‪478‬‬ ‫‪477‬‬
‫آ‪ //‬ا ل[ل](ه) و‬ ‫م](ں ٮـ)[و]ـ (م ا ل)[حم]ع ه[ ٯـ ا] سعو ا ‪[ //‬لی] (د)‬ ‫‪(//‬ا ل)ص‪ [//‬و ه‬ ‫‪32‬‬
‫د‬
‫[ر] و [ا] ا [ل]ٮٮـ[ع]ـ د [لک](م) ح[ٮر]ـ ل(ک)‪ ( //‬ا ں) [آٮـ]ٮـ(م) ٮـعل(م)[و]ـ (ں) ۝ [ٯـ](ا)‬ ‫‪33‬‬
‫د ا ٯـ‪/‬‬
‫‪[/‬ٮ] ا‬
‫‪ /‬و ا (ٯی ا) [ال ر ص] ‪( //‬ا ٮٮـ)عو ا مں ٯـ‪(//‬ل) ا لل[ ه و] ا‬ ‫{ } لصلو ه ٯـ(ا) ‪/‬‬ ‫‪34‬‬
‫‪ /‬ٮـح(ٮر) [ه] ا و‬ ‫{ } د کر و (ا) ا ل(ل)ه [کٮٮر] ا ل(ع)لکم ‪/ /‬ل‪( / /‬۝) ‪( //‬ا) د ‪/‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫(ل)[هو]ـ (ا){ }‬
‫)‪Folio Christies 2008 Recto (Q 62.11 – 89.1–30 – 90.1–6‬‬
‫‪(/‬ا) ٯل ‪//‬ا [ع]‪ / /‬ا (لل)[ه]‬ ‫‪ /‬ا ا ل[ٮـه]ا [و] ٮر (آ)[و] ‪/‬‬ ‫‪ / /‬ٮـ‪/‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪( /‬ه)‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪ /‬م[ں] ‪ //‬ل[ل]ه[و] و ا ل[ٮحر] (ه و) ا [ل]ل[ه] (ح)‪( / /‬ا) [ل]‪[ / /‬ٯـ]‪/‬‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫‪ / /‬حٮـم[ه] سو ر ه ا (ل)حم[عه] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪( /‬ا) [ل ر] (ح)[م]‪/‬ـ ‪ /‬ا ل‪( //‬ح)‪( / /‬و) ا ل(ٯـح ر) و ل(ٮـ)‪/‬‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫‪( /‬و) ا (لو) ٮـ[ ر ۝] و ا لل‪(//‬ل) ا [د] ا ٮسر ۝ هل [ٯـ]‪ //‬د (لک)‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫ٯـس[م] ل[د] ی حح‪( //‬۝) ‪ //‬ل[م] ‪[ / /‬کٮڡ] ٯـع(ل) ر ٮـ(ک) ‪[//‬ع]ا ‪ //‬۝ ا ر [م]‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫‪[/‬ل]‪//‬ا ‪ / /‬ا ل‪/ /‬د ۝ و‬ ‫د (ا) ٮ ا (ل)[ع]م‪ 479/ /‬۝ ا ل‪/‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫‪ /‬ل‪( / /‬ا) [و] ‪(//‬ر)‪[ 480‬ٯـ]ر ع(و ں) [د ی]‬ ‫‪ /‬حٮـ[و] ا ‪ //‬ل[ص]‪/‬‬ ‫‪(/ /‬و) [د] ا ‪/‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫‪( //‬ال) و ٮـ(د) ۝ ا ‪ / /‬ٮـ(ں) ‪//‬ع[و]ـ ا ‪ / /‬ا (ل)‪//‬ل[ٮـد] [۝] (ٯا)‪[ 481‬آ]ٮـ(ر) [و] ا‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫[ٯـ]‪(//‬ه)ا‬
‫‪/‬ا ر (س ل) ‪//‬ل‪[//‬هم] ر ٮـ[ک] س‪[ //‬ط] ‪( / /‬ا ٮ) ‪ //‬ا ں ‪//‬‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪ / /‬لٮا ل‪ / /‬ص(د) ‪ / /‬ا م‪ //‬ا (ال) [ٮـ](سں) ا [د] ا ا ٮٮـ[له] ر [ٮه]‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫‪//‬ا [کر مه] ‪[ //‬ٮـ](ع)[مه] (ٮـ)[ٯو]ـ ل ‪ / /‬ا ‪ / /‬مں ‪ //‬و ا م‪( //‬ا) [د ا]‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫‪477 ) This word may be bi-l-ṣalāti.‬‬

‫‪478 ) This dāl is unusually long and therefore resembles an initial kāf.‬‬
‫‪.‬ٮد ‪479 ) The letters after mīm might be‬‬
‫‪480 ) The verse seems to begin with aw tara (paralleling a-lam tara from‬‬
‫‪verse 6).‬‬
‫‪ as well.‬و ا ‪481 ) The traces match‬‬
‫(ى) ا [هٮں] ۝‬/ / ‫ ٯـ(ٮٯو)ـ ل‬//)‫ (ٯـ‬// ‫ ر‬/ /)‫ (عل‬/ / 483‫ و‬482)‫(ه‬/ / )‫ [ٮٮـ](ل)[ٮه] (و‬// 13
)‫ [ع](لى طع م) (ا‬/ / )‫و ال ٮـح[ص](و‬484 ‫م‬//‫ ں [ا] لٮٮـ‬/ / )‫(ال ٮل‬// 14
)‫ا ۝ (و) ٮـح ٮو( ں‬/ / ‫ا‬//]‫ ٮ ا [ک‬/ / ‫[و] ں ا‬//]‫ (و ٮا) [ک‬/ /]‫[مسک‬// 15
)‫ [ک ا] (د‬// ‫ ص‬// )‫ ا (د) ا [د کٮ] ا (ال‬/ / ‫ ۝‬//)‫ل[م ل] حٮا ح(م‬ 16
)‫ و حا (ی) ٮـ(و‬// ]‫ا ص[ٯـ ا‬//)‫ ٮک و ا (ل)ملک (ص‬// ‫[ک ا] (۝) (و) حا‬ 17
]‫ ٮٯـ[و‬// )‫ کر (ی‬19 ]‫ کر ا (ال) ٮـس(ں) و (ا) ٮی له ا (ل)[د‬//‫ ٮٮـ‬/ /]‫ [م‬/ / ]‫مٮد ٮـح[ه]ٮـ[م‬ 18
]‫ ٮو مٮـ(د) ال ٮـع(د) [ٮ‬// )‫ (م)[ٮ] لحٮـ[ٮـ](ى‬//]‫ [ٯـ‬/ /‫ل‬
‫ [ٮـ ا] (ٮـ ها) ا‬// )‫ ا (حد‬//‫ (و) ال (ٮو) ٮـ[ٯ] و ٮٯـ‬/ /)‫ ا (ح‬/ / ‫(ع)[د]ـ‬ 20
485
]‫ (م)ر ص(ٮـ ه) [۝‬/ /)‫[ه] ۝ ا ٮٮی ر ٮک [ر] (ص‬/ /‫ا لمطم‬ / /‫ م‬/ / ]‫لٮـ[ٯس‬ 21
/ /‫ حٮـ[م ه] ا ل‬/ /‫ (۝) ه‬//‫ (و ا د) حلی حٮٮـ‬/ / ‫ ع[ٮد]ـ‬//]‫ [ٯـ‬/ / 486‫ا‬ 22
//)‫ ا (ل‬//‫ ا لل‬/ /‫ ۝ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ـ ٮـ‬487‫ر‬/ / )‫(و) ل[ٮـ](ل‬ 23
)‫ (حل‬/ / ‫ ا ا لٮـل(د) ۝ و ا‬/ / 488]‫[م‬/ / ‫(م) [۝] ال‬/ / ]‫[ر‬// ‫ ا‬/ /]‫[ح‬ 24
{ 26 // )‫(ا‬/ /)‫ ح(ل‬/ /)‫۝ ل‬ ( //)‫ا ( و ل‬// ]‫ (ل)[ د و‬// ]‫ (۝) [و‬//‫ ل(ٮـ)ل‬// ‫ ا‬//‫ٮـه‬ 25
}{ ‫و ل‬/ / ‫د‬// ‫ علٮـ[ه] ا‬/ /‫ [ا] ں لں ٮٯـ‬/ /)‫ آ(ٮـ‬//]‫ [ٯـ‬/ /‫} ٮـ‬
Folio 17 Recto (–)489

} { 490)‫(ا‬/ / } { 1
} { / / ‫}ـل‬ { 2
} {‫}[۝] ا ال م‬ { 3
} {)‫ک ع(ٯـ‬//} { 4
482 ) The word following wa- may be a verb, the object of which could be the
pronoun hu referring to al-insān. The penultimate letter of this word may be an
initial ḥā’, a medial ʽayn, or a tooth-shaped letter.
483 ) This letter may be fā’ instead.
484 ) 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.
Khaṭīb
485 ) This word may be al-āmina, which is reported for Ubayy b. Kaʽb here (al- ,
Muʽjam, 10:432).
486 ) It is not clear whether this alif is preceded by fa-.
487 ) The text after khātima may be al-fajri wa-layālin ʽashrin.
488 ) The traces after ‫ ال‬match ‫ ٯسم‬better than ‫اٯسم‬. The text may be read as lauqsimu
or lā uqsimu.
489 ) Due to the meager amount of text, we have not yet identified the passage.
490 ) The letter before alif may be ḥā’ or a tooth-shaped one.
Folio 17 Verso (–)

} {491‫د‬//‫} ع‬ { 1
} {492‫ط‬//)‫ٮٮٮـ[ى] (ٮـس‬//} { 2
} { 493‫طٮ‬//)‫} (ح‬ { 3
} ‫} مں (ح)ٮو{ـ‬ { 4
} { ‫} ٮٮٮا‬ { 5
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-Khaṭīb, Mu‘jam al-Qirā’āt; KM = Ibn
Abī Dāwūd, Kitāb al-Maṣāḥif (Beirut: Dār al-Bashā’ir al-Islāmiyya, 2002); IM-A =
the reading of Ibn Mas‘ūd according to the report of al-A‘mash quoted in KM,
1:302–38.
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,” 293–316.
Sūra.verse,
Folio:line
Lower Text Standard Readings Similar to the Lower Text

Text
2.96, ]‫ (ع)لى (ه)[د‬ʽalā ḥayātin Ubayy b. Kaʽb: ʽalā l-ḥayāti (MQ, 1:156).
2A:28 /)‫(ه) [ ا ل](حٮـ‬
)‫ [ه] ا ل(د‬/
//‫ٮٮـ‬
2.96, ]‫ ح[ه‬/ /‫ ٮـ‬bimuzaḥzi- Ibn Masʽūd: bi-munziḥihi (MQ, 1:156).

2B:1 ḥihi
2.98, )‫ مکٮـ(ل‬Mīkāla Ibn Muḥayṣin: Mikayl (MQ, 1:160). This word has
2B:6 been read in many ways, but Ibn Muḥayṣin’s
reading is the only one compatible with the rasm
in C-1.
491 ) Either ʽayn and dāl are connected or a tooth-shaped letter is between them.
492 ) This word may be bi-sulṭān or a conjugation of istaṭāʽa.
493 ) It is not clear whether ḥā’ and ṭā’ are connected or not. This word may be
ḥabiṭat, aḥāṭat, aḥaṭtu, or khiṭāb, among other things.
2.105, ‫ او ا لمسر‬wa-lā l- Al-Aʽmash: wa-lā l-mushrikūna (MQ, 1:169).

2B:26 ‫ (کو) ں‬mushrikīna
2.217, ‫[و] ع(ں) ٯٮـــــل‬qitālin fīhi Ibn Masʽūd, Ibn ʽAbbās, ʽIkrima, al-Aʽmash,
David )‫ٯـ[ٮـ](ه‬ alRabīʽ: ʽan qitālin fīhi (MQ, 1:298). IM-A: ʽan
r:25 qitālin fīhi (KM, 1:307).
2.222, / } { )‫[ٯـ](ال‬ fa-ʽtazilū Ibn Masʽūd and Anas: wa-lā taqrabū l-nisā’a fī
David ‫ (ٮــــــــــو) ا ا‬/ lnisā’a fī maḥīḍihinna wa-ʽtazilūhunna ḥattā
v:19 ‫ل(ٮــــــس)ا ٯی‬ lmaḥīḍi wa-lā yataṭahharna (MQ, 1:308–9).
‫(ں‬//)‫(محٮـص‬ taqrabūhunn
‫حٮـ)ى‬ a ḥattā
‫ٮـ[ٮـ]ط(ه)[ر] ں‬ yaṭhurna
2.222, ]‫ ٮـ[ٮـ]ط(ه)[ر‬yaṭhurna The reading yataṭahharna is reported for Ibn

David ‫ ں‬v:20 Masʽūd, Anas, and Ubayy b. Kaʽb, while
yaṭṭahharna is reported for Ḥamza, al-Kisā’ī,
ʽĀṣim (via Abū Bakr and al-Mufaḍḍal), al-Aʽmash,
al-Jaḥdarī, Ibn Muḥayṣin, and Khalaf (MQ, 1:308).
5.45, ]‫[ٮٮٮا‬/ / )‫ (و‬wakatabnā Ubayy b. Kaʽb: wa-anzala llāhu ʽalā Banī Isrā’īla
.Bonh‫(ع)لى ٮـــــ(ٮـــــ) ى ا‬ʽalayhim (MQ, 2:278).
r:13 ‫سر ٮل‬
5.48, ]‫ [سر ٮعه‬shirʽatan An early Baṣran who apparently hat sharī‘atan in
Bonh. v:4 his own copy of the Qur‘ān accused al-Ḥajjāj of
having “changed” the Qur’ān and written the
synonym shir‘atan instead. On a discussion of the
report about al-Ḥajjāj, see Sadeghi and Bergmann,
“Codex,” 365, footnote 36; cf. MQ, 2:286.
Sūra.verse,
Folio:line

Text
5.54, ‫ ]علط]ا‬aʽizzatin Ibn Masʽūd: ghulaẓā’a; al-Māwardī: ghuluẓin
Bonh. (MQ,
v:26 2:294)
8.2, [ ‫ٯـ(ر) ٯـ[ٮ‬wajilat Ibn Masʽūd: fariqat; Ubayy b. Kaʽb: faziʽat (MQ,
4B:12 3:258).
9.90, / /[‫ ) ا ل)[م‬al- Ibn Masʽūd and Saʽīd b. Jubayr: al-muʽtadhirūna
‫ ]ر] و ں‬muʽadh- (MQ, 3:436).
20B:2 dhirūna
2
, )‫ (ٮر‬/ / [ ‫ا [و‬a-wa-lā Al-Aʽmash: a-wa-lam taraw/yaraw; Ibn

9.126 ‫و‬yarawna Masʽūd: awa-lam tara (MQ, 3:482). IM-A: a-
22A:13 wa-lam tarā/tara (KM, 1:318).
19.19, ‫لنهب‬li-ahaba Abū ʽAmr: li-nahaba; Ibn Masʽūd, Ubayy b.
22B:15 )‫(الهب‬. Kaʽb, and several other readers had li-yahaba
(MQ, 5:348–9).
, )‫(ه‬//‫ و هو عل‬huwa The reading wa-huwa ʽalayya hayyinun is
19.21 reported for al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī for Q 19.9 (MQ,
22B:17 5:344).
‫ه(ٮـ)ں‬ʽala
yya
hayyinun
19.23, ‫ ا حا ها‬//)‫ )ٯـلم‬fa- Ubayy b. Kaʽb: fa-lammā ajā’ahā/jā’ahā (MQ,
ajā’ahā 5:350).
22B:19
19.24, ‫ )ٯـ)ٮـ[د] ٮها مں‬fa- Ibn ʽAbbās: fa-nādāhā malakun min taḥtihā
nādāhā (MQ, 5:353).
22B:20 / / ‫ٮـحٮـه‬min taḥtihā
19.2 (‫ )ما( ]و[)ص‬ṣawman Anas b. Mālik: ṣawman wa-ṣumtan and
6, )‫[و صم](ٮا‬ ṣawman ṣumtan; Ubayy b. Kaʽb: ṣawman
22B:2 ṣumtan; Anas, Ubayy, Ibn Masʽūd, and Abū
4 Razīn al-ʽUqaylī: ṣumtan (MQ, 5:359).
19.3 ‫ ا ل(د) ی کا ں‬alladhī fīhi Ubayy b. Kaʽb: alladhī kāna l-nāsu fīhi
4, { } yamtarūna yamtarūna (MQ, 5:366).
23A: ‫ٮمٮر و ں‬
6
19.59 ‫ا‬ al-ṣalāta Ibn Masʽūd, al-Ḥasan, Abū Razīn al-ʽUqaylī, al-
, ‫ل[ص]لو‬ Ḍaḥḥāk, and Ibn Miqsam: al-ṣalawāt (MQ,
23B:9 ‫ٮ‬ 5:376).
19.63 ‫ [ٮـ]لک‬tilka l- al-Aʽmash: nūrithuhā instead of nūrithu (MQ,
, ‫ ٮو ر ٮها‬jannatu llatī 5:378).
23B:1 nūrithu
5
19.67 ‫ ٮـ(ٮـ)د‬yadhkuru Ubayy b. Kaʽb and Abū l-Mutawakkil:
, ‫کر‬ yatadhakkaru; Ibn Kathīr, Abū ʽAmr, Ḥamza,
23B:2 al-Kisā’ī, Khalaf, Abū Jaʽfar, and Yaʽqūb:
1 yadhdhakkaru (MQ, 5:382).
Sūra.verse,
Folio:line

Text
22.23, ]‫[و‬// ‫ و لو‬wa- Ibn Kathīr, Abū ʽAmr, Ibn ʽĀmir, Ḥamza, alKisā’ī,
7A:19 lu’lu’an Ṭalḥa, Ibn Waththāb, al-Aʽmash, Warsh, alḤasan:
wa-lu’lu’in (MQ, 6:97).
22.35, ‫ و ا لمٯـ(ٮـ)مٮں‬wa-lmuqīmī Ibn Masʽūd, al-Aʽmash, and Ibn Muḥayṣin (via al-
7B:18 )‫ ۝ (ا‬l- Bazzī): wa-l-muqīmīna l-ṣalāta; wa-l-muqīmīna l-
‫ [لصلو] ه‬ṣalāti ṣalāti is also reported by al-ʽUkbarī (MQ, 6:113).
22.36, ‫ صو (ٯـ)ں‬ṣawāffa ( Ibn Masʽūd, Ibn ʽAbbās, Ibn ʽUmar, Ibrāhīm,
7B:20 ‫)صواف‬ Qatāda, Mujāhid, ʽAṭā’, al-Ḍaḥḥāk, al-Kalbī,
alAʽmash, and Abū Jaʽfar: ṣawāfina (MQ, 6:116).
22.39, / /)‫(ل‬/ / yuqātalūna Abū ʽAmr, Ibn Kathīr, ʽĀṣim (via Abū Bakr), Ḥamza,
7B:28 ‫(ں) [ٯـ]ى‬ al-Kisā’ī, Khalaf, and Yaʽqūb: yuqātilūna (MQ,
‫ ا‬/ /)‫[س](ٮـ‬ 6:121).
]‫(لل)[ه‬
18.16, ‫ { }[د] و ں ا‬illā llāha Ibn Masʽūd: min dūni llāhi, min dūninā (MQ, 5:161).
32B:2 ]‫(ل)[له‬
16.37, /]‫ [و] ا [ں ٮـح‬in taḥriṣ Al-Nakhaʽī: wa-in taḥraṣ (MQ, 4:627).
13A: ‫ص‬/
24
16.38, )‫ [و] (عد‬waʽdan Al-Ḍaḥḥāk: waʽdun (MQ, 4:630).
13B:2
16.44, ‫ [و] (ٮا) لر‬wa-lzuburi The reading bi-l-zuburi instead of wa-l-zuburi is
13B: )‫ٮـ(ر‬ reported in Q 3.184 for the codices of the Shām and
10 the following readers: Ibn ʽAbbās, Ibn ʽĀmir, Ibn
Dhakwān, Hishām, and al-Ḥulwāni (MQ, 1:638).
33.51, ‫ ٮـ(ما) ا و‬bi-mā Ibn Masʽūd: bi-mā ūtīna (MQ, 7:304). IM-A: bi-mā
9A:4 ‫ (ٮٮـ)ں‬ātaytahunna ūtīna (KM, 1:330).
33.53, ‫ ٮسٮحٮی‬yastaḥyī ( The majority have read yastaḥyī, which is

9A:13 ‫)يستحی‬ compatible with the lower text’s spelling, and is
considered a Ḥijāzī pronunciation (lugha), whereas
Ibn Kathīr, Ibn Muḥayṣin, Yaʽqūb and Mujāhid have
read yastaḥī, which is considered a Tamīmī way of
reading this word (MQ, 1:67; 7:310).
Sūra.verse,
Folio:line
Lower Text
Standard Readings Similar to the Lower Text
Text
33.6 ‫ل‬/ /]‫ (ل)[س‬/ / al-sabīlā Ibn Masʽūd reportedly had ‫ السبيل‬here, ‫ الظنون‬in
7, verse 10 and ‫ الرسول‬in verse 66 (MQ, 7:257).
9B:1 The following Kūfan and Baṣran readers also

8 reportedly did not pronounce the final alif
either in waqf or waṣl for verses 10, 66, and
67: Ḥamza, Abū ʽAmr, al-Jaḥdarī, Yaʽqūb,
and al-Aʽmash (MQ, 7:256). IM-A: al-rasūla
(KM, 1:330).
20.3 / )‫[و ا س](ر‬ ushdud Ubayy b. Kaʽb: ashrikhu fī amrī ‫ ۝‬wa-shdud bihi
1, ‫ [ٯـ](ى) ا‬/ bihi azrī azrī (MQ, 5:430).
15A: ‫[م](ر) ی ۝‬ ‫۝‬
4 / /]‫(و) ا [س‬ wa-
‫[ٮه] ا ر ر ی‬ ashr
)‫(۝‬ ikhu
fī
amr
ī
20.4 // )‫(ٯر د‬ fa- Ubayy b. Kaʽb: fa-radadnāka (MQ, 5:434).
0, )‫[ٮـ](ک‬ rajaʽnāka
15A:1
0
20.6 ‫ (م)ا د ا ں ا ال‬in hādhāni la- Ubayy b. Kaʽb: mā hādhāni/hādhā illā
3, )‫ (سحر ں‬sāḥirāni sāḥirāni, in dhāni/hādhāni illā sāḥirāni, in
15B: dhāni la-sāḥirāni; Ibn Masʽūd: in
3 dhāni/hādhāni illā sāḥirāni, an hādhāni illā
sāḥirāni, inna dhayni/dhāni lasāḥirāni
(MQ, 5:452–3).
20.6 )‫ (و) ٮد ه(ٮا‬wayadhhabā Ibn Masʽūd, Ubayy b. Kaʽb, Abdallāh b.
3, ‫ مٮـ[ک](م ٮـ)ا‬bi-ṭarī- ʽAmr, Abū Rajā’ al-ʽUṭāridī: wa-yadhhabā
15B: ]‫ ل[ط](ر ٮٯـ)[ه‬qatikumu l- bi-l-ṭarīqati (MQ, 5:453).
3 muthlā
, /)‫ ا و (لم) ٮـ(ه‬a-fa-lam yahdi Ibn Masʽūd: a-wa-lam yahdi (MQ, 5:512).
20.128
30B:8
, ‫ح[ٮـ]ا ٮسلمو ا‬ ḥattā Ibn ʽAbbās and Ibn Masʽūd: ḥattā
‫علی ا هل[ه] و‬24.27 tasta’nisū wa- tusallimū/yusallimū ʽalā ahlihā wa-
‫ ٮـس(ٮـد) ٮـو‬11A:8 tusallimū ʽalā tasta’dhinū/wa-yasta’dhinū; Ibn ʽAbbās
‫ا‬ ahlihā and Ubayy b. Kaʽb: ḥattā tusallimū aw
tasta’nisū; Ubayy b. Kaʽb: ḥattā yusallimū
wa-yasta’dhinū, ḥattā tasta’dhinū lakum.
In addition to Ibn ʽAbbās, Ibn Masʽūd, and
Ubayy b. Kaʽb, the readers al-Aʽmash and
Saʽīd b. Jubayr also reportedly had
tasta’dhinū instead of tasta’nisū. Ibn
ʽAbbās reportedly said that tasta’nisū was
the result of a scribal error (MQ, 6:252–4).
124
Sūra.verse, Behnam Sadeghi and Mohsen Goudarzi
Folio:line

Text
24.31, )‫ ما ح[ٯـ](ى‬mā yukhfīna Ibn Masʽūd: mā surra min zīnatihinna (MQ,
11A:25 ‫مں ر‬ min zīnatihinna 6:259).
‫(ٮـٮـٮـ)هں‬
24.31, ‫ ا ٮها‬ayyuha Abū ʽAmr, al-Kisā’ī, and Yaʽqūb: ayyuhā

11A:26 (MQ, 6:260).
34.14, /{ } fa-lammā Ibn Masʽūd reportedly had wa-hum yad’abūna
33A:5 ]‫ [ا‬/ kharra lahu ḥawlan in addition to the standard text.
‫ٮـــ[ع]ملــو ں‬ tabayyanati l- AlṬabarī gives the following reading for Ibn
‫ل(ه) [حو] ال‬ jinnu Masʽūd: fa-makathū yad’abūna lahu min baʽdi
‫ا‬//]‫(ٯـــــــ)[ل‬ mawtihi ḥawlan kāmilan (Jāmiʽ al-bayān,
)‫ح(ر‬ 19:242). The following reading featuring ḥawlan
‫ ا‬//]‫ٮـ(ٮـ)ٮـ[ٮـ‬ is also reported for Ibn Masʽūd, Ibn ʽAbbās, and
‫ل(ح)ں‬ Ibn Shannabūdh: tabayyanati l-insu anna l-jinna
law kānū yaʽlamūna l-ghayba mā labithū ḥawlan
(MQ, 7:350).
34.24, ]‫ (ا ٮـ)ا [و‬// wa-innā aw Ubayy b. Kaʽb: wa-innā aw/wa iyyākum la-immā
33B:3 ]‫[ک‬// )‫ (ا‬iyyākum laʽalā ʽalā hudan; wa-innā aw iyyākum immā ʽalā
]‫ (م ال) [ما‬hudan hudan (MQ, 7:370–1).
//} {
)‫(ی‬
13.11, ]‫[ٮ‬/ /]‫ (م)[ع‬muʽaqqi- bātun Ibn ʽAbbās, Abū ʽAbdallāh: muʽaqqibātun min
35A:8 }/ / min bayni khalfihi wa-raqībun min bayni yadayhi; Ibn ʽAbbās
‫ } ٮـ(د ٮـ)ه‬yadayhi wa-min and Ubayy b. Kaʽb: muʽaqqibātun min bayni
khalfihi yadayhi wa-raqībun min khalfihi. Ibn ʽAbbās:
muʽaqqibātun min bayni yadayhi wa-ruqabā’u
min khalfihi (MQ, 4:394).
37.25, / / )‫ ٮٮٮصر (و‬tanāṣa- rūna Ibn Masʽūd and Khālid: tatanāṣarūna (MQ,
28A:9 8:20).
37.56, ‫ ل(ٮـع)و ٮں‬la-turdīni Ibn Masʽūd: la-tughwīni (MQ, 8:31).
28B:8
15.54, ‫ى‬// ‫ٮسر ٮمو‬a- Al-Aʽmash and al-Aʽraj: bashshartumūnī
18B:15 bashshartumūn (MQ, 4:562).
ī
Sūra.verse, Ṣan‘ā’ 1 and the Origins of the Qur’ān 125
Folio:line

Text
15.66, ‫(و) ٯـ[صٮـ]ٮا ا‬ wa-qaḍay- Ibn Masʽūd: wa-qaḍaynā ilayhi dhālika l-

18B: ‫لٮه [د] لک ا ال‬ amra nā ilayhi wa-qulnā lahu inna dābira hā’ulā’i maqṭūʽun
24 ‫مر و ا ں د ٮر‬
dhālika (MQ, 4:573).
‫هو ال مٯـ[ط] و‬
‫ع‬ l-amra
anna
dābira
hā’ulā’i
maqṭūʽun
15.72, ]‫ (س)[کر‬sakratihim Al-Aʽmash: sukrihim (MQ, 4:577).
18B: )‫ه(م‬
28
25.19, ‫} ں لک‬ { fa-mā Ibn Masʽūd: fa-mā yastaṭīʽūna laka/lakum; Ubayy b.
19A:8 ‫صر ٯا‬ tastaṭīʽūna Kaʽb: fa-mā/fa-lā yastaṭīʽūna laka; al-Aʽmash:
ṣarfan fa-mā yastaṭīʽūna lakum (MQ, 6:334).
25.25, ‫ ٮر لٮ ا‬nuzzila l- Ubayy b. Kaʽb: nazalati/nuzzilati/tanazzalati/
19A: ‫ لملٮکه‬malā’ikatu tunazzalu/tatanazzalu l-malā’ikatu; Ibn Masʽūd:
19 nazalati l-malā’ikatu; Abū ʽAmr: tanazzalu/
tunazzilu l-malā’ikatu (MQ, 6:342–4).
30.43, ‫}ا‬ { fa-aqim Ubayy b. Kaʽb reportedly had awjuhakum instead of
24B: )‫ و (ح)ه(کم‬wajhaka wujūhakum in Q 4.43 (MQ, 2:81).
12
30.49, )‫{ }(م‬ ʽalayhim Ibn Masʽūd: ʽalayhim la-mublisīna (MQ,
24B:25 ‫ں‬//‫(ل)س‬//]‫ ل[م‬min qablihi 7:170).
la-mubli-
sīna
63.7, )‫ حٮـ(ا‬ḥattā The phrase ḥattā yanfaḍḍū min ḥawlihi appears in a

Chris. ‫ ٮٮـ[ٯـ]ص[و] ا‬yanfaḍḍū report about the sha’n al-nuzūl of this verse, and is
v:11 ‫مں ح(و) [ل]ه‬ ascribed to Ibn Masʽūd and Zayd b. Arqam. Ibn
Ḥajar questions the ascription to Ibn Masʽūd’s
codex (MQ, 9:474–5).
63.10, ‫ ٯـ[ا ٮصد] ٯ‬fa- Ibn Masʽūd, Ubayy b. Kaʽb, and Saʽīd b. Jubayr:
Chris. aṣṣaddaqa fa-ataṣaddaqu (MQ, 9:478).
v:17
63.10, ]‫ [ں‬//]‫ و [ ا آ‬wa-akun The reading wa-akūna is reported for Ibn Masʽūd,
Chris. Ubayy b. Kaʽb, and all the readers except for Ibn
v:17 Kathīr, Nāfiʽ, Ibn ʽĀmir, ʽĀṣim, Ḥamza, and alKisā’ī.
ʽUbayd b. ʽUmayr: wa-akūnu (MQ, 9:479–80).
Sūra.verse,
Folio:line

Text
89.27, ‫ [ٮـ]ا (ٮـ)ها‬yā Zayd b. ʽAlī: yā ayyuhā (MQ, 10:431).
Chris. ayyatuhā
v:20
89.27, ‫ا‬ al-nafsu l- Ubayy b. Kaʽb: al-nafsu l-āminatu l-muṭma’in-
Chris. / / ]‫ لٮـ[ٯس‬muṭma- natu, al-āminatu l-muṭma’innatu (MQ, 10:432).
v:20 ‫ ا‬/ /‫م‬ ’innatu
]‫[ه‬/ /‫لمطم‬
89.28, ‫ ا ٮٮی ر ٮک‬irjiʽī ilā Ubayy b. Kaʽb: ītī rabbaki (MQ, 10:433).
Chris. rabbiki
r:21
90.1, ]‫[م‬/ / ‫ ال‬lā uqsimu Ibn Kathīr, al-Ḥasan, al-Aʽmash, ʽIkrima, Mujāhid,
Chris. Abū ʽImrān, Abū l-ʽĀliya: la-uqsimu (MQ, 10:437).
r:24
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 (tunfiqūna), 2.285 (wa-l-mu’minūna), 6.157 (yaṣdifūna),
32.22 (al-mujrimīna), 33.35 (wa-l-ṣābirīna). 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 sūra 55 all occur in folio 33A, lines
17–8. 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-Dānī 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 = Kūfa; B =
Baṣra; D = Damascus; Ḥ = Ḥimṣ.
Disputed Verse Division Cities like the Upper Text Cities unlike the
Upper Text
Text
Up.
2.282 (wa-lā shahīdun) N M, K, B, C (a), D, Ḥ C (b)

4.44 (al-sabīla) N B, C, M K, D, Ḥ
5.1 (al-ʽuqūdi) Y B, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ K
6.66 (bi-wakīlin) N B, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ K
6.73 (fa-yakūnu) Y B, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ K
6.161 (mustaqīmin) Y B, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ K
7.1 (ALMṢ) N B, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ K

14.33 (wa-l-nahāra) Y K, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ B
19.41 (Ibrāhīma) Y C, M2 K, B, M1, D, Ḥ
19.75 (maddan) Y B, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ K
20.1 (ṬH) N B, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ K
20.33 (kathīran) Y K, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ B
20.34 (kathīran) Y K, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ B
20.39 (fī l-yammi) N K, B, C, M1, M2, D Ḥ
20.39 (minnī) Y C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ K, B
20.40 (taḥzana) N K, B, C, M1, M2, Ḥ (a) D, Ḥ (c)
20.40 (futūnan) N K, C, M1, M2 B, D, Ḥ
20.40 (madyana) N K, B, C, M1, M2, Ḥ (a) D, Ḥ (c)
20.41 (li-nafsī) N B, C, M1, M2 K, D, Ḥ
20.77 (Mūsā) N K, B, C, M1, M2, Ḥ (a, c) D, Ḥ (e)
20.78 (mā ghashiyahum) N B, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ K
20.86 (asifan) Y C, M1, Ḥ K, B, M2, D

20.86 (ḥasanan) N K, B, C, M1, D (a, b, c), Ḥ M2, D (d), Ḥ (e)
(a, c)
20.87 (al-Sāmiriyyu) Y K, B, C, M1, D (a, b), Ḥ (a, c) M2, D (c, d), Ḥ (b, d, e)
20.88 (Mūsā) N K, B, M2, D, Ḥ C, M1
20.88 (fa-nasiya) Y K, B, M2, D, Ḥ C, M1
20.89 (qawlan) N K, B, C, M1, D (a, d), Ḥ (a, c, e) M2, D (b, c), Ḥ (b, d)
20.92 (ḍallū) N B, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ K

20.95 (Sāmiriyyu) Y K, B, C, M1, M2, D (a, c, d), Ḥ D (b) and Ḥ (b)
(a, c, e)
20.106 (ṣafṣafan) N C, M1, M2 K, B, D, Ḥ
20.123 (hudan) Y B, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ (b) K, Ḥ (a, c, e)
Disputed Verse Division Cities like the Upper Text Cities unlike the
Upper Text
Text
Up.
20.124 (ḍankan) N K, B, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ (e) Ḥ (a, b, c)

21.66 (yaḍurrukum) N B, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ K
29.29 (al-sabīla) Y C, M1, M2, Ḥ K, B, D
35.7 (shadīdun) N K, C, M1, M2 B, D, Ḥ
55.35 (nārin) N K, B, D, Ḥ C, M1, M2
55.43 (al-mujrimūna) N B K, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ
56.8 (fa-aṣḥābu l- Y B, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ K

maymanati)
56.15 (mawḍūnatin) Y K, C, M1, M2, Ḥ (a) B, D, Ḥ (b)
56.18 (wa-abārīqa) Y C, M2 K, B, M1, D, Ḥ
56.22 (ʽīnun) N B, C, M2, D, Ḥ K, M1
56.25 (ta’thīman) N C, M1 K, B, M2, D, Ḥ
56.27 (wa-aṣḥābu l- Y B, C, M1, D, Ḥ K, M2
yamīni)
56.35 (inshā’an) Y K, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ B
56.47 (yaqūlūna) N K, B, M1, M2, D C, Ḥ
56.48 (al-awwalūna) Y K, B, C, M1, M2, D Ḥ
56.49 (wa-l-ākhirīna) N M2, D, Ḥ K, B, C, M1
56.50 (la-majmūʽūna) N K, B, C, M1 M2, D, Ḥ
The upper text has a number of unique skeletal-morphemic features. It has
‫ السناتکم‬instead of ‫( السنتکم‬Q 16.116), ‫ موعدتی‬instead of ‫( موعدی‬Q 20.86), and ‫لبثوا‬
instead of ‫( تلبثــوا‬Q 33.14). There are also a number of unique morphemic
(pointing) features, such as nadhra’ukum 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 Cities like Upper Cities unlike Upper Text

Text
6.63 anjaytanā (‫)انحيتنا‬ All the other cities Kūfa: anjānā (‫)انجٮنا‬
7.3 tadhakkarūna All the other cities Shām: yatadhakkarūna

)‫(ٮدکروں‬ )‫(يتذکرون‬
25.25 wa-nuzzila (‫)و نرل‬ All the other cities Mecca: wa-nunazzilu (‫)وننزل‬
43.68 ‫ٮعٮادی‬, but the final yā’ Medina, Shām Kūfa, Baṣra, and maybe
looks like a later Mecca: yā ʽibādi (‫)يعباد‬
addition
47.18 an ta’tiyahum ( ‫ان‬ Mecca, and maybe All the other cities: in ta’tihim
‫(تاتيهم‬ Kūfa (‫)ان تاتهم‬
55.78 dhī l-jalāli (‫)دی الحلل‬ All the other cities Shām: dhū l-jalāli (‫)ذو الجلل‬
Bibliography
‘Abd al-‘Azīz ‘Abd al-Fattāḥ al-Qāri’. Ḥadīth al-aḥruf al-sab‘a: dirāsa li-isnādih wa-matnih
wa-ikhtilāf al-‘ulamā’ fī ma‘nāh wa-ṣilatih bi-l-qirā’āt al-Qur’āniyya. Beirut:
Mu’assasat al-Risāla li-l-Ṭibā‘a wa-l-Nashr wa-l-Tawzī‘, 1423/2002.
Abū Dāwūd, Sulaymān b. al-Ash‘ath al-Sijistānī. Sunan Abī Dāwūd. 2 vols.
Edited by Sa‘īd Muḥammad al-Laḥḥām. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1410/1990.
Anonymous, “‘The Qur’an: Text, Interpretation and Translation’ 3rd Biannual SOAS
Conference, October 16–17, 2003,” Journal of Qurʾanic Studies 6.1 (2003): 143–5.
Atiya, Aziz S. “The Monastery of St. Catherine and the Mount Sinai Expedition.”
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 96.5 (1952): 578–86.
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.
A‘ẓamī, Muḥammad Muṣṭafā al-, The History of the Qur’ānic Text, 2nd ed. Riyadh: Azami
Publishing House, 2008.
Bothmer, Hans-Caspar Graf von. “Die Anfänge der Koranschreibung: Kodikologische und
kunsthistorische Beobachtungen an den Koranfragmenten in Sanaa,” Magazin
Forschung (Universität des Saarlandes), 1 (1999): 40–6.
Brettar, Claudia. “UdS: Neues Zentrum für 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 Qur’ān. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Cook, Michael. “The Stemma of the Regional Codices of the Koran.” GraecoArabica 9–10
(2004): 89–104.
Cook, Michael. “A Koranic Codex Inherited by Mālik 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,
VII–VIII, Nicosia, 7–8 (1999–2000): 93–105.
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 Qur’ān.”
Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 18 (1994): 1–37.
Crone, Patricia. “What do we Actually Know about Mohmammed?” openDemocracy
(http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed _3866.jsp).
Dānī, Abū ‘Amr ‘Uthmān b. Sa‘īd al-. Al-Bayān fī ‘add āy al-Qurʾān. Kuwait: Dār 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,
7–22. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols Publishers, 2007.
Dreibholz, Ursula. “Preserving a Treasure: The Sana’a Manuscripts.” Museum
International (UNESCO, Paris), No. 203 (Vol. 51, No. 3, 1999): 21–5.
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-Furqān Islamic Heritage Foundation. Edited
by Yusuf Ibish and George Atiyeh, 131–45. London: al-Furqān Islamic Heritage
Foundation, 1417/1996.
Fedeli, Alba. “Early Evidences of Variant Readings in Qur’ānic Manuscripts.” In Die
dunklen Anfänge: Neue Forschungen zur Entstehung und frühen Geschichte des
Islam, edited by Karl-Heinz Ohlig and Gerd-Rüdiger 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): 3–7.
Fedeli, Alba. “I Manoscritti di Sanaa: Fogli Sparsi che Diventano Corani.” Quaderni di
Acme 101 (2008): 25–48.
Fedeli, Alba. “A.Perg.2: A Non Palimpsest and the Corrections in Qur’ānic Manuscripts.”
Manuscripta Orientalia 11.1 (2005): 20–7.
Fedeli, Alba. “The Digitization Project of the Qur’ānic Palimpsest, MS Cambridge
University Library Or. 1287, and the Verification of the MinganaLewis Edition: Where
is Salām?” Journal of Islamic Manuscripts 2.1 (2011): 100–117.
Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī, Muḥammad b. ‘Abd Allāh b. Ḥamdūya al-. Al-Mustadrak. 4 vols.
Edited by Yūsuf ‘Abd al-Raḥmān al-Mar‘ashlī, Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifa (n.d.).
Higgins, Andrew. “The Lost Archive.” The Wall Street Journal, January 12, 2008.
Ibn Abī Dāwūd. Kitāb al-Maṣāḥif. 5 vols. 2nd ed. Edited by Muḥibb al-Dīn Wā‘iẓ. Beirut:
Dār al-Bashā’ir al-Islāmiyya, 1423/2002.
Ibn Abī Shayba, Abū Bakr ‘Abd Allāh b. Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm b. ‘Uthmān.
Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shayba fī al-aḥādīth wa-l-āthār. Edited by Sa‘īd al-Laḥḥām. 8 vols.
Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1409/1989.
Ibn ‘Asākir, Abū l-Qasim ‘Alī b. al-Ḥasan b. Hibat Allāh. Ta’rīkh madīnat Dimashq. 70 vols.
Edited by ‘Alī Shīrī. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1415/1995.
Ibn al-Jazarī, Abū al-Khayr Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Dimashqī. Al-nashr fī al-qirā’āt
al-‘ashr. 2 vols. Edited by ‘Alī Muḥammad al-Ḍabbā‘. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya.
(n.d.).
Ibn al-Nadīm, Abū l-Faraj Muḥammad b. Abī Ya‘qūb Isḥāq, Kitāb al-Fihrist. Edited by Riḍā
Tajaddud (n.p. and n.d.).
Ibn Sa‘d, Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad. Al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā. 8 vols. Beirut: Dār Ṣādir,
1968.
Khaṭīb, ‘Abd al-Laṭīf Muḥammad al-. Mu‘jam al-qirā’āt. 11 vols. Damascus: Dār Sa‘d al-
Dīn, 1422/2002.
Krekel, Christoph. “The Chemistry of Historical Iron Gall Inks.” International Journal of
Forensic Document Examiners 5 (1999): 54–8.
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.
Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1970.
Kulaynī, Muḥammad b. Ya‘qūb al-. al-Kāfī, 4th ed. 8 vols. Tehran: Dār al-Kutub al-
Islāmiyya, HS 1365.
Lester, Toby. “What is the Koran?” The Atlantic Monthly, January 1999, 43–56.
Mas‘ūdī, Abū al-Ḥasan ‘Alī b. al-Ḥusayn b. ‘Alī al-. Murūj al-dhahab wa-ma‘ādin al-
jawhar. Second printing, edited by Yūsuf As‘ad Dāghir. Qum: Dār al-Hijra, 1409.
Mingana, Alphonse and Agnes S. Lewis. Leaves from Three Ancient Qurâns, Possibly
Pre-‘Othmânic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914.
Modarressi, Hossein. “Early Debates on the Integrity of the Qur’ān: A Brief Survey.”
Studia Islamica 77 (1993): 5–39.
Motzki, Harald. “The Collection of the Qurʾān: A Reconsideration of Western Views in
Light of Recent Methodological Developments.” Der Islam 78 (2001): 1–34.
Muḥaysin, Muḥammad Sālim. Al-Fatḥ al-rabbānī fī ‘alāqat al-qirā’āt bi-l-rasm
al‘Uthmānī. Saudi Arabia: Jāmi‘at al-Imām Muḥammad b. Sa‘ūd al-Islāmiyya,
1415/1994.
Muqātil b. Sulaymān. Tafsīr. 3 vols. Edited by Aḥmad Farīd. Beirut: Dār alKutub
al-‘Ilmiyya, 1424/2003.
Nasā’ī, Aḥmad b. ‘Alī b. Shu‘ayb al-. Al-Sunan al-kubrā. 6 vols. Edited by ‘Abd alGhaffār
Sulaymān al-Bandārī. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 1411/1991.
Noseda, Sergio. “La Mia Visita a Sanaa e il Corano Palinsesto.” Istituto Lombardo
(Rendiconti Lett.) 137 (2003): 43–60.
Popkin, Richard. “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,
edited by Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, 1–28. Amsterdam: North-Holland
Publishing, 1968.
Powers, David. Muḥammad is not the Father of any of Your Men: The Making of the Last
Prophet. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009.
Prémare, Alfred-Louis de. “‘Abd al-Malik b. Marwān et le Processus de Constitution du
Coran.” In Die dunklen Anfänge: Neue Forschungen zur Entstehung und frühen
Geschichte des Islam, edited by Karl-Heinz Ohlig and GerdRüdiger Puin, 179–210.
Berlin: Hans Schiler, 2007.
Prémare, Alfred-Louis de. Les fondations de l’islam: Entre écriture et histoire. Paris: Le
Seuil, 2002.
Puin, Elisabeth. “Ein früher Koranpalimpsest aus Ṣan‘ā’ (DAM 01–27.1).” In Schlaglichter:
Die beiden ersten islamischen Jahrhunderte, edited by Markus Groß and Karl-Heinz
Ohlig, 461–93. Berlin: Hans Schiler, 2008.
Puin, Elisabeth. “Ein früher Koranpalimpsest aus Ṣan‘ā’ (DAM 01–27.1) – Teil II.” In Vom
Koran zum Islam, edited by Markus Groß and Karl-Heinz Ohlig, 523–81. Berlin: Hans
Schiler, 2009.
Puin, Elisabeth. “Ein früher Koranpalimpsest aus Ṣan‘ā’ (DAM 01–27.1) – Teil III: Ein
nicht-‘uṯmānischer Koran.” In Die Entstehung einer Weltreligion I: Von der
koranischen Bewegung zum Frühislam, edited by Markus Groß and Karl-Heinz Ohlig,
233–305. Berlin: Hans Schiler, 2010.
Puin, Gerd-Rüdiger. “Observations on Early Qur’ān Manuscripts in Ṣan‘ā’.” In The Qur’ān
as Text, edited by Stefan Wild, 107–111. Leiden and New York: E.J. Brill, 1996.
Puin, Gerd-Rüdiger. “Über die Bedeutung der ältesten Koranfragmente aus Sanaa
(Jemen) für die Orthographiegeschichte des Korans.” Magazin Forschung,
Universität des Saarlandes 1 (1999): 37–40, 46.
Puin, Gerd-Rüdiger. “Die Utopie einer kritischen Koranedition.” In Schlaglichter: Die
beiden ersten islamischen Jahrhunderte, edited by Markus Groß and Karl-Heinz
Ohlig, 516–71. Berlin: Hans Schiler, 2008.
Rāmyār, Maḥmūd. Tārīkh-i Qur’ān, 2nd ed. Tehran: Amīr Kabīr, HS 1362/1983.
Sadeghi, Behnam. “The Traveling Tradition Test: A Method for Dating Traditions.” Der
Islam 85.1 (2008): 203–42.
Sadeghi Bergmann
, Behnam, and Uwe .“The Codex of a Companion of the Prophet and the
Qur’ān of the Prophet.” Arabica 57.4 (2010): 343–436.
Sadeghi, Behnam.“The Chronology of the Qur’ān: A Stylometric Research Program.”
Arabica 58.4 (2011): 210–99.
Sadeghi, Behnam.“Criteria for Emending the Text of the Qur’ān.” In Law and Tradition in
Classical Islamic Thought, edited by Michael Cook, et al. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, forthcoming 2012.
Sinai, Nicolai. “The Qur’ān as Process.” In The Qur’ān in Context: Historical and Literary
Investigations into the Qur’ānic Milieu, edited by Angelika Neuwirth, Nicolai Sinai,
and Michael Marx, 407–40. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Spitaler, Anton. Die Verszählung des Koran nach islamischer Überlieferung. Munich:
Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1935.
Stefanidis, Emmanuelle.“The Qur’an Made Linear: A Study of the Geschichte des Qorâns’
Chronological Reordering,” Journal of Qur’anic Studies 10.2 (2008): 1–22.
Suyūṭī, Jalāl al-Dīn ‘Abd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Bakr al-. Al-Durr al-manthūr fī altafsīr bi-l-
ma’thūr. 6 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Ma‘rifa li-l-Ṭibā‘a wa-l-Nashr, 1979.
Suyūṭī, Jalāl al-Dīn ‘Abd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Bakr al-. Al-Itqān fī ‘ulūm al-Qur’ān. 2 vols.
Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1416/1996.
Ṭabarī, Abū Ja‘far Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-. Jāmi‘ al-bayān ‘an ta’wīl āy al-Qur’ān. 30 vols.
Edited by Ṣidqī Jamīl al-‘Aṭṭār. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr li-l-Ṭibā‘a wa-l-Nashr wa-l-Tawzī‘,
1415/1995.
Talbi, M. “La qirā’a bi-l-alḥān.” Arabica 5 (1958): 183–90.
Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2nd rev. ed. Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 2001.
Wansbrough, John. Qur’ānic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural In-
terpretation. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2004.

Sadeghi-Goudarzi sana-Origins-of-the-Quran

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sadeghi-Goudarzi sana-Origins-of-the-Quran

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sadeghi-Goudarzi sana-Origins-of-the-Quran

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ṣan‘ā’ 1 and the Origins of the Qur’ān

B e h nam Sadeg h i and Moh s e n Gou darz i 1

Der Islam Bd. 87, S. 1–129 DOI 10.1515/islam-2011-0025

The Manuscript and the Field of Qur’ānic Studies

subject of an evolving academic debate. This Euro-American majority falls into

6 ) Radiocarbon dating was performed on a sample from the “Stanford

14 ) Elisabeth Puin, “Koranpalimpsest [Teil I],” 461–2, footnote 2.

Textual-Critical and Historical Implications

arise in the course of transmission, but as instances of exegesis (or desired

C-1 Ibn Mas‘ūd Ubayy b. Ka‘b

11, 8, 9, 19 Fihrist: 35 9, 16, 11, nine Fihrist: 37 8, 9, 11, 19

Itqān: 36 9, 16, 11, fourteen Itqān: 38 8, 9, 11, 19

Itqān: 63, 62, twenty-seven Itqān: 63, 62, 66, 89, 90

41 ) Sadeghi and Bergmann, “The Codex,” 358–60.

43 ) Seven Modes (sab‘at aḥruf) traditions include Prophetic and nonProphetic

Qur’ānic. Some early scholars found a solution by making use of an existing

The Media and Manuscripts

As much as we would like to disregard the media, it is difficult to do so.

49 ) Toby Lester, “What is the Koran?,” 44.

Muslim scholarship.77 The mysterious information gap was explained by putting

images of the DAM 01-27.1 folios as part of a project founded by Christian

corresponding to the second ī in Ibrāhīm and the ay in Shayṭān were originally

Table 3. The Folios of Ṣan‘ā’ 1

57 ) The only credible instance of obstruction of which we know was related to us by

Name Lower Text Upper Text Surviving

31A 12.17–12.20 43.63–43.69 less than ¼

26A 39.51–39.70 37.102–37.134 less than ½

12A illegible 21.16–21.19 less than 1/10

61 ) On the lower modifier, see footnote 12 above.

Symbols and Conventions

} { ‫(ٮٮـ ا) مو سی ا لکٮٮ و ٯٯٮـ[ٮـ ا] علی (ا) ٮر‬// ‫و ا د ا‬ 1

)‫مں ٯٮل ا ں کٮٮم مو م[ٮـ]ٮـں (۝) و لٯد حا کم م(و‬ 17

‫ (ه ر) و ٮ‬/ / ]‫[ا‬/ / ‫ں‬/ /‫ ا (ل)مل‬93/ /‫ںا‬ 14

‫ و) ا ٮٯو ا لم(ٮـ و) (ٮه) (م ں) ا هلل حٮر‬75‫ (ا‬/ / ‫{ }(و) لو ا‬ 22

Folio Stanford 2007 Recto (Q 2.191 – 2.196)

} { / / ‫[ٮـ]مو هم و ا حر حو‬/ /)‫ (ٮـ‬/ / ‫و (ا) ٯـتل[و] هم‬ 1

‫و (ا) تٯـ(و) ا ا هلل و ا علمو ا ا ں ا هلل‬ ‫‪12‬‬

‫)‪Folio Stanford 2007 Verso (Q 2.197 – 2.205‬‬

‫ا ں کٮٮم ٯٮله لمں ا لصلٮں ۝ ٮم ا ٯٮصو ا مں حٮٮ‬ ‫‪8‬‬

‫)‪Folio David 86/2003 Recto (Q 2.206 – 2.217‬‬

‫(مں ا) لعم(م) و ا لملٮکه و (ٯـ)صى ا ال (م ر) و ا لی ا هلل ٮر (ح)[ع] ا ال [م]‪//‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬

‫)‪Folio David 86/2003 Verso (Q 2.217 – 2.223‬‬

‫‪92 ) This ṭā’ has a tail similar to that of a final ʽayn.‬‬

‫‪ / /‬و ں [۝] ‪( 104‬ٮـس ا) لو [ٮـ]ک عں ا لمحٮص ٯل (هو) ا (د) ی [ٯـ](ال)ـ‬ ‫‪19‬‬

‫‪104 ) It is not clear whether this verse starts with wa-.‬‬

/ / ‫ (ا) هلل‬112‫ [ٮـم ا] ا ٮر ل‬/ / ]‫ ل[م‬/ /]‫لکم و [م‬ 18

Folio Bonhams 2000 Verso (Q 5.48 – 5.54)

‫}‬ ‫}‪[//‬م]{ }‪ / /‬ا (ال) مں (ا)‪{122‬‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪1‬‬

} { ]‫ [سا‬//]‫ [م‬/ / ]‫ [ص‬/ /} { 6

} {]‫ [ٮٮـ‬/ / ]‫}ل[ٯد‬ { 9

Folio 4 B (Q 11.120–123 – 8.1–3)

{128 ‫هم ا ٮـ(ٮٮـ ا) ر د‬//} { 13

Folio 5 A (Q 8.73–75 – 9.1–7)

} { ‫ٯی ا ال ر (ص) ٯـس[د] ا کٮٮر ۝ و ا [لد] ٮـں ا (مٮو)ـ ا و‬ 1

‫ا ال کٮر ا (ں) ا هلل ٮر ی م(ں) ا (ل)[م](سر کٮـں) و ر { }‬ ‫‪14‬‬

‫} سو له ا ال ا لد ٮـں عهد ٮم (ع)ٮد ا لمسحد‬ ‫{‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫{ }[ٮ] ا ل(مٮـ)ٯٮـں ۝ و کٮـ(ڡ) ا ں ٮطهر و ا [ع]ل{}[کم]ـ ال [ٮر]‬ ‫‪3‬‬

‫}‬ ‫{} ما کا ں للمسر کٮں ا ں ٮعمرـ و ا مسحد ا لل[ه] س{‬ ‫‪1‬‬

} { )‫ٮـ(ع)م[ر] مسحد ا لل[ه] مں ا [م](ں) ٮا هلل و ا لٮـ[ و م] ا ال (ح)[ر]ـ (و‬ 4

} { 170/ / ‫{} عٮکم سا ی (و) [ص]ٯٮ (ع)ل[ٮـ]کم ا ال ر (ص) [ٮما] ر‬ 24