Qira’at ( قراءات) refers to the different canonical methods of reciting the Quran. These variations encompass differences in pronunciation, intonation, meanings, verse counts, and, in the more extreme cases, differences in the words and phrases used.
Historically, these differences took root after the death of the prophet when Islam expanded to new lands. Various communities learned to recite the Quran in their respective regions, and over time, this led to slight differences in recitation.
According to Professor Nasser, the five canonizations of the Quran can be seen in the following chart. The history of Qurʾānic canonization involved several key stages. The first canonization occurred between the era of Uthman and the late 3rd/9th century. The second canonization was led by Ibn Mujahid, who selected Seven Eponymous Readings amidst many circulating readings, laying the foundation for the Seven Canonical Readings. The third canonization involved standardizing these Seven Readings further, as discrepancies continued to emerge through students (rāwīs) of the Eponymous Readers. Scholars al-Dānī and al-Shāṭibī refined and promoted a two-rāwī system per Eponymous Reader, eliminating conflicting transmissions. The fourth canonization by Ibn al-Jazarī added three more readings (Abū Ja‘far, Ya‘qūb, and Khalaf), creating a model of Ten Eponymous Readings, which was enforced through his works and fatwās. Finally, the fifth canonization occurred in 1923, when al-Azhar in Egypt printed a standardized Qurʾān adopting the Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim reading. This edition became dominant worldwide, shaping the modern view of the Qurʾān as a static text, with other readings often seen as deviations from this standard.
In the book The Fourteen Quranic Readings Impact on Theology and Law, by Dr. Waleed Edress al-Meneese, on p. 27, it states:
“…Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923) had his own personal adoption which he composed from 22 readings that he had read upon his teachers and in turn documented in his book al-Qirāʾāt. Among the students of Tabarī who read his personal selection with him was Ibn Mujāhid (d. 324/936) himself, the originator of the notion of the seven Imāms.
In the first generation there were various personal adoptions. Abū Hātim of Sijistān, for instance, narrated 24 readings, four from the seven known readings and twenty from outside of them. After these individuals, al-Hudhalī in his book al-Kāmil reported fifty readings. All of these readings were part of the seven modes.”
In the 3rd/9th century, the scholar and student of al-Ṭabarī, Abu Bakr Ibn Mujahid (d. 936 CE), played a crucial role in standardizing these recitations. In his book Kitab al-Sab’ah fi al-Qira’at (Book of the Seven Qiraat), published in 300 AH, he selected seven readers from various regions whose recitations were widely recognized and respected. These seven reciters were:
Nafi‘ al-Madani (Medina d. 169/785)
Ibn Kathir al-Makki (Mecca d. 120/737)
Abu ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ala’ (Basra d. 148/770)
Ibn ‘Amir ad-Dimashqi (Damascus d. 118/736)
‘Asim ibn Abi al-Najud (Kufa d. 127/744)
Hamzah az-Zaiyyat (Kufa d. 156/772)
Al-Kisa’i (Kufa d. 189/804)
On page 28 of the same book mentioned above, it states that the reason Ibn Mujahid did this was to try to connect the concept of the seven ahruf with the the various qiraat.
“He [Ibn Mujahid] also mentioned the reason for choosing seven readers was simply to correspond to the number of aḥruf of Qur’ānic revelation for the purposes of blessing.
Scholars point out that Ibn Mujahid selected readers from the five cities he believed an ‘Uthmanic codex had been sent to: Makkah, Madinah, Basrah, Kufah and Damascus.
They also suggested that he should have selected two readers from Basrah, which had two great experts: Abū ʿAmr and Yaʿqūb. However, he had chosen Abū ʿAmr and left out Yaʿqūb simply because he did not possess an isnād to Yaʿqūb’s reading. For that reason, he substituted Yaʿqūb with an additional reader from Kūfah to make three total readers from Kūfah: ʿĀṣim, Ḥamzah, and Kisāʾī. He himself admitted that Yaʿqūb belonged on his list rather than Kisāʾī, but he was forced to make this adjustment.
Ibn Mujāhid’s selection was a purely personal choice on his part based upon his own scholarly estimation (ijtihād). Many of his contemporaries had criticized him quite harshly foreseeing that it would lead to many individuals confusing these with the seven aḥruf. They suggested that he should have chosen a different number of readers to alleviate this confusion. Many of these peers of Ibn Mujāhid authored their own works on the readings, choosing six or eight, in opposition to Ibn Mujāhid. Ibn al-Khayyāṭ, for instance, authored al-Kifāyah fī al-qirāʾāt al-sitt on six readings and Ibn Ghalbūn authored al-Tadhkirah fī al-qirāʾāt al-thamān on eight readings, while adding Yaʿqūb to the list. Others authored works on ten or thirteen readings, and al-Hudhalī authored al-Kāmil on fifty readings.”
The challenge was that there was not just one recitation of each of these seven readers, but there were a number of readers that varied with one another, yet both were traced back to the eponymous reader selected by Ibn Mujahid. The scholars Abu ‘Amr ad-Dani (d. 1053 CE) and Abu Shamah (d. 1267 CE) are known for selecting two reciters (rawis) for each reader.
After establishing these seven readings, there were continued disputes about the acceptance of other popular readings. Ibn al-Jazari (d. 1429 CE) campaigned to add three more readers as part of the canonical Quran readings. These readers were:
Abu Ja‘far al-Madani (Medina d. 130/747)
Ya‘qub al-Hadrami (Basra d. 205/820)
Khalaf al-Bazzar (Kufa d. 229/843)
Eventually, four more recitations were also recognized in later centuries by later scholars. These included:
Al-Hasan al-Basri (Basra d. 110/728)
Al-A‘mash (Kufa d. 148/765)
Ibn Muhaisin (Mecca d. 123/740)
Yahya al-Yazidi (Basra d. 202/817)
As mentioned previously, each reader had multiple transmitters that varied with one another. So, from these readers, two transmitters (rawis) were selected to represent their teacher’s reading. Here is an overview of each reciter and their two main transmitters:
The Seven Reciters and Their Proponents
Ibn ‘Amir ad-Dimashqi
Hisham (Ibn Ammar)
Ibn Dhakwan (Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Bashar)
Ibn Kathir al-Makki
Al-Bazzi (Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Bazzi)
Qunbul (Muhammad ibn Abd al-Rahman al-Makhzumi)
‘Asim ibn Abi al-Najud
Hafs (Hafs ibn Sulayman)
Shu‘bah (Abu Bakr ibn Ayyash)
Abu ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ala’
Ad-Duri (Hafs ibn Umar ad-Duri)
As-Susi (Salih ibn Ziyad as-Susi)
Hamzah az-Zaiyyat
Khalaf (Khalaf ibn Hisham al-Bazzar)
Khallad (Khallad ibn Khalid)
Nafi‘ al-Madani
Warsh (Uthman ibn Sa’id al-Qutbi)
Qalun (Isa ibn Mina)
Al-Kisai
Al-Duri (Hafs ibn Umar ad-Duri)
Abu al-Harith (Luhay ibn Khalid al-Baghdadi)
The Three Additional Reciters and Their Proponents
Khalaf al-Bazzar
Ishaq (Ishaq ibn Ibrahim al-Maruzi)
Idris (Idris ibn Abd al-Karim al-Haddad)
Abu Ja‘far al-Madani
Ibn Wardan (Isa ibn Wardan)
Ibn Jummaz (Sulayman ibn Jummaz)
Ya‘qub al-Hadrami
Ruways (Abu al-Hasan al-Ruways)
Rawh (Rawh ibn Abd al-Mu’min)
The Four Additional Reciters and Their Proponents
Al-Hasan al-Basri
Salih ibn Ayyub
Abu al-‘Aliyah
Ibn Muhaisin
Al-Mutawakkil ibn Harun
Muhammad ibn Abd al-Rahman
Yahya al-Yazidi
Abu Bakr ibn ‘Ayyash
Hafs al-Kufi
Al-A‘mash
Yahya ibn Waththab
Abu Shu‘aib al-Shaibani
14 reciters x 2 proponents = 28 different Readings
It is worth pointing out that many of the recognized readings (Qira’at) were based on the reciter’s personal ijtihad (independent reasoning) rather than pure taqlid, repeating exactly their teacher’s recitation without discretion. Each trained reciter exercised their own judgment in their reading style, expressing their interpretation rather than strictly transmitting their teacher’s recitation. Consequently, each reciter’s reading is attributed to their own judgment and expertise, similar to how a jurist’s view is attributed to themselves rather than to their teacher.
According to Harvard Professor Shady H. Nasser, as stated in his book Transmission of the Quran, on page 77:
“Early Muslim scholars did not look at the variant readings of the Qur’an as divine revelation. They attributed the Qur’anic variants to human origins; either to the reader’s ijtihad [“independent reasoning”] in interpreting the consonantal outline of the Qur’an or simply to an error in transmission. This position changed drastically in the later periods, especially 5th/11th century where the canonical Readings started to be treated as divine revelation, i.e. every single variant reading in the seven and ten eponymous Readings was revealed by God to Muhammad.”
This distinction is important because it shows that the basis of each reciter’s reading is their ijtihad, not necessarily a continuous tradition from their teacher. Since each teacher had two primary students, and each of those students used their discretion in recitation, this resulted in a total of 28 different authorized recitations.
Some Differences in Variants
Contrary to what most people may assume, these 28 different qiraat do not only vary in vowel markings (tashkīl) but also consist of differences in the dotting of letters (nuqāṭ) and even occasional variation in prefixes, suffixes, prepositions, and words as well.
For example, comparing Ḥafs ʿan ʿĀṣim and Warš ʿan Nāfiʿ
While the change of voice or pronouns in these verse may seem confusing, it is very common in the Quran [50] [51] and found even in the same verse. [52] (It is known as iltifāt.)
Q.2:85 the “you” in Hafs refers to the actions of more than one person and the “They” in Warsh is also referring to the actions of more than one person.
Q.15:8 “We” refers to God in Hafs and the “They” in Warsh refers to what is not being sent down by God (The Angels).
Q.19:19 (li-ʾahaba v. li-yahaba) is a well known difference, both for the theological interest in the alternative pronouns said to have been uttered by the angel, and for requiring unusual orthography. [47]
Q.48:17, the “He” in Hafs is referring to God and the “We” in Warsh is also referring to God, this is due to the fact that God refers to Himself in both the singular form and plural form by using the royal “We”.
Q.43:19 shows an example of a consonantal dotting difference that gives a different root word, in this case ʿibādu v. ʿinda.
The second set of examples below compares the other canonical readings with that of Ḥafs ʿan ʿĀṣim. These are not nearly as widely read today, though all are available in print and studied for recitation.
Ḥafs ʿan ʿĀṣim and several other canonical readings
Q.5:6 The variant grammatical cases (wa-arjulakum and wa-arjulikum) were adopted for different exegetical views by Sunni and Shīʿi scholars, such that in wudu the feet were either to be washed or rubbed, respectively. [53] The reading of Abū ʿAmr was shared by Ibn Kaṯīr, Šuʿba ʿan ʿĀṣim and Ḥamza.
Q.17:102 and Q20:96 are examples of verbal prefix or suffix variants (the latter also read by al-Kisāʾī).
Q.19:25 has a notably large number of readings for this word (four canonical readings with different subject or verb form, and several non-canonical). [54] [55]
Q.21:104 is an example of active-passive variants.
Q.21.96 is an example of a verb form variant, with Ibn ʿĀmir reading the more intensive verb form II.
Q59.14 is an example of singular-plural variants (also read by Abū ʿAmr).
Additional Readings:
In this interview at the 1hr 2min mark, Shady Nasser explains how some groups only recognize the first seven readers as canonical, while another group recognizes the ten, while another sizeable group (but not as big as the other two) recognizes all fourteen.