The Sunni faith is fundamentally built upon its traditions, which, in turn, rely heavily on the credibility of their chains of transmission (isnad). Many Sunni scholars assert that if the isnad is deemed reliable, the authenticity of a Hadith must be accepted, regardless of its content. This reasoning is even extended to the Quran, where its authenticity is often attributed to the integrity of its chain of transmitters. But does this argument hold up to scrutiny?
History of Quran Isnad
The notion of attributing an isnad—a chain of transmission—to the Quran itself was not a concern in the early centuries of Islam. This practice emerged much later, as the role and authority of Hadith scholars solidified within what would come to be recognized as Sunni Islam. In the earliest period, the Quran was regarded as the divine revelation transmitted directly to the Prophet Muhammad and preserved through a combination of oral recitation and early written documentation. Its authority was considered self-evident, as it was distinct from the Hadith corpus in being mass-transmitted and divinely guaranteed to be preserved by God.
Consequently, the earliest believers saw no need to provide an isnad for the Quran as they did for the Hadith. It was not until the 4th century Hijri (10th century CE) that an isnad for the Quran was retroactively introduced, reflecting the understanding among early Muslims that the Quran, as the most widely circulated and meticulously preserved text in history, required no additional proof of its authenticity.
The individual who is attributed with the standardization of the Seven Eponymous Readings of the Quran was Ibn Mujahid (859–936 CE). His seminal work, Kitab al-Sab‘a fi al-Qira’at (The Book of the Seven Readings), established a framework for standardizing seven reciters of the Quran, and deeming these recitation as valid.
In the book by Shady Nasser titled The Second Canonization of the Qur’an (324/936) had the following to write regarding Ibn Mujāhid (d. 936 CE):
When Ibn Mujāhid embarked upon the project of collecting the Seven Eponymous Readings… The community of the Qurrāʾ tried to emulate the system of isnād authentication developed by the muḥaddithūn. p.60
Ibn Mujāhid’s documentation of the isnād (transmission chains) for the Seven Readers did not establish a continuous link to the Prophet. Instead, these chains stopped at the Eponymous Readers.
The Persian Sunni scholar Al-Ṭabarī (d. 923 CE), a contemporary to Ibn Mujāhid, included detailed discussions of variant readings in his exegesis of the Quran (Tafsir al-Tabari). However, he only attributed variant Qurʾānic readings to regional Qurrāʾ communities rather than specific individuals. Likely aware of the weak isnād documentation for these readings, he refrained from integrating them authoritatively in his Qurʾānic commentary.
It wasn’t until Ibn Mihrān (d. 992 CE) who developed a complete isnād that linked each reading directly to the Prophet, though some connections, such as Ibn Kathīr’s to Ubayy b. Kaʿb, remained indirect.
On page 115, Nasser writes the following:
Ibn Mihrān, in his eighty-page documentation of the chains of transmission of the ten Readings, connected each one of them directly to the Prophet through a continuous uninterrupted isnād, unlike Ibn Mujāhid whose isnād documentation stopped at the Eponymous Readers, after which he listed possible connections between each Reader and the Prophet.
Ambiguous Origins of Various Recitations
These works on Qirāʾāt that started in the 10th century often start with the Eponymous Readers rather than connecting directly to the Prophet, leaving gaps in the transmission between these readers and earlier authorities. For instance, while Nāfiʿ claimed to trace his reading to Ubayy b. Kaʿb, details on the intermediaries are incomplete, raising questions about continuity. This issue extends to other readers, such as ʿĀṣim, whose reading connects primarily to ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib and Ibn Masʿūd. Ḥamza’s transmission has a complex chain with several intermediaries, and his reading, once controversial, became more accepted after aligning with notable figures. Al-Kisāʾī’s reading was considered a blend of others, notably Ḥamza’s, without requiring a distinct isnād.
Of the Seven Readers, Ibn ʿĀmir’s chain has the least detail, linking directly to ʿUthmān through a single intermediary. This complexity in isnād documentation across different readers underscores the challenges in establishing uniform chains and the role of selective historical legitimization to uphold each reading’s authority.
This retroactive attribution of isnād was done to eliminate doubts about the authenticity of the readings by connecting them to well-regarded Companions. For instance, multiple readings (Nāfiʿ, Ibn Kathīr, and Abū ʿAmr) were tied to Ubayy b. Kaʿb, who was also linked to the ḥadīth of the “seven aḥruf” (modes), and his doubting of the concept of multiple legitimate recitations. Similarly, other readings were linked to figures like ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib and Ibn Masʿūd, especially for the Kūfan readings of ʿĀṣim, Ḥamza, and al-Kisāʾī, while Ibn ʿĀmir’s reading was tied to ʿUthmān, aligning with Damascus’s Umayyad legacy.
This practice of attributing readings to prominent Companions helped give the perception of legitimacy to each reading. It created a “mythical ancestry” for the readings, enhancing their status and aligning each with revered historical figures, even if variations in the recitations remain puzzling given the shared origins attributed to figures like Ubayy b. Kaʿb.
However, an intriguing question arises when multiple readers, like Nāfiʿ, Ibn Kathīr, Abū ʿAmr, and others, claim lineage back to the same Companion, such as Ubayy b. Kaʿb, yet their recitations vary. This inconsistency suggests that these readings were not simply preserved intact from an original source. Rather, the differences could be attributed to variations in transmission, interpretative practices, individual reasoning (ijtihād), or even regional influences.
Reliability of Reciters
Originally, Qirāʾāt scholars did not conduct isnād criticism (evaluation of transmission chains) with the same rigor as Ḥadīth scholars, nor did they systematically apply jarḥ (criticism) and taʿdīl (approval) to assess the reliability of rāwīs and Qurʾān readers. A comparison of biographical sources reveals that taʿdīl and tazkiya (verification of reliability) were less methodically applied in Qirāʾāt than in Ḥadīth. This difference is evident from the extensive biographical works on muḥaddithūn (Ḥadīth transmitters) compared to the limited resources on qurrāʾ (Qurʾān readers).
Did Qirāʾāt scholars perform isnād criticism on the chains of transmissions of the Eponymous Readings, and did they carry out a sophisticated and engaged process of jarḥ and taʿdīl with regards to the rāwīs and readers of the Qurʾān? The short answer is no. A survey of ṭabaqāt dictionaries of both disciplines, Ḥadīth and Qirāʾāt, gives us a clear indication that the processes of taʿdīl and tazkiya, of deeming readers to be reliable or not, did not take place as methodically in Qirāʾāt as it did in Ḥadīth. This is evident through the sheer number of biographical compilations we have on the muḥaddithūn as compared to the scanty number of books we have on the qurrāʾ. p.107
However, later on, when Qirāʾāt scholars began treating Qurʾānic recitation similarly to Ḥadīth, applying jarḥ (criticism) and taʿdīl (validation) to Qurʾān transmitters, it revealed that many respected readers had deficiencies in proficiency (ḍabṭ) and integrity (ʿadāla).
Nasser provided the following summary of the negative information only ( jarḥ, qadḥ) about the seven Readers and their Rāwīs documented in biographical dictionaries.
1) Ibn ʿĀmir: He claimed to be from Ḥimyar, but his true genealogy was questionable (yughmaz fī nasabihi). There existed nine different statements concerning his isnād up to the Prophet. Some people/someone claimed that it was not known with whom he studied the Qurʾān. p.131
1-a) Hishām b. ʿAmmār: When he got older he became senile (taghayyara) and started to read/recite anything that was given to him. He would repeat and transmit anything people told him [without inquiring about its truth], but he was more trustworthy when he was younger. Hishām transmitted 400 baseless ḥadīths (laysa lahā aṣl) all with [apparently] good isnāds. A man by the name of Faḍlak [Faḍlak al-Rāzī] used to give these ḥadīths to Hishām, who did not hesitate to transmit them; [in doing so] he almost created a rupture in Islām. Hishām was dictating ḥadīth one day when he was asked: “Who gave you this ḥadīth? He answered: ‘One of my teachers (baʿḍ mashāyikhinā)’”. When he was asked again, he yawned/closed his eyes from sleepiness (fa-naʿasa). Muḥammad b. Muslim al-Rāzī said: “I decided to stop narrating the ḥadīths of Hishām because he used to sell ḥadīth/get paid for teaching ḥadīth”. Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal said: “Hishām was fickle and frivolous”. One day, he was sitting in public while his private parts were visible. A man told him: “Cover yourself”! Hishām responded: “Have you seen it [i.e., my penis]? God willing your eyes will never suffer from ramad (ophthalmia)”. Ibn Ḥanbal purportedly said: “One must repeat the prayer if it was led by Hishām”. p.131-132
1-b) ʿAbd Allāh b. Dhakwān: There were no derogatory comments recorded about him, except that his father was the brother of Abū Luʾluʾa, the assassin of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb. p.132
2) Ibn Kathīr: Confusion was recorded in his isnād as to whether he studied the Qurʾān with ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Sāʾib al-Makhzūmī or Mujāhid [b. Jabr]. p.132
2-a) al-Bazzī: Abū Ḥātim said that al-Bazzī’s ḥadīth was weak and that he would never accept it. Al-ʿUqaylī stated that his ḥadīth was munkar. p.132
2-b) Qunbul: He became chief of the Police (shurṭa) in Makka but grew corrupt (kharubat sīratuhu). He lived long and became senile. He stopped teaching the Qurʾān seven years before his death. Ibn al-Munādī narrated that he performed pilgrimage together with Ibn Mujāhid and Ibn Shanabūdh. When they met Qunbul in Makka he was mentally unstable. Ibn Mujāhid started a Qurʾān audition with him, but Qunbul was making so many mistakes in his recitation that Ibn Mujāhid was forced to leave the session. p.132
3) ʿĀṣim: Ibn Saʿd said that he made many mistakes in his ḥadīth. He was not good at memorization, to the extent that Ibn ʿUlayya said: “Anyone whose name was ʿĀṣim had bad memory”. According to Ibn Khirāsh, ʿĀṣim trans- mitted munkar traditions in his ḥadīth, whereas al-ʿUqaylī said: “There was nothing wrong with him except his bad memory”. Al-Dāraquṭnī stated that something was wrong with ʿĀṣim’s memory, and Ḥammad b. Salama said that he became senile before he died. p.132
3-a) Ḥafṣ: Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal said that his ḥadīth was not to be transmitted. Ibn Maʿīn stated he was not trustworthy, while al-Madīnī said that his ḥadīth was weak and should be abandoned. Al-Bukhārī said that the Ḥadīth transmitters abandoned Ḥafṣ’s ḥadīth (tarakūhu), and al-Nasāʾī confirmed that his ḥadīth must neither be learned nor written down. Other critics said that all his ḥadīths were manākīr and bawāṭīl (false, invalid). Not only was he untrustworthy in ḥadīth, but it was reported that Shuʿba (ʿĀṣim’s second Rāwī) was more reliable than him in Qurʾān. Shuʿba complained once that Ḥafṣ took a book/notebook from him and never returned it, and that he used to take people’s books and copy them (an allusion to the criticism that Ḥafṣ used to take knowledge from books and claim it as his own). Some reported that Ḥafṣ was a better reciter than Shuʿba, but that he was a liar (kadhdhāb). Ibn Ḥibbān said that he used to forge and fabricate isnāds. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Mahdī stated that it was not permissible to transmit ḥadīth from him (mā taḥill al-riwāya ʿanhu). p.132-133
Ibn al-Jawzī listed him in his al-Ḍuʿafāʾ wa-l-matrūkīn, describing him as kadhdhāb (liar) who fabricated ḥadīth (yaḍaʿ al-ḥadīth). p.136
3-b) Abū Bakr Shuʿba: there were nine different statements about his real name. Consequently, he was listed under bāb al-kunā: man kun- yatuhu Abū Bakr (those known as Abū Bakr) in Ibn Ḥajar’s Tahdhīb. Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal said that he was trustworthy, but that he made mistakes. Shuʿba used to boast and say: “I am one half of Islam” (anā niṣf al-Islām), in reference to his excellence in Qurʾānic recitation. Yaḥyā l-Qaṭṭān and Ibn al-Madīnī did not think highly of him, especially because he became senile and his memory deteriorated. He often made mistakes in ḥadīth, and his memory was not reliable when he delivered ḥadīth. Abū Nuʿaym stated that amongst his teachers, Abū Bakr Shuʿba was the most likely to make mistakes. p.133
4) Abū ʿAmr b. al-ʿAlāʾ: There were almost no derogatory statements about Abū ʿAmr except the uncertainty surrounding his real name and his boasting that he had never met anyone who was more knowledgeable than himself. Abū Khaythama said that he could be trusted but he did not memorize much ḥadīth. p.133
4-a) Al-Dūrī: Statements about him were generally positive, except for al-Dāraquṭnī, who stated that he was weak, without further specification. p.133
4-b) Al-Sūsī: Statements about him were also positive, except for Maslama b. Qāsim, who deemed him to be weak without proof (bi-lā mustanad). p.134
5) Ḥamza: al-Sājī said that he was trustworthy, but his memorization was bad, and that he was not meticulous in transmitting ḥadīth. Some Ḥadīth scholars criticized his Reading and prohibited praying behind him, but Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal resented it without prohibiting such prayer. Abū Bakr Shuʿba said that the Reading of Ḥamza was considered to be bidʿa (innovation) amongst the community of the Qurrāʾ. Ibn Durayd stated: “I wish that Kūfa would be purified from the Reading of Ḥamza”. p.134
5-a) Khalaf: Ibn Ḥanbal was asked about Khalaf and his consumption of alcohol. He answered that he was aware of this allegation but Khalaf was still a trustworthy, honorable individual. Khalaf allegedly said: “I repeated 40 years of prayers during which I had consumed alcohol according to the legal school of the Kūfans”. Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn said that Khalaf had no clue what Ḥadīth was. p.134
5-b) Khallād: No negative statements were mentioned about him, and he did not feature in the major Ḥadīth biographical dictionaries I have consulted. p.134
6) Nāfiʿ: Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal said that one could learn the Qurʾān from Nāfiʿ but not Ḥadīth. In another statement Aḥmad said that his ḥadīth was munkar. p.134
6-a) Qālūn: He was trustworthy in Qirāʾa, but not very much in Ḥadīth. Aḥmad b. Ṣāliḥ was asked about Qālūn’s trustworthiness in ḥadīth; he laughed and said: “Do you write down ḥadīth from anyone? Qālūn was deaf, but he was able to read people’s lips and correct their mistakes”. p.134
6-b) Warsh: He did not feature in Ḥadīth biographical dictionaries and there were no negative statements about him. p.134
7) Al-Kisāʾī: Ibn al-Aʿrābī praised al-Kisāʾī’s knowledge and said: He was the most knowledgeable of people, despite being a liar/impudent (rahaq). He used to consume alcohol and accompany young beautiful boys, yet he was a great Qurʾān reciter. It was related that one day he led some people in prayers and recited using Ḥamza’s System of recitation. After he finished the prayer, the people in the mosque beat him up with their fists and shoes. When asked why, he replied that it was because of the decadent/lowly Reading of Ḥamza (Qirāʾat Ḥamza al-radīʾa). p.134-135
7-a) Abū l-Ḥārith al-Layth b. Khālid: No negative statements were mentioned about him. p.135
7-b) al-Dūrī: Mentioned above in 4-a). p.135
Conclusion
The Quran itself declares in Surah 39:23 that it is “the best Hadith (aḥsana l-ḥadīthi),” highlighting its divine origin, unparalleled authenticity, and inherent authority over any human narrations or traditions.
[39:23] GOD has revealed herein the best Hadith; a book that is consistent, and points out both ways (to Heaven and Hell). The skins of those who reverence their Lord cringe therefrom, then their skins and their hearts soften up for GOD’s message. Such is GOD’s guidance; He bestows it upon whomever He wills. As for those sent astray by GOD, nothing can guide them.
ٱللَّهُ نَزَّلَ أَحْسَنَ ٱلْحَدِيثِ كِتَـٰبًا مُّتَشَـٰبِهًا مَّثَانِىَ تَقْشَعِرُّ مِنْهُ جُلُودُ ٱلَّذِينَ يَخْشَوْنَ رَبَّهُمْ ثُمَّ تَلِينُ جُلُودُهُمْ وَقُلُوبُهُمْ إِلَىٰ ذِكْرِ ٱللَّهِ ذَٰلِكَ هُدَى ٱللَّهِ يَهْدِى بِهِۦ مَن يَشَآءُ وَمَن يُضْلِلِ ٱللَّهُ فَمَا لَهُۥ مِنْ هَادٍ
This centrality of the Quran is further emphasized by its unique mass transmission and divine guarantee and mechanism of preservation, qualities that do not necessitate an isnad for validation. Yet, the Sunni tradition paradoxically hinges on the reliability of isnad chains to substantiate both their Hadith corpus and Quranic recitation, despite significant flaws in the transmission chains of the Seven Canonical Readings (Qira’at).
Many of the transmitters of these readings have been criticized in biographical dictionaries for issues of immorality, poor memory, and unreliability, raising serious questions about their integrity. For instance, key figures such as Hafs, the transmitter of the most widely used Quranic recitation today, was accused of fabricating Hadiths and being untrustworthy. Others, such as Hisham ibn Ammar, were noted for senility, frivolity, and a lack of precision. Despite these glaring issues, Sunni scholars uphold these readings as authoritative while simultaneously asserting the reliability of their isnad as the cornerstone of their faith.
This contradiction exposes a deeper inconsistency: while the Quran’s divine authority stands independently of human chains of transmission, the Sunni reliance on flawed isnads for both Hadith and Quranic recitation undermines their own claims of authenticity. By elevating questionable transmitters to validate their recitations, they risk compromising the very foundation of their argument. Thus, the Sunni approach not only contradicts the Quran’s assertion of its primacy as “the best Hadith” but also reveals a critical hypocrisy in their reliance on human chains to justify their religious framework.
[6:19] Say, “Whose testimony is the greatest?” Say, “GOD’s. He is the witness between me and you that this Quran has been inspired to me, to preach it to you and whomever it reaches. Indeed, you bear witness that there are other gods beside GOD.” Say, “I do not testify as you do; there is only one god, and I disown your idolatry.”
قُلْ أَىُّ شَىْءٍ أَكْبَرُ شَهَـٰدَةً قُلِ ٱللَّهُ شَهِيدٌۢ بَيْنِى وَبَيْنَكُمْ وَأُوحِىَ إِلَىَّ هَـٰذَا ٱلْقُرْءَانُ لِأُنذِرَكُم بِهِۦ وَمَنۢ بَلَغَ أَئِنَّكُمْ لَتَشْهَدُونَ أَنَّ مَعَ ٱللَّهِ ءَالِهَةً أُخْرَىٰ قُل لَّآ أَشْهَدُ قُلْ إِنَّمَا هُوَ إِلَـٰهٌ وَٰحِدٌ وَإِنَّنِى بَرِىٓءٌ مِّمَّا تُشْرِكُونَ
Related Articles:
Quran Talk Blog 
2 thoughts on “The Sunni Quran Isnad Dilemma”