title, namely, that the variant readings noted "represent a type of text anterior to that of the canonical text of ‘Uthmân" is grossly misleading. The persons of whose codices are mentioned by Jeffrey were all Companions of the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be on him, and were contemporaries of one another and of Zayd ibn Thâbit who himself had one copy of the text of the Qur’ân and who was one of those in charge of making what is called the "canonical text of ‘Uthmân". ‘Uthmân himself was a senior contemporary of all these persons and they were all alive at the time of making the compilation under him. The "codices" of the persons mentioned were and could only be contemporary with the codices of Zayd and others of the Prophet’s Companions. They were copies of the same text as given out by the Prophet and by no means "anterior" or posterior to one another. The different codices or copies were made simultaneously by the Prophet’s Companions and were in no way different texts of the Qur’ân, though they differed in respect of completeness. In fact, even according to Jeffery’s own admission, the "variant readings" concern only a number words and expressions in the Qur’ân and they do by no means show the existence of "different" texts of the Qur’ân. More importantly, Jeffery notes that different lexicographers and commentators give different "readings" for the same word, though each traces the "reading" of that word to the same codex! Jeffery’s work consists of two parts. The first part is an Introduction containing the list of "variant readings" as gleaned from a number of exegeses and lexicographical works; and the second part consists of an edition of Ibn ’Abi Dâwûd’s Kitâb al-Masâhif.

The other part of the Bergstr?sser-Jeffery plan, that of finding out differences in the Qur’ânic text by comparing its extant manuscripts, did not also lead to any encouraging results. Before the commencement of the Second World War and the consequent destruction by bombing of the photocopies of the Qur’ânic manuscripts collected at the Munich University, the scholars and authorities in charge of these had completed a preliminary study and survey and issued a statement saying that their study and comparison of the various manuscripts had not revealed any discrepancy and difference in the texts except minor difference in spelling in some places which was natural and all of which did not affect the correctness and integrity of the Qur’ânic texts as a whole. (1)