the readings of some of the readers are based on personal judgment (ijtihad) or on hearing (sama ) even from a single authority, as we have already pointed out. If this had not been so, the logical necessity of this argument would be to regard all readings as hav‌ ing been transmitted without interruption, and not just the seven or ten of them. We shall explain [later] that the confinement of the readings to the seven occurred in the third century of the hijra (emigration). Before this period, such an op!nion had no exis‌ tence or trace. The logical conclusion of this view is that we should accept the uninter‌ rupted transmission of all readings without any distinction among them, or reject it of all of them on the points where they disagree. Indisputably, the first proposition is in‌ valid, and, therefore, the second proposition is established.
Third, if the seven readings have not been uninterruptedly transmitted, then the Quran cannot be regarded as uninterruptedly transmitted either. Since the conclud‌ ing proposition is invalid, the antecedent is necessarily invalid. That which estab‌ lishes this logical necessity is that the Quran reached us through those who memo‌ rized it as well as through the famous readers. Thus, the Qtiran is uninterruptedly transmitted only if their readings are uninterruptedly transmitted, otherwise not. Therefore, there is no escape from the opinion regarding the uninterrupted transmis‌ sion of the readings themselves.
The response [to this is as follows].

١. [The argument about] the uninterrupted transmission of the Quran [from the Prophet himself] does not necessitate that the same be maintained about the read‌ ings, for the difference of opinion on the style of a word does not negate an agree‌ ment on its original state. It is for this reason that we find that the difference among the transmitters of some words in al-Mutanabbis poetry, for example, is not incon‌ sistent with their being uninterruptedly transmitted from him, or with the fact that he composed them. Similarly, the variations in the particulars about the account of the Prophets hijra does not in any way negate the fact that the reports about the hijra itself have been transmitted without interruption.

٢. What has come down to us from the readers is [that there are] nuances in their readings. The actual Quran, however, has reached us [from the Prophet himself] through uninterrupted transmission among Muslims from generation to generation. Moreover, it was preserved through memorization in their hearts and through writ‌ ing. The readers of the Quran had nothing to do with this [aspect of preservation] at all. It is for this reason that the uninterrupted transmission of the Quran is an estab‌ lished fact even if we assume that the seven, or ten, readers never existed. The great‌ ness of the Quran is far too exalted to depend on that handful of individuals.

Fourth, if the readings are not to be regarded as uninterruptedly transmitted, then the same would apply to some terms of the Quran, likemalik andmalik.Consequently, accepting one of them, rather than the other, as the correct reading would be an unwar‌ ranted arbitrariness. This is the argument that was submitted by Ibn al-ijajib, and a group has subsequently followed him in this.
The response [to this is as follows].

١. According to this argument, one should rule that all the readings are uninter‌
ruptedly transmitted, and that to limit this to the seven would also be an unwarranted