that each of these readers is open to the possibility of error; nor is there any rational or textual justification to follow any reader among them, in particular. Independent reason suggests, and sacred law forbids, following any source other than certain knowledge. We shall elaborate on this point [later].
It is likely that one might say that even if the readings are not uninterruptedly trans‌ mitted, they still are transmitted on the authority of the Prophet. Accordingly, they are included in the category of definitive forms of evidence that establish the authori‌ tativeness of the single narration (khabar al-wal:zid). And once they are included in this category, to then use them as documentary evidence is no longer subject toes‌ tablishing an opinion on the basis of conjecture, through a general recourse to these readings (wurud), or by using them as a basis for legal arbitration (l:zukuma), or for having recourse to any particular one of them (takh:/f$) for judgment.
The response to this is as follows.
First, it is not evident that the readings have been established through transmis‌ sion in order for them to be admitted as one of these forms of evidence [in deriving a legal decision]. They were very possibly established through the personal judg‌ ments of the readers themselves. This possibility is supported by the statements of the leading scholars, presented above, and is further enforced if we take into consid‌ eration that the disagreement of the readers over the reading of the Quran was due to the absence of diacritical points and vocalization marks in the codices that were sent to the provinces.٢٩
Ibn Abi Hashim, according to al-Jazairi, says:

The cause of the differences in the seven readings and others besides them was that the regions to which the Uthmanic codices were sent had in them Companions from whom the people of those regions had received the reading of the Quran. Since the codices lacked diacritical points and vocalization marks, the people in each region, says Ibn Abi Hashim, continued to recite it as they had heard it from the Companions, as long as it agreed with the written text of the Quran. And, that which disagreed with the written text was abandoned. It was, consequently, from here that the differences arose between the readers of the different regions. ٣٠

Al-Zarqani writes:

The scholars of the early period of Islam regarded the pointing and vocalization of the Quran as reprehensible because of their extreme concern to preserve the recital of the Quran in the way it was transcribed in the Uthmanic codices, and because of the fear that introducing [the diacritical points and vocalization] would lead to changes in it.
... However, as you know, times have changed and the Muslims were forced to add diacritical points and vocalize the Quran for this very same reason-that is, to ensure that it was recited in exactly the way it was transcribed, and because of the fear that the lack of diacritical points and vocalization would lead to changes in it.٣١

Second, not all the transmitters of these readings are of established reliability, and for this reason, they do not have the authoritativeness of trustworthy narrators. This has been shown in our biographical sketches of the readers and their transmitters.
Third, even if we concede that all the readings are based on oral transmission [and
not on the personal judgment of the readers], and that all their narrators are known to be reliable, it remains that we generally know that parts of these readings could never