Thread by @shahanSean

Let’s talk abt the famous variant reading of Q. Rūm 30:2 and some misconceptions. The verse simply reads “The Romans are defeated (غلبت الروم|ġulibati r-rūm)”, but another reading is attested, “The Romans conquered (ġalabati r-rūm),” which early MSS theoretically accommodate.

>Example 1 = Chester Beatty Library Is. 1615 I, fol. 4v (Dublin)
>Example 2 = British Library Or 2165, fol. 88v (London)
I say “theoretically” because no early copy of the Qurʾan AFAIK attests to this variant; whereas some early copies 𝑑𝑜 attest to the standard reading.

Put another way: we only have early attestations to the variant reading (𝘨̇𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘢𝘵𝘪 𝘳-𝘳𝘶̄𝘮) from literary sources, not from material evidence. What are these literary sources then? The earliest attestation comes from the 𝘢𝘭-𝘑𝘢̄𝘮𝘪ʿ of ʿAbdallāh ibn Wahb (d. 812),

... a prominent Egyptian student of Mālik ibn Anas. But this attestation is oppositional: it’s a report attributed the Companion Abū l-Dardāʾ who warns a people to come who shall read 𝘨̇𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘢𝘵𝘪 𝘳-𝘳𝘶̄𝘮 [bad] rather than 𝘨̇𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘢𝘵𝘪 𝘳-𝘳𝘶̄𝘮 [good].

After that comes 𝘔𝘢ʿ𝘢̄𝘯𝘪̄ 𝘢𝘭-𝘘𝘶𝘳ʾ𝘢̄𝘯 by al-Farrāʾ (d. 822). He, too, knows the reading 𝘨̇𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘢𝘵𝘪 𝘳-𝘳𝘶̄𝘮. He attributes it to the Companion Ibn ʿUmar, the son of the caliph ʿUmar, but al-Farrāʾ says that his reading contravenes the consensus and exegesis.

Next comes Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭabarī (d. 923), the doyen of classical qurʾanic exegesis. He cites two reports attributing the reading 𝘨̇𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘢𝘵𝘪 𝘳-𝘳𝘶̄𝘮 to two Companions: Ibn ʿUmar and the Anṣārī Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī.

Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī’s tradition is quite interesting. It also appears in the 𝘚𝘶𝘯𝘢𝘯 of al-Tirmidhī (d. 892). He cited the tradition on the authority of Naṣr ibn ʿAlī al-Jahḍamī, a shaykh of al-Bukhārī, and Tirmidhī notes that Naṣr himself read ġalabat when reciting.

Also interesting is how Abū Saʿīd’s tradition places the revelation of the sūrah not in Mecca (as is usual and which corresponds to the Persian advance) but after Badr (i.e., 624, after Heraclius began his counter-offensive in 622). Albani ranks the report ṣaḥīḥ (unexpected).

Lastly, and this is a subtle point often overlooked, what does 𝘨̇𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘢𝘵𝘪 𝘳-𝘳𝘶̄𝘮 mean? Many readers (such as Ṭabarī) understood the verb as a simple perfect, thus necessitating a change in how the following verse is to be read (e.g., sayuġlabūn and not sayaġlibūn).

But this is an inference and not as well-attested as one might expect (in fact, it’s barely attested). Rather, 𝘨̇𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘢𝘵𝘪 𝘳-𝘳𝘶̄𝘮 should probably be translated as “The Romans will conquer [very soon],” in the future tense, as noted by al-Māturīdī (d. 944).

This fits Abū Saʿīd’s tradition well, too, as it places the revelation of the surah well before the Romans’ defeat of the Persians or their recapture of Jerusalem.
On the grammatical justification of this reading, see Wright, II, 2A
archive.org/stream/AGramma…