Chronological Order of the Quran: Complete Table

The Quran is not arranged in the order in which, according to Islamic tradition, Muhammad proclaimed the texts that compose it today. This is the fundamental problem of the chronology of the Quran. The first surah of the current Quran, al-Fātiḥa, does not occupy first place in the main chronologies used on this page: it is fifth in the standard Egyptian sequence and forty-eighth in the Nöldeke–Schwally reconstruction. Q96 al-ʿAlaq, however, is placed first in both.

The order in which we read the 114 suras today is therefore the canonical order of the Quran, not a chronicle of Muhammad’s preaching.

Reconstructing a chronology means trying to establish the sequence in which the various texts can be placed in the preaching attributed to Muhammad: which belong to the earliest phase, which to the later years, which precede or follow the Hijra, and which can be linked to more specific historical episodes.

This question is important because it allows us to follow the evolution of themes, controversies, prescriptions, and the relationship with adversaries and other religious communities. It is also essential to understanding the Islamic doctrine of abrogation, or naskh: if a later provision is to replace a previous one, one must first have a reason to establish which text comes first and which comes after.

The problem is that we do not have a contemporary register that reports, day by day, the succession of Qur’anic texts. The available chronologies are reconstructions based on Islamic traditions, accounts of the so-called “circumstances of revelation,” connections with episodes from Muhammad’s biography, and, in modern research, linguistic, stylistic, compositional, quantitative, and historical criteria.

This limitation has an important consequence. The numerical sequence often presented as the “order of revelation” is not a chronology provided by the Quran itself nor a contemporary record of its preaching. It is the result of traditions and subsequent reconstructions which, as we will see, do not always agree.

Note on terminology. On this page, expressions such as “revelation,” “revealed,” and “order of revelation” are used when describing the terminology and assertions of Islamic sources. Their use does not presuppose as a historical fact that the Quran is of divine origin. On the broader issue of the formation of the text, see also Who wrote the Quran?.

To quickly orient yourself

Sura number ≠ chronological order: Q2 means “second sura in the current Quran,” not “second proclaimed text.”
Mecca and Medina primarily indicate two phases: before and after the Hijrah.
A sura may contain texts attributed to different periods.
87th, 93rd, or 114th are positions within a reconstruction: They are not certified historical dates.
There is no single traditional Islamic list without variants: Muslim sources themselves preserve different sequences.

→ Go directly to the complete table of the 114 surahs

How to Read the Table

The table may seem complex, but a little information is needed to use it.

Q = number of the sura in the current Quran.

Egyptian = position assigned by standard Egyptian chronology.

Phase = Mecca or Medina according to that classification.

N–S = position assigned by Nöldeke–Schwally.

N–S Period = first, second, or third Meccan period, or Medina.

Δ = numerical distance between the two positions. If a sura is 93rd in one system and 25th in the other, Δ is 68.

Critical Note = indicates cases requiring special attention.

Q2 al-BaqaraEgyptian: 87
Phase: Medina
N–S: 91
N–S Period: Medina
Δ: 4

How to read it?The two systems agree on the Medinan phase and differ by four positions. This does not mean that all 286 verses of al-Baqara belong to the same moment, nor that the entire surah historically occupied that precise place in the succession.

Q13 instead shows why Δ should not be confused with reliability: its Δ is just 6, but one system considers it Medinan and the other Meccan. Q1 has a Δ of 43, but both systems consider it Meccan.

Δ measures the distance between two reconstructions, not the degree of historical certainty.

What this table doesn’t say

It does not indicate the exact day or year of each Qur’anic text.
It does not claim that all verses in the same surah are contemporary.
It does not transform Islamic traditions about the circumstances of the “revelation” into contemporary chronicles of the events.
It does not consider numbers like 87, 93 or 114 proven historical dates.
It does not consider two concordant chronologies as two necessarily independent testimonies.
A line without annotations does not mean that every single verse in the surah has been verified and deemed chronologically uniform.
A small Δ does not guarantee high reliability, and a large Δ does not necessarily imply uncertainty about the macro-phase.
The presence of different chronologies does not, in itself, prove a particular theory about the authorship or origin of the Quran; however, it does demonstrate that the exact sequence of texts cannot be treated as uniform and undisputed historical data.

The graphical accuracy of a table should not be confused with the historical accuracy of the data it contains. A number like “87” is exact within a given list; this does not mean that the corresponding historical event can be known with the same precision.

What do “Meccan” and “Medinan” really mean?

A common misunderstanding is that “Meccan” simply means “physically proclaimed in Mecca” and “Medinan” means “physically proclaimed in Medina.”

For a chronological analysis, it is essential to distinguish the geographical location from the historical phase.

On this page:Meccan phase = before the Hijra of 622;
Medina phase = after the Hijra of 622.

After the Hijra, Muhammad also returned to Mecca and stayed in places such as Arafat, Mina, and al-Hudaybiyya. A text attributed to one of these places after 622 does not therefore chronologically become “Meccan” in the sense of pre-Hijra.

An example is Q5:3. A tradition preserved in Sahih al-Bukhari 45 connects him to Arafat during the pilgrimage. The place is not Medina, but the episode belongs to the post-Hijrah period.

Sami A. Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh explicitly raises this issue in his introduction, distinguishing the pre-/post-Hijrah chronological classification from purely geographical indications.

A surah is not necessarily a single chronological text

One of the most important pieces of information for correctly reading any chronology of the Quran is this: A surah should not automatically be imagined as a discourse composed and proclaimed entirely in a single moment.

The page in Tanzil on the traditional order specifies that the chronological position assigned to a surah is established based on its first verses, not necessarily the entire chapter.

Nöldeke–Schwally also repeatedly distinguishes between nuclei, additions, insertions, and blocks attributed to different periods. The problem of the internal structure of the text is also explored in Gray areas of the Qur’anic text: a disordered structure.

SURA → BLOCK OF VERSES → SINGLE VERSE

A dating attributed to one level does not automatically extend to the others.

A sura classified as Medinan as a whole may therefore contain material that a tradition or critical reconstruction considers Meccan. Similarly, a tradition referring to a single verse does not automatically date the entire chapter.

We must distinguish at least three questions:

When is the beginning or core of the surah placed?
When are the various blocks it contains placed?
When did the surah take on the overall form in which we read it?

The three answers do not necessarily have to coincide.

A significant quantitative figure. Aldeeb, describing the classification of Al-Azhar used in his edition, states that of the 86 surahs classified as Meccan, 35 contain verses attributed to the post-Hijrah period. The number refers to that specific classification and should not be transformed into a universally accepted figure: the Tanzil, UNC, and other tables do not always coincide in the delimitation of individual additions. However, it remains a very clear indication of how inappropriate it is to automatically treat a sura classified as Meccan as an entirely pre-Hijrah block.

Compared Chronologies

1. Standard Egyptian Chronology

The first column uses the traditional sequence normally associated with Egyptian standardization and the 1924 Cairo Royal Edition. The mushaf itself remains arranged in canonical order: the chronological succession constitutes a parallel classification.

In this system we have:

86 Meccan suras;
28 Medinan suras.

The order has been verified through Tanzil and Aldeeb’s comparative tools.

2. Nöldeke–Schwally

The second chronology derives from History of the Quran by Theodor Nöldeke, later revised and expanded by Friedrich Schwally, Gotthelf Bergsträßer, and Otto Pretzl.

The system divides the suras into:

48 from the first Meccan period;
21 from the second Meccan period;
21 from the third Meccan period;
24 from Medinan.

The result is 90 Meccan suras and 24 Medinan suras.

For the comparative matrix, the table compiled by Aya Okawa on the academic website of Carl Ernst, University of North Carolina was also used, but subjected to critical scrutiny.

Two systems that agree do not automatically equal two independent witnesses. One reconstruction can use traditions already present in the other. Concordance is an element to be evaluated, not a vote.

Tanzil is not used as a source for the Nöldeke–Schwally sequence. Tanzil describes this reconstruction as relatively close to the traditional sequence, but comparison with the actual Nöldeke–Schwally order reveals numerous substantial shifts. Tanzil is used here for the traditional chronology and for the annotations attributed to al-Zanjānī.

Aldeeb, Blachère, and other chronologies

Sami A. Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh has published the Quran in chronological order and provides a particularly useful comparative table. His edition, however, claims to follow the main sequence of al-Azhar.

Aldeeb therefore does not constitute a third independent reconstruction that “confirms” Egyptian chronology: it is above all an important tool for presenting, comparing, and annotating that system.

Aldeeb also compares al-Azhar with Nöldeke and Régis Blachère.

Blachère developed his own reclassification of the corpus and therefore represents another important modern reconstruction.

We did not add Blachère as an additional column to the main table because consulting 114 rows would be significantly more difficult, especially on smartphones. However, its sequence remains documented in the sources.

The research did not stop with Nöldeke

Nöldeke–Schwally remains a fundamental reference, but it does not represent the definitive conclusion of studies on Quranic chronology.

Subsequent research employed linguistic, stylistic, rhetorical, compositional, quantitative, and historical criteria, also focusing on the chronology internal of the suras.

Behnam Sadeghi, in his 2011 study The Chronology of the Qur’ān: A Stylometric Research Program , developed a systematic program of stylometric analysis.

Nicolai Sinai examined this issue in depth in his book The Qur’an: A Historical-Critical Introduction and in the chapter Inner-Qur’anic Chronology.

In 2026 R. K. Farrin, in the chapter Stylometry and the Refinement of a Qur’anic Timeline, further developed this quantitative line, discussing, among other things, the average length of verses and the effect of different traditional counting systems.

For a general overview, Gerhard Böwering, “Chronology and the Qurʾān”, in the Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān.

These works do not transform chronology into an exact science. They show that the succession and stratification of Qurʾānic texts remain open research problems.

Levels of Confidence

HIGH The main evidence strongly converges on the specific question. This does not mean absolute certainty.

AVERAGE The reconstruction is plausible and has significant elements, but serious alternatives remain.

LOW There are clues, traditions, or reconstructions, but not enough for a robust conclusion.

INDETERMINABLE The available evidence does not allow a responsible choice between competing alternatives.

These levels are used primarily in cases subject to specific verification. We do not automatically assign “HIGH” to all surahs simply because two systems agree.

The same surah can have:

Macro-phase Medina: HIGH
Exact numerical position: LOW.

How we worked

We do not average different chronologies.
We do not construct a new “Islamicized chronology.”
Macro-phase, sub-phase, numerical order, internal block, and individual verses are kept distinct.
A tradition referring to a single verse does not automatically extend to the entire sura.
A connection to a historical event can help place that passage, not necessarily the entire chapter.
Islamic traditions are presented as traditions, not automatically as contemporary chronicles.
Historical-critical reconstructions are attributed to the scholars who formulate them.
When sources diverge, we preserve the divergence.
The accuracy of a number within a list does not equate to historical certainty.
A list attributed to an ancient figure is not automatically treated as a document personally produced by that figure.

Divergence, incompatibility, and contradiction are not synonymous. We use “divergence” when two systems propose different reconstructions. We speak of “incompatible” or “contradictory” traditions only when two statements answer the same question in ways that cannot be simultaneously true in the same sense. A difference between Egyptian and Nöldeke chronology, for example, is not an “internal contradiction in Islam”; two Islamic traditions that attribute the same chronological primacy to different texts instead constitute competing testimonies that require explanation.

Quran Chronology: Complete Comparison of the 114 Surahs

Quick Key: Eg. = position in standard Egyptian chronology; N–S = position in Nöldeke–Schwally; Δ = numerical distance between the two positions.

On smartphones: Each surah is displayed as a vertical card, avoiding a table that is too wide to drag sideways.

The 114 Suras: Standard Egyptian Chronology and Nöldeke–Schwally
Q	Surah	Egyptian	Phase	N–S	N–S Period	Δ	Critical Note
1	al-Fātiḥa	5	Mecca	48	Mecca	43	Strong divergence in position
2	al-Baqara	87	Medina	91	Medina	4	Solid macrophase; strong internal complexity
3	Al ʿImrān	89	Medina	97	Medina	8	—
4	al-Nisāʾ	92	Medina	100	Medina	8	—
5	al-Māʾida	112	Medina	114	Medina	2	Late Medina; Controversial status of “last sura”
6	al-Anʿām	55	Mecca	89	III Mecca	34	Sources also differ on Q6:141
7	al-Aʿrāf	39	Mecca	87	III Mecca	48	I discard a lot ample
8	al-Anfāl	88	Medina	95	Medina	7	—
9	al-Tawba	113	Medina	113	Medina	0	Between The final texts
10	Yūnus	51	Mecca	84	III Mecca	33	Sources differ on internal additions
11	Hūd	52	Mecca	75	III Mecca	23	—
12	Yūsuf	53	Mecca	77	III Mecca	24	—
13	al-Raʿd	96	Medina	90	III Mecca	6	Macrophase controversial
14	Ibrāhīm	72	Mecca	76	III Mecca	4	—
15	al-Ḥijr	54	Mecca	57	II Mecca	3	—
16	al-Naḥl	70	Mecca	73	III Mecca	3	—
17	al-Isrāʾ	50	Mecca	67	II Mecca	17	—
18	al-Kahf	69	Mecca	69	II Mecca	0	Same location numerical
19	Maryam	44	Mecca	58	II Mecca	14	—
20	Ṭā Hā	45	Mecca	55	II Mecca	10	—
21	al-Anbiyāʾ	73	Mecca	65	II Mecca	8	—
22	al-Hajj	103	Medina	107	Medina	4	Particularly complex internal composition
23	al-Mu’minūn	74	Mecca	64	II Mecca	10	—
24	al-Nūr	102	Medina	105	M edina	3	—
25	al-Furqān	42	Mecca	66	II Mecca	24	—
26	al-Shuʿarāʾ	47	Mecca	56	II Mecca	9	—
27	al-Naml	48	Mecca	68	II Mecca	20	—
28	al-Qaṣaṣ	49	Mecca	79	III Mecca	30	—
29	al-ʿAnkabūt	85	Mecca	81	III Mecca	4	—
30	al-Rūm	84	Mecca	74	III Mecca	10	—
31	Luqmān	57	Mecca	82	III Mecca	25	—
32	al-Sajda	75	Mecca	70	III Mecca	5	—
33	al-Aḥzāb	90	Medina	103	Medina	13	—
34	Sabaʾ	58	Mecca	85	III Mecca	27	Sources diverge on Q34:6
35	Fāṭir	43	Mecca	86	III Mecca	43	Very wide discrepancy
36	Yā Yes	41	Mecca	60	II Mecca	19	—
37	al-Ṣāffāt	56	Mecca	50	II Mecca	6	—
38	Ṣād	38	Mecca	59	II Mecca	21	—
39	al-Zumar	59	Mecca	80	III Mecca	21	Sources differ on the additions internal
40	Ghāfir	60	Mecca	78	III Mecca	18	—
41	Fuṣṣilat	61	Mecca	71	III Mecca	10	—
42	al-Shura	62	Mecca	83	III Mecca	21	Sources differ on the additions internal
43	al-Zukhruf	63	Mecca	61	II Mecca	2	—
44	al-Dukhān	64	Mecca	53	II Mecca	11	—
45	al-Jāthiya	65	Mecca	72	III Mecca	7	Aldeeb: 4; Tanzil/UNC: 14
46	al-Aḥqāf	66	Mecca	88	III Mecca	22	Tanzil: 10,15,35; UNC: 1,15,35
47	Muhammad	95	Medina	96	Medina	1	—
48	al-Fatḥ	111	Medina	108	Medina	3	Traditionally linked to al-Ḥudaybiyya
49	al-Ḥujurāt	106	Medina	112	Medina	6	—
50	Qāf	34	Mecca	54	II Mecca	20	—
51	al-Dhāriyāt	67	Mecca	39	THE Mecca	28	—
52	al-Ṭūr	76	Mecca	40	THE Mecca	36	—
53	al-Najm	23	Mecca	28	I Mecca	5	—
54	al-Qamar	37	Mecca	49	II Mecca	12	—
55	al-Raḥmān	97	Medina	43	I Mecca	54	Macrophase controversial
56	al-Wāqiʿa	46	Mecca	41	I Mecca	5	—
57	al-Ḥadīd	94	Medina	99	Medina	5	—
58	al-Mujādila	105	Medina	106	Medina	1	—
59	al-Ḥashr	101	Medina	102	Medina	1	—
60	al-Mumtaḥana	91	Medina	110	Medina	19	—
61	al-Ṣaff	109	Medina	98	Medina	11	—
62	al-Jumuʿa	110	]] Medina	94	Medina	16	—
63	al-Munafiqūn	104	Medina	104	Medina	0	Same location Numerical
64	al-Taghābun	108	Medina	93	Medina	15	—
65	al-Talaq	99	Medi na	101	Medina	2	—
66	al-Taḥrīm	107	Medina	109	Medina	2	—
67	al-Mulk	77	Mecca	63	II Mecca	14	—
68	al-Qalam	2	Mecca	18	THE Mecca	16	Heavily debated internal stratification
69	al-Haqqa	78	Mecca	38	I Mecca	40	—
70	al-Maʿārij	79	Mecca	42	THE Mecca	37	—
71	Nūḥ	71	Mecca	51	II Mecca	20	—
72	al-Jinn	40	Mecca	62	II Mecca	22	—
73	al-Muzzammil	3	Mecca	23	Mecca	20	—
74	al-Muddaththir	4	Mecca	2	Mecca	2	Competing Tradition for Primacy Chronological
75	al-Qiyāma	31	Mecca	36	I Mecca	5	—
76	al-Insān	98	Medina	52	II Mecca	46	Controversial Macrophase
77	al-Mursalāt	33	Mecca	32	I Mecca	1	—
78	al-Nabaʾ	80	Mecca	33	THE Mecca	47	—
79	al-Nāziʿāt	81	Mecca	31	THE Mecca	50	—
80	ʿAbasa	24	Mecca	17	THE Mecca	7	—
81	al-Takwīr	7	Mecca	27	THE Mecca	20	—
82	al-Infiṭār	82	Mecca	26	THE Mecca	56	—
83	al-Muṭaffifīn	86	Mecca	37	THE Mecca	49	—
84	al-Inshiqāq	83	Mecca	29	THE Mecca	54	—
85	al-Burūj	27	Mecca	22	THE Mecca	5	—
86	al-Ṭāriq	36	Mecca	15	THE Mecca	21	—
87	al-Aʿlā	8	Mecca	19	THE Mecca	11	—
88	al-Ghāshiya	68	Mecca	34	THE Mecca	34	—
89	al-Fajr	10	Mecca	35	THE Mecca	25	—
90	al-Balad	35	Mecca	11	THE Mecca	24	—
91	al-Shams	26	Mecca	16	THE Mecca	10	—
92	al-Layl	9	Mecca	10	THE Mecca	1	—
93	al-Ḍuḥā	11	Mecca	13	I Mecca	2	Fixed material error in the matrix UNC
94	al-Sharḥ	12	Mecca	12	I Mecca	0	Correct Egyptian value
95	al-Tīn	28	Mecca	20	I Mecca	8	—
96	al-ʿAlaq	1	Mecca	1	I Mecca	0	First in both systems of table
97	al-Qadr	25	Mecca	14	I Mecca	11	—
98	al-Bayyina	100	Medina	92	Medina	8	—
99	al-Zalzala	93	Medina	25	I Mecca	68	Controversial macrophase; Maximum deviation
100	al-Adiyah	14	Mecca	30	I Mecca	16	—
101	al-Qariʿa	30	Mecca	24	I Mecca	6	—
102	al-Takāthur	16	Mecca	8	THE Mecca	8	—
103	al-ʿAṣr	13	Mecca	21	THE Mecca	8	—
104	al-Humaza	32	Mecca	6	THE Mecca	26	—
105	al-Fīl	19	Mecca	9	THE Mecca	10	—
106	Quraysh	29	Mecca	4	THE Mecca	25	—
107	al-Ma’un	17	Mecca	7	I Mecca	10	Tradition distinguishes 1-3 and 4-7
108	al-Kawthar	15	Mecca	5	THE Mecca	10	—
109	al-Kāfirūn	18	Mecca	45	THE Mecca	27	—
110	al-Nasr	114	Medina	111	Medina	3	Traditional candidate for the last surah
111	al-Masad	6	Mecca	3	I Mecca	3	—
112	al-Ikhlāṣ	22	Mecca	44	THE Mecca	22	—
113	al-Falaq	20	Mecca	46	THE Mecca	26	—
114	al-Nās	21	Mecca	47	I Mecca	26	—

Origin of the matrix: standard Egyptian chronology checked through Tanzil/al-Zanjānī and Aldeeb; Nöldeke–Schwally using the UNC matrix and the structure of the History of the Qorāns. Matrix corrections, classification of discrepancies, and calculation of Δ: Islamicamentando.

Material error in the UNC matrix. The UNC table attributes E9 to both Q92 and Q93 and continues with E11 for Q94. The complete Egyptian sequence instead requires Q92 = 9, Q89 = 10, Q93 = 11, and Q94 = 12. These are the values used here.

How much do the two systems really differ?

On the general distinction Mecca/Medina, Egyptian chronology and Nöldeke–Schwally agree on 110 out of 114 suras.

The four divergences are Q13, Q55, Q76, and Q99.

The situation changes dramatically when we move to the exact numerical position:

43 sures differ by at least 20 positions;
18 surahs differ by at least 30;
12 surahs differ by at least 40.

The major discrepancies are:

Q99 al-Zalzala: Δ68;
Q82 al-Infiṭār: Δ56;
Q55 al-Raḥmān: Δ54;
Q84 al-Inshiqāq: Δ54;
Q79 al-Nāziʿāt: Δ50;
Q83 al-Muṭaffifīn: Δ49;
Q7 al-Aʿrāf: Δ48;
Q78 al-Nabaʾ: Δ47;
Q76 al-Insān: Δ46;
Q1 al-Fātiḥa: Δ43;
Q35 Fāṭir: Δ43;
Q69 al-Ḥāqqa: Δ40.

These numbers diminish the impression of precision produced by a list numbered from 1 to 114. Two reconstructions can agree in calling a sura “Mekkan” and yet place it dozens of places apart. Agreement on the macrophase is therefore not equivalent to precise knowledge of its place in the sequence.

Saying that a sura is “Mekkan” is one thing; Placing it exactly at 82nd in a reconstructed chronological sequence is a much more precise and often much less certain statement.

There is no single traditional Islamic chronology.

After seeing how divergent the reconstructions are, an even more significant problem must be addressed: people often speak of the “traditional order of revelation” as if Islamic tradition had transmitted a single sequence of suras. Muslim sources, however, reveal a more complex situation.

Al-Shahrastānī, in his Mafātīḥ al-asrār wa-maṣābīḥ al-abrār, specifically devotes a section to divergences among the transmitters in the order of descent of the suras. He recalls different traditions attributed, directly or through successive chains, to multiple authorities.

Al-Shahrastānī’s formulation can be consulted directly here.

The consequence is not marginal. The formula “traditional order of revelation” may suggest the existence of a single succession preserved by the early Islamic community. The sources examined instead demonstrate a plurality of arrangements, attributions, and transmissions. The Egyptian chronology most widely used today therefore constitutes a modern standardization placed within an already plural chronological tradition; it cannot simply be identified with the undisputed preservation of a single original calendar of proclamations.

Jabir ibn Zayd: Two Forms of the Same Attribution

A particularly instructive case concerns Jabir ibn Zayd.

Abū ʿAmr al-Dānī preserves a succession attributed to Jābir which begins:

Q96 al-ʿAlaq → Q68 al-Qalam → Q73 al-Muzzammil → Q74 al-Muddaththir → Q111 al-Masad…

In this form of the transmission al-Fātiḥa does not appear after al-Muddaththir.

Al-Suyūṭī, on the other hand, preserves a succession also attributed to Jābir in which the beginning includes:

Q96 al-ʿAlaq → Q68 al-Qalam → Q73 al-Muzzammil → Q74 al-Muddaththir → Q1 al-Fātiḥa → Q111 al-Masad…

Al-Suyūṭī himself, after reporting that succession, observes that the sequence presents unusual aspects and that its ordering is subject to discussion.

It does not follow that Jābir personally “excluded al-Fātiḥa”. The documented data is more precise and more interesting: Subsequent traditions attributed to the same ancient figure have survived in different forms. This further reduces the possibility of treating every list attributed to an ancient authority as an intact photograph of an original calendar.

ʿIkrima and al-Hasan al-Baṣrī

Majmaʿ al-Bayān of al-Tabrisī preserves a succession attributed to ʿIkrima and al-Hasan b. Abī al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī. The sequence also begins with Q96, Q68, Q73, and Q74.

However, the same work also preserves a different sequence attributed to Ali.

The tradition attributed to Ali

In the sequence attributed to Ali through Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab, preserved in Majmaʿ al-Bayān, al-Fātiḥa occupies first place, followed by Q96 al-ʿAlaq and Q68 al-Qalam.

The source can be consulted in the digital edition of Majmaʿ al-Bayān.

The divergence therefore concerns the very first positions of the sequence, not just marginal details of the later phases.

The list attributed to Ja’far al-Ṣādiq

A chronological tradition is also attributed to Ja’far ibn Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq. Al-Zanjānī reproduces it under the title relating to the order of the surahs in the so-called muṣḥaf of Imam Abū ʿAbd Allāh.

The published form contains 113 positions, begins Q96, Q68, Q73, Q74, Q111, and does not include al-Fātiḥa. The sequence can be consulted in the digital edition of Tārīkh al-Qurʾān by al-Zanjānī.

The heading should not be interpreted too literally. We do not possess a material code of Ja’far al-Sadiq that allows us to directly verify this succession. We do possess a tradition later attributed to Ja’far. The distinction is essential.

Ja’far and the alleged order of Ali

Yūsuf Durra al-Haddād essentially links the succession attributed to Ja’far to that of an alleged muṣḥaf of Ali. This identification, however, should not automatically be transformed into a historical fact.

The tradition attributed to Ali preserved in Majma’ al-Bayān indeed begins with al-Fātiḥa, Q96 and Q68, while the succession attributed to Ja’far begins Q96, Q68, Q73 and Q74.

al-Haddād proposes a connection between the two successions; however, the sources directly controlled do not allow for an unequivocal identification.

The seven ordinances compared by Darwaza

Muḥammad ʿIzzat Darwaza offers another significant testimony to plurality. In the introduction to his al-Tafsīr al-ḥadīth recalls four arrangements reported by al-Suyūṭī and compares them with three others:

the sequence reported by al-Khāzin;
the one stored in Majmaʿ al-Bayān;
that reported in the headings of a modern Egyptian muṣḥaf published with the authorization of the competent Egyptian authorities.

Darwaza then speaks of seven arrangements and recognizes differences among them in the relative order of the suras.

It is therefore incorrect to translate this information into the expression “seven classical Muslim sources.” One of the seven is in fact a modern arrangement, and several lists are known through later compilations.

The case of the column called “Muṣḥaf ʿUthmānī”

Further scrutiny was needed on the large table of Yusuf Durra al-Haddād, which includes a column headed al-Muṣḥaf al-ʿUthmānī. Read in isolation, the expression may suggest the existence of a true “Chronology of Uthmān.”

The source cited by al-Haddād, however, is ʿAbd al-Mutaʿāl al-Ṣaʿīdī, al-Naẓm al-fannī fī al-Qurʾān, a work which distinguishes the order of the muṣḥaf and the indications on the chronology of the descent.

The muṣḥaf ʿuthmānī is precisely the reference to the canonical order, which does not coincide with the chronological order.

For this reason, we do not consider al-Haddād’s column an independent “ʿUthmanic chronology.” It is a concrete example of the need to go back to the immediate source before transforming the heading of a modern table into an ancient testimony.

Which text is considered the first?

The uncertainty does not concern only the final part of the chronology. It already appears when the question arises which text should be considered the first.

The Tradition of ʿAʾisha: Q96 al-ʿAlaq

The famous tale attributed to ʿAʾisha and preserved in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhari 3 connects the initial episode of Ḥirāʾ to the words now found at the beginning of Q96:1-5.

This tradition is the basis for the widespread identification of al-ʿAlaq with the beginning of the Qur’anic proclamation.

The tradition of Jabir: Q74 al-Muddaththir

Bukhari, however, also preserves a different tradition. In Sahih al-Bukhari 4922 and 4924, when asked which surah was proclaimed first, al-Muddaththir, Q74, not Q96.

The narrative connects the episode to the opening words of Q74.

Muslim scholars have attempted to harmonize these traditions by distinguishing, for example, between the first text ever, the first proclamation after a pause, the first complete surah, or the first public preaching command.

Muslim literature also records additional opinions, including the priority of al-Fātiḥa.

The divergence is significant. The preserved traditions do not uniformly formulate the chronological primacy: Bukhari preserves both the account of ʿAʾisha associated with Q96 and a tradition of Jābir who, when asked about the first text, indicates Q74. To obtain a clear sequence, it is therefore necessary to choose between competing traditions or interpret them as referring to different meanings of “first.”

How to read the annotations on individual verses

The internal annotations belong to at least three different categories.

1. Passages attributed to the opposite phase

A tradition may classify a surah as a whole as Meccan and attribute some verses to Medina, or vice versa.

2. Indications of place or circumstance

A source may link a passage to Mina, Arafat, al-Hudaybiyya, or the Hijrah. This does not automatically equate to a new classification of the entire surah.

3. Stratifications proposed by critics

Nöldeke–Schwally and other scholars can distinguish cores and additions based on structure, style, and content. These reconstructions should not be confused with Islamic traditions.

The annotations reported by Tanzil/al-Zanjānī

The following list documents what Tanzil presents as detailed information from al-Zanjānī. Reporting them means documenting that tradition, not automatically certifying its historicity.

Q68: 17-33 and 48-50 from Medina.
Q73: 10, 11 and 20 from Medina.
Q107: 1-3 from Mecca; 4-7 from Medina.
Q53: 32 from Medina.
Q77: 48 from Medina.
Q50: 38 from Medina.
Q54: 44-46 from Medina.
Q7: 163-170 from Medina.
Q36: 45 from Medina.
Q25: 68-70 from Medina.
Q19: 58 and 71 from Medina.
Q20: 130-131 from Medina.
Q56: 81-82 from Medina.
Q26: 197 and 224-227 from Medina.
Q28: 52-55 from Medina; 85 connected to Juhfa during the Hegira.
Q17: 26, 32-33, 57 and 73-80 from Medina.
Q10: 40 and 94-96 from Medina.
Q11: 12, 17 and 114 from Medina.
Q12: 1-3 and 7 from Medina.
Q15: 87 from Medina.
Q6: 20, 23, 91, 93, 114 and 151-153 from Medina.
Q31: 27-29 from Medina.
Q40: 56-57 from Medina.
Q42: 23-25 and 27 from Medina.
Q43: 54 from Medina.
Q45: 14 from Medina.
Q46: 10, 15 and 35 from Medina.
Q18: 28 and 83-101 from Medina.
Q16: 126-128 from Medina.
Q14: 28-29 from Medina.
Q32: 16-20 from Medina.
Q30: 17 from Medina.
Q29: 1-11 from Medina.
Q2: 281 linked to Mina during the last pilgrimage.
Q8: 30-36 indicated from Mecca.
Q47: 13 linked to the Hijrah.
Q22: 52-55 indicated as proclaimed “between Mecca and Medina”.
Q48: connected to the return from al-Hudaybiyya.
Q5: Q5:3 connected to Arafat during the last pilgrimage.
Q9: the last two verses indicated from Mecca.
Q110: connected to Mina during the last pilgrimage, despite being classified as Medinan.

When Sources Disagree

Direct comparison shows that even modern reproductions of traditional classifications do not always agree in demarcating passages considered to belong to another phase.

A necessary caution. A difference in verse number does not, by itself, prove that two sources assign different chronologies to the same textual segment: the effect of different verse numbering systems must first be ruled out. The following discrepancies are therefore recorded first as divergences between the consulted repertoires; When textual correspondence has not been established with certainty, they are not automatically transformed into substantial contradictions.

Q6: UNC also includes Q6:141 among the Medinan additions; Tanzil/al-Zanjānī does not.
Q10: Tanzil lists Q10:40 and 94-96; UNC lists Q10:46 and 94-96.
Q34: UNC reports Q34:6; Tanzil does not report it.
Q39: UNC reports Q39:52-54; Tanzil does not include them.
Q42: Tanzil reports 23-25 and 27; UNC presents 42-45 and 27.
Q45: Aldeeb presents verse 4; Tanzil and UNC indicate 14.
Q46: Tanzil indicates 10, 15 and 35; UNC presents 1, 15 and 35.
Q68: Tanzil and UNC limit a second Medinan section to 48-50; Aldeeb extends it to 48-52.
Q93-Q94: UNC contains a material error in the Egyptian numbering of the suras.

This is a second level of uncertainty. Not only do different chronologies exist: modern repertoires that intend to reproduce previous traditions or classifications may also convey different delimitations of individual passages. Therefore, each exception must be accompanied by the source that proposes it.

The Four Divergences Between Mecca and Medina

Q13 al-Ra’ad

Egyptian: 96, Medina.
Nöldeke–Schwally: 90, Third Mecca.

Q55 al-Raḥmān

Egyptian: 97, Medina.
Nöldeke–Schwally: 43, I Mecca.

Q76 al-Insān

Egyptian: 98, Medina.
Nöldeke–Schwally: 52, II Mecca.

Q99 al-Zalzala

Egyptian: 93, Medina.
Nöldeke–Schwally: 25, I Mecca.

Q99 also presents the greatest numerical deviation in the matrix: 68 positions.

Here the divergence is not simply a detail. For these four suras, the two systems do not simply argue over whether a text should be placed, for example, at 90th or 96th: they place it on opposite sides of the Hegira divide. This is a qualitatively more significant divergence than a simple numerical shift.

Case studies: Q2, Q5, Q22, and Q68

Q2 al-Baqara: solid macrophase, much more complex internal chronology

Egyptian: 87.
Nöldeke–Schwally: 91.
Madinah macrophase: ALTA.
Start/core in early Medina: AVERAGE.
Exact numerical position of the entire sura: LOW.
Single date for all 286 verses: LOW.
Stratification: Highly plausible; precise chronological delimitation of the individual layers is uncertain.

The UNC matrix indicates in the Nöldeke–Schwally column possible Meccan insertions at Q2:163-171 and, with doubtful boundaries, around Q2:200-202 and Q2:204-207.

The “Medina” classification therefore describes the general placement of the sura within the system; it does not guarantee the chronological homogeneity of its 286 verses.

Saying that al-Baqarah occupies the 87th position in the Egyptian order does not mean that all 286 of its verses belong to the same moment, nor that the entire sura historically occupied that precise point in the succession.

See also Surah 2:75-140 and Surah 2:141-210.

Q5 al-Ma’ida: certainly late, but 112th or last?

Egyptian: 112.
Nöldeke–Schwally: 114.
Macro-phase Medina: HIGH.
General location in late Medina: HIGH.
Exact numerical position: LOW.
Being precisely the last sura: INDETERMINABLE.

Bukhari 45 connects Q5:3 to Arafat during the final pilgrimage. This is an important indicator for that verse, not an automatic dating of all 120 verses of the surah.

The Nöldeke–Schwally matrix classifies Q5 as last in its sequence, but notes that parts of the surah may be earlier. Here, too, the position of the surah and the chronology of its contents do not necessarily coincide.

Q22 al-Ḥajj: Medinan sura with large blocks considered Meccan

Egyptian: 103.
Nöldeke–Schwally: 107.
Macrophase Medina: HIGH.
Union date of the entire sura: LOW.

Nöldeke–Schwally considers Meccan insertions:

Q22:1-24;
Q22:43-55;
Q22:59-64;
Q22:66-74.

Tanzil/al-Zanjānī, on the other hand, preserves a tradition for Q22:52-55 that places them “between Mecca and Medina.”

Q22 shows why “a surah from Medina” is not the same as “every verse is from Medina.”

See Blogging the Quran: Sura 22 al-Hajj, “The Pilgrimage”.

Q68 al-Qalam: same macro-phase, internal history reconstructed in opposite ways

Egyptian: 2.
Nöldeke–Schwally: 18.
Meccan macro-phase: HIGH.
Precise reconstruction of the layers: LOW.

In the Egyptian column of the UNC matrix:

Q68:17-33 = Medinan addition;
Q68:34-47 = Meccan material;
Q68:48-50 = Medinan addition;
Q68:51-52 = Meccan material.

In the Nöldeke–Schwally reconstruction, however, the same blocks are treated as additions or sections within the Meccan phase.

Aldeeb also extends the second section traditionally considered Medinan to Q68:48-52.

Q68 shows a limitation that a simple “Mecca/Medina” table tends to hide: Two systems can agree on defining a surah as Meccan in its entirety and yet profoundly disagree on the chronology of its component blocks.

Which is considered the last surah?

The Egyptian chronology ends:

112 – Q5 al-Ma’ida;
113 – Q9 al-Tawba;
114 – Q110 al-Naṣr.

Nöldeke–Schwally instead places Q110 at number 111, Q9 at 113, and Q5 at 114.

Plurality also appears in Islamic sources. Tirmidhī 3063 preserves traditions involving both al-Māʾida and al-Naṣr; Tirmidhī 3086 presents al-Tawba/Baraʾa among the last proclamations.

There are also traditions regarding the last verse, which answer a different question: Tirmidhī 3041 for example, retains the attribution of this status to Q4:176.

The divergences therefore concern both ends of the chronology. The traditions do not allow us to identify either a single “first text” or a single “last sura” without further qualification. A modern succession presented as a list numbered from 1 to 114 therefore possesses a formal precision that the traditions themselves do not always maintain.

As with the first text, the “last sura” also requires clarification: according to which tradition, according to which system, and according to which definition?

Why chronology is important for abrogation

In the Islamic doctrine of naskh, a later provision can replace or supersede a previous one. Islamicamentando examined this issue in its study of conflicts between sources and the institution of abrogation. For the legal framework of the various verses, see also the Analytical Legal Table of the Qur’an.

If B abrogates A because B is later, a reason must be present to maintain that B actually comes after A.

Muslim jurists, of course, did not have the modern Nöldeke–Schwally chronology at their disposal. They relied on hadith, traditions on the circumstances of the “revelation,” opinions attributed to the Companions, and other criteria.

Chronological uncertainty here acquires a concrete doctrinal and legal consequence. If the prevalence of one norm is justified by arguing that it is subsequent to another, the relative order of the texts is no longer a simple historical detail: it becomes a premise of the argument. The more uncertain or controversial that succession, the greater caution must be exercised in presenting the abrogation as a chronologically evident consequence.

This does not mean that every case of naskh depends on the numerical position of the sura in the table. Jurists can rely on specific traditions regarding two passages. It does, however, mean that a conclusion based on posteriority must demonstrate that posteriority, not presuppose it simply because a text appears later in one of the conventional chronologies.

Technical Appendix: Internal Layers in the Nöldeke–Schwally Matrix

The main table cannot contain all the proposed internal layers without becoming unreadable. However, the UNC matrix records numerous passages to which the Nöldeke–Schwally column assigns a different status from the main core of the sura.

Open the extended repertoire of layers

Warning: This list reproduces and makes readable the indications of the UNC matrix. This does not mean that Islamicamentando considers each delimitation proven.

Q2: 163-171; approximately 200-202; approximately 204-207 – possible Meccan insertions in the Medinan sura.
Q6: 91-94 – proposed Medinan additions within the Meccan core.
Q7: about 157-158 – proposed Medina addition.
Q14: 35-39 – proposed Medina addition.
Q16: about 41-42 – proposed Medina addition.
Q22: 1-24; 43-55; 59-64; 66-74 – large Meccan insertions in the overall Medinan sura.
Q29: 1-11 and, doubtfully, 45 and 60 – proposed Medinan additions.
Q31: 11-18 and 25-28 – Medinan additions in the reconstruction reported by the matrix.
Q51: 24-60 – additions to Meccan material, with a dating not further specified by the matrix.
Q52: 21 and 29-49 – Meccan additions to the Meccan core.
Q53: 23 and 26-32 – internal additions to Meccan material; the matrix does not provide a more precise dating.
Q55: 8-9 and part of 33 – additions to the Meccan core in the Nöldeke reconstruction, despite the overall Egyptian classification as Medinese.
Q56: 75-95 – section considered an addition to Meccan material.
Q68: 17-33, 34-47, 48-50 and 51-52 – distinct blocks, but all within the Meccan phase in the Nöldeke reconstruction.
Q73: 20 – Medina addition to a Meccan surah.
Q74: 31 – proposed Medina addition.
Q75: 16-19 – internal addition to Meccan material.
Q79: 27-46 – Meccan addition to Meccan material.
Q84: 25 – internal addition.
Q96: 9-19 – Meccan addition to the initial core.
Q103: 3 – proposed internal addition.

The presence of these annotations makes it clear why a chronology of suras cannot automatically be transformed into a chronology of all verses.

Technical Appendix: Verse numbering can also vary

When comparing different studies, a further problem must be kept in mind: Not all traditions count verses in the same way.

Traditional schools of counting may divide the same text into different verse units. This does not normally involve adding or deleting words from the text: it changes the point at which a given unit is considered complete.

Aldeeb points out that the numbering of the Al-Azhar edition he uses differs both from some North African editions and from the numbering proposed by Gustav Flügel in the nineteenth century and long used by various orientalists; in some places, the gap can accumulate to multiple verse numbers.

The issue remains relevant even in contemporary quantitative studies: Farrin, for example, discusses the effect of choosing between the conventional Kufan counting system and the Medina I on the analysis of average verse length.

Practical consequence: When two studies indicate slightly different verse numbers, one should not immediately conclude that one of the two is quoting a different text. First, one should check which numbering system is used.

What can we conclude?

The overall picture allows for some fairly clear conclusions.

The canonical order of the Quran does not coincide with a chronology of proclamations. The chronological succession must be reconstructed through later sources and different criteria.

The general Mecca/Medina distinction is much more stable than the exact numerical position. Egiziana and Nöldeke–Schwally agree on the macrophase for 110 of 114 suras, but dozens of suras are shifted by twenty, thirty, forty, or more positions.

Nor does the Islamic tradition maintain a completely uniform sequence. Al-Shahrastānī explicitly documents the divergences among the transmitters; Darwaza compares seven non-coinciding orders; traditions attributed to the same person may be preserved in different forms.

The divergences appear at the beginning and end of the sequence. The preserved traditions do not uniformly formulate the chronological primacy: Bukhari associates the initial narrative of ʿAʾisha with Q96 but also preserves a tradition from Jabir who, when asked about the first text, indicates Q74. Q5, Q9, and Q110, however, intervene in discussions regarding the last proclamations. Even “last surah” and “last verse” are not the same question.

A surah is not necessarily a single chronological unit. Q2 and Q22 show that a sura generally considered to be from Medina can be reconstructed as containing older material; Q68 shows that two systems can agree on the general macro-phase and disagree on the chronology of entire internal blocks.

Modern reproductions of the traditions themselves do not always coincide. Q6, Q10, Q34, Q39, Q42, Q45, Q46, and Q68 offer concrete cases in which the boundaries or indications reported vary, although the differences in numbering must be verified before being interpreted as substantial textual divergences.

Nor is the numbering of verses a completely uniform editorial feature throughout the history of scholarship.

All this does not automatically establish a specific theory of the Qur’an’s genesis. However, it demonstrates something more limited and documentable: The detailed chronology of the Qur’anic text is not a simple, original, and unanimously preserved fact.

A critical chronology must not simply provide a number. It must explain who proposes it, from which tradition it derives, according to which criteria it was constructed, to what level of the text it refers, and how much we can really trust the accuracy it appears to offer.

This conclusion takes on particular weight when chronology is used to support theological or juridical consequences. In the case of abrogation, for example, establishing that a text is later is not an accessory detail: it can become the necessary premise for arguing that one provision replaced another.

The correct answer is therefore neither “we know the sequence of the 114 suras perfectly” nor “we know nothing.” We possess reconstructions of differing value, important convergences, competing traditions, substantial divergences, and numerous cases in which the precision of the tables exceeds the precision of our historical knowledge.

The graphical precision of a table should not be mistaken for historical precision.

This page does not propose a supposedly “true Islamic chronology.” Instead, it offers tools to understand what the existing chronologies mean, where they come from, where they agree, where they diverge, what incompatibilities emerge in the traditions, and what limitations the available reconstructions have. Other methodological and documentary resources are collected in the Islamamentando Resource Center.

Sources

Tanzil – Revelation Order: traditional sequence, annotations derived from al-Zanjānī, and clarification that the order of the surah depends on its first verses.
Carl Ernst / University of North Carolina – Chronology of Qur’anic Suras in standard order, compiled by Aya Okawa.
Theodor Nöldeke, Friedrich Schwally, Gotthelf Bergsträßer, Otto Pretzl, The History of the Qurʾān.
Theodor Nöldeke, Geschichte des Qorāns.
Sami A. Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh, The Koran. Arabic text and French translation for chronological order in Azhar: al-Azhar classification, internal exceptions, comparison with Nöldeke and Blachère and note on numbering systems.
Regis Blachère, The Koran.
Abū ʿAmr al-Dānī, al-Bayān fī ʿadd āy al-Qurʾān: tradition attributed to Jābir b. Zayd on the order of descent of the suras.
Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī, al-Itqān fī ʿulūm al-Qurʾān: Collection and discussion of different traditions on the chronological order of the suras.
al-Shahrastānī, Mafātīḥ al-asrār wa-maṣābīḥ al-abrār: Disagreements among the translators on the order of descent of the suras.
al-Tabrisī, Majmaʿ al-Bayān: Different traditions on the order.
Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Zanjānī, Tārīkh al-Qurʾān: Succession attributed to Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq.
Muḥammad ʿIzzat Darwaza, al-Tafsīr al-ḥadīth: comparison between different systems.
Yūsuf Durra al-Ḥaddād, al-Qurʾān wa-l-Kitāb: comparative table used critically.
ʿAbd al-Mutaʿāl al-Ṣaʿīdī, al-Naẓm al-fannī fī al-Qurʾān.
Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 3: ʿĀʾisha tradition relating to Q96.
Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 4922 And 4924: tradition indicating al-Muddaththir.
Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 45: Q5:3 and ʿArafāt.
Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī 3063: traditions on the last surah.
Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī 3086: al-Tawba/Baraʾa among the latest texts.
Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī 3041: tradition on Q4:176 as the last verse.
Gerhard Böwering, “Chronology and the Qurʾān”, Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān.
Behnam Sadeghi, “The Chronology of the Qurʾān: A Stylometric Research Program”, Arabica 58 (2011), pp. 210-299.
Nicolai Sinai, The Qur’an: A Historical-Critical Introduction, Edinburgh University Press, 2017.
Nicolai Sinai, “Inner-Qur’anic Chronology”, in The Oxford Handbook of Qur’anic Studies, 2020, pp. 346-361.
R. K. Farrin, “Stylometry and the Refinement of a Qur’anic Timeline”, in The Early Qur’an in Mecca, Cambridge University Press, 2026, pp. 15-42.

Editorial Note. The previous version of this page primarily adopted the chronological classification presented by Sami A. Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh based on the Egyptian/al-Azhar order. This revision preserves his contribution and attribution, but verifies, corrects, and expands the material through comparison with Tanzil/al-Zanjānī, Nöldeke–Schwally, the UNC matrix, competing Muslim traditions, and subsequent historical-critical research. When a later source attributes a succession to an ancient figure, the attribution is distinguished from the historical verification of its provenance.

Related Insights

↑ Return to the guide to read the table