Manuscripts
His confusions lies in ignoring the fact that the Qirat which was named after Hafs was not Hafs’ but the same Qirat Ammah followed by everyone. Every book of Tafseer, references of Fuqaha, recitations in mosques across the Muslims world was Qirat Ammah before Hafs and After him. The evidence is abundant, one can consult it all the time in the books and history. If van had focus on this fact of Qirat Ammah he could have avoided his mistaken approach of following the names of Qirat, instead of the fact at hand. If he assumes that Hafs got popular later and it was Warsh’s Qirat that was popular he has to show it through the ages that once the Qirat Ammah was the Qirat of Warsh and then the whole ummah shifted to that of Hafs. van may have confused one fact with another that sometimes some circles of Qaris adopted one Qirat or another, but the public and scholars never shifted from one recitation to another. If one claims so, one has to labor to show this shift gradually taking place across the Muslim world in history.