2,743
edits
Textual History of the Qur'an: Difference between revisions
→Changes to the spoken Arabic dialect of the Qur'an
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
No edit summary |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
==Companion Codices and the Uthmanic Standard== | ==Companion Codices and the Uthmanic Standard== | ||
===Caliph Uthman Standardises the Rasm and Burns the Other Texts=== | ===Caliph Uthman Standardises the Rasm and Burns the Other Texts=== | ||
A widely transmitted hadith reports that the third caliph Uthman was concerned because there were clear differences in the recitation of the Qur'an among the people of the Sham (modern day Israel/Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria) and the people of Iraq. The differences were so great Uthman and his companions feared future dispute about the true Qur'an and its contents. So Uthman asked Hafsa for her copy so that a committee could write a single version of the rasm (an early stage of Arabic orthography, often called the Qur'anic consonantal text (QCT), which lacked most word-internal ʾalifs, lacked diacritics such as short vowel signs and with | A widely transmitted hadith reports that the third caliph Uthman was concerned because there were clear differences in the recitation of the Qur'an among the people of the Sham (modern day Israel/Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria) and the people of Iraq. The differences were so great Uthman and his companions feared future dispute about the true Qur'an and its contents. So Uthman asked Hafsa for her copy so that a committee could write a single version of the rasm (an early stage of Arabic orthography, often called the Qur'anic consonantal text (QCT), which lacked most word-internal ʾalifs, lacked diacritics such as short vowel signs and with limited use of dotting to distinguish certain consonants). Uthman then sent out his official Quranic codex to a small number of important cities and ordered that all other copies and fragments be burned. This occurred around 650 CE. During the prior 20 years since Muhammad's death, and for some time afterwards, thousands of variants read by the companions which often did not fit this rasm were in circulation, as documented in hadiths and works such as Ibn Abi Dawud's Kitab al Masahif.<ref name="Jeffery">See Jeffery's famous compilation of readings attributed to the companions: Jeffery, Arthur, [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.76212 Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur'an. The old Codices], Leiden, Brill, 1937<BR>Also available [https://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Jeffery/Materials_pd/index.htm here]</ref> | ||
Narrated Anas bin Malik: | Narrated Anas bin Malik: | ||
| Line 148: | Line 148: | ||
Michael Cook's stemmatic analysis of the above mentioned regional variants reported in the Uthmanic copies has shown that they form a tree relationship<ref name="Cook">Cook, M. (2004) “The Stemma of the Regional Codices of the Koran,” ''Graeco-Arabica'', 9-10</ref>. By analysing orthographic idiosyncrasies (i.e. spellings) common to known manuscripts of the Uthmanic text type, Dr. Marijn van Putten has given further proof that they all must descend from a single archetype, generally assumed to be that of Uthman.<ref>van Putten, M. (2019) [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bulletin-of-the-school-of-oriental-and-african-studies/article/grace-of-god-as-evidence-for-a-written-uthmanic-archetype-the-importance-of-shared-orthographic-idiosyncrasies/23C45AC7BC649A5228E0DA6F6BA15C06/core-reader The 'Grace of God' as evidence for a written Uthmanic archetype: the importance of shared orthographic idiosyncrasies] Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Volume 82 (2) pp.271-288</ref> | Michael Cook's stemmatic analysis of the above mentioned regional variants reported in the Uthmanic copies has shown that they form a tree relationship<ref name="Cook">Cook, M. (2004) “The Stemma of the Regional Codices of the Koran,” ''Graeco-Arabica'', 9-10</ref>. By analysing orthographic idiosyncrasies (i.e. spellings) common to known manuscripts of the Uthmanic text type, Dr. Marijn van Putten has given further proof that they all must descend from a single archetype, generally assumed to be that of Uthman.<ref>van Putten, M. (2019) [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bulletin-of-the-school-of-oriental-and-african-studies/article/grace-of-god-as-evidence-for-a-written-uthmanic-archetype-the-importance-of-shared-orthographic-idiosyncrasies/23C45AC7BC649A5228E0DA6F6BA15C06/core-reader The 'Grace of God' as evidence for a written Uthmanic archetype: the importance of shared orthographic idiosyncrasies] Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Volume 82 (2) pp.271-288</ref> | ||
He has noted that the famous "Birmingham Quran" too has these spelling idiosyncracies and therefore is "clearly a descendant of the Uthmanic text type".<ref>[https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1220812853495640066 Twitter.com] - Dr. Marijn van Putten ([https://web.archive.org/web/20200124212157/https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1220812853495640066 archive])</ref> It is a two page fragment (Minghana 1572a), now known to be part of a longer manuscript fragment held in Paris (BNF Arabe 328c). In her PhD thesis, Alba Fedeli showed that the combined manuscript contains numerous variants, including some which affect meaning (especially the subject or object of verbs) and a few that had been reported in the qira'at literature. These mainly involve alifs and the | He has noted that the famous "Birmingham Quran" too has these spelling idiosyncracies and therefore is "clearly a descendant of the Uthmanic text type".<ref>[https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1220812853495640066 Twitter.com] - Dr. Marijn van Putten ([https://web.archive.org/web/20200124212157/https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1220812853495640066 archive])</ref> It is a two page fragment (Minghana 1572a), now known to be part of a longer manuscript fragment held in Paris (BNF Arabe 328c). In her PhD thesis, Alba Fedeli showed that the combined manuscript contains numerous variants, including some which affect meaning (especially the subject or object of verbs) and a few that had been reported in the qira'at literature. These mainly involve alifs and the limited consonantal dottings present in the manuscript.<ref>Fedeli calls the combined fragments of this manuscript in Birmingham and Paris MS PaB.<BR />"A comparison between the copy of MS PaB and the Medina muṣḥaf leads to a number of differences being identified. These variants can be understood as a mirror of the linguistic competence of the copyist and his linguistic context, in that the manuscript bears some phonetic, orthographic, morphologic and syntactic variants, but also a few lexical variants, among which there are variants related to the voice and recipient of the message and some variants due to mechanical errors during the copying activity. Lastly, the manuscript exhibits a few peculiar features as regards the subdivision of the Qur’ānic text into verses. Furthermore, the analysis of the manuscript text compared with the literature of the Islamic tradition reveals a few qirā’āt that are substantiated through the manuscript itself."</BR />See pp. 147-199 of Alba Fedeli, (2014). [https://etheses.bham.ac.uk//id/eprint/5864/1/Fedeli15PhD.pdf EARLY QUR’ĀNIC MANUSCRIPTS, THEIR TEXT, AND THE ALPHONSE MINGANA PAPERS HELD IN THE DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL COLLECTIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM] (PDF) (Ph.D.). Birmingham University.</ref> | ||
A few famous manuscripts have been traditionally attributed as Uthman's personal copy, or as one of the original copies he commissioned. None of these claims is supported by evidence. These include the Topkapi manuscript (Sarayı Medina 1a) which has too late a script style, and the Samarkand Codex, which is actually radio-carbon dated to the 8th or 9th century CE, as well as due to the script style.<ref>See for example this [https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1612061962510434310 Twitter.com thread] by Marijn van Putten 8 January 2022</ref> | A few famous manuscripts have been traditionally attributed as Uthman's personal copy, or as one of the original copies he commissioned. None of these claims is supported by evidence. These include the Topkapi manuscript (Sarayı Medina 1a) which has too late a script style, and the Samarkand Codex, which is actually radio-carbon dated to the 8th or 9th century CE, as well as due to the script style.<ref>See for example this [https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1612061962510434310 Twitter.com thread] by Marijn van Putten 8 January 2022</ref> | ||
The rasm is only part of the story of the textual transmission of the Qur'an. In the earliest Quran manuscripts (and, we can assume, in the fragments originally collected by Zayd), homographic Arabic consonants were only | The rasm is only part of the story of the textual transmission of the Qur'an. In the earliest Quran manuscripts (and, we can assume, in the fragments originally collected by Zayd), homographic Arabic consonants were only dotted to a limited or sparse extent to distinguish them, which Adam Bursi has found was the typical scribal practice at that time even for Arabic poetry.<ref>Bursi, Adam. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5913/jiqsa.3.2018.a005 Connecting the Dots: Diacritics, Scribal Culture, and the Qurʾān in the First/Seventh Century] Journal of the International Qur’anic Studies Association, vol. 3, International Qur’anic Studies Association, 2018, pp. 111–157, https://doi.org/10.5913/jiqsa.3.2018.a005.</ref> They also lacked most word-internal ʾalifs (unwritten or inconsistent usage in most situations), and had no marks for short vowels or other diacritics. When vocalised manuscripts with vowels and other diacritics start to appear, many (mostly non-canonical) readings are found to be imposed upon the rasm.<ref>See for example comments by leading manuscript expert and linguist Dr. Marijn van Putten [https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1282206245026504704 here] ([https://web.archive.org/web/20200712065515/https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1282206245026504704 archive]), [https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1294253564378976259 here] ([https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1294253564378976259 archive]) and [https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1212824936768778245 here] ([https://web.archive.org/web/20210816162500/https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1212824936768778245 archive])</ref> | ||
==Scribal errors in Uthman's codices== | ==Scribal errors in Uthman's codices== | ||
Academic scholars generally believe that the above mentioned regional variants were scribal errors made when the original copies of Uthman's consonantal text were produced. These feature also in the canonical readings (qira'at) of those regions, which were required to keep within the scope of the Uthmanic text. The strongest tradition holds that four copies were made, one each for Medina in the Hijaz, Syria (Hims, or less likely, Damascus<ref name="Sidky2020">Sidky, H. (2020) [https://www.academia.edu/49523638/ On the Regionality of Qurʾānic Codices] Journal of the International Qur’anic Studies Association, 5(1) doi:10.5913/jiqsa.5.2020.a005</ref>), Basra and Kufa in modern day Iraq. As mentioned above, Michael Cook identified that these 40 or so variants form a stemmatic relationship that indicates a written copying process between the four codices.<ref name="Cook"/> His list was based on al-Dani's work (d. 444 AH) and can also be read online in a paper by van Putten.<ref>See the Appendix in Van Putten, M. (2020) [https://www.academia.edu/41712793/Hi%C5%A1a_ms_%CA%BEIbra_ha_m_Evidence_for_a_Canonical_Quranic_Reading_Based_on_the_Rasm Hišām's ʾIbrāhām: Evidence for a Canonical Quranic Reading Based on the Rasm] Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 30(2), 231-250. doi:10.1017/S1356186319000518</ref> Compiling a similar but improved list of the regional variants widely attested by Muslim scholars, Hythem Sidky reconstructed the same stemma as found by Cook for what must have been four regional exemplar codices.<ref name="Sidky2020" /> This is mainly derived due to the twelve variants shared by Syria and Medina to the exclusion of Basra and Kufa, fifteen isolated Syrian variants and three isolated Kufan variants.<ref>ibid. p. 143</ref> Sidky also found an "excellent agreement" between these reports and the earliest manuscripts. In additon, Sidky was able to reproduce the stemmatic result by means of a phylogenetic analysis of these regional differences within the earliest manuscripts (except that Kufa did not achieve a separate node since only one early Kufan manuscript is available). Sidky also found that "a comparison of literary reports against the earliest manuscripts reveals that knowledge of the regional variants does not date back to the time of canonization but was accumulated over time through careful scrutiny of regional muṣḥafs". This indicates that the Uthmanic committee were unaware or did not share information about these differences. He has also commented separately on this topic that further reasons for believing them to be scribal errors are that they are so few in number in what were obviously and reportedly intended to be identical copies, and that they are so insignificant, looking like typical scribal errors that occur in later copying, especially compared to the kinds of more meaningful variants found in companion readings (see earlier section on these above).<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210723202034/https://twitter.com/therealsidky/status/1418667335251075075 Archived Twitter thread] - "How do we know that the variants between the Uthmanic codices are scribal errors?", Hythem Sidky, 23 July 2021</ref> | Academic scholars generally believe that the above mentioned regional variants were scribal errors made when the original copies of Uthman's consonantal text were produced. These feature also in the canonical readings (qira'at) of those regions, which were required to keep within the scope of the Uthmanic text. These scribal errors in the original Uthmanic copies have been inherited by all subsquent copies of the Quran that exist in the world, as distinct from isolated mistakes in individual manuscripts. For example, Qurans in North Africa which typically have the reading of Warsh from Nafi will have the text of the Uthmanic copy given to Medina. | ||
The strongest tradition holds that four copies were made, one each for Medina in the Hijaz, Syria (Hims, or less likely, Damascus<ref name="Sidky2020">Sidky, H. (2020) [https://www.academia.edu/49523638/ On the Regionality of Qurʾānic Codices] Journal of the International Qur’anic Studies Association, 5(1) doi:10.5913/jiqsa.5.2020.a005</ref>), Basra and Kufa in modern day Iraq. As mentioned above, Michael Cook identified that these 40 or so variants form a stemmatic relationship that indicates a written copying process between the four codices.<ref name="Cook"/> His list was based on al-Dani's work (d. 444 AH) and can also be read online in a paper by van Putten.<ref>See the Appendix in Van Putten, M. (2020) [https://www.academia.edu/41712793/Hi%C5%A1a_ms_%CA%BEIbra_ha_m_Evidence_for_a_Canonical_Quranic_Reading_Based_on_the_Rasm Hišām's ʾIbrāhām: Evidence for a Canonical Quranic Reading Based on the Rasm] Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 30(2), 231-250. doi:10.1017/S1356186319000518</ref> Compiling a similar but improved list of the regional variants widely attested by Muslim scholars, Hythem Sidky reconstructed the same stemma as found by Cook for what must have been four regional exemplar codices.<ref name="Sidky2020" /> This is mainly derived due to the twelve variants shared by Syria and Medina to the exclusion of Basra and Kufa, fifteen isolated Syrian variants and three isolated Kufan variants.<ref>ibid. p. 143</ref> Sidky also found an "excellent agreement" between these reports and the earliest manuscripts. In additon, Sidky was able to reproduce the stemmatic result by means of a phylogenetic analysis of these regional differences within the earliest manuscripts (except that Kufa did not achieve a separate node since only one early Kufan manuscript is available). Sidky also found that "a comparison of literary reports against the earliest manuscripts reveals that knowledge of the regional variants does not date back to the time of canonization but was accumulated over time through careful scrutiny of regional muṣḥafs". This indicates that the Uthmanic committee were unaware or did not share information about these differences. He has also commented separately on this topic that further reasons for believing them to be scribal errors are that they are so few in number in what were obviously and reportedly intended to be identical copies, and that they are so insignificant, looking like typical scribal errors that occur in later copying, especially compared to the kinds of more meaningful variants found in companion readings (see earlier section on these above).<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210723202034/https://twitter.com/therealsidky/status/1418667335251075075 Archived Twitter thread] - "How do we know that the variants between the Uthmanic codices are scribal errors?", Hythem Sidky, 23 July 2021</ref> | |||
==Academic debate regarding Uthman or 'Abd al-Malik== | ==Academic debate regarding Uthman or 'Abd al-Malik== | ||
| Line 268: | Line 270: | ||
==The Qira'at (Variant Oral Readings of the Qur'an)== | ==The Qira'at (Variant Oral Readings of the Qur'an)== | ||
<center><youtube>k6v3b9uPT38</youtube></center> | <center><youtube>k6v3b9uPT38</youtube></center> | ||
As mentioned above, numerous possible oral readings of the Qur'an can be and were imposed upon the Uthmanic rasm (an early stage of Arabic orthography, which lacked diacritics such as short vowel signs, most word-internal ʾalifs, and | As mentioned above, numerous possible oral readings of the Qur'an can be and were imposed upon the Uthmanic rasm (an early stage of Arabic orthography, which lacked diacritics such as short vowel signs, most word-internal ʾalifs, and only to a limited extent included dotting to distinguish certain consonants). Today we have seven or ten canonical qira'at, which are slightly different early oral recitations or readings of the Qur'an by famous readers. There were once many more qira'at, from which twenty-five were described by Abu 'Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam two centuries after Muhammad's death, and restricted to seven after three centuries following a work by Abu Bakr ibn Mujahid (d.936 CE). A further three qira'at were added to the canon many centuries later by Ibn al-Jazari (d.1429 CE) - those of Abu Jafar, Ya'qub and Khalaf. These three had been popular since the time of the seven<ref>Various sized selections of qira'at were published over the centuries. Ibn Mihran (d. 991) was the first to choose the same set of ten. See Christopher Melchert (2008) [https://www.jstor.org/stable/25728289 The Relation of the Ten Readings to One Another] Journal of Qur'anic Studies Vol.10 (2) pp.73-87</ref>, and provide additional variants.<ref>See for example 19:25, 82:9, and 21:104 on [https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/ corpuscoranicum.de]</ref> Some scholars regarded them as having a somewhat less reliable transmission status than the seven.<ref>Ahmad 'Ali al Imam (1998), "Variant Readings of the Quran: A critical study of their historical and linguistic origins", Institute of Islamic Thought: Virginia, USA, pp.126-133</ref> Ibn al Jazari lamented that the masses only accepted the seven readings chosen by Ibn Mujahid.<ref>Shady Hekmat Nasser, [https://books.google.com/books?id=Kx7i2Y56WuYC&pg=PA57&dq=aasim+qira%27ah&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=aasim%20qira'ah&f=false ''The Transmission of the Variant Readings of the Qur'an: The Problem of Tawaatur and the Emergence of Shawaadhdh''], p. 64. Leiden: Brill Publishers, 2012.</ref> | ||
The authenticity of the canonical readings became an important issue to affirm. Al Zarkashi (d.1392 CE) argued that even the differences in the canonical readings are mutawatir (mass transmitted from the time of Muhammad), despite each reading only having one or a small number of single chains of purported transmission between Muhammad and the eponymous reader, because the inhabitants in the cities in which they were popular also heard them. Professor Shady Nasser finds it hard to accept al Zarkashi's argument since in that case "variants within one Eponymous Reading should not have existed" (i.e. students of a particular reader often did not transmit identically), as well as due to the presence of multiple popular readers in each city.<ref>Shady Hekmat Nasser, [https://books.google.com/books?id=Kx7i2Y56WuYC&pg=PA57&dq=aasim+qira%27ah&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=aasim%20qira'ah&f=false ''The Transmission of the Variant Readings of the Qur'an: The Problem of Tawaatur and the Emergence of Shawaadhdh''], p. 103. Leiden: Brill Publishers, 2012.</ref> As noted above, most canonical readings are not found in early vocalised manuscripts. To secure the status of the three readings after the seven, Ibn al-Jazari obtained a fatwa from Ibn al Subki declaring that all 10 readings were fully mutawatir, though later he changed his mind.<ref>Ibid. p.36</ref> | The authenticity of the canonical readings became an important issue to affirm. Al Zarkashi (d.1392 CE) argued that even the differences in the canonical readings are mutawatir (mass transmitted from the time of Muhammad), despite each reading only having one or a small number of single chains of purported transmission between Muhammad and the eponymous reader, because the inhabitants in the cities in which they were popular also heard them. Professor Shady Nasser finds it hard to accept al Zarkashi's argument since in that case "variants within one Eponymous Reading should not have existed" (i.e. students of a particular reader often did not transmit identically), as well as due to the presence of multiple popular readers in each city.<ref>Shady Hekmat Nasser, [https://books.google.com/books?id=Kx7i2Y56WuYC&pg=PA57&dq=aasim+qira%27ah&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=aasim%20qira'ah&f=false ''The Transmission of the Variant Readings of the Qur'an: The Problem of Tawaatur and the Emergence of Shawaadhdh''], p. 103. Leiden: Brill Publishers, 2012.</ref> As noted above, most canonical readings are not found in early vocalised manuscripts. To secure the status of the three readings after the seven, Ibn al-Jazari obtained a fatwa from Ibn al Subki declaring that all 10 readings were fully mutawatir, though later he changed his mind.<ref>Ibid. p.36</ref> | ||
| Line 409: | Line 411: | ||
===Differences in the Qira'at=== | ===Differences in the Qira'at=== | ||
Muslims are commonly told that the differences between the Qira'at can be explained away as styles of pronunciation or dialect and spelling rules. Called uṣūl, these are rules that apply to the entire reading, causing | Muslims are commonly told that the differences between the Qira'at can be explained away as styles of pronunciation or dialect and spelling rules. Called uṣūl, these are rules that apply to the entire reading, causing tens of thousands of tiny differences with no impact on meaning. Yet there is another category, called farsh, of individual differences that cannot be generalised in rules, which also includes changes in wording. In a few cases the variants added or omitted words, and others are completely different words or contradict each other in meaning. The Corpus Coranicum database<ref>[http://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/1/vers/1 Corpus Coranicum - Variants tab]</ref>, the Encyclopedia of the Readings of the Quran database<ref>[https://erquran.org/ https://erquran.org] to see the variants in Arabic script and transliterated, including non-canonical variants</ref>, and the nquran website<ref>[http://nquran.com nquran.com] to see the variants in Arabic script</ref> can be used as neutral online sources for verifying the existence of such variations in the Qira'at. The Bridges translation of the Quran by Fadel Soliman was published in 2020 and highlights words with canonical variants, listing them in English with their readers as footnotes. It is available as a free Android/iOS app or can be purchased as a pdf or hard copy. An interesting example is given below, and more of them are listed in the tables in the next sections. | ||
In {{Quran|18|86}}, Dhu'l Qarnayn finds the sun setting in a '''muddy''' spring, according to the Qira'at used by today's most popular transmissions of the Qur'an. However, in around half of the various Qira'at the sun intead sets in a '''warm''' spring. The latter variant is even used in some English translations. It is easy to see how the corruption arose (whichever one is the variant). The arabic word حَمِئَة (hami'atin - muddy) sounds very similar to the completely different word حَامِيَة (hamiyatin - warm). Al-Tabari records in his tafseer for this verse [https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Dhul-Qarnayn_and_the_Sun_Setting_in_a_Muddy_Spring_-_Part_One#Tafsir_.28Commentaries.29 the differing opinions] on whether the sun sets in muddy or warm water. | In {{Quran|18|86}}, Dhu'l Qarnayn finds the sun setting in a '''muddy''' spring, according to the Qira'at used by today's most popular transmissions of the Qur'an. However, in around half of the various Qira'at the sun intead sets in a '''warm''' spring. The latter variant is even used in some English translations. It is easy to see how the corruption arose (whichever one is the variant). The arabic word حَمِئَة (hami'atin - muddy) sounds very similar to the completely different word حَامِيَة (hamiyatin - warm). Al-Tabari records in his tafseer for this verse [https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Dhul-Qarnayn_and_the_Sun_Setting_in_a_Muddy_Spring_-_Part_One#Tafsir_.28Commentaries.29 the differing opinions] on whether the sun sets in muddy or warm water. | ||
The reading of Ibn Amir, which is one of those qira'at containing hamiyah instead of hami'ah, is still used in some parts of Yemen, and used to be more widespread.<ref>Leemhuis, F. 2006, 'From Palm Leaves to the Internet' in McAuliffe J. D. (ed.) ''The Cambridge Companion to the Qur'an'', Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p.150 [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=F2oLiXT_66EC&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150#v=onepage&q&f=false Google books preview]</ref>. In written form this difference is not just a matter of vowel marks. Even the consonantal text with dots is different, though in the original Uthmanic orthography they may have looked the same due to the | The reading of Ibn Amir, which is one of those qira'at containing hamiyah instead of hami'ah, is still used in some parts of Yemen, and used to be more widespread.<ref>Leemhuis, F. 2006, 'From Palm Leaves to the Internet' in McAuliffe J. D. (ed.) ''The Cambridge Companion to the Qur'an'', Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p.150 [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=F2oLiXT_66EC&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150#v=onepage&q&f=false Google books preview]</ref>. In written form this difference is not just a matter of vowel marks. Even the consonantal text with dots is different, though in the original Uthmanic orthography they may have looked the same due to the limited use of consonantal dotting and word-internal ʾalifs (unwritten or inconsistent usage in most situations) at that time. A scan of a printed Qur'an containing the mushaf of Hisham's transmission from Ibn Amir's reading can even be read online and it can be seen that حَامِيَة (warm) is used in verse 18:86<ref>[http://read.kitabklasik.net/2010/12/mushaf-al-quran-al-karim-riwayat-hisyam.html kitabklasik.net] Click one of the links labelled download to view in pdf format and see page 307 of the 630 page pdf</ref>. | ||
For further discussion, see the section ''Origin of the Qira'at Variants'' further below. | For further discussion, see the section ''Origin of the Qira'at Variants'' further below. | ||
| Line 428: | Line 430: | ||
!Warsh | !Warsh | ||
!Notes | !Notes | ||
!Variants translation, transliteration, and Arabic script | !Variants translation<ref name="Bridges">Screenshots taken from the Bridges Translation of the Ten Qira'at app, available free for Android and iOS. The translation can also be purchased in book format or as a low cost pdf on the Bridges Foundation website.</ref>, transliteration, and Arabic script | ||
|- | |- | ||
|{{Quran|2|125}} | |{{Quran|2|125}} | ||
| Line 434: | Line 436: | ||
|watakhazu (they have taken) | |watakhazu (they have taken) | ||
| | | | ||
|[ | |[[:File:Bridges 2 125.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/2/vers/125 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=2&aya=125 nquran.com] | ||
|- | |- | ||
|{{Quran|2|140}} | |{{Quran|2|140}} | ||
| Line 440: | Line 442: | ||
|yaquluna (They say) | |yaquluna (They say) | ||
| | | | ||
|[ | |[[:File:Bridges 2 140.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/2/vers/140 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=2&aya=140 nquran.com] | ||
|- | |- | ||
|{{Quran|2|184}} | |{{Quran|2|184}} | ||
| Line 446: | Line 448: | ||
|masakeena (poor people) | |masakeena (poor people) | ||
|Instruction on how many people to feed to mitigate a broken fast | |Instruction on how many people to feed to mitigate a broken fast | ||
|[ | |[[:File:Bridges 2 184.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/2/vers/184 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=2&aya=184 nquran.com] | ||
|- | |- | ||
|{{Quran|3|146}} | |{{Quran|3|146}} | ||
| Line 458: | Line 454: | ||
|qutila (was killed) | |qutila (was killed) | ||
|The Warsh version better fits verse 3.144 | |The Warsh version better fits verse 3.144 | ||
|[ | |[[:File:Bridges 3 146.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/3/vers/146 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=3&aya=146 nquran.com] | ||
|- | |- | ||
|{{Quran|7|57}} | |{{Quran|7|57}} | ||
| Line 464: | Line 460: | ||
|nushra (disperse) | |nushra (disperse) | ||
| | | | ||
|[ | |[[:File:Bridges 7 57.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/7/vers/57 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=7&aya=57 nquran.com] | ||
|- | |- | ||
|{{Quran|19|19}} | |{{Quran|19|19}} | ||
| Line 478: | Line 468: | ||
The Sanaa 1 palimpsest gives a 3rd variant, li-nahaba, "that We may bestow"<ref name="li-yahaba-li-nahaba" /> | The Sanaa 1 palimpsest gives a 3rd variant, li-nahaba, "that We may bestow"<ref name="li-yahaba-li-nahaba" /> | ||
In mushafs based on the Warsh transmission (and the reading of Abu Amr), unusual orthography is required due to the ya violating the Uthmanic rasm.<ref>In Kufic manuscripts the ya appears in red ink, and printed copies have it in superscript above the alif, which is the right arm of the lam-alif in maghribi script. See Puin, G. [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6dqoAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA176 Vowel letters and ortho-epic writing in the Qur'an] in Reynolds, S (ed.) New Perspectives on the Qur'an: The Qur'an in Its Historical Context 2, Routledge 2011 pp.176-177 and p.15 in Dutton, Y. (2000) [https://www.jstor.org/stable/25727969 Red Dots, Green Dots, Yellow Dots and Blue: Some Reflections on the Vocalisation of Early Qur'anic Manuscripts (Part II)], Journal of Qur'anic Studies, Vol. 2(1) pp.1-24</ref> | In mushafs based on the Warsh transmission (and the reading of Abu Amr), unusual orthography is required due to the ya violating the Uthmanic rasm.<ref>In Kufic manuscripts the ya appears in red ink, and printed copies have it in superscript above the alif, which is the right arm of the lam-alif in maghribi script. See Puin, G. [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6dqoAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA176 Vowel letters and ortho-epic writing in the Qur'an] in Reynolds, S (ed.) New Perspectives on the Qur'an: The Qur'an in Its Historical Context 2, Routledge 2011 pp.176-177 and p.15 in Dutton, Y. (2000) [https://www.jstor.org/stable/25727969 Red Dots, Green Dots, Yellow Dots and Blue: Some Reflections on the Vocalisation of Early Qur'anic Manuscripts (Part II)], Journal of Qur'anic Studies, Vol. 2(1) pp.1-24</ref> | ||
|[ | |[[:File:Bridges 19 19.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/19/vers/19 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=19&aya=19 nquran.com] | ||
|- | |- | ||
|{{Quran|21|4}} | |{{Quran|21|4}} | ||
| Line 484: | Line 474: | ||
|qul (Say:) | |qul (Say:) | ||
| | | | ||
|[ | |[[:File:Bridges 21 4.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/21/vers/4 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=21&aya=4 nquran.com] | ||
|- | |- | ||
|{{Quran|30|22}} | |{{Quran|30|22}} | ||
| Line 490: | Line 480: | ||
|li-l-'aalameena (for the creations) | |li-l-'aalameena (for the creations) | ||
|In all the other readings the things mentioned are signs li-l-ʿālamīna (for the creations) i.e. signs for all peoples as in {{Quran|21|91}} and {{Quran|29|15}}, knowledgable or otherwise. | |In all the other readings the things mentioned are signs li-l-ʿālamīna (for the creations) i.e. signs for all peoples as in {{Quran|21|91}} and {{Quran|29|15}}, knowledgable or otherwise. | ||
|[ | |[[:File:Bridges 30 22.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/30/vers/22 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=30&aya=22 nquran.com] | ||
|- | |- | ||
|{{Quran|43|19}} | |{{Quran|43|19}} | ||
|'ibaadu (slaves) | |'ibaadu (slaves) | ||
|'inda (with) | |'inda (with) | ||
|As with most of these examples, the rasm (early stage of Arabic orthography in use at the time of Uthman) is the same in both versions (عِندَ vs عِبَٰدُ), in this case allowing two completely different root words to be read since | |As with most of these examples, the rasm (early stage of Arabic orthography in use at the time of Uthman) is the same in both versions (عِندَ vs عِبَٰدُ), in this case allowing two completely different root words to be read since most early manuscripts barely employed consonantal dotting and word-internal ʾalifs, and lacked short vowels at that time. | ||
|[ | |[[:File:Bridges 43 19.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/43/vers/19 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=43&aya=19 nquran.com] | ||
|- | |- | ||
|{{Quran|57|24}} | |{{Quran|57|24}} | ||
| Line 502: | Line 492: | ||
|Allaha alghaniyyu (Allah is self sufficient) | |Allaha alghaniyyu (Allah is self sufficient) | ||
|This was also one of the regional Uthmanic rasm variants with no obvious value | |This was also one of the regional Uthmanic rasm variants with no obvious value | ||
|[ | |[[:File:Bridges 57 24.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/57/vers/24 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=57&aya=24 nquran.com] | ||
|} | |} | ||
| Line 514: | Line 504: | ||
!Reading 2 | !Reading 2 | ||
!Notes | !Notes | ||
!Variants translation, transliteration, and Arabic script | !Variants translation<ref name="Bridges" />, transliteration, and Arabic script | ||
|- | |- | ||
|{{Quran|5|6}} | |{{Quran|5|6}} | ||
| Line 520: | Line 510: | ||
|The others read wa-'arjulakum (your feet [accusative case]) | |The others read wa-'arjulakum (your feet [accusative case]) | ||
|The grammatical variance caused different rulings on wudu between Sunni and Shi'i (whether to rub or wash the feet)<ref>Hussein Abdul-Raof, "Theological approaches to Qur'anic exergesis", London and New York: Routledge, 2012, p.101</ref><ref>Noldeke et al. notice that a compromise variant here (wa-arjulukum) in the reading of al-Hasan al-Basri (d. 110) allows the controversy to be dated as very early. See p.491 in Noldeke et al. History of the Qur'an</ref> | |The grammatical variance caused different rulings on wudu between Sunni and Shi'i (whether to rub or wash the feet)<ref>Hussein Abdul-Raof, "Theological approaches to Qur'anic exergesis", London and New York: Routledge, 2012, p.101</ref><ref>Noldeke et al. notice that a compromise variant here (wa-arjulukum) in the reading of al-Hasan al-Basri (d. 110) allows the controversy to be dated as very early. See p.491 in Noldeke et al. History of the Qur'an</ref> | ||
|[ | |[[:File:Bridges 5 6.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/5/vers/6 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=5&aya=6 nquran.com] | ||
|- | |- | ||
|{{Quran|17|102}} | |{{Quran|17|102}} | ||
|al-Kisa'i reads 'alimtu (I have known) | |al-Kisa'i reads 'alimtu (I have known) | ||
|The others read 'alimta (You have known) | |The others read 'alimta (You have known) | ||
|Moses speaking to Pharoah | |Moses speaking to Pharoah. Which did he say? | ||
|[ | |[[:File:Bridges 17 102.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/17/vers/102 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=17&aya=102 nquran.com] | ||
|- | |- | ||
|{{Quran|20|96}} | |{{Quran|20|96}} | ||
|Hamza and al-Kisa'i read lam tabsuroo (you did not | |Hamza and al-Kisa'i read lam tabsuroo (you did not perceive) | ||
|The others read lam yabsuroo (they did not | |The others read lam yabsuroo (they did not perceive) | ||
|Samiri speaking to Moses | |Samiri speaking to Moses | ||
|[ | |[[:File:Bridges 20 96.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/20/vers/96 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=20&aya=96 nquran.com] | ||
|- | |- | ||
|{{Quran|12|12}} | |{{Quran|12|12}} | ||
| Line 538: | Line 528: | ||
|The others read narta' wa-nal'ab (we may eat well and play) | |The others read narta' wa-nal'ab (we may eat well and play) | ||
|Joseph's brothers talking to their father | |Joseph's brothers talking to their father | ||
|[ | |[[:File:Bridges 12 12.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/12/vers/12 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=12&aya=12 nquran.com] | ||
|- | |- | ||
|{{Quran|12|49}} | |{{Quran|12|49}} | ||
| Line 544: | Line 534: | ||
|The others read ya'siroona (they will press) | |The others read ya'siroona (they will press) | ||
|Joseph speaking to the King | |Joseph speaking to the King | ||
|[ | |[[:File:Bridges 12 49.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/12/vers/49 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=12&aya=49 nquran.com] | ||
|- | |- | ||
|{{Quran|12|63}} | |{{Quran|12|63}} | ||
| Line 550: | Line 540: | ||
|The others read naktal (we will be given measure) | |The others read naktal (we will be given measure) | ||
|Joseph's brothers talking to their father | |Joseph's brothers talking to their father | ||
|[ | |[[:File:Bridges 12 63.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/12/vers/63 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=12&aya=63 nquran.com] | ||
|- | |- | ||
|{{Quran|11|81}} | |{{Quran|11|81}} | ||
| Line 556: | Line 546: | ||
|The others read 'illa mra'ataka (except your wife [accusative case]) | |The others read 'illa mra'ataka (except your wife [accusative case]) | ||
|These variants give rise to conflicting instructions from the angels to Lot<ref>See the explanation in [https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=11&tAyahNo=81&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2 Tafsir al-Jalalayn], which is also common among early commentators and grammarians, who clearly did not hold the centuries later view that every variant is divine. Much later, for example, Abu Hayyan claimed that in both readings the exception refers to Lut's wife looking back, despite the contradiction with other surahs mentioning that she stayed behind, and despite Ibn Mas'ud's version which omits the look back part, and despite the fact that a variant wasn't needed (and the embarassement could have been avoided) if they both meant the same thing.</ref><ref>Regarding this variant see also [https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1452668408269520904 The story of Lot (...) finds clear parallels with the story as told in Gen. 19. A thread on a specific reading variant."] Twitter.com thread by Dr. Marijn van Putten - 25 October 2021 ([https://web.archive.org/web/20211026204953/https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1452668408269520904 archive])</ref> | |These variants give rise to conflicting instructions from the angels to Lot<ref>See the explanation in [https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=11&tAyahNo=81&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2 Tafsir al-Jalalayn], which is also common among early commentators and grammarians, who clearly did not hold the centuries later view that every variant is divine. Much later, for example, Abu Hayyan claimed that in both readings the exception refers to Lut's wife looking back, despite the contradiction with other surahs mentioning that she stayed behind, and despite Ibn Mas'ud's version which omits the look back part, and despite the fact that a variant wasn't needed (and the embarassement could have been avoided) if they both meant the same thing.</ref><ref>Regarding this variant see also [https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1452668408269520904 The story of Lot (...) finds clear parallels with the story as told in Gen. 19. A thread on a specific reading variant."] Twitter.com thread by Dr. Marijn van Putten - 25 October 2021 ([https://web.archive.org/web/20211026204953/https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1452668408269520904 archive])</ref> | ||
|[ | |[[:File:Bridges 11 81.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/11/vers/81 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=11&aya=81 nquran.com] | ||
|- | |- | ||
|{{Quran|37|12}} | |{{Quran|37|12}} | ||
| Line 562: | Line 552: | ||
|The others read 'ajibta (you were amazed) | |The others read 'ajibta (you were amazed) | ||
|Allah feels the emotion of amazement | |Allah feels the emotion of amazement | ||
|[ | |[[:File:Bridges 37 12.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/37/vers/12 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=37&aya=12 nquran.com] | ||
|} | |} | ||
| Line 580: | Line 570: | ||
!Reading 2 | !Reading 2 | ||
!Notes | !Notes | ||
!Variants translation, transliteration, and Arabic script | !Variants translation<ref name="Bridges" />, transliteration, and Arabic script | ||
|- | |- | ||
|{{Quran|2|116}} | |{{Quran|2|116}} | ||
| Line 586: | Line 576: | ||
|The others read wa qalu "And they say" | |The others read wa qalu "And they say" | ||
|This is an example of a regional rasm variant which has no significant value. | |This is an example of a regional rasm variant which has no significant value. | ||
|[ | |[[:File:Bridges 2 116.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/2/vers/116 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=2&aya=116 nquran.com] | ||
|- | |- | ||
|{{Quran|19|25}} | |{{Quran|19|25}} | ||
| Line 592: | Line 582: | ||
|The others read "It will drop" tusāqiṭ (form III), tassāqaṭ (form VI) or tasāqaṭ (assimilation) where "it" refers to the (feminine) palm tree | |The others read "It will drop" tusāqiṭ (form III), tassāqaṭ (form VI) or tasāqaṭ (assimilation) where "it" refers to the (feminine) palm tree | ||
|An example with a high number of variants, suggesting much uncertainty about the word. A total of four canonical variants are listed in the Corpus Corunicum link. It further documents several non-canonical variants for this same word such as nusqiṭ (we will cause to drop, as in {{Quran|34|9}}). See also the discussion of this verse in [http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume4/00000103.pdf Lane's Lexicon p.1379]) | |An example with a high number of variants, suggesting much uncertainty about the word. A total of four canonical variants are listed in the Corpus Corunicum link. It further documents several non-canonical variants for this same word such as nusqiṭ (we will cause to drop, as in {{Quran|34|9}}). See also the discussion of this verse in [http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume4/00000103.pdf Lane's Lexicon p.1379]) | ||
|[ | |[[:File:Bridges 19 25.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/19/vers/25 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=19&aya=25 nquran.com] | ||
|- | |- | ||
|{{Quran|21|96}} | |{{Quran|21|96}} | ||
| Line 598: | Line 588: | ||
|The others read futihat "opened" | |The others read futihat "opened" | ||
|An example where the more intensive form II renders the majority form I reading redundant. If a gate is opened wide, that already implies it is opened, so there is no purpose in the latter variant. | |An example where the more intensive form II renders the majority form I reading redundant. If a gate is opened wide, that already implies it is opened, so there is no purpose in the latter variant. | ||
|[ | |[[:File:Bridges 21 96.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/21/vers/96 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=21&aya=96 nquran.com] | ||
|- | |- | ||
|{{Quran|23|115}} | |{{Quran|23|115}} | ||
| Line 604: | Line 594: | ||
|The others read turja'una "be returned" | |The others read turja'una "be returned" | ||
|An example of active-passive variants. These are very common, involving vowel differences. The passive "be returned" in this case makes the active redundant as it is already implied. | |An example of active-passive variants. These are very common, involving vowel differences. The passive "be returned" in this case makes the active redundant as it is already implied. | ||
|[ | |[[:File:Bridges 23 115.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/23/vers/115 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=23&aya=115 nquran.com] | ||
|- | |- | ||
|{{Quran|59|14}} | |{{Quran|59|14}} | ||
| Line 610: | Line 600: | ||
|The others read judurin "walls" (plural) | |The others read judurin "walls" (plural) | ||
|An example of singular-plural variants where there is no discernable purpose in having both | |An example of singular-plural variants where there is no discernable purpose in having both | ||
|[ | |[[:File:Bridges 59 14.jpg|Bridges translation]]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/59/vers/14 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=59&aya=14 nquran.com] | ||
|} | |} | ||
===The number of Qira'at variants, canonical and non-canonical=== | ===The number of Qira'at variants, canonical and non-canonical=== | ||
Altogether, there are | Altogether, there are around 1,400 words with variants among the canonical readings of the Quran<ref>Marjin van Putten has suggested the number of farsh variants is about 1,400 based on one counting method - see this [https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1619296362910351366 twitter.com thread] - 28 January 2023 ([https://web.archive.org/web/20230205001535/https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1619296362910351366 archive])</ref><ref>See the tables of variants in Abu Fayyad, Fawzi Ibrahim (1989) [http://theses.gla.ac.uk/78058/ The Seven Readings of the Qur'an: A Critical Study of Their Linguistic Differences]. PhD thesis, University of Glasgow.</ref>, about two percent of the total. These are the farsh differences mentioned above. Some are regarded as dialect differences, while others including vowel differences affect grammar and meaning. Around 300 involve different consonantal dotting, generally changing attached pronouns or sometimes producing a different root word. In addition, there are around 40 variants arising from the regional Uthmanic codices (see below), in a few cases adding or omitting insignificant words. It is common for a word to have more than two variants, with no obvious intention in so much variety.<ref name="19.25">A good example is {{Quran|19|25}}, where [https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/19/vers/25 corpuscoranicum.de] shows four canonical readings for the word "it will drop": Ya'qub's yassāqaṭ where "it" refers to the (masculine) trunk, and three other forms such as tassāqaṭ where "it" refers to the (feminine) palm tree (as mentioned for this verse in [http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume4/00000103.pdf Lane's Lexicon p.1379]), with or without shaddah to emphasise the number of dates falling. It further documents several non-canonical variants for this same word.</ref> | ||
Beyond the canonical variants, the numbers become truely vast. In 2002, Abd al-Latif al-Kitab published his authoritative compendium of qira'at variants, ''Mu'jam al-Qira'at'', which is commonly cited by academic scholars. The main ten volumes list variants reportedly read by the canonical readers and transmitters, the companions, and other early reciters, mostly of the first two centuries.<ref>Abd al-Latif al-Khatib (2002) [https://archive.org/details/FP63091 Mu'jam al-Qira'at (معجم القراءات)]. Damascus: Dār Sa'd-al-Din. See [https://waqfeya.net/book.php?bid=12465\ here] for a useful volume index</ref> Together, these come to approximately 6,000 pages with around 5 variants listed per page. In 1937, Arthur Jeffery had compiled over 2000 companion variants in a smaller work.<ref name="Jeffery" /> The bulk of al-Khatib's compilation thus comprises the variants reportedly read by other early reciters, for example al-Hasan al-Basri or his students. These non-canonical variants include both those that comply with and those that do not fit the Uthmanic rasm standard. It is inconceivable that anywhere near this number of variants for the same words could have been part of Muhammad's recitation. Most of them must post-date the standardisation. | Beyond the canonical variants, the numbers become truely vast. In 2002, Abd al-Latif al-Kitab published his authoritative compendium of qira'at variants, ''Mu'jam al-Qira'at'', which is commonly cited by academic scholars. The main ten volumes list variants reportedly read by the canonical readers and transmitters, the companions, and other early reciters, mostly of the first two centuries.<ref>Abd al-Latif al-Khatib (2002) [https://archive.org/details/FP63091 Mu'jam al-Qira'at (معجم القراءات)]. Damascus: Dār Sa'd-al-Din. See [https://waqfeya.net/book.php?bid=12465\ here] for a useful volume index</ref> Together, these come to approximately 6,000 pages with around 5 variants listed per page. In 1937, Arthur Jeffery had compiled over 2000 companion variants in a smaller work.<ref name="Jeffery" /> The bulk of al-Khatib's compilation thus comprises the variants reportedly read by other early reciters, for example al-Hasan al-Basri or his students. These non-canonical variants include both those that comply with and those that do not fit the Uthmanic rasm standard. It is inconceivable that anywhere near this number of variants for the same words could have been part of Muhammad's recitation. Most of them must post-date the standardisation. | ||
| Line 623: | Line 613: | ||
===Implications of these numbers=== | ===Implications of these numbers=== | ||
Critics argue that it is hard to explain why there would be so many authentic variants available that just so happened to be accommodated by the Uthmanic orthography or sound similar, even granting the rasm selection effect. Van Putten has made a similar point.<ref>See p. 53 in Van Putten, Marijn, [https://brill.com/view/title/61587 Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions], Leiden: Brill, 2022 isbn: 9789004506251 (Open access in pdf format)</ref> As mentioned above, | Critics argue that it is hard to explain why there would be so many authentic variants available that just so happened to be accommodated by the Uthmanic orthography or sound similar, even granting the rasm selection effect. Van Putten has made a similar point.<ref>See p. 53 in Van Putten, Marijn, [https://brill.com/view/title/61587 Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions], Leiden: Brill, 2022 isbn: 9789004506251 (Open access in pdf format)</ref> As mentioned above, around 1,400 out of c.77,000 words in the Qur'an have canonical variants. There are two further considerations which greatly multiply the scale of the problem: 1) There is no reason to assume that even if genuine, these were the ''only'' variants that Muhammad uttered which complied with the (yet to be standardised) rasm. 2) There is no reason to assume that he would only have uttered variants that would later fit the Uthmanic rasm standard. Indeed, the companion variants often do not fit this standard. Therefore, the variants would just be a small subset of those he really uttered before any rasm constraint. If the canonical variants are all authentic, these considerations would therefore imply many thousands more. It is far more likely that most of the canonical variants post-date the rasm standard. | ||
Further, it seems doubtful that the Uthmanic rasm standardisation would have been successful had it required so many words to be discarded by the early Muslim communities. A large number of variants would also have provided ample cover for inauthentic ones to be innovated, deliberately or otherwise. The companions would not have had perfect memories, and where we do have reports of companions reading particular canonical variants, sometimes they were attested only of a single companion such as Ibn Mas'ud, or 'Ali when he disliked the main reading.<ref>An interesting example is Q. 17:102 mentioned in the table above. Al-Farrāʼ records for this verse in his ''Ma‘ānī aI-Qur’ān'' that the “I have known” variant is attributed to ʿAlī, who is narrated as saying, “By God, what the enemy of God knows, Musa knows!” (see p. 11 of [https://ramonharvey.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/al-kisai-harvey2016.pdf this paper]).</ref> | Further, it seems doubtful that the Uthmanic rasm standardisation would have been successful had it required so many words to be discarded by the early Muslim communities. A large number of variants would also have provided ample cover for inauthentic ones to be innovated, deliberately or otherwise. The companions would not have had perfect memories, and where we do have reports of companions reading particular canonical variants, sometimes they were attested only of a single companion such as Ibn Mas'ud, or 'Ali when he disliked the main reading.<ref>An interesting example is Q. 17:102 mentioned in the table above. Al-Farrāʼ records for this verse in his ''Ma‘ānī aI-Qur’ān'' that the “I have known” variant is attributed to ʿAlī, who is narrated as saying, “By God, what the enemy of God knows, Musa knows!” (see p. 11 of [https://ramonharvey.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/al-kisai-harvey2016.pdf this paper]).</ref> | ||
| Line 629: | Line 619: | ||
===Origin of the Qira'at Variants=== | ===Origin of the Qira'at Variants=== | ||
The Uthmanic codex was written in a rasm, which is a "defective" Arabic script, meaning that it lacked most word-internal ʾalifs (unwritten or inconsistent usage in most situations), had no markings for short vowels, and | The Uthmanic codex was written in a rasm, which is a "defective" Arabic script, meaning that it lacked most word-internal ʾalifs (unwritten or inconsistent usage in most situations), had no markings for short vowels, and only a limited amount of dotting to distinguish the many different but identically written consonantal letters. | ||
Professor Shady Nasser shows that at the time when Ibn Mujahid wrote his ''Kitab al Sab'ah'' selecting the 7 eponymous readings that later became canonical, adherence of readings to the Uthmanic rasm and good Arabic grammar were already important criteria <ref>Nasser, S. [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mRAzAQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover ''The Transmission of the Variant Readings of the Qurʾān: The Problem of Tawātur and the Emergence of Shawādhdh''], Leiden, Boston:Brill, 2013, p.53</ref>, but Ibn Mujahid restricted his selection to just 7 by choosing the consensus readings from each of Mecca, Medina, Basra, Syria and the 3 most popular readers from Kufah, where the legacy of Ibn Mas'ud's (now banned) reading meant that there was no dominant Uthmanic reading in that city.<ref>Ibid. pp. 47-61</ref>. Ibn Mujahid's decision to select just 7 readings drew frequent criticism after its publication<ref>Ibid. p.64</ref>. | Professor Shady Nasser shows that at the time when Ibn Mujahid wrote his ''Kitab al Sab'ah'' selecting the 7 eponymous readings that later became canonical, adherence of readings to the Uthmanic rasm and good Arabic grammar were already important criteria <ref>Nasser, S. [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mRAzAQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover ''The Transmission of the Variant Readings of the Qurʾān: The Problem of Tawātur and the Emergence of Shawādhdh''], Leiden, Boston:Brill, 2013, p.53</ref>, but Ibn Mujahid restricted his selection to just 7 by choosing the consensus readings from each of Mecca, Medina, Basra, Syria and the 3 most popular readers from Kufah, where the legacy of Ibn Mas'ud's (now banned) reading meant that there was no dominant Uthmanic reading in that city.<ref>Ibid. pp. 47-61</ref>. Ibn Mujahid's decision to select just 7 readings drew frequent criticism after its publication<ref>Ibid. p.64</ref>. | ||
| Line 637: | Line 627: | ||
This would be an extraordinary coincidence if the variants are entirely due to oral transmissions going back to the recitations of Muhammad (though certainly the general agreement between readings where the rasm is ambiguous demonstrates that there was also oral transmission <ref>{{citation |last1=Van Putten |first1=Marijn |date=April 2020|title=Hišām's ʾIbrāhām : Evidence for a Canonical Quranic Reading Based on the Rasm |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338434122_Hisam%27s_Ibraham_Evidence_for_a_Canonical_Quranic_Reading_Based_on_the_Rasm |journal=Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society |volume=30 |issue=2 |pages=251 |access-date=7 July 2020}} pp.15-16 of the open access pdf</ref>). Instead, the regional correspondence of rasm and oral reading variants is easily explained if the readings were adapted to fit the codices given to those regions. By analysing the reported variants between regional codices, modern scholarship has confirmed that they form a stemma (textual tree relationship), suggesting that those particular variants did not originate in oral transmission.<ref>Ibid. pp.14-15 of the open access pdf in which the important stemmatic work of Michael Cook is highlighted.</ref> Van Putten sets out these and other arguments that the readings depend not just on oral transmission but also to an extent on the rasm in his open access book ''Quran Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions''.<ref>Van Putten, Marijn, [https://brill.com/view/title/61587 Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions], Leiden: Brill, 2022, pp. 52-55 isbn: 9789004506251</ref> | This would be an extraordinary coincidence if the variants are entirely due to oral transmissions going back to the recitations of Muhammad (though certainly the general agreement between readings where the rasm is ambiguous demonstrates that there was also oral transmission <ref>{{citation |last1=Van Putten |first1=Marijn |date=April 2020|title=Hišām's ʾIbrāhām : Evidence for a Canonical Quranic Reading Based on the Rasm |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338434122_Hisam%27s_Ibraham_Evidence_for_a_Canonical_Quranic_Reading_Based_on_the_Rasm |journal=Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society |volume=30 |issue=2 |pages=251 |access-date=7 July 2020}} pp.15-16 of the open access pdf</ref>). Instead, the regional correspondence of rasm and oral reading variants is easily explained if the readings were adapted to fit the codices given to those regions. By analysing the reported variants between regional codices, modern scholarship has confirmed that they form a stemma (textual tree relationship), suggesting that those particular variants did not originate in oral transmission.<ref>Ibid. pp.14-15 of the open access pdf in which the important stemmatic work of Michael Cook is highlighted.</ref> Van Putten sets out these and other arguments that the readings depend not just on oral transmission but also to an extent on the rasm in his open access book ''Quran Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions''.<ref>Van Putten, Marijn, [https://brill.com/view/title/61587 Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions], Leiden: Brill, 2022, pp. 52-55 isbn: 9789004506251</ref> | ||
If qira'at variants could sometimes arise from variants in the rasm, we should also expect this to occur even in places where the rasm did not vary. Munther Younes highlights a particularly interesting example among the hundreds known.<ref>Younes, M., [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eQuWDwAAQBAJ&pg=PR1 ''Charging Steeds or Maidens Performing Good Deeds. In Search of the Original Qur'an''], London:Routledge, 2018 p. 3</ref> In {{Quran|4|94}} we have the canonical variants fa-tabayyanū or fa-tathabbatū. In this case, the variant root words do not share even a single consonant in common (bāʼ-yāʼ-nūn versus thāʼ-bāʼ-tāʼ), but nevertheless both variants fit the defective script of | If qira'at variants could sometimes arise from variants in the rasm, we should also expect this to occur even in places where the rasm did not vary. Munther Younes highlights a particularly interesting example among the hundreds known.<ref>Younes, M., [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eQuWDwAAQBAJ&pg=PR1 ''Charging Steeds or Maidens Performing Good Deeds. In Search of the Original Qur'an''], London:Routledge, 2018 p. 3</ref> In {{Quran|4|94}} we have the canonical variants fa-tabayyanū or fa-tathabbatū. In this case, the variant root words do not share even a single consonant in common (bāʼ-yāʼ-nūn versus thāʼ-bāʼ-tāʼ), but nevertheless both variants fit the defective script of early Quran manuscripts, which lacked most consonantal dots (becoming even scarcer in the 2nd century) and had no short vowels. Other examples of variants with the same rasm include {{Quran|6|57}}, where 4 of the canonical 7 qira'at have yaqḍi l-ḥaqqa "He judges the truth" rather than yaquṣṣu l-ḥaqqa "He declares the truth"<ref>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/6/vers/57 Corpus Coranicum]</ref> and {{Quran|10|30}} where two readers have tatlū (recounts, recites), whereas the other five have tablū (tests) <ref>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/10/vers/30 Corpus Coranicum]</ref>. In these examples the similarity between the variant readings is graphic (how the rasm looks) rather than phonic (how they sound) and involve consonantal dotting differences that transform one word into another, though short vowel differences make up the bulk of variants. | ||
The seven eponymous readings are only rarely evident in the earliest manuscripts. The vast majority of vocalised manuscripts contain unknown or non-canonical reading systems. They contain the above mentioned regional differences, but also sometimes reflect dotting and lettering traceable to the more substantial variant readings of the Companions and not necessarily of the seven.<ref name="Morteza Karimi-Nia" /> | The seven eponymous readings are only rarely evident in the earliest manuscripts. The vast majority of vocalised manuscripts contain unknown or non-canonical reading systems. They contain the above mentioned regional differences, but also sometimes reflect dotting and lettering traceable to the more substantial variant readings of the Companions and not necessarily of the seven.<ref name="Morteza Karimi-Nia" /> | ||
| Line 656: | Line 646: | ||
==Changes to the spoken Arabic dialect of the Qur'an== | ==Changes to the spoken Arabic dialect of the Qur'an== | ||
{{Main|Old Hijazi}} | |||
In a number of papers and a book dedicated to the topic (all open access in pdf format),<ref name="vanPutten2022">van Putten, Marijn, [https://brill.com/view/title/61587 Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions], Leiden: Brill, 2022 isbn: 9789004506251</ref> van Putten has identified that the Quranic Consonantal Text (QCT) reveals certain features about the Hijazi dialect in which it was originally uttered. These do not match the dialects found in the canonical qira'at, nor for this reason the orthography of Qur'ans published today. Evidence from internal rhyme is particularly helpful in this regard (the traditional qira'at recitations and later orthography sometimes break the rhyming structure of a passage), supplemented by ancient epigraphic (inscription) evidence, including transliterations of the Arabic of that region and time into other languages. Van Putten and Stokes have found that the QCT "possessed a functional but reduced case system, in which cases marked by long vowels were retained, whereas those marked by short vowels were mostly lost".<ref>Van Putten, Marijn; Stokes, Phillip (2018). [https://www.academia.edu/37481811/Case_in_the_Qur%CB%80%C4%81nic_Consonantal_Text_Wiener_Zeitschrift_f%C3%BCr_die_Kunde_des_Morgenlandes_108_2018_pp_143_179 Case in the Qurˀānic Consonantal Text]. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes (108): 143–179.</ref> Van Putten has also found, in line with the accounts of early Muslim linguists, that the Hijazi dialect spoken by Muhammad had lost the use of the hamza except for word-final ā.<ref>Van Putten, Marijn (2018). [https://www.academia.edu/35556452/Hamzah_in_the_Quranic_Consonantal_Text_Orientalia_87_1_2018_pp_93_120 Hamzah in the Quranic Consonantal Text]. Orientalia. 87 (1): 93–120</ref> He has also found that nunation at the end of feminine nouns ending with -at was not present in this dialect.<ref>Van Putten, Marijn (2017). [https://www.academia.edu/35131582/_The_Feminine_Ending_at_as_a_Diptote_in_the_Qur%CA%BE%C4%81nic_Consonantal_Text_and_Its_Implications_for_Proto_Arabic_and_Proto_Semitic_Arabica_64_5_6_2017_pp_695_705 The Feminine Ending -at as a Diptote in the Qurānic Consonantal Text and Its Implications for Proto-Arabic and Proto-Semitic] Arabica (64): 695–705</ref> | In a number of papers and a book dedicated to the topic (all open access in pdf format),<ref name="vanPutten2022">van Putten, Marijn, [https://brill.com/view/title/61587 Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions], Leiden: Brill, 2022 isbn: 9789004506251</ref> van Putten has identified that the Quranic Consonantal Text (QCT) reveals certain features about the Hijazi dialect in which it was originally uttered. These do not match the dialects found in the canonical qira'at, nor for this reason the orthography of Qur'ans published today. Evidence from internal rhyme is particularly helpful in this regard (the traditional qira'at recitations and later orthography sometimes break the rhyming structure of a passage), supplemented by ancient epigraphic (inscription) evidence, including transliterations of the Arabic of that region and time into other languages. Van Putten and Stokes have found that the QCT "possessed a functional but reduced case system, in which cases marked by long vowels were retained, whereas those marked by short vowels were mostly lost".<ref>Van Putten, Marijn; Stokes, Phillip (2018). [https://www.academia.edu/37481811/Case_in_the_Qur%CB%80%C4%81nic_Consonantal_Text_Wiener_Zeitschrift_f%C3%BCr_die_Kunde_des_Morgenlandes_108_2018_pp_143_179 Case in the Qurˀānic Consonantal Text]. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes (108): 143–179.</ref> Van Putten has also found, in line with the accounts of early Muslim linguists, that the Hijazi dialect spoken by Muhammad had lost the use of the hamza except for word-final ā.<ref>Van Putten, Marijn (2018). [https://www.academia.edu/35556452/Hamzah_in_the_Quranic_Consonantal_Text_Orientalia_87_1_2018_pp_93_120 Hamzah in the Quranic Consonantal Text]. Orientalia. 87 (1): 93–120</ref> He has also found that nunation at the end of feminine nouns ending with -at was not present in this dialect.<ref>Van Putten, Marijn (2017). [https://www.academia.edu/35131582/_The_Feminine_Ending_at_as_a_Diptote_in_the_Qur%CA%BE%C4%81nic_Consonantal_Text_and_Its_Implications_for_Proto_Arabic_and_Proto_Semitic_Arabica_64_5_6_2017_pp_695_705 The Feminine Ending -at as a Diptote in the Qurānic Consonantal Text and Its Implications for Proto-Arabic and Proto-Semitic] Arabica (64): 695–705</ref> | ||
| Line 669: | Line 660: | ||
scriptio plena that the historical sources suggest was al-Ḥajjāj’s intended goal. There is some manuscript evidence for the introduction of short vowel markers into the Qurʾān in this period, but this development is not associated with the introduction of diacritics as our literary sources suggest." [i.e. they wrongly suggest both consonantal and vowel marks were introduced at the same time] Bursi concludes that "While ʿAbd al-Malik and/or al-Ḥajjāj do appear to have played a role in the evolution of the qurʾānic text, the initial introduction of diacritics into the text was not part of this process and it is unclear what development in the usage of diacritics took place at their instigation."<ref>Bursi, Adam. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5913/jiqsa.3.2018.a005 Connecting the Dots: Diacritics, Scribal Culture, and the Qurʾān in the First/Seventh Century.] Journal of the International Qur’anic Studies Association, vol. 3, International Qur’anic Studies Association, 2018, pp. 111–157 (see pp. 116-126), https://doi.org/10.5913/jiqsa.3.2018.a005.</ref> | scriptio plena that the historical sources suggest was al-Ḥajjāj’s intended goal. There is some manuscript evidence for the introduction of short vowel markers into the Qurʾān in this period, but this development is not associated with the introduction of diacritics as our literary sources suggest." [i.e. they wrongly suggest both consonantal and vowel marks were introduced at the same time] Bursi concludes that "While ʿAbd al-Malik and/or al-Ḥajjāj do appear to have played a role in the evolution of the qurʾānic text, the initial introduction of diacritics into the text was not part of this process and it is unclear what development in the usage of diacritics took place at their instigation."<ref>Bursi, Adam. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5913/jiqsa.3.2018.a005 Connecting the Dots: Diacritics, Scribal Culture, and the Qurʾān in the First/Seventh Century.] Journal of the International Qur’anic Studies Association, vol. 3, International Qur’anic Studies Association, 2018, pp. 111–157 (see pp. 116-126), https://doi.org/10.5913/jiqsa.3.2018.a005.</ref> | ||
Similar to Bursi, Nicolai Sinai is skeptical of detailed reports about the contribution of al-Hajjaj, and of Omar Hamdan's acceptance of reports that al-Hajjaj replaced existing mushafs with his own version (the so-called "second masahif project"), though Sinai does find more convincing the reports that al-Hijjaj sought to enforce the Uthmanic rasm standard under the Caliphate of 'Abu al-Malik b. Marwan and particularly, to suppress the continued use of the non-Uthmanic reading of Ibn Mas'ud in Kufa.<ref>Sinai, Nicolai. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/24692711 When Did the Consonantal Skeleton of the Quran Reach Closure? Part I.] Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, vol. 77, no. 2, Cambridge University Press, School of Oriental and African Studies, 2014, pp. 273–92 (see pp. 279-285)</ref> | Similar to Bursi, Nicolai Sinai is skeptical of detailed reports about the contribution of al-Hajjaj, and of Omar Hamdan's acceptance of reports that al-Hajjaj replaced existing mushafs with his own version (the so-called "second masahif project"), though Sinai does find more convincing the reports that al-Hijjaj sought to enforce the Uthmanic rasm standard under the Caliphate of 'Abu al-Malik b. Marwan and, particularly, to suppress the continued use of the non-Uthmanic reading of Ibn Mas'ud in Kufa.<ref>Sinai, Nicolai. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/24692711 When Did the Consonantal Skeleton of the Quran Reach Closure? Part I.] Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, vol. 77, no. 2, Cambridge University Press, School of Oriental and African Studies, 2014, pp. 273–92 (see pp. 279-285)</ref> | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||