Textual History of the Qur'an: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
[checked revision][checked revision]
No edit summary
Line 378: Line 378:
A related question on which scholars differed was whether or not all the ahruf were preserved. One group including ibn Hazm (d.1064 CE) believed that all seven ahruf were accomodated by the Uthmanic rasm (consonantal skeleton), finding it unimaginable that anything would be omitted.<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.83</ref>. Al-Tabari argued that only one harf was preserved by Uthman, while Ibn al Jazari said the view of most scholars is that only as many of the ahruf as the Uthmanic rasm accommodated were preserved<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.65-67</ref>. Indeed, this latter is more viable theologically, for the non-Uthmanic companion readings must be fraudulent under the first view, and problems with the second view include those mentioned above.
A related question on which scholars differed was whether or not all the ahruf were preserved. One group including ibn Hazm (d.1064 CE) believed that all seven ahruf were accomodated by the Uthmanic rasm (consonantal skeleton), finding it unimaginable that anything would be omitted.<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.83</ref>. Al-Tabari argued that only one harf was preserved by Uthman, while Ibn al Jazari said the view of most scholars is that only as many of the ahruf as the Uthmanic rasm accommodated were preserved<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.65-67</ref>. Indeed, this latter is more viable theologically, for the non-Uthmanic companion readings must be fraudulent under the first view, and problems with the second view include those mentioned above.


As part of the majority view reported by ibn al Jazari, the Uthmanic codex was based on the harf of the "final review" or final revealed version of the Quran<ref>Ibid. p.66</ref>. However, there were around 40 scribal errors in the official copies of the Uthmanic text (see below).<ref>See the list in Cook, M. (2004) “The Stemma of the Regional Codices of the Koran,” ''Graeco-Arabica'', 9-10 or Nasser, S. "The Second Canonization of the Qurʾān (324/936)" Brill, 2020, pp.143-150</ref> Canonical qira'at were required to comply with this range rather than an entirely unified text. Indeed, in some cases they even strayed beyond these boundaries.<ref>See for example {{Quran|19|19}}, where Abu Amr and the transmission of Warsh from Nafi have Gabriel saying to Mary li-yahaba ("that he may give") instead of li-'ahaba ("that I may give") [https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/19/vers/19 corpuscoranicum.de]. The ya consonant for this variant is sometimes written in red ink on manuscripts or superscript in print.<BR>The non-canonical Ṣan'ā' 1 palimpsest solves the theologically awkward reading in another way, using li-nahaba ("that we may give") - See p.64, line 15 of Folio 22B in  
As part of the majority view reported by ibn al Jazari, the Uthmanic codex was based on the harf of the "final review" or final revealed version of the Quran<ref>Ibid. p.66</ref>. However, there were around 40 scribal errors in the official copies of the Uthmanic text (see below).<ref>See the list in Cook, M. (2004) “The Stemma of the Regional Codices of the Koran,” ''Graeco-Arabica'', 9-10 or Nasser, S. "The Second Canonization of the Qurʾān (324/936)" Brill, 2020, pp.143-150</ref> Canonical qira'at were required to comply with this range rather than an entirely unified text. Indeed, in some cases they even strayed beyond these boundaries.<ref name="li-yahaba-li-nahaba">See for example {{Quran|19|19}}, where Abu Amr and the transmission of Warsh from Nafi have Gabriel saying to Mary li-yahaba ("that he may give") instead of li-'ahaba ("that I may give") [https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/19/vers/19 corpuscoranicum.de]. The ya consonant for this variant is sometimes written in red ink on manuscripts or superscript in print.<BR>The non-canonical Ṣan'ā' 1 palimpsest solves the theologically awkward reading in another way, using li-nahaba ("that we may give") - See p.64, line 15 of Folio 22B in  
Sadeghi & Goudarzi, [https://www.scribd.com/doc/110978941/Sanaa-1-and-the-Origins-of-the-Qur-An San'a' 1 and the Origins of the Qur'an] Der Islam 87, No. 1-2 (February 2012) 1-129</ref>
Sadeghi & Goudarzi, [https://www.scribd.com/doc/110978941/Sanaa-1-and-the-Origins-of-the-Qur-An San'a' 1 and the Origins of the Qur'an] Der Islam 87, No. 1-2 (February 2012) 1-129</ref>


Line 453: Line 453:
|li-yahaba (that he may bestow)
|li-yahaba (that he may bestow)
|This is in a quote of Gabriel's words to Mary. Which did he say?
|This is in a quote of Gabriel's words to Mary. Which did he say?
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>
|[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/19/vers/19 19:19]
|[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/19/vers/19 19:19]
Editors, em-bypass-2, Reviewers, rollback, Administrators
2,743

edits

Navigation menu