Textual History of the Qur'an: Difference between revisions

Textual History of the Qur'an (view source)

Revision as of 12:31, 7 July 2020

4,672 bytes added , 7 July 2020

New section on the origin of the Qira'at variants

[checked revision]

Lightyears

Editors, em-bypass-2, Reviewers, rollback, Administrators

2,743

edits

@@ Line 228: / Line 228: @@
 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. 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.
 ==Differences in the Hafs and Warsh Texts==
-Apart from other earlier variant texts, and the riwayats of al-Duri from Abu Amr used in Sudan, and of Hisham from ibn Amir used in parts of Yemen, there are two different texts (mushaf) of the Qur'an currently in print, named after their respective 2nd-century transmitters Hafs (from Kufa) and Warsh (from Medina).
+Apart from other earlier variant readings, and those of al-Duri from Abu Amr still used in Sudan, and of Hisham from ibn Amir still used in parts of Yemen, there are two different readings of the Qur'an currently widespread in printed text (mushaf), named after their respective 2nd-century transmitters Hafs (from Kufa) and Warsh (from Medina).
-The Hafs text is the more common and used in most areas of the Islamic world. Warsh is used mainly in West and North-West Africa as well as by the Zaydiya in Yemen. Here are some of the differences.
+The Hafs reading is the more common and used in most areas of the Islamic world. Warsh is used mainly in West and North-West Africa as well as by the Zaydiya in Yemen. Here are some of the differences.
 {| border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" align="center" width = "60%" class=wikitable
@@ Line 325: / Line 327: @@
 A more extensive study of differences between the Hafs and Warsh transmissions and comparisons with Qur'an manuscripts can be read online<ref>[http://www.free-minds.org/sites/default/files/WhichQuran.pdf Which Qur'an? by Layth Al-Shaiban]</ref>.
-Some apologetics say that variants (aka corruption) of the dots and vowel marks may have occured when the text was written down, but that the simple consonantal text without these diacritics is preserved (even though not all examples, including those listed above, depend on the placement of dots and vowel marks). Yet the Qur'an itself is more than simply a written text, and certainly more than its earliest basic written form without diacritics, where some different consonants are written identically. There are clearly corruptions in the recital of the actual words from when they were originally spoken, which became more apparent as the written Arabic language developed to include vowel sounds and to distinguish different but identical looking consonants with dots.
+The most common apologetic defence of the preservation doctrine claims that all of the 7 canonical qira'at (readings) were recited by Muhammad. They claim that even when the variants are completely different words or when words are added or ommitted, that these are all divinely revealed alternatives. This doesn't address variants that contradict each other, nor explain the suspicious fact that the variants words sound similar to each other. In any case, such obviously contrived attempts to salvage the preservation doctrine in such a way as to make it almost meaningless and unfalsifiable are incredible, even by the standards of Islam, a religion built full of contrivances to escape difficult questions.
+==Origin of the Qira'at Variants==
+The Uthmanic codex was written in a "rasm", which is a defective Arabic script in which there are no markings for short vowels and a lack of dots that were in later times used to distinguish different but identical looking consonants.
+Professor Shady Nasser shows that at the time when ibn Mujahid wrote his ''Kitab al Sab'ah'' selecting the 7 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, Damascus and the 3 most popular readers from Kufah, where the legacy of Ibn Masud's (now banned) reading meant that there was no dominant Uthmanic reading in that city.<ref>Ibid. pp. 47-61</ref>.
+He further shows that ibn Mujahid <ref>Ibid. pp.59-61</ref>, and others such as al-Tabari shortly before the canonisation<ref>Ibid. pp.41-47</ref> readily presented arguments for and criticised variants in these same readings that were later canonised (or even 200 years afterwards in the case of al-Zamakhshari <ref>Ibid. pp.6-7</ref>). After ibn Mujahid's book, a genre of literature arose that "''indicates the rising need to provide grammatical and syntactic proofs in order to back up the arguments necessary to assess the superiority of one reading over another.''" <ref>Ibid. pp.60-61 (see also the footnote on p.61)</ref>. Ibn Mujahid's selection of 7 readings drew frequent criticism after its publication.<ref>Ibid. p.64</ref> The consensus notion that these 7 were divinely preserved in a chain back to the Prophet himself only came about later, by which time there was of course no room for arguments and reasoning to try to prove the superiority of one variant over another. <ref>Ibid. pp. 59-61</ref>
+Dr Marijn Van Putten has shown that while the canonical readings largely comply with the Uthmanic rasm, more specifically they also each closely comply with the regional variants of that rasm, which were sent out to the major intellectual centres of early Islam and contained a small number of copying mistakes. So, the Kufan readings closely correspond to the variants found in the rasm of the codex given to that city and so on.<ref>{{cite journal |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 |doi=10.1017/S1356186320000218 |access-date=7 July 2020}} pp.13-15 of the open access pdf</ref><ref>He elaborates in much more detail in this Twitter thread: {{cite web| url=https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1218669152371650560 | title=Twitter.com| author=Dr Marijn Van Putten | date= 18 January 2020| archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200119002517/https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1218669152371650560|deadurl=no}}</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>{{cite journal |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 |doi=10.1017/S1356186320000218 |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 these codices, modern scholarship has confirmed that they form textual families and that those particular variants did not originate in oral transmission. <ref>Ibid. pp.14-15 of the open access pdf</ref>
-Another apologetic defence of the preservation doctrine has it that even when the variants are completely different words or when words are added or ommitted, that these are all divinely revealed alternatives. This doesn't address variants that contradict each other, nor explain the suspicious fact that the variants words sound similar to each other. In any case, such obviously contrived attempts to salvage the preservation doctrine in such a way as to make it almost meaningless and unfalsifiable are incredible, even by the standards of Islam, a religion built full of contrivances to escape difficult questions.
+If qira'at variants could sometimes arise from the rasm, we should also expect this to occur even in places where the rasm did not vary. Professor 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|9}} 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 the Uthmanic rasm, which lacked dots and vowels.
 ==Diacritical Marks and Grammatical Mistakes==