Textual History of the Qur'an: Difference between revisions

The textual and oral transmission history of the Quran are interconnected. As discussed in this article, standardisation first occured in the written consonantal skeleton. This acted as a constraint on the variant oral readings, which too eventually became standardised and written down in stages. This was accomplished by Muslims over a period of many centuries. Muslims would argue that the Qur'an was preserved by Allah as he had promised.<ref>"''We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).''" - {{Quran|15|9}}</ref>

A significant number of early Hijazi manuscript fragments have been radio-carbon dated to the first Islamic century, covering the majority of the Qur'an between them. All but one of those discovered so far have been of the Uthmanic text type (the exception being the lower text of the [[Sana'a Manuscript|Ṣan'ā' 1 manuscript]], which is a palimpsest<ref>"The text does not belong to the 'Uṯmānic textual tradition, making this the only known manuscript of a non-'Uṯmānic text type." Behnam Sadeghi and Uwe Bergmann, “The Codex of a Companion of the Prophet and the Qur’ān of the Prophet,” Arabica 57, no. 4 (2010): 343–436. p.343</ref>). However, these manuscripts are not identical. Every early manuscript falls into a small number of regional families (identified by variants in their rasm, or consonantal text), and each moreover contains non-canonical variants in dotting and lettering that can often be traced back to those reported of the Companions.<ref name="Morteza Karimi-Nia">Morteza Karimi-Nia of the Encyclopaedia Islamica Foundation, Tehran, says in a paper on the Codex Mashhad manuscript:

Morteza Karimi-Nia, [https://www.academia.edu/33908045/Mashhad_Codex_Uthm%C4%81nic_Text_of_the_Qur_%C4%81n_with_Ibn_Mas_%C5%ABd_Arrangement_of_S%C5%ABras_Possibly_Meccan_Medinan_Codex_in_the_Library_of_%C4%80st%C4%81n-e_Quds_paper_presented_in_the_conference_Paleo-Quranic_Manuscripts_Conference_State_of_the_Field_May_4-6_2017_Central_European_University_Budapest_ A new document in the early history of the Qurʾān: Codex Mashhad, an ʿUthmānic text of the Qurʾān in Ibn Masʿūd’s arrangement of Sūras], Journal of Islamic Manuscripts,  Volume 10 (2019) 3, pp. 292-326  DOI:10.1163/1878464X-01003002</ref> The Ṣan'ā' 1 manuscript is especially known to have this feature.<ref>Behnam Sadeghi and Uwe Bergmann, “The Codex of a Companion of the Prophet and the Qur’ān of the Prophet,” Arabica 57, no. 4 (2010): 343–436. See pages 390 ff.</ref><ref>[https://www.islamic-awareness.org/quran/text/mss/soth.html Codex Ṣanʿāʾ I – A Qur'ānic Manuscript From Mid–1st Century Of Hijra] Islamic Awareness</ref>

No copy of the Uthmanic recension exists despite its centrality as the Ur-Qur'an of all modern readings, so no confirmation is available via comparison with it. A very old palimpsest (imprinted scroll which was washed and written over) is extant from Sana'a, Yemen (the [[Sana Manuscript|Ṣan'ā' 1 Manuscript]]), which contains variants not found in any of the accepted readings of the Qur'an. The Islamic narrative itself comes to us mostly through the hadith tradition, which has been proven since Ignac Goldziher in the 19th century to be unreliable due to the nature of the "asaanid" or chains of authority supporting the hadith and the immense gulf of time between when the hadith were collected and when Muhammad lived. In addition the earliest copies of the Qur'an lack vowel and many diacritic markings, indicating that they were more a guide for memorization than the fully-fleshed out text that is extant today.

 

The rasm is only part of the story of the textual transmission of the Qur'an. When vocalised manuscripts with diacritics start to appear, many (mostly non-canonical) readings are found to be imposed upon it.<ref>See for example comments by leading manuscript expert and linguist Dr. Marijn van Putten [https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1282206245026504704 here], [https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1294253564378976259 here] and [https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1212824936768778245 here]</ref>

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 and with scarce use of 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 canonical seven many centuries later by ibn al-Jazari (d.1429 CE) - those of Abu Jafar, Ya'qub and Khalaf. These three were 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. Christopher Melchert (2008) [https://jstor.org/stable/25728 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>

Each of the Qira'at has two canonical transmissions (riwayat) named after its transmitters, one of which is the basis for any particular text (mushaf) of the Qur'an. For example, the mushaf used mainly in North Africa is based on the riwayah of Warsh from Nafi (the reading of Nafi transmitted by Warsh). As Nasser explains, the two-Rawi canon for ibn Mujahid's choice of seven readings was effectively canonised due to the popularity both of a simplified student Qira'at manual by al-Dani (d.1053 CE; who in another more complicated work documents many more transmissions), and a poetic form of this manual by al-Shatibi (d.1388 CE).<ref>Nasser, S.H. (2013) "The Two-Rāwī Canon before and after ad-Dānī (d. 444/1052–3): The Role of Abū ṭ-Ṭayyib Ibn Ghalbūn (d. 389/998) and the Qayrawān/Andalus School in Creating the Two-Rāwī Canon", ''Oriens'' 41 (1-02), 41-75</ref> The canonical transmitters all differ in their readings, even when they transmit from the same reader. This two transmitter system was expanded when ibn al Jazari canonised the three readers after the seven mentioned above, giving twenty canonical transmitters for the ten readers in total.

The legitimacy of variant oral readings is derived from some hadith narrations that the Qur'an was revealed to Muhammad in seven ahruf. The word ahruf literally means words or letters, but is commonly translated as modes of recitation. The nature of these ahruf generated a wide range of theories, some more plausible than others.<ref>These are summarised in 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.9-20</ref> A popular, though problematic theory was that these were dialects of seven Arab tribes, and only one, that of the Quraysh was retained by Uthman. However, most variants among the canonical readings are not of a dialect nature<ref>Melchert, Christopher “The Relation of the Ten Readings to One Another / ‮العلاقة بين القراءات العشر‬.” Journal of Qur'anic Studies, vol. 10, no. 2, 2008, pp. 73–87. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25728289. Accessed 16 Nov. 2020.</ref>. It also makes little sense of {{Bukhari|9|93|640}} in which Muhammad appealed to ahruf when two companions who were both of the Qureshi tribe disagreed on a reading. A more tenable view is that the ahruf represent variant readings at certain points in the Quran.

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.

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>.

Nasser further shows that grammarians such as al-Farra<ref>Ibid. p.167</ref>, and scholars such as al-Tabari readily criticised variants in these same readings shortly before they were canonised<ref>Ibid. pp.41-47</ref> (as did al-Zamakhshari 200 years afterwards)<ref>Ibid. pp.6-7</ref>). Even ibn Mujahid said variants now considered canonical were wrong.<ref>Ibid. pp.59-61 (for specific examples of him criticising such variants, many of which are unique to particular canonical readers or transmitters, see the list and summary table in chapter 2, pp.64-89 of Nasser's follow-up book Nasser, S. H. "The Second Canonization of the Qurʾān (324/936)" Brill, 2020; Similarly, see the [https://data.brill.com/supp/9789004412903/variants.html open access appendix] from Nasser's book and search for the word "wrong" to see which of the variants documented by ibn Mujahid were described as such, whether in terms of transmission or the reading variant itself being wrong; or see the examples given by van Putten on Twitter.com [https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1296392400735277057 here] and [https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1090545330402267136 here]</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 decision to select just 7 readings drew frequent criticism after its publication<ref>Ibid. p.64</ref>. The consensus notion that all variants in 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> As Nasser writes, "''The problem that caused heated discussion for centuries afterwards was the origin and transmission of the eponymous Readings; were these Readings transmitted through tawātur or single chains of transmission? Are there Readings better than others or are they equally divine?''"<ref>ibid. p.65</ref>.