Textual History of the Qur'an: Difference between revisions

Textual History of the Qur'an (view source)

Revision as of 23:20, 17 October 2021

4,407 bytes added , 17 October 2021

no edit summary

[checked revision]

Lightyears

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

2,743

edits

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 {{Quote|{{bukhari|6|61|510}}|Narrated Anas bin Malik:
 Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts '''or whole copies, be burnt'''. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.' (33.23)}}
+===Uthman (or Marwan) destroys Hafsa's codex===
+The above quoted story of the Uthmanic standardisation is considered by academics to be relatively early and mentions the manuscripts possessed at that time by Hafsa, which were reportedly those compiled by Zayd under Abu Bakr twenty years earlier. It records that she allowed Uthman to borrow and return them. Some time after standardisation and her death, her mushaf was handed over to the Caliph by her brother and deliberately destroyed. Sean Anthony and Catherine Bronson note: "Zuhrī—the  earliest  known  scholar to emphasize the importance of Ḥafṣah’s codex for the collection of the caliph ʿUthmān’s recension—also serves as the authority for the accounts of the destruction of Ḥafṣah’s scrolls (ṣuḥuf). Hence, we are likely dealing with two intimately intertwined narratives that originated with Zuhrī and his students." On the identity of the Caliph, they note "at least four versions of the Zuhrī account assert that the caliph ʿUthmān (and not  Marwān) requested ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar to hand over Ḥafṣah’s muṣḥaf after his sister’s death, whereupon the codex was either burned or erased." In the other versions, "Marwān has the codex either erased by washing the parchment (ghasalahā ghaslan), torn to shreds (shaqqaqahā wa-mazzaqahā), or burned to ashes (fashāhā wa-ḥarraqahā)" and "Marwān himself cites 'the fear that there might be a cause to dispute that which ʿUthmān copied down because of something therein.'"<ref>Sean W. Anthony, and Catherine L. Bronson. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5913/jiqsa.1.2017.a006 Did Ḥafṣah Edit the Qurʾān? A Response with Notes on the Codices of the Prophet’s Wives] Journal of the International Qur’anic Studies Association, vol. 1, International Qur’anic Studies Association, 2016, pp. 93–125, https://doi.org/10.5913/jiqsa.1.2017.a006. (pp. 108-114)</ref>
 ===Disagreements on the Qur'an===
@@ Line 51: / Line 54: @@
 :Al-Tabari's tafsir for verse 4:24 includes narrations saying that ibn 'Abbas, ubayy ibn Ka'b, and Sa'id ibn Jubayr (others too in other tafsirs) included the words 'until a prescribed period' ('ila ajal musamma') after the words 'whom you profit by'.
-Some Muslim scholars sought to explain the reported differences in the mushafs (codices) of the companions as merely being their own exegetical glosses. Such an explanation may be possible in some instances, but certainly not in others such as when pronouns or grammatical forms are changed or words are reported to have been simply omitted, for example in {{Quran|112|1}} where Ibn Mas'ud and Ubayy omitted the word "Say" (qul)<ref>Noldeke, T. et. al. (1909, 1919) "The History of the Qur'an" Ed. and trans. by Behn W. H. (2013) Brill: Leiden pp.443 and 453<BR>His lists of companion variants are based on al Zamakhshari's tafsir, with further sources in footnotes as appropriate (p.431, footnote 280)</ref><ref>Jeffrey, Materials pp.114 and 180</ref>, or ibn Mas'ud's omission of the entire verse {{Quran|94|6}}.<ref>Noldeke, History of the Qur'an p.442</ref><ref>Jeffrey, Materials pp.110</ref> Another explanation was that these were variations in the revelation ("ahruf", discussed in a section below), which encounters some of the same problems, as well as the issue of their sheer quantity and the difficulty of explaining the purpose of the less clear or specific wordings of the same sentences in the Uthmanic Qur'an.
+Some Muslim scholars sought to explain the reported differences in the mushafs (codices) of the companions as merely being their own exegetical glosses. Such an explanation may be possible in some instances, but certainly not in others such as when pronouns or grammatical forms are changed or words are reported to have been simply omitted, for example in {{Quran|112|1}} where Ibn Mas'ud and Ubayy omitted the word "Say" (qul)<ref>Noldeke, T. et. al. (1909, 1919) "The History of the Qur'an" Ed. and trans. by Behn W. H. (2013) Brill: Leiden pp.443 and 453<BR>His lists of companion variants are based on al Zamakhshari's tafsir, with further sources in footnotes as appropriate (p.431, footnote 280)</ref><ref>Jeffrey, Materials pp.114 and 180</ref>, or ibn Mas'ud's omission of the entire verse {{Quran|94|6}}.<ref>Noldeke, History of the Qur'an p.442</ref><ref>Jeffrey, Materials pp.110</ref> Other explanations were that these they were variations in the revelation ("ahruf", discussed in a section below) or abrogated versions of the verses, which encounter some of the same problems as just mentioned, as well as the issue of their sheer quantity and the difficulty of explaining the purpose of the less clear or specific wordings of the same sentences in the Uthmanic Qur'an.
 Many other examples of such variations among the sahaba are discussed in another online article<ref>[http://www.islam-watch.org/Amarkhan/Corruption-in-Quran.htm Corruption and Distortion (Tahreef) in the Quran] by Amar Khan, 2009 [http://www.webcitation.org/6lPZcJIAX webcitation archive link]</ref> and in the next few sections below.
@@ Line 118: / Line 121: @@
 *Sahih Muslim<ref>"''It is reported on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas that when this verse was revealed:''
-" And warn thy nearest kindred" (and thy group of selected people among them)...''" {{Muslim|1|406}}''</ref> and Sahih Bukhari<ref>{{Bukhari|6|60|495}} (note that the English translation omits the additional words in the verse, but they can be seen in the Arabic).</ref> record that ibn 'Abbas read verse {{Quran|26|214}} with the additional words, "and thy group of selected people among them".
+" And warn thy nearest kindred" (and thy group of selected people among them)...''" {{Muslim|1|406}}''</ref> and Sahih Bukhari<ref>{{Bukhari|6|60|495}} (note that the English translation omits the additional words in the verse, but they can be seen in the Arabic).</ref> record that Ibn 'Abbas read verse {{Quran|26|214}} with the additional words, "and thy group of selected people among them".
 *Ibn 'Abbas is widely reported in al Tabari's tafsir to have said that "ascertain welcome" (tasta'nisu) in {{Quran|24|27}} was a scribal error, and instead should say "ask permission" (tasta'dhinu), a subtly different meaning in Arabic. This narration was also reported elsewhere and classed sahih by al-Hakim, Dhahabi and ibn Hajar<ref>Hadith 3496 in the Al-Mustadrak collection of Hakim al-Nishapuri [http://islamport.com/d/1/mtn/1/22/473.html Islamport.com]</ref>. Ubayy and ibn Mas'ud (the latter with different word order) are also reported in al-Tabari's tafsir to have read tasta'nusu. The ibn Mas'ud wording (except singular instead of plural) is also found in the lower text of the Sana'a palmpsest.<ref>See p.92, line 1 of Folio 11 A in
@@ Line 124: / Line 127: @@
 *He also regarded "Your Lord has commanded" (waqada rabbuka) in {{Quran|17|23}} to be a scribal error which should have read "And your Lord has advised" (wawassa rabbuka)<ref>Qurtubi in his [https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=5&tSoraNo=17&tAyahNo=23&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 tafsir for 17:23] quotes Abu Hatim (d.338 H) "And in Ibn Masud’s Qur’an 'and he advised (وَوَصَّى Wawassa)'. It is the reading of his companions and the reading of Ibn Abbas as well, and Ali and others, and also according to Ubai bin K’ab. Ibn Abbas said: It is only “And your Lord advised (وَوَصَّى Wawassa)”, so one of the waw (و) got attached and he read: 'And your Lord has commanded (وقضى Waqada).' For if it were a fate, no one would have disobeyed God. And Ad-Dhahaak said: I gathered with people when “recommended /commanded” the waw (و) was mixed with the sad (ص) at the time the Quran was written. Abu Hatim mentioned Ibn Abbas, like the words of Ad-Dhahaak. And he said on the authority of Maimon bin Mehran that he said: According to Ibn Abbas’s words to Nora, God Almighty said: {He has prescribed for you the religion which He had advised (وَصَّى wassa) upon Noah and which We have [also] revealed to you}. Then Abu Hatim refused to believe that Ibn Abbas said that. And he said: If we say this is true, the heretics are going to stab our Mushaf."</ref><ref>A similar comment is made by al-Razi in his [https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=4&tSoraNo=17&tAyahNo=23&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 tafsir for 17:23]</ref>, as was the reading of Ubayy, ibn Mas'ud and others according to al-Tabari.<ref>Al-Tabari's tafsir for [https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=1&tSoraNo=17&tAyahNo=23&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 tafsir for 17:23]</ref>
+*Ibn 'Abbas instructed that {{Quran|2|137}} should be read "And if they believe in that (āmanū bimā) which ye believe" instead of the standard Uthmanic "And if they believe in the like of that (amanū bi-mithli mā) which ye believe". Dr. Hythem Sidky notes that "This variant is recorded as being found in the muṣḥafs of the Companions Ibn Masʿūd and Anas b. Mālik and the Successor Abū Ṣāliḥ. Ibn ʿAbbās is also reported to have disliked the ʿUthmānic reading, which contains bi-mithl, as he considered God to have 'no equivalent (laysa lahū mathīl).'" Sidky notes that the āmanū bimā reading was also attested in the early manuscript BnF Arabe 331.<ref>Hythem Sidky (2019) [https://www.middleeastmedievalists.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/UW-27-Sidky.pdf Book review: Daniel Alan Brubaker, Corrections  in  Early  Qurʾānic  Manuscripts:
+Twenty Examples] Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 27 (2019): 273-288 (p.285)</ref> The opinion of Ibn Abbas is noted in al-Tabari's tafsir for this verse.
 ==Extant Early Manuscripts==
 [[File:MvPUthmanicNonUthmanic.png|thumb|Diagram classifying Qur'anic readings<ref>[https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1265724957100834816 Twitter.com] - Dr. Marijn van Putten</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 (codex which was washed and written over) found in Sana'a, Yemen, and which contains variants not found in any of the accepted readings of the Qur'an.<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:
+A significant number of early Hijazi manuscript fragments have been radio-carbon dated to the first Islamic century, collectively covering 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 (codex which was washed and written over) found in Sana'a, Yemen, and which contains variants not found in any of the accepted readings of the Qur'an.<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:
 {{Quote-text||"''Irrespective of the above-mentioned regional differences, any early Qurʾānic codex simultaneously contains variant readings. In other words, no codex contains only a single reading. However, it must be noted that the seven variant readings attributed to the Seven Readers, which have been prevalent since the fourth/tenth century, are only rarely evident in the Qurʾānic manuscripts of the first two Islamic centuries. In these manuscripts, instead, one can find either the above-mentioned regional differences (as between Mecca, Medina, Kufa, Basra, or Damascus) or differences in lettering and dotting, which do not necessarily reflect the canonical variants of the Seven Readers but can be traced back to the readings of one of the Prophet’s Companions or Followers.''"}}
@@ Line 135: / Line 141: @@
 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 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>
-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 sparsely dotted to distinguish them, which Adam Bursi has found was the typical scribal practice at that time even for Arabic poetry.<ref>Bursi, Adam. “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. 111–57, https://doi.org/10.5913/jiqsa.3.2018.a005.</ref> They also lacked any short vowels or other diacritics. When vocalised manuscripts with vowel 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://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1294253564378976259 here] and [https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1212824936768778245 here]</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 sparsely dotted to distinguish them, which Adam Bursi has found was the typical scribal practice at that time even for Arabic poetry.<ref>Bursi, Adam. “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. 111–57, https://doi.org/10.5913/jiqsa.3.2018.a005.</ref> They also lacked medial alifs, any 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://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1294253564378976259 here] and [https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1212824936768778245 here]</ref>
 ==Scribal errors in Uthman's codices==
@@ Line 390: / Line 396: @@
 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 very limited use consonantal dotting and different uses of alif 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>.
+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 very limited use consonantal dotting and non-use of medial alif 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.
@@ Line 398: / Line 404: @@
 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 Asim (one of the Kufan readers) and Warsh from Nafi (of Medina).
-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.
+The Hafs reading is the more common today and is used in most areas of the Islamic world, but this was not always the case. The popularity of Hafs arose during Ottoman times. Earlier, it was so unpopular that it is not found in manuscripts for the first several centuries (though was documented by Ibn Mujahid), and many of his variants that are unique among the canonical readers are attested in early manuscripts only as part of non-canonical secondary readings added later, if at all.<ref>See [https://twitter.com/PhdNix/status/1421578449437794305 Today, by far the most dominant recitation of the Quran is that of Ḥafṣ (d. 180/796) who transmits from the Kufan reciter ʿĀṣim (d. 127/745). But this dominant position it has today appears to have been a rather recent one.] - Twitter.com thread by Dr. Marijn van Putten 31 July 2021 and [https://twitter.com/PhdNix/status/1390665501395886080 There are no known Mushafs in the reading of Ḥafṣ before the 13th century or so. And even at that time Abū ʿAmr was still clearly much more popular.] - Twitter.com Dr. Marijn van Putten 7 May 2021</ref> The Warsh reading is used mainly in West and North-West Africa as well as by the Zaydiya in Yemen. Here are some of the differences.
 {| class="wikitable"  width="80%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" border="1" align="center"
@@ Line 464: / Line 470: @@
 |-
 |{{Quran|43|19}}
-|ibaad (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 the rasm barely employed consonantal dotting and medial alifs, and lacked short vowels at that time.
 |[https://quran.com/43/19?translations=149 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]
 |-

Textual History of the Qur'an: Difference between revisions

Textual History of the Qur'an (view source)

Revision as of 23:20, 17 October 2021

Navigation menu

Search