Textual History of the Qur'an: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Textual History of the Qur'an (view source)

Revision as of 21:08, 20 October 2021

3,317 bytes added ,  20 October 2021
no edit summary
[checked revision][checked revision]
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 426: Line 426:
|miskeenin (poor person)
|miskeenin (poor person)
|masakeena (poor people)
|masakeena (poor people)
|Instruction on mitigating a broken fast
|Instruction on how many people to feed to mitigate a broken fast
|[https://quran.com/2/184?translations=149 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]
|[https://quran.com/2/184?translations=149 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]
|-
|-
Line 540: Line 540:
|}
|}


The standard Islamic view is that every variant within the canonical qira'at (readings) were recited by Muhammad, and the canonical readers made choices from among the authentic variants passed down to them. The claim is that even when the variants are completely different words or when words are added or omitted, that these are all divinely revealed alternatives. This doesn't address variants that contradict each other such as the examples above, nor explain superfluous variants (examples of which are even more common<ref name="19.25"></ref><ref>Categories of this type include use of plural instead of singular as in {{Quran|59|14}} "walls" instead of "a wall"; active when there is already the passive as in {{Quran|23|115}} "return" instead of "be returned"; form I verb when there is already the more intensive form II as in {{Quran|21|96}} "opened" instead of "opened wide"; extra conjunction as in {{Quran|2|116}} "And they say" instead of "They say".</ref>).  
The standard Islamic view is that every variant within the canonical qira'at (readings) were recited by Muhammad, and the canonical readers made choices from among the authentic variants passed down to them. The claim is that even when the variants are completely different words or when words are added or omitted, that these are all divinely revealed alternatives. This doesn't address variants that contradict each other such as the examples above, nor explain superfluous variants (examples of which are even more common - see the table in the next section).


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>. Further studies of dialogue variants and superfluous variants are also available.<ref>[https://quranvariants.wordpress.com/dialogue-quran-variants/ Dialogue variants in the canonical Qirāʾāt readings of the Qurʼān] by Avnar Sediche</ref><ref>[https://quranvariants.wordpress.com/superfluous-quran-variants/ Superflous variants in the readings of the Qurʼān] by Avnar Sediche</ref>
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>. Further studies of dialogue variants and superfluous variants are also available.<ref>[https://quranvariants.wordpress.com/dialogue-quran-variants/ Dialogue variants in the canonical Qirāʾāt readings of the Qurʼān] by Avnar Sediche</ref><ref>[https://quranvariants.wordpress.com/superfluous-quran-variants/ Superflous variants in the readings of the Qurʼān] by Avnar Sediche</ref>
===Redundant or superfluous variants===
One of the most notable things about the canonical variants is that a large number do not convey any significant difference in meaning, or cause one or more of the other readings for a word to be redundant. Critics see this as a reason to doubt claims of a divine origin for such variants, and instead are typical of human oral performance variety or transmission errors. A few illustrative examples of major categories of such variants are given in the table below, which in most cases could be read from the same rasm, differing only when consonantal dotting or vowel diacritics were added.
{| class="wikitable" width="80%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" border="1" align="center"
!Verse
!Reading 1
!Reading 2
!Notes
!Variants translation, transliteration, and Arabic script
|-
|{{Quran|2|116}}
|Ibn 'Amir read qalu "They say"
|The others read wa qalu "And they say"
|This is an example of a regional rasm variant which has no significant value.
|[https://quran.com/2/116?translations=149 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}}
|Ya'qub reads "It will drop" yassāqaṭ where "it" refers to the (masculine) trunk
|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])
|[https://quran.com/19/25?translations=149 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}}
|Ibn 'Amir, Abu Ja'far and Ya'qub read futtihat "opened wide" (more intensive form)
|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 later variant.
|[https://quran.com/21/96?translations=149 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}}
|Ya'qub and the related Kufan readings of Hamza, Kisa'i and Khalaf read tarji'una "return"
|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.
|[https://quran.com/23/115?translations=149 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}}
|Ibn Kathir and Abu Amr read jidarin "a wall" (singular)
|The others read judurin "walls" (plural)
|An example of singular-plural variants where there is no discernable purpose in having both
|[https://quran.com/59/14?translations=149 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===
Line 589: Line 631:
One report in Ibn Abi Dawud's ''Kitab al-Masahif'' claims that the Uthmanic Qur'an was changed by Al-Hajjaj, inserting 11 small changes into the text and sending them out to the main cities. However, this report is not considered credible by academics for a number of reasons, including the fact that all extant manuscripts (except for the Ṣan'ā' 1 palimpsest lower text) can be traced to a single archetype, as explained above. Moreover, Sadeghi and Bergmann have shown that the Basran author of this report about al-Hajjaj had simply mistaken some errors in a particular manuscript as being the Uthmanic standard and compared it with the manuscript of al-Hajjaj.<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. p.365, footnote 36</ref>
One report in Ibn Abi Dawud's ''Kitab al-Masahif'' claims that the Uthmanic Qur'an was changed by Al-Hajjaj, inserting 11 small changes into the text and sending them out to the main cities. However, this report is not considered credible by academics for a number of reasons, including the fact that all extant manuscripts (except for the Ṣan'ā' 1 palimpsest lower text) can be traced to a single archetype, as explained above. Moreover, Sadeghi and Bergmann have shown that the Basran author of this report about al-Hajjaj had simply mistaken some errors in a particular manuscript as being the Uthmanic standard and compared it with the manuscript of al-Hajjaj.<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. p.365, footnote 36</ref>


Adam Bursi has noted that a number of accounts exist that al-Hajjaj sought to reduce the proliferation of erroneous readings of the Qur'an, though the details of such accounts are challenged by material manuscript evidence. Dotting marks to distinguish homographic consonants were already used sparingly before Islam, which causes Bursi to agree with Alan Jones that "the most that al-Ḥajjāj could have insisted upon was the revival and regular use of earlier features already available within the Arabic script." Further details about the members of a committee of Basran experts formed by al-Hajjaj seem dubious, appearing only in later reports. During the reign in Iraq of al-Hajjaj, there is "no evidence of the imposition of the kind of fully dotted  
Adam Bursi has noted that a number of accounts exist that al-Hajjaj sought to reduce the proliferation of erroneous readings of the Qur'an, though the details of such accounts are challenged by material manuscript evidence. Dotting marks to distinguish homographic consonants were already used sparingly before Islam, which causes Bursi to agree with Alan Jones that "the most that al-Ḥajjāj could have insisted upon was the revival and regular use of earlier features already available within the Arabic script." Further details about the members of a committee of Basran experts formed by al-Hajjaj seem dubious, appearing only in later reports. During the governorship of al-Hajjaj, there is "no evidence of the imposition of the kind of fully dotted  
scriptio plena that the historical sources suggest was al-Ḥajjāj’s intended goal. There is some manuscript evidence for the introduction of 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 suggest both consonantal and vowel marks were introduced around 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 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 suggest both consonantal and vowel marks were introduced around 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>  


Lightyears
Editors, em-bypass-2, Reviewers, rollback, Administrators
2,743

edits

Retrieved from "http://wikiislamica.net/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/133579"

Navigation menu