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 21:44, 20 October 2021

1,561 bytes added ,  20 October 2021
no edit summary
[checked revision][checked revision]
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 133: Line 133:
==Extant Early Manuscripts==
==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>]]
[[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, 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:
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 sometimes 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.''"}}
{{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 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 - see the table in the next section).
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. Due to the constraint of a standard rasm and because any viable variant would need to make sense in context, most variants are mutually compatible. Yet critics point out that some examples such as in the tables above contradict each other. A viable explaination is also lacking for the large number of 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>
Line 546: Line 546:
===Redundant or superfluous variants===
===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.
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, which 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"
{| class="wikitable" width="80%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" border="1" align="center"
Line 596: Line 596:
===Implications of these numbers===
===Implications of these numbers===


It is hard to explain why there would be so many authentic variants available that just so happened to be accommodated by the Uthmanic orthography or sound similar, even granting the rasm selection effect. As mentioned above, over 1000 out of c.77,000 words in the Qur'an have canonical variants. There are two further considerations which greatly multiply the scale of the problem: 1). There is no reason to assume that even if genuine, these were the ''only'' variants that Muhammad uttered which complied with the (yet to be standardised) rasm. 2) There is no reason to assume that he would only have uttered variants that would later fit the Uthmanic rasm standard. Indeed, the companion variants often do not fit this standard. Therefore, the variants would just be a small subset of those he really uttered before any rasm constraint. If the canonical variants are all authentic, these considerations would therefore imply many thousands more. It is far more likely that most of the canonical variants post-date the rasm standard.
Critics argue that it is hard to explain why there would be so many authentic variants available that just so happened to be accommodated by the Uthmanic orthography or sound similar, even granting the rasm selection effect. As mentioned above, over 1000 out of c.77,000 words in the Qur'an have canonical variants. There are two further considerations which greatly multiply the scale of the problem: 1). There is no reason to assume that even if genuine, these were the ''only'' variants that Muhammad uttered which complied with the (yet to be standardised) rasm. 2) There is no reason to assume that he would only have uttered variants that would later fit the Uthmanic rasm standard. Indeed, the companion variants often do not fit this standard. Therefore, the variants would just be a small subset of those he really uttered before any rasm constraint. If the canonical variants are all authentic, these considerations would therefore imply many thousands more. It is far more likely that most of the canonical variants post-date the rasm standard.


Further, it seems doubtful that the Uthmanic rasm standardisation would have been successful had it required so many words to be discarded by the early Muslim communities. A large number of variants would also have provided ample cover for inauthentic ones to be innovated, deliberately or otherwise. The companions would not have had perfect memories, and where we do have reports of companions reading particular canonical variants, sometimes they were attested only of a single companion such as Ibn Mas'ud, or 'Ali when he disliked the main reading.<ref>An interesting example is Q. 17:102 mentioned in the table above. Al-Farrāʼ records for this verse in his ''Ma‘ānī aI-Qur’ān'' that the “I have known” variant is attributed to ʿAlī, who is narrated as saying, “By God, what the enemy of God knows, Musa knows!” (see p. 11 of [https://ramonharvey.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/al-kisai-harvey2016.pdf this paper]).</ref>
Further, it seems doubtful that the Uthmanic rasm standardisation would have been successful had it required so many words to be discarded by the early Muslim communities. A large number of variants would also have provided ample cover for inauthentic ones to be innovated, deliberately or otherwise. The companions would not have had perfect memories, and where we do have reports of companions reading particular canonical variants, sometimes they were attested only of a single companion such as Ibn Mas'ud, or 'Ali when he disliked the main reading.<ref>An interesting example is Q. 17:102 mentioned in the table above. Al-Farrāʼ records for this verse in his ''Ma‘ānī aI-Qur’ān'' that the “I have known” variant is attributed to ʿAlī, who is narrated as saying, “By God, what the enemy of God knows, Musa knows!” (see p. 11 of [https://ramonharvey.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/al-kisai-harvey2016.pdf this paper]).</ref>
Line 605: Line 605:


Professor Shady Nasser shows that at the time when ibn Mujahid wrote his ''Kitab al Sab'ah'' selecting the 7 eponymous 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 Mas'ud's (now banned) reading meant that there was no dominant Uthmanic reading in that city.<ref>Ibid. pp. 47-61</ref>.
Professor Shady Nasser shows that at the time when ibn Mujahid wrote his ''Kitab al Sab'ah'' selecting the 7 eponymous 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 Mas'ud's (now banned) reading meant that there was no dominant Uthmanic reading in that city.<ref>Ibid. pp. 47-61</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 canonized<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>.


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>{{citation |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 |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 in which he also explains why the opposite explanation, that the regional rasm variants are adaptations to the readings in those places, is "untenable" {{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>
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>{{citation |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 |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 in which he also explains why the opposite explanation, that the regional rasm variants are adaptations to the readings in those places, is "untenable" {{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>
Line 612: Line 610:
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>{{citation |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 |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 regional codices, modern scholarship has confirmed that they form a stemma (textual tree relationship), suggesting that those particular variants did not originate in oral transmission.<ref>Ibid. pp.14-15 of the open access pdf in which the important stemmatic work of Michael Cook is highlighted.</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>{{citation |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 |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 regional codices, modern scholarship has confirmed that they form a stemma (textual tree relationship), suggesting that those particular variants did not originate in oral transmission.<ref>Ibid. pp.14-15 of the open access pdf in which the important stemmatic work of Michael Cook is highlighted.</ref>


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. 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|94}} 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. Other examples of variants with the same rasm include {{Quran|6|57}}, where 4 of the canonical 7 qira'at have yaqḍi l-ḥaqqa  "He judges the truth" rather than yaquṣṣu l-ḥaqqa  "He declares the truth"<ref>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/6/vers/57 Corpus Coranicum]</ref> and {{Quran|10|30}} where two readers have tatlū (recounts, recites), whereas the other five have tablū (tests) <ref>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/10/vers/30 Corpus Coranicum]</ref>. In these examples the similarity between the variant readings is graphic (how the rasm looks) rather than phonic (how they sound).
If qira'at variants could sometimes arise from variants in the rasm, we should also expect this to occur even in places where the rasm did not vary. 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|94}} 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. Other examples of variants with the same rasm include {{Quran|6|57}}, where 4 of the canonical 7 qira'at have yaqḍi l-ḥaqqa  "He judges the truth" rather than yaquṣṣu l-ḥaqqa  "He declares the truth"<ref>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/6/vers/57 Corpus Coranicum]</ref> and {{Quran|10|30}} where two readers have tatlū (recounts, recites), whereas the other five have tablū (tests) <ref>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/10/vers/30 Corpus Coranicum]</ref>. In these examples the similarity between the variant readings is graphic (how the rasm looks) rather than phonic (how they sound) and involve consonantal dotting differences that transform one word into another, though short vowel differences make up the bulk of variants.
 
The seven eponymous readings are only rarely evident in the earliest manuscripts. The vast majority of vocalised manuscripts contain unknown or non-canonical reading systems. They contain the above mentioned regional differences, but also sometimes reflect dotting and lettering traceable to the more substantial variant readings of the Companions and not necessarily of the seven.<ref name="Morteza Karimi-Nia" />
 
===Criticism of variant readings which were later treated as infallible===
 
Nasser has shown that grammarians such as al-Farra<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.167</ref>, and scholars such as al-Tabari readily criticised variants in these same readings shortly before they were canonized<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>.


The variants in the seven eponymous readings are only rarely evident in the earliest manuscripts. They contain the above mentioned regional differences, but otherwise tend to reflect dotting and lettering traceable to the more substantial variant readings of the Companions and not necessarily of the seven.<ref name="Morteza Karimi-Nia" />
===Controversy over mutawatir (mass transmitted) status===
The majority of the Qur'an where there was full agreement between readers was considered to have been orally mass transmitted from the beginning to such an extent that there could be no doubt about it. However, the transmission status of the disagreements between the readings was more controversial. While the readings were indeed widely transmitted (with more variants along the way) from the eponymous readers to their students and so on, the transmission of the variants from Muhammad to the eponymous readers was in question. As mentioned in a section above, even Ibn al-Jazari eventually decided that these did not meet mutawatir status.


===The Qurra' Community===
While Ibn Mujahid only gave formal isnads from himself back to the Eponymous readers (whose readings he documented partially based on written notes<ref>Nasser, S. "The Second Canonization of the Qurʾān (324/936)" Brill, 2020, p.171</ref>), he gave some biographical sketches of the small number of single chain transmissions between the Prophet and these readers, which generally had at least 4 or 5 links though occasionally 3.<ref>Ibid. See the isnad diagrams in chapter 3</ref> Most of the seven main readers and their canonical transmitters did not escape criticism for their reliability in hadith and/or their Qur'an recitations in at least some biographical sources<ref>Ibid. pp.131-136</ref>.
 
===Challenges of the Qurra' Community===
In a detailed monograph on Ibn Mujahid's canonization of the seven readings, Nasser shows that written notes played a significant role in transmission of the readings in the 2nd century. Despite their best efforts, some canonical readers and their transmitters were said to have doubts about their (often unique) readings. Abu 'Amr, al Kisa'i, Nafi, and the transmitters of 'Asim (Hafs and Shu'ba) are all reported "retracting a reading and adopting a new one" in some cases. Shu'ba "became skeptical" of his teacher 'Asim's reading of a certain word and adopted another, and said he "did not memorize" how certain words were read. In one instance Ibn Dhakwan, the transmitter of Ibn Amir's reading, found one reading for a word in his book/notebook, and recalled something different in his memory. When the detailed recitation of a word was unknown, "the Qurrāʾ resorted to qiyās (analogy)", as too did Ibn Mujahid when documenting the readings as he often faced conflicting or missing information. There were also cases of transmitters misattributing variants to the wrong eponymous reader (some transmitted more than one reading), and readers adapting to what they regarded as flawed parts of the Uthmanic rasm.<ref>See especially chapter 4, pp.159, 163-164, 172-176, 178-180, and the list and summary in chapter 2 pp.64-89 of Nasser, S. "The Second Canonization of the Qurʾān (324/936)" Brill, 2020</ref>
In a detailed monograph on Ibn Mujahid's canonization of the seven readings, Nasser shows that written notes played a significant role in transmission of the readings in the 2nd century. Despite their best efforts, some canonical readers and their transmitters were said to have doubts about their (often unique) readings. Abu 'Amr, al Kisa'i, Nafi, and the transmitters of 'Asim (Hafs and Shu'ba) are all reported "retracting a reading and adopting a new one" in some cases. Shu'ba "became skeptical" of his teacher 'Asim's reading of a certain word and adopted another, and said he "did not memorize" how certain words were read. In one instance Ibn Dhakwan, the transmitter of Ibn Amir's reading, found one reading for a word in his book/notebook, and recalled something different in his memory. When the detailed recitation of a word was unknown, "the Qurrāʾ resorted to qiyās (analogy)", as too did Ibn Mujahid when documenting the readings as he often faced conflicting or missing information. There were also cases of transmitters misattributing variants to the wrong eponymous reader (some transmitted more than one reading), and readers adapting to what they regarded as flawed parts of the Uthmanic rasm.<ref>See especially chapter 4, pp.159, 163-164, 172-176, 178-180, and the list and summary in chapter 2 pp.64-89 of Nasser, S. "The Second Canonization of the Qurʾān (324/936)" Brill, 2020</ref>


In one summary he writes, "''The multiple readings reported on behalf of the same Eponymous Reader or Canonical Rāwī, were not only due to transmission errors, inaccuracies, the 'flexibility' of the consonantal rasm, and the existance of a depository of different, yet acceptable traditions from the previous generations of Qurʾān masters. These readings were also generated because Qurʾān Readers occasionally modified and changed their readings over time, retracted certain readings, corrected others, and struggled to remember how precisely some variants were performed.''"<ref>Ibid. p.173</ref>
In one summary he writes, "''The multiple readings reported on behalf of the same Eponymous Reader or Canonical Rāwī, were not only due to transmission errors, inaccuracies, the 'flexibility' of the consonantal rasm, and the existance of a depository of different, yet acceptable traditions from the previous generations of Qurʾān masters. These readings were also generated because Qurʾān Readers occasionally modified and changed their readings over time, retracted certain readings, corrected others, and struggled to remember how precisely some variants were performed.''"<ref>Ibid. p.173</ref>
While ibn Mujahid only gave formal isnads from himself to the Eponymous readers (whose readings he documented partially based on written notes<ref>Ibid. p.171</ref>), he gave some biographical sketches of the transmissions between the Prophet and these readers, the chains of which generally had at least 4 or 5 links though occasionally 3.<ref>Ibid. See the isnad diagrams in chapter 3</ref> Most of the seven main readers and their canonical transmitters did not escape criticism for their reliability in hadith and/or their Qur'an recitations in at least some biographical sources<ref>Ibid. pp.131-136</ref>.


==Changes to the spoken Arabic dialect of the Qur'an==
==Changes to the spoken Arabic dialect of the Qur'an==
Lightyears
Editors, em-bypass-2, Reviewers, rollback, Administrators
2,743

edits

Retrieved from "http://wikiislamica.net/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/133580"

Navigation menu