2,743
edits
Textual History of the Qur'an: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 541: | Line 541: | ||
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). | 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). | ||
It is also notable that the majority of consonantal dotting differences involve person or gender prefixes (t-, y-, n-), while a minority transform one root word into another, which seems to reflect the balance of ambiguity in the rasm. Function words are also often transformed into others by means of vowel and other diacritics, such as the few dozen cases of variants between inna (indeed), anna (that), or an (to).<ref>See the [https://brill.com/downloadpdf/book/9789004412903/back-1.xml open access appendix] from Nasser, S. H. "The Second Canonization of the Qurʾān (324/936)" Brill, 2020</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> | 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 616: | Line 618: | ||
===Criticism of variant readings which were later treated as infallible=== | ===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:// | 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://brill.com/downloadpdf/book/9789004412903/back-1.xml 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>. | ||
===Controversy over mutawatir (mass transmitted) status=== | ===Controversy over mutawatir (mass transmitted) status=== | ||