Textual History of the Qur'an: Difference between revisions

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.

|The grammatical variance caused different rulings on wudu between Sunni and Shi'i (whether to rub or wash the feet)<ref>Hussein Abdul-Raof, "Theological approaches to Qur'anic exergesis", London and New York: Routledge, 2012, p.101</ref>

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.

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>

In a number of papers and forthcoming book,<ref>Van Putten, Marijn, "Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions", Leiden: Brill, 2021</ref> van Putten has identified that the Quranic Consonantal Text (QCT) reveals certain features about the Hijazi dialect in which it was originally uttered. These do not match the dialects found in the canonical qira'at, nor for this reason the orthography of Qur'ans published today. Evidence from internal rhyme (when the traditional qira'at recitations and later orthography break the rhyming structure of a passage) is particularly helpful in this regard, supplemented by ancient epigraphic (inscription) evidence, including transliterations of the Arabic of that region and time into other languages. Van Putten and Stokes have found that the QCT "possessed a functional but reduced case system, in which cases marked by long vowels were retained, whereas those marked by short vowels were mostly lost".<ref>Van Putten, Marijn; Stokes, Phillip (2018). [https://www.academia.edu/37481811/Case_in_the_Qur%CB%80%C4%81nic_Consonantal_Text_Wiener_Zeitschrift_f%C3%BCr_die_Kunde_des_Morgenlandes_108_2018_pp_143_179 Case in the Qurˀānic Consonantal Text]. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes (108): 143–179.</ref>  Van Putten has also found, in line with the accounts of early Muslim linguists, that the Hijazi dialect spoken by Muhammad had lost the use of the hamza except for word-final ā.<ref>Van Putten, Marijn (2018). [https://www.academia.edu/35556452/Hamzah_in_the_Quranic_Consonantal_Text_Orientalia_87_1_2018_pp_93_120 Hamzah in the Quranic Consonantal Text]. Orientalia. 87 (1): 93–120</ref> He has also found that nunation at the end of feminine nouns ending with -at was not present in this dialect.<ref>Van Putten, Marijn (2017). [https://www.academia.edu/35131582/_The_Feminine_Ending_at_as_a_Diptote_in_the_Qur%CA%BE%C4%81nic_Consonantal_Text_and_Its_Implications_for_Proto_Arabic_and_Proto_Semitic_Arabica_64_5_6_2017_pp_695_705 The Feminine Ending -at as a Diptote in the Qurānic Consonantal Text and Its Implications for Proto-Arabic and Proto-Semitic] Arabica (64): 695–705</ref>