Thread by @PhDniX

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.

Thread on looking for Ḥafṣ in early manuscripts 🧵

Contrary to certain pseudoscholarly modern claims, there is absolutely no evidence that Ḥafṣ represents the "reading of the masses" from time immemorial until today. The reading was one of many and it only started to become dominant during the ottoman empire.

But just because it became dominant then, of course does not mean the reading was not transmitted before that. It certainly was, that much is clear even from the literary sources. Already with Ibn Mujāhid (d. 324/936) who canonized the seven, Ḥafṣ is included in transmission.

But can we find manuscript evidence for this reading in Kufic manuscripts before canonization? A way to look for this, is to examine the locations of the mufradāt Ḥafṣ, i.e. readings that among the canonical readers are *exclusive* to Ḥafṣ. This allows rapid identification.

In the following I have restricted my search to manuscripts that can be accessed from corpuscoranicum.de. While there are some other manuscripts, CC is a huge corpus and can be thought of as quite a representative sample (that is also easy to search!).

Q2:67: Ḥafṣ is the only one who read huzuwan; Rest: huzuʾan or huzʾan.
1: Minutoli 296: huz(u)ʾan
2: Wetzstein II 1913: could be consistent with huzuwan.
3: Arabe 325j: red: huzʾan, green: huzuʾan
4: Arabe 346d: might be consistent with huzuwan.

1: Arabe 367(h): red: huzuʾan; green: huzuwan

So one manuscript so far certainly contains Ḥafṣ' reading as a secondarily marked reading. The other two are more ambiguous

Expect spelling: either img 2 or 3.

Wetzstein II 1913 certainly isn't Ḥafṣ on other grounds.

Q3:83: Ḥafṣ yurǧaʿūna; rest: turǧaʿūna or tarǧiʿūna.

1: Wetzstein II 1920: turǧaʿūna (but dotting clearly a later hand)
2: Arabe 336: turǧaʿūna
3: Arabe 337c: turǧaʿūna
4: Arabe 339: turǧaʿūna

1: Arabe 352(h): Red tarǧiʿūna (a non-canonical reading) Blue: yurǧaʿūna (Ḥafṣ' reading!)

So the only time the reading shows up is as a secondary reading (red, is always the main and default reading).

Q3:157: Ḥafṣ yaǧmaʿūna, rest: taǧmaʿūna.

1: Arabe 339: yaǧmaʿūna (Ḥafṣ' reading)

But note that earlier Arabe 339 had the non-Ḥafṣ reading, so the manuscript is not consistent with his canonical reading.

2: Arabe 350b: taǧmaʿūna
3: Arabe 354a: taǧmaʿūna / yaǧmaʿūna.

Q4:152: Ḥafṣ yuʾtīhim; Rest: nuʾtīhim
1: Wetzstein II 1915: yuʾtīhim (Ḥafṣ, but dotting is probably a later hand. Red vocalisation on this same page has non-Ḥafṣ readings).
2: Arabe 330f: nuʾtīhimū
3: Arabe 330g: nuʾtīhim
4: Arabe 337a: nuʾtīhim

1: Arabe 339: nuʾtīhim (again confirming it is not Ḥafṣ)
2: Arabe 344b: nuʾtīhim/nuʾtīhumū (dotting likely later)

One manuscript with the Ḥafṣ reading, but whose further system clearly is not Ḥafṣ but something non-canonical.

Q5:107: Ḥafṣ istaḥaqqa; Rest: ustuḥiqqa
1: W.552: ustuḥiqqa
2: Wetzstein II 1913: ustuḥiqqa (indeed not Ḥafṣ as anticipated)
3: Wetzstein II 1915: Red difficult to see, but green = istaḥaqqa so main reading is not Ḥafṣ (see above)
4: Arabe 337c: ustuḥiqqa

1: Arabe 339: ustuḥiqqa
2: Arabe 342a: ustuḥiqqa
3: Rampur Raza No. 1: ustuḥiqqa

So Ḥafṣ reading one time found marks as a secondary reading.

Q7:117 Ḥafṣ: talqafu; Rest: talaqqafu

1: W.552: talaqqafu (word-internal vowels are generally only spelled with geminates or when non-obvious)
2: Wetzstein II 1913: likely talqafu.
3: Saray Medina 1a: talaqqafu
4: Arabe 339: talqafu (?) dots are missing entirely, even rafʿ.

1: Arabe 340f: talqafu. Based on ʾuṣūl, this is not Ḥafṣ, but non-canonical.
2: Arabe 364b: yellow: talaqqafu; what is green? Why is red absent? Red is not Ḥafṣ based on ʾuṣūl.
3: Rampur Raza No. 1: talqafu
Ḥafṣ seems common (or is it defective spelling of talaqqafu?).

Q7:164: Ḥafṣ maʿḏiratan; Rest: maʿḏiratun.

1: ms. or. fol. 379 (2) : maʿḏiratun
2: Wetzstein II 1913: maʿḏiratun
3: Saray Medina 1a: maʿḏiratun
4: Arabe 339: maʿḏiratun

1: Rampur Raza, No. 1

Not a single manuscript attests the Ḥafṣ reading at all, be it in the primary colour or the secondary color.

Q8:18: mūhinu kaydi; Rest: mūhinun kayda/muwahhinun kayda.

1: W.552: mūhinun kayda
2: Wetzstein II 1913: mūhinun kayda
3: Add. 1125: mūhinun kayda
4: Saray Medina 1a: mūhinun kayda

1: Arabe 348b: primary colour: mūhinun kayda; secondary colour: muwahhinu kaydi (non-canonical)
2: Arabe 351: red: muwahhinun kayda; blue: muwahhinu kaydi (perhaps Ḥafṣ' mūhinu kaydi).
3&4: Arabe 352h: red: mūhinun kayda; blue: muwahhinun kayda.

1: Rampur Raza No 1: muwahhinun kayda.

We could go on, but this thread is getting long, so I'll leave the rest as an exercise to the reader. But some conclusions: From this sample it is clear that readings that are unique to Ḥafṣ among the canonical readers were not unique.

You find his readings, occasionally, in manuscripts that otherwise clearly do not follow his reading.

His reading, seems to be absent in the early records. Does this mean the reading is made up? Cooked up by Ibn Mujāhid?

Certainly not.

The literary sources give enough reports independent of ibn Mujāhid of the reading of Ḥafṣ. And these reports clearly agree to such a significant degree, that we can confidently say that Ḥafṣ indeed recited something close to how his reading is recited today.

However, the manuscript record does show us that indeed Ḥafṣ did not enjoy the ubiquitous popularity in the centuries directly after his lifetime, that it has come to enjoy today. Manuscripts can be used to find out when he starts gaining popularity. Nobody has done this yes!

If you enjoyed this thread and want me to do more of it, please consider buying me a coffee.
ko-fi.com/phdnix.
If you want to support me in a more integral way, you can become a patron on Patreon!
patreon.com/PhDniX