An interesting rasm mistake in the modern print editions of the Quran. Q20:94 yā-bna-ʾumma/i "O son of my mother" is spelled without the initial ʾalif of ibn in print editions.
This spelling is unusual, because usually alif al-waṣl is retained when precedes by prefixes.
This spelling is unusual, because usually alif al-waṣl is retained when precedes by prefixes.
If we turn to the manuscripts, we learn that this unusual exception to the orthography rules is, in fact, an illusion. Manuscripts without fail write it with the ʾalif in place. Even in later manuscript (from which the Cairo Edition mostly gets its spellings).
While the beginning of the word just has the expected spelling, the final part is still striking: This phrase is in fact two words: yā-bna ʾummi, which would be expected to be spelled يابن ام, but the hamzah has been elided, and a glide inserted across word boundaries.
Thus we go from: yā-bna ʾummi to yā-bnawummi (or perhaps with a hiatus yā-bna.ummi). This is somewhat reminiscent of this inscription from near Karbala, which spelled ʾaḷḷāhu ʾakbar as الله وكبر pointing to aḷḷāhuwakbar.
Despite that being the evident interpretation of the rasm, none of the canonical readers read this form without hamza.
Q7:150 attests this same phrase, without the initial yā-. In print Qurans and manuscripts alike it is usually spelled without the wāw there: ابن ام.
Q7:150 attests this same phrase, without the initial yā-. In print Qurans and manuscripts alike it is usually spelled without the wāw there: ابن ام.
I've found a couple of rare exceptions to Q7:150. Wetzstein II 1913 and Arabe 6140a had it with wāw but were corrected. Arabe 330g and DAM 01-29.1 just keep the spelling.
It is difficult to decide which may have been original in this location in the Uthmanic archetype.
It is difficult to decide which may have been original in this location in the Uthmanic archetype.
