Islamic Rasm literature meticulously records the spelling of ancient Quranic manuscripts. They agree well with what we find in manuscripts. They record about 40 regional variants for the Muṣḥafs of Syria, Medina, Basra and Kufa.
How do these relate to the regional readings?
How do these relate to the regional readings?
I've taken the variants discussed by Cook (2004), which are based on the list in al-Dānī's work. There are 16 variants wher The Syrian Muṣḥaf differs from the rest; 13 where Syria + Median differs from Iraq. 1 Basran variant and 6 exclusive Kufan variants.
While there are some reports of the Meccan codex, these tends to be a little fragmentary, and therefore difficult to evaluate. The report of the distribution of the Quranic codices that is considered most reliable by al-Dānī only accepts distribution to the 4 regions listed above
The Syrian reading of Ibn ʿĀmir, through Hišām and Ibn Ḏakwān is a perfect match for the Syrian Muṣḥaf: their readings follow the Syrian rasm. Only Q3:184 bi-bayyināt bi-z-zubur [bi-l-kitāb/al-kitāb] is cause for disagreement. In manuscripts we only find Ibn Ḏakwān's option.
The Medinan readers follow the Medinan muṣḥaf closely. Only ʾAbū Jaʿfar opts one time for the Syrian variant of Q10:22, against the regional Muṣḥaf.
As for the Basrans, they too basically follow the Basran Muṣḥaf. But for M8 ʾAbū Amr opts to follow the Syrian/Medinan variant. M10 is disputable. The spelling reported for Basra and Kufa could still be read as yā-ʿibādī with a defectively spelled final ī
Al-Kisāʾī and Ḥamzah - Kufans pur sang - strictly stick to the Kufan Muṣḥaf.
Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim opts with both (M11) and (K5) for the non-Kufan forms with an extra pronoun.
The disagreement on qāla/qul might not be significant. Early manuscripts often spelle qāla like qul.
Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim opts with both (M11) and (K5) for the non-Kufan forms with an extra pronoun.
The disagreement on qāla/qul might not be significant. Early manuscripts often spelle qāla like qul.
So how do we understand these variants? It is clear that there was a very close relation between the regional readings and the Quranic copies that were send to the different regions by Uthman. Were they adapted to accommodate the regional readings or vice versa?
It is quite clear that the readers, in principle, followed their regional codices, and only if they had a problem with it they deferred to other options, as we see happen only a rare few times.
The idea that the regional codices were written to accommodate the regional readings is untenable: The regional codices reported failed to accommodate them, as even the canonical readers sometimes defer from their codices. Most variants make no difference in meaning.
Instead, it seems that when the standard text was adhered to quite strictly because that had become the new standard after Uthman's effort. Only some elite readers felt they had the freedom to occasionally step beyond what was known and utilize variants found in other codices.
It is no surprise that exactly the variants where regional readers differ from their regional codex are forms that actually have a somewhat different meaning, or different syntax, while the very minor variants such as alternation between wa 'and' and fa 'so, and' remain untouched
