In the Quran, God is referred to in three places (Q2:255; Q3:2; Q20:111) as al-ḥayy al-qayyūm "The Living, The All-Sustaining". ʿUmar ibn al-Ḫaṭṭāb , the second Islamic caliph, is attributed as reading al-Ḥayy al-Qayyām, a reading which has an interesting biblical parallel.
This reading shows up in the non-canonical reading collections like Ibn Ḫālawayh, but also in Kufic manuscripts, see previous tweet where a vocalizer has added a yellow ʾalif to indicate al-ḥayy al-qayyām.
The specific al-ḥayy al-qayyām bring to mind a verse from Aramaic part of the Hebrew bible, Daniel 6:27 (thanks for alerting me of it@bnuyaminim!) it reads: הוּא אֱלָהָא חַיָּא וְקַיָּם לְעָלְמִין: hu ʾɛ̆lāhā ḥayyā wqayyām lʿålmīn "he is God, living and steadfast forever".
The same formula is also found elsewhere in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. For example this magic bowl speaks of: לאלהא חיא וקימא <l-ʾəlāhā ḥayyā w-qayyāmā "the living and stadfast God"
In other words, the epithets used there have the exact same form as the form attributed to ʿUmar. This is unlikely to be a coincidence. Clearly this collocation was known among Aramaic speakers, and had been borrowed wholesale into Arabic.
The form qayyām, in Arabic itself is quite unusual. As the root is q-w-m, we would rather expect **qawwām. This shift of medial w to y is typical for Aramaic, so the form allegedly used by ʿUmar is clearly an Aramaic loanword, and matches the biblical use.
The canonical form of the epithet qayyūm, having a CayCūC pattern, likewise looks rather unusual as an Arabic word. But the closest match qāyōm, would probably be expected to be borrowed as qāyūm. The form also is not clearly associated with an epithet of God (unlike qayyām).
The canonical form is clearly the form that most obviously fits the Uthmanic Rasm, and it present somewhat of an etymological conundrum. But the reading by ʿUmar clearly has a parallel as an Aramaic Jewish formula, and thus seems to be a genuinely ancient pre-Uthmanic reading.
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
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
ʾAbū Muḥammad Yaḥyā b. al-Mubārak al-Yazīdī (d. 202 AH) was a Basran reader and grammarian, who is most well-known as being the most prominent transmitter of the canonical Basran reader ʾAbū ʿAmr. He also composed his own personal reading which differed minimally from ʾAbu ʿAmr
Al-Ḏahabī relates an elegant 5 verse didactic poem composed by ʾAbū ʿAbd aḷḷāh al-Mawṣūlī Šuʿlah, which lists the places where al-Yazīdī differs from ʾAbū ʿAmr (and thus also differs from how he taught ʾAbū ʿAmr's reading to al-Dūrī and al-Sūsī). Let's look at the poem!
Metre: Ṭawīl.
ʾalā ḫuḏ limā ḫtāra l-yazīdī li-nafsihī
"Truly, take what al-Yazīdī chose for himself"
(Note al-Yazīdī instead of al-Yazidiyyu to fit the metre).
ḫālafa fīhi l-māziniyya muḥarrarā
"he disagreed with ʾAbū ʿAmr (al-Māzinī) as it is recorded in writing."
@LaoshuL@shahanSean@dbru1 No it is not! This has been a misunderstanding that has been making the round by some Christian polemicists but it's a misunderstanding of what is going on. Let me try to unpack this: first شر البريئة is not the reading of Ibn Kathīr but of Nāfiʿ.
@LaoshuL@shahanSean@dbru1 Second: it is true that the word barīʾ means "innocent" or "free". In the feminine it would be barīʾah. šarru l-barīʾah cannot mean "the worst of the innocent". It means "the worst of the innocent woman". Which is clearly nonsensical. But that's not what Nāfiʿ's reading intends.
@LaoshuL@shahanSean@dbru1 The word bariyyah "creation", together with nabiyy "prophet" are ultimately Aramaic loanwords, which at one point had a hamzah, but even in Aramaic appear to have lost it quite early on. So it went from barīʾah to bariyyah, and nabīʾ to nabiyy.
While looking at the verse counts reported in the headers of Arabe 5122 I ran into a headscratcher: Sūrat al-Sajdah (Q32) (called tanzīl al-Sajdah here) is marked here as having 52 (!) verses. Traditional counts either have 29 (Basran count) or 30, so what happened here?
Let us first confirm that the manuscript does not have some kind of bizarre count. In between this Sūrah and the next, one encounters 2 10 verse markers and 3 5 verse markers. The actual count must therefore be more than 25 and less than 30 (so likely the Basran 29).
So what is going on? I started thinking: wait a minute, there is another Sūrah that historically is ALSO called al-Sajdah, or more specifically Ḥā-Mīm al-Sajdah, namely Fuṣṣilat (Q41). Could it be that our ornamenter got confused and mixed up the counts of the two Sajdahs?
As promised, here's a follow up to my series of ongoing comparisons between Nabataean Arabic and Old Hijazi. This time we will look at the Deictic system within the Arabic of the Nabataeans and the grammarians.
The medieval Arabic grammarians report an astounding amount of variation in the deictic system. And a good amount of this is dialectal variation.
The base deictics are: m.sg. ḏā f.sg. tī, ḏī, ḏih, ḏihī
pl. ʾulāʾ, ʾulā (or ʾulē)
loc. hunā
The grammarians tell us that the Hijaz is that the near deixis 'this, these, here' is *always* combined with a presentative hā-. Thus hā-ḏā "this (masc.),", hā-ḏihī "this (fem.)", hā-ʾulāʾi "these" and hāhunā "here".
Farrāʾ only reports the difference explicitly for the plural
Yesterday I gave an introduction on Nabataean Arabic and Old Hijazi and the Quran Arabic. Now, let's look at some of the linguistic features that both connect and differentiate these ancient dialects form one another!
One striking commonality between Nabataean and Old Hijazi is the definite article, which in both cases was /al-/. Today, this definite article is almost universal. Only in Yemen do we find forms such as /am-/. But in pre-Islamic times a vast majority of different forms existed.
In Safaitic inscriptions, which reflect other pre-islamic dialects of Arabic, we usually find <h->, <ʾ-> but sometimes also <hn-> and only occasionally <ʾl->.
I was asked a while ago to explain what historical linguists of Arabic mean when we told about 'Old Hijazi' and 'Nabataean Arabic' and how these relate to one another and where the language of the Quran fits in. So this thread will address these questions!
Nabataean Arabic is the language researchers suppose many of the inhabitants of the Nabataean Kingdom spoke. The Nabataeans, as a rule, used Aramaic as their administrative language. The script they used was a form of the Imperial Aramaic script. This script evolved over time.
Eventually this script evolves all the way to what we know as the modern Arabic script. This is a gradual development, and it is not possible to pinpoint where the 'Nabataean Aramaic' script ends and the 'Arabic script' begins.