Al-Farrāʾ's "Kitāb fīhi Luġāt al-Qurʾān", while listing different dialectal forms, he frequently opines on what is or is not used in recitation. He is our earliest source (d. 207 AH) of normative opinions given about what is appropriate for recitation. A small thread:🧵
faʿīl stems may become fiʿīl if the second root consonant is one of the six guttural consonants among Qays, Tamīm and Rabīʿah: riḥīm, biʿīr, liʾīm, biḫīl, riġīf, šihīd.
"But one does not recite with it, because the recitation is with the former (Hijazi) practice", ar-raḥīm etc
Qurayš and Kinānah say: nastaʿīnu, and the recitation follows it. Tamīm, ʾAsad and Rabīʿah say nistaʿīnu.
The Kufan al-ʾAʿmaš, who is part of al-Farrāʾ's isnād (al-Kisāʾī < Ḥamzah < al-ʾAʿmaš) , in fact recited in this way. But by al-Farrāʾs time no it was no longer accepted.
Hollow passive verbs are qīla "it is said" for the Hijazis. Qays, ʿUqayl and ʾAsad say qǖla with a front rounded vowel.
Some however say qūla: "but this is not introduced in recitation because of its disagreement with [the rasm] of the book" (The rasm has قيل not قول).
Some of Qays pronounce the name of God with a short vowel: aḷḷahu, rather than aḷḷāhu. "This is not introduced in recitation".
For a reason I've never understood, however, modern print editions spell it like this: اللَّهُ. But it is indeed not recited as such.
Most people say yā-ʾayyuhà n-nās. But some of Banū Mālik and Banū ʾAsad say yā-ʾayyuhu n-nas and ʾayyu-hu l-marʾatu. "But it is not introduced into recitation."
Al-Farrāʾ is apparently unaware of Ibn ʿĀmir's reading who did introduce it in the 3 places the rasm drops the ʾalif.
Some of Qays say ʾinšāyan, bināyan (for ʾinšāʾan, bināʾan), "and you do not introduce this in recitation because of the disagreement with (the rasm) of the book".
The rasm is انشا and بنا, with the required yāʾ missing.
The Qays form (as Safaitic) retains the Proto-Arabic form!
Qurayš has ʾan (with hamzah) for the subordinate particle. But Tamīm, Qays and ʾAsad have ʿan (with ʿayn).
"The recitation is upon the dialectal form of the people of the Hijaz because it follows (the rasm) of the book" (the rasm is ان not عن).
The nūn is pronounced clear by Arabs before the Ḫāʾ and Nūn, but some with place of articulation assimilation. "The reading with clear pronunciation is more preferably to me because it is the reading I adopted from them".
ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar recites in this dispreferred way.
"Recitation follows buhita, but al-Kisāʾī claims that among the arabs there are those who say bahita and buhita."
The preposition ladun, is pronounced by some of Tamīm as ladu, but ladun is how the prophet read and it is "the recitation".
The verb ḥasuna has three dialectal practices.
- Hijazi: ḥasuna "this is the best of them, and the recitation follows it"
- Tamīm: ḥasna
- Qays: ḥusna
The people of the Hijaz and the Banū ʾAsad say: rakintu/ʾarkanu.
Qays and Tamīm: rakantu/ʾarkunu.
"The reading follows the dialect of Qurayš"
Indeed all canonical reciters read Q11:113 as wa-lā tarkanū, and none as wa-la tarkunū, although this reading is reported for Qatādah.
The Qurayš read naʾā and raʾā and the recitation follows it.
Some of Hawāzin, Kinānah, Huḏayl and the ʾAnṣār say nāʾa and rāʾa.
Al-Farrāʾ is seemingly unaware that both Ibn Ḏakwān <- Ibn ʿĀmir and ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar read nāʾa (but not rāʾa!)
One may say wa-qarrī (people of the Hijaz) or wa-qirrī (anyone that one encounters in Najd). "The reading of the people of the Hijaz is more preferable to me".
It is indeed the only reading among the canonical readers.
Arabs say either salaktu-kah or ʾaslaktu-kah. "The recitation is upon the dialect of the Hijaz without the ʾalif", he then cites Quranic verses: usluk, salaka-kum and salaknā-hu, whose rasm indeed allows on other reading.
There are six dialectal practices of جذوة:
ǧiḏwatun, ǧuḏwatun, ǧaḏwatun
ǧiṯwatun, ǧuṯwatun, ǧaṯwatun,
"The (forms) with tāʾ are not introduced in recitation" (because it doesn't agree with the rasm)
Indeed all the forms with ḏ are found in the canonical readings.
While several times al-Farrāʾ clearly (and sometimes explicitly) prefers readings that agree with the rasm, for musayṭir he notes both musayṭir and muṣaytir in recitation while the (rasm) of the Quran is with a sīn.
Interestingly however, at Q88:22 where these two readings are mentioned the standard rasm does NOT have a sīn, but is written with a ṣād instead. That's an accurate reflection of what we find in early Quranic manuscripts!
Some conclusions: It's clear that to al-Farrāʾ recitation frequently was thought to be best when recited in the Qurashi manner. There are also several quite pervasive examples where that is not the case, but when he gives normative judgement, it's always towards Qurayš.
It is also worth appreciating the many places where he does *not* give a normative judgement of one form over the other. In his view there was clearly nothing wrong, for example, with reciting bihū, instead of bihī; a form basically lost in the canonical recitations.
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
This article examines a famous passage in the Hadith that related the canonization of the Quran, where the Uthmanic committee has a disagreement on how to write the word for "Ark".
Insight into loan strategies elucidates the passage.
In the Quran today the Ark of the Covenant is spelled التابوت and pronounced al-tābūt. This is a loanword from the Aramaic tēḇōṯ-ā, likely via Gəʿəz tābōt.
However, reports (which go back to Ibn Šihāb al-Zuhrī (d. 124/741-2)) tell us there was a controversy on how to spell it.
The Medinan Zayd b. Ṯābit wanted to spell it with a final hāʾ: التابوه, while his Quraši colleagues insisted it should be spelled التابوت.
They take it up with ʿUṯmān who says: the Quran was revealed in the Quraysh dialect, so it should be written according to it.
Ibn al-Bawwāb's quran, following the Classical Arabic orthography (rather than the rasm), spells ʾalif maqṣūrah before suffixes with ʾalif rather than (the Uthmanic) yāʾ. However, sometimes it does not, e.g. in Q79 here: مرساها, تخشاها, ضحاها, BUT: ذكريها. What gives? 🧵
Turns out there is a beautiful perfectly regular distribution!
The Ibn al-Bawwāb Quran is written according to the transmission of al-Dūrī from the reading of ʾAbū ʿAmr.
ʾAbū ʿAmr treats such ʾalifāt maqṣūrah is a special way. He reads them as /ā/ most of the time...
But he reads with ʾimālah, i.e. /ē/ whenever a /r/ precedes.
When the word stands in rhyme position, the /ā/ of such words is pronounced bayna lafẓay, i.e. /ǟ/.
And this distribution explains the spelling in the screenshot above, and throughout this manuscript!
If you look in a printed muṣḥaf today, and you're familiar with modern Arabic orthography, you will immediately be struck that many of the word are spelled rather strangely, and not in line with the modern norms.
This is both an ancient and a very modern phenomenon. 🧵
On the two page spread in the previous post alone there are 25 (if I didn't miss any) words that are not spelled the way we would "expect" them to.
The reason for this is because modern print editions today try to follow the Uthmanic rasm.
During the third caliph Uthman's reign, in the middle of the 7th century, he established an official standard of the text. This text was written in the spelling norms of the time. This spelling is called the rasm.
But since that time the orthographic norms of Arabic changed.
As some of you may know, I don't have a particularly high opinion of Arabic101, but now he's wading into the manuscript fray...
Will be live-tweeting facepalms as I go through it.
0:14 "what you see is 100% identical today to any Muṣḥaf".
Minor gripe. It's identical to the Madani Muṣḥaf, but not really to the Kufan, Basran or Damascene. But still 99.9% so this is really nitpicky.
0:43 "Re-phrased Ayat/Removed words/Added words" is of course anachronistic. It implies that the text we have today is more original than the Sanaa Palimpsest. Not much to suggest that.
In his 2020 book, Shady Nasser spends a chapter on a 'survival of the fittest' model of canonization of the reading traditions, arguing that over time the "majority transmission" tended to win out.
He choses a rather unusual example to illustrate this. 🧵
On page 25, Nasser tries to present an evolutionary model, with natural selection, by which some transmission paths of the seven readers become 'canonical', while others don't. One of these is that one "drops out" when diverging from the standard reading of the group...
As an illustration of this divergence from the standard, he cites what he considers a non-canonical reading among the seven, namely the imalah of an-nēsi, which is a variant reading transmitted for Abū Ṭāhir ʿAbd al-Wāḥid b. ʿUmar al-Bazzār (d. 349/960).
Ibn Ḫālawayh's (d. 380) Kitāb al-Badīʿ is an interesting book on the Qirāʾāt because it's the earliest surviving work that tries to simplify the transmissions of the readings, and does it rather differently from what becomes popular, the system of Ibn Ġalbūn the father (d. 389)
Ibn Ḫālawayh was Ibn Muǧāhid's student, who is widely held to be the canonizer of the seven reading traditions. Ibn Muǧāhid's book is the earliest book on the 7 reading traditions. But canon or not, Ibn Ḫālawayh's book actually describes 8 (adding Yaʿqūb).
Today the simplified system (and the only surviving one) is the "two-rawi canon". Each of the 7 readers, have two standard transmitters (all of them were once transmitter by more transmitters than those two). This system was introduced by ʾAbū al-Ṭayyib Ibn Ġalbūn in his ʾiršād.