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
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.
NEW PUBLICATION: "Pronominal variation in Arabic among grammarians, Qurʾānic readings traditions and manuscripts".
This article has been in publication hell for 4 years. But it was an seminal work for my current research project, and a great collaboration with Hythem Sidky.
🧵
In this paper we try to describe the pronominal system used in early Islamic Classical Arabic. There is a striking amount of variation in this period, most of which does not survive into "standard classical Arabic".
We first look at the grammarians and how they describe the pronominal system.. Much of this description is already in my book (Van Putten 2022), but I assure you we wrote this way before I wrote that 🥲
Notable here is that Sībawayh prescribes minhū instead of now standard minhu.
In my book "Quranic Arabic" I argue that if you look closely at the Quranic rasm you can deduce that the text has been composed in Hijazi Arabic (and later classicized into more mixed forms in the reading traditions). Can we identify dialects in poetry?
I think this is possible to some extent, yes. And so far this has really not been done at all. Most of the time people assume complete linguistic uniformity in the poetry, and don't really explore it further.
But there are a number of rather complex issues to contend with:
As @Quranic_Islam already identified, there are some philological problems that get in the way in poetry that aren't there for the Quran: I would not trust a hamzah being written in a written down poem. This might be classicization. So it's hard to test for this Hijazi isogloss.
Last year I was asked to give a talk at the NISIS Autumn School about the textual history of the Quran. Here's a thread summarizing the points of that presentation. Specifically the presentation addresses some of Shoemaker's new objections on the Uthmanic canonization.
Traditionally, the third caliph ʿUṯmān is believed to have standardized the text.
However, in critical scholarship of the '70s the historicity of this view came to be questioned.
How can we really be sure that what the tradition tells us is correct?
This skepticism wasn't wholly unwarranted at the time. The Uthmanic canonization really had been uncritically accepted, not based on any material evidence.
But we now have access to many manuscripts, beautifully digitized, we can test the historicity of these claims!
The canonical Kufan readers Ḥamzah and al-Kisāʾī read the word ʾumm "mother" or ʾummahāt "mothers" with a kasrah whenever -ī or -i precedes, e.g.:
Q43:4 fī ʾimmi l-kitābi
Q39:6/Q53:32 fī buṭūni ʾimma/ihātikum
This seems random, but there is a general pattern here! 🧵
This feature was explained al-Farrāʾ in a lengthy discussion at the start of his Maʿānī. This makes sense: al-Farrāʾ was al-Kisāʾī's student who in turn was Ḥamzah's. Surprisingly in "The Iconic Sībawayh" Brustad is under the misapprehension that this is not a canonical variant.
This is irregular, such a vowel harmony does not occur in cases with other words that starts with ʾu-. For example, Q13:30 is just fī ʾummatin, not **fī ʾimmatin.
However this irregular reading is part of a larger pattern of vowel harmony accross guttural consonants.
Those who have read my book on Quranic Arabic may have noticed that I translate The Arabic word luġah as "linguistic practice", rather than "dialect" which is how many people commonly translate it.
This is for good reason: among the Arab grammarians it did not mean dialect! 🧵
In Modern Standard Arabic, luġah basically just means "language", as can be seen, e.g. on the Arabic Wikipedia page on the Dutch Language which calls it al-luġah al-hūlandiyyah.
This modern use gets projected onto the early Arab grammarians like Sībawayh and al-Farrāʾ.
But, they clearly do not mean that to the early grammarians. This is clear from statements like Sībawayh saying: faʿil forms that have a guttural consonant as second radical have four "luġāt": faʿil, fiʿil, faʿl and fiʿl.
In English a word or word-form cannot "have" a dialect.