Marijn van Putten Profile picture
Aug 11, 2021 23 tweets 11 min read Read on X
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:🧵 Image
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 Image
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. Image
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). ImageImage
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. ImageImage
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. ImageImageImageImage
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! ImageImage
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). ImageImage
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. Image
"Recitation follows buhita, but al-Kisāʾī claims that among the arabs there are those who say bahita and buhita." Image
The preposition ladun, is pronounced by some of Tamīm as ladu, but ladun is how the prophet read and it is "the recitation". ImageImage
The verb ḥasuna has three dialectal practices.
- Hijazi: ḥasuna "this is the best of them, and the recitation follows it"
- Tamīm: ḥasna
- Qays: ḥusna Image
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. Image
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!) ImageImage
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. Image
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. Image
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. Image
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. Image
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! ImageImageImageImage
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

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Marijn van Putten

Marijn van Putten Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @PhDniX

Jan 13
Seeing how al-Dānī works his way through competing reports for certain readings is really interesting. There is often a conflict between what he gets from books and oral tradition. Oral tradition does not always win out (though it often does).

Let's look at Q38:46 🧵 Image
al-Dānī starts: "Nāfiʿ and the transmission of Hišām [from Ibn ʿĀmir] in my recitation [to my teachers] read "bi-ḫāliṣati ḏikrā d-dār" (Q38:46) without tanwīn as a construct phrase; the rest read "bi-ḫāliṣatin" with Tanwīn."
However, Muḥammad b. ʿAlī from Ibn Muǧāhid said that Nāfiʿ only removes the nūn.

This is a citation from ibn Muǧāhid's kitāb al-sabʿah, which al-Dānī receives through Muḥammad b. ʿAlī.

And indeed Ibn Muǧāhid does not mention Hišām ʿan Ibn ʿĀmir but only Nāfiʿ! Image
Image
Read 17 tweets
Jan 5
My current project is collecting a database of vocalised Quranic manuscripts, to study which reading traditions they reflect. A large number (likely the majority) do not represent any known reading traditions from the literary tradition. A thread on one such a reading type. 🧵 Image
When a manuscript has an unknown non-canonical reading, it is typically unique to that manuscript: not a single manuscript is exactly alike. Nevertheless, we do find real 'patterns' among groups of manuscripts, that do things in similar ways that are distinct from known readings.
For example, a large number of manuscripts in the B.II style have an unusual pronominal system where the plural pronouns are long (humū, ʾantumū etc.) and the third person singular suffix -hū never harmonizes (bi-raḥmatihū, fīhu, ʿalayhu), *except* with the preposition bihī. Image
Read 14 tweets
Oct 10, 2024
New Article!

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.

doi.org/10.1515/islam-…Image
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. Image
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.
Read 12 tweets
Sep 27, 2024
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? 🧵 Image
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!
Read 6 tweets
Sep 25, 2024
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. 🧵 Image
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.
Read 22 tweets
Aug 5, 2024
I'm about to start watching this.

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. Image
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.
Read 68 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(