Marijn van Putten Profile picture
Nov 23, 2021 18 tweets 8 min read Read on X
Ibn Ḫālawayh (d. 381 AH) was one of the Ibn Mujāhid's students, and several important works of his have come down to us. One of these is his al-Ḥujjah fī al-Qirāʾāt as-Sabʿ "The Justification of the Seven Readings", and it is WEIRD. It keeps citing non-canonical readings! 🧵
The Ḥujjah could be called a "grammatical exegesis". It analyses all the variant readings where the seven readings disagree with one another, and explains why one would read one way or the other, and what those entail in meaning or grammatical choice.
Exegesis does this more commonly, but grammatical exegeses (or tawjīh/ḥujjah works works as one might call them) like these, are hyper-focused specifically on the points of disagreement.

Ibn Ḫālawayh ostensibly focuses on the seven readers canonized by his Teacher.
But despite his book claiming to be there to explain the differences between the seven readings, he quite frequently cites variant readings that are not recited by any of the seven!

And it does not seem like Ibn Ḫālawayh was just confused about the details either.
Ibn Ḫālawayh himself wrote a book on the seven readers + Yaʿqūb and in the margins wrote extensive notes on non-canonical readings he was aware of.
A gorgeous copy from his death year, presumably a copy from his autograph, is preserved at the @CBL_Dublin
viewer.cbl.ie/viewer/image/A…
His marginal notes on non-canonical readings has also become a copy of a book on its own Muḫtaṣar fī Šawāḏḏ al-Qurʾān min Kitāb al-Badīʿ, which Gotthelf Bergsträßer edited.

He also wrote another grammatical exegesis, where he does not seem to cite non-canonical readings.
Let's look at some cases of this in Sūrat al-ʾAnʿām which is a Sūrah I've been focusing on for a project together with @tafsirdoctor, where we consult this work quite extensively, which is the reason why I've run into the non-canonical readings being discussed there.
Q6:99 Ibn Ḫālawayh says is read both wa-ǧannātun min ʾaʿnābin and wa-ǧannātin min ʾaʿnābin. But none of the seven, nor the 10 read this way! It is a reading attributed to the non-canonical Kufan al-ʾAʿmaš, as Ibn Ḫālawayh records himself in his Badīʿ!
There is in fact a single strand transmission that attributes this reading to Šuʿbah, transmitter of ʿĀṣim, recorded by al-Dānī in his Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, but neither Ibn Ḫālawayh nor his teacher Ibn Mujāhid show any sign of awareness of this transmission.
Q6:105 Ibn Ḫālawayh seems to mention three readings dārasta, darasta and... durisat?! The canonical reading darasat is not discussed, even though he was clearly aware of it (in his Badīʿ), and he attributes durisat to al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī.
Q6:139 Ibn Ḫālawayh discusses both ḫāliṣatun and ḫāliṣu-hū. All canonical readers have ḫālisatun. Ibn Ḫālawayh attributes the reading Ḫāliṣu-hū to prolific companion of the prophet Ibn ʿAbbās.
Q6:160 Ibn Ḫālawayh discusses
1. fa-lahū ʿašrun ʾamṯālahā
2. ʿašru ʾamṯālihā.

The second is the only reading among the seven. The first is Yaʿqūb by later sources, but Ibn Ḫālawayh does not report it for him, and attributes it to al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī instead!
This is the only one of the four non-canonical readings I found in al-ʾAnʿām which Ibn Ḫālawayh does not discuss in his own catalogue of non-canonical readings. But it is attribute to al-ʾAʿmaš in al-Qabāqibī's book on the 14 readings.
So what's going on? The very fact that Ibn Ḫālawayh does not discuss these variants as canonical in his Badīʿ nor in his ʾIʿrāb al-Qirāʾāt al-Sabʿ wa-ʿIlaluh suggests that these are not the result of confusion or ignorance, but rather that he was including them on purpose.
Reading his introduction is not of much help. Ibn Ḫālawayh himself announces he'll be following the Seven canonical readers, and will comment only on disagreement between the famous readings and leave out the non-canonical rejected ones... but he doesn't always do that!
I don't really have an answer to what's going on. Have others looked at Ibn Ḫālawayh's Ḥujjah? Do such non-canonical reading mentions also happen elsewhere in the book? Or is al-ʾAnʿām exceptional? Sadly the editor does not note the odd nature of these variants in the footnotes
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
@ShAmmarKhatib1 I think this is probably of interest to you, and perhaps you are aware of some other places in the Ḥujjah where Ibn Ḫālawayh discusses non-canonical readings!

• • •

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!

:(