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

Jul 10
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) Image
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. Image
Read 15 tweets
May 3
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.
🧵 Image
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. Image
Read 23 tweets
Apr 21
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.
Read 13 tweets
Apr 17
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. Image
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?
Image
Image
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! Image
Read 27 tweets
Apr 13
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! 🧵 Image
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.

Image
Image
Image
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.
Read 15 tweets
Mar 20
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! 🧵 Image
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. Image
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. Image
Read 10 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!

:(