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.
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
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.