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
Early Islamic pious inscriptions frequently use the formula aḷḷāhumma ṣallī ʿalā fulān "O God, bless so-and-so."
As in the example here:
aḷḷāhumma ṣallī (صلي!) ʿalā l-qāsimi bni muḥammadin
By Classical Arabic standards this is a mistake, but we see it frequently. Thread 🧵
Inscriptional formulae tend to start with a vocative aḷḷāhumma "O God" or rabb-i "O my Lord" followed by an imperative, as seen in the frequent اللهم اغفر لفلان Aḷḷāhumma ġfir li-fulānin "O God, forgive so-and-so".
ġafara li- is by far the most common, and not remarkable.
But the ṣallī form that we opened with in the first post present a problem. Imperatives in final weak verbs should shorten the long vowel we see in the imperfect. So it is ṣallā "he blessed", yuṣallī "he blesses", ṣalli "bless!" But this should be spelled صل, not صلي!
I thought I had figured out an important verbal group, and presented about it today... and then I ran into Simone Mauri's description of Ayt Atta #Tamazight.
What I'm interested in is how to reconstruct the Aorist and perfect of verbs with two long vowels. A small thread.
Most forms of Central Moroccan Tamazight have an a...u vocalism for both the Aorist and perfect (just like Tashlhiyt). From there I had thought of a way to reconcile the Kabyle form ulwu/ulwa with the Tamaight alwu alwu. I proposed a three step analogy:
1. Start with ulwu/ulwa 2. Through analogy of verbs like agʷəm/ugəm, the aorist was reformed to alwu: alwu/ulwa. 3. The aorist stem was generalized to the perfect: alwu/alwu.
But this explanation totally breaks down for Ayt Atta!
In a well-known Hadith, the prophet is said to have heard the recitation of ʾAbū Mūsā and said: laqad ʾūtiya hāḏā min mazāmīr ʾāli dāwūd "This man has been given of the sweet voices (flutes) of the house of David" sunnah.com/nasai:1020
There might be a biblical subtext here🧵
As @bnuyaminim pointed out to me, David is explicitly described in 1 Chronicles 25 to have appointed temple musicians. Could the mazāmīr ʾāl Dāwūd be referring to these temple musicians? The use of the word mazāmīr here may also significant.
Where zamara only refers to playing wind instruments in Arabic, the Aramaic zmar primarily means 'to sing', a meaning more readily obvious in the current context.
mazāmīr may also be the plural of mazmūr 'psalm', and the psalms are traditionally closely related to David.
Some of the controversy about @MMetaphysician feeling not feeling he was the right person to defend the grammar of the Quran, appeared on my timeline after this conversation.
I figured I'd add some thoughts about "mistakes" in the Quran, as a linguist. 🧵
First it is worth noting that to a linguist "grammatical mistakes" don't really make much sense. Native speakers do not make mistakes. They speak the way they speak, and other people might speak differently. Those other people might have the power to impose norms on them.
But objectively there is no way to decide which of these is "better":
"I am not an expert."
"I ain't an expert."
"I ain't no expert."
All of these are perfectly acceptable ways to speak English, and that one of these is considered "standard" is just an accident of history.
The Dalāʾil al-Ḫayrāt was composed by the Moroccan Berber Muḥammad al-Jazūlī in the 9th/15th century, and from then until today is probably the most popular Islamic prayer book. Any library that has an oriental collection at all, is likely to have several copies.
I stumbled on this topic utterly by accident. I was browsing through a collection of Malian manuscripts, when I stumbled upon this text (eap.bl.uk/archive-file/E…), and I noticed a really odd feature... On the 2nd line, we see the word اكثركم "most of you", but that vocalisation
@koutchoukalimar@DerMenschensohn Bellamy's emendation articles are notoriously terrible. It's really quite impressive how much this man manages to get wrong in so little space...
As for your point about reading derived from the text or no, it's a bit more subtle...
@koutchoukalimar@DerMenschensohn The Uthmanic text is very ambiguous, many words could be read in many different ways. But it's not so ambiguous that it would lead to utter chaos. The Quran is much like the papyri, whose aim was certainly to be understood as well.
@koutchoukalimar@DerMenschensohn So yes, you *could* read Q2:2 as ḏālika l-kabābu lā zayta fīhi "That is the kabab in which there is no oil" by redotting... but I don't think anyone attempting to read the Quran with no knowledge would fail to read the text proper, purely from context. No oral tradition needed.