Variants of recitation or qirâ'ât
-
Peace,
Here is an interesting article (with automatic translation) from Dr. Al ajami (original french version https//www.alajami.fr/index.php/2018/01/21/variantes-de-recitation-ou-qiraat/#_ednref8)
"
From a dogmatic point of view, the plurality of the Qur'anic text represented by the qirâ'ât version fits in with the major paradigm of Islam one God, one Revelation, one Prophet, one Qur'an.1- Definition of qirâ'ât/recitation variants
The Arabic word qirâ'a, in the plural qirâ'ât, etymologically means a way of reading, hence reading. However, the root qara'a is initially used for reciting, and later for reading Furthermore, in the case of the Qur'an, the technical use of the term qirâ'a essentially refers to the oral aspect of the matter, the recitation. This explains why we translate qirâ'a as a variant of recitation rather than a variant of reading. This will be justified later, but we are emphasising that this phenomenon is related to the oral transmission of the Qur'an and not to its writing. By qirâ'ât we therefore mean in the restricted sense all the Qur'anic textual variations listed. A qirâ'a/variant is thus for the same Qur'anic term the existence of two or more ways of reading it, which can generate different meanings. A well-known example in the fourth verse of the Fâtiḥa the consonantal spelling mlk can be recited mâliki or maliki . According to the mâliki variant the meaning is Holder, Master, in the case of the maliki variant the meaning is King. As this example shows, a qirâ'a/variant corresponds to the fact that the consonantal spelling of certain words in the Qur'an can be read in several ways. In other words, a qirâ'a/variant does not affect in principle the consonantal body, but only its vowelization, as we shall explain.
2- Formation of qirâ'ât/recitation variants
The presence of qirâ'ât is linked to a double phenomenon the writing of the Qur'ân and its oral transmission.
-
With regard to the writing of the Qur'an, we recall that the Arabic script places the consonants on the line and the vowels and orthographic accessories generally above or below the consonants. The consonants represent the morphological constant, the so-called consonant body/rasm or ductus. While the rasm of a term is constant, the vowels concerning it are largely variable as they reflect grammatical and lexical cases. However, at the time of the Koran, and for at least another century, the Arabic script only had 14 graphs without diacritical points to distinguish the 28 existing consonants and, moreover, did not transcribe the vowels. This very imperfect script, known as scriptio defectuosa, did not therefore make it possible to read a text transcribed in this way. This mode of transcription therefore necessarily implied that the content thus written was known in advance; it was a sort of memory aid, a memorial support compatible with what was known in advance from memory. Consequently, and by default, such a defective consonantal body makes it possible, through the play of diacritical points and vowelisation, to modify the meaning of a single term. For example, in S34.V23, the permutation of a diacritical point from the second to the third consonant allows to read either فُزِّعَ fuzzi'a/being reassured, or فُرِّغَ furrigha/being evacuated.
-
As far as oral transmission is concerned, the first Muslims did not have a writing system that could precisely fix the text of the Qur'an in writing, so their only option was to transmit it orally. This was also in keeping with their culture. However, it is not rationally conceivable that a text as long as the Qur'an could have been transmitted over several generations without undergoing alterations. This phenomenon is normal, and it explains a large part of the qirâ'ât.
-
In summary, the Qur'an was originally transmitted orally, which could not but generate numerous variations in recitation/qirâ'ât. However, we know that the Qur'ân was also transcribed early on in a script which, although imperfect, had the consequence of preserving the Qur'ânic consonant body or rasm, a constant graphic structure attested by the oldest known manuscripts. This made it possible to retrospectively delimit the framework of possible qirâ'ât and thus to limit the variability of the text, since any variant recitation had to be compatible with the rasm in order to be accepted. Consequently, it was mainly according to this same principle that Ibn Mujâhid in the fourth century of the Hegira proceeded to standardise the variants of recitation/qirâ'ât which he systematised according to seven so-called Schools of Reading, to which seven more were later added. In total, several thousand variants of recitation/qirâ'ât divided into fourteen Schools of Reading have thus come down to us. While it is true that a large majority of these variants of recitation do not alter the meaning of the Qur'an, it is also true that a not inconsiderable proportion of them actually modify the Qur'anic meaning, as we shall see later.
3- Origin of the qirâ'ât/variants of recitation
We have just provided a rational and historically identifiable explanation justifying the existence of recitation variants around a constant Qur'anic consonant body. This variability is thus the clear trace of the assumption of responsibility for the Qur'an by men. Towards the second century, Islam found itself de facto faced with a double problem on the one hand, it was inadmissible that the revealed text could have been altered by its transmitters and, on the other hand, the variability of the text corresponding to the presence of variants/qirâ'ât was inconceivable in view of the dogma of a single Qur'an, which is moreover protected by God. On this last point, see 'God protects the Qur'an' according to the Qur'an and in Islam. It was then asserted over and over again that the qirâ'ât did not alter the meaning of the Qur'an and that, in any case, they had all been taught by the Prophet. Islam's response to the realities of history was therefore irrational, but does not belief feed on irrationality? To this end, the Hadîth was mobilised, in essence 'The Qur'an was revealed in seven readings/aḥruf' and, to justify such diversity, the Prophet was made to specify that this multiplicity was intended to facilitate the recitation of the Qur'an 'Recite the reading/ḥarf that is easy for you'. Now, it is not rationally admissible to suppose that multiplying the variability of a text facilitates its faithful transmission and makes it easier to understand! How can multiplicity be a factor of simplification? On the other hand, it is much more coherent to presume that such hadîths were imagined retrospectively to justify the existence of the qirâ'ât by placing them under the direct authority of the Prophet, thus of God, so that the textual variability of the Qur'ân would not be imputed to men. Finally, the elaboration of these hadîths led to the terms aḥruf and qirâ'ât being considered synonymous, which was probably not the case in the minds of the designers of these texts."
4- Categories of qirâ'ât/variants of recitation
To simplify, qirâ'ât/variants of recitation can be grouped into three categories
-
Phonetic variants. These include the different pronunciation of the same word, such as the attenuation of hamza in mu'minûn/believers which is also said mûminûn/believers. Similarly, nâs/men can be pronounced nês/men. These variants, the most numerous, do not affect the meaning of the text. They correspond to the intrusion of various Arabic languages that differ from the one used in the revelation of the Qur'an. These variants are clearly man-made, since the Qur'an states "We have not sent any messenger unless it is in the language of his people, so that it may be clear to them...", S14.V4. Now, the Prophet was a Qurayshite and spoke in their language. There is therefore no reason to believe that the Qur'an could have been revealed in various Arabic dialects.
-
Vowel variants. These concern the modification of vowels. Some of these, like the previous ones, are based on regional particularities, such as 'alayhim versus 'alayhum, or mirfaqan/benevolence versus marfiqan. Such variants do not change the meaning. Other variants concern vowels with a grammatical function, most of which can therefore change the meaning. E.g. in S2.V119 we read wa lâ tas'al or wa lâ tus'alu. In the first case, it means do not ask , in the second you are not accountable .
-
The consonantal variants. These qirâ'ât retain the consonantal body or rasm, but affect it by varying the diacritical points or the consonantal inflections. The diacritical variants are the most numerous from the play of diacritical points they permute a consonant by another. E.g. in S7.V57, where either بشْر/announcement or نشْر/dispersion is noted, the difference coming only from the position of the diacritical point of the first consonant. This type of variant undoubtedly changes the meaning. Consonantal inflectional variants are rarer, sometimes attributed to dialectal differences in pronunciation such as 'attâ for ḥatta/until, by definition they do not alter the meaning.
5- Exegetical variants/qirâ'ât
The category of variants that we call exegetical is not considered by the classical authors for whom, as we have seen, the variants as a whole have been transmitted from the Prophet and do not influence the meaning of the Qur'an. As we have said, this doctrine is obviously intended to protect the dogma of the unique Qur'an and to deny that the Qur'anic text could have been altered by men. However, the Qur'anic tradition has preserved numerous qirâ'ât influencing the meaning of this or that verse, and they are the clearest evidence of human intervention in the Qur'anic text. They may be vowel variants or consonant variants, which have in common that they are not the result of the chance of the oro-scriptural transmission of the Qur'an, but directly translate an exegetical opinion. Obviously, it is these exegetical variants which, from the point of view of Literal Analysis, must systematically be taken into account in the determination of the Literal Meaning, see Lexical Analysis.
Examples
-
In S5.V6, we note the variants arjula-kum/your feet and arjuli-kum. These concern a vowel related to the transitive case or not. Thus, according to the former, one must wash one's feet during ablutions and, according to the latter, one must only pass one's wet hands over the top of the feet. We know the juridical-exegetical issues at stake in this matter.
-
In S2.V161, two variants affect the verbal voice of the verb ghalla/mislead. If it is vocalized in the passive mode yughalla, the meaning is "It is not of a Prophet to be deceived". If it is vocalized in the active voice yaghulla, the meaning is "It is not for a Prophet to deceive". A whole part of the dogma of the supposed infallibility of the Prophet is at stake here.
-
In S5.V38, a verse infamous for allegedly advocating the amputation of the thief's hand, the terms sâriq/thief (man) and sâriqa/thief (woman) are in the singular, which poses a logical problem since the word hands is used in the plural aydiy. In order to maintain the supposed amputation of the hand, a qirâ'a has been forged where both terms are put in the plural "as-sâriqûn/the thieves (men) and as-sâriqât/the thieves (women)". On this exegetical point and the real meaning of this verse, see Cutting off the hands of the thief according to the Qur'an and in Islam.
-
In S3.V115, either we read "whatever good they do/yaf'alû, it will not be denied them/yukfarû or "whatever good you do/taf'alû it will not be denied you/tukfarû. Technically, from the consonantal body of the two verbs of this sentence, two diacritical points have been placed either below yaf'alû/ يَفْعَلُوا and yukfarû/يُكْفَرُوا, or above taf'alû/ تَفْعَلُوا and tukfarû/تُكْفَرُوا. In the context of the utterance of this verse, the first variant means that the good done by the People of the Book will be counted to them on the Day of Judgement, the second indicates that whatever good you do, i.e. you Muslims, it will be counted to you, a meaning that is then totally decontextualised. When we know the fight led by Orthodoxy to excommunicate any religion other than Islam, we understand that the second variant is not the fruit of chance, but the sign of an exegetical will determined to divert the Koranic meaning.
-
These few examples show that the development of exegesis from the second and third centuries of the Hegira onwards deliberately generated exegetical variants intended to inflect the meaning of such and such a verse according to precise legal-exegetical objectives. These variants/qirâ'ât are proof of the exegetical hold on the Qur'anic text at a time when Exegesis worked to interpret the Qur'an according to the paradigms of Islam. They confirm that Islam as a religion has evolved along a theoretical and practical path that is not necessarily Qur'anic, of which the variants of recitation are an indicator. These exegetical variants therefore belong fully to the process of interpretation of the Qur'an by Exegesis, the work of the text intended to harmonise hermeneutically the Qur'anic purpose and the affirmations of Islam; on this last point, see in particular The he Quran and Islam.
6- Literal meaning and qirâ'ât/variants of recitation.
From a methodological point of view, the search for recitation variants/qirâ'ât modifying the meaning must be systematic. Their presence indicates that a given term has been the object of an exegetical issue and/or manipulation, which is in itself an excellent tool for identifying the interpretative levers that have been brought into play. This should be systematically taken into account in the process of deconstructing the interpretations, i.e. our a priori understanding of the verse concerned. When faced with two variants, in order to determine which of these two possible meanings corresponds to the original recitation, Contextual Analysis and the study of Qur'anic convergence prove to be effective and rational selection tools, see Literal Analysis of the Qur'an.
7- Uniqueness of the Qur'ân and Multiplicity of Qirâ'ât/Recitation Variants
From the point of view of the history of the Qur'anic text, the existence of qirâ'ât/variants of recitation, all categories taken together, indicates that the Qur'ân originally recited has undergone alterations. These are due to the oro-scriptural nature of the Qur'an, i.e., on the one hand, during its trans-generational oral transmission and, on the other hand, due to the fact that the Arabic script does not allow for the precise fixing of the pronunciation of the terms. The history of the transmission of the consonant body must therefore be clearly dissociated from that of the genesis of the qirâ'ât, which, as we have shown, is undoubtedly linked to the human factor. Moreover, it is perfectly admitted that the said rasm is constant and was transmitted in mutâwatir mode whereas the qirâ'ât are variable and were transmitted in aḥâd mode.
So we do not have a single text of the Qur'an, but a basic text whose thousands of variants of recitation/qirâ'ât have been classified into 14 Schools of readings. However, this does not mean that we have 14 versions of the Qur'an. As Islamology likes to interpret it, the qirâ'ât/variants are by no means a record of several competing versions of the Qur'an. Nor does it indicate that the Qur'an is the result of a diffuse and late fixed writing. On the contrary, as the oldest manuscripts found so far attest, the consonantal text has been preserved in its original state. This confirms that the qirâ'ât represent only variations around certain terms written in the same consonantal body, the rasm.
Consequently, every exegete, every reader, every reciter of the Qur'an, has been following for a thousand years a text perfectly endowed with diacritical points and vowels, a text transmitted according to a given School of reading, at present generally Ḥafṣ or Warsh. Thus, whatever the School, the transmitted consonant body/rasm is identical, but each of them has made a selection among the known qirâ'ât. The reader can thus read the said Qur'anic text without error while having the impression of following a unique document, whereas for many terms he is only following one variant of recitation/qirâ'ât among others.
Therefore, as soon as for the same consonantal spelling one notes a variant of recitation/qirâ'ât, there is no longer a basic meaning for this term, but two coexisting possibilities of meaning, the meaning of one then having theoretically as much value as that of the other. For the exegete, and especially for the Literal Analysis of the Qur'an, the choice between one or the other of these possibilities of meaning/qirâ'ât cannot of course be based on a pre-established selection by one or another School of Reading. From our methodological point of view, it is therefore through contextual analysis, the study of the Qur'anic convergence and the determination of the literal meaning that one must establish that it is the only admissible possibility of meaning. In other words, that it was the original recitation before the formation of the variant recitation/qirâ'a that affected it.
Conclusion
The variants of recitation/qirâ'ât are undoubtedly later than the revelation of the Qur'ân. They are the trace of a double phenomenon. On the one hand, the oral transmission of the Qur'an and the defective state of writing for more than two centuries have generated a number of unintentional uncertainties that have led to several possibilities concerning certain terms of the original Qur'anic text. In general, such variations in recitation/qirâ'ât have little or no effect on the meaning. On the other hand, the late desire to modify the meaning of this or that term, and thus of this or that verse, has given rise to the creation of qirâ'ât that we call exegetical variants. They reflect the hold of exegesis on the Qur'anic text. This is an interpretative subjugation of the Qur'an according to the legal and exegetical needs of the construction of Islam.
Moreover, the fact that the vast majority of these variants/qirâ'ât have been preserved gives the Qur'an that we have at our disposal a real scientific character, the equivalent of what is called a critical edition. Thus, the Qur'an is not a unique document miraculously preserved and transmitted, but an oro-scriptural document affected by numerous variants/qirâ'ât whose preservation is able to critically and methodologically allow the reconstruction of what the initial recitation of the Qur'an was, that is to say before the appearance of the qirâ'ât. If we understand it correctly, it is as if we do not have 100% of the Qur'an transmitted by Muhammad, but 101%, i.e. including the variants of recitation. Far from calling into question the credibility of the transmission of the Qur'an, the existence of the variants/qirâ'ât attests, on the contrary, to its real transmission history.
Rationally, the presence of the qirâ'ât, while contradicting the myth of a Qur'an descended as it is from heaven and miraculously protected by God, nevertheless indicates that the original text escaped the process that altered previous sacred texts. Indeed, it is indisputable that if the text of the Torah and the Gospel was modified according to the construction of Judaism and Christianity, this textual reinjection did not take place to the same extent in the case of the Qur'an and, in fact, it is limited to intentional variants/qirâ'ât, i.e. exegetical variants. On the one hand, this can be explained by an early and diffuse oral transmission that allowed the initial recitation to escape the control of a caste of scribes and, on the other hand, by the fact that the "war of the Text" between Sunnis and Shiites resulted in the victory of the Interpretation in both camps. In this respect, we have shown that, paradoxically, the history of the oro-scriptural transmission of the Qur'an did not result in the adaptation of the letter of the Qur'anic text to the needs of the construction of Islam, but in the modification of its meaning through an intense interpretative activity. 13] The variants of recitation therefore belong to this hermeneutic process of interpretation and, if some of them are intended to modify the meaning, they do not erase the basic textual line, but rather they are superimposed on it. Contrary to what Islamology claims, the variants of recitation are not the indication of a multiplicity of Quranic texts at a given moment, but participate in the hermeneutic process that led to the Quran saying what Islam said, see The Qur'an and Islam.
Finally, a correct understanding of the phenomenon of the appearance of the qirâ'ât requires a reconsideration of the history of the Qur'ân from a double perspective faith and reason. From the point of view of reason, since at that time there was no writing capable of faithfully transcribing the pronunciation of a text, the writing of the Qur'an by Caliph Uthman is necessarily a fiction, see Uthman's Qur'an - myth or reality? Similarly, the notion of the first written Qur'an is a chimera, the oldest Qur'an is not material, but immaterial, a text recited and transmitted orally and whose precise writing was only possible a century and a half after Uthman. Secondly, even if one were to assume theoretically that an ancient codex signed by Muhammad's own hand would be unearthed, that belief in its revealed nature would be solely an act of faith. Faith in the Qur'an as an expression of God's message to mankind through a revelation mediated and transmitted by the Prophet Muhammad.
On this point one can refer to First revelation of the Qur'an according to Islam ?
Because of the confusion that is skilfully maintained around the issue of qirâ'ât, this term can also refer to the recitation of the Qur'ân or to all the modalities specific to a School of Qur'ân reading. For the latter case, however, it is more accurate to speak of riwâya/recension recension Ḥafṣ, Warsh, Qâlûn and Ad-Dûrî for the best known.
Technically, it is a "semantic locus" the consonantal body of a term written without diacritical points and vowels.
For example, the letters "bâ'/b/ ب" , "tâ'/t/ ت" or "thâ'/th/ ث" differ graphically only in the number of dots and their position above or below the same basic line. The imperfection of such a transcription system can be illustrated, proportionately, by the example of a French sentence written only according to its consonantal body "l ml st bn". Depending on the assumed vowelization, this rasm can then represent various sentences honey is good; millet is good; evil is good; the male jumps well; the male follows well; the melee is blessed; the mule jumps well; evil is good, mali is blessed, the middle is good, etc. Finally, to be historically precise, we know of a few documents written in Arabic before the Qur'an on which certain diacritical points appear. However, this irregular and rare usage seems to have been very little used at the time, and it was only two centuries later that it was standardised and that the system we know today was put into practice.
We have a trace of this particular situation in the Qur'an concerning the writing of term debts. Indeed, we can see that two witnesses are also required, because the impossibility of directly reading the said writing implied the presence of witnesses who knew the content from memory. For a literal analysis of this verse, see The testimony of the woman according to the Qur'an and in Islam.
Hadîth reported by al Bukhârî and Muslim.
In fact, the careful choice of the term aḥruf in these hadîths posed more problems than it solved! Thus, there was never a consensus among the classical ulama as to what exactly the term ḥarf, in the plural aḥruf, means in relation to the Quran. More than forty hypotheses have been proposed and supported! The main meanings retained are languages; dialects; readings; styles; meanings; modes; variants.
We have not quantified these qirâ'ât, but some authors estimate them at nearly 5% of the whole, a figure that is probably somewhat overestimated.
Multiple and concordant ways of transmission of a text or a statement.
Single channels of transmission.
There were thus 1354 between the Ḥafṣ and Warsh censuses.
See Intratextuality Exhaustiveness, Non-thematicity, Coherence, Convergence.
See The interpretation and preservation of the Qur'an.
By Dr al Ajamî
" -