Diacritical Marks of the Qur'an - Revision history

Lightyears at 23:07, 1 November 2025

2025-11-01T23:07:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:07, 1 November 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{QualityScore\|Lead=4\|Structure=4\|Content=4\|Language=4\|References=4}}		{{QualityScore\|Lead=4\|Structure=4\|Content=4\|Language=4\|References=4}}
	[[File:Sura 24 without vowels and dots.jpg\|right\|thumb\|215px\|Arabic script from a Qur'an dated 150 AH showing Sura 24:34-36 without Vowels and Dots.]]		[[File:Sura 24 without vowels and dots.jpg\|right\|thumb\|215px\|Arabic script from a Qur'an dated 150 AH showing Sura 24:34-36 without Vowels and Dots.]]
	The earliest manuscripts of the [[Qur'an]] made very limited use of [[Arabic_letters_and_diacritics#The_Arabic_Diacritics\|diacritical marks]], which is true also of other early [[Arabic]] documents of the 7th century. Dots (or small dashes) to distingish homographic consonants such as ت and ب were used only sporadically at first~~, and markings~~ for short vowels begin to be seen in the late 7th / early 8th century CE, when coloured dots are introduced for that purpose, indicating a wide variety of reading traditions. Hamza and tanwin are not marked in early manuscripts either, though academic research has demonstrated that these were not spoken in the [[Internal Rhymes as Evidence for Old Hijazi\|Old Hijazi]] dialect in which the Quran was originally uttered~~, and there was~~ a reduced grammatical case ending system which was later classicized.		The earliest manuscripts of the [[Qur'an]] made very limited use of [[Arabic_letters_and_diacritics#The_Arabic_Diacritics\|diacritical marks]], which is true also of other early [[Arabic]] documents of the 7th century. Dots (or small dashes) to distingish homographic consonants such as ت and ب were used only sporadically at first. Markings for short vowels begin to be seen in the late 7th / early 8th century CE, when coloured dots are introduced for that purpose, indicating a wide variety of reading traditions. Marking word-internal long ā with alif was optional for most words. Hamza and tanwin are not marked in early manuscripts either, though academic research has demonstrated that these were not spoken in the [[Internal Rhymes as Evidence for Old Hijazi\|Old Hijazi]] dialect in which the Quran was originally uttered. Old Hijazi also had a reduced grammatical case ending system which too was later classicized.

	Due to such limited use of diacritical marks in the earliest Quranic manuscripts, as well as the variant oral reading traditions, and also because Muhammad may have allowed leeway in the reading of each word, it is sometimes not possible to have confidence in the original meaning of the [[Textual History of the Qur'an\|consonantal text standardised by Caliph Uthman around 650 CE]], though for the majority of the text there was agreement. Through the abundance of opportunities to make mistakes it is likely true that the Qur'an has been altered at least through grammatical changes, individual letters, and sometimes changes to individual words, so that we cannot be sure which (if any) of the variant reading traditions and associated manuscripts correctly preserve the original Quran to the letter or even to the word, as many claim, even as standardised under Uthman.		Due to such limited use of diacritical marks in the earliest Quranic manuscripts, as well as the variant oral reading traditions, and also because Muhammad may have allowed leeway in the reading of each word, it is sometimes not possible to have confidence in the original meaning of the [[Textual History of the Qur'an\|consonantal text standardised by Caliph Uthman around 650 CE]], though for the majority of the text there was agreement. Through the abundance of opportunities to make mistakes it is likely true that the Qur'an has been altered at least through grammatical changes, individual letters, and sometimes changes to individual words, so that we cannot be sure which (if any) of the variant reading traditions and associated manuscripts correctly preserve the original Quran to the letter or even to the word, as many claim, even as standardised under Uthman.

Lightyears: Van Putten seems to say the word internal alifs issue was just a case of insignificant spelling variation (except for Qul/Qala). I think there's more to it than just Qul/Qala where the meaning changes, but couldn't find a citation, so better to play safe.

2025-10-02T21:23:11Z

Van Putten seems to say the word internal alifs issue was just a case of insignificant spelling variation (except for Qul/Qala). I think there's more to it than just Qul/Qala where the meaning changes, but couldn't find a citation, so better to play safe.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:23, 2 October 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{QualityScore\|Lead=4\|Structure=4\|Content=4\|Language=4\|References=4}}		{{QualityScore\|Lead=4\|Structure=4\|Content=4\|Language=4\|References=4}}
	[[File:Sura 24 without vowels and dots.jpg\|right\|thumb\|215px\|Arabic script from a Qur'an dated 150 AH showing Sura 24:34-36 without Vowels and Dots.]]		[[File:Sura 24 without vowels and dots.jpg\|right\|thumb\|215px\|Arabic script from a Qur'an dated 150 AH showing Sura 24:34-36 without Vowels and Dots.]]
	The earliest manuscripts of the [[Qur'an]] made very limited use of [[Arabic_letters_and_diacritics#The_Arabic_Diacritics\|diacritical marks]], which is true also of other early [[Arabic]] documents of the 7th century. Dots (or small dashes) to distingish homographic consonants such as ت and ب were used only sporadically at first, and markings for short vowels begin to be seen in the late 7th / early 8th century CE, when coloured dots are introduced for that purpose, indicating a wide variety of reading traditions~~. There was also a lack of word-internal alifs in such manuscripts~~. Hamza and tanwin are not marked in early manuscripts either, though academic research has demonstrated that these were not spoken in the [[Internal Rhymes as Evidence for Old Hijazi\|Old Hijazi]] dialect in which the Quran was originally uttered, and there was a reduced grammatical case ending system which was later classicized.		The earliest manuscripts of the [[Qur'an]] made very limited use of [[Arabic_letters_and_diacritics#The_Arabic_Diacritics\|diacritical marks]], which is true also of other early [[Arabic]] documents of the 7th century. Dots (or small dashes) to distingish homographic consonants such as ت and ب were used only sporadically at first, and markings for short vowels begin to be seen in the late 7th / early 8th century CE, when coloured dots are introduced for that purpose, indicating a wide variety of reading traditions. Hamza and tanwin are not marked in early manuscripts either, though academic research has demonstrated that these were not spoken in the [[Internal Rhymes as Evidence for Old Hijazi\|Old Hijazi]] dialect in which the Quran was originally uttered, and there was a reduced grammatical case ending system which was later classicized.

	Due to such limited use of diacritical marks in the earliest Quranic manuscripts, as well as the variant oral reading traditions, and also because Muhammad may have allowed leeway in the reading of each word, it is sometimes not possible to have confidence in the original meaning of the [[Textual History of the Qur'an\|consonantal text standardised by Caliph Uthman around 650 CE]], though for the majority of the text there was agreement. Through the abundance of opportunities to make mistakes it is likely true that the Qur'an has been altered at least through grammatical changes, individual letters, and sometimes changes to individual words, so that we cannot be sure which (if any) of the variant reading traditions and associated manuscripts correctly preserve the original Quran to the letter or even to the word, as many claim, even as standardised under Uthman.		Due to such limited use of diacritical marks in the earliest Quranic manuscripts, as well as the variant oral reading traditions, and also because Muhammad may have allowed leeway in the reading of each word, it is sometimes not possible to have confidence in the original meaning of the [[Textual History of the Qur'an\|consonantal text standardised by Caliph Uthman around 650 CE]], though for the majority of the text there was agreement. Through the abundance of opportunities to make mistakes it is likely true that the Qur'an has been altered at least through grammatical changes, individual letters, and sometimes changes to individual words, so that we cannot be sure which (if any) of the variant reading traditions and associated manuscripts correctly preserve the original Quran to the letter or even to the word, as many claim, even as standardised under Uthman.
Line 32:		Line 32:
	==Importance of Diacritical marks==		==Importance of Diacritical marks==

	As we stated earlier, the Qur'an was written largely without diacritical marks. At the time of Muhammad, Arabic orthography was yet to develop into what we have known for centuries. There was very limited use of marks to distingish between consonants of the Arabic alphabet of similar shape (homographic) and there were no short vowel marks ~~or word-internal alifs~~. While agreement on how to read most of the text is due to it being obvious and a common memory or understanding for the most part, the history of recorded variant recitations and manuscripts show that often the readers needed to interpret and choose for themselves from the many possible meanings available in the Arabic without diacritical marks.		As we stated earlier, the Qur'an was written largely without diacritical marks. At the time of Muhammad, Arabic orthography was yet to develop into what we have known for centuries. There was very limited use of marks to distingish between consonants of the Arabic alphabet of similar shape (homographic) and there were no short vowel marks. While agreement on how to read most of the text is due to it being obvious and a common memory or understanding for the most part, the history of recorded variant recitations and manuscripts show that often the readers needed to interpret and choose for themselves from the many possible meanings available in the Arabic without diacritical marks.

	Here a couple of examples from the canonical (accepted) readings of the Quran involving variant consonantal dottings. The first example changes one root word into another, while the second example affects the grammatical subject of the verb.		Here a couple of examples from the canonical (accepted) readings of the Quran involving variant consonantal dottings. The first example changes one root word into another, while the second example affects the grammatical subject of the verb.

Lightyears at 23:04, 6 June 2023

2023-06-06T23:04:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:04, 6 June 2023
Line 20:		Line 20:
	{{Quote\|1=Marijn van Putten (2022) ''Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions'', p. 224 (downloadable free in pdf format)<ref name="vanPutten2022">van Putten, Marijn, [https://brill.com/view/title/61587 Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions], Leiden: Brill, 2022 isbn: 9789004506251</ref>\|2=The earliest manuscripts, those that can be dated to the seventh century, lack any form of vocalization signs and purely reflect the standard Uthmanic text, a consonantal skeleton (e.g. cpp, bl, Arabe 330g, Birmingham, Cadbury Research Library, Islamic Arabic 1572b). By the 8th century a system of red dots developed to write the vowel signs.}}		{{Quote\|1=Marijn van Putten (2022) ''Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions'', p. 224 (downloadable free in pdf format)<ref name="vanPutten2022">van Putten, Marijn, [https://brill.com/view/title/61587 Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions], Leiden: Brill, 2022 isbn: 9789004506251</ref>\|2=The earliest manuscripts, those that can be dated to the seventh century, lack any form of vocalization signs and purely reflect the standard Uthmanic text, a consonantal skeleton (e.g. cpp, bl, Arabe 330g, Birmingham, Cadbury Research Library, Islamic Arabic 1572b). By the 8th century a system of red dots developed to write the vowel signs.}}

	Since there was agreement on how to read most of the Quran, the oral tradition(s) and obviousness must have prevented disagreement for the most part in reading the text. Nevertheless, around 1400 words have variant readings even between the canonical (accepted) oral readings of the Quranic text and there were many thousands more non-canonical variants recited in the first few centuries (see [[Textual History of the Qur'an#The_number_of_Qira.27at_variants.2C_canonical_and_non-canonical\|Textual History of the Qur'an]]. Moreover, Marijn van Putten and his colleagues have demonstrated with a wide range of evidence that the original dialect of the Quran lacked certain elements like hamza, tanwin, and had a reduced grammatical case system. He ~~writes~~:		Since there was agreement on how to read most of the Quran, the oral tradition(s) and obviousness must have prevented disagreement for the most part in reading the text. Nevertheless, around 1400 words have variant readings even between the canonical (accepted) oral readings of the Quranic text and there were many thousands more non-canonical variants recited in the first few centuries (see [[Textual History of the Qur'an#The_number_of_Qira.27at_variants.2C_canonical_and_non-canonical\|Textual History of the Qur'an]]). Moreover, Marijn van Putten and his colleagues have demonstrated with a wide range of evidence that the original dialect of the Quran lacked certain elements like hamza, tanwin, and had a reduced grammatical case system. He explains that pragmatic considerations and extra-linguistic hints would have resolved to a large extent the resulting ambiguities, though nevertheless the readers had some ambiguity to deal with:

	{{Quote\|1=Marijn van Putten (2022) ''Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions'', p. 154 (downloadable free in pdf format)<ref name="vanPutten2022" />\|2=~~Pragmatic considerations and extra-linguistic hints would have resolved to a large extent the resulting ambiguities.~~ Nevertheless, "to the Quranic reciters, placement of ʔiʕrāb and tanwīn was a highly theoretical undertaking, not one that unambiguously stemmed from its prototypical recitation and composition."<ref>Ibid. pp. 153-154.</ref> }}		{{Quote\|1=Marijn van Putten (2022) ''Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions'', p. 154 (downloadable free in pdf format)<ref name="vanPutten2022" />\|2=Nevertheless, "to the Quranic reciters, placement of ʔiʕrāb and tanwīn was a highly theoretical undertaking, not one that unambiguously stemmed from its prototypical recitation and composition."<ref>Ibid. pp. 153-154.</ref> }}

	On ambiguities ~~in the consonantal text (rasm), van Putten discusses examples~~ involving homographic consonants which may be dotted different ways:		On ambiguities involving homographic consonants which may be dotted different ways, he writes:

	{{Quote\|1=Marijn van Putten (2022) ''Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions'', pp. 53-4 (downloadable free in pdf format)<ref name="vanPutten2022" />\|2=Occasionally it is possible to envision those variant readings indeed have origins in a pre-existent oral tradition where the rasm, by accident, accommodated both readings. For example, in Q33:68 ʕāṣim is the only one to read wa-ʔalʕan-hum laʕnan kabīran “and curse them with great cursing”, rather than wa-ʔalʕan-hum laʕnan kaṯīran “and curse them with many a curse.” (Ibn al-Ǧazarī, §3952). The difference between these two readings comes down to a difference in dotting in the word كٮٮرا which could either be read kaṯīran or kabīran, but these two readings are semantically and phonetically so close, that it does not seem unlikely that such variants could have existed in the oral transmission of the Quranic text before canonization, and by sheer accident happened to agree with the rasm when it was instated. '''However, there are other variants where the phonetics are rather different, and it is by coincidence that in the ambiguous script of Arabic they happen to be written the same.''' It is unlikely that these kinds of variants do not have their basis in the Uthmanic rasm. Some salient examples of this point are the following: ڡٮٮٮٮوا fa-taṯabbatū ‘proceed with caution!’ (al-Kisāʔī; Ḥamzah; Xalaf), fa-tabayyanū ‘be clear!’ (the others) (Q4:94; Q49:6, Ibn al-Ǧazarī, §2951); ىڡصالحٯ yaquṣṣu l-ḥaqq ‘he tells the truth’ (Nafīʕ, ʔabū Ğaʕfar Ibn Kaṯīr, ʕāṣim), yaqḍi l-ḥaqq ‘he decides the truth’ (the others) (Q6:57; Ibn al-Ǧazarī, §3029);7 ٮٮلوا tatlū ‘recites, recounts’ (al- Kisāʔī; Ḥamzah; Xalaf) tablū ‘tests’ (the others) (Q10:30; ibn al-Ǧazarī, §3354). '''In such cases, the most likely explanation as to why the readers disagree is not that they were transmitting an oral transmission, but rather that the readers were confronted with an ambiguous rasm and interpreted it in two ways that both made semantic sense.'''}}		{{Quote\|1=Marijn van Putten (2022) ''Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions'', pp. 53-4 (downloadable free in pdf format)<ref name="vanPutten2022" />\|2=Occasionally it is possible to envision those variant readings indeed have origins in a pre-existent oral tradition where the rasm, by accident, accommodated both readings. For example, in Q33:68 ʕāṣim is the only one to read wa-ʔalʕan-hum laʕnan kabīran “and curse them with great cursing”, rather than wa-ʔalʕan-hum laʕnan kaṯīran “and curse them with many a curse.” (Ibn al-Ǧazarī, §3952). The difference between these two readings comes down to a difference in dotting in the word كٮٮرا which could either be read kaṯīran or kabīran, but these two readings are semantically and phonetically so close, that it does not seem unlikely that such variants could have existed in the oral transmission of the Quranic text before canonization, and by sheer accident happened to agree with the rasm when it was instated. '''However, there are other variants where the phonetics are rather different, and it is by coincidence that in the ambiguous script of Arabic they happen to be written the same.''' It is unlikely that these kinds of variants do not have their basis in the Uthmanic rasm. Some salient examples of this point are the following: ڡٮٮٮٮوا fa-taṯabbatū ‘proceed with caution!’ (al-Kisāʔī; Ḥamzah; Xalaf), fa-tabayyanū ‘be clear!’ (the others) (Q4:94; Q49:6, Ibn al-Ǧazarī, §2951); ىڡصالحٯ yaquṣṣu l-ḥaqq ‘he tells the truth’ (Nafīʕ, ʔabū Ğaʕfar Ibn Kaṯīr, ʕāṣim), yaqḍi l-ḥaqq ‘he decides the truth’ (the others) (Q6:57; Ibn al-Ǧazarī, §3029);7 ٮٮلوا tatlū ‘recites, recounts’ (al- Kisāʔī; Ḥamzah; Xalaf) tablū ‘tests’ (the others) (Q10:30; ibn al-Ǧazarī, §3354). '''In such cases, the most likely explanation as to why the readers disagree is not that they were transmitting an oral transmission, but rather that the readers were confronted with an ambiguous rasm and interpreted it in two ways that both made semantic sense.'''}}

Lightyears at 22:53, 6 June 2023

2023-06-06T22:53:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:53, 6 June 2023
Line 104:		Line 104:
	\|-		\|-
	\|{{Quran\|11\|81}}		\|{{Quran\|11\|81}}
	\|''Ibn Kathir and Abu Amr:''The angels said, "O Lot, indeed we are messengers of your Lord; [therefore], they will never reach you. So set out with your family during a portion of the night and let not any among you look back - '''except your wife''' [ʾilla mraʾatuka إِلَّا ٱمْرَأَتُكَ - nominative case]; indeed, she will be struck by that which strikes them. Indeed, their appointment is [for] the morning. Is not the morning near?"		\|''Ibn Kathir and Abu Amr:''<BR />The angels said, "O Lot, indeed we are messengers of your Lord; [therefore], they will never reach you. So set out with your family during a portion of the night and let not any among you look back - '''except your wife''' [ʾilla mraʾatuka إِلَّا ٱمْرَأَتُكَ - nominative case]; indeed, she will be struck by that which strikes them. Indeed, their appointment is [for] the morning. Is not the morning near?"
	\|''The others readers:''The angels said, "O Lot, indeed we are messengers of your Lord; [therefore], they will never reach you. So set out with your family during a portion of the night and let not any among you look back - '''except your wife''' [ʾilla mraʾataka إِلَّا ٱمْرَأَتَكَ - accusative case]; indeed, she will be struck by that which strikes them. Indeed, their appointment is [for] the morning. Is not the morning near?"		\|''The others readers:''<BR />The angels said, "O Lot, indeed we are messengers of your Lord; [therefore], they will never reach you. So set out with your family during a portion of the night and let not any among you look back - '''except your wife''' [ʾilla mraʾataka إِلَّا ٱمْرَأَتَكَ - accusative case]; indeed, she will be struck by that which strikes them. Indeed, their appointment is [for] the morning. Is not the morning near?"
	\|These variants give rise to conflicting instructions from the angels to Lot<ref>See the explanation in [https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=11&tAyahNo=81&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2 Tafsir al-Jalalayn], which is also common among early commentators and grammarians, who clearly did not hold the centuries later view that every variant is divine. Much later, for example, Abu Hayyan claimed that in both readings the exception refers to Lut's wife looking back, despite the contradiction with other surahs mentioning that she stayed behind, and despite Ibn Mas'ud's version which omits the look back part, and despite the fact that a variant wasn't needed (and the embarassement could have been avoided) if they both meant the same thing.</ref><ref>Regarding this variant see also [https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1452668408269520904 The story of Lot (...) finds clear parallels with the story as told in Gen. 19. A thread on a specific reading variant."] Twitter.com thread by Dr. Marijn van Putten - 25 October 2021 ([https://web.archive.org/web/20211026204953/https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1452668408269520904 archive])</ref>		\|These variants give rise to conflicting instructions from the angels to Lot<ref>See the explanation in [https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=11&tAyahNo=81&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2 Tafsir al-Jalalayn], which is also common among early commentators and grammarians, who clearly did not hold the centuries later view that every variant is divine. Much later, for example, Abu Hayyan claimed that in both readings the exception refers to Lut's wife looking back, despite the contradiction with other surahs mentioning that she stayed behind, and despite Ibn Mas'ud's version which omits the look back part, and despite the fact that a variant wasn't needed (and the embarassement could have been avoided) if they both meant the same thing.</ref><ref>Regarding this variant see also [https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1452668408269520904 The story of Lot (...) finds clear parallels with the story as told in Gen. 19. A thread on a specific reading variant."] Twitter.com thread by Dr. Marijn van Putten - 25 October 2021 ([https://web.archive.org/web/20211026204953/https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1452668408269520904 archive])</ref>
	\|[https://quran.com/11/81?translations=149 Bridges translation]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/11/vers/81 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=11&aya=81 nquran.com]		\|[https://quran.com/11/81?translations=149 Bridges translation]<BR>[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/11/vers/81 Corpus Coranicum]<BR>[https://www.nquran.com/ar/index.php?group=ayacompare&sora=11&aya=81 nquran.com]

Lightyears at 22:52, 6 June 2023

2023-06-06T22:52:16Z

Show changes

Lightyears: Rewrite with up to date sources

2023-06-06T13:10:36Z

Rewrite with up to date sources

Show changes

IbnPinker at 20:41, 7 March 2021

2021-03-07T20:41:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:41, 7 March 2021
Line 87:		Line 87:

	*[[Arabic letters and diacritics]]		*[[Arabic letters and diacritics]]
			*[[Textual History of the Qur'an]]
	~~{{Hub4\|Corruption of Qur'an\|Corruption~~ of the Qur'an}}

	==External Links==		==External Links==

IbnPinker at 02:58, 7 March 2021

2021-03-07T02:58:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:58, 7 March 2021
Line 94:		Line 94:
	*[http://www.answering-islam.org/Campbell/s3c3c.html Variants in the Qur'an] ''- Dr. William Campbell''		*[http://www.answering-islam.org/Campbell/s3c3c.html Variants in the Qur'an] ''- Dr. William Campbell''
	*[http://www.answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv8.html Qur'anic Language and Grammatical Mistakes] ''- Answering Islam''		*[http://www.answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv8.html Qur'anic Language and Grammatical Mistakes] ''- Answering Islam''
	*[http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37990 Diacritical Markings in the Quran Change the Meanings] ''- ~~[[Faith Freedom International\|~~FFI Forum]]''		*[http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37990 Diacritical Markings in the Quran Change the Meanings] ''- FFI Forum''

	==References==		==References==

IbnPinker at 02:35, 7 March 2021

2021-03-07T02:35:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:35, 7 March 2021
Line 93:		Line 93:

	*[http://www.answering-islam.org/Campbell/s3c3c.html Variants in the Qur'an] ''- Dr. William Campbell''		*[http://www.answering-islam.org/Campbell/s3c3c.html Variants in the Qur'an] ''- Dr. William Campbell''
	*[http://www.answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv8.html Qur'anic Language and Grammatical Mistakes] ''- [[Answering Islam]]''		*[http://www.answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv8.html Qur'anic Language and Grammatical Mistakes] ''- Answering Islam''
	*[http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37990 Diacritical Markings in the Quran Change the Meanings] ''- [[Faith Freedom International\|FFI Forum]]''		*[http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37990 Diacritical Markings in the Quran Change the Meanings] ''- [[Faith Freedom International\|FFI Forum]]''

Asmith: /* References */

2021-02-24T21:56:16Z

References

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:56, 24 February 2021
Line 101:		Line 101:
	[[Category:Qur'an]]		[[Category:Qur'an]]
	[[Category:Qur'anic textual history]]		[[Category:Qur'anic textual history]]
			[[Category:Arabic]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:07, 1 November 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{QualityScore\|Lead=4\|Structure=4\|Content=4\|Language=4\|References=4}}		{{QualityScore\|Lead=4\|Structure=4\|Content=4\|Language=4\|References=4}}
	[[File:Sura 24 without vowels and dots.jpg\|right\|thumb\|215px\|Arabic script from a Qur'an dated 150 AH showing Sura 24:34-36 without Vowels and Dots.]]		[[File:Sura 24 without vowels and dots.jpg\|right\|thumb\|215px\|Arabic script from a Qur'an dated 150 AH showing Sura 24:34-36 without Vowels and Dots.]]
	The earliest manuscripts of the [[Qur'an]] made very limited use of [[Arabic_letters_and_diacritics#The_Arabic_Diacritics\|diacritical marks]], which is true also of other early [[Arabic]] documents of the 7th century. Dots (or small dashes) to distingish homographic consonants such as ت and ب were used only sporadically at first~~, and markings~~ for short vowels begin to be seen in the late 7th / early 8th century CE, when coloured dots are introduced for that purpose, indicating a wide variety of reading traditions. Hamza and tanwin are not marked in early manuscripts either, though academic research has demonstrated that these were not spoken in the [[Internal Rhymes as Evidence for Old Hijazi\|Old Hijazi]] dialect in which the Quran was originally uttered~~, and there was~~ a reduced grammatical case ending system which was later classicized.		The earliest manuscripts of the [[Qur'an]] made very limited use of [[Arabic_letters_and_diacritics#The_Arabic_Diacritics\|diacritical marks]], which is true also of other early [[Arabic]] documents of the 7th century. Dots (or small dashes) to distingish homographic consonants such as ت and ب were used only sporadically at first. Markings for short vowels begin to be seen in the late 7th / early 8th century CE, when coloured dots are introduced for that purpose, indicating a wide variety of reading traditions. Marking word-internal long ā with alif was optional for most words. Hamza and tanwin are not marked in early manuscripts either, though academic research has demonstrated that these were not spoken in the [[Internal Rhymes as Evidence for Old Hijazi\|Old Hijazi]] dialect in which the Quran was originally uttered. Old Hijazi also had a reduced grammatical case ending system which too was later classicized.

	Due to such limited use of diacritical marks in the earliest Quranic manuscripts, as well as the variant oral reading traditions, and also because Muhammad may have allowed leeway in the reading of each word, it is sometimes not possible to have confidence in the original meaning of the [[Textual History of the Qur'an\|consonantal text standardised by Caliph Uthman around 650 CE]], though for the majority of the text there was agreement. Through the abundance of opportunities to make mistakes it is likely true that the Qur'an has been altered at least through grammatical changes, individual letters, and sometimes changes to individual words, so that we cannot be sure which (if any) of the variant reading traditions and associated manuscripts correctly preserve the original Quran to the letter or even to the word, as many claim, even as standardised under Uthman.		Due to such limited use of diacritical marks in the earliest Quranic manuscripts, as well as the variant oral reading traditions, and also because Muhammad may have allowed leeway in the reading of each word, it is sometimes not possible to have confidence in the original meaning of the [[Textual History of the Qur'an\|consonantal text standardised by Caliph Uthman around 650 CE]], though for the majority of the text there was agreement. Through the abundance of opportunities to make mistakes it is likely true that the Qur'an has been altered at least through grammatical changes, individual letters, and sometimes changes to individual words, so that we cannot be sure which (if any) of the variant reading traditions and associated manuscripts correctly preserve the original Quran to the letter or even to the word, as many claim, even as standardised under Uthman.

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:04, 6 June 2023
Line 20:		Line 20:
	{{Quote\|1=Marijn van Putten (2022) ''Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions'', p. 224 (downloadable free in pdf format)<ref name="vanPutten2022">van Putten, Marijn, [https://brill.com/view/title/61587 Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions], Leiden: Brill, 2022 isbn: 9789004506251</ref>\|2=The earliest manuscripts, those that can be dated to the seventh century, lack any form of vocalization signs and purely reflect the standard Uthmanic text, a consonantal skeleton (e.g. cpp, bl, Arabe 330g, Birmingham, Cadbury Research Library, Islamic Arabic 1572b). By the 8th century a system of red dots developed to write the vowel signs.}}		{{Quote\|1=Marijn van Putten (2022) ''Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions'', p. 224 (downloadable free in pdf format)<ref name="vanPutten2022">van Putten, Marijn, [https://brill.com/view/title/61587 Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions], Leiden: Brill, 2022 isbn: 9789004506251</ref>\|2=The earliest manuscripts, those that can be dated to the seventh century, lack any form of vocalization signs and purely reflect the standard Uthmanic text, a consonantal skeleton (e.g. cpp, bl, Arabe 330g, Birmingham, Cadbury Research Library, Islamic Arabic 1572b). By the 8th century a system of red dots developed to write the vowel signs.}}

	Since there was agreement on how to read most of the Quran, the oral tradition(s) and obviousness must have prevented disagreement for the most part in reading the text. Nevertheless, around 1400 words have variant readings even between the canonical (accepted) oral readings of the Quranic text and there were many thousands more non-canonical variants recited in the first few centuries (see [[Textual History of the Qur'an#The_number_of_Qira.27at_variants.2C_canonical_and_non-canonical\|Textual History of the Qur'an]]. Moreover, Marijn van Putten and his colleagues have demonstrated with a wide range of evidence that the original dialect of the Quran lacked certain elements like hamza, tanwin, and had a reduced grammatical case system. He ~~writes~~:		Since there was agreement on how to read most of the Quran, the oral tradition(s) and obviousness must have prevented disagreement for the most part in reading the text. Nevertheless, around 1400 words have variant readings even between the canonical (accepted) oral readings of the Quranic text and there were many thousands more non-canonical variants recited in the first few centuries (see [[Textual History of the Qur'an#The_number_of_Qira.27at_variants.2C_canonical_and_non-canonical\|Textual History of the Qur'an]]). Moreover, Marijn van Putten and his colleagues have demonstrated with a wide range of evidence that the original dialect of the Quran lacked certain elements like hamza, tanwin, and had a reduced grammatical case system. He explains that pragmatic considerations and extra-linguistic hints would have resolved to a large extent the resulting ambiguities, though nevertheless the readers had some ambiguity to deal with:

	{{Quote\|1=Marijn van Putten (2022) ''Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions'', p. 154 (downloadable free in pdf format)<ref name="vanPutten2022" />\|2=~~Pragmatic considerations and extra-linguistic hints would have resolved to a large extent the resulting ambiguities.~~ Nevertheless, "to the Quranic reciters, placement of ʔiʕrāb and tanwīn was a highly theoretical undertaking, not one that unambiguously stemmed from its prototypical recitation and composition."<ref>Ibid. pp. 153-154.</ref> }}		{{Quote\|1=Marijn van Putten (2022) ''Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions'', p. 154 (downloadable free in pdf format)<ref name="vanPutten2022" />\|2=Nevertheless, "to the Quranic reciters, placement of ʔiʕrāb and tanwīn was a highly theoretical undertaking, not one that unambiguously stemmed from its prototypical recitation and composition."<ref>Ibid. pp. 153-154.</ref> }}

	On ambiguities ~~in the consonantal text (rasm), van Putten discusses examples~~ involving homographic consonants which may be dotted different ways:		On ambiguities involving homographic consonants which may be dotted different ways, he writes:

	{{Quote\|1=Marijn van Putten (2022) ''Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions'', pp. 53-4 (downloadable free in pdf format)<ref name="vanPutten2022" />\|2=Occasionally it is possible to envision those variant readings indeed have origins in a pre-existent oral tradition where the rasm, by accident, accommodated both readings. For example, in Q33:68 ʕāṣim is the only one to read wa-ʔalʕan-hum laʕnan kabīran “and curse them with great cursing”, rather than wa-ʔalʕan-hum laʕnan kaṯīran “and curse them with many a curse.” (Ibn al-Ǧazarī, §3952). The difference between these two readings comes down to a difference in dotting in the word كٮٮرا which could either be read kaṯīran or kabīran, but these two readings are semantically and phonetically so close, that it does not seem unlikely that such variants could have existed in the oral transmission of the Quranic text before canonization, and by sheer accident happened to agree with the rasm when it was instated. '''However, there are other variants where the phonetics are rather different, and it is by coincidence that in the ambiguous script of Arabic they happen to be written the same.''' It is unlikely that these kinds of variants do not have their basis in the Uthmanic rasm. Some salient examples of this point are the following: ڡٮٮٮٮوا fa-taṯabbatū ‘proceed with caution!’ (al-Kisāʔī; Ḥamzah; Xalaf), fa-tabayyanū ‘be clear!’ (the others) (Q4:94; Q49:6, Ibn al-Ǧazarī, §2951); ىڡصالحٯ yaquṣṣu l-ḥaqq ‘he tells the truth’ (Nafīʕ, ʔabū Ğaʕfar Ibn Kaṯīr, ʕāṣim), yaqḍi l-ḥaqq ‘he decides the truth’ (the others) (Q6:57; Ibn al-Ǧazarī, §3029);7 ٮٮلوا tatlū ‘recites, recounts’ (al- Kisāʔī; Ḥamzah; Xalaf) tablū ‘tests’ (the others) (Q10:30; ibn al-Ǧazarī, §3354). '''In such cases, the most likely explanation as to why the readers disagree is not that they were transmitting an oral transmission, but rather that the readers were confronted with an ambiguous rasm and interpreted it in two ways that both made semantic sense.'''}}		{{Quote\|1=Marijn van Putten (2022) ''Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions'', pp. 53-4 (downloadable free in pdf format)<ref name="vanPutten2022" />\|2=Occasionally it is possible to envision those variant readings indeed have origins in a pre-existent oral tradition where the rasm, by accident, accommodated both readings. For example, in Q33:68 ʕāṣim is the only one to read wa-ʔalʕan-hum laʕnan kabīran “and curse them with great cursing”, rather than wa-ʔalʕan-hum laʕnan kaṯīran “and curse them with many a curse.” (Ibn al-Ǧazarī, §3952). The difference between these two readings comes down to a difference in dotting in the word كٮٮرا which could either be read kaṯīran or kabīran, but these two readings are semantically and phonetically so close, that it does not seem unlikely that such variants could have existed in the oral transmission of the Quranic text before canonization, and by sheer accident happened to agree with the rasm when it was instated. '''However, there are other variants where the phonetics are rather different, and it is by coincidence that in the ambiguous script of Arabic they happen to be written the same.''' It is unlikely that these kinds of variants do not have their basis in the Uthmanic rasm. Some salient examples of this point are the following: ڡٮٮٮٮوا fa-taṯabbatū ‘proceed with caution!’ (al-Kisāʔī; Ḥamzah; Xalaf), fa-tabayyanū ‘be clear!’ (the others) (Q4:94; Q49:6, Ibn al-Ǧazarī, §2951); ىڡصالحٯ yaquṣṣu l-ḥaqq ‘he tells the truth’ (Nafīʕ, ʔabū Ğaʕfar Ibn Kaṯīr, ʕāṣim), yaqḍi l-ḥaqq ‘he decides the truth’ (the others) (Q6:57; Ibn al-Ǧazarī, §3029);7 ٮٮلوا tatlū ‘recites, recounts’ (al- Kisāʔī; Ḥamzah; Xalaf) tablū ‘tests’ (the others) (Q10:30; ibn al-Ǧazarī, §3354). '''In such cases, the most likely explanation as to why the readers disagree is not that they were transmitting an oral transmission, but rather that the readers were confronted with an ambiguous rasm and interpreted it in two ways that both made semantic sense.'''}}