-
Qirat Al Ammah And Use Of Hamzah In Hijazi Script
Van putten has stated.. the language of the Qur’an text is hijazi/qureshi and based on what the grammarians say and studying the text the qureshi did not pronounce hamzah and all the reading traditions including hafs do so, all the reading traditions including hafs have an electric mix of many dialect forms in there readings meaning not one qirat is an actual dialect. I would like to know ghamidi expert opinion on this? Why does hafs like the other readings have many intertwined dialects in his reading if it is the one from the prophet?
-
10 Replies
-
Qirat Al Ammah And Use Of Hamzah In Hijazi Script
updated 2 months, 2 weeks ago
3 Members
·
10
Replies
-
The Qur’an is written in a clear and familiar style of Arabic, easily understood by the Quraish tribe, who never found anything unusual or foreign in its language. They accepted it as their own tongue. This fact puts an end to any speculation otherwise. It’s worth noting that languages and dialects often interact and influence one another, leaving traces of each other, yet maintaining distinct characteristics despite their similarities.
-
So even if there are traces of other dialects it’s still okay?
-
Also what do you mean they accepted it as there own tongue? How do we know
-
Because there is no objection from the Quraish to the language of the Quran reported. Moreover, the Quran says that it is the language of its immediate audience.
-
Sir I don’t think his question was understood correctly. Van Putten is an acclaimed linguist and in one of his renowned works on Quranic Arabic he reconstructed its language tracing it back from its classical to Hijazi Origins. In fact his conclusions undermined many other baseless theories from some academics about the Quran having non-Hijazi origins and having a northern-Arabic descent. So what he stated in his works was that the early grammarians attest that the Hijazi’s didn’t pronounce the hamza (and also the symbol for hamza didn’t exist at the time of the standard consonantal text that was compiled during Caliph Uthman’s time. He says that the glottal stop denoted by the Hamza was not pronounced by the hijazis and wasn’t present in the Uthmanic rasm. So, for instance, in the Uthmanic orthography, he states there were no hamzas in the structural text (not an issue as there were no irabs at all if I’m not wrong as they were added and developed in later times) and the earliest grammarians attest that they didn’t pronounce hamza but still it was added later when the text was vocalized and the recitations developed. He claims that in pre-Islamic poetry the glottal stop is denoted by an alif, and if the Hijazi’s did pronounce a glottal stop as in the word mu’min, then in the Uthmanic rasm it would’ve been written as meem alif meem nun and not as meem waw meem nun, which should be pronounced as muumin without the glottal stop as the Hijazi’s would (which according to him is attested by early grammarians). And he presents numerous examples in support for this in his published works. He claims that analyzing the Quran’s rhyme scheme and the use of Hamza in many places, dropping the glottal stop fits much better with the rhyme, one among other examples is Surah 55 verse 29-30 sha’n without the glottal stop as shaan rhymes much better with tukaziban, but in the recitations it is pronounced with the glottal stop. He also states that in almost all other recitations other than Hafs in Surah Ikhlas it is pronounced Kufu’an Ahad but in Hafs it is recited as Kufuan Ahad without the hamzah. How to reconcile this new information with the narrative of Qirat Amma? How to respond in light of the evidence he presents that the hamza pronounced and written in Hafs goes back to Hijazi origins and was rightly so pronounced by the Prophet (SAW) and his companions? Has there been scholarly response to this? Could some light be shed on this? @UmerQureshi @codename.AJK @faisalharoon @Irfan76
-
-
This argument is based on issues with an older script that hadn’t fully developed, but the script has evolved significantly over time. It misses the key point that the Quran is primarily a recitation, no matter how it’s written. Diacritical marks help non-native speakers, but no script can perfectly capture every sound in a language. Non-native speakers often have to rely on native speakers’ recitations for accurate pronunciation—similar to how English spelling can be misleading. Putten can’t travel back in time to hear the original pronunciation, so he relies on old manuscripts that could not indicate all the pronunciations.
The question about Qirat Amma is interesting. It should be asked the other way around. The term “Amman” implies that it’s general, and it’s well-established that Qirat Hafs is the Qirat Amma. So, Hafs’ recitation always included the pronunciations we hear today, regardless of whether the old script could indicate them or not. The standard is Qirat e Hafs.
-
@Irfan76 thank you Sir that does make sense. The only thing that confused me was his claim that the earliest grammarians attest that hamzah/glottal stop wasn’t pronounced in Hijaz. If that is true, why is it found in all later recitations? All your points make sense that such mass oral transmission through which the Quran reached us certainly makes it improbable that hamzah would be added when it was not recited that way by the early generations. But could you shed some light as to why the early grammarians would say that the hamza wasn’t pronounced by the Hijazi’s originally? Where is he getting that information from and is it possible he is misinterpreting or misunderstanding their statements? Because an academic certainly can’t present false information. TIA
-
His latest research concludes that all the reading traditions including hafs don’t act like natural language, the famous reciters took freedom and flexibility in combining different dialetical forms to make the recitation performance more beautiful. The grammarians state that if you recite in the qureshi way or not is fine that is why not one reading is purely hijazi the reciters were not trying to verbally immitate the prophet and all the historical scientific and intertextual evidence concludes this. We must go were the evidence takes us.
-
All their conclusions are based on manuscript or textual evidence and it is not right to say that such non-Muslim academics are doing completely neutral bias free work in my opinion. It is a common norm among them to reject traditional narratives. They seem to be having a hard time grasping the concept that scriptural preservation is second to the oral liturgical practice adopted by the common masses in reciting the Quran regularly and transmitting it primarily as a recitation. And its not their fault as this kind of arrangement for a scripture has no other precedence in known times. So they do bring in their own pre formed assumptions in their research. These same academics weren’t ready to accept the preservation claims of the Muslims until manuscripts dating back to the 7th Century were discovered.
-
-
As I said that the pronouncement had always been there but indicated in the script later like may other developments in the script and it is still going on.
I know no grammarian who say that Hamza was not pronounced earlier. Putten took it wrong.
The recitation of the Qur’an is a continuous process. It has always been the same as we transmit it to our generations. There is no chance that the original recitation is lost or some of it is lost. And surprisingly the whole Muslim community lost it equally and adopted and somewhat changed version unanimously.
Such kind of speculations are made ignoring the hard facts standing in front of eyes.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
