-
Manuscripts
According to van putten hafs vocalised manuscripts show up late about the 16/17th whereas Nafi/warsh is far more popular from earlier on, how does ghamidi explain this?
-
4 Replies
-
Manuscripts
updated 3 weeks, 3 days ago
2 Members
·
4
Replies
-
His confusions lies in ignoring the fact that the Qirat which was named after Hafs was not Hafs’ but the same Qirat Ammah followed by everyone. Every book of Tafseer, references of Fuqaha, recitations in mosques across the Muslims world was Qirat Ammah before Hafs and After him. The evidence is abundant, one can consult it all the time in the books and history.
If van had focus on this fact of Qirat Ammah he could have avoided his mistaken approach of following the names of Qirat, instead of the fact at hand.
If he assumes that Hafs got popular later and it was Warsh’s Qirat that was popular he has to show it through the ages that once the Qirat Ammah was the Qirat of Warsh and then the whole ummah shifted to that of Hafs.
van may have confused one fact with another that sometimes some circles of Qaris adopted one Qirat or another, but the public and scholars never shifted from one recitation to another. If one claims so, one has to labor to show this shift gradually taking place across the Muslim world in history.
-
Doesn’t the manuscripts show the gradual change or shift because hafs reading only pops up at the time of the ottomans..
-
-
If Hafs recitation popped up during ottoman empire then how the Mufassirin were following it before it?The jurist were referring to it? The huffaz were reciting it?
When that shift had occured, the history should have recorded the adaptation not only in few random manuscripts but at macro level across the Muslims world. That huage shift should have been like changing of dynasty from Ummayaids to Abbasids beyond any doubt.
If that mega shift had occurred the scholarship needed not to tracenit through the unreliable manuscripts.
-
It is likely that the Hafs ‘an Asim narration was not widely known during the early centuries, as many Quranic exegeses, including those of al-Tabari, al-Zamakhshari, al-Shawkani, and the Jalalayn, did not rely on this hafs narration when explaining Quranic verses.
This becomes clearer when we refer to historical sources concerning the early four jurists.
According to what Ibn al-Jazari mentions in his book “Ghayat al-Nihaya fi Tabaqat al-Qurra, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal recited the Quran using the narration of Nafi‘ al-Madani and preferred it over that of Hafs ‘an Asim.
Similarly, Imam Malik ibn Anas also recited using the Nafi‘ narration. Imam al-Shafi‘i, on the other hand, followed the reading of Ibn Kathir al-Makki, as mentioned by Abu Muhammad Abd al-Rahman al-Razi in his book “Adab al-Shafi‘i wa Manaqibuh.
The only jurist among the four Sunni Imams who adopted the Hafs ‘an Asim narration was Abu Hanifa al-Nu‘man.
Even in Kufa itself, the Hafs reading was not the predominant one. Abu Bakr Ibn Mujahid states in his book “al-Sab‘ fi al-Qira’at” that the reading of Hamza was dominant among the people of Kufa.
Furthermore, among the Kufans who did adopt Asim’s narration, the majority preferred the version transmitted by Abu Bakr Shuba ibn Ayyash over that of Hafs, despite other accounts, such as those mentioned by al-Khatib al-Baghdadi in his “Tarikh Baghdad“,
shamela.ws
ص332 - كتاب غاية النهاية في طبقات القراء ط الخانجي - الأسماء - المكتبة الشاملة
ص332 - كتاب غاية النهاية في طبقات القراء ط الخانجي - الأسماء - المكتبة الشاملة
-
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
