Talk:Qira'at

categories and definitions
We need to add in section outlining the other terms in the heirarchy and define, such as Qira'a (recitation) -> riwaya (transmission) .> tariq (narration of a riwaya) Also need pages for al-Shatibiyya and Tayyibat al-Nashr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.22.250.41 (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

10 different qira'at
There are 10 different readings of the Qur'an - see the Qur'an page. MP  (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually there are seven generally accepted readings (in two traditions each), plus "three after the seven", plus "three after the ten" -- each a bit less generally accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.133.8.114 (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be known that there are other scholars who reject the various Qira'at and say the only acceptable one is that of hafs, alternatively called Qiraa'at al-`Aammah. Check these pages for instance: http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=1292 and http://www.renaissance.com.pk/febqur20.htm.

Mus'haf of Uthman
The reference to the mushaf of Uthman had to go. All TEN readings follow the mushaf of Uthman. Of the 14 most orthodox readings only one -- that of hasan of Basra -- differes slightly from that rasm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.133.8.114 (talk) 08:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't understand this article!
The article uses undefined terms throughout - could someone go through it and make sure it's comprehensible?? Gwaka Lumpa (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

-

If I get time I will, there's alot of issues with this article. It doesn't help when "answering-islam" is being used for references. I hope no one who reads the article actually takes it for face value, especially in regards to its scholarship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.161.196 (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Qira'at. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927210102/http://renaissance.com.pk/JanQur2y7.htm to http://renaissance.com.pk/JanQur2y7.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090131143540/http://community.al-quran.info:80/ to http://community.al-quran.info
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060501195523/http://ourworld.compuserve.com:80/homepages/Abewley/Page6.html to http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ABewley/Page6.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Merger Discussion
Quran reading is a much less developed article which covers much of the same ground as this one, though with an emphasis on the mechanics of recitation rather than the traditional schools -- to the extent that its scope can be surmised from its lead. Rather confusingly, Quran recitation redirects there, while Quranic recitation redirects here. Eperoton (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly torn, though I definitely lean toward your proposal. As a counter suggestion before this editor throws his chip in your pile, would it be possible to turn the Quran reading article into a disambiguation page that links to Qira'at, Tajwid and Tarteel? Or is the merge and redirect here still a better option than disambiguation? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Great idea! We do need an article helping to navigate these notions, and it's not clear that it should be more than a dab page. The phrase "Quran reading" has a general meaning, which may even include silent reading, and it can also be interpreted in several technical ways. Eperoton (talk) 04:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok cool. I'm not sure how long we should wait for further feedback from the community, but whenever that time has passed, would you prefer to do the honors or should I? And should the Quranic recitation redirect be...well, redirected toward the impending disambiguation page? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Let the honors accrue to the least lazy among us. :) I think it's ok to go ahead with the change, since the merge banner has been on for a while and the change can be easily undone. The new page would be a good target for that redirect. Eperoton (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've given it a go; the dab page might need more work; for example listing other relevant pages, and adding some context. Klbrain (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * On second thought ... that doesn't seem to work given the vast number of pages now needed to disambiguate. Given this problem, I've redirected the other pages to Qira'at, but then added hatnotes to cover the other 2 main cases. Feel free to add more should this be necessary. Klbrain (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Types of variants listed in the introduction
The 3rd paragraph of the introduction says (citing Aisha Bewley's webpage), "Differences between Qira'at are slight and include differences in stops,[Note 2] vowels,[Note 3], letters.[Note 4]". I edited this to add "and sometimes entire words" to the list, together with a reftag note example and citing the book by M. Younes. An IP user then deleted these words and the reftag note (but left the citation reference).

I am adding this back because it is clearly backed by the cited M. Younes book page and I added a second scholarly reference by Muslim scholars in Malaysia where the same example given in the reftag is expressly stated to be different "root word[s]". It is entirely uncontroversial even among knowledgeable Muslim scholars that complementary words of different roots are sometimes used in different qira'at. The example given can be further verified on the academic Corpus Coranicum project website in the link below (scroll down to the blue rows for the cannonical qira'at and scroll horizontally if necessary). Ḥamzah and al-Kisāʾī have fa-taṯabbatū in 4:94 whereas the others have fa-tabayyanū. https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/4/vers/94

Other example words of different roots that are easy to verify on the same website include yaquṣṣu l-ḥaqq ‘he tells the truth’ (Ibn Kaṯīr and ʿĀṣim), yaqḍi l-ḥaqq ‘he decides the truth’ (the others) in Q6:57; and tatlū ‘recites, recounts’ (al-Kisāʾī and Ḥamzah), tablū ‘tests’ (the others) in Q10:30. An example with an extra/omitted word is huwa in Q57:24 (omitted by Ibn ʿĀmir and Nāfiʿ). Gamma737 (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to the journal article cited (page 318) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326727699_The_Morphology_Aspect_of_The_Quranic_Recitation_That_Influence_Islamic_Laws_in_Tafseer_Ayat_Al-Ahkam_By_Al-Sabuniy
 * Yet more examples are also given in the M. Younes book page that I had already cited.

Gamma737 (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

False infos
Too many false info here, probably edited by David Wood gang — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.143.240.124 (talk) 03:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Definitely. The claim 'Qira'at also conflict with the belief, common among many Muslims, that the Quran "exists exactly as it had been revealed to the Prophet; not a word - nay, not a dot of it - has been changed"' here makes the very biased (and incorrect) assumption that variations are necessarily mistakes which shows ignorance (wilful or otherwise) on the part of the author regarding the revelation of the Qur'an. AnotherUserOnTheNet (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia goes by WP:reliable sources. The article doesn't make the "assumption that variations are necessarily mistakes". If Maududi (quoted above) understood Qira'at, he would have said something like "all the approved variants were revealed to Muhammad", not the Quran "exists exactly as it had been revealed to the Prophet; not a word - nay, not a dot of it - has been changed", which certainly implies that there are no variations in the Quran. Variations need not be mistakes. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I see your point. Rewrote sentence in lede. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

deletions of apologists
Deletion 9 August 2020 with the summary: ''Entire section is citing known anti-Islamic website, citing someone who is not academically authoritative on this subject. Sam Shamoun should not be quoted as an authority.'' Here is what was deleted:


 * Another critic, Shezad Saleem (quoted by Christian critic Sam Shamoun), has doubts about the validity of the hadith:


 * "it is known that Hisham had accepted Islam on the day Makkah was conquered. If this Hadith is accepted [i.e. the famous hadith where Umar hears Hisham Ibn Hakim Ibn Hizam reading Surat Al-Furqan incorectly but learns it was just a different ahruf], it would mean that for almost twenty years even the closest Companions of the Prophet like ‘Umar were unaware of the Qur’an being revealed in some other reading."


 * Sam Shamoun raises a number of questions about the basis of Qira'at.


 * At least two Sahih al-Bukhari hadith explicitly state the Qur'an was revealed in the dialect of the Quraysh (Muhammad's tribe) -- making no mention of other ahruf—and that in case there are disagreements over recitation, this should clear everything up.


 * "Narrated Anas bin Malik: (The Caliph 'Uthman ordered Zaid bin Thabit, Said bin Al-As, 'Abdullah bin Az-Zubair and 'Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Harith bin Hisham to write the Quran in the form of a book (Mushafs) and said to them. “In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit (Al-Ansari) regarding any dialectic Arabic utterance of the Quran, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, for the Quran was revealed in this dialect.” So they did it."


 * "Narrated Anas bin Malik: Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, 'O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before.' So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, 'Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you.' Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, 'In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue.' They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, 'A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): ‘Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.’ (33.23)”"


 * Furthermore, while some hadith refer to ahruf, there is no mention of seven ahruf or of different ways of reciting the Quran in the Quran itself, nor does the Quran ever refer to itself in the plural, (for example, ). Since there are multiple verses of the Quran declaring that "our revelations" have been "explained in detail",  some mention of the existence multiple recitation or variants there would be expected, according to Shamoun.

What about the substance of Shamoun's argument is invalid? Did Hisham not accept Islam on the day Makkah was conquered (629CE)? Wouldn't that mean that if the Hadith was true, that for almost twenty years even the closest Companions of the Prophet like ‘Umar were unaware of the Qur’an being revealed in some other reading? Is it not true that "there is no mention of seven ahruf or of different ways of reciting the Quran in the Quran" itself?

Yes, he is a Christian apologist who believes Islam is in error, but we do not delete writings of Islamic apologists who believe Christianity is in error, if there argument is grounded in valid scholarship. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Italicization
Does every single word of Arabic origin need to be italicized every time it shows up in the text? It's kind of distracting as a reader, and the MoS doesn't seem to have an agreed-upon stance on this particular use of italics, at least not that I can find. I know in many cases, the first instance is italicized or bolded, then in the rest of the article it is just typed normally. Evansknight (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)