Диакритичните знаци в Корана: Разлика между версии

[[File:Sura_24_without_vowels_dots.jpg|right|thumb|415px|Арабски шрифт от Коран от 150 г. по Хиджра, показващ сура 24:34-36 без огласовки и точки.]]

Най-ранните ръкописи на Корана са използвали много ограничено диакритични знаци, което е вярно и за други ранни арабски документи от 7 век. Точки (или малки тирета) за разграничаване на хомографски съгласни като ت и ب първоначално са били използвани само спорадично, а маркировки за къси гласни започват да се виждат в края на 7-ми / началото на 8-ми век от н.е., когато цветните точки са въведени за тази цел, което показва голямо разнообразие от традиции в четенето. В такива ръкописи имаше и липса на вътрешни за думите алифи. Хамза и танвин също не са маркирани в ранните ръкописи, въпреки че академичните изследвания показват, че те не са били говорени на диалекта на Стария Хиджази, на който първоначално е бил произнесен Коранът, и е имало редуцирана система за окончание на падежи, която по-късно е била класифицирана.

Поради такова ограничено използване на диакритични знаци в най-ранните ръкописи на Корана, както и на вариантните традиции за устно четене, а също и поради това, че Мухаммад може да е позволил свобода на действие при четенето на всяка дума, понякога не е възможно да имаме доверие в оригиналното значение на консонантния текст, стандартизиран от халиф Осман около 650 г. сл. н. е., въпреки че за по-голямата част от текста имаше съгласие. Поради изобилието от възможности за допускане на грешки, Коранът е бил пренаписан и чрез граматически промени, отделни букви и понякога промени в отделни думи, така че не можем да сме сигурни кой (ако има такъв) от вариантите от традициите на четене и свързаните с тях ръкописи правилно запазват оригиналния Коран до буквата или дори до думата, както мнозина твърдят, дори и стандартизиран при Осман.

Както казахме по-рано, Коранът е написан без диакритични знаци. По времето на Мухаммад арабската ортография тепърва е започвала да се превръща в това, което познаваме от векове. Не е съществувала разлика между буквите на арабските азбуки със сходна форма, а също така не са съществували и гласни букви. Нямало ги и точките над или под буквите. От гледна точна на тълкувателите, които са добавили диакритични знаци, да се прочете Корана, както е бил първоначално написан, би означавало читателят да тълкува и сам да избира някое от многото възможни значения, налични в арабския език без използването на диакритични знаци.<br>

За да могат хората, които не говорят арабски, да разберат какво се обсъжда тук, ще разгледаме няколко арабски думи и как използването на диакритични знаци влияе върху техните значения:

... далеч е от това да представлява един-единствен текст, предаван по ненарушен начин от времето на Утманската поръчка, но през първите три (мюсюлмански) века са били известни буквално хиляди варианти за четене на определени стихове. Тези вариантит са засегнали дори „Утманския“ кодекс, което затруднява познаването на истинската му форма.}}

В допълнение към диакритичните знаци, съществуват и други форми на вокализационни знаци, които променят произношението и значението на дадена дума. Тези знаци включват дамма, фатхха, касра, шадда, скоон, мадда и др. Те се поставят над или под буквата, за да повлияят на нейното произношение.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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=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'', 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.'''}}

 

 

 

 

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.

!Verse

!Reading 1

!Reading 2

!Notes

!Variants translation, transliteration, and Arabic script

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

|''Al-Kisa'i:''<BR />[Moses] said, "'''I have already known''' [ʿalimtu عَلِمْتُ] that none has sent down these [signs] except the Lord of the heavens and the earth as evidence, and indeed I think, O Pharaoh, that you are destroyed."

|''The other readers:''<BR />[Moses] said, "'''You have already known''' [ʿalimta عَلِمْتَ] that none has sent down these [signs] except the Lord of the heavens and the earth as evidence, and indeed I think, O Pharaoh, that you are destroyed."

|This occurs in a dialogue. Which is supposed to be the correct story?

|''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:''<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>

For some more Quranic examples of variants in the reading traditions caused by ambiguity in the written text, see [[Textual_History_of_the_Qur%27an#Differences_in_the_Hafs_and_Warsh_Texts|Textual History of the Qur'an]] and the [https://quranvariants.wordpress.com Quran Variants] website.

To illustrate the extent to which vocalization can affect the meaning of Arabic words, consider the following examples:

*The word "bent" (بنت) will become "banat" (بنَت) by putting "Fathha" (َ ) on the second letter, which means "she built" in English.

*The word "bayn" بين ( which translates as “between” in English) will become "bayyan" (بّيّن) if we add "shadda" (ّ ) on the first and the second letters, which means "He manifests" in English.

*The word "nabat" نبت (which translates as “grew” in English, for something that was planted) will become "nabott" نبُت if we add "damma” (ُ ) to the second letter, which means "we make a decision" in English.

According to Ibn Taymiyyah in "Sheik of the Muslims", Muslims began using diacritical marks because reading errors began to appear:

{{Quote||The companions (Muhammad’s friends or “Sahaba”) did not vocalize or provide diacritical points for the letters of the Qur’anic copies which they wrote, but later during the last part of the companions’ era, when reading errors came into being, they began to provide diacritical points for the copies of the Qur’an and to vocalize them. This was admissible by the authority of the majority of the scholars, though some of them disliked it. The truth is, it should not be disliked because the situation necessitated it, and the diacritical points distinguish the letters from each other while vocalization explains the grammatical inflection.<ref>Ibn Taymiyyah, "Sheik of the Muslims", vol. XII, pp. 576 and 586</ref>}}

 

{{Quote||The companions of Muhammad had never used the diacritical points or the vocalization for the Qur’an. For each word, there were two readings—either to use (for instance) ‘ya’ (يـ) or ‘tah’ (تـ) in such words as ‘they do’ or ‘you do’. The companions did not forbid one of the readings in favor of the other, then some successors of the companions began to use the diacritical points and vocalization for the Qur’an.<ref>Ibn Taymiyyah, "Sheik of the Muslims", p. 100</ref>}}

 

 

In his famous book, "al-Itqan Fi Ulum al-Qur’an" ("Adjusted Qur’anic Science"), Jalal-al-Din-al-Suyuti reiterates some of Ibn Taymiyyah’s statements about the creation of diacritical marks.

 

Al-Suyuti makes an important statement in which he says that the differences in reading has led to differences in [[Islamic Law|Islamic law]].<ref>Jalal-al-Din-al-Suyuti, "al-Itqan Fi Ulum al-Qur’an" (Adjusted Qur’anic Science), part 1, p. 226</ref> He illustrated this by the following example: He indicated that some scholars demanded of the worshiper that he wash himself again (perform ablution) before he prays if he shook hands with a woman. Yet other scholars require him to do so only in the case of sexual intercourse and not just because he shook hands with her or touched her hand.

 

The reason for this disagreement is because of the word لَٰمَسْتُمُ (''l<b>aa</b>mastum'') found in the Chapter of Women ([{{Quran-url-only|4|43}} verse 43]) and whether it has a long vowel ''a'' or not. Scholars Jalalayn and Badawi record that both ibn ’Umar and al-Shafi’i seriously disagree with ibn ’Abbas <ref>http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=4&tAyahNo=43&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2</ref> in the way they interpret this verse because ibn ’Abbas insisted that the meaning intended here is actual intercourse while the former said no, it is enough for a man to touch the skin of a woman or her hand to require having his ablution (washing) repeated.

==See Also==

 

==External Links==

*[https://brill.com/display/title/61587?language=en Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi Origins to its Classical Reading Traditions] by Marijn van Putten (2022) published by Brill (free for open access pdf download)

*[https://quranvariants.wordpress.com Quran Variants blog and resources page]

==References==

[[Category:Не завършени статии]]