Orality, Literacy and The ‘Seven Ahruf Hadith’

Öz

Orality, Literacy and The ‘Seven Ahruf Hadith’The well known ḥadīth that the Qur’ān was revealed according to sevenaḥruf (‘alā sab‘ati aḥruf) indicates that a certain amount of variation in the text of the Qur’ān was considered legitimate, indeed normal, in the earliest days of Islam. The dominant view among traditional scholars is that this initial allowance was then reduced by the decision of the Caliph ‘Uthmān, with the agreement of the Companions, to unify the community on one textual skeleton (rasm), albeit allowing for various ‘readings’ (qirā’āt), such as those of the Seven, the Ten, etc., within the confines of this rasm.In this article, we consider the various traditional interpretations of the ‘seven aḥruf’ ḥadīth, alongside the numerous references to non-standard variant readings in the ḥadīth, tafsīr and qirā’āt literature, to gain a clearer idea of the nature of this textual variation both before and after ‘Uthmān’s decision. At the same time, we aim to apply the insights gained from orality studies (particularly work done on the Homeric tradition) to show how the picture outlined in the traditional sources suggests an oral recitation (qur’ān) with an initial degree of multiformity (in this instance, ‘seven aḥruf’), such as is characteristic of oral texts, which is then presented in a written version (known as al-rasm al-‘Uthmānī or al-maṣāḥif al-‘Uthmāniyya) which has a much greater degree of uniformity, such as is characteristic of written texts, although a degree of multiformity is nevertheless maintained (the Seven/Ten Readings, etc.). Finally, we consider the course of recent Euro-American scholarship on the Qur’ān in the light of these observations

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Harf/Ahruf, Readings, Mushaf, Multiformity

SÖZLÜ KOMPOZİSYON, YAZILI KOMPOZİSYON VE YEDİ HARF HADİSİ

Öz

ÖZ

Kur’an-ıKerim’in yedi harf uzere (‘alāsab‘ati aḥruf ) indirildiğini bildiren

meşhur hadis, islamiyetin erken donemlerinde Kur’an metnine ait belirli sayıaki

kıaat farklıılarıı meşu, daha doğusu normal, kabul edildiğni gosterir.

İlamiyet’in ilk donemlerinde var olan bu serbestliğn daha sonra halife Osman’ı

(r.a.), sahabenin de onayııalarak MuslumanlarıKur’an metninin tek yazı

biciminde (rasm) birleşirme kararıla daraltıdığıgoruş geleneksel alimler arasıda

hakimdir. Her ne kadar bu yazı bicimi bilinen yedi, on v.b. bircok kıaat

şkline acı olsa da sıılayııolduğna hukmedilmişir.

Bu makalede, yedi harf hadisi hakkıdaki ceştli yorumları yanısıa hadis,

tefsir, kıaat literaturunde yer alan standart dışıkıaatlere dair referanslarıda ele

alarak bu metinsel ceştliliğn halife Osman’ı (r.a.) kararıdan onceki ve sonraki

durumu hakkıda net bir fikir oluşurmayıamaclıoruz. Aynızamanda, sozlu

kompozisyon araşımalarıı (bilhassa Homer geleneğ ile ilgili araşımaları)

verilerini Kur’ā metniyle ilgili bilgilere uygulamak suretiyle klasik kaynaklarda

nası bir tablonun ortaya cıtığııgostermeyi hedefliyoruz. Bu doğultuda,

başangıta var olan cok bicimli sozlu kıaati, (bu ornekte ‘yedi harf ’) bir sozlu

kompozisyon orneğ olarak; sonradan ileri seviyede tek bicimli yazıımetin haline

getirilen (er-resm el-‘Osmāīveya el-maṣāḥif el-‘Osmāiyye olarak bilinen)

Kur’ā metnini, belirli bir seviyede cok bicimlilik devam etse de(yedi, on v.b.

kıaatler gibi), bir yazııkompozisyon orneğ olarak onereceğz. Son olarak bu

incelemelerin ışığıda cağaşAvrupa-Amerikan Kur’ā bilimleri calışalarııdeğrlendireceğz.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Harf, Kıraat, Mushaf, Cok bicimlilik.

ABSTRACT

Orality, Literacy and The ‘Seven Ahruf Hadith’

The well known ḥadīth that the Qur’ā was revealed according to

sevenaḥruf (‘alāsab‘ati aḥruf) indicates that a certain amount of variation in the

text of the Qur’ā was considered legitimate, indeed normal, in the earliest days of

Islam. The dominant view among traditional scholars is that this initial allowance

was then reduced by the decision of the Caliph ‘Uthmā, with the agreement of

the Companions, to unify the community on one textual skeleton (rasm), albeit

allowing for various ‘readings’ (qirā’ā), such as those of the Seven, the Ten, etc.,

within the confines of this rasm.

In this article, we consider the various traditional interpretations of the

‘seven aḥruf ’ ḥadīth, alongside the numerous references to non-standard variant

readings in the ḥadīth, tafsīr and qirā’ā literature, to gain a clearer idea of the

nature of this textual variation both before and after ‘Uthmā’s decision. At the

same time, we aim to apply the insights gained from orality studies (particularly

work done on the Homeric tradition) to show how the picture outlined in the

traditional sources suggests an oral recitation (qur’ā) with an initial degree of

multiformity (in this instance, ‘seven aḥruf ’), such as is characteristic of oral texts,

which is then presented in a written version (known as al-rasm al-‘Uthmāīor

al-maṣāḥif al-‘Uthmāiyya) which has a much greater degree of uniformity, such

as is characteristic of written texts, although a degree of multiformity is nevertheless

maintained (the Seven/Ten Readings, etc.). Finally, we consider the course of recent

Euro-American scholarship on the Qur’ā in the light of these observations.

Keywords: Harf/Ahruf, Readings, Mushaf, Multiformity.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Harf, Kıraat, Mushaf, Çok biçimlilik

Kaynakça

1. El-A‘zami, M. M. (2003). The History of the Qur’ānic Text from Revelation to Compila- tion. Leicester: UK Islamic Academy.
2. Bellamy, J. A. (2002). A Further Note on ‘Ῑsā. JAOS , 587-588.
3. Bellamy, J. A. (1991). Al-Raqīm or al-Ruqūd? A Note on Sūrah 18:9 . JAOS , 115- 117.
4. Bellamy, J. A. (1992). Fa-Ummuhu Hāwiyah: A Note on Sūrah 101:9. JAOS , 485- 487.
5. Bellamy, J. A. (1993). Some Proposed Emendetions to the Text of the Koran. Journal of the American Oriental Society , 562-573.
6. Bellamy, J. A. (2001). Textual Criticism of the Koran. JAOS , 1-6.
7. Bellamy, J. A. (1973). The Mysterious Letters of the Koran: Old Abbreviations of the Basmala. JAOS , 267-85.
8. Bellamy, J. (1996). More Proposed Emendetions to the Text of the Koran . JAOS , 196-204.

9. El-Bennâ, A. Itḥāfu fuḍalā’ al-başar fī l-qırā’āt al-arba‘ ‘aşar. Beyrut: Daru’n-Nedveti’l- Cedîde.
10. Buhârî. Ṣaḥīḥ . Beyrut: Daru’l-Fikr.
11. Ed-Dânî. al-Muqni‘ fī rasm maṣāḥif al-amṣār. Kahire: Mektebetü’l-Külliyyâti’l-Ezhe- riyye.
12. Denffer, A. v. (1983). ‘Ulūm al-Qur’ān: An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’ān. Leicester: The Islamic Foundation.
13. Donner, F. M. (2008). The Qur’ān in Recent Scholarship: Challenges and Desiderata. G. S. Reynolds içinde, The Qur’ān in Its Historical Context (s. 29-50). London ve New York: Routledge.
14. Donner, F. (2007). Quranic furqān. Journal of Semitic Studies , 279-300.
15. Dutton, Y. (1999). The Origins of Islamic Law: The Qur’ān, the Muvaṭṭa’ and Madinan ‘Amal . Richmond: Curzon Press.
16. Ebu Dāvūd, (1893). Sunan. Kahire: al-Matbaatu’l-Hayriyye.
17. Ebu Zahra, M. (1958). Uṣūl al-fiqh . Kahire?: Daru’l-Fikri’l-Arabi.
18. Foley, J. M. (1999). Homer’s Traditional Art. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
19. Halaf, A. (1977). Ilm uṣūl al-fiqh. Kuveyt: Daru’l-Kalem.
20. Hamdan, O. (2010). The Second Maṣāḥif Project: A Step Towards the Canonization of the Qur’anic Text. A. Neuwirth, N. Sinai, & M. Marx içinde, The Qur’ānic Context: Historical and Literary Investigations into the Qur’ānic Milieu (s. 812-813). Leiden ve Bos- ton: Brill.
21. İbn Abdi’l-Berr, (1977-91). al-Tamhīd li-mā fī l- Muvaṭṭa’ min al-ma‘ānī va-l-asānīd . Mohammedia: Vizaratu’l-Evkaf ve’ş-Şuuni’l-İslamiyye.
22. İbn Atiyye, (1975-91). al-Muḥarrar al-vacīz fī tafsīr al-kitāb al-‘azīz. Mohammedia: Vizaratu’l-Avkafi va’şl-Şuuni’l-İslamiyye
23. İbnu’l-Cezerî. Kitāb al-naşr fī l-qirā’āt al-‘aşr. Beyrut: Daru’l-Fikr.
24. İbnu’l-Cezerî, (1932). Ğāyat al-nihāya fī ṭabaqāt al-qurrā’. Kahire: Matba’atü’s- Sa’âde.
25. İbn Cinnî, (1998). al-Muḥtasab fī tabyīn vucūh şavāẕẕ al-qirā’āt va-l-īḍāḥ ‘anhā . Bey- rut: Daru’l-Kütübi’l-İlmiyye.
26. İbn Ebi Dāvūd, (1985). Kitāb al-Maṣāḥif . Beyrut: Daru’l-Kütübi’l-İIlmiyye.
27. İbn Haleveyhi, (1934). Muhtaṣar fī Şavāẕẕ al-Qur’ān min Kitāb al-Badī‘. Kahire: al- Matba’atu’r-Rahmâniyye.
28. İbn Hanbel, A. (1994). al-Musnad . Beyrut: Daru’l-Fikr.
29. İbn Hişâm, (1978). al-Sīra al-nabaviyya . Kahire: Mektebetü’l-Külliyyâti’l-Ezheriyye.
30. İbn Mucâhid, (1980). Kitāb al-Sab‘a fi l-qırā’āt. Kahire: Daru’l-Ma’ârif.
31. İbnu’n-Nedîm, al-Fihrist . Kahire: Matba’atu’l-İstikâme.
32. İbn Rüşd, (1984-7). al-Bayān va-l-taḥṣīl . Beyrut: Daru’l-Ğarbi’l-İslâmî.
33. İbn Rüşd, (1985). Bidāyat al-muctahid . Beyrut: Daru’l-Ma’rife.
34. İbn Şabba, Tārīẖ al-Madīna al-munavvara . Cidde: Daru’l-Isfahânî.
35. Jeffery, A. (1937). Materials fort he History of the Text of the Qur’ān. Leiden: Brill.
36. Jones, A. (2003). Orality and Writing in Arabia. Encyclopaedia of the Qur’ān . içinde Leiden ve Boston: Brill.
37. Jones, A. (1983). The Qur’ān-II. A. B. diğerleri içinde, The Cambridge History of Ara- bic Literatures. Arabic Literature to the End ofthe Abbasid Period (s. 228-245). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38. Jones, A. (2003). The Word Made Visible: Arabic Script and the Committing of the Qur’ān to Writing . C. F. Robinson içinde, Texts, Documents and Artefacts: Islamic Studies in Honour of D. S. Richards (s. 1-16). Leiden ve Boston: Brill.
39. El-Kazarûnî. (1912). Ḥāşiya, al-Baydâvî. Kahire: Daru’l-Kütübi’l-Arabiyyeti’l-Kübrâ.
40. Kehhale, Ö. R. (1957). Mu‘cam al-Mu’allifīn. Beyrut: Daru İhyai’t-Turâsi’l-Arabî.
41. El-Kurtubî. (1967). al-Cāmi’ li-aḥkām al-Qur’ān. Beyrut: Daru’l-Fikr.
42. Lord, A. (1960). The Singer of Tales. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43. Madigan, D. (2001). The Qur’ân’s Self-Image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
44. Mâlik. (1930). al- Muvaṭṭa’ . Kahire: Matbaâtu’l-Halebî.
45. Mâlik. (1993). al-Muvaṭṭa’ li-Imām Dār al-Hicra Mālik Ibn Anas, rivāyat abī Muṣ‘ab al-Zuhrī al-Madanī . Beyrut: Müessesetü’r-Risâle.
46. Mâlik. (1994). al-Muvaṭṭa’ li-Imām Dār al-Hicra va-‘Ālim al-Madīna Mālik Ibn Anas al-Aṣbaḥī, rivāyat Suvayd Ibn Sa‘īd al-Ḥadasānī. Manama: İdaratu’l-Avkafi’s-Sünniyye.
47. Mâlik. al-Muvaṭṭa’ li-l-Imām Mālik, rivāyat al-Qa‘nabī. Kuveyt: Şeriketu’ş-Şurûk.
48. Mâlik. (1988). Muvaṭṭa’ al-Imām Mālik Ibn Anas, rivāyat Ibn al-Qāsim va-talhīṣ al- Qābisī . Cidde: Daru’ş-Şurûk.
49. Mattson, I. (2008). The Story of the Qur’an: Its History and Place in Muslim Life. Mal- den, MA/Oxford/Victoria: Blackwell Publishing.
50. Melchert, C. (2000). Ibn Mucāhid and the Establishment of Seven Qur’ānic Rea- dings. Studia İslamica , 5-22.
51. Melchert, C. (2008). The Relation of the Ten Readings to One Another. Journal of Qur’anic Studies , 73-87.
52. İbn Mihrân, (1980). al-Mabsūṭ fī l-qirā’āt al-‘aşr. Dımaşk: Matba’atu Mecmai’l- Luğati’l-Arabiyye.
53. Monroe, J. (1972). Oral Composition in Pre-Islamic Poetry. Journal of Arabic Litera- tures , 1-53.
54. Müslim. Ṣaḥīḥ . Beyrut: Daru’l-Fikr.
55. Neseî. Sunan . Beyrut: Daru’l-Kütübi’l-İlmiyye.
56. En-Nevevī. (1977). An-Navavī’s Forty Hadith. Dımaşk: The Holy Koran Publishing House.
57. Nöldeke, T. (1090-38). Geschichte des Qorāns . Leipzig: T. Weicher.
58. Ong, W. J. (2002). Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. Londra ve New York: Routledge.
59. Ömer, A. M., & Mukram, A. S. (1991). Mu‘cam al-qirā’āt al-Qur’āniyya. Tahran: İntişarat Usva.
60. Qadhi, A. A. (1999). An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan . Birmingham: al- Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution.
61. Rabb, İ. (2006). ‘Non-Canonical Readings of the Qur’ān: Recognition and Authen- ticity (The Ḥimṣī Reading). Journal of Qur’anic Studies , 84-127.
62. Sahnûn. (1905-6). Al-Mudavvana al-Kubrā. Kahire: Matba’atu’s-Sa’âde
63. Es-San’ânî. (1970-2). al-Muṣannaf . Beyrut: el-Meclisu’l-İlmî.
64. Es-Sâvî. Ḥāşiyat al-Ṣāvī ‘alā tafsīr al-Calālayn. Beyrut: Daru’l-Fikr.
65. Samir, S. K. (2008). The Theological Christian Influens on the Qur’ān: A Reflection. G. S. Reynolds içinde, The Qur’ān in Its Historical Context (s. 141-162). Londra ve New York: Routledge.
66. Schoeler, G. (2009). The Genesis of Literature in Islam: From the Aural the Read. Edin- burgh: Edinburgh University Press.
67. Schoeler, G. (2006). The Oral and the Written in the Early Islam. Londra ve New York: Routledge.
68. Shah, M. (2004). The Early Arabic Grammarians’ Contributions to the Collection and Authentication of Qur’anic Readings: The Prelude to Ibn Mucāhid’s Kitāb al-Sab‘a’. Journal of Qur’anic Studies , 72-102.
69. Sıddîqî, A. H. (1976). Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim tercümesi. Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Aşraf.
70. Stewart, D. (2008). Notes on Medieval and Modern Emendations of the Qur’ān . G. S. Reynolds içinde, The Qur’ān in Its Historical Context (s. 225-248). Londra ve New York: Routledge.
71. Eş-Şeybānī, & Clarke, A. (2006). The Kitāb al-Āsār of Imām Abū Ḥanīfain the Narra- tion of Imām Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Şaybānī. London: Turath Publishing.
72. Eş-Şinqīṭī, S. A. Naşr al-Bunūd ‘alā marāqī al-Su‘ūd : Mohammadia: Ṣundūqu İḥyā’it- Turāsi’l-İslāmī.
73. Et-Tabarî. (1978). Cāmi‘ al-bayān fī tafsīr al-Qur’ān. Beyrut: Daru’l-Fikr.
74. Tirmizî. Ṣaḥīḥ. Beyrut: Daru’l-Fikr.
75. El-Vanşarîsî. (1983). al-Mi‘yār al-mu‘rib va-l-cāmi‘ al-muğrib ‘an fatāvī ‘ulamā’ İfrīqiyyq va-l-Andalus va-l-Mağrib. Beyrut: Daru’l-Ğarbi’l-İslamî.
76. Zeydân, A. (1985). al-Vacīz fī uṣūl al-fiqh . Beyrut: Müessesetü’r-Risâle.
77. Ziriklî, H. (1989). al-A‘lām . Beyrut: Daru’l-İlmi Li’l-Melâyîn.
78. Zwettler, M. (1978). The Oral Tradition of Classical Arabic Poetry: Its Character and Implications. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
79. _(1954). Kitāb al-Mabānī. A. Jeffery içinde, Two Muqaddimas to the Qur’ānic Sciences (s. 19-22). Kahire: Mektebetü’l-Hancî.