[za3faran]

That's not entirely accurate. The Quran, to this day, is recited in different "dialects"/recitations (Qira'aat), not just that of Quraish. In fact, Quraish did not use to pronounce the Hamzah (glottal stop) for example, in words such as Mu'min (مؤمن). However, the most popular recitation today (Hafs 'an 'Asim) recites with the glottal stop, as do some others.

Other kinds of pronunciation include the way the Alif Maqsoorah is uttered. For example the name Moses is pronounced Moosa or Moosé (or varying degrees in between) depending on the recitation. These kinds of recitations trace their ways back to how different tribes spoke.

You can hear an example of such recitations for the first Surah of the Quran here[1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMVDdztN6fg

[n4r9]

Thanks for the info! You've inspired me to research the topic a little more. My impression is that there's debate over whether the qira'aat represent pre-Islamic dialects or a curated set of recitation variations.

Nevertheless, at least from a secular standpoint it feels more like Arabic was standardised using the Qur'an as a primary anchor, rather than the Qur'an stepping in to "perfect" Arabic and give it rules.

[za3faran]

Anytime!

The Qira'at include both: different pronunciations of the same word or letter, as well as a curated set of recitations for the same word. This is very well established and evident, so I'm not quite sure where you read there is a debate.

In fact, the same recording I linked to in my previous post has both kinds - Ayah #4 is recited as "Maalik youm id-Din" and "Malik youm id-Din" (long vs short vowel). Maalik means "owner/master of" and Malik means "King". Both were pronounced by Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and recorded and transmitted. The rest of the pronunciations in the recording were dialects (e.g. ص is pronounced 3 different ways: pharyngealized voiceless sibilant, pharyngealized voiced sibilant, and a voiceless sibilant like /s/ in English).

Much of these pronunciations exist to this day too.

Not all dialects were permitted to be recited. For example, the letter ق is never pronounced as /g/ when reciting the Quran, even though that pronunciation existed, and exists today in spoken Arabic.

Regarding Arabic and the Quran, you can read about how the most eloquent Arabs at the time submitted to the language of the Quran - even those who rejected Islam out of pride and arrogance. When it was evident to everyone that the language of the Quran dominated all, it was only natural that it became the standard for the language. Simultaneously, the Quran itself is understood and comprehended through the language spoken at the time, which is why pre-Islamic poetry and prose - among others - are used for things like linguistic exegesis.

[n4r9]

> I'm not quite sure where you read there is a debate

I think the debate is less about how the Qira'aat vary, more about how genuinely/accurately they reflect pre-Islamic dialects. For example, Marijn van Putten has a book "Quranic Arabic" where he apparently advances the argument that the Quran was originally composed in Hijazi Arabic, and subsequently evolved into the reading traditions we have today.

> For example, the letter ق is never pronounced as /g/ when reciting the Quran, even though that pronunciation existed, and exists today in spoken Arabic.

Indeed; one side of my family is Iraqi :)

[za3faran]

It's always important to take what Orientalists write with a *huge* grain of salt - we have found mistakes countless times in their writings and assumptions. Case in point, the synopsis for the book has a mistake, and the entirety of the book builds on it. You can throw it into ansari.chat to get a good starting point on the fundamental misunderstandings it makes.

> Indeed; one side of my family is Iraqi :)

Yep, I was thinking about it and it very well seems that /g/ is the most widespread pronunciation in the Arab word: Iraq, many parts of West Asia (parts of Syria, parts of Jordan, and parts of Palestine), the Gulf states, Yemen, and many parts of North Africa, even parts of Egypt.

Those who wrote about Tajweed (Quranic Recitation) early on mentioned a lot of those other dialects (including examples of tribes that utter them) which would not be valid to recite the Quran. ك to /sh/ or /ch/ is another one, those also exist today and existed pre-Islam.

[n4r9]

> the synopsis for the book has a mistake, and the entirety of the book builds on it

Not sure what you mean here. I asked ansari.chat [EDIT turns out I used the new version ansari.ai] for an overall assessment of the book as well as a critical analysis of the synopsis. It praised the book but highlighted some tensions between its findings and Islamic theological assumptions: https://askansari.ai/share/de25f788-60fd-4bdd-9383-ac6752f06...

The summary assessment of the synopsis is:

> The synopsis accurately represents a work of brilliant linguistic reconstruction that is highly supportive of the Quran’s historical authenticity, yet challenging to certain traditional theological assumptions about the transmission of the Qira’at.

If anything, it vindicates my statement that there is "ongoing debate" over the historical nature of Qira'at.

--------------------------

EDIT

I realised that I was using the "new" version ansari.ai. Perhaps you went with the "old" version? I asked the old version as well, although it did not know about the book so I could only ask about the synopsis: https://ansari.chat/share/6a4780a6623c605140a58f76

The conclusion:

> From a Sunni Islamic perspective, this synopsis appears to approach the Quran through a secular academic lens that is incompatible with Islamic beliefs ...

> While academic study of Quranic Arabic linguistics can be beneficial, it must be grounded in the Islamic understanding that the Quran is the preserved Word of Allah, not a text that evolved through human linguistic processes.

I don't find this compelling. We must be able to challenge theological assumptions and "because I say so" type arguments.