# If Quraysh did not pronounce the hamza, why does the Hafs reading of the Quran?

*Dialect versus reading: if Quraysh did not pronounce the hamza, why does the reading of Hafs?*

- URL: https://muftiabulayth.org/r/f2bcgwatu5g/s/13/
- Date: 2020-06-19 · Kind: discussion · Transcript tier: machine · Recording: Dr. Shehzad Saleem | the Preservation of the Quran & the Problem of Qira'at | MindTrap with Mufti#26 (1:02:58–1:09:29)
- Status: general teaching
- Watch from the start of the segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2BcGWatU5g&t=3778s
- Recording page: https://muftiabulayth.org/r/f2bcgwatu5g/

**Topics:** Preservation and variant readings; Quranic Arabic; Guest conversations

**Summary (not a quotation; machine-made, unchecked):** The guest says dialect only changes pronunciation, not the word, and such variation was permitted, while the claim that Quraysh had no hamza is itself unproven. Mufti Abu Layth says he had concluded that the Quran came in a standardised formal Arabic that used the hamza.

## Longer summary

Mufti Abu Layth raises the dialect of Quraysh: the Prophet was Qurashi, Quraysh are said not to have pronounced the hamza, Nafi' accordingly drops it, and reports of the compilation say that where the scribes disagreed the word was to be written in the tongue of Quraysh; so if the common reading goes back to how the Prophet himself recited, why is Hafs from Asim a reading that pronounces the hamza, saying mu'min rather than mumin? The guest distinguishes lahja from qira'a: dialect is a matter of pronunciation, like an accent that makes a Pakistani or an Indian speaker of English recognisable, and in it the word never changes, whereas in the qira'at the word itself changes, a pronoun replacing a noun or one word another, which is what is significant. Mufti presses that if everyone wanted to read exactly as the Prophet read, the popular reading ought to reflect his dialect, as if people copied his writing but pronounced it in an American way. The guest answers that this is one of the areas in which leverage was given: morphological and phonetic variations of the same word carry the same meaning and are a matter of beautifying the recitation; the claim that Quraysh had no hamza is itself an assumption that needs to be established; and even if established, a variation the Prophet himself allowed is acceptable. Mufti adds his own earlier conclusion, reached after much reading, that there was a standardised formal Arabic that did use the hamza, in which the Prophet spoke formally and the Quran came, just as Pakistanis speak Urdu rather than their local tongue in formal settings.

## Sources and names cited

- Dr Shehzad Saleem (guest)
- Quraysh
- lahja (dialect, accent)
- hamza (the glottal stop)
- Nafi' al-Madani (the reciter)
- Hafs
- Asim ibn Abi al-Najud (the reciter)
- report: when you disagree write it in the tongue of quraysh

## Transcript (machine tier, 1:02:58–1:09:29)

[1:02:31] and because of the ünzile quran saba are these in cause the fact that they were receiving various narratives which had these ha ha this Quranic verses piecemeal so they said that okay on the one hand we have the permission from the Prophet which says read any of these 7ro and on the other hand we actually have those other of in data being before us so we're just applying the Hadees on that data and choosing a chromatic Esther I mean though the way we would like to you know put it there's still another interesting

[1:03:07] question here if we take this this understanding of let's say the Kyra I was always one and then it correlated with have some awesome because and that was actually that's a very good explanation why because I was thinking how would you get past this point and and you did get past that that's definitely and so I didn't know that response before but there's an interesting question here though dr.

[1:03:34] Czaban that is you see so for example the ledger or a look at garage okay the larger of Korus now where the prophet was originally karashi from Koresh now they wouldn't pronounce the hamza in many things so this is why Navia for example doesn't pronounce the hamza but some of the traditions that we see we let's say sometimes they say of a worker or sometimes they say last man when they were compiling the Quran they said you know when you disagree when you disagree and say it disagrees with you you know - boohoo B look at the quarry SH write it as H liked our booth is an

[1:04:12] example they disagreed on and and they said look writer our quarry she would say so if this was going back to how just how the Prophet himself would have read it and it was revealed to him we know generally most you know linguists would write that declaration never used to say their Hamza's on a lot of the words they would kind of blend it just as a as a foul so like they wouldn't say not mean they would say mu'min why why is half son awesome is clearly not that Arabic it's one that pronounces the hamza you see as far as the ledger is concerned it has nothing to do with

[1:04:50] the Preferences of the Sahaba which means that there are themselves these this is just a way to pronounce it's like the telephone it's like what makes a party out of someone as far as the variation that themselves are concerned whether you pronounce it at moment or movement it doesn't change the meaning the word is just hat it just has a variation in pronunciation s times orphans are the word has a morphological variation the word is the same but you have different pronunciations so you see the important thing is that Lajja could be anything the word does not change but in the piraha what happens is that the word changes you see

[1:05:29] instead of whoa ah we don't find our instead of rub we find maybe a pronoun so you have to make this distinction that in Lajja the word never changes it's just a manner in which you pronounce the word with changes but in the quran art it is it is the verb it changes so here comes something more significant I can easily go along for example you're a person who lives in Britain you have an accent of a British Englishman and if I go to Australia they'll be speaking English but they'll be speaking English in in a way that they would twist and they would prolong certain words but the word itself would not change it's just the Mazarin issue

[1:06:07] you actually pronounce that word so pronunciation is something which is it is acceptable but the change of words is thing it is something which is really significant and it of course means that the word has changed my my point yeah I mean absolutely the kind of question more hinged on if they were trying to do it exactly how the Prophet did it presumably the Prophet would have read like how without Hamza's and things presumably this because this is how if we're saying that this karate Lama goes back and everybody really just wanted to read how the Prophet read and it was

[1:06:46] only in one way then why is that the popular one let's say the have some awesome or the karate Lama not like the dialect like it's like imagine I had something and people said we want to do this exactly how Mufti did it we want to speak just like Mufti and we're gonna write in just the way he wrote but then years later they actually writing is pronouncing in an American Way but attributed it to me I'm curious like that question why you're not into exactly how the Prophet but because you see this is one of the areas in which this leverage was given to you you were allowed to make this variation as I said

[1:07:25] the words orphans up exactly have the same meaning that's a morphological difference just it's just it's just a way in which the same word is given two different sets so I would say that even if the ledger has not preserved the word because it does not change small obscene the way we speak the words I've seen which mean that how you do it in a beautiful and in a better way when you are pronouncing something and another thing but which is important is that also whether the Koresh did not have Hamza or not this itself needs to be established because this is an assumption which has been put forth and I would I wouldn't say that this needs to be examined further that the Quraysh

[1:08:04] SL Lamia miss as it is said that could not do it with the Hamza so in the first place I think that needs to be examined and the second place even if it is established I would say it has something more to do with the tough scene or the way which things progress it does not change the world the important point is the word should not change and even if there's the variation which the Prophet himself allowed then that variation is acceptable because one thing that I because many years ago when I was studying I not this particular issue but I struggle linked with this I struggled with this whole thing so I did a lot of

[1:08:41] research into you know why was the default Quran not reflecting lot o Quraysh but then one of the understandings I kind of arrived at was that there was a kind of standardized Arabic form which which wasn't like so when the Prophet was speaking formally it was on that standardized level and it wasn't on the kind of local level so just as like let's say in Pakistan today when people want to speak formally they speak Urdu otherwise they might speak there I mean that's slightly different because they've got other languages it's not just a dialect but in a similar some

[1:09:21] kind of approximation analogy that there was this standardized Arabic which did have the Hamza even though presumably Quraish may not have you know used arms are much but when the Prophet spoke for people in general or the Quran being very formal it came in the standardized Arabic I don't that was something that I kind of eventually settled with that understanding after reading so many different things yeah but okay so if we're taking this this approach let's say this you know all these manuscripts

## Cite

Mufti Abu Layth Archive, segment f2BcGWatU5g/s/13. https://muftiabulayth.org/r/f2bcgwatu5g/s/13/

Not a fatwa: these answers were given to specific people at specific times. Ask a qualified scholar about your own situation.