Skip Navigation


Journal of Islamic Studies Advance Access originally published online on March 18, 2008
Journal of Islamic Studies 2008 19(3):369-390; doi:10.1093/jis/etn004
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
19/3/369    most recent
etn004v2
etn004v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ibrahim, Y. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author (2008). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Continuity and Change in Qurrhringanic Readings: A Study of the Qurrhringanic MS. Garrett 38

Yasir S. Ibrahim

Montclair State University

E-mail: ibrahimy{at}mail.montclair.edu


  Abstract

This article presents an analysis of a Qurrhringanic manuscript in the Garrett collection of Princeton University. The unusual feature of this MS is that it has been tampered with, most likely by a later scribe, aiming to change the original ‘Qurrhringanic reading’ into another by adding or taking out letters and vocalization marks. The paper describes the kind of changes MS Garrett 38 underwent and then attempts to discern the original reading of the manuscript in the light of the available sources on Qurrhringanic readings (qirarhringat) and art of recitation (tajwid). In addition, the study of this Qurrhringanic manuscript, attributed to the fourteenth century, reveals a degree of inconsistency with the theoretical works on qirarhringat, which strictly distinguish different readings. However, analysis of Garret 38 shows that both the original and the later scribes deviated from the dictates of the theoretical description of the reading to which they intended to align the manuscript.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.