Part II: The Oral Qur’ān

The Inherent Orality of the Qur’ān

The Qur’ān is unique among major world scriptures in that it has maintained its
distinctly oral and aural essence since its inception. Muslim tradition holds that the
oral Qur’ān had a profound impact on those who heard it when it was first recited
publicly by Muḥammad, even on those who did not believe in it. This aural and
oral dimension has continued along its own developmental track over the centu-
ries, undoubtedly linked to the written tradition, at times influencing it, while at
other times being influenced by it. Despite the fact that many unanswered ques-
tions remain, our modern scholarly understanding of the historical development of
the written Qur’ān is greater than our understanding of the history of the oral
Qur’ān. The paucity of information on the history of the oral Qur’ān is conspicuous
and, as a result, we have little to no understanding of the developmental relation-
ship between the two.323 Whether the Qur’ān was transmitted orally or in written
form remains ‘a central question’ whose implications with respect to that develop-
mental relationship are serious and far-reaching.324 The fact that Islamic tradition
places such a heavy emphasis on the orality of the Qur’ān is an intriguing anomaly
because, of the three major monotheistic religions, Islam places the greatest empha-
sis on the centrality of its scripture.325 It is puzzling, then, that this unmistakable
oral and aural dimension has not been more closely investigated in Western schol-
arship. While traditional reports indicate that Muḥammad preached the words of
the Qur’ān orally, and that on some occasions the literate among the earliest Mus-
lims transcribed Muḥammad’s words, there is no indication that a ‘book’ of scrip-
ture per se existed at that early stage. Muḥammad’s reference to the Qur’ān as a
‘book’ and the Qur’ān’s self-referential definition as such most likely designate ‘a
heavenly written archetype.’ Throughout his prophetic career, Muḥammad’s fol-
lowers memorized whatever portions of his qur’ānic recitations were available to

 Déroche, La Transmission Écrite, 178. The relationship between the oral transmission of the
Qur’ān and its written transmission will be a significant aspect of qur’ānic studies in the future.
See Déroche, “Studying the Manuscripts,” 167. I would add that it is not only important, but criti-
cal to our understanding of qur’ānic history, as it is the keystone linking the two inter-related
transmission processes.
 Donner, “Recent Scholarship,” 40, 41. The question of whether the Qur’ān was transmitted
orally or in writing is one that will be explored further in part III, subchapter “Transmission.”
 Graham, Beyond the Written Word, 79, who notes that the greater emphasis on scripture in
Islam is true both in terms of the ritual importance of scripture as well as its theological implica-
tions. For these reasons, Graham concludes, the Qur’ān is the ‘prototypical’ book of scripture.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110795011-007
66 The Inherent Orality of the Qur’ān

them, while others recorded portions on whatever materials were accessible.326

However, as mentioned earlier, these transcriptions of the oral Qur’ān were ini-
tially fragmentary, written in skeletal script without diacritics or short vowels, and
on materials such as palm leaves and flat bones, hardly a ‘book.’327 Nor could the
earliest compilations of the qur’ānic text as mentioned in traditional Muslim re-
ports be described accurately as ‘books.’ That which constituted a ‘book’ in the pe-
riod just after the Prophet’s death was most likely little more than collections of
writing on scraps, hides, or other materials.328 It is without doubt that the use of
the Arabic term al-Qur’ān as the name of a physical book must have been intro-
duced after Muḥammad.329 The term could not have been used in that sense during
Muḥammad’s lifetime. Prior to the existence of a physical book, any orally-recited
mention of the Qur’ān as a ‘book’ must have been in reference to the oral Qur’ān. It
is remarkable that the early Muslim community revolved entirely around a book
that had not yet been written.330
This oral Qur’ān, originally recited by Muḥammad, then memorized and re-
peated by his followers, was and remains, according to Muslims, an essential compo-
nent of the book that we now call the Qur’ān. The Arabic term qur’ān, a verbal noun,
means ‘reciting’ or the act of recitation. The name itself highlights the Qur’ān’s es-
sence as a recited entity rather than a written one, from its inception.331 Moreover,
the traditional description of qur’ānic revelation as God’s words received aurally by
Muḥammad, which he then recited orally at public gatherings, resonates much more
powerfully as God’s communication with mankind than as a revelation received by
one man.332 Unlike the written Qur’ān, the oral Qur’ān thus constitutes direct contact
with the Divine: one can hear the words recited just as Muḥammad himself heard
them. It is unsurprising then that traditional methods of early qur’ānic education,
long after Muslim society had become a highly literate civilization, place a greater

 Donner, “Historical Context,” 31. The notion of dual transmission was previously articulated
by Blachère, in his section intitled “Les deux instruments utilisés par Mahomet, pour la conserva-
tion de la Révélation.” Régis Blachère, Introduction au Coran (Paris: G.P. Maisonneuve, 1947), 12.
See also Gilliot, “Fixed Text,” 42.
 See notes 2, 9, and 13. In pre-industrial communities, writing on leaves and bones continues
even in modern times. See Rubinstein, “Leaves of Palm,” 129–154; Kozok, “Bark, Bones, and Bamboo,”
231–246.
 Mackensen, “Arabic Books and Libraries,” 323.
 Graham, Beyond the Written Word, 89. Cf. idem, “Spoken Word,” 31. See also note 9.
 Denny, “Exegesis and Recitation,” 123.
 Graham, Beyond the Written Word, 94. In the case of the Qur’ān, Graham notes, scripture
and recitation are not only linked but ‘inextricable,’ 92.
 Cragg, Event, 19.
 The Inherent Orality of the Qur’ān 67

emphasis on the recitation of the Qur’ān than on reading it or writing it.333 The oral-
ity of the Qur’ān is evident in other contexts as well, including those that are gener-
ally perceived as being, by definition, part of a written tradition. The function of
some qur’ānic architectural inscriptions, for example, is more easily associated with
an oral tradition than with a literate one.334 The intrinsic orality of all things qur’ānic
should come as no surprise if one remembers that the Qur’ān was the first lengthy
work of a small Arabic-speaking community of marginal literacy, and it imprinted its
orality on every aspect of that society’s rapid and dramatic transformation into a
global civilization.335
Yet, Western scholarship on the Qur’ān has tended to focus almost entirely on
the written Qur’ān.336 No doubt this is partly due to the fact that most such scholars
approach the Qur’ān as they would any other scriptural tradition. It is only natural
that the objectification of scripture as a physical text, typical of Western society in
general, is evident in most Western scholars’ approaches to the Qur’ān. The mass
production of silent printed texts in our modern culture disconnects readers from
the aural and oral aspects of literature, especially in scholarly academic circles
where emphasis on objective evidence makes printed materials more valuable
than oral transmissions.337 Whether consciously or unconsciously, the modern
scholarly tendency to focus on the written text of the Qur’ān obscures its inherent
orality. This tendency has important consequences for the study of the develop-
mental history of the qur’ānic scriptural tradition. The interplay between the oral
Qur’ān and the written Qur’ān is of far greater importance in our understanding of
the written text than is the case with other major scriptural traditions. The natural
(but flawed) tendency on the part of most modern scholars to objectify written
texts impedes our understanding of the true (oral) nature of the Qur’ān. An objec-
tive view can only be achieved by consciously divesting ourselves of the notion
that it is a book like any other, because it is not, either in substance or in the per-
ceptions of believers who read the written Qur’ān.338 Indeed, the written Qur’ān is

 On traditional education in Mauritania, see Corinne Fortier, “Une pédagogie coranique.
Modes de transmission des savoirs islamiques (Mauritanie).” Cahiers d’Études africaines 43.169/
170 (2003), 250.
 Edwards, “Text, Context, and Architext,” 66–67.
 According to Böwering, the Qur’ān ‘stands at the crossroads’ of the oral tradition of the pre-
Islamic era and the scholarly written tradition of Islamic civilization in the classical period. Böw-
ering, “Recent Research,” 71.
 In a particularly telling example, Luxenberg’s fifth chapter, on “The Oral Tradition,” is less
than one page in length. Luxenberg, Syro-Aramaic Reading, 34.
 Graham, “Spoken Word,” 27.
 Edwards, “Text, Context, and Architext,” 66.
68 The Inherent Orality of the Qur’ān

not a book like any other.339 Paradoxically, it is a book, but also not a book. And
while many Western scholars focus on the written qur’ānic tradition, for Muslims
themselves, the oral recitation of that text is equally ‘The Qur’ān,’ and perhaps
more so.340 The written Qur’ān is merely the tangible physical manifestation of the
actual (oral) Qur’ān. Perhaps the best analogy in Western culture for the rela-
tionship between the written Qur’ān and the oral Qur’ān is that of the relationship
between a musical score and the performed music.341 Western society defines scrip-
ture as the score, the written sheet music. But in Muslim society, the score is noth-
ing more than a medium for physical documentation of the aural essence.342 The

 See also note 183. The Arabic handwritten tradition was heavily influenced by the Qur’ān,
and the Qur’ān was the first book in Arabic.
 Nelson, Art of Reciting, xviii. Madigan includes an excellent summary of Western scholar-
ship on the written Qur’ān. Madigan, The Qur’ân’s Self-Image, 13–23. Although the Qur’ān exem-
plifies the essential orality of a written text, there are numerous other examples of intertwined
oral and written traditions. Rubinstein notes the unfortunate demise of traditional recitation of
lontar (palm-leaf) manuscripts in Bali. Recitations and discussions that are often associated with
manuscript traditions in pre-industrial societies are disappearing with the rise of the type of
reading typical in post-industrial societies, where books are often read in private and silently.
Rubinstein, “Leaves of Palm,” 153. The intertwining of oral and written traditions applies to the
study of non-religious texts in Islamicate societies as well. Nasr compares the manner in which
Western and Eastern scholars approach the writings of Avicenna, noting that Eastern scholars
acquired an entirely different understanding of the texts that transcends literal readings. Seyyed
Hossein Nasr, “Oral Transmission and the Book in Islamic Education: The Spoken and the Writ-
ten Word,” in George N. Atiyeh (ed.), The Book in the Islamic World, 60–61.
 Leemhuis describes the written Qur’ān as “the official score for the performance of its reci-
tation.” See Leemhuis, “Palm Leaves,” 149. An aficionado of opera, for example, can easily appre-
ciate that listening to a performance of Carmen’s Habanera aria is hardly equivalent to reading
the libretto and score. One likely would not be pleased to watch the lyrics and score silently pro-
jected on a large screen at the opera. Yet, scholars do not afford the oral Qur’ān a similar consid-
eration. Rippin acknowledges the ‘cultural bias’ of Western scholars who focus on written
materials due to a failure in understanding oral transmission. Andrew Rippin, The Qur’an and its
Interpretive Tradition (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Variorum, 2001), xiii. But the failure is not so much
one of understanding the processes of oral transmission or the nature of oral transmission, as
much as it is a failure on the part of Western scholars in understanding the significance of oral
transmission in terms of the Qur’ān. In other words, a failure in understanding that the early
Muslims never viewed the oral Qur’ān and the written Qur’ān as equivalent. The failure is in
understanding that the dissociation between the oral Qur’ān and the written Qur’ān is a funda-
mental incongruity to Western scholarly sensibilities, but has always been perfectly natural for
Muslims.
 On the graphic representation of speech as an amplifier that legitimizes a reformulation of
representations of the world by those who can read and for those who cannot, see Goody, Domes-
tication, 109–110. For centuries, however, the separation of the oral Qur’ān from the written
Qur’ān resisted precisely the type of domination of writing to which Goody refers. Beginning
 The Inherent Orality of the Qur’ān 69

written Qur’ān is merely physical documentation in earthly form of the actual, sub-
lime (oral) Qur’ān.343
Recognition of the essentially oral character of the Qur’ān by the early Muslim
community meant that the ‘book’ continued to be orally recited, transmitted, and
memorized after the compilation of the earliest qur’āns in written form. For nearly
a millennium and a half, the Muslims’ scripture has been learned by many from
the oral recitations of a teacher, followed by memorization, and oral repetition
back to the teacher.344 Early childhood education in much of the Muslim world re-
volves around the memorization of the shortest chapters of the Qur’ān, the sing-
song chanting of which is instantly recognizable when in the vicinity of any local
Qur’ān school throughout the Muslim world.345 This early childhood qur’ānic edu-
cation is typically limited to the final thirtieth of the text, commonly known as juz’
‘amma (the thirtieth [that begins with the word] ‘amma, Q 78:1). This final thirtieth
of the text contains mostly short chapters, some of which are only three or four

with ‘Uthmān and al-Ḥajjāj, state authorities continuously and actively struggled to enforce the
written Qur’ān over the oral. Conversely, with the exception of a few individuals who are known
to us only because they were deliberately chosen by the authorities as deterrent examples, the
continued intergenerational transmission of variants and Variants of the oral Qur’ān among the
masses proceeded passively and naturally. Oral transmission continued long after Ibn Mujāhid,
unsurprisingly in a society that made a clear distinction between the revealed word of God re-
cited by the Prophet and the colored ink dragged across flattened surfaces to form graphic repre-
sentations of those revealed words. The oral Qur’ān was always the real Qur’ān. This distinction
has always informed the interaction between the oral Qur’ān and the written Qur’ān in Islamic
society. To this day, Muslims do not reduce the Qur’ān to organic pigments applied to flattened
fiber pulp. This notion is of prime import for an accurate understanding of the relationship be-
tween the oral Qur’ān and the written Qur’ān.
 There does not seem to be any equivalent in Western civilization to the Islamic concept of
i‘jāz as aesthetic proof of the divine origins of the Qur’ān. The closest parallels may be the appre-
ciation of particular works of classical music by composers such as Beethoven or Mozart. See
Graham and Kermani, “Recitation and Aesthetic Reception,” 129. As with cultural differences in
perceptions of visually pleasing aesthetics (see note 286), cultural relativity is apparent in the
aural/oral dimension as well. I have had personal experience with students at American univer-
sities who comment that some high-pitched tajwīd recitation of the Qur’ān, beautiful to the Mus-
lim ear, sounds to them more like the wailing of a cat in the throes of death. Slonimsky provides
numerous examples of such cultural auditory relativity, including a Japanese audience member
at the New York premiere of Madame Butterfly commenting that the singer’s performance was
not much more appealing than a dog’s barking. Nicolas Slonimsky, Lexicon of Musical Invective:
Critical Assaults on Composers Since Beethoven’s Time (New York: W.W. Norton, 2000), 5.
 William A. Graham, Beyond the Written Word, 79–80.
 Graham and Kermani, “Recitation and Aesthetic Reception,” 121; Graham, “Spoken Word,”
37. Qur’ānic memorization early in life is emphasized in Muslim tradition and it is one of the
main concerns of many Muslim parents. Saʻīd, Recited Koran, 57.
70 The Inherent Orality of the Qur’ān

verses long, and nearly all of which end in rhyme.346 A minority go on to memorize
more of the qur’ānic text and a smaller minority aim to memorize the Qur’ān in its
entirety. One who memorizes the entire Qur’ān is called ḥāfiẓ (protector, pre-
server), an accomplishment that is among the highest honors any Muslim can
achieve.347 As the term implies, those who memorize the Qur’ān emulate the earli-
est Muslims by preserving the living word of God orally and aurally, exactly as Mu-
ḥammad himself heard it and recited it.348 Pedersen cites an interesting anecdote
about a Muslim who told him that if every written copy of the Qur’ān were to be
destroyed, the Qur’ān would live on because so many Muslims today have memo-
rized it in its entirety.349 There appears to have developed, at an early date, a group
of people identified as professional reciters of the Qur’ān.350 In later centuries, after
the establishment of institutions of higher learning, official posts were created for
positions such as ‘Shaykh al-Qirā’a, Professor of Qur’ānic Science,’ ‘reciter,’ ‘rhapso-
dist (munshid),’ and ‘psalmodists (al-qurrā’ bi ‘l-alḥān).’351 This well-established and
longstanding tradition of Qur’ān memorization has served as the cornerstone of the
traditional Muslim view that the oral Qur’ān can be traced in an unbroken chain of
transmission from reciting teacher to memorizing student, back to the first reciter,
Muḥammad himself.352

 Although sacred texts include rhythmic language, they are more than simply poems; in an-
cient times poetry was nearly sacred and certainly far more highly respected than it is today. See
René Guénon, Fundamental Symbols, tr. Alvin Moore (Bartlow, UK: Quinta Essentia, 1995), 41. Re-
semblances between the rhythmic, poetic language of the Qur’ān and other oral transmissions
that were subsequently put into writing, such as the Homeric corpus, have been noted as well.
See Klar, “Bannister, An Oral-Formulaic Study,” 103; and David Larsen, “Signs, Omens, and Semi-
ological Regimes in Early Islamic Texts,” in Timothy Pepper (ed.), A Californian Hymn to Homer
(Harvard University Press, 2010), 1–47. The Homeric corpus in ancient Greece and the Vedas in
India were similarly memorized and orally recited in spite of being available as written texts.
See Jack Goody, “Does the Refinement of the Writing System Allow Us to Draw Conclusions About
the Decline of the Oral Transmission?” in Manfred S. Kropp (ed.), Results of Contemporary Re-
search on the Qur’ān (Beirut: Ergon Verlag Würzburg, 2007), 145.
 Graham, “Spoken Word,” 38; Graham and Kermani, “Recitation and Aesthetic Reception,” 122.
 Graham, Beyond the Written Word, 98; Graham and Kermani, “Recitation and Aesthetic Re-
ception,” 117. According to Sa‘īd, the essentially oral, recited character of the Qur’ān can be pre-
served only through oral transmission. Saʻīd, Recited Koran, 56.
 Pedersen, The Arabic Book, 17.
 The implication is that professional reciters also memorized the Qur’ān, although the exact
meaning of the term qurrā’ remains a matter of dispute among modern scholars. See Mustafa
Shah, “The Quest for the Origins of the qurrāʾ in the Classical Islamic Tradition,” JQS 7.2 (2005): 16.
 George Makdisi, The Rise of Colleges: Institutions of Learning in Islam and the West (Edin-
burgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1981), 215.
 Böwering, “Chronology,” EQ; Donner, “Quranic Furqān,” 295. Muslim apologists claim that
each of today’s fourteen Variants of the oral Qur’ān can be traced through unbroken chains of
 The Inherent Orality of the Qur’ān 71

Recent scholarship has begun to reevaluate scholarly paradigms based on

commonly accepted Western notions of sacred scripture and to appreciate the
recitational aspects of this book that calls itself ‘The Recitation.’353 Numerous
scholars have affirmed the essential orality of the qur’ānic text.354 Simply put, the
written Qur’ān, when it is read silently, is not the Qur’ān. It is the Qur’ān only
when it is recited and when its recitation is heard.355 It is unsurprising, then, that
some scholars maintain that oral transmission has been the dominant mode of
transmission of the Qur’ān.356 Nöldeke asserts that the role of oral transmission is
obvious when examining just how many oral variants diverged from the ‘Uth-
mānic text of the written Qur’ān.357 However, other scholars posit that written
transmission predominated over the oral. Bellamy cites scribal errors incorpo-
rated into the text, as well as the variant readings mentioned by Nöldeke, as evi-
dence that oral transmission was not able to ‘overcome’ the ambiguities of a
primitive Arabic script that was not yet able to capture the full phonetic range of

transmission to Muḥammad. In other words, Muḥammad recited each of the Variants himself.
See, for example: Saʻīd, Recited Koran, 53. This claim is patently false, as we shall see.
 Brinkley Morris Messick, The Calligraphic State: Textual Domination and History in a Muslim
Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 22.
 Neuwirth, “Qur’an and History,” 12. Neuwirth is often cited for her scholarly position on the
‘intrinsic orality’ of the Qur’ān and its essential character as a ‘rezitationstext.’ See Donner, “Recent
Scholarship,” 34; Graham, “Earliest Meaning,” 361. Other scholars who highlight this crucial point
include: Leemhuis, “Palm Leaves,” 145; Graham, Beyond the Written Word, 79 and 95; Pedersen,
The Arabic Book, 17; Small, Qur’āns, 6; Francis E. Peters, The Voice, the Word, the Books: The Sacred
Scripture of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007), 129 and
151; Madigan, The Qur’ân’s Self-Image, 3. Citing Madigan, Small notes that the oral Qur’ān was ini-
tially far more influential in both Muslim thought and in Muslim practice than the written Qur’ān.
Small, Textual Criticism, 142. See also note 10, on the nature of the Arabic verbal noun.
 Nelson, Art of Reciting, xiv. According to Small, only the Arabic Qur’ān is considered by Mus-
lims to be the word of God. Unlike Christian fundamentalists in America, who view English trans-
lations of the Bible as the literal word of God, Muslims regard any translation of the Qur’ān as
little more than an interpretation of the Arabic original. Small, Qur’āns, 6. George Sale appreci-
ated the oral Qur’ān’s unique aesthetic qualities and attempted to express them to an English-
speaking audience. Sale’s translation was the standard English language qur’ān well into the
twentieth century and his appreciation of qur’ānic style played a key role in advancing European
appreciation of the Qur’ān as a literary work. See Alexander Bevilacqua, “The Qurʾan Transla-
tions of Marracci and Sale,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 76 (2013): 114.
 R. G. Khoury, “Pour une nouvelle compréhension de la transmission des textes dans les trois
premiers siècles islamiques,” Arabica 34.2 (1987): 188 (citing Blachère); Nelson, Art of Reciting,
xiv. According to Graham, the powerful Islamic tradition of aural-oral transmission has always
dominated the written transmission in a manner that ‘far surpasses’ the traditions of oral trans-
mission in Christian or Jewish communities. Graham, Beyond the Written Word, 79.
 GdQ, 472–473.
72 The Inherent Orality of the Qur’ān

the spoken language.358 Other scholars have corroborated Bellamy’s view.359 It is

valid particularly with regard to the oral variants that are obviously post-‘Uth-
mānic.360 However, this view is not without its flaws, e.g., it essentially ignores
the above-mentioned distinction between the oral Qur’ān and the written Qur’ān.
Assuming a perfectly or near-perfectly unified transmission of the oral Qur’ān
and the written Qur’ān in which each is equally dependent on the other is overly
simplistic, as is the assumption of purely parallel and independent transmissions
that do not interact with each other in any way. A more appropriate approach
would be to evaluate closely the relationship between the two separate but
clearly interrelated transmission processes.
In its various iterations Bellamy’s view, namely that these discrepancies
prove the absence of an oral tradition that ‘overcomes,’ ‘controls,’ or ‘secures’ the
text, leads to the conclusion that no continuous recitative tradition can accurately
be traced back to Muḥammad himself.361 However, both the conclusion and its
premise are based on several independent, but related, erroneous assumptions.
The first is the problematic assertion of independent transmissions that check
each other. The underlying assumption is that the early Muslims considered the
oral Qur’ān and the written Qur’ān to have been equivalent and actively relied
on this equivalence in using each transmission to check the other. Much Western
scholarly writing takes this presumed equivalence as a matter of fact and a point
de départ in discussions of qur’ānic transmission. Such equivalence is certainly
not evident in the way contemporary Muslims view the Qur’ān, and would almost
certainly not have been the case in early Muslim society, prior to its transforma-
tion into a highly literate, writing-based society. The assumption of equivalence
between the oral Qur’ān and the written Qur’ān presumes that the early Muslims
would have insisted on modifying any discrepancies in the text immediately to
match the Prophetic oral transmission with which they were familiar. Bellamy
cites various accounts about the early Companions of the Prophet who noticed
‘mistakes’ in the then skeletal ‘Kūfic’ text but refrained from correcting the writ-
ten text.362 Bellamy rightly notes the questionable authenticity of these accounts,
but even if they are not authentic, at the very least they reflect the apologetic ten-
dencies of the generation contemporaneous with their fabrication. This could not

 Bellamy, “Some Proposed Emendations,” 563, and “Textual Criticism,” 1.

 Donner, “Recent Scholarship,” 40–41; “Quranic Furqān,” 296–298, 300; and “Historical Con-
text,” 34; Small, Textual Criticism, 150, and 155 (citing Rippin). See also note 364, on written trans-
mission as primary.
 See subchapter “The Qur’ānic Cambrian Explosion and the Seven Aḥruf.”
 Donner, “Quranic Furqān,” 297.
 Bellamy, “Some Proposed Emendations,” 562–563.
 The Inherent Orality of the Qur’ān 73

have been as late as the era of Ibn Mujāhid (d. 324/936) and Ibn Muqlah (d. 328/
940), as it is unreasonable that such discrepancies would have gone unnoticed for
centuries. More likely, it represents an earlier attitude. Even if not as early as
claimed in the account itself, it would be as early as the generation fabricating
the account. Moreover, the presumption that an oral tradition would ‘control’ the
written text and eliminate any discrepancies is itself an example of Western
scholarly bias. Again, the argument that the early Muslim community would have
rushed to ‘correct’ a written record of the oral Qur’ān assumes that those early
Muslims viewed the written Qur’ān and the oral Qur’ān as equivalent. In fact, the
early Muslim community may not have been as interested in the accuracy of the
written Qur’ān as we today presume they should have been.
A second, related assumption is that there would have been only one domi-
nant oral tradition.363 It is possible that there was a “living, accurate tradition of

 Rippin notes, for example, that at some point in its history the qur’ānic text was transmitted
independently of an oral tradition. This is absolutely correct in the sense that a (not the) written
text from among many texts in circulation at some point followed its own trajectory, perhaps
tangential to a (not the) living oral tradition from among the many living oral traditions circulat-
ing at the time, or perhaps following a newly synthesized oral tradition. Rippin also cites and
supports Bellamy’s view that oral tradition played a minimal part, if any, in the transmission of
the Qur’ān, stating that transmission was through the textual tradition. Again, a (not the) textual
tradition might be considered a ‘real’ one for the written Qur’ān. At some point it may have be-
come a tangential offshoot of an earlier oral tradition that did not survive, or it may have been
the transcription of a new synthetic oral strand that was itself a tangential offshoot of an earlier
oral tradition. Rippin also cites mispronunciation due to misreading a primitive script as evi-
dence that no fixed oral tradition existed. Again, this is absolutely true, with the understanding
that a firm oral tradition did not exist. There was no single, firm oral tradition because there
were many firm oral traditions, as well as many oral traditions that were not so firm, in addition
to new oral traditions that were being created from combinations of elements of earlier tradi-
tions (see subchapter “The Qur’ānic Cambrian Explosion and the Seven Aḥruf ”). See Rippin, The
Qur’ān and its Interpretive Tradition, xi, xiv, and xv, respectively. Small avoids these problematic
aspects of Rippin’s argument by articulating the essential point with greater precision. He notes
that no unanimously agreed upon oral tradition can be traced to the first/seventh century. Small,
Textual Criticism, 153. I am not contesting the essence of Bellamy’s argument, which is plausible
and even convincing. What is problematic is the imprecise language in which the argument is
sometimes formulated. Most problematic is the assumption of a single written tradition and the
framing of the discussion as a historical contest between a single written tradition and a single
oral tradition. Scholars who discuss the oral tradition tend to use this frame as well. The oral
tradition is generally viewed as being singular, with divergent strands being ‘variant.’ In fact,
there were many variants and Variants, and they were transmitted along independent tracks,
some transmitted as is and some evolving during transmission. Similarly, early manuscript evi-
dence indicates that what is frequently referred to as ‘the written tradition’ is in fact a collection
of several strands of different written traditions. In short, the scholarly discussion of this subject
will not progress without acknowledging the multiplicity of both the written Qur’ān and the oral
74 The Inherent Orality of the Qur’ān

recitation that went back to the Prophet,” which could have been one of many
such living traditions of recitation, each claiming to go back to the Prophet. The
early Muslims, who viewed the oral Qur’ān as authentic, may have decided to
maintain the status quo of the fixed text in spite of its flaws, since the written
Qur’ān was, in a sense, little more than one additional strand (albeit in written
form) among the many contemporaneous oral Qur’ān transmissions claiming to
stem from the Prophet.364 The early community’s insistence on maintaining the
status quo of the written Qur’ān despite obvious discrepancies and inconsisten-
cies is evident in the manuscript tradition.365 One might go a step further and con-
sider that they may have done so precisely because of the existence of numerous
“living traditions of recitation” (each claiming to be the “accurate tradition of rec-
itation that went back to the Prophet”). The Muslim community may have been
eager to prevent at an early stage any further proliferation of variations in the
written Qur’ān similar to what they were already witnessing with the abundance
of transmissions of the oral Qur’ān. In any case, both extremes, i.e., the view that
oral and written qur’āns were transmitted in unison, each checking the other,
and the view that oral and written transmissions were parallel and independent,
are simplistic.366 Perhaps the most problematic aspect of accepting this argument
is the Western scholarly community’s de facto presumption of the existence of a

Qur’ān and without precision in our definitions of what exactly constitutes the difference be-
tween the Qur’ān and a qur’ān. As we shall see, the dominance of one mode of transmission over
the other was neither absolute nor permanent. Instead, at each stage, it was both fluid and tran-
sient. Modern printed editions of the Qur’ān were based on several oral recitations, which were
themselves based on earlier texts, which, in turn, were based on earlier oral recitations, etc.
 Rippin cites Jeffery’s statement that there was no consistent orally transmitted tradition to
support the primacy of the written Qur’ān in formulating today’s qur’ānic text. Such an argu-
ment assumes an inseparable linkage between the two (oral and written) traditions. In fact, Jeff-
ery’s statement confirms that there were many oral traditions. We can add that each oral
tradition claimed legitimacy, validity, and primacy. Bearing in mind that they developed along
separate tracks, Rippin is absolutely correct in concluding that the written tradition was taken as
primary, but we must clarify that it was taken as primary for the written Qur’ān only, not for
both written transmissions and for oral transmissions of the Qur’ān. Rippin, The Qur’an and its
Interpretive Tradition, xii–xiii.
 See note 248, on written discrepancies and mouvance.
 Schoeler describes two parallel methods for the transmission of the Qur’ān, one via stan-
dardized codices and one via oral recitation. Schoeler, “Writing and Publishing,” 433. However, I
do not believe that Schoeler intends ‘parallel’ in the geometric sense, as the evidence indicates
multiple points of intersection between the two tracks over the centuries. Rather, he uses the
word ‘parallel’ in a literary sense to signify two separate tracks, leaving open the possibility for
interaction. I qualify ‘parallel’ with ‘independent’ to describe the opposite extreme in the pure
geometric sense, as two parallel lines, by definition, never intersect.
 The Inherent Orality of the Qur’ān 75

single early oral qur’ānic tradition and a single early written qur’ānic tradition.
The variations in the early manuscript tradition of the written Qur’ān have been
and continue to be studied by the scholarly community and the variations in the
tradition of the oral Qur’ān are well-attested. As such, the presumption of a single
written tradition or a single oral tradition as monolithic entities is problematic. It
would be more appropriate to recognize the fluid interrelationship between these
two extremes,367 with multiple versions of both the oral Qur’ān and of the written
Qur’ān in active circulation at any given point in time. The only possible excep-
tions would be at the extremes in the timeline of qur’ānic history: the very first
revelation at the beginning of Muḥammad’s prophetic career, and some point in
the future, beyond our lifetimes, when the Qur’ān is finally standardized and can-
onized definitively and universally as a single text of a single Variant to the exclu-
sion of all others. In the beginning, it was purely oral and when the history of the
Qur’ān reaches its end, it will have become purely written, with all recitations
based entirely on that single written text. A glance at the broader arc of this qu-
r’ānic history shows that as of this publication, we are likely past the midway
point between these two extremes, at a point closer to its end than to its begin-
ning. However, the continuing living tradition of multiple local Variants, both
orally and in print, indicates that we have not yet reached the end of this long
arc. This is evident from a closer look at the complex interrelationship between
the oral Qur’ān and the written Qur’ān over the past fourteen centuries.

 I have been able to find only two sources in the secondary literature that directly address
the interactions between oral and written transmissions of the Qur’ān. One is a brief subsection
in Small’s Textual Criticism (“Qur’ānic Oral Tradition: Its Relationship to the Written Tradition,”
144–149). Another is a publication by Sadeghi and Bergmann, who note that the historical evi-
dence supports a mode of transmission that includes both written and oral transmission, which
they refer to as ‘semi-orality.’ Sadeghi and Bergmann, “Codex of a Companion,” 345. To the best
of my knowledge, they appear to have coined this term. One might also use the term ‘semi-
written’ but, given the inherent orality of the Qur’ān, Sadeghi and Bergmann’s choice seems
more appropriate for the time being. As we shall see, the fluid nature of the relationship between
the oral Qur’ān and the written Qur’ān sometimes shifts between semi-oral and semi-written.
Interactions Between the Written
and Oral Qur’ān

The abundance of variant readings of both the oral Qur’ān and the written
Qur’ān indicates that no single oral transmission was dominant over all others,
nor was there a written transmission that was dominant.368 In fact, the prolifera-
tion of (pre-‘Uthmānic) variations of the Qur’ān is cited in traditional Muslim ac-
counts as the impetus behind the caliphal decision to transcribe the first official
standardization of the written Qur’ān.369 Despite the official ‘Uthmānic written
standard, the vast number of oral variants that continued to be disseminated was
far greater than could be accounted for even by the traditional dogma of the
‘seven aḥruf.’ Just as scribal errors are unavoidably transmitted in manuscript
copying, each time a text is orally recited some ‘recalculation’ is possible370 and,
over time, oral transmissions beget oral variations. Moreover, in spite of the ap-
parent primacy of the oral transmission of the Qur’ān in the earliest period, there
is fairly clear evidence that, subsequently, some oral variants resulted not from a
chain of oral transmission, but from manuscripts of the written Qur’ān. Though
the proportion of oral variants resulting from oral transmission may be greater
than those from written sources, the origins of some oral variants cannot be
traced to anything other than written transmission.371 The qur’ānic variants of
Zayd b. ‘Alī b. al-Ḥusayn (d. 122/740), for example, seem to be corrections of an
already written text rather than the result of oral transmission.372 Long after the
‘Uthmānic standardization, there remained a lasting cultural and religious em-
phasis on oral recitation. And variations in the oral Qur’ān continued to be more
acceptable than those in the standardized text. However, this standardized Ver-
sion of the written Qur’ān was still written in a primitive script not yet completely
able to capture fully the phonetic range of the Arabic language. The combination
of all these factors made for an environment in which numerous variant recita-
tions of a single text could exist simultaneously, circulate freely, and multiply

 On written codices, see Jeffery, Materials.

 There is little need to repeat the accounts relating to this well-known episode in the history
of the Qur’ān. See GdQ, 251–275.
 Melchert, “Relation of the Ten Readings,” 81.
 Christopher Melchert, “Ibn Mujāhid and the Establishment of Seven Qur’anic Readings,” SIs
91 (2000): 15.
 Arthur Jeffery, “The Qur’ān Readings of Zaid b. ‘Alī,” Rivista Degli Studi Orientali 16.3/4
(1937): 288–289.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110795011-008
 Interactions Between the Written and Oral Qur’ān 77

without hindrance.373 Paradoxically, while the ‘Uthmānic standard text limited to

some extent the way the written Qur’ān could be recited, in other ways, the ar-
chaic skeletal script in which it was written allowed later generations to recite
the written Qur’ān in different ways whenever the undotted, unvocalized text
was equivocal. This anomaly enabled entirely new variants to be created, result-
ing in the creation of tangential lines of oral transmission diverging from an es-
tablished line of written transmission.374 These new oral variants were clearly
formulated as oral reconstructions of an existing text375 and marked a new stage
in the history of the Qur’ān. Unlike previous oral variants that diverged from a
transmission of the oral Qur’ān, these were oral variations evolving from the
(still ambiguously) written Qur’ān. These new variants were subsequently trans-
mitted orally as well, and joined the numerous transmissions of the oral Qur’ān
already proliferating independently alongside the ‘Uthmānic standardized writ-
ten Qur’ān.376
With time, the balance between oral and written transmissions of the Qur’ān
began to shift towards an increasing reliance on the written Qur’ān. In a process
concomitant with early developments in the Arabic script, the largely illiterate
early Islamic community in Arabia gradually became increasingly literate. While
the process continued after Muḥammad’s death, the initial drive to document the
qur’ānic recitation in writing during Muḥammad’s lifetime served as the impetus
for this transition.377 The rise of an administrative state after Muḥammad’s death
shifted the dynamics between orality and literacy. Subsequent expansion out of
Arabia, the conquest of bordering territories, and the practical needs of day-to-
day administration required more effective, efficient, and reliable means of infor-
mation transfer for most purposes of government.378 As time passed and paper
became ubiquitous, traditions in which oral transmission remained the ultimate
standard, e.g., qur’ānic and ḥadīth studies, increasingly came to rely on written
materials.379 Muslim society began to experience a notable transition from the

 Small, Textual Criticism, 145.

 Ibid., 147.
 Donner, “Quranic Furqān,” 296.
 And, as we shall see in our discussion of the ‘seven aḥruf,’ some of the novel (oral) readings
of the written Qur’ān were invested with the authority of the oral Qur’ān and were given unbro-
ken chains of oral transmission going back to the Prophet. These clearly anachronistic back-
projections were examples similar to a phenomenon described by Small regarding orthography.
He describes orthographic details developed in later centuries but attributed to an earlier period.
See Small, Textual Criticism, 143.
 Ibid., 144, 141.
 Versteegh, Arabic Language, 60.
 Melchert, “Ibn Mujāhid and Establishment,” 17–18.
78 Interactions Between the Written and Oral Qur’ān

‘vocal’ to the ‘visual’ as the basis of information transfer.380 Other social trans-
formations affected both oral and written transmissions of the Qur’ān. Qur’ānic
recitation became professionalized,381 and a discernible rift developed between
groups espousing competing notions regarding the superiority of the oral Qur’ān
versus that of the written Qur’ān. On the one hand, a traditional pious class
championed the oral Qur’ān; on the other hand, a burgeoning ‘professional’ class
that included Qur’ān reciters, teachers, and copyists, naturally endorsed the writ-
ten Qur’ān upon which their professions depended.382 It was not long before a
rising class of scholars whose occupation centered entirely on the study, analysis,
and teaching, of written texts came to challenge the ‘traditional pious elite’ upon
whom society had formerly conferred authority in religious matters.383 As paper,
bookmaking, and literacy began to permeate every aspect of intellectual activity
in Islamic society, book-based learning and teaching encroached upon the oral
Qur’ān.384 A more mature Arabic script, far from the undotted and unvocalized
skeletal script of the first/seventh century, now captured the oral Qur’an more ac-
curately. The written Qur’ān no longer permitted as much recitative license to a
reciter’s oral pronunciation of the written text. The written Qur’ān was becoming
increasingly independent from the oral Qur’ān.385 For the first time in its history,
the written Qur’ān began to acquire a more dignified status than it had before.386
Still, this phase did not yet mark the dominance of the written Qur’ān over
the oral Qur’ān,387 or diminish the role of memorization or the process of oral
transmission.388 Rather, a discernible societal shift occurred in which reliance on

 Berque, “The Koranic Text,” 20.

 Bellamy, “Textual Criticism,” 1.
 Afsaruddin, “Excellences,” 7.
 Ibid., 18–19. The monopolization of scripture by a religious scholarly elite is unsurprising
considering that oral traditions experience marked changes as the result of interactions between
literate and non-literate populations, especially within a community in which the dominant so-
cial and cultural positions are held by the literate. See Goody, Domestication, 153.
 Small, Textual Criticism, 146, 148, citing Otto Pretzl, “Die Fortführung des Apparatus Criticus
zum Koran,” Sitzungsherichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenshaften 5 (1934): 8–9. As we
shall see, Ibn Mujāhid’s standardization of oral variants was based on the literary tradition of
variant readings that was developing, not solely on their oral transmission, as one might assume.
See also note 593.
 Böwering, “Recent Research,” 74.
 Berque, “The Koranic Text,” 20.
 Despite the increasing acceptability of the written Qur’ān, it never replaced the recited oral
Qur’ān. See Berque, “The Koranic Text,” 21. Cf. Madigan, The Qur’ân’s Self-Image, 183.
 Some scribes were more than superficially familiar with the texts they were copying. Partic-
ularly with the Qur’ān, some already had the entirety of the qur’ānic text memorized prior to
copying it. Others would have become familiar with it in the process of copying the same text
 Interactions Between the Written and Oral Qur’ān 79

the written Qur’ān was becoming increasingly acceptable. It was not long before
oral recitation of the Qur’ān from written qur’āns (rather than from an oral
transmission) became commonplace.389 In fact, the size, format and script of
some early qur’ān manuscripts indicate that they were produced specifically for
oral recitation.390 This is the case for later written qur’āns as well. For example,
in the famous Amājūr qur’ān, with only three lines per page and just a few words
per line, the calligraphy is structured deliberately to pace the reading so slowly as
to be impractical for a typical reader. This manuscript was designed to be used by
a reciter who already had the text memorized.391 This is especially the case with
‘monumental’ qur’āns that were produced well after the Arabic script reached
full maturity and after the bookmaking tradition reached its peak as a high art
form. In addition to their ceremonial roles, these qur’āns may have served as
‘written support’ for memorizers and reciters of the Qur’ān, just as the earliest
codices did for the Companions.392 Other written qur’āns were being produced
not for recitation but for reading. These were written in rounded scripts and
bound in single volumes.393 Perhaps the best example of these is the famous Ibn
al-Bawwāb qur’ān.394 Still, the production of written qur’āns designed for reading
rather than recitation did not change believers’ understanding of what consti-
tuted ‘The Qur’ān.’ The revelation itself continued to be perceived as the orally
recited Qur’ān.395 The distinction between the written Qur’ān as little more than
the documented musical score and the oral Qur’ān as the genuine music itself

many times. Some copyists may have relied on both a written source and an oral dictation simul-
taneously. See Dèroche, “Copyists’ Working Pace,” 115. In his defense of the ‘Uthmānic canon,
Sa‘īd cites copyists who had committed the text to memory long before copying the written mate-
rials as evidence that, in the case of the Qur’ān, scribal errors are ‘hardly conceivable.’ Saʻīd, Re-
cited Koran, 34. While that may have been true in the era of the Companions, it was likely not the
case by the high classical period, when copyists proliferated and a scribal class developed that
did not limit itself to copying only religious texts.
 Afsaruddin, “Excellences,” 20.
 Blair, “Uses and Functions,” 188.
 Blair, “Transcribing God’s Word,” 78. Digital images of the Amājūr qur’ān are available online
at the University of Cambridge digital library site: (https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-ADD-01116).
 Schimmel, Calligraphy and Islamic Culture, 4.
 Blair, “Transcribing God’s Word,” 83.
 See also note 270.
 Marilyn R. Waldman, “Primitive Mind / Modern Mind: New Approaches to an Old Problem
Applied to Islam,” in Richard C. Martin (ed.), Approaches to Islam in Religious Studies, 98. Wald-
man adds that the Muslim perspective that the oral Qur’ān is the true Qur’ān highlights another
major difference between the three major monotheistic faiths. The focus of some scholarly com-
munities in Christianity and in Judaism on ‘extensions’ such as exegesis detracted from the pro-
cess of revelation, whereas the consistent emphasis in Islamic societies on the orality of the
80 Interactions Between the Written and Oral Qur’ān

remained firm, even after the advent of written qur’āns produced specifically for
reading. Despite the increasing acceptability of the written Qur’ān, it continued to
be perceived as an entity distinctly separate from the oral Qur’ān396 and contin-
ued to represent what Schoeler refers to as an ‘auxiliary’ function of writing.397
The auxiliary function of the written Qur’ān is evident by the fact that these
written qur’āns continued to be taught and transmitted orally. This was the case
not only for the written Qur’ān, but for other texts as well. Works that had already
been fixed in written form continued to be transmitted by a living tradition of oral
instruction.398 In Islamic society, and particularly in disciplines related to religious
studies, autodidactic education from written materials was never normalized.
Rather, oral instruction from a teacher was the standard form of transmission of
knowledge despite the transformation of the early Muslim community into a book-
based civilization.399 The advent of books did not eliminate the traditional style of
oral instruction. Instead, the traditional methods of oral instruction were applied
to manuscripts. Rather than oral instruction of orally-transmitted knowledge,
teachers began to provide oral instruction of knowledge in written texts. The me-
dium was updated, but not the method. The essential orality of the culture into
which Muḥammad and the Qur’ān were born continued to dominate the method by
which knowledge was transmitted intergenerationally from teacher to student. Al-
though the material in question had been fixed in writing, oral transmission per-
sisted for centuries after the codification of knowledge in written form became

Qur’ān has meant a continuous and intimate understanding of the process of revelation via the
oral Qur’ān.
 According to Déroche, from its inception, the written qur’ānic tradition served a specific
function that remains poorly understood. Déroche, “Studying the Manuscripts,” 170.
 Unlike the ‘essential’ function served by written documents such as contracts, the auxiliary
function of the written Qur’ān alleviated some of the pressures of memorization. Schoeler, “Writ-
ing and Publishing,” 427–428. For examples of aspects of oral cultures that are buttressed rather
than supplanted by the introduction of writing and printing, see Goody, “Refinement of the Writ-
ing System,” 140.
 Khoury, “Pour une nouvelle compréhension,” 187. According to Schoeler, neither purely
written methods nor purely oral ones were employed in early Islamic scholarship for the trans-
fer of knowledge. Gregor Schoeler, “The Relationship of Literacy and Memory in the Second/
Eighth Century,” in M.C.A. Macdonald (ed.), The Development of Arabic as a Written Language
(Oxford: Archaeopress, 2010), 126. Khoury also mentions that initially, book titles were not fixed
(i.e., different titles were attributed to the same work) because these works were not originally
transmitted in writing. Khoury, “Pour une nouvelle compréhension,” 194. The same is true for
chapters of the Qur’ān: the fact that they are referred to by multiple names in early sources in-
dicates that the titles were not fixed at that time.
 Schoeler, “Writing and Publishing,” 429.
 Interactions Between the Written and Oral Qur’ān 81

commonplace, and it endures to this day.400 Long after the fluorescence of literature
in Islamicate civilization, there remained an emphasis on the transmission of knowl-
edge directly from person to person, including knowledge that was already codified
in literary form, and reading for the purposes of knowledge transmission was a so-
cial affair between teacher and student rather than the silent private endeavor of
an individual holding a book.401 And the importance assigned to oral transmission
of knowledge is more pronounced in the transmission of religious knowledge.402 De-
spite the social transformations that led to increased literacy and reliance on written
texts, Muslims continued to place extraordinary emphasis on the oral transmission
of the Qur’ān, regardless of its proliferation in written form. This classical style of
book-learning through oral transmission continues in traditional educational circles
throughout the Muslim world in modern times.
Today, the effects of this emphasis on oral transmission of the Qur’ān are
most pronounced in performance recitation. Anyone who has traveled in the
Muslim world cannot help but notice the near ubiquitous presence of the oral
Qur’ān, not only in traditional settings and on religious occasions, but in everyday
modern life. It can be heard emanating from loudspeakers in restaurants, retail
stores, and passing vehicles.403 Literary evidence indicates that various styles of
reciting the oral Qur’ān must have developed in the earliest centuries of Islam.
Traditionalist opposition to ‘musical recitation’ of the oral Qur’ān indicates that
enough reciters at the time must have taken such liberties.404 It is impossible to
determine with any accuracy what exactly the ‘musical’ recitations of earlier cen-
turies may have sounded like, but modern scholars have identified five categories
of musical characteristics of qur’ānic recitation today and noted striking corre-
spondence with Arabic music theory.405 The recitation of the oral Qur’ān, how-
ever, is never designated as ‘music’ by Muslims. The distinction between the two

 Georges Vajda, “The Oral Transmission of Knowledge in Tradtional Islam,” in Claude Gilliot
(ed.), Education and Learning, 163. According to Schoeler, the transition towards teaching written
works was a gradual one, beginning with written materials that were aides-memoire, moving
next to collated and systematized works, and, finally, properly edited and published books in the
modern sense. Schoeler, “Writing and Publishing,” 433.
 Jan Just Witkam, “The Human Element Between Text and Reader: The Ijāza in Arabic Manu-
scripts,” in Claude Gilliot (ed.), Education and Learning, 151.
 Witkam, “The Human Element,” 151.
 Graham and Kermani, “Recitation and Aesthetic Reception,” 124.
 Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (d. 241/855) was a vocal opponent of musicality in recitation. See Christo-
pher Melchert, “Aḥmad Ibn Ḥanbal and the Qur’an.” JQS 6.2 (2004): 25.
 Lois Ibsen Al Faruqi, “The Cantillation of the Qur’an,” Asian Music 19.1 (1987): 9. On the five
categories, see p. 7. Al Faruqi compares the melodic nature of the oral Qur’ān to abstract works of
Islamic visual arts (p. 11) and to calligraphic and ornamental artistry in illuminated texts (p. 13).
82 Interactions Between the Written and Oral Qur’ān

is clear and absolute.406 The term for singing (al-ghinā’) is never used in the con-
text of qur’ānic recitation, there is never any instrumental accompaniment,407
and the documentation of qur’ānic recitation using musical notation is unaccept-
able to traditionalists.408 The musical score of the oral Qur’ān is the written
Qur’ān.409 And while the professional status of musicians and singers is relatively
low, professional Qur’ān reciters are recognized as dignified members of society,
distinguished and honored.410 Ironically, many popular singers of secular music
in the Muslim world began their careers as reciters of the Qur’ān.411 One of the
most famous Arabic singers, Umm Kulthūm, learned the Qur’ān from her father,
who was the imām of the local mosque.412 There are regional styles of recitation
throughout the Muslim world. One can detect traces of regional musical tradi-
tions in the recitations of Qur’ān reciters from culturally distinct areas of the Is-
lamic world such as North Africa, Turkey, and Iran.413
The oral Qur’ān occupies public spaces throughout the Muslim world in ways
unfamiliar to members of faiths that limit the recitation of scripture to religious or
liturgical settings. For centuries, the oral Qur’ān has occupied spaces that extend
far beyond words on a page.414 Just as the call to prayer echoes throughout the city
five times every day, so too the oral Qur’ān permeates the soundscape, not only in
the mosques and in private homes, but also on the streets, in the markets, and else-
where. The sound of the recited Qur’ān resounds in the acoustic environment of
Muslim societies. Modern broadcasting media technology magnified its already ex-
pansive auditory presence.415 The first audio recording of the Qur’ān was made by
Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje in 1885 during a visit to Mecca.416 The production of

 Ibid., 14.

 Ibid., 8.
 Ibid., 7.
 See also note 340, on intertwining oral and written traditions.
 Ibid., 17. Al Faruqi uses the masculine pronoun in reference to the Qur’ān reciter’s profes-
sion. Certainly, most professional reciters are male. It is important to note, however, that there
are female reciters, though they may not perform publicly in a professional capacity. A simple
internet search can lead the interested reader to numerous publicly posted recordings from na-
tional and international qur’ānic recitation competitions that include girls and women.
 Mahmoud Ayoub, “The Qur’ān Recited,” Middle East Studies Association Bulletin 27.2 (1993): 170.
 Umm Kulthūm is most famous for her singing, songwriting, and acting, but some rare re-
cordings of her qur’ānic recitations have survived. Fortunately, these recordings are available
online through a simple internet search.
 Ayoub, “The Qur’ān Recited,” 170.
 Al-Azmeh, “Muslim Canon,” 198.
 Graham and Kermani, “Recitation and Aesthetic Reception,” 123.
 The original audio recordings of Hurgronje’s Qur’ān recordings have been digitized and are
available in Leiden University Library’s digital collections: (https://digitalcollections.universiteitleiden.
 Interactions Between the Written and Oral Qur’ān 83

the oral Qur’ān by a phonograph rather than by the human voice prompted opposi-
tion from traditionist circles just as the addition of diacritics to the written Qur’ān
did a millennium earlier.417 The oral Qur’ān first took to the airwaves in 1961 when
Radio Cairo played recordings produced as a result of ‘The Recited Qur’ān’ proj-
ect.418 Since then, recordings of the oral Qur’ān have become a popular feature of
Muslim culture and have resulted in a revival of the oral qur’ānic tradition.419 The
oral Qur’ān has become ubiquitous in private and public spaces in the Muslim
world, in every conceivable format, and on every possible electronic device. With
the advent of cellphones, the use of the oral Qur’ān as ringtones has triggered tradi-
tionist opposition and resulted in the issuance of a fatwā against the practice.420
One can only imagine what the future of the oral Qur’ān will be as technology ad-
vances, and what new manner of hostility radical traditionists will conceive to op-
pose it.
Whatever its future, the history of the Qur’ān has always been one of inherent
orality. At every stage of the oral Qur’ān’s interaction with the written Qur’ān, the
essential orality of the Qur’ān remains one of its most prominent features. Despite
the increasing social acceptance of the written Qur’ān over the centuries, the essen-
tial status of the oral Qur’ān as the Qur’ān never receded, nor was it ever super-
ceded by the written Qur’ān.421 The written Qur’ān was itself taught and transmitted
orally. Neither the ascending status of the written Qur’ān nor the development of a
more advanced Arabic script diminished the prominence of the oral Qur’ān. In fact,
the fully mature Arabic script, now able to capture accurately all the intricacies of
the oral Qur’ān’s phonetic pronunciation, helped to foster a separate and complete
literary genre devoted entirely to the documentation, study, and transmission of the
intricacies of the oral Qur’ān. While the written Qur’ān began to acquire some level
of respect as an authentic qur’ānic transmission, it did not yet dominate the oral

nl/view/item/1887407?solr_nav%5Bid%5D=a2dff0739caa8303c0d6&solr_nav%5Bpage%5D=6&solr_nav
%5Boffset%5D=4).
 Göran Larsson, Muslims and the New Media: Historical and Contemporary Debates (Surrey,
UK: Ashgate, 2011), 176–178.
 Saʻīd, Recited Koran documents the ‘recited Qur’ān’ project. See also Al Faruqi, “Cantillation,” 20.
 Leemhuis, “Readings of the Qurʾān,” EQ.
 Larsson, Muslims and the New Media, 169.
 Goody notes that only in rare cases does a new mode of communication replace earlier
media. Instead, each new medium adds cumulatively to the existing media. He cites as examples
the advances from gestures to speech, to writing, to modern electronic media. Goody, “Refine-
ment of the Writing System,” 141. Even the most technologically savvy among us have not aban-
doned the use of primitive gestures in our communication. In fact, electronic versions of
primitive hand and facial gestures have now been incorporated into modern media. Note, for
example, emojis. ;)
84 Interactions Between the Written and Oral Qur’ān

Qur’ān. Instead, the divergence between two modes of transmission became more
well-defined: the now increasingly legitimate written Qur’ān was copied and trans-
mitted via a written medium, while the oral Qur’ān continued to be transmitted
orally. The perception that the oral Qur’ān is the ‘true’ Qur’ān continued into the
modern era. The so called ‘standardized’422 Cairo printing (of 1342/1923–1924) upon
which the overwhelming majority of modern written qur’āns are based was not
the product of a critical examination of the numerous handwritten copies of the
written Qur’ān transcribed over the previous fourteen centuries. Instead, this
widely-distributed printed qur’ān, which forms the basis for most of today’s writ-
ten qur’āns, was printed to conform entirely to the oral transmission of one of the
many surviving versions of the oral Qur’ān.423

 See note 633, on Brockett’s arguments against the use of this term. On the differences be-
tween the now common Cairo edition and Flügel’s 1834 edition, which was the main scholarly
standard for nearly a century prior, see Arne A. Ambros, “Die Divergenzen zwischen dem Flügel-
und dem Azhar-Koran,” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 78 (1988): 9–21.
 Al-Azmeh, “Muslim Canon,” 3.