Ferşü’l-hurûf Farklılıklarında Tercihten Söz Edilebilir mi?: Tahrîrât Bağlamında Metodolojik Bir Analiz

Purpose: The present study aims to examine the differences in farsh al-ḥurūf that have been the subject of taḥrīrāt within the framework of the taḥrīrāt discipline. The primary problem of the research is the question of why farsh al-ḥurūf variants, which are based on the same sources, are subjected to different treatments by different taḥrīrāt schools.The present study aims to contribute to the extant literature by seeking a methodological answer to the following question: “Why is an authentic recitational variant, despite being included in authoritative primary sources, accepted by one taḥrīrāt school while being abandoned by another?”Method: The present study dopted a qualitative research design, with the data being obtained through a review of the and an analysis of document. In this context, the primary works of Abū ‘Amr al-Dānī (d. 444/1053), al-Shāṭibī (d. 590/1194), and Ibn al-Jazarī (d. 833/1429) were taken as primary sources; the obtained data were comparatively analyzed through the preferences of the Taysīr/Istanbul and Shāṭibiyyah/Egypt transmission paths (ṭarīqs), as well as the Alexandria and Cairo taḥrīrāt schools. The study is confined to the ‘Ashara ṭarīq classifies and interprets the data s classified and interpreted based on the methods of rijal and textual criticism employed by taḥrīrāt scholars.Findings: It was determined that certain farsh al-ḥurūf elements within authentic (ṣaḥīḥ) recitation differences were subjected to taḥrīrāt. The total number of these disputed differences is eleven, and as in all periods of the history of Quranic recitations (qirā’āt), both the taḥrīrāt schools and reading traditions (masālik) have comprehensively addressed the verification of these farsh al-ḥurūf differences in their foundational works. The primary sources conveying these differences were subjected to textual and narrator (rijāl) criticism within specific methodological frameworks. Consequently, it was observed that the conclusions reached regarding the contested farsh al-ḥurūf differences rely on methodologically consistent justifications.Conclusion: It was determined that the education of qirā’āt variants is not merely a repetitive transmission, but rather a dynamic teaching methodology based on narrator (rijāl) and textual criticism that functions as a scholarly arbiter. Within the scope of farsh al-ḥurūf differences, it was established that the presence of a reading variant (wajh) in primary sources (such as al-Taysīr, al-Shāṭibiyyah, al-Durrah, etc.) does not guarantee its application in actual performance (adā’); instead, taḥrīrāt acts as a filter using criteria such as narrative isolation (infirād of the sanad), deviation from the primary chain (khurūj ʿan ṭarīqihi), and textual style. The fundamental turning point between schools and traditions (masālik) was determined to be their approach to the text: those adopting a strict compliance (‘azīmah) approach (such as the I’tilāf and Mutqin traditions) prioritized chain-of-transmission discipline, whereas those adopting a concessionary (rukhṣah) approach (such as the tradition of Shaykh ‘AṭāAllāh alongside the Alexandrian and Cairene schools) incorporated absolute statements from the sources directly into performance (adā’). Finally, it was understood that the rejection of certain variants by taḥrīrāt scholars and tradition masters does not manifest as designating that recitation as irregular (shādhdh), but rather as “excluding it from practice in instruction” solely on methodological grounds.