Diacritical Markings in the Holy Qurʾān and Their Interpretation Among Maghrebi and Mashriqi Scholars: A Comparative Study

Abstract

Abstract:

This study investigates a range of diacritical and phonetic symbols used by scholars of Qurʾānic recitation from both the Maghreb and the Mashriq to annotate the text of the Holy Qurʾān. These markings were developed to protect the Qurʾān from distortion and ensure its accurate transmission, recitation, and preservation. The research focuses on how each scholarly tradition applied these symbols, highlighting both points of agreement and divergence, and presenting the linguistic and methodological justifications behind their choices.

The paper consists of an introduction, a preliminary section, five main chapters, and a conclusion summarizing the principal findings. The introduction outlines the research objectives, significance, methodology, and relevant prior scholarship. The preliminary section provides essential background on the science of Qurʾānic diacritics (ʿilm al-ḍabṭ), including definitions, major schools of thought, historical development, and evolution.

The five chapters cover: (1) the presence or absence of dotting in certain letters and its rationale; (2) the rules governing the annotation of the non-vocalized nūn; (3) the principles and signs of elongation (madd); (4) the marking of clearly articulated and assimilated letters; and (5) the orthographic treatment of the glottal stop (hamzah).

The core objective of the study is to explain the reasoning behind the diacritical conventions used in Qurʾānic manuscripts across the Islamic East and West. It also aims to highlight the rigorous scholarly efforts made by reciters and grammarians in both regions to safeguard the integrity of the Holy Qurʾān through meticulous attention to its script and pronunciation.

One of the study’s key findings is that these diacritical systems were the result of deliberate and informed scholarly work. Both Maghrebi and Mashriqi scholars pursued correctness and linguistic soundness in their respective approaches. Their differences in diacritical practice do not represent errors, but rather multiple valid interpretations rooted in the rules of the Arabic language and its oral tradition. Each mark serves a pedagogical purpose, guiding the reader toward proper recitation.