Peter, why are you so antsy?

Because Naomi will be here shortly, and I'm anxious to get started.

What do you mean? We don't even know why she's coming.

We don't... We don't even know why she's coming.

You are so adorable, I'm gonna do you second.

Hi, Naomi.

You picked up those tearaway panties like I texted you?

I didn't get a text from you.

All right. Not sure why, but I'll bite.

Hi, Naomi.

Hello, Lois.

I want you to meet my husband, Dale.

Hi, nice to meet you, Dale.

Dale! All right, I guess, but I'm doing you last.

Joke's on him. I only got two in me.

Find the full answer here on AcademicBiblical.

Blah, blah, blah, "Lincoln assassinated," blah, blah, blah, "tragedy for our Republic."

Uh... oh, look!

"Ably performed by the entire ensemble."

That's us! That's all of us!

Marilyn Manson! Is that who's causing all this?

Yeah, it's all him or her's fault.

Who does he or she think he or she is?

Look, you can totally see his or her nipples.

That's obscene, maybe.

Books like Ibn Ḫālawaih: Muḫtaṣar and Tafsīr aṭ-Ṭabarī list reading traditions attributed to The prophet himself/ʿĀʾiša/Ḥafṣa/Ibn ʿUmar and they are not considered canonical or from the canonized reading traditions.

I feel that this could be explained away as a weak isnad maybe, but still, it feels wrong that the prophet's reading as well as his wives and companions are considered shadhdh while people who died 130, 170, or 229 AH are canonical.

Example: https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/verse-navigator/sura/2/verse/238/variants

This all started when I wanted to know why Quranic riʾāʾ-رئآء is written like this because its almost always pronounced outside the Quran as رياء which means ostentatious piety and showing off, rather than performing deeds purely for God. I checked and it has 3 occurrences in the Quran and all written the same way:

Verse/Word	Arabic Text
(2:264:12) riāa	لَا تُبْطِلُوا صَدَقَاتِكُمْ بِالْمَنِّ وَالْأَذَىٰ كَالَّذِي يُنْفِقُ مَالَهُ رِئَاءَ النَّاسِ
(4:38:4) riāa	وَالَّذِينَ يُنْفِقُونَ أَمْوَالَهُمْ رِئَاءَ النَّاسِ وَلَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلَا بِالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ
(8:47:8) riāa	وَلَا تَكُونُوا كَالَّذِينَ خَرَجُوا مِنْ دِيَارِهِمْ بَطَرًا وَرِئَاءَ النَّاسِ

So I checked some manuscripts to see if it was always written like that:

Verse/Word	Manuscript link	Estimated date	Manuscript Word
(2:264:12) riāa	11r, 002:255:045-002:264:033	1100 - 1225	rīyāʾ-رِياءَ
	29r, 002:264:009-002:269:005	1000	riāa-رِئَاءَ
(4:38:4) riāa	20v, 004:036:001-004:047:007	1100 - 1225	rīyāʾ-رِياءَ
	1r, 004:037:014-004:046:033	-	rīyāʾ-رِياءَ
(8:47:8) riāa	92v, 008:047:012-008:056:006	1000	riāa-رِئَاءَ
	37v, 007:179:022-007:197:010	1100 - 1225	rīyāʾ-رِياءَ

Most interesting is when I checked MVP's "Quranic Arabic" p.155 and p.177, §6.2 and §6.5.3:

>The language of the QCT lacked a hamzah altogether and that the reading traditions eventually classicized Quranic Arabic.
The reading traditions treat the hamzah rather inconsistently. In phonetically identical environments sometimes the hamzah is lost while other times it is not, occasionally based on grammatical principles, other times seemingly by rhyme.
Evidence for a transition from a Hijazi hamzah-less pronunciation of the Quran, as confirmed by the rhyme and orthography, towards a more classical system can be seen by the presence of pseudocorrection of the hamzah in the Quranic reading traditions. Indeed, we would expect to see the application of hamzah where it should have never appeared etymologically, and likewise failure to insert the hamzah where we would etymologically expect it.
This is a strong indication that Quranic Arabic originally lacked the hamzah and that it was only later artificially inserted, as it became fashionable for proper Arabic to have a hamzah. There appears to be a historical memory of this transition taking place in the beginning of the second Islamic century, at least for Medina, as Ibn Muǧāhid (60) reports that Qālūn said: “The people from Madīnah used to not apply the hamzah until [Muslim] Ibn Ǧundab (d. 130AH/747) applied the hamzah. From then on they applied the hamzah to mustahziʾūna and istahziʾ”

Questions

• How come manuscripts dating to 12th century AD still vary in writing the hamzah in riāa-رِئَاءَ if it was introduced and codified into classical Arabic already? knowing that the 3 occurrences in Quran are agreed upon by all canonical reading traditions.
• What are the examples to the presence of pseudocorrection of the hamzah? Referring to this citation: Indeed, we would expect to see the application of hamzah where it should have never appeared etymologically, and likewise failure to insert the hamzah where we would etymologically expect it.

I meant that the "rasm" or "Quranic Consonantal Text (QCT)" is stable/conforming with the Uthmanic musḥaf.

As I read (Nasr, The Study Quran, 44), it only engages a metaphorical reading of the verse, no mention of a literal interpretation. Even though the same story is mentioned literally in OT. Nasr's translation: they were made to drink the calf into their hearts.

Exodus 32:19-20:

>19 When Moses approached the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, his anger burned and he threw the tablets out of his hands, breaking them to pieces at the foot of the mountain. 20 And he took the calf the people had made and burned it in the fire; then he ground it to powder, scattered it on the water and made the Israelites drink it.

Also the same story as in Exodus is mentioned in Tafsīr aṭ-Ṭabarī:

>1564 - حدثني موسى بن هارون قال، حدثنا عمرو قال، حدثنا أسباط, عن السدي: لما رجع موسى إلى قومه، أخذ العجل الذي وجدهم عاكفين عليه، فذبحه, ثم حرقه بالمبرد, (59) ثم ذرّاه في اليم, فلم يبق بحر يومئذ يجري إلا وقع فيه شيء منه. ثم قال لهم موسى: اشربوا منه، فشربوا منه, فمن كان يحبه خرج على شاربه الذهب. فذلك حين يقول الله عز وجل: (وأشربوا في قلوبهم العجل بكفرهم). (60)

>1564 - Musa ibn Harun narrated to me, saying: ‘Amr narrated to us, saying: Asbat narrated to us, on the authority of al-Suddi: When Moses returned to his people, he took the calf which he found them devoted to; he slaughtered it, then filed it down [into dust] with a rasp, then scattered it into the sea. There was no flowing body of water that day except that some of it [the dust] fell into it. Then Moses said to them: "Drink from it," and they drank from it. Whosoever had loved it [the calf], gold appeared upon his mustache. That is when Allah, Mighty and Majestic is He, says: {And their hearts were made to drink the love of the calf because of their disbelief}. [2:93]

Also I noticed in aṭ-Ṭabarī's version a strange detail about slaughtering the calf, they knew its just gold right?

So why did the Quran add the detail about "their hearts" instead of the literal meaning which fits better in the Quranic version since its said wa-ʾušribū as in "made to drink"? The literal meaning fits better with the OT account as well as the Arabic word usage of wa-ʾušribū since the word in passive as in someone else made them drink, but the metaphorical reading does not fit since they worshipped/loved the calf of their own accord.