Spelling is a fundamental literacy skill facilitating word recognition and thus higher-level reading abilities via its support for efficient text processing (Adams, 1990; Joshi et al., 2008; Perfetti and Stafura, 2014). However, relatively little work examines second language (L2) spelling in adults, and even less work examines learners from different first language (L1) writing systems. This is despite the fact that the influence of L1 writing system on L2 literacy skills is well documented (Hudson, 2007; Koda and Zehler, 2008; Grabe, (...) 2009). To address this shortcoming, this study collected data on real word spelling, pseudoword spelling, and phonological awareness (elision) abilities from 70 participants (23 native speakers; 47 ELLs with alphabetic, abjad, and morphosyllabic L1s). Analyses compared performance on real word and pseudoword spelling between L1 English speakers and ELLs, and additionally among the non-native-speaker L1 groups (categorized into alphabet, abjad, and morphosyllabary groups). Similar comparisons were made across groups for performance on phonological awareness. Further, correlations were calculated between phonological awareness and real word spelling and between phonological awareness and pseudoword spelling, separately for L1 English speakers and the various ESL groups. Spelling accuracy on real words and pseudowords as well as phonological awareness skill differed between native speakers and ESL speakers, and also varied by the ESL speakers’ L1 writing system. Theoretically interesting patterns emerged in the spelling data. For example, the morphosyllabic L1 speakers had strong real word spelling (better than the other ESL groups) but greatly decreased pseudoword accuracy (a drop of 59% in accuracy). Although alphabetic L1 speakers had low spelling accuracy in terms of strict scoring, they had lower rates of errors per item, highlighting the importance of scoring approach for shaping the conclusions that are drawn. Error rates also revealed vowels to be more problematic than consonants, particularly in abjad L1 speakers. The results demonstrate that L2 spelling abilities, phonological awareness, and the relationships among them vary by L1 writing system, and that differing approaches to scoring and analysis may lead to varying conclusions. (shrink)

The history of the Qurʾānic text begins with the time of its revelation. The research on Qurʾānic manuscripts is one of the main fields of textual studies of the Qurʾān. There have been many works done by both Muslim and Western scholars. Many museums and libraries around the world hold Qurʾān manuscripts. Each manuscript has its own characteristics such as orthography, calligraphy, decoration, and binding, number of the pages and the lines, and dating. This article deals with 110 Qurʾān manuscripts (...) found in the Vatican Library (Biblioteca Apostalica Vaticana) at the Vaticani arabi, Borgiani arabi,Barberiniani orientaliand RossianiCollections. The dates of these Qurʾān manuscripts vary from I/VII(?) and XIII/XIX centuries. The article aims to identify the features of Qurʾānic writing by studying chronologically some basic physical-content descriptions and characteristics of these manuscripts. It also examines the different names of the sūrahs and the knowledge on Meccan or Medinan sūrahs presented on the sūrah headings of manuscripts. Summary: Each Qurʾān manuscript has its own characteristics. These features present significant insights into the field of history of Qurʾānic text. A manuscript becomes a source for the history of writing muṣḥafin terms of physical and content features such as calligraphy, ink colors, binding, and explanations found in katabapage, the sūrah headings which contain the names of sūrahs, Meccan-Medinan knowledge, the numbers of āyahs, and the signs for juzʾ, ʿashr, and ḥizb. The research on the names of sūrahs, Meccan-Medinan knowledge, and the number of āyahs contributes to the ʿulūm al-Qurʾānstudies as well. This article examines 110 Qurʾān manuscripts located in the Vatican Library in the Vaticani arabi(73 MSS), Borgiani arabi (25 MSS),Barberiniani orientali(11 MSS), and Rossiani(2 MSS) Collections. Each manuscript is individually studied. However, due to the limitation of the article, I include only some basic and significant physical and content features of these manuscripts. The catalogues prepared by Giorgio Levi della Vida (1886-1967) and Carlo Alberto Anzuini are consulted for this study. I also study the sūrah headings in Qurʾān manuscripts which contain the names of sūrahs and Meccan-Medinan knowledge. The most used calligraphy types of these manuscripts coming from different geographies are maghribī(19 MSS) and nasikh-Ottoman (66 MSS). The basic features of maghribīMSS as follows: The text is written dark brown, vowel signs in dark red, shaddaand jazmin blue, and hamzain orange ink (VI-VII/XII-XIII centuries). The āyah endings are in circle form and decorated (VI-VII/XII-XIII centuries). The same characteristics can be seen in the next centuries (VIII/XIV and IX/XV centuries). The word sajdais written in the same line with the sajdaayah in Borg. Ar. 51 (VI-VII/XII-XIII centuries). The main characteristics of nasikh-Ottoman MSS as follows: Vat. Ar. 195 (IX/XV century) includes the āyah endings in two different figures: Three dots in triangle-shaped in red ink or in inverse comma-formed. The numbers of the āyahs are not written in this manuscript. On the other hand, the earlier features of the present muṣḥafs found in this manuscript as follows: Waqfsigns are in red ink; the word sajdais written in the same line with the sajdaāyah in black ink. The word ḥizbis in the margin of the pages. The sūrah headings hold the name of the sūrah, Meccan-Medinan knowledge, and the numbers of āyahs. The taʿqībaword is at the end of the pages. Among these manuscripts, Barb. Or. 72 (X/XVI century) contains, for the first time, the prayer text after the reading the whole Qurʾān (khatm) at the end of the muṣḥaf. This manuscript has different explanations for the Meccan and Medinan knowledge. It uses “ نزلت بمكة ” for “ مكية ”, and “ نزلت بالمدينة ” for “ مدنية ”. The figures of juzʾare written in numerical form in Borg. Ar. 184 (XI/XVII century). The divisions such as “ ربع حزب, نصف حزب ” can be seen in the manuscripts in XII/XVIIIcenturies. The names of the sūrah in the sūrah headings can be different from their widely-known names. The 39 sūrahs have different names among the manuscripts examined in this article. The names of sūrahs which cannot be found in the relevant classical source as follows: al-Khalīlfor Sūrah Ibrāhīm; al-kharīrfor Sūrah al-Sajda; al-sayyāḥūnfor Sūrah Sabaʾ;jādalafor Sūrah Mucādala; al-ʿishārfor Sūrah al-Takwīr;wa’l-layli idhāyaghshāfor Sūrah al-Shams;lumazafor Sūrah al-Humaza; miskīnfor Sūrah al-Māʿūn;asrāfor Sūrah al-Isrāʾ;al-maqābirand al-qabrfor Sūrah al-Takāthur; salāsilāfor Sūrah al-Insān; al-abrārfor Sūrah al-Muṭaffifīn. The sūrah headings indicate the knowledge of Meccan-Medinan classification of the sūrahs. Each manuscript does not have this feature. However, the manuscripts have this feature may not include this knowledge for each sūrah headings. The disagreements about the Meccan or Medinan sūrahs in theʿulūm al-Qurʾānliterature can be seen in the manuscripts studied in this article. The manuscripts which have this knowledge present that the 47 sūrahs recorded only as Meccan, but the remaining ones both Meccan and Medinan. These manuscripts do not record a sūrah only as Medinan. There are manuscripts which present more detailed knowledge on Meccan-Medinan. Vat. Ar. 1484 (IX/XV century) mentions not only whether a sūrah is Meccan or Medinan but also the exceptional verses if the sūrah has. For instance, the heading of Sūrah al-Anʿām reads that: “ سورة الانعام نزلت جملة واحدة بمكة الا ثلث ايات انزلت بالمدينة قوله قل تعالوا أتل ما حرم ربكم عليكم لعلكم تتقون ”. Among the sūrah headings which have this feature are al-Naḥl, al-Ḥajj, al-Shuʿarāʾ, Luqmān, al-Sajda, and al-Zumar. Vat. Ar. 1588 mentions only the numbers of exceptional verses. For example, the heading of Sūrah al-Isrāʾsays that “ مكية و قيل مدنية غير ثلث ايات ”. Vat. Ar. 1597 contains details about the numbers of ayahs, words, and letters in the sūrah headings. For instance, for Sūrah al-Nisāʾ, it reads that “ اياتها ق ع اختلافها ب كلماتهاغج ذ م ه حروفها غيول ”. The Arabic letters in this explanation has a numerical value (abjad). According to this the number of āyahs is 170, the number of debated ones in merging with the previous and next verses is 2, the number of words 3.745, and the number of letters is 16.030. There are corrections on the pages of the manuscripts. These corrections may be done through the writing process or during the check reading (muqabala) at the end of the writing. The writing of the text by heart and by looking to the other copy, and the similarities may cause these kinds of errors for the scribe. Studying on Qurʾān manuscripts reveals the different features of the writing of a muṣḥaf. Even though the numbers of the graduate studies gradually increase in Turkey, there is no a PhD dissertation which analyzes a Qurʾān manuscript, and only one M.A. thesis has been recently completed. Therefore, establishing graduate courses on Qurʾān manuscripts in the field of Islamic studies will strengthen the Qurʾānic and tafsīrstudies. (shrink)

In the polemical literature against Judaism, it is stated that Islam is the last religion, Prophet Muhammad was foretold in the Bible, and the Bible is distorted. Among the authors of such works, there are many who embraced Islam from Jews and Christians. Through their works, these converts show Muslims how serious they are in embracing Islam. In this article, the treatise under the evaluation was first brought to the agenda in 1867 by Gustav Flügel (d. 1870). Flügel claimed that (...) the author of the treatise was a Spanish or Moroccan convert Jew named Rakili. However, recent researches have revealed that Rakili is the name of the copyist and the author is an unknown Jew. Due to the Hebrew words in the text of the treatise, the author is thought to be a Jewish convert. The author of the treatise makes use of intensive quotations from Tanakh. However, it seems that the criticism of the treatise is not as strong as Ibn Hazm. The author also quotes from the Jewish oral tradition. Although the author is thought to be a Jewish convert, it is difficult to say that there is a very strong polemic of Judaism. Rather than showing that the Torah has been tampered with, using the passages of Tanakh, he wants to demonstrate that the Israelites went astray. In doing so, he tries to refute the Jewish claim of chosenness. Instead of stating that the Jews were not at the point of religious representation of God’s message, the author claims that Muhammad's followers were the addressees of this election. This method, which we occasionally encounter in other polemical treatises, appears as a much more intense and central agenda in this treatise. The most original aspect of this treatise at issue is the Ishmael-Isaac, Hagar-Sarah and Moses- Muhammad comparisons. The author insistently emphasizes that the chosen line is not the lineage of Isaac, but the lineage of Ishmael. As a natural consequence of this, he tries to prove that Muhammad is the greatest prophet to be obeyed and followed. What is interesting here is that the author, as a Jewish convert, tried to refute the idea of the chosennes of Jewish nation. According to him, there is an election not through Sarah and Isaac, but through Hagar and Ishmael. It is seen that those who have converted do such things both to prove their sincerity and to be accepted by Muslim administrators. The author’s glorifications of the Prophet Muhammad and his miracles by scorning Moses' miracles and Jewish ancestors can be described as an extreme attitude in this sense. The author also devotes a place to the subject of Biblical prophecies about the Prophet Muhammad. In this part, the author of the treatise stated that the gematria (abjad) value of some words in the Torah and the word Muhammad are equal. He claims that there are passages pointing to Muhammad. However, these passages are known in the polemical literature and are issues that were mentioned before the author. Apart from these widely known passages, there are some other passages he quoted. But these passages are also based on strained interpretations. Again, in some passages he quoted from Tanakh, it is seen that he was flexible and not loyal to the text. One of the points that the author dwells upon is the sins committed by the Israelites and the curses that were inflicted on them. The author of treatise supports this with passages different from Tanakh. Drawing attention to the fact that the Jews were cursed in their own books, which they consider sacred, the author tries to show that a nation so cursed cannot be a chosen people. The author, contrary to the Jews' expectation of the Messiah, points out that Jesus will come back, break the cross, kill the pig, and rule the earth. The writer, who reported the hadith that the Jews would be killed in the End Times, even reports that when the Jews hid behind the stones, the stones would say "There is a Jew behind me, come and kill". According to him, the time for Jews to repent has passed, because they could not take this opportunity by denying Muhammad either. The author has an interesting explanation as to why the hereafter and resurrection are not mentioned in the Torah. According to this claim, when God sent down the Torah to Moses, he ordered the Israelites to keep their orders and refrain from their prohibitions. Since God knows the hardness and stubbornness of the hearts of the Israelites, that most of them are devilish, engaged in magic and pagan cults, and prefer the world to the hereafter, he did not mention the issues such as heaven, hell, reward and punishment in the Torah. On the contrary, in many parts of the Torah, God said to them if you keep my orders, your sustenance will increase, your generation will increase, fertility will increase, and you will win victories over your enemies. (shrink)

The tradition of Lughz and muʿammā in Arab poetry has an important place. Ibn al-Fāriḍ (d. 632/1235) is a divine love poet that lived in the Ayyubids period. He is an important point in the process of change and transformation of Arabic poetry language. This research aims to carry out a theoretical and anecdotal examination of the Lughzes in Ibn al-Fāriḍ’s Dīwān. The work explains, firstly, the concept of Lughz in terms of conceptual content and theoretical structure and summarizes its (...) own method to be applied in solving and evaluating Lughzes in ten articles. The paper indicates whether the Lughzes in Dīwānhave a theoretical structure or not. In this context, it distinguishes the Lughzes from the number of layers, simple and compound structure maintenance. It examines the theoretical and functional contributions of the tahsīl, takmīl, tashīland tazyīlmethods, the stages of the establishment and the solution of the Lughzes.Abstract: Abū Hafs Sharafuddīn Omar b. Ali al-Hamavī al-Mısrī (d. 632/1235) known as the king of lovers, and called Ibn al-Fārid, is a divine love poet that lived in Egypt during the Ayyubids period (1171-1462). He is an important figure in the process of change and transformation of poetry language in Arabic literature. The lughz and muʿammā (enigma, enigmetic speech, allusion, inversion riddle, poetry puzzle, synecdoche and metaphoric language) means a word pointing to a name or something by symbol and sign. Numerous books have been written about lughzes. These include Arabic poetry, Persian poetry, Classical Turkish poetry, Arabic grammar, Islamic law, hadith, mathematics and inheritance law. The lughz and muʿammā have some linguistic features related to phonetics, statistical linguistics, morphology, lexicology, grammar, syntax, semantics and prosody. This tradition has an important place in Arabic poetry. The research aims to carry out a theoretical and anecdotal examination of the lughzes and muʿammās in Ibn al-Fārız’s Dīwān. The paper explains, firstly, the concept of lughz in terms of conceptual content and theoretical structure. The article summarizes its own method to be applied in analyzing and evaluating lughzes within ten items. The research examines the series of lughzes in Dīwānand divides them into parts according to the original question in the riddles. This work examines the secondary lughzes given in the details of poems in solution parts. The paper indicates whether the lughzes in Dīwānhave a theoretical structure or not. In this context, the research examines lughzes in terms of language and structure, especially in terms of the processes of establishment and solution. This paper categorizes the lughzes according to the number of layers and to whether they have a simple or compound structure. This paper examines the theoretical and functional contributions of the amal al-tahsīlī, amal al-takmīlī, amal al-tashīlī and amal al-tazyīlī methods in the stages of the establishment and the solution of the lughzes. The work applies the theoretical perspectives of these methods to each lughz. The research also examines the contribution of these four methods to the lughzes.There are many lughzes in Ibn al-Fārid’s poems. In Ibn al-Fārid’s Dīwān, in general, fifty-four things are asked. Fifty-one of them are words. Three of them are verbs. One of the verbs is in the order structure and two in the past tense. His lughzes have a theoretical and methodical structure. In terms of organizational structure, lughzes are generally multi-layered, intricate, compound and integrated. Composite lughzes are multi-layered, simple poems are single-layered. Approximately twenty words are asked in the lughzes. These words are always in the first layer of lughz, whether simple or compound. Thirty-seven words in the lughz are secondary lughz with an auxiliary and complementary nature. They are located between the second and sixth layers. Seventeen of the lughzes asked in the auxiliary nature are located in the second layer, thirteen in the third layer, five in the fourth layer, one in the fifth layer and one in the sixth layer. One of the lughzes is six-layered, one of them are five-layered, four of them are four-layered, eight are three-layered, four are double-layered and three are single-layered. According to this, the majority of lughzes in Ibn al-Fārid’s poems are in the unified form and multilayered.The lughzes are formed in terms of word, composition, phrase, grammar and meaning levels. The lughzes have both lexical and semantic characteristics. Ibn al-Fārid uses the configuration (amal al-tahsīlī), completion (amal al-takmīlī), facilitation (amal al-tashīlī) and addition (amal al-tazyīlī) methods to design the lughzes. The structure in the lughzes is shaped by these methods. The words in his lughzes constitute eleven categories, consisting of names, acts and noun verbs. The answers of the questions asked in the poems consist in general of prophet names, surah names, tribal names, administrator’s surnames, letters, cities, animals, food and drink names, attributes and actions. Verbs are in the past time or order form. Some of the lughzes in Ibn al-Fārid’s poems are built in an extraordinary style beyond being interesting. Not all the sentences used in couplets are part of the lughzes. These elements are mentioned in order to complete the lughzes in terms of rhythm and meaning. To be able to solve the lughzes of Ibn al-Fārid, one must be knowledgeable about the language and narrative features of Arabic and Islamic culture, as well as subjects such as the Quran, Sufism, abjad calculation, mathematics, geometry, geography, biology, botany and zoology. His poems contributes to the development and transformation of Arabic poetry. (shrink)