Building a Scoring System That Works Across Dialects: Reflections from the Field

If you have ever sat through the back-and-forth of a Quran recitation competition, pen in hand, tallying points as students from all over the world recite in their unique voices, you’ll know the quiet tension: How do we ensure fairness? How do we honour the breadth of authentic recitation styles and dialects while upholding the rigour these competitions deserve? After my years as a judge, organiser, and occasional teacher, I’ve come to appreciate that while “scoring” might sound simple, constructing a truly equitable system across dialects is one of our field’s great challenges.

Understanding the Landscape: Why Dialect Differences Matter

Quranic recitation is governed not just by tajweed, but by a complex web of qira’at (variant readings) and linguistic contexts. Add to that the array of national and regional accents – Egyptian, Levantine, Gulf, Sub-continental, and more – and you encounter significant variation in pronunciation and articulation. Even among those reciting the “standard” Hafs from ‘Asim, a Yemeni child and a Turkish adult may produce subtly different sounds. The question is: When does a dialectal difference cross a line into being an error?

In over a decade of experience, I’ve witnessed four main challenges:

• Phonetic Variations: Some letters—like ق (qaf) or ظ (zha)—are pronounced with differing emphases in various traditions.
• Vowel Length and Quality: Dialects may affect the heaviness or lightness of vowels and certain consonants.
• Stress and Rhythm: The musicality of recitation can shift, influenced by a participant’s first language.
• Qira’at vs. Dialect: Keeping in mind that some differences are canonical (permitted by the qira’at), while others are idiosyncratic to dialect.

These differences can cloud judgement, especially if your panel is dominated by one tradition or expectation. Early in my organising days, I was part of a panel that inadvertently penalised a talented Somali student for his articulation of “ظ” – only to discover, after consulting a local expert, that his was a valid pronunciation within the Warsh tradition.

Principles for a Fair Scoring System

Over time, our team developed several guiding principles, which I consider foundational to any attempt at cross-dialectal scoring:

• Anchour the System in Canonical Standards:

  No matter the dialect, the scoring rubric must trace back to the widely accepted rules of tajweed and the permitted qira’at. Anything the great scholars have detailed as valid must be granted grace in competition.

• Define What Constitutes an Error:

  Is it a slip in the rules of lengthening (madd), an omission in qalqalah, or a dialect-driven softening of a letter? Differentiate errors in tajweed from those of dialect. Small dialectal traits that do not impede meaning or accuracy — or contradict accepted recitational rules — should not be marked down.

• Strive for Consistency Across Judges:

  A fair system must minimise subjective bias. No panelist should penalise a student for what another judge would accept. This takes training and clear, written rubrics.

• Transparency for Contestants:

  Make sure participants and their coaches know the criteria. Publicise which qira’at are permitted and clarify how dialect issues are handled. When people know where the boundaries are, disputes decrease.

Steps We Took: Building the Rubric

Let me share how our local and then regional competitions addressed the divergent recitational “norms.” This process was far from perfect, but each year brought improvement:

Gathering Diverse Expertise

We made a point to bring together judges from different backgrounds. Whenever possible, at least one panelist was familiar with the predominant dialects or qira’at being represented. At first, this was informal; later, it became a standing rule. The effect was immediate: feedback became more balanced, and the anxiety among participants fell.

Refining Our Error Categories

After reviewing dozens of scoring sheets and listening to remote judges debate, we identified three broad types of issues:

• Critical Errors: These are breaches of tajweed that change the meaning (e.g. swapping dh (ذ) with z (ز)), or skipping verses. No matter the background, these always incur points lost.
• Major Errors: Mistakes that do not change the meaning but represent a clear violation of tajweed or the chosen qira’ah’s rules (e.g. missing ghunnah in required places).
• Minor Errors/Waviness: Dialect-induced articulatory differences which do not impact the validity or meaning (e.g. a less forceful ق in a non-Arabic speaker).

The scoring system places the heaviest penalties on critical and major errors, while minor ones are, at most, lightly noted. In our most recent competitions, minor dialectal differences were not penalised at all, unless they were persistent and gave the impression the contestant did not know the correct rules.

Standardising Scores Across Judges

In early years, I saw as much as 15% variance in scoring depending on which judge was more used to their own dialect. We began sharing anonymised samples of recordings before major events, inviting every panel member to mark a set and then discuss results. Where we saw large score differences, we worked together to tease out whether it was dialectal perception or an actual technical issue.

This peer moderation, though time-consuming, led us to develop a concise “judge’s manual”: A short companion to the rubric with examples (“A student who pronounces ‘ق’ with a slightly forward tongue, as in Maghrebi recitation, is acceptable if the sound remains recognisable and consistent with qira’at rules”). This document is now updated yearly based on feedback and new issues.

Open Communication with Contestants

What eliminated much of the stress was regular communication. At the start of each competition, we read aloud (and translated) the key points of our marking guide. We held short “recitation clinics” so students could ask questions about how their dialects would be treated, and sometimes provided written clarifications post-competition.

For controversies, we kept an appeals process, drawing in outside experts. This was especially vital for disputes like shadda pronunciation or subtle differences in stopping rules (waqf wa ibtidaa’).

Practical Advice for Future Judges and Organisers

From my experience, here are some practical, experience-based suggestions for those tasked with designing or implementing a scoring system:

• Document Examples:
  Create audio-visual guides with common dialectal variants. This helps train new judges and set expectations for participants.
• Keep Detailed Score Sheets:
  Note down the type of error (tajweed, dialect, memory, etc.) during marking. Helps with feedback and appeals.
• Moderate Your Panel:
  Hold pre-competition sessions where hypothetical cases are discussed and consensus is built. Tension between judges is natural, but should be aired before the event.
• Consult Widely (and Humbly):
  When in doubt, ask those with local or scholarly expertise. Many times, we found that a “mistake” was in fact a valid tradition overlooked by our own limited circle.
• Adapt, Don’t Rigidly Codify:
  Allow your rubric to evolve. Each year brings new contestants, new questions, and sometimes surprises that the textbooks and manuals don’t fully anticipate.

Reflections: What Truly Matters in a Competition

Years of running and judging Quran competitions have taught me that technical precision is only one aspect of the event’s value. Reciters bring their whole selves—their regions, their upbringing, their schools of thought—to this sacred task. A robust scoring system must prioritise justice and encouragement as much as it does correctness.

What seems like a minor dialectal “quirk” might, in fact, embody a centuries-old oral tradition. Our role as organisers and judges is to preserve high standards without stifling the rich diversity of the global Ummah. By grounding ourselves in a shared commitment to fairness, by consulting, documenting, and above all, listening with open hearts, we can build scoring systems that build bridges—with our contestants and within ourselves.

If you need help with your Quran competition platform or marking tools, email info@qurancompetitions.tech.