When Judges Disagree: The Hidden Gaps in Quran Competition Rules

Introduction

For more than a decade, I have been intricately involved in various Quran competitions, taking on roles from organiser and supervisor to chief judge. Across local masjids, regional finals, and even international gatherings, one theme always emerges: the joy, nerves, and dedication of the participants. But running beneath the surface — almost unnoticed except to those of us behind the table — are the silent frictions and uncertainties that arise when judges do not see eye to eye.

We place unparalleled importance on the fair and respectful assessment of Quran recitation, and rightly so. However, my experiences have shown that gaps in competition rules, especially regarding adjudication and scorer alignment, can result in frustration, miscommunication, and, sometimes, injustice for the participants. In this article, I want to share some honest lessons and insights that could save organisers, teachers, and even experienced judges from unnecessary headaches and, insha’Allah, contribute to improving Quran competitions everywhere.

Where Disagreements Begin

Despite the apparent objectivity of Quran recitation — a text fixed for centuries and rules of tajwid meticulously detailed — scoring is not always as straightforward as it might seem. The process is coloured by the human factor, by each judge’s training, school of thought, and personality.

Interpretation of Rules

At a glance, competition rules seem clear: recite from a specified starting point, follow tajwid, maintain correct makharij, and so on. But creases appear when judges must apply those rules during live assessment. Consider these scenarios:

• Different Standards of Calling an Error: Some judges deduct for even minor slips in pronunciation, while others give the benefit of the doubt if the word remains understandable.
• Weighing Hesitation: Is a momentary pause classed as a “hesitation with error,” or not worth penalising unless it disrupts the flow?
• Variation in Regional Dialect: In international events, is a Hafs ‘an Asim recitation using a local accent a minor or major error? Judges disagree, particularly if they come from different backgrounds.

Most rulebooks are silent on these subtleties, assuming ‘everyone knows’ — until they don’t.

Scoring Frameworks: “How Many Points Off?”

Even when errors are identified, judges differ in how harshly to mark them. Some competitions offer explicit tables (e.g., “0.5 points off for minor error, 2 for major”). Others rely on judge intuition. The result?

• Inconsistencies from one round, or judge, to the next, especially in subjective areas like beauty of voice or emotional delivery (husn al-sawt).
• Long discussions after scoring, with judges defending their numbers, causing stress and delays.
• Discouraged participants who feel let down by unclear or unexplained scoring.

Real Stories: Gaps Turned Pain Points

Over the years, I’ve witnessed (and mediated) more judge disagreements than I care to remember. Here are a few real — anonymised — examples that highlight the hidden gaps in rules.

Case 1: The Tricky Pause

A brilliant young Qari, nervous in his first national final, stumbles and repeats the same ayah twice. Judge A says, “That’s two major errors: one for repetition, one for loss of train of thought.” Judge B insists, “No, just nerves — only a minor penalty.” After an awkward debate, the head judge, seeing that the rules lack clear guidance, makes an arbitrary compromise. The contestant later asks, “Which is it? Am I marked once or twice?”

Case 2: The Accent Dilemma

A contestant from West Africa uses a clearly regional pronunciation that’s accepted locally but sounds strange to judges from the Middle East. The rulebook only mentions “correct recitation.” Judge A, sympathetic, gives full marks; Judge B deducts heavily, citing “clear deviation from makharij.” Whose opinion stands? In the absence of explicit rules about acceptable accents within a reading, arguments persist, and sometimes a talented reciter loses unjustly.

Case 3: Intonation and Emotional Delivery

The “voice” or “tarannum” component is perhaps the most subjective. Some judges look for technical pitch, others for connection with the ayat’s meaning. One competition saw a participant scored very poorly on voice by one judge (“firework style, but no soul”) and very highly by another (“passionate and moving, even if unconventional”). There were no guidelines for what “good voice” meant, nor how to avoid letting personal taste affect the score.

The Roots of the Problem

Why do such conflicts arise, even among experienced and well-intentioned judges? After reflecting on dozens of competitions, I see a few main causes:

• Ambiguity in Rulebooks: Many competition guides are copied year-on-year with little revision or expansion, assuming consensus will fill in the gaps.
• Lack of Practical Examples: Rulebooks typically list errors in abstract terms, but do not provide real audio examples or written case studies for judges to train on.
• Assumed Uniformity of Judges: Organisers often believe all judges share the same background, when in fact, many are self-taught or trained in different traditions.
• Absence of a Clear Appeals or Review Process: When disagreements arise, there’s rarely a structured method to resolve them, leaving decisions open to the loudest or most senior voice.

Practical Solutions From Experience

Over time, I’ve seen a few simple steps make a world of difference. Here are some recommendations I have found effective — and sometimes painfully learned the hard way.

1. Revise and Expand the Rulebook Annually

• Add real-life edge cases and describe, in concrete terms, the appropriate penalty for each.
• Bring in competing traditions: if your competition is open to a diversity of madāhib or dialects, declare explicitly what is and isn’t allowed.
• Appoint a small panel each year to review disputes from previous rounds and update the rules accordingly.

2. Standardise Judge Training

• Organise pre-competition workshops where judges listen to example recitations and compare notes on possible errors.
• Distribute marking rubrics and encourage honest discussion of past misunderstandings.
• Pair experienced with new judges, and invite periodic calibration across judging panels.

3. Adopt Clear Scoring Schemes and Ranges

• If your rules state “major error = 2 marks,” clarify what qualifies as a major error, using audio or written scenarios where possible.
• For subjective categories (beauty of voice, rendition, khushu’), define what each point on the scale means and stress the difference between personal preference and technical merit.

4. Maintain Transparency With Participants

• Allow competitors (and coaches) to access anonymised judging sheets after the event so they understand where marks were gained or lost.
• Encourage a respectful feedback process — even if brief — where major penalties can be explained on request.

5. Develop a Dispute Resolution Process

• Set up an appeals system — even if it involves an extra review by the head judge or an external advisor — to address conflicts before final rankings are published.
• Document all disputes, not to lay blame, but to inform future rulebook revisions and judge training.

A Note to Fellow Organisers, Judges and Teachers

Please don’t fall into the trap of assuming that “everything will run smoothly because we have a good team.” No matter your intentions, ambiguity in application and interpretation is almost inevitable. The goal is not to create a burdensome bureaucracy of rules — truly, the beauty and reward of Quran recitation competitions is found in sincerity and mutual respect — but to give every participant a fair and consistent platform.

Communicate openly, review your processes each year, and remember that continuous improvement is a sign of strength, not weakness. Listen to the young Qaris who pour their hearts into memorising and beautiful recitation; do everything in your power to honour their efforts with just and merciful standards.

To all those who labour behind the scenes: your care matters. The smallest adjustments you champion today may prevent years of confusion and disappointment for future generations of Quran students.

Conclusion

Quran competitions are some of the most uplifting and life-changing programmes in our communities. But their impact depends on integrity and clarity within adjudication. When judges disagree due to hidden gaps in rules, we risk undermining the very spirit of these competitions.

By identifying and closing these gaps, fostering judge alignment, and prioritising transparency, we help cultivate trust, joy, and growth — not just for winners, but for every single participant striving to connect with the Book of Allah.

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