@phdthesis{digilib46044,
           month = {December},
           title = {AL MAWQIF AN NAQDY LIL MUFASSIRIN MIN AL QIRAAT AL QUR'ANIYYAH FIL QARN ATS TSANY WA ATS TSALIS AL HIJRY},
          school = {UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA},
          author = {NIM.: 1330016019 Abdul Jalil},
            year = {2020},
            note = {Promotor : Prof. Dr. H. Machasin, MA dan Dr. H. Muh. Syaifudin, MA.},
        keywords = {Critical Elaboration, Qir{\=a}?{\=a}t, Mufassir, Second- And Third-Century Islam},
             url = {https://digilib.uin-suka.ac.id/id/eprint/46044/},
        abstract = {The books of tafs{\=i}r produced by the second- and third-century Muslim scholars provide us with critical elaboration and selection (ikhtiy{\=a}r) over readings of the Quran, the qir{\=a}?{\=a}t, either the mashh{\=u}ra or the non-mashh{\=u}ra. They have such a different level of elaboration{--}some of them even declared some readings week, false, and forbidden to use particularly for acts of worship. The unique characters of the critical elaboration, especially its heterogeneous nature, constitute the very point of objection of the fourth-century scholars living after Ibn Muj{\=a}hid, the ?father? of seven canonical readings. Bearing this in mind, three questions raise; 1) How did the second-
and third-century exegetes (mufassir) receive (do some critical elaborations) the variant readings? 2) What are the standards upon which they built their elaboration? 3) What are the underlying factors of their heterogeneous stances towards the qir{\=a}?{\=a}t? Delving into the history of the reception of qir{\=a}?{\=a}t by mufassir, the standards they use{--}including practical terms
(alf{\=a}{\d z}), and the factors that underlie their different opinions towards the qir{\=a}?{\=a}t, this research contributes to the understanding of the nature of critique on the qir{\=a}?{\=a}t by the exegetes of the first centuries of Islam. The use of the books of tafs{\=i}r as the ?window? is due to the total absence of works on qir{\=a}?{\=a}t by Muslim scholars from this period of history, available to us. The
differences we find in the exegete critiques on qir{\=a}?{\=a}t further tell us that the elaboration of a certain issue is deeply situated by the spatio-temporal context, the discursive system of knowledge, as well as the theological and epistemological stances of the actor.
This library research is working inductively, taking historical approach and the theory of intellectual history as the aids, to reveal mainly the factors underlying the diverse stances of the exegetes towards the qir{\=a}?{\=a}t. The historical information and tradition (riw{\=a}ya) involved here come from their primary sources, mainly Tafs{\=i}r Ya{\d h}y{\=a} b. Sall{\=a}m, Ma?{\=a}n{\=i} al-Qur?{\=a}n by alAkhfasy, Ma?{\=a}n{\=i} al-Qur?{\=a}n by al-Farr{\=a}`, Maj{\=a}z al-Qur?{\=a}n by Ab{\=u} ?Ubaidah, Ghar{\=i}b al-Qur?{\=a}n by Ibn Qutaibah, and J{\=a}mi? al-Bay{\=a}n by al-{\d T}abar{\=i}.

This research shows that some external factors, like political, social, cultural, and scholarship context of the second- and third-century Islam, i.e.
the initial period of Abbasid Dynasty, play their roles in situating this issue. We might mention some of the most decisive ones; the availability of safe space to articulate ideas, the role of the maw{\=a}l{\=i} in the development of
Islamic sciences, the influence of Arabo-Muslim culture and beyond, and the complex development of what later known Islamic studies{--}added to this is the fact that the discipline of qir{\=a}?{\=a}t was still in its infancy; the rules (qaw{\=a}?id) and technical terms were yet to establish. On the other hand, the internal factors also take part; primarily the character and intellectual leaning
of each exegete{--}some even apply even the same standard in quite different ways. Generally speaking, in doing the critical elaboration, the exegetes follow these steps; 1) presenting all the qir{\=a}?{\=a}t known to them, 2) elaborating the qir{\=a}?{\=a}t from various aspects, 3) explaining their stance towards the qir{\=a}?{\=a}t in question, the very point in which some exegetes take up one or more of the following; a) declaring all the qir{\=a}?{\=a}t as valid (al-jam? wal-tauf{\=i}q), b) selecting ( tarj{\=i}{\d h}{--}the very term that some scholars understand it different from ikhtiy{\=a}r, also translated selection) one or more qir{\=a}?{\=a}t, and c) considering some qir{\=a}?{\=a}t as weak or so. Having all these in mind, I argue that the qir{\=a}?{\=a}t, in the hands of these exegetes, have gone beyond the domain of tradition (riw{\=a}ya) and entered the new one, i.e. that of reason (ra?y) and ta?l{\=i}l. I also argue that these exegetes established their stances towards the qir{\=a}?{\=a}t upon four basic considerations; 1) on the aspect of riw{\=a}ya, the q{\=a}ri?, and the wide-use of the reading, 2) the conformity of the qir{\=a}?{\=a}t to the writing (rasm) of at least one version of the mu{\d s}{\d h}af ?uthm{\=a}n{\=i}, 3)
the compliance of the qir{\=a}?{\=a}t with the dialectics and rules of Arabic grammar, and 4) the context of meaning (ma?n{\=a}) of the readings.}
}