AL MAWQIF AN NAQDY LIL MUFASSIRIN MIN AL QIRAAT AL QUR'ANIYYAH FIL QARN ATS TSANY WA ATS TSALIS AL HIJRY

Abdul Jalil, NIM.: 1330016019 (2020) AL MAWQIF AN NAQDY LIL MUFASSIRIN MIN AL QIRAAT AL QUR'ANIYYAH FIL QARN ATS TSANY WA ATS TSALIS AL HIJRY. Doctoral thesis, UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA.

Preview	Text (AL MAWQIF AN NAQDY LIL MUFASSIRIN MIN AL QIRAAT AL QUR'ANIYYAH FIL QARN ATS TSANY WA ATS TSALIS AL HIJRY) 1330016019_BAB-I_IV-atau-V_DAFTAR-PUSTAKA.pdf - Published Version Download (4MB) | Preview
	Text (AL MAWQIF AN NAQDY LIL MUFASSIRIN MIN AL QIRAAT AL QUR'ANIYYAH FIL QARN ATS TSANY WA ATS TSALIS AL HIJRY) 1330016019_BAB-II_sampai_SEBELUM-BAB-TERAKHIR.pdf - Published Version Restricted to Registered users only Download (11MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

The books of tafsīr produced by the second- and third-century Muslim scholars provide us with critical elaboration and selection (ikhtiyār) over readings of the Quran, the qirā’āt, either the mashhūra or the non-mashhūra. 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 Mujāhid, 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 qirā’āt? Delving into the history of the reception of qirā’āt by mufassir, the standards they use—including practical terms (alfāẓ), and the factors that underlie their different opinions towards the qirā’āt, this research contributes to the understanding of the nature of critique on the qirā’āt by the exegetes of the first centuries of Islam. The use of the books of tafsīr as the ‘window’ is due to the total absence of works on qirā’āt by Muslim scholars from this period of history, available to us. The differences we find in the exegete critiques on qirā’āt 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 qirā’āt. The historical information and tradition (riwāya) involved here come from their primary sources, mainly Tafsīr Yaḥyā b. Sallām, Ma’ānī al-Qur’ān by alAkhfasy, Ma’ānī al-Qur’ān by al-Farrā`, Majāz al-Qur’ān by Abū ‘Ubaidah, Gharīb al-Qur’ān by Ibn Qutaibah, and Jāmi’ al-Bayān by al-Ṭabarī. 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 mawālī 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 qirā’āt was still in its infancy; the rules (qawā’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 qirā’āt known to them, 2) elaborating the qirā’āt from various aspects, 3) explaining their stance towards the qirā’āt in question, the very point in which some exegetes take up one or more of the following; a) declaring all the qirā’āt as valid (al-jam’ wal-taufīq), b) selecting ( tarjīḥ—the very term that some scholars understand it different from ikhtiyār, also translated selection) one or more qirā’āt, and c) considering some qirā’āt as weak or so. Having all these in mind, I argue that the qirā’āt, in the hands of these exegetes, have gone beyond the domain of tradition (riwāya) and entered the new one, i.e. that of reason (ra’y) and ta’līl. I also argue that these exegetes established their stances towards the qirā’āt upon four basic considerations; 1) on the aspect of riwāya, the qāri’, and the wide-use of the reading, 2) the conformity of the qirā’āt to the writing (rasm) of at least one version of the muṣḥaf ‘uthmānī, 3) the compliance of the qirā’āt with the dialectics and rules of Arabic grammar, and 4) the context of meaning (ma’nā) of the readings.

Share this knowledge with your friends :

Actions (login required)

View Item