[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
Qur"ýÿn and iÛtijýÿj works. For the most part, grammarians paid deference to the
102 Journal of Qur anic Studies
boundaries set by the traditionist readers isnýÿd-orientation. Indeed, if they were to
respect the practice of citing earlier precedent for their readings, their focus & was
confined to venting rational explication through the veneer of linguistic justification
and evaluation .116 Even within those bounds, they managed to make notable
contributions to the corpus. As mentioned, they provided a useful register for and
explanations of qirýÿ"ýÿt, along with other sources for non-canonical readings that
otherwise may have been lost or obscured over time.117 Grammarians also provided a
look into the genesis of individual readings (ikhtiyýÿr), and thereby, a lens into the
criteria by which readings were deemed acceptable, and eventually, canonised.118
Each grammarian had his own methodology for according a certain reading
preference. For al-Akhfash, it was an amalgam of factors, in which grammatical
soundness was subordinated to agreement with fiUthmýÿnic orthography.119 His
general concern with readings was to adduce proofs that would strengthen his
linguistic method of exegesis, but in citing variants, he carefully rejected readings
that diverged from the written formula, particularly where they might be considered
grammatically unsound.120 Here, we see affirmation of the notion that fiUthmýÿnic
orthographical agreement was an indispensable criterion for a reading s validity,
here with no special weight given to the value of transmission.
Soon after though, Ibn Mujýÿhid s contemporary, the grammarian al-NaÛÛýÿs,
deliberately emphasised the primacy of transmission over grammatical or linguistic
soundness. To be sure, he exhibited a philologist s concern for grammatical
correctness. With respect to some variants that appear in our manuscript, for
example, al-NaÛÛýÿs presents and explains the grammatical soundness of both the
Syrian reading (yanshurukum) and the majority reading (yusayyirukum) in Q. 10:22,
but notes his preference for the majority s version because it better accords with the
semantic usage of words of the same import in other verses.121 In contrast, he notes
his preference for the Syrian reading (khayran minhumýÿ) over the majority reading
(khayran minhýÿ) in Q. 18:36, arguing that a dual pronoun is more appropriate for
referring to two gardens.122 Even so, he criticised Abü fiUbayd s definitive Kitýÿb
al-qirýÿ"ýÿt, upon which he drew heavily, for his methodology of reading preferences.
Al-NaÛÛýÿs s objection was that Abü fiUbayd seemed at times to subject the Qur an
to the analogical reasoning of grammatical standards (maqýÿy1s) rather than
collective transmission .123 In this way, the implicit importance of trustworthy
transmission was eventually made explicit as tradition-conscious scholars challenged
tradition-flouting grammarians; and Ibn Mujýÿhid loomed large in that endeavour.124
Like al-NaÛÛýÿs, Ibn Mujýÿhid was a traditionist-minded scholar who took issue with
the extent to which grammarians-cum-readers diverged from the authentically
transmitted readings in favor of grammatical correctness.125 Writing in late 3rd/9th
century Baghdad, he was concerned that some amateur readers would pass along
faulty readings due to mistakes made from their poor grasp of Arabic and superficial
Non-Canonical Readings of the Qur an 103
understanding of the text. He was even more concerned about grammarians who
knew the grammatical rules full well but ignored the primacy of the transmitted
nature of readings. Painting a portrait of these two types of problematic readers, Ibn
Mujýÿhid explains that one type is the person:126
who recites what he has heard from [his teacher] with no [other]
ability other than to recite what he has learned without knowledge
of sound grammatical constructions (ifirýÿb) or anything else. It will
not be long before such a person who memorises [the Qur an] (Ûýÿfi÷)
will forget over time. Sound grammatical constructions will be lost
due to the extent of resemblance [of one phrase or construction to
another] and the abundance of [different vowels] in a single verse,
because he has no knowledge base of Arabic grammar (fiArabiyya)
nor can he recognise the meanings to which [the grammatical
constructions] refer. Rather, he only relies upon his own memory
(Ûif÷) and [recollection of] what he heard (samýÿfi). [Such a] reader
may forget, his recollection failing him, the variants (Ûurüf)
[becoming] confusing him [to the point that] he recites with
gramatically unsound constructions (laÛn), unawares. Meanwhile, the
confusion causes him to attribute [the erroneous] reading to someone
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]