نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی پژوهشی
نویسنده
نویسنده مسئول، دانشیار دانشگاه بزرگمهر قائنات، قائنات، ایران،
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
Objective: This study critically examines the variant reading in Q. 13:31 — a-fa-lam yayʾas versus a-fa-lam yatabayyan — and evaluates the authority of the reading attributed to a number of Companions, Successors, and three Imams from the Ahl al-Bayt. The central issue concerns the report attributed to Ibn ʿAbbās alleging a scribal error in the writing of the word, and the reassessment of this claim in light of the orthographic conventions of the earliest extant Qurʾānic manuscript, namely the Sanaa manuscript (Codex Ṣanʿāʾ I).
Method: The research adopts a descriptive-analytical method within a critical-historical framework. Data were collected through a systematic review of classical exegetical and readings (qirāʾāt) sources (including al-Ṭabarī, al-Zamakhsharī, al-Ṭabrisī, and major works on variant readings), alongside direct examination of published images of Codex Ṣanʿāʾ I. Since Q. 13:31 is not preserved in the extant folios of this manuscript, the orthography of analogous lexical forms was analyzed in order to reconstruct the probable spelling of yayʾas and compare it with yatabayyan.
Findings: The findings indicate that the reading a-fa-lam yatabayyan is transmitted from more than twenty Companions and Successors, in addition to three Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt. In the orthography of Codex Ṣanʿāʾ I, the hamzah — whether initial or medial — is neither written independently nor represented by a seat (alif or denticle). Accordingly, yayʾas would be written as yys, a form graphically indistinguishable in denticle count from ytbyn. Consequently, Ibn ʿAbbās’s claim that the discrepancy arose from a scribe’s miscounting of denticles is untenable when evaluated against this early orthographic system. Semantically, yatabayyan (“to become manifest”) aligns naturally with the verse’s context without recourse to ellipsis or interpretive strain.
Conclusion: The reading a-fa-lam yatabayyan, supported by substantial transmission across both Sunnī and Shīʿī sources and compatible with the early orthographic evidence of Codex Ṣanʿāʾ I, possesses considerable credibility. Although its semantic divergence from the canonical reading a-fa-lam yayʾas — when yaʾs is interpreted as “to know” — is not substantial, the greater semantic clarity and absence of interpretive contrivance render yatabayyan preferable. This study demonstrates the heuristic value of early manuscript evidence in adjudicating long-standing debates in Qurʾānic studies.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)