Abstract
One of the masterpieces of the medieval Qurʾān commentary tradition is al-Basīṭ by the Nishapuri philologist and Qurʾān scholar, Abū l-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Wāḥidī (d. 468/1076). It was the first Qurʾān commentary to start quoting Sībawayhi (d. ca. 180/796) extensively; it was also the first to position al-Zajjāj (d. 311/923) as a central authority in Qurʾān exegesis (tafsīr), a process already started by al-Wāḥidī’s teacher al-Thaʿlabī (d. 427/1035). Al-Basīṭ is a massive Qurʾān commentary, by any standard. The critical Imām University Edition of 2009 spans twenty-five volumes. It is rather unfortunate that this edition has left the task of studying the manuscript transmission of the work out of the picture. As a result, there is a lacuna in the edition covering verses Q 4:41-53, a substantial portion. In this article, an overview of the transmission history of the work is presented, followed by a critical edition of the missing part.
Introduction
Recent decades have witnessed an increased interest in works of Qurʾān exegesis (tafsīr) in the Gulf countries, especially Saudi Arabia. This interest has gone beyond the easily recognized names in the history of tafsīr. It forms part of a larger cultural enterprise attempting to publish massive medieval works of Islamic literature, including those within the fields of fiqh, ḥadīth, adab, and various fields of Qurʾānic studies. The attention shown to tafsīr has primarily been motivated by the need to find topics for dissertations in various universities in the Gulf region. The M.A. and Ph.D. dissertations produced often tend to be critical (or quasi-critical) editions of unpublished works. In many cases, portions of massive multi-volume medieval works are assigned to a group of students to edit in partial requirement of their degrees. Unfortunately, most of these dissertations remain unpublished and are therefore largely inaccessible. Every now and then, however, a concentrated effort is made to gather the various dissertations and harmonize their editorial practices towards publishing a complete edition of a certain work.
The edition of the work under discussion in this article, al-Basīṭ by the Nishapuri philologist and Qurʾān scholar, Abū l-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Wāḥidī (d. 468/1076), is the result of such a collected effort. Al-Basīṭ is one of the masterpieces of the medieval Qurʾān commentary tradition and its importance cannot be overstated. Studying al-Wāḥidī’s commentary, Jawdat al-Mahdī has already noted the heavy reliance of the celebrated theologian and exegetist of Islam, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210), on numerous aspects of this work in, as he puts it, the construction of al-Rāzī’s voluminous Qurʾān commentary, Mafātīḥ al-ghayb.1
Indeed, the editor of the introduction to the New Imām University edition of al-Basīṭ, Muḥammad b. Ṣālīḥ al-Fawzān, goes even further, stating that al-Rāzī was in fact the primary user of al-Basīṭ.2 His recognition that the “spirit” of al-Basīṭ courses through Mafātīḥ al-ghayb echoes the earlier remarks of al-Mahdī, who noted how perceptible the “academic life shared by al-Rāzī with al-Wāḥidī” could be felt through a reading of the Mafātīḥ.3 It is primarily through al-Rāzī that the influence of al-Basīṭ seeped into the genre of tafsīr, leaving an indelible mark on the major figures of the genre. The relationship between al-Kashshāf by the great polymath al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1144) and al-Waḥidī’s al-Basīṭ has yet to be explored, there being conflicting evidence on al-Zamakhsharī’s access to al-Basīṭ.
Al-Basīṭ, however, stands on its own as the culmination of the grammatical tradition of Qurʾān interpretation over the course of the first four centuries of Islam. It was the first Qurʾān commentary to start quoting Sībawayhi (d. ca. 180/796) extensively; it was also the first to position al-Zajjāj (d. 311/923) as a central authority in tafsīr, a process already started by al-Wāḥidī’s teacher al-Thaʿlabī (d. 427/1035) in his al-Kashf wa-l-bayān. Al-Basīṭ, moreover, redefines encyclopedic commentaries; it moves the genre away from heavy reliance on early authorities and the narrative approach and populates itself with the opinions of grammarians and philologists.
Al-Basīṭ is a massive Qurʾān commentary, by any standard. The critical Imām University edition (henceforth al-Basīṭ) spans twenty-five volumes (24 volumes for the text + 1 volume for indexes). The edition is as monumental as the work itself. The size of the critical edition, and breadth and depth of its apparatus, is a landmark in the history of critical editions of the heritage of medieval Islamic scholarship. It is the result of a group effort led by two professors from Imām Muḥammad b. Saʿūd University, Deanship of Academic research (ʿImādat al-Baḥth al-ʿIlmī), Professors ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Saṭṭām Āl Saʿūd, and Turkī b. Sahu al-ʿUtaybī. Fifteen dissertations were used to stitch together a complete version of the work. The edition includes an extensive and detailed introduction that covers most of the material available on al-Wāḥidī. However, it does not situate him in the context of the heritage of Nishapuri tafsīr, let alone recognize that al-Wāḥidī and his teacher al-Thaʿlabī constituted one of the most important schools of medieval Qurʾān exegesis.4 And as is typical of Arabic scholarship, the editors are not aware of non-Arabic scholarship on al-Wāḥidī.
Moreover, it is rather unfortunate that this edition has left the task of studying the manuscript transmission of the work completely out of the picture. The editors also failed to systematically collect witnesses of the work or assess the relationship between the copies they did find. By happenstance, the editors managed to locate and use the most important manuscripts of the work, but their analysis of these manuscripts is rudimentary and rather unhelpful.5 The editors are completely unaware of the notion of a text’s transmission history.
Lacking a survey of the manuscripts, this is not a standard critical edition. Its quality has not been affected, insofar as the text is based on one of the most magisterial of Islamic medieval critical works, but as a result of the incomplete preparation, there is a lacuna in the edition. Reflecting their uncritical awareness of the significance of the transmission history of the text, the editors left this lacuna unmentioned in the introduction, to be acknowledged only in volume VI, the volume in which the lacuna occurs. The lacuna covers verses Q 4:41-53, a substantial portion; in our edition, it spans some thirty-five pages. Before we offer the edition, we will revisit the transmission history of the work.
In this article, we want to emphasize the significance and unparalleled work done by Arab scholars in their critical editions of the massive Islamic heritage. But we do call for more attention to the transmission history of works in the creation of critical editions. There has to be an awareness that transmission history of a text is an independent and necessary part of a critical edition.
The Manuscripts of al-Basīṭ
Al-Azhar University Copy
It is not our intention to present a complete list of manuscripts of al-Basīṭ; we only look into those that bear significance on the Imām edition and ours. The most important witness for the work of al-Basīṭ is the Riwāq al-Maghāriba 303 (1-4) copy in al-Azhar University Library. The copy is not mentioned in the massive eight-volume catalogue of al-Azhar — a rather depressing observation, since it indicates the possibility that al-Azhar library continues to hold treasures no one knows about. Fortunately, a copy that was microfilmed by the UNESCO mission to Egypt was deposited in Maʿhad al-Makhṭūṭāt al-ʿArabīyya (the Arab League Manuscript Association) in Cairo. The microfilm has made the manuscript available, it being the sole indication of its existence.
The copy is of a five volume set of al-Basīṭ, with volume II missing. The copy has two colophons in volume 303-1 and 303-3. The colophon on 303-1 is missing crucial parts and reads: “[…..] al-Qazwīnī [written] at the end of Rabīʿ al-thānī [….] 63” with the word for the year partially missing. The colophon on volume 303-3 provides the name of the scribe, the date and locale of the copying. It reads, in Arabic:
آخر الجزء الثالث من كتاب معاني التفسير المسمى بالبسيط للإمام أبي الحسن علي الواحدي رحمه اللّٰه. والحمد للّٰه رب العالمين وصلى اللّٰه على سيدنا محمد خاتم المرسلين والنبيين وعلى آله وأصحابه الطيبين الطاهرين وحسبنا اللّٰه ونعم الوكيل هـ. يتلوه في الجزء الرابع تفسير سورة الحج هـ. ووافق الفراغ يوم الاثنين من منتصف شهر ذي الحجة من شهور سنة ستة وثلثين وستماية هـ. على يدي الفقير الراجي المحتاج الى رحمة اللّٰه تعالى أحمد بن محمد بن الحسن القزويني برباط اخلاطية بمحروسة دار السلام بغداد هـ. غفر اللّٰه لمثبتها ولوالديه وللمسلمين أجمعين وسلم تسليما كثيرا والحمد للّٰه رب العالمين هـ.
The scribe is a certain Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Qazwīnī, an individual we have been unable to identify. He appears to have been a Sufi scholar, living in a ribāṭ (lodge) in Baghdad. The year and day is given as Monday, mid Dhū l-Ḥijja (we took it to mean the 14th), 636 Hijri (July 18, 1239). The lodge mentioned — Ribāṭ Akhlāṭiyya — is a famous Sufi lodge that was built by Caliph al-Nāṣir (r. 575/1180-622/1225).6 The lodge was endowed with a famous library, and this manuscript of al-Basīṭ makes it clear that the library held master copies of works that professional scribes would come to copy. The superb quality of the manuscript points to the fact that the vorlage of the al-Azhar copy must have been an endowed (waqf) copy, and with its complete chain of transmission, as was common in that period, it might as well have been an authoritative copy.7
The al-Azhar manuscript is magnificent, with full diacritics and vocalization, written in a clear professional naskh script that is meticulously executed. It is a marvel of medieval Islamic scholarship. The Islamic year mentioned, 636, is only 168 lunar years from the death of al-Wāḥidī, which is not a long span for manuscripts. Conceivably, copies of al-Basīṭ made from official copies and written from the time of al-Wāḥidī or close to his time have survived. It is unfortunate that volume II has gone missing. However, the nature of the copy is such that one can assume that it is the closest we have to the original and the editors have rightly used this as the basis for their edition of al-Basīṭ. This decision has been fundamental to the superior quality of their edition.
Finally, it is noteworthy that volume 303-1 of the al-Azhar copy ends at the very beginning of verse Q 4:42 — a fact that had serious repercussions for the Imam edition, as will be discussed below.
Chester Beatty Copy
The authoritative nature of the al-Azhar copy is also confirmed by the Chester Beatty library copies Ar. 3731 and Ar. 3736. These two copies are volumes II and III of what was a five volume set of al-Basīṭ. The editors of al-Basīṭ were not aware that the Chester Beatty manuscript was a copy by the same scribe as the al-Azhar copy. Indeed the mise en page is the same; both have twenty-nine lines and both have the same number of words per line. Yet the conclusive evidence that both were written by the same scribe derives from the colophon on volume Chester Beatty Ar. 3731, (volume II of the five volume set). The colophon reads:
آخر الجزء الثاني من كتاب معاني التفسير المسمى بالبسيط تصنيف الشيخ الإمام الواحدي. والحمد للّٰه رب العالمين وصلى اللّٰه على سيدنا محمد وآله الطيبين الطاهرين وحسبنا اللّٰه ونعم الوكيل. يتلوه [....] قوله تعالى ليجزي الذين آمنوا وعملوا الصالحات بالقسط (يونس:4). ووافق الفراغ منه في يوم الخميس في آخر شوال سنة ثمان وثلثين وستماية هـ. الضعيف الراجي المحتاج إلى رحمة اللّٰه تعالى أحمد بن محمد بن الحسن القزويني.
A comparison between the two colophons leaves no doubt that it is the same scribe copying during proximate years. These two copies belong to the most magnificent ones of any tafsīr work in medieval Islam. They were produced serially, first the al-Azhar (ca. 636) then the Chester Beatty copy (ca. 638) by a scribe who seems to have specialized in copying this work. Together they constitute one of the most fortuitous survivals in Arabic paleography, because what is missing from the al-Azhar copy is available in the Chester Beatty manuscript. Chester Beatty volume II was accordingly used by the editors to complete missing parts from the al-Azhar copy.
Even when written by the same scribe, however, no two manuscripts are the same. Although the al-Azhar and Chester Beatty sets have the same divisions, the volumes are not identical. Volume I in the al-Azhar set ends, as we mentioned earlier, at the beginning of Q 4:42. The lost volume I of the Chester Beatty set apparently ends at Q 4:53, the surviving volume II (Chester Beatty Ar. 3731) starting with Q 4:54. This accounts for the lacuna between the two sets, from the beginning of Q 4:42 in the missing volume II of the al-Azhar copy to Q 4:53 in the missing volume I of the Chester Beatty manuscript. And since the editors of the Imām edition of al-Basīṭ did not collect further copies, they were unable to fill the lacuna, and left it standing.
This oversight is compounded by the fact that the lacuna is not discussed in the introduction to the critical edition. The reader is initially left unaware of the problem until a footnote on page 523 in volume VI mentions the existence of a lacuna covering Q 4:41-53. The missing pages are an unfortunate lapse in an otherwise magnificent edition.
Indeed, the quality of the edition is indubitable. Given the nature of al-Basīṭ’s transmission history, the editors have by happenstance produced a reliable witness of the text. The al-Azhar copy itself is a masterpiece of medieval Islamic scholarship, but this does not absolve the editors from neglecting the transmission history of the text. They do present a list of manuscripts, but they seem oblivious to the relationships between them. For instance, the Dār al-Kutub copy mentioned in their list is actually a modern transcription of the al-Azhar copy.8 A simple, superficial comparison between the two would have alerted them to the fact that they miss exactly the same part of the text. Not only did the editors ignore the transmission history of the work, they also made no attempt to collect all the available copies of the work. If only they had visited Istanbul, they would have found most of the surviving manuscripts of al-Basīṭ.
Copies Used in this Edition
Yemeni Copy
Two of the volumes mentioned by the editors (no. 5 in their list), located in Yemen, are part of a set that has surviving copies in Istanbul and in Rome. This set must have been a nine-volume set, of which only six survive. The copy has no full colophon, nor any indication of the provenance of its copying. It is clearly, however, a prized copy, with a gold plated title page. The copy was held in the private library of the Imams of Yemen, which shows from a tamalluk (ex libris) that situates the manuscript in Yemen, but it remains unclear if it was copied there. The copies in Istanbul University Library and in Rome bear the same ex libris, indicating that they were taken from this Yemeni manuscript.
The fact that the Yemeni manuscript is written in naskh script, and is divided into nine volumes, points at a rather old lineage. Most of the copies of al-Basīṭ are sets of five massive volumes, but we have evidence that in the early phases of the copying-process, the text was written out in more than five volumes. The Yemeni set had probably such an old archaic vorlage.
The only indication of locale and date is the ex libris note which is found on most of the volumes (though in the case of the Istanbul copies blackened or torn off). The ex libris reads:
من كتب الفقير إلى كرم رب العالمين محمد بن الحسن بن أمير المؤمنين المنصور باللّٰه لطف اللّٰه به آمين ورزقه فهم معاني كتابه الذي لا يأتيه الباطل من بين يديه ولا من خلفه. تم شهر محرم الحرام عام سنة اثنين وسبعين وألف سنة.
The owner is the famous Zaydī scholar Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan (d. 1079/1668) who was also a political leader in the Qāsimī imamate.9 He was a learned man who authored several works and appears to have owned a beautiful library. His copy of the text is authoritative, not least since the scribe was professional, and the text is clearly pointed.
Below is a list of the extant copies of the Yemeni manuscript arranged according to the Qurʾān. The most important of them for our purposes is the second in our list, volume III of the original set. It is manuscript Istanbul University no. A. 1832, which we used as the basis of our edition.
-
(Volume II of the original set): Maktabat al-Jāmiʿ al-Kabīr tafsīr 51 in Sana Yemen. Starts at Q 2:203 and ends at Q 4:23. It has 215 fols. 23 lines per page (17×25 cm). The colophon states that it is volume II, which means volume I is missing. The only evidence for the existence of this copy is the microfilm that was made in 1974 by the Arab League Manuscript Institute. When the collection was catalogued, this copy was not included.
-
(Volume III of the original set) Istanbul University Library no. A 1832 (no. 351 in the catalogue). It has 206 fols. 23 lines per page (26×17.5 cm). The title page is missing, most probably because it was gold plated. The copy starts at Q 4:24 and ends at Q 6:35.10 This is the third volume in the set. We used folios 19b to 32a for our edition.
-
(Volume IV of the original set) Istanbul University Library no. A 1833 (no. 352 in the catalogue). It has 204 fols. 23 lines per page (incorrectly catalogued as 29 lines).11 This volume still has the gold plated title page stating that it is volume IV of the set. The ex libris has been blackened out; the few words that remain visible are identical with those on the Sana copy. It starts at Q 6:36 and ends at Q 8:75 (end of the Sūra).
-
(Volume V of the original set): Maktabat al-Jāmiʿ al-Kabīr tafsīr 54 in Sana Yemen. This is the second copy preserved in Yemen, and it has the title page with the ex libris. It starts at Q 9:1 and ends at the end of Sūra 12 (Q 12:111). It has 219 fols. 23 lines per page (incorrectly catalogued as 24 lines). This is the only copy that has been catalogued in the newly published catalogue of the collection.12
-
(Volume VI in the original set): Istanbul University Library no. A 1834 (no. 353 in the catalogue). It has 153 fols. 23 lines per page. It starts at Q 13:1 and ends at Q 18:110 (end of the Sūra). The title page is missing.13
-
(Volume VII of the original set): Biblioteca dell Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Ms. Or. 78A. This copy is catalogued; it has the title page preserved with the ex libris stating that it is volume VII of the set.14 It has 241 fols. 23 lines per page,15 making it the largest volume of the surviving copies. It starts at Q 19:1 and ends at Q 25:77 (end of the Sūra). A comparison with the printed edition points to the fact that there must have been two more volumes for this set, making it a nine-volume set (the first volume is also missing).
When we compared this copy to the al-Azhar copy, we found it to be very reliable, and a carefully executed copy. There are few omissions, and almost all the words are legible. Close inspection of this copy has led us to the conclusion that it is as significant as the Azhari-Chester Beatty copy, and should have been used for the edition. However, we also believe that the value of the edition has not been compromised by this neglect. With the Yemeni copy we do now have another witness that we can refer to in case of doubts about the readings in the Azhari-Chester Beatty edition. Given how reliable this copy is, we used it as the basis of our edition.
Nuruosmaniye Set (no. 236-240)
This five-volume set has been mis-catalogued in the collection’s in-house catalogue, and was actually discovered and corrected by the late Shahab Ahmed. Back at the beginning of my research (Walid Saleh) on al-Basit, I asked Shahab, who was in Istanbul, to check a certain copy of al-Basīṭ in preparation for my own visit. He proceeded to inform me that he had unearthed a new, complete copy of al-Basīṭ.
This copy is in a clear Ottoman Arabic nashkh script. It is a late copy and has at its basis various volumes from the Istanbul collections. It is as such a late witness of contaminated lineage. It represents the attempt of scholars in Istanbul to have an authoritative copy of the whole work.16 This makes it a unique witness, since it is the only complete copy of the work. The scribe used one witness at a time for any part he was copying. The copies that are at the basis of this set are in Istanbul, but we have not conducted an extensive comparison to unearth them. That is work for another time.
The volume that is of concern to us is volume Nuruosmaniye 237, which starts at Q 4:26 and ends at Q 10:109 (end of the Sūra). It has 660 fols. 19 lines per page. The folios used for our edition are 14a to 28b.
Blueprint for the Edition
We have used Istanbul University Library no. A 1832 folios 19b to 32a as the basis of our edition (referred to in Arabic as
النصّ الساقط: من النساء 41-53
نهيتك عن طلابك أمّ عمرو بعافية وأنت إذٍ صحيح 22
ألا ترى أنّ إذ في هذا البيت ليس قبلها شيء مضاف إليها؟
24
ومستنّة كاستنان الخرو ف وقد قطع الحبل بالمرود 33
وكتمان الحديث هاهنا في التمنّي. قال ابن الأنباري: ويجري هذا مجرى قولك ليت عبد اللّٰه يزورني ولا يقصّر فيما يجب من حقّي، لا يراد بما بعد الواو أنّه غير مقصّر في الحقيقة وإنما هذا تمنّي من المتكلّم. وعلى هذا إنّما لم يكن في الآية "ولم يكتموا اللّه حديثا" لأنّ هذا إخبار عن أمر سيكون فيما يستقبل ولم يمض حتّى يخبر عنه بلم.
الطريق الثاني من التأويل أن هذا كلام مستأنف. قال الزجّاج: قال بعضهم (لا يكتمون اللّه حديثا) مستأنف لأنّ ما عملوه ظاهر عند اللّه عزّ وجلّ لا يقدرون على كتمانه. وعلى هذا لا منافاة بين هذه الآية وبين قوله (واللّه ربّنا ما كنّا مشركين) لأنّ تلك في حالة وهذه في حالة أخرى.
وجاؤونا لهم سكر علينا فأجلى اليوم والسكران صاحي 57
فأصبحن بالموماة يحملن فتية نشاوي من الإدلاج ميل العمائم
كأنّ الكرى يسقيهم صرخديّة عقارا تمشّت في القوى والقوائم 63وقال الفرزدق:
من السير والإدلاج يحسب إنّما سقاه الكرى في كلّ منزلة خمرا 64والقول هو الأوّل.
فإن قيل كيف يصحّ نهي السكران مع أنّه بمنزلة الصبيّ في نقص عقله؟ قيل إنهم نهوا عن التعرّض للسكر مع وجوب الصلاة عليهم، فخرج اللفظ على النهي عن الصلاة في حال السكر، والمراد به النهي عن السكر في أوقات الصلاة.
واختلفوا في معنى قوله (إلّا عابري سبيل) على قولين، أحدهما أنّ هذا العبور هو عبور في المسجد، وهو ما روى الليث عن يزيد بن أبي حبيب، أنّ رجالا من الأنصار كانت أبوابهم في المسجد فتصيبهم جنابة ولا ماء عندهم فيريدون الماء ولا يجدون ممرّا إلّا في المسجد، فأنزل اللّه هذه الآية.
ومن المفسّرين من يجعل أو بمعنى الواو، وقال تأويله وإن كنتم مرضى أو مسافرين وتغوّط أحدكم أو لامس فاحتاج إلى الطهارة وعدم الماء، فله التيمّم. قال لأنّ سبب وجود التيمّم ليس السفر والمرض، إنما موجبه الحدث. وقد ذكرنا فيما تقدم وجوه أو.
[23
ولا تلمس الأفعى يديك تنوشها ودعها إذا ما غيّبتها سفاتها 95
واختلف المفسّرون في اللمس المذكور هاهنا على قولين، أحدهما أنّ المراد به الجماع وهو قول ابن عبّاس والحسن ومجاهد وقتادة، وهؤلاء لا يحكمون بانتقاض الطهر باللمس، وهو مذهب أبي حنيفة. وعنده اللمس باليد لا ينقض الطهر إلّا أن يكون فاحشا، وهو ما يحدث الانتشار. وعند ابن عبّاس والحسن لا ينقض الطهر باللمس بحال.
القول الثاني أنّ المراد باللمس هاهنا التقاء البشرتين سواء كان بجماع أو غيره، وهو قول ابن مسعود وابن عمر وعبيدة والشعبي وإبراهيم ومنصور. وهؤلاء يوجبون الطهارة على من أفضى بشيء من بدنه إلى عضو من أعضاء المرأة، وهو مذهب الشافعي رضي اللّه عنه.
ويترجّـح هذا القول على القول الأوّل من حيث اللغة، وذلك أنّا ذكرنا أنّ حقيقة اللمس في اللغة هو المسّ باليد، وحمل الآية على الحقيقة أولى. وعلى قراءة من قرأ (لامستم) فالملامسة مفاعلة من لمست، ولا يدلّ على المجامعة بالإطلاق حتّى لا يعرف في غيرها. فقد ورد في الخبر النهي عن الملامسة، وقال أبو عبيد: هي أن تقول إذا لمست ثوبي أو لمست ثوبك فقد وجب البيع. فالملامسة في هذا الحديث بمعنى اللمس، فإذا كانت الملامسة مستعملة على الإطلاق في غير المجامعة، لم يدلّ قوله (أو لامستم النساء) على صريح الجماع، بل يحمل على الأصل الموضوع له.
تيمّمت قيسا وكم دونه من الأرض من مهمه ذي شزن 103
وقال آخر:
فلم يدر خلق بعدها أين يمّما 104
وقال حميد بن ثور:
سل الربع أنّى يمّمت أمّ سالم 105
إذا تيم ثوب بصعيد أرض بكى من لؤم خبثهم الصعيد 110
وقيل إنّ المراد بهذا الاشتراء أنّ سفلة اليهود وعوامّهم كانوا يعطون أحبارهم بعض أموالهم وهم كانوا يموّهون عليهم أمر النبيّ صلّى اللّه عليه وسلّم ويكتمون صفته منهم فاشتروا. فاشتراؤهم الضلالة بذلهم المال لعلمائهم وحصولهم منهم على الضلالة. ولا إضمار على هذا التأويل أيضا، ولكنّ الأولى أن تكون الآية نازلة في علمائهم.
والسائل المبتغي كرائمها يعلم أنّي تضلّني عللي 124
أي تذهب عنّي.
كفى الشيب والإسلام للمرء ناهيا 130
وقال ابن الأنباري: يقال في قوله (كفى باللّه) لم دخلت الباء على الفاعل، ولا يجوز إدخالها في قولك قام أبوك، وجلس أخوك؟ والجواب أنّها دخلت لتوكيد الكلام كما دخلت على المفعول مؤكّدة في قولهم خذ بالخطام وخذ الخطام، وتعلّقت بزيد وتعلّقت زيدا. وهذا ضرب لا يقاس عليه ما لم يستعمل العرب فيه الباء، فلا يجوز إدخال الباء في المفعول في قولك ركبت الفرس وأكلت الطعام.
القول الثاني أنّ (من) مستأنفة بها، و(يحرّفون) صلة لموصول محذوف على تقدير: من الذين هادوا يحرّفون، فأضمر من لانكشاف المعنى واعتمد على الصلة وعلى دلالة من المحذوف، كما قال ذو الرمّة:
فضلّوا ومنهم دمعه سابق له وآخر يثني دمعة العين بالمهل 140
[26
وما منهم إلا نشلنا دماغه إلى الشام فوق الشاحجات الرواسم 141
كأنّك من جمال بني أقيس تقعقع خلف رجليه بشنّ 147
أي جمل. وأنشد سيبويه:
فما الدهر إلا تارتان فمنهما أموت وأخرى أبتغي العيش أكدح 148
أي فتارة منهما. وأنشد الزجّاج:
لو قلت ما في قومها لم تيثم يفضلها في حسب وميسم 149
على معنى لو قلت ما في قومها أحد يفضلها. وما احتجّ به الكوفيّون على حذف الموصول حمله البصريّون على حذف الموصوف، فقالوا في قول ذي الرمّة: فضلّوا ومنهم دمعه غير سابق، أي ومنهم فريق دمعه سابق وكذلك إخوانه.
وإن أصاب عدواء احرورفا 155
لا يسمع الركب بها رجع الكلم 157
قال الكلبي: هم اليهود يغيّرون صفة محمّد وزمانه ونبوّته في كتابهم ونحو ذلك. قال مقاتل وقال مجاهد: يعنى تبديل التوراة.
قال أهل المعاني: هذا التحريف يحتمل أن يكون في نصّ التنزيل كما ذكره المفسّرون، ويحتمل أن يكون في التأويل وهو أن يغيّروا معاني التوراة بالتمويهات والتشبيهات، كما فعله أهل القدر في آي كثير من القرآن، يغيّرون معاني ألفاظها إذا لم يقدروا على تقدير صيغتها.
وذكّر الكتابة في المواضع لأنّ الكلم جمع حروفه أقل من حروف واحده، وكلّ جمع كان على هذا النحو جاز تذكيره.
وقال عبد اللّه بن مسلم: كانوا يقولون للنبيّ صلّى اللّه عليه وسلّم إذا حدّثهم وأمرهم سمعنا ويقولون في أنفسهم وعصينا.
قال مجاهد: غير مقبول منك ولا مجاب إلى ما تدعو إليه. وعلى هذا القول يحتاج إلى إضمار، كأنّه قيل غير مسمع للإجابة والقبول، أي لا نسمعك ذلك. وقال الكلبي في قوله (واسمع غير مسمع) أي اسمع منّا ولا نسمع منك. وقال الحسن هو كما يقول واسمع غير مسموع منك، وهذا الذي ذكراه معنى وليس بتفسير وهو راجع إلى قول مجاهد، لأنّ معنى قول الكلبي ولا نسمع منك لا نقبل منك، وقول الحسن غير مسموع منك أي غير مقبول منك.
وقد نظرتكم إلينا صادرة 168
أي انتظرتكم.
دعها فما النحويّ من صديقها 176
وتكليفنا لها كل طامسة الصوى شظون ترى حرباءها يتململ 181
وقال آخر:
ونائية الأرجاء طامسة الصوى خدت بأبي النشاش فيها ركائبه 182
الوجه الثاني ما ذكره عبد الرحمن بن زيد في هذه الآية قال: هذا الوعيد قد لحق اليهود، ومضى تأويل ذلك في إجلاء قريظة والنضير إلى الشام، فردّ اللّه وجوههم على أدبارهم حتى عادوا إلى أذرعات وأريحا من أرض الشام كما جاؤوا منها بدئا.
وطمس الوجه على هذا التأويل يحتمل معنيين، أحدهما الذمّ والدعاء عليهم بالتقبيح والتشويه، يقال طمس اللّه وجهه كقولك قبّح اللّه وجهه. الثاني تعمية آثارهم ومحوها من وجوههم ونواحيهم التي هم بها. وهذا أليق بقوله (فنردّها على أدبارها) على ما ذكره ابن زيد في هذا التأويل.
ومعنى (يزكّون أنفسهم) يزعمون أنّهم أزكياء. وتفسير زكى الشيء في اللغة نماؤه في الصلاح، وقد مرّ.
ووجه اتّصال هذه الآية بما قبلها من طريق المعنى أنّ اللّه تعالى وصفهم بالجهل حيث قالوا للذين كفروا (هؤلاء أهدى من الذين آمنوا سبيلا) ثمّ وصفهم بالبخل في هذه الآية، وبالحسد فيما بعدها. وخرج الكلام مخرج الاستفهام للتقريع والتوبيـخ، وذكرنا قديما لم جعل الاستفهام علما للتوبيـخ.
قال المفسّرون: وتفسير الآية ألهم شيء من الملك على جهة الإنكار، أي ليس لهم ذلك.
قال أبو عليّ الفارسي: هذا الذي أجازه من انتصاب الفعل بعد إذن أن يكون أن مضمرة بعدها فاسد، يدلّك على ذلك أنّه إن كان الناصب للفعل أن، لم يخل من أن يعمل، وهي مظهرة أو مضمرة، على حدّ ما يعمل في غير هذا الموضع من عوامل النصب التي تنصب بإضمار أن بعدها.
فإن قال: يكون هذا في نفسه أصلا، فإنّ ذلك ما لا يذهب إليه نظّار من أهل العربيّة ولا من غيرهم نعلمه. ألا ترى أنّ نفس الدعوى وما فيه المنازعة لا يجعل أصلا، وإنما يستشهد عليه بغيره؟
وأمّا قول أبي إسحاق وتأويل إذن: إن كان الأمر كما ذكرت أو كما جرى، فقد ضبط سيبويه معناها بأوجز ما يكون، فقال: إذن جواب وجزاء، يريد أنّه جواب لكلام المتكلّم المجاب، وجزاء على فعله، ومقابلة لفعله بالفعل الذي يدخل عليه إذن.
وإنّما جاز إبدال الألف من نون إذن في الوقف، ولم يجز من نون حسن ورسن من قبل أنّ إذن حرف، فالنون فيها بعض حرف، كما أنّ التنوين ونون التأكيد كلّ واحد منهما حرف، فجاز ذلك في نون إذن لمضارعة إذن كلّها نون التأكيد ونون الصرف. فالنون من حسن ورسن أصل من اسم متمكّن يجري عليه الإعراب، ونون إذن ساكنة أيضا كنون التأكيد ونون الصرف.
Acknowledgments
Research for this article and collection of the copies of manuscripts were made possible by a generous grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. We are very grateful to the Council.
References
Primary Sources
Al-ʿAjjāj, ʿAbdallāh b. Ruʾba, Dīwān al-ʿAjjāj riwāyat ʿAbd al-Malik b. Qurayb al-Asmaʿī wa-sharḥuhu, ed. by ʿIzzat Ḥasan, Beirut: Dār al-Sharq al-ʿArabī, 1995
Al-Akhṭal, Dīwān al-Akhṭal, ed. by Mahdī Muḥammad Nāṣir al-Dīn, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1994
Al-Aṣmaʿī, ʿAbd al-Malik b. Qurayb, al-Aṣmaʿiyyāt, ed. by Aḥmad Muḥammad Shākir, ʿAbd al-Salām Hārūn, Beirut: n.d.
Al-Aṣmaʿī, ʿAbd al-Malik b. Qurayb, al-Khayl, ed. by Ḥātim Ṣāliḥ al-Ḍāmin, Damascus: Dār al-Bashāʾir, 2009
Al-Aʿshā, Maymūn b. Qays, Dīwān al-Aʿshā, ed. by Muḥammad Ḥusayn, Cairo: Maktabat al-Ādāb bi-l-Jamāmīz, n.d.
Al-Baghawī, al-Ḥusayn b. Masʿūd, Sharḥ al-Sunna, ed. by Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ and Muḥammad Zuhayr al-Shāwīsh, 16 vols., Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islāmī, 1983
Al-Bāhilī, Aḥmad b. Ḥātim, Sharḥ Dīwān Dhī l-Rumma, ed. by ʿAbd al-Quddūs Abū Ṣāliḥ, 3 vols., Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Īmān, 1982
Al-Farazdaq, Hammām b. Ghālib, Dīwān al-Farazdaq, ed. by ʿAlī Fāʿūr, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1987
Al-Farrāʾ, Yaḥyā b. Ziyād, Maʿānī l-Qurʾān, ed. by Muḥammad ʿAlī l-Najjār, Aḥmad Yūsuf Najātī and ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ Ismāʿīl Shalabī, 3 vols., Beirut: ʿĀlam al-Kutub, 1983
Al-Hilālī, Ḥumayd b. Thawr, Dīwān Ḥumayd b. Thawr, ed. by ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Maymanī, Cairo: Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣriyya, 1951
Al-Ḥuṭayʾa, Dīwān al-Ḥuṭayʾa bi-sharḥ Ibn al-Sikkīt wa-l-Sukkarī wa-l-Sijistānī, ed. by Nuʿmān Amīn Ṭāhā, Cairo: Muṣṭafā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī wa-Awlāduhu, n.d.
Ibn ʿAbd Rabbih, Aḥmad b. Muḥammad, al-ʿIqd al-farīd, ed. by Mufīd Muḥammad Qumayha, 9 vols., Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1983
Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Rāzī, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿaẓīm, ed. by Asʿad Muḥammad al-Ṭayyib, 10 vols., Mecca: Maktabat Nizār Muṣṭafā al-Bāz, 1997
Ibn al-Anbārī, Muḥammad b. al-Qāsim, al-Mudhakkar wa-l-muʾannath, ed. by Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Khāliq ʿUḍayma, 2 vols., Cairo: Wizārat al-Awqāf, 1981-1999
Ibn Durayd, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan, Jamharat al-lugha, ed. by Ramzī Baʿlabakkī, 3 vols., Beirut: Dār al-ʿIlm li-l-Malāyīn, 1987-1988
Ibn Jinnī, Abū l-Fatḥ ʿUthmān, Sirr ṣināʿat al-iʿrāb, ed. by Ḥasan al-Hindāwī, Damascus: Dār al-Qalam, 1993
Ibn Manẓūr, Muḥammad b. Mukarram b. ʿAlī, Lisān al-ʿArab, 15 vols., Beirut: Dār Ṣādir, n.d.
Ibn al-Sikkīt, Yaʿqūb b. Isḥāq, Iṣlāḥ al-mantiq, ed. by Aḥmad Muḥammad Shākir, ʿAbd al-Salām Hārūn, Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif, n.d.
Ibn Qutayba, ʿAbdallāh b. Muslim, Tafsīr gharīb al-Qurʾān, ed. by Aḥmad Ṣaqr, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1978
Ibn Qutayba, ʿAbdallāh b. Muslim, Taʾwīl mushkil al-Qurʾān, ed. by Aḥmad Ṣaqr, Cairo: Dār al-Turāth, 1973
ʿIyāḍ b. Mūsā, al-Qāḍī, Ikmāl al-muʿlim bi-fawāʾid Muslim, ed. by Yaḥyā Ismāʿīl, 9 vols., Al-Manṣūra: Dār al-Wafāʾ, 1998
Jarīr b. ʿAṭiyya, Dīwān Jarīr, Beirut: Dār Bayrūt, 1986
Al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥmad b. ʿAlī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, ed. by Muḥammad Ṣādiq al-Qamḥāwī, 5 vols., Beirut: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, 1992
Labīd b. Rabīʿa, Abū ʿAqīl, Dīwān Labīd, Beirut: Dār Ṣādir, n.d.
Al-Marzūqī, Aḥmad b. Muḥammad, Sharḥ Dīwān al-ḥamāsa, ed. by Gharīd al-Shaykh, 2 vols., Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 2003
Al-Māturīdī, Muḥammad b. Muḥammad, Taʾwīlāt al-Qurʾān, ed. by Muḥammad Būyinūqālīn et. al., 18 vols., Istanbul: Dār al-Mīzān, 2005-2007
Al-Nābigha al-Dhubyānī, Dīwān al-Nābigha, ed. by ʿAbbās ʿAbd al-Sattār, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1996
Al-Qāsim b. Sallām, Abū ʿUbayd, al-Nāsikh wa-l-mansūkh, ed. by Muḥammad b. Ṣāliḥ al-Mudayfir, Riyadh: Maktabat al-Rushd, 1997
Al-Quṭāmī, ʿAmr b. Shuyaym, Dīwān al-Quṭāmī, ed. by Maḥmūd al-Rabīʿī, Cairo: al-Hayʾa al-Miṣriyya al-ʿĀmma li-l-Kitāb, 2001
Al-Rāzī, Fakhr al-Dīn, Tafsīr al-Fakhr al-Rāzī al-mashhūr bi-l-Tafsīr al-kabīr wa-Mafātīḥ al-ghayb, 32 vols., Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1981
Ruʾba b. al-ʿAjjāj, Dīwān Ruʾba b. al-ʿAjjāj Majmūʿ ashʿār al-ʿArab, ed. by Wilhelm Ahlwardt, Kuwait: Dār Ibn Qutayba, n.d. (photocopy)
Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, Aḥmad b. Yūsuf, al-Durr al-maṣūn fī ʿulūm al-Kitāb al-maknūn, ed. by Aḥmad Muḥammad al-Kharrāṭ, 11 vols., Damascus: Dār al-Qalam, n.d.
Al-Shawkānī, Muḥammad b. ʿAlī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ bi-mahāsin man baʿda l-qarn al-sābiʿ, 2 vols., Cairo: Dār al-Kitāb al-Islāmī, n.d.
Sībawayh, ʿAmr b. ʿUthmān, al-Kitāb, ed. by ʿAbd al-Salām Hārūn, 5 vols., Cairo: Maktabat al-Khānjī, 1988
Suḥaym, ʿAbd Banī al-Ḥasḥās, Dīwān Suḥaym, ed. by ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Maymanī, Cairo: Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣriyya, 1950
Al-Sukkarī, al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥusayn, Sharḥ ashʿār al-Hudhaliyyīn, ed. by ʿAbd al-Sattār Aḥmad Farrāj, Cairo: Dār al-ʿUrūba, n.d.
Al-Ṭabarī, Muḥammad b. Jarīr, Jāmiʿ al-bayān ʿan taʾwīl āy al-Qurʾān, ed. by Maḥmūd Shākir and Aḥmad Shākir, 16 vols., Cairo: Maktaba Ibn Taymiyya, n.d.
Al-Thaʿlabī, Aḥmad b. Muḥammad, al-Kashf wa-l-bayān ʿan tafsīr al-Qurʾān, dir. by Ṣalāḥ Bāʿuthmān et al., 33 vols., Jeddah: Dār al-Tafsīr, 2015
Al-Wāḥidī, ʿAlī b. Aḥmad b. Muḥammad, al-Tafsīr al-Basīṭ, ed. by Muḥammad b. Ṣāliḥ b. ʿAbdallāh al-Fawzān et al., 25 vols., Riyadh: Imām Muḥammad b. Saʿūd University, 2009 [Silsilat al-Rasāʾil al-Jāmiʿiyya 101]
Al-Wāḥidī, ʿAlī b. Aḥmad b. Muḥammad, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ, ed. by ʿĀdil ʿAbd al-Mawjūd et. al., 4 vols., Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1994
Al-Zajjāj, Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad al-Sarī, Faʿaltu wa-afʿaltu, ed. by Ramaḍān ʿAbd al-Tawwāb and Ṣubayḥ al-Tamīmī, Cairo: Maktaba al-Thaqāfa al-Dīniyya, 1995
Al-Zajjāj, Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad al-Sarī, Maʿānī l-Qurʾān wa-iʿrābuhu, ed. by ʿAbd al-Jalīl ʿAbduh Shalabī, 5 vols., Beirut: ʿĀlam al-Kutub, 1988
Secondary Sources
Ansari, Hassan and Sabine Schmidtke, The Cultural Transfer of Zaydī and non-Zaydī Religious Literature from Northern Iran to Yemen (Sixth/Twelfth Century through Eighth/Fourteenth Century), in: Sonja Brentjes and Jürgen Renn (eds.), Globalization of Knowledge in the Post-Antique Mediterranean, 700-1500, London: Routledge, 2016, 141-165
Colini, Claudia, How Conservation Can Unveil the Story of a Manuscript: An Arabic Qurʾān Commentary from the Yemen, in: Journal of Islamic Manuscripts 7 (2016), 261-293
Gabrieli, G., La Fondazione Caetani per gli studi Musulmani, Rome: Accademia dei Lincei, 1926
Gilliot, Claude, The Use of Lexicography in the Great Qurʾānic Commentary of al-Wāḥidī (d. 468/1076), in: S.R. Burge (ed.), The Meaning of the Word: Lexicology and Qurʾānic Exegesis, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015, 119-156
Jomier, Jacques, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (m. 606H./1210) et les commentaires du Coran plus anciens, in: MIDEO 15 (1982), 145–172
Karatay, Fehmi Edhem, İstanbul Üniversitesi Kütüphanesi Arapça Yazmalar Kataloğu Hazırlayan Fehmi Edhem Karatay, Istanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi, 1953
Kohlberg, Etan, A Medieval Muslim Scholar at Work: Ibn Ṭāwūs and his Library, Leiden: Brill, 1992
Laoust, Henri, Le hanbalisme sous le califat de Bagdad (241/855-656/1258), in: Revue des études islamiques 1 (1959), 67-128
Al-Mahdī, Jawdat, Al-Wāḥidī wa-manhajuhu fī l-tafsīr, Cairo: Wizārat al-Awqāf, 1978
Al-Ruqayḥī, Aḥmad ʿAbd al-Razzāq et al., Fihrist Makhṭūṭāt Maktabat al-Jāmiʿ al-Kabīr Ṣanʿāʾ, Yemen: Wizārat al-Awqāf wa-l-Irshād, 1984
Saleh, Walid A., The Formation of the Classical Tafsīr Tradition: The Qurʾān Commentary of al-Thaʿlabī (d. 427/1035), Leiden: Brill, 2004
Saleh, Walid A., Exegesis viii. Nishapuri School of Quranic Exegesis, in: Encyclopædia Iranica, online
Saleh, Walid A., The Last of the Nishapuri School of tafsīr: Al-Wāḥidī (d. 468/1067) and His Significance in the History of Qurʾanic Exegesis, in: JAOS 126 (2006), 223-243
Al-Mahdī, al-Wāḥidī, 426. On the influence of al-Wāḥidī on numerous aspects of al-Rāzī’s work and thought, as well as the various forms of reliance the latter placed on the former, ranging from the explicit to the unattributed, see al-Mahdī, al-Wāḥidī, 412-426. Jomier, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, 158-9 also mentions al-Wāḥidī as a source for al-Rāzī. See also Saleh, The Last of the Nishapuri School, 224. On the influence of pre-existing exegetical and lexicographical works on al-Wāḥidī, see Gilliot, The Use of Lexicography.
Wāḥidī, Basīṭ, I, 348. On the effect of al-Wāḥidī on al-Rāzī, see I, 348-351.
Ibid, I, 350; al-Mahdī, al-Wāḥidī, 412.
See Saleh, Nishapuri School; Saleh, The Last of the Nishapuri School.
See Wāḥidī, Basīṭ, I, 365-370.
For information about this lodge and its library, see references in Kohlberg, Ibn Ṭāwūs and his Library, 106; Laoust, Le hanbalisme sous le califat de Bagdad, 115.
For a copy from Iraq from the same period with a chain of transmission see Saleh, Formation, Appendix One, 233-235.
See Wāḥidī, Basīṭ, I, 367.
We are grateful for Professor Bernard Haykel for his help in identifying the owner and giving us the reference for his biography; see Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ, II, 159-160; Colini, How Conservation Can Unveil, 268.
See the catalogue: Karatay, İstanbul Üniversitesi Kütüphanesi, I, 148-149.
Ibid., I, 149.
Al-Ruqayḥī, Fihrist Makhṭūṭāt Maktabat al-Jāmiʿ al-Kabīr Ṣanʿāʾ, I, 106.
Karatay, İstanbul Üniversitesi Kütüphanesi, I, 149-150. The catalogue of Istanbul University Library assigned the three volumes (III, IV, and VI) in their collection successive classification numbers, indicating that the cataloguer identified them as parts of a set.
Gabrieli, La Fondazione Caetani, 38 no. 78a.
On the stages of the transmission history of Ms. Or. 78A, see Colini, How Conservation Can Unveil, 265-268. Based on material considerations, Colini, 263, situates this manuscript as having been copied in South Yemen in the first half of the eighth/fourteenth century. Such considerations furnish further evidence for linking this manuscript to the other copies of the set described above in Yemen and Istanbul. Colini is not concerned with the provenance of the vorlage itself, which was likely Iran. This is corroborated by Ansari and Schmidtke (The Cultural Transfer, 143-144; 158-159) discussion of the transfer of knowledge from Northern Iran to Yemen.
A failed attempt at a full copy is the Atif Efendi composite copy (119-123) which is incomplete and of various provenances. Unfortunately, it does not cover Sūras 4 to 11.
في ن: وكيف.
في ن: أجاز.
التصحيح من ن. في الأصل: والتوبيـخ.
في ن: وتحقيق.
ما بين النجمتين ساقط من ن.
ما بين النجمتين ساقط من ن.
ساقط من ن.
في ن: ومن قوله.
في ن: النون.
ما بين النجمتين ساقط من ن.
من هنا بداية السقط من النسخة المحققة المطبوعة.
أي ابن قتيبة صاحب تأويل مشكل القرآن.
الزيادة من ن. في الأصل: فأمّا تفسير اللفظ فقال المعنى لو يجعلون.
الزيادة من ن.
ساقط من ن.
في ن: وهي.
التصحيح من ن. في الأصل: سوى.
في ن: كلما.
التصحيح من ن. في الأصل: جحد.
في ن: يعني.
في ن: سعيد.
ما بين النجمتين ساقط من ن.
ساقط من ن.
في ن: ثم انتهى عن قرب يتضمن.
التصحيح من ن. في الأصل: المعنى.
ساقط من ن.
بالإهمال في المخطوطتين، وما أثبتناه لعله الصواب.
ساقط من ن.
التصحيح من ن. في الأصل: يعود.
التصحيح من ن. في الأصل: التي.
في ن: صلوها.
في ن: الأجناب.
ما بين النجمتين ساقط من ن.
ساقط من ن.
ساقط من ن.
في ن: بالمسجد.
ساقط من ن.
في ن: أعظم.
في ن: وهذا.
في ن: فهو أوجه.
التصحيح من ن. في الأصل: غائط.
في ن: الأغلاط.
في ن: قول الراجز.
التصحيح من ن. في الأصل: يخلوا.
في ن: ابن عمر.
في ن: عند عوام الناس.
الزيادة من ن.
التصحيح من ن. في الأصل: إن.
التصحيح من ن. في الأصل: يشترون.
في ن: أن تضلوا.
في ن: أي ذهب عني.
ما بين النجمتين ساقط من ن.
في ن: كقول.
الزيادة من ن.
التصحيح من ن. في الأصل: كقولهم.
الزيادة من ن.
في ن: ناهيك.
التصحيح من ن. في الأصل: بائنة.
التصحيح من ن. في الأصل: وساده.
التصحيح من ن. في الإصل: كامنا.
التصحيح من ن. في الأصل: الموصول.
الزيادة من ن.
الزيادة من ن.
الزيادة من ن.
في ن: بظاهر المراعاة.
التصحيح من ن. في الأصل: لكان.
الزيادة من ن.
في ن: ويقال طمسته فطمس.
التصحيح من ن. في الأصل: عبد اللّٰه بن سلام.
التصحيح من ن. في الأصل: نمحوا.
في ن: لم لا يلحقهم.
في ن: على ظاهر لفظ الآية.
لم نعثر على هذه القراءة في أي مصدر آخر.
في القرآن: (فنردها).
في ن: يمسخهم.
التصحيح من ن. في الإصل: فيغفر.
في ن: لا تحكم.
الثعلبي صاحب الكشف والبيان.
في ن: الرجل يعمل من الصالحات.
في ن: كفّر عنا بالليل.
الزيادة من ن.
الزيادة من ن.
في ن: أعطوا علم أمر النبيّ.
التصحيح من ن. في الأصل: يكذبون.
الزيادة من ن.
الزيادة من ن.
في ن: ووزنه من الفعل.
التصحيح من ن. في الأصل: لم يوافقونهم.
التصحيح من ن. في الأصل: غير معادلة.
الزيادة من ن.
التصحيح من ن. في الأصل: إذن.
الزيادة من ن.
التصحيح من ن. في الأصل: سمعته ومنه.
في ن: فخفّفت الهمزة فصارت.
في ن: قائلا.
التصحيح من ن. في الأصل: جواز.
الزيادة من ن.
هذا نهاية السقط في النسخة المحققة المطبوعة.
التصحيح من ن. في الأصل: التفسير.
التصحيح من ن. في الأصل: بمعنى.