دستور زبان

This paper investigates the reciprocal influence between the variant readings of the Arabic letter hamza in the word li-ʾahaba (Q. 19) and the interpretation of the verse. The central research question is whether the variant readings stem from a purely phonetic phenomenon—namely, the lightening or substitution of hamza—which subsequently led to a shift in verb conjugation (from the first-person singular to the third-person singular) and thus a different exegetical understanding, or whether the primary difference is exegetical, prompting the adoption of the variant reading to resolve a theological challenge.The study applies a comparative analysis of Qurʾānic variant readings sources (including works by Ibn Muǧāhid, Abū ʿAlī al-Farisī, ad-Dānī, Ibn Ḫālawayh, aš-Šāṭibī, Abū Šāma, and others), classical exegetical literature (such as those by Muqātil b. Sulaymān, al-Farrāʾ, aṭ-Ṭabarī, az-Zaǧǧāǧ, and an-Naḥḥās), and evidence from early Qurʾānic manuscripts. Beyond theoretical analysis, attention is paid to orthographic representations in early Qurʾānic manuscripts in order to assess whether phonetic or exegetical variation is reflected in the written transmission of the text of the Qurʾān. The phonological rule concerning the lightening of an open hamza preceded by a kasra —as described by Sībawayh and later grammarians— serves as the analatical basis for this investigation.The findings reveal that two distinct readings of li-yahaba must be differentiated:a first-person singular form with phonological lightening of hamza into yāʾ, transmited by Warš from Nāfiʿ al-Madanī, which represents a purely phonetic variant in line with the “reading principles” (ʾuṣūl al-qirāʾāt);a third-person masculine singular form, attributed to Abū ʿAmr al-Baṣrī, which involves a grammatical and semantic shift, and should be categorized under “specific variants” (farš al-ḥurūf).Contrary to the opinion of aṭ-Ṭabarī and Abū ʿUbayd, who rejected Abū ʿAmr’s reading on the basis of orthographic irregularity, later scholars such as Ibn Ḫālawayh and Abū Šāma argued for its compatibility with the ʿUṯmānic rasm by appealing to the rule of hamza lightening.Codicological evidence suggests that in several early Qurʾānic manuscripts —including the lower layer of the Ṣanʿāʾ palimpsest and some Ḥijāzī codices— the word is written with yāʾ (or a denticle) potentially reflecting the reading with yāʾ and indicating that this variant reading may not have arisen solely through oral exegetical speculation, but also had roots in written transmission.Exegetically, two interpretive frameworks emerge:1) Gabriel is the agent of divine bestowal, justifying the first-person verb form;2) God is the direct actor, which suits the third-person verb form.Ultimately, the study concludes that the variant reading li-yahaba result from the convergence of two layers of variation: a phonetic process involving hamza lightening, and an exegetical shift driven by theological concerns. In other words, the key challenge in analyzing this variation lies in the intersection of phonetic and exegetical dimensions. While the Warš reading from Nāfiʿ remains within the bounds of phonological rules and ʾuṣūl al-qirāʾāt, Abū ʿAmr reading reflects a grammatical transformation and consequent semantic change, aligning with the category of farš al-ḥurūf.

This article examines the grammar of narration in a selection of Qur’an’s punishment-oriented stories. The general structure of these stories is based on the fact that God sends a Prophet to guide a nation or a group; the deniers oppose the call of the Prophet; the Prophet endures many hardships and sufferings; the opponents keep on being stubborn and opposing; the Prophet asks God for help; God answers the Prophet's prayers and punishes that nation and group in different ways. The question is whether it is possible to provide a general model of the analysis of the narrative deep structures of these stories? The main events of these stories are based on the three main structures of monotheism, denial, and justice, which are performed by the three practitioners: God, the Prophet, and the people. According to the semiotic square of Greimas, monotheism (life) comes against disbelief (non-life): from disbelief come oppression and injustice, and subsequently, oppression turns into non-oppression or justice. In the light of the revelation context, the inter-narrative relationship between the story of the Prophets of the past times and the biography of the Prophet (S.A.W.) can also be seen. These stories have the criterion for measuring the actions of the addressees. Therefore, these stories leave mere history and, in terms of discourse, enter the continuous flow of time.