قراءاتِ قرآنیہ اور تفسیر میں ان کا کردار: منتخب قراءات کے تفسیری اور فقہی مضمرات کا تقابلی مطالعہ

Qur’anic Readings (Qira’at) and Their Role in Exegesis: A Comparative Study of the Interpretive and Legal Implications of Selected Readings

Abstract

This study examines the phenomenon of Qur’anic readings (qirā’āt) and evaluates their function in exegesis (tafsīr) and Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) through a comparative and analytical methodology. It begins by carefully clarifying the conceptual vocabulary of the discipline, namely qirā’a, riwāya, ṭarīq and wajh, and by distinguishing the revealed Qur’anic text from its modes of recitation, as well as the seven aḥruf of the well-known prophetic ḥadīth from the Seven Readings later systematised by Ibn Mujāhid (d. 324/936). The historical formation of the corpus is then reconstructed, from the collection of the codices under Abū Bakr and ʿUthmān to the three-fold criteria of authenticity formulated by Ibn al-Jazarī, and the traditional account is set against the revisionist arguments of Shady Nasser and Christopher Melchert, who regard the doctrine of tawātur and the exclusive canon of seven as products of a later canonisation. The second half of the article analyses selected readings whose interpretive and legal consequences are most pronounced: Māliki/Maliki in al-Fātiḥa, fa-tabayyanū/fa-tathabbatū in al-Ḥujurāt, yaṭhurna/yaṭṭahharna in al-Baqara, the accusative and genitive readings of arjulakum in al-Māʾida, and lāmastum/lamastum in al-Nisāʾ. The juristic treatment of non-canonical (shādhdh) readings, notably those attributed to Ibn Masʿūd and Ubayy b. Kaʿb, is examined as a problem of uṣūl al-fiqh. Following a critical thesis, evidence, counter-argument and synthesis framework, the study argues that canonical readings constitute a legitimate text-internal hermeneutical resource which widens the semantic field of a verse without compromising its unity, whereas shādhdh readings possess exegetical rather than normative value. Particular attention is paid to the commentaries of al-Ṭabarī, al-Qurṭubī and al-Zamakhsharī and to the juristic discussions of Ibn Rushd and al-Jaṣṣāṣ. It concludes that the variance among readings is best understood as a controlled plurality, and recommends that contemporary exegetical and juristic research integrate qirā’āt systematically into the methodology of deriving rulings.