¹ Of greatest interest here is her Studies in Arabic literary papyri, II: Qur'ānic commentary and tradition (University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications, Vol. LXXVI), Chicago, 1967Google Scholar

² Leiden, 1967

³ See, for example, the listings for al-Hasan, al-Baṣrī, GAS, I, 30Google Scholar, and Qatāda, , GAS, I. 31–2Google Scholar

⁴ See GAS, I, 27, 31, 39Google Scholar, and Rippin, , ‘Ibn 'Abbās's al-Lughāt fīl-Qurān’, BSOAS, XLIV, 1, 1981, 15–25Google Scholar and ‘Ibn 'Abbās's Gharib al-Qur''n’. BSOAS, XLVI, 2, 1983, 332–3Google Scholar

⁵ GAS, I, 39Google Scholar

⁶ Griffini, E., ‘I manoscritti sudarabici di Milano’, RSO, II, 1908–1909, 7–13Google Scholar (entry number 11, manuscript Milan Ambrosiana A 47). Also see Spies, O., ‘Die Bibliotheken des Hidschas’, ZDMG, XI, 1936, 103Google Scholar (item number 3)

⁷ London Oriental Series, Vol. 31, Oxford, 1977Google Scholar. Hereafter cited as QS

⁸ See my ‘Literary analysis of the Qur'ān, tafsīr and sira: the methodologies of John Wansbrough’, in Martin, Richard C. (ed.), Islam and the history of religions: essays on the studyof a religious tradition, Phoenix, California, forthcoming, 1984Google Scholar

⁹ QS, 122–36, 140–6

¹⁰ MS British Library OR 6333; edition prepared by Isaiah Goldfeld, Shfaram, 1980

¹¹ MS Beyazit 561; edition prepared by 'Abd Allāh Maḥmūd Shiḥātah, Cairo, 1975

¹² English pp. 3–8

¹³ QS, 130–7, 140–6

¹⁴ See GAS, I, 42Google Scholar; I have examined the manuscripts Aya Sofia 221 and Leiden 1651

¹⁵ Sezgin, , GAS, I, 27Google Scholar, under Ibn 'Abbās lists the printed edition Tanwīr al-miqbās min tafsīr Ibn 'Abbās (often listed under the name of al-Firūzābādī [d. 817/1415]) but this, too, is identical to all the manuscripts listed under al-Kalbī, , GAS, I, 34–5Google Scholar (and, of course, those of al-Dīnawarī). In listing al-Kalbī's manuscripts, Sezgin left out all those listed in Brockelmann under Ibn 'Abbās (GAL, Suppl. I, 331Google Scholar: they are primarily copies held in European libraries), but they too are identical to the other copies. Other MSS also exist, e. g., BL OR 9277, listed under Ibn 'Abbās. There is some variation in isnād between these various manuscripts and the various printed versions which, for a matter of form primarily, should probably be compiled and compared

¹⁶ QS, 146

¹⁷ Wansbrough mentions, QS, 146, that al-Dīnawarī's work seems to originate from use in a popular preaching context as compared to the intellectual function of a work such as the tafsīr of al-Ṭabarī (d. 311/923); note should also be made in this context of al-Wāḥidī (d. 468/1075), Tafsīr al-Qur'ān al-Wajīz, printed on the margin of al-Nawawī, , Marāḥ labīd, Cairo, 1305Google Scholar, which is virtually identical in form (although not in content) to al-Dīnawarī. The appearance of the work of al-Dīnawarī as late as the fourth hijrī century is therefore perhaps not so strange considering the role of the basic form throughout Islamic history (also cf. al-Jalālain, al-Tafsīr)

¹⁸ MS Berlin Staatsbibliothek Petermann 449; see QS, 203–4

¹⁹ Ed. F. Sezgin, Cairo, 1954–1962; see QS, 219–20 and references, also Almagor, E., ‘The early meaning of majāz and the nature of Abū 'Ubayda's exegesis’, in Studia Orientalia: memoriae D. H. Baneth dedicata, Jerusalem, 1979, 307–26Google Scholar

²⁰ Cairo, 1955–72; see QS, 206–7

²¹ MS Beyazit 436; see QS, 212–15

²² Rampur, 1965; this text has been dealt with to some extent in QS, 137–8 and 140–5

²³ Ed. 'Abd al-Raḥmān al-Ṭahir al-Sūratī, Qatar, 1976; this text has been analysed in a traditional manner (i.e. by analysis of the isnāds and reports in biographical works) by F. Leemhuis, ‘MS. 1075 Tafsīr of the Cairene Dār al-Kutub and Muǧāhid's Tafsīr’, in R.Peters (ed.), Proceedings of the ninth congress of the Union Européenne des Arabisants et Islamisants, Leiden, 1981, 169–80 (and as Leemhuis notes, p. 176, has also been the subject of a dissertation by G. Stauth, Giessen, 1969). Leemhuis has taken to referring to this text as Tafsīr Warqā': see his ‘Qur'ānic Siǧǧil and Aramaic SGYL’, JSS, XXVII, I, 1982, 47–56

²⁴ MS Cairo Dār al-kutub, tafsīr 242

²⁵ See my ‘Ibn 'Abbās's al-Lughāt fī'l-Qur'ānș, BSOAS, XLIV, 1, 1981, 15–25Google Scholar, for an attempt at a literary analysis of this text

²⁶ On the person of al-Zuhrī see GAS, I, 280–3Google Scholar; Horovitz, J., ‘The earliest biographies of the Prophet and their authors’. IC, II, 1928, 33–50Google Scholar, and his synopsis in EI (1st ed.),; Abbott, N., Studies in Arabic literary papyri, II, passim but especially 168–84Google Scholar; al-Duri, A. A., ‘Al-Zuhrī: a study on the beginnings of history writing in Islam’, BSOAS, XIX, 1, 1957, 1–12Google Scholar. These sources provide all the traditional type of information that could possibly be desired; the fruitlessness of this type of approach is indicated by the extent of the material and the artificiality of the resultant analyses

²⁷ GAS, I, 283Google Scholar, item no. 4

²⁸ GAS, I, 674Google Scholar, item no. 18

²⁹ QS, 199

³⁰ Cairo, 1957, I, 48

³¹ See also Mach, R. (ed.), Catalogue of Arabic manuscripts (Yahuda section) in the Garrett collection, Princeton University Library, Princeton, 1977 (hereafter cited as Mach), 14, item 137, ff. 2a–6bGoogle Scholar. The manuscript is a majmū'a: ff. lb–14a, on the margin primarily, an anonymous al-Kalām fīl-ṣalāt (not in Mach); ff. 2a–7b, al-Zuhrī, Kitāb fīhi al-nāsikh wa'l-mansūkh (including Kitāb al-tanzīl, ff. 7a–b); ff. 9a–50a, Muḥammad ibn Barakāt, Kitāb al-ījāz fi ma'rifa mā fī'l-Qur'ān min mansūkh wa nāsikh in the same hand as the preceding al-Zuhrī text; the scribe identifies himself as a certain Aḥmad ibn al-Naṣir and states that he finished the work on the 10th of II Rabi' in the year 753 (A. H.); ff. 52a–111b, al-Jarīrī, Kitāb tafsīr mushkil i'rāb al-Qur'ān, written in another very distinct hand

³² Zaid, Muṣṭafā, al-Naskh fī'l-Qur'ān al-Karīm, Cairo, 1963, p. 296, n. 1 and p. 297, n. 2Google Scholar. The Princeton copy contains no clear indication of its previous whereabouts, nor does the Library have any information concerning when, where or how Yahuda acquired it

³³ Haqā'iq al-tafsīr, e.g. MS British Library 9433; see GAS, I, 671–2Google Scholar

³⁴ Beirut, 1963

³⁵ Not Ḥafs as per Mach, 14

³⁶ Compare f. 2b where this name reads Abī 'Abd Allāh; this latter is probably correct and the name Abī Ṭalḥa most likely appears due to homoeoteleuton from the previous line in the original which begins with Abī Ṭalḥa Ahmad ibn Muḥammad

³⁷ Illegible on title page: see text folio 2b

³⁸ e.g. al-Naḥḥas, (d. 338/950), al-Nāsikh wa'l-mansūkh, Cairo, 1938, 5–6Google Scholar; Hibat Allāh (d. 410/1019), al-Nāsikh wa'l-mansūkh, on the margin of al-Wāḥidī, Asbāb nuzūl al-Qur'ān, Cairo, reprint 1400, 5–8; Abd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī (d. 429/1037), al-Nāsikh wa'l-mansūkh, MS Berlin Petermann 555, f. 2a, MS Beyazit 445, f. lb; Abū 'Abd Allāh ibn 'Abd Allāh al-'Āmirī al-Isfarā'īnī (d. sixth/twelfth century ?) al-Nāsikh wa'l-mansūkh, MS British Library OR 12608, ff. lb–2a; Abū 'Abd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Barakāt (d. 520/1126), Kitāb al-ījāz fī ma'rifa mā fī'l-Qur'ān min mansūkh wa nāsikh, MS Princeton Yahuda 228, ff. lla–b; Ibn Khuzaima (d. ?), Kitab al-mūjaz fī'l-nāsikh wa'l-mansūkh, printed at the end of al-Naḥḥas, , al-Nāsikh wa'l-mansūkh, Cairo, 1938, 259Google Scholar; Muhammad ibn Hazm, Fī ma'rifat al-nāsikh wa'l-mansūkh, on the margin of al-Jalālain, , Tafsīr al-Qur'ān al-'Aẓim, Cairo, 1924, II, 150–1Google Scholar—this text is most certainly not by Abū Muḥammad ibn Ḥazm al-Ẓāhirī (d. 456/1064) pace GAL, I, 400, Suppl. I, 696, nor is its attribution to Abū 'Abd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Ḥazm (d. 320/932) likely, pace Zaid, M., al-Naskh fī'l-Qur'ān al-Karīm, 324 and p. 324, n. 3Google Scholar, given the extremely facile nature of the body of the text; the fact that the introduction to this text, II, p. 151, line 27 to II, p. 153, line 26, corresponds word for word to that of Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn Mūsā ibn 'Uthmān ibn Ḥāzim al-Hamdhāni known as al-Ḥāzimī (d. 584/1188), al-I'tibār fi bayān al-nāsikh wa'l-mansūkh min al-āthār, Hyderabad, 1359, p. 5, line 21 to p. 7Google Scholar, line 4 may well suggest that this latter writer is responsible for both works. The major exception to the citation of the ‘principles of abrogation’ report is in Makkī al-Qaisi (d. 437/1045), al-Īḍāḥ li-nāsikh, al-Qur'ān wa-mansūkhihi, Riyad, 1976, where despite an extensive introduction no such reports are foundGoogle Scholar

³⁹ e.g. al-Naḥḥās, al-Nāsikh wa'l-mansūkh, 6; on al-Sulami see al-Jazarī, Ibn, Ghayāt al-nihāya fi ṭabaqāt al-qurrā', Cairo, 1932, I, 413–14Google Scholar; Sa'd, Ibn, al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kabīr, Beirut, 1957, VI, 172–5Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See al-Dāwudī, , Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn, Cairo, 1972, II, 29Google Scholar; al-Suyūtī, , Ṭabaqāt al-ḥujfāẓ, Cairo, 1973, 159Google Scholar

⁴¹ See GAS, I, 518–19Google Scholar

⁴² See al-Jazarī, Ibn, Ghāyat al-nihāya, I, 505–6Google Scholar

⁴³ See, e.g., al-Naḥḥās, 6

⁴⁴ Note that the proper name of al-Sulamī the Ṣūfī is actually Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥusain ibn Muḥammad, so, that the copyist/compiler even necessarily intended this person is still not totally evident

⁴⁵ These instances have been noted in the critical apparatus of the text below. I do not consider, of course, that they are of any textual value; rather they are included to illustrate the extent of copyist error. Qur'ānic orthographic variants (which are numerous) have not been noted; the standard Cairo text orthography has been uniformly imposed as has its variant reading version with one exception where the text requires a different reading (see paragraph 9). A short and corrupt text such as this is of little value in the study of Middle Arabic and thus preservation of these discrepancies seems pointless

⁴⁶ See above note 40

⁴⁷ GAS, I, 321Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See Rippin, , BSOAS, XLIV, 1, 1981, 22Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Paragraph 34 is also out of order but is aberrant in other details as well: see below

⁵⁰ The exception here being the work by al-Baghdādī which is divided into chapters according to whether or not there is agreement by most scholars on the matter (see QS, 199)

⁵¹ Hibat Allāh, 89–91

⁵² ibid., 206–7

⁵³ ibid., 291–2

⁵⁴ See e.g. ibid., 150–1 and QS, 185–8

⁵⁵ This, of course, is the method followed by Muḥammad ibn Ḥazm in his entire text; it is the variability in procedure that is important here, not the procedure per se

⁵⁶ Al-Wāḥidī, , Asbāb nuzūl al-Qur'ān, Cairo, 1400, 33–5Google Scholar; al-Suyūṭī, , Lubāb al-nuqūl fī asbāb al-nuzūl on the margin of Tafsīr Jalālain, Beirut, [1397], 66–71Google Scholar; al-Tabarī, , Jāmī' al-bayān 'an ta'wīl āy al-Qur'ān, Cairo, 1376, III, 493–503Google Scholar, reports 2935–52; al-Qurṭubī, , al-Jāmī' li-aḥkām al-Qur'ān, Cairo, 1935–1937, II, 315Google Scholar; Muqātil ibn Sulaimān, Tafsīr, MS Ahmed III 74, f. 28b; al-'Arabī, Ibn, Aḥkām al-Qur'ān, Cairo, 1959, 91Google Scholar; Hibat Allāh, 17–18

⁵⁷ See al-Ṭabarī, , Ta'rīkh, Leiden, 1879–1901, I, 1451Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See above, note 38

⁵⁹ In later centuries it does, however, seem at least possible to trace development in legal positions; see, for example, Calder, Norman, ‘Zakāt in Imāmī Shī'ī jurisprudence, from the tenth to the sixteenth century A. D’, BSOAS, XLIV, 3, 1981, 468–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘Khums in Imāmī Shī'ī jurisprudence, from the tenth to the sixteenth century A. D’, BSOAS, XLV, 1, 1982, 39–47Google Scholar

⁶⁰ al-Kashshāf, 'an ḥaqā'iq al-tanzīl, Cairo, 1343, I, 196Google Scholar

⁶¹ Later theorists would call this an instance of talchṣīṣ, specification; see further below

⁶² Al-Qurṭubī, , al-Jāmi' li-aḥkām al-Qur'ān, V, 94Google Scholar

⁶³ See e.g. Muqātil, , Tafsīr khams mi'a āya, 141–7Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Hibat Allāh, 73–4

⁶⁵ See QS, 197–8

⁶⁶ For further details on the use of these terms in other exegetes, see QS, 129, 132 and 138

⁶⁷ Also note the use of the verbal formulation of the word fiqh in the sense of belief in paragraph 42; this is reminiscent of the use of the word in Abū Hanīfa, Fiqh Akbar, I

⁶⁸ MSS Berlin Petermann 555, ff. 2b–3b, and Beyazit 445, ff. 2b–3a

⁶⁹ Kitāb al-i'tibār, 9–22

⁷⁰ Al-ṣabarī, II, 473

⁷¹ Note should be made of the terminological form in this type of naskh and how, perhaps, this has been dictated by the order of presentation (or vice versa); for example, nasalchahā qauluhu (paragraphs 29, 30, 31) nasakhahā allāh bi-qaulihi (paragraphs 21, 22), etc

⁷² Funding for the research and travel for this paper was provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Thanks are due to all the libraries concerned for access to their manuscript collections and to Princeton University Library for their permission to publish the text of their manuscript Yahuda 228, ff 2 to 7 and for permission to reproduce plate I. Thanks are also due to Dr. John Wansbrough, SOAS, for much assistance and encouragement