Al-Nahhas’s Refutation of Ahmad ibn Musa Al-Lu'lu'i regarding Waqf (Pausing) and Ibtida' (Resuming)

A Grammatical-Semantic Study

Abstract

This study examines the science of Qur’anic pausing and resumption (al-Waqf wa al-Ibtidāʾ) as an authentic Qur’anic discipline in which syntactic, semantic, and rhetorical structures intersect, and which constitutes a fundamental basis for regulating, interpreting, and safeguarding Qur’anic meaning from error. The study focuses on determining the accuracy of Abū Jaʿfar al-Naḥḥās’s (d. 338 AH) criticism of Aḥmad ibn Mūsā al-Luʾluʾī in his work al-Qaṭʿ wa al-Iʾtināf concerning certain Qur’anic passages, and its effect on syntactic and semantic meaning. The significance of the study lies in highlighting the scholarly value of the science of pausing and resumption in serving Qur’anic interpretation and exposition, revealing the relationship between syntax and semantics in determining the validity or error of a pause, and reviving the syntactic and rhetorical heritage through a comparative study. The researcher employed the inductive approach to trace and collect the passages in which al-Naḥḥās criticized al-Luʾluʾī, and the descriptive-analytical approach to present the Qur’anic texts and disputed pauses, identify the views of al-Luʾluʾī and al-Naḥḥās, analyze them syntactically, semantically, and rhetorically, and then determine the view closest to correctness. The study concluded that the disagreement between al-Naḥḥās and al-Luʾluʾī was closely related to the syntactic and semantic structure of the Qur’anic text. Al-Naḥḥās’s criticism was largely based on syntactic principles concerning the relationship between the governing and governed elements, the verb and its subject or cause, and the statement and what it states, whereas al-Luʾluʾī’s choices often relied on exegetical or rhetorical considerations, or matters related to the occasions of revelation and Qur’anic readings.