Dennis Halft, Review of Adam J. Silverstein and Guy G. Stroumsa (eds); Moshe Blidstein (associate ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Abrahamic Religions, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015, Medieval Encounters 26 (2020), pages 328‒330.
Michel Cuypers, “And Yet It Moves: Reflection on an Essay by Nicolai Sinai” in Journal of Qur’anic Studies 22.2 (2020), 86‒104.
Dennis Halft, “Seeking Fullness of Life in an ‘Oasis of Peace’ Bruno Hussar’s Vision of a Shared Jewish-Palestinian Community,” in E. Van Stichel, Th. Eggensperger, M. Kalsky, and U. Engel (eds), Fullness of Life and Justice for All: Dominican Perspectives, Adelaide: ATF Theology, 2020, 33‒43.
Jean Druel, “The Kitāb Sībawayh of ʾAbū al-Ḥasan ʾAḥmad b. Naṣr: A non-Sīrāfian recension of the Kitāb”, in Zeitschrift für arabische Linguistik 71 (2020), pages 29‒56.
The Milan-Kazan codex of SĪBAWAYH’s (d. ca 180/796) Kitāb is a 5ᵗʰ/11ᵗʰ century North-African parchment today split between three collections: 1) Milan, Ambrosiana, X 56 sup. (115 folios), 2) Kazan, National Archives of the Republic of Tatarstan 10/5/822 (48 folios), and 3) London, Bernard Quaritch Ltd catalogue 2018/3, item number 11 (6 folios). When put together, these three manuscripts contain only one fourth of the whole text of the Kitāb. This codex sheds a new light on the gradual stabilisation of SĪBAWAYH’s text. Its recension is linked to a certain ʾABŪ AL-ḤASAN ʾAḤMAD B. NAṢR, mentioned on the first folio of the Milan fragments.
Focusing on one specific issue, namely the possibility to form the diminutive of the names of the days of the week, this paper compares SĪBAWAYH’s teaching according to the text as accepted by scholars to date (as in DERENBOURG 1881‒1889), along with the early commentaries and the recension of the Milan-Kazan codex according to its four successive hands.
At this point, it is impossible to say that this recension is pre-Mubarradian, that is to say one that escaped the “authoritarian stranglehold” on the text by AL-MUBARRAD (HUMBERT 1995:92). However, the Milan-Kazan codex surely contains a non-Sīrāfian recension of SĪBAWAYH’s Kitāb, that is a recension which, unlike the “received” text of the Kitāb, was not influenced by AL-SĪRĀFĪ’s commentary.
Jean Druel, “A sparkle in the debate about the word ʾāmīn used in supplication and its rules in Arabic, by ʾAbū Muḥammad Ibn al-Ḫaššāb (d. 567/1172), an annotated translation”, in Beata Sheyhatovitch & Almog Kasher (editors), From Sībawayhi to ʾAḥmad Ḥasan al-Zayyāt: New angles on the Arabic linguistic tradition, Leiden & Boston: Brill, pages 123‒140.
Dennis Halft, OP, “Shiʿite Muslim Exegesis of the Bible in Early Modern Iran: Sayyid Aḥmad ʿAlavī and His Interpretation of Elijah”, in Biblia Arabica blog, 2020.
Dominique Avon and Amar Saïdi, “The religious prohibition of marriage between Muslim women and non-Muslim men”, Quaderni di diritto e politica ecclesiastica, NR 1, April 2019, pages 85‒109.
Jean Druel and Almog Kasher, “‘Though this be madness, yet there is method in’t’: The mamnūʿ min al-ṣarf (diptotes) in Arabic grammatical tradition” in Arabica 66 (2019), pages 98‒136.
Jean Druel, “Can Ambrosiana X 56 Sup. improve our understanding of Sībawayhi’s grammar?” in Manuela E. B. Giolfo and Kees Versteegh (editors), The Foundations of Arabic Linguistics IV, Brill: Leiden, Boston, 2019, pages 133‒156.