Al-Tafsīr al-Qayyim - Ibn al-Qayyim - (207)

it alone takes tā as an oath particle, admits the vocative particle despite having the definite article, and has its normally elidable initial hamza pronounced in direct address. Its lām must also be pronounced emphatically without being preceded by an emphatic consonant. This summarizes the position of al-Khalīl and Sībawayh.

Another view holds that the mīm compensates for an omitted clause. The underlying expression is yā Allāh, ummanā bi-khayr (“O Allah, turn toward us with good”), meaning “direct Yourself toward us.” The preposition and its object were then omitted, as was the verb’s direct object, leaving the underlying expression yā Allāh, umma. The hamza was subsequently dropped because this name occurs so frequently on people’s tongues in supplication, leaving “yā Allāhumma.” This is al-Farrā’s view.

The proponent of this view permits the addition of yā before it, citing the poet’s words:

“Yā Allāhumma, send us once more
Abundant rain that brings no harm.”

He also cites the verse quoted earlier and other examples.

The Basran grammarians rejected this on several grounds.

First: There is no evidence for these reconstructions, nor does grammatical analogy require them. They should therefore not be adopted without evidence.

Second: The basic presumption is that nothing has been omitted. Positing all these omissions runs counter to that presumption.

Third: Someone invoking Allah by this expression may pray for harm to befall himself or someone else. This reconstruction therefore cannot apply in such a case.

Fourth: Common, eloquent usage shows that the Arabs did not combine yā with Allāhumma. Had its original form been as al-Farrā described, there would have been nothing to prevent combining them; indeed, doing so would have been common and eloquent usage. Yet the opposite is the case.

Fifth: There is nothing to prevent someone making supplication from saying, “Allāhumma, ummanā bi-khayr” (“O Allah, turn toward us with good”). If the underlying expression were as he described, combining the two would be impermissible, since this would bring together both the compensatory addition and the expression it replaces.

اختص بالتاء في القسم. وبدخول حرف النداء عليه مع لام التعريف، وبقطع همزة وصله في النداء، وبتفخيم لامه وجوبا غير مسبوقة بحرف إطباق. هذا ملخص مذهب الخليل وسيبويه. وقيل: الميم عوض عن جملة محذوفة. والتقدير: يا الله أمنّا بخير، أي اقصدنا ثم حذف الجار والمجرور، وحذف المفعول. فبقي في التقدير: يا الله أمّ. ثم حذفت الهمزة، لكثرة دوران هذا الاسم في الدعاء على ألسنتهم، فبقي «يا اللهم» وهذا قول الفراء. وصاحب هذا القول يجوّز دخول «يا» عليه. ويحتج بقول الشاعر: يا اللهم ما اردد علينا سحا مسلما وبالبيت المتقدم وغيرهما. ورد البصريون هذا بوجوه. أحدها: أن هذه التقادير لا دليل عليها، ولا يقتضيها القياس، فلا يصار إليها بغير دليل. الثاني: أن الأصل عدم الحذف، فتقدير هذه المحذوفات الكثيرة خلاف الأصل. الثالث: أن الداعي بهذا قد يدعو بالشر على نفسه وعلى غيره. فلا يصح هذا التقدير فيه. الرابع: أن الاستعمال الشائع الفصيح يدل على أن العرب لم تجمع بين «يا» و «اللهم» ولو كان أصله ما ذكره الفراء لم يمتنع الجمع. بل كان استعماله فصيحا شائعا. والأمر بخلافه. الخامس: أنه لا يمتنع أن يقول الداعي: اللهم أمّنا بخير. ولو كان التقدير كما ذكره، لم يجز الجمع بينهما، لما فيه من الجمع بين العوض والمعوض عنه.