التناص العلمي في نقد التوراة بين ابن حزم الأندلسي والسموأل المغربي

This study presents a comparative analytical reading of the Islamic criticism trends of the Torah by two important critics; Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi and Al-Samawa'al Al-Maghribi using theory of intertextuality that explores the similarity between texts. It should be remarked that the resemblance may be a direct and literal one or indirect one that can be inferred from the idea, the meaning or orientation.I attempted, in this research, to follow closely the criticisms of Ibn Hazm and Al-Maghribi in light of the important study done by Hava Lazarus Yafeh on Islamic criticisms of the Jewish Scriptures during the Medieval Islamic era. She mentioned in her book entitled "Intertwined worlds: Medieval Islam and Bible Criticism" four main arguments: abrogation, distortion and alteration, loss of chain of transmission and the prediction of the coming of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H). Yafeh designated this as the Islamic criticism of the Bible. I looked into the intertextuality features between the two critics focusing on the style, methodology, thought and meaning without neglecting their differences in the context of Torah criticism and this was all based on Yafeh’s four arguments.It was necessary, as we observe this intertextuality in the criticism of the Torah of Ibn Hazm and Al-Maghribi, to show its implications; in other words to answer an important question: Whether Al-Maghribi was aware, in one way or another, of Ibn Hazm's critical heritage of the Torah.In the light of the issue of intertextuality between Al-Maghribi’s and Ibn Hazm’s texts that this study tackled. In this regard the study provided a critical reading of Yafeh’s claim that Al-Maghribi developed as well as circulated Ibn Hazm’s criticism leveled against the Hebrew Sciptures.The study concluded with a number of results and the most important among them is: the intertextuality between Ibn Hazm and Al-Maghribi in criticizing the Hebrew Bible on a formal level ( indirect)i.e. the general construction of the writing, methodology and the approach of criticism that confirm the impact of the former on the latter either through direct awareness of Ibn Hazm’s critical texts or the indirect one through Ibn Hazm’s impact on the Islamic tradition of criticism in this field since the I fifth century of Hijrah.Another result which has been based on this one, is that the development of some of Ibn Hazm’s critical views done by Al-Maghribi, which Yafeh has claimed was inaccurate and was not compatible with the evidence provided by this study about the two scholars. However, it is possible to say that Al-Maghribi reestablished the critical trends of Ibn Hazm and emphasized his dialectical arguments against the Torah, especially those relating to the historical criticism of the biblical text, the role of Ezra the scribe in particular, the circumstances of the Bible's rewriting after its loss and the role of Rabbis in the historical development of Juadism.