ibn qutaybah's contribution to qur'anic exegesis (introduction & chapter i)
DESCRIPTION
An analytical study of his work "Ta'wil Mushkil al-Qur'an"TRANSCRIPT
IBN QUTAYBAH'S CONTRIBUTION
TO QUR’ĀNIC EXEGESIS
AN ANALYTICAL STUDY OF HIS WORK
TA’WĪL MUSHKIL AL-QUR’ĀN
BY
DR. MUHAMMAD AMIN ABDUL SAMAD
ii
iii
ABSTRACT
This book is an attempt to present Ibn Qutaybah‟s contribution to
Qur‟ānic exegesis analyzing his work Ta’wīl Mushkil al-Qur’ān (The
Interpretation of the Difficult Passages of the Qur‟ān). Ibn Qutaybah (d.
276/889) was one of the great Sunnī scholars of the third/ninth century.
He was a prolific writer and a scholar of many branches of learning, such
as: kalām (scholastic theology), tafsīr (Qur‟ānic exegesis), H.adīth (the
Prophet‟s Tradition), history and the science of language, including
grammar, prose and poetry. He was said to be the third great writer of
Arabic prose chronologically after Ibn Muqaffa„ (d. 141/759) and al-Jāh.iz.
(d. 254/868). He was one of the earliest commentators of the Qur‟ān; he
was earlier than al-T.abarī (d. 310/923), al-T.abarsī (d. 548/1153), al-
Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1144) and Ibn „Arabī (d. 638/1240).
Ibn Qutaybah took part in theological debate of his time and wrote
his Ta’wīl defending the Qur‟ān against the attack of philosophic
scepticism. His Ta’wīl was a treatise on Qur‟ānic rhetoric and on the
inimitability of the Qur‟ān in which he clarified through philological
explanations many Qur‟ānic verses assumed to be obscure by some
sceptics. This obscurity is based on their allegations of the existence of
contradiction, disagreement and ungrammatical usage in the verses of the
Qur‟ān.
Ibn Qutaybah in his Ta’wīl countered these allegations with
arguments based purely on Arabic usage in prose as well as poetry, and
cited many poems of pre-Islamic as well as contemporary poets as
shawāhid (quotations serving as textual evidence). He dealt with the
phenomena of figurative language, such as: metaphor, inversion, ellipsis
and pleonasm, metonymy and allusion. He also dealt with ambiguous
letters, words and particles in the verses of the Qur‟ān.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my deepest appreciation to Dr. Abdul Khaliq
Kazi, the former Associate Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies and
Head of Department of Asians Languages, the University of Melbourne for his advice, encouragement and support throughout this research.
I am greatly indebted to Mr. Ali (Alan) Philpot, Mr. Barakatullah
(Brian) Arab and Dr. Abdul Hadi T. Skinner who have edited, corrected the draft and proof-read the manuscript patiently and meticulously with
their invaluable suggestions and advice which I highly appreciated.
However, I am solely responsible for all the defects contained in this thesis, from organization structure, translations and expressed views to
typographical errors.
My thanks also go to Asst. Prof. Dr. Teddy Mantoro for his advice and
assistance in many ways, as well as to those who have assisted me
spiritually as well as materially, and contributed directly or indirectly to the accomplishment of this research. For this contribution I shall always
be grateful.
Canberra, 6 December, 2011 Muhammad Amin A. Samad
v
TRANSLITERATION SYSTEM
The English transliteration for Arabic names and terms followed in
this thesis is as follows:
a. Consonants:
= a or ‟ = b = t = th = j = h.
= kh = d = dh = r = z = s
= sh = s. = d. = t. = z. = „
= gh = f = q = k = l = m
= n = h = w = y = ‟ (like alif)
b. Vowels:
Short: long:
Fath.ah ----- : = a = ā
Kasrah ----- : = i = ī
D.ammah ----- : = u = ū
c. Tā’ marbūt.ah: ah, e.g., sūrah ( )
Tā’ marbūt.ah in id.āfah: at, e.g., sūrat al-Baqarah ( )
d. Alif maqs.ūrah: á, e.g., qad.á ( ) and shūrá ( )
vi
LIST OF ABREVIATIONS
BSOAS Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies
EI2 Encyclopedia of Islam (New Edition)
IC Islamic Culture
IQ Islamic Quarterly
IR Islamic Review
JAOS Journal of American Oriental Society
MW Muslim World
Q Qur‟ān
SEI Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam
SI Studia Islamica
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT …………………………………………………. iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS …………………………………… iv
TRANSLITERATION SYSTEM ……………………………. v
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ………………………………… vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS …………………………………….. vii
INTRODUCTION …………………………………………… xiv
Chapter
I. THE SOURCES AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND … 1
A. An Evaluation of Some of the Literature Relevant to the
Study of Ibn Qutaybah ………………………. 1
1. The Literary Works of Ibn Qutaybah 1
a. Ta’wīl Mushkil al-Qur’ān ……………………… 1
b. Tafsīr Gharīb al-Qur’ān …………………………… 2
c. Gharīb al-H.adīth…………………………………....... 3
d. Adab al-Kātib ………………………………………… 4
2. Books on Tafsīr (Qur‟ānic Exegesis) by Others ........ 6
a. Majāz al-Qur’ān by Abū „Ubaydah …………….. 6
b. Ma‘ānī ’l-Qur’ān by al-Farrā‟ ……………….. 6
c. Jāmi‘ al-Bayān fī Tafsīr al-Qur’ān
by Ibn Jarīr al-T.abarī ……………………………. 7
3. Books on Arabic Language and Literature ………… 8
a. Kitāb al-Ad.dād by Ibn al-Anbārī ……………. 8
b. Al-S.āh.ibī fī Fiqh al-Lughah by Ibn Fāris …… 8
viii
c. Lisān al-‘Arab by Ibn Manz.ūr ……………… 9
B. Historical Background ………………………….. 9
1. A Short Synopsis of Ibn Qutaybah‟s Life ……….. 9
2. Political, Social, and Cultural Conditions in
Ibn Qutaybah‟s Life …………………………………. 12
a. Political Condition ………………………………….. 12
b. Social Condition …………………………………… 14
c. Cultural Condition ………………………………….. 15
3. Historical Perspective on the Development of Early
Qur‟ānic Exegesis ………………………………… 18
a. Tafsīr and Ta’wīl ………………………………… 18
b. Categories of Tafsīr ……………………………… 19
(1) Traditional Commentary …………………… 19
(2) Rational Commentary …………………… 21
(3) Symbolic (Allegorical) Commentary ……… 23
c. Early Development of Tafsīr …………………… 24
Endnotes to Chapter I. ……………………………… 36
II. IBN QUTAYBAH‟S REFUTATION OF ALLEGATIONS OF
SOLECISM, CONTRADICTION AND AMBIGUITY IN
THE VERSES OF THE QUR‟ĀN …………………… 49
A. Variant Readings in the Qur‟ān …………………… 47
B. Ungrammatical Usage in the Qur‟ān …………… 62
1. Inna hādhān lasāh.irān () ……… 62
2. Wa ’l-s.ābi’ūn () ……………………… 65
ix
3. Wa ’l-muqīmīn al-s.alāh () ………… 68
4. Nujjī al-mu’minīn () ………………………… 73
5. Fa’as.s.addaqa wa akun min al-s.ālih.īn () ...... 74
C. Contradiction and Disagreement in the Verses of the Qur‟ān …75
1. Contradiction ………………………………………… 75
2. Disagreement ………………………………………… 76
D. Ambiguity of the Verses of the Qur‟ān ………………… 80
1. The Meaning of Ambiguity ………………………….. 80
2. Muh.kamāt and Mutashābihāt …………………………… 80
3. The Ta’wīl of the Mutashābihāt ………………………… 82
Endnotes to Chapter II ………………………………………… 90
III. IBN QUTAYBAH‟S TREATMENT OF THE PHENOMENA
OF FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE ………………………….. 102
A. Metaphor ………………………………………………. 102
1. Majāz ………………………………………………… 102
2. Isti‘ārah ………………………………………………….. 107
B. Inversion (Maqlūb) …………………………………… 112
1. Ascribing Something with Its Opposite Quality …….. 112
2. Designating Two Contradictory Things Having
One Basic Meaning with One Name ………………. 113
3. Advancing What will Be Clear by Retarding, and
Retarding What will Be Clear by Advancing ………. 122
4. Inversion by Mistake ………………………………. 131
C. Ellipsis (H.adhf) and Brevity (Ikhtis.ār) …………………. 134
x
1. The Ellipsis of the Mud.āf whose function is Replaced by
the Mud.āf Ilayh ……………………………………… 135
2. The Ellipsis of the Verb …………………………… 136
3. The Ellipsis of the Main Clause of a Conditional
or an Incomplete Sentence …………………………… 137
4. The Ellipsis of One or Two Words ………………….. 138
5. The Ellipsis of the Main Clause of an Oath ………….. 140
6. The Ellipsis of the Word lā …………………………… 140
7. The Use of the Pronouns for Something Which Has not
Been Mentioned before ……………………………… 141
8. The Ellipsis of the Prepositions ………………………. 142
9. Complex Ellipsis …………………………………….. 143
D. Repetition (Takrār) and Pleonasm (Ziyādah) ……………… 145
1. Repetition ………………………………………………. 145
a. Repetition of Words ……………………………….. 145
b. Repetition of Meaning ……………………………. . 146
2. Pleonasm ……………………………………………… 147
a. General Pleonasm ………………………………….. 147
b. Specific Pleonasm ……………………………… 148
E. Kināyah (Metonymy) and Ta‘rīd. (Allusion) ……………. 159
1. Kināyah (Metonymy) ………………………………… 159
a. Kunyah ………………………………………………… 160
b. Fulān …………………………………………………… 161
2. Ta‘rīd. (Allusion) …………………………………….. 162
xi
F. The disagreement of the Word with Its Literal Meaning …… 166
1. Imprecation …………………………………………… 166
2. Repetition ……………………………………………. 167
3. Rhetorical Question …………………………………. 168
4. Imperative ……………………………………………. 168
5. Specification ………………………………………… 168
6. Number ……………………………………………… 169
a. Noun …………………………………………….. 170
b. Adjective (Quality) ………………………………. 171
c. Verb ……………………………………………… 171
7. Sudden Transition (Iltifāt) …………………………… 174
8. Juncture ……………………………………………… 177
9. Tempora ………………………………………………. 178
10. Morphology ………………………………………….. 180
Endnotes to Chapter III ..………………………………………. 182
IV. IBN QUTAYBAH‟S TREATMENT OF AMBIGUOUS
LETTERS, WORDS AND PARTICLES IN
THE VERSES OF THE QUR‟ĀN ………………………. 214
A. Letters Assumed to Be Absurd and Stylistically Spoiling … 214
B. Words which Have Many Different Meanings ………….. 218
1. al-qad.ā’ ) 2. al-hudá ) ) 3. al-ummah ()
4. al-‘ahd () 5. al-ill () 6. al-qunūt ()
7. al-dīn () 8. al-mawlá () 9. al-d.alāl ()
10. al-imām ( ( 11. al-s.alāh () 12. al-kitāb ()
xii
13. al-sabab ) .14. al-z.ulm () 15. al-balā’ ( (
16. al-rijz (ا) and al-rijs ) 17. al-fitnah )
18. al-fard. ) 19. al-khiyānah () 20. al-islām (ما)
21. al-īmān () 22. al-d.urr () 23. al-h.araj ()
24. al-rūh. ) 25. al-wah.y ) 26. al-farah. ()
27. al-fath. () 28. al-karīm () 29. al-mathal ( (
30. al-d.arb () 31. al-zawj () 32. al-ru’yah ()
33. al-nisyān () 34. al-s.ā‘iqah ) )
35. al-akhdh () 36. al-sult.ān () 37. al-ba’s ()
and al-ba’sā’ () 38. al-khalq () 39. al-rajm ()
40. al-sa‘y () 41. al-muh.s.anāt () 42. al-matā‘
() 43. al-h.isāb () 44. al-amr ()
C. Meanings of Particles ……………………………………… 256
1. ka’ayyin () 2. kayfa ( ) 3. sawá () , siwá (ىَوِس)
and suwá () 4. ayyāna () 5. al-āna (َ ) 6. anná ( )
7. wayka’anna () 8. ka’anna ( ) 9. lāta ( )
10. mahmā () 11. mā () 12. kāda ( ) 13. bal ( )
14. hal () 15. law lā ( ) and law mā () 16. lammā ) )
17. aw () 18. am () 19. lā () 20. awlá ( ) 21. lā jarama
xiii
() 22. in al-khafīfah () 23. hā () 24. hāti ) )
25. ta‘āl () 26. halumma () 27. kallā (ّ) 28. ruwaydan
(ا) 29. alā ( ) 30. al-wayl ( ) 31. la‘amruka ()
32. iy () 33. ladun ( )
D. The Substitution of Particles in the Verses of the Qur‟ān …… 277
1. ilá (َ) 2. bi (ِ) 3. ‘alá () 4.‘an () 5. fī ()
6. li ( ِ) 7. min ( )
Endnotes to Chapter IV …………………………………… 287
CONCLUSION …………………………………………… 341
BIBLIOGRAPHY ………………………………………… 348
A. Arabic Sources ……………………………………… 348
B. English and Other Language Sources ……………….. 357
C. Articles …………………………………………….. 359
APPENDICES …………………………………………… 360
1. Authorities and Transmitters of the Qur‟ān …………… 360
2. Glossary ……………………………………………… 361
xiv
INTRODUCTION
Ibn Qutaybah (d. 276/889) was one of the great and early scholars
among Muslims who lived in the 9th century C.E. Although he was of a
Persian origin he was considered one of the great masters of Arabic language and literature. His book Adab al-Kātib (The Accomplishment of
the Secretary) which is one of the mains sources of this book indicates his
mastery of Arabic philology.
The Qur‟ān was revealed in the early 6th century C.E. in Arabic older
than Old English (Anglo-Saxon) used in about 450 C.E. till 1150 C.E.
which is totally non-understandable nowadays, as it consisted of almost purely Germanic vocabularies of Kentish, West Saxon, Mercian, and
Northumbian dialects.1 On the contrary, the Arabic language of the Qur‟ān
which is called classical Arabic is still understood by people today, despite many difficult words and expressions in it. Here lies the importance of Ibn
Qutaybah's book, Ta’wīl Mushkil al-Qur’ān (The Interpretation of
Difficult Passages of the Qur‟ān) where he explained them referring to the Arabs' way of expression and the location of majāz (figurative expression)
in it.
The Arabic language is called Lughat al-Adād ("The Language of
Opposite Meanings") where many words have the same opposite meanings
which may confuse some people, such as the word arīm which means
"dawn" as well as "night". There are also words which have many different
meanings, such as qaā which means "to decree", "to order", "to inform",
and "to make". Ibn Qutaybah explains these issues as well as variant
readings, ungrammatical usage, the phenomena of figurative language, and many other issues in the Qur‟ān.
As Ibn Qutaybah was one of the earlier commentators of the Qur‟ān,
earlier than "the father of the commentary of the Qur‟ān" al-abarī (d.
310/923), his books Ta’wīl Mushkil al-Qur’ān and Tafsīr gharīb al-Qur’ān
(Commentary of the Obscure Passages of the Qur‟ān) which is also used as
reference in this book were referred to by the mufassirīn (commentators of the Qur‟ān) of later generations. Hence the contribution of Ibn Qutaybah in
the field of tafsīr (commentary of the Qur‟ān) is indispensable for those
who are interested in studying comprehensively the science of tafsīr.
xv
At the end of each chapter of this book the endnotes are given more
elaborately to facilitate further research for those who are interested in
further study in their respective fields.
The Arabic name "Allāh" - the proper name of God among Muslims
and a small minority of non-Muslim Arabs - is used in this research.
However, when the translation of a Qur‟ānic verse with the name "Allāh" in it, the name is kept as given by its translator, either "Allah" or "God".
_______________ 1 Standard Dictionary (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1973), p. 420 (s.v. English)
1
CHAPTER I
SOURCES AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
A. An Evaluation of Some of the Literature Relevant
to the Study of Ibn Qutaybah
There are numerous Arabic sources for our present study, dating
from a generation earlier to a generation after that of Ibn Qutaybah. Ibn
Qutaybah himself was a prolific writer and all - possibly except one - of his authentic works have been published. For the purpose of systematical
survey we divide the sources into genre as follows:
1. The Literary Works of Ibn Qutaybah 2. Books on Tafsīr (Qur‟ānic exegesis)
3. Books on Arabic Language and Literature
1. The Literary Works of Ibn Qutaybah
Ibn Qutaybah was a writer and a scholar of many branches of learning: kalām (theology), the science of language (including tafsīr, h.adīth, grammar
and poetry), and history, political as well as religious. He was said to be the
third great writer of Arabic prose chronologically after Ibn al-Muqaffa„ (d.
141/759) and al-Jāh.iz. (d. 254/868).1 His books were considered “a
comprehensive encyclopaedia portraying the highest level of Islamic thinking which had been reached in the third century A.H.”.
2 Lecomte in his
dissertation on Ibn Qutaybah‟s works mentions sixty book titles, among
which only sixteen are extant and authentic,3 and four of which are among
my major sources for my study as follows:
a. Ta’wīl Mushkil al-Qur’ān
This book is the object of my analytical study to assess Ibn Qutaybah‟s
contributions to Qur‟ānic exegesis. The motive for his writing the book was to defend the Qur‟ān from the mulh.idīn (heretics, unbelievers) who charged
the Qur‟ān with imperfection, such as contradiction, obscurity, and solecism.
He said:
.... Therefore, I write this book collecting the interpretations of the
difficult passages of the Qur‟ān [which is also the title of the book]
taken from the commentaries [of the commentators] adding with
explanation and clarification, and referring to the Arabs' way of
expression (lughat al-„arab) - as long as there is no [contrary] view
known (to me) from a well-informed leading scholar (mā lam a„lam fīhi
maqālan li-imām mut.t.ali„)4 - to show the obstinate person the location
2
of the majāz (figurative expression) and how it is possible without
judging [it] with [one's] personal opinion (ra’y), or deciding [it] with
[one‟s own] interpretation (ta„wīl)...5
In other words, apart from being a defence of the Qur‟ān, the book also
serves as a transmitter of the science of exegesis in Ibn Qutaybah‟s time to following generations, since he, as he claims, does not give us his personal
opinion. To judge to what extent the book complies with this statement of
Ibn Qutaybah, we have to compare it with other books of exegesis belonging to earlier and later generations.
The present edition of the Ta„wīl as stated by its editor, Saqr, is based
on three manuscripts: (1) MS no. 518-tafsīr at Dār al-Kutub al-Mis.riyyah
library, written by Burhān al-Dīn in 558/1163 with commentary in its
margin. It contains one hundred and thirty-four folios, the first of which is missing. The symbol used by the editor to identify this manuscript in his
notes is the letter J. (2) The manuscript at Murād Mullā library,
anonymously written in 532/1137-8 contains one hundred and seventeen folios. The symbol is the letter M. (3) MS no. 663-tafsīr at Dār al-Kutub
al-Mis.riyyah library, written by Muh.ammad ibn Ah.mad ibn Yah.yá in
379/989-90, containing eighty-five folios. Although it is not the oldest
manuscript, the scribe omitted many texts and poems used by the author as shawāhid (quotations serving as textual evidence). Its symbol is the letter
D.6 At the end of the book the editor includes a list showing the variant texts
among the three manuscripts.7 At the bottom of the book he gives us his
valuable commentary as footnotes. The purpose of this commentary, as he
puts it, is “either to support a view, to weaken a statement, to elaborate a
general concept, to clarify an obscure statement, to show the origin of an idea, or to agree with an opinion”,
8 so that the reader should have a better
understanding of the text.
b. Tafsīr Gharīb al-Qur’ān
As Ibn Qutaybah did not want to make his work Ta„wīl lengthy, he
continued it in another book with a different title, namely, Tafsīr Gharīb
al-Qur’ān (Commentary on the Obscure Passages of the Qur‟an). Like his Ta„wīl, the sources of this Tafsīr are also books of exegesis and philology
without departing from their schools (madhāhib). He does not give us his views except as explanation of what he has chosen from his sources. He
bases his choice on the most appropriate philological point of view and the
closest to the sense of the context of the verse he is dealing with.9
The significance of this Tafsīr for the present study lies in that it
3
contains the commentary on some Qur‟ānic verses explained or used as shawāhid in the Ta‟wīl. It serves as a commentary and confirmation of Ibn
Qutaybah‟s view in his Ta„wīl. Like the Ta„wīl this Tafsīr is also edited by
A. H. S.aqr, with footnotes as commentary, the purpose of which is similar to
that which he had stated in the introduction to the Ta„wīl mentioned above.10
His introduction is short, but contains valuable information in which he
points out that the sources of the Tafsīr are taken from various books of
scholars. He relies mainly on the works of two philologists, Abū „Ubaydah‟s (d. 210/-824) Majāz al-Qur„ān (The Literary Expression of the Qur‟ān) and
al-Farrā‟‟s (d. 207/822) Ma„ānī ’l-Qur’ān (The Meanings of the Qur‟ān).11
S.aqr states further in his introduction that Ibn Qutaybah‟s Tafsīr
became an important source for Qur‟ānic commentators of later generations,
such as al-T.abarī (d. 311/923), al-Qurt.ubī (d. 671/1272), al-Rāzī (d.
606/-1209), and Abū H.ayyān al-Andalusī (d. 744-5/1344). Al- T.abarī was
said to have copied it literally on many occasions without mentioning Ibn Qutaybah‟s name.
12
c. Gharīb al-H.adīth
This book, Gharīb al-H.adīth (The Uncommon Words in the H.adīth)
consists of three volumes, and is edited by Dr. „Abd Allāh al-Jubūrī from
four manuscripts: (1) the Z.āhiriyyah manuscripts, written by „Abd al-Ghanī
ibn „Abd Allāh ibn „Abd al-Wāh.id al-Maqdisī at Fust.āt., Cairo, in 571/1175,
in two volumes, but incomplete; (2) the manuscript of Sir A. Chester Beatty
in Dublin, Ireland, volume two only, but makes the Z.āhiriyyah manuscript
complete; (3) the S.an„ā‟ (Sanna) manuscript, consisting of two volumes, but
volume one is missing; (4) the Moroccan manuscript, consisting of four volumes, with volume four only extant.
13
When Ibn Qutaybah found many h.adīths (a h.ādīth) and isnads (chains
of authorities on which the h.adīths are based) had been omitted by Abū
„Ubayd in his work Gharīb al-H.adīth, he started writing his own Gharīb
al-H.adīth, containing and explaining those missing h.adīths and isnāds, and
quoting shawāhid from poetry. When Ibn Qutaybah found some mistakes in
Abū Ubayd‟s Gharīb al-H.adīth, he corrected them in a separate book
entitled Is.lāh. al-Ghalat. (The Correction of Mistakes).
In the earlier chapters of the Gharīb al-H.adīth Ibn Qutaybah explains
the etymology of a number of technical terms, such as wud.ū’ (ablution),
s.alāh (prayer), kāfir (unbeliever) and z.ālim (transgressor). Then he explains
4
uncommon words in the h.adīths of the Prophet, followed by those of the
s.ah.ābah (companions of the Prophet), the tābi„īn (lit., “followers”, the
generation after the s.ah.ābah) and the tābi„ī al-tābi„īn (lit., “followers of the
followers”, the generation after the tābi„īn).
Apart from philological, etymological and grammatical information, the book also contains a number of Qur‟ānic verses and poems dealt with by
Ibn Qutaybah in his Ta„wīl. Therefore, this book is also necessary for this
study.
d. Adab al-Kātib
The book Adab al-Kātib (The Accomplishments of the Secretary) is a
compendium and a manual of Arabic stylistics dealing with lexicography, orthography, orthoepy, also verb and noun formation. It has a long
introduction where Ibn Qutaybah explains the circumstances that led him to
write this book.
In his introduction Ibn Qutaybah described the literary decadence of his time. A writer would be satisfied with his good handwriting and correct
writing of its letters. A poet would feel he had reached his pinnacle if he
could cite some lines of poetry in praising a songstress and in describing a cup of wine. A person such as this would criticise the Qur‟an without
understanding the meaning of its verses, and would belie the Prophet‟s
tradition without knowing its isnād.14
The common lexical, orthographical and orthoepical mistakes in Ibn Qutaybah‟s time led him to write his Adab
al-Kātib dealing with these subjects. The newly appointed vizier „Abd Allāh
ibn Yah.yá ibn Khāqān, whom he praised in his introduction and for whom
the book was written,15
was so pleased that he appointed him qād.ī (a judge)
at Dīnawar.
The book is divided into four chapters. Chapter one, entitled Kitāb al-Ma„rifah (The Book of Suitable Terms), is the lexical study of various
subjects in thirty-eight sections. In section one, for example, the word
h.umah is commonly believed to mean “the organ that stings in some insects
such as the scorpions”, while it means “the poison and the harm from the sting”.
16
Chapter two entitled Kitāb Taqwīm al-Yad (The Book of Orthography)
is the study of correct spelling, laid out in sixteen sections. In section two,
for example, the omission and retention of the alif al-was.l (alif of
connection) in the expression bismillāh occurs respectively in the beginning
and the middle or end of a sentence, such as and .17
5
Chapter three entitled Kitāb Taqwīm al-Lisān (The Book of Orthoepy) is the art of correct pronunciation treated in thirty-five sections. In section
two, for example, the word al-ghasl is used for “the act of washing”, al-ghisl
for “the thing washed”, and al-ghusl for “the water used for washing”.18
Chapter four entitled Kitāb al-Abniyah (The Book of Word Formation) deals with the formation of verbs and nouns and their meanings. The
formation of verbs is laid out in sixteen sections, such as in section four the
expression means “I found So-and-so praiseworthy, I
found him breaking his promise and I found him a coward.”19
The meanings
of the formed words are treated in twenty-nine sections, such as in section
twenty-seven the expression means where „alá is
substituted with fī.20
The formation of nouns is treated in thirty-six sections.
For example, in section two, words in fu„lah and fu„alah forms are attributes
of objects and subjects respectively, e.g., rajul sukhrah (a mocked man) and sukharah (a mocker), rajul subbah (an insulted man) and subabah (an
insulter), and rajul khud„ah (a cheated man) and khuda„ah (a cheater).21
The
meanings of formed nouns are treated in ten sections. For example, section six deals with words used for both singular and plural, e.g., fulk (a ship or
ships), and khalq Allāh (a creature or creatures of Allah). The exception is
the word zawj which means one of a pair or one pair (a couple).22
The Adab al-Kātib was published by Max Grunert from six manuscripts and one published text, identified as follows:
A = Lyon‟s Codex 541 (=259)
B = Lyon‟s Codex 535, an excellent old manuscript
W = Wiener (Vienna‟s) Manuscript
G = Gawaliki (al-Jawāliqī)‟s commentary of Ibn Qutaybah‟s Adab
al-Kātib
L = Landberg‟s Codex containing 137 folios, of which 90 folios are
vowalized
R = Codex of Univers. Lips. Ref. 354
C = Published text, Cairo, 1300 A.H., 229 pages
Variant texts are included in the footnotes - the sources of which are identified with the above letters.
23
The Adab al-Kātib demonstrates Ibn Qutaybah‟s competence in this
field of philology. Ibn Khaldūn (d. 737/1337) in his work Muqaddimah said
that he heard from some scholars in their teaching sessions that the Adab al-Kātib of Ibn Qutaybah was one among the four sources of adab science.
24
6
The Adab al-Kātib is essential for this study. Many topics in Ibn Qutaybah‟s Ta’wīl are also treated in his Adab al-Kātib, such as the
substitution of particles and the meaning of terms, such as zawj. Moreover,
the Adab al-Kātib gives us some idea how Ibn Qutaybah quotes the views of
leading grammarians from both schools, the Bas.ran and the Kūfan.
2. Books on Tafsīr (Qur'ānic Exegesis)
Books on tafsīr, which are the main sources of Ibn Qutaybah, will be
evaluated here. They are Abū „Ubaydah‟s Majāz al-Qur’ān and
al-Farra‟‟s Ma„ānī al-Qur’ān. Al-Tabarī‟s work Jāmi„ al-Bayān, which took Ibn Qutaybah‟s works as part of its sources, will also be evaluated
here, as follows:
a. Majāz al-Qur’ān
The book was edited by Fu‟ād Sezgin in two volumes. The author,
Abū „Ubaydah Ma„mar ibn al-Muthanná, was one of the leading philologists
of the Basran school. His main study was the rare expressions of the Arabic language and the history of the Arabs.
25 Denounced for being an a„jamī -
non-Arab, for he was of Jewish-Persian origin - he tried to avenge himself
by writing on the shortcomings of the Arabs in which he supported the Shu„ūbī causes. This act resulted in the aversion of the people of Bas.rah
towards him. They did not even attend his funeral.26
The term majāz in the case of Majāz al-Qur’ān, as suggested by Gibb,
means “interpretation” or “paraphrase”, as the book consists “... of brief
notes on the meaning of selected words and phrases in the order of the suras”. Majāz al-Qur’ān, then, is “a paraphrastic interpretation”, or, in
Wansbrough‟s term, “periphristic exegesis” of the Qur‟ān.27
In the
introductory chapter, Abū „Ubaydah mentions thirty-nine kinds of majāz. The use of this term, as found by Wansbrough, is replaced by taqdīr
(restoration) by the later grammarian Abū al-Barakāt ibn al-Anbārī (d.
577/1181).28
By comparing Ibn Qutaybah‟s Ta’wīl with Abū „Ubaydah‟s Majāz al-Qur’ān in examining majāz we shall have some idea of the extent
of the former‟s reliance on the latter as its main source and of the
development of this term in general.
b. Ma„ānī ’l-Qur’ān
The author of this book, al-Farrā‟, the sobriquet of Abū Zakariyyā
Yah.yá ibn Ziyād al-Kūfī, was the most well-known student of al-Kisā‟ī (d.
ca. 189/805). Like his teacher, he was also of Persian origin and belonged to the grammarians of the Kūfan school. However, he also took his knowledge
7
from Yūnus ibn H.abīb al-Thaqafī of the Bas.ran school.29
He was also
influenced, to some extent, by al-As.ma„ī (d. 216/831), Abū Zayd al-Ans.ārī
(d. 215/830), and Abū „Ubaydah, all belonging to the Bas.ran school.30
Tha„lab (d. 291/904) of the Kūfan school who took his knowledge from al-Farrā‟ praised him so much that he said that without al-Farrā‟ the Arabic
language would have collapsed.31
Al-Farrā‟ was the first grammarian of the Kūfan school who
continuously discussed grammatical problems in the verses of the Qur‟ān in his Ma„ānī ’l-Qur’ān.
32 This continuous discussion frustrated Blachère who
said that the book “is highly disappointing and without any general themes,
being confined for the most part to argumentation on casual syntax;...”33
This book is, however, very important for this present study since Ibn
Qutaybah quoted it several times in his Ta’wīl.
c. Jāmi‘ al-Bayān fī Tafsīr al-Qur’ān
The author of Jāmi„ al-Bayān fī Tafsīr al-Qur’ān (The Comprehensive
Exposition of the Interpretation of the Verses of the Qur‟ān), Ibn Jarīr
al-T.abarī (d. 310/923), is considered by Muslim scholars “the father of the
science of tafsīr”. It is said that he wrote forty pages every day for forty years. Many of his works were lost, but his Jāmi„ has survived. He was “a
man of encyclopaedic learning who absorbed the whole mass of tradition in
his time”.34
Al-T.abarī‟s Jāmi„, better known as Tafsīr al-T.abarī, consists of thirty
volumes containing collections of h.adīths with their full isnād dealing with
the commentary on the Qur‟ān. Unlike Ibn Qutaybah who selected a few chapters from which he selected some verses of the Qur‟ān in his Ta’wīl and
Tafsīr, al-T.abarī deals with whole chapters, although not whole verses, of
the Qur‟ān.35
Later commentators, such as al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1143),
Ibn „At.iyyah (d. 542/1147 or 546/1151), Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373) and
al-Suyūt.ī (d. 991/1505) followed al-T.abarī in examining and explaining the
whole Qur‟ān in their tafsir works. Al-T.abarī‟s tafsīr was highly
recommended by Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728/1328) who stated that it was one of the best, and the worthiest of its kind.
36
The significance of al-T.abarī‟s Jāmi„ for this present study is that it
elaborates what Ibn Qutaybah is discussing in his Ta’wīl and gives various
interpretations from other commentators. Sometimes, he offers his own
opinion. In so doing, the position of Ibn Qutaybah among Qur‟ānic commentators will become obvious.
8
3. Books on Arabic Language and Literature
Among the important sources on Arabic language and literature for this study are the works of Abū Bakr ibn al-Anbārī, Ibn Fāris and Ibn
Manz.ūr, as follows:
a. Kitāb al-Ad.dād
The author of Kitāb al-Ad.dād (The Book of Opposite Meanings) was
Abū Bakr ibn Qāsim ibn al-Anbārī (d. 328/940)37
. He was a late
contemporary of Ibn Qutaybah who attacked him most and who disagreed with him and his teacher Abū „Ubaydah on many issues. He was the most
brilliant student of Tha„lab of the Kūfan school. He was said to have
memorized three hundred thousand lines of poetry as shawāhid for the Qur‟ān and one hundred and twenty Qur‟ānic commentaries with their
isnāds.38
He was the tutor of the caliph al-Muqtadir‟s son „Abd al-Wāh.id.39
He was included among the sixth generation of the grammarians of the
Kūfan school by al-Zubaydī (d. 379/989-10).40
The book contains some terms discussed by Ibn Qutaybah in his Ta’wīl, such as al-mawlá and hal. His view on the position of the
al-rāsikhūn fī ’l-„ilm (those who are deeply rooted in knowledge) regarding
the ta’wīl of the mutashābihāt (ambiguous verses of the Qur‟ān) is different from that of Ibn Qutaybah. They will be dealt with in due course.
b. Al-S.āh.ibī fī Fiqh al-Lughah
The book, al-S.āh.ibī fī Fiqh al-Lughah wa Sunan al-„Arab fī Kalāmihā
(al-S.āh.ibī in the Science of Language and Expression of the Arabs) was
written by Abū al-H.usayn ibn Fāris ibn Zakarīyā, better known as Ibn Fāris
(d. 395/1004). He was a son of a jurist of the Shāfi„ī school and a student of
the great Shāfi„ī scholar Abū al-H.asan „Alī al-Qat.t.ān (d. 345/956) who was
a student of Tha„lab, al-Mubarrad (d. 284-5/898) and Ibn Abī al-Dunyā (d. 281/894). Al-Qat.t.ān was also a philololgist from whom Ibn Fāris received
his knowledge at Quzwayn.41
Ibn Fāris shifted from the Shāfi„ī to Mālikī school at Rayy where he
lived and died. Despite his being a follower of the Mālikī school, Ibn Fāris
was suspected of having a Shī„ī leaning, due to his glorifying „Alī, his being associated with the Shī„ī enthusiast al-S.āh.ib, living in the Shī„ī dynasty, and
teaching the children of its rulers.42
The book was a collection of Ibn Fāris‟s writings on the science of
language. The title of the book was given after the name of the vizier al-
9
S.āh.ib Ismā„īl ibn „Abbād who had a library where the book was to be
lodged.
Many subjects in Ibn Qutaybah‟s Ta’wīl are also mentioned by Ibn Fāris in his al-S.āh.ibī, such as the meanings of particles, isti„ārah
(metaphor), al-h.adhf wa ’l-ikhtis.ār (ellipsis and brevity), al-takrār
(repetition) and al-ziyādah (pleonasm). Many similiarities are found
between the two books which lead us to assume that Ibn Fāris had copied
from Ibn Qutaybah‟s Ta’wīl without referring to him.
c. Lisān al-‘Arab
The book, Lisān al-„Arab (The Language of the Arabs), was written
by Jamāl al-Dīn Abū al-Fad.l Muh.ammad Mukarram ibn „Alī ibn Ah.mad
al-Ans.ārī, better known as Ibn Manz.ūr and Ibn Mukarram (d. 711/1311-2).
It is an encyclopaedia containing various subjects, such as: philology,
grammar, Islamic jurisprudence, literature, tafsīr and h.adīth. It was based
on five earlier works, namely: Abū Mans.ūr Muh.ammad ibn Ah.mad
al-Azharī‟s Tahdhīb al-Lughah, Abū al-H.asan „Alī ibn Ismā„īl ibn Sidāh‟s
al-Muh.kam, Muh.ammad ibn al-Athīr‟s al-Nihāyah, al-Jawharī‟s al-Qāmūs,
and Abū Muh.ammad ibn Barrī‟s commentary of al-Jawharī‟s al-Qāmūs.
The book consists of fifteen volumes and was completed in 689/1290.43
So far, I have dealt with some of the literature relevant to the study of Ibn Qutaybah‟s Ta’wīl. Other literature is quoted throughout this study. We
now come to the historical background, the second part of this chapter.
B. Historical Background
1. A Short Synopsis of Ibn Qutaybah’s Life
Abū Muh.ammad „Abd Allāh ibn Muslim ibn Qutaybah al-Kūfī (from
Kūfah where he was born according to some historians) al-Marwazī (from Marw or Merv in Khorasan - presently called Mary in Turkmenistan, a
southern republic in the former Soviet Union, now an independent state -
from which his father originated), al-Dīnawarī (from Dīnawar where he became qād.ī) and al-Baghdādī (from Baghdād according to other historians,
and where he settled), was born in Kūfah44
in 213/82845
and died in
Baghdād in 276/889.46
The cause of his death was the eating of harīsah
(cooked meat and wheat pounded together) which caused him suffer heartburn, then lost consciousness and died.
10
The word qutaybah is the diminutive form (tas.ghīr) of qitbah, qitb or
qatab which are the singular form of aqtāb meaning “intestines”. This is also the meaning given by Ibn Qutaybah himself in his Adab al-Kātib.
47
Another meaning of this term is given by Qutaybah ibn Muslim (d. 97/716)
the governor (amīr) of Khorasan who said that his name meant ikāf (the packsaddle of the donkey). The name Ibn Qutaybah was also referred to by
some authors as al-Qutabī and very rarely al-Qutaybī.48
Ibn Qutaybah was also the name of a traditionist among the Shi„īs. In
response to the Umawī‟s fabricated traditions praising the s.ah.ābah,
especially „Uthmān - but with the exception of „Alī and Banū Hāshim - the Shi„īs later also invented traditions of their own, praising „Alī and the Banū
Hāshim clan. They had their isnād names like al-Suddī and Ibn Qutaybah, so
that the Sunnīs would think that they were the famous Sunnī traditionists. To make a distinction between the two Suddīs and Ibn Qutaybahs the Sunnīs
called those who belonged to the Shi„īs al-Suddī al-S.aghīr (the Junior) who
was Muh.mmad ibn Marwān, and Ibn Qutaybah the Shi„ī, those who
belonged to the Sunnīs were called al-Suddī al-Kabīr (the Senior) who was
Ismā„īl ibn „Umar, and Ibn Qutaybah the Sunnī.49
Very little was known about Ibn Qutaybah‟s early life. We only know that as a young boy he frequented the Qur‟ānic school (kuttāb) from which
he learned and memorized some Qur‟ānic verses, prophetic traditions and
poetry, became trained in fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), nah.w (grammar,
syntax) and arithmetic. Then he frequented the great mosques of Baghdād where he learned various sciences from the „ulamā’, such as theology, tafsīr,
sharī„ah (Islamic law), h.adīth, literature and history. He also studied books
translated from foreign languages, especially Persian.50
There were
twenty-eight teachers of Ibn Qutaybah in the true sense recorded by Lecomte.
51 Among his important teachers were those who were known for
their attachment to the Sunnah, such as the Sunnī theologian Ish.āq ibn
Ibrāhīm ibn Rāhawayh al-Hanzalī (d. ca. 237/851) who was a student of
Ah.mad ibn H.anbal, the Sunnī philologist and traditionist Abū H.ātim Sahl
ibn Muh.ammad al-Sijistānī (d. 255/869), and the philologist al-„Abbās ibn
al-Faraj al-Riyāshī (d. 257/871) who transmitted the works of pioneers of philology in the second/eighth century, such as al-As.ma„ī and Abū
„Ubaydah.52
After the new caliph al-Mutawakkil changed the ideology of the state
from Mu„tazilah to Sunnī orthodoxy in 232/846 Ibn Qutaybah found himself
11
favoured by the new government, because his views in his literary works agreed with the new trend. The vizier Abū al-H.asan „Ubayd Allāh ibn
Yah.yá ibn Khāqān (d. 263/877) appointed him qād.ī of Dīnawar in about
236/851, and he probably remained in this office until 256/870. Then he
became an inspector of maz.ālim (courts for the redress of wrongs) of Bas.rah
until this city was sacked by the Zanj in 257/871. This new post was given to
him probably due to the favour of another powerful „Abbāsī official, Sa„īd ibn Makhlad.
53
Ibn Qutaybah was also a teacher. He was generous to his students with
his knowledge and books. He even allowed them access to his books before
they had paid their fees. Among his students was his son Ah.mad who later
became qād.ī in Egypt in 321/933. Ibn Qutaybah continued teaching in
Baghdād until the end of his life at the age of 61.54
Despite Ibn Qutaybah„s reputation as a great Sunnī scholar and an advocate of the Sunnī orthodoxy, some „ulamā„ criticized and denounced
him, among them being:
(1). Abū al-H.asan „Alī ibn „Umar al-Dāraqunī (d. 385-995) accused him of
leaning towards anthropomorphism (tashbīh), deviating from the „itrah (descendants of the Prophet).
55
(2). Abū „Abd Allāh Muh.ammad ibn „Abd Allāh al-D.abbī al-H.ākim (d.
405/1014-5), also known as Ibn al-Bayyi„, also accused Ibn Qutaybah
of deviating from the „itrah and turning away from the ahl al-bayt (the
Prophet's household).
(3). Abū Bakr Ah.mad ibn al-H.usayn al-Bayhaqī (d. 458/ 1066) accused Ibn
Qutaybah of being a Karrāmī, a sect among the anthropomorphism.56
These accusations were rejected by the „ulamā and biographers of Ibn Qutaybah, whose views were divided by Lecomte into two categories: very
favourable and favourable. Those whose views belonged to the first category
were: Ibn Taymiyyah,57
al-Dhahabī (d. 748/1347), Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1372-3), and Ibn al-„Imād (d. 1089/1678). Those whose views belonged
to the second category were: Ibn al-Nadīm (d. 385/995), al-Khat.īb
al-Baghdādī (d. 463/1071), al-Sam„ānī (d. 562/1167), Abū al-Barakāt Ibn
al-Anbārī (d. 577/1181), Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 579/1201), al-Qift.ī (d. 646/1248),
Ibn Khallikān (d. 681/1282), and al-Suyūt.ī.58
The earliest criticism came from Ibn Qutaybah‟s late contemporary
Abū Bakr Muh.ammad ibn al-Qāsim al-Anbarī, who was a student of
12
Tha„lab. He wrote a book entitled Risālat al-Mushkil criticizing Ibn Qutaybah‟s Ta’wīl and his teacher Abū H.ātim al-Sijistānī. But his books are
not extant except for Kitāb al-Ad.dād in which he criticized Ibn Qutaybah‟s
works Is.lāh. al-Ghalat. and Ta’wīl.59
2. Political, Social and Cultural Conditions in Ibn Qutaybah’s Life
a. Political Condition
Ibn Qutaybah lived during the reigns of eight „Abbāsī caliphs: al-Ma‟mūn (197-218/813-833), al-Mu„tas.im (218-227/833-842), al-Wāthiq
(227-232/842-847), al-Mutawakkil (232-247/847-861), al-Muntas.ir (247-
248/861-862), al-Musta„īn (248-252/862-866), al-Mu„tazz (252-255/
866-869), al-Muhtadī (255-256/869-870), and al-Mu„tamid (256-278/
870-892). He was born in the first half of the third century of Hijrah, when the „Abbāsī dynasty reached its ultimate glory and prosperity under
al-Ma‟mūn.
The „Abbāsī empire extended to the Indian subcontinent and the border
of China in the East, and to the coasts of the Atlantic Ocean in the West. However, the earlier period of al-Ma‟mūn witnessed much disturbance: civil
war between the Hāshimīs and the „Alawīs which ended with the defeat of
the latter, rebellions against al-Ma‟mūn, and the rivalry betwen Arab and Persian elements in state affairs. Being a son of a Persian mother, Persian
influence greatly increased during his reign. In order to please the Arabs he
shifted the capital of his empire from Merv in Persia to Baghdād in 204/819.
60
As a patron of learning, al-Ma‟mūn encouraged the search for
knowledge. This caused the emergence of intellectual movements, among
which was the Mu„tazilī school of theology which he himself adopted and made the official madhhab of his empire. He supported its scholars in their
debates against their opponents among the Sunnī scholars.
Al-Ma‟mūn was succeeded by his brother al-Mu„tas.im who followed
the same path in defending the Mu„tazilī school. It was in this period that the
fitnah (civil strife) of the issue of khalq al-Qur’ān (the creation of the Qur‟ān) occurred in which Ah.mad ibn H.anbal (d. 241/856) was one of its
victims.
In this early „Abbāsī period the Persians obtained high positions in the
government, such as those of viziers and army leaders. However, this
condition changed with the occurrence of the so-called Barmakid and Banū Sahl disasters. This resulted with the enmity between the Arabs and the
13
Persians. The Arabs wanted to regain the glory they had enjoyed in the Umawī period, whereas the Persians were not satisfied with the high
positions they already possessed; they wanted to bring back the glory of
their ancient Sassanian empire. The seed of the Shu„ūbīyah trend grew with the atheistic tendency, which later threatened the new empire.
To get rid of these Persians and to counter their nationalistic ambition
the caliph al-Mu„tas.im tried to replace them with Turkish slaves who were
renowned for their perseverance on the battle-field. They were brought into
the capital city Baghdād and their number kept increasing. Then the caliph built a new capital called Sāmarrā‟
61 where he moved in with them.
Unlike the Persians who were highly civilized, the Turkish slaves were
nomads. Their main skills were hunting, raiding and horse riding. As skilled
fighters and army officials their influence in the state kept growing. It became so great that al-Mutawakkil who succeeded al-Wāthiq could not
resist it. However, he was successful in shifting to the Sunnī orthodoxy as
the madhhab of the state. He ordered people to abandon any debate on kalām (theology) and urged them to return to the Sunnah of the Prophet. He
removed the vizier „Abd al-Malik al-Zayyāt and the qād.ī al-qud.āt (the chief
judge) Ah.mad ibn Abī Dāwūd from their positions for being Mutazilīs. But
when he appointed his vizier „Ubayd Allāh ibn Yah.yá ibn Khāqān assisted
by twelve thousand Arabs in his attempt to stop the penetration of the
Turkish officers in the state, the Turkish officers sensed the threat. They assassinated this caliph and his vizier, and appointed the caliph‟s son
al-Muntas.ir as a ruler.
Al-Muntas.ir ruled for six months only. He died in 248/862 and was
succeeded by al-Musta„īn. The new caliph, who was unable to withstand the
influence of his Turkish officers, moved to Baghdād. As he refused to return
to Sāmarrā‟ they deposed him in 251/865 and appointed al-Mu„tazz as his successor. Baghdād was surrounded, and finally al-Musta„īn was
assassinated.
Al-Mu„tazz imprisoned his brother al-Mu‟ayyid when he heard a
rumor that al-Mu‟ayyid wanted to depose him. However, he was finally deposed and assassinated by the Turkish officers who sensed his intention to
rid himself of them. As his successor they appointed Muh.ammad ibn
al-Wāthiq who was called al-Muhtadī. His piety seemed to bother them, and
his intention to dissolve them ended with his assassination in 256/870. He was succeeded by al-Mu„tamid.
14
Although al-Mu„tamid tried hard to regain his power with the help of his brother al-Muwaffaq who led his army in defending the state, this
„Abbāsī state was far from being stable. The T.āhirīs, Sāmānīs, and S.afawīs
were separating themselves from the „Abbāsī empire in the East, while the
T.ūlūnīs were establishing their own state in Egypt; besides, the Romans
were attacking the empire. This was the political condition of the „Abbāsī empire in the time of Ibn Qutaybah.
b. Social Condition
The city of Baghdād, the seat of the „Abbāsī caliphs, was flourishing with prosperity and luxury. Goods from the empire‟s provinces overflowed
into the city. The city itself, as well as the palaces of the caliphs and emirs,
was decorated and furnished with goods brought by traders from China and India in the East and from Byzantine in the West.
The citizens of Baghdād consisting of different elements contributed
with their different and various traditions and cultures to the society. The
Persians were sharing and competing with the Arabs in running the affairs of the state as well as in the fields of science and literature. The Turks were
playing their important roles in the palaces and in the army with their
military skills. The Greeks were contributing with their wisdom and literature, the Arabs with their poetry, eloquence, preserved geneology,
ancient traditions, familiarity with and knowledge of horses, arms, military
equipment and excellent memory. The Indians were contributing with their knowledge, such as: arithmetic, astronomy, medicine, maps and carpentry.
62
Taverns and drinking gatherings were frequented by various people.
They provided the venue for poets and men of letters to recite their works
and exchange elegant talk while listening to songs and music. The citizens became more interested in beauty and art. They enjoyed flowers, fragrances,
gentle voices and beautiful faces. They liked being clean, wearing good
clothes and living in good houses. They enjoyed entertainment at their festivals and various occasions, and the Muslims joined their fellow citizens
the Jews and the Christians in their religious festivities.63
People‟s addiction to alcohol made it one of the topics of their
discussions in their gatherings and the object of appreciation among their poets, such as Abū Nuwās (d. ca. 198/783) and Muslim ibn al-Walīd (d.
207/823). They started questioning whether or not the type of alcohol called
nabīdh was among the prohibited alcohol (khamr) in Islam. The question developed into a very serious issue and eventually Ibn Qutaybah wrote a
book entitled Kitāb al-Ashribah (The Book of Beverage) portraying the
15
controversial issue at that time and giving his legal judgement: khamr is prohibited by the Qur‟ān, and nabīdh is prohibited by the Sunnah.
64
It is worthy to note that this easy and prosperous life was enjoyed by
the ruling class only, namely, the caliphs, the emirs, the generals and their
associates among the middle class, such as traders, high government officials and artisans. The lower classes in the land were not privy to such
life. As a matter of fact, the deviation from the religion and irreligious
practices within the society were not ignored by the people who wanted to bring the society back to the correct path and often revolted against the
rulers.
c. Cultural Condition
Apart from the emergence of the Mu„tazilī theological doctrine in the
period of al-Ma‟mūn who adopted it and made it the official madhhab of his
empire, and the shift to the Sunnī orthodoxy by al-Mutawakkil who, unlike al-Ma‟mūn, did not like to be involved in theological debates, this era saw
the flourishingof learning. Books of Greek, Persian and Indian antiquities
were studied and translated into Arabic. The famous translator at this time was H.unayn ibn Ish.āq (d. 261/873) who was well versed in the Greek,
Syriac, Arabic and Persian languages. The result of extensive studies of
these books produced Muslim scholars such as Abū „Uthmān ibn Bah.r
al-Jāh.iz. and Ya„qūb ibn Ish.āq al-Kindī (d. ca. 252/866).65
Books of other religions such as the Torah (al-Tawrāh), the Gospel
(al-Injīl) and the Zoroastrian Avesta were also translated. Besides al-Jāh.iz.,
the other scholars in this field were al-Naz.z.ām of the Mu„tazilī school and
Ibn Qutaybah of the Sunnī school.66
The Qur‟ān and the H.adīth were also extensively studied. Theological
controversies and debates between the followers of the Mu„tazilī and the
Sunnī schools necessitated the extensive study of both. The philologists studied the linguistic style of the Qur‟ān, its words, their meanings and
styles. Others studied events involved in certain verses, the asbāb al-nuzūl
(the occasions which led to the revelation of the verses of the Qur‟ān), and
the ta’wīl of the s.ahābah in certain verses.67
It is noteworthy that the books on Qur‟ānic exegesis at the end of the 2nd/8th century and the beginning of the 3rd/9th century were fragmentary
and were confined to philological explanations of the verses. This was
apparent in their titles, such as: Ma„ānī ’l-Qur’ān which was the title of the works of al-Kisā‟ī, al-Farrā‟ and al-Akhfash (d. 210/825), I‘rāb al-Qur„ān,
16
Lughat al-Qur„ān (The Language of the Qur„an), Gharīb al-Qur„ān which was the title of the works of Abū „Ubayd Qāsim ibn Sallām (d. 223/838),
and Majāz al-Qur’ān which was the title of the works of Abū „Ubaydah and
Qut.rub (d. 206/822).68
The extensive study of H.adīth literature in the „Abbāsī period
produced great scholars, such as the founders of the four madhāhib (schools
of jurisprudence), namely, Abū H.anīfah (d. 150/767), Mālik ibn Anas (d.
179/795), al-Shāfi„ī (d. 204/820), and Ah.mad ibn H.anbal. Moreover, efforts
were also made in compiling, explaining, sorting, and setting aside the obscure h.adīth and explaining the ambiguous ones. In this period, apart from
the Musnad of Ah.mad ibn H.anbal, the six canonical books of h.adīths called
al-Kutub al-Sittah (the Six Books) were compiled. They were the collections
of al-Bukhārī (d. 256/870), Muslim (d. 261/875), Ibn Mājah (273/886), Abū
Dā‟ūd (d. 275/888), al-Tirmidhī (d. 279/892), and al-Nasā‟ī (d. 303/892).69
In the field of grammar two main schools of philology appeared: the Bas.ran school whose leaders were Sībawayh (d. 179/196) and al-As.ma„ī,
and the Kūfan school which came later with some differences, and still later developed into a school of its own, whose leaders were al-Kisā‟ī and
al-Farrā‟. The caliphs of Baghdād took the side of the Kūfan school, since
the teachers of their children belonged to this school, such as al-Kisā‟ī, al-Farrā‟, al-Mufad.d.al Muh.ammad ibn Ya„lá al-D.abbī and al-Sharq ibn
Qat.t.āmī. Al-Ma‟mūn, for example, took the side against Sībawayh in a
debate between the latter and al-Kisā‟ī on a certain grammatical issue. Ibn
Qutaybah who mixed the two schools was considered to belong to the
Baghdādī school. According to him al-Kisā‟ī and al-Farrā‟ did not belong to the Kūfan school, but to the Baghdādī school
70 which was the mixture
of the two schools.71
Abū al-T.ayyib „Abd al-Wāh.id ibn „Alī al-Lughawī (d. 351/962) made
a suggestion which was elaborated later on by Ibn al-Nadīm that Ibn
Qutaybah combined the two schools into a “Baghdādī synthesis”. This view was considered doubtful and rejected by the contemporary scholars Lecomte
and al-Jubūrī respectively. Lecomte said:
In fact, in addition to the point already emphasized by G. Weil... that the
schools of Bas.ra and Kūfa can scarcely have assumed their distinctive
characteristics before the end of the 3rd/9th century, nothing has been
found in Ibn Ķutayba‟s philological work, or at least in what now
survives, which could really justify this point of view. Although he in
17
effect contrasts them with the “Bas.rans”, he regularly refers to those
who were later to be attached to the “School of Kūfa” as “Baghdādīs”,
and the synthesis of which so much has been made is no more than a
genuine eclecticism which never claimed to form a school.
All that can be said is that Ibn Ķutayba in fact joins certain reputedly
Kūfi tendencies to others considered to be Bas.ran. His position may be
summarized by stating that in grammar he remains on the whole a
supporter of the norm, i.e., “Bas.ran”, in spite of his attachment to the
teaching of al-Kisā‟ī and of al-Farrā‟, whereas in a more general way,
in philology and especially in poetry, he does not hesitate to depart from
the usually accepted views, an attitude considered to be “Kūfi”.72
In rejecting the view that Ibn Qutaybah was one of the founders of the
Baghdādī school of grammar which was the mixture of the two schools, the
Bas.ran and the Kūfan, al-Jubūrī‟s argument is as follows:
(1). Ibn Qutaybah cited only linguistic aspects (wujūh min al-lughah) from the two schools, and probably aspects of grammatical orientation in
special issues, as found in his Adab al-Kātib and Gharīb al-H.adīth.
(2). Despite his vast knowledge of grammar, Ibn Qutaybah did not express
his views on this subject. He cited the views of grammarians without
expressing which was the more acceptable one, whereas in the field of linguistics (lughah) he exercised ijtihād (independent judgement) and
gave his fatwá (legal opinion) on its issues. Therefore, in al-Juburī‟s
opinion, Ibn Qutaybah was not a grammarian (nah.wī), but one of the
philologists (fuqahā’ al-lughah).73
Other grammarians worthy of mention here are: Ibn al-Sikkīt (d. 244/858-9) who was the last grammarian of the Kūfan school who taught the
son of Ja„far al-Mutawakkil and who wrote Is.lāh. al-Mant.iq (Reconstruction
of Logic) and Tahdhīb al-Alfāz. (Expression Training), Tha„lab who gave
his commentary on the compiled poetry of the pre-Islamic poet Zuhayr ibn
Abī Sulmá (d. 5/627), al-Māzinī (d. 249/863) who was said to be the first to formulate the „ilm al-tas.rīf (etymology), and al-Mubarrad who combined
philology with literature in his work al-Kāmil fī ’l-Lughah wa ’l-Adab (The
Perfect Book on Linguistics and Literature).74
Among the poets of this period were: Abū Tammām (d. 228/843) who had a dīwān (compiled poems), Abū „Ubādah al-Buh.turī (d. 283-4/897)
who had also a dīwān, Di„bil al-Khuzā„ī who composed poems in praising
ahl al-bayt (the Prophet's household), Ibn al-Rūmī (d. 282-3/896), and Ibn
al-Mu„tazz (d. 296/863) each of whom had their own dīwān.75
18
3. Historical Perspective on the Early Development of Qur’ānic
Exegesis
a. Tafsīr and Ta’wīl
The word tafsīr is the mas.dar (verbal noun) from the second form of
the verb fasara, namely, fassara which means “to explain”, “to expound”, “to interpret”, or “to comment”. Tafsīr is “the explanation, revealing and
exposing the sensible meaning” ( ). It is also said
that the word fasara is the inversion (maqlūb) of the word safara which
means “unveiling” or “uncovering”. For example, the expression
(the woman uncovered) means “she revealed her face”, and the expression
(the dawn uncovered) means “it unveiled the sky of the darkness of
night with its light”. Tafsīr, then, is the meanings of the verses of the Qur‟ān
which need explanation.76
Technically, the definition of tafsīr as given by al-Zarkashī (d. 794/1392) is as follows: “It is a knowledge through which the Book of Allah
revealed to His Prophet Muh.ammad, peace be upon him, may be
understood, its meaning may be clear, and its legal judgements and wisdom
may be discovered..."77
The word ta’wīl is the mas.dar from the second form of the verb āla
(which means “returning”), namely, awwala which means “returning (something)”, as if the commentators return the verse to its various possible
meanings. It is “the act of reducing of (two or more) senses or
interpretations which an expression can have or allow to one that which suits the apparent meaning”. The Arabic expression āla ilayh means “he returned
to him”, while (َ ) means “he arranged, evaluated and explained
the statement” ( ).78
Technically, according to early commentators in general, such as Abū „Ubaydah and al-T.abarī, ta’wīl has the same meaning as tafsīr, so that ta’wīl
al-Qur’ān has the same meaning as tafsīr al-Qur’ān.79
However, Muqātil
ibn Sulaymān states on the authority of Ibn „Abbās that tafsīr is what is
known by the „ulamā’, while ta’wīl by Allah alone.80
But Ibn „Abbās was also reported to have said that some tafsīrs are known to man, and others to
Allah alone.81
Later commentators, however, make the distinction between
the two terms with divergent opinions: tafsīr belongs to the s.ahābah, while
ta’wīl belongs to the fuqahā’ (legists);82
tafsīr, as mentioned by al-Māturīdī (d. 333/944), has a single interpretation, while ta’wīl has many
19
interpretations; tafsīr, according to al-Rāghib al-As.bahānī (d. 502/1109), is
more common than ta’wīl, as the former is used mostly for words and their synonyms, while the latter mostly for meanings and sentences; moreover,
tafsīr is used for both divine and secular books, ta’wīl for divine books
only;83
tafsīr is based on riwāyah (transmission of tradition), while ta’wīl involves dirāyah (comprehension), namely, research and investigation;
84
tafsīr is the obvious meaning of the verses, while ta’wīl is the deep meaning
derived from the verses through research and investigation. The commentators give the preponderance - which is neither definite nor final to
avoid giving final interpretation to what is really meant by Allah in the
Qur‟ān - to what they think the most suitable meaning over other meanings.
85
b. Categories of Tafsīr
Based on its sources there are three main categories of tafsīr:
traditional commentary ( , also called and ),
rational commentary ( , also called and ), and
symbolic or allegorical commentary ( ). They will be dealt with
briefly as follows:
(1) Traditional Commentary. It is either the commentary of the Qur‟ān by
the Qur‟ān itself, by the Sunnah of the Prophet, or by the s.ahābah. An
example of the commentary of the Qur‟ān by itself is as follows: One Qur‟ānic verse mentions that cattle are lawful to Muslims for food, but not
without exception. It says:
“... Lawful to you is the [flesh of every] beast that feeds on plants, save what
is mentioned to you [hereafter]: ...” (Q. 5:1, Asad)86
The commentary of the expression “save what is mentioned to you [hereafter]” is given in another
verse, as follows:
...
Forbidden to you is carrion, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that
over which any name other than God‟s has been invoked, and the
animal that has been strangled, or beaten to death, or killed by a fall, or
gored to death, or savaged by a beast of prey, save that which you
[yourselves] may have slaughtered while it was still alive; and
[forbidden to you is] all that has been slaughtered on idolatrous altars.
(Q. 5:3, Asad).87
20
This is the strongest commentary of this category of tafsīr, since it comes from the Qur‟ān itself. It is Allah Who explains what He means in the
Qur‟ān.
The example of the commentary of the Qur‟ān by the Sunnah of the
Prophet is as follows: When the verse
“Those who have attained to faith, and who have not
obscured their faith by wrongdoing - it is they who shall be secure, since it is
they who have found the right path!” (Q. 6:82, Asad) was revealed, it distressed the s.ahābah. They asked the Prophet, saying: “O Messenger of
Allah, is there any of us who has not obscured his faith by wrongdoing?”
The Prophet answered: “It is not what you think it means. Haven‟t you heard
what the pious servant of Allah [i.e., Luqman the sage] said to his son? He
said: „O my dear son! Do not
ascribe divine powers to aught beside God: for, behold, such [a false] ascribing divinity is indeed an awesome wrong!‟ (Q. 31:13, Asad). It [i.e.,
the word z.ulm in the verse] means shirk (polytheism).”88
This Prophetic
commentary of the Qur‟ān is also strong, since it is the duty of the Prophet
to explain what has been revealed to the people, as mentioned in the Qur‟ān, as follows:
“And upon thee [too] have We bestowed from on high this reminder,
so that thou might make clear unto mankind all that has ever been thus
bestowed upon them, and that they might take thought.” (Q. 16:44,
Asad).
However, the acceptance of this Prophetic commentary is also on condition
that it is reported by reliable authorities.
With regard to the commentary of the s.ahābah, although not so strong
as the two commentaries mentioned earlier, it is also accepted by the Muslims. This is because the s.ahābah were people who met the Prophet,
witnessed the revelation, knew the asbāb al-nuzūl and knew more of the
Arabic language and its eloquence which enabled them to better understand
the divine texts.
Although the traditionist al-H.ākim accepted the commentary of the
s.ahābah and raised it to the same level of the Prophetic commentary, one
has to be careful in accepting this commentary of the s.ahābah or the tābi„īn
21
for the following reasons: There are many commentaries attributed to the s.ahābah or tābi„īn without isnād (chains of authority), so that we cannot
make a distinction between the genuine and the fabricated ones. Moreover,
many isrā’ilīyāt (Jewish legends) were spread among Muslims, some of
which contained legends and beliefs contradictory to the teachings of Islam. There were also some extremists who fabricated sayings and attributed them
to the s.ahābah to support their views, or to flatter the rulers. There is also
the possibility that the atheists (zanādiqah) fabricated sayings and attributed
them to the s.ahābah or the tābi„īn in order to destroy Islam.89
(2) Rational commentary. It is a commentary based exclusively on the
commentator‟s ability to grasp the meanings of the Qur‟ānic verses due to the absence of traditional commentary on the verses in question. This can be
accomplished only if he possesses and exercises the knowledge of the
sciences of the Qur‟ān and the Arabic language, such as naskh (abrogation of legal passages of the Qur‟ān), asbāb al-nuzūl, ah.kām (laws contained in
the Qur‟ān), i„rāb, balāghah (eloquence), and classical Arabic poetry.
The commentary of this genre, however, was opposed by a group of
Muslim scholars for the following reasons: (a) They said that rational
commentary was a statement concerning Allah without knowledge, an act which was prohibited by Allah, as mentioned in Q. 2:169 and 7:33. (b) They
contended that it was the duty of the Prophet to explain the Qur‟ān as
mentioned in Q. 16:44, and this duty was exclusively the Prophet‟s privilege. (c) The Prophet warned people from giving interpretation of the
Qur‟ān based on their personal opinion. In a tradition on the authority of Ibn
„Abbās the Prophet said: “Whoever speaks on the Qur‟ān without knowledge („ilm) let him make his place in Hell.”
90 (d) The s.ahābah and the
tābi‘īn refrained from giving their interpretation of the Qur‟ān with their
personal opinion. Abū Bakr, for example, was reported to have said: “Any
land may carry me, and any sky may overshadow me if I spoke on the Qur‟ān with my personal opinion or with what I have no knowledge.”
91
On the other hand, Muslim scholars en masse accept the rational
interpretation for the following reasons: (a) Allah urges Muslims to
contemplate the contents of the Qur‟ān when He said:
(
“[All this have We expounded in this] blessed divine writ which We
have revealed unto thee, [O Muhammad,] so that men may ponder over
its messages, and that those who are endowed with insight may take
22
them to heart.” (Q. 38:29, Asad)92
They maintain that pondering over the Qur‟ān can be achieved only by
searching its deeper meanings and mysteries, and therefore, giving one‟s
personal opinion in the interpretation of the Qur‟ān is justified. (b) Muslim scholars are urged to discover the laws in the Qur'an by searching and
finding its deeper meanings, based on Q. 4:83, and this can only be carried
out by giving one‟s independent judgement. (c) If rational interpretation is prohibited because it is based on independent judgement, then the use of
independent judgement in Islamic laws would also have been prohibited.
Consequently, many of these Islamic laws would have been ineffective. This is contrary to what has been established among Muslim scholars that a
mujtahid (a legist who exercises ijtihād, i.e., independent judgement in a
legal question based upon the interpretation of the Qur‟ān and the Sunnah) is always rewarded, whether his judgement is right or wrong. (d) The s.ahābah
themselves have different interpretations on some Qur‟ānic verses, as the
Prophet did not explain all the verses of the Qur‟ān. He explained only
those which needed explanation, leaving the rest to be understood by the s.ahābah themselves. If personal opinion was not allowed on the Qur‟ān, the
Prophet would have explained the whole Qur‟ān, and the s.ahābah would not
have given their personal opinion.(e) The Prophet prayed for his cousin Ibn
„Abbās that Allah would teach him the ta’wīl of the Qur‟ān. If the term
ta’wīl here means the interpretation based on what have been reported from the Prophet rather than Ibn „Abbās‟s own personal opinion, then singling
him out with this prayer would have been futile.
The arguments of scholars who opposed rational commentary were
countered by other scholars with the following arguments: (a) Giving one's interpretation on the Qur‟ān with ijtihād (lit., exertion, namely, independent
judgement) is not a statement concerning Allah without knowledge, but
rather with knowledge and which is permitted in religion, since a mujtahid according to a h.adīth will be rewarded with two merits if he is right, and one
merit if he is wrong in his ijtihād. Since ijtihād is a meritorious act, it cannot
be a prohibited one at the same time. (b) With regard to the Prophet‟s
warning against practising tafsīr without knowledge, Ibn al-Naqīb gives us five views which constitute five types of prohibited tafsīr, namely, tafsīr
without having the sciences required for it; tafsīr of ambiguous passages
which are known by Allah alone; tafsīr intended to support a straying sect, and in so doing, making the tafsīr subordinate to the sect; stating with
23
certainty the meaning intended by Allah without proof; and lastly, tafsīr based on one‟s own discretion (istih.sān) and whim (hawá).
93 (c) That the
Prophet was appointed to explain the Qur‟ān does not mean that nobody else
was allowed to do it. This is apparent as the verse mentioned above ends
with “and that they might take thought”. (Q. 16:44, Asad). Many verses in the Qur‟ān were not explained by the Prophet, and it is the duty of Muslim
scholars to find their meanings and interpretations. (d) The s.ahābah‟s
restraint from giving their own tafsīr was a precaution against stating what
may not have been meant by Allah. Abū Bakr himself gave his personal opinion concerning the kalālah (a deceased person who has left as heir
neither a descendant nor an ascendant)94
in the Qur‟ān 4:176 and said: “I say
it with my opinion; if it is right it is from Allah, and if it is not, it is from Satan.”
95 Among the exponents of the rational commentary, to mention a
few, were al-Ghazālī, al-Rāghib al-As.bahānī, and al-Qurt.ubī.96
(3) Symbolic (Allegorical) Commentary. It is a commentary of the Qur‟ān
which is different from its apparent meaning due to some hints which
appeared through inspiration to some dedicated people endowed with
knowledge. Contrary to the acquired knowledge known as , this
type of knowledge known as comes directly from Allah, as
mentioned in the Qur‟ān, as follows: (“…and
unto whom We had imparted knowledge [issuing] from Ourselves.” Q.
18:65, Asad).97
There is a great difference between the esoterical commentary
( ) claimed by the Bāt.inīs (adherents of inner meanings of the
Qur‟ān) and the symbolic commentary ( ). To the Bāt.inīs, the only
acceptable meaning is the esoterical one, whereas the Sūfīs accept both the ostensible and the symbolic meanings. The Sūfīs urge people to learn the
ostensible meaning before they learn the symbolic meaning. They say that
whoever claims to have understood the mysteries of the Qur‟ān - through mystical interpretation - without knowing the ostensible meaning is like a
man who claims to have reached the roof of the house without passing
through the door.98
Muslim scholars have different views on this symbolic tafsīr. Those who reject it associate it with the esoterical tafsīr which, in their view,
distorts the meaning of the Qur‟ān. However, the exponents of this type of
tafsīr give conditions for its validity, as follows: it is not contrary to its
24
obvious meaning; it is not considered the only valid meaning by rejecting the obvious one; it is not a remote meaning which is beyond the context of
its words, such as interpreting the term lama„a as a verb meaning “to shine”
ather than “indeed with” in the verse “For,
behold, God is indeed with the doers of good.” (Q. 29:69, Asad); it is not
contrary to Islamic teachings and to reason; and finally, it does not contain a view which might confuse people.
99 One example of the symbolic
commentary is Ibn „Abbās‟s interpretation of the verse:
“When God‟s succour comes, and victory,” (Q. 110:1, Asad) as a
sign of the Prophet‟s approaching death.100
c. Early Development of Tafsīr
The Qur‟ān was revealed to Prophet Muhammad in the Arabic
language.101
Although in clear Arabic,102
the s.ahābah had different levels of
knowledge in understanding the Qur‟ān. This is natural, since it is unlikely that any book written on any subject in any particular language and style will
be fully understood by any native speaker of that language. „Umar, for
example, did not know the meaning of the word abban in the verse
(“And fruits and fodder”. Q. 80:31). On one occasion, whilst he
was reading from the pulpit the verse (“Or [that
He will] take them to task through slow decay?” Q. 16:47, Asad), he asked
the meaning of takhawwuf. A Bedouin of Hudhayl tribe told him that according to the language of this tribe the word means tanaqqus.
(diminution, decrease).103
Besides „Umar, Ibn „Abbās who was nicknamed turjumān al-Qur’ān
(the interpreter of the Qur‟ān), was reported to have said that he had not
known the meaning of the word fāt.ir in the verse (األنعام
:١٤) “He is the Creator of the heavens and the earth,” Q. 6:14, Dawood)104
until two Bedouins came to him asking his judgement on their dispute over a well; one of them said anā fat.artuhā (“I was the one who made it”), while
the other said anā ibtada’tuhā (“I was the one who started digging it.”)105
It was also reported that he had not known the meaning of the word iftah. in
the verse (“Our Lord! Judge rightly
between us and our people,” Q. 7:89) until he heard a woman called Dhū
Yazan say to her husband meaning (“I shall prosecute
you”).106
25
Generally speaking, the s.ahābah understood the Qur‟ān more than any
other people, since it was revealed in their language. However, they had different levels of understanding. Some of them had more knowledge of the
Arabic language and were more familiar with its pre-Islamic literature -
which helped them grasp the meanings of the Qur‟ānic texts - than other people. Others used to accompany the Prophet and witnessed the asbāb
al-nuzūl of certain Qur‟ānic verses. Some others knew more of the ways of
the Arabs in the pre-Islamic era. Those who knew the Arabs‟ way of performing their pilgrimage and worshipping their idols, and those who
were familiar with the customs and traditions of the Jews and Christians in
pre-Islamic Arabia had better understanding of Qur‟ānic verses dealing with these particular subjects.
107
The Prophet explained to the s.ahābah the meanings of Qur‟ānic verses
which were not understood by them or those that needed explanation. Zakāt,
for example, originally means “growth”, but technically means “obligatory
charity”, was explained by the Prophet in detail. This explanation was later transmitted to the people of the next generation, so that they also became
well-acquainted with the divine texts. However, such information was
included in the h.adīth literature, since tafsīr as an independent science
emerged later in the early third century A.H.
After the death of the Prophet questions on Qur‟ānic verses were directed to the s.ahābah. The prominent exegetes among them in this period
were: „Abd Allāh ibn „Abbās, „Abd Allāh ibn Mas„ūd, „Alī ibn Abī T.ālib
and Ubayy ibn Ka„b; to a lesser degree, Zayd ibn Thābit, Abū Mūsá
al-Ash„arī, „Abd Allāh ibn al-Zubayr, Abū Bakr, „Umar and „Uthmān. They
moved to other cities in Muslim lands and transmitted to people what they had learned from the Prophet and what they knew from the asbāb al-nuzūl.
They opened schools for teaching tafsīr in important cities. In Makkah the
school was led by Ibn „Abbās; among his students were: Sa„īd ibn Jubayr (d. 94/713), Mujāhid ibn Jabr (d. 103/722) whose tafsīr has been published,
108
T.āwūs ibn Kaysān al-Yamānī (d. 106/725), „Ikrimah (Ibn „Abbās‟s client, d.
105/723) and „At.a‟ ibn Abī Rabāh (d. 114/732). In Madīnah, it was led by
Ubayy ibn Ka„b (d. 22/641); among his students were: Muh.ammad ibn Ka„b
al-Qurz.ī (d. 117/735), al-Rāfi„ ibn Mahrān (his agnomen was Abū
al-„Āliyah al-Riyāhī, d. 90/709 or 117/735 or 93/712) and Zayd ibn Aslam
(his agnomen was Abū Usāmah, the client of „Umar, d. 136/754). In Iraq it was led by „Abd Allāh ibn Mas„ūd (d. 32/652); among his students in Kūfah
26
were „Alqamah ibn Qays (d. ca. 62/682 or 72/692) and Masrūq ibn al-Ajda„ (d. 63/683). In Bas.rah, they were al-H.asan al-Bas.rī (d. 110/728), Qatādah
ibn Di„āmah al-Sudusī (d. 118/736), „At.a‟ ibn Abī Muslim al-Khurasānī (d.
135/753) and Murrah ibn Shurāh.īl al-Hamadhānī (his agnomen was Abū
Isma„īl, d. 76/696).109
In this period of the tābi„īn, many isrā’iliyyāt (Jewish traditions used to
amplify Qur‟ānic allusions) found their way into tafsīr. This is because
people were curious to know the details of stories mentioned in the Qur‟ān. For example, they wanted to know the size of Prophet Noah‟s ark, the
number and names of the as.h.āb al-kahf (Men of the Cave) and the colour of
their dog, the kind of tree from which Allah talked to Prophet Moses and the
kind of birds which were revived by Allah for Prophet Abraham. Such details could be found in the Torah or its commentary and legends put into
it.110
Moreover, some of the Jews who converted to Islam brought the
isrā’iliyyāt with them. Although the Prophet was reported to have said that Muslims should neither believe nor disbelieve what the people of the Book
related to them, they consulted them; even Ibn „Abbās was reported to have
listened to them.111
Ibn Khaldūn gave us his account on this matter and said:
.... The Arabs had no books or scholarship. The desert attitude and
illiteracy prevailed among them. When they wanted to know certain
things that human beings are usually curious to know, such as the
reason for the existing things, the beginning of creation, and the secrets
of existence, they consulted the earlier people of the Book about it and
got information from them. The people of the Book were the Jews who
had the Torah and the Christians who followed the religion (of the
Jews). Now the people of the Torah who lived among the Arabs at that
time were themselves Bedouins. They knew only as much about the
matter as is known to ordinary people of the Book (in contrast to the
learned rabbis). The majority of those Jews were Himyarites who had
adopted Judaism. When they became Muslims, they clung to the
information they possessed, such as information about the beginning of
creation and information of the types of forecasts and predictions. That
information had no connection with the commandments of the Islamic
Law. Such men were Ka„b b. al-Ah.bār, Wahb b. Munabbah, „Abdallāh
b. Sallām and similar people. The Qur‟ān [sic] commentaries were filled
with materials of such tendencies transmitted on their authority.112
It was commonly believed that the recording of oral traditions
attributed to the Prophet started only at the second century of A.H. after the death of all of the s.ah.ābah and prominent tābi„īn, such as Sa„īd ibn
27
al-Musayyab (d. 100/713) and al-H.asan al-Bas.rī. Mālik ibn Anas, for
example, stated that Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī (d. 124/742) was the earliest compiler.
113 However, the extant and earliest religious book written in the
early period of Islam was al-S.ah.īfah al-S.ah.īh.ah (The Authentic Scroll) of
Hammām ibn Munabbih. The compiler Ibn Munabbih (d. 101/719) was a
student of the prominent s.ah.ābī (a companion of the Prophet) Abū Hurayrah
(d. 58/677). Two identical manuscripts of it were found; one in Damascus, and the other in Berlin. It was discovered, edited and published by
Muhammad Hamidullah in Damascus in 196l. It contained one hundred and
thirty-eight h.adīths on the authority of Abū Hurayrah. Many of these
h.adīths were identical to those reported by Ah.mad ibn H.anbal in his
Musnad and al-Bukhārī in his S.ah.īh.. Some s.ah.ābah and tābi„īn had
recorded the h.adīths, but their recordings were lost, such as Sa„īd ibn
„Ubādah (d. 15/637), Ibn „Abbās (d. 69/689), Samrah ibn Jundub (d. 60/680), Jābir ibn „Abd Allāh (d. 78/670), „Abd Allāh ibn „Amr ibn al-„Ās.
(d. 65/685) and Sa„īd ibn Jubayr (d. 95/714).114
In the early period of the second century A.H. religious knowledge had
not yet been divided into branches and therefore scholars were not
specialists in one particular branch. Tafsīr was still included in the H.adīth
and the mufassirīn (scholars on tafsir) were themselves muh.addithīn
(scholars on h.adīths), until the two sciences separated completely in the
early third century A.H. Among scholars who wrote tafsīr based on what they had learned from the s.ah.ābah and the tābi„īn with sanad (isnād, chains
of authorities on which traditions and historical writings are based) were
Wakī„ ibn al-Jarrāh. (d. 196/811), Sufyān ibn „Uyaynah (d. 198/813),
Shu„bah ibn al-Hajjāj (d. 160/776), „Abd al-Razzāq ibn Hammām (d.
211/827) and Abū Khālid Yazīd ibn Hārūn (d. 206/822).115
Unfortunately, none of these works are extant. However, there are some extant works of
this second century A.H., among which are: Tafsīr (MS. Husnu 17) of
Muqātil ibn Sulaymān (d. 150/767), al-Sīrah al-Nabawiyyah (Cairo, 1955) of Ibn Ish.āq (d. 151/768) in the recension of Ibn Hishām (d. 218/834), Tafsīr
(MS. Ayasofya 118) of Muh.ammad ibn Sā‟ib al-Kalbī (d. 146/763), and
Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-Karīm (Rampur, 1965), of Sufyān al-Thawrī (d.
161/778). They contained mainly commentaries and paraphrastic
explanations in addition to the asbāb al-nuzūl, except Ibn Ish.āq‟s Sīrah
which contained mainly the Prophet‟s biography and asbāb al-nuzūl.116
In this period of compilation the „Abbāsī dynasty was seizing political
28
power after successfully overthrowing the Umawī dynasty in 132/750. In this critical situation, traditions exaggerating Ibn „Abbās‟s piety, virtue and
knowledge, were invented for the political ends of his descendants who were
ruling the Muslim empire. Moreover, before the „Abbāsī dynasty took power the qus.s.ās. (story tellers) had already used the highly respected
position of Ibn „Abbās‟s family among Muslims to fabricate traditions in his
and „Ali‟s name. Consequently, according to al-Shāfi„ī, there were only
about one hundred traditions handed down by Ibn „Abbās.117
Ibn H.anbal
was reported to have said that there are three things which have no basis: tafsīr, malāh.im (apocalyptic h.adīths), and maghāzī (accounts of the early
battles in Islam).118
As h.adīths, tafsīr and sayings ascribed to Ibn „Abbās transmitted
through various channels and isnāds were so numerous that there was hardly
a single Qur‟ānic verse without one or more commentaries attributed to him.
This led the critics among scholars to examine and evaluate these channels and isnāds. Among the critics of h.adīth and tafsīr transmission in this period
were Yah.yá ibn Sa„īd al-Qat.t.ān (d. 198/813) and „Abd al-Rah.mān ibn
Mahdī (198/814). Their views were widely accepted by scholars such as the
traditionist Ah.mad ibn H.anbal and Yah.yá ibn Ma„īn (d. 233/848) and
scholars of the following generation.119
Among the evaluated channels are
the following:
(1). Mu„āwiyah ibn S.ālih. - „Alī ibn Abī T.alh.ah al-Hāshimī (d. 143/760-1) -
Ibn „Abbās. This is the best channel. Although it was reported that „Alī ibn Abī T.alh.ah did not hear the tafsīr directly from Ibn „Abbās but from
his students Mujāhid or Sa„īd ibn Jubayr, his tafsīr was accepted as
reliable. Al-T.abarī, Ibn Abī H.ātim, Muslim and other h.adīth compilers
relied on his transmission. Ah.mad ibn H.anbal said of it as follows:
“There is a scroll in Egypt on tafsīr transmitted by „Alī ibn Abī T.alh.ah,
and if a man goes there to get it is not a great thing,” meaning that it
deserved this great effort.
(2). Qays ibn Muslim al-Kūfī (d. 130/748) - „At.ā‟ ibn al-Sā‟ib - Sa„īd ibn
Jubayr - Ibn „Abbās. This is also a very good channel, the isnād is s.ah.īh.
(sound) based on the conditions laid down by al-Bukhārī and Muslim.
(3). Ibn Ish.āq - Muh.ammad ibn Abī Muh.ammad (the client of Zayd ibn
Thābit‟s family) - „Ikrimah or Sa„īd ibn Jubayr - Ibn „Abbās. This channel is still good, and the isnād is h.asan (good) according to the
29
standard laid down in accepting h.adīths.
4). Al-D.ah.h.āk ibn Muzāh.im al-Hilālī (d. 103/722) - Ibn „Abbās. This is a
weak channel. It is weaker if the channel is Juwaybir - al- D.ah.h.āk - Ibn
„Abbās.
(5). Ismā„īl ibn „Abd al-Rah.mān (al-Suddī al-Kabīr, d. 128/745) - Abū
Mālik (or Abū S.ālih., Ummu Hānī‟s client) - Ibn „Abbās. The reports of
al-Suddī al-Kabīr are found in the collections of h.adīth compilers
Muslim, Abū Dāwūd, Ibn Mājah, al-Nasā‟ī and al-Tirmidhī. Ibn Abī
H.ātim did not include them among the sound reports.
(6). Muqātil ibn Sulaymān - Ibn „Abbās. Although praised by al-Shāfi„ī,
many scholars considered him weak, because he reported from Mujāhid and al- D.ah.h.āk, but he never had contact with them. Moreover, he was
known to be a follower of al-tajsīm and al-tashbīh (anthropomorphism).
Al-Suyūt.ī preferred al-Kalbī to Muqātil. When Wakī„ was asked about
Muqātil‟s tafsīr, he said, “Do not look at it.” When he was asked what
to do with it, he said, “Bury it.” Ah.mad ibn H.anbal said about him: “I
do not like to report anything from Muqātil.”120
(7). Muh.ammad ibn Sā‟ib al-Kalbī - Abū S.ālih. - Ibn „Abbās. This is the
worst channel, especially if Muh.ammad ibn Marwān (al-Suddī
al-S.aghīr, d. 189/805) is included in it. Al-Kalbī was reported to have
said on his death-bed: “Everything I have told you from Abū S.ālih. are
lies.” His reports were frequently narrated by al-Tha„labī and
al-Wāh.idī.121
In the late second and early third century A.H. lexical tafsīr became more developed. Apart from traditional sources and lexical explanation,
grammatical phenomena as well as symbolic problems were also included.
Grammatical phenomena were justified with shawāhid from ancient poetry and secular rhetoric, while symbolic problems were solved by applying the
periphrastic principle “taqdīr” (supposition), but mainly expressed with the
term majāz. Among the extant lexical tafsīr in this period are Ma„ānī ’l-Qur’ān of al-Farrā‟, Majāz al-Qur’ān of Abū „Ubaydah, and later Ta’wīl
Mushkil al-Qur’ān of Ibn Qutaybah.122
The process of tafsīr compilation
with isnād reached its culmination with Ibn Jarīr al-T.abarī. His tafsīr
belonged to the category of tafsīr bi ’l-ma’thūr. Immediately after putting the verse - partly or wholly - he explained it by paraphrasing and mentioning
oral traditions from the s.ah.abah or tābi„ī with full isnād. He evaluated them,
30
especially if two or more meanings or variant readings were involved, and gave his opinion, although he was against al-tafsīr bi’l-ra’y. He gave his
own legal judgement from the Qur‟ānic verses, as he had a madhhab of his
own.
As a compiler, al-T.abarī also included some contradictory traditions
and isrā’ilīyāt, all with their isnād in his tafsīr. For example, he mentioned a tradition from Mu„āwiyah from „Alī ibn T.alh.ah from Ibn „Abbās who said
that the meaning of in Q. 2:260123
is (cut them into pieces). Then
al-T.abarī mentioned another tradition that he was told by Muh.ammad ibn
Sa„īd, having heard it from his father, that he was told by his uncle who was
told by his father from his father from Ibn „Abbās, that means َ (tie
them up).124
Scholars‟ objections to his tafsīr was that some of his
authorities were weak, such as al-Suddī al-S.aghīr and Juwaybir, and that it
contained some isrā’iliyyāt which he acknowledged. However, these
materials had their own valuable contribution to his tafsīr collection. It is said that it is in itself an encyclopedia of traditional commentary in which
various views of religion during his time were recorded and critically
evaluated.
Al-T.abarī‟s method of writing tafsīr was followed by many
commentators in later generations, such as Ibn „At.iyyah, Ibn Kathīr, and al-
Suyūt.ī. Ibn „At.iyyah was a grammarian, a philologist, a man of letters, a
poet and a qād.ī in Andalusia. His work al-Muh.arrir al-Wajīz fī Tafsīr
al-Kitāb al-„Azīz (The Short Deliverer in the Commentary of the Glorious Book) was a collection of opinions mentioned by commentators of
traditional commentary. It was praised by Ibn Khaldūn who considered it the
first tafsīr in which traditions were critically scrutinised. All commentaries were abridged, and the most likely interpretations were selected.
125 It was
also praised by Ibn Taymiyyah who preferred it to al-Zamakhsharī‟s
al-Kashshāf, although al-T.abarī‟s tafsīr is the soundest one.126
It is still in
manuscripts consisting of ten volumes.
The second great commentator of traditional tafsīr after al-T.abarī was
Ibn Kathīr whose agnomen was Abū al-Fidā. His work Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-„Az.īm contains commentaries from the salaf (the s.ah.ābah, tābi‘īn and
tābi‘ī al-tābi‘īn) with isnād. He evaluated them and rejected the unsound
ones. He mentioned the verse, explained it in simple language, gave
shawāhid from other verses, or h.adīths to clarify the meaning, and rejected
31
the isrā’iliyyāt.
Al-Suyūt.ī was a prolific writer. His work al-Durr al-Manthūr fī
’l-Tafsīr bi ’l-Ma’thūr (The Scattered Pearls in Traditional Exegesis) was a short copy of his Turjumān al-Qur’ān. However, another and more popular
exegesis was Tafsīr al-Jalālayn written by his teacher Jalāl al-Dīn
al-Mah.allī (d. 863/1459) and later continued by himself. Al-Mah.allī started
his tafsīr from the beginning of chapter 18 (sūrat al-Kahf) till the end (sūrat al-Nās), including chapter 1 (sūrat al-Fātih.ah), then he passed away.
Al-Suyūt.ī continued the work from chapter 2 (sūrat al-Baqarah) till chapter
17 (sūrat al-Isrā’). The book is not purely traditional as it lacks isnād.
Another leading commentator after al-T.abarī was Mah.mūd ibn
„Umar al-Zamakhsharī (538/1143-4) whose agnomen was Jār Allāh.
Contrary to his contemporary Ibn „At.iyyah who was a Mālikī Sunnī,
al-Zamakhsharī was a H.anafī Mu„tazilī. His tafsīr entitled al-Kashshāf „an
H.aqā’iq al-Tanzīl (The Unveiler of the Realities of the Revelation) was a
purely rational commentary. The characteristic of this tafsīr is that it offers
brief explanation, contains no isrā’iliyyāt, largely relies on Arabic expression and philological interpretation of the Qur‟ān through his mastery
of Arabic language. In addition, it uses a question-and-answer dialogue style
“if you say...” (fa’in qulta ...) “I would say...” (qultu...). His main interest was in the rhetoric of the Qur‟ān which was neglected by al-T.abarī. As a
Mu„tazilī he put great efforts in interpreting the Qur‟an in such a way as to
suit the Mu„tazilī theology in general, and in Allah‟s abolute oneness and
justice in particular. For example, the verse
meaning “Some faces will on that Day be bright with happiness,
looking up to their Sustainer” (Q. 75:22-3, Asad) indicates that Muslims will
see Allah in the Hereafter. But as a Mu„tazilī, al-Zamakhsharī did not believe in seeing Allah in the Hereafter, because He is spiritual. Therefore,
he explained the word nāz.irah stating that it has an idea of expectation, like
the word muntaz.irah (expecting), giving an example in the expression
(I am looking forward to what So-and-so will do to me).127
These verses belong to the category of the mutashābihāt according to the
Mu„tazilīs, whereas verses that agree with their view are placed by them into
the category of muh.kamāt (clear verses), such as the following verse:
“No human vision can
32
encompass Him, whereas He emcompasses all human vision: for He alone is unfathomable, all-aware.” (Q. 6:103, Asad). Similarly, al-Zamakhsharī
explained the term kursī (throne) in the verse
which means “His throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth...”
(Q. 2:255, Ali). He gave four interpretations on this verse, three
metaphorically, namely, Allah‟s greatness, knowledge, and power, and one
literally which was a report that Allah created a throne beside the „Arsh (the Throne) under which were the sun and the moon, or, as reported by al-
H.asan, the Throne itself.128
In the second half of the sixth century A.H. a Sunnī commentator,
Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1209), wrote his tafsīr called Mafātīh. al-Ghayb
(The Keys of the Unknown). Since he was interested in philosophy and
scientific explanation of the universe, he explained verses which refer to nature and its phenomena, such as rain and earthquake. As a Shāfi„ī
follower, he explained the legal prescriptions of the Qur‟an according to this
school, although he also mentioned other madhhabs. As a Sunnī he refuted the Mu„tazilīs‟ use of reasoning and tradition to support their view. He
mentioned asbāb al-nuzūl more often, but he did not go into the details of
rhetoric or grammar. He used istit.rād (digression) so much that his tafsīr
contained many subjects which were not necessarily logically related. It is not surprising that it was said in exaggeration that his tafsīr contains
everything except tafsīr.129
The frequent use of istinbat. (deduction) in his
approach strongly emphasises the rationalistic nature of his commentary.
He wrote his tafsīr until sūrat al-Anbiyā’ (chapter 21), about half of the Qur‟ān. The work was continued by his student Shihāb al-Dīn al-Khāwī,
then by Najm al-Dīn al-Qāmūlī, probably from the notes of his lectures.
At the seventh/thriteenth century another Sunnī commentator
appeared, al-Bayd.āwī (d. 685/1286 or 691/1292). His work Anwār al-Tanzīl
wa Asrār al-Ta’wīl (The Lights of the Revelation and the Mysteries of the Ta’wīl) is a mixture of traditional and rational commentaries. He took the
tafsīr from al-Zamakhsharī and selected from him his own tafsīr by
removing from it most of the Mu„tazilī theology, such as the expression
(praise be to Allah Who created the Qur‟ān), since as a Sunnī
he did not believe in the creation of the Qur‟ān. The remaining Mu„tazilī
ideas were debated by him by presenting the Sunnī commentary, consulting and using the similar method used by al-Rāzī and al-Rāghib al-As.bahānī in
33
their tafsīr books. In presenting variant readings, he used the term wa fī qirā’ah (and in another variant reading) and wa qīla (and it is said) for the
variant reading he approved and doubted respectively. He took great interest
in grammar and the Shāfi„ī fiqh to which he belonged. Following al-Zamakhsharī‟s method he cited h.adīth at the end of each sūrah
mentioning its value.
One of the major Shī„ī books on tafsīr is the work of Abū „Alī al-
Fad.l al-T.abarsī (d. 496/1153 or 538/1144) entitled Majma„ al-Bayān fī
Tafsīr al-Qur’ān (The Collection of the Explanation on the Commentary of
the Qur‟ān). As a Mu„tazilī follower, he expanded the Mu„tazilī thought, and as a Shī„ī, he gave more symbolic (allegorical) commentary in his tafsīr.
For example, after giving the interpretation of the verse
“Then We raised you up after your death so that you
might give thanks” (Q. 2:56) he stated that according to some people among
the upholders of the Shī„ī school, this verse proved that the raj„ah (return
after occultation) was a possible occurrence for some people. This is because the manifestation of miracles among imāms and saints (awliyā’) is
possible.130
He gives a different interpretation of the term al-ghayb in the
verse (“Those who believe in the unseen” Q. 2:3) and
supports the view of Ibn Mas„ūd and a group of people among the s.ah.ābah
that the word al-ghayb here means what is unknown to people. This is
because this interpretation is more general and includes the time of al-Mahdi‟s occultation (ghaybah) and return (raj„ah).
131
Among the Ismā„ilī Shī„īs it is worth-mentioning Ismā„īl ibn Hibat
Allāh (d. 1173-4/1760). His tafsīr is entitled Mizāj al-Tasnīm (The Mixture
of Tasnīm).132
For the Ismā„ilīs the ostensible meaning of the Qur‟ān is only the symbol of its inner meaning. Therefore, the whole Qur‟ān is
mutashābihāt and in need of interpretation which is known only by their
imāms. One example of this esoteric interpretation (al-tafsīr al-bāt.in) of the
Qur‟ān attributed to Ibn Hawshab al-Kūfī (d. 266/880) is as follows: “The
seven verses of the sūra [i.e., sūrat al-Fātih.ah (chapter 1)] symbolise the
seven degrees of religion. The sūra of Praise [i.e. sūrat al-H.amd, another
name for sūrat al-Fātih.ah] opens the Book of God, and similarly the
degrees of religion open the door of knowledge in God‟s religion.”133
The
idea of inner meaning was derived from the following verse:
“.... And thereupon a wall will
34
be raised between them [and the believers], with a gate in it: within it [bāt.inuhu] will be grace and mercy, and against the outside thereof
[z.āhiruhu], suffering.” (Q. 57:13, Asad).134
One of the compilers of the allegorical tafsīr was Abū „Abd al-Rah.mān al-Sulamī (d. 412/1021). His work Haqā’iq al-Tafsīr (The Realities
of Interpretation) contained neither philological explanation nor traditional
commentary, despite his recognition of its validity. He confined himself
exclusively to the symbolic meanings of the Qur‟ānic verses which had not previously been compiled and the sayings of the s.ūfīs and other important
personalities, such as al-H.allāj (ex. 309/922) and Ja„far al-S.ādiq (d.
148/756).135
An example of al-Sulamī‟s tafsīr is the interpretation of the
verse ٦٦)
“Yet if We were to ordain for them, „Lay down your lives,‟ or, „Forsake
your homelands,‟ only a very few of them would do it...” (Q. 4:66, Asad).
The word (lay down your lives) and (forsake your
homelands) mean respectively that Prophet Moses asked his people “to kill their selves” and “to remove worldly love from their hearts”.
136
When the mystical commentary of the s.ūfīs was denounced by the
„ulamā‟, al-Ghazālī (d. 504/1111) came to the rescue. Being himself a s.ūfī,
he said that the words of the Qur‟ān belong to “the world of humanity”,
whereas their meanings belong to what he called “the world of angels”. He
contended that man cannot reach the truth because of the weakness of his faith, his lust for wordly things and his adherence to the literal meaning of
the Qur‟ān which can only be revealed to the elect through intuition.
Defending the mystical interpretation of the Qur‟ān through intuition which occurs when reason stops, he said: “Why should it be impossible that
beyond reason there should be a further plane, on which appear things which
do not appear on the plane of the intelligence, just as it is possible for the intelligence itself to be a plane above the discriminating faculty and
senses?”137
Apart from the mystical interpretation used by the s.ūfīs, Muh.yī ‟l-Dīn
ibn „Arabī (d. 638/1240) and later his student „Abd al-Razzāq al-Kāshānī (d.
730/1330) used another category of mystical tafsīr, namely,
(speculative or theosophical commentary). Without openly rejecting the obvious meanings of the verses, they went further with their speculative
interpretation to support the idea of (Unity of Being). Ibn „Arabī‟s
35
tafsīr was lost, but we can find some glimpse of it in his works al-Futūh.āt
al-Makkiyyah and Fus.ūs. al-H.ikam. He was charged by some „ulamā’ like
Ibn Taymiyyah and al-Taftāzānī with heresy, and his idea of h.ulūl
(substantial union of a divine spirit with man) and as heretical.
However, some others defended him, such as al-Fīrūzābādī and al-Suyūt.ī.138
An example of this speculative commentary is the verse
“And He is with you wherever you may be...” (Q. 57:4, Asad) which
is explained by al-Kāshānī in his Ta’wīlāt al-Qur’ān (The Interpretations of
the Qur‟ān) as “God is everywhere because He created His existence
everywhere”. This Ta’wīlāt was mistakenly ascribed to Ibn „Arabī.
In this chapter a glimpse of some literature related to the study of Ibn Qutaybah‟s contribution to Qur‟ānic exegesis, a short synopsis of Ibn
Qutaybah‟s life, political, social and cultural conditions in his life as well as
a glimpse of early Qur‟ānic exegesis have been presented. We have seen that Ibn Qutaybah was born when the „Abbāsī dynasty reached its ultimate glory
and prosperity under al-Ma„mūn in the first half of the third century A.H. He
witnessed the government's shifting from the Mu„tazilī theological school to the Sunnī orthodoxy under al-Mutawakkil as the madhhab of the state. He
found himself in line with the new trend and became a champion and an
advocate of the Sunnī orthodoxy. He defended the Qur‟ān and the Sunnah against philosophic scepticism and heresies in his time through his writings.
36
ENDNOTES TO CHAPTER I
1. Gerard Lecomte, “Ibn Kutayba,” EI2, p. 847.
2. Al-Sayyid Ah.mad S.aqr‟s introduction to Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl Mushkil
al-Qur’ān (Cairo: Dār al-Turāth, 1393/1973), 2nd ed., p. 2 of the introduction.
3. See G. Lecomte, Ibn Qutayba (mort en 276/889): l’homme, son oevre, ses idées
(Damascus: Catholic Printing Press, 1965), pp. 97-178.
4. In manuscript D, instead of mut.t.ali‘ (well-informed), it is written muttaba„
(followed), see Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, p. 674.
5. In S.aqr‟s quotation the word lam is missing in the expression mā lam a„lam, see
ibid, p. 77 of the introduction.
6. Ibid., pp. 85-86 of S.aqr‟s introduction.
7. Ibid., pp. 673-94.
8. Ibid., p. 86 of S.aqr‟s introduction.
9. Idem, Tafsīr Gharīb al-Qur’ān, ed. A.H. S.aqr (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub
al-„Ilmiyyah, 1398/1978), p. 4.
10. Ibid., p. “h” of S.aqr‟s introduction.
11. Ibid., pp. “j” and “d”.
12. Ibid., p. “d”.
13. For further details, see idem, Gharīb al-H.adīth, ed. Dr. „Abd Allāh al-Jubūrī,
1st ed. (Baghdād: Mat.ba„ah al-„Anī, 1397/1977), vol. 1, pp. 90-114.
14. Idem, Adab al-Kātib, ed. von Max Grünert (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1900), p. 2.
15. Ibid., p. 6, n. “b”.
16. Ibid., p. 22.
17. Ibid., pp. 236-237.
18. Ibid., p. 337.
19. Ibid., p. 473.
20. Ibid., p. 536. Cf. idem, Ta’wīl, p. 567.
21. Idem, Adab al-Kātib, p. 567.
22. Ibid., pp. 641-642; cf idem, Ta’wīl, p. 498.
23. Max Grünert‟s introduction in idem, Adab al-Kātib, pp. ix-x.
24. The other three sources are al-Mubarrad‟s al-Kāmil, al-Jāh.iz.‟s al-Bayān wa
al-Tabyīn, and Abū „Alī al-Qālī al-Baghdādī‟s al-Nawādir, see Ibn Khaldūn,
37
Muqaddimah (Cairo: al-Mat.ba„ah Azhariyyah, 1384/1930), p. 489.
25. R.A. Nicholson, A Literary History of the Arabs (Cambridge: The University
Press, 1956), p. 344.
26. Carl Brockelmann, Ta’rīkh al-Adab al-‘Arabī, trans. Dr. „Abd al-H.alīm
al-Najjār (Cairo: Dār al-Ma„ārif, 1961), vol. 2, p. 143. See also Yāqūt al-Rūmī, Kitāb
Irshād al-Arīb ilá Ma„rifat al-Adīb, also known as Mu„jam al-Udabā’, and T.abaqāt
al-Udabā’, ed. D.S. Margoliouth (Egypt: [al-] Mat.ba„ah al-Hindiyyah, 1925), vol. 7, p.
16.
27. H.A.R. Gibb, “Abū „Ubayda Ma„mar b. al-Muthannā,” EI2, 2, p. 158; and J.
Wansbrough, “Majāz al-Qur‟ān: Periphrastic Exegesis,” BSOAS (Univ. of London),
vol. xxxiii, part 2 (1970), pp. 247-66.
28. Wansbrough, “Majāz al-Qur‟ān,” p. 157.
29. Brockelmann, Ta’rīkh, vol. 2, p. 199.
30. R. Blachére, “al-Farrā‟,” EI2, 2, p. 806.
31. Brockelmann, Ta’rīkh, vol. 2, p. 199.
32. Ibid, 2, p. 196.
33. Blachère, “al-Farrā‟,” p. 806.
34. Nicholson, A Literary History, pp. 145 and 351.
35. Ibn Qutaybah, for example, did not include seven sūrahs (chapters) in his
Ta’wīl, and mentioned one verse only in sūrah 54, namely verse 14. In his Tafsīr he did
not include thirty-two sūrahs, and dealt with one verse only from sūrah 21, namely,
verse 10. His Ta’wīl included the missing sūrahs in his Tafsīr, and not vice versa. See
his Ta’wīl, pp. 595-621 and his Tafsīr, pp. 547-554.
36. Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmū„ Fatāwá Shaykh al-Islām Ah.mad ibn Taymiyyah,
collected and arranged by Muh.ammad ibn Qāsim al-„Ās.imī al-Najdī, 37 vols.
(Makkah: Maktabat al-Nahd.ah al-H.adīthah, 1404 A.H.), vol. 13, p. 361.
37. Abū Bakr Muh.ammad al-Zubaydī, T.abaqāt al-Nah.wiyyīn wa ’l-Lughawiyyīn,
ed. Muh.ammad Abū al-Fad.l Ibrāhīm, 1st ed. (Egypt: Muh.ammad Sāmī al-Khānjī),
1373/1954), p. 171.
38. Yāqūt al-Rūmī, Mu„jam al-Udabā’, vol. 7, p. 73.
39. Brockelmann, Ta’rīkh, vol. 2, p. 214.
40. Al-Zubaydī, T.abaqāt, pp. 168-172.
41. See Abū al-H.usayn Ah.mad ibn Fāris, al-S.āh.ibī fī Fiqh al-Lughah wa Sunan
al-‘Arab fī Kalāmihā, ed. Mus.t.afā al-Shuwaymī (Beirut: A. Badrān & Co., 1383/1963),
p. 6 (the editor‟s introduction).
38
42. See ibid., p. 9.
43. See Abū al-Fad.l Jamāl al-Dīn Muh.ammad ibn Manz.ūr, Lisān al-‘Arab 15
vols. (Beirut: Dār S.ādir lil-T.ibā„ah wa ‟l-Nashr, [1374-5]/1955-1956), vol. 15, p. 494.
44. See Ibn al-Nadīm, al-Fihrist (Egypt: al-Mat.ba„ah al-Istiqāmah, 1929), p. 86;
Abū al-Barakāt Ibn al-Anbārī, Nuzhat al-Alibbā’ fī T.abaqāt al-Udabā’, ed. Dr.
„Āt.iyyah „Āmir (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksel, [1962]), p. 128; and Ibn al-Athīr,
al-Kāmil fī ’l-Ta’rīkh (N.p.: Idārat al-T.ibā„ah al-Munīriyyah, 1353 A.H.), vol. 7, p. 175.
According to al-Khat.īb al-Baghdādī, al-Sam„ānī and al-Qift.ī, Ibn Qutaybah was born in
Baghdād, see their respective works Ta’rīkh Baghdād aw Madīnat al-Salām, 14 vols.
(Egypt: Maktabat al-Khānjī, 1931), vol. 10, p. 170; al-Ansāb (reproduced in fascimile
from the manuscript in the British Museum add 23,355 with an introduction by D.S.
Margoliouth, D. Litt. Leyden: E.J. Brill, Imprimerie Orientale; London: Luzac & Co.,
1912. Repr. Baghdād: Maktabat al-Muthanná, 1970), p. 447; and Inbāh al-Ruwāt ‘alá
Anbāh al-Nuh.āh, ed. Muh.ammad Abū al-Fad.l Ibrāhīm, 3 vols. (Cairo: Dār al-Kutub al-
Mis.riyyah, 1369-74/1950-5), vol. 2, p. 143. Ibn Khallikān mentioned Kūfah and
Baghdād without stating the correct one; see Ibn Khallikān, Wafayāt al-A„yān wa Anbā’
Abnā’ al-Zamān, ed. Dr. Ih.sān „Abbās (Beirut: Dār al-Thaqāfah, [1970]), vol. 3, p. 43.
45. See al-Khat.īb al-Baghdādī, Ta’rīkh Baghdād, vol. 10, p. 170; al-Sam„ānī,
al-Ansāb, p. 447; al-Qift.ī, Inbāh al-Ruwāt, vol. 2, p. 143; and Ibn Khallikān, Wafayāt,
vol. 3, p. 43.
46. This is the date given by the earliest biographer al-Zubaydī, see T.abaqāt al-
Nah.wiyyīn, p. 200; Shayms al-Dīn al-Dhahābī, Tadhkirat al-H.uffāz., 4 vols. (with
continuous pagination), (Hyderabad-Deccan: Dār al-Ma„ārif al-„Uthmāniyyah,
1376/1956), vol. 2, p. 631; Ibn al-Nadīm stated 270 A.H., see al-Fihrist, p. 86; Ibn
al-Athīr stated 276 A.H. and 270 A.H., see al-Kāmil, vol. 7, p. 438, and Ibn Khallikān
stated 270 A.H., 271 A.H. and 296 A.H., but the right one according to him was 276
A.H., see Wafayāt, vol. 3, p. 43. This view is supported with the report of Qāsim ibn
As.bagh al-Bayyānī (d. 340/952) who said that he came to Baghdād in 274/888 and
learned from Ibn Qutaybah, see al-Khat.īb al-Baghdādī, Ta’rīkh Baghdād, vol. 10, p.
170.
47. See Ibn Qutaybah, Adab al-Kātib, p. 77.
48. For further details, see Ibn Manz.ūr, Lisān, vol. 1, pp. 660-661 (s.v. ).
49. According to Ah.mad Amīn, al-Suddī al-S.aghīr was an extremist Rāfid.ī Shī„ī;
see A. Amīn, Fajr al-Islām, 12th ed. (Cairo: Maktabat al-Nahd.ah al-Mis.riyyah, 1978),
p. 275. The Shī„ī traditionist who was called Ibn Qutaybah was probably Muh.ammad
ibn al-H.usayn al-„Asqalānī (d. 301/913), who, according to Abū „Alī al-Nisābūrī,
transmitted traditions in Palestine. See al-Dhahābī, Kitāb T.abaqāt al-H.uffāz., ed.
39
Wüstenfeld (Gottingen: N.p., 1833-1834), p. 79, quoted by Lecomte, Ibn Qutayba, p.
29.
50. See Shawqī Dayf, al-‘As.r al-‘Abbāsī al-Thānī (Cairo: Dār al-Ma„ārif, 1977),
p. 611.
51. See Lecomte, Ibn Qutayba, pp. 47-8, n. 2, 50-74. There are fourteen other
teachers of Ibn Qutaybah, but of “the second degree”. For further details, see ibid., pp.
75-82.
52. Idem, “Ibn Ķutayba”, E.I.2, p. 844.
53. Ibid., pp. 844-845.
54. See Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, S.aqr‟s introduction, pp. 35 and 38-39.
55. Al-Dāraqut.nī was a Shāfi„ī, but was suspected of being a Shī„ī, see Lecomte,
Ibn Qutayba, p. 15.
56. See al-Jubūrī‟s introduction in Ibn Qutaybah‟s Gharīb al-H.adīth, pp. 19-20;
and S.aqr‟s introduction in Ibn Qutaybah‟s Ta’wīl, pp. 49-51.
57. Ibn Taymiyyah says that the position of Ibn Qutaybah among the Sunnīs is like
that of al-Jāh.iz. among the Mu„tazilīs. As the former was the spokesman of the Sunnah,
so was the latter of the Mu„tazilah. Quoting from Kitāb al-Tah.dīth bi-Manāqib Ahl al-
H.adīth by an unidentified writer Ibn Taymiyyah said that the people of Maghrib
(Morocco) used to say that a house without any writing of Ibn Qutaybah has no
goodness in it. See Ibn Taymīyah, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Ikhlās., ed. Dr. Muh.ammad „Abd
al-Mun„im Khafājī (Cairo: Dār al-T.ibā„ah al-Muh.ammadiyyah bi-al-Azhar, n.d.), p.
130.
58. See Lecomte, Ibn Qutayba, pp. 16-7. Among the biographers of the second
category in favouring Ibn Qutaybah, al-Khat.īb al-Baghdādī and Ibn al-Jawzī stated that
Ibn Qutaybah was reliable, pious and virtuous, while Ibn Khallikān mentioned only that
he was virtuous and reliable; see their respective works Ta’rīkh, vol. 10, p. 170, al-
Muntaz.am fī Ta’rīkh al-Mulūk wa ’l-Umam (Hyderabad Deccan: Mat.ba„at Dā‟irat
al-Ma„ārif al-„Uthmāniyyah, 1357-9 A.H.), vol. 5, p. 102; and Wafayāt, vol. 2, p. 246.
59. For further details, see S.aqr‟s introduction in Ibn Qutaybah‟s Ta’wīl, pp.
70-76.
60. For further details, see Sir William Muir, The Caliphate: Its Rise, Decline and
Fall (Oxford: The Religious Tract Society, 1891), p. 498.
61. The word sāmarrā’ is derived from sarra man ra’ā meaning “whoever saw it
rejoiced” at its beauty, or wittily said that “whoever saw it” with the Turks settled there
“rejoiced” to be at Baghdād and well rid of them. See Sir William Muir, The Caliphate,
p. 509, n. 2. Another witty reading is that the word is derived from sā’a man ra’ā
40
meaning “whoever saw it grieved” from its bad condition.
62. Dr. Muh.ammad Zaghlūl Sallām, Ibn Qutaybah (Egypt: Dār al-Ma„ārif, 1957),
pp. 10-11.
63. Ibid., pp. 12-13.
64. See Ibn „Abd Rabbih, al-‘Iqd al-Farīd, ed. Ah.mad Amīn et al. (Cairo:
Mat.ba„at al-Istiqāmah, 1372/1953), vol. 6, p. 355.
65. M.Z. Sallām, Ibn Qutaybah, p. 17.
66. Ibid., p. 15.
67. Ibid., p. 16.
68. G. Lecomte, Ibn Qutayba, p. xxx; see also S.aqr‟s introduction in Ibn
Qutaybah, Tafsīr, p. “j” and M.Z. Sallām, Ibn Qutaybah, p. 18. 69
See M.Z. Sallām, Ibn Qutaybah, p. 16. 70
Ibn Qutaybah, Adab al-Kātib, pp. 390 and 640. 71
Lecomte quoted Abū al-T.ayyib „Abd al-Wāh.id al-Lughawī who said that the
city of Baghdād was not a city of knowledge, but a city of government. The existing
knowledge was brought to the city to please the caliphs and their courts. Al-T.ayyib
said further that the people of Baghdād mixed everything; they did not make any
distinction among the schoolars of Bas.rah or between al-Ru‟āsī and al-Kisā‟ī, or even
between the reading of the H.ijāzī and that of H.amzah. The only thing they did was
invent technical terms, such as h.afd. for jarr, s.ifah for z.arf, h.urūf al-s.ifāt for h.urūf al-
jarr and nasq for ‘at.f, see Lecomte. Ibn Qutayba, p. 391, n. 2, quoting Abū al-T.ayyib,
Marātib al-Nah.wiyyīn (Cairo: N.P., 1375/1955), pp. 101-102.
72. Lecomte, “Ibn Ķutayba”, p. 846.
73. See al-Jubūrī‟s introduction in Ibn Qutaybah, Gharīb al-H.adīth, pp. 17-19.
74. Sallām, Ibn Qutaybah, p. 18.
75. Ibid., p. 19.
76. Ibn Manz.ūr, Lisān, vol. 5, p. 55; Jalāl al-Dīn Muh.ammad al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān fī
‘Ulūm al-Qur’ān, ed. M. A. Ibrāhīm, 4 vols. 1st ed. (Cairo: Maktabat wa Mat.ba„at
al-Mashhad al-H.usaynī, 1387/1967), vol. 4, p. 167; and Abū ‟l-Fad.l Muh.ammad
Murt.ad.á al-Zabīdī, Tāj al-‘Arūs min Jawāhir al-Qāmūs (Egypt: al-Mat.ba„ah
al-Khayrīyah, 1306/[1888]), vol. 3, p. 470. According to Muh.ammad Fu‟ād „Abd
al-Bāqī, the word tafsīr is mentioned once only in the Qur‟ān, as follows:
“And no question do they bring to thee but We reveal
to thee the truth and the best explanation (tafsīr).” (Q. 25:33). See M.F „Abd al-Bāqī,
41
al-Mu„jam al-Mufahras li-Alfāz. al-Qur’ān al-Karīm ([Cairo]: Dār wa Maābi„
al-Sha„b, n.d.), p. 519 (s.v. ).
77. See al-Zarkashī, al-Burhān fī ‘Ulūm al-Qur’ān, ed. Muh.ammad Abū al-Fad.l
Ibrāhīm, 4 vols (Beirut: Dār al-Ma„rifah, n.d.), vol. 1, p. 13.
78. Qāmūs al-Muī, 2nd ed., 4 vols. in 2 bindings (Cairo: Mat.ba„at Mus.t.afá
‟l-Bābī ‟l-H.alabī, 1371/1952), vol. 3, p. 341 (s.v. ); and al-Zabīdī, Tāj al-‘Arūs, vol.
7, p. 215 (s.v. ). The term ta’wīl is mentioned 17 times in the Qur‟ān according to
M.F. „Abd al-Bāqī. It deals with the interpretation of visions as in Q. 12:6, 21, 36-37,
44-45, and 100-1, of strange behaviour as in Q. 18:78 and 82, of obscure verses as in
Q. 3:7 where ta’wīl is mentioned twice, of the unseen as in Q. 10:39 where ta’wīl is
mentioned once, and with the fulfilment of the event in the Hereafter as in Q. 7:53
where ta’wīl is also mentioned twice. See M.F. „Abd al-Bāqī, al-Mu„jam, p. 97 (s.v.
.(اول
79. Al-Zabīdī, Tāj al-‘Arūs, vol. 7, p. 215; see also Ibn Taymiyyah, Tafsīr Sūrat
al-Ikhlās., p. 113; and al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān, vol. 4, p. 167.
80. Muqātil, Tafsīr, M.S. Hasan Husnu 17, 2r quoted by Wansbrough, Quranic
Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), p. 155.
81. Al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān, vol. 4, p. 188.
82. Al-Māturīdī, Ta’wīlāt al-Qur’ān, M.S. Medine 180, quoted by Wansbrough,
Quranic Studies, p. 154.
83. Al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān, vol. 4, p. 167.
84. Ibid., p. 168; and al-Zarkashī, al-Burhān, vol. 2, p. 150.
85. Al-S.ābūnī, al-Tibyān fī ‘Ulūm al-Qur’ān (Damascus: Maktabat al-Ghazālī,
1401/1981), 2nd ed., p. 63. Ibn Qutaybah used both terms ta’wīl and tafsīr in the title
of his works, namely, Ta’wīl Mushkil al-Qur’ān and Tafsīr Gharīb al-Qur’ān, the
latter being the continuation of the former. Apparently, he did not make any
distinction between the two terms, as he stated that he wrote his Gharīb al-Qur’ān in
order that his Ta’wīl would not become too long. However, according Lecomte, Ibn
Qutaybah did make such a distinction: tafsīr is simply paraphrasing simple texts or
difficult ones due to exclusively lexicographic order, whereas ta’wīl is a kind of tafsīr
with deeper meaning. See Lecomte, Ibn Qutayba, pp. 290-294. According to Ibn
Taymiyyah, al-T.abarī used the term ta’wīl meaning tafsīr when he used the
expression (“the statement concerning the interpretation of this verse”)
in his Jāmī„. In other words, al-T.abarī did not make a distinction between ta’wīl and
tafsīr. See Ibn Taymiyyah, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Ikhlās., p. 113. Contrary to this view is that
of Dr. Mus.t.afá Zayd who maintained that al-T.abarī did make a distinction between
42
the two terms. When al-T.abarī used the expression (the interpretation of
this verse according to me), in Zayd‟s view, is what the Prophet meant when he
prayed for his cousin Ibn „Abbās, saying (“O Allah, give
him understanding in religion and teach him ta’wīl [of the Qur‟ān]”), see Dr. M.
Zayd, Dirāsāt fī ’l-Tafsīr (Cairo: Dār al-Fikr al-„Arabī, n.d.), p. 17.
86. See also Q. 22:30.
87. For another example, see Q. 44:3 where the commentary of “the Blessed
Night” is given in Q. 97:1 which is, in turn, clarified in Q. 99:3-5.
88. Muh.ammad „Alī al-S.ābūnī (ed.), Mukhtasar Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr, 3 vols.
(Beirut: Dār al-Qur‟ān al-Karīm, 1402/1981), vol. 2, pp. 594-5.
89. See al-Zarqānī, Manāhil al-‘Irfān fī ‘Ulūm al-Qur’ān, 2 vols. (Beirut: Dār
al-Fikr, 1408/1988), vol. 2, pp. 23-24.
90. See Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmū„ Fatāwá, vol. 13, p. 370. Quoting from Ibn
al-Anbārī‟s work al-Radd „alá Man Khālafa Mus.h.af „Uthmān, which is not extant, al-
Qurt.ubī mentions two interpretations on the above h.adīth: (a) Whosoever gives his
own opinion on the ambiguous verses of the Qur‟ān on which neither the s.ah.ābah nor
the tābi„īn have ever expressed their opinion, he will be exposed to Allah‟s wrath; (b)
Whoever gives an opinion that he knows is wrong about the verses of the Qur‟ān, he
will be exposed to Allah‟s wrath, and this is the right view according to al-Qurt.ubī;
see al-Jāmi„, vol. 1, p. 32. In another tradition on the authority of Jundub, the Prophet
said: “Whoever interprets the Qur‟ān by independent reason is wrong even if he
arrives at the right meaning.” For similar h.adīths, see al-Tirmidhī, Jāmi„, vol. 5, p.
199 no. 2950 (chap. tafsīr al-Qur’ān). See also al-S.ābūnī, al-Tibyān, p. 154.
91. See Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmū„ Fatāwá, vol. 13, pp. 371-372 and al-S.ābūnī,
al-Tibyān, p. 154.
92. For similar verses, see Q. 4:82 and 47:24.
93. Al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān, vol. 4, p. 191.
94. Kalālah is one of the three terms which „Umar wished the Prophet had
defined in his lifetime, the other two being the khilāfah (caliphate, succession) and
the ribā (usury), see A.Y. Ali, The Holy Qur’ān (Doha: Qatar National Printing
Press, n.d.), p. 182, n. 520.
95. Al-S.ābūnī, al-Tibyān, pp. 164-166.
96. Ibid., pp. 167-8.
97. Idem, (ed.), Mukhtas.ar, vol. 2, p. 427. See also Q. 2:282.
98. See al-Zarqānī, Manāhil al-„Irfān, vol. 2, p. 79.
43
99. See al-S.ābūnī, al-Tibyān, p. 175; al-Zarqānī mentions the fifth condition is
that the allegorical commentary has to be supported by a legal shāhid (textual
evidence); see al-Zarqānī, Manāhil al-„Irfān, vol. 2, p. 81.
100. See Abū „Abd Allāh Muh.ammad ibn Muh.ammad al-Qurt.ubī, al-Jāmi„ li-
Ah.kām al-Qur’ān, 20 vols. in 10 bindings (Beirut: Dār Ih.yā‟al-Turāth al-„Arabī,
1967), vol. 20, p. 232; Abū „Abd Allāh Muh.ammad b. Ismā„īl al-Bukhārī, S.ah.īh.
al-Bukhārī (N.p: Dar al-Fikr, n.d.), pp. 183-184. Another classification of tafsīr
which appeared in the second half of the second century A.H. was the following
categories: legalistic tafsīr, linguistic tafsīr, formal tafsīr of scholars, and the tafsīr of
the mutashābihāt which is known to Allah only; see M.O.A. Abdul, “The Historical
Development of Tafsir”, Islamic Culture (Hyderabad, The Islamic Culture Board),
vol. l, no. 1 (July, 1976), p. 144. Wansbrough, on the other hand, gives us five
categories of tafsīr i.e., narrative (haggadic), legal (halakhic), textual (masoretic),
rhetorical, and allegorical; for further details, see J. Wansbrough, Quranic Studies,
pp. 119-246.
101. See Q. 12:2, 39:28 and 42:3.
102. See Q. 26:195.
103. See Dr. Muh.ammad H.usayn al-Dhahabī, al-Tafsīr wa ’l-Mufassirūn, 3 vols
(Cairo: Dār al-Kutub al-H.adīthah, 1396/1976), vol. 1, p. 74; and Ah.mad Amīn, Fajr
al-Islām, p. 196.
104. See also Q. 12:101, 14:10, 35:1, 39:46 and 42:11.
105. Al-Qurt.ubī, al-Jāmi„, vol. 1, p. 44; al-Suyūt.ī did not mention that the
statement anā ibtada’tuhā was that of the other Bedouin in the dispute. See al-Itqān,
vol. 2, p. 4
106. Al-T.abarī mentioned that the word fatah.a which means qad.á (to judge) is
the language of the Murād tribe and that according to al-Farrā‟ the people of „Umān
(Oman) called their qad.ī by the name al-fātih. and al-fattāh.; see Abū Ja„far ibn Jarīr
al-T.abarī, Jāmi„ al-Bayān fī Tafsīr al-Qur’ān, 30 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-Ma„rifah lil-
T.iba„ah wa al-Nashr, 1406-7/1986-7), vol. 9, p. 3; and al-Qurt.ubī, al-Jāmi„ , vol. 1, p.
44. Al-Suyuti gives the meaning of ufātih.uk as uh.ākimuk (I argue with you), see
al-Itqān, vol. 2, p. 5.
107. A. Amīn, Fajr al-Islām, pp. 197-199.
108. The complete tafsīr of Mujāhid was edited and published by A. Surtī based
on a manuscript from the sixth century of Hijrah. It was entitled Tafsīr Mujāhid, 2
vols (Beirut: n.d.). See Ahmad von Denffer, „Ulūm al-Qur’ān: An Introduction to the
Science of the Qur‘ān (Leicester: The Islamic Foundation, 1403/1983), p. 130.
Mujāhid was reported to have asked Ibn „Abbās‟s commentary on the whole Qur‟ān
and recorded it. For this reason Sufyān al-Thawrī said: “If the commentary comes
44
from Mujāhid it is sufficient for you.” See Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmū„ Fatāwá, vol. 13,
p. 369.
109. Al-S.ābūnī, al-Tibyān, pp. 73-84; A. Amīn, Fajr al-Islām, pp. 204-205; and
Dr. Muh.ammad B. Mahrān, Dirāsāt Ta’rīkhiyyah min al-Qur’ān al-Karīm (N.p.:
Imām Muh.ammad ibn Su„ūd Islamic University, 1400/1980), pp. 104-105.
110. These are, according to Ibn Taymiyyah, unnecessary details which have
been concealed by Allah in the Qur‟ān; see Ibn Taymīyah, Majmū‘ Fatāwá, vol. 13,
p. 367.
111. Mahrān mentions nine reasons for the infiltration of isrā’iliyyāt and
nas.rāniyyāt (legends from Christians) in tafsīr which have been mentioned above.
For further details, see Mahrān, Dirāsāt Ta’rīkhiyyah, pp. 105-111. Ibn „Abbās was
reported to have asked Ka„b al-Ah.bār the interpretation of the term Umm al-Kitāb
(the Mother of the Book) and al-marjān (the coral), see Ignaz Goldziher, Madhāhib
al-Tafsīr al-Islāmī, trans. & annot. Dr. „Abd al-H.alīm al-Najjār (Cairo: Mat.ba„ah
al-Sunnah al-Muh.ammadiyyah, 1374/1955), p. 88; and al-T.abarī, Jāmi„, vol. 17, pp. 9
and 126. Such questions do not necessarily mean that Ibn „Abbās did not know the
meaning of these words, but rather to learn Ka„b al-Ah.bār‟s understanding of these
words based on his knowledge of the Jewish tradition. Ibn „Abbās was also reported
to have asked Ka„b al-Ah.bār the meaning of the verse:
02 “They extol His limitless glory by night and by day, never flagging [therein]” (Q.
21:20, Asad) and how the angels glorify Allah continuously. “Do your blinking of
your eyes and your breathing afflict you?,” asked Ka„b al-Ah.bār. “No,” answered Ibn
„Abbās. “The angels‟ continuous glorification of Allah is like that,” said Ka„b al-
Ah.bār. See al-T.abarī, Jāmi„, vol. 17, p. 19. In justifying Ibn „Abbās‟s questioning the
Jewish converts to Islam, Muh.ammad al-Dhahabī said that the questions did not
touch the „aqīdah (belief) or us.ūl al-dīn (the fundamentals of the religion of Islam),
but rather the stories of the past. In this way, Ibn „Abbās was combining two h.adīths:
one allowed the Muslims to speak about Banī Isrā‟īl (the children of Israel, namely,
the Jews and their tradition) without restriction, and the other prohibited the Muslims
from believing or disbelieving the people of the Book (the Jews and the Christians).
However, al-Dhahābī does not maintain that Ibn „Abbās asked the Jewish converts in
such an extensive way as assumed by Goldziher and A. Amīn, since many stories
reported by al-T.abarī in his Jāmi„ were not sound, and Ibn „Abbās himself warned the
Muslims from asking the people of the Book; see al-Dhahābī, al-Tafsīr wa
’l-Mufassirūn, vol. 1, pp. 71-74.
112. Ibn Khaldūn, Muqaddimah, p. 368; the translation is rendered by
Rosenthal, see idem, The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History, trans. Franz
Rosenthal, 3 vols. (New York: Pantheon Books Inc., 1958), vol.2, p. 445.
45
113. See Ibn al-Jawzī, Kitāb S.ifat al-S.afwah, 4 vols. 1st ed. (Hyderabad Deccan:
Mat.ba„at Dā‟irat al-Ma„ārif al-„Uthmāniyyah, 1357/[1938]), vol. 2, p. 78.
114. See Dr. S.ubh.ī al-S.ālih., „Ulūm al-H.adīth wa Mus.t.alah.uh (Beirut: Dār al-„Ilm
lil-Malāyīn, n.d.), pp. 23-33. Sa„īd ibn Jubayr was reluctant to write a tafsīr, probably
because he did not want to give his personal opinion of the Qur‟ān, particularly the
mutashābihāt. One day he was asked to do so and he replied: “To lose a part of my
body is better than to write a tafsīr”; see Ibn Khallikān, Wafayāt al-A„yān, edited and
annotated by Muh.ammad Muhyī al-Dīn „Abd al-H.amīd, 6 vols. (Cairo: Maktabat al-
Nahd.ah al-Mis.riyyah, 1384/1964), vol. 2, pp. 112-113. However, eventually he
consented when he was asked by the Caliph „Abd al-Malik ibn Marwān.
115. For further details see al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān, vol. 4, pp. 211-212.
116. These books belonged to the category of haggadic (narrative) tafsīr as
suggested by Wansbrough; see Quranic Studies, pp. 122-138. Some Muslim scholars
considered Muqātil ibn Sulaymān as an unreliable authority, because he was said to
have received his knowledge from the people of the Book and to have been a Zaydī
with anthromorphic leanings; others accepted him as reliable. Al-Shāfi„ī, for
example, praised him and put his knowledge in tafsīr on the same level as Zuhayr ibn
Abī Sulmá‟s in poetry and Abū H.anīfah‟s in Islamic jurisprudence; see Kamāl al-Dīn
al-Dumyarī, H.ayāt al-H.ayawān al-Kubrá (Egypt: al-Mat.ba„ah al-Sharqiyyah, ca.
1300/[1882-1883]), vol. 1, pp. 297-298 (article dhubāb). However, Abū H.ātim
reported from al-Sammāk who said that „Ikrimah stated: “Everything I have told you
about (the interpretation of) the Qur‟ān is from Ibn „Abbās.” See al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān,
vol. 4, p. 211.
117. See al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān, vol. 4, p. 209.
118. See Ibid., p. 178.
119. See Ibid., p. 209; and Nabia Abbott, Qur’ānic Commentary and Tradition.
Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri II (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967) ,
p. 112.
120. See Muhyī ‟l-Dīn ibn Sharaf al-Nawawī, Tahdhīb al-Asmā’ wa ’l-Lughāt, 3
vols. (Cairo: al-Mat.ba„ah al-Munīriyyah, 1927), vol. 2, p. 111.
121. Al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān, vol. 4, pp. 208-9; H.ajji Khalīfah, Kashf al-Z.unūn ‘an
Asāmī ’l-Kutub wa ’l-Funūn (Lexicon), edited by Gustavus Fluegel, 7 vols. (Leipzig
and London: Published for the Oriental Translation Fund of Great Britain and Ireland,
1835-1856), vol. 2, pp. 334-335; and al-Dhahābī, al-Tafsīr wa ’l-Mufassirūn, vol. 1, pp.
77-81. One of the prominent authorities on tafsīr in this period, „Amir Abū „Amr
al-Sha„bī (d. 103/721), was reported to have rebuked Abū S.ālih.: “How could you
interpret the Qur‟ān when you cannot read it?” He was also reported to have told
al-Suddī (al-Kabīr): “Beating your backside with a drum is better than this circle of
46
yours.” With regard to al-D.ah.h.āk, he did not meet Ibn „Abbās, and he did not claim to
have met him, but he met Sa„īd ibn Jubayr at al-Rayy from whom he took Ibn „Abbās‟s
tafsīr. See al-T.abarī, Jāmi„, vol. 1, p. 31.
122. See Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, pp. 218-27.
123. The verse runs as follows: Asad and
Pickthall translated it respectively as follows: “Said He: „Take, then four birds and teach
them to obey thee‟” and “(His Lord) said: Take four of the birds and cause them to
incline unto thee,...” See Muh.ammad Asad, The Message of the Qur’ān, trans. and expl.
(Gibraltar: Dār al-Andalus, 1984), p. 59; and Muh.ammad M. Pickthall, trans., The
Glorious Qur’ān (New York: Muslim World League, 1977), p. 41.
124. See al-T.abarī, Jāmi„, vol 3, pp. 35-6. Accepting both meanings, Ibn Kathīr
said that the birds were tied up, slaughtered, and cut into pieces. See al-S.ābūnī (ed.),
Mukhtasar, vol. 1, p. 237. Ibn Qutaybah holds the same view based on his
understanding of the texts. He states that the expression means (join
them to you). Then the birds were cut into pieces. The ellipsis of the expression
faqat.t.i‘hunna (then cut them into pieces) is apparent in the verse
(“then place them separately on every hill [around thee]”, Asad‟s translation). The
word juz’an means “in pieces”, namely, after the birds had been cut into pieces. A
similar expression would be “Take this cloth and make it a banner on every lance of
yours,” meaning, it has to be cut into pieces before the pieces are made into banners; see
Ibn Qutaybah, Tafsīr, p. 96; and idem, Gharīb al-H.adīth, vol. 2, p. 593. Ibn al-Anbārī
includes the term s.āra among the words which have opposite meanings. He states that
the expression means “I collected it” ( ) as well as “I cut and separated it”
( ); see Muh.ammad ibn Qāsim ibn al-Anbārī, Kitāb al-Ad.dād, edited from a
unique transcript by M.A. Ibrāhīm (Kuwayt: Dār al-Turāth al-„Arabī, 1960), p. 36. The
term s.urhunna is the language of Madīnah, Hijāz and Bas.rah, meaning “cause them to
incline”. The variant reading s.irhunna is that of a group of people in Kūfah meaning
“cut them into pieces”. But a group of grammarians of Kūfah state that in the Arabic
language neither fas.urhunna nor fas.irhunna means “cut them into pieces”, but both
mean “cause them to incline”. S.irhunna is the language of Hudhayl and Sālīm; see al-
T.abarī, Jāmi„, vol. 3, pp. 35-6. A. Y. Ali, rejecting the idea of slaughtering, translated
s.urhunna as “tame them”, see A.Y. Ali, The Holy Qur’ān, p. 106. Pickthall and Asad
shared the same view and translated it respectively as “cause them to incline unto thee”
and “teach them to obey thee” as mentioned above. However, the term of s.urhunna
meaning “cut them into pieces”, according to Ibn „Abbās, agrees with that in the
Nabatean language, see „Abd Allāh Ibn „Abbās, Kitāb Gharīb al-Qur’ān, verified and
presented by Dr. Ah.mad Būlūt. (Cairo: Maktabat al-Zahrā‟, 1993),p. 40. Nabatea or
47
Nabatæa was an ancient Arab kingdom in South-West Asia, now West Jordan; see Abū
al-Qāsim ibn Sallām, Lughāt al-Qabā’il al-Wāridah fī ’l-Qur’ān al-Kariīm: Riwāyat
‘an al-S.ah.ābī ’l-Jalīil Ibn ‘Abbās, Rad.iya Allāh ‘anhu. Edited, commented and
annotated by Dr. „Abd al-H.amīd al-Sayyid T.alab. Kuwayt: Mat.bū„āt Jāmi„at al-
Kuwayt, 1985, pp. 61-62, n. 2.
125. Ibn Khaldūn, Muqaddimah, vol. 2, p. 446.
126. See Ibn Taymīyah, Majmū‘ Fatāwá, vol. 13, p. 388.
127. Abū al-Qāsim Mah.mūd ibn „Umar al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf „an H.aqā’iq
al-Tanzīl, ed. by W. Nassau Lees et al. with continuous pagination, 2 vols. (Calcutta:
Mat.ba„at al-Līsī, 1856), vol. 2, p. 157.
128. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 170
129. Al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān, vol. 4, p. 213.
130. Abū „Alī al-Fad.l ibn al-H.asan al-T.abarsī, Majma„ al-Bayān fī Tafsīr
al-Qur’ān, 10 vols. in 5 bindings (S.aydā: Mat.ba„at al-„Irfān, 1333/[1915]), vol. 1, p.
115.
131. Ibid., p. 38. This Shī„ā view is also obvious in his commentary on the “light
verse” (Q. 24:35) where he quoted the statement of the Shī„ī eighth imām, „Alī al-Rid.ā
(d. 203/818), that the mishkāt (the niche) is the Shī„ī community, and the mis.bāh. (the
lamp) is Prophet Muh.ammad. See ibid., vol. 7, p. 143.
132. The title is derived from the Qur‟ānic verse “And
mixed with the water of Tasnīm” (Q. 83:27). This mixture of pure wine and Tasnīm is
for as.h.āb al-yamīn (those of the right hand, i.e., people who will enter Paradise in
general), while the pure water of Tasnīm is for al-muqarrabīn (those who are brought
near unto their Lord, i.e., people who will enter Paradise with the privilege of being
near to God). See al-S.ābūnī, Mukhtas.ar Tafsīr, vol. 3, p. 616.
133 Translated from edition of Arabic text by Kamil Hussein in Collectanea of the
Isma’ili Society (Leiden: N.p., 1948), vol. 1, p. 189, quoted by John Alden Williams
(ed.), Islam (New York: George Braziller, 1961), p. 235.
134 See al-Zarqānī, Manāhil al-„Irfān, vol. 2, p. 74.
135. Al-H.allāj was reported to have said (I am the Truth), and Ja„far al-S.ād.iq
was reported to have fallen down and lost consciousness while he was performing his
prayer. When he was asked what happened, he said that he kept on repeating a Qur‟ānic
verse until he heard it spoken by its Speaker. See al-Zarqānī, Manāhil al-„Irfān, vol. 2,
pp. 91 and 87. However, Ibn Taymiyyah said that a large number of sayings attributed
to Ja„far al-S.ādiq were not authentic; see Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Rasā’il al-Munīriyyah, vol.
1, p. 230, quoted by Jullandri, “Qur‟ānic Exegesis and Classical Tafsīr”, IQ xii (1968),
48
p. 109.
136. MS. no. 50 fol. 48, Dār al-Kutub al-Mis.rī, Cairo, p. 78, quoted by Jullandri,
“Qur‟ānic Exegesis”, p. 109.
137. Al-Gazālī, Mishkāt al-Anwār, ed. Abū al-„Alā‟ „Afīfī (Cairo: Dār
al-Qawmīyah lil-T.ibā„ah wa ‟l-Nashr, 1383/1964), pp. 77-8; and W.H.T. Gairdner,
Al-Ghazzali’s Mishkāt al-Anwār (“The Niche for Lights”), a translation with
introduction (Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1952), pp. 146-147.
138138.T.H. Weir, “Ibn „Arabi”, SEI, p. 146 and Jullandri, “Qur‟ānic Exegesis”,
pp. 113-114.