Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān

The Arabic word tafsīr means the act of interpreting, interpretation, exegesis, explanation, but also connotes an actual commentary on the Qurʾān. The term is used for commentaries on scientific or philosophical works, being in this last case equivalent to sharḥ, “explanation,” which is reserved primarily for profane purposes such as commentaries on poetry and on philological, grammatical and literary works, etc. (cf. Gilliot, Sharḥ; Rippin, Tafsīr [in er , xiv], 236). Although tafsīr with no other qualification refers in most cases to a qurʾānic interpretation or commentary, its origin is not Arabic. The verb fassara, “to discover something hidden,” is a borrowing from Aramaic, Syriac or Christian-Palestinian (peshar, pashshar, see foreign vocabulary ). The same verb is also found in Jewish-Aramaic. Accordingly, it cannot be determined whether Arabs (q.v.) or Muslims took the word over from the Jews or from the Christians (Fraenkel, Die arämäischen Fremdwörter, 28; Hebbo, Fremdwörter, 277-9; Horovitz, Jewish proper names, 74; Jeffery, For. vocab., 92).

The emergence of the word tafsīr as a technical term is unclear. It occurs as a hapax legomenon in q 25:33: “They do not bring to you any similitude, but what we bring to you [is] the truth, and better in exposition (wa-aḥsana tafsīran).” This unique attestation is in a polemical context (see polemic and polemical language ), giving the assurance that any opposition to Muḥammad (q.v.) by the unbelievers (see belief and unbelief ) will be countered by divine assistance. Some of the qurʾānic commentators have proposed here an etymology by metathesis (tafsīr/tasfīr, “unveiling,” or takshīf, “uncovering;” Suyūṭī, Itqān, iv, 192). It seems doubtful, however, to see in this verse the origin of tafsīr as a technical term (Wansbrough, qs, 154 f.).

The Arabic taʾwīl, “interpretation, exegesis,” literally related to the notion of “returning to the beginning” (according to al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī [d. 292/905 or 298/910]; Nwyia, Exégèse, 145-6), is the second technical term of the semantic field of interpretation. It occurs eighteen times in the Qurʾān, signifying the interpretation of narratives (q.v.) or of dreams ( q 12:36, 101; see dreams and sleep ), or a deeper interpretation ( q 3:7; Dāmaghānī, Wujūh, i, 197-8, where five meanings are given). It has recently been definitively shown that the verb taʾawwala, from which the term taʾwīl is formed, originally meant “to apply a verse to a given situation,” before it came to mean allegorical interpretation (Versteegh, Arabic grammar, 63-4; Nwyia, ibid., meaning “reality,” ḥaqīqa).

The antithesis tafsīr/taʾwīl has been attested since the first half of the second/eighth century, and probably before, in the earliest rudimentary attempts to classify exegesis. The Kūfan scholar Muḥammad b. al-Sāʾib Abū l-Naḍr al-Kalbī (d. 146/763) attributes to Ibn ʿAbbās (d. 69/688) the following classification: “The Qurʾān was [revealed] in four aspects (wujūh): tafsīr [the literal meaning?], which scholars know; Arabic with which the Arabs are acquainted; lawful and unlawful (q.v.; ḥalāl wa-ḥarām), of which it is not permissible for people to be unaware; [and] taʾwīl [the deeper meaning?] that only God knows” (see arabic language ). When a further explanation of taʾwīl is demanded, it is described as “what will be” (mā huwa kāʾin, Muqātil, Tafsīr, i, 27). This categorization could have had its origin in the Jewish and patristic discussions on the four meanings of scripture (Heb. peshat, “literal translation”; remez, “implied meaning”; derash, “homiletic comprehension”; sod, “mystical, allegorical meaning”; Zimels, Bible; for patristic and medieval conceptions of the four meanings [literal/historical, allegorical/spiritual, tropological/moral and anagogical/eschatological], see De Lubac, Exégèse; Böwering, Mystical, 135-42).

Representative of this antithesis between tafsīr and taʾwīl is the opposition between the transmission (riwāya) of exegesis from early authorities, such as the Companions of the Prophet (q.v.), and an exegesis built upon critical reflection (dirāya), as a declaration of al-Māturīdī (d. 333/944) in his qurʾānic commentary indicates: “The tafsīr belongs to the Companions, the taʾwīl to the scholars (fuqahāʾ), because the companions saw the events and knew the circumstances of the revelation of the Qurʾān” (Māturīdī, Taʾwīlāt, 5; see occasions of revelation; revelation and inspiration ).

This opposition is not, however, always the same. In a tradition attributed to the Khurāsānī exegete Muqātil b. Sulaymān (d. 150/767), it is said: “He who recites the Qurʾān and does not know the taʾwīl of it is an ummī” (lit. “illiterate,” but perhaps also a “pagan”; Muqātil, Tafsīr, i, 26-7; see illiteracy; recitation of the qurʾān ). Others have said that tafsīr is the explanation (bayān) of a term which has only one significance, whereas taʾwīl is the reduction of a plurivocal term to a single signification according to the context (Suyūṭī, Itqān, iv, 192), on the basis of which it could be argued that the distinction between the two terms remained a theoretical one. Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim b. Sallām (d. 224/838), whose interest in the text of the Qurʾān was primarily legal, had asserted that they were one and the same (Suyūṭī, Itqān, iv, 192; Wansbrough, qs, 155-6).

It could be said that the contradictions in the definition of both terms reflect not only differences in times, practices and individuals, but also the fact that the nascent Muslim exegesis was influenced by Jewish and Christian discussions about the four (or more; Muqātil, Tafsīr, i, 27, beginning with “fī l-Qurʾān,” lists 32 “literary genres” in the Qurʾān) meanings of scripture (see scripture and the qurʾān ). The use of the term wajh, pl. wujūh, “aspect, face, significance,” in these discussions may recall the Tannaitic panim of scripture, also connected with the Muslim debates on the seven “letters/aspects” (al-aḥruf al-sabʿa) in which the Qurʾān is supposed to have been revealed (see readings of the qurʾān ).

The nature of the early exegesis in Islam continues to be vigorously debated, as does the idea of opposition to this activity itself. No definitive explanation has yet been given for the supposed opposition to the practice of interpreting the Qurʾān, although three main solutions have been proposed (Leemhuis, Origins, 15-9; Gilliot, Débuts, 84-5). The first posits that the exegesis rejected by pious circles in early Islam was based on historical legends and eschatological narratives (malāḥim, Suyūṭī, Itqān, iv, 205, 207-8, quoting Ibn Ḥanbal; Goldziher, Richtungen, 55-61; see the names of the comparatively few scholars who objected to or refrained from tafsīr activity in Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, i, 84-9; id., Commentary, i, 17-9; Jeffery, Muqaddimas, 183-206 [K. al-Mabānī]; see eschatology ). Birkeland (Opposition, 19 f.), however, sees no such aversion at all in the first Islamic century, e.g. among the disciples of Ibn ʿAbbās, and believes strong opposition arose in the second/eighth century. Thereafter, exegesis gained general acceptance with the introduction of special rules for the transmission of reports (Birkeland, Opposition, 19 f.; id., Lord, 6-13, 133-7). The third solution was advanced by Abbott (Studies, ii, 106-12), who maintains that the opposition to tafsīr was limited to a special category of ambiguous or unclear (mutashābih, pl. mutashābihāt) verses (q.v.) of the Qurʾān (see ambiguous ). Exegetes have never agreed, however, on which verses are unclear, or even what that qualification means precisely (Rippin, Tafsīr [in er , xiv], 237-8). It can be thus concluded that opposition to exegesis was above all an opposition to the use of personal opinion (rayʾ, Birkeland, Opposition, 9-10), beginning from the end of the second/eighth century when the rules for the transmission of traditions mandated acceptable chains of authorities (isnāds). Exegetical traditions without any origin (aṣl), i.e. without authoritative chains — a category which included exegesis by personal opinion or that promulgated by popular preachers (quṣṣāṣ) — were rejected, even though their narratives were often the same as those of the traditions introduced by authoritative, sound chains of scholars.

In spite of the supposed aversion of some ancient scholars to qurʾānic exegesis and the fact that the Qurʾān itself does not explicitly state that it should be interpreted, commentators have been able to legitimate their exegetical practice over the centuries. One of the passages of the Qurʾān to which they refer for this legitimization is q 3:7: “It is he who sent down upon you the book (q.v.), wherein are verses clear (muḥkamāt) that are the essence (lit. mother) of the book, and others ambiguous (mutashābihāt). As for those whose hearts (see heart ) are perverse, they follow the ambiguous part, desiring dissension (q.v.), and desiring its interpretation (taʾwīl); and none knows its interpretation, save God. And those firmly rooted in knowledge (see knowledge and learning; intellect ) say, ‘We believe in it; all is from our lord (q.v.)’; yet none remembers, save men possessed of minds.” The first part of the last pericope (“and none knows its interpretation…) could be read in another way, since the Arabic text provides no indication of where stops and pauses should be taken: “And none knows its interpretation save only God and those firmly rooted in knowledge, who say….” With the latter reading, the interpretative task was open to unclear and ambigous verses, as well as to the clear ones (Wansborough, qs, 149-53; McAuliffe, Text).

The beginnings of qurʾānic exegesis have also been the object of vigorous debate. At first glance, one is faced with two opposing versions, a traditional Muslim view and the Orientalist reading. According to the traditional Muslim version, the exegesis of the Prophet is the point of departure, then that of his Companions who transmitted and added to his exegesis, then that of the successors (tābiʿūn) who, in turn, transmitted and added to the previous interpretations. Finally, the following generations of exegetes took up the interpretations of the Prophet, the most revered Companions and successors, as established by the authoritative chains of transmission (isnād, Suyūṭī, Itqān, iv, 245-301; 207-8; 233-44; Leemhuis, Origins, 13-4; Gilliot, Débuts, 82-3).

Ten of the Companions are listed as exegetes: the four first caliphs (see caliph ) — but above all ʿAlī (see ʿalī b. abī ṭālib ) — then Ibn Masʿūd, Ibn ʿAbbās, Ubayy b. Kaʿb, Zayd b. Thābit, Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī and ʿAbdallāh b. al-Zubayr (Suyūṭī, Itqān, iv, 233). Others added to this list include Anas b. Mālik, Abū Hurayra, Jābir b. ʿAbdallāh and ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ (Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf, i, 428-30). Ibn al-Nadīm (fl. fourth/tenth century), who is only interested in written works in his “Index” of Arabic books, does not give such lists, but has only “the book of Ibn ʿAbbās transmitted by Mujāhid (b. Jabr)” (d. 104/722; Fihrist, 33).

Muslim tradition always counts the following figures among the successors (tābiʿūn), those “who achieve celebrity for the science of exegesis (tafsīr),” said al-ʿAṣimī, a Khurāsānian Karrāmī (a theological current of Transoxiana; cf. Bosworth, Karrāmiyya) who wrote in 425/1034 (see Jeffery, Muqaddimas, 196 [K. al-Mabānī]): 1. Saʿīd b. Jubayr (d. 95/714; Gilliot, Baqara, 205-11); 2. ʿIkrima (d. 105/723), the client of Ibn ʿAbbās; 3. Abū Ṣāliḥ Bādhām, the client of Umm Hāniʾ (Bint Abī Ṭālib); 4. Mujāhid b. Jabr; 5. Abū l-ʿĀliya al-Riyāḥī (Rufayʿ b. Mihrān, d. 93/711); 6. al-Ḍaḥḥāk b. Muzāḥim (d. 105/723); 7. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭalḥa (al-Hāshimī, d. 120/737); 8. Abū Mijlaz Lāḥiq b. Ḥumayd (al-Sadūsī al-Baṣrī, d. 106/724); 9. al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī (d. 110/728); 10. Qatāda b. Diʿāma al-Sadūsī (d. 118/736; ibid.; for a traditional presentation of Qatāda as an exegete, see ʿA. Abū Suʾud Badr, Tafsīr Qatāda; Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf, i, 430 has 1, 2 and 4 and includes Ṭāwūs b. Kaysān, ʿAṭāʾ b. Abī Rabāḥ, saying that all five were Meccans or died in Mecca [q.v.]; Nöldeke, gq, ii, 167-8; for all these exegetes cf. Gilliot, La sourate al-Baqara). Our Karrāmī author remarks that all of them, save Qatāda, learned from Ibn ʿAbbās. It should be noted, however, that neither al-Ḍaḥḥāk nor al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī were disciples of Ibn ʿAbbās.

Lastly, it is obvious that the two lists have a symbolic significance, since both enshrine ten figures. The fact that the majority of the figures on these lists of successors died in Mecca adds weight to the “soundness” of this being a transmission from the Prophet to the greatest Companions and successors. Confirming this vision of the religious propriety of exegesis is its multiple connections to the figure of Ibn ʿAbbās as the father of qurʾānic exegesis (Gilliot, Débuts, 85-8).

The early Orientalist point of view questioned the reliability of the authoritative chains of transmission as a means for reconstructing supposedly early tafsīr works. Actual reconstructions of the early history of exegesis in Islam are all based on one of several preliminary assumptions about the answer to following question: “Are the claims of the authors of the late second and third Islamic centuries, that they merely pass on the material of older authorities, historically correct?” (Leemhuis, Origins, 14-5). F. Sezgin responds affirmatively, going so far as to say that even Ibn ʿAbbās, the alleged father of qurʾānic exegesis, had a commentary ( gas, i, 19-24, 25-8); some early Muslim scholars have said that the transmitter of this supposed Tafsīr, ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭalḥa, did not hear the work from Ibn ʿAbbās himself (according to al-Khalīlī, d. 447/1055, in Suyūṭī, Itqān, iv, 237), but learned it from Mujāhid b. Jabr and Saʿīd b. Jubayr (ibid.). In contrast, J. Wansbrough believes “haggadic” or narrative exegesis to have begun rather late: “Extant recensions of exegetical writing here designated haggadic, despite biographical information on its putative author, are not earlier than the date proposed to mark the beginnings of Arabic literature, namely 200/815” ( qs, 144, 179; see the use of Wansbrough's categorization by Berg, Development, 148-55, and additions to it, 155-7).

Certainly, the question cannot be answered by an unqualified “yes” or “no,” and even if Sezgin had an express desire to prove the existence of early documents “in order to substantiate the claim for the validity of ḥadīth transmission and the isnād mechanism” (Rippin, Present status, 228), his work has prompted a reconsideration of the Orientalists' traditional critical view of the soundness of authoritative chains, especially in exegesis. One of the arguments of Wansbrough for rejecting the authenticity of the old tafsīrs was the intrusion of poetry, because poetry as an exegetical device is not present in the commentaries of Muqātil b. Sulaymān, al-Kalbī and Sufyān al-Thawrī al-Kūfī (d. 161/778). For Wansbrough, a virtual terminus a quo for this phenomenon may be elicited from Ibn Hishām's (d. 218/834) recension of the Sīra of Ibn Isḥāq (Wansbrough, qs, 142, 217; see sīra and the qurʾān ). But citations of poetry (shawāhid) to explain the qurʾānic text exist before this time, e.g. in Abū ʿUbayda (d. 210/885), and al-Farrāʾ (d. 207/822), and in the Kitāb al-ʿAyn of Khalīl b. Aḥmad (d. 175/791), or his redactor, al-Layth b. al-Muẓaffar (d. ca. 200/815; cf. Khan, Exegetischen Teile, 64-6; Talmon, Arabic grammar, 91-126). The analysis of the different versions of the Masāʾil Nāfiʿ b. al-Azraq ʿan Ibn ʿAbbās (Gilliot, Textes [in mideo 23], no. 44), in addition to the poetic quotations in the Majāz al-Qurʾān of Abū ʿUbayda and in the Kitāb al-ʿAyn, demonstrates that the beginnings and development of tafsīr must be pushed back into the early second/eighth century and perhaps even earlier (Khan, Die exegetischen Teile, 67-82; Neuwirth, Die Masāʾil). The same conclusion can be drawn from an analysis of the fragments of the summa, al-Jāmiʿ, of ʿAbdallāh b. Wahb (d. 197/812; Ibn Wahb, Koranwissenschaften; cf. Muranyi, Neue Materialien).

This does not mean, however, that the traditional Muslim representation of the genesis of qurʾānic exegesis can be accepted as a whole, as evinced by the example of the alleged Tafsīr of Ibn ʿAbbās. It has been shown that the three texts (to simplify and not speak of the confusion in the numerous manuscripts and their ascriptions, one example of which being the erroneous attribution of Tanwīr al-miqbās min tafsīr Ibn ʿAbbās to al-Firūzābādī, d. 817/1414, see Rippin, Criteria, 40-7; 56-9) circulating under the names of the Tafsīr of Ibn ʿAbbās, al-Dīnawarī (d. 308/920) or al-Kalbī, and which are supposed to transmit the exegesis of Ibn ʿAbbās, have their origin somewhere in the late third or early fourth century (Rippin, Criteria, 71). Even though it is likely that Ibn ʿAbbās did explain passages of the Qurʾān, it must not be forgotten that he was elevated to a kind of heros eponymus of qurʾānic exegesis (turjumān al-Qurʾān), above all in ʿAbbāsid times (cf. Gilliot, Portrait; id., Débuts, 87-8). Moreover, al-Shāfiʿī remarks (Suyūṭī, Itqān, iv, 239) that, at most, a hundred reports of Ibn ʿAbbās on exegesis are reliable (meaning, perhaps, that they go back to the Prophet?).

It is clear from the foregoing that additional research is needed, including work on manuscripts, to elucidate more fully the problems of the beginnings and early development of qurʾānic exegesis. Such research should also take into consideration the problematic of the relation between orality (q.v.) and literacy (q.v.) in early Islam (cf. Schoeler, Writing; Berg, Development, 34-6 and passim).

The formative period is understood to extend from the beginnings of written exegetical activity to the introduction of the philological and, above all, grammatical sciences in exegetical works (see grammar and the qurʾān ), the terminus ad quem being the commentary of Abū ʿUbayda (d. 207/825), entitled Majāz al-Qurʾān, or the Maʿānī l-Qurʾān of al-Farrāʾ (d. 207/822).

It is now certain that written works emerged at least by the early second/eighth century. It should not be concluded that such works were complete commentaries ad litteram; they might have amounted to a kind of notebook (saḥīfa, see writing and writing materials ) and did not always follow the order of the qurʾānic text. The reason for using the Arabic word tafsīr for this period is because it is both a verbal noun, “to interpret,” and a substantive, meaning a qurʾānic commentary: In this period, it is not always obvious if the exegete in question had ever produced a completed work or had only undertaken a kind of exegetical activity with some reliance on writing, as in the above-mentioned note- book. It is possible to distinguish three broad categories of tafsīr in this period: paraphrastic, narrative and legal.

Paraphrastic exegesis is represented, above all, by Mujāhid b. Jabr al-Makkī (d. 104/722), whose paraphrasis is mostly of a lexical nature, e.g. upon “Surely my lord” ( q 12:23), where Mujāhid comments “My lord, that is, my master.” The commentary of Mujāhid has been published on the basis of a single manuscript, but it is not always identical to the source al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923) used in citation of Mujāhid. It is, rather, the Kitāb al-Tafsīr, transmitted by Ādam b. Iyās (d. 220/835), from (ʿan) Warqā (d. 160/776), from Ibn Abī Najīh (d. 131/749), from Mujāhid. Comparison between the different versions shows that “the written fixation of the works that transmit tafsīr from (ʿan) Ibn Abī Najīh from Mujāhid must have taken place some time around the middle of the second century a.h.” (Leemhuis, Origins, 21, in accordance with the study of G. Stauth, Die Überlieferung des Korankommentars Muǧāhid b. Ǧabr, cf. esp. 225-9). The same conclusion has been reached concerning Ibn Isḥāq's biography of the Prophet: “Whatever the role of writing in the transmission of tafsīr may have been before that time, such works, conceived as definitive and complete literary works, probably never existed. A living tradition precludes them” (Leemhuis, Origins, 22; Gilliot, Débuts, 88-9).

A tafsīr is also attributed to the celebrated proponent of free-will (qadarī) and model for the ascetics and mystics, al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī (d. 110/728), but this was probably along the lines of the aforementioned notebooks, which were organized and compiled at a later date (van Ess, tg, ii, 45-6; Gilliot, Textes [in mideo 22], no. 36). The most important version of this commentary is that of the Baṣran Muʿtazilī ʿAmr b. ʿUbayd (d. 143/760 or 144/761), himself the author of a commentary (van Ess, tg, ii, 297-300; see muʿtazilīs ).

To the genre of Mujāhid's tafsīr belongs the tafsīr of Sufyān al-Thawrī al-Kūfī (d. 161/778), a traditionist, theologian, ascetic and jurist, whose exegetical traditions sometimes go back to Mujāhid. The small tafsīr which was edited under his name on the basis of a unique manuscript is not without its problems and should be compared with the traditions of Sufyān quoted by al-Ṭabarī or by Abū Isḥāq al-Thaʿlabī (d. 427/1035). One of his transmitters was Abū Ḥudhayfa (Mūsā b. Masʿūd al-Nahdī al-Baṣrī, d. 220/835), also an exegete and the author of a work called Tafsīr al-Nahdī, who appears in one chain of transmission of the Tafsīr of Mujāhid in al-Ṭabarī (Gilliot, Débuts, 89).

Another traditionist, exegete and jurist was Sufyān b. ʿUyayna (d. 196/811) who was born in Kūfa but lived and died in Mecca. The very small commentary published under his name is a purely speculative reconstruction based on exegetical traditions taken from later commentaries (Gilliot, Débuts, 89-90).

The second type of exegesis of the formative period, narrative exegesis, features edifying narratives, generally enhanced by folkore from the Near East, especially that of the Judeo-Christian milieu. (The narratives upon which this exegesis drew eventually gained the name Isrāʾīliyyāt, although it is also the heritage of Byzantium, Persia, Egypt, etc.) In narrative exegesis, it is the actual narrative that seems of prime importance; although the text of the Qurʾān itself underlies the story, it is often subordinated in order to construct a smoothly flowing narrative (Rippin, Tafsīr [in er , xiv], 238).

To this genre belongs the tafsīr of al-Ḍaḥḥāk b. Muzāḥim (d. 105/723) who died in Balkh. The various chains of transmission concerning his exegesis go back to the Prophet's companion Ibn ʿAbbās, although al-Ḍaḥḥāk probably never met him personally, but only heard the exegetical lessons given by a disciple of Ibn ʿAbbās, Saʿīd b. Jubayr, in Rayy (see teaching and preaching the qurʾān ). Al-Ḍaḥḥāk's own qurʾānic interpretations are preserved in later recensions. Some of his exegetical traditions, one of which draws upon a midrash dealing with the creation (q.v.) of Adam (see adam and eve ), show him to have been a narrator of the old-fashioned type, one who borrowed from Persian legendary lore circulating in Khurāsān. As with many older commentators, and notably Ibn ʿAbbās himself, it might be going somewhat too far to attribute to him an actual body of qurʾānic exegesis in the strict sense of the term. Instead, he should be regarded as one who imparted oral teachings on various passages of the Qurʾān and delivered moral lessons to the young warriors of Transoxiana, and this later came to be considered a commentary (van Ess, tg, ii, 508-9; Gilliot, Impossible censure, 65-70; id., EAC, 130).

Also belonging to this category are the two celebrated Kūfan exegetes, al-Suddī al-Kabīr (d. 127/746 or 128/747; Gilliot, La sourate al-Baqara, 216-21; id., Impossible censure, 72-5) and al-Kalbī, a genealogist and historian. Al-Kalbī's exegesis can be found not only in the problematic tafsīr attributed to him, but also in later Sunnī commentaries. Even though he was indeed a Shīʿī and believed in the doctrine of the “return” (rajʿa) of the Imāms (see imām ) after their occultation, his exegetical work was transmitted in Sunnī, not Shīʿī, circles (see shīʿism and the qurʾān ). In the fragments of his tafsīr compiled by the Shīʿī Ibn Ṭāwūs (d. 664/1266; cf. Kohlberg, Ibn Ṭāwūs, 343), it appears that he largely made use of historiographical materials (van Ess, tg, i, 298-301). In this connection, it should be borne in mind that the interpretations of al-Kalbī, although a Shīʿī, were appreciated especially in non-Shīʿī circles, notably among the Karrāmiyya, and were later considered, especially in Khurāsān, as sound and authentic, including their transmission of the exegetical traditions of Ibn ʿAbbās (van Ess, tg, i, 299).

Two Khurāsānian exegetes from Balkh of great note are Muqātil b. Ḥayyān (d. 135/753) and Muqātil b. Sulaymān (d. 150/767 or after), who both shared the experience of being warriors on behalf of the faith (muqātil, see fighting ). The former did not compose a complete commentary, but rather operated as a popular preacher (qāṣṣ), imparting exegetical interpretations or narratives within the framework of edifying lessons. Interpretations of a midrashic type are to be found in his sermons, such exegesis later meeting a rather cold reception among adherents of the Iraqi rational school. Some of his exegetical traditions are quoted, for instance by al-Ṭabarī and by Abū l-Fuṭūḥ al-Rāzī (d. after 525/1131; van Ess, tg, ii, 510-6; Gilliot, EAC, 131).

As for Muqātil b. Sulaymān, three of his works on qurʾānic exegesis are extant and published. These are the Kitāb Wujūh al-Qurʾān, “Aspects of the Qurʾān” (also named al-Ashbāh wa-l-naẓāʾir, “The interpretative constants of the Qurʾān”); a kind of rudimentary concordance entitled Tafsīr khams miʾat āya, “Commentary on five hundred verses”; and his Tafsīr (“Commentary”) proper. Most Muslim jurist-theologians and traditionists later branded this Muqātil as a poor transmitter of traditions, although they almost all qualify him as a “great qurʾānic commentator.” The criticism levelled at Muqātil actually betrays a discernible historical trend of backward projection, whereby ancient scholars come to be judged according to standards which only find widespread acceptance long after the scholar in question has died. Writers on heresy (q.v.) and theology have also depicted him as one given to anthropomorphism (q.v.). To be sure, Muqātil's recently published commentaries do show traces of anthropomorphic thinking, although not to the extent ascribed to him. The problem is that his commentary has been transmitted in two recensions, a Baghdadi and an Iranian one, only the first of which is extant. It is possible that later redactors of this text suppressed propositions which appeared shocking to them.

Muqātil's commentary poses yet another problem: the eventual mingling of his own material, in this eastern stretch of the Muslim world, with elements of the Kūfan tradition represented by al-Kalbī, who partly drew on interpretations offered by Ibn ʿAbbās or his pupils. Finally, the Baghdadi version — as published — includes interpolations probably by one of the transmitters of this material, al-Tawwazī (d. 308/920), himself a grammarian and a specialist in qurʾānic readings.

These qualifications notwithstanding, narrative exegesis does hold interest as an example of qurʾānic commentary belonging to the early period. It proceeds mainly by way of paraphrase and narratives, with very little use of ḥadīth, drawing instead on what would later be known as Isrāʾīliyyāt, “Tales from the Jews,” and, more generally, on the legendary lore of the entire region. Moreover, since a number of theological points had not yet been entirely fixed at the time of its composition, certain positions are discernible in this commentary that must have shocked later orthodox sentiment (see theology and the qurʾān ), especially those that run counter to notions that came to prevail, such as the sinlessness of prophets and, above all, of the Prophet (van Ess, tg, ii, 516-32; Gilliot, Muqātil; id., EAC, 132-4; see prophets and prophethood; impeccability ).

In the category of legal exegesis can be placed different types of commentary, for instance the first attempts to order the text of the Qurʾān and its interpretation according to legal topics. Whereas in narrative or textual interpretation “the order of scripture for the most part serves as a basic framework, for the legal material a topical arrangement is a definitive criterion” (Rippin, Tafsīr [in er , xiv], 239). Another mode of legal exegesis addresses the abrogation (q.v.) of verses with prescriptive or proscriptive content for the purpose of determining legal positions.

Muqātil b. Sulaymān once again is a focal point in the development of legal interpretation. In his small legal commentary, Khams miʾat āya (“Commentary on five hundred verses”), which may have been derived from his great narrative commentary, he covers the following legal topics: faith (q.v.), prayer (q.v.), alms (see almsgiving ), fasting (q.v.), pilgrimage (q.v.), retaliation (q.v.), inheritance (q.v.), usury (q.v.), wine (see intoxicants ), marriage (see marriage and divorce ), repudiation, adultery (see adultery and fornication ), theft (q.v.), debts (q.v.), contracts (see breaking trusts and contracts; contracts and alliances ) and holy war (jihād, q.v.). To this kind of exegesis also belong the fragments of Ibn Wahb's Jāmiʿ, although his material is not organized in a topical fashion: it is arranged according to primary sources, presenting us with a sort of musnad. He also includes material on the qirāʾāt, the readings of the Qurʾān (q.v.; Ibn Wahb, Koranwissenschaften; Muranyi, Neue Materialien).

Also under the heading of legal exegesis is Maʿmar b. Rāshid's (d. 154/770) Tafsīr in the recension of ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī (d. 211/827): this recension is found both in the latter's Tafsīr and scattered throughout his compilation of prophetic traditions (entitled al-Muṣannaf). We find in them hundreds of examples of discussions about the qurʾānic text and its meaning, reflecting actual practice: “What should we do in such and such a case?” with recourse to ḥadīth (Versteegh, Arabic grammar, 65-7; Gilliot, Bilan, 158).

As for the topic of abrogation, a “book” (kitāb) on this subject is attributed to successors, such as Qatāda (d. 118/736), and to members of the early generations, such as Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī (d. 124/742), but comparisons with later material where these same names appear reveal great differences or different versions (Rippin, al-Zuhrī; Gilliot, Sémantique institutionnelle, 42-50; Muranyi, whose judgment is more optimistic concerning the antiquity of the texts attributed to the earlier scholars, in Ibn Wahb, Koranwissenschaften, i, 12-3, 51-2, from the tafsīr of Zayd b. Aslam, d. 136/753). With the edited work of Abū ʿUbayd (d. 224/838) on this subject, however, we can be certain of the authenticity of the attribution (cf. Abū ʿUbayd, Nāsikh, 174-90).

All of these genres of exegesis from the formative period have been integrated — to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the author — in the various commentaries from the next period.

The science of the readings of the Qurʾān (qirāʾa) developed in the ʿAbbāsid period, above all in Baṣra and Kūfa, while less so in the Ḥijāz. The specialists in this field were also grammarians and philologists who tried to explain the difficult or strange/rare (gharāʾib) words or expressions of the Qurʾān by appealing to the nascent science of grammar, the dialectical forms (lughāt) of the Arabs and ancient poetry (see dialects; poetry and poets; orality and writings in arabia ). The read-ings of the Qurʾān thus became a branch of the qurʾānic sciences and an integral part of exegesis. The great grammarian of Baṣra, Sībawayh (d. probably in 180/796 at the age of roughly forty years), had dealt with the Baṣran reading and was thus a precursor to the Baṣran philologist and grammarian of Jewish origin, Abū ʿUbayda Maʿmar b. al-Muthannā (d. ca. 210/825), who wrote a qurʾānic commentary entitled Majāz al-Qurʾān, “The literary expression of the Qurʾān” (see language and style of the qurʾān ). Majāz here is used in a pre-rhetorical sense and cannot be translated as “figurative speech,” its later meaning in stylistics. Rather, in this context, it means what is “usual/permitted” (jāʾiz) in the speech of the Arabs, even if it seems “unusual” (gharīb). For Abū ʿUbayda, God had spoken to the Arabs in their own language, making it natural to interpret the Qurʾān through recourse to the grammar and usage of the “profane” language of the Arabs, such as that found in poetry, a notion illustrated in his use of sixty poetic verses as witnesses (shawāhid, cf. Almagor, Early meaning, 307, 310-1; K. Abu-Deeb, Studies in the majāz and metaphorical language of the Qurʾān, 310-53, Wansbrough, qs, 219-6) to the usage of language in the qurʾānic text. His aim is not, however, purely literary but includes searches for literary evidence to demonstrate the thennascent notion of the miraculous character of the Qurʾān, which became a full doctrine only in the fourth/tenth century (see inimitability ). A work which occupies an intermediary position beween Abū ʿUbayda and the later treatises on the inimitability (iʿjāz) of the Qurʾān is the Taʾwīl mushkil al-Qurʾān, “The interpretation of the difficulties of the Qurʾān (see difficult passages ),” of Ibn Qutayba (d. 276/889), which does not follow the text of the Qurʾān, but is divided into chapters (cf. Rippin, Tafsīr [in er , xiv], 239). It is worth mentioning that the author of a recent study (Versteegh, Arabic grammar; reviewed by Gilliot in zdmg 146 [1996], 207-11) on the introduction of grammar into the exegetical enterprise has attempted to demonstrate that a segment of Arabic grammatical terminology could have its origins in the first qurʾānic commentaries, that is, those of the first half of the second/third century: Muqātil b. Sulaymān, al-Kalbī and others.

A closely related genre is that known under the title of Maʿānī l-Qurʾān, usually translated as “The significations of the Qurʾān,” but better as “The qualities of the Qurʾān.” Maʿnā means both signification and quality, and the purpose of the genre is not only to explain the qurʾānic text, but, above all, to enhance the allegedly “eminent qualities” in both its content and style. This type of commentary seeks to explain the lexicon of the Qurʾān, along with its grammar, variant readings and poetry, with lesser recourse to historiography and legends (see history and the qurʾān; mythic and legendary narratives ). One of the earliest texts devoted to this type of analysis is the Maʿānī l-Qurʾān of al-Farrāʾ (d. 207/822), a Kūfan scholar with Muʿtazilī leanings (Beck, Dogmatisch-religiöse Einstellung; id., Die b. Masʿūdvarianten; Kinberg, Lexicon, 9-23), whose work was probably preceded by others with the same title written by such figures as his Kūfan teacher al-Kisāʾī (d. 189/805), considered one of the seven canonical readers of the Qurʾān (Beck, Kufischen Koranlesung), and the Baṣran al-Akhfash al-Awsaṭ (d. 215/830; Gilliot, Textes [in mideo 21], no. 81; al-Ward, Manhaj al-Akhfash). The genre continued into the following centuries, e.g. the works of al-Zajjāj (d. 311/923; Maʿānī l-Qurʾān wa-iʿrābuhu, “The qualities and the seman-tic grammar of the Qurʾān”), Abū Jaʿfar al-Naḥḥās (d. 338/950; Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, “The semantic grammar of the Qurʾān”), Makkī b. Abī Ṭālib al-Qaysī (d. 437/1047; Mushkil iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, “The difficulties of the semantic grammar of the Qurʾān”; cf. A.H. Faraḥāt, Makkī b. Abī Ṭālib; Sh. ʿA. al-Rājiḥī, Juhūd al-Imām Makkī b. Abī Ṭālib), Abū l-Baqāʾ al-ʿUkbarī (d. 616/1219; al-Tibyān fī iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, “The elucidation of the semantic grammar of the Qurʾān”), and others (see semantics of the qurʾān ). It should be noted that these pre-rhetorical and textual commentaries follow the text of the Qurʾān, but do not explain each verse, as would later be the case in the great classical commentaries such as that by al-Ṭabarī.

The role of grammar in the semantic, theological and juridical interpretation of the text of the Qurʾān also appears in the numerous books composed on the accepted variant readings (al-qirāʾ āt al-mutawātira), and also on the “irregular” (shādhdh) readings, their grammatical analysis (iʿrāb) and their significations and qualities (maʿānī, Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf, ii, 1317-23; Nöldeke, gq, iii, 116-249; Pretzl, Wissenschaft, 1-47, 230-46; Gilliot, Elt, 135-64). Special books were also devoted to the pauses and beginnings of enunciation in the Qurʾān (Nöldeke, gq, iii, 234-7), e.g. Kitāb al-Waqf wa-l-ibtidāʾ, “Elucidation of the pause and beginning in the Qurʾān,” of the grammarian Abū Bakr al-Anbārī (d. 328/940). This branch has an obvious relationship to the discipline of the public recitation of the Qurʾān (tajwīd, Nöldeke, gq, iii, 231-4).

Some later extended commentaries placed a special importance upon the variant readings and grammar, as did the philologist of Granada with Baṣran grammatical inclinations, Abū Ḥayyān al-Gharnāṭī (d. 754/1344), in his Tafsīr al-baḥr al-muḥīṭ, “Commentary of the oceanic sea,” which is actually an encyclopaedia of grammar and variant readings, although the author also treats other aspects of exegesis (al-Mashnī, Madrasat al-tafsīr, 104-9).

The introduction of grammar and the linguistic sciences was an important turning point in the history of qurʾānic exegesis (Gilliot, Elt, 165-203). Indeed, the integration of a positive discipline, like grammar, gave qurʾānic exegesis the appearance of a sure science, even if philology was a sort of ancilla Corani, serving apologetic purposes and adapting grammar in some cases, either to the peculiarities of the qurʾānic language or to its “weak style” (cf. Nöldeke, Zur Sprache). The jurists, theologians and exegetes, however, did not want the text of the Qurʾān to be subject to grammar, since, for them, the only sure science was one that derived from the ḥadīth or traditions of the Prophet. They did not abandon grammar, but showed marked preference for the “exegesis from tradition” (al-tafsīr bi-l-maʾthūr) which prevailed in the following centuries. Some, however, did find ways to counterbalance this exegesis from tradition with, for example, the introduction of dialectic theology (kalām) or Ṣūfī allegorical exegesis (see ṣūfism and the qurʾān ).

It is commonly said that the first Sunnī exegetical corpus based upon traditions is the commentary of al-Ṭabarī, but there were several others before him at the end of the second/eighth and the beginning of the third/ninth century, e.g. that of Yaḥyā b. Sallām al-Baṣrī (d. 200/815 in Egypt), who came from Iraq and established himself in Qayrawān. He interested himself in qurʾānic readings, along with the occasions of revelation, ḥadīth and the exegetical traditions of Iraq (q.v.), Mecca (q.v.) and Medina (q.v.), and is said to have shared the Murjiʾite conception of faith (Gilliot, Commentaire, 181-2, and passim; M. Muranyi, Beiträge, 16-20, 390-7; see deferral ). Mention can also be made of ʿAbd b. Ḥamīd (or Ḥumayd, d. 249/863; see Gilliot, EAC, 134 n. 24) who was born in Kish in what is now Uzbekistan. While his qurʾānic commentary has not come down to us as such, abundant reference is made to it by later scholars such as the polymath al-Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505) in his exegetical compilation, itself based on traditions, al-Durr al-manthūr fī l-tafsīr al-maʾthūr, “The scattered pearls concerning exegesis of tradition,” (Gilliot, EAC, 134). Another commentary, also quoted by al-Suyūṭī, that has not survived in full and which pertains to the same genre of exegesis based upon tradition, is that of the jurist and exegete of Khurāsān, Ibn al-Mundhir (Abū Bakr Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm b. al-Mundhir al-Mundhirī al-Nīshābūrī, d. 318/930; Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, ms. Gotha 521 [from q 2:272 to q 4:91]; Sezgin, gas, i, 496). It should be added that most of the canonical or sub-canonical collections of the prophetic traditions have a section on tafsīr or on the faḍāʾil al-Qurʾān (“the virtues/merits of the Qurʾān”), such as the collections of al-Bukhārī (d. 256/870), Muslim (d. 261/875), al-Nasāʾī (d. 303/916), etc. (cf. R.M. Speight, Function of ḥadīth). It has also been said that Ibn Ḥanbal (d. 241/855) had a tafsīr containing 120,000 traditions, probably an arrangement by his son ʿAbdallāh, if it ever existed at all (Gilliot, Abraham, 66). All these commentaries, however, were only compilations of traditions, with very limited intervention by the compilers themselves.

It can be said that the Jāmiʿ al-bayān ʿan taʾwīl āy al-Qurʾan, “The sum of clarity concerning the interpretation of the verses of the Qurʾān,” of Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. Jarīr b. Yazīd al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923) is a landmark work, the first to combine fully the various formative stages or elements of Muslim exegesis described above. A central feature of the work is the attention given by the author to ensuring complete chains of authoritative transmission: 13,026 chains are thus offered in 35,400 cases (Gilliot, Elt, passim; Ṣ.Ḥ. Hallaq, Rijāl al-Ṭabarī), yielding a precious mine of information (30 volumes in the complete 1954 Cairo edition) for earlier sources of exegesis. Since so much related by al-Ṭabarī is tradition, he has often been regarded as essentially a compiler. Some have even balked at his transmission of numerous “legendary” traditions or Isrāʾīliyyāt, but such are to be found, already by his time, in nearly all commentaries and even the six canonical ḥadīth collection (al-kutub al-sitta) of Sunnism and the four canonical collections (al-kutub al-arbaʿa) of Shīʿism. The latter, while composed after al-Ṭabarī, contain reports and traditions which he would have had at his disposal that are earlier than the books themselves. Moreover, reducing al-Ṭabarī to the role of compiler alone would be to overlook the task which he set for himself, which involved nothing less than filtering most of the data he transmitted so as to ensure that it would meet the criteria of the Sunnite orthodoxy of his own day and environment. Indeed, he often took an outright theological stance, notably, but not only, against the Muʿtazilites. Additionally, there are places in his commentary where he actually speaks out in the tone of a dialectical theologian (mutakallim), something hardly agreeable to Ḥanbalite partisans, who occasionally made life difficult for him in Baghdad, even going so far as to accuse him of harboring Shīʿite tendencies.

Again, al-Ṭabarī's commentary amounts to something of a summa, with legal elements (he was a remarkable Shāfiʿite jurist, and he even founded his own school of law, which was a variation of the Shāfiʿite school), grammatical elements (he was an excellent grammarian, more attached to the Kūfan school without, however, neglecting the Baṣran), philological and rhetorical elements, and also references to the variant readings of the Qurʾān (to which he had devoted a separate work, see Gilliot, Elt, 135-64) and poetic material (M. al-Mālikī, Juhūd al-Ṭabarī). In short, al-Ṭabarī's commentary has been regarded as a key source of exegesis in Islam in subsequent centuries and even down to our own time.

A number of other commentaries mark this decisive stage of classical exegesis. The commentary of the collector of prophetic traditions, Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Rāzī (d. 327/938; Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt, i, 285-7, no. 264), is composed of exegetical traditions of the classical commentators, together with chains of warrants for their validity, with very few interventions by the author (Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Rāzī, Tafsīr).

The commentary of Abū l-Layth al-Samarqandī (d. 373/983), entitled Baḥr al-ʿulūm, “The ocean of sciences,” is of average size and belongs to the genre of exegesis which relied largely on tradition, although its author was a Ḥanafite jurist and theologian (Gilliot, EAC, 138).

The Shāfiʿite of Nīshāpūr, Abū Isḥāq al-Thaʿlabī (d. 427/1035), the celebrated author of Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyāʾ, “Tales of the prophets,” was a specialist on the readings of the Qurʾān, a traditionist, an exegete and a man of letters. Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597/1200), while recognizing the importance of his qurʾānic commentary, faults him, as does Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328), for integrating too many traditions which they consider unsound. Except for its introduction, al-Thaʿlabī's commentary, entitled Kashf al-bayān ʿan tafsīr al-Qurʾān, “Unveiling the elucidation of the exegesis of the Qurʾān,” remains unpublished. This regrettable gap is perhaps due to the length of the commentary and the prevailing — mistaken — opinion that the essence of the qurʾānic exegesis embodying the interpretations of the Companions of the Prophet and of the early exegetes is sufficiently accessible in the great work of al-Ṭabarī. Also, al-Thaʿlabī did not hesitate to draw upon the exegesis of men like al-Kalbī and Muqātil b. Sulaymān, two commentators regarded with suspicion by the orthodox both in former times and especially today, regardless of the fact that traditions of similar or identical content are abundantly found in the commentaries of al-Ṭabarī and others (Gilliot, EAC, 139-40).

Abū l-Ḥasan al-Wāḥidī (d. 468/1076) is the author of a commentary praised by the partisans of tradition. He was one of the most noted disciples of al-Thaʿlabī and also of Abū ʿUthmān al-Ṣābūnī (d. 449/1057). Famous for his commentaries on the collected works of several poets as well as for his exegesis of the Qurʾān, he authored no less than three qurʾānic commentaries, called “Extended,” “Abbreviated” and “Medium-sized” respectively, and also wrote Kitāb Asbāb al-nuzūl, “The occasions of revelation” (Gilliot, EAC, 141; id., Textes [in mideo 24], no. 66).

Al-Baghawī, also called Muḥyī l-Sunna (Revifier of the Sunna, d. 516/1122), composed, as a traditionist and exegete, a medium-sized commentary, most of the material for which he drew from the commentary of al-Thaʿlabī. One might, as a result, regard his commentary as a sort of abridgment of al-Thaʿlabī's work, duly purged of those traditions considered unacceptable by a strict traditionist like al-Baghawī. Indeed, this was probably the main reason for the praise given to al-Baghawī's work in certain circles. In contrast, criticism levelled against him faults him for drawing too much material from biblical and extra-biblical legend and lore (Gilliot, EAC, 143-4; M.I. Sharif, al-Baghawī).

The Karrāmīs of Nīshāpūr, and of Khurāsān and Transoxania in general, played a leading role in exegesis, qurʾānic readings and sciences, even if very little of their work is extant. Abū l-Ḥasan al-Ḥaysan b. Muḥammad (d. 467/1075), who belonged to a great family of scholars, taught exegesis and ḥadīth in Nīshāpūr. The only text of his to be preserved, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyāʾ, “Tales of the prophets,” is to be published (cf. C. Schöck, Adam im Islam). Another Karrāmī of Nīshāpūr, al-ʿAṣimī, was the author of the Kitāb al-Mabānī, which dealt with qurʾānic sciences and is the introduction to his commentary (Gilliot, EAC, 146; cf. id., Sciences coraniques).

The age of abridgment of the great commentaries of tradition material culminated in al-Nukat wa l-ʿuyūn, “The main points and essential features of exegesis,” the six-volume commentary of the great Shāfiʿite jurist of Baghdad, Abū l-Ḥasan al-Māwardī (d. 450/1058); the six-volume al-Muḥarrar al-wajīz, “The accurate and brief commentary,” by the Andalusian Ibn ʿAṭiyya (d. 541/1147; al-Mashnī, Madrasat al-tafsīr, 92-7); and the nine-volume Zād al-masīr fī ʿilm al-tafsīr, “Provisions for the journey concerning the science of exegesis,” of the great Baghdadi Ḥanbalite traditionist, preacher and man of letters, Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597/1200; McAuliffe, Qurʾānic, 57-63). In these three works, chains of transmission are generally reduced to the first figure (companion, successor or later exegete). In al-Māwardī's commentary, the various solutions of interpretation of a verse are summarized and numbered, while Ibn al-Jawzī's awards a prominent place to qurʾānic readings.

The Ḥanafite jurist and theologian Abū l-Barakāt al-Nasafī (d. 710/1310) wrote a medium sized commentary, Madārik al-tanzīl wa ḥaqāʾiq al-taʾwīl, “The reaches of revelation and the truths of interpretation,” which amounts to a compendium of exegesis that might satisfy the most orthodox of Sunnis. This work may be considered in part as a kind of shortened version of those by al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1144; see below) and al-Bayḍāwī (d. 716/1316), while obviously refraining from repeating al-Zamakhsharī's Muʿtazilite positions (Gilliot, EAC, 144-5).

The Gharāʾib al-Qurʾān wa-raghāʾib al-furqān, “Wonders of the Qurʾān and desirable features of revelation,” of Niẓām al-Dīn al-Nīsābūrī al-Aʿraj (d. after 730/1329), who studied with, among others, the astronomer Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī, is a well-planned commentary which proceeds in four stages: variant readings; pauses (also the subject of his eight introductions); literal exegesis (tafsīr), borrowing here from Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (see below) and al-Zamakhsharī; and spiritual exegesis (taʾwīl, G. Monnot, Exégèse coranique [in ephess Annuaire nos. 89-91, 98]; Gilliot, EAC, 142-3).

A much appreciated commentary today is the tafsīr of the Syrian Shāfiʿite traditionist, jurist and historiographer ʿImād al-Dīn Abū l-Fidāʾ Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373; eight vols., ed. A.A. Ghunaym et al.), who counted among his teachers the Ḥanbalite Ibn Taymiyya. His commentary is prefaced with an extended consideration of the principle of exegesis by tradition (McAuliffe, Qurʾānic, 71-6; for the relation between the different introductions to his commentary and his book Faḍāʾil al-Qurʾān, see Gilliot, Textes [in mideo 24], no. 63). He often quotes his predecessors, like al-Ṭabarī or Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, sifting and evaluating the exegetical traditions according to rather strict orthodox conceptions in the manner of his teacher Ibn Taymiyya. Comparison of this work to that of al-Ṭabarī or al-Rāzī shows that we are in a much less rich intellectual environment (cf. Calder, Tafsīr; on Ibn Kathīr, see also I.S. ʿAbd al-ʿAl ʿAbd al-ʿAl, Ibn Kathīr wa-minhājuhu fī l-tafsīr; Masʿūd al-Raḥmān Khan Nadwī, al-Imām Ibn Kathīr. Sīratuhu wa-muʾallafātuhu wa-minhājuhu fī kitābāt al-taʾrīkh).

Nearly contemporaneous with Ibn Kathīr was the exegete, grammarian and specialist in qurʾānic readings, al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī (Aḥmad b. Yūsuf, d. 756/1355 in Cairo; Brockelmann, gal, ii, 111), who wrote the larger but less well-known qurʾānic commentary entitled al-Durr al-maṣūn fī ʿulūm al-kitāb al-maknūn (“The secret jewels. On the sciences of the hidden book”), which contains many grammatical explanations.

A very important later source for scholars of exegesis is al-Durr al-manthūr of the Egyptian Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505), mentioned above. In this great compilation he draws upon several commentaries, some of which are now lost, and proceeds by compiling a series of exegetical traditions with few interventions. The same polymath also contributed to completing the small commentary of one of his teachers, Jalāl al-Dīn al-Maḥallī (d. 864/1459), which is thereby entitled Tafsīr al-Jalālayn, “Commentary of the two Jalāls.” It is very popular today because of its very brief explanations of qurʾānic words and phrases.

The encyclopaedist exegesis in the tradition of al-Ṭabarī continued through the pre-modern period with commentaries such as that of the Zaydite jurist al-Shawkānī (d. 1250/1834), entitled Fatḥ al-qadīr, “Victory of the Powerful” (cf. al-Sharjī, al-Imām al-Shawkānī; M.H.A. Ghumārī, al-Imām al-Shawkānī mufassiran).

While legal exegesis was operative at almost every stage of the history of exegesis, “the framework of legal analysis emerges quite clearly in some works, achieving a status reflected in titles” (Rippin, Tafsīr [in ei ² ], 84; McAuliffe, Legal exegesis) such as Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, “The legal rules of the Qurʾān” (Dhahabī, Mufassirūn, ii, 432-73), composed by the Ḥanafite al-Jaṣṣāṣ (d. 370/981), the Shāfiʿite Ilkiyā l-Harrāsī (d. 504/1110; Dhahabī, Siyar, xix, 350-2), the Mālikite Ibn al-ʿArabī (d. 543/1148; M.I. al-Mashnī, Madrasat al-tafsīr, 89-91; id., Ibn al-ʿArabī al-Mālikī al-Ishbīlī wa-tafsīruhu Aḥkām al-Qurʾān) and the Cordoban Mālikite al-Qurṭubī (d. 671/1272). The first three exhibit a particular interest in legal material and do not explain every verse of the Qurʾān. The third, a lengthy one, contains many legal “treatises” or developments of explanation, but is also a commentary ad litteram with many quotations from earlier commentaries or exegetes, like Muqātil b. Sulaymān and al-Kalbī, with grammatical analyses, etc. As such, it can be considered an exegetical encyclopaedia in the manner of al-Ṭabarī (al-Qaṣabī, Qurṭubī; al-Mashnī, Madrasat al-tafsīr, 98-101).

While here is not the place to discuss the early beginnings of dialectical theology (kalām) in Islam, it can be said to have been consolidated by the Muʿtazilites, even if they did not actually initiate it. Worthy of note are the Baṣran Muʿtazilite theologian and jurist ʿAmr b. ʿUbayd (see above) and Abū Bakr al-Aṣamm (d. 200/816) who was not, however, always accepted by the other Muʿtazilites. He composed a lost commentary containing not only Muʿtazilite views on the freedom of will and acts (see freedom and predestination ), but also historical, philological and legal matters (van Ess, tg, ii, 403-7). The great commentary of Abū ʿAlī al-Jubbāʾī (d. 303/915) has not been preserved, but important explanatory material from it has been recently reconstructed from quotations found in later works (cf. Gimaret, Djubbāʾī). The Ḥanafite jurist and Khurāsānian Muʿtazilite theologian Abū l-Qāsim al-Balkhī al-Kaʿbī (d. 319/931) wrote a 12-volume commentary on the Qurʾān which has not survived save for quotations found in later works, notably the Ḥaqāʾiq al-taʾwīl fī mutashābih al-tanzīl, “The realities of interpretation concerning the ambiguous passages of revelation,” by al-Sharīf al-Raḍī (d. 406/1016; cf. Gimaret, Djubbāʾī, 28; Gilliot, EAC, 151).

Mention should also be made of the Naẓm al-Qurʾān, “The fine ordering of the Qurʾān,” of Abū Zayd al-Balkhī (d. 322/934), also lost, passages of which can be found quoted in later sources. Several important philologists and grammarians, like al-Farrāʾ, Abū ʿAlī al-Fārisī and al-Rummānī, were Muʿtazilites. Moreover, the Muʿtazilites played a leading role in the elaboration of the doctrine of the inimitability of the Qurʾān and in the study of its stylistic aspects. From such beginnings, the genre of the Naẓm al-Qurʾān (the Muʿtazilite al-Jāḥiẓ [d. 255/868] composed a book so entitled) was later adopted by traditional Sunnite scholars, like the Shāfiʿite Syrian Burhān al-Dīn Biqāʿī (d. 885/1480) in his great commentary entitled Naẓm al-durar fī tanāsub al-āyāt wa-l-suwar, “The arrangement of the pearls regarding the correspondence of the verses and sūras,” (Gilliot, Textes [in mideo 22], no. 39), or al-Suyūṭī in his small Tanāsuq al-durar fī tanāsub al-suwar, “The harmonious disposition of the pearls regarding the correspondence on the sūras.”

Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār al-Hamadhānī (d. 415/1025) made important exegetical contributions, not only in his Mutashābih al-Qurʾān, “The ambiguous passages of the Qurʾān,” where he explained those passages according to the Muʿtazilite doctrine, but also in several volumes of his great theological and juridical encyclopaedia, al- Mughnī fī abwāb al-tawḥīd wa-l-ʿadl, “The sufficient [treatise] on the matters of unity and justice.”

The nine-volume commentary of al-Ḥākim al-Jushamī (d. 494/1101; the correct vocalization is al-Jishumī, since he was born in Jishum in the district of Bayhaq), entitled al-Tahdhīb fī l-tafsīr, “Refinement in exegesis,” survives in several manuscripts. One advantage of this commentary, compared with al-Zamakhsharī's Kashshāf, is the more solid support it shows for Muʿtazilite doctrine, notably the conception of the unity of God (Gimaret, Djubbāʾī, 25-6; Gilliot, EAC, 151-2).

Several Shīʿite exegetes, like Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭūsī (d. 460/1067) and Abū ʿAlī al-Ṭabarsī (al-Ṭabrisī; d. 548/1153), were also Muʿtazilites; quotations of earlier Muʿtazilite commentators can thus be found in their works (Gimaret, Djubbāʾī, 23-5, 26).

As for Jār Allāh al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1144), the celebrated Muʿtazilite grammarian, exegete and man of letters from Khwārazm, his commentary, entitled al-Kashshāf ʿan ḥaqāʾiq al-tanzīl wa ʿuyūn al-aqāwīl fī wujūh al-taʾwīl, “The unveiler of the truths of revelation and of the essences of utterances concerning the aspects of exegesis,” was long considered a model of Muʿtazilite exegesis. In point of fact, while Muʿtazilite standpoints are certainly to be found therein, many of its theological opinions often remained veiled, and its author is to be considered only a distant successor, one of only marginal importance (Madelung, Theology of al-Zamakhsharī, 485-95; Gimaret, Djubbāʾī, 11). His reputation for exegesis rests not so much on his Muʿtazilism as on his qualities as a grammarian, philologist, and master of rhetoric and literary criticism. For this reason he is still appreciated in Sunnite orthodox circles (Gilliot, EAC, 152-4).

The importance of the Muʿtazilite contribution can be illustrated through the ex-ample of the Zaydite Muʿtazilite scholar, Abū Yūsuf al-Qazwīnī (d. 488/1095), a disciple of the Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār, who wrote possibly the longest commentary ever composed: It is reported to have been 300, 600, or even 700 volumes. While the number is surely an exaggeration, there is no reason to doubt the testimony of Ibn ʿAqīl, who writes that al-Qazwīnī's commentary on q 2:102 (“They followed what the Satans [see devil ] recited”) took up an entire volume (Gilliot, EAC, 154).

The Sunnite reaction against the sectarian groups (firaq) and especially against Muʿtazilism is reflected in their qurʾānic exegesis, above all in the commentaries of the Sunnite dialectical theologians.

In the eastern part of the Islamic world, a Ḥanafite theologian who was later recognized as the founder of a school of dialectical theology, Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī (d. 333/944), wrote a commentary entitled Taʾwīlāt al-Qurʾān, “Exegeses of the Qurʾān,” or Taʾwīlāt ahl al-Sunna, “Exegeses of the people of the sunna (q.v.),” of which only one volume has been published (the rest will be soon published). It is of major interest not only as representative of Māturīdite doctrine in Transoxiana, but also because it preserves much older exegetical material, including Muʿtazilite interpretations which the author rejects. It might also be added that, at times, he deals with subjects which are not to be found in other commentaries. While this work was glossed, notably in the gloss (sharḥ) of ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Samarqandī (d. 539/1144), it has not left discernible traces in qurʾānic exegesis (Rudolph, al-Māturīdī, 201-8; Gilliot, EAC, 155).

The Shāfiʿite jurist and Ashʿarite theologian Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210; cf. Anawati, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī) is also a significant representative of the exegesis of the dialectical theologians. His commentary, entitled Mafātīḥ al-ghayb, “Keys of the unseen,” (also known as al-Tafsīr al-kabīr, “The great commentary”), was a work of his mature years, begun in Khurāsān and pursued in various places. It is not clear that he finished the work himself, e.g. the commentary on seems not to be his (cf. Jomier, Ensemble; id., Mafātiḥ al-ghayb). Certainly, the usual apparatus of qurʾānic commentary is found therein, as well as references to previous interpreters, including the Muʿtazilites. His exegesis not only follows that which relies on personal opinion (raʾy), but is also very much a philosophical commentary, within the guideliness set by dialectical theology (kalām). Where al-Rāzī considers it appropriate, he explains various issues in the form of scholastic quaestiones (Arabic masʾala, pl. masāʾil), to which he appends the opinions of different scholars with their lines of argument, before concluding with his own. Although his orientation was deliberately anti-Muʿtazilite, he did owe a considerable debt to their exegesis (McAuliffe, Qurʾānic, 63-71; Lagarde, Index, 1-15; Gilliot, EAC, 156-8).

For different aspects of the methodology and theology of Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī as evidenced in his commentary, see M. ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd, al-Rāzī mufassiran; M.I. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, Minhāj Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī; M. Ḥusaynī Abū Saʿdah, al-Nafs wa-khulūduhā; ʿA.M. Ḥasan al-ʿAmmarī, al-Imām Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī; M. al-ʿArabī Abū ʿAzīzī, Naẓariyyāt al-maʿrifa ʿinda l-Rāzī; M. Mahdī Hilāl, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī balāghiyyan; and ʿU. al-Turaykī, al-Dhāt al-ilāhiyya (full bibliographical information for these works is given in the bibliography of the article).

Another commentary should be mentioned here, even if it is not entirely matched to this section, the Anwār al-tanzīl wa-asrār al-taʾwil, “The lights of revelation and the mysteries of interpretation,” of the Shāfiʿite jurist and theologian Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Bayḍāwī (d. 716/1315-6, according to van Ess; cf. Gilliot, EAC, 160 n. 187). It de-pends a great deal upon al-Zamakhsharī's work, but while often regarded as a mere abridgment of the Kashshāf, it actually draws upon many other sources, which the author unfortunately fails to mention. Al-Bayḍāwī treats variant readings and issues of grammar more than al-Zamakhshārī, but also avoids repeating al-Zamakhsharī's theological views so far as possible. Some of these views, however, still lurk in his text, probably because he remained unaware of their implications. This commentary became one of the single most popular commentaries in the Muslim world. As such, it has been the subject of many glosses, and with that of al-Khaṭīb al-Kāzarūnī (d. 940/1553), now forms part of the curriculum of the University of al-Azhar in Cairo (Gilliot, EAC, 160-3).

The oldest Khārijite commentary still exant is that of the Ibāḍite Hūd b. Muḥkim (or Muḥakkam) al-Hawwārī (d. ca. 280/893 or 290/902-3), of the Awres in today's Algeria. It has recently been edited in four volumes and actually forms a kind of abridgment of the commentary of Yaḥyā b. Sallām al-Baṣrī who lived for a period in Qayrawān. Naturally, a great part of the exegetical traditions contained in the work of Hūd are borrowed from Ibn Sallām, especially explanations given by al-Kalbī, Mujāhid and al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, and a large amount of exegetical material, especially Baṣran, is found in the work. This commentary is, above all, a valuable testimony to early Ibāḍite exegesis, notably on faith and works (see faith ), — views which stand in opposition to the Murjiʾite views of Ibn Sallām, — against the Sunnite conception of the intercession (q.v.) of the Prophet. Juridical matters in general, as well as those particular to the Ibāḍites are also to be found (cf. Gilliot, Commentaire).

The early Zaydite exegesis is represented by the Tafsīr of Abū l-Jārūd (d. after 140/757-8) which exhibits predestinarian leanings and contains historical and midrashic passages. More than 200 quotations of his exegesis are preserved in the commentary of al-Qummī, hardly surprising since the Imāmī Shīʿites called the Jārūdites the “strong” Zaydites, with regard to their radical Shīʿite positions (Madelung, Imam al-Qāsim, 43-8; van Ess, tg, i, 253-61; Bar-Asher, Scripture and exegesis, 46-56; see shīʿism and the qurʾān ).

Imāmī Shīʿite exegesis can be divided into the Pre-Buwayhid school of exegesis and the Post-Buwayhid school, keeping in mind that the Buwayhid period (334-447/945-1055), known for its theological creativity and far-reaching internal innovations in Imāmite doctrine, constitutes a golden era for the Imāmī Shīʿites (Bar-Asher, Scripture and exegesis, 9-12).

Most of the commentaries of the first period were composed between the middle of the third/ninth and late fourth/tenth centuries, roughly the time between the Minor Occultation (which began 260/874 or 264/878) and the Major Occultation (329/941) of the twelfth Imām. The literature from the period of the fifth Imām, Muḥammad al-Bāqir (d. 113/731-2), and the sixth, his son Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq (d. 148/765), “undoubtedly incorporates earlier exegetical material. However, early exegetical traditions seem to have been edited and modified” (Bar-Asher, Exegesis, 7-8). The commentators of this period are Furāt b. Furāt al-Kūfī (fl. second half of third/ninth and possibly fourth/tenth centuries), ʿAlī b. Ibrāhīm al-Qummī (alive in the days of al-Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī, d. 260/873; on the commentary ascribed to Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī, see Bar-Asher, Qurʾān commentary), al-ʿAyyāshī (fl. end of third/ninth and beginning of fourth/tenth centuries) and al-Nuʿmānī (d. ca. 360/971; Bar-Asher, Scripture and exegesis, 27-70). The main fea-tures of this Pre-Buwayhid school of exegesis are the following: commentary relying on ḥadīths of the Shīʿite tradition (cf. Bar-Asher, Scripture and exegesis, chap. 2); narrow and focused concern with the text of the Qurʾān, with special attention given to verses with potentially Shīʿite allusions; minimal interest in theological themes or specific issues bearing on the institution of the Imāma, such as those of the Imām's immunity from error and sin (ʿiṣma) or intercession (shafāʿa) on the day of judgment (Bar-Asher, Scripture, 159-189); an extreme anti-Sunnite tendency, expressed primarily by the hostile attitude to the Companions of the Prophet (Bar-Asher, Scripture, 71-86). The methods used by these commentators were interpretations of a textual nature, “seeking to harmonize between the text of the Qurʾān and the ideas they sought to derive from it,” and also allegorical interpretation, “which grounds the basic concepts of the Imāmī-Shiʿite in the text” (Bar-Asher, Scripture, 87-124). Some of the recent editions of these texts have sometimes been censured, above all in the extreme anti-Sunnite declarations present in the manuscripts and lithograph editions.

Prominent among the tradition-based commentaries of the second period of the Imāmī Shīʿite exegesis (Monnot, Introduction, 314-7) are Rawḥ al-jinān wa-rūḥ al-janān, “The breeze of paradise and the spirit of the heart” (probably the first commentary written in Persian), of Abū l-Futūḥ al-Rāzī (fl. first half of the sixth/twelfth century; McAuliffe, Qurʾānic, 54-7; Gilliot, EAC, 149-50) and al-Burhān fī tafsīr al-Qurʾān, “The proof in interpreting the Qurʾān,” of al-Baḥrānī (d. 1107/1696), which quotes almost exclusively exegetical traditions borrowed from previous exegetes and attributed to the Shīʿite Imāms.

The two greatest exegetes of this period, already mentioned above with the Muʿtazilites, are Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭūsī (d. 460/1067), the author of al-Tibyān fī tafsīr al-Qurʾān, “Elucidation in interpreting the Qurʾān” (McAuliffe, Qurʾānic, 45-9), and Abū ʿAlī al-Ṭabarsī (d. 548/1153; cf. Abdul, Majma al-bayan; id., Unnoticed mufassir) who composed Majmaʿ al-bayān li-ʿulūm al-Qurʾān, “The confluence of elucidation in the sciences of the Qurʾān,” a work which owes a considerable debt to al-Ṭūsī. These two commentaries exhibit a distinct kinship with accepted Sunnite exegetical writings, such as interest in the variant readings and grammatical or philogical explanations, and offer moderate points of view on passages of particular importance for the Shīʿites. One must, however, also take into account their Muʿtazilite outlook (cf. Gilliot, EAC, 148-9).

The Ismāʿīlites make a fundamental distinction in religion and knowledge between the exterior (ẓāhir) and the interior (bāṭin), a distinction also reflected in their interpretation of the Qurʾān. The science of tafsīr (exoteric exegesis) is absent from their literature, since true meaning can be obtained only through taʾwīl (esoteric interpretation), which originates in the legitimate Imām. Hence, the Imām is often called “the speaking Qurʾān” (Qurʾān-i nāṭiq), while the book itself is called “the silent Qurʾān” (Qurʾān-i ṣāmit). This arrangement corresponds to the distinction between the hidden, spiritual meaning of scripture explained by the Imām (taʾwīl) and the divine message delivered by the Prophet in its literal form (tanzīl, descent). Even the physical objects mentioned by the Qurʾān are to receive an esoteric intepretation, often designating one of the Imāms or Fāṭima (q.v.) or one of the holy ancestors, like Abraham (q.v.; cf. Strothmann, Ismailitischer Koran-Kommentar, 15; Poonawala, Ismāʿīlī taʾwīl; A. Nanji, Hermeneutics). Numerous Ismāʿīlite interpretations of the Qurʾān go back to the letters of the Brethren of Purity (Goldziher, Richtungen, 186-207; Netton, Muslim neoplatonists, 78-89).

Important traces of the Ismāʿīlite way of interpreting the Qurʾān can be found in the commentary of al-Shahrastanī (d. 548/1153) entitled Mafātīh al-asrār wa-maṣābīḥ al-abrār, “Keys of the mysteries and beacons of the pious,” with its twelve-chapter introduction, bearing on the first and second sūras of the Qurʾān. His exegesis fully belongs to the tradition of the great commentaries, in the light of the keen interest shown by the author in linguistic issues and exoteric exegesis. He does, however, turn, when necessary, to the “mysteries” (asrār), i.e. esoteric exegesis, with Ismāʿīlite ideas, like the “accomplished” and “not yet accomplished” or the distinction between the “designated successor” (waṣī), who is heir to the Prophet, and the Imām who comes after the waṣī (Monnot, Controverses théologiques, 281-96; id. Exégèse coranique [in ephess Annuaire nos. 93-7]; Gilliot, EAC, 158-60; cf. D. Steigerwald, Pensée philosophique).

The important question to consider in the case of the mystical interpretation of the Qurʾān is, ‘When did the introspective reading of the Qurʾān begin?’ (Massignon, Essai, 118; Nwyia, Exégèse, 157). Certainly, al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, whose personality is so important for the history of spirituality in Islam, is a logical starting point, but his teaching has come to us only in the form of fragments. We are on much surer ground with Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq (d. 148/765). Whatever the historical origin of the Tafsīr attributed to him, its entry into the mystical circles of the third/ninth century corresponds to attempts to consolidate Sunnite mystical doctrine (cf. Nwyia, Tafsīr mystique). Tustarī's (d. 283/896) method of qurʾānic interpretation, as exhibited in his Tafsīr, apparently follows the precedent set by al-Ṣādiq “who is on record with a statement concerning the four point pattern of qurʾānic exegesis; but actually, in his com-mentary of the Qurʾān applies two ways of interpretation, a literal (ẓāhir) and a spiritual (bāṭin) way, and stresses the hidden meanings (bāṭin) of qurʾānic verses” (Böwering, Mystical, 141).

The Tustarī tradition of Ṣūfism was very important in the following centuries (Böwering, Mystical, 18-42), particularly its influence on the mystical exegesis undertaken in Andalusia, e.g. that by the Cordoban Ibn al-Masarra (d. 319/931), who wrote Kitāb Khawāṣṣ al-ḥurūf wa-ḥaqāʾiqihā wa-uṣūlihā, “Particularities of the letters and their essences and their origins,” on the isolated letters of the Qurʾān (under the influence of the Risāla fī l-ḥurūf, “Treatise on the letters,” of al-Tustarī; see letters and mysterious letters ), and Ibn Barrajān (born in Seville; d. 536/1142 in Marrakesh) who taught in Seville. Ibn Barrajān treated revelation as a whole as related to its principle, the divine names (see god and his attributes ), addressing his reader as a disciple and inviting him to follow a “whole and superior reading” (al-tilāwa al-ʿulyā, cf. Gril, Lecture supérieure) in his two commentaries: Kitāb al-Irshād, “Book of guidance,” and Iḍāḥ al-ḥikma, “Illustration of wisdom.” Ibn al-ʿArabī (d. 638/1240), who had read al-Tustarī, borrowed some of his expressions in his own commentary on q 1 (chap. 5 of al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyya), and traces of his influence (Böwering, Mystical, 39-40) and of Ibn Masarra are to be found in his lost commentary al-Jamʿ wa l-tafṣīl fī asrār maʿānī l-tanzīl, “The general survey and detailing of the mysteries of revelation” (which had 66 volumes and stopped at q 18:53; see K. ʿAwwād (ed.), Ibn al-ʿArabī. Fihrist, 356-7; Gilliot, Textes [in mideo 23], no. 111).

Ibn al-ʿArabī authored a large commentary which was in circulation until the ninth Islamic century; what we now possess is his small commentary, Iʿjāz al-bayān fī tarjamat al-Qurʾān, “The inimitability of clarity in the explanation of the Qurʾān,” which stops at q 2:252. The school of Ibn al-ʿArabī also had its exegetes, like Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī (673/1274), who wrote a commentary on the Sūrat al-Fātiḥa, entitled Iʿjāz al-bayān fī tafsīr umm al-Qurʾān, “The inimitability of clarity regarding the exegesis of the essence [lit. mother] of the Qurʾān” (Chittick, Ṣadr al-Dīn Ḳūnawī); al-Qāshānī (d. 730/1329; cf. Lory, Commentaires ésotériques); and ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Jīlī (d. ca. 832/1428), who composed a commentary on the basmala (q.v.), “In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate”, entitled al-Kahf wa-l-raqīm fī sharḥ bi-smi llāhi l-raḥmāni l-raḥīm, “The cavern and the cave in the explanation of the basmala .”

Another great mystical exegete, al-Sulamī (d. 412/1021) of Nīshāpūr, had, like al-Tustarī, a major influence on mystical exegesis and thinking. One version of his major commentary, the Ḥaqāʾiq al-tafsīr, “The spiritual realities of exegesis” (which exists in two versions, a longer and a shorter), was published in 2001 (ms. Istanbul, Fātiḥ, 261). To this commentary is appended a separate addendum, entitled Ziyādāt al-ḥaqāʾiq, “Additions to the spiritual realities,” which has recently been published. He was an original author, collecting most of his materials in the course of his journeys, particularly in Merv, Baghdad and Mecca. His approach is methodical and rigorous, shunning subjects of an edifying, anecdotal or biographical nature and avoiding those issues dealt with in legal commentary or in exegesis based upon tradition, as well as technical or philogical points, i.e. those materials pertaining to exoteric learning. He limits himself to interpretation which he considers material for a mystical exegesis of the Qurʾān, according to the principle stated in his introduction: “Understanding the book of God according to the language of the people of the truth.” Such an esoteric approach to interpreting the Qurʾān inevitably aroused disapproval in orthodox circles, but his work also contributed to the establishment of mystical exegesis as an independent branch of qurʾānic hermeutics, coming to represent for the mystical interpretation of the Qurʾān what the commentary of al-Ṭabarī had been to traditional exegesis (cf. Böwering, Commentary; id., Sufi hermeneutics). The extracts of his commentary, originally published by L. Massignon and P. Nwyia, have been reprinted in Majmūʿat-i āthār-i Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī (ed. N. Purjavādī, i, 5-292).

The celebrated author of al-Risāla al-qushayriyya, ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Qushyarī (d. 465/1072), also composed a six-volume commentary (cf. G.C. Anawati, Textes [in mideo 10, no. 47; 17, no. 35]), entitled Laṭāʾif al-ishārāt, “The subtle allusions,” in which he notes qurʾānic allusions or indications of the spiritual state of those who recite the Qurʾān (cf. Halm, al-Ḳushayrī).

The commentary of Rūzbihān al-Baqlī al-Shīrāzī (d. 606/1209), entitled ʿArāʾis al-bayān fī ḥaqāʾiq al-Qurʾān, “The maidens of clarity regarding the realities of the Qurʾān,” besides its high spiritual range, contains quotations from al-Sulamī and sometimes al-Qushayrī (al-ustādh, cf. Ernst, Rūzbihān). Rashīd al-Dīn al-Maybudī is the author of a large Persian commentary of mystical inspiration, entitled Kashf al-asrār wa-ʿuddat al-abrār, “The disclosure of the mysteries and the outfit of the pious,” begun in 520/1126 (Storey, pl, i, 1190-1).

The Khwarazmite Najm al-Dīn Kubrā (d. 617/1220; cf. Algar, Kubrā) composed a commentary entitled al-Taʾwīlāt al-najmiyya, “The spiritual interpretations of al-Najm,” also known as Baḥr al-ḥaqāʾiq or ʿAyn al-ḥayāt. This commentary was only begun by him, important contributions being made by his disciple Najm al-Dīn Rāzī Dāya (d. 654/1256; cf. Algar, Nadjm al-Dīn), and was finally completed by another Ṣūfī of the order of al-Kubrāwiyya, ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla Simnānī (d. 736/1336; F. Meier, ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla al-Simnānī; Landolt, La “double échelle”). This Ṣūfī of the Ilkhanid period rejected Ibn al-ʿArabī's ontology; his commentary, Tafsīr najm al-Qurʾān, contains the salient features of his thought (cf. Elias, Throne carrier).

The Moroccan Ṣūfī Ibn ʿAjība (d. 1224/1809) composed a four-volume commentary, entitled al-Baḥr al-madīd fī tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-majīd, “The outstretched sea regarding the exegesis of the glorious Qurʾān,” in which he distinguishes between the classical textual intepretation (ʿibāra) and the allusions (ishārāt), especially to the saints (Michon, Ibn ʿAdjība).

As for the Ottoman period, mention should be made of the allegorical commentary, al-Fawātiḥ al-ilāhiyya wa l-mafātīḥ al-ghaybiyya, “The divine openings and the secret keys,” of al-Nakhjuwanī (d. 920/1514 in Āqshehir of today's Turkey; Brockelmann, gal, S ii, 320-1). The most celebrated commentary of this period is the ten-volume Rūḥ al-bayān, “The spirit of clarity,” composed by Ismāʿīl Ḥaqqī al-Brūsawī (d. 1137/1725), which is a classical commentary along with a mystical exegesis. He often quotes al-Taʾwīlāt al-najmiyya and Persian mystical poetry (Kut, Ismāʿīl Ḥaḳḳī). The thirty-volume Rūḥ al-maʿānī, “The spirit of the significations,” begun by Maḥmūd al-Ālūsī (1270/1854) and finished by his son (cf. H. Péres, Ālūsī; Dhahabī, Mufassirūn, i, 352-62), is also a classical commentary, reserving at the same time considerable room for mystical interpretation.

The study of the Qurʾān gradually became divided into a profusion of sciences (i.e. disciplines; see traditional disciplines of qurʾānic study ), each with its own handbooks, like al-Burhān fī ʿulūm al-Qurʾān, “The proof regarding the sciences of the Qurʾān,” of al-Zarkashī (d. 794/1391; Anawati, Textes [in mideo 4, no. 18; 6, no. 15]) or al-Itqān fī ʿulūm al-Qurʾān, “The mastery regarding the sciences of the Qurʾān,” of al-Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505; Anawati, Textes [in mideo 10, no. 34]), which is itself based upon al-Zarkashī's work; or Baṣāʾir dhawī l-tamyīz fī laṭāʾif al-kitāb al-ʿazīz, “The keen insights of those with discernment in the subtilities of the holy book,” of the lexicographer al-Fīrūzābādī (d. 817/1414; Anawati, Textes [in mideo 8, no. 22]).

The vast exegetical tradition of the Qurʾān is a reminder that the Qurʾān has been the magna carta of Islamic societies throughout history; its exegesis is not limited to the various schools of qurʾānic commentators, but is found in almost every kind of literature, particularly belles-lettres (adab; cf. Gilliot, Usages; see literature and the qurʾān ).