Schools of Qur'anic Exegesis

Genesis and Development

Hussein Abdul-Raof

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9780415449571
• eBook ISBN: 9781135240950
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Islamic Theology

Qur'anic exegesis has become the battleground of political Islam and theological conflict among various Muslim schools of thought. Using comparative and contrastive methodology, examples from the Qur'an are investigated in the light of various theological views to delineate the birth, development and growth of Qur'anic exegesis.

The political status quo, in the past and at present, has impinged upon Qur'anic exegesis more than on any other discipline in Islamic studies. This book illustrates the dichotomy between mainstream and non-mainstream Islam, showing how Qur'anic exegesis reflects the subtle dogmatic differences and political cleavages in Islamic thought. Chapters explore in depth the intrusive views of the compilers of early exegesis manuscripts, the scepticism among Western scholars about the authenticity of early Muslim works of exegesis and of prophetic tradition, and the role of exegesis as a tool to reaffirm the Qur'an as a canon.

Written to appeal to those with comparative exegetical interests as well as those focused on Islamic studies in general, this book will be an important reference for research students, scholars, and students of Islamic Studies, Theology, Religious studies and Middle Eastern Studies.

1 Preamble to Qur’anic exegesis

1.1 Introduction

The present chapter provides an informative account of the evolution of Qur’anic exegesis since the inseption of Islam in the first/seventh century and up to the twentieth century, as well as the diverse approaches that have developed over the past centuries. This detailed investigation takes into consideration the views of both Muslim and non-Muslim Qur’ān scholars with regards to early tafsīr tradition, the controversy over the authenticity and historicity of tafsīr sources and works, the reliability as opposed to the sceptical views about the genuine and spurious chain of authorities, the validity of prophetic tradition, the relationship between the Qur’ān and the ḥadīth, the impact of fabricated prophetic traditions on exegesis and the reliability of ascription of exegetical views to iconic companion exegetes. This chapter also provides a classification of the exegetical views of the companions and successors as well as a ramification of the schools of exegesis that have evolved since the first/seventh century. The documentation and transmission of Qur’anic exegesis is also provided together with the classification of exegetical sources. Through our investigation of historiography and exegesis, the present discussion also accounts for the impact of the Judeo-Christian milieu and the influence of Jewish anecdotes, as a recurrent feature, on some schools of Qur’anic exegesis and, in particular, on some companion and successor exegetes of the formative phase. This chapter also provides an outline of the major genres in exegesis throughout the three distinct phases: formative, recording and modern. These include paraphrastic, narrative, legal, linguistic, thematic, synoptic and scientific genres. A classification of lexicographical tafsīr works has been made which accounts for the distinct approaches in Qur’anic exegesis such as intralingual translation of the Qur’ān, gharīb, wujūh, ashbāh and mutashābihāt works.

1.2 Examination of Tafsīr scholarship

While the Qur’ān, for the Muslim, is the word of God and textually inerrant, its written elucidation is the word of the exegete, a man whose sources are mostly characterized by augmentations; interpolations (see Sections 1.4 and 1.5 of the present chapter); internal contradiction; intrusive comments ascribed to the original scholar; spurious prophetic traditions (see Chapter 2, Sections 2.2 and 2.3); intrusive exegetical tools such as poetic loci falsely ascribed to pre-Islamic poets; and most interestingly, theological cleavages echoing the exegete’s own politico-religious dogma. These dogmatic leanings have rendered some early and medieval Qur’ān commentators as doctrinally suspects. In a similar vein, some tafsīr works have undergone redactional processes and are marked by extrapolation techniques. Therefore, the exegete, unlike God, is not impartial. In his humble attempt to illuminate and explicate the speech of God, the exegete, as a human, remains conditioned by the surrounding circumstances, and is, more often than not, driven by his theological and political dogmatic agenda (see Chapter 3, Sections 3.2 and 3.3). This is true of the theological views of rebel protagonists, for instance, such as the Khawārij.¹ Although the ʿUthmānic master codex remains the official text for the majority of Qur’ān commentators, one cannot deny the following facts:

(i)	Many codices of the Qur’ān have existed where each one may have its own prototypical textual features and at times intrusive, that is, non-canonical, expressions such as the codex of Ubai b. Ka^cb (d.20/640).
(ii)	There exist many modes of reading in oral circulation which are contrary to the master codex and are categorized as irregular modes.
(iii)	Exoteric and esoteric meaning of the Qur’anic text continues to exist.
(iv)	There exist different circumstances of revelation to the same āyah(s).
(v)	There exist different views with regards to the abrogating and abrogated āyahs.

This leads us to the conclusion that although the ^cUthmānic master codex has achieved the textual unity of the revelation, it has not solved the theological and exegetical cleavages among theologians and exegetes. One can easily pin point the serious impact on tafsīr tradition and exegetical views. Nevertheless, the scholarship of tafsīr has continued and so has its oral and written transmission.

The Qur’ān, for Wild (1996, p. 140), is the most meta-textual, most self-referential holy text known in the history of world religions. There is no other holy text which would refer so often to its own textual nature and reflect so constantly and pervasively its own divine origin. While the Qur’ān as a Scripture took shape within 23 years, its tafsīr started from the very first day of its revelation in the night between the 26th or 27th of Ramaḍān of the first/seventh century and the diverse approaches to its multi-faceted discourse will continue to the very last day of its existence as a Scripture. Thus, the odyssey of Qur’anic exegesis has started in earnest during the lifetime of Muḥammad in the first/seventh century. However, after Muḥammad’s death, students of Qur’anic exegesis have politicized the Qur’ān either through the manipulation of the allegorical signification, that is, esoteric meaning, the adoption of prophetic traditions (ḥadīth)² whose chain of authorities (isnād)³ may be questioned, or through the ascription of fabricated views to early authoritative companion names such as Ibn ^cAbbās (d.68/687) whose name has turned into an exegetical high street trade mark. Thus, the controversy about political and/or forged isnād as well as subjective exegetical views in early tafsīr works have begun in earnest. For further details, see Section 1.5.

It is an accepted fact by Muslim and non-Muslim scholars that the first exegete of the Muslim scripture is Muḥammad, the mouthpiece of the Qur’ān, who explicated to his companions Qur’anic expressions and passages which were either unclear or difficult. We are also informed by Q16:44 about the role of Muḥammad as an exegete (We revealed to you the Qur’ān that you may make clear to the people what was sent down to them). If one conceives of Qur’anic exegesis in the widest sense, it can be said, Gätje (1971, p. 31) argues, that it is as old as the revelations of Muḥammad. Thus, it is statements by the Prophet and testimonies of his companions that stand in the centre of the older exegesis, as tradition handed down from the first generation of Islam (ibid.). However, Muḥammad has not explained the whole text of the Qur’ān to his companions as there was no need for it. This is attributed to the fact that, as pure Arabs, the companions understood the Qur’ān and witnessed its circumstances of revelation at first hand. Thus, the Qur’ān has been partially elucidated by the Prophet and his verbal explanation is recalled and passed on by the companions to the early successors (awā’il al-tābi^cīn). Therefore, the first tafsīr tradition is that initiated by Muḥammad and referred to as exegesis of the Prophet (tafsīr al-nabi) and is told on the authority of his companions. After the death of Muḥammad, the companions’ exegetical views have gained an extraordinary authority and are held in great esteem. Their views have gained a special status and are referred to as marfū^c, that is, attributed to Muḥammad (literally meaning ‘elevated’). A companion’s view is accepted even though it is not supported by a prophetic tradition (ḥadīth) and their views have become one of the three criteria, after the Qur’ān and ḥadīth, of traditional exegesis (al-tafsīr bil-ma’thūr).⁴ The main reason for this is attributed to a number of factors, including the following:

(i)	The companions witnessed the revelation.
(ii)	They witnessed historical events and some important incidents.
(iii)	They did not rely on Jewish anecdotes.^5
(iv)	They possessed pure linguistic competence and advanced literary skills.
(v)	They did not rely heavily on their hypothetical opinion^6 in tafsīr.
(vi)	When companion exegetes, like Ibn ^cAbbās (d.68/687) or Ibn Mas^cūd (d.32/653) employ their personal, that is, rational, opinions on an exegetical matter, their hypothetical views are considered as commended (maḥmūd) as opposed to uncommended (madhmūm). In other words, their exegesis is still traditional (tafsīr bil-ma’thūr) rather than purely hypothetical (tafsīr bilra’i). The main reasons for classifying the exegetical views of Ibn ^cAbbās and Ibn Mas^cūd as commended are due to the following facts:

(a)	Their views are compatible with the Qur’ān and the sunnah (the customary practice of Muḥammad that indicates his actions and sayings).
(b)	Although Ibn ^cAbbās has dealt with the controversial notion of mutashābihāt like the names and attributes of God, he does not approach them in an esoteric mode. Rather, he deals with them in a bilā kaif (without asking how) manner. As for Ibn Mas^cūd and Ubai b. ka^cb, they do not deal with them at all.
(c)	Both Ibn ^cAbbās and Ibn Mas^cūd are referred to as bil-ra’i exegetes. However, this does not mean they are hypothetical opinion exegetes, that is, non-mainstream. For instance, Ibn Mas^cūd gives his hypothetical opinion about jurisprudential problems. Therefore, he cannot be classified as a hypothetical opinion exegete. However, the school of Kūfah is known as a school of ra’i (personal opinion).
(d)	Most importantly, the word ra’i has adopted a new shade of meaning in our modern time. This word has acquired a negative connotative meaning which is directly linked to uncommended (madhmūm) exegesis. Exegetes who resort to their hypothetical opinion with regards to mutashābihāt problems are dubbed as bil-ra’i exegetes. However, the word ra’i between the 1^st and 2^nd, and 7^th and 8^th, centuries does not have a negative meaning. Rather, it means personal opinion about jurisprudential matters only.

However, not all of the companions’ views are considered as a source for mainstream exegesis. Thus, we have two categories of companion:

(i)	Companions of first category: They are the companions whose exegetical views are classified as marfū^c, that is, ascribed to Muḥammad.
(ii)	Companions of second category: They are the companions whose exegetical views are classified as mawqūf, that is, based on one’s own viewpoint (literally meaning ‘stopped’). Such an opinion for some theologians, therefore, is not commended and cannot be accepted.

The dichotomy between marfū^c and mawqūf is related to isnād (chain of authorities) and the exegetical views of the companions and the school of traditional exegesis. Due to the fact that the companions have witnessed the revelation, accompanied Muḥammad throughout his prophetic mission and have been his students, their exegetical views are considered as marfū^c. Thus, it is categorized as conclusive evidence (ḥujjah). However, there are five conditions for a companion’s viewpoint to be marfū^c, if his or her view is

(i)	related to explaining the reason for a particular revelation;
(ii)	based either on Muḥammad’s point of view or his action, that is, his sunnah (the standard practice);
(iii)	related to explaining an incident or a historical event that has taken place during the lifetime of Muḥammad, as in ^cĀ’ishah’s exegetical view concerning Q33:10, ‘idh jā’ūkum min fawqikum wamin asfala minkum w’idh zāghat al-abṣāru wabalaghat al-qulūbu al-ḥanājira [They massed against you from above and below; your eyes rolled with fear, your hearts rose into your throats]’. This, in her opinion, is related to the day of the battle of al-Khandaq (fifth/eleventh century). As a companion, her view is regarded as marfū^c, that is, taken as ḥujjah for the elucidation of this historical event. In other words, although this is a personal point of view of a companion which is not directly ascribed to Muḥammad, ^cĀ’ishah’s exegetical view, as a companion, is still considered as marfū^c since she has witnessed or known at first hand about a given historical incident that has occurred before the death of Muḥammad;
(iv)	not a hypothetical opinion; in other words, if an opinion is not based upon uncommended personal reasoning (al-ra’i al-madhmūm) and there is no overwhelming scepticism about it that it may have been borr...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Arabic transliteration system
• Introduction
• 1 Preamble to Qur’anic exegesis
• 2 Exegesis and Ḥadith
• 3 The politics of exegesis
• 4 Dichotomy between tafsīr and ta’wīl
• 5 Evolution of exegesis
• 6 The formative schools of exegesis
• 7 Linguistic and stylistic tools of exegesis
• 8 Jurisprudential tools of exegesis
• 9 Concluding remarks
• Glossary
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index