IBN QUTAYBAH'S CONTRIBUTION TO QUR'ANIC EXEGESIS (INTRODUCTION & CHAPTER I)

IBN QUTAYBAH'S CONTRIBUTION TO QUR’ĀNIC EXEGESIS

AN ANALYTICAL STUDY OF HIS WORK

TA’WĪL MUSHKIL AL-QUR’ĀN

BY

DR. MUHAMMAD AMIN ABDUL SAMAD

ii

iii

ABSTRACT This book is an attempt to present Ibn Qutaybah‟s contribution to Qur‟ānic exegesis analyzing his work Ta’wīl Mushkil al-Qur’ān (The Interpretation of the Difficult Passages of the Qur‟ān). Ibn Qutaybah (d.

276/889) was one of the great Sunnī scholars of the third/ninth century.

He was a prolific writer and a scholar of many branches of learning, such as: kalām (scholastic theology), tafsīr (Qur‟ānic exegesis), H.adīth (the Prophet‟s Tradition), history and the science of language, including grammar, prose and poetry. He was said to be the third great writer of Arabic prose chronologically after Ibn Muqaffa„ (d. 141/759) and al-Jāh.iz. (d. 254/868). He was one of the earliest commentators of the Qur‟ān; he was earlier than al-T.abarī (d. 310/923), al-T.abarsī (d. 548/1153), alZamakhsharī (d. 538/1144) and Ibn „Arabī (d. 638/1240).

Ibn Qutaybah took part in theological debate of his time and wrote his Ta’wīl defending the Qur‟ān against the attack of philosophic scepticism. His Ta’wīl was a treatise on Qur‟ānic rhetoric and on the inimitability of the Qur‟ān in which he clarified through philological explanations many Qur‟ānic verses assumed to be obscure by some sceptics. This obscurity is based on their allegations of the existence of contradiction, disagreement and ungrammatical usage in the verses of the Qur‟ān.

Ibn Qutaybah in his Ta’wīl countered these allegations with arguments based purely on Arabic usage in prose as well as poetry, and cited many poems of pre-Islamic as well as contemporary poets as shawāhid (quotations serving as textual evidence). He dealt with the phenomena of figurative language, such as: metaphor, inversion, ellipsis and pleonasm, metonymy and allusion. He also dealt with ambiguous letters, words and particles in the verses of the Qur‟ān.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my deepest appreciation to Dr. Abdul Khaliq Kazi, the former Associate Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies and Head of Department of Asians Languages, the University of Melbourne for his advice, encouragement and support throughout this research.

I am greatly indebted to Mr. Ali (Alan) Philpot, Mr. Barakatullah (Brian) Arab and Dr. Abdul Hadi T. Skinner who have edited, corrected the draft and proof-read the manuscript patiently and meticulously with their invaluable suggestions and advice which I highly appreciated.

However, I am solely responsible for all the defects contained in this thesis, from organization structure, translations and expressed views to typographical errors.

My thanks also go to Asst. Prof. Dr. Teddy Mantoro for his advice and assistance in many ways, as well as to those who have assisted me spiritually as well as materially, and contributed directly or indirectly to the accomplishment of this research. For this contribution I shall always be grateful.

Canberra, 6 December, 2011

Muhammad Amin A. Samad

v

TRANSLITERATION SYSTEM The English transliteration for Arabic names and terms followed in this thesis is as follows: a. Consonants: = a or ‟

= b

= t

= kh

= d

= dh

= sh

= s.

= gh

= f

= n

= h

= th

= j

= h.

= r

= z

= s

= d.

= t.

= z.

= „

= q

= k

= l

= m

= w

= y

= ‟ (like alif)

b. Vowels: Short:

long:

Fath.ah

----- : = a

= ā

Kasrah

----- : = i

= ī

D.ammah ----- : = u c. Tā’ marbūt.ah: ah, e.g., sūrah (

=

ū

)

Tā’ marbūt.ah in id.āfah: at, e.g., sūrat al-Baqarah ( d. Alif maqs.ūrah: á, e.g., qad.á (

) and shūrá (

) )

vi

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS

BSOAS

Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies

EI2

Encyclopedia of Islam (New Edition)

IC

Islamic Culture

IQ

Islamic Quarterly

IR

Islamic Review

JAOS

Journal of American Oriental Society

MW

Muslim World

Q

Qur窶淨］

SEI

Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam

SI

Studia Islamica

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT

………………………………………………….

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

……………………………………

TRANSLITERATION SYSTEM

iv

…………………………….

v

…………………………………

vi

……………………………………..

vii

……………………………………………

xiv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION

iii

Chapter I. THE SOURCES AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

…

1

A. An Evaluation of Some of the Literature Relevant to the Study of Ibn Qutaybah

……………………….

1

1. The Literary Works of Ibn Qutaybah a. Ta’wīl Mushkil al-Qur’ān b. Tafsīr Gharīb al-Qur’ān

1

………………………

1

……………………………

2

c. Gharīb al-H.adīth………………………………….......

3

d. Adab al-Kātib …………………………………………

4

2. Books on Tafsīr (Qur‟ānic Exegesis) by Others ........ a. Majāz al-Qur’ān by Abū „Ubaydah …………….. b. Ma‘ānī ’l-Qur’ān by al-Farrā‟

………………..

6 6 6

c. Jāmi‘ al-Bayān fī Tafsīr al-Qur’ān

by Ibn Jarīr al-T.abarī …………………………….

3. Books on Arabic Language and Literature ………… a. Kitāb al-Ad.dād by Ibn al-Anbārī

…………….

b. Al-S.āh.ibī fī Fiqh al-Lughah by Ibn Fāris

……

7 8 8 8

viii

c. Lisān al-‘Arab by Ibn Manz.ūr B. Historical Background

………………

…………………………..

1. A Short Synopsis of Ibn Qutaybah‟s Life

………..

9 9 9

2. Political, Social, and Cultural Conditions in Ibn Qutaybah‟s Life

………………………………….

a. Political Condition b. Social Condition

12

…………………………………..

12

……………………………………

14

…………………………………..

15

c. Cultural Condition

3. Historical Perspective on the Development of Early Qur‟ānic Exegesis

…………………………………

18

…………………………………

18

………………………………

19

(1) Traditional Commentary ……………………

19

(2) Rational Commentary

21

a. Tafsīr and Ta’wīl b. Categories of Tafsīr

……………………

(3) Symbolic (Allegorical) Commentary c. Early Development of Tafsīr Endnotes to Chapter I.

………

……………………

………………………………

23 24 36

II. IBN QUTAYBAH‟S REFUTATION OF ALLEGATIONS OF SOLECISM, CONTRADICTION AND AMBIGUITY IN THE VERSES OF THE QUR‟ĀN

……………………

49

A. Variant Readings in the Qur‟ān

……………………

47

B. Ungrammatical Usage in the Qur‟ān 1. Inna hādhān lasāh.irān ) 2. Wa ’l-s.ābi’ūn )

(

……………

62

(

62

………

………………………

65

ix

3. Wa ’l-muqīmīn al-s.alāh ) 4. Nujjī al-mu’minīn )

( (

…………

68

…………………………

5. Fa’as.s.addaqa wa akun min al-s.ālih.īn )

73 ( ...... 74

C. Contradiction and Disagreement in the Verses of the Qur‟ān

…75

1. Contradiction

…………………………………………

75

2. Disagreement

…………………………………………

76

D. Ambiguity of the Verses of the Qur‟ān 1. The Meaning of Ambiguity

…………………

80

…………………………..

80

2. Muh.kamāt and Mutashābihāt ……………………………

80

3. The Ta’wīl of the Mutashābihāt

82

Endnotes to Chapter II

…………………………

………………………………………… 90

III. IBN QUTAYBAH‟S TREATMENT OF THE PHENOMENA OF FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE A. Metaphor 1. Majāz 2. Isti‘ārah

…………………………..

102

……………………………………………….

102

…………………………………………………

102

…………………………………………………..

107

……………………………………

112

B. Inversion (Maqlūb)

1. Ascribing Something with Its Opposite Quality

……..

112

……………….

113

2. Designating Two Contradictory Things Having One Basic Meaning with One Name

3. Advancing What will Be Clear by Retarding, and Retarding What will Be Clear by Advancing 4. Inversion by Mistake

……….

……………………………….

C. Ellipsis (H.adhf) and Brevity (Ikhtis.ār) ………………….

122 131 134

x

1. The Ellipsis of the Mud.āf whose function is Replaced by the Mud.āf Ilayh

………………………………………

2. The Ellipsis of the Verb

……………………………

135 136

3. The Ellipsis of the Main Clause of a Conditional or an Incomplete Sentence

……………………………

4. The Ellipsis of One or Two Words

…………………..

5. The Ellipsis of the Main Clause of an Oath 6. The Ellipsis of the Word lā

…………..

……………………………

137 138 140 140

7. The Use of the Pronouns for Something Which Has not Been Mentioned before

………………………………

8. The Ellipsis of the Prepositions 9. Complex Ellipsis

……………………….

……………………………………..

D. Repetition (Takrār) and Pleonasm (Ziyādah) ………………

1. Repetition

……………………………………………….

a. Repetition of Words

141 142 143 145 145

………………………………..

145

b. Repetition of Meaning ……………………………. .

146

2. Pleonasm

………………………………………………

147

a. General Pleonasm

…………………………………..

147

b. Specific Pleonasm

………………………………

148

E. Kināyah (Metonymy) and Ta‘rīd. (Allusion) …………….

1. Kināyah (Metonymy) a. Kunyah

…………………………………

…………………………………………………

b. Fulān ……………………………………………………

2. Ta‘rīd. (Allusion)

……………………………………..

159 159 160 161 162

xi

F. The disagreement of the Word with Its Literal Meaning ……

1. Imprecation

……………………………………………

2. Repetition

…………………………………………….

3. Rhetorical Question 4. Imperative

…………………………………………….

a. Noun

167 168 168 168

………………………………………………

169

……………………………………………..

170

b. Adjective (Quality) c. Verb

166

…………………………………………

5. Specification 6. Number

………………………………….

166

……………………………….

171

………………………………………………

171

……………………………

174

8. Juncture

………………………………………………

177

9. Tempora

……………………………………………….

178

7. Sudden Transition (Iltifāt)

10. Morphology Endnotes to Chapter III

…………………………………………..

180

..……………………………………….

182

IV. IBN QUTAYBAH‟S TREATMENT OF AMBIGUOUS LETTERS, WORDS AND PARTICLES IN THE VERSES OF THE QUR‟ĀN

……………………….

214

A. Letters Assumed to Be Absurd and Stylistically Spoiling …

214

B. Words which Have Many Different Meanings

218

1. al-qad.ā’ ) 4. al-‘ahd ) 7. al-dīn )

2. al-hudá ) ( 5. al-ill )

( 8. al-mawlá )

10. al-imām (

) 3. al-ummah )

( 6. al-qunūt ) ( 9. al-d.alāl )

( 11. al-s.alāh )

………….. (

( (

( 12. al-kitāb )

(

xii

13. al-sabab ) 16. al-rijz )

.14. al-z.ulm )

( 15. al-balā’ (

‫ (ا‬and al-rijs )

17. al-fitnah )

18. al-fard. )

19. al-khiyānah )

21. al-īmān )

( 22. al-d.urr )

24. al-rūh. )

25. al-wah.y )

27. al-fath. )

( 28. al-karīm )

30. al-d.arb )

( 31. al-zawj )

33. al-nisyān )

( 36. al-sult.ān )

and al-ba’sā’ )

( 38. al-khalq )

)

C. Meanings of Particles

and suwá )

26. al-farah. )

‫(ا‬ (

(

( 29. al-mathal (

(

( 32. al-ru’yah)

(

) ( 37. al-ba’s ) ( 39. al-rajm )

( (

( 42. al-matā‘

( 44. al-amr )

(

……………………………………… 256

( 2. kayfa ) ( 4. ayyāna )

7. wayka’anna ) 10. mahmā )

( 23. al-h.araj )

( 41. al-muh.s.anāt )

( 43. al-h.isāb )

1. ka’ayyin )

( 20. al-islām )‫م‬

( 34. al-s.ā‘iqah )

35. al-akhdh )

40. al-sa‘y )

(

( 3. sawá )

( , siwá )‫(سِوَى‬

( 5. al-āna )َ ( 6. anná ) (

( 8. ka’anna )

( 9. lāta )

( 11. mā ) ( 12. kāda )

(

( 13. bal ) (

14. hal ) ( 15. law lā ) ( and law mā ) 17. aw ) ( 18. am ) ( 19. lā ) ( 20. awlá )

( 16. lammā ) ) ( 21. lā jarama

xiii

)

( 22. in al-khafīfah )

25. ta‘āl ) )‫ا‬

( 23. hā ) ( 24. hāti )

( 26. halumma )

( 27. kallā )ّ ( 28. ruwaydan

( 29. alā ( ) 30. al-wayl )

32. iy ) ( 33. ladun (

)

( 31. la‘amruka )

(

)

D. The Substitution of Particles in the Verses of the Qur‟ān …… 277 1. ilá )َ ( 2. bi )ِ ( 3. ‘alá )

( 4.‘an ) ( 5. fī ) (

6. li ( ِ ) 7. min ) ( Endnotes to Chapter IV CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY

……………………………………

287

……………………………………………

341

…………………………………………

348

A. Arabic Sources

………………………………………

348

B. English and Other Language Sources ………………..

357

C. Articles

……………………………………………..

359

……………………………………………

360

APPENDICES

1. Authorities and Transmitters of the Qur‟ān 2. Glossary

……………

………………………………………………

360 361

xiv

INTRODUCTION Ibn Qutaybah (d. 276/889) was one of the great and early scholars among Muslims who lived in the 9 th century C.E. Although he was of a Persian origin he was considered one of the great masters of Arabic language and literature. His book Adab al-Kātib (The Accomplishment of the Secretary) which is one of the mains sources of this book indicates his mastery of Arabic philology.

The Qur‟ān was revealed in the early 6 th century C.E. in Arabic older than Old English (Anglo-Saxon) used in about 450 C.E. till 1150 C.E. which is totally non-understandable nowadays, as it consisted of almost purely Germanic vocabularies of Kentish, West Saxon, Mercian, and Northumbian dialects.1 On the contrary, the Arabic language of the Qur‟ān which is called classical Arabic is still understood by people today, despite many difficult words and expressions in it. Here lies the importance of Ibn Qutaybah's book, Ta’wīl Mushkil al-Qur’ān (The Interpretation of Difficult Passages of the Qur‟ān) where he explained them referring to the Arabs' way of expression and the location of majāz (figurative expression) in it.

The Arabic language is called Lughat al-Adād ("The Language of Opposite Meanings") where many words have the same opposite meanings which may confuse some people, such as the word arīm which means "dawn" as well as "night". There are also words which have many different meanings, such as qaā which means "to decree", "to order", "to inform", and "to make". Ibn Qutaybah explains these issues as well as variant readings, ungrammatical usage, the phenomena of figurative language, and many other issues in the Qur‟ān.

As Ibn Qutaybah was one of the earlier commentators of the Qur‟ān, earlier than "the father of the commentary of the Qur‟ān" al-abarī (d.

310/923), his books Ta’wīl Mushkil al-Qur’ān and Tafsīr gharīb al-Qur’ān (Commentary of the Obscure Passages of the Qur‟ān) which is also used as reference in this book were referred to by the mufassirīn (commentators of the Qur‟ān) of later generations. Hence the contribution of Ibn Qutaybah in the field of tafsīr (commentary of the Qur‟ān) is indispensable for those who are interested in studying comprehensively the science of tafsīr.

xv

At the end of each chapter of this book the endnotes are given more elaborately to facilitate further research for those who are interested in further study in their respective fields.

The Arabic name "Allāh" - the proper name of God among Muslims and a small minority of non-Muslim Arabs - is used in this research.

However, when the translation of a Qur‟ānic verse with the name "Allāh" in it, the name is kept as given by its translator, either "Allah" or "God". _______________ 1 Standard Dictionary (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1973), p. 420 (s.v. English)

1

CHAPTER I SOURCES AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND A. An Evaluation of Some of the Literature Relevant to the Study of Ibn Qutaybah There are numerous Arabic sources for our present study, dating from a generation earlier to a generation after that of Ibn Qutaybah. Ibn Qutaybah himself was a prolific writer and all - possibly except one - of his authentic works have been published. For the purpose of systematical survey we divide the sources into genre as follows: 1. The Literary Works of Ibn Qutaybah 2. Books on Tafsīr (Qur‟ānic exegesis) 3. Books on Arabic Language and Literature 1. The Literary Works of Ibn Qutaybah Ibn Qutaybah was a writer and a scholar of many branches of learning: kalām (theology), the science of language (including tafsīr, h.adīth, grammar and poetry), and history, political as well as religious. He was said to be the third great writer of Arabic prose chronologically after Ibn al-Muqaffa„ (d.

141/759) and al-Jāh.iz. (d. 254/868).1 His books were considered “a comprehensive encyclopaedia portraying the highest level of Islamic thinking which had been reached in the third century A.H.”.2 Lecomte in his dissertation on Ibn Qutaybah‟s works mentions sixty book titles, among which only sixteen are extant and authentic,3 and four of which are among my major sources for my study as follows: a. Ta’wīl Mushkil al-Qur’ān This book is the object of my analytical study to assess Ibn Qutaybah‟s contributions to Qur‟ānic exegesis. The motive for his writing the book was to defend the Qur‟ān from the mulh.idīn (heretics, unbelievers) who charged the Qur‟ān with imperfection, such as contradiction, obscurity, and solecism.

He said: .... Therefore, I write this book collecting the interpretations of the difficult passages of the Qur‟ān [which is also the title of the book] taken from the commentaries [of the commentators] adding with explanation and clarification, and referring to the Arabs' way of expression (lughat al-„arab) - as long as there is no [contrary] view known (to me) from a well-informed leading scholar (mā lam a„lam fīhi maqālan li-imām mut.t.ali„)4 - to show the obstinate person the location

2

of the majāz (figurative expression) and how it is possible without judging [it] with [one's] personal opinion (ra’y), or deciding [it] with [one‟s own] interpretation (ta„wīl)...5

In other words, apart from being a defence of the Qur‟ān, the book also serves as a transmitter of the science of exegesis in Ibn Qutaybah‟s time to following generations, since he, as he claims, does not give us his personal opinion. To judge to what extent the book complies with this statement of Ibn Qutaybah, we have to compare it with other books of exegesis belonging to earlier and later generations.

The present edition of the Ta„wīl as stated by its editor, Saqr, is based on three manuscripts: (1) MS no. 518-tafsīr at Dār al-Kutub al-Mis.riyyah library, written by Burhān al-Dīn in 558/1163 with commentary in its margin. It contains one hundred and thirty-four folios, the first of which is missing. The symbol used by the editor to identify this manuscript in his notes is the letter J. (2) The manuscript at Murād Mullā library, anonymously written in 532/1137-8 contains one hundred and seventeen folios. The symbol is the letter M. (3) MS no. 663-tafsīr at Dār al-Kutub al-Mis.riyyah library, written by Muh.ammad ibn Ah.mad ibn Yah.yá in 379/989-90, containing eighty-five folios. Although it is not the oldest manuscript, the scribe omitted many texts and poems used by the author as shawāhid (quotations serving as textual evidence). Its symbol is the letter D.6 At the end of the book the editor includes a list showing the variant texts among the three manuscripts.7 At the bottom of the book he gives us his valuable commentary as footnotes. The purpose of this commentary, as he puts it, is “either to support a view, to weaken a statement, to elaborate a general concept, to clarify an obscure statement, to show the origin of an idea, or to agree with an opinion”,8 so that the reader should have a better understanding of the text. b. Tafsīr Gharīb al-Qur’ān As Ibn Qutaybah did not want to make his work Ta„wīl lengthy, he continued it in another book with a different title, namely, Tafsīr Gharīb al-Qur’ān (Commentary on the Obscure Passages of the Qur‟an). Like his Ta„wīl, the sources of this Tafsīr are also books of exegesis and philology without departing from their schools (madhāhib). He does not give us his views except as explanation of what he has chosen from his sources. He bases his choice on the most appropriate philological point of view and the closest to the sense of the context of the verse he is dealing with.9 The significance of this Tafsīr for the present study lies in that it

3

contains the commentary on some Qur‟ānic verses explained or used as shawāhid in the Ta‟wīl. It serves as a commentary and confirmation of Ibn Qutaybah‟s view in his Ta„wīl. Like the Ta„wīl this Tafsīr is also edited by A. H. S.aqr, with footnotes as commentary, the purpose of which is similar to that which he had stated in the introduction to the Ta„wīl mentioned above.10 His introduction is short, but contains valuable information in which he points out that the sources of the Tafsīr are taken from various books of scholars. He relies mainly on the works of two philologists, Abū „Ubaydah‟s (d. 210/-824) Majāz al-Qur„ān (The Literary Expression of the Qur‟ān) and al-Farrā‟‟s (d. 207/822) Ma„ānī ’l-Qur’ān (The Meanings of the Qur‟ān).11 S.aqr states further in his introduction that Ibn Qutaybah‟s Tafsīr became an important source for Qur‟ānic commentators of later generations, such as al-T.abarī (d. 311/923), al-Qurt.ubī (d. 671/1272), al-Rāzī (d.

606/-1209), and Abū H.ayyān al-Andalusī (d. 744-5/1344). Al- T.abarī was said to have copied it literally on many occasions without mentioning Ibn Qutaybah‟s name.12 c. Gharīb al-H.adīth This book, Gharīb al-H.adīth (The Uncommon Words in the H.adīth) consists of three volumes, and is edited by Dr. „Abd Allāh al-Jubūrī from four manuscripts: (1) the Z.āhiriyyah manuscripts, written by „Abd al-Ghanī ibn „Abd Allāh ibn „Abd al-Wāh.id al-Maqdisī at Fust.āt., Cairo, in 571/1175, in two volumes, but incomplete; (2) the manuscript of Sir A. Chester Beatty in Dublin, Ireland, volume two only, but makes the Z.āhiriyyah manuscript complete; (3) the S.an„ā‟ (Sanna) manuscript, consisting of two volumes, but volume one is missing; (4) the Moroccan manuscript, consisting of four volumes, with volume four only extant.13 When Ibn Qutaybah found many h.adīths (a h.ādīth) and isnads (chains of authorities on which the h.adīths are based) had been omitted by Abū „Ubayd in his work Gharīb al-H.adīth, he started writing his own Gharīb al-H.adīth, containing and explaining those missing h.adīths and isnāds, and quoting shawāhid from poetry. When Ibn Qutaybah found some mistakes in Abū Ubayd‟s Gharīb al-H.adīth, he corrected them in a separate book entitled Is.lāh. al-Ghalat. (The Correction of Mistakes).

In the earlier chapters of the Gharīb al-H.adīth Ibn Qutaybah explains the etymology of a number of technical terms, such as wud.ū’ (ablution), s.alāh (prayer), kāfir (unbeliever) and z.ālim (transgressor). Then he explains

4

uncommon words in the h.adīths of the Prophet, followed by those of the s.ah.ābah (companions of the Prophet), the tābi„īn (lit., “followers”, the generation after the s.ah.ābah) and the tābi„ī al-tābi„īn (lit., “followers of the followers”, the generation after the tābi„īn).

Apart from philological, etymological and grammatical information, the book also contains a number of Qur‟ānic verses and poems dealt with by Ibn Qutaybah in his Ta„wīl. Therefore, this book is also necessary for this study. d. Adab al-Kātib The book Adab al-Kātib (The Accomplishments of the Secretary) is a compendium and a manual of Arabic stylistics dealing with lexicography, orthography, orthoepy, also verb and noun formation. It has a long introduction where Ibn Qutaybah explains the circumstances that led him to write this book.

In his introduction Ibn Qutaybah described the literary decadence of his time. A writer would be satisfied with his good handwriting and correct writing of its letters. A poet would feel he had reached his pinnacle if he could cite some lines of poetry in praising a songstress and in describing a cup of wine. A person such as this would criticise the Qur‟an without understanding the meaning of its verses, and would belie the Prophet‟s tradition without knowing its isnād.14 The common lexical, orthographical and orthoepical mistakes in Ibn Qutaybah‟s time led him to write his Adab al-Kātib dealing with these subjects. The newly appointed vizier „Abd Allāh ibn Yah.yá ibn Khāqān, whom he praised in his introduction and for whom the book was written,15 was so pleased that he appointed him qād.ī (a judge) at Dīnawar.

The book is divided into four chapters. Chapter one, entitled Kitāb al-Ma„rifah (The Book of Suitable Terms), is the lexical study of various subjects in thirty-eight sections. In section one, for example, the word h.umah is commonly believed to mean “the organ that stings in some insects such as the scorpions”, while it means “the poison and the harm from the sting”.16 Chapter two entitled Kitāb Taqwīm al-Yad (The Book of Orthography) is the study of correct spelling, laid out in sixteen sections. In section two, for example, the omission and retention of the alif al-was.l (alif of connection) in the expression bismillāh occurs respectively in the beginning and the middle or end of a sentence, such as and .17

5

Chapter three entitled Kitāb Taqwīm al-Lisān (The Book of Orthoepy) is the art of correct pronunciation treated in thirty-five sections. In section two, for example, the word al-ghasl is used for “the act of washing”, al-ghisl for “the thing washed”, and al-ghusl for “the water used for washing”.18 Chapter four entitled Kitāb al-Abniyah (The Book of Word Formation) deals with the formation of verbs and nouns and their meanings. The formation of verbs is laid out in sixteen sections, such as in section four the expression means “I found So-and-so praiseworthy, I found him breaking his promise and I found him a coward.”19 The meanings of the formed words are treated in twenty-nine sections, such as in section twenty-seven the expression means where „alá is substituted with fī.20 The formation of nouns is treated in thirty-six sections.

For example, in section two, words in fu„lah and fu„alah forms are attributes of objects and subjects respectively, e.g., rajul sukhrah (a mocked man) and sukharah (a mocker), rajul subbah (an insulted man) and subabah (an insulter), and rajul khud„ah (a cheated man) and khuda„ah (a cheater).21 The meanings of formed nouns are treated in ten sections. For example, section six deals with words used for both singular and plural, e.g., fulk (a ship or ships), and khalq Allāh (a creature or creatures of Allah). The exception is the word zawj which means one of a pair or one pair (a couple).22 The Adab al-Kātib was published by Max Grunert from six manuscripts and one published text, identified as follows: A = Lyon‟s Codex 541 (=259) B = Lyon‟s Codex 535, an excellent old manuscript W = Wiener (Vienna‟s) Manuscript G = Gawaliki (al-Jawāliqī)‟s commentary of Ibn Qutaybah‟s Adab al-Kātib L = Landberg‟s Codex containing 137 folios, of which 90 folios are vowalized R = Codex of Univers. Lips. Ref. 354 C = Published text, Cairo, 1300 A.H., 229 pages Variant texts are included in the footnotes - the sources of which are identified with the above letters.23 The Adab al-Kātib demonstrates Ibn Qutaybah‟s competence in this field of philology. Ibn Khaldūn (d. 737/1337) in his work Muqaddimah said that he heard from some scholars in their teaching sessions that the Adab al-Kātib of Ibn Qutaybah was one among the four sources of adab science.24

6

The Adab al-Kātib is essential for this study. Many topics in Ibn Qutaybah‟s Ta’wīl are also treated in his Adab al-Kātib, such as the substitution of particles and the meaning of terms, such as zawj. Moreover, the Adab al-Kātib gives us some idea how Ibn Qutaybah quotes the views of leading grammarians from both schools, the Bas.ran and the Kūfan.

2. Books on Tafsīr (Qur'ānic Exegesis) Books on tafsīr, which are the main sources of Ibn Qutaybah, will be evaluated here. They are Abū „Ubaydah‟s Majāz al-Qur’ān and al-Farra‟‟s Ma„ānī al-Qur’ān. Al-Tabarī‟s work Jāmi„ al-Bayān, which took Ibn Qutaybah‟s works as part of its sources, will also be evaluated here, as follows: a. Majāz al-Qur’ān The book was edited by Fu‟ād Sezgin in two volumes. The author, Abū „Ubaydah Ma„mar ibn al-Muthanná, was one of the leading philologists of the Basran school. His main study was the rare expressions of the Arabic language and the history of the Arabs.25 Denounced for being an a„jamī non-Arab, for he was of Jewish-Persian origin - he tried to avenge himself by writing on the shortcomings of the Arabs in which he supported the Shu„ūbī causes. This act resulted in the aversion of the people of Bas.rah towards him. They did not even attend his funeral.26 The term majāz in the case of Majāz al-Qur’ān, as suggested by Gibb, means “interpretation” or “paraphrase”, as the book consists “... of brief notes on the meaning of selected words and phrases in the order of the suras”. Majāz al-Qur’ān, then, is “a paraphrastic interpretation”, or, in Wansbrough‟s term, “periphristic exegesis” of the Qur‟ān.27 In the introductory chapter, Abū „Ubaydah mentions thirty-nine kinds of majāz.

The use of this term, as found by Wansbrough, is replaced by taqdīr (restoration) by the later grammarian Abū al-Barakāt ibn al-Anbārī (d.

577/1181).28 By comparing Ibn Qutaybah‟s Ta’wīl with Abū „Ubaydah‟s Majāz al-Qur’ān in examining majāz we shall have some idea of the extent of the former‟s reliance on the latter as its main source and of the development of this term in general. b. Ma„ānī ’l-Qur’ān The author of this book, al-Farrā‟, the sobriquet of Abū Zakariyyā Yah.yá ibn Ziyād al-Kūfī, was the most well-known student of al-Kisā‟ī (d. ca. 189/805). Like his teacher, he was also of Persian origin and belonged to the grammarians of the Kūfan school. However, he also took his knowledge

7

from Yūnus ibn H.abīb al-Thaqafī of the Bas.ran school.29 He was also influenced, to some extent, by al-As.ma„ī (d. 216/831), Abū Zayd al-Ans.ārī (d. 215/830), and Abū „Ubaydah, all belonging to the Bas.ran school.30 Tha„lab (d. 291/904) of the Kūfan school who took his knowledge from al-Farrā‟ praised him so much that he said that without al-Farrā‟ the Arabic language would have collapsed.31 Al-Farrā‟ was the first grammarian of the Kūfan school who continuously discussed grammatical problems in the verses of the Qur‟ān in his Ma„ānī ’l-Qur’ān.32 This continuous discussion frustrated Blachère who said that the book “is highly disappointing and without any general themes, being confined for the most part to argumentation on casual syntax;...”33 This book is, however, very important for this present study since Ibn Qutaybah quoted it several times in his Ta’wīl. c. Jāmi‘ al-Bayān fī Tafsīr al-Qur’ān The author of Jāmi„ al-Bayān fī Tafsīr al-Qur’ān (The Comprehensive Exposition of the Interpretation of the Verses of the Qur‟ān), Ibn Jarīr al-T.abarī (d. 310/923), is considered by Muslim scholars “the father of the science of tafsīr”. It is said that he wrote forty pages every day for forty years. Many of his works were lost, but his Jāmi„ has survived. He was “a man of encyclopaedic learning who absorbed the whole mass of tradition in his time”.34 Al-T.abarī‟s Jāmi„, better known as Tafsīr al-T.abarī, consists of thirty volumes containing collections of h.adīths with their full isnād dealing with the commentary on the Qur‟ān. Unlike Ibn Qutaybah who selected a few chapters from which he selected some verses of the Qur‟ān in his Ta’wīl and Tafsīr, al-T.abarī deals with whole chapters, although not whole verses, of the Qur‟ān.35 Later commentators, such as al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1143), Ibn „At.iyyah (d. 542/1147 or 546/1151), Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373) and al-Suyūt.ī (d. 991/1505) followed al-T.abarī in examining and explaining the whole Qur‟ān in their tafsir works. Al-T.abarī‟s tafsīr was highly recommended by Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728/1328) who stated that it was one of the best, and the worthiest of its kind.36 The significance of al-T.abarī‟s Jāmi„ for this present study is that it elaborates what Ibn Qutaybah is discussing in his Ta’wīl and gives various interpretations from other commentators. Sometimes, he offers his own opinion. In so doing, the position of Ibn Qutaybah among Qur‟ānic commentators will become obvious.

8

3. Books on Arabic Language and Literature Among the important sources on Arabic language and literature for this study are the works of Abū Bakr ibn al-Anbārī, Ibn Fāris and Ibn Manz.ūr, as follows: a. Kitāb al-Ad.dād The author of Kitāb al-Ad.dād (The Book of Opposite Meanings) was Abū Bakr ibn Qāsim ibn al-Anbārī (d. 328/940)37. He was a late contemporary of Ibn Qutaybah who attacked him most and who disagreed with him and his teacher Abū „Ubaydah on many issues. He was the most brilliant student of Tha„lab of the Kūfan school. He was said to have memorized three hundred thousand lines of poetry as shawāhid for the Qur‟ān and one hundred and twenty Qur‟ānic commentaries with their isnāds.38 He was the tutor of the caliph al-Muqtadir‟s son „Abd al-Wāh.id.39 He was included among the sixth generation of the grammarians of the Kūfan school by al-Zubaydī (d. 379/989-10).40 The book contains some terms discussed by Ibn Qutaybah in his Ta’wīl, such as al-mawlá and hal. His view on the position of the al-rāsikhūn fī ’l-„ilm (those who are deeply rooted in knowledge) regarding the ta’wīl of the mutashābihāt (ambiguous verses of the Qur‟ān) is different from that of Ibn Qutaybah. They will be dealt with in due course. b. Al-S.āh.ibī fī Fiqh al-Lughah The book, al-S.āh.ibī fī Fiqh al-Lughah wa Sunan al-„Arab fī Kalāmihā (al-S.āh.ibī in the Science of Language and Expression of the Arabs) was written by Abū al-H.usayn ibn Fāris ibn Zakarīyā, better known as Ibn Fāris (d. 395/1004). He was a son of a jurist of the Shāfi„ī school and a student of the great Shāfi„ī scholar Abū al-H.asan „Alī al-Qat.t.ān (d. 345/956) who was a student of Tha„lab, al-Mubarrad (d. 284-5/898) and Ibn Abī al-Dunyā (d.

281/894). Al-Qat.t.ān was also a philololgist from whom Ibn Fāris received his knowledge at Quzwayn.41 Ibn Fāris shifted from the Shāfi„ī to Mālikī school at Rayy where he lived and died. Despite his being a follower of the Mālikī school, Ibn Fāris was suspected of having a Shī„ī leaning, due to his glorifying „Alī, his being associated with the Shī„ī enthusiast al-S.āh.ib, living in the Shī„ī dynasty, and teaching the children of its rulers.42 The book was a collection of Ibn Fāris‟s writings on the science of language. The title of the book was given after the name of the vizier al-

9

S.āh.ib Ismā„īl ibn „Abbād who had a library where the book was to be lodged.

Many subjects in Ibn Qutaybah‟s Ta’wīl are also mentioned by Ibn Fāris in his al-S.āh.ibī, such as the meanings of particles, isti„ārah (metaphor), al-h.adhf wa ’l-ikhtis.ār (ellipsis and brevity), al-takrār (repetition) and al-ziyādah (pleonasm). Many similiarities are found between the two books which lead us to assume that Ibn Fāris had copied from Ibn Qutaybah‟s Ta’wīl without referring to him. c. Lisān al-‘Arab The book, Lisān al-„Arab (The Language of the Arabs), was written

by Jamāl al-Dīn Abū al-Fad.l Muh.ammad Mukarram ibn „Alī ibn Ah.mad al-Ans.ārī, better known as Ibn Manz.ūr and Ibn Mukarram (d. 711/1311-2).

It is an encyclopaedia containing various subjects, such as: philology, grammar, Islamic jurisprudence, literature, tafsīr and h.adīth. It was based on five earlier works, namely: Abū Mans.ūr Muh.ammad ibn Ah.mad al-Azharī‟s Tahdhīb al-Lughah, Abū al-H.asan „Alī ibn Ismā„īl ibn Sidāh‟s al-Muh.kam, Muh.ammad ibn al-Athīr‟s al-Nihāyah, al-Jawharī‟s al-Qāmūs, and Abū Muh.ammad ibn Barrī‟s commentary of al-Jawharī‟s al-Qāmūs.

The book consists of fifteen volumes and was completed in 689/1290.43 So far, I have dealt with some of the literature relevant to the study of Ibn Qutaybah‟s Ta’wīl. Other literature is quoted throughout this study. We now come to the historical background, the second part of this chapter.

B. Historical Background 1. A Short Synopsis of Ibn Qutaybah’s Life Abū Muh.ammad „Abd Allāh ibn Muslim ibn Qutaybah al-Kūfī (from Kūfah where he was born according to some historians) al-Marwazī (from Marw or Merv in Khorasan - presently called Mary in Turkmenistan, a southern republic in the former Soviet Union, now an independent state from which his father originated), al-Dīnawarī (from Dīnawar where he became qād.ī) and al-Baghdādī (from Baghdād according to other historians, and where he settled), was born in Kūfah44 in 213/82845 and died in Baghdād in 276/889.46 The cause of his death was the eating of harīsah (cooked meat and wheat pounded together) which caused him suffer heartburn, then lost consciousness and died.

10

The word qutaybah is the diminutive form (tas.ghīr) of qitbah, qitb or qatab which are the singular form of aqtāb meaning “intestines”. This is also the meaning given by Ibn Qutaybah himself in his Adab al-Kātib.47 Another meaning of this term is given by Qutaybah ibn Muslim (d. 97/716) the governor (amīr) of Khorasan who said that his name meant ikāf (the packsaddle of the donkey). The name Ibn Qutaybah was also referred to by some authors as al-Qutabī and very rarely al-Qutaybī.48 Ibn Qutaybah was also the name of a traditionist among the Shi„īs. In response to the Umawī‟s fabricated traditions praising the s.ah.ābah, especially „Uthmān - but with the exception of „Alī and Banū Hāshim - the Shi„īs later also invented traditions of their own, praising „Alī and the Banū Hāshim clan. They had their isnād names like al-Suddī and Ibn Qutaybah, so that the Sunnīs would think that they were the famous Sunnī traditionists.

To make a distinction between the two Suddīs and Ibn Qutaybahs the Sunnīs called those who belonged to the Shi„īs al-Suddī al-S.aghīr (the Junior) who was Muh.mmad ibn Marwān, and Ibn Qutaybah the Shi„ī, those who belonged to the Sunnīs were called al-Suddī al-Kabīr (the Senior) who was Ismā„īl ibn „Umar, and Ibn Qutaybah the Sunnī.49 Very little was known about Ibn Qutaybah‟s early life. We only know that as a young boy he frequented the Qur‟ānic school (kuttāb) from which he learned and memorized some Qur‟ānic verses, prophetic traditions and poetry, became trained in fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), nah.w (grammar, syntax) and arithmetic. Then he frequented the great mosques of Baghdād where he learned various sciences from the „ulamā’, such as theology, tafsīr, sharī„ah (Islamic law), h.adīth, literature and history. He also studied books translated from foreign languages, especially Persian.50 There were twenty-eight teachers of Ibn Qutaybah in the true sense recorded by Lecomte.51 Among his important teachers were those who were known for their attachment to the Sunnah, such as the Sunnī theologian Ish.āq ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Rāhawayh al-Hanzalī (d. ca. 237/851) who was a student of Ah.mad ibn H.anbal, the Sunnī philologist and traditionist Abū H.ātim Sahl ibn Muh.ammad al-Sijistānī (d. 255/869), and the philologist al-„Abbās ibn al-Faraj al-Riyāshī (d. 257/871) who transmitted the works of pioneers of philology in the second/eighth century, such as al-As.ma„ī and Abū „Ubaydah.52 After the new caliph al-Mutawakkil changed the ideology of the state from Mu„tazilah to Sunnī orthodoxy in 232/846 Ibn Qutaybah found himself

11

favoured by the new government, because his views in his literary works agreed with the new trend. The vizier Abū al-H.asan „Ubayd Allāh ibn Yah.yá ibn Khāqān (d. 263/877) appointed him qād.ī of Dīnawar in about 236/851, and he probably remained in this office until 256/870. Then he became an inspector of maz.ālim (courts for the redress of wrongs) of Bas.rah until this city was sacked by the Zanj in 257/871. This new post was given to him probably due to the favour of another powerful „Abbāsī official, Sa„īd ibn Makhlad.53 Ibn Qutaybah was also a teacher. He was generous to his students with his knowledge and books. He even allowed them access to his books before they had paid their fees. Among his students was his son Ah.mad who later became qād.ī in Egypt in 321/933. Ibn Qutaybah continued teaching in Baghdād until the end of his life at the age of 61.54 Despite Ibn Qutaybah„s reputation as a great Sunnī scholar and an advocate of the Sunnī orthodoxy, some „ulamā„ criticized and denounced him, among them being: (1). Abū al-H.asan „Alī ibn „Umar al-Dāraqunī (d. 385-995) accused him of leaning towards anthropomorphism (tashbīh), deviating from the „itrah (descendants of the Prophet).55 (2). Abū „Abd Allāh Muh.ammad ibn „Abd Allāh al-D.abbī al-H.ākim (d.

405/1014-5), also known as Ibn al-Bayyi„, also accused Ibn Qutaybah of deviating from the „itrah and turning away from the ahl al-bayt (the Prophet's household).

(3). Abū Bakr Ah.mad ibn al-H.usayn al-Bayhaqī (d. 458/ 1066) accused Ibn Qutaybah of being a Karrāmī, a sect among the anthropomorphism.56 These accusations were rejected by the „ulamā and biographers of Ibn Qutaybah, whose views were divided by Lecomte into two categories: very favourable and favourable. Those whose views belonged to the first category were: Ibn Taymiyyah,57 al-Dhahabī (d. 748/1347), Ibn Kathīr (d.

774/1372-3), and Ibn al-„Imād (d. 1089/1678). Those whose views belonged to the second category were: Ibn al-Nadīm (d. 385/995), al-Khat.īb al-Baghdādī (d. 463/1071), al-Sam„ānī (d. 562/1167), Abū al-Barakāt Ibn al-Anbārī (d. 577/1181), Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 579/1201), al-Qift.ī (d. 646/1248), Ibn Khallikān (d. 681/1282), and al-Suyūt.ī.58 The earliest criticism came from Ibn Qutaybah‟s late contemporary Abū Bakr Muh.ammad ibn al-Qāsim al-Anbarī, who was a student of

12

Tha„lab. He wrote a book entitled Risālat al-Mushkil criticizing Ibn Qutaybah‟s Ta’wīl and his teacher Abū H.ātim al-Sijistānī. But his books are not extant except for Kitāb al-Ad.dād in which he criticized Ibn Qutaybah‟s works Is.lāh. al-Ghalat. and Ta’wīl.59 2. Political, Social and Cultural Conditions in Ibn Qutaybah’s Life a. Political Condition Ibn Qutaybah lived during the reigns of eight „Abbāsī caliphs: al-Ma‟mūn (197-218/813-833), al-Mu„tas.im (218-227/833-842), al-Wāthiq (227-232/842-847), al-Mutawakkil (232-247/847-861), al-Muntas.ir (247248/861-862), al-Musta„īn (248-252/862-866), al-Mu„tazz (252-255/ 866-869), al-Muhtadī (255-256/869-870), and al-Mu„tamid (256-278/ 870-892). He was born in the first half of the third century of Hijrah, when the „Abbāsī dynasty reached its ultimate glory and prosperity under al-Ma‟mūn.

The „Abbāsī empire extended to the Indian subcontinent and the border of China in the East, and to the coasts of the Atlantic Ocean in the West.

However, the earlier period of al-Ma‟mūn witnessed much disturbance: civil war between the Hāshimīs and the „Alawīs which ended with the defeat of the latter, rebellions against al-Ma‟mūn, and the rivalry betwen Arab and Persian elements in state affairs. Being a son of a Persian mother, Persian influence greatly increased during his reign. In order to please the Arabs he shifted the capital of his empire from Merv in Persia to Baghdād in 204/819.60 As a patron of learning, al-Ma‟mūn encouraged the search for knowledge. This caused the emergence of intellectual movements, among which was the Mu„tazilī school of theology which he himself adopted and made the official madhhab of his empire. He supported its scholars in their debates against their opponents among the Sunnī scholars.

Al-Ma‟mūn was succeeded by his brother al-Mu„tas.im who followed the same path in defending the Mu„tazilī school. It was in this period that the fitnah (civil strife) of the issue of khalq al-Qur’ān (the creation of the Qur‟ān) occurred in which Ah.mad ibn H.anbal (d. 241/856) was one of its victims.

In this early „Abbāsī period the Persians obtained high positions in the government, such as those of viziers and army leaders. However, this condition changed with the occurrence of the so-called Barmakid and Banū Sahl disasters. This resulted with the enmity between the Arabs and the

13

Persians. The Arabs wanted to regain the glory they had enjoyed in the Umawī period, whereas the Persians were not satisfied with the high positions they already possessed; they wanted to bring back the glory of their ancient Sassanian empire. The seed of the Shu„ūbīyah trend grew with the atheistic tendency, which later threatened the new empire.

To get rid of these Persians and to counter their nationalistic ambition the caliph al-Mu„tas.im tried to replace them with Turkish slaves who were renowned for their perseverance on the battle-field. They were brought into the capital city Baghdād and their number kept increasing. Then the caliph built a new capital called Sāmarrā‟61 where he moved in with them.

Unlike the Persians who were highly civilized, the Turkish slaves were nomads. Their main skills were hunting, raiding and horse riding. As skilled fighters and army officials their influence in the state kept growing. It became so great that al-Mutawakkil who succeeded al-Wāthiq could not resist it. However, he was successful in shifting to the Sunnī orthodoxy as the madhhab of the state. He ordered people to abandon any debate on kalām (theology) and urged them to return to the Sunnah of the Prophet. He removed the vizier „Abd al-Malik al-Zayyāt and the qād.ī al-qud.āt (the chief judge) Ah.mad ibn Abī Dāwūd from their positions for being Mutazilīs. But when he appointed his vizier „Ubayd Allāh ibn Yah.yá ibn Khāqān assisted by twelve thousand Arabs in his attempt to stop the penetration of the Turkish officers in the state, the Turkish officers sensed the threat. They assassinated this caliph and his vizier, and appointed the caliph‟s son al-Muntas.ir as a ruler.

Al-Muntas.ir ruled for six months only. He died in 248/862 and was succeeded by al-Musta„īn. The new caliph, who was unable to withstand the influence of his Turkish officers, moved to Baghdād. As he refused to return to Sāmarrā‟ they deposed him in 251/865 and appointed al-Mu„tazz as his successor. Baghdād was surrounded, and finally al-Musta„īn was assassinated.

Al-Mu„tazz imprisoned his brother al-Mu‟ayyid when he heard a rumor that al-Mu‟ayyid wanted to depose him. However, he was finally deposed and assassinated by the Turkish officers who sensed his intention to rid himself of them. As his successor they appointed Muh.ammad ibn al-Wāthiq who was called al-Muhtadī. His piety seemed to bother them, and his intention to dissolve them ended with his assassination in 256/870. He was succeeded by al-Mu„tamid.

14

Although al-Mu„tamid tried hard to regain his power with the help of his brother al-Muwaffaq who led his army in defending the state, this „Abbāsī state was far from being stable. The T.āhirīs, Sāmānīs, and S.afawīs were separating themselves from the „Abbāsī empire in the East, while the T.ūlūnīs were establishing their own state in Egypt; besides, the Romans were attacking the empire. This was the political condition of the „Abbāsī empire in the time of Ibn Qutaybah. b. Social Condition The city of Baghdād, the seat of the „Abbāsī caliphs, was flourishing with prosperity and luxury. Goods from the empire‟s provinces overflowed into the city. The city itself, as well as the palaces of the caliphs and emirs, was decorated and furnished with goods brought by traders from China and India in the East and from Byzantine in the West.

The citizens of Baghdād consisting of different elements contributed with their different and various traditions and cultures to the society. The Persians were sharing and competing with the Arabs in running the affairs of the state as well as in the fields of science and literature. The Turks were playing their important roles in the palaces and in the army with their military skills. The Greeks were contributing with their wisdom and literature, the Arabs with their poetry, eloquence, preserved geneology, ancient traditions, familiarity with and knowledge of horses, arms, military equipment and excellent memory. The Indians were contributing with their knowledge, such as: arithmetic, astronomy, medicine, maps and carpentry.62 Taverns and drinking gatherings were frequented by various people.

They provided the venue for poets and men of letters to recite their works and exchange elegant talk while listening to songs and music. The citizens became more interested in beauty and art. They enjoyed flowers, fragrances, gentle voices and beautiful faces. They liked being clean, wearing good clothes and living in good houses. They enjoyed entertainment at their festivals and various occasions, and the Muslims joined their fellow citizens the Jews and the Christians in their religious festivities.63 People‟s addiction to alcohol made it one of the topics of their discussions in their gatherings and the object of appreciation among their poets, such as Abū Nuwās (d. ca. 198/783) and Muslim ibn al-Walīd (d.

207/823). They started questioning whether or not the type of alcohol called nabīdh was among the prohibited alcohol (khamr) in Islam. The question developed into a very serious issue and eventually Ibn Qutaybah wrote a book entitled Kitāb al-Ashribah (The Book of Beverage) portraying the

15

controversial issue at that time and giving his legal judgement: khamr is prohibited by the Qur‟ān, and nabīdh is prohibited by the Sunnah.64 It is worthy to note that this easy and prosperous life was enjoyed by the ruling class only, namely, the caliphs, the emirs, the generals and their associates among the middle class, such as traders, high government officials and artisans. The lower classes in the land were not privy to such life. As a matter of fact, the deviation from the religion and irreligious practices within the society were not ignored by the people who wanted to bring the society back to the correct path and often revolted against the rulers. c. Cultural Condition Apart from the emergence of the Mu„tazilī theological doctrine in the period of al-Ma‟mūn who adopted it and made it the official madhhab of his empire, and the shift to the Sunnī orthodoxy by al-Mutawakkil who, unlike al-Ma‟mūn, did not like to be involved in theological debates, this era saw the flourishingof learning. Books of Greek, Persian and Indian antiquities were studied and translated into Arabic. The famous translator at this time was H.unayn ibn Ish.āq (d. 261/873) who was well versed in the Greek, Syriac, Arabic and Persian languages. The result of extensive studies of these books produced Muslim scholars such as Abū „Uthmān ibn Bah.r al-Jāh.iz. and Ya„qūb ibn Ish.āq al-Kindī (d. ca. 252/866).65 Books of other religions such as the Torah (al-Tawrāh), the Gospel (al-Injīl) and the Zoroastrian Avesta were also translated. Besides al-Jāh.iz., the other scholars in this field were al-Naz.z.ām of the Mu„tazilī school and Ibn Qutaybah of the Sunnī school.66 The Qur‟ān and the H.adīth were also extensively studied. Theological controversies and debates between the followers of the Mu„tazilī and the Sunnī schools necessitated the extensive study of both. The philologists studied the linguistic style of the Qur‟ān, its words, their meanings and styles. Others studied events involved in certain verses, the asbāb al-nuzūl (the occasions which led to the revelation of the verses of the Qur‟ān), and the ta’wīl of the s.ahābah in certain verses.67 It is noteworthy that the books on Qur‟ānic exegesis at the end of the 2nd/8th century and the beginning of the 3rd/9th century were fragmentary and were confined to philological explanations of the verses. This was apparent in their titles, such as: Ma„ānī ’l-Qur’ān which was the title of the works of al-Kisā‟ī, al-Farrā‟ and al-Akhfash (d. 210/825), I‘rāb al-Qur„ān,

16

Lughat al-Qur„ān (The Language of the Qur„an), Gharīb al-Qur„ān which was the title of the works of Abū „Ubayd Qāsim ibn Sallām (d. 223/838), and Majāz al-Qur’ān which was the title of the works of Abū „Ubaydah and Qut.rub (d. 206/822).68 The extensive study of H.adīth literature in the „Abbāsī period produced great scholars, such as the founders of the four madhāhib (schools of jurisprudence), namely, Abū H.anīfah (d. 150/767), Mālik ibn Anas (d.

179/795), al-Shāfi„ī (d. 204/820), and Ah.mad ibn H.anbal. Moreover, efforts were also made in compiling, explaining, sorting, and setting aside the obscure h.adīth and explaining the ambiguous ones. In this period, apart from the Musnad of Ah.mad ibn H.anbal, the six canonical books of h.adīths called al-Kutub al-Sittah (the Six Books) were compiled. They were the collections of al-Bukhārī (d. 256/870), Muslim (d. 261/875), Ibn Mājah (273/886), Abū Dā‟ūd (d. 275/888), al-Tirmidhī (d. 279/892), and al-Nasā‟ī (d. 303/892).69 In the field of grammar two main schools of philology appeared: the Bas.ran school whose leaders were Sībawayh (d. 179/196) and al-As.ma„ī, and the Kūfan school which came later with some differences, and still later developed into a school of its own, whose leaders were al-Kisā‟ī and al-Farrā‟. The caliphs of Baghdād took the side of the Kūfan school, since the teachers of their children belonged to this school, such as al-Kisā‟ī, alFarrā‟, al-Mufad.d.al Muh.ammad ibn Ya„lá al-D.abbī and al-Sharq ibn Qat.t.āmī. Al-Ma‟mūn, for example, took the side against Sībawayh in a debate between the latter and al-Kisā‟ī on a certain grammatical issue. Ibn Qutaybah who mixed the two schools was considered to belong to the Baghdādī school. According to him al-Kisā‟ī and al-Farrā‟ did not belong to the Kūfan school, but to the Baghdādī school70 which was the mixture of the two schools.71 Abū al-T.ayyib „Abd al-Wāh.id ibn „Alī al-Lughawī (d. 351/962) made a suggestion which was elaborated later on by Ibn al-Nadīm that Ibn Qutaybah combined the two schools into a “Baghdādī synthesis”. This view was considered doubtful and rejected by the contemporary scholars Lecomte and al-Jubūrī respectively. Lecomte said: In fact, in addition to the point already emphasized by G. Weil... that the schools of Bas.ra and Kūfa can scarcely have assumed their distinctive characteristics before the end of the 3rd/9th century, nothing has been found in Ibn Ķutayba‟s philological work, or at least in what now survives, which could really justify this point of view. Although he in

17

effect contrasts them with the “Bas.rans”, he regularly refers to those who were later to be attached to the “School of Kūfa” as “Baghdādīs”, and the synthesis of which so much has been made is no more than a genuine eclecticism which never claimed to form a school.

All that can be said is that Ibn Ķutayba in fact joins certain reputedly Kūfi tendencies to others considered to be Bas.ran. His position may be summarized by stating that in grammar he remains on the whole a supporter of the norm, i.e., “Bas.ran”, in spite of his attachment to the teaching of al-Kisā‟ī and of al-Farrā‟, whereas in a more general way, in philology and especially in poetry, he does not hesitate to depart from the usually accepted views, an attitude considered to be “Kūfi”.72

In rejecting the view that Ibn Qutaybah was one of the founders of the Baghdādī school of grammar which was the mixture of the two schools, the Bas.ran and the Kūfan, al-Jubūrī‟s argument is as follows: (1). Ibn Qutaybah cited only linguistic aspects (wujūh min al-lughah) from the two schools, and probably aspects of grammatical orientation in special issues, as found in his Adab al-Kātib and Gharīb al-H.adīth.

(2). Despite his vast knowledge of grammar, Ibn Qutaybah did not express his views on this subject. He cited the views of grammarians without expressing which was the more acceptable one, whereas in the field of linguistics (lughah) he exercised ijtihād (independent judgement) and gave his fatwá (legal opinion) on its issues. Therefore, in al-Juburī‟s opinion, Ibn Qutaybah was not a grammarian (nah.wī), but one of the philologists (fuqahā’ al-lughah).73 Other grammarians worthy of mention here are: Ibn al-Sikkīt (d.

244/858-9) who was the last grammarian of the Kūfan school who taught the son of Ja„far al-Mutawakkil and who wrote Is.lāh. al-Mant.iq (Reconstruction of Logic) and Tahdhīb al-Alfāz. (Expression Training), Tha„lab who gave his commentary on the compiled poetry of the pre-Islamic poet Zuhayr ibn Abī Sulmá (d. 5/627), al-Māzinī (d. 249/863) who was said to be the first to formulate the „ilm al-tas.rīf (etymology), and al-Mubarrad who combined philology with literature in his work al-Kāmil fī ’l-Lughah wa ’l-Adab (The Perfect Book on Linguistics and Literature).74 Among the poets of this period were: Abū Tammām (d. 228/843) who had a dīwān (compiled poems), Abū „Ubādah al-Buh.turī (d. 283-4/897) who had also a dīwān, Di„bil al-Khuzā„ī who composed poems in praising ahl al-bayt (the Prophet's household), Ibn al-Rūmī (d. 282-3/896), and Ibn al-Mu„tazz (d. 296/863) each of whom had their own dīwān.75

18

3. Historical Perspective on the Early Development of Qur’ānic Exegesis a. Tafsīr and Ta’wīl The word tafsīr is the mas.dar (verbal noun) from the second form of the verb fasara, namely, fassara which means “to explain”, “to expound”, “to interpret”, or “to comment”. Tafsīr is “the explanation, revealing and exposing the sensible meaning” ( ). It is also said that the word fasara is the inversion (maqlūb) of the word safara which means “unveiling” or “uncovering”. For example, the expression (the woman uncovered) means “she revealed her face”, and the expression (the dawn uncovered) means “it unveiled the sky of the darkness of night with its light”. Tafsīr, then, is the meanings of the verses of the Qur‟ān which need explanation.76 Technically, the definition of tafsīr as given by al-Zarkashī (d.

794/1392) is as follows: “It is a knowledge through which the Book of Allah revealed to His Prophet Muh.ammad, peace be upon him, may be understood, its meaning may be clear, and its legal judgements and wisdom may be discovered..."77 The word ta’wīl is the mas.dar from the second form of the verb āla (which means “returning”), namely, awwala which means “returning (something)”, as if the commentators return the verse to its various possible meanings. It is “the act of reducing of (two or more) senses or interpretations which an expression can have or allow to one that which suits the apparent meaning”. The Arabic expression āla ilayh means “he returned to him”, while (َ ) means “he arranged, evaluated and explained the statement” (

).78

Technically, according to early commentators in general, such as Abū „Ubaydah and al-T.abarī, ta’wīl has the same meaning as tafsīr, so that ta’wīl al-Qur’ān has the same meaning as tafsīr al-Qur’ān.79 However, Muqātil ibn Sulaymān states on the authority of Ibn „Abbās that tafsīr is what is known by the „ulamā’, while ta’wīl by Allah alone.80 But Ibn „Abbās was also reported to have said that some tafsīrs are known to man, and others to Allah alone.81 Later commentators, however, make the distinction between the two terms with divergent opinions: tafsīr belongs to the s.ahābah, while ta’wīl belongs to the fuqahā’ (legists);82 tafsīr, as mentioned by al-Māturīdī (d. 333/944), has a single interpretation, while ta’wīl has many

19

interpretations; tafsīr, according to al-Rāghib al-As.bahānī (d. 502/1109), is more common than ta’wīl, as the former is used mostly for words and their synonyms, while the latter mostly for meanings and sentences; moreover, tafsīr is used for both divine and secular books, ta’wīl for divine books only;83 tafsīr is based on riwāyah (transmission of tradition), while ta’wīl involves dirāyah (comprehension), namely, research and investigation;84 tafsīr is the obvious meaning of the verses, while ta’wīl is the deep meaning derived from the verses through research and investigation. The commentators give the preponderance - which is neither definite nor final to avoid giving final interpretation to what is really meant by Allah in the Qur‟ān - to what they think the most suitable meaning over other meanings.85 b. Categories of Tafsīr Based on its sources there are three main categories of tafsīr: traditional commentary ( , also called and ), rational commentary (

, also called

and

), and

symbolic or allegorical commentary ( ). They will be dealt with briefly as follows: (1) Traditional Commentary. It is either the commentary of the Qur‟ān by the Qur‟ān itself, by the Sunnah of the Prophet, or by the s.ahābah. An example of the commentary of the Qur‟ān by itself is as follows: One Qur‟ānic verse mentions that cattle are lawful to Muslims for food, but not without exception. It says: “... Lawful to you is the [flesh of every] beast that feeds on plants, save what is mentioned to you [hereafter]: ...” (Q. 5:1, Asad)86 The commentary of the expression “save what is mentioned to you [hereafter]” is given in another verse, as follows: ...

Forbidden to you is carrion, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that over which any name other than God‟s has been invoked, and the animal that has been strangled, or beaten to death, or killed by a fall, or gored to death, or savaged by a beast of prey, save that which you [yourselves] may have slaughtered while it was still alive; and [forbidden to you is] all that has been slaughtered on idolatrous altars.

(Q. 5:3, Asad).87

20

This is the strongest commentary of this category of tafsīr, since it comes from the Qur‟ān itself. It is Allah Who explains what He means in the Qur‟ān.

The example of the commentary of the Qur‟ān by the Sunnah of the Prophet is as follows: When the verse “Those who have attained to faith, and who have not obscured their faith by wrongdoing - it is they who shall be secure, since it is they who have found the right path!” (Q. 6:82, Asad) was revealed, it distressed the s.ahābah. They asked the Prophet, saying: “O Messenger of Allah, is there any of us who has not obscured his faith by wrongdoing?”

The Prophet answered: “It is not what you think it means. Haven‟t you heard what the pious servant of Allah [i.e., Luqman the sage] said to his son? He said: „O my dear son! Do not ascribe divine powers to aught beside God: for, behold, such [a false] ascribing divinity is indeed an awesome wrong!‟ (Q. 31:13, Asad). It [i.e., the word z.ulm in the verse] means shirk (polytheism).”88 This Prophetic commentary of the Qur‟ān is also strong, since it is the duty of the Prophet to explain what has been revealed to the people, as mentioned in the Qur‟ān, as follows:

“And upon thee [too] have We bestowed from on high this reminder, so that thou might make clear unto mankind all that has ever been thus bestowed upon them, and that they might take thought.” (Q. 16:44, Asad).

However, the acceptance of this Prophetic commentary is also on condition that it is reported by reliable authorities.

With regard to the commentary of the s.ahābah, although not so strong as the two commentaries mentioned earlier, it is also accepted by the Muslims. This is because the s.ahābah were people who met the Prophet, witnessed the revelation, knew the asbāb al-nuzūl and knew more of the Arabic language and its eloquence which enabled them to better understand the divine texts.

Although the traditionist al-H.ākim accepted the commentary of the s.ahābah and raised it to the same level of the Prophetic commentary, one has to be careful in accepting this commentary of the s.ahābah or the tābi„īn

21

for the following reasons: There are many commentaries attributed to the s.ahābah or tābi„īn without isnād (chains of authority), so that we cannot make a distinction between the genuine and the fabricated ones. Moreover, many isrā’ilīyāt (Jewish legends) were spread among Muslims, some of which contained legends and beliefs contradictory to the teachings of Islam.

There were also some extremists who fabricated sayings and attributed them to the s.ahābah to support their views, or to flatter the rulers. There is also the possibility that the atheists (zanādiqah) fabricated sayings and attributed them to the s.ahābah or the tābi„īn in order to destroy Islam.89 (2) Rational commentary. It is a commentary based exclusively on the commentator‟s ability to grasp the meanings of the Qur‟ānic verses due to the absence of traditional commentary on the verses in question. This can be accomplished only if he possesses and exercises the knowledge of the sciences of the Qur‟ān and the Arabic language, such as naskh (abrogation of legal passages of the Qur‟ān), asbāb al-nuzūl, ah.kām (laws contained in the Qur‟ān), i„rāb, balāghah (eloquence), and classical Arabic poetry.

The commentary of this genre, however, was opposed by a group of Muslim scholars for the following reasons: (a) They said that rational commentary was a statement concerning Allah without knowledge, an act which was prohibited by Allah, as mentioned in Q. 2:169 and 7:33. (b) They contended that it was the duty of the Prophet to explain the Qur‟ān as mentioned in Q. 16:44, and this duty was exclusively the Prophet‟s privilege. (c) The Prophet warned people from giving interpretation of the Qur‟ān based on their personal opinion. In a tradition on the authority of Ibn „Abbās the Prophet said: “Whoever speaks on the Qur‟ān without knowledge („ilm) let him make his place in Hell.”90 (d) The s.ahābah and the tābi‘īn refrained from giving their interpretation of the Qur‟ān with their personal opinion. Abū Bakr, for example, was reported to have said: “Any land may carry me, and any sky may overshadow me if I spoke on the Qur‟ān with my personal opinion or with what I have no knowledge.”91 On the other hand, Muslim scholars en masse accept the rational interpretation for the following reasons: (a) Allah urges Muslims to contemplate the contents of the Qur‟ān when He said: ( “[All this have We expounded in this] blessed divine writ which We have revealed unto thee, [O Muhammad,] so that men may ponder over its messages, and that those who are endowed with insight may take

22

them to heart.” (Q. 38:29, Asad)

92

They maintain that pondering over the Qur‟ān can be achieved only by searching its deeper meanings and mysteries, and therefore, giving one‟s personal opinion in the interpretation of the Qur‟ān is justified. (b) Muslim scholars are urged to discover the laws in the Qur'an by searching and finding its deeper meanings, based on Q. 4:83, and this can only be carried out by giving one‟s independent judgement. (c) If rational interpretation is prohibited because it is based on independent judgement, then the use of independent judgement in Islamic laws would also have been prohibited.

Consequently, many of these Islamic laws would have been ineffective.

This is contrary to what has been established among Muslim scholars that a mujtahid (a legist who exercises ijtihād, i.e., independent judgement in a legal question based upon the interpretation of the Qur‟ān and the Sunnah) is always rewarded, whether his judgement is right or wrong. (d) The s.ahābah themselves have different interpretations on some Qur‟ānic verses, as the Prophet did not explain all the verses of the Qur‟ān. He explained only those which needed explanation, leaving the rest to be understood by the s.ahābah themselves. If personal opinion was not allowed on the Qur‟ān, the Prophet would have explained the whole Qur‟ān, and the s.ahābah would not have given their personal opinion.(e) The Prophet prayed for his cousin Ibn „Abbās that Allah would teach him the ta’wīl of the Qur‟ān. If the term ta’wīl here means the interpretation based on what have been reported from the Prophet rather than Ibn „Abbās‟s own personal opinion, then singling him out with this prayer would have been futile.

The arguments of scholars who opposed rational commentary were countered by other scholars with the following arguments: (a) Giving one's interpretation on the Qur‟ān with ijtihād (lit., exertion, namely, independent judgement) is not a statement concerning Allah without knowledge, but rather with knowledge and which is permitted in religion, since a mujtahid according to a h.adīth will be rewarded with two merits if he is right, and one merit if he is wrong in his ijtihād. Since ijtihād is a meritorious act, it cannot be a prohibited one at the same time. (b) With regard to the Prophet‟s warning against practising tafsīr without knowledge, Ibn al-Naqīb gives us five views which constitute five types of prohibited tafsīr, namely, tafsīr without having the sciences required for it; tafsīr of ambiguous passages which are known by Allah alone; tafsīr intended to support a straying sect, and in so doing, making the tafsīr subordinate to the sect; stating with

23

certainty the meaning intended by Allah without proof; and lastly, tafsīr based on one‟s own discretion (istih.sān) and whim (hawá).93 (c) That the Prophet was appointed to explain the Qur‟ān does not mean that nobody else was allowed to do it. This is apparent as the verse mentioned above ends with “and that they might take thought”. (Q. 16:44, Asad). Many verses in the Qur‟ān were not explained by the Prophet, and it is the duty of Muslim scholars to find their meanings and interpretations. (d) The s.ahābah‟s restraint from giving their own tafsīr was a precaution against stating what may not have been meant by Allah. Abū Bakr himself gave his personal opinion concerning the kalālah (a deceased person who has left as heir neither a descendant nor an ascendant)94 in the Qur‟ān 4:176 and said: “I say it with my opinion; if it is right it is from Allah, and if it is not, it is from Satan.”95 Among the exponents of the rational commentary, to mention a few, were al-Ghazālī, al-Rāghib al-As.bahānī, and al-Qurt.ubī.96 (3) Symbolic (Allegorical) Commentary. It is a commentary of the Qur‟ān which is different from its apparent meaning due to some hints which appeared through inspiration to some dedicated people endowed with knowledge. Contrary to the acquired knowledge known as , this type of knowledge known as

comes directly from Allah, as

mentioned in the Qur‟ān, as follows: (“…and unto whom We had imparted knowledge [issuing] from Ourselves.” Q. 18:65, Asad).97 There is a great difference between the esoterical commentary ( ) claimed by the Bāt.inīs (adherents of inner meanings of the Qur‟ān) and the symbolic commentary ( ). To the Bāt.inīs, the only acceptable meaning is the esoterical one, whereas the Sūfīs accept both the ostensible and the symbolic meanings. The Sūfīs urge people to learn the ostensible meaning before they learn the symbolic meaning. They say that whoever claims to have understood the mysteries of the Qur‟ān - through mystical interpretation - without knowing the ostensible meaning is like a man who claims to have reached the roof of the house without passing through the door.98 Muslim scholars have different views on this symbolic tafsīr. Those who reject it associate it with the esoterical tafsīr which, in their view, distorts the meaning of the Qur‟ān. However, the exponents of this type of tafsīr give conditions for its validity, as follows: it is not contrary to its

24

obvious meaning; it is not considered the only valid meaning by rejecting the obvious one; it is not a remote meaning which is beyond the context of its words, such as interpreting the term lama„a as a verb meaning “to shine” ather than “indeed with” in the verse “For, behold, God is indeed with the doers of good.” (Q. 29:69, Asad); it is not contrary to Islamic teachings and to reason; and finally, it does not contain a view which might confuse people.99 One example of the symbolic commentary is Ibn „Abbās‟s interpretation of the verse: “When God‟s succour comes, and victory,” (Q. 110:1, Asad) as a sign of the Prophet‟s approaching death.100 c. Early Development of Tafsīr The Qur‟ān was revealed to Prophet Muhammad in the Arabic language.101 Although in clear Arabic,102 the s.ahābah had different levels of knowledge in understanding the Qur‟ān. This is natural, since it is unlikely that any book written on any subject in any particular language and style will be fully understood by any native speaker of that language. „Umar, for example, did not know the meaning of the word abban in the verse (“And fruits and fodder”. Q. 80:31). On one occasion, whilst he was reading from the pulpit the verse (“Or [that He will] take them to task through slow decay?” Q. 16:47, Asad), he asked the meaning of takhawwuf. A Bedouin of Hudhayl tribe told him that according to the language of this tribe the word means tanaqqus. (diminution, decrease).103 Besides „Umar, Ibn „Abbās who was nicknamed turjumān al-Qur’ān (the interpreter of the Qur‟ān), was reported to have said that he had not known the meaning of the word fāt.ir in the verse ‫(األنعام‬ )١٤ : “He is the Creator of the heavens and the earth,” Q. 6:14, Dawood)104 until two Bedouins came to him asking his judgement on their dispute over a well; one of them said anā fat.artuhā (“I was the one who made it”), while the other said anā ibtada’tuhā (“I was the one who started digging it.”)105 It was also reported that he had not known the meaning of the word iftah. in the verse (“Our Lord! Judge rightly between us and our people,” Q. 7:89) until he heard a woman called Dhū Yazan say to her husband meaning (“I shall prosecute you”).106

25

Generally speaking, the s.ahābah understood the Qur‟ān more than any other people, since it was revealed in their language. However, they had different levels of understanding. Some of them had more knowledge of the Arabic language and were more familiar with its pre-Islamic literature which helped them grasp the meanings of the Qur‟ānic texts - than other people. Others used to accompany the Prophet and witnessed the asbāb al-nuzūl of certain Qur‟ānic verses. Some others knew more of the ways of the Arabs in the pre-Islamic era. Those who knew the Arabs‟ way of performing their pilgrimage and worshipping their idols, and those who were familiar with the customs and traditions of the Jews and Christians in pre-Islamic Arabia had better understanding of Qur‟ānic verses dealing with these particular subjects.107 The Prophet explained to the s.ahābah the meanings of Qur‟ānic verses which were not understood by them or those that needed explanation. Zakāt, for example, originally means “growth”, but technically means “obligatory charity”, was explained by the Prophet in detail. This explanation was later transmitted to the people of the next generation, so that they also became well-acquainted with the divine texts. However, such information was included in the h.adīth literature, since tafsīr as an independent science emerged later in the early third century A.H. After the death of the Prophet questions on Qur‟ānic verses were directed to the s.ahābah. The prominent exegetes among them in this period were: „Abd Allāh ibn „Abbās, „Abd Allāh ibn Mas„ūd, „Alī ibn Abī T.ālib and Ubayy ibn Ka„b; to a lesser degree, Zayd ibn Thābit, Abū Mūsá al-Ash„arī, „Abd Allāh ibn al-Zubayr, Abū Bakr, „Umar and „Uthmān. They moved to other cities in Muslim lands and transmitted to people what they had learned from the Prophet and what they knew from the asbāb al-nuzūl.

They opened schools for teaching tafsīr in important cities. In Makkah the school was led by Ibn „Abbās; among his students were: Sa„īd ibn Jubayr (d.

94/713), Mujāhid ibn Jabr (d. 103/722) whose tafsīr has been published,108 T.āwūs ibn Kaysān al-Yamānī (d. 106/725), „Ikrimah (Ibn „Abbās‟s client, d.

105/723) and „At.a‟ ibn Abī Rabāh (d. 114/732). In Madīnah, it was led by Ubayy ibn Ka„b (d. 22/641); among his students were: Muh.ammad ibn Ka„b al-Qurz.ī (d. 117/735), al-Rāfi„ ibn Mahrān (his agnomen was Abū al-„Āliyah al-Riyāhī, d. 90/709 or 117/735 or 93/712) and Zayd ibn Aslam (his agnomen was Abū Usāmah, the client of „Umar, d. 136/754). In Iraq it was led by „Abd Allāh ibn Mas„ūd (d. 32/652); among his students in Kūfah

26

were „Alqamah ibn Qays (d. ca. 62/682 or 72/692) and Masrūq ibn al-Ajda„ (d. 63/683). In Bas.rah, they were al-H.asan al-Bas.rī (d. 110/728), Qatādah ibn Di„āmah al-Sudusī (d. 118/736), „At.a‟ ibn Abī Muslim al-Khurasānī (d.

135/753) and Murrah ibn Shurāh.īl al-Hamadhānī (his agnomen was Abū Isma„īl, d. 76/696).109 In this period of the tābi„īn, many isrā’iliyyāt (Jewish traditions used to amplify Qur‟ānic allusions) found their way into tafsīr. This is because people were curious to know the details of stories mentioned in the Qur‟ān.

For example, they wanted to know the size of Prophet Noah‟s ark, the number and names of the as.h.āb al-kahf (Men of the Cave) and the colour of their dog, the kind of tree from which Allah talked to Prophet Moses and the kind of birds which were revived by Allah for Prophet Abraham. Such details could be found in the Torah or its commentary and legends put into it.110 Moreover, some of the Jews who converted to Islam brought the isrā’iliyyāt with them. Although the Prophet was reported to have said that Muslims should neither believe nor disbelieve what the people of the Book related to them, they consulted them; even Ibn „Abbās was reported to have listened to them.111 Ibn Khaldūn gave us his account on this matter and said: .... The Arabs had no books or scholarship. The desert attitude and illiteracy prevailed among them. When they wanted to know certain things that human beings are usually curious to know, such as the reason for the existing things, the beginning of creation, and the secrets of existence, they consulted the earlier people of the Book about it and got information from them. The people of the Book were the Jews who had the Torah and the Christians who followed the religion (of the Jews). Now the people of the Torah who lived among the Arabs at that time were themselves Bedouins. They knew only as much about the matter as is known to ordinary people of the Book (in contrast to the learned rabbis). The majority of those Jews were Himyarites who had adopted Judaism. When they became Muslims, they clung to the information they possessed, such as information about the beginning of creation and information of the types of forecasts and predictions. That information had no connection with the commandments of the Islamic Law. Such men were Ka„b b. al-Ah.bār, Wahb b. Munabbah, „Abdallāh b. Sallām and similar people. The Qur‟ān [sic] commentaries were filled with materials of such tendencies transmitted on their authority. 112

It was commonly believed that the recording of oral traditions attributed to the Prophet started only at the second century of A.H. after the death of all of the s.ah.ābah and prominent tābi„īn, such as Sa„īd ibn

27

al-Musayyab (d. 100/713) and al-H.asan al-Bas.rī. Mālik ibn Anas, for example, stated that Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī (d. 124/742) was the earliest compiler.113 However, the extant and earliest religious book written in the early period of Islam was al-S.ah.īfah al-S.ah.īh.ah (The Authentic Scroll) of Hammām ibn Munabbih. The compiler Ibn Munabbih (d. 101/719) was a student of the prominent s.ah.ābī (a companion of the Prophet) Abū Hurayrah (d. 58/677). Two identical manuscripts of it were found; one in Damascus, and the other in Berlin. It was discovered, edited and published by Muhammad Hamidullah in Damascus in 196l. It contained one hundred and thirty-eight h.adīths on the authority of Abū Hurayrah. Many of these h.adīths were identical to those reported by Ah.mad ibn H.anbal in his Musnad and al-Bukhārī in his S.ah.īh.. Some s.ah.ābah and tābi„īn had recorded the h.adīths, but their recordings were lost, such as Sa„īd ibn „Ubādah (d. 15/637), Ibn „Abbās (d. 69/689), Samrah ibn Jundub (d.

60/680), Jābir ibn „Abd Allāh (d. 78/670), „Abd Allāh ibn „Amr ibn al-„Ās. (d. 65/685) and Sa„īd ibn Jubayr (d. 95/714).114 In the early period of the second century A.H. religious knowledge had not yet been divided into branches and therefore scholars were not specialists in one particular branch. Tafsīr was still included in the H.adīth and the mufassirīn (scholars on tafsir) were themselves muh.addithīn (scholars on h.adīths), until the two sciences separated completely in the early third century A.H. Among scholars who wrote tafsīr based on what they had learned from the s.ah.ābah and the tābi„īn with sanad (isnād, chains of authorities on which traditions and historical writings are based) were Wakī„ ibn al-Jarrāh. (d. 196/811), Sufyān ibn „Uyaynah (d. 198/813), Shu„bah ibn al-Hajjāj (d. 160/776), „Abd al-Razzāq ibn Hammām (d.

211/827) and Abū Khālid Yazīd ibn Hārūn (d. 206/822).115 Unfortunately, none of these works are extant. However, there are some extant works of this second century A.H., among which are: Tafsīr (MS. Husnu 17) of Muqātil ibn Sulaymān (d. 150/767), al-Sīrah al-Nabawiyyah (Cairo, 1955) of Ibn Ish.āq (d. 151/768) in the recension of Ibn Hishām (d. 218/834), Tafsīr (MS. Ayasofya 118) of Muh.ammad ibn Sā‟ib al-Kalbī (d. 146/763), and Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-Karīm (Rampur, 1965), of Sufyān al-Thawrī (d.

161/778).

They contained mainly commentaries and paraphrastic explanations in addition to the asbāb al-nuzūl, except Ibn Ish.āq‟s Sīrah which contained mainly the Prophet‟s biography and asbāb al-nuzūl.116 In this period of compilation the „Abbāsī dynasty was seizing political

28

power after successfully overthrowing the Umawī dynasty in 132/750. In this critical situation, traditions exaggerating Ibn „Abbās‟s piety, virtue and knowledge, were invented for the political ends of his descendants who were ruling the Muslim empire. Moreover, before the „Abbāsī dynasty took power the qus.s.ās. (story tellers) had already used the highly respected position of Ibn „Abbās‟s family among Muslims to fabricate traditions in his and „Ali‟s name. Consequently, according to al-Shāfi„ī, there were only about one hundred traditions handed down by Ibn „Abbās.117 Ibn H.anbal was reported to have said that there are three things which have no basis: tafsīr, malāh.im (apocalyptic h.adīths), and maghāzī (accounts of the early battles in Islam).118 As h.adīths, tafsīr and sayings ascribed to Ibn „Abbās transmitted through various channels and isnāds were so numerous that there was hardly a single Qur‟ānic verse without one or more commentaries attributed to him.

This led the critics among scholars to examine and evaluate these channels and isnāds. Among the critics of h.adīth and tafsīr transmission in this period were Yah.yá ibn Sa„īd al-Qat.t.ān (d. 198/813) and „Abd al-Rah.mān ibn Mahdī (198/814). Their views were widely accepted by scholars such as the traditionist Ah.mad ibn H.anbal and Yah.yá ibn Ma„īn (d. 233/848) and scholars of the following generation.119 Among the evaluated channels are the following: (1). Mu„āwiyah ibn S.ālih. - „Alī ibn Abī T.alh.ah al-Hāshimī (d. 143/760-1) Ibn „Abbās. This is the best channel. Although it was reported that „Alī ibn Abī T.alh.ah did not hear the tafsīr directly from Ibn „Abbās but from his students Mujāhid or Sa„īd ibn Jubayr, his tafsīr was accepted as reliable. Al-T.abarī, Ibn Abī H.ātim, Muslim and other h.adīth compilers relied on his transmission. Ah.mad ibn H.anbal said of it as follows: “There is a scroll in Egypt on tafsīr transmitted by „Alī ibn Abī T.alh.ah, and if a man goes there to get it is not a great thing,” meaning that it deserved this great effort.

(2). Qays ibn Muslim al-Kūfī (d. 130/748) - „At.ā‟ ibn al-Sā‟ib - Sa„īd ibn Jubayr - Ibn „Abbās. This is also a very good channel, the isnād is s.ah.īh. (sound) based on the conditions laid down by al-Bukhārī and Muslim.

(3). Ibn Ish.āq - Muh.ammad ibn Abī Muh.ammad (the client of Zayd ibn Thābit‟s family) - „Ikrimah or Sa„īd ibn Jubayr - Ibn „Abbās. This channel is still good, and the isnād is h.asan (good) according to the

29

standard laid down in accepting h.adīths.

4). Al-D.ah.h.āk ibn Muzāh.im al-Hilālī (d. 103/722) - Ibn „Abbās. This is a weak channel. It is weaker if the channel is Juwaybir - al- D.ah.h.āk - Ibn „Abbās.

(5). Ismā„īl ibn „Abd al-Rah.mān (al-Suddī al-Kabīr, d. 128/745) - Abū Mālik (or Abū S.ālih., Ummu Hānī‟s client) - Ibn „Abbās. The reports of al-Suddī al-Kabīr are found in the collections of h.adīth compilers Muslim, Abū Dāwūd, Ibn Mājah, al-Nasā‟ī and al-Tirmidhī. Ibn Abī H.ātim did not include them among the sound reports.

(6). Muqātil ibn Sulaymān - Ibn „Abbās. Although praised by al-Shāfi„ī, many scholars considered him weak, because he reported from Mujāhid and al- D.ah.h.āk, but he never had contact with them. Moreover, he was known to be a follower of al-tajsīm and al-tashbīh (anthropomorphism).

Al-Suyūt.ī preferred al-Kalbī to Muqātil. When Wakī„ was asked about Muqātil‟s tafsīr, he said, “Do not look at it.” When he was asked what to do with it, he said, “Bury it.” Ah.mad ibn H.anbal said about him: “I do not like to report anything from Muqātil.”120 (7). Muh.ammad ibn Sā‟ib al-Kalbī - Abū S.ālih. - Ibn „Abbās. This is the worst channel, especially if Muh.ammad ibn Marwān (al-Suddī al-S.aghīr, d. 189/805) is included in it. Al-Kalbī was reported to have said on his death-bed: “Everything I have told you from Abū S.ālih. are lies.” His reports were frequently narrated by al-Tha„labī and al-Wāh.idī.121 In the late second and early third century A.H. lexical tafsīr became more developed. Apart from traditional sources and lexical explanation, grammatical phenomena as well as symbolic problems were also included.

Grammatical phenomena were justified with shawāhid from ancient poetry and secular rhetoric, while symbolic problems were solved by applying the periphrastic principle “taqdīr” (supposition), but mainly expressed with the term majāz. Among the extant lexical tafsīr in this period are Ma„ānī ’l-Qur’ān of al-Farrā‟, Majāz al-Qur’ān of Abū „Ubaydah, and later Ta’wīl Mushkil al-Qur’ān of Ibn Qutaybah.122 The process of tafsīr compilation with isnād reached its culmination with Ibn Jarīr al-T.abarī. His tafsīr belonged to the category of tafsīr bi ’l-ma’thūr. Immediately after putting the verse - partly or wholly - he explained it by paraphrasing and mentioning oral traditions from the s.ah.abah or tābi„ī with full isnād. He evaluated them,

30

especially if two or more meanings or variant readings were involved, and gave his opinion, although he was against al-tafsīr bi’l-ra’y. He gave his own legal judgement from the Qur‟ānic verses, as he had a madhhab of his own.

As a compiler, al-T.abarī also included some contradictory traditions and isrā’ilīyāt, all with their isnād in his tafsīr. For example, he mentioned a tradition from Mu„āwiyah from „Alī ibn T.alh.ah from Ibn „Abbās who said that the meaning of in Q. 2:260123 is (cut them into pieces). Then al-T.abarī mentioned another tradition that he was told by Muh.ammad ibn Sa„īd, having heard it from his father, that he was told by his uncle who was told by his father from his father from Ibn „Abbās, that means َ (tie 124 them up).

Scholars‟ objections to his tafsīr was that some of his authorities were weak, such as al-Suddī al-S.aghīr and Juwaybir, and that it contained some isrā’iliyyāt which he acknowledged. However, these materials had their own valuable contribution to his tafsīr collection. It is said that it is in itself an encyclopedia of traditional commentary in which various views of religion during his time were recorded and critically evaluated.

Al-T.abarī‟s method of writing tafsīr was followed by many commentators in later generations, such as Ibn „At.iyyah, Ibn Kathīr, and alSuyūt.ī. Ibn „At.iyyah was a grammarian, a philologist, a man of letters, a poet and a qād.ī in Andalusia. His work al-Muh.arrir al-Wajīz fī Tafsīr al-Kitāb al-„Azīz (The Short Deliverer in the Commentary of the Glorious Book) was a collection of opinions mentioned by commentators of traditional commentary. It was praised by Ibn Khaldūn who considered it the first tafsīr in which traditions were critically scrutinised. All commentaries were abridged, and the most likely interpretations were selected.125 It was also praised by Ibn Taymiyyah who preferred it to al-Zamakhsharī‟s al-Kashshāf, although al-T.abarī‟s tafsīr is the soundest one.126 It is still in manuscripts consisting of ten volumes.

The second great commentator of traditional tafsīr after al-T.abarī was Ibn Kathīr whose agnomen was Abū al-Fidā. His work Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-„Az.īm contains commentaries from the salaf (the s.ah.ābah, tābi‘īn and tābi‘ī al-tābi‘īn) with isnād. He evaluated them and rejected the unsound ones. He mentioned the verse, explained it in simple language, gave shawāhid from other verses, or h.adīths to clarify the meaning, and rejected

31

the isrā’iliyyāt.

Al-Suyūt.ī was a prolific writer. His work al-Durr al-Manthūr fī ’l-Tafsīr bi ’l-Ma’thūr (The Scattered Pearls in Traditional Exegesis) was a short copy of his Turjumān al-Qur’ān. However, another and more popular exegesis was Tafsīr al-Jalālayn written by his teacher Jalāl al-Dīn al-Mah.allī (d. 863/1459) and later continued by himself. Al-Mah.allī started his tafsīr from the beginning of chapter 18 (sūrat al-Kahf) till the end (sūrat al-Nās), including chapter 1 (sūrat al-Fātih.ah), then he passed away.

Al-Suyūt.ī continued the work from chapter 2 (sūrat al-Baqarah) till chapter 17 (sūrat al-Isrā’). The book is not purely traditional as it lacks isnād.

Another leading commentator after al-T.abarī was Mah.mūd ibn „Umar al-Zamakhsharī (538/1143-4) whose agnomen was Jār Allāh.

Contrary to his contemporary Ibn „At.iyyah who was a Mālikī Sunnī, al-Zamakhsharī was a H.anafī Mu„tazilī. His tafsīr entitled al-Kashshāf „an H.aqā’iq al-Tanzīl (The Unveiler of the Realities of the Revelation) was a purely rational commentary. The characteristic of this tafsīr is that it offers brief explanation, contains no isrā’iliyyāt, largely relies on Arabic expression and philological interpretation of the Qur‟ān through his mastery of Arabic language. In addition, it uses a question-and-answer dialogue style “if you say...” (fa’in qulta ...) “I would say...” (qultu...). His main interest was in the rhetoric of the Qur‟ān which was neglected by al-T.abarī. As a Mu„tazilī he put great efforts in interpreting the Qur‟an in such a way as to suit the Mu„tazilī theology in general, and in Allah‟s abolute oneness and justice in particular. For example, the verse meaning “Some faces will on that Day be bright with happiness, looking up to their Sustainer” (Q. 75:22-3, Asad) indicates that Muslims will see Allah in the Hereafter. But as a Mu„tazilī, al-Zamakhsharī did not believe in seeing Allah in the Hereafter, because He is spiritual. Therefore, he explained the word nāz.irah stating that it has an idea of expectation, like the word muntaz.irah (expecting), giving an example in the expression (I am looking forward to what So-and-so will do to me).127 These verses belong to the category of the mutashābihāt according to the Mu„tazilīs, whereas verses that agree with their view are placed by them into the category of muh.kamāt (clear verses), such as the following verse: “No human vision can

32

encompass Him, whereas He emcompasses all human vision: for He alone is unfathomable, all-aware.” (Q. 6:103, Asad). Similarly, al-Zamakhsharī explained the term kursī (throne) in the verse which means “His throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth...”

(Q. 2:255, Ali). He gave four interpretations on this verse, three metaphorically, namely, Allah‟s greatness, knowledge, and power, and one literally which was a report that Allah created a throne beside the „Arsh (the Throne) under which were the sun and the moon, or, as reported by alH.asan, the Throne itself.128 In the second half of the sixth century A.H. a Sunnī commentator, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1209), wrote his tafsīr called Mafātīh. al-Ghayb (The Keys of the Unknown). Since he was interested in philosophy and scientific explanation of the universe, he explained verses which refer to nature and its phenomena, such as rain and earthquake. As a Shāfi„ī follower, he explained the legal prescriptions of the Qur‟an according to this school, although he also mentioned other madhhabs. As a Sunnī he refuted the Mu„tazilīs‟ use of reasoning and tradition to support their view. He mentioned asbāb al-nuzūl more often, but he did not go into the details of rhetoric or grammar. He used istit.rād (digression) so much that his tafsīr contained many subjects which were not necessarily logically related. It is not surprising that it was said in exaggeration that his tafsīr contains everything except tafsīr.129 The frequent use of istinbat. (deduction) in his approach strongly emphasises the rationalistic nature of his commentary.

He wrote his tafsīr until sūrat al-Anbiyā’ (chapter 21), about half of the Qur‟ān. The work was continued by his student Shihāb al-Dīn al-Khāwī, then by Najm al-Dīn al-Qāmūlī, probably from the notes of his lectures.

At the seventh/thriteenth century another Sunnī commentator appeared, al-Bayd.āwī (d. 685/1286 or 691/1292). His work Anwār al-Tanzīl wa Asrār al-Ta’wīl (The Lights of the Revelation and the Mysteries of the Ta’wīl) is a mixture of traditional and rational commentaries. He took the tafsīr from al-Zamakhsharī and selected from him his own tafsīr by removing from it most of the Mu„tazilī theology, such as the expression (praise be to Allah Who created the Qur‟ān), since as a Sunnī he did not believe in the creation of the Qur‟ān. The remaining Mu„tazilī ideas were debated by him by presenting the Sunnī commentary, consulting and using the similar method used by al-Rāzī and al-Rāghib al-As.bahānī in

33

their tafsīr books. In presenting variant readings, he used the term wa fī qirā’ah (and in another variant reading) and wa qīla (and it is said) for the variant reading he approved and doubted respectively. He took great interest in grammar and the Shāfi„ī fiqh to which he belonged. Following al-Zamakhsharī‟s method he cited h.adīth at the end of each sūrah mentioning its value.

One of the major Shī„ī books on tafsīr is the work of Abū „Alī alFad.l al-T.abarsī (d. 496/1153 or 538/1144) entitled Majma„ al-Bayān fī Tafsīr al-Qur’ān (The Collection of the Explanation on the Commentary of the Qur‟ān). As a Mu„tazilī follower, he expanded the Mu„tazilī thought, and as a Shī„ī, he gave more symbolic (allegorical) commentary in his tafsīr.

For example, after giving the interpretation of the verse “Then We raised you up after your death so that you might give thanks” (Q. 2:56) he stated that according to some people among the upholders of the Shī„ī school, this verse proved that the raj„ah (return after occultation) was a possible occurrence for some people. This is because the manifestation of miracles among imāms and saints (awliyā’) is possible.130 He gives a different interpretation of the term al-ghayb in the verse (“Those who believe in the unseen” Q. 2:3) and supports the view of Ibn Mas„ūd and a group of people among the s.ah.ābah that the word al-ghayb here means what is unknown to people. This is because this interpretation is more general and includes the time of al-Mahdi‟s occultation (ghaybah) and return (raj„ah).131 Among the Ismā„ilī Shī„īs it is worth-mentioning Ismā„īl ibn Hibat Allāh (d. 1173-4/1760). His tafsīr is entitled Mizāj al-Tasnīm (The Mixture of Tasnīm).132 For the Ismā„ilīs the ostensible meaning of the Qur‟ān is only the symbol of its inner meaning. Therefore, the whole Qur‟ān is mutashābihāt and in need of interpretation which is known only by their imāms. One example of this esoteric interpretation (al-tafsīr al-bāt.in) of the Qur‟ān attributed to Ibn Hawshab al-Kūfī (d. 266/880) is as follows: “The seven verses of the sūra [i.e., sūrat al-Fātih.ah (chapter 1)] symbolise the seven degrees of religion. The sūra of Praise [i.e. sūrat al-H.amd, another name for sūrat al-Fātih.ah] opens the Book of God, and similarly the degrees of religion open the door of knowledge in God‟s religion.”133 The idea of inner meaning was derived from the following verse: “.... And thereupon a wall will

34

be raised between them [and the believers], with a gate in it: within it [bāt.inuhu] will be grace and mercy, and against the outside thereof [z.āhiruhu], suffering.” (Q. 57:13, Asad).134 One of the compilers of the allegorical tafsīr was Abū „Abd alRah.mān al-Sulamī (d. 412/1021). His work Haqā’iq al-Tafsīr (The Realities of Interpretation) contained neither philological explanation nor traditional commentary, despite his recognition of its validity. He confined himself exclusively to the symbolic meanings of the Qur‟ānic verses which had not previously been compiled and the sayings of the s.ūfīs and other important personalities, such as al-H.allāj (ex. 309/922) and Ja„far al-S.ādiq (d.

148/756).135 An example of al-Sulamī‟s tafsīr is the interpretation of the verse )٦٦ “Yet if We were to ordain for them, „Lay down your lives,‟ or, „Forsake your homelands,‟ only a very few of them would do it...” (Q. 4:66, Asad).

The word (lay down your lives) and (forsake your homelands) mean respectively that Prophet Moses asked his people “to kill their selves” and “to remove worldly love from their hearts”.136 When the mystical commentary of the s.ūfīs was denounced by the „ulamā‟, al-Ghazālī (d. 504/1111) came to the rescue. Being himself a s.ūfī, he said that the words of the Qur‟ān belong to “the world of humanity”, whereas their meanings belong to what he called “the world of angels”. He contended that man cannot reach the truth because of the weakness of his faith, his lust for wordly things and his adherence to the literal meaning of the Qur‟ān which can only be revealed to the elect through intuition.

Defending the mystical interpretation of the Qur‟ān through intuition which occurs when reason stops, he said: “Why should it be impossible that beyond reason there should be a further plane, on which appear things which do not appear on the plane of the intelligence, just as it is possible for the intelligence itself to be a plane above the discriminating faculty and senses?”137 Apart from the mystical interpretation used by the s.ūfīs, Muh.yī ‟l-Dīn ibn „Arabī (d. 638/1240) and later his student „Abd al-Razzāq al-Kāshānī (d.

730/1330) used another category of mystical tafsīr, namely, (speculative or theosophical commentary). Without openly rejecting the obvious meanings of the verses, they went further with their speculative interpretation to support the idea of (Unity of Being). Ibn „Arabī‟s

35

tafsīr was lost, but we can find some glimpse of it in his works al-Futūh.āt al-Makkiyyah and Fus.ūs. al-H.ikam. He was charged by some „ulamā’ like Ibn Taymiyyah and al-Taftāzānī with heresy, and his idea of h.ulūl (substantial union of a divine spirit with man) and as heretical.

However, some others defended him, such as al-Fīrūzābādī and al-Suyūt.ī.138 An example of this speculative commentary is the verse “And He is with you wherever you may be...” (Q. 57:4, Asad) which is explained by al-Kāshānī in his Ta’wīlāt al-Qur’ān (The Interpretations of the Qur‟ān) as “God is everywhere because He created His existence everywhere”. This Ta’wīlāt was mistakenly ascribed to Ibn „Arabī.

In this chapter a glimpse of some literature related to the study of Ibn Qutaybah‟s contribution to Qur‟ānic exegesis, a short synopsis of Ibn Qutaybah‟s life, political, social and cultural conditions in his life as well as a glimpse of early Qur‟ānic exegesis have been presented. We have seen that Ibn Qutaybah was born when the „Abbāsī dynasty reached its ultimate glory and prosperity under al-Ma„mūn in the first half of the third century A.H. He witnessed the government's shifting from the Mu„tazilī theological school to the Sunnī orthodoxy under al-Mutawakkil as the madhhab of the state. He found himself in line with the new trend and became a champion and an advocate of the Sunnī orthodoxy. He defended the Qur‟ān and the Sunnah against philosophic scepticism and heresies in his time through his writings.

36

ENDNOTES TO CHAPTER I 1. Gerard Lecomte, “Ibn Kutayba,” EI2, p. 847.

2. Al-Sayyid Ah.mad S.aqr‟s introduction to Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl Mushkil al-Qur’ān (Cairo: Dār al-Turāth, 1393/1973), 2nd ed., p. 2 of the introduction.

3. See G. Lecomte, Ibn Qutayba (mort en 276/889): l’homme, son oevre, ses idées (Damascus: Catholic Printing Press, 1965), pp. 97-178.

4. In manuscript D, instead of mut.t.ali‘ (well-informed), it is written muttaba„ (followed), see Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, p. 674.

5. In S.aqr‟s quotation the word lam is missing in the expression mā lam a„lam, see ibid, p. 77 of the introduction.

6. Ibid., pp. 85-86 of S.aqr‟s introduction.

7. Ibid., pp. 673-94.

8. Ibid., p. 86 of S.aqr‟s introduction.

9. Idem, Tafsīr Gharīb al-Qur’ān, ed. A.H. S.aqr (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-„Ilmiyyah, 1398/1978), p. 4.

10. Ibid., p. “h” of S.aqr‟s introduction.

11. Ibid., pp. “j” and “d”.

12. Ibid., p. “d”.

13. For further details, see idem, Gharīb al-H.adīth, ed. Dr. „Abd Allāh al-Jubūrī, 1st ed. (Baghdād: Mat.ba„ah al-„Anī, 1397/1977), vol. 1, pp. 90-114.

14. Idem, Adab al-Kātib, ed. von Max Grünert (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1900), p. 2.

15. Ibid., p. 6, n. “b”.

16. Ibid., p. 22.

17. Ibid., pp. 236-237.

18. Ibid., p. 337.

19. Ibid., p. 473.

20. Ibid., p. 536. Cf. idem, Ta’wīl, p. 567.

21. Idem, Adab al-Kātib, p. 567.

22. Ibid., pp. 641-642; cf idem, Ta’wīl, p. 498.

23. Max Grünert‟s introduction in idem, Adab al-Kātib, pp. ix-x.

24. The other three sources are al-Mubarrad‟s al-Kāmil, al-Jāh.iz.‟s al-Bayān wa al-Tabyīn, and Abū „Alī al-Qālī al-Baghdādī‟s al-Nawādir, see Ibn Khaldūn,

37

Muqaddimah (Cairo: al-Mat.ba„ah Azhariyyah, 1384/1930), p. 489.

25. R.A. Nicholson, A Literary History of the Arabs (Cambridge: The University Press, 1956), p. 344.

26. Carl Brockelmann, Ta’rīkh al-Adab al-‘Arabī, trans. Dr. „Abd al-H.alīm al-Najjār (Cairo: Dār al-Ma„ārif, 1961), vol. 2, p. 143. See also Yāqūt al-Rūmī, Kitāb Irshād al-Arīb ilá Ma„rifat al-Adīb, also known as Mu„jam al-Udabā’, and T.abaqāt al-Udabā’, ed. D.S. Margoliouth (Egypt: [al-] Mat.ba„ah al-Hindiyyah, 1925), vol. 7, p.

16.

27. H.A.R. Gibb, “Abū „Ubayda Ma„mar b. al-Muthannā,” EI2, 2, p. 158; and J. Wansbrough, “Majāz al-Qur‟ān: Periphrastic Exegesis,” BSOAS (Univ. of London), vol. xxxiii, part 2 (1970), pp. 247-66.

28. Wansbrough, “Majāz al-Qur‟ān,” p. 157.

29. Brockelmann, Ta’rīkh, vol. 2, p. 199.

30. R. Blachére, “al-Farrā‟,” EI2, 2, p. 806.

31. Brockelmann, Ta’rīkh, vol. 2, p. 199.

32. Ibid, 2, p. 196.

33. Blachère, “al-Farrā‟,” p. 806.

34. Nicholson, A Literary History, pp. 145 and 351.

35. Ibn Qutaybah, for example, did not include seven sūrahs (chapters) in his Ta’wīl, and mentioned one verse only in sūrah 54, namely verse 14. In his Tafsīr he did not include thirty-two sūrahs, and dealt with one verse only from sūrah 21, namely, verse 10. His Ta’wīl included the missing sūrahs in his Tafsīr, and not vice versa. See his Ta’wīl, pp. 595-621 and his Tafsīr, pp. 547-554.

36. Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmū„ Fatāwá Shaykh al-Islām Ah.mad ibn Taymiyyah, collected and arranged by Muh.ammad ibn Qāsim al-„Ās.imī al-Najdī, 37 vols.

(Makkah: Maktabat al-Nahd.ah al-H.adīthah, 1404 A.H.), vol. 13, p. 361.

37. Abū Bakr Muh.ammad al-Zubaydī, T.abaqāt al-Nah.wiyyīn wa ’l-Lughawiyyīn, ed. Muh.ammad Abū al-Fad.l Ibrāhīm, 1st ed. (Egypt: Muh.ammad Sāmī al-Khānjī), 1373/1954), p. 171.

38. Yāqūt al-Rūmī, Mu„jam al-Udabā’, vol. 7, p. 73.

39. Brockelmann, Ta’rīkh, vol. 2, p. 214.

40. Al-Zubaydī, T.abaqāt, pp. 168-172.

41. See Abū al-H.usayn Ah.mad ibn Fāris, al-S.āh.ibī fī Fiqh al-Lughah wa Sunan al-‘Arab fī Kalāmihā, ed. Mus.t.afā al-Shuwaymī (Beirut: A. Badrān & Co., 1383/1963), p. 6 (the editor‟s introduction).

38

42. See ibid., p. 9.

43. See Abū al-Fad.l Jamāl al-Dīn Muh.ammad ibn Manz.ūr, Lisān al-‘Arab 15 vols. (Beirut: Dār S.ādir lil-T.ibā„ah wa ‟l-Nashr, [1374-5]/1955-1956), vol. 15, p. 494.

44. See Ibn al-Nadīm, al-Fihrist (Egypt: al-Mat.ba„ah al-Istiqāmah, 1929), p. 86; Abū al-Barakāt Ibn al-Anbārī, Nuzhat al-Alibbā’ fī T.abaqāt al-Udabā’, ed. Dr. „Āt.iyyah „Āmir (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksel, [1962]), p. 128; and Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil fī ’l-Ta’rīkh (N.p.: Idārat al-T.ibā„ah al-Munīriyyah, 1353 A.H.), vol. 7, p. 175.

According to al-Khat.īb al-Baghdādī, al-Sam„ānī and al-Qift.ī, Ibn Qutaybah was born in Baghdād, see their respective works Ta’rīkh Baghdād aw Madīnat al-Salām, 14 vols.

(Egypt: Maktabat al-Khānjī, 1931), vol. 10, p. 170; al-Ansāb (reproduced in fascimile from the manuscript in the British Museum add 23,355 with an introduction by D.S. Margoliouth, D. Litt. Leyden: E.J. Brill, Imprimerie Orientale; London: Luzac & Co., 1912. Repr. Baghdād: Maktabat al-Muthanná, 1970), p. 447; and Inbāh al-Ruwāt ‘alá Anbāh al-Nuh.āh, ed. Muh.ammad Abū al-Fad.l Ibrāhīm, 3 vols. (Cairo: Dār al-Kutub alMis.riyyah, 1369-74/1950-5), vol. 2, p. 143. Ibn Khallikān mentioned Kūfah and Baghdād without stating the correct one; see Ibn Khallikān, Wafayāt al-A„yān wa Anbā’ Abnā’ al-Zamān, ed. Dr. Ih.sān „Abbās (Beirut: Dār al-Thaqāfah, [1970]), vol. 3, p. 43.

45. See al-Khat.īb al-Baghdādī, Ta’rīkh Baghdād, vol. 10, p. 170; al-Sam„ānī, al-Ansāb, p. 447; al-Qift.ī, Inbāh al-Ruwāt, vol. 2, p. 143; and Ibn Khallikān, Wafayāt, vol. 3, p. 43.

46. This is the date given by the earliest biographer al-Zubaydī, see T.abaqāt alNah.wiyyīn, p. 200; Shayms al-Dīn al-Dhahābī, Tadhkirat al-H.uffāz., 4 vols. (with continuous pagination), (Hyderabad-Deccan: Dār al-Ma„ārif al-„Uthmāniyyah, 1376/1956), vol. 2, p. 631; Ibn al-Nadīm stated 270 A.H., see al-Fihrist, p. 86; Ibn al-Athīr stated 276 A.H. and 270 A.H., see al-Kāmil, vol. 7, p. 438, and Ibn Khallikān stated 270 A.H., 271 A.H. and 296 A.H., but the right one according to him was 276 A.H., see Wafayāt, vol. 3, p. 43. This view is supported with the report of Qāsim ibn As.bagh al-Bayyānī (d. 340/952) who said that he came to Baghdād in 274/888 and learned from Ibn Qutaybah, see al-Khat.īb al-Baghdādī, Ta’rīkh Baghdād, vol. 10, p.

170.

47. See Ibn Qutaybah, Adab al-Kātib, p. 77.

48. For further details, see Ibn Manz.ūr, Lisān, vol. 1, pp. 660-661 (s.v.

).

49. According to Ah.mad Amīn, al-Suddī al-S.aghīr was an extremist Rāfid.ī Shī„ī; see A. Amīn, Fajr al-Islām, 12th ed. (Cairo: Maktabat al-Nahd.ah al-Mis.riyyah, 1978), p. 275. The Shī„ī traditionist who was called Ibn Qutaybah was probably Muh.ammad ibn al-H.usayn al-„Asqalānī (d. 301/913), who, according to Abū „Alī al-Nisābūrī, transmitted traditions in Palestine. See al-Dhahābī, Kitāb T.abaqāt al-H.uffāz., ed.

39

Wüstenfeld (Gottingen: N.p., 1833-1834), p. 79, quoted by Lecomte, Ibn Qutayba, p.

29.

50. See Shawqī Dayf, al-‘As.r al-‘Abbāsī al-Thānī (Cairo: Dār al-Ma„ārif, 1977), p. 611.

51. See Lecomte, Ibn Qutayba, pp. 47-8, n. 2, 50-74. There are fourteen other teachers of Ibn Qutaybah, but of “the second degree”. For further details, see ibid., pp.

75-82.

52. Idem, “Ibn Ķutayba”, E.I.2, p. 844.

53. Ibid., pp. 844-845.

54. See Ibn Qutaybah, Ta’wīl, S.aqr‟s introduction, pp. 35 and 38-39.

55. Al-Dāraqut.nī was a Shāfi„ī, but was suspected of being a Shī„ī, see Lecomte, Ibn Qutayba, p. 15.

56. See al-Jubūrī‟s introduction in Ibn Qutaybah‟s Gharīb al-H.adīth, pp. 19-20; and S.aqr‟s introduction in Ibn Qutaybah‟s Ta’wīl, pp. 49-51.

57. Ibn Taymiyyah says that the position of Ibn Qutaybah among the Sunnīs is like that of al-Jāh.iz. among the Mu„tazilīs. As the former was the spokesman of the Sunnah, so was the latter of the Mu„tazilah. Quoting from Kitāb al-Tah.dīth bi-Manāqib Ahl alH.adīth by an unidentified writer Ibn Taymiyyah said that the people of Maghrib (Morocco) used to say that a house without any writing of Ibn Qutaybah has no goodness in it. See Ibn Taymīyah, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Ikhlās., ed. Dr. Muh.ammad „Abd al-Mun„im Khafājī (Cairo: Dār al-T.ibā„ah al-Muh.ammadiyyah bi-al-Azhar, n.d.), p.

130.

58. See Lecomte, Ibn Qutayba, pp. 16-7. Among the biographers of the second category in favouring Ibn Qutaybah, al-Khat.īb al-Baghdādī and Ibn al-Jawzī stated that Ibn Qutaybah was reliable, pious and virtuous, while Ibn Khallikān mentioned only that he was virtuous and reliable; see their respective works Ta’rīkh, vol. 10, p. 170, alMuntaz.am fī Ta’rīkh al-Mulūk wa ’l-Umam (Hyderabad Deccan: Mat.ba„at Dā‟irat al-Ma„ārif al-„Uthmāniyyah, 1357-9 A.H.), vol. 5, p. 102; and Wafayāt, vol. 2, p. 246.

59. For further details, see S.aqr‟s introduction in Ibn Qutaybah‟s Ta’wīl, pp.

70-76.

60. For further details, see Sir William Muir, The Caliphate: Its Rise, Decline and Fall (Oxford: The Religious Tract Society, 1891), p. 498.

61. The word sāmarrā’ is derived from sarra man ra’ā meaning “whoever saw it rejoiced” at its beauty, or wittily said that “whoever saw it” with the Turks settled there “rejoiced” to be at Baghdād and well rid of them. See Sir William Muir, The Caliphate, p. 509, n. 2. Another witty reading is that the word is derived from sā’a man ra’ā

40

meaning “whoever saw it grieved” from its bad condition.

62. Dr. Muh.ammad Zaghlūl Sallām, Ibn Qutaybah (Egypt: Dār al-Ma„ārif, 1957), pp. 10-11.

63. Ibid., pp. 12-13.

64. See Ibn „Abd Rabbih, al-‘Iqd al-Farīd, ed. Ah.mad Amīn et al. (Cairo: Mat.ba„at al-Istiqāmah, 1372/1953), vol. 6, p. 355.

65. M.Z. Sallām, Ibn Qutaybah, p. 17.

66. Ibid., p. 15.

67. Ibid., p. 16.

68. G. Lecomte, Ibn Qutayba, p. xxx; see also S.aqr‟s introduction in Ibn Qutaybah, Tafsīr, p. “j” and M.Z. Sallām, Ibn Qutaybah, p. 18.

69

See M.Z. Sallām, Ibn Qutaybah, p. 16.

70

Ibn Qutaybah, Adab al-Kātib, pp. 390 and 640.

71

Lecomte quoted Abū al-T.ayyib „Abd al-Wāh.id al-Lughawī who said that the city of Baghdād was not a city of knowledge, but a city of government. The existing knowledge was brought to the city to please the caliphs and their courts. Al-T.ayyib said further that the people of Baghdād mixed everything; they did not make any distinction among the schoolars of Bas.rah or between al-Ru‟āsī and al-Kisā‟ī, or even between the reading of the H.ijāzī and that of H.amzah. The only thing they did was invent technical terms, such as h.afd. for jarr, s.ifah for z.arf, h.urūf al-s.ifāt for h.urūf aljarr and nasq for ‘at.f, see Lecomte. Ibn Qutayba, p. 391, n. 2, quoting Abū al-T.ayyib, Marātib al-Nah.wiyyīn (Cairo: N.P., 1375/1955), pp. 101-102.

72. Lecomte, “Ibn Ķutayba”, p. 846.

73. See al-Jubūrī‟s introduction in Ibn Qutaybah, Gharīb al-H.adīth, pp. 17-19.

74. Sallām, Ibn Qutaybah, p. 18.

75. Ibid., p. 19.

76. Ibn Manz.ūr, Lisān, vol. 5, p. 55; Jalāl al-Dīn Muh.ammad al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān fī ‘Ulūm al-Qur’ān, ed. M. A. Ibrāhīm, 4 vols. 1st ed. (Cairo: Maktabat wa Mat.ba„at al-Mashhad al-H.usaynī, 1387/1967), vol. 4, p. 167; and Abū ‟l-Fad.l Muh.ammad Murt.ad.á al-Zabīdī, Tāj al-‘Arūs min Jawāhir al-Qāmūs (Egypt: al-Mat.ba„ah al-Khayrīyah, 1306/[1888]), vol. 3, p. 470. According to Muh.ammad Fu‟ād „Abd al-Bāqī, the word tafsīr is mentioned once only in the Qur‟ān, as follows: “And no question do they bring to thee but We reveal to thee the truth and the best explanation (tafsīr).” (Q. 25:33). See M.F „Abd al-Bāqī,

41

al-Mu„jam al-Mufahras li-Alfāz. al-Qur’ān al-Karīm ([Cairo]: Dār wa Maābi„ al-Sha„b, n.d.), p. 519 (s.v. ).

77. See al-Zarkashī, al-Burhān fī ‘Ulūm al-Qur’ān, ed. Muh.ammad Abū al-Fad.l Ibrāhīm, 4 vols (Beirut: Dār al-Ma„rifah, n.d.), vol. 1, p. 13.

78. Qāmūs al-Muī, 2nd ed., 4 vols. in 2 bindings (Cairo: Mat.ba„at Mus.t.afá ‟l-Bābī ‟l-H.alabī, 1371/1952), vol. 3, p. 341 (s.v. ); and al-Zabīdī, Tāj al-‘Arūs, vol.

7, p. 215 (s.v. ). The term ta’wīl is mentioned 17 times in the Qur‟ān according to M.F. „Abd al-Bāqī. It deals with the interpretation of visions as in Q. 12:6, 21, 36-37, 44-45, and 100-1, of strange behaviour as in Q. 18:78 and 82, of obscure verses as in Q. 3:7 where ta’wīl is mentioned twice, of the unseen as in Q. 10:39 where ta’wīl is mentioned once, and with the fulfilment of the event in the Hereafter as in Q. 7:53 where ta’wīl is also mentioned twice. See M.F. „Abd al-Bāqī, al-Mu„jam, p. 97 (s.v. ‫)اول‬.

79. Al-Zabīdī, Tāj al-‘Arūs, vol. 7, p. 215; see also Ibn Taymiyyah, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Ikhlās., p. 113; and al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān, vol. 4, p. 167.

80. Muqātil, Tafsīr, M.S. Hasan Husnu 17, 2r quoted by Wansbrough, Quranic Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), p. 155.

81. Al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān, vol. 4, p. 188.

82. Al-Māturīdī, Ta’wīlāt al-Qur’ān, M.S. Medine 180, quoted by Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, p. 154.

83. Al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān, vol. 4, p. 167.

84. Ibid., p. 168; and al-Zarkashī, al-Burhān, vol. 2, p. 150.

85. Al-S.ābūnī, al-Tibyān fī ‘Ulūm al-Qur’ān (Damascus: Maktabat al-Ghazālī, 1401/1981), 2nd ed., p. 63. Ibn Qutaybah used both terms ta’wīl and tafsīr in the title of his works, namely, Ta’wīl Mushkil al-Qur’ān and Tafsīr Gharīb al-Qur’ān, the latter being the continuation of the former. Apparently, he did not make any distinction between the two terms, as he stated that he wrote his Gharīb al-Qur’ān in order that his Ta’wīl would not become too long. However, according Lecomte, Ibn Qutaybah did make such a distinction: tafsīr is simply paraphrasing simple texts or difficult ones due to exclusively lexicographic order, whereas ta’wīl is a kind of tafsīr with deeper meaning. See Lecomte, Ibn Qutayba, pp. 290-294. According to Ibn Taymiyyah, al-T.abarī used the term ta’wīl meaning tafsīr when he used the expression (“the statement concerning the interpretation of this verse”) in his Jāmī„. In other words, al-T.abarī did not make a distinction between ta’wīl and tafsīr. See Ibn Taymiyyah, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Ikhlās., p. 113. Contrary to this view is that of Dr. Mus.t.afá Zayd who maintained that al-T.abarī did make a distinction between

42

the two terms. When al-T.abarī used the expression (the interpretation of this verse according to me), in Zayd‟s view, is what the Prophet meant when he prayed for his cousin Ibn „Abbās, saying (“O Allah, give him understanding in religion and teach him ta’wīl [of the Qur‟ān]”), see Dr. M. Zayd, Dirāsāt fī ’l-Tafsīr (Cairo: Dār al-Fikr al-„Arabī, n.d.), p. 17.

86. See also Q. 22:30.

87. For another example, see Q. 44:3 where the commentary of “the Blessed Night” is given in Q. 97:1 which is, in turn, clarified in Q. 99:3-5.

88. Muh.ammad „Alī al-S.ābūnī (ed.), Mukhtasar Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr, 3 vols.

(Beirut: Dār al-Qur‟ān al-Karīm, 1402/1981), vol. 2, pp. 594-5.

89. See al-Zarqānī, Manāhil al-‘Irfān fī ‘Ulūm al-Qur’ān, 2 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1408/1988), vol. 2, pp. 23-24.

90. See Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmū„ Fatāwá, vol. 13, p. 370. Quoting from Ibn al-Anbārī‟s work al-Radd „alá Man Khālafa Mus.h.af „Uthmān, which is not extant, alQurt.ubī mentions two interpretations on the above h.adīth: (a) Whosoever gives his own opinion on the ambiguous verses of the Qur‟ān on which neither the s.ah.ābah nor the tābi„īn have ever expressed their opinion, he will be exposed to Allah‟s wrath; (b) Whoever gives an opinion that he knows is wrong about the verses of the Qur‟ān, he will be exposed to Allah‟s wrath, and this is the right view according to al-Qurt.ubī; see al-Jāmi„, vol. 1, p. 32. In another tradition on the authority of Jundub, the Prophet said: “Whoever interprets the Qur‟ān by independent reason is wrong even if he arrives at the right meaning.” For similar h.adīths, see al-Tirmidhī, Jāmi„, vol. 5, p.

199 no. 2950 (chap. tafsīr al-Qur’ān). See also al-S.ābūnī, al-Tibyān, p. 154.

91. See Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmū„ Fatāwá, vol. 13, pp. 371-372 and al-S.ābūnī, al-Tibyān, p. 154.

92. For similar verses, see Q. 4:82 and 47:24.

93. Al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān, vol. 4, p. 191.

94. Kalālah is one of the three terms which „Umar wished the Prophet had defined in his lifetime, the other two being the khilāfah (caliphate, succession) and the ribā (usury), see A.Y. Ali, The Holy Qur’ān (Doha: Qatar National Printing Press, n.d.), p. 182, n. 520.

95. Al-S.ābūnī, al-Tibyān, pp. 164-166.

96. Ibid., pp. 167-8.

97. Idem, (ed.), Mukhtas.ar, vol. 2, p. 427. See also Q. 2:282.

98. See al-Zarqānī, Manāhil al-„Irfān, vol. 2, p. 79.

43

99. See al-S.ābūnī, al-Tibyān, p. 175; al-Zarqānī mentions the fifth condition is that the allegorical commentary has to be supported by a legal shāhid (textual evidence); see al-Zarqānī, Manāhil al-„Irfān, vol. 2, p. 81.

100. See Abū „Abd Allāh Muh.ammad ibn Muh.ammad al-Qurt.ubī, al-Jāmi„ liAh.kām al-Qur’ān, 20 vols. in 10 bindings (Beirut: Dār Ih.yā‟al-Turāth al-„Arabī, 1967), vol. 20, p. 232; Abū „Abd Allāh Muh.ammad b. Ismā„īl al-Bukhārī, S.ah.īh. al-Bukhārī (N.p: Dar al-Fikr, n.d.), pp. 183-184. Another classification of tafsīr which appeared in the second half of the second century A.H. was the following categories: legalistic tafsīr, linguistic tafsīr, formal tafsīr of scholars, and the tafsīr of the mutashābihāt which is known to Allah only; see M.O.A. Abdul, “The Historical Development of Tafsir”, Islamic Culture (Hyderabad, The Islamic Culture Board), vol. l, no. 1 (July, 1976), p. 144. Wansbrough, on the other hand, gives us five categories of tafsīr i.e., narrative (haggadic), legal (halakhic), textual (masoretic), rhetorical, and allegorical; for further details, see J. Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, pp. 119-246.

101. See Q. 12:2, 39:28 and 42:3.

102. See Q. 26:195.

103. See Dr. Muh.ammad H.usayn al-Dhahabī, al-Tafsīr wa ’l-Mufassirūn, 3 vols (Cairo: Dār al-Kutub al-H.adīthah, 1396/1976), vol. 1, p. 74; and Ah.mad Amīn, Fajr al-Islām, p. 196.

104. See also Q. 12:101, 14:10, 35:1, 39:46 and 42:11.

105. Al-Qurt.ubī, al-Jāmi„, vol. 1, p. 44; al-Suyūt.ī did not mention that the statement anā ibtada’tuhā was that of the other Bedouin in the dispute. See al-Itqān, vol. 2, p. 4 106. Al-T.abarī mentioned that the word fatah.a which means qad.á (to judge) is the language of the Murād tribe and that according to al-Farrā‟ the people of „Umān (Oman) called their qad.ī by the name al-fātih. and al-fattāh.; see Abū Ja„far ibn Jarīr al-T.abarī, Jāmi„ al-Bayān fī Tafsīr al-Qur’ān, 30 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-Ma„rifah lilT.iba„ah wa al-Nashr, 1406-7/1986-7), vol. 9, p. 3; and al-Qurt.ubī, al-Jāmi„ , vol. 1, p.

44. Al-Suyuti gives the meaning of ufātih.uk as uh.ākimuk (I argue with you), see al-Itqān, vol. 2, p. 5.

107. A. Amīn, Fajr al-Islām, pp. 197-199.

108. The complete tafsīr of Mujāhid was edited and published by A. Surtī based on a manuscript from the sixth century of Hijrah. It was entitled Tafsīr Mujāhid, 2 vols (Beirut: n.d.). See Ahmad von Denffer, „Ulūm al-Qur’ān: An Introduction to the Science of the Qur‘ān (Leicester: The Islamic Foundation, 1403/1983), p. 130.

Mujāhid was reported to have asked Ibn „Abbās‟s commentary on the whole Qur‟ān and recorded it. For this reason Sufyān al-Thawrī said: “If the commentary comes

44

from Mujāhid it is sufficient for you.” See Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmū„ Fatāwá, vol. 13, p. 369.

109. Al-S.ābūnī, al-Tibyān, pp. 73-84; A. Amīn, Fajr al-Islām, pp. 204-205; and Dr. Muh.ammad B. Mahrān, Dirāsāt Ta’rīkhiyyah min al-Qur’ān al-Karīm (N.p.: Imām Muh.ammad ibn Su„ūd Islamic University, 1400/1980), pp. 104-105.

110. These are, according to Ibn Taymiyyah, unnecessary details which have been concealed by Allah in the Qur‟ān; see Ibn Taymīyah, Majmū‘ Fatāwá, vol. 13, p. 367.

111. Mahrān mentions nine reasons for the infiltration of isrā’iliyyāt and nas.rāniyyāt (legends from Christians) in tafsīr which have been mentioned above.

For further details, see Mahrān, Dirāsāt Ta’rīkhiyyah, pp. 105-111. Ibn „Abbās was reported to have asked Ka„b al-Ah.bār the interpretation of the term Umm al-Kitāb (the Mother of the Book) and al-marjān (the coral), see Ignaz Goldziher, Madhāhib al-Tafsīr al-Islāmī, trans. & annot. Dr. „Abd al-H.alīm al-Najjār (Cairo: Mat.ba„ah al-Sunnah al-Muh.ammadiyyah, 1374/1955), p. 88; and al-T.abarī, Jāmi„, vol. 17, pp. 9 and 126. Such questions do not necessarily mean that Ibn „Abbās did not know the meaning of these words, but rather to learn Ka„b al-Ah.bār‟s understanding of these words based on his knowledge of the Jewish tradition. Ibn „Abbās was also reported to have asked Ka„b al-Ah.bār the meaning of the verse: 02 “They extol His limitless glory by night and by day, never flagging [therein]” (Q. 21:20, Asad) and how the angels glorify Allah continuously. “Do your blinking of your eyes and your breathing afflict you?,” asked Ka„b al-Ah.bār. “No,” answered Ibn „Abbās. “The angels‟ continuous glorification of Allah is like that,” said Ka„b alAh.bār. See al-T.abarī, Jāmi„, vol. 17, p. 19. In justifying Ibn „Abbās‟s questioning the Jewish converts to Islam, Muh.ammad al-Dhahabī said that the questions did not touch the „aqīdah (belief) or us.ūl al-dīn (the fundamentals of the religion of Islam), but rather the stories of the past. In this way, Ibn „Abbās was combining two h.adīths: one allowed the Muslims to speak about Banī Isrā‟īl (the children of Israel, namely, the Jews and their tradition) without restriction, and the other prohibited the Muslims from believing or disbelieving the people of the Book (the Jews and the Christians).

However, al-Dhahābī does not maintain that Ibn „Abbās asked the Jewish converts in such an extensive way as assumed by Goldziher and A. Amīn, since many stories reported by al-T.abarī in his Jāmi„ were not sound, and Ibn „Abbās himself warned the Muslims from asking the people of the Book; see al-Dhahābī, al-Tafsīr wa ’l-Mufassirūn, vol. 1, pp. 71-74.

112. Ibn Khaldūn, Muqaddimah, p. 368; the translation is rendered by Rosenthal, see idem, The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History, trans. Franz Rosenthal, 3 vols. (New York: Pantheon Books Inc., 1958), vol.2, p. 445.

45

113. See Ibn al-Jawzī, Kitāb S.ifat al-S.afwah, 4 vols. 1st ed. (Hyderabad Deccan: Mat.ba„at Dā‟irat al-Ma„ārif al-„Uthmāniyyah, 1357/[1938]), vol. 2, p. 78.

114. See Dr. S.ubh.ī al-S.ālih., „Ulūm al-H.adīth wa Mus.t.alah.uh (Beirut: Dār al-„Ilm lil-Malāyīn, n.d.), pp. 23-33. Sa„īd ibn Jubayr was reluctant to write a tafsīr, probably because he did not want to give his personal opinion of the Qur‟ān, particularly the mutashābihāt. One day he was asked to do so and he replied: “To lose a part of my body is better than to write a tafsīr”; see Ibn Khallikān, Wafayāt al-A„yān, edited and annotated by Muh.ammad Muhyī al-Dīn „Abd al-H.amīd, 6 vols. (Cairo: Maktabat alNahd.ah al-Mis.riyyah, 1384/1964), vol. 2, pp. 112-113. However, eventually he consented when he was asked by the Caliph „Abd al-Malik ibn Marwān.

115. For further details see al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān, vol. 4, pp. 211-212.

116. These books belonged to the category of haggadic (narrative) tafsīr as suggested by Wansbrough; see Quranic Studies, pp. 122-138. Some Muslim scholars considered Muqātil ibn Sulaymān as an unreliable authority, because he was said to have received his knowledge from the people of the Book and to have been a Zaydī with anthromorphic leanings; others accepted him as reliable. Al-Shāfi„ī, for example, praised him and put his knowledge in tafsīr on the same level as Zuhayr ibn Abī Sulmá‟s in poetry and Abū H.anīfah‟s in Islamic jurisprudence; see Kamāl al-Dīn al-Dumyarī, H.ayāt al-H.ayawān al-Kubrá (Egypt: al-Mat.ba„ah al-Sharqiyyah, ca.

1300/[1882-1883]), vol. 1, pp. 297-298 (article dhubāb). However, Abū H.ātim reported from al-Sammāk who said that „Ikrimah stated: “Everything I have told you about (the interpretation of) the Qur‟ān is from Ibn „Abbās.” See al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān, vol. 4, p. 211.

117. See al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān, vol. 4, p. 209.

118. See Ibid., p. 178.

119. See Ibid., p. 209; and Nabia Abbott, Qur’ānic Commentary and Tradition.

Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri II (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967) , p. 112.

120. See Muhyī ‟l-Dīn ibn Sharaf al-Nawawī, Tahdhīb al-Asmā’ wa ’l-Lughāt, 3 vols. (Cairo: al-Mat.ba„ah al-Munīriyyah, 1927), vol. 2, p. 111.

121. Al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān, vol. 4, pp. 208-9; H.ajji Khalīfah, Kashf al-Z.unūn ‘an Asāmī ’l-Kutub wa ’l-Funūn (Lexicon), edited by Gustavus Fluegel, 7 vols. (Leipzig and London: Published for the Oriental Translation Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, 1835-1856), vol. 2, pp. 334-335; and al-Dhahābī, al-Tafsīr wa ’l-Mufassirūn, vol. 1, pp.

77-81. One of the prominent authorities on tafsīr in this period, „Amir Abū „Amr al-Sha„bī (d. 103/721), was reported to have rebuked Abū S.ālih.: “How could you interpret the Qur‟ān when you cannot read it?” He was also reported to have told al-Suddī (al-Kabīr): “Beating your backside with a drum is better than this circle of

46

yours.” With regard to al-D.ah.h.āk, he did not meet Ibn „Abbās, and he did not claim to have met him, but he met Sa„īd ibn Jubayr at al-Rayy from whom he took Ibn „Abbās‟s tafsīr. See al-T.abarī, Jāmi„, vol. 1, p. 31.

122. See Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, pp. 218-27.

123. The verse runs as follows: Asad and Pickthall translated it respectively as follows: “Said He: „Take, then four birds and teach them to obey thee‟” and “(His Lord) said: Take four of the birds and cause them to incline unto thee,...” See Muh.ammad Asad, The Message of the Qur’ān, trans. and expl.

(Gibraltar: Dār al-Andalus, 1984), p. 59; and Muh.ammad M. Pickthall, trans., The Glorious Qur’ān (New York: Muslim World League, 1977), p. 41.

124. See al-T.abarī, Jāmi„, vol 3, pp. 35-6. Accepting both meanings, Ibn Kathīr said that the birds were tied up, slaughtered, and cut into pieces. See al-S.ābūnī (ed.), Mukhtasar, vol. 1, p. 237. Ibn Qutaybah holds the same view based on his understanding of the texts. He states that the expression means (join them to you). Then the birds were cut into pieces. The ellipsis of the expression faqat.t.i‘hunna (then cut them into pieces) is apparent in the verse (“then place them separately on every hill [around thee]”, Asad‟s translation). The word juz’an means “in pieces”, namely, after the birds had been cut into pieces. A similar expression would be “Take this cloth and make it a banner on every lance of yours,” meaning, it has to be cut into pieces before the pieces are made into banners; see Ibn Qutaybah, Tafsīr, p. 96; and idem, Gharīb al-H.adīth, vol. 2, p. 593. Ibn al-Anbārī includes the term s.āra among the words which have opposite meanings. He states that the expression means “I collected it” ( ) as well as “I cut and separated it” ( ); see Muh.ammad ibn Qāsim ibn al-Anbārī, Kitāb al-Ad.dād, edited from a unique transcript by M.A. Ibrāhīm (Kuwayt: Dār al-Turāth al-„Arabī, 1960), p. 36. The term s.urhunna is the language of Madīnah, Hijāz and Bas.rah, meaning “cause them to incline”. The variant reading s.irhunna is that of a group of people in Kūfah meaning “cut them into pieces”. But a group of grammarians of Kūfah state that in the Arabic language neither fas.urhunna nor fas.irhunna means “cut them into pieces”, but both mean “cause them to incline”. S.irhunna is the language of Hudhayl and Sālīm; see alT.abarī, Jāmi„, vol. 3, pp. 35-6. A. Y. Ali, rejecting the idea of slaughtering, translated s.urhunna as “tame them”, see A.Y. Ali, The Holy Qur’ān, p. 106. Pickthall and Asad shared the same view and translated it respectively as “cause them to incline unto thee” and “teach them to obey thee” as mentioned above. However, the term of s.urhunna meaning “cut them into pieces”, according to Ibn „Abbās, agrees with that in the Nabatean language, see „Abd Allāh Ibn „Abbās, Kitāb Gharīb al-Qur’ān, verified and presented by Dr. Ah.mad Būlūt. (Cairo: Maktabat al-Zahrā‟, 1993),p. 40. Nabatea or

47

Nabatæa was an ancient Arab kingdom in South-West Asia, now West Jordan; see Abū al-Qāsim ibn Sallām, Lughāt al-Qabā’il al-Wāridah fī ’l-Qur’ān al-Kariīm: Riwāyat ‘an al-S.ah.ābī ’l-Jalīil Ibn ‘Abbās, Rad.iya Allāh ‘anhu. Edited, commented and annotated by Dr. „Abd al-H.amīd al-Sayyid T.alab. Kuwayt: Mat.bū„āt Jāmi„at alKuwayt, 1985, pp. 61-62, n. 2.

125. Ibn Khaldūn, Muqaddimah, vol. 2, p. 446.

126. See Ibn Taymīyah, Majmū‘ Fatāwá, vol. 13, p. 388.

127. Abū al-Qāsim Mah.mūd ibn „Umar al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf „an H.aqā’iq al-Tanzīl, ed. by W. Nassau Lees et al. with continuous pagination, 2 vols. (Calcutta: Mat.ba„at al-Līsī, 1856), vol. 2, p. 157.

128. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 170 129. Al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān, vol. 4, p. 213.

130. Abū „Alī al-Fad.l ibn al-H.asan al-T.abarsī, Majma„ al-Bayān fī Tafsīr al-Qur’ān, 10 vols. in 5 bindings (S.aydā: Mat.ba„at al-„Irfān, 1333/[1915]), vol. 1, p.

115.

131. Ibid., p. 38. This Shī„ā view is also obvious in his commentary on the “light verse” (Q. 24:35) where he quoted the statement of the Shī„ī eighth imām, „Alī al-Rid.ā (d. 203/818), that the mishkāt (the niche) is the Shī„ī community, and the mis.bāh. (the lamp) is Prophet Muh.ammad. See ibid., vol. 7, p. 143.

132. The title is derived from the Qur‟ānic verse “And mixed with the water of Tasnīm” (Q. 83:27). This mixture of pure wine and Tasnīm is for as.h.āb al-yamīn (those of the right hand, i.e., people who will enter Paradise in general), while the pure water of Tasnīm is for al-muqarrabīn (those who are brought near unto their Lord, i.e., people who will enter Paradise with the privilege of being near to God). See al-S.ābūnī, Mukhtas.ar Tafsīr, vol. 3, p. 616.

133 Translated from edition of Arabic text by Kamil Hussein in Collectanea of the Isma’ili Society (Leiden: N.p., 1948), vol. 1, p. 189, quoted by John Alden Williams (ed.), Islam (New York: George Braziller, 1961), p. 235.

134 See al-Zarqānī, Manāhil al-„Irfān, vol. 2, p. 74.

135. Al-H.allāj was reported to have said (I am the Truth), and Ja„far al-S.ād.iq was reported to have fallen down and lost consciousness while he was performing his prayer. When he was asked what happened, he said that he kept on repeating a Qur‟ānic verse until he heard it spoken by its Speaker. See al-Zarqānī, Manāhil al-„Irfān, vol. 2, pp. 91 and 87. However, Ibn Taymiyyah said that a large number of sayings attributed to Ja„far al-S.ādiq were not authentic; see Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Rasā’il al-Munīriyyah, vol.

1, p. 230, quoted by Jullandri, “Qur‟ānic Exegesis and Classical Tafsīr”, IQ xii (1968),

48

p. 109.

136. MS. no. 50 fol. 48, Dār al-Kutub al-Mis.rī, Cairo, p. 78, quoted by Jullandri, “Qur‟ānic Exegesis”, p. 109.

137. Al-Gazālī, Mishkāt al-Anwār, ed. Abū al-„Alā‟ „Afīfī (Cairo: Dār al-Qawmīyah lil-T.ibā„ah wa ‟l-Nashr, 1383/1964), pp. 77-8; and W.H.T. Gairdner, Al-Ghazzali’s Mishkāt al-Anwār (“The Niche for Lights”), a translation with introduction (Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1952), pp. 146-147.

138

138.T.H. Weir, “Ibn „Arabi”, SEI, p. 146 and Jullandri, “Qur‟ānic Exegesis”, pp. 113-114.