Edinburgh University Press, Centre For Islamic Studies at SOAS Journal of Qur'anic Studies
Edinburgh University Press, Centre For Islamic Studies at SOAS Journal of Qur'anic Studies
Edinburgh University Press, Centre For Islamic Studies at SOAS Journal of Qur'anic Studies
Review
Reviewed Work(s): The Formation of the Classical <italic>Tafsīr</italic> Tradition: The
Qurʾān Commentary of al-Thaʿlabī (d. 427/1035). Texts and Studies on the Qurʾān, 1 / ﻊﺿﻭ
ﺮﻴﺴﻔﺘﻟﺍ ﻢﻠﻌﻟ ﺔﻴﺳﺎﺳﻷﺍ ﺪﻴﻟﺎﻘﺘﻟﺍ: ﻲﻓﻮﺗ( ﻲﺒﻟﺎﻌﺜﻟﺍ ﺮﻴﺴﻔﺗ1035/427 ( by Walid Saleh and ﺢﻟﺎﺻ ﺪﻴﻟﻭ
Review by: Omar Alí-de-Unzaga and ﺎﺟﺍﺰﻧﻭﺃ ﻱﺩ ﻲﻠﻋ ﺮﻤﻋ
Source: Journal of Qur'anic Studies, Vol. 8, No. 1 (2006), pp. 119-125
Published by: Edinburgh University Press on behalf of the Centre for Islamic Studies at
SOAS
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25728201
Accessed: 24-01-2020 16:55 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Edinburgh University Press, Centre for Islamic Studies at SOAS are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Qur'anic Studies
This content downloaded from 132.230.194.134 on Fri, 24 Jan 2020 16:55:03 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Book Reviews
When we ask how Muslims have been able to derive meaning from the Qur'an, or
rather, how the text of the Qur'an has produced meaning for them century after
century, we are led to the conclusion that the search for the true meaning of the
Qur'an resulted in a multiplication of meanings. Walid Saleh quotes Muhammad ibn
Ahmad al-Qurtub! (d. 671/1272) as saying that Q. 31:27, the aya that mentions the
inexhaustibility of God's words, refers to 'the multitude of meanings of the Words of
God, meanings which are endless' (p. 1, n. 2). This phrase could summarise the
endeavour of successive generations of scholars who were engaged in Qur'anic
commentary in order to discern the meanings of the kalimat Allah and explain them
to their respective contemporaries. This 'multitude of meanings' might thus be the
basis for a pluralistic understanding of the exegetical tradition, which does not tell us
as much about the Qur'an as it does about the exegetes themselves, and their
societies and cultures. Saleh touches on exactly this point when he says that in
Qur'anic commentary 'one finds reflected the concerns of every generation of
Muslim intellectuals' (p. 2), rejecting the view that this discipline was a 'detached,
ahistorical enterprise with no connection to the cultural milieu in which it was
produced' (p. 11).
This content downloaded from 132.230.194.134 on Fri, 24 Jan 2020 16:55:03 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
120 Journal of Qur'anic Studies
Even though we are far from achieving a global understanding of the totality of
complexities that formed the genre of tafsir, it is high time that scholars' work is
geared towards a history of Qur'anic commentary, which will entail still more basic
philological work (as basic as the editing and cataloguing of manuscripts), the
redirection of efforts focusing on all periods of Qur'an commentary and the
reassessment of theories proposed in the last hundred years (not since Golziher's
1920 Richtungen der islamischen Koranauslesung have we witnessed a monograph
that attempts to offer a comprehensive depiction of tafsir in its chronological,
typological, methodological and doctrinal coordinates).
The main previously established conception that Saleh challenges is the prevalent
view of the tafsir of Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310/923) as somehow the
highest point in the 'tradition'. In a sense the book is a vindication of al-Thaclabi's
influential position in the history of tafsir as having 'transformed and reshaped' the
discipline in such a way that his work became 'far more influential' than that of
al-Tabari (p. 5), and it seems clear that Saleh's aim is to situate al-Thaclabi closer to
the centre stage of tafsir studies. Al-Thaclabl, Saleh claims, has not only resumed
al-Tabari's task but has also 'redone' it (p. 8). It is a constant of Islamic studies (and
historical studies in general) that particular authors are hailed as makers of traditions
or ostracised as rarities and exceptions (or vice-versa). In this case, Saleh's effort to
downplay the influence of al-Tabari and to highlight that of al-ThaclabI must be
received with caution, unless one equates influence in a tradition with intellectual
excellence. Saleh makes another important general point: that the two centuries
between al-Tabari and Mahmud ibn cUmar al-Zamakhshari (d. 538/1144) witnessed
the 'rise to dominance' of what he calls 'the Nishapuri school of Qur'an
commentary' which comprises al-Thaclabi himself, his master al-Hasan ibn
Muhammad ibn Habib (d. 406/1015), and his student, and in a sense intellectual heir,
CA1I ibn Ahmad al-Wahidl (d. 486/1076). The Nishapuri school was 'extremely
influential' in the following centuries (p. 4) and, as Saleh ventures to say, 'may be
the best in the field' (p. 49). (The author states his intention of writing on al-Wahidi
(p. 28, n. 14) which will undoubtedly make a valuable contribution to our knowledge
of the 'Nishapuri school'.)
This content downloaded from 132.230.194.134 on Fri, 24 Jan 2020 16:55:03 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Book Reviews 121
The Formation of the Classical Tafslr Tradition is well written and clearly
organised. It contains a useful summary of chapters (pp. 5-14), and its solidity is
reinforced by the addition of three appendices (respectively, on the manuscripts of
the Kashf on al-Thaclabfs teachers, and on those sources used in the Kashf which
are no longer extant). One misses, however, a list of the sources which have reached
us, although these are discussed in the text.
The analysis carried out by Saleh is doublefold. On the one hand, there is an
intertextual approach (what Saleh calls the 'macro-lever) to the contents of the
Kashf vis-a-vis the works of other commentators, with al-Tabari, al-Zamakhshari
and al-Qurtubi among others. There is also an intratextual reading (the 'micro-lever)
of the Kashf which focuses on the relationships that are at play between al-Thaclabi's
hermeneutical theory present in his introduction and his exegetical practice. The
chapters devoted to this (Chapters Five and Six) occupy 40 per cent of the book.
Walid Saleh is right in dismissing the categories (originally mainly polemical, and
replicated by modern scholarship) of tafslr bVl-ma?thur and tafslr bVl-ra3y as an
'ideological division' which has 'no basis in the genre itself. As he puts it, 'most of
the tafslr bVl-ma3thur is in reality a tafslr bVl-ra^y" (p. 16). However, despite his
commendable attempt at creating new categories for describing the different types of
tafslr ('encyclopedic' and 'madrasa-style',2 to which he also adds 'scholastic
glosses'), Saleh makes a rather vague use of the term 'Sunnism'. 'Sunnism' is taken
to be 'a large umbrella under which many ideas and doctrines coexisted' (p. 18),
although it is left largely undefined in depth. Futhermore, although Saleh makes a
caveat regarding the use of the terms 'Sunnism', 'orthodoxy' and 'heresy' (p. 28), he
uses them often in a similarly indeterminate, impersonal vein: 'all meanings
sanctioned by Sunnism were admissible and they were sanctioned by Sunnism
because Sunnism set loose boundaries for acceptance' (p. 20). He adds that 'the state
supported and fostered orthodox Islam' (p. 27). This implies that there is such a
thing as 'orthodox Islam' which then was supported by the state, when the case was
the opposite: it is precisely the support of an establishment that gives the defenders
This content downloaded from 132.230.194.134 on Fri, 24 Jan 2020 16:55:03 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
122 Journal of Qur'anic Studies
This content downloaded from 132.230.194.134 on Fri, 24 Jan 2020 16:55:03 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Book Reviews 123
Chapter Four is, then, an analysis of al-Thaclabfs thought and of his own positioning
of his work inside the exegetical literature. Saleh pays special attention to the
'fourteen aspects or ways (nahwf used by al-Thaclabi as the guiding principles of
his book. These aspects are quite elaborate and innovative but Saleh has discovered a
resemblance between al-Thaclabfs terminology and the literature of the Karramiyya
that indicates a possible influence of the latter on al-Thaclabi's approach. The author
does not delve deeply into this link and the Karraml influence on the Nishapur!
author will need further research. Al-Thaclabi's hermeneutical theory is best
summarised by his definition of tafslr and ta'wll and his support of the view that
scholars are the rasikhun fi'l-cilm ('those who are firmly rooted in knowledge', of Q.
3:7) who can and do know the interpretation of 'every aspect of the Qur?an, even the
ambiguous parts' (p. 94). An important point for the history of Qur'anic exegesis
mentioned by al-ThaclabI and emphasised by Walid Saleh is that all exegetes,
including the Sunnis, indulged in interpretation, 'despite protestations to the
contrary'. But al-ThaclabI went further than that. While taking into account
everything that had been said regarding the interpretation of the Qur'an by previous
generations, he brought into tafslr 'grammar, poetry, history, dogma, law, and
philology' in an integrated and comprehensive manner which, as Saleh claims,
helped create a 'new tradition of encyclopedic commentaries' which intended to
make of tafslr 'a main repository for Islamic moral education' (p. 96). What allowed
him to perform such a task was his definition of ta 'wll as 'sarf al-aya ila macna
yactamiluhu muwafiq li-ma qablaha wa-ma bacdahcC ('the rendering of the meaning
of the verse into a different meaning that it might entertain which is consistent with
what comes before and after it', according to Saleh's translation, p. 92, p. 97). Saleh
explains that although al-Thaclabi's theory implied the acceptance of a 'polyvalency'
of meanings, his acceptance of interpretations was ultimately limited by doctrinal not
philological considerations - i.e. his 'SunnT creed' (p. 98). Indeed this was one of the
greatest limitations of classical Islamic thought, that despite the will of many
thinkers to be comprehensive and all-embracing, doctrinal differences led to the
exclusion of ample bodies of intellectual material. Al-Thaclabi thus rejects and
ignores Muctazili interpretations. Only in contemporary scholarship are we able to
look at the whole spectrum of interpretations, examine and value them side by side
with a non-normative approach.
In Chapter Five, Saleh rightly points out that John Wansbrough's application of
terms from the Hebrew scriptural and midrashic tradition to the study of tafslr has
'ceased to add to our understanding of this tradition'. Instead, he proposes the use of
an alternative terminology, and only time will tell if this becomes accepted in tafslr
studies, as some of these terms are borrowed and others developed by Saleh, such as
the 'Nishapuri school' of tafslr (p. 4, et passim), the 'salvific interpretation' of the
Qur'an (p. 108), the 'k-verses' (i.e. those that address Muhammad, p. 112), the
'anthological' nature of tafslr (p. 140, p. 152), 'fictive narratives' (p. 161, i.e.
This content downloaded from 132.230.194.134 on Fri, 24 Jan 2020 16:55:03 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
124 Journal of Qur'anic Studies
interpretations that are 'narrative in nature and where the narrative has no basis in
the verses being interpreted'), 'functional (or moral) exegesis' (p. 167), the
'dialogical-Qur?an' (p. 175), and the dichotomy between 'encyclopedic' and
'madrasa' commentaries (p. 199), to cite some examples. Chapter Six outlines the
main 'tendencies' incorporated by al-Thaclabi in his tafsir - mysticism, narrative,
moral(istic) thought, political/doctrinal polemics, Hadlth and scholasticism. By
being applied to the explanation of the Qur'an, these disciplines (which were in turn
somehow 'produced by the culture that the Qur?an had brought into being') were
being 'sanctified'. Saleh is right in asserting the high cultural significance of tafsir
for 'making the world itself comprehensible', which was a venture 'far greater than
"explaining" the Qur?an' (p. 151).
Chapter Seven briefly covers the reception history of al-Thaclabi's Kashf in the
Sunni exegetical tradition. Saleh concludes that soon after al-Thaclabi exegetes
'ceased to use the individual pre-Tabarl commentaries directly', relying instead on
'encyclopaedic' commentaries (p. 206). As opposed to the (historically) largely
ignored tafsir of al-Tabari, he traces the lasting influence of the Kashf which was a
major source even for al-Zamakhshari's al-Kashshaf can haqd?iq al-tanzil and
al-Qurtubl's al-Jamic li-ahkam al-QurJan. Finally, Saleh analyses the role of
al-ThaclabI's work in SunnI-ShIcI polemics. It is ironic that it was precisely the
comprehensiveness of his approach, and his inclusion of a wide range of materials
(which he accepted as long as long as they were philologically sound) that was
ultimately to undermine al-ThaclabI's prestige among later Sunni commentators. The
Kashf contains a certain amount of Shlci material, which al-ThaclabI used to
'neutralise the ShIcI position' and 'inoculate' the Sunnls against 'ShIcI propaganda'.
Saleh uncovers evidence that 200 years after al-Thaclabi's death, Shfi authors, such
as Ibn al-Bitriq (d. 600/1203), CA1I ibn Tawus (d. 664/1266) and his brother Ahmad
(d. 673/1275), and al-cAllama al-Hilll (d. 726/1235) started to use traditions found in
the Kashf that supported the claims of the Shlca that CAH ibn Abl Talib was referred
to in the Qur'an, and used those traditions in either anti-Sunn! polemical treatises or
in expositions of ShIcI doctrines. Ibn Taymiyya, with what Saleh calls his 'radical
hermeneutics' (p. 217: philology had 'no role to play' in exegesis; the Qur'an must
be interpreted 'by the Qur?an itself, by the Prophet's tradition (Sunna) and by the
interpretations of the early generations), rejected the authority of al-Thaclabi's tafsir
partly on account of his use of ShIcI material. Saleh attests to the decay of
al-ThaclabI's reputation that has occurred since then among Sunni authors, as seen
in, for example, al-Itqan fi culum al-QurJan of cAbd al-Rahman al-Suyuti
(d. 911/1505).
In conclusion, the editors of the Brill 'Texts and Studies of the Qur?an' series,
Gerhard Bowering and Jane D. McAuliffe, of which The Formation of the Classical
This content downloaded from 132.230.194.134 on Fri, 24 Jan 2020 16:55:03 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Book Reviews 125
Omar Ali-de-Unzaga
NOTES
1 Pace Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger (eds), The Invention of Tradition (London:
Cambridge University Press, 1983); Raymond Williams, Marxism and Literature (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1977).
2 For a mild critique of this classification, see Andrew J. Lane, A Traditional Muctazilite
QurJan Commentary: The Kashshaf of Jar Allah al-Zamakhsharl (d. 538/1144), Texts and
Studies on the Qur?an, 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), pp. 114-16.
3 Khaled El-Rouayheb, 'From Ibn Hajar al-Haytaml (d. 1566) to Khayr al-Dln al-AlusT (d.
1899): Changing Views of Ibn Taymiyya amongst non-HanbalT Sunni Scholars', paper
presented at the conference on Tbn Taymiyyah and His Times', Princeton, April 8-10, 2005,
forthcoming as an article in the conference proceedings.
This book, originally a PhD thesis submitted to the University of London, presents
itself as a contribution to Qur'anic studies concerned with understanding the sura as
a unity, an approach to the Qur'an which, since the mid 20th century, has moved to
the mainstream of this field of study. The author uses a theory now current in
contemporary linguistics to devise a technique by which to demonstrate, on the basis
of objective criteria, the organic unity of the longer, multiple subject suras of the
Qur'an: as such it merits close sympathetic study.
Textual Relations in the Qur'an comprises an Introduction (pp. 1-25) in which the
author sets out her perceptions of the need for such a work, her modus operandi, the
terminology she uses, and explains why the approach she has chosen is 'the most
appropriate' (p. 7); an historical overview of approaches to coherence (munasaba) in
the sura (Chapter One, pp. 9-25); an account of the linguistic theory to be her
instrument of enquiry (Chapter Two, pp. 26-AA); its application to Surat al-Ahzab
(Chapter Three, pp. 45-100); and to Surat al-Qiyama (Chapter Four, pp. 101-59),
and a Conclusion (pp. 160-3).
Chapter One has three threads: the ideas of coherence within the sura in the pre
modern tradition of exegesis, notably in the work of al-RazT, al-Zarkashi and al
BiqacI; the attitudes to the views of such coherence - or rather the absence of it -
This content downloaded from 132.230.194.134 on Fri, 24 Jan 2020 16:55:03 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms