Select Chapters of Itqan on the Language of the Qur’an (Imam Suyuti, tr. Sohaib Saeed)
The Ibn ‘Ashur Centre for Quranic Studies is pleased to announce its first official book publication (available for purchase now). It is a scholarly translation of a seminal work of Islamic tradition, al-Itqān fī ‘Ulūm al-Qur’ān by Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505), presented alongside the Arabic text. The Centre’s director, who is also the award-winning translator of The Great Exegesis by Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, has brought his expertise to make this text accessible and informative for researchers and those intending to specialise in Quranic Studies. The chapters in this volume (being equivalent to the second of four volumes of the Itqān) cover topics of the Quran’s vocabulary and grammar. Below are the Table of Contents and an excerpt from the Translator’s Introduction.
Extract from Introduction by Dr. Sohaib Saeed
The book you are now studying is universally acknowledged as a pivotal work in Quranic Sciences (‘ulūm al-Qur’ān) which systematised its topics and influenced all subsequent writings in the field. Its author, ‘Abd al-Raḥmān b. Abū Bakr b. Muḥammad (849–911 AH/1445–1505 CE) is among the most prolific authors in Islamic history, with up to a thousand works under his name in all the major Islamic sciences. He is known by the title Jalāl al-Dīn (‘Glory of the Religion’) al-Suyūṭī by way of ascription to his Egyptian hometown of Asyut, along with honorifics related to his scholarly achievements, including al-Ḥāfiẓ (ḥadīth master). He is considered a pillar of the Sunni scholarly tradition, affiliated with the Shāfi‘ī rite, the Ash‘arī creed and the Shādhilī path.
While details of al-Suyūṭī’s biography and bibliography can be found elsewhere,[i] of particular significance to note here are his contributions to the study of the Qur’an. In addition to his works on Arabic grammar, he is the author of several extant works on Quranic exegesis. The most famous of these is Tafsīr al-Jalālayn (‘Commentary of the Two Jalāls’),[ii] of which he wrote the commentary from al-Baqara to al-Isrā’ (Q. 2–17), completing the work of Jalāl al-Dīn al-Maḥallī (d. 864/1459). Another major exegetical work is al-Durr al-Manthūr fī l-Tafsīr bi-l-Ma’thūr (‘Scattered Pearls of Exegesis by Narration’).[iii] Like his smaller compilation on revelatory contexts,[iv] the Durr is best understood as a thematic collection which aids the mufassir (exegete), rather than a full commitment to the narration-based approach.[v]
The clearest evidence for al-Suyūṭī’s adherence to the broad-based traditional approach to Qur’an interpretation, with language and grammar as key hermeneutical tools, is this work itself; particularly the chapters selected for this volume (which constitute the second quarter of the work). This encyclopaedic collection of eighty chapters (designated ‘types’, anwā‘) was to serve as the introduction to another planned exegesis, Majma‘ al-Baḥrayn wa-Maṭla‘ al-Badrayn, in which al-Suyūṭī aimed to combine narration (riwāya) and analysis (dirāya).[vi]
The genre of Quranic Sciences encompasses a wide range of topics surrounding the study of the Qur’an in all its significance to Muslim life and scholarship. While it is fair to state that the highest goal is to understand the scripture in order to live by its guidance, the Itqān demonstrates that classical enquiries extended beyond this practical need; and a living tradition is one in which modes of enquiry continue to develop with the concerns and the tools of each new era.
Al-Itqān and its Significance
In the Imam’s own introduction to this work, he describes his youthful wonder at the fact that such a compendium had not been attempted by earlier scholars, and his disappointment at the brevity of a work by his own teacher Muḥyī l-Dīn al-Kāfiyajī (d. 879/1474), and another by Jalāl al-Dīn al-Bulqīnī (d. 824/1421).[vii] Al-Suyūṭī took the latter as the basis for his first attempt at this task, which he entitled al-Taḥbīr fī ‘Ulūm al-Tafsīr, containing 102 chapters.[viii] While making plans to follow this up with a more exhaustive project, he came across an earlier work containing 47 chapters: al-Burhān fī ‘Ulūm al-Qur’ān by Badr al-Dīn al-Zarkashī (d. 794/1392). This provided the motivation – and much of the material – for the work we are now studying, to an extent often not made explicit within its pages.[ix]
Other sources which al-Suyūṭī lists in his introduction[x] as having been eclipsed by his new compendium include Funūn al-Afnān by Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597/1201), Jamāl al-Qurrā’ by al-Sakhāwī (d. 643/1245) and al-Murshid al-Wajīz by Abū Shāma (d. 665/1267). Unlike these published works, many of the sources cited by al-Suyūṭī are now lost – a point which underscores the value of his efforts. A serious study of the Itqān also reveals the unfairness of those among his contemporaries, and some modern scholars, who characterised him as “a compiler without originality”![xi] Fortunately, some of the author’s key sources for the chapters in the present volume (whether accessed directly or via al-Zarkashī’s Burhān) are extant and published, so I consulted them whenever possible to clarify points in the Itqān: not least Mughnī l-Labīb by Ibn Hishām (d. 761/1359).
It is also important to recognise the profound influence al-Itqān fī ‘Ulūm al-Qur’ān has had on subsequent scholarship, not least Muslim works on Quranic Sciences, which are mostly abridgements and adjustments of its material. It has also proven a rich source for non-Muslim academics, who mined it for narrations and traditional perspectives. Where I have referred in this translation to such works, it should be understood that Orientalists have naturally depended upon the likes of the Itqān and its sources.[xii]
Quranic Sciences and Uṣūl al-Tafsīr
I am presenting this work to you not just as an artefact from Islamic tradition, but as a practical guide to understanding and explaining the Qur’an. Exegesis of the Qur’an remains very much a live issue, and not just at the hands of expert mufassirūn (if they exist at all). Many voices are offering novel interpretations and even calling for an overhaul of interpretive methodologies – often without demonstrating any grasp of the methods of Muslim scholarship (including the subtleties of Arabic hermeneutics), and grappling with the complex issues addressed in the tradition.
I have written elsewhere about the ‘uṣūl gap’ observed by scholars working on tafsīr today, and how the materials to consolidate Quranic hermeneutics should be extracted from a range of genres including ‘ulūm al-Qur’ān works.[xiii] By perusing the topics covered in al-Suyūṭī’s compendium, we can see how many of them have direct bearing on exegesis, and which of them may be considered supplementary to that craft. Jane Dammen McAuliffe summarises the architecture of the Itqān thus: Modes of revelation > Collection and transmission > Textual dynamics (comprising: Articulation, Lexicology/morphology, Rhetoric, Textual structure) > Miscellaneous > Commentary.[xiv]
It should be evident that the linguistic discussions which begin from Chapter 36 are at the very core of uṣūl al-tafsīr, the methods involved in interpreting the Arabic Qur’an. These chapters begin with individual words and how to establish their meanings, taking into account the possibilities of dialects and internal variation in the scripture. Then Chapter 40 pays special attention to grammatical particles, followed by the rules and instructive examples (including errors and points of debate) summarised in Chapters 41 and 42. Any would-be Qur’an scholar and translator should consider this material fundamental, and the fact that it is presented in a bilingual edition with meticulous attention to detail will – with the permission of the Almighty – make this an indispensible reference work in the field.
Of course, the remaining chapters of al-Itqān contain a great deal of direct relevance to exegesis, including topics in the first quarter, particularly the periods and contexts of revelation (Chs. 1, 9), and knowledge of pauses (Ch. 28) which relates to later chapters on syntax and meaning. The classification of readings (Chs. 22-27)[xv] underlies the grammatical and exegetical discussions found in this volume. More broadly, the earlier chapters touch on fundamental issues which ought to contribute to what I term ‘deep uṣūl’, the core questions on which the whole exegetical enterprise is built. On the one hand, we need to establish what the Qur’an is, how it reached us, and our responsibility concerning it. On the other, exegesis depends upon assumptions or theories about language and meaning.[xvi]
The linguistic chapters in the second quarter, translated here, are among the wide range of tools at the heart of the tafsīr process. The necessary uṣūl are often less detailed in supposedly dedicated works than they are here, and indeed in the lexicons and grammars of Arabic. The same can be said of chapters on Arabic rhetoric (e.g. Chs. 53-57). Another genre in which textual hermeneutics and interrelations have been elaborated is the legal theory of uṣūl al-fiqh, and many of its enquiries are to be found in the third quarter: e.g. the categories of universal vs. particular, abrogating vs. abrogated, and literal vs. metaphorical (Chs. 45, 47, 52). This part of the compendium also addresses verses which appear to contradict (Ch. 48), and how successive topics are interconnected (Ch. 62).[xvii]
The final quarter of the Itqān is no less significant for exegesis: after chapters on the doctrine of the inimitability (i‘jāz) and virtues of the Qur’an (Chs. 64, 72), and discussion of genres of Quranic speech including parables, oaths and arguments (Chs. 66-68), the final four chapters address tafsīr as a field. This includes questions of definition, the qualities and qualifications of a would-be mufassir (i.e. anyone advancing their own interpretation), and a history of Qur’an commentaries.
While all these topics are most worthy of translation and study, we have chosen to produce this manual which touches on the fundamentals of Arabic and its role in understanding the Qur’an. This is appropriate to a divine communication in human language, which should first be understood on its own terms; then these linguistic possibilities should be evaluated alongside other key hermeneutical concerns, especially historical and textual contexts, explanations from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and other authorities, and the general principles of religion and reason.
At the same time, it should be kept in mind that linguistic claims do not exist in a vacuum away from exegesis and theology. The rules themselves are formulated and adjusted to account for meaning, and what exegetes argue that certain verses of the Qur’an have to mean. Even individual words are explained in less-than-obvious ways, and sometimes postulated to belong to an obscure dialect, due to an underlying concern or debate among Muslim scholars. Many examples can be observed in the pages of this book, with the help of the endnotes.[xviii]
A Guide to the Contents
It is helpful at this point to introduce the topics covered in these translated chapters, along with some hints to extract maximum benefit and pursue the topics further. Chapter 36 concerns Gharīb al-Qur’ān, a term which denotes what is ‘strange, uncommon, unfamiliar’, but has come to designate the study of Quranic vocabulary more broadly.[xix] Of course, unfamiliarity is a relative and subjective matter, as can be seen in narrations which indicate that some of the Companions knew a certain word of which some others were unaware. The lexical gap naturally increases over time, as it did from the outset of Islamic expansion into non-Arab lands.
The chapter is based fully on explanations attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās, the cousin of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) who was known as Turjumān al-Qur’ān, the authoritative interpreter. Al-Suyūṭī explains which chains of narration are most reliable, but the use of this material is not wholly dependent on correct ascription to Ibn ‘Abbās. These narrations reflect an inherited understanding which may go back to the earliest times, and linguistic accounts from near the time of revelation have particular value. However, such narrations can wrongly be taken to limit the scope of the words, a problem with narrated (ma’thūr) exegesis in general. The existence of one explanation does not rule out all others, especially when it is not being attributed directly to the Prophet. Even for Prophetic tafsīr, there are cases which are best understood as an example and non-exclusive explanation.[xx]
Looking through the material in this chapter, it is clear that it goes beyond simple explanations of vocabulary. In some cases, Ibn ‘Abbās is seen to identify a vague referent, clarify a figurative expression or a point of grammar, and so on. Many of the word explanations are particular to the verse at hand, which shows that they are exegetical rather than simply lexical. The variety of possible word meanings reflected in Chapter 39 (Polysemy) should be kept in mind here. There is also a question that deserves pondering: are many of these items not clear enough? Why was there a need for someone to ask (perhaps), and for Ibn ‘Abbās to clarify?
Chapter 36 also throws up the problem of synonymy. While it is a point of debate, there is a common view that there are no true synonyms in the Arabic language, particularly in the vocabulary of the Qur’an.[xxi] This is the basis for one of the sections in Chapter 42 in this volume. In contrast, Ibn ‘Abbās is seen here to explain one word through another, as though they are equivalent. These could be understood simply as approximations to the meanings, which in turn implies that other explanatory glosses could be as good, or better.[xxii] We should also compare the contents of this chapter to alternative explanations for the same words and verses, in other chapters. Is hayta/hi’tu lak (12:23) to be understood as an Arabic root as we would understand in Chapter 36, or as a loanword as claimed in Chapter 38? Consolidation and further research are required.
A large part of the Gharīb chapter is the list of 189 questions and answers exchanged between Ibn al-Azraq and Ibn ‘Abbās, out of as many as 360 items recorded in other sources. Questions have been raised over the authenticity of these narrations, and our endnotes point out some of their specific issues. These poetic lines, often lacking any context, presented perhaps the greatest challenge in this translation project. Underlying these materials is the question, also raised by al-Suyūṭī and his predecessors, of the role of Jāhilī and other poetry in interpreting Revelation. To what extent is Quranic meaning dependent on locating a line of poetry which proves it means what it seems to mean?[xxiii]
Chapters 37 and 38 draw from earlier Muslim literature on the dialects of Quranic vocabulary, and words which are thought to have originated in other languages before being absorbed by the Arabic tongue and then recited in the Qur’an. A certain anxiety can be observed in the debate over this phenomenon, summarised by al-Suyūṭī; but for linguists today, language transfer is an axiomatic reality. The fact that such extensive (maybe even exaggerated) lists were compiled is a sign of the openness of Muslim tradition to this reality.
It has also been an assumption of Orientalists, often within a general attitude towards the Qur’an as derivative, and perhaps even as mysterious to its Arab reciters. However, accepting that Quranic Arabic words have their roots in far-flung dialects and languages does not depend upon such negative assumptions. While everything in the Qur’an is indeed Arabic, and was so at the time of revelation, everything has to come from somewhere. Indeed, this may be a necessary component of interpretation, and further research could reveal how purposeful this Quranic feature is.[xxiv]
Chapter 39 provides extremely important insights concerning the richness of Quranic vocabulary and the role of context in distinguishing between nuances of usage. This is an important corrective to over-insistence on ‘consistency’ in Qur’an translation: there are in fact different wujūh (facets) of meaning which may require different target words; while consistency remains a desideratum for the naẓā’ir (parallels) which actually have the same meaning. Like we observed concerning Chapter 36, the lists in this chapter also contain multiple categories, as sometimes the variation is between literal and non-literal usages, and sometimes it is between different external referents of a word. They may be seen as a fore-runner to thematic studies of Quranic terminology.[xxv]
This corrective also applies to hasty applications of the principle of explaining the Qur’an through the Qur’an itself (tafsīr al-Qur’ān bi-l-Qur’ān). Some argue that when a word has one meaning in most of the Qur’an, that same meaning should be assumed in all verses. An example is the denotation of tawaffī in 3:55 – does it entail that Jesus died? The fact that other senses exist in the Qur’an (see 39:42) makes this less than certain; but more fundamentally, there is nothing to prevent 3:55 itself being the exception to the general norm. A subset of the wujūh genre are the compilations of afrād: singularly occurring meanings. It can be seen clearly from this material that there is nothing strange about a word having a separate meaning in just one case.[xxvi]
That being said, there is also a danger in exaggerating the distinctions between these wujūh, and a translator may well use a single word – especially where the target language enjoys comparable expansiveness. Whereas the list provided by al-Suyūṭī describes eighteen different senses of the word hudā (typically ‘guidance’), al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī (d. 255/869) responded to such lists by identifying the essential meaning common to all these usages (in this case, it is mayl, ‘inclination’).[xxvii] This same tension applies to the qawā‘id (often termed kulliyyāt: norms and rules) found in this chapter: are they as absolute as they sound? Often, they are intended as ‘rules of thumb’, comparable to legal maxims which are not designed to be applied automatically. Not only are there exceptions to many of the rules (which are sometimes the very point of formulating the rule!), but some face consistency problems in the light of the Canonical Readings – see my notes on kisf/kisaf, sadd/sudd and rīḥ/riyāḥ.
Chapter 40 is the most technical, and perhaps the most valuable chapter for interpreters and translators of the Qur’an. It concerns particles and other grammatical agents, outlining the variety of their usages; like the wujūh in the previous chapter, the distinctions between these categories are sometimes debated and may be overstated. The Quranic verses cited under each type of bā’, or lām, or min, etc., are worth memorising as exemplars, just as the exegetes have the habit of citing the same verse to exemplify a usage or rule. In this discussion, linguistics are intertwined with tafsīr and sometimes fiqh (substantive law), and the reader will be rewarded by making frequent reference to the sources and diving into the debates. The chapter is a fine summary of the Mughnī of Ibn Hishām, who gives much greater space to exceptional cases.[xxviii]
The aforementioned problem of synonymy shows up again here. The term ta‘āqub al-ḥurūf (‘particle interchangeability’) describes what is found in this chapter to the effect that some of these adawāt may be used in the meaning of another (e.g. the lām sometimes has the meaning of ilā, ‘alā, fī, ‘inda, ba‘da or ‘an). Again, this can be taken as merely an approximation or shorthand. The issue raises questions for a translator, too, since it is often wrong to translate prepositions literally. What to do, for example, with the verse that says that God “will certainly gather you ilā [lit. ‘to, towards’] the Day of Judgment” (4:87)? The explanation provided is to consider it to mean fī (lit. ‘in’), whereas English demands “on”. However, this is to overlook the possible reason for the unexpected particle in Arabic![xxix]
More generally, it is possible to observe these technical grammar debates and move past them to ponder on a deeper meaning intended by the word choice. I share a beautiful example from Muḥammad ‘Abd-Allāh Drāz (d. 1958) under the discussion on ka-mithli in 42:11. The method here is to notice the issue at hand, and consider whether there is an alternative to waving it away as ziyāda, ta‘āqub or majāz; or a good explanation for those features to be employed. For example, it may simply be stated – as here in Chapter 40 – that yurīdu in 18:77 means yakādu, in that the wall was “about to collapse”, as it cannot be said to “want to collapse”; but this should not prevent us considering the imagery in portraying this wall as though it were an old man on his last legs![xxx]
Chapter 41, more explicitly based upon Mughnī l-Labīb, contains not only a handy list of twelve rules for successful grammatical analysis (i‘rāb), but also a treasure trove of instructive errors from even the greatest linguistic minds such as al-Zamakhsharī. Translating this material allows us to caution Qur’an translators of the same pitfalls in a new domain. The classical discussions highlight the role of i‘rāb in describing and distinguishing meanings; the same can be said for the process of translation, which expresses what was understood from the text. The grammatical descriptions of the possibilities within the kalāla verse (4:12), for example, can be compared to the translations provided in the endnotes.
An important issue underlying this chapter is the relationship between grammar and meaning. The maxim has it that i‘rāb is a function (far‘) of meaning, i.e. it follows from it and is secondary to it. This may be understood by charting the communicative process as one in which the speaker conceives of a meaning and constructs a grammatical utterance; then the hearer processes this grammatically to derive meaning. Therefore, while meaning at the last stage depends on grammar, the grammatical analysis seeks to describe the meaning intended by the Divine Speaker. This is why, at times, the imperatives of meaning (especially when theological stakes are high) overrule the dictates of formal grammar.
This chapter contains an extensive discursion concerning the possibility – expressed in some narrations – that some Quranic verses contain grammatical errors or mistranscriptions. As well as analysing the reports in terms of their transmission and possible meanings, al-Suyūṭī lists the range of explanations which have been provided for these difficult verses. This exemplifies the practice of tawjīh or takhrīj (explaining and defending verses and readings) at its most necessary juncture, but these are the skills which a serious student of this volume will hone more broadly.
Chapter 42 picks up on the concept of qawā‘id (maxims, rules) which has appeared before now, and summarises hermeneutical principles – and debates – related to pronouns, gender, definiteness, number, synonomy, conjunction, questions and answers, and alternation between nouns and verbs. This material, like some in preceding chapters, overlaps with the branch of Arabic rhetoric known as ‘ilm al-ma‘ānī, as well as the linguistic fields of semantics and pragmatics. The definition and purpose of qawā‘id has recently been a point of debate in Arab tafsīr scholarship as part of a broader attempt to revive the field of uṣūl al-tafsīr.[xxxi] It should be kept in mind that these ‘rules’ begin life as descriptions, and their prescriptive use should always be tempered by the subtlety and nuance that exegesis deserves.
As a final observation (aside from the endnotes): al-Itqān represents the pinnacle of the scholarship of its time, and remains an indispensible resource which has yet to be fully mined and appreciated. That being said, there is scope to add to the modes of study addressed by its chapters and to reassess its conclusions, just as earlier scholarship has always done. The debates presented within these pages should serve as motivation in this regard, as nobody has the final word. Special opportunities lie in the recent digitisation of early Qur’an manuscripts,[xxxii] as well as newly-discovered inscriptions in the Ḥijāz which shed light on the linguistic and cultural landscape before and during revelation. This is alongside the usual philological methods which have been applied anew to tafsīr, particularly in the modern era.[xxxiii]
~~~~~~~~~
[i] See for example his autobiography al-Taḥadduth bi-Ni‘mat Allāh, with E.M. Sartain’s introductory volume.
[ii] See its translation by Feras Hamza, published by Fons Vitae in 2008 as part of the ‘Great Commentaries on the Holy Qur’an’ series by the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute of Jordan. Another translation was done by Aisha Bewley.
[iii] Al-Durr al-Manthūr was based on al-Suyūṭī’s earlier work Turjumān al-Qur’ān after removing the isnāds. It is available in a 17-volume edition by Markaz Hajr, among others, and its material has been subsumed in the recent Mawsu‘at al-Tafsīr al-Ma’thūr (24 vols. Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 2017).
[iv] Lubab al-Nuqul fī Asbāb al-Nuzūl, available in print and in translation as Reasons and Occasions of Revelation of the Holy Quran (tr. Muhammed Mahdi Al-Sharif. Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 2015). Another treatise which overlaps with the Itqān is al-Suyūṭī’s Asrār Tartīb al-Qur’ān, also in a bilingual edition as Secrets Within the Order of the Qur’an (tr. Adnan Karim, Ariff Olla. Dar al-Arqam, 2018).
[v] In his otherwise excellently argued ‘Preliminary Remarks on the Historiography of tafsīr,’ Walid Saleh overstates al-Suyūṭī’s “alliance to Ibn Taymiyya’s radical hermeneutical paradigm” (pp. 24, 32), meaning a ḥadīth-only approach to exegesis. Stephen Burge builds on this theory in his study of al-Suyūṭī’s methodology in al-Durr, but he alludes in his conclusion to the possibility of reading it instead as “a means by which someone reading an exegesis in the Sunnī core can easily see the relevant aḥādīth related to a particular exegesis” (‘Scattered Pearls,’ p. 271). I cannot see a basis to assume that al-Suyūṭī considered al-Durr as a full exegetical work; even the title is ambiguous in that regard.
[vi] Al-Suyūṭī mentions this in the introduction (see the MMF edition of al-Itqān, p. 15), then again towards the end of the work (p. 2346). To demonstrate Al-Durr’s utility as a thematic resource: al-Shawkānī (d. 1250/1834) praises it in the introduction to his own exegesis, stating that he intends to build on it and combine “riwāya and dirāya” (Fatḥ al-Qadīr, 1/71).
[vii] This work was unavailable until around 2005, when al-Sa‘īd Fu’ād edited one manuscript as a doctoral dissertation at al-Azhar University. Another print came out from Dār al-Ṣaḥāba in 2007, but a more reliable edition, based on more complete manuscripts, was then done by Nabīl Ṣābirī (Dār Ghirās, 2018).
[viii] My copy of this work is entitled Sharḥ Kitāb al-Taḥbīr fī ‘Ilm al-Tafsīr, with commentary by Muḥammad Mūsā al-Sharīf (2 vols. Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 2018).
[ix] For a detailed comparison between the two works, see Ḥaydar, ‘Ulūm al-Qur’ān bayna l-Burhān wa-l-Itqān. The author states (p. 605) that al-Suyūṭī has cited the Burhān explicitly 43 times in the entirety of the work, but has reproduced its material without clarifying its source at least 61 times. More generally, he credits al-Zarkashī with more scrupulous ethics of citation (p. 597).
[x] The author goes on to provide a more extensive list of his sources, in the following categories: books of narrated exegesis, the multiple readings, lexicology and grammar, legal rulings, rhetoric and inimitability, orthography, and various other sources and collections. The last category is “exegesis by non-muḥaddiths”, which includes al-Zamakhsharī’s Kashshāf and its supercommentary by al-Ṭībī; the commentaries of Ibn ‘Aṭiyya, al-Rāzī and Abū Ḥayyān; and Qawā‘id fī l-Tafsīr by Ibn Taymiyya [better known today as Muqaddima fī Uṣūl al-Tafsīr] (MMF, p. 42).
[xi] See discussion in Sartain, Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī, Volume 1, pp. 113-115.
[xii] For example, Arthur Jeffery wrote in his 1937 introduction to The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur’ān (p. xiv) that its original appendix “consisted of the Arabic text, edited from two [manuscripts] in the Royal Library at Cairo, of as-Suyūtī’s al-Muhadhdhab, which is the original treatise at the basis of his chapter on the foreign words in the Itqān and of his tractate entitled al-Mutawakkilī.”
[xiii] See my paper ‘The Shahin Affair’ concerning this gap. In my PhD thesis ‘Intraquranic Hermeneutics’ (and the forthcoming book from Edinburgh University Press, Explaining the Qur’an Through the Qur’an), I show how chapters from this work can contribute to a full hermeneutical account.
[xiv] McAuliffe, ‘Exegetical Sciences’ in The Blackwell Companion to the Qur’an, p. 407.
[xv] In reality, these anwā‘ form one chapter, on which basis we may say the book contains 75 rather than 80.
[xvi] The mid-range of uṣūl are those usually spoken about, and others which can be added. As for surface-level uṣūl, these would describe how to make use of exegetical sources and evaluate their opinions, without engaging in tafsīr directly. Unfortunately, even this kind of advice is difficult to come across.
[xvii] For discussion of these genres and more types of textual relations within the Qur’an, see Saeed, ‘Intraquranic Hermeneutics,’ Chapter 4 (Juristic, Thematic, Comparative and Contextual Methods).
[xviii] Consider, for example, how ibn is said to mean, in a certain dialect, “son of one’s wife”. This was only due to the hesitation to ascribe unbelief to the son of Noah. Another example is the perceived problem of “pressing wine” in the story of Joseph, hence khamr is said to mean “grapes” in the Omani dialect. We may wonder, however, what Oman has to do with Egypt!
[xix] A good overview of this subject and genre is in the Introduction to Badawi and Haleem, Arabic-English Dictionary of Qur’anic Usage (Brill, 2008), followed by discussion of the gap for their English dictionary “based upon the interpretations by classical Qur’anic commentators of the contextualized occurrences of the finite vocabulary items used in the Qur’anic text” (p. xvi).
[xx] Thus argues Ibn ‘Āshūr (al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 1/198) concerning the designation in Sūrat al-Fātiḥa of “the objects of anger” as the Jews, and “the straying ones” as the Christians.
[xxi] See Munajjad, al-Tarāduf fī l-Qur’ān al-Karīm.
[xxii] In this is also subtle support for the validity and value of Qur’an translation.
[xxiii] Cf. the radical novelty theory concerning Quranic language advanced by Bassam Saeh (The Miraculous Language of the Qur’an, tr. Nancy Roberts, London: International Institute of Islamic Thought, 2015): he argues that its miracle actually consists in the fact that the Qur’an can be understood despite nearly every phrase being unprecedented in Arabic. This theory has its own problems which I will not elaborate here.
[xxiv] Opposition to loanwords in Arabic may derive from nationalistic ideologies, or otherwise from scholarly approaches which emphasise the richness of Arabic. Muḥammad Ḥasan Jabal’s dictionary al-Mu‘jam al-Ishtiqāqī al-Mu’aṣṣal elaborates a theory of root connectivity which almost resembles mathematics; the messiness of language transfer could be seen to pollute this system. The word ṣirāṭ/sirāṭ (path), for example, is widely accepted to have come from Latin strata; Jabal dismisses this (p. 998), preferring to link it to the root meaning of movement with ease, or swallowing (as Ibn Fāris stated: the road ‘swallows’ up the traveller). Perhaps a compromise can be found: the loanwords found a home in the roots and logic of the Arabic language. Moreover, perhaps there is special wisdom in this ‘foreign’ term within the Fātiḥa, which opens with praise of “the Lord of the worlds” – the sūra may have a running theme of a global and universal outlook.
[xxv] The dominant term in this respect is al-tafsīr al-mawḍū‘ī, which is used to describe surveys of a theme across the Qur’an (among other uses of the term). A more specific version called al-muṣṭalaḥ al-qur’ānī (Quranic terminology) has been developed by Moroccan scholars under the leadership of al-Shāhid al-Būshīkhī (b. 1945).
[xxvi] See my chapter on ‘Tafsir al-Qur’an bi-l-Qur’an’ in the forthcoming Handbook of Qur’ānic Hermeneutics (De Gruyter).
[xxvii] Al-Tirmidhī, Taḥṣīl Naẓā’ir al-Qur’ān, pp. 19-24. This was apparently a response to Muqātil b. Sulaymān (d. 150/767), al-Wujūh wa-l-Naẓā’ir. The reductionist approach of Jabal, following Ibn Fāris (d. 395/1004) and others, was mentioned above.
[xxviii] ‘Uḍayma, Dirāsāt li-Uslūb al-Qur’ān (11 vols.) provides a more systematic layout of examples.
[xxix] It could be to create an image of people accumulating through time and being led to a shared final destination which is the standing on that Day.
[xxx] I discuss it in this imagery in an online post, along with a literal approach (from Muḥammad al-Amīn al-Shinqīṭī, d. 1972) with which I disagree: http://quranreflect.com/posts/9745. Seeking the deeper meanings of grammatical choices is an approach well represented in recent decades by Fāḍil al-Sāmarrā’ī (b. 1933), author of numerous works including Ma‘ānī al-Naḥw and ‘Alā Ṭarīq al-Tafsīr al-Bayānī.
[xxxi] See the debate in and surrounding the volume from Tafsir Center, Riyadh: al-Ta’līf al-Mu‘āṣir fī Qawā‘id al-Tafsīr.
[xxxii] See on this topic: Ghānim al-Ḥamad, ‘Ulūm al-Qur’ān bayna l-Maṣādir wa-l-Maṣāḥif (Markaz Tafsir, 2019).
[xxxiii] An example I share in the endnotes to Chapter 42 is the argument by Ḥamīd al-Dīn al-Farāhī (d. 1930) that ālā’ does not mean ‘favours’ as generally understood: see his Mufradāt al-Qur’ān.