IBN QUTAYBAH'S CONTRIBUTION TO QUR’ĀNIC EXEGESIS

8/15/2019 IBN QUTAYBAH'S CONTRIBUTION TO QUR’ĀNIC EXEGESIS

1/414

i

IBN QUTAYBAH'S CONTRIBUTION

TO

QUR’ĀNIC EXEGESIS

AN ANALYTICAL STUDY OF HIS WORK

TA’WĪL MUSHKIL AL-QUR’ĀN

(The Interpretation of the Difficult Passages of the Qur’ān).

BY

DR. MUHAMMAD AMIN A. SAMAD


2/414

ii

PUBLISHER’S NOTE

This book is a revision of a dissertation submitted in fulfil-

ment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophyin February 1994 at the Faculty of Arts, the Uni-versity of

Melbourne, Australia. It conains some Qur’anic sciences by IbnQutaybah, one of the earlier commentators of the Qur’an.

-The Qur’an is believed by Muslims to be revealed byAllah to Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. fourteen centuries ago in its

original words. It contains figurative language, such as: metaphor,

inversion, ellipsis and brevity, repetition and pleonasm,

metonymy and allusion, as well as the disagreement of the wordwith its literal meaning, such as: imprecation, sudden transition,

juncture, tempora, and mor-phology. Words which have many

different meanings, and the meanings of particles in the Qur’anare also dealt with in this book.

This book, then, is indis-pensable for those who intend to

have better and deeper under-standing of the Qur’an, the holy book of Islam, embraced by one-fifth of the world population. It

is also hoped that this book would shed some light to those whoare curious about Islam and its holy book, the Qur’an.

.................

................

.................................


3/414

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), al-Zamakhsharī (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 philo-logical

explanations many Qur’ānic verses assumed to be obscure by some

sceptics. This obscurity is based on their allegations of the existence of

contradiction, disagree-ment 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 ambi-guous

letters, words and particles in the verses of the Qur’ān.


4/414

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my deepest appreciation to Dr. Abdul

Khaliq Kazi, the former Associate Professor of Arabic and IslamicStudies 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 thisthesis, 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


5/414

v

TRANSLITERATION SYSTEM

The English transliteration for Arabic names and terms followed in

this thesis is as follows:a. Consonants:

= a or ’ = b = t = th = j = h.

= kh = d = dh = r = z

= s = sh = s. = d . = t .

= z . = ‘ = gh = f = q

= k = l = m = n = h

w = = y = ’ (like alif )

b. Vowels:

Short: long: Fath.ah -----: = a = ā

Kasrah ----- = i = ī

D.ammah --: = u = ū

c. T ā’ marbūt .ah : ah, e.g ., sūrah ( )

T ā’ marbūt .ah in id .āfah: at , e.g., sūr at al-Baqarah ( )

d. Alif maqs .ūrah : á, e.g., qad . á ( ) and shūr á ( )


6/414

vi

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS

BSOAS Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African

Studies

EI 2 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’ān

SEI Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam

SI Studia Islamica


7/414

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT ….iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS … . …v

TRANSLITERATION SYSTEM… .... v

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ….. vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS … vii

INTRODUCTION … xiv

Chapter

THE SOURCES AND HIS-TORICAL BACKGROUND ...1

A. An Evaluation of Some of the Literature Relevantto the Study of Ibn Qutaybah....... 1

1. The Literary Works of Ibn Qutaybah ……1

a. Ta’wīl Mushkil al -Qur’ān ....... .1

b. Tafsīr Gharīb al -Qur’ā ... 3

c. Gharīb al-H .adīth….......4

d. Adab al- Kātib .........4

2. Books on Tafsīr (Qur’ānic Exegesis) by Others ..7

a. Majāz al -Qur’ān by Abū ‘Ubaydah ........... 7

b. Ma‘ānī ’l -Qur’ān by al-Farrā’ ......... 8

c. Jāmi‘ al - Bayān fī Tafsīr al - Qur’ān byIbn Jarīr al-T.abarī ......8

3. Books on Arabic Language and Literature …8

a. Kitāb al -Ad .dād by Ibn al-Anbārī ...


8/414

viii

b. Al-S .āh.ibī fī Fiqh al -Lughah by Ibn Fāris ... 8

c. Lisān al -‘Arab by Ibn Manz.ūr ... 10

B. Historical Background …. 10

1. A Short Synopsis of Ibn Qutaybah’s Life ..10.

2. Political, Social, and Cultural Conditions in

Ibn Qutay- bah’s Life ... 14

a. Political Condition .... 14

b. Social Condition .... 16

c. Cultural Condition . 18

3. Historical Perspective on the Development of Early

Qur’ānic Exegesis ... 21

a. Tafsīr and Ta’wīl ... 21

b. Categories of Tafsīr ... 23

(1)Traditional Commentary .... 23(2) Rational Commentary ... 25

(3) Symbolic (Allegorical) Commentary .... 27

C. Early Development of Tafsīr ... 29

Endnotes to Chapter I. …43

II. IBN QUTAYBAH’S REFUTATION OF ALLEGATIONS OF

SOLECISM, CONTRADICTION AND AMBIGUITYIN THE VERSES OF THE QUR’ĀN …….. 59

A. Variant Readings in the Qur’ān ... 59

B. Ungrammatical Usage in the Qur ’ān .....77


9/414

ix

1. Inna hādhān lasāh.irān ( ) ... 78

2. Wa ’l -s.ābi’ūn () ..... 81

3. Wa ’l -muqīīn al -s.alāh () .... 84

4. Nujjī al-mu’minīn () ..... 90

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

( ) ..... 92

C. Contradiction and Disagreement in the Verses of the Qur’ān …93

1. Contradiction ..... 932. Disagreement ..... 94

D. Ambiguity of the Verses of the Qur’ān ... 98

1. The Meaning of Ambiguity ..... 98

2. Muh.kamāt and Mutashābihāt ... 99

3. The Ta’wīl of the Mutashābihāt .... 101

Endnotes to Chapter II ... 111

III. IBN QUTAYBAH’S TREATMENT OF THE PHENOMENA

OF FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE ….. 127

A. Metaphor … 127

1. Majāz ... 127

2. Isti‘ārah 133

B. Inversion ( Maqlūb) ... 139

1. Ascribing Something with Its Opposite Quality …..140

2. Designating Two Contradictory Things Having


10/414

x

One Basic Meaning with One Name ... 141

3. Advancing What will Be Clear by Retarding, and

4. Inversion by Mistake ... 162C. Ellipsis ( H .adhf ) and Brevity ( Ikhtis.ār ) ... 166

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

by the Mud .āf Ilayh …167

2. The Ellipsis of the Verb ... 168

3. The Ellipsis of the Main Clause of a Conditional

or an Incomplete Sentence

4. The Ellipsis of One or Two Words ... 171

5. The Ellipsis of the Main Clause of an Oath ... 172

6. The Ellipsis of the Word lā ... 173

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

Been Mentioned before ... 174

8. The Ellipsis of the Prepositions .... 176

9. Complex Ellipsis ... 177

D. Repetition (Takrār ) and Pleonasm ( Ziyādah) ... 179

1. Repetition ... 179

a. Repetition of Words ... 179

b. Repetition of Meaning ... 181

2. Pleonasm ... 182

a. General Pleonasm ... 182


11/414

xi

b. Specific Pleonasm ... 183

E. Kināyah (Metonymy) and Ta‘rī d . (Allusion) ... 195

1. Kināyah (Metonymy) ... 196

a. Kunyah ... 197

b. Fulān ... 199

2. Ta‘rī d . (Allusion) ... 201

F. The disagreement of the Word with Its Literal Meaning 205

1. Imprecation …206

2. Repetition .. 207

3. Rhetorical Question ... 207

4. Imperative ... 208

5. Specification ... 208

6. Number ... 209a. Noun ... 210 b. Adjective (Quality) ... 211

c. Verb ... 212

7. Sudden Transition ( Iltifāt ) .... 215

8. Juncture .... 219

9. Tempora ... 220

10. Morphology ... 222

Endnotes to Chapter III . 225


12/414

xii

IV. IBN QUTAYBAH’S TREATMENT OF AM-BIGUOUSLETTERS, WORDS AND PARTICLES IN THE

VERSES OF THE QUR’ĀN ... 267

A. Letters Assumed to Be Absurd and Stylistically Spoiling …267

B. Words which Have Many Different Meanings … 273

1. al-qad .ā’ () 2. al-hudá ) ) 3. al-ummah () 4. al-

‘ahd () 5. al-ill () 6. al-qunūt () 7. al-dīn () 8. al-

mawlá () 9. al-d .alāl () 10. al-imām ( ( 11. al-s.alāh

() 12. al-kitāb () 13. al-sabab () .14. al-z .ulm ()

15. al-balā’ ( ( 16. al-rijz () and al-rijs () 17. al-

fitnah () 18. al-fard . () 19. al-khiyānah () 20. al-

islām () 21. al-īmān () 22. al-d .urr () 23. al-h.araj

() 24. al-rūh. () 25. al-wah. y () 26. al-farah. ()

27. al-fath. () 28. al-karīm () 29. al-mathal ( (30. al-

d .arb () 31. al-zawj () 32. al-ru’yah () 33. al-nisyān

() 34. al-s.ā‘iqah ) ) 35. al-akhdh () 36. al-sult .ān

() 37. al-ba’s () and al-ba’sā’ () 38. al-khalq

() 39. al-rajm () 40. al- sa‘y () 41. al-muh. s.anāt

() 42. al-matā‘ () 43. al-h.isāb () 44. al-amr

()

C. Meanings of Particles …… 333

1. ka’ayyin () 2. kayfa () 3. sawá () , siwá () and


13/414

xiii

suwá () 4. ayyāna () 5. al-āna () 6. anná () 7.

wayka’anna () 8. ka’anna () 9. lāta () 10. mahmā ()

11. mā () 12. kāda () 13. bal () 14. hal () 15. law lā () and law mā () 16. lammā ) ) 17. aw () 18. am () 19. lā

() 20. awlá () 21. lā jarama () 22. in al-khafīfah (

) 23. hā () 24. hāti ) ) 25. ta‘āl () 26. halumma ()

27. kallā () 28. Ruwaydan () 29. alā ( ) 30. al-wayl ()

31. la‘amruka () 32. iy () 33. ladun ( )

D. The Substitution of Particles in the Verses of the Qur’ān .... 361

1. ilá () 2. bi () 3. ‘alá () 4.‘an () 5. fī () 6. li ( ) 7.

min ()

Endnotes to Chapter IV ... 373

CONCLUSION ... 439

BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 448

A. Arabic Sources ... 448

B. English and Other Language Sources ... 458

C. Articles ... 467

APPENDICES .... 463

1. Authorities and Transmitters of the Qur’ān ... 463

2. Glossary ... 464


14/414

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 hewas of a Persian origin he was considered one of the great masters of

Arabic language and literature. His book Adab al-K ātib (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 6th century C.E. in Arabicolder than Old English (Anglo-Saxon) used in about 450 C.E. till 1150

C.E. which is totally non-understandable nowadays, as it con-sisted 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 peopletoday, 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 explainedthem referring to the Arabs' way of expression and the location of majāz

(figurative expression) in it.

The Arabic language is called Lughat al-Ad .

dād ("The Language

of Opposite Meanings") where many words have the same opposite

meanings which may confuse some people, such as the word s.arīm which

means "dawn" as well as "night". There are also words which have many

different meanings, such as qad .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 theQur’ān, earlier than "the father of the commentary of the Qur’ān" al -Tabarī (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


15/414

xv

mufassirīn (commentators of the Qur’ān) of later generations. Hence thecontribution of Ibn Qutaybah in the field of tafsīr (commentary of the

Qur’ān) is indis-pensable for those who are interested in studying

comprehensively the science of tafsīr. 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 amongMuslims 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)


16/414

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 Qutaybah2. Books on Tafsī r (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: kal ām (theology), the science of language (including tafsī r , h.ad ī th,

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 wereconsidered “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’wī l Mushkil al- Qur’ā n

This book is the object of my analytical study to assess Ibn

Qutaybah’s contributions to Qur’ānic exegesis. The motive for his writingthe book was to defend the Qur’ān from the mulh.id ī n (heretics, unbelievers)

who charged the Qur’ān with imperfection, such as contradiction,obscurity, and solecism. He said:

.... Therefore, I write this book collecting the


17/414

2

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 isno [contrary] view known (to me) from a well-informed

leading scholar (mā lam a‘lam f ī hi maqālan li-imāmmut .t .ali‘)

4 - to show the obstinate person the location of

the majā z (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‘wī l )...5

In other words, apart from being a defence of the Qur’ān, the book alsoserves as a transmitter of the science of exegesis in Ibn Qutaybah’s timeto 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‘wī l as stated by its editor, Saqr, is based on three manuscripts: (1) MS no. 518-tafsī r at Dār al-Kutub

al-Mis.riyyah library, written by Burhān al-D ī n 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 Mur ād Mullā library, anonymously written in 532/1137-8 contains one hundred and

seventeen folios. The symbol is the letter M. (3) MS no. 663-tafsī r 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


18/414

3

he puts it, is “either to support a view, to weaken a statement, to elaborate ageneral 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. Tafs ī r Ghar ī b al- Qur’ā n

As Ibn Qutaybah did not want to make his work Ta‘wī l lengthy, hecontinued it in another book with a different title, namely, Tafsī r Ghar ī b

al-Qur’ān (Commentary on the Obscure Passages of the Qur’an). Like hisTa‘wī l , the sources of this Tafsī r are also books of exegesis and philologywithout 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 theclosest to the sense of the context of the verse he is dealing with.9

The significance of this Tafsī r for the present study lies in that it

contains the commentary on some Qur’ānic verses explained or used as shawāhid in the Ta’wī l . It serves as a commentary and confirmation of IbnQutaybah’s view in his Ta‘wī l . Like the Ta‘wī l this Tafsī r is alsoedited 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‘wī l

mentioned above.

10

His introduction is short, but contains valuableinformation in which he points out that the sources of the Tafsī r are taken

from various books of scholars. He relies mainly on the works of two

philologists, Abū ‘Ubaydah’s (d. 210/-824) Majā z al-Qur ‘ān (The LiteraryExpression of the Qur’ān) and al-Farr ā’’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 Tafsī r

became an important source f or Qur’ānic commentators of later

generations, such as al-T.abar ī (d. 311/923), al-Qurt.ub ī (d. 671/1272),al-R āz ī (d. 606/-1209), and Abū H.ayyān al-Andalus ī (d. 744-5/1344). Al-

T.abar ī was said to have copied it literally on many occasions without

mentioning Ibn Qutaybah’s name.12


19/414

4

c. Ghar ī b al-H .ad ī th

This book, Ghar ī b al-H .ad ī th (The Uncommon Words in the H .ad ī th)

consists of three volumes, and is edited by Dr. ‘Abd Allāh al-Jubūr ī from

four manuscripts: (1) the Z.āhiriyyah manuscripts, written by ‘Abd al-Ghan ī ibn ‘Abd Allāh ibn ‘Abd al-Wāh.id al-Maqdis ī 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.ad ī ths (a h

.ād ī th) and isnads

(chains of authorities on which the h.ad ī ths are based) had been omitted by

Abū ‘Ubayd in his work Ghar ī b al-H .ad ī th, he started writing his own

Ghar ī b al-H .ad ī th, containing and explaining those missing h.ad ī ths and

isnāds, and quoting shawāhid from poetry. When Ibn Qutaybah found

some mistakes in Abū Ubayd’s Ghar ī b al-H .ad ī th, he corrected them in a

separate book entitled Is.l āh. al-Ghalat . (The Correction of Mistakes).

In the earlier chapters of the Ghar ī b al-H .ad ī th Ibn Qutaybah

explains the etymology of a number of technical terms, such as wud .ū’ (ablution), s.al āh (prayer), k ā fir (unbeliever) and z .ālim (transgressor). Then

he explains uncommon words in the h.ad ī ths of the Prophet, followed by

those of the s.ah.ābah (companions of the Prophet), the t ābi‘ī n (lit.,

“followers”, the generation after the s.ah.ābah) and the t ābi‘ī al-t ābi‘ī n (lit.,

“followers of the followers”, the generation after the t ābi‘ī n).

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‘wī l . Therefore, this book is also necessary for this study.

d. Adab al-K ā tib

The book Adab al-K ātib (The Accomplishments of the Secretary) is


20/414

5

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 withoutunderstanding the meaning of its verses, and would belie the Prophet’stradition without knowing its isnād .14 The common lexical, orthographical

and orthoepical mistakes in Ibn Qutaybah’s time led him to write his Adabal-K ātib dealing with these subjects. The newly appointed vizier ‘AbdAllāh 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 D ī nawar.

The book is divided into four chapters. Chapter one, entitled Kit āb

al-Ma‘rifah (The Book of Suitable Terms), is the lexical study of varioussubjects 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 thesting”.16

Chapter two entitled Kit āb Taqwī m 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 bismill āh occurs respectively in the

beginning and the middle or end of a sentence, such as and

.17

Chapter three entitled Kit āb Taqwī m 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


21/414

6

for washing”.18

Chapter four entitled Kit āb 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 f ī .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 cheatedman) and khuda‘ah (a cheater).21 The meanings of formed nouns aretreated 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 All āh (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-K ātib 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 Adabal-K ātib

L = Landberg’s Codex containing 137 folios, of which 90 folios are

vowalizedR = 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


22/414

7

The Adab al-K ātib demonstrates Ibn Qutaybah’s competence in thisfield of philology. Ibn Khaldūn (d. 737/1337) in his work Muqaddimah saidthat he heard from some scholars in their teaching sessions that the Adab

al-K ātib of Ibn Qutaybah was one among the four sources of adabscience.24

The Adab al-K ātib is essential for this study. Many topics in Ibn

Qutaybah’s Ta’wī l are also treated in his Adab al-K ātib, such as thesubstitution of particles and the meaning of terms, such as zawj. Moreover,

the Adab al-K ātib gives us some idea how Ibn Qutaybah quotes the views

of leading grammarians from both schools, the Bas.ran and the K ūfan.

2. Books on Tafs ī r (Qur'ānic Exegesis)

Books on tafsī r, which are the main sources of Ibn Qutaybah, will be evaluated here. They are Abū ‘Ubaydah’s Majā z al-Qur’ān andal-Farra’’s Ma‘ānī al-Qur’ān. Al-Tabar ī’s work J āmi‘ al-Bayān, whichtook Ibn Qutaybah’s works as part of its sources, will also be evaluatedhere, as follows:

a. Maj ā z al- Qur’ā n

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 expressionsof 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 toavenge himself by writing on the shortcomings of the Arabs in which he

supported the Shu‘ū b ī 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 majā z in the case of Majā z 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 thesuras”. Majā z al-Qur’ān, then, is “a paraphrastic interpretation”, or, inWansbrough’s term, “periphristic exegesis” of the Qur’ān.27 In theintroductory chapter, Abū ‘Ubaydah mentions thirty-nine kinds of majā z .The use of this term, as found by Wansbrough, is replaced by taqd ī r


23/414

8

(restoration) by the later grammarian Abū al-Barak āt ibn al-Anbār ī (d.577/1181).28 By comparing Ibn Qutaybah’s Ta’wī l with Abū ‘Ubaydah’s Majā z al-Qur’ān in examining majā z we shall have some idea of the extent

of the former’s reliance on the latter as its main source and of thedevelopment of this term in general.

b. Ma ‘ā n ī ’l - Qur’ā n

The author of this book, al-Farr ā’, the sobriquet of Abū Zakariyyā Yah.yá ibn Ziyād al-K ūf ī , 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 K ūfan school. However, he also took hisknowledge from Yūnus ibn H.ab ī b al-Thaqaf ī of the Bas.ran school.

29 He

was also influenced, to some extent, by al-As.ma‘ī (d. 216/831), Abū Zaydal-Ans.ār ī (d. 215/830), and Abū ‘Ubaydah, all belonging to the Bas.ran

school.30 Tha‘lab (d. 291/904) of the K ūfan school who took hisknowledge from al-Farr ā’ praised him so much that he said that withoutal-Farr ā’ the Arabic language would have collapsed.31

Al-Farr ā’ was the first grammarian of the Kūfan school whocontinuously discussed grammatical problems in the verses of the Qur’ān inhis Ma‘ānī ’l -Qur’ān.32 This continuous discussion frustrated Blachère

who said that the book “is highly disappointing and without any generalthemes, being confined for the most part to argumentation on casual

syntax;...”33 This book is, however, very important for this present studysince Ibn Qutaybah quoted it several times in his Ta’wī l.

c. J ā mi ‘ al-Bay ā n f ī Tafs ī r al- Qur’ā n

The author of J āmi‘ al-Bayān f ī Tafsī r al-Qur’ān (TheComprehensive Exposition of the Interpretation of the Verses of the

Qur’ān), Ibn Jar ī r al-T.abar ī (d. 310/923), is considered by Muslim scholars

“the father of the science of tafsīr”. It is said that he wrote forty pagesevery day for forty years. Many of his works were lost, but his J āmi‘ hassurvived. He was “a man of encyclopaedic learning who absorbed thewhole mass of tradition in his time”.34


24/414

9

Al-T.abar ī’s J āmi‘, better known as Tafsī r al-T .abar ī , consists of

thirty volumes containing collections of h.ad ī ths 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 hisTa’wī l and Tafsī r , al-T.abar ī deals with whole chapters, although not whole

verses, of the Qur’ān.35 Later commentators, such as al-Zamakhshar ī (d.538/1143), Ibn ‘At.iyyah (d. 542/1147 or 546/1151), Ibn Kath ī r (d.

774/1373) and al-Suyūt. ī (d. 991/1505) followed al-T.abar ī in examining and

explaining the whole Qur’ān in their tafsir works. Al-T.abar ī’s tafsī r 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.abar ī’s J āmi‘ for this present study is that it

elaborates what Ibn Qutaybah is discussing in his Ta’wī l and gives various

interpretations from other commentators. Sometimes, he offers his own

opinion. In so doing, the position of Ibn Qutaybah among Qur’āniccommentators will become obvious.

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-Anbār ī , Ibn Fāris and IbnManz.ūr, as follows:

a. Ki t ā b al-Ad .d ā d

The author of Kit āb al-Ad .d ād (The Book of Opposite Meanings)

was Abū Bakr ibn Qāsim ibn al-Anbār ī (d. 328/940)37. He was a latecontemporary 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 K ūfan school. He was said to have

memorized three hundred thousand lines of poetry as shawāhid for theQur’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

K ūfan school by al-Zubayd ī (d. 379/989-10).40


25/414

10

The book contains some terms discussed by Ibn Qutaybah in his

Ta’wī l , such as al-mawlá and hal . His view on the position of the

al-r ā sikhūn f ī ’l -‘ilm (those who are deeply rooted in knowledge) regarding

the ta’wī l of the mutashābihāt (ambiguous verses of the Qur’ān) is differentfrom that of Ibn Qutaybah. They will be dealt with in due course.

b. Al-S .ā h .ib ī f ī Fiqh al-Lughah

The book, al-S .āh.ibī f ī Fiqh al-Lughah wa Sunan al-‘ Arab f ī

Kal āmihā (al-S .āh.ibī in the Science of Language and Expression of the

Arabs) was written by Abū al-H.usayn ibn Fāris ibn Zakar ī yā, better known

as Ibn Fāris (d. 395/1004). He was a son of a jurist of the Shāfi‘ī schooland a student of the great Shāfi‘ī scholar Abū al-H.asan ‘Al ī al-Qat.t.ān (d.

345/956) who was a student of Tha‘lab, al-Mubarrad (d. 284-5/898) andIbn Ab ī 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 Mālik ī school at Rayy where helived and died. Despite his being a follower of the Mālik ī school, Ibn Fāriswas suspected of having a Sh ī‘ī leaning, due to his glorifying ‘Al ī , his beingassociated with the Sh ī‘ī enthusiast al-S.āh.ib, living in the Sh ī‘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-

S.āh.ib Ismā‘ī l ibn ‘Abbād who had a library where the book was to be

lodged.

Many subjects in Ibn Qutaybah’s Ta’wī l are also mentioned by IbnFāris 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-takr ār

(repetition) and al-ziyādah (pleonasm). Many similiarities are found between the two books which lead us to assume that Ibn Fāris had copiedfrom Ibn Qutaybah’s Ta’wī l without referring to him.

c. Lis ā n al- ‘ Arab

The book, Lisān al-‘ Arab (The Language of the Arabs), was


26/414

11

written by Jamāl al-D ī n Abū al-Fad.l Muh.ammad Mukarram ibn ‘Al ī ibn

Ah.mad al-Ans.ār ī , 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, tafsī r and h.ad ī th. Itwas based on five earlier works, namely: Abū Mans.ūr Muh.ammad ibn

Ah.mad al-Azhar ī’s Tahdhī b al-Lughah, Abū al-H.asan ‘Al ī ibn Ismā‘ī l ibn

Sidāh’s al-Muh.kam, Muh.ammad ibn al-Ath īr’s al-Nihā yah, al-Jawhar ī’s

al-Qāmū s, and Abū Muh.ammad ibn Barr ī’s commentary of al-Jawhar ī’s

al-Qāmū s. 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’wī l . 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-K ūf ī

(from K ūfah where he was born according to some historians) al-Marwaz ī (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-D ī nawar ī (from D ī nawar where he became qād .ī ) and al-Baghdād ī (from Baghdād according to other historians,

and where he settled), was born in K ūfah44 in 213/82845 and died inBaghdād in 276/889.46 The cause of his death was the eating of har ī sah (cooked meat and wheat pounded together) which caused him suffer

heartburn, then lost consciousness and died. The word qutaybah is the diminutive form (tas. ghī r ) of qitbah, qitb

or qatab which are the singular form of aqt āb meaning “intestines”. This isalso the meaning given by Ibn Qutaybah himself in his Adab al-K ātib.47

Another meaning of this term is given by Qutaybah ibn Muslim (d. 97/716)


27/414

12

the governor (amī r ) of Khorasan who said that his name meant ik ā f (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‘ī s.In response to the Umaw ī’s fabricated traditions praising the s.ah.ābah,

especially ‘Uthmān - but with the exception of ‘Al ī and Banū Hāshim - theShi‘ī s later also invented traditions of their own, praising ‘Al ī and the Banū Hāshim clan. They had their isnād names like al-Sudd ī and Ibn Qutaybah,so that the Sunn ī s would think that they were the famous Sunn ī traditionists. To make a distinction between the two Sudd ī s and IbnQutaybahs the Sunn ī s called those who belonged to the Shi‘ī s al-Sudd ī

al-S.agh ī r (the Junior) who was Muh.mmad ibn Marwān, and Ibn Qutaybahthe Shi‘ī , those who belonged to the Sunn ī s were called al-Sudd ī al-Kab ī r (the Senior) who was Ismā‘ī l ibn ‘Umar, and Ibn Qutaybah the Sunn ī .49

Very little was known about Ibn Qutaybah’s early life. We onlyknow that as a young boy he frequented the Qur’ānic school (kutt āb) fromwhich he learned and memorized some Qur’ānic verses, prophetictraditions 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 astheology, tafsī r , shar ī ‘ah (Islamic law), h.ad ī th, 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 Sunn ī theologian Ish.āq ibn Ibr āh ī m ibn R āhawayh al-Hanzal ī (d. ca. 237/851)

who was a student of Ah.mad ibn H.anbal, the Sunn ī philologist and

traditionist Abū H.ātim Sahl ibn Muh.ammad al-Sijistān ī (d. 255/869), andthe philologist al-‘Abbās ibn al-Faraj al-Riyāsh ī (d. 257/871) whotransmitted 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


28/414

13

state from Mu‘tazilah to Sunn ī orthodoxy in 232/846 Ibn Qutaybah foundhimself 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 D ī nawar in about236/851, 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 ‘Abbās ī official, Sa‘ī d 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.madwho 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 Sunn ī scholar and anadvocate of the Sunn ī orthodoxy, some ‘ulamā‘ criticized and denouncedhim, among them being:

(1). Abū al-H.asan ‘Al ī ibn ‘Umar al-Dāraqut.nī (d. 385-995) accused him of

leaning towards anthropomorphism (tashbī h), deviating from the

‘itrah (descendants of the Prophet).55

(2). Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muh.ammad ibn ‘Abd Allāh al-D.abb ī al-H.ākim (d.

405/1014-5), also known as Ibn al-Bayyi‘, also accused Ibn Qutaybahof 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-Bayhaq ī (d. 458/ 1066) accused Ibn

Qutaybah of being a Karr ām ī , a sect among the anthropomorphism.56

These accusations were rejected by the ‘ulamā and biographers of IbnQutaybah, whose views were divided by Lecomte into two categories: veryfavourable and favourable. Those whose views belonged to the first

category were: Ibn Taymiyyah,57 al-Dhahab ī (d. 748/1347), Ibn Kath ī r (d.774/1372-3), and Ibn al-‘Imād (d. 1089/1678). Those whose views


29/414

14

belonged to the second category were: Ibn al-Nad ī m (d. 385/995), al-Khat. ī b

al-Baghdād ī (d. 463/1071), al-Sam‘ān ī (d. 562/1167), Abū al-Barak āt Ibnal-Anbār ī (d. 577/1181), Ibn al-Jawz ī (d. 579/1201), al-Qift. ī (d. 646/1248),

Ibn Khallik ān (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-Anbar ī , who was a student of

Tha‘lab. He wrote a book entitled Risālat al-Mushkil criticizing IbnQutaybah’s Ta’wī l and his teacher Abū H.ātim al-Sijistān ī . But his books

are not extant except for Kit āb al-Ad .d ād in which he criticized Ibn

Qutaybah’s works Is.l āh. al-Ghalat . and Ta’wī l .59

2. Political, Social and Cultural Conditions in Ibn Qutaybah’s Life a. Political Condition

Ibn Qutaybah lived during the reigns of eight ‘Abbās ī 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 (247-

248/861-862), al-Musta‘ī n (248-252/862-866), al-Mu‘tazz (252-255/866-869), al-Muhtad ī (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 ‘Abbās ī dynasty reached its ultimate glory and prosperity under al-Ma’mūn.

The ‘Abbās ī 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 muchdisturbance: civil war between the Hāshim ī s and the ‘Alaw ī s which endedwith 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


30/414

15

which was the Mu‘tazil ī school of theology which he himself adopted andmade the official madhhab of his empire. He supported its scholars in their

debates against their opponents among the Sunn ī scholars.

Al-Ma’mūn was succeeded by his brother al-Mu‘tas.im whofollowed the same path in defending the Mu‘tazil ī 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 ‘Abbās ī period the Persians obtained high positions inthe 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 thePersians. The Arabs wanted to regain the glory they had enjoyed in the

Umaw ī 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‘ū b ī yah trend grew withthe 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 Sāmarr ā’61 where he moved inwith 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 notresist it. However, he was successful in shifting to the Sunn ī orthodoxy asthe madhhab of the state. He ordered people to abandon any debate on

kal ām (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 Ab ī Dāwūd from their positions for being Mutazil ī s. But


31/414

16

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 sonal-Muntas.ir as a ruler.

Al-Muntas.ir ruled for six months only. He died in 248/862 and was

succeeded by al-Musta‘ī n. The new caliph, who was unable to withstandthe influence of his Turkish officers, moved to Baghdād. As he refused toreturn to Sāmarr ā’ they deposed him in 251/865 and appointed al-Mu‘tazzas his successor. Baghdād was surrounded, and finally al-Musta‘ī n wasassassinated.

Al-Mu‘tazz imprisoned his brother al-Mu’ayyid when he heard arumor that al-Mu’ayyid wanted to depose him. However, he was finallydeposed 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-Muhtad ī . 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.

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‘Abbās ī state was far from being stable. The T.āhir ī s, Sāmān ī s, and S.afaw ī s

were separating themselves from the ‘Abbās ī empire in the East, while theT.ūlūn ī s were establishing their own state in Egypt; besides, the Romans

were attacking the empire. This was the political condition of the ‘Abbās ī empire in the time of Ibn Qutaybah.

b. Social Condition

The city of Baghdād, the seat of the ‘Abbās ī caliphs, was

flourishing with prosperity and luxury. Goods from the empire’s provincesoverflowed 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


32/414

17

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 andin 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-Wal ī d (d.207/823). They started questioning whether or not the type of alcohol called

nabī dh was among the prohibited alcohol (khamr ) in Islam. The question

developed into a very serious issue and eventually Ibn Qutaybah wrote a

book entitled Kit āb al-Ashribah (The Book of Beverage) portraying the

controversial issue at that time and giving his legal judgement: khamr is

prohibited by the Qur’ān, and nabī dh 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


33/414

18

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‘tazil ī 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 Sunn ī orthodoxy by al-Mutawakkil who,unlike al-Ma’mūn, did not like to be involved in theological debates, thisera 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 extensivestudies of these books produced Muslim scholars such as Abū ‘Uthmān ibnBah.r al-Jāh.iz. and Ya‘qū b ibn Ish.āq al-Kind ī (d. ca. 252/866).

65

Books of other religions such as the Torah (al-Tawr āh), the Gospel

(al-Injī l ) 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‘tazil ī school and

Ibn Qutaybah of the Sunn ī school.66

The Qur’ān and the H .ad ī th were also extensively studied.

Theological controversies and debates between the followers of theMu‘tazil ī and the Sunn ī 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-nuz ūl (the occasions which led to the revelation of the verses of

the Qur’ān), and the ta’wī l 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 thetitle of the works of al-Kisā’ī , al-Farr ā’ and al-Akhfash (d. 210/825), I ‘ r ābal-Qur ‘ān, Lughat al-Qur ‘ān (The Language of the Qur ‘an), Ghar ī bal-Qur ‘ān which was the title of the works of Abū ‘Ubayd Qāsim ibn


34/414

19

Sallām (d. 223/838), and Majā z al-Qur’ān which was the title of the worksof Abū ‘Ubaydah and Qut.rub (d. 206/822).

68

The extensive study of H .ad ī th literature in the ‘Abbās ī period

produced great scholars, such as the founders of the four madhāhib (schoolsof jurisprudence), namely, Abū H.an ī fah (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.ad ī th and explaining the ambiguous ones. In this period, apart

from the Musnad of Ah.mad ibn H.anbal, the six canonical books of h.ad ī ths

called al-Kutub al-Sittah (the Six Books) were compiled. They were the

collections of al-Bukhār ī (d. 256/870), Muslim (d. 261/875), Ibn Mā jah

(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 S ī bawayh (d. 179/196) and al-As.ma‘ī,

and the Kūfan school which came later with some differences, and stilllater developed into a school of its own, whose leaders were al-Kisā’ī andal-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, al-Farrā’, 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 certaingrammatical 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 ‘Al ī al-Lughaw ī (d. 351/962)

made a suggestion which was elaborated later on by Ibn al-Nad ī m that IbnQutaybah combined the two schools into a “Baghdād ī synthesis”. Thisview was considered doubtful and rejected by the contemporary scholars

Lecomte and al-Jubūr ī respectively. Lecomte said:


35/414

20

In fact, in addition to the point already emphasized by G.Weil... that the schools of Bas.ra and K ūfa can scarcely

have assumed their distinctive characteristics before the

end of the 3rd/9th century, nothing has been found in IbnĶutayba’s philological work, or at least in what nowsurvives, which could really justify this point of view.

Although he in effect contrasts them with the “Bas.rans”,

he regularly refers to those who were later to be attached

to the “School of Kūfa” as “Baghdād īs”, and thesynthesis 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 joinscertain reputedly K ūfi 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-Farr ā’, whereas in a moregeneral 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 Baghdād ī school of grammar which was the mixture of the two schools,the Bas.ran and the K ūfan, al-Jubūr ī’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-K ātib and Ghar ī b al-H .ad ī th.

(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


36/414

21

al-Jubur ī’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-Sikk ī t (d.

244/858-9) who was the last grammarian of the K ūfan school who taughtthe son of Ja‘far al-Mutawakkil and who wrote Is.l āh. al-Mant .iq

(Reconstruction of Logic) and Tahdhī b al-Alf ā z . (Expression Training),

Tha‘lab who gave his commentary on the compiled poetry of the pre-Islamic poet Zuhayr ibn Ab ī Sulmá (d. 5/627), al-Māzin ī (d. 249/863)who was said to be the first to formulate the ‘ilm al-tas.r ī f (etymology), and

al-Mubarrad who combined philology with literature in his work al-K āmil

f ī ’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 d ī wān (compiled poems), Abū ‘Ubādah al-Buh.tur ī (d.

283-4/897) who had also a d ī wān, Di‘ bil al-Khuzā‘ī who composed poemsin praising ahl al-bayt (the Prophet's household), Ibn al-R ūm ī (d.282-3/896), and Ibn al-Mu‘tazz (d. 296/863) each of whom had their ownd ī wān.75

3. Historical Perspective on the Early Development of Qur’ānic

Exegesis

a. Tafs ī r and Ta’wī l

The word tafsī r is the mas.dar (verbal noun) from the second form

of the verb fasara, namely, fassara which means “to explain”, “toexpound”, “to interpret”, or “to comment”. Tafsī r is “the explanation,revealing and exposing the sensible meaning” ( ).

It is also said that the word fasara is the inversion (maql ūb) 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”. Tafsī r , then, is the meanings of the verses of the Qur’ān which need explanation.76


37/414

22

Technically, the definition of tafsī r as given by al-Zarkash ī (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 wisdommay be discovered..."77

The word ta’wī l 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 possiblemeanings. 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 andexplained the statement” ( ).78

Technically, according to early commentators in general, such as

Abū ‘Ubaydah and al-T.abar ī , ta’wī l has the same meaning as tafsī r , so that

ta’wī l al-Qur’ān has the same meaning as tafsī r al-Qur’ān.79 However,

Muqātil ibn Sulaymān states on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbās that tafsī r iswhat is known by the ‘ulamā ’ , while ta’wī l by Allah alone.80 But Ibn‘Abbās was also reported to have said that some tafsī rs are known to man,and others to Allah alone.81 Later commentators, however, make the

distinction between the two terms with divergent opinions: tafsī r belongs to

the s.ahābah, while ta’wī l belongs to the fuqahā’ (legists);82 tafsī r , as

mentioned by al-Mātur ī d ī (d. 333/944), has a single interpretation, whileta’wī l has many interpretations; tafsī r , according to al-R āghib al-As. bahān ī

(d. 502/1109), is more common than ta’wī l , as the former is used mostly for

words and their synonyms, while the latter mostly for meanings and

sentences; moreover, tafsī r is used for both divine and secular books, ta’wī l

for divine books only;83 tafsī r is based on riwā yah (transmission of tradition), while ta’wī l involves dir ā yah (comprehension), namely, research

and investigation;84 tafsī r is the obvious meaning of the verses, while ta’wī l

is the deep meaning derived from the verses through research and

investigation. The commentators give the preponderance - which is neither


38/414

23

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 Tafs ī r Based on its sources there are three main categories of tafsī r :

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. Anexample of the commentary of the Qur’ān by itself is as follows: OneQur’ānic verse mentions that cattle are lawful to Muslims for food, but notwithout exception. It says:

“... Lawful to you is the [flesh of every] beast that feeds on plants, savewhat is mentioned to you [hereafter]: ...” (Q. 5:1, Asad)86 The commentaryof the expression “save what is mentioned to you [hereafter]” is given inanother verse, as follows:

...

Forbidden to you is carrion, and blood, and the flesh of

swine, and that over which any name other than God’shas 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


39/414

24

This is the strongest commentary of this category of tafsī r , since it comes

from the Qur’ān itself. It is Allah Who explains what He means in theQur’ān.

The example of the commentary of the Qur’ān by the Sunnah of theProphet 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) wasrevealed, 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 dutyof 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 highthis 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-nuz ūl and knew more of the


40/414

25

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, onehas to be careful in accepting this commentary of the s.ahābah or the t ābi‘ī n

for the following reasons: There are many commentaries attributed to the

s.ahābah or t ābi‘ī n without isnād (chains of authority), so that we cannot

make a distinction between the genuine and the fabricated ones. Moreover,

many isr ā’ilī yāt (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 isalso the possibility that the atheists ( zanādiqah) fabricated sayings and

attributed them to the s.ahābah or the t ābi‘ī n 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 tothe 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-nuz ūl , ah.k ām (laws contained inthe Qur’ān), i‘r āb, bal ā ghah (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 asmentioned in Q. 16:44, and this duty was exclusively the Prophet’s

privilege. (c) The Prophet warned people from giving interpretation of theQur’ān based on their personal opinion. In a tradition on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbās the Prophet said: “Whoever speaks on the Qur’ān withoutknowledge (‘ilm) let him make his place in Hell.”90 (d) The s.ahābah and

the t ābi‘ī n refrained from giving their interpretation of the Qur’ān with their


41/414

26

personal opinion. Abū Bakr, for example, was reported to have said: “Anyland 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 rationalinterpretation 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 divinewrit 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 them to heart.”(Q. 38:29, Asad)92

They maintain that pondering over the Qur’ān can be achieved only bysearching its deeper meanings and mysteries, and therefore, giving one’s personal opinion in the interpretation of the Qur’ān is justified. (b) Muslimscholars 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. Heexplained 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


42/414

27

prayed for his cousin Ibn ‘Abbās that Allah would teach him the ta’wī l of the Qur’ān. If the term ta’wī l here means the interpretation based on whathave 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.ad ī th 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 tafsī r without knowledge, Ibnal-Naq ī b gives us five views which constitute five types of prohibited tafsī r ,namely, tafsī r without having the sciences required for it; tafsī r of

ambiguous passages which are known by Allah alone; tafsī r intended to

support a straying sect, and in so doing, making the tafsī r subordinate to the

sect; stating with certainty the meaning intended by Allah without proof;

and lastly, tafsī r 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 theverse mentioned above ends with “and that they might take thought”. (Q.16:44, Asad). Many verses in the Qur’ān were not explained by theProphet, and it is the duty of Muslim scholars to find their meanings and

interpretations. (d) The s.ahābah’s restraint from giving their own tafsī r was

a precaution against stating what may not have been meant by Allah. Abū Bakr himself gave his personal opinion concerning the kal ālah (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 fromAllah, and if it is not, it is from Satan.”95 Among the exponents of therational commentary, to mention a few, were al-Ghazāl ī , al-R āghibal-As. bahān ī , and al-Qurt.ub ī .

96

(3) Symbolic (Allegorical) Commentary. It is a commentary of the


43/414

28

Qur’ān which is different from its apparent meaning due to some hintswhich 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.in ī s (adherents of inner meanings of the

Qur’ān) and the symbolic commentary ( ). To the Bāt.in ī s, the

only acceptable meaning is the esoterical one, whereas the Sūf ī s accept both the ostensible and the symbolic meanings. The Sūf ī s urge people tolearn 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 tafsī r . Those

who reject it associate it with the esoterical tafsī r which, in their view,distorts the meaning of the Qur’ān. However, the exponents of this type of tafsī r give conditions for its validity, as follows: it is not contrary to its

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 containa 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


44/414

29

c. Early Development of Tafs ī r

The Qur’ān was revealed to Prophet Muhammad in the Arabiclanguage.101 Although in clear Arabic,102 the s.ahābah had different levels

of knowledge in understanding the Qur’ān. This is natural, since it isunlikely 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 theverse (“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 turjumānal-Qur’ān (the interpreter of the Qur’ān), was reported to have said that hehad not known the meaning of the word f āt .ir in the verse

( :) “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 whomade it”), while the other said anā ibtada’tuhā (“I was the one whostarted 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 heheard a woman called Dhū Yazan say to her husband meaning

(“I shall prosecute you”).106

Generally speaking, the s.ahābah understood the Qur’ān more thanany other people, since it was revealed in their language. However, theyhad 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 -


45/414

30

than other people. Others used to accompany the Prophet and witnessed the

asbāb al-nuz ūl of certain Qur’ānic verses. Some others knew more of theways of the Arabs in the pre-Islamic era. Those who knew the Arabs’ way

of performing their pilgrimage and worshipping their idols, and those whowere familiar with the customs and traditions of the Jews and Christians in

pre-Islamic Arabia had better understanding of Qur’ānic verses dealingwith 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. Zak āt , for example, originally means “growth”, but technicallymeans “obligatory charity”, was explained by the Prophet in detail. This

explanation was later transmitted to the people of the next generation, sothat they also became well-acquainted with the divine texts. However, such

information was included in the h.ad ī th literature, since tafsī r as an

independent science emerged later in the early third century A.H.

After the death of the Prophet questions on Qur’ānic verses weredirected to the s.ahābah. The prominent exegetes among them in this period

were: ‘Abd Allāh ibn ‘Abbās, ‘Abd Allāh ibn Mas‘ūd, ‘Al ī ibn Ab ī T.ālib

and Ubayy ibn Ka‘ b; to a lesser degree, Zayd ibn Thā bit, Abū Mūsá

al-Ash‘ar ī , ‘Abd Allāh ibn al-Zubayr, Abū Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmān.They moved to other cities in Muslim lands and transmitted to people whatthey had learned from the Prophet and what they knew from the asbāb

al-nuz ūl . They opened schools for teaching tafsī r in important cities. In

Makkah the school was led by Ibn ‘Abbās; among his students were: Sa‘ī dibn Jubayr (d. 94/713), Mujāhid ibn Jabr (d. 103/722) whose tafsī r has been published,108 T.āwūs ibn Kaysān al-Yamān ī (d. 106/725), ‘Ikrimah (Ibn

‘Abbās’s client, d. 105/723) and ‘At.a’ ibn Abī Rabāh (d. 114/732). In

Mad ī nah, it was led by Ubayy ibn Ka‘ b (d. 22/641); among his studentswere: Muh.ammad ibn Ka‘ b al-Qurz. ī (d. 117/735), al-R āfi‘ ibn Mahr ān (his

agnomen was Abū al-‘Āliyah al-Riyāh ī , 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 K ūfah were ‘Alqamah ibn Qays (d. ca. 62/682 or

8/15/2

Date post:	01-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	muhammad-amin-samad
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

IBN QUTAYBAH'S CONTRIBUTION TO QUR’ĀNIC EXEGESIS

Documents