Ibn Taymiyya’s Muqaddima fī uṣūl al-tafsīr (‘Introduction to the Principles of Qur’anic Hermeneutics’) is frequently used as a guide to the classical tafsīr tradition, and its hermeneutic is viewed as the normative way to understand the Qur’an. It is even presented as one of the ‘classics’ of the medieval Islamic tradition and one of Islam’s ‘great books’. This small treatise has inspired other works on the Qur’an, especially those which are more tradition based, such as those that seek to interpret the Qur’an through the Qur’an and the Prophetic tradition. However, this article demonstrates that the treatise was not historically one of Ibn Taymiyya’s major works, did not have a stable name, and was not copied or disseminated profusely. The various parts of the treatise operated independently of one another, with medieval scholars referencing different parts of it. It was only in the modern period when Arab editors ‘rediscovered’ the work and went through the process of editing, naming, commenting on, and publishing the treatise that it became such an essential factor in our contemporary understanding of the Qur’an. By tracing the endeavours of these editors, we better appreciate the nature of the treatise and how it has influenced modern Qur’anic interpretation.
{"title":"‘A Precious Treatise’: How Modern Arab Editors Helped Create Ibn Taymiyya’s Muqaddima fī uṣūl al-tafsīr","authors":"Younus Y. Mirza","doi":"10.3366/jqs.2023.0530","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/jqs.2023.0530","url":null,"abstract":"Ibn Taymiyya’s Muqaddima fī uṣūl al-tafsīr (‘Introduction to the Principles of Qur’anic Hermeneutics’) is frequently used as a guide to the classical tafsīr tradition, and its hermeneutic is viewed as the normative way to understand the Qur’an. It is even presented as one of the ‘classics’ of the medieval Islamic tradition and one of Islam’s ‘great books’. This small treatise has inspired other works on the Qur’an, especially those which are more tradition based, such as those that seek to interpret the Qur’an through the Qur’an and the Prophetic tradition. However, this article demonstrates that the treatise was not historically one of Ibn Taymiyya’s major works, did not have a stable name, and was not copied or disseminated profusely. The various parts of the treatise operated independently of one another, with medieval scholars referencing different parts of it. It was only in the modern period when Arab editors ‘rediscovered’ the work and went through the process of editing, naming, commenting on, and publishing the treatise that it became such an essential factor in our contemporary understanding of the Qur’an. By tracing the endeavours of these editors, we better appreciate the nature of the treatise and how it has influenced modern Qur’anic interpretation.","PeriodicalId":43884,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Quranic Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45288981","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Leif Steinberg and Philip Wood (eds), What Is Islamic Studies? European and North American Approaches to a Contested Field","authors":"D. Stewart","doi":"10.3366/jqs.2023.0533","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/jqs.2023.0533","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43884,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Quranic Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47706323","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Hannah-Lena Hagemann, The Kharijites in Early Islamic Historical Tradition","authors":"Hugh P. Kennedy","doi":"10.3366/jqs.2023.0532","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/jqs.2023.0532","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43884,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Quranic Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47797734","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Due to their contextual breadth and hermeneutic continuities, Qur’anic metaphors are held to be manifestations of Qur’anic iʿjāz that outshine the metaphors and imagery found in pre-Islamic poetry: they transcend temporal and spatial limits and are accessible to all languages and cultures. The historicity of metaphors and rhetorical images that characterise the Arabic poetic heritage is contextualised by their location within the temporal and spatial regions in which they were produced, the conceptual connections to which have been lost due to changing cultural beliefs, ideas, and contexts. In contrast, Qur’anic rhetoric has enduring continuity due to its observance of similarities in the construction of its metaphors, as well as the fact these are revealed within a religious, legislative text, whose contexts enjoy a rich continuity that encompasses meaning and connotations that accommodate the knowledge paradigms of different cultures.
{"title":"Qur’anic Metaphors: Between the Historicity of Poetic Imagination and the Continuity of Context","authors":"Saadi Yousef","doi":"10.3366/jqs.2023.0536","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/jqs.2023.0536","url":null,"abstract":"Due to their contextual breadth and hermeneutic continuities, Qur’anic metaphors are held to be manifestations of Qur’anic iʿjāz that outshine the metaphors and imagery found in pre-Islamic poetry: they transcend temporal and spatial limits and are accessible to all languages and cultures. The historicity of metaphors and rhetorical images that characterise the Arabic poetic heritage is contextualised by their location within the temporal and spatial regions in which they were produced, the conceptual connections to which have been lost due to changing cultural beliefs, ideas, and contexts. In contrast, Qur’anic rhetoric has enduring continuity due to its observance of similarities in the construction of its metaphors, as well as the fact these are revealed within a religious, legislative text, whose contexts enjoy a rich continuity that encompasses meaning and connotations that accommodate the knowledge paradigms of different cultures.","PeriodicalId":43884,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Quranic Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45699320","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Mamlūk biographer al-Sakhāwī (d. 902/1497) praised Sirāj al-Dīn al-Bulqīnī (d. 805/1403), the pre-eminent scholar and judge of the late fourteenth to early fifteenth century, for curtailing the practice of tafsīr al-Qurʾān bi’l-taqṭīʿ. This was a new category of Qur’an interpretation: a method of generating meaning through the use of word-breaking. The main proponents of this practice were the Shādhilī Sufi Ḥusayn al-Ḥabbār (d. 791/1389) and his followers, who perpetuated his exegetical approach. Attempts to curtail this practice of Qur’an commentary in Mamlūk Cairo were made by scholars and members of the judicial class, the most prominent among them being Sirāj al-Dīn al-Bulqīnī and his son Jalāl al-Dīn (d. 824/1421). This practice was policed not for its actual interpretations but because of its method, which undermined the shared philological basis for deriving meaning from the Qur’an. This study accounts for these historical controversies over word-breaking in interpreting the Qur’an, augmenting and correcting previous studies on the is subject published by Walid Saleh and Jonathan Berkey. It also analyses the role institutions such as the zāwiya and the office of the Shāfiʿī chief judge played in promoting such interpretations and regulating religious life and education. These controversies ultimately result from a tension between the oral and the written, as is demonstrated in this article by analysis of the use of word-breaking in the interpretation of the Qur’anic term salsabīl, and of similar problems of orality discussed in classical manuals on the proper recitation of the Qur’an.
{"title":"Opposition to Word-Breaking in the Practice of Qur’an Commentary in Eighth/Fourteenth- and Ninth/Fifteenth-Century Mamlūk Cairo","authors":"Shuaib Ally","doi":"10.3366/jqs.2023.0528","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/jqs.2023.0528","url":null,"abstract":"The Mamlūk biographer al-Sakhāwī (d. 902/1497) praised Sirāj al-Dīn al-Bulqīnī (d. 805/1403), the pre-eminent scholar and judge of the late fourteenth to early fifteenth century, for curtailing the practice of tafsīr al-Qurʾān bi’l-taqṭīʿ. This was a new category of Qur’an interpretation: a method of generating meaning through the use of word-breaking. The main proponents of this practice were the Shādhilī Sufi Ḥusayn al-Ḥabbār (d. 791/1389) and his followers, who perpetuated his exegetical approach. Attempts to curtail this practice of Qur’an commentary in Mamlūk Cairo were made by scholars and members of the judicial class, the most prominent among them being Sirāj al-Dīn al-Bulqīnī and his son Jalāl al-Dīn (d. 824/1421). This practice was policed not for its actual interpretations but because of its method, which undermined the shared philological basis for deriving meaning from the Qur’an. This study accounts for these historical controversies over word-breaking in interpreting the Qur’an, augmenting and correcting previous studies on the is subject published by Walid Saleh and Jonathan Berkey. It also analyses the role institutions such as the zāwiya and the office of the Shāfiʿī chief judge played in promoting such interpretations and regulating religious life and education. These controversies ultimately result from a tension between the oral and the written, as is demonstrated in this article by analysis of the use of word-breaking in the interpretation of the Qur’anic term salsabīl, and of similar problems of orality discussed in classical manuals on the proper recitation of the Qur’an.","PeriodicalId":43884,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Quranic Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45128655","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article interrogates the claim that Islam prohibits Muslim women’s marriage to kitābīs (a derivative of the Qur’anic term ahl al-kitāb that is commonly used to refer to Christians and Jews), an argument that has practical and theological implications for Muslims today. By analysing the three Qur’anic verses on interreligious marriage (Q. 2:211, Q. 60:10, and Q: 5:5) and the ways they have been interpreted by several premodern and modern scholars, I show that two of the three verses invoked commonly to explain the prohibition can be read as applying equally to women and men, and the third does not prohibit such marriages. Premodern exegetes justified the prohibition using traditional hermeneutical tools such as qiyās (‘analogical reasoning’), ijmāʿ (‘scholarly consensus’), and takhṣīṣ (‘particularising a general statement’) to collectively interpret the verses as prohibiting women’s marriage to kitābīs. The application of these tools in the context of their specific milieux resulted in interpretations and conclusions that emerged from entrenched social systems which privileged a Muslim religio-patriarchal elite while normalising endogamy and slavery. Each exegete surveyed here has highlighted different elements of the relevant verses that reinforced their own personal assumptions, biases, and priorities, all of which confirm their interpretive power and authority. However, by applying the very same methods, contemporary readers of the Qur’an can arrive at different conclusions, given their own, different, priorities, biases, and contexts. I argue that applying the very same hermeneutical tools that exegetes have historically used can also lead to the conclusion that the Qur’an permits women’s marriage to kitābīs.
{"title":"The Qur’an on Muslim Women’s Marriage to Non-Muslims: Premodern Exegetical Strategies, Contradictions, and Assumptions","authors":"Shehnaz Haqqani","doi":"10.3366/jqs.2023.0529","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/jqs.2023.0529","url":null,"abstract":"This article interrogates the claim that Islam prohibits Muslim women’s marriage to kitābīs (a derivative of the Qur’anic term ahl al-kitāb that is commonly used to refer to Christians and Jews), an argument that has practical and theological implications for Muslims today. By analysing the three Qur’anic verses on interreligious marriage (Q. 2:211, Q. 60:10, and Q: 5:5) and the ways they have been interpreted by several premodern and modern scholars, I show that two of the three verses invoked commonly to explain the prohibition can be read as applying equally to women and men, and the third does not prohibit such marriages. Premodern exegetes justified the prohibition using traditional hermeneutical tools such as qiyās (‘analogical reasoning’), ijmāʿ (‘scholarly consensus’), and takhṣīṣ (‘particularising a general statement’) to collectively interpret the verses as prohibiting women’s marriage to kitābīs. The application of these tools in the context of their specific milieux resulted in interpretations and conclusions that emerged from entrenched social systems which privileged a Muslim religio-patriarchal elite while normalising endogamy and slavery. Each exegete surveyed here has highlighted different elements of the relevant verses that reinforced their own personal assumptions, biases, and priorities, all of which confirm their interpretive power and authority. However, by applying the very same methods, contemporary readers of the Qur’an can arrive at different conclusions, given their own, different, priorities, biases, and contexts. I argue that applying the very same hermeneutical tools that exegetes have historically used can also lead to the conclusion that the Qur’an permits women’s marriage to kitābīs.","PeriodicalId":43884,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Quranic Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45887073","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study deals with the issue of Imām Ḥamza al-Zayyāt al-Kūfī – one of the seven reciters – and his acceptance of the reading of Ibn Masʿūd when it diverges from the muṣḥaf of ʿUthmān, so as to shed light on the early history of Qur’anic qirāʾāt. The article explores the ways in which Ḥamza was impacted by Ibn Masʿūd’s recitation, and the extent to which he followed it or implemented his own innovations, based on an applied study of the readings of Ibn Masʿūd that diverge from the ʿUthmanic codex as recorded in Ibn Abī Dāwūd’s al-Maṣāḥif and transmitted from al-Aʿmash. By comparing Ibn Masʿūd’s readings with the ten accepted qirāʾāt it seeks to analyse how close these recitations are to Ibn Masʿūd’s readings and to what extent they have been affected by them. This comparative analysis indicates that there is a strong relationship between the reading of Ḥamza and the recitations of Ibn Masʿūd, to an extent unseen in any of the other ten reciters. It reveals that, although Ḥamza does not follow all of Ibn Masʿūd’s readings, Ibn Masʿūd’s reading is clearly foundational to his recitation. The study concludes that Ḥamza’s use of Ibn Masʿūd’s readings indicates that he did not invent his own readings by opinion or ijtihād, while the fact he did not accept of all of Ibn Masʿūd’s readings testifies to the fact that he adhered only to what has been transmitted, and did not go beyond this to accept those of Ibn Masʿūd’s readings that were not.
{"title":"Ḥamza's Consideration of Ibn Masʿūd's Divergent Readings","authors":"Redwan B. Refat Albakri","doi":"10.3366/jqs.2023.0535","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/jqs.2023.0535","url":null,"abstract":"This study deals with the issue of Imām Ḥamza al-Zayyāt al-Kūfī – one of the seven reciters – and his acceptance of the reading of Ibn Masʿūd when it diverges from the muṣḥaf of ʿUthmān, so as to shed light on the early history of Qur’anic qirāʾāt. The article explores the ways in which Ḥamza was impacted by Ibn Masʿūd’s recitation, and the extent to which he followed it or implemented his own innovations, based on an applied study of the readings of Ibn Masʿūd that diverge from the ʿUthmanic codex as recorded in Ibn Abī Dāwūd’s al-Maṣāḥif and transmitted from al-Aʿmash. By comparing Ibn Masʿūd’s readings with the ten accepted qirāʾāt it seeks to analyse how close these recitations are to Ibn Masʿūd’s readings and to what extent they have been affected by them. This comparative analysis indicates that there is a strong relationship between the reading of Ḥamza and the recitations of Ibn Masʿūd, to an extent unseen in any of the other ten reciters. It reveals that, although Ḥamza does not follow all of Ibn Masʿūd’s readings, Ibn Masʿūd’s reading is clearly foundational to his recitation. The study concludes that Ḥamza’s use of Ibn Masʿūd’s readings indicates that he did not invent his own readings by opinion or ijtihād, while the fact he did not accept of all of Ibn Masʿūd’s readings testifies to the fact that he adhered only to what has been transmitted, and did not go beyond this to accept those of Ibn Masʿūd’s readings that were not.","PeriodicalId":43884,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Quranic Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43891397","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Garrett Davidson, Carrying on the Tradition: A Social and Intellectual History of Hadith Transmission across a Thousand Years","authors":"S. Burge","doi":"10.3366/jqs.2023.0531","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/jqs.2023.0531","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43884,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Quranic Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43801300","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study aims to employ the theory of ‘argument structures’ in the analysis of Sūrat al-Nūr, on the basis that rhetorical devices are a means of extracting the reasons and logical arguments that lead to a particular conclusion, while taking into account the status of the speaker, the addressee, and the purpose of the message. In particular, this theory addresses the following three aspects: (1) the descriptive aspect, which tracks the events and descriptions in the sura; (2) tracing the similes used in the sura as a means of revealing its message; (3) the use of coordinating conjunctions in expressing arguments, which is based on investigating conjunctions together with their functions. Furthermore, the study also analyses Sūrat al-Nūr at level of the context, through the connection made between the topics presented in this sura and the preceding and following suras. To achieve this, this study employs the pragmatic approach as a framework where the context is the basic source to interpret what is intended in the Qur’anic discourse.
{"title":"Argument Structures in Sūrat al-Nūr: A Pragmatic Approach","authors":"Hanady H. Khalil","doi":"10.3366/jqs.2022.0523","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/jqs.2022.0523","url":null,"abstract":"This study aims to employ the theory of ‘argument structures’ in the analysis of Sūrat al-Nūr, on the basis that rhetorical devices are a means of extracting the reasons and logical arguments that lead to a particular conclusion, while taking into account the status of the speaker, the addressee, and the purpose of the message. In particular, this theory addresses the following three aspects: (1) the descriptive aspect, which tracks the events and descriptions in the sura; (2) tracing the similes used in the sura as a means of revealing its message; (3) the use of coordinating conjunctions in expressing arguments, which is based on investigating conjunctions together with their functions. Furthermore, the study also analyses Sūrat al-Nūr at level of the context, through the connection made between the topics presented in this sura and the preceding and following suras. To achieve this, this study employs the pragmatic approach as a framework where the context is the basic source to interpret what is intended in the Qur’anic discourse.","PeriodicalId":43884,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Quranic Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43315548","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article aims to explore the possibility that tafsīr and the Qur’an might share a common linguistic theory, and the methodological relevance of such a relationship for Qur’anic studies. This is done by, firstly, engaging with debates on the definitions and dating of tafsīr and the methodological implications of these; secondly, by developing a model of a theoretical paradigm that spans the disciplines of tafsīr, linguistics, rhetoric, and law, and applying it to the interpretations of key terms in five Qur’anic verses as found in the works of a selection of exegetes. The exegetes in question are Muqātil b. Sulaymān (d. 150/767), ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī (d. 211/827), Yaḥyā b. Sallām (d. 200/815), Ibn Abī Zamanīn (d. 399/1009), and al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923). The case studies are Q. 1:5–7 ( mustaqīm); Q. 2:1 ( aliflāmmīm dhālika’l- kitāb); Q. 2:125 ( maqām Ibrāhīm); Q. 19:34 ( qawl al-ḥaqq); and Q. 18:19 ( azkā ṭaʿāman). The analysis finds that (1) tafsīr shares a pragmatist semantic paradigm with linguistics and law, and the selected exegetes’ legal methodologies are decisive in shaping their exegetical methods; (2) studies of developments within tafsīr need to consider its relationship with the other disciplines and the diverse exegetical genres; and (3) the pragmatist semantic paradigm connects tafsīr methodology with the Qur’an’s composition and some of its concepts, because they reflect the same theory that meaning depends on context. Consequently, if tafsīr is studied from a discipline- and theory-oriented perspective, it can provide new methodologies for Qur’anic studies.
{"title":"Linguistic Theory in tafsīr between 100/400 and 700/1000: Implications for Qur’anic Studies","authors":"U. Mårtensson","doi":"10.3366/jqs.2022.0514","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/jqs.2022.0514","url":null,"abstract":"The article aims to explore the possibility that tafsīr and the Qur’an might share a common linguistic theory, and the methodological relevance of such a relationship for Qur’anic studies. This is done by, firstly, engaging with debates on the definitions and dating of tafsīr and the methodological implications of these; secondly, by developing a model of a theoretical paradigm that spans the disciplines of tafsīr, linguistics, rhetoric, and law, and applying it to the interpretations of key terms in five Qur’anic verses as found in the works of a selection of exegetes. The exegetes in question are Muqātil b. Sulaymān (d. 150/767), ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī (d. 211/827), Yaḥyā b. Sallām (d. 200/815), Ibn Abī Zamanīn (d. 399/1009), and al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923). The case studies are Q. 1:5–7 ( mustaqīm); Q. 2:1 ( aliflāmmīm dhālika’l- kitāb); Q. 2:125 ( maqām Ibrāhīm); Q. 19:34 ( qawl al-ḥaqq); and Q. 18:19 ( azkā ṭaʿāman). The analysis finds that (1) tafsīr shares a pragmatist semantic paradigm with linguistics and law, and the selected exegetes’ legal methodologies are decisive in shaping their exegetical methods; (2) studies of developments within tafsīr need to consider its relationship with the other disciplines and the diverse exegetical genres; and (3) the pragmatist semantic paradigm connects tafsīr methodology with the Qur’an’s composition and some of its concepts, because they reflect the same theory that meaning depends on context. Consequently, if tafsīr is studied from a discipline- and theory-oriented perspective, it can provide new methodologies for Qur’anic studies.","PeriodicalId":43884,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Quranic Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48811160","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：