f tafsr Reconsidered: Exploring the Development of a Genre

Jamal J. Elias UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

f tafsr on the Quran is widely accepted as a distinct scholarly or literary genre within the wider eld of Islamic scholarship. f writers frequently describe themselves as participating within an identiable tradition when they write commentaries on the Quran, and over the last century a number of scholars writing from within the Muslim tradition and without not only have accepted the notion of a millennium-long genre of f tafsr, but also have sought to dene and catalogue it. This paper explores and challenges such assumptions through a direct examination of examples of premodern f tafsr literature, looking beyond the assumption that the f belief in multiple levels of meaning and existence necessarily imparts an esoteric meaning to all writing on the Quran by fs. Belief in hierarchical levels of existence and meaning constitutes an important aspect of f thought, such that existence and existential truths, texts and divine messages, the human body and the visible world, all are believed to exist at more than one level. The best known and indeed, the most basic of these divisions is between hir and bin (outer/inner or exoteric/esoteric), a distinction common to other aspects of Islamic thinking as well. However, f writers have frequently drawn more elaborate distinctions between multiple levels of meaning and reference, particularly in their discussion of the text and message of the Quran. This is often done on the basis of the purported sayings of authoritative gures from Islams formative period. Thus, it is reported of Jafar al-diq (d. 148/765) that he claimed the Quran is composed of four things: expressed matters (ibrt), allusions (ishrt), subtle references to the transcendent realm (laif) and absolute truths or references to an absolute reality (aqiq). The rst of these is the literal meaning of the text intended for ordinary people (awmm); the second is the allegoric meaning for the elite (khaw); the third is the secret meaning intended for the spiritual elite or friends of
Journal of Quranic Studies 12 (2010): 4155 Edinburgh University Press DOI: 10.3366/E1465359110000951 # Centre of Islamic Studies, SOAS www.eupjournals.com/jqs

42

Journal of Quranic Studies

God (awliy); and the fourth comprises the highest doctrines understood only by prophets (anbiy).1 There is also a tradition from Al b. Ab lib in which he says:2 There is no Quranic verse which does not have four meanings: the exoteric (hir), the esoteric (bin), the limit (add) and the divine project or point of ascent (mala). The exoteric is for oral recitation; the esoteric is for interior comprehension; the limit is the clear expression and the statutes of licit and illicit; the divine project is that which God intends to realise with humankind. There is another tradition in which Al b. Ab lib uses a number of other terms which make clear that each aya of the Quran is to be understood in three registers, with two dimensions to each:3 Not a verse of the Quran descended on the envoy of God, that he did not immediately dictate it to me and make me recite it. I would write it with my hand and he would teach me the tafsr and the tawl, the nsikh and the manskh, the mukam and the mutashbih. The terms appearing in these quotations represent the main labels designating different kinds of commentary on the Quran in f writing, although the terms tafsr and tawl appear more frequently than the others, and each is purported to represent different things in the writings of some important classical f writers. In the majority of f writings on the Quran from the classical period onwards, tafsr is often used to refer to structural explanations of an aya such as the circumstances of its revelation (sabab al-nuzl), while tawl is its allegorical or metaphysical interpretation. The notion that tafsr represents outer commentary whereas tawl is an inner interpretation is pervasive in much f writing and even more so in writing about f Quran commentators, although judging from the writings of fs before or since Ab af Umar al-Suhraward (d. 632/1234) it is unclear if the terms ever acquired any such formally distinct meanings, since they are often used interchangeably. Other writers have used different terms, such as tafhm and istinb, to highlight what they consider important qualitative nuances in the process of interpretation or commentary, although such labels are used even more idiosyncratically than the commoner tafsr and tawl. My purpose in this essay is to question the efcacy of thinking of f tafsr as a genre, sui generis, by analysing the modern academic tradition of categorising f commentary on the Quran in light of writings by prominent fs, demonstrating how such works of commentary seem to contradict conventional wisdom concerning the existence of such a formal genre.

f tafsr Reconsidered

43

The majority of contemporary scholars who study commentaries on the Quran written by fs attempt to make sense of the development of f tafsr by relying on systems of historical periodisation. One such scheme, initially outlined by Gerhard Bwering, has proved to be especially popular; according to this arrangement, the development of f commentary on the Quran occurs in ve periods.4 The rst lasts from the second/eighth to the fourth/tenth centuries, and is itself subdivided into two stages: (i) that of the so-called forebearers who preceded the actual writing of f commentaries on the Quran, and (ii) the period of al-Sulam (d. 412/1021) and the early f gures who served as his major sources. Examples of individuals who belong in the rst stage of the rst period are asan al-Bar (d. 110/728), Jafar al-diq and Sufyn al-Thawr (d. 161/778), and those in the second are familiar names from the formative period of sm such as Dhl-Nn al-Mir (d. 246/861), Sahl al-Tustar (d. 283/896), Ab Sad al-Kharrz (d. 286/899), al-Junayd (d. 298/ 910) and Ibn A al-Adam (d. 311/923), the majority of whom never actually compiled tafsr works of their own.5 The second period lasts from the fth/eleventh to the seventh/thirteenth centuries and comprises three different subcategories: so-called moderate f commentaries, esoteric commentaries deeply indebted to the work of al-Sulam, and commentaries on the Quran written in Persian. The third phase lasts from the beginning of the seventh/thirteenth to the mid-eighth/fourteenth century, with commentaries identied as belonging to f schools.6 The fourth of Bwerings periods is comprised of commentaries written in India and the Ottoman and Tmrid lands, which in this context means the non-Arab lands ruled by Turks and the Persianspeaking world outside of Iran. The fth and nal period extends from the thirteenth/ nineteenth century until our time, and is characterised by Bwering as a phase of certain decline that seems to continue today.7 Perhaps the most notable aspect of this periodisation scheme is that it follows one of the more common and less imaginative systems of dividing Islamic history, viz. a formative period ascending towards a classical golden age, followed by periods of institutional formation, subsequent vernacularisation, and eventually leading to decline into the modern era. This is a familiar scheme used to conceptualise f history, but it is equally applicable to law, theology and many other Islamic social and intellectual institutions. There is nothing about this conceptual framework that helps one understand the form of f commentaries on the Quran in a particular historical period, their content, their relationship to the society around them, or anything else other than the very obvious fact that later works frequently draw on earlier ones. This ve-phased scheme of classifying f commentaries on the Quran that has become prevalent in Anglophone scholarship does not represent a substantial advance in conceptualising the development and nature of f tafsr over the writings of Sleyman Ates, a Turkish scholar who did a considerable amount of work on

44

Journal of Quranic Studies

constructing a history and typology of f commentaries on the Quran.8 Ates also categorised f tafsr works in a ve-fold scheme: (i) a formative period (sr tefsrin dousu); (ii) a period of systematisation (sr tefsrin sistemlesmesi); (iii) a period of ourishing and development (inkisaf); (iv) a period when the commentaries were dominated by Ibn Arab and his concept of oneness of being (wadat alwujd); and (v) the Ottoman period.9 This system of periodisation is similar to the one suggested by Bwering, although it has one important difference (and perhaps advantage) in that it uses the writings of a second inuential f gure in addition to al-Sulam to mark an epochal turning point. Of course, Atess classication is also narrower and more modest in its purported expanse, in the sense that rather than speaking of a vernacularisation as suggested by Bwering, it limits itself to a discussion of the Ottoman Empire. Both schemes share a fundamental aw, in that such periodisations do not derive from developments within f tafsr works or from the writing of tafsr themselves, nor on visible systemic changes in the way in which f thinkers and writers commented on the Quran. Instead, they are representative of commonly held notions of broad changes in Islamic history: birth, owering, the importance of Persian and other languages, and modern decay. The underlying assumption of such systems of periodisation, which dominate the study of f commentary on the Quran, is that f tafsr constitutes a genre, sui generis. I believe that such a view is erroneous and that, in actual fact, tafsr works written by fs should be viewed within the same context as the wider eld of tafsr writing, utilising similar categories and conceptual tools. In the rst place, I would suggest that the concept of genre is applied loosely and somewhat inaccurately in discussions of f commentary on the Quran; in the second, I believe that the term f or sm is not being employed rigorously as a well-dened term. When applied to writing, genre is, in essence, a literary term, and it reects a notion of shared style, shared conventions, ideas or content. One can argue for the existence of Quranic tafsr as a genre, in the sense suggested by Norman Calder and adopted by others. Calder proposes a three-part structural denition of tafsr, which can be summarised as follows: (i) a Quranic tafsr comments on the entire canonical text; (ii) it contains named authorities and offers polyvalent readings; and (iii) it approaches the Quranic text from different angles, both instrumental and ideological.10 Calder is referring to an early period in the writing of Quranic tafsr works, and is focusing on commentaries that cover the entire text, optimally aya by aya (tafsr musalsal). Nevertheless, there are problems even with such a categorisation, since several well known commentators on the Quran wrote more than one tafsr directed

f tafsr Reconsidered

45

at different audiences, and their purposes clearly were different in many cases, which immediately suggests the necessity of thinking in terms of sub-genres.11 Among f authors such an example is found in the case of al-Sulam who wrote a short tafsr work, Ziydt aqiq al-tafsr, in addition to his famous aqiq al-tafsr.12 For their part, f commentaries on the Quran lack a shared structure or identiable set of concerns that distinguish them from the wider category of tafsr literature. In many cases, they rely heavily on tafsr works by non-fs, especially in the formative period of sm. For example, al-Qushayr (d. 465/1072) is clearly inuenced by al-abar (d. 310/923), al-Thalab (d. 427/1035) and al-Wid (d. 468/1076), in addition to the formally f al-Sulam and Sahl al-Tustar. As several scholars have already noted (although without asking the question of genre that is begged by any such observation), commentaries on the Quran written by fs do not follow a shared structure, nor do they reect identical concerns or motivations in the acts and processes of commentary.13 The second factor contributing to the problematic view of f Quran commentary as one genre is the way the nature of f writing is conceptualised. The majority of studies treating works of Quran commentary written by fs refer to these works as esoteric, a term used in this context as a translation for ishr. The Arabic word is used in other languages as well and is employed by Ates in the title of his important book which uses the concept of being ishr as the dening characteristic of f works of tafsr. But esoteric is an unsatisfactory translation of the word ishr, which would be rendered into English more accurately as allegorical or by the neologism allusory. Esoteric, which works better to render the term bin into English, not only carries some inappropriate baggage belonging to esotericism as a religious form and which is a poor description of sm, but it also applies equally well to other forms of esoteric knowledge. By way of illustration, it would be potentially appropriate to refer to certain kinds of philosophy as esoteric, yet one would not be likely to refer to Fakhr al-Dn al-Rzs commentary al-Tafsr al-kabr as an esoteric tafsr, much less an ishr one. There is no doubt that identiable f commentaries on the Quran exist, both in the sense that there are f themes apparent (even dominant) within them and they are also written by gures strongly and self-consciously identied as fs. As such, one can speak legitimately of an early classical period of f commentary on the Quran. Sahl al-Tustar, writing in the mid to late third/ninth century, is probably the rst commentator who was identiably a f, and his tafsr can been seen as constituting a new approach to f writings on the Quran. He introduced individual points of discussion with an aya from the Quran rather than embedding a Quranic quotation within the structure of a discussion. Al-Tustar saw the Quran as possessing ve different categories of ayas which were revealed to Muhammad ve at a time: ve clear or self-explanatory (mukam), ve obscure (mutashbih), ve permissible

46

Journal of Quranic Studies

(all), ve impermissible (arm) and ve allegorical (amthl). A believer should act on the self-explanatory, believe in the obscure, permit the permissible, forbid the impermissible and understand the allegorical.14 Nevertheless, although f material and ideas are integral to al-Tustars thought, the actual categories of Quranic ayas he mentions are not specically f, esoteric, or mystical. On the contrary, mukam, mutashbih, all, arm and amthl are all Quranic terms that are broadly applied in Islamic theological, legal and other forms of writing. Approximately one century after the death of Sahl al-Tustar, Muammad b. alusayn al-Sulam had a profound impact upon the developing tradition of sm. Of the valuable extant works attributed to him, his aqiq al-tafsr is of great importance to the study of f tafsr literature, although, as already mentioned, he also wrote a second, shorter commentary on the Quran. The aqiq al-tafsr is purportedly concerned with the systematised listing of all ayas of the Quran, although the author is particularly interested in only a few. Al-Sulams major purpose seems one of systematisation and collection, and the majority of the work comprises quotations from earlier gures which are then reorganised by al-Sulam. It is in this organisational function that al-Sulam was most inuential, in that he was a signicant gure in the canonisation of what can be considered the formative period of f ideas. Al-Sulam places different viewpoints on the Quran side by side, presenting more than one interpretation to an aya. Although there is a clear thrust towards an esoteric or mystical understanding of the Quran, al-Sulam often places a literal (hir) interpretation before an esoteric (bin) one, and sometimes does not present the latter kind at all. Al-Sulams work is important since it serves as a compendium of earlier attempts at f Quranic tafsr and organises them not only so as to make them more accessible to later readers, but also to establish the doctrinal parameters of sm in terms palatable to him. From this standpoint, al-Sulam marks a major point in the development of f hermeneutics, and the model he uses that of collecting the work of earlier scholars remains an important form of tafsr writing by f scholars into the early modern and modern periods. An excellent example of the al-Sulamstyle compendium is found in the Tafsr r al-bayn of the Ottoman scholar, Isml aqq al-Bursaw (d. 1137/1725). This commentary is an exhaustive work (and allegedly took 23 years to complete), combining the authors own ideas with those of his predecessors, notably Ibn Arab (d. 638/1240), al-Ghazl (d. 505/1111) and alQushayr. Al-Bursaw attempts to synthesise into one tafsr work all methods of Quranic interpretation known or acceptable to him, mainly by quoting the Quran sura by sura, following each aya (sometimes even each word) by a number of different interpretations, and citing the source of each.15 Similar to al-Sulams, al-Bursaws

f tafsr Reconsidered

47

project is in no small part one of establishing a canon of acceptable f views specically as they related to the Quran. Other f writers have been, likewise, concerned with the need to establish the parameters of acceptable doctrine and have used works of Quran commentary for that purpose, although, like the two authors just mentioned, their tafsr projects display complex motivations. At the historical halfway point between al-Sulam and Isml aqq, Al al-Dawla Simnn (d. 736/1336) wrote two interesting works commenting on the Quran which are invaluable for gaining an understanding of f exegetical enterprises and their motivations. Simnn is one of the most inuential gures in the f social and intellectual history of the Persian-speaking world; he is most famous for promulgating a f philosophy which reconciled notions of Gods manifestation through and in the physical world with the sentiments and doctrinal requirements of Shara-minded Sunn Islam. This doctrine, which came to be known as wadat al-shuhd (oneness of witnessing), was inuential in the development of f ideas both in South Asia and in the Ottoman lands. Equally importantly, Simnn described the method of engaging in dhikr and other f exercises with a richness of vivid detail in several works written in Arabic and Persian. His combination of textual description of f experience and his important role as a successful f master with a large number of disciples is rare in Islamic history.16 Simnn was a productive author 154 titles are ascribed to him, referring to a total of 104 distinct works of which at least 79 are extant today. Along with al-Urwa alwuthq li-ahl al-khalwa wal-jalwa, his main prose treatise, Simnns commentary on the Quran rates as the single most important source of information regarding his ideas. I have worked in the past on Simnns ideas as expressed primarily in his tafsr. Here I intend briey to revisit Simnns writings on the Quran to explore how they t within the wider context of f tafsr writing and also within the body of Simnns own work. In so doing, I hope to raise questions about the nature and purpose of esoteric commentary on the Quran by writers who have a larger corpus of non-tafsr writing. That is to say, for someone who is capable of writing (and sees the merit in composing) instructional prose works directed at a variety of audiences, what special purposes might writing a tafsr work serve. In addition, one must remember that the structural limitations inherent in writing a commentary impose constraints on the process of writing since the commentary must, even in the loosest way, follow the structure and content of the work on which it is commenting. This being the case, are we justied in treating tafsr literature as a source of information similar to a more conventionally-styled prose work? Simnns commentary on the Quran is more accurately seen as comprised of two distinct works written at separate times. The rst part is the introduction, probably originally entitled Mala al-nuqa wa-majma al-luqa.17 This name is sometimes

48

Journal of Quranic Studies

given to the entire commentary and not just to the introduction. The Mala al-nuqa contains an extremely important and concise explanation of Simnns concept of seven subtle substances (laif) of the spiritual body, as well as an introductory elaboration of his notion of a hierarchy of four realms. Also part of the Mala al-nuqa is a commentary on the Ftia, which serves as the exemplary text for what he claims is the sevenfold meaning of the Quran. The Mala al-nuqa is rightly seen as an introduction to his actual tafsr work because in it he promises the reader a commentary on the Quran written in seven registers. However, Simnn never did get down to composing the massive work of tafsr he promised in the Mala al-nuqa and elsewhere in his writings. Instead, sometime between 703/1304 and 709/1310 he commenced writing something much more modest, the Tafsr najm al-Qurn. This work is ostensibly a continuation of an unnished commentary begun by Najm al-Dn Kubr (d. 618/1221) and continued by Najm al-Dn Dya-yi Rz (d. 654/1256), al-Tawlt al-najmiyya or, alternatively, Tafsr bar al-aqiq. The work attributed to Kubr and Dya-yi Rz ended abruptly at Q. 51:19 (Srat al-Dhriyt); Simnn did not pick up from the subsequent aya but began his Tafsr najm al-Qurn at Q. 52 (Srat al-r), a noteworthy point to which I will return later in this essay.18 The central question regarding Simnns Quran commentary as it related to this discussion is in what precise way does Simnns work represent the continuation or completion of the tafsr of his illustrious predecessors. His approach to tafsr writing is different, his ideas are distinct, and not only does he not start exactly where al-Tawlt al-najmiyya left off but he also gives his work a distinct title, a gesture at odds with the more humble mission of completing a masters work. One could speculate about why he never wrote the tafsr promised in the Mala al-nuqa aside from the possibility that he just never got around to it (due to any number of reasons) or that he decided that such a work was not a priority in his career, it is conceivable that the need to complete Kubrs work took on a symbolic importance and urgency, making it impossible for Simnn to write the massive work he had originally conceived and compelling him to do it in a more nominal way. Whatever the case may be, a brief discussion of the content and structure of his linked works, the Mala al-nuqa and Tafsr najm al-Qurn, helps illustrate questions of f tafsr writing. The Mala al-nuqa is available in a published edition with a brief introduction by Paul Nwyia. It has also been studied by Henry Corbin, and to a lesser extent, by the author of this essay.19 Simnn uses this work to outline his structure of seven subtle substances (laif), these being the subtle substance of the body (al-lafa al-qlabiyya), of the soul (al-lafa al-nafsiyya); of the heart (al-lafa al-qalbiyya); the inmost being (al-lafa al-sirriyya); of the spirit (al-lafa al-riyya); of the mystery (al-lafa al-khayya) and nally the subtle substance of the real

f tafsr Reconsidered

49

(al-lafa al-aqqiyya).20 He describes these seven subtle substances and their composition slightly differently in two other works, specically the Risla fat al-mubn li-ahl al-yaqn and al-Urwa li-ahl al-khalwa wal-jalwa.21 In the Mala al-nuqa, Simnn states that the Quran has a multitude of levels. At rst glance he maintains the existence of 70 esoteric levels (buun): the ten progeny substances (al-laif al-ashr al-salliyya) are established (thbita) in each of the seven laif, and each of the ten laif in the Quran has a particular purpose (ukm) and a particular understanding (fahm kh). Which makes for 70 esoteric levels for each and every aya. He goes on to say, however, that in fact, there are 700 levels when one considers that each of the ten progeny substances has ten senses (awss).22 Simnns treatment of the Quran in the Mala al-nuqa is markedly different from that in his commentary entitled the Tafsr najm al-Qurn. As mentioned above, the latter work is a partial commentary beginning with Sura 52, and therefore only covers a small section of the Quran. However, for that section it is a tafsr musalsal, and Simnn proceeds aya by aya through the suras, discussing each verse in turn, although some ayas are treated in a perfunctory manner while others serve as jumpingoff points for lengthy discussions of important concepts. In the Tafsr najm al-Qurn, Simnn describes the Quran as having fours levels of meaning corresponding to the four realms of existence. The exoteric (hir) dimension of the Quran relates to the Human Realm (lam al-nst), the esoteric (bin) level to the secrets of the Realm of Sovereignty (lam al-malakt), the limit (add) of the Quran to the Realm of Omnipotence (lam al-jabart) and the point of ascent to the Realm of Divinity (lam al-lht).23 Each of these four levels needs to be interpreted in a different way: the commentator (mufassir) on the exoteric level of the Quran should rely exclusively on the external sense of hearing (sam) through which she or he has learned the ayas. The f who has realised esoteric knowledge (muaqqiq) should rely on inspiration (ilhm) to comment on the esoteric level, while the accomplished f who realises the nature of Gods unity (muwaid) should only comment on the limit (add) with divine permission (idhn). Finally, the individual who has attained the secret of the essence (muali al sirr al-dht) should not comment at all, but should proceed into the point of ascent of the Quran.24 Simnn exhorts his audience to understand the Quran in these levels, though his explanation does little to make the esoteric levels of the Quran comprehensible to the analytic reader:25 O Seeker of the inner meaning of the Quran! You should rst study the literal level of the Quran with its commands and prohibitions. Secondly, you should occupy yourself with purifying your inner being so that you may comprehend the hidden meaning (ban) of the Quran

50

Journal of Quranic Studies according to the instruction of the Merciful One and the inspiration of the Holy Angel (al-malak al-qudds). Thirdly you should contemplate the understanding of its limit (add) in the realm of the hearts. [Only then] will you be distinguished with witnessing its point of ascent (mala) without thought or reckoning.

In commenting on the Quran, Simnn uses a number of interpretive and explicatory techniques of the sort analysed by Wansbrough. On frequent occasions in the Tafsr najm al-Qurn, he glosses ayas both through serial repetition and circular explication.26 A discussion of these is beyond the scope of this paper, and they represent fairly common techniques employed in f and other commentaries on the Quran. More than issues of technique in the writing of commentaries on the Quran, my concern is with the motivation behind the writing of such works. Simnns main purpose in composing the Mala al-nuqa is to lay out the overarching hierarchical heptology that covers so much of his writing and thought. This fact was noted by Nwyia who, in the introduction to his edition, says that in this work Simnn has come up with a new language. Like all languages, in order to understand its meaning one actually needs to know its vocabulary and rules. Simnn claims that knowledge of the language is based on practice or application (mumrasa) occurring in the depths of ones heart or soul (f khifyat al-amr).27 The view that the complexities of the esoteric are laid clear in a mystical organ or through a mystical faculty is, of course, a widely held one. Nevertheless, it is very unsatisfactory as an approach to the study of language or its use as a system of signiers. The very value of Simnns concise overview of his seven levels of laif and their correspondence with prophets as presented in the Mala al-nuqa lies in two factors: (i) its concision and organisation, and (ii) in his statement that every aya of the Quran possesses these seven levels and should be understood in each of them, which he promises he shall explain how to do in his lengthy tafsr. But saying that this is the case and demonstrating it linguistically for one or even a few ayas is not the same thing as providing a systematic tafsr of this precision and complexity. And let us not forget that Simnn did not do so. What Simnn did do in this introduction was to establish a technical vocabulary and interpretative framework which he expected his readers to apply not just to the Quran, but to every statement Simnn made concerning scripture. The purpose is therefore to create like-mindedness in his audience. The Tafsr najm al-Qurn, on the other hand, does not contain a sustained passage on the use of language that might help us make sense of how one creates like-mindedness through language, but there are shorter passages where one gets the sense that Simnn did, to some degree, have such a goal in mind. While commenting on Q. 59:19, wa-l

f tafsr Reconsidered

51

takn kalladhna nasllha fa-anshum anfusahum, he explains this as referring to the faculties that believe in the subtle substances and then forget their remembrance of God (dhikr Allh) and become occupied with the desires (mushtahayt) of their souls and make Gods religion (dn) a habit and birthright (datan wa-mrthan) and become heedless of the true meaning of religion (ghafal an aqqat al-dn).28 In other words, to comprehend the meaning of this aya is to understand that, even at the spiritual level, conscious attention to the form of the remembrance of God is a prerequisite for success. This is to say that to succeed at the esoteric level of quw and laif, one is obligated to follow the relationship between forgetting (nas/nisyn) and heedlessness (ghaa) that Simnn establishes through a linguistic elision. In his defence or the defence of the enterprise of a so-called f tafsr one might respond by saying that, in fact, those levels do exist and they are apparent to all those who have attained them. In other words, someone who has attained the level of al-lafa al-riyya understands the Quran as it pertains to that level and all before it, and also focuses on the Quranic ayas that refer to David. However, this begs at least two questions: how, unless one is already at a particular esoteric level, does one know what pertains to it, and if one has attained a high level of f awareness (this is particularly relevant to the highest, al-lafa al-aqqiyya), what need does one actually possess of having Simnn tell us what esoteric meanings the Quran possesses? Put differently, a highly structured and detailed textual presentation of the esoteric levels of the Quran argues for its own superuity. The mystically unenlightened reader can never really understand the true meaning of mystical interpretations through their literal description. And the enlightened reader who knows the hidden, mystical message of the Quran experientially has no need for the literal description. Therefore, the value of the detailed presentation of Simnn in his Mala al-nuqa lies in the denition of a technical vocabulary not because the language becomes understood in the depths of ones heart in some mystical sense, but because it creates like-mindedness among Simnns readers and disciples. Simnn tells us what the technical terms signify when referring to the Quran and, through our believing him, his use of language and the structured cosmology he creates make sense within the framework he has created. And his audience, which is like-minded concerning the use of his terminology and the epistemic reality of the concepts and realism to which it refers, can speak to each other about it. To all others, however, it is likely to sound like gibberish. One point I am trying to make by examining Simnns tafsr in this manner is to stress how statements made in the context of speaking formally about the Quran and its meaning do not necessarily reect accurately on the thought and teachings of some f thinkers. As I attempted to illustrate in my earlier work on Simnn, important and compelling though the structure of sevens presented in the introduction to

52

Journal of Quranic Studies

Simnns tafsr might be, it does not carry over with such rigidity into the remainder of his substantial body of work. Crucially, it does not even carry over into his tafsr. In the Tafsr najm al-Qurn, one nds evidence of a much more complex structured form of thinking where hierarchies and groups of fours and tens repeat themselves at least as frequently as the sevenfold scheme which has garnered so much attention. Equally importantly, one cannot get a clear understanding of these important aspects of Simnns thought by reading the Tafsr najm al-Qurn alone one must read several of his other works where these ideas are laid out much more clearly. In conclusion, this discussion of Simnns works brings one back to the question of what purpose the writing of a commentary on the Quran serves in the case of a writer such as Simnn who has complex ideas of his own and the ability to express them effectively in writing. I posit that his motives to write a tafsr fall into two general categories which are themselves intertwined, and that these motivational categories pertain in similar ways to most, if not all, writers of f commentaries on the Quran. The rst is the obvious elucidation of scripture, since it is well known that Simnn and fs like him genuinely believed in the metaphoric use of language in the Quran to refer to an innite underlying body of knowledge. Such an acknowledgment of the multi-layered quality of language in the Quranic is inseparable from its aesthetic appreciation as the pinnacle of rhetorical excellence.29 To comment on it, therefore, is not just to explain its subject but to publicly recognise its rhetorical excellence and therefore its beauty. The relationship between beauty and virtue was well established in Islamic aesthetics some centuries before Simnn was born.30 As such, one can see that the writing of a tafsr for Simnn would have been an act of piety as much as anything else. The second set of motives relates to his stated continuation of the al-Tawlt alnajmiyya. As I have mentioned already he did not, in fact, continue this tafsr in any substantive fashion. The only way in which he did so was largely symbolic: that he started his own Tafsr najm al-Qurn at the sura following the one in which the earlier Kubrw tafsr stopped abruptly. The symbolism here is one of loyalty and deference to ones teachers, which is itself an act of piety. From looking at the Mala al-nuqa and the Tafsr najm al-Qurn we are led to conclude that Simnn abandoned his ambitious plans for a tafsr in order to dutifully complete his masters work. Thus it appears that the act of tafsr-writing for Simnn is rst and foremost an act of piety and not a technique of explaining his religious ideas, something he is capable of doing with great skill in other prose works. It remains to be seen if the pious motive plays such an important role in the composition of tafsr generally and, if so, whether this has any bearing of the treatment of tafsr as an epistemic, rather than simply literary, genre.

f tafsr Reconsidered
NOTES

53

1 Ab Abd al-Ramn Muammad b. al-usayn al-Sulam, aqiq al-tafsr, ed. Sayyid Imrn (Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya), p. 21. 2 Al-Sulam, aqiq, pp. 223. 3 For more adth traditions arguing for multivalent readings of the Quran, see Kristin Zahra Sands, f Commentaries on the Qurn in Classical Islam (London: Routledge, 2006), pp. 813. 4 Gerhard Bwering, The Qurn Commentary of Al-Sulam in W.B. Hallaq and D.B. Little (eds), Islamic Studies Presented to Charles J. Adams (Leiden: Brill, 1991), pp. 4156. Bwerings periodisation is accepted by Alan Godlas in his inuential survey article concerning f commentaries on the Quran, although the latter author rightly takes issue with Bwerings notions of intellectual decline (Alan Godlas, sm in Andrew Rippin (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to the Qurn (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2006), pp. 35061). 5 Only Sahl al-Tustar, Ibn A and al-Wsi are thought to have written works of Quran commentary (Bwering, The Qurn Commentary, p. 42; Godlas, sm, p. 352). 6 Bwering, The Qurn Commentary, pp. 423. 7 Bwering, The Qurn Commentary, p. 43. 8 The same scheme is also apparent in a recent German work on f Quran commentary, although the work in question focuses on the early period of f writing (Hussein Ali Akash, Die susche Koranauslegung: Semantik und Deutungsmechanismen der irs Exegese (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 2006)). For more on Sleyman Ates and his place in Islamic and specically Quranic scholarship, see Abdullah Takim, Koranexegese im 20. Jahrhundert: islamische Tradition und neue Anstze in Sleyman Atess Zeitgenssischem Korankommentar (Istanbul: Yeli Ufuklar, 2007). 9 Sleyman Ates, sr Tefsr Okulu, Ankara niversitesi lhiyt Fakltesi Yaynlar, 122 (Ankara: Ankara niversitesi Basmevi, 1974). Like Bwering two decades later, Ates saw al-Sulam as the central gure of early f tafsr. 10 Norman Calder, Tafsr from abar to Ibn Kathr: Problems in the Description of a Genre, Illustrated with Reference to the Story of Abraham in G.R. Hawting and Abdul-Kader Shareef (eds), Approaches to the Qurn (New York: Routledge, 1993), pp. 1016. 11 Examples of such writers include al-Wid (d. 468/1076), who wrote three commentaries: al-Wajz (The Short Commentary), al-Was (The Middle Commentary) and al-Bas (The Large Commentary); or Jall al-Dn al-Suy (d. 911/1505) who, in addition to the famous Tafsr al-Jallayn, composed al-Durr al-manthr. 12 Gerhard Bwering (ed.), The Minor Qurn Commentary of Abu Abd ar-Ramn Muammad b. al-usayn as-Sulam (d. 412/1021), Recherches, 17 (Beirut: Dar el-Machreq: 1995). For more on al-Sulam and his commentaries, see Sleyman Ates, Slem ve Tasavvuf Tefsr (Istanbul: Snmez, 1969); Bwering, The Qurn Commentary; and by the same author, The Major Sources of Sulamis Minor Quran Commentary, Oriens 35 (1996), pp. 3556. 13 See, for example, Sands, f Commentaries, pp. 24; Annabel Keeler, Su Hermeneutics: The Quran Commentary of Rashd al-Dn Maybud, Institute of Ismaili Studies Quranic Studies Series, 3 (London: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 10ff. 14 Gerhard Bwering, The Mystical Vision of Existence in Classical Islam: The Qurnic Hermeneutics of the f Sahl At-Tustar (d. 283/898), Studien zur Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur des islamischen Orients, 9 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980), p. 138.

54

Journal of Quranic Studies

15 Al-Bursaw seems most inuenced by Ibn Arab and the concept of wadat al-wujd. While commenting on Q. 2:255, he asserts that there are three levels of afrming the unity of God (tawd). The rst two are the shahda of novices, l ilha illllh (there is no god but God); and the shahda of those at an intermediate state of spiritual development, l ilha ill anta (there is no god but You) because these individuals have attained a level where they can address God directly. The third is the shahda of unity, l ilha ill an (there is no God but I). These individuals have achieved total dissolution in God and have attained an understanding of divine Oneness (Isml aqq al-Bursaw, Tafsr r al-bayn (10 vols, n.p., n.d.; reprint 1912), vol. 1, p. 398. In other places, al-Bursaws explanations of the Quranic text make clear that he believes the essential message of scripture is wadat al-wujd, and only through understanding this doctrine can one achieve ultimate dissolution in God (fan f Allh) (for example, al-Bursaw, Tafsr r al-bayn, vol. 6, pp. 152ff). 16 For more on Simnn, see Jamal J. Elias, The Throne Carrier of God: The Life and Thought of Al ad-dawla as-Simnn (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995). 17 Elias, The Throne Carrier of God, pp. 203ff. 18 For more on the Quran commentary of Kubr and Dya-yi Rz as well as issues related to its completion, see Elias, The Throne Carrier of God, pp. 2035; Godlas, sm, p. 355; F. Meier, Stambuler Handschriften dreier persischer Mystiker: Ain al-qut al-Hamadhn, Nam ad-dn al-Kubr, Nam ad-dn ad-Dja, Der Islam 24 (1937), pp. 142; Sleyman Ates, mfessir bir tefsr, lhiyt Fakltesi Dergisi 18 (1970), pp. 85104; W. Shpall, A Note on Najm al-dn al-Rz and the Bar al-aqiq, Folia Orientalia 22 (19814), pp. 6980. 19 P. Nwyia, Muqaddama tafsr al-Qurn li-Al al-dawla al-Simnn, al-Abth 26 (19737), pp. 14157; H. Corbin, Physiologie de lhomme de lumire dans le sousme iranien in Ombre de lumire (Paris: Acadmie Septentrionale, 1961); and by the same author, The Man of Light in Iranian Susm, tr. Nancy Pearson (Boulder: Shambala Press, 1978), pp. 12144. 20 Nwyia, Muqaddama, p. 151; Elias, The Throne Carrier of God, p. 81. 21 Al al-Dawla Simnn, Risla fat al-mubn li-ahl al-yaqn, MS 1, Fiqh anaf Frs (Dr al-Kutub, Cairo), 8b; Al al-Dawla Simnn, al-Urwa li-ahl al-khalwa wal-jalwa, ed. Najib Mayel-e Herawi (Tehran: Intishrt-i Mawl, 1983), p. 463. The Urwa ranks with the Najm alQurn as Simnns major prose work in terms of size and inuence, and was composed over the period of Raman 720/October 1320 to Muarram 721/February 1321. The Risla fat almubn is a Persian treatise composed some time between Shawwl 712/February 1313 and Raman 713/January 1314. It contains a rst-hand account of Simnns conversion experience and induction into the Kubrw circle, as well as descriptions of the mystical states (ghaybt) that one encounters on the f path. It also contains an outline of the structure of the cosmos culminating in the spiritual human being and the subtle substances that constitute it. It is possible that this work served as an early partial draft of the Urwa (for more on these two works, see Elias, The Throne Carrier of God, pp. 1679, pp. 1812). 22 Nwyia, Muqaddama, p. 154. 23 Simnn, Tafsr najm al-Qurn, 18a; Elias, The Throne Carrier of God, p. 108. 24 Simnn, Tafsr najm al-Qurn, 18b; Elias, The Throne Carrier of God, p. 108. 25 Simnn, Tafsr najm al-Qurn, 96b97a; Elias, The Throne Carrier of God, pp. 1078. 26 John Wansbrough, Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation, foreword, translations and expanded notes by Andrew Rippin (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2004), pp. 130ff.

f tafsr Reconsidered

55

27 Nwyia, Muqaddama, pp. 1445. For a thoughtful discussion of the construction of f terminology in relation to tafsr, see Paul Nwyia, Exgse coranique et langage mystique, Recherches no. 49 (Beirut: Dar el-Machreq). 28 Simnn, Tafsr najm al-Qurn, 59a. 29 This point has been made by Wansbrough in his analysis of Muqtil and Kalb (Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, pp. 1301): [a]cknowledgement of metaphor in the language of scripture could be as much an expression of piety as of aesthetic appreciation exegetical speculation was ultimately coupled with recognition of scripture as the articulation of literary forms and related to an attested rhetorical tradition. 30 For discussions of beauty and rhetoric in Arabic and Islamic culture, see Doris BehrensAbouseif, Beauty in Arabic Culture (Princeton: Markus Wiener, 1998); C. Hillenbrand, Some Aspects of al-Ghazls Views on Beauty in A. Giese and C. Brgel (eds), Gott ist schn und Er liebt die Schnheit: Festschrift in Honour of Annemarie Schimmel (Bern: Peter Lang, 1992), pp. 24965.