a Borrower: RAPID:HLS Lending String: Patron: Journal Title: Islamic culture Volume: 71 Issue: Month/Year: 1997 | Pages: 1 | Article Author: Yusuf Rahman © | His" Anwar al-Tanzil wa Asrar al-Ta'wil Imprint: z & | article Title: Hermeneutics of al-Baydawi in F4 @ z 2 vai 12153742 ini imi [Call #: C-38618 Location: crls OCLC#: 1774508 ISSN#: 0021-1834 Lu Charge amo ee Maxcost: NEW: Widener Library Fax: | ariet: 129 62.28.195 Odyssey:206.107.43.109 ‘Transaction Date: 6/10/2017 10-4 A From the collections of the Center for Research Libraries www.crl edu elHERMENEUTICS OF AL-BAYDAWi INHIS ANWAR AL-TANZIL WA ASRAR AL-TA'WIL* YUSUF RAHMAN Ail Sa’ ‘Abd-Allah ibn “Umar iba Muhamiiad ibn “Alf Abi al-Khayr Nasir al-Din al-Baydaw?? (d. circa a.x. 685 and 716/1286 and 1316 .£.) is probably the best known of all Qur'an commentators in the West as.well as the most widely read in the Muslim world. In many cases his tafstr Anwar al-Tanzil wa srdr al-Ta wil has been surpassed only by the Tafsir al-Jalalayn of Jalal al-Din al-Maballi (4. 864/1459) and Jalal al-Din al-Suyitf (d. 911/1505). Sections of his Anwar have been translated into English and French.’ A great number of Muslims ‘as well have written super-commentaries on his work. There have been not only over eighty different books as Edwin E. Calverley suggests, but, according to al-Majma* al-Malaki's research, over three hundred glosses have been based on that commentary.’ The reason for its popu- larity, besides its inclination to support the belief of the Orthodox,* ‘seems to be its conciseness and brevity. Compared with the volumi- nous tafsir of al-Tabari (d. 310/923), the Anwar comprises only two volumes in Fleischer’s edition, Al-Baydwt’s tafsir, however, is not considered original and is, Said to be based primarily on previous raftirs,” such as al-Kashshaf of Jar-Allah al-Zamakhshar¥ (4. 538/144), al-Tafsir al-Kabtr or Mafitth aal-Ghayb of Fakhr al-Din Razt (d. 606/1209) and the commentary.of al-Raghib al-Isfahani (4. 502/1108). Hajji Khalifah (4. 1068/1657), a Muslim Turkish bibliographer, in his Kashf al-Zuniin ‘an Asami al-Kutub wa al-Funiin says that “in it [Anwar] he summarized from the Kashshaf that relating to Arabic grammar, ma‘dnT and baydn; and from the Tafsir al-Kabir that which deals with wisdom (hikmah) and theology; and from the commentary of al-Raghib that concerned with derivations and hid- den truth (ghawdmig) and allusions."** To these, says Haj al-Baydawi added the sparks of his own intellect, wise sayings and ac- ceptable propositions sufficient to alleviate any doubt or misinterpre- tation? Although borrowing from these three works, Anwar is,JANUARY, ISLAMIC CULTURE 1997 according to J. Robson, “largely a condensed and amended edition of al-Zamakhshari's Kashshaj.""" Al-Baydawi, generally refuted or omit- ted the statements which reflect Zamakhshari's rationalist theological views, the Mu'tazilite ideas, which ideas he edited to represent an Or- thodox view," although some of Zamakhshari's statements were over- looked and allowed to remain.” Commenting on the popularity of Anwar, Carl Brockelmann says that Baydawi’s tafsir has been consid- ered as “Holy Book’” by many Sunnis. In this regard, Brockelmann writes, “Er gilt jetzt bei den Sunniten fur den besten und fast fur heilig. Er zeichnet sich allerdings dadurch aus, dass er kurz und ubersichtlich eine Fulle von Stoff enthalt.”*? ‘These are the accusations and claims made by scholars about al- Baydawi’s cafsir. But, is it really his method to merely condense the works of previous mufassirs and include them in his tafsir? If so, does hhe have any reasons for doing so? In other words, is this really his hermeneutics? It is this question that this paper wishes to address. It will present the main principles and theories of his hermeneutics. Fur- thermore, in order not to focus the discussion on purely theoretical grounds, it will also examine the implementation of al-Baydawi's hermeneutics on the tafsir of Siirah XXX. First ofall, the term ‘hermeneutics’ in this paper is in need of explication as scholars have derived a variety of meanings from it. The English word ‘hermeneutics’ is formed from thé Greek infinitive ‘hermeneuein which means ‘to explain,’ *to translate,” and “to express.""* Itis also said that the word contains a reference to Hermes, the mes- senger of the gods in Greek mythology. Hermes’ task was to explain to humans the commands of their gods. Thus Hermes bridged the gap between the divine and the human realms."* Mythology then informs us that the hermeneutical question is how to translate or explain a past event or text into man’s present existence, In the Qur’an, this under- standing of hermeneutics is expressed in Siirah XVI : 44. Wa anzaind ilayka al-dhikra li-tubayyina li al-niisi ma nuzzila ilayhim (And We have revealed to you the Remembrance [dhikr] that ‘you may explain to mankind that which has been revealed for them.)VOLLXXI HERMENEUTICS OF/AL-BAYDAW NOL Although there is no etymological difference between hermeneutics and exegesis, historically they have been differentiated in theological terms. Exegesis was equated with the practice of interpre- tation, while hermeneutics came to denote the aims and criteria of that practice; in other words, hermeneutics is the theory of interpretation. It is in this sense that the term will be applied in this article. In his interpretation or understanding of the text/and the work of art, the hermeneuts agree that-the interpreter is not a tabula rasa He brings a whole set of pre-understandings and pre-suppositions to the text: Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976), a German philosopher, in his, “Is Exegesis Without Presuppositions Possible?"" states that there can- not be any such thing as presuppositionless exegesis."” There must be a ““life-relation’” between the exegete and the subject matter of the text. One cannot understand mathematical studies without having knowledge of its rules and codes. One cannot understand the meaning of the text if he does not know how to read it. ‘This phenomenon of pre-understanding and presupposition is generally referred to.as one dimension of ‘the hermeneutical circle.’ The pre-understandings of a commentator of the Qur'an may be his knowledge of the Arabic lan- ‘guage, poetry, ‘context and intra-text in the Qur'an," and inter-texts between the Qur'an and other texts. Based on this, Norman Calder concludes: “The qualities which distinguish one mufassir from another lie less in their conclusions as to what the quranic text means than in their development and display of techniques which mark their participation in and mastery of a literary discipline." The fact that al-Baydawi was explicitly aware of the issues of ‘method and hermeneutics receives clear attestation in the introduction with which he begins his ¢afsir. In the preface, besides giving his rea- sons for writing this rafsir and the title which he has chosen, he sets ‘out a pattern or method which he then follows in the commentary. iwi gives two reasons which impelled him to write the ‘The first he states as following: Wa ba‘du fa-inna a'zam al-"uliim migdaran wa arfa‘aha sharafan wa mandran ‘ilm al-tafsir alladhi huwa ra'ts 3JANUARY ISLAMIC CULTURE 1997 al-ubim al-diniyyah wa ra’ suhd wa mabné qawa‘id al-shar* wa asdsuhd Id yalig li-ta‘atihi wa al-tagaddi li-al-takallum ‘ih ill man bara‘a fi al-"ulitm al-diniyyah kulliha usit ‘wa furil'iha wa féiga fi al-sind ‘at al-‘arabiyyah wa al-funiin al-adabiyyah bi-anwa ‘tha ** (Then, indeed the greatest measure, the noblest and highest rank of all sciences is the science of tafsir which is the chief of religious sciences and their head; the foundation of shar [rules of shart ‘ah} and its basis, it is not proper for anyone to be engaged in it or to talk about it except those who ‘excel in all religious sciences, be it their usil or furi’, and surpass in the craftsmanship of the Arabic language and the literary arts.) This statement informs us that al-Baydawi intended to write a book on tafsir because it was considered the highest ranking of all al- ‘uliim al-diniyyah.” He has written many books in Various disciplines: scholastic theology, Arabic grammar, usilal-figh, figh, logic and meta- physics, and finally, perhaps as a crowning achievement, he wanted to add tafsir to his list of works. According to Ibn *Ashiir, al-Baydawi wrote his Anwar in the last days of his life, that is, in the second half of the seventh century in Tabriz.2* Having presented his reason for writing, al-Baydawi also sets, some requirements which have to be fulfilled by a scholar who wants to become a mufassir. These requirements are, in the hermeneutical sense, the prerequisite knowledge needed to comment on the Qur'an. Ac- cording to al-Baydawi, in order to understand the Qur’an correctly one has to excel in three main areas: al-'uliim al-diniyyak, Arabic lan- ‘guage and the literary arts. As for the second reason, method of interpretation, al-Baydai Wa la-tala ma uhaddithu nafst bi-an usannif ff hadha al-fann kitaban yahtawi ‘ala safwat ma balaghant min ‘uzama'al-sahabah waulama’ al-tabi'tn wa man dinahum min al-salaf al-salihin wa yantawt ‘ala nukat bari’ah waVOL.LXX! HERMENEUTICS OF AL-BAYDAWI Nout lata 1a'i'ah istanbattuhd ana wa man’qabli:-min aféidi! iuta’akhkhirin wa amathil al-muhaggigin wa yu'rib ‘an wujith al-gird'ét al-mashhiirét al-ma‘ziyyah ila al-a’immat al-thamaniyyat al-mashhiirin wa al-shawadh al-marwiyyah ‘an al-qurra’ al-mu'tabarin illé anna qusiir bida‘att yuthabbitunt ‘an al-igdém wa yamna‘iint ‘an al-intisab fi hadha al-magam.** (Lhad long wished to produce in this discipline a book which ‘would include the best of what had learned from the great- ‘est Companions, the learned Followers, and others, from the righteous salaf who were of lesser rank. [A book] which would also contain excelled allusions which I and those be- fore me derived from the predecessors and exemplary schol- ars. It would also give expression to the famous readings of the eight well-known imams as well as the variant readings obtained ftom the trustworthy qurra’. Except that the poor- ness of my ability had prevented me from doing so.and stopped me from such an endeavour. Thus, it is clear that al-Baydaw, in his early life, had tried to write a tafsir which would include the above elements; as he felt that he did not possess the ability or knowledge to do so, he postponed writing this for a number of years. The above statement included his, method of interpretation, and itis therefore worthwhile to read the last. statement of his preface in which he mentions the title of his book. It is important to mention it here, because some later scholars, intentionally or unconsciously, name it Mukhtasar al-Kashshdf.. He writes: Hattd sanaha li ba‘da al-istikhérah ma sammama bik ‘azmi ‘ala al-shuri* fima aradtuh wa al-ityan bima gasadtuh nawiyan an usammiyahii ba'da an wtammimahii bi Anwar al-Tanzil wa Asrar al Ta'wil. (Until it became possible for me, after istikhdrah, to execute what my mind has decided upon, which is starting what I intended {to write] and achieving what I aimed at. 1 intend toccallit, after finishing, Anwar al-Tanzil wa Asrar al-Ta'wil.)JANUARY ISLAMIC CULTURE 1997 ‘An examination of al-Baydawi’s Amwair reveals that his commen- tary is indebted to the older commentaries for a great number of ideas. ‘As he himself has stated in the preface, the commentaries that he used are of two kinds: those of sahabah, tabi'in and al-salaf al-salihin" and those of his predecessors. The Commentaries of the Formative Period In consulting the index of al-Baydawi’s commentary prepared by Winand Fell,” we find the names of many of the commentators of the first two centuries of Islam. Among the Companions of the Prophet Ibn “Abbas is the most important and the most often cited.” Then, Ibn Mas‘tid is quoted 14 times, Ubayy ibn Ka‘b 4 times, ‘Abd-Allah b. al- Zubayr 4 times, ‘Abu Masa al-Ash‘ari twice, and Zayd ibn Thabit once. ‘Among the Followers (Tabi tn) he refers to are Mujahid (5 times), al- Dabbak (3 times), Qatédah (3 times), ‘Ikrimah (twice), and Abu al “Aliyah (twice)-" These commentators are surely the most important figures, relied on by the classical and modern exegetes for an under- standing of the Qur'an. Al-Baydiwi, however, in referring to these ‘exegetes, does not narrate the chains of transmission (isndd) as al-Tabart did in his encyclopaedic tafsir The Commentaries of the Classical Mufassirs Itis quite interesting to note that al-Baydawi, from what we can see in Fell's Index, does not mention any commentaries of his prede- ‘cessors, such as those of al-Tabari, al-Zamakhshari, al-Razi, al-Raghib Isfahan’, causing us to wonder if al-Baydawi was not a ‘plagiarist."* ‘As we will see later, al-Baydaw7 clearly modelled himself on his prede- ‘cessors although he never mentioned their names.” He does mention some names or groups, like Abu al-Hasan al-Ash‘ari (twice), al-Jubba’T (once), al-Barahimah (once), al-Khawérij (five times), al-Mujabbirah (once), al-Mujassimah (once), al-Mu‘attilah (twice) and al-Mu'tazilah (33 times), but it seems quite clear that these names and groups are mentioned in connection with theological issues. Jane Smith has given a partial excuse for al-Baydawi’s ‘plagia- ism’ by saying that it was a general practice in the seventh century, in which time the scholastic system had been well established, for a writerVOL.LXXI HERMENEUTICS OF AL-BAYDAWI Now to include acceptable material in his work or to even adopt it verba tim, but it was still important for him to cite the sources, whether he agreed or disagreed with them. Al-Kazarini, in his super-commentar- ies, has informed us of the debt of al-Baydawi to al-Kashshaf* Besides including older commentaries in the Amwér, the author is also concerned with the gird ‘dt (technicalities of reading). Different readings can reveal different meanings. In this sense, not only does al- Baydawi use the seven famous readers,™ he also adds an eighth, Ya'qib al-Hadrami. It is not quite clear why he uses Ya*qub, but this is what makes him different from previous commentators. He pays special at- tention to different readings. In Sirah XXX itself, the chapter which we will study in the following pages, the author cites Ya‘qib’s namie three times.” On page 104, line 6, he mentions the names of two other gar? 5 Abu Bakar and Rawh in addition to the eight readers. As far as his other hermeneutical methods are concerned, al- Baydawi sometimes uses the concept which Abdel Haleem calls the ‘internal relationship’ of the Qur’an, that is al-Qur an yufassiru ba ‘dihit ba'dan. This is evident, for example, in verse 56 of Sirah XXX, where the Qur'an says: lagad labithtum fi kitdb-Allah, He comments [Your future is] in His knowledge, in His decree, or in that which He has decreed for you, or in the awh (mabfifz),"* and then he refers to verse ‘wa min ward''ihim barzakhun"” (XXIII : 100) to indicate another verse which has the same meaning. The method of commenting on a verse of the Qur'an in the light of other verses is elsewhere apparent in his Anwar. The tole of hadith in al-Baydawi's commentary, however, is more dominant than that of the intra text.” He quotes no less than five ex- egetic traditions relating to this chapter. First of all, he starts with a hadith which records the historical context, asbab al-nuzil, of the Siirah. Then he cites three traditions to explain the meaning of the verse. To give an example, while commenting on the verse 46 where the Qur'an says that God surely will help al-muminin, al-Baydawi quotes a Prophetic hadith in which the Prophet Mubammad says ma ‘min imri’in muslimin yaruddu ‘an ‘irdi akhThi illa kana haggan ‘ala- Allahi an yarudda ‘anhu nara jahannam (any Muslim who defends the nobility of his brother, God will keep him from Hellfire)” Finally, like al-Zamakhshari, al-Baydaw? refers in each chapter at the end of hisJANUARY, ISLAMIC CULTURE 1997 commentary to a hadith which speaks about the merit (/adl) of the siirah which he has just commented on.‘' This last category of afddith unfortunately is considered by many as mawdis’ (fabricated hadith).! Al-Baydawi does not give any reason why he cites the fabricated hadith, but al-ligdn confirms for us that those ahddith are quoted by many commentators in order to make people more eager to read the Qur'an. Besides the above hermeneutical principles, the most obvious and apparent characteristic in this Anwar is the considerable attention it pays to grammatical points. Without the technicalities of Arabic gram- mar, the Anwar, like the other classical commentaries, is almost unin- telligible. Al-Baydawi seeks to clarify words and phrases that carry an uncommon significance. He makes explicit the grammatical relation- ship within an individual verse, discussing any apparent irregularities of syntax or word order within the framework of classical Arabic gram- mar. In this case, the author seems to have mastered the works of the Arabic grammarians, like those of Sibawayh, al-Khali, al-Mubarrad, Tha‘lab and other nahwTs, whom he quotes many times in his commen: tary. In addition to linguistic and lexical considerations, al-Baydawi sees the necessity of the use of pre-Islamic literature, specially poetry, in understanding the Qur'an. In. verse 23, for example, he presents poetry and mathal to explain the notion of ‘an mugaddar.* Another hermeneutical base which exists in al-Baydawi's tafsir is his philosophy, both kaldm and jurisprudence. “Being an Ash‘arite and Shafi‘te, the author undoubtedly colours his commentary with those beliefs. The opening statement in his preface which reads “Praise be to God who sent down (nazzala) the Qur'an (al-Furgdn)* is clearly a refutation of the doctrine of the ‘created Qur'an,” which al-Zamakhshart asserted originally in his preface to the commentary.‘* In the preface as well, our author presents the idea of i jaz al-Qur’an “the miraculous inimitability of the Qur’an,”’ which conforms to the doctrine of the Ash'arites.”” These points are sufficient to show the influence of his philosophy on the commentary of the Qur’n. In conclusion, despite the accusations made by scholars against his Anwar, al-Baydawi was fully aware from the very beginning of what he was doing. He has set out a hermeneutical method which he would follow throughout the commentary. He brought his pre-understandingsVOL.LXXI HERMENEUTICS OF AL-BAYDAWI No. and presuppositions to bear on his explanation of the Qur'in. Arabic ‘grammar, poetry, prophetic hadiths, kaldm, jurisprudence and the ideas of his previous commentators are entailed in the category of the preunderstanding. The main problem with his exegesis seems to be his adoption of the ideas of others, especially the classical mufassirs, with- ‘out mentioning his sources. NOTES. (1) The edition used in this study is that of H.O. Fleischer (Osnabruck: Biblio-Verlag, 1968), 2 Vols. (2) For his biography and works, see Lutpi Ibrahim, *“Al-Baydaw?'s Life and Works,” Islamic Studies, 18 (1979), pp. 311-21 @) The commentary on Sirah XII, the story of Joseph, has appeared twice in translation, by Eric F.F. Bishop and Mohamed Kaddal in ‘The Light ‘of Inspiration and the Secrets of Interpretation’ Being a Translation of the Chapter of Joseph (Surat Yusuf) With the Commentary of Nasir 1d-Din Al-Baidawi (Glasgow: Jackson, Son & Company, 1957) and by AFL. Beeston in Baidawi"s Commentary on Surah 12 of the Qur'an (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963). The commentary on Sirah II was translated by D.S. Margoliouth in Chrestomathia Baidawiana: The Commentary of El-Baidawi on Sura ILI (London: Luzac & C9., 1894). According to Margoliouth, 8. de Sacy has translated part of the com- mentary on Sirah Il into French in his Anthologie Grammaticale. See Margoliouth, ibid, p.v. (4) See Edwin E. Calverley atic Theology of Islam, ““Al-Baydiwi's Mafdli' AL-Angar: A System- ‘Muslim World 53,(1963), p. 293 (S) See al-Fihris al-Shiamil li al-Turath al-'Arabt al-Islam al-Maki “Ulm al-Qur‘an Makhgittat al-Tafsir wa ‘Ulumith (“Amman: al-Maj 4l-Malaki i-Bubith al-Hadarit al-Islamiyyah, 1989), vol. i, pp. 320- 343. One of the super commentaries used in this paper is that of al- Kizarlint (Cairo: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Arabiyyah, 1911-2), 5 vols. (6) See Carra de Vaux, ““Tafsir,”” EI’, vol. Baidawi’s Commentary, p.v. iv:1, p. 64; and Beeston, (7) For examples of this point, see Muhammad Husayn al-Dhahabi, al- Tafsir wa al-Mufassirin (Cairo: Dat al-Kutub al-Hadithah, 1960-1), 9JANUARY ISLAMIC CULTURE, 1997 pp. 297-302; Margoliouth, Chrestomathia,p. vi; C. Brockelmana, “Al- Baidawi,"" Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam (SED, p. 58; J. Robsot “AL-Baydiwi >. 1129; Andrew Rippin, “Al-Baydawi, Encyclopedia of Religion (ER), vol. 2, pp. 85-6; and idem, “Tafsi,” ER, vol. 14, p. 240; and Helmut Gatje in his “Introduction” of The Qur'an and Its Exegesis, trans. and edited by Aiford T. Welch (Lon- don: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1976), p. 37 Khalffah, Kashf al-Zuniin ‘an Asami al-Kutub wa al-Funiin, ed G. Flugel (New York: Johnson Reprint, 1964), vol. i, p. 471. Cf. Jane 1. Smith, An Historical and Semantic Study of the Term ‘Islam’ As ‘Seen in a Sequence of Qur'én Commentaries (Missoula: University of Montana, 1975), p. 121. Hajji Khalifah does not mention the name of al-Raghib al-sfahni’s zfs. In fact the latter has written several books relating to Qur'an, like Jami’ al-Tafastr, Durratal-Ta'wit ff Mutashabih ‘al-Tanzil,Risdlah ft Tafsir and al-Mufradat fi Ghartb al-Qur‘an. These books have not been accessible to me. See al-Fihris al-Shamil, vo. p. 125-6; and E.K, Rowson ‘‘al-Raghib al-Isfahani,"” EP", vol. vii, pp. 389-90, @) (9) Ibid. (10). Robson, *al-Baydawi,”* p. 1129. Muhammad ibn ‘Alf al-Dawidr lists in al-Baydiw1's works Mukhiasar al-Kashshdf in terms of Anwar al- Tanzil. See al-Dawadi, Tabagat al-Mufassirin (Cairo: Maktabat Wahbah, 1972), voli, p. 242. See also Mani’ “Abd al-Halim Mahmid, ‘Manihij al-Mufassirin (Beirut: Dir al-Kitab al-Lubnini, 1978), p.242. (11) Lutpi Ibrahim has written a umber of articles comparing the theology of al-Baydawi and al-Zamakhshari, such as ‘The Concept of Divine Justice According to al-Zamakhshari and al-Baydawi,"” Hamdard Islamicus, 3 (1980), pp. 3-17; ‘The Relation of Reason and Revela- tion in the Theology of al-Zamakhshari and al-Baydaw,"” Islamic (Culture, 54 (1980), pp. 63-74; “The Concept of thbdt and Takftr Ac- cording to az-Zamakhsharf and al-Baydawi," Die Welt des Orient, 11 (1980), pp. 117-21; and “The Questions of the Superiority of Angels and Prophets between az-Zamakhsh awi,”” Arabica 28 (1981), pp. 65-75, (12) For the example of this, see Rips (13) Carl Brockelmann, Geschichte der Arabischen Litteratur (Leiden: E.J Brill, 1943), vo. i, p. $30 CF. idem, “‘al-Baidawi,” p. 58. 10VOL.LXXI HERMENEUTICS OF AL-BAYDAWI No.l (14) Jane Dammen McAuliffe, “Quranic Hermeneutics! The Views of al- ‘Tabari and Ibn Kathir,” in Approaches to the History of the Interpre- {ation of the Qur'an, ed. Andrew Rippin (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), p. 46. Cf. E.A. Andrews, A Latin Dietionary: Founded on Andrews’ Edition of Freund's Latin Dictionary, ed. Charlton T.Lewis & Charles Short (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), p. 849. (15) WamerG. Jeanrond, Theological Hermeneutics: Development and Sig- nificance (New York: Crossroad, 1991), p. 1 (16) Muhammad ‘Ati al-Sid, “*The Hermeneutical Problem of the Qur'an in Islamic History,"’ Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Temple University, 1975, pp. 8-9. See also McAuliffe, “Quranic Hermeneutics,” p. 47; and Jeanrond, Theological, p. |. (01) In Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings of Rudolf Bultmann, selected, translated and introduced by Schubert M. Ogden (Cleveland: The World Publishing Company, 1966), p.290 (Italics in original. (18) See Jeanrond, Theological, pp.$-6. The second dimension isthe con- ‘cept that in order to understand the whole, one needs to understand all of its parts; and in order to understand the parts adeqfately, one must understand the overall composition (19) See M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, “Context and Internal Relationship: Keys to Quranic Exegesis,"’ in Approaches to the Qur ‘dn, ed. G.R.Hawting and Abdul-Kader A. Shareef (London and New York: Routledge, 1993), pp. 71-98. (20) Norman Calder, **Tafsir from Tabari to Ibn Kathir: Problems in the Description of a Genre, Illustrated with Reference to the Story of Abraham,"” in Approaches to the Qur'an, p. 106, (21) AL-Bay iwi, Anwar, p, 2, lines 12-5 (22) In the margin of the Anwar, al ‘other book, Tawdli', the author holds that theology (kaldm) is the highest ranking ofall al-'uliim al-diniyyah. See al-Kazarini, Hashiyah, vol. i, .5, line 26. As Tawdli* was written prior to al-Baydawi's tafsir, the statement in Anwar should be regarded as his final word on the subject. (23) For his bibliography, see Ibrahim, ‘‘al-Baydawi,"" pp. 316-8; Brockelmann, Geschichte, pp. 530-4. "JANUARY ISLAMIC CULTURE 1997 ey es) 26) en 28) @9) G0) @) @2) @3) G4) Gs) n See Ibn *Ashir, al-Tafstr wa Rijéluh (Tunis: Dir al-Kutub al- Shargiyyah, 1966), p-97. Al-Baydawi, Anwar, p. 2, ines 15-9. Cf. Robson's transl Al-Baydiwi, Anwar, p. 2; Hines 20-1. ‘These commentaries are included by Jane Dammen McAuliffe in the category of ‘The Formative Period of Qur'dnic Tafsir’ which extends from the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad to the early years of the tenth century, the era when the commentary of al-Tabar? appeared. See McAuliffe, Qur ‘nic Christians: An Analysis of Classical and Mod- ern Exegesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 13 For the names of the commentators of this period see al-Suyat ‘tqan ft ‘Uliim al-Qur ‘én (Cairo: Maktabat Dar al-Turdth, 1985), vol iv, pp. 240-12. See Winand Fell, Indices and Beidhawii Commentarium in Coranum (Osnabruck: Biblio-Verlag, 1968), pp. 1-17. (Located in the back of Fi 's edition of Anwar, vol Index, p. 49. See Index, especially pp. 41-55. This term carries unethical connotations, but what we mean here is mainly a scholar who uses the ideas of others without mentioning his sources, ‘Compare with the tafsir of al-Rzf in which he mentions al-Zamakhshasi, al-Tabarl, “Abd al-Jabbir, etc. For the study of al-Razi's sources, see J. Jomier, “The Quranic Commentary of imam Fakhr al-Din al-Rizi: Its Sources and Its Originality,"" in International Congress for the Study of the Qur'an (Canberra: Australian National University, 8-13 May, 1980), Series I, pp: 93-111 Smith, Historical and Semantic Study, p. 122. See, for example, pp. 144 and 147 of the Cairo edition,VOL.LXXI HERMENEUTICS OF AL-BAYDAWI No. (86) For the names of these seven readers and their reporters (rum), see ‘Abii ‘Uthmin b. Sa'fd al-Dani (d. 444/1053), Kitdb al-Taysir fi al- Qird’a al-Sab', ed. Otto Pretzi (Istanbul: Matba‘atal-Dawlah, 1930), pp. 4-10, en ischer’s edition, p. 108, lines Sand 21 and p. 111, line 14. It is ing that Fell does not include the names of gurrd’ except Ibn Kathir (once) in the Index. (38) This commentary is almost the same as that of al-Kashshdf, except that al-Baydawi refers to the verse of the Qui e al-Kashshaf ‘an Haga’'iq Ghawamid al-Tanzll wa ‘Uyin al-Agawil fi Wujith al-Ta'wil (Beirut: Dir al-Kitab al-"Arabi, n.d.), vol. 3, p. 487. (39) _R. Marston Speight has listed some functions of hadith in exegesis, see his “The Function of Hadith As Commentary on the Qur'an As Seen in the Six Authoritative Collections,” in Approaches tothe History ofthe Interpretation of the Qur'an, pp. 63-81 (40) Anwar, p- 109, lines 14-5. (41) See al-Baydiwi, Anwar, p. 111. Cf. al-Zamakhshar, al-Kashshif, vol 3, p. 489. When al-Zamakhshari was asked by ‘Abd al-Rahim b. ‘Umar al-Kirmani (d. $05/1111) about the reason for placing a hadith at the end of commentary, the former responded: “because they [ahddith] are their [Sirahs"] attributes, and the attribute requires placing thet which ‘was described in the first place.”” See al-Suyit, al-rgan, vol. 4, p 199, (42) See tbn ‘Ashir, al-Tafstr, p. 107; Mahmi Basyiini Fadah, Nash’ar al- Tafsir wa Mandhijuh fi Daw'i al-Madhahib al-Islémiyyah (Cairo: ‘Matba‘at al-Amanah, 1986), p. 215. Cf. Hajji Khalifah’s opinion on these ahddith in his Kashf al-Zuniin, p. 473. (43) See al-Suydti, al-ttqan, vol. 4, pp. 115-6 (44) ‘The poetry that al-Baydawi quotes is that of comments on the same verse. See al-T al-Qur’én (Beirut: Dar |-TabarT when the latter Jami al-Bayin ft Tafsir |-Ma‘rifah, 1986-7), vol. 23, p. 22. (43). Al-Baydaiwi, Anwar, p.2, line 1. 13JANUARY ISLAMIC CULTURE 1997 (46) Al-hamdu li-Allah alladhi khalaga al-Qur‘n (Praise be to Allih who created the Qur'an). This statement was then replaced by Zamakhshari with **Praise be to Allah who sent. down (anzala) the Qur'dn in ‘composed and arranged speech” (kaldman mu‘allafan ‘munazzaman). See al-Zamakhshari,al-Kashshdf, vol. i, p. 2. See also al-Kazariini, Hashiyah, vol. i p.2. Co invwdr, p. 2, lines 1-3. Fora brief discussion on the topic see [ssa J. Boullata, “The Rhetorical Interpretation of the "Yn Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Qur ‘én, pp. 139-57.