Johanna Pink-Tradition - Authority - and - Innovation - in - Co PDF

Tradition, Authority and Innovation in
Contemporary Sunnī tafsīr: Towards a

Typology of Qur’an Commentaries from the
Arab World, Indonesia and Turkey
Johanna Pink
FREIE UNIVERSITÄT, BERLIN
Introduction1
Tafsīr2 is a very traditional genre in the sense that it tends to rely to a large extent on
Prophetic aḥādīth and on earlier exegetical authorities. This is true for recent Qur’an
commentaries just as much as for premodern ones. It is for this reason that the
superficial attempts at periodisation often found in the scholarly literature which
distinguish, for example, between a ‘classical’ and a ‘modern’ stage of the
development of tafsīr, are not particularly helpful for analysis, unless one chooses
to focus exclusively on modernising trends when looking at contemporary exegetical
efforts and to dismiss tradition-oriented, conventional works of exegesis as repetitive
and of little interest for the scholar.3 While such an approach is certainly in line with a
general tendency in Islamic studies to view every intellectual activity that has taken
place since the nineteenth century in the framework of ‘modernity’, it is problematic
with respect to tafsīr – a genre that, by its very nature, incorporates different strands
of tradition, older as well as more recent ones. Only by including Qur’an
commentaries that are traditional in style, method and/or content into the focus of
research can the development of the genre be properly understood; this is especially
true for any effort to grasp the ways in which recent Qur’an commentaries select,
appropriate and discard earlier traditions.
Thus, the purpose of this paper is not to identify a distinct category of tafsīr that is in
some way ‘modern’ or different from earlier efforts, but to take a comprehensive look
at the mechanisms of tafsīr production under the conditions of the modern nation
state, without restricting the area of interest to any specific brand of tafsīr, be it
Journal of Qur’anic Studies 12 (2010): 56–82

Edinburgh University Press
DOI: 10.3366/E1465359110000963
# Centre of Islamic Studies, SOAS
www.eupjournals.com/jqs
Tradition, Authority and Innovation in Contemporary Sunnī tafsīr 57
reformist or Islamist. In order to be able to draw relevant conclusions concerning

differences between various states and regions of the Islamic world, I examine Qur’an
commentaries in three languages: Arabic, Bahasa Indonesia and Turkish.
Out of the large amount of tafsīr works in these languages, I limit myself to those that
have been written by Sunnī authors and have been published between 1967 and
2004.4 Furthermore, I only take into account extensive commentaries, i.e. works that
comment on every aya of the Qur’an at some length, including the explanation of
words and the discussion of exegetical problems. While I only include original works,
as opposed to collections or abridged versions of older Qur’an commentaries, I have
made no selection depending on whether the author primarily quotes earlier
authorities or makes a point of presenting his own ideas.
The Commentaries
The resulting sample consists of eleven Qur’an commentaries from Egypt (four), Syria
(two), Indonesia (three) and Turkey (two).
In Egypt, Muḥammad Abū Zahra (1898–1974), the Dean of Cairo University’s

Sharīʿa Faculty and a member of al-Azhar’s Islamic Research Academy, started
publishing his Qur’an commentary, Zahrat al-tafāsīr,5 in an Islamic magazine in
the mid 1950s. Publication had to be interrupted for political reasons during the
1960s, probably due to Abū Zahra’s Islamist leanings; after Nasser’s death he
resumed writing the tafsīr until his demise in 1974, at which time he had reached
the twenty-seventh sura (Sūrat al-Naml) of the Qur’an.6 His family had the book
printed around 1987; it has lately been scanned and made available for download on
the internet.7
Muḥammad Sayyid Ṭanṭāwī (1928–2010), shaykh al-Azhar until his recent death,
wrote his al-Tafsīr al-wasīṭ8 while holding faculty positions in Islamic theology in
Egypt, Libya and Saudi Arabia.9 The fifteen volumes were published between 1974
and 1986; a second edition was printed in 1992. It is available online on the internet
platform Altafsir.com.
Another Egyptian ‘medium-sized’ commentary on the Qur’an, al-Tafsīr al-wasīṭ

li’l-Qurʾān al-karīm was published between 1972 and 1986, in the form of small
booklets, by a committee of scholars under the auspices of al-Azhar’s Islamic
Research Academy;10 the endeavour seems to have been abandoned in 1986.11 The
commentary was written by 40 scholars and edited by a committee of ten members,
some of whom had a background in literary studies rather than Islamic theology.12
This may have been due to the fact that many traditional tafsīr scholars had left
al-Azhar, or had been made to leave, after Nasser’s reforms.13 The editorial
committee’s task was to simplify and unify the structure and style of the contributions;
58 Journal of Qur’anic Studies
in the resulting exegetical work it is not possible to identify individual authors. There
has been no reprint, and no online edition is available.
Certainly the most widely popular among the four Egyptian commentaries, although
not for its conventional scholarly qualities, is that named Tafsīr al-Shaʿrāwī14 – a
label its author, Muḥammad al-Mutawallī al-Shaʿrāwī (1911–98), himself was critical
of as he did not consider his work a tafsīr in the proper sense of the word, but rather a
collection of thoughts on some of the blessings of individual ayas.15 The printed work
is based on Shaykh al-Shaʿrāwī’s successful TV show Khawāṭir al-Shaʿrāwī ḥawl
al-Qurʾān al-karīm, in which he had interpreted the Qur’an verse by verse from 1977
until his death, apparently up to Sura 57 (Sūrat al-Ḥadīd) plus the juzʾ ʿammā (Suras
78 through 114).16 Although he graduated from al-Azhar and went on to hold various
faculty positions in Saudi Arabia during the 1960s and 1970s,17 his commentary is not
academic in style or content; rather, it takes the form of consecutive sermons. This
work has been scanned and is available online on several websites, including Altafsir.
com.18
In Syria, the local Muslim Brotherhood’s chief ideologue Saʿīd Ḥawwā (1935–89)
was the only one among the exegetes discussed here who, after having obtained his
first degree in Sharīʿa from the University of Damascus, never aspired to an academic
position in Islamic theology, but rather opted for devoting his life to political
activism.19 During the 1970s he spent five years in prison where he wrote the first
draft of his tafsīr; the work, which owes much to Ibn Kathīr, al-Nasafī and Sayyid
Quṭb, was completed during his exile in Jordan and published under the title al-Asās
fī’l-tafsīr in 1985.20 According to Ḥawwā, his main motivation for writing the
commentary was the wish to convince his fellow Muslims that the Qur’an contains
solutions for today’s problems; in addition to this, he also presents a new theory on
the structural coherence of the Qur’an and the unity of its suras. The work has
been reprinted at least four times and translated into Turkish.21 It is not available
online.
Wahba al-Zuḥaylī (b. 1932) is one of Syria’s most prominent Muslim religious
scholars. He obtained degrees in law and Sharīʿa from the University of Damascus,
the University of Cairo, ʿAyn Shams University and al-Azhar and has been teaching
Islamic law in Damascus for several decades.22 A well-known imām and preacher and
a member of the Syrian fatwa council, he belonged to a group of scholars who took
the liberty of vehemently criticising the president in an open letter for his plans for
educational reform in 2007, which indicates that al-Zuḥaylī, while not being part of
the political opposition, possesses a certain degree of independence.23 He has
published no less than three Qur’an commentaries of varying length, following a
classical pattern; in this paper, I discuss his al-Tafsīr al-munīr fī’l-ʿaqīda wa’l-sharīʿa
wa’l-manhaj, which is the most extensive of the three.24 It was first published in 1991
and reprinted in 1998, and is not available online. Recently, a Turkish edition has been
published.25
In Indonesia, the production of annotated translations of the Qur’an and more

extensive tafsīr works into Bahasa Indonesia started in the 1920s and increased during
the 1950s, after the country achieved its independence and adopted Bahasa Indonesia
as its national language. In 1962, under the influence of decolonisation and the
struggle between Islamists and secularists over ideological supremacy, the illustrious
intellectual Haji Abdulmalik ibn Abdulkarim Amrullah, better known as Hamka
(1908–81), started writing the most extensive Indonesian Qur’an commentary to that
date. The first portions were published in an Islamic newspaper; most of the work,
however, was completed in prison when Hamka was detained for his support of
political Islam during the last years of Sukarno’s reign. Under Suharto, he rose to the
highest ranks of the Indonesian ʿulamāʾ (despite a rather sketchy education) and
obtained important academic positions and appointments in religious institutions.26
His Tafsīr al-Azhar27 (named after a mosque in Jakarta that was central to his religious
activity) was first published in 1967; an enlarged version appeared in 1970. The
work’s mass-media origin has had a distinct influence on its style and approach; it is
popular until today and has seen numerous reprints, but is not available online for
copyright reasons.28
The Suharto regime, which came to power in 1967, redefined the state’s attitude
towards religion and sought to integrate Islam into the national narrative. In this
context, the Indonesian Ministry of Religion published a national commentary on the
Qur’an under the title Al-Qur’an dan tafsirnya in 1975.29 It was produced between
1972 and 1975 by a committee that consisted of seventeen members, all of whom held
faculty positions at the National Islamic Institutes; thus, the project also served to
demonstrate the potential of Indonesian academic theology. A newly staffed
committee created a second edition that appeared in 1985.30 The work is
deliberately simple in style and structure; contributions by individual authors
cannot be identified. Apparently, a new edition appeared in 2008.31 It is not available
online.
The most recent extensive Qur’an commentary from Indonesia has been written by
Muhammad Quraish Shihab (b. 1944), an eminent scholar and former Minister of
Religious Affairs who has received much of his education at the Egyptian Azhar
University. He is known for his liberal tendencies, but remains firmly rooted in
traditional Azharī religious scholarship.32 His Tafsir al-Mishbāh: Pesan, Kesan dan
Keserasian al-Quran was first published between 2000 and 2003 and has been
reprinted several times.33 It is not available online.
The development of Qur’anic exegesis in Turkey after the foundation of the nation
state differed radically from Indonesia in that, due to the state’s secularist ideology
and far-reaching educational reforms, academic theology was basically non-existent

during the 1930s and 1940s and it took several more decades to bring forth scholarly
activity on a scale that allowed for the production of a major tafsīr work. The author of
the first such undertaking since the 1950s was Süleyman Ateş (b. 1933), a renowned
theologian who has taught in Ankara, Samsun and Istanbul.34 His Yüce Kur’ânın
Çağdaş Tefsîri was first published in 1989;35 some of its reformist interpretations
caused controversy among Turkish and even Arab theologians.36 Nevertheless, it is
widespread and well known among Turkish theologians and has seen numerous
reprints. It is not available online.
In 1998, the Turkish Presidency for Religious Affairs commissioned four authors, all
of whom held faculty positions in Islamic theology or law at Marmara Üniversitesi in
Istanbul, with writing a new Qur’an commentary. While the Presidency made it clear
that the tafsīr was not to be considered an ‘official’ one, but only reflected its authors’
individual interpretations,37 it has nevertheless printed two editions, thus showing a
certain degree of approval. The first edition of Kuran yolu: Türkçe meâl ve tefsir by
Hayrettin Karaman, Mustafa Çağrıcı, Sadrettin Gümüş and İbrahim Kafi Dönmez
appeared in 2003–4 and the second in 2006. The individual authors’ contributions are
not identifiable throughout the work which has been available as an e-book since 2008.38
It is noticeable that one thing all these diverse works of Qur’anic exegesis, which
originate from four different countries, have in common is the fact that all of their
authors are male.39 In addition, all the commentators have at least some educational
background in Islamic theology or Sharīʿa, although this is sketchy in Hamka’s case
(the faculty positions he held later in his life notwithstanding) and rather basic in
Ḥawwā’s. The genre of extensive tafsīr musalsal – as opposed to, for example,
new hermeneutical approaches to the Qur’an or ‘educational’ concise Qur’an
commentaries – thus remains mostly a domain of male religious scholars.
A Basic Typology of Contemporary Qur’an Commentaries
While the commentaries have so far been presented according to their country of
origin, it does not seem helpful, for the purpose of analysis, to a priori categorise them
in this way. Such an approach would entail the risk of overemphasising or even
constructing regional differences while obscuring other differentiating features that
transcend national and linguistic boundaries. I will thus proceed to propose alternative
possible typologies, starting with a rather basic one that is based on obvious features
of the commentaries and continuing with modes of categorisation that can only be
derived from a closer analysis of the commentaries’ methods and contents.
Taking into account the authorship, origin, target group and style of the commentaries,
I propose to divide them, across regional boundaries, into three types, two of which
are clearly the result of relatively recent developments.
1) Scholar’s Commentaries
The most conventional form is the ‘scholar’s commentary’, i.e. a work that has been
written by a single author, usually a religious scholar, with a faculty position in
Islamic theology. This type of tafsīr is usually intended to enhance the author’s
academic reputation and is, at least primarily, targeted at academics. It makes ample
use of references to exegetical authorities. While the format is fairly traditional, the
same is not necessarily true for its contents. The commentaries of Muḥammad Sayyid
Ṭanṭāwī, Wahba al-Zuḥāylī, Süleyman Ateş and Muhammad Quraish Shihab clearly
fall into this category; the works of Saʿīd Ḥawwā and Muḥammad Abū Zahra possess
certain of its features, but are more hybrid in nature.
2) Institutional Commentaries
The twentieth century has seen a development of some consequence for the field of
Qur’anic exegesis, namely the emergence of the nation state as a religious actor. In
this context, from the 1970s onwards, a new form of tafsīr which I call the
‘institutional commentary’ has made an appearance. Commentaries of this type are
commissioned by religious institutions that are either close to the state or part of it,
written by a team of scholars – usually religious scholars – and homogenised in
structure and style so that it is impossible to identify individual authors. The complete
work thus gives the impression of being some kind of ‘official’ tafsīr even if it
technically is not. As any attempt of providing an authoritative interpretation of the
Qur’an is politically problematic, some institutions, such as al-Azhar and the Turkish
Presidency of Religious Affairs (Diyanet), are reluctant to assume full responsibility
for their respective projects; al-Azhar delegates authorship to a body that carries the
long-winded title of ‘a committee of scholars under the supervision of the Islamic
Research Academy at al-Azhar’, while the Turkish Diyanet assigns responsibility to
the individual authors. The Indonesian Ministry of Religion has no such reservations,
however; it considers its Qur’an commentary a national project.
3) Popularising Commentaries
Another phenomenon that is characteristic for the twentieth and twenty-first centuries
is the mass-mediatisation of Qur’anic exegesis, leading to the emergence and
increasing popularity of journalistic forms of tafsīr. These vary widely in style and
target group; while Rashīd Riḍā’s Tafsīr al-Manār, although published in a magazine,
had still been a rather elitist affair, this is much less the case with Abū Zahra’s Qur’an
commentary, and not at all with Hamka’s. While the reception of Qur’an
commentaries that are published in newspapers and books requires a minimal
amount of literacy, Shaykh al-Shaʿrāwī’s interpretation of the Qur’an is completely
geared towards a TV audience. All these works of tafsīr could be labelled
‘popularising commentaries’: They are intended for a broad public, and as such,
they dispense with the conventions of traditional tafāsīr, but rather aim at leaving a
direct impression on their readers or audience. Improvised in method and emotional
in style, they are closer to a sermon than to a detailed explanation of the meaning of
a particular aya. Hamka’s and al-Shaʿrāwī’s commentaries fulfil these criteria
completely; Saʿīd Ḥawwā’s and Abū Zahra’s works are, as mentioned above, more
hybrid in nature, as they possess certain characteristics of a scholar’s commentary with
their frequent reliance on exegetical authorities and discussion of technical questions.
The Exegetes’ Approach to Tradition and Earlier Exegetical Authorities: Two

Case Studies on Exegetical Practice
A closer analysis of the commentaries’ exegetical strategies can reveal much about the
exegetes’ priorities concerning their methods and sources and will contribute to a
more accurate understanding of contemporary tafsīr than the rough typology outlined
above. In the following, I will study the way in which the commentators deal with two
particular exegetical problems occurring in Q. 9:111–12, with a focus on issues of
ḥadīth and authority. The selected exegetical problems may seem unspectacular at
first glance when compared to the great debates about the status of women or
non-believers in the Qur’an; but as they are highly controversial and are discussed
by all or nearly all of the commentaries in question, they are extremely useful for
a comparative analysis and are decidedly revealing with respect to the exegetes’
attitude towards ḥadīth and exegetical authorities. The discussion will not limit itself
to the views of the eleven commentaries presented above, but will first give an
overview of the exegetical repertoire at their disposal, i.e. the treatment of the
respective exegetical problem by relevant40 premodern and early modern Qur’an
commentaries.
I am not going to expound on other exegetical problems related to the ayas or on the
commentaries’ general interpretations of the passage; in particular, I will not discuss
the exegetes’ attitudes towards the issue of jihād.41
a) The Circumstances of Revelation of Q. 9:111
God has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions
against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the way of God; they kill, and
are killed; that is a promise binding upon God in the Torah, and the
Gospel, and the Koran; and who fulfils his covenant truer than God?
So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him; that is the mighty
triumph.42
This aya is part of Sūrat al-Tawba, one of the latest suras of the Qur’an, which deals
primarily with issues of war against the unbelievers and loyalty towards the cause of
God. Most of the parts of the sura that precede Q. 9:111 are devoted to criticism of
those hypocrites who refused to take part in the campaign to Tabūk in 9/630. Without
additional information, it would seem self-evident that Q. 9:111 has to be read in this
context, i.e. contrasting the true believers and their reward with the hypocrites and
their punishment described before, for example in Q. 9:81–7 and Q. 9:90–6; Q. 9:111
would then repeat and reinforce the meaning of Q. 9:88–9 which promises Paradise to
the Prophet and those who fought with him.
However, practically all major premodern exegetes quote a sabab al-nuzūl for
Q. 9:111 that completely contradicts this reasoning. They place the revelation of the
aya in the context of the bayʿa of al-ʿAqaba that took place in 622 AD, shortly before
the Hijra.43 According to this story, the leader of the 70 anṣār present, ʿAbd Allāh
b. Rawāḥa, asked Muḥammad for his conditions for the planned alliance. Muḥammad
answered that he would expect the anṣār to worship God and God alone, and
to protect him like they would protect themselves and their property. ʿAbd Allāh
b. Rawāḥa asked what they would get in return for making such a promise, whereupon
Muḥammad answered: ‘Paradise.’ The anṣār considered this bargain decidedly
profitable and accepted gladly, whereupon the aya was revealed.44
As this tradition glaringly contradicts the inner-Qur’anic context of the aya and the
generally agreed view that the ninth sura is of Medinan origin and dates from the time
after the conquest of Mecca, some nineteenth and twentieth-century Muslim scholars
have articulated criticisms or offered an alternative version. Probably the first exegete
to dismiss the al-ʿAqaba connection was al-Shawkānī (d. 1250/1834), who partly
seems to be motivated by a desire to explain the logic behind the sequence of ayas
within the sura. He discusses historical accounts of the bayʿa of al-ʿAqaba and comes
to the conclusion that there is no indication of it being the occasion of revelation of
Q. 9:111. He also offers an alternative sabab al-nuzūl, transmitted by Ibn Abī Ḥātim
and Ibn Mardawiyya, that places the revelation of the aya in the mosque of Medina.45
Al-Ālūsī, al-Marāghī and Rashīd Riḍā quote both the al-ʿAqaba and the Medina
sabab al-nuzūl; the latter two apparently give preference to the al-ʿAqaba one, but at
least indicate a potential conflict.46 Muḥammad ʿIzzat Darwaza, whose tafsīr was
primarily concerned with the historical context of the Qur’anic message, discusses the
issue at length, rejecting the al-ʿAqaba version both because of the inner-Qur’anic
context of the aya, which, in his opinion, clearly situates it in the aftermath of the
campaign to Tabūk, and because he deems the al-ʿAqaba version historically
implausible, as there was no question of jihād for the sake of God at the time of the
Hijra, but only of self-defense.47 The modernist exegete Ibn ʿĀshūr does not discuss
the occasion of revelation as such, but is likewise in favour of placing the aya in the
context of the aftermath of the campaign to Tabūk for historical and contextual
reasons.48
Contemporary exegetes thus have several options of dealing with the historical
contextualisation of the aya, depending on which exegetical authorities they rely
on (or whether they rely on exegetical authorities at all): they can opt for the
predominant al-ʿAqaba version preferred by al-Ṭabarī and others; they can favour the
alternative occasion of revelation going back to Ibn Abī Ḥātim; they can cite both; or
they can – like Darwaza and Ibn ʿĀshūr – dispense with solving this question on
the basis of aḥādith and instead base their argument on historical plausibility and
the inner-Qur’anic context of the aya. In choosing between these options, the
contemporary exegetes discussed here can be unusually clearly differentiated
according to the region from which they come.
All the Arab exegetes accept the dominant sabab al-nuzūl, which connects the
revelation of the aya with the bayʿa of al-ʿAqaba, without question. They even quote
it when it contradicts other information they give on the historical circumstances in
which the aya originated.49 They thus show an unquestioning acceptance of
premodern exegetical authorities; alternative sources of authority, for example the
ḥadīth about the aya’s revelation in the mosque of Medina, or exegetes such as
al-Shawkānī and al-Ālūsī, are not even mentioned. Arab modernist exegetes such as
Darwaza and Ibn ʿĀshūr are totally outside the frame of reference.
The Turkish exegetes, on the other hand, are highly critical of the sabab al-nuzūl;
they are more concerned with historical contextualisation than with the acceptance of
a ḥadīth that was considered sound by major exegetical authorities. Süleyman Ateş
argues that every single one of the preceding ayas had been revealed in the aftermath
of the campaign to Tabūk; it would therefore be absurd to situate Q. 9:111 in a
different context. Besides, he writes, it would be ahistorical, because the Prophet
never asked the anṣār at this early stage to actively sacrifice their lives in a non-
defensive jihād. Such a development only occurred, according to Ateş, in the context
of the battle of Badr in 2/624.50 Karaman et al. likewise point to the contents and
context of the aya which clearly situate it in the time of the campaign to Tabūk, no
matter if the dialogue described in the dominant sabab al-nuzūl has taken place or not.
To support their argument, they quote the occasion of revelation transmitted by Ibn
Abī Ḥātim. Unlike the Arab exegetes, they also refer to the authority of Muḥammad
ʿIzzat Darwaza, who might also have been an unmentioned source of Ateş’s
arguments.51 The Turkish exegetes are thus much more concerned with historicity
than with aḥādīth or the consensus of premodern commentators; they also show a
stronger affinity to modernist exegesis than their Arab counterparts.
The Indonesian commentaries are more sceptical towards the al-ʿAqaba ḥadīth than
the Arab ones, but less interested in the historical context than the Turkish ones. The
commentary by the Ministry of Religion does not discuss the issue at all, although it
does frequently provide occasions of revelation for other ayas; obviously, the authors
consider the circumstances of revelation either unimportant or doubtful in this

instance. Hamka, who is generally fond of pointing to the central role of mosques
for Muslims’ religious lives, briefly mentions the tradition that situates the revelation
of the aya in the mosque of Medina and says nothing more about the matter.52 Quraish
Shihab relies on Ibn ʿĀshūr, placing the aya in the context of the campaign to
Tabūk, but not citing a concrete occasion of revelation.53 Again, reformist exegesis is
clearly more popular among the Indonesian than among the Arab exegetes, but
historical contextualisation is not a prime concern of theirs, and explicit criticism
of premodern exegetical authorities such as al-Ṭabarī is – unlike in the Turkish
commentaries – nowhere to be found.
None of the exegetes engage in ḥadīth criticism through isnād analysis or comparison
of exegetical aḥādīth with other historical accounts, as al-Shawkānī had done. Clearly,
their acceptance and rejection of traditions is based either on exegetical authority or on
plausibility arguments, but not on ḥadīth analysis in itself.
b) The Meaning of al-sāʾiḥūn (‘Those who Journey’) in Q. 9:112
Those who repent, those who serve, those who pray, those who
journey, those who bow, those who prostrate themselves, those who
enjoin good and forbid evil, and those who keep God’s bounds – and
give thou good tidings to the believers.
The major exegetical problem in this aya lies in the term those who journey
(al-sāʾiḥūn). The way in which the exegetes discuss and solve this problem sheds
further light on their attitude towards tradition and earlier exegetical authorities.
The term al-sāʾiḥūn is problematic in that it is part of a list of virtues that characterise
the ideal believer, yet in comparison to qualities such as praying or serving God, it
seems unclear – and has apparantly seemed unclear to Muslim exegetes from an early
time – what exactly it is that is so virtuous about journeying. Nowhere in the Qur’an
is the term used in a way that clarifies its significance in this aya. The only other usage
can be found in Q. 66:5, where the participle is used in the female form and is part of a
list of virtues characterising the ideal women God will give to the Prophet instead of
the ones he will be forced to repudiate if they continue trespassing; this is obviously a
parallel to al-sāʾiḥūn in Q. 9:112, but does not contribute to the understanding of its
meaning.
Premodern Qur’anic exegetes have offered a number of explanations for the term,
most of which either narrow down or alter its meaning, usually based on the authority
of exegetical aḥādīth. The very clearly dominant interpretation, which is preferred by
almost all of them and is supported by an overwhelming number of traditions about
the Prophet, his family, his companions and the first generation of religious scholars,
is that the term refers to the religious duty of fasting. Al-Ṭabarī, for example, gives no
other meaning than this one, which he bases on more than two dozen traditions, among
them a Prophetic ḥadīth that says ‘the journey of my umma is fasting’.54 According to
al-Ālūsī, this interpretation, although seemingly far from the literal meaning, is
semantically plausible because both journeying and fasting imply a certain amount of
asceticism; besides, fasting can facilitate the mental exploration of God’s creation.55
Alternative interpretations do exist, but are generally not favoured by premodern

exegetes, as they are either supported only by aḥādīth āḥād (traditions with a single
chain of transmitters) or by rational reasoning. One such interpretation says that
journeying (siyāḥa) means jihād, based on a Prophetic ḥadīth āḥād which states that
‘the journey of my umma is jihād for the sake of God’.56 Another interpretation, based
on a comparatively weak tradition, is that the aya means a specific journey, namely the
Hijra, thus singling out the muhājirūn from among the believers.57 Yet another
interpretation relies on a tradition ascribed to ʿIkrima, a former slave of Ibn ʿAbbās,
who argued that the aya refers to travelling in the pursuit of knowledge (fī ṭalab
al-ʿilm) or for the collection of aḥādīth. Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī shows a certain
inclination towards this interpretation, which is congruent with his generally positive
attitude towards travelling as a character-building activity.58 Al-Qurṭubī furthermore
mentions the possibility of a metaphorical understanding, i.e. siyāḥa as an
introspective journey in the sense of contemplating God’s creation. This is mostly
identical to the explanation Sayyid Quṭb came up with in the twentieth century.59
Mystical interpretations that understand the aya as referring to the journey of the soul
through different stages of spiritual development also exist, but seem to have had no
impact on more conventional Sunnī tafsīr.60 The view that journeying, in this aya,
means a form of asceticism through withdrawal from society, comparable to Christian
hermits, is only mentioned in order to be rejected; Ibn Kathīr specifies that such
behaviour is generally not in line with Islamic principles and is only allowed in times
of great unrest and upheaval.61 All in all, these alternative interpretations played only
a marginal role and were mentioned by few exegetes, most of whom clearly
considered them inferior to the fasting explanation.
Only around the turn of the twentieth century did this start to change. Salafī exegetes,
most prominently Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā (1865–1935) and Jamāl al-Dīn al-Qāsimī
(1866–1914), were strongly concerned with interpreting the Qur’an in accordance
with its literal meaning. Furthermore, they lived in times in which travelling was
easier, had gained more importance and seemed to promise more benefits than ever
before. For these reasons, they felt distinctly uncomfortable with understanding siyāḥa
as ‘fasting’.
Al-Qāsimī sees two possibilities for interpretation. One of them would be to

harmonise the different explanations by translating siyāḥa as ‘jihād’, which, in his
understanding, includes any kind of effort to achieve closeness to God, be it by

fasting, Hijra, contemplative introspection or the pursuit of knowledge. However, the
more correct interpretation, al-Qāsimī holds, would be to understand al-sāʾiḥūn
according to its literal meaning, i.e. those who travel the earth; for the literal meaning
is always preferable, unless obviously inapplicable, especially as the Qur’an itself
exhorts believers to consider the traces of ancient, extinct civilisations and to heed
their warnings, thus attributing a religious value to the act of travelling. Under the
impression of the dominant Middle Eastern discourse of his time, which was
concerned with ‘catching up’ with the West, especially through education, al-Qāsimī
polemicises against any attempt to obscure this literal meaning. Such attempts, in his
opinion, can only be motivated by the wish to make the umma lazy, to curb its
ambitions and rob it of its energy; depriving it of knowledge about ancient
civilisations and the situation in other regions of the earth will only serve the interests
of the West. The most important merit of travelling, al-Qāsimī writes, is the
acquisition of knowledge that benefits others, and by being of benefit to others,
the traveller gains God’s satisfaction and is suitably rewarded. To support this
interpretation, al-Qāsimī refers to al-Rāzī’s favourable attitude towards travelling.62
However, al-Rāzī saw the value of travelling mainly in its potential to deepen the
traveller’s relationship with God; al-Qāsimī first and foremost considers it valuable
whenever it is of use to others.
Rashīd Riḍā’s exegesis is even more explicitly utilitarian and more critical of all
ḥadīth-based interpretations than al-Qāsimī’s. In his opinion, siyāḥa means the act of
travelling for any legitimate goal, be it the pursuit of knowledge, jihād, Hijra (in cases
in which Islamic law requires it), trade, earning one’s livelihood or improving one’s
health. To make it even clearer that worldly benefits are just as legitimate as religious
ones, he specifies that the pursuit of knowledge is included in the aya’s meaning as
long as the acquired knowledge is of benefit to either the traveller, be it in his religious
or in his worldly life, or to the umma or the nation (qawm). Of course, Rashīd Riḍā
writes, the aya does not apply to prohibited innovations (bidaʿ) such as visits to Ṣūfī
tombs and similar practices. The fasting interpretation, in Rashīd Riḍā’s opinion, is to
be rejected because the connection between journeying and fasting is too loose to be
plausible. He refers to al-Ghazālī, who had commented on the merit of travelling, in
order to demonstrate that this was an accepted view among the salaf, contradictory
traditions about Ibn Ḥanbal – which he considers weak – notwithstanding.63 Rashīd
Riḍā’s argument is shared by Tafsīr al-Marāghī, which is especially popular in
Indonesia.64
Thus, the exegetical repertoire that contemporary commentators of the Qur’an have at
their disposal is broad. While most premodern exegetes favoured interpretations that
relied on the authority of aḥādīth, especially the translation of siyāḥa as ‘fasting’,
modernist exegetes around the turn of the twentieth century were more interested in
literal interpretations, arguments for plausibility and, above all, utilitarian

considerations in the light of the advancement of the umma – or nation! – in its
struggle with Western dominance. Besides these broad trends, there are a number of
less popular interpretations that exegetes might make use of if desired.
An examination of the contemporary commentaries’ exegesis of this aya quickly

reveals that the fasting interpretation, which had been extremely dominant until the
nineteenth century, is no longer prevalent. While most – though not all – exegetes do
mention it, the majority consider it to be either false or of little importance. They
either prefer to harmonise existing interpretations, or to opt for the ‘jihād’ or the
modernist utilitarian interpretation.
The only commentaries to consider the fasting interpretation as at least conceivable are
al-Zuḥaylī’s, al-Shaʿrāwī’s, and that published by al-Azhar’s Islamic Research
Academy. Al-Zuḥaylī even seems to consider it preferable to others, but also
mentions jihād, the pursuit of knowledge and – in a side remark – the earning of one’s
livelihood (a topos that is clearly derived from Rashīd Riḍā) as plausible
interpretations.65 The al-Azhar commentary likewise gives several options without
taking a clear decision; it mentions fasting, Hijra, and travelling in order to broaden
one’s horizon and to deepen one’s connection with God, in the same sense as al-Rāzī.
However, the third option, which is closest to the reformist trend, receives more space
than the other two.66 Shaykh al-Shaʿrāwī is mostly in favour of the literal meaning,
i.e. ‘travelling’. In colourful terms, he describes the arduousness and danger of leaving
one’s familiar surroundings in order to travel to strange places; here, he undoubtedly
strikes a nerve with his less than cosmopolitan audience. He distinguishes between two
types of travel: travelling in order to strengthen one’s belief by studying God’s signs in
His creation is permitted for both men and women, while travelling to earn one’s
livelihood is reserved for men, although their wives are allowed to accompany them.
Besides this reformist interpretation, al-Shaʿrāwī considers the explanation of siyāḥa as
‘fasting’ equally possible, but does not pay it much attention; both travelling and fasting,
he says, disrupt everyday habits, thus potentially turning the soul towards God.67
The Turkish Diyanet commentary and Quraish Shihab strive for a harmonisation of
different interpretations and argue that the term siyāḥa should not be reduced to a
single definition. According to the authors of the Diyanet commentary, the word refers
to a state of mind in which the individual is aware that this life is only a transitory
stage on the journey towards God; such a mentality will automatically lead to the
cultivation of qualities such as fasting, jihād, etc.68 Quraish Shihab, quite in line with
al-Rāzī and not very far from the reformists (but less explicitly utilitarian), thinks that
the primary meaning is ‘travelling’, either for the pursuit of knowledge or in order to
explore God’s signs in His creation. However, he argues that the term siyāḥa has a
semantic aspect of vastness and breadth, which means that there is no reason to
narrow its meaning to this one interpretation. It can just as well encompass other
meanings such as fasting, jihād or contemplative introspection.69
While the above-mentioned five commentaries exhibit a clear shift in emphasis as

compared to premodern exegetes, but are reluctant to reject their interpretations
entirely, the remaining commentators show fewer reservations.
Abū Zahra, Ateş and Ḥawwā are clearly in favour of reading siyāḥa as ‘jihād’,
although their reasons differ. Abū Zahra supports his argument with the Prophetic
ḥadīth that says ‘the journey of my umma is jihād’, although it remains unclear why
he rejects the fasting interpretation which, according to exegetical authorities, is based
on a much sounder ḥadīth. He considers other, secondary meanings possible as long
as they do not contradict the literal meaning, such as travelling in the pursuit of
knowledge, for the appreciation of God’s creation, the spreading of Islam, or in order
to become acquainted with the situation of Muslims in other countries.70 Ateş, again,
is mainly concerned with the inner-Qur’anic context, i.e. the aftermath of the
campaign to Tabūk, which, in his opinion, indicates that the aya’s function is to praise
the mujāhidūn.71 Why Saʿīd Ḥawwā, as a leading member of the militant wing of
the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, should show a certain inclination towards the topic
of jihād is obvious. According to him, knowing the battleground is one of the
preconditions for a successful fight. Besides quoting the Chinese military strategist
Sun Tzu, Ḥawwā argues that the inner-Qur’anic context and the literal meaning of
siyāḥa make this interpretation seem more likely than most of the alternatives;
however, he is careful to admit Sayyid Quṭb’s interpretation of introspective
contemplation as equally possible.72
The remaining three exegetes are all in favour of understanding siyāḥa as ‘travelling’,
without restricting its meaning to specific forms of travelling such as jihād; they are
strongly influenced by the modernist interpretations of al-Qāsimī, Rashīd Riḍā and
al-Marāghī.
Ṭanṭāwī agrees with Rashīd Riḍā in that the literal meaning is preferable in this case
and that the aḥādīth supporting the fasting interpretation are implausible. However,
Ṭanṭāwī omits Rashīd Riḍā’s more utilitarian and worldly views related to
development, education and the advancement of the nation; rather he thinks the aya
refers to travels with religiously commendable aims such as the pursuit of knowledge,
jihād and the study of God’s creation.73 The Indonesian Ministry of Religion, on the
other hand, completely subscribes to al-Marāghī’s reformist interpretation, which, in
turn, is in line with Rashīd Riḍā’s. Thus, the Indonesian commentary writes that
siyāḥa, in the aya, means travelling:74
… in the pursuit of knowledge, either of religious knowledge or of

such knowledge that serves worldly progress; or [travelling] for any
other purpose that serves the progress and well-being of one’s people
and fatherland. Or they travel in order to see and observe of God’s
creatures on this earth while getting to know the state of other nations
in order to derive beneficial lessons from all this.
Hamka – although he briefly mentions the fasting interpretation – is likewise in

favour of the literal meaning. According to him, siyāḥa means leaving one’s family or
home in order to acquire knowledge or an income, or to perform Ḥajj (a possibility
that is not mentioned by any of the other exegetes). In his opinion, travelling is of
benefit in itself, as the traveller expands his horizon and gains experience. To support
this, Hamka refers to famous Muslim travellers such as Ibn Jubayr and Ibn Baṭṭūṭa as
well as collectors of ḥadīth such as al-Bukhārī. At the same time, he clearly relies on
reformist exegesis when he expands the aya’s meaning to include diplomats serving
their nation’s interests abroad or students studying abroad for the sake of their people
and the umma.75
Whereas many of the exegetes offer several possible solutions for the exegetical
problem of siyāḥa, the Turkish and Indonesian commentators face the difficulty of
having to provide an actual translation, which forces them to make a choice. Ateş tries
to avoid this as much as possible by using the loan word seyâhat edenler (‘those who
travel’). The authors of the Diyanet commentary prefer the expression ‘those who live
like travellers in this world’ (dünyada yolcu gibi yaşayanlar), thus already providing
an interpretation rather than merely translating. Among the Indonesian commentators,
Hamka stays relatively close to the original term by translating it as ‘those who
roam/wander’ (orang-orang yang mengembara), while Quraish Shihab prefers
the noun pelawat (‘traveller’). The Ministry of Religion, like the Diyanet, chooses
a long-winded expression that is more of an interpretation than a translation:
‘orang-orang yang suka mengembara untuk tujuan-tujuan yang baik dan benar’
(‘people who like to roam for good and legitimate purposes’).
What is striking about the way in which the contemporary commentaries tackle this
exegetical problem is the total lack of interest in aḥādīth as a source of exegesis. Of
course, most of the commentaries in question do frequently, sometimes even
abundantly, quote aḥādīth; but as the present case study clearly shows, they are not at
all concerned with questions of authenticity, at least not in the traditional sense in
which the soundness of the isnād and the number of transmitters play a key role.
According to those criteria, the fasting interpretation is undoubtedly superior to any
other here, yet none of the contemporary commentators considers this a decisive
argument. If they discuss the validity of aḥādīth at all, their arguments revolve around
issues of plausibility. All in all, the attitude towards the use of aḥādīth as a source of
exegesis is selective: most commentators refer to the authority of aḥādīth when it fits
their preferred interpretation; when it does not, they omit or dismiss relevant
traditions. This strategy might not be entirely new within the genre of tafsīr, but it is
evident from the example studied here that it is much more distinctive of modernist
and contemporary exegetes than premodern ones.
While mystical exegesis plays no discernible role, reformist interpretations are

clearly popular with respect to this particular exegetical problem; even among those
exegetes who do not directly subscribe to al-Qāsimī’s and Rashīd Riḍā’s utilitarian
interpretation, a clear preference for the literal meaning of siyāḥa is very obvious.76
Although many commentators dismiss a divergence from the literal meaning as
implausible, none of the exegetes who subscribe to utilitarian, worldly interpretations
of siyāḥa discuss the plausibility question from another angle: is it really convincing
to assume that activities like ‘earning a living’, ‘trade’, ‘diplomacy’, etc., none of
which are any more characteristic of Muslims than of non-Muslims, should be part
of a list of religious virtues ranging from prayer to enjoining good and forbidding
evil? None of the – exclusively Arab and Indonesian – exegetes who do include
worldly pursuits in the meaning of the aya addresses this question in any depth. This
might well be indicative of a strong preoccupation on the part of these exegetes with
the paradigms of progress, national advancement and competition with the West,
which seem to be considered quasi-religious virtues. Interestingly, no trace of this is
found in the two Turkish commentaries.
One might ask why reformist exegesis is so much more popular in this instance than
it has turned out to be, in the previous section, with respect to the sabab al-nuzūl of
Q. 9:111, where reformist interpretations had mainly been adopted by Turkish
exegetes. A likely answer lies in the fact that the historical contextualisation of the
Qur’an is, to date, and especially in the Arab world, a much more controversial and
sensitive issue than the reformists’ educational and developmental aims have ever
been; while the benefits of national progress are an indispensable part of the
intellectual discourse, the historicisation of the interpretation of the Qur’an is a
different matter. Thus, parts of the reformists’ agenda are adopted while others are
ignored, especially by the Arab exegetes.
Typology Revisited
In conclusion to my analysis of the contemporary Qur’an commentaries’ exegetical

strategies, I propose two additional ways of categorising types of contemporary tafsīr.
It has to be emphasised that all the typologies outlined in this paper are to be
understood as analytical tools which might be a helpful basis for further study, not as
conclusive and all-encompassing categories which serve to unambiguously describe
each and any contemporary Qur’an commentary in existence. There are hybrid forms
and digressions in particular aspects; there are also types of Qur’an commentaries that
are not part of the sample studied here and thus might not be adequately described by
using the categories presented in this article.
a) The Aims of Exegesis
The way in which the exegetes deal with the exegetical problem of the meaning of
al-sāʾiḥūn in Q. 9:112 has revealed much about the exegetes’ sources and points of
reference, but it can also be analysed in a larger context, namely with regard to the
aims they pursue within their Qur’an commentaries.
1) Norman Calder has postulated that one of the distinguishing features of classical
tafsīr in the period between al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Kathīr was polyvalence, i.e. the
acceptance of the existence of several possible interpretations, even if one of them is
considered more plausible than the others.77 Thus, exegetes such as al-Qurṭubī list a
large range of explanations for al-sāʾiḥūn without being overly concerned with
identifying the ‘correct’ one. Several of the contemporary Qur’an commentaries
discussed above apply the same method, even if their selection is different (for
example by including relatively recent exegetical authorities such as Rashīd Riḍā) or
their emphasis has shifted. Commentators such as al-Zuḥaylī or the al-Azhar
committee who follow this approach are usually interested in undertaking tafsīr in the
proper sense of the word, i.e. explaining the Qur’an, as comprehensively as possible,
without necessarily coming to a single and unambiguous conclusion. They tend to
have little problem with contradictory interpretations or explanations that do not
match the literal meaning of the Qur’anic expressions.
2) However, the focus of many contemporary exegetes lies elsewhere. Besides the
‘classical’ commentaries that want to explain the Qur’an, there is a very common, and,
in a sense, very modern, category of Qur’an commentaries whose main purpose it is to
provide guidance. These commentaries seek to provide their readers with a clear
message, preferably one that can be put into action, and they are intent on avoiding the
confusion caused by following a non-literal understanding of Qur’anic terms. The
commentators either mention only one possible interpretation or, if they mention more
than one, they indicate a clear preference. They do not hesitate to reject particular
interpretations as ‘false’. With regard to Q. 9:112, they tend to come to the conclusion
that siyāḥa means either ‘jihād’ or ‘travelling for a commendable aim’; or they try to
harmonise the different approaches by offering an ‘umbrella interpretation’ as does the
Turkish Diyanet commentary.
3) Finally, there is a type of commentary whose approach seems erratic at first glance.
The author might reflect on a particular interpretation of siyāḥa, then suddenly switch
to a different one without any apparent connection or any clear motive for their
selection. Hamka’s and al-Shaʿrāwī’s commentaries are typical examples. Their
purpose is neither explanation nor unambiguous guidance, but edification, usually in
combination with daʿwa among ‘lukewarm’ Muslims. They pick an aya, an

expression, or a specific term and offer reflections on it, in the style of a sermon,
without a discernible hermeneutical approach. The reflections can be on one or
various possible interpretations, or they can digress completely from the aya in
question and offer no explanation at all. This approach to Qur’anic exegesis is
certainly not new; it has most likely always existed in the form of popular preaching.
What is modern about it is its mass media circulation on TV, radio, in journals, and in
printed books.
b) Underlying Attitudes
So far, I have discussed categories of Qur’an commentaries based on an analysis of

their authors, target group, style and method; of course, it is also possible to
distinguish among them with respect to the actual results of their exegesis, which are
shaped by specific theological, ideological and hermeneutical attitudes. The following
categories are derived not only from the observations made above on the interpretation
of Q. 9:111–12 by the exegetes, but also from the study of their exegesis of a number
of additional ayas as well as the commentaries’ methodological introductions.78
1) Conservative
Conservative Qur’an commentaries are characterised by their reliance on traditional

theological dogma and/or the views of the established Sunnī schools of law for large
parts of their exegesis; they do not generally utter criticism of these teachings, discuss
alternative versions or give room to scepticism. However, from the point of view of
Qur’anic exegesis, their interpretations are not necessarily rooted in the authority of
earlier exegetes, but rather determined by the above-mentioned considerations. They
rarely, if ever, make use of reformist interpretations, but rather tend to polemicise
against them. They also polemicise against non-Muslims and Shīʿīs and reject the use
of Christian or Jewish sources for any purpose. The historical contextualisation of
ayas is something they consider reprehensible. They emphasise traditional gender
roles and the hierarchy of men over women. The commentaries of Abū Zahra,
al-Azhar’s Islamic Research Academy, al-Shaʿrāwī and Ḥawwā largely fit this
category.
2) Moderately Orthodox
A second category of Qur’an commentaries could be labelled moderately orthodox.

These works of exegesis are predominantly concerned with following exegetical
authorities. Occasionally, they include early modern reformist commentators into the
rank of accepted authorities, especially where aspects of education and social
development are concerned, but they avoid doing so if this would involve new
approaches towards gender roles, attitudes towards non-Muslims, or Qur’anic
hermeneutics. They avoid polemics and are not emphatically hostile towards
non-Muslims, without being particularly accommodating either. They are not

interested in historical contextualisation. Generally, they aim to follow a ‘middle
way’ and to avoid extremes; they also have a strong tendency towards polyvalent
readings of the Qur’an, that is, presenting various different interpretations without
harmonising them or choosing between them. This category is represented by the
commentaries of Ṭanṭāwī, al-Zuḥaylī and the Indonesian Ministry of Religion.
3) Modernist
Modernist Qur’an commentaries are characterised by the frequent use of early modern
reformist exegesis and by the occasional presentation of innovative interpretations
that seek to adapt the Qur’anic message to the contemporary world. Within limits,
they are accommodating towards non-Muslims, and they accept the use of Jewish
and Christian scripture for information about these religions or about earlier
prophets. Usually, they emphasise the egalitarianism inherent in Islam and uphold the
equality of men and women, at least on a spiritual level. They show a distinct interest
in scholarly disciplines outside the field of tafsīr or even of Islamic theology (such
as philosophy or science) and an occasional tendency towards historical
contextualisation of the Qur’anic message. Generally, they strive to interpret the
Qur’an in the light of its ‘higher aims’ (as defined by them). The two Turkish
commentaries discussed here clearly fall into this category, as well as the Indonesian
commentaries by Hamka and Quraish Shihab, although the latter two are less
consistent and display aspects of one or both of the other categories as well.
While differentiation is indispensable for a fruitful analysis, it has to be pointed out

that among all the commentaries studied here, there are far more commonalities than
differences. The genre of extensive tafsīr musalsal does not seem to lend itself to
extremes; it is clearly dominated by academic theologians who, to a large extent, use
the same sources. Interpretations based on al-Ṭabarī or Ibn Kathīr can frequently be
found in any of the commentaries discussed.
Regional Tendencies
It is apparent, especially from the preceding discussion of the attitudes underlying the
commentators’ exegesis of the Qur’an, that there are certain regional differences
between the tafāsīr studied in this paper.
The Arab commentaries – and the term ‘Arab’, here, is really limited to Syria and
Egypt – are considerably more conservative with respect to issues like the status of
women, the attitudes towards non-Muslims, or slavery. Their image of God is
distinctly more fear-inducing and less loving than that of the Indonesian and Turkish
commentaries. The Indonesian and Turkish commentaries display a stronger reception
of early modern reformist exegesis and a higher willingness to make use of Jewish and
Christian sources. The influence of mystical exegesis is most noticeable in the

Indonesian works, but occasionally present in the Turkish ones as well. The Turkish
commentaries are the only ones to show an interest in philosophy, to use an accurate,
‘Western’ citation system and, maybe most importantly, to pursue the hermeneutically
loaded issue of the historical context from which the Qur’anic message originated.
The reasons for these findings cannot be properly understood without taking into
account the real-life context in which the Qur’an commentaries addressed within the
framework of this study have been produced.
First of all, it has to be borne in mind that nearly all of the texts within the sample
discussed here have been produced by men who have been partly or exclusively
academically socialised within Islamic theological institutions. The reasons for this are
probably two-fold. On the one hand, the genre of extensive tafsīr musalsal is framed
in notions of religious authority, which might deter intellectuals without a theological
background from meddling with it; on the other hand, and probably much more
importantly, a great deal of time and resources are needed to produce a large and
comprehensive work of tafsīr. The conditions for such an undertaking are rarely met
by persons without faculty positions – unless they write their commentaries in prison,
like Sayyid Quṭb, Hamka or Saʿīd Ḥawwā. Intellectuals from outside the field of
academic theology do produce important contributions to Qur’anic exegesis, but those
rarely take the form of extensive tafsīr musalsal.
As most of the commentaries discussed here are thus to some extent the product of
academic theology, it can be assumed that the structures and curricula of academic
theology in the respective countries have a certain amount of influence on the results
of exegesis. In the age of the nation state, governments have become important actors
in shaping institutions of academic theology; and they have done so in different ways
in the countries within the framework of this study.
In Egypt and Syria, the state has taken care to exert a great deal of influence on the
funding and staff of Islamic theological institutions, and to define the limits within
which they are allowed to operate. The prime concern of these governments is to
prevent them from promoting political Islam in any way. In order to achieve this, and
also in order to appease the religious segments of society, the position of orthodox
Sunnism is strengthened. Thus, the Syrian and Egyptian governments have not shown
any interest in a substantial reform of theological curricula, be it with respect to
scholarly methods, to textbooks, or to the disciplines studied, with the result that
these have remained rather traditional and have little connection to developments in
the humanities, social or literary studies, or Western scholarship; neither is there an
awareness of the religious knowledge produced within non-Arab regions of the
Islamic world.79
In Turkey and Indonesia, on the other hand, the state has played an important role in
setting up reformed curricula for a study of Islamic theology that familiarises students
with the methods and approaches of other academic disciplines and with the scholarly
output of other regions of the Islamic and non-Islamic world. For example, the
Indonesian government has established numerous State Islamic Institutes (Institut
Agama Islam Negeri, IAIN) for the study of Islamic theology since the 1950s; and
the Suharto regime has made efforts to modernise their structure and curricula, and
has strongly promoted reformist discourses. It has also sponsored programs that
encouraged Indonesian theologians to study abroad.80 In Turkey, academic theology
was nearly nonexistent after 1933, until in 1949 the University of Ankara received
permission to establish a Faculty of Theology. This allowed for a clear break with the
old medrese traditions. The new curricula were strongly influenced by Western
academic theology and were intended to promote an ‘enlightened’ Islam and critical
scholarship; the classical disciplines of Islamic theology played a relatively marginal
role. These massive changes were reflected in the creation of a new label for academic
theology, İlahiyat, rather than the more traditional uṣūl al-dīn. In the 1980s, the
number of theological faculties skyrocketed; to this day, the Ankara Faculty is
particularly well known for its modernist tendencies and the innovative hermeneutical
approaches it has brought forth.81
Under these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that Indonesian and Turkish Qur’an
commentaries produced in an academic setting should prove more innovative, more
open to other academic disciplines, more modernist in orientation, and more aware of
reformist traditions within Islam than their Arab counterparts. Even if these findings
might be put into perspective by studying other genres of Qur’anic exegesis, which are
freer from the constraints of academic theology and thus possibly more innovative,
my results nevertheless suggest that the study of contemporary Qur’anic exegesis
should definitely take more notice of developments outside the Arab world, and
should be careful to take into account the real-life context in which Qur’anic exegesis
is pursued.
Contemporary tafsīr is proving to be a fruitful field of study that deserves to be

expanded beyond the hitherto dominant focus on modernising trends. Among other
aspects, the mechanisms through which Qur’anic exegesis is transmitted to large
audiences – by means of preaching, religious education or mass media – have hardly
been investigated, which opens up promising perspectives for future research.
NOTES
1 This paper is based in my forthcoming monograph Sunnitischer Tafsir in der modernen
islamischen Welt. Akademische Traditionen, Popularisierung und nationalstaatliche Interessen
(Leiden: Brill, 2011).
2 I use the term tafsīr here exclusively in its narrow sense, denoting a consecutive verse-by-
verse commentary (tafsīr musalsal) on the complete Qur’an (or at least a commentary intended
to cover the complete Qur’an, even if the project had to be aborted at some point).
3 A good example of this tendency is J.J.G. Jansen, The Interpretation of the Koran in Modern
Egypt, 1st edn (Leiden: Brill, 1974). The focus in studies on modern tafāsīr is most commonly
on Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā’s Tafsīr al-Manār and on Sayyid Quṭb’s Fī ẓilāl al-Qurʾān.
4 I do not include, however, the Tafsīr al-taḥrīr wa’l-tanwīr by al-Ṭāhir b. ʿĀshūr (1879–1973)
that was published between 1956 and 1970, as the author comes from a different generation of
exegetes than all the others discussed in this study, which shows both in his biographic and
academic background and in the style of his commentary. For this remarkable work of exegesis
and its author, see Basheer M. Nafi, ‘Ṭāhir ibn ʿĀshūr: The Career and Thought of a Modern
Reformist ʿālim, with Special Reference to his Work on tafsīr’, Journal of Qur’anic Studies 7:1
(2005), pp. 1–32.
5 Muḥammad Abū Zahra, Zahrat al-tafāsīr, 1st edn (Cairo/Beirut: Dār al-Fikr al-ʿArabī,
c. 1987).
6 Abū Zahra, Zahrat, p. 11, p. 14, and p. 22; http://www.elshabab.com/docs/general/index.
php?eh=newhit&subjectid=1962&subcategory=83&categoryid=11 (accessed March 1, 2010).
7 http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=6&book=3324 (accessed March 1, 2010).
8 Muḥammad Sayyid Ṭanṭāwī, al-Tafsīr al-wasīṭ li’l-Qurʾān al-karīm, 2nd edn (Cairo: Dār
al-Maʿārif, 1992).
9 While Ṭanṭāwī’s official website is now offline, a number of biographical sketches are
available on Arabic websites, for example http://forum.resala.org/showthread.php?t=35245
(accessed March 1, 2010).
10 Lajna min al-ʿulamāʾ bi-ishrāf majmaʿ al-buḥūth al-Islāmiyya bi’l-Azhar, al-Tafsīr al-wasīṭ
li’l-Qurʾān al-karīm, 1st edn (Cairo: al-Hayʾa al-ʿĀmma li-Shuʾūn al-Maṭābiʿ al-Amīriyya,
1972–84).
11 The last part I have been able to obtain is no. 35 (1984), containing the commentary on
the twenty-third sura (Sūrat al-Muʾminūn). According to the Library of Congress catalogue, the
work is available up until part 39 (1986), which probably covers the twenty-seventh sura (Sūrat
al-Naml) at most.
12 Lajna min al-ʿulamāʾ, Wasīṭ, vol. 1, booklet 1, p. 5; Muṣṭafā Muḥāmmad al-Ṭayr al-Ḥadīdī,
Ittijāh al-tafsīr fī’l-ʿaṣr al-ḥadīth, 1st edn (Cairo: al-Azhar, Majmaʿ al-Buḥūth al-Islāmiyya,
1975), p. 320.
13 Tamir Moustafa, ‘Conflict and Cooperation between the State and Religious Institutions
in Contemporary Egypt’, International Journal of Middle East Studies 34 (2002), pp. 3–22, at
pp. 5–6.
14 Muḥammad al-Mutawallī al-Shaʿrāwī, Tafsīr al-Shaʿrāwī, 2nd edn (Cairo: Akhbār
al-Yawm, n.d. (c. 1991–6)).
15 Al-Shaʿrāwī, Tafsīr, p. 9.
16 Printed editions do not seem to go beyond the forty-fifth sura (Sūrat al-Jāthiya); audio files
of Suras 46–57 and the juzʾ ʿammā are available on http://www.elsharawy.com/ (accessed
March 1, 2010). See also http://www.moheet.com/show_news.aspx?nid=90941&pg=67
17 On Shaykh al-Shaʿrāwī, see Hava Lazarus-Yafeh, ‘Muhammad al-Mutawalli al-Shaʿrawi:
A Portrait of a Contemporary ʿAlim in Egypt’ in Gabriel R. Warburg and Uri M.
Kupferschmidt (eds), Islam, Nationalism and Radicalism in Egypt and the Sudan, 1st edn
(New York: Praeger, 1983), pp. 281–97; Malika Zeghal, Gardiens de l’Islam: les oulémas d’Al
Azhar dans l’Égypte contemporaine, 1st edn (Paris: Presses de la Fondation Nationale
des Sciences Politiques, 1996), pp. 204–11; Rachida Chih and Catherine Mayeur-Jaouen,
‘Le cheikh Shaʿrâwî et la télévision: l’homme qui a donné un visage au Coran’ in Catherine
Mayeur-Jaouen (ed.), Saints et Héros du Moyen-Orient contemporain, 1st edn (Paris:
Maisonneuve et Larose, 2002), pp. 189–209; Andrew Hammond, Pop Culture Arab World!
Media, Arts and Lifestyle, 1st edn (Santa Barbara et al.: ABC-Clio, 2005), pp. 206–9; http://
www.moheet.com/show_news.aspx?nid=90941&pg=67 (accessed March 1, 2010).
18 See especially http://www.elsharawy.com/ (accessed March 1, 2010).
19 On Ḥawwā’s life and work, see Itzchak Weismann, ‘Saʿid Hawwa: The Making of a
Radical Muslim Thinker in Modern Syria’, Middle Eastern Studies 29 (1993), pp. 601–23;
Itzchak Weismann, ‘Saʿid Hawwa and Islamic Revivalism in Baʿthist Syria’, Studia Islamica
85 (1997), pp. 131–54.
20 Saʿīd Ḥawwā, al-Asās fī’l-tafsīr, 1st edn (Cairo: Dār al-Salām, 1985).
21 The fifth edition was printed in 1999; see http://www.neelwafurat.com/itempage.aspx?
id=egb4105-5004108&search=books (accessed March 2, 2010). The Turkish edition is Said
Havva, M. Beşir Eryarsoy and Abdüsselam Arı (trs), El-Esas Fit’tefsir, 1st edn (Istanbul: Şamil
Yayınları, 1991), 2nd edn (Istanbul: Şamil Yayınları, 1996).
22 See his homepage http://www.zuhayli.net/, where his offical biography is available: http://
www.zuhayli.net/biograp3.htm (accessed March 2, 2010).
23 Radwan Ziadeh, ‘Policies of Religious Inclusion in Syria’ in Sigrid Faath (ed.), Staatliche
Religionspolitik in Nordafrika/Nahost: ein Instrument für modernisierende Reformen?, 1st edn
(Hamburg: GIGA, 2007), pp. 197–214, http://www.dgap.org/midcom-serveattachmentguid-
1de865bb17bf2fa865b11de86fbfd152d1190aa90aa/faath_studiereligionspolitik_volltext.pdf
24 The other two are al-Tafsīr al-wasīṭ, 1st edn (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr al-Muʿāṣir, 2001) and
al-Tafsīr al-wajīz ʿalā hāmish al-Qurʾān al-ʿaẓīm: wa-maʿahū asbāb al-nuzūl wa-qawāʾid
al-tartīl, 1st edn (Damascus: Dār al-Fikr, 1994).
25 Vehbe Zuhayli, Ahmet Efe, Beşir Eryarsoy, Hamdi Arslan, Halil İbrahim Kutlay and
Nurettin Yıldız (trs), Tefsir’ül Munir, 1st edn (Istanbul: Risale, 2008).
26 For Hamka’s life and works, both of which are intriguing, see Karel Steenbrink, ‘Hamka
(1908–1981) and the Integration of the Islamic Ummah of Indonesia’, Studia Islamica 1 (1994),
pp. 119–47.
27 Hamka, Tafsir al-Azhar, rev. edn (15 vols, Jakarta: Pustaka Panjimas, 1987–8).
28 A private homepage that had made part of the commentary available online had to be closed
down in 2009.
29 Departemen Agama, Al-Qur’an dan tafsirnya, 2nd edn (11 vols, Jakarta: Proyek Pengadaan
Kitab Suci Al Qur’an, Departemen Agama, 1985).
30 Howard Federspiel, Popular Indonesian Literature of the Qur’an, 1st edn (Ithaca: Cornell
Modern Indonesia Project, 1994), pp. 64–9; Departemen Agama, Al-Qur’an, p. 11; http://
nuhamaarif.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_archive.html (accessed March 2, 2010). Contrary to
what Federspiel writes, and to what the Suharto regime wanted to establish as fact, the project of
a national translation of the Qur’an, which appeared under the title Al-Qur’an dan terjemahnya,
was already started under Sukarno’s reign; the first of three volumes of the translation was
published in 1965. The tafsīr project, however, seems to have been initiated by Suharto and was
one of the goals of the national five-year-plans implemented during his reign.
31 http://www.depag.go.id/index.php?a=detilberita&id=2108; http://www.depag.go.id/file/
dokumen/13Agustus2008.pdf (accessed March 2, 2010).
32 Muhammadiyah Amin and Kusmana, ‘Purposive Exegesis: A Study of Quraish

Shihab’s Thematic Interpretation of the Qur’an’ in Abdullah Saeed (ed.), Approaches to
the Qur’an in Contemporary Indonesia, 1st edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005),
pp. 67–84, at pp. 68–9, http://media.isnet.org/islam/Quraish/Quraish.html (accessed March 2,
2010).
33 Muhammad Quraish Shihab, Tafsir al-Mishbāh. Pesan, Kesan dan Keserasian al-Quran,
1st edn (15 vols, Jakarta: Lentera Hati, 2000–3).
34 For Ateş’s life and work, see Abdullah Takim, Koranexegese im 20. Jahrhundert:
islamische Tradition und neue Ansätze in Süleyman Ateş’s ,,Zeitgenössischem
Korankommentar“, 1st edn (Istanbul: Yeni ufuklar, 2007).
35 Süleyman Ateş, Yüce Kur’ânın Çağdaş Tefsîri, 1st edn (12 vols, Istanbul: Yeni ufuklar,
1989).
36 This is especially true for Ateş’s interpretation of Q. 2:62, which, in his opinion, states that
access to Paradise is not restricted to Muslims, contrary to the views of most Muslim
theologians.
37 Hayrettin Karaman, Mustafa Çağrıcı, Sadrettin Gümüş and İbrahim Kafi Dönmez, Kur’an
yolu. Türkçe meâl ve tefsir, 1st edn (5 vols, Ankara: Diyanet Işleri Başkanlığı Yayınları,
2003–4), vol. 1, p. viii; the same was also stated in a press release.
38 http://www.darulkitap.com/kitaplar/kuran/kuranyolutefsiri.rar (accessed March 3, 2010).
39 While there have, of course, been exegetical works written by Muslim women, these do not
fit the criteria for inclusion in this paper as they are either extremely concise or do not belong to
the genre of tafsīr musalsal. Quite often they are designed as ‘educational commentaries’
directed at a young audience. Examples of female exegetes are the Egyptians ʿĀʾisha
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān bt al-Shāṭiʾ, Zaynab al-Ghazālī, Karīmān Ḥamza and Fawqiyya Ibrāhīm
al-Sharbīnī.
40 A commentary is considered relevant, in this context, when it is either used as a source –
explicitly or implicitly – by one or more of the commentaries discussed here or when it is so
well known, accepted and widely available that contemporary exegetes can be expected to have
had access to it.
41 A more comprehensive discussion of the jihād issue can be found in the monograph
mentioned in note 1.
42 Qur’anic quotations follow the standard Cairene edition of the Qur’an. Translations from
the Qur’an are based on Arthur J. Arberry, The Koran Interpreted, 1st edn (London: Allen &
Unwin, 1955).
43 W. Montgomery Watt, art. ‘al-ʿAḳaba’ in Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd edn.
44 This sabab al-nuzūl is found, among others, in al-Wāḥidī’s Asbāb al-nuzūl and in
the Qur’an commentaries by al-Ṭabarī, al-Thaʿlabī, al-Zamakhsharī, al-Qurṭubī, Fakhr al-Dīn
al-Rāzī, Ibn Kathīr and Abū’l-Suʿūd, i.e. in all major premodern Qur’an commentaries that
are generally used by contemporary Sunnī exegetes (excluding concise tafāsīr such as
al-Bayḍāwī’s or Tafsīr al-Jalālayn that do not go into details of asbāb al-nuzūl).
45 Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Shawkānī, Fatḥ al-qadīr al-jāmiʿ bayn fannay al-riwāya
wa’l-dirāya min ʿilm al-tafsīr, 1st edn (6 vols, al-Manṣūra: Dār al-Wafāʾ, 1994), vol. 2,
pp. 426–7.
46 Al-Ālūsī, Abū’l-Faḍl Shihāb al-Dīn al-Sayyid Maḥmūd al-Baghdādī, Rūḥ al-maʿānī fī tafsīr
al-Qurʾān wa’l-sabʿ al-mathānī (16 vols, Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1994), juzʾ 11, pp. 38–9;
Muḥammad ʿAbduh and Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ḥakīm [Tafsīr
al-Manār], 2nd edn (12 vols, Cairo: Dār al-Manār, 1947), juzʾ 11, pp. 50–1; Aḥmad
Muṣṭafā al-Marāghī, Tafsīr al-Marāghī, 1st edn (30 vols, Cairo: Muṣtafā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī,
1946), juzʾ 11, pp. 30–1. (Juzʾ, instead of vol., is used throughout the paper to indicate that a
tafsīr is structured and paginated according to the 30 ajzāʾ of the Qur’an.)
47 Muḥammad ʿIzzat Darwaza, al-Tafsīr al-ḥadīth: al-suwar murattaba ḥasab al-nuzūl, 1st
edn (12 vols, Cairo: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Kutub al-ʿArabiyya, 1964), vol. 12, pp. 222–3. It should be
noted that Darwaza explicitly rejects the idea that his efforts at historical contextualisation
diminish the universal relevance of the aya.
48 Ibn ʿĀshūr, Muḥammad al-Ṭāhir, Tafsīr al-taḥrīr wa’l-tanwīr (10 vols, Tunis and
Benghazi: al-Dār al-Tūnisiyya li’l-Nashr and al-Dār al-Jamāhīriyya li’l-Nashr wa’l-Tawzīʿ
wa’l-Iʿlān, n.d.), juzʾ 11, p. 37.
49 An example is Wahba al-Zuḥaylī, who, shortly after connecting the aya to the bayʿa of
al-ʿAqaba, quotes a tradition transmitted by Ibn ʿAbbās according to which, immediately after
the revelation of this aya, a believer asked the Prophet about the status of a mujāhid who had
sinned by committing zinā, stealing or drinking wine (al-Zuḥaylī, al-Tafsīr al-munīr, juzʾ 11,
p. 52, p. 56). This seems totally incongruent with the pre-Hijra context established by the
commentator, especially as the consumption of alcohol was not even categorically forbidden yet
at that time.
50 Ateş, Çağdaş Tefsîri, vol. 4, pp. 143–4.
51 Karaman et al., Kur’an yolu, vol. 3, p. 86.
52 Hamka, Tafsir al-Azhar, juzʾ 11, p. 58.
53 Quraish Shihab, Tafsir al-Mishbāh, vol. 5, p. 683.
54 Al-Ṭabarī, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. Jarīr, Jāmiʿ al-bayān ʿan āy al-Qurʾān, 2nd edn
(12 vols, Cairo: Muṣṭafā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī, 1954), juzʾ 11, pp. 37–9.
55 Al-Ālūsī, Rūḥ al-maʿānī, juzʾ 11, p. 45.
56 Al-Qurṭubī, Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. Abī Bakr, al-Jāmiʿ li-aḥkām
al-Qurʾān wa’l-mubayyin li-mā taḍammanahū min al-sunna wa-āy al-furqān, 1st edn (24 vols,
Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risāla, 2006), vol. 10, p. 394. The existence of two nearly identical
aḥādīth giving completely different meanings, of course, raises questions of authenticity;
however, it is not the purpose of this paper to raise or discuss such questions unless they are
addressed by the exegetes themselves.
57 Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-aḥkām al-Qurʾān, vol. 10, p. 394.
58 Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-aḥkām al-Qurʾān, vol. 10, p. 394.
59 Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-aḥkām al-Qurʾān, vol. 10, pp. 394–5; Sayyid Quṭb, Fī ẓilāl
al-Qurʾān, 6th edn (10 vols, n.p., n.d.), vol. 4, p. 319.
60 Ibn ʿArabī, Muḥyī’l-Dīn (i.e. ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Kāshānī), Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-karīm,
1st edn (2 vols, Beirut: Dār al-Yaqẓa al-ʿArabiyya, 1968), vol. 1, p. 511.
61 Ibn Kathīr, ʿImād al-Dīn Abū’l-Fiḍāʾ Ismāʿīl al-Qirshī al-Dimashqī, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān
al-ʿaẓīm (4 vols, Cairo: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Kutub al-ʿArabiyya, n.d.), vol. 2, p. 392. Rashīd Riḍā later
shared this view, arguing that these practices belong to former religions, have no basis in Islam
and are not supported by the literal meaning of al-sāʾiḥūn (Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, juzʾ
11, p. 54).
62 Al-Qāsimī, Muḥammad Jamāl al-Dīn, Maḥāsin al-taʾwīl, 1st edn (17 vols, Cairo: Dār Iḥyāʾ
al-Kutub al-ʿArabiyya, c. 1965), vol. 8, pp. 3,274–8.
63 Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, juzʾ 11, pp. 52–4. Interestingly, Rashīd Riḍā also discusses
the question why, if his interpretation is correct, so many premodern exegetes preferred a
non-literal interpretation. The answer he gives is gender-related: siyāḥa as a quality of believers
is not only mentioned in Q. 9:111, but also in Q. 66:5, only in that case with explicit reference
to women. Obviously, Rashīd Riḍā argues, premodern exegetes considered it inconceivable
that God could see any merit in travelling for women, which was why they sought other
explanations. However, Rashīd Riḍā writes, Islam in no way forbids women from travelling as
long as they are accompanied by their husband or a male maḥram relative; and if that is the
case, travelling holds the same value for women as it does for men. Besides, men benefit from
their wives’ company during travels, as it discourages illicit sexual relations. Finally, according
to Rashīd Riḍā, it is necessary and required for men and women alike to take part in all
beneficial activities if not otherwise specified in Islamic law; for example, the women of the
salaf accompanied the men to the battlefield in order to provide food and care for the wounded.
However, Rashīd Riḍā’s gender-based considerations are not taken up by any of the
contemporary exegetes in the focus of this paper.
64 Al-Marāghī, Tafsīr al-Marāghī, juzʾ 11, pp. 33–4.
65 Al-Zuḥaylī, al-Tafsīr al-munīr, juzʾ 11, p. 52, p. 54 and p. 56.
66 Lajna min al-ʿulamāʾ, Wasīṭ, vol. 2, booklet 21, p. 23.
67 Al-Shaʿrāwī, Tafsīr, vol. 9, pp. 5,524–6.
68 Karaman et al., Kur’an yolu, vol. 3, p. 86.
69 Quraish Shihab, Tafsir al-Mishbāh, vol. 5, p. 686.
70 Abū Zahra, Zahrat al-tafāsīr, p. 3,456.
71 Ateş, Çağdaş Tefsîri, vol. 4, p. 144.
72 Ḥawwā, al-Asās fī’l-tafsīr, vol. 4, p. 2,350, and pp. 2,358–9.
73 Ṭanṭāwī, al-Tafsīr al-wasīṭ, vol. 6, pp. 411–12.
74 Departemen Agama, Al-Qur’an dan tafsirnya, vol. 4, pp. 264–5.
75 Hamka, Tafsir al-Azhar, juzʾ 11, p. 55, and pp. 60–1.
76 This is, of course, a selective strategy. In other instances, for example Q. 2:62, where the
literal meaning is considered undesirable by most commentators, they have no difficulty in
producing arguments to reject it.
77 Norman Calder, ‘Tafsīr from Ṭabarī to Ibn Kathīr: 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 Qurʾān, 1st edn (London: Routledge, 1993), pp. 101–40, at
p. 103.
78 For further details, see my monograph (note 1). The passages from the Qur’an discussed
there at length are Q. 23:1–11; Q. 2:2–5; Q. 33:35; Q. 9:111–12; and Q. 2:62. See also: Johanna
Pink, ‘Tradition and Ideology in Contemporary Sunnite Qur’anic Exegesis: Qur’anic
Commentaries From the Arab World, Turkey and Indonesia and Their Interpretation of
Q 5:51’, Welt des Islams 50 (2010), pp. 3–59.
79 For Egypt, see A. Chris Eccel, Egypt, Islam and Social Change: al-Azhar in Conflict
and Accommodation, 1st edn (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz, 1984); Johanna Pink, ‘Der
Mufti, der Scheich und der Religionsminister: ägyptische Religionspolitik zwischen
Verstaatlichung, Toleranzrhetorik und Repression’ in Sigrid Faath (ed.), Staatliche
Religionspolitik in Nordafrika/Nahost: ein Instrument für modernisierende Reformen?, 1st
edn (Hamburg: GIGA, 2007), pp. 27–56, http://www.dgap.org/midcom-serveattachmentguid-
1de865bb17bf2fa865b11de86fbfd152d1190aa90aa/faath_studiereligionspolitik_volltext.pdf
(accessed March 2, 2010). For Syria, see Annabel Böttcher, Syrische Religionspolitik unter
Asad, 1st edn (Freiburg: ABI, 1998), pp. 131–44.
80 Abdullah Saeed, ‘Introduction: The Qur’an, Interpretation and the Indonesian Context’
in Abdullah Saeed (ed.), Approaches to the Qur’an in Contemporary Indonesia, 1st edn
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 1–16; Andreas Ufen, Herrschaftsfiguration und
Demokratisierung in Indonesien (1965–2000), 1st edn (Hamburg: IFA, 2002), p. 255.
81 Mehmet Paçacı and Yasin Aktay, ‘75 Years of Higher Religious Education in Modern
Turkey’, The Muslim World 89 (1999), pp. 389–413. For more information on the
hermeneutical approaches produced by the Ankara School, see Felix Körner, Revisionist
Koran Hermeneutics in Contemporary Turkish University Theology: Rethinking Islam, 1st edn
(Würzburg: Ergon, 2005).

Johanna Pink-Tradition - Authority - and - Innovation - in - Co PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Johanna Pink-Tradition - Authority - and - Innovation - in - Co PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tradition, Authority and Innovation in

Contemporary Sunnī tafsīr: Towards a

Journal of Qur’anic Studies 12 (2010): 56–82

reformist or Islamist. In order to be able to draw relevant conclusions concerning

In Egypt, Muḥammad Abū Zahra (1898–1974), the Dean of Cairo University’s

Another Egyptian ‘medium-sized’ commentary on the Qur’an, al-Tafsīr al-wasīṭ

In Indonesia, the production of annotated translations of the Qur’an and more

and far-reaching educational reforms, academic theology was basically non-existent

A Basic Typology of Contemporary Qur’an Commentaries

The Exegetes’ Approach to Tradition and Earlier Exegetical Authorities: Two

a) The Circumstances of Revelation of Q. 9:111

consider the circumstances of revelation either unimportant or doubtful in this

b) The Meaning of al-sāʾiḥūn (‘Those who Journey’) in Q. 9:112

Alternative interpretations do exist, but are generally not favoured by premodern

Al-Qāsimī sees two possibilities for interpretation. One of them would be to

understanding, includes any kind of effort to achieve closeness to God, be it by

literal interpretations, arguments for plausibility and, above all, utilitarian

An examination of the contemporary commentaries’ exegesis of this aya quickly

While the above-mentioned ﬁve commentaries exhibit a clear shift in emphasis as

… in the pursuit of knowledge, either of religious knowledge or of

Hamka – although he brieﬂy mentions the fasting interpretation – is likewise in

While mystical exegesis plays no discernible role, reformist interpretations are

In conclusion to my analysis of the contemporary Qur’an commentaries’ exegetical

a) The Aims of Exegesis

combination with daʿwa among ‘lukewarm’ Muslims. They pick an aya, an

So far, I have discussed categories of Qur’an commentaries based on an analysis of

Conservative Qur’an commentaries are characterised by their reliance on traditional

A second category of Qur’an commentaries could be labelled moderately orthodox.

non-Muslims, without being particularly accommodating either. They are not

While differentiation is indispensable for a fruitful analysis, it has to be pointed out

Christian sources. The inﬂuence of mystical exegesis is most noticeable in the

Contemporary tafsīr is proving to be a fruitful ﬁeld of study that deserves to be

32 Muhammadiyah Amin and Kusmana, ‘Purposive Exegesis: A Study of Quraish

You might also like