In 909 AH (1503-4 CE), the Ottoman scholar Khayr al-Dīn al-ʿAṭūfī put the finishing touches on the massive catalog that he was preparing for the palace library of Sultan Bayezid II (r. 1481-1512).
What can we learn from it about Qur'an scholarship at that "post-classical" age?
What can we learn from it about Qur'an scholarship at that "post-classical" age?
TL;DR: Ottoman scholars were not avid fans of tradition-based exegesis (al-tafsīr bi-l-maʾthūr). They were mostly interested in analytical tafsīr, in particular those of al-Rāzī, al-Zamakhsharī, & al-Bayḍāwī. They were also busy reading & writing glosses (esp. on latter 2).
Longer version:
The list of tafsīr works has 2 halves. The 1st half (86 manuscripts) begins by copies of Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī's Grand Commentary (al-Tafsir al-Kabir) & is then dedicated to the Kashshāf of al-Zamakhsharī, Anwār al-Tanzīl of al-Bayḍāwī, & glosses on these works.
The list of tafsīr works has 2 halves. The 1st half (86 manuscripts) begins by copies of Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī's Grand Commentary (al-Tafsir al-Kabir) & is then dedicated to the Kashshāf of al-Zamakhsharī, Anwār al-Tanzīl of al-Bayḍāwī, & glosses on these works.
Why disrupt chronology and begin with al-Rāzī (d. 1209) instead of al-Zamakhsharī (d. 1144)?
Perhaps because of unease with Muʿtazilite leanings of al-Zamakhshari. Also, al-Rāzī's work is much more extensive, a practical summa of Islamic thought.
Perhaps because of unease with Muʿtazilite leanings of al-Zamakhshari. Also, al-Rāzī's work is much more extensive, a practical summa of Islamic thought.
For all that, al-Kashshāf is definitely the inventory's pivotal work with 13 copies and 36 dependent glosses/treatises.
Three glosses are esp. important: Kashf al-Kashshāf by Sirāj al-Dīn al-Fārisī (d. 1344), & the ḥāshiyahs of al-Taftāzānī (d. 1390) and al-Jurjānī (d. 1413).
Three glosses are esp. important: Kashf al-Kashshāf by Sirāj al-Dīn al-Fārisī (d. 1344), & the ḥāshiyahs of al-Taftāzānī (d. 1390) and al-Jurjānī (d. 1413).
(Here is how Hafiz invokes Kashf al-Kashshāf:
بخواه دفتر اشعار و راه صحرا گیر / چه وقت مدرسه و بحث کشف کشاف است
ز مصحف رخ دلدار آیتی برخوان / که این بیان مقامات کشف کشاف است)
بخواه دفتر اشعار و راه صحرا گیر / چه وقت مدرسه و بحث کشف کشاف است
ز مصحف رخ دلدار آیتی برخوان / که این بیان مقامات کشف کشاف است)
Al-Taftāzānī & al-Jurjānī were uniquely valued as master expositors not only in tafsīr but also in several other disciplines.
A poem about al-Taftāzānī's gloss:
لقد قلت لما ان تملكت نسخة / لعالم تفتازان من شرح كشاف
عليك سلام الله يا سعد اننا / نداوي عليل الجهل من شرحك الشافي
A poem about al-Taftāzānī's gloss:
لقد قلت لما ان تملكت نسخة / لعالم تفتازان من شرح كشاف
عليك سلام الله يا سعد اننا / نداوي عليل الجهل من شرحك الشافي
The rest of the 1st half is dominated by al-Bayḍāwī’s Anwār al-Tanzīl (18 copies) and 9 related works. Of course, Anwār is largely an abridgment of al-Kashshāf (though al-Bayḍāwī doesn't say so!). The inventory captures the rise of Anwār, which eventually eclipsed its source.
The 2nd half of the list mentions several prominent Sufi works, showing importance of this genre:
Al-Qushayrī's Laṭāʾif al-ishārāt
Al-Maybudī's Kashf al-asrār
Al-Taʾwīlāt al-Najmiyya
Al-Qūnawī's Kitāb fī asrār al-Fātiḥa
Al-Kāshānī's Taʾwīlāt al-Qurʾān
Al-Fanārī's ʿAyn al-aʿyān
Al-Qushayrī's Laṭāʾif al-ishārāt
Al-Maybudī's Kashf al-asrār
Al-Taʾwīlāt al-Najmiyya
Al-Qūnawī's Kitāb fī asrār al-Fātiḥa
Al-Kāshānī's Taʾwīlāt al-Qurʾān
Al-Fanārī's ʿAyn al-aʿyān
Finally, the palace library contained the following 12 commentaries, including al-Māturīdī’s Taʾwīlāt ahl al-sunnah, which is the earliest work in the tafsīr section.
What does this mean for the historiography of tafsīr?
First, it provides further evidence for the absolute centrality of glosses, annotations, and supercommentaries (not to mention topical treatises) to pre-modern Muslim exegesis. We need to take these works seriously.
First, it provides further evidence for the absolute centrality of glosses, annotations, and supercommentaries (not to mention topical treatises) to pre-modern Muslim exegesis. We need to take these works seriously.
In addition, the inventory shows the inaccuracy of some academic depictions of tafsīr that portray it as a largely conservative enterprise involving "little more than a compilation and classification of the relevant explanatory ḥadīth."
It is inaccurate to claim that analytical exegesis was "always distrusted as potentially misleading." These sentiments may capture some prominent modern views as to what "proper" tafsīr is about, but they shouldn't be back-projected to pre-modern exegesis.
In this vein, it is telling that major works of tradition-based exegesis were absent from the Topkapı palace library. There was no copy of modern staples such as al-Ṭabarī’s Jāmiʿ al-bayān or Ibn Kathīr’s Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿaẓīm.
Finally, did Ibn Taymiyya (whose Muqaddimah has influenced modern discourse on tafsīr & hence also its historiography) really reject all personal reflection on the Qur'an?
Not exactly. In fact, arguably he himself engages in a measure of analytical exegesis in the same treatise!
Not exactly. In fact, arguably he himself engages in a measure of analytical exegesis in the same treatise!
Last but not least: this chapter was slated to be written by Shahab Ahmed, who had in fact given a related presentation at a Harvard conference. We couldn't find Shahab's notes or slides, but I thought of him a lot & relied on his published work in writing the chapter.
Link to publication: brill.com/view/book/edco…
