Discussion Forum on Reading

From Silvers

Back to IIRS page

Back to Ulum al-Qur'an

Back to Tafsir

• how is argument structured?
• who is quoted? what is quoted? how is it quoted?
• how does mufassir express his own opinion? then compare meaning to structure.
• how is meaning built on the structure of authority?
• does structure come from meaning?

Comments:

Alexis's responses:

• Ayoub begins his introduction with a definition of tafsir. This definition provides the reader with an unambiguous understanding of Ayoub's goals. It also helps to structure Ayoub's arguments that follow, as his definition clearly frames the issues at hand. After defining tafsir as the science that "is primarily concerned with the interpretation and elucidation of the text of the Qur'an as a given entity," he justifies the organization of his scholarship by calling upon Ibn Kathir. Ibn Kathir placed the section addressing the history of the Qur'an at the end of his commentary, because he believed that tafsir was more important than the historical aspects. Ibn Kathir followed the example of the "well-known hadith compiler" al-Bukhari. Ayoub then states that he feels "justified in concentrating [his] efforts on the tafsir of the Qur'an" (1-2). In a short paragraph, Ayoub clearly establishes his the foundation of his objectives, and claims authority through both Ibn Kathir and al-Bukhari.
• A few pages later, Ayoub states that his aim is not to argue any particular position, but to "present different views and interpretations coherently and candidly" (3). In order to achieve this goal, Ayoub spends ample time introducing the major mufassirs, as well as provide historical knowledge regarding the early science of tafsir. Ayoub exerts efforts to ensure that his reader has knowledge and information, as well as a particular perspective. As stated above, Ayoub's goal is not to present an argument. But in denying a particular position, he is, in fact, declaring one. Ayoub's position is rooted in how a pious Muslim relates to the Qur'an, and how a mufassir operates within this realm. Ayoub organizes around the meaning of the Qur'an to those who interpret it. Ayoub takes this position and declares it perhaps because of his particular audience. Ayoub directs this introduction toward a predominately novice, English speaking reader, and takes great pains to make sure a particular approach is taken to understanding the science of tafsir. It is now evident why Ayoub grounds his work in Ibn Kathir's, who is "always fair and informative," as well as rooted in tradition (4). The reader of Ayoub should take notice from which he claims authority and ask if the author is holding up to the standard he proclaims.
• In the section, The Qur'an and Its Bearers, Ayoub carefully attempts to establish what the Qur'an means to commentators. In order to do this, he takes passages from the direct source-- The Qur'an. This is important because only the Qur'an can accurately proclaim what it is. Therefore, Ayoub follows the same framework that the mufassirs utilize. Also, Ayoub draws authority from the direct source. I have noticed the when Ayoub presents a particular point, he usually begins to support his claim with quotes from the Qur'an. Next, he might cite a hadith, then maybe a quote from one of the companions. Ayoub also uses a rhetoric that suggests a strong foundation based on tradition. He often states that there is a "well-known tradition," or a "widely quoted hadith." This points to Ayoub's scholarship-- he is conservative and traditional-- and re-enforces his authority through such statements. Furthermore, Ayoub often provides a double citation for a particular incident or saying. If both Ibn Kathir and Qurtubi have stated or reported something, Ayoub cites both, ensuring stability in his decision to include such a statement. The rhetoric of "tradition" and "well-known" implies that one cannot question such a statement. In this air of authority rests Ayoub's work. If Ayoub chooses to include something more controversial, he begins with a direct statement, saying "one of the most controversial points..." Typically, what follows is not controversial, but something that is often debated, like how the Qur'an must be recited. Also, in order to follow his own guidelines, Ayoub is careful to cite tradition, popular piety, Shi'i, Sunni, and Sufi points of emphasis. What I found interesting his is decision to end the section titled The Qur'an and Its Bearers with a prayer, a prayer instructed by the Prophet to 'Ali after completing a full recitation of the Qur'an. However, neither Ayoub, nor the reader completed a full recitation. I think Ayoub chose this prayer because it asks God for modesty, sincerity, and worthiness of mercy-- all of which seem particularly important for commenting on the Qur'an and understanding the mufassir's relationship to the Qur'an.
• In the section The Principles and Development of Tafsir, Ayoub relies on the same strategies of rhetoric, means of organization, and ways of claiming authority. I found it interesting that he chose to discuss the different names of the Qur'an. After a brief discussion of the different names, he divides the scholarship into "Western" and "Muslim." Western scholars considered some words such as surah to be "loan words," while Muslim scholars, citing the Qur'an, believe that they were "fully Arabicized before they came into the Qur'an" (17). Ayoub spends such little time with this distinction that I find it almost strange that he included it at all. If his goal is to reveal what the Qur'an meant to the mufassir, why even bother with "Western scholars," and just cite the passage of the Qur'an and move on. The dichotomy of "Western" and "Muslim" just seems overly simplistic, although it may have followed that division. Surely the evolution of languages is more complex than Ayoub's presentation of the difference of opinion.
• Before discussion the principles and development of tafsir, Ayoub is careful to explicitly state the function of the Qur'an. Because the mufassir's scholarship rests on the Qur'an, I thought Ayoub's decision to define even the most obvious functions significant. In doing this, Ayoub seeks to control the reader's response, and begins by building a particular foundation that is congruent with his own. This makes his argument stronger and more effective, and anticipates and answers any questions a reader may have. Ayoub distinguishes between the two dimensions of the Qur'an-- inner (batin) and outer (zahir). Outer dimension refers to the Qur'an's guidance. The inner dimension is free from "the limitation of time and history" and allows the Qur'an to speak to Muslims today. Ayoub establishes that the Qur'an exist on two levels in order to best define tafsir. The "concrete or exoteric level" refers to tafsir, while the "abstract or esoteric level" denotes ta'wil (18).
• Continuing further, Ayoub differentiates between the muhkam verses (unambiguous) and mutashabih verses (ambiguous). Ayoub writes, "The Qur'an describes itself variously as all muhkam, as all mutashabih, and as consisting of both muhkam and mutashabih verses" (19). The purposes of the muhkam verses are to provide guidance, and were revealed to the Prophet regarding a specific social problem. Mutashabih verses cannot be easily understood, and "therefore must be accepted in faith but not followed" (19). This leads to the principle of naskh (abrogation), and Ayoub presents how daily life is involved with this principle. For example, verses may remain and be recited, but its command may be suppressed. Ayoub describes that there is no "general agreement as to what verses are abrogated" (20). All this nuance of definition and meaning portray the nature and structure of the Qur'an, and allow his audience to have a glimpse of what a mufassir must understand.
• Ayoub's organization and structure of his argument rests firmly on his definitions and descriptions of the nuances that the mufassir must always engage in. By explaining in a step-by-step manner, the complexities in commenting on the meaning of the Qur'an as a whole become vivid.

Tuna's responses:

• This was definitely a very interesting read. I received allot of background information and in-depth analysis of Tafsir from the selected mufassirs Ayoub heavily relies upon: Tabari, Majlsi, Ibn Kathir, Qurtubi, Zarkashi, Shahabi, Ibn Sa’d, Zamakhshari, Dawudi, Razi, Tabataba, Ayyashi (just to name a few that were predominately referenced). As Alexis has already stated Ayoub begins the introduction giving authority to Ibn Kathir who follows al-Bukhari (hadith compiler) in the first page alone. Ayoub then begins a long detailed explanation of the major mufassirs along with small background history. The first couple of pages I believe is very help and well formated for the reader to get an good grasp and undertsanding of the outline of the entire paper. Ayoub presents his information in a chronolgical manner of how Tafsir has come to be and why it has come to be. He begins with the Quran and shows how even within the time of the revelation, Tafsir began (starting from Muhammed) orally. It then moves on to the companions and the the successors’ and further on to the successors’s disciples. From there the written commentaries begins for the following reasons: reflection of training, religious affiliation, interest of writter having their own point of view ( jurists, mystics, philosphers), then the different schools thought (historical approach) and then the Sunni/ Shi approach. Ayoub is consistant in his introduction outline and admits that this structure is based on the chronolgical framework (as much of it that can be preserved). Ayoub takes great detail to explain the terms and the flow of authority of the tafsir, thus revealing that this paper is going out to the audience that is unfamiliar to the tafsir. This approach I feel also futher establishes a basis for Ayoub’s argument on this volume of reading (strengthens the reading).
• Ayoub in the The Qur'an and Its Bearers used the Quran as the main source along with three mufassirs (Ibn Kathir, Qurtubi and Majlisi). The Quran is used as a reinforcement I believe to establish the authority that it has upon the tafsir, since it can be a tafsir of its own, explaining a particular passage later on in another surah. Ayoub again in this passage takes great detail to explaining the role the Quran plays in the community. A lot of references are taken from Inb Kathir and Majlisi throughout the section more than Qurtubi. All the references of the mufassirs reinforce the main points of internalization, recitation (how exactly), and prayer usage of the Quran. Ayoub also talks about the status of what the Quran reciters hold and how influencial they are to the tafsir of the Quran. Using the three mufassirs Ayoub is leading to the authority of who is able to comment (be mufassirs) of the Quran. The mufassirs’ quotes are all in relation to what kind of role and qualification a person should have to fulfill the role of mufassir and be part of Tafsir.
• Ayoub presents a lists of several mufassirs in th beginning of the paper however he uses only a selected few to establish the arguments he makes about Tafsir in the paper. In doing so he automatically builts his paper on the structure of authority to specific mufassirs and through this was he is expressing thos mufassirs' opinions. Since he is using particular mufassirs he is following a particular path and putting a lot of his own believes of into explaining the meaning of Tafsir and its science and principles (since he believes this is what tafsir is about; under the particular mufassir). Ayoub starting from a very broad definition of tafsir then going into a particular veiw of Tafsir (through the particular mufassirs) is what is seen in the paper. However, I do believe that Ayoub does do a very good job in explaining the generalize and chronological framework of Tafsir and its establishments. This structure is able to build meaning to the paper. In comparison to the Ulum al-Quran I feel that from this reading I have gotten an alternative explanations of the formation of Tafsir and the changes it has gone through historical.