the last of the nishapuri school of tafsir al-wahidi... by walid a. saleh

8/19/2019 The Last of the Nishapuri School of Tafsir Al-Wahidi... by Walid a. Saleh

1/22

Journal of the American Oriental Society 126.2 (2006) 1

The Last of the Nishapuri School of Tafsir:

Al-W

a

h

id

i

(d. 468/1076) and His Significance

in the History of Qurªanic Exegesis

Walid A. Saleh

University of Toronto

W

hen asked why he would not write a Qurª

a

n commentary, Ab

u

H

E

a

mid al-Ghaz

a

l

i

(d. 505/

1111) is said to have replied, “What our teacher al-W

a

h

id

i

wrote suffices.” This story was

first reported by al-Y

a

fiº

i

(d. 768/1367), who did not divulge the identity of his source.

1

Yet

there is no reason not to accept this statement as historical. We have supporting evidence

from al-Ghaz

a

l

i

’s works which clearly shows that he admired the works of al-W

a

h

id

i

.

2

Medieval biographers were certain that al-Ghaz

a

l

i

borrowed the titles for three of his fiqh

works from those of al-W

a

h

id

i

’s three Qurª

a

n commentaries.

3

But a historian is nevertheless

bound to ask if such praise was warranted and not occasioned by mere decorum: the writers

were contemporary, both Shafiºites from the same region, and both patronized by the same

regime, the Saljuqs (and specifically by the vizier Ni

z

a

m al-Mulk and his brother).

4

Even so,

al-W

a

h

id

i

’s is a surprising name for al-Ghaz

a

l

i

to choose, at least in light of what we know

of the history of Qurªanic exegesis. Al-W

a

h

id

i

does not come to mind when one conjures

up names of illustrious medieval Qurª

a

n commentators; his Asb

a

b nuz

u

l al-Qurª

a

n

(

TheOccasions of Revelations

), the work that secured his reputation in the modern era, is not a

book the author himself was proud of, nor could one entertain the notion that it was at the

root of al-Ghaz

a

l

i

’s admiration. It is, however, reasonable to consider al-Ghaz

a

l

i

’s statement

as his own judgment on the field of Qurªanic studies. Such an assessment by a figure likeal-Ghaz

a

l

i

forces us to look more carefully at al-W

a

h

id

i

, to try to find what al-Ghazali found

impressive. But can we assess al-W

a

h

id

i

’s legacy? This article will offer an intellectual biog-

raphy of al-W

a

h

id

i

, a survey of his surviving works, and an initial analysis of his herme-

neutical method. It will also show that he was a towering intellectual figure of his time: both

1. See Ab

u

ºAbd All

a

h al-Y

a

fiº

i

, Mirª

a

t al-jin

a

n

(Beirut: Muªassasat al-Aºlam

i

li-al-Ma

t

b

u

º

a

t, 1974), 2:208;

see also Jawdat al-Mahd

i

, al-W

a

h

id

i

wa-manhajuh f

i

al-tafs

i

r

(Cairo: Wiz

a

rat al-Thaq

a

fah, 1977), 403 for more

references on this anecdote.

2. Abu Hamid al-Ghaz

a

l

i

, I

h

y

a

ª ºul

u

m al-d

i

n

(Cairo: Ma

t

baºat al-B

a

b

i

al-

H

alab

i

, 1957), 1: 40, advises the

student who wants to know about the Qurª

a

n to read al-W

a

h

id

i

’s al-Waj

i

z

and al-Was

i

t

. See al-W

a

h

id

i

, al-Waj

i

z

,

ed. S

afw

a

n D

a

w

u

d

i (Damascus: Dar al-Qalam, 1995), 1: 45.

3. Al-Yafiºi, Mirªat , 3: 96; Shams al-Din al-Dhahabi, Siyar aºlam al-nubalaª, ed. Shuºayb al-Arnaªut (Beirut:Muªassasat al-Risalah, 1984), 18: 340.

4. See Yaqut al-Hamawi, Muºjam al-udabaª, ed. ºA. F. al-Rifaºi (Cairo: Dar al-Maªmun, 1938), 12: 260.

I should like to acknowledge the financial assistance of the American Research Center in Egypt (ARCE), whose

funding for my research in Cairo was essential for this study. The help I received from ARCE’s dedicated staff was

instrumental in obtaining materials from Dar al-Kutub and al-Azhar University Library. I am also indebted to Pro-

fessor ºAbd al-Rahim Abu Husayn, a chair of the History Department at the American University of Beirut, andProfessor Ibrahim Kalin at Holy Cross College, for helping to obtain material from Istanbul. Special thanks go to

Shihab Ahmed of Harvard University for taking the trouble to check some manuscripts on site in Istanbul, and who

informed me of a copy of al-Basi t that I did not know about. Finally I would like to thank the anonymous reader

who offered very helpful suggestions, for which I am grateful.


2/22

Journal of the American Oriental Society 126.2 (2006)2

an exegete of pervasive influence and surprising originality, and a critic whose commentary

on al-Mutanabbi’s poetry is still a standard work.

i. introduction

A major problem facing any scholar studying the history of tafsi r is that many commen-taries are still unedited. In the absence of any systematic attempt at publishing what survives

of this massive literature, one has to rely on a close inspection of what is available in various

manuscript collections as well as in printed texts.5 It is best to concentrate on a certain

historical period and attempt a full description and analysis of the works produced therein.

Scholars working on the early history of tafsi r (the pre-Tabari phase) have recognized thesignificance of unpublished material for the history of this period.6 Here we will call atten-

tion to other periods in the history of this genre.7

ºAli b. Ahmad al-Wahidi al-Naysaburi (d. 486/1076) was an important author of tafsi r who has been neglected by western scholars and, to a lesser extent, in the Muslim world.

My interest in al-Wahidi grew out of my work on his teacher al-Thaºlabi (d. 427/1035) andmy investigation of the reasons behind Ibn Taymiyah’s (d. 728/1328) attacks on both writers.(He faulted both al-Thaºlabi and, less so, al-Wahidi, for transmitting “weak” traditions.) 8

Having read extensive parts of al-Wahidi’s as yet unpublished major work, al-Basi t (The Large Commentary), I am convinced that it is one of the masterpieces of medieval Qurªancommentaries. Not only was it of crucial significance for the history of the genre, being

widely influential—for example, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 606/1210) used al-Basi t as a majorsource for his Maf at i h al-ghayb—but it promises to advance our knowledge of the languageof the Qurªan itself, since it is one of the earliest exhaustive philological Qurªan commen-taries to survive.9

But al-Wahidi’s achievements do not end here. He produced two other commentaries,al-Wasi t (The Middle Commentary) and al-Waji z (The Short Commentary). Al-Waji z heldsway for more than six centuries as the most accessible short commentary on the Qurªan,until the appearance of Tafsi r al-Jalalayn in the 10th/16th century, which was itself basedon al-Waji z.10 It continues to be popular and has been published repeatedly.11 Al-Wasi t was

5. In the last twenty years an attempt to edit the massive literature of tafsi r has been launched in graduate

programs in universities in Saudi Arabia and Egypt; many of the editions appearing these days were originally sub-

mitted as dissertations.

6. This process was begun by John Wansbrough in his Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural

Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1977).

7. Some modern Muslim scholars have offered cursory surveys of the genre, relying on both printed texts andmanuscripts; unfortunately, these studies are neither comprehensive nor do they adopt a critical-historical approach.

The standard survey of tafsi r works in Arabic is Muhammad Husayn al-Dhahabi, al-Tafsi r wa-al-mufassir un, 3 vols.

(Cairo: Maktabat Wahbah, 1961). Jamal J. Elias has also studied the unpublished Qurªan commentary of al-Simnani(d. 736/1336); see his The Throne Carrier of God: The Life and Thought of ºAlaª ad-Dawla as-Simnani (Albany:

State Univ. of New York Press, 1995). See also G. Böwering, “The Qurªan Commentary of Al-Sulami,” in IslamicStudies Presented to Charles Adams, ed. W. E. Hallaq and D. B. Little (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 41–65.

8. See my The Formation of the Classical Tafsi r Tradition: The Qurªan Commentary of al-Thaºlabi (d. 427/

1035) (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 205–21.

9. The first to draw attention to al-Razi’s dependency on al-Wahidi was Jawdat al-Mahdi in his pioneeringwork, al-W ahid i wa-manhajuh f i al-tafsi r . See also Jacques Jomier, “Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (m. 606H./1210) et les

commentaires du Coran plus anciens,” MIDEO 15 (1982): 158–59, who mentions al-Wahidi as a source for al-Razi.10. See al-Waji z, 1: 56; Dawudi, Tabaqat al-mufassir i n, 1: 100.

11. The first publication of al-Waji z was on the margins of Muhammad al-Nawawi’s Mar ah Labi d (al-Tafsi r al-muni r li-maº alim al-tanzi l al-mufassir ºan wujuh mahasin al-taªwi l al-musamma t ibqan li-maºnah Mar ah Labi d

li-kashf maºna Qurªan maji d ), 2 vols. (Cairo: Dar al-Kutub al-ºArabiyah, 1305/1887–88). The second is the criticaledition by Safwan Dawudi (n. 2 above). Claude Gilliot mentions a 1955 edition by Mustaf a al-Saqqa in his entry

One Line Long


3/22

Saleh: The Last of the Nishapuri School of Tafsi r 3

famously popular in the medieval period and has recently witnessed a comeback after being

edited.12 It has been wrongly assumed that al-Wasi t is an abridgement of al-Basi t , a notion

first opined in the medieval biographical dictionaries. 13 This is not the case. Each com-

mentary is an independent composition governed by different hermeneutical rules and

assumptions. The relationship among the three is itself a fascinating story that documentsthe tortured response of a medieval mind to the problem of the meaning of the Qurªan. For-tunately all three commentaries are accessible, and together with their introductions they

offer us a unique opportunity to examine al-Wahidi’s varying hermeneutical approaches.Later, I will given an example from each commentary and show how they differ in their

approach. If we add the introduction to Asbab nuzul al-Qurªan we have four explicit state-ments by al-Wahidi as to methods of Qurªanic interpretation.14 That he saw the need to keepproducing commentaries, each with a different approach, distinguishes al-Wahidi from mostother classical exegetes. I know of no other scholar who wrote three independent commen-

taries that have survived. The other extant examples are by scholars who wrote epitomes of

their own major works.

What is perhaps most compelling about al-Wahidi is that he was at the center of the in-tellectual life of his age. He was an outstanding critic who produced what was considered

the best commentary on one of the most important Arabic poets, al-Mutanabbi (d. 354/955).Thus his significance must be seen in the light of his total literary production. He was well

aware of the intellectual concerns of the elite and responded to the two fundamental texts

of the culture in which he lived: the Qurªan and the poetry of al-Mutanabbi.15 In his workswe witness a critical moment in the hermeneutical history of medieval Islam, where the

compromises worked out in the first four centuries have become unraveled and must be re-

constructed. Al-Wahidi’s three Qurªan commentaries, with their different attitudes and con-flicting methods of interpretation, foreshadow the agonized intellectual life of his younger

contemporary al-Ghazali. His time was one of unsettled certainties, profound anxieties,and widespread intellectual alienation, all of which were at the root of the creativity of the

period. In this sense, the study of tafsi r must be conducted within the wider realm of

Islamic intellectual history; and any serious study of intellectual trends in Sunni Islam must

take into account the contributions and articulations of the exegetes, who were central to

the formation of Islamic identity.

ii. al-wAHidI, the nishapuri school,

and the history of qurªAnic exegesis

I have argued elsewhere that the three Nishapuri exegetes Ibn Habib (d. 406/1015), al-

Thaºlabi (d. 427/1035) and al-Wahidi (d. 468/1076) constitute one of the more influential

12. Al-Wasi t , ed. ºAdil ºAbd al-Mawjud et al., 4 vols. (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-ºIlmiyah, 1994). There is also

an incomplete edition by Muhammad al-Zaf iti (or al-Zufayti), 2 vols. (Cairo: 1986–1995), which only covers Sura s

1–4.

13. See Ibn al-Qif ti, Inbah al-ruwat ºala anbah al-nuhat , ed. Muhammad Abu al-Fa dl Ibrahim (Cairo: Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyah, 1952), 2: 223. Gilliot repeats the same information (“Textes arabes,” 187).

14. This popular work has been published repeatedly. The standard critical edition is by al-Sayyid Ahmad Saqr( Asbab nuzul al-Qurªan, Cairo: Dar al-Kitab al-Jadid, 1969); this is now rare.

15. Here I follow the assessment of Ihsan ºAbbas in his Taªr i kh al-naqd al-adabi ºinda al-ºArab: naqd al-shiºr min al-qarn al-thani hatt a al-qarn al-thamin al-hijr i (Beirut: Dar al-Shuruq, 1981), esp. 361–97.

on al-Wahidi (“Textes arabes anciens édités en Egypte,” MIDEO 24 (2000): 187). I have failed to find any trace of

such an edition. The confusion may come from the fact that al-Saqqa himself wrote a Qurªan commentary called al-Waji z. Gilliot’s source for his information is Muhammad ºIsa Salihiyah, al-Muºjam al-shamil li-al-tur ath al-ºarabi al-ma t buº (Cairo: Maºhad al-Makhtutat al-ºArabiyah, 1995), 5: 318.


4/22


schools in the history of medieval Qurªanic exegesis, which I have termed the Nishapurischool.16 By calling it a “school” I do not mean to suggest that this group maintained a

uniform approach to the Qurªan, but rather to characterize a concerted effort on the part of these scholars to come to grips with the problem of the Qurªan’s meaning in the face of the

conflict among traditional exegesis, philology, and kalam theology. I have argued that the in-fluence of this school was so pervasive that the medieval exegetical tradition does not make

sense unless we take into account the contribution of these scholars. In the introduction to his

al-Burhan f i ºulum al-Qurªan, arguably the most important Sunni assessment of the genre,al-Zarkashi (d. 794/1392) mentions the names of both al-Thaºlabi and al-Wahidi as wellas of the scholars who were influenced by their methods (al-Zamakhshar i, al-Razi) whengiving examples of different modes of interpretation.17 There is rarely a classical assessment

that fails to mention al-Thaºlabi or al-Wahidi, even when the tone is hostile and intendedto undermine their contributions. In his attempt to redirect the course of the medieval exe-

getical tradition, Ibn Taymiyah targeted al-Thaºlabi and al-Wahidi above all for what he con-sidered an unsound approach to the Qurªan.18

Al-Thaºlabi and al-Wahidi attempted to answer the perennial question facing classical exe-gesis: what place does philology have in this enterprise? I believe that the pressing issue in

the history of classical Qurªan commentary was the challenge posed by the Arabic philo-logical disciplines (the sum total of grammar, lexicography and rhetorical studies) to the

integrity of the theological understanding of the Qurªan. The philological tools perfectedby Arabic grammarians were used freely in analyzing poetry, especially pre-Islamic poetry,

since no religious constraints were at work.19 Pre-Islamic poetry was by definition a heathen

corpus in which one expected to come across impieties, and religious scruples were hardly

an issue in interpreting this body of literature. Philology was thus the sole and undisputed

method for interpreting poetry. Using philology to interpret the Qurªan, and the pretence by

Sunni exegetes that Qurªanic exegesis was primarily a philological enterprise, brought newproblems for the exegetical tradition. Philology, though its initial impetus lay in the attempt

to understand the Qurªan, grew to become an independent discipline that would pose gravedanger to Sunni hermeneutics.20 There could not be two philological methods, one for

poetry and one for the Qurªan, and scholars trained in philology were keenly aware of thisproblem.21

Muslim exegetes reacted to the rise of philology as an independent discipline by positing

two axioms about the Qurªan. The first was to claim that theological and pietistic interpre-tations could be defended by philology, and that therefore philology was on the side of a

Sunni understanding of the Qurªan. The second was to posit a miraculous linguistic elementin the Qurªan—its iºja z, its inimitability—as its characteristic feature. So viewed, the Qurªanwas a classic like the pre-Islamic poetry of the philologists. We must see these commentators

16. See Formation, 1–22.

17. See Abu ºAbd Allah al-Zarkashi, al-Burhan f i ºulum al-Qurªan, ed. Muhammad Abu al-Fa dl Ibrahim

(Beirut: Dar al-Maºrifah, 1972), 1: 13.18. See Formation, 295–321.

19. For example, al-Wahidi states, regarding the irrelevance of religious sentiments to the philological reading of a line of verse, that “opinions and doctrinal beliefs do not diminish the excellence of poetry” ( Mutanabii Carmina

cum commentario Wahidii [Shar h Di wan al-Mutanabbi ], ed. F. Dieterici, Berlin: 1861), 331.

20. On the origins and rise of the Arabic philological tradition see C. H. M. Versteegh, Arabic Grammar and

Quranic Exegesis in Early Islam (Leiden: Brill, 1993).21. See Formation, 130–40.


5/22


as actively seeking to replace the corpus of classicism in the emerging culture with their own

corpus, the Qurªan. The Qurªan was Sunni when read using philology, and of equal signif-icance, the Qurªan was as profoundly sublime as any of the pre-Islamic poetry, if not more so.Eventually, the Qurªan would come to replace Jahili poetry as a mine for linguistic exemplars

in the Arabic grammar handbooks. The doctrine of the Qurªan’s inimitability would win theday, insofar as no Muslim sect would challenge this doctrine, despite the muffled complaints

of some intellectuals.

The first part of this compromise, whereby philology was seen as the handmaid of

Sunnism, would come under continuous strain, almost from the moment it was conceived,

until it was eventually called into question by the time of Ibn Taym iyah. Al-Wahidi was oneof the few medieval exegetes who attempted to salvage the integrity of the Sunni herme-

neutical enterprise by siding with philology and dropping the pretence that a Sunni reading

can consistently withstand the probing of philology. This was no doubt a bitter cup to

drink, and all indications point to al-Wahidi’s continuous intellectual crisis, as shown by hisrepeated publications in tafsi r . His was a life spent writing commentaries, in which herme-

neutics was the promised gate to salvation.

Another important factor that tafsi r had to deal with was the rise of kalam theology as

an independent discipline and its integration into Sunnism as a component of its para-

digm.22 Tafsi r responded to this trend by incorporating kalam elements and explicitly makingtheology a pronounced component of the genre. It is not that tafsi r was not theological—

it was primarily theological—but scholastic theology, with defined terms and concepts,

began to make inroads into tafsi r . The trend was started by al-Thaºlabi, who attacked boththe Muºtazilites and the Shiºites; al-Wahidi would see to it that theology became an essentialpart of his al-Basi t , and would eventually be at the heart of al-Razi’s commentary.

Al-Basi t , al-Wahidi’s major work, came at a crucial moment in the history of Qurªanic

exegesis. Sunnism, and to some extent Ashºarism as well, flourished as the Saljuqs gainedmomentum and Sunni scholars became more daring. Conceived when al-Wahidi was stillyoung, impetuous, and resolute, al-Basi t attempted to give the philological method as free

a rein as possible. Coming to exegesis from classical Arabic philology, al-Wahidi seems tohave been surprised by the amateurish approach of many exegetes before him. He proceeded

to function under the presumption that philology supports a Sunni reading of the Qurªanwhich should not be undermined by allowing it to mingle with non-philological readings.

There was an unprecedented resolve in al-Wahidi’s attempt to discard what were, to him,unfounded methods of understanding the Qurªan; but his approach was eventually modified,as he seems to have decided that if the Sunni inherited traditions as to what the Qurªan meanscould not be jettisoned en masse, they could nevertheless be evaluated, and philology would

be the judge. Al-Basi t is in this sense a peculiar text, since in order to appreciate its signif-icance fully one has to delve into the biography of its author and understand his intellectual

background and training, and his intention. Moreover, one has to place this text in the history

of Qurªanic exegesis in order to gauge its importance. And since al-Basi t is at variance withal-Wahidi’s later approach to the Qurªan, it must be understood in light of his other exegeticalworks. Eventually al-Wahidi saw his three commentaries as constituting a whole, which hadnot been his intent when he first embarked on the project.

22. For a theologian contemporary with al-Wahidi, Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni, see Tilman Nagel, Die

Festung des Glaubens: Triumph und Scheitern des islamischen Rationalismus im 11. Jahrhundert (Munich: C. H.Beck, 1988).


6/22


iii. al-wAHidI’s biography

A. Modern Biographies

There is no dearth of biographies of al-Wahidi by modern Muslim scholars; three of his

edited works are each supplied with a biography, though with a tendency to rely on that byal-Sayyid Ahmad Saqr in his introduction to Asbab nuzul al-Qurªan.23 The latest is thatof Dawudi, the editor of al-Waji z.24 We are also fortunate to have a detailed biography anda study of al-Wahidi’s hermeneutical approach by Jawdat al-Mahdi (see n. 10). However,both these modern biographies and al-Mahdi’s study suffer from a lack of historical perspec-tive and a refusal to admit to development in al-Wahidi’s career.

In European languages we have Brockelmann’s succinct entry,25 a more extensive

biography by Claude Gilliot, 26 and a sketch in an article by Asma Afsaruddin. 27 These

biographies do not go beyond reporting what is available in the medieval biographical

dictionaries, and their purpose is not analytical. Unfortunately, none of the scholars working

in Europe or the United States seem to have taken note of the work of their counterparts inthe Arab world. This is clear from Rudolph Sellheim’s entry for al-Wahidi in the secondedition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam ( EI 2), which has factual mistakes that could have beenavoided had he gone through the modern Arabic biographies and studies or, for that matter,

taken the medieval biographical dictionaries at their own word. And although one might

differ with the analyses in the modern Arabic sources, their authors have still collected all

references as to the whereabouts of the manuscripts, have edited all but one of al-Wahidi’sworks, and have neglected no tidbit of information about al-Wahidi in any medieval bio-graphical source. This is not the place to discuss the relationship (or absence thereof )

between Arabic scholars and their counterparts in Europe and North America; but tafsi r studies will remain heavily dependent on the work of these scholars, who are editing and

making available this massive literature. Inattention to their work results inevitably in plow-ing the same ground.

Little is gained from a biography of al-Wahidi that does not situate him in his intellectualenvironment. More important is to chart the intellectual development of his career, which

can be reconstructed because of our ability to date his works. I will outline here the most

important aspects of al-Wahidi’s life, give a list of his extant works and a chronology of their publication by the author, and discuss their relationship with one another. In so doing

I will offer a preliminary assessment of the significance of his works to the history of

Qurªanic exegesis.

B. SourcesThere are three sources for reconstructing al-Wahidi’s life. Two are independent accounts

by fellow scholars who knew him well. The first by ºAli ibn al-Hasan al-Bakharzi (d. 467/ 1075), has survived in the abridged recension of his biographical dictionary.28 The second

23. Asbab, introduction, 5–38.

24. Al-Waji z, 11–67.

25. K. Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Literatur (GAL) (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1943), 1: 411–12, Supp.

1: 730–31.

26. Gilliot, “Texte arabes,” 183–87.

27. Asma Afsaruddin, “Constructing Narratives of Monition and Guile: The Politics of Interpretation,” Arabica

48 (2001): 329–31.

28. ºAli b. al-Hasan al-Bakharzi, Dumyat al-qasr wa-ªusrat ahl al-ºasr , ed. Muhammad al-Tunji (Beirut: Daral-Jil, 1971?–75), 2: 1017–20.


7/22


is by one of al-Wahidi’s students, ºAbd al-Ghafir al-Farisi (d. 539/1135), which survives intwo versions. Yaqut al-Hamawi has preserved the longer version, which has a list of al-Wahidi’s works compiled by al-Farisi not found in the abridged printed edition.29 The thirdand most important source is al-Wahidi’s own account of his educational history, an in-

tellectual autobiography that is part of his long introduction to al-Basi t .30

Parts of thisautobiography were reproduced by Yaqut in his entry on al-Wahidi.31 Later biographicaldictionaries have interesting information to add to these sources, such as al-Yafiºi’s mentionof al-Ghazali’s story; I will refer to this information while reconstructing al-Wahidi’s life.

We are fortunate that al-Wahidi was in the habit of writing colophons to his works, whichgive us the dates of their publication. To my knowledge, three of these original colophons

have survived. The first (never mentioned in the sources) I came across while collecting

manuscripts of al-Basi t ;32 the second is in a copy of Shar h Di wan al-Mutanabbi preserved

in al-Mawsil in Iraq;33 the third belongs to al-Wasi t and appears in the new edition.34 Thesecolophons, along with internal evidence from al-Wahidi’s remaining works, allow us to chartthe chronology of these works and give us a rare opportunity to follow the development of

his career and offer an account of his intellectual growth.

C. Al-W ahid i ’s Life

One is first struck by al-Wahidi’s early maturation. If we trust the dates given by medievalbiographers, he must have started his educational and academic career early in his life. Most

sources agree that he died in Jumada II 468/January-February 1076, when he was in hisseventies. If we assume he died when he was 75, then he was born around 393/1003.

His prosody teacher, Ahmad b. Muhammad b. ºAbd Allah b. Yusuf al-ºArudi, died after

29. The abridged version is available in ºAbd al-Ghafir al-Farisi, al-Muntakhab min al-Siyaq, ed. Muhammad

ºAbd al-ºAziz (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-ºIlmiyah, 1989), 387. For the longer (and original) version see Yaqut, Muºjam

al-udabaª, 12: 258–60.

30. I have used the Nuruosmaniye manuscript of al-Basi t (tafsi r 236, ff 1–7), as the basis for this study; I have

also consulted the Dar al-Kutub manuscript (tafsi r 53: 1), and the al-Azhar manuscript (Riwaq al-Magharibah 303:

1 ff 1–4).

31. Yaqut, Muºjam al-udabaª, 12: 257–70; for al-Wahidi’s autobiography see 262–70. Yaqut’s version is not a

complete quotation of al-Basi t ’s long introduction.

32. Three copies of the last volume of al-Basi t have so far been located; all preserve the author’s original col-

ophon. The style of the colophon is highly literary, which ensured that it was copied by the scribes. This colophon

is highly literary, which ensured that it was copied by the scribes. This colophon should be viewed as a continuation

of the introduction, since it elaborates on how al-Wahidi composed the work; any study of al-Basi t must take thiscolophon into consideration.

33. It was Dawudi who drew my attention to the catalogue of the collection in al-Maw sil in his introduction to

al-Waji z (1: 35). See also Fihris makh t u t at Maktabat al-Awqa f al-º Ammah f i al-Mawsil (Baghdad: Wizarat al-Awqaf, 1982), 1: 124. The whole of the colophon was transcribed by Ha jji Khalifah (Kashf al- zunun, Istanbul:

Wik alat al-Maºarif, 1941, 1: 811). Dieterici’s edition lacks the colophon. I have meanwhile received a photocopy of the last folio of Chester Beatty Ar. 3278 (a copy of al-Wahidi’s Shar h) which does contain the colophon (fol. 263).

We thus have at least one manuscript with the original colophon. I am grateful to the Chester Beatty Library for

sending me the photocopy on short notice.

34. See al-Wasi t , 4: 576. The manuscript containing this colophon is housed at the Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyah(for a description see ibid., 1: 38). The colophon’s veracity is supported by the Berlin manuscript (Spr. 415), which

reports the same date, which appears not in a colophon but on the title page (fol. 1) as a paraphrase of the colophon.

Spr. 415 is perhaps the most important of al-Wasi t ’s preserved manuscripts. For a description see W. Ahlwardt,

Verzeichniss der arabischen Handschriften der königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin (Berlin: A. W. Schade, 1887), 1:298–99. I am grateful to the authorities at the Staatsbibliothek in Berlin for allowing me to inspect this volume.


8/22


416/1025, when al-Wahidi was around 23;35 his famous teacher al-Thaºlabi died in 427/1035,when al-Wahidi was around 34. His apprenticeship with al-Thaºlabi marks the end of hisstudent life. Soon afterwards he began working on al-Basi t ; in his introduction to that work he makes clear that he began writing it early in his life and after al-Thaºlabi’s death.36 In his

colophon to al-Basi t he states that he finished the work on 20 Rabiº I 446/29 June 1054;37

the work thus took almost two decades to complete.

Such was the impatience of his contemporaries for a publication on tafsi r that he

was forced to write al-Waji z before finishing al-Basi t , as the introduction to this work makes clear.38 Between 446/1054, the year al-Basi t was finished, and 462/1070, the year

he finished his commentary on al-Mutanabbi, al-Wahidi finalized al-Wasi t , whose colophonshows that it was completed in mid-Rajab 461/April-May 1069 (see n. 35). The intro-

duction to his last work, Asbab nuzul al-Qurªan, refers to his three Qurªan commentaries asfinished products. One cannot speak of a single period in al-Wahidi’s life that was moreproductive than another; he produced two of his most important works at different periods,

and was active throughout his life.

Al-Bakharzi’s Dumyat al-qasr , a collection of biographies of poets of the 5th/11th centurywhich includes excerpts from their poetry, has, as far as I know, no entries for exegetes apart

from that for al-Wahidi. The inclusion of al-Wahidi in a biographical dictionary on poets isan indication of his high standing. Al-Bakharzi, a Nishapuri and a friend of al-Wahidi, hasleft us a poignant reflection on his friend’s career and aspirations, in which he comes across

as a poet manqué who realized he had the faculty to appreciate great poetry but was himself

not gifted as a poet. Al-Bakharzi informs us that al-Wahidi refused to publish his poetry,and that what he himself was able to quote were pieces recited in public when the author was

still young and, one would suspect, still hoping that the muse of poetry would one day oblige.

It is a testament to al-Wahidi’s literary taste that he spared himself the indignity of trying to

be a poet, since what survives of his poetry is painfully mediocre.Al-Bakharzi is the first to hint that al-Wahidi was an unhappy man who suffered from a

sense of alienation and isolation from his contemporaries. This assessment is supported by

the rather dark tone of al-Wahidi’s introductions to his works. There he typically assesses hisage, measures its corruption, laments the decline of knowledge, and upbraids his contem-

poraries for their banality. These topoi, although admittedly formulaic, should nevertheless be

taken as reflecting al-Wahidi’s state of mind. His contemporaries were quick to complain thathe was only too happy to denigrate other scholars, and in his introductions he showered

disdain on everyone. Indeed, in the introduction to al-Waji z al-Wahidi is openly contemp-tuous of, and rude to, his contemporaries en masse. It is easy to see why he felt an affinityfor the self-aggrandizing poet al-Mutanabbi. One is left with the impression that apart fromwriting al-Basi t and Shar h Di wan al-Mutanabbi , his two major works, he was forced towrite the others for less serious reasons: either to satisfy a mediocre audience, to put an end

35. On this scholar see al-Farisi, al-Muntakhab, 186; see also al-Dhahabi, Siyar , 17: 389. For an exhaustive list

of al-Wahidi’s teachers (shuyukh) see Dawudi’s introduction to al-Waji z, 13–18.36. Al-Basi t , Nuruosmaniye, tafsi r 236, fol. 6a.

37. Al-Basi t , al-Azhar, Riwaq al-Magharibah 303/5, fol. 209b.38. Sellheim (like Ahlwardt before him), in his entry on al-Wahidi in EI 2, states that al-Wahidi began al-Waji z

in 409/1018. This is impossible. Ahlwardt deduced this information from the dating of an isnad by al-Wahidi at thebeginning of al-Waji z (see 86); that al-Wahidi wrote down a prophetic tradition in 409/1018 does not mean that he

was writing his book at that time. Moreover, he would have been around 16, which means that he would have begunal-Basi t at an even earlier age.


9/22


to shoddy scholarship, to try to mitigate the unease of his conscience regarding his herme-

neutical position, or to ward off accusations of rebelliousness from his contemporaries.

D. Philology and al-W ahid i ’s Intellectual Formation

Few medieval scholars have left us as much information about their intellectual formationas has al-Wahidi. His introduction to al-Basi t charts the detailed history of his education,39

first in grammar, literature and prosody, and lexicography, i.e., the sum of the Arabic philo-

logical tradition as perfected by the 5th/11th century. He spent his formative years with

grammarians and rhetoricians, read most of the diwans of the Arabic poets, studied the dic-tionary of al-Azhari (d. 370/980), and left no major work of poetry unread. The influenceof his prosody teacher, Ahmad b. Muhammad b. ºAbd Allah al-ºArudi (d. after 416/1025), onal-Wahidi’s career is evident. As late as 462/1070, some four decades after al-ºArudi’s death,al-Wahidi was still using the notes taken in classes with this teacher in his commentary on al-Mutanabbi’s poetry.40 Al-ºArudi was a major influence on this commentary; and it was he

who pushed al-Wah

idi to studytafsi r

with al-Thaºlabi.Al-Wahidi also informs us that he read all the works of the major grammarians with theoutstanding teachers of his age. His pedigree in the philological sciences ensured him an

entry in the most illustrious of medieval biographical dictionaries devoted to grammarians,

Ibn al-Qif ti’s (d. 646/1248) Inbah al-ruwat .41 From what al-Wahidi tells us, his grammarteacher, Abu al-Hasan ºAli b. Muhammad al-Quhunduzi, took exceptional care in his edu-cation and was very fond of him. 42 Al-Wahidi suggests that this teacher recognized in himthe greatness to come.43 It is in relation to al-Quhunduzi that al-Wahidi mentions the word“happiness,” an indication of the degree of his fondness for and personal attachment to this

teacher.

Al-Wahidi also studied with itinerant scholars who passed through Nishapur, such as the

grammarian Abu al-Hasan ºUmran b. Musa al-Maghribi (d. 430/1038), who hailed from thewestern Islamic world.44 He also studied variant Qurªanic readings with the leading scholarsof the age.45 He traveled through the eastern Iranian provinces in search of had i th knowl-

edge. This can be confirmed from the isnad s (chains of transmission) to many of the tra-ditions cited in his works, in which he habitually mentions the year and the locale where he

heard a certain tradition; they thus provide an invaluable source for reconstructing his travels.

In his introduction to al-Basi t , al-Wahidi claims that the years he spent studying literature,poetry, grammar, language, and prosody were all in preparation for his study of tafsi r , and

not (apparently) for a career in poetry. I see al-Wahidi’s turn to exegesis as the result of hisrealization that he was not going to be the poet he aspired to be. But there is no denying

that the study of philology shaped him intellectually. In this he is rather exceptional amongmedieval exegetes, since he entered into the study of tafsi r after being formed by philology.This is perhaps the most important aspect of his intellectual formation; it also explains his

initial distance from the exegetical tradition, which can easily be detected in al-Basi t .

39. I have used my own edition of this introduction (see n. 30).

40. See Mutanabbii Carmina, 825, for an example.

41. Ibn al-Qifti, Inbah, 2: 223–25.

42. For detailed references on al-Quhunduzi see al-Mahdi, al-W ahidi, 67; al-Waji z, 13.43. Al-Basi t , Nuruosmaniye, tafsi r 236, fol. 5b.

44. Al-Mahdi, al-W ahid i , 67.45. On al-Wahidi’s Qurªan teachers see ibid., 67–68.


10/22


From the introduction to al-Basi t we can determine that al-Wahidi spent the years fromaround 416/1024 to 427/1035 studying exclusively with al-Thaºlabi,46 with whom he read allthe literature of tafsi r as well as his teacher’s own works. He thus had a formidable prepa-ration encompassing both Arabic literary and philological works as well as tafsi r . Yet he did

not follow in the footsteps of his teacher al-Thaºlabi, whose encyclopedic approach, whichinsured that tafsi r became an integrative discipline that refused to admit contradictions aboutthe different Sunni hermeneutical traditions (philological, pietistic, narrative, mystical, etc.),

was rejected by his student.47 Instead, each of al-Wahidi’s commentaries attempted to solvethe problem of Sunni hermeneutics from a different angle.

It is important to emphasize that al-Wahidi saw his preparation in philology as givinghim an advantage over many, if not all, earlier exegetes. The introduction to al-Basi t makesclear that he believed that grammar and literature were the foundation and the sine qua non

of exegesis;48 and insofar as they had not been used by previous exegetes, the works of the

latter were lacking. Indeed, he claims that the early layer of tafsi r was itself in many waysin need of explication, so as to make clear in what sense it was an explanation of the Qurªan.Moreover, al-Wahidi is impatient with non-philological interpretations and decides neither tocite them nor to refute them, insofar as they are neither defensible by philology nor, indeed,

possible.49 Thus, unlike al-Thaºlabi, who sought to draw on the collective Sunni tradition towrite his Qurªan commentary, using in the process at least a hundred works, 50 al-Wahidiclaims that the works of his predecessors were only an approximation of what the Qurª ansaid and not a true explanation.

The references in biographical dictionaries to a sharp-tongued al-Wahidi eager to attack and ridicule earlier authorities reinforce my reading of him as a dissatisfied author who felt

alienated from his environment. Al-Farisi, in the longer version of his biography quoted byYaqut, said that al-Wahidi deserved all respect and honor and more, if only he had not been

readily “willing to ridicule and despise, sometimes all too subtly, the venerable precedinggenerations of scholars, and to unleash his tongue against people who deserve better; may

God forgive him and them.”51 Al-Dhahabi gives an example of this tendency to defame; hequotes al-Wahidi as saying: “Abu ºAbd al-Ra hman al-Sulami [d. 412/1021?] wrote H aqaªiqal-tafsi r ; and should he claim that this book is a commentary on the Qurªan, then he is anunbeliever.”52 H aqaªiq al-tafsi r , one of the most famous mystical Qurªan commentaries, wasboth ridiculed and rejected by al-Wahidi. This attack must have been proclaimed in one of his public lectures, for no record of it exists in his works; but there is no reason to doubt

its veracity. Al-Wahidi, the champion of the philological approach to the Qurªan, was hardpressed to accept the traditional Sunni exegetical tradition, let alone the mystical approach.

Al-Dhahabi would exonerate al-Wahidi, seeing no harm in so just an assessment against al-Sulami; however, al-Wahidi’s scathing remarks were apparently not enough to ingratiate himwith Ibn Taymiyah (see above and n. 8).

46. Al-Basi t , Nuruosmaniye, tafsi r 236, fol. 6a.

47. For the encyclopedic approach see Formation, 14–23.

48. Al-Basi t , Nuruosmaniye, tafsi r 236, fol. 2b.

49. Ibid., fol. 4b–5a. See my forthcoming edition and translation of the introduction to al-Basi t for more details

on al-Wahidi’s views on tafsi r as presented in this commentary.50. On al-Thaºlabi’s sources see Formation, 67–76.

51. Yaqut, Muºjam al-udabaª, 12: 260.52. Al-Dhahabi, Siyar , 18: 342. The same story is told by al-Subk i, if slightly differently; there it is clear that

al-Wahidi’s statement was made in an oral communication, a public lecture of some sort (al-Subk i, T abaqat al-Sha fiº i yah al-kubr a, ed. ºAbd al-Fattah al-Hilw, Cairo: Ma tbaºat al-Babi al-Halabi, 1966, 5: 241).


11/22


12/22


of manuscript collections or, for that matter, on the title pages of manuscripts without in-

specting the works themselves and comparing them to other confirmed works, has increased

this confusion. Since I do not want to enter into lengthy arguments as to why certain non-

existent works could not have been written by al-Wahidi, here I will discuss only those

works that have survived in manuscripts and are attested by the tradition, whether in bio-graphical dictionaries or as citations in other works, and which can be conclusively dem-

onstrated to have been authored by al-Wahidi.Before turning to that task, however, I shall investigate the claims of some modern Arab

biographers attributing certain works to al-Wahidi that have been published or are avail-able in manuscript collections. After examining the short epistle F i sharaf al-tafsi r (On the Nobility of Exegesis) that survives in a unicum, it is clear to me that it is not by al-Wahidi.The attribution was the result of a mistake by one of the owners of the manuscript, which

contains more than one work; the owner listed the manuscript’s contents on the cover page,

and states that one of the epistles was by al-Wahidi. He must have been misguided by the factthat the epistle is anonymous and begins with the phrase “al-Wahidi said.” The manuscriptis now housed in Cairo, Dar al-Kutub; on the cover page there is the note: “ Risalah f i sharaf al-tafsi r li-al-W ahid i .”60

On inspection of a microfilm copy of the manuscript, and on reading the epistle, it

becomes clear that the latter is directed against al-Wahidi’s position as to the best way tointerpret the Qurªan, as expressed in his introductions to al-Wasi t and Asbab nuzul al-Qurªan in which he claims that the only way to interpret the Qurªan is through received tra-ditions.61 The epistle is a fascinating document which shows that medieval scholars were

aware of the contradictions between al-Wahidi’s statements in this conservative introductionand in the introductions of his two earlier works. Whoever wrote this epistle was a well-

read scholar, for he was quick to ridicule al-Wahidi’s position in his later works by showing

the impossibility of maintaining it while writing Qurªanic commentary. The incorrect infor-mation on the title page of this manuscript found its way into the first catalogue of Daral-Kutub, where it was noted by Jawdat al-Mahdi, the first modern scholar to mention thisepistle,62 and from there it crept into all the other Arabic biographies of al-Wahidi.

Al-Wasi t f i al-amthal, edited by ºAf if ºAbd al-Ra hman, has been shown by Dawudi andSellheim not to be by al-Wahidi.63 Rama dan Sesen’s claim that the Kit ab al-magha zi , a raremanuscript in Istanbul, is by al-Wahidi is impossible to verify, since neither does the manu-script contain this attribution nor does Veven offer internal evidence to support his claim.64

The only other works that might be by al-Wahidi are two short epistles housed in al-Maktabah al-Khalidiyah in Jerusalem, which I have been unable to inspect.65

60. Dar al-Kutub. Majamiº Mustaf a 220, fol. 213a–b. See also Fahrasat al-kutub al-ºArabi yah al-mah f u zahbi-al-Kutubkhanah al-Khidaywi yah al-Misr i yah (Cairo: 1308/1890–91), 7/2: 693, and see also 707.

61. The anonymous author of this epistle took issue with al-Wahidi’s statement that “among the nobilities andglories of this science is that it does not allow argument by reason, opinion, or contemplation, without giving heed

those who bear witness to revelation through narration and transmission.” See al-Wahidi’s introduction to al-Wasi t ,1: 47.

62. Al-Mahdi, al-W ahid i , 95 (in his reference to the ms. number he dropped “Mustaf a”).63. See Dawudi’s introduction to al-Waji z, 1: 37–38. Sellheim offered his refutation in “Eine unbeachtet

gebliebene Sprichwörtersammlung,” Oriens 31 (1988): 91.

64. See R. Veven, Nawadir al-makh t u t at f i maktabat Turk i ya, 3 vols. (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-Jadidah, 1975),

3: 75.65. See Dawudi’s introduction to al-Waji z, 1: 33–34.


13/22


A. Al-Wahid i ’s Extant Works

Both the available manuscripts and the biographical dictionaries, whether in entries on al-

Wahidi or on later scholars who read and studied his works, are unanimous in mentioningonly three Qurªan commentaries: al-Basi t , al-Wasi t , and al-Waji z. That these have survived

testifies to the high regard in which they were held. Adding to these the Asbab nuzul al-Qurªan and the Shar h Di wan al-Mutanabbi , there are only five surviving works that candefinitely be ascribed to al-Wahidi. Readers interested in his lost works may consult any of the introductions to the printed editions.66

Al-Wahidi has left us a categorization for his output in tafsi r that explains his understand-ing of the genre and the reason why he wrote three different compilations. The paragraph,

a mere 47 words, is, despite its deceptively simple language, not readily comprehensible;

and has generated some confusion. I will offer my understanding of this paragraph, which

is part of the introduction to al-Wasi t , and was thus written with the confidence of hindsight

and, one might add, with the intention to justify his scholarly output.67 Here al-Wahidi states

that he has divided and collected the exegetical material into three groups (majmu

º a

t ): first,that based on philological understanding, or what he calls “meanings” (maº ani al-tafsi r );second, material inherited from the early generations or which has come to be accepted

because it is based on had i th methodology (musnad al-tafsi r ); and third, paraphrastic or

abridged material (mukhtasar al-tafsi r ). These are to be understood as three different methodsof exegesis, the result of three different hermeneutical approaches, and not, as Ahlwardt and

the modern Arab editors took them, as titles of lost exegetical works.68 The majmuº at (col-lections) are files which contain his notes on tafsi r and are quite apart from his books; theyare, of course, not available.69 There is a correspondence between these categories and his

books: al-Basi t is for maº ani , al-Waji z for abridged material, and al-Wasi t for musnad material. It is testimony to the medieval scribal tradition and its encyclopedic knowledge that

it gave al-Basi t the title J amiº [or Jamiº] al-maº ani , an epithet inspired by this paragraph.What al-Wahidi does not tell his readers is that at a certain moment in his life, when he

was young and less inhibited, he had refused to include inherited material (musnad al-tafsi r )

66. The earliest and most comprehensive list of al-Wahidi’s works was compiled by his student al-Farisi and ispreserved by Yaqut. Ten works are given there: (1) al-Waji z, (2) al-Wasi t , (3) al-Basi t (all Qurªan commentaries, we

are told), (4) Asbab al-nuzul, (5) al-Daºawat wa-al-mahsul, (6) al-Magha zi , (7) Shar h al-Mutanabbi , (8) al-Ighr ab

f i al-iºr ab wa-al-nahw, (9) Tafsi r al-nabi , (10) Nafy al-tahr i f ºan al-Qurªan al-shar i f ( Muºjam al-udabaª, 12: 259).

Ibn Qadi Shuhbah gives the title of number 9 as Tafsi r asmaª al-nabi , T abaqat al-Sha fiº i yay, ed. ºAli ºUmar (Cairo:Maktabat al-Thaqafah al-Diniyah, 1990), 1: 239, as does Ibn Khallik an (Wafayat , 3: 303). Since the earliest list does

not group number 9 with the three commentaries I am inclined to take the title as given by Ibn Qadi Shuhbah as themost likely.

67. The paragraph states: “Before (writing) this book—with God’s aid and help—I had compiled three com-

pendia [majmuº at ] on this science [exegesis]: the meanings of tafsir [maº ani al-tafsi r ], inherited materials [musnad

al-tafsi r ], and paraphrastic materials [mukhtasar al-tafsi r ]. Earlier I had been asked to compose a medium-sized

[wasi t ] commentary, smaller than al-Basi t (which is an extensive discourse) but more detailed than al-Waji z, whose

discourse is extremely brief.” Al-Wasi t , 1: 50; emended according to al-Zaf iti’s edition, 1: 6 (text).

68. Ahlwardt, Verzeichniss, 1: 299, a mistake copied by Sellheim. Editors in the Arab world take the categori-

zation as referring to actual titles of exegetical works, and therefore claim that al-Wahidi wrote three works with

the titles “ Maº ani al-tafsi r ,” “ Musnad al-tafsi r ,” and “ Mukhtasar al-tafsi r .” The first to introduce this confusion was

Saqr, in his introduction to Asbab, 18. Al-Mahdi also understood these terms as titles; see al-W ahid i , 92.

69. Those who insist on reading this paragraph as al-Wahidi’s reference to published works must explain whynone of these works has survived, why no medieval author mentioned any of them, and why they are not part of the

book list his student al-Farisi furnished. There is no shred of evidence for the existence of any other commentarybesides the three that we have.


14/22


in his published writings if it did not withstand the tests of philology. Thus this paragraph

must be understood as an attempt to rectify his earlier decision to neglect a certain part of

the exegetical material, and to claim that his intention was always to produce three types of

works reflecting three types of exegesis. Al-Wahidi is thus trying to understand and to har-

monize his own intellectual career for both himself and his readers. He no longer claims thatunsound interpretations of the Qurªan are to be rejected as belonging to a different order of interpretation, nor as corrupt statements (al-aqwal al-f asidah) and “base” interpretations (al-tafsi r al-mardhul ).70 The impatience of al-Wahidi’s youth is all but gone. One must thenacknowledge that the current assessment of al-Wahidi by modern Muslim scholars, whouse his later production to assess his whole career, is not their own invention so much as

al-Wahidi’s self-assessment at the end of his career. A reader of al-Wasi t or Asbab nuzulal-Qurªan would hardly suspect that the author of these highly conservative works also

wrote a scathing critique of non-philological readings.

Having examined al-Wahidi’s own characterization of his intellectual output, I shall nowgive a preliminary assessment of his extant works.

1. Al-Basi t (The Large Commentary). This is al-Wahidi’s magnum opus and a master-piece of the Islamic exegetical tradition. Begun soon after 427/1035, it was finished nineteen

years later, as its colophon indicates (contrary to Sellheim’s speculation that it was not

completed; cf. n. 39). I have collected three different copies of the last volume of this work

which include transcriptions of the original colophon. Another complete copy, Nuruosmaniye

nos. 236–240, written by a single scribe, consists of five large volumes of around 1700 folios.

(This copy was discovered by Shihab Ahmad of Harvard University.) Likewise, al-Azhar’s

copy was originally in five volumes, but is now missing the second volume. Medieval bio-

graphical dictionaries speak of a sixteen-volume division of the work. 71 The only copy to

reflect this division is the Sanºa copy; unfortunately only three volumes of this magnificentcopy survive.72 Volumes of this commentary are also available in the libraries of Cairo,

Basra, Damascus, Dublin, Istanbul, Rampur, and Rome.

Al-Wahidi’s introduction to al-Basi t , and his colophon, are important documents both fortheir elucidation of his early hermeneutical approach and for the information they give about

his life and education. Al-Basi t represents the first attempt in tafsi r to overcome the crisisfacing Qurªanic exegesis by charting a more thorough philological reading; it is the first ex-plicit refusal of the mainstream solution, the encyclopedic approach pioneered by al-Tabariand perfected and popularized by al-Thaºlabi. Another aim is to give a consistently Ashºaritereading of the Qurªan’s theology against the Muºtazilite interpretation, a major goal of theNishapuri school. Al-Razi’s kalamization (for want of a better word) of tafsi r was a directcontinuation of what al-Thaºlabi and al-Wahidi pioneered.

70. Al-Basi t , Nuruosmaniye, tafsi r 236, f. 7b.

71. Ibn Qadi Shuhbah, T abaqat al-Sha fiº i yah, 1: 239. Brockelmann (GAS , 1: 412) states that the work was in 17volumes; the only possible source of this information is the wrongly attributed manuscript in Caetani’s collection

(Caet. Ms. 78b), which is not an al-Basi t volume as the catalogue claims. The cataloguer was misguided by the title

given for this manuscript, which is not correct, nor is it the original title of the volume. On inspecting the manuscript

it became clear that it belongs to a later work, as the author quotes extensively from al-Zamakhshari (d. 538/1144).The colophon of this manuscript (which neither mentions that it is by al-Wahidi nor gives the title) states that the

next volume is the seventeenth and last. Brockelmann inspected the manuscript and took the attribution at face value.

For a brief description of the manuscript, see G. Gabrieli, La Fondazione Caetani per gli studi Musulmani (Rome:

Accadmia dei Lincei, 1926), 38, no. 78b.72. Two are housed in Yemen (Sanaa manuscripts, Maktabat al-Jamiº al-Kabir, tafsi r nos. 51, 54), while the

third is in Rome (Caet. ms. 78a).

One Line Long


15/22


Jawdat al-Mahdi is the only modern scholar to study al-Basi t as part of his generalanalysis of al-Wahidi’s hermeneutics. However, he misses the significance of this work by refusing to see its radical position vis-à-vis the previous exegetical tradition. Al-Mahdipresents a synchronic analysis of al-Wahidi’s literary corpus without admitting or enter-

taining the idea that this output might have been contradictory and occasioned by differentconcerns at different times in the author’s life (although he was the first to offer an inter-

pretation of al-Wahidi’s career). Al-Wahidi is presented as the perfect Sunni commentatorwho followed the paradigm of Ibn Taymiyah even before Ibn Taymiyah! He overlooks oromits the crucial paragraph in al-Wahidi’s introduction;73 while quoting it in full, he neverhints at al-Wahidi’s attack on non-philological interpretations.74

I have been collecting copies of manuscripts of al-Basi t in preparation for a criticaledition, in the hope that this will help to elucidate the history of the medieval exegetical

tradition. It is an immense work and is difficult to characterize fully; more time is needed

to describe its inner workings. Since it took almost two decades to complete, the question of

inner development must be addressed, especially in view of al-Wahidi’s constant intellectualstruggle regarding the best method of exegesis.

2. Al-Wasi t (The Middle Commentary). Conceived sometime during the writing of al- Basi t , this work represents al-Wahidi’s return to the fold of the classical method and itscatholic hermeneutical approach to the Qurªan which his master al-Thaºlabi had perfected.The material rejected from al-Basi t forms the center of this work. The first reference toal-Wasi t that I have found comes at the end of al-Basi t ,75 where al-Wahidi refers the readerto another Qurªan commentary containing material omitted from the current work; thussometime before finishing al-Basi t , al-Wahidi must have begun work on al-Wasi t , collectingmaterial that did not make it into al-Basi t because it was deemed non-philological. Al-Wasi t

is thus a compilation of reconciliation. The title itself can be read as a pun, both as the“middle” and the “go-between.” Yet one can argue that the reconciliation is half-hearted, or

at least a botched attempt to correct a previous position; al-Wahidi simply relegated musnad material to this work, and thus made clear what he had left out of al-Basi t . His refusal tofollow the encyclopedic approach is itself a statement; his separation of different ways of

doing tafsi r in different works undermined the encyclopedic solution that the Sunni tra-dition—particularly the practice of his teacher al-Thaºlabi—devised to save the coherency of the meaning of the Qurªan.

Al-Wasi t enjoyed widespread popularity among the medieval scholarly community. Inless than two hundred years the manuscripts of this work had become so multiplied (and so

corrupted) that one scholar, Ismaºil b. Muhammad al-Ha drami (d. 677/1278), undertook tocorrect the copyists’ mistakes in their transmission of the work. He wrote a sort of critical

apparatus in the form of a book,76 an honor not usually accorded to tafsi r works. (For recent

critical editions of al-Wasi t , see n. 12; the introduction and the interpretation of Sura 1 have

73. Al-Basi t , Nuruosmaniye, tafsi r 236, fol. 7b line 11.

74. Al-Mahdi quotes the introduction to al-Basit in al-W ahid i , 70–72, 76, 209–10, 252–54.

75. Al-Wa hidi refers the reader to a “lengthy story” about the people mentioned in Sura 85 in his “musnad al-tafsi r ” (al-Basi t , Nuruosmaniye, tafsi r 240, f. 457b). This story, related on the authority of Suhayb, is recorded in

al-Wasi t (4: 459–60). This shows that al-Wahidi considered al-Wasi t to be the commentary concerned with musnad material.

76. Al-Ha drami, ºUmdat al-qawi wa-al-d aº i f lima waqaºa fi Wasi t al-W ahid i min al-tabd i l wa-al-tahr i f , Cairo,Dar al-Kutub, tafsi r 159. For details on al-Ha drami and his work, see al-Mahdi, al-Wahid i , 88–89, where he corrects

Brockelmann’s mischaracterization of this work. See also al-Zaf iti’s introduction to al-Wasi t , 1: 45.


16/22


17/22


mentators on al-Mutanabbi include the poet Abu al-ºAlaª al-Maºarri (d. 449/1058), the philol-ogist (and the poet’s student) Ibn Jinni (d. 392/1002), and a host of other illustrious names.Remarkably, there are no studies on this work. It is regrettable that Ihsan ºAbbas did notdiscuss this work in his study of Arabic literary criticism (see n. 15). It was first edited by

F. Dieterici in 1861 (see n. 19), and this edition has been reprinted repeatedly in the Arabworld. The work permits a reconstruction of a list of works of poetry read by al-Wahidi.The question remains as to why al-Wahidi, who spent his life commenting on the Qurªan,decided to write a work of literary criticism so late in his career. In the introduction to his

commentary, he recalls his early days, when he was the unsurpassed master of the art of

prosody. The main reason he gives for writing the work is that there was no satisfactory com-

mentary on al-Mutanabbi that merited reading.87 I still believe that al-Wahidi’s great lovewas poetry; unable to create it, he was unable to be far from it.

v. an example of al-wAHidI’s hermeneutical approach

Here I will give an example of al-Wahidi’s approach to the Qurªan from al-Basi t , compareit to that of other exegetes, and compare how he dealt with the same verse in al-Wasi t andal-Waji z. The example is only crudely illustrative, but it will underline the importance of discarding the notion that medieval exegetes were mere copiers of one another without dis-

tinctive, or even radically different, methods of interpreting the Qurªan. The idea that thismassive literature was motivated by mere compulsive copying, and not by profound intel-

lectual concerns, is untenable. The development of philology meant that the exegetes were

always at one remove from a theological catastrophe should they allow philology to dom-

inate. There is a tension through the tafsi r enterprise whose source is the ever-ominous

ability of philology to dismantle suspicious readings at any moment.

Qurªan 93:7—“Did he not find you [Muhammad] unguided [or “astray”; d allan] and guide

you?”—has presented problems to exegetes by raising the issue of Muhammad’s religious

background before he became a prophet.88 How exegetes responded to this verse may be the

litmus test of their willingness to allow the language of the Qurªan to hint at possibilitiesnot sanctioned by Sunni theology, which had moved to sanctify Muhammad and ascribe in-

fallibility to his life and deeds. I have discussed elsewhere how al-Tabari, al-Thaºlabi, and al-Zamakhshari dealt with this verse, and will here simply compare how al-Wahidi’s approachdiffers.89 The need to compare exegetes stems from the fact that tafsi r is a genealogical lit-erature, and must be studied in a synoptic fashion; in order to understand fully what a certain

exegete was doing we must compare him to previous exegetes who influenced him, as well

as to those who came after him. This type of synoptic study allows us to go beyond the

impression of repetitiveness that many readers experience when dealing with tafsi r , an im-pression that has impeded the scholarly appreciation of the richness of this genre and the

awareness of its hermeneutical complexity.

Al-Tabari and al-Thaºlabi, despite their markedly different approaches to the verse, skirtthe basic issue: what was the nature of Muhammad’s belief before his prophecy? They

refuse to address the question of Muhammad’s pagan background. Though both are aware of

the problematic word d allan, they never confront it head on. Indeed, one can document a

trend to distance Muhammad from any taint of pre-Islamic religious affiliations. Despite the

87. Carmina Muntanabbi, 2–4.

88. Uri Rubin has discussed this verse, and its interpretations, at length; see Rubin, The Eye of the Beholder:The Life of Muhammad as Viewed by the Early Muslims (Princeton: Darwin Press, 1995), 90–99.

89. See Formation, 142–49.


18/22


fact that both quote al-Suddi’s famous interpretation of this verse—that Muhammad “wason the affair [or: followed the religion] of his people for forty years”—they refuse to tell us

what this means.

Al-Zamakhshari offers what has become the standard Sunni understanding of this verse:

Muhammad was ignorant of the “science of divine law” (ºilm al-shar i ºah) and that “whichis based on received knowledge (samaº )” before his prophecy. This interpretation appearsto fully disclose the meaning of d allan, but in fact merely asserts historical truth about

Muhammad that is not in dispute: He could not have been aware of the laws and revelation

before they were dispensed to him by God. Nothing is said about his belief in one God or

many before receiving revelation. After summarizing the stories related by al-Thaºlabi thattell of episodes in which Muhammad was supposedly lost, al-Zamakhshari moves on to thecrux of the matter: al-Suddi’s (d. 127/745) phrase that Muhammad was “on the affair” of his tribe for forty years.

[For] those who stated that Muhammad was “on the affair of his tribe” for forty years, and mean

that Muhammad was oblivious to revealed sciences (ºulum al-samº

i yah), as his people were, thenthis interpretation is valid; but if they mean that he was a follower of his tribe’s religion and a

pagan like them, then this is absolutely wrong (literally: “God forbid!”). For prophets should be

infallible and free of sin before and after their call to prophecy, whether of minor or major sins—

let alone the possibility of a prophet being an unbeliever (k a fir ) and ignorant of God. It would be

a fatal disadvantage for a prophet to have been a pagan since this would undermine his position

with the pagans when disagreeing with them. 90

Here we have an interpretation of an interpretation performed in order to preserve the sanctity

and integrity of the doctrine of Muhammad’s infallibility. Not only did al-Zamakhshari notdiscuss al-Suddi’s interpretation; he mentions it only to refute it. Since a would-be prophetcannot be ignorant of the Creator, any verse in the Qurªan that points to the contrary must

mean something else, regardless of what is actually says.How does al-Wahidi interpret this verse in al-Basi t ? I offer a full translation of his inter-

pretation before discussing its main features:

Ibn ºAbbas said: “God found you straying from prophecy (d allan ºan al-nubuwwah) and Heguided you through prophecy to the best of religions and the most benevolent.” Al-Hasan and al-

Da hhak said: “God found you lost from the post-signs of prophecy and the rules of divine law,unaware of them and he guided you to them.” This is supported by His statements “And before

it (the Qurªan) you were one of the heedless” [12:3] and “You (Muhammad) did not know whatthe Book is nor faith” [42:52]. These interpretations are the opinions (madhhab) of the theo-

logians (arbab al-usul) and the scholars of our camp (ºulamaª ashabina); they believe that the

Prophet, peace be upon him, was never an unbeliever (k a fir ). Abu Ishaq [al-Zajja j; d. 311/923]opted for this opinion and stated that Muhammad did not know the Qurªan or the divine lawand was guided by God to the Qurªan and the laws of Islam. We have already discussed thesematters when we dealt with God’s statement, “You did not know what the Book is or what faith

is” [42:52].

Some exegetes, however, opted to choose the literal (or apparent) meaning of the verse ( zahir

al-a yah). Thus al-Kalbi stated: “He found you unguided, that is, an unbeliever (k a fir ) amongunbelievers, and He guided you to monotheism.” Al-Suddi said: “He (Muhammad) was on theaffair of his tribe for forty years.” Mujahid said: “He found you unguided, that is unguided fromguidance (hud a) and He guided you to His religion.”

90. Al-Zamakhshari, al-Kashsha f (Cairo: Mustaf a al-Babi al-Halabi, 1972), 4: 265.


19/22


People of our camp state that the meaning of this verse is elucidated and corrected through re-

ceived knowledge ( yustadrak bi-al-samaº ). Yet reason (ºaql) does allow the possibility that an

individual who is an unbeliever may be blessed by God by bestowing on him faith and honoring

him with prophecy. It is also possible rationally that someone who is already a prophet might be

divested of this rank.91

First, it is important to emphasize that al-Wahidi preserved early material, like the quo-tation from al-Kalbi, that was either expurgated or simply never reported by earlier exegetes.This is rather surprising, given al-Wahidi’s late date; but scholars working on tafsi r shouldbe prepared for surprises, given the colossal amount of material still unexamined. Late

material—and one has in mind here the medieval glosses (hawashi ) on the classical com-

mentaries—might contain quotations from early sources not preserved elsewhere. Second,

al-Wahidi admitted that the apparent meaning ( zahir al-a yah), i.e., the philological meaningof the verse is that before his call to prophecy Muhammad was a pagan, a k a fir . More im-portant is that al-Wahidi violated a religious taboo by reporting that some exegetes believedthat Muhammad was an unbeliever, and reported their opinion without recourse to euphe-

misms or showing any evident embarrassment. Further, al-Wahidi has to admit that for themainstream Sunni position to hold, or, as he bluntly puts it, for this verse to mean what it

does not mean, one may only have recourse to received knowledge (samaº ), which over-rides even scripture. Finally, he mentions reason (ºaql) and what is possible and not possibleaccording to rational thought. By contrast, the Muºtazilite exegete al-Zamakhshari not onlyfailed to admit the apparent meaning of the verse, but disputed it, to say nothing of his not

mentioning reason in connection with what sort of individual a prophet could or could not be.

One would hardly expect a Sunni exegete who never tires of attacking Muºtazilite dogma to

admit to rational possibilities contrary to his own position. (It should be kept in mind that

one of al-Wahidi’s main aims in al-Basi t was to attack systematically that Muºtazilite under-

standing of the Qurªan, and to present a coherently Ashºarite understanding.) Perhaps we haveschematized Islamic intellectual history to the degree that we have lost sight of the nuances

that characterize any complex intellectual tradition. Taking the interpretation of this verse

alone, one could easily surmise that al-Zamakhshari was a staunch Sunni, al-Wahidi a calmMuºtazilite.

The discussion of Qurªan 93:7 as presented by al-Wahidi is thus centered on the admissionthat its manifest or apparent meaning contradicts the Sunni understanding. Sunni Ashºarite

scholars were willing to concede that reason does not hold the supreme position in their

system; but to admit that the apparent or literal meaning of the Qurªan contradicted Sunnidogma, without some safeguards, seems rather dangerous. Al-Wahidi, an Ashºarite, simplyadmits this fact. Thus, rather than performing unsound philological maneuvers to get rid of

the problem, he boldly asserts that Sunni theologians have stated that received knowledge

overrides the literal meaning of the verse. Al-Wahidi is the only Sunni exegete I know of whoreports that there were Sunni theologians who tackled the challenge posed by a philological

reading of the Qurªan to the Sunni understanding of what it means by placing explicit limita-tions on philology, despite the hitherto declared consensus among Sunni exegetes that phi-

lology is the enshrined tool for understanding the Qurªan. In this sense al-Basi t is an ironictext; for while its declared intention is to read the Qurªan philologically, it ends up admitting,

at least in what I call theological melting loci, that the tool of philology does not enjoy un-

limited authority.

91. Al-Basi t , Riwaq al-Magharibah 303/5, f. 192a.


20/22


The genealogical nature of tafsi r and the synoptic study of its history allow the investi-gator an opportunity to examine material which certain exegetes opted to omit. For certain

exegetes we can postulate a direct lineage of influence—say a teacher-student lineage, as is

the case with the Nishapur school—which permits us to make arguments from silence. We

know that al-Wahidi read and studied al-Thaºlabi’s work with the author, and transmitted hisQurªan commentary to posterity.92 We are thus in the position of being able to make con-clusions based on the omissions and exclusions in al-Wahidi’s own work. In the case of Qurªan 93:7 he opted to discard the pseudo-philological and mystical interpretations sup-posed by al-Thaºlabi. Thus he reported no episodes in which Muhammad was physicallylost and gave no mystical interpretation. This is not surprising, since in his introduction

to al-Basi t al-Wahidi makes clear that he will not bother with interpretations that cannot bedefended by using philological methods. It is in this light that we have to understand the

resignation in al-Wahidi’s tone regarding al-Zajja j’s acceptance of the Sunni interpretation of this verse. To al-Wahidi, al-Zajja j was the paragon of the philological method, which meantrefusing overt theological interpretations when manifestly wrong; hence his surprise regard-

ing al-Zajja j’s position on this verse. Moreover, his disparaging attitude toward mystical in-terpretation is well known, as I have mentioned.

The intricacy of al-Wahidi’s interpretation can only be made meaningful through a totaldismantling of the history of Qurªanic exegesis and a close examination of the assumptionsfrom which he was escaping and by which he nevertheless remained shackled. His position

toward the Qurªan in al-Basi t would place him apart from the mainstream Sunni attemptto reconcile different hermeneutical approaches in fashion in each of the various currents

of Sunnism. The integrative approach pioneered by al-Tabari and enlarged by al-Thaºlabi wasdevised to allow exegetes the maximum possible space for both defending Sunnism and

making it mainstream. Exegetes drew upon most of the available disciplines, both to nor-

malize tafsi r and to make Sunnism more palatable to the intellectuals. Thus the compromisethat Sunnism offered in the classical form of tafsi r was overturned in al-Basi t . Al-Wahidi’sinsistence that philology can and should act as a judge of the validity of inherited interpreta-

tions forced others to accuse him of showing contempt and disrespect to earlier authorities.

But al-Wahidi ameliorated his position as he matured, for in al-Wasi t he gave the musnad , ortraditional material, the dominant, if not the only, voice. His interpretation of Qurªan 93:7in al-Wasi t is as follows:

He found you lost from the post-signs of prophecy and the rules of divine law, unaware of them,

and He guided you to them. This is supported by His statement, “And before it (the Qurªan) youwere one of the heedless” [12:3], and His statement “You (Muhammad) did not know what the

Book is nor faith” [42:52]. Al-Zajja j opted for this opinion and stated that Muhammad didnot know the Qurªan or the divine law and was guided by God to the Qurª an and the laws of Islam.93

It is clear that al-Wahidi has dropped the minority position—the possibility of Mu-hammad’s polytheist past—and presented what one might call a reformed Sunni inter-

pretation. It is true that he was hiding behind al-Zajja j’s endorsement, but this is hardlyconvincing; in al-Basi t philology was the authority and not al-Zajja j, dear as he was to al-Wahidi. Al-Wasi t was thus not an epitome of al-Basi t , despite the fact that the paragraphquoted above is culled from al-Basi t . This is also an example of the paradox of the genre

92. See Formation, 233–35.93. Al-Wai t , 4: 511.


21/22


of tafsi r : the same statement about al-Zajja j’s position has two different meanings because of the context. In the tafsi r context it is what tells us what an author was trying to say and not

merely what he was saying, another reason why a synoptic study of tafsi r is obligatory. Theinterpretation of 93:7 in al-Waji z is, as expected, shorter; it simply consists of the first three

lines quoted above.94

If we take al-Wahidi’s position in al-Waji z as representing his under-standing of how this verse should be understood, since he wrote al-Waji z before finishingany of his other commentaries, we have to admire his intellectual integrity, for he remained

faithful to the principles of the introduction to al-Basi t and presented a philological readingof 93:7, despite his change of heart. Al-Wahidi’s continuous output in tafsi r reflects his hesi-tation as to the doctrinal validity of his initial solution: that philology is the only yardstick

for tafsi r . In this sense one could speak of the agony caused by grammar and the triumphof piety in al-Wahidi’s later life. His output in tafsi r cannot be read as the reflection of oneposition vis-à-vis the Qurªan, but as the result of a continuous struggle to solve the problemthat philology posed to the Sunni understanding of it.

conclusion

The survival of a substantial number of al-Wahidi’s works offers us a unique opportunityto study the intellectual formation of this medieval commentator and allows us to reconstruct

his hermeneutical theories. It is rare that we have access to such a varied output on tafsi r bya single author. This article has laid the foundation for further investigation into his works.

It should also be evident that any study of this exegete must incorporate his commentary on

al-Mutanabbi. The relationship between Qurªanic commentary and literary commentary hasso far been little studied, a rather unfortunate omission since philology was the dominant

form of discourse among the elite of medieval Islamic culture.

The poignancy of al-Wahidi’s life is that it started with a failed attempt to write poetryand ended instead with a commentary on the most admired of Arabic poets. There is also an

irony in his scholarly life: he was caught in the classicism of high Arabic culture at a period

when the cultural landscape was changing dramatically. Poetic creativity was moving away

from an engagement with pre-Islamic and early Islamic modes to one with mysticism. More-

over, al-Wahidi’s compatriots in eastern Iran had begun using the Persian language to writepoetry. He was one of the last holdouts in a culturally transformed landscape. His radical

attempt at reforming tafsi r was itself thwarted by his later conversion to the method of histeacher. His influence on the later exegetical tradition was, however, profound. He should be

considered one of the major intellectual figures of medieval Islam, and his output is worthy

of a more sustained analysis than has been the case so far.

94. NO TEXT FOR NOTE 94.


22/22

the last of the nishapuri school of tafsir al-wahidi... by walid a. saleh

Documents