INTERPRETATION OF THE TERMS MUHKAMAT AND MUTASHABIHAT IN MEDIEVAL QUR’ANIC EXEGESIS
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
The article is devoted to the problem of the exegetical interpretation of the ayah Al Imran, 7 that mentions the issue of differentiation between two kinds of verses – muhkamat and mutashabihat. Using a source study approach, the author reviews the variety of viewpoints adopted by Muslim exegetes (Ibn Qutayba, al-Tabari, al-Jawzi, etc.) and their arguments intended to legitimate the presence of unclear, or ambiguous, verses (mutashabihat) in the structure of the Qur’an. Following the analysis of these arguments, it is concluded that Al Imran, 7 had not just become a basis for an innovative approach to formulation of the doctrine of inimitability of the Qur’an and justifying rational reasoning in Qur’anic exegesis – it also provided grounds for building a certain hierarchy of ayahs and further exploiting the “muhkam – mutashabih” division as a discursive strategy in theological discussions.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
exegesis, Islam, muhkamat and mutashabihat, Qur’ān, tafsir
Коран / Дослідження, переклад (фрагмент), коментарі В. С. Рибалкіна. Київ, 2002.
Шестопалец Д. В. К вопросу о толковании аята Таха, 5 в средневековой мусульманской традиции // Східний світ, 2012, № 3.
Al-Gazali, Abu Hamid. Al-Iqtisad fi al-i‘tiqad. Dimashq, 1994.
Al-Razi, Fahr al-Din. Mafatih al-Gayb (Al-Tafsir al-kabir). Bayrut, 1981.
Al-Tabari, Muhammad b. Jarir. Jami‘ al-bayan ‘an ta’wil ’ay al-Qur’an (fi 30 al-ajza’). Bayrut, 1405.
Al-Qurtubi, Muhammad b. Ahmad. Al-Jami‘ li al-ahkam al-Qur’an (fi 20 al-ajza’). Al-Qahira, 1372.
Arberry A. J. The Koran Interpreted: a Translation. New York, 1996.
Berg H. The Development of Exegesis іn Early Islam: the Authenticity of Muslim Literature from the Formative Period. Richmond, 2000.
Cuypers M. L’analys e rhétorique, un enouvelle method pour l’exégèse du Coran // Al-Mawāqif, Actes du premier colloque international sur: ‘Le Phénomène religieux, nouvel les Lectures des Sciences socials et humaines’. Algérie, 2008.
Cuypers M. Semitic Rhetoric as a Key to the Question of the naẓm of the Qur’anic Text // Journal of Qur’anic Studies. Vol. 13 (1). 2011. https://doi.org/10.3366/jqs.2011.0003
Hasan A. Theory of naskh // Islamic Studies. Vol. 4 (2). 1965.
Ibn al-Jawzi, Abu al-Faraj. Zad al-Masir fi ilm al-tafsir (9 Vol.). Bayrut, 1404.
Ibn Atiyya, Abu Muhammad. Al-Muharrar al-wajiz. Dimashq, 2007.
Ibn Kathir al-Dimashqi, Ismail b. Amr. Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Azim. Bayrut, 1401.
Ibn Qutaybah. Ta’wil Mushkil al-Qur’an. Al-Qahira, 1973.
Lane E.W. An Arabic-English lexicon: derived from the best and the most copious eastern sources. London, 1863.
Massignon L. La mubahala de Médine et l’hyperdulie de Fatima // Opera Minora. Vol. 1. Beirut, 1963.
Schmucker W. Die christliche Minderheit von Nagran und die Problematik ihrer Beziehungen zum fruhen Islam // Banner Orientalish Studien, N.S. Vol. 27/1. 1973.
Strothmann R. Die Mubāhala in Tradition und Liturgie // Der Islam. Vol. 33, Issue 1–2. 1957. https://doi.org/10.1515/islm.1957.33.1-2.5
REFERENCES
Koran. A Study, Translation (Partial), Commentary by V. S. Rybalkin (2002), Stylos, Kyiv. (In Ukrainian).
Shestopalets D. (2012), “K voprosu o tolkovanii ayata Takha, 5 v srednevekovoy musul’manskoy traditsii”, Shìdnij svìt, No. 3. (In Russian).
Al-Gazali Abu Hamid (1994). Al-Iqtisad fi al-iʻtiqad, Damask. (In Arabic).
Al-Qurtubi Muhammad b. Ahmad (1372), Al-Jamiʻ li al-ahkam al-Qur’an (fi 20 al-ajza’), Cairo. (In Arabic).
Al-Razi Fahr al-Din (1981), Mafatih al-Gayb (Al-Tafsir al-kabir), Beirut. (In Arabic).
Al-Tabari Muhammad b. Jarir (1405), Jamiʻ al-bayan ʻan ta’wil ’ay al-Qur’an (fi 30 al-ajza’), Beirut. (In Arabic).
Arberry A. J. (1996), The Koran Interpreted: a Translation, New York.
Berg H. (2000), The Development of Exegesis In Early Islam: the Authenticity of Muslim Literature From the Formative Period, Richmond.
Cuypers M. (2008), “L’analys e rhétorique, un enouvelle method pour l’exégèse du Coran”, Al-Mawāqif, Actes du premier colloque international sur: ‘Le Phénomène religieux, nouvel les Lectures des Sciences socials et humaines’, Algérie.
Cuypers M. (2011), “Semitic Rhetoric as a Key to the Question of the naẓm of the Qur’anic Text”, Journal of Qur’anic Studies, Vol. 13, No. 1. https://doi.org/10.3366/jqs.2011.0003
Hasan A. (1965), “Theory of naskh”, Islamic Studies, Vol. 4 (2).
Ibn al-Jawzi Abu al-Faraj (1404), Zad al-Masir fi ilm al-tafsir (9 Vol), Beirut. (In Arabic).
Ibn Atiyya Abu Muhammad (2007), Al-Muharrar al-wajiz, Damask. (In Arabic).
Ibn Kathir al-Dimashqi Ismail b. Amr (1401), Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Azim, Beirut. (In Arabic).
Ibn Qutaybah (1973), Ta’wil Mushkil al-Qur’an, Cairo. (In Arabic).
Lane E.W. (1863), An Arabic-English Lexicon: Derived From the Best and the Most Copious Eastern Sources, London.
Massignon L. (1963), “La mubahala de Médine et l’hyperdulie de Fatima”, Opera Minora, Vol. 1, Beirut.
Schmucker W. (1973), “Die christliche Minderheit von Nagran und die Problematik ihrer Beziehungen zum fruhen Islam”, Banner Orientalish Studien, N.S., Vol. 27/1.
Strothmann R. (1957), “Die Mubāhala in Tradition und Liturgi”, Der Islam, Vol. 33, Issue 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1515/islm.1957.33.1-2.5
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.