Journal of Semitic Studies LIII/1 Spring 2008 doi:10.

1093/jss/fgm045
REFERENCES
© The author. Published TO University
by Oxford MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN
Press (150/767)
on behalf of the University of Manchester.
All rights reserved.

A COMPARISON OF THE REFERENCES TO

MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)
IN THE EXEGESIS OF AL-THA{LABI (427/1036)
WITH MUQATIL'S OWN EXEGESIS*

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

MEHMET AKIF KOÇ
ANKARA UNIVERSITY, TURKEY

Abstract

Muqatil b. Sulayman’s work is the oldest surviving exegesis which

comments on the entire Qur’an from the beginning to the end. Ana-
lytical comparisons between different manuscripts of this exegesis and
the quotations made by the exegetes, who greatly benefited from
Muqatil, give us important information about the history of Quranic
exegesis. al-Tha¨labi’s references to Muqatil offer valuable data illumi-
nating the role of ‘the changing contents’ of the manuscripts in un-
derstanding the history of the exegesis. Changing evaluations and
criticism about Muqatil’s personality and his opinions show that the
history of Quranic exegesis needs to be further critically studied.

Introduction

Muqatil b. Sulayman’s exegesis has been studied by modern scholars

to enable them to elaborate on the history of early exegetical activi-
ties. The investigation of the transmissions of Muqatil in al-Tha¨labi’s
recently published exegesis, al-Kashf wa al-bayan ¨an tafsir al-Qur’an1
has also contributed to the elucidation of the early development of
exegesis and to the understanding of its nature in the following peri-

* My thanks are due to Associate Professor Ismail Albayrak (Faculty of Divin-

ity/Sakarya University) for comments and for correcting the English text of my ar-
ticle. I am also grateful to Professor Osman Ta≥tan (Faculty of Divinity/Ankara
University) for his advisory support during my final English corrections upon edi-
torial suggestions.
1
Al-Tha¨labi, al-Kashf wa al-bayan ¨an tafsir al-Qur’an, ed. Sayyid Kasrawi
Îasan (Beirut 2004). Because no serious effort has been made to produce a critical
edition, this article makes limited use of this edition. The manuscripts of al-
Tha¨labi’s exegesis found in Beyazıt Library (Veliyyüddin Efendi no. 130–3), Süley-
maniye Library (≤ehid Ali Pa≥a no. 156) and others consulted are used instead.

69

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 69 12/3/08, 3:31 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

ods. Thus, the exegeses of Muqatil’s and al-Tha¨labi’s are not ran-
domly selected as major themes of this study: Muqatil’s work is the
oldest surviving exegesis which comments on the entire Qur’an from
beginning to end. Now we have this exegesis in published form.2
Due to controversial opinions attributed to Muqatil, he is considered
one of the most interesting figures in the history of exegesis. How-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

ever, the importance of al-Tha¨labi’s exegesis — for the present study
— lies in the crucial role it played in the legitimization of Muqatil’s
exegesis.
After his death, Muqatil’s exegesis was nearly ignored for one and
half centuries by many exegetes, possibly, due to criticism of
Muqatil,3 which made him unpopular during this period. Remark-
ably, the earliest references to his exegesis are found in the commen-
tary of Abu ManÒur al-Maturidi (333/945), which contains more
than thirty references to Muqatil’s exegesis.4 Given the voluminous-
2
This exegesis was first edited and published in four volumes by ¨Abd Allah
MaÌmud ShaÌata in Cairo during 1979–88. This edition is used in this study.
There is another edition (Beirut) of this exegesis which was published by AÌmad
Farid in 2003. This edition is of doubtful use, because it lacks any scientific meth-
odology. First of all, AÌmad Farid does not make any reference to ShaÌata, who
edited and published this exegesis before him. AÌmad Farid claims to be the first
editor of this exegesis. However, it is clear that AÌmad Farid benefited from
ShaÌata’s edition to the extent that he (Farid) repeats the mistake, which ShaÌata
had made in his edition: in the explanation of the verse (3:111), ShaÌata mentions
the name of Ka¨b b. Malik (40/660?) mistakenly instead of noting the name of Ka¨b
b. al-Ashraf (3/625). See Muqatil b. Sulayman, Tafsir (Cairo 1979–88), I, 295.
AÌmad Farid repeats the same mistake without alteration. See Muqatil b. Sulay-
man, Tafsir Muqatil b. Sulayman (Beirut 2003), I, 186.
3
Muqatil’s thought in favour of tashbih or tajsim (anthropomorphic) is consid-
ered unacceptable by the mainstream of Muslims. See, for example, al-Ash¨ari,
Kitab maqalat al-Islamiyyin, ed. Hellmut Ritter (Wiesbaden 1980), 152–3, 209;
Ibn Îibban, Kitab al-majruÌin min al-muÌaddithin wa al-∂u¨afa’ wa al-matrukin,
ed. MuÌammad Ibrahim Zayid (Aleppo 1396), III, 14; al-Baghdadi, Tarikh Bagh-
dad aw madinat al-salam (Beirut n.d.), XIII, 164. Apart from anthropomorhic ten-
dencies, Muqatil is also accused of being a Murji’i, Zaydi, liar, Ìadith fabricator to-
gether with tadlis (deceiving or concealing some part of the report deliberately).
See, for example, al-Ash¨ari, Ki†ab maqalat al-Islamiyyin, 151; Ibn Abi Îatim,
Kitab al-jarÌ wa al-ta¨dil (Hyderabad 1952), VIII, 354; Ibn Îibban, Kitab al-
majruÌin III, 14-15; Ibn ¨Adiyy, al-Kamil fi ∂u¨afa} al-rijal (Beirut 1985), VI, 2428;
Ibn al-Nadim, al-Fihrist (Beirut 1978), 253; Ibn Îazm, al-MuÌalla ed. AÌmad
MuÌammad Shakir (Beirut n.d.), II, 35; al-Baghdadi, Tarikh Baghdad XIII, 164,
169; al-Shahristani, al-Milal wa al-niÌal, ed. AÌmad Fahmi MuÌammad (Beirut
1948), I, 228; al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-kamal fi asma’ al-rijal, ed. Bashshar ¨Awwad
Ma¨ruf (Beirut 1992), XXVIII, 450; al-Dhahabi, Mizan al-i¨tidal fi naqd al-rijal,
ed. ¨Ali MuÌammad al-Bajawi (Beirut 1963), IV, 173; Ibn Îajar, Tahdhib al-
tahdhib (Beirut n.d.), X, 284.
4
Twenty-one of these references are found in Muqatil’s published exegesis. See

70

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 70 12/3/08, 3:31 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

ness of al-Maturidi’s exegesis one might think that the references to

Muqatil’s exegesis in al-Maturidi’s commentary are too few. None-
theless, despite the existence of several early exegeses which have
come down to us, al-Maturidi retains a unique place because of his
extensive usage of Muqatil’s commentary. After al-Maturidi, we see
that al-Naqqash (351/962) used Muqatil in his exegesis,5 and then

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

Abu al-Layth al-Samarqandi (373/983) and al-Tha¨labi benefited
from it.6
Two centuries after al-Tha¨labi, several exegetes continued to use
Muqatil’s commentary, such as al-Mawardi (450/1058) 260 times in
his exegesis, al-™usi (460/1068) 7 times, al-WaÌidi (468/1076) 764
times,7 al-Baghawi (516/1122) 425 times, al-Zamakhshari (538/1143)
13 times, Ibn ¨A†iyya (542/1147) 47 times, al-™abrasi (548/1153) 215
times, Abu al-Faraj b. al-Jawzi (597/1201) approximately 1300 times,
Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (604/1207) 220 times and the famous tradition-
alist Ibn Kathir (774/1372), whose fastidiousness is well known,8
makes 18 references to Muqatil b. Sulayman in his exegesis.9 These

al-Maturidi, Ta’wilat ahl al-sunna, ed. Fa†ima Yusuf al-Khiyami (Beirut 2004), I,
262, 519, 524; II, 626; III, 18, 261, 306, 420–1, 429, 463, 464, 552, 588, 617;
IV, 46, 73, 168, 259; V, 78, 523. The other thirteen references in Muqatil’s pub-
lished exegesis have not been found. For these references see ibid., III, 114, 217,
277, 306, 399, 585; IV, 49, 211, 255, 437; V, 17, 80, 437. These references made
by al-Maturidi have been investigated by Kıyasettin Koçoglu [see Kıyasettin
Koçoglu, ‘Maturidi’nin Mutezileye Bakı≥ı’ unpublished Ph.D. thesis (Ankara
Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü 2005)]. Koçoglu used the manuscript of al-
Maturidi’s exegesis, which is now in the Topkapı Palace Museum/ Madina Dept
no. 180. Although the editor of al-Maturidi’s published exegesis, Fa†ima Yusuf, did
not use the Topkapı Palace Museum manuscript, there is full agreement between
the references in both the published and manuscript forms of al-Maturidi’s ex-
egesis.
5
In his exegesis, Ibn ¨A†iyya (542/1147) has noted four places, where al-
Naqqash narrates from Muqatil. See al-MuÌarrar al-wajiz fi tafsir al-kitab al-¨aziz
(Beirut 1993), I, 124, 374; II, 427, 441. Only one of these references was found in
the manuscript of al-Naqqash’s exegesis in Süleymaniye library (Hasan Hüsnü Pa≥a
no. 40). See Al-Naqqash, Shifa’ al-Òudur fi tafsir al-Qur’an al-karim, 154. This ex-
egesis of al-Naqqash contains the explanation of very few verses of the Qur’an. Page
numbering of this manuscript is arranged in accordance with modern books. A su-
perficial study of this exegesis shows that al-Naqqash uses Muqatil rarely. For two
other references to Muqatil see ibid., 151.
6
The transmission of al-Samarqandi and al-Tha¨labi will be dealt with later in
this article.
7
This figure only shows the number of references to Muqatil in al-WaÌidi’s
work entitled al-Wasi† fi tafsir al-Qur’an al-majid (eds, ¨Adil AÌmad ¨Abd al-
Mawjud, AÌmad MuÌammad ∑ira, ¨Ali MuÌammad Mu¨awwi∂, AÌmad ¨Abd al-
Ghani al-Jamal and ¨Abd al-RaÌman Uways [Beirut 1994]).
8
Abu al-MaÌasin al-Îusayni, Dhayl tadhkirat al-Ìuffa li al-Dhahabi (Beirut

71

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 71 12/3/08, 3:31 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

scholars saw no problem in transmitting reports from Muqatil. In the

commentary of Abu al-Su¨ud (951/1544) he shows his profound re-
spect for Muqatil by adding the expression ra∂iya Allah ¨anhu (May
God be well pleased with him) after mentioning his name.10
There is only one critical reference to Muqatil in the exegesis of al-
Maturidi; it criticizes Muqatil for his anthropomorphic approach/

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

tashbih and tajsim (a belief that God resembles his creatures in ap-
pearance, feelings, or behaviour).11 Apart from this criticism al-
Maturidi thinks that Muqatil’s exegesis is a beneficial work and an
important early exegetical source. In his other work (Kitab al-tawÌid)
al-Maturidi deals with Muqatil in only one place. According to the
anecdote in this text of al-Maturidi, a Mu¨tazilite scholar, al-Ka¨bi
(319/931), narrates a report from Muqatil and says that Muqatil be-
lieved that if the fasiq (sinner/impious) dies before he has repented
he will go to paradise. Al-Ka¨bi finds that Muqatil’s approach here is
characterized by an extreme laxity.12
Al-Maturidi draws attention to an important point in his usage of
Muqatil’s exegesis: al-Maturidi mentions Muqatil’s full name
(Muqatil b. Sulayman) when he recounts two out of three criticisms
made by Abu Mu¨adh Bukayr b. Ma¨ruf (163/780) of Muqatil.13
This is possibly, because of his concern that in case their names (Abu
Mu¨adh and Muqatil) had been seen together in the text it would
have been confusing, for one simple reason it might be thought that
Abu Mu¨adh is referring to his mentor Muqatil b. Îayyan (150/767)
instead of Muqatil b. Sulayman. Abu Mu¨adh14 was Muqatil b.
Îayyan’s famous pupil and narrator.15

1956), 58; Îaji Khalifa, Kashf al-Âunun ¨an asam al-kutub wa al-funun (Istanbul
1360), I, 439.
9
These numbers are mostly determined by searching the CD of Maktabat al-
tafsir and the web page www.altafsir.com
10
This expression is generally used for the most respected predecessors and
companions. See Abu al-Su¨ud, Irshad al-¨aql al-salim ila mazaya al-Qur’an al-karim
(Beirut 1990), III, 270; VI. 278; MuÌammad al-¨Arusi, ‘Muqatil b. Sulayman
mufassiran li al-Qur’an’, unpublished M.A. thesis (The University of Mannuba
2001–2), 145.
11
Al-Maturidi, Ta’wilat III, 552.
12
Al-Maturidi, Kitab al-tawÌid, ed. Bekir Topaloglu-Muhammed Aruçi (An-
kara 2003), 556. For al-Ka¨bi’s evaluation of Muqatil in his own work, see al-Ka¨bi,
Maqalat, in the private library of RajiÌ al-Kurdi in the copy of the article on
‘Murjiah’, 36a.
13
Al-Maturidi, Ta’wilat III, 420–1, 552. There is one place where the the
names of Abu Mu’adh and ‘Muqatil’ are mentioned together. See ibid., III, 585.
14
Al-Mizzi, Tahdhib IV, 253–4.
15
Al-™abari (311/923) and Ibn Abi Îatim (327/939) mention the name of

72

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 72 12/3/08, 3:31 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

Al-Maturidi’s exegesis can be seen as a turning point in the legiti-

mization of Muqatil b. Sulayman’s commentary. Al-Maturidi avoids
drawing attention to the criticisms directed against Muqatil by oth-
ers and shows great courage in his determination to benefit from
Muqatil’s work. Interestingly, he uses Muqatil in his exegesis, in
which he wishes to combat the beliefs of the innovators in Islamic

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

theology.16
After al-Maturidi, another important scholar who used Muqatil is
Abu al-Layth al-Samarqandi (373/983). Abu al-Layth is considered
to be among the great scholars of Samarqand and because of his in-
fluence he is given the title imam al-huda (leader of guidance).17
Muqatil b. Sulayman is Abu al-Layth’s primary exegetical source 18
and there are more than 450 references to Muqatil in his exegesis.19
There are some inconsistencies between the published exegesis of
Muqatil and Abu al-Layth’s quotations from Muqatil in his exegesis,
according to the research done by Ishak Yazıcı. For example, ¨Umar
b. al-Kha††ab (23/644) is mentioned as an occasion of revelation in
relation to verse 24:62 in Muqatil’s published exegesis, while in Abu
al-Layth’s exegesis it is narrated that Muqatil says that this verse was
revealed in connection with ¨Uthman b. ¨Affan (35/655).20

Muqatil b. Îayyan with his father’s name (Îayyan’s son Muqatil) on every occa-
sion. Probably, they are trying to prevent any confusion between Muqatil b.
Sulayman and Muqatil b. Îayyan in their exegesis.
16
Mustafi∂ al-RaÌman, ‘An Edition of the First Two Chapters of al-Maturidi’s
Ta’wilatu Ahl al-Sunna’, Ph.D. thesis (University of London 1970), 126.
17
¨Abd al-Qadir b. MuÌammad, al-Jawahir al-mu∂iyya fi †abaqat al-Ìanafiyya
(Hyderabad n.d.), II, 130, 196.
18
Ishak Yazıcı, ‘Ebu’l-Leys es-Semerkandi, Hayatı, Eserleri ve Tefsirindeki
Metodu’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis (Erzurum Atatürk Üniversitesi Islami Ilimler
Fakültesi 1982), 149.
19
Ibid., 151. Ishak Yazıcı carried out research on this topic before his Ph.D.
thesis: ‘Ebu’l-Leys es-Semerkandi’nin Mukatil ibn Süleyman’ın Tefsiri ile Olan
Münasebeti’, Ph.D. seminar work (Erzurum Atatürk Üniversitesi Islami Ilimler
Fakültesi 1979). In this work Yazıcı argues that Abu al-Layth’s exegesis is also called
BaÌr al-¨ulum (see ibid., 13). Nevertheless, after further investigation he concludes
that this name is wrong. On the basis of research on various manuscripts in Istan-
bul Yazıcı argues that BaÌr al-¨ulum belongs to ¨Ala’ al-Din ¨Ali b. YaÌya al-
Samarqandi (860/1456). See Ishak Yazıcı, ‘BaÌru’l-¨ulum’, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Is-
lam Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul 1991), IV, 517–18. The publication of Abu al-Layth’s
exegesis under the title Tafsir al-Samarqandi al-musamma BaÌr al-¨ulum undoubt-
edly increased this confusion [ed. ¨Ali MuÌammad Mu¨awwi∂-¨Adil AÌmad ¨Abd al-
Mawjud-Zakariyya ¨Abd al-Majid al-Nuti (Beirut 1993)].
20
Muqatil, Tafsir III, 210–11; Abu al-Layth, Tafsir, II, 451. Other examples in
relation to this issue do not always show clear contradictions. These inconsistencies
are sometimes due to the practice of the early historians; namely, that of using the

73

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 73 12/3/08, 3:31 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

In his interpretation of the word kanz, cited twice in 18:82, Abu

al-Layth narrates the following explanation from Muqatil: Kullu
shay’in fi al-Qur’ani kanzun fa huwa malun.21 The word kanz, ‘treas-
ure’, is explained as mal (possession) in Muqatil’s published ex-
egesis.22 Nevertheless, it is difficult to find an agreement, which
shows that the word kanz always means mal in the Qur’an. On the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

other hand this formula was first used by Ibn ¨Abbas (68/687) and
his pupils23 and the same formula ‘kullu shay’in fi al-Qur’an… fa
huwa …’ is found in most of the reports transmitted by al-Mala†i
(377/987) from Muqatil under the title mutashabih al-Qur’an.24
Clearly, Abu al-Layth took Muqatil’s explanation from his lost
work25 Kitab mutashabih al-Qur’an.26

The Comparison Confirms What is Already Known

In al-Tha¨labi’s exegesis Muqatil’s name is mentioned nearly 630

times, and even this number does not indicate the full extent of al-
Tha¨labi’s transmission from Muqatil. The reason for this lies in al-

same event with a different stress. See Muqatil, Tafsir I, 90–Abu al-Layth, Tafsir I,
96; Muqatil, Tafsir I, 496–Abu al-Layth, Tafsir I. 453. Sometimes, as a possible
scribal type of error, similar Arabic words are copied as one and the same. See
Muqatil, Tafsir I, 466–Abu al-Layth, Tafsir I, 427; Muqatil, Tafsir II, 164–Abu al-
Layth, Tafsir II, 40; Muqatil, Tafsir III, 440–Abu al-Layth, Tafsir III, 26. For other
inconsistencies see Muqatil, Tafsir I, 138–Abu al-Layth, Tafsir I, 158; Muqatil,
Tafsir I, 423–Abu al-Layth, Tafsir I, 405; Muqatil, Tafsir II, 243–Abu al-Layth,
Tafsir II, 103; Muqatil, Tafsir III, 203–4–Abu al-Layth, Tafsir II, 444.
21
Abu al-Layth, Tafsir II, 309.
22
Muqatil, Tafsir II, 274; III, 227, 265, 355. Furthermore, Muqatil narrates a
report from Mujahid (103/721) and al-ΔaÌÌak (105/723) which says that the
word kanz in 18:82 means ‘pages’ which contain knowledge. Muqatil then brings
the explanation of al-mal after using the word yuqalu (it is being said that) in order
to imply that this explanation is weak. Undoubtedly, there is a contradiction be-
tween this example and the transmission of Abu al-Layth from Muqatil that the
word kanz in the Qur’an always means al-mal. See Muqatil, Tafsir II, 599.
23
Mehmet Akif Koç, Isnad Verileri Çerçevesinde Erken Dönem Tefsir Faaliyetleri-
Ibn Ebi Îatim (327/939) Tefsiri Orneginde Bir Literatür Incelemesi (Ankara 2003),
128–32.
24
Al-Mala†i, al-Tanbih wa al-radd ¨ala ahl al-ahwa’ wa al-bida¨, ed. MuÌammad
Zahid al-Kawthari (Baghdad n.d.), 71–80.
25
Al-Dawudi, ™abaqat al-mufassirin (Beirut n.d.), II, 331.
26
Josef van Ess rightly points out that part of Muqatil’s work Kitab mutashabih
al-Qur’an comes to us through al-Mala†i: Josef van Ess, Theologie und Gesellschaft
im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert Hidschra (Berlin-New York 1992), II, 527–28. Compare
this with Ismail Cerrahoglu, ‘Tefsirde Mukâtil ibn Süleyman ve Eserleri’, Ankara
Üniversitesi Ilahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 21 (1976), 1–36, 8.

74

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 74 12/3/08, 3:31 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

Tha¨labi’s usage of anonymous transmission in his narration of the

report. It can only be guessed to whom al-Tha¨labi is referring when
he uses the expression qala akthar al-mufassirin (the majority of the
exegetes have said). For example, having used the expression qala al-
mufassirun bi alfaÂin mukhtalifatin wa-ma¨anin muttafiqatin (The
exegetes have said in different words but with the same meaning)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

concerning the narrative of ™alut and Jalut,27 al-Tha¨labi gives more
than two pages of information.28 Most probably, this general expres-
sion (akthar al-mufassirin) also includes Muqatil’s exegesis. Concern-
ing the usage of the reports from Muqatil, al-Tha¨labi outdoes Abu
al-Layth (375/985), who mentions Muqatil’s name in his exegesis
more than 450 times.29 The following figures are presented in order
to make al-Tha¨labi’s explicit transmission from Muqatil more un-
derstandable.
Total amount
Personal views or evaluations 234
Occasions of Revelation 111
Synonyms 99
Explanations of the unseen (ghayb) 91
Historical details 69
Reports where Muqatil’s name is mentioned in the isnad 13
Law 7
Comments on the presence of different languages in the Qur’an 6

Al-Tha¨labi uses Muqatil most frequently in the interpretation of

Surat Maryam (19). The reason is not surprising: the last phrase of
every verse (faÒila) in Surat Maryam ends with rhyming words which
are not commonly used in the Arabic language. Muqatil has a good
reputation for finding synonyms of these rhyming words. Similarly,
al-Tha¨labi’s quotations including historical details from Muqatil in-
crease remarkably in the interpretation of Suras Yunus (10), Hud
(11), Yusuf (12), al-Shu¨araˆ (26) and al-Naml (27), which offer ex-
tensive relevant material. It can be seen from the above figures that
27
See 2:249–51.
28
Al-Tha¨labi, al-Kashf wa al-bayan ¨an tafsir al-Qur’an, Veliyyüddin Efendi no.
130–3, I, 186b–188b. Concerning the word al-kham† (sour) mentioned in 34:16
al-Tha¨labi says that according to most exegetes (fi qawli akthar al-mufassirin) the
word al-kham† here means al-arak (tooth brush tree). See al-Tha¨labi, al-Kashf wa
al-bayan ¨an tafsir al-Qur’an, ≤ehit Ali Pa≥a no. 156, 5a. In Muqatil’s published ex-
egesis it is also said that this word (al-kham†) means tooth brush tree (wa huwa al-
araku). See Muqatil, Tafsir III, 529; thus it seems certain that al-Tha¨labi has ben-
efited from Muqatil in this regard.
29
Ishak Yazıcı, ‘Ebu’l-Leys es-Semerkandi, Hayatı’, 151.

75

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 75 12/3/08, 3:31 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

al-Tha¨labi makes very little use of Muqatil’s exegesis in his interpre-

tation of the legal verses of the Qur’an.30 This is interesting because
when the aÌkam al-Qur’an tradition (the interpretation of the legal
verses of the Qur’an) is analysed, it can be seen that Muqatil’s ex-
egesis Tafsir khamsmi’a aya is the oldest example of this genre which
has come down to us.31 Moreover, there are many explanations of le-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

gal verses of the Qur’an in Muqatil’s published exegesis, in which he
interprets the Qur’an from beginning to end.
There is remarkable diminution in al-Tha¨labi’s usage of Muqatil’s
reports as regards the interpretation of the verses of Surat al-Nisa’ (4),
which deals with issues such as inheritance law and various regula-
tions about marriage32 Similarly, al-Tha¨labi does not use Muqatil’s
reports until the end of the legal verses at the beginning of Surat al-
Ma’idah (5).
Why does al-Tha¨labi not try to use Muqatil’s explanations as re-
gards the interpretation of the legal verses given Muqatil’s fame in
this field? The answer to this lies in the approach of the Muslim
scholars of the early period to the science of exegesis. They are ex-
tremely cautious in their explanation of the theological and legal
verses of the Qur’an, and consider that the reports in these two fields
should be derived from only the most reliable and respectable schol-
ars. These scholars, however, do not have such strong objections re-
garding other secondary fields, even though these contain many re-
ports narrated by unreliable or weak transmitters.33 Clearly, Muqatil,
whose reputation is not good among these scholars, is not approved
of by al-Tha¨labi in the fields of theology and jurisprudence despite
al-Tha¨labi’s reputation as a scholar who shows great flexibility and
tolerance towards exegetical sources.34 There are several accounts

30
Muqatil’s interpretation of the legal verses of the Qur’an is rarely found in the
exegesis of Abu al-Layth (373/983). See Abu al-Layth, Tafsir I, 182, 210. In addi-
tion, Abu al-Layth does not pay any attention to Muqatil’s explanation of the
notion of naskh (abrogation), which is mentioned frequently in relation to the in-
terpretation of the legal verses of the Qur’an. See Ishak Yazıcı, ‘Ebu’l-Leys es-
Semerkandi’nin’, 130.
31
Ed. IsÌaq Goldfeld (Israel 1980). The oldest exegesis by the name of aÌkam
al-Qur’an, which has survived up until today, belongs to al-™aÌawi (321/933). See
Emrullah I≥ler, ‘Tahavi (321/933) ve Ahkamu’l-Kur’an’ı’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis
(Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü 1993), I.
32
Veliyyüddîn, I, 348b–366a.
33
Mehmet Akif Koç, ‘Isnads and Rijal Expertise in the Exegesis of Ibn Abi
Îatim (327/939)’, Der Islam, 82 (2005), 158–63.
34
It should be noted that al-Tha¨labi’s tolerance does not extend to Mu¨tazilite
scholars. See IsÌaq Goldfeld, Mufassiru sharq al-¨alam al-Islami fi arba¨at al-qurun

76

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 76 12/3/08, 3:31 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

which show that al-Tha¨labi sometimes criticises both Muqatil and

the reports transmitted from Muqatil’s exegesis 35
The number of reports transmitted from Muqatil’s exegesis con-
cerning the occasions of revelation in al-Tha¨labi’s commentary is
substantial, as can be seen clearly in the figures given above.36
Muqatil’s excessive fondness for this kind of report is evident from

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

his exegesis: Muqatil mentions 140 reports concerning the occasions
of revelation in his interpretation of Surat al-Baqara (2) alone, which
consists of 286 verses.37
As is well known, one of the major criticisms against Muqatil is
his eagerness for frequent interpretation of the unseen (ghayb). His
explanations of every ambiguous (mubham) word, passage or narra-
tive in the Qur’an are dominant in his exegesis, regardless of whether
this ambiguity is minor or major. Probably, as Blachère (1393/1973)
has pointed out, the main reason for his unceasing effort to explain
the ambiguous expressions in the Qur’an lies in his anxiety not to
leave anything unexplained in the Qur’an.38

Differences

What has been stated up until now confirms the findings of studies
about Muqatil’s exegesis carried out by contemporary scholars. What
is new in this research is that it shows statistically how one (al-

al-hijriyya al-ula: Nashr makh†u†at muqaddimat al-Tha¨labi li-kitab al-kashf wa al-

bayan ¨an tafsir al-Qur’an (¨Aqqa 1984), 16.
35
Al-Tha¨labi holds the view that Muqatil misunderstood the Quranic word al-
faÌsha’ (obscene behaviour). According to al-Tha¨labi, with the exception of verses
2:169 and 2:268 Muqatil explains every instance of al-faÌsha’ in the Qur’an as al-
zina (fornication). (See Veliyyüddîn, I, 99b, 208b.). Nonetheless, investigation
shows that neither Muqatil’s published works nor the quotations of al-Mala†i (377/
987) from Muqatil in the context of mutashabih al-Qur’an correct al-Tha¨labi’s an-
ecdote from Muqatil’s explanation of the word al-faÌsha’. [See Muqatil, Tafsir I.
155; al-Ashbah wa al-naÂa’ir fi al-Qur’an al-karim, ed. ¨Abd Allah MaÌmud
ShaÌata (Cairo 1994), 128–9; al-Mala†i, al-Tanbih, 71–80]. So it is not known ex-
actly on what al-Tha¨labi has based his view in his criticism of Muqatil. In order to
look at al-Tha¨labi’s criticism of Muqatil see ≤ehit, 25b, 188a.
36
Abu al-Layth (373/983) also quotes extensively from Muqatil in relation to
the occasions of revelation. See Ishak Yazıcı, ‘Ebu’l-Leys es-Semerkandi’nin’, 130.
37
MuÌammad al-¨Arusi, ‘Muqatil b. Sulayman’, 87. Muqatil’s interpretation on
the issue of occasions of revelation has been rightly criticized for his failure to enu-
merate in full the members of the chain of isnad, which goes back to the Prophet or
the companions. See ibid., 97.
38
Quoted by Josef van Ess from Paul Nwyia’s book Exégesè Coranique et
Langage Mystique (Beirut 1970). See Josef van Ess, Theologie II, 518–19.

77

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 77 12/3/08, 3:31 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

Tha¨labi) of the most important successors of Muqatil benefited

from him (Muqatil) nearly two and half centuries after his death. In
fact, the main theme of this study is the inconsistencies between the
reports available in the Khorasan version of Muqatil’s exegesis, part
of which is preserved in the exegesis of al-Tha¨labi, and in the Bagh-
dad version of Muqatil’s exegesis, which is edited by ¨Abd Allah

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

MaÌmud ShaÌata.39 This investigation will also provide evidence of
the reliability of the transmission of the oldest complete Quranic ex-
egesis from period to period and from region to region.40 Most im-
portantly, only after such a comparison can it be demonstrated
whether Muqatil’s exegesis was open to ideological editing and re-
duction as Josef van Ess has alleged. Van Ess guesses that many he-
retical views of Muqatil, which would not have disturbed the people
in Khorasan, caused serious dissatisfaction and objection in Bagh-
dad, where these views might have been removed from the text of
Muqatil’s exegesis. Van Ess suggests another possibility in this regard.
He thinks that Muslim theologians and historians probably exagger-
ated Muqatil’s few exceptional views which diverge from the main-
stream of Muslim thought.41 Why van Ess promotes these hypoth-
eses is not difficult to understand: Muqatil’s surviving works do not
explain sufficiently the severe criticism directed against him.42 Con-
sequently neither hypothesis advanced by van Ess is helpful in the
solution of these problems. The first necessitates extreme caution in
dealing with Muqatil’s exegesis, while the second suggests that there
are no serious distortions in the text of Muqatil’s exegesis.
There are 154 differences between the reports narrated by al-
Tha¨labi from Muqatil and Muqatil’s published exegesis. Only a
small number of these differences need careful study and scrutiny. It
is safe to assume that most of these differences are inadvertent errors
which could have occured during the production and reproduction
of the manuscripts. They will be investigated in what follows.

The Three Main Types of Problematic Difference

In this section three types of differences — possible distortion, in-

consistency and lack of availability of al-Tha¨labi’s references to

39
Josef van Ess has analysed carefully both versions of the exegesis. See ibid., II,
519–23.
40
Many manuscripts are used in this evaluation.
41
Josef van Ess, Theologie II, 528–9.
42
Ibid., II, 528.

78

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 78 12/3/08, 3:31 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

Muqatil in Muqatil’s own exegesis — will each separately be ex-

plained.

The Possibility of Distortion (taÌrif)

According to al-Tha¨labi, Muqatil thinks that ¨Abbas b. ¨Abd al-
Mu††alib (32/653) (uncle of the Prophet MuÌammad) is among the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

twelve men criticized in verse 8:36 due to their provision of food
supplies to the army of the unbelievers in Badr.43 In the Baghdad
version of Muqatil’s exegesis, the name of ¨Abbas is removed from
this list of twelve men and the name of Abu Jahl ¨Amr b. Hisham’s
(2/624) brother al-Îarith b. Hisham (18/639)44 is substituted in or-
der to complete the number.45 This change might be a result of an
effort to avoid damaging the good reputation of ¨Abbas b. ¨Abd al-
Mu††alib in the eyes of Muslims. It is also possible that by including
¨Abbas b. ¨Abd al-Mu††alib in the list, Muqatil, who openly sup-
ported the policy of the Umayyad Caliphate during his residence in
Khorasan,46 tried to show his negative reaction to those who were in
favour of the Abbasid revolution. After his departure from the region
of Khorasan he changed his anti-Abbasid views and consequently re-
placed ¨Abbas’ name with the name of al-Îarith, which was less con-
troversial than the name of ¨Abbas.
There is no doubt that this change was made deliberately; how-
ever, it is very difficult to accept that it was part of and the result of a
systematic distortion of the exegesis of Muqatil. The reason is sim-
ple: ¨Abbas b. ¨Abd al-Mu††alib is reproached in another place in the
Baghdad version.47 The following example also shows that this dif-
ference does not stem from systematic distortion:
According to al-Tha¨labi’s narration from Muqatil, verse 41:34
was revealed concerning Abu Sufyan ∑akhr b. Îarb (31/652).48
What we know about Abu Sufyan makes this comment reasonable,
because this verse talks about a man who used to be an enemy of the
Prophet, but after the Prophet treated him well he became a close
friend. Nevertheless, it is recorded in Muqatil’s published exegesis
43
Veliyyüddîn, II, 596b; al-Tha¨labi, al-Kashf wa al-bayan ¨an tafsir al-Qur’an,
Yozgat Manuscripts no. 94, II, 258b.
44
Al-Îarith b. Hisham became a Muslim during the conquest of Mecca. See
Ibn Îajar, al-IÒaba fi tamyiz al-ÒaÌaba (Egypt 1328), I, 293.
45
Muqatil, Tafsir II. 115; Muqatil b. Sulayman, Tafsir Muqatil, Hasan Hüsnü
Pa≥a no. 17, 106a.
46
Al-™abari, Tarikh al-umam wa al-muluk (Beirut n.d.), VII, 330–1.
47
Muqatil, Tafsir II, 162.
48
≤ehit, 47b; Veliyyüddin, IV, 1254a.

79

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 79 12/3/08, 3:31 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

that this verse was revealed about Abu Jahl ¨Amr b. Hisham (2/624).
Various explanations have been brought forward to authenticate this
anachronism.49 If this last opinion had occurred in al-Tha¨labi’s ex-
egesis instead of Muqatils’ Baghdad version, it would have been
thought that because of Muqatil’s policy in Khorasan — to support
the Umayyad Caliphate — he tried not to damage Abu Sufyan’s

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

reputation.
The prophet Abraham in his prayer mentioned in 26:83 asked
God to bestow him a Ìukm. According to the manuscript of al-
Tha¨labi’s exegesis in Veliyyüddîn Efendi no. 132, Muqatil explains
the word Ìukm as fahm (understanding), ¨aql (reason) and ¨ilm
(knowledge).50 According to Muqatil’s published exegesis, with the
exception of one place51, the explanation of ¨aql is not used in the
interpretation of the words Ìukm and Ìikma in the Qur’an. Muqatil
generally explains these two Quranic terms as fahm, ¨ilm, Ìalal,
Ìaram, mawa¨iÂ, amr, naÌy, Qur’an and sunna.52 It is unlikely that
the word ¨aql was removed mistakenly from the Baghdad version of
Muqatil’s exegesis. As is well known, in the early period there was an
ideological discussion around the terms Ìukm and Ìikma, which are
derived from the same root Ìkm.53 While the ahl al-ra’y, who are in
favour of interpretation based on ‘reason’ add the word ¨aql to the
explanation of the word Ìukm, other scholars, known as the ahl al-
Ìadith, objected to this explanation.54 This instance of removal in
49
Muqatil, Tafsir III, 743.
50
Veliyyüddîn, III, 1023b. It is observed that the word ¨aql does not occur in
the published version of al-Tha¨labi’s exegesis. This shows that there are even differ-
ences among the different manuscripts of this exegesis. See al-Tha¨labi, al-Kashf IV,
453.
51
Muqatil, Tafsir III, 87.
52
Muqatil, Tafsir III, 269; Hasan Hüsnü, 212a. See the interpretation of the
verses in Muqatil’s exegesis except verse 26:83: Muqatil, Tafsir I, 286, 515, 574; II,
327, 494; III, 79, 260, 269, 338, 434, 489, 639, 800, 837. In Muqatil’s other work
the word al-Ìukm is explained as al-fahm and al-ilm. See al-Ashbah wa al-naÂa’ir,
112.
53
See NaÒr Îamid Abu Zayd, al-Imam al-Shafi¨i (Cairo n.d), 39–46; Hayri
Kırba≥oglu, Sünni Paradigmanın Olu≥umunda ≤afii’nin Rolü (Ankara 2000), for in-
stance see 106–8, 176, 223.
54
Interestingly, many reports reaching back to the period of the Successors
show that the word Ìikma is explained as the prophetic tradition, prophethood or
¨aql. See al-™abari, Jami¨ al-bayan ¨an ta’wil ay al-Qur’an, (Beirut 1988), I, 557; Ibn
Abi Îatim, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-¨aÂim musnadan ¨an Rasul Allah wa al-ÒaÌaba wa al-
tabi¨in, ed. As¨ad MuÌammad al-™ayyib (Mecca 1997), I, 237. Nonetheless, the as-
sociation of Ìikma with the prophetic tradition (Sunna) is made by Imam Shafi¨i
(204/819). See al-Shafi¨i, al-Risala, ed. AÌmad MuÌammad Shakir (Beirut 1940)
for example see 32, 78.

80

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 80 12/3/08, 3:32 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

the Baghdad version is possibly the result of such a discussion. The

following example will clarify this matter further:
This example is related to verse 12:108. In this verse it is said
‘(My Messenger) Say: This is my way…’ (qul hadhihi sabili). Accord-
ing to al-Tha¨labi, Muqatil understands the word sabili (my way) as
dini (my religion)55 in contrast to Muqatil’s published exegesis where

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

the same word is explained by Muqatil as sunnati (my manner).56
The association of sabil and Sunna is established in his published ex-
egesis and it is clear that this association would have pleased the ahl
al-Ìadith. Thus it is possible that, as in the previous examples, here
also Muqatil’s view in his published exegesis is being distorted in fa-
vour of the traditionalists.
In verse 7:145 it is said ‘And We wrote for him (Moses) upon the
tablets…’. The interpretation of this verse deals with what and how
God wrote on the tablets. According to the published version of
Muqatil’s exegesis, God wrote with His Hand on the tablets, bi
yadihi.57 However, in the narration of al-Tha¨labi from Muqatil, the
expression bi-yadihi (with His Hand) is not used.58 There is no
doubt that this expression (bi-yadihi) brings in the notion of anthro-
pomorphism. On the basis of this expression, ShaÌata thinks that
Muqatil accepted the idea of anthropomorphism, tashbih.59
Interestingly, Muqatil’s anthropomorphic view occurs in the Bagh-
dad version of his exegesis rather than in al-Tha¨labi’s reference to
Muqatil. However, it is not the case that al-Tha¨labi did not record
this expression because of his sensitivity to some dogmatic issues. In
fact, al-Tha¨labi does not see any problem in narrating a report from
Wahb b. Munabbih (113/731), who mentions not only the hand of
God but also his fingers in the interpretation of this verse.60
The state of (dead) believers in the grave is narrated differently in
al-Tha¨labi’s transmission from Muqatil and in Muqatil’s published
exegesis. According to the former narration, the angel called Duman61
55
Veliyyüddîn, II, 735b; al-Tha¨labi, al-Kashf wa al-bayan ¨an tafsir al-Qur’an,
Beyazıt no. 460, 39a. (This manuscript is seriously damaged and the first 93 pages
of the second volume do not belong to al-Tha¨labi’s exegesis. In addition, the name
of the author is also written erroneously in the catalogue of the library). Then
Muqatil mentions verse 16:125 in order to support this comment. Muqatil’s usage
of this verse in his interpretation seems very suitable.
56
Muqatil, Tafsir II, 353.
57
Ibid., II, 62–3; Hasan Hüsnü, 68a.
58
Veliyyüddîn, II, 563a; Yozgat, II, 220a.
59
Muqatil, Tafsir II, 62, footnote no. 1.
60
Veliyyüddîn, II, 563a.
61
The name of this angel is written as Ruman in another manuscript of al-

81

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 81 12/3/08, 3:32 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

will come to the dead believers before Munkar and Nakir (the two
angels who question people in their graves).62 In the latter narration,
the first questioning is carried out by Munkar and Nakir.63 Probably,
the detail before Munkar and Nakir’s coming in the first narration
was considered redundant, therefore it is not recorded in Muqatil’s
published exegesis.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

Reports about the couches64 upon which the believers will recline
in paradise are narrated in al-Tha¨labi’s transmission from Muqatil in
great detail,65 whereas these details concerning the couches are omit-
ted in Muqatil’s published exegesis.66
Verse 40:28 deals with a believer in Pharaoh’s family. According to
al-Tha¨labi’s transmission from Muqatil, this believer is identified
with ‘the son of Pharaoh’s uncle’,67 whereas in Muqatil’s published
exegesis it is just said that this man is ‘a Copt like Pharaoh’ without
mentioning any relationship between them.68
These three examples show that someone might have consciously
removed the details in Muqatil’s exegesis.

Inconsistencies
Al-Tha¨labi explains the word ihdina (Guide us) in verse 1:6 with the
expression arshidna (Guide us)69 in his narration from Muqatil. The
same explanation is attributed to ‘the reading’ of ¨Abd Allah b.
Mas¨ud (32/652) instead of Muqatil’s view in Muqatil’s published
exegesis.70
The Prophet MuÌammad died after seven nights — in al-
Tha¨labi’s report from Muqatil71 — and nine nights — in Muqatil’s
own exegesis72 — elapsed from the day 2:281 was revealed.
The Qur’an says that a party of Jews decided to confuse the Mus-
lims by declaring their belief at the beginning of the day and their
disbelief at the end of the day in what was revealed to Prophet
Tha¨labi’s exegesis. See al-Tha¨labi, al-Kashf wa al-bayan ¨an tafsir al-Qur’an,
Ayasofya no. 289, 1b.
62
Veliyyüddîn, II, 758b; Ayasofya 1b.
63
Muqatil, Tafsir II, 405; Hasan Hüsnü, 144a.
64
76:13
65
≤ehit, 154b.
66
Muqatil, Tafsir IV, 527.
67
≤ehit, 42a; Veliyyüddin, IV, 1240a.
68
Muqatil Tafsir III, 711; Hasan Hüsnü, 268b.
69
Veliyyüddîn, I, 20a.
70
Muqatil, Tafsir I, 36.
71
Veliyyüddîn, I, 218a; Yozgat I, 168b.
72
Muqatil Tafsir I, 228.

82

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 82 12/3/08, 3:32 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

MuÌammad, hoping that this attitude could lead to Muslims return-

ing from their own belief.73 There are differences among the versions
of Muqatil’s exegesis concerning the decision taken by the Jews: ac-
cording to al-Tha¨labi’s narration from Muqatil, the Jews would wor-
ship for part of the day by turning their faces in the direction of
Mecca (al-Ka¨ba), so the Muslims would hypothetically turn their

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

faces towards Jerusalem (Bayt al-Maqdis).74 According to Muqatil’s
published exegesis, the Jews would declare their belief at the begin-
ning of the day and their disbelief at the and of the day in
MuÌammad’s personal qualities narrated in the Torah.75
Concerning the contents of the heavenly table sent by God in
verse 5:115 there are different reports in Muqatil’s published exegesis
and in al-Tha¨labi’s narration from Muqatil. For instance, according
to al-Tha¨labi’s narration from Muqatil, the number of pieces of
bread on the table is six76 whereas in Muqatil’s published exegesis
there are five.77
The interpretation of verse 7:69 contains some information about
the height of people at the time of the Prophet Noah. According to
al-Tha¨labi’s narration from Muqatil, the people were about 12
Âira¨78 (measure of length) tall whereas in Muqatil’s published ex-
egesis it is said that this measure is 12.5 Âira¨.79
There are also differences among the versions of Muqatil’s exegesis
concerning the number of people who boarded Noah’s Ark. Al-
Tha¨labi’s narration from Muqatil says that there were 78 people on
the Ark, half of whom were men.80 In Muqatil’s published exegesis
there were 80 people on the Ark and similarly, half of them were
men.81
Al-Tha¨labi’s narration from Muqatil and Muqatil’s own exegesis
differ in explaining the two Quranic terms of zafir and shahiq
in verse 11:106. Zafir or shahiq is used in sense of ‘sighing’ in
one source while the same term is used in sense of ‘wailing’ in the
other.82
73
3:72
74
Veliyyüddîn, I, 263a; Yozgat I, 193b.
75
Muqatil, Tafsir I, 284.
76
Veliyyüddîn, I, 486a.
77
Muqatil, Tafsir I, 518; Hasan Hüsnü, 80a.
78
Veliyyüddîn, II, 542a.
79
Muqatil, Tafsir II, 45; Hasan Hüsnü, 94a.
80
Veliyyüddîn, II, 596a; Beyazıt, 6b.
81
Muqatil, Tafsir II, 282; Hasan Hüsnü, 127a.
82
Veliyyüddîn, II, 697a; Beyazıt, 13b; Muqatil, Tafsir II, 298; Hasan Hüsnü,
130b.

83

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 83 12/3/08, 3:32 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

There is different information about the age of Mary when she be-
came pregnant with Jesus: according to al-Tha¨labi’s narration from
Muqatil, she was 10,83 whereas she was 13 years old according to
Muqatil’s published exegesis.84 In addition, the number 16 is found
in al-Tha¨labi’s variant manuscript.85 Thus some differences are
found between the manuscripts of al-Tha¨labi’s exegesis.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

The number of Pharaoh’s magicians who opposed Moses is 72 ac-
cording to al-Tha¨labi’s narration from Muqatil.86 The number in
Muqatil’s published exegesis is 73.87
According to al-Tha¨labi’s narration from Muqatil, verse 24:40
was revealed concerning ¨Utba b. Rabi¨a (2/624)88 whereas in
Muqatil’s published exegesis this verse was revealed concerning the
brother of ¨Utba, Shayba b. Rabi¨a (2/624).89
In both versions of Muqatil’s exegesis differences exist in relation
to the number of people governed by Balqis’ advisory council. Ac-
cording to both versions, the council consists of 313 men. However,
in al-Tha¨labi’s narration from Muqatil each advisor controls ten
thousand people,90 whereas in Muqatil’s published exegesis each of
them controls one hundred thousand.91
In verse 46:35, the Prophet is asked to be patient, like all of the
apostles who are endowed with firmness (ulu al-aÂm). The question
to be answered by the exegetes concerns the identification of these
prophets. According to al-Tha¨labi’s narration from Muqatil, they
are Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and Job.92 However in
Muqatil’s published exegesis the name of Joseph is replaced with the
name of Jonah.93
The expression qarin in the verse 50:27 is explained by al-
Tha¨labi’s narration from Muqatil as an angel94 who records the bad
deeds of man, whereas in Muqatil’s published exegesis it is inter-
preted as Satan.95

83
Veliyyüddîn, III, 890a.
84
Muqatil, Tafsir II, 624; Hasan Hüsnü, 174b.
85
Ayasofya, 143b.
86
Veliyyüddîn, III, 911a; Ayasofya, 168a.
87
Muqatil, Tafsir III, 32; Hasan Hüsnü, 181a.
88
Veliyyüddîn, III, 993b; Ayasofya, 260b.
89
Muqatil, Tafsir III, 202; Hasan Hüsnü, 403b.
90
Veliyyüddîn, III, 1039b.
91
Muqatil, Tafsir III, 303; Hasan Hüsnü, 217b.
92
≤ehit, 66b.
93
Muqatil, Tafsir IV, 30.
94
≤ehit, 82b.
95
Muqatil, Tafsir IV, 113; Hasan Hüsnü, 288b.

84

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 84 12/3/08, 3:32 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

According to al-Tha¨labi’s narration from Muqatil, the guests of

the prophet Abraham in verse 51:24, consist of twelve angels.96
However, in Muqatil’s published exegesis there are only three angels:
Gabriel, Michael and one who is unidentified.97
According to al-Tha¨labi’s narration from Muqatil, ¨Abd Allah b.
¨Amr b. al-¨AÒ (65/685) is among the people about whom verse 65:1

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

was revealed.98 However, in Muqatil’s published exegesis, the name
of ¨Abd Allah b. ¨Umar b. al-Kha††ab (73/692) is found instead of
¨Abd Allah b. ¨Amr b. al-¨AÒ.99 Besides, it is clear that the copier of al-
Tha¨labi’s exegesis has made a mistake; while the copier should have
written the names of both al-™ufayl b. al-Îarith (31/652) and ¨Utba
b. Ghazwan (17/638) separately in relation to the occasions of rev-
elation of this verse, he has written ‘™ufayl b. Îarith b. Ghazwan’
mistakenly as if only one person were involved.100
In verse 82:6 it is stated ‘O man! What has made you careless
concerning your Lord, the Bountiful.’ Both versions of Muqatil’s ex-
egesis try to find a different answer for this Quranic question: ac-
cording to al-Tha¨labi’s narration from Muqatil, it is said ‘When
God postpones punishing this man, the mercy of God makes him
careless.’101 According to Muqatil’s published exegesis, however, Sa-
tan has deceived him.102
In verse 83:23 it is stated that the believers in paradise are gazing
at something while reclining on couches. In al-Tha¨labi’s narration
from Muqatil it is explained that the believers are gazing at their en-
emy, yanÂuruna ila ¨aduwwihim.103 According to Muqatil’s published
exegesis, the believers are gazing at the blessing and benefaction of
God, yanÂuruna ila dhalika al-na¨im.104 It is also important to note
that there is also a difference among the manuscripts of al-Tha¨labi’s
exegesis in relation to this example. In the manuscript of ≤ehit Ali
Pa≥a no. 156 the singular form of the word ¨aduww occurs. However,
the same word is written in the plural form in the manuscript of
Veliyyüddîn Efendi, a¨da’ihim (their enemies). Interestingly, the
manuscript of Veliyyüddin Efendi depends mainly on the manu-
script of ≤ehit Ali Pa≥a and it (Veliyyüddin Efendi) was produced
96
≤ehit, 85b; Veliyyüddin, IV, 1351b.
97
Muqatil, Tafsir IV, 129; Hasan Hüsnü, 300a.
98
≤ehit, 128b.
99
Muqatil, Tafsir IV, 263.
100
Veliyyüddîn, IV, 1473b.
101
≤ehit, 165a.
102
Muqatil, Tafsir IV, 613.
103
≤ehit, 167a.
104
Muqatil, Tafsir IV, 624.

85

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 85 12/3/08, 3:32 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

very late. The exact statement in Veliyyüddîn Efendi is wa qala

Muqatil: yanÂuruna ila a¨da’ihim kayfa yu¨adhdhbun (and Muqatil
has said: They are gazing at how their enemies are being tormented
in hell).105 Clearly, the copiers of the exegesis of Muqatil have not
only changed the singular form of the word (aduww) — which is not
an appropriate form in this context — into the plural form (a¨da’),

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

but have also added a reasonable explanation to make the expression
more understandable. In short, this exegesis has been subjected to
some kind of grammatical rectification.
God begins by taking an oath by fajr ‘daybreak’ at the beginning
of Sura 89:1. This oath raises the question as to which day fajr refers
to here. In reply to this question, al-Tha¨labi’s narration from
Muqatil records that this fajr is the dawn of every day in a year.106
According to Muqatil’s published exegesis, it is explained as the dawn
of every Muslim festival of sacrifice day.107
According to al-Tha¨labi’s narration from Muqatil, verse 90:4 was
revealed about Usayd b. Kilda b. Asid b. Khalaf (?).108 In Muqatil’s
published exegesis, however, it is recorded that this verse was revealed
about al-Îarith b. ¨Amir b. Nawfal b. ¨Abd Manaf al-Qurashi (2/
624).109
It is recorded in al-Tha¨labi’s narration from Muqatil that ‘the
event of the elephant’110 happened twenty-three years before the
Prophet MuÌammad’s birth.111 In Muqatil’s published exegesis, it is
said that forty years passed between ‘the event of the elephant’ and
the birth of the Prophet.112 Nonetheless, an examination of the dif-
ferent manuscripts of al-Tha¨labi’s exegesis reveals the reason for this
inconsistency. According to these manuscripts, the view that twenty-
three years had passed is attributed to al-Kalbi (146/763) while

105
Veliyyüddîn, IV, 1578a.
106
≤ehit, 174b; Veliyyüddin, IV, 1596b.
107
Muqatil, Tafsir IV, 688; Hasan Hüsnü, 354b.
108
≤ehit, 178b. In the Veliyyüddîn manuscript, the name of this man is re-
corded as ‘Asad’ instead of ‘Usayd’. See Veliyyüddîn, IV, 1606a. However, the name
of this man is written wrongly in both manuscripts. The correct version of his
name is Kalada b. Asid b. Khalaf (?). For more information about this man see Ibn
Îazm, Jamharat ansab al-¨Arab, ed. ¨Abd al-Salam MuÌammad Harun (Cairo
1982), 161.
109
Muqatil, Tafsir IV, 702.
110
In pre-Islamic times, Abraha, the governor of Yemen under Abyssinia rule
attempts to demolish al-Ka¨ba. As his army includes elephants, this event is known
as ‘the event of elephant’. See Surat al-Fil (105).
111
≤ehit, 128b.
112
Muqatil, Tafsir IV, 853.

86

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 86 12/3/08, 3:32 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

Muqatil’s own view is given as forty years.113 So it is safe to assume

that the copier of the ≤ehit Ali Pa≥a no. 156 manuscript mistakenly
attributed the opinion of al-Kalbi to Muqatil.
Verse 111:5 describes the suffering of Abu Lahab ¨Abd al-¨Uzza b.
¨Abd al-Mu††alib’s (2/624) wife in hell: she has a halter of palm-fibre
upon her neck. According to the narration derived from Muqatil and

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

al-Sha¨bi (104/722) in the manuscript of ≤ehit Ali Pa≥a, this halter is
made of fibre, lif.114 However, in Muqatil’s published exegesis it is
said that this halter is made of iron chains.115 Like previous exam-
ples, this inconsistency can only be understood after scrutinizing the
different manuscripts of al-Tha¨labi’s exegesis: according to the
manuscript of Veliyyüddîn Efendi, the explanation giving lif (fibre) is
attributed to Qatada (117/735) and al-Sha¨bi.116 Clearly, AÌmad b.
MaÌmud, who copied al-Tha¨labi’s exegesis from the manuscript of
≤ehit Ali Pa≥a no. 156 in 593/1197, wrongly attributed the opinion
of Qatada to Muqatil.
These examples show that the early copies of al-Tha¨labi’s exegesis
do not always provide authentic information. Moreover, after com-
paring these two works, it has to be admitted that it is not known
exactly why there are inconsistencies among the reports in question.
It is possible that Muqatil changed his mind during or after the com-
position of his exegesis but we concede that this cannot be verified.

Lack of Availability of al-Tha¨labi’s References to Muqatil in

Muqatil’s Own Exegesis
There are fifty-seven reports in this group. When we compare both
exegeses (al-Tha¨labi’s and Muqatil’s published exegesis) these reports
cause serious problems. One wonders whether the exegesis of
Muqatil edited and published by ¨Abd Allah MaÌmud ShaÌata is in-
complete. Or it is possible that al-Tha¨labi used a more expanded
version of Muqatil’s exegesis than today’s published version? This is-
sue could have been examined in detail if the Khorasan version of
Muqatil’s exegesis were available.
In the previous subsections (the possibility of distortion and in-
consistencies) each example has been dealt with in relation to these
headings. Because these examples have provided opportunities for
comment and take our investigation further, it is not necessary to

113
Veliyyüddîn, IV, 1649b; Fatih, 146a.
114
≤ehit, 196b.
115
Muqatil, Tafsir IV, 904; Hasan Hüsnü, 368a.
116
Veliyyüddîn, IV, 1670b.

87

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 87 12/3/08, 3:32 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

discuss all of these fifty-seven examples in making an evaluation.

Thus, the following four points are sufficient as typical examples
covering opinions attributed to Muqatil by al-Tha¨labi which could
not be traced in Muqatil’s own exegesis:
i. According to al-Tha¨labi’s narration from Muqatil, the Prophet
asked God to compel the Jews to accept Islam as their new reli-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

gion. Consequently, verse 2:119 was revealed.117 This verse ends
with this expression: ‘…And you (MuÌammad) will not be asked
about the owners of hell-fire’.
ii. According to al-Tha¨labi’s narration from Muqatil, Muqatil and
al-Kalbi (146/763) share the opinion that verse 10:41 has been
abrogated.118
iii. According to al-Tha¨labi’s narration from Muqatil, the Prophet
Noah took the body of the Prophet Adam onto the Ark.119
iv. The expression ‘the earth of God’ in 39:10 is defined by al-
Tha¨labi’s narration from Muqatil as the ‘the earth of paradise’.120
It is also important to note that Muqatil’s name is mentioned by
al-Tha¨labi in some chains of isnad which are not found in Muqatil’s
published exegesis. Ten reports out of the fifty-seven categorized in
this section have this characteristic feature. The majority of these ten
reports begin with the form of this isnad chain: Muqatil ¨an al-
ΔaÌÌak ¨an Ibn ¨Abbas.121
Al-Suyu†i (911/1505) says that al-ΔaÌÌak b. MuzaÌim (105/723)
did not meet Ibn ¨Abbas (68/687), and so there is an interruption
(inqi†a¨) in this report.122 Curiously enough, al-Suyu†i gives some in-
formation about the transmitters of this chain of isnad from after al-
ΔaÌÌak but he does not mention Muqatil’s name. The most famous
117
Ibid., I, 77b.
118
Ibid., II, 670b.
119
Ibid., II, 688a. al-Tha¨labi mentions this report in his other work without
attributing it to Muqatil. See ¨Ara’is al-majalis (Beirut 2000), 59.
120
≤ehit, 33a.
121
Veliyyüddin, II, 778a; III, 1042b, 1054b; ≤ehit, 18a, 27a, 40a. There are
other isnad forms which do not begin with this chain of isnad. See Veliyyüddin, III,
1009b; ≤ehit, 27b, 28a, 46a. Furat b. Ibrahim al-Kufi and ¨Ali b. Ibrahim al-
Qummi, famous Shiite exegetes of the third century of Islam, mention the name of
Muqatil in their exegesis though rarely. See Tafsir Furat al-Kufi, ed. MuÌammad al-
KaÂım (Beirut 1992), I, 174; II, 617; Tafsir al-Qummi (Beirut 1991), II, 399, 403,
433, 454. It is also important to note that with the exception of one place (Tafsir
Furat I, 174) they always use the same chain of isnad, namely Muqatil–al-ΔaÌÌak–
Ibn ¨Abbas.
122
Al-Suyu†i, al-Itqan fi ¨ulum al-Qur’an, ed. MuÒ†afa Dib al-Bugha (Dimashq
1987), II, 1232.

88

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 88 12/3/08, 3:33 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

transmitter in this chain of isnad is undoubtly Juwaybir (150/

767).123 Muqatil, however, is considered more defective than Juway-
bir, whose transmissions have not a good reputation in accordance
with the principles of isnad criticism (rejection and acceptance/jarÌ
and ta¨dil). Thus the presence of Muqatil in the chain of isnad greatly
weakens the status of the isnad.124

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

In order not to repeat them in his exegesis, al-Tha¨labi gives in
great detail the sources that he has benefited from in his introduc-
tion. The question remains, however, why al-Tha¨labi gives the chain
of isnad Muqatil ¨an al-ΔaÌÌak ¨an Ibn ¨Abbas in the interpretation of
some verses. If Goldfeld’s edition of al-Tha¨labi’s introduction is con-
sidered, this question seems reasonable, because Goldfeld has made a
mistake in his edition of al-Tha¨labi’s introduction by failing to
record the transmitter ¨A†a’ b. Abi RabaÌ (114/732), who comes af-
ter Ibn ¨Abbas in the second version of Bakr b. Sahl al-Dimya†i’s
(289/902) exegesis.125 However, in al-Tha¨labi’s introduction the
name of ¨A†a’ b. Abi RabaÌ is mentioned in the chain of isnad of
both versions of al-Dimya†i’s exegesis (…Muqatil ¨an al-ΔaÌÌak ¨an
¨A†a’ b. Abi RabaÌ ¨an Ibn ¨Abbas).126 As a result of this mistake, the
chain of isnad of al-Dimya†i’s exegesis is confused with the isnad of
…Muqatil ¨an al-ΔaÌÌak ¨an Ibn ¨Abbas.127 There is no exegetical
source in al-Tha¨labi’s introduction to his exegesis that shows that al-
ΔaÌÌak had a direct transmission from Ibn ¨Abbas.128

123
The names of Muqatil and Juwaybir after al-ΔaÌÌak are mentioned together
in two of the reports in al-Tha¨labi’s exegesis. See Veliyyüddîn, III, 1042b, 1054b.
124
The sources have even recorded al-ΔaÌÌak’s criticism of Muqatil’s excessive
usage of unnecessary details in the interpretation of the Qur’an. See al-Mizzi,
Tahdhib al-kamal XXVIII, 440; ¨Abd Allah MaÌmud ShaÌata, Tafsir Muqatil (V),
62–3.
125
IsÌaq Goldfeld, Mufassiru, 22.
126
Veliyyüddîn, I, 2b. Although the name of ¨A†a’ is skipped in the manuscript
of Istanbul University (Arabic writings no.1811) which is used by Goldfeld (See
1b), the name of ¨A†a’ occurred in another manuscript (Yozgat writings no. 94)
which Goldfeld also used (See 2b). Interestingly enough, Goldfeld does not even
draw attention to this. al-Suyu†i traces al-Dimya†i’s exegesis back to Ibn Jurayj, but
no further. See al-Itqan, II, 1231.
127
There are reports, which are narrated by these two chain of isnad in
Muqatil’s published exegesis. Thus Goldfeld’s mistake makes the sources of some
reports indefinite and vague. See Muqatil, Tafsir II, 351, 428, 540, 627, 635; III,
54; IV, 202, 244, 389.
128
For Goldfeld’s other editorial mistakes see Mehmet Akif Koç, Tefsirde Bir
Kaynak Incelemesi: eÒ-∑a¨lebi Tefsirinde MuÈatil b. Suleyman Rivayetleri (Ankara,
2005), 23–5.

89

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 89 12/3/08, 3:33 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

Differences Due to Preference and Inadvertent Error

Transmission by Meaning
There are two types of transmission: one is literal and the other is a
transmision of the meaning or idea of the saying. Naturally, the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

transmission of meaning varies in accordance with every person’s
own usage of the language. In addition to this, there is a common
view that the marfu¨ Ìadiths were being transmitted for a while by
meaning.129 Because of this, it is not plausible to argue that the
exegetes transmitted their intepretation literally. Furthermore, should
it be claimed or assumed that the copiers did not take any initiative
in their copying of these exegetical works? Of course not, because
these copiers were human and did not work mechanically. For all
these reasons it is not wise to deal with these fifty-four reports one by
one. Instead discussion will be limited to a few examples:
i. This example is connected with the definition of the word Òabi’in
in verse 2:62. According to al-Tha¨labi’s narration from Muqatil,
they are defined as the people who direct their prayer towards al-
Ka¨ba130 while in Muqatil’s published exegesis they are described
as the people who turn their faces towards the qibla (the direc-
tion of al-Ka¨ba).131
ii. Verse 2:81 describes the state of a man in hell and uses the ex-
pression ‘his sin surrounded him’. Concerning the identification
of this man, al-Tha¨labi’s narration from Muqatil says that this
man is a person who insists on his sin, wrong action, etc.132 In
Muqatil’s published exegesis, there is an explanation that says
‘Thus he died on disbelief ’.133
iii. This example is connected with the explanation of the word
furqan which occurs in verse 8:29. According to al-Tha¨labi’s nar-
ration from Muqatil, Muqatil interprets this word as manfadh
(hole/vent)134 while in Muqatil’s published exegesis it is explained
using the word makhraj (outlet).135
129
Selman Ba≥aran, ‘Hadislerin lafız ve Mana Olarak Rivayeti Meselesi’, Uludag
Üniversitesi Ilahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, III (1991) 51–64, 60; Enbiya Yıldırım, Hadis
Problemleri (Istanbul 2001), 67.
130
Veliyyüddîn, I, 55b; Yozgat, I. 43b.
131
Muqatil, Tafsir I, 112.
132
Veliyyüddîn, I, 62a.
133
Muqatil, Tafsir I, 119.
134
Veliyyüddîn, II, 593b.
135
Muqatil, Tafsir I, 110.

90

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 90 12/3/08, 3:33 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

iv. Verse 20:40 ends with the statement of ‘And now you have come
as ordained/¨ala qadar (by Me), O Moses’. In al-Tha¨labi’s narra-
tion from Muqatil, the expression ¨ala qadar is explained as ¨ala
maw¨id (determined time span).136 In Muqatil’s published ex-
egesis, however, the same expression is clarified as ¨ala miqat
(fixed time).137

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

v. In verse 32:3 it is stated ‘Or they say: He has invented it (the
Qur’an). Nay, but it is the Truth from your Lord, that you may
warn a folk to whom no warner came before you, that haply they
may walk aright.’ On the basis of this verse Muqatil tries to find
an answer for the question ‘In which period of time did the
warner not come to the Arabs?’ According to al-Tha¨labi’s narra-
tion from Muqatil, Muqatil gives the answer to this question as
follows: ‘The warner did not come to the Arabs between the time
of Jesus and the Prophet MuÌammad.’138 In Muqatil’s published
exegesis, however, it is explained in a way similar to the meaning
of the verse ‘there is no warner to the Arabs before you O
MuÌammad.’139

Similarity Among Letters and Words

As is very well known, the addition of one dot or its removal causes
serious changes in the meaning of Arabic words. Similarly, it is clear
that in Arabic one can only reach a correct understanding on the ba-
sis of a correct reading of the statements and, conversely, a correct
reading can only be achieved on the basis of a correct understanding.
Taking the continuation of the tradition into account this can be
seen to happen within the boundaries of the Arabic language. The
Arabic language, however, has undergone a gradual process of change
over many generations. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that the
differences among the letters and words in various manuscripts are
the product of this evolution and that this is an inevitable result.140
There are fourteen reports in this group which we will consider. The
differences are shown in the lists below:
136
Veliyyüddîn, III, 907a.
137
Muqatil, Tafsir III, 27–8.
138
Veliyyüddîn, III, 1100b.
139
Muqatil, Tafsir III, 448.
140
Ibn al-Sayyid al-Ba†alyawsi (521/1127) wrote a book on this topic. He in-
vestigated why the Jurists had various opinions and conluded that one of the main
reasons is the nature of the Arabic language. Thus he dealt with this issue under the
heading of al-taÒÌif (taÌrif ). See al-InÒaf fi tanbih ¨ala al-ma¨ani wa al-asbab allati
awjabat al-ikhtilaf bayna al-muslimin fi ara’ihim, ed. MuÌammad Ri∂wan al-Daya
(Dimashq 1983), 174–7.

91

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 91 12/3/08, 3:33 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

Al-Tha¨labi’s narration from Muqatil Muqatil’s published exegesis

141
al-jinayat al-janabat142
fanaza¨a143 fafazi¨u144
jibillatihi145 jadilatihi146
Tamlikha-Fa†rus147 Yamlikha-Far†us148
yawm149 yawma’idhin150

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

N-b-¨a-t151 N-f-¨a-t152
ghalaw153 ¨alaw154
Îarbil155 H-z-qil156
Bint Yamusha157 Ibnat Namuthiya158
al-safih159 al-safala160
Sayyar161 Yassar162
Tumar-Matus163 Tuman-Yunus164

141
Veliyyüddîn, I, 157a.
142
Muqatil, Tafsir I, 192.
143
Veliyyüddîn, II, 581a; in the Yozgat, II. manuscript it is written as fanad¨u.
See 239a.
144
Muqatil, Tafsir II, 82.
145
Veliyyüddîn, II, 838b.
146
Muqatil, Tafsir II, 547.
147
Veliyyüddîn, III, 866b.
148
Muqatil, Tafsir II, 584.
149
Veliyyüddîn, III, 891b.
150
Muqatil, Tafsir II, 626.
151
Veliyyüddîn, III, 905b. Because we do not read this word in full we only
write its letters.
152
Muqatil, Tafsir III, 25; in the Hasan Hüsnü manuscript (178b) it is written
as b-k-¨a-t.
153
Veliyyüddîn, III, 1002b; In the Ayasofya manuscript (27a) it is written as
¨alaw.
154
Muqatil, Tafsir III, 230.
155
Veliyyüddîn, III, 1021b. In the Ayasofya manuscript (292a) it is written as
™arbil.
156
Muqatil, Tafsir III, 268.
157
Veliyyüddîn, III, 1021b. In the Ayasofya manuscript (292a) it is written as
bint namusa.
158
Muqatil, Tafsir III, 268.
159
Veliyyüddîn, III, 1024b. In the Ayasofya manuscript (295b) it is written as
al-safala.
160
Muqatil, Tafsir III, 273.
161
≤ehit, 48a. In Veliyyüddin, IV, 1255a, it is written as Yassar.
162
Muqatil, Tafsir III, 745.
163
≤ehit, 13a. In Veliyyüddin, III, 1170a, it is written as tumal-malus.
164
Muqatil, Tafsir III, 575. In the Hasan Hüsnü (252b) it is written as yuman-
yunus.

92

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 92 12/3/08, 3:33 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

Sham¨an165 Sham¨un166
Îabib b. Isra’il167 Îabib min Bani Isra’il168

The narrations of Muqatil are found sometimes in an abbreviated

form in both his published exegesis and in al-Tha¨labi’s exegesis. For
example, the narratives such as the seventy people chosen by Moses,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

and life in the hereafter mentioned in verses 19:39 and 37:50 respec-
tively are discussed in great detail in Muqatil’s published exegesis.169
The same episodes, however, are merely outlined in al-Tha¨labi’s nar-
ration from Muqatil.170 On the other hand, the narratives such as the
casting of Joseph into the depths of the well and the men of the cave
are summarised in Muqatil’s published exegesis,171 whereas they are
examined in detail in al-Tha¨labi’s narrations from Muqatil.172

Conclusion

In al-Tha¨labi’s exegesis, Muqatil b. Sulayman’s name is mentioned

about 630 times. Approximately one quarter of al-Tha¨labi’s refer-
ences are inconsistent with Muqatil’s published exegesis. It is safe to
assume that most of these inconsistencies are due to inadvertent er-
rors which could expectedly occur during the production and repro-
duction of the manuscripts. Moreover, it is possible to find some
contradictory reports, as claimed by Josef van Ess,173 which give the
impression that Muqatil’s exegesis was revised. There are some par-
ticular inconsistencies between the Khurasani version of Muqatil’s
exegesis, which is partly covered by al-Tha¨labi’s exegesis, and his
published commentary i.e. the Baghdadi version, which cannot be
explained on the basis of errors possibly occurring during the pro-
duction of manuscripts. However, careful examination shows that
these inconsistencies were not caused by a systematic effort either.
Today there is not enough evidence about the great influence on
later commentaries of the exegeses of al-Maturidi (333/945) and
Abu al-Layth (373/983), who used Muqatil’s exegesis before al-

165
≤ehit, 13a. In Veliyyüddin, III, 1170a, it is written as sim¨an.
166
Muqatil, Tafsir III, 575.
167
≤ehit, 13a.
168
Muqatil, Tafsir III, 576–7.
169
Ibid., I, 116; II, 628–9; III, 607.
170
Veliyyüddin, I, 60b; III, 893a; ≤ehit, 17b.
171
Muqatil, Tafsir II, 320, 578.
172
Veliyyüddîn, II, 702b; III, 861a.
173
Josef van Ess, Theologie II, 522, 528–9.

93

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 93 12/3/08, 3:33 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

Tha¨labi. Thus it is to be assumed that both exegeses had a limited

influence on the legitimization process of Muqatil’s commentary.
When al-Tha¨labi’s commentary is considered, there is no doubt that
he contributed greatly to the legitimization of Muqatil’s exegesis. Al-
Tha¨labi, who received the heritage of the exegeses of the third cen-
tury, passed this on to the fourth and fifth-centuries via al-WaÌidi

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

(468/1076)174 and al-Baghawi (516/1122) respectively. Al-Baghawi,
who mentions the name of al-Tha¨labi175 specifically in the introduc-
tion of his exegesis, benefited substantially from al-Tha¨labi’s work.
The relation between the studentship of Fakhr al-Din al-Razi’s (606/
1209) father, Δiya’ al-Din ¨Umar,176 to Baghawi, and the possible
influence of this mentor-pupil (Baghawi-Δiya’ al-Din ¨Umar) rela-
tionship on al-Razi calls for further investigation. In addition to this,
there are other evidences which show the strong relation between the
exegesis of al-Tha¨labi and al-Razi. First of all, al-Razi’s primary
source in the exegesis of the Qur’an is al-WaÌidi (468/1076)177 and
it is well known that al-WaÌidi is a pupil of al-Tha¨labi. Most impor-
tantly, al-Razi says several times in his exegesis that he has benefited
from the exegesis of al-Tha¨labi.178 al-Tha¨labi’s exegesis was also
popular in the Western part of the Islamic world,179 to the extent
that the famous Andalusian scholar, MuÌammad b. al-Walid al-
™ur†ushi (520/1126), made an abbreviated version of it.180
Probably, al-Maturidi’s, Abu al-Layth’s and al-Tha¨labi’s usage of
Muqatil’s exegesis was facilitated by their being Muqatil’s fellow
countrymen; all four came from the region of Khorasan. This factor
alone connects Muqatil to al-Maturidi and Abu al-Layth. Al-
Tha¨labi’s usage of Muqatil, however, might have been affected by
their sectarian relationship (connection through a particular school
of thought). Walid Saleh, who has investigated al-Tha¨labi’s exegesis,
174
Jawda MuÌammad al-Mahdi, al-WaÌidi wa-manhajuhu fi al-tafsir (Cairo
1978), 68.
175
Ma¨alim al-tanzil (Beirut 1993), I, 4.
176
Ibn Khallikan, Wafayat al-a¨yan wa-anba’ abna’ ahl al-zaman (Cairo 1948),
III, 384; Khalil Mays, ‘Muqaddima’, in Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, MafatiÌ al-ghayb
(Beirut 1990), I, 9.
177
Jawda MuÌammad al-Mahdi, al-WaÌidi, 412–26.
178
Al-Razi, MafatiÌ al-ghayb I, 181; X, 149; XXI, 187, 202; XXII, 3; XXXI,
148. For example, in the interpretation of the basmala (the beginning of every sura
of the Qur’an) al-Razi mentions nearly ten reports and then says ‘know! I have nar-
rated all these reports from the Shaykh Abu IsÌaq al-Tha¨labi.’ See Ibid., I, 201–2.
179
For instance, al-Qur†ubi (671/1272) expresses openly his deep respect for al-
Tha¨labi in his exegesis. See, al-Qur†ubi, al-Jami¨ li-aÌkam XIII, 18.
180
Ibn Khayr, Fahrasa, eds. Franciscu Codera-J. Ribera Tarrago (Baghdad
1963), 59.

94

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 94 12/3/08, 3:34 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

found that one of the leading teachers of al-Tha¨labi (Abu al-Qasim

al-Îasan b. MuÌammad b. al-Îasan b. Îabib al-Naysaburi 406/
1015) belonged to the Karrami school of thought. Saleh argues that
the Karrami school had a great influence on Muslim exegeses in the
Middle Ages via al-Tha¨labi’s exegesis.181 The importance of the
Karrami school of thought for this study is to be found in its image

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

of God. The Karramis were primarily accused of believing that God
resembles a human being in certain respects (appearance, behaviour,
etc).182 It is generally accepted that Muqatil b. Sulayman, who has
been blamed for accepting tashbih and tajsim (anthropomorphic
ideas), was among the vanguard of the Karrami school of thought.183
Now, on the basis of Walid Saleh’s above-mentioned finding, it is
possible to venture to explain why al-Tha¨labi used Muqatil’s exegesis
to such a great extent: having been brought up under the influence
of a Karrami mentor (al-Îasan b. MuÌammad b. al-Îasan b.
Îabib), al-Tha¨labi presumably was interested in benefiting from
Muqatil’s exegesis, because the anthropomorphic ideas (tashbih/
tajsim) which were considered acceptable to Karramiyya, were also
attributed earlier to Muqatil. Having transmitted more than twenty
exegesis to Tha¨labi, Ibn Îabib,184 also narrated two versions of
181
Walid Saleh, ‘The Qur’an Commentary of al-Tha¨labi (d.427/1035)’, un-
published Ph.D. thesis (Yale University 2001), 3, 6. Saleh evaluates the narration of
Ibn Îabib’s renunciation of the ideas of the Karramis and his acceptance of Shafiite
tenets [See al-∑afadi, Kitab al-wafi bi al-wafayat (Wiesbaden 1985), XII, 239; al-
Dawudi, ™abaqat I, 145] as an attempt to clear the name of Ibn Îabib. See Walid
Saleh, ‘The Qur’an Commentary’, 32.
182
Al-Baghdadi, al-Farq bayn al-firaq ed. MuÌammad Badr (Egypt n.d.), 203.
183
Al-Baghdadi (429/1037) presents the Karramiyya as a sub-section of
Mushabbiha. See al-Baghdadi, al-Farq 217. Although the starting points of
Mushabbiha and the Mujassima — the Karramis are generally accused of the second
one — differ to some extent, there is a close similarity between their beliefs con-
cerning the image of God. See Suhayr MuÌammad Mukhtar, al-Tajsim ¨inda al-
muslimin ‘madhhab al-Karramiya’ (Egypt 1971), 9. Ulrich Rudolph holds the view
that Abu Mu†i¨ MakÌul al-Nasafi (318/930) and al-Maturidi (333/945) do not
agree on the question of the inclusion of the Karramiyya within the Mushabbiha.
See Ulrich Rudolph, al-Maturidi und die Sunnitische Theologie in Samerkand (Brill
1997), 169. In the work of MakÌul, whose book is considered the oldest surviving
Eastern text written on the sects, neither the name of MuÌammad b. Karram nor
the title of Karramiyya is found. See Abu Mu†i¨ MakÌul al-Nasafi, ‘Kitab al-radd
¨ala ahl al-bida¨ wa al-ahwa}, ed. Marie Bernand, Annales Islamologigues, 16 (1980),
53–126. Following MakÌul, al-Maturidi does not tolerate Karrami ideas; he criti-
cizes the Karrami understanding of iman (belief/faith) in both works available to-
day. See al-Maturidi, Kitab al-tawÌid 492–4; Ta’wilat ahl al-sunna, see especially the
pages. I, 449; IV, 550.
184
Al-Tha¨labi generally attributes his mentor’s name al-Îasan b. MuÌammad
to his grandfather and mentions it as Ibn Îabib.

95

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 95 12/3/08, 3:34 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

Muqatil’s exegesis.185 One of them, however, was narrated via Abu

¨IÒma NuÌ b. Abi Maryam (173/789), who was criticized by jarÌ and
ta¨dil scholars severely.186 The work of Ibn Îabib also confirms that
concerning the usage of Muqatil’s exegesis he is in the vanguard of
transmitters of al-Tha¨labi’s exegesis.187
185

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

IsÌaq Goldfeld, Mufassirun, 39–40. For some of al-Tha¨labi’s other refer-
ences to Ibn Îabib see Veliyyüddîn, I, 14a–b, 20b, 22a, 23a, 27b; II, 8b; ≤ehit,
42a, 53a. Having written the Islamic expression ‘May God forgive him (Ibn
Îabib)/raÌimahu Allah’, al-Tha¨labi quotes from Ibn Îabib in the interpretation of
verse 21:83. This shows clearly that during this period of al-Tha¨labi’s exegesis, Ibn
Îabib was no longer alive.
186
NuÌ b. Abi Maryam, who was a student of Abu Îanifa and a jurist in the
city of Marw, was the stepson of Muqatil b. Sulayman. See Ibn ¨Adiyy, al-Kamil VI,
2428-29. AÌmad Naim (1353/1934) and Kâmil Miras (1377/1957) defended NuÌ
against the critics, who argued that NuÌ had fabricated reports and traditions con-
cerning the virtues of the Quranic Suras. See al-Dhahabi, Mizan al-i¨tidal IV, 279;
al-Zabidi, Sahih-i Buhari Muhtasarı ve Tecrid-i Sarih Tercemesi, tr. Ahmed Naim
(Ankara 1957), I, 285–7, 496–8. In addition, Abu Ghudda also addresses the
claims about NuÌ and makes necessary criticisms of them. See Abu Ghudda, ‘al-
Istidrak’, Åafar al-amani bi-sharÌ mukhtaÒar al-sayyid al-sharif al-Jurjani fi muÒ†alaÌ
al-Ìadith li al-Laknawi (Aleppo 1416), 573–80. Further see Hayri Kırba≥oglu,
Alternatif Hadis Metodolojisi (Ankara 2002), 155–63. Nonetheless, of those defend-
ing NuÌ, nobody has discussed the kinship of Muqatil and NuÌ. Most probably,
the critical attitude towards NuÌ might be due to his usage of Muqatil’s exegesis,
which, it is considered, should be treated with great caution. The reason advanced
in the criticism of NuÌ is closely related to the science of exegesis, therefore the last
view seems very plausible in this regard. Josef van Ess says that NuÌ was an
anthropomorphist. See Josef van Ess, Theologie, II. 529, 550–1. Van Ess’s evaluation
relies exclusively on the presence of NuÌ in the chain of isnad of marfu¨ reports
which state that God will be seen in the hereafter. See Ibn Manda, al-Radd ¨ala al-
jahmiyya, ed. ¨Ali MuÌammad NaÒir (Madina 1981), 96; al-Lalaka’i, SharÌ uÒul
i¨tiqad ahl al-sunna wa al-jama¨a min al-kitab wa al-sunna wa-ijma al-ÒaÌaba wa al-
tabi¨ina min ba¨dihim, ed. AÌmad Sa¨d Îamdan (Riyadh n.d.), II, 456. NuÌ’s mere
presence as a transmitter in this kind of report does not prove that he was an
anthropomorphist. More importantly, there is no information in relevant sources
indicating that NuÌ was an anthropomorphist.
187
There are two quotations from Muqatil in Ibn Îabib’s surviving work (¨ilm
nuzul al-Qur’an). See the Library of Köprülü no. 15, 3b, 6a. There is a problem in
both quotations from the perspective of Muqatil’s published exegesis. According to
the first quotation Muqatil was of the opinion that the first Sura of the Qur’an
(Surah FatiÌa) was revealed in Mecca. However, in Muqatil’s published exegesis it is
recorded that this Sura is revealed in Medina. See Muqatil, Tafsir I. 35. In his sec-
ond quotation there is a piece of information which is not found in Muqatil’s pub-
lished exegesis. The two works of Ibn Îabib are the above mentioned treatise (¨Ilm
nuzul al-Qur’an), which consists of nine pages of manuscript; the second is a liter-
ary work which has been translated and published by ≤ule Publishing House (See
Akıllı Deliler Kitabı, tr. Yahya Atak, Istanbul, 2002). Walid Saleh notes that a part
of Ibn Îabib’s exegesis is now in the libraries of Istanbul. See Walid Saleh, ‘The
Qur’an Commentary’, 30. Concerning these discrepancies, Saleh mainly depends

96

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 96 12/3/08, 3:34 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

Like Josef van Ess, Walid Saleh also concentrates on a treatise

written by an anonymous Karrami writer.188 Saleh finds various simi-
larities between the exegetical topics of this treatise and al-Tha¨labi’s
promises to undertake to address certain issues189 in his exegesis.190
He uses this finding in order to prove a possible Karrami influence
on al-Tha¨labi’s exegesis. The topics which are given priority in this

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

treatise are as follows: al-Bisa†, al-akhbar wa al-Ìikayat, al-wujuh wa
al-naÂa’ir, al-nukat wa al-isharat, al-Ìaqa’iq wa al-aÌkam and al-
tabkiya.191 al-Tha¨labi too places special stress on these topics, with
the exception of the heading al-tabkiya.192
Walid Saleh also explains why al-Tha¨labi notes the number of
verses, words and letters at the beginning of the interpretation of
each sura, attributing this to the influence of the Karramis.193 A simi-
lar method (counting the number of verses, words and letters in each
Sura) is also observed in the introduction of an anonymous exegesis
published by Arthur Jeffery.194 Saleh asserts that this exegesis was
written by a Karrami exegete.195 Muqatil’s exegesis also has features

on the index published in 1987 in Jordan. See al-Fahras al-shamil li al-turath al-
¨arabi al-islami al-makh†u†, ¨ulum al-Qur’an, makh†u†at al-tafsir, I, 128–9. The
name attached to the work mentioned in this index in the manuscript catalogue
numbers ‘Kara Mustafa Pa≥a no. 68’ and ‘Mihri≥ah Sultan no. 31’ is that of NiÂam
al-Din al-Îasan b. MuÌammad b. al-Îusayn al-Naysaburi, who passed away in
728/1328. His exegesis name was Ghara’ib al-Qur’an wa-ragha’ib al-furqan (ed.
Ibrahim ¨A†wa ¨Aw∂, Egypt 1962). The index categorises this Tafsir as the exegesis
of Ibn Îabib (406/1015). Probably, this mistake derives from a misreading of the
library’s catalogue cards. In the department of Kara Mustafa Pa≥a where it is situ-
ated in the library of Beyazıt, the death date of the exegete is given as 406, which is
actually Ibn Îabib’s death date instead of the exegete’s real death date, 728. In the
later cards of the Beyazıt library, the same mistake is repeated. See Veliyyüddin
Efendi no. 276–81. Moreover, as in the department of Mihri≥ah Sultan, there is no
work in relation to this topic in the Madrasa of MuÒallâ no. 39 (in the library of the
Süleymaniye) which is mentioned in the index. Although Walid Saleh notes the
similarity between the names of al-Îasan b. MuÌammad b. al-Îasan b. Îabib and
NiÂam al-Din al-Îasan b. MuÌammad as the possible cause of the confusion, he
fails to avoid the same mistake. See Walid Saleh, ‘The Qur’an Commentary’, 30,
(footnote 70).
188
Josef van Ess, Ungenützte Texte zur Karramiya (Heidelberg 1980).
189
IsÌaq Goldfeld, Mufassiru 19.
190
Walid Saleh, ‘The Qur’an Commentary’, 91–2.
191
Josef van Ess, Ungenützte, 42.
192
IsÌaq Goldfeld, Mufassiru 19.
193
Walid Saleh, ‘The Qur’an Commentary’, 89.
194
Ed. Arthur Jeffery, Muqaddimatan fi ¨ulum al-Qur’an (Cairo 1954), 235–50.
195
On this issue, the article of Aron Zysow, to which Saleh rightly makes refer-
ence, is convincing. Zysow finds that in this introduction (muqaddima) the author
refers to Ibn Karram with his praiseworthy words. See ‘Two Unrecognized Karrami

97

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 97 12/3/08, 3:34 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

which would have been appreciated by Karramis. At the beginning

of his exegesis, Muqatil focuses on counting (jummal) and he calcu-
lates the values of every letter as numerals, and goes into detail about
them.196

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

BIBLIOGRAPHY

MuÌammad al-¨Arusi. 2001–2. ‘Muqatil b. Sulayman mufassiran li al-Qur’an’. Un-

published M.A. thesis, The University of Mannuba
¨Abd al-Qadir b. MuÌammad. n.d. al-Jawahir al-mu∂iyya fi †abaqat al-Ìanafiyya.
(Hyderabad)
Abu Ghudda, ‘al-Istidrak’. 1416. Åafar al-amani bi-sharÌ mukhtaÒar al-sayyid al-
sharif al-Jurjani fi muÒ†alaÌ al-Ìadith li al-Laknawi. (Aleppo)
Abu Îayyan, Tafsir al-baÌr al-muÌi†, ¨Adil AÌmad ¨Abd al-Mawjud and ¨Ali
MuÌammad Mu¨awwi∂ (eds). 1993. (Beirut)
Abu al-Layth, Tafsir al-Samarqandi al-musamma BaÌr al-¨ulum, ¨Ali MuÌammad
Mu¨awwi∂, ¨Adil AÌmad ¨Abd al-Mawjud and Zakariyya ¨Abd al-Majid al-Nuti
(eds). 1993. (Beirut)
Abu al-MaÌasin al-Îusayni. 1956. Dhayl tadhkira al-Ìuffa li al-Dhahabi. (Beirut)
Abu al-Su¨ud. 1990. Irshad al-¨aql al-salim ila mazaya al-Qur’an al-karim. (Beirut)
Abu Mu†i¨ MakÌul al-Nasafi, ‘Kitab al-radd ¨ala ahl al-bida¨ wa al-ahwa’, Marie
Bernand (ed.). 1980. (Annales Islamologigues 16), 53–126
Abu Zayd, NaÒr Îamid. n.d. al-Imam al-Shafi¨i. (Cairo)
Al-Alusi, RuÌ al-ma¨ani fi tafsir al-Qur’an al-¨aÂim wa al-sab¨i al-mathani,
MuÌammad Îusayn al-¨Arab (ed.). 1994. (Beirut)
Al-Ash¨ari, Kitab maqalat al-Islamiyyin, Hellmut Ritter (ed.). 1980. (Wiesbaden)
Al-Baghawi. 1993. Ma¨alim al-tanzil. (Beirut)
Al-Baghdadi. al-Farq bayn al-firaq, MuÌammad Badr (ed.). n.d. (n.p., Egypt)
—— n.d. Tarikh Baghdad aw madinat al-salam. (Beirut)
Al-Baladhuri, Kitab jumal min ansab al-ashraf, Suhayl Zakkar and Riya∂ Zirrikli
(eds). 1996. (Beirut)
Al-Dawudi. n.d. ™abaqat al-mufassirin. (Beirut)
Al-Dhahabi. Mizan al-i¨tidal fi naqd al-rijal, ed. ¨Ali MuÌammad al-Bajawi (ed.).
1963. (Beirut)
—— Tarikh al-Islam wa wafayat mashahir wa al-a¨lam, ¨Umar ¨Abd al-Salam
Tadmuri (ed.). 1997. (Beirut)
No name 1987. Al-Fahras al-shamil li al-turath al-¨arabi al-islami al-makh†u†,¨ulum
al-Qurˆan, makh†u†at al-tafsir (Jordan)
Al-WaÌidi, al-Wasi† fi tafsir al-Qur’an al-majid, ¨Adil AÌmad ¨Abd al-Mawjud,
AÌmad MuÌammad ∑ira, ¨Ali MuÌammad Mu¨awwi∂, AÌmad ¨Abd al-Ghani
al-Jamal and ¨Abd al-RaÌman Uways (eds). 1994. (Beirut)

Texts’, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 108 (1988): 577–87. Furthermore,
Zysow argues that the frequent references to the Karrami scholar MuÌammad b.
HayÒam (409/1019) are due to the influence of Karramiyya. See ibid., 578 (foot-
note) 8. For the places of the references given by Zysow in the edition of Jeffery’s
text, see Muqaddimatan, 47–8, 170–1, 188, 194, 207–9, 217–18, 240–1.
196
Muqatil, Tafsir I, 28.

98

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 98 12/3/08, 3:35 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

Al-Zabidi. 1957. Sahih-i Buhari Muhtasarı ve Tecrid-i Sarih Tercemesi, Ahmed Naim
(trans). (Ankara)
Ba≥aran, Selman. 1991. ‘Hadislerin lafız ve Mana Olarak Rivayeti Meselesi’, Uludag
Üniversitesi Ilahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi III, 51–64
CD of Maktabat al-tafsir
Cerrahoglu, Ismail. 1976. ‘Tefsirde Mukâtil ibn Süleyman ve Eserleri’, Ankara
Üniversitesi Ilahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 21, 1–36

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

Furat b. Ibrahim al-Kufi, Tafsir Furat al-Kufi, MuÌammad al-KaÂım (ed.). 1992.
(Beirut)
Goldfeld, IsÌaq. 1984. Mufassiru sharq al-¨alam al-Islami fi arba¨at al-qurun al-
hijriyya al-ula: Nashr makh†u†at muqaddimat al-Tha¨labi li kitab al-kashf wa al-
bayan ¨an tafsir al-Qur’an (Acre)
Îaji Khalifa. 1360. Kashf al-Âunun ¨an asam al-kutub wa al-funun (Istanbul)
Ibn Abi Îatim. 1952. Kitab al-jarÌ wa al-ta¨dil (Hyderabad)
—— Tafsir al-Qur’an al-¨aÂim musnadan ¨an Rasul Allah wa al-ÒaÌaba wa al-tabi¨in,
As¨ad MuÌammad al-™ayyib (ed.). 1997. (Mecca)
Ibn ¨Adiyy. 1985. al-Kamil fi ∂u¨afa’’al-rijal (Beirut)
Ibn ¨A†iyya. 1993. al-MuÌarrar al-wajiz fi tafsir al-kitab al-¨aziz (Beirut)
Ibn Îabib, ¨Ilm nuzul al-Qur’an, Köprülü Library no. 15
Ibn Îajar. 1328. al-IÒaba fi tamyiz al-ÒaÌaba (Eygpt)
—— n.d. Tahdhib al-tahdhib (Beirut)
Ibn Îazm, al-MuÌalla, AÌmad MuÌammad Shakir (ed.). n.d. (Beirut)
—— Jamharat ansab al-¨Arab, ¨Abd al-Salam MuÌammad Harun (ed.). 1982. (Cairo)
Ibn Îibban, Kitab al-majruÌin min al-muÌaddithin wa al-∂u¨afaˆ wa al-matrukin,
MuÌammad Ibrahim Zayid (ed.). 1396. (Aleppo)
Al-Ka¨bi, Maqalat, private library of RajiÌ al-Kurdi in the copy of the article on
‘Murjiah’
Ibn Khallikan. 1948. Wafayat al-a¨yan wa anba’ abna’ ahl al-zaman (Cairo)
Ibn Khayr, Fahrasa, Franciscu Codera and J. Ribera Tarrago (eds). 1963. (Baghdad)
Al-Lalaka’i, SharÌ uÒul i¨tiqad ahl al-sunna wa al-jama¨a min al-kitab wa al-sunna
wa ijma al-ÒaÌaba wa al-tabi¨ina min ba¨dihim, ed. AÌmad Sa¨d Îamdan (ed.).
n.d. (Riyadh)
Ibn Manda, al-Radd ¨ala al-jahmiyya, ¨Ali MuÌammad NaÒir (ed.) 1981. (Medina)
Ibn al-Nadim. 1978. al-Fihrist (Beirut)
Ibn al-Sayyid al-Ba†alyawsi, al-InÒaf fi tanbih ¨ala al-ma¨ani wa al-asbab allati
awjabat al-ikhtilaf bayna al-muslimin fi ara’ihim, MuÌammad Ri∂wan al-Daya
(ed.). 1983. (Damascus)
I≥ler, Emrullah. 1993. ‘Tahavi (321/933) ve Ahkamu’l-Kur’an’ı’. Unpublished
Ph.D. thesis, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
Jeffery, Arthur. 1954. Muqaddimatan fi ¨ulum al-Qur’an (Cairo)
Kırba≥oglu, Hayri. 2002. Alternatif Hadis Metodolojisi (Ankara)
—— 2000. Sünni Paradigmanın Olu≥umunda ≤afii’nin Rolü (Ankara)
Koç, Mehmet Akif. 2005. ‘Isnads and Rijal Expertise in the Exegesis of Ibn Abi
Îatim (327/939)’, Der Islam 82, 146–68.
—— Isnad Verileri Çerçevesinde Erken Dönem Tefsir Faaliyetleri-Ibn Ebi Îatim (327/
939) Tefsiri Orneginde Bir Literatür Incelemesi (Ankara 2003)
—— 2005. Tefsirde Bir Kaynak Incelemesi: eÒ-∑a¨lebi Tefsirinde MuÈatil b. Suleyman
Rivayetleri (Ankara)
Koçoglu, Kıyasettin. 2005. ‘Maturidi’nin Mutezileye Bakı≥ı’. Unpublished Ph.D.
thesis, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü

99

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 99 12/3/08, 3:36 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

Al-Mahdi, Jawda MuÌammad. 1978. al-WaÌidi wa manhajuh fi al-tafsir. (Cairo)

Al-Mala†i, al-Tanbih wa al-radd ¨ala ahl al-ahwa’ wa al-bida¨, MuÌammad Zahid al-
Kawthari (ed.) n.d. (Baghdad)
Al-Maturidi, Kitab al-tawÌid, ed. Bekir Topaloglu and Muhammed Aruçi (ed.).
2003. (Ankara)
——Ta’wilat ahl al-sunna, Fa†ima Yusuf al-Khiyami (ed.) 2004. (Beirut)
—— Ta’wilat ahl al-sunna, Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Madina Dept no. 180

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

Mays, Khalil. 1990. ‘Muqaddima’, in Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, MafatiÌ al-ghayb (Bei-
rut)
Al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-kamal fi asma’ al-rijal, Bashshar ¨Awwad Ma¨ruf (ed.). 1992.
(Beirut)
Mukhtar, Suhayr MuÌammad. 1971. al-Tajsim ¨inda al-muslimin ‘madhhab al-
Karramiya’. (Egypt)
Muqatil b. Sulayman, Tafsir Muqatil, Hasan Hüsnü Pa≥a no. 17
—— al-Ashbah wa al-naÂa’ir fi al-Qur’an al-karim, ¨Abd Allah MaÌmud ShaÌata
(ed.). 1994. (Cairo)
—— Tafsir Muqatil b. Sulayman, ¨Abd Allah MaÌmud ShaÌata (ed.). 1979–88.
(Cairo)
—— Tafsir Muqatil b. Sulayman, AÌmad Farid (ed.). 2003. (Beirut)
Al-Naqqash, Shifa’ al-Òudur fi tafsir al-Qur’an al-karim, Süleymaniye Library Hasan
Hüsnü Pa≥a no. 40
al-Qummi, ¨Ali b. Ibrahim. 1991. Tafsir al-Qummi. (Beirut)
Al-Qur†ubi. 1988. al-Jami¨ li aÌkam al-Qur’an. (Beirut)
Mustafi∂ al-RaÌman. 1970. ‘An Edition of the First Two Chapters of al-Maturidi’s
Taˆwilatu Ahl al-Sunna’. Ph.D. thesis, (University of London)
Al-Razi. 1990. MafatiÌ al-ghayb. (Beirut)
Al-∑afadi. 1985. Kitab al-wafi bi al-wafayat. (Wiesbaden)
Saleh, Walid. 2001. ‘The Qur’an Commentary of al-Tha{labi (d.427/1035)’. Un-
published Ph.D. thesis, Yale University
Al-Shafi¨i, al-Risala, AÌmad MuÌammad Shakir (ed.). 1940. (Beirut)
Al-Shahristani, al-Milal wa al-niÌal, AÌmad Fahmi MuÌammad (ed.). 1948. (Bei-
rut)
Al-Suyu†i, al-Itqan fi ¨ulum al-Qur’an, MuÒ†afa Dib al-Bugha (ed.). 1987.
(Dimashq)
Al-™abari. 1988. Jami¨ al-bayan ¨an ta’wil ay al-Qur’an. (Beirut)
—— n.d. Tarikh al-umam wa al-muluk. (Beirut)
Al-Tha¨labi. 2000. ¨Ara’is al-majalis. (Beirut)
—— al-Kashf wa al-bayan ¨an tafsir al-Qur’an, Beyazıt Library no. 460
—— al-Kashf wa al-bayan ¨an tafsir al-Qur’an, Beyazıt Library Veliyyüddin Efendi
no. 130–3
—— al-Kashf wa al-bayan ¨an tafsir al-Qur’an, ed. Sayyid Kasrawi Îasan (Beirut
2004)
—— al-Kashf wa al-bayan ¨an tafsir al-Qur’an, Süleymaniye Library ≤ehid Ali Pa≥a
no. 156
—— al-Kashf wa al-bayan ¨an tafsir al-Qur’an, Süleymaniye Library Yozgat Manu-
scripts no. 94
—— al-Kashf wa al-bayan ¨an tafsir al-Qur’an, Süleymaniye Library Ayasofya no.
289
Rudolph, Ulrich. 1997. al-Maturidi und die Sunnitische Theologie in Samerkand.
(Leiden)

100

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 100 12/3/08, 3:36 pm

 REFERENCES TO MUQATIL B. SULAYMAN (150/767)

van Ess, Josef. 1992. Theologie und Gesellschaft im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert Hidschra
(Berlin-New York)
—— 1980. Ungenützte Texte zur Karramiya (Heidelberg)
http://www.altafsir.com
Yazıcı, Ishak. 1991. ‘BaÌru’l-¨ulum’, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfi Islam Ansiklopedisi (Is-
tanbul)
—— 1982. ‘Ebu’l-Leys es-Semerkandi, Hayatı, Eserleri ve Tefsirindeki Metodu’.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/53/1/69/1729574 by ANKARA UNIVERSITY user on 08 July 2021

Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Erzurum Atatürk Üniversitesi Islami Ilimler
Fakültesi
——1979. ‘Ebu’l-Leys es-Semerkandi’nin Mukatil b. Süleyman’ın Tefsiri ile Olan
Münasebeti’, Ph.D. seminar work, Erzurum Atatürk Üniversitesi Islami Ilimler
Fakültesi
Yıldırım, Enbiya. (2001) Hadis Problemleri. (Istanbul)
Zysow, Aron. 1988. ‘Two Unrecognized Karrami Text’, Journal of the American
Oriental Society 108, 577–87

101

0636-07_Joss08-1_Art04_fgm004 101 12/3/08, 3:36 pm