then continuing organically from that point forward; the ear-
liest material has thus become known as tafs ̄ır al-nab ̄ı (“the
interpretation of the Prophet”). Various companions of
Muh:ammad and some early believers are also seen as the
major figures who started interpreting the QurDa ̄n and teach-
ing people exactly what their understanding of the text was;
central among them was EAbd Alla ̄h ibn EAbba ̄s (d. 687?),
who gained the title tarjuma ̄n al-QurDa ̄n, “the interpreter of
the QurDa ̄n.”
A debate rages in the scholarly literature on the nature
of early tafs ̄ır, most especially over the idea of opposition to
the activity itself in the early Islamic period. This notion was
first isolated by Ignácz Goldziher in Die Richtungen der is-
lamischen Koranauslegung (Leiden, 1920); on the basis of tra-
ditional Muslim reports concerning the caliph EUmar
(d. 644) and his punishment of a certain person (variously
identified) for interpreting unclear passages of the QurDa ̄n,
Goldziher concluded that interpretation of QurDanic verses
dealing with historical legends and eschatology was illegiti-
mate. Harris Birkeland in Old Muslim Opposition against In-
terpretation of the Koran (Oslo, 1955) rejected this conten-
tion on the basis of his own evaluation of the traditional
reports, which suggested to him certain contradictions, espe-
cially over the identity of the flogging victim and over wheth-
er such punishment was in keeping with EUmar’s character.
Birkeland has argued that, rather than general opposition to
tafs ̄ır, there was no opposition at all in the first Muslim cen-
tury, that strong opposition arose in the second century, and
that thereafter the activity of tafs ̄ır was brought into and
under the sphere of orthodox doctrine and requirements. In
particular, strict methods were introduced for the transmis-
sion of the information, which formed the core of interpreta-
tional procedure, and in this way, tafs ̄ır gained total accep-
tance. Nabia Abbott, in an excursus to her Studies in Arabic
Literary Papyri II: QurDa ̄nic Commentary and Tradition (Chi-
cago, 1967), reasserted Goldziher’s isolation of early opposi-
tion on the basis of traditional information that the person
in question certainly existed and that flogging was in keeping
with the character of EUmar. For Abbott, however, the oppo-
sition was limited to the interpretation of a specific category
of unclear verses (mutasha ̄biha ̄t), a claim that she based on
the traditional biographical material, which indicates that
those people who are mentioned as opponents of tafs ̄ır in fact
transmitted much material themselves. Therefore, for Ab-
bott, the only opposition to tafs ̄ır that ever existed was that
connected with the ambiguous or unclear verses. Precisely
what is to be understood by the “unclear verses,” however,
is glossed over in this argument. Exegetes never have agreed
and never will agree on which verses are unclear, or even on
what that expression means. Some things are unclear to one
person while they are perfectly clear to another, often because
of a different (especially religious) perspective on the ma-
terial.
The major problem with all of these discussions is the
lack of substantial evidence, with the result that the entire
argument remains speculative. Manuscript evidence for tafs ̄ır
barely reaches back to the third century AH (ninth century
CE), at which point several genres of commentary had already
emerged. Much of the material found in these texts seems
to have originated in a popular worship context (such as
semiliturgical usage or sermons) or in the storyteller environ-
ment provided by wandering preachers (qus:s:a ̄s:) and their di-
dactic, homiletic sermonizing, which aimed to improve the
religious sentiments of the uneducated majority of people.
In other words, producing entertaining tales was a key to the
development of tafs ̄ır. From this point of view, the whole
discussion of the origins of tafs ̄ır as conducted by Goldziher,
Birkeland, and Abbott is rendered rather redundant.
LEGITIMATION OF TAFS ̄IR IN THE QURDA ̄N. While the
QurDa ̄n does not explicitly state that it should be interpreted,
commentators have been able to justify their profession over
the centuries by reference to the text itself. The most famous
and the most problematic passage applied in this way is su ̄rah
3:5–6, the terminology of which has been referred to several
times in the preceding sections:
It is He who has sent down to you the book in which
are clear verses [muh:kama ̄t] that are the essence of the
book and others that are unclear [mutasha ̄biha ̄t]. As for
those in whose hearts is a perversion, they follow the
unclear part, desiring dissension and desiring its inter-
pretation [ta’w ̄ıl]. But no one knows its interpretation
[ta’w ̄ıl] except God. And those firm in knowledge say:
“We believe in it; all is from our Lord.” Yet none re-
member except men who understand.
This passage establishes two categories of interpretation, per-
haps most easily viewed as “clear” (muh:kam) versus “unclear”
(mutasha ̄bih). Many different translations and identifications
have been put forth for the latter, some of which render
the category hermeneutically trivial (e.g., identification of
the “mysterious letters” which precede various su ̄rahs as the
mutasha ̄biha ̄t), while others prove more valuable (e.g., identi-
fication of all verses with more than one interpretive aspect
as mutasha ̄biha ̄t). Even more crucial, however, was the punc-
tuation of the verse. The original Arabic text provides no in-
dication of where stops and pauses should be taken; as a re-
sult, it was also possible to render the latter part of the
pericope:
But no one knows its interpretation except God and
those firm in knowledge who say: “We believe in it; all
is from our Lord.”
With such a reading, the interpretive task was not limited
to the rather trite exercise of making totally plain the already
clear verses; the unclear verses, too, became targets for the
commentators, and with that concept defined in some ap-
propriate manner, the way was opened for the creation of a
tafs ̄ır on every verse of the QurDa ̄n.
EMERGENCE OF TAFS ̄IR LITERATURE. It seems fairly certain
that written tafs ̄ır works began to emerge in the second cen-
tury AH at the latest. Documentation starts to proliferate to-
ward the end of that period, and various modes of analysisTAFS ̄IR 8951