for most technical terms involved in Muslim exegesis have
been derived and adapted either from the field of rhetoric or
from the legal tradition. In the case of tafs ̄ır the word appears
to have evolved from a description of a poetic figure in which
one hemistich contains an explanation of the preceding one.
There is much discussion in various Arabic sources con-
cerning the precise meaning of the term tafs ̄ır and its rela-
tionship to other technical words such as maEa ̄n ̄ı, taDw ̄ıl, and
sharh:, all of which connote “interpretation” in some way.
Historically, maEa ̄n ̄ı, literally “meanings,” appears to have
been the earliest major term used for the title of works of in-
terpretation; taDw ̄ıl, literally related to the notion of “return-
ing to the beginning,” was introduced perhaps late in the
third century AH (early tenth century CE) as the general term
for works of QurDa ̄nic interpretation, only to have been sup-
planted in the eleventh century CE by tafs ̄ır. Sharh: seems to
have been reserved primarily for profane purposes such as
commentaries on poetry, but it was also employed for
QurDanic super-commentaries. The prime focus of a dispute
which took place probably in the early tenth century and
which involved such central figures of early exegesis as Abu ̄
JaEfar al-T:abar ̄ı (d. 923 CE) and al-Ma ̄tur ̄ıd ̄ı (d. 944) was the
differentiation of tafs ̄ır from taDw ̄ıl. Both of these major exe-
getes, note, used the word taDw ̄ıl in the title of their com-
mentaries upon the QurDa ̄n: JamiE al-baya ̄n Ean taDw ̄ıl a ̄y
al-QurDa ̄n (The gathering of the explanation of the interpre-
tation of the verses of the QurDa ̄n) and TaDw ̄ıla ̄t al-QurDa ̄n
(The interpretations of the QurDa ̄n), respectively. The basic
question at stake concerned the ways in which traditional
material could be employed to provide exegetical data.
TaDw ̄ıl, in the understanding of some scholars, was interpre-
tation which dispensed with tradition and was founded upon
reason, personal opinion, individual research, or expertise,
whereas tafs ̄ır was based upon material (h:ad ̄ıth) transmitted
through a chain of authorities from the earliest period of
Islam, preferably from Muhammad himself or at least from
one of his companions. However, the point was certainly
never clear, because other proposed differentiations between
taDw ̄ıl and tafs ̄ır glossed those simple edges. Muqa ̄til ibn
Sulayma ̄n, an early exegete (d. 767), for example, implies a
distinction between tafs ̄ır as what is known on the human
level and taDw ̄ıl as what is known to God alone. According
to a similar notion, tafs ̄ır applies to passages with one inter-
pretation and taDw ̄ıl to those with multiple aspects. And, of
course, a further complication is indicated by the very title
of al-T:abar ̄ı’s tafs ̄ır: that is, taDw ̄ıl could be used for a work
that was quite tradition-oriented, at least in basic form. A
further suggestion is that the dispute over tafs ̄ır and taDw ̄ıl
is to be traced back to the earliest sectarian disputes in Islam,
between the general community and the followers of
Muh:ammad’s son-in-law and cousin, EAl ̄ı ibn Ab ̄ı T:a ̄lib
(d. 661), known as the Sh ̄ıEah, who wished to appropriate
the word taDw ̄ıl for reference to interpretation of “concealed”
(i. e., esoteric) parts of the QurDa ̄n as demanded by Sh ̄ıE ̄ı doc-
trine.
It should also be noted that the terms tafs ̄ır and taDw ̄ıl
were not in fact the exclusive property or concern of Mus-
lims; Jews and Christians writing commentaries on the Bible
in Arabic used both words. The Jewish theologian SaEadyah
Gaon (d. 942) titled his Arabic translation of the Pentateuch
Tafs ̄ır bas ̄ıt: nas:s: al-Tu ̄ra ̄h (The simple interpretation of the
text of the Torah), and the Copt Butrus al-Sadamanti in
about the year 1260 wrote Al-muqaddimah f ̄ı al-tafs ̄ır (Intro-
duction to interpretation), which formed a part of his overall
work on the interpretation of the New Testament Passion
narratives. These are only two examples of use of the word
tafs ̄ır for scriptural interpretation outside Islam; many other
similar instances could be cited.
PURPOSE OF TAFS ̄IR. Interpretation aims to clarify a text.
Tafs ̄ır takes as its beginning point the text of the QurDa ̄n,
paying full attention to the text itself in order to make its
meaning clear. It also functions simultaneously to adapt the
text to the present situation of the interpreter. In other
words, most interpretation is not purely theoretical; it has a
very practical aspect of making the text applicable to the faith
and the way of life of the believers. The first of these two in-
terpretive aspects is generally provoked by insoluble prob-
lems in meaning, by insufficient detail, by intratextual con-
tradiction, or by unacceptable meanings. Interpretation that
fits the text to the situation serves to align it with established
social custom, legal positions, and doctrinal assertions.Other practical reasons can also be cited for the initial
creation of tafs ̄ır as an entity. As Islam expanded, it was em-
braced by a large number of people who did not know Ara-
bic; interpretation, sometimes in the form of translations (al-
though this was officially frowned upon) and other times in
a simple Arabic which did not contain the ambiguities and
difficulties of the original scriptural text, fulfilled the purpose
of allowing easier access to the book. In addition, there was
the basic problem of the text itself and how it was to be read.
The early Arabic script was defective in its differentiation of
letters of the alphabet and in the vocalization of the text; al-
though eventually there arose an official system of readings
(qira ̄’a ̄t) which gave sanction to a basic seven sets of vocaliza-
tions of the text (with further set variations still possible to
some extent), in the earliest period a greater freedom with
regard to the text seems to have been enjoyed. This freedom
extended to the consonantal structure of the text and was le-
gitimized through the notion of the early existence of various
codices of the QurDa ̄n, each with its own textual peculiarities.
Differences between these versions and the later, official
EUthmanic text (as far as theses could be cited by the exe-
getes), as well as the variations created by the different official
vocalization systems, then demanded explanation and justifi-
cation in order to establish claims that a particular reading
provided the best textual sense. The end result was that tafs ̄ır
acted to establish a firm text of scripture within what became
the set limits of the qira ̄Da ̄t.
ORIGINS OF TAFS ̄IR. Traditionally it has been held that tafs ̄ır
arose as a natural practice, originating with Muh:ammad and8950 TAFS ̄IR