Pink-2010-Tradition and Ideology in Contemporary Sunnite Qur Ānic Exegesis

W E L T D ES
BRILL Die Welt des Islams 50 (2010) 3-59 IS E A M S
Tradition and Ideology in Contemporary Sunnite

Qurnie Exegesis: Qurnic Commentaries from the
Arab World, Turkey and Indonesia and their
Interpretation :'!
Johanna ?
Berlin
Abstract
This paper analyses the genre of contemporary tafiir, focussing on the attitude of
modern Sunnite eêête^ towards Jews and Christians, on the role of different
strands of tradition and of ideological bias for their interpretion of the Qurn,
and on foe similarities and differences between Quranic commentaries from
different regions ofthe Muslim word. It is based on the study of seventeen Quranic
commentaries from foe Arab World, Indonesia and Turkey that have been
published since 1 6 7 . T ie analysis of the authors background reveals that in
recent rimes, Qurnic commentaries tend to be written by professional male
ulam from a provincial background, usually holding a faculty position in Islamic
theology. As most exegetes aim is to stress foe timeless relevance ofthe Qurn,
fow ofthe commentaries m ^ e direct reference to contemporary events. Still, many
of them are, in a very modern way, more concerned with providing religious
guidance than with explaining foe Qurns meaning. However, foe traditional
explanatory approach is still alive, predominantly in commentators who are
affiliated with Egypts Azhar University. Besides foe tradition of premodern
Sunnite tafiir, which all commentaries build on to a certain extent, Salafi exegesis
is clearly influential in the way in which several commentaries strive at disassociating
themselves from Christians and Jews and at building up a dichotomy between
us and them in their exegesis of Q 5:51, which c o n t a i n s an interdiction against
taking Christians and Jews as awliy (a term that is variably understood as meaning
friends, allies, intimates, confidants, helpers, or leaders). It is striking that Arab
I am grateful to Elif Dilma and Peter Pink for their invaluable help with any questions
I had about my translations of Turkish and Indonesian texts and to Regula Forster and
Axel Havemann for their useful comments on the draft of this paper.
1 Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 D O I: 10.1163/157006010X 489801

4 . Pink /Die Welt des Islams 50 (2010) 3-59
commentators, for foe most part, show a much more hostile attitude towards
Christians and Jews than their Indonesian and Turkish counterparts.
Keywords
tafsir, Sunnism, Qurnic commentaries, Quranic eêêî^, 20thand 21st century,
Egypt, S y r i a , S a n d i - A r a h i a , Indonesia, Islam and Judaism, Islam and Christianity
1. Introduction
W hile there is no laek o f studies on m odern Q u rnie exegesis and,

more speeifieally, new approaehes towards Q u rn hermeneutics2, foe
field o f contem porary Q u ra n ic commentaries has by and large been
neglected by scholars. Several individual commentaries have received
a certain am ount o f attention^, while comparative studies or surveys
2) For an overview see Rotraud Wielandt, Exegesis of the Quran: Early Modern and
Contemporary, in: The Encyclopaedia ofthe Qur'n II (2002), 124-142.
3) This is equally true for the field of classical tafsir. Cf. Bruce Fudges assessment that the
study of Qurnic exegesis (tafsir, pi. tafsir) has received far less attention than the text of
the scripture itself, and in so far as it has been studied, it has seldom been treated on its
own terms: Bruce Fudge, Qurnic Exegesis in Medieval Islam and Modern Orientalism,
in: Die Welt des Islams 46 (2006), 115-147 [115].
4) See Ismail Albayrak, Turkish Exegeses [sic] ofthe Twentieth Century: Hak Dini Kur'an
D ill) in: Islamic Studies 43 (2004), 391-413; Dale F. Eickelman, Quranic Commentary,
Fublic Space, and Religious Intellectuals in the Writings of Said Nursi, in: The Muslim
World89 (1999), 260-269; Ismail K. Foonawala, Muhammad Tzzat Darwazas principles
of modern exegesis. A contribution toward quranic hermeneutics, in: G. R. Hawting and
Abdul-Kader A. Shareef (eds.). Approaches to the Qur'an, London and New York 1993,
225-246; Imtiyaz Yusuf, An Analysis of Swahili Exegesis of Srat al-Shams in Shaykh
Abdullah Saleh al-Farsys Qurani Takatifu, in: Journal o f Religion in Africa 22 (1992),
350-366; Charles j. Adams, Abul-AT Mawddls Tafhim al-Qur'n', in: Andrew Rippin
(ed.), Approaches to the History ofthe Interpretation ofthe Qur'n, Oxford 1988, 307-323;
Mustansir Mir, Coherence In The Qur'an. A study oflslhi's concept ofnazm in Tadahhur-i
Qur'n, Indianapolis 1986; Christian w . Troll, A note on the Tafslr-i Thani of Than
Allah Amritsari and his criticism of Sayyid Ahmad Khans Tafslr-i Ahmadi, in: Islamic
Culture 59 (1985), 29-44; I. H. Azad Faruqi, The Tarjuman al-Qur'an. A critical analysis
o f Maulana Ahu'l-Kalam Azad's approach to the understanding ofthe Qur'an, Delhi 1982;
Fahri Gkcan, Commentaire du Coran par Elmah'h, Faris 1970; F. K. Abbott, Mawlana
Maududi and Quranic Interpretation, in: The Muslim World Ad) (1958), 6-19; j. Jomier,
Le Cheikh Tanwl Jawharl (1862-1940) et son commentaire du Coran, in: Mlanges de
l'Institut Dominicain des tudes Orientales du Caire 5 (1958), 115-174. Studies dealing
with the commentaries hy al-Thir b. cshr, Hamka, Suleyman Ate and others are cited
throughout the article.
/- Pink I Die Welt des Islams 50 (2010) 3-59 5
that are at least remotely up-to-date are scarce.5 few comparative

studies o f o m em p o rary tafiir that exist are very often lim ited to works
in one language, most often Arabic. Besides, there is a large research
gap in the area of mainstream theology. O ne o f the reasons for this
m ight be a noticeable preoccupation in recent scholarship with exe-
getical approaches that disassociate themselves from tradition, be it by
adopting a reformist, a literary or an Islamist approach towards the
Q u rn. Consequently, apart from general herm eneutic theories like
those o fN a sr H m id Ab Zayd or M uham m ad Shahrfrr, who do not
make an attem pt to discuss individual verses o f the Q u rn systemati-
cally, the only actual m odern commentaries o f the Q u rn that have
attracted a relatively large am ount ofscholarly attention are the reformist
Tafsr al-Manr by M uham m ad Abduh and Rashid Rid and the
Islamist comm entary F izildl al-Q ufn by Sayyid Q u tb.6 O n the other
5) Among the publications that cover specific aspects of the topic are Heribert Busse, Jesu
Errettung vom Kreuz in der islamischen Koranexegese von Sure 4:157, in: Oriens 36
(2001), 160-195; H mida Ennaifer, Les commentaires coraniques contemporains. Analyse de
leur mthodologie, Rome 1998; Mustansir Mir, The sra as a unity. A Twentieth century
development in Qurn exegesis, in: G. R. Hawting and Abdul-Kader A. S h a r e e f ( e d s . ) .
Approaches to the Qurn, Eondon and New York 1993, 211-224; Mark N. Swanson, A
Study of Twentieth-Century Commentary on Srat al-Nr (24):27-33, in: The Muslim
World 74 (1984), 187-203; j. M. s. Baljon, Modern Muslim Koran Interpretation (1880-
I960), Leiden 1968 (with an emphasis on South Asian tafsir). There is a number of studies
that pertain to particular regions; among them are j. j. G. Jansen, The Interpretation ofthe
Koran in Modern Egypt, Leiden 1974; s. Musa, The Influence ofTafsir al-Jalalayn on Some
Notable Nigerian Mufassirun in the Twentieth-Century Nigeria, in: Journal o f Muslim
Minority Affairs 20 (2000), 323-328; Rasheed A. Raji, Tafsir al-QuEn in Nigeria: scopes,
features, characteristics and peculiarities, in: HamdardIslamicus 21 (1998), 15-22; Abdul
Whid j. Halepota, Sindhi ulamas contribution towards the understanding and inter-
pretation ofthe Holy Quran in the modern context, in: Islamic Studies 21 (1982), 1-18.
Studies dealing with Indonesian and Turkish exegesis will he cited below.
6) For Abduh and Rashid Rld, seej. Jomier, Le commentaire coranique de Manr. Tendances
modernes de Texgse coranique en Egypte, Faris 1954; Jansen, Interpretation', for Qub, see
Olivier Carr, Mysticism andpolitics: a critical reading ofFZillal-Qurn by Sayyid Qutb
(1906-1966), Leiden 2003; Yvonne Y. Haddad, The ( ^ r anicfostiflcation for an Islamic
Revolution. The View of Sayyid Qub, in: Middle East Journal 37 (1983), 14-29. For an
example of studies discussing one, or both, as prototypes ofmodern commentaries besides
classical works of tafsir, see Jane Dmmen McAuhffe, Quranic Christians. An Analysis of
Classical and Modern Exegesis, New York 1991; Jane Smith, An Historical and Semantic
Study ofthe Term Islam as seen in a Sequence ofQudn Commentaries, Missoula 1975.
6 y. Pink / Die Welt des Islams 50 (2010) 3-59
hand, little or nothing ean he found about foe eom m entary o f

M uham m ad Sayyid TantawI, foe eurrent Shaykh al-Azhar, about foe
eommentaries commissioned by foe Turkish and Indonesian Depart-
ments of Religion or about Ab Bakr al-Jaziris popular W ahhabite
tafslr, to give just a few examples.
^ i s article intends to provide a survey of contem porary Q u ra n ic
commentaries, giving insight into foe contexts foey are produced in
and into their authors ideological orientation, as well as foe sources
foey use.
Obviously, it is infeasible to discuss every work that has been pub-
lished under foe label o f tafslr in foe whole Islamic W orld during foe
period that is comm only labelled as m odern, i.e. starting in foe late
19th century. I take into account only commentaries that interpret foe
whole Q u rn verse by verse (musalsal) or those that have been designed
as such, even if their author deceased before its completion or if the
work is still in foe process of being puhlished, provided that foey cover
significant parts o fth e Q u rn. ^ i s excludes commentaries o f specific
sums or parts o fth e Q u rn as well as them atic com m entaries/ N or do
I look at commentaries that constitute little more than an annotated
^ ra p h ra se o f foe Q u rn in M odern Standard Arabic, Turkish or
Indonesian and do not discuss verses at any length and I only consider
original works as opposed to commentaries that constitute mere com-
pilations of older works, ^ i s still leaves a wide range ofform ats, from
relatively concise three-volume works to extensive thirty-volume com-
mentaries.
W ithin this genre, I lim it foe scope o f my study to commentaries
that have been published from 1967 onwards.8 Only Arabic, Indonesian
7) Cf. Mahmd Shaltt, Tafslr al-Qurn al-karim. Al-ajzd al-ashara al-l, Cairo i960;
Muhammad al-Ghazli, Nahwa tafslr mawdl li-suwar al-Qurn al-karlm, Cairo 992-95;
and Muhammad Quraish Shihab, Wawasan al-Quran. Tafslr M audhui atas Pelbagai
Persoalan Umat, 5th ed., Bandung 1997.
8) Like any starting point one could settle for, this one is, to a certain extent, an arbitrary
one. There is no single date one could consider a turning point be it intellectually,
politically or theologically-for all the countries within the scope of this study; not even
the June War of 1967, which would be tempting to settle fo r- b u t of course, a commentary
published in 1967 has to have been written before that point. The least that can be said is
that all the commentaries discussed here have been written while the authors countries
were already independent nation states and after the state of Israel had come into existence.
and Turkish commentaries will he discussed. Shiite, Ibadite and other

non-Sunnite commentaries are not taken into account.9
In the first part o f this paper, I will give a brief introduction to each
o f the commentaries that fulfil the above-m entioned criteria. I will
shortly present their authors hiographical backgrounds, the context in
which they wrote their commentaries, and give a b r ie ^ s c r ip tio n of
the works themselves. W hile I will not, in the present framework, be
ahle to asses the commentaries relative influence conclusively, I will at
least point out a few aspects that m ight he indicative of their impor-
tance, namely the existence o f re-editions and translations, their recep-
tion by other authors and their availability on the internet.
In the second part, I will analyse the way in which the commentaries
discuss one specific verse o fth e Q u rn, namely Q 5:51 which contains
an interdiction o f taking the Jews and Christians as awliy) N ot only
does this verse pose several exegetical problems, the first and foremost
o f which is foe exact meaning o f awliy\ but it is also a verse loaded
wifo possihle ideological implications concerning foe attitude towards
foe West, foe state o f Israel and non-M uslim m inorities in Muslim
majority societies. The comparative analysis o fth e exegetes work on
Q 5:51 will allow for conclusions regarding foe authors respective
exegetical approach, foe traditions foey draw upon as well as foe tradi-
tions foey om it or reject, their ideological orientation and foe role of
their personal and local context. The com parison between Arabic,
Turkish and Indonesian commentaries will allow for additional conclu-
sions concerning foe role o f foe language barrier, foe difficulties o f
translation and foe w ay commentators deal wifo foem.
2. The Commentaries
Seventeen commentaries will be discussed in this article: three from
Indonesia, four from Turkey (one ofw hich is no original Turkish com-
mentary and seems to have been translated from Arabic) and ten from
Any attempt at comprehensiveness has its limits. For example, I could, unfortunately,
not make use ofthe commentary published by alAzhars Majma al-Buhth al-Islmiyya
(Cairo 1973-86).
. Pink /Die Welt des Islams 50 (2010) 3-59
various countries o f the Arab w orld10. O ne of the Turkish and one of

the Indonesian comm entaries have been w ritten by a collective o f
authors and have been commissioned by government agencies. W ithout
exception, all the authors are male.
The following b r ie ^ s c r ip tio n s o f the authors lives and their tafsr
works serve to assess the context in which their commentaries were
w ritten and the aims they pursued they also interesting
^ insights
into a wide range o r o g r a p h ie s of 20th century ulama'' and religious
intellectuals.
A. Commentaries from the Arab World
From among the ten Arabic commentaries, eight have been published
in Egypt. Even if we do not count those three whose authors are not
based in Egypt, Egypt still has produced more Sunnite commentaries
than any other Arab country. This fact underlines the importance of
Egypt as a center o f publishing for the Arab world, especially with
regard to religious literature.
The Saudi contribution to m odern tafsr, on the other hand, is not
very pronounced. Although two o fth e Arabic commentaries have been
w ritten by professors at Saudi Arabian universities, none o fth e two is
o f Saudi origin. Moreover, both commentaries are educational rather
than academic works. High-ranking Saudi W ahhabite culama\ like Ibn
10) I have decided against including al-Ehir b. shrs Tafsr al-tahrr wa-l-tanwr (Tunis
and Benghazi, n.d.), the first volume of which appeared in 1956 and which was first
completely published in 1970, b e c a u s e the author, born in 1879 and influenced by personal
encounters with Muhammad Abduh, belongs to an earlier generation of (ulamd than the
commentators discussed here, which is reflected both in style and approach of his very
erudite and extensive commentary. One of the many significant differences to the other
Arab authors lies in the fact that he is the only one to come from a family of renowned
(ulamd and city notables. The other Arab commentators do not seem to pay him any
attention, but interestingly, he is frequently cited by two recent commentaries from Turkey
and Indonesia (Karaman et al. and Muhammad Quraish Shihab, see below), which might
he caused hy a renewed interest in the theory of maqsidal-shana that is very present in
Ihn shrs commentary, partly owing to the fact that he is firmly rooted in a Maghribi/
Andalusian tradition and thus, unlike any of the other commentators discussed here,
frequently refers to the Zahiri school. For Ihn shrs commentary, see Basheer M. Nafi,
T hir ihn shr: The Career and Thought of a Modern Reformist dlim, with special
Reference to His Work on tafsr) in: Journal ofQuranic Studies 7 (2005), 1-32.
/- Pink I Die Welt des Islams 50 (2010) 3-59
Bz and Ibn Uthaymn, have not been prolihe n the field otafsr, the
m ost they have produeed are fragments o f eomm entaries covering
selected verses or sums.
( )cAbd al-Karm al-Khatb (Egypt)11: Al-tafsr al-qurni li-l-Qurn

(30 parts, volumes)^
cAbd ahKarm al-Khatb was born in 1920 in a village in u p p e r Egypt.
After having attended a Q u ra n ic school and memorised the Q u rn,
he went to a state school and then to Dr a l-U lE m -th e same teachers
college Hasan al-Bann and Sayyid Q u tb had attended where he
graduated in 1937. After having worked as a teacher for a num ber of
years, he came to work in the M inistry o f Pious F o u n d a t i o n s ( Wizrat
al-Awqfi as a Parliamentary Secretary and, from 3 9 , as Director o f
the M inisters Office. He was sent into early retirement in 195913 and
after this devoted himself to writing. Despite short spells as a lecturer
on tafsr at the Shar!a Faculty in Rlyad in 1973 and 1975, he was cer-
tainly an autodidact in religious m atters. He was a prolific writer with
a focus on Q u ran ic and theological questions and an interest in finding
Islamic answers to contem porary problems. He also wrote biographies
oftU m ar b. al-Khattb, Ah b. Ab Talib and, interestingly, M uhamm ad
b. Abd al-Wahhb.15
His comm entary constitutes, just as the title states, an attem pt to
explain the Q u rn through the Q u rn, i.e. w ithout reference to
external sources. W ithout making use oftraditions about the occasions
o f revelation (asbb al-nuzl) or discussing philological problems in
) The Arabic commentaries are grouped by country and, within these groups, by date of
completion.
12) Cairo, ca. 1967-70. Only the last two volumes carry a date; they have been published
in 1969 and 1970. The foreword in the first volume is dated 1967.
13) The reasons for his retirement at age 38 would be interesting to know. Considering the
political climate at the time and al-Khaibs biographical background, which is not unlike
that ofmany Muslim Brothers at the time, it seems likely that a real or alleged membership
in the Muslim Brotherhood might have played a role.
14) Cf. Murtad al-Radawi, M d rijl al-fikrfi l-Qphira, Cairo. 1 (1974). http://aqaed.com/
shialib/books/0 6 /rjalfkrl/{ 2,cctsst Sept 2, 2008), 338.
15) Cf. al-Radawi; see also the list of publications in cAbd al-Karim al-Khaib, al-Tafsir
al-qurni li-1-Qurn, Cairo n.d. [ca. 1967-70]. XV, 1768; and cAbd al-Karim al-Kha!b,
Qadiyyat al-ulhiyya. II: Allh wa-1-insn, Cairo 1971, 502.
any depth, States what eaeh verse h supposed to mean, sometimes

w ith referenee to other Q u rnie verses. Al-Khaib usually does not
address possible alternative meanings or explain the reasons for whieh
he ehose one partieular meaning above oth ers.H h tafsrs cited by none
o f the other mufassirn, and there seem to have been no re-editions or
translations, making one o f foe less im portant works ofm odern tafslr.
(2) M uham m ad Ab Zahra (Hgy^t): Zahrat al-tafsr (incomplete,

5.482 pages)16
Ab Zahra was born in al-Mahalla al-Kubr ^foe Nile Delta 1898 ^
to a pious family that traces itself back to a Sufi shaykh whose tom b was
a place o f worship in foe town. Like m any o f his generation, foe edu-
cation he received was both religious and secular. He studied at a
Mosque in Tant, then enrolled in a school for sharia judges, from
which he graduated in 1925, and acquired a diploma from Dr al-cUlm
in 1927. Subsequently, he started a teaching career at various faculties
and universities, both theological and secular most notably foe Faculty
ofLaw at Cairo University, where he finally became head o fth e Sharla
D epartm ent. In 1958, he retired, but continued teaching and pub-
lishing. His appointm ent to al-Azhars Islamic Research Academy in
1963 is indicative o fth e fact that he seems to have gained acceptance
as an calim despite foe fact that he had only briefly taught at al-Azhar.
His publications show a marked shift from legal to theological topics
in his later years.
At some point, probably during foe 1950s the precise date is not
known he started writing a Q u ra n ic com m entary for foe magazine
L iw al-Islm. He was forced to interrupt his work for political reasons
due to his opposition against Nasser, and continued it when foe latters
reign was over. He deceased in 1974 while working on Srat al-Naml
{sra 27)17 his incomplete comm entary was published by his family
posthumously, apparently more than a dozen years later. It is rather
16) Abu Zahras tafslr seems to have been published by Dar al-Fikr al-Arahi (Cairo/Beirut)
in 1987 only, according to the certificate of approval by al-Azhar reproduced in Vol. 1,
p. 2. The printed edition has been scanned and made available for download as a PDF file
on at least two websites: http:Hu)U)U). waqfeya.com/open.php?cat= 1 1 8book=1274 (June 18,
2008); http'J/www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=68book=3324 (accessed Sept 2, 2008).
17) Ab Zahra, 3-11, 14, 22.
extensive and quotes a large num ber o f inner-Q urnie as well as exter-
nal referenees, libe elassieal works o f tafsir, sra, hadth and asbb
al-nuzl. Ab Zahra draws his own eonelusions from the sources and
aims at preeision while taking into aeeount varying imerpretations and
oeeasionally aeknowledging multiple layers o f meaning.
While the eommentary is erudite, it is nevertheless easy to read, using
rhetorieal questions and even oeeasional referenees to eontem porary
issues, whieh points to its journalistic origins. It is available on several
websites, but its lacking availability in libraries aeross the world sug-
gests that the num ber of printed copies that have been distributed is
very limited. Ab Zahra is quoted in the reeent al-Tafsr al-tarbaw
by Anwar al-Bz^, but does not seem to have been used as a reference
by any o f the other comm entaries, w ith the possible exception of
T antw l.19
(3) M uham m ad Sayyid Tantaw l (Egypt): Al-tafsr al-wast li-l-Qurn

al-karm ( I volumes)^
Tantw l was born in an Upper-Egyptian village in 1928. He received
a religious education, graduating from the Religious Institute in Alex-
andria in 1944, pursuing his studies at al-Azhar and obtaining his doc-
toral degree in tafsr and hadth in 1966. He held teaching positions
for Islamic theology at various faculties in Egypt, Eibya and Saudi
Arabia until he was appointed M ufti o f Egypt in 1986. He became
Shaykh al-Azhar in 1996. He has a reputation for being a moderate
and is often criticised for being too accomodating towards foe Egyptian
governm ent.
His extensive Q u ra n ic com m entary has been published between
1974 and 1986. It is heavily indebted to Islamic scholarly tradi-
tio n .w h en dealing wifo a verse or a group of verses, Tantw l usually
first presents foe potential asbb al-nuzl, explains difficult words.
1S) Anwar Al-Bz, al-Tafsir al-tarbawi li-1-Qurn al-karim, Cairo 2007, d, fn. 1.
1 ))See section 3. D of this paper.
20) Cairo 1974-86; this article refers to the 2nd edition, Cairo 1992.
21) Cf. his official biography: http://www.alazhar.gov.eg/alazhar/grandimam.aspx (accessed
Sept 2, 2008), and Thomas Koszinowski, Muhammad SaiyidTantawi (Muhammad Saiyid
Tantawl): Groscheich der Azhar-Universitt in Kairo, in: Orient 37 (1996), 385-391
[391].
12 y. Pink /Die Welt des Islams 50 (2010) 3-59
paraphrases the verse and then explains it in detail, phrase by phrase,

making frequent referenee to elassieal exegetes like al-Tabar and Fakhr
al-Dn al-Raz, often quoting or paraphrasing them w ithout adding
conclusions o f his own.
comm entary has seen a second edition, but no translations. Like
in Ab Zahras case, between its erudition and its often didactic style,
the target group is not entirely clear. None o f the other Arabic and
Turkish commentators refer to TantawI, but he is frequently cited by
the Indonesian M uham m ad Quraish Shihab, who has received most of
his education in Egypt and has strong ties to Egyptian Islamic institu-
tions. T antw fs com m entary is one o f four Arabic comm entaries,
among those discussed here, to be available on Altafsir.com, a website
operated by the Jordanian 1 al-Bayt Foundation for Islamic b o u g h t
that is probably the most comprehensive tafslr site currently in exist-
ence.22
(4) M uham m ad al-M utawalh al-SharwI (Egypt): Tafsr al-Shdrw

(incomplete, 12.832 pp.)^
There is no lack o f studies on this particular Muslim scholar and his
works, owing to his immense popularity in Egypt even after his death
in 1998.24 So far, however, his complete tafsr inasfar as it has been
published has not been examined.
22) All references to Altafsir.com refer to the commentaries that were available on http://
altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=00tTafsirNo=00tSoraNo=ltAyahNo=ltDisplay=no
8LanguageID=l on Sept 4, 2008.
23) Cairo 1991. 1 have used the second edition (Cairo 1991-1996). The number of pages
given is based on the edition on W W W . elsharawy. com (see below, fn. 25).
On al-Sharwi and his work, see Hava Lazarus-Yafeh, Muhammad Mutawalli
al-Sharawi-A Portrait of a Contemporary Alim in Egypt, in: Gabriel R.Warburg and
Uri M. Kupferschmidt (eds.), Islam, Nationalism and Radicalism in Egypt and the Sudan,
New York 1983, 281-297; on the cult that developed around him, see Rachida Chih and
Catherine Mayeur-Jaouen. he cheikh Sharw et la tlvision: lhomme qui a donn un
visage au Coran, in: Catherine Mayeur-Jaouen (ed.), Saints et Hros du Moyen-Orient
contemporain, Paris 2002, 189-209; on fes earliest tafsr-rated works, see j. j. G. Jansen,
Shaikh al-Sharw1s interpretation of the Quran, in: Robert Hillenbrand (ed.), Union
Europenne des Arabisants et Islamisants: 10 Congress, Edinburgh, 9-16 September 1980:
Proceedings, Edinburgh 1982, 22-28; on the introduction to his commentary, see Roberto
Tottoli, Llntroduzione al Tafsr dello Sayh al-Sacraw1, in: Annali di Ca)Foscari 32 (1993),
Shaykh al-Shacrw 1 was born in a Nile-Delta village in 1911. E e

reeeive^ a religious education and went on to study at al-Azhar, from
where he graduated in 1941 w ith a diplom a in Arabic language. In
1943, he started teaching at several Azhar institutes in the Delta,
between 1950 and 1974, he spent most o f his time in Saudi-Arabia
and Algeria, teaching religious subjects. After his return to Cairo, he
started to take part in a religious programme on state TV, Nr cal nur,
in which he delivered his exegesis ofth e Q u rn in the form o fa sermon
directed to the com m on people during about a quarter o fa century.
For a short period under Sadat, he became M inister of Religious Affairs,
for in spite o f his extremely conservative views and a brief affiliation
with the Muslim Brotherhood in his youth, he always abstained from
criticising the government directly. At the time, he also benefttted from
the fact that, due to his long absence from Egypt, he was not associated
with the Nasserists. However, for most o f his later life, until his death
in 1998, he was a popular preacher who appeared on TV, published
books, audio and video tapes and a newspaper.^
His Q u ra n ic comm entary was thus first and foremost delivered and
presented on television, which accounts for its enormous success. The
printed version, which is incom plete^, clearly reveals these oral origins.
The commentary is full ofrepetitions, ^raphrases, rhetorical questions
it explains words and syntactic constructions in a way that people with
little education can understand. It treats the Q u rn verse by verse,
w ithout forming larger units, but makes ample reference to other verses
o fth e Q u rn. Apart from that, al-Sharwi does not usually m ention
his sources or refer to other scholars very occasionally, the printed ver-
sion contains a reference in a footnote. If al-Shacraw 1 m entions the
occasion o f revelation at all, he usually does so in a very general way,
w ithout providing names or other details.
W hile Shaykh al-Shafrwi was and still is extremely popular with a
predom inantly Egyptian middle and lower class audience, his work
does not seem to have had an impact on Muslim scholarship, nor had
25) Cf. Chih and Mayeur-Jaouen, 190-193.

26) 1 could not obtain a printed edition that goes further than sum 18; the scanned pages
o fthe printed edition that are available on http://www.elsharawy.com/ (accessed Sept 2,
2008) reach Q 37:132, the text on Altafsir.com only goes up to Q 33:63.
14 /. Pink /Die Welt des Islams 50 (2010) 3-59
been intended for that purpose. His eom m entary has not been trans-
lated, nor is eited by any o f the other Arabie or Turkish eommenta-
tors. The Indonesian M uham m ad Quraish Shihab does m ention him
as one o f his eentral sources, though.27 His eommentary is also included
in the selection of tafsr works that is available on the website Altafsir.
com.
(5) Anwar al-Bz (Egypt): Al-tafsr al-tarbaw li-1-Qur'n al-karm

(3 volumes)^
Virtually nothing could be found about Anwar al-Bz, besides the fact
that he edited Ibn Kathirs Tabaqt al-fuqah* al-shflyn29 and Ibn
Taymiyyas M ajm al-fatw, the latter together with a co-editor.
HE concise commentarywas published by Dar al-Nashr li-l-Gmict,
a Cairo-based publisher whose publication program m e reveals an
affiliation with ffie Mn.ffim Brotherhood.31 The same can be said for
the commentary, whose main source is Sayyid Q u tb s Fzillal-Qur'n
which is quoted extensively in nearly every section. Another often-used
source is Sac1d Haw was comm entary, w hich again owes a lot to
Q utbs. Occasionally, al-Bz quotes other commentaries, but is remark-
ably reluctant to refer to works from ffie classical era like al-Tabari,
al-Zamakhshari or al-Baydwi he prefers to rcly on ffie commentaries
ofA b 1-Sucd (d. 1574), al-Shawkn (d. 1834) or ffie Tafsral-Manr
(I900-I934). His educational com m entary divides ffie Q u rn into
sections o f approximately equal length, mostly comprising between
four and twelve verses, and comments on each o f those sections as a
whole. He first explains ffie meanings o f particular words or phrases,
then lists a num ber of practical and moral aims, usually around ffirce
27) Cf. Muhammad Quraish Shihab, Tafsir al-Mishbh. Jakarta. I (2000), xiii.
28) Cairo 2007.
29) Cairo 2004.
30) 3rd ed. Cairo 2003. The co-editor, cmir al-Jazzr, belongs to a group of members of
the Muslim Brotherhood arrested in 2003 (cf http:llwww.egyptwindow.net/modules.phpln
ame=News8file=article8sid=407', accessed Sept 2, 2008), which strengthens the assumption
that Anwar al-Bz might be close to, or affiliated with, the Muslim Brotherhood.
31) it includes titles about al-imm al-mu assis hlasan al-Bann, hooks about Islamic
ideology or strategies to change the system and critical publications a b o u t the freedom
of the press.
to four. He goes on to explain foe edueational eontent in some detail,

quoting from other eommentaries (mostly Sayyid Q u tb s), and con-
eludes with a few guidelines to be drawn from each section. The com-
m entary is clearly not m eant to be a work o f scholarship, but rather a
kind ofhandbook that translates foe Q u rn into a set of easily under-
standable and applicable rules for foe average Muslim. In its structure,
approach and style, it is very similar to al-Jazirls tafsr (see below). As
it has appeared only recently, its impact is difficult to assess. It does not
seem to be available on foe internet or to be discussed there at any
length.
(6) Am r Abd al-Az!z (fr^ /E g y p t/P alestin e): Al-tafsr al-shmil

li-1-Qurn al-karm (6 volumes)^
Amr Abd al-Az!z was born in al-Falfoja in Iraq in 1935. He received
a first degree in sharia studies in Damascus, and obtained his Master
and Doctoral degrees in foe same discipline from al-Azhar in Egypt in
1975 and 1977. After having worked as a teacher for 22 years, he
became a lecturer at Jmiat al-Najj^ al-Wataniyya in Nablus, Palestine,
where he was prom oted to foe rank o f professor in 1990.33 According
to foe caption on his com m entarys front pages, he specialises in com-
parative^zjA
His comm entary is o f m edium length, somewhere in between foe
concise educational commentaries and foe extensive, erudite ones.
After a very brief introduction to each sura, he comments on it verse
by verse, treating it as a continuous text and thus making it rather dif-
ficult to find individual verses. His approach to foe verses varies. Some-
times he starts wifo foe occasions ofrevelation at other times, he omits
foem and starts wifo explanations o f words, sporadically, he quotes a
broad spectrum o f sources at other times, he gives no references at all.
His target group, according to foe foreword, comprises scholars as well
as students and educated people.^ It is thus rather unspecific, but does
in any case not include people wifo little or no education. It does not
32) Cairo 2000.

33) Cf. his vita on http://www.islamonline.net/LiveFatwa/Arabic/Guestcv.asp?hGuestID=
PVTB5W(3LCcesse Sept. 3, 2008); he acted as a host fot liYtfatw sessions on IslamOnline.
34) Cf. cAbd al-cAz1z, I, 7.
seem to have been re-edited, translated or eited by any of the other

commentators.
(7) Sac1d Haww (Syria): Al-assf l-tafsr ( volumes)35

Sac1d Haww is regarded as the foremost ideologue o f the Muslim
Brethren movement in Bathist Syria.36 He was born into a poor family
in the Syrian town ofH am h in 1935. His edueation was eharaeterised
by ruptures, but due to his intelleetual abilities, he managed to make
it to seeondary sehool. Under the inhuenee o f his teacher o f Islamic
religious education, he became a member o fth e Muslim Brotherhood
in 1953. In the second half o f the 1950s, he studied Islamic Law at the
Sharla Faculty in Damascus and obtained his degree in 1961. M ost of
his adult life was shaped by the conflict between the regime and the
Muslim Brotherhood in which he remained an im portant activist and
ideologue, which caused him to spend m any years either in exile or in
jail. In 1966, he left for Saudi Arabia where he wrote the first of many
books on Islamic thinking and Islamist ideology. In 1971, he returned
to Syria, where he was imprisoned two years later after having organised
non-violent protests against al-Asads proposal for a new constitution
which did not contain a clause making it obligatory for the president
to be a Muslim. It was during the flve years he subsequently spent in
prison that he wrote his Q u ra n ic commentary, ^ e s e circumstances
certainly contributed to the high degree in which he identified with
Sayyid Q u tb s tafsr. After his release from prison in 1978, he went into
exile to Jordan, where he lived until his death in 1989.
His commentary owes m uch to Sayyid Q utb, whom he quotes exten-
sively but he also adds a num ber o f own ideas, especially in the way he
tries to explain the logic behind the internal structure o fth e Q u rn.^
He uses a large num ber of classical references, primarily with regard to
35) Cairo 1985.

36) 1 Weismann, Said Hawwa: The Making of a Radical Muslim Thinker in Modern
Syria, in: Middle Eastern Studies 29 (1993), 601-623 [601 .
37) Cf. Weismann, Radical Muslim Thinker, 603-619. For klawws thought, see Itzchak
Weismann, Said Hawwa and Islamic Revivalism in Bathist Syria, in: Studia Islmica 85
(1997), 131-154.
38) For details about the complex structure of Hawws commentary see section 3. A ofthis
paper.
the asbb al-nuzl, but his main eoneern lies in transferring the Q urnie
message to a m odern eontext, using a distinetly politieal voeabulary.
His analysis ineorporates IbnTaym i)âs eoneepts otawhdal-ulhiyya
and tawhld al-rubbiyya, which also form a central part of Ibn cAbd
al-Wahhabs doctrine.39 Due to its complex structure and Hawwas view
o fth e Q u ra n ic text as an argumentative continuum , the comm entary
is hardly practical to consult for inform ation about invidual verses it
is rather m eant to be read as a whole. Hawwas comm entary does not
seem to have been translated or re-edited he is quoted frequently by
the Egyptian Anwar al-Bz, who shares his ideological orientation.
(8) Wahba al-Zuhayl (Syria): Al-tafsr al-m unrf l-(aqda wa-l-shara

wa-l-manhaj (32 parts, volumes)40
W ahba al-Zuhayli was born in Dayr cAtiyya near Damascus in 1932 to
a farmers frmily. Like Haww, he studied sharta at the University of
Damascus. After his graduation in 1952, he went to Egypt, where he
studied at al-Azhar and at the same time obtained degrees in law from
Ayn Shams University and Cairo University. In 1963, he received his
doctorate w ith a thesis on Islamic Law and returned to Damascus,
where he taught at the University o f Damascus and became a professor
in 1975. He also acted as an imm and preacher and is a m ember of
the Syrian Majlis al-Ifta\41 W hen he published his first Q u ra n ic com-
m entary in I9 9 I, he was Head o fth e D epartm ent of Islamic Law and
its Schools at the University o f Dam ascus.^
He wrote three commentaries on the Q u rn that vary in length,
^ r e e years after the publication o f his sixteen volume work al-Tafsr
al-munr followed a concise comm entary in one volume43 and another
seven years later a medium-sized com m entary in three volumes.^ For
the present study, 1 will only consider the largest and most extensive of
39) Cf., e.g., Haww, III, 1446. flaww was, however, not fully in line with Wahhabite
dogma; for example, he had a distinetly positive view of Sufism. Cf. Weismann, Islamic
R e v iv a lis m
40) Beirut and Damascus 1991; 2nd ed. 1998.
41) Cf. httpiHwww.zuhayli.net/, accessed Sept. 3, 2008.
42) See the front page of his al-Tafsir al-munlr.
43) Wahba al-Zulâyh, al-Tafsir al-wajiz (al hmish al-Qudn al-azim wa-mdah asbb
al-nuzl wa-qawdid al-tartil, Beirut and Damascus 1994.
44) Wahba al-Zuhayli, al-Tafsir al-wasit, Beirut and Damascus 2001.
the three.45 W riting three eommentaries one of them large, one of

m edium length (waslt) and a concise one (wajlz) is a classical pattern
in this, al-Zuhyl emulates great scholars o f the past like al-Wahidl.46
He is the only one among the commentators discussed here to do so.
Al-tafsr al-munr usually looks at small groups of verses, first dis-
cussing problems o f irb, then explaining words or phrases. After
that, it presents traditions on the occasion of revelation. Subsequently,
it discusses the verses in detail and concludes with a chapter on their
practical legal m eaning, ^ i s com m entary is heavily indebted to
a l^ a b a ri, al-Q urtub and other classical exegetes however, al-Zuâyli
does not always m ention his sources.
Al-Zuâylis com m entary has seen at least a second edition. It is also
included in the bibliography ofthe commentary published by Karaman
et al. (see below).
(9) Ab Bakr al-Jazirl (Algeria/Saudi Arabia) : Aysar al-tafsir li-1-kalm

al-cal al-kabr (4 volumes)^
Al-Jazadr was born in I9 2 I in South Algeria, where he was educated
in a Sufi convent (zwiya) until he emigrated to M edina, where he
studied in the Mosque o f the Prophet. He received a licence to teach
there and became a professor at the Islamic University ofM edina upon
its opening in 1961, where he worked until his retirement in 1406 H.
(1985/86).^
His comm entary is conceived as a concise work and, true to its name
(The most simple comm entary), it makes for an easy read, aiming at
explaining foe Q u rn for contem porary Muslims so they can live
according to it and use it as a source of sharia. Al-Jazirls m ethod is
very straightforward: he divides foe Q u rn into groups of several verses,
explains meanings o f difficult words or expressions and then expounds
foe meaning o f the passage in one or two pages. He concludes each
45) The other ones are too short to be of interest here.

46) For al-Wîdis three commentaries, see Walid A. Saleh, The Fast of the Nishapuri
School ofTafsir: Al-Wahidi (d. 468/1076) and His Significance in the History of Quranic
Exegesis, in: Journal ofthe American Oriental Society 126 (2006), 223-243.
47) Jidda 1987.
48) Cf. http:llar.Wikipedia.orglu)ikil^j\'^ _ ^ _ , accessed
Sept. 4, 2008.
section with a few guidelines derived from the Q u ran ic text. The works
orientation is ^ ^ n c t l y Wahhabite in its rejection of bida\ denunciation
ofpopular Islam and its declared aim o f providing a Salaf49 interpreta-
tion o fth e Q u ran. In fact, al-Jaziri recounts that the president o fth e
Islamic University o f M edina specifically asked him to write a com-
m entary that resembles the Tafiir al-Jallayn, but with a Salafi agenda,
and could replace the former in institutions o f religious education. He
explicitly declares his intent to dispense with differences o f opinion
concerning the correct interpretation ofverses, to om it interpretations
that deviate from the literal meaning of a verse and to avoid linguistic
analyses. He mentions only four sources: a l^ a b a ri, Tafsir al-Jallayn,
Tafsr al-Margh (published around 1 45 ) and cAbd al-Ra^mn b.
Nsir al-Sacds Taysr al-Karm al-Rahmn (Cairo 1955-58).51
A new printed edition has been published in 2003 in Medina. The
com m entary is available online on foe platform Altafsir.com. In 1996,
a Turkish translation was published under foe title En Kolay Tefsir. The
com m entary seems to be rather popular in Indonesia as well, at least
among those who can read Arabic.^
(10) Abd al-M unim A ^m ad Tuaylab (Egypt/Saudi Arabia): Fath

al-Rahmnf tafsr al-Qudn (7 volumes)^
Tucaylab was born in a ^ ile Delta village in 1921. He was educated in
a Q u ra n ic school, then in an Azhar institute and finally at al-Azhars
49) The term Salaf, which is often indiscriminately used to describe both reformist trends
in the 19th century and the ideology of political Islam in the 20th century, is problematic,
but I use it for lack of a better category, as it is used by al-Jaziri himself, to describe an
ideology that claims to go back to the roots of Islam and aims at emulating the first
generations of Muslim, largely omitting the tradition of Sunnite scholarship, with a few
exceptions like Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya. The Salafi commentators
mentioned here belong to a wide ideological spectrum; some of them are close to the
Muslim Brotherhood, others lean towards much more radical, even jihadist, movements,
which is certainly true for the Davetinin Tefsiri. They might also be influenced by
Wahhabism; but while all of them seem to accept the Wahhabites radical definition of
tawhid and shirk, not all of them share their rejection ofSufism.
50) Cf. Jansen, Interpretation, 77, fn. 6.
52) A Google search of Aisar at-tafasir (Sept. 3, 2008) brought up a large number of
Indonesian websites that refer to al-Jaziri.
53) Cairo 5 .
Faculty of G eo lo g y (usl al-dn), where he obtained his first degree.

He was prom oted to the rank of clim at al-Azhar in the field o f tafsr.
At the same time, he became a m ember of the Muslim Brotherhood.
He worked as a preacher for al-Azhar during the Falestine and the Suez
crises, but retired from al-Azhar after the rift between the M uslim
Brotherhood and the government in the !950s and returned to his
village. He then found employment in foe M inistry o f Fious Founda-
tions in Kuwait foe breakthrough in his career, however, was his move
to Saudi Arabia where he participated in foe foundation o fth e Faculty
for Islamic Studies at King Abd al-Aziz University in Jidda. From that
time, he completely devoted him self to foe field of tafsr, first working
on an English comm entary on foe Q u rn that was commissioned by
foe Muslim World League, but never published, then writing a thematic
com m entary grouped around central verses o fth e Q u rn, and finally
his Fath al-Rahmn, a com m entary on foe complete Q urin.54
His com m entary is rather concise and intended to be easy to read
and not partisan to any theological school or ideology.^ It is certainly
brief and to foe point it discusses groups o f several verses, clarifies foe
meanings o f difficult words or expressions and then gives foe meaning
phrase by phrase. It uses a broad range o f inner- and extra-Q urnic
references, making use o fa large num ber ofsources, but does not quote
foem extensively. In contrast to al-Jaziris commentary, it does not
obviously pursue a W ahhabite or Salafr agenda. In fact, it does fre-
quently not express any opinion at all, occasionally making it rather
difficult for foe reader to find his way between foe conflicting points
ofview about particular exegetical problems.
Tucaylabs comm entary is foe subject o fa very favourable review on
foe popular website IslamOnline it does not seem to have been cited
by any of the other commentators, nor to have been translated or re-
edited.
Cf. HusmTamm, Al-Shaykh Tucaylab .. Shib Fatb al-Rahmn fi tafsir al-Qufan

http://www.islamonline.net/arabic/famous/2004/10/article02.SHTML, accessed Sept.
2008 .
55) Cf. Tamm.
B. Commentaries from Indonesia
There a vast num ber o f Indonesian works dubbing themselves tafsir,

however, most o f them are, in fact, translations o f the Q u rn, usually
preceded by a lengthy introduction that, among other things, encourages
the readers to learn Arabic in order to be able to read the Q u rn in the
original, sometimes giving explanations o f verses in more or less
extensive footnotes. Besides a large num ber o f such translations and
extremely concise com m entaries, however, there are also several
extensive and detailed works o f exegesis.
(I) Ham ka (Haji Abdulmalik b. Abdulkarim Amrullah): Tafsiral-Azhar

(30 parts, 15 volumes)^
Ham ka is one o f the most em inent and most intriguing figures of 20th
century Islamic scholarship and activism in Indonesia. Consequently,
there is no lack o f studies on both him and his com m entary o f foe
Quinan58 some o f the works written on him in Indonesian even have
56) Cf. Howard M. Federspiel, An Introduction to Quranic Commentaries in Contem-

porary Southeast Asia, in: The Muslim World 81 (1991), 149-165. Federspiels assessment
that there have only been negligible attempts at translating the Qurn into Malay languages
before the 1920s (cf Federspiel, Introduction, 151) seems to be not entirely accurate. See:
R. Michael Feener, Notes towards the History of Qurnic Exegesis in Southeast Asia,
in: Studia Islamika 5 (1998), 47-76; Anthony H. Johns, Quranic Exegesis in the Malay
World: In Search of a Frofile, in: Andrew Rlppin (ed.), Approaches to the History ofthe
Interpretation ofthe Qurn. Oxford 1988, 257-287; Anthony H. Johns, Quranic exegesis
in the Malay-Indonesian world: An introductory survey, in: Abdullah Saeed (ed.), Ap-
proaches to the Quran in Contemporary Indonesia, Oxford 2005, 17-40.
57) Jakarta 1%7; enlarged edition: Jakarta 1970. For this study, I have used the edition
that was published in 1987/88, apparently as a reprint of a 1982/83 edition.
58) See Karel Steenbrink, Hamka (1908-1981) and the Integration ofthe Islamic Ummah
of Indonesia, in: Studia Islamika 1 (1994), 119-47; Karel Steenbrink, Qurn Interpre-
tarions of Hamzah Fansuri (CA. 1600) and Hamka (1908-1982): A Comparison, in:
Studia Islamika 2 (1995), 73-95; Milhan Yusuf, Hamkas method in interpreting legal
verses ofthe Quran, in: Abdullah Saeed (ed.), Approaches to the Quran in Contemporary
Indonesia, Oxford 2005, 41-66; Ahmad Hakim and M. Thalhah, Politik BermoralAgama.
Tafsir Politik Hamka, Yogyakarta 2005; Y u n a n Y u s u f , Corak Pemikiran Kalam Tafsir
Al-Azhar: Sebuah Telaah Atas Pemikiran Hamka dalam Teologi Islam, Jakarta 2003;
Zainuddin Roesmar, Tuntunan Berdakwah Dalam Masyarakat Pluralistik. PerspektifMetode
Dakwah Hamka, Fekanbaru 2002.
hagiographie character, attesting to his popularity.59 Ham ka was born

in West Sumatra in 1908 to a M inangkabau family ofreligious scholars
and Sufi leaders. His father, a religious teaeher, was heavily infiueneed
by reformist ideas from the Arab world. Ham kas edueation, both reli-
gious and seeular, seems to have been patehy and erratie. His intended
long-term stay in Meeea was cut short when Ham ka diseovered that
the level o f scholarship in the now Saudi-ruled Hijaz did not meet his
expectations. Around 1927, he started to become active for foe M uham-
madiyah, an Islamic social, educational and welfare association, as a
journalist and preacher. He also started writing novels, an activity that
conservative religious scholars frowned upon. For several decades, he
mostly worked as a journalist and writer in M edan and was active for
foe M uham m adiyah and foe local ulam association. In 1950, he
moved to Jakarta where he became a central figure in foe al-Azhar
Mosque that was affiliated wifo foe M uhamm adiyah and named after
foe famous Egyptian place o f worship and learning. He soon became
very popular through his books and articles and was one of the most
prom inent members o f the Islamist Farty, Masyumi, albeit not a par-
ticularly active one. In I960, M asyumi was banned, and in 1964,
Ham ka was imprisoned for two years. D uring this time, he wrote foe
entire first draft of his voluminous com m entary on foe Q u rn. He
later became professor at several Islamic universities, chairman of the
M uham m adiyah, founder and editor o f an influential and popular
magazine and flrst chairman o fth e Majelis Ulama Indonesia (Council
o f Indonesian ulam, M UI) founded by ?resident Suharto. He died
in 1981.60
His com m entarys name, Tafsir al-Azhar, clearly refers to both foe
^ k a rta n and foe Cairene mosque, although it can also be translated as
The most radiant comm entary. W hile Feener calls it one ofth e most
enterprising endeavours o f m odern Q u rnic exegesis^, Johns attests
this description some degree o f hyperbole^ and Steenbrink clearly
states that Ham kas com m entary is not a scholarly or academic work
59) Cf. Abdul Rosyad Shiddiq, Hamka, ]akarta 2000.

60) Cf. Steenbrink, Hamka, 128-144.
61) Feener, Notes, 62.
62) Johns, Quranic exegesis-introductory survey, 34.
at all, but rather aims at the propagation o fth e feelings ofreligion and
Islam Still, it makes use o f a wide variety of elassieal and m odern
sources (whieh it does not always m ention explieitly), mostly from the
Arab world, including the much-revered Tafsr al-Manr and Sayyid
Q u tb s commentary. It also makes occasional disparaging reference to
the works o f Orientalists, which Ham ka does not appear to have actu-
ally read or have any deeper knowledge of.64 The com m entary is very
extensive and detailed, but not following a clear structure or method.
Sometimes, it discusses foe meaning and etymology o fQ u f n ic termini
at length, at other times it delves into recounts o f historical events,
and frequently, it features political com m entary or even personal rcm-
iniscences, which is most unusual for a Q u ra n ic commentary. Ham ka
does not only make reference to contem porary events, he also does so
in great narrative detail. The style o f his comm entary is indeed closer
to a sermon than to a work o f scholarship, very m uch resembling
al-Sharwis com m entary in this respect.
Ham kas comm entary is clearly very popular and influential in Indo-
nesia, as is evident from foe numerous re-editions that have appeared
and foe countless books, articles and websites dealing wifo Ham ka and
his com m entary in Indonesian language. M uham m ad Quraish Shihab
frequently refers to him in his own commentary. Parts ofH am kas com-
m entary are accessible on foe internet.^
(2) Departem en Agama (ed)\A l-Q ur'an dan tafsirnya (11 volumes)
^ i s com m entary owes its existence to a directive by foe Indonesian
D epartm ent o f Religion (Departemen Agama) concerning foe pro-
duction o f a national translation and commentary on foe Q u rn issued
in foe 1960s. The translation was published flrst foe comm entary did
63) Steenbrink, Hamka, 139.

64) For example, he refers to the works of a renowned Orientalist called Young Bull on
Islamic law which, to Hamkas dismay, are part of the curriculum for Islamic Studies at
Indonesian universities. He almost certainly means âeodoor w. Juynboll (Handleiding
tot de kennis van de mohammedaansche wet volgens de leer der sjfiitische school, 4th ed.,
Leiden 1930). Cf. Hamka, IV, 281.
65) http://www.geocities.com/hamkaonline/, accessed Sept. 5, 2008.
66) Jakarta 1973. 1 am using the second, revised edition of 1985/86.
24 . Pink / Die Welt des Islams 50 (2010) 3-59
not appear until 1975.67 The original eommittee that was in eharge of
producing the commentary consisted o f seventeen members, appointed
by a presidential decree in 1973. Its chairman was Bustami A. Gani, a
professor at the State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) in Jakarta his
deputy was T. M. Hasbi Ash Shiddieqy^, a famous Acehnese Islamic
theologian and jurist who had written two Q u ra n ic commentaries of
different length him seff^ The committee was reformed by a presidential
decree o f 1980, when a second edition was about to be prepared by
then, foe task ofonterpreting foe Q u rn on behalf o f the government
had become part o fth e national five-year-plans. The reformation ofthe
com m ittee was doubtlessly necessary at least one o f foe original
members, Hasbi Ash Shiddieqy, had died since foe publication o fth e
first edition. The chairman o fth e new committee, which consisted of
15 m em bers7^, was Professor Ibrahim Hosen, who was an Azhar
graduate, had been professor for Islamic Law at foe State Institute for
Islamic Studies in Jakarta and headed foe Fatw Com m ittee of Majelis
Ulama Indonesia (M U I).7* His deputy was Syukri Chozali, Hosens
67) Cf. Howard M. Federspiel, Popular Indonesian Literature ofthe Quran, Ithaca 1994, 64
f., who states that the directive was issued in 1967. This cannot be the whole truth (although
the Suharto regime certainly wanted to make it appear that way, in order to dissociate the
whole project with the Sukarno regime), for the first volume ofthe translation was already
primed in 1965.
68) Teungku Muhammad Hasbi ash-Shiddieqy was born in 1904 in North Aceh, Indonesia,
to a family of religious scholars that traced itself back to the first Caliph Ab Bakr al-iddiq.
Hasbi received a thorough pesantren education and studied Arabic with Arab (ulam\ He
also studied in the Middle East for some time. From 1928 onwards, he became active in
the Muhammadiyah in Aceh and became a member of the Islamist party Masyumi. In
1951, he moved to Yogyakarta, where he soon attained a high academic reputation and
became a professor o hadith at the State Institute of Islamic Studies in 1960. He acted as
dean ofthe Institutes Sharia Faculty until 1972, when he joined the Tafsir Committee.
He died in Jakarta in 1975. Cf. R. Michael Feener, Muslim Legal Thought in Modern
Lndonesia, Cambridge 2007, 59ff.; http://melayuonline.com/fr/personage/dig/291/teungku-
muhammad-hasbi-ash shiddieqy/, accessed Sept 6, 2008. His own commentaries appeared
in 1956 ( Tafsier Al-Qurnul Madjied A n-Nur, Jakarta 1956) and 1966 (Tafsir al-Bayan,
Jakarta 1966).
69) Cf. Nurul Huda Maarif, AL-QURN [sic!] AL-KARIM WATAFSIRUH (al-Quran
dan Tafsirnya Depag Rl), http://nuhamaarifblogspot.com/2006_08_01_archive.html,
accessed Sept 5, 2008; Federspiel, Popular Lndonesian Literature, 46, fn. 16.
70) Cf. Departemen Agama (ed.), Al-Quran dan tafsirnya. Muqaddimah, 11.
71) Cf. Martin van Bruinessen, Indonesias ulama and politics: caugbt between legitimising
predecessor as head o f the Fatw Com m ittee and Ham kas successor as
president o f M U I.^ Both, along w ith five other members o f the
reformed committee, had already been part o fth e original committee.
The com m entary consists of eleven volumes, the first ofw hich con-
tains a lengthy introduction to the Q u rn and its exegesis (muqad-
dima), while each of the other ten contain the com m entary on three
a jzd o fth e Q u rn. The com m entary groups the verses into short sec-
tions. After the Arabic text and an Indonesian translation, it describes
their connection to the preceding verses (;munsaba), interprets them
verse by verse with reference to the occasion o f revelation, and finally
sums up the main teachings o f the passage. It m entions four major
sources: Tafsr al-Margh by A^m ad Mustafa al-Marghl, which has
been translated into Indonesian and had already served as a basis for
Hasbi Ash Shiddieqys first com m entary the m odernist Syrian dlim
Jaml al-Dln al-Qsimls (1866-1914) Mahsin al-tdwl'P and the com-
mentaries o f al-BaydwI and Ibn Kathr, both ofw hich have been trans-
lated into Indonesian. The authors add that they have used other sources
as well, like Tafsr al-Manr, F zill al-Qufin, Rh al-M dn7A and
so on.75 This seems like a rather random selection. W ithin the text of
the comm entary itself, no sources for the inform ation given are men-
tioned. Its scholarly value is thus rather limited.
The commentary like Hamkas is not meant nor can it be expected
to be received by an audience outside Indonesia. Even within the coun-
try, the book is currently out of print76, and it is inaccessible on the
internet. M uham m ad Q uraish Shihab frequently refers to it in his
the status quo and searching for alternatives, in: Prisma The Indonesian Indicator (Ja-
karta) 49 (1990), 52-69. http:llwwwdet.uu.nl/HMartin.vanBruinessenlpersonallpublicationsI
Ulama_and_politics.htm, accessed Sept. 5, 2008; http://www.library.ohiou.edu/indopubs/
1997/02/02/0008.html, accessed Sept. 5, 2008.
72) Cf. Steenbrink, Hamka, 413.
73) For Qsimi, see David Commins, Social Criticism and Reformist Ulama of Damascus,
in: Studia Islmica 78 (1993), 169-180.
74) By al-Alsi al-Baghddi.
75) Departemen Agama (ed.), Al-Quran dan tafsirnya. Muqqadimah, 12.
76) Apparently, a new edition was presented in the fall of 2008; see http:llwww.depag.go.idl
index.php?a=detilberita8id=2108; http://www.depag.go.id/file/dokumen/13Agustus2008.pdf,
accessed Nov. 11, 2008.
recent commentary, but usually in a critical manner, in order to explain

why he favours a different translation.^
(3) M uham m ad Quraish Shihab: Tafsir al-Mishbh. Pesan, Kesan dan

Keserasian al-Qudan ( volumes)78
W hen M uham m ad Quraish Shihab started publishing his voluminous
commentary (The Com m entary ofthe Light. The Message, Impression
and H arm ony o f the Q u rn) in 2000, he was already a scholar o f
renown. He was born in the town o f Rappang in South Sulawesi in
1944 to a family o f religious scholars. His father, who was a specialist
in Q u ran ic studies, was the rector of a State Institute for Islamic Studies
(IAIN). M uham m ad Quraish Shihab received both a secular education
and religious training at an Islamic boarding school (pesantren). In
8 9 , he left for Egypt where he studied at al-Azhar University. After
he had obtained a M asters degree, he returned to Indonesia in 1969
where he taught at a State Institute for Islamic Studies, first in Sulawesi
and from 984 onwards in Jakarta. Before his move to Jakarta, he had
spent another period oftim e in Egypt where he obtained his doctorate
from al-Azhar in 982. He became president o f the Majelis Ulama
Indonesia in 984.7He also became foe IAIN Jakartas rector, but left
in order to become M inister o f Religious Affairs under Suhartos
reformed cabinet in 998 this cabinet, however, lasted only for several
m onths, until Suhartos fall. His books on foe them atic interpretation
ofthe Q urn, much inspired by Egyptian ulamd like M ahm d Shaltt,
have attained widespread popularity.^ He is criticised for expressing
reformist views about foe headscarf, foe wearing ofw hich he does not
consider to be prescribed by foe Qurkin; he also called for m oderation
in dealing wifo deviant groups like foe Ahmadiyyah.81
77) Cf., e.g., Shihab, Tafsir, III (2001), 123; 1 (2000), 153.
78) ]akarta 2000-2003. 1 have used a reprint of 2007/2008.
7 Cf. Muhammadiyah Amin and Kusmana, Purposive exegesis: a study of Quraish
Shihabs thematic interpretation ofthe Quran, in: Abdullah Saeed (ed.), Approaches to the
Qur'an in Contemporary Indonesia, Oxford 2005, 67-84 [68]; http:/(media, isnet. orglislaml
QuraishIQuraish.html, accessed Sept. 5, 2008.
80) Cf. Feener, Notes, 66.
81) Cf. Adian Husaini, Mengkritik Quraish Shihab, http'J/qosim.multiply.com/journal/
item/70/Mengkritik_Quraish_Shihab; http://www.planetmole.org/indonesian-news/indonesians
-in-focus-m-quraish-shihab.html, accessed Sept. 5, 2008.
Quraish Shihabs endeavour to write a new Indonesian comm entary

on the Q u rn m ight have been m otivated by the fact that neither
Ham kas com m entary nor the one issued by the Departem en Agama
are ^ rtic u la rly satisfying from a scholarly point ofview. His own com-
m entary certainly is more detailed and thorough than the one by the
Departem en Agama, and more systematic and reliable in m entioning
his sources than Ham kas. His own selection o f sources, however, is not
particularly wide and somewhat u p r is in g , not only because it has a
very strong emphasis on m odern commentators. W ithout bias, he cites
the Tunisian exegete al-Thir b. cshr next to the Iranian Shiite com-
m entator al-Tabtab1, both ofw hom are ignored or shunned by con-
te m ^ ra r y Arab Sunnite commentators. He also refers to Sayyid Q utb,
Tantaw I and al-SharwI, which is maybe less u p r is in g , given his
strong affinity to Egyptian theological discourse, but still does not con-
stitute an ideologically coherent selection. The only classical commen-
tator he mentions in his foreword is the rather little-known Ibrahim
Umar al-BiqI (d. 1480) who had been the subject o f Quraish Shihabs
doctoral dissertation.^ He does discuss a num ber of other commentaries
in his introduction^ and occasionally cites different classical sources,
like al-Zamakhsharl, but the above-mentioned commentaries are the
ones he relies on most frequently. His com m entary somehow gives the
impression ofan unqualified admiration for any exegetical work written
in Arabic.
Quraish Shihab usually discusses no more than one or two verses at
a time. He starts with ^ ra p h ra sin g the verse or passage in question and
then devotes a lot o f attention to analysing the meaning o f Arabic words
and discussing their correct translation into Indonesian in this way, he
avoids falling into the trap o f basing his im erpretation on misleading
translations, which is something he frequently accuses the Departemen
Agamas com m entary o f and which can also be said about Ham kas
tafslr. Often, he quotes one of the m odern commentaries for additional
explanations, but he does also add his own thoughts. Quraish Shihabs
commentary, despite citing new hermeneutical approaches like Fazlur
Rahmans in its foreword, shows m uch less interest in understanding
s2) Cf. Shihab, Tafsir, I (2000), xiii.

s3) Cf. Shihab, Tafsir, I (2000), xxi-xxviii.
the Qurinic revelation in its historieal context than it does in linguis-

tic details. He seems to he fascinated by scientific and mathematical
approaches that are supposed to support the inimitability o fth e Q u rn
(ij z al-Qudn) and thus stands in the tradition o fth e tafsir (ilmi.
The com m entary has been reprinted several times and is availahle in
m any bookstores it seems to he rather widespread in Indonesia, espe-
cially for a com m entary o f its considerahle size.
c. Commentaries from Turkey

The first original Turkish Q u ra n ic comm entary to he published since
the late 950 only appeared in 1989, which constitutes a remarkably
large gap in ^ * p ro d u c tio n . It can be assumed that this gap was caused
hy the specific situation o f Turkish university theology, which was non-
existent until 1949 and had a rather low profile until the 1980s, when
the num ber oftheological faculties sky-rocketed. It seems that it was
only in this atmosphere, in which theological scholarship had a broad
and supportive institutional framework, and after a new generation of
academic theologians had had the time to grow up, that the time was
ripe for a new endeavour to produce an original Turkish comm entary
on foe Q u rn, which was undertaken by Sleyman Ate.
(1) Sleyman Ate: Yce Kurnin agda Tefsri (12 volumes)^

Sleyman Ate was born in E laz^ in Eastern Anatolia in 1933. He
received an informal religious education by a village teacher and a
Naqshbandl shaykh. At foe age of 20, he decided to enrol in an imam
H atip school and, at foe same time, to prepare for foe exam that would
enable him to study theology at foe University o f Ankara. He reached
this goal in I960 and graduated from foe Ankara ilahiyat Faculty in
1964. O ne year later, he became assistant to Professor Tayyib Oki, a
hadith specialist of Bosnian origin. He acquired his doctoral degree in
1968 with a thesis on al-Sulamls mystical Q u ra n ic commentary. He
s4) m er Nasuhl Bilmens Kuran-I Kerimin Mel-ilisi ve Tefsiri was published in 1956.
s5) Cf. Mehmet Paaci and Yasin Aktay, 75 Years ofHigher Religious Education in Modern
Turkey, in: The Muslim World 89 (1999), 389-413; Felix K6rner, Revisionist Koran Her-
meneutics in Contemporary Turkish University Theology. Rethinking Islam, Wrzburg 2005,
s6) Istanbul 1989.

continued to work as a lecturer, interrupted by his m ilitary service

and travels to Arab countries, until he was appointed President of the
Turkish D epartm ent of Religious Affairs (Diyanet lleri Bakanl1g 1 an
office he held for one and a half years. In 1979, he became professor at
the Ankara Faculty of G eology, but spent most of the next few years
in Germany as a researcher and Saudi Arabia as a teacher. R e returned
to Turkey in 1982, just at the point when the political climate became
m uch more favourable for Islamic academic activities. As theological
faculties m ushroom ed from 1987 onwards, he accepted a chair in
Samsun in 1988 and moved to the University of Istanbul in 1995, from
which he retired in 1999.87
His Contem porary comm entary on the Exalted Q uEn contains
twelve volumes, the eleventh consisting largely ofsum m aries of central
topics and messages o f the Q u rn, the last being exclusively devoted
to an unusually broad range ofindices. W ithin the commentary proper,
a detailed analysis o f each verse or small group of verses is given, based
on a selected range of sources, from a l^ a b a rl to the often-quoted Tafsr
al-Manr. Ate does expressly criticise them at times, especially when
he is of the opinion that they stray too far from the original meaning.
In order to expose the latter, he makes extensive use o f traditions
recounting the historical context of revelations. At the end of each sura,
the author provides a list o f the m ost im portant rules that should,
according to him, be drawn from the sra. Ates com m entary is the
only one, among the seventeen discussed here, that lists different read-
ings (qir't) at the end o f each sra, giving the Turkish meaning of
each variant and the reader to whom it is traced back. R e does not seem
to discuss the variant readings in the actual com m entary on the verses,
however. Occasionally, he includes pictures, which is very unusual for
a Q u ra n ic commentary.88 Its orientation is deliberately m odernist.
s7) Cf. Abdullah Takim, Koranexegese im 20. Jahrhundert. Islamische Tradition und neue
Anstze in Sleyman Ate/s Zeitgenssischem Korankommentar, Istanbul 2007, 42ff.
s8) For example, pictures showing the development of the embryo, in the tradition of the
tafsir Ilmi.
s9) For example, Ate maintains, in contrast to the majority of commentators, that according
to Q 2:62, paradise is open to Christians and Jews as well as Muslims even if the former
do not accept Muhammad as a prophet. However, according to Ate, Christians would
have to accept tawhd and abandon their erroneous belief in trinity and in the divine nature
of Christ. Cf. Ate, I, 174ff.
His com m entary has received a lot of attention in Turkey and has
been both heavily criticised and applauded as a groundbreaking new
approach.^ Ate maintains that at least 350.000 to 400.000 copies have
been sold the com m entary has seen several editions . U
n u p risin g ly ,
it has not evoked any response in the Arab W orld or Indonesia, where
Turkish is not generally read but it is frequently cited by the more
recent Turkish commentaries by Bayraktar Bayrakh and Karaman et
ah, which bears witness to its scholarly reputation.
(2) Hayrettin Karaman et al./Diyanet ileri Bakanl1g 1 Yayinlari: Kuran

Yolu. Trke Mel Ve Tefsir (5 volumes)^
In 1998, the Turkish D epartm ent of Religious Affairs commissioned
four Turkish theologians with authoring a new Q u ra n ic commentary,
which was published by foe Diyanet in 2003 and 2004 and thus took
a very short time to complete. However, foe Diyanet hastened to make
c le a r- b o th in foe first volumes preamble and in a press release that
foe comm entary did not express foe Diyanets views and had no official
character, but was, as every work ofsuch kind, an individual work con-
taining foe authors subjective opinions. Obviously, foe issue o f
Q u rnic exegesis is a politically and ideologically loaded one in con-
te m ^ ra r y Turkey, and foe Diyanet did not w ant to take too definite a
stance in it. Nevertheless, it did both commission and print foe com-
mentary, and it published a second edition in 2006, which gives foe
work at least a semi-official character.
The four authors are all linked to M arm ara niversitesi in Istanbul.
Hayrettin Karaman, born 1934 in orum in N orthern Turkey, was a
professor at foe universitys Faculty of G eo logy until his retirement in
2001 Mustafa
agrici, born in foe Central-Anatolian town o f Sivas,
is still teaching at said faculty, in addition to his post as M ufti o f
90) Cf.Takim, 76-85.

91) Cf. Takim, 83.
92) Ankara 2003/2004.
93) Cf. Karaman et al., I (2003), VIII; http'JIwww.byegm.gov. tr/yayinlarimiz/anadoluhaberler-
yeni/kaldir/2004/aralik/ah_13_12-04.htm, accessed Aug. 20, 2008.
94) Cf. http://www.hayrettinkaraman.net/kimdir.htm, accessed Sept. 4, 2008. According to
this biography on his personal site, he retired out of protest against the increasing lack of
freedom within the university.
Istanbul.95 Sadrettin Gm, born in 1945 in the district ofE rzurum 96,
is a professor at M arm ara niversitesis Institute o f Social Sciences,
which offers postgraduate and doctoral programmes. He belongs to the
D epartm ent o f Basic Islamic Studies and is a specialist in Q u ra n ic
commentary, whereas his colleage ibrahim Kfi Dbnm ez of the same
Departm ent is specialised in Islamic Law.9^ W hile no information about
D bnm ez biography could be found, the other three authors are all
graduates of im am H atip schools and Istanbul Higher Islamic Institute.
The commentary consists of five volumes and clearly is more indebted
to modern scholarly methods than any ofthe other commentaries stud-
ied in this article, ^ i s shows in the meticulous way in which it provides
bibliographical references as well as in the sources it uses, which include
not only hadth, sra, classical and m odern works of tafsir, but also
scholarly publications and encyclopaedia articles. It discusses the mean-
ing o f problematic words extensively and precisely. The analysis ofindi-
vidual verses (which are often discussed in groups o f several verses) is
ofvarying length, om itting some verses completely and devoting several
pages to others.
The com m entary seems to have provoked varied reactions, its delib-
erately moderate and scientific orientation and openness to interfaith
dialogue being controversial.98
(3) Bayraktar Bayrakh: Yeni Bir Anlayipin I1g 1nda Kurn Tefsri
(incomplete, 13 volumes)99
Bayraktar Bayrakh was born in a village in the N orth-Eastern prov-
ince o f RIze in 1947. He attended prim ary school in his village and
memorised the Q u rn. In 1968, he graduated from an im am H atip
95) Cf. http://www.istanbulmuftulugu.gov.tr/index.php?option=com_content8task=view8id

=l63Itemid=211, accessed Sept. 4, 2008.
6 )Cf. http'J/www.biyografi.net/kisiyazdir.asp?kisiid=3115, accessed Sept. 4, 2008.
97) Cf. Marmara niversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstits, Enstit Rehberi, 114, httpd/sbe.
marmara.edu.tr/rehber.pdf, accessed Sept. 4, 2008.
98) Although the authors do not quite follow Ates position on Q 2:62 concerning the
admission of Jews and Christians to paradise, they maintain that, in accordance with
al-Ghazlis view, only the small minority of Jews and Christians who have received correct
information about Islam, have had sufficient time to study it in depth and have nevertheless
rejected its truth with finality will be condemned to hell. Cf. Karaman et al., 1 (2003), 69
99) Istanbul 2001-. Eight more volumes are forthcoming.
school in Istanbul. O ne year later, he took his exams at a secular lycee

as well, enabling him to continue his education at university level. He
graduated from Istanbul Higher Islamic Institute in 1972 and acquired
a degree in sociology from Istanbul University in 1977, having already
worked as a teacher for the past five years. He then started teaching at
the Higher Islamic Institute which, in 1982, became the Faculty o f
G eo lo g y at M arm ara niversitesi. In 1982, he presented a doctoral
thesis at the Departm ent of Sociology at Istanbul University and became
assistant lecturer, then lecturer and finally professor in 1993.* During
the 1980s, he spent some years in Great Britain and the USA. Both this
and his background in sociology are rather unusual on the other hand,
his educational career and academic position are quite typical for
Turkish theologians.
His Q u ra n ic comm entary in foe light o f a new understanding is
conceived as a 21 volume work. So far, 13 volumes comprising foe
first 25 suras have appeared.** He comments on individual verses or
very short groups of two or three verses, structuring his comm entary
in a very didactic fashion and paying great attention to foe applicabil-
ity o f the Q u ra n ic message to everyday life. The moral he conveys is
rather conservative.102 He does not consistently m ention his sources,
but what he mentions ranges from classical to m odern ones, like Sley-
m an Ates work of tafsir or M uham m ad Asads Message ofthe Qur'an,
which has been translated into Turkish.
The comm entary is too recent to judge its impact. It should be men-
tioned, though, that it has been Jfrp u b lish e d , albeit in a rather profes-
sional format. It does not seem to have aroused strong reactions either
in foe press or foe internet.*
(4) Seifuddin El-Muvahhid: Davetinin Tefsiri (incomplete, 8 parts)*^

^ i s com m entary is very clearly set apart from foe other Turkish
commentaries. For one thing, foe author is almost certainly an Arab
100) Cf. http://www.bayraktarbayrakli.com/ozgecmis.htm, accessed Sept. 4, 2008.

101) Cf. http://www.bayraktarbayrakli.com/kitaplar/tefsir.htm, accessed Sept. 4, 2008.
102) Cf. his reference to homosexuality: Bayrakh, VI (2007), 169.
103) According to a Google search conducted in September 2008.
104) A printed edition published by the Istanbul-based jihadist publisher Hak Yayinlari
(whose website was accessible in June 2008, but had been closed by September 2008) is
for another, is radieally jihadist in its approaeh, which is likely to he

the reason for the com m entarys current unavailability. As no original
Arabic (or otherwise) version could he found, it seems that the com-
m entary has only been published in Turkey, which is why is discussed
in this section.
So far, eight volumes o f com m entary seem to have been issued,
reaching until Q 7:87. The front page o f each volume mentions the
publishing house, including its address in Istanhul, but no date. It also
gives the name o f the translator, one ibrahim zsoy, which makes
clear that the work was not originally written in Turkish. The authors
name is given as eyh Seyfuddin E l-M uvahhid^, which is clearly a nom
de guerre indicating a W ahhabite e lfrid e n tific a tio n .^ An Arabic pub-
lication by the same a u th o r ^ (in this case, he is not titled shaykh, but
duktr) gives no indication of it being a translation, which, together
with the style o fth e Turkish com m entary that leans towards Arabic in
syntax and vocabulary, makes seem close to certain that the author
is an Arab.
The com m entary is rather concise neither does go into linguistic
details nor does m ention any sources or demonstrate an interest in
the occasions of revelation or anything else that would distract from
the clear and unambiguous meaning as the author sees .
listed with many Turkish internet booksellers, but currently out of stock. An e-book version
was available on the publishers website and on the jihadist website http://www.davetulhak.
com, which has been closed as well by now, just like any other connected site. I am referring
to the e-book I obtained when the website was still accessible.
105) Interestingly, Mohammed Bouyeri, the murderer ofthe Dutch film-maker Theo van
Gogh, used to call himself Saifu Deen alMuwahhied (cf. Albert Benschop, Chronicle o f
a Political Murder Foretold, http://www.sociosite.org/jihad_nl_en.php, accessed Sept. 4,
2008.). It is extremely unlikely that he is the author of this commentary, but the possibility
cannot be ruled out that it comes from the ideological context of the so-called Hofstad
network to which he was affiliated.
106) Muhammad b. Abd al-Wahhb and his followers called themselves al-Muwahhidun
those who profess the unity of God. Esther Peskes and w. Ende, Wahhbiyya, in:
The Encyclopaedia oflslam. 2nd ed. XI (2000), 39.
107) See al-Muwalîd.
D. Conclusions
The com m entators biographical backgrounds allow for a num ber of

interesting conclusions concerning Islamic intellectual and scholarly
production during the past 40 years. O f course, a sample of, all in all,
seventeen more or less detailed scholars biographies cannot be con-
sidered to be representative of the scholarly theological production in
such a vast region o fth e Muslim W orld throughout such a long period
o f tim e nevertheless, some observations can be made that m ight well
be indicative oflarger trends.
First o f all, and perhaps un^rprisingly, it is apparent that most of
the commentaries have been written by professional 'ulamd in a modern
sense, i.e. by m en108 holding faculty positions in Islamic Law or Theol-
ogy quite a num ber o f them also held positions in the government
administration o f Islam, as ministers ofreligious affairs, muftis or heads
o f the Indonesian M U I. O nly two, H am ka and al-SharwI, were
famous enough to earn their living by preaching or writing alone how-
ever, al-SharwI had been an academic before becoming a famous
preacher, and Ham ka assumed a faculty position relatively late in his
life, probably in order to gain the credentials his sketchy education
could not provide. W riting a complete com m entary on the Q u rn is
a tim e-consuming task, and the m a r ^ th i li t y o fth e resulting work of
tafslr is often lim ited due to its sheer size. Thus, it is an endeavour
typically undertaken by academics, be it in order to increase their
scholarly renown or be it out of genuine interest.
Two ofthe commentaries examined here have been written in prison,
just like Sayyid Q u tb s tafslr had been. Being in jail seems to be, in a
108) Indeed, all of the exegetes are male. Maybe the first attempt at writing a Qurnic
commentary that was undertaken by a woman was Zaynab al-Ghazhs very short and
unfinished Nazrtfl Kitb Allh (Cairo 1994); alGhazli was the most famous member
ofthe Muslim Sisterhood, and her w ork-w hich she consciously did not label tafsir shows
no feminist tendencies whatsoever. Only in 2008 and 2009, the Azhar authorized the
publication of several further very concise Qurnic commentaries written by Egyptian
women, all of them primarily directed at children and youths, and none of them with a
feminist agenda. Cf. httpd/forum.masrawy.com/News/Egypt/Politics/2008/december/17/
alazher.aspx', http://www.al-masry-alyoum.com/article2.aspx?ArticleID=1944848Issue
ID=1283', http://www.neelwafurat.com/itempage.aspxHd=egbl23608-51247158search=
books, accessed March 13, 2009.
very praetieal seme, conducive to undertaking such a tim e-consuming

task and being pursued for ones Islamist political orientation obviously
drives some men to return to the fundamentals ofth eir religion, which
is first and foremost the Q u rn.
^ o s e commentators who were not professional scholars all seem to
have been affiliated with oppositional Islamist groups, inasfar as it has
been possible to deduce this from their biographies and their writings.
Autodidacts such as Haww or Abd al-Karm al-Khalb do not seem
to exist among Turkish and Indonesian commmentators, which is most
probably due to the fact that in these countries, Arabic is usually stud-
ied only as part of a career as an clim. Even Hamka, who comes closest
to being an autodidact, had sufficient grounding in Islamic theology,
due to his family background, to be sent to Mecca in order to study
Arabic. But Ham ka is perhaps more difficult to asses than any o f the
other commentators, his life story including the writing o f novels as
well as the authorship o fa Q u ran ic commentary, im prisonm ent as well
as the presidency of the M UI. In any case, it is these autodidacts who
bring forth distinctly Islamist commentaries on the Q u rn, a type of
tafslr that does not exist among the originally Turkish and Indonesian
w o rk s discussed here.
It is interesting to note that none o f the commentators originates
from one of the big, urban centers. The Turkish authors come from
villages or marginalised towns in N orthern Turkey or Anatolia. The
Arab commentators, too, usually come from village settings exceptions
are Haww, who came from a poor quarter ofH am h, and Ab Zahra,
who was born in al-Mahalla al-Kubr both cities, however, are ofindus-
trial and agricultural rather than cultural and intellectual importance
to their countries. Few, if any, of the Turkish and Arab authors seem to
have come from wealthy or educated families, which attests to the
increasing access to education that the M iddle East witnessed during
the course o f the 20th century, but also bears witness to the fact that a
career in Islamic theology is not som ething typically envisioned by
members o f the upper classes.
Turkish authors all attended imam Hatip schools before enrolling
at Ankaras ilahiyat Faculty or Istanbuls Higher Islamic Institute, which
were the only institutions available for the study o f Islamic theology
for quite some time in Turkey. None ofthem seems to have incorporated
a Stay in the Arab world into their e d u e a tio n ^ the Arab seholars, on
the other hand, by and large did not show any inelination to leave the
Arab world either, although some o f them were rather mobile within
the Arab world, most often by pursuing studies at al-Azhar, if they did
not eome from Egypt, or by assuming a position in the G ulf states.
The three Indonesian scholars under consideration here Hamka,
Hasbi Ash Shiddieqy and Quraish Shihab are distinct in that all of
them come from families with a strong tradition o f religious scholar-
ship. None o f them originates from Java, although all o f them ended
up there in the course ofth eir ascent to the highest ranks of Indonesian
scholars. In contrast to their Turkish counterparts, obtaining part of
their theological education in the Arab world was an im portant part of
th e ir careers.
It is thus apparent that there are distinct differences between typical
educational careers omufassirn in the Arab W orld, Turkey and Indo-
nesia. W hat this sample o r o g r a p h ie s shows, though, is that the C O S -
m opolitan upper classes in the urban centers o f the countries under
consideration do not tend to produce religious scholars those come
from rural areas or to w n s at the m arg ins o fth e ir co u n tries.
3. The Interpretation o f Q 5 5 1
0 believers, take notjew s and Christians asfriends [awliyT they arefriends o f

each other. Whoso ofyou makes them hisfriends [yatawallahum] is one ofthem .
God guides not the people o fth e evildoers.110
.
. .
As m entioned above, Q 5:51 is a very suitable starting point for an

analysis o f contem porary commentaries o fth e Q u rn, as it involves a
num ber of exegetical problems and, at foe same time, touches upon
foe highly controversial and potentially ideological issue o f Muslims
relationship wifo Christians and Jews.
109) Suleyman Ate spent some time in Saudi Arabia, but only after having obtained tenure.
0 ) Translations of Qurnic verses are taken from Arthur j. Arberrys translation.
Confining ones foeus to the interpretation of this partieular verse of

the Q u rn, however, is problem atic, as m any o f the contem porary
exegetes refuse to treat the Q u rn as an assembly of separate and iso-
lated verses, ^ e y often discuss groups of verses that they consider to
be them atic units some also stress the overall unity o f complete suras
and even emphasize structural connections between different sums and
passages of the Q u ran.111 The following analysis o f the commentaries
on Q 5:5 will make an attem pt to take foe broader inner-Q urnic
context into account, as it is established by foe commentators, while at
foe same time focussing on foe exegetical issues related to foe verse
proper.
A. The Place ofthe Verse within the Qur'n
by far foe most complex commentary, with respect to its structure, is

Sac1d Hawwas, who owes m uch to Sayyid Q utb in his m ethod and foe
way he divides foe suras into sections. In Hawwas opinion, foe fifth
sura revolves around an axis {mihwar) from foe second sra, namely
Q 2 :2 6 -2 7 Aspects o f these two verses permeate Hawwas discussion of
every part o f the fifth sra', especially verse 27: ^ o s e who break foe
covenant of God after ratifying it, and sever that which God ordered
to be joined, and (who) make mischief in foe earth: ^ o s e are they who
are foe losers. That which, according to Haww, should be joined are
foe believers, and that which should be severed are their ties wifo unbe-
lievers, as stipulated in Q 5:51. As for foe 51st verses place in foe
internal structure o fth e sura, it is, according to Haww, foe beginning
ofthe fifth section (Q 5 :5 I-6 6 ), which, together with foe fourth section
(Q 5:41-50), forms foe second o f three parts o f the sra. W ithin foe
seven sections (plus an epilogue) into which he divides foe sra, he
forms smaller units ofverses (in this case, Q 5:5I-53). In his commentary,
he first discusses each section as a whole and its connection wifo foe
axis of the sra, then provides foe general meaning of the section.
After that, he first recounts foe literal meaning, unit by unit, and then
proposes rules to be drawn from foe sra, again unit by unit, making
extensive use o f the historical context in which foe verses m ight have
1 ) Cf. Mir, Sura.

been revealed. He then diseusses the plaee of the seetion within the sum
and finally adds a large num ber of additional explanations and extensive
quotations, generally from Sayyid Q u tb s commentary, concerning dif-
ferent topics connected to the contents o f the section.
W hile Hawwas multi-layered approach is an exception, very few
comm entators go to the other extreme of considering each verse by
itself and only by itself. Al-Shacrw 1 does so, due to the format o f his
television programme in which he com m ented on one verse after foe
other, and foe jihadist Davetinin Tefsiri does so as well. Amir A hd
al-cAz 1z is not even m uch concerned w ith verses, but m ostly goes
through foe Q u rn phrase by phrase. All foe other com m entators,
though, discuss verse 5:5 w ithin foe context o f a smaller group o f
verses, usually Q 5 :5 5- , just like Sayyid Q u tb 112 and Tafsral-Manr.n?>
^ e y consider verses 52 and 53114 to be an explanation o f verse 51,
warning foe believers against emulating foe behaviour o fth e hypocrites
towards foe Jews and Christians and foretelling their downfall.
O nly six commentators use foe technique of munsaba, i.e. pointing
out how foe verse is connected to previous verses. W hile Ab Zahra
and foe Departem en Agama do so, but seem to consider this an oblig-
atory act that does not contribute to their analysis o fth e verse proper,
Haww, Quraish Shihab, foe Diyanet comm entary and Bayrakli draw
upon foe inner-Q urnic context in order to develop their interpreta-
tion o f Q 5:51. All agree that there is some type of causality between
foe preceding sections of sra 5 and verse 51. However, there are two
distinctly different ways to explain foe exact nature o f said causality:
Either foe preceding sections (Q 5:12-50) describe foe negative beaviour
2 ) For Qutb, just like for Haww, these three verses constitute a subsection of Q 5:51-66.
The edition used is, Sayyid Qutb, Fizillal-Qurn, 6th ed., n.p. and n.d.
3 ) Only the shorter ommentaries by b ra m a n et al., Tuaylab (both Q 5:51-56) and
al-Bz (Q 5:51-57) choose larger groups of verses in order to fit the sections into their
general structure. Quraish Shihab sees Q 5:51-56 as a thematic unit, but does not discuss
this unit as a whole. He interprets verse 51 together with verse 52.
52) (4 ) Yet thou seest those in whose hearts is sickness vying with one another to come
to them, saying, We fear lest a turn of fortune should smite U S . But it may be that God
will bring the victory, or some commandment from Him, and then they will find themselves,
for that they kept secret within them, remorseful, (53) and the believers will say, What,
are these the ones who swore by God most earnest oaths that they were with you? Their
works have failed and now they are losers.
o f Specific Jews and Christians, so that Q 5 :5 1 is mainly or only an

interdiction of taking those who behave in such a way as au)liyT\ or
they explain why it is in the very nature of all Jews and Christians to
be wrongdoers, preparing the believer to understand and accept the
categorical interdiction that Q 5:5 c o n t a i n s , according to this point
ofview. W hile Quraish Shihab and the Diyanet comm entary seem to
favour the first point of view*^, which greatly narrows the scope o fth e
interdiction from the outset, Haww and Bayrakli uphold the second
^ rs p e c tiv e .^
B. The Identity of Those One should not Take as Awliyi
^ e s e differences o f opinion are only part o fa larger question: W hom ,

exactly, are the believers forbidden from taking as awliy? Does foe
verse mean all Jews and Christians, or only those who are inimical
towards Islam? And does foe inner logic o fth e Q u ra n ic context not
suggest that all kinds o f non-M uslims are meant, instead o f only Jews
and C hristian s?
The question whether foe verse only means hostile non-Muslims is,
o f course, pointless if one assumes that all Jews and Christians or all
non-M uslim s are inimical towards Islam by their very nature, like
several com m entators do, w hether im plicitly or explicitly. Conse-
quently, several o f them indiscriminately use foe term unbelievers
(kfirn) when talking about foe Jews and Christians foe verse refers
to, or at least see foe kfirn who are not People o fth e Book as princi-
pally equivalent to Jews and Christians.* Al-Sharwl even talks of Jews
and Christians as polytheists (mushrikn118 .
The other comm entators including all non-Arabs are more care-
ful wifo respect to foe terminology they use foey avoid talking about
unbelievers or even mushrikn in this context, but lim it themselves to
using foe terms Jews and Christians, People of the Book and non-
Muslims, which indicates that foey accord foe Jews and Christians a
certain status foey do not accord to others.
5) Cf. Shihab, Tafsir, III (2001), 113; Karaman et ah, 11 (2003), 234.
6) Cf. Haww, 111, 439 Bayrakli, VI (2007), 56.
7) riaww, al-Jaziri, al-Zuayli, Ttfaylab, cAbd al-Aziz and the Davetinin Tefsiri.
8) Al-Sharwl, 3197.
Quraish Shihab holds the opinion that the verse does neither pertain
to Jews and Christians only, nor to all Jews and Christians, but that it
rather means all those who behave in the negative way depieted in 5:5 -
53 and the preeeding passages o f the Q urin.119
Ham ka makes the observation that the verse explieitly talks ofjew s
and Christians, rather than using the term People o fth e Book whieh,
aeeording to him, would be a honorihe title. It would be unsuitable
here, he says, as the verse does not refer to their seriptures that in their
original form did not deviate from the divine truth, but to their frac-
tions who follow their egoistic interests and turned away from the pure
religion of G od.120
c. The Meaning ofAwliy

The central exegetical problem in Q 5 :5 1 is the correct understand-
ing o f the Arabic words awliyi (plural o f wall) and tawall, both
derived from the root w-l-y. Both words refer to the kind of relation-
ship a believer is forbidden from establishing with Jews and Christians.
The Arab commentators all deem it appropriate to explain or discuss
these terms. All o f them basically translate awliyi as helpers, sup-
porters, assistants and most o f them add a dimension of sympathy or
liking. Nevertheless, there exist among them three distinctly different
approaches towards describing the exact nature of the relationship a
believer should not have with Jews and Christians, which are expressed
by three different Arabic nouns derived from the root w-l-y. ^ e y choose
the following terms to describe this relationship: muwlh, walya/
wilya121 and wal\
O f these, only muwlh, denoting friendship, seems to have been
used by classical com m entators.122 ^ i s term is also used by al-Khatb,
9 ) Shihab, Tafsir, III (2001), 113.

120) Hamka, VI, 274.
121) None ofthe commentators who use this term uses diacritical signs in order to make
clear whether they mean wilya or walya.
122) At least, this is the case for the commentaries of al-Tabari, al-Zamakhshari, Fakhr
al-Din al-Rzi, al-Qurubi, Ibn Kathir, al-Baydwi, al-Jallayn, al-Shawkni and al-Alsi
al-Baghddi, which are most frequently cited by the modern commentators included in
this study. The editions used are: Ab JaTar Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari, Tafsir al-Tabari.
JmI al-bayn an talwil y al-Qudn, Cairo 1937; Mal^md b. cUmar al-Zamakhshari,
Tantwl (but by both ofthem not exclusively), al-Zuhayl, cAbd al-cAz 1z,
al-Jaziri andT ucaylab. Al-Bz uses it as well, but he more often employs
the noun wal\ denoting allegiance or loyalty, in which he emulates
Sayyid Q utb. A nother com m entator who opts for w a if is Haww,
certainly not by coincidence both al-Bz and Haww are heavily
indebted to Sayyid Q utb, who understands the verse exclusively as an
injunction against giving ones allegiance to anyone but the believers.
Haww points the reader to his previous book, The Army of God Its
Culture and Values (Jund Allh thaqfatan wa-akhlqan), where he
explained the importance o f loyalty to God in more detail. The term
w a if {vela in Turkish spelling) is also used by the Davetinin Tefsiri and
by Abd al-Karm al-Khatb124. The use o fth e term wal\ with relation
to Q 5 :5 I , clearly indicates a Salaft orientation and constitutes a break
with tradition, for the word wala\ although not m odern itself, had
not been used by prem odern exegetes to explain the meaning of this
particular verse. The same is true for walya, denoting friendship, but
also guardianship or legal power over someone, or wilya, denoting
authority, rule or leadership. Ridas and Abduhs Tafslr al-Manr uses
the term interchangeably with muwlh\ this holds true for al-ShaftwI,
too, who says that walya means help from someone who feels an urge
al-Kashshf(an haqdiq al-tanzll wa-uyn al-aqwllfl wujh al-tdwll, Beirut n.d. [1996];
Fakhr al-Din Muhammad b. cUmar al-Raz, al-Tafsr al-kabr aw maftlh al-ghayb, Beirut
2005; Abu cAbdallah Muhammad b. Alomad al-Ansar al-Qurtub, al-Jmi( li-ahkm
al-Qudn, Cairo 1967; Ismc11 b. cUmar Ibn Kathr, Tafslr al-Qurn al-(azlm, Cairo n.d.
[ca. I960];cAbdallah b. cUmar al-Baydwi, Tafslral-Baydwl al-musammAnwral-tanzll
wa-asrr al-tdwll, Beirut 1996; Jall al-Din al-Malâlli and Jall al-Din al-Suyti, Tafslr
al-Qudn al-karlm, Cairo 1966; Muhammad b. C A11 al-Shawkni, Fath al-qadlr al-jmi
baynafannay al-riwya wa-l-dirya min Ilm al-tafslr, Beirut 2005; Mabmd b. cAbdallah
al-lsi al-Baghddi, Ruh al-mdnlfl tafslr al-Qurn al-azlm wa-l-saF al-mathnl, Beirut
1994.
123) The term wald is also part ofthe formula al-wald wa-l-bara (loyalty and rejection),
which seems to have been developed by Wahhabite ideologues in the 19th century and plays
a central role in the modern jihadist discourse; Q 5:51 is fundamental to this concept. Cf.
Stphane Lacroix, Ayman al-Zawahiri, der Veteran des Dschihads, in: Gilles Repel and
Jean-Pierre Milelli (eds.), Al-Qaida. Texte des Terrors, Munich and Zurich 2006, 271-296
[291f.].
124) Which could be an indication of al-Khaibs presumed proximity to the Muslim
Brotherhood. He also hases his interpretation of Q 3:28 on the term wald. Cf. al-Khatb,
11, 429f.
42 / Pink / Die Welt des Islams 50 (2010) 3-59
to help you.125 Ab Zahra and Tantawl, however, both interpret the

term in a sense m ueh eloser to rule or leadership. Tantaw l defines it as
unity w ith the enemies o f Islam by asking them for help and entering
an allianee with them against the believers. Ab Zahra says it means
to aeeept Jews and Christians as leaders, to beeome their allies and to
rally under their banner.127 The seope o fth e interdietion is thus shifted
to a politieal aet of allegianee to unbelievers in Tantaw ls case it is nar-
rowed down to those alliances that are directed against believers.
Indonesian and Turkish commentators face the difficulty o fn o t only
having to explain the term, but also to translate it. Both Ham ka and
the D epartem en Agamas com m entary translate awliyi as leaders
(pemimpin-pemimpin), which is quite in line with Ab Zahras explana-
tion (and rather far from everybody elses). In this, they, like nearly
every other translator, uncritically copy earlier translations into m odern
Indonesian, like M ahm ud Yunuss (1935) or Ahm ad Hassans (1928-
56).128 Neither o fth e two commentaries discusses the meaning o fth e
word wall or the translation they chose for it at all, thus leaving the
Indonesian reader with the impression that the word in question has
only one unambiguous meaning, i.e. leader. Quraish Shihab, on the
other hand, expressly criticises this translation for being too narrow in
his opinion, the word wall encompasses a broad range of meanings, all
125) Al-Shacraw1, 3195.

126) Tantw, IV (1992), 189.
127) Ab Zahra, 2239.
128) See Mahmud Junus, Tafsir Alqurrilkarim bahasa Indonesia, 3rd ed., Bandung and
Jakarta 1951, 106; A. Hassan, Al-Furqn. Tafsir Qurn, Jakarta 2006, 203; Zainuddin
H. Hamidy and Fachruddin Hs., Tafsir Qurn. Naskah asli Terdjemah Keterangan,
6th ed., Jakarta 1973, 160; Departemen Agama, Al-Qurn dan terjemahnya, Rev. ed., Jakarta
1989, 169; Bachtiar Surin, Adz Dzikraa. Terjemah &c tafsir Alqurn dalam hurufArab &
Latin, Bandung 1987, 11, 464; H. A. Nazri Adlany, H. Hanafie Tam am, and H. A. Faruq
Nasution, A l Quran terjemah Indonesia, Jakarta 1992, 209. Hasbi Ash Shiddieqy curiously
settles for pengendali urusanmu, which means someone in charge of your affairs and is a
translation of wall al-amr, rather than of wall (Hasbi Ash Shiddieqy, An-Nur, 11, 1096).
The translation by H. M. Kasim Bakry, Imam M. Nur Idris, and A. Dr. Madjoindo,
Al-Qurn-ul-Hakim. Beserta Terdjemah dan Tafsirnja, Jakarta 1964, 71, chooses pembantu
or helper, which is much closer to the meaning the Arab commentators give. Similarly,
the Ahmadiyah translation uses penolong, which also means helper; Ahmadiyah [Fanitia
FenterdjemahTafsir al-Qurn Djemaat Ahmadiyah Indonesia], Al-Qurn dengan Terjemah
dan tafsir singkat, 3rd ed., Jakarta 1970, 408.
denoting some form of eloseness. W hat is m eant in this verse, aeeord-

ing to Quraish Shihab, is a degree of eloseness that leads to foe blurring
and fosappearenee o f all differenees in this interpretation, he relies on
foe Shiite exegete al-TabtabT129 Ultimately, he refrains from translat-
ing foe word altogether, but leaves it as auliya in his Indonesian version
o f the verse.
The Diyanet eom m entary ehooses foe same approaeh, translating
wall as veil. All other Turkish eommentaries translate foe word as dost,
m eaning friend and implying a certain degree o f intimacy, in com-
parison wifo arkada, which also means friend, but is not used by any
o f the commentators, by translating wall as dost, foey follow foe still
popular Tefsri and also foe Diyanets official translation.130 Kar-
aman et al. and Bayrakh discuss foe m eaning o f foe word in m uch
detail while foe Diyanet comm entary maintains that foe word denotes
a high degree o f intimacy, trust and moral and spiritual agreement,
Bayrakh emphasises that a wall, besides being a friend one can confide
in, is someone in charge o fyour affairs [vekzl\, someone you authorise
to solve your problems, ^ i s comes close to foe leadership approach
favoured by Hamka, Ab Zahra and foe Departem en Agama.
D. The limits ofthe interdiction
If it is thus forbidden to take non-M uslim s as awliya\ whichever

meaning one accords to foe word, what impact does this have on foe
everyday relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims? L a Muslim
allowed to employ a non-M uslim , be friendly towards him or sym-
pathise wifo him?
Five commentaries, all o f them originally Arabic the Saudi Arabian
culamT al-Jaziri and Tuaylab, foe jihadist Davetinin Tefsiri, Amir
Abd al-Az!z and al-SharwI, who generally has a less than positive
attitude towards non-M uslims do not address these questions at all,
thus reading foe verse as a categorical interdiction o f any kind o f close
relationships wifo non-Muslims.
129) , Tafsir, III (2001), 115f.

130) Cf. http://www.diyanet.gov.tr/kuran/Kuran_Meali/KURAN.pdf, accessed Sept. 8, 2008.
44 . Pink / Die Welt des Islams 50 (2010) 3-59
All o f the other eommentaries express at least some qualiheations.

Al-Khatb, for example, stresses that the verse does neither call for hos-
tility towards non-M uslim and nor for the severance o f all ties. Both
al-Bz and Haww quote Sayyid Q utb, who briefly mentions the per-
missibility o f tolerance (samhd) towards non-M uslim s however, the
quotation goes on to emphasise that a Muslim and a non-M uslim have
nothing in com m on and that their aspirations and ideals will never
meet, making any attem pt at interreligious dialogue utterly ridiculous
and even dangerous. Al-Bz nevertheless points out that keeping up
good relations (husn al-tdmul) is req u ired .^ Haww says, after having
quoted Sayyid Q utb, that pacts w ith non-M uslims, especially those
establishing a dhimma relationship, are allowed like al-Zuâyh, he also
regards alliances, treaties and other kinds of interaction with worldly
purposes as permissible, as long as they are necessary or advantageous
for the Muslim com m unity and do not involve an emotional attach-
m en t. Along the same lines, Ate thinks that alliances w ith non-
hostile Jews and Christians should be perm itted as long as they do not
equal an intim ate friendship furthermore, Muslims should strive to
live in peace with non-hostile non-M uslims. Bayrakli, too, sees peace-
ful social relations as desirable, especially as not all non-Muslims are
deceitful however, those who are not deceitful are, according to him,
rare exceptions that do not affect the overall relevance o f the inter-
diction. The com m entary o fth e Departem en Agama does not make
any such exceptions while allowing for interaction between Muslims
and non-Muslims, it advises Muslims to be extremely careful because
breaches of contracts and lies are normal behaviour for Jews and Chris-
tians.136
Ham kas com m entary is foe most detailed on this m atter and shows
clearly how m uch he is influenced by foe experience o f colonialism.
His analysis relies strongly on his rather inaccurate translation of awliyd
as leaders. He w rites:
131) Al-Khatb, III, 1113.

132) Haww, III, 1441. ; al-Bz, I, 350f.
133 , III, I444f.
:::5,; ,

136) Departement agama (ed.), II, 443f.
This verse makes it clear that the interdiction refers to the act of taking them
as leaders. However, social interconrse between self-confident [or self-aware]
people is not prohibited. For example, now that the conntries ofthe Islamic
world have become free, we will have economic contacts, and we will not
isolate onrselves. [...] Likewise, there is no prohibition against getting along
well with neighbours who have a different religion. [...] We, the Muslims,
are allowed to marry women from among the ahl al-kitb without the need
for the woman to embrace Islam first, because it is the husband who is in
charge ofthe house, not the wife. However, the legal scholars of Islam agree
that Muslim men who are Muslims only by name are not allowed to marry
a woman who belongs to a different religion because the fish might end up
stealing the fishing rod. [...] In an Islamic state, the Muslim ruler is allowed
to trust adherents of other religions to hold an office because the ultimate
leadership lies in the hands of Islam. Therefore, there is no reason to worry.
But if misgivings arise, it is not allowed.
Ham ka is the only one of the eomm entators to m ention the relation
between Q 5:51 and the permissibility o f a Muslim man marrying a
Christian or Jewish wife.
A num ber o f eommentators diseuss the nature o f permissible and
unpermissible relations w ith non-M uslims in the light o f seemingly
eonffieting Q u rnie verses or prophtie traditions, most often Q 6 0 :8 .
Ah11 Zahra w rites:
The second question that arises is this: L a Muslim allowed to be friends

with a non-Muslim (baynah wa-bayn ghayr al-Muslim mawadday. Or does
he have to keep himself as far apart from the latter as possible? Our reply is
the following: Two texts have been transmitted that at first glance seem to
contradict each other. The first one consists of the prophets words: Their
fires [i.e. those ofthe Muslims and those ofthe unbelievers] should not be
visible to each other.^ The other one is Gods word God forbids you not,
as regards those who have not fought you in religions cause, nor expelled
you from your habitations, that you should be kindly to them, and act justly
towards them; surely God loves the just. (Q 60:8)
137) Hamka, VI, 278f.

138) From a hadith transmitted by al-Nis^ and Abu Dwd. Tafslr al-Manr argues
vehemently against interpreting this hadith as a prescription of the total severance of
relations with non-Muslims. See Muhammad Abduh and Muhammad Rasffid Rid, Tafslr
al-Qudn al-haklm, 1st ed., Cairo, VI [1911], 428f.
46 / Pink / Die Welt desIslams 50 (2010) 3-59
These two texts can be accomodated with each other in that the first one
refers to those who canse tronble for Islam and conspire against it, while the
second one explicitly refers to those who mean Islam no harm.139
Ab Zahra then goes on to explain that there are three eategories of

non-Muslims. The first group lives in peaee with Muslims and does not
help their enemies, ^ e y should have the same rights and obligations
as Muslims, and it is allowed to show friendship and liking for them
aeeording to Q 6 0 :8 . The seeond eategory eontains those who fight and
eonspire against Muslims. It is not allowed to be friends with them.
The third category consists of those who do not show open hostility
towards Islam, but secretly wish for its defeat and support its enemies.
They should be treated like hypocrites (munfiqn): Muslims should
live in peace with them and not expose them unless they expose them -
selves, but they should be wary and cautious w ith respect to them.
T antw fs explanations on this issue are nearly identical w ith Ab
Zahras, including foe rhetorical question at foe beginning o fth e para-
graph and foe description o f each of the three categories. Quraish
Shihab also takes up this categorisation, citing Tantaw as his source.
Al-Zuâyll likewise lists three categories o f unbelievers, using dif-
ferent words but making essentially foe same distinction as foe other
three com m entators he gives foe prophetic Sira as his source, w ithout
specifying this any fu rth e r.^ In fact, however, foe whole passage is
taken from A^m ad Mustafa al-M arghls Tafiir al-Marghi.u?>
An im portant question wifo regard to foe relationship between Mus-
lims and non-M uslims concerns foe permissibility o f giving non-M us-
lims employment, w ithin or outside foe service o fth e Muslim state.
1391 Ab Zahra, 2240fi

1401 Cf. Abu Zahra, 2241; Tantaw, IV, 195. Either both of them have used a common
source, which none ofthem mentions and which I have been unable to identify, or Tantaw,
who published this part of his commentary between 1977 and 1979, has copied Abu Zahra,
who died in 1974. The latter option is conceivable, as Abu Zahra had published parts of
his commentary, including the commentary on the fifth sra, in the magazine Liwd
al-Islm, probably around I960. Cf. Abu Zahra, 14, 22.
1411 Shihab, Tafiir, 111 (2001), 116f.
142)Al-Zuhayl,VI, 224.
4 ) Ahmad Mustafa al-Marghi,Tafsir al-Marghi, Cairo 1953, 11, 135.
Ab Zahra, Tantw l and Karaman et al. all emphasise that it is not

allowed to appoint non-M uslims to positions in whieh they eould dis-
eover state seerets or to make them ones eonfidents, else they could
cause co n fu sio n .^ Ab Zahra and Tantwl, in this context, both cite
a hadth about Umar b. al-Khattb who disapproved of the fact that
his governor in Basra, Ab Ms al-Ashar, had a Christian scribe and
told Ab Ms to get rid o fh im .145
Haww quotes the same hadth, but cautiously remarks that whether
or not it is permissible to give a dhimmi employment is very m uch
dependent on the circumstances and should be decided in 2ifatw by
a qualified scho lar.^
Ate quotes Rashid Rid on this issue, who in Tafsr al-Manr had
turned against al-Baydwis restrictive view. In the passage quoted, Rid
describes a discussion with a Turkish student in which the latter asked
why the state sometimes appoints Jews and Christians as ministers,
senators, parliamentarians or civil servants. Rid replied that this ques-
tion bears no relation to the issue o f wilya, which means helping non-
Muslims against Islam but does not prevent the state from employing
qualified non-M uslims who are not hostile against Islam. ^ i s story
implies that Christians and Jews can even be given high political offices
as long as sovereignty lies with a Muslim ruler, which is equivalent to
H am kas argum ent and constitutes the most liberal view among those
expressed in the contem porary commentaries.
Ates endeavor to narrow the ap p liab ility o f the verse and to qual-
ify its meaning becomes particularly apparent in his summary o f the
main rules contained in the sra:
It has been ordained [by God] that not solely Jews and Christians shall be
taken as close friends. Not the e^blishm ent of friendship with Jews and
Christians is forbidden here, bnt taking them as walls, entering into a
relationship of protection. Friendship is one thing, taking someone as wall
is another thing. Mnslims have to rely first and foremost npon themselves,
npon those who belong to them.148
44) Abu Zahra, 2241; Tantwl, IV , 195: K a ra m a n et al., 11 (2003), 235.

451 Ab Zahra, 2240; Tantwl, IV, 190.
46) Haww, 111, 1427.
471 Ate, 111,15.
481 Ate, I I I , 90.
E. They are friends ofeach other
They are friends of eaeh other: This simple statement allows for two
different imerpretations, and it is at this point that the eommentators
invariably reveal m ueh o f their ideologieal orientation. The elassieal
exegetes or at least those who explieitly diseuss this iss u e -w e re
divided w ith regard to the question w hether the Jews are the Jews
friends, to the exclusion o f all others, and the Christians likewise or
whether Jews and Christians are firmly united in their enm ity against
Islam. The implications are far-reaching for foe proponents o fth e first
interpretation merely m aintain that foe adherents o f any religion will
only be folly loyal towards their coreligionists, while foe proponents of
foe second view hold that Jews and Christians are united in conspiracy
and aggression against Islam. A l^ a b a ri was firmly in favour o fth e first
view, arguing that Jews and Christians are frequently in strife wifo each
other, and m any of the exegetes o f the 19th and early 20th centuries
follow him, like al-Als, al-Shawknl, Abduh and Rid, Elmali11 and
al-Thir b. cshr. Al-Zamakhshari, al-Q urubl, al-BaydwI and Tafsir
al-Jallayn, on foe other hand, pointed to foe Christians and Jews
unitedness in unbelief (kufr) and saw no reason why foey should not
be each others awliy\ especially against Islam. For Sayyid Q utb, it was
an eternal truth, a truth rooted in foe nature of things, that Christians
and Jews will be foe enemies o f the Muslim com m unity in any place
and at any tim e .^
In contrast to classical exegetes, some of whom did not discuss foe
issue, all contem porary commentators deem it w orthy of explicit dis-
cussion. O nly four o f them, however, follow a l^ a b a ris interpretation:
al-Khalb, al-Jaziri, foe Diyanet commentary, which explicitly refers
to al-Tabari and Elmali11Tefsiri at this point, and Bayraktar Bayrakln^
Haww, on foe other hand, maintains that foe phrase refers to foe
hadith which says that unbelief is a single com m unity (al-kufr milla
whida) against Islam and foe Muslims he adds that it would be stupid
to forget this tru th . The Indonesian Departem en Agama claims that
1 )> (II, part 6, 194.

10 )Al-Khatb, III, 1114; al-Jazairi, 1, 540; Karaman et al., 11, 234; Bayrakli, !, 57.
"Haww, III, 1426.
they always help eaeh other among themselves, and they are united in
their enm ity towards the believers.^
The remaining eleven exegetes lean towards the latter point ofview
while at the same time realising that Jews and Christians have, in aetual
faet, often been at odds w ith each other. Some also feel a need to
account for Q 2 :1 1 3 , which refers to the differences between Jews and
Christians by stating The Jews say, The Christians stand not on any-
thing5 the Christians say, The Jews stand not on anything555.
The attem pt to balance both aspects frequent discordance between
Jews and Christians, but their unity against Muslims can lead to a
certain am ount o f confusion, as exemplified in Tucaylab5s commentary,
which categorically upholds both the first and the second point of view.*^
M ost com m entators, though, argue more coherently, saying that in
principle, Jews are loyal to Jews and Christians to Christians, but that
both groups are enemies o f Islam and will not hesitate to unite against
it.
Al-Sharwi explains, after m entioning Q 2 :113:
We are thus facing three parties, Jews, Christians, and polytheists; the
polytheist Quraysh say exactly the same as the two fractions of ahl al-kitb,
even though there are irresolvable differences among them and each of them
rejects the other one. God says: We have stirred up enmity and hatred among
them. (Q 5:14) How can God, after all this, say They are friends of each
offer? This is a matter that requires the standpoint of belief in offer to see
the complete picture. We know that it is true, with respect to those who
deviate from the path oftruth, that there are differences between them about
earthly power, but that they will unite as soon as they face a giant who is
able to tear down their whole construction of lies. This is what we see in real
life: The Army of the hast in earlier tim es-w as fighting against the Army
ofthe West, but as soon as something connected to Islam arrived, they would
come to an agreement, in spite ofthe hastern Armys defeat; for Islam and
its way are a threat for both and for their rule, while it is, in reality, a mercy
for them.154
Ab Zahra sees evidence for the Jews5 and Christians5joint aggression

against Islam not only in history, but also in present times:
1521 Departemen Agama (ed.), 11, 444.

1531 Tucaylab, II, 768f.
1541 Al-Shacraw1, 3196.
It seems to me that the verse points to both meanings: The Christians are
loyal towards each other, and the Jews likewise, and both always conspire
against the Mnslims, as can be seen in onr present times. The entire Christian
world supports the Jews in their seizure of Islamic soil and its transfer to the
Jews. Although they claim to be impartial, they still take sides against the
Muslims and support the establishment of a state on a religious basis.^
H am ka who is very m ueh influeneed by the experienee o f eolo-

nialism is even more detailed and eonerete in the evidenee he provides
for the eontinuing eonspiraey against Islam. He aeknowledges: Sinee
the times in whieh Christ lived, the Jews have been the enemies of the
Christians and whenever the Christians were in a position ofstrength,
they took eruel revenge for this enmity. However, he eontinues, they
are not adverse to eollaborating against Islam, which he sees exemplified
in the proceedings o f the Indonesian C onstituent Assembly that con-
vened at Bandung. W hile the Islamist party aimed a the inclusion o fa
clause that stipulated the application of the sharia to all Muslims, the
fractions that were opposed to Islam, according to Hamka, were united
in their opposition against this clause and prevented its inclusion: Cath-
olics, Protestants, nationalist, socialist and com m unist parties. He then
turns his attention to international events. 1964, he says, Pope Paul VI.
declared an amnesty for the Jewish religion. î s was, in his opinion,
a political act:
The Jewish powers, who are extremely wealthy, had to unite with foe
Christians in their enmity towards foe Islamic threat. Tien, in 1967, the
Arab states were attacked by the Jews within four days, and Jerusalem (Baitul
Maqdis) was seized from the Muslims hands, who had held it for 14 centuries.
Then, suddenly, foe Catholic Church comes up with foe idea of transferring
foe sovereignty over the Muslims Holy Land a sovereignty that had been
passed on from generation to generation by foe Arabs for more than 1300
years to an international entity. In other words: to foe United Nations,
while those who have all foe power within the Unites Nations are the Christian
states (Catholic France, Protestant America, Anglican Britain) and Russia
(Communist).157
1551 Ab Zahra, 2242.

56 )It is unclear whether he refers to the Fopes recognition of Israel in 1964 or to the
declaration Nostra Aetate on the relation ofthe church to non-Christian religions, which
was passed by the Second Vatican Council and proclaimed by the Fope in October 1965.
1571 Hamka, VI, 274f.
Even though most eommentators do not make referenee to eontem-

porary events, it seems elear that their perception of the relationship
between Jews and Christians is shaped by their politieal views. W hile
two o f the three originally Turkish eom m entators follow a l^ a b a ris
moderate views, whieh, as m entioned above, had a num ber of adherents
in early m odern exegesis, few of the Arab and none o f the Indonesian
eommentators do so. In the Arab case, it is safe to say that the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict, which Abh Zahra plainly refers to, plays an impor-
tant role eolonial experienees may have had an additional impact, ^ e y
are eertainly im portant for foe Indonesian commentators, who are also
strongly influeneed by Arab discourses, as evideneed in Ham kas strong
reaetion to foe 1967 occupation o f Palestine and Q uraish Shihabs
general relianee on Arabie sources.
F. The consequences ofviolating the interdiction
A fter the nature of foe interdietion and foe reasons for it have been
explained, it remains to elarifywhat, exaetly, foe eonsequenees oftaking
Jews and Christians as awliyd would be. The verse states: W hoso o f
you makes foem his friends [yatawallahum] is one o f them. God guides
not foe people o fth e evildoers. Does this mean that any M uslim who
makes Jews or Christians his friends is an apostate? Pronouncing such
a judgm ent would be tantam ount to takfir, a highly sensitive issue in
Muslim religious discourse. Consequently, many ofthe modern exegetes
discuss this portion o fth e verse wifo caution. W hile all o f them agree
that a Muslim who takes Jews and Christians as awliyd is an evildoer
(zlim), and m any devote lengthy discussions to foe way in which such
a person wrongs himself as well as foe Muslims and God, most ofthem
are hesitant to explicitly qualify him as an unbeliever {kfir) or apostate
(murtadd), which would imply that an earthly punishm ent is required.
Ab Zahra points out that Ibn Abbs interpets foe phrase one o f
foem in foe way o f an analogy, m eaning that he is like foem wifo
respect to his hostility against Islam. However, he prefers a l^ a b a ris
im erpretation that one who takes foe Jews and Christians as awliy
really is one ofthem , and will be judged just like them . Still, although
158) Abu Zahra, 2242.

he quotes a lengthy passage from al-Tabarfs commentary, he refrains

from including that part o fit in which it is plainly stated that said per-
son is an apostate and has to he executed unless he repents. Al-Zuâyli
likewise follows a l^ a b a ri in his interpretation, but not in the pro-
nouncem ent o fth e death sentence, even though he reproduces a state-
m ent from al-Q urubi which explicitly says that a Muslim does not
inherit from someone who thus became an apostate he apparently is
not as hesitant to address th e issue o f ridda as he is to make reference
to capital punishm ent for it.160
TantawI quotes foe same passage from a l^ a b a ris comm entary as
Ab Zahra and al-Zuâyli, which states categorically that nobody will
ever take Jews and Christians as awliy unless he agrees wifo their reli-
gion however, right after this quotation and not quite logically, TantawI
adds that if one does make foem his friends not because he agrees wifo
their religion, but merely for foe sake of cordial relations, he is merely
a sinner, foe gravity of his sin depending on circumstances this argu-
m ent strongly modifies a l^ a b a rls reasoning.^* The Turkish Diyanet
com m entary argues along foe same lines, referring to Ibn sh ^ s rea-
so n in g .^
Only foe W ahhabite al-Jazir! explicitly classifies foe friendship wifo
unbelievers against foe interests o fth e believers as ridda}6?>The jihadist
Davetinin Tefsiri is completely unconcerned about pronouncing takfir,
stating that someone who takes unbelievers as friends is an unbeliever
(kfir) himself, no m atter how often he m ight claim to be a Muslim
and to act in foe best interest oflslam .164Al-Shacrw 1 classifies foe action
o f taking unbelievers as awliy as polytheism by hypocrisy (shirk
al-nifq)\ his tendency to call up foe sin o f shirk in his comm entary on
this verse m ight be indicative o f a certain Salafr tendency.
The Indonesian commentaries take a particular point o f view wifo
regard to foe status o f foe person who takes Jews and Christians
as awliy'\ it differs distinctly from those o f foe Turkish and Arab
59) Al-Tabari, X, 400.

Al-Zuhayl, al-Tafsir al-munir, VI, 228; al-Qurtubi, VI, 217.
61) TantawI, IV, 190.
62) Karaman et al., 11 (2003), 234f.
64 Davetinin Tefsiri, commentary on Q 3:31, no page number given.

comm entators and seems to reflect both Indonesias colonial history

and the situation of a country in which orthodox Muslims are a m inor-
ity among those who nominally belong to Islam. In a religious setting
characterised by syncretism and religious pluralism, takfir against all
those who have close relations with adherents o f other religions would
have rather far-reaching consequences that the Indonesian commenta-
tors are obviously keen to avoid.
Accordingly, Quraish Shihab, far from condem ning those who take
Jews and Christians as their protectors and from declaring them unbe-
lievers, does not even include them in the category of hypocrites. He
thinks that they are not yet firm enough in their belief and still suffer-
ing from doubts, which causes them to seek the protection o f strong
allies, even if those do not share their religion, ^ e y are not, however,
consciously seeking to deceive the Muslims, and they are certainly to
he considered believers.
The Departem en Agama com m entary explains that those who take
Jews and Christians as close friends will he influenced by them and
helong to their group w ithout realising it. Eventually, such a person
will hecome an enemy o f Islam, even though that was not his intention
from the outset. Here, too, helievers are warned from unwanted results
o ftheir actions, rather than condem ned as hypocrites or unbelievers.166
Ham ka elaborates extensively on this portion o fth e verse. He argues
that belonging to them means sympathising, and colonial history
is his prime example.
Please consider how the one thing the peoples ofthe Christian colonisers
who snbjngated the lands of Islam have from the ontset made every effort
to do was teaching their langnage, so that the colonised Mnslim popnlation
thinks in the langnage ofthe colonisers; their mastery oftheir own langnage
then becomes deficient, and they will be influenced by the civilisation and
culture ofthe Christian peoples who colonised them. The longer this goes
on, the more dwindles the fulfilment of religions duties within the colonised
umma\ the basis oftheir thought vanishes, and the development oftheir own
langnage decreases. Finally, the colonising peoples are those they consider to
be highly developed. [...] Their attitude towards religion is condescending
165) Shihab, Tafsir, III (2001), 117.

166) Departemen Agama (ed.), 11 (2003) , 444.
and cynical, it is fnll of indifference; they call themselves intellectnals who

demand a rational explanation o f religion. Bnt their mind is already
indoctrinated by foreign edncation so that foe trnth cannot enter it any more.
[...] It is not their mind, which is sharp and rational, that has changed, bnt
their sonl, so that everything that is good is with foe peoples who have
colonised them, and everything that is bad is with foe adherents oftheir own
religion. [...]
Sometimes they still practice foe religion of Islam, but foe truth of Islam
has already vanished from their souls.
H am ka goes on to deseribe foe example o f a praetieing Indonesian

Muslim who gave foe D uteh inside inform ation on how to break foe
resistanee o f the Aeehnese people and eoneludes: ^ e y have beeome
Christians w ithout being aware o fit.167
Still, like Quraish Shihab, he does not allege that foey have inten-
tionally sought to make friends with foe unbelievers in order to harm
Islam, but rather that foey have been gradually infeeted by foe results
o fth eir relationship with non-Muslims, whieh is eharaeterised by inse-
eurity or an inferiority eomplex. The solution would he in strengthen-
ing foe belief and foe self-eonfidenee of Muslims and in edueating
foem, rather than expelling all ^ rp e tra to rs from foe eom m unity o f
believers.
G. The historical context ofrevelation and its exegetical relevance
Islamie tradition reeounts a num ber o f ineidents which are supposed

to have resulted in foe revelation of Q 5:51, and sometimes foe subse-
quent verses, too. The most comm only transm itted o f these occasions
ofrevelation (asbb al-nuzl) is foe one that concerns foe ansr cu b a d a
b. al-mit and Abdallh b. Ubayy, who both had allies among foe
M edinan Jews. W hen Ubda b. al-mit publicly disassociated himself
from his Jewish allies and declared his exclusive loyalty to God, his
prophet and foe Muslim community, Abdallh refused to follow suit
for fear of losing his Jewish allies whom he thought he needed for pro-
tection. ^ i s episode would indicate that foe verse was revealed in foe
early M edinan period, before 624, while foe Jewish tribes were not yet
in a state ofw ar with foe Muslim community.
167) Hamka, VI, 276f.

Another sabab al-nuzl refers to A hdallh b. Ubayys pleading on

behalf of the Jewish tribe o f the Ban Q aynuqc, with whom he had
been allied and who had been beleaguered by the prophet and finally
submitted to his judgment. Abdallh, the story goes, protested so vehe-
m ently against their exeeution that they were finally merely expelled
from M edina. The verse would thus have been revealed in 624, the year
o f the expulsion of the Ban Q aynuqc.
A third story refers to the Jewish tribe of the Ban Qurayâ, who
were beleaguered and finally surrendered. W hen they asked Ab
Lubba, a eompanion o f the prophet, what M uham m ad was going to
do with them, he gestured at his throat, indicating their execution by
beheading, ^ i s act o f confiding the prophets plans to his enemies was,
according to some, i^ p p ro p ria te, resulting in the revelation of Q 5:5 ,
which would then have taken place in 627.
Finally, there is a story about two nameless men who told each other
about their respective Jewish and Christian friends who would protect
them in case o f need if they followed them in their religion.
A l^ a b a ri, who provides a large num ber of traditions based on these
basic plots, concludes that there is no evidence for foe authenticity of
any one of these stories to foe exclusion o fth e others, but that, which-
ever of them is true, it can in any case be safely assumed that foe verses
relate to a hypocrite who did not want to give up his friendship with
Jews or Christians for fear o f losing their protection. In any case,
a l^ a b a ri states that foe verse should be interpreted according to its
evident and general meaning, not wifo specific reference to any occa-
sion o f revelation.168
Ten o fth e contem porary commentators discuss foe verses occasion
ofrevelation in one way or another. Five of them do not draw any con-
elusions from this, however.
Tantwl and Hamka, on foe other hand, follow al-Tabaris argument
almost to foe letter in that foe interdietion is in force wifo respeet to
all believers at all times, not just in foe speeifie eontext ofrevelation.170
Ab Zahra follows al-Tabari more loosely in stating that foe verse
168) Al-Tabari, X, 395-398.

169) Al-Jazlrl, al-Zuhayl, cAbd al-Aziz, the Departemen Agama and Bayrakln
170) Tantwl, IV, 189; Hamka, VI, 279f.
certainly refers to one o f the ansr who had friends among the Jews he
draws upon this general context to support his interpretion o fth e term
wall.171 Haww recounts all four episodes and, surprisingly, seems to
regard all o f them as true in some way he points out that they all
describe one o fth e m any manifestations o f hypocrisy.^
Sleyman Ate states that the verse m ust have been revealed when
there was still a large group o f Jews in M edina he concludes from this
that the verse specifically refers to a situation ofwar, when the opposing
group is a threat to the Muslim com m unity and any friendship with
the enemy would result in a betrayal of secrets, ^ i s implies that the
verse bears no relevance to peaceful relations with non-Muslims.
Ate refers to a fact that escapes most o f the other com m entators
attention: All the suggested occasions of revelation would imply that
the verse was revealed prior to the rest ofthe fifth sura, which is generally
agreed to be the last sra or the last but one to have been revealed. The
verse, or the whole ^ ra g ra p h , would thus constitute a later insertion.
Haww quotes a lenghty paragraph by Sayyid Q utb on exactly this
matter, in which Q utb comes to the conclusion that the verse, and
indeed the whole section, m ust have been revealed before the Muslims
defeated the Jewish tribes of M edina, else it would have made no sense
to warn the hypocrites of being loyal to their Jewish allies. He thus
thinks the verses were revealed prior to the execution o f the Ban
Qurayâ in 627, possibly even before foe expulsion o fth e other tribes,
i.e. in 624 or earlier. Haww does not, however, draw any conclusions
from this wifo regard to his interpretation o fth e verse.
It is apparent that citing potential occasions ofrevelation is, for many
o fth e modern commentators (just as for many earlier ones), something
that has to be done, and is often done quite extensively, but does not
have a particularly im portant exegetical function for any o fth em some-
times, it has none at all. A few of the concise commentaries dispense
wifo it altogether so does al-Shacrw 1, who possibly did not want to
bore his T V audience wifo names and details of historical incidents.
m) Abu Zahra, 2239f.

172) Haww, III, l427ff.
173) Haww, III, I440f.
and the rather reeent eommentaries by Quraish Shihab and the Turkish
Diyanet.
4. Conclusion
W hile the eontem porary Q u ra n ic com m entaries that have been

examined in this article come to rather diverse conclusions with respect
to the exegetical problems pertaining to Q 5:5i, the same holds true
for classical commentaries. W hat, then, is m odern about the com-
mentaries discussed hem? W hich characteristics do they expose that
could not have been found in earlier commentaries?
Direct reference to contem porary events is certainly not something
that distinguishes them. O nly three o f them make any such reference:
Haww quotes a passage from Sayyid Q u tb s comm entary that briefly
m entions the oppression against Muslims in various m odern nation
states Ab Zahra refers to the Israeli occupation o fth e West Bank, but
only in passing, whereas Ham ka discusses m odern history extensively
and in m uch detail, from making comparisons between the represent-
ative church buildings and the rem ote and m odest mosques that,
according to him, have been built in colonial times, to lam enting the
inclusion o fth e works of Orientalists in university curricula.
Ham kas obsession with colonialism and o m e m ^ r a r y Judeo-Chris-
tian-Atheist conspiracies against Islam is certainly intriguing, but in
this respect, he is clearly an exception and not a typical example o f
m odern Q u ra n ic exegesis.
However, while the vast majority o f recent Q u ra n ic commentaries
is not concerned with current events, there are a few aspects in which
m any of them differ clearly from traditional exegesis. For one thing,
there is the way in which some comm entators try to construct an inner
logic to the structure o fthe Q u rn, something Sac1d Haww, especially,
is very concerned with. For another, some o fth e more recent commen-
taries especially the ones by Quraish Shihab and Karaman et ah are
taking unusual care to reveal their sources and even to provide detailed
bibliographical references.
174) Hamka, VI, 280.

58 y. Pink /Die Welt des Islams 50 (2010) 3-59
M ost notably, though, there is something striking and rather untra-

ditional about the approaeh that m any o f the eom m entators take
towards the purpose oftheir exegesis, ^ e y are not primarily eoneerned
w ith meaning, but w ith relevance or, as m any eom m entators put it,
guidance (hidya ). ^ e i r aim is to edueate, to derive easily digestible
and praetieable rules from the Q u rnie text, instead o f examining and
diseussing the text in a detaehed, seholarly way. In this, even some eom-
m en taries th a t have no obvious inelination to Salafi ideas are reminis-
cent of Sayyid Q u tb s commentary, which is hugely popular precisely
due to his attem pt to make the Q u ra n ic message directly relevant for
believers.
It is due to this approach, which has little to do with understanding
the Q u ra n ic text for its own sake, but a lot with a desire to educate
Muslims, that Bayraktar Bayrakli, to take just one example, writes:
Pedagogues have to raise, within the generations that are educated, an

awareness for the way in which friendships emerge in social relationships,
by teaching their scope of action, dimensions and depths. Generations who
do not know their friends and enemies will not find their way in the turbulent
life of mankind.175
There are rather few commentaries who show no tendency towards such
an educational, guidance-oriented approach, but follow traditional
m ethods and do not even make an attem pt at concluding their anal-
ysis with a handy set o f rules: Tantw fs comm entary belongs in this
category, and so do Tucaylabs and cAbd al-Azizs; Quraish Shihab and
Ab Zahra likewise are not much concerned with producing guidance,
in spite o fth e latters brief reference to the occupation of Palestine. All
these scholars are more or less closely connected to an Azharite tradition
and rooted in orthodox Sunnite scholarship.
^ e r e is a second strand of tradition, however, and a m uch more
m odern one that permeates many o fthe other commentaries: a num ber
o f authors clearly rely on a Salafi tradition ofunderstanding the Q u rn,
not only with respect to the above-mentioned educational approach,
but also with consequences for the specifics of exegesis, ^ i s is most
1751 Bayrakli, VI (2007), 60.

obvious in the way Sayyid Q u tb is amply quoted by several com-

mentators, but it is also apparent from details like the use o f the term
wali by some, and o f course from the acceptance o f takfir by the most
radically Salaf commentators. Al-Khatbs commentary seems to belong
in this category, as do Hawwas and al-Jazdrfs, the Davetinin Tefsiri
and Anwar al-Bzs. Al-Sharwi and Bayrakli, in their conservatism, at
least display certain Salafr characteristics. Q uraish Shihab does cite
Sayyid Q utb, but does not appear to be particularly inclined towards
Salaf views.
O n the other hand, there are a few commentaries that clearly disas-
sociate themselves from any attem pt at takfir and at severing the ties
between Muslims and non-Muslims. It has already been pointed out
that the Indonesian comm entators are r a t h e r reluctant to condem n the
Mnslims addressed in this verse as unbelievers. The same holds true for
Tantaw, for Ate and for foe Diyanet commentary, ^ o s e three com-
mentators and Quraish Shihab also strive to explain foe verse in a way
that makes it applicable to situations ofw ar only, while Ham ka seems
to consider it a prescription fitting a colonial situation.
All in all, it seems that foe Arab comm entators are, in their majority,
m uch more conservative, show a greater inclination towards Salafr ideas
and are m uch less accom modating towards non-M uslims than their
Turkish and Indonesian counterparts.

Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your resp ective ATT,AS subscriber agreem ent.
No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s) express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initia funding from Liiiy Endowment !).
The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property o fthe American
Theological Library Association.

Pink-2010-Tradition and Ideology in Contemporary Sunnite Qur Ānic Exegesis

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Pink-2010-Tradition and Ideology in Contemporary Sunnite Qur Ānic Exegesis

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

W E L T D ES

BRILL Die Welt des Islams 50 (2010) 3-59 IS E A M S

Tradition and Ideology in Contemporary Sunnite

1 Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 D O I: 10.1163/157006010X 489801

W hile there is no laek o f studies on m odern Q u rnie exegesis and,

that are at least remotely up-to-date are scarce.5 few comparative

hand, little or nothing ean he found about foe eom m entary o f

and Turkish commentaries will he discussed. Shiite, Ibadite and other

various countries o f the Arab w orld10. O ne of the Turkish and one of

A. Commentaries from the Arab World

( )cAbd al-Karm al-Khatb (Egypt)11: Al-tafsr al-qurni li-l-Qurn

any depth, States what eaeh verse h supposed to mean, sometimes

(2) M uham m ad Ab Zahra (Hgy^t): Zahrat al-tafsr (incomplete,

(3) M uham m ad Sayyid Tantaw l (Egypt): Al-tafsr al-wast li-l-Qurn

paraphrases the verse and then explains it in detail, phrase by phrase,

(4) M uham m ad al-M utawalh al-SharwI (Egypt): Tafsr al-Shdrw

Shaykh al-Shacrw 1 was born in a Nile-Delta village in 1911. E e

25) Cf. Chih and Mayeur-Jaouen, 190-193.

(5) Anwar al-Bz (Egypt): Al-tafsr al-tarbaw li-1-Qur'n al-karm

to four. He goes on to explain foe edueational eontent in some detail,

(6) Am r Abd al-Az!z (fr^ /E g y p t/P alestin e): Al-tafsr al-shmil

32) Cairo 2000.

seem to have been re-edited, translated or eited by any of the other

(7) Sac1d Haww (Syria): Al-assf l-tafsr ( volumes)35

35) Cairo 1985.

(8) Wahba al-Zuhayl (Syria): Al-tafsr al-m unrf l-(aqda wa-l-shara

the three.45 W riting three eommentaries one of them large, one of

(9) Ab Bakr al-Jazirl (Algeria/Saudi Arabia) : Aysar al-tafsir li-1-kalm

45) The other ones are too short to be of interest here.

(10) Abd al-M unim A ^m ad Tuaylab (Egypt/Saudi Arabia): Fath

Faculty of G eo lo g y (usl al-dn), where he obtained his first degree.

Cf. HusmTamm, Al-Shaykh Tucaylab .. Shib Fatb al-Rahmn fi tafsir al-Qufan

B. Commentaries from Indonesia

There a vast num ber o f Indonesian works dubbing themselves tafsir,

(I) Ham ka (Haji Abdulmalik b. Abdulkarim Amrullah): Tafsiral-Azhar

56) Cf. Howard M. Federspiel, An Introduction to Quranic Commentaries in Contem-

hagiographie character, attesting to his popularity.59 Ham ka was born

59) Cf. Abdul Rosyad Shiddiq, Hamka, ]akarta 2000.

63) Steenbrink, Hamka, 139.

recent commentary, but usually in a critical manner, in order to explain

(3) M uham m ad Quraish Shihab: Tafsir al-Mishbh. Pesan, Kesan dan

Quraish Shihabs endeavour to write a new Indonesian comm entary

s2) Cf. Shihab, Tafsir, I (2000), xiii.

the Qurinic revelation in its historieal context than it does in linguis-

c. Commentaries from Turkey

(1) Sleyman Ate: Yce Kurnin agda Tefsri (12 volumes)^

s6) Istanbul 1989.

continued to work as a lecturer, interrupted by his m ilitary service

(2) Hayrettin Karaman et al./Diyanet ileri Bakanl1g 1 Yayinlari: Kuran

90) Cf.Takim, 76-85.

95) Cf. http://www.istanbulmuftulugu.gov.tr/index.php?option=com_content8task=view8id

school in Istanbul. O ne year later, he took his exams at a secular lycee

(4) Seifuddin El-Muvahhid: Davetinin Tefsiri (incomplete, 8 parts)*^

100) Cf. http://www.bayraktarbayrakli.com/ozgecmis.htm, accessed Sept. 4, 2008.

for another, is radieally jihadist in its approaeh, which is likely to he

The com m entators biographical backgrounds allow for a num ber of

very praetieal seme, conducive to undertaking such a tim e-consuming

0 believers, take notjew s and Christians asfriends [awliyT they arefriends o f

As m entioned above, Q 5:51 is a very suitable starting point for an

Confining ones foeus to the interpretation of this partieular verse of

A. The Place ofthe Verse within the Qur'n

by far foe most complex commentary, with respect to its structure, is

1 ) Cf. Mir, Sura.