Tanwīr al-Miqbās min Tafsīr Ibn 'Abbās Attributed variously to: 'Abdullāh Ibn 'Abbās Muḥammad al-Fīrūzabādī TRANSLATED BY Mokrane Guezzou Edited and with a brief Introduction by Yousef Meri The Complete Text © 2007 Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought Amman, Jordan General Editor’s Introduction Up until now, the fundamental texts of the Islamic faith, apart from the notable exceptions of the Qur’an and the Hadith of the Prophet, peace be upon him, have remained out of reach of many Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Among the most important sources for understanding the Qur’an are the tafsir works, commentaries on the Qur’an, which help to properly explain and contextualise the Revelation. A common concern is that the original Arabic works are often obscure, linguistically difficult and physically inaccessible, particularly to ordinary Muslims in the Islamic world and the West, who in seeking to better understand their own faith, often do not possess sufficient mastery of Classical Arabic (fusha) to be able to understand the early tafsir works. Likewise, fundamental works in translation have not been readily accessible or available. Consequently, such works are often erroneously regarded as antiquated and no longer of relevance. Quite the contrary, the English translations of exegetical works now make it possible to engage these works without any preconceived notions and moreover, to use them as a basis for studying the Arabic originals. Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas, presented here in English for the first time ever, is the second work in the Great Tafsirs of the Qur’an series published by the non-for-profit Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, Amman (http://www.aalalbayt.org). In keeping with the Aal al-Bayt’s objectives of “Promoting awareness of Islam and Islamic thought, rectifying unsound ideas and misconceptions about Islam, highlighting the Islamic intellectual contribution and its impact on human civilization”, the series aims to make widely-available in affordable print and in electronic formats (http://www.altafsir.com) leading exegetical works in translation for study and research in unabridged form which are faithful to the letter and meaning of the Arabic. Forthcoming titles in the series include, Al- Wahidi’s Asbab al-Nuzul (translated by the translator of the present work), Sahl al-Tustari’s Tafsir, Baydawi’s Tafsir, Qushayri’s Lata’if al-Isharat, Al- Nasafi’s Tafsir, and others. Tanwir al-Miqbas is often attributed to the Companion ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Abbas b. ‘Abd al-Muttalib (d. 68/687), cousin of the Prophet and father of the discipline of Qur anic exegesis, or to the renowned Shafi‘i scholar Majd al-Din Muhammad Ibn Ya‘qub al-Firuzabadi (d. 817/1414). Despite its uncertain authorship, as discussed below by the translator, Tanwir al-Miqbas remains a pivotal work for the study of Islamic exegesis for the following reasons: 1. The traditions attributed to Ibn ‘Abbas that are at the core of this work render it as a seminal work of exegesis. 2. This commentary is unabridged and uncensored as are other works in the series. 3. The work is an example of the tafsir type known as tafsir bi’l-riwaya or tafsir bi’l-ma’thur. That is, it contains reports going back to the Prophet (pbuh) or a Companion, in this case Ibn ‘Abbas. 4. Tanwir al-Miqbas does not contain elaborate theological or philosophical explanations. 5. Tanwir al-Miqbas does not contain the technical grammatical explanations commonly found in other works. 6. Tanwir al-Miqbas is unencumbered by isnads or chains of transmission, occasionally found in other tafsir works, thus making the work accessible to the non-specialist. ii History of publication and scholarship The earliest print edition of Tanwir al-Miqbas was produced in Bombay, India in 1864 by Matba‘ Muhammadi. The next edition to appear was the 1873 Bulaq edition which was subsequently reprinted in 1951 by Mustafa al-Babi al-Halabi and Sons. In 1937, a private edition was printed in the margins of the Qur’an at the expense of ‘Abd al-Hamid Ahmad Hanafi. In 1972, Dar al-Anwar al-Muhammadiyya in Cairo issued a work edited by Muhammad al-Sadiq al-Qamhawi and ‘Abd al-Hafiz Muhammad ‘Isa. In 1976, an edition was produced in Multan, India, presumably a reprint of the 1864 Bombay edition. In 1995 (2001), Dar al-Fikr in Beirut under the supervision of an editorial committee issued the work in a re-edited vocalised edition. In 2000, Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah issued a vocalised edition. Other editions and reprints include Dar al-Fikr in Beirut (2001) and Al-Maktabah Al-‘Asriyyah in Sidon (2005). The authoritative Arabic text of the work is now available on the Altafsir.com website (http://www.altafsir.com). Scholarship on Tanwir al-Miqbas in the Arab and Islamic world has thus far been limited. Only one major study has appeared which focuses on the exegetical traditions of Ibn ‘Abbas: ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Hamidi, Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas wa Marwiyatuhu fi’l-Tafsir min Kutub al-Sunnah published in 1986 by Umm al-Qura University in Mecca. However, it is to be hoped that publication of this work will lead to the production of further studies of the work in the Islamic world and the west and to the critical discussion of it in universities and academies in the Islamic world and the West. The translator Mr Mokrane Guezzou of the United Kingdom has presented herein a competently translated work which is both accessible and intelligible without the over-reliance on footnotes found in some academic translations of Islamic sources. Finally, we would like to express our appreciation to Fons Vitae Publishers, the managing director Aisha Gray Henry, the marketing director Pam Swisher and finally to the copy editor Elena Lloyd-Sidel. Dr. Yousef Meri Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, Amman Safar 1429/ February 2008 Translator’s Introduction For Muslims, the Qur’an is God’s final Word to humankind revealed to the Prophet Muhammad in pure Arabic. Metaphysics, eschatology, cosmology, law and morality are all interwoven therein to form a beautiful whole of sublime wisdom. The Qur’an is also—and above all—a book of guidance. It guides the faithful in all aspects and at all levels of their lives. It directs them to belief in God’s divine oneness and disbelief in any deity other than Him; it explains what is lawful and unlawful, and draws a detailed way for them to live harmoniously in this world so as to attain bliss and salvation in the Hereafter. As such, the Qur’an contains all that is required for Muslims to have success in this world and in the Hereafter. Unlike any other ordinary book, the notions and concepts mentioned in the Qur’an—whether they relate to faith, legal rulings, threats and promises, arguments, allusions or anecdotes of past nations— alternate without any apparent scheme. The Qur’an tackles the same topics time and again but each time using different expressions. Some of the injunctions and rulings of the Qur’an are too general to allow specific applications, while others are too specific to allow generalisation. Some sections of the Qur’an were revealed before the Prophet’s migration to Medina while other parts were revealed after his migration. There are also some Qur’anic verses which abrogated previous ones but both, the abrogating and the abrogated verses, are still preserved in the Qur’an. The reader of the Qur’an comes across sudden transitions between iii one topic and another. God states plainly in the Qur’an that the Qur’an contains clear and unclear verses (ayat muhkamat wa-ukhar mutashabihat). One finds that in the same passage God may speak interchangeably in the first and third person and to different audiences without pause or change of style. Just as the Qur’an has dealt with matters, places and people that were unknown to or unheard of by the Arabs. More than this, the Qur’an uses some words and expressions which were unfamiliar to many Arabs, since these were either coined from other Semitic languages or borrowed from different Arabic dialects other than that of the Quraysh. For all these reasons and many others, the Qur’an has never been a closed book. The Qur’an had always needed explanation and interpretation. One notices that the Qur’an explains itself in many places. However, the greatest source of Qur’anic interpretation is without doubt the Prophet himself. A glance at the different collections of Hadith will reveal that a process of interpreting the Qur’an had begun at the time of the Prophet. Encouraged by the Qur’an and advice of the Prophet to ask about whatever they did not understand regarding religion, the prophetic Companions asked the Prophet about the meaning of many passages of the Qur’an.1 In some occasions, the Prophet explained the meaning of some Qur’anic verses without being asked to do so, while in other instances he asked some of his Companions about certain passages and then confirmed their understanding or proceeded himself to give their meaning.2 The example of the Prophet was followed by his Companions. Even during the Prophet’s life time, some Companions had distinguished themselves as experts in the interpretation of the Qur’an. Apart from the four Caliphs, the most noteworthy of these Companions were ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas‘ud (d. 32/652), ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Abbas (d. 68/687), Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b (d. 30/650), Zayd Ibn Thabit (d. 45/666), Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari (d. 42/662) and ‘Abdullah Ibn al-Zubayr (d.73/692). However, Muslim scholarship considers Ibn ‘Abbas as the real father of the science of Tafsir. The reports related from Ibn ‘Abbas regarding the interpretation of the Qur’an are quite abundant. In fact, there is almost no Qur’anic verse for which one cannot find an interpretation attributed to Ibn ‘Abbas. There are nine different chains of transmission of Ibn ‘Abbas’ reports regarding Tafsir which vary in their degree of reliability and authenticity. These chains are as follow:3 1- Mu‘awiyah Ibn Salih> ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talhah> Ibn ‘Abbas. 2- Qays Ibn Muslim al-Kufi> ‘Ata’ Ibn al-Sa’ib> Sa‘id Ibn Jubayr> Ibn ‘Abbas. 3- Ibn Ishaq> Muhammad Ibn Abi Muhammad> ‘Ikrimah or Sa‘id Ibn Jubayr> Ibn ‘Abbas. 4- Isma‘il Ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Suddi al-Kabir> Abu Malik or Abu Salih> Ibn ‘Abbas. 5- ‘Abd al-Malik Ibn Jarih> Ibn ‘Abbas. 6- Al-Dahhak Ibn Muzahim al-Hilali> Ibn ‘Abbas. 7- ‘Atiyyah al-‘Awfi> Ibn ‘Abbas. 8- Muqatil Ibn Sulayman al-Azdi> Mujahid or al-Dahhak> Ibn ‘Abbas. 9- Muhammad Ibn al-Sa’ib al-Kalbi> Abu Salih> Ibn ‘Abbas. According to Muslim scholarship, the chains of transmission 1, 2 and 3 are reliable, 6, 7, 8 unreliable, while the chain of transmission no. 5 needs scrutiny since it transmits both reliable and unreliable reports. 1 See for example Sahih al-Bukhari, Tafsir. 2 It is not our intention here to give an analysis of the early development of Tafsir. About this development there are two different versions: the Muslim version and the Orientalist one. See the analyses developed in Muhammad Husayn al-Dhahabi, al-Tafsir wa’l- Mufassirun, Chapter One, Maktabat Wahba, 2000, and the articles of Claude Gilliot, ‘The Beginning of Qur’anic Exegesis’ and Nabia Abbot, ‘The Early Development of Tafsir’, both in: The Qur’an: Formative Interpretation, edited by Andrew Rippin, Variorum; as well as thearticle Tafsir in Encyclopaedia of Islam, second edition (subsequently EI2). iv 3 Al-Tafsir wa’l-Mufassirun, op. cit., I: pp. 59-62. What is reported from Ibn ‘Abbas via ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talhah calls for special consideration. This is because it is possible to compile material of a Tafsir of Ibn ‘Abbas from the reports of ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talhah on the basis of about 1,000 texts found in Tabari’s Tafsir.4 In fact, material for an entire Tafsir of Ibn ‘Abbas can also be gathered from other reliable reports recorded in collections of Hadith, such as Bukhari, and in earliest commentaries of the Qur’an such as that of Tabari. Reliable reports from Ibn ‘Abbas regarding the interpretation of the Qur’an are not lacking. But this did not prevent some from ascribing a host of reports to this erudite prophetic Companion. There is even an entire commentary of the Qur’an ascribed to him, namely, Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas, or simply Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas. This commentary was published many times under the above titles as well as under slightly different titles. Some editions cite Majd al-Din Muhammad Ibn Ya‘qub al-Firuzabadi (729- 817/1329- 1414) as the author but others simply attribute it to Ibn ‘Abbas.5 So is this commentary the work of Ibn ‘Abbas or al-Firuzabadi? There is no doubt that this commentary is not the work of Ibn ‘Abbas. The chain of transmitters of this commentary goes back to Muhammad Ibn Marwan> al-Kalbi> Abu Salih which is described by Hadith experts as the chain of lies (silsilat al-kadhib), for this line of transmission is utterly dubious and unreliable. One does not even need to use the criteria for reliable transmission applied by Hadith experts to decide this commentary’s wrong attribution to Ibn ‘Abbas. It is easy to detect obvious anomalies in the text of Tanwir al-Miqbas which leave one with no doubt that whoever wrote it lived many centuries after Ibn ‘Abbas. One finds it, for instance, references to Hasan al-Basri, al-Suddi and even the grammarian Yahya Ibn Ziyad al- Farra’ (d. 207/822).6 In a few places, after giving different meanings of the same verse, the author(s) or compiler(s) proceed(s) to say: “… and this is the opinion of Ibn ‘Abbas” or: “Ibn ‘Abbas says…”, forgetting that the entire commentary is supposed to be an accurate transmission of what is narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas. 4 Fuat Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums, E.J. Brill, 1967, I, pp. 25-28. 5 I have used two different editions of this work. The edition of Dar al-Jil: Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas, which cites al- Firuzabadi as the author and has two additional texts on the margin: Lubab al-Nuqul fi Asbab al-Nuzul and Ma‘rifat al-Nasikh wa’l- Mansukh attributed to Ibn Hazm. It appears that this edition is an exact reproduction of the Cairo edition of 1951, for even the names of the Azhar proofreaders of this edition and its date of publication are still mentioned at the end of the book. The other edition I made use of is that of Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 2000, which does not cite al-Firuzabadi as the author. On the different editions of this work, see, Andrew Rippin, ‘Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas and the Criteria for Dating Early Tafsir Texts’, Jerusalem Studies on Arabic and Islam, 18 (1994), pp. 41-42. 6 For example, see, in Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas, the explanation of verse 23 of Surah Counsel (al-Shura) and verse 28 of surah the Troops (al-Zumar) respectively were Hasan al-Basri, al-Farra’ and al-Suddi are mentioned by name. And see the commentary on surah the Cave (al-Kahf) verse 22, and surah the Spider (al-‘Ankabut) verse 69 where the author/compiler refers to the opinions of Ibn ‘Abbas to distinguish them from the other opinions he cites. v Another striking feature of this commentary of the Qur’an is its heavy reliance on the so-called Isra’iliyyat. Isra’iliyyat is a term used to refer to those reports and narrations found in commentaries of the Qur’an, Sufi literature, histories of the prophets, the reports of the storytellers (qussas) as well as other genres of writing like the belle-letters. In modern Western studies, it is also used to refer to material related to Biblical subjects found in medieval commentaries of the Qur’an and general histories.7 In the former use, one distinguishes three kinds of reports: (1) historical reports which include the stories of the prophets (Qasas or Qisas al-Anbiya’), (2) events that happened during the time of the ancient Israelites, and these were made use of by such renowned figures as Hasan al-Basri (d. 110/728) and Muhasibi (d. 243/857) is his al-Ri‘ayah li-Huquq Allah, (3) folkloric tales borrowed, or supposedly borrowed, from Jewish sources, and mainly used by the storytellers and littérateurs (udaba’).8 It is only with Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728/1328) and, following him, his student Ibn Kathir (d. 774/1373) that the term is invariably used as a reference to unreliable reports and traditions dealing with Biblical subjects which are considered to be of Jewish origin.9 However, even though Muslim scholars, before Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Kathir, had differing views concerning the use of Isra’iliyyat, they made a clear distinction between the different kinds of reports and narrations which were gathered under this general term. Ibn ‘Abbas, for example, is known for his use of Biblical narratives, but he is also equally known for his condemnation of the wild stories related by the storytellers and also of his criticism of Wahb Ibn Munabbih whom he censored for narrating stories and events which are unacceptable to Islamic teachings. However, one finds in Tanwir al-Miqbas many instances of the wild stories and narratives that Ibn ‘Abbas had strongly condemned.10 One can also detect hints of anthropomorphism in some statements which is hardly in tune with the erudition and knowledge of someone like Ibn ‘Abbas. If this commentary is certainly not the work of Ibn ‘Abbas, is it safe to state that it is the work of Muhammad Ibn Ya‘qub al-Firuzabadi? As we shall see below, there are numerous difficulties which make such an attribution hard to accept. Muhammad Ibn Ya‘qub al-Firuzabadi was a noted Shafi‘i scholar who is mainly known today for his monumental al-Qamus al-Muhit, but whose contribution to Islamic scholarship extends to other domains other than grammar. In fact, al-Firuzabadi’s main specialisation was Hadith and history. He wrote over 48 books, six of which relate to Qur’anic studies, namely. Taysir Fatihat al-Anab fi Tafsir Fatihat al-Kitab (a commentary on al-Fatihah), al-Durr al-Nazim: al-Murshid ila Maqasid al-Qur’an al-‘Azim—both of which seem to be lost like most of his other works—Hasil Kurat al-Khalas fi Tafsir Surat al-Ikhlas, Sharh Qutbat al- Khashshaf and Basa’ir Dhawi al-Tamyiz fi Lata’if al-Kitab al-‘Aziz.11 The last book is not a commentary on the Qur’an, properly speaking, in the sense that it deals with the Qur’an surah by surah. It rather deals with specific terms mentioned in the Qur’an and their different meanings. But there is much in the book’s content which makes its comparison with Tanwir al-Miqbas to the point. The first problem one faces regarding the attribution of Tanwir al-Miqbas to al-Firuzabadi is the book’s chain of transmission. It is quite obvious that this chain is not contiguous and does not go all the way to al-Firuzabadi. It is surprising that even though there is a huge time gap between al-Firuzabadi and the first narrator of the chain of transmission, Tanwir al-Miqbas was consistently attributed to him and unreservedly printed as his work. Other comparisons between the Basa’ir Dhawi al-Tamyiz and Tanwir al- Miqbas reveal numerous striking differences. Out of the forty odd references to Ibn ‘Abbas made in Basa’ir Dhawi al-Tamyiz which deal with the interpretation of the Qur’an, only three of these references agree with what is mentioned in Tanwir al-Miqbas while 40 are completely different or contradictory to what is 7 Roberto Tottoli, ‘Origin and Use of the Term Isra’iliyyat in Muslim Literature’, Arabica, 46 (1999), p. 193. 8 See the article Isra’iliyyat in EI2. 9 Roberto Tottoli, Ibid., p. 203. 10 See for instance what is said about the Prophet David and the reason why the two angels came to him in the form of two men, and see also the explanation of verse 6 of surah Ta-Ha. 11 See the introduction of the editor of Basa’ir Dhawi al-Tamyiz fi Lata’if al-Kitab al-‘Aziz, Beirut, al-Maktabah al-‘Ilmiyyah, n.d. I, pp. 22- 24. vi attributed to him in Tanwir al-Miqbas.12 There are also—as shown below—discrepancies in the two books as to the Meccan or Medinan character of some surahs: Surah Tanwir al-Miqbas Basa’ir Dhawi al-Tamyiz Al-An‘am Meccan except 5 verses Meccan except 6 verses Al-Anfal Medinan except one verse Medinan by scholarly consensus Bara’ah Medinan except the last 2 verses Medinan by scholarly agreement Yunus Meccan except verse 40 Meccan by scholarly agreement Ibrahim Meccan Meccan except one verse Al-Nahl Meccan except 4 verses Meccan except 3 verses Banu Isra’il Meccan except a few verses Meccan by scholarly agreement Al-Kahf Meccan except 2 verses Meccan by a scholarly agreement Al-Hajj Meccan except 5 verses Meccan except 6 verses Al-Shu‘ara’ Meccan except the last 2 verses Meccan except 1 verse Al-Qasas Meccan except 1 verse Meccan by agreement Luqman Meccan Meccan except 2 verses Al-Sajdah Meccan Meccan except 3 verses Al-Zumar Meccan except 1 verse Meccan except 3 verses Al-Shura Meccan except 7 verses Meccan by scholarly consensus Al-Ahqaf Meccan except 4 verses Meccan by scholarly agreement Muhammad Meccan Medinan by scholarly agreement Al-Najm Meccan except 1 verse Meccan by scholarly agreement Al-Waqi‘ah Meccan except 3 verses Meccan by scholarly agreement Al-Mujadilah Medinan except 1 verse Medinan by scholarly agreement Al-Saff Medinan Meccan Al-Munafiqun Medinan except 1 verse Medinan by scholarly agreement Al-Mutaffifin Between Mecca and Medina Meccan Al-Qadr Meccan Meccan or Medinan Al-Falaq Meccan or Medinan Medinan The differences between these two books can also be tested upon examining key concepts in either tenets of faith or Islamic Law. For instance, the explanation of Istiwa’ provided by al-Firuzabadi in Basa’ir Dhawi al- Tamyiz agrees well with Muslim orthodoxy while in Tanwir al-Miqbas the interpretation of Istiwa’ in Qur’an 10:3 displays a belief in anthropomorphism. Being a Shafi‘i scholar, al-Firuzabadi is also expected to be consistent in his Fiqh opinions. However, one notices differences in opinion regarding the same legal matters in the Basa’ir and Tanwir al-Miqbas, such is the case for example with Kalalah.13 Furthermore, one does not find a single reference in Basa’ir Dhawi al-Tamyiz to Tanwir al-Miqbas. This is quite strange if we are to believe, as Andrew Rippin seems to think following Muhammad Ibn ‘Ali al-Dawudi (d. 945/1538),14 12 The agreement coincides with the interpretation of Q, 16:67, 94:5-6 and 3:102 while the differences or contradictions relate to Q, 13:38, 18:82, 10:3, 6:3, 3:45, 12:23, 18:34, 89:22, 3:112, 25:22, 55:60, 57:16, 68:4, 2:187, 89:28, 2:248, 2:57, 45:18, 5:48, 2:23, 37:54, 24:2, 9:90, 2:196, 113:3, 6:98, 75:17, 46:13, 4:42, 2:255, 43:87, 83:14, 4:177, 81:1, 18:24, 19:96, 68:16, 9:55, 65:2-3 and 19:8. 13 See, Basa’ir Dhawi al-Tamyiz, op. cit., under K.L.L. and the interpretation of Q. 4:177 in Tanwir al-Miqbas. 14 Andrew Rippin, ‘Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas and the Criteria for Dating Early Tafsir Texts’, Jerusalem Studies on Arabic and Islam, 18 (1994), pp. 41-42 vii that al- Firuzabadi has indeed authored a book entitled Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas—different than the one in circulation—which is twice the size of Basa’ir Dhawi al-Tamyiz. Especially when one knows that the Basa’ir was one of the last books written by al-Firuzabadi, 15 and that the content of the latter must necessarily contain material from the former because of the similarity of topics and subjects tackled by both books. In addition to this, no manuscript copies with the title Tanwir al-Miqbas—with or without the name of al-Firuzabadi—appear to exist.16 Another major problem which points against ascribing Tanwir al-Miqbas to al-Firuzabadi, as Andrew Rippin has pointed out, is the fact that ‘Abdullah Ibn Muhammad al-Dinawari (d. 308/920) has a text which is identical to the printed editions of Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas, and the earliest manuscript copy of the text ascribed to al-Dinawari comes from the sixth hijri century, well before al- Firuzabadi was born. 17 Muslim scholarship is not unfamiliar with minor or obscure scholars ascribing their works to competent and famous scholars to guarantee the posterity and diffusion of their works, nor does it lack examples whereby books were falsely attributed by copyists to different authors because of ill-intent, confusion, ignorance or, simply, human error.18 One is inclined to think that this is exactly what happened in the case of Tanwir al-Miqbas. The fact that there was a surge in diffusion and interest in this book after the ninth hijri century is explained, more than anything else, by the fame and celebrity of the author of al- Qamus al-Muhit. Another question needs to be answered. If it is now clear that what we have in print as Tanwir al- Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas is not the work of al-Firuzabadi, did the latter, nonetheless, write a different book under the same title? The first to mention that al-Firuzabadi authored a four volumes book entitled Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas, is Muhammad Ibn ‘Ali al-Dawudi (d. 945/1538), writing almost a century after the death of al-Firuzabadi.19 By contrast, we have two authors who were contemporaries of al-Firuzabadi who do not mention this book at all. The first is Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani (d. 852) who knew al-Firuzabadi personally and lived another 35 years after him. In Inba’ al-Ghumr bi-Abna’ al-‘Umr,20 Ibn Hajar dwells at length with al- Firuzabadi’s life and contribution and at the end mentions some of his books. The fact that he does not mention Tanwir al-Miqbas as one of al-Firuzabadi’s books is significant, since Ibn Hajar was, mainly, a Hadith expert and this particular book, if it existed at all, would have merited at least a mention, being circumscribed—even if dubiously—by narration and reporting from Ibn ‘Abbas. The second is Ibn Qadi Shuhbah (d. 851/1448) another contemporary of al-Firuzabadi. Ibn Qadi Shuhbah, in his Tabaqat al-Shafi‘iyyah,21 also devotes an entry to al-Firuzabadi and mentions many of his books but, again, there is no reference there to Tanwir al-Miqbas, even though such a work would have been of great interest to Muslim jurists, since it is bound to comprise material which are pertinent to both jurisprudence (fiqh) and the principles and fundamentals of jurisprudence (usul al-fiqh). Were these illustrious scholars simply unaware that al-Firuzabadi wrote a book entitled Tanwir al-Miqbas? It is quite likely but very difficult to accept. In the absence of any manuscript copies of this work, one is inclined to think that al-Dawudi is wrong either about the title of the book, its author or both.22 15 This Basa’ir Dhawi al-Tamyiz is dedicated to the Sultan al-Ashraf Isma‘il, the ruler of Yemen, which means that al-Firuzabadi wrote it after settling in this land, i.e. between 796 and 803 the year of al-Ashraf’s death. 16 Andrew Rippin, ‘Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas and the Criteria for Dating Early Tafsir Texts’, op. cit., p. 42. 17 Andrew Rippin, op. cit., p. 47. 18 As an example of this see, Osman Yahya, Histoire et classification de l’oeuvre d’Ibn ‘Arabi, Damascus, 1964, wherein one finds scores of books attributed to Ibn ‘Arabi but which were written by anonymous or less well-known scholars. 19 Muhammad Ibn ‘Ali Ibn Ahmad al-Dawudi, Tabaqat al-Mufassirin, edited by ‘Abd al-Salam ‘Abd al-Mu‘in, Beirut, Dar al-Kutub al- ‘Ilmiyyah, 2002, p. 485. 20 Da’irat al-Ma‘arif al-‘Uthmaniyyah, 1974, VII: pp. 159-163. 21 Da’irat al-Ma‘arif al-‘Uthmaniyyah, 1980, IV: pp. 79-85. 22 The reader should note that our main concern in this introduction is to show that Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas is not the work of either Ibn ‘Abbas or al-Firuzabadi. It is not our intention here to determine the author(s)/compiler(s) of this book. This question is, I think, much complicated and deserves a detailed and thorough treatment. Andrew Rippin’s ‘Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas and the Criteria for viii For the translation of Tanwir al-Miqbas here offered we have used the two different printed editions mentioned above. The translation of the text of the Qur’an is that of Marmaduke Pickthall with very few changes, in some places, to make it consistent with the present commentary. A section heading for each surah has also been added. Finally, it is to be hoped that this commentary which contains significant details about the intersection of religious ideas in the early Islamic centuries, will serve as a useful resource for those interested in the study of popular stories, legends and ideas across monotheistic traditions. ix Dating Early Tafsir Texts’, Jerusalem Studies on Arabic and Islam, 18 (1994), pp. 38-83, throws some light on the authorship and dating of early Tafsir texts, and also deals with Tanwir al-Miqbas. However, we feel there is much to be added in this connection. x