Yaser M. Haddara

So it’s been a rather long time but now that I’m back I wanted to pick up on the story of David and Goliath as told in surat al-Baqarah. If you click on the “Quran” tag you’ll be able to see the earlier two entries in this thread. But in quick summary I am recalling in this series of reminiscences an occasion for dialog that was presented to me back in grad school days. We had an interfaith discussion group where each session was led by a member of the group who selected a piece of text from his/her own sacred texts, facilitated a discussion around it in the group, then gave a short presentation. I chose the story of Saul, David, and Goliath as told in surat al-Baqarah, verses 246-252. I started with a contemporary commentary written by a Tunisian scholar that highlighted the historical context of the story.

I then moved on to what may be considered representatives of “classic” commentaries. I chose al-Qurtuby and al-Baydawy. I also included one of the leading shi’a commentators, al-Tabarsi.

What I called “classic” then (and still do now) is a tradition of Quranic commentary that was established in broad features by Imam al-Tabary (3rd century hijri). Until a few years ago, his was the earliest authenticated tafseer in published form. There is a published and translated commentary attributed to ibn Abbas radiallahu ‘anhu, but the authenticity of that attribution is dubious. More recently, I am told that other earlier tafaseer have found their way into publication but I am not familiar with those. Historically, scholars of tafseer after Tabary were heavily influenced by his style. The broad features of these commentaries were:

1. Commentary proceeded passage-wise. In other words, the commentator would break down the text into short passages, list the verses in each passage, then proceed to comment on the meaning of the passage and the issues it presented. Addressing themes running through the chapter was rarely done. Even addressing the context of a given passage or the transition from one passage to another was not consistently done.
2. The subjects dealt with in a commentary were clearly identified. They included interpretation of vocabulary, the identification of subjects/objects mentioned without identification in the text (e.g. in our passage a reference to “a prophet of theirs” would elicit discussion as to who that prophet was), the rendering of the overall meaning of the passage, specifying the occasion of revelation if known, discussing linguistic features in the text, and addressing legal rulings derived from the text. Within that range a commentator may emphasize one area over the others (e.g. ibn Atiyya was a commentator more interested in linguistic discussions) but a commentary wasn’t “really” a commentary unless it (a) touched on the majority of these questions; and (b) limited itself to these questions.
3. The sources of commentary were (a) other passages in the Quran itself; (b) prophetic tradition; (c) statements attributed to the companions; (d) Arabic poetry, which helped interpret vocabulary and provided a reference for standards of eloquence; and (e) expert opinion. Controversy arose early on what constituted expert opinion and the limits to which such opinion was to be restricted, but it was clearly impossible to provide a satisfactory interpretation of the text without referencing some expertise on language, history, theology, law, or some other disciplines.
4. Finally, these “classic” commentaries focused almost exclusively on the direct interpretation of text. Legitimate questions had to do with the immediate meaning, implication, or context of the text. Straying farther afield in the form of reflections on metaphor, spiritual inspiration, social import, or scientific or philosophical implications, was either not considered or not encouraged.

While the genre of tafseer continued to invite scholarly effort, and while each commentator tried to produce something that gave some individual contribution, the normative influence of Tabary was so strong as to determine for nearly ten centuries not only the subject matter but the tone and structure of the bulk of commentaries. And it did so across sectarian divisions! So a mu’tazilite mufassir like al-Zamakhshari arrives at theological conclusions directly opposed to those of his sunni peers, but he is (a) asking the same questions; (b) relying on the same sources; and (c) laying out the answer in the same order, organization of text, and tone of commentary!

As for what the classics actually said about the story of Talut, this piece is getting long enough that I think I need to defer that question till next time