This is a study of Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī’s al-Durr al-manthūr fi-l-tafsīr bi-l-ma’thur (The scattered pearls of tradition-based exegesis), hereinafter al-Durr. In the present study, the distinctiveness of al-Durr becomes evident in comparison with the tafsīrs of al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923) and Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373). Al-Suyūṭī surpassed these exegetes by relying entirely on ḥadīth (tradition). Al-Suyūṭī rarely offers a comment of his own. Thus, in terms of its formal features, al-Durr is the culmination of tradition-based exegesis (tafsīr bi-l-ma’thūr). This study also shows that al-Suyūṭī intended in al-Durr to subtly challenge the tradition-based hermeneutics of Ibn Taymīyah (d. 728/1328). According to Ibn Taymīyah, the true, unified, interpretation of the Qurʼān must be sought in the Qurʼān itself, in the traditions of Muḥammad, and in the exegeses of the earliest Muslims. Moreover, Ibn Taymīyah strongly denounced opinion-based exegesis (tafsīr bi-l-ra’y). By means of the traditions in al-Durr, al-Suyūṭī supports several of his views in contradistinction to those of Ibn Taymīyah. Al-Suyūṭī’s traditions support the following views. First, opinion-based exegesis is a valid supplement to tradition-based exegesis. Second, the early Muslim community was not quite unified. Third, the earliest Qur’ānic exegetes did not offer a unified exegesis of the Qur’ān. Fourth, Qur’ānic exegesis is necessarily polyvalent since Muslims accept a number of readings of the Qur’ān, and variant readings give rise to various interpretations. Al-Suyūṭī collected his traditions from a wide variety of sources some of which are now lost. Two major exegetes, al-Shawkānī (d. 1250/1834) and al-Ālūsī (d. 1270/1854), copied some of these traditions from al-Durr into their Qur’ān commentaries. In this way, al-Suyūṭī has succeeded in shedding new light on rare, neglected, and previously scattered traditions.

This is a study of Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī’s al-Durr al-manthūr fi-l-tafsīr bi-l-ma’thur (The scattered pearls of tradition-based exegesis), hereinafter al-Durr. In the present study, the distinctiveness of al-Durr becomes evident in comparison with the tafsīrs of al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923) and Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373). Al-Suyūṭī surpassed these exegetes by relying entirely on ḥadīth (tradition). Al-Suyūṭī rarely offers a comment of his own. Thus, in terms of its formal features, al-Durr is the culmination of tradition-based exegesis (tafsīr bi-l-ma’thūr). This study also shows that al-Suyūṭī intended in al-Durr to subtly challenge the tradition-based hermeneutics of Ibn Taymīyah (d. 728/1328). According to Ibn Taymīyah, the true, unified, interpretation of the Qurʼān must be sought in the Qurʼān itself, in the traditions of Muḥammad, and in the exegeses of the earliest Muslims. Moreover, Ibn Taymīyah strongly denounced opinion-based exegesis (tafsīr bi-l-ra’y). By means of the traditions in al-Durr, al-Suyūṭī supports several of his views in contradistinction to those of Ibn Taymīyah. Al-Suyūṭī’s traditions support the following views. First, opinion-based exegesis is a valid supplement to tradition-based exegesis. Second, the early Muslim community was not quite unified. Third, the earliest Qur’ānic exegetes did not offer a unified exegesis of the Qur’ān. Fourth, Qur’ānic exegesis is necessarily polyvalent since Muslims accept a number of readings of the Qur’ān, and variant readings give rise to various interpretations. Al-Suyūṭī collected his traditions from a wide variety of sources some of which are now lost. Two major exegetes, al-Shawkānī (d. 1250/1834) and al-Ālūsī (d. 1270/1854), copied some of these traditions from al-Durr into their Qur’ān commentaries. In this way, al-Suyūṭī has succeeded in shedding new light on rare, neglected, and previously scattered traditions.

This is a comparative study of the two earliest known comprehensive technical manuals treating Hadith criticism.

No description available.

Text in English and Arabic / In pre-colonial Africa, the Southwestern Sahara which includes Mauritania, Mali and Senegal belonged to what was then referred to as the Sudan and extended from the Atlantic seaboard to the Red Sea. The advent of Islam and the Arabic language to West Africa in the 11th century heralded an intellectual marathon whose literary output still fascinates us today. At a time when Europe was emerging from the dark ages and Africa was for most Europeans a terra incognita, indigenous African scholars were composing treatises as diverse as mathematics, agriculture and the Islamic sciences. A twentieth century Mauritanian, Arabic monograph, Irshād al- Muqallidīn ʿinda ikhtilāf al-Mujtahidīn1, written circa 1910/1332, by a yet unknown Mauritanian jurist of the Mālikī School, Bāba bin al-Shaykh Sīdī al- Shinqīṭī al-Ntishā-ī (d.1920/1342), a member of the muchacclaimed Shinqīṭī fraternity of scholars, is a fine example of African literary accomplishment. This manuscript hereinafter referred to as the Irshād, is written within the legal framework of Islamic jurisprudence (usūl al-fiqh). A science that relies for the most part on the intellectual and interpretive competence of the independent jurist, or mujtahid, in the application of the methodologies employed in the extraction of legal norms from the primary sources of the sharīʿah. The subject matter of the Irshād deals with the question of juristic differences. Juristic differences invariably arise when a mujtahid exercises his academic freedom to clarify or resolve conundrums in the law and to postulate legal norms. Other independent jurists (mujtahidūn) may posit different legal norms because of the exercise of their individual interpretive skills. These differences, when they are deemed juristically irreconcilable, are called ikhtilāfāt (pl. of ikhtilāf). The author of the Irshād explores a corollary of the ikhtilāf narrative and posits the hypothesis that there ought not to be ikhtilāf in the sharīʿah. The proposed research will comprise an annotated translation of the monograph followed by a synopsis and commentary on its dominant themes. / Religious Studies and Arabic / D. Litt. et Phil. (Islamic Studies)