Reports relating supernatural events - or miracles - in the life of the Prophet Muhammad (d. 11/632) have been traditionally either ignored by those modern scholars attempting to determine the historicity of the source material or have been studied piecemeal in an attempt to determine their origins by those scholars who see them as secondary additions. The current study will examine both the sira/ta'rikh, the story of Muḥammad's life as told within larger works of universal history, and tafsir, exegetical, works of two medieval Muslim scholars, al-T&dotbelow;abari (d. 310/923) and Ibn Kathir (d. 773/1373), to attempt to determine how the reports of the supernatural fit into the story of Muḥammad's life as a whole. The result is that there is both a supernatural and mundane archetype for the life of Muḥammad, and that they appear to mirror each other almost perfectly. Whereas the story begins with God performing all the miracles for Muḥammad's benefit, by the time of his death in Medina, Muḥammad has completed his mastery over the forces of the supernatural, even to the point where it appears that God performs miracles directly in response to Muḥammad's prayers. Thus, as Muḥammad gained more control over the movement he founded, he gained an equal amount of control over the forces of the supernatural. Both al-T&dotbelow;abari and Ibn Kathir include reports that contain the supernatural archetype, but also include reports that diverge from it in important ways. While there is not one, overall theory to explain why each author made the changes he did to the supernatural archetype of Muḥammad's life, the examples in the following chapters indicate that the role of the supernatural versus the mundane, the politicization of the archetype, and authorial opinion were important to each scholar and help to support the argument that the miracle stories are integral to the life of Muḥammad as a whole, and deserve to be studied as such.

No description available.

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.