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.