Theological Approaches to Qur’anic Exegesis: A Practical Comparative-Contrastive Analysis by Hussein Abdul-Raof (review)

This analysis of Qur’anic exegesis purports to describe the distinct theological schools of exegesis using the major tafsir works by prominent classical and modern exegetes. What Hussein Abdul-Raof has produced is a thoroughly conservative Sunni-centric theological analysis of Qur’anic exegesis. Shi‘a (including – according to the author – Isma‘ili, Zaydi, and Huthi), Mu‘tazili, Ibadi, Sufi, and modern schools of exegesis are all categorized as rational because – in the author’s view – they use al-tafsir bi al-ra’y, which Abdul-Raof translates as ‘hypothetical or personal opinion’:

Rational exegetes consider intellect as a fundamental source of knowledge, promoting deduction (al-istinbāṭ), rejecting imitation, questioning the reliability of ḥadīth, and as an insufficient source to explain the Qur’ān. However, mainstream exegetes have been skeptical about the school of rational exegesis and have criticized it as being subjective because it is primarily based on personal judgement which is classified as ‘hypothetical’ (dalīl ẓanni). (28, no italics in original)

Not surprisingly, having created this straw man of his opponents, Abdul-Raof’s critique of them follows predictable lines.

Chapter 1 focuses on defending what Abdul-Raof calls traditional or mainstream exegesis. By this he means exegesis that employs the Qur’an (or ‘Qur’anic intertexuality’), the Sunnah (particularly the elaborations, explanations of ambiguous passages, lexical paraphrases, and so forth by Muhammad), and the exegesis of the Companions and Successors (especially Ibn ‘Abbas, Ubay ibn Ka‘b, Ibn Mas‘ud, and Hasan al-Basri). Many examples for each of these sources are provided by Abdul-Raof, though he rarely cites the primary texts. Nor is there any reference to the vast secondary scholarship on these materials. Each hadith’s and text’s authenticity is simply accepted by ascription. For example, he accepts Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas as the authentic record of the exegesis of Ibn ‘Abbas despite the serious doubts raised by Andrew Rippin. And such ascription has consequences. It also allows him to employ anachronisms such as the Meccan school or Medinan school and to describe them as using ra’y and ijtihad. Having defined ‘mainstream’, non-mainstream are described as those who minimize the role of hadith, use weak hadith, use personal opinion, fabricate and ascribe opinions to earlier authorities, and advocate anthropomorphic, esoteric, allegorical meanings, or have a political and theological agenda. In a tree diagram of all Qur’anic exegesis, Abdul-Raof has one branch that contains ‘traditional exegesis’→ ‘mainstream’ → ‘Sunni’, whereas the other contains ‘hypothetical opinion exegesis’ → ‘non-mainstream’ → various branches of the aforementioned Sunni and non-Sunni approaches (32).

The following chapter on rational exegesis examines all these so-called non-mainstream exegetical approaches. Those labelled as practicing al-tafsir bi-l-ra’y include the Mu‘tazili, Shi‘a, Sufi, Ibadi, and modern linguistic and scientific exegesis, all of whose proponents are ‘doctrinally suspect’ and whose ‘esoteric exegesis is heresy’ (29). Abdul-Raof’s justification for this characterization is simply a statement by Muhammad on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas against the use of ra’y – which conveniently highlights the need for critical scholarship, in this case on hadiths, to be included, and has significant implications. A similar sanguine attitude towards the sources is evident in his description of ta’wil – in contrast to tafsir – as ‘hypothetical’, belying the more nuanced history of the two terms. Abdul-Raof then treats each of the non-mainstream approaches to exegesis in turn: the Mu‘tazili, the Shi‘i, the Ibadi, the Sufi, and the modern. For each there is a brief history, a list of the main exegetes, a list of the political or ‘dogmatic’ views, and then a list of examples of exegesis that illustrate some of these views. Citations are rarely given for the examples; and the history, the brevity of the history, and dogmatic views obscure the complex history and divisions within...