al-bayw

53

al-Bayw lum of the educational system of the Mus-

lim world. Because the date preferred in
Al-Q Nir al-Dn Abdallh modern scholarship is 716/1316, all indi-
b. Umar b. Muammad al-Shrz cations being that al-Bayw lived lon-
al-Bayw (d. Jumd I 719/June ger than the earlier estimates of his death
1319) was a Shfi jurist, Ashar theolo- date, we should treat this later date as
gian, and Qurn commentator who lived provisionally correct, until further infor-
in Shiraz and Tabriz. His death date is mation is uncovered. That no one seems
disputed in the sources and in modern earlier to have noticed this information
scholarship. For a summary of this debate, (apart from al-Zuayl who rejected it,
see Kohlberg, 15, and van Ess, 261–70 68) indicates our disregard for the genre
and his biographical sources. of the gloss (shiya), for al-Khafj’s
(published in Cairo in 1866) has been
1.  Life of al-Bayw available in print since the mid-nineteenth
Classical Muslim scholars were far more century. This same information was cop-
interested than we are in al-Bayw’s ied in the introduction of al-Qunaw’s
death date, which indicates that he was gloss on al-Bayw’s Qurn commen-
central to their intellectual history in ways tary, which was published in Istanbul in
that we have yet to account for. The death 1868. The uncertainty about al-Bayw’s
date given above is based on the assertion death date, however, indicates, as Charles
of al-Shihb al-Khafj (d. 1069/1659). Melville has noted (From Adam to Abaqa,
Aware of the discrepancy in the Islamic 70), that al-Bayw’s reputation grew
sources, he mentioned two other hijr after he died. Van Ess (261–2) notes that
dates, 685 and (according to al-Subk’s the scarcity and uncertain veracity of
al-abaqt al-wus) 691, calling the latter information about him reflects the dis-
the better known date (al-Khafj, 1:4). ruption caused by the Mongol invasion
He stated, however, that Persian histori- of the Islamic world. The significance of
ographers had investigated the matter and al-Bayw’s works, which was realized
settled on a new date, 719/1319, which gradually in the Sunn world, culminating
he considered correct. In his view, this in the Ottoman adoption of his works as
date is supported by internal evidence part of their curriculum, was such that the
from al-Bayw’s short work on the his- afavids deemed that his grave should be
tory of Persia Nim al-tavrkh. Al-Khafj, destroyed (Kohlberg, 15).
who provides this date in his biography of Until recently, there were few posi-
al-Bayw at the beginning of his massive tive assessments of al-Bayw in modern
gloss on the latter’s Qurn commentary, scholarship, although his Qurn com-
unfortunately did not name these Persian mentary was edited in Europe in the
historiographers. Nonetheless, I see no nineteenth century and long excerpts of
reason to reject this date, because it is this work anthologised for students of
precise, it is the result of an investigation Arabic in Europe. This indicates clearly
by late mediaeval Muslim scholars that that Europe was aware of the significance
reflects their concern for settling the mat- of al-Bayw for Islamic intellectual his-
ter, and it was arrived at after al-Bayw’s tory, an awareness lost to modern scholar-
works had become central to the curricu- ship with the dominance of the notion of
54 al-bayw

­ ecadence that crept into the historiogra-

d Istanbul to Delhi to the Malay world. Ibn
phy of tafsr (Qurnic exegesis) with the shr moreover noted that al-Bayw’s
publication of al-Rz’s and al-abar’s Qurn commentary provides a universally
Qurn commentaries. Although the accu- acknowledged text, used by all Muslims.
sations that al-Bayw’s works lack origi- Although Ibn shr described the Sunn
nality and are “based on works by others” world, al-Bayw’s Qurn commentary
are seldom heard today—the assessment is was influential also in afavid Iran; a Sh
that of Robson, 1129—they are nonethe- reception has yet to be written.
less indicative of an anti-scholastic bias in
modern scholarship. Al-Bayw was part 2.  Works of al-Bayw
of the gloss tradition; as the gloss has no For a complete list of al-Bayw’s
place in our scholarly horizon, he has not works, see Kohlberg (16), with references
received his due as a central figure in the to Brockelmann. I discuss here the works
history of Islam. Kohlberg was amongst of al-Bayw that became central to
the first scholars to refrain from negative the Islamic scholastic tradition and were
judgements on al-Bayw, characterising glossed repeatedly by successive genera-
him as someone with “broad interests and tions of Muslim scholars. The bibliog-
encyclopedic knowledge” (Kohlberg, 16). raphy to the present article contains a
Recently, Robert Morrison has begun to complete list of secondary literature on
draw attention to his significance in the al-Bayw. Given al-Bayw’s relative
history of kalm (dialectic theology). Mel- obscurity, however, how did his works
ville has done the same with regard to the come to be so widely known in the Islamic
small historical work Nim al-tavrkh, writ- world, and why did these works become
ten by al-Bayw, showing why a book popular? And who, if anyone, was respon-
usually deemed insignificant by modern sible for the diffusion of his works?
historians was nevertheless popular and There are two possible channels for
deeply influential in the Persianate world. the introduction of al-Bayw’s works to
It is time to give al-Bayw his due as the wider Islamic world. Heidrun Eich-
one of the most important figures in the ner has identified Tabriz as a significant
scholastic history of mediaeval Islam. At centre for Islamic scholarship in the late
least three of his works exerted a pro- seventh/thirteenth and early eighth/four-
found and lasting influence on the schol- teenth centuries (quoted by Morrison, 17).
arship of the Islamic world. The Islamic Al-Bayw was amongst Sunn scholars
tradition itself never doubted his signifi- upset by the loss of authority that the
cance. In his assessment of the history of Sunn majority was experiencing during
Qurn commentary, Ibn shr (89–101) the early phase of the lkhnids, in which
places al-Bayw at the pinnacle of the Buddhism was favored. Eichner has shown
genre, stating that no Qurn commenta- that al-j (d. 756/1355) was strongly
tor after the seventh/thirteenth century influenced by al-Bayw’s kalm work
would have been unaware of his work. awli al-anwr (Eichner, 284); building
Indeed, the Qurn came to be under- on these insights, Morrison has shed fur-
stood through al-Bayw’s commentary ther light on this aspect of al-Bayw’s
and the gloss tradition written around it, legacy. Muammad al-Zuayl (46) points
for it became the textbook of tafsr from out that one of the teachers of al-j, a
al-bayw 55

certain Zayn al-Dn al-Hink, was a stu- other scholars. His work reflects a system-
dent of al-Bayw, but it was perhaps atic attempt to write in all of the major
Mamd al-Ifahn (d. 749/1348), who fields of the Islamic sciences; one must see
studied in Tabriz with the Sunn circle in his work a deliberate effort to create a
there and then settled in Cairo, who was corpus designed to solidify the Sunn out-
responsible for the spread of al-Bayw’s look, at a time when Sunn Islam faced
works (al-Isnaw, 1:173). Al-Ifahn wrote a serious crisis under the lkhnids. He
a gloss on both al-Bayw’s awli (on wrote a summa in each of the following
kalm) and on his Minhj (on jurispru- fields: kalm, tafsr, and ul al-fiqh. Each
dence), which might be explained by the could be copied in one small volume and
fact that al-Bayw taught al-Ifahn’s was thus easy to reproduce and purchase;
father (cf. al-Zuayl, 47, correcting the manner in which he wrote these works
Calverly and Pollock, 1:xxix). It is thus indicates that they were intended for
the influence of al-Bayw on these instruction in the madrasa. Their language
two scholars, al-Ifahn and al-j, that is direct, clear, and concise, and each is
ensured that the Islamic world would a digest of previous scholarship. There
come to know his works. There are also is also an anti-Sh strand in his writing,
reports that al-Bayw was a close friend which is far more prominent than one
to Qub al-Dn al-Shrz (d. 710/1311) would have expected and clearly reflects
(al-Zuayl, 65). the competition between Sunn and Sh
The other possible channel for the intro- scholars under the Buddhist lkhnids.
duction of al-Bayw’s works is through
his Shfi jurisprudential work on the 2.1 Anwr al-tanzl wa-asrr al-tawl,
foundations of law (ul), Minhj al-wul f a Qurn commentary
marifat ilm al-ul, which became an essen- Even as voracious reader as Ibn Taymi-
tial text for the Shfi scholastic tradition yya (d. 728/1328) had not yet heard of
and which seems to have gained early and al-Bayw’s Anwr when he wrote his
widespread recognition. Al-Ifahn wrote Muqaddima f ul al-tafsr; he would cer-
a commentary on it, as noted above, but tainly have mentioned it had he known
both Taq al-Dn al-Subk (d. 756/1355) of it. Taq al-Dn al-Subk had yet not
and his son Tj al-Dn al-Subk (d. heard of this work when, in 754/1353,
771/1369–70) also wrote a gloss on this he wrote his epistle against the Kashshf of
work, al-Ibhj f shar al-Minhj, started by al-Zamakhshar (d. 538/1144) (see Saleh,
the father and completed by the son. In 220–9). Ab ayyn al-Gharn (d.
the introduction to this gloss, the father 745/1344), the leading Qurnic exegete
clearly stated that he has taught this work of Cairo in the eighth/fourteenth century,
several times, and that was the reason is also silent on al-Bayw. Al-Zarkash
that prompted him to write the gloss. (d. 794/1392) never mentions al-Bayw
He also mentioned that his son has also in his massive al-Burhn f ulm al-Qur’n.
started teaching the same work. Clearly The earliest person known to have written
the Minhj was already being used in the about the Anwr is al-Isnaw (d. 772/1370;
madrasas in Cairo. see his abaqt al-Shfiiyya, 1:136), who may
Al-Bayw’s works possessed intrinsic have been more significant in the recep-
qualities that made them indispensable to tion of al-Bayw’s Qurn ­commentary
56 al-bayw

than we are aware. But, by the ninth/ most widely used by the Sunns and the
fifteenth century, every scholar of note concomitant ascendance of the Qurn
appears to have been reading or com- commentary of Ibn Kathr were a result
menting upon the Anwr. Although it was of the Salaf movement. Nonetheless, the
then still subordinate to al-Zamakhshar’s Anwr is still used in the madrasas of the
Kashshf. By the late tenth/sixteenth cen- Arab, Turkish, Indian, and Malay worlds.
tury the Anwr would become the Qurn
commentary par excellence of the Islamic 2.2 Minhj al-wul il ilm al-ul, a
world, and it was adopted in the madrasa work on jurisprudence
systems of the Ottoman and Mughal This was a foundational text in the
empires (Gunasti; Naguib). Its ascendancy Shfi school, commented upon by,
began, however, in Mamlk Cairo, where amongst others, al-Isnaw, in his gloss
al-Biq (d. 885/1480) and al-Suy (d. titled Nihyat al-sl f shar minhj al-wul.
911/1505) treated the Anwr as the central This became one of the standard glosses
point of reference in tafsr. in teaching and itself received a super-
The oft-repeated statement that gloss. Al-Isnaw considered the Minhj to
al-Bayw’s Anwr is dependent on be one of the most important works in
al-Zamakhshar’s Kashshf has been the ul; his gloss was published in Cairo in
only available information about it, and it 1898. Al-Ifahn also glossed this work.
is the most hackneyed statement in tafsr This work was considered by medieval
studies. Rudi Paret (199) realised half a biographers to be al-Bayw’s most
century ago that the Anwr is an original important work.
work and that it is sometimes more cogent
than the Kashshf. After all, no tafsr work is 2.3  awli al-anwr, a compendium of
independent, not even al-Zamakhshar’s. kalm
The significance accorded the Anwr This work, along with its gloss by
must be attributed, in part, to the fact al-Ifahn, became one of the most stud-
that it became one of the most widely ied texts in the Islamic world, where it
glossed tafsr works in the Islamic world has been published repeatedly; an Eng-
(for a list of these glosses, see al-abash, lish translation, with al-Ifahn’s gloss,
1:310–43); it was not copied alone but has recently been published (Calverly and
was always accompanied by a gloss. Little Pollock).
can be said about these glosses at pres-
ent, although they were some of the earli- Bibliography
Sources
est works published on the Qurn in the al-Isnaw, abaqt al-Shfiiyya, ed. Abdallh
Islamic world (which reflects the central- al-Jabr, Beirut 1987.
ity of these works for the Muslim elites of
Studies
the time). One of the earliest glosses to be
Edwin E. Calverly and James W. Pollock,
published was that by Shaykh Zda (d. Nature, man and God in medieval Islam. Abd
951/1544), published in Cairo in 1847, Allah Baydawi’s text, Tawali al-anwar min
the same year al-Bayw’s Qurn com- matali al-anzar, along with Muhmud Isfahani’s
commentary, Matali al-anzar, sharh Tawali al-
mentary (with no accompanying gloss)
anwar, 2 vols., Leiden 2002; Heidrun Eich-
was being edited in Europe. The eclipse ner, The post-Avicennian philosophical tradition
of the Anwr as the Qurn commentary and Islamic orthodoxy. Philosophical and theological
behazin 57

summae in context, Ph.D. diss., University of Behazin

Halle 2009; Susan Gunasti, Political patron-
age and the writing of Qurn commentaries
among the Ottoman Turks, JIS 24/3 (2013), Behazin (Bihn), born Mamd
335–57; Abdallh Muammad al-absh, Itimdzda (1915–2006) in Rasht, was a
Jmi al-shur wa-l-awsh. Mujam shmil translator, writer, editor, and communist
li-asm al-kutub al-mashra f l-turth al-Islm
wa-bayn shurih, vol. 1, Abu Dhabi 2004;
activist. He was an active member of the
Abd al-Azz jj, al-Bayw mufassiran, Tudeh, a communist party, throughout
Damascus 2000; al-Fil Muammad Ibn his adult life and helped introduce some
shr, al-Tafsr wa-rijluh, Cairo 1970; key Western texts to Persian readers.
Lutpi Ibrahim, Al-Bayw’s life and
works, Islamic Studies 18/4 (1979), 311–21;
After studies at Dr al-Funn in Tehran,
Anthony H. Johns, Exegesis as an expres- he was sent to France in 1932 to study
sion of Islamic humanism. Approaches, engineering as a scholarship student,
concerns, and insights of al-Baydawi, Ham- where he became familiar with writers
dard Islamicus 22/4 (1999), 37–58; al-Shihb
al-Khafj, Inyat al-q wa-kifyat al-r
and thinkers such as Honoré de Balzac
(shiyat al-Shihb), 8 vols., Cairo 1866; and Romain Rolland, whose works he
Etan Kohlberg, Bayw, Ner-al-Dn, EIr; would later translate. In 1938 he returned
Charles Melville, From Adam to Abaqa. to Iran and worked as a engineer for the
Q Baiw’s rearrangement of history,
Studia Iranica 30/1 (2001), 67–86; Charles
navy. As an officer, he could not publish
Melville, Q Bayw’s Nim al-tawrkh under his own name and chose the pseud-
in the Safina-yi Tabrz. An early witness of onym Behazin. During World War II, as
the text, in A. A. Seyed-Goharb and S. having been posted to northern Iran, he
McGlinn (eds.), The treasury of Tabriz. Great
Il-Khanid compendium (Amsterdam 2007),
was wounded in battle and lost an arm.
91–102; Robert Morrison, Natural the- Thereafter he worked with the Ministry of
ology and the Quran, Journal of Quranic Education as a secondary-school teacher,
Studies 15/1 (2013), 1–22; Shuruq Naguib, then in the National Library.
Guiding the sound mind. Ebu’s-Sud’s
Tafsir and rhetorical interpretation of the
His first book Parkanda (lit., scattered
Quran in the post-classical period, JOS pieces), a collection of short stories, was
42 (2013), 1–52; Rudi Paret, Sure 109, Der published in 1944. The same year, he
Islam 39/1 (1964), 197–200; Judith Pfeifer joined the Tudeh party. He was an active
(ed.), Politics, patronage and the transmission of
knowledge in 13th–15th century Tabriz, Leiden
member throughout his life and was tor-
2014; Isml b. Muammad al-Qunaw, tured and imprisoned several times, under
shiyat al-Qunaw al tafsr al-Bayw, both the shah’s regime and the Islamic
Istanbul 1868, repr. Istanbul n.d.; Yusuf regime.
Rahman, Hermeneutics of al-Bayw in
his Anwr al-tanzl wa-asrr al-tawl, IC 71
His first novella, Dukhtar-e Rayat (“The
(1997), 1–14; J. Robson, Al-Bayw, EI2; peasant’s daughter”), a story set during
Walid Saleh, The gloss as intellectual his- the Jangal rebellion in Gilan, was pub-
tory. The shiyas on al-Kashshf, Oriens 41 lished in 1951 (the Jangal rebellion was
(2013), 217–59; Shaykh Zdah, shiyat
Shaykh-zada al tafsr al-Bayw, Cairo 1847;
against the monarchist rule of the Qjr
Josef van Ess, Biobibliographische Noti- central government of Iran; it lasted
zen zur islamischen Theologie, WO 9/2 from 1914 to 1921, having taken shape
(1978), 255–83 (on al-Bayw 261–70); after the 1905–11 Constitutional Revo-
Muammad al-Zuayl, al-Q al-Bayw,
Damascus 1988.
lution in response to the political decay
brought about by World War I and the
Walid Saleh occupation of Iran by Anglo-Russian