Tafsīr at-Tabarī

The original title of this work is: Jāmi’ al-Bayān fī Ta’wīl al-Qur’ān

The author’s full name is: Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Jarīr bin Yazīd bin Kathīr bin Ghālib al-Āmilī at-Tabarī (224-310H/839-929M)

Brief Biography:

He was born in Tabaristān and began seeking knowledge when he was 16 years old. He traveled to Baghdād and settled there after he visited a number of other towns.

Scholars praised at-Tabarī  a great deal, saying that he was trustworthy, himself a Scholar, one of the great leaders of the people of the Sunnah, his statements are taken and he is to be turned to on account of his volume of knowledge and soundness of his methodology.

He authored a number of beneficial texts, there most standout being his exegesis of the Qur’ān. His exegesis is the first one to reach us complete, and every exegesis to come after depends upon it, and due to this the Scholars considered at-Tabarī  to be the ‘father’ of exegesis.

He is also considered to be the ‘father’ of history as well due to his great book about history which has no equal, however he does not limit himself to what is authentic in it; it is called History of the Nations and Kings. He also authored a beneficial book called Tahthīb al-Āthār, and others.

Translated from the Global Arabic Encyclopedia Source

At-Tabarī’s Methodology in His Exegesis:

Translated from Shaykh Musa’id at-Tayyar’s A Summary of the Methodology of at-Tabarī in His Tafsīr

Honorable Brothers:

Greetings to you, and the Mercy of Allah, and His Blessings- as for what follows:

I present to you a summarized outline describing the route of Ibn Jarīr in his book, from the standpoint of a reminder, since a detailed discussion of the methodology of this Imaam could not be completed at this point, and how good is not catching all of it, while not neglecting a majority of it, better than not catching anything at all.

Ibn Jareer dictated his book Jāmi’ al-Bayān an Ta’wīl Āyy al-Qur’ān to his students from 283H to 290H, then it was recited back to him in 306H. Far and wide Scholars praised his book, and at-Tabarī  furnished an academic introduction for his exegesis assembling in it discussions of issues surrounding the sciences of the Qur’ān, like, the language in which the Qur’ān was revealed and the seven modes, those words not originally Arabic found therein, routes of exegesis, and various categories according to him which are ‘statements regarding the objectives whose aim is arriving at knowledge of the interpretation of the Qur’ān’, interpretation of the Qur’ān by means of critical thought, and he mentioned those whose transmissions were approved of and those whose transmissions were not approved of in exegesis.

Next he mentioned a discussion regarding interpretation of the various names of the Qur’ān, its chapters and verses; after that a discussion regarding interpretations of the opening of the book; a discussion regarding seeking refuge upon reading, and then a discussion on the Basmalah.

Then he began the exegesis with al-Fātihah until finishing with his exegesis of an-Naas.

-He would divide the verses which he wished to explain into groups, then he would explain every group and would dedicate himself to explaining these groups, then mention their most suitable meaning after wards, or he would mention a meaning while giving it precedence if there was a difference of opinion regarding its explanation.

-When there did not exist a difference of opinion between the people of interpretation he would explain the most suitable explanation then say: ‘And the people of interpretation said the same as what we said regarding that’.

-And when there existed a difference of opinion among the people of interpretation, then he would mention the most suitable explanation, then he would provide the textual references for the existing difference of opinion, and he would say: ‘And the people of interpretation differed in regards to interpreting that, thus some of them said the likes of what we have said about it’.

And he would mention the differences of opinion of the people of interpretation after the expounded section right away, then he would mention the most suitable explanation while giving it precedence.

-And among his conventions is to preface every statement with his words: ‘thus some of them said…’, then he would say: ‘whoever said that mentioned…’, then he would mention their statements supported by them with what reached him on their authority as far as chains are concerned; then he would say: ‘And others aside from them said…’ and ‘And others said…’, then he would mention their statements, and when he finished providing their statements, he would give precedence to what he determined was correct; and prevalent among Abu Ja’far’s expressions are: ‘And the statement which to me is most suitable for declaring correct is the statement of those who said…’ or he would mention an expression very close to that, then he would mention his preference, and his references for his preference; and prevalent among his references are academically founded preponderances, and it is by this that his exegesis is distinguished.

-He would rely upon the statements of three generations among the generations of interpreters of the Salaf, and they are the Companions, Tābi’īn, and Atbā’ at-Tābi’īn, and there is no specific order in which he would mention their statements, and indeed he would more often than not delay transmissions on authority of Ibn Zayd (d. 182).

-He would adhere to mentioning what he related on their authority with chains going back to them, even enumerating the chains in regards to a single statement.

-He would relate a statement of an individual from the three generations and rely upon it when there did not exist any others.

-He would rarely prefer a statement from anyone outside these three levels, and it was one of the conditions in his book to not extract an explanation outside of the statements of these three generations (see Tafsīr at-Tabarī , al-Halabī 1:41).

-And due to this he would reject the statements of the people of the Arabic language contradicting the statements the Salaf; he would approach disagreements and not rely upon them unless something was not rejected by the Salaf in part of a section of the verse (see his explanation for ‘And’ in the verse {…And He who created us}[TaHa: 72}, thus he relied upon what al-Farrā’ mentioned of the possible explanations).

And when he mentioned the scholars of Arabic he would rarely mention their names, and he would only ascribe to them their area of expertise in which they stood out and their cities which they belonged to, like his statement: ‘Some of the grammarians of al-Basrah said…’, and mostly what he transmits on their authority is related to syntax.

-At-Tabarī would rely on investigating the soundness of the expounded meaning and its agreement with the context; and this was the methodology of most of his exegesis, and he would rely upon the soundness of the meaning in preferring between statements.

-He would rarely clarify the grades of the chains of the reports, and it was not his methodology to critique chains of the exegesis, just as he would not resort to what is said from the direction of: ‘Whatever is your support then so goes your reference’.

-He did not, for the most part, distinguish between the levels of the Salaf in terms of preference, and he could likely give priority to a statement of the Atbā’ at-Tābi’īn or Tābi’īn over that of a Companion.

-He would indeed give priority at some point to the statements of the Companions, specifically in whatever was related to (reasons) for revelation.

-He would give priority to the statements of the majority over those of others, and he would take into consideration consensus, and he would consider those statements which contradicted them as abnormal.

-He would consider the absence of a statement from the Salaf proof of their consensus to abandon an issue, and this proof would take precedence according to him.

-He did not restrict himself to taking the statements of the Companions in regards to matters of the Unseen.

-He would not offer that which was transmitted from Banee Israa’eel in so much as he would obtain it by means of a report transmitted on authority of the Salaf, and he would construct the meaning based upon the sum total of what was demonstrated by the verse in terms of the meaning (see Tafsīr at-Tabarī , al-Halabī 1/274).

-He would delay in offering the statements of the people of the Arabic language and do so after presenting the statements of the Salaf, and only after giving his preference between the statements of the Salaf.

-He would not accept the statements of the linguists which contradicted the statements of the Salaf, even if there was a sound reason for the meaning they presented.

This is what I wanted to comment on regarding the methodology of at-Tabarī , and there remain some issues that perhaps Allah will present the good fate of writing it, specifically what is related to recitation- and Allah is the giver of success.

Original Arabic Source