Tafsīr and taʾwīl in Post-Classical Sufi Scholarship: The Study of Correspondences (taṭbīq) in Q. 10:90–92

Abstract

Recent evidence from imperial archives suggests that in the sixteenth century Ottoman religious scholars were interested in Sufi modes of engagement with scripture along with mainstream, conventional forms of exegesis. This juxtaposition raises questions about the connections between these two very different types of engagement with the divine word. How might scholars at this time have thought about the relationship between Sufi forms of taʾwīl and mainstream forms of tafsīr? Were they complementary approaches to interpretation that were both necessary for a complete understanding of the divine word, or conflicting approaches to the study of scripture, of which only one was able to legitimately discuss its meanings? In this article, I present evidence from one tradition of post-classical Sufi scholarship that shows how Sufi commentators worked to overcome old challenges to the legitimacy of taʾwīl, and to reconceptualise tafsīr and taʾwīl as complementary forms of exegesis, both of which were necessary for a complete understanding of the Qur’an. This trajectory is marked out by the Taʾwīlāt al-Najmiyya of Najm al-Dīn Kubrā (d. 618/1221) and Najm al-Dīn Dāya Rāzī (d. 654/1256), the Taʾwīlāt al-Qurʾān of ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Kāshānī (d. 730–736/1329–1335), and the Muḥīṭ al-aʿẓam of Sayyid Ḥaydar Āmulī (d. after 787/1385), which constitute a ‘genealogical tradition’ of post-classical Sufi scholarship. I further illustrate how this tradition imagined the complementarity between tafsīr and taʾwīl through a close reading of one Qur’anic episode – the crossing of the sea by Moses and the Israelites and the drowning of Pharaoh and his hosts (Q. 10:90–92) – from tafsīr to taʾwīl. I show specifically that the commentary on this episode instantiates a powerful methodology systematised