Weaknesses in the Arguments for the Early Dating of Qurʼānic Commentary

Abstract

Medieval and even modem exegeses of the Qurʼān are heavily indebted to the commentary purporting to come from the first three centuries of Islam. At an early stage, many Muslim exegetes attempted to limit the scope of possible meanings of the Qurʼān by demanding that exegesis be based on the received tradition, and not on personal opinion. Thus, most early and medieval Qurʼānic exegesis comes in the form of hadīths—the same form that dominates Islamic legal and historical writings. Skepticism regarding the authenticity of hadīths was first expressed by Ignaz Goldziher, who was backed by Joseph Schacht. Together, Goldziher and Schacht seem to undermine the very foundation upon which Muslim law and history as well as Qurʼānic interpretation have been built. Nabia Abbott, Fuat Sezgin, and Mohammad Azami, however, have each argued for a continuous written and oral transmission of hadīths. Other scholars who have addressed the authenticity of hadīths are John Wansbrough, Heribert Horst, and Georg Stauth.