As in many branches of science, methodical and thematic diversification and differentiation are observed in tafsīr. This differentiation started to draw attention mainly at the end of the second (VIIIth) century, although it started at the time of the Messenger of Allah. While there were some works that emerged until the period of Tedvin, it is seen that after the period of tedvin, varieties that can be evaluated under different headings emerged. Tafsirs can be divided according to the method and approach in interpreting the verses of the Qur’an, as well as according to the subjects they deal with. Some of them may fall under more than one title. For example, it is possible to call a tafsir sectarian (i.e. Shi’i) on the one hand and a tafsir of dirāyah on the other. It is also possible for an exegesis in the category of social exegesis to use both direct and narrative methods together. In fact, when the subject is critically analysed, it is seen that there are some drawbacks in the theoretical sense of compartmentalising exegesis. Because the Qur’an came for a purpose, it should be understood according to its original purpose and should be exegeted in that way. Otherwise, the methods of exegesis to be preferred may overshadow this aspect of the Qur’an, and a result other than its purpose may be reached. The most important principle in Qur’anic exegesis is to approach the Qur’an without prejudice and to follow the direction it takes.

Exegesis in terms of Sources and Methods. In a classification made according to the sources used in the exegesis of the verses, the approach that predominantly uses narration information and the approach that prioritises personal evaluations based on rational reasoning and exegesis by re’y are decisive. Although these two approaches are not ignored, there is also an approach that includes intuition and gives importance to some signs while exegeting the Qur’an. In addition, there are tafsirs that include language analyses to a large extent and pursue a philological purpose. There are also some exegetes who use these four methods in a mixed way.

1-Narrative Tafsir. According to the approach of narration exegesis, also known as “me’sûr tafsir”, which takes only the Qur’ân al-kerîm, the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah, the Companions and the generation benefiting from the Companions as sources for exegesis, the exegete is contented with the information coming from these sources and interprets the Qur’an based on these sources. Undoubtedly, the best exegete of the Qur’an is the Qur’an itself and the Messenger of Allah. The Companions, on the other hand, are an important source of exegesis because they lived during the period of revelation, observed when and about whom the verses were revealed, heard the Messenger of Allah’s interpretation of the Qur’an, and saw the application of the Qur’anic provisions. The Tâbiîn, on the other hand, saw many practices that were not transmitted by the Companions and carried them to the next generations. The most important problem here is whether these four sources are sufficient for the exegesis of the Holy Qur’an. According to those who accept narrative exegesis as the ideal method, it is not right to go beyond this. However, it is a fact that reasons such as the expansion of the Islamic society, the increase of problems and the change of conditions make it necessary to interpret the verses from new perspectives. Considering that the Qur’ân al-kerîm itself, the information from the Messenger of Allah and the Salaf present the Qur’ân as a book that will meet the needs of people, and that the Qur’ân itself encourages its interlocutors to think about it, the idea that tafsir based only on narration cannot be sufficient comes to the fore. However, despite the long time that has passed, a thin but strong line rejecting methods other than narrative exegesis (tafsīr al-Salaf) has somehow continued to exist, and even the Arabia-centred Salafist understanding and the Ahl al-hadīs school that emerged in the Indian subcontinent in the nineteenth century have taken their harsh attitudes on this issue to the extreme (For the subject of Salafism and tafsīr, see. Öztürk, IX/3 [2009], pp. 85-110; Erbaş, IX/3 [2009], pp. 125-139). The most basic source of narrative exegesis is the hadith collections. Apart from these, books were also written that exegete the Qur’an according to the aforementioned method. Abdurrezzāq al-Sanʿānī’s Tafsīr al-Ḳurʾān, which was published in four volumes, al-Tabarī’s Jāmiʿ al-bayān ʿan taʾwīli ʿāyi al-Ḳurʾān, Ibn al-Munzir al-Nīsābūrī’s al-Tafsīr in more than ten volumes, some of which have survived, Ibn Abū Ḥātim’s Tafsīr al-Ḳurʾānī al-ʿaẓīm, Abū al-Leys al-Samarqandī’s Tafsīr al-Ḳurʾānī al-Qarīm (Tafsīru Abī al-Leys̱ al-Samarḳandī), Abū Ishaq al-Saʿlābī’s al-Kashf wa’l-bayān ʿan tafsīr al-Ḳurʾān, Begavī’s Meʿālim al-tanzīl, Ibn Atiyya al-Andalusī’s al-Muḥarrer al-wajīz, Ibn Taymiyya’s al-Tafsīr al-kabīr and Deḳāʾiḳu al-taṣīr, Ibn Kathīr’s Tafsīr al-Ḳurʾānī al-ʿaẓīm, The works of al-Suyūṭī’s al-Durr al-mens̱ūr fi’t-tefsīr bi al-maʾs̱ūr and Ibn Aqīla’s al-Jawhar al-manẓūm fi’t-tefsīr bi al-merfūʿ min kalāmi Sayyidi al-mursalīn wa al-maḥkūm are among the leading examples of narrative exegesis. Apart from these, many other works have been produced to the present day, such as Shawkanī’s Fetḥ al-ḳadīr al-jāmiʿ bayna fann al-rivāya wa al-dirāya min ʿilmi’t-taṣfīr, which uses both narration and dirāyah methods within their own limits.

2-Dirāyah exegesis. According to this method, which is also called Re’y exegesis and rational exegesis, the exegete is not content with using the sources and methods of narration exegesis; he occasionally criticises the data of these sources and tries to interpret the relevant verse or sūrah with the idea that the information provided by the narration will be insufficient. In this style of tafsir, the exegete is more active; he filters the sources he has through the filter of reason, in a sense, he makes ijtihad. Dirāyah exegesis is not a method that the scholars invented later, but it takes its source from the Qur’ān itself and the way the Messenger of Allah (saw) interpreted the Qur’ān. In many verses, Allah encourages people to think about the Qur’an, and the Prophet (peace be upon him) says that the word may have other meanings than its daily usage, and advises people to be careful and use their intellect in this regard. When he saw that ‘Adī b. al-Hātim misunderstood the verse (al-Baqarah 2/187) that determines the beginning of the fast (imsak), he said that the white thread and the black thread in this expression meant the darkness of the night and the light of the day (Bukhārī, “Tafsīr”, 2/28). Many people from the Companions and the tâbiîn, while trying to understand the Qur’an, resorted to re’y exegesis in addition to the information they had received. Asking his friends about the exegesis of Surah Nasr, Hz. Umar included the young Companion Ibn ‘Abbas in the conversation and complimented him by liking his rational interpretation (Bukhārī, “Tafsīr”, 110/3-4; Tabarī, XXIV, 708).

    The issue of direct exegesis has been much debated. Because the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) strictly forbade exegesis by opinion, saying, “Whoever exegetes the Qur’an with his own opinion, let him prepare for his place in Hell” (al-Tirmidhi, “Tafsīr”, 1). Some people have included the comments made by the commentator without mentioning the name of one of the Companions or the Tâbiîn in the category of tafsīr by rhetoric, even if these comments are based on a narrative, rational or emotional evidence. However, the prohibited tafsir by râ’y is the tafsir that is not based on a fact and is entirely based on one’s own personal judgement. These people often do not take into account a sound narration or rational evidence, or assert their own views, claiming that they are inaccurate. It is inconceivable that a religion that values reason highly, in addition to commanding reflection on the Qur’an, would prohibit interpretations using reason. In addition, it cannot be denied that there are rational interpretations in the narrative commentaries. Because during the exegesis of the verses, there is a need for rational judgement in many matters, from the selection of hadiths to their classification according to the verses, from determining their causes and strengths to the elimination of fabricated and weak hadiths. In Tabari’s exegesis, in addition to the rational classification of the narration material, deep analyses and evaluations are sometimes encountered. Therefore, direct exegesis is a religiously acceptable method of exegesis and must be used. As a matter of fact, in parallel with the emergence of problems in Islamic societies, it is seen that the issues are evaluated from a rational perspective. Both the linguistic analyses in the first linguistic exegesis and the rational orientation of Hasan al-Basrî and his students led to the emergence of direct exegesis as a new branch. Especially with the beginning of the discussion of theological issues, the scholars who broke away from the main structure and determined a new line for themselves gathered under the umbrella of Mu’tazila. Although they attached importance to the narrations from the Prophet, the Companions and the Tâbiîn, they made rational interpretations especially on matters of belief and interpreted the verses of the Qur’an according to the principles they said they deduced from the Qur’an. The movement led by Abū Hanīfa and his first generation disciples within the Ahl al-Sunnah also gave great value to reason and used the method of dirāyah in addition to narration in Qur’ānic exegesis and jurisprudential issues. Reasons such as the weakness in tafsir narrations, the increase in Isrāiliyat and mawḍū hadiths, and the inadequacy of narrations in solving the problems were also effective in the strengthening of direct exegesis (M. Husayn al-Zahebī, I, 156-203; for direct exegesis and its importance, see ibid., I, 255-287).

    The exegetical views of Hasan al-Basrî and Qatāda b. Diāma, which were later compiled into a book, can be accepted as the first direct exegesis. This is because the leading scholars of the Muʿtazila, especially al-Ḥasan al-Basrī, transmitted his tafsīr in the works named after them. However, Muqātil b. Sulaymān’s al-Tafsīr al-kabīr, which contains serious elements of direct exegesis, can also be considered the first complete direct exegesis (Muqātil b. Sulaymān, Tafsīr Muḳātil b. Sulaymān, I, ed. introduction, p. he). Many works written by Muʿtazilite scholars are among the works of dirāyah exegesis (for the first examples of Muʿtazilite exegesis, see Bilgin, pp. 54-88). In the IV (X), V (XI) and VI (XII) centuries, Mu’tazilite scholars produced works that exegete the entire Qur’an. The most famous of these works is the Mu’tazilite Zamakhsharī’s tafsir known as al-Kashshāf. Among the tafsir books written after Zamakhsharī, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s Mefātīḥu’l-ġayb, Kādī Bayḍāwī’s Anwār al-tanzīl and Abū al-Barakāt al-Nafṣī’s Madārik al-tanzīl are, in a sense, an expanded or summarised version of al-Kashshāf with the Muʿtazilite views removed (Kashf al-ẓẓunūn, II, 1481). Ibn al-Naqīb al-Maqdīsī’s al-Taḥrīr wa’t-taḥbīr, which is known to be about 100 volumes and whose introduction has been published, and ‘Ali ibn al-‘Ali b. al-Hāzin’s Lāzīr. Muhammad al-Khāzin’s Lubāb al-taʾwīl, Abū Ḥayyān al-Andalusī’s al-Baḥrī al-muḥīṭ and al-Nahr al-mād, and Abū Ussuūd Efendi’s Irshād al-ʿaḳli al-ṣalīm are other examples of direct exegesis. Qurtubī’s al-Jāmiʿ li-aḥkāmi al-Ḳurʾān, which is also regarded as an exegesis of ethics, is considered a successful example of direct exegesis (for an introduction to important direct exegesis, cf. M. Husayn al-Zahebī, I, 288-368).

    3-Illuminationist Tafsir. This term, which is used for exegesis in which the Qur’an is explained through discovery and inspiration, is also called “remzî tafsir” or “mystical tafsir”. This form of exegesis has aspects that distinguish it from bātinī exegesis, which is not based on a consistent principle. Although the authors of this type of exegesis say that they are dealing with the inner meaning of the Qur’an, they mostly did not oppose the literal meaning and did not deny the provisions set forth by clear evidence. They see this form of tafsīr as a reflection of the world of human heart and feeling, and emphasise the necessity of moral maturity as well as knowledge and the ability to contemplate in order to reach the inner interpretations of the verses; they state that the outer meaning of the Qur’ān is known by those who know Arabic, while the inner meaning is known by the ārifs who are the people of yakīn. Although this is the general line in al-Ishārī exegesis, it cannot be denied that interpretations that obviously contradict the literal meaning are made and that a shift towards bātinī exegesis has occurred. In Sufism, the interpretation made to reveal the hidden meaning is called istinbat, sign and reputation according to the degree of freedom, and terms such as truth, latifa and secret are used instead of the words tafsir or ta’vil to express the meaning reached by this method. The history of al-Ishārī exegesis also goes back to ancient times. Because the Companions adopted thinking on the wisdom dimension of events as a philosophy of life. The period of the treatise in al-Ishārī exegesis coincides with the period after the Companions. Hasan al-Basrī’s name is also prominent in al-Ishārī exegesis. His scholarship and asceticism were reflected in his commentaries. Some exegetical interpretations were passed on from him to his students, and finally, with Sahl al-Tustarī’s Tafsīr al-Ḳurʾānī al-ʿaẓīm, exegetical commentary was recorded. Muhammad b. Husayn al-Sulamī’s Ḥaḳāʾiḳu al-taṣfīr, ‘Abd al-Karīm al-Qushayrī’s Leṭāʾif al-ishārāt, and Rūzbihān al-Baqlī’s ʿArāʾis al-bayān, Najmādīn al-Dāya’s Baḥr al-ḥaḳāʾiḳ wa’l-meʿānī, Abdurrezzāq al-Kāshānī’s Teʾwīl al-Ḳurʾān, Husayn Vāiz al-Kāshifī’s Mawāhib al-ʿAliyya, Baba Niʿmetullah b. Mahmūd al-Nahjuwānī’s al-Fawātiḥu’l-ilāhiyya wa’l-mafātiḥu’l-ġaybiyya, İsmāil Hakkı Bursevī’s Rūḥu’l-bayān, and Shahābeddin Mahmūd al-Ālūsī’s Rūḥu’l-meʿānī are considered among the classics of exegesis. Although many works of Muḥyid al-Dīn Ibn al-ʿArabī, who introduced a new understanding in Sufism, have the characteristics of al-subtle exegesis, the attribution of Tafsīr al-Ḳurʾānī al-Qerīm and Tafsīr Muḥyiddīn b. ʿArabī to him is doubtful; however, it is reported that he also had an al-subtle exegesis. The exegesis of al-Ishārī became widespread in the Turkic world of Central Asia and in Iran, India, Anatolia, and the Balkans, where Turks ruled for a long time, and these exegeses were influential on the people. Especially in the period from the rise of the Ottomans until the fall of the Ottomans, the people were more in favour of Sufi exegesis, and with the use of the printing press, these types of exegesis were printed the most (Ateş, The School of Illuminated Exegesis, ibid.; M. Hüseyin ez-Zehebî, III, 3-82; Cerrahoğlu, History of Tafsir, II, 5-32).

    4-Lugavî/Filological Tafsir. The aim of these studies, which mainly occurred in the first four centuries (VII-XI), and which mostly take into account the meaning of words and sentences, the style of the Qur’an, the subtleties of language, and the internal integrity of the Qur’anic text, is to prevent shifts and misinterpretations that may arise in the meaning of the verses. With the expansion of the Islamic society and the entry of non-Arab elements into Islam, on the one hand, the language in which the Qur’an was revealed began to lose its purity, and on the other hand, the proportion of those who understood Arabic decreased. The desire of the extremist sects that emerged with various ideas to keep themselves unregistered while interpreting the Qur’an and to interpret the Qur’an freely is also one of the important factors of the linguistic exegesis movement. The studies on the words and phrases of the Qur’an, which started in the Sahāba period, followed a more systematic course with the recording of the Arabic language and the emergence of language schools. Hundreds of works were produced in a short period of time in linguistic sciences such as i’rāb al-Qur’ān, gharīb al-Qur’ān, meānī al-Qur’ān (for extensive information, see Ibn al-Nadīm. Ibn al-Nadīm, pp. 36-41; Musāid b. Sulayman b. Nāṣir al-Tayyār, al-Tafsīr al-luġawī li al-Ḳurʾānī al-Qarīm, Demmāmām 1422).

    5-Mixed Method. It is seen that a mixed method is used in a large number of dirāyah exegesis, and while the narrations are valued on the one hand, linguistic analyses are made, attention is drawn to the differences of qiraat, and rational interpretation is used extensively. Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s Mefātīḥ al-ġayb ranks first in this regard. Ibn al-Naqīb al-Maqdisī’s al-Taḥrīr wa’t-taḥbīr also successfully applied the mixed method. The mixed method was preferred in Shawkanī’s Fatḥ al-ḳadīr, Shahābeddin Mahmūd al-ʿAlūsī’s Rūḥ al-maʿānī, and most of the tafsīrs written in the twentieth century.

      Tafsirs in terms of their approaches. Tafsirs are also divided into sections in this respect. Among them, there are tafsirs that use only narration or direct narration, mixed method and other methods together. There are also works representing different tendencies within fiqh exegesis.

      1-Sectarian Tafsir. These are exegeses mostly written by scholars belonging to sects and factions other than Ahl al-Sunnah. The exegeses written by Shī’a with all its sub-branches, Khāricīs, Bāṭiniyya and, in the last few centuries, by members of movements such as Kādiyānism, Bahā’īism and Ahl al-Qur’ān (Qur’āniyyūn) are included in this category.

        a) Mu’tazila School. The exegesis of this school generally focused on matters of belief. The tradition of writing exegesis that started with al-Wāṣil b. Atā continued within the school, and Qurʾānic exegesis has always been the most important type of writing due to their cautious approach to narrations (DİA, XXXI, 397). Mu’tazilites’ exegesis can be divided into moderate and extreme sections. On behalf of the school, there were some who resorted to forced interpretations in order to explain the five principles (usūl al-ḥamsa) based on the Qur’an. Because of these attitudes, some of the Ahl al-Sunnah scholars considered Mu’tazilite exegesis among the false exegesis. Early Ahl al-Sunnah scholars such as Ibn Qutayba and Abū al-Hasan al-Ash’arī, as well as Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, and their followers opposed Muʿtazilite exegesis (Ibn Taymiyya, Muḳaddima, pp. 111-112; Majmūʿu fetāwā, XIII, 361, 388; Öztürk, Muʿtazilite Interpretation of the Qur’ān, pp. 20-22). However, not all scholars have the same attitude in this regard. There are also similarities between them in the interpretation and justification of some issues. For example, Ibn Hajar al-Haythamī associates the Mālikī commentator Ibn Atiyya al-Andalusī with the Muʿtazilites because of his views in his commentary and considers his commentary more harmful than Zamakhsharī’s al-Kashshāf (al-Fatāwa al-ḥadīs̱iyya, p. 242). However, Ibn Atiyya, a contemporary of al-Zamakhsharī, was generally opposed to the Muʿtazilites, and the composition of al-Zamakhsharī’s commentary had not yet been completed when he wrote his work. Early Muʿtazilite scholars such as Abū Bakr al-Asam, Abū ʿAlī al-Jubbāʾī, Abū al-Qāʾim al-Balhī al-Qāʿbī, Abū Hāshim al-Jubbāʾī, Abū Muslim al-Iṣfahānī and Rummānī produced important works of the Muʿtazilite school of exegesis. In the following period, Kādī ʿAbd al-Jabbār Tenzīh al-Ḳurʾān ʿani al-maṭṭāʿin wa al-Muttaḥābih al-Ḳurʾān, Sharīf al-Murtazā īr al-fawāʾid wa dürar al-ḳalāʾid, Zamakhsharī brought Muʿtazilite exegesis to its peak with his exegesis of al-Kashshāf ʿan ḥaḳāʾiḳı ġawāmizi al-tanzīl. It is possible to see the effects of Muʿtazilite thought in the rationalist modernist exegesis movement that emerged in the Indian subcontinent, Egypt, and the Ottoman geography centred on Istanbul in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (for Muʿtazilite exegesis, see also Bilgin, op. cit. Bilgin, op. cit.; Öztürk, Mu’tazilite Interpretation of the Qur’ân, op. cit.; M. Hüseyin ez-Zahhebî, I, 368-382).

        b) Shi’a School. Shī’a exegesis, which has a very important place in the history of tafsir in terms of the number of works and discussions, has some differences in terms of content. The members of the sect, who used all of the methods of narration, dirāyah and sign, gave place to the narrations they believed to have come from Ahl al-Bayt in the narrative information. Although there are some different views on the authenticity of the Qur’an within the sect, the majority of the commentators took the existing mushaf and its order as a basis and did not insist on the mushafs they attributed to the Prophet ‘Ali and the missing imam. Unlike Ahl al-Sunnah, the Shī’ah’s most important issues in exegesis are the issues of imāmah, wilāyah, the virtue of Ahl al-Bayt, the innocence of the imams, marriage of mut’a, ablution, and the congregation of prayers. The Imāmiyya are the largest Shi’ite sect, and their exegesis is occasionally inclined towards bātinī interpretations. In Imāmiyya exegesis, the narrations from Ja’far al-Sādiq have a special place. It is noticeable that there is an extremism in the views of Ja’far al-Sā’qīd, which are transmitted from the hadith sources of the Imāmiyya. Among the early Imāmiyya commentators, the names of Muhammad al-Baqir, Zayd b. ‘Ali, Ja’far al-Ju’fī, Ja’far al-Sā’īq, and ‘Ali b. Muhammad al-Askari are mentioned, but their works have not survived. Abū Jaʿfar al-Tūsī’s Tafsīr al-Tibyān, Abū ‘Ali al-Tabersī’s Majmaʿ al-bayān fī tafsīr al-Ḳurʾān, Feyz al-Kāshānī’s Tafsīr al-ṣāfī and Muhammad Husayn al-Tabātabāʾī’s al-Mīzān fī tafsīr al-Ḳurʾān are among the most important works of this school. Especially in the post-Khomeini period, there was a significant increase in tafsir in Iran and voluminous works were written (M. Husayn al-Zahebī, II, 23-234; Cerrahoğlu, History of Tafsir, I, 448-503; Ateş, XX [1975], pp. 147-172). The authors belonging to the Ismā’iliyya, which stands out among the Shi’ite sects with its understanding of Bāṭinīism, subjected the verses of the Qur’ān to bāṭinī interpretation and often derived meanings contrary to the intention of the Qur’ān and the context of the verses. According to these scholars, the Qur’an and Sunnah have a bāṭin as well as a zāhir, and the bāṭin can only be learnt from the Prophet ‘Ali and his descendants, who are the inheritors of the Prophet’s knowledge. Bātīn is not a knowledge that everyone can acquire. Although the unseen is also important, the bātīn is more important than the unseen because it reveals the nature, wisdom and depth of the unseen. This is because the source of this knowledge is the innocent imams themselves (Öztürk, Qur’an and Exegesis, pp. 194-196). The Ismāʿīlīs, who attached importance to riddles and numbers in exegesis, tried to prove many issues with certain calculations (for the letter and number mysticism of the Ismāʿīlīs and their exegesis methods, see M. Husayn al-Zaheb. For the letter and number mysticism and exegesis methods of the Ismā’ilīs, see M. Husayn al-Zahebī, II, 235-255; Cerrahoğlu, History of Tafsir, I, 403-404; Öztürk, Qur’an and Exegesis, pp. 383-411). The Zaydiyya sect is close to Ahl al-Sunnah with its jurisprudential views and some approaches and represents the moderate side within Shī’a. The scholars belonging to the sect named after Zayd b. ‘Ali b. Husayn attach special importance to ijtihad. For this reason, it is seen that the method of narration and dirāyah are used together in their exegesis. Ibn al-Nadīm characterised some of the early exegetes as Zaydī and pointed to the tafsīrs they wrote. According to him, scholars such as Muqātil b. Sulayman, Sufyān al-Sawrī and Sufyān b. Uyayna were Zaydīs. Although Zayd b. ‘Ali, the founder of the sect, is reported to have written a work titled Tafsīr al-Sharīb al-Ḳurʾān and other Zaydīs wrote tafsīrs, most of them have not survived or gained fame (M. Husayn al-Zahebī, II, 506-507). The most comprehensive Zaydī commentary known is al-Shawkānī’s Fatḥ al-ḳadīr. However, it is not possible to extract the characteristics of Zaydī exegesis from this work. For, although the author was a Zaydī, he included all kinds of narrations and evaluations in his tafsīr (for extensive information, see M. Husayn al-Zaḥabī, II, 280-299).

        c) Khāricī School. The Khāricīs, one of the first sects, are considered to be one of the strictest Islamic sects because they judged the Qur’ān based on its literal interpretation. The most strict of these is al-Azārika and the most moderate is Ibāziyya. The founder of the Rustamid dynasty was Abdurrahman b. Rustam al-Fārisī, Hūd b. Muhaqqem al-Khawwārī, Abū Ya’qūb Yūsuf b. Ibrāhīm al-Warjalānī, and Muhammad b. Yūsuf al-Wahb, also known as Ettafayyish. Yūsuf al-Wahbī al-Ibāzī al-Ibāzī, also known as Ettafayyish, were the leading commentators of the sect, and their works include al-Khawwārī’s Tafsīr Kitābillāhi al-ʿazīz (nşr. Belhāj b. Saīd Sharīfī, I-IV, Beirut 1990) and Tafsīr al-Ḳurʾān (I-XV, Muscat 1980), originally titled Himyān al-zād ilā dāri al-maʿād, are examples of this genre.

        d) Contemporary Sectarian Movement. During the periods when Western states colonised parts of the Islamic world, there were some intellectual changes in the Islamic communities in India, Africa, the Middle East and the Far East, and this change was reflected in Qurʾānic exegesis. Among the intellectual currents that emerged in India, which started to come under British rule in the first half of the eighteenth century and became a province of England in 1857, the scholars belonging to the sect that later became known as Jamā’at-i Ahl al-‘zikr wa’l-Qur’ān (Ahl al-Qur’ān / Qur’āniyyūn) wrote many tafsīr. In their works, Ahl al-Qur’ân completely excluded hadiths and partially excluded sectarian views, and instead tried to replace them with reason and the science and philosophy developed in the Western world. This movement, which is also called New Mu’tazilism in terms of the history of exegesis, is also very different from the Mu’tazilites in the interpretation of the Qur’an. Each of the scholars of this school such as Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Abdullah Çekrâlevî, Ahmad al-Dīn Amritsarî, Ghulām Jalālānī Berg, Ghulām Ahmad Pervīz has a Qur’ān commentary (see: KUR’ĀNIYYÛN). Kādiyānism, which emerged in India in the same period, also approached the Qur’ān in a different way. In the few commentaries belonging to this sect, some different interpretations were made based on the idea that the prophethood did not end with the Prophet Muhammad, but the line of Ahl al-Sunnah was not exceeded in the interpretation of other subjects. The four-volume tafsīr of Ghulām Aḥmad Kādiyānī and the Urdu and English works of Muḥammad ʿAlī Lāhūrī, the founder of the Lahore branch of the school, constitute the basis for accessing the tafsīr views of the school (see KĀDIYĀNIY; MUHAMMED ALI LĀHÛRÎ). Founded in Iran by Mirza Husayn Ali Nūrī on the basis of Bābīism founded by Mirza Ali Muhammad, Bahā’īism is based on Islamic culture in terms of its views but remains outside the circle of Islam, and its interpretations of the Qur’an in various books show that they attach importance to hurūfī and bātinī exegesis. The group, which today characterises its beliefs as a religion, basically holds the view that prophethood did not end with the Prophet Muhammad (for Qur’anic interpretations, see M. Husayn al-Zaheb. M. Husayn al-Zahebî, II, 189-206; Cerrahoğlu, History of Tafsir, II, 385-401).

        2-Scholarly Tafsir. The sources of scientific exegesis go back to ancient times. In the Qur’ân al-kerîm, especially in the Makkan surahs, a great number of cosmic truths are pointed out and information about the earth, sky, mountains, seas, humans, birds, insects, domestic and wild animals are given. This issue attracted the attention of people starting from the Companions, but especially in the early periods, instead of speculating about the nature of the information in these verses, the wisdom was emphasised. This situation began to change as of the beginning of the second (VIIIth) century, and scholars began to reflect on the verses that mentioned universal truths. In time, significant advances were made in sciences such as astronomy, geography, geometry, physics, chemistry, mathematics, botany, biology, medicine, pharmacy and agriculture, and the information contained in the Qur’an was made the subject of study. Al-Ghazālī gives extensive information about scientific exegesis in his work Jawāhir al-Ḳurʾān. According to him, the Qurʾān contains all sciences and should be analysed in this respect. Contrary to al-Ghazālī’s approach, Ibrāhīm b. Mūsā al-Shātibī, who said that there were no things in the Qurʾān that the Arabs could not understand, approached the scientific exegesis movement negatively. Shāṭibī, who investigated what the Qur’ān meant for the Arab society, said that it would be wrong to perceive it as a book of science. Undoubtedly, there are various sciences in the Qurʾān, and these are either the sciences known to the Arabs or based on the sciences they knew (al-Muwāfaḳāt, I, 45-47; II, 77). Shāṭibī’s idea, which seems to be consistent in itself, is unacceptable because it is based on the idea that the Qurʾān is a book that takes into account only its first interlocutors and appeals only to their perceptions. In fact, the main line did not continue within the framework of his views. Although scholars such as Abū Bakr Ibn al-ʿArabī, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Zarqāshī, al-Suyūtī, Kātib Chalabi, Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Iskenderānī and Gazi Ahmad Mukhtar Pasha defended scientific tafsīr in theory, the works produced in practice were not sufficient. For example, al-Suyūtī, who was of the opinion that the Qurʾān contained many sciences, gave examples of some verses being a source for sciences such as medicine, geometry, and algebra, but his examples were not of sufficient quantity and quality to fully demonstrate the issue (al-Itḳān, II, 1030-1033). Muhammad b. Aḥmad al-Iskenderānī, who served as an army physician in Egypt and Syria. Aḥmad al-Iskenderānī’s Kashf al-asrāri al-nūrāniyyat al-Ḳurʾāniyya fīmā yetaʿallaḳu bi al-ajrāmi al-samawiyya wa’l-arżiyya wa’l-ḥaywānāt wa’l-nabāt wa’l-jawāhir al-maʿdeniyya is not a complete exegesis, but it is the most important work in this field after al-Suyūṭī. In this work, some interpretations are put forward on the axis of the scientific developments of the time. The most comprehensive work on this subject was written by Tantāwī al-Jawharī under the title al-Jawāhir fī tafsīr Ḳurʾānī al-kerīm, in which the verses related to modern science are interpreted in the light of some technical data and information. The main purpose of the work is to emphasise the need to compensate for the fact that although there are many verses in the Qurʾān that can be considered among the subjects of science, Muslim scholars are mostly interested in fiqh etc. and neglect positive science (al-Jawāhir, Muqaddima, I, 2-3). Today, there is a large literature especially in the field of scientific i’jāz studies (for scientific tafsīr, see M. Husayn al-Zahebī, II, 349-362).

        3-Social Tafsir. Although the works of this genre make use of methods such as dirāyah, narration and signification, they are called by this name because the social, individual and communal needs of the addressee audience and contemporary life are taken as the centre. The history of social exegesis is not very old. Although there is a tendency towards this direction in Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s Mefātīḥu’l-ġayb, it is possible to say that this type of exegesis was born in the late nineteenth century. The line of Jamāl al-Dīn al-Afghānī and Moḥammad ‘Abduh was decisive in this regard. The most famous tafsīrs written in this field are Sayyid Qutb’s Fī Ẓılāl al-Ḳurʾān and Mawdūdī’s Tafhīm al-Ḳurʾān. Saīd al-Hawwā’s al-Asās fi’t-taṣṣīr, Izzat Darweze’s al-Tafsīr al-Ḥadīs̱, which is based on the order of nuzūl, and the works of many contemporary Egyptian and Syrian commentators such as Sharqāwī and Wahba al-Zuhaylī can be considered in this category (Cerrahoğlu, History of Tafsir, II, 467-496).

          Subject-Centred Exegesis. There are also specialised tafsirs that are based on various subjects in the Qur’an. It would not be a correct method to exegete selected verses of the Qur’an by detaching them from their context. The general line is to follow the order in the mushafs and to make tafsir according to this order. However, some needs paved the way for the creation of works that ignored this order. Scholars whose scholarly competence is accepted have paid attention to the drawbacks in the interpretation of verses that are detached from the context and have made their interpretations in a way to eliminate these drawbacks. Especially in the modern period, these drawbacks are more clearly seen in the works written by some scholars who tend to have the Qur’an confirm their own opinions. Although the language-oriented tafsīrs that the scholars concentrated on in the early period may seem like thematic tafsīrs, they cannot be grouped under the same heading since they mostly deal with linguistic issues and do not deal with issues that can be seen as separate subjects. After the emergence of the Mu’tazilites, a large number of scholars wrote works either in the style of tafsir books or outside this format, but centred on the verses of the Qur’an and dealt with issues of belief. Although it is possible to call these books as tafsir on belief, since such a term has not emerged or settled, such works can also be included in the category of thematic tafsir.

          1-Ahkam Tafsir. The oldest type of exegesis in which the method of thematic exegesis is used is the exegesis of ahkam verses. The sources of these are oral narrations, books compiled during the period of the revision, and hadith compilations. Muqātil b. Sulayman’s Tafsīr al-ḫamsi miʾe āyah mine al-Ḳurʾān is the first comprehensive exegesis of ahkām. The work has a special significance since it was written before the organisation of fiqh and the formation of sects (for an introduction, see. M. Fevzi Hamurcu, Muqatil b. Suleiman and the First Fiqh Tafsir, Ankara 2009). Later on, scholars such as Imam Shafi’i, Tahāwī, al-Jassas, Qiyā al-Harrasī, Abū Bakr Ibn al-‘Arabī and al-Qurtubī produced important works in this field. In the modern period, Siddiq Hasan Khan, Muhammad ‘Ali al-Sâyis, and Muhammad ‘Ali al-Sâbūnī wrote exegesis of ahkām. Considering the style and content of these works, one of the most striking ones is Tahāwī’s Aḥkām al-Ḳurʾān, a part of which has recently been published. Šābūnī compiled his work according to the chapters of fiqh. In some works, however, the author’s sectarian tendencies came to the fore and other sects were severely criticised. These tendencies can be seen in the Aḥkām al-Ḳurʾān of al-Jassas and Abū Bakr Ibn al-ʿArabī (M. Husayn al-Zahebī, II, 319-348).

          2-Theoretical Tafsir. The thematic tafsīr, which has existed since the first century, but has been revived in the last century in terms of its methodology, consists of the interpretation of the verses gathered around a subject. The drawbacks of the selective approach mentioned above also apply to this method. This is because a verse or phrase that expresses a different meaning in its context may have a different meaning when it is taken out of it and taken alone. In spite of these drawbacks, it is possible to say that it is a useful type of writing because it deals with the subjects pointed out in the Qur’an in a unity. Today, the literature on thematic tafsir, which is taught as a course in universities, is still in the formation stage. The number of works that approach the subject holistically is quite small. Although the thematic tafsir project prepared in the United Arab Emirates under the presidency of Mustafa Muslim, who has studies on the subject, has reached the publication stage, it does not seem to be able to meet the need in this field in terms of its methodology. There are many theoretical and practical studies on the subject in Turkey.

            BIBLIOGRAPHY

            Musnad, I, 214, 269, 312, 314; V, 410.

            Ḥākim, al-Mustadrek, I, 557; II, 439.

            Muqātil b. Sulaymān, Tafsīr Muḳātil b. Sulaymān (ed. ʿAbdullah Mahmūd al-Shahhāṭeh), Cairo 1979, introduction by the editor, I, pp. h, 27.

            Tabari, Jāmiʿ al-bayān (ed. ‘Abdullah b. ‘Abd al-Muhsin al-Turki), Riyadh 1424/2003, I, 70, 72, 74-77, 79, 82-84; XXIV, 708.

            Ibn al-Nadīm, al-Fihrist (Tajadd al-Dīd), pp. 36-41.

            Abū ‘Abd Allah Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad al-Dāmegānī, al-Wujūḥ wa’n-naẓāʾir (ed. M. Ḥasan Abū al-‘Azm al-Zafītī), Cairo 1412/1992, I, 260-261.

            Muḳaddimetān fī ʿulūm al-Ḳurʾān (ed. A. Jeffery), Cairo 1954.

            Rāgıb al-Isfahānī, Muḳaddimet al-Jāmiʿi al-tafāsīr (ed. Aḥmad Hasan Farhāt), Kuwayt 1405/1984, pp. 47, 91-97.

            a.mlf., Tafsīr al-Rāġib al-Iṣfahānī (ed. Ādil b. ‘Ali al-Siddī), Riyadh 1423/2003, I, 424-425.

            Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Mefātīḥ al-ġayb, Beirut 1401/1981, IV, 73-74.

            Qurtubī, al-Jāmiʿ, I, 23.

            Ibn Taymiyya, Majmūʿu fetāwā, XIII, 361, 388.

            Ibn Taymiyya, Muḳaddimah fī uṣūli al-taṣīr, Beirut 1408/1988, pp. 63, 87, 111-112.

            Abū Hayyān al-Andalusī, al-Baḥr al-muḥīṭ, [no edition] 1403/1983 (Dār al-fikr), I, 121.

            Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Ḳurʾān, I, 13, 15-16, 18.

            Shāṭibī, al-Muwāfakāt: Methodology of Islamic Sciences (tr. Mehmet Erdoğan), Istanbul 1990, I, 45-47; II, 77.

            Zarqashī, al-Burhān fī ʿulūm al-Ḳurʾān (ed. Yūsuf ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Mar’ashlī et al.), Beirut 1415/1994, I, 97-99, 104-105, 107, 108.

            Ibn Khaldūn, al-Muḳaddimah (ed. ʿAbd al-Salām al-Shaddādī), Dār al-Bayzā 2005, II, 363.

            Süyūtī, al-Itḳān (Bugā), I-II, op. cit.

            Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytemī, al-Fatāwa al-ḥadīs̱iyya, Cairo 1409/1989, p. 242.

            Kashf al-ẓẓunūn, II, 1481.

            Ibn Aqīla, al-Ziyāda wa al-iḥsān fī ʿulūm al-Ḳurʾān (ed. M. Safā Haqqī et al.), Shārika 1427/2006, VII, 391, 395.

            Tantāwī al-Jawharī, al-Jawāhir, Cairo 1341, Muqaddima, I, 2-3.

            M. Husayn al-Zahebī, al-Tafsīr wa’l-mufassirūn, Cairo 1381/1961-62, op. cit.

            Ismail Cerrahoglu, The Birth of Qur’ânic Tafsīr and the Factors Accelerating it, Ankara 1968.

            a.mlf., History of Tafsir, Ankara 1988.

            Ahmad Amin, Fajr al-Islâm, Beirut 1969, p. 195.

            Suleiman Ates, The School of the Illuminationist Tafsir, Ankara 1974, op. cit.

            a.mlf., “Imāmiyya Shī’a’s Understanding of Tafsir”, AÜIFD, XX (1975), pp. 147-172.

            Ibrāhīm ʿAbdullāh Rufayda, al-Naḥw wa qutub al-taṣīr, Benghazi 1399/1990, I, 99.

            Amīn Ahsen Islāhī, Mabādi-i Tedebbür-i Ḳurʾān, Lahore 1991, pp. 19-21.

            Mustafa Bilgin, Mu’tazilite School in Tafsir (doctoral dissertation, 1991), UU Institute of Social Sciences, pp. 54-88.

            Khalid b. ‘Uthman al-Sabt, Ḳawāʿid al-taṣīr: Jamʿ wa dirāse, Huber 1421, I, 25-29.

            Sālim al-Saffār al-Baghdādī, Naḳd al-menḥajj al-taṣfīr wa’l-mufassirīna al-muḳāren, Beirut 1420/2000, pp. 66-77.

            H. Berg, The Development of Exegesis in Early Islam: The Authenticity of Muslim Literature from the Formative Period, Richmond 2000.

            Mehmet Akif Koç, Early Period Tafsir Activities in the Framework of Isnad Data, Ankara 2003.

            Mustafa Öztürk, Qur’ân ve Aşırı Yorum: Tafsirde Bâtınîlik ve Bâtınî Te’vil Tradition, Ankara 2003, pp. 194-196, 383-411.

            a.mlf., Mu’tazilite Interpretation of the Qur’ân: The Example of Abū Muslim al-Isfahānī, Ankara 2004, pp. 20-22.

            a.mlf., “On Salafism and Te’vil”, Marife, Special Issue on Salafism, IX/3, Konya 2009, pp. 85-110.

            Abdülhamit Birışık, “The Source and Formation of the Terms of Tafsir and Qur’anic Sciences”, I. Symposium on the Problem of Terminology in Islamic Sciences (ed. Abdülhamit Birışık et al.), Ankara 2006, pp. 39-68.

            Suat Yıldırım, The Prophet’s Commentary on the Qur’an, Istanbul 2007, I, 99-233.

            Abdurrahman Ates, “Keşfu’l-Esrâr: The First Influencer of the Scientific Tafsir Movement in the Nineteenth Century”, AÜIFD, XLIV/1 (2003), pp. 111-134.

            Muammer Erbaş, “On the Relationship between Rivāyah and Dirāyah in Ibn Taymiyya’s Salafī Tafsir”, Marife, IX/3 (2009), pp. 125-139.

            A. Rippin, “Tafsīr”, EI2 (Eng.), X, 83-88.

            a.mlf., “Tafsīr”, ER, XIV, 236-244.

            Ismail L. Cakan – Muhammad Eroglu, “‘Abdullah b. ‘Abbas”, DIA, I, 75-78.

            Ilyas Çelebi, “Mu’tazila”, ibid, XXXI, 397.

            Meir M. Bar-Asher, “Exegesis”, EIr., IX, 116-119.

            Annabel Keler, “Exegesis”, op. cit., IX, 119-123.

            Todd Lawson, “Exegesis”, op. cit. IX, 123-126.

            a.mlf., “Hermeneutics”, op. cit., XII, 235-239.

            Sr. K. Arati Snow, “Interpretation of the Qur’ân”, Encyclopaedia of the Holy Qurʾān (ed. N. Kr. Singh – A. R. Agwan), Delhi 2000, II, 608-616.

            Cl. Gilliot, “Exegesis of the Qurʾān”, Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān (ed. J. D. McAuliffe), Leiden 2002, II, 99-124.

            R. Wielandt, “Exegesis of the Qurʾān”, ibid, II, 124-142.

            This part of the article was included in the TDV Encyclopaedia of Islam, volume 40, published in Istanbul in 2011, pages 281-290.