The Qur'an Commentary of al-Bayḍāwī: A History of<i>Anwār al-tanzīl</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Qur'an commentary Anwār al-tanzīl of al-Bayḍāwī (d. 719/1319) was one of the most important works of the Islamic religious tradition. As a universally adopted Sunni text for teaching tafsīr, it was ubiquitous, read even in Safavid Iran. This was a work used by all Sunni schools, and as such was beyond the legal divisions of madhāhib. The history of this work is, however, uncharted. This article follows the trajectory of this work and traces the history of its rise to predominance, when and why it was adopted, and how the new significance it gained after the ninth/fifteenth century was projected back to the period it was written. It explores how the Anwār replaced al-Zamakhsharī's (d. 538/1144) al-Kashshāf in scholarly circles in Cairo before going on to gain universalised authority in the Ottoman realms. Following this, I address the deep-rooted connections that existed between the scholars of Cairo and Istanbul, and how late Mamluk developments in Cairo came to full fruition in Istanbul. The eclipse of the Anwār by the Qur'an commentary of Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1372) in the twentieth century is also outlined, and a list of the published glosses of Anwār is supplied in an appendix.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".