Forbidding the reading of the <i>Kashshāf</i> : clarifying the Mamluk era reception of Zamakhsharī’s Qurʾān commentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Qurʾān commentary of Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1144), his Kashshāf , gained wide acclaim shortly after being written, and was widely used in research and teaching throughout the Islamic world. This favourable reception was largely due to its new rhetorical insights on how ideas are articulated in the Qurʾān through specific linguistic constructions. The work was also critiqued for its Muʿtazilī content, the work viewed with suspicion for championing – surreptitiously at that – the heterodox interpretations of that theological school. Appraisal and critique formed much of the basis for scholarly engagement with this work in the form of teaching and commentary writing, especially the form of supercommentary writing ( ḥawāshī ) the Kashshāf initiated. That Mamluk scholarly culture had an overly negative response to the Kashshāf for theological reasons has been vastly overstated in recent scholarship, possibly due to a tendency to view theology as a sufficient impetus driving past intellectual activity. This general portrayal derives from specific Mamluk scholars being depicted as warning against the book, forbidding its study, calling for it to be banned, and undermining or disparaging others for supporting it. This negative reception has also served to justify the transition in the Islamic world to the tafsīr of Bayḍāwī, a work which largely excised the Muʿtazilism of the Kashshāf . This article reconsiders the evidence for an overall negative Mamluk era reception of the Kashshāf , with specific reference to the activities of those scholars whose depiction contributes to an inaccurate portrayal of a crucial moment in tafsīr history, both for the activities of Mamluk era scholars themselves, as well as the subsequent shift to the use of Bayḍāwī.
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".