Opposition to Word-Breaking in the Practice of Qur’an Commentary in Eighth/Fourteenth- and Ninth/Fifteenth-Century Mamlūk Cairo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Mamlūk biographer al-Sakhāwī (d. 902/1497) praised Sirāj al-Dīn al-Bulqīnī (d. 805/1403), the pre-eminent scholar and judge of the late fourteenth to early fifteenth century, for curtailing the practice of tafsīr al-Qurʾān bi’l-taqṭīʿ. This was a new category of Qur’an interpretation: a method of generating meaning through the use of word-breaking. The main proponents of this practice were the Shādhilī Sufi Ḥusayn al-Ḥabbār (d. 791/1389) and his followers, who perpetuated his exegetical approach. Attempts to curtail this practice of Qur’an commentary in Mamlūk Cairo were made by scholars and members of the judicial class, the most prominent among them being Sirāj al-Dīn al-Bulqīnī and his son Jalāl al-Dīn (d. 824/1421). This practice was policed not for its actual interpretations but because of its method, which undermined the shared philological basis for deriving meaning from the Qur’an. This study accounts for these historical controversies over word-breaking in interpreting the Qur’an, augmenting and correcting previous studies on the is subject published by Walid Saleh and Jonathan Berkey. It also analyses the role institutions such as the zāwiya and the office of the Shāfiʿī chief judge played in promoting such interpretations and regulating religious life and education. These controversies ultimately result from a tension between the oral and the written, as is demonstrated in this article by analysis of the use of word-breaking in the interpretation of the Qur’anic term salsabīl, and of similar problems of orality discussed in classical manuals on the proper recitation of the Qur’an.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".