The Culmination of Tradition-based TafsÄ«r: The QurʼÄn Exegesis al-Durr al-manthÅ«r of al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä« (d. 911/1505)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a study of JalÄl al-DÄ«n al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä«âs al-Durr al-manthÅ«r fi-l-tafsÄ«r bi-l-maâthur (The scattered pearls of tradition-based exegesis), hereinafter al-Durr. In the present study, the distinctiveness of al-Durr becomes evident in comparison with the tafsÄ«rs of al-TÌ£abarÄ« (d. 310/923) and Ibn KathÄ«r (d. 774/1373). Al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä« surpassed these exegetes by relying entirely on ḥadÄ«th (tradition). Al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä« rarely offers a comment of his own. Thus, in terms of its formal features, al-Durr is the culmination of tradition-based exegesis (tafsÄ«r bi-l-maâthÅ«r).\nThis study also shows that al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä« intended in al-Durr to subtly challenge the tradition-based hermeneutics of Ibn TaymÄ«yah (d. 728/1328). According to Ibn TaymÄ«yah, the true, unified, interpretation of the QurʼÄn must be sought in the QurʼÄn itself, in the traditions of Muḥammad, and in the exegeses of the earliest Muslims. Moreover, Ibn TaymÄ«yah strongly denounced opinion-based exegesis (tafsÄ«r bi-l-raây). \nBy means of the traditions in al-Durr, al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä« supports several of his views in contradistinction to those of Ibn TaymÄ«yah. Al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä«âs traditions support the following views. First, opinion-based exegesis is a valid supplement to tradition-based exegesis. Second, the early Muslim community was not quite unified. Third, the earliest QurâÄnic exegetes did not offer a unified exegesis of the QurâÄn. Fourth, QurâÄnic exegesis is necessarily polyvalent since Muslims accept a number of readings of the QurâÄn, and variant readings give rise to various interpretations. \nAl-SuyÅ«á¹Ä« collected his traditions from a wide variety of sources some of which are now lost. Two major exegetes, al-ShawkÄnÄ« (d. 1250/1834) and al-ÄlÅ«sÄ« (d. 1270/1854), copied some of these traditions from al-Durr into their QurâÄn commentaries. In this way, al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä« has succeeded in shedding new light on rare, neglected, and previously scattered traditions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".