Sometime towards the end of the sixth/twelfth century, a prominent preacher in Baghdād wrote the following:

There are two views about this verse: (1) Ibn Mas'ūd, al-Hasan and the majority say that it is Meccan. (2) It was reported on the authority of Qatāda to be Medinan. There are three different opinions about the occasion of its revelation: (1) a group of Quraysh, including al-Walīd b. al-Mughīra, al-'ds b. Wā'il and al-Aswad b. 'Abd Yaghūth; met al-'Abbās b. 'Abd al-Muttalib and said, 'O Abū l-Fadl, if your nephew had submitted himself to one of our gods then we would have believed in what he says and we would certainly have believed in his god.' So al-'Abbās came and told him [Muhammad] this and at that this sūra was revealed. Abū Sālih reported this on the authority of Ibn 'Abbās. (2) 'Utba b. Rabī'a and Umayya b. Khalaf met God's messenger and said, 'O Muhammad, we shall not leave you alone until you follow our religion and we follow yours. If ours is the right course, you will take your share of it. If yours is the right course, we will take our share of it.' At that this sūra was revealed. 'Ubayd b. 'Umayr said so. (3) The Quraysh said to the Prophet, 'If it please you we will follow your religion for a year and you will return to our religion for a year.' At that this sūra was revealed. Wahb reported it. Muqātil reported others to have said: 'This sūra was revealed about Abū Jahl and about “the mockers”. Of those about whom it was revealed, not one ever became a believer.'

According to a thirteenth-century compilation of qurānic knowledge - a medieval 'companion to the Qur'ān' - the Arabic Qur'ān contains 323,015 letters, 77,439 words, more than 6,000 verses and 114 chapters or sūras. This makes it a rather modestly sized text when contrasted with the Upanishads, the Mahabharata and the Pali canon of Buddhist writings. But why would these titles come immediately to mind as the point of comparison? The quick answer to that question lies in their classification as 'scripture' or 'sacred text' or 'holy writ' or 'divine word' or even 'classics'. These works, and many others that could be added, found their place in the late nineteenth-century publishing project known as The sacred books of the East. That project itself marked an important moment in the conceptual expansion of such categorisation. For centuries, the English term 'scripture', and its equivalents in European languages, had been virtually synonymous with the Bible. While it was recognised, particularly by Christian apologists and missionaries, that other texts were revered by their respective religious communities, that recognition was usually negative and antagonistic.

The fourth Qurʾānic text to be considered is associated with the Christians not by direct name, that is, by use of the term al-naṣārā, or by reference to the person of Jesus, or by general inclusion within the abl al-kitāb, but rather by designation of a specific scripture, the Gospel (injīl). Like the preceding verse, this one climaxes in a divine promise, a promise phrased in pungent, physical language. But unlike previous passages, this verse carries a striking grammatical structure. It is formed as a hypothetical sentence or, more precisely, as a conditional contrary to fact. As such it has posed particular problems for the exegetical tradition where the need for identification and specification is enhanced by the implied negativity. The pertinent text is from sūrat al-māʾidah (5):66:

A SCRIPTURAL CONUNDRUM

An initial concern for virtually all of the commentators is the precise significance of the first verb in this verse. In his paraphrase of the opening lines al-Ṭabarī suggests a synonym that would permit the translation “if they had acted in accordance with (ʿamilū bi) the Torah and the Gospel.” Yet he is aware of the objection that could immediately be made against such an exhortation.

Completing the close textual analysis of these seven verse groups now permits the reassertion of a more comprehensive perspective. Broadly considered, persistent patterns and themes emerge, allowing these passages to intersect at several hermeneutical levels. Prominent among such patterns stands the sheer proliferation of categories. These verses continuously classify and catalogue humankind. The typologies merge and overlap, moving from formal religious designations (Jews, Christians, Ṣābiʾūn, Majūs) to particularization within one of those groups, such as Christian priests and monks. Formal designation then shades into less clearly defined but nevertheless descriptive phrases such as those who follow you [Jesus], those to whom We gave the book before, and the idolaters. Positive and negative moral categorization pits the ones specified as a balanced people and those who testify against the evildoers and the sinners. But the overriding classification remains the great divide between those who believe (or whoever believes in God and the Last Day) and those who disbelieve. Consistently people are grouped, pervasively they are catalogued on dogmatic, on moral, on religio-sociological grounds.

Within these convergent systems of classification appears an enduring pattern of praise. Specific qualities are honored and extolled. Those intended are lauded for being submissive before God, for being respectful of His revelation (they do not sell the verses of God for a small price), for being steadfast (they have persisted). Their hearts hold compassion and mercy, they are not arrogant but turn away from [idle chatter]. They recognized … the truth and turn back evil as qualities of heart and mind find expression in praiseworthy action.

Another shift of philological taxonomy occurs in this, the third verse that presents itself for consideration. While sūrat at-baqarah (2):62 made unequivocal reference to the Christians, the allusion was somewhat less direct in sūrah Āl ʿImrān (3): 5 5 with its mention of those who follow Jesus. In the verse to be discussed now the classificatory phrase is yet more amorphous and partitive. A critical phrase is people of the book (ahl al-kitāb), a designation whose range of signification is not constant within either the domain of Qurʾānic tafsīr or the Islamic religious sciences generally. Identification in this context with those known as Christians is less a function of direct verbal apprehension than of recourse to the exegetical tradition on the verse. The verse itself is the penultimate entry in the same sūrah from which the one treated in the previous chapter was drawn. A possible translation of sūrah Āl ʿImrān (3): 199 would be:

OPTING FOR INCLUSIVITY

Muslim commentators have discerned a multiplicity of issues within these few brief lines, but the preeminent consideration has clearly been that of ascertaining what circumstances occasioned this revelation, a hermeneutical procedure called sabab al-nuzūl. Once again al-Ṭabarī charts the course along which many of the later commentators travel.

Given the vast literature generated by centuries of Muslim exegetical effort, no topical study within that genre can aspire to comprehensive coverage. Inevitably some principle of selection must govern the choice of those works to be examined and discussed. In the present instance several intersecting concerns prompted the decision to concentrate upon the ten exegetes (mufassirūn) whose lives and commentaries are introduced in this chapter. Chronological considerations centered upon the desire to provide a spectrum of exegetical analysis ranging from the late ninth to the late twentieth century. That span of centuries commences in the classical period of Islamic thought with the foundational commentary of Abū Jaʿfar b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī and concludes with the work of the recently deceased Iranian exegete, Muḥammad Ḥusayn Ṭabāṭabāʾī.

Sectarian inclusiveness forms a second, convergent spectrum. Four of the commentaries selected, two in Persian and two in Arabic, are by Shīʿī authors. This subcategory itself replicates the chronological span from classical to contemporary. The remaining six commentators may be loosely classed as Sunnī, yet this overriding designation shelters a variety of divergent perspectives. Theological orientations mark the Muʿtazilī identification of al-Zamakhsharī's commentary and Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī's association with Ashʿarī thought, while legal representation, such as that of the Ḥanbalī madhhab, is provided by both Ibn al-jawzī and Ibn Kathīr. A modernist agenda shapes issues addressed by Rashīd Riḍā in his Tafsīr al- Manār as well as by his younger contemporary, Ṭabāṭabāʾī. Although space restriction necessarily confined the ideal scope of this study, for contrastive purposes occasional allusion has also been made to a representative Ṣūfī tafsīr.