Sufi Koran Commentary: a Survey of the Genre
by A. Godlas (This is a web-based
version of the article "al-Tafsir al-Sufi" to be published by the Encyclopaedia
Note that to read this article
you will have to download
the font "Iran Web 2"
from the Encyclopaedia Iranica web page.
Sufi Tafs^r and Isma@¿^l^ Ta÷w^l
Although both Sufi tafs^r and Isma@¿^l^
ta÷w^l may share the designation of "ta÷w^l" and are superficially
similar, in fact they are two distinct kinds of hermeneutics. On
the one hand, two significant features of Isma@¿^l^ ta÷w^l
are as follows: first, its method derives from the foundation (asa@s) that
is the Imam; and second, in Isma@¿^l^ ta÷w^l the object of
the a@ya@t revealed by ta÷w^l is also often the Imam (Walker 1993,
124-133 and 1994, p. 120; Habil, p. 36; Nanji, p. 192; Corbin, 1975, p.
523; Corbin 1983, p. 99; Daftary, p. 388). On the other hand, first,
in Sufi tafs^r the method is kashf (an unveiling to the heart of the interpreter)--contingent
not on the Imam but variously on the grace of God, the spiritual capacity
of the interpreter, and the degree of one's spiritual effort; and second,
in Sufi tafs^r the object revealed is largely related to Sufi practice
or to an ontological or anthropological aspect of Sufi doctrine; and the
interpreter does not claim that this invalidates the exoteric meaning of
the a@ya. In spite of the often obfuscating criticism, even Sunni
scholars such as GÚaza@l^ (d. 505/1111), Ebn Qayyem Jawz^ya (d.
751/1350), Sha@tÂeb^ (d. 790/1388), and Sa¿d-al-D^n
Taftaza@n^ (d. 793/1390) accepted Sufi tafs^r as being legitimate as long
as certain conditions were met (Gatje, pp. 228-230; D¨ahab^, vol. 2,
pp. 357-58, 366-369; QatÂtÂa@n 309-10). One contemporary
scholar even defended Solam^'s H®aqa@÷eq al-tafs^r (see below)
against the charge of being Isma@¿^l^, stating that since Solam^
did not deny the exoteric meaning of the Koran or declare it to be invalid,
the H®aqa@÷eq should not be considered to be among the works
of the Isma@¿^l^s (ba@tÂen^ya) (Noqra@sh^, p. 188).