Is There Room for Imagination in Qur’anic Interpretation? Further Insights on the Reception of al-Zamakhsharī’s Imaginative Hermeneutics (Ṭarīq al-Takhyīl) in Post-Classical Qur’anic Commentaries

In his famed Qur’anic commentary, al-Kashshāf, Abu al-Qāsim Jār Allāh Maḥmūd b. ʿUmar al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538 CE/1144 AH) attempted to make an astronomical leap in the hermeneutics of scripture. He posed to Qur’anic commentators the notion that certain verses, those of an ambiguous nature (mushtabihāt), are meant to be understood not in a literal sense (jihah ḥaqīqah) or figurative sense (jihah majāz) – those being the two predominant modes of interpreting the Qur’an – but in an imaginative sense (ʿalā tarīq al-takhyīl). Furthermore, he asserted that this imaginative mode of interpretation is the highest form of literary expression and the pinnacle hermeneutic in understanding and interpreting not only the ambiguous verses of Qur’anic scripture, but also those of past revelations as well as statements of prophets. What al-Zamakhsharī meant precisely by this revolutionary hermeneutic has been a topic of debate in both primary and secondary scholarship. Its subsequent reception in the genre of tafsīr is still awaiting further study. 

As the late authority of Arabic literature, Wolfhart Heinrichs, notes in his 2008 survey of the concept of the imaginary across Arabic literary theory and Islamic philosophy, the term ‘takhyīl’ was first introduced into Qur’anic commentary by al-Zamakhsharī and his most extensive discussion occurs in verse 67 of Sūrah al-Zumar. This verse which reads: “The earth, altogether shall be but a handful to Him (qabḍatuhu) on the Day of Resurrection, and the heavens rolled up in His right Hand (maṭwiyyāt bi-yamīnihi)” is, according to al-Zamakhsharī, meant to be understood not literally in anthropomorphic terms, nor figurately as symbol of dominion or power, but rather imaginatively as a holistic description of a scene to put before our eyes God’s majesty and grandeur (taṣwīr ʿaẓamatihi wal-tawqīf ʿalā kunhi jalālihi). 

In this paper, I attempt to trace the contours of the subsequent reception of al-Zamakhsharī’s imaginative hermeneutics through tafsīr literature into the post-classical period. In particular, I am interested in the ways in which subsequent Qur’anic commentators grappled with the meaning and implications of incorporating imaginative interpretation into scriptural hermeneutics. I draw upon the encyclopedic commentaries of al-Rāzī and Abū Ḥayyan, given their authoritative status in the tafsīr tradition, as well as al-Ṭībī’s marginal gloss on al-Zamakhsharī’s Kashshāf. I show that there developed three general attitudes towards interpreting al-Zamakhsharī’s revolutionary proposal: rejection, neutralizing, and engagement. From this preliminary investigation, as well other Qur’anic commentaries I will draw on for my talk, I conclude that al-Zamakhsharī’s proposal was not accepted on its own terms, and was instead re-interpreted to simply being referred to as a parable (al-tamthīl) as understood in the field of Arabic rhetoric, and the Qur’an’s own description of itself as containing parables. 

Reject: al-Rāzī

In his encyclopedic commentary, Mafātīh al-Ghayb, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1209) makes a substantial mention of this passage of al-Zamakhsharī. For al-Rāzī, this imaginative hermeneutic is not only unjustified, but is a dangerous slippery slope into negating scripture altogether. If the door of figurative interpretation is not kept within strict limits, there is no telling that verses of Paradise and Hellfire, prayer, or Resurrection be understood as some kind of fanciful imagery. He further states that denying that a figurative interpretation is only resorted to in the case a rational indicator deems it necessary to do so will mean that "the Qur’an, in its entirety, will be removed from being a proof (ḥujja). That is because, any person would be able to say the intent behind any such-and-such verse of the Qur’an (āyah fulāniyya) is this or that or whatever." For instance he states, "If someone were to say: the objective of it [prayer] is attaining illumination (tanwīr) of the heart by the remembrance of God, so therefore we are sufficed by this amount [of dhikr] and are not obligated with these specific actions [of prayer]." He concludes that "All of that is false (bāṭil), definitively." 

Neutralize: Abū Ḥayyān

Abū Ḥayyān quotes al-Zamakhsharī’s initial comments verbatim, but  re-interprets them as being subsumed under the category of the figurative (majāz). He states what is meant by "takhyīl" is: 

"A specific figurative angle (jihah majāz muʿayyan), since taṣwīr and takhyīl are from majāz." He further comments that "the word “qabḍa” and “yamīn”, in their literal meaning, refer to limbs of the body. However, a rational indicator (dalīl ʿaqlī) prevents it from becoming established as limbs and organs to God the Exalted, therefore it becomes necessary to understand it as figurative." 

What al-Zamakhshari meant was not singular word equivalent such as ‘power’ or ‘knowledge’, but to a figurative meaning in general. 

Engage: al-Ṭībī 

Sharīf al-Dīn al-Ḥusayn al-Ṭībī (d. 742/1342) in his marginal gloss on the Kashshāf, Futūḥ al-Ghayb, however takes a much more charitable stance, and in my research offers the most original attempt to understand al-Zamakhsharī on his own terms. After quoting the opinions of a few past exegetes on al-Zamakhsharī’s comments, he offers his own: 

"Equity [in this issue] is that the term “al-takhyīl” is ambiguous (mūhima). I say: ‘The intended meaning behind ‘al-takhyīl’ is imagery/depiction (al-taṣwīr), in that, at your mention of these things, the meaning of God’s grandeur (ʿaẓama Allāh) is made to appear in your mind in order to fill your heart with fear and awe. Thereby, delightful awe and joyous rapture is made to result in you, which would not result at the mere saying of ‘God’s grandeur (ʿaẓama Allāh)." 

He further states that this is similar to allusions (kinayah) in Arabic rhetoric such as the phrase, "‘So-and-so is full of ashes’ (kathīr al-rummād). At the mention of your saying ‘full of ashes’, is a conceptualizing of how much wood has been burning, the laborious hours of cooking, and the number of guests. Therefore, you would find a kind of joyous rapture which you would not find by your saying, ‘So-and-so is generous’."

In my talk, I will draw further upon madrasa commentaries as well as other Qur’anic commentaries and secondary scholarship (Heinrichs, Jaffer) to show that al-Zamakhsharī’s proposal was not accepted on its own terms in mainstream Qur’anic commentary, instead being re-interpreted as a parable (tamthīl).