The period after al-Zamakhsharī’s al-Kashshāf in the science of exegesis and after al-Gazzālī (d. 505/1111) and al-Rāzī (d. 606/1209) in the field of theology is called the muta’akhkhir (the late) period. Although the Muʿtazila school lost its appeal in literature by the sixth/twelfth century, Muʿtazila defenders occasionally appear. ʻImād al-Dīn al-Yemenī’s (d. 750/1349) Tuḥfa al-ashrāf, a commentary on al-Kashshāf, is one such example. Al-Yemenī’s commentary is distinguished by its defense of the Muʿtazila among dozens of commentaries on al-Kashshāf. To my knowledge, no other commentary on al-Kashshāf reflects a similar Muʿtazilī position. This article examines the Muʿtazila content of al-Yemenī’s commentary and shows that the book in fact defends the Muʿtazila school during the later period, thus highlighting characteristics that illuminate the era in respect to exegesis and theology.
At the level of literature, scholarly interest in al-Kashshāf took a century to grow. One of the reasons for this was the skepticism of Sunni circles to this exegesis in the beginning. However, scholars gradually began to appreciate its outstanding characteristics in respect to linguistics, rhetoric and style separate from its content in line with the Muʿtazila school. Thereafter, many works emerged in the same manner as al-Kashshāf. We can categorize them as summaries, recompositions, critical commentaries, descriptive commentaries, glosses and debates (muḥākama). Undoubtedly, the most common examples were descriptive commentaries and glosses on them. While the number of works related to other categories is limited, we can count dozens of descriptive commentaries on al-Kashshāf with no particular emphasis on its theological content. Even if they occasionally criticized Muʿtazilī views, their primary objectives are descriptive. ʻImād al-Dīn al-Yemenī’s commentary on al-Kashshāf, titled Tuḥfa al-ashrāf fī kashf ghawāmiḍ al-Kashshāf is also a descriptive commentary. Original in many respects, this commentary covers al-Kashshāf as a whole from the preface to the chapter Mankind (al-Nās). Al-Yemenī wrote his book Tuḥfa al-ashrāf by using the works of previous commentators that endorsed a similar line of thought, such as Ibn al-Munayyir (d. 683/1284), Ibn bint al-ʻIrāqī (d. 704/1304), Quṭb al-dīn al-Fālī (d. 698/1298), Chārpardī (d. 746/1345), Ṭībī (d. 743/1342) and Qāzwīnī (ö. 745/1344). The most frequently consulted work among these was Ṭībī’s commentary, Futūḥ al-Ghayb. However, Tuḥfa al-ashrāf is distinguished from all other commentaries consulted by its Muʿtazila perspective and defense of the Muʿtazila School. This is even true for commentaries on al-Kashshāf after
al-Yemenī. None of the commentaries on al-Kashshāf during the later period ever adopted the Muʿtazila position on theological issues. Besides, during the eighth/fourteenth century and after, we rarely see an example, like al-Yemenī, of a member of muta’akhkhirīn scholars and a defender of the Muʿtazila position. This fact places al-Yemenī’s commentary on al-Kashshāf in a special position in the history of exegesis in general and in the tradition of commentary/glosses in particular.
Biographical dictionaries do not contain much information about al-Yemenī’s life. We understand his Muʿtazila position from his work itself. The article examines in detail the Muʿtazilī ideas in al-Yemenī’s Tuḥfa al-ashrāf. We take into consideration some of the conceptual preferences and focus on the theological issues in the interpretation of the chapter of The Cow (al-Baqara) from the Qur’an. At the introductory section, Al-Yemenī hinted at the Muʿtazilī principles of ʿadālah (justice) and tawḥīd (the oneness of God). While mentioning the Muʿtazila, he used the term ahl al-ʿadl (people of justice) as preferred by this school itself. Sometimes he referred to “they” when referencing the Sunnis (ahl al-Sunnah) in general. Another point worth mentioning in Tuḥfa al-ashrāf is the author’s allocation of space to different views within the Muʿtazila School and referring to Muʿtazila scholars throughout his discussions. As far as one can see, no other commentary on al-Kashshāf had ever offered space to Muʿtazilī views in such detail, nor mentioned diverging views within the school in a systematic way.
Although these observations support the argument that al-Yemenī was a Muʿtazila sympathizer, no clear evidence is available by which to consider him a Muʿtazilī scholar. Some clearer evidence can be found in the commentator’s theological preferences. An examination on the views concerning the chapter of The Cow shows that al-Yemenī sided with the Muʿtazila on matters wherein there existed disagreements with other theological schools. Concerning certain issues in the chapter of The Cow such as God’s attributes, the createdness of Quran (khalq al-Qurʾān), free will, the conditions of the great sinner and the effects of magic, he always preferred Muʿtazila positions. However, he embraced a moderate rather than aggressive language when defending the Muʿtazila. He never positioned himself directly in opposition to the overall Sunni perspective, probably to avoid a reaction from Sunni circles.
The article tries to demonstrate al-Yemenī’s inclination toward the Muʿtazila in Tuḥfa al-ashrāf, though it does not discuss his theological views in detail. Al-Yemenī’s authority in
theology, his views in this field and his relationship with Muʿtazilī sub-schools could be subjects of another study. Indeed, Tuḥfa al-ashrāf is not only a subject of the history of exegesis but also that of the history of theological thought.
Tuḥfa al-ashrāf deserves an important place in the history of exegesis in respect to its idiosyncratic position defending the Muʿtazilī views in the later period of exegesis and theology. Texts of this sort show that works in the line of al-Kashshāf do not have a shared viewpoint necessarily in opposition to the Muʿtazila School.
