8 The sura as a unity

*"•£?£ a^y^SJSTS^:'- a"d Sh3"ef- AMUl KadeI A" A twentieth century development in
Qur'an exegesis
Mustansir Mir

Twentieth-century Qur'an commentary makes a definite break with the

traditional style of exegesis, which, in general terms, may be said to have
lasted from the early Islamic centuries to the end of the nineteenth
century.1 One manifestation of this break is the view that the quranic
suras are unities. I shall argue that this view is now fairly well-established
in modern Qur'an commentary. I shall do so by looking at the works of
a number of modern exegetes. The study is divided into four sections.
The first section provides a brief historical background. The second
section gives a descriptive account of the relevant aspects of the works
of six modern Qur'an commentators. The third section of fers an analysis
of that account. A few general remarks make up the fourth, concluding
section.

PRELIMINARY
In itself, the idea of the suras as unities is not new. Zarkashi
(745-794/1344-1391) in his Burhdn1 devotes a whole chapter to it, and
so does Suyuti (d. 911/1505) in his Itqan,3 an abridgment and revision of
Zarkashl's work.4 Zarkash! reports the disagreement of scholars on the
subject 'Izz al-Din ibn 'Abd al-Salam (577-660/1181-1262) argues that
the Qur'an, revealed as it was under extremely diverse circumstances and
in a period of more than twenty years, could not possibly have continuity
and coherence (irtibdt). One of Zarkashi's mashayikh, identified by
Suyuti as Wall al-Din al-Mallawi,5 rebuts the argument by saying that
while historical circumstances determined the order in which the quranic
revelations were sent down, considerations of wisdom determined the
order in which those revelations were arranged: wa-faslu'l-khitdbi
annahu 'aid hasabi 'l-waqa'i'i tanzilan wa-'ala hasabi 'l-hikmatitartOtan."
Zarkashi himself speaks of what he calls 'Urn al-mundsaba in quite
favorable terms, identifying a few types of mundsabdt one may find in