Was Ibn Kathīr the ‘Spokesperson’ for Ibn

Taymiyya? Jonah as a Prophet of Obedience

Younus Y. Mirza
ALLEGHENY COLLEGE

‘Each of the many times that I met with [Ibn Kathīr], I always learned (akhadhtu)
something from him.’ So said Ibn Ḥajjī b. Mūsā al-Saʿdī (d. 782/1380–1), one of the
students of the great historian, ḥadīth scholar, and Qur’anic exegete Ibn Kathīr
(d. 774/1372).1 Despite many premodern scholars viewing Ibn Kathīr as an
independent figure, he has been gradually subsumed under the hagiography of Ibn
Taymiyya (d. 728/1328). In particular, the dominant paradigm for understanding Ibn
Kathīr’s popular tafsīr is that it is a product of Ibn Taymiyya’s influence on his
thought: Ibn Kathīr is seen as the ‘student’ of the original thinker Ibn Taymiyya,
simply voicing his teacher’s views. This paper will challenge this commonly held
notion and argue that Ibn Kathīr has a Qur’anic hermeneutic and exegesis which is
distinct from that of Ibn Taymiyya. While Ibn Taymiyya no doubt influenced Ibn
Kathīr’s intellectual project, Ibn Kathīr was part of a Shāfiʿī intellectual circle which
specialised in the various sciences of ḥadīth. This circle subscribed to a ‘moral
theology’ of promoting the Prophetic legacy (sunna) and avoiding speculation
(kalām) and disputation (jadl). Ibn Taymiyya, on the other hand, was a Ḥanbalī
scholar who spent a large part of his intellectual project composing theological
refutations. Even though he was a great muḥaddith in his own right, Ibn Taymiyya
contended that reason and revelation were complimentary and spent much of his time
defending the textual sources from their perceived heretical opponents.

Ibn Kathīr’s Tafsīr is, it is my contention, best seen not as an extension of Ibn
Taymiyya’s thought but as a response to his Shāfiʿī-Ashʿarī colleagues who
incorporated kalām into their works and engaged in taʾwīl (‘figurative interpretation’).
In particular, his tafsīr could be viewed as a counter to the great Qur’anic exegesis of
the Shāfiʿī-Ashʿarī Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1209). Although both Ibn Kathīr and
Ibn Taymiyya can both be seen to have common purpose in engaging with al-Rāzī’s

Journal of Qur’anic Studies 16.1 (2014): 1–19

Edinburgh University Press
DOI: 10.3366/jqs.2014.0130
# Centre of Islamic Studies, SOAS
www.euppublishing.com/jqs
2 Journal of Qur’anic Studies

work, instead of directly engaging al-Rāzī, as Ibn Taymiyya did, Ibn Kathīr builds on
the tradition-based exegetes before him and subtly marginalises his opponents.

Ibn Kathīr as the ‘Student’ of Ibn Taymiyya

From an early period, the manuscript and Arabic biographical sources frequently
overemphasise the impact of Ibn Taymiyya on Ibn Kathīr. For instance, on a
manuscript of Ibn Kathīr’s Mawlad al-rasūl Allāh,2 the Ḥanbalī scribe introduces Ibn
Kathīr as a ‘leader’ (imām), ‘exceedingly knowledgeable’ (ʿallāma), and shaykh al-
Islām,3 but also as ‘the student of Ibn Taymiyya’ (talmīdh Ibn Taymiyya).4 (Ḥanbalī
scholars no doubt wanted to emphasise the influence that the Ḥanbalī Ibn Taymiyya
had on the Shāfiʿī Ibn Kathīr.) The most influential biographical entry on Ibn Kathīr
was that by the Shāfiʿī-Ashʿarī Ibn Qāḍī al-Shuhba (d. 851/1448) in his Ṭabaqāt
al-fuqahāʾ al-Shāfiʿīyya. As Ibn Qāḍī al-Shuhba notes, he wrote his biographical
dictionary as a direct response to Ibn Kathīr’s Ṭabaqāt al-fuqahāʾ al-Shāfiʿiyyīn.5
Throughout the biographical dictionary, Ibn Qāḍī al-Shuhba praises figures whom Ibn
Kathīr condemns, and supports the theological school of Ashʿarism which endorses
the study of logic and scholastic theology (kalām). In his entry on Ibn Kathīr, Ibn Qāḍī
al-Shuhba repeatedly emphasises the student-teacher relationship between
Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Kathīr. In his discussion of Ibn Kathīr’s teachers, Ibn Qāḍī
al-Shuhba mentions the great scholars Burhān al-Dīn al-Fazārī (d. 729/1329) and
al-Mizzī (d. 742/1341) but then notes that Ibn Kathīr ‘took a great deal from Ibn
Taymiyya’.6 Towards the end of the entry, Ibn Qāḍī al-Shuhba states that more than
one scholar (ghayr al-shaykh) said that Ibn Kathīr ‘had a particular liking for Ibn
Taymiyya, was a defender of him (munāḍala ʿanhu), [and] followed him in many of
his opinions. He used to give fatāwā on [Ibn Taymiyya’s] opinion on the issue of
divorce [oaths], and he was tried and harmed because of that.’7 Ibn Qāḍī al-Shuhba
concludes mentioning that Ibn Kathīr was buried ‘next to his teacher (shaykhihi) Ibn
Taymiyya’.8

Ibn Qāḍī al-Shuhba’s depiction would influence later biographical entries such as
the ones found in Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī’s (d. 1089/1679) Shadharāt al-dhahab
fī akhbār man dhahab and al-Nuʿaymī’s (d. 927/1521) al-Dāris fī tārīkh al-madāris,
which further stress Ibn Kathīr’s relationship with Ibn Taymiyya and also note that he
was buried ‘next to his teacher (shaykhihi) Ibn Taymiyya’.9 Most importantly, works
such as Ibn Qāḍī al-Shuhba’s would influence biographies specifically dedicated to
Qur’anic commentators such as al-Dāwūdī’s (d. 945/1538) Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn.
In his entry on Ibn Kathīr, al-Dāwūdī repeats Ibn Qāḍī al-Shuhba’s claim that Ibn
Kathīr took ‘a great deal from Ibn Taymiyya’, followed him in many of his opinions,
and was buried next to him.10 Modern Western scholarship has continued to replicate
this portrayal by al-Dāwūdī and other biographical sources of Ibn Kathīr’s exegesis as
being a product of Ibn Taymiyya. For instance, in her brief biographical summary of
 Was Ibn Kathīr the ‘Spokesperson’ for Ibn Taymiyya? 3

Ibn Kathīr, Jane McAullife remarks that ‘certainly the most famous of Ibn Kathīr’s
teachers, and perhaps the one who influenced him the most, was the Ḥanbalī
theologian and jurisconsult Ibn Taymiyyah’.11 As with the earlier biographical
sources, McAullife stresses the student-teacher relationship between the two figures.
Likewise, in his influential article ‘Tafsīr from Ṭabarī to Ibn Kathīr’, Norman Calder
contends that Ibn Kathīr was a ‘disciple’ of Ibn Taymiyya and that he acquires his
‘fundamentalism’ from the great scholar,12 emphasising the idea that the content and
hermeneutic of Ibn Kathīr’s Tafsīr originates from Ibn Taymiyya. In speaking about
the influence of Ibn Taymiyya’s treatise Muqaddima fī uṣūl al-tafsīr (‘Introduction to
the Sciences of Qur’anic Exegesis’), Walid Saleh states that, ‘the first evidence we
have of the influence of the treatise is the Qur’ān commentary of Ibn Kathīr, the
student of Ibn Taymiyya’. Ibn Kathīr is once again seen as an implementer of ‘his
teacher’s’ theories.13

This framework of Ibn Kathīr being the ‘student’ or spokesperson for Ibn Taymiyya
persists because there has been no systematic comparison between their many works.
It is often simply assumed that Ibn Kathīr implemented Ibn Taymiyya’s ideas with
little effort to see if or how Ibn Taymiyya’s ideas appear in Ibn Kathīr’s Tafsīr.
Scholars frequently presume that Ibn Kathīr’s political and social support for Ibn
Taymiyya meant that he extended Ibn Taymiyya’s ideas and vision in his works. As
I argue elsewhere, a close analysis of Ibn Taymiyya’s and Ibn Kathīr’s works
demonstrates that they had two unique intellectual projects.14 More specifically, Ibn
Kathīr could not have been the spokesperson for Ibn Taymiyya because they
subscribed to two different types of traditionalism.

Ibn Kathīr as a Shāfiʿī Traditionalist

Despite the standard narrative, Ibn Kathīr’s exegesis was less a product of his
relationship with Ibn Taymiyya than a result of the larger struggle in the history of
Islamic theology and hermeneutics between traditionalism and rationalism.15
Traditionalists deemed that religion should be based primarily on the Qur’an and
sunna and the theological vision of the early Muslim community.16 They insisted on
the superiority of these original sources and maintained that theology should not be
mitigated by external means.17 In contrast, rationalists emphasised the importance of
the rational sciences, such as philosophy, logic, and scholastic theology, to better
understand God and His message. While they paid allegiance to scripture, they felt
that the rational sciences helped give them greater insights into the Qur’an and the
essence of the Prophet’s teaching. The rational sciences were not a hindrance, as the
traditionalists claimed, but a useful tool to help elucidate divine truth.

While traditionalists and rationalists comprised opposing camps, there was a wide
spectrum between them, and great overlap. Pure rationalists rejected scripture altogether
4 Journal of Qur’anic Studies

while other, less strict, rationalists incorporated it within their argumentation. At the
opposite extreme, strident traditionalists condemned all forms of rational argumentation,
while others used the rational sciences to defend their traditionalist creeds. Furthermore,
even though they would rarely admit it, traditionalists and rationalists would frequently
incorporate the others’ arguments within their own writings.

Rationalists and traditionalists competed over claims to Islamic orthodoxy by

affiliating with Islamic legal schools of thought. Rationalists were frequently
associated with the Ḥanafīs, while the traditionalists were linked to the Ḥanbalīs.18
The Shāfiʿī school, however, witnessed great debates between rationalists and
traditionalists throughout its history,19 and Ibn Kathīr fits within the traditionalist
camp which traces its origins to the beginning of the Shāfiʿī school. As Ahmed
El Shamsy explains, some early traditionalist Shāfiʿīs moved into the emerging
Ḥanbalī school ‘while others became Shāfiʿī and inaugurated an enduring tradition of
scholarship within the school – a traditionalist strand of Shāfiʿism – that combined
Shāfiʿī jurisprudence with first-rate expertise in ḥadīth’.20 This traditionalist strand
would wax and wane throughout the Shāfiʿī school’s history, but it had an especially
strong period in the first half of the eighth/fourteenth century in Damascus at which
time the Damascene Shāfiʿī traditionalists were influenced by the influx of Ḥanbalīs
into the city, escaping the Mongol invasions.21

The Shāfiʿī traditionalists distinguished themselves by being experts in the various

sciences of ḥadīth, from narrators, to ḥadīth evaluations (takhrīj), to histories. The
Damascene Shāfiʿī traditionalists identified with Ibn Taymiyya because they were also
traditionalists and were critical of scholastic theology (kalām). Nonetheless, despite
the similarities between the Shāfiʿī traditionalists and Ibn Taymiyya, there were
important differences in terms of madhhab affiliation and creed. First and foremost
the Shāfiʿī traditionalists were Shāfiʿīs, not Ḥanbalīs like Ibn Taymiyya. Being
Shāfiʿī, they had a different intellectual point of reference than their Ḥanbalī
colleagues. The Shāfiʿī traditionalists identified with the eponym of their school
Muḥammad Idrīs al-Shāfiʿī (d. 204/820) and saw themselves in the line of the great
Shāfiʿīs of the previous century, Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ (d. 643/1245) and Muḥyī al-Dīn
al-Nawawī (d. 676/1277). Their identification with the Shāfiʿī school additionally
made them loyal to many of their Shāfiʿī-Ashʿarī colleagues who were part and parcel
of the Mamlūk political system.

A second difference was that the Shāfiʿī traditionalists were a group of ḥadīth scholars
who avoided jadl, kalām, and philosophy. Ibn Taymiyya was unique among
traditionalists in that he tried to reconcile reason and revelation and contended that
there was a correct disputation (jadl ṣaḥīḥ) that properly employed the Qur’an and
sunna.22 Much of Ibn Taymiyya’s intellectual project was to critique the dominant
Ashʿarī paradigm, which he felt was not faithful to the original sources.23 In contrast,
 Was Ibn Kathīr the ‘Spokesperson’ for Ibn Taymiyya? 5

the Shāfiʿī traditionalists shied away from refutations and developed the various
branches of ḥadīth. They subscribed to a ‘moral theology’ which focused on
promoting the moral and ethical values of the sunna.

Because of Shāfiʿī traditionalists’ madhhab affiliation and more fideist stance

towards the tradition, they cannot be described as simply ‘students’ of Ibn Taymiyya.
While many Shāfiʿī traditionalists drew from Ibn Taymiyya, they subscribed to
a different form of traditionalism and developed their own intellectual projects. This is
particularly true of Ibn Kathīr. Ibn Kathīr was associated with the influential
Damascene Shāfiʿī traditionalists Jamāl al-Dīn Yūsuf al-Mizzī (d. 742/1341), ʿAlam
al-Dīn al-Qāsim al-Birzālī (d. 739/1339), and Shams al-Dīn Abū ʿAbd Allāh
al-Dhahabī (d. 748/1348). His primary teacher was al-Mizzī, not Ibn Taymiyya, and
he also studied with al-Dhahabī and al-Birzālī.24 While Ibn Kathīr’s tafsīr could have
been inspired by Ibn Taymiyya, it was heavily influenced by the great ḥadīth scholar
al-Mizzī who was concerned with ḥadīth authentication. The influence of al-Mizzī
as well as the other Shāfiʿī traditionalists is evident on Ibn Kathīr’s Qur’anic
hermeneutic.

Ibn Kathīr’s Qur’anic Hermeneutic

Both Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Kathīr argue that the best way to interpret the Qur’an
is through the Qur’an itself, and the ḥadīth and traditions associated with the
Companions and Successors.25 Ibn Taymiyya outlines this approach towards the end
of his Muqaddima fī uṣūl al-tafsīr, and Ibn Kathīr copies these chapters into the
introduction to his exegesis. Yet, one must be careful in assuming that Ibn Kathīr
actually followed this hermeneutic in his tafsīr.26 As Walid Saleh observes, there is at
times a ‘dissonance’ between the aims laid out in the introduction and the actual
exegesis that the exegete produced.27 Exegetes had to engage the intellectual tradition
before them otherwise their works would be seen as irrelevant and discarded.
Therefore, to understand Ibn Kathīr’s Qur’anic hermeneutic, we need to take a closer
look at his exegetical writings in order to ‘deduce’ the rules implicit in their
approach.28

Unlike Ibn Taymiyya, whose methodological approach was centred in the refutation
of rationalist commentaries,29 Ibn Kathīr’s Qur’anic hermeneutic built on tradition-
based exegetes before him, particularly the works of Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī
(d. 310/923) and Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Rāzī (d. 327/938).30 In keeping with his moral
theology and larger intellectual project,31 Ibn Kathīr sought to promote the Shāfiʿī
traditionalist strand within the Shāfiʿī madhhab. He identified with al-Ṭabarī inasmuch
as the great fourth/tenth-century scholar promoted novel Qur’anic interpretations
by quoting a wide variety of traditions not confined to the mainstay ḥadīth collections.
Thus, Ibn Kathīr’s view of interpreting the Qur’an through the Qur’an, the sunna, and
6 Journal of Qur’anic Studies

the early community, was mediated by his engagement with tradition-based exegetes
before him.

Ibn Kathīr’s Qur’anic hermeneutic contrasts with Ibn Taymiyya’s and al-Rāzī’s in
that he avoids jadl (‘disputation’) and radd (‘refutations’).32 Ibn Taymiyya and
al-Rāzī consistently debate their opponents and demonstrate their irrationality.
While both cite ḥadīth within their exegetical writings, neither present them as
a takhrīj. Ibn Taymiyya and al-Rāzī were concerned primarily with arriving
at convincing theological arguments while Ibn Kathīr was interested in reliable
historical narratives. In particular, Ibn Kathīr’s hermeneutic sought to evaluate the
traditions cited by Ibn Abī Hātim al-Rāzī and al-Ṭabarī by cross-referencing them
within authoritative ḥadīth collections.33 Ibn Kathīr consistently prioritises Prophetic
aḥādīth over Companion and Successor traditions and other interpretive tools
such as philology. Previous exegetes had already reworked the foundational exegesis
of al-Thaʿlabī (d. 427/1035), for example al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1144) drew
heavily on al-Thaʿlabī to construct his philology-based tafsīr while al-Qurṭubī
(d. 671/1272) drew from al-Thaʿlabī but removed his pro-Shīʿī material.34 Ibn
Taymiyya also notes that al-Baghawī’s (d. 516/1122) exegesis was more or less
an abridgement of al-Thaʿlabī’s.35 However, no scholar had yet reworked the
exegesis of al-Ṭabarī and cross-referenced his traditions with authoritative ḥadīth
collections.36

Western scholars have been critical of Ibn Kathīr’s tafsīr, dismissing it as simply
consisting of lists of aḥādīth.37 Norman Calder, for instance, analyses a list of Ibn
Kathīr’s aḥādīth and complains that Ibn Kathīr’s comments are ‘minimal’ and that
‘this material is almost exclusively prophetic in its ascription’.38 Calder prefers
speculative exegetes, such as al-Qurṭūbī and al-Rāzī, who present and debate the
spectrum of the exegetical material. For Calder, Ibn Kathīr does not engage in
polyvalent readings that employ the range of exegetical tools such as philology,
kalām, and extra-ḥadīth traditions.

Yet, what scholars may not realise is that Ibn Kathīr’s lists of aḥādīth are carefully
crafted to present particular theological messages. As Jane McAuliffe clarifies, ‘While
the Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿaẓīm contains much traditional material, it is not simply a
collection uncritically accumulated. Rather it is most thoughtfully ordered and
evaluated’.39 Ibn Kathīr devotes considerable time to selecting aḥādīth that represent
the range of the ḥadīth tradition and the theological message he wants to convey.40
While Calder is right that Ibn Kathīr does not employ as many exegetical tools as
some other exegetes, Ibn Kathīr’s contribution to the exegetical tradition was to tie the
authoritative ḥadīth collections with tafsīr. Previous exegetes had used ḥadīth within
their commentaries, but not to the same level or with the same rigour as Ibn Kathīr.
 Was Ibn Kathīr the ‘Spokesperson’ for Ibn Taymiyya? 7

To elucidate Ibn Kathīr’s hermeneutic, we will now examine his exegetical writings
regarding an important theological debate in eighth/fourteenth-century Damascus,
the infallibility (ʿiṣma) of the prophets.

Defining the ʿiṣma of the Prophets

Both Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Kathīr deal significantly with prophets within their
writings but differ substantially regarding the concept of their infallibility. To
contextualise their positions, it is necessary to present some background regarding the
dominant Ashʿarī definition of ʿiṣma with which both Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Kathīr
had to contend.

The most influential Ashʿarī theologian within eighth/fourteenth-century Mamlūk

Damascus was Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī. As he details in his al-Arbaʿīn (‘Forty
Theological Principles’), al-Rāzī maintains that prophets must be essentially sinless
because they had to properly convey the divine message.41 If prophets sinned, al-Rāzī
reasoned, then people would doubt their moral integrity and not follow their call. Ibn
Taymiyya, in opposition, argues against the Ashʿarī position and contends that
prophets did, in fact, sin but that God protected them from persisting in sin. Ibn
Taymiyya agreed with al-Rāzī that prophets were models, but insisted that part of their
moral example was that they admitted their shortcomings, sought God’s forgiveness,
and reformed their actions: many Qur’anic verses and aḥādīth assert that prophets
made mistakes but then detail how they repented.42

Ibn Kathīr was not a theologian in the sense of al-Rāzī or Ibn Taymiyya, so he never
composed a theological tract on ʿiṣma. Nevertheless, he does define ʿiṣma in his tafsīr
and his definition is closest to al-Rāzī’s, not Ibn Taymiyya’s, in that he believes that
the prophets were essentially free of sin because they were constantly aided by God.43
In Q. 21:78–80, the Qur’an narrates that David and Solomon both judged on an
agriculture dispute in which a shepherd’s sheep destroyed his neighbour’s crop. The
Qur’an then states that We made Solomon understand (Q. 21:79), implying that
Solomon’s judgement was more just than David’s. After narrating the details of the
story behind the verse and a ḥadīth regarding whether a judge who rules incorrectly
will go to the hellfire, Ibn Kathīr interjects and states, ‘I hold (aqūl) that the prophets
are protected (maʿṣūmūn) [and] aided by God, the most powerful and majestic, and
there is no disagreement in this in terms of the true scholars (muḥaqqiqīn) from the
early ones (salaf) to the latter-day ones (khalaf)’.44 He then continues that ‘for other
than’ the prophets there is the ḥadīth ‘If a judge rules correctly then he is rewarded
twice, but if he rules and is incorrect then he has one reward’. Ibn Kathīr argues that
this ḥadīth refutes those who claim that if a judge rules incorrectly then he will go to
the hellfire. But, his citing this ḥadīth in reference to ‘other than the prophets’ suggests
that Ibn Kathīr believed that prophets do not make mistakes.45
8 Journal of Qur’anic Studies

There is no doubt that Ibn Kathīr’s intellectual milieu and relationship with his
Ashʿarī colleagues influenced his definition of ʿiṣma. In his discussions of ʿiṣma, Ibn
Kathīr quotes Ashʿarī sources such as al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ’s (d. 544/1149) influential Kitāb
al-shifāʾ fī ḥuqūq al-muṣṭafā, specifically citing al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ’s opinion that Q. 3:39
did not mean that the Prophet John was impotent, as other exegetes claim, but rather
protected (maʿṣūm) from committing adultery.46 Yet, what differentiates Ibn Kathīr
from his Ashʿarī colleagues is that he does not argue for the sinless nature of the
prophets, but rather presents narratives of the prophets as models of righteousness.
Unlike al-Rāzī, Ibn Kathīr is not interested in the question of prophetic sin and does
not get drawn into the theological debates of his opponents.47 Rather, he focuses on
conveying what he believes is the true image of the prophets, one of righteousness and
obedience.

Ibn Kathīr’s definition of ʿiṣma was not only a product of his relationship with the
Shāfiʿī-Ashʿarīs, but was (as mentioned above) also connected to his social and
political context. Even though Ibn Kathīr was part of a traditionalist political minority,
he was affiliated with the majority Shāfiʿī school which controlled the major
educational and juridical posts. Unlike Ibn Taymiyya, who was a member of the
Ḥanbalī minority and an outspoken social critic, Ibn Kathīr presents his views in a
subtle manner and his opinions often represent a desire to preserve the status quo. This
can, perhaps, be seen reflected in the fact that Ibn Taymiyya spent the last years of his
life imprisoned in Damascus because he was considered a threat to the social and
political order.48 Ibn Kathīr, on the other hand, was requested at the end of his life
to write a treatise on the importance of defending the Mamlūk empire by the governor
of Damascus.49

Jonah as an Obedient Prophet

To illustrate how Ibn Kathīr defines ʿiṣma, we will examine how he applies the
definition to the Prophet Jonah, an ideal figure for such a discussion because he is one
of the few prophets who was explicitly punished by God. In contrast to the
theologians al-Rāzī or Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Kathīr does not structure his exegetical
writings as a kalām-style refutation; he does not put forward his opponents’ claims in
order to counter them.50 Instead, Ibn Kathīr presents his tafsīr as a type of ḥadīth
evaluation that constructs a narrative of Jonah as a prophet of worship and
obedience.51

Ibn Kathīr views the story of Jonah as one of worship in which Jonah was released
from the whale because of his prior obedience. He presents the bulk of the story in his
commentary on Q. 21:87, and remember the man with the whale (dhū’l-nūn) when he
went off angrily, thinking that We were incapable of [punishing] him (lan naqdira
ʿalayhi), but he called out in the darkness, ‘There is no God but You, glory be to You,
 Was Ibn Kathīr the ‘Spokesperson’ for Ibn Taymiyya? 9

verily I am among the wrongdoers (ẓālimīn).’ Ibn Kathīr begins by giving a brief
historical background to the story, mentioning Jonah’s full name, the name of people
he was sent to, and how he was thrown into the ocean.52 (Here we see Ibn Kathīr’s
expertise as an historian, something which is absent in philological and speculative
exegeses.) He then moves to comment on the phrase he went off angrily and only cites
one of al-Ṭabarī’s traditions in which Jonah left his people angry at them.53 Ibn Kathīr
thus omits several of al-Ṭabarī’s traditions that report that Jonah abandoned his people
because he was angry with God.54 For example, he forgoes a Biblically-inspired
tradition that the people of Nineveh repented after Jonah had left the city, leading God
to forgive them. According to this tradition, believing that God rescinded His promise
to punish the people, Jonah became upset with Him55 and swore, ‘By God, I am never
going to return to my people a liar’.56 Ibn Kathīr most likely did without this tradition
because it raised theological issues of God not fulfilling his promise, and a prophet
showing his displeasure with the divine will.

Ibn Kathīr transitions to interpret lan naqdira ʿalayhi and argues, similarly to al-Rāzī,
that the phrase means lan nuḍayyiqa (‘not to restrict’).57 With his interpretation,
Ibn Kathīr is able to avoid the problematic reading that God was not capable (qadara)
of punishing Jonah. As al-Rāzī contends, it would not befitting for a prophet to think
that God was not able to punish him, and thus he interprets lan naqdira as meaning
lan nuḍayyiqa.58 To back up his opinion, Ibn Kathīr cites both Companions and
Successors: Ibn ʿAbbās, Mujāhid b. Jabr, and al-Ḍaḥḥāk b. Muzāhim.59 He records
that al-Ṭabarī prefers this later opinion and gives philological evidence that naqdir
means nuḍayyiq, based on Q. 65:7, But let him whose provisions are restricted
(qudira) spend according to what God has given him: God does not burden any soul
more than He has given it – after hardship, God will bring ease.60 Al-Rāzī also uses
the same verse to support his interpretation that qadara means to restrict,61 but
although Ibn Kathīr’s opinion here is similar to al-Rāzī’s, Ibn Kathīr situates the
authority for the meaning of naqdir first with the Companions and Successors and
then with philology: Ibn Kathīr does use philology as an interpretative tool throughout
his tafsīr but the transmitted sources are given priority. Ibn Kathīr’s use of philology is
further apparent in this instance in that he cites an opinion that naqdir means naqḍiya
(‘to judge’) and follows this with a verse of poetry to support this argument. It is also
worth noting that Ibn Kathīr cites these verses despite the fact that his preferred
opinion is that naqdir means to restrict (nuḍayyiq), which shows that Ibn Kathīr was
open to various readings of the text.62

After citing traditions about the meaning of Jonah’s call in the darkness (ẓulamāt),
Ibn Kathīr presents several traditions that all emphasise Jonah’s obedience and
worship. In the first tradition, Jonah enters the belly of the whale and thinks that he
is dead.63 He then moves his leg and realises that he is still alive. He immediately
prostrates, supplicating, ‘O, God! I have made a place of worship (masjid) for you
10 Journal of Qur’anic Studies

in a place where no one ever has.’64 This tradition, which portrays Jonah as a ‘spiritual
pioneer’ since he is the first to worship God in a belly of a whale (!), is not found in
any of the canonical ḥadīth collections and is only briefly mentioned by al-Ṭabarī.
Yet, Ibn Kathīr includes the tradition because it stresses Jonah’s worship and
obedience.

Ibn Kathīr then cites a ḥadīth from Abū Hurayra that narrates that when God decided
to confine Jonah in the belly of the whale, he instructed the whale not to eat from
Jonah’s flesh or break his bones.65 When the whale settled to the bottom of the ocean,
Jonah heard some noise and he began to ask himself what it was. God then inspired
Jonah to realise that this was the supplication (tasbīḥ) of the sea creatures, leading
Jonah to reflect and make his own prayer. The angels then hear Jonah’s prayer and
remark, ‘Oh God, we hear a weak voice from a strange land.’ God responds, ‘That is
from My servant Jonah, he disobeyed Me so I kept him in the belly of a whale in the
ocean.’ They exclaim, interceding on Jonah’s behalf, ‘The righteous servant whose
good deeds rose to you every day and night!’66 God agrees, and then orders the whale
to release Jonah. Ibn Kathīr attempts to demonstrate the authority of this tradition by
noting that it is cited by al-Ṭabarī and is found in the Musnad of al-Bazzār.67 Once
again, Ibn Kathīr is unable to locate this tradition within the canonical collections, but
he nevertheless cites the story because it promotes his view that Jonah was a prophet
of obedience.68 He then lists another ḥadīth that emphasises Jonah’s obedience in
which the Prophet Muḥammad instructs: ‘It is not permissible for a servant to say, “I
am better than Yūnus b. Matta (Jonah), he praised (sabbaḥa) God in the darkness.”’69
Ibn Kathīr notes that there are variants to this traditions that do not have the addition
‘he praised God in the darkness’ but nonetheless he chooses to quote this version
because it emphasises Jonah’s devotion.70

Ibn Kathīr ends his commentary with a second tradition that supports the idea of the
angels interceding on behalf of Jonah, this time from Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Rāzī.71 This
ḥadīth alters the dialogue so that, here, God asks the angels if they recognise the voice
of Jonah. They reply, questioning, ‘Who is it?’; God informs them, ‘It is My servant
Jonah’, to which they respond in astonishment, ‘Your servant Jonah, whose deeds
were continuously accepted and prayers always answered?’ The angels then intercede
on his behalf pleading, ‘Will You not have mercy on the one who did good [in a time
of ease] so we can save him in hardship?’ God responds, ‘Yes, absolutely’, and orders
the whale to release Jonah.72

All of the traditions cited by Ibn Kathīr in this context acknowledge that Jonah made
a mistake; he should have obeyed God and not fled his people. Yet, they all emphasise
Jonah’s obedience and worship. The angels exclaim that Jonah is a righteous
servant whose good deeds were well known before his transgression, and the Prophet
 Was Ibn Kathīr the ‘Spokesperson’ for Ibn Taymiyya? 11

declares that no one should condemn Jonah because he praised God in a time
of difficulty.

Ibn Kathīr continues the theme of Jonah as an obedient prophet in his commentary
on Q. 37:143–4, If he were not one of those who praised God (musabbiḥīn), he would
have remained in the [whale’s] belly until the Day when all are raised up. He
comments that if it were not for his prior good deeds, Jonah would have stayed in
the whale until the Day of Judgement. To support this claim, he cites a ḥadīth from
Ibn ʿAbbās in which the Prophet states, ‘If you remember God in times of ease then
He will remember you in times of difficulty’. He then follows this ḥadīth with a
tradition ascribed to Ibn ʿAbbās according to which ‘one of the musabbiḥīn’ means
‘one of the worshippers (muṣallīn)’, and further notes that some commentators explain
that Jonah was a worshipper before he was swallowed by the whale, while others
even claim that he praised God (musabbiḥīn) while he was still in his mother’s
womb!73

Ibn Kathīr adds additional commentary in his qiṣaṣ al-anbiyāʾ, in which he dedicates
a chapter to Jonah.74 In his explanation of Q. 37:143–4 there, he mentions that if it
were not for Jonah’s ‘repentance and return to God’ then he would have stayed in the
whale until the Day of Judgement. But he does not dwell on this point. Rather he
stresses the first part of the verse, If he were not one of those who praised God
(musabbiḥīn). For Ibn Kathīr, Jonah was one of the musabbiḥīn because he was one of
the ‘obedient [servants], worshippers, and remembers of God’.75 He supports this
interpretation through citing a more complete variant of Ibn ʿAbbās’ ḥadīth in which
the Prophet instructs him, ‘Oh my son, let me teach you a few words, preserve
[the rights] of God and God will preserve you. Preserve [the rights] of God and
you will find Him guiding you, acquaint yourself with God in times of goodness, then
He will remember you in times of hardship.’76 The implication is that Jonah’s prayer
was answered because he was a devote servant before his act of transgression.
Al-Ṭabarī does cite similar traditions from early exegetical authorities but none are
Prophetic.77

Ibn Kathīr ends the chapter on Jonah in his qiṣaṣ by devoting a special section to
the virtues of the Prophet Jonah (faḍl Yūnus), something that stands in contrast to both
al-Thaʿlabī’s and al-Ṭabarī’s accounts of Jonah. Throughout the section, Ibn Kathīr
asserts the traditionalist principle that the prophets were the best of men and models of
faith. He begins by quoting Q. 39:139, Verily Jonah was one of the messengers, and
states that Jonah is mentioned in both Sūrat al-Nisāʾ and Sūrat al-Anʿām along with
other messengers. He proceeds to list several aḥādīth which all start with the phrase
‘It is not befitting for a servant to say, “I am better than Yūnus b. Matta …”’ In this
instance, Ibn Kathīr displays his vast knowledge of ḥadīth by providing variations
of this tradition from the authoritative collections of al-Bukhārī, Muslim, and Abū
12 Journal of Qur’anic Studies

Dāwūd, as well as the less-cited Musnads of Ibn Ḥanbal and of al-Ṭabarānī. The great
ḥadīth scholar meticulously demonstrates how the different chains of narrations
support each other and ultimately buttress the content of the ḥadīth.

While other exegetes cite this tradition, none go into such depth in proving its
authenticity.78 Ibn Kathīr most likely went into such detail to counter mystical
doctrines that suggest that saints could be more righteous than prophets. One of Ibn
Kathīr’s students, Muḥammad b. Abī ʿIzz (d. 792/1390),79 relates in his commentary
on ʿAqīda al-Ṭaḥāwiyya (‘The Creed of Ṭaḥāwiyya’)80 that it is not possible for
a believer to reach the level of the prophets. He specifically accuses Ibn ʿArabī
(d. 638/1240) of claiming to have reached the spiritual and devotional level of the
prophets even though he did not follow their teachings.81 Ibn Abī ʿIzz proceeds to cite
Ibn ʿArabī’s works to prove that Ibn ʿArabī and his followers, in fact, claimed that
they were greater than the prophets. For Ibn Abī ʿIzz and other traditionalists,
claiming superiority over the prophets implied that one did not have to abide by
their example, a clear sign of disbelief. By citing the various aḥādīth that state that
no one should say that they are better than Jonah, Ibn Kathīr could have been
indirectly refuting interpretations of Ibn ʿArabī’s mystical doctrine. Unlike Ibn
Taymiyya, who frequently engaged in direct refutations of his opponents, Ibn Kathīr
simply presents the authentic traditions that he feels represents the correct theological
principle and subtly marginalises them.82

Additionally, nowhere in Ibn Kathīr’s qiṣaṣ do we find traditions that speak to Jonah’s
weakness and flaws. Al-Thaʿlabī, for instance, cites the ḥadīth ‘Jonah, son of Amittai,
was hasty and unsteady, and when he took the burden of prophecy on himself, he fell
apart under it, and his people fell apart under the heavy burden, and therefore for that
reason he left them in anger’.83 Such a tradition would violate Ibn Kathīr’s conviction
that the prophets were guided by God and were models of belief. We also see that
there is very little extra-prophetic material found in Ibn Kathīr’s account, such as the
Biblically-inspired tradition found in both al-Ṭabarī and al-Thaʿlabī that recounts
how, after God saved Jonah from the whale, He provided him a plant to feed and
shade him.84 When the plant dried up, Jonah began to cry, leading God to declare, ‘Do
you weep over the dry tree, and not weep over the one hundred thousand or more
people whom you wanted Me to destroy?’85 This tradition violates Ibn Kathīr’s
contention that God assists and protects prophets; He does not chastise and discipline
them.

Ibn Kathīr’s ḥadīth-centred account of the prophets in his qiṣaṣ draws sharp criticism
once more from Norman Calder, who proclaims that ‘It is difficult to avoid the
conclusion that, in Ibn Kathīr’s view, God has considerably less literary skill than the
average human being, and very little imagination’.86 Calder disapproves of Ibn
Kathīr’s lack of narrative and of how much of his presentation is reduced to Qur’anic
 Was Ibn Kathīr the ‘Spokesperson’ for Ibn Taymiyya? 13

and prophetic material. Whereas Calder attacks Ibn Kathīr, he lauds al-Thaʿlabī’s
qiṣaṣ al-anbiyāʾ, ‘which is certainly the most positive and lively presentation of
prophetic tales within the academic tradition’.87 Calder is correct that Ibn Kathīr’s
qiṣaṣ does not read as a literary narrative as al-Thaʿlabī’s does; al-Thaʿlabī’s
Nīshāpūrī school of exegesis were experts in Arab literature and poetry, while Ibn
Kathīr’s intellectual circle were masters of ḥadīth.88 Ibn Kathīr’s prophetic history
was a response to the larger ‘entertainment genre’89 of the qiṣaṣ al-anbiyāʾ which
he most likely felt prioritised amusing tales over historical accuracy. He was not
attempting to create a literary masterpiece, but rather craft a narrative through
Qur’anic verses and authentic traditions that spoke to his traditionalist moral and
ethical values.

Conclusion

Through an analysis of Ibn Kathīr’s exegetical writings we can determine that he was
not simply a spokesperson for Ibn Taymiyya. Ibn Kathīr belonged to a Shāfiʿī-
traditionalist intellectual circle which was composed of ḥadīth specialists. These
Shāfiʿī–traditionalists were fideists in that they gave absolute authority to the
transmitted sources and gave great credence to ḥadīth. They ascribed to a ‘moral
theology’ that avoided speculation and disputation and focused on promoting the
moral and ethical values of the sunna. Ibn Taymiyya, in contrast, subscribed to a
traditionalism which rationalised the transmitted sources and contended that reason
and revelation were complimentary. Ibn Taymiyya’s traditionalism led him to
compose a variety of refutations of what he perceived as heretical doctrines.
Specifically, Ibn Kathīr’s Tafsīr can be seen as a response to Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī
rather than an extension of Ibn Taymiyya’s thought.

These different traditionalisms appear in their contrasting interpretation of the story of

Jonah. Ibn Taymiyya refutes the Ashʿarī position that prophets were essentially
perfect and argues that prophets did in fact err but did not persist in sin: Ibn Taymiyya
viewed the story of Jonah and other prophets as one of repentance and spiritual
renewal. Ibn Kathīr, on the other hand, structures his exegesis as a ḥadīth evaluation:
he carefully sorts through al-Ṭabarī’s and Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Rāzī’s tafāsīr, selecting
traditions that he feels are theologically sound and can be corroborated by
authoritative ḥadīth collections. In terms of the issue of ʿiṣma of the prophets, Ibn
Kathīr is closer to the Ashʿarī position that prophets do not sin because they are
constantly aided by God. He presents Jonah as an obedient prophet who was released
from the whale because of his prior worship. However, in keeping with his moral
theology, Ibn Kathīr does not engage in kalām-style debate and avoids being drawn
into theological discussions of whether Jonah was a sinner, or if saints can be superior
to the prophets. Rather he focuses on presenting a compelling narrative on how Jonah
is a model of righteousness and obedience and worthy of praise and emulation.
14 Journal of Qur’anic Studies

NOTES
I would like to thank my dissertation committee, Jonathan Brown, Ahmad Dallal, Felicitas
Opwis, and Walid Saleh, for all of their encouragement and support. Any mistakes are my own.
1 Al-Nuʿaymī, al-Dāris fī tārīkh al-madāris, vol. 1, p. 36.
2 It is unclear when the manuscript was copied but it must have been after Ibn Kathīr’s passing
since the scribe mentions ‘may God bless his soul’ after mentioning Ibn Kathīr’s name. For
more on the manuscript tradition of this work see Ibn Kathīr, Mawlid rasūl Allāh, pp. 8–11.
3 This is the only instance in the premodern sources in which I have seen Ibn Kathīr given the
title shaykh al-Islām.
4 Ibn Kathīr, Mawlid rasūl Allāh, p. 11.
5 Ibn Qāḍī al-Shuhba explains that he wrote his biographical dictionary because Ibn Kathīr
included too many insignificant names; Ibn Qāḍī al-Shuhba, Ṭabaqāt al-fuqahāʾ al-Shāfiʿīyya,
vol. 2, p. 160. Ibn Qāḍī al-Shuhba’s dictionary is more concise than Ibn Kathīr’s, but I am
inclined to believe that he wrote the dictionary for theological reasons. Ibn Qāḍī al-Shuhba
praises Shāfiʿī-Ashʿarīs throughout the dictionary, noting their expertise in logic and scholastic
theology (kalām). Ibn Kathīr, in contrast, praises Shāfiʿī traditionalists who specialised in the
transmitted sources.
6 Ibn Qāḍī al-Shuhba, Ṭabaqāt, vol. 2, p. 159.
7 Ibn Qāḍī al-Shuhba, Ṭabaqāt, vol. 2, p. 161. I have found no evidence in Ibn Kathīr’s
writings to support the contention that he agreed with Ibn Taymiyya on the issue of divorce
oaths. Ibn Kathīr could have given fatāwā orally on this subject. For more on Ibn Kathīr and
divorce oaths, see my ‘Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373)’.
8 Ibn Qāḍī al-Shuba, Ṭabaqāt, vol. 2, p. 161.
9 Ibn al-ʿImād, Shadharāt al-dhahab, vol. 4, p. 136; al-Nuʿaymī, al-Dāris fī tārīkh al-madāris,
vol. 1, pp. 36–7. I believe al-Nuʿaymī has an Ashʿarī bias since he calls the Shāfiʿī-Ashʿarī Taqī
al-Dīn al-Subkī ‘shaykh al-Islām’ while he does give the same epithet to Ibn Taymiyya. Many
Ashʿarīs considered Taqī al-Dīn al-Subkī the shaykh al-Islām, while traditionalists referred to
Ibn Taymiyya with the same title.
10 Al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn, vol. 1, pp. 111–13.
11 McAuliffe, Qur’ānic Christian, p. 72.
12 Calder’s complete statement is that Ibn Kathīr ‘was an expert on ḥadīth and a disciple of Ibn
Taymiyya – together adequate symbols of his intellectual affiliation’ (Calder, ‘Tafsīr from
Ṭabarī to Ibn Kathīr’, pp. 121–4).
13 Saleh, nevertheless, is one of the few who notices a difference between Ibn Taymiyya’s
Qur’anic hermeneutic and Ibn Kathīr’s tafsīr; See Saleh, ‘Ibn Taymiyya and the Rise of Radical
Hermeneutics’, p. 153.
14 See my ‘Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373)’.
15 For more on the struggle between rationalists and traditionalists in Islam see Frank, Texts
and Studies; Hourani, Reason and Tradition; Hourani, Islamic Rationalism; and Hurvitz,
Formation of Hanbalism. I would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for helping me bring
out this larger point regarding the conflict between rationalism and traditionalism.
16 Christopher Melchert defines traditionalists as ‘those who would base their law and
theology mainly on ḥadīth as opposed to rational speculation’. See Melchert, ‘Early
Renunciants as Ḥadīth Transmitters’, p. 407. As Jonathan Brown further explains,
traditionalists believed that, ‘a narcissistic indulgence of human reason would encourage the
agendas of heresy and the temptation to stray from God’s revealed path. Only by clinging
stubbornly to the ways of the Prophet and his righteous successors could they preserve
 Was Ibn Kathīr the ‘Spokesperson’ for Ibn Taymiyya? 15

the authenticity of their religion’ (Brown, The Canonization of al-Bukhārī and Muslim, p. 50).
For more on the definition of ‘traditionalist’, see Makdisi, ‘Ashʿarī and the Ash‘arites’, p. 48.
17 It is important to note that traditionalists did not entirely reject the use of reason, rather reason
would be an important tool to analyse reports and to expand the use of the law through analogy
(qiyās). A traditionalist (salafī) is furthermore not equivalent to a ḥadīth scholar (muḥaddith). A
ḥadīth scholar could very well be a rationalist or traditionalist in creed even though many ḥadīth
scholars were traditionalists. For more, see Makdisi, ‘The Juridical Theology of Shāfi‘ī’.
18 For more on the rise of the Ḥanbalī school see Hurvitz, Formation of Hanbalism.
19 For more on the struggle between rationalists and traditionalists within the Shāfiʿī school,
see Makdisi, ‘Ash‘arī and the Ash‘arites’.
20 El Shamsy, ‘The First Shāfi‘ī’, p. 33.
21 Chamberlain, Knowledge and Social Practice, p. 169.
22 Makdisi, ‘The Tanbīh of Ibn Taimiya’, p. 293.
23 See my ‘Ibn Taymiyya as a Qur’anic Exegete’.
24 See my ‘Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373)’.
25 Walid Saleh details Ibn Taymiyya’s Qur’anic hermeneutics in his ‘Ibn Taymiyya and the
Rise of Radical Hermeneutics’. Also, see McAuliffe, ‘Qur’ānic Hermeneutics’, pp. 46–62.
26 Jame Dammen McAuliffe defines ‘exegesis’ and ‘hermeneutics’ as follows: ‘The practice
of interpretation was equated with what we now term “exegesis”, while the term “hermeneutics”
was used to denote the aims and criteria of that practice’ (McAuliffe, ‘Qur’ānic Hermeneutics’,
p. 47).
27 Saleh, The Formation of the Classical Tafsīr Tradition, p. 77.
28 Saleh further expands on the importance of comparing a scholar’s hermeneutic with his
actual tafsīr. Speaking about al-Thaʿlabī: ‘Moreover a theory of interpretation with no textual
corollary, which al-Thaʿlabī presented in his introduction, is impossible to assess. He never
gives an example of how he intends to interpret a given verse. The converse is also true in the
body of his commentary. He never explains how his theory is directing any particular
explanation he is offering. Thus we are left to deduce the rules that are implicit in his approach’
(Saleh, The Formation of the Classical Tafsīr Tradition, p. 102).
29 See my ‘Ibn Taymiyya as a Qur’anic Exegete’.
30 Al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Rāzī are the most quoted exegetes in Ibn Kathīr’s
Tafsīr, with Saʿūd b. ʿAbd Allāh Fanīsān recording that al-Ṭabarī is directly quoted 2,039
times and Ibn Abī Ḥātim 1,744 times (Fanīsān, Mawārid al-ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr, p. 129).
More work needs to be done on the Qur’anic hermeneutics of al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Abī Ḥātim
al-Rāzī, so we can better understand Ibn Kathīr’s. I would like to thank the anonymous reviewer
for helping me make this point.
31 For more on Ibn Kathīr’s intellectual project see my ‘Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373)’.
32 See my ‘Ibn Taymiyya as a Qur’anic Exegete’.
33 Ibn Kathīr had written earlier takhrīj works such as Tuḥfat al-ṭālib li-mukhtaṣar Ibn Ḥājib.
Ibn Kathīr’s expertise in ḥadīth appears throughout the Tafsīr in that he uses specialised ḥadīth
terminology and cites traditions outside of the canonical collections. For more on Ibn Kathīr’s
ḥadīth works see chapter 3 of my ‘Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373)’.
34 Saleh, The Formation of the Classical Tafsīr Tradition, pp. 209–15. As Saleh says
of al-Zamakhsharī’s engagement with al-Thaʿlabī, ‘The relationship is one of dialectical
conversation, of adding, adapting, refuting, and excising material from al-Tha‘labī’.
35 Ibn Taymīyya, Muqaddima fī uṣūl al-tafsīr, p. 76.
16 Journal of Qur’anic Studies

36 This may be because al-Ṭabarī did not occupy such a central role in the history of tafsīr.
For more on questioning the historic role of al-Ṭabarī, see Saleh, The Formation of the
Classical Tafsīr Tradition.
37 Calder, ‘Tafsīr from Ṭabarī to Ibn Kathīr,’ p. 129.
38 Calder, ‘Tafsīr from Ṭabarī to Ibn Kathīr,’ p. 129.
39 McAuliffe continues to state, ‘As such it bears fitting testimony to a period in Islamic
history that was conservative in the positive sense of the term – an era that sought to identify
and preserve the best of its received tradition, albeit an era that, in modern times, has often been
dismissed as mechanical and uninspired, repetitive and routine, if not actually verging on
decadence’ (McAuliffe, Qur’anic Christians, p. 76).
40 For more on how muḥaddithūn articulate their legal opinions through ḥadīth, see Melchert
‘Traditionist-Jurisprudents and the Framing of Islamic Law’, pp. 383–406.
41 Mirza, ‘Ibn Taymiyya as a Qur’anic Exegete’.
42 For more on Ibn Taymiyya and the concept of ʿiṣma, please see Ahmed, ‘Ibn Taymiyya
and the Satanic Verses’, pp. 67–124.
43 Ibn Kathīr is hesitant to say that the prophets engaged in repentance (tawba) since that
implied that they had sinned.
44 Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿaẓīm, vol. 7, p. 3,866.
45 In his commentary on Q. 66:10, Ibn Kathīr even goes as far as saying that the wives of the
Prophet are maʿṣūm from committing adultery even if they were disbelievers (Ibn Kathīr,
Tafsīr, vol. 11, p. 6,212). We also see through his tafsīr that ʿiṣma is an important principle that
differentiates Sunnīs from other sects and religions. Ibn Kathīr affirms that the Sunnī principle
that the umma of the Prophet Muḥammad is protected (lahum ʿiṣma) from agreeing on error
(Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, vol. 3, p. 1,534). This puts Sunnīs in conflict with extremist Shīʿīs who
maintain that their leader has to be maʿṣūm (Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, vol. 1, p. 211). Christians,
additionally, hold their leaders to have ʿiṣma and are thought to follow them in whatever they
say (Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, vol. 3, p. 1,622). By maintaining that only the prophets are maʿṣūm,
Ibn Kathīr further marginalises other types of knowledge, such as Biblical traditions, since they
do not come from a reliable source (Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, vol. 7, p. 3,851).
46 Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, vol. 2, p. 988.
47 See my ‘Ibn Taymiyya as a Qur’anic Exegete’.
48 More work needs to be done on Ibn Taymiyya’s final imprisonment.
49 Ibn Kathīr, Kitāb al-ijtihād.
50 See my ‘Ibn Taymiyya as a Qur’anic Exegete’.
51 Ibn Kathīr’s use of traditions to argue his theological points demonstrates that ‘most of the
tafsīr bi’l-maʾthūr is in reality a tafsīr bi’l-raʾy’ (Saleh, The Formation of the Classical Tafsīr
Tradition, p. 16). Ibn Kathīr situates his opinion through the transmitted sources.
52 Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, vol. 7, p. 3,879.
53 Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, vol. 7, p. 3,880. Ibn Kathīr is explicit in his qiṣaṣ that Jonah left upset
at his people (Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, vol. 1, p. 275).
54 Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-bayān, vol. 17, p. 61.
55 For more on how Ibn Kathīr deals with Biblically-inspired material, see Tottoli, ‘Origin and
Use of the Term Isrāʾīliyyāt’, pp. 193–210.
56 Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-bayān, vol. 17, p. 61. See the Book of Jonah 3:10 for the Biblical roots
of this tradition.
57 Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, vol. 7, p. 3,880.
 Was Ibn Kathīr the ‘Spokesperson’ for Ibn Taymiyya? 17

58 Scholars have argued that Ibn Kathīr’s work is simply a takhrīj of al-Ṭabarī (Saleh, ‘Radical
Hermeneutics’, p. 153). However, Ibn Kathīr does not limit himself to al-Ṭabarī and uses
a plethora of sources throughout his commentary. For more on the many sources that Ibn
Kathīr draws on in his tafsīr see Fanīsān, Mawārid al-ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr; and Ismāʿīl, al-Miftāḥ
al-kabīr.
59 Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, vol. 7, p. 3,880.
60 Abdel Haleem, The Qur’ān, p. 379.
61 Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, vol. 7, p. 3,880.
62 Calder implies that Ibn Kathīr does not employ exegetical tools other than ḥadīth
(Calder, ‘Tafsīr from Ṭabarī to Ibn Kathīr’, p. 121).
63 Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, vol. 7, p. 3,880.
64 Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, vol. 7, p. 3,880.
65 Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, vol. 7, p. 3,880.
66 Al-Rāzī cites this same ḥadīth in his commentary on Q. 37:145, but unlike al-Rāzī,
Ibn Kathīr cites the entire chain of transmission and locates it within authoritative collections.
Ibn Kathīr distinguishes himself from other exegetes in that he cites the source of Prophetic
traditions, includes their full chains of transmission, and lists variants.
67 Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, vol. 7, p. 3,881. Ibn Kathīr includes al-Bazzār’s comment that this
tradition has only one complete chain of transmission back to the Prophet. Nonetheless, the
editors of the Awlād al-Shaykh edition grade this tradition as weak. Al-Ṭabarī also cites this
tradition in his universal history (al-Ṭabarī, Tārīkh al-umam wa’l-mulūk, vol. 2, p. 44).
68 Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, vol. 7, p. 3,881.
69 Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, vol. 7, p. 3,881. Ibn Kathīr includes a section in his qiṣaṣ that lists
variants of this ḥadīth (Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, vol. 1, pp. 278–9).
70 I will speak about other variants of this tradition below.
71 Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, vol. 7, p. 3,881. One of the narrators of this tradition notes that Anas b.
Mālik is the only Companion to ascribe this tradition to the Prophet.
72 Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, vol. 7, p. 3,881. This tradition is also found in al-Thaʿlabī’s qiṣaṣ
(al-Thaʿlabī, ʿArāʾis al-majālis, p. 686).
73 Literally ‘in the belly/midst of his two parents’ (jawf abawayhi).
74 Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, vol. 1, pp. 273–80. Ibn Kathīr refers his readers to his tafsīr
here alluding to the fact that he wrote his commentary on Q. 21:87 before he wrote this portion
of al-Bidāya wa’l-nihāya.
75 Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, vol. 1, p. 276.
76 Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, vol. 1, p. 276.
77 Al-Ṭabarī mentions the theme that Jonah was a righteous person before being swallowed
by the whale (al-Ṭabarī, Tārīkh, vol. 2, p. 44).
78 Al-Thaʿlabī, ʿArāʾis al-majālis, p. 686.
79 Ibn Abī ʿIzz cites Ibn Kathīr three times in his commentary regarding ḥadīth authentication
(Ibn Abī al-ʿIzz, Sharḥ al-ʿaqīda al-Ṭaḥāwiyya, vol. 1, p. 73).
80 ʿAqīda al-Ṭaḥāwiyya has been translated into English (Ṭaḥāwī, The Creed of Imam
al-Ṭaḥāwī).
81 Ibn Abī ʿIzz, Sharḥ al-ʿaqīda al-Ṭaḥāwiyya, vol. 2, p. 742.
82 Ibn ʿArabī does include a chapter on Jonah in his Fuṣūṣ but unfortunately does not mention
this ḥadīth (Ibn ʿArabī, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam).
18 Journal of Qur’anic Studies

83 Al-Thaʿlabī, ʿArāʾis al-majālis, p. 687.

84 See the Book of Jonah 4.
85 Al-Thaʿlabī, ʿArāʾis al-majālis, p. 681.
86 Calder, ‘Tafsīr from Ṭabarī to Ibn Kathīr’, p. 124.
87 Calder, ‘Tafsīr from Ṭabarī to Ibn Kathīr’, p. 128.
88 See Saleh, ‘The Last of the Nishapuri School of Tafsīr’.
89 Newby, ‘Tafsīr Isrā’īlīyāt’, p. 695.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abdel Haleem, M.A.S. (tr.), The Qur’an: A New Translation (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2008).
Ahmed, Shahab, ‘Ibn Taymiyya and the Satanic Verses’, Studia Islamica 87:1 (1998),
pp. 67–124.
Brown, Jonathan, The Canonization of al-Bukhārī and Muslim: The Formation and Function
of the Sunnī Ḥadīth Canon (Leiden: Brill, 2007).
Calder, Norman, ‘Tafsīr from Ṭabarī to Ibn Kathīr: Problems in the Description of a Genre,
Illustrated with Reference to the Story of Abraham’ in G.R. Hawting and A.A. Shareef (eds),
Approaches to the Qur’ān (London: Routledge, 1993).
Chamberlain, Michael, Knowledge and Social Practice in Medieval Damascus, 1190–1350
(Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994).
Al-Dāwūdī, Muḥammad b. ʿAlī, Tabaqāt al-mufassirīn (2 vols. Beirut, Dār al-Kutub
al-ʿIlmiyya, 1983).
El Shamsy, Ahmed, ‘The First Shāfi’ī: The Traditionalist Legal Thought of Abū Ya’qūb
al-Buwayṭī (d. 231/846)’, Islamic Law and Society 14:3 (2007), pp. 301–41.
Fanīsān, Saʿūd b. ʿAbd Allāh, Mawārid al-ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr fī tafsīrihi (Riyadh: Maktabat
al-Tawba, 2006).
Frank, Richard M., Texts and Studies on the Development and History of Kalām, ed. Dimitri
Gutas (Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 2008).
Hourani, George F., Reason and Tradition in Islamic Ethics (Cambridge & New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1985).
——, Islamic Rationalism: The Ethics of Abd al-Jabbār (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1971).
Hurvitz, Nimrod, Formation of Hanbalism: Piety into Power (New York: Routledge Curzon,
2002).
Ibn Abī al-ʿIzz, ʿAlī, Sharḥ al-ʿaqīda al-Ṭahḥāwiyya, ed. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Muḥsin Turkī
(2 vols. Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risāla, 1987).
Ibn ʿArabī, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam (Beirut: Dār al-Kitāb al-Arabī, 1966).
Ibn al-ʿImād, ʿAbd al-Ḥayy, Shadharāt al-dhahab fī akhbār man dhahab (4 vols. Beirut:
Dār al-Āfāq al-Jadīda, 1966).
Ibn Kathīr, Ismāʿīl b. ʿUmar, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿaẓīm (12 vols. Cairo: Maktabat Awlād
al-Shaykh li-Turāth, 2009).
——, al-Bidāya wa’l-nihāya, eds. Alī Muḥammad Muʿawwad and ʿĀbil Aḥmad ʿAbd al-
Mawjud (15 vols. Lebanon: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 2009).
——, Kitāb al-ijtihād fī ṭalab al-jihād, ed. ʿAbd Allāh ʿAbd al-RaḥīmʿUsaylān (Riyadh:
Dār al-Liwāʾ, 1982).
 Was Ibn Kathīr the ‘Spokesperson’ for Ibn Taymiyya? 19

——, Mawlid rasūl Allāh, ed. Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Munajjid (Beirut: Dār al-Kitāb al-Jadīd, 1961).
Ibn Qāḍī al-Shuhba, Ṭabaqāt al-fuqahāʾ al-shāfiʿīyya, ed. ʿAlī Muḥammad ʿUmar (2 vols.
Cairo: Maktabat al-Thaqāfa al-Dīniyya, 1998).
Ibn Taymīyya, Taqī al-Dīn Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm, Muqaddima fī uṣūl al-tafsīr, ed. ʿAdnān
Zarzūq (Kuwait: Dār al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 1972).
Ismāʿīl, Samīr Muḥammad, al-Miftāḥ al-kabīr li-Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr (Cairo: Dār al-Muḥaddithīn,
2008).
Makdisi, George, ‘The Juridical Theology of Shāfi’ī: Origins and Significance of Uṣūl al-Fiqh’,
Studia Islamica 59:1 (1984), pp. 5–47.
——, ‘The Tanbīh of Ibn Taimiya on Dialectic’ in Sami A. Hanna (ed.), Medieval and Middle
Eastern Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1972).
——, ‘Ash‘arī and the Ash‘arites in Islamic Religious History I’, Studia Islamica 17:2 (1962),
pp. 37–80.
McAuliffe, Jane Dammen, Qur’ānic Christian: An Analysis of Classical and Modern Exegesis
(Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
——, ‘Qur’ānic Hermeneutics: The Views of al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Kathīr’ in Andrew Rippin (ed.),
Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Qurʾān (Oxford & New York: Clarendon
Press, 1988).
Melchert, Christopher, ‘Early Renunciants as Ḥadīth Transmitters’, The Muslim World 92:3–4
(2002), pp. 407–18.
——, ‘Traditionist-Jurisprudents and the Framing of Islamic Law’, Islamic Law and Society 8:3
(2001), pp. 483–506.
Mirza, Younus, ‘Ibn Taymiyya as a Qur’anic Exegete’, in progress.
——, ‘Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373): His Intellectual Circle, Major Works and Qur’ānic Exegesis’
(unpublished PhD dissertation, Georgetown University, 2012).
Newby, Gordon, ‘Tafsīr Isrā’īlīyāt’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion 47:4 (1979),
pp. 685–97.
Al-Nuʿaymī, Abd al-Qādir b. Muḥammad, al-Dāris fī tārīkh al-madāris, ed. Jaʿfar al-Ḥasanī
(2 vols. Cairo: Maktabat al-Thaqāfa al-Dīniyya, 1988).
Saleh, Walid, ‘Ibn Taymiyya and the Rise of Radical Hermeneutics: An Analysis of an
Introduction to the Foundations of Qur’ānic Exegesis’ in Yossef Rapoport and Shahab Ahmed
(eds), Ibn Taymiyya and his Times (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2010).
——, ‘The Last of the Nishapuri School of Tafsīr: Al-Wāḥidī and His Significance in the History
of Qurānic Exegesis’, Journal of the American Oriental Society 126:2 (2006), pp. 223–43.
——, The Formation of the Classical Tafsīr Tradition: The Qurʾān Commentary of al-Thaʿlabī
(d. 427/1035) (Boston: Brill, 2004).
Al-Ṭabarī, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. Jarīr, Tārīkh al-umam wa’l-mulūk (13 vols. [Cairo]: Dār
al-Fikr, 1979).
——, Jāmiʿ al-bayān fī tafsīr al-Qurʾān (24 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifa, 1972).
Al-Ṭaḥāwī, Aḥmad b. Muḥammad, The Creed of Imam al-Ṭaḥāwī, tr. Hamza Yusuf (Fons
Vitae: Zaytuna Institute, 2007).
Al-Thaʿlabī, Abū Isḥāq Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm, ʿArāʾis al-majālis fī qiṣaṣ
al-anbiyāʾ, tr. William M. Brinner (Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2002).
Tottoli, Roberto ‘Origin and Use of the Term Isrā’īliyyāt in Muslim Literature’, Arabica 46:2
(1999), pp. 193–210.