Nuzūl of The Qur Ān and The Question of Nuzūl Order: Çukurova University, Adana-Turkey

NUZŪL OF THE QURʾĀN AND THE QUESTION OF
NUZŪL ORDER
Mustafa Öztürk
Çukurova University, Adana-Turkey
E-mail: ozturkm@cu.edu.tr
Abstract
In the modern Islamic world, there is growing interest in reading and
interpretation of the Qurʾān according to its nuzūl order; accordingly,
many translations and exegeses, based on nuzūl order, are published
every day. This fact compels us to consider questions about the
descent of revelation, arrangement of the text of the Qurʾān, and its
arrangement pursuant to the chronology of revelation, as well as
relevant general acceptance. Classical references seldom questioned
the reliability of revelation order narrated by Ṣaḥāba (Companions),
such as ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib and ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbbās, and Tābiʿūn
(Followers), such as Jābir ibn Zayd, al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, and Ibn Shihāb
al-Zuhrī, as well as later personalities, such as Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq, al-
Wāqidī, and other scholars; moreover, it has never been extensively
studied whether all of the sūras (chapters) of the Qurʾān can be
chronologically arranged pursuant to the available information.
Herein, this study intends to draw attention to the necessity for a
serious examination and analysis of such issues regarding the
revelation and arrangement of the Qurʾān.
Key Words: Nuzūl, tartīb al-Qurʾān, nuzūl order, inzāl, revelation.
Ilahiyat Studies Copyright © Bursa İlahiyat Foundation

Volume 6 Number 2 Summer / Fall 2015 p-ISSN: 1309-1786 / e-ISSN: 1309-1719
DOI: 10.12730/13091719.2015.62.131
182 Mustafa Öztürk
Introduction
The revelation of the Qurʾān to Muḥammad is expressed in many
āyas (verses) through maṣdar (verbal noun) such as nuzūl, inzāl,
and tanzīl or verbs derived from these nouns. The word nuzūl is
mentioned in approximately three hundred verses and is attributed to
divine revelations, such as the Torah, Bible, and the Qurʾān, in verses
and chapters, as well as to tangible or intangible things such as
angels, devils, provisions, water, clothes, meals, benevolence,
torment, measures, sultans (strong evidence), peace, and calmness.
In Arabic, nuzūl means “to descend, to lodge.” According to some
linguists, its essential meaning is “to descend,” while others believe
that nuzūl actually signifies ḥulūl, in other words, “to arrive and
settle in somewhere.”1
According to certain scholars, such as al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī (d. 1st
quarter of 5th/11th century), the utilization of nuzūl on the pattern of
ifʿāl (i.e., inzāl) with reference to the Torah and Bible, and on the
pattern of tafʿīl (i.e., tanzīl) with reference to the Qurʾān’s revelation,
signifies a semantic nuance. Therefore, the verbal noun inzāl
signifies “descending” both “at once” and “gradually,” while tanzīl
exclusively means “gradual” and “sending down.” 2 Nevertheless,
some other scholars have claimed that there is no semantic difference
between inzāl and tanzīl, which, according to us also, are
synonymous. Indeed, al-Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505) related the common
acceptance among scholars that the Torah and Bible descended at
once but added that contemporaneous scholars rejected such an
argument due to a lack of appropriate evidence and justification. 3
For Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 766/1365), because Allah is non-spatial,
and the Qurʾān has a nature of meaning that can replace the divine
1
Abū l-Ḥusayn Aḥmad ibn Fāris ibn Zakariyyāʾ, Muʿjam maqāyīs al-lugha (ed.
ʿAbd al-Salām Muḥammad Hārūn; 3rd edn., Cairo: Muṣṭafā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī, 1979),
V, 417; Abū l-Faḍl Muḥammad ibn Mukarram Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab (Cairo:
Dār al-Ḥadīth, 2003), VIII, 523.
2
Abū l-Qāsim al-Ḥusayn ibn Muḥammad al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, al-Mufradāt fī
gharīb al-Qurʾān (ed. Muḥammad Khalaf Allāh; Cairo: Maktabat al-ʿAnjlū al-
Miṣriyya, 1970), 744.
3
Abū l-Faḍl Jalāl al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Suyūṭī, al-Itqān fī ʿulūm al-Qurʾān (ed.
Muṣṭafā Dīb al-Bughā; Beirut: Dār Ibn Kathīr, 2002), I, 134.
Nuzūl of the Qurʾān and the Question of Nuzūl Order 183
personality, it is not permissible to ascribe the meaning “to make to
descend from above” to the verbal nouns of inzāl-tanzīl about
revelation of the Qurʾān to the Prophet. The lexical meaning of inzāl
is “to accommodate, to host” (īwāʾ) and “to move something
downward;” nonetheless, neither meaning seems accurate when the
usage is related to discourse/word. Thus, the noun inzāl is only
figuratively applied for abstract concepts, such as discourse/word. 4
Such an explanation might work in the context of discourse or
belief related to discussions of divine attributes; however, it does not
seem accurate with regard to the historical and social context in
which the Qurʾān was revealed. Accordingly, some verses read that
Allah is in the sky. For example, Q 67:16 indicates that Allah is in the
sky, while Q 6:158 and Q 2:210 discuss the advent of Allah or His
appearing among the clouds. Q 2:144 indicates how Muḥammad
turns his face toward the sky; according to exegetes, this action
signifies his waiting for a revelation of the change of Qibla and the
consideration that Gabriel sent the revelation from the heavens.5 In
addition, Q 51:22 reads, “And in the heaven is your provision and
whatever you are promised.” In a well-known ḥadīth, a concubine is
asked, “Where is Allah?,” whereupon she responds, “He is in the
heavens,” and then Muḥammad says, “Set her free, for she is a
believer.”6
In his interpretation of the expression man fī l-samāʾ in Q 67:16,
the Muʿtazilī exegete Abū Muslim al-Iṣfahānī (d. 322/934) writes the
following: “Arabs accepted the existence of Allah, but also believed
that He was in heaven. This is why, Allah says, ‘Do you feel secure
that He who holds authority in the heaven would not cause the earth
to swallow you, and suddenly it would sway?’”7 In contrast, according
4
Ibid., 138.
5
See Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿĪsā Ibn Abī Zamanīn, Tafsīr
al-Qurʾān al-ʿazīz (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 2002), I, 185; Abū Ḥafṣ
ʿUmar ibn ʿAlī Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿulūm al-Kitāb (eds. ʿĀdil Aḥmad ʿAbd al-
Mawjūd and ʿAlī Muḥammad Muʿawwaḍ; Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1998),
III, 31-32.
6
See Abū Saʿīd ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd al-Dārimī, al-Radd ʿalā l-Jahmiyya (ed. Badr al-
Badr; Kuwait: al-Dār al-Salafiyya, 1985), 38-39.
7
Abū ʿAbd Allāh Fakhr al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr al-kabīr aw
Mafātīḥ al-ghayb (eds. Ibrāhīm Shams al-Dīn and Aḥmad Shams al-Dīn; 2nd edn.
to several ḥadīth narratives, Allah descends to the earthly skies every
night, and in the small hours, He says, “Isn’t there anyone praying to
Me; I would respond such prayers …;”8 some other narratives relate
that Allah will descend to Earth on judgment day to hold people
accountable.9
Mode of Descent of the Qurʾān’s Revelation
Many verses and ḥadīths indicates that the revelation of the Qurʾān
occurred by descent from heaven to earth. Nevertheless, this
explanation is closely related to traditional beliefs and conceptions of
first addressees and/or Arabs in Muḥammad’s time with regard to
abstract beings in general and Allah in particular. More precisely, the
imagination of pre-Islamic Arab society conceived Allah and angels as
heavenly beings; therefore, the Qurʾān indicates that revelation was
sent from heaven down to earth.
Indeed, as indicated in Q 15:17-18, Q 26:210-212, Q 37:7-10 and Q
72:8-9 about istirāq al-samʿ (attempt by a jinn to steal news from
heaven), for Arabs in the time of revelation, it was impossible for a
human to be in direct contact with Allah or the space of abstract
beings, and such a connection could only be established by virtue of
the jinn (demons and angels); pursuant to this conventional belief,
such intermediary beings are expressed via words or concepts such
as Gabriel, al-Rūḥ al-amīn or Rūḥ al-quds [Holy Spirit] with regard to
descent of the Qurʾān’s revelation.
In addition, Q 36:69-70, Q 52:29, and Q 69:41-43 negate the
conventional beliefs and arguments of polytheists about istirāq al-
samʿ (attempts to steal news from heaven) to emphasize the divine
nature of the Qurʾān’s revelation; moreover, these verses indicate that
Muḥammad was not one among seers or poets who were believed to
have contact with the jinn and to obtain information from them, that
the Qurʾān was sent by Allah, the God of the universe, and that it is
not the word of seers or poets.
Then again, Q 15:9 and Q 56:77-79 read that the Qurʾān was sent
from the presence of Allah and was protected from intervention by
Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 2004), XXX, 61-62.

8
Al-Bukhārī, “Tahajjud,” 14; Muslim, “Ṣalāt al-musāfirīn,” 168-172.
9
Al-Tirmidhī, “Ṣawm,” 39; “Zuhd,” 48.
evil beings such as jinn and demons, and only muṭahhar (those
purified/made purified from evil and sin) beings can have contact
with it. The word muṭahharūn in Q 56:79 has been interpreted as
“angels” by exegetes such as Ibn ʿAbbās, ʿIkrima, Mujāhid, and Saʿīd
ibn Jubayr.10
In pre-Islamic Arab tradition, abstract/spiritual beings were
classified as good and evil or pious and malignant; angels are
accepted as good and pious, whereas demons are considered evil
and malignant. In addition, during Days of Ignorance, the jinn were
categorized as follows: those that lived together with humans were
called “āmir,” those that interfere with and hurt children were called
“arwāḥ,” those with evil and stubborn natures were called “shayṭān,”
those that were extremely evil were called “mārid,” and those that
committed violence for evil were called “ʿifrīt;” in contrasts, the jinn,
which are pure and clean and far from evil, were qualified as
“angels.”11
Because the descent and sending of revelation, as well as
guidance and administration, are believed to have been performed by
means of angels since the former Semitic-Hebrew culture, pre-Islamic
Arabs most probably owed this point of view to Ahl al-kitāb in
general and to Jews in particular. In Jewish tradition, various
words/concepts, such as theophany, visions, and dreams, are
employed to express revelation as direct conversation of God with
humans; nevertheless, the concept of angels, which are referred to as
“angels of Jehovah” or “angels of the Lord” in the Tanakh, possess
peculiar importance.
These angels are sent to establish communication with humans as
abstract beings that act for God and speak on His behalf. Many
expressions in the Tanakh identify the angel of God with God
Himself due to its connection with the divine source. The
identification that was established between the angel and God caused
10
See Abū l-Faraj Jamāl al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAlī Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād al-masīr fī
ʿilm al-tafsīr (4th edn., Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islāmī, 1987), VIII, 152.
11
For further information see Jawād ʿAlī, al-Mufaṣṣal fī tārīkh al-ʿArab qabla l-
Islām (Qom: Manshūrāt al-Sharīf al-Raḍī, 1380), VI, 705-725.
people to fear these angels so much that it was considered as
dangerous to see the angel of God as to see God in person.12
In this regard, the dialogue in the Qurʾān between Mary and the
angels13 and the fear of Mary of the angel, which, in the guise of a
human, heralds to her the good news of a child, 14 seems to reflect the
perception of angels in Jewish tradition. Indeed, statements in the
Qurʾān about many issues, including creation and sharīʿa, fables and
revelation, coincide with their counterparts in the Torah and Tanakh.
The emphasis in various verses on how the Qurʾān confirms the
Torah15 might be considered related to this question. Conversely, the
first Muslims reportedly used to meet and exchange ideas with Jews
in Medina; even some famous Companions went to Bayt al-midrās in
Medina to participate in Torah discussions with Jewish men of the
cloth and had occasional debates with them.16
Because Allah was believed to be from heaven within the earliest
circle of addressees, it is normal that, in some Qurʾān verses, things
such as iron, clothes, and cattle are said to be sent from heaven to
earth, just like revelation. Nevertheless, such verbiage is not intended
to inform (fāʾidat al-khabar) the primary and directly addressed
masses but to provide them with another message (lāzim al-fāʾida)
by means of what is known to them.
In other words, the Qurʾān does not bring forth
definitive/descriptive and primary statements about actual facts with
regard to the presence of Allah in heaven and descent of many other
things from above; rather, the text interprets and formats these words
to reflect the imagination of Arab society. As a matter of fact, pursuant
to the expression anzalnā l-ḥadīd in Q 57:25, which literally means
“we sent down iron,” there is a narrative ascribed to the companion
Ibn ʿUmar. According to the narrative, Allah sent down four things
from heaven to earth as benedictions: iron, fire, water, and salt.
12
For further information see Muhammet Tarakçı, “Tanah’ta Vahiy Anlayışı,”
Uludağ Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 11/1 (2002), 193-218.
13
Q 3:42-51.
14
Q 19:17-18.
15
Q 3:50; 5:46; 61:6.
16
See Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī al-musammā
Jāmīʿ al-bayān fī taʾwīl al-Qurʾān (3rd edn., Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya,
1999), I, 478; III, 217-218.
Another narrative from Ibn ʿAbbās claims that Adam came down to
earth with a few objects made of iron, such as an anvil, a hammer,
and needles/nails.17
Consequently, expressions in the Qurʾān about the form of
descent of revelation have a conditional, contextual, and historical
content. This fact is also evident in the example that, through the
meaning “descent/sending down” of the word nuzūl/inzāl, together
with the adjective of quality Qurʾānan ʿArabiyyan (Q 12:2), divine
revelation is formulated in harmony with Arab culture and mentality.
However, in the history of Islamic thought, Muʿtazilī and Sunnī
paradigms have claimed that Allah is independent of time and space
with regard to discussions on divine attributes; thereupon, the
expression man fī l-samāʾ (Allah, who is in heaven) in the related
verse is construed to be a figurative metaphor for supremacy and
sovereignty pursuant to this absolving approach. 18 Similarly, the
ḥadīth on Allah’s nightly descent to earth is considered to denote the
descent of divine benediction and graces.19 Nonetheless, during the
2nd and 3rd centuries AH, Ahl al-ḥadīth and Salafī (Ahl al-sunna al-
khāṣṣa) scholars claimed that the omnipresence of Allah, not in
heaven but everywhere, was an argument and belief peculiar to
Jahmiyya and Zanādiqa (heretics). 20 Therefore, even faith in Allah,
which is the strongest and solidest principle of Islamic faith, has
interestingly undergone radical changes regarding perception and
conception within a few centuries.
Regarding the word inzāl in the verses about the sending by Allah
of iron, clothes, and cattle from heaven, it is explained as “to create or
to bring forth means for a benefaction so that mankind benefits from
17
Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmīʿ li-aḥkām al-Qurʾān
(Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1988), XVII, 169.
18
Abū Ḥayyān Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Yūsuf al-Andalusī, al-Baḥr al-muḥīṭ fī l-
tafsīr (ed. Ṣidqī Muḥammad Jamīl; Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 2005), VIII, 296.
19
Abū l-Saʿādāt Majd al-Dīn Mubārak ibn Muḥammad Ibn al-Athīr al-Jazarī, al-
Nihāya fī gharīb al-ḥadīth wa-l-athar (ed. ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd Hindāwī, Sidon &
Beirut: al-Maktaba al-ʿAṣriyya li-l-Tawzīʿ wa-l-Nashr, 2008), V, 35.
20
See al-Dārimī, Naqḍ ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd ʿalā l-Marīsī al-Jahmī al-ʿanīd fī-mā
iftarā ʿalā llāh fī l-tawḥīd (ed. Manṣūr ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Simārī; Riyadh: Aḍwāʾ
al-Salaf, 1999), 57-59, 62, 274-280.
it.” In the Qurʾān, inzāl is employed for revelation, as well as for
21
concrete objects, such as clothes, iron, and cattle; it seems figuratively

justifiable to ascribe to it the meaning “to create and introduce to the
utilization of man;” nevertheless, we must remark that the original
and historical signification in verses about the descent of revelation is
“to send down from heaven.”
At this stage, ascription of place to Allah might seem problematic
in terms of faith. Nevertheless, this relationship did not constitute a
problem for Muḥammad and the generation of Companions; rather, it
is disturbing for transcendentalist (tanzīhī) kalāmī/theological
paradigms with regard to divine attributes in the history of Islamic
thought and for those who reject anthropomorphism (tashbīh) and
corporealism (tajsīm). During lifetime of the Prophet, the primary
concern among Muslims was not the problem of ascribing place to
Allah; rather, the concern was to prevent any dispute regarding His
unity (tawḥīd) and to negate any kind of polytheism. Therefore, such
philosophical and discourse-related problems emerged in the course
of a historical process; it would be anachronism to claim that such
questions were an issue for the Prophet and his Companions.
Stages of Descent of Revelation
As is known, according to first verse in Sūrat al-Qadr, the Qurʾān
was sent down on Laylat al-qadr (Night of Power); however, the
content and mode of descent are not explained. Due to this
vagueness, Islamic tradition has encompassed numerous viewpoints
and convictions about how the Qurʾān was revealed. According to
common opinion, the Qurʾān was sent down to the sky of the world
as a whole on the Night of Power; then, it was gradually revealed to
Muḥammad in a series of incidents over the subsequent twenty years.
A second view, related by Muqātil ibn Ḥayyān (d. 150/767),
argued that the Qurʾān was sent down to the sky of the world in
annual revelations over twenty or twenty-three successive Nights of
Power, before the gradual descent of these annual revelations during
21
Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr al-kabīr, XIV, 42; XXVI, 213; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmīʿ,
VII, 118; XV, 153; Abū Ḥayyān al-Andalusī, al-Baḥr al-muḥīṭ, IV, 282-283; Ibn
ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb, XI, 66; XVI, 474-475; Muḥammad al-Ṭāhir ibn Muḥammad ibn
Muḥammad Ibn ʿĀshūr, Tafsīr al-taḥrīr wa-l-tanwīr (Tunis: Dār Saḥnūn, 1997),
VIII, 73-74; XXIII, 332.
the corresponding year. According to a third approach, narrated by
Abū ʿAmr al-Shaʿbī (d. 104/722), the descent of the Qurʾān from al-
Lawḥ al-maḥfūẓ (Preserved Tablet) down to the sky of the world
began on the Night of Power; later, it was gradually revealed in
agreement with emerging incidents at various times. The fourth view
defended the viewpoint that the Qurʾān was sent down from the
Preserved Tablet as a whole; the ḥafaẓa angels gradually handed the
text to Gabriel on twenty Nights of Power, whereupon Gabriel
extended the process over twenty-something years and recited the
Qurʾān to Muḥammad.22
In all narratives about the aforementioned views and convictions,
it is unclear what “sky of the world,” or Bayt al-ʿizza (House of
Honor), signifies. In other words, the open question of the Qurʾān’s
revelation, after descent from the Preserved Tablet and before
reaching the Prophet, remains unanswered. Some references claim
that Ibn ʿAbbās was the creator of the idea regarding the descent to
Bayt al-ʿizza. Pursuant to the narrative, Ibn ʿAbbās said, “The Qurʾān
was taken from the seat of dhikr and placed at Bayt al-ʿizza in the
sky of the world. Gabriel gradually brought the Qurʾān from Bayt al-
ʿizza to the Prophet and slowly read it;”23 however, this narrative or
any other report or work provides almost no information about the
content of Bayt al-ʿizza.
Such vagueness and ambiguity might provide grounds for an
assumption: Bayt al-ʿizza was generated as a formula to explain the
possibility of access to the Qurʾān’s revelation, which is considered
eternal in Sunnī tradition, in historical and human contexts. In earlier
sources, however, the question “What is the secret behind collective
descent of the Qurʾān to the firmament?” was answered with a
romantic approach, namely “This is in order to glorify both the
Qurʾān and Muḥammad by means of declaring the Qurʾān as the final
divine book (revelation) sent down to the inhabitants of the seven
heavens and to the last prophet, Muḥammad, the prophet of the most
22
Jamāl al-Dīn Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Saʿīd Ibn ʿAqīla, al-
Ziyāda wa-l-iḥsān fī ʿulūm al-Qurʾān (al-Shāriqa: Jāmiʿat al-Shāriqa Markaz al-
Buḥūth wa-l-Dirāsāt, 2006), I, 152-153.
23
Abū Bakr ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm Ibn Abī Shayba al-ʿAbsī, Kitāb al-
muṣannaf fī l-aḥādīth wa l-āthār (ed. Muṣṭafā Kamāl Ḥūt; Beirut: Maktabat al-
Zamān, 1999), VI, 144.
valuable community.”24 In fact, as the phrase “The Qurʾān was placed
at Bayt al-ʿizza so as to ensure its access to worldly (historical)
context” 25 by al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī (d. 320/932) suggests, the
generation of the concept of Bayt al-ʿizza was probably devised for
its entrance into historical context despite its eternal character; this
approach might also have been adopted to prevent strengthening the
hand of Muʿtazila with regard to khalq al-Qurʾān.
Indeed, all views about the descent of the Qurʾān consist of
personal convictions, including that narrated via Ibn ʿAbbās. At this
point, one might object that Ibn ʿAbbās cannot provide personal
opinions about the status of the Qurʾān prior to its being encountered
by man, history and society and that he must have obtained such
information about Bayt al-ʿizza only from the Prophet; nevertheless,
countless narratives in exegeses and ḥadīth sources have indicated
how the Companions suggested their opinions and personal
convictions regarding issues about the unseen. More precisely, as
various views of Companions about the issues regarding unseen,
such as divine attributes, judgment day, the afterlife conditions, and
creation, indicate, notable personalities provided their opinions since
the earliest days of Islam.
In brief, considering both the general significance of verses about
inzāl/tanzīl of the Qurʾān’s revelation and the consequence of
twenty-three years of revelation, the argument by al-Shaʿbī, namely
“Descent of the Qurʾān from the Preserved Tablet to the firmament
began on the Night of Power, before it was gradually sent down
pursuant to emerging incidents,” seems more reasonable. Conversely,
the ambiguities and disputes about what occurred during the
transition of revelation from the seat of Allah to the Prophet seem
ineradicable. Similarly, it remains controversial whether the Qurʾān
descended to the Prophet only in meaning or both in meaning and
words.
24
Abū l-Qāsim Shihāb al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Abū Shāma al-Maqdisī, al-Murshid
al-wajīz ilā ʿulūm tataʿallaqu bi-l-Kitāb al-ʿazīz (ed. Tayyar Altıkulaç; Ankara:
Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Yayınları, 1986), 24; Abū ʿAbd Allāh Badr al-Dīn
Muḥammad al-Zarkashī, al-Burhān fī ʿulūm al-Qurʾān (ed. Muḥammad Abū l-
Faḍl Ibrāhīm; Sidon & Beirut: al-Maktaba al-ʿAṣriyya, 1972), I, 230.
25
Al-Suyūṭī, al-Itqān, I, 132; Ibn ʿAqīla, al-Ziyāda wa-l-iḥsān, I, 156.
Pursuant to the dominant conception and conviction, the
revelation of the Qurʾān belongs to Allah in terms of both wording
and meaning. Gabriel memorized the Qurʾān’s revelation from the
Preserved Tablet and thus sent it down to the Prophet. According to
another, allegedly marginal approach, Gabriel provided the Qurʾān
only in meaning, and later, the Prophet formulated the text in Arabic
words. A third view defends the idea that Qurʾān was communicated
to and inspired in Gabriel in meaning, whereupon the angel
translated it into Arabic words and gave it to the Prophet.26
Al-Imām al-Māturīdī (d. 333/944) ascribed the second argument to
Bāṭinī circles, which most probably included certain philosophers as
well. Al-Māturīdī cited the Bāṭinī view precisely: “The Qurʾān was
sent down to the Prophet not in the form of text, but as a type of
inspiration to his heart; then, the Prophet expressed it with Arabic
wording for concretization,” pursuant to Q 2:97; al-Māturīdī criticized
this argument because the Qurʾān provides very strong evidence of
its miraculous character. In addition, Bāṭiniyya adopts the approach
that “The Qurʾān was sent down to the Prophet in a form without any
linguistic character – just like a dream; the Prophet put it in Arabic
form through his language” with reference to Q 26:192-195; however,
grounded on Q 12:2 – “Indeed, We have sent it down as an Arabic
Qurʾān that you might understand” – al-Māturīdī rejected the
foregoing Bāṭinī assumption.27
Ahl al-sunna traditionally refused the claim that revelation was
sent to the Prophet in the form of pure meaning and called such
allegations heresy. The Sunnī view thus intends to refute the Muʿtazilī
view of createdness of the Qurʾān and to develop a theory of the
miraculous nature of the Qurʾān by describing it as a linguistic
miracle in literary terms. The purpose of the latter assumption is to
describe the Qurʾān in terms of both meaning and wording and to
generate a jurisprudent and faith-related doctrine that Arabic should
necessarily be the language of worship in Islam. Nevertheless, our
opinion about the content and form of the descent of revelation is
26
Al-Zarkashī, al-Burhān, I, 229-230; al-Suyūṭī, al-Itqān, I, 139.
27
Abū Manṣūr Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn Maḥmūd al-Māturīdī, Taʾwīlāt Ahl
al-sunna: Tafsīr al-Māturīdī (ed. Majdī Bāsallūm; Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya,
2005), I, 517-518; VIII, 85.
closer to that of the philosophers who are categorized as “Bāṭiniyya”
by al-Māturīdī, rather than the dominant approach.28
The ambiguity and gaps regarding the content and form of the
descent of the revelation are also present with regard to issues such
as which chapters were revealed in Mecca or Medina, as well as the
inner organization and composition of the text of the Qurʾān. Over
the twenty years of the revelation process, verses revealed in first
decade are called Makkī (from Mecca), while those in the following
thirteen years are known as Madanī (from Medina). Nevertheless,
there are many disputes regarding how to determine Makkī and
Madanī chapters. According to a narrative of Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, 27
chapters are Madanī, whereas 87 are Makkī. According to Abū l-Fatḥ
Ibn Shīṭā (d. 450/1059), 29 chapters are Madanī, while 85 are Makkī29;
nevertheless, it is arguable whether the chapters al-Qamar, al-
Raḥmān, al-Ikhlāṣ, al-Falaq and al-Nās are Makkī or not. According to
Abū l-Ḥasan ibn al-Haṣṣār (d. 611/1215), 82 chapters are undoubtedly
Makkī, and 20 are undoubtedly Madanī, whereas the remaining 12
are disputable.30
Such disputes arose due to a lack of interest of the Prophet and
Companions in technical issues such as the Makkī or Madanī
character of the chapters; accordingly, they arose from a lack of
explicit information from him and his Companions. As al-Bāqillānī (d.
403/1013) clearly asserted, the Prophet never said a word about the
issue of Makkī-Madanī; moreover, there are no narratives indicating
that he ever classified Qurʾān chapters in this regard or told his
Companions “Mind that these chapters were sent down to me in
Mecca, and those were sent to me in Medina.”31 This lack of direction
exists because the Prophet and the Companions conceived the
Qurʾān’s revelation not as a text to be recorded in terms of time and
28
Our views and opinions about the content of revelation will be extensively
treated in our books about the history of the textualization of the Qurʾān and
relevant problems of historicalness/historicity.
29
Ibn al-Jawzī, Funūn al-afnān fī ʿuyūn ʿulūm al-Qurʾān (ed. Ṣalāḥ ibn Fatḥī
Halal; Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Kutub al-Thaqāfiyya, 2001), 160.
30
Al-Suyūṭī, al-Itqān, I, 33; Ibn ʿAqīla, al-Ziyāda wa-l-iḥsān, I, 206.
31
Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn al-Ṭayyib al-Bāqillānī, al-Intiṣār li-l-Qurʾān (ed.
Muḥammad ʿIsām Mufliḥ al-Quḍāt; Amman & Beirut: Dār al-Fatḥ li-l-Nashr wa-l-
Tawzīʿ & Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 2001), I, 247.
place of descent but as a divine guide within their life experiences
and struggles against opponents of the invitation to Islam;
consequently, the statements/orders in this guide were understood
spontaneously and implemented in life practice as natural attitudes
and behaviors.
Arrangement of the Qurʾān Text and the Question of
Presentation (ʿArḍa)
As is known, the arrangement of chapters within the Qurʾān text
from cover to cover is now called the “Muṣḥaf arrangement;” in
general, the arrangement is attributed to the commission of copiers
established under leadership of ʿUthmān. Suitably, it is widely
accepted that the arrangement of verses within chapters was
undertaken at the discretion of the Prophet and that he established
the arrangement at the behest of Gabriel, 32 pursuant to several
narratives. Therefore, the arrangement of the verses is made
according to divine ordinance (tawqīfī). The narratives about
presentation (ʿarḍa), which indicates mutual recitations by
Muḥammad and Gabriel during Ramaḍān of verses and chapters sent
down in the relevant year, 33 are used as proof of this general
acceptance.
Nevertheless, these narratives, regardless of questions about their
authenticity, provide no significant information about the content of
ʿarḍa (mutual lecture and presentation); instead, they discuss
presentation as a very mysterious phenomenon. It is likely that the
narratives about presentation were fabricated to fill the gaps with
regard to the textualization process of the Qurʾān. Indeed, these
narratives include no explanatory information about when the
presentation began, how many times it actually occurred over the
twenty-three years of descent, who read the Qurʾān during the
presentation, how and in which appearance Gabriel participated in
the presentation, whether the Companions were present at these
sessions or whether Companions such as Ibn Masʿūd and Zayd ibn
32
Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, al-Musnad, I, 57; IV, 218.
33
See al-Bukhārī, “Badʾ al-waḥy,” 5; “Faḍāʾil al-Qurʾān,” 7; “Badʾ al-khalq,” 6;
Muslim, “Faḍāʾil al-ṣaḥāba,” 98-99.
Thābit, who – according to some narratives – participated in the
presentation, saw Gabriel in person. 34
Grounded on Companions such as ʿĀʾisha and Ibn ʿAbbās, ḥadīth
sources relate that the presentation occurred once yearly during
Ramaḍān and twice in the final Ramaḍān of Muḥammad; according to
the narrative via Abū Hurayra, the Prophet used to confine himself in
a mosque (iʿtikāf) for ten days every year, but he stayed in the
mosque for twenty days in the year of his death. 35
Muḥammad Ḥamīd Allāh claimed that the practice of presentation
might have begun after the assignment of Ramaḍān as the month of
fasting during the Medina period;36 some researchers, however, have
interestingly argued that “the mentioned month was already called
Ramaḍān before fasting became an obligation. The month was not
called Ramaḍān because of fasting; on the contrary, the fast was
rendered an obligation in this month because the latter was already
considered sacred.”37
Prior to Islam, the four months, namely, Dhū l-qaʿda, Dhū l-ḥijja,
Muḥarram, and Rajab, were known as “forbidden (ḥarām) months”
and were considered holy; however, we have no historical data
regarding whether Ramaḍān had such a status. Indeed, the
importance of Ramaḍān emerged upon the revelation of Q 2:183 and
subsequent verses, which designated fasting as a religious obligation.
Fasting was made an obligation (farḍ) in 2 AH.
In his Laṭāʾif al-maʿārif, Ibn Rajab (d. 795/1393) treated the
obligatory or preferable worships and remembrances (adhkār [pl. of
dhikr]) for each month as those of Muḥarram; about Ramaḍān, his
writings consisted significantly of rituals such as fasting, Qurʾān
34
For comprehensive information and assessment, see Ziya Şen, “Arza ve Mahiyeti,”
Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 42 (2015), 43-64.
35
Al-Bukhārī, “Faḍāʾil al-Qurʾān,” 7; Abū l-Faḍl Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī Ibn
Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ al-bārī sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (eds. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn
ʿAbd Allāh Ibn Bāz, ʿAlī ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Shibk, and Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd
al-Bāqī; Riyadh: Dār al-Salām, 2000), IX, 54-55.
36
Muḥammad Ḥamīd Allāh [as Muhammed Hamidullah], İslâm Peygamberi
(translated into Turkish by Salih Tuğ; Ankara: İmaj İç ve Dış Ticaret, 2003), II, 700.
37
Ziya Şen, Kur’an’ın Metinleşme Süreci (Istanbul: Ensar Neşriyat, 2007), 120;
Muhsin Demirci, Kur’ân Tarihi (Istanbul: Ensar Neşriyat, 2005), 114-115.
chanting, confinement, and worshipping on Night of Power. 38 In
contrast to Ramaḍān, the months of Muḥarram and Rajab were
considered important and holy as in the Days of Ignorance. Indeed,
the history of traditions, such as the fast of ʿĀshūrāʾ and the sacrifice
of Rajab, dates from the pre-Islamic era.
In the Days of Ignorance, Ramaḍān was classified among the usual
or ordinary months, including Shaʿbān and Shawwāl. Conversely,
Arabs in the Days of Ignorance had the tradition of taḥannuth in
Ramaḍān, as the reclusion of Muḥammad to the Cave of Ḥirāʾ in the
same month shows.
Taḥannuth is unclear in terms of significance and concept; many
Muslim scholars have explained it as worship (taʿabbud) and self-
justification (tabarrur). 39 According to a narrative related by Ibn
Rāhawayh (d. 238/853) and Abū Nuʿaym al-Iṣfahānī (d. 430/1038)
through ʿĀʾisha, the Prophet’s experience of taḥannuth in the Cave
of Ḥirāʾ during Ramaḍān is explicitly described as iʿtikāf (anna Rasūl
Allāh nadhara an yaʿtakifa shahr an bi-Ḥirāʾ).40
Pursuant to a citation by Abū l-Faraj al-Halabī (d. 1044/1635) from
ʿUbayd ibn ʿUmayr, the Prophet used to stay in the Cave of Ḥirāʾ for
approximation one month every year. This ritual was a type of
continuation of taḥannuth practiced by devout Qurayshites during
the Days of Ignorance. The Prophet’s first retreat to Ḥirāʾ coincided
with the times of his marriage to Khadīja. In those days, like his
grandfather ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib, he used to be engaged in charities, such
as providing food for the poor. During the Days of Ignorance, Ḥirāʾ
38
See Abū l-Faraj Zayn al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Aḥmad Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbalī,
Laṭāʾif al-maʿārif fī-mā li-mawāsim al-ʿām min al-waẓāʾif (ed. Yāsīn
Muḥammad al-Sawwās; 5th edn., Damascus & Beirut: Dār Ibn Kathīr, 1999), 283-
388.
39
For further information see M. J. Kister, “et-Tehannüs: Kelime Anlamı Üzerine Bir
Araştırma” (translated into Turkish by Ali Aksu), Tasavvuf: İlmî ve Akademik
Araştırma Dergisi 2/4 (2000), 215-230.
40
Abū Yaʿqūb Isḥāq ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Makhlad Ibn Rāhawayh, Musnad Isḥāq ibn
Rāhawayh (ed. ʿAbd al-Ghafūr ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq Ḥusayn Burr al-Balūshī; Medina:
Maktabat al-Īmān, 1990-1991), III, 970-971; Abū Nuʿaym Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd Allāh
ibn Isḥāq al-Iṣfahānī, Dalāʾil al-nubuwwa (eds. Muḥammad Rawwās Qalʿajī and
ʿAbd al-Barr ʿAbbās; 2nd edn., Beirut: Dār al-Nafāʾis, 1986), I, 215.
was known as a type of hermitage and place of worship for charitable
persons; consequently, it had established place for the poor.41
Pursuant to these data, the Prophet’s self-confinement during
Ramaḍān never had a technical purpose, such as reviewing of the
Qurʾān’s text or, as claimed in several sources, elimination of invalid
verses; instead, he retreated to be alone with Allah and to surrender
to Him so as to fill himself with spiritual power. Muḥammad must
have contemplated and questioned himself about the heavy
responsibilities the Qurʾān placed on him; indeed, these facts are
emphasized in Q 73:1-10.
In light of the foregoing assessments, narratives about the
presentation might be fabricated so as provide ground for the
authenticity of the Qurʾān’s text and the prescription of its
arrangement according to divine ordinance (tawqīfī) under the
inspiration of the self-confinement (iʿtikāf) ritual during Ramaḍān.
Self-confinement definitely includes a soft of review; nevertheless,
despite the narratives about the presentation, this review is not about
correction, redaction or proofreading of the Qurʾān’s text but about
revision by Muḥammad of his responsibilities as prophet and
messenger.
As a narrative from Zayd ibn Thābit, the best known and reliable
riwāya about the textualization process of the Qurʾān, clearly asserts,
Muḥammad never conceived the Qurʾān as a text to legislate for
future Muslims. Otherwise, it would be impossible to explain the
following response by Abū Bakr upon ʿUmar’s suggestion to collect
the Qurʾān: “How can I carry out an affair that Rasūl Allāh did not?!”
This is why al-Zarkashī (d. 794/1392) made the following remark: the
Qurʾān’s verses were not transformed into a collection of sheets
between two covers (muṣḥaf) during the lifetime of Muḥammad.
Because such a process would require continuous changes in the
arrangement of the text, the collection of the Qurʾān as a written text
was delayed until the end of the descent period. Following the death
of the Prophet, the collection and reproduction were performed by
41
Abū l-Faraj Nūr al-Dīn ʿAlī ibn Burhān al-Dīn ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Aḥmad al-Ḥalabī,
Insān al-ʿuyūn fī sīrat al-Amīn al-Maʾmūn (al-Sīra al-Ḥalabiyya), (3rd edn.,
Cairo: al-Maṭbaʿa al-Azhariyya, 1932), I, 271-272.
Companions such as Abū Bakr and ʿUthmān.42
During the thirteen-year Mecca period, there was no solid
information about when and how the Qurʾān was first textualized, let
alone whether the presentation actually occurred between the
Prophet and Gabriel every Ramaḍān. Apparently, Muslim scholars
constructed a retrospective history to prove the traditional conviction
that not a single word in the Qurʾān changed until our day; thus, they
opted for a history of the Qurʾān without allowing for any gaps or
obscurities.
For us, the arrangement of verses into smaller chapters, mostly
descended in Mecca, was made according to divine ordinance
(tawqīfī) as the interval letters (fāṣila) and rhymes (sajʿ) show.
Moreover, the Qurʾān is a text said during prayers such as ṣalāt since
the very beginning. Therefore, many chapters and verses must be
said in a certain order at least. Accordingly, the verses and/or verse
groups in more voluminous chapters about multiple, extended
incidents, such as al-Baqara, Āl ʿImrān, and al-Nisāʾ, were probably
arranged in an ijtihādī (through independent reasoning) manner, in
other words, at the discretion of the copiers.
This argument seems even stronger because many verses in longer
chapters, such as al-Baqara, Āl ʿImrān, al-Nisāʾ, and al-Māʾida, for
example, Q 2:238-239 have a wording and meaning structure
unsuitable for establishing a connection via priority-subsequence.
The same possibility includes disputes during the collection and
reproduction of the Qurʾān regarding the determination of the places
of verses, such as Q 33:23 and/or Q 9:128-129, which are
subsequently noticed or uttered near a single Companion, or
questions about the probability of arranging such verses as a separate
chapter.43
Various narratives through the Companions have indicated that
the Qurʾān was generally revealed in groups of four or five verses
and passages. According to hundreds of narratives about the reasons
for its descent, the verses were sent down in separate passages, in
42
Al-Zarkashī, al-Burhān, I, 262.
43
See al-Ṭabarī, Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī, I, 49; Abū Bakr ʿAbd Allāh ibn Sulaymān ibn al-
Ashʿath Ibn Abī Dāwūd, Kitāb al-maṣāḥif (ed. Arthur Jeffery; Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1937), 30-31.
connection with incidents during the revelation period. Therefore,
the arrangement of verses in voluminous chapters such as al-Baqara
and Āl ʿImrān might have been established by bringing together
various passages about a main theme as much as possible. For
example, it is well known that first 100 verses in al-Baqara are about
the Jews of Medina, while the first 80 verses in Āl ʿImrān treat the
Christians of Najrān.44 Thus, verses in the aforementioned sections of
al-Baqara and Āl ʿImrān might, at first glance, address different
themes; nevertheless, because the main theme and addressees are the
same, it was considered reasonable to arrange them with a type of
interior integrity, and the organization must have been realized in this
manner.
This evaluation also applies for several voluminous Madanī
chapters, such as al-Nisāʾ, al-Māʾida, al-Nūr, al-Aḥzāb, and others. For
instance, chapter al-Aḥzāb was sent down in various passages
coincident with numerous incidents over a couple of months: it
covers the smear campaign by polytheists, hypocrites, and the Jews
of Medina against Muḥammad and believers at the time of Battle of
the Trench (Ghazwat al-khandaq), also known as the Battle of
Confederates (Ghazwat al-aḥzāb), which began on 7 Shawwāl 5 AH
(1 March 627) and ended on 1 Dhū l-Qaʿda 5 AH (24 March 627).
Although the chapter is primarily about the Battle of the Trench, it
also treats, as its name suggests, in various verse groups (between, for
example, 30 and 34 and between 5 and 62), the marriage of the
Prophet to Zaynab bint Jaḥsh, the Battle of Banū l-Muṣṭaliq (2
Shaʿbān 5 AH/27 December 626 - 1 Ramaḍān 5 AH/24 January 627),
and the disturbance due to the Ifk incident.
Reports of the determination by Muḥammad of the exact place of
verses in relevant chapters are also controversial and require a
cautious approach. Hence, it does not seem reasonable to rely on
narratives such as “Whenever several verses were revealed to Rasūl
Allāh, he called one of the revelation clerks and told them, ‘Place
these verses in that part of the chapter with so-and-so theme’”45 or
“Rasūl Allāh said: ‘Gabriel came to me and ordered me to place a
44
Abū Muḥammad Jamāl al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Malik Ibn Hishām, al-Sīra al-nabawiyya
(eds. Muṣṭafā al-Saqqā, Ibrāhīm al-Abyārī, and ʿAbd al-Ḥafīẓ Shalabī; Beirut: Dār
al-Khayr, 2004), II, 131; al-Ṭabarī, Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī, III, 162.
45
Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ al-bārī, IX, 29, 52.
verse into that part of so-and-so chapter’”46 to claim that the Prophet
personally established the arrangement of all of the verses, on the
one hand, while arguing that, during the collection process in the
time of Abū Bakr, ʿUmar and Zayd ibn Thābit went to the mosque
and said, “Whoever has a written verse with him should bring them to
us together with two witnesses,” on the other hand, does not seem
reasonable.
If the Prophet, in person, determined the place of each verse of
the Qurʾān in the relevant chapter, the arrangement of the Qurʾān
should have been arranged at the time of revelation, and the Qurʾān
would have been an organized text as early as during Muḥammad’s
lifetime. Nevertheless, the collection process, which began with the
suggestion by ʿUmar and with the initially hesitative but later
convicted attitude of Abū Bakr, shows that this was not the case.
Consequently, we believe that the conventional opinions and
general acceptance about arrangement were only determined
afterward. Moreover, according to some narratives, ʿUmar and Zayd
ibn Thābit collected Qurʾān verses from palm branches, fine stones,
and memories of people on the condition of the testimony of two
men, while according to others, Abū Bakr assigned twenty-five men
from Quraysh and fifty among Anṣār and ordered them, “Put the
Qurʾān on paper and submit it to Saʿīd ibn al-ʿĀṣ, for he is fluent in
Arabic.”47
In contrast, some other narratives indicate that the verses were
arranged in ijtihādī and not tawqīfī manner. For example, one
narrative reads that Khuzayma ibn Thābit or Abū Khuzayma al-Anṣārī
brought two verses, whereupon ʿUmar said, “If there were three of
these verses, I would turn them into a new chapter; search for a
(suitable) chapter in the Qurʾān and place these two verses in it.” Ibn
Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (d. 852/1449) offered the following assessment: “As
this narrative apparently puts forth, the Companions
arranged/amended verses in chapters pursuant to their own
conceptions. However, other narratives show that the Companions
46
Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, al-Musnad, IV, 218.
47
Abū l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad ibn Abī Yaʿqūb ibn Jaʿfar ibn Wahb al-Yaʿqūbī, Tārīkh al-
Yaʿqūbī (ed. ʿAbd al-Amīr ʿAlī Mahnā; Beirut: Sharikat al-Aʿlamī li-l-Maṭbūʿāt,
2010), II, 22.
had no discretion about the arrangement of verses except for divine
ordinance (tawqīf).”48
Another narrative relates that Zayd ibn Thābit undertook a lengthy
search for Q 33:23 and finally found it from Khuzayma; 49 yet another
narrative allows for the following indications by Yūsuf ibn Māhak: “I
was with ʿĀʾisha, the mother of believers. Then a man from Iraq
appeared and said, ‘O, the mother of believers! Show me your own
muṣḥaf’. ʿĀʾisha asked why, whereupon the ʿIrāqī responded, ‘I must
compile/arrange the Qurʾān pursuant to your muṣḥaf because the
Qurʾān is read without proper arrangement and order.’ ʿĀʾisha gave
the following answer: ‘You can read or recite regardless of which
chapter (sūra, passage) in the Qurʾān preceded it; that is all right.’” 50
For Ibn Ḥajar, the question by the ʿIrāqī to ʿĀʾisha is about the
arrangement of chapters, before adding that it might also be about
the individual determination of verses in each chapter, based on the
phrase “ʿĀʾisha had him write verses in chapters (fa-amlat ʿalayhi āy
al-suwar)” in the ḥadīth.51
Narratives about the tawqīfī character of arrangement of verses are
authentic in terms of certitude; however, they might be specifically
about the arrangement of several passages or verse groups within
voluminous chapters. Indeed, it seems neither realistic nor persuasive
that Muḥammad ordered individual assignments for each verse in
chapters as voluminous as al-Baqara, Āl ʿImrān, al-Nisāʾ, al-Māʾida, al-
Tawba, etc., which were sent down at various times during ten-year
Medina period, even before their completion.
The view on the ijtihādī arrangement of verse groups in larger
chapters can also be refuted, based on the Prophet having been used
to reciting the Qurʾān in prayers and that he could not have done so if
the verses were not in a certain order. Nonetheless, remember that
these chapters were not sent down at once; therefore, neither the
Prophet nor the Companions recited them as a whole from the very
beginning. In addition, Muḥammad reportedly advised keeping
recital during prayers as short as possible; accordingly, he most
48
Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ al-bārī, IX, 20.
49
Al-Bukhārī, “Faḍāʾil al-Qurʾān,” 3.
50
51
Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ al-bārī, IX, 50.
probably did not recite chapters of dozens of pages, such as al-
Baqara, Āl ʿImrān, al-Nisāʾ, and al-Māʾida, during ṣalāt, especially
with the community.
Regarding the arrangement of verses, in agreement with the
opinions of most scholars, Muṣḥaf, which begins with al-Fātiḥa and
ends with al-Nās, was arranged through ijtihād by the Companions.52
Under this arrangement, al-Fātiḥa is placed in the beginning like a
soft of preface, while the subsequent 113 chapters, we can say, are
ordered from longer to shorter or larger to smaller. Nonetheless,
some scholars have defended that the arrangement of chapters is not
ijtihādī but tawqīfī. The narratives, which include the information
that the Prophet classified chapters as al-sabʿ al-ṭiwāl (seven long
chapters), miʾūn (those with approximately one hundred verses),
and mathānī (with fewer than a hundred verses)53 seem to support
the tawqīfī argument; nevertheless, such narratives should also be
cautiously treated. If the organization of chapters depended on the
notification and determination by Muḥammad, asked about placing
the chapter al-Anfāl in the eighth position although it is shorter and
smaller than al-Tawba, as well as the lack of Basmala in the
beginning of the latter, ʿUthmān would not have given the following
answer reported by al-Bāqillānī:
Because the chapters al-Anfāl and al-Tawba are similar in terms of
content (theme and expression), I considered al-Tawba to be a
continuation of al-Anfāl; Rasūl Allāh passed away before giving us
any explanations about these chapters. Therefore, I placed the two
consecutively in muṣḥaf but did not separate them with Basmala.54
Conversely, there are several narratives about disputes over some
verses, such as Q 33:23 and Q 9:128-129, during the activities of the
copying committee under the presidency of Zayd ibn Thābit; some of
these narratives are given in al-Jāmīʿ al-ṣaḥīḥ by al-Bukhārī (d.
256/870) and Muslim (d. 261/875), which are considered authentic
52
Abū Jaʿfar Aḥmad ibn Ibrāhīm Ibn al-Zubayr al-Gharnāṭī, al-Burhān fī tartīb
suwar al-Qurʾān (ed. Muḥammad Shaʿbanī; n.p.: al-Mamlaka al-Maghribiyya
Wizārat al-Awqāf wa-l-Shuʾūn al-Islāmiyya, 1990), 182; al-Suyūṭī, al-Itqān, I, 194.
53
Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallām, Faḍāʾil al-Qurʾān wa-maʿālimuhū wa-
ādābuhū (ed. Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd al-Wāḥid al-Khayyāṭī; n.p.: al-Mamlaka al-
Maghribiyya Wizārat al-Awqāf wa-l-Shuʾūn al-Islāmiyya, 1995), II, 29.
54
Al-Bāqillānī, al-Intiṣār, I, 281-282.
and prestigious works in the Sunnī tradition. In addition, there are
reportedly authentic/reliable narratives about the presence of the
“rajm verse” and some texts that are allegedly verses. Accordingly, it
is known that the private muṣḥaf of Ibn Masʿūd, the famous
Companion, did not include the chapters of al-Fātiḥa and al-
Muʿawwidhatayn (al-Falaq and al-Nās), while in the private muṣḥaf
of Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, there are Qunūt prayers, as well as two other
chapters, called al-Khalʿ and al-Ḥafd, in addition to 114 chapters.
Moreover, it is controversial whether al-Fīl and Quraysh, al-Ḍuḥā and
al-Inshirāḥ collectively constitute one chapter or are individual
chapters.55
In addition, the position of Basmala in muṣḥaf and the lack of
Basmala at the beginning of al-Tawba have always been controversial
issues. Moreover, there have been disputes about the number of
verses in the Qurʾān and in individual chapters. According to relevant
sources, the Qurʾān consists of 6000, 6204 (counted by experts in al-
Baṣra), 6210 (counted by experts in Mecca, via Ubayy ibn Kaʿb), 6214
(final count by experts in Medina), 6216 (via Ibn ʿAbbās), 6217 (first
count by experts in Medina), 6219, 6225, 6226 (counted by experts in
Damascus), and 6236 (counted by experts in al-Kūfa) verses.56
For al-Suyūṭī, the number of verses in all of the chapters is
controversial pursuant to different counts by experts in Mecca,
Medina, Damascus, al-Baṣra, and al-Kūfa, except for forty chapters,
so much so that there are two different enumerations in Medina,
based on Abū Jaʿfar Yazīd ibn al-Qaʿqāʾ (d. 130/748) and Ismāʿīl ibn
Jaʿfar Ibn Abī Kathīr (d. 180/797), respectively. The former is called
the “first enumeration by experts in Medina (ʿadad ahl al-Madīna al-
awwal),” while the latter is known as the “final/later enumeration by
experts in Medina (ʿadad ahl al-Madīna al-akhīr).” According to the
chain of narratives, the enumeration by experts in Mecca is attributed
to the Companion Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, the enumeration in Damascus is
attributed to Abū l-Dardāʾ, the enumeration in al-Kūfa is attributed to
ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, and the enumeration in al-Baṣra is attributed to the
55
Al-Zarkashī, al-Burhān, I, 251; al-Suyūṭī, al-Itqān, I, 204-217.
56
Abū ʿAmr ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd al-Dānī, al-Bayān fī ʿadd āy al-Qurʾān (ed. Ghānim
Qaddūrī al-Ḥamad; Kuwait: Manshūrat Markaz al-Makhṭūṭāt wa-l-Turāth wa-l-
Wathāʾiq, 1994), 79-82; al-Zarkashī, al-Burhān, I, 249.
follower (tābiʿī) Abū l-Mushajjar ʿĀṣim al-Juḥdarī (d. 128/746). 57 In
the light of all these data, the number of verses in chapters is
controversial even among the Companions.
Although the Qurʾān’s verses reportedly descended at different
times for different reasons, and many verse groups, particularly in
longer chapters, are disconnected in terms of expression and relation,
some exegetes, such as Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210) and al-
Biqāʿī (d. 885/1480) in the classical period and Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī (d.
1997) in the modern era, have asserted that each verse has a strict
relationship with another verse or group of verses, and each chapter
has a strict bond to another chapter or chapters pursuant to literal
iʿjāz, which we consider to be an exaggerated approach; these
exegetes have even developed a sub-discipline called al-tanāsub
bayna l-āyāt wa-l-suwar or tanāsub al-āy wa-l-suwar (harmony
among the verses and chapters of the Qurʾān) within the scope of
sciences of the Qurʾān (ʿulūm al-Qurʾān). In return, al-Shawkānī (d.
1250/1834) and some other exegetes have considered these efforts,
such as comprehensive studies about tanāsub by al-Biqāʿī, to be
useless preoccupations, indicating that they are “unacceptable views
about the book of Allah.”
Following the anecdote about Adam and heaven in Q 2:30-39,
verse 40 begins to treat the story of Moses and the Israelites; al-
Shawkānī extensively analyzed the relationship between these two
groups of verses. According to him, the Qurʾān’s verses, which were
sent down for twenty-years with regard to countless incidents,
naturally comprise controversies rather than connections between
them. Different verses might declare the same thing to be ḥarām and
ḥalāl in different periods; some verses are about believers, while
some are about disbelievers, past communities, or people and groups
at the time of revelation; some verses treat worship, whereas some
deal with practical issues; some are about incentives while some seek
to frighten, and some treat torment and reward. Al-Shawkānī argued
that not only the longer and voluminous chapters but also the
medium-sized chapters were sent down upon various incidents
pursuant to historical context.
57
Al-Dānī, al-Bayān, 67-71; al-Suyūṭī, al-Itqān, I, 211. Abū ʿAmr al- Dānī (d.
444/1053) also mentions a seventh enumeration extracted from Khālid ibn
Maʿdān (d. 103/721) the famous tābiʿī from Homs. See al-Dānī, al-Bayān, 70.
According to al-Shawkānī, the search for a relationship between
verses or chapters is based on the assumption that the revelation of
the Qurʾān follows a path in parallel with the muṣḥaf arrangement.
However, anyone more or less interested in and informed about the
Qurʾān knows that this is not the case. Chapters like al-ʿAlaq, al-
Muddaththir and al-Muzzammil are reportedly among the earliest to
descend; they are, however, located in the latter parts of the muṣḥaf.
It is well known that al-ʿAlaq, al-Muddaththir and al-Muzzammil
were the first revealed chapters; they are, however, located in the
latter parts of the book. Therefore, the search for relationships
between verses and chapters is based not on the revelation order of
the Qurʾān but on the order established by the Companions during
the activities of collection and dictation. Consequently, it is useless
and barren to preoccupy oneself with the problem of tanāsub al-āy
wa-l-suwar. Allah characterized the Qurʾān in Arabic and sent his
kalām in line with the linguistic traditions of Arabs. For instance, an
Arabian speaker touches upon various subjects during a speech. The
modes of address, expression, and style in the Qurʾān are similar.58
The Qurʾān, as a whole, is evidently a consistent and related text
in itself. Indeed, the greatest objective and cause for the Qurʾān are
unity and justice, while it essentially seeks to abolish polytheism and
cruelty. The Qurʾān is related to these two themes from beginning to
the end. Nevertheless, the relationship indicated in ʿulūm al-Qurʾān
literature regards the semantic connection between the passages of a
text written at a desk. Such connections can be established between
many verses and even successive chapters. However, there is no such
necessity within the arrangement of the book; in addition,
connections discovered through reasonable deductions are not
necessarily signs of literal inimitability (iʿjāz).
Question of Nuzūl Order
Despite all of the disputes over the collection of the Qurʾān, it is
beyond any doubt that the muṣḥaf was arranged at the time of
ʿUthmān, and since then, this arrangement has been conveyed
successively through recital and writing. In contrast, it is impossible
58
Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad al-Shawkānī, Fatḥ al-qadīr
al-jāmiʿ bayna fannay al-riwāya wa-l-dirāya min ʿilm al-tafsīr (Beirut: ʿĀlam al-
Kutub, n.d.), I, 72-73.
to say the same thing about the revelation order of the Qurʾān.
Relevant references provide various revelation orders attributed to
Companions, Followers or subsequent scholars, such as ʿAlī ibn Abī
Ṭālib, ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbbās and Nuʿmān ibn Bashīr, or even to Jābir
ibn Zayd (d. 93/712), al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī (d. 110/728), Ibn Shihāb al-
Zuhrī (d. 124/742), Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq (d. 148/765), or al-Wāqidī (d.
159/776 ?).59 Some recent studies have discussed a revelation order
attributed to ʿUthmān; nevertheless, no references have been
provided for such arrangement.60
Interestingly enough, the arrangement order attributed to ʿUthmān
is identical to the arrangement that constitutes the basis of al-Tafsīr
al-ḥadīth by ʿIzzat Darwaza. Darwaza, however, does not attribute
this arrangement to ʿUthmān; instead, he provides notes of
information on the chapters with regard to time and place of
revelation in the muṣḥaf written by the calligrapher Muṣṭafā Naẓīf
Kadırgalī and published by ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd Aḥmad Ḥanafī, together
with a statement by the Egyptian Ministry of the Interior and approval
of Egyptian Qurʾān scholars.
This muṣḥaf was also published a few times in Istanbul before and
after the rule of Sultan ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd II, before becoming popular
59
See Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Ayyūb Ibn al-Ḍurays, Faḍāʾil al-Qurʾān wa-
mā unzila min al-Qurʾān bi-Makka wa-mā unzila bi-l-Madīna (ed. ʿUrwa Badīr;
Damascus: Dār al-Fikr, 1987), 33-34; Abū l-Faraj Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq Ibn al-
Nadīm, al-Fihrist (ed. Ibrāhīm Ramaḍān; 2nd edn., Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifa, 1997),
42-43; Abū l-Qāsim al-Ḥasan ibn Muḥammad ibn Ḥabīb al-Nisābūrī, Kitāb al-
tanbīh ʿalā faḍl ʿulūm al-Qurʾān (ed. Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Karīm Kāẓim al-Rāḍī),
al-Mawrid: Majalla Turāthiyya Faṣliyya 17/4 (1988), 307; Abū Bakr Aḥmad ibn
al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī al-Bayhaqī, Dalāʾil al-nubuwwa wa-maʿrifat aḥwāl ṣāḥib al-
sharīʿa (ed. ʿAbd al-Muʿṭī Amīn Qalʿajī; Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1988),
VII, 142-144; al-Dānī, al-Bayān, 135; Abū ʿAlī al-Faḍl ibn al-Ḥasan al-Ṭabarsī,
Majmaʿ al-bayān fī tafsīr al-Qurʾān (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1997), X,
164-165; Abū l-Fatḥ Tāj al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Shahrastānī,
Mafātīḥ al-asrār wa-maṣābīḥ al-abrār (ed. Muḥammad Ādharshab; Tehran:
Mīrāth Maktūb, 2008), I, 19-13; al-Zarkashī, al-Burhān, I, 193; al-Suyūṭī, al-Itqān,
I, 81-83; Arthur Jeffery (ed.), Muqaddimatān fī ʿulūm al-Qurʾān: wa-humā
muqaddimat Kitāb al-mabānī wa-muqaddimat Ibn ʿAṭiyya (Cairo: Maktabat al-
Khānjī, 1954), 8-13; Ḥātim Ṣāliḥ Ḍāmin, Nuṣūṣ muḥaqqaqa fī ʿulūm al-Qurʾān
al-karīm (Baghdad: Markaz Jamāʿat Mājid li-l-Thaqāfa, 1991), 88-93.
60
İsmail Cerrahoğlu, Tefsîr Usûlü (Ankara: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 1983), 86-87.
across the entire Muslim world. The same muṣḥaf was published
several times in Egypt. Darwaza explained why he based the
arrangement of descent on this version as follows: “In this Muṣḥaf,
the indications of the succession of a certain chapter after another
prove that the committee of scholars who examined and approved
the version have assessed various narratives and determined
preferences among them before deciding on the order of
revelation.” 61 He also emphasized that some chapters are
contradictory to the mentioned arrangement with regard to the time
of revelation.
The rough uniformity of various revelation arrangements in ʿulūm
al-Qurʾān, exegeses and history books could be considered evidence
for the sameness of their sources. Most probably, this source is Ibn
ʿAbbās. Indeed, various works have attributed different arrangements
of revelation to Ibn ʿAbbās. The arrangements attributed to Jābir ibn
Zayd and Abū Ṣāliḥ also likely belong to Ibn ʿAbbās because Jābir ibn
Zayd was a disciple of Ibn ʿAbbās who praised him, saying “Once
you have Jābir with you, why do you come to me to ask questions?”62
Regarding Abū Ṣāliḥ ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ṣāliḥ, he was the most reliable
narrator of several narratives about exegesis that are attributed to Ibn
ʿAbbās.
It is difficult to rely on the accuracy and validity of the revelation
order in classical sources. As Darwaza indicated, there is no
revelation order that extends over the lifetime of the Prophet. In
addition, information in narratives makes contradictory statements
about the Makkī or Madanī character of several chapters. According
to some narratives, al-Raʿd, al-Ḥajj, al-Raḥmān, al-Insān, al-Zalzala, al-
Falaq, al-Nās, al-Ikhlāṣ, al-Kawthar, Quraysh, al-ʿAṣr, al-ʿĀdiyāt, al-
Qadr, al-Muṭaffifīn and al-Fātiḥa are classified as Makkī, while some
others considered them Madanī.63
Such disputes arise from the insufficiency of information about
when and upon which incident the chapters and verse groups were
61
Muḥammad ʿIzzat Darwaza, al-Tafsīr al-ḥadīth (Tunis: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī,
2008), I, 12-14, 17.
62
Abū ʿAbd Allāh Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn ʿUthmān al-Dhahabī,
Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ (eds. Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf et al.; 2nd edn., Beirut:
Muʾassasat al-Risāla, 1981-1988), IV, 482.
63
Darwaza, al-Tafsīr al-ḥadīth, I, 125.
sent down. Moreover, not all of the verses of the Qurʾān were sent for
definite reasons. Pursuant to the findings of scholars, only
approximately 500 verses descended due to a particular reason for
revelation. For Shāh Walī Allāh al-Dihlawī (d. 1176/1762) and certain
other scholars, a large number of narratives that relate motives of
revelation in exegesis do not provide the actual reason for the
revelation; instead, they are exegesis-related narratives to establish
connections between verses and subsequent incidents or to interpret
such incidents in light of the verses.64
Commentaries and Islamic biographies provide very little
information about the incidents that led to the revelation of
particularly the Makkī chapters and verses or the historical
environments around these incidents because, during his thirteen
years in Mecca, Muḥammad struggled for survival against polytheists
and thus considered the Qurʾān as divine guidance to transform man
and society in daily life, rather than a text to be legislated for future
Muslim generations. The same interpretation also pertains to his
Companions. Moreover, the generation of Companions never
construed the Qurʾān’s revelation to be a text independent from the
Prophet and his Sunna.
Muḥammad did not consider the Qurʾān to be a text to be
collected into a book and legislated for posterity in this format. One
of the strongest pieces of evidence for this fact is the famous narrative
of Zayd ibn Thābit, which tells how the activity of the collection of
the Qurʾān began during the caliphate of Abū Bakr. According to the
narrative, because a great number of ḥāfiẓ Companions were
martyred during the Battle of al-Yamāma and other wars, ʿUmar
feared that the Qurʾān might disappear from public memory,
whereupon he offered to Caliph Abū Bakr to collect the Qurʾān as a
written text. Abū Bakr was, however, initially hesitant regarding such
an activity, asking “How could I do something that Rasūl Allāh did
not?”65
64
Abū ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Quṭb al-Dīn Shāh Walī Allāh Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥīm al-
Dihlawī, al-Fawz al-kabīr fī uṣūl al-tafsīr (Damascus: Dār al-Ghawthānī li-l-
Dirāsāt al-Qurʾāniyya, 2008), 69-70.
65
Regarding the arrangement of revelation, we must be doubtful
about the soundness of different revelation arrangements, which, in
particular, belong to Ibn ʿAbbās. As is known, commentaries that
based on narratives provide many incompatible reasons from Ibn
ʿAbbās for revelations about the same verse; similarly, there are many
controversial explanations for numerous verses and wordings.
Narratives including that of Ibn ʿAbbās have created significant
confusion in exegeses of the Qurʾān because they relate several
explanations for the interpretation of almost every verse; accordingly,
al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī (d. 204/820) had to indicate that, among the
information from Ibn ʿAbbās, nothing is solid but for approximately a
hundred news (khabar). 66 Consequently, although critics of ḥadīth
and narratives attempted to evaluate, in terms of
documentation/authenticity, exegetic lines attributed to Ibn ʿAbbās,
such studies could not eliminate the aforementioned confusion.67
Indeed, it is unclear whether Ibn ʿAbbās obtained information
about the revelation order of the Qurʾān’s chapters from the Prophet
or from a Companion such as ʿAlī or whether he established the
arrangement personally based on his own knowledge and
competence. If the revelation arrangements provided by Ibn ʿAbbās
were based on his personal ideas and convictions, they would be, as
Muḥammad Ḥusayn Ṭabāṭabāʾī (d. 1981) noted, valuable
arrangements but reliable only in a self-proclaimed manner. 68 In
contrast, considering that Ibn ʿAbbās was born three years prior to
the Hegira and was a 12-to 13-year-old boy at the time of the death of
Muḥammad, he is unlikely to have witnessed the times or
circumstances of the revelation of the Qurʾān’s chapters.
In brief, various revelation arrangements indicated in classical
sources cannot provide precise or final information about the
chronology of the descent of chapters. At this point, one can only
provide rough and general information about whether a chapter is
Makkī or Madanī. However, for such a categorization, it is necessary
not to based it on individual narratives but to attempt to establish a
66
Al-Suyūṭī, al-Itqān, II, 1233.
67
See Muḥammad Ḥusayn al-Dhahabī, al-Tafsīr wa-l-mufassirūn (Beirut: Dār al-
Arqam, n.d.), I, 53-56.
68
Muḥammad Ḥusayn Ṭabāṭabāʾī, İslam’da Kur’an (translated into Turkish by
Ahmed Erdinç; Istanbul: Bir Yayıncılık, 1988), 129.
relationship between the information in relevant narratives, social
circumstances during the Mecca and Medina periods, and the content
of chapters; accordingly, one should search and scan earlier
biographies and battle histories.
Conversely, the revelation arrangement of many, particularly
Madanī, chapters includes interpenetration. For instance, several
references have indicated al-Baqara to be the first chapter to be sent
down in Medina. In contrast, some narratives have indicated verses
278, 281, and 282 of al-Baqara to be the last verses revealed. 69
Therefore, al-Baqara was sent down in passages over ten-year period
in Medina; in the process, the revelation of chapters such as Āl
ʿImrān, al-Nisāʾ, al-Māʾida, al-Anfāl, and al-Tawba also continued in a
similar manner.
Moreover, during the first years after the Hegira, many significant
incidents, such as the change of Qibla (2 AH), the command of
fasting during Ramaḍān (2 AH), Expeditionary force (sariyya) of Baṭn
al-nakhla (2 AH), Patrol of al-Abwāʾ (2 AH), Patrol of Buwāṭ (2 AH),
Patrol of Dhū l-ʿUshayra (2 AH), Expulsion of Banū Qaynuqāʿ (2 AH),
Battle of al-Sawīq (2 AH), Battle against Banū Ghaṭafān (3 AH), Battle
of Banū Sulaym (3 AH), Battle of Uḥud (3 AH), Battle of Ḥamrāʾ al-
asad (3 AH), Expedition of al-Rajīʿ (4 AH), Expedition of Biʾr Maʿūna
(4 AH), and Siege of Banū Naḍīr (4 AH), occurred, and verses about
some of these events are scattered over various chapters, such as al-
Baqara, Āl ʿImrān, al-Anfāl, and al-Ḥashr.
For a complete and flawless revelation order, verses and various
verse groups about foregoing incidents should be chronologically
sorted; however, we lack sufficient and satisfactory information to
provide such an arrangement. In addition, it is arguable how useful it
would be to arrange a Qurʾān text without integrity, in contrast to the
current muṣḥaf organization. In brief, the conventional arrangements,
which position al-Baqara first among the Madanī chapters, are mostly
arbitrary and have no function other than providing a rough idea
about the revelation process of the Qurʾān.
For us, it is vital to know deeply the attitudes of the Prophet for
better understanding of transformative messages for individuals and
the community in the Qurʾān, as well as to analyze the Book in this
69
See al-Suyūṭī, al-Itqān, I, 86-87; Ibn ʿAqīla, al-Ziyāda wa-l-iḥsān, I, 180.
regard, because the message of the Qurʾān is interpenetrated with the
life experiences of Muḥammad and his Companions. Therefore,
knowledge about the true stories of addressees in the beginning is
very important for a better understanding of the Qurʾān’s messages
for humanity and for a higher sense of what the Qurʾān wants us to
feel. However, such understanding and conception cannot be
obtained through rough arrangements about revelation; therefore, it
is impossible to achieve such an understanding through the reading
of translations prepared pursuant to such a revelation order. For this
purpose, a scientific exegesis, which emphasizes the attitude of the
Prophet and incidents in his lifetime, seems necessary.
History of Studies on the Nuzūl Order
There are multiple revelation arrangements in the tafsīr and ʿulūm
al-Qurʾān literature; in the classical era, this variety was overlooked
and considered unnecessary, and the muṣḥaf arrangement was used
as a basis. Nevertheless, the introduction to exegeses of chapters
included brief references regarding whether the relevant chapter is
Makkī or Madanī. Connections with the non-textual context of the
Qurʾān were mostly established through narratives about issues such
as asbāb al-nuzūl and nāsikh-mansūkh; passages lacking any
narrative about the reason for their descent were generally
interpreted in consideration of history and articulation.
Obedience to the muṣḥaf arrangement in the classical exegetic
tradition might have been due to the holiness attributed to the
muṣḥaf arrangement in a sense and acceptance of this arrangement
as a type of miracle pursuant to relevant indications in the ʿulūm al-
Qurʾān literature; in contrast, it might be in line with the principle in
tafsīr and fiqh that “reliance is based not on the particularity of cause
but on the universality of wording.”
Recently, the process and order of nuzūl of the Qurʾān have
become a popular and interesting subject in the Muslim world. One
of the probable factors underlying this tendency might be the
influence of Orientalist approaches on Qurʾānic studies as a reflection
of the multidimensional defeat of the Muslim world by the West.
Orientalist works by, for example, Gustav Weil (d. 1889), William
Muir (d. 1905), Theodor Nöldeke (d. 1930), Hartwig Hirschfeld (d.
1934), Richard Bell (d. 1952), and Régis Blachère (d. 1973), have
mostly considered the Qurʾān as a text generated by Muḥammad;
accordingly, they have attempted to read and understand the Qurʾān
as an autobiography of Muḥammad. Consequently, the Qurʾān text
has been regarded as significant evidence about the life experience
and psychology of Muḥammad.
The division of the Qurʾān text with regard to revelation as a
historical document intends to analyze the psychology of
Muḥammad, on the one hand, and to follow the progress of Islam, on
the other hand. Nevertheless, the conventional muṣḥaf arrangement
does not actually serve the use of the Qurʾān as a historical reference
because it includes neither a thematic nor chronological composition.
For the utilization of the Qurʾān text as a historical document, the
chapters and verse groups should be appropriately dated to establish
a chronological order of revelation.70
Modern translations and exegetic works based on revelation order
have primarily emerged from India and Egypt; this fact might be
shown as proof for the influence and inspiration of the Orientalist
tradition. Certainly, India and Egypt are Muslim regions that have
been subjected to Western invasions. In his English translation of the
Qurʾān first published in 1911 on the Indian subcontinent, Mīrzā Abū
l-Faḍl (d. 1956) arranged the chapters pursuant to their order of
revelation grounded on Nöldeke’s arrangement, except for two
chapters. Then again, Mawlānā Muḥammad ʿAlī (d. 1951), the leader
of the Qādiyānīs in Lahore, on the Indian subcontinent, attempted to
date chapters of the Qurʾān. First, in the prologue of his The Holy
Qurʾān with English Translation and Commentary in 1917, there
was a title entitled “Makkī and Madanī Chapters,” in which he divided
the Makkī chapters into three sub-periods and the Madanī chapters
into four sub-periods.
Mawlānā Yaʿqūb Ḥasan Saʿīd (d. 1940) was another personality to
have published a similar translation-exegesis in India. Yaʿqūb, who
was imprisoned by the invading British and remained in jail between
1921 and 1923, studied the Qurʾān in the process and finally
published two works, Kitāb al-hudā and Kashf al-hudā. These
works, which included exegeses of verses on several themes,
considered the revelation process.
70
For further information see Hadiye Ünsal, Erken Dönem Mekki Surelerin Tahlili
(Ankara: Ankara Okulu Yayınları, 2015), 98-119; Ömer Özsoy, Kur’an ve
Tarihsellik Yazıları (Ankara: Kitâbiyât Yayınları, 2004), 151-164.
Many Egyptian Muslim scholars and researchers were also
interested in the arrangement and exegesis of the Qurʾān pursuant to
the chronology of revelation. For instance, Yūsuf Rashīd wrote an
article in the 1950s about the necessity to arrange the Qurʾān
pursuant to the chronology of revelation. Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh
Drāz (d. 1958) wrote another paper to criticize the aforementioned
article, defending the necessity of obedience to the muṣḥaf
arrangement. 71 Due to concerns emphasized by such and similar
debates, Muḥammad ʿIzzat Darwaza opted to obtain a fatwā from
Abū l-Yusr ʿĀbidīn and al-Sheikh ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ Abū Ghudda on the
admissibility of exegetic writing pursuant to revelation order before
beginning to write his exegesis entitled al-Tafsīr al-ḥadīth (Damascus
1961-1963), which was based on revelation order.
Apart from Darwaza, the ʿIrāqī ʿAbd al-Qādir Mullā Ḥuwaysh (d.
1980) also realized an exegesis pursuant to the revelation order of the
Qurʾān and published it under the title of Bayān al-maʿānī
(Damascus 1962-1968) in six volumes. The fifteen-volume Maʿārij al-
tafakkur wa-daqāʾiq al-tadabbur by the Syrian ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
Ḥabannaka al-Maydānī (d. 2004) is a similar work. Al-Maydānī
completed the exegesis of the Makkī chapters; nevertheless, he did
not live long enough to write exegeses of the Madanī chapters. Asʿad
Aḥmad ʿAlī, born in Latakia, Syria, in 1937, also organized his Tafsīr
al-Qurʾān al-murattab pursuant to the revelation order.72
Muḥammad ʿĀbid al-Jābirī was another modern Muslim
academician who prepared an exegesis in line with the revelation
order. In his three-volume commentary, entitled Fahm al-Qurʾān al-
ḥakīm, al-Jābirī followed the principle of explaining and commenting
on the Qurʾān in line with opinions. His work comprised genuine
and accurate findings and determinations; nevertheless, his mind-
blowing interpretations, such as “carrying on with a partner prior to
sexual intercourse and stroking the skin of the woman gently in
71
See Muhammed Abdullah Draz, “Kur’ân-ı Kerîm’in Nüzûl Sırasına Göre Tertîb
Edilmesi Teklifine Edebî Eleştiri” (translated into Turkish by Ahmed Nedim
Serinsu), Kur’an Mesajı: İlmi Araştırmalar Dergisi 2/19-20-21 (1999), 191-209.
72
For comprehensive information and assessment about these works, see Ṭāhā
Muḥammad Fāris, Tafāsīr al-Qurʾān al-karīm ḥasaba tartīb al-nuzūl (Amman:
Dār al-Fatḥ, 2011), 423-922.
preparation for sexual intercourse” for the word ḍaraba 73 in the
section about the expression wa-ḍribūhunna in Q 3:34,
overshadowed the scientific worth of the work.
Similar studies were conducted in Turkey during the Republican
Era. One of them was entitled Beyânu’l-Hak: Kur’an-ı Kerim’in
Nüzul Sırasına Göre Tefsiri by the late M. Zeki Duman. Kur’an Yolu
İniş Sırasına Göre Anlam ve Tefsiri by Şâban Piriş and the eleven-
volume Nüzul Sırasına Göre Tebyînu’l-Kur’an İşte Kur’an (Istanbul
2008-2010) by Hakkı Yılmaz can be mentioned in the same category.
In addition to the foregoing, many Turkish translations have been
published in line with the revelation order.
One of the main factors underlying all of these works is the
modern Muslim view that the Qurʾān is a self-sufficient source, as
well as the formation of a serious awareness of the distance among
Sunna, ḥadīth, and tradition. In this regard, it is ironic that the
problem of translation and exegesis according to revelation order,
which necessarily requires the consideration of the Prophet and his
attitudes, is popular especially in circles adopting a Qurʾān-based
approach to Islam.
Most probably, the tendency among advocates of Qurʾān-based
Islam toward exegesis pursuant to revelation order is about exploring
a new field as a palliative approach to the problems of stringency and
restrictedness due to countless repetitive lectures on the Qurʾān in
the muṣḥaf arrangement and lack of other satisfactory religious
references. Otherwise, it is not explicable to omit any reference
except for the Qurʾān as the source of religion and religious
provisions, on the one hand, while planning to read it pursuant to its
own history of revelation and attitudes, on the other.
In Lieu of a Conclusion
We can hardly discuss unanimously accepted revelation order or
the arrangement of the Qurʾān. Moreover, it does not seem possible
to establish such an arrangement in the light of the extant data. Above
all, we lack sufficient information and knowledge about when every
73
See Muḥammad ʿĀbid al-Jābirī, Fahm al-Qurʾān al-ḥakīm: al-Tafsīr al-wāḍiḥ
ḥasaba tartīb al-nuzūl (Beirut: Markaz Dirāsāt al-Waḥda al-ʿArabiyya, 2009), III,
222, 251-252.
Qurʾān verse and chapter were transmitted. The reliability of the
present data is contestable. Indeed, various revelation arrangements,
provided by Companions and Followers, display significant
differences; moreover, they are problematic in terms of
documentation/certitude.
This being the case, we have observed an increasing tendency for
understanding and interpreting the Qurʾān pursuant to the
chronology of revelation. Regarding translations and exegeses, the
preparation of or a lecture about a translation or exegesis pursuant to
the revelation order does not provide the expected advantage or
efficacy; furthermore, the intention for reading a translation
undertaken in agreement with the revelation order remains unclear
for us.
In case such a reading aims at obtaining a grasp of messages in the
Qurʾān about humanity, the same can definitely be obtained through
a muṣḥaf-based arrangement. In case the objective is to learn better
the experiences and struggles of Muḥammad as a prophet, one must
refer to exegeses, ḥadīth sources, biographies, and history books for
that purpose.
Lists of the nuzūl order are available in various sources;
nevertheless, they have no greater function than providing restricted
information and a rough idea about the time of the revelation of
chapters. In fact, such lists might be helpful for an exegesis that seeks
to understand and explain the Qurʾān within its peculiar context of
descent and to interpret it for modern humanity. Arrangements in
such a study might indeed be functional for determining the semantic
restrictions and extension of the meaning of wordings in the Qurʾān
and significant themes and key concepts, as well as for monitoring
the progression of suspended judgments. In contrast, a translation or
exegesis prepared pursuant to a self-proclaimed nuzūl order cannot
provide even such secondary advantages.
REFERENCES
Abū Shāma al-Maqdisī, Abū l-Qāsim Shihāb al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, al-
Murshid al-wajīz ilā ʿulūm tataʿallaqu bi-l-Kitāb al-ʿazīz (ed. Tayyar
Altıkulaç; Ankara: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 1986).
Abū Ḥayyān al-Andalusī, Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf, al-Baḥr al-muḥīṭ, 11 vols.,
(Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1993).
ʿAlī, Jawād, al-Mufaṣṣal fī tārīkh al-ʿArab qabla l-Islām, 10 vols., (Qom:
Manshūrāt al-Sharīf al-Raḍī, 1380 HS).
al-Bāqillānī, Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn al-Ṭayyib, al-Intiṣār li-l-Qurʾān (ed.
M. ʿIsām al-Quḍāt; Amman: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 2001).
al-Bayhaqī, Abū Bakr Aḥmad ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī, Dalāʾil al-nubuwwa
wa-maʿrifat aḥwāl ṣāḥib al-sharīʿa, 7 vols., (ed. ʿAbd al-Muʿṭī Amīn
Qalʿajī; Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1988).
Cerrahoğlu, İsmail, Tefsîr Usûlü, (Ankara: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 1983).
Ḍāmin, Ḥātim Ṣāliḥ, Nuṣūṣ muḥaqqaqa fī ʿulūm al-Qurʾān al-karīm
(Baghdad: Markaz Jamāʿat Mājid li-l-Thaqāfa, 1991).
al-Dānī, Abū ʿAmr ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd, al-Bayān fī ʿadd āya al-Qurʾān (ed.
Ghānim Qaddūrī al-Ḥamad; Safat/Kuwait: Manshūrat Markaz al-
Makhṭūṭāt, 1994).
al-Dārimī, Abū Saʿīd ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd, Naqḍ ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd ʿalā l-
Marīsī al-Jahmī al-ʿanīd fī-mā iftarā ʿalā llāh fī l-tawḥīd (ed. Manṣūr
ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Simārī; Riyadh: Aḍwāʾ al-Salaf, 1999).
al-Dārimī, Abū Saʿīd ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd, al-Radd ʿalā l-Jahmiyya (Kuwait: al-
Dār al-Salafiyya, 1985).
Darwaza, Muḥammad ʿIzzat, al-Tafsīr al-ḥadīth, 10 vols., (Tunis: Dār al-
Gharb al-Islāmī, 2008).
Demirci, Muhsin, Kur’ân Tarihi (Istanbul: Ensar Neşriyat, 2005).
al-Dhahabī, Abū ʿAbd Allāh Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn
ʿUthmān, Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ, 25 vols., (eds. Bashshār ʿAwwād
Maʿrūf et al.; 2nd edn., Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risāla, 1981-1988).
al-Dhahabī, Muḥammad Ḥusayn, al-Tafsīr wa-l-mufassirūn, 3 vols., (Beirut:
Dār al-Arqam, n.d.).
al-Dihlawī, Shāh Walī Allāh, al-Fawz al-kabīr fī uṣūl al-tafsīr (Damascus:
Dār al-Ghawthānī li-l-Dirāsāt al-Qurʾāniyya, 2008).
Draz, Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh, “Kur’ân-ı Kerîm’in Nüzûl Sırasına Göre Tertîb
Edilmesi Teklifine Edebî Eleştiri,” (translated into Turkish by Ahmed
Nedim Serinsu), Kur’an Mesajı: İlmi Araştırmalar Dergisi 2/19-20-21
(1999), 191-209.
Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad, al-Tafsīr al-kabīr, 17 vols.,
(Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 2004).
Fāris, Ṭāhā Muḥammad, Tafāsīr al-Qurʾān al-karīm ḥasaba tartīb al-nuzūl
(Amman: Dār al-Fatḥ, 2011).
al-Ḥalabī, Abū l-Faraj Nūr al-Dīn ʿAlī ibn Burhān al-Dīn Ibrāhīm, Insān al-
ʿuyūn fī sīrat al-Amīn al-Maʾmūn (al-Sīra al-Ḥalabiyya), 2 vols.,
(Cairo: al-Maṭbaʿa al-Azhariyya, 1932).
Ḥamīd Allāh, Muḥammad [as Muhammad Hamidullah], İslâm Peygamberi, 2
vols., (ed. Salih Tuğ; Ankara: İmaj İç ve Dış Ticaret, 2003).
Ibn Abī Dāwūd, Abū Bakr ʿAbd Allāh, Kitāb al-maṣāḥif (ed. Arthur Jeffery;
Leiden: E.J. Brill 1937).
Ibn Abī Shayba, Abū Bakr, Kitāb al-Muṣannaf fī l-aḥādīth wa l-āthār, 7
vols., (ed. Muṣṭafā Kamāl Ḥūt; Beirut: Maktabat al-Zamān, 1999).
Ibn Abī Zamanīn, Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿazīz, 2
vols., (Cairo: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 2002).
Ibn ʿĀdil, Abū Ḥafṣ ʿUmar ibn ʿAlī, al-Lubāb fī ʿulūm al-Kitāb, 20 vols.,
(Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1998).
Ibn al-Athīr, Abū l-Saʿādāt Majd al-Dīn Mubārak ibn Muḥammad al-Jazarī, al-
Nihāya fī gharīb al-ḥadīth wa-l-athar, 5 vols., (ed. ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd
Hindāwī; Sidon & Beirut: al-Maktabat al-ʿAṣriyya li-l-Tawzīʿ wa-l-
Nashr, 2008).
Ibn al-Zubayr, Abū Jaʿfar Aḥmad ibn Ibrāhīm, al-Burhān fī tartīb suwar al-
Qurʾān (ed. Muḥammad Shaʿbānī; n.p.: Wizārat al-Awqāf wa-l-
Shuʿūn al-Islāmiyya, 1990).
Ibn ʿAqīla, Jamāl al-Dīn Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Saʿīd, al-
Ziyāda wa-l-iḥsān fī ʿulūm al-Qurʾān, 10 vols., (al-Shāriqa: Jāmiʿat
al-Shāriqa Markaz al-Buḥūth wa-l-Dirāsāt, 2006).
Ibn ʿĀshūr, Muḥammad al-Ṭāhir, Tafsīr al-taḥrīr wa-l-tanwīr, 15 vols.,
(Tunis: Dār Saḥnūn, 1997).
Ibn Rāhawayh, Abū Yaʿqūb Isḥāq ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Makhlad, Musnad Isḥāq
ibn Rāhawayh, 5 vols. in 4 vols., (ed. ʿAbd al-Ghafūr ibn ʿAbd al-
Ḥaqq Ḥusayn Burr al-Balūshī; Medina: Maktabat al-Īmān, 1990-1991).
Ibn al-Ḍurays, Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad, Faḍāʾil al-Qurʾān wa-mā
unzila min al-Qurʾān bi-Makka wa-mā unzila bi-l-Madīna (ed.
Ghazwa Badīr; Damascus: Dār al-Fikr, 1987).
Ibn Fāris, Abū l-Ḥusayn Aḥmad, Muʿjam maqāyīs al-lugha, 6 vols., (ed.
ʿAbd al-Salām Muḥammad Hārūn; Cairo: Muṣṭafā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī,
1979).
Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Abū l-Faḍl Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī, Fatḥ al-bārī
sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 14 vols., (eds. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn ʿAbd Allāh
Ibn Bāz, ʿAlī ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Shibk, and Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd
al-Bāqī; Riyadh: Dār al-Salām, 2000).
Ibn Hishām, Abū Muḥammad Jalāl al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Malik, al-Sīra al-
nabawiyya, 2 vols., (eds. Muṣṭafā al-Saqqā et al.; Beirut: Dār al-Khayr,
2004).
Ibn al-Jawzī, Abū l-Faraj Jamāl al-Dīn, Funūn al-afnān fī ʿuyūn ʿulūm al-
Qurʾān (ed. Ṣalāḥ ibn Fatḥī Halal; Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Kutub al-
Thaqāfiyya, 2001).
Ibn al-Jawzī, Abū l-Faraj Jamāl al-Dīn, Zād al-masīr fī ʿilm al-tafsīr, 9 vols.,
(Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islāmī, 1987).
Ibn Manẓūr, Abū l-Faḍl Muḥammad ibn Mukarram, Lisān al-ʿArab, 9 vols.,
(Cairo: Dār al-Ḥadīth, 2003).
Ibn al-Nadīm, Abū l-Faraj Muḥammad ibn Abī Yaʿqūb, al-Fihrist (ed.
Ibrāhīm Ramaḍān; Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifa, 1997).
Ibn Rajab, Abū l-Faraj al-Ḥanbalī, Laṭāʾif al-maʿārif (ed. Yāsīn Muḥammad
Sawwās; Damascus & Beirut: Dār Ibn Kathīr, 1999).
al-Iṣfahānī, Abū Nuʿaym Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Isḥāq, Dalāʾil al-
nubuwwa, 2 vols. in 1 vol., (eds. Muḥammad Rawwās Qalʿajī and
ʿAbd al-Barr ʿAbbās; 2nd edn., Beirut: Dār al-Nafāʾis, 1986).
al-Jābirī, Muḥammad ʿĀbid, Fahm al-Qurʾān al-karīm, 3 vols., (Beirut:
Markaz Dirāsāt al-Waḥda al-ʿArabiyya, 2009).
Jeffery, Arthur (ed.), Muqaddimatān fī ʿulūm al-Qurʾān: wa-humā
muqaddimat Kitāb al-mabānī wa-muqaddimat Ibn ʿAṭiyya (Cairo:
Maktabat al-Khānjī, 1954).
Kister, Meir J., “et-Tehannüs: Kelime Anlamı Üzerine Bir Araştırma,”
(translated into Turkish by Ali Aksu), Tasavvuf: İlmî ve Akademik
Araştırma Dergisi 2/4 (2000), 215-230.
al-Māturīdī, Abū Manṣūr Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn Maḥmūd, Taʾwīlāt
Ahl al-sunna: Tafsīr al-Māturīdī, 10 vols., (ed. Majdī Bāsallūm;
Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 2005).
al-Nīsābūrī, Abū l-Qāsim al-Ḥasan ibn Muḥammad ibn Ḥabīb, Kitāb al-
tanbīh ʿalā faḍl ʿulūm al-Qurʾān (ed. Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Karīm
Kāẓim al-Rāḍī), al-Mawrid: Majalla Turāthiyya Faṣliyya 17/4 (1988),
305-322.
Özsoy, Ömer, Kur’an ve Tarihsellik Yazıları (Ankara: Kitâbiyât Yayınları,
2004).
al-Qāsim ibn Sallām, Abū ʿUbayd, Faḍāʾil al-Qurʾān wa-maʿālimuhū wa-
ādābuhū, 2 vols., (ed. Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd al-Wāḥid al-Khayyāṭī; n.p.: al-
Mamlaka al-Maghribiyya Wizārat al-Awqāf wa-l-Shuʾūn al-Islāmiyya,
1995).
al-Qurṭubī, Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad, al-Jāmīʿ li-aḥkām al-
Qurʾān, 21 vols. in 11 vols., (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1988).
al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, Abū l-Qāsim al-Ḥusayn ibn Muḥammad, al-Mufradāt
fī gharīb al-Qurʾān (ed. Muḥammad Khalaf Allāh; Cairo: Maktabat al-
Anjlū al-Miṣriyya, 1970).
al-Shahrastānī, Abū l-Fatḥ Tāj al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Karīm, Mafātīḥ
al-asrār wa-maṣābīḥ al-abrār, 2 vols., (ed. Muḥammad Ādharshab;
Tehran: Mīrāth Maktūb, 2008).
al-Shawkānī, Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad, Fatḥ al-
qadīr al-jāmiʿ bayna fannay al-riwāya wa-l-dirāya min ʿilm al-
tafsīr, 5 vols., (Beirut: ʿĀlam al-Kutub, n.d).
al-Suyūṭī, Abū l-Faḍl Jalāl al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, al-Itqān fī ʿulūm al-
Qurʾān, 2 vols., (ed. Muṣṭafā Dīb al-Bughā; Beirut: Dār Ibn Kathīr,
2002).
Şen, Ziya, “Arza ve Mahiyeti,” Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi
Dergisi 42 (2015), 43-64.
Şen, Ziya, Kur’an’ın Metinleşme Süreci (Istanbul: Ensar Neşriyat, 2007).
al-Ṭabarī, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Jarīr, Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī al-musammā
Jāmīʿ al-bayān fī taʾwīl al-Qurʾān, 12 vols., (3rd edn., Beirut: Dār al-
Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1999).
al-Ṭabarsī, Abū ʿAlī al-Faḍl ibn al-Ḥasan, Majmaʿ al-bayān fī tafsīr al-
Qurʾān, 10 vols., (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1997).
Ṭabāṭabāʾī, Muḥammad Ḥusayn, İslam’da Kur’an (translated into Turkish by
Ahmed Erdinç; Istanbul: Bir Yayıncılık, 1988).
Tarakçı, Muhammet, “Tanah’ta Vahiy Anlayışı,” Uludağ Üniversitesi İlahiyat
Fakültesi Dergisi 11/1 (2002), 193-218.
Ünsal, Hadiye, Erken Dönem Mekki Surelerin Tahlili (Ankara: Ankara Okulu
Yayınları, 2015).
al-Yaʿqūbī, Abū l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad ibn Abī Yaʿqūb ibn Jaʿfar ibn Wahb, Tārīkh
al-Yaʿqūbī, 2 vols., (ed. ʿAbd al-Amīr ʿAlī Mahnā; Beirut: Sharikat al-
Aʿlamī li-l-Maṭbūʿāt, 2010).
al-Zarkashī, Abū ʿAbd Allāh Badr al-Dīn, al-Burhān fī ʿulūm al-Qurʾān, 4
vols., (ed. Muḥammad Abū l-Faḍl Ibrāhīm; Sidon & Beirut: al-Maktaba
al-ʿAṣriyya, 1972).

Nuzūl of The Qur Ān and The Question of Nuzūl Order: Çukurova University, Adana-Turkey

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nuzūl of The Qur Ān and The Question of Nuzūl Order: Çukurova University, Adana-Turkey

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nuzūl of The Qur Ān and The Question of Nuzūl Order: Çukurova University, Adana-Turkey

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NUZŪL OF THE QURʾĀN AND THE QUESTION OF

Ilahiyat Studies Copyright © Bursa İlahiyat Foundation

Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 2004), XXX, 61-62.

concrete objects, such as clothes, iron, and cattle; it seems figuratively

You might also like