An Original Approach to the Relationship Between Tafsīr and the Bible: Al-Ṣafadī’s Dialogue with Two Sacred Texts

Abstract

In the late classical period of the history of tafsīr, one of the rare commentators who utilized the Bible was Yūsuf b. Hilāl al-Ṣafadī (d. 696/1296). The question of how he utilized the Bible in his tafsīr is important for understanding both his position and the modes of interpretation within the classical tafsīr tradition. This study aims to identify al-Ṣafadī’s approach to the Bible, his interpretations based on biblical material, and his overall methodological framework. The context, frequency, type, and semantic scope of his quotations from the Bible are analyzed, and these references are evaluated through a comparative approach within the framework of the classical tafsīr tradition. Accordingly, the original and non-original aspects of al-Ṣafadī’s approach to the Bible have been identified. By establishing intertextual relationships, al-Ṣafadī interpreted the Qurʾān in the context of the Bible, and the Bible in the context of the Qurʾān. One of the distinctive aspects of al-Ṣafadī’s engagement with the Bible is his interpretation of it from the perspective of a Muslim exegete, ultimately contributing to the tradition of Biblical exegesis. The article aims to contribute to the scholarly literature on Qurʾān–Bible relations by identifying the nature and methodology of biblical references within the framework of Ṣafadī’s tafsīr.

1. Introduction

In the classical tafsīr tradition, only a limited number of exegetes referred to the Bible. It was previously assumed that only al-Biqāʿī had made use of the Bible. Walid Saleh argued that al-Biqāʿī’s method represented an innovation within the tradition, and that the whole tafsīr tradition had avoided this approach (W. A. Saleh 2008, p. 23; W. Saleh 2007, pp. 331, 333). Yousef Casewit, likewise, mentions only Ibn Barrajān (d. 536/1142), al-Daylamī (d. 593/1197), and al-Biqāʿī (d. 885/1480) as exegetes who engaged with the Bible (Casewit 2017, p. 249). However, the publication of Yūsuf b. Hilāl al-Ṣafadī’s (d. 696/1296) tafsīr has revealed that he, too, made use of the Bible. Given that his approach differs from the general tafsīr tradition and exhibits certain original aspects in comparison to the aforementioned exegetes, his work deserves to be studied independently. Al-Ṣafadī, whose primary profession was medicine, was originally from Aleppo and lived in the Safad region of Palestine for a period of time. He commenced writing his tafsīr, Kashf al-asrār wa hatk al-astār, in Damascus in 665/1267 and completed the manuscript of the tafsīr in 669/1271. However, a protracted process of revision ensued, and al-Ṣafadī ultimately relocated to Cairo in 686/1287 to finalize his tafsīr by utilizing the tafsīr sources available there (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 4, p. 654).

This article explores how al-Ṣafadī refers to the Bible, the contexts in which he employs it, the methodological framework underlying this engagement, and the original aspects that differentiate him from other exegetes. It seeks to assess whether al-Ṣafadī’s use of the Bible constitutes an original method within the classical exegetical tradition, and whether he carries out intertextual comparisons through a systematic and conscious interpretive strategy. In this context, “intertextual comparison” does not refer to a poststructuralist or purely literary-theoretical approach; rather, it denotes a theological and exegetical comparison between the Qurʾān and the Bible. The article adopts a descriptive and comparative methodology in analyzing al-Ṣafadī’s approach to the Bible. First, the descriptive method will be used to identify al-Ṣafadī’s methodological approach and interpretations; subsequently, the comparative method will be applied to determine the original aspects of his approach.

In order to demonstrate the originality of al-Ṣafadī’s approach to the Bible, three key dimensions will be taken into consideration. (1) Formal originality concerns the way al-Ṣafadī cites the Bible, the frequency of his references, and the contexts in which those references occur. (2) Methodological originality is structured around five subcategories: (a) in tafsīr, the necessity and epistemological value of the Bible, (b) its direct and systematic use, (c) the methodological purposes/types for which it is employed, (d) the reconciliation of differences between the two scriptures, and (e) the way the Bible itself is interpreted. (3) Interpretive originality refers to al-Ṣafadī’s distinctive interpretations of certain verses or narratives in the Qurʾān by referring to the Bible. In Section 6 of the article, these dimensions will be used as criteria in comparative analyses with other exegetes to assess the extent of originality in al-Ṣafadī’s tafsīr. The findings presented in Section 2, Section 3, Section 4 and Section 5 will provide the necessary groundwork for identifying the formal, methodological, and interpretive aspects of originality in his exegetical work.

The analysis will concentrate on his Biblical references, since his references to non-Biblical sources are limited. In a few instances, he narrates Isrāʾīliyyāt traditions, mentioning the name of the first narrator or using the phrase “qīla” (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, pp. 155, 200; vol. 2, p. 121; vol. 3, pp. 42, 79; vol. 4, pp. 538, 557). He is also known to cite Jewish scholars (fī kalāmi ḥukamāʾihim-ẕakara ʿulamāʾuhum) (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, pp. 135, 282–83). In certain instances, he also cites information from written sources other than the canonical texts (fī kutubi banī isrāʾīl) (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, p. 285; vol. 2, p. 299). It is noteworthy that he provides information about Jewish history and tribes without referencing any specific source (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 3, p. 119). One of the challenges of the article is the comparison of al-Ṣafadī’s biblical references with the currently available versions of the Bible. As will be noted later, al-Ṣafadī may have used different versions of the Bible. Since the exact texts he used are unknown—and even if they were known, they would be difficult to access—it does not appear possible to verify the accuracy of his references.

A number of academic studies have been conducted on al-Ṣafadī’s exegesis method, including doctoral-level research and article-level studies on his use of the Bible. In both dissertations, al-Ṣafadī’s relationship with the Bible has been presented in a superficial and descriptive manner. They have not placed significant emphasis on the relationship between his approach to the Bible and the general theory of exegesis. Furthermore, there has been a lack of comparison with other exegetes to highlight his originality (Adam 2021, pp. 115–26; Yürekli 2023, pp. 79–85). In the article titled “Manhaju Jamāl al-Dīn al-Ṣafadī fī al-taʿāmul maʿa al-Tawrāt wa al-Injīl fī tafsīrihī Kashf al-Asrār wa Hatk al-Astār”, which focuses directly on this issue, al-Ṣafadī’s life, the concept and definition of Isrāʾīliyyāt are mentioned, and al-Ṣafadī’s biblical narrations are evaluated within the scope of Isrāʾīliyyāt (Farījāt and Shiṭnāwī 2022, pp. 1049–54). Then, al-Ṣafadī’s use of the Bible and his intentions are revealed through examples. The information here is presented almost entirely in a descriptive manner (Farījāt and Shiṭnāwī 2022, pp. 1054–68). The article does not delve into al-Ṣafadī’s notable remarks concerning the distinctions between the Bible and the Qurʾān, nor does it address his unique interpretations of specific biblical narratives. Additionally, a lack of comparison between al-Ṣafadī’s approach and that of other prominent commentators, such as Ibn Barrajān, al-Daylamī, and al-Biqāʿī, is evident. However, a fruitful avenue for illuminating his distinctiveness lies in a comparative analysis with other commentators. In this study, al-Ṣafadī’s approach to the Bible will first be identified, and a comparative analysis with other exegetes will subsequently be conducted.

2. Al-Ṣafadī’s Use of the Bible

Al-Ṣafadī’s use of the Bible will be examined in two aspects. The first concerns the manner of usage, focusing on questions such as how and to what extent he quotes from the Bible. Then, the purposes/types for which he makes these quotations will be analyzed.

2.1. The Sources Used by al-Ṣafadī and How He Used Them

Al-Ṣafadī uses the word Torah when referring to the Bible. By this, he refers to the first five books of the Old Testament. In only one place, as far as can be determined, does he use the word Torah to refer to the entire Old Testament and the word Gospel to refer to all the Gospels in the New Testament. Regarding the Qiblah of Jews and Christians, he says: “After I learned Hebrew and Syriac well and understood the true meaning of the words in these languages, I read the copies of the Torah and the Gospel written in Hebrew and Syriac. I could not find in either of them a command from God to turn towards Jerusalem or the East…” (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, pp. 194–95). Here it is clear that al-Ṣafadī uses both words to refer to the Bible in general. Otherwise, he refers to the first five books by using “Torah”. When he refers to books other than the first five, he uses expressions such as “in the books of the Rabbanites”, “in the books of the Prophets”, “in the words of the Prophets”. When he refers to the Gospels, he makes it clear which Gospel he is referring to (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, p. 347; vol. 3, pp. 522, 531, 532, 534, 543, 580).

Al-Ṣafadī makes general references to the Bible without direct or indirect quotation. He makes brief allusions to the Bible, noting that “the incident is described in more detail in the Torah”, “the matter mentioned is also referenced in the Torah”, and “for the Torah and the Psalms also mention it” (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, pp. 142, 145, 155, 157, 178, 560; vol. 2, p. 218; vol. 3, p. 97). The number of such references is small. In a few places, al-Ṣafadī quotes from the Old Testament without explicitly citing the source (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 2, pp. 214, 299, 519; vol. 3, p. 522; cf. Exodus 31/18; 32/15–16; 34/1; Deuteronomy 10/1–3; Judges 13/1–25; 16/1–31; I Samuel 16/14–23; Ezra 7/6, 11–26; 9/1–15; Nehemiah 8/3). When making such references, he predominantly cites the text directly and verbatim. In a few instances, however, he appears to paraphrase or summarize the content rather than quoting it word for word (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, p. 344; vol. 2, p. 519; vol. 3, pp. 522, 533–34).

Al-Ṣafadī frequently provides sources for his quotations. While it is possible that he used existing Arabic translations of the Torah, it appears more likely that he translated some passages himself. As he explicitly states in several places in his tafsīr, he learned Hebrew and Syriac at an advanced level and read the Bible in both languages (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, p. 194; vol. 3, p. 114). When quoting from the Bible, he states that what he is quoting is a translation or exegesis into Arabic of the Hebrew Torah text that has survived in written form to the present day (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, pp. 104, 110, 123, 127, 142, 230, 282, 347, 352, 356, 362, 408, 485). It is not entirely clear whether the Arabic translation he quotes is his own or one produced by Jewish translators. However, considering his strong command of Hebrew and Syriac, it is plausible to suggest that the translations may have been his own. Although al-Ṣafadī uses the phrase “in the extant Torah” when quoting from the Bible, it is noteworthy that some of his quotations are not found in the extant Bible or in the place he refers to.

For example, in the context of the verse that mentions the death of Jesus and the disputes of the Christians (Āl al-Imrān 3/55), al-Ṣafadī says that after Jesus’ death, the Christians disputed about his nature, but when Jesus was alive, no one called him a deity. To confirm this, he quotes the following: “In the fourth Gospel, which is attributed to John, I saw this: ‘Some people addressed Jesus, saying, ‘O good teacher!’ Then Jesus said, ‘Why do you say that. The good teacher is God, who is only one. Instead, call me like this: O son of man!’” (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, p. 347). There are two points in al-Ṣafadī’s quotation. First, the part he quotes as “I saw it in the Gospel of John” is not found in John. The event is narrated in the Gospels of Mark (10/17–18) and Luke (18/18–19). This suggests that al-Ṣafadī may have confused the source of this information he read; he may have read it from Mark or Luke but mistakenly said that he saw it in John. Alternatively, this information may be found in a different translation or manuscript of the Gospel of John used by al-Ṣafadī. Since the version he used is not accessible, this reference cannot be verified. The second issue is that the exact and complete version of the quoted passage is not found in Mark and Luke. Jesus’ last statement, “Call me ‘O son of man!” is not found in these Gospels. This suggests that al-Ṣafadī may have used different translations or manuscripts of the Gospels. As is well known, certain passages in the Gospels have been altered or have deviated from their original forms over the centuries due to scribal errors, intentional modifications, and variations in translation (Burgon and Miller 1896, pp. 8–9, ff.). Therefore, it is possible that al-Ṣafadī was using a version of the Bible that included textual variants and is not found in today’s canonical editions. Since these texts are not accessible, the differences in al-Ṣafadī’s other similar citations cannot be verified (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 3, pp. 273, 524, 522).

Up to this point, (1) the formal aspects of al-Ṣafadī’s use of the Bible have been identified. The focus will now shift to (2) its methodological and (3) interpretive dimensions.

2.2. Al-Ṣafadī’s Purposes/Types for Using Information from the Bible

Examples from al-Ṣafadī’s tafsīr indicate that he cited the Bible for a variety of purposes/types. They can basically be divided into three categories. The first is (i) the purpose of exegesis (tafsīr) and elaboration (tafṣīl). This refers to al-Ṣafadī’s philological explanation of certain words and the elaboration of ambiguous words or events.

In the context of philological explanations, al-Ṣafadī, for example, cites the Torah and says that the name “Ādam” (آدَم) is derived from “adama” (أَدَمَة) and means “earth”; the word “rabbānī” (Āl al-Imrān 3/79) means “belonging to the Lord” and “Lord” in the Torah means “master” (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, pp. 104, 354). Explaining the word “rāʿinā” (رَاعِنَا) (al-Nisāʾ 4/46), he states that it is used in the Torah with the word “rāʿ” (رَاع), which means evil/evil person (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, p. 494). As a final example, he cites the name “Musa” as meaning “I brought him out of the water” with reference to the Torah (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 3, p. 100). Al-Ṣafadī also presents other similar philological explanations by referring to the Torah (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, pp. 362, 559; vol. 2, p. 428; vol. 3, p. 150). At times, instead of citing the Torah itself, he provides explanations by referring to the Hebrew (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1,pp. 129, 130, 132, 565; vol. 3, p. 119).

Two examples may be given in which al-Ṣafadī engages in the exegesis and elaboration of ambiguous narratives. Al-Ṣafadī considers the narrative of the cow in verses 67–73 of Sūrat al-Baqarah as two separate accounts and interprets each with reference to two distinct incidents of cow slaughter in the Torah. According to him, the narrative in verses 67–71 refers to the slaughter of the cow in Numbers 19. According to this account, God commands Moses and Aaron and the Children of Israel to slaughter a red cow without blemish, without excuse, and yoke. The purpose of this command was to enable the Children of Israel to be cleansed of their sins when they sinned. The cow is to be slaughtered, and its ashes are to be gathered together. Those of the Children of Israel who sinned would sprinkle the ashes into the water and bathe in it. The narrative of the unidentified perpetrator in verses 72 and 73 of the Surāt is mentioned in Deuteronomy 21/1–9. According to this account, when a murder is committed without a known perpetrator, the elders of whichever town the corpse is near will gather and slaughter a cow, wash their hands with its blood, and swear that they did not commit the murder. At the end of his explanations, al-Ṣafadī notes that, as a possibility, verses 67–73 may refer to a single narrative, namely, the slaughter of the cow, which is related only to the murder committed by the unknown perpetrator (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, pp. 134–36).

Al-Ṣafadī also interprets verses 21-25 of Surāt al-Sād, which tell of a lawsuit that came to the Prophet David, with information from the Old Testament. According to the Qurʾānic account, one of the two plaintiffs has ninety-nine sheep and wants to take this sheep from the other plaintiff who has one sheep. When the Prophet David decides that it would be unfair for the one with ninety-nine sheep to take the other’s one sheep, he realizes that Allāh is testing him with this case and repents. The request for one sheep to be added to the ninety-nine sheep and the test that David realized was directed against him are ambiguous. Al-Ṣafadī interprets this with the narrative of Uriah and the plaintiffs in II Samuel chapters 11 and 12. According to this account, David saw the wife of Uriah, a soldier in his army, and liked her. David sends Uriah to the front lines of the war to take his wife. When Uriah dies in battle, he marries his wife. Accordingly, David, who already had too many wives, made a mistake by taking someone else’s wife, and two plaintiffs were sent to him to warn him about this. Al-Ṣafadī notes that the story is described at length in the books of the Prophets in the Old Testament. Al-Ṣafadī is aware that with this exegesis he accepts that a prophet has sinned, and that this acceptance is contrary to the belief in ismat al-anbiyā. According to him, prophets can also sin because they are human beings, not deities or angels. The story is not told in the Qurʾān in order for David to be condemned, absolved of his sin, or for his sin to be interpreted in a way that absolves him. Rather, the purpose is to convey the message that no matter what sins are committed, despair of Allāh’s mercy is not entailed. For if even prophets can commit sins and be accepted for repentance, it is much more likely for other people to both commit sins and be accepted for repentance (al-Ṣafadī 2019, 3/543–44). Apart from these two examples, al-Ṣafadī cites the Bible for exegesis and elaboration in many other places (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, pp. 123, 127, 282, 408; vol. 2, pp. 215, 218, 222, 299, 303–04, 385–86, 397, 398, 418, 419, 439, 449, 504, 553; vol. 3, pp. 48, 110, 113, 279, 328, 338, 340, 458, 518, 522, 525, 528, 531, 532–36; vol. 4, p. 318).

The second purpose of al-Ṣafadī’s references to the Bible is (ii) istishhād. By this, he aims to bring evidence from the Bible to the subject he is exegeting. This is different from tafsīr and tafṣīl. His types of istishhād can also be divided into four subcategories: (ii₁) Polemic, (ii₂) support, (ii₃) illustration, and (ii₄) the absence of evidence. He refers to the Bible for these purposes. The “polemical purpose” here refers specifically to the purpose of silencing the Ahl al-Kitāb interlocutors, bringing them evidence from their own books, thus showing them to be wrong or misguided.

(ii₁) Al-Ṣafadī’s references in the context of the issue of abrogation (naskh) serve as examples of istishhād for polemical purposes. According to him, the abrogation mentioned in verse 106 of Surāt al-Baqarah is related to the Qurʾān’s abrogation of the previous books. If it were about the abrogation of some verses of the Qurʾān, there would be no point in addressing the Jews in this verse. For they reject the Qurʾān in its entirety (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, pp. 157–58). Al-Ṣafadī cites various proofs for the occurrence of abrogation in general and for the Qurʾān’s abrogation of some of the previous books in particular, and he also cites a Sharia proof from the Torah: “Allāh will raise up for you a Prophet… give ear to him”. (Deut. 18:15) According to al-Ṣafadī, if the new Prophet did not abrogate the previous ones, there would be no point in commanding the addressees to give ear to what that Prophet brought. That is why God said, “Whoever does not heed him, I will take vengeance on him” (Deut. 18/19). Al-Ṣafadī suggests that the Prophet foretold in Deuteronomy 18:15 is the Prophet Muḥammad. This is because it says, “God will raise up for you a Prophet from among your brothers”. Al-Ṣafadī draws attention to the use of the term “from your brothers” rather than “from you”. This careful phrasing, “from your brothers”, indicates that the Prophet is Muḥammad. Because, according to al-Ṣafadī, Ishmael and Isaac are brothers, Jews and Christians are descended from Isaac, and Arabs are also descended from Ishmael. By the unity of lineage, Arabs and Judeo-Christians are brothers, and the fact that the coming prophet will come from “brothers” indicates that he will come from the Ishmaelite lineage, that is, from the Arabs. If the Torah had said “from you” and not “from your brothers”, one would have expected the coming Prophet to come from the Jews, but this is not the case (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, pp. 163, 168, 180, 182). Al-Ṣafadī continues to make references to the Bible for polemical purposes throughout his tafsīr (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, pp. 344, 347, 352, 362; vol. 2, pp. 89, 544; vol. 3, pp. 130, 525, 529; vol. 4, pp. 57, 124).

(ii₂) Citations made also for the purpose of support or confirmation can be exemplified as follows: In explaining the verse “Had they followed the Torah and the Gospel and what has been revealed by their Lord, they would have enjoyed the blessings of heaven and earth” (al-Māʾidah 4/66), al-Ṣafadī states that this situation is also mentioned in the Torah and quotes the following: “If you accept my advice, follow my rules and follow my ways, I will do these things to you…” (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 2, p. 56; cf. Leviticus 26/3–5). Al-Ṣafadī also makes numerous quotations from the Bible for this purpose throughout his tafsīr (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, pp. 230, 565; vol. 2, pp. 21, 217, 377, 434; vol. 3, pp. 44–45, 95, 116, 149, 281, 290, 329, 332, 337, 368, 525, 551, 580, 611–16; vol. 4, pp. 49, 124).

(ii₃) Al-Ṣafadī’s quotation in the context of the verse “Do not approach women (for sexual intercourse) when you are in iʿtikāf in the mosques” (al-Baqarah 2/187) can also be considered as the illustrative type of istishhād. Al-Ṣafadī states that iʿtikāf can be performed for the purpose of worship or for other purposes. He states that iʿtiqāf for the purpose of worship can only take place in masjids because the word “masjid” is explicitly mentioned in the verse. According to him, iʿtiqāf can also be performed in homes or other places for various tasks or purposes. He says that iʿtiqāf for prostration, i.e., worship, can only take place in masjids. He gives the example of the command given to Prophet Moses for iʿtiqāf for other purposes outside the masjids. When Moses chose 70 people to meet with Allāh, Allāh ordered him and those chosen not to approach women for 3 days (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, p. 230; cf. Exodus 19/15). There are other examples of this type in al-Ṣafadī’s tafsīr as well (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 2, p. 211; vol. 4, p. 381).

(ii₄) The last type of istishhād is the absence of evidence. In his exegesis of the verse “Everyone has a direction to which he turns his face” (al-Baqarah 2/148), al-Ṣafadī says that Allāh did not command the Jews to turn to a particular qiblah, but only the Muslims. Al-Ṣafadī justifies the fact that Allāh did not command the Jews to turn to a specific qiblah by citing the absence of any evidence or command in the Bible (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, p. 194).

(iii) Finally, al-Ṣafadī cites the Bible for the purpose of targhīb and tarhīb. The purpose of this kind of quotation is to make the message of the verse more encouraging or more deterrent for the audience. For example, al-Ṣafadī states that the story of Samson in the Old Testament resembles the account in verse 26 of Sūrat al-Naḥl. The verse reports that God uprooted the houses of the deceivers from their foundations and caused their ceilings to collapse upon them. In this context, al-Ṣafadī summarizes the story of Samson, which is recounted at length in Judges, chapters 13 and 16, in which Samson is both a judge and a hero with miraculous powers. His story in the Old Testament usually focuses on his struggle with the Philistines. As al-Ṣafadī notes, Samson prays to God and asks for strength for the last time while chained for entertainment in a Philistine temple. His prayer was answered. As a result, Samson brought down the pillars of the temple, causing the building to collapse. Thus, the Philistines die and the Children of Israel triumph over them (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 2, p. 519; cf. Judges 16/30–31). Al-Ṣafadī’s intention in such quotations is not to clarify the ambiguous part of the verse or to make istishhād about it, but rather to concretize the message given in the verse with stories and to reinforce the warning or encouragement in the verse. There are other similar examples in al-Ṣafadī’s tafsīr as well (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, pp. 200, 225–26).

3. Al-Ṣafadī’s Interpretation of the Bible

One of the most striking aspects of al-Ṣafadī’s tafsīr is that he occasionally interprets certain narratives from the Bible. These interpretations show that al-Ṣafadī did not merely instrumentalize the Bible within the context of tafsīr, but rather approached it from a broader perspective, revealing the various dimensions of his engagement with the text. The examples in the previous section were primarily concerned with the interpretation of Qurʾānic verses through the use of data from the Bible. The examples to be presented here, however, relate to al-Ṣafadī’s direct interpretation of certain narratives and information found in the Bible. All four of the following examples offer sufficient variety to demonstrate how al-Ṣafadī interprets the Bible and to provide insight into his overall method.

The first example deals with the question of whether God resembles His creation, as reflected in verses from the Qurʾān and the Torah. While the Qurʾān states “There is no likeness to Him” (al-Shūrā 42/11), the Torah asserts that Adam was created in the image of God. Before examining al-Ṣafadī’s interpretations of the expressions in the Torah, it is necessary to first consider how he interprets the aforementioned Qurʾānic verse. Al-Ṣafadī states that the pronoun in the verse refers to God, and interprets the word “likeness” (مِثْل) as resemblance in essence, attributes, and actions. Although nothing resembles God in His essence, creatures resemble Him in certain attributes and actions. This is because God possesses all the attributes found in creation, which results in a degree of similarity between God and His creation in some aspects of attributes and actions. On the other hand, there are also attributes and actions unique to God that do not exist in creation. The verse means that there is nothing like God in terms of His essence and His exclusive attributes and actions. (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 4, pp. 13–15).

According to al-Ṣafadī, the statement in the Torah that Adam was created in the image of God must also be understood in this context. This statement appears in three places in the Torah: before, after and during creation. Before creation, “God said: Let us create Adam in our image, in our likeness” (قال الله نصنع آدم بصورتنا كشبهنا) (Genesis 1/26), and during creation, “Allāh created Adam in His own image” (وبَرَأَ الله آدم بصورته) (Genesis 1/27). Al-Ṣafadī states that the meanings of the words “image” (صُورَة) and “likeness” (شِبْه) are not very clear here, and in order to eliminate any ambiguity, the same meaning is repeated in different words in the following situation after creation: “On that day Allāh created Adam like His attribute” (يوم برأ الله آدم كصفة الله) (Genesis 5/1). The explicit use of the word “attribute” (صِفَة) here determines the meaning of the words “image” (صُورَة) and “likeness” (شِبْه) in the previous statements. In other words, Allāh did not create Adam in the likeness of His essence, but in the likeness of some of His attributes (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 4, pp. 16–17, 21). Accordingly, as the Qurʾān states, nothing can be similar to Allāh’s essence, while His creatures can have some similar attributes. In this context, it is understood that al-Ṣafadī both analyzes the discrepancy between the Qurʾān and the Torah and interprets the statements in the Torah in a way that is compatible with the Qurʾān.

The second example is as follows: al-Ṣafadī claims that the Jews also misunderstood the prohibition of interest. In the context of the verse “The Jews took interest even though it was forbidden to them…” (al-Nisāʾ 4/161), he states that this is written in the Torah: “You may take interest from a stranger, but not from your brother.” (Deut. 23:20) According to al-Ṣafadī’s interpretation, at the time of the commandment, there was no one who served God except the Children of Israel. The blood of the infidels was lawful for the Children of Israel, and their property was also lawful for them. Over time, the Jews have restricted the term “brothers” in this commandment to themselves alone, excluding Christians and Muslims, thinking that it is permissible to take interest from them. Yet, due to the genealogical bond resulting from the brotherhood of Ishmael and Isaac, Christians and Muslims are the brothers of the Jews (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, p. 563).

The third example is as follows: al-Ṣafadī relates the verse that contains Abraham’s supplication, “My Lord, grant me [a child] from among the righteous!” (al-Ṣāffāt 37/100), to certain narratives in the Torah. He draws attention to the moral lessons and wisdom in the information he transmits. He mentions that in Egypt, Abraham introduced his wife as his sister and that Pharaoh first took her and then released her (cf. Genesis 12/10–20). He also mentions a similar incident with Abimelech, king of the Philistines. Abraham introduced his wife to Abimelech as his sister, and he took Sarah to the palace, but by a sign of God, he did not touch her and handed her over to Abraham (cf. Genesis 20/1–18).

Al-Ṣafadī goes on to mention a similar incident that happened to Isaac. Isaac introduced his wife Rebekah to the Philistines as his sister, but somehow Abimelech realized that Rebekah was his wife and ordered the people not to approach her (cf. Genesis 26/1–11). Al-Ṣafadī goes on to mention the rape of Dina, the daughter of Jacob. The son of the king of Palestine rapes Dina. The king’s son wants to marry Dina, but Dina’s brothers demand that she and all the Palestinians be circumcised. Although everyone is circumcised, Dina’s brothers slaughter all the Philistines (cf. Genesis 34/1–31). Al-Ṣafadī says that the Torah also tells the story of Judah, one of Jacob’s sons, sleeping with his own bride (cf. Genesis 38/1–18), Joseph’s narrative with Zulayha, and Lot’s story of sleeping with his own daughters (cf. Genesis 19/30–38), and then makes the following assessment:

Understand the warning and think: How many examples are given and how clearly explained! Remember that even the kings of the heathen did not tolerate this act, and those who committed it were destroyed, both themselves and their entire male progeny. Understand the wisdom to be drawn from each story, and I have not elaborated on these details, because they are all meant to warn against this lust. And this warning is only due to the fact that lust is the source of existence. Whoever is able to abandon this lust is able to abandon existence. When this body acts in accordance with the divine command, it becomes the field where light is born and flourishes, and when it acts otherwise, it becomes the domain of Iblis. Since the prophets know this better than others, their inclination towards bodily pleasures is not for the sake of the body, but for the wisdom for which the body was created. This is why Abraham did not aim to merely enjoy his wife, but to fulfill Allāh’s wisdom in creating a wife. Allāh has taught us through the story of Ibrahim’s monotheism, emigration, and the purpose of his relationship with his wife that the emigrant is not only one who leaves his homeland, but also one who leaves his lusts, even if they are lawful. That is why Ibrahim prayed, “Give me a son from the righteous!”.

(al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 3, pp. 524–25)

Al-Ṣafadī points out that these stories are narrated after the story of Adam in the Torah and that there is a common theme between the incident of lust in the story of Adam and the other stories. According to him, the tree that Adam and Eve were forbidden to approach was a tree that informed them about lust.

The final example that can be mentioned in this section is al-Ṣafadī’s interpretation of the tree of knowledge and the tree of life in the Torah. Al-Ṣafadī argues that the Qurʾān mentions a single tree, while the Torah mentions two trees, and that these two trees are in fact one tree. According to him, the Torah is actually talking about one tree. The tree of knowledge and the tree of life represent different aspects of the same tree (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, p. 114). According to the narrative in the Torah, God created in Paradise the tree of life and the tree of knowledge, which contains the knowledge of good and evil, and forbade Adam and his wife to approach the tree of knowledge. After they ate from it, God said, “Adam has become like one of us in the knowledge of good and evil. He should no longer be allowed to reach out to the tree of life and take its fruit, eat from it and become immortal” (Genesis 2/9, 17; 3/22). In the Qurʾān, on the other hand, only “tree” is mentioned, and only in one place is it called the tree of eternity (Ṭāhā 20/120).

According to al-Ṣafadī, all things in Paradise, including the tree of life, were lawful for Adam. The only exception was the tree of knowledge, which contained the knowledge of good and evil and was explicitly forbidden to eat from. When Adam ate from the tree of knowledge, through it he had the knowledge to recognize the tree of life, because it represented good. The fruit Adam ate from the tree of knowledge was the knowledge of evil. With this knowledge, he attained the knowledge of good. Adam’s returning to his knowledge that was contrary to God’s command, i.e., doing what was forbidden to him, represents the forbidden tree and Adam rebelled for this reason. On the contrary, Adam’s turning away from the knowledge of eating from the forbidden tree, as shown by his own will and intellect, and turning directly to the commandment, that is, the knowledge of not eating, represents the tree of life. In this case, the tree in question is a single tree. If one refrains from eating from it in obedience to the command, it becomes the Tree of Life. However, if one disobeys and eats from it, it becomes the tree of death, the forbidden tree that contains the knowledge of evil. Because Adam turned away from Allāh’s command and turned to his own knowledge, to what seemed better to him, he was brought down to the earth and became spiritually dead. However, if he abandons this knowledge and obeys the command, he will return to life (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, pp. 113–14).

Al-Ṣafadī also interprets the passage in the Torah where the tree of life is mentioned as a separate tree in this framework. In the Torah, it is said “Adam became like one of us in knowing good and evil. He should no longer be allowed to reach out to the tree of life and take its fruit and eat it and become immortal. (So the Lord) placed a flaming sword that turns every which way to guard the path of the tree of life.” (Genesis 3/23–24). On the surface, this statement implies that the tree of knowledge and the tree of life are separate trees. After Adam had eaten from the tree of knowledge, he was asked not to eat from the tree of life. However, since al-Ṣafadī thinks that they are one tree, this statement, i.e., the protection of the tree of life with a flaming sword, means that the person who wants to reach it can only do so by going through the same process. In other words, Allāh assigned some angels to guard the path of the tree of life so that Adam would not gain eternal life by eating from it contrary to the command. Because eternal life can only be attained by acting in accordance with the commandment (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, pp. 113–14).1

As in other examples, al-Ṣafadī interprets the Torah’s information on the forbidden tree, knowledge, and the tree of life. This interpretation places him in a unique position in the tradition of Torah exegesis. Most Torah commentators recognize that these are two separate trees and provide information about their physical characteristics (Ibn Ezra 1988, pp. 67–68; Neusner 1985, vol. 1, pp. 165–67; Sarna 1989, p. 18; Farsi 2010, vol. 1, pp. 17, 25). Others have made different interpretations based on the statement that these two trees were “in the middle or center of the garden” (Genesis 2/9). The fact that both trees are in the center of the garden raises the question of which tree is in the center. For this reason, some Torah commentators found it difficult to explain how the two trees could be in the exact same place and put forward different views. In response to this concern, Rabbi Moses ben Nahman (d. 669/1270) stated that the two trees were side by side in the center of the garden. Rabbenu Bahya ben Asher (d. 741/1340) interpreted the trees as two branches emerging from a common trunk in the center of the garden. Rabbenu Asher ben Yehiel (Rosh) (d. 727/1327) argued that the tree of life is surrounded by the tree of knowledge, so that both trees stand together in the center of the garden, one within the other (Becker 2013, p. 2). Apart from these, R. Joseph Kimhi of South France (5th/11th century), known for his exegetical works on the Tanakh, offers an alternative interpretation. According to him, both trees stood in the same place because they were actually one and the same tree (Becker 2013, p. 2, ff.). In the modern period, Westermann lists several scholarly studies that argue the two trees were, in fact, one and the same (Westermann 1987, pp. 211–12).

There are other examples in al-Ṣafadī’s tafsīr in which he interprets information and narratives from the Bible (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, pp. 134, 485).

4. Al-Ṣafadī’s Reconciliation of the Differences Between the Two Texts

When al-Ṣafadī reads the Qurʾān together with the Bible, he compares the narratives in both and tries to analyze them by pointing out the discrepancies or differences between them. This will be illustrated with three key examples that best reflect the approach.

The first example is as follows: al-Ṣafadī highlights the difference between the verse “(Moses) said, ‘My Lord, show Yourself to me so that I may look at You.’ He said, ‘You will never see Me.’” (al-Aʿrāf 7/143) and the Torah’s account. According to his translation from the Torah, “Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and seventy elders saw the God of Israel. Under His feet was a floor like a white agate stone, clear as the clearness of the sky. They looked at Him, ate and drank” (Exodus 24/9–11). Al-Ṣafadī points out the difference between the narratives of the two texts, and notes that the Torah also says, “Man cannot see me and survive (by seeing) me” (Exodus 33/20). According to him, the Qurʾān makes this second statement. However, the problem that still needs to be solved is that God is mentioned to be seen in one place and not seen in another. According to al-Ṣafadī, the answer to this is as follows: The servant is incapable of seeing God as God, but it is possible for the servant to see God in terms of being a servant. If Allāh appears to the servant in terms of being Himself, the servant cannot see Him in his humanity and cannot live by seeing Him. For this to be possible, he must leave the state of humanity. However, the servant can see Allāh with an image appropriate to the state of humanity (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 2, p. 213).

The second example concerns the tablets that were given to Moses and contained the commandments of God. Al-Ṣafadī also draws attention to the difference between the plural form of the word “tablets” in the verse “We wrote for him on the tablets…” (al-Aʿrāf 7/145) and the fact that Moses was given only two tablets in the Torah. The first time Moses was given the tablet and the second time he was given them after he became angry with his people and broke them, two tablets are always mentioned (Exodus 31/18; 32/15–16; 34/1). According to al-Ṣafadī, since the Qurʾān’s main purpose is to express that the tablets were given and that they contained advice, the details of how many times the tablets were given and how many of them were given are not mentioned. The Qurʾān only states that “tablets” were given. However, according to al-Ṣafadī, this plural usage is not contrary to the information in the Torah. For each side of the tablets is called a tablet, so that the two tablets given to Moses actually mean four tablets. This is also a plural number (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 2, p. 214).

As a final example, al-Ṣafadī’s interpretation of the verse “(We gave) good news of Isaac to his (Abraham’s) wife” (Hūd 11/71) may be cited. Al-Ṣafadī states that according to the Torah, the good news of a child was originally given to Abraham, whereas in the Qurʾān it is given to Sarah, and that the two are inconsistent. He then points out that there are two narratives in the Torah. According to this, the good news was given to Abraham first, and Sarah heard it from behind the door and laughed. Hearing her laughter, the Lord then addressed Sarah and gave her the good news, saying, “I will return next year and you will have a son” (cf. Genesis 10, 14–15). According to al-Ṣafadī, the good news given to Sarah in the Qurʾān is not the first good news, but the second after the good news given to Abraham. Al-Ṣafadī claims that he has never seen anyone resolve this contradiction before him (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 2, p. 396). In this context, he says the following about the explanation of the differences between the Qurʾān and the Bible: “It is not necessary to make such explanations everywhere” (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 2, pp. 395–96). This statement means that al-Ṣafadī did not consider it necessary to systematically follow and analyze the differences or contradictions between the Qurʾān and the Bible. Al-Ṣafadī compares the two texts and seeks to reconcile them, whether or not there is an explicit difference or contradiction between them (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 2, pp. 121, 126, 136–37, 282, 428, 587; vol. 3, pp. 273, 534).

In the previous sections (Section 2, Section 3 and Section 4), the question of how al-Ṣafadī engages with the Bible has been addressed by following a descriptive method. The (1) formal aspects of his approach have been identified. Within the (2) methodological framework, the following points have been demonstrated: (c) the purposes/types for which he uses the Bible, (d) his reconciliation of the differences between the two texts, and (e) the way he interprets the Bible. His references to the Bible also indicate (b) the systematic nature of these references and (a) his view that the Bible is a valuable source for tafsīr. All of these points have been confirmed through (3) interpretive examples drawn from al-Ṣafadī’s tafsīr.

5. Evaluation of al-Ṣafadī’s Approach to the Bible

This section will examine the relationship between al-Ṣafadī’s approach to the Bible and the general theory of tafsīr, including whether he viewed a necessary connection between the Qurʾān and the Bible. The significance of the approach outlined in the previous sections will be assessed, and it will be compared with the classical exegetical tradition.

To begin with, attention may be drawn to al-Ṣafadī’s preference for the Bible over Isrāʾīliyyāt reports. In particular, with regard to narratives related to the history of the People of the Book, al-Ṣafadī, with only a few exceptions, avoids the systematic use of Isrāʾīliyyāt found in the classical tafsīr tradition. Although he does not explicitly state the reason for this preference, it may be explained by the fact that the People of the Book regard the Bible as a canonical source. This choice may also reflect a broader skepticism toward the reliability of Isrāʾīliyyāt reports found in tafsīr literature. Indeed, although mufassirūn have taken these reports into account since the early period, they have often acknowledged their questionable authenticity (Büyük 2019, pp. 774–78).

A more significant reason, however, may lie in al-Ṣafadī’s attribution of greater authority to the Bible compared to Isrāʾīliyyāt. He likewise assigns a high level of epistemic authority to the Qurʾān itself as a source of tafsīr. In his view, the Qurʾān’s capacity to interpret itself carries far greater weight. For this reason, al-Ṣafadī generally avoids relying on transmitted reports in tafsīr, particularly Isrāʾīliyyāt (Büyük 2020, p. 53). From his perspective, both the Qurʾān and the Bible possess a higher degree of authority than other sources of information.

Within this framework, two questions are of particular importance: First, if both sacred texts possess authority according to al-Ṣafadī, is there a hierarchy of authority between them? Second, what is the nature of the relationship between these two texts? According to al-Ṣafadī, one of the relationships between the Qurʾān and the Bible is the relationship between the majmal–mufaṣṣal (summarized–elaborated). The Qurʾān may summarize (ijmāl) certain details mentioned in the Bible for various purposes. Al-Ṣafadī does not see this as unilateral; on the contrary, sometimes, the Qurʾān elaborates (tafṣīl) on the information that the Bible presents in a summarized form (ijmāl) (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, pp. 126, 136–37; vol. 3, pp. 364–65). The summary–detail relationship that al-Ṣafadī establishes between the Qurʾān and the Bible constitutes the primary reason for his use of biblical material in the interpretation of certain verses. Al-Ṣafadī explicitly states both that the Bible has a function of tafsīr and istishhād in relation to the Qurʾān, and that the Qurʾān possesses the highest level of authority. He puts it as follows:

You should know that any knowledge that is not found in the Book of Allāh, but is found in the previous holy books… falls into one of two situations: Either there is a statement in the Qurʾān that clearly contradicts it, or there is no statement in the Qurʾān that contradicts it, even if there is no identical statement to Qurʾān. In the latter case [i.e., not contradicting the Qurʾān], we accept that knowledge and act upon it. But if the Qurʾān contains something contrary to it, then we act on the knowledge that is in the Qurʾān. And the other one, if it cannot be abandoned intellectually or by tradition, we interpret it. Of course, this is only valid after we understand the Qurʾān properly. …because the Qurʾān is the guide and the leader. This advice is especially addressed to those who are capable of deep thinking, such as the mujtahids.

(al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 2, p. 223)

We should know that it is not permissible to subordinate the Qurʾān to the Torah, for Allāh has said: “Verily, we have sent down the Zikr (the Qurʾān) and We are its guardian” (al-Ḥijr, 15/9). On the other hand, it is said about the Torah: “They were asked to guard what was entrusted to them from the Book of Allāh.” (al-Māʾidah, 5/44). There is a difference between “guarded” and “asked to guard.” Therefore, those provisions of the Torah that are in accordance with the Qurʾān are those that the Qurʾān confirms and can be used as evidence or explanation. However, those that are contrary to the Qurʾān are considered to have either been abrogated, altered, or otherwise lost their validity.

(al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 3, p. 617)

In both quotations, al-Ṣafadī accepts that the Bible can be quoted for various purposes and that it can serve as a source for exegesis. The only condition for this is that the information contained therein must not contradict the Qurʾān and that the Qurʾān must be accepted as authoritative. He bases this on the fact that the Qurʾān is protected by Allāh Himself, while the Bible has no such guarantee. But is this approach compatible with al-Ṣafadī’s general theory of exegesis? As a previous study has shown, al-Ṣafadī assigns a central position to the Qurʾān itself as a source of tafsīr (Büyük 2020, p. 46, ff.). In the introduction of his tafsīr, he states: “I have exegeted the Qurʾān with the Qurʾān, because I could not find anything lacking in it, so that I could complete it with something other than the Qurʾān itself” (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, p. 37). In another context, al-Ṣafadī emphasizes that the Qurʾān is sufficient for anyone who carefully reflects on the meanings of its words. When facing a problematic issue, he advises seeking out another verse that may provide clarification. He also notes that one part of the Qurʾān explains another, and that the best method for understanding the Qurʾān is to interpret it in light of itself (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, pp. 262, 264; vol. 2, pp. 443–44; vol. 3, p. 549). These statements, according to him, indicate that only the Qurʾān itself should be taken as the basis in tafsīr. In that case, how can al-Ṣafadī’s approach be explained, where he places the Qurʾān at the center of exegesis and affirms the possibility of drawing on the Bible, and even puts this into practice?

Two possibilities may be considered as an answer to this question. First, his attribution of a central value to the Qurʾān in tafsīr is an exaggeration and not absolute. As a confirmation of this possibility, it can be said that al-Ṣafadī acknowledged the role of the Sunnah, in addition to the Qurʾān, in explaining the Qurʾān (Büyük 2020, pp. 49–53). Al-Ṣafadī’s citations from the Bible made for exegetical purposes also support this view. However, the second possibility is also valid: according to al-Ṣafadī, although the Bible has a function of explanation and elaboration with regard to the Qurʾān, this relationship between the two sacred texts is not obligatory. In other words, the relevant Qurʾānic verses can be understood without referring to the Bible. All of al-Ṣafadī’s citations can be considered as additional evidence or elaboration of meaning. In this case, the understanding of the Qurʾān does not necessarily depend on the Bible. Al-Ṣafadī’s general exegetical tendency and the examples he provides appear to support this view. For instance, after interpreting the verse concerning the command to slaughter a cow given to the Israelites in light of the Torah, al-Ṣafadī remarks that there is no need to know the details of the story (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, p. 135). Al-Ṣafadī also quotes an opinion that there is no need to know the type of tree forbidden to Adam, which he finds beautiful/appropriate (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, p. 111).

However, there are a few examples that suggest that the tafsīr–tafṣīl relationship between the two texts is obligatory. One of these is verse Ṭāḥā 20/89. It is unclear whether the “statement” in this verse belongs to Allāh—i.e., whether it is a parenthetical remark inserted by God into the dialogue—or whether it narrates the words spoken by the people at that time. Al-Ṣafadī interpreted it as the word of the interlocutors and said: “I understood this only after I had read and understood the Torah, the Gospel, the Psalms and the Qurʾān, after I had learned and comprehended the language of the Torah in a sound manner and understood what it and the other prophets had said in the holy books” (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 3, p. 114). This statement of his indicates a tight relationship between the Bible and the Qurʾān in terms of interpretation.

The fact that al-Ṣafadī’s general tendency in exegesis is not to attribute a decisive and central role to the Bible requires that the above examples be considered exceptional. Al-Ṣafadī’s view that the Qurʾān is the primary source is also consistent with his views on the corruption of the Bible. Al-Ṣafadī thinks that some parts of Torah have been preserved intact, some of its meanings have been distorted by Jewish scholars (taḥrīf), and some of its words have been removed from the text (tabdīl), and that the Torah is incomplete, especially in terms of tabdīl (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, pp. 141–42). Al-Ṣafadī’s view aligns with the position held by some Muslim scholars regarding the alteration (taḥrīf) of the Torah. While some scholars maintain that the wording of the Torah has been preserved but its meaning distorted, others believe that both its wording and meaning have been altered in certain parts (Adang 1996, p. 251, ff.). It is also emphasized in contemporary research that parts of the Old Testament have undergone changes and that its original form has not been entirely preserved (Tov 2001, pp. 166–67, ff.).

While explaining the differences between the Qurʾān and the Torah, al-Ṣafadī occasionally mentions that the Torah has been modified (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, p. 134; vol. 2, p. 587). The fact that he knows this and expresses it clearly requires that he does not attribute a mandatory value to the Bible in exegesis. For it would be a clear contradiction to ascribe such a value to it and at the same time say that it had been corrupted. Nevertheless, there are examples of al-Ṣafadī’s occasional disregard of this point. For example, in the context of verse 148 of al-Baqarah, which states that every nation has a direction to which it turns its face, al-Ṣafadī argues that there is no commandment in the Torah regarding the qiblah for the Jews and that the Qurʾānic commandment regarding the qiblah privileges Muslims (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, p. 194). According to him, the fact that part of the Torah has not survived does not allow him to make such an interpretation.

Briefly, al-Ṣafadī acknowledges that the Bible has been altered. Nevertheless, he uses the absence of the qiblah command in the Bible as evidence of the superiority of Muslims. He also maintains that the Bible is not necessary for tafsīr. However, he states that some verses can only be correctly understood by reading it. This suggests that there is not a complete consistency between al-Ṣafadī’s theoretical assumptions and his exegetical practice.

As demonstrated in the examples provided in the previous sections (Section 3 and Section 4), it is significant that al-Ṣafadī explains (tafsīr) certain Qurʾānic verses with reference to the Bible, that he interprets on some of the Bible’s narratives, and even attempts to reconcile the Bible with the Qurʾān. He adopts this approach despite acknowledging that the Bible has been altered (taḥrīf). One would not expect someone who acknowledges its distortion to use it for exegetical purposes, interpret it, or seek harmony between it and the Qurʾān. Indeed, the dominant stance within the classical tafsīr tradition toward the Bible has generally reflected this expectation. In contrast, al-Ṣafadī’s direct engagement with the Bible may be interpreted as an effort to establish common ground with Jews and Christians and to cultivate a more sustainable dialogue. Furthermore, his interpretive approach to the Bible and his effort to reconcile it with the Qurʾān suggest that he is not entirely governed by the dominant, rigid concept of taḥrīf, and that he may even be attempting to soften or reinterpret that view. His approach—interpreting the Bible and reconciling it with the Qurʾān—ultimately contributes to elevating the Bible’s authority both within tafsīr tradition and Muslim scholarly circles.

Al-Ṣafadī’s views, as identified, share some similarities with the tafsīr tradition, but also exhibit distinctive elements. For instance, al-Ṣafadī’s view that “there is no need for Isrāʾīliyyāt or the Bible in tafsīr, as the Qurʾān is sufficient on its own” reflects a position that has been known since the very early period of tafsīr (Büyük 2023, p. 79; 2019, pp. 776–78). Similarly, his view that information from Isrāʾīliyyāt or the Bible that contradicts the Qurʾān must be rejected, while information that is neutral—i.e., about which the Qurʾān remains silent, neither affirming nor rejecting it—may be used, is also a well-established position in the history of tafsīr. Earlier than al-Ṣafadī, Ibn al-ʿArabī (d. 543/1148) uses the word “düstūr” (rule) to refer to the exegesis of narratives with Isrāʾīliyyāt, saying: “That which is in accord with the Qurʾān is authentic. That which is contrary to it is false. Those about which there is no information in the Qurʾān are probable” (İbn al-ʿArabī 2002, vol. 3, p. 265). Al-Ṣafadī’s use of the Bible for purposes/types such as tafsīr, tafṣīl, istishhād, and targhīb-tarhīb mirrors the ways in which Isrāʾīliyyāt were employed in classical tafsīr. Given that similar approaches existed earlier (Büyük 2019, pp. 773–74), his method aligns with the tafsīr tradition. Namely, when viewed in terms of (c) the types of use of the Bible identified in sub-criteria of (2) methodological originality, it is not possible to speak of any originality in al-Ṣafadī’s approach.

The other sub-criteria of methodological originality, namely in tafsīr, (a) the necessity of the Bible, (b) its direct and systematic use, (d) the reconciliation of differences between the two texts, and (e) the interpretation of the Bible itself are not found in traditional tafsīr. In these respects, al-Ṣafadī departs from the exegetical tradition. While classical exegetes made use of Isrāʾīliyyāt, al-Ṣafadī does not rely on such reports; instead, he directly refers to the Bible and systematically cites it. In several contexts, he interprets the Bible itself and attempts to reconcile the differences between the two scriptures. From the perspective of (3) interpretive originality, many of al-Ṣafadī’s interpretations based on the Bible are also original. For example, as quoted above, while he interprets the plaintiffs who came to David with the narrative of Uriah, prominent classical commentators such as al-Māturīdī (d. 333/944), al-Ṭūsī (d. 460/1067), Ibn ʿAtiyya (d. 541/1147), and al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210) reject this interpretation as contrary to the doctrine of ‘ismat al-anbiyā’ (al-Māturīdī 2007, vol. 12, p. 233; al-Ṭūsī n.d., vol. 8, p. 554; İbn ʿAtiyya 2001, vol. 4, p. 499; al-Rāzī 1981, vol. 26, p. 189). According to this doctrine, prophets cannot commit sins. Since David is considered a prophet, he cannot have acted immorally.

If al-Ṣafadī’s position vis-à-vis classical exegetes is as described, does his approach exhibit originality when compared to other exegetes who also directly used the Bible?

6. The Comparison of al-Ṣafadī with Exegetes Who Use the Bible

In the tafsīr tradition, Ibn Barrajān (d. 536/1142) in Tanbīh al-afhām and Īḍāḥ al-ḥikma, al-Daylamī (d. 593/1197) in Taṣdīq al-maʿārif, and al-Biqāʿī (d. 885/1480) in Naẓm al-durar use the Bible directly in their commentaries. In this context, it becomes important to ask in what ways al-Ṣafadī’s approach aligns with or differs from theirs. This question will be addressed in terms of the three forms of originality identified in the introduction: (1) formal, (2) methodological, and (3) interpretive originality.

6.1. A Comparison from the Perspective of Formal Originality

Ibn Barrajān and al-Biqāʿī use Arabic translations when quoting from the Bible (Casewit 2017, p. 247; W. Saleh 2007, pp. 333–34; McCoy 2022, pp. 25–27, 61). Al-Daylamī, on the other hand, either translates from the Torah or occasionally quotes a Hebrew Arabic text (Judeo Arabic) and then translates it himself (al-Daylamī 2015, pp. 183–84, 366, 392). Since al-Ṣafadī knew Hebrew and Syriac, he used the original texts like al-Daylamī and made his own translations. While Ibn Barrajān, al-Daylamī, and al-Ṣafadī generally made short quotations, al-Biqāʿī typically provided long excerpts and rarely limited himself to a single-paragraph citation (W. Saleh 2007, pp. 334–35). Like al-Ṣafadī, Ibn Barrajān refers to the Torah (and especially Genesis) more frequently than to other books of the Bible, and when referring to the Old Testament in particular, he cites its sources in terms such as the Torah or the Books of the Prophets. Ibn Barrajān is also reported to have made use of Old Testament commentaries in oral or written form (Casewit 2017, pp. 250–51). Although it is known that al-Ṣafadī occasionally cited Jewish scholars, it is not clear whether he used Torah commentaries. Al-Ṣafadī and Ibn Barrajān use Isrāʾīliyyāt narrations to a lesser extent (Casewit 2017, p. 252). These comparisons indicate that al-Ṣafadī does not differ from the other exegetes in terms of (1) formal originality.

6.2. A Comparison from the Perspective of Methodological Originality

In the introduction, five subcategories of methodological originality were identified. Based on these, al-Ṣafadī will be compared with other exegetes.

(a) The necessity and epistemic value of the bible in tafsīr: There is no clear information on whether al-Daylamī considered the Bible necessary in the context of tafsīr. According to al-Biqāʿī, knowing the Bible is important for better understanding the Qurʾān. In a context related to the life, struggle, and miracles of Jesus, he states that he transmits scattered information found in the Gospels, which, in his view, would provide Muslims with a more solid understanding of Jesus’s prophethood. Just before this statement, he also uses the phrase: “the things that exegetes need to know…” (al-Biqāʿī 1995, vol. 2,p. 102). This suggests that, according to him, the Bible should be known in the context of tafsīr. Nevertheless, based on his phrase “to provide a more solid understanding,” it may also be argued that this necessity is not obligatory. According to al-Biqāʿī, certain parts of the Bible have been altered, and there are also aspects that contradict the Qurʾān. In such cases, al-Biqāʿī gives primacy to the Qurʾān (al-Biqāʿī 1995, vol. 2, p. 348). Ibn Barrajān likewise maintains that the Qurʾān is protected from distortion and functions as a guardian over the previous scriptures. Therefore, Ibn Barrajān’s quotations from the Bible are primarily determined by the criterion of their conformity to the Qurʾān. That is, Ibn Barrajān uses biblical material insofar as it (a) conforms to the Qurʾān within the framework of his own understanding and (b) complements or elaborates the parts that the Qurʾān narrates concisely (Casewit 2017, pp. 255–56). It has been shown that the above-mentioned approaches also apply to al-Ṣafadī; therefore, in this regard, his approach cannot be considered original.

(b) Direct and systematic references to the Bible, and (c) the purposes/types of its use: Like al-Ṣafadī, all three exegetes quote directly and systematically from the Bible. As for the types of these quotations, al-Daylamī uses the Bible to exegete and elaborate on some verses in the Qurʾān and to support some verses in the Qurʾān, he occasionally refers to it for polemical purposes (Büyük 2019, pp. 779–80; Casewit 2017, p. 249). Although al-Biqāʿī also uses the Bible for polemical purposes from time to time, he refers to it primarily to exegete the Qurʾān. The key feature of al-Biqāʿī’s quotations is his elaboration on those parts of Qurʾānic narratives that are presented only briefly. Al-Biqāʿī also cites the Bible to illustrate and corroborate certain narratives in the Qurʾān (W. Saleh 2007, pp. 332, 335, 337–38, 340–41; Casewit 2017, p. 249). Ibn Barrajān quotes from the Old Testament for the purpose of exegesis and elaboration (Casewit 2017, p. 247). It is stated that Ibn Barrajān does not quote from the Old Testament for polemical purposes, such as proving the corruption of the Bible or the prophethood of the Prophet Muḥammad, or identifying errors in the Bible (Casewit 2017, pp. 247–48). All of the types have also been shown to apply to al-Ṣafadī. Unlike the others, examples have been provided to show that al-Ṣafadī also quotes from the Bible for the purposes of targhīb and tarhīb. He cites the Bible to enhance the persuasive and moral force of the Qurʾānic messages, lessons, and wisdoms. In this respect, the purposes/types for which he utilizes the Bible are more diverse.

(d) Reconciling differences between the two texts: While al-Daylamī makes no such effort, Ibn Barrajān and al-Biqāʿī offer interpretations aimed at resolving discrepancies between the Qurʾān and the Bible (Casewit 2017, pp. 259–60; Kaya 2013, pp. 88–89). This approach has also been identified in the case of al-Ṣafadī.

(e) The Interpretation of the Bible itself: Apart from al-Ṣafadī, no such effort is known from the other commentators. While they generally instrumentalize the Bible in the context of tafsīr or occasionally compare it with the Qurʾān, al-Ṣafadī is also known to interpret certain biblical narratives. For example, his interpretations of the stories mentioned in the Torah after the Adam and Eve narrative such as the events between Abraham, Sarah, and the king; Isaac, Rebekah, and Abimelech; the rape of Jacob’s daughter Dinah; Judah’s intercourse with his own daughter-in-law and Lot’s intercourse with his own daughters; and the relationship between Joseph and Zulaikha are unique and not found in other tafsīrs. Several examples of these interpretive differences were presented in Section 3.

6.3. A Comparison from the Perspective of Interpretive Originality

The area in which al-Ṣafadī displays further originality lies in his interpretations based on the Bible. In this section, his approach will be compared with that of other exegetes.

Al-Ṣafadī’s interpretation of the biblical statements that man was created in the image of God considering both the internal coherence of the Torah and the Qurʾānic principle of divine transcendence (tanzīh) constitutes an original approach. Ibn Barrajān states that verses such as “Nothing is like him” (al-Shūrā 42/11) emphasize God’s transcendence over creation, while there are some Torah passages that explicitly state that human beings are created in the image of God. Although for Ibn Barrajān the Qurʾān is the primary and authoritative authority over other holy books, he does not exceed the authority of the Torah. Therefore, Ibn Barrajān accepts that “both are true” without explanation (Ibn Barrajān n.d., 18b). Ibn Barrajān’s approach here appears inconsistent. While he asserts that the Qurʾān holds a position of authority (muḥaymin) over previous scriptures, he nevertheless maintains that both conflicting accounts are simultaneously true. His contradictory stance is further supported by his interpretation of the episode of the forbidden tree. Ibn Barrajān implicitly refers to the Torah’s statement that Adam and Eve’s private parts became visible after eating from the tree (cf. Genesis 3/7). However, he also states that this information contradicts the Qurʾān, which he regards as a authority over previous scriptures, and thus any content that conflicts with it must be rejected (Ibn Barrajān 2013, vol. 1, pp. 189–90).

Al-Biqāʿī merely transmits the information from the Torah that Adam was created in the image of God, without addressing the theological problem it entails (al-Biqāʿī 1995, vol. 1, pp. 97–98). Al-Daylamī, also cites the statement from the Torah that God created Adam in His own image and mentions it in relation to various Qurʾānic verses. He interprets this likeness in connection with Adam’s role as God’s vicegerent (khalīfa), suggesting that the likeness refers to the implementation of God’s commands. Still, al-Daylamī does not engage with the anthropomorphic problem (al-Daylamī 2015, pp. 183–84, 355, 482).

Al-Ṣafadī’s interpretation concerning the prohibition of interest in the Torah is not found in the tafsīrs of Ibn Barrajān or al-Daylamī (Ibn Barrajān 2013, vol. 2, p. 137; al-Daylamī 2015, p. 231). Al-Biqāʿī cites the Torah to note that interest was prohibited for the Jews. He interprets their practice of charging interest to others as a result of altering or disregarding the Torah’s ruling (al-Biqāʿī 1995, vol. 2, pp. 366–67). Al-Ṣafadī, however, does not regard this as a distortion of the Torah by the Jews, but as a misunderstanding, and he provides explanations about what is actually meant in the Torah.

Al-Ṣafadī’s interpretation of the sexuality-themed narratives in the Book of Genesis is also original. According to him, these stories emphasize that sexual desire is an existential aspect of human nature, that it cannot be entirely eliminated, and that this need must be fulfilled through legitimate means. He argues that the theme of lust first appears in the story of Adam and Eve in connection with the forbidden tree and then extends this theme to subsequent narratives. This interpretive approach to the biblical stories is not found in the tafsīrs of Ibn Barrajān, al-Biqāʿī, or al-Daylamī (Ibn Barrajān 2013, vol. 4, p. 502; al-Daylamī 2015, p. 400; al-Biqāʿī 1995, vol. 6, pp. 324–27).

Al-Ṣafadī’s reconciliatory interpretation concerning the differing passages in the Torah and the Qurʾān about whether Moses and the Israelites saw God is also not found in other tafsīrs. While Ibn Barrajān and al-Biqāʿī do not refer to the Torah in this context (Ibn Barrajān 2013, vol. 2, pp. 360–62; al-Biqāʿī 1995, vol. 3, pp. 108–10), al-Daylamī only quotes elements from the Torah that are parallel to the Qurʾān (al-Daylamī 2015, p. 271). Al-Ṣafadī, however, reconciles the Torah’s expression that God was seen with the Qurʾānic verse that states God can never be seen. His reconciliatory interpretation regarding two tablets given to Moses as mentioned in the Torah and the plural usage of “tablets” in the Qurʾān is also original.

As far as can be determined, there appears to be only one instance in which al-Ṣafadī and Ibn Barrajān provide similar interpretations. Ibn Barrajān points out that in the context of the tree that Adam was forbidden to approach, the Qurʾān mentions one tree, while the Torah mentions two trees, the tree of knowledge and the tree of life. Regarding the two trees mentioned in the Torah, Ibn Barrajān offers three possible interpretations. First, these two names were fabricated by the Jews and are not truly based on revelation. Second, the tree was named with these two names not by Allāh, but by Satan, who sought to deceive Adam and Eve. According to the interpretation apparently favored by Ibn Barrajān, the third view is that the trees mean the following allegorically: one of the trees refers to the divine commandment, which if obeyed leads to a happy immortality in the Hereafter, and the other to the prohibition, the violation of which results in punishment in the Hereafter. There is essentially one tree, but it has two dimensions. The first, called the tree of life, symbolizes obedience to God’s commands and is the gateway to the Hereafter. The second, called the tree of knowledge, represents disobedience and is a gateway to this world. Adam disobeyed and ate from the latter, thereby breaking God’s prohibition, and was thus expelled from Paradise. Ibn Barrajān states that had Adam eaten from the tree of life instead of the tree of knowledge, that is, had he heeded God’s command, he and his progeny would have lived in Paradise forever (Ibn Barrajān 2015, pp. 255–56; Casewit 2017, p. 261).

The parallel statements of both commentators that the two trees in the Torah are one tree are very surprising. This parallel suggests that al-Ṣafadī followed Ibn Barrajān in his use of the Bible, since he lived chronologically earlier. However, not all of al-Ṣafadī’s interpretations discussed here are found in Ibn Barrajān’s tafsīr. Had al-Ṣafadī adopted this view from him, one would expect to see traces of Ibn Barrajān’s influence in his other interpretations as well. That is, it is unlikely that al-Ṣafadī would adopt only one opinion from him, without being influenced in his other interpretations. If al-Ṣafadī had indeed used Ibn Barrajān as a source, he would likely have continued to draw on his work in other instances.

In addition to the comparative examples presented at the beginning of this section, further comparisons can be made to support the absence of any influence between al-Ṣafadī and Ibn Barrajān. For example, in the narrative of al-Baqarah (al-Baqarah 2/67–73), al-Ṣafadī cites two different parts of the Torah (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, pp. 134–36), whereas Ibn Barrajān does not cite the Torah at all (Ibn Barrajān 2013, vol. 1, pp. 222–25; 2015, pp. 72–74). In the context of the verse that mentions the death and ascension of Jesus (Āl al-Imrān 3/55), al-Ṣafadī explains that Jesus was not considered a deity in his time and that the controversy about his nature arose later and cites the Gospels to confirm this (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 1, p. 247), whereas Ibn Barrajān deals with a different issue and quotes Jesus’ last words to his disciples during his ascension to heaven (Ibn Barrajān 2013, vol. 1, p. 546; 2015, pp. 135–36), i.e., they make different references on different issues.

Ibn Barrajān, while interpreting the last verse of Surāt Yusuf, refers to the narratives in the Torah about Abraham (Ibn Barrajān 2013, vol. 3, pp. 141–42), whereas al-Ṣafadī does not refer to any part of the Torah (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 2, p. 454). Again, in the context of the angels who came to Abraham and his dialog with them, which begins in verse 51 of Surāt al-Ḥijr, Ibn Barrajān quotes the details of this narrative at length from the Torah (Ibn Barrajān 2013, vol. 3, pp. 270–71), while al-Ṣafadī briefly refers to the Torah in the context of verse 74 of Surāt al-Hūd, which touches on the same narrative (al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 2, p. 397). Both commentators also quote from the first verses of the Torah on the creation of the universe, but Ibn Barrajān does so in verse 7 of Surāt al-Hūd, while al-Ṣafadī does so in verse 12 of Surāt al-Fuṣṣılah (Ibn Barrajān 2013, vol. 3, pp. 13–16; al-Ṣafadī 2019, vol. 3, pp. 611–16). Another important difference between the two is this: Ibn Barrajān strongly opposes interpreting the narrative of David and the plaintiffs (Ṣād 38/21–25) with the incident of Uriah (Ibn Barrajān 2013, vol. 4, p. 522), whereas al-Ṣafadī interprets the narrative with the incident of Uriah and explicitly states that prophets can also make mistakes. One of the differences between Ibn Barrajān and al-Ṣafadī is that Ibn Barrajān quotes more from the Gospels than al-Ṣafadī.

The comparative examples presented above clearly indicate that al-Ṣafadī did not follow Ibn Barrajān in his use of the Bible, nor did he rely on him as a source. Sufficient examples have been provided to assess whether any influence existed between the two. Apart from the case of the forbidden tree, no similar interpretations can be identified between them. Even regarding the forbidden tree, their interpretations are not entirely identical. Their common ground lies in viewing the two trees as one and in offering symbolic interpretations of the tree of life and the tree of knowledge. Unlike Ibn Barrajān, al-Ṣafadī (i) is aware that interpreting the mentioned trees as a single tree would create a contradiction with the verses in the Torah that describe God preventing Adam from accessing the tree of life (Genesis 3:23–24), and he addresses this tension through interpretation. Additionally, al-Ṣafadī (ii) explains the forbidden tree in terms of lust. Furthermore, (iii) he interprets the trees of knowledge and life as representing rational and revealed knowledge, respectively. According to him, the forbidden tree of knowledge symbolizes the inclination of unbelievers and philosophers toward rational knowledge that opposes religion, while the tree of life signifies divine knowledge revealed by God and the obligation to follow it. These interpretive elements are not found in Ibn Barrajān.

In this context, the question remains significant: “How is it possible that both exegetes offer similar interpretations suggesting that the two trees in the Torah are actually one and the same?” The fact that the Qurʾān mentions only a single tree likely led both exegetes to interpret the two trees in the Torah as one. Yet, the fact that both interpret the tree of knowledge as representing disobedience and the tree of life as representing obedience raises the possibility of an intermediate or common source between them. Although there is no clear evidence for the existence of a common source, it is worth reiterating that some Jewish exegetes also interpreted the two trees as one, as noted in Section 4. This view among Jewish exegetes may have spread among Muslim scholars, or Muslim exegetes may have developed this interpretation independently. In any case, the symbolic interpretations of the two trees in the Torah and the view that they are actually one were known prior to al-Ṣafadī.

7. Conclusions

The conclusions of this study can be listed as follows:

• Al-Ṣafadī systematically quotes from the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. According to him, consulting the Bible for tafsīr is not obligatory; however, making use of it in tafsīr contributes to a better understanding. This is because there are shared themes between the Qurʾān and the Bible.
• According to al-Ṣafadī, while the Bible may be used to interpret the Qurʾān, the Qurʾān should also be consulted to interpret the Bible. For just as the Bible elaborates on certain Qurʾānic narratives, the Qurʾān also elaborates on some of the Bible’s accounts.
• Al-Ṣafadī does not always maintain consistency in practice with his own theory regarding the relationship between the Qurʾān and the Bible in the context of tafsīr. While he holds that the Bible is not obligatory for interpreting the Qurʾān, in some of his interpretations that refer to the Bible, he remarks, “I only understood this after reading the Torah”.
• From the perspective of the general tafsīr tradition, al-Ṣafadī’s originality lies in his direct use of the Bible, his interpretation of it, and his efforts to reconcile contradictions between the Bible and the Qurʾān. Some of his interpretations are also unique within the tradition of tafsīr.
• From the perspective of other exegetes who referred to the Bible, al-Ṣafadī does not exhibit formal originality (1). His manner of citation resembles those of Ibn Barrajān, al-Daylamī, and al-Biqāʿī.
• In terms of methodological originality, al-Ṣafadī’s views regarding (a) the necessity and epistemic value of the Bible, (b) its direct and systematic use, and (c) the methodological purposes/types for which it is used (e.g., tafsīr, tafṣīl, istishhād, illustration, etc.) are also found in the works of Ibn Barrajān, al-Daylamī, and al-Biqāʿī. Al-Ṣafadī’s only distinction lies in his use of biblical information for the purposes of targhīb and tarhīb. He cites the Bible in order to enhance the persuasive or admonitory impact of the Qurʾānic message.
• Al-Ṣafadī’s effort (d) to reconcile differences between the two sacred texts is also observed in the works of Ibn Barrajān and al-Biqāʿī.
• Al-Ṣafadī’s occasional (e) interpretation of the Bible itself is not explicitly observed in the works of Ibn Barrajān, al-Daylamī, or al-Biqāʿī. While those exegetes generally instrumentalize the Bible within the context of tafsīr, al-Ṣafadī is known to interpret certain biblical narratives.
• The primary area in which al-Ṣafadī stands out is his (3) interpretive originality. None of the examples presented in the article have been identified in the tafsīrs of Ibn Barrajān, al-Daylamī, or al-Biqāʿī.
• Only al-Ṣafadī’s interpretation concerning the forbidden tree bears resemblance to that of Ibn Barrajān, and in this respect, his view is not entirely original. No evidence has been found to suggest that al-Ṣafadī adopted this interpretation from Ibn Barrajān or used him as a source. It is therefore possible that they both drew from a shared source. It should also be noted that not all of al-Ṣafadī’s symbolic interpretations regarding the two trees in the Torah are identical to those of Ibn Barrajān.

For future research, a comparative study of al-Ṣafadī’s and Ibn Barrajān’s interpretations regarding the notion that the tree of life and the tree of knowledge are, in fact, a single tree, as well as their symbolic meanings, may yield intriguing results when analyzed alongside similar or divergent views within the Jewish exegetical tradition of the Torah. For example, such a comparison could help identify the origins of the “single tree” interpretation and determine whether there was any mutual influence between interpreters. Comparative research into the similar and divergent interpretations of the forbidden tree in both the Torah and the Qurʾān’s exegetical traditions may offer new and enriching perspectives. Moreover, beyond the topic of the forbidden tree, comparative studies on how shared themes between the Qurʾān and the Bible have been interpreted across their respective exegetical traditions are of great significance. These studies could contribute to a deeper understanding of both scriptures, help uncover how they were received throughout history, and foster stronger intellectual engagement between Muslims, Jews, and Christians. Additionally, identifying which translations or versions of the Bible were used by exegetes and comparing them with the quoted passages should be explored further in future research.