زمخشری اور ابن العربی کے تفسیری اسلوب کا تقابلی مطالعہ

A Comparative Analysis of the Tafsir Approaches of al-Zamakhshari and Ibn al-Arabi

Abstract

This comparative study examines the hermeneutical approaches of two prominent classical Muslim exegetes, Abu al-Qasim al-Zamakhshari (d. 538/1144) and Muhyi al-Din Ibn al-Arabi (d. 638/1240), representing the rationalist Muʿtazili tradition and the esoteric Sufi tradition respectively. Al-Zamakhshari’s al-Kashshāf is characterized by a rigorous grammatical-rhetorical methodology (iʿrāb al-Qurʾān), strict adherence to Arabic philology, logical coherence, and a marked preference for rational causation over supernatural explanations, often leading to metaphorical interpretations of anthropomorphic verses and an emphasis on human responsibility. In contrast, Ibn al-Arabi’s fragmentary yet highly influential Qurʾanic commentaries scattered across works such as Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya and dedicated tafsīr passages operate within an ontological and symbolic framework rooted in the doctrine of waḥdat al-wujūd (the unity of being). For him, the Qurʾān functions as a multi-layered theophany with each verse containing infinite levels of meaning (waṣṭ, ṭuruq, and wuǧūh) that manifest according to the spiritual readiness of the interpreter.While Zamakhshari seeks to unveil the miraculous inimitability (iʿjāz) of the Qurʾān primarily through linguistic and rational demonstration, Ibn al-Arabi views iʿjāz as an ever-renewing divine self-disclosure that transcends linguistic form and unfolds in the heart of the perfected human (al-insān al-kāmil). The study highlights their divergent treatments of key themes divine attributes, free will and predestination, eschatological realities, and prophetic narratives demonstrating how the same verses yield radically different conclusions depending on whether the exegete prioritizes rational transparency or mystical unveiling. Despite their apparent methodological opposition, the research identifies subtle points of convergence, particularly in their shared commitment to the inexhaustible depth of the Qurʾanic text and their recognition that complete comprehension belongs solely to God. The analysis ultimately argues that these two seemingly antithetical approaches are complementary rather than contradictory, together reflecting the remarkable interpretive elasticity inherent in the Islamic exegetical tradition.