Religion Compass 4/8 (2010): 495–506, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2010.00233.

Holistic Approaches to the Qur’an:

A Historical Background
Nevin Reda*
University of Toronto

Abstract
Holistic and other coherence-related approaches have a long history in tafsir – the tradition of
Qur’an exegesis; however, it is only in the twentieth century that they have experienced wide-
spread dissemination. This article explores their history from the early eighth century to the mod-
ern age, addressing developments both in western and in traditional Muslim scholarship. It begins
with the early discourses on the Qur’an’s style and organization (nazm) and the immediate con-
nections between its suras and verses (munasaba). It then covers the modern revival of the nazm
genre and the appearance of the literary and thematic approaches.

Introduction
While the term ‘holistic’ is well established in medicine, Biblical studies, and linguistics, it
is relatively new in Qur’anic studies and therefore needs some clarification. It has
occurred primarily in the work of two scholars, Mir (1986, p. 99; 1993, p. 217) and Bar-
las (2002, p. 18), both of whom have provided brief explanations. Mir is well known for
bringing several modern works, which treat suras as whole units, to the attention of a
wider scholarly audience, using the expression ‘sura as a unity’ to describe these
approaches. He uses ‘holistic’ to describe a certain quality that characterizes some of these
approaches, explaining the term as ‘predicated on the assumption that the Qur’an is a
well-integrated book and ought to be studied as such’ (Mir 1986, p. 99). Barlas offers a
similar explanation, reiterating the words of Paul Ricoeur, ‘a whole, a totality,’ in con-
nection with reading the Qur’an as ‘a cumulative, holistic process’ (cited in Barlas 2002,
p. 18; cf Ricoeur 1981, pp. 212–13).
In general, ‘holistic’ is related to holism and is often used synonymously with ‘as a
whole.’ It conveys the idea that the properties of a given system cannot be fully deter-
mined or explained by the sum of its component parts alone, and is predicated on the
assumption that there is an added value gained when looking at how all the component
parts work together, as a totality. In the case of the Qur’an, it typically implies looking at
its suras as whole compositional units, as opposed to the individual verses alone. It can
also refer to the Qur’an as a whole, the added value usually taking the form of central
themes or qualities.
The term is also associated with New Age religion,1 which may explain the reluctance
of some scholars to use it. However, its appearance in connection with the Qur’an has
only been in a literary sense and is associated with coherence and textual integrity. It does
not generally carry connotations of an experiential, spiritual dimension, which it acquires
in connection with the various expressions of New Age religion.2
One might wonder why the need for ‘holistic,’ when it can be confused with New
Age religion? Moreover, the term may seem redundant as it is covered by the word

ª 2010 The Author

Journal Compilation ª 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
496 Nevin Reda

‘coherence.’ However, two factors explain its emergence and the increasing need for it
today. The first is evident in the work of Mir: the growing number of studies that address
the topic of coherence and the need to distinguish between different types of approaches.
Two main kinds seem to have emerged: studies that tend to be holistic and others that
Mir has aptly described as ‘linear-atomistic.’ Both look for connections within the text;
however, while linear-atomistic approaches look for the immediate connections between
adjacent verses, passages or suras, holistic approaches are more concerned with the overall
picture and look for the central idea that holds a sura together or indeed, the entire
Qur’an as a whole. Thus, the distinguishing feature of holistic approaches is the identifi-
cation of central themes or qualities that distinguish one sura from another, or set the
Qur’an apart from other texts. This aspect is not present in all of the treatments, which
Mir has described with ‘as a unity;’ he has needed to use ‘holistic’ to refer to this addi-
tional dimension.
Holistic and linear-atomistic approaches have one thing in common: both are con-
cerned with coherence and are contrasted with the more traditional atomistic methods,
which treat the Qur’an on a verse-by-verse basis, interpreting each verse virtually inde-
pendently of the general literary context. Óabarı’s (d. 310 ⁄ 923) (1954–68) monumental
Jami%al-Bayan ‘an ta’wıl ãy al-Qur’an is a prime example of such a commentary. He orga-
nizes the verses in a seriatim manner, listing the interpretations of a number of early
authorities under each verse, and does not address each sura as a whole. His work is one
of the sequential chain-like commentaries known as tafsır musalsal or ‘chained commen-
tary,’ a type that is widespread and foundational for the tafsır genre. They are by far the
most common of the medieval commentaries and are considerably popular today.
The second factor that has led to the emergence of the term ‘holistic’ is evident in the
work of Barlas, and stems from the growing interest in cross-disciplinary pursuits. Barlas
has connected her approach to that of Ricoeur, whose name is well known in the field
of Biblical hermeneutics. She has thereby stepped towards building some methodological
consistency with Biblical studies, in which ‘holistic’ is used to refer to similar, text-based
methods. Biblical holistic approaches are generally synchronic in nature and treat the text
‘as-is’ without delving into its origins and compositional subunits. They are contrasted
with diachronic approaches, which are concerned with the text’s development over time,
and tend to fragment it into several source documents. Some tension exists between both
types: the diachronic, ‘fragmenting’ approaches and the synchronic, holistic ones. How-
ever, while the Biblical diachronic approaches are primarily those of modern source crit-
ics, Qur’anic ‘fragmenting,’ atomistic ones are predominantly those of traditional Muslim
orthodoxy.

Medieval Approaches
Early investigations into the Qur’an’s textual coherence can be found under two terms:
naz: m (literally, ‘order, arrangement, organization’) and munasaba (literally, ‘suitability, cor-
relation, connection’). The history of these pursuits has interested a few contemporary
scholars, among whom Mir’s work is probably the most significant in the West. An ear-
lier work is also noteworthy, Audebert’s (1982) al-Hat: :tabı et l’inimitabilité du Coran, in
which he lists several medieval works on naz: m, showing  that it was an established genre
(van Gelder and Heinrichs 2010, p. 668). Of value is also the modern Egyptian secondary
scholarship, particularly some monographs on naz: m in the work of major writers, such as
‘Amr ibn BaÎr al-JaÎiz (d. 255 ⁄ 868 or 9) (1995), Ab u Bakr al-Baqillanı (d. 403 ⁄ 1013)
(Yasın 1991), ‘Abd al-Qahir al-Jurjanı (d. 471 ⁄ 1078) (al-Jindı3 1960; Murad 1983), and

ª 2010 The Author Religion Compass 4/8 (2010): 495–506, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2010.00233.x

Journal Compilation ª 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Holistic Approaches to the Qur’an 497

Jarullah al-Zamakhsharı (d. 538 ⁄ 1144) (al-Jindı 1969). In addition, one should mention
two medieval secondary sources: Badr al-Dın al-Zarkashı’s (d. 794 ⁄ 1391) al-Burhan f ı
‘ulum al-Qur’an and Jalal al-Dın al-Suy ı (d. 911 ⁄ 1505) al-Itqan f ı ‘ulum al-Qur’an.
ut:’s
Both are still popular as reference manuals on the Qur’anic sciences – categories of
knowledge deemed essential for the study of the Qur’an in the past centuries. While al-
Zarkashı’s book is the earlier and more comprehensive of the two, al-Suy ı is more
ut:’s
widely disseminated and definitive today. Both authors provide a chapter on munasaba
and discuss naz: m in their chapters on i%jaz, the theory of the Qur’an’s inimitability or
impeccability. The placement of naz: m within these sources suggests that early naz: m dis-
course was intimately linked to i%jaz theory.

NAZ
:M

The earliest known monographs on naz: m date to the ninth century; however, none of
these is extant today. The most significant is the well-attested Naz: m al-Qur’an of al-JaÎiÛ
(1995), which has been reconstructed to some extent from the author’s existing works.4
Here too, the link between naz: m discourse and i%jaz theory is evident; naz: m is used to
explain and demonstrate the superior diction, stylistic features, and other compositional
qualities of the Qur’an.
There is some confusion over what the term naz: m initially referred to, whether it went
beyond word-meaning relationships to encompass holistic concerns, such as central
themes and other common features. Based on the work of Ab u Sulayman al-Khat: t:abı (d.
388 ⁄ 998) (1968), al-Baqillanı, al-Jurjanı, and al-Zamakhsharı, Mir (1986, pp. 11–6) has
argued that it referred principally to the former and he has not found evidence of holistic
concerns. However, al-Jindı (1969) has shown otherwise: medieval scholars had a more
broad-ranging, nuanced understanding of the word. The earliest extant example of holis-
tic sura treatments comes in the form of al-Baqillanı’s analysis of Ghafir and Fus: :silat,
where he points out the internal connections between passages and suggests a central
theme (al-Jindı 1969, p. 222; cf al-Baqillanı 1963, pp. 8–15). In both cases, he identifies
it as ‘the necessity of the Qur’an being a proof, and the indication of its miracle,’5 stating
that these suras are based on it, from the beginning to the end (al-Baqillanı 1963, p. 9).
Therefore, al-Baqillanı’s understanding of the word naz: m went beyond word-meaning
relationships: he has produced the first known treatments of suras as whole units, tied
together by a common theme.
While al-Baqillanı’s work is perhaps the most clearly holistic in terms of sura treat-
ments, a more general understanding of this term is evident in the work of other scholars
beginning with al-JahiÛ. In what survives of his work, he indicates that ‘naz: m’ refers to
two aspects: composition6 and style of writing,7 pointing out that the Qur’an is neither
poetry nor prose, but is in a class of its own (cited in al-Jindı 1969, pp. 7–8). Thus, in
the understanding of al-JaÎiÛ, the Qur’an’s ‘style of writing’ is a central quality that char-
acterizes the whole text and makes it distinct from any other text. This line of investiga-
tion can therefore be considered a holistic undertaking, one with a generic outlook.
Other, eminent medieval scholars seem to have shared in al-JaÎiÛ’s understanding of the
word, even though they do not seem to have agreed that the style is inimitable. For
example, al-QaÃı ‘Abd al-Jabbar (al-Jindı 1969, pp. 9–11) disagreed that i%jaz was to be
found in the Qur’an’s style, for which he used the term naz: m, but rather in the meaning
of the words. His ideas were taken up by al-Jurjanı, who produced an extensive theory
of naz: m, focusing on the rhetorical aspects (balagha) of the Qur’an (al-Jindı 1969, pp. 11–
2). In turn, al-Jurjanı’s work seems to have influenced the writings of al-Zamakhsharı,

ª 2010 The Author Religion Compass 4/8 (2010): 495–506, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2010.00233.x

Journal Compilation ª 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
498 Nevin Reda

who also used naz: m in the sense of rhetorical art, addressing word-meaning relationships,
in addition to linear connections between sentences and verses (al-Jindı 1969, pp. 200–
22). Thus, medieval scholars understood naz: m to refer broadly to various aspects of the
Qur’an’s diction, composition, and style. Their understanding ranged from word-meaning
relationships to linear connections between verses, and included approaching suras and
the entire Qur’an as a whole.


MUNASABA

Unlike naz: m, there is scant evidence that munasaba was an established genre early in Isla-
mic history and what is available post-dates naz: m by several centuries. Two monographs
are known from the medieval literature: Ibn al-Zubayr al-Ghirnat:’s ı (d.708 ⁄ 1308) (1990)
al-Burhan f ı munasabat tartıb suwar al-Qur’an and al-Suy ı (1987) Tanasuq al-durar f ı
ut:’s
tanasub al-suwar. Both only address the connections between each sura and the next, and
are not generally concerned with intra-sura coherence or features that hold the Qur’an
together as a whole. Both have been recently published as small one-volume books. A
third, much larger work is also relevant, Burhan al-Dın al-Biqa%’s ı (d. 885 ⁄ 1480) Naz: m
al-durar f ı tanasub al-Ãyat wa’l-suwar (literally, ‘The Arrangement of Pearls in the Correla-
tion of the Verses and Suras’). The latter is the most comprehensive of the medieval
works: al-Biqa%ı not only addresses the connections between suras, passages and verses,
but also central themes or objectives. His theory on these themes is quite innovative: he
suggests that each sura’s objective is encapsulated in its title and proceeds to tie the two
together. His work thereby reaches well beyond the established scope of munasaba, even
though he takes care to ground it within this genre (vol. 1, pp. 5–6). His title also locates
it within the purview of the naz: m genre, placing naz: m in parallel to ‘tanasub,’ a word that
recalls munasaba and derives from it. By linking these two words together in this manner,
al-Biqa%ı suggests that his work cuts across both genres. Thus, the two known mono-
graphs on munasaba alone seem to utilize ‘munasaba’ primarily in the sense of sura connec-
tions, while the term also overlaps with naz: m, which is a broader concern.
In addition to the above works, munasaba appears in the medieval secondary sources
on the Qur’anic sciences: al-Zarkashı (n. d. vol. 1, pp. 35–50) devotes an entire chapter
to it, and al-Suy ut:ı (n. d., vol. 3, pp. 322–38) follows in his predecessor’s footsteps. Sur-
prisingly, naz: m is not accorded the same consideration, even though there were many
more monographs of this genre, while there was only one on munasaba at the time of al-
Zarkashı. Rather naz: m is mentioned only briefly within their chapters on the theory of
inimitability.
Al-Zarkashı does not explain this curious imbalance, but he does provide further
substantiation for munasaba. He associates the term with the work of other scholars,
mainly the well-known Fakhr al-Dın al-Razı (d. 607 ⁄ 1210) (cited in al-Zarkashı n. d.,
vol. 1, pp. 35–6)8 and a famous member of his own sect, the Shafi%ite al-Nısab urı (d.
324 ⁄ 936) (cited in al-Zarkashı n. d., vol. 1, p. 36).9 However, these references do not
suggest that the term had then gained its present-day technical sense of linear-atomistic
verse and sura connections, but rather that it is al-Zarkashı himself who establishes this
meaning. For example, even though al-Zarkashı uses al-Razı to argue for the existence
of munasaba as an independent Qur’anic science, the term does not appear in the quo-
tation he attributes to this scholar, but rather the words ‘tartıbat’ and ‘rawabit: ’ (literally,
‘links, connections’) (cited in al-Zarkashı n. d., vol. 1, p. 36). Munasaba also does not
occur in the statement, which al-Biqa%ı and al-Suy ut:ı use to show the importance
al-Razı attributes to munasaba; rather, al-Razı uses naz: m in that statement (cited in

ª 2010 The Author Religion Compass 4/8 (2010): 495–506, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2010.00233.x

Journal Compilation ª 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Holistic Approaches to the Qur’an 499

al-Suy ut:ı n. d., vol. 3, p. 323 and al-Biqa%ı 2006, vol. 1, pp. 6–7).10 Thus, it seems
that munasaba had not yet acquired the technical dimension it has today and was used
interchangeably with other words.
Al-Zarkashı’s reference to al-Nısab urı is even less substantiated and comes in the form
of a statement via the obscure Ab u al-Íasan al-Shahrabanı, indicating that al-Nısab
urı
used to inquire after verse and sura connections and that he used to rebuke the people
for not pursuing the science of munasaba (cited in al-Zarkashı n. d., vol. 1, p. 36). How-
ever, despite al-Nısab urı’s presumed preoccupation, he has no known monograph or
other works on the subject. Moreover, there does not seem to be any other indication of
al-Nısab urı’s supposed interest. Al-Zarkashı’s reiteration of this statement may indicate
more about sectarian rivalries and his attempt to establish a Shafi%ite pedigree for the sci-
ence, rather than acknowledge actual historical origins. Thus, it seems that munasaba first
gained its technical meaning and the status of an independent science through the efforts
of al-Zarkashı.
Some remarks on the sectarian dynamics between the two terms are in order. Al-
Zarkashı espoused the Shafi‘ite school of jurisprudence, which belonged to a group
known as the Traditionalists (ahl al-h: adith), because of their association with the corpus
of prophetic traditions called hadıth. Some tension existed between this group and
another, known as the Rationalists (ahl al-ra’y), to which al-JaÎiÛ belonged. While
much is known about the rivalry between these two schools in relation to the develop-
ment of Muslim jurisprudence (Hallaq 2005, pp. 74–6; Nyazee 2002, pp. 148–50), its
implications for the exegesis of the Qur’an is still in need of further research. Al-JaÎiÛ
(2000, vol. 2, part 3, pp. 218–19) indicates that he wrote his book as a response to
those who contest the Qur’an or its authority, identifying several groups by name,
including the Traditionalists. While the exact nature of the contention is unclear, there
are two possibilities. In one of his epistles, al-JaÎiÛ (1995, p. 58; 2000, vol. 2, part 3,
p. 221) uses the organization of the Qur’an (naz: m) to argue for its createdness, a doc-
trine that was adopted by the theological school of the Mu‘tazilites and which was
heavily resisted by Traditionalists and eventually rejected in mainstream Sunni thought.
The association of al-JaÎiÛ’s naz: m discourse with this doctrine may have contributed to
Shafi%ite dissatisfaction with this genre. Another known cause of disagreement between
the Traditionalists and the Rationalists is on the issue of matn criticism – matn refers to
the content of the individual prophetic traditions. When this content contradicted the
Qur’an, Rationalists have been known to refute the problematic tradition (e.g. Ab u
Íanıfa 1972, pp. 99–103). Al-JaÎiÛ may have used the Qur’an’s superior diction and
organization to implicitly argue for the Qur’an’s authoritativeness over and above the
h: adıth. Thus, while the nature of the sectarian dynamics surrounding al-JaÎiÛ’s naz: m
discourse is still in need of further study, munasaba seems to have received the full sup-
port of the Shafi%ite faction of medieval Muslim society.
In light of the above, medieval scholars used two terms in connection with treating
either suras or the entire Qur’an as a whole: naz: m and munasaba. Of these two, naz: m is
the older and the most widely propagated genre; however, munasaba too received schol-
arly attention. Both terms were also used to designate linear-atomistic relationships, and
naz: m was used for word-meaning relationships as well; thus, not all the works within
these genres are holistic in nature. While the concern attracted relatively few scholars,
some important studies have survived. Of these, the oldest known is al-Baqillanı’s treat-
ment of Suras Ghafir and Fus: :silat, but the most exhaustive and significant of the medieval
works of this kind is al-Biqa%’s ı Naz: m al-durar.

ª 2010 The Author Religion Compass 4/8 (2010): 495–506, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2010.00233.x

Journal Compilation ª 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
500 Nevin Reda

Modern Approaches
While there is evidence of approaches to suras as whole units in medieval times, the
atomistic approaches were by far the most prevalent; it is only in the past century that
the holistic approaches have experienced widespread dissemination. Several factors have
contributed to their recent proliferation. Foremost among them is the work of reformers
such as Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan (d. 1898) in India and MuÎammad ‘Abduh (d. 1905) in
Egypt, both of whom advocated the need for new hermeneutical approaches better fitted
to the needs of the time (Wielandt 2002, pp. 126–9). They thereby paved the way for a
disentanglement of Qur’an interpretation from tradition and the emergence of new her-
meneutical foci. Another factor is the emergence of literature as an independent discipline
in modern-day universities. It created the space for studying the Qur’an as literature, as is
evident in the literary approach of Bint al-Shat: i’, ‘A’isha  ‘Abd al-RaÎman (d. 1998)
(Wielandt 2002, pp. 131–3); she argued that the Qur’an is the most significant Arabic lit-
erary achievement and should be studied as such (‘Abd al-RaÎman n. d., p. 13). Last but
not least is the exposure of Muslim thinkers to orientalist critique of the Qur’an, as can
be observed in the work of ‘Abd al-Muta%al Ña%dı ı  (b. 1894), who wrote al-Naz: m al-fannı
f ı al-Qur’an. He explains that his book is a response to some European scholars, who
faulted the Qur’an’s organization and considered it disjointed, mentioning Thomas Carly-
le (d. 1881) and Reinhart Dozy (d. 1883) by their last names (Ña%dı ı  1993, p. 3). These
approaches are thereby primarily a modern phenomenon and tend to be in conversation
with two types of discourses: in relation to the traditionalist discourses, they are con-
cerned with reform, while in connection to orientalist critique, they have apologetic
nuances.
In addition to Bint al-Shat: i’ and Ña%dı ı , other modern authors have treated suras as
whole coherent units. Mir (1993) has pointed to six exegetes from various parts of the
Muslim world who have produced commentaries on the entire Qur’an in which they
treated suras as unities: Thanavı (d. 1943) (1932), al-FaraÎı (d. 1930), and Is: laÎı (d. 1997)
(1967–80) of the Indian subcontinent, Qut: b (d. 1966) (1972) and Darwaza (d. 1964) of
Egypt, and al-Óabat: aba’ı (d. 1981) (n.d.) of Iran. All six share a broadly similar, analytical
approach, as they divide suras into sections, and then establish links between those sec-
tions. Qut: b, al-Óabat: aba’ı, al-FaraÎı, and Is: laÎı also try to consistently identify central
themes and may therefore be considered holistic. Is: laÎı goes a step further and explores
the Qur’an’s general compositional schema, delineating the relationships between suras
and their placement within the general framework (Mir 1993, 2006). His approach is
therefore the most holistic of them all. The work of MuÎammad Far uq al-Zayn of Syria
(2004-), Bayan al-naz: m fı al-Qur’an al-karım, should also be added to these authors. While
only the first few volumes of al-Zayn’s work have been published, they show that he also
addresses the issue of central themes and briefly explains each individual verse, tying his
explanation to the preceding verses.
While the previous authors look mainly within the boundaries of a sura for coherence,
others are more concerned with the general, overarching characteristics that distinguish
the Qur’an. Some of the topics they address include its unifying rhythms, rhymes, and
central message, in addition to its reception and the aesthetic experience of its hearers.
The best known of these authors are perhaps Mus: t: afa Ñadiq al-Rafi%ı (d. 1937) (1974),
MuÎammad ‘Abdullah Draz (d. 1958), and Sayyid Qut: b (Boullata 2000, 2003 pp. 195,
201–4). Draz also applies his ideas to Surat al-Baqara, the longest and most challenging
sura to read as a whole. He has identified five objectives for the sura that describe its the-
matic flow (Draz 2008, pp. 196–7), but no overarching central theme. He points out that

ª 2010 The Author Religion Compass 4/8 (2010): 495–506, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2010.00233.x

Journal Compilation ª 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Holistic Approaches to the Qur’an 501

analyzing the immediate connections is insufficient for a full appreciation of suras, using
the term munasaba for the immediate connections (Draz 2008, pp. 192–3). His critique of
the science recalls that of Mir, whose very term ‘linear-atomistic’ underlines the atomistic,
fragmentary character of munasaba, implying its inadequacy for understanding suras as
whole units. These works also address coherence and textual integrity, but in a more
generic way. They focus on the Qur’an as a whole, recalling al-JaÎiÛ generic approach
and his preoccupation with the Qur’an’s general style.
One author who has addressed both types of holistic approaches is the renowned
MuÎammad al-Ghazalı (d. 1996). His name stands out in connection with the term ‘the-
ı which he has used to describe both his approaches. In his sura-centric
matic’ (mawd: u%),
treatments, he broadly addresses themes within each sura (1992); while in his overarching
treatments, he aligns the various topics in the Qur’an around five central axes (1989).
While al-Ghazalı’s thematic approaches can be described as holistic, that of another
prominent author, MuÎammad ShaÎr ur (2000), is more difficult to classify as such. He
has attempted to find a comprehensive compositional schema for the Qur’an, dividing
the Qur’an as we know it into four separate, intertwined compositions: al-Qur’an, al-Sab%
ı al-Kitab, and Umm al-Kitab (Christmann 2003, pp. 143–72). While his
al-Mathanı, Tafs:l
approach is not diachronic per se, it recalls Wellhausen’s (d. 1918) documentary hypothe-
sis (1899), in which he and others have attempted to identify four separate documents
that acted as sources for the redactors of the Bible.11 ShaÎr ur’s system is based on the
analysis of key words, such kitab and furqan, which occur throughout the Qur’an and
thereby lend his analysis unifying features.
While the past century has seen a spurt of holistic approaches in Muslim-majority
countries, they are also found elsewhere. Scholars in the West tend to be somewhat suc-
cessful with discovering the compositional schema and unifying features of Meccan suras,
which are associated with the city of Mecca, where the prophet spent the early years of
his mission. These suras tend to be smaller and less diverse in their topics than their later
Medinan counterparts and often have a hymnic character. In connection with their form
and structure, the work of Neuwirth (1981) in particular stands out; she has analyzed
them in great depth, leading to the widely promulgated notion that they form coherent
units. Her approach resembles that of Bint al-Shat: i’ in some aspects, such as in their treat-
ment of the introductory oaths in Meccan suras, but in a more developed form (Kandil
1996, p. 48). Other studies that have addressed similar concerns include the work of Jac-
ques Jomier (1997), who also recognized their hymnic character, particularly the Meccan
suras dealing with creation, and even attempted a structural analysis of Q. 16: 3-18 (pp.
28–36).
While Neuwirth’s approach for each individual Meccan sura can be considered holistic
– she views them as whole compositional units; in the larger scheme of things, her
approach is not synchronic, but rather diachronic. She places these suras within their ini-
tial, seventh-century liturgical setting, and explores their connection to community devel-
opment and the evolution of the canon (Neuwirth 1996, 2000, 2005, 2006a). Thus,
within Qur’anic studies, there are occasional diachronic approaches that treat suras as
whole units, even though holistic approaches tend to be synchronic, similar to their Bib-
lical counterparts.
The longer Medinan suras, such as the two hundred and eighty-six verse Surat al-Baq-
ara, have proven to be more challenging. For example, Neuwirth’s assessment of these
suras is in stark contrast to her conclusions for the Meccan suras: she suggests that the
long Medinan suras ‘cease to be neatly structured compositions, but appear to be the
result of a process of collection that we cannot yet reconstruct’ (2005, vol. 5, p. 174).

ª 2010 The Author Religion Compass 4/8 (2010): 495–506, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2010.00233.x

Journal Compilation ª 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
502 Nevin Reda

ı , and Draz, have convinced few

The studies of Muslim exegetes, such as Is: laÎı, Ña%dı
western scholars; many may not even have reached them. Is: laÎı’s work is perhaps the best
known – his name appears in the secondary sources available in the English language, pri-
marily in the work of Mir. His efforts have led to some engagement of Is: laÎı’s ideas, as
in the work of Robinson (1996) and Zahniser (2000). Both scholars have provided treat-
ments of al-Baqara and other suras as whole units. Two recent studies have also contrib-
uted to a better understanding of al-Baqara as a whole: the author’s doctoral dissertation
(2010) and an article by Farrin (2010). In her dissertation, the author examines repeti-
tions, such as inclusios, chiasms, and alternations, showing how they delineate the struc-
ture of Surat al-Baqara and its thematic subunits, similar to the way scholars have
approached Biblical texts. She also uses insights from literary theory to develop two com-
plementary holistic readings, identifying a central theme for each reading. Farrin (2010)
explores one repetition in particular: a ring construction (chiasm) that envelopes the
whole sura. However, these studies are still new and it may take a while for them to
become widely known. At this point in time, it is not generally accepted within western
scholarship that the Medinan suras form coherent compositions.
The size and divergent topics of the Medinan suras are not the only reasons why there
has been little success in identifying their structure and central themes; a preoccupation
with diachronic concerns is also evident. The Medinan suras stem from a time when the
prophet and his followers had immigrated to the city of Medina, where they had estab-
lished a polity and were in contact with other communities, such as the Medinan Jewish
tribes. The character of the suras developed accordingly; they include more law- and com-
munity-related topics. This difference is one that has been recognized quite early in Islamic
history (al-Zarkashı n. d., vol. 1, pp. 187–205), the Qur’an’s piecemeal revelation often
given as an explanation for the diverse objectives within a single sura (Óabat: aba’ı n. d., vol.
1, p. 43). However, today, there is a renewed interest in how it relates to community
building (Neuwirth 2000) and also in the dialogic dimension between the Qur’an and the
discourses within its intellectual environment (Neuwirth 2006b, 2008). While these dia-
chronic investigations are undoubtedly valuable, they are not generally holistic in character.
The Qur’an’s general stylistic features have also been addressed within western scholar-
ship, beginning with the work of (Nöldeke 1860). He has addressed the history of the
Qur’an, examined some formal and stylistic features, and has approached suras as whole
units when constructing his relative chronology (Neuwirth 2001, p. 255). Others include
Kermanı (1999), who analyzes the aesthetic reception of the Qur’an, and Devin Stewart
(1990, 2004), who presents a strong case for the Qur’an’s general style – he argues that it
is a kind of rhymed prose known as saj% since pre-Islamic times. While these works sig-
nificantly advance our knowledge of the Qur’an’s stylistic features, the Qur’an’s coher-
ence and textual integrity does not seem to be a main concern, and they may not
therefore be classified as holistic.
A recent, innovative approach is that of Todd Lawson, who has looked at duality and
opposition in the Qur’an, exploring the distinctive apocalyptic character of its composi-
tional style (Lawson 2009). He has also examined typological figuration, suggesting that it
forms a continuous and consistent motif throughout the text. He has thereby addressed
features that characterize the Qur’an as a whole, distinguishing it from other compositions.

Conclusion
In this study, ‘holistic’ refers to analytic or exegetical approaches, which are concerned
with coherence and textual integrity, and consistently move beyond the boundaries of a

ª 2010 The Author Religion Compass 4/8 (2010): 495–506, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2010.00233.x

Journal Compilation ª 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Holistic Approaches to the Qur’an 503

verse or its immediate vicinity to treating either individual suras or the entire Qur’an as a
whole. Ideally, a holistic approach would begin with analyzing the relationships between
the various components of each sura, identifying its central idea, and then move on to
study the relationships of the various suras to each other, and how they too form a
whole. However, few have managed to achieve this ideal: Is: laÎı may be the only one.
Others have incorporated some degree of holism into their treatments, so that there are
two prevalent types of holistic approaches today: sura-centric and generic. In the sura-
centric approaches, suras are divided into parts and the relationship between the various
parts is examined, usually tying them together by identifying a common theme. In the
generic approaches, the focus is on the distinctive characteristics that hold the Qur’an
together as a whole and set it apart from other texts, such as its rhythms and rhymes, cen-
tral themes, and other literary features. The holistic approaches contrast with traditional
atomistic methods, which generally approach the Qur’an on a verse-by-verse basis, treat-
ing each verse virtually independently of its literary context.
The earliest coherence-related discourses are studies of the Qur’an’s general style, com-
position and organization, which fall under the general rubrics of ‘naz: m.’ The term does
not only refer to holistic concerns, but subsumes word-meaning relationships, as well as
the immediate, linear connections between verses and suras. Generic approaches that
address the Qur’an’s general style include the work of the ninth-century al-JaÎiÛ, while
the earliest surviving sura-centric treatments are al-Baqillanı’s work on suras Ghafir and
Fus: :silat.
‘Munasaba’ is later than naz: m and also addresses coherence. It primarily referred to the
immediate linear relationships between suras, but has come to include the connections
between verses. Both terms overlap, as can be noted in al-Biqa%’s ı Naz: m al-durar, which
cuts across both genres. This multi-volume production is the most comprehensive of the
medieval works – it systematically connects each sura’s central theme to its name and
analyzes the internal connection within suras among other things.
The term ‘naz: m’ is also present in the recent revival of the genre, as in the work of
ı , Is: laÎı, and al-Zayn. Other modern authors, whose work can also be classified as
Ña%dı
holistic, identify their work as literary, as in the work of Bint al-Shat: i’, or thematic, as in
the work of al-Ghazalı. While the twentieth century has seen a proliferation of holistic
approaches, they exist side by side with traditional atomistic methods, which are also
widespread. Western scholarship has addressed similar concerns, particularly for the Mec-
can suras; however, the focus on coherence and textual integrity is less prevalent there.

Short Biography
Nevin Reda’s research focuses on the Qur’an, often in relation to women or in relation
to the Bible. She has a particular interest in Surat al-Baqara, the longest of the Qur’an’s
chapters, on which she wrote her thesis, entitled ‘Textual Integrity and Coherence in the
Qur’an: Repetition and Narrative Structure in Surat al-Baqara.’ She has published two
articles in the American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences: ‘Women in the Mosque: His-
torical Perspectives on Segregation’ and ‘The Qur’anic Óalut and the Rise of the Ancient
Israelite Monarchy: An Intertextual Reading.’ Her most widely disseminated article is on
the topic of women Imams and has been circulated on several websites, including the
Canadian Council of Muslim Women (www.ccmw.com), where it was initially
published. Her other articles mostly address the Shari‘a debates in Canada and can also be
found on the CCMW website. She has previously taught at the University of Toronto
and at Huron University College, and she is currently coordinating the Canadian

ª 2010 The Author Religion Compass 4/8 (2010): 495–506, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2010.00233.x

Journal Compilation ª 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
504 Nevin Reda

Certificate in Muslim Studies at Emmanuel College. She holds a B.Sc. in engineering

from Cairo University, in addition to an M.A. in Biblical Hebrew Language and Litera-
ture from the University of Toronto. Her Ph.D. is also from the University of Toronto,
and has a concentration in the areas of the Qur’an and Islamic Thought and Education.
Her name occasionally appears as Nevin Reda El-Tahry.

Notes
* Correspondence address: Nevin Reda, Emmanuel College, 75 Queen’s Park Crescent, Toronto, Ontario M5S
1K7, Canada. E-mail: nevin.reda@sympatico.ca.

1
This article is an abridgment of a chapter in my doctoral dissertation (2010), Textual Integrity and Coherence in the
Qur’an: Repetition and Narrative Structure in Surat al-Baqara, University of Toronto. For the use of ‘holistic’ in the
New Age spiritual sense, see, for example, Roderick Main (2008), Secularization and the ‘Holistic Milieu’: Social
and Psychological Perspectives, Religion Compass 2, pp. 1–20.
2
While the term ‘holistic’ is usually in its literary, text-based sense when used in connection with the Qur’an,
there is also a well-established tradition of ‘experiential’ interpretation, which effects a kind of spiritual ‘holism.’
These kinds of interpretations can be found particularly within Sufi and other esoteric exegesis. See, for example,
al-Shahrastanı , (2009), Akash (2006), Godlas (2006), al-Sulamı  (1995, 2001).
3
Gilliot and Larcher spell al-Jindı ’s name ‘al-Jundı ’ (Gilliot and Larcher (2001), pp. 126, 134). It is one of two
possible classical Arabic pronunciations for the contemporary Egyptian surname, generally vocalized ‘al-Jindı ’ today.
The second classical pronunciation is ‘al-Janadı ,’ as in ‘al-MufaÃÃal ibn MuÎammad al-Janadı  (d. 920 ⁄ 308)’ and
‘MuÎammad ibn Y usuf al-Janadı  (d. 1332 ⁄ 732),’ see al-Ziriklı (2007, vol. 2, p. 140; vol. 7, pp. 151, 280). I have
chosen the contemporary vocalization, because this al-Jindı  is a contemporary scholar. There is also no way of
knowing which of the two classical pronunciations, if any, form the basis of his name.
4
Saleh (2004, pp. 136–37, 250) has mentioned another, early work, Kitab al-Naz: m, by a contemporary of al-JaÎiÛ,
al-Íasan ibn Nas: r al-Jurjanı  (d. 263 ⁄ 876). Although this work is now lost, parts of it have been preserved in
al-Tha‘labı ’s commentary. Not much is known about this important work; for example, it is not mentioned in
Audebert (1982) or Gilliot and Larcher (2001).
5
%Luzum h: ujjat al-Qur’an wa’l-tanbı h ‘ala mu‘jizatih;’ Al-Baqillanı
 (1963), p. 9. All translations from the Arabic are
mine unless otherwise stated.
6
f: literally, the act of composing, the way a text is put together.
ta’lı
7
ı fı al-ta‘bı
naw‘ al-uslub wa’l-t: arqa r: iterally, the kind of style and the way of expression.
8
For occurrences of ‘munasaba’ in al-Razı ’s tafsı
r, see Lagarde (1996), no. 2479.
9
Ab u Bakr ‘Abd Allah ibn MuÎammad Ziyad al-Nı sab . Also al-Naysab
urı .
urı
10
The reference contains two occurrences of naz: m, but no occurrences of munasaba. For occurrences of ‘naz: m’ in
al-Razı’s tafsı
r, see Lagarde (1996), no. 2564.
11
While Wellhausen’s approach is diachronic – the four sources are seen as having been composed much earlier
than the final redaction – ShaÎr ur’s approach tends to be synchronic – the four ‘components’ that form the final
text are all more or less contemporaneous and have no existence outside of the text.

Works Cited
‘Abd al-RaÎman, A. (n. d.). al-Tafsı r al-bayanı
 li’l-Qur’an al-karı
m. 7th edn. al-Qahira: Dar al-Ma%arif, n. d.
Abu Íanı fa, [al-Nu‘man ibn Thabit]. (1972). Kitab al-%alim wa’l-muta%allim. M. R. Qal%ajı  and A. al-Hindı  al-Na-
dawı  (eds.). Íalab: Maktabat al-Huda.
Akash, H. A. (2006). Die sufische Koranauslegung: Semantik und Deutungsmechanismus der iša-Exegese. rı Islamkundliche
Untersuchungen, Band 271. Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag.
 (1963). I%jaz al-Qur’an. A. Saqr (ed.), [al-Qahira]: Dar al-Ma%arif.
Al-Baqillanı
Al-Biqa%ı (2006). Naz: m al-durar f ı tanasub al-Ãyat wa’l-suwar. A. G. al-Mahdı  (ed.). 3rd edn. Bayrut: Dar al-Kutub
al-%Ilmiyya.
Al-Ghazalı, M. (1989). al-Mah: awir al-khamsa li’l-Qur’an al-karı m. al-Qahira: Dar al-ÑaÎwa.
—— (1992). Nah: wa tafsı %ı li-suwar al-Qur’an al-karı
r mawd: u m. al-Qahira: Dar al-Shuruq.
Al-JaÎiÛ (1995). Naz: m al-Qur’an: jam% wa-tawthı q wa-dirasa (reconstructed). S. A. MuÎammad (ed.). Al-Qahira,
Maktabat al-Zahra’.
—— (2000). Rasa’il al-Jah: iz: . A. M. Har un (ed.). Bayr ut: Dar al-Kutub al-%Ilmiyya.
Al-Jindı, D. (1960). Naz: ariyyat ‘Abd al-Qahir fı ’l-naz: m. al-Fajjala: Maktabat NahÃat Mis: r.

ª 2010 The Author Religion Compass 4/8 (2010): 495–506, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2010.00233.x

Journal Compilation ª 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Holistic Approaches to the Qur’an 505

—— (1969). al-Naz: m al-Qur’anı  fı Kashshaf al-Zamakhsharı . Mis: r: Dar NahÃat Mis: r.
Al-Khat::tabı  (1968). Bayan fı i%jaz al-Qur’an. In: M. K. AÎmad (ed.), Thalath Rasa’il fı i%jaz al-Qur’an. Mis: r: Dar al-
Ma%arif.
Al-Rafi‘ı , M. S. (1974). Tah: ta rayat al-Qur’an: al-ma%raka bayna al-qadı m wa’l-jadı d. M. S, al-%Iryan (ed.). 7th edn.
Bayrut: Dar al-Kitab al-%Arabı .
Al-Shahrastanı  (2009). Keys to the Arcana: Shahrastanı ’s esoteric commentary on the Qur%an: a translation of the commentary
on Surat al-Fatih: a from Muh: ammad b. ‘Abd al-Karı m al-Shahrastanı’s Mafahtı: al-asrar wa mas: abı
h: al-abrar, transl.
T. Mayer, with the Arabic text reproduced from the edition by M. A. Adharshab. Oxford: Oxford University
Press in association with the Institute of Ismaili Studies.
Al-Sulamı  (1995). Ziyadat H: aqa’iq al-Tanzı l. G. Böwering (ed.). Bayr ut: Dar al-Mashriq.
—— (2001). H : aqa’iq al-Tanzı l: Tafsı r al-Qur’an al-‘Azı z. S. ‘Umran (ed.). Bayr ut: Dar al-Kutub al-
%Ilmiyya.
Al-Suy u:tı (1987). Tanasuq al-durar fı tanasub al-suwar. A. M. al-Darwı sh (ed.). 2nd edn. Bayr 
ut: ‘Alam al-Kutub.
—— (n. d.). al-Itqan fı ‘ulum al-Qur’an. M. A. Ibrahı m (ed.). al-Qahira: Dar al-Turath.
Al-Óabarı  (1954–68). Jami% al-bayan ‘an ta’wı l ãy al-Qur’an. M. M. Shakir and A. M. Shakir (eds.). al-Qahira: Dar
al-Ma%arif.
Al-Óabat: aba%, ı M. H. (n. d.). al-Mı zan fı tafsı
r al-Qur’an. Bayr ut: al-Mat: ba%a al-Tujariyya.
Al-Zarkashı  (n. d.). al-Burhan fı ‘ulum al-Qur’an. M. A. Ibrahı m (ed.). al-Qahira: Dar al-Turath.
Al-Zayn, M. F. (2004). Bayan al-naÛm fı al-Qur’an al-karı m. Dimashq: Dar al-Fikr.
Al-Ziriklı , K. (2007). al-A%lam: qamus tarajim li-ashhar al-rijal wa’l-nisa’ min al-%arab wa%l-musta%mirı n wa’l-mustashriqı n.
Bayrut: Dar al-‘Ilm li’l-Malayı n.
Audebert, C. F. (1982). al-Hat::tabı  et l’inimitabilité du Coran. Traduction et introduction au Bayan I%jaz al-Qur’an.
Damascus: Institut Françaisde Damas.
Barlas, A. (2002). ‘‘Believing Women’’ in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur’an. Austin: University
Press.
Boullata, I. (2000). Sayyid Qut: b’s Literary Appreciation of the Qur’an. In: I. J. Boullata (ed.), Literary Structures of
Religious Meaning in the Qur’an. Richmond: Curzon.
—— (2003). Literary Structures of the Qur’an. In: J. D. McAuliffe (ed.), Encyclopaedia of the Qur’an, vol. 3. Leiden:
Brill.
Christmann, A. (2003) ‘‘The Form is Permanent, but the Content Moves:’’ the Qur’anic Text and its
Interpretation(s) in Mohamad Shahrour’s al-Kitab wal-Qur’an, Die Welt des Islams 43(2), pp. 143–72; reprinted in:
S. Taji-Farouki (ed.) (2004), Modern Muslim Intellectuals and the Qur’an. Oxford: Oxford University Press in
association with the Institute of Ismaili Studies.
Draz, M. A. (2008). al-Naba’ al-%az:m: ı da fı al-Qur’an, taqdı
naz: arat jadı m ‘Abd al-%Azı z al-Mat:%anı. 10th edn.
al-Qahira: Dar al-Qalam li’l-nashr wa’l-tawzı  %.
Farrin, R. (2010). Surat al-Baqara: A Structural Analysis, Muslim World, 100(1), pp. 17–32.
Gilliot, C. & Larcher, P. (2001). Language and Style of the Qur’an. In: J. D. McAuliffe (ed.), Encyclopaedia of the
Qur’an, vol. 3. Leiden: Brill.
Godlas, A. (2006). S _ ufism. In: A. Rippin (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to the Qur’an. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Hallaq, W. (2005). The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ibn al-Zubayr al-Ghirnat:ı (1990). al-Burhan fı tartı b suwar al-Qur’an, edited and introduced by M. Sha%banı . al-Mam-
laka al-Maghribiyya: Wazarat al-Awqaf wa’l-Shu’ un al-Islamiyya.
, A. A. (1967–80). Tadabbur-ı
Is: laÎı  Qur’an. Lahore: Maktabah-yi Markazi Anjuman Khuddam al-Qur%an.
Kandil, L. (1996). Die Schwure in den Mekkanischen Suren. In: S. Wild (ed.), The Qur’an as Text. Leiden: Brill.
Kermanı , N. (1999). Gott ist schön: Das ästhetische Erleben des Korans. München: Verlag C. H. Beck.
Lagarde, M. (1996). Index du Grand Commentaire de Fahr al-Dı n al-Razı
. Leiden: Brill.
Lawson, T. (2009). Duality, Opposition and Typology in the Qur’an: The Apocalyptic Substrate, Journal of Qur’anic
Studies, 10(2), pp. 23–49.
Mir, M. (1986). Coherence in the Qur’an: A Study of Is: lah:’s ı Concept of Naz: m in Tadabbur-i Qur’an. Indianapolis:
American Trust Publications.
—— (1993). The S ura as a Unity: a Twentieth Century Development in Qur’an Exegesis. In: G. R. Hawting, A.
A. Shareef (eds.), Approaches to the Qur’an. London: Routledge. Reprinted in C. Turner (ed.), The Koran: Critical
Concepts in Islamic Studies: Translation and Exegesis, vol. 4. London: RoutledgeCurzon.
—— (2006). Unity of the Text of the Qur’an. In: J. D. McAuliffe (ed.), Encyclopaedia of the Qur’an, vol. 6. Brill:
Leiden.
Murad, W. M. (1983). Naz: ariyyat al-naÛm wa-qı matuha al-%ilmiyya fı al-dirasat al-lughawiyya ‘inda ‘Abd al-Qahir
. Dimashq: Dar al-Fikr.
al-Jurjanı
Neuwirth, A. (1981). Studien zur Komposition der mekkanischen Suren. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
—— (1996). Vom Rezitationstext über die Liturgie zum Kanon: Zur Entstehung und Wiederauflösung der Sure-
nkomposition im Verlauf der Entwicklung eines Islamischen Kultus. In: S. Wild (ed.), The Qur’an as Text.
Leiden: Brill.

ª 2010 The Author Religion Compass 4/8 (2010): 495–506, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2010.00233.x

Journal Compilation ª 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
506 Nevin Reda

—— (2000). Referentiality and Textuality in Surat al-H : idjr: Some Observations on the Qur’anic ‘‘Canonical Pro-
cess’’ and the Emergence of a Community. In: I. J. Boullata (ed.), Literary Structures of Religious Meaning in the
Qur’an. Richmond: Curzon.
—— (2001). Some Remarks on the Special Linguisitc and Literary Character of the Qur’an, transl. G. Goldbloom.
In: A. Rippin (ed.), The Qur’an: Style and Contents. Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate.
—— (2005). S ura(s). In: J. D. McAuliffe (ed.), Encyclopaedia of the Qur’an, vol. 5. Leiden: Brill.
—— (2006a). Structural, Linguistic and Literary Features. In: J. D. McAuliffe (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the
Qur’an. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
—— (2006b). ‘‘Oral Scriptures’’ in Contact: The Qur’anic Story of the Golden Calf and its Biblical Subtext
between Narrative, Cult and Inter-Communal Debate. In: S. Wild (ed.), Self-Referentiality in the Qur’an. Wiesba-
den: Harrassowitz Verlag.
—— (2008). Die Psalmen – im Koran neu gelesen (Ps 104 und 137). In: D. Hartwig (ed.), Im vollen Licht der Ges-
chichte. Die Wissenschaft des Judentums und die Anfänge der kritischen Koranforschung. Würzburg: Ergon.
Nöldeke, T. (1860). Geschichte des Qorans. 2nd edn. Göttingen: Dieterich.
Nyazee, I. A. K. (2002). Theories of Islamic Law: The Methodology of Ijtihad. Kuala Lumpur: The Other Press.
Qut: b, S. (1972). Fı z: ilal al-Qur’an. 25th edn. al-Qahira: Dar al-Shur uq.
Ricoeur, P. (1981). Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, edited, translated and introduced by J. B. Thompson. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, N. (1996). Discovering the Qur’an: A Contemporary Approach to a Veiled Text. London: SCM Press.
%ı , A. (1993). al-Naz: m al-fannı
Ñadı  fı al-Qur’an. al-Qahira: Maktabat al-Ãdab.
Saleh, W. (2004). The Formation of the Classical Tafsir Tradition: the Qur’an Commentary of al-Tha%labi (d. 427 ⁄ 1035).
Leiden: Brill.
ShaÎr ur, M. (2000). al-Kitab wa’l-Qur’an: qira’a mu%a:sira. 9th edn. Dimashq: al-Ahalı .
Stewart, D. J. (1990). Saj% in the Qur’an: Prosody and Structure. Journal of Arabic Literature 21, pp. 101–39.
—— (2004). Rhymed Prose. In: J. D. McAuliffe (ed.), Encyclopaedia of the Qur’an, vol. 4. Leiden: Brill.
Thanavı , A. A. (1932). Bayan al-Qur’an. Karachi and Lahore.
Van Gelder, G. J. H. and Heinrichs, W. P. (2010). NaÛm. In: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C. E. Bosworth, E. van
Donzel and W. P. Heinrichs (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam. 2nd edn, vol. 12. Leiden: Brill.
Wellhausen, J. (1899). Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israel’s. 5th edn. Berlin: Reimer.
Wielandt, R. (2002). Exegesis of the Qur’an: Early Modern and Contemporary. In: J. D. McAuliffe (ed.), Encyclo-
paedia of the Qur’an, vol. 2. Leiden: Brill.
n, A. (1991). Dirasat al-Baqillanı
Yası  f ı kitabih i%jaz al-Qur’an: tah: ll
 li-’l-naz: m al-Qur’anı ı wa-naqd [Cairo: s. n.].
Zahniser, M. (2000). Major Transitions and Thematic Borders in Two Long S uras: al-Baqara and al-Nisa’. In:
I. J. Boullata. (ed.), Literary Structures of Religious Meaning in the Qur’an. Richmond: Curzon.

ª 2010 The Author Religion Compass 4/8 (2010): 495–506, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2010.00233.x

Journal Compilation ª 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd