This paper argues that the Quran must be read as an integral discourse in which ḥukm (law) and hidāyah (guidance) are inseparable dimensions of a single divine address. Modern and pre-modern interpretive tendencies that isolate legal verses from their spiritual and ontological contexts, or treat ethical guidance apart from jurisprudential form, constitute a hermeneutical bidʿah: an innovation of fragmentation that distorts revelation’s unity. Drawing upon classical and contemporary sources, the study reconstructs the Quran’s own epistemic architecture through the principle of rabṭ al-āyāt, the internal correspondence of verses, and the conceptual pairings that sustain it: ontology and law, perception and submission, the seen and the unseen. By tracing how the Quran embeds its legal, moral, and cosmological teachings within a single vision of reality, the paper proposes an integral Tafsir methodology grounded in mafāhīm kulliyyah (comprehensive concepts). The argument culminates in a call to restore the unity of meaning that the early community embodied, where every command was embedded by guidance and every truth governed by law. In an age when interpretation risks reducing revelation to rhetoric or data, the task is not to propose a new interpretive paradigm, but to retrieve the integrative logic already embedded within the Quranic discourse: to return to the Quran’s own wholeness so that, in the words of Sūrah al-Mursalāt, “in what discourse after this will they believe?”

This article examines the significance of the word “Ḥayawān” in Surah al-Ankabut 29:64, where the Quran contrasts this worldly existence with the eternal reality of the Hereafter. Through linguistic analysis, syntactic examination, and classical exegesis, the paper explores three primary meanings of the term: “abode”, “living being”, and “life itself” in its most dynamic sense. The study demonstrates how each meaning contributes to the Āyah’s powerful hyperbolic assertion about the true nature of existence, and explores why this specific word was chosen over its more common synonym “ḥayāt”. By examining the semantic nuances through classical Arabic lexicographical sources and comparing various scholarly translations, the research reveals the depth of Quranic eloquence and the challenges inherent in conveying its multidimensional meaning across linguistic boundaries. The analysis ultimately argues that the three meanings of “Ḥayawān” work collectively to create a comprehensive understanding of the Hereafter as the quintessence of vibrant, everlasting life, in stark contrast to the fleeting triviality of worldly existence.

This paper reexamines Mawlana Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī’s contribution to Tafsir by arguing that the absence of a formal tafsir does not indicate the absence of a coherent exegetical method. Through a qualitative textual analysis of selections of Fatāwā Rashīdiyya and related writings, the study reconstructs his Quranic hermeneutic from his juridical, pedagogical, and spiritual corpus and situates it within the Walīullāhī intellectual tradition. The findings introduce the concept of embedded exegesis to describe a mode of Quranic interpretation distributed across fatāwā, teaching, ethical formation, and spiritual guidance rather than confined to a continuous commentary. This integrative hermeneutic preserved normative orthodoxy while enabling engagement with the epistemic, moral, and social challenges of colonial modernity. Although limited to the textual analysis of a single scholarly corpus, the study suggests the value of extending this framework through comparative work across other Islamic intellectual traditions. By foregrounding interpretive practices beyond formal commentaries, the paper expands the methodological boundaries of Tafsir studies and contributes to broader discussions in Islamic intellectual history and knowledge organization. It further reconceptualizes interpretive authority as emerging through the interaction of texts, institutions, pedagogy, and lived scholarly practice.

This article examines the significance of the divine names al-Ḥakīm and al-Khabīr at the opening of Sūrah Sabaʾ (34:1), arguing that these names function as governing hermeneutical principles rather than mere descriptive attributes. The analysis explores how classical exegetes across multiple interpretive traditions unanimously view this pairing as constitutive of the Sūrah’s argumentative force concerning resurrection, recompense, and moral accountability. Through lexical analysis of the roots ḥ–k–m (restraint, prevention) and kh–b–r (penetrating knowledge), the document demonstrates how these semantic cores make the Sūrah’s theological framework both lexically necessary and exegetically coherent. The study concludes that al-Ḥakīm and al-Khabīr do not merely conclude the praise-opening verse but actively shape how the entire Sūrah is understood, establishing the epistemic and moral conditions that make divine judgment and resurrection inevitable.

This paper examines the identity of Dhūl-Kifl as presented in the Quran and classical Islamic scholarship, focusing on the tension between scriptural ambiguity and exegetical expansion. While the Quran mentions Dhūl-Kifl twice without providing explicit genealogical or historical detail, later exegetical and narrative traditions attempt to identify him through various claims, including associations with Ayyūb and al-Yasaʿ. Through a critical analysis of the broader exegetical tradition alongside narrative literature, this study demonstrates that many commonly cited identifications lack firm textual grounding in early authoritative sources. The paper highlights how later narrative traditions, often influenced by Isrāʾīliyyāt, contributed to the circulation and gradual solidification of speculative claims, including familial links and lines of succession. By distinguishing between verifiable exegetical statements and later interpretive developments, the study argues for a more restrained and textually grounded understanding of Dhūl-Kifl’s identity, emphasizing the Quran’s deliberate non-specificity as methodologically significant.

This article examines the Quranic expression of 309 years in Sūrah al-Kahf (18:25), which states “three hundred years, and add nine” rather than simply “three hundred and nine years.” The analysis explores the two primary interpretations among classical Quranic exegetes (mufassirūn): the dominant view, which posits that this expression reflects both solar (300 years) and lunar (309 years) calendar calculations, which each related to certain audiences of the Quranic passage, and the alternative view, which suggests that the expression relates the People of the Book’s conjecture and disagreement regarding this duration, serving as a rebuke for delving into matters beyond their knowledge. The paper lays out the classical debate regarding the alternate view, examines the re-engagement of this debate by contemporary Muslim writers, and traces the connection of that engagement with Western academics in the field of history, in dialogue with Muslim historical scholarship.

This paper examines why no Sūrah is explicitly named after Prophet Musa despite his frequent mention in the Quran. The study addresses questions raised by classical scholars regarding the origin and significance of Sūrah names. It establishes a technical and precise conceptualization of a Sūrah itself at the outset, laying out how it is distinguished from other similar literary units, and exploring the nature of Suwar as independent yet interconnected units with divine wisdom behind their organization. The analysis explores the origins of the primary names of Suwar, affirming that most are known through prophetic authority, alongside the phenomenon of some Suwar having multiple names transmitted in the scholarly tradition. Through investigation of classical sources, the study reveals that Sūrah Ṭā-Hā is also known as “Sūrah Musa” or “Sūrah al-Kalīm,” tracing the documentation of this alternative name by numerous early authorities. The study concludes that while the primary name “Ṭā-Hā” may serve particular purposes, the transmission of “Sūrah Musa” as a secondary name demonstrates the depth of scholarly engagement with the Quran, including its nomenclature, and the principle that absence in common usage does not imply absence in scholarly sources.

This paper examines the creed (ʿaqīdah) of Imam al-Ālūsī, and whether he was Salafi in creed or not. It begins by defining and presenting a framework of Islamic creed, distinguishing between primary Islamic doctrines (Uṣūl al-Dīn), secondary doctrines that define the Ahl al-Sunnah wa-l-Jamāʿah, and tertiary theological inquiries. It then describes Salafism with some of its most salient characteristics and defining features, including its theological positions, polemical stances, and intellectual authorities. Through analysis of al-Ālūsī’s educational background, scholarly lineage, and extensive writings, particularly his magnum opus Rūḥ al-Maʿānī, the study demonstrates his theological and methodological views, and his relationship with the Sunni-Sufi-Kalām tradition. The paper also addresses Salafi claims regarding them, showing they stem from eisegesis and fail to account for al-Ālūsī’s explicit statements and for the differences between him and his descendants. The study contributes to the broader discourse on theological classification by highlighting the importance of textual evidence over biographical associations and demonstrates how Imam al-Ālūsī represents the classical Sunni tradition’s balanced approach to theology, spirituality, and exegesis.