One key element of the Islamic intellectual tradition is the commentary. Commentaries on the Qurʼan (tafsīr) began early in Islamic history, but from about the 12th or 13th century, well into the 19th, commentaries on other scholarly texts became extremely common. -jm

Usually a commentary is called a sharḥ, and a supercommentary (i.e. a commentary on a commentary) is called a ḥāshiyah. Sometimes you get all the way up to a fourth- or fifth-level supercommentary. -jm
Sometimes it's hard to even tell what the "core text" is, because even a very famous text that's the core of many commentaries might present itself as an abridgement or comment on something even earlier. -jm
Commentaries might serve multiple purposes: to explain obscure grammar or vocabulary, to dig into particular legal cases, etc. Even to show why the core text is wrong. Eventually you get some Ottoman Turkish commentaries that translate Persian poems and then comment on them. -jm
Authors of commentaries often mark quotes from the core text by key words like "qawluhu" ("what he said") and manuscripts often emphasize this by writing these words in red or putting a line over the quoted text, so you can figure out who is talking. -jm
Readers might add their own comments in the margins, and sometimes their students will later collect their marginal notes into a new commentary and edit it for publication. -jm
And then you have situations like this, where the scribe copies their own commentary in professional, elaborate style in the margin. -jm
A lot of Western scholars historically have dismissed this phase of Islamic scholarship because it's not "original," but I think it raises interesting questions about the way that scholars position ourselves in a tradition. This goes beyond just citing sources! -jm
Combine the commentary tradition with the sort of dynamic manuscripts that I discussed here (https://t.co/cnDobT6uSJ) and you see how these scholars are making their place in a scholarly lineage abundantly clear. -jm
Not trying to bring back the supercommentary, but it's interesting to think about a world where you can do good scholarship without trying to be the first person who thought of everything and instead show explicitly (visually!) how you're interacting with your predecessors. -jm
Manuscripts in this thread: https://t.co/GcpYPpV13A; https://t.co/zUb9PT2asx; https://t.co/ANBa1Gje7E; https://t.co/YP2YM2Vj3R; https://t.co/Kd135PZQ8r; https://t.co/zxS6WTDifE; https://t.co/5YdszJx6It

More from Tweeting Historians

More from Religion

You May Also Like

The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."


We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.

Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)

It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.

Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".