Comparison of Tabari and Maturidi in the example of sūrat al-A'raf

This study undertakes a comparative analysis of two seminal exegetical works from the classical Islamic tradition: Jāmiʿ al-Bayān ʿan Taʾwīl Āy al-Qurʾān by Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923), a renowned exegete, historian, and jurist; and Taʾwīlāt al-Qurʾān by Abū Manṣūr Muḥammad al-Māturīdī (d. 333/944), an influential exegete, jurist, and theologian. The presence of similarities or differences in how our exegetes who lived in different regions but breathed the scholarly atmosphere of the same period and completed their education in the surrounding areas reflected the knowledge they acquired has been investigated. This study seeks to elucidate the convergences and divergences in their exegetical methodologies and theological orientations, shaped as they were by distinct socio-cultural and scholastic environments. The primary aim is to determine whether, despite their temporal proximity, these exegetes exhibit notable differences in interpretive approach and hermeneutical frameworks, and to what extent these differences can be attributed to the socio-cultural structures and theological schools that informed their thought. The analysis is grounded in their respective magnum opuses, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān and Taʾwīlāt al-Qurʾān, which serve as the principal sources of this inquiry. Given the extensive scope of the Qur'anic corpus, the study narrows its focus to Sūrat al-Aʿrāf, selected for its thematic richness and interpretive diversity. Within this framework, the research examines the exegetical treatments of both scholars with regard to Qur'anic sciences, the incorporation and application of ancillary Islamic disciplines, and their respective engagement with earlier interpretive authorities. Particular attention is devoted to the methodological strategies employed in elucidating specific passages, the hermeneutical tools utilized, and the similarities and distinctions in their theological and jurisprudential inferences. The study concludes that, while occasional methodological parallels are observable, the two exegetes largely adhere to distinct interpretive paradigms. This divergence is significantly informed by the intellectual traditions and theological affiliations prevalent in their respective contexts.