Article

The sources of Abd’ Al-Rauf ‘s Tarjumān Al-Mustafid

From Munshipedia, the MBRAS digital historical encyclopedia

The sources of Abd’ Al-Rauf ‘s Tarjumān Al-Mustafid

Peter Riddell’s 1984 article, a work-in-progress report from his doctoral research at the Australian National University, challenges the long-standing scholarly consensus that Tarjuman al-Mustafid—the first full Qur’anic commentary extant in Malay, compiled by the 17th-century Acehnese scholar ʿAbd al-Raʾuf al-Singkili—is a translation of al-Baydawi’s Anwar al-Tanzil. Riddell argues instead that the work is a composite text whose core is a rendering of Tafsir al-Jalalayn, later expanded by ʿAbd al-Raʾuf’s student Daʿud Rumi with interpolations drawn from al-Khazin and al-Baydawi.

Summary

The article addresses a persistent misattribution in the history of Malay Islamic scholarship. Since the first printed edition in Istanbul (1302/1884), Tarjuman al-Mustafid has been identified as a translation of al-Baydawi’s authoritative commentary. Riddell traces the origin of this error to the title page of that edition, which stated the work was “taken partly” from al-Baydawi’s tafsir—a reference that Snouck Hurgronje subsequently misread as a wholesale translation claim, and which was then propagated by Rinkes, Voorhoeve, and later Southeast Asian printers who even dropped the original title in favour of one attributing the work directly to al-Baydawi (pp. 113–114).

Riddell’s method is close textual comparison. Using the Jakarta National Museum manuscript ML 116 as his primary witness, he examines passages from Surah al-Kahf (verses 75–88) and finds that the commentary embedded within the verse units is an almost literal rendering of Tafsir al-Jalalayn, with only minor insertions by ʿAbd al-Raʾuf himself (pp. 114–116). The faʾidah (pericope) sections, by contrast, are drawn from al-Khazin’s Lubab al-Taʾwil and, in some cases, al-Baydawi. Al-Khazin is frequently named in the text; al-Baydawi less consistently; but Tafsir al-Jalalayn is never mentioned at all in the body of the commentary (p. 116).

The solution to this puzzle comes from colophons in two manuscripts—one in the National Museum, Jakarta, and one in a private Acehnese collection—which record that Daʾud Rumi, a student and servant of ʿAbd al-Raʾuf, added to the text “most of the stories taken from al-Khazin and some of the qiraʾat readings” (pp. 116–117). Riddell concludes that ʿAbd al-Raʾuf’s original intention was to render Tafsir al-Jalalayn into Malay as a pedagogic tool, and that Daʾud Rumi’s later interpolations changed the character of the work without any copyist thinking to rebalance the attribution. The association with al-Baydawi, Riddell suggests, was either an honest failure to recognise the Jalalayn’s central role or a deliberate elevation of the work’s prestige by attaching it to a more renowned name (p. 117).

Key Findings

  • The first printed edition (Istanbul, 1302/1884) stated the work was “taken partly” from al-Baydawi’s tafsir; Snouck Hurgronje misread this as a full translation claim in The Acehnese (1906, II.17 n.6), and the error was inherited by Rinkes (1909) and Voorhoeve (1952) (pp. 113–114).
  • Textual comparison of Surah al-Kahf:83–88 (Jakarta MS ML 116) shows the verse-unit commentary is an almost literal rendering of Tafsir al-Jalalayn [ref. al-Suyuti 1385: 399–400], with only two minor insertions by ʿAbd al-Raʾuf (“ya Muhammad” in v. 83, “akan Allah” in v. 88) (pp. 114–116).
  • The faʾidah on the origin of the name Dhuʾl-Qarnayn (v. 84) is taken literally from al-Baydawi [Fleischer 1846: 572], while the faʾidah on v. 77 is explicitly attributed in the text to al-Khazin’s Lubab al-Taʾwil [Beirut ed. Vol. 3, p. 207] (pp. 115–116).
  • Colophons in two manuscripts (National Museum, Jakarta; private collection, Aceh) identify Daʾud Rumi as the author of the interpolations, specifying that he added “most of the stories taken from al-Khazin and some of the qiraʾat readings” (pp. 116–117).
  • A colophon in one manuscript refers to the work simply as Tafsir al-Jalalayn, a fact noted by Van Ronkel (1909: 368) but never followed up by subsequent scholars (p. 117).
  • All known manuscripts of Tarjuman al-Mustafid are fragments; no title pages survive, and the few colophons that suggest a title all post-date Daʾud Rumi’s interpolations (p. 117).

Conclusion

Riddell’s definitive takeaway is that Tarjuman al-Mustafid is not a translation of al-Baydawi’s Anwar al-Tanzil but a composite work whose foundational layer is a Malay rendering of Tafsir al-Jalalayn, subsequently expanded by ʿAbd al-Raʾuf’s student Daʾud Rumi with material from al-Khazin and al-Baydawi. The misattribution to al-Baydawi originated in a misreading of the 1884 Istanbul edition’s title page and was perpetuated by scholarly authority and, in later printings, by a deliberate strategy of associating the work with a more prestigious name to enhance its standing in the Malay Islamic world.

Context

  • The article is a preliminary report on Riddell’s doctoral research at the Australian National University under Professor A.H. Johns, and represents an early stage of what would become a more comprehensive study of the work’s sources and transmission history.
  • The primary archival evidence consists of ten manuscripts located by Riddell (including Jakarta MS ML 116 and a Pesantren Tanoh Abee manuscript), supplemented by the printed editions listed in the bibliography.

References