This study critically examines the methodological frameworks of “crossing the boundary” and “center and periphery” proposed by Pieter Coppens in analyzing Sufi interpretations of the Qurʾān, highlighting their limitations and proposing alternative indigenous approaches. Coppensʾ frameworks, introduced in his book Seeing God in Sufi Qurʾan Commentaries: Crossings between This World and the Otherworld, focus on the relationship between the worldly and the otherworldly (crossing the boundary) and the position of Sufism within the broader Islamic tradition (center and periphery).
This study employs critical textual analysis, historical-social contextualization, and interdisciplinary methods to evaluate these frameworks, drawing on key Sufi exegeses such as Haqaʾiq al-Tafsīr by al-Sulamī (d. 412 AH), Latāʾif al-Ishārāt by al-Qushayrī (d. 465 AH), Kashf al-Asrār by Maybudī (6^th century AH), and ʿAraʾis al-Bayān by Ruzbihān Baqlī (d. 606 AH), alongside historical sources like Tarikh Nishabūr and Tārikh Baghdād.
The Crossing the Boundary framework, inspired by Christian Langeʾs concept of a thin boundary between this world and the next, posits that Sufi exegetes viewed divine vision (ruʾya) as a bridge traversable through mystical states. However, this framework oversimplifies the conceptual diversity in Sufi thought (e.g., fanāʾ, qurb, wahdat al-wujūd), ignores regional variations (e.g., Nishabūr, Baghdād, Andalusia), and relies heavily on non-indigenous theories, lacking sufficient textual evidence.
Similarly, The Center and Periphery model, adapted from Edward Shilsʾ sociological framework, positions Sufis like Qushayri and Sulami at the core of Islamic tradition due to their engagement with orthodox discourses. Yet, it fails to account for the complex, dynamic interactions between Sufis and traditional scholars, oversimplifies institutional rivalries, and applies a Western-centric model unsuitable for the decentralized Islamic context of the medieval period.
Textual evidence from Sufi exegeses reveals that concepts like tajalli (divine manifestation) and qurb (proximity to God) challenge the notion of a metaphysical boundary, as seen in Ruzbihanʾs view that “God manifests in the heart, negating the need for a boundary”. Historical sources, such as Tārikh Baghdād, confirm the marginalization of figures like al-Hallāj, contradicting the notion of Sufis consistently occupying the center.
To address these shortcomings, this study proposes indigenous frameworks rooted in Sufi concepts like fanāʾ, qurb, and tajalli, alongside methodological approaches such as textual-historical analysis, phenomenological inquiry, discursive analysis, and social network analysis. These alternatives, informed by scholars like Chittick, Saleh, Asad, and Safi, better capture the diversity and dynamism of Sufi exegesis within its Islamic context.
The findings contribute to refining the methodological tools for studying Sufi Qurʾanic interpretations, emphasizing the need for contextually grounded approaches that avoid orientalist stereotypes and overly generalized frameworks. By integrating indigenous concepts and interdisciplinary methods, this study strengthens the link between Sufi texts and their historical-social contexts, offering new avenues for future studies in Islamic mysticism.