Why Are Ḥāshiyas Overlooked? Canonization Bias and the Invisibility of Intellectual Innovation in the Islamic Scholarly Tradition

The ḥāshiya remains underrepresented in the intellectual historiography of Islam because hierarchies of knowledge tend to place the matn (core text) and sharḥ (commentary) at the center of authority. In contrast, subsequent commentaries are relegated to derivative categories and judged against standards of originality rooted in individual authorship. This situation limits historiography’s ability to recognize the transformations of knowledge that occur through the practice of commentary and intertextual relationships. This article analyzes the mechanisms behind the invisibility of the ḥāshiya and formulates patterns of intellectual innovation identifiable through intertextual reading. The study employs a library-based research methodology—integrating approaches from intellectual history, philology, discourse analysis, and intertextuality—to examine the matn–sharḥ–ḥāshiya corpus and relevant historiographical literature. The analysis focuses on textual relationships, responses to prior authorities, shifts in argumentative structures, concept reformulation, and the adaptation of ideas to different intellectual contexts. The findings indicate that the invisibility of the ḥāshiya arises from three interconnected mechanisms: a genre hierarchy that equates commentary with mere reproduction; the institutionalization of learning, which centers on canonical texts; and modern historiography, which prioritizes individual novelty as the benchmark for intellectual contribution. Intertextual analysis reveals patterns of innovation—such as resolving interpretive problems, selecting and synthesizing authorities, making argumentative corrections, reconstructing concepts, and recontextualizing knowledge—showing that ḥāshiya-based innovation is relational and cumulative, and thus ill-suited to evaluation through the paradigm of individual originality. These findings offer a historiographical framework that positions commentary networks as the locus of knowledge transformation, thereby broadening the understanding of the dynamics of Islamic intellectual production.