Common ground

All exegetes (Taberî, Râzî, Kurtubî, Ibn Kesîr, Beydâvî) agree that the expression 'devils' does not refer to actual devils, but rather to the hypocrites' own leaders/chiefs (leaders of disbelief and evil, Jewish rabbis, polytheist/hypocrite chiefs). Furthermore, all of them share the basic narrative that hypocrites claimed faith to the believers but revealed their true intentions (mockery, disbelief) when they turned to their own associates. The linguistic importance of the letter 'إلى' in the expression 'خلوا إلى' (in Taberî, Kurtubî, Ibn Kesîr) and the rhetorical significance of the difference between verbal and nominal clauses in addressing believers versus devils (in Râzî and Beydâvî) are commonly emphasized points. References to early exegetes such as Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, Katade, and Al-Suddi as sources of transmission are also common.

Differences

While Taberî relies primarily on transmission exegesis and places pre-Islamic era and successor scholar reports in the foreground, he uses linguistic analysis to support these reports. Kurtubî, on the other hand, presents multiple possibilities such as the semantic variety of the word 'huzû' (scorn/vengeance) and the identity of 'devils' (leaders of disbelief/jinn devils/soothsayers), and he also increases linguistic depth by performing morphological and grammatical analysis of the verb 'لقوا' — a contribution not seen in the others. Râzî and Beydâvî, however, focus more on rhetoric and stylistic analysis (the distinction between verbal and nominal clauses, the emphasis function of the particle 'inne'); Beydâvî particularly emphasizes that this scene is not a 'repetition' but carries the purpose of clarifying the hypocrites' sects, which stands out as an interpretive contribution. Ibn Kesîr balances reports (particularly by adding Jewish rabbis when discussing the identity of 'devils') and linguistic analysis in an equilibrated manner, but does not delve into technical details such as morphology and grammar. These differences stem from Taberî and Ibn Kesîr being closer to the transmission exegesis school, Râzî and Beydâvî being closer to the jurisprudential/rhetorical school, and Kurtubî demonstrating an approach that synthesizes both methods.

Historical context

The earliest exegete Taberî (3rd/9th century) represents the classical transmission exegesis tradition and relies on the method of collecting views from Companions and Successors. Over time, with Râzî (6th/12th century), jurisprudential exegesis and theological/rhetorical analysis come to the forefront; influenced by Al-Zamakhsharî's Al-Kashshaf, linguistic and rhetorical analyses gain prominence. Kurtubî (7th/13th century) continues both approaches (transmission and jurisprudential) together, while expanding exegetical methodology by adding juridical and morphological-grammatical dimensions. Ibn Kesîr (8th/14th century) remains closer to the Taberî line by prioritizing transmission exegesis, but does not neglect linguistic analysis. The latest exegete Beydâvî (late 7th/13th century-early 8th century, after Râzî) pursues an entirely jurisprudential and rhetorical approach, continuing the rhetorical analysis tradition initiated by Râzî in a concise manner. In conclusion, while the fundamental meaning (the identity of the devils, the hypocrites' two-facedness) remained stable over centuries, the methodological emphasis shows a trend from transmission toward jurisprudential exegesis, from reporting toward linguistic/rhetorical analysis — which is consistent with the general development line of the exegetical tradition.