At the outset of this study, we formulated two complementary objectives. On the one hand, we expressed the wish to construct a history of Sufi eschatology using Qurʾan commentaries as our main source. Our two main hypotheses concerning Sufi eschatology has been that the vision of God is the most central theme for Sufi imaginations of the hereafter, and that Sufis do not strictly uphold the dunyā–ākhira divide. We expected that although Sufis leave a diachronic conception of history and eschatology intact, it goes hand in hand with a synchronic understanding of the dunyā–ākhira relationship. The boundary between this world and the otherworld can be crossed by seeing God in this-worldly life, a ‘taste’ of the vision in the world to come.

On the other hand, by using this thematic framework, we had the ambition to generate new knowledge about the genre of Sufi Qurʾan commentaries in the Islamic Earlier Middle Period (950–1250 CE). Concerning Sufi Qurʾan commentaries, we were mainly interested to see to what extent Sufi commentaries are genealogical, given the popular image of Sufism being ‘experiential’ and thus more subjective and original.

In this concluding chapter, I deal with each of these questions and hypotheses in the order in which I have introduced them in the preceding paragraphs. I end by suggesting three avenues for future research: the study of both Sufi eschatology and Sufi tafsīr in the later centuries; the need for critical editions of Sufi Qurʾan commentaries; and possible theoretical and methodological advances.

Sufi Qurʾan commentaries have proved to be a useful and varied source for the reconstruction of a (partial) history of Sufi eschatology. It must be said, however, that the expectation that verses on Paradise and Hell would provoke a lot of commentary, and could thus be complementary to the scattered discussions in Sufi handbooks, was only partly justified. Just as Sufi authors hardly included eschatological ideas in their handbooks on Sufism, they also mostly skipped those verses that deal with Paradise and Hell in their commentaries. When they did comment on these verses, it was rather to make a point on hierarchies of nearness and vision than to elaborate on understandings of reward and punishment.