|
progress: n.
a. movement, as toward a goal; advance.
b. development or growth.
c. steady improvement, as of a society or civilization.
progress: intr.v.
pro·gressed, pro·gress·ing,
pro·gress·es
a. to advance toward a higher or better stage.
|
Saturday, November 30, 2002
Towards developing a hermeneutical model of the Qur'an (I)
Part I: An introduction to the concept of the coherency of the Qur'an
The Qur'an is considered the source of a Muslims faith. In fact, in the eyes of a Muslim it is afforded a quality and height that no other work ever has, or ever will, be allowed to attain. Therefore, what it says is very important, since it determines the principles with which a Muslim views the world. Indeed the Qur'an calls itself "The Criterion" (between truth and falsehood).
So how does one approach the Qur'an, and indeed what does it say? Historically, the interpretation of the Qur'an has been carried out by a religious scholars, known in Islamic parlance as the `Ulema (literally meaning "learned"). Any Muslim, of whatever sect or persuasion, has historically learnt from a religious school which has built up around the considered person. This is why a religious scholar is held with the highest esteem in the Muslim community (religious knowledge is considered the pinnacle of any learning). This obviously makes sense. As the well worn argument goes, "you don't go to a car mechanic if your tooth hurts."
A study of the history of development of Islamic law is outside the scope of this current blog (though I've been trawling through books and it is a fasinating read; much more complex and dynamic than the current state of Muslim scholarhsip would have us believe). What I'd like to address in this blog is the approach which has become the acceptable method of interpretating the Qur'an; that is the somewhat piecemeal and seemingly ad hoc hermeneutic.
The Qur'an, at first glance, does indeed seem like a collection of jumbled verses, put together in an ad hoc fashion (especially in the English translation). There seems to be no chapter dedicated to a single subject. You cannot, for instance, demand to read a chapter covering only Jesus (p) (though the relevant verses can be bunched together); or a chapter dedicated only to rules of warfare. These, seemingly, unrelated verses has been one of the main criticism of the Qur'an. It lacks any coherence say the non-Muslims objecting to the common claim by Muslims of the "inimitability" of the Qur'an. In fact, this apparent incoherence has led some to believe it was not solely the "work" of Muhammad (p). [1]
So what has been the Traditional response? It has, quite surprisingly, been concessive. Yes, say the Muslim scholars. The Qur'an is indeed piecemeal; afterall, it was revealed during the 23 year Prophetic Mission of Muhammad (p), usually in response to some situation the Prophet (p) and his followers found themselves in. Therefore, any talk of coherence is usually off the mark and is simply not a criteria with which one can judge the Qur'an.
There are actually two modes of arrangement: the revelatory and the compiled, the latter of which is the arrangement found in the Qur'an since earlier times. This latter mode was supervised by the Prophet (p) personally. But the obvious question arises: Why did the Prophet (p) arrange the Qur'an in this particular order? Why no just leave it in the revelatory order? Surely it must have been for a reason, and the reason cannot have been the chronological order, since this was abandonded. Indeed, if the arrangement has no particular function can anyone rearrange the Qur'an? [2]
In contradistinction to the Traditional approach, Hamid ad-Din Abdul Hakim al-Farahi, from the village of Phirah (hence his name) in northern India, proposed a theory which opposes the notion that arrangement has little to no significance. [3]
What Farahi argued was that not only was there a defnite coherent (this is the key word for reasons you'll understand below) structure to the Qur'an, which gave it a linguistic beauty, but that this coherent structure was the key to revealing the meaning of the Qur'an in full. In fact it is the only key.
Farahi's famous student, Amin Ahsan Islahi, another scholar from Uttra Pradesh, extracted and explained the ideas of his teacher. He used the rules of exegesis laid down by Farahi, to write his famous commentry on the Qur'an, entitled Tadabbur-e-Qur'an (Reflection on the Qur'an). [4] Islahi said the Qur'an consisted of the following structure:
1. The axis of the chapter: Each chapter in the Qur'an has a dominant concept or idea. This is the 'axis' upon which it rests, and drives home the message. Every single verse, or collection of verses, is isolated throughout the chapter. They are all related to this axis.
2. The pairing of the chapters: The majority of the chapters exist in pairs and form a unit. They complement each other. An example of this is chapters 8 and 9. The only exceptions to this are the first chapter, which is the preface to the Qur'an, where the reader is asking for Guidance from his Lord; and some other chapters which are actually appendics to the preceeding units, so are not really "exceptions".
3. The groupings of the chapters: The Qur'an consists of seven groups. Like each chapter and each unit, these too have a theme which is central to their understanding. Each group also consists of the themes from other groups, but as a subsiduary. This forms a closely knitted structure.
4. The unity of the entire Qur'an: Each group of chapters leads to the next, in a coherent and meaningful manner. This makes the Qur'an a unified book, not an ad hoc collection of verses and injunctions.
It must too be pointed out that by coherencey it is meant that there is an organic unity. As Mustansir Mir explains:
"A connection, howsoever weird and far-fetched, can be established between any two objects of the universe. But organic unity implies the presence of a harmonious interrelationship between the components of a body or entity which produces a unified whole, a whole which is over and above the sum total or the components of and has worth and meaning in itself."
The beauty of this organic unity is that it is not unique to the Qur'an. It is in fact a pattern established by God in the entire universe. Like a human being, the Qur'an is an organism, where the parts make the whole, but the whole is greater than sum of the parts. Though Muslim philosophers, theologians and thinkers have always stressted the verses of the Qur'an exhorting man to ponder over the Universe and mans place in it (i.e. develop a coherency between man and his surroundings), it is surprising that no such attempt was made to look the unity of the very book they took as their guide.
Another logical extraction is that sectarianism can be tackled by stressing the unity of the Qur'an. Each sect revels in its own tenants (as paraphrased from the Qur'an) and does this by pointing to this verse or that to support their own doctrines. And this, over the years, has led to bigotry and hatred. Furthermore, this atomistic approach to the Qur'an has led the likes of bin Laden, Abu Hamza, Bakri et al. to quote this verse or that, to support their "Jihaad" against the "infidel".
In adding a unification to the Qur'an, Farahi then Islahi, allowed for a more holistic approach to the studies of the ahadeeth literature, history, sciences, philosophy and so on. Here too, especially in the ahadeeth compilations and the study of history, narrations are isolated and shown in light of the polemic which best suits the sectarian or partisan view. A holism in the approach to the Islamic sciences can help tackle this.
In the next part to this series, I'd like to give a few examples of this approach. It will highlight the difference simply taking the context of the verses as a whole can make. Later, in Part III, I'd like to address the fundamental concept with which the Qur'an needs to be understood. This concept was built upon the coherent structure of the Qur'an by Islahi, though expanded by his students. In the last part, I'd like to look at other approaches towards developing viable hermeneutics, especially those of Fazlur Rahman and Amina Wadud. I shall also give a small reading list.
Notes
[1] As a Muslim I, of course, too would say it not the work of Muhammad (p): to me it would be a Divine Revelation to Muhammad (p) by God (avoiding the issue of the actual mechanisms for now). But even some non-Muslims agree, without accepting the Divine origin of the Qur'an, that the Qur'an is indeed "the work of Muhammad (p)". And I would argue too that I have credible historical evidence on my side to show that in fact the only mundane (i.e. this-world) authority of the contents of the Qur'an is indeed the Prophet (p). This work cited is, however, a little old, and has long been questioned for its accuracy.
[2] In fact the Qur'an has been rearranged in chronological order of each chapter by J. Rodwell (The Koran, London: 1861) and N. J. Dawood (The Koran, London: 1956). H. A. Ali (The Message of the Qur'an Presented in Perspective, Tokyo: 1974) went a step further and rearranged even the verses within each chapter!
[3] One thing that does surprise me is that though the Unity of God (Tawheed) is the central theme of almost all (if not all) the "Islams" we see today, there exists no such unity of the intellectual process in studying their own texts, nor their own histories. In fact Muslim scholarship seems shorn of any unified holism. A stark contradiction, in my opinion.
:: this was posted by thabet at 08:36
Traditional Islamic hermeneutics
Zachary Latif, of Latif's Cavern, has blogged a piece from his father, on the contradictions which underpin the traditional approach towards understanding the Qur'an, and moreso how this understanding affects Muslims attitudes towards non-Muslims. I do recommend reading this, especially for any Muslims who might read this blog.
At a first read, one might get the impression that the article attacks the Qur'an, and the Prophet (p) and the attitude of Muslims towards non-Muslims. Indeed he also cites examples of scholarly works from Traditional Islamic sources, and uses these to argue that fighting and subjegating the Kaafir [1] is the ultimate duty of Muslims. Islam, it is said, in the end must rule over all peoples. The Muslim defence of using the "there is no compulsion in religion" verse, is a phantom which has no basis in Islamic scholarship.
However, the article only uses Classical Islam as a source of understanding the Qur'an. Being a Muslim, I find that I need only "blindly" accept the person of the Prophet (p), and not a single other human being. As is evident with any human activity, we need people who are experts in their respective fields. I would hope, that being a pipeline integrity engineer, anyone needing advice on looking after their existing pipeline system would ask me for help. I could advise them, but in the end the responsiblity would be theirs. And that is how it ought to be. Blindly accepting other peoples interpretations without fully appreciating there signifiance is useless (and this is the current predicament the Muslim world finds itself in). In fact this leads to a secondary, or some cases tertiary, understanding. It does take time, however. In these modern times we find that pondering thoughtfully (rather than pondering luboriously) is almost non-existent. In all honesty, I too can suffer from this malady. So don't forget to point this out to me!
Therefore, as a sort of counter to his father's argument, I plan on writing a few words that question this Traditional hermeneutic. This will not be a word-by-word rebuttal of the article, linked above, but an alternative approach, which I feel better represents the Qur'anic Weltanschauung. I will not bother engaging in an outright defence of the Classical approach, since I too believe it has contradictory elements (though its founding principles still have a lot to offer and should not be discarded but reformed). This contradiction is borne out by its idiosyncratic "atomisation" of the Qur'an (and hadeeth [2]). In this process, traditional Islamic scholarship can tend to remove historical and textual context, and all too often ignores other areas of human endeavour (especially the humanities [3]). And end result of such an approach is that the Qur'an has usually ended up being interpreted as a collection of legal injunctions; a list of do's and dont's. I feel this is not the case. But as with anything, God knows best.
Notes
[1] The word kaafir is usually translated as "disbeliever [in the Islamic faith]" or "Rejector [of the Islamic faith]" and has historically meant any non-Muslim. However, as I plan on showing later, modern Muslim scholarship dispels this notion.
[2] I am sure most people, who have been following any semblance of Islamic discourse in recent months, will have realised that hadeeth in Islamic parlance means the words or doings (or silent approval) of the Prophet (p). I will mention a few words, hopefully, in my article.
[3] This has also been noticed by another Muslim blogger, the rather boisterous Muslimpundit.
:: this was posted by thabet at 07:17
Sunday, November 24, 2002
Why this blog?
Why did I choose to start this weblog? Several reasons, really. But the main reason was those events which happened last year, and the general fallout, which has affected many people.
In the aftermath of 11 September, the West learnt about a new religion, so we are told. It learnt about those in their midst, who had until now been almost anonymous, with the odd news story here and there. It became increasingly obviously that people who called themselves 'Muslims' had to choose "to be with 'us' or against 'us'". Was the "either/or" dichotomy, so ingrained in Western thought, the only way forward? Did opposing so-called "Islamofacists" [1] mean Muslims had to support warmongers from the other side? Did rejecting war rhetoric from Bush et al. mean Muslims supported the proponents of murder and mayhem or "Islamism" [2]?
No. I found that a Muslim, like any sane reasonable person, really ought to reject those arrogant, self-righteous types, who fail to see the wrongs inside their own communities. At the same time, this never meant a Muslim couldn't adhere to his/her faith, or reject those who had alterior motives in pursuing other agendas.
It is time for Muslims to stand up and throw away those shackles from the intellectual incompetence and lack of spirit which has been their hallmark for the last few years or more.
Though the main gist of this weblog will concentrate around the above, but I will not apologise for anything else. That is afterall the nature of these blogs. I will also present my personal experiences; those which affect me as an ethnic minority living in the United Kingdom, and as someone who has recently found God.
I would always appreciate comments and criticisms on my thoughts; though I'd prefer constructive criticisms :-)
Regards!
Notes
[1] The word most often used today is "fundamentalist". I find the use of this word erroneous, since by analogy (to the original use of the word to Biblical literalists) all Muslims are "fundamentalists". I found this word ("Islamofacist") on a talk board, I sometimes contribute to.
[2] "Islamsim" has been used in todays popular news media to describe the ideology of those people who think they have a Divine right to make war and subjegate every person. In short it describes either bin Laden, Talibaan or anyone else in that mould. However, it has a correct scholastic term, which has nothing at all to do with mass murder. Correctly, it describes one who holds that Islam should form the basis for any Muslim revival. So in this way it can cover people from al-Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon, to Sayyid Qutb, the well-known Egyptian Islamist, to Rachid Gannouchi, the contemporary Tunisian poltical thinker.
:: this was posted by thabet at 08:24
Saturday, November 23, 2002
Salaam/Namaste/Greetings!
And a (belated) Ramadhaan Mubarak to all Muslims. May God bless anyone who searches for Him in these days and nights.
Read on!
Regards
:: this was posted by thabet at 09:34
|
|
