The Quran is a book1.
It is not a collection of different, structurally unrelated sayings. The
arrangement of the verses of the Quran, though not chronological, is Divinely
ordained2. Therefore, a Muslim
must accept the fact that there is an underlying wisdom in the arrangement.
Each verse and each suurah (chapter) must be interpreted in relation to
the context. For this purpose, it is important to understand and appreciate
the language and the style of the Quran thoroughly.
The language of the Quran is the Arabic
of the Prophet’s (sws) time. To be more precise, the Quran was revealed
in the dialect of the people of ummul quraa3.
The style of the Quran is literary4.
Anyone who wishes to interpret the Quran seriously and responsibly must
have a thorough command over its language and have the ability to appreciate
literature in general.
For an ordinary Muslim, the Quran
is the easiest book in that his objective in reading the Quran is remembrance
of God and of the responsibility life entails. For a scholar, however,
it is perhaps the most difficult. A scholar has to pay attention to each
and every stress, for slight misinterpretation can play havoc with countless
lives. Interpreting the basic book of the second largest religious community
in the world is a very serious responsibility and must be taken as such.
This article will discuss three major
approaches towards Quranic exegesis, which have sometimes led to gross
misinterpretation owing to their inappropriate use. These approaches may
be categorised for the sake of convenience in understanding them as follows:
1. The grammatical approach
2. The rationalising approach
3. The historical approach.
Two things must be understood about the
terms that have been coined in this article to categorise these approaches:
first, the terms have been used rather derogatively to emphasise that absurd
use of these approaches has often led people to draw absolutely preposterous
conclusions; second, despite the fact that the correct approach of interpretation
is basically not dependent on any of the above mentioned ones, the correct
principles of grammar, genuine rationality and indubitable records of history
do not stand in contradication to the true interpretation of the Quran.
To sum up, these approaches have a
role in enhancing one’s understanding, but, when overemphasised and used
unintelligently, can lead to absolutely absurd results. Let’s take an example
from the English language to see how this may be.
Here’s a sentence: ‘Take a walk’.
The grammatical approach (remember: in the negative sense of word) would
be something like this: ‘To take’ is a transitive verb (meaning to obtain),
‘a walk’ (meaning to move around or in a specific direction using one’s
legs) is the object and ‘you’ is the implied subject. Therefore, the meaning
of the sentence is that the addressee should move using his legs. ‘You’
can refer to some specific person or to the reader. Therefore, the speaker
(or the writer of the sentence) wants you or wanted some specific person
to go for a walk.
The rationalising approach (in the
derogative sense of the word again) would rely heavily on the earlier or
the last approach and then try to rationalise an absurd or seemingly absurd
interpretation; for example, having assumed that the speaker wanted the
addressee to go for a walk, the rationalising approach would try to highlight
the merits of walking and explain (and form) its philosophy. A further
degenerated version of this approach can be seen in the interpretations
of those who try to discover the principles of atomic fusion and the mysteries
of biological microcosms in the pages of the Quran to allude to its divinity.
So, in our example, the interpretation of the one obsessed with the idea
of discovering science in the Quran might be that the speaker wants the
addressee to fight diabetes by walking regularly.
Here, a brief mention must be made
of another novel method of Quranic exegesis. This method seems to be an
offshoot of the rationalising approach, but it is very interesting and
equally absurd and therefore deserves to be commented on separately. The
approach, based on etymology, picks up any desired meaning from the roots
of a word. Now, suppose a certain Mr.P, interpreting the Quran through
this approach, feels that going for a walk these days is too difficult
or demode and that the speaker, a benevolent person, never intended the
addressee to have any problem or embarrassment in life and therefore decides
that ‘Take a walk’ cannot be interpreted as ‘going for a walk’. This
is how Mr. P might interpret the sentence: Webster defines ‘to take’, a
verb, as to get hold of, to grip and to grasp. ‘Walk’, from wealcan or
wealcian (to revolve), is a noun here (a walk) and as a noun can mean proper
place or sphere of action (see Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 2nd
edition, page 856) Mr.P, therefore, concludes that the speaker wants the
addressee to get hold of his proper place in life.
The historical approach (remember:
the term is still being used here in the negative sense) relies on isolated
narratives, which themselves might not be authentic. Their context is often
not clear. Frequently, the words quoted are not the speaker’s; each narrator
in the whole chain of narrators may have used his own words to report an
incident. It is obvious that something which itself needs confirmation
cannot form the basis for interpreting the Quran. Historical records5
pertaining to religion should be analysed on the basis of the Quran and
not vice versa.
A person using (rather misusing) this
approach might interpret ‘Take a walk’ thus: It was reported to me by Mr
X, who was told by Mr Y, who in turn was told by Mr Z that when the speaker
of the sentence uttered ‘Take a walk’, there was an athletic event going
on. So he must have wanted the addressee to take part in a walking race.
Many people using the approaches mentioned
above are also fond of giving numerous interpretations to just one sentence,
all of which may conflict with one another, leaving the reader confused
as to what the meaning actually is. As already stated, none of these approaches
is wrong per se. However, they are best used as devices to enhance understanding
rather than as bases for interpretation, for the best and truly appropriate
basis for interpreting the Quran is the Quran itself: its language, its
style and its context.
A person using this correct approach
(who must be competent enough to use it, that is he must have a thorough
grasp of the language and the style of the Quran and have the ability to
appreciate the diction of the Quran and literature) might interpret ‘Take
a walk’ as follows: It is obvious from the speaker’s style in other sentences
spoken by him in the same context that he is an American. The event may
be an athletic competition, but it is clear, again from the context, that
a young man is being reprimanded by his boss for doing a job improperly.
‘Take a walk’ then, in the American English of the time when this sentence
is known to have been spoken, can only mean that the speaker wanted the
addressee to ‘get lost’ -- and getting lost here has nothing to with getting
lost!
|