|
list
|
..
|
The
Holy Quran:
(Note:
The superscript-numbers [e.g., intention2]
that
appear in the text [in
pink]
refer to the numbers of the explanatory footnotes that
appear in this chapter)
How and When the
Quran was Revealed:
The original
source1
from which all principles and ordinances of Islam are
drawn is the Holy Book called
al-Quran.2
The name Quran is frequently mentioned in the book
itself3
which also states to whom, how, why, when, and in what
language, it was delivered. It was revealed to Muhammad:
"And (who) believe in that which has been revealed to
Muhammad -- and it is the Truth from their Lord" (47:2). It
was revealed in the month of Ramadzan on a certain night
which thenceforward received the name of the Night of
Majesty4
(Lailat al-Qadr): "The month of Ramadzan is that in
which the Quran was revealed" (2:185); "We revealed it on a
blessed night" (44:3); "Surely We revealed it on the Night
of Majesty" (97:1). It was revealed in Arabic language: "So
We have made it easy in thy tongue that they may be mindful"
(44:58); "Surely We have made it an Arabic Quran that you
may understand" (43:3). It was revealed in portions, every
portion being written and committed to memory as soon as it
was revealed, and the revelation was spread over
twenty-three years of the Prophet's life, during which time
he was occupied solely with the reformation of a benighted
world: "And it is a Quran which we made distinct, so that
thou mayest read it to the people by slow degrees, and We
have revealed it in portions" (17:106). It was not the
Prophet who spoke under influence of the Holy Spirit; it was
a Divine Message brought by the angel
Gabriel,5
and delivered in words to the Prophet who communicated it to
mankind: "And surely this is a revelation from the Lord of
the worlds. The Faithful Spirit has brought it on thy heart
that thou mayest be a warner, in plain Arabic language"
(26:192-195); "Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel -- for surely
he revealed it to thy heart by Allah's command" (2:97); "The
Holy Spirit has revealed it from thy Lord with the truth"
(16:102).
|
1
Generally the sources are said to be four, the
Quran, the Sunnah or Hadith (Doings and Sayings of
the Prophet Muhammad as preserved in collections of
Tradition), Ijma' or unanimous agreement
of the Muslim community and Qiyas or
reasoning. The former two are called
al-adilat al-qat'iyya or absolutely sure
arguments, and the latter two as al-adilat
al-ijtihadiyya or agruments obtained by
exertion. But as ijma' and qiyas
are admittedly based on the Quran and the Hadith
(Tradition), the latter itself being only an
explanation of the Quran, as well be shown later
on, the Quran is actually the real foundation on
which the whole superstructure of Islam rests, and
being the only, absolute and final authority in
every discussion relating to the principles and
laws of Islam, it is perfectly right to say that
the Quran, is the sole source from which all the
teachings and practices of Islam are
drawn.
2
The word Quran is an infinitive noun from
the root qara'a which signifies primarily
he collected together things (LA.). It also
signifies: he read or recited,
because in reading or reciting, letters and words
are joined to each other in a certain order (R.).
"According to some authorities, the name of this
book al-Quran from among the world Divine books is
due to its gathering together in itself the fruits
of all His books, rather its being a collection of
the fruits of all the sciences, a reference to
which is contained in the words, 'an explanation of
all things'" (R.). It also means a book that is
or should be read, containing a prophetical
reference to its being "the most widely read book"
(En. Br.) in the whole world. The Quran speaks of
itself under various other names. It is called
al-Kitab (2:2) meaning the Writing which
is complete in itself; al-Furqan (25:1) or the
Distinction between right and wrong and between
truth and falsehood; al-Dhikra, al-Tadhkira
(15:9) or the Reminder or a source of eminence
and glory to man; al-Tanzil (26:192) or the
Revelation from on High; Ahsan al-Hadith
(39:23) or the Best Saying; al-Mau'iza
(10:57) or the Admonition; al-Hukm
(13:37) or the Judgment; al-Hikma
(17:39) or the Wisdom; al-Shifa (10:57)
or the Healing; al-Huda (72:13) or the
Guidance; al-Rahma (17:82) or the Mercy;
al-Khair (3:103) or the Goodness; al-Ruh
(42:52) or the Spirit or the Life;
al-Bayan (3:137) or the Explanation;
al-Ni'ma (93:11) or the Blessing; al-Burhan
(4:175) or the Argument; al-Qayyim
(18:2) or the Maintainer; al-Muhaimin (5:48)
or the Guardian; al-Nur (7:157) or the
Light; al-Haqq (17:81) or the Truth.
Besides these it is mentioned by several other
names; and there is also a large number of
qualifying words applied to it. For instance, it is
called Karim (56:77) or Honourable;
Majid (85:21) or Glorious; Hakim (36:2)
or Wise; Mubarak (21:50) or Blessed
(lit. a thing the goodness of which shall
never be intercepted); Mubin (12:1) or the
one making things manifest; 'Aliyy (43:4) or
Elevated; Fasl (86:13) or Decisive;
'Azim (39:67) or of great importance;
Mukarram or Honoured. Marfu' or
Exalted, Mutahharah or Purified
(80:13, 14); Mutashabih (39:23) or
conformable in its various parts.
3
2:185; 10:37, 61; 17:106, etc.
4
The Lailat al-Qadr or the Night of Majesty
is one of three nights in the month of Ramadzan,
25th, 27th or
29th, i.e., the night preceding
any of these dates (Bu.32:4). The Prophet was, at
the time when revelation first came to him, forty
years of age.
5
It should be noted that the Quran uses the words
Holy Spirit and Gabriel interchangeably. In one of
the reports speaking of the first revelation to the
Prophet the angel who brought the revelation is
called al-Namus al-Akbar, or the great
Namus, and Namus means the angel
who is entrusted with Divine secrets (N.); the
Divine secrets, of course, being the Divine
messages to humanity sent through the prophets of
God. The same report adds that it was the same
angel that brought revelation to Moses. Thus both
the Quran and the reports make it clear that Divine
revelation was brought to the Prophet, as well as
to the prophets before him, by the angel Gabriel
who is also called the Holy Spirit or the Faithful
Spirit or the great Namus. This clears up
all doubts as to what is meant by the Holy Spirit
in Islam; and in the mouths of the Old Testament
prophets, as well as Jesus Christ, it carried
exactly the same significance. It is true that
there is not the same clarity here as in Islam; but
it is equally true that the orthodox Christian
conception of the Holy Spirit was quite unknown to
the Jewish mind, and in this respect Jesus Christ
was a staunch Jew, his terminology being taken in
its entirety from the Jews. In the Old Testament
terminology, the form used is the Spirit or the
spirit of God. In Ps 51:11 and Is. 63:10, 11 the
form used is Holy Spirit which is also the form
adopted in the Talmud and Midrash. The Holy Ghost
is peculiar to the New Testament writers. The Jews
looked upon it as one of the created things; it was
among the ten things that were created on the first
day (En.J.). The function of the Holy Spirit is
described thus:
"The visible results
of the activity of the Holy Spirit, according to
the Jewish conception, are the books of the
Bible, all of which have been composed under its
inspiration. All the prophets spoke "in the Holy
Spirit"; and the most characteristic sign of the
presence of the Holy Spirit is the gift of
Prophecy, in the sense that the person upon whom
it rests beholds the past and the future. With
the death of the last three prophets, Haggai,
Zechariah and Malachi, the Holy Spirit ceased to
manifest itself in Israel" (En. J.).
It is clear from this that
the Jewish idea was that the Holy Spirit brought
inspiration to the prophets, the only difference
between this and the Islamic conception being that
the latter looks upon the very words of revelation
as proceeding from a Divine source, while the
former apparently regards the words as being those
of the prophet speaking under the influence of the
Holy Spirit.
Jesus Christ and his
disciples used the word in exactly the same sense.
Jesus' first experience of the Holy Spirit in the
form of a dove was the result of his baptism by
John (Mt. 3:16) which seems to indicate its
association with a certain stage in the spiritual
development of man. The Holy Spirit did not descend
upon him until he was baptised. The idea of a
dove-like form is also met with in the Jewish
literature. Moreover, Jesus speaks of the Holy
Spirit as inspiring the righteous servants of God:
"How then doth David in spirit call him Lord?" (Mt.
22:43); "For David himself said by the Holy Ghost"
(Mk. 12:36); the Holy Spirit is given to them that
ask Him (Lk. 11:13). Even the disciples' first
experience of the Holy Spirit is a repetition of
the old Jewish tradition. As there we find the
Spirit coming with "a voice of a great rushing"
(Ezk. 3:12), so in the case of the disciples of
Jesus "there came a sound from heaven as of a
rushing mighty wind" (Acts, 2:2). Thus the Holy
Spirit as conceived by Jesus and his disciples was
the same as in the Old Testament prophets, which
again is almost identical with its conception in
Islam, and the orthodox Christian view of the
spirit as one of the three persons of the Godhead,
co-eternal with God, is of later growth.
|
It is the Highest
Form of Revelation:
Though the Quran was revealed
piecemeal through Gabriel, yet the entire revelation is one
whole. Delivered in one and the same manner. Revelation, we
are told in the Quran, is granted to man in three forms:
"And it is not vouchsafed to any mortal that Allah should
speak to him, except by revelation (wahy) or from
behind a veil, or by sending a messenger and revealing by
His permission what He pleases" (42:51). The first of these
three modes is called wahy, which is generally
translated as meaning revelation. Since the different
kinds of revelation are spoken of here, the word wahy
is obviously used in its literal sense, its primary
significance being a hasty suggestion (al-isharat
al-sari'ah) (R.). Hence the inspired word, which
enters the hearts of the prophets and of the righteous, is
called wahy because it is like a sudden suggestion
made directly to the heart of the inspired one (ilqa-'un
fi'l-rau'). It is not a message in words but simply an
idea which comes like a flash and clears up a doubt or
difficulty, and it is not the result of
meditation.6
The second mode is described as speaking from behind a veil
-- a scene, carrying a deeper significance, is shown as in a
vision (kashf), or in a dream (ru'ya), or
words are heard by the person spoken to, as if coming from
behind a veil. The third mode is that in which the angel
bearing the message is sent to the recipient of the Divine
revelation, and the message is delivered in words, and this
is the highest form of revelation. As already stated, the
angel entrusted with Divine message in words is Gabriel or
the Holy Spirit, and this third mode of revelation is
limited to the prophets of God only -- to men entrusted with
important Divine messages to humanity -- while the first two
lower forms of revelation are common to prophets as well as
those who are not prophets. For the delivery of the higher
message which relates to the welfare of mankind, a higher
form of revelation is chosen, a form in which the message is
not simply an idea but is clothed in actual words. The
Prophet's faculty of being spoken to by God is so highly
developed that he receives the messages, not only as ideas
instilled into the mind or in the form of words uttered or
heard under influence of the Holy Spirit, but actually as
Divine messages in words delivered through the latter. In
the terminology of Islam this is called "revelation that
is recited" (wahy matluww) and the Quran was,
from beginning to end, delivered in this form to the
Prophet, as the quotations earlier given from the Book
itself make it abundantly clear. It does not contain any
other form of revelation. It is in its entirely wahy
matluww or revelation recited to the Prophet distinctly
in words, and is thus wholly the highest form of Divine
revelation.
|
6
Raghib suggests a slightly different
interpretation. He makes wahy include not
only an inspiration or a suggestion thrown into the
mind but also taskhir, i.e., making a
certain thing follow a certain course in obedience
to the laws of nature, an example of which is the
revelation to the bee (16:68), and manam,
i.e., dreams. And the second form, from
behind a veil, he looks upon as applying to the
case of Moses to whom, it is thought, God spoke in
a manner different from that in which He spoke to
the other prophets, that is to say, He spoke to him
being invisible to him. Now, as regards the
revelation to the bee, it is a clear mistake, as
the verse states only how God speaks to men. And
the statement regarding the mode of revelation to
Moses is also a mistake, for the Quran lays form as
it had been granted to the prophets before him
including Moses: "Surely We have revealed to thee
as We revealed to Noah and the prophets after him"
(4:163); and Moses is specially mentioned in this
connection in v. 164. Hence the second mode, from
behind a veil, refers to ru'ya or dreams and
kashf or visions, because a certain sight is
shown in this case which has a deeper meaning than
that which appears on the surface. The dream or the
vision carries with it a certain meaning, but that
meaning is, as it were, under a veil and must be
sought for behind that veil. The dreams mentioned
in the Quran (ch. 12) are an illustration of this.
Joseph saw the sun and the moon and the eleven
stars making obeisance to him, and this signified
his greatness and his insight into things. A king
saw seven lean kine eat up seven fat ones, and the
meaning was that seven years of famine and hardship
would follow seven years of plenty and eat away the
hoarded corn of the country. Hence God's speaking
from behind a veil means His revealing certain
truths in dreams or visions. In a saying of the
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) these are called
mubashshrat: "Nothing has remained of
nubuwwah, i.e., receiving news from God,
except mubashshrat." Being asked "what was
meant by mubashshrat," the Prophet replied,
"good visions" (Bu. 92:5). In this category are
also included words which some righteous servants
of God are made to utter or which they hear under
the influence of the Holy Spirit.
|
Other Forms of
Divine Revelation to Men:
As stated above, prophets also
received the lower forms of Divine revelation. For example,
we are told in reports that before the higher message came
to the Prophet Muhammad -- i.e., before he received
the first Quranic revelation -- he used to have clear and
true visions. "The first of revelations that came to the
Messenger of Allah were good visions so that he did not see
a vision but it came out true as the dawn of the day" (Bu.
1:1). The Prophet's hearing of certain voices as mentioned
in the Traditions7
belongs to the same category, while the details of laws as
expounded by him, and as met with in his
practice,8
belong to the first form of revelation, an idea instilled
into the mind. This is called "inner revelation"
(wahy khafiyy). In the lower forms, revelation is
still granted to the righteous from among the followers of
the Prophet and even to others, for, as will be shown later,
in the lowest form revelation is the universal experience of
humanity. There is also a difference as to the method in
which the different kinds of revelation are received. While
the two lower forms of revelation involve but little change
in the normal condition of a man, whether awake or asleep,
and he is only occasionally transported to a state of
trance, the highest form, which is that peculiar to the
prophets, brings with it a violent change; it does, in fact,
require a real passing from one world to the other, while
the recipient is in a state of perfect wakefulness, and the
burden of revelation is not only felt by him but is also
visible to those who see him.
|
7
Tradition -- Hadith, Sayings of the
Prophet.
8
Practice -- Sunnah, Doings of the
Prophet.
|
The Prophet's
Experience of Revelation:
The Prophet first experienced
the higher revelation while he was alone in the cave of
Hira. Before this he had, from time to time, seen visions,
but when the angel came with the higher message, he found
himself quite exhausted: "He (Gabriel) seized me and
squeezed me to such an extent that I was quite exhausted",
and this was repeated thrice (Bu. 1:1). And even after he
reached home, the effect of exhaustion was still upon him
and he had to lie down covered over before he could relate
what had befallen. It was an equally hard experience when
the second message came to him after an interval of some
months. And even afterwards, the effect of the Spirit upon
him was so great that on the coldest of days perspiration
would run down his forehead: "I saw", says Aishah, his wife,
"revelation coming down upon him in the severest cold, and
when that condition was over, perspiration ran down his
forehead"9
(Bu. 1:1). A Companion also relates that "he was sitting
with his leg under that of the Prophet when revelation came
down upon him, and he felt as if his leg would be crushed
under the weight" (Bu. 8:12).
|
9
Some misdirected critics have represented this
extraordinary experience of the coming of the
revelation as an epileptic fit. The question is
whether an epileptic could, when the fit came on,
utter those grand religious truths which are met
with in the Quran, or indeed make any coherent
statement at all; whether he could have the strong
will which made the whole of Arabia at last bow
down to the Prophet, or possess the unparalleled
energy which we witness in every phase of his life,
or the high morals which were his, or be the master
of that magnetic virtue under whose influence a
whole country could be purified of the grossest
idolatry and superstition; whether hundreds of
thousands of men possessing the Arabs' independence
of character would have taken him for a leader
whose orders were obeyed in the minutest details of
life; or whether he could produce men of the will
and character of Abu Bakr and 'Umar and thousands
of others, before whom mighty empires crumbled? The
story of froth appearing from his mouth at the time
of revelation is pure invention. Klein, writing in
The Religion of Islam (p.8), makes the
following statement on the authority of Bukhari:
"Another tradition says that froth appeared before
his mouth and he roared like a young camel."
Bukhari makes no such statement, in the place
referred to (Bu. 1:2). Elsewhere he says: "The face
of the Messenger of Allah was red and he was
snoring" (Bu. 25:17). Statements met with in
traditions are similar to those quoted from
Bukhari. For instance, we have in Muslim:
"When revelation came to the Holy Prophet, he
appeared to be as it were in distress and turned
pale in the face." And according to the one report,
"when revelation came to the Prophet, he would hang
his head and his Companions would do the same; and
when that condition was over, he would raise up his
head." All these and other similar statements
contained in other collections of traditions, only
show that the coming of the revelation brought a
real change in the Prophet which others also
witnessed.
Another misconception may
also be removed here. When the Prophet related his
first experience to his wife Khadijah, he added the
words: "Surely I have fear regarding myself,
laqad khashitu 'ala nafsi" (Bu. 1:1). Some
critics have misunderstood those words as meaning
that the Prophet feared he was possessed by an evil
spirit; and a rather foolish story from Ibn Hisham
as to Khadijah's taking off the veil and the angel
disappearing (which is without the least foundation
and against all historical facts of the Prophet's
life) is narrated in support of it. The story seems
foolish inasmuch as the angel appeared to the
Prophet in the solitude of Hira, and not in the
presence of Khadijah. A cursory glance at the words
quoted above would show that they could not
possibly bear any such interpretation. The Prophet
knew for certain that he had a message from on High
for the reformation of the fallen humanity; all
that he feared was lest he should fail in bringing
about the desired reformation. That was how
Khadijah understood it, as she immediately
comforted him: "Nay, by Allah, Allah will never
bring thee to grief; surely thou dost good to thy
relatives, and bearest the burden of the weak, and
earnest for others that which they have not got;
and art hospitable to guests and givest help when
there is real distress" (Bu. 1:1). The faithful
wife who had known him intimately for fifteen years
enumerated these great virtues in him, as a
testimony that a man of such a high character could
not fail in accomplishing the task which was
entrusted to him -- the task of uplifting a fallen
humanity.
|
Nature of the
Prophet's Revelation:
The next question is about the
nature of the revelation itself. When Harith, son of Hisham,
once enquired of the Prophet how revelation came to him, he
replied: "It comes to me sometimes as the ringing of a bell
and this is hardest on me, then he (the angel) leaves me and
I remember from him what he says; and sometimes the angel
comes in the shape of a man and he talks to me and I
remember what he says" (Bu. 1:1). These are the only two
forms in which the Quranic revelation came to the Prophet.
In both cases, the angel came to him and was seen by him; in
both cases a certain message was delivered in words which he
at once committed to memory. That is the essence of the
whole question. The only difference between the two cases
was that in one case the angel appeared in the shape of a
human being and uttered the words in a soft tone as a man
talks to another; in the other case, it is not stated in
what form he came, but we are told that the words were
uttered like the ringing of a bell, that is to say, in a
harsh, hard tone, which made it a heavier task for the
Prophet to receive them. But still it was the angel who
brought the message, as is shown by the use of the personal
pronoun he in the first part of the report. In both
cases the Prophet was transported, as it were, to another
world, and this transportation caused him to go through a
severe experience which made him perspire even on a cold
day, but this experience was harder still when the deliverer
of the message did not appear in human shape and there
remained no affinity between the deliverer and the
recipient. But whether the angel appeared in human shape or
not, whether the message was delivered in a hard or soft
tone, the one thing certain is that it was a message
delivered in words; and the Quranic revelation is thus
entirely one message delivered in one form. It should be
noted that the Prophet often received the message while
sitting with his Companions, but the latter never saw the
angel nor ever heard the words of
revelation.10
It was therefore, with other than the normal human senses
that the Prophet saw the angel and heard his words, and it
was really the granting of these other senses that is called
transportation to another world.
|
10
There is only one report which seems to convey the
idea that the Companions who were sitting with the
Prophet once saw Gabriel in human shape, but that
incident is not related in connection with a
Quranic revelation. A certain man, according to
that report, whom no one recognised, came to the
Prophet and asked him several questions about
Iman, Islam and ihsan, and
lastly, when the Hour would come. He then
disappeared and the Prophet is reported to have
said: "That was Gabriel who came to teach you your
religion." (Bu. 2:37). These words might mean that
the answers given by him were of Gabriel's
teachings, not that the man who put the questions
was Gabriel.
|
Arrangement of the
Quran:
Though the Quran was revealed
in portions, yet it is a mistake to suppose that it remained
long in that fragmentary condition. As its name implies, it
was a book from the first, and though it could not be
complete until the last verse was revealed, it was never
without some form of arrangement. There is the clearest
testimony, internal as well as external, that every single
verse or part of a verse and every chapter that was revealed
had its own definite place in the Book.11
The Quran is itself clear on this point: "And those who
disbelieve say: Why has not the Quran been revealed to him
all at once? Thus (it is) that We may strengthen thy heart
by it, and We have arranged it well in arranging" (25:32).
The arrangement of the Quran was thus a part of the Divine
scheme. Another verse showing that the collection of the
Book was a part of the Divine scheme runs thus: "Surely on
Us rests the collection of it and the reciting of it"
(75:17). It appears from this that just as the Quran was
recited by Gabriel to the Prophet, in like manner, the
collecting of its various parts was effected by the Prophet
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. History also bears
testimony to the truth of this statement, for not only are
there numerous anecdotes showing that this or that portion
of the Quran was put to writing under the orders of the
Prophet, but we are clearly told by 'Uthman, the third
Caliph, that every portion of the Book was written and given
its specified place, at the bidding of the Prophet: "It was
customary with the Messenger of Allah (may peace and the
blessings of Allah be upon him) that when portions of
different chapters were revealed to him, and when any verse
was revealed, he called one of those persons who used to
write the Quran12
and said to him: Write this verse in the chapter where such
and such verses occur" (Ah. 1:57, 69).
|
11
This subject has been fully dealt with in a
separate booklet, in the Holy Quran series,
Collection and Arrangement of the Holy
Quran.
12
Among those whom the Prophet used to summon to
write down portions of the Quran immediately after
their revelation are mentioned the names of Zaid
ibn Thabit, Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman,' Ali, Zubair,
Ubyy, Hanzala, 'Abd Allah ibn Sa'd, 'Abd Allah ibn
Arqam, 'Abd Allah ibn Rawaha, Sharhubail, Khalid
and Aban, sons of Sa'id, and Mu'aiqab (FB. IX, p.
18). At Madinah, Zaid ibn Thabit was chiefly called
upon to do this work, and in his absence any of the
other amanuenses would take his place, and this was
the reason why Zaid was chosen to collect the
Quranic writings in the time of Abu Bakr, and again
to do the work of transcription in the time of
'Uthman. At Makkah, in the earliest days, there
were Abu Bakr, 'Ali, Khadijah, wife of the Prophet,
and others who wrote down the portions revealed.
The Prophet took the greatest care to have a writer
and writing materials with him under all
conditions, and even when he had to fly for his
life to Madinah, he still had writing material with
him (Bu. 63:45).
|
Arrangement in Oral
Recitation:
In fact, if we bear in mind
the use that was made of the Quran, we cannot for an instant
entertain the idea that the Book existed without any
arrangements of its verses and chapters in the lifetime of
the Prophet. It was not only recited in prayers but
committed to memory and regularly recited to keep it fresh
in the mind. Now if an arrangement of verses and chapters
had not existed, it would have been impossible either to
recite it in public prayers or to commit it to memory. The
slightest change in the place of a verse by a person leading
the prayers (Imam) would at once call forth a correction
from the audience, as it does at the present day. Since no
one could take the liberty of changing a word or the place
of a word in a verse, no one could change a verse or the
place of a verse in a chapter; and so the committing of the
Quran to memory by so many of the Companions of the Prophet,
and their constant recitation of it, would have been
impossible unless a known order was followed. The Prophet
could not teach the Quran to his Companions nor the
Companions to each other, nor could he or anyone else lead
the public prayers, in which long portions of the Book were
recited, without following a known and accepted
order.
Complete Written
Copies of the Quran:
The Quran thus existed in a
complete and ordered form in the memories of men, but no
complete written copy of it existed at the time, nor could
such a copy be made while the Prophet was alive, and still
receiving revelations. But the whole of the Quran in one
arrangement was safely preserved in the memories of reciters
(qurra'). It happened, however, that many of the reciters
fell in the famous battle of Yamama, in the caliphate of Abu
Bakr,13
and it was then that 'Umar14
urged upon him the necessity of compiling a standard written
copy, so that no portion of the Quran should be lost even if
all the reciters were to die. And this copy was compiled,
not from the hundreds of copies that had been made by
individual Companions for their own use but from the
manuscripts written under the direction of the Prophet
himself, and the arrangement adopted was that of the oral
recitation as followed in his time. Thus a standard written
copy was prepared, which was entrusted to the care of
Hafsah, wife of the Prophet.15
But still no arrangement had been made for securing the
accuracy of the numerous copies that were in circulation.
This was done by 'Uthman16
who ordered several copies to be made of the copy prepared
in the time of the first Caliph, and these were then sent to
the different Islamic centres so that all copies made by
individuals should be compared with the standard copy at
each centre.
|
13
First Caliph of Islam, 11-13 A.H., 632-634
A.D.
14
'Umar became the second Caliph, (13-23 A.H. 634-644
A.D.).
15
Bukhari, 66:3.
16
Uthman succeeded 'Umar as the third Caliph (23-35
A.H., 644-656 A.D.).
|
Standardisation of
the Quran:
Thus Abu Bakr ordered a
standard copy to be prepared from the manuscripts written in
the presence of the Prophet, following the order of chapters
which was followed by the reciters under the directions of
the Prophet, and 'Uthman ordered copies to be made from this
standard copy. If there was any variation from that standard
copy, it went no further than this that where the
Quraish17
wrote a word in one way and Zaid wrote it in another way,
Uthman's order was to write it in the manner of the Quraish.
This was because Zaid was a Madinite while his colleagues
were Quraish.18
|
17
Quraish: the leading tribe of Makkah, Prophet
Muhammad belonged to the Banu Hashim branch of this
tribe.
18
Here is an account of what took place: "Anas son of
Malik relates that Hudhaifah came to 'Uthman, and
he had been fighting along with the people of Syria
in the conquest of Armenia and along with the
people of Iraq in Azerbaijan, and was alarmed at
their variations in the mode of reading (the
Quran), and said to him, O Commander of the
Faithful, stop the people before they differ in the
Holy Book as the Jews and the Christians differ in
their scriptures. So 'Uthman sent word to Hafsah,
asking her to send him the Quran in her possession
so that they might make other copies of it and then
send the original copy back to her. Thereupon
Hafsah sent the copy to 'Uthman, and he ordered
Zaid ibn Thabit and 'Abd Allah ibn Zubair and Sa'd
ibn al-'As and 'Abd al Rahman ibn Harith ibn
Hisham, and they made copies from the original
copy. 'Uthman also said to the three men who
belonged to the Quraish (Zaid only being a
Madinite), 'where you differ with Zaid in anything
concerning the Quran write it in the manner of the
Quraish, for it is in their language that it was
revealed.' They obeyed these instructions, and when
they had made the required number of copies from
the original copy, 'Uthman returned the original to
Hafsah, and sent to every quarter one of the copies
thus made, and ordered all other copies or leaves
on which the Quran was written to be burned" (Bu.
66:3).
|
As to what these differences were,
some light is thrown on the point by Tirmidhi, one of the
collectors of traditions, making the following addition to
this report: "And they differed on that occasion as to
tabut and tabuh. The Quraish members said that
it was tabut and Zaid said that it was tabuh.
The difference was reported to 'Uthman and he directed
them to write it tabut, adding that the Quran was
revealed in the dialect of the Quraish." It would be seen
from this that these differences of reading or writing were
very insignificant, but as the Companions of the prophet
believed every word and letter of the Quran to be the
revealed word of God, they gave importance even to a slight
difference in writing and referred it to the Caliph. It may
be added here that Zaid was chiefly called upon by the
Prophet at Madinah to write down the Quranic revelations,
and the word tabut occurs in a Madinah chapter
(2:248). Zaid had written it tabuh as the Madinites
did, but as the Quraish wrote it tabut, 'Uthman
restored the Quraishite form. This incident further shows
that Hafsah's copy contained the manuscripts written in the
presence of the Prophet. These two reports furnish
conclusive proof that if there was any difference between
'Uthman's standard copy and the collection made by Abu Bakr,
it was a difference only as to the mode of writing certain
words. In short, there was no change of words, no change of
verses and no change in the order of chapters.
Difference of
Readings:
A few words may be added as to
the so-called differences of readings in the Quran. There
were slight differences in the spoken language of different
tribes, that of the Quraish being the model for the literary
language. The Quran was revealed in the dialect of the
Quraish, the literary language of Arabia. But when, towards
the close of the Prophet's life, people from different
Arabian tribes accepted Islam in large numbers, it was found
that they could not pronounce certain words in the idiom of
the Quraish, being habituated from childhood to their own
idiom, and it was then that the Prophet allowed them to
pronounce a word according to their own peculiar idiom. This
permission was given only to facilitate the recitation of
the Quran. The written Quran was one; it was all in the
chaste idiom of the Quraish, but people belonging to other
tribes were allowed to pronounce it in their own
way.19
|
19
Some examples of these variations may be given
here, Hatta (meaning until) was
pronounced attaby the Hudhail;
ta'lamin (meaning you know) was
pronounced ti 'lamun by the Asad; the Tamim
read hamzah one of the letters, whereas the
Quraish did not. In one report the meaning is made
clear, where the following words are added from the
lips of the Prophet: "Therefore recite it in the
manner in which you find it easy to do so" (Bu.
66:5). In other words, the Prophet allowed a reader
to pronounce a word in the way he found it easiest.
In the proper sense of the word, these dialectic
variations would not be readings at all. In
exceptional cases, a person who could not pronounce
a certain word, may have been allowed to substitute
its equivalent. But even that would not be a case
of a variant reading, since it was merely a
permission granted to a particular individual, and
such variations never found their way into the
written text of the Quran.
|
There may have been certain
revelations in which an optional reading was permitted.
Readings belonging to this class can only be accepted on the
most unimpeachable evidence, and the trustworthiness of the
traditions containing such reading must be established
beyond all doubt. But even these readings do not find their
way into the written text, which remains permanently one and
the same. Their value is only explanatory: they only show
what significance is to be attached to the word used in the
text; they are never at variance with the text. They are
known to very few even of the learned, to say nothing of the
general readers of the Holy Book, and are considered to have
the value of an authentic tradition in explaining the
meaning of a certain word occurring in the text. Thus, the
so-called different readings were either dialectic
variations, which were never meant to be permanent and,
intended only to facilitate the reading of the Quran in
individual cases, or explanatory variations meant to throw
light on the text. The former ceased to exist with the
spread of education in Arabia, and the latter have still the
same explanatory value as they originally had.
Collective
Testimony of the Purity of the Quranic
Text:
Random reports that a certain
verse or chapter, not to be met with in the Quran, was part
of the text, have no value at all as against the conclusive
and collective testimony which establishes the purity of the
text of the Quran. These reports were in some cases
fabricated by enemies who sought to undermine the authority
of the religion of Islam.20
In other cases, they may have been the mistaken conception
of some narrator. However that may be, it is necessary to
weigh the evidence as to whether or not a certain verse
formed part of the Quranic text. It is a fact that every
verse of the Quran was, when revealed, promulgated and made
public; it became a part of the public prayer and was
repeated day and night to be listened to by an audience of
hundreds. When the written manuscripts of the Quran were
first collected into one volume in the time of the first
caliph, and later on when copies were made from the original
in the time of the third caliph, there was the unanimous
testimony of all the Companions that every verse that found
a place in that collection was part of the Divine
revelation. Such testimony of overwhelming numbers cannot be
set aside by the evidence of one or two, but, as a matter of
fact, all reports quoted as affecting the purity of the text
ascribe a certain statement to only one man, and in not a
single case is there a second man to support that assertion.
Thus when Ibn Masud21
makes an assertion, to this effect,
Ubayy's22
evidence, along with that of the whole body of Companions,
goes against him; and when Ubayy makes a like assertion, Ibn
Masud's evidence along with that of the rest of the
Companions goes against him. Thus there is not a single
assertion impugning the purity of the Quranic text for which
even one supporting witness can be
produced.23
|
20
For instance, Muslim mentions a report
ascribing to Abu Musa the statement that there was
a certain chapter of the Quran, similar in length
and force to the 9th chapter, of which
only a single passage was all that he remembered.
Now the Mizan al-I'tidal, a critical inquiry
about the narrators of the reports, shows that
Suwaid, the immediate informer of Muslim, was a
Zindeeq (i.e. one who conceals unbelief and
makes an outward show of belief), and, therefore,
the report, as its very subject-matter shows, is a
clear invention. The four other reports speaking of
similar passages, not met with in the text of the
Quran, may be relegated to the same
class.
21
& 22 Two of
the persons to whom such reports are
ascribed.
23
In many cases even internal evidence would show
that the report was not credible. For example, one
report ascribes the following statement to Aishah:
"The chapter of the Confederates (ch. 33)
consisted, at the time of the Prophet, of two
hundred verses: when 'Uthman wrote the
Mushaf, he was only able to collect of it
what it contains." Aishah could never have spoken
these words, as she knew too well that 'Uthman
never collected the Mushaf, he had only
directed the making of copies from Hafsah's
Mushaf. The false notion that 'Uthman
collected the Quran is of later growth, and this
affords the surest testimony that this report is a
mere invention. Similarly, the words ascribed to
'Umar regarding the stoning of the adulterer are a
fabrication. He is reported to have said: "If I
were not afraid that people would say 'Umar has
added something to the Book of God. I should write
it down in the Quran" (A.D. 37:23). This assertion
is self-contradictory. If it was really part of the
Quran, why should people say that 'Umar had added
to the Book of God?
|
The Theory of
Abrogation:
That certain verses of the
Quran are abrogated by others is now an exploded theory. The
two passages on which it was supposed to rest, refer,
really, to the abrogation, not of the passages of the Quran
but of the previous revelations whose place the Holy Book
had taken. The first verse is contained in the sixteenth
chapter (al-Nahl) -- a Makkah revelation -- and runs thus:
"And when We change a message for a
message24
-- and Allah knows best what He reveals -- they say:
Thou art only a forger" (16:101). It is a fact that details
of the Islamic law were revealed at Madinah and it is in
relation to these details that the theory of abrogation has
been broached. Therefore, a Makkah revelation would not
speak of abrogation. But the reference in the above verse is
to the abrogation, not of the Quranic verses but of the
previous Divine messages or revelations, consequent upon
revelation of the Quran. The context shows this clearly to
be the case, for the opponents are here made to say that the
Prophet was a forger. He was so accused by the opponents not
because he announced the abrogation of certain verses of the
Quran but because he claimed that the Quran was a Divine
revelation which had taken the place of previous
revelations. They argued that it was not a revelation at
all: "Only a mortal teaches him" (16:103). According to them
the whole of the Quran, and not merely a particular verse of
it, was a forgery. The theory of abrogation, therefore,
cannot be based on this verse which speaks only of one
revelation or one law taking the place of
another.
The other verse which is supposed to
lend support to the theory runs thus: "Whatever message We
abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than
it or one like it" (2:106). A reference to the context will
show that the Jews or the followers of previous revelations
are here addressed. Of these it is said: "they say: We
believe in that which was revealed to us; and they deny what
is besides that" (2:91). So they were told that if a certain
revelation was abrogated, it was only to give place to a
better one. And there is mention not only of abrogation but
also of something that was forgotten. The words "or cause to
be forgotten"25
cannot refer to the Quran at all because no portion of it
could be said to have been forgotten so as to require a new
revelation in its place. There is no point in supposing that
God should first make the Prophet forget a verse and then
reveal a new one in its place. Why not, if he really had
forgotten a verse, remind him of the one forgotten? But even
if it is supposed that his memory ever failed in retaining a
certain verse (which really never happened), that verse was
quite safely preserved in writing, and the mere failure of
the memory could not necessitate a new revelation. That the
Prophet never forgot what was recited to him by the Holy
Spirit is plainly stated in the Quran: "We shall make thee
recite, so thou shalt not forget" (87:6). History also bears
out the fact that he never forgot any portion of the Quranic
revelation. Sometimes the whole of a very long chapter would
be revealed to him in one portion, as in the case of the
sixth chapter which extends over twenty sections, but he
would cause it to be written down without delay, and make
his Companions learn it by heart, and recite it in public
prayers, and that without the change of even a letter,
notwithstanding the fact that he himself could not read from
a written copy, nor did the written copies, as a rule,
remain in his possession. It was a miracle indeed that he
never forgot any portion of the Quran, though other things
he might forget, and it is to his forgetfulness in other
things that the words except what Allah pleases, in the next
verse (87:7), refer.26
On the other hand, it is a fact that parts of the older
revelations had been utterly lost and forgotten, and thus
the Quran was needed to take the place of that which was
abrogated, and that which had been forgotten by the
world.
|
24
The word aya occurring here means originally
a sign, and hence it comes to signify an
indication or evidence or proof, and is used in
the sense of miracle. It also signifies
risala or a Divine message (TA.) The
word is frequently used in the Quran in its general
sense of a Divine message or a Divine
communication, and is, therefore, applicable to a
portion of the Quran or to any previous revelation.
It carries the latter significance here as the
context clearly shows.
25
Sale's translation of the words is misleading and
has actually deceived many writers on Islam who had
no access to the original. He translates the words
nunsi-ha as meaning We cause thee to
forget. Now the text does not contain any word
meaning thee. The slight error makes the
verse mean that Almighty God had caused the Prophet
to forget certain Quranic verses; whereas the
original does not say that the Prophet was made to
forget anything but clearly implies that the world
was made to forget.
26
The word "except" (illa) is sometimes
used in Arabic to indicate istithna
munqati', lit. an exception which is cut
off, the thing excepted being disunited in kind
from that from which an exception is
made.
|
Traditions on
Abrogation:
"The traditions speaking of
abrogation are all weak", says Tabrasi. But it is stranger
still that the theory of abrogation has been accepted by
writer after writer without ever thinking that not a single
tradition, however weak, touching on the abrogation of a
verse, was traceable to the Prophet. It never occurred to
the upholders of this theory that the Quranic verses were
promulgated by the Prophet, and that it was he whose
authority was necessary for the abrogation of any Quranic
verse; no Companion, not even Abu Bakr on
'Ali,27
could say that a verse was abrogated. The Prophet alone was
entitled to say so, and there is not a single tradition to
the effect that he ever said so; it is always some Companion
or a later authority to whom such views are to be traced. In
most cases, where a report is traceable to one Companion who
held a certain verse to have been abrogated, there is
another report traceable to another Companion to the effect
that the verse was not abrogated.28
Even among later writers we find that there is not a single
verse on which the verdict of abrogation has been passed by
one without being questioned by another; and while there are
writers who would lightly pass the verdict of abrogation on
hundreds of verses, there are others who consider not more
than five to be abrogated, and even in the case of these
five the verdict of abrogation has been seriously impugned
by earlier writers.
|
27
Cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet. He succeeded
'Uthman as fourth Caliph.
28
Some examples may be noted here -- 2:180 is held by
some to have been abrogated while others have
denied it (IJ-C); 2:184 is considered by Ibn 'Umar
as having been abrogated while Ibn 'Abbas says it
was not (Bu.); 2:240 was abrogated according to Ibn
Zubair while Mujahid says it was not (Bu.). I have
taken these examples only from the second chapter
of the Quran.
|
Use of the Word
Naskh:
The theory of abrogation has
in fact arisen from a misunderstanding of the use of the
word naskh (abrogation), by the Companions of the
Prophet. When the significance of one verse was limited by
another, the former was sometimes spoken of as having been
"abrogated" (nusikhat) by the latter. Similarly when
the words of a verse gave rise to a misconception, and a
later revelation cleared up that misconception, the word
"abrogation" was metaphorically used in connection with it,
the idea underlying its use being not that the first verse
was abrogated but that a certain conception to which it had
given rise was abrogated.29
Earlier authorities admit this use of the word: "Those who
accept abrogation (naskh) here (2:109) take it as meaning
explanation metaphorically"30,
and again: "By abrogation is meant, metaphorically,
explaining and making clear the
significance".31
It is an abrogation, but not an abrogation of the words of
the Quran; rather it is the abrogation of a misconception of
their meaning. This is further made clear by the application
of abrogation to verses containing statements of facts
(akhbar), whereas, properly speaking, abrogation
could only take place in the case of verses containing a
commandment or a prohibition (amr or nahy). In
the ordinary sense of the word there could be no abrogation
of a statement made in the Word of God, as that would
suggest that God had made a wrong statement first and then
recalled it. This use of the word "abrogation" by the
earlier authorities regarding statements of
facts32
shows that they were using the word to signify the
removal of a wrong conception regarding, or the placing of a
limitation upon, the meaning of a certain verse. At the same
time, it is true that the use of this word soon became
indiscriminate, and when anyone found himself unable to
reconcile two verses, he would declare one of them to be
abrogated by the other.
|
29
Many instances of this may be quoted. In 2:284, it
is said, "whether you manifest what is in your
minds or hide it, Allah will call you to account
for it": while according to 2:286. "Allah does not
impose on any soul a duty but to the extent of its
ability". A report in Bukhari says that one
of the Companions of the Prophet, probably 'Abd
Allah ibn 'Umar held the opinion that the first
verse was abrogated (nusikhat) by the
second. What was meant by naskh (abrogation)
in this case is made clear by another detailed
report given in the Musnad (Ah. I, 332).
According to this report when 2:284 was revealed,
the Companions entertained an idea which they had
never entertained before (or, according to another
report, they were greatly grieved) and thought that
they had not the power to bear it. The matter being
brought to the notice of the Prophet, he said:
"Rather say, We have heard and we obey and submit."
And so God inspired faith in their hearts. As this
report shows, what happened was this: that some
Companion or Companions thought that 2:284 imposed
a new burden on them, making every evil idea which
entered the mind without taking root or ever being
translated into action, punishable in the same
manner as if it had been translated into action.
2:286 made it plain that this was not the meaning
conveyed by 2:284, since, according to that verse,
God did not impose on man a burden which he could
not bear. This removal of a misconception was
called abrogation (naskh) by Ibn
'Umar.
It may be added that there is
nothing to show that 2:286 was revealed later than
2:284. On the other hand, the use of the words
we have heard and we obey by the Prophet to
remove the wrong notion which some Companions
entertained -- these very words occur in 2:285 --
shows that the three verses, 284, 285, and 286 were
all revealed together, and hence the abrogation, in
the ordinary sense of the word, of one of them by
another is meaningless. There are other instances
in which a verse revealed later is thought to have
been abrogated by a previous verse. But how could a
later verse be abrogated by a previous one? Or what
point can there be in giving an order which was
cancelled before it was given? If, on the other
hand, the naskh is taken to mean the placing
of a limitation upon the meaning of a verse, or the
removal of a wrong conception attached to it, no
difficulty would arise, for even a previous verse
may be spoken of as placing a limitation upon the
meaning of a later verse or as removing a wrong
conception arising therefrom.
30
RM, I, p. 292.
31
Ibid., p. 508.
32
One example of one statement being spoken of as
abrogated by another is that of 2:284, 286 (for
which see the previous footnote). Another is
furnished by 8:65, 66, where the first verse states
that in war the Muslims shall overcome ten times
their numbers, and the second, after referring to
their weakness at the time -- which meant the
paucity of trained men among them and their lack of
the implements and necessaries of war -- states
that they shall overcome double their numbers. Now
the two verses relate to two different conditions
and they may be said to place a limitation upon the
meaning of each other, but one of them cannot be
spoken of as abrogating the other. In the time of
the Prophet when the Muslims were weak, when every
man, old or young, had to be called upon to take
the field, and the Muslim army was but
ill-equipped, the Muslims overcame double, even
thrice their numbers; but in the wars with the
Persian and Roman empires, they vanquished ten
times their numbers. Both statements were true;
they only related to different circumstances and
the one placed a limitation upon the meaning of the
other, but neither of them actually abrogated the
other.
|
Basis of
Abrogation:
The principle on which the
theory of abrogation is based is unacceptable, being
contrary to the clear teaching of the Quran. A verse is
considered to be abrogated by another when the two cannot be
reconciled with each other; in other words, when they appear
to contradict each other. But the Quran destroys this
foundation when it declares that no part of it is at
variance with another: "Will they not then meditate on the
Quran? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would
have found in it many a discrepancy" (4:82). It was due to
lack of meditation that one verse was thought to be at
variance with another; and hence it is that in almost all
cases where abrogation has been upheld by one person, there
has been another who, being able to reconcile the two, has
repudiated the alleged abrogation.
Sayuti on
Abrogation:
It is only among the later
commentators that we meet with the tendency to augment the
number of verses thought to have been abrogated, and by some
of these the figure has been placed as high as five hundred.
In this connection, Sayuti, one of the well-known
commentators, says: "Those who multiply (the number of
abrogated verses) have included many kinds -- one kind being
that in which there is neither abrogation, nor any
particularisation (of a general statement), nor has it any
connection with any one of them, for various reasons. And
this is as in the words of God: 'And spend out of what We
have given them' (2:3); 'And spend out of what We have given
you' (63:10); and the like. It is said that these are
abrogated by the verse dealing with charity (zakat), while
it is not so, they being still in force".33
Sayuti himself brings the number of verses which he thinks
to be abrogated down to twenty-one,34
in some of which he considers there is abrogation, while in
others he finds that it is only the particularisation of a
general injunction that is effected by a later verse; but he
admits that there is a difference of opinion even about
these.
|
33
It. II, p. 22.
34
Ibid, p. 23.
|
Shah Wali-ullah's
Verdict on Five Verses:
A later writer, however, the
famous Shah Wali-ullah of India, commenting on this in his
Fauz al-Kabir, says that abrogation cannot be proved in the
case of sixteen out of Sayuti's twenty-one verses, but in
the case of the remaining five he is of the opinion that the
verdict of abrogation is final. These five verses are dealt
with as follows:
(1) 2:180: "It is prescribed
for you, when death approaches one of you, if he leaves
behind wealth, for parents and near relations, to make a
bequest in a kindly manner." As a matter of fact, both
Baidzawi and Ibn Jarir35
quote authorities who state that this verse was not
abrogated; and it is surprising that it is considered as
being abrogated by 4:11, 12, which speak of the shares to
be given "after the payment of a bequest he may have
bequeathed or a debt," showing clearly that the bequest
spoken of in 2:180 was still in force. This verse in fact
speaks of bequest for charitable objects which is even
now recognised by Muslims to the extent of one-third of
the property.36
(2) 2:40: "And those of you who die
and leave wives behind, should make a bequest in favour
of their wives of maintenance for a year without turning
them out." But we have the word of no less an authority
than Mujahid that this verse is not abrogated: "Allah
gave her (the widow) the whole of a year, if she desired
she could stay according to the bequest (having
maintenance and residence for a year), and if she desired
she could leave the house (and remarry), as the Quran
says: 'Then if they leave of their own accord, there is
no blame on you' " (Bu. 65, Surah ii:41). This verse,
therefore, does not contradict v. 234. Moreover, there is
proof that it was revealed after v. 234, and hence it
cannot be said to have been abrogated by the
verse.
(3) 8:65: "If there are twenty
patient ones of you, they shall overcome two hundred",
etc. This is said to have been abrogated by the verse
that follows it: "Now Allah has made light your burden
and He knows that there is weakness in you. So if there
be of you a hundred steadfast, they shall overcome two
hundred." That the question of abrogation does not arise
here at all is apparent from the words of the second
verse which clearly refers to the early times when the
Muslims were weak, having neither munitions of war nor
experience of warfare, and when old and young had to go
out and fight; while the first verse refers to a later
period when the Muslim armies were fully organised and
equipped.
(4) 33:52: "It is not allowed to
thee to take women after this." This is said to have been
abrogated by a verse which was apparently revealed before
it: "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives"
(33:50). The whole issue has been misunderstood. As
stated before, a verse cannot be abrogated by one
revealed before it. Apparently what happened was this.
When 4:3 was revealed, limiting the number of wives to
four, should exceptional circumstances require, the
Prophet was told not to divorce the excess number, and
this was effected by 33:50; but at the same time he was
told not to take any woman in marriage after that, and
this was done by 33:52.
(5) 58:12: "O you who believe! When
you consult the Messenger, offer something in charity
before your consultation. That is better for you and
purer. But if you have not the means then surely Allah is
Forgiving. Merciful." This is said to have been abrogated
by the verse that follows: "Do you fear that you will not
be able to give in charity before your consultation? So
when you do it not and Allah has turned to you
mercifully, keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate." It is
not easy to see how one of these injunctions is abrogated
by the other, since there is not the slightest difference
in what they say. The second verse merely gives further
explanation to show that the injunction is only in the
nature of recommendation, that is to say, a man may give
in charity whatever he can easily spare, the legal alms
(zakat) being the only obligatory charity. Thus the
theory of abrogation falls to the ground on all
consideration.
|
35
Famous commentators of the Quran.
36
This is discussed further in the chapter on
Inheritance.
|
Interpretation of
the Quran:
The rule as to the
interpretation of the Quran is thus given in the Book
itself: "He it is Who has revealed the Book to thee; some of
its verses are decisive -- they are the basis of the Book --
and others are allegorical. Then those in whose hearts is
perversity follow the part of it which is allegorical,
seeking to mislead, and seeking to give it their own
interpretation. And none knows its interpretation except
Allah, and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say: We
believe in it, it is all from our Lord. And none do mind
except men of understanding" (3:6). In the first place, it
is stated here that there are two kinds of verses in the
Quran, namely, the decisive and the allegorical -- the
latter being those which are capable of different
interpretations. Next we are told that the decisive verses
are the basis of the Book, that is, that they contain the
fundamental principles of religion. Hence whatever may be
the differences of interpretation, the fundamentals of
religion are not affected by them, all such differences
relating only to secondary matters. The third point is that
some people seek to give their own interpretation to
allegorical statements and are thus misled. In other words,
serious errors arise only when a wrong interpretation is
placed on words which are susceptible of two meanings.
Lastly, in the concluding words, a clue is given as to the
right mode of interpretation in the case of allegorical
statements: "It is all from our Lord" -- meaning that there
is no disagreement between the various portions of the Book.
This statement has in fact been made elsewhere also, as
already quoted (see 4:82). The important principle to be
borne in mind in the interpretation of the Quran, therefore,
is that the meaning should be sought from within the Quran,
and never should a passage be interpreted in such a manner
that it may be at variance with any other passage, but more
especially with the basic principles laid down in the
decisive verses. This principle, in the revealed words, is
followed by "those well-grounded in
knowledge."37
The following rules may, therefore, be laid down:
-- The principles of Islam
are enunciated in decisive words in the Quran; and,
therefore, no attempt should be made to establish a
principle on the strength of an allegorical passage, or
of words susceptible of different meanings.
-- The explanation of the Book
should in the first place be sought in the Quran itself;
for, whatever it has stated briefly, or merely hinted at,
in one place, will be found expanded and fully explained
elsewhere in it.
-- It is very important to remember
that the Quran contains allegory and metaphor along with
what is plain and decisive, and the only safeguard
against being misled by what is allegorical or
metaphorical is that the interpretation of such passages
must be strictly in consonance with what is laid down in
clear and decisive words, and not at variance
therewith.
When a law or principle is laid down,
any statement carrying a doubtful significance, or a
statement apparently opposed to the law so laid down, must
be interpreted subject to the principle enunciated.
Similarly that which is particular must be read in
connection with and subject to more general
statements.
|
37
The subject of the interpretation of the Quranic
verses is very appropriately dealt with in the
opening verses of the third chapter which begins
with a discussion with the followers of
Christianity, for, it must be borne in mind, that
it is on a wrong interpretation of certain
allegorical statements that the fundamental
principles of Christianity are actually based. The
basic doctrine of the religion of all the prophets
in the Old Testament is the Unity of God, but there
are a number of prophecies couched in allegorical
language having reference to the advent of Christ.
The Christians, instead of interpreting these in
accordance with the clear words of the principle of
Divine Unity, laid the foundations of Christianity
on the metaphorical language of the prophecies, and
thus by neglect of the true rule of interpretation
were misled to such an extent as to ignore the very
essentials of the religion of the prophets. Christ
was believed to be god on the strength of
metaphorical expressions, and the doctrine of the
Trinity thus became the basis of a new religion.
The epithet "son of God" was freely used in
Israelite literature, and was always taken
allegorically. The term occurs as early as Gen. 6:2
where the "sons of God" are spoken of as taking the
daughters of men for wives. It occurs again in Job
1:6 and 38:7, and good men are no doubt meant in
both places. In Ex. 4:22 and many other places, the
Israelites are spoken of as the children of God:
"Israel is my son, even my first born." The
expression is used in the same metaphorical sense
in the Gospels. Even in the fourth Gospel, where
the Divinity of Christ is looked upon as finding a
bolder expression than in the synoptics, Jesus
Christ is reported as saying in answer to those who
accused him of blasphemy for speaking of himself as
the son of God: "Is it not written in your law | |
