Qur'Anic Hermeneutics Problems and Prospects

The Muslim World Vol. LXXXIII, No. 2 April, 1993

QUR’ANIC HERMENEUTICS: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS

The eternal cannot enter time without a time when it enters. Revelation to history cannot occur outside it. A prophet cannot arise except in a generation and a native land, Directives from heaven cannot impinge upon an earthly vacuum.2

1. Introduction

For Muslims the ‘eternal and uncreated Q u r h ’ is the @51i51ha verbaof Allah. It is Allah speaking, not merely to Muhammad in seventh century Arabia, but from all eternity to all humankind. It represents, as Cantwell Smith says, ”the eternal breaking through time; the knowable disclosed; the transcendent entering history and remaining here, available to mortals to handle and to appropriate; the divine become a ~ p a r e n t . ” ~

What is the nature of this speech? How is this intervention by eternity into history to make sense other than within the framework of our terrestrial and historical existence? What constitutes the meaning of the ‘knowable disclosed’? These are some of the questions which Islamic orthodoxy would prefer to regard as closed. However, the elaboration of intellectual modernity in the West, acknowledged or not, has impacted significantly on Islamic scholarship. This impact, albeit much lamented, will increasingly force Muslims who feel compelled to transcend the ‘Islam has all the answers’ apologia to confront what Mohammed Arkoun describes as the “the unthinkable.”

To date though, little has been written about the relationship between His Word and history (”His story”) in an historico- or literary criti- cal manner or about the explicit or implicit ideological assumptions underlying their theological orientations; the central concern of contemporary hermeneutics. The most disturbing of those who have consistently challenged Muslim reluctance to confront these connections in our time is undoubtedly Kenneth Cragg. I say ”disturbing’ because he writes with a pro- fundity and compassion that makes it difficult to dismiss him as “just another

This paper was first delivered at a conference on ‘Modern Approaches to the Study of Islam‘ held at the University of Cape Town in August 1991.

Kenneth Cragg, The Event ofthe Qur2n: fs/zm a n d h Scr@/ure (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1971). 112.

Wilfred Cantwell Smith, ’The True Meaning of Scripture: An Empirical Historian’s Non- Reductionist Interpretation of the Qur’iin.’ in /n/p/na/~ona/~ou/na/o/~~dd/e Eas/e/n J/udes, 11:4 (July 1980), 490.

118

QUR’ANIC HERMENEUTICS 119

orientalid” Cragg’s The Event of the Qw’h, to my mind, remains the most profound and moving account of the Qurbn’s engagement with a living and dynamic context. The ideas contained therein and responses to it will probably be central to any attempt at evolving a Qur’anic discipline of hermeneutics.

1 .i. Objectives In this paper, after outlining the context of my own reflections, I propose

to give an overview of the definition of hermeneutics and shall focus on a particular stream within the broader discipline; Reception Hermeneutics. This stream, I believe, has particular relevance in a society perplexed with the meaning of the divine presence as its people engage in a struggle for justice. Furthermore, in the South African context-a context wherein I locate my present thinking-it was not the text that has been the stimulus for the emergence of an interest in hermeneutics: rather, it was the context of scripture and its various function^.^

I also propose to look at two key doctrinal developments.which have shaped Muslim appreciation of the Qur‘an and Quzanic scholarship and thus affected the emergence, or rather non-emergence, of hermeneutics as a Qur’anic discipline. These are the doctrines of the Qurbn’s preexistence /“W&) and its inimitability hj2.. Secondly, I shall examine the way these doctrines relate to some of the key hermeneutical notions as they have developed in Western or biblical scholarship. Thirdly, I will offer a prognosis of the integration of hermeneutics into Qur‘anic or Islamic scholarship.

A central thesis of this paper is that the emergence of the Qur’anic text itself as well as the systematic development of Qur’anic doctrines were intrinsically linked to then prevalent socio-political realities. Muslim orthodoxy has long viewed the eternal relevance of the Q u r h as Synonomous with a Qur’an divested of time and space. However, the history of the Q u r h and of interpretation prove otherwise as anyone concerned with the Q u r h as a functional or contextual scripture soon discovers. In order to relate Qur’anic meaning to the now moment, Muslims are compelled to relate to it from the distance of some historical moment. The Qurh , as Cragg says, ”could not have been revelatory had it not been also eventful.06 ”As itself a total event within history”, he has argued, ”its study, like its quality, must live in hist01-y.”~

‘ Not that this has not been attempted. See, among others, Jamil Qureshi’s’Alongsidedness-In Good Faith?: An Essay on Kenneth Cragg’ in Onentahsm, h/am andh/amii& (Brattleboro. Vermont: Amana Books. 1984) and the more recent book by Shabbir Akhtar. T~e~n8/fmpPa/Jie..~fl h/amiC Z%eo/oggy of Li&rahbn (London: Bellewe, 1991).

Farid Esack. ’Contemporary Religious Thought in South Africa and the Emergence of Quzanic Hermeneutical Notions’ in h f m andMus//in-Chriihkn Re/a//li?ns. 1I:2 (December 1991). -

Cragg, The Event of the Qur2n, 17. fbd

120 THE MUSLIM WORLD

Reflections on the development of the doctrines governing Muslim appreciation of the Q u r h display a trend in Islamic scholarship away from openness and pluralism towards greater theological rigidity and defensive apologetics.* While this rigidity has served to protect dogma from the encroachments of modernity, it has left Muslims ill-equipped to deal with the challenges which invariably accompany the encounter with modernity and the crucial problems of racism, sexism, structural poverty and the environmental crisis. The myth of Muslims being able to absorb the technological systems of modernity while being immune to its underlying meaning system is no longer tenable. The cake has been baked; the sugar can no longer be separated from the wa- ter, nor the flour from the eggs.

1.i.i. My Context Truth, whatever else it may be, is also a human construction. Modernity

has accelerated the awareness that our minds are not tabula rasa furnished with facts entirely imported through cognitive or spiritual senses, nor through the authority of religio-intellectual traditions. Increasingly we are beginning to understand that, whatever else it may be, our essential awareness of our minds are as ”the tissues of contingent relations in lang~age .”~ The seemingly inescapable legacy of our theistic beliefs and our ongoing-often inexplicable-commitment to them, compel us to find new ways of describ- ing the way preexisting reality, Allah, may address a world made, and being made, by people who are not today whom they were yesterday.

It was South Africa and ‘The Struggle’, as the liberation struggle was affectionately referred to, which confronted many of us with the problem of how some putative objectively conceived divinity might address itself to us. ’What does Allah have to say to us as we face the Boers?” was a key question.*O Now, nearly two years after the unbanning of the African National Congress and the release of Nelson Mandela, we are forced to abandon com- forting notions that we have the answers. “What did Allah say to the Boers as they faced us?’ is a haunting corollary to “What did Allah have to say to us?”. We have intuitively grasped that Allah is on our side and have thus ‘appropri- ated’ Him.” What does it say about Allah’s power in the world When

* While I shall focus on two key doctrines and their role in the shaping of Qur’anic scholarship it will be important to remember that these doctrinal developments converged with others in the field of tradition and jurisprudence to systematically increase the space of the unthinkable in Islamic theology.

Richard Aitken, ’Did those mortal beings imagine that Allah talked with the Quakers’ God?: Reflections on a Woodbrookcan conversation.’ Paper delivered at President’s Seminar, Selly Oak Colleges (September 1991).

&ar/er/l: X:2 (1988). 17.

Stud& Nos. 9 & 10 (1989. 1990).

l o Farid Esack. ’Three Islamic Strands in the South African Struggle for Justice,’ in Th>d Wodd

” C. du I? Le Roux. ’Hermeneutics: Islam and the South African Context,‘ in/ou/na//o//s//ami-


responsibility to create a context, or to recreate it as the exigencies of justice may demand, is transferred to humankind, and when we annunciate the mind of Allah? Where does objective reality feature when all of human understanding seems to be produced in ”the ‘thinginess’ of experience and appears as little less than an arrangement and distribution of power relations.” l2

To say that the majority of Muslims have perceived in Western Islamic scholarship a conspiratorial hostility and antagonism bent on subverting their faith is to state the obviou~.’~ While being reluctant to see a conspiracy, I do not think that the fears of confessional Islamic scholarship are entirely un- founded. It needs to be remembered that the discourse on modernity and historicity is itself located within a specific historicity. Consequently, it en- codes within itself ”newly formulated hegemonial interests (shaped within the bosom of Judeo-Christian culture) with incorporationist designs upon its neighbor^."^

There is, however, as we shall see, more than just a distrust for Western scholarship which causes raised eyebrows and undisguised expressions of dis- dain when Muslims learn that I am engaged in studies in Qur’anic hermeneutics. Hermeneutics? Another name for relativism? Perhaps a ”solipsistic conversation in the consciousness of middle-class a~ademics”?’~

1 3 . Towards a definition of hermeneutics

The distinction between interpretative activity and the rules which gov- ern such activity has been known from the earliest days of both biblical and Qur)anic studies. Such a distinction is basic to hermeneutics. Thus, “while the term hermeneutics itself dates back only from the seventeenth century, the operations of textual exegesis and theories of interpretation-religious, literary, legal-date back to antiquity.” l6

According to Palmer,17 two broad streams may be discerned in one’s search for a definition of hermeneutics: The first stream regards hermeneutics as a general body of methodological principles which underlie interpretation while the second stream views hermeneutics as the philosophical exploration of the character and requisite conditions for all understanding. Braaten encap- sulates both approaches when he defines hermeneutics as ”the science of

l2 Aitken, ’Reflections,’ 22. l3 In many ways responses to the challenges posed by the writings of Cragg is based on this

perception rather than any ‘objective’ appraisal of his work. f%JZ, 2.

lS J.J. Buckley. ’The Hermeneutical Deadlock Between Revelationists. Textualists. and

Richard E. Palmer, HumMeu/lG. h fepretahbn ?&vpylh 2khleylkxmadw LUhej HedeBe Functionalists.’ in MW’rn Z5eologj 6:4 (1990). 325.

isndCBdamer (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1969), 35. ‘7 Bid, 44ff.


reflecting on how a word or an event in a past time and culture may be understood and become existentially meaningful in our present situation.”18’It involves,’ he says, ”both the methodological rules to be applied in exegesis as well as the epistemological assumptions of ~nderstanding.”~

Since Bultmann, though, ”hermeneutics’ is generally used to describe the attempt to cover the bridge between past and present. It is with this understanding of the term that some of us in South Africa were first introduced to Qur)anic hermeneutics. In our usage, the term ”hermeneutics” thus refers principally to textual interpretation, the recovery of meaning and the problems surrounding this process.

l.iv. Reception Hermeneutics

The South African engagement with the Qur’Bn in recent years has suggested that it is possible to have perfectly orthodox understandings of what the Qur’iin is about and yet use these texts in rather perverse ways, e.g. justify- ing racism.20 In this particular usage of the Qurkn, we have been forced to distinguish between ”using the Qda” and “holding a doctrine” about it. Within our own particular rationality and conceptions of justice we have thus experienced the historical tale of the Qur’Bn, not primarily as a set of arguments about it , but as a set of diverse uses of the Qu’Bn in particular socio-political circumstances. Similarly the tensions between textualism-focussing literally on texts-and contextualism-focussing on patterns in the texts and contexts, although never thematically posed, were experienced in the bitter mid-1980 debates on inter-faith solidarity against apartheid.21 The question of the aes- thetics of reception-how a discourse-oral or written-is received by an audience is thus of more than academic or theological interest to us. (Hermeneutics, of course, alerts us to the fact that nothing is ”purely” academic or theological.)

Reception hermeneutics is usually discussed as one of the categories of functionalism in textual studies.22 As with much else in the Western approach to social sciences, we find various typologies rather inadequate when attempting to relate them to the Islamic tradition. Functionalism, normally contrasted with revelationism, focuses on the use of a text and claims that certain texts are scripture only in so far as they pass certain pragmatic and functional test. While Muslim scholars and organizations involved in the search for a contex-

Carl Braaten, ,%story of Hermeneuks (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966). 131, ’9 fhd 2o Ebrahim Moosa, ’Muslim Conservatism in South Africa,’ in/oumdo/ ~~~o/ogl;/n/Sou/he// ,

21 A.K. Tayob. ’Muslim’s Discourse on Alliance Against Apartheid,’ in/ourna//br /hc S/u4,0/‘

zz Buckley, ’The Hermeneutical Deadlock.’

Ahica, 69 (1989).

Rehgion, 3:2 (September 1990). .


tual appreciation of the Qur’Bn do see its value essentially in terms of its function today, none would see themselves in opposition to “revelationists” for such a category does not exist in Islam. This is not to say that the differences in focus are not evident and thus, with some reworking, one can actually speak of functionalism in the Islamic tradition.

Reception hermeneutics focus on the process of interpretation and the appropriateness of interpretation rather than on the fmed literal text. Accord- ing to Fiorenza such interpretation ’needs to take into account not only the text or its original audience but also the transformation between past and present horizons.”23 He suggests that such an approach contrasts sharply with that of historical positivism which ’views the text as a kind of archetypal substance that is present in a literary Reception hermeneutics would thus transform the analysis of the reception of a text “into a task of the study of the meaning of that text.”25 It challenges historical positivism in that it requires that diverse receptions of the texts, “including present popular understanding of the text as concretizations of its meaning, be included in the problem of interpretation.’26

What are some of the central problems related to hermeneutics as an examination into the nature of scripture? Why is it that if Qur’anic studies is to remain wedded to a confessional Islamic theology then the only hermeneutics which Qur’anic scholarship can conceivably accommodate is that of context and reception? I believe that the answers to these are located in the developments around two keys doctrines governing Muslim appreciation of the Qur’Bn, i.e. the Qurbn’s I>& (inimitability) and its being pdbi leternall.

2. Doctrines governing Muslim appreciation of the Qur’iln

In the Q u r h itself the word Qur2, is employed in the sense of ”reading” (Q. 17:93), ’recital” (Q. 75:18) and ’a collection.” (Q. 75:17) From the literal meaning especially the idea of collection-it is evident that Qurgfi is not always employed by the Qur’gn in the concrete sense of a particular scripture-a.-h&%, the book-as it is commonly understood.’: I t rather refers to a revealed discourse in a process of unfolding in (divine) response to the re- quirements of society over a period of twenty-three years. (Q. 17:S2 & 106). I t is only towards the end of the process of revelation that the Qur an is presented as scripture rather than a recitation or discourse. The closest the Qur ‘an comes to employing the word af-QzuAv in the sense which htuslims currently use it

23 Francis Schussler Fiorenza. ’The Crisis of Scriptural Authority: Interpretation and Reception.’ in fntqretation. XLW4 (October 1990). 23.

24 /bJb! 25 fbd 26 fbif 27 E.W. Lane, hne’sArabicEn&>h Lz.ricon (Beirut: Librairie Du Liban. 19801. 2504.


is where it is mentioned with the Tawrgh and Iq i l a s the name of the scripture of Muslims (Q. 9:ll). By its selfdefinition it is a ‘gathered book, a gradually accumulating composition. (Q. 75:17).

Ibn Marqtir (d. 1312). the author of Lk2n af-hab, reflects the view of the overwhelming majority of Muslim scholars when he defines the Qur’Bn as ’the inimitable revelation, the Speech of Allah revealed to the Prophet Muhammad through the Angel Gabriel (existing today) literally and orally in the exact wording of the purest Arabic.’28

Two doctrines-both alluded to in Ibn Maqiir’s definition are central to an understanding of Muslim perception of the Q u r h as a sacred text and tensions between traditional Qurlanic scholarship on the one hand and contemporary ideas of hermeneutics on the other:

2.i. The Doctrine of &z(inimitability)

From the beginning of Islam, Muslims have upheld the notion of the mi- raculous and inimitable nature of the Qur’an as a “sign” (ayah) or “proof‘ (burhh) of Muhammad’s prophethood. ”Indeed”, says al-BBqillBni (d. 403 A.H), ” (his) prophethood is built upon this rnujzah (miracle),” a rnu)hah which ”abides from its revelation up to the day of resurre~t ion.’~~ Early discussion on the concept of ij2zcentered around the idea of tabadd; a challenge to Muhammad’s opponents to produce ”the like of the Qurh”. From the first announcement of his prophethood, Muhammad encountered intense and bitter opposition to his mission from the Quraysh. One of the forms that this opposition took was to denounce the source of his claims and thereby, his veracity. The Qurh’s detractors were challenged by it to ”produce a discourse like it’ (Q. 5233-34), ”to bring forth ten similar 5Ur-h~’’ (Q. 11:13) or ”the like ofjust one surah” (Q. 10:38). The Qur’Bn then confidently declared that “they would not be able to produce the like thereof, even if they diligently assist one another’ (Q. 17:88). The apparent failure of Muhammad’s opponents to take up the challenge-Suyiiti says “none of them has been recorded as having busied himself with thi~”~’-was regarded as vindication of the Qur’an’s divine

Muhammad b. Mukarram b. al-Manziir. L/jsn a/-%&, 3 (Beirut: DBr Lian al-‘Arab. n.d.),

FJ Abii Bakr Muhammad b. al-Tayyib al-BHqillani. 422 a/-Qur’sn (Cairo: al-Matba‘ah al-

3o fifd 3’ Jahl el-Din al-Suyiiti. A/-fiqan /j- b / im a/-QurZn (Beirut: al-Maktabah al-Thaqafiyyah.

1973), 117. a M u s h tradition identifies very few such attempts. ’What remain of these attempts’, says

Boullata, ’understandably suppressed by orthodoxy, are snippets of ludicrous parodies that have a hollow ring to them and that do no credit to their authors’ (Issa J . Boullata, ’I(j& and Related Topics.’

42.

Salafiyyah, 1349 H.), 13.

QUR)ANIC HERMENEUTICS 125

The necessity to prove the veracity of Muhammad’s mission within the concrete religio-social situation of proclamation and rejection thus necessi- tated or occasioned the texts dealing with fabadd: After the demise of Maammad this necessity merged with the need to provide the Muslim ummd with an unassailable authority for doctrine to produce a systematic concept of l]m.

The early scholars of the Q u r h held widely divergent views about the bases of and the precise nature of the characteristics which elevate it above all other literature. Orthodoxy finally settled on a comprehensive com- bination of these rather than a particular characteristic.% Ibn ‘Atiyyah (d. c. 1147) and others have broadly categorized these under ’its literary arrangement, soundness of its meaning and eloquence of its words”35 and we shall shortly have a closer look , at 1922- under these headings.

The apparent unanimity around the doctrine of ,322- is not always well- founded in early Qur)anic scholarship or in contemporary Qur’anic discourse. Ibn Hazm (d. 10641, for example, refused to acknowledge the aesthetic quali- ties of the Qur’Bn as proof of its 1322~ while al-Juwayni (d. 1085) (an imam al-haramayn and a teacher of al-Ghazdi) refused to recognize its unqualified aesthetic superiority a l t~ge the r .~~ Even today there has been a significant mi- nority of scholars who have attempted to re-open debate as new horizons in text criticism, semiotics and linguistics are discovered.38

This brief description of the development of the dogma of ,322 highlights the following:

.(.-

i. The Qur’anic revelation-of which the tabadd- (challenge) verses are an early example-was intrinsically linked to the concrete religio-social situation of Prophetic proclamation and rejection of it.

in A. Rippin led.]. Appmdes to the &story of the fntepretahon of /he Qur’a’n [Oxford: Clarendon. 19881,141.) Cf. Badr al-Din Muhammad b.‘Abd Allah el-Zarkashi. M-Burh#n B %!/Urn af-Qur’Bn. 2 (Beirut: DHr al-Ma‘rifah, 1972), 90; and al-BHqillani, 622 8/-Qw&, 35 k 238-40.

35 Some of the MuhziX’scholars-most notably al-N@m (d. 232/846)-argued that the Qurhn is not intrinsically inimitable but that any actual attempt to imitate it is rendered futile by Allah. (cf. M&ammad(Abd al-KarIm a~-Shahrast&ni M-MYd wad-M&4 [ed.] Muhammad Sayyid Kaylhi. 1 [Wiut: DHr al-Ma‘rifah. n.d.1 58-59) This concept of deflection, ..ran's (lit. ‘turning away‘), was rejected by the general orthodox consensus. (al-ZarkashI, A/-Burh#n 2:93-95: al-BaqilIani. &’z d-Qd#n, 23-26.)

34 al-Zarkashi, M-BurhJn, 2:106-7. 35 Ibn (Atiyyah, Muqaddmah B %!Ern a/-QwZn, (ed.) Arthur Jeffrey. (Cairo: Maktabat al-

56 Aba Muhammad‘AlI Ibn Hazm. fit&5a/-F&/fia/-AfiYaJ 3 (Cairo: n.p.. 1317-21 H.), 15ff. ’’ Abii al-Ma%I(Abd al-Malik al-Juwayni. M-AqiYah a/-fizAx$yd~. (ed.) M. Kawthari (Cairo,

30 The most notable contemporary ones among these are the late Fazlur R a l p h (d. 1988) and Muhammad Arkoun. However, they have remained confined to the margins of Islamic thought, and in R&mAn’s case, was also persecuted for his views.

KhHnji. 1954), 278.

1948), 54-55.


ii. Early Qur’anic scholarship was not characterized by the closed cer- tainties which came to dominate it subsequently.

These assertions are also borne out by the discourse around various ele- ments comprising the Q d i i n ’ s d&.soundness of meaning, eloquence of words and rhetorical style and the theological discussions surrounding each of these.

2.i.a. Soundness of Meaning: The Contents of the Q u r h

The Q u r h describes its contents as an ’exposition of everything, a guidance, a blessing and glad tidings for those who submit’ (Q.- 16.89) and declares that ’no single thing have We neglected in the Book’ (Q. 7:380). Although its contents and the nature of the guidance that the Qur’In offer humankind are viewed as important dimension of its ij2~, for our present purposes we confine ourselves to a brief note on the relationship between content and context.

It is commonly known that Qur’anic scholarship has divided revelation into two distinct chronological periods; the Ahkki-and fidani-(also known as pre- and post-Hijrah). Although this distinction does not appear in the Qur’Bn in the putative diachrony ascribed to it in tahiiand 51iah literature, knowledge of which revelation pertains to which prophetic phase is regarded by all the classical Qur’anic scholars as essential to an understanding of its contents.

The contents of the Qur’gn are deeply reflective of the various phases of the prophetic epoch. Yet its depth of meaning and guidance is regarded as beyond the reach of Muhammad’s human and unlettered horizon, i.e. it could not have been the product of his mind. Despite its ’beyondness’ the Qur’Bn evidently stands in need of a historical moment even if confined to the orthodoxy’s M k k i a n d Mdani-juristic considerations-to become meaningful. Belief in the supra-historicity of the Q u h n thus does not preclude its role as a historical scripture.

2.i.b. Eloquence (of Words)

The most widely accepted basis for the i32z of the Qur’Bn is its linguistic and aesthetic character: ’Its eloquence and rhetorical beauty, and the preci- sion, economy and subtlety of its style.’39 In its linguistic and aesthetic character, too, the historico-spatial connectedness of the Qur’an is evident, a point consistently highlighted by Cragg. The various theological formulations regarding its linguistic and aesthetic character, we shall see, are further testi- mony of the trend in blZ?n a/-Qu.’aj7 to move from flexibility to rigidity or linguistic chauvinism. An example in this instance is the rejection of linguis-

* Mahmud Ayoub. The Qw2n s n d h fnfe,prcfe/e/s. 1 (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984). 2.

QUR'ANIC HERMENEUTICS 127

tic pluralism, i.e. the principle that no language is entirely independent in its development from that of another.

The Q u r b repeatedly asserts that it is a unique and inimitable Arabic Qurh. (Q. 41:44 & 121-2) It is an 'Arabic Qurhn' in order to communicate its meaning in a perfect manner to a people who took great pride in the ex- pressive quality of their language. In fact, it may be said that the roots of the doctrine of $Tiare located in this pride of the pre-Islamic Arabs. Arab poets competed with each other by composing eloquent poetry. Their linguistic skills and eloquence were sources of immense pride and the subject of ongoing inter-tribal rivalry and boasting. Arab lexicographers explain the word 'arab' as meaning 'eloquent expression' or 'effective oral communication." Non Ar- abs were called d-kh, i.e. 'those who cannot express themselves eloquently," 'M-&ayawgn a/ @urn'' means 'dumb animals.'@

The Qurkn, an "ordinance in the Arabic tongue' (Q. 13:37), goes beyond just being "an Arabic Qurh ' (Q. 122, 13:37, 16:103, etc) and asserts that its Arabic is 'hubih'' (Q. 26:195), i.e. "manifest and free from all obscurity."

Much of the early discussion around the linguistic components of the Qur'a centered around the presence, or otherwise, of non-Arabic words in it.41 The verses cited above became the key supportive texts for those who argued that the Q u r h did not contain any non-Arabic terms. They regarded such a notion as compromising the authority and inimitability of revelation. Al-Zarka~hi~~ and al-SuyUtia mention some of theprominent scholars who regarded 'hubii'' to mean "pure:'

To cope with the fact of words in the Arabic language which are also evident in non-Arabic languages some of these scholars such as al-Shiifi(i" and al-TabarT45 developed the notion of faw#fuq (coincidence). They argued that both Arabic and other languages employ the same words with identical meanings and that this uniformity of meaning was coincidental. This opinion-seriously defended by the orthodoxy today still-thus rejected the idea that non-Arabic words were borrowed at the time of the Qur'anic revelation

40 Fazlur RalpnHn, 'Islam: Legacy and Contemporary Challenge,' in h/amk s/udies, 19(1980).

The earliest MuhskLq particularly those associated with 'Atdullah Ibn 'Abbas (d.c. 689 C.E.) recognized and freely discussed a large number of non-Arabic words in the Qur'Bn. Hadr;%l literature credits Ibn 'AbbHs and 'his school' with having a special interest in seeking their origin and meaning. Recent research seems to indicate that much of the supposed early works of Ibn (AbbHs dealing with the presence of non-Arabic words in the Q u r h may be 'fiction designed to

the texts more credence by assigning them an early and prominent figure.' (Andrew Rippin. 'Ibn Abbs's Chiin8 a/-QurSff, * in B50A.f 44 [1981]. 24.)

23-24.

Al-Zarkashi. N-BurhJn. 1:287. Al-Suyii!I, A/-fiqJn, 135. Majid Khadduri, /..~~~~*~R/j;/u~ (Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press,

*5 AbP Ja'far Muhammad Ibn Jarir a l - T a b a r i . j ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ - Q u ~ ~ n , (ed.) Muhammad 1x1). 88-97. and ShHkir, 1 (1954), 99.


from other languages or were naturalized Arabic words borrowed in the cen- turies before the Qur)Bn’s appearance.&

The notion of any language or discourse being absolutely free from expressions or words used in another language is alien to the most basic linguistic principle, i.e. the inter-relatedness of human speech. This may sound trite. Two factors, however, ensured that this notion was rejected by the orthodoxy:

i) The Qda is not really regarded as human speech but as Allah’s which is not subject to any linguistic principles. Indeed, as is commonly known, Qur’anic Arabic became the standard of Arabic grammar. (The problem of Allah’s speech of necessity having to coincide with human speech for effect and meaning remains.)

ii) For the orthodoxy, Allah’s own eternity and self-subsistence fused with those of His revelation. The Qur’Hn and its language thus came to be viewed as equally timeless and independent of any ‘non-divine’ ele- ments, non-Arabic included

These attempts to extricate the Qur’iin from its historico-linguistic matrix has led to greater rigidity which was alien to the earliest muhss~kUn. It was. however, rooted in their-the later muhssikun’s-own commitment to the Qur’iin and in what Cragg describes as “a legitimate religious anxiety’47 in “its abiding relevance.” (We agree with Cragg that ”the significance of the Qur’Bn is sure enough and abides beyond such nervous and mistaken defense.” )4e

2.i.c. Literary Arrangement /Nazmm/ and Rhetorical Style/Uslgbm/

In addition to the babimubin (clear Arabic) emerging from the tongue of a Prophet who was widely regarded as illiterate, the most common aesthetic basis for the inimitability of the Qur’Bn forwarded is its literary form and rhetorical style. Not only does the Qur’Bn repeatedly assert its Arabicity in a linguistic sense but, it also conveys its message in terns familiar to the Arabs. Similarly, many of the narratives of the Qur’Bn are in an allusive style and

Eminent scholars of the Q u r h such as the philo1ogisWmuhsbAbC ‘Ubayd (d. 838 C.E.). however, continued to argue that the Qur’iin contained foreign words. Al-Suyciti. Ibn ‘Atiyyah (d.c. 1147 C.E.) end‘Abd-al-Ralpiln al-Th‘alabi (d. 1468 C.E.) tried to reconcile theology with linguistic principles. They argued that the foreign words in the Qurhn came into Arabic through the ancient Arabs’ contacts with other languages in foreign travel and commerce but that they had been thoroughly Arabized by the time of the Prophet. 6Abd al-R&man al-Th‘alabi, fit& a/+rvBh/j (Algiers: n.p., 1905), Ibn ‘Atiyyah. Muqdmmah B k!/&n a/-QurZn, (ed.) Arthur Jeffrey (Cairo: Maktabat Khanji, 1954). and JaliU al-Din al-SuyGti. A/-Pqan /j- b / O m a/-QurSn, 1 (Beirut: al- Maktabah al-Thaqafiy ya h, 1973). 136- 138.

‘? Cragg . The Event of the Qur Zn, 17, /bd


presuppose that the recipient community has some prior knowledge of the story or allegory.

The significance of nazm and udZ3 (arrangement and rhetorical style] can only meaningfully be appreciated by those fully conversant with Arabic culture and the Arabic language. Yet for many scholars nqzm and us106 have come to be synonymous with 4$2z49

2.i.d. fiaz and its implications for hermeneutics

The QdU itself and Qur’anic scholars have always conceived of language as simultaneously speech and act. Allah is encountered by humankind /hf-ihsZq) through language. This performative-informative function of language was reco ized by all the early scholars and hence the agreement that the Qur’iin’s i)Zz is located in both its message as well as its medium. The word-event which occurs in revelation, as well as in proclamation, is itself regardedby the Qur’iin as a salvitic event. (2:19-20,13:31,17:107,39:23,85:21- 22 etc.). This is particularly evident from the Qur’iln’s use of uhd?hu, a point highlighted by al-Ata.50

F

Thus we have revealed it an Arabic Q u r h . . . so that they may keep from evil, that it ddithuhhum a/-dhiXrg (may eventuate in their real- ization of truth (Q. 20:113).

The hermeneutical question regarding the 32z of the Qu&n which thus remains unanswered is whether nazm and a unique us/rib as its components would have been employed if the Qur’ln were to have been revealed in a non-Arab society? The achievement of the Qur’ln is that it does this so suc- cessfully and still engages numerous adherents from countless other cultures in an entrenching manner.

25. The Doctrine of Uncreatedness and Eternity

The connection between the formulation of dogma and its socio-poIitica1 matrix are as inescapable as the ties between history and revelation. This is equally evident from the theological developments around the question of the nature of Allah’s speech which eventually secured the notion of the Qurbn’s uncreatedness and eternity as sacred doctrine. The way the problem found its most specific formulation is itself reflective of the inexorable progression in Islamic theology in broadening the space of the “unthinkable.’

49 Boullata, ’I(jaz and Related Topics.’ so Sid Muhammad al-Ata, The Hefmeneutkgf Probfem of the Qur2.n ih Idhk History

(Unpublished Ph.d thesis London: University Microfilms International 1975) 96.


Initially the debate centered around the question of the Qur’Bn as the speech /kafZ.m) of Allah in the sense of whether or not it was a divine attribute. Subsequently another dimension of that question gradually acquired greater significance: Is it created [makhfdq) or not, i.e. hy5a bbmakhfUq (‘not created’)? Finally, in the first half of the ninth century the somewhat non-assertive ‘Yays8 bi-makhhq” was replaced by a morc definitive @ayr makhfuq” (uncreated). The question now at stake was: Does the Qurbn co-exist with Allah in all eternity or, as one of the po- lemicists put it, ’it was not, afterwards it became.’

No controversy has influenced Islamic scholarship in general and Qur’anic scholarship in particular as decisively as this one. While this problem was the outcome of a post-prophetic theological discipline, i.e. Kah-m, it must be acknowledged that this discipline itself arose out of questions implicit in the Q d a n i c fact. Reflections on the transforming doctrinal positions during and subsequent to the Manah (833-848), a kind of “inquisition” or trial instituted by the Mu,kzd%enefactor, Abti al-(AbbBs al-Ma’mtin (d. 827), are instructive with regard to the virtual elimination of theological diversity. The changing theological position of Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 855) in this debate, particularly, mirrors this transformation.

2.ii.a. The Mu‘fazilah and the emergence of Kalani

Shortly after its emergence, Islam, not unlike other religions, saw a period of intense theological speculation. This period is invariably, accompanied by a ’tangle of dogmatic c~mmentar ies ’~~ which removes the text from the ”spirit that pervades its true essence.’52 ”More intent on proof than on e lu~ ida t ion , ”~~ the defenders of the faith ended up being its subverters; this was true of the progenitors of KafZ.m, the Mu$azdah as well of their bitterest opponents-and subsequent annihilators-the Mu&ddthUn.

Nyberg argues that Muhzi3teaching in general can only be “perfectly understood’ as ’the theoretical crystallization of the political program of the (Abbasids before their accession to power.”% This may be overstating the political nature of the relationship between Mu?a.&teaching and the political program of the h52514yah. However, while ideas are not always born with an awareness of their political implications, they are never shaped in an ideological vacuum. Given that, from its origins, Islam had been inseparably dn w-dawfd (religion and polity), it is not surprising that the political struggles among the early Muslims should also have led to the elaboration of theologi-

5’

5 2 fbfZ 53 fbh!

Ignaz Goldzihtr. M u s h Studex (tr.) S. M. Stern (London: Allen and Unwin. 1971). 67.

Nyberg. ’Mu’tazilah.’ El


cal problems. It was inevitable that political issues were clothed in religious garments. in light of the subsequent explicit co-operation between hb&,wd political ideology and MugazGtheological discourse, it is quite tenable that there was considerable convergence between these in their formative stages.

What is self-evident is that &f%kv as a definitive discipline is rooted in the earliest socio-political struggles within the Muslim community. It was, however, not solely intra-Muslim polemics which shaped the emergence and development of Kd2m;contact with the world of non-Islam was equally re- sponsible. It was inevitable that the development of Islamic thought should be influenced by other cultures. With the spread of Islam, contact with non- Muslim thought and institutions of learning accelerated and left its mark on Muslim institutions and ideas. Often this has been acknowledged and not without considerable regret.

The various streams of intellectual and religious thought which influenced the development of Ka/m and, more specifically, Mu faz&dogma, have been extensively discussed by Western scholarship (Goldziher, Watt, Tritton, Wensinck et a1.). Much has also been written about the allegedly Christian basis of seemingly essentially intra-Muslim polemics,55 a position now widely discredited. What is, however, undisputed is that in being confronted with Christian Christological literature and the underlying epistemologies, Mus- lims could no longer confine themselves to the Q u r h ; it was at this point that Greek conceptions and intellectual methodology were employed.

2.ii.b. The Uncreated and Eternal Speech of Allah The focal point of Mu$azi2-theology was their emphasis on the absolute

unity of Allah and on His justice (hence their self-description as ah ld - sd wa- af-faw&Y. In dealing with the issue of Allah's attributes, therefore, and in particular with the attribute of speech, their primary concern was to uphold His absolute unity, uniqueness and immutability. To suggest that anything, even divine revelation, shared in any of these characteristics, they argued, would detract from Allah's "utter beyondness." Their principle of Divine Jus- tice resulted in a rejection of notions of Allah's arbitrary rule and predestination. If the Q u r b were eternal, they reasoned, it followed that all the events nar- rated therein were preordained; the players in all of these events would thus all have had their fate sealed, even before birth.

There is considerable uncertainty as to when exactly serious theological discussion commenced on the nature of Allah's speech and on the question of the Qur%n's createdness or otherwise. It is generally agreed that the affir-

55 Morris Scale, Mushm Theology A Study of the Origins wi?h h'ehrence /o the Church Pa&en (London: Luzac dr Company, 1964).


mation of the uncreated nature of the Qur’iin chronologically followed the assertion of its created nature by al-Ja‘d b. Dirham (d. 743) and al-Jahm b. Safwm (d. 745) and that this discussion was confined to a few scholars until the time of the Manah. An increase in state interest in Ka&v is, however, discernible from the time that the hbb2sijyh came to power: the period of H&fin al-Rashid (d.809) especially saw debate on this issue becoming quite extensive.56 This controversy reached new heights-intellectually, politically and emotionally-during the reign of al-Ma’mtin (813-833). The compelling nature of the controversy is evident from the establishment of the Manah towards the end of al-Ma)mUn’s reign in 833. Most leading officials and other prominent personalities were forced to publicly profess the createdness of the Q u h n . With a few exceptions, most theologians submitted. A large number of jurists, however, continued in secret to uphold the doctrine of an uncreated Q u r b and a few refused to submit to official doctrine. The most prominent among the latter was Ibn Hanbal who was publicly flogged and imprisoned for his beliefss7

The M3nah aroused fierce opposition among the population of Baghdad whose clear anti-inteIlectual bias rejected what it regarded as the intellectual gymnastics of fi12m in favor of the more simple and literal flad?!. The M$ndcontinued intermittently under the next two huhh- (singular &aAT&, i.e caliph) until it was abandoned in 848, shortly after the accession of al- Mutawakkil (d. 847). The repression unleashed during the M3mh polarized the various protagonists to a hitherto unknown degree and orthodox Islam asserted its ideas with a rigidity that was alien to it in the period preceding the M&d. The Mu’tazilah were denounced as fahmiwah 58 and the inter- mediary position that the Quhn is uncreated but mu&M (an event originated in time)% was denounced as heresy. Subsequently the denunciations tran- scended even this to ‘hm shah-a GkuhXih hqadkafs” (whosoever doubts their disbelief also denies the faith).

56 Montgomery Watt, ’Early Discussions About the Qur’an’ in Mus/lin Wudd XL (1950). 27. s’ Wilferd Madelung, ’The Origins of the Controversy Concerning the Creation of the Qur’an.‘

in Rehg~ous~cu/sand&r/sij? MrO/eva/fs/am (London: Variorum Reprints, 1985). W.M. Patton, A~m8~f&ff?c/anaa/a/~e~~~ffah (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1897). and Taj al-Din al-Subki. ,7hbaq#/a/-

56 So named after Jahm Ibn Safwiin (d. 745 C.E.) a follower of al-Ja’d Ibn Dirham who was executed for his heretical views during the last years of the reign of the Umayyad Khalifah Hisham (d. 745 C.E.). Al-Shahrasthi says that al-Ja‘d was the first to espouse the concept of the createdness of the Q u h n . The fahnnpyah, unlike the MUk9Zihh, denied that Allah really speaks. Their name came to be eternally associated with all those who denied the createdness of the Qur’iin. Works entitled ’Refutation of the jahmiyyah’ were produced.

59 Brief accounts of various intermediate positions between the created-uncreated poles have been preserved in the heresiographies and in the polemical works of the victors, the @an&M- AdJh98h. Al-Ash‘ari’s Maga‘/aa/h/!mi+y/> (ed. Ritter. 1929-30) is a prime example of the latter.

(Cairo: n.p., 1324 H.).


This unstoppable march of the orthodoxy into the terrain of the ”think- able’ and its conversion into ’unthinkable’ territory is evident from the following:

1) Prior to the Mianah it was acceptable to most Traditionists of un- doubted orthodoxy to suspend judgment on the question of the Qurh ’ s createdness or otherwise; some even regarded it as necessary and vir- tuous do so. Ibn Hanbal was evidently among those who refrained from any addition to the statement that ’the Qur’iin is the speech of Allah.’ He is even quoted as having said: Whoever asserts that the Q u r h is created is a f d m - a n d whoever asserts that it is uncreated is a heretic innovator.’@’ During and after the M&wh this attitude of suspension of opinion was transformed into an insistence on a declaration in favor of its uncreatedness and even a bitter denunciation of those who main- tained silence.

2) In the pre-Mjhah period the notion of the Qur’an’s createdness was not viewed as synonymous with the notion of its temporality. Here Madelung refers to the discourse on the positions ascribed to Ja‘far al- gdiq (d. 765) and Abii Hanifah (d. 767) and to a &&!!attributed to‘Amr h Din& al+diq and Abii Hanifah accepted the Qur%n as Allah‘s speech while ignoring or rejecting respectively its uncreatedness61

In the post-Mand period, however, ”created” came to be regarded as essentially meaning ”temporal’ and ’uncreated” as meaning ’eternal” /@ah). Subsequently the conflict came to be viewed as ’basically concerned with temporality versus eternity.”‘j2

2.ii.c. Post-Mihnah Crystallization of Doctrine

As the scope of the doctrine of the eternal and uncreated Q u r h expanded, the position articulated by Ibn Hanbal and his successors, the ?yan2612!ah/ Ash&&~d~ came to occupy the center and their doctrine triumphed as the intennediate position.

The appetite for the use of the new weapons of xa/m acquired by the orthodoxy were insatiable and as previously the elastic ‘Yayssa 6i-makhhq” was found to be ihadequate, this now became the case with ‘@hayr-maA+hq. ”

Madelung. Rehgious &huo/s and&c& 521.

I&d, 513ff. The tern ?ya#b,+!! is usually applied to the followers of Ibn Hanbal with the emphasis on

their commitment to, or application of, his juristic principles. Ibn Hanbal, however. more than any of the other three prominent Sunmijurist eponyms. came to signify a particular theological position: literalism and the acceptance of dogma without enquiry. The Ashhflyah are the theological heirs of Ibn Hanbal and used ka/!m methods denounced by him, to arrive at his conclusions.

61 ~ J Z , 508 and 512.


The refined orthodox doctrine on the nature of the Q u r h is expressed epigramatically in a sentence attributed to a m a d ibn Hanbal: ”What lies between the two covers is the Speech of Allah.’64 It specifies that the Q u r h , the Speech of Allah, is eternal, and uncreated in its essence and sense, (but) created in its letters and sounds @ d w a y k i ~ ) . The concept of the Qu&n being uncreated thus came to include the written copy with its letters written in ink and put on paper.

Soon it came to pass that that ’which is read in the prayer niches as it emerges from the throats of the believers” was upheld as inseparable from Allah’s eternal and uncreated word. The expression ‘%&I- bi-a/-Qu~& mahA7q” (‘my uttering of the Q u r b is created” ) was denounced as heretical and even al-Bukhari-who considered such pronouncements admissible-was not saved from denunc ia t i~n .~~

2.ii.d. The Implications of the Mihnah for Qur’anic Scholarship and Hermeneutics

In our discussion on the nature of the Qurkn we have attempted to dem- onstrate that both the epistemological tools, i.e. the discipline of Kd2.m, and the direction of the discourse on scripture were shaped by external sociopolitical forces. These forces, in turn, operate within a specific geo-sociological space and period. The issue was thus not so much what the Qurkn or Allah says but what He was willed to say by the believers. From the regular resort to the Q u r h for legitimation by all sides it is evident that the plausibility of both its createdness and non-createdness may be inferred therefrom. (It is said that Al-Ash‘ari wrote a commentary on this issue in which he explained every verse employed by his opponents in such a way that his new interpretation supported his own views.)

We may summarize the consequences of these theological developments as follows:

i. Intermediate theological positions and ideas of doctrinal tentativeness were virtually eliminated. The earliest Muslims did not discuss the issue despite attempts to fabricate &dZ4 to indicate the contrary. For more than a century the vast majority of Muslim scholars, including the Mubaddihfin, did not pronounce on this question. When the matter became an issue of political and public debate it was resolved with an inflexible ‘true’ doctrine of the Qur’an’s uncreatedness and eternity.

ii. The Mu,%azi+!!hwere reduced to a heretical fringe and, with them, the progressive content of many of their ideas. The intolerant spirit with

Alp14 Ibn Hanbal. Mumad l(Cairo: n.p., 1859). 415. Goldziher, Mu.~J~+J S/udes 73.

QUR)ANIC HERMENEUTICS 135

which they ruthlessly pursued their ideas-and their opponents-and the reason which they brought to bear upon questions of belief were, however, to abide with Muslims until this day.

iii. Concomitant with the above was the re-emergense of the orthodox position with a vengeance and armed with the all-purpose doctrinal weapon of bi&-kaylca (lit. ‘without how,’ i.e. ’without further enquiry’), which is to unquestioningly accept matters of dogma. 66

iv. If the ideas of the Mu$aziId were virtually destroyed then their methodology survived. ’Flee from Kalh, no matter what form it takes, as you would flee from a lion’ was the motto of the Mu$wdd&7n. Yet, so compelling was the Kal, orientation of the discourse and of the engagement with the Mu$az.kah that it overwhelmed the victors. ’The victory was won by orthodox Islam’ says Wensinck, ’which finally took possession of the fortress of the enemy. Yet it could not refrain from making use of the weapons which it found there.’67

What are the hermeneutical implications of the actual subject: the supra- historicity of scripture?

1. Traditional Islamic scholarship has made a neat and seemingly unbridgeable distinction between the production of scripture on the one hand and its interpretation and reception on the other. The latter, it is claimed, is an ’entirely different, in fact unrelated, issue.’68 from its genesis. This distinction, if it is to continue as indeed seems to be the case is the crucial factor in the shaping of Qur’anic hermeneutics for it implies that the only hermeneutics which Islam can cope with is that pertaining to interpretation and reception. Whether this is adequate in coping with the challenges of modernity is doubtful. It would seem, however, that it will only be a matter of time before Muslims are confronted with the interconnectedness of these issues. Like the futile distinction between the technological benefits and their underlying value system-and this is not suggested judgementally-we will have to face the consequences of our shortsightedness.

2. Unlike early biblical scholarship which was at least unanimous about the Bible being a ’work’-God’s or that of men-in Islam the transcen- dentalist perspective went beyond this; the Qur’an’s being a ’work’ was itself disputed as was the question of its (historical) ’event-ness’ (muhdath). Anything remotely conceding any aspect of Qur’anic

64 With the notion of b& kay% Ibn Hanbal attempted to resolve the conflict between reason and revelation and this was particularly employed to ’explain’ the apparently anthropomorphic expressions in the Q u r b . This is now the accepted v i m of the/>mhui:

w AJ. Wensick, TheMudh m h ! ! Cenesrj-~dH~sto~li;B/~veiopmen/ Ilondon: Frank Cass k Co. Ltd, 1965).

Shabbir Akhtar, ’An Islamic Model of Revelation.’ in khm andMushm-Cbnh%9n Reidion$ 2:l.


revelation is summarily dismissed as making 'conceptual room for posing a potentially dangerous question about the authority of scripture."j9

To the extent that hermeneutics also deal with the genesis and nature of a text it is thus difficult to foresee Muslim scholars of the Qur'Hn ever taking it on board. In this respect Qur'anic scholarship may follow the path walked by early biblical scholarship whereby classic Christian exegesis and polemics around the Reformation was characterized by considerable accusations of exegesis being a product of human systems going wrong without questioning the genesis of scripture. There was thus considerable debate about the historical setting of scripture and how that setting influences interpretation without touching the nature and genesis of scripture.

3. The way in which the formula of the Qur'Bn's eternity found expression, the doctrine of &% as well as the historical factors which occasioned it, and the Qurbn's claims to be a guide to people who are located within history mean that revelation remains related to history. Muslims, like others, have connected with a reality transcending history and that revelation, putative or real, has taken place within history and has been conditioned by history. Thus, as Cantwell Smith so cogently argues 'scripture, whatever else it may additionally be, is also an historical phen~menon."~

3.i. Reception Hermeneutics and Islamic Scholarship

Reception hermeneutics, involve more than the struggle for relevance or contemporary contextuality. The theological questions raised by it, while on the surface less likely to provoke the amompropre of the orthodoxy, as we shall see, are as far reaching in their implications as those of the genesis of the Qur>m.

In our discussion on i3Zzwe have seen how, in a broader sense, the life of Mu?mnmad may be regarded as a commentary on and exposition of the Qur'iin. Moreover, the whole of Islamic history might in some ways be viewed as-at least ideally-an elaborating and implementing of its meaning however inadequate such attempts may have been. Cantwell Smith has cogently argued that Islamic history might be seen as 'the ongoing inter-play between human and mundane distractions, on the one hand and on the other, the corporate Muslim attempt to work out in practice the meaning of the divine In all such cases, he argues, the valid interpretation of a particular verse is the best possible interpretation that one can think of; not in the sense to "concoct

/bL? W.C. Smith, 'The True Meaning of Scripture,' @?EX 489.

" /bid, 491.


it cunningly or contrive it irresponsibly’ as one’s adversaries may want to proff er.72

Within this broad examination of a legacy of interpretion, we believe that the genres of bf&n d-Qu/& (Qdanic studies) and qsd d-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) contain theological and juristic precedents for a contemporary henneneutic of reception. These genres must be fully explored as among the richest concretizations of Islamic scholarship coping with the quest for meaning. Such an exploration, if it seeks to deal creatively with the challenges of modernity, must however be alert to the following:

i. It cannot merely repeat previous understandings dressed in contemporary jargon. Through a merging of distinct horizons it must produce new meaning. This means that we must eschew the tendency in Islamic scholarship to augment existing accepted works-&shy& upon &..I@

(Marginal notes)-in a desperate struggle to avoid rejection and to lay claims to legitimacy.

ii. We have seen, in the discussion on the Qur’an’s createdness, how theology came to occupy the position of an ideology in the service of the powerful. An attempt to rediscover blLm d-Qu/% and YsUf-af-fiqh must therefore be accompanied by an attempt to distinguish between orthodoxy as a ’militant ideological endeavour, a tool of legitimation for the state and the values enforced by this state’n (and) Islam as a way offered to humankind ‘to discover the Absolute..’‘

3.ii.a. UsUl al-tafsir

The geixes of n a s - , ash3 a/-nuza hn a/-m&fii%l wa-dmadani.vl~lfr and that of t d s i i n general will be particularly rich in yielding precedents for a contemporary reception hermeneutic. In the formulation of qd d-tdsii in general and the genres of nasa and ash% d-nuzolin particular, Muslim scholars have excelled in providing an understanding of the Qur’h and, more pertinently, locating the meaning of various texts within their Skh /e&n and giving us insights into how these texts were received by the earliest hearers.

Lack of space prevents us from a detailed discussion on how these different genres can be incorporated into reception hermeneutics and the problems connected to each. The relevance of nasa and a5b2b d-nuzri/in examining how the Q u r h was perceived to be interacting with history is however, fairly obvious. What needs to be emphasized here is the need for a hermeneutical theory which enables us to go beyond examining the ”occasions’ of isolated

/b/Z Muhammad Arkoun, The Cbnmpt of Reve18tiOn: Fmm the People of the h k to the

W e t % s of /be Boo.. a monograph (California: Claremont Graduate School. 1987). 7. 7‘ &/Z


texts into one which examines the $ 2 ~ i.13 /ebm of the Q u r b as an entirety, a task emphasized particuiarly by Fazlur

It is, however, the vast legacy and ongoing production of tahiAiterature in its various forms which will occupy the attention of the reception hermeneut as the key to 'meaning' because the meaning of the Qurbn for people is the history of its meanings.

Most modernist or reformist scholars have taken up the call "back to the source (Qurhn)" 'as it clarifies itself.' Implicit in these calls are usually an attempt to ignore the productions of what Fazlur refers to as "the age of commentaries' in an attempt to recover what is perceived to be the pristine meaning of the Qurkn. While these calls are clearly premised on the recovery of meaning on the basis of reason, they fail to acknowledge the role of people in the meaning making enterprise. Meaning, as Martin so cogently argues, 'must focus on the interpretation of meaning.'76 Scholars arguing for a by- passing of fafiiT work ignore that

exegesis is not an interpretation but rather an extension of the symbol and must itself be interpreted; even if these exegetical additions belong to the phase of redaction, they are not quite exterior to the text, but belong to its productivity."

The task of reception hermeneutics is not the recovery of an elusive au- thorial intention but a study of and a contribution to the ongoing and ever varying approximations of it. Basing itself on t2hFliterahu-e in its widest sense- this, to my mind, would include religio-political tracts or the publications of traditionalist clerics' reception hermeneutics would examine the multifarious receptions, concretizations and interpretations of the text. This intepretative task would embrace the problem of the "shift in horizons of diverse audi- ences, and the transformation between past and present horizons of expectations toward the text.'78

3.ii.b. Usd a/-fiqh

While the idea of orthopraxis in the realm of jurisprudence has often been conceptualized in terms of an ever-contemporary transcendent dimension on the one hand and the ever changing historical form on the other, our classic distinction between $qi&h (dogma), h-%z% (worship) and mu$maI#f (social dealings) has prevented us from seeing those same principles operative in

75 Fazlur mmh. 'Islam: Legacy and Contemporary Challenge,' in fslamk9u&& 19(1980).

76 R.C. Martin, 'Understanding the Qdh, Rxt and Context.' in HdoqfofRe&Jon&21:4 (1982). and 'Interpreting the Q d h , ' in hquiry(May. 1986).

363. /bid, 369.

78 Fiorenza. 'The Crisis of Scriptural Authority,' fntepretaion, XLIV (October. 1990). 22.


it cunningly or contrive it irresponsibly' as one's adversaries may want to proff er.72

Within this broad examination of a legacy of interpretion, we believe that the genres of bf&n d-Qurhn (Qdanic studies) and qsuf d-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) contain theological and juristic precedents for a contemporary hermeneutic of reception. These genres must be fully explored as among the richest concretizations of Islamic scholarship coping with the quest for meaning. Such an exploration, if it seeks to deal creatively with the challenges of modernity, must however be alert to the following:

i. It cannot merely repeat previous understandings dressed in contemporary jargon. Through a merging of distinct horizons it must produce new meaning. This means that we must eschew the tendency in Islamic scholarship to augment existing accepted works-&d&m5 upon &Cdiyah (Marginal notes)-in a desperate struggle to avoid rejection and to lay claims to legitimacy.

ii. We have seen, in the discussion on the Qur'iin's createdness, how theology came to occupy the position of an ideology in the service of the powerful. fin attempt to rediscover d-Qu/% and usuf-af-fiqh must therefore be accompanied by an attempt to distinguish between orthodoxy as a 'militant ideological endeavour, a tool of legitimation for the state and the values enforced by this state'n (and) Islam as a way offered to humankind 'to discover the Absolute.'''

3.ii.a. Usuf al-tafsir

The geiwes of msh, as&iba/-nuzg $ i a/-m&wi wa-dmsdniwi and that of t d s i i n general will be particularly rich in yielding precedents for a contemporary reception hermeneutic. In the formulation of d-fdh? in general and the genres of nas& and as686 d-nuzuf in particular, Muslim scholars have excelled in providing an understanding of the Q u r h and, more pertinently, locating the meaning of various texts within their Si2h feben and giving us insights into how these texts were received by the earliest hearers.

Lack of space prevents us from a detailed discussion on how these different genres can be incorporated into reception hermeneutics and the problems connected to each. The relevance of nas& and as626 d-nuzdin examining how the Q u r h was perceived to be interacting with history is however, fairly obvious. What needs to be emphasized here is the need for a hermeneutical theory which enables us to go beyond examining the 'Occasions' of isolated

72 /blZ

7' filZ

f3 Muhammad Arkoun. The Gbnmpt of ReVCf8tlon.' Fmm the Peopfe of the bbok to the Wetiks of the h. a monograph (California: Claremont Graduate School. 1987). 7.


iii. If there is no access to meaning outside history, does this imply that human contingency empowers Allah and that His presence has no ‘meaning‘ outside human existence? Arkoun has dealt at length with the way all of a person’s semiotic productions are subject to historicity and argued along the lines of Paul Ricoeur that ’as a semiotic articulation of meaning for social and cultural the Q u r h is itself ’subject to historicity.’82 This is not a major step from postulating the unthinkable: that the divine is itself subject to historicity. Arkoun, however, stops short of this saying ’that there is no access (emphasis mine) to the absolute outside the phenomenal world of our terrestrial, historical existence.v83

Sooner or later those connections will have to be confronted as Aitken has argued:

’Ib write large the sipficance of human agency is to see that meaning is itself a contest within power relations; divinity lies within the working of that contest and cannot be predicated transcendentally outside the contest as the guarantor of a finally achievable meaningM

iv. The neat distinction between the genesis of the Qur’gn and the recovery of meaning is thus of little consequence and even absurd, for as meaning becomes historical, we see questions of the authority of the past intrinsic to ’the question of the meaning of the past in relation to the meaning of the present’ and as Fiorenza points out the issue of authority becomes integrated with that of meaning.=

It is no longer simply a question whether a scriptural text has authority or not. Instead the question of the meaning of the text takes priority and only in the context of the resolution of the issue of meaning can the issue of authority be resolved. Differences in meaning entail differences in authority

We are confronted with a plethora of urgent questions: What is an ’au- thentic’ appreciation of the Qur)anic message today? What constitutes and infoms ’authenticity?‘ How legitimate is it to produce meaning-as distinct from extracting meaning-from Qur’anic texts?

These are some of the issues which hermeneutics do not create-they have always been with us-but will have to be confronted. They are intrinsic to the search for a Qdan ic response to the challenges confronting us today. Elsewhere I have dealt with the history of these challenges in South Africa

*I M. Arkoun. Rethhk.hgfd!, 9. Iz /&J/b!

/bid Aithen, ’Reflections,’ (unpublished paper). Rorenza, ’The Crisis of Scriptural Authority,’ 18.


and the Muslims response to them.= I have argued that debate in contemporary Islamic thought must shift to a clearer understanding of mediating cultures which inform it rather than it being confined to conflicting epistimologies which are only the consequence of competing ideological claims.

We agree with Cragg that ’the study of the Qur’m, like its quality, must live in history.’87 However, we have been compelled to go beyond that and ask the crucial question: ’Whose history? For those who eke out an existence on the margins of society, living under the yoke of oppression and struggling with the equally oppressed ’other’ in the hope of liberation, a pluralism of splendid and joyous epistemological neutrality or ”objectivity’ along the lines advocated by Arkoun is not an option that can be pursued with integrity. All of human endeavour takes place within a context. In a context of racial division and economic exploitation the freedom to rethink the meaning of meaning and of the reception and appropriation of scripture must be geared towards the forging of hermeneutical keys which enables one to read the text in a manner which facilitates the liberation of the oppressed.

Bihngham Univers2y Um2dfigdom

FARID ESACK

Esack. ’Three Islamic Strands in the South African Struggle for Justice,’ 17. Cragg, The Event of /he Qw3n, 17.

The Editors express sincere apology to Ms. Marianne Perciaccante for editorial errors in her article ’The Mormon-Muslim Comparison’ (Z4eMu.h Worfd July-October, 1992). The Editors further apologize that, due to printing deadlines, the edited version of the article appeared without Ms. Perciaccante’s approval.

Readers are asked to note the following corrections: 1844-77 as the dates of Brigham Young’s Presidency (p. 296) ”editions’ in note 20 to read ”editors’ (p. 301) note 68 to include the following reference: Garth. N. Jones, ”The wmadi’s of Islam: A Mormon Encounter and Comparison,” D 2 - foge 19, (Summer 19861, 39-54.

Subscribers may apply to the Editors for a copy of Ms. Perciaccante’s original manuscript (one copy per subscriber).

I’

Documents

Qur'Anic Hermeneutics Problems and Prospects