Tag: quran

This exploding of how jihadi rhetoric hijacks the Quran is so beautiful and on point that I'm linking to it again.

The first and most important thing that this suggests to me is that militants do not represent, do not claim to represent and do not wish to represent ordinary Muslims. They call on the elite, not the common man, to fight in their 'holy' war. They're not interested in your Uncle Ahmad, who plays backgammon and watches football all weekend.  They want the people who are sure of their own superiority--so sure that they would respond to the words of a prophesy in the Qur'an itself. If this is not the picture of arrogance, I don't know what is.

Willow, it is an honor to know you. 

I really hope this article makes the rounds. This is a wonderful insistence by a regular believer standing up for the beauty of the Quran.

CAIR has set up a program where non-Muslims can get the best Quranic translation out there -- Muhammad Asad's -- for free. That particular Quran is a $55 value.

You pay shipping costs.

Sorry Muslims, you're out of luck. You want a free Quran? Go ask the Saudi Embassy (please don't). Either that, or find a non-Muslim to order it for you. Or have a non-Muslim sounding name.

This is my first post. I greet everyone in this community. I would like to devote my first post to "The Message of The Quran" by Muhammad Asad, since my ideas are heavily influenced by this excellent interpretation of the Quran, and I will refer to this commentory lots pf times in my posts to come.

 

I received this via email:

salam.  saw the site and thought i would explain a little.  i think OmarG has not properly understood the distinctions that Khalid Zaheer ("KZ") is making.  I don't necessarily blame this on OmarG, but on the concise nature of the article.  The Qur'an b'il Qur'an aspect of exegesis is nothing new.  In fact, *every* mufassir swears by it as their first interpretive approach.  it is the *first* arbiter of meaning for every exegete.  the question is really - what is the *final* arbiter of meaning?  For instance, even for Tabataba'i it is rarely the Qur'an.  Generally, it will either be his own reasoning, "traditions" (opinions of other scholars), etc.  The originalist approach cannot be taken as distinct from the wholistic/nazm approach to the Qur'an.  See most mufassir when they say they are doing Qur'an b'il Qur'an they mean this in a very limited sense.  Their preference is to interpret through what the plain meaning of the verse is, what hadith say about it, but more often through opinions of older scholars (by the way, the hadith phenomenon is not really even because of Ibn Kathir - its Imam Shafi'i that really brought it on.  His elevation of hadith changed the entire ballgame, causing others to, even rationalists, to emulate him.  Of course this is a longer discussion). 

The originalist (or literary or textual) approach examines *each* verse of the Qur'an in light of everything else in the Qur'an. 

Anyway, for a more detailed examination I would read the latest article in January 2007 of Renaissance and I would see the first chapter of Mustansir Mir's "Coherence of the Qur'an" book.

Related:

Three Approaches To Interpreting Quran

Tafsir Of The Quran

Fahad's Diary 

MISCONCEPTION #4

The messenger’s job was not just to deliver the Qur’an like a postman but his duty is also to explain and give commentary of the divine message. In many Quranic verses it is stated that he gives the knowledge of the Book. The knowledge and Tafsir (Exegesis) of the Book of Allah that the messenger has given is contained in the books of traditions. Thus Qur’an is the theory while the compilations of traditions are its Tafsir.

CLARIFICATION

While it is correct to state that the messengers duty was not restricted to merely reciting the Qur’an to his people, as is evident by the words: "..He will give them the knowledge of the Book .." (2:129), it is also an incontestable fact that the books of traditions that are upheld by varous sects and attributed to the messenger, do not contain the explanation of each and every verse of the Qur’an. What exists in those compilations are some ascribed paradoxical reports limited to certain verses only. No book of tradition contains the complete commentary and explanation of the Qur’an from Surah Al-Fatiha, the first chapter to Surah An-Naas, the last chapter, that it could attribute to the messenger of Allah.

This being the case, the question arises that how did the messenger confer the knowledge of the Book of Allah to his audience? And where can we find those explanations? The Qur’an provides us the adequate answer to these questions of extreme importance.

Interesting comments rose up in a previous post discussing the three methods of interpreting the Quran, in which Dr. Khalid Zaheer stated that the originalist approach of interpreting the Quran was:

The Originalist approach, on the other hand, considers the Qur’anic text as the ultimate criterion for deciding whether an interpretation is valid or not.

OmarG was quick to point out that Zaheer's "Originalist" approach is nothing new and that Zaheer was merely doing tafsir "Quran bi-l Quran." 

The most intriguing question was what role did the "Prophet's Tafsir" serve to an Originalist like Zaheer. [The Prophet's Tafsir are hadith narrations which comment on particular Quranic verses or Surahs].

It would appear to me that someone like Dr. Zaheer wants to limit himself to using the Quran as a source of his tafsir because using the Quran is considered the most authoritative means of interpreting the Quran in the traditional model of doing commentary.

It would also appear that the reason we Muslims are so quick to think that you cannot do a tafsir of the Quran without the hadith has a lot to do with the influence (and Saudi patronage) of Tafsir Ibn Kathir, which primarily uses hadith to interpret the Quran. Most of us, growing up in the states, do not see any other tafsir except this one. But if you grow up in a place like Pakistan you would be more likely to see Mawdudi's tafsir (which is pretty free-ranging) and would be less wont to think that a tafsir has to be done using hadith.

Fact is, Tafsir ibn Kathir is just one of thousand books of exegesis. Many, if not most, of them do not rely primarily on the hadith. In fact, the burden rests on proponents of Tafsir Ibn Kathir on explaining why it relies primarily on hadith instead of the Quran for its exegesis.

There are numerous mainstream tafasir which do not follow Ibn Kathir's methodology: this includes the tafsir by Ibn Al-Arabi, and as OmarG mentioned, the Tafsir by Allama Tabatabai (Quran bi-l Quran); as well as the Tafsir by Mufti Muhammad Shafi'i (father of Mufti Taqi Usmani) (which appears to me to be Quran bi-l Quran); as well as the Tafsir by Amin Ahsan Islahi (Quran bi-l Quran + thematic structure of Quran); as well as the Tafsir by Muhammad Ghazali (not Imam Ghazali) (Thematic Structure of the Quran).

Frankly, tafsir via hadith seems kind of confusing, and certainly less than satisfactory to me. Since we know that the "standard musannaf compilations of hadith arranged according to legal topic, date from the mid ninth century." [Studies In Early Muslim Jurisprudence].

I don't see the wisdom of relying on Bukhari for hadith when you a) have the Quran and b) have a longstanding methodology for doing tafsir using the Quran. (Then again, I'm not really a Muslim and can only talk politics).

From an incredibly scholarly blog by Dr. Khalid Zaheer:

Although numerous ways have been adopted to interpret the Qur’anic text over the last fourteen centuries, it could be said, in retrospect, that they can be broadly divided into three categories: the Traditionalist approach, the Modernist approach, and the Originalist approach.

I was intrigued by the Originalist Approach:

The Originalist approach, on the other hand, considers the Qur’anic text as the ultimate criterion for deciding whether an interpretation is valid or not. Although it deems it desirable to consider whether a certain interpretation is supported by the earlier scholars, such support is not regarded to be crucial for accepting the validity of it. Likewise, although it deems it to be a useful consideration that an interpretation should make sense to the modern man, that consideration too is not decisive. The only indispensable principle for an interpretation to be valid is that it should be strictly loyal to the Qur’anic text. To a Originalist, it would make no difference whether no one has come up with a peculiar interpretation of the Qur’an before it is presented so long as it is supported by valid arguments showing its compatibility with the Qur’anic text. It also makes no difference whether or not the interpretation appeals to the modern mind or not, if that interpretation is bringing to light the Qur’anic text in a way that the reader gets a strong feeling that God’s word hasn’t been tampered with and that the end result of the exercise is indeed the true meaning of God’s words.

The whole post is worth reading. Definitely read the footnotes, especially if you have questions about Sunnah. Although I'd like some clarification on what he means when he says that it doesn't matter whether the interpretation appeals to the modern mind or not.

Here's hoping that Dr. Zaheer and his students will stop by from time to time and enlighten us about their methodology.