Book: Modern Muslim Intellectuals and The Quran
-
peace all,
I started reading 'Modern Muslim Intellectuals and The Quran', first article was a review of Fazlur Rahman's work on 'A framework for interpreting the ethico-legal content of the Qur'an'. Here are the bits I deemed interesting
Rahman argued that, in order to understand the ideal and the contingent in Qur?anic pronouncements, the best tool available was ?historical criticism?, which could clarify the context and the rationale of the guidance, and distinguish the ideal from the contingent. To demonstrate this point, Rahman used the example of polygamy. The Qur?an undoubtedly improved the rights and status of women compared with their pre-Islamic condition in Hijaz. One of its instructions was that a man should not marry more than one wife if he could not do justice to all of them, adding categorically that, no matter how he tried, just treatment would be impossible. However, it was equally true that the Qur?an gave permission to many up to four wives. How then could these two sets of instructions be understood? One way was to say that the Qur?an wanted to promote the maximum happiness of family life and that, to this end, a monogamous marriage would be the ideal, but that this declared moral purpose had to be compromised in the reality of seventh-century Arabian society, in which polygamy was too deeply entrenched for it to be removed without defeating the moral purpose itself. The Qur?an therefore accepted polygamy at the legal level, but restricted it and placed as many safeguards as possible, while at the same time enunciating the ideal of the monogamous society towards which the Prophet wanted Muslims to move.
The distinction between the ideal and the contingent, Rahman argued, was given little importance, if any, in the construction of Islamic law and in the interpretation of the Qur?an.The above is a huge point.
The various purposes and principles of the Qur?an must, therefore, he brought together to yield a unified and comprehensive socio? moral theory squarely based upon the Qur?an and its sunna counterparts. It must he frankly admitted that this task has not been attempted in the past and, although the Qur?anic teaching on socio?moral questions has a definite character, this teaching has never been formulated as a comprehensive and cohesive doctrine.
Rahman argued, however, that the Sunna content left by the Prophet (prophetic Sunna) was neither extensive nor meant to be absolutely specific. In the post-prophetic period, this limited material was further added to by the early Muslim communities through the ?living Sunna?. However, in order to maintain the link to the prophetic legacy, this living Sunna was legitimised by the ijma? of the community. This function of ijma? thus kept isolated hadith outside the boundary of Sunna, giving the living Sunna a certain degree of cohesiveness. Following the mass hadith movement, however, the organic relationship between Sunna and ijma was destroyed. Similarly, the distinction between the ?prophetic Sunna? and ?living Sunna? became blurred. All was subsumed in the broad category of hadith, which became synonymous with the Sunna of the prophet, a gross distortion of the concepts. Much of this distortion took place over the second and third centuries AH, and in particular in the work of al-Shafi.
While Rahman saw a close connection between the Quran and the prophetic Sunna, he argued that hadith material should be used advisedly, particularly as the hadith came to include many superstitions that developed in the post-prophetic period, such as the Prophet?s ascension or mi?raj, which, for Rahman, had virtually no support in the Qur?an but appeared often in the hadith. Nonetheless, Rabman thought that the hadith, even though they might not necessarily reflect ?prophetic Sunna?, could be useful if subjected to historical criticism. If the study of early hadith material were carried out under the canons of historical criticism in relation to historical and sociological background, even an isolated hadith could become meaningful for now.
In keeping with his belief and his education, Rahman always gave priority to what the Qur?an said, and in particular to its overall message, on any given issue. Where that message conflicted with the hadith, Rahman was in no doubt that the Qur?an was to be preferred over the hadith as representing the actual legacy of the Prophet. In any interpretation of the ethico legal content of the Qur?an, the actual, explicit and overall message of the Qur?an, in his view, should he given priority. Rahman saw the two main problems for Muslims in rethinking the interpretation of the Qur?an in order to relate it to present needs as the historical belief that the hadith contained the Sunna of the Prophet, and that the Qur?anic rulings on social behaviour had to he literally implemented in all times ?This stood like a rock in the way of any substantial rethinking of the social content of Islam.? Both beliefs thus had to be challenged and rethought. -
Peace Brother,
Thanks for keeping us posted. I received this book yesterday, ordering it right after you recommended it, from bookdepository.co.uk. Can't wait to read it!
Nadeem
-
peace bro,
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on it too, once you've read it.
I was surprised Fazlur Rahman was significantly anti-hadith and openly admitted gross distortions had taken place in the formulation of law, as he is considered one of the significant Islamic scholars of the 20th century, even by traditional Muslims. I am confident, the more we dig, the more we will see many have recognised the problems we are pointing out.
-
I can also recommend Prof. Baljon's Modern Muslim Koran Interpretation 1920-1960, it is not in print anymore, but it is available online on secondhand bookstores.
For example
Baljon mentions in "Modern Muslim Koran Interpretation (1968 Brill)
"A clear anti-ritualistic approach is to be read among the modern writers....Further, it is attempted to prove a broad sense of Salat and its components on etymolgical grounds. "Al-Salat", it is is argued, "is a term for 'walking on a striaght road'...musalli is a word for a horse running in a race right behind the first group of horses; no musalli is a zigzagging horse. Accordingly, if it is stated about somebody who turns away from the body of Islam that "he does not believe, does not observe salat but denies the truth and takes by-roads"(7531).
"Is nothing else but arrangement and order, concord of the community and obedience to the leader, public spirit and self-command, battle against firmness towards the enemy, deliberateness and jusitice. Control of land and sea, as reptiles have it, command of the air as birds have it. All Westerners know what Salat means, occupying the earth from to bottom".
And Parwez holds forth in another excursus "Sabh (root of Tasbeeh) signifies 'to swim, to race with the fierceness of a horse', that is to say as , while swimming, the arms are spread widely, so it is called sabh if a horse gallops at full trot. Consequently, in this notion both the elements of fierceness and expanse are implied. So e.g. sabbaha fi l'ard means 'to travel in distant countries'; inna laka fi 'l-nahari sbhan tawilan (737)-"you have in the daytime an extensive and busy occupation". Hence, it says that everything in the creation is 'doing sabh', it signifies that everything is busy with carrying out appointed duties in a scrupulous way"....Ahmed Al-Din says by this also that Hajj is an annual international conference that ought to be avail for prevention of wars."
Mashriqi says also "On the whole Sujud in the Koran does not stand for 'to rub the forehead on the ground' but 'to act upon the commands of God'. Thus 555-6; "And the herbs and trees made a Sadjah"(i.e. obeyed the Laws of God)
-
Dear Wakas, salam!
Thanks for making us aware of Fazalur Rehman, I did not know that he existed, His rest of the work should be an interesting read.
Quote.
Rahman argued that, in order to understand the ideal and the contingent in Qur?anic pronouncements, the best tool available was ?historical criticism?, which could clarify the context and the rationale of the guidance, and distinguish the ideal from the contingent. To demonstrate this point, Rahman used the example of polygamy. The Qur?an undoubtedly improved the rights and status of women compared with their pre-Islamic condition in Hijaz. One of its instructions was that a man should not marry more than one wife if he could not do justice to all of them, adding categorically that, no matter how he tried, just treatment would be impossible. However, it was equally true that the Qur?an gave permission to many up to four wives. How then could these two sets of instructions be understood? One way was to say that the Qur?an wanted to promote the maximum happiness of family life and that, to this end, a monogamous marriage would be the ideal, but that this declared moral purpose had to be compromised in the reality of seventh-century Arabian society, in which polygamy was too deeply entrenched for it to be removed without defeating the moral purpose itself. The Qur?an therefore accepted polygamy at the legal level, but restricted it and placed as many safeguards as possible, while at the same time enunciating the ideal of the monogamous society towards which the Prophet wanted Muslims to move.
The distinction between the ideal and the contingent, Rahman argued, was given little importance, if any, in the construction of Islamic law and in the interpretation of the Qur?an.I do not agree with his above assertions fully,
I do agree that for happiness of a family life (generally) a monogamous marriage is ideal, but declaring that God compromised his laws for a seventh century Arabian society ? is an idea far fetched, and does not reflect a good image of an all powerful, just God.
He (like most others) has probably not correctly understood 4-129, and hence terming it as a catch 22 sanction.
4-129 And you will not be able to be fair regarding the women even if you make every effort; so do not sway too greatly and leave her as one hanging in a void. And if you reconcile and do right, then God is Forgiving, Merciful.
If we reflect deeply, we are able to deduce a different spirit behind this commandment. This ayah is telling Men that,
God knows/accepts that One can not be absolutely just in dealing with the women , but going to an extreme by abandoning one (completely) is wrong. And further advises Men to make a positive effort/endeavor to correct/improve upon such a situation , if it exists, and he will be forgiving merciful (for minor differentiation, which he knows that they can not be in your control)
peace
siki
-
peace,
Re the ideal and the contingent, with regard to polygamy.
Irrespective of view...
If AQ were to have annulled polygamous marriages, this would have most likely left many women with no husband and most likely with no income, creating problems.Also, if you read the other quotes from FR, his main point is that the ethics of AQ must be taken into account before laws can be formulated. A classic example would be if a person stole food to feed himself because he was poor and could not afford food, technically this would be a violation of AQ "rules" but not it's ethics. Interestingly, one could even argue using AQ it would be a failure/crime by the community.
-
peace bro,
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on it too, once you've read it.
I was surprised Fazlur Rahman was significantly anti-hadith and openly admitted gross distortions had taken place in the formulation of law, as he is considered one of the significant Islamic scholars of the 20th century, even by traditional Muslims. I am confident, the more we dig, the more we will see many have recognised the problems we are pointing out.
There were a number of pakistan/india scholars from that era (british rule) who pretty much acknowledged quran above all and were critcal of hadith and blind acceptance of historians. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan is probably the earliest. These guys shaped the way most pakistanis thought .....but sadly no more.
Even when you read the works of Mohammad Asad and Yusuf Ali, you can see they were not comfortable with direction Islam was taking
and called people back to the Quran. I think it was Asad or Iqbal who called it "Alien Islam".Exteremisim in pk only took hold with Zia and the CIA pouring millions into their hands to fight the russians. It changed everything.
All of a sudden these guys were everywhere - they destroyed what could have been a great country.What we need to do is carry on doing what we do, just keep applying the pressure and stick together.
-
I find the so-called Historical approach to the Quran intellectually bankrupt, and theologically problematic.
Those whose cultural upbringing is not comfortable with Quranic instructions or those who lack the right methodology or knowledge for the proper understanding of the meaning of verses and the rationale behind them, yes anyone who wishes to discard any instruction in the Quran that does not conform to his or her wishes, will reject/abrogate any divine instruction/statement by claiming, "These verses were about the past generations; not us!" This so-called "historic" opposition to the Quran is refuted by many verses, including 619.
I do not consider Fazlurrahman and his followers as acknowledgers of the Quran, since they can reject ALL the verses of the Quran (including verses about prayer, charity and fasting, etc), except a few general statements, by using the same rationale "these are the stories of past!" Ironically, this excuse is mentioned in the Quran and attributed to mushriks.
Peace,
Edip -
Edip whether we use the "historical approach", "every thing is a metaphor approach"
or "lets change the meaning of this word" approach we are all guilty of rejecting
some part and accepting other parts of the Quran because of what we want to see in the Quran due to our cultural upbringing. This forum is living proof of this.So lets listen to all the words and follow the best.
-
peace,
Edip, your view may be valid for others perhaps trying to do what you said, but as far as I can see, FR isn't one of them. He is arguing for taking the ethics of AQ into account before and when formulating law, nothing about re-writing prayer/charity/fasting/etc.
burhan, yeah I was aware of SAK, as he was mentioned a lot in the book 'Rethinking Tradition in Modern Islamic Thought'.
So lets listen to all the words and follow the best.
I agree.
-
Edip whether we use the "historical approach", "every thing is a metaphor approach"
or "lets change the meaning of this word" approach we are all guilty of rejecting
some part and accepting other parts of the Quran because of what we want to see in the Quran due to our cultural upbringing. This forum is living proof of this.So lets listen to all the words and follow the best.
Your innuendo is a good one. However, there is categorical difference between the following methodologies
-
The meaning of some words have been intentionally or unintentionally changed throughout centuries. We should use the language of the Quran to find the intended Quranic meaning. Some words might have multiple meanings and any such meanings that do not create contradiction within the ayas of the Quran and the ayas of nature are intended meanings.
-
We should stop following some verses, EVEN IF THEY INSTRUCT ITS AUDIANCE TO DO SOMETHING, because of their historic nature.
The second one, though might be a proper tool of understanding the Quran, it requires textual justification, and without a clear set of reasonable rules it is a slippery slope that might lead to rejection of all the instructions.
Thus, I would appreciate those who are more familiar with Fazlurrahman's position, provide a list of verses that Fazl thinks are historic.
Peace,
EdipPeace,
Edip -
-
Thus, I would appreciate those who are more familiar with Fazlurrahman's position, provide a list of verses that Fazl thinks are historic.
may be a good example of an historical verse, since today?s transactions may be more complex, and because of the new technologies for tracing a transaction.
Therefore, I think we should place the verse into its historical context, in order to separate the contextual circumstances from the wisdom behind God?s instructions, and then, reflect on how we can apply the lessons of this verse into our present historical context.
Peace
-
may be a good example of an historical verse, since today?s transactions may be more complex, and because of the new technologies for tracing a transaction.
Therefore, I think we should place the verse into its historical context, in order to separate the contextual contingencies from the wisdom behind God?s instructions, and then, reflect on how we can apply the lessons of this verse into our present historical context.
Peace
I don't think so, today's transactions aren't very different. The modern day scribe is a solicitor/lawyer.
I don't think there are any such 'historical verses' in any case except for those in the past tense speaking directly to muhammad.
-
Peace,
- We should stop following some verses, EVEN IF THEY INSTRUCT ITS AUDIANCE TO DO SOMETHING, because of their historic nature.
Would you mind expanding on this idea? Do those verses with a ''historic nature'' take on the quality of Stop and Go, or is it Stop and No Go? Would those verses be of use later? Or is it that we have a historically outdated qur'an in part of it's content? Am I beginning to sense the need of a revelation? Or is it a message? Edip, would you perhaps be in the process of becoming a messenger yourself? Are we to be witness to something here?
adjwi
-
Peace,
Would you mind expanding on this idea? Do those verses with a ''historic nature'' take on the quality of Stop and Go, or is it Stop and No Go? Would those verses be of use later? Or is it that we have a historically outdated qur'an in part of it's content? Am I beginning to sense the need of a revelation? Or is it a message? Edip, would you perhaps be in the process of becoming a messenger yourself? Are we to be witness to something here?
adjwi
I think you have misunderstood Edip's post.
Please read it again, along with the previous posts of the topic.Peace
-
Your innuendo is a good one. However, there is categorical difference between the following methodologies
Relax bro, no innendo, I wasn't taking a pot shot at your new translation. My point was that any methodology is only as good as the person using it.
In order to prove your point you have given the best case scenario for 1. and worst case for 2.Any approach that breaks free the Quran from a particular time-zone is a good one. Besides most of the Quran is about the praising God and accepting he is one.
Very little is about telling us what to do, but rather encouraging us to do what is we naturally know to be right. A reminder and a strength giver is what the Quran is to me.Inshallah, I will post something on FR in due course.
-
Peace Brother,
Thanks for keeping us posted. I received this book yesterday, ordering it right after you recommended it, from bookdepository.co.uk. Can't wait to read it!
Nadeem
Just wanted to clarify. Saying I have been reading a book, does not mean I recommended it. I forgot to say that earlier. Wish I did now, as I've been reading the rest of this book and it's quite poor. I would say why, but the reviews on amazon.com have plenty of info.
Once I'm finished it I will summarise.
