Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)

abdalquran

Salam,

This thread is a challenge to the pretense of objectivity, claim of authority and fundamentalist attitudes with regards to the understanding and interpretation of the Quran. My questions are designed to interrogate so-called 'rigorous methodologies' in interpretation and to show that this positivism is nothing more than pure subjectivism which Sunnism practices except with a quranist label.

I will begin with Wakas's comment towards 357's post
How about "using lanes AND logic, cross-reference, quranic grammar etc

which implies that Wakas can identify what 'quranic grammar' is.

We will therefore begin with the question WHAT IS QURANIC GRAMMAR?

Wakas

w/salaam,

Some definitions

Quranic of/from or pertaining to The Quran

Some dictionary definitions of "grammar"

The whole system and structure of a language or of languages in general, usually taken as consisting of syntax and morphology (including inflections) and sometimes also phonology and semantics
A particular analysis of the system and structure of language or of a specific language
A set of rules governing what strings are valid or allowable in a language or text

So, what I mean by "Quranic grammar" is the system/pattern it uses its words in. For example, neither of us regard the way in which Quran uses its terms as haphazard, i.e. random, therefore it is systematic/structured in some way.

abdalquran

So, what I mean by "Quranic grammar" is the system/pattern it uses its words in. For example, neither of us regard the way in which Quran uses its terms as haphazard, i.e. random, therefore it is systematic/structured in some way.

That's actually incorrect. You believe in synonyms so you actually do believe that the Q uses words haphazardly.

Next question How does one measure grammatical correctness?

Wakas

That's actually incorrect. You believe in synonyms so you actually do believe that the Q uses words haphazardly.

You declare something incorrect, yet provide no sound evidence/reason other than your own opinion as to why the use of synonym renders something haphazard.
Ironically, such a statement of yours conflicts with your alleged aim of "...a challenge to the pretense of objectivity, claim of authority and fundamentalist attitudes with regards to the understanding and interpretation of the Quran."

Declaring something incorrect based on your subjective/baseless opinion seems to be the very "claim of authority" and "fundamentalist attitude" and "Sunnism practice" you allegedly seek to challenge.

Now, onto your question How does one measure grammatical correctness?

Intra-Quran comparison.

abdalquran

You declare something incorrect, yet provide no sound evidence/reason other than your own opinion as to why the use of synonym renders something haphazard.
Ironically, such a statement of yours conflicts with your alleged aim of "...a challenge to the pretense of objectivity, claim of authority and fundamentalist attitudes with regards to the understanding and interpretation of the Quran."

Declaring something incorrect based on your subjective/baseless opinion seems to be the very "claim of authority" and "fundamentalist attitude" and "Sunnism practice" you allegedly seek to challenge.

I should've thought the evidence was perfectly clear from the argument itself but no matter, I can expound.

You claim that 'neither of us regard the way in which Quran uses its terms as haphazard, i.e. random, therefore it is systematic/structured in some way'.

However, if a word is used in a given situation and the author of the text in which the word is used is Allah (one who is ultimate in capacity), then the word used must be perfect for that context. If He uses two words interchangably (the very definition of synonym), then in at least one of those cases, he was NOT being at the peak of eloquence.Therefore anyone who suggests the Q has synonyms must think its author was being haphazard.

How does my allegation contradict my aim?

Did I claim objectivity?
Did I seek to suppress your claim?
Did I call you a 'spreader of falsehood'.

Absolutely not.

We are comparing our views. My objective is to undermine and expose the pretensions of authority some quranists have. In no way am I claiming that authority for myself.

Now, onto your question How does one measure grammatical correctness?

Intra-Quran comparison
.

What exactly do you mean by this? The Quran nowhere makes any mention of grammar. How on earth can you make an 'intra-quran' comparison? Please give a demonstration

abdalquran

Sorry, forgot to add, I am Farouk A. Peru and my blog is www.quranology.name

Wakas

Thanks for backing up what you said with something. This is often helpful.

However, if a word is used in a given situation and the author of the text in which the word is used is Allah (one who is ultimate in capacity), then the word used must be perfect for that context. If He uses two words interchangably (the very definition of synonym), then in at least one of those cases, he was NOT being at the peak of eloquence.Therefore anyone who suggests the Q has synonyms must think its author was being haphazard.

Please clarify what do you mean by "perfect for that context" and "peak of eloquence", and if these measures are subjective or objective. Thanks.

What exactly do you mean by this? The Quran nowhere makes any mention of grammar. How on earth can you make an 'intra-quran' comparison? Please give a demonstration

It's simple. By "intra-Quran comparison" I mean comparing the same word/structure for its occurrences.

I will provide an example let's say someone comes along and says word X is a verb in a certain Quran verse, yet the exact same word form is a noun in all its other occurrences. Thus, according to Quran's own internal pattern/system, there is little/no evidence for his claim, and therefore it may be expected for that person to provide reason/evidence why he claims the exact same word form is a verb here not a noun.

abdalquran

Please clarify what do you mean by "perfect for that context" and "peak of eloquence", and if these measures are subjective or objective. Thanks.

'Perfect for that context' means that the word used delivers the exact meaning required by by the Author. 'Peak of eloquence' means the word used contextually delivers the exact response required of the reader. These measures are subjectively percieved.

I will provide an example let's say someone comes along and says word X is a verb in a certain Quran verse, yet the exact same word form is a noun in all its other occurrences. Thus, according to Quran's own internal pattern/system, there is little/no evidence for his claim, and therefore it may be expected for that person to provide reason/evidence why he claims the exact same word form is a verb here not a noun.

How is this Quranic exactly? Does the Quran declare any word to be a noun or a verb? What makes this reasoning Quranic?

Wakas

These measures are subjectively percieved.

Thanks for making clear your view is based on subjective measures. So, let us recap, you declared I was incorrect, yet openly admit your view is based on subjective measures - thus, can one, according to you, declare another to be wrong based on their own subjective measures? A simple yes/no will suffice.

It seems the more we discuss, the more it seems you contradict your own alleged aims.

How is this Quranic exactly? Does the Quran declare any word to be a noun or a verb? What makes this reasoning Quranic?

I would prefer if you phrased your question in one succinct manner, but in any case.... "Quranic" as I already defined "of/from or pertaining to The Quran" is rather self-explanatory. If my answer is from/of Quran, then it is "Quranic". For example, if you ask someone "what is zakat" and the person replies with references from Traditional Hadith, then the person's answer is not "Quranic". If the person replies citing all occurrences of zakat in Quran then his answer is "Quranic".

The Quran does not declare a word to be a noun or verb etc just like the following sentence does not either, yet it contains noun and verb Jim walked to the shops and bought a Pepsi to drink later.

As far as I'm aware, all languages in the world have nouns and verbs, but perhaps you know something I do not. If so, please enlighten us.
If you are uncomfortable using the terms "noun" and "verb" then we can simply use "the way in which the word is used", i.e. if someone says it is a "doing word / action" in this occurrence but the same word form is not a "doing word / action" elsewhere, then one may expect that person to provide a reason for this, if they can.
If you are happy for someone to use the exact same word differently in any occurrence, without reason/evidence, or nouns/verbs do not exist in Quran, then simply state so for all to see.

abdalquran

Thanks for making clear your view is based on subjective measures. So, let us recap, you declared I was incorrect, yet openly admit your view is based on subjective measures - thus, can one, according to you, declare another to be wrong based on their own subjective measures? A simple yes/no will suffice.

It seems the more we discuss, the more it seems you contradict your own alleged aims.

Of course I'm subjective, I'm a human being. My very existence constitutes subjectivity. That's why I don't call people spreaders of falsehood as you do or belittle other people's facebook groups. My views can easily be wrong.

As subjective as I am, you are as well. Your views do not and cannot represent the Quran. All you're doing is adopting certain tools (quite blindly insofar as they do not have Quranic validation). Why do you think you're avoiding the question in the other thread where I asked you 'does your essay on 2/196 have QURANIC meanings'? You probably realise they don't and easily be shown for what they are - a subjective attempt at understanding a concept.

To answer your Aristotelian, one-level logic based question, yes. Being subjective does not preclude discusion. I do believe your interpretations of 2/196, 4/34 and AMAH are simply wrong. I needed to make this evaluation because I need to act upon something. The Quran is not for me read and say 'hey, no one can actually do this therefore i'll just stick to intellectual meanderings'. I need to ACT and therefore decide which view is best. This doesn't mean my view is stagnant and certainly if you had a more convincing argument (contextual studies may help), I will reconsider my views.

I would prefer if you phrased your question in one succinct manner, but in any case.... "Quranic" as I already defined "of/from or pertaining to The Quran" is rather self-explanatory. If my answer is from/of Quran, then it is "Quranic". For example, if you ask someone "what is zakat" and the person replies with references from Traditional Hadith, then the person's answer is not "Quranic". If the person replies citing all occurrences of zakat in Quran then his answer is "Quranic".

Oh is that so? Why is it then when Simple makes a Quranic (according to your defintiion above) statement you said
Actually, that's your INTERPRETATION of what the ayah is saying

It's really funny, when we search for 'interpretation' posted by Wakas, EVERYONE interprets but you, lol.

The Quran does not declare a word to be a noun or verb etc just like the following sentence does not either, yet it contains noun and verb Jim walked to the shops and bought a Pepsi to drink later.

As far as I'm aware, all languages in the world have nouns and verbs, but perhaps you know something I do not. If so, please enlighten us.
If you are uncomfortable using the terms "noun" and "verb" then we can simply use "the way in which the word is used", i.e. if someone says it is a "doing word / action" in this occurrence but the same word form is not a "doing word / action" elsewhere, then one may expect that person to provide a reason for this, if they can.
If you are happy for someone to use the exact same word differently in any occurrence, without reason/evidence, or nouns/verbs do not exist in Quran, then simply state so for all to see.

Nouns and verbs are categorisations which DO NOT come from the Quran. Therefore, it cannot be QURANIC grammar unless you use 'pertaining to Quran' argument.

If this is what you meant, then ANYTHING ANYONE says about the grammar of the Quran must be Quranic grammar. Would that be fair? Or is it just what YOU say is 'quranic grammar'?

To answer your question, I don't use terms like nouns and verbs. They can be useful to measure but should be left behind if they don't suit our purpose.

Wakas

You asked
How does one measure grammatical correctness?

I answered
intra-Quran comparison

You further asked
What exactly do you mean by this? The Quran nowhere makes any mention of grammar. How on earth can you make an 'intra-quran' comparison? Please give a demonstration

I answered
It's simple. By "intra-Quran comparison" I mean comparing the same word/structure for its occurrences.

I will provide an example let's say someone comes along and says word X is a verb in a certain Quran verse, yet the exact same word form is a noun in all its other occurrences. Thus, according to Quran's own internal pattern/system, there is little/no evidence for his claim, and therefore it may be expected for that person to provide reason/evidence why he claims the exact same word form is a verb here not a noun.

You further asked
How is this Quranic exactly? Does the Quran declare any word to be a noun or a verb? What makes this reasoning Quranic?

I answered
I would prefer if you phrased your question in one succinct manner, but in any case.... "Quranic" as I already defined "of/from or pertaining to The Quran" is rather self-explanatory. If my answer is from/of Quran, then it is "Quranic". For example, if you ask someone "what is zakat" and the person replies with references from Traditional Hadith, then the person's answer is not "Quranic". If the person replies citing all occurrences of zakat in Quran then his answer is "Quranic".

The Quran does not declare a word to be a noun or verb etc just like the following sentence does not either, yet it contains noun and verb Jim walked to the shops and bought a Pepsi to drink later.

As far as I'm aware, all languages in the world have nouns and verbs, but perhaps you know something I do not. If so, please enlighten us.
If you are uncomfortable using the terms "noun" and "verb" then we can simply use "the way in which the word is used", i.e. if someone says it is a "doing word / action" in this occurrence but the same word form is not a "doing word / action" elsewhere, then one may expect that person to provide a reason for this, if they can.
If you are happy for someone to use the exact same word differently in any occurrence, without reason/evidence, or nouns/verbs do not exist in Quran, then simply state so for all to see.

You further asked
Nouns and verbs are categorisations which DO NOT come from the Quran. Therefore, it cannot be QURANIC grammar unless you use 'pertaining to Quran' argument.

If this is what you meant, then ANYTHING ANYONE says about the grammar of the Quran must be Quranic grammar. Would that be fair? Or is it just what YOU say is 'quranic grammar'?

You will note that your one question, then leads you to ask many further questions.

Please keep your questions well-defined and concise.

To end your question 2, I will answer the remaining questions you had

If this is what you meant, then ANYTHING ANYONE says about the grammar of the Quran must be Quranic grammar. Would that be fair?

If it is based on intra-Quran comparison, yes.

Or is it just what YOU say is 'quranic grammar'?

No.

Now, please move onto your next question. Thanks.

abdalquran

You will note that your one question, then leads you to ask many further questions.

Yes of course. This is an academic exercise. I need to get explicit answers to your method in order to show your subjectivites in engaging with the text. Hope you don't mind.

If it is based on intra-Quran comparison, yes

Contradiction.

You said in the very last post, "Quranic" as I already defined "of/from or pertaining to The Quran". What Aidid and Simple do most certainly pertains to the Quran. Is their work 'Quranic' or not? If they are,then why you do deem them as 'interpretations'?

Now, please move onto your next question. Thanks.

Sorry I can't. I need to see what your actual answer is and so far, all I'm getting are contradictions.

Wakas

Contradictions (plural) you say? Odd, considering the first time you've used the word "contradiction" in this thread was in your last post only.

You said
If this is what you meant, then ANYTHING ANYONE says about the grammar of the Quran must be Quranic grammar. Would that be fair?

I said
If it is based on intra-Quran comparison, yes.

You said
Contradiction.

You said in the very last post, "Quranic" as I already defined "of/from or pertaining to The Quran". What Aidid and Simple do most certainly pertains to the Quran. Is their work 'Quranic' or not? If they are,then why you do deem them as 'interpretations'?

Firstly, you specifically asked about "Quranic grammar".

Secondly, I cannot comment on "Aidid" and "Simple" in such general terms.

Thirdly, your questions imply you are equating the terms "Quranic" and "intra-Quran comparison".

As I said, please move onto your next question, rather than asking multiple follow-up questions. You've asked 9 follow-ups so far.

abdalquran

Contradictions (plural) you say? Odd, considering the first time you've used the word "contradiction" in this thread was in your last post only.

Oh you've been contradicting yourself since you started using the phrase 'quranic grammar' etc. This is simply one of the contradictions.

Firstly, you specifically asked about "Quranic grammar".
Secondly, I cannot comment on "Aidid" and "Simple" in such general terms.
Thirdly, your questions imply you are equating the terms "Quranic" and "intra-Quran comparison".

Why can't you? If the work of Aidid and Simple PERTAINS to the Quran then by your own definition, these are Quranic works. Aidid wrote a book about Quranic concepts and Simple posts in this forum about clearly Quranic topics. Surely their works are Quranic?

Are your works 'quranic'? If so, why?

Wakas

You've now asked 13 follow-up questions. I have given some leeway and allowed multiple follow-ups, but 13 is too much.

However, in your last "follow-up" question, you brought up something we haven't discussed, so I will take that as your next question (your third). I will answer shortly.

Are your works 'quranic'? If so, why?

abdalquran

Why are any number of follow up questions 'too much'? Are we going on a point scoring system now? The objective is the discussion of your philosophy of tafseer. One would think any number of questions would be acceptable for such an important issue.

Also note, while you complain a lot, you have hardly answered any of my inquiries. My next question is about what you consider as 'evidence', based on your statement in my group. You told the 'nisa arent women' camp to band together and write an article. Once the 'quranic grammar' issue is resolved, I would like to explore how you will evaluate that 'evidence'

Wakas

I dont mind answering any number of questions, but our agreed upon format was one Q&A at a time, back and forth, not one Q then many follow-up Qs.... which prevents the other side from moving onto their next Q.

In any case, please clarify what is your next question. Thanks.

abdalquran

I'm not through with the second question yet, sorry. I have asked you, given that Aidid and Simple opine view PERTAINING to the Quran, would you call their views Quranic?

Wakas

Your original question was
How does one measure grammatical correctness?

And now you ask
I have asked you, given that Aidid and Simple opine view PERTAINING to the Quran, would you call their views Quranic?

Any lay reader can tell they are different questions addressing different things. So, once again, I request you to state your 3rd question. If you do not, I will use the above as your 3rd question. And if you feel that is unfair, feel free to do the same to me after I ask you 9 follow-up questions ;D

abdalquran

Wakas are you playing some kind of game? The question is very simple and yet you refuse to answer. This is an adult conversation about what you (hopefully) consider a sacred act - writing about a divine text. I am now probing your view about what is QURANIC. You have given a definition using PERTINENCE as an indicator. Both Aidid and Simple write PERTAINING to the Quran.

Are their writings Quranic or not?

Call it whatever number you want. If you're afraid to answer, just let me know. I can see we're very close to undermining your pretence of authority by how you keep avoiding the question. Let me know so I can stop wasting my time. Thanks.