Understanding the Quran - 2
Muslim:-
We must understand the words in
the Quran as used in the Quran and not by the foreign words they might have
been derived from.
D.A-H:-
Indeed, to understand the
employment of words in the Quran, the deciding factor must be the syntax of the
sentences, not the foreign history of the words. But I am personally turned on
more by Scholars such as Luling and Luxenberg than Sawma.
Comment:-
Why are you "turned on"
by Luling and Luxenberg as opposed to Sawma, when none of these try to
understand the Quran in Arabic but wish to interpret it in other languages. Nor
do they want to understand the meaning of the verses in context of the rest of
the Quran but wish to see Christian doctrines in it. Nor do the use the
criteria in the Quran itself. The Quran insists that it is written in Arabic.
"ALIF LAM RA. These are
the verses (or symbols) of the Perspicuous (or clarifying) Book. Verily, We
have revealed it as a Lecture (a Quran) in Arabic; per chance (or possibly) you
may understand." 12:1-2
Also in 13:37, 16:103, 20:113,
26:192-195, 39:27, 41:2-4, 42:7, 43:2-3, 46:12
Certainly the Quran claims that it
confirms the teachings of past religions and so it should not be surprising
that the ideas of these other religions are also found in the Quran. But it
also claims to rectify the misinterpretations and corruptions of these so it is
not possible to admit interpretations of the past religions that contradict the
teachings of the Quran.
Whereas, it might be interesting
from linguistic point of view that Arabic words have a history of evolution
from past or other languages, this has no relevance to the understanding of the
Quran or Islam.
The Quran is to be meditated upon
and understood not surface analysed. The difference is like the difference
between moving vertically in depth or height and skating horizontally on the
surface.
D.A-H:-
You say that the opinions of Dr.
Heger, Luxenberg etc., Western scholars of the Quran, have no relevance to
Muslims. This is the general tenure of responses to Dr. Heger to exclude him
from the discussion. Why would Dr. Heger's points have no relevance? I am
personally interested in hearing what Dr. Heger has to offer, as Dr. Heger
always exhibits scholarly acumen even if I have a different conclusion.
Comment:-
I have explained why - he does not
read the Quran according to the criteria by which it was composed. Ask him if
he believes if the Quran is a composition by the Prophet or a Revelation to
him. As he thinks it is a composition, and perhaps even by several people, and
reads it that way, then it is clear that his opinions are NOT about the Quran
as stated by the Quran and accepted by Muslims. We would laugh at a person as
ridiculous who looks at a book on physics and criticises it supposing it to be
a book on poetry, or if he comments on a book of poetry supposing it to be a
book of science or economics.
You might be interested in his
ideas because of linguistics, but that is not religion which the Quran is
about. We are discussing the Quran and Islam which if it has no relevance to a
person's life is futile.
D.A-H:-
The first-person perspective
(subjective-laden) is the position that only Muslims can *experience* the Quran
and assess its revelation. Its contrary, the 'third-person perspective'
(objective-laden), claims that the Quran possesses an objective-epistemic realm
where believers and non-believers can experience and evaluate its claims. I
find the former epistemically baffling. [Note: I borrow 'first-person' and
'third-person' from the philosopher of mind John Searle with slight
modification.]
Comment:-
Yes, I note that you, like several
others, want to apply the ideas of a Western Philosopher to the Quran rather
than use the criteria that the Quran itself lays down.
The Quran, as the Word of God, is
certainly an objective work according to the description of God as the ultimate
Reality and creator of all other things. The Word of God refers to the creative
force and that is defined as Truth. But the perception of the Truth depends on
the various capacities of people. In particular we are warned against
speculation and judgements according to prejudices, desires and arrogance etc.,
the consequences of Sin. There is a big difference between applying one's own
subjective prejudices and being receptive to the truth through surrender of
one's ego and its self-opinions. The Messengers were sent down with Scriptures
in order to provide the criteria by which we can distinguish between the two.
You must know all this if you read
and understand the Quran. But as you say, you are baffled.
D.A-H:-
For one thing, the position is
untenable. If only Muslims can assess the revelation of the Quran, then the
Quran is locked in what Richard Swinburne calls an intrinsic-plausibility hold
where only Muslims can evaluate it. Muslims will no doubt claim that the Quran
is evidentially warranted; e.g. there is evidence for Quranic claims.
Comment:-
There we go again. Swinburn has
become the criterion of judgement for understanding the Quran. You have things
the wrong way round. According to the Quran it is those who can perceive the
truth in the Quran who become Muslims. The Quran is a revelation in the heart
and those who read it correctly believe it. On the other hand, it also tells us
that people might join the religion for all kinds of reason apart from faith,
but these will only benefit by adhering to the discipline.
It seems that those people who are
conditioned by Western Education appear to have lost the ability to understand
the Quran. In some circles the opinion is that when Muslims or others go
through modern Universities they come out capable of clever verbal jugglery
based on Western Philosophy, but unable to understand anything else.
D.A-H:-
To admit a claim of evidence is to
admit a claim of third-person perspective - i.e. evaluation and the possibility
of falsification. However, to claim a first-person perspective is to throw out
evaluation and the falsification from the third-person perspective a priori.
What evidential integrity does the Quran possess then? How is the Quran evident
if only the believer can penetrate it?
Comment:-
We are NOT dealing in impersonal
science, but with religion that has relevance to a person's life and
development, to his perception, motives and action. That is where the evidence
lies. What is required in insight, understanding, faith. The wrong criteria are
being used to assess the Quran. That is just what I am pointing out. We have to
learn through study, meditation and application, through expansion of
awareness, conscience and will, and from people who are further along the road
of spiritual development.
Please try to understand what I am
saying - I know it is difficult:- I am NOT arguing against people studying the
Quran for other than non-Islamic or non-religious reasons - people can do as
they like.
(1) But those studies are
irrelevant to Muslims - repeat: to Muslims i.e. those who have surrendered.
(2) The opinions arising from such
studies have no religious significance to non-Muslims either.
(3) As the Quran was sent as a
healing and criterion, these other studies are also irrelevant to the Quran.
D.A-H:-
What is needed is a neutral level
of arbitration where the 'outsider' can have epistemic access to the Quran's
ontology, and that is exactly what Franz Rosenthal, Christoph Luxenberg, and
Dr. Heger are doing, evaluating Quranic claims.
Comment:-
The opinion of these people is
irrelevant for the reasons already given.
D.A-H:-
A few years ago Dr. Heger made
this remark:-
"People who use this reproach
of "circular argumentation" seem to be unaware of the difference
between the "circulus viciosus", the "vicious circle" or
"devil's circle", which doesn't show anything, because it is the
logical fault of "petitio principii", and the "circulus
hermeneuticus", the "hermeneutical circle" which is an
legitimate and indispensible means in linguistic scholarship, as already
Aristotle had seen clearly.
Comment:-
If you quote Dr. Heger as
authority, then you like Dr. Heger are wholly unaware of the fact that there is
a difference between an argument and a statement of fact that points to
something objective which a person is required to see. As I said he is unable
to understand the Quran.
And Aristotle has much misleading
of people to answer for. His Logic has been criticised by many people, even in
the West. For one thing it does not require to refer to anything as you can see
from the following:-
(1) Tala is a Gumbo (2) Gumbos are
Pingles (3) Therefore, Tala is a Pingle.
Secondly, the inference cannot
produce anything that is not already contained in the premises. Therefore, the
assumptions that establish the premises simply reappear in the conclusion. When
these are false they produce false conclusions.
Thirdly, the axioms on which the
arguments are based are instructions not facts and refer to a restricted set of
possibilities which may not apply.
Fourthly,
different people can select a restricted set of concepts, premises or even
natural phenomena according to some criterion, whim, prejudice, desire,
experience, knowledge, or insight and reach different conclusions. Or they can
select a set of appropriate concepts, premises or natural phenomena in order to
reach a desired conclusion based on whim, prejudice, conditioning, or
experience. There is also a difference in depth and generalisation of concepts
and ideas.
D.A-H:-
We need 'guessing games' and
hypotheses to corroborate our data, and at times scientists go ahead and assume
conclusions. I am not trying to suggest that Quranic studies resembles
philosophy of science, but rather to implicate just what speculation can mean
and the significance speculation (false conclusions even!) can have on future
studies. Even if Dr. Heger's emendation turns out to be false, it might further
advance our understanding of the Surah.
Comment:-
As the Quran says: Speculation can
by no means take the place of Truth.
As the Prophet said: If you
speculate and you are right, you are still wrong. This is probably because if
you use guesswork, then you can never be sure that any of the alternative
conclusions is true. These have to be tested for relevance and consistency in
the context to which they refer. I am not saying that we must not seek and try
alternative meanings, but they have to be tested for consistency with the rest
of the Quran and usefulness in expanding understanding.
The Quran tells us:-
"And follow (or pursue)
not that of which you have no knowledge; verily, the hearing, the sight, and
the heart, of all of these it shall be asked (to give an account). And walk not
on the earth proudly (insolently); verily, you can not rend the earth asunder,
nor can you stretch to the height of the mountains." 17:36-37
"Already have We urged
unto hell many of the jinn and humankind, having hearts wherewith they
understand not, and having eyes wherewith they see not, and having ears
wherewith they hear not. These are as the cattle - nay, but they are worse!
These are the neglectful.". 7:179
Apart from this what Dr Heger and
company are doing can not be called science. He has ignored the very criteria
on which the Quran is based.
D.A-H:-
As Hans-Georg Gadamer would have
it, we are hermeneutically removed from the occasion of revelation of the
Quran, and how the Quran's claims causally affect us will be diverse no doubt.
Franz Rosenthal, convinced that 'al-samad' is of non-Arabic origin, will
concede that the foreignness of al-samad will have interpretative consequences
for Surat-al-Ikhlas. Uri Rubin, in harmony with Arne Ambrose, will insist that
al-samad can only hermeneutically make sense in an Arabic medium regardless of
its origin. Speculation is sometimes necessary even if inconclusive. The
diversity goes on and on. (Anyone with knowledge of Tafsir tradition will immediately
realize Muslim commentators speculated if nothing else) We can either inhale
what the medieval commentators tell us about the Quran or we can pick up where
they left off and begin anew.
Comment:-
You can, of course, hold any
opinion you like and regard these as your authorities on the Quran. Whereas the
non-Arabic origins of words in the Quran might be of interest to philologists
and others, Muslims as Muslims can only be interested in the way the words are
used in the Quran.
Whereas, I concede that other
non-Quranic research could shed some light on the meaning of Quranic ideas, if
the ideas based on this lead to meanings that contradict the message in the
rest of the Quran then they must be rejected, specially when the criteria in
the Quran are ignored. That is my objection to Dr. Heger and the others.
D.A-H:-
P.S.: The Semitic scholar Martin
Zammit in his "A Comparative Lexical Study of Quranic Arabic" (Leiden: Brill, 2002) on
page 258 does not find in any of the eight Semitic languages he investigated
any cognate for the root s-m-d. He deems 'al-samad' Arabic.
Comment:-
Whether or not there were any
antecedents to the words of the Quran in other languages, the Quran insists
that it is in Arabic and it is only the Arabic meaning Muslims are interested
in. It matters not at all what Martin Zammit's opinion is. This is not a
criterion by which the Quran is to be interpreted.
----------<O>----------
Contents