The Art of
Interpretation
The Quran is a book1.
It is not a collection of different, structurally unrelated sayings. The arrangement of
the verses of the Quran, though not chronological, is Divinely ordained2. Therefore, a Muslim must accept the fact that there is an
underlying wisdom in the arrangement. Each verse and each suurah (chapter) must be
interpreted in relation to the context. For this purpose, it is important to understand
and appreciate the language and the style of the Quran thoroughly.
The language of the Quran is the Arabic of the
Prophets (sws) time. To be more precise, the Quran was revealed in the dialect of
the people of ummul quraa3. The style of the
Quran is literary4. Anyone who wishes to
interpret the Quran seriously and responsibly must have a thorough command over its
language and have the ability to appreciate literature in general.
For an ordinary Muslim, the Quran is the easiest book
in that his objective in reading the Quran is remembrance of God and of the responsibility
life entails. For a scholar, however, it is perhaps the most difficult. A scholar has to
pay attention to each and every stress, for slight misinterpretation can play havoc with
countless lives. Interpreting the basic book of the second largest religious community in
the world is a very serious responsibility and must be taken as such.
This article will discuss three major approaches
towards Quranic exegesis, which have sometimes led to gross misinterpretation owing to
their inappropriate use. These approaches may be categorised for the sake of convenience
in understanding them as follows:
1. The grammatical approach
2. The rationalising approach
3. The historical approach.
Two things must be understood about the terms that
have been coined in this article to categorise these approaches: first, the terms have
been used rather derogatively to emphasise that absurd use of these approaches has often
led people to draw absolutely preposterous conclusions; second, despite the fact that the
correct approach of interpretation is basically not dependent on any of the above
mentioned ones, the correct principles of grammar, genuine rationality and indubitable
records of history do not stand in contradication to the true interpretation of the Quran.
To sum up, these approaches have a role in enhancing
ones understanding, but, when overemphasised and used unintelligently, can lead to
absolutely absurd results. Lets take an example from the English language to see how
this may be.
Heres a sentence: Take a walk. The
grammatical approach (remember: in the negative sense of word) would be something like
this: To take is a transitive verb (meaning to obtain), a walk
(meaning to move around or in a specific direction using ones legs) is the object
and you is the implied subject. Therefore, the meaning of the sentence is that
the addressee should move using his legs. You can refer to some specific
person or to the reader. Therefore, the speaker (or the writer of the sentence) wants you
or wanted some specific person to go for a walk.
The rationalising approach (in the derogative sense
of the word again) would rely heavily on the earlier or the last approach and then try to
rationalise an absurd or seemingly absurd interpretation; for example, having assumed that
the speaker wanted the addressee to go for a walk, the rationalising approach would try to
highlight the merits of walking and explain (and form) its philosophy. A further
degenerated version of this approach can be seen in the interpretations of those who try
to discover the principles of atomic fusion and the mysteries of biological microcosms in
the pages of the Quran to allude to its divinity. So, in our example, the interpretation
of the one obsessed with the idea of discovering science in the Quran might be that the
speaker wants the addressee to fight diabetes by walking regularly.
Here, a brief mention must be made of another novel
method of Quranic exegesis. This method seems to be an offshoot of the rationalising
approach, but it is very interesting and equally absurd and therefore deserves to be
commented on separately. The approach, based on etymology, picks up any desired meaning
from the roots of a word. Now, suppose a certain Mr.P, interpreting the Quran through this
approach, feels that going for a walk these days is too difficult or demode and that the
speaker, a benevolent person, never intended the addressee to have any problem or
embarrassment in life and therefore decides that Take a walk cannot be
interpreted as going for a walk. This is how Mr. P might interpret the
sentence: Webster defines to take, a verb, as to get hold of, to grip and to
grasp. Walk, from wealcan or wealcian (to revolve), is a noun here (a walk)
and as a noun can mean proper place or sphere of action (see Websters New Collegiate
Dictionary, 2nd edition, page 856) Mr.P, therefore, concludes that the speaker wants the
addressee to get hold of his proper place in life.
The historical approach (remember: the term is still
being used here in the negative sense) relies on isolated narratives, which themselves
might not be authentic. Their context is often not clear. Frequently, the words quoted are
not the speakers; each narrator in the whole chain of narrators may have used his
own words to report an incident. It is obvious that something which itself needs
confirmation cannot form the basis for interpreting the Quran. Historical records* pertaining to religion should be analysed on
the basis of the Quran and not vice versa.
A person using (rather misusing) this approach might
interpret Take a walk thus: It was reported to me by Mr X, who was told by Mr
Y, who in turn was told by Mr Z that when the speaker of the sentence uttered Take a
walk, there was an athletic event going on. So he must have wanted the addressee to
take part in a walking race.
Many people using the approaches mentioned above are
also fond of giving numerous interpretations to just one sentence, all of which may
conflict with one another, leaving the reader confused as to what the meaning actually is.
As already stated, none of these approaches is wrong per se. However, they are best used
as devices to enhance understanding rather than as bases for interpretation, for the best
and truly appropriate basis for interpreting the Quran is the Quran itself: its language,
its style and its context.
A person using this correct approach (who must be
competent enough to use it, that is he must have a thorough grasp of the language and the
style of the Quran and have the ability to appreciate the diction of the Quran and
literature) might interpret Take a walk as follows: It is obvious from the
speakers style in other sentences spoken by him in the same context that he is an
American. The event may be an athletic competition, but it is clear, again from the
context, that a young man is being reprimanded by his boss for doing a job improperly.
Take a walk then, in the American English of the time when this sentence is
known to have been spoken, can only mean that the speaker wanted the addressee to
get lost — and getting lost here has nothing to with getting lost!
Copyright (c) 1997. All Rights Reserved with the
Author
Home Page
Use this “Home
Page” link only if you have opened this page by following an external link
Footnotes
1. See the Quran
12:1
2. 75:17
3. 6:92
4. 16:103.
Since the style of the Quran is literary, the Prophets (sws) opponents accused him
of producing mere poetry as is obvious from 36:69. The Quran has refuted this accusation
by pointing out that poetry is below the station of the Prophet (sws).
The style of both a piece of poetry and Divine literature may be literary, but there is
great difference between the two in that the purpose and the level are not the same.
* The understanding of religion is greatly enhanced by
the study of historical records which have been confirmed as authentic, and as such they
are indispensable.