Abstract
This article asks how one is to read the Qur’an. In seeking to understand the Qur’an’s own guidance to readers on this question, I examine selected Quranic texts (Sura 3:6–7 on definite and ambiguous verses; the account of Moses and the servant of God in Sura 18:64–82) and representative commentaries. I conclude with a brief discussion of the centrality of the Qur’an to Islam.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Voegelin does not deal with this question directly, and his brief discussion of Muhammad in The Ecumenic Age emphasizes the patterns of spiritual and political power characteristic of the ecumenic age as reflected in Islam. Ecumenic religion is characterized by expansive religious institutions geographically coextensive with believers and a message of “the world transcendent God as the source of order that is universally binding for all men” rather than a regional focus. The revelation to Muhammad was a “blend of pragmatic conquest and spiritual apostolate” set within the following historical framework: 1) There is “a series of divine revelations to a succession of messengers.” 2) There is a succession of messages—Torah and Gospel preceding the revelation to Muhammad, The Qur’an. 3) The history of the Book is one in which “the last one is superior to the preceding ones.” 4) a progression of Prophets, with Muhammad, the last, as is the “Seal of the Prophets,” 5) “The drama of creation is a struggle between truth and falsehood in which truth, with the aid of the messengers, will prevail.” 6) “The struggle between truth and falsehood has to be conducted on the battlefields between the armies of Mohammed and his adversaries.” 7) Falsehood will be removed from the world by energetic action by believers, 8) including the slaughter of infidels. See (Voegelin 2000, pp. 192, 198–201).
The Qur’an, translated by M. A. S. Abdel Haleem. Unless otherwise noted all quotations from the Qur’an are taken from this translation. Hereafter references will be parenthetically inserted into the text noting both sura and verse followed by page number (e.g., Q 3: 6–7; p. 34).
Another difficulty arises if “definite” verses conflict. If all of our propositions above are true, then any conflict is only apparent, and we must misunderstand one (or perhaps both) of the verses, so we need to analyze these verses until we arrive at a complete understanding in which they are in agreement, or at least compatible with each other. If we must engage in this process of adjustment frequently, however, it may raise the question of exactly how clear the definite verses are. Alternatively, it may give rise to the question of which category of the three types of people identified by Averroës we fall into (see below).
Averroës, p. 8. Averroës quotes sura 16: 126, which is translated by Haleem as follows, “[Prophet], call [people] to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good teaching. Argue with them in the most courteous way, for your Lord knows best who has strayed from His way and who is rightly guided” (p. 174).
Charles Butterworth translation in Averroës, p. 53 fn. 20. Stefan Wild calls the reading favored by Averroës “the minority reading,” and the reading that places the “full stop” after “None knows their interpretation but God” the “standard reading.” Wild writes, “The text that the Islamic community finally accepted as canonical—the so called’Uthmanic text, on which all existing qur’anic texts are based—is a version in which the Arabic script cannot distinguish between two contradictory interpretations . . . According to the Standard Reading, part of the qur’anic revelation is interpretable only by God; according to the Minority Reading, also some humans, namely those rooted in knowledge, know the interpretation of this part of the holy text. . . . The official qur’anic text in its written form, therefore, ‘carries’ the two contradictory interpretations. Perhaps we may even go so far as to say that its whole point is this lack of decision for one of the two versions. The community could agree only on the opaque version of the qur’anic verse, because its ambiguity made it acceptable to the rival factions who had the power to decide on the canonical text.” (Wild, p. 424).
While Averroës may not have been successful in defending the realm of philosophy from Islamic orthodoxy, the existence of a class “firmly grounded in knowledge” paved the way for the intellectual/spiritual hierarchy in Islam. Cf. Kinberg (p. 75): “Had the Qur’an consisted only of muhkam verses, there would have been no need for the science of interpretation of the Qur’an to develop. Had every verse been clear to everyone, the difference in people’s abilities would not have come to the fore. The learned and the ignorant would have been equal and intellectual endeavor would cease” according to some commentators.
Compare this view with Josef Pieper’s discussion of the role of docilitas in prudence. “Docilitas, however, is of course not the ‘docility’ and the simple-minded zealousness of the ‘good pupil.’ Rather, what is meant is the kind of open-mindedness which recognizes the true variety of things and situations to be experienced and does not cage itself in any presumption ofdeceptive knowledge. . . . A closed mind and know-it-allness are fundamentally forms of resistance to the truth of real things; both reveal the incapacity of the subject to practice that silence which is the absolute prerequisite to all perception of reality” (Pieper, p. 16).
Uniform Code of Military Justice, 890 Art 90 (2), 891, Art 91 (2), 892 Art 92 (1), 892 Art 92 (2), accessed June 15, 2012 at www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm.
This claim, of course, is tentative and subject to revision on rereading the Qur’an. There is a hadith that does suggest that on one occasion at least Muhammad did challenge an edict of God. Here is a summary: Muhammad has just been instructed by God to institute 50 daily prayers for the community. On his way back from this heavenly encounter to earth, Muhammad stops to talk with Moses, who asks, “What has your Lord enjoined upon your Ummah [community]?” Muhammad tells him 50 prayers, and Moses instructs, “Return to thy Lord and beg for reduction (in the number of prayers), for your community shall not be able to bear this burden. As I have put to test the children of Isra’il and tried them (and found them too weak to bear such a heavy burden).” Muhammad did as Moses instructed and God reduced the number of mandatory prayers by five, to 45. Again Muhammad stops by Moses, who says this is still too much, so Muhammad returns to God and is granted another reduction of five. This continues until the number of required prayers is five (a reduction of 45 from the initial 50) and God says, “There are five prayers every day and night, O Muhammad, each being credited as ten, so that makes 50 prayers.” Moses encourages him to go back once again to lighten the command but this time Muhammad refuses, saying, “I returned to my Lord until I felt ashamed before him (Muslim, Hadith #0309).” The structure of the argument between God and Muhammad parallels that between Abraham and God in Genesis 18.
On this question, consider the following: “A key feature of Al-Shafi‘i’s work is the emphasis on redefining the term ‘sunna’ to restrict it to the words and actions reported from the Prophet alone. Others had interpreted the term in the older, broader sense to include the practice of other authorities, in addition to the Prophet. Al-Shafi‘i sought to convince them that God had singled out the Prophet as alone qualified to pronounce on the law. He amassed from the Qur’an evidence that God insisted on unquestioning obedience to his Prophet (e.g., Q 4: 13, 65). Appealing to a series of verses linking Muhammad’s commands and prohibitions to the divine will, and culminating in a verse which identified Muhammad’s will with the divine will (Q 4: 80), al-Shafi‘i succeeded in recovering the unique prophet-figure central and partner in the processes of divine revelation” (Burton, p. 13). This view also has implications for “man’s role in revelation” discussed earlier.
These two issues, no compulsion in religion and respect for “People of the Book,” are brought together in some commentaries on the Qur’an. There appears to be a consensus that “no compulsion in religion” applies only to “People of the Book,” and not to all religions in general, or to atheism and denial of religious truth. Some commentators argue that Q 2: 256 is abrogated by later revelations: “Mujahid said, ‘This was before the Apostle of God was commanded to fight against the People of the Book. God’s saying, “There is no compulsion in religion’ was abrogated and he was commanded to fight against the People of the Book in [Q 9: 29]’.” See Ayoub, p. 253.
I should acknowledge the importance of M. A. S. Abdel Haleem, Ziauddin Sardar, Fazlur Rahman, and Abdullah Saeed in thinking through the issues raised in this paper. In some cases they are acknowledged in footnotes, but whether acknowledged or not they have helped shape the “deep background” on which my reflections are built.
Further Reading
Akhtar, S. 2008. The Qur’an and the Secular Mind: A Philosophy of Islam. London: Routledge.
Akyol, M. 2011. Islam Without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Liberty. New York: W. W., Norton & Company.
Averroës. 2001. The Book of the Decisive Treatise Determining the Connection Between the Law and Wisdom & Epistle Dedicatory. C. E. Butterworth (Trans.). Provo: Brigham Young University Press.
Ayoub, M. 1984. The Qur’an and Its Interpreters (Vol. 1). Albany: State University Press of New York.
Burton, J. 2001. Abrogation. In J. D. McAuliffe (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Qur’an (Vol. 1, pp. 11–19). Leiden: Brill.
Cragg, K. 1994. The Event of the Qur’an: Islam in Its Scripture. Oxford: One World Publications.
Halivni, D. W. 1989. On Man’s Role in Revelation. In J. Neusner, E. S. Rerichs, & N. M. Sarna (Eds.), From Ancient Israel to Modern Judaism: Intellect in Quest of Understanding (Vol. 2, pp. 29–49). Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Kathir, I. Tafsir of Ibn e Kathir. Accessed at www.islamicstudies.info/ibnkathir/ibnkathir.php on June 13, 2012.
Khaldun, I. 1967. The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History. Vol. 1, 2nd ed. Franz Rosenthal (Trans.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kinberg, L. 2001. Ambiguous. In J. D. McAuliffe (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Qur’an (Vol. 1, pp. 70–77). Leiden: Brill.
Mawdudi, S. A. A. Towards Understanding the Quran. Z. I. Ansari (Trans. and Ed.). Accessed at http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php on June 13, 2012.
Muslim, S. (Compiler). The Book of Faith. Accessed on August 29, 2012 at http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=001&translator=2&start=307&number=0307).
Pieper, J. 1966. The Four Cardinal Virtues. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
The Qur’an. 2005. M. A. S. Abdel Haleem (Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rahmam, F. 1982. Islam and Modernity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Saeed, A. 2012. Interpreting the Qur’an: Towards a Contemporary Approach. London: Routledge.
Sardar, Z. 2011. Reading the Qur’an: The Contemporary Relevance of the Sacred Text of Islam. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shafi, M. Maarif ul Quran. Accessed at islamstudies.info/maarif/ on June 14, 2012.
Voegelin, E. 1990. The Gospel and Culture. In E. Sandoz (Ed.), The Collected Works of Eric Voegelin (Published Essays, 1966–1985, Vol. 12, pp. 172–212). Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
Voegelin, E. 2000. Order and History Volume 4: The Ecumenic Age. In M. Franz (Ed.), The Collected Works of Eric Voegelin (Vol. 17). Columbia: University of Missouri Press.
Wild, S. 2003. The Self-Referentiality of the Qur’an: Sura 3: 7 as an Exegetical Challenge. In J. D. McAuliffe, B. D. Walfish, & J. W. Goering (Eds.), With Reverence for the Word: Medieval Scriptural Exegesis in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (pp. 422–436). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ealy, S.D. The Qur’an’s Guidance to Readers. Soc 50, 506–516 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-013-9700-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-013-9700-y