VII.—The Interpretation of the Qurʾān.
Project Gutenberg EPUB3 edition
Hughes, Thomas Patrick
ʿIlmu ʾl-Uṣūl (علم الاصول), or the Exegesis of the Qurʾān, is a very important science, and is used by the Muslim divine to explain away many apparent or real contradictions. The most authoritative works on the ʿIlmu ʾl-Uṣūl of the Qurʾān, are Manāru ʾl-Uṣūl and its commentary, the Nūru ʾl-Anwār, and as-Suyūt̤ī’s Itqān (ed. by Sprenger). The various laws of interpretation laid down in these books are very complicated, requiring the most careful study. We have only space for a mere outline of the system.
The words (alfāz̤) of the Qurʾān are of four classes: K͟hāṣṣ, ʿĀmm, Mushtarak, and Muʾawwal.
(1) K͟hāṣṣ, Words used in a special sense. This speciality of sense is of three kinds: K͟huṣūṣu ʾl-jins, Speciality of genus, e.g. mankind; K͟huṣūṣu ʾn-nauʿ, Speciality of species, e.g. a man; K͟huṣūṣu ʾl-ʿain, Speciality of an individual, e.g. Muḥammad.
(2) ʿĀmm, Collective or common, which embrace many individuals or things, e.g. people.
(3) Mushtarak, Complex words which have several significations; e.g. ʿain, a word which signifies an Eye, a Fountain, the Knee, or the Sun.
(4) Muʾawwal, words which have several significations, all of which are possible, and so a special explanation is required. For example, Sūrah cviii. 2, reads thus in Sale’s translation: “Wherefore pray unto the Lord and slay (the victims).” The word translated “slay” is in Arabic inḥar, from the root naḥr, which has several meanings. The followers of the great Legist, Abū Ḥanīfah, render it “sacrifice,” and add the words (the “victims”). The followers of Ibn Ash-Shāfiʿī say it means “placing the hands on the breast in prayer.”
II. The Sentences (ʿIbārah) of the Qurʾān are either Z̤āhir or K͟hafī, i.e. either Obvious or Hidden.
Obvious sentences are of four classes:—Z̤āhir, Naṣṣ, Mufassar, Muḥkam.
(1.) Z̤āhir.—Those sentences, the meaning of which is Obvious or clear, without any assistance from the context (qarīnah).
(2.) Naṣṣ, a word commonly used for a text of the Qurʾān, but in its technical meaning here expressing what is meant by a sentence, the meaning of which is made clear by some word which occurs in it. The following sentence illustrates both Z̤āhir and Naṣṣ: “Take in marriage of such other women as please you, two, three, four.” This sentence is Z̤āhir, because marriage is here declared lawful; it is Naṣṣ, because the words “one, two, three, four,” which occur in the sentence, show the unlawfulness of having more than four wives.
(3.) Mufassar, or explained. A sentence which needs some word in it to explain it and make it clear. Thus: “And the angels prostrated themselves, all of them with one accord, save Iblīs (Satan).” Here the words “save Iblīs” show that he did not prostrate himself. This kind of sentence may be abrogated.
(4.) Muḥkam, or perspicuous. A sentence as to the meaning of which there can be no doubt, and which cannot be controverted, thus: “God knoweth all things.” This kind of sentence cannot be abrogated. To act on such sentences without departing from the literal sense is the highest degree of obedience to God’s command.
The difference between these sentences is seen when there is a real or apparent contradiction between them. If such should occur, the first must give place to the second, and so on. Thus Muḥkam cannot be abrogated or changed by any of the preceding, or Mufassar by Naṣṣ, &c.
Hidden sentences are either K͟hafī, Mushkil, Mujmal, or Mutashābih.
(1.) K͟hafī.—Sentences in which other persons or things are hidden beneath the plain meaning of a word or expression contained therein: e.g. Sūratu ʾl-Māʾidah (v.), 42, “As for a thief whether male or female cut ye off their hands in recompense for their doings.” In this sentence the word sāriq, “thief,” is understood to have hidden beneath its literal meaning, both pickpockets and highway robbers.
(2.) Mushkil.—Sentences which are ambiguous; e.g. Sūratu ʾd-Dahr (lxxvi.), 15, “And (their attendants) shall go round about them with vessels of silver and goblets. The bottles shall be bottles of silver.” The difficulty here is that bottles are not made of silver, but of glass. The commentators say, however, that glass is dull in colour, though it has some lustre, whilst silver is white, and not so bright as glass. Now it may be, that the bottles of Paradise will be like glass bottles as regards their lustre, and like silver as regards their colour. But anyhow, it is very difficult to ascertain the meaning.
(3.) Mujmal.—Sentences which may have a variety of interpretations, owing to the words in them being capable of several meanings; in that case the meaning which is given to the sentence in the Traditions relating to it should be acted on and accepted; or which may contain some very rare word, and thus its meaning may be doubtful, as: “Man truly is by creation hasty” (Sūrah lxx. 19). In this verse the word halūʿ, “hasty,” occurs. It is very rarely used, and had it not been for the following words, “when evil toucheth him, he is full of complaint; but when good befalleth him, he becometh niggardly,” its meaning would not have been at all easy to understand.
The following is an illustration of the first kind of Mujmal sentences: “Stand for prayer (ṣalāt) and give alms (zakāt).” Both ṣalāt and zakāt are “Mushtarak” words. The people, therefore, did not understand this verse, so they applied to Muḥammad for an explanation. He explained to them that ṣalāt might mean the ritual of public prayer, standing to say the words “God is great,” or standing to repeat a few verses of the Qurʾān; or it might mean private prayer. The primitive meaning of zakāt is “growing.” The Prophet, however, fixed the meaning here to that of “almsgiving,” and said, “Give of your substance one-fortieth part.”
(4.) Mutashābih.—Intricate sentences, or expressions, the exact meaning of which it is impossible for man to ascertain until the day of resurrection, but which was known to the Prophet: e.g. the letters Alif, Lām, Mīm (A. L. M.); Alif, Lām, Rāʾ (A. L. R.); Alif, Lām, Mīm, Rāʾ (A. L. M. R.), &c., at the commencement of different Sūrahs or chapters. Also Sūratu ʾl-Mulk (lxvii.) 1, “In whose hand is the Kingdom,” i.e. God’s hand (Arabic, yad); and Sūratu T̤H (xx.), “He is most merciful and sitteth on His throne,” i.e. God sitteth (Arabic, istawā); and Sūratu ʾl-Baqarah (ii.), 115, “The face of God” (Arabic, wajhu ʾllāh).
III. The use (istiʿmāl) of words in the Qurʾān is divided into four classes. They are either Ḥaqīqah, Majāz, Ṣarīḥ, or Kināyah.
(1.) Ḥaqīqah.—Words which are used in their literal meaning: e.g. rukūʿ, “a prostration”; zināʿ, “adultery.”
(2.) Majāz.—Words which are figurative; as ṣalāt in the sense of namāz, or the liturgical prayers.
(3.) Ṣarīḥ.—Words the meaning of which is clear and palpable: e.g. “Thou art free,” “Thou art divorced.”
(4.) Kināyah.—Words which are metaphorical in their meaning: e.g. “Thou art separated”; by which may be meant, “thou art divorced.”
IV. The deduction of arguments, or istidlāl, as expressed in the Qurʾān, is divided into four sections: ʿIbārah, Ishārah, Dalālah, and Iqtiẓāʾ.
(1.) ʿIbārah, or the plain sentence. “Mothers, after they are divorced, shall give suck unto their children two full years, and the father shall be obliged to maintain them and clothe them according to that which is reasonable.” (Sūrah ii. 233.) From this verse two deductions are made. First, from the fact that the word “them” is in the feminine plural, it must refer to the mothers and not to the children; secondly, as the duty of supporting the mother is incumbent on the father, it shows that the relationship of the child is closer with the father than with the mother. Penal laws may be based on a deduction of this kind.
(2.) Ishārah, that is, a sign or hint which may be given from the order in which the words are placed; e.g. “Born of him,” meaning, of course, the father.
(3.) Dalālah, or the argument which may be deducted from the use of some special word in the verse, as: “say not to your parents, ‘Fie!’ (Arabic, uff).” (Sūrah xvii. 23.) From the use of the word uff, it is argued that children may not beat or abuse their parents. Penal laws may be based on dalālah, thus: “And they strive after violence on the earth; but God loveth not the abettors of violence.” (Sūrah v. 69.) The word translated “strive” is in Arabic literally yasʿauna, “they run.” From this the argument is deduced that as highway-men wander about, they are included amongst those whom “God loveth not,” and that, therefore, the severest punishment may be given to them, for any deduction that comes under the head of dalālah is a sufficient basis for the formation of the severest penal laws.
(4.) Iqtiẓāʾ. This is a deduction which demands certain conditions: “whosoever killeth a believer by mischance, shall be bound to free a believer from slavery.” (Sūrah iv. 94.) As a man has no authority to free his neighbour’s slave, the condition here required, though not expressed, is that the slave should be his own property.
VIII.—The Abrogation of Passages in the Qurʾān.
Some passages of the Qurʾān are contradictory, and are often made the subject of attack; but it is part of the theological belief of the Muslim doctors that certain passages of the Qurʾān are mansūk͟h (منسوخ), or abrogated by verses revealed afterwards, entitled nāsik͟h (ناسخ). This was the doctrine taught by Muḥammad in the Sūratu ʾl-Baqarah (ii.) 105: “Whatever verses we (i.e. God) cancel or cause thee to forget, we bring a better or its like.” This convenient doctrine fell in with that law of expediency which appears to be the salient feature in Muḥammad’s prophetical career.
In the Tafsīr-i-ʿAzīzī, it is written, that abrogated (mansūk͟h) verses of the Qurʾān are of three kinds: (1) Where the verse has been removed from the Qurʾān and another given in its place; (2) Where the injunction is abrogated and the letters of the verse remain; (3) Where both the verse and its injunction are removed from the text. This is also the view of Jalālu ʾd-Dīn, who says that the number of abrogated verses has been variously estimated from five to five hundred.
The Greek verb καταλύω, in St. Matthew v. 17, has been translated in some of the versions of the New Testament by mansūk͟h; but it conveys a wrong impression to the Muḥammadan mind as to the Christian view regarding this question. According to most Greek lexicons, the Greek word means to throw down, or to destroy (as of a building), which is the meaning given to the word in our authorised English translation. Christ did not come to destroy, or to pull down, the Law and the Prophets; but we all admit that certain precepts of the Old Testament were abrogated by those of the New Testament. Indeed, we further admit that the old covenant was abrogated by the new covenant of grace. “He taketh away the first that he may establish the second,” Heb. x. 9.
In the Arabic translation of the New Testament, printed at Beyrut A.D. 1869, καταλύω is translated by naqẓ, “to demolish”; in Mr. Loewenthal’s Pushto translation, A.D. 1863, by bāt̤ilawal, “to destroy,” or “render void”; and in Henry Martyn’s Persian Testament, A.D. 1837, it is also translated by the Arabic ibt̤āl, i.e. “making void.” In both the Arabic-Urdū and Roman-Urdū it is unfortunately rendered mansūk͟h, a word which has a technical meaning in Muḥammadan theology contrary to that implied in the word used by our Lord in Matthew v. 17.
Jalālu ʾd-Dīn in his Itqān, gives the following list of twenty verses which are acknowledged by all commentators to be abrogated. The verses are given as numbered in the Itqān.
No.
Mansūk͟h, or abrogated verses.
Nāsik͟h, or abrogating verses.
The Subject abrogated.