Principles of Understanding the Qur’an (Part 2/3)
If the Qur’an is deliberated upon in the light of its coherence and arrangement, internal evidence from within the Qur’an also pronounces this very judgement. The work which has been done by the scholars of the Farahi school of thought on the Qur’an in current times speaks volumes that the text of the Qur’an does not accept the variant readings. A person can see examples of this at many instances in Islahi’s Tadabbur-i Qur’an. He writes:
Differences in variant readings have also been resolved in this commentary. The conventional and mutawatir reading is only the one on which the Qur’an has been written, which we have in our hands. In this reading, the interpretation of each and every word and verse of the Qur’an is done in such a manner in the light of classical Arabic literature, coherence and parallels of the Qur’an that no doubt remains. Consequently, I have interpreted each verse on the basis of this reading and can say with full confidence that if this interpretation is done on the basis of some other readings then it can only be done at the expense of sacrificing the eloquence, wisdom and meaningfulness of the Qur’an.[1]
Here, it is possible that the narrative on the Seven Ahruf might cause some confusion to some people in this regard. The narrative reads:
حدثني يحيى عن مالك عن بن شهاب عن عروة بن الزبير عن عبد الرحمن بن عبد القارىء أنه قال سمعت عمر بن الخطاب يقول سمعت هشام بن حكيم بن حزام يقرأ سورة الفرقان على غير ما أقرؤها وكان رسول الله أقرأنيها فكدت أن أعجل عليه ثم أمهلته حتى انصرف ثم لببته بردائه فجئت به رسول الله eفقلت يا رسول الله إني سمعت هذا يقرأ سورة الفرقان على غير ما أقرأتنيها فقال رسول الله أرسله ثم قال اقرأ يا هشام فقرأ القراءة التي سمعته يقرأ فقال رسول الله eهكذا أنزلت ثم قال لي اقرأ فقرأتها فقال هكذا أنزلت إن هذا القرآن أنزل على سبعة أحرف فاقرؤوا ما تيسر منه
‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn ‘Abd al-Qari narrated: “ ‘Umar Ibn Khattab said before me: ‘I heard Hisham Ibn Hakim Ibn Hizamreading Surah Furqanin a different way from the one I used to read it, and the Prophet (sws) himself had read out this surah to me. Consequently, as soon as I heard him, I wanted to get hold of him. However, I gave him respite until he had finished the prayer. Then I got hold of his cloak and dragged him to the Prophet (sws). I said to him: “I have heard this person [Hisham Ibn Hakim Ibn Hizam] reading Surah Furqan in a different way from the one you had read it out to me.” The Prophet (sws) said: “Leave him alone [O ‘Umar].” Then he said to Hisham: “Read [it].” [‘Umar said:] “He read it out in the same way as he had done before me.” [At this,] the Prophet (sws) said: “It was revealed thus.” Then the Prophet (sws) asked me to read it out. So I read it out. [At this], he said: “It was revealed thus; this Qur’an has been revealed in Seven Ahruf. You can read it in any of them you find easy from among them.” ’ ”.[2]
If the following points about this narrative are kept in contemplation, it becomes evident that it is an absolutely meaningless narrative which should not be considered of any worth in this regard:
Firstly, even though this narrative has been recorded in the basic books of Hadith literature, no one in history has ever been able to offer a convincing explanation of it rendering it totally ambiguous. Suyuti[3] has recorded about forty interpretations of this narrative, and then while acknowledging the weakness of each of these has confessed that this narrative should be regarded among the mutashabihat, whose meaning is only known to God.
وأرجحها عندي قول من قال : إن هذا من المتشابه الذي لايدري تأويله
And to me the best opinion in this regard is that of the people who say that this Hadith is from among matters of mutashabihat, the meaning of which cannot be understood.[4]
Secondly, the only plausible of interpretation of the word ahruf is that it connotes pronunciation of words[5]the Arabs were used to. However, in this case, the text of the H~adith itself negates this meaning. It is known that both ‘Umar (rta) and Hisham (rta) belonged to the same tribe: the Quraysh. Obviously, people of the same tribe could not have had different pronunciations.
Thirdly, even if it is accepted that this difference was of pronunciation between various tribes and as a result they were allowed to read it variously, the verb unzila (was revealed) is very inappropriate. The Qur’an has specified that it was revealed in the language of the Prophet’s tribe: the Quraysh (See for example: 19:97, 44:58). After this, it can be accepted that the various tribes were allowed to read it according to their own accents, but how can this be accepted that the Almighty Almighty Himself revealed the various dialects and pronunciations.
Fourthly, it is known that Hisham had accepted Islam on the day Makkah was conquered. If this Hadith is accepted, it would mean that even after the conquest of Makkah senior Companions and even a close associate like ‘Umar (rta) was unaware of the fact that the Prophet (sws) secretly taught the Qur’an in some other form and reading from the one openly heard from the Prophet (sws) and preserved in writing and in memory. Every person can realize how grave this claim is and how far reaching are its effects.
Same is the case of the narratives which record the collection of the Qur’an in the time of the Caliphs Abu Bakr (rta) and ‘Uthman (rta). The Qur’an specifies that it was arranged and collected in the time of the Prophet (sws) under the direct guidance of the Almighty, as has been referred to earlier. On the other hand, these narratives present an entirely different picture which is not only against the Qur’an but also against common sense. In the six canonical books, these narratives are primarily recorded on the authority of Ibn Shihab Zuhri. Authorities of rijal regard him to be guilty of tadlis and idraj. Besides these, if some other facets of his personality as referred to by Imam Layth Ibn Sa‘d in his letter to Imam Malik are kept in consideration, none of the narratives reported by him especially the ones regarding such an important matter as this is acceptable. He writes:
وكان يكون من ابن شهاب اختلاف كثير إذا لقيناه ، و إذا كاتبه بعضنا فربما كتب إليه فى الشئ الواحد على فضل رأيه وعلمه بثلاثة إنواع ينقض بعضها بعضا، ولا يشعر بالذى مضى من رأيه فى ذلك، فهذا الذى يدعونى إلى ترك ما أنكرت تركى إياه.
And when we would meet Ibn Shihab, there would arise a difference of opinion in many issues. When any one of us would ask him in writing about some issue, he, in spite of being so learned, would give three very different answers, and he would not even be aware of what he had already said. It is because of this that I have left him – something which you did not like.[6]
This is the reality behind these narratives. Consequently, this is an absolute truth that the Qur’an has one reading only which is found in our codices. Besides this, the readings which are found in commentaries on the Qur’an or are read and taught in our schools of religious instruction or are even in currency in certain areas are the remnants of the malignant campaigns that originated from Persia once it was conquered by the Muslims – campaigns from which no discipline of our knowledge has unfortunately remained protected from.
They might have arisen from the insistence of some on the reading on which the Qur’an was revealed before the arda-i akhirah and from the forgetfulness of the narrators but later owing to the same motives which led to the fabrication of Hadith, they became so rampant that at the end of the Umayyid dynasty that several of them had come to prominence. It is said that Abu ‘Ubayd Qasim Ibn Sallam (d. 224 AH) selected twenty five of them in his book. The seven readings which are famous in current times were selected by Abu Bakr Ibn Mujahid (d. 324 AH) at the end of the third century hijrah. Thus it is generally accepted that their number cannot be ascertained but every reading is Qur’an which has been reported through a correct chain of narration, are found in any way in the masahif prepared by ‘Uthman (rta) and are correct from any aspect as far as the Arabic language is concerned. Some of these readings are regarded as mutawatir; however, a look at their chains of narration which are found in books leaves no doubt that they are ahad (isolate), most narrators of which are suspect in the eyes of the rijal authorities. Consequently, no scholar can even accept them as Hadith, what to speak of the Qur’an.
Intentionality of the Text
The answer to the second question is that whole argument on the intentionality of the text is dubious. In all living languages, the meanings denoted by words and expressions are all based on perpetuation (mutawatirat), and are certain in all respects. Morphology and linguistics and other similar disciplines speak of this tawatur. The genuineness of the narrators and their number has no significance. Words and expressions which are called gharib and shaz (little known) are called so not because their meaning is little known but because they are used sparingly and because those they are little known to those who hear or write them. A word is never isolated from its meaning. As long as a word remains in usage it does so with its meaning. We can be unaware of the meaning of a word and also err in ascertaining it but this cannot be imagined that it is used without being absolutely certain of the meaning it conveys in all or some periods of time. The understanding when a word is used metaphorically and figuratively or when the same word stands for two different entities or when it is used as veiled reference or when there exists a general connotation and when a specific one – all are mutawatir. This is a common heritage of man in every language of the world. A person may falter in determining whether the word lion has been used literally or figuratively in the sentences “Lion is the king of the forest” and “He is a lion” however, the collective comprehension of mankind can never err in this regard and in the light of its understanding we can correct a person who makes a mistake in this regard. It is because of this reality of a language that whatever we read and write, we do so with the confidence that people will understand the very thing that we wanted to intended to convey. If for a single instant one comes to know that in documents which are written every day, judgements which are pronounced, rulings that are enacted, announcements and notices delivered and knowledge and disciplines which are communicated, the meanings conveyed by a word are uncertain then everything will become meaningless. Thus this view is nothing less than skepticism which has no place in the world of knowledge. Shah Isma‘il Shahid while commenting upon it in his ‘Abaqat writes:
A person who has even the slightest skill of appreciating language style blatantly knows that this view point is based on gross and multiple ignorance because the meaning for which a word stands for is based on perpetuation. Thus the question does not even arise for any discussion on the issue of the authenticity of the narratots.[7]
Muhkam and Mutashabih
The answer to the third question is that it is not correct that we cannot with certaintly distinguish the muhkam verses of the Qur’an from the mutashabih or that we are unable to determine the meaning of the mutashabihat. All verses of the Qur’an on which the guidance it delivers is based are muhkam and mutashabih are only those verses which mention certain blessings and torments a person may encounter in the Hereafter, and these are stated through parables or similes. Similarly, such verses state the attributes and actions of God or mention something which is beyond the grasp of our knowledge and observation like God blowing His spirit into Adam, birth of Jesus (sws) without a father or the various places and circumstances one may encounter of Paradise and Hell. All things for which words have not yet been invented can only be stated through parables and similes. The facts of an unknown world are stated through these very means in the literature of all languages of the world. For example, two hundred years ago, if a person had foreknowledge of electricity bulbs but at that time they had not been invented, he would perhaps have said: Lanterns which would neither require oil nor fire will one day light up the world. The nature of mutashabih verses is no different. Neither are they unascertainable nor is there any ambiguity in their meaning. They are set in eloquent Arabic, and we are able to understand their meaning without any difficulty. The only thing is that we are not able to understand what they imply in reality. However, since this lack of understanding has nothing to do with understanding the Qur’an, a believer should not get after determining what they imply. While explaining this, Imam Amin Ahsan Islahi writes:
The reality to which these [mutashbihat point] is itself very clear and obvious. Human intellect can understand that part of it which is essential for it to understand. However, since it belongs to an unseen world, the Qur’an mentions it through parables and similes so that students of the Qur’an can understand it as per their capabilities and consider that only God knows what their real form and shape is. These [mutashbihat] relate to attributes and works of God or to the reward and punishment of the Hereafter. We are able to understand them to the extent we need to understand them, and this increases our knowledge and faith but if we go beyond this and start to seek what is their real form and shape, then this will only lead us astray. The result of this is that while wanting to clear one doubt from the mind, a person ends up gathering many more; so much so, in this quest to know more he loses what he had gained and refutes very clear facts just because he is not able to ascertain their form and shape.[8]
In the verse of the Qur’an from which people have deduced the fact that no one can understand the meaning of the mutashabihat verses, the Almighty does not say that no one except Him knows the meaning of the mutashabihat verses; on the contrary, He says that no one knows the form and manifestation of what is conveyed in these verses. The Qur’anic word used in ta’wil and it is used in the same meaning here as it is the following verses: وَقَالَ يَا أَبَتِ هَـذَا تَأْوِيلُ رُؤْيَايَ مِن قَبْلُ قَدْ جَعَلَهَا رَبِّي حَقًّا (100:12) (And Joseph said: “Father, this is the meaning of my dream I saw earlier; my Lord has made a reality.” (12:100))
Everyone knows the meanings in which this dream is stated in the Qur’an. Even an ordinary student of this Book understands without any difficulty the meaning of the verse (12:4) in which this dream is mentioned. However the true manifestation of the sun, the moon and the eleven stars bowing before Joseph (sws) could only have been ascertained by a person once these words manifested themselves in reality. These are the things which the Qur’an calls mutashabih, and as people contend, they do not mean something which is ambiguous and vague. Thus the mutashabihat in no way undermine the status of the Qur’an as the Furqan and the Mizan.
The verse under discussion is:
هُوَ الَّذِيَ أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُّحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ في قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاء الْفِتْنَةِ وَابْتِغَاء تَأْوِيلِهِ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلاَّ اللّهُ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ رَبِّنَا وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلاَّ أُوْلُواْ الألْبَابِ (7:3)
It is He who has revealed to you the Book. Some of its verses are muhkam – they are the foundation of the Book – and others mutashabih.[9] Then those in whose hearts is a twist go after the mutashabih among them in order to create dissension and in order to know their reality even though no one except God knows their reality. And those who are well-grounded in knowledge say: “We believe in them: all this has come from our Lord.” And only men of understanding take heed from them. (3:7)
Hadith and the Qur’an
The answer to the fourth question is that the issue of abrogation or limiting of the Qur’an by the Hadith has arisen out of a lack of proper understanding and deliberation. In reality, no Hadith has abrogated a Qur’anic verse or limited its scope of application and thus there arises no doubt from this angle on the status of the Qur’an as the Furqan and the Mizan. When people were not able to understand certain stylistic features of the Qur’an and the background and perspective of certain verses, they were also not able to understand the words of the Prophet (sws) regarding these areas. All examples which are presented in this regard are of this type. In the following pages, we shall take up each of these examples and present our view on them.
1. Of the animals which God has created on this earth some are meant to be eaten and others are not. Since these latter type of animals if eaten effect the tazkiyah (purification) of a person, an aversion to them is found in his nature. Generally, human nature provides a person with ample guidance in this matter and, without any hesitation, he is able to decide the right course. He very well knows that lions, tigers, elephants, eagles, crows, vultures, kites, scorpions and human flesh itself are not meant to be eaten. He is also well aware of the fact that horses and mules are a means of transportation and have no role in satisfying one’s hunger. That faeces and urine of animals are impure things are known to him very well also. No doubt, at times, human nature becomes perverted but a study of human behavior shows that a great majority of people does not generally falter in this matter. It is for this reason that the shari‘ah has not given any original guidance on this matter. In this regard, the shari‘ah has provided guidance on animals and on things related to these animals where human beings were liable to falter. The pig is a quadruped beast of the same genre as the goat, sheep, cow and cattle; however, it consumes meat like other carnivores. Should it then be considered forbidden or not? Should animals which are slaughtered in a way that all their blood is not drained out be eaten or not? Is the blood of animals impure as indeed are their faeces and urine? If animals are slaughtered by taking the name of someone other than the Almighty, can they still be eaten? Since man is unable to come up with a decisive answer in these issues, therefore the Almighty guided mankind in this affair through His prophets and informed them that the flesh of the pig, blood, the dead and animals which are slaughtered in the name of someone other than Allah[10]are also impure and unclean and therefore people should abstain from them. In this regard, these aforementioned four things have been primarily discussed by the shari‘ah. The Qur’an at some places by using the linguistic expressions قُلْ لَا أَجِدُ فِي مَا أُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ (say: I do not find anything [forbidden] in what [God] has revealed to me), and at some places the word اِنَّمَا (only and only), has unequivocally stated that only and only these four things are prohibited by the Almighty.
It is stated in Surah Baqarah:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ كُلُواْ مِن طَيِّبَاتِ مَا رَزَقْنَاكُمْ وَاشْكُرُواْ لِلّهِ إِن كُنتُمْإِيَّاهُ تَعْبُدُونَ إِنَّمَا حَرَّمَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَيْتَةَ وَالدَّمَ وَلَحْمَ الْخِنزِيرِ وَمَا أُهِلَّ بِهِ لِغَيْرِ اللّهِ (2: 172-173)
Believers! eat of the wholesome things with which We have provided you and be grateful to God alone if it is Him you worship. He has forbidden you only carrion, blood, and the flesh of swine, also any flesh that is slaughtered in the name of someone other than God. (2:172-173)
It is stated in Surah An‘am:
قُلْ لَا أَجِدُ فِي مَا أُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ مُحَرَّمًا عَلَى طَاعِمٍ يَطْعَمُهُ إِلَّا أَنْ يَكُونَ مَيْتَةً أَوْ دَمًا مَسْفُوحًا أَوْ لَحْمَ خِنزِيرٍ فَإِنَّهُ رِجْسٌ أَوْ فِسْقًا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ (145:6)
Say: “I find not in what has been revealed time through inspiration forbidden to a person who eats things which are edible, unless it be dead meat, or blood poured forth or the flesh of swine because all these are unclean or in, disobedience to Allah, animals slaughtered in someone else’s name.” (6:145)
It is reported in certain narratives that the Prophet (sws) has prohibited the meat of beasts having sharp canine teeth, birds having claws and tentacles in their feet, and tamed donkeys[11]. It is evident from the above discussion that this is merely a delineation of the innate guidance found within human nature. If we want, we can add many other things to this list in the light of this innate guidance. People have erroneously regarded this delineation of divine guidance as shari‘ah, even though it has no link with the prohibition of the shari‘ahstated in the Qur’an. Thus the issue of Hadith abrogating the Qur’an does not even arise here.
2. One salient feature of the language of the Qur’an is that the meanings which are understood of their own accord because of the presence of other words and indicators or because of some logical obviousness are not expressed in words. Compliments of Oaths, answer to conditional statements, parallel expressions and the copulative sentence of a conditional sentence are often ellipsed. In 4:11, for example, there is an ellipses of the word اِثْنَتَيْن before
فَوْقِ اِثْنَتَيْن andthat of وَلِأَبِيْهِ الثُلُثَان after فَلِاُمِهِ الثُلُث and وَلِأَبِيْهِ after
فَلِأُمِهِ السُدُس or words of similar meaning. Similarly, an ellipses of the copulative sentence of وَ أَنْ تَقُوْمُوْا لِلْيَتَامَى بِالقِسْط has occured in 4:127. As another example, consider the following verse:
وَمَا مِن دَآبَّةٍ فِي الأَرْضِ وَلاَ طَائِرٍ يَطِيرُ بِجَنَاحَيْهِ إِلاَّ أُمَمٌ أَمْثَالُكُم (38:6)
And all the beasts that roam in the earth on their feet and all the birds that fly on their wings in the sky with both their wings are but communities like your own. (6:38)
A little deliberation shows that in the above verse an ellipses of parallel phrases has occurred. Because of the presence of the expression فِي الأَرْضِ [in the earth] in the first part of the sentence, there is an ellipses of its parallel expression فِي الّسَمَاءِ [in the sky] in the second part. Similarly, because of the presence of the expression يَطِيرُ بِجَنَاحَيْهِ [fly on their wings] in the second part of the sentence, there is an ellipses of its parallel expression تَدُبُّ عَلَى رِجْلِهَا [roam on their legs] in the first part of the sentence. Though this style is not present in the English language, it exists abundantly in classical Arabic. In Surah Nisa, where the Qur’an has mentioned women with whom marriage is prohibited, two instances of this style can be seen. The Qur’an says:
يُوصِيكُمُ اللّهُ فِي أَوْلاَدِكُمْ لِلذَّكَرِ مِثْلُ حَظِّ الأُنثَيَيْنِ فَإِن كُنَّ نِسَاء فَوْقَ اثْنَتَيْنِ فَلَهُنَّ ثُلُثَا مَا تَرَكَ وَإِن كَانَتْ وَاحِدَةً فَلَهَا النِّصْفُ وَلأَبَوَيْهِ لِكُلِّ وَاحِدٍ مِّنْهُمَا السُّدُسُ مِمَّا تَرَكَ إِن كَانَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ فَإِن لَّمْ يَكُن لَّهُ وَلَدٌ وَوَرِثَهُ أَبَوَاهُ فَلأُمِّهِ الثُّلُثُ فَإِن كَانَ لَهُ إِخْوَةٌ فَلأُمِّهِ السُّدُسُ مِن بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يُوصِي بِهَا أَوْ دَيْنٍ آبَآؤُكُمْ وَأَبناؤُكُمْ لاَ تَدْرُونَ أَيُّهُمْ أَقْرَبُ لَكُمْ نَفْعاً فَرِيضَةً مِّنَ اللّهِ إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ عَلِيما حَكِيمًا (11:4)
God has thus enjoined you concerning your children: A male shall inherit twice as much as a female. If there be more than two girls, they shall have two-thirds of the inheritance; but if there be one only, she shall inherit the half. Parents shall inherit a sixth each, if the deceased has a child; but if he leave no child and his parents be his heirs, his mother shall have a third. If he has brothers, his mother shall have a sixth after payment of any legacy he may have bequeathed or any debt he may have owned. You may wonder whether you parents or your children are more beneficial to you. But this is the law of God; surely God is all-knowing and wise. (4:11)
.وَأُمَّهَاتُكُمْ اللَّاتِي أَرْضَعْنَكُمْ وَأَخَوَاتُكُمْ مِنْ الرَّضَاعَةِ (4:23)
And [marry not] your mothers who have suckled you and your sisters through fosterage. (4:23)
وَأَنْ تَجْمَعُوا بَيْنَ الْأُخْتَيْنِ إِلَّا مَا قَدْ سَلَفَ (4:23)
And also two sisters in wedlock at the same time, except for what has already happened. (4:23)
In the first directive, together with foster mothers, foster sisters are also regarded as relations prohibited for marriage. Had the directive ended with foster mothers, nothing further could have been understood from it; however, if the relationship of fosterage with a mother makes her daughter a foster sister, then it is but logical to regard other relations of the foster mother to be also included in this directive. If being suckled through the same mother can make someone a foster sister, why can’t the sister of the foster mother be regarded as the maternal aunt, her husband as the father, the sister of her husband as the paternal aunt, her daughter’s daughter and her son’s daughter as nieces. Hence, it is obvious that all these relations are also prohibited in marriage. This indeed is the purport of the Book of God and the words وَأَخَوَاتُكُمْ مِنْ الرَّضَاعَةِ testify to it. It is evident to any person of knowledge who deliberates on these words.
Same is the case with the second directive. If combining two sisters in wedlock is a lewd thing as far as the relationship of marriage is concerned, then combing a lady with her brother’s daughter in wedlock or with her sister’s daughter in wedlock is like combining a mother and a daughter in wedlock. Hence, though the words used are: وَأَنْ تَجْمَعُوا بَيْنَ الْأُخْتَيْنِ, the purport of the Qur’an no doubt is: اْلمَرْاةِبَيْنَاْلمَرْاةِ وَ عَمَّتِهَا وَبَيْنَوَوَأَنْ تَجْمَعُوا بَيْنَ الْأُخْتَيْنِ وَ خَالَتِهَا(and two sisters in wedlock at the same time and a lady with her brother’s daughter at the same time and a lady with her sister’s daughter at the same time). However, all these words are suppressed after بَيْنَ الْأُخْتَيْنِ because what is mentioned points towards this suppression as obviously understood. So obvious are the words of this suppression that no student of the Qur’an can err in understanding them.
The Prophet (sws) is reported to have said:
يحرم من الرضاعة ما يحرم من الولادة (مُؤَطّا رقم 1268 )
Every relationship which is prohibited [for marriage] owing to lineage is also prohibited owing to fosterage. (Mu’atta, No: 1268)
لا يجمع بين المرأة وعمتها ولا بين المرأة وخالتها (مُؤَطّا رقم 1108)
Neither can a lady and her paternal aunt nor can a lady and her maternal aunt be combined in wedlock. (Mua’tta, No: 1108)
These narratives of the Prophet (sws) only explain the Qur’anic verses referred to above and in no way alter or add to them.
3. Verses eleven and twelve of Surah Nisa mention the distribution of inheritance of a deceased. While mentioning the shares of various heirs, the Almighty has subtly alluded to the fact that the basis on which a person has the right to inherit from a deceased is his own benefit to him:
آبَاؤُكُمْ وَأَبْنَاؤُكُمْ لَا تَدْرُونَ أَيُّهُمْ أَقْرَبُ لَكُمْ نَفْعًا فَرِيضَةً مِنْ اللَّهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا (11:4)
You know not who among your children and parents are nearest to you in benefit. This is the law of God. Indeed, God is Wise and All-Knowing. (4:11)
This benefit is by nature present in parents, children, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives and other close relations. Hence, in normal circumstances, they will be considered the heirs to the legacy of a deceased. However, in certain unusual circumstances, if an absence of benefit in any of these relationships is diagnosed by sense and reason, then the style and pattern of the verse demands that such a relative should not become an heir to the legacy. This exception, a little deliberation would show has not been created from some external source; on the contrary, it was present in the directive at its very inception. Hence, if a scholar of the Qur’an refers to it, he would not be changing or altering the meaning of the Divine book; it would be perfectly in accordance with the purport of the verse, to which its words so clearly testify. In view of this, the Prophet (sws) is reported to have said about the Idolaters and the People of the Book of Arabia:
لَا يَرِثُ الْمُسْلِمُ الْكَافِرَ وَلَا الْكَافِرُ الْمُسْلِمَ (بخاري، رقم: 6383)
A Muslim cannot be an heir of akafir nor can a kafir be a Muslim’s. (Bukhari,No: 6383)
In other words, after the Quraysh and the People of the Book were left with no excuse to deny the truth which had been unveiled to them in its ultimate form, their enmity and hostility became very clear. Consequently, the benefit of kinship between them and the Muslims stood completely severed. Hence, they could not inherit from one another.
4. In Surah Ma’idah (5:33-34), the four punishments prescribed for criminals who spread nuisance and anarchy in the society are taqtil (killing someone in an exemplary manner), taslib (crucifixion), amputating limbs from opposite sides and exile. Consequently, the Prophet (sws) in his times included certain habitual criminals of fornication in the application of this directive and is reported to have said:
خُذُوا عَنِّي خُذُوا عَنِّي قَدْ جَعَلَ اللَّهُ لَهُنَّ سَبِيلًا الْبِكْرُ بِالْبِكْرِ جَلْدُ مِائَةٍ وَنَفْيُ سَنَةٍ وَالثَّيِّبُ بِالثَّيِّبِ جَلْدُ مِائَةٍ وَالرَّجْمُ (مسلم: رقم 1690)
Acquire it from me, acquire it from me. The Almighty has revealed a way for these women. If such criminals are unmarried or are the unsophisticated youth, then their punishment is a hundred stripes and exile and if they are widowers or are married, then their punishment is a hundred stripes and death by stoning. (Muslim, No: 1690)
His view was that since such criminals were not merely guilty of fornication but were also guilty of spreading anarchy and nuisance in the society as they had adopted profligacy as a way of life, those among them who deserved any mitigation should be administered the punishments of a hundred stripes according to verse 2 of Surah Nur because of committing fornication and exiled according to verse 33 of Surah Ma’idah to protect the society from their dissolute practices, and those among them who did not deserve any leniency, should be stoned to death according to the directive of taqtil[12]of the same verse of Surah Ma’idah.
This directive of the Prophet (sws), it is evident, does not in any way change the purport of the Qur’an.
5. Maytah (meat of dead animals)is one of the things which the Almighty has regarded as forbidden. A person who is conversant with the linguistic features of Arabic knows that this word has a literal meaning and it also has a meaning which emanates from its linguistic usage. In the first case, it means every thing which is dead; however, in the second case, one who is aware of the intricacies of the Arabic language will, for example, never include dead fish or dead locust in its connotation. The Prophet (sws), on these very grounds, is reported to have said:
أُحِلَّتْ لَكُمْ مَيْتَتَانِ وَدَمَانِ فَأَمَّا الْمَيْتَتَانِ فَالْحُوتُ وَالْجَرَادُ وَأَمَّا الدَّمَانِ فَالْكَبِدُ وَالطِّحَالُ.(ابنِ ماجه: رقم 3314)
Two [type of] dead and two [forms of] blood are not forbidden for you: The former being fish and locust and the latter being liver and spleen.[13](Ibn Majah, No: 3314)
Imam Zamakhshari writes:
قصد ما يتفاهمه الناس و يتعارفونه في العادة ‘ ألا تري أن القائل إذا قال : أكل فلان ميتة ‘ لم يسبق الوهم إلى السمك والجراد كما لو قال : أكل دماً ‘ لم يسبق إلى الكبد والطحال ‘ ولاعتبار العادة والتعارف قالوا : من حلف لا يأكل لحماً فأكل سمكا لم يحنث وان أكل لحماً في الحقيقة
The word مَيْتَه (maytah) mentioned in the Qur’an must be understood according to its linguistic usage. Is not the case that when someone says that he has eaten maytah, we never include a fish or a locust in its connotation. This is similar to the fact that if a person says that he has drunk blood we never include liver or spleen in its connotation. Precisely because of such usage, jurists say that if a person swears that he will never eat meat and then he consumes fish, this will not break his oath although in reality he has eaten meat.[14]
6. The punishment for theft is mentioned in the Qur’an in the following words:
وَالسَّارِقُ وَالسَّارِقَةُ فَاقْطَعُوا أَيْدِيَهُمَا جَزَاءً بِمَا كَسَبَا نَكَالًا مِنْ اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ (5 :38)
As to the thief, male or female, cut off their hands as a reward of their own deeds, and as an exemplary punishment from God. For God is Mighty and Wise. (5:38)
It is evident from this verse that the punishment of amputating the hands is prescribed for a thief, both male (sariq) or female (sariqah). According to linguistic principles, the words sariq and sariqah are adjectives and denote thoroughness and completeness in the characteristics of the verb they qualify. Consequently, they can only be used for the type of sarqah which can be called a theft and the one who commits it is called a thief. In other words, if a child steals a few rupees from his father’s pocket, or a wife pinches some money from her husband, or if a person steals something very ordinary, or plucks some fruit from his neighbour’s orchard, or carries away something valuable which has been left unprotected, or drives away an unattended grazing animal, or commits this ignoble offence owing to some need or compulsion, then, no doubt all these are unworthy acts and should be punished, but, certainly, they cannot be classified as acts of theft which the above given verse qualifies. Consequently, the Prophet (sws) is reported to have said:
لَا قَطْعَ فِي ثَمَرٍ مُعَلَّقٍ وَلَا فِي حَرِيسَةِ جَبَلٍ فَإِذَا آوَاهُ الْمُرَاحُ أَوْ الْجَرِينُ فَالْقَطْعُ فِيمَا يَبْلُغُ ثَمَنَ الْمِجَنِّ (مؤطا ، رقم : 1573)
If a fruit is hanging from a tree or a goat is grazing on a mountain side and someone steals them, then hands should not be amputated for this. But if the goat comes in a pen fold and the fruit is stacked in a field, then hands should be amputated on the condition that the fruit or the goat are at least the price of a shield. (Mu’atta, No: 1573)
One can see that this explanation of the Prophet (sws) does not in any way abrogate or limit the directive of the Qur’an.
Parallel Verses and Constructions
The Qur’an presents its message in various ways and in a variety of styles. As a result, it has become unparalleled among other works in explaining its own verses which are set in a very concise diction and which are inimitable. Thus it introduces itself as كِتَابًا مُّتَشَابِهًا:
اللَّهُ نَزَّلَ أَحْسَنَ الْحَدِيثِ كِتَابًا مُّتَشَابِهًا مَّثَانِيَ (23:39)
God has now revealed the best of discourses whose verses resemble one another and whose surahs occur in pairs. (39:23)
Verses such as وَلَقَدْ صَرَّفْنَا فِي هَـذَا الْقُرْآنِ لِيَذَّكَّرُواْ (41:17)[15] bring to light this very characteristic of the Qur’an by the word tasrif. This word literally means “to circulate and pass around” ie presenting the same thing in various ways and in diverse styles:
كِتَابٌ أُحْكِمَتْ آيَاتُهُ ثُمَّ فُصِّلَتْ مِن لَّدُنْ حَكِيمٍ خَبِيرٍ (1:11)
This is a Book, whose verses were first concise and then they were explained from Him who is wise and all-knowing. (11:1)
Thus, initially, the style adopted was concise, brief and succint, and later explained these succinct verses which carried a world of meaning. While explaining this characteristic of the Qur’an, Imam Amin Ahsan Islahi writes:
If you read the Qur’an, you realize that the same topic appears in various surahs. A novice may regard this as mere repetition; however, those who deliberate on the Qur’an know that it does not contain any repetition. A topic which appears at other places also, does not appear with the same background and context. These are different at different places. The variations depend on the place and placement of the topic under discussion. At one place, an aspect would be hidden, while at another it would be revealed. Similarly, at one place, the real direction of address may be unspecified, and at another context, it becomes specified. In fact, my years of personal experience is that at one place a word appears to be unclear and at another place, its meaning becomes very clear. Similarly, at one place, the argument of some premise may not be understood; however, at another place, it become as clear as the sun. This style adopted by the Qur’an is to imprint its message on the reader. Consequently, it is to express gratitude to the Almighty I mention the fact that in order to overcome the difficulties of the Qur’an the extent of help I have received from the Qur’an itself is emulated by no other source. The beauty of the Qur’anic message itself entails that it should be read in various styles. If a person has a keen mind, the exquisite variations in presenting the same fact help him in absorbing it in some way or the other.[16]
These are the words and first hand experience of the greatest scholar of the Qur’an in contemporary times after the great Hamid al-Din Farahi. Any student of the Qur’an who deliberates on the Qur’an will find this reality stamped on every page of it. Thus, it must be accepted as a principle that the Qur’an explains itself (اَلْقُرآنُ يُفَسِّر بَعضَهُ بَعْضاً). This principle holds good not only for the directives of the Qur’an, the historical references it cites and other allusions it makes but also this is a miracle of the Qur’an that it is an invaluable treasure for the parallels of its own words and styles so that difficulties encountered in solving them can be solved by recourse to this treasure. Imam Amin Ahsan Islahi writes:
It is not possible to present the details here otherwise I could have shown how the Qur’an takes a word from the common spoken Arabic language and incorporates it in higher meanings in it than its conventionally understood one. Not only this, the variation in which it would use this word and aura it would create for it that all this would be enough to fully guide and satisfy a student of the Qur’an about its usage and other minute details without making him to resort to elaborate Arabic lexicons like the Lisan and the Sihah. This characteristic of the Qur’an can be observed not only in words, but also with the styles it adopts and the grammatical constructions it contains. The constructions which have become very difficult for the grammarians of the Qur’an to comprehend have been explained and corroborated by the Qur’an at other places by variation in usage to the extent that one becomes fully certain of their implications.[17]