By A.
Faizur Rahman
August 22,
2017
It may have
been an attempt to take forward Ramesh Venkataraman’s debate on religious
reforms (‘Let’s talk to the Book’). But Javed Anand’s ‘Islam’s reform: Way to go’) reads more like an imploration to
Muslims to start questioning the authorship of the Quran and their belief in
its infallibility. This is evident from the question, “how do you ‘read past’
any verse of the Quran if as a believing Muslim for you it is an absolute
article of faith that the Quran is the Word of Allah?”
Those initiated into the study of the Quran from its Arabic text would
know that the aforementioned explanations are not “liberal apologetics” but the
most probable interpretation in the light of its own lexicology. (Illustration
by C R Sasikumar)
-----
The
presumptions here are: Reform in Muslim societies is possible only if the Quran
is not considered a divine book, and Islamic reform means a rejection of
Quranic verses that are “bad”. The second presumption is, in fact, based on the
premise that there are bad verses in the Quran.
A little
reflection would reveal that scriptural content and its authorship are
different issues. Belief in the divine authorship of books falls in the realm
of dogma and, therefore, it would be pointless to challenge the notion unless
one has the time for unending polemical parleys on what Richard Dawkins called
“the spectrum of theistic probability”. On the other hand, the suitability of a
religious text for modern times can be determined through objective analysis
without reference to its author because identification of the author is not
essential to such an investigation. The text can be anonymous for all it
matters. Put differently, the reform of any religious dogma or practice can be
undertaken without going into the provenance of the scripture that supposedly
justifies it.
Anand’s
arguments — which are based on the articles he has quoted — are nothing more
than problematic interpretations of a few Quranic verses. He seems to think
that there is no other way of understanding these verses and that wrong
interpretations of the Quran negate its reliability as a source of divine
guidance. If this method of reasoning were to be generalised, any person can be
discredited by attributing to him a distorted version of his own statement. And
this is exactly what some of the authors Anand approves of seem to have done
unwittingly.
For
instance, Farid Esack (quoted by Anand) problematises the concept of Qiwaama
mentioned in verse 4:34 saying it renders the wealthier gender superior.
The idea of Qiwaama, which is inherent in the word Qawwamoon in
4:34, is derived from the root qaama whose meanings include; to stand up for,
to manage, to conduct, or to make things straight. And “superiority” is not
among its meanings in any Arabic lexicon. How did Esack miss this fact?
Anand is a
victim of a similar misunderstanding in the case of Zaraba too. The
truth is that this controversial term in 4:34 continues to be wrongly
translated to justify wife-beating. Out of the 50 times it occurs in the Quran,
Zaraba has been used 31 times to mean “to explain by giving an example”.
It has been used only 10 times to mean “to strike” but mostly to describe the
prophet Moses “striking the rock” or the sea, and angels “striking the faces”
of sinners. As the context of 4:34 is spousal rapprochement, Zaraba
would take the meaning “explain to them” and not “beat them”.
Those
initiated into the study of the Quran from its Arabic text would know that the
aforementioned explanations are not “liberal apologetics” but the most probable
interpretation in the light of its own lexicology.
Surprisingly,
almost all the authors quoted by Anand, rather than conducting their own
research, have relied on medieval commentators to conclude that “the Quran is
far from the human rights or gender equality document that Muslim apologists
make it out to be.” This is akin to Islamophobes asserting the correctness of
the ISIS understanding of Islam to demonise Muslims. They seem to be oblivious
to the fact that Muslims in the past did not suspend their belief in divine
authorship of the Quran to interpret its verses.
The seeds
of hermeneutic flexibility and interpretive freedom are within the Quran
itself. Verse 39:18 states that those who “listen to the Word, and follow the
best (meaning) in it” are “divinely guided” and “people of understanding”.
There is no
reason for Muslims to accept that the Quran is not the Word of God, so as to
“unashamedly cherry-pick from among the Quranic verses, accepting the good ones
and rejecting the bad”. Why would Muslims do that when they know incorrect
translations do not render the verses of any scripture bad or its divine
authorship questionable?
A.
Faizur Rahman is an independent researcher and secretary general of the
Chennai-based Islamic Forum for the Promotion of Moderate Thought
Related
Articles:
Quran is Not the Source of All Problems but It
Must Be Brought within the Ambit of History
Original
Headline: The Word and its meanings
Source: The Indian Express
URL: https://newageislam.com/ijtihad-rethinking-islam/the-holy-quran-muslims-interpret/d/122502