Bruce Fudge's Review Article of Nasr et al. (ed.), The Study Quran

Study the Quran or The Study Quran? Bruce Fudge University of Geneva This article discusses issues of scholarship and methodology in Quranic Studies in the context of reviewing The Study Quran, ed. Seyyed Hossein Nasr et al.

i.

The Study Quran is at once a radical and a deeply conservative work. An impressive achieve-

ment and the product of an extraordinary collective effort, it consists of a translation of the Quran accompanied by extensive commentary drawn mainly from premodern Arabic Quran commentaries (tafsīr, pl. tafāsīr). It includes essays on various related topics, along with a chronology and maps of regions and even battles (Badr, Uḥud, the Trench, etc.). The volume’s goal is twofold: to represent the array of exegetical opinions from the vast commentarial tradition, and to make its own contribution to those opinions. How well does it accomplish these objectives? On the whole, very well. There is no doubting its utility as a handy reference work distilling a staggering amount of material. Just as valuable are the issues it raises, perhaps inadvertently, as to its place in the history of Quran commentary as well as in the academic study of Islam. What, if any, is its place in the field of Islamic Studies? How should it be used? And how should one go about reviewing it for a scholarly journal? ii. what is a “study quran”?

First of all, what exactly is a “Study Quran”? Editor-in-chief Seyyed Hossein Nasr explains in the introduction that it is modeled explicitly on The HarperCollins Study Bible, without further elaboration. There is a significant tradition of Bibles in vernacular languages printed with commentary, destined for the use of the individual lay reader. The first and most famous of these was the Geneva Bible of 1560. James I was said to have objected to this Calvinist creation, complaining not only of the translation, but also of the marginal notes and their dangerous contents—and thus was the subsequent King James Bible free of commentary. The best-known study Bibles represent particular schools of interpretation. One of the most successful is The Scofield Study Bible, which first appeared in 1909 (as the Scofield Reference Bible) and follows the pattern set by the Geneva version. The scripture is accompanied by various notes, tables, and maps to guide the reader; it assumes a direct relation between the reader and the text, with limited priestly interference. Containing useful notes and cross-references, it has even been recently republished by Oxford University Press. Like the Geneva Bible, it presents a particular theological viewpoint, that of dispensationalism, whereby human history is divided into a number of periods according to a divine plan. This is a review article of The Study Quran. Edited by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Caner K. Dagli, Maria Massi Dakake, Joseph E. B. Lumbard, and Mohammed Rustom. New York: HarperOne, 2015. Pp. lix + 1996. $59.99. I thank William Graham, David Hollenberg, and Louisa Shea for their comments on this review, although none is responsible for the opinions expressed herein.

Journal of the American Oriental Society 138.3 (2018)

575

576


The original Harper Study Bible (1964) also espoused a conservative evangelical viewpoint. The more recent HarperCollins Study Bible (1st ed. 1993) does not. The immediate model for the book under review, it is ecumenical in its approach and incorporates recent developments in various forms of biblical criticism. The Study Quran (hereafter TSQ) is likewise the fruit of academic labors and acknowledges various strands of Islamic affiliation: Sunni, Shiʿi, Sufi, as well as the variants within those broad labels. Is there a precedent for such a book in Islamic scholarship? There are numerous abridged commentaries, such as the well-known Tafsīr al-Jalālayn of al-Maḥallī (d. 864/1459) and al-Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505). But Tafsīr al-Jalālayn assumes a certain degree of knowledge, also of technical terminology, and the units of interpretation are very small, focusing on individual words or phrases. There are also more contemporary attempts to provide simplified versions of traditional commentaries, such as Ṣafwat al-tafāsīr by Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Ṣābūnī (b. 1930). One frequently finds lexical glosses in the margins of printed Qurans, and it seems equally common for one or another of the asbāb al-nuzūl works (explaining the circumstances in which individual verses were revealed) to be included as well. These types of glosses indicate the most common approaches to explaining or interpreting Quranic verses: lexicography and the context of the life of the Prophet Muḥammad. TSQ is an altogether different creature. Nasr’s introduction offers several statements as to the goals and purposes of TSQ: it would be grounded in the classical Islamic tradition in order to provide readers access to the many ways in which the Quran has been understood and explained by Muslims for over fourteen centuries. (p. xl)

Another stated aim is to provide a translation of “the Quranic Arabic itself and not later interpretations of the Arabic,” while “reflecting something of the inimitable eloquence” of its language. The accompanying commentary is meant to take readers beyond the literal meaning of the text when necessary, to clarify difficult passages, to reveal the inner meanings of verses when called for, and to provide a reasonable account of the diversity of views and interpretations in matters of law, theology, spirituality, and sacred history put forth by various traditional Islamic authorities. Our hope is that this exposition will enable readers to interact on various levels with the Quran and remove the erroneous view, held in some non-Muslim quarters, that because Muslims consider the Quran to be the Word of God, they do not think about it or interact intellectually with it, whereas the Quran itself invites its readers to mediate upon and think about its teachings. Our commentary, while based on the traditional commentaries, is not simply a collage of selections drawn from these books, but a new work. Our text has required making choices about both inclusion and exclusion of earlier texts in addition to providing in some places our own commentary, which is not found, at least not in the same way, in the earlier sources. Ours is therefore a new commentary that is nonetheless based completely on traditional Islamic thought and the earlier commentary traditions. We, and not earlier commentators, are therefore fully responsible for its content, which nevertheless contains numerous citations from the earlier traditional commentaries that we have consulted. (pp. xliii–xliv, italics added)

Nasr makes it clear that this is a strictly Muslim affair, that all contributors are Muslim, and that although the book would be “based on the highest level of scholarship, it would not be determined or guided by assertions presented in studies by non-Muslim Western scholars” who may have examined various aspects of the Quran “but do not accept it as the Word of God and an authentic revelation” (p. xl). So TSQ comprises a new Quran translation and a commentary that consists primarily of brief summaries of opinions of premodern exegetes. It is, then, in good commentarial tradi-

Fudge: Study the Quran or The Study Quran?

577

tion, an epitome of previous scholarship, and as what my institution would call an oeuvre de vulgarisation, it succeeds. Insofar as it consciously adds something new, it lies largely in the realm of new interpretations of certain verses, and these are, of course, made from an insider or faith perspective. One should consider TSQ a primary source, a statement of one group of Muslims’ approach to Quranic interpretation and another stage in the history of that interpretation. But despite the all-Muslim nature of the enterprise and the effort to draw on and contribute to the tradition of Quranic exegesis, TSQ resembles most closely not any previous Islamic precedent but the “study Bible” genre. This resemblance is not in the exegesis itself, but in the form and structure of the work and in its approach to the scripture. iii. what does the study quran say?

The most striking feature of TSQ is the extraordinary amount of work that must have gone into it, not to mention the need to coordinate the efforts of the individual contributors. Even a straightforward translation of the Quran is itself a formidable task, but here the translation is just the beginning. There is no doubt that the commentary is the main attraction, occupying at least three or four times as much text as the translation, probably more. Forty-one commentarial works are listed, from Muqātil (d. 150/767) to Ibn ʿĀshūr (d. 1394/1973) and Ṭabāṭabāʾī (d. 1402/1981). The majority are Sunni, but Shiʿis are well represented and there are also a number of Sufi commentaries. The editors have tried to limit the “purely conjectural and fanciful interpretations or legendary and folkloric accounts” (p. xliv). More importantly, they have deliberately excluded “modernistic or fundamentalist interpretations that have appeared in parts of the Islamic world in the past two centuries” (p. xl). Any sentient reader will note the irony of the claim to exclude “modernistic” interpretations when TSQ’s own exegesis, where it appears, is very much a product of its own time. The innovation is not evident on every page, but it is there, and not just in the commentary but in the structure of the book itself. The resultant tension between innovation and respect for tradition is TSQ’s most marked feature. The translation is on the whole accurate and succeeds in rendering the Quranic words into their nearest English approximations. Some terms remain untranslated: jizya, nasīʾ, ẓihār, ḥanīf, etc. There are some attempts at archaizing the language (“unto,” “thy,” “thee,” and so forth) but this remains relatively unobtrusive. The poetic or literary qualities of the Quran are not immediately obvious, but the more or less literal, workmanlike translation is no doubt appropriate for linking the text with the commentary. It does result in some curious renderings, such as 2:177, Rather, piety is he who believes in God (compare Muhammad Asad’s but truly pious is he who believes in God, or Arberry’s True piety is this: to believe in God). At least the translation does not neglect the difficulty of the Arabic wa-lākinna l-birrata man āmana bi-llāhi, but then the commentary is silent on the issue. 1 Despite the vast bibliography, by far the most commonly cited exegetes are al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923), al-Qurṭubī (d. 671/1272), and Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210). This is understandable: the quantity of exegetical material is enormous, and there is no way that all the listed commentators could be reproduced with any consistency. All three of these are enormous works that contain or summarize much previous opinion, and al-Rāzī’s tafsīr has a penchant for speculation that appeals to many of today’s readers. The magnitude of the task has imposed various constraints on the editors, and this is one. Another is the absence of the Quranic Arabic, a necessary omission, perhaps, but a telling one. 1. Similarly, at 2:89, piety is he who is reverent . . . .

578


TSQ’s commentary tends to follow conventional interpretations, but there are numerous exceptions. The tone is set right away with al-Fātiḥa, the first sura or chapter of the Quran. TSQ discusses the question of whether the basmala (the formulaic phrase In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful, which prefaces all suras but one) of 1:1 constitutes part of the sura, and moves on to the nature of the basmala itself. There follow five dense, two-columned pages on the Divine Names and the Straight Path, most taken from earlier tafsīr works. At 1:7, TSQ cites the widely held opinion that those who incur wrath and those who are astray are the Jews and Christians respectively, but notes (p. 11) that this is based on a saying of the Prophet, “though not [one] considered to be of the highest degree of authenticity.” In what appears to be original exegesis, TSQ then proposes the following: When the straight path is understood as the vertical path of ascent toward God, those who incur wrath can be understood as a reference to those upon a path of descent away from God, while those who are astray meander horizontally away from the path that leads toward the Transcendent. These three possibilities then correspond to the three dimensions of space and symbolize all the possibilities of the human state.

Despite its being generally traditional, TSQ’s distinguishing feature, one might say, is its attempt to reveal a kinder, gentler Quran, and thus the need to minimize terms such as “wrath” and the potential stigmatization of other religious groups. Similarly, we find the command ittaqū -llāh rendered as “reverence God,” or “be mindful,” whereas most earlier translations relied on “fear God” or variants thereof. TSQ definitely tries to move us away from fear and wrath. Since a rehabilitation of sorts is clearly on the minds of the editors, many readers will rush to see how The Study Quran treats the more infamous of verses, those apparently at odds with prevailing morality, principles of gender equality, and human rights. Let us follow the crowd and see for ourselves. The interest in such cases is not merely prurient, for it is precisely in these potentially sensitive areas that TSQ’s interpretive strategy is most readily discerned. The translation of Q 4:34 reads: Men are the upholders and maintainers of women by virtue of that in which God has favored some of them above others and by virtue of their spending from their wealth. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [their husbands’] absence what God has guarded. As for those from whom you fear discord and animosity, admonish them, then leave them in their beds, then strike them. Then, if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Truly God is Exalted, Great.

“This verse is the clearest statement of a man’s role and authority in the marital relationship as head of the household in relation to his responsibilities to provide for his wife,” begins the TSQ commentary. Although other verses “suggest mutuality in the relationship between husband and wife (2:187, 233),” this verse “indicates a hierarchy from a certain perspective between the two, at least on the social plane (see also 2:228).” The tacit admission that the Quran prescribes a gender inequality at odds with contemporary North American ideals is accompanied by various attempts to mitigate that inequality. TSQ emphasizes the responsibilities of the husband rather than the subordination of the wife. It suggests that the verse puts a high burden of proof on the husband, that to take action against the wife it is not enough merely to fear discord and animosity. He must “know” of it, rather than merely suspect it, as mentioned in the tafāsīr of al-Qurṭubī, al-Ṭabarī, and al-Ṭabrisī (d. 548/1153). Related to this is the strategy of softening or obscuring the language: the verse “indicates a hierarchy” rather than “commands,” “mandates,” “prescribes,”


579

or anything suggesting an imperative; it is a gender hierarchy “from a certain perspective,” raising the question of what the other perspectives might be. More sensational is the question of beating one’s wives: then strike them (wa-ḍribūhunna). Again, the editors do not deny that a physical blow is meant, but argue for minimizing the potential violence of the verse. First they cite non-Quranic authorities: the verse’s occasion of revelation, traditions that show the Prophet’s distaste for the beating of wives, and legal rulings advising against it. What kind of blow? It should be “without violence”; it must leave no mark; it refers to hitting with a “toothbrush” (siwāk); it is not meant as punishment but rather to change the wife’s behavior. There is also a paragraph on more recent interpretations claiming that the verb ḍaraba in this verse has some other sense and that no physical blow is meant. TSQ concludes that such attempts “are not entirely convincing.” However, in one of the accompanying essays, “Quranic Ethics, Human Rights, and Society,” TSQ co-editor Maria Massi Dakake does not deny the possibilities of this semantic shift, and adds another layer to the argument: opinions on this verse (as on other issues) are influenced by “Western” ideas. “As offensive as this may seem to Western ears, in light of the West’s criminalization of all physical forms of domestic violence [. . .]” (p. 1795, see also pp. 1785, 1794, and 1804). Other controversial passages on the status of women, such as the first part of 4:34, Men are the upholders and maintainers of women (al-rijālu qawwāmūna ʿalā l-nisāʾ), 2 or the right of men to take up to four wives (4:3), are dealt with in similar fashion. Clearly uncomfortable with these statements, the commentary attempts to blunt a plain reading. Crucially, there is no attempt to deny the basic sense of the text, nor is there a categorical effort to limit the applicability of the verses and to claim, for example, that they are relevant only to the social or political conditions of seventh-century Arabia, although such arguments may be mentioned. TSQ’s hermeneutics are thus consistent in accepting the infallibility of the entire Quranic text and not using contemporary ethical norms to override the revelation in places. 3 For example, the commentary on 4:3 repeats the argument that this was not “a new license for polygamy” but rather a reining-in of pre-Islamic excesses. (One notes, however, that the tafsīr literature is the only source for pre-Islamic customs.) More significant is the hermeneutic at work: to shift the thematic import of the verses from gender to matters of justice and social order. The whole verse revolves around the issue of justice; it favors neither polygamy nor monogamy absolutely and advises the form that best facilitates the just treatment of orphans, wives, and other dependents. (p. 190) Moving from gender to violence, consider Q 5:33: Verily the recompense of those who wage war against God and His Messenger, and endeavor to work corruption on the earth is that they be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet cut off from opposite sides, or be banished from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter theirs shall be a great punishment.

2. Cf. Arberry: Men are the managers of the affairs of women; Asad: Men shall take full care of women; Pickthall: Men are in charge of women; and compare Abdel Haleem: Husbands should take good care of their wives. 3. In her essay on Quranic ethics, Dakake outlines five principles of the scripture’s views of rights, responsibilities, and ethics, but does not confuse these with an exegetical approach to the revelation. Her own hermeneutic is clearly displayed in these paragraphs, especially with respect to 4:34 (pp. 1794–96).

580


The commentary on the verse does not flinch from presenting the Prophet in what might be an unflattering light, showing excessive vindictiveness. It cites the occasion of revelation as the instance in which some men had falsely converted to Islam and then killed a camel herder and stolen the camels Muḥammad had sent with them. The Prophet had the men apprehended and reportedly ordered that their hands and feet be cut off, their eyes gouged out, and their bodies exposed until death (Q, Ṭ, W). This verse then came down, establishing the punishment for such crimes as being the four penalties listed here: the cutting off of a hand and foot on opposite sides, execution, crucifixion, and banishment [. . .]. (p. 293)

On the other hand, the interpretive strategy here is again to shift the theme of the verse. Some commentators, reports TSQ, held that since the miscreants in question were apostates, the verse’s punishments should be applied to apostates in general. “It seems clear, however, that the severe punishments in this verse pertain specifically to those who commit various crimes brazenly and with exceptional brutality, violence and terrorization of the people.” TSQ then provides a series of opinions, and one detects a tendency to start with the more objectionable and proceed to the preferred readings. To give a partial inventory of the opinions on the brutality of the punishment in 5:33, we can read it as (a) a “clarification in light of the Prophet’s actions or even an endorsement of them,” or, beginning the thematic shift, as (b) “partial criticism and abrogation of the severity of the Prophet’s response,” or, finally, as (c), “implicitly banning torture (Q); and in fact the Prophet had refrained from any kind of torture both before and after this incident (Q).” Thus, while previous commentators may have understood the topic to be the application of punishment, TSQ emphasizes the limiting of that punishment. By specifying the circumstance of the revelation, TSQ’s exegetical opinions tend to attenuate the ruling somewhat. While the potential cruelty of the verse is in no way denied, it is clearly at odds with the preferred worldview of the editors, who stress the themes of justice and proportion rather than violence and punishment. As TSQ amply demonstrates, their preferred interpretations may well have some precedent in the tradition. However, justice and freedom from repression were not in and of themselves hermeneutical strategies for premodern commentators. Another example is that of Q 7:80–81: And Lot, when he said to his people, “What! Do you commit an indecency such as none in the world committed before you? / Verily you come with desire unto men instead of women. Indeed, you are a prodigal people!”

Traditionally understood by the commentators as referring to homosexuality, the verse may contain further subtleties, according to TSQ. The aggressive behavior of the men of Sodom in the Biblical account as well as in 11:77–79 and 15:67–71 has led some to speculate that the real crime of the people of Lot was forcible sodomy, rather than consensual homosexual relations. Although the emphasis in v. 81 as well as in parallel accounts in 26:165–66; 27:55; 29:29 is explicitly on the act of desiring men instead of women, the insolent and violent manner in which the men of Sodom sought to fulfill their desires is clearly implied in the account of Lot found in 11:77–80. (p. 436, italics in original)

This appears to be an attempt to find some degree of acceptance of homosexuality, but given the admission that other verses appear to condemn the fact of male-male sexual relations, I am not sure that specifying “forcible sodomy” here really helps the cause. But it does show again how the editors appear to find themselves caught between respect for text and tradition on the one hand, and for feminism and minority and human rights on the other. If


581

this essay dwells on the more notorious examples of Quranic harshness, it is because it is in such cases that the exegetical strategy appears in clearest relief. One result of the strategies of mitigation and inclusion is that in some verses TSQ presents a range of almost incompatible opinions (e.g., homosexuality bad, only aggressive sexual assault bad; torture prohibited, eye-gouging permitted for retribution). What does it mean that TSQ presents such a range of opinions? How is the reader or believer to judge? Quran commentaries have traditionally preserved a range of different opinions, but in general (and there are always exceptions) the range of disagreement is fairly limited. The believer seeking clarification on these and other points will find little help here, as there is not much indication of the reasoning behind the opinions reported, except in those cases where principles of justice or peace are involved. 4 Again, this is no doubt in part for practical reasons, given the scope of the enterprise, but it does make one ask about the usefulness of presenting a range of exegetical opinions without the reasoning behind them. Not only do we miss the reasoning behind the judgments, but we are subjected to seemingly endless qualifiers such as the above-cited “has led some to speculate,” a variation on “some/certain/a few/many commentators hold/say/take,” “reportedly,” “possibly,” “could be,” “often,” “sometimes,” etc. This is obviously largely due to the format of the volume and the need for brevity and inclusiveness, but after pages and pages of equivocation, I was longing for something more forceful and definitive. One area where TSQ does take a stand is on the punishment for zinā, sexual relations outside of marriage. Q 24:2 specifies lashing as the punishment, but juridical consensus in Islam has taken stoning to death as the appropriate penalty on the basis of a number of hadith transmissions as well as reports of the practice under the early caliphs. The editors are at pains to describe non-Quranic evidence for stoning and they list various reasons why in their view it is inconsistent and ultimately unsupportable. Why did the editors choose to take issue with stoning when they have admitted that the Quran seems to endorse various other unfashionable practices? Presumably because in this case, the ruling is not in the Quran (or is no longer, in any case 5). They do not say that the practice is barbaric; they reject it instead on legal and logical grounds rather than ethical ones. Critics have condemned the way in which this TSQ exegesis breaks with long-held juridical consensus, accusing the editors of misunderstanding hadith reports and legal procedures. 6 Withholding judgment on this particular example, I would note that such disagreements are hardly surprising. The exegesis of the Quran is but one part of a considerable scholarly edifice. There is more to the intellectual tradition represented by tafsīr than a straightforward reading of the Quran, but one would not know this from TSQ, which is a Quran commentary by those who were previously thought unqualified to write a commentary. And for all of TSQ’s efforts to represent the genius and diversity of previous scholarship, those who are

4. TSQ does not pretend to address contemporary matters for today’s Muslims. There is a marked affinity for spiritual affairs and little or no attempt to render the tafsīr tradition practical. For example, it will not really help to know that the minimum value of stolen goods required to apply the ḥadd penalty of 5:38 is “the worth of a shield” (p. 295). 5. There are some accounts claiming the existence of a “stoning verse” that had not been included in the final compilation of the Quran (in one version, because the palm leaf on which it was written was eaten by a goat or sheep). See Th. Nöldeke and F. Schwally, Geschichte des Qorāns, 2nd ed. (Leipzig: Dieterich’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1909), 1: 248–52. 6. E.g., G. F. Haddad, in The Muslim World Book Review 36.3 (2016): 20–25; M. Vaid, at http://muslimmatters. org/2015/12/14/the-study-quran-a-review/.

582


traditionally thought qualified to write commentary will frown upon various aspects of the new volume. What about the early Meccan verses, those with little or no juridical content, but possessed rather of fascinating and powerful, often mysterious, images? What does TSQ have to offer the reader of the early revelations? Here the weaknesses of the literal approach to translation are more apparent. If the plain and literal translation served well for much of the commentary, here it is more of a liability, as the aesthetic force is an essential element of the message. Here is TSQ’s rendering of 101:6–11: As for one whose scales are heavy, / he shall enjoy a life contenting. / And as for one whose scales are light, / An abyss shall be his mother. / And what shall apprise thee of her? / It is a raging fire.

Compare Arberry: Then he whose deeds weigh heavy in the Balance shall inherit a pleasing life, but he whose deeds weigh light in the Balance shall plunge in the womb of the Pit. And what shall teach thee what is the Pit? A blazing Fire!

At times the interpretation has an air of desperation about it. For the commentary on 101:11, It is a raging fire (nārun ḥāmiya), we read This verse is taken to mean the Fire has reached the greatest heat possible (Sh) and that, when viewed in relation to this Fire, no other fire is truly raging (R).

Or, for 91:1–2, By the sun and its morning brightness / by the moon when following it, TSQ glosses the second verse as follows: This verse can be read as an allusion to the moon’s receiving its light from the sun (IK, Q, R) or to the new crescent moon, which at the start of each lunar month is visible above the horizon near where the sun sets and itself sets soon thereafter (IK, Q). It could also be seen as an allusion to the differing orbits of the moon and the sun, which can be used to measure the passage of time. (p. 1519)

We can accept the difficulty of conveying the poetic force of the Arabic, but can we forgive such prosaic commentary? Well, yes, we can, because the tafsīr genre itself is pretty prosaic, and TSQ is simply reproducing the earlier glosses, which rarely discuss the aesthetic aspects of the revelation. 7 The tafsīr genre has its own limitations. Though one can always find (or claim) partial exceptions, the poetic and paraenetic qualities of the Quran do not feature prominently in its exegesis. The hortatory elements of the Quran in particular, powerful in themselves, tend to get lost in the more intellectual tafsīr genre, and the inadequacy of the commentary to convey the power of the Quranic message is even more evident in translation. One should add that most Muslims probably experience the Quran more directly through its paraenetic and aesthetic qualities. TSQ’s major break with traditional interpretation is in the treatment of other religions. I have already mentioned 1:7, where the traditional identification with Jews and Christians is downplayed. Similarly, at the other end of the book, 112:3, He begets not; nor was He begot7. If the poetic qualities are absent, TSQ nonetheless does a good job with the other elements. The remainder of the commentary on Q 91, for example, is very informative as to the mention of the soul and the allusions to the she-camel of Thamūd.


583

ten, TSQ admits that “this verse is interpreted as denying that Jesus is the ‘Son of God’,” but argues that “the Christian notion of sonship is not the same as that held by the pagan Arabs, who are criticized in other verses for ascribing offspring to God (usually daughters) as in 16:57 [. . .]. Attempts to link this verse to discussions of Christianity are thus somewhat tenuous [. . .]” (p. 1580). Other examples, though, imply positive judgments as to the validity of religions other than Islam. Some support for these positions is found in the Quran itself and in the commentaries, but it certainly constitutes a break with tradition. One of the most striking examples occurs at 3:199, And truly among the People of the Book are those who believe in God and that which has been sent down unto you, and that which has been sent down unto them, humble before God, not selling God’s signs for a paltry price. It is they who shall have their reward with their Lord. Truly God is swift in reckoning. Who might these believing People of the Book be? TSQ allows that some intepretations favor only a few persons, such as ʿAbdallāh ibn Salām, who converted to Islam, or the Negus of Abyssinia, who gave refuge to believers before the emigration to Medina. But the editors go on to put forth a more inclusive view (p. 187): It is possible to interpret this verse to refer to the affirmation of the truths that, according to Islam, are expressed by all true religions: belief in the One God, the judgment of the Hereafter, and the moral obligations of justice and mercy in this life and similar issues.

(I am not sure if this is an expansive view of “true religions” or a limited view of same.) They continue: There may be a third possibility often left unexplored by Muslims until recently: that one can remain a Christian while affirming the veracity of the Prophet Muhammad and of what was revealed to him.

Elsewhere, most notably at 5:48, TSQ asserts the providential nature of different religious communities and their distinct laws and practices. Indeed, the verse does not pertain only to Jews and Christians, but rather makes a universal statement about all religions. For each among you We have appointed a law and a way indicates that different religious communities may have different ritual and legal formulations specifically “appointed” for them by God, and that each religious community is independent of the laws of other such communities, even if the essential truths and principles of the religions are the same (IK, Q, R, Ṭ).

To state that there are paths to truth and salvation outside of Islam is a significant statement that will not be taken lightly. 8 It runs contrary to the general spirit of premodern commentary even if, as TSQ rightly points out, it is not entirely absent. Certainly, some will welcome such an interpretation; others will be scandalized that a self-proclaimed Muslim guide to the exegesis of the Quran appears to hold that there are legitimate belief systems that do not require faith in Muḥammad or the Quran. Again, it is not for me to take a stance on the issue, but I would point out to both sides that the ecumenism of TSQ is tempered by the fact that all “religions” are made to sound suspiciously like Islam, involving prophets, 8. To give another example for the sake of completeness, let us look at 3:85, usually rendered as Whosoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him. TSQ translates “Islam” here as “submission,” and the commentary states that “in this verse the question is whether islām, or submission to God, can include others beyond the followers of the Prophet Muhammad” (pp. 153–54).

584


covenant, and “what [the Quran] maintains to be the pure essence of all covenants—full submission to God.” 9 iv. the study quran and the genre of quran commentary

Most reactions and reviews will focus on TSQ’s exegesis of individual verses and topics, and the range of meanings proposed. But there are larger, structural issues at work in shaping the volume. To say that it reflects the culture that produced it sounds banal, but the premodern tafsīr tradition is not the only influence on the form and content of TSQ. Certain critics have accused TSQ, and especially its editor-in-chief, of being not so much Muslim as “Perennialist.” This term refers to a school of thought associated with René Guénon and Frithjof Schuon, among others, holding that there are universal truths shared among the world’s religions, implying obviously that no single religion has a monopoly on truth. I am not qualified to identify Perennialism as such, but it is certainly the case that one of the most striking ways in which TSQ distinguishes itself is precisely in its ecumenical approach, both to different Muslim groups and to religions outside Islam. 10 I myself would suggest that the most obvious “non-Islamic” influence at work here is not the Traditionalist School or the Perennial Philosophy, but something less exotic. TSQ is marked by a Protestant view of religion. “Soteriological pluralism” 11 may influence the understanding of certain verses, but Protestantism has shaped the very form and structure of TSQ. By this I mean that contemporary views of religion, especially but not exclusively in the West, tend to follow a Protestant model, in which the post-Enlightenment European experience is taken as the norm, such that “faith” has become synonymous with “religion.” TSQ conforms to this model. At the same time, it draws on and participates in a commentarial tradition based on an entirely different understanding of religion and the relation between scripture and believer. The most obvious similarity with Protestantism is the focus on scripture itself, and on the individual believer’s unmediated relation with that scripture. This is behind the creation of “study scriptures” beginning with the Geneva Bible. The “study scripture” format demands that information be presented in such a way that the non-specialized reader can understand and, to a certain degree, evaluate and judge the text. Concomitant with this basic principle are: the idea that religious authority is rooted in the scripture; an emphasis on faith and belief as the central element of religious affiliation or practice; and an anti-hierarchical stance. Among the (unintentional) byproducts of this approach are, it is thought, a tolerance of religious diversity and a respect for individual freedom of belief. 12 TSQ aims to present material from the genre of Quran commentary (tafsīr), and this it does admirably well. But TSQ also breaks with that tradition. Most obviously, the focus on scripture and reader leads to an emphasis on the “meaning” of the text. This may appear selfevident but historically speaking it is not. Easily accessible scriptural meaning is perhaps the exception and not the rule. 9. From the accompanying essay by Joseph E. B. Lumbard, “The Quranic View of Sacred History and Other Religions,” 1784. 10. Whether the interpretations are justified by the Quranic data is irrelevant to my point, which is merely the divergence from past exegeses. 11. The term is that of Vaid (see n. 6). 12. Obviously, I am not suggesting that diversity, personal interpretation, or freedom of religion are in any way unique to Protestantism or to the West or anything else. See, for example, D. MacCulloch, The Reformation: A History (New York: Viking, 2003), 651–56; J. Pelikan, Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300–1700), The Christian Tradition, vol. 4 (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1984), 323–25; idem, Whose Bible Is It? A Short History of the Scriptures (London: Penguin, 2005), 176–77.


585

“Meaning” is but one part of tafsīr. Otherwise there would have been little need to keep writing them. Consider the fact that TSQ cites overwhelmingly only three tafāsīr. This is largely because the basic sense of what verses meant did not undergo much change after the formative period. The genre of commentary changed, yes, but the explanations of the verses, not so much. The commentaries had other priorities and were doing other things. Among their priorities were preservation and transmission of the text. In a manuscript culture, much scholarly attention was devoted simply to copying. Manuscripts were easily lost. Textual discrepancies were very common and hard to keep track of. In the age of print, not only are the preservation and uniformity of texts much easier to guarantee, but scholars are able to devote more time and energy to reading and reflection, perhaps leading to an increased concern with “meaning” and with the “intelligibility” of the text. 13 The present time is one of ongoing transition, as products of manuscript culture are being adapted not just to print but to digital media as well. In the case of TSQ, one sign of this transition is the relative neglect of the variant readings. Is it the case that what was intended as a guarantor of reliable transmission is now seen as a liability? TSQ very occasionally cites variant readings (and in at least one place the “manuscript” of Ubayy [p. 1563]). One senses that the idea of variant readings poses a threat to the reliability or veracity of the revelation. Thus, in the accompanying essay “The Islamic View of the Quran,” by Muhammad Mustafa al-Azami, the term “multiple readings” is preferred to “variant readings” as the latter implies uncertainty as to which is “correct,” whereas they are all, in this understanding, “correct.” In the introduction, Nasr states, “There is but a single Quran, with fewer variants of any kind than are found in any other sacred scripture” (p. xxxiv), a boast that betrays, one suspects, a certain anxiety. 14 Another essential function of tafsīr is the promotion of particular approaches or ideologies. The conventional distinction between commentary based on reports transmitted from previous works (al-tafsīr bi-l-maʾthūr) and that based on “personal opinion/inference” (bi-lraʾy) is an obvious example. Each promotes a particular way of analyzing the Quran, especially in terms of what sources may be used and on what basis exegetical judgments are made. But it may also be a matter of theological beliefs (free will, God’s justice) or sectarian affiliation (Shiʿi, Sufi, or other opinions and sources). At times these will be blatant, at other times less so, but there is always some degree of particularity, something to justify the composition of yet another commentary. This importance of method and approach means that there is a great difference between reading in TSQ that a particular opinion is found in, say, al-Ṭabarī’s commentary, and actually reading al-Ṭabarī’s commentary. When al-Ṭabarī lists different exegetical opinions and then judges which he thinks the most appropriate, one has a sense of how the parameters of the exegesis are set (usually by previous exegetical opinions) and on what basis he arrives at a decision. This process—the choice of sources, the reasoning employed—is, I would argue, at least as fundamental to the genre and process of tafsīr as the conclusions themselves. And yet these fundamentals are almost entirely absent from TSQ. Once again, TSQ cannot do everything—practical considerations play a role here. Yet it is important to be aware of what TSQ is not: it is in no way a substitute for the premodern commentaries it cites.

13. On the intellectual effects of print, see MacCulloch, Reformation, 68–73, esp. 72; “intelligibility” is the term used by M. Cook, The Koran: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000), 26. 14. Elsewhere, in a similarly competitive spirit: “There is probably no sacred scripture in any religion that is memorized by so many people as the Quran” (p. xxxvi).

586


Quran commentary treats not just the meaning, but all kinds of information: anything known about its revelation, when a word was used in pre-Islamic poetry, correct pronunciation, anything. Reading the larger tafsīr works, one often has a sense that the goal is to preserve everything known about the text, which is—self-evidently—not the same as being centered on the meaning of the text. Another major component of tafsīr left by the wayside in TSQ is language. TSQ contains no Arabic, which poses a theological difficulty in that generally a non-Arabic Quran is, strictly speaking, not the Quran. But even leaving theology aside, there are philological problems with this omission. Whatever the variety in the genre of tafsīr, there are relatively few works in which Arabic philology, in the sense of grammar, syntax, and especially lexicography and morphology, does not play a major role. Much of this discussion is highly technical, and barely accessible or of little interest to the vast majority of Muslims throughout history. Yet this is the backbone of Quran commentary. Without wanting to sound unduly harsh, the tafsīr genre is almost unrecognizable in TSQ. This is a huge departure in the way one deals with the Quran. And it heads in a predictable direction: toward accessibility, toward facilitating a layman’s understanding of the text, and toward considering that layman’s understanding legitimate and sufficient. The absence of Arabic is likely due to publishing constraints, but it would be a mistake to think that the only factor. The entire structure and methodology of the work is based on reading in English. I notice, for instance, that consulting TSQ for teaching purposes usually gives a useful summary of exegetical background and opinion. However, if a question arises that is provoked by something in the Arabic Quran, then TSQ is almost invariably unhelpful. 15 The Anglocentrism goes very deep. In other respects, TSQ might hew rather too closely to the tafsīr tradition. If most Muslims through history have not been too concerned with, say [insert obscure grammatical feature here], they have nonetheless appreciated the beauty of the Quran and the force of its message. Here the confluence of tafsīr (consciously) and Protestantism (less consciously) works against appreciation of both the aesthetic and paraenetic aspects of scripture. TSQ is the popularization of what is really a very intellectual or scholarly genre, paradoxically leaving out that which was previously popular. The “Study” format does bring out some interesting comparisons between Bible and Quran. The annotations and marginalia in a study Bible are relatively unobtrusive. In TSQ they take up on average eighty percent of the page. The inescapable message of TSQ is that the Quran is a very difficult text to understand, requiring copious commentary. It cannot or should not stand on its own, something that Muslims have always understood and one of the reasons that the scholarly tradition in Islam took the shape it did. TSQ’s ambiguous relation to the tradition it claims to represent is perhaps nowhere more in evidence than in the fact that the Prophet Muḥammad is but a spectral presence in the introduction and accompanying essays, but is omnipresent in the commentary. Much of the explanation requires a more than passing acquaintance with the life of Muḥammad, but the editors never mention this. Why the discrepancy? Admittedly, The Study Sīra or The Study Hadith would be a much more complicated project. The idea of the Quran is certainly more accessible than either the hadith or sunna, much more manageable, and more suited to the universalism that TSQ editors wish to promote. I certainly do not deny the centrality of the Quran or the importance of its commentary. I would, though, suggest 15. For example, the accompanying essay “Quranic Arabic,” by Muhammad Abdel Haleem, lists at least ten instances of iltifāt (“grammatical shifts for rhetorical purposes”), but of these, only two are mentioned in TSQ’s commentary (on 1:5 and 4:162).


587

that tafsīr has received undue attention in the Western academy precisely because of its presumed similarities with the biblical model. Pace the editor-in-chief’s claims, TSQ is itself a “modernistic” commentary, and it is precisely in the dilemmas it faces as such that it is most interesting. The struggle between fidelity to a tradition and contemporary needs and pressures is hardly something new. It is, I would imagine, a phenomenon that the editors, all with training or posts at North American universities in departments of religion or religious studies, have studied and taught countless times. One might ask, then, if or how the academic milieu of the TSQ editors has influenced this work. The answer would appear to be very little. There are almost no references to modern scholarship. The view of other religions, ecumenical as it may be, would raise eyebrows among non-Islamicist colleagues. There are a good number of Bible verses cited, and a few references to Hebrew words, but in general it would appear that there is no use for modern scholarship on Semitic languages, Near Eastern history, or the study of the phenomenon of religion itself. Perhaps this is to be expected: TSQ is, after all, an all-Muslim affair and in this respect a conservative one. But the anxiety of innovation seems pervasive. Take, for example, the numerous references to pre-Islamic Arabia. A typical example is the commentary on 5:38: “According to al-Qurṭubī, amputation was the punishment for theft in the preIslamic (jāhiliyyah) period.” With all due respect to the great exegete, is a twelfth-century Andalusian who lived in Egypt really the best source for pre-Islamic Arabian customs? Is current scholarship of no value here? I can understand the avoidance of that which questions received dogma, but is there no neutral territory? There may be pragmatic reasons for this—one can’t cite everything—and TSQ is drawing on the tafsīr tradition. Yet at the same time, here and elsewhere, TSQ projects an air of insularity, as if certain aspects of the modern world should not be permitted to intrude on one’s engagement with the Quran. One area that is certainly off limits is any form of textual criticism: both the authenticity of the divine revelation and its inerrant transmission and diffusion are unquestioned. This is hardly surprising, but it does have certain implication for TSQ’s audience. The Quran has many curiosities: linguistic peculiarities, ambiguous passages, obscure references, internal contradictions, and so on. Those seeking discussions of these will have to look elsewhere. If one of TSQ’s goals is to “remove the erroneous view, held in some non-Muslim quarters, that because Muslims consider the Quran to be the Word of God, they do not think about it or interact intellectually with it,” it seems fair to point out that this thinking and interacting has its limits. There are a number of topics that TSQ is not going to acknowledge, even if those topics are foremost in the minds of many (certainly non-Muslims, and no doubt many Muslims themselves). I am belaboring this point not in criticism, but because I see this fidelity to the inerrant transmission of the Word of God to be one of the defining characteristics of not just Quran commentary but Islam itself, and one of the elements TSQ shares with its predecessors. Its ruptures with tradition are clear enough, but there is more to its fidelity than its citations of classical exegetes. The uncompromising insistence on textual infallibility in TSQ is all the more pronounced for those instances, as discussed above, in which cherished conviction clashes with cherished scripture. So it is certainly not the case that TSQ avoids difficult questions, but it chooses to wrestle with ethical issues rather than historico-critical ones. Anyone with any stake in Quranic matters will find something to quibble or quarrel about in TSQ. One cannot expect unanimity given the magnitude and complexity of the task— however ecumenical the editors were aiming to be, the incontrovertible fact remains that you cannot please everyone and there are some very sensitive issues at stake.

588


In medieval Europe the clergy warned of the dangers of individual readings without the aid of learned men of the church. The subsequent rise of numerous individual sects, each with its own reading, seemed to bear witness to the truth of those warnings. No wonder that some TSQ readers will echo King James on the Geneva Bible: “some notes very partial, untrue and seditious, and savouring too much of dangerous and traitorous conceits.” 16 For all the pretense (mainly in the introduction) to be following tradition, TSQ is in fact doing what commentaries have always done, to varying degrees: respecting and transmitting the authority of the past while adding something of one’s own. And if they are criticized, well, there is nothing new about that, for griping about one’s colleagues and predecessors has a distinguished pedigree as well. Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī complained of the excesses of the exegetes on 1:7, those who incur wrath and those who are astray. “I have seen around ten different opinions on these words,” he stated, “even though in all that was transmitted from the Prophet himself, or his Companions, or their Successors, there is only one interpretation: the Jews and the Christians.” 17 Here and in plenty of other places, TSQ finds itself on the wrong side of al-Suyūṭī, but in that it is in good company. Parting with tradition is indeed part of tradition.

16. Cited in A. Nicholson, God’s Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible (New York: HarperCollins, 2003), 58. 17. Cited by Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn, ed. Ş. Yaltkaya and K. R. Bilge, 2 vols. (Istanbul: Maarif Matbaası, 1941–43) 1: 431.

Bruce Fudge's Review Article of Nasr et al. (ed.), The Study Quran

Recommend Documents