There are two types of historical
sources of interpretation, (a) foundational and absolutely authentic and (b)
secondary and supportive. The Holy Qur’ān itself serves as the basic and
foundational source while the sound Ahādīth (the prophetic traditions),
established historical facts and scriptures of the earlier nations constitute
the ancillary and secondary sources. Had it not been for the uncertainty
involved in the authenticity of prophetic traditions, historical facts and
earlier revelations, I would have considered them among foundational sources
along side the Holy Qur’ān. In that case, all of these sources would have worked
to corroborate each other without mutual contradiction. It is only the lack of
absolute authenticity of Hadīth narratives that obliges students of the Holy
Qur’ān like me not to rely on narratives contradicting the Holy Qur’ān. Some of
the narratives negate the verses of the Qur’ān and disrupt their interrelation
unless their obvious implication is abandoned. Strangely enough, some
commentators disregard the obvious meanings of the verses they seek to interpret
and do not bother to interpret the relevant narratives in accordance with the
verse. They leave the apparent contradiction between the two unresolved. Some
scholars even dare to take a narrative as it is without bothering to interpret
the verse the way it should be and while interpreting the narrative go as far as
to disrupt the coherence of the Qur’ānic discourse whereas we all know that when
roots and branches come to threaten the existence of each other a rational being
would sever the branches and not the roots. As the poet says:
و كأين رأينا
من فروع طويلة
تموت إذا لم
تحييهن أصول
Wa
kā’ayyin ra’aynā min furū‘in tawīlatin
Tamūtu
idhā lam tuhyīhinna usulu
(How many tall branches we have
seen die out if not nourished by roots! )
One can only wonder over the practice of
accepting narratives which outright contradict the text they are supposed to
interpret. Examples of such outrageous interpretation include the traditions
ascribing lies to Abraham
and the narratives which tell that the Holy Prophet (sws) recited verses other
than the divine revelation while reciting the Holy Qur’ān. We therefore, need to
show extreme care regarding such narratives. We may only consider the narratives
which are in accordance with the Holy Qur’ān and which corroborate its
statements. For example, the interpretations ascribed to Ibn ‘Abbās (rta) do not
often violate the nazm of the Holy Qur’ān. We will refer to them as
corroborative evidence in our attempt to interpret the Holy Qur’ān.
As regards the history of the People of
the Book, what has been reported to us of the eastern folklore regarding the
Jewish and Christian milieu (the so called Isrā’īliyāt) is not that authentic.
What the scriptures of the People of the Book contain is a safer and a surer
source of related information rather than the Isrā’īliyāt. Our exegetes have
indeed received the detailed Isrā’īliyāt from Jewish converts among the common
folk who had little or no knowledge of the history of Israel and the Israelite
Prophets. Therefore, it is only safer for us to resort to their reliable books
instead of referring to the Isrā’īliyāt. It must however remain clear that the
Jewish and the Christian Scriptures too have to be used as supportive and
explanatory sources. If these books contradict the Holy Qur’ān at a certain
point, they have to be abandoned. We know that truth has been concealed in these
books. God has said concerning their bearers: “are you more knowledgeable or
Allah?”
The issue of offering of Ishmael (sws) is a clear example of such an
adulteration as confirmed by the Holy Qur’ān, the undisputable foundation of
religious truth. We want to make abundantly clear that we have been taught not
to differentiate between revealed books. We must appreciate that the Holy Qur’ān
is but one of them. However, when we find some discrepancy between these books,
which are sources of divine knowledge, we will have to give preference to the
most authentic among them. We have to measure the authenticity of the
contradicting sources and consider only the more authentic. However, when they
are found in agreement, corroborating and strengthening each other, there is no
harm in accepting even what is not established as historically authentic once we
have critically reflected upon its contents. For example, we may refer to the
Psalms while discussing the following verse of the Holy Qur’ān:
وَلَقَدْ كَتَبْنَا فِي الزَّبُورِ مِن بَعْدِ الذِّكْرِ أَنَّ
الْأَرْضَ يَرِثُهَا عِبَادِيَ الصَّالِحُونَ (١٠٥:٢١)
And We have written in the Psalms,
after the reminder, that my righteous servants shall inherit the land. (21:105)
We may also refer to the Torah in an
effort to appreciate what has been alluded to in the following Qur’ānic verse:
إِنَّ هَذَا لَفِي الصُّحُفِ الْأُولَى صُحُفِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ
وَمُوسَى (٨٧:
١٨-١٩)
Indeed, this is what is found in the
earlier revelation – the books of Abraham and Moses. (87:18-9)
Similarly, referring to the history of
the earlier nations, the Almighty says:
وَقَضَيْنَا إِلَى بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ فِي الْكِتَابِ
لَتُفْسِدُنَّ فِي الأَرْضِ مَرَّتَيْنِ (٤:١٧)
And We conveyed to the Children of
Israel in the Book: “You will surely create mischief in the land twice.” (17:4)
What matters most is to appreciate that
the Holy Qur’ān does not depend on anything external to it including the earlier
scriptures in making its purport clear. It indeed governs the earlier
revelations. It is the truth which can be resorted to in case of difference
among the books of God. It is only when one wishes to confirm what the Holy
Qur’ān says that one may turn to these secondary sources for corroboratory
evidence. They are surely helpful in that they increase our faith in the Holy
Qur’ān and affirm our faith in its teachings. I believe that the following
Qur’ānic directive guides us to this quest:
قُلْ سِيرُواْ فِي الأَرْضِ ثُمَّ انظُرُواْ كَيْفَ كَانَ
عَاقِبَةُ الْمُكَذِّبِينَ (١١:٦)
Tell [them]:
“Walk in the land and then observe what has been the fate of the rejecters.”
(6:11)
Studying the earlier revelations
therefore has its reward. A sound understanding of their contents helps us
understand the excellence of Qur’ānic teachings over them. This also helps us
learn how the Holy Qur’ān has revived what the People of the Book had lost from
their books and how it has unveiled their adulteration in the divine texts.
We must, however, not lose the line of
difference between what the Holy Qur’ān says and what these secondary sources
offer. You need to keep a clear barrier and a demarcating wall between the two
sources and may never confuse one for another. What has been mentioned in the
Holy Qur’ān is absolutely authentic and whatever these sources add to it is
always subject to doubt and uncertainty. Therefore, if somebody rejects these
secondary sources, on some valid ground, he cannot be equated with the rejecters
of the Holy Qur’ān.
Similarly one must also learn that
narratives, even if they are mutawātir,
cannot repeal the Holy Qur’ān. We will have to explain any apparent
contradiction found between them in accordance with the Qur’ānic statements on
the issue or keep them under consideration. This is the reason Imām Shāfi‘ī,
Imām Ahmed Ibn Hambal and most scholars of the science of Hadīth never claimed
that the Holy Qur’ān can be abrogated by the Hadīth narratives even if they were
reported by a large number of people supposed to be unable to unite over
concocting a report. The owner of a house, they say, knows best what it contains
and these great scholars of the past hold the status of the “owner of the house”
in this case. I am absolutely convinced of the untenability of the counter views
offered by some of the jurists and the scholastics. I seek God’s refuge from
saying that the Messenger of God could abrogate the words of God. Such
narratives as contradicting the Holy Qur’ān must always be ascribed to the
misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the narrators.
(Translated from
Farāhī’s Majmū‘ah Tafāsīr by Tariq Mahmood Hashmi)
_______________
|