Of all the tragedies that befell the Muslims – which include the storm of
Tartars from the east, and the
scramble of European scavengers from the west
– difficult as it may seem to grade them in order of the extent their being
catastrophic, tragic and mortal, I find it convenient to place the wastage
of the meaning of the Holy Qur’ān foremost. The cornerstone of their faith,
their prime motivation for all goodness and their chief weapon of defense
against the incursions of Lucifer, was, with the passage of time, relegated
to the status of chants and spells,
where only sounds mattered, not the meaning. The loss of meaning was the
result of a composite effort, though the corrupters did not have the
doubtful advantage of mutual consultation.
In the early fourth century, after the perfection of God’s words, some found
difficulty in encompass the light of Faith within the dark cloak of
mysticism. They resolved the
difficulty by transmitting the meanings of the Holy Book in an esoteric
form. In their attempt to find the Hidden Meaning of the text, such far
fetched and bizarre meaning were brought out that ‘push the author to a
state of inferiority complex’ because such meanings he never intended. With
arrant insolence, they disturbed the musical harmony between words and their
meaning. The winged words of the book were spurred to fly high till they
were out of sight. Ironically,
this was construed as an achievement, in which they rejoiced like a child
who had laid hands on a new toy that jingles with arrhythmic painful sounds
of all sorts. Fortunately, each of them built his own edifice of hidden
meaning, till the overwhelming number and variety of their constructions was
lost in a jungle of buildings, and the people forgot all of them.
When the jurists approached the book, they brought it down to the level of a
compendium of Roman Laws and imposed upon themselves the ambiance of a court
room, interpreting it with the minds of advocates and attorneys, who battle
to win the case, even if the client is destroyed.
The scholastics and theologians, equipped with the sickle and knife of cold
Aristotelian logic, mutilated the text with insensate cruelty to prove the
truth of the teachings of the First Master and in their zeal to prove
sectarian theses, scarred the moral fiber of a purifying discourse. Their
work provided yet another instance of the human proclivity to draw out and
extract with overgrown nails from a painting whatever helps prove their
thesis, even if it leaves the painting foul and disfigured.
As if all this were not enough, many well meaning commentators degenerated
into a new mode of exegeses. This, in time, became the most effective means
to hide and distort the true intended meaning of the scripture. These
commentators deserve a somewhat detailed treatment.
They picked the text to pieces. They began to analyze the verses and words
of the text, after dismembering the unity of a text
which is like a picture masterly painted – symmetrical, complete,
convincing, just and beautiful. The Holy Book is the finest example of
construction with the greatest degree of originality.
Its totality was destroyed and its unity fragmented. Unfortunately the
splendid construction and thematic coherence of the Book has been picked to
pieces by the men who studied it most carefully and should presumably have
admired it most. Failing utterly to appreciate the perfect design and
startling unity of the Book, they understood and presented this well woven
piece of unprecedented embroidery as an ugly collage of patchwork, created
in a sordid sartorial process. They never hesitated to divorce the words and
sentences from the beautiful construction or to discover multiple meanings
for each sentence. It became fashionable to present the startled laity with
forty, fifty or a hundred conflicting meanings a verse is pregnant with.
With twenty meanings for each sentence, and all of them considered valid, we
have a right to be scandalized!! The conglomerate of meanings they heaped up
in the process was fascinating as a game and miserable as exegesis. But it
was hardly surprising. A lone word, plucked from the bosom of the parent
text, is left to the vagaries of the commentator and can be interpreted
variously, leaving the anarchy of meaning to rage for centuries. The chief
weapon of those who tried to pick the book to pieces was ignorance –
ignorance of the language and the style of the Most High and the diction of
the times in which it was revealed
.
The Holy Qur’ān has been termed as a Book by its author, and not as an
ill-organized collection of scattered golden maxims. We can present it as
the most coherent and thematic discourse, though most original in its
organization. And this we must do with indomitable pride, authority and
definiteness. They say it was compiled later by mortal human beings. I argue
that such a high degree of consistency and flow of sequence would have
proved impossible without the pen of the author himself.
The wonders of the internal arrangement of the Holy Book never cease to
amaze. There is such a parallelism among the twin chapters that it could not
have missed the attention of a careful reader skilled in the art of
interpreting revealed scriptures and immersed in the classical Arabic of the
Prophet’s days. Instead of the advanced techniques of modern literature, the
style, language and diction of the pre-Islamic Arabia are useful here. The
way the units of this discourse dovetail into each other, and the beauty
with which, after a number of digressions, a single unified idea is thrown
up by every chapter, was shown by a number of insightful people but the
difficult and mind consuming hours that were required to understand and
investigate turned out to be too oppressive for most of the commentators.
The Holy Book invites and then so deeply familiarizes the reader with its
melody and the high and low tones, that it becomes possible to point out
where a tone has been dropped to avoid a clutter of words, give depth to the
text and strike at the objective directly. Such intentionally missing
phrases and clauses are to be understood and brought out in translation and
commentary.
The different techniques of raising the discourse till it reaches the
pinnacle or coming down in pleasing pace till the discourse reaches its very
foundation should be noted. The book addresses the Prophet (sws) with
intimacy and then may shift the focus of its address to others, sometimes to
patronize and felicitate the believers and sometimes to show its distaste to
the hypocrites. The choice of words and the aura thus created, immediately
points out the situation at hand and the stage of the Prophet’s life that is
the subject of Divine words. Words are employed in their conspicuous
meanings and, far from puzzling and flummoxing usage, clarity of meaning is
achieved in its highest form. The Holy Qur’ān thus appears to be ‘a perfume,
which only had to be stirred for the scent to spread to the heavens and
earth’. But this stirring
requires the noise of Hell to awaken the Muslim clergy from its dogmatic
slumbers.
Another example is the way many rhyming verses of the Holy Qur’ān end with
names and attributes of Allah. Many orientalists consider these verse
endings superfluous and tend to explain these away as decorative trappings
of an epic style. None of the Muslim commentators dare say this, although
their works reflect that they too do not attach any significance to this
usage in the Holy Qur’ān, which betrays the opinion they share with the
orientalist. The names of Allah appear as adjectives which search out the
quintessence of the beauty and perfection of his attributes. It has been
shown with convincing reasons that such usage is not a compulsion of
rhyming. What is so remarkable is the fact that each time an attributive
name of God appears at the end of the verse, the selection of a particular
Divine Attribute is deeply linked with the problem at hand and the failure
to understand this relationship veils the meaning of the verse.
I am only hinting at a few of the delicacies of the Qur’ānic style here, and
not attempting to give a comprehensive list. Surely there are many other
aspects of the unique style of the Divine Book, which in these later days of
literature we are too sophisticated to note with wonder, or not to note at
all.
I mourn the wastage of the essence and meaning of the scripture. I mourn
because the Divine Book was brutally subjected to Hellenistic ideals, mystic
goals, sectarian purposes and legal battles. Above all, for centuries the
literary and thematic unity of the Book was dismembered and served up
piecemeal to the boys of religious schools, myself included.
_______________
|