Dr. Muhammad Mushtaq Ahmad has written a critical essay titled “Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s Concept of Coherence: A Critical Review,” which was published in the research journal Izaah, June 2024 issue. Dr. Mushtaq’s article suffers from technical flaws, rendering both his argument and the associated criticism misplaced.
Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s concept of coherence (nazm) has multiple dimensions. One aspect is the internal structure of Surahs (chapters) and their interconnections, while another is the use of syntactical and contextual analysis to derive the intended meaning of a verse or command, leading to what Javed Ahmed Ghamidi calls ta’weel-e-waahid (a singular interpretation). The former relates to literary and academic nuances and thus never claims absolute certainty, while the latter is a purely linguistic and academic matter where, based on recognized standards of language, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi asserts that a definitive interpretation can be reached within human understanding. Dr. Mushtaq addressed the first aspect Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s coherence of the Qur’an—yet criticized it based on the second principle, which focuses on achieving certainty in interpretation, thus making his critique incorrect.
In his essay, Dr. Mushtaq quotes Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s book Meezan, combining two different statements into one. One excerpt states that coherence in the Qur’an makes it possible to derive a singular interpretation, and the other explains that because of this coherence, the Qur’an is structured in Surahs rather than scattered individual statements. Beyond these quotes, there is nothing in Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s writing that supports the critic’s claim.
The two passages are as follows:
“The aspect that makes the Qur’an a decisive proof and resolves all interpretative differences, affirming Imam Farahi’s statement that ‘the Qur’an does not allow for more than one interpretation,’ is coherence (nazm) alone.”
“It is this coherence in the Qur’an that, when it challenged its audience to produce something like it, the challenge was not to present scattered verses, but rather one or more Surahs.”
The real area where Dr. Mushtaq could have placed his critique was on the issue of attaining a singular interpretation through contextual analysis. He briefly touched upon this point but failed to provide any substantial argument. This was the moment where he could have highlighted any errors using examples. Instead, he moved on, acknowledging that no one disputes the principle of deriving meaning through context. This principle is central to Farahi’s thought, which emphasizes that understanding the meaning of a verse cannot yield multiple interpretations simultaneously and that a preference must be established for one meaning over others. Additionally, this principle suggests that Hadith and narrations should be examined under the lens of coherence. This foundational approach is not foreign to the Islamic jurisprudential tradition (usul al-fiqh), where it is widely accepted.
While this methodology of establishing meaning does not eliminate the possibility of interpretive differences, the shared framework of interpretation helps resolve disputes and makes it easier for the reader to establish a reasoned preference based on the coherent structure.
The quote Dr. Mushtaq cited at this point is irrelevant. It pertains to the coherence of Surahs and briefly mentions that the internal structure of the Surahs helps guide the determination of their purpose (mud’aa). The excerpt from Meezan that Dr. Mushtaq quoted is:
“This is the structure of the Qur’an. If one looks at it carefully, the background and the time of revelation of the Surahs, along with the identification of the addressees and the subject matter, become clear, offering guidance that cannot be derived from any external source.”
Here, the reference is to receiving guidance for determining the purpose (mud’aa) of a Surah, not for attaining certainty in the interpretation of meanings (ta’yeen-e-ma’na). The certainty in determining meaning relates to the meaning of words, the composition of sentences, and the context, although at times the coherence of Surahs may also provide guidance for this purpose.
Dr. Mushtaq raised a question about what is meant by context (siyaaq o sabaaq) and how far its scope extends. If this question was unclear, it should have been clarified before the critique.
Context refers to the well-known concept that the content before and after the specific verse under discussion is considered when determining the meaning. Sometimes, the context is found within the verse itself, and sometimes it is spread across connected verses. This is a practical aspect, and every coherent discourse is read and understood by keeping this aspect in mind. As for the scope of context, the Farahi school of thought has clearly articulated it. This principle ranges from determining the meaning of a word to identifying the central theme of a Surah, to the interconnection and grouping of Surahs.
Dr. Mushtaq’s conclusion—that according to Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s interpretive principles, most of the Qur’anic rulings are limited to their original addressees, and only a “handful of rulings” are general—is incorrect. This conclusion is not only based on a flawed premise but is also factually inaccurate. The issue of specifying the addressees and limiting the application of rulings is a separate topic, which Dr. Mushtaq did not even address. However, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi does not hold the principle that identifying the addressees necessarily limits the application of a ruling. Rather, it provides one (indication), but the actual basis for rulings depends on determining the underlying cause and the context. Contrary to Dr. Mushtaq’s claim, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi identifies only a handful of rulings as specific, while the rest of the Shariah is considered general. These few specific rulings are as follows:
1. The right to fight against a nation for rejecting Islam was specific to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Ordinary Muslims do not have this right. However, jihad against oppression and aggression is a general obligation. 2. After the Prophet (pbuh) had completed his mission, relations and treaties with disbelievers were terminated. Thus, the prohibition against friendship with disbelievers and the People of the Book was related to this specific context of boycott. 3. The distinction between the testimony of Muslims and non-Muslims was also specific to the time of the Prophet due to this boycott. 4. The separation of Muslim and non-Muslim spouses was also a result of this post-mission boycott. 5. The differentiation between Muslim and non-Muslim in inheritance laws was also a result of this same boycott. 6. The death penalty for apostasy is not a ruling of the Shariah. Apostasy itself was equated with disbelief (kufr), and the punishment for disbelief, as outlined in Surah Al-Tawbah, was death for the polytheists. 7. The restriction of a one-third limit on bequests in inheritance is not a ruling of the Shariah. The one-third limit was a recommendation from the Prophet (peace be upon him), not a binding command. 8. A woman’s testimony is not inherently worth half that of a man. The ruling of two women’s testimony equaling one man’s was specific to financial matters in a particular context.
Apart from these, all other rulings of the Shariah are general due to the underlying causes. Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s approach to specifying or generalizing rulings is governed by the same principles recognized in Islamic jurisprudence: rulings are based on causes. While there may be differences in determining the causes and applications, these should be addressed within an academic framework.
To gain a deeper understanding of how rulings in Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s framework achieve general applicability, a serious study of Dr. Ammar Khan Nasir’s significant book “Quran o Sunnat ka Bahami Ta’alluq” would be useful. This book offers a valuable attempt to place Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s scholarly contributions within the broader Islamic intellectual tradition.
Additionally, Dr. Ammar Khan Nasir’s article Meezan: Tauzeehi Mutaliah (A Detailed Study of Meezan) can also prove helpful in this regard. Both works provide insights into Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s approach and help contextualize his interpretations within the wider discourse of Islamic scholarship.