The Concessions of Traditional Exegetes and Maulana Farahi

Maulana Farahi (1863-1930) is a renowned figure in the academic realm, particularly for his lifelong dedication to profound contemplation and study of the Holy Quran. His works are marked by innovation, distinct research, and a comprehensive exploration of the philosophy of the Quran’s coherence. Farahi not only expounded upon this philosophy in great detail but also applied it practically in his exegesis. However, due to his primary focus on the Quran’s coherence, certain circles mistakenly perceived his approach as lenient toward Hadith, presuming a lack of attention to it in his exegesis. This misunderstanding was reinforced by the sparse inclusion of Hadith in Farahi’s compiled exegesis and his differing stance on some authentic narrations. Yet, it’s a misconception to conclude that he disregarded traditional exegesis in favor of his unique approach. Farahi explicitly stated in his introduction that, in his view, the finest exegesis of the Quran is that which originates from the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)¹.

Farahi’s lifespan did not permit him to complete his exegesis entirely. He provided exegeses for several shorter Surahs and offered interpretations for portions of Al-Baqarah (which remains incomplete), certain verses from Al-Imran, Surah Al-Hajj, and Adh-Dhariyat. His interpretations effectively applied the Quran’s coherence philosophy, providing insightful and accurate meanings for the verses. Additionally, his explanatory notes offer valuable insights into his Quranic thought. Examination of these notes reveals Farahi’s profound comprehension of Hadith, which he believed to be derived from the Quran itself. He demonstrated familiarity with ancient exegeses and thoroughly studied them, evident in his extensive annotations on key Quranic science texts such as ‘Al-Itqan fi Ulum al-Quran’. Thus, while emphasizing the Quran’s coherence, he consistently found validation for his interpretations from the opinions of the Prophet’s Companions.

Farahi clarified in his exegesis’s introduction that although he preferred interpretations transmitted from Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), he regarded the exegetical tradition as a speculative source due to a mixture of reliable and unreliable narrations². Nevertheless, if he encountered an authentic hadith related to a verse’s explanation, he was willing to revise his established stance and prioritize the authentic hadith.

For example, when interpreting the term ‘Sab’ah al-Mathani’ in Surah Al-Hijr,

Farahi referred to the commonly held interpretation referencing the seven verses of Surah Al-Fatiha. He stressed that these interpretations relied on the authenticity of related hadiths; otherwise, ‘Sab’ah al- Mathani’ could imply other meanings, such as seven Surahs from ‘Ha-Mim’ or fourteen Surahs from Al- Baqarah to Al-Hijr³.’

However, in the beginning of Surah Al-Fatiha, Maulana Farahi identifies it as ‘Sab’ah al-Mathani’ and writes, ‘The status of this Surah (Surah Al-Fatiha) has been clarified to our scholars directly from the Quran. Allah Almighty, while showing His great favor to the Prophet (peace be upon him), says, ‘And We have certainly given you, [O Muhammad], seven of the often repeated [verses] and the great Quran’ (Al-Hijr: 87). Scholars from early generations to later unanimously agree that ‘Sab’ah al-Mathani’ refers to Surah Al-Fatihah⁴.’

Despite Maulana Farahi’s clear and definitive view on ‘Sab’ah al-Mathani’, Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi has presented three different scholarly opinions on the matter and offered his own perspective after a detailed discussion, leaving room for disagreement⁵.

Since ancient exegetes generally included various interpretations of a single narration, often neglecting their authenticity, Maulana Farahi did not pay much attention to these exegetical narrations. However, it is incorrect to assume that he disregarded traditional exegesis and resorted to personal interpretation. A study of his annotations reveals that he meticulously studied the ancient exegetical treasure. Works like those of Tabari, Razi, Kashaf, Baydawi, Jalalain, etc., were well regarded by him, and he often referenced these exegeses in his annotations. He openly expressed his disagreements with the stances mentioned in these exegeses at certain points. If there was any weakness in the narrations they quoted, Maulana Farahi pointed it out and clarified that the baseless narrations they included in the interpretation of these verses have no connection with reality. This article attempts to highlight such instances and showcase Maulana Farahi’s critical insight and scrutiny.

1. Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 113 (then Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that over which they used to differ), the phrase َْب ْي َن ُه َُي ْح ُك(will judge between them) appears. Maulana Farahi attempted to define its meaning in light of the exegesis of the Quran by the Quran and explained that it refers to the matters of religion in which they are quarreling due to innovations and following their desires, as mentioned in several places in the Quran. For instance, verse 10 of Surah al-Shura reads:

Similarly, verse 17 of Surah al-Jathiyah reads:

ٱللَّهُ يَحْكُمُ بَيْنَكُمْ يَوْمَ ٱلْقِيَٰمَةِ فِيمَا كُنتُمْ فِيهِ تَخْتَلِفُونَ

2. While explaining Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 213,

(Mankind was [of] one community), he writes: ‘The noble verse means that all people are one nation in the sight of Allah, as it is said in verse 19 of Surah Al-Imran about religion that or as stated in verse 30 of Surah al-Rum,

Here, the word ‘كان ‘is used in the sense of permanence, as in the verse،

‘The interpretation of this verse has been misunderstood by the exegetes, and they have faced problems⁶.’ Upon referring to Tafsir Tabari, it was found that different opinions have been narrated in the explanation of this verse⁷, while the meaning explained by Maulana Farahi in light of the exegesis of the Quran by the Quran seems more appropriate.

3۔ In the interpretation of Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 259،

(Or [consider such an example] as the one who passed by a township which had fallen into ruin. He said, ‘How will Allah bring this to life after its death?’), Maulana Farahi writes: ‘Imam Zamakhshari has made a mistake in understanding the second example. He says that the person passing by the town was a denier of the afterlife because his mention occurred alongside Nimrod⁸. Another proof he presents for his disbelief is that the person used a word of astonishment when questioning how God would resurrect the town after its destruction. Another opinion is that the person who passed by the town was either Prophet Uzair or Khidr, who wanted to see how Allah would resurrect the dead, to enhance their insight, similar to Prophet Ibrahim’s request. According to this view, the verse means they are unable to conceive how Allah will resurrect the dead and are aware of the greatness of the power of the one who resurrects⁹.’ Upon referring to Tafsir Kashaf, it was found that Imam Nasir al-Din Ahmed bin Muhammad bin al-Munir al-Alexandri al-Maliki disagreed with Zamakhshari’s statement and clarified that it is more plausible to argue for the person’s faith due to the incident being narrated in the context of Prophet Ibrahim, as opposed to deducing his disbelief from its juxtaposition with Nimrod’s story¹⁰.

4. While explaining Surah Al-Imran, verse 110,

‘ةًَكا َن ٱل َّن ا ُس ُأ َّم ًۭة َٰو ِح َد ُۭ

ِإ َّن ٱل ِّدي َن ِعن َد ٱل َّل ِه ٱ ْل ِإ ْس َل ٰـ

ِف ْط َر َت ٱل َّل ِهٱ َّل ِتى َف َط َر ٱل َّن ا َس َع َل ْي َها

ِا َّن ال ّٰل َه َكا َن َع ِل ْی ًما َح ِك ْی ًما

‘ِ َأ ْو َكٱ َّل ِذى َم َّر َع َل ٰى َق ْر َي ٍۢة َو ِه َى َخا ِو َي ٌة َع َل ٰى ُع ُرو ِش َها َقا َل َأ َّن ٰى ُي ْح ِى ۦ َه ٰـ

He then criticizes Ibn Jarir for mentioning several lengthy interpretative narrations in the exegesis of this verse and neglecting their weaknesses¹¹. It seems that Maulana Farahi has been lenient here, as referring to Tafsir Tabari revealed that Ibn Jarir did not quote any narration in this context and explained almost the same meaning as Maulana Farahi had in mind¹². Perhaps this is why Ubaidullah Farahi and Amanatullah Islahi, may Allah have mercy on them, removed this criticism of Maulana Farahi in the Urdu translation of the annotations¹³.

وَمَا تَفَرَّقَ ٱلَّذِينَ أُوتُوا۟ ٱلْكِتَٰبَ إِلَّا مِنۢ بَعْدِ مَا جَآءَتْهُمُ ٱلْبَيِّنَةُ

It is clear that the verse cannot mean that all People of the Book are alike¹⁴.’ Maulana Amanatullah Islahi has annotated Maulana Farahi’s view, stating, ‘In this verse, ‘min’ (from among) being in the middle of the statement can indicate both explanation and specification, whereas in the close precedent, where it is in the beginning of the statement, its use for specification becomes definitive. Ibn Taymiyyah’s opinion is further supported by the fact that the next verse lacks ‘min’¹⁵.

5. In the interpretation of Surah Al Imran, verse 161,

(And it is not [attributable] to any prophet that he would act unfaithfully. And whoever betrays will come with what he took on the Day of Resurrection. Then will every soul be [fully] compensated for what it earned, and they will not be wronged), Maulana Farahi writes: ‘غل(envy, jealousy, betrayal, and ill-will) is the opposite of ‘نصح’ (goodwill). No prophet would ever act based on personal desire or preference to command the people of faith towards something that leads to their destruction and death. Instead, his commands are always in accordance with the will of Allah. Thus, the believers should acknowledge the favor of Allah who sent a Messenger from among them who recites His verses to them, purifies them, and teaches them the Book and wisdom. It is not appropriate for them to be in doubt and harbor misconceptions about His commands. How can a prophet harbor ill-will towards them when he knows that on the Day of Judgment, Allah will fully repay each for their deeds and bring their intentions to light. Those who have not understood the meaning of these verses think that ‘غل’ must be something tangible that a person carries to the Day of Judgment, rather than actions. Exegetes have not duly considered the context of the verse; there is no mention of war booty here. Thus, due to not considering the coherence of the discourse, they have fabricated various stories and misinterpreted the verse¹⁶, while the Quran negates their viewpoints¹⁷.’ The explanation of the word ‘غل ‘presented by Maulana Farahi requires further contemplation. Here, he criticizes the exegetes for not adequately reflecting on the context of the verse, yet a reference to Tafsir Tabari shows that numerous lengthy narrations have been presented in the interpretation and specifically in the explanation of ‘غل’. Although the esteemed researcher of Tafsir Tabari, Mansoor Abdul Hamid, has classified most of these narrations as weak or ‘mursal’ in the footnotes, exegetes generally interpret the ‘غل ‘mentioned in this verse in light of these narrations¹⁸. Maulana Farahi, however, has reservations about the authenticity of these narrations and has attempted to present a unique interpretation by considering the coherence of the verse. The explanation of ‘غل ‘by Maulana Farahi, keeping in view the coherence of the discourse, can be considered his unique contribution. It is unclear on what basis and for what reasons the Urdu translation of the annotations, published under the name ‘Maulana Farahi’s Quranic Annotations,’ has omitted the critique of the exegetes in the context of this verse¹⁹.

(You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah), he writes: ‘The attribution of a collective action to a group does not mean that it refers to every individual member of the group. Ibn Taymiyyah believes that enjoining good is obligatory on every individual of the community. He has misunderstood the meaning of the verse in this respect. He thinks that ‘min’ (from among you) in ‘منكم ‘is not for specification, thus adopting an unusual meaning and abandoning the common interpretation. His explanation goes against the principles of interpretation, the Sunnah, wisdom, and the close precedent, as just two verses later, in verse 113, it says:

وَمَا كَانَ لِنَبِىٍّ أَن يَغُلَّ ۚ وَمَن يَغْلُلْ يَأْتِ بِمَا غَلَّ يَوْمَ ٱلْقِيَٰمَةِ ۚ ثُمَّ تُوَفَّىٰ كُلُّ نَفْسٍۢ مَّا كَسَبَتْ وَهُمْ لَا يُظْلَمُونَ أَفَمَنِ ٱتَّبَعَ رِضْوَٰنَ ٱللَّهِ كَمَنۢ بَآءَ بِسَخَطٍۢ مِّنَ ٱللَّهِ وَمَأْوَىٰهُ جَهَنَّمُ ۚ وَبِئْسَ ٱلْمَصِيرُ

References:

TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH BY ABID MAHMOOD HASHMI Page 42