Aḥmad Javed’s [disjointed] speech on the concept of coherence in the Qur’ān practically demonstrates his viewpoint on the subject. Undoubtedly, it is a collection of disjointed thoughts, a combination of scattered thoughts, and a mixture of incoherent impressions. The speech clearly shows that Aḥmad Javed does not believe in any interconnectedness of human speech as well as divine speech. He discussed Javed Aḥmad Ghamidi’s thoughts in a speech titled “Critique of one Concept of Qur’an ic Coherence” and mentioned some isolated criticisms.
Of these points, a few salient ones follow:
Ghamidi’s interpretation of the religion [of Islam] is founded on his concept of Qur’anic Coherence. This concept has caused the birth of a unique comprehensive and exclusive narrative of the religion. As a consequence, the authentic, acknowledged, and well-received tradition of the religious scholars proves to be unreliable.
This mistake is the issue of taking the Book of God to follow the form of human compilations. Apparently, it is believed that the way human discourse is presented in a set order and arrangement, the divine speech has also been revealed after organizing and ordering it in the same way. This is a dangerous fallacy, as a result of which, the divine speech becomes hostage to our arbitrary principle. These types of principles may be applied to human speech, yet they can have a perilous effect on our understanding of the divine speech.
In Ghamidi’s Qur’anic hermeneutic, the concept of coherence overrules the Qur’an itself. Therefore, he (that is, Ghamdi) understands the divine book in the light of this concept and follows the same concept while deriving the rulings from the Book. It means that a concept that lies outside and beyond the Qur’anic text has been hailed as the only necessary condition for correct understanding of the Qur’an. This approach amounts to injustice to the Book of God.
Ghamdi’s statement that “each Sūrah of the Qur’an has a definitive coherence scheme.” Similarly, Mawlānā Iṣlāḥī is wrong to declare that “whoever approaches unguided by the coherence in the Qur’an will at best obtain a few individual injunctions and isolated guidelines.” What proves this to be wrong is the well-acknowledged fact that a defined thing cannot be hidden from the readers. Such a well-defined concept should be obvious and unambiguous. Every scholar must understand it without research and going through an interpretive process. In this perspective, the factual evidence from our religious scholarly tradition negates the concept of coherence in the Qur’an . The works of the earliest and the later generations of the scholars prove that they could correctly derive rulings and guidance from the Qur’an without recourse to any such supposed or arbitrary concept of coherence in the Qur’an .
This mistake originally results from the reception of the knowledge and thoughts of the dominant nations in today’s world. One can easily and plausibly appreciate this understanding by analyzing legal applications and interpretations of the divine text concluded by Mr. Ghamidi. His applications and interpretations correspond to the views, customs, and dispositions of the Western nations. This understanding gains further support by the practical inclinations of those who agree with Mr. Ghamidi’s thoughts.
First, the speech of the respected critic does not clearly reveal in which system of thought he stands while delivering the sermon. Is it the philosophical school, Sufism, scholasticism, linguistics, or the Islamic disciplines from the perspective of which he speaks?
Keeping these isolated points in consideration, I find it imperative to offer a few critical observations of the entire discourse of the respected critic, Aḥmad Javed.
This explanation is imperative because each system of thought has different premises, different styles of reasoning, and unique scholastics. It is not useful to discuss and argue about one system while taking the perspective of another. In this way, neither an academic principle can be formed, nor any communication of the matter is possible, nor soundness and unsoundness can be determined. Such discussions only lead to general speculation which has no value other than soliloquy.
Secondly, the critic initiated commenting upon Ghamidi’s standpoint on the Coherence in the Qur’an without bothering to state his position. Positive criticism requires that one begins by fully and clearly stating the position one needs to criticize. This way of positive critique ensures to clarify whether the critic has a clear understanding of the point of view that he is attacking or he is professing to present research without understanding that specific view.
Thirdly, the critic has not chosen the correct part of Ghamidi’s discourse on the Coherence in the Qur’an to begin a critique on it. He has selected a section from Ghamidi’s Mīzān, entitled “Coherence in the Discourse.” However, a first glance at the discussion under the title shows that it is not an isolated article. Rather, it is the eighth of the ten premises making up the introduction to the Book, titled “Fundamentals of understanding the Qur’an.” Seven premises precede it. The entire set of premises is interconnected and unfolds in a specific argumentative progression. Some of these preceding premises work as foundations to the discussion on the coherence in the Qur’an. To embark upon critiquing the propositions about the coherence in the Qur’an while ignoring the rest of the connected discussions cannot be useful in imparting the criticism.
The second discussion in the fundamentals of understanding the Qur’an offers those source texts in which the Almighty has declared that the Qur’an has been revealed in “ᶜarabī mubīn”, the clear Arabic language.
For the sake of making this point clear, a little elaboration is offered here. The first of these ten points on the fundamentals of understanding the Qur’an explicates the reality that the Book of God has been revealed in the language of the Arabian tribe Quraysh. Therefore, the Almighty has not used the language in which He corresponds with, for example, the angels or the jinn, or the heavenly bodies or the various different types of creations in the heavens and the earth. Nor has God coined a new language for the purpose. On the contrary, God has used the language of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and his tribe. It was a human language that the Arabs had developed over the centuries using their natural linguistic ability. It means that God communicated His Guidance through the same words, stylistics, metaphors, metonymies, similes, and literal and figurative expressions which were coined by humans and were in use for communication among the Arab tribe of Quraysh.
The fourth issue exposes the reader to the clear religious source texts describing the fact that the text of the Qur’an is a criterion and differentiator between the truth and falsehood. It is also the guardian over the entire corpus of the [previous] divine revelations. This means that it is the only criterion and scale to differentiate between the truth and falsehood. The fifth discussion offers the Qur’anic definition of itself as kitāb mutashābih, that is, it is a book which presents its discussion and themes repeatedly in such a way as to work as interpretation or explanation of each other. The sixth point highlights the reality that the Qur’an is the last book of divine guidance.
The Almighty guarantees that He has kept the language of the Qur’an pure of every shortcoming and pure of every circumlocution. The third issue highlights the reality that the style of the Qur’an ic expression is entirely unique and distinct from the conventional prose and poetry.
It explains that the realities ingrained in human nature, the religious rites and customs of the Abrahamic religion, and the scriptures of the Prophets precede it in order of appearance. The seventh point brings to the fore the fact that the subject of the Qur’an is that it is a saga of the Prophetic mission of warning and admonition by the Prophetic Muhammad. It is only after detailing these seven points, that we find the discussion on the coherence in the Qur’an in Mīzān. This discussion starts as follows:
(Ghamidi, Mīzān, 51).
The eighth point is that each Sūrah has a specific coherence in it. A Sūrah is not a collection of isolated & separately issued guidelines from the Almighty. Rather, a Sūrah has a specific theme & all of its verses relate to that theme in a very wise order & correspondence
Fourth, the critic has not bothered himself to note the approach of the traditional thought on the subject. It needs to be noted that it is the same tradition upon which the learned critic has based himself in
Fifth, in his zeal to falsify the concept of the coherence in the Qur’an, the learned critic has offered arguments which lack water from an academic point of view. The most salient example of such empty claims is the argument that specification [of a meaning] in the Qur’an necessarily implies its general explication. Similarly, ambiguity necessarily accompanies concealment of the meaning. It means that if something is specifically known then it must be equally clear to all and sundry. If all the people cannot explicate that point, then it must be unspecified and unidentifiable. Rather, it is ambiguous.
his endeavor to criticize, falsify, and reject the concept of coherence in the Qur’an . As a result, the points related to the issues “preferred over the Qur’an ” and “external to the Book of God” used against the rejection of Ghamidi’s thought prove the rejection of the traditional approach and thoughts as well with equal force.
It is as if the sword of argument unleashed against the concept of the coherence in the Qur’an has also cut apart the traditional principles of Qur’anic disciplines including the Makkan and the Madinan sūrahs, abrogated and the abrogating verses, the clear and the ambiguous statements, styles and parallels, miraculous nature of the Qur’an , and interpretation of the Qur’an in the light of its parallels.
In reality, it is a mere accusation to say that the concept of the coherence in the Qur’an has been externally imposed upon the Book of God. Never indeed. The concept is derived from the text of the Qur’an the way the above-mentioned traditional concepts of the Qur’anic disciplines have been gleaned from the Qur’an itself. They have been compiled after being derived from the Qur’ān. It means that the text of the Qur’an evidences through its very existence that it is not a collection of isolated parts. Rather, it is a masterpiece of a coherent and well-connected discourse.
For the sake of argument, we say that if the learned critic finds time he must please apply the issues of “preceding the Qur’an ” and “external to the Qur’an ” to the principle of tafsīr based on tradition (tafsīr bi al- maᵓthūr). Let us see how does it relate to the “internal” of the Qur’an?
This form of argument implies that, for example, if all the eyewitnesses of a specific incident differ in their narration of the event, then the reality of the incident becomes questionable. Taking another example, we can say that if the audience of a speech or discussion differ in their report of the statements, it must mean that the speaker was ambiguous. Yet another example is that if the readers or explicators of a book do not agree on the meaning of its content then it must be a collection of ambiguities. In all these examples, the fallacy in the argument lies in that the sole criterion of specification of meaning or a fact has been granted to the receivers/target audience. Subsequently, the mistake has been confined and ascribed to the messenger. That is, the witness, the audience, and the reader hold the position of the judge. However, the ambiguity, concealment, shortcoming, and mistake have been charged upon the witnessed fact, speaker, and the writer.
In the process of determination of a Ḥadīth or lack of it, its
If the readers differ among themselves in understanding the statements in the above- mentioned sources, then the soundness or otherwise of an interpretation will rest not on the majority or minority of the upholders of the different interpreters but in the light of rational & reported arguments.
The same is the viewpoint of the pious elders on this issue. A careful deliberation on the works of the Muhaddithun & the jurists on the discipline of the Ḥadīth, our submission becomes abundantly clear.
Therefore, if the source is the speech of God or the saying and action of the Messenger, peace be upon him, or the consensus of the Companions, then these sources will be the final word rather than all the rest of the humans.
It would not be out of place to mention that according to the scholars of the Farāhī School, two factors play a decisive role in ascertaining and defining the realities. One, the source, [that is, the divine text] Second, the arguments and evidences. The addressees do not have any role to play in this regard.
The acceptance by the individuals or lack of it cannot be a criterion in this matter. Therefore, in this discipline, it is customary that a Ḥadīth which a party of the scholars declares Ṣaḥīḥ or Ḥasan in the light of their research, yet another scholar comes and rejects it because he finds it going against the Qur’an , or contradicting the concurrently reported (mutawatir) act of the Prophet, or at times militating against reason, being proven rationally improbable.
acceptance and rejection, and its explication and clarification the decisive role is attached to its source, that is, the person of the Prophet, and collective corpus of his sayings and actions. Mis/understanding of the narrators, the researches of the Muhaddithun, the explications of the commentators, and the applications of the jurists do not enjoy this status. In the case of a difference of opinion, the issue is decided in the light of rational and reported knowledge.
The same process can be reversed at times. I mean a report declared weak (ḍaᶜīf) due to the weakness of the narrators can be accepted as the word of the Prophet, peace be upon him, because of support from rational argument and other validating indicators. It means that the soundness or the unsoundness of a Ḥadīth report rests on two points: First, ascription to the source and second, rational and reported arguments. Majority or the minority of the people or their agreement or disagreement or their isolated or consensus views have no role to play in this validation process.
The above constitute the exceptions I take to the isolated points raised by Mr. Aḥmad Javed. I have mentioned these points in order to point out those perplexities and anxieties which clearly issue from Mr. Aḥmad Javed’s speech. I intended to highlight the issues missing which would turn any critique of the concept of coherence in the discourse a futile exercise. This is what I offer, and the true knowledge rests with Allah.
The divine speech, that is, the Holy Qur’an has been revealed to communicate certain meanings. The objective to communicate meaning necessarily requires coherence in the speech. The reason is that the audience of this speech, that is, man, can understand only a coherent discourse. That is, only such speech has access to his understanding and comprehension that is clear in its subject & explicit in meaning. Such speech must have a background, context, order, a beginning & a conclusion. A collection of words devoid of these elements is not understandable to man. The reason is that such a collection of mere words does not contain direction of the speech, is void of an indication of the addressee, & fails to help identify eclipses and unstated parts. There is no possibility of appreciating the similitudes, metaphors, and metonymy. Nor can one distinguish between the foundation and the extensions, principle and its application, and the literal and the figurative. In consideration of these human limitations and needs, Allah Almighty has given us a coherent and arranged text.
To sum up the discussion, it would be appropriate to offer a few points delineating my perspective on the question of the coherence in the Qur’an .
The purpose of the divine speech is not limited to the communication of a message. Rather, it aims at bringing this communication to the point where there remains no room for an excuse to reject the message. That is, it needs to communicate to the level of certainty as a result of which the rejectors from among its addressees are to be annihilated in this very world & made to deserve eternal hell in the Hereafter. Therefore, it is important that the words of the revelation fully signify the intended meaning upon the addressee. This speech should not only be free from illusions, ambiguities, conceitful loftiness, & exaggerations, which are generally considered an integral part of poetry & literature, but also its presentation of themes should be properly coherent & fully organized.
Allah Almighty has not only sent the Qur’an in Arabic but in the clear Arabic (ᶜarabī mubīn). He has purified its text from all kinds of crookedness and complexities. The following two verses from the Qur’an and their parallels in the Qur’an bring to light this fact fully.
“The Trusted Spirit has brought it down to your heart so that you also become a warner like other prophets in very lucid Arabic.” (al-Shụarāᵓ: 193-195)
ٍََِّی ُّم ِْی ٍن۔ ِِْی َن، ِِل َ ا ٍن َُْو َن ِم َن ا ْل ُم ْن َن ََل ِِہ ا ل ُ ّر ْو ُ ا ْل َِم ْی ُن، َٰلی َْل َِ
“In the form of a Qur’ān that is in Arabic in which there is no flaw so that they can be secure from God’s torment.”(al-Zumur, 28)
َّل ََّل ُھ ْم َی َ ّت ُْو َن ۔
ِْی َِو ٍ ًََِّی ا َْی َ ُْٰن ً
These verses express God’s favor upon the people of Arabia. They are told God has done a special favor to you by revealing His speech in a very clear and lucid Arabic language. The implication is that there is a distinction and honor for you in this fact at the one hand and it serves as
Both these verses prove the coherence in the Qur’anic discourse. The reason is that no incoherent speech can be termed mubīn, that is, clear, and “ghayr dhī ᶜiwaj”, that is, circumlocutionary. It must suffer from blanks, discontinuity, concealment of meaning, circumlocutions, and unresolvable complexities. Due to these problems, such a discourse will at best be an enigmatic puzzle, utterly failing to communicate the intended message. While commenting on the above-quoted verse from Sūrah al-Shuᶜarāᵓ, Mawlānā Amīn Ahsan Iṣlāḥī writes: a culmination of the truth to you, leaving you with no excuse to deny it, on the other hand. You can no more seek an excuse and claim that you could not understand it. If you did not value it after this great and elaborate blessing, then it will be you who will be held responsible (Tadabbur-e-Qur’an , 5:558).
The principle statement “the Qur’an does not admit of more than one interpretation” issues naturally from the coherence in the Qur’an . It means that when, due to the coherence in the discourse, the meaning is no more ambiguous, and the message is communicated with consummate certainty then there remains no possibility of more than one interpretation of the text. To the reader, the significance of the speech to its meanings becomes certain.
If an exegete concludes a single interpretation of a verse in the light of the coherence, does it mean that his interpretation exactly corresponds to the meaning intended by God? The answer to the question is in the negative. It is very much possible that his interpretation corresponds to the meaning God intended by the verse just as it is possible that it does not. There is no way to know whether the meaning given by the exegete and the meaning intended by God are identical before the Day of Judgment.
If the final word on the soundness or unsoundness of an interpretation is deferred till the Last Day, then why is it termed consummately certain? The answer to this question is that this
A general objection to this view of the univocity of the Qur’an by those who read it at the surface: if the Qur’an is univocal, then why do the exegetes differ on the meaning of certain words, expressions, and verses? This objection presupposes that the difference of opinion negates certitude and necessarily implies probability. This supposition has already been analyzed and refuted in the above discussion. Still, however, it is important to preempt and address a few implied questions:
Does the single definitive interpretation of one exegete hold the same level of certitude for others and therefore a conclusive argument for them or not? The answer to this question is in the negative. Every scholar or commoner is bound to what he accepts as a divine command based on his own knowledge and understanding. No one is obliged to accept and follow the knowledge and research of another person.
If the certitude in interpretation obtained by a person is limited to that person alone, then why is it not termed as probable rather than certain? We respond that we do not call the interpretation of a person [who follows, in his interpretive exercise, the proper principles of understanding] as probable because doing so implies two unwelcome implications:
Do we have an example from the Qur’an to support the explication of the concept of univocity of the Qur’an and the related ideas of certitude and probability? The response to this question is in the affirmative. According to the Sharīᶜah of Islam, it is allowable to have privacy with one’s wife during the nights of Ramadan. Some people during the time of the Prophet, peace be upon him, were not aware of this allowance. They believed that Allah has forbidden sexual intimacy during the nights of Ramadan. That is, they had an incorrect interpretation of the Sharīᶜah ruling on the question. Still, however, some of them had sexual relations with their spouses during the nights of Ramadan. The Almighty Allah termed this step by them as interpretation takes the stead of an absolutely certain interpretation by the two agents involved in communication: God Almighty and the human addressee. There is no doubt in that it is certain in the sight of God. As for man, he can term it certain because he understands it to be the intended meaning of the Almighty without a doubt.
(i) It implies that the speech of the speaker, that is, Allah Almighty, is probable. It is essentially false. (ii) considering one’s understanding as probable cuts the possibility for an addressee of the Qur’an to consciously adopt the knowledge and practice of the religion dishonesty with themselves and declared it wrong. This example demonstrates that the divine ruling was that the act was allowable. However, some people believed with certainty that it was now allowable. They had adopted an incorrect interpretation of the divine ruling due to their lack of knowledge. Now the question is, whose certitude God Almighty considered valid and binding upon those individuals? Was it the divine certitude with God or the certitude that those individuals carried with them? In fact, as is clear from the Qur’an , the Almighty applied the certitude in the minds of those individuals. He declared their deviance from their factually incorrect interpretation as cheating because what they opposed militated against what they believed to be true. This example shows that whenever we apply the term certain (qaṭᶜī) to human interpretations, that does not mean that the said interpretation is permanently certain in the eyes of Allah Almighty as well. The certitude we talk of is related to the limits of human knowledge and understanding. This understanding is based on collective conscious understanding of the human class. This consciousness lends support to the certitude and marks the differentiation between the sound and the unsound for humans. This is the human certitude upon which the system of the world works. It is this human certitude which works as the criterion of knowledge and actions of humans in the sight of God.