Analysis of a Critique on Coher-ence of the Quran

It is an empty claim that ends with hollow words. It does not show the issue or its implications. The author did not explain how Farahi and Islahi (may Allah have mercy on them) made coherence a “guiding principle” and how Javed Ahmed Ghamidi transformed it into an “independent concept.”

Despite making such a big claim out of nowhere, the author did not provide any proof from the “existing evidences.” He further says:

Mr. Jahangir Hanif, an emerging scholar, has recently written a critique of Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s concept of coherence in the Qur’an. The details he offered are almost the same as those offered by Ahmed Javed we discussed earlier. Apparently, the purpose of the critic is to critically examine the stance of Javed Ahmed Ghamidi. However, no plausible arguments have been presented to identify any flaw. The assertions from the learned author appear to be gossip, vague assumptions, and dubious ideas, combined under the heading “Is there a ‘Coherence’ in the Qur’an?” All comments are mere claims, completely devoid of convincing arguments. There is not a single claim that has been substantiated by an argument or evidence or is based on evidence. Let’s look at some of the claims:¹

These two scholars (Farahi and Islahi) adopted the coherence of the Qur’an only as a guiding principle in the exercise of interpretation of the Qur’an, while Javed Ahmed

Ghamidi, however, has converted it into an ‘independent concept.’

…There is ample evidence that had this ‘independent concept’ (as presented by (Javed Ahmed Ghamidi) been offered to these companions (Farahi and Islahi) in their lifetime, they would have rejected it.

…The coherence (naẓm) of the Qur’an does not mean the general affirmation of the coherence (naẓm). Rather, it is the coherence (naẓm) as described by Javed Ahmed

Ghamidi, which is the most complex in its structure and has nothing to do with the glorious speech of the Qur’an.

It’s an impressionistic statement. To bring the issue to criticism, one has to explain the “glorious speech of the Qur’an,” prove this from the Qur’an, describe the “coherence (naẓm) of the Qur’an as presented by Ghamidi,” present evidence of its structural complexity, and identify or present the proven glorious speech. Moreover, one has to identify and argue the “incompatibility.” Then, this impression will be worthy of being considered as criticism. The phase of checking the soundness or otherwise of the criticism will come after that.

This is also a mere observation. Firstly, specify which topics are fundamental and which are jurisprudential, then clarify this distinction with examples from the Quran. After that, explain which fundamental and jurisprudential topics ‘Al-Bayan’ addresses as part of coherence and how it does so, and then elucidate which topics have been left unorganized.

This is also an idea that lacks explicit explanation. If the purpose is to convey this idea, it must clarify which specific issues of the modern age have led the scholar to make the guidance from the Quran a subject matter of coherence. Afterward, it would be necessary to prove this with evidence from ‘Al- Bayan.’

This is also a baseless assertion. Firstly, explain what you mean by ‘mechanical nature.’ Then, apply this mechanical nature to ‘Al-Bayan,’ specify instances in the Quran of cosmic meaning which Mr. Ghamidi has restricted to a particular domain.

…His concept of coherence is somewhat mechanical and restricts the meanings of the Quranic text to a specific circle.

…To address and deal with modern-day emerging issues, the learned scholar has described the teachings of the Holy Quran as a subject matter of coherence (naẓm).

…In Al-Bayan, he (Javed Ahmed Ghamidi) primarily describes the coherence of the Quran more like a principled and jurisprudential concept.

…Scholarly interpretations, whether cosmic or jurisprudential, are bound by time and place.

If this relates to ‘Al-Bayan,’ the first question is: what is meant by ‘scholarly interpretations’ and their ‘cosmic’ aspect in the Quran, and what do ‘jurisprudential interpretations’ and their being ‘bound by time and place’ mean? The second question is, if ‘Al-Bayan’ confines the Quran’s scholarly interpretations by presenting them as jurisprudential interpretations and confines them to time and place, what are some examples of such interpretations mentioned in that explanation?

These are a few representative thoughts of dear brother Jahangir Hanif. The rest of the thoughts are also impressions presented in one or two sentences each. The praises his teachers have showered over him for these impressions too are examples of impressionistic statements and “huroof e neem gufta”.²

Respected Mr. Nadir Aqeel Ansari writes:

What he is doing is separating “coherence” and “discourse.” Then he separates “discourse” and “meaning.” Building on the possibilities, he places discourse before meaning in the order of occurrence and then reverses the order. Finally, he presents objections based on these assumptions. He does not look into how and in which perspectives the upholders of the coherence in the Qur’an present their idea. He does not touch upon how the exponents of coherence in the Qur’an establish that coherence is an integral part of the discourse, which emerges with the conception of discourse and indwells therein.

Thus the critic ignores how they establish this phenomenon by interpreting the Qur’an accordingly. Is that the way to raise academic questions? Is this what they call criticism???

Respected brother Talib Mohsin also follows this style of expression. He says: “We have not yet reached the point where it is necessary to analyze the parts. Presently we will discuss the form of discourse as it is. That is, what sort of unity a Sūrah holds? In what ways its verses interrelate? The shortcomings you have mentioned offer one way to critically analyze the concept of coherence. However, it is very much possible that these shortcomings are not the product of the coherence as it is. Therefore, I believe that we should continue analyzing and discussing the formation of the concept of coherence.”

Mr. Mohsin appreciates the unfounded comments of his student by describing them as shortcomings in the concept of coherence. He also hints that these shortcomings might be the product of something other than the concept of coherence. Though Mr. Mohsin expresses this extreme impression, he does not explain what those shortcomings are? Why they exist? Where they exist? How are they established? He did not offer any detailed and well-argued presentation on these issues neither in the past nor during this conversation.

References:

This [concept of coherence] is fraught with many other problems. For example, is the coherence part of the discourse or it is the creation of a reader’s mind? This problem can be further explained as follows. In what order does understanding the text and identification of coherence appear? Do we decide the coherence of the discourse first to enable ourselves to understand the meaning of the text or do we understand the meaning of the parts first leading to the identification of the coherence? The first case invites the following objection: If the discourse has not been understood yet how can the coherence in it be decided? The reason is that coherence in the discourse can only be identified after understanding the text. The second case is also subject to the following objection: If the prime objective of reading, namely understanding the text, has already been achieved (without a recourse to the coherence in the discourse), then what is the rationale for searching for the coherence?

[3]. Coherence is a necessary part of discourse. No good discourse can be imagined without coherence. However, it is a great irony that a major group of scholars considers the Holy Quran—a book considered to be a miracle of expression and eloquence, and which in fact is a miracle—devoid of coherence. They claim that neither one surah is related to another nor do the difference verses in each surah have any interrelation and correspondence. Different verses have been put in Surahs without any mutual harmony. One wonders how such an empty thought caught the people about a book which both the friends and enemies acknowledge to have caused a great revolution in the world. It changed the hearts and minds, established new foundations of thought and action, and granted humanity a new grandeur [Tadabbur-e Quran, 1:17).