The Concessions of Traditional Exegetes and Maulana Farahi Iii

[20]. Regarding the explanation of Surah Al-Haj, Ayah 52

He writes: “The exegetes state that ‘َت َم َّنى’ means recitation as in Surah Al-Baqarah, Ayah 78 ‘َا ْل ِك َتا ََي ْع َل ُمو ال َأ َما ِني ِإ اَّل’ where it is mentioned. Qazi Ayad has called this the best opinion. This is also what Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani stated. In my view (and true knowledge is with Allah alone), this is evasion and a way of escaping from addressing the core issue. The verse from Surah Al-Baqarah referenced here does not mean recitation because the context of the verse denies it. Ibn Jarir has included lengthy traditions in the interpretation of which are entirely baseless¹. He hasn’t written anything about the ineffectiveness of these traditions in this context. This clearly shows how flawed the method of those who rely on hadith traditions is. The falsehood of these traditions is evident from both the Quran and human intellect².”

Imam Farahi here negates the understanding of the verse based on exegetical traditions, but hasn’t been able to indicate what the correct understanding would be in the footnotes.

وَمَآ أَرْسَلْنَا مِن قَبْلِكَ مِن رَّسُولٍۢ وَلَا نَبِىٍّ إِلَّآ إِذَا تَمَنَّىٰٓ أَلْقَى ٱلشَّيْطَٰنُ فِىٓ أُمْنِيَّتِهِۦ فَيَنسَخُ ٱللَّهُ مَا يُلْقِى ٱلشَّيْطَٰنُ ثُمَّ يُحْكِمُ ٱللَّهُ ءَايَٰتِهِۦ ۗ وَٱللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌۭ

However, he has tried to clarify the correct meaning of the verse in his incomplete commentary on Surah Al-Haj, which has been published for the first time by Dar al-Gharb al-Islami, Tunis, under the supervision of Ubaidullah Farahi. maulana Farahi writes:

“Although the style of expression here is general, the allusion in the context of Satan’s suggestions refers to the books of the previous prophets. This ayah is mentioned in the context of abrogating those parts of the past commands which had been included as a result of Satan’s suggestions. Surah Al-Haj, Ayah 54 ‘ ‘, ‘And that those who have been given knowledge may know that it is the truth from your Lord,’ refers to the truth that has been revealed in the Quran. This interpretation of the Quran is according to the Quran itself. Adopt it as a shield, hold on to it firmly, and pay no attention to those traditions in which the satanic imposters have mixed absurdities and by means of which, many simple-minded and weak-minded have been led astray³.”

Following this, through references to Al-Araf 203, Yunus 15, and Surah An-Najm 3-4, he has clearly stated, “See how Allah has commanded His Prophet to declare that the Messenger only follows the revelation that comes to him from his Lord.” This is the testimony from Allah and His Messenger.

Ibn Jarir Tabari has narrated numerous traditions under the interpretation of this verse, but the researchers of Tafsir Tabari have deemed most of these traditions weak, though some have been authenticated, yet considered to be mursal (disconnected). Moreover, the authentic traditions that have been narrated in this context are devoid of the tale which mentions the idols of the disbelievers and pagans and their hopes for intercession. Therefore, relying on these traditions in interpreting the verse would not be correct.

[21]. In Surah Al-Mu’minun, Ayah 67, on the word ‘َس ِم ًرا ِِب’, while challenging Baydawi, maulana Farahi writes:

“As for the reference of the pronoun in ‘به’ and the singularization of ‘َس ِم ًرا’, the commentators have encountered problems. Baydawi, explaining the reasons, writes that the pronoun ‘به’ is for the Kaaba. Due to their reputation for arrogance and haughtiness as its guardians, it was not necessary to mention it. Or that the pronoun refers to ‘آياتي’ (My verses), which implies ‘كتابي’ (My book), and ‘ب’ is a conjunction for the word mustakbireen, meaning those who deny (the truth). Or ‘ب’ is used in the sense of cause, because their arrogance against Muslims was instigated upon hearing the Quran, or because they perceived the reminders of the Quran as storytelling and mocked it. ‘َس ِم ًرا’ is originally a verbal noun that has come in the form of the active participle like ‘عافية’. There is another reading ‘َس ِم َرا’, which is the plural of ‘سامر’.

All of the reasons described by Baydawi are far-fetched. The best option is to consider ‘َس ِم ًرا’ as the direct object of ‘َُج ُرو َت ْه’. In that case, it would imply that turning away from listening to My verses in arrogance is like leaving a storytelling session without any concern for its content. The following verse clarifies this meaning. Another interpretation close to this is to consider ‘به’ as referring to ‘َس ِم ًرا’. Taking the pronoun as masculine indicates that they did not regard the words spoken by the Prophet as Divine revelations but rather as a storyteller’s tales. Both of these interpretations are similar to each other. And Allah knows best⁴.”

َو ِل َي ْع َل َم ا َّل ِذي َن ُأو ُتوا ا ْل ِع ْل َم َأ َّن ُه ا ْل َح ُّق ِمن َّر

maulana Amanatullah Islahi noted in the Urdu translation “Imam Farahi’s Quranic Marginalia”:

[22]. Explaining Surah Al-Ankabut, Ayah 19,22

Maulana Farahi writes: “This decisive sentence is articulating the reality that Allah dealt justly with the past nations. Hence, He subjected the corrupt to punishment and bestowed mercy on the believers. Besides Him, there is neither a guardian nor a helper, thus one should place trust in Him alone. As for the notion that He punishes whom He wills without cause and has mercy on whom He wants, one should seek refuge with Allah from such a misinterpretation, which disrupts the order and neglects the correct interpretation⁵.”

[23]. Explaining Ayah 72 of Surah Al-Ahzab,

Maulana Farahi writes: “… Had there been no trial and no matter of fulfilling the trust, then the greatest aspect of Allah’s mercy would have remained hidden and dormant. Hence, this truth requires contemplation. Because those who have not understood it have fallen into the pit of pure determinism⁶.”

[24]. In the context of explanation of verse 8 of Surah Fatir,

Most likely the correct interpretation is that the masculine pronoun refers to ‘آياتي’ which is understood from ‘ِت ْت ُلو’ (you recite), and that is what ‘َس ِم ًرا’ refers to, which is a singular active participle and not a verbal noun, and the plural reading is deemed weak⁷.

إِنَّا عَرَضْنَا ٱلْأَمَانَةَ عَلَى ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَٱلْأَرْضِ وَٱلْجِبَالِ فَأَبَيْنَ أَن يَحْمِلْنَهَا وَأَشْفَقْنَ مِنْهَا وَحَمَلَهَا ٱلْإِنسَٰنُ ۖ إِنَّهُۥ كَانَ ظَلُومًۭا جَهُولًۭا

Maulana Farahi notes: “The commentators have committed a mistake in understanding the omitted part in this noble verse. The same is true for this verse which means, after Allah has misguided someone based on His knowledge and sealed that person’s heart and ears and covered his vision, can you guide him? Who after Allah can honor him with guidance, do you not understand?”⁸

أَفَمَن زُيِّنَ لَهُۥ سُوٓءُ عَمَلِهِۦ فَرَءَاهُ حَسَنًۭا ۖ فَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يُضِلُّ مَن يَشَآءُ وَيَهْدِى مَن يَشَآءُ ۖ فَلَا تَذْهَبْ نَفْسُكَ عَلَيْهِمْ حَسَرَٰتٍ ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ عَلِيمٌۢ بِمَا يَصْنَعُونَ

The translation of the entire Arabic text titled “Maulana Farahi’s Annotations on the Quran” has been omitted from the Urdu translation for reasons unknown .

[25]. In the explanation of Ayah 22 of Surah al-Fatir,

Maulana Farahi writes: “I believe that those who are in the graves do not hear; however, Allah allows to be heard by whom He wills, as is explicitly stated in this Ayah. Thus, whoever hears from among them, does so by the command of Allah⁹.”

[26]. Interpreting the verse 24 of Surah Sad,

Maulana Farahi writes: “Regarding the trial of Prophet David, may peace be upon him, historians have concocted a useless story¹⁰. The actual incident was that a wealthy brother expressed the desire to include his weaker neighbor brother’s ewe into his own flock, which is something commonly found in the nature of the wealthy. In that epoch, sheep and ewes were considered symbols of wealth, and they used to stamp them with the figure of an ewe. This was why their coins were imprinted with their image and even called by the name ‘na`jah’¹¹.”

Ibn Jarir also has conveyed various exegetical narratives in the explanation of this verse without engaging in any discussion about their authenticity. The learned editor of Tafsir Tabari, Mansur Abdul Hamid, has clarified in a footnote that these narratives are baseless and weak. Despite that, to this very day, some exegetical books continue to propagate these weak and baseless narratives, and their lack of authenticity is overlooked.¹²

[27]. Explaining verse 23 of Surah Ash-Shura،

Maulana Farahi writes: “Asking for a reward is contrary to the dignity of prophets as seen in the verses of Surah Ash- Shu’ara which are uttered by Prophets Noah, Hud, Saleh, Lot, and Shuayb, peace be upon them all… This is not an exception for اجرا, but is an additional remark. ‘القربي في means from the angle of kinship just like هللا في الحب means ‘love for the sake of Allah’. Muslims belonging to certain sects interpret the verse to mean that the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, demanded love for his relatives. This means that the possessive pronoun (mudaf) is omitted. The language does not support this interpretation because love does not demand any reward, nor does reason accept it. Some of the Prophet’s close relations were fierce enemies of Allah, and you know that prophets never seek any reward from people.”¹³

ِإ َّن ال ّٰل َه ُی ْس ِم ُع َمن َّی َش ا ُء َو َم ۤا َا ْن َت ِب ُم ْس ِم ٍع َّم ْن ِفي ا ْل ُق ُب و ِر ۔

َو َظ َّن َدا ُو ُد َأ َّن َم ا َف َت ّٰن ُه َفا ْس َت ْغ َف َر َر َّب ُه َو َخ َّر َر ا ِك ًع ا َّو َأ َنا َب ۔

ُق ْل َّل ا َأ ْس َأ ُل ُك ْم َع َل ْي ِه َأ ْج ًرا ِإ َّل ا ا ْل َم َو َّد َة ِفي ا ْل ُق ْر َبى۔

Summary

The examples highlighted clearly indicate that Imam Farahi had a distinctive philosophy regarding the coherence of the Quran, which was reflected in his strict adherence to the interpretation of Quran by Quran itself. Because of this, the true purpose and understanding of the verses would become apparent to him. Conversely, traditional exegeses sometimes redirected the interpretation and reasoning of verses completely differently, causing difficulty in understanding for the scholars. It is due to the outright reliance on traditional narratives and the disregard of the textual coherence that scholars copied baseless narratives about the stories of David and Solomon, and Zainab, which are clearly invalid—a fact that even Ibn Jarir al-Tabari would narrate without commentary. Imam Farahi disregarded such interpretations as inconsequential and critiqued Ibn Jarir Tabari’s approach in several places. Similarly, he also criticized Imam Razi for some of his interpretations. Shah Abdul Qadir Dehlvi, may Allah have mercy on him, also took liberties in explaining some verses, which did not escape Imam Farahi’s scrutiny. Likewise, respected exegetes like Zamakhshari and Baydawi faced challenges with the explanation of certain lexicon and grammatical structures of verses, and Imam Farahi endeavored to provide proper reasoning.

However, it is not necessary that all the liberties pointed out by Maulana Imam Farahi are actually flaws; possibly due to this reason, when comparing the Arabic annotations of Imam Farahi’s Quranic commentary with the Urdu version, there are several instances where his critiques are mentioned in the Arabic notes but omitted in Urdu, focusing exclusively on interpretation. In some places, Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi has given preference to the interpretations of other scholars regarding grammatical constructs or pronoun antecedents. Clearly, these notes were merely reminders and had Maulana Imam Farahi’s life been prolonged, it is possible he would have revisited and potentially revised some of these points. This is because contemplation and reflection carried a great significance throughout his academic career. Unfortunately, his esteemed life did not grant him enough time to complete his exegesis.

From these annotations, it can be asserted with full confidence that Imam Farahi acknowledged the entire body of traditional exegesis and was well-versed with the reality of exegetical traditions. While aiming to reach the correct meanings of the verses, he deemed it necessary to consider the coherence of the text when meticulously compiling his interpretation of the Quran by the Quran. This is why his commentary contains very few narrations (hadiths), but this should not be misconstrued as a devaluation of hadith. He clarified this in his preface:

“My objective is to compile a book that serves as a foundation and central reference, emerging as a point of equilibrium and decisive word. Therefore, I have confined myself to what is found in the Quran. However, this does not mean that I deny whatever I have left out. Imam Bukhari collected in his book only those narratives that met his criteria, leaving aside many correct narratives, but this doesn’t mean he denied them¹⁴.”

References: