Tuesday, November 16, 2021

‘Ali Dashti vs. the Perspicuity of the Qur'an

 The Qur’an claims to be perspicuous. Examples, among many others, include:

 

Lo! Those who hide the proofs and the guidance which We revealed, after We had made it clear to mankind in the Scripture: such are accursed of Allah and accursed of those who have the power to curse. (2:159 [Muhammad M. Pickthall translation])

 

O People of the Scripture! Now hath Our messenger come unto you to make things plain unto you after an interval (of cessation) of the messengers, lest ye should say: There came not unto us a messenger of cheer nor any warner. Now hath a messenger of cheer and a warner come unto you. Allah is Able to do all things. (5:19)

 

And when Our clear revelations are recited unto them, they who look not for the meeting with Us say: Bring a Lecture other than this, or change it. Say (O Muhammad): It is not for me to change it of my accord. I only follow that which is inspired in me. Lo! if I disobey my Lord I fear the retribution of an awful Day. (10:15)

 

But it is clear revelations in the hearts of those who have been given knowledge, and none deny Our revelations save wrong-doers. (29:49)

 

And We have made (this Scripture) easy in thy language only that they may heed (44:58)

 

Against this, Persian scholar ‘Ali Dashti noted that:

 

The Qor’ān contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning; adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the concords of gender and number; illogically and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent; and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects. These and other such aberrations in the language have given scope to critics who deny the Qor’ān’s eloquence. The problem also occupied the minds of devout Moslems. It forced the commentators to search for explanations and was probably one of the causes of the disagreement over readings.

 

For example, in the first verse of sura 74, “O you who are clad in a cloak,” the accepted reading of the word for “clad in a cloak” is moddather, but there was a widespread opinion that it should be motadathther; likewise in the first verse of sura 73, “O you who are wrapped in garments,” the reading mozzamel prevailed over motazammel.

 

In verse 160 of sura 4 (on-Nesā), “But those among them who are well-grounded in knowledge, the believers . . . . . ., and the performers of the prayer, and the prayers of the alms tax,” the word for “performers” is in the accusative case, whereas it ought to be in the nominative case like the words for “well-grounded”, “believers”, and “payers”. In verse 9 of sura 49 (ol-Hojorāt), “If two parties of believers have started to fight each other, make peace between them”, the verb meaning “have started to fight” is in the plural, whereas it ought to be in the dual like its subject “two parties”.

 

Verse 172 of sura 2 (ol-Baqara), which replies to Jewish protests against the change of the direction of prayer from Jerusalem to Mecca, is beautifully and impressively worded but contains a lexical difficulty. “Righteousness (berr) is not that you turn your faces to the east and the west, but righteousness (berr) is he who believers in God and the Last Day . . . . . .” The explanation given in the Tafsir ol-Jalālayn is that the word berr in the second aprt of the sentence means “possessor of righteousness”. The great early grammarian Mohammad b. Yazid ol-Mobarrad (d. ca. 285/898) had timidly suggested that the word should be read as barr, which is an acceptable variant of bārr meaning “righteous (man”), but he had been accused of irreverence and reviled.

 

In verse 66 of sura 20 (Tāhā), where Pharaoh’s people say of Moses and his brother Aaron “These two are sorcerers”, the word for “these two” (hādhāne) is in the nominative case, whereas it ought to be in the accusative case (hādhayne) because it comes after an introductory particle of emphasis. ‘Othmān and ‘ā’esha are reported to have read the word as hādhayne. The comment of a Moslem scholar illustrates the fanaticism and intellectual ossification of later times:” Since in the unanimous opinion of the Moslems the pages bound in this volume and called the Qor’ān are God’s word, and since there can be no error in God’s word, the report that ‘Othmān and ‘ā’esha read hādhayne instead of hādhāne is wicked and false.” The Tafsir al-Jalālayn more temperately pretends that the dual suffix may be āne in all three cases and does not have to be ayne in the accusative and genitive. Yet the great early Qor’ān scholar and philologist Abu ‘Amr b. ol-Alā (d. ca. 154/770) read hādhayne as ‘Othmān and ‘ā’esha had done.

 

A humane and salutary injunction in verse 33 of sura 24 (on-Nur) shows that a cruel and immoral abuse was practiced at the time: “DO not coerce your slave-girls into fornication, when they desire chastity, so that you may gain something extra in the life in this world! And when someone coerces them, God, after their coercion, is forgiving and merciful.” Obviously the verse prohibits the vile practice of slave-owners who prostitute female slaves and pocketed the proceeds, and no less obviously the words “God, after their coercion is forgiving and merciful” mean that God pardons slave-girls for having unwillingly committed fornication. The outward form of the words, however, is such that they can be taken to mean that God is forgiving and compassionate to men who prostitute their female slaves. The sentence is vague and does not adequately express the humane intention. (‘Ali Dashti, Twenty Three Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohamad [tarns. F.R.C. Bagley; Costa Mesa, Calif.: Mazda Publishers, 1994], 48-50)