The danger of the "Qur'an only" Approach

[Zack]

Hello all,

I know the purposes of this site, and the content is fantastic. However to me the approach "We only use what is in the Quran" approach is quite dangerous.

I am a strong believer of Hermenuetics, that is in understanding verses in context. In creating the historical context of verse, this is what brings the Qur'an alive. For example, Surah 2:79.. "So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn."  When learning context, of Arabized Jews not knowing Hebrew, coming across Aramaic  paraphrases of the Torah (Targums) re-written in Arabic being presented as scripture, it brings  meaning to the text. The more the framework for the verse is understood, the more meaningful the text becomes.

On the other hand, someone passionately religious who picks up the Qur'an without recognising historical context risks being a Jihadist!!

Does this forum encourage understanding the historical context? I am not talking about being tied into the Asbab Al-Nuzul. It would seem that being only tied into the Hadith does not necessarily provide context.

Wasalam
Daniel

[Joseph Islam]

Brother Daniel,

As-salam alaykum

Please allow me to share a few comments in the short time that I have. God willing and time permitting, I will also share my comments on the specific threads you have kindly solicited my humble opinion.

I personally describe my approach as 'Quran-centric' [1], not 'Quranist' or 'Quran-only' as the latter descriptions have at times, picked up a certain connotation underpinning a particular approach which I respectfully disagree with.

I, with respect, cannot speak for others, but this (Quran-centric) is the approach I take given my humble, dedicated work in this field. I have at times been quite candid and vocal with my strong disagreements with those that claim a ‘Quranist’ approach which oft leads ‘some’ to invent new meanings to well established Arabic words and concepts which arguably were never understood by the immediate audience of the Quran or the followers of previous scriptures. My respected disagreements with some of these approaches have also been captured on this forum and many other platforms for academic debate.

It is my humble academic view that the Quran must be understood in the context it was revealed, not only with an appreciation of its religious history foremost but also the cultural context it presents.  For example, a great portion of the Quran's dedicated narratives assume familiarity of the audience with previous scriptures.

Many dedicated verses bring forth wisdom from it and engage with its adherents. The Quran even instructed prophet Muhammad to engage with those of the previous scriptures to verify particular claims (16:43, 21:7-8) and assumes that the Jews and Christians will have in-depth understanding of their scriptures (even though they may not apply it - 62:5) and complete recourse to it for judgement (5:43). This simply cannot be denied. Furthermore, the Quran also expects its audience to be at times, informed by hearsay [2]. It is also noteworthy, that if the prophet of God was asked to verify claims with those who were well versed with previous scriptures, it only follows that believers allow those who have adept knowledge of the Bible, its original language and context, especially their adherents, to first explain verses which might appear problematic to them. This again would be a 'Quran-centric' approach.

However, this is quite different from asserting that the Quran requires 'explanations', or 'historical contexts' from an Ahadith corpus that was not canonised (and thus not contemporaneous to the prophetic ministry) until many centuries after the death of the Prophet for it to be understood for intelligible or religious reasons [3] & [4]. Criticism of the Quran or the prophet from the context of late fallible sources is also wholly unwarranted.

As I mentioned in another post:

"Why ridicule the dating of the 'literary record', the commitment and the sincerity of those worshippers before you, when the sources of your own religion are far later in time and far more questionable?  The Gospels were compiled within DECADES of Prophet Jesus's ministry.  The Ahadith corpus in the main were canonised CENTURIES after the death of Prophet Muhammad!" [5]

Therefore, it is well within the remit of the Quran-centric approach to engage with sources that the Quran explicitly mentions. The Quran only acts as a guard, an elucidatory literature for what has gone before it, especially when it is presenting a continuation of their message.  However, the Quran simply cannot be held responsible nor should it be studied through the lens of 'literature' that has come after it, especially many centuries after it, compiled by the hands of fallible humans who were writing in a particular socio-political context and oft with theological axes to grind.

As you will no doubt appreciate, I do not dismiss the Ahadith corpus on a whim, but reject its requirement as an authority in matters of religion from the Quran itself and secondly (more as an academic), a legitimate representation of what actually transpired in the period it claims to represent. Even the earliest biographers were non the wiser as to what actually transpired in the earliest formative period of Islam and at best, were presenting their perspectives of 'salvaged' history from a pool of 'stories' and narratives that were accessible at their time. This does not mean they had no recourse to some kernels of truth, but this by no means implies that what they presented, represented an absolute authentic depiction of reality. Often, their own admission made this clear.

In most cases, many historians and compilers were simply transmitting what they had heard. Nothing makes this point more exquisitely, than the introduction chapter of one of the major historians of Islam of the 10th century CE, al-Tabari who states in his colossal annals (bold emphasis mine):

"Let him who examines this book of mine know that I have relied, as regards everything I mention therein which I stipulate to be described by me, solely upon what has been transmitted to me by way of reports which I cite therein and traditions which I ascribe to their narrators, to the exclusion of what may be apprehended by rational argument or deduced by the human mind, except in very few cases. This is because knowledge of the reports of men of the past and of contemporaneous views of men of the present do not reach the one who has not witnessed them nor lived in their times except through the accounts of reporters and the transmission of transmitters, to the exclusion of rational deduction and mental inference. Hence, if I mention in this book a report about some men of the past, which the reader of listener finds objectionable or worthy of censure because he can see no aspect of truth nor any factual substance therein, let him know that this is not to be attributed to us but to those who transmitted it to us and we have merely passed this on as it has been passed on to us"

Ibn Hisham (d. 833 CE) mentions the following in his 'notes' section regarding Ibn Ishaq's (d. 767 CE) biography of the prophet.
 
"...and omitting some of the things that I.I (Ibn Ishaq) has recorded in this book in which there is no mention of the apostle and about which the Quran says nothing and which are not relevant to anything in this book or an explanation of it or evidence for it; poems which he quotes that no authority on poetry whom I have met knows of; things which it is disgraceful to discuss; matters which would distress certain people; and such reports as al-Bakka'i told me he could not accept as trustworthy - all these things I have omitted"

Please see section [6] below.


I hope God willing, that this, at least, clarifies my humble position.

Regards,
Joseph


REFERENCES

[1] The Quran-centric Position
https://www.facebook.com/joseph.a.islam/posts/330796700390797
[2] Is Hearsay Unquranic?
https://www.facebook.com/joseph.a.islam/posts/363674833769650
[3] UNKNOWN TOWNS AND NAMES - WHY FILL IN THE GAPS?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/unknown%20towns%20and%20names%20FM3.htm
[4] FLUID BEGINNINGS OF ASBAB UL-NAZUL
http://quransmessage.com/articles/asbab-ul-nazul%20FM3.htm
[5] Inconsistency Regarding the Literary Record
https://www.facebook.com/joseph.a.islam/posts/327912837345850
[6] HISTORICAL SOURCES
http://quransmessage.com/articles/historical%20sources%20FM3.htm

[Zack]

Thank you Br. Joseph for your reply. I am a part of a growing network of Tauhid Christians that have grown to have quite a positive view of Muhammad. I personally am further along, where I have absolutely no problem with the Shahadat. I must say, it makes things somewhat awkward in responding to non-Muslims with genuine questions in regards to Muhammad, in explaining that most of their issues concerning Muhammad that they have grown up with are from "unreliable historical sources." At the same time 99% (I am guessing with that figure) of the Islamic world says "These ARE reliable sources."

It seems whether Christianity or Islam, we are at the beginning of an age of major reform, in particular with all sorts of traditions being shaken. It is quite clear both Islam and Christianity has lots of "baggage" in its orthodox dogma.  How much is the content of this website opposed by segments of Islam? Are some of the articles considered "off limits" at this stage to be spoken of in a too public manner (eg. Friday message at a mosque), and only kept in cyberspace and only open-minded friends? I am trying to compare with the sensitivity of bringing up the Trinity in Christian circles, where there is need to be care in how things are articulated in a public setting so not be perceived by orthodoxy as a "betrayer of Isa".

My opinion is when the "tree of tradition" is shaken hard enough, we all end up back as one "Ummah", with different identifying labels to represent different expressions. For me this is in fact the message of the Bible, a unified yet diversified Semitic and non Semitic People / East and West.... as a single ummah.......

I am beginning to go through your articles with a number of my Islamic friends, who are quite scholarly.

Wasalam
Daniel

[Joseph Islam]

Thank you Br. Joseph for your reply. I am a part of a growing network of Tauhid Christians that have grown to have quite a positive view of Muhammad. I personally am further along, where I have absolutely no problem with the Shahadat.

Brother Daniel,

As-salam alaykum and thank you for your response.

Your movement is one I am very interested to know and learn even more about. Believers like yourself have always existed and mentioned explicitly in the Quran. They existed then, and as you intimate, they exist today and it is very encouraging to learn that their footprint is increasing with the grace of God.

003.199
"And there are, certainly, among the People of the Book (Arabic: Ahli-l-kitabi), those who believe in God, in the revelation to you, and in the revelation to them, bowing in humility to God: They will not sell the Signs of God for a miserable gain! For them is a reward with their Lord, and God is swift in account"

017.107-108
"Say: Believe in it or believe not; surely those who are given the knowledge before it fall down on their faces in prostration when it is recited to them. And they say: Glory be to our Lord! most surely the promise of our Lord was to be fulfilled"
 
028.052-53
“Those to whom We sent the Book before this, they do believe in this (revelation). And when it is recited to them, they say: "We believe in it, for it is the Truth from our Lord: indeed we have been Muslims from before this"”

005.082-83
"..."We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant. And when they listen to the revelation received by the Messenger, you will see their eyes overflowing with tears, for they recognise the truth: they pray: "Our Lord! we believe; write us down among the witnesses."

005.066
"If only they had stood firmly by the Torah, the Gospel, and all the revelations that were sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: but many of them follow a course that is evil."

Given the verses shared above brother Daniel and what you have shared, how could one deny that you and those that hold a similar approach to yours are explicitly mentioned by the Quran and on the right course with the Lord's grace?

Your brother in faith,
Joseph

[Zack]

Hello Br. Joseph,

Thank you so much for your kind words. You mentioned about interest in our network. Basically it is study groups of like minded people, mostly interacting with authors such as Hans Kung, James Dunn, James McGrath, who are re-looking at the Injil writers with a Hebrew mindset. However as they remain "in the system" in their asking of questions, they avoid being labeling themselves as "Non-trinitarian." In fact we have had study groups directly with a couple of these authors.

Over the years this has naturally caused a closer affinity with a number of open-minded Muslim thinkers, where increasingly there are not much theologically that we would differ on. I would say the same for the articles on your site. IN fact we are starting to go through your articles systematically at the moment.

BTW, I responded to another lady on the topic "Monotheism outside of Islam", would love to get your thoughts..

Wasalam
Daniel

[AbbsRay]

Salaam Daniel,

Here is a good Video by Dr. Gary Miller. He speaks about Jesus fasting and praying.. I am learning so much about Jesus.. I wanna really meat him some day if God allows InshaAllah...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll7O-p1dZtA