Originally posted by finnegan
And since we are contrasting the Bible with the Qu'ran, similar principles arguably apply - or explain why not - viz: using the very same wording -
[i]Rather than constructing straw-man arguments against [the Qu'ran] based on facile citation of passages plucked out of context, [Christians and atheists] need to argue with the passages as they are interpr kind of a book the Qu'ran actually is we are not going to make much sense of it.
[/i]
Until we know what kind of a book the Qu'ran actually is we are not going to make much sense of it.
How can such a simple point be so often missed (or ignored)?
Just a few possible clues to consider, from a literary-critical point of view, as to “what kind of book” the Quran might be (in addition to the ones that you raise*)—
(1) The Biblical corpus has variety of modes of discourse (literatures);
the Quran has only one mode of discourse—poetry. Of course, there are different kinds of poetry in the Quran: e.g., moral/didactic, narrative, and lyric.
But the main thing is that poetry cannot simply be read and interpreted the same way as prose. It would be ludicrous to read, for example, Yeats’ “Second Coming” in the same way as one would read a bicycle assembly manual. Poetry is defined by such things as metaphor and imagery and symbolism; and the Quran specifically allows for allegorical interpretation (which may be the main way that the Sufis—generally the non-dualists of Islam –do read the Quran).
(2)
Arabic is a “polysemous language”; so are the other Semitic languages, such as Hebrew and Aramaic. They work from a consonantal root that contains a bundle of meanings; which one is emphasized depends on how that root is transformed (in Hebrew, for example,
shalom and
shalem—but the order of the root consonants need not be maintained).
I have a reference to this somewhere by Reza Shah-Kazemi (I think in his book on Shankara, Ibn Arabi and Meister Eckhart); Kazemi quotes Ibn Arabi as saying that due to this linguistic peculiarity, any reading of a Quranic word that does not violate grammar must be considered as a valid possible reading—and if it is to be rejected, some other (e.g., contextual) grounds must be found.
Further,
just like other languages, Quranic Arabic has idioms—that is, words and phrases have idiomatic, as well as literal, usages. In any given passage, is the usage intended idiomatically, otherwise metaphorically, allegorically, symbolically, literally…?
As Fatima Mernissi (scholar, feminist and Muslim) once argued in her book
The Veil and the Male Elite, just because the male-dominated elite successfully engineered a turn toward more closed and severe readings, does not negate the fact that the early
ummah had a more open view.
(3)
Context. Yes, context is important, but one has to ask how a given text is contextualized—beyond just asking which text(s) are intended to provide the context for which other text(s).
(a)
Textual structure. In the introduction to her translation (
The Sublime Quran), Laleh Bakhtiar notes: “The text is organized more or less by length of chapter and is not in chronological order. For one who wants to begin to savor the Quran, it is best to read it randomly and not from beginning to end.” I would say that what one really needs to do is try to identify some cohesive “poetic set” in the text; some of the shorter
surahs are themselves such “poetic sets”, but one needs to search them out in the longer
surahs. Apparently, there are a number of cues for this in the Arabic, which Bakhtiar tries to indicate in her translation (but I am not at that level of familiarity where I can readily use them).
(b)
Implied extra-textual context. Sometimes the necessary context is not in the text itself, but is implied and must be known by the reader. For example, some passages may not be intended universally but apply only to a particular historical event (such as the battle of Badr). This fact of implied context may arise from the original oral form of the Quran (which means “recitation” * ) within a given community. Translations with extensive commentaries (such as Muhammad Asad’s and Muhammad Maulana Ali’s** ) often point these out, and discuss whether or not they are generally considered to have any more universal application.
What this means, in part, is that one might just quote a single verse, or string of seemingly unconnected verses, with an implicit context—in ways that other literatures might not allow (this also pertains to my “dialectical hypothesis” below)—or in ways in which the context is not apparent to the casual listener.
(c)
Contextual dialectic. I think the Quran is generally dialectical in its presentation. If that is the case, then contextualization will also be dialectical. And the dialectics strike me as complex (not the simplistic thesis-antithesis-synthesis, but a moving dialectic). That is my hypothesis; but it does seem clear to me that contextualization is not straightforward. All I can say is that our Sunni friend Ahosyney broadly confirmed this view, but that does not mean that he would agree with any particular argument I might make.
(4) All of the above applies, regardless of how one views the Quran (or the Biblical corpus, or the Tao Te Ching, or&hellip😉 as
divine revelation—or not. That is, claims of divine revelation—or even, in some way, divine authorship—do not relieve the need for some hermeneutical guidelines to understanding, let alone recognition of the basic point that you make. Regardless of the source/authorship, Genesis is not the same literary mode as Job, which is different from that of Ecclesiastes, which is different from that of the Psalms—and which are all different from that of the Gospels (which are, in turn, different from one another). Literarily, the Quran (divinely revealed/authored or not) needs to be read according to its own—again, literary—complexity.
____________________________________________
None of this is, of course, definitive. But it does point out textual complexities that may well be different for different literatures. People of one religion, who are quick to point out the exegetical complexities of their own scriptures cannot, at least not in good conscience, cavalierly disregard the same in other religions.
The same for the behavior of the religious, as opposed to whatever the core spiritual teachings of the religion might be. The same for those who are quick to make the “no ‘true Christian™’ argument” while pretending that “a Muslim is a Muslim is a Muslim”—or vice versa.
The Talmudic dictum always applies: “Go and study.”
_________________________________________________
* I would disagree somewhat with the notion of focusing only on “mainstream”. Mainstream Sunni or mainstream Shia, for example? What about the Sufis? Or does “mainstream” imply only Sunnis? Etc., etc. Who are the “mainstream” Christians, whose reading non-Christians ought to focus on? Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox? Is there, for example, even such a thing as “mainstream” Protestants? Are Calvinists more “mainstream” than Lutherans?
You get the point. I think that it is better to study across a range. With that said, I personally do focus now more on Sufi interpretations of the Quran—simply because I’m a non-dualist generally; I read the Torah (or whatever) from the same perspective.
** The word for “book” is
kitab, which, in the Quran does not necessarily refer to the Quran (sometimes, e.g., it is "the book" of nature). This raises the historical question: “When (and under what conditions) did the ‘recitation’ become a ‘book’?” Any Muslim or Islamic scholar can, of course, answer that—but they might not agree!
*** They of course comment from their own doctrinal viewpoints, which need to be recognized.