Shahṛūr's Methods in Qur'anic Interpretation

Chapter 1: Introduction

Research Aims

This thesis aims to study and analyse the methods, which Shahṛūr relied on to understand the Qur’an and re-read it as contemporary reading. It also focuses to compare these methods with the tradition method, which was followed by Salaf, and see whether the methods of Shahṛūr are acceptable or not.

Research Objectives

First objective: Reviewing the work of Shahṛūr to identify the methods, he relied on for understanding the Qur’an, especially his first book (al-Kitāb wa-al-Qurʼān) and his last book (Islam and Humanity)?

Second objective: Discussing the views of contemporary thinkers who responded to Shahṛūr.

Third objective: Evaluating the arguments of these contemporary thinkers to identify the reasons that led them to accept or reject his Shahṛūr's method.

All of these goals prior to reaching an important goal; what are the consequences and implications of these intellectual conflicts, or does their conflicts go on that have been going on for centuries?

Further, what are the differences according to the approaches, used to understand the Qur’an and study the impact of modernist understanding of contemporary reading?

Research Questions

The researcher wrote the thesis to answer key questions; these questions are as follow:

First question: Do the views of Shahṛūr regarding the way in which we should interpret Qur’an are unique?

Second question: Focusing on studying the opposite view of Shahṛūr, while the modern view of Shahṛūr is significantly different from those of his opponents, in several key respects. The controversy, caused by the views of Shahṛūr and the responses of his opponents differs between the objectivity and subject, thus, it is significantly important to study these views, contrary to the approach of Shahṛūr enlightenment and consider the reasons for their arguments, on which they relied. Specifically, it asks: How have opponents engaged with Shahṛūr's arguments and to what extent do they differ from Shahṛūr?

Third question: What are the implications of the discussions between Shahṛūr and his opponents on the broader trend of debate and concepts of Islam and modernity, especially the Qur’an and modernity?

Outline of the dissertation

The following thesis is organised into introduction, followed by three successive chapters, arranged thematically around the research investigation and further followed up by a final concluding chapter and a comprehensive bibliography of works referenced. The introduction chapter focuses on the research side of the project, firstly explaining the methods, theory and practices, used to investigate the primary sources and secondly for exploring the existing literature and work, already published regarding the Shahṛūr’s theories. The inclusion of this chapter should enable a close critiquing of my research methods and assists the reader in locating my small project within current scholarship. The first chapter is divided into two sections. First addresses the background context to the research question and highlights the significance of the context of modernity in the west and how it moves to the East. It is crucial that, such a comprehensive study is carried out and noted before the core research and analysis of the primary sources is started, as it enables a deeper and richer understanding of the texts themselves, and of the perspective from which they were written. Second analyses the ideas of Shahṛūr, about the interpretation of the Qur’an, depending on studying two essential principles, which are Shahṛūr, relies on his understanding of the Qur’an. The second chapter of the research analyses and investigates some responses of Shahṛūr’s opponents and discusses their arguments against Shahṛūr’s theory and further themes arising within their writings. The third chapter of the research holds the main research, undertaken in this project. It studies the implications of Shahṛūr theories as a modern understanding of the Qur’an, relying on a different basis from what the Salaf understood of the Qur’an. The conclusions offered in the summarising section emphasise and reiterate the importance of the research carried out and presented in this thesis. Works listed in the bibliography are, as usual, organised alphabetically by surname.

Chapter 2: Background

Introduction to the Qur’an History

The Qur’an came down upon the Prophet Muḥammad (peace be upon him) to guide people and elucidate the right way, which the Muslims should follow it to win the reward in the hereafter as the Qur’an confirms that, in verse 44 of Sura al-Naḥl (the Bees). However, there were some verses in the Qur’an that needed more explanation, so the Prophet interpreted those verses to his companions (peace and blessing upon them) over time and distance from the time of the Prophet and his companions the interpretation of the Qur’an had become more important. That is why, the extend of Islam and converting many people to Islam who basically were not speak the Arabic language so made the previous ulama interpreted the Qur’an and writing it down to facilitate the understanding of the Qur’an for people. Several attempts have been made by many writers of modern Islamic intellectuals on the issue of developing an understanding of the Sharīʻah texts and how to deal with it. The writers suggest that, the Arab mind must evolve, however many barriers stand in front of this development, mainly the religious texts. It was necessary to subject the text to the process of development by interpreting it to adapt with the contemporary age, and become a text interacting with the historical process, and not a rigid transcendent text on reality. Otherwise, before knowing the meaning of modernist interpretation, the interpretation from the perspective of previous scholars should be defined in order to know the difference between the two interpretations. The Qur'an interpretation as al-Zarkashī (d. 1392), defined it as a science, by which one can understand the Qur'an, which was come down on the Prophet, by this science and helps to explain the meanings of the Qur’an, extraction of its rules and get that from the sciences of language, readings, uṣūl al-fiqh principle of jurisprudence, reasons for coming down of the Qur'an and abrogated al-naskh. Also, al-Zurqānī (d. 1710) stated that:

the interpretation of the Qur'an is science is investigated in it about the position of the Qur'an in terms of reaching the meaning of God that by the ability of humanity.

As well as Ibn ʻĀshūr (1879 – 1973) defined it by saying that:

al-tafsīr (the interpretation) is a name for the science which researches about identifying the meanings of the verses in the Qur'an and the benefits of it in short or in detail.

It illustrates through the previous definitions that the meaning and the purpose of the interpretation is to clarify and explain the meaning of the verses of the Qur'an by various supporting sciences/disciplines which helps the reader to understand the Qur'an properly as the Prophet and his companions understood it. By these sciences, the Qur'an was handed to us empty from any distortions by people of salaf (the first three generations of Islam tradition), which saved it until arrived at us as the same when it came down in the first time. They understood it and saved it, because they were the people of eloquence and statement, as well as those, who came after them with scientific qualifications in the interpretation. In recent times, modern interpretation of the Qur'an has emerged, in which it differs in its methodology and principles from the traditional/classical interpretation, as the reformists called it. This difference comes in the light of huge modern knowledge and development of the sciences of language and linguistics and in the light of what called the necessities of the times. In the context of what called renewing religious discourse raise an issue of the interpretation of the Qur'an and calling to reinterpretation it without any regarding for historical context, which the Qur’an came down in. And this is the context of the narrations of the Sunnah, the reasons for coming down of the verses and the saying of the companions and those, who followed them from the Imams of the first centuries. The argument of these reformists is that, the Qur'an came down by the tang of the Arabic language, so we just need to interpret the Qur'an by following the Arabic rules and the knowledge of the modern time, without referring or returning to knowledge from the past, to understand the meaning of the God's words. Absolutely this modern movement under the impact of modernity has a huge effect on the understanding of the Qur'an. Al-Baidhawi emphasises that, some groups of philosophers and reformists, who focus on studying the philosophy and history of ideas of a human being, argue that, they are reinterpretation and reshaping the meaning of the Qur’an with a new modern method, modern references, and new documents, which are included in current time under the name of modernity. Also, as Mahathir claimed that, giving the Qur’an new and different meanings to what existed for fourteen centuries, there would be openness of Islam to the world.

With such claims, modernity was spreading in the Muslim world, which was later of the nineteenth century with the first modernists Muḥammad ʻAbduh (1849-1905) and Jamāl al-Dīn al-Afghānī (1838 – 1897), which was as an attempt to reform religion and try to make it a religion open to the world. So, that can be integrated into the sciences of the others and quote the economic, cultural and intellectual development that had happened in the West at that time. In addition, that movement called to studying and criticising all existing books for following of Western secularism. Undoubtedly, that reformist movement that Abdu called for was strange at that time. And like any new movement, it was accepted by those, influenced by west development such as, ʻAlī ʻAbd al-Razzāq (1888-1966) and later secularists, including Faraj Foudah (1945-1992), Ṭāhā Ḥusayn (1889-1973), and others. In contrast, this approach has been rejected by conservatives to their origins and religious heritage. Some even claimed that ʻAbduh had revived al-Muʻtazilah thought again. This is because ʻAbduh called for the empowerment of the rational and its role in the thought and reform of religion, which likened the thought of al-Muʻtazilah in sanctifying the mind. The movement of ʻAbduh has been weakened in a period of time, but it rises from time to time by contemporary modernists. Shahṛūr recently emerged and brought new interpretations and concepts of the terms of the Qur’anic verses, which caused considerable controversy about him. Although the difference between ʻAbduh and Shahṛūr that Shahṛūr is rejected all religious heritage and began to understand the Qur'an according to the method and mechanism claiming to himself. In 1990, he published a book called al-Kitāb wa-al-Qurʼān after spending twenty years writing, as its author claims. This studying will investigate the theories of Shahṛūr as one of modern thought. Studying this modern understanding of the Qur’an is fundamental to elicitation the implications of that in the context of modernity. The effect of modernity has long been a question of great interest in a wide range of fields.

The Biography of Shaḥrūr

Since, the subject of this research is to study the modernist approach, applied to the Qur'an from the perspective of Shaḥrūr (b.1938), before starting to study and discuss his ideas, brief biography about him will be mentioned. It will be enough to the point, which serves the research and the themes. Muḥammad Shaḥrūr bin Dīb was born in Damascus, Syria, on 11/4/1938. He studied elementary, secondary, and high school education in Damascus schools. He received a secondary certificate from the ʻAbd al-Raḥmān al-Kawākibī School in Damascus in 1957, and then travelled on a government scholarship to the Soviet Union on March 1958 to study civil engineering in Moscow. During this period, he held several responsibilities and received many certificates and awards. He received his Diploma in Civil Engineering in 1964, and was appointed a lecturer in the Faculty of Civil Engineering at the University of Damascus in 1965. He was submitted by the University of Damascus to the Republic of Ireland, to the National University of Ireland, to prepare for his Masters. He received his Master's degree in civil engineering from the university in 1969, and a Doctorate in 1972 in civil engineering. He was appointed as a teacher in the Faculty of Civil Engineering at the University of Damascus in 1972. He has written several books in engineering. In addition, he is fluent in both English and French. His favourite hobby is philosophy and philology. He pointed out in the introduction of his book “The Book and the Qur’an” al-Kitāb wa al-Qur’an, that he was influenced by his teacher Jaʻfar Dakk al-Bāb(1937-1999), who has helped him prepare. Shaḥrūr says, during preparing for the first chapter of the second section on "laws of public controversy". From this point of view it is clear that Shaḥrūr is not a specialist in Islamic studies or the Arabic language, which is the language of the Holy Qur'an, but he is a professor of civil engineering and his hobbies as he mentioned are "philosophy and philology". As Andreas () confirms that this biography of Shaḥrūr shows the researcher's ability of the Arabic language, he is not specialised enough to allow himself for resolving the linguistic problems, which accompanied the language and fought on by linguists. Shaḥrūr claims that, after the Arabs got defeated in 1967, he believed that, the Qur'an must be read in a contemporary way in order to open up to the world and spread the ethics and values of Islam globally. According to him, in order to prove that, the Qur'an is valid for all times and places its verses must be given new meanings to make it suitable for the whole world without exception. This contemporary reading leads to leaving all the religious heritage of the Prophet, peace is upon him, and the interpretations of scholars throughout the centuries. He encourages the launch of applications and theories of contemporary and Western interpretations of the Qur'an. His methodology, conclusions, and attitudes lead to a lot of criticism, especially by the traditional movement in the Arab and Islamic world. The following section highlights the main points of his reformed project.

Chapter 3: Research Methodology and Considerations

In this study, the researcher wants to evaluate the new approach, which is followed by contemporary intellectuals, who think that, traditional approach is not sufficient to interpret the Qur’an. They also think that, the old interpretation of the Qur’an is not compatible with the advances of humanity and science. Therefore, the researcher adopted a new approach for giving a refresh read to the Qur’an. In order to achieve the aim of this thesis, the researcher followed an appropriate methodology that fits the nature of this study, namely: comparative method. The method was adopted to compare the traditional approach of understanding the Qur’an with the modern approach adopted by Shahṛūr. For understanding the approach, adopted by Shahṛūr, the research reviewed the key literature produced by Shahṛūr, namely: Shahṛūr’s first book (al-Kitāb wa-al-Qurʼān) and one of his latest book (Islam and Humanity). In both books, Shahṛūr identified the approach by which he received the Quran and interpreted the holy book. The method adopted to achieve the aim of this thesis is the most appropriate, which identifies the differences between the two approaches (traditional and modern). Moreover, the thesis will review and critique the cognitive and linguistic theories that Shahṛūr applied to understand the verses of the Qur’an in a modern way. Additionally, the study used deductive and inductive methods for the purpose of constructing the findings and conclusions of the study.

Chapter 4: Shaḥrūr’s Approach to Understanding the Qur'an

The History of the Emergence of Modernity

The emergence of modernity goes back to the end of the medieval era. During this time, Europe was under the authority of the church, and decadence of awareness and thought as Lynch argues. By the end of the medieval era, Europe was entering a new age of experimentation and science, or what was known afterwards as ‘modernity’ era, as an announcement of the end of Metaphysics, and the beginning of an era, where humans were rational and ungoverned by neither legends nor God(s). Modernism was embodied in the 17th century, which culminated with the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution. Experimental science and mental philosophy played a major role in reflecting the meaning of modernity. Thus, modernity is associated with thought and ideology in the West, as a result of Western experience with their holy books which the Church had monopolised the interpretations of those texts. That led to the abolition of reason, science, and human production in that period, on the pretext that it was contrary to the teachings of the Church. However, by the end of the medieval, a new movement has emerged that led to the revolution of science and scientists in many aspects, resulting in a clash between science and the teachings of the Church. This collision resulted in the separation of religion from the aspects of scientific and political life, making religion confined to individuals and individual aspects. The development has happened during several stages, that began in the sixteenth century and an extension to the post-modern era of the twentieth century. During this period of scientific and experimental development in the West, the Arabs were in a period of stalemate and subordination; some were under the colonisation of Western power. This resulted in many things. Including the admiration of some Arabs for the progress they have reached by the West in all aspects of life. The contact between the colonisers and the Arabs had direct and indirect effects, there was an attempt by some Muslims to transfer this development to the Islamic world. To investigate the beginning of modernity in the Islamic world must return to the moment of Arab cultural friction with Western civilisation, which was through three stages as follows:

First stage: in the late nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century, and with the intensification of competition between Arab and Western civilisation, the Islamic scholars and intellectuals made and attempt to re-read the Arab-Islamic heritage, and put forward intellectual suggestions for the advancement of the nation, and getting benefit of the Western civilisation. For example, the suggestions of Rifāʻa aṭ-Ṭahṭāwī (1801-1873, Muḥammad 'Abduh (1849-1905), and others attempt to reconcile the legitimate text with some Western intellectual products in a reformist religious movement.

This reformist religious movement emerged in the Arab and Islamic world, called by Jamāl al-Dīn al-Afghānī in 1938-1997 and his student after him 'Abduh, calling for the development of science and evolution. 'Abduh is considered the pioneer of these ideas in the Arab world and many intellectuals were influenced by him. Thus, Arab scientific scholarship movements started to take advantage of Western science. Additionally, some Muslim intellectuals have noticed that the West has developed after separating religion from politics (separation between church and state). This led to the appeal of many educated Muslims to innovate and modernise the understanding of religious discourse and specifically understanding the meaning of the Qur'an within a contemporary read of the text that depends on the structure of the twenty-first century. Although the structure of these appeals varies according to the basis and methodology on which each approach is based up on. All these methodologies shared the same path and orientation, namely: the modernisation of the understanding of the Holy Qur'an. And applying on it, what was applied to the Christian texts and the teachings of the Church, which led to the presence of supporters and opponents of this idea. A seminar on March 2019 was held on modernity, al-Mabrūk (b.1966) explained that, "Modernity is a philosophical storm of thoughts, starting from the West". It was transferred by some Arab thinkers and developed in the Arab environment. Some Muslim intellectuals transcended the traditional methodological tools and assets through applying modernist tools of criticism, which are based on the Western experience upon the Qur'an's texts. Modernists believe that, there is no absolute reference that transcends the contexts of history and the temporal and spatial circumstances. For that, in their view, there is no objection to the application of this movement and the criticism of the Qur'anic texts as well.

Second stage: it was an extension to the first stage, which was during the first half of the twenty-century. In this stage, a new wave of studies was done in which the researchers aim to identify the best tools and methods by which they can understand and deal with the verses of Qur’an. In this stage, new methods were established, by which, modern researchers can review and reread the Qur’an but with a different lens that drives from this modern approach. Especially, the way, in which researchers read the Qur’anic stories. For example, the way by which Taha Hussein, Ameen Kholiy, Mohammed Khalaf Allah, read the stories of the Qur’an, using the rational and historical tools to understand and interpret these stories.

Third stage: during the end of the sixteen of twenty-century, it was an period of Naksa. In this period, many Arabs experienced defeat, which led Arab intellectuals to question and revise everything, one of which the way in which the way that traditional Islamic texts were read. The result of the revised was a new phenomenon, this phenomenon was separated to different waves as follows: first wave, an on the shores of religious texts, rather than the texts themselves - for instance, the read of Al-Jabari, Al-Araby, Hassan Marwa, and Georg Tarboush.

Another wave was involved with the religious texts and try to deal with them directly. For example, the readings of Al-Ahsmawy, Mohammed Arkoon, Abdel Majeed Al-Sharqie, Hasan Hanafy, and Naser Hamed Abu Zaid. Then appeared one of the recent waves, which used the modern tools to read and interpret religious texts, and Shaḥrūr is an example of the intellectuals, who are included in this wave. The main reason for these different views is almost certain the same reason for the emergence of contradictory differences through Islamic history. That is, the extent of the use of reason in revelation and understanding of religious texts, this will be discussed within the folds of this thesis. The reason for this difference may also be the emergence of some intellectuals who are not specialists in Islamic studies and Sharia, as Yaʻqūb alerts that and then tries to critique the Islamic heritage, which has existed for fourteen centuries, and bring new meanings of the verses of the Qur'an.

Method Utilised by Shaḥrūr to Understanding the Qur'an

Introduction

A study of analytical criticism, for any thinker or personality, is to consider and study the reference and knowledge frameworks that constitute his philosophy of knowledge in analysing things. For this reason, we direct this subject to try to read the intellectual and school patterns in the book of Al-Kitāb wa al-Qur’an. This paper does not claim to discuss the researcher Shaḥrūr in all his ideas, it is not possible in this place, but the study can discuss the two main methods that were based on Shaḥrūr’s curriculum in his first book (Al-Kitāb wa al-Qur’an), that was published in 1990. And study the consistency of the methodology he used until the publication of his last book (Islam and Humanity) published in 2016. In order to illustrate how stable the readings are, especially as it includes readings contrary to what is known in traditional teachings. This contemporary approach, which was introduced by Shaḥrūr to understand the Qur'an as a contemporary book, is a serious attempt in the search for a modern method to understand the Qur'an. The author wanted to solve the problems, which he mentioned many times in his interviews, of the stalemate that dominated the Islamic thought for many centuries. Depending on the meaning of the text, it varies according to the recipient's psychological situation, cultural, social, and environmental conditions. At the beginning of his book, Shaḥrūr reviewed the methodology of adopting the linguistic approach in determining the meanings of the Qur'anic verses. And then, going on to say that there is no tandem in the Qur'an based on the theory of Ibn Fāris (900-987), which consists of the theories of Ibn Jinnī (941-1002) and ʻAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī (1009- 1078), as Shaḥrūr claims. In addition to this, Shaḥrūr adopted the twenty first century as a second method of understanding the Qur’an, when he wrote his book Al-kitab wa al-Qur’an. To what extent are these approaches used in the Qur'anic text by Shaḥrūr? Before answering this question, it is necessary to discuss these two fundamental matters in depth. This research attempts to provide a critical reading of the methodological and cognitive bases adopted by Shaḥrūr in his study of the Qur'anic text.

The Linguistic Aspect from Shaḥrūr’s Perspective

Shaḥrūr explained the method which he founded his book on; it is the adoption of the historical linguistic approach based on the science of contemporary linguistics theory.. In the definition of the meanings of words, and adopting the lack of synonymy in the language based on the theory of Ibn Fāris, as claimed by Shaḥrūr in the introduction of his book al-Kitāb wa al-Qur'an. Also as claimed by Dakk al-Bāb, Who briefed Shaḥrūr on this theory, who presented the book of Shaḥrūr with an introduction explaining this linguistic approach and the reason for Shaḥrūr's adoption of it, which considers this introduction as a catalyst and supporter of this new approach. So if the reader who is reading Shaḥrūr’s book knows of a specialised linguist such as Dakk al-Bāb praise this book in the foreground, the book will be elevated to the reader. To illustrate the theory of Ibn Fāris, as Shaḥrūr and Dakk al-Bāb claim, is that it is a combination of Ibn Jinnī's theory and the theory of al-Jurjānī. In Ibn Jinnī’s theory and in his book al-khaṣāʼiṣ, as illustrated by Dakk al-Bāb, is to study the structure of the word and its linguistic derivative. Dakk al-Bāb argues that studying the composition of the common voices in the same word is important. Where In Jinnī reached a relationship between the nature of the sound and the meaning of the word. And also to the conclusion that language did not come at once but evolved throughout human history. Although In the book Dalāʼil al-iʻjāz (Illustrations of the Inimitability [of the Qur'an]), Al-Jurjānī has researched naẓm al-kalim (Words-arrangement). The theory of discourse arrangement is considered one of the most important theories in Arabic rhetoric, which synthesis is its meaning. The meaning of al-naẓm or synthesis is the combination of components or elements form a connected whole, and convergence of the meanings with the grammar. This means the word will be connected to its terminology in which the mind would accept and understand as acknowledged by Abū Raḥmah. Abū Raḥmah also mentioned that al-Jurjānī concluded that the units of all languages are words, and thanks to grammar we use words to form compositions, they are always renewed due to grammar and structure. Therefore the words are symbols of the meanings, from al-Jurjānī perspective. Humans recognise the meaning of a single word first, and then recognise its meaning within the structure, the words are attributes of their meanings, and words cannot precede their meanings. Are words only for their meanings? Al-Jurjānī stressed the importance of the meaning through what proved that rhetoric could only be in the meaning without the utterance, and synthesis without a single word through the process of interpreting the literary text. In the method of Ibn Fāris which Shaḥrūr and Dakk al-Bāb mention, it is a combination of the two views; the first theory is Ibn Jnei's theory on the study of the structure and root of the word linguistic. The second theory is al-Jurjānī's theory which is that the terminology signifies its meaning, and we must understand the “al-naẓm” context in which the word came in, to reach its meaning of what the speaker means. Shaḥrūr also claims that he relied on the denial of the existence of tandem in the Qur'an from the approach of Abu Ali Persian. While Sharīfah explains that the view of Ibn Fāris is the existence of a difference between the name and the adjective besides a mismatch between them altogether, as the adjective is a meaning beyond the original meaning, and not an independent meaning in itself. For example, sword, sharp, muhannad, and faiṣal, are all different adjectives. But all indicate sharpness. This means that, there are different synonyms for one name and those who distinguish between the name and the adjective have to realise that the name is one that holds multiple attributes. This difference is a difference of more or less in meanings not a complete difference to the degree of variation.

It is clear from what has been said that the approach of Ibn Fāris, as Sharīfah claims, is not to deny the synonymy completely, but separates the name and adjective for the same meaning. Those who denied tandem of linguists such as Ahmed Ibn Yahya (816-904), Ibn Fāris, and Abi Hilāl al-'Askri (920-1005), they asserted that only synonyms had differences in adjectives. While Shaḥrūr’s critics believe that he denied the tandem completely, where the synonyms have different meanings to each other, therefore he separates the meaning of the Qur’an, al-kitāb (The Book), umm al-kitāb (The Mother of the Book), and al-dhiker (The Reminder). He gives each name a completely different meaning from the other. Although, whether assuming that Shaḥrūr and Dakk al- Bāb argue about the theory of Ibn Fāris is correct, remains the question of whether Shaḥrūr applies this theory correctly or he only applies it selectively! Despite the tandem theory to be considered as one of the most important linguistic aspects on which Shaḥrūr relied on for interpreting the Qur'an, it is the most important aspect of Shaḥrūr's language approach to interpreting the Qur'anic words. Shaḥrūr claims that it is to rely on the origins of the Arabic language. It means that when he wants to understand a word that comes in verse, he turns to the Arabic dictionary and returns this word to its Arabic origin, and then takes that meaning and makes it an interpretation of the word, regardless of the context in which the word is found or the legitimate meaning of that word. In order to illustrate this, al-Tawbah explains this issue. "Prayer" comes in the Arabic language meaning: supplication or mercy; however sharīʻah has another legitimate meaning which is the obligatory prayers. That is performed by specific acts of bowing and prostration and other acts specific to prayers. How can he explain the meaning of verse 43 of Surah al-Baqarah (The Cow) ‘‘And establish prayer’’ by only the linguistic meaning without the legitimate meaning? Because the linguistic meaning is to pray only verbally. What about the acts of the prayers which were performed by the Prophet, peace are upon him, and his companions? Looking at Arabic dictionaries will show that we are in front of a wide range of multiple meanings of the word, which opens the door widely to the different interpretations of the Qur'an. This means the researcher has a wide selection of words to choose from, and it can be left to the whims of the researcher. Shaḥrūr interprets the meaning of prayers by verbal prayers only. Based on its meaning in the origin of the word prayer in Arabic, the research will discuss the issue of the linguistic and legitimacy indications of the word in detail later. Here is an example of Shaḥrūr’s understanding of one word within the verse which is verse 14 of the Surah ’Al‘mran (The Family of Imran). In order to examine, if Shaḥrūr follows al-Jurjānī’s approach and interpret the meaning of the word through its context or interpret the word isolating it from its context. Also, does he apply Ibn Fāris’s theory or if he applies it selectively. Shaḥrūr reviews his proposal methodology in verse 2:14:

Beautified for people is the love of that which they desire - of women and sons, heaped-up sums of gold and silver, fine branded horses, and cattle and tilled land. That is the enjoyment of worldly life, but Allah has with Him the best return.

Shaḥrūr claims that, the verse talks about (things), he means things and needs and not about a sane creature. He denies that to be the meaning of the word (women) plural for woman, but claims that the (women) here is plural for (al-nasīʼ) which is (to be delayed or postponed) in the Arabic language. So, the meaning becomes that the (delayed things, the new things), that are loved by people, are life and fashion. Shaḥrūr says that, the verse contains the new things for all people, not just Arabs in particular, because the new things are loved by all people. And then the meaning of (women) is a delayed and new collection, either delayed events of life or new fashion, all this is loved by people. Shaḥrūr’s interpretation of the meaning of the word (women) in this verse is contrary to what was understood by Muslims during the fourteenth century. It will undoubtedly have many responses from the people of the traditional Islamic doctrine who interpret the meaning of (women) as the plural of a woman. But the question here is why didn’t Shaḥrūr explain (women) in the context of the creature or the human that is loved by people and men? Since, that is the context of the verse. God made men and women susceptible to love everything good in life, also each of them feel inclined towards the other. It is even known that, the tendency of men to desire women is more than the tendency of women to desire men. That’s their nature. So, why does Shaḥrūr deny that? Furthermore, people love children who are their (offspring), but Shaḥrūr interprets al-banīn (children) as (staying) in one place. He considered the word women and children in this context of the verse to be metaphorical of a different meaning. The reason for this understanding as stated by Shaḥrūr is that his mind cannot accept the previous meaning, which is (offspring). But the strange thing is that Shaḥrūr interprets the remaining words in the same verse as it appears from the text and the context! Here is Shaḥrūr’s claim for doing so, how do we mention the names (women and children) who are creatures and human beings in the context of things? These things are loved by people and they are not human beings. For the sake of reasoning and linguistic aspects, he rejects the context of the verse and the understanding of the salaf in general, including the Prophet. There for he gave the authority to his mind and not the text. In such a problematic conception, Ibn Taymīyah (1263-1328) wrote a book of ten volumes to prove that the mind does not conflict with revelation, while Shaḥrūr proves in this place that the mind conflicts with the text, therefore, the mind is presented in understanding. Although Shaḥrūr goes on to explain the word (women) in his book (Islam and Humanity) in another verse of Surah al-Ḥujurāt. He interprets the word of (women) as the plural of woman to,which is the plural of the word woman.

That raises some questions to, why does Shaḥrūr refuse the previous interpretation for verse 2 of Surah ’Al‘mran (The Family of Imran), and states that the understanding of the salaf was wrong? Nevertheless he accepts the previous meaning in other places. The answer may be as Shaḥrūr states, some meanings do not fit with his mind, and this may be the reason for many of his selective understanding.

The Cognitive Aspect of Shaḥrūr’s Perspective

The human cognitive background of the contemporary era is the second basis of which Shaḥrūr built on it his contemporary understanding of the Qur’an as claimed in his books. Shaḥrūr indicates that the Qur’an is a consistent text, and that its miracle lies in its interpretability. This is in changing the meaning of the Qur’anic verses according to the concepts of successive generations, and according to the knowledge ground reached by people. The view of human knowledge as defined by Shaḥrūr:

is to break the confusion between the objective truth and the illusion, "truth and falsehood", by recognizing the objective world. "truth" as it is. Where the existence of things outside of consciousness is the eye of reality. Human knowledge begins with the partial character and ends with the abstract mind, which is called the "total" law, which enabled man to harness things to his benefit.

In order to clarify Shaḥrūr’s purpose from the objectivity of human knowledge, summarises the rules of that theory and apply them according to methodological steps; they are as follows: firstly, considering that the Prophet had died recently and that the book came to us and those after us, based on the principle that the Qur'an is valid for every time and place.

Secondly, formulate a theory of human knowledge, and formulating it is the prerogative of philosophers exclusively. Understanding Qur'anic verses to be interpreted by scholars, and each scientist according to his competence, for the verse to be reasonable, as the whole Qur'an is possible to enter into the reasonable, that’s what Shaḥrūr claims. Because, there is nothing in the Qur'an that the mind isn't aware of, so Shaḥrūr takes many verses of the Qur’an are talking to the rational people as evidence to match the findings of objective science and scientific achievements in understanding the Qur'an, this is what Shaḥrūr called: being aware of the world and being rational and understanding of the verses to be interpreted. In other words, matching sensible things with the tangible materials, such as the spherical and rotational state of the earth and the movement of assets and laws of controversy.

Thirdly, regarding verses with subjects that do not come into the final sensory science, they can be interpreted by the development of a theory that remains in the realm of reasonable phases, as Shaḥrūr argues. So that it moves over time to the world of sensibility. For example, the verses of al-sā‘ah (the hereafter), resurrection or the last day as known as the day of judgement, we have heaven and hell. They are all tangible things that fall within the realm of reason.

The beginning of the universe can be included within the senses and the rational together, but the end of it enters into a comprehensive theory with its beginning, within the rational. So that it comes into the consideration of these events within the senses. Sensory interpretation of al-sā'ah is actually occurring, but it can be initially interpreted in principle before it occurs. When these terms fall within the senses, says Shaḥrūr, the verse is realised. ‘‘The Day its result comes those who had ignored it before will say, "The messengers of our Lord had come with the truth’’ Fourthly, Shaḥrūr stated that the Qur’an must be withdrawn from the hands of preachers before it’s too late, as it was in the hands of previous scholars and clerics, because their role is purely preaching only. And their position on the Qur'an is to deliver the attitude in general. Each reader of the Qur'an deduces the meaning of the intended verses, and not necessarily returning to what scholars wrote and said to understand the word of God.Shaḥrūr said that:

There is no need to abide by the texts that were revealed to the Prophet concerning pleasure and desires, because time is renewed. And every time we see legislations in the Qur'anic texts that do not commensurate with reality and hinder the progress, development, and prosperity, we need to skip it.

This theory is not unique to Shaḥrūr but most modernists have the same claim. For example, Arkūn says:

The Qur'an is a text open to all meanings, and no explanation or interpretation can be closed or exhausted permanently".

Arkūn also claims that "the reading I dream of is free reading to the point of homelessness and loitering in all directions; it is a reading which every human being find themselves in". Arkūn means that, all the Muslims have the right to deal with the Qur'anic text in the way that they deem appropriate for their circumstances and reality. In these sayings and others, Hanān claims that modernists' claims are not intended to understand the Qur'an according to a particular mechanism and methodology, but according to free rational thinking and conscience and reason. Furthermore, she states that, the proponents of these views raise the banner of the sacred text and the interpretation is free. At the end of this chapter, there could be answers to the questions raised by Munajjid criticising and denouncing the people of this Enlightenment. If the Qur'an is a book open to all meanings as intellectuals say; so what is the benefit of sending the Qur'an down to be a guidance and a way for believers? On the other hand, does anyone have the right to understand the texts of medicine, engineering, and others according to their understanding? And practicing these activities on the grounds of homelessness and lounging in all directions? The answer these and other questions may be that, applying the theories of Western curricula such as the historical, hierarchical, deconstructive, and other approaches to the texts of the Qur’an, as modern Arab thinkers did, led to a disruption in their understanding of these texts. However, their applications of those approaches were negative, or at least they were false applications. This is because, they did not distinguish between the nature of the studied subject and the appropriateness of the approach adopted in the study. What is known is that, the necessity of proportionality between the curriculum and the subject is considered important in any study. Perhaps the imbalance in such modernist studies of the Qur'anic texts was based on considering the texts of the Qur’an mere texts addressed to humans, and it being historical, regardless of the nature of the source. Hence the modernists, including Shaḥrūr, tried to apply those methods, which are outside the nature of the Qur'anic text, on the religious texts. Overall, this chapter has investigated and analysed important points. The first relates to the history of the emergence of modernity in the West and how it moved to the Arab world, as it is a very important point to know for the researcher or the reader in the field of modernity. Knowing the history of this idea shortens much of the reader’s and researcher’s time. And it helps put them on the beginning of the right path before taking them through the aspects of the research themes. At last, the chapter has discussed in depth two main approaches that underpin Shaḥrūr’s enlightenment approach, namely the linguistic aspect, and knowledge approach which is based on the knowledge of the present era. These approaches caused the emergence of many opponents from various Arab countries. The following chapter will examine some of the views of opponents of this new curriculum and analyse the reasons for their rejection of Shaḥrūr’s method.

Chapter 5: The Opponents of Shaḥrūr's Approach to Understand the Qur’an

Introduction

The research has proved that, the relationship between Shaḥrūr and the scientific and religious products of salaf is completely separate. This is the case because Shaḥrūr claims that, those products are the cause of the delay of the nation, thereby, he does not rely on it at all. Shaḥrūr's rejection of all religious traditions resulted in his reliance on the Arabic language and sources of knowledge in modern times. The theory of Shaḥrūr has been vigorously challenged in recent years by a number of Islamic thinkers, most of whom followed the Salaf approach. This chapter, therefore, will analyse the relationship between what Shaḥrūr has reached from his views and those of his opponents in greater depth with a focus on some examples if necessary. Before discussing the different views against Shaḥrūr, it will be necessary, first, to review the different Islamic approaches to interpret Qur'an as these approaches have different dimensions and perspectives. This review helps the study to understand some of the trends that define the origins of knowledge. The second section discusses in particular some views opposed to the linguistic approach of Shaḥrūr in understanding the Qur’an. The last section will also investigate opinions opposing the use of Shaḥrūr for the knowledge of the times. Hence, it will conclude that the classification of some critics for the Shaḥrūr approach.

Contemporary Literature in the Islamic World

Before the researcher can explain the contrary views and ideas of some of Shaḥrūr's opponents, it is significant to make a simple comparison between contemporary trends, which are concerned with identifying sources of knowledge, because these trends will be mentioned during this topic, so it is better to clarify some terms before starting. They are three approaches, which conflict over the domination of the cultural scene in the contemporary Islamic world as explained by Boullata, as follows: First, Islamic thinking (the religious perspective), this approach is based on the Islamic texts, which are the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah. The basic value in this approach is for these legitimate texts, and is presented upon all other sources of knowledge in case of differences. Second, the approach of philosophical thinking (the rational approach), and this approach is based on the rational doctrine, and the core value of this approach is for a reason as a source of knowledge, and is presented upon other sources in case of differences. The rational doctrine is based on the interpretation of everything in existence through reason, whether to prove or deny the thing, or determine its meaning. Third, the approach of thinking (the materialist approach) is the materialist direction, which the outside world is perceived to represent the whole great truth. This objective reality is independent of human consciousness and is not subject to anything, and that the knowledge emanating from the material precedes upon all other knowledge in conflict. Materialism is a theory based on the view that, the matter is the only truth, and that existence and its manifestations and processes can be interpreted as manifestations or results of matter. The criterion that determines to belong to one of the previous curriculums is the method of dealing with legitimate texts. In the Islamic approach, dealing with the legitimate texts by agreement and as understood by the companions who lived during the era of the Qur'an and also as understood by the followers. This is the approach of the Islamic Salaf and the method of renewal movement. While the philosophical approach is dealing with legitimate texts through interpretation according to the data of reason, and the preference of reason over revelation, this approach is the same approach as some doctrines such as al-Muʻtazilah and al-Rāfiḍah, and the method of contemporary rational schools. As for the materialist approach: dealing with the legal texts by cancelling their legal significance and considering them as non-existent, and obtaining knowledge from other sources such as history or looking in the land or events of the universe, which requires, according to the opinion of the people of this curriculum, to cancel the prophecy and rely on (natural and social laws). An alternative to (verses of horizons and souls), and give a new interpretation of the concept of revelation. Also rely on the laws of the development of nature and the laws of the development of society in the objective semantics; this is the curriculum of the school of materialism. Having compared these three doctrines or convictions, I will now move on to extrapolate and analyse some of the responses of the opponents of Shaḥrūr’s curriculum. In addition, to see their classification of Shaḥrūr’s approach under any of these three approaches and what is their arguments for that.

The Responses of Opponents on the Human Knowledge Aspect of Shaḥrūr

Shaḥrūr's confirmation of the human knowledge theory made it one of the bases for understanding the Qur'an and sciences; it caused great controversy about his theory. Many writers have challenged Shaḥrūr’s claim on the grounds that leads to consider Shaḥrūr calling for applying the material theory and understanding the Qur'an by it, as Adel Al-Tal claims. Al-Tal considers it a major imbalance in the understanding of the Qur’an because it relied on the philosophical approach and considers it the mother of science rather than the religious approach which the Qur’an must be understood by. As al-Tal claims that Shaḥrūr built his ideas on the fact that the whole universe is a subject of inevitable evolution, within the laws of the struggle of opposites in material existence. Because Shaḥrūr claims that the objective truth is the material thing in the objects beyond the limits of consciousness, and that the right is the corresponding conscious. Ḥabannakah combines between this theory of Shaḥrūr and the theory of Marxism, materialism, and Sartre’s (1905-1980) in his Jewish philosophy. Ḥabannakah’s ground-breaking investigation of Shaḥrūr's theory showed a combination of these theories, even if Shaḥrūr does not say it explicitly. Al-Tal claims that this principle, which Shaḥrūr believes in, is the same principle that Marx(1818-1883), Lenin(1870-1924), and materialists in general believe in. Thus Shaḥrūr, as Al-Tal claims, tries to get the revelation out of the sources of knowledge, because Shaḥrūr considers philosophy is the mother of science, not religion. Al-Tal denounces and criticises Shaḥrūr for adapting Darwin's theory. Because Shaḥrūr claims that, the Darwin theory is the idealist to understand the Qur'an. Al-Tal wonders, if Darwin and his followers are the people with the ideal understanding of the Qur'an, so what about the Prophet and his companions? Their understanding and applying are not considered by Shaḥrūr. Based on what was said, Al-Tal and Saleem Al-Jabi concluded that Shaḥrūr calls for the material approach in his interpretation of the Qur'an, where Shaḥrūr made it mainly in understanding the universal verses and the unseen universe for claiming that the human mind is aware of everything. Nevertheless, isn’t this argument of Shaḥrūr similar to what al-Muʻtazilah claimed several centuries ago? Where al-Muʻtazilah called for the dominance of the mind and made the mind the ruler for understanding the texts.

There are a number of similarities between Al-Tal and Ṣaydāwī, who also addresses the issue of the conflict between things, which Shaḥrūr touched by saying that he and his teacher have reached this dialectic approach. While after verification, Ṣaydāwī claims that it is in fact the ideal dialectic method, and the material dialectic method of Marx and Lenin. If this is true, a possible explanation for these results may be the lack of adequate scientific objectivity and credibility. Which no one should claim science and theory existed for centuries and then impersonates a person without mentioning the owner of this theory. The reason Shaḥrūr adopted the material methodology, as Kharāshī suggests, is that Shaḥrūr did not study Islam from its sources, but studied Marxist philosophy when he went to the Soviet Union to study. Therefore, it influenced him on the way of thinking, controlled his feelings, and became the basis in giving concepts about human universe and life. Then, it has influenced his understanding of the Qur'an. On the other hand, in spite of these recent findings of Shaḥrūr’s arguments and conflicts regarding the universe, al-Būṭī (1929 – 2013), it had another point of view. Al-Būṭī is probably the best known critic of the Shaḥrūr theory. In other words, Shaḥrūr criticizes the predecessors in their understanding of the Qur'an, and goes on to reread the meaning of the Qur'an again according to his understanding. Al-Būṭī’s criticism of Shaḥrūr does not follow the same mechanism or philosophical approaches, which seemed obvious that, Shaḥrūr’s approaches are references to many convictions and theories such as Marx and Darwin theory besides others. On the contrary, one possible implication of this is that Shaḥrūr may be depending on these theories to prove his understanding of the Qur'an. The reason for al-Būṭīis’ criticism might be that these philosophical theories were established a long time ago. So why does Shaḥrūr reject the interpretations of the Sunnah for the meanings of the Qur’an and relies on philosophical theories to understanding the meanings of the Qur’an? However, this question raised by al-Būṭī is also raised by many Muslim intellectuals, which I could answer in the following chapter (chapter three).

The Responses of Opponents to Shaḥrūr’s Linguistic Aspect

This aspect of Shaḥrūr's theory has not escaped criticism from many Muslims and academics; it has had the largest share of responses, because the language is the core of the Qur'anic miracle. Which led Shaḥrūr to be critical of the Qur’an? An example of this is the study carried out by Ṣaydāwī, who is a linguist, in his book Bayḍat al-dīk (The Rooster’s Egg), which was written in response to Shaḥrūr’s first book. Ṣaydāwī explains that the reason for choosing the name of the book, which is a matter of metaphor, was to argue that the rooster doesn’t lay eggs. Ṣaydāwī criticizes Shaḥrūr in his claims in the language aspect, without interfering with any religious opinion presented by Shaḥrūr himself. In contrast, Ṣaydāwī merely repeats in his introduction the statement of ʻAbd al-Muṭṭalb Ibn Hishām(d. 578) to Abraha al-Ḥabashī(d. 570) when he came invading the Ka‘abah (the Sacred House in Mecca), ‘‘lil-Bayt Rabb yaḥmīh’’ (The House Has God to Protect it). When Ṣaydāwī’s book was presented to the Syrian Minister of media at that time, the Minister was angry and excited. He summoned Ṣaydāwī to his office and asked him, why did he limit his criticism of the book to the Arabic language aspect only? Ṣaydāwī’s response was ‘‘I have found a lot, but I saw an engineer (meaning Shahsur) build a monumental edifice on the carpet of the Arabic language. So, I pulled the rug from under him.’’ The minister laughed and the council broke up. One of the major responses of Ṣaydāwī towards Shaḥrūr is his refutation of Shaḥrūr’s written language. As Ṣaydāwī goes on and analyses the language of the book itself, by tracking the errors of the grammatical and linguistic aspect, where Shaḥrūr has made many mistakes. Ṣaydāwī believes that errors of the language should not be issued by a person claiming knowledge of the language. That’s because Shaḥrūr will explain the Qur'an in his language, the Arabic language. Thereby, how will the contemporary reading be, as Ṣaydāwī considered, while the language is grammatically wrong and not up to the degree of previous scientists who founded the language and explained the Qur'an in this language? This consideration of Ṣaydāwī is similar to that found in the study of Ẓabyān, who assesses that, a study of the contemporary reading in details will show the quality of the basis on which it was based on. If the foundation is strong, the structure will be strong, but if the foundation is shaky and incoherent, the structure will undoubtedly be weak and fall. In their coherence examinations, they show the reason why they follow the writings and synthesis of Shaḥrūr’s sentences, and study them linguistically, which is the conclusion of a dysfunctional synthesis by Shaḥrūr, to show people the defect of his approach after these studies. Since critics question the ability of Shaḥrūr’s theory to provide a coherent linguistic study about the Qur’an.

Regarding Shaḥrūr's reliance on the theory of al-Jurjānī and Ibn Fāris (the absence of synonyms in the language in general and the Qur'an in particular), led to a considerable controversy from his opponents who took this argument of Shaḥrūr as evidence to prove their conclusion of the conviction that Shaḥrūr applies. Many critics criticized the consequences of Shaḥrūr's theory. There are claims that Shaḥrūr's thoughts are considered a revival of the convictions that were prevalent in the medieval ages in the Arab world, such as the convictions of al-Bāṭinīyah, al-Muʻtazilah, al-Qarāmiṭa, and others. While Halīl questions, how do we accept that the entire ummah (The Islamic Nation) which has al-Khalīl ibn Aḥmad(718-786), Sībawayh(765-796), and thousands of other linguists to not pay attention to many important issues of denial, tandem, and other problems belonging to the Arabic language? Until Shaḥrūr came claiming he’s trying to make the nation understand their language. Halīl justifies his argument by saying:

I do not reject a new understanding of the Qur'an that is appropriate for the times, and new information we have about the universe and life. But, I do not accept an explanation that contradicts the language or changes some rules to fit the theory of the illusion. Or something that is not authentic because there are some (missing) indicators on it. There was no new science in the language to benefit this new understanding, but the opposite is true. Our understanding of the language is declining continuously until we found those who doubt the axioms without understanding the language.

Halīl has questioned what prompted Shaḥrūr to make these linguistic errors in his interpretation of the Qur'an, especially since some meanings are apparent from the texts and are not considered by Halīl. The linguistic issues made by Shaḥrūr were so clear, so how can he call himself a specialist? However, Halīl suggests the answer for Shaḥrūr’s errors as invalid analogy. This is because Shaḥrūr in some of his explanations uses the method of putting examples and measuring issues based on each other. Halīl argues that the reason for the abnormality in Shaḥrūr's ideas is because of his misinterpretation of issues. His analogies are not homogeneous, which has put Shaḥrūr in the wrong understanding of the meaning of the Qur'an. At the end of these discussions from Shaḥrūr's opponents, it is possible to conclude that most of these responses to Shaḥrūr are within three categories, as Christmann explains. The first type of critics is objective and neutral critics, who dealt with the contents of Shaḥrūr’s books objectively and presented his ideas neutrally. The second type of critics, which are considered by Christmann as justifiers and apologised for their response to religion and religious teachings, as their responses to Shaḥrūr spring from religious perspectives of the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and the words of the salaf. They are prosecuting Shaḥrūr's book according to the texts of religion and sharīʻah. The third type is those who respond strongly to Shaḥrūr’s controversial writings, as their responses are as mocking as the information presented by Shaḥrūr. These reactions to Shaḥrūr are as any reaction to the emergence of opposite ideas and approaches contrary to what was familiar to the curriculums. Especially since these ideas advocated by Shaḥrūr are not contrary to what is known in contemporary times only, but they are contrary to the acts and sayings of the Prophet and the salaf for fourteen centuries, which illustrates the controversy of the ideas put forward by Shaḥrūr. More recent arguments against Shaḥrūr have been likened by Christmann to those arguments, which have been against some modern intellectuals. In instance, Naṣr Ḥāmid Abū Zayd, Salman Rushdie(b. 1947), ʻAlī ʻAbd al-Razzāq, and others. In summary, this basis adopted by Shaḥrūr in contemporary reading, the aspect of language has had opposite responses to what was expected for contemporary reading. This is only because the Arabic language has a strong side that Shaḥrūr tried to use as evidence to strengthen his theory, but the results were contrary. Once Shaḥrūr’s first book was published in 1990, there were many responses, despite their different approaches, to his book Al-Kitāb Wa Al-Qur'an. In this section, some of the responses of the opponents have been explained regarding Shaḥrūr’s method. And it has been shown from these reviews that Shaḥrūr’s approach is categorised as regarding the previous methodological comparison mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, among the last two approaches, which is the rational and material approach. This categorization could be as a result of what Shaḥrūr wrote and recorded in his statements. As he states that he left the approach followed by companions and followers in understanding the Qur'an and relied on the data of the times in the understanding of religious texts. The data of the times include the data of the previous methodologies, material, and philosophical. The analytical procedures and the results obtained from the previous chapters are described in the next chapter, for illustrating the impact of the enlightenment approach of Shaḥrūr in the contemporary understanding of the Qur'an.

Chapter 5: The Implication of Shaḥrūr's Interpretation of the Qur'an

The Implication of Shaḥrūr's Modern Interpretation of the Qur'an

This chapter will outline the summary of the two approaches which Shaḥrūr relied on his contemporary understanding of the Qur'an by analysing some of the conclusions drawn from the previous two chapters. It will also analyse the extent of the consistency of Shaḥrūr's application of the approach, he claims to rely on. In addition, this section will examine is there a similarity between the curriculum of Shaḥrūr and other approaches or is it unique and never preceded to his approach? Of particular note when examining the impact on the understanding of the Qur'an in this chapter will be analysing some examples of Shaḥrūr’s book to clarify the meaning in some places.

Reinterpretation of the Qur’an in the Context of Modernity

One of the effects of the spread of modernist concepts in the Islamic world is that, modernity has become a cover-up for all these who want to renew and change the concepts that were termed and gone by the salaf and received directly from the Prophet. In particular, those who belong to parties such as Marxism, secularism, al-baʻthīyah etc. especially in countries where they cannot declare their doctrines contrary to the policy of those countries, they resort to modernity as a slogan to cover up behind it. As Saqqāf claims that many modernists belong to Marxist ideology and some have other ideologies at a high level. Thus being a member of modernity becomes the easiest way to criticise the sources of religion in the name of modernisation or renewal sometimes. The reason for this understanding could be as Al-Khālidy emphasises that it is due to the reformists' view and their treatment with the texts of the Qur’an and the Sunnah as human texts which are treated like the rest of the texts. And subject to the requirements of history and its changes, under the pretext that there is no sacred text no one can criticize it. Therefore, Abū Zayd (1943-2010) says that:

The text of the Qur'an - although it is a sacred text - but it does not depart from being a text; therefore it must be subject to the rules of literary criticism as other literary texts.

Furthermore, Arkūn states as following:

The Qur'an is only one of many other texts that have the same level of complexity and abundant effervescence. Such as the Torah, the Bible, and the founding texts of Buddhism or Hinduism, and each of the founding texts of these major texts has received certain historical expansion, and may have receive further expansion in the future.

It worth to note that, which has been forgotten or ignored by some people of this modernist thought, the Qur'an is not like any text written once without any context of life and interaction with various elements of reality and history, as Ṭaʻʻān confirms. It is in fact (life) as it links to social, political, psychological and historical events and contexts. So that it is not possible to understand the Qur'an without understanding these events and saturation of knowledge and a sense. The Almighty God said in the Qur’an: ‘‘and [it is] a Qur'an which we have separated [by intervals] that you might recite it to the people over a prolonged period. And we have sent it down progressively.’’ Al-Imām al-Baghawī (1044-1122) says in the interpretation of ‘‘(to be read to the people for a place), that is, to perform it in slow, prove and send in twenty-three years.’’ It is twenty-three years of ‘life’ in full detail. So how can we understand the text without understanding that life? This contemporary thought and isolated from the context in which the Qur'an was revealed, has a significant impact on the understanding of the Qur'an. The Qur'an itself rejects the idea of abstract text, which comes at once, isolated from life. The Almighty God said in the Qur’an:

And those who disbelieve say, why was the Qur'an not revealed to him all at once? Thus [it is] that we may strengthen achieving your heart. And we have recited it recitation.

The Qur'an came down divided according to the facts and events that to strengthen the heart of the Prophet and support him. Al-Māwardī (974-1058) says in his interpretation, ‘‘the continuation of revelation and the continued descent of the Qur'an constantly on the Prophet, the revelation is not interrupted so the Prophet will not feel lonely.’’ Conversely, when looking to any contemporary theory or book, the effect of the context in which this theory or the circumstances in which the author wrote his/her book will be explicit. Sometimes the author may write the reasons for his authorship, invention or otherwise. So why modernists understand the verses of the Qur’an isolated from its events and contexts in which those verses came down and interpret it with different and strange interpretations? As for the application of Shaḥrūr in his theory to understand the Qur'an is the lack of rooting his theory with evidence and premises and references to strengthen his arguments. Contrary to what customary when claiming a new theory or method contrary to the old one must be asked what are the arguments and proofs of these claims? This is the question posed in Shaḥrūr's theories, which have no explicit answer. This gave his opponents a great opportunity to criticise him. For example, Ṣaydāwī criticis es Shaḥrūr in this point, which is the absence of what is called in the contemporary scientific time and objectivity "scientific method in research". Which is the presence of sources and references on which the researcher is based on his/her theory or methodology. One of the biggest contradictions in the Shaḥrūr method, as Sumrayn claims, is the claiming of Shaḥrūr the objective and practical method, and then he is the first violator of this approach. This is because it is customary that it must be documented scientific information to convince the readers and give them the beginning that whether they want to refer to the source and track the information and learn more. However, this is not found in the books of Shaḥrūr no such thing at all, which puts several questions on why this ambiguity? The answer for this question could be as Ṣaydāwī claims that the reason neither to be that Shaḥrūr wants to obscure the readers and the inability of readers and critics to question Shaḥrūr if he put a particular source. Or it to give Shaḥrūr himself the freedom to choose between what fits with his methodology of theories and integrates them on each other without mentioning this theory specifically. Because this way is observed in Shaḥrūr curriculum that he claims to adopt the approach of Ibn Fāris linguistic and other linguists. Otherwise, when following what Shaḥrūr says on some issues and go back to check the doctrine of Ibn Fāris to document the issue, which Shaḥrūr talks about, shows that the information is fragmented or changed. To illustrates this argument, Shaḥrūr interpreted the meaning of the word Sabbaḥ in the Qur'an in the sense of ‘‘continuous movement’’. By claiming that he had inferred it from the dictionary of Ibn Fāris, But following me through this word in the book of Ibn Fāris, the phrase ‘‘continuous movement’’ does not exist. Ibn Fāris makes the origin of the meaning of Sabbaḥ are two uses in the Arabic language. The first meaning is praising God from any of flaws or imperfection. The second is from swimming which is floating in the water. While tracing Shaḥrūr's opinion in the first use of the word which is ‘praise God’, Shaḥrūr claims to be ‘‘a saying whose time has passed.’’ This sense is no longer valid for use with contemporary reading. The second is in the sense of ‘‘floating in the water’’ as Ibn Fāris states, but Shaḥrūr adds on the sentence of Ibn Fares and says:

Praise came from the rosary is a continuous movement like floating in the water.

In other words, Shaḥrūr in this example denied the first meaning of the word "praise" and changed in the second sense to be in line with his contemporary view. Ṣaydāwī claims that he followed twenty-six Arabic lexicons for the meaning of the word "swam" and did not find the new meaning created by Shaḥrūr. So how does Shaḥrūr claim to apply a curriculum that he does not apply? He claims to adopt the curriculum of Ibn Fāris and other linguists; however he does not according to the previous example. Further, in this context would be argued that, al-Būṭī alleges that the understanding the reasons for the revelation of the verses and understanding the biography of the Prophet are two of the priorities of understanding the Book of God. Due to how do you understand the message without knowing the biography of who carried this message? How do you know the biography and you are exposed to the sources that quoted that biography? How do you understand the lesson learned from the verses whereas you do not know the reason which these verses came down in it? From these questions it becomes clear that the ignoring of the narratives of the Sunnah, the companions, and their followers in the interpretation of the Qur'an is an unscientific behaviour and is far from objective scientific reading that aims to know the purposes of the Qur'an and the values and provisions it carries. In the following section, it will be seen that the impact of exceeding these priority sources in understanding the Qur'an to other sources, as Shaḥrūr does. Other sources may be important in understanding the Qur'an, nevertheless, they are not as the priority sources, especially if are not applied properly and consistently.

The Implication of Reliance on the Linguistic Approach in Shaḥrūr Modernist Method

In addition to the need to know the “context” in which the text came down to understand the values and provisions of this text, as well as it needs to be mindful of a very important linguistic issue. It is that the terminology levels of a single word may vary. As al-shāṭibī states that, there are three levels of terminology may be combined in one word: the legal term, the customary terminology, and the linguistic terminology. In order to understand the difference between these three terms, we will review the term dābbah as an example of the application of these terms. The word dābbah means in the linguistic convention is everything that lives on the ground, whether rational or irrational. As says of God Almighty:

Allah has created every [living] creature from water. And of them are those that move on their bellies, and of them are those that walk on two legs, and of them are those that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills. Indeed, Allah is over all things competent.

As for the customary terminology dābbah is animals which are rode such as camels, horses, and others. While it may be intended in the legitimate term the animal of earth, which is one of the signs of the last day as in the Almighty says:

And when the word befalls them, We will bring forth for them a creature from the earth speaking to them, [saying] that the people were, of Our verses, not certain [in faith].

If you interpreted the animal of the earth in this verse only in the linguistic sense, in isolation from the narratives that describe it, will it reach its meaning in the book of God? Which is the animal that is going to appear as a sign of last day’s signs? The example would be an appropriate answer to this question. If we take many important terms contained in the Qur’an in the context of the legitimate: the example of prayer, which has already been mentioned, fasting, al-zakāt (charity), and pilgrimage. Praying in the language is al-duʻāʼ (a call), but in the legitimate term that God has assigned us by its elements and conditions known. Fasting in the language is constipation, but in the legitimate terminology is well-known worship is constipation with the intention of food, drink, and other fasting at specific times. Al-zakāt (charity) in the language comes in the sense of purity, development, and blessing, but in the legitimate terminology is one pillar of the known pillars of Islam. As well as the pilgrimage, in the language it is the intent, but in the legitimate terminology is specific worship. So, how could be said for who wants to interpret these terms, which signify the legitimate meanings, in the language only? It is changing the proper meaning, because he will give legitimate meanings different meanings and may contrary to legitimate meaning. As such the linguistic understanding of the word separated from its legitimate meaning is what the Shaḥrūr understanding of the verses of the Qur’an. This led him to give the word of the Qur'an, al-kitāb (the book), al-Nabī (the Prophet), and al-Rasūl (the messenger) different meanings of what was termed for centuries. This makes Tawbah asserting that Shaḥrūr repeats what the al-Muʻtazilah did in their understanding of the Qur'an, which is not to distinguish between the meanings of linguistic and legitimacy terms? Since Tawbah claims that these words, defined by Shaḥrūr, no longer need to extrapolate their meaning in dictionaries, but it has to be extrapolated their meaning in the sources of sharīʻah. Therefore, Tawbah confirms that all the differences and meanings that Shaḥrūr tried to derive from the linguistic meaning alone are pointless. Further, all the results built by Shahrour on the distinction between the book and the Koran and other words are incorrect, as Tawbah states. Because it is sharīʻah that defined the content of these terms, and anyone who wants to understand religion must understand it in terms of its terms which drew and defined its meaning from itself. In my opinion, such a vision is natural and it is the right for every doctrine and science to determine its terms that will be the entrance to it, so applying this vision to religion are the priority. Since Shaḥrūr claims to interpret the Qur’an from the Islamic perspective, thus he should abide by the terms and meanings of sharīʻah. This is confirmed by Ḥammā to the need to consider the difference between the language of the Qur’an and the Arabic language, the significance of the Qur'anic vocabulary is restricted by the meanings of legitimacy read in the consistency of the Qur’an. Also, Ḥalalīinsists that the Qur'an is about a conceptual system that goes beyond individual concepts. Thus each concept in relation to other concepts should be taken into account in the overall general to the text. These Qur'anic words and concepts are not the same as those individual words and concepts that were used before Islam. The Qur'an re-used those concepts and gave them new value through its Qur'anic context in which the Qur'anic term should be understood accordingly.

In order to clarify al-Muʻtazilah approach in dealing with the understanding of the Qur'anic texts to compare between their approaches and the Shaḥrūr approach and link what has been said above. Saqqāf summarised al-Muʻtazilah approach by claiming that al-Muʻtazilah built their faith on the five origins. For supporting al-Muʻtazilah to these five assets and strengthening those to meet with acceptance among Muslims, it had to be based on evidence from the Qur'an, because the abstract mind of the texts was the origin of founding the five assets. What approved their approach from the Qur'anic texts is approved accidentally, because they built their assets on the mind and then returned to the Qur'anic texts and chose what corresponds to their mind. Nevertheless, what their mind did not agree with texts, even if those texts were from the Prophet's Hadith , they turned to all the sciences, linguistic knowledge and others to reach the meaning they want and take it as an excuse. Moreover, Ḥalalī proves that the intellectual approach of al-Muʻtazilah is based on reason in all fields, including the field of interpretation of the Qur'an. The conclusion of all previous analyses that Shaḥrūr may be unintentional, because he stated in his books that he did not return to any doctrine or method before the founding of his methodology, restores the approach of al-Muʻtazilah again. Where, we extrapolate the methodology and foundations on which he relied on his understanding of the meanings of the Qur’an and his dependence on the arbitration of reason and presented it in everything even in acceptance of the meaning of verses. Even if the meaning is clear, explicit and visible in the text, Shaḥrūr changes the apparent meaning of the text and makes it evidence to support his theory. Thus, the texts become voluntarily to the curriculum, not the curriculum becomes voluntarily to the texts and according to what is derived from the meaning of the Qur’an. This proves that, the reason for the difference of all sects and doctrines doctrinal ancient and contemporary is the extent to which they deal with the texts of the legitimate and Qur’anic, in particular. Either by presenting reason on the revelation at sometimes or by relying on revelation only and exclude the Sunnah in understanding the texts and so on, where the dealing in the understanding of the texts uneven. This leads to the following conclusion, which is the effect of applying of Shaḥrūr approach in understanding the Qur’an is the applying of a purely modernist approach in understanding the texts, as Ḥalalī argues, which this approach was applied in advance to the teachings of the Church and the Holy Books of Europe for centuries, although not declared by Shaḥrūr. But no one can deny this fact especially through some comparisons between the two approaches.

The Implication of Shaḥrūr's Reliance on the Knowledge of the Times and Ignoring the Sunnah

What proves the previous allegations and has even fuelled controversy over Shaḥrūr's theories is his rejection of the Sunnis as an indication, restriction, and detail of the verses of the Qur'an. Not only that, but Shaḥrūr considers that the application of the Prophet (peace be upon him) to the teachings of Islam is diligence and not binding to us in anything, but is the understanding of the Prophet associated with the level of knowledge of the Arabian Peninsula (a relative understanding). Ḥammā claims that Shaḥrūr in this argument contributes with many of the ancient sects that left the work of the Prophet's Sunnah for example, al-Muʻtazilah and al-Kawārij. Shaḥrūr also contributes with many figures who have recently underestimated the Sunnah and called for putting the Sunnah aside, such as Hussein Ahmad Amin(1925-2013),Muḥammad Abū al-Qāsim Ḥājj Ḥamad(1941-2004) and Naṣr Ḥāmid Abū Zayd(1943-2010)etc. No doubt that underestimating the Sunnah of the Prophet and calling for putting it aside is in complete contradiction with the command of God in dozens of verses of the Qur'an to obey the Prophet (peace is upon him) besides obeying God. Al-Shāfiʻī (767-820) referred to this issue at the beginning of his book al-Risālah (the message). In which he wondered: Where can we infer the necessity of obedience to the Prophet peace be upon him? He replied to himself that it was the Qur'an that guided us and commanded us to do so. Al-Shāfiʻī cited some of the verses that ordered the obedience of the Prophet as ‘‘O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you’’, also, “He who obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah”.And ‘And whatever the Messenger has given you - take; and what he has forbidden you - refrain from. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty’’. In these verses, there is no fragmentation, which has been made by Shaḥrūr in the Prophet's Sunnah, where Shaḥrūr divided the Sunnah into al-Risālah (the message) and al-Nubuwwah (the prophecy), which mentioned previously. Shaḥrūr divides the works of the Prophet in the side of the prophecy is a discretionary work of the Prophet's time so not binding us, while the binding is in the side of al-Risālah (the message) which links with the canons. The consideration of the Qur'an alone without taking the Sunnah with it in understanding the verses and canons of religion but relying on other sub-sources that made Shaḥrūr come up with strange interpretations of some verses and some meanings of the Qur'an. For instance, البعث و الصور والساعة وغيرها. It is what makes many critics of Shaḥrūr confirms the materialism view of Shaḥrūr as the materialists consider everything in the universe visible or hidden must be sensitive to the mind.

The purpose of this section was not calling to reject linguistic interpretation or science that serves the Qur'anic meaning. And how to claim that while the Qur'an came down in this language? But this chapter shows the impact of calls for an interpretation of the Qur'an from the linguistic side without referring to the context and the circumstances in which the Qur'an came down. The fact is to study the Qur'an in terms of linguistic excluding the legitimacy meaning is against the reality of the religion. Since some verses and vocalisations that have been proven in the Qur'an clarify its meaning or explanation of the Prophet in his Hadith and his deeds, as it becomes, in this case, an argument and proof, which must be adopted and not change its meaning to another without another legitimate meaning. But what's happening with Shaḥrūr is the exact opposite. This is because he called to consider that the Prophet's Sunnah is a just special time of the life of the Prophet and is not obliged to us to follow. Shaḥrūr did not stop at this claim, nevertheless relied on philosophical knowledge to understand the verses of the Qur'an. Which does the work of Shaḥrūr in which a lot of strangeness. In sum up of this chapter, there is a possible explanation for this difference between the modernist interpretation of the Qur’an and the traditional interpretation may be understanding of Shaḥrūr, and many who interpret the Qur’an in a modern way, the Qur’an isolated from its historical contexts. It would be argued that, the companions of the Prophet, who had a strong Arabic language, however, was difficult for them some of the terms mentioned in the Qur’an that was known to them before Islam. However, when they asked the Prophet about some concepts he clarified it. So it has taken a legitimate meaning, since that time, which ulama and the ummah followed it for centuries. But by rejecting Shaḥrūr of these terms and giving the Qur'an new meanings might impact on the understanding of the Qur’an, which is almost certainly led to the imbalance and contradiction in the approach of Shaḥrūr. This implication could result that Shaḥrūr’s thought considers as part of al-Muʻtazilah curriculum, as already explained early.

Looking for further insights on Evaluating Aramex's Sustainability Practices ? Click here.

Chapter 6: Conclusion

This thesis shed light on the modernist approach of Shahṛūr as an example of the contemporaries that advocate renewing the way in which we approach and understand the Qur'an; this approach differs from the way that was adopted in the early centuries of Islam. The most prominent finding to emerge from this study is that ijtihad (diligence) as an essential issue in contemporary thought, which means that there is no separation between the present and the past. For this reason, the demands of modern modernists have emerged as a form of ijtihad. But the meaning of contemporary ijtihad may need to be clarified, because it may be taken as an argument under many contradictions in the name of ijtihad. Renewal is not an easy thing and not any person be able to do it, but the person must have the characteristics and conditions of mujtahid (the diligent). Since the study was limited to Shahṛūr's methods, it was not possible to clarify the issue of ijtihad and its conditions here, but it could be further studying in the future. However, only renewal can be understood as the process of inspiring the renaissance of our great heritage, and purification of impurities and all that impede the progress of the nation, not to throw it all aside on the pretext of negative points between its sides. It can be seen that all opponents of Shahṛūr do not deny the significance of ijtihad. They also agreed with him on the importance of the renewal, which is an important pillar in Islamic law. However, the point of difference between them is in the mechanism of application of renewal, so that must have adhered to the conditions and rules of interpretation, which Shahṛūr does not believe in. As noted in the first chapter, Shahṛūr sought in his new approach to provide a new reading of the Qur'an, through the implementation of new curricula coming to the Arab and Islamic field. However, from the above analysis, it can be concluded that, the method adopted by the Shahṛūr and his intellectual and philosophical background, and his methodological and functional mechanisms, contradictory in reading the Qur’anic text in the concept of contemporary. It is important to bear in mind that, the study of the lexical significance of the Qur’anic vocabularies on contemporary formalism is insufficient to clarify the meaning of the Qur’anic text, considering the fundamental difference between the literary text, which modern linguistics may be applied efficiently, and the Qur’anic text. This interest in Qur’anic vocabulary is what was known as al-wujūh wa-al-naẓāʼir and later took the name of terminology or concepts of the Qur’an, but what was presented in the framework of Shahṛūr’ ideas was only a new coordination of the Qur’anic interpretation which might provide a new doubt and intellectual conflict in methodological understanding of the verses.

The crisis of these modern approaches is contextual as is the case in most approaches to renewal in Islamic thought, which concerned with titles and shaping without diving into the contextual methodology. The context reading of the Qur’anic text remains the major way to reach the knowledge of the Qur'an. The discovery and elaboration of the rules of the verses of the Qur’an will be clear through the structural study of the Qur’an, without separating its parts from each other. The evidence from this study suggests that Shahṛūr and others, who have made the linguistic approach and the methods of the universe controversy in the study of the text as the main basis, are dealing with the text in an approach controlled by language mechanisms more than the context integrity of the Qur’an. Although, the miracle of the Qur’an is rhetorical, its miracle lies not only in the mechanisms, but in the Qur’an from the context integrity of cosmic purposes as well, which makes us move from the concept of the legitimate text to building the science of legitimate text. It can therefore be assumed that, for achieving this purpose is researching into the semantic structure and legitimate of the concept of the Qur’an. As the linguistic aspect is still required and major, since the great Qur’an came down with a clear Arabic tongue, and there is no way to understand the meaning of the Qur’an until understanding the characteristics of the Arabic language with taking advantage from contemporary curricula as well. Nevertheless, without making these modern curriculums the basis, but must be made attempts to adapt these new curricula according to the religious and cultural rules of Islamic civilisation. Some of the issues emerging from the study of the linguistic and cognitive aspects in the interpretation of the Qur’an in Shahṛūr that relate specifically to his reading of the concepts of the Qur’an in which he missed the contextual dimension or what is known as the al-naẓm theory (discourse arrangement) of the Qur’an, which is an important symbol in the theory of al-Jurjānī, which Shahṛūr claims to rely on. It seems that, there is an inconsistency between the method claimed and the method applied by Shahṛūr, which has risen great controversy about him, as seen in (Chapter II). The inconsistency in the declared method of Shahṛūr and his application may be caused by his reliance on several modernist approaches and some of them are different from the Islamic approach. As for the second chapter, the views of some opponents of the Shahṛūr curriculum were discussed, The results of this study have shown that, the opponents of Shahṛūr theory do not reject the method that Shahṛūr declared to be based on, especially the language aspect, but they reject the way Shahṛūr applied the curriculum. Some of them touched on criticism of the foundations of Shahṛūr methodology, some of them questioned his Islam and his doctrine, and some of them analysed the ideas of Shahṛūr in detail.

It can be said that this difference between the method of Shahṛūr modernist and those opposed to him because, of the extent of the work of reason in the understanding of religious texts. It is as if we are back to the era of Ibn Taymī yah (d. 1328) when he wrote his book Darʼ taʻāruḍ al-ʻaql wa-al-naql in response to those who say to present reason and make revelation subordinate to the mind. He denies that there is no conflict between reason and revelation if the text is true and the mind is explicit. Ibn Taymīyah proves that, the mind has limits that cannot be overcome, especially when things are absent from the eye and sense. Not as Shahṛūr claims that, there is nothing that is not aware of the mind and everything is reinterpreted until the mind could understand it. In accordance with comparing the present results with previous studies over centuries have demonstrated that this study is similar to an ancient debate between al-Mu‘tazilah and some other Islamic groups. As if history repeats itself, although Shahṛūr denies the actions of the past in the present and he refuses the connection between them, in spite of that it is clear from his views to us the opposite. These results further support the idea that sectarian and intellectual conflict is an ancient and present conflict at the same time. This is one of the most important considerations and implications reached in the discussion of (Chapter III). Throughout the three chapters, this study has provided a detailed picture of conflict and cultural differences in the scientific arena around the Islamic world in the modernist context. These findings contribute in several ways to our understanding of this cultural conflict and ideological difference confirms to us the fact that contemporary thinkers differ in their understanding of the concept of modernity between two sides. First the supporters of all the negatives and positives of modernity, which the result may be a distorted understanding of the Qur’an as Shahṛūr did because he is based on very modernist ideas and interpreted the Qur’an isolated from its contexts. Second, the opponents of modernity are either totally or partially opposed, resulting in such differences. In general, therefore, it seems that, the modern interpretation of the Qur’an within the mechanisms of Shahṛūr is still a major controversy and is not expected to rely in the coming years, because of the presence of a large segment of the Muslim world still rejects such interpretation and they consider it a distortion the meaning of the Qur’an, but they adhere to the understanding of the Qur’an as revealed to the Prophet and his companions. This research has thrown up many questions in need of further investigation to study why do modernists attempt to separate between the present and the cultural heritage, which was founded by ancient scholars, under the pretext of ijtihad? Is this attempt of modernists a reaction to the defeat they feel because of the link to the past to the extent of disengaging from every memory of the past even if it is related to religion and the Qur’an? Further analysis of the cultural conflicts between the modernists needs to be done to re-examining their primary sources that dealt with the Qur’an understanding, and the way of the traditional thinkers in engaging with it. As such, these questions can be considered topics for future comparative studies. The findings will be of interest to whom, paying attention in contemporary Islamic thought.

What Makes Us Unique

24/7 Customer Support
100% Customer Satisfaction
No Privacy Violation
Quick Services
Subject Experts

Shahṛūr's Methods in Qur'anic Interpretation

Chapter 1: Introduction

Research Aims

Research Objectives

Research Questions

Outline of the dissertation

Chapter 2: Background

Introduction to the Qur’an History

The Biography of Shaḥrūr

Chapter 3: Research Methodology and Considerations

Chapter 4: Shaḥrūr’s Approach to Understanding the Qur'an

The History of the Emergence of Modernity

Method Utilised by Shaḥrūr to Understanding the Qur'an

Introduction

The Linguistic Aspect from Shaḥrūr’s Perspective

The Cognitive Aspect of Shaḥrūr’s Perspective

Chapter 5: The Opponents of Shaḥrūr's Approach to Understand the Qur’an

Introduction

Contemporary Literature in the Islamic World

The Responses of Opponents on the Human Knowledge Aspect of Shaḥrūr

The Responses of Opponents to Shaḥrūr’s Linguistic Aspect

Chapter 5: The Implication of Shaḥrūr's Interpretation of the Qur'an

The Implication of Shaḥrūr's Modern Interpretation of the Qur'an

Reinterpretation of the Qur’an in the Context of Modernity

The Implication of Reliance on the Linguistic Approach in Shaḥrūr Modernist Method

The Implication of Shaḥrūr's Reliance on the Knowledge of the Times and Ignoring the Sunnah

Chapter 6: Conclusion

Place Your Assignment Request

What Makes Us Unique

Dissertation Samples

Assignment/Essay Samples

Research Proposal Samples