Recently I came across this article: http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/show_article.php?main_id=5258
where I read the following:
"Then there may be instances of ambiguity in address as well. Sometimes, a verse would apparently address the Prophet (pbuh); however, in reality the address would be directed at the Muslim ummah. Similarly, an apparent address to him would actually be directed at the leadership of the Quraysh or to the People of the Book. Examples of such addresses abound in the Qur'an. Thus it is essential that this differentiation be made with full caution, and it should be fully ascertained as to who is the actual addressee. Without this, the real purport of the Qur'an cannot be grasped.
"Third, general and specific verses should be differentiated. There are many places in the Qur'an where the words are general; however, the context testifies with full certainty that something specific is meant. The Qur'an uses the word (people), but it does not refer to all the people of the world; and many a time they do not even refer to all the people of Arabia: the word refers to a group among them. It uses the expression (on all the religions), and it does not refer to all religions of the world; it refers to (polytheists) but they do not refer to all those who are guilty of polytheism. Similarly, the words (And from these People of the Book) do not refer to all the People of the Book of the world. It mentions the word (man) but it does not refer to mankind."
This is important in understanding the Quran as not only a timeless scripture, but also a record of specific events at a specific time in history. If this is true, then is it all relevant to us? And if some of the Quran is not relevant to us, then how can we see it as a perfect book? How can we think the supreme being would be so lazy.
But I don't see it that way. Think of a classic book, let's say Huck Finn. Does the very important and ALWAYS relevant message that you should treat people equally become less true because the story takes place in the past...? No. And on the other hand, does a reader need to embrace the archaic lifestyle, morals and pastimes of the characters of the story to feel that the message of it speaks to them...? No.
So if we know this to be true: That literature is a powerful way to teach society, an intimate whisper into the heart of a reader, and we know that God is speaking to us through stories and metaphor, both of which are necessary elements of literature, then why can we not see certain parts of the Quran AS literature? Not reportage, not commandments, but actually literature, with all the open endedness and personal interpretation that is suggested by that.
I think even in the Quran, God warns us against taking things to literally... and more importantly he warns us against forcing our interpretation on others:
"Now those whose hearts are given to swerving from the truth go after that part of the divine writ
which has been expressed in allegory, seeking out [what is bound to create] confusion, and seeking [to arrive at] its final meaning [in an arbitrary manner]; but none save God knows its final meaning. Hence, those who are deeply rooted in knowledge say: "We believe in it; the whole [of the divine writ] is from our Sustainer - albeit none takes this to heart save those who are endowed with insight.
(Sorry, I believe in quoting full verse references to avoid misinterpretation.)"
where I read the following:
"Then there may be instances of ambiguity in address as well. Sometimes, a verse would apparently address the Prophet (pbuh); however, in reality the address would be directed at the Muslim ummah. Similarly, an apparent address to him would actually be directed at the leadership of the Quraysh or to the People of the Book. Examples of such addresses abound in the Qur'an. Thus it is essential that this differentiation be made with full caution, and it should be fully ascertained as to who is the actual addressee. Without this, the real purport of the Qur'an cannot be grasped.
"Third, general and specific verses should be differentiated. There are many places in the Qur'an where the words are general; however, the context testifies with full certainty that something specific is meant. The Qur'an uses the word (people), but it does not refer to all the people of the world; and many a time they do not even refer to all the people of Arabia: the word refers to a group among them. It uses the expression (on all the religions), and it does not refer to all religions of the world; it refers to (polytheists) but they do not refer to all those who are guilty of polytheism. Similarly, the words (And from these People of the Book) do not refer to all the People of the Book of the world. It mentions the word (man) but it does not refer to mankind."
This is important in understanding the Quran as not only a timeless scripture, but also a record of specific events at a specific time in history. If this is true, then is it all relevant to us? And if some of the Quran is not relevant to us, then how can we see it as a perfect book? How can we think the supreme being would be so lazy.
But I don't see it that way. Think of a classic book, let's say Huck Finn. Does the very important and ALWAYS relevant message that you should treat people equally become less true because the story takes place in the past...? No. And on the other hand, does a reader need to embrace the archaic lifestyle, morals and pastimes of the characters of the story to feel that the message of it speaks to them...? No.
So if we know this to be true: That literature is a powerful way to teach society, an intimate whisper into the heart of a reader, and we know that God is speaking to us through stories and metaphor, both of which are necessary elements of literature, then why can we not see certain parts of the Quran AS literature? Not reportage, not commandments, but actually literature, with all the open endedness and personal interpretation that is suggested by that.
I think even in the Quran, God warns us against taking things to literally... and more importantly he warns us against forcing our interpretation on others:
"Now those whose hearts are given to swerving from the truth go after that part of the divine writ
which has been expressed in allegory, seeking out [what is bound to create] confusion, and seeking [to arrive at] its final meaning [in an arbitrary manner]; but none save God knows its final meaning. Hence, those who are deeply rooted in knowledge say: "We believe in it; the whole [of the divine writ] is from our Sustainer - albeit none takes this to heart save those who are endowed with insight.
(Sorry, I believe in quoting full verse references to avoid misinterpretation.)"
No comments:
Post a Comment