Al-Itqan fi Ulum al-Qur’an نارقلا مولع يف ناقتلاا by Jalaluddin Suyuti English Translation by Muneer Fareed Draft INTRODUCTION The work before you, some twenty chapters of excerpts from Jalal ‘l-Din ‘l-Suyuti’s ‘l-Itqan fi `Ulum al-Qur'an, is a translation of what this celebrated polymath considered indispensable linguistic and stylistic tools for comprehending the meanings of the Koran. Whilst the translation itself is to my knowledge unprecedented, the use of Itqan material as such in modern studies of the Koran is not, the most significant being that of Theodore Noldeke’s still invaluable, Geschichte des Qoran.1 And whilst the Itqan is rightly described both as an invaluable “introduction to the critical study of the Koran”2, as well as “a monumental synthesis of the quranic sciences”3 its greater value would seem to lie in the as yet fledgling area of higher critical studies of the Koran. Arkoun might well have had just this in mind when he complained of an “epistemological myopia” common to both western as well as Islamic scholars who hesitate in applying modern linguistic tools such as narrative analysis or semiology to the Koran.4 To this category, I would suggest, belong those traditionalists, for whom Koranic studies ventures not beyond the search for even greater literary clarity and thematic coherence in the Koran; this includes those Arabists, who—when not involved in some translation— perpetuate their convention of trying to isolate and define Islamic society, or the Arab mind, or 1 Theodor Noldeke Geschichte des Qorans (Hildesheim, 1961) 3 vols. This is particularly true of the second half of the first volume which rearranges the chapters chronologically, the second volume in its entirety, which examines the historicity of the collected material itself , and much of the third volume, which examines its variant readings, its paleography, and its aesthetics. 2 Nicholson, Reynold, A Literary History of the Arabs New Delhi 2004. p.45 3 McAuliffe, Jane Dammen p.6 Some have outlined both its strengths as well as its weaknesses: Arthur Jeffrey, Materials for the History of the Text of the Koran in The Koran: Critical Concepts in Islamic Studies ed. Colin Turner New York 2004.s’ .156for instance, writing on the textual history of the Koran calls the Itqan a “great compendium of Muslim Koranic Sciences” but one that nonetheless, contains little information on textual history. Jeffrey, Arthur Materials for the History of the Text of the Koran in The Koran: Critical Concepts in Islamic Studies ed. Colin Turner New York 2004. .156 4 Mohammed Arkoun Lecture du Coran (L’Islam d’hier et d’aujourd’hui) xxxiii, 175 pp. Paris, 1982. Also see, Pour une critique de la raison islamique, Paris, 1984 1 the oriental temperament; and of late, it has come to include revisionists, who, having cast grave doubts on the authenticity of the traditional texts and even on the canonization of the Koran itself then turn around and selectively use those very texts to make their point! Inasmuch as western studies of the Koran differ in their approach to traditional source materials, and in the methodologies they each bring to bear on the study of such materials, they nonetheless share one feature which sets them apart from traditional approaches: they all ask questions which go beyond the Koran itself to the very Sitz im Leben of the faith itself. So, in seeking answers to questions about the origins of the sacred text, for instance, they implicitly ask not just when canonization occurred, or how outside religious strains are entwined in the Koranic narrative, but also which milieu most influenced its overall message. Muslim scholars accept as their working principle the Koran’s ontological claims whereas non Muslims reject the claim itself as being outside the purview of academic inquiry. For secular academics this poses a dilemma because their only bridge to Islam’s past is through material collected by early Muslim scholars who made no distinction between material that was purely historical and that which was salvific. The historiographical material of traditional Muslim scholarship has served as source material for both the standard Muslim narrative as well as the bulk of secular western studies on Islam and Muslims but with differences in approach. For traditional Islamic research, in their details the six authentic works on apostolic traditions (the sihah sitta) are authentic and more than adequate; for what they lack in historiographical rigor is more than provided by the comparatively less authentic historical works of Ibn Ishaq (d. 767 c.e.) and Tabari. As for western historians, for whom such material was largely evidentiary, what the texts said about the milieu in which early Islam developed was more important than the scrutiny to which their transmission was put. More important to them, therefore, were questions that asked, to what 2 extent did Muhammad borrow Judeo-Christian leitmotifs, biblical personalities and mosaic rites and rituals? The only time alternate sources to Tabari et.al. were given serious consideration was when they differed substantively from the Biblical sources.5 In the 19th century Abraham Geiger6 and Julius Wellhausen7 tried to show that much of the Koran was actually borrowed, in the case of Geiger from rabbinic literature and in the case of Wellhausen, from Christian. This search for Islam’s origins in biblical literature was continued in the 20th century by Charles Torrey and Richard Bell. Montgomery Watt was one of the first to break from this tradition with his focus on the sociological and ideological backdrop of 7th century Arabia as the impetus for Muhammad’s teachings.8 It was Watt who first suggested that the very demand for luxury goods in areas north and south of Mecca that so enriched its economy also plunged its citizens into a spiritual and moral crisis that helped launch Mohammed’s monotheistic assault on idol worship.9 But Watt came in for much criticism by Patricia Crone, following John Wansbrough, for hewing too closely to the traditional sources if not to their narrative, and for trying “to say nothing that would be the rejection of any of the 5 So for example, Richard Bell in his The Origin of Islam in its Christian Environment London 1926, argues, without evidence, I might add, that the sources of the Koran, and by extension, those of Islam, were the many Christians who lived in Mecca. C.C. Torrey in his The Jewish Foundations of Islam New York 1933, argues in similar vein—and with even less evidence—that the Koran’s antecedents lie in Judaism, not Christianity. Both Montgomery Watt in Muhammad in Mecca, Oxford 1953, as well as Bell in his The Origins of Islam concede however, that no substantial Jewish or Christian population dwelled in Mecca during the formative period of Islam. 6 Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume aufgennomen (Bonn, 1833)was translated by F. Young as Judaism and Islam (1896) was actually part of Geiger’s bigger project, that of showing Judaism’s influence on both Christianity and Islam 7 Reste Arabischen Heidentums (Berlin, 1887). For almost two decades Wellhausen preoccupied himself with reconstructing early Islamic history. In addition to a translation of al-Waqidi's Maghazi, he also wrote works on early Arabic poetry, Arab paganism and the early political conflicts in Islam. 8 Watt in Muhammad, Prophet and Statesman, Oxford 1961, p. 192, explains his approach in the following way: “Though I have held that material factors created the situation in which Islam was born, I have also maintained that the social malaise they produce does not become a social movement until it has ideas to focus it.” 9 See, in this regard, Watt’s entry, "Makka," in Encyclopedia of Islam, VI, pp. 145-6. Patricia Crone however, failed to find evidence of trade in the luxury goods that Watt speaks of. John Jandora takes issue with the methodology of both Watt and Crone. The economic growth did take place, he suggests. During the period 572 c.e. to 616 war engulfed Mecca’s neighbors to the north and their demand for leather and other animal by products turned Mecca into a conduit through which products passed from Africa to the fertile crescent. 3 fundamental doctrines of Islam”.10 Ever since the publication of Wansbrough’s four articles that together comprise his Quranic Studies a small but not insignificant cadre of scholars have tried to develop alternate theories to the origins of Islam. For such scholars the origins of Islam, the canonization of its holy book, and the authentication of its apostolic traditions lie somewhere between the 7th and the 9th centuries of the common era. To summarize, the most significant bone of contention in all of the foregoing approaches, therefore, is the historiographical. For traditional Muslim scholarship, only the factual minutiae of the traditional accounts are open to question; for most western scholars, the problem lies in traditional historical literature not being distinguishable from salvation literature; and for the radical revisionists such as Wansbrough, Crone, et.al., there is, in addition to the questionable authenticity of the historical logia, the greater problem pertaining to the very methods, theories, and principles used by modern historians. But in all such efforts the material found in the Itqan, if its almost ubiquitous appearance in so many texts is anything to go by, has proven both reliable and indispensable to the study of the Koran. All serious efforts at either plumbing the traditional depths of Muslim scholarship even deeper, or those given to probing alternate explanations further, have shown need for the material that Suyuti painstakingly put together. When complete, therefore, the translated Itqan will undoubtedly allow a far broader cross section of modern scholarship to engage the source material in this very important debate directly and accurately. As for the sections chosen here, they reiterate the somewhat neglected fact that whilst theological reservations may have prevented comment on God’s “word” (kalam Allah) the text's many 10 Montgomery Watt Muhammad in Mecca Oxford 1953. p. x. For Patricia Crones critique of the ‘trade’ argument to explain the genesis of Islam see: Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam Princeton, 1988. 4 linguistic and stylistic oddities made substantial editing of the Koran inevitable, even for early Muslims. Some such oddities Bell and Watt have described thus: “abrupt changes of rhyme; repetition of the same rhyme word or rhyme phrase in adjoining verses; the intrusion of an extraneous subject into a passage otherwise homogenous; a differing treatment of the same subject in neighboring verses, often with repetition of words and phrases; breaks in grammatical construction which raise difficulties in exegesis; abrupt changes in length of verse; sudden changes of the dramatic situation, with changes of pronoun from singular to plural, from second to third, and so on; the juxtaposition of apparently contrary statements; the juxtaposition of passages of different dates. . . “11 To this, one may add: a lack of sequence or chronology in the arrangement of the chapters; a lack of uniformity of the chapters in order or content; virtual duplications of entire passages with minor lexical changes; a lack of coherence and uniformity of its legal precepts, and a literary style that is preponderantly allusive and referential rather than expository. But whilst such lexical lacunae, such stylistic oddities may well have disturbed Arthur Jeffrey’s “sense of coherence’ 12 , or provided incontrovertible need for revision of its contents for Watt, and Bell, for the early exegetes all of this was unmistakable evidence of that very inimitability which so exemplified its divine origins.13 But these exegetes, their theological persuasions notwithstanding, still faced the onerous task of streamlining such oddities as to make the Koran’s performative and juridical injunctions practicable to a community, which to quote Arkoun, was required “to consume the Qur’an in their daily lives”14 11 A. Jeffery Materials for the History of the Text of the Quran (Leiden, 1937) p. 1. 12 A. Rippin “Reading the Qur’an with Richard Bell” Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 112, no. 4 (1992) p.646. R. Bell and W.M. Watt Introduction to the Qur’an (Edinburgh, 1970) It must be said that this charge of linguistic incoherence is not new: ‘l-Kindi writing in the 9th century, called the history therein, jumbled and incomprehensible. This he too, argued was evidence that the Koran is the product of not one, divine source, but of many human minds. 13 Not everyone saw this as peculiar to the Koran however. G.E. von Grunebaum for example, argued in “The Spirit of Islam as seen in its Literature” studia Islamica no.1, 1953, p.102, that Arabic literature, in general, pays more attention “to the individual verse, paragraph, at the expense of the consistent lay-out of the whole.” The Arab literati, he goes on to say. “demonstrated that the value of a poem to them would depend on the perfection of its individual lines.” 14 M. Arkoun p.41 5 To do so however, they had to do the following: one, to start viewing the sacred text as literary text rather than as liturgy; two, to seamlessly append their human deliberations side by side with the divine text so as to make the former as dogmatically acceptable, almost, as the latter; and three, to subtly extend the sanctity ascribed to the Koran itself, to these quite human interpretations. The solution which evolved gradually to become a veritable ‘science of interpretation’ or `ilm ‘l-tafsir was rather unique in that it called, not for a recalibrated text following theme or chronology, as such, but for the composition of a set of hermeneutical tools which, together would remain clearly subordinate to the letter of the text, whilst becoming at the same time indispensable to its practical application. The tools of tafsir helped the exegete undertake the very thematic rearrangements, chronological sequencing, and stylistic editing that modern scholarship has so strongly advocated and which Muslim scholarship has equally strongly resisted. An excellent example in this regard is 2:158: “Behold, (the hills in Mecca) ‘l- Safa and ‘l-Marwa are of the symbols of God; and thus, one who performs the hajj of the House or the `umrah would do no wrong in circling them”. Like many other verses in the Koran that feature prominently in ritual or dogma this one is terse to the point of inscrutability. For instance, those outside Mecca would find it impossible to determine the objects to which the names referred, whether such circling is obligatory or optional, and of course the point of the matter itself! In other words, the lack of context and subtext to this verse made it a prime candidate for textual emendation; and yet no early exegete whether affiliated to the Sunni, the Shiite or any other sect even suggested that the text itself be emended to better present its purport. Instead of tampering with the text proper exegetes worked around it, imputing juridical glosses to the first part of the verse only, deeming it the cause célèbre of the walking between the two hills ritual of the hajj; and to the second they imputed a historical gloss, claiming that it explained how an 6 overtly pagan ritual was incorporated into the hajj ritual. James Bellamy, in his article suggesting emendations to what he considers textual errors in the Koran, cites various examples of early Muslim scholarship conceding his kind of errors but ruling out categorically emendations to the sacred text. We have for example, the case of `Ali, the fourth caliph, refusing to change the word talh (bananas) in 56:29 for tal` (blossoms) even though he believed a scribal error had occurred. 15 Other prominent scholars of the first Islamic generation made similar comments about scribal errors in the text but all steered clear of emendations. This in my opinion, was because the text by then had indeed, already been canonized, and this text based on the `Uthmanic codex came to be accepted as the inerrant word of God. 16 This early transformation of sacred scripture to canon had the consequence of not just putting the sacred text beyond question but also beyond reach; henceforth, guidance would have to be sought in local practices or the ever burgeoning apostolic traditions. The absence of the Koran from the legislative process of the early legists and theologians was underscored by both Schacht and Wensinck, in their respective studies of the early development of Islamic law and Muslim Creed. And this was the evidence that Wansbrough cited, amongst others, to support his own theory of canonization occurring over “more than a single generation”.17 I would suggest, however, that contra Wansbrough, it was not the absence of a canonized text that explains the lack of reference to the Koran in early Muslim thinking but rather its canonized presence in the 15 James Bellamy: “Some Proposed Emendations to the Text of the Qur’an” in Journal of the American Oriental Society vol.113, no.4, (Oct. 1993) Pp.562-563. Also see Ignaz Goldziher: Die Richtungen der islamische Koranauslegung Leiden, 1952. 16 According to Muslim tradition canonization occurred when Gabriel who for twenty three served as the angel of revelation made one final review which then established the present text as the ipsissima verba of God. For more on the process of revelation becoming canon see: Suyuti, al-Itqan I, 164-83. 17 John Wansbrough Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation New York, 2004.P.44. For Schacht’s views on the development of Islamic Law see: Josef Schacht: The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence Oxford, 1950. For the development of the Islamic creed, see: Jan Wensinck The Muslim Creed, Its Genesis and Historical Development New York 1965 7 way described by Watt and Bell, that all but precluded reference to its verses in law and theology. Assuming the aforementioned is more accurate an explanation for the absence of scripture from early legal discourse, the traditional account of how scriptural logia transformed into standardized codex, thence to canonized text, and thence to the explicative process known as tafsir could be said to at least follow the broad strokes of the traditional narrative.18 This may well explain why modern scholarship still clings to the Koran being revealed to Muhammad over a period of twenty three years until his death in 632 ce.; of Abu Bakr his successor, commissioning the first authorized written copy thereof; of this copy being vouchsafed to his successor, `Umar, and then to his daughter, Hafsa; and finally, of `Uthman, the third caliph, authorizing the Hafsa codex to be copied and widely distributed as the only official version of the Koran. To pursue the traditional account, the period that followed has been described as one in which all authority was being contested, with intellectual giants like Ja`far al-Sadiq, the Shiite imam, claiming sole authority not just over Muslim society, but also over the interpretation of the holy writ—and in particular, its allegorical verses. Because no explicit texts legitimized Shiite claims to leadership Ja`far was forced to rely heavily on the interpretive latitude the allegorical verses offered to make just such claims. Thus: the signs of God refer to the imams; the Straight Path is that which the Imams followed; and the Light of God refers ‘not just to the imams but also their quasi-divine character”.19 Sunnis meanwhile, with de facto political authority, had little need for allegorical interpretations; instead, they looked to the Koran to hold on to power gained 18 Wansbrough, not unexpectedly, disagrees, arguing instead that “Quranic exegesis. . .is not likely to have been articulated before the third/ninth century. See his “Majaz al-Qur’an: Periphrastic Exegesis” in Bulletin of the School of African and Oriental Studies No.2, 1970, p.247 8 militarily, and to use the authority of the sacred text to consolidate such ill gained authority or to regulate civil society in ways that privileged their respective constituencies over those of their opponents. In the case of Sunni scholars therefore, the point of entry into exegesis was language, not allegory, but interestingly enough, even there, those scholars who initially did no more than clarify the obscurities of the sacred text ultimately graduated to become its de facto gatekeepers; so, as in some other religions, so too in Sunni Islam, philology and linguistics not only privileged the clergy over the laity, but also helped circumvent theological divides that otherwise separated the inerrant divine word from fallible exegetical opinion.20 To avoid the pitfalls of literalism Sunni hermeneutics developed into a complex system of caveats, that required, for instance, that texts be interpreted in light of varying contexts (maqam), and that laws derived as such, include not just one, but all verses pertaining to any given topic. (‘l-Qur`an yafissuru ba`duhu ba`dan).21 The need for context is succinctly explained by ‘l-Khatib ‘l-Qazwini, the celebrated linguist, as follows: That context which demands the definite, the generalization, or the advancement of parts of a discourse, or the inclusion (of particular words) differs from that context which demands the indefinite specification, the postponement or the omission. Also, the context of separation differs from that of joining; the situation that requires brevity differs from that which requires prolixity. And discourse with an intelligent person differs from discourse with an obtuse one.22 19 Bruce Lawrence The Qur’an: A Biography New York, 2006 p. 81. 20 Valentin Voloshinov Marxism and the Philosophy of Language (Cambridge, 1986). The standard work for the textual history of the Koran remains Theodor Noldeke and Freidrich Schwally Geschichte des Qorans (Hildesheim, 1961) For an overview of the genesis of philological exegesis see Claude Gilliot “The Beginnings of Qur’anic Exegesis” in Andrew Rippin ed. The Qur’an: Formative interpretation (ALdershot, 1999) pp.1-27. The precursor to the formal exegesis of the Koran was the development of the Arabic language, its stylistics and its lexicography. In this regard see: Johannn Fuck Arabiya: Untersuchungen zur arabischen Sprach-und Stilgeschichte. (Berlin: 1950) On the development of Arabic orthography see: Khalil Semaan Linguistics in the Middle Ages: Phonetic Studies in Early Islam (Ledien, 1968) 21 See M. A.S. Abdel Haleem “Contextg and Internal Relationships: Keys to Quranic Exegesis. A Study of Surat ‘l- Rahman (QUran chapter 55)” in Approaches to the Qur’an G.R. Hawting and Abdul-KAder Shareef eds. (London, 1993) pp. 71-99 22 Muhammad b. Abd ‘l-Rahman ‘l-Qazwini Sharh ‘l-Talkhis (Damascus, 1970) p. 14 9