Sir Syed Ahmad Khan's Principles of Exegesis
[Hassan Ilyas] The first question I want to ask you today is this:
people, generally, tend to link up your scholarly opinions with
Sir Syed Ahmad Khan’s principles of Quranic interpretation.
Today I want to know your viewpoint about the two of salient
principles of interpretation that Sir Syed had discussed in his book.
He has published a commentary of the Quran consisting
of around sixteen volumes.
I want to understand your point of view about it.
Sir Syed Ahmad Khan makes this point in great detail that if,
in understanding the Quran, a contradiction arises between
reason (aql) and text (naql), then reason would be given priority.
And everything in the world works according to the law of cause and effect.
Therefore, any event or idea that seems to contravene the
law of cause and effect would have to be (re-)interpreted.
As a result, whether it is the idea of heaven and hell, or the
idea of angels, or the idea of miracles, he explicated it via reinterpretation.
What is your point of view about it?
[Javed Ahmad Ghamidi] I consider this whole viewpoint as totally erroneous.
In my opinion, even the word reason (aql) has been used
erroneously in this case.
We become captive to our observations.
In other words, we witness something daily,
something is a part of our everyday experience.
To imagine that our everyday experience is the ultimate
manifestation of reality is an error that people, sometimes, fall into.
In other words, did people have the same observations
[about nature] two hundred years prior, as it is today?
Back then, had someone claimed that there would come a
day when we would be sitting in a room somewhere and
our conversation would be broadcast to the whole world.
In fact, if there were some life-forms on the planets in the heavens,
they too could listen to it; nobody would have believed it.
So, while this idea violated the experience [of the time],
but did it contradict reason as well?
What is the meaning of reason?
It refers to the process of understanding something by
making inferences based on the available evidence.
Similarly, when reason specifies a position or a set of premises,
the necessary implications, whether or not
they are empirically verifiable, are said to "follow rationally from them".
If you see, in the contemporary world of science, the theory of evolution
has been accepted as a pillar of faith.
And not just in biology, the doctrine is applied to various
other domains as well, like history, the evolution of ideas, the changes
in political phenomena, etc.
This is the level of its acceptance.
However, there is not a single thesis can be
empirically verified among the theses and premises it is based on.
In other words, it is a story about the past. And what do you do?
You look for traces and evidence, and based on them, you make inferences.
And your inference can be wrong, or it can right.
However, the process of reason is, in fact the process of making inferences.
A rational argument is, in reality, an argument based on
correct reasoning and inference.
Showing me the sun does not need any rational process of inference.
Therefore, in my view, the word reason has been misused in this case.
When you accept a basic thesis and accept it rationally.
In other words, it is a basic thesis that the Universe has a Creator, right?
Once I accept that the Universe has a Creator and
He has certain attributes, some implications follow rationally which
I must inevitably accept.
That is to say, by accepting a basic thesis, we can derive its corollaries
via the reasoning process.
Or, by surveying a number of corollaries, we can arrive at a principle
via the reasoning process.
Thus, in this case, the word reason has been misunderstood.
Similarly, the idea that everything in the world is subject to
the law of cause and effect.
It is a matter of observation.
However, is even Allah, the Creator of the Universe, subject to the
law of cause and effect?
Does it bind the creator of the world?
He has created the law [of cause and effect].
We are human beings: we have come up with a number of inventions.
And all the inventions follow some sort of law or principle.
When an airplane flies, it follows certain laws and the machinery must
function in a certain manner.
However, does this law-boundedness in any way limit our thinking,
our inventiveness, or our ingenuity?
So, it is an abject conception of God.
And I do not consider this view correct at all.
The reason for this theatre of cause and effect is that
human activity relies on it.
As a consequence of our reliance on it, science came into existence.
And on its basis, we go and have the courage to fly through the expansive skies
All these things are based on this.
Had Allah not created the law of cause and effect, then it
would have been impossible to rely on anything in the world?
In such a case, the horizons would have shrunk around us.
Nonetheless, is the Creator of the law of cause and effect too bound by it?
Thus, in this case, experience has been confused with reason
and the usual process of cause and effect has been picked up from human life
and applied to Allah as well.
I consider these things as categorically erroneous.
[Ilyas] Ghamidi Sahib, I am going to cite a few examples here.
I want to understand that though you explicated the difference
However, even while accepting Sir Syed Ahmad Khan’s ideas,
if we come across something in the Quran that contradicts his point of view,
in that case we are compelled to follow the Quran.
But he even subjected such things to his interpretation
I’ll put forth a few examples here.
For instance, here I have a detailed excerpt from Sir Syed Ahmad Khan
He writes: “The word Jinn in these verses refers to the wild and
mountainous people employed by Suleiman (pbuh) in the construction
of the Bayt al-Muqaddas”.
My question is this: even if we accept that he found
something – in this case the idea of the Jinn – as contrary to reason,
how did he deduce that the word Jinn means the wild men of the mountains?
What is the methodology adopted here?
[Ghamidi] First, we must make it clear that it is not contrary to reason,
rather it is contrary to observation.
This is the basic error being committed.
I have not seen Jinn; neither have you; and nor have a lot of other people.
Thus, it is contrary to observation.
But does all our knowledge ultimately derive from observation?
Our observations began with the forest-dweller and the peasant and,
today, they are transforming into the observations of the universe.
We saw a few animals in our vicinity, but when we looked at
the whole world, we realized that there is no limit to the species of creatures.
And we discovered such species of plants and animals in
remote islands that no one had ever heard of or seen and
that were not found in any other region of the world.
For this reason, it is being captive to observations that is being narrated here.
So, observation is a different matter and reason is a different matter.
In fact, the job of reason is to infer the non-perceptible
phenomena from the perceptible phenomena.
That is how reason operates! Therefore, in my view
when it is said that something is contrary to reason for instance,
the existence of the Jinn or the angels.
No, it is contrary to observation.
However, when we accept the existence of Allah and accept it rationally.
And when we accept the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) and accept him through reason
When we accept it – and accept it rationally that Quran is Allah’s Book,
then we get news about the world beyond from our observations.
It is similar to the way a space vehicle sent to the Mars
might start broadcasting information from over there.
And it is possible that the new information negates our
earlier observations and knowledge.
Would you, then, reject the new information?
The information that we get from the Quran is the news
we have gotten from a different source of knowledge.
We can debate whether the source is reliable or not.
If, however, you rationally consider it to be a reliable source of knowledge,
then how could you deny the information it gives?
When it has become obvious to me, scientifically, about the space vehicle
sent to the Mars that the science behind its
flight and relaying of information is credible now I cannot
challenge the information the vehicle sends back.
Now, whatever the vehicle sends down to us would have to
be considered a reality.
For this reason, this too is a fallacious argument.
Whatever my observations and the observations of the
whole world may come in conflict with Allah’s Book,
the Truth and the Right would always be what has been narrated in Allah's Book.
So, for this reason, we have to look into the Book of Allah.
And what is the method of referring to Allah’s Book?
First of all, you’ll need to figure out the meaning of the word
that has been used in Arabic: and the Arabic language as it
was spoken in the time of the Prophet (pbuh) and the
knowledge of which has reached down to us successively and through consensus.
Except this, no other method can be adopted.
In our time, the people who tried to specify the meanings of
words through linguistic analysis ended up inventing a new Quran of their own.
This is the deviance of the last degree that we have
witnessed in the world of knowledge.
Thus, these are the matters of principle: what is the meaning
of the world, which meaning fits the configuration of the
sentence where the word has been used, and which meaning
is corroborated by the reference and the context.
Only these things would be examined.
After this, whatever turns out to be the manifest message of
the Quran revealed in clear Arabic, it is the ultimate truth.
And even if we develop some hesitation regarding some point in
the Quran, there is no question of trying to explain it away by reinterpretation.
No, we are, in fact, going to revisit our own comprehension.
We are, once more, going to examine ourselves and see if we
are making an error in understanding the matter.
And this is the level of certainty with which we should approach the Quran.
I have written about it and also narrated it to you people on
many occasions: my eminent teacher was once faced with a problem.
He found in the old commentaries of the Quran that the commentators,
usually, are of the opinion that pearls are found only in the sea water.
There are no fresh water pearls.
Quran, however, says quite the opposite: yakhruju minhum’al lu’lu ’wal marjaan.
So, they re-interpreted min’humaa. This is called expansive interpretation.
Something contradicts your observation, so you re-interpret it
[such that it agrees with the observed facts].
And when Ustaz Imam came across this verse,
he said that all the commentators hold the
aforementioned opinion and I do not know where pearls emerge,
however, even if the pearls themselves tell me that they emerge only in sea water
I will not listen to them because the Quran says the pearls emerge in both sea
as well as fresh waters.
[Ilyas] Subhan Allah, Subhan Allah
[Ghamidi] So, this is the certainty and belief with which
one should read the Quran.
If you feel something contradicts experience or rational premises
you should, first of all, examine your experience
as well as your rational premises.
However, if you are really influenced by something, you can,
at the most, revisit your own comprehension while once
more consulting the Book of Allah.
There is no question of explaining things away through interpretation.
One cannot even imagine it.
In this case, interpretation means to change the meaning of a thing based
on some ‘rational’ theses.
It is not possible.
Whatever the meaning – whether it is the real meaning or
figurative meaning of the word – it would be specified through
the accepted rules of the language and we have to believe in it.
[Ilyas] So, in the case of Solomon (pbuh), we cannot, in any sense,
take the Jinn to mean the wild men of the mountains?
[Ghamidi] Absolutely, not!
Arabic language cannot even listen to this interpretation for one second,
let alone accept it.
Anyone who is familiar with Arabic cannot even think about it!
[Ilyas] Alright.
Let us move ahead, Ghamidi Sahib, along this track.
One more question.
I have Sir Syed Ahmad Khan’s commentary of the Quran in front of me.
This is regarding the famous verse in which Allah tells Moses (pbuh)
to strike the ground with his staff and as a result springs burst forth.
In the explanation for this verse, he writes:
"Moses (pbuh) was asked to strike the rock and in this verse, hajr means the
mountain and zarb means to walk. Thus, fadrrib bi assaq al hajar
means to walk about the mountain with the help of his staff.
And when Moses (pbuh) climbed up, he saw springs bursting forth
on the other side of the mountain.”
So, is it the case that, from the point of view of language,
Sir Syed Ahmad Khan found this story contrary to observation,
to use your phrase that how is it possible that a man strikes a rock
with his staff and springs burst forth from it that
it is contrary even to the law of cause and effect, and for this
reason he tried to explain it away through interpretation?
Please, discuss both aspects: is it against
the natural law of cause and effect?
How are we going to deal with it?
And, does language accept it as it is?
[Ghamidi] Is the Quran narrating a scientific matter here that
the law of cause and effect becomes a problem?
Allah is narrating about his gift!
He says that I asked My messenger to strike the ground with his staff.
And when he did that, twelve springs burst forth.
Allah has bestowed the prophets with a lot of miracles.
Moses’ (pbuh) miracles are extraordinary.
As soon as he was appointed as a Prophet (pbuh), he said to Allah:
“I am going to face the Pharoah. He is a majestic king.
He won’t even listen to me.
What proof of my appointment would I show him?”
Now, these were not the kings in whose court you could hire a lawyer
and present your case.
They just had to utter the word and the person would be put to death.
So, when Moses (pbuh) made this request, as the
certification of appointment to Prophethood,
Allah endowed him with miracles.
And you know that one of the miracles was that he could
throw down his staff and it would turn into a snake.
Now, what law of cause and effect did this phenomenon follow?
For this reason, there is no need for interpretation here.
In this case as well, we are going to follow the rules and
conventions of language.
What is the meaning of this sentence in view of the Arabic language.
The meaning that Sir Syed Ahmad Khan gives to wadrrib bi assaq al hajar
is impossible in the Arabic language.
Some people have the audacity to latch onto a word
without bothering about its conjunction with other words,
with prepositions, the alterations brought about by the
changes in subject and object, etc.
Thus, instead of approaching the matter from a linguistic point of view,
they either disregard the relationship between the
subject and the object, or some connection between the words, or some usage.
And they either pick a noun-form, or some conjunctive, or some adverb-form, etc.,
and join to invent a new meaning.
Arabic is not familiar with this phenomenon at all.
The language of the Quran is in clear Arabic.
Why does the Quran stress that it is in bi lisaan’in Arabi-in Mubeen?
In other words, the clearest Arabic spoken by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
In fact, at another place, it asks: which manifest Arabic language?
It is not the Arabic of the present-day Egypt or Levant.
Bi lisaan-ik. Muhammad’s (pbuh) tongue.
The Arabic language of the Prophet’s (pbuh) time.
And the meaning of the Quran is based on the word-meaning,
sentence configuration, and reference and context
of the Arabic of the Prophet’s (pbuh) time.
One can err in understanding the meaning in this sense as well.
So, I said that if at some point, something seems contrary to
observation, you must revisit your own comprehension.
However, if the apparent contradiction persists after
repeated returns, then what the Quran says is the truth, even if that means our death
[Ilyas] The last question on this topic,
Based on certain conclusions that are also found in Sir Syed Ahmad Khan’s thought,
people generally, looking for some resemblance, link up the scholars of
the Farahi school with Sir Syed’s thought.
It is assumed that both roads lead to the same result.
Please explain to me the fundamental difference between
Sir Syed Ahmad Khan’s rules of commentary of the Quran
and those of the Farahi school?
[Ghamidi] It is the same thing that I just discussed with you.
The rule is fixed in Imam Farahi’s thought that Quran must
be understood in light of the Arabic language and its modes
as they were used during the time of the Prophet (pbuh),
we shall not exceed that at all.
Neither our rational positions, nor our observation would
influence our understanding of the Quran.
In fact, the positions of reason and observation would be
looked upon in light of the Quran.
Sir Syed Ahmad Khan’s position is totally opposite in order.
The Farahi school, thus, has no truck with Sir Syed’s paradigm.
And, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan has served the Muslims of the
subcontinent in a number of ways.
In that sense, he is one of our eminent community leaders.
There is no doubt about that.
However, whatever he has written regarding the commentary or comprehension
of the Quran – whether it is in principle or their applications – it is simply a sin
And nothing more than that.