Traditional interpretation vs Quranic interpretation

In the last couple decades or so, Quranic interpretation has become an attractive vocation for some and, for others, an exploitable venture. The result is that we have been inundated with a "new wave" of Quranic interpreters who are doing a remarkable job of dismantling fundamental Quranic concepts and practices. Their task has been made much easier by the availability of the Internet and the ease of website creation. Today, any Tom, Dick, or Harry - or rather any Mohamed, Ali, or Hassan - can invest a few dollars, buy a domain, and publish any number of flimsy personal interpretations, passing them off as Quranic enlightenment.

It must be said that some - albeit a minority - attempt to research the Quran in a genuine effort to shed more light on various Quranic issues. However, the majority do so in order to attain personal status by appearing as individuals who have been inspired to unveil long-hidden Quranic secrets. Many are, in fact, embarking on ego trips and pursuing self-gratification.

The Traditional Problem

The whole issue began when it was recently realized that the long-established, decadent Ulamas (a name given to Muslim scholars) had gotten it all wrong. After centuries of complete monopoly over Quranic interpretation and acting as self-appointed custodians of the faith, it suddenly became apparent that the bulk of classical books of Quranic exegesis are filled with interpretations steeped in medieval Bedouin cultural influences. The primary reason for this flawed interpretation is that it attempts to interpret the Quran through a hadith/sunna framework. These interpreters proclaim that the hadith explains the Quran. However, when one studies the history of hadith documentation - collected nearly 200 years after the Hijra, and allegedly against the wishes of the Prophet - it becomes a gross insult to Almighty God to claim that individuals such as Abu Huraira and others were entrusted with deciphering God's words.

For more information on this issue, please see: The History of Collecting the Hadith.

Hadith advocates quickly respond that these are not the words of Abu Huraira but the words of the Prophet transmitted through Abu Huraira and others. However, any narration written 200 years after the occurrence of an event cannot reasonably be regarded as anything other than dubious. Please see: Chinese Whispers.

The sharp disharmony between many hadith labeled "sahih" (authentic) and the Quran absolves Prophet Muhammad from being the source of such hadith. It is inconceivable that a Prophet of God would issue teachings that so blatantly contradict the Quran. Furthermore, many hadith considered "sahih" contradict one another.

For more details on how hadith contradict the Quran, please see: How Authentic Are the Hadith?

Additionally, even if some hadith appear to be in harmony with Quranic truth, they should never be accepted as a source of religious legislation. In the Quran, God forbids the establishment of any source of religion besides the Quran itself.

For details on this matter, please see: Why the Quran Alone.

To maintain their monopoly over Quranic interpretation, traditional scholars have falsely claimed that the Quran is difficult to understand and that no one is qualified to interpret it except them. They assert that without their guidance, the reader would be completely lost.

In contrast, God states that the Quran is easy to understand (44:58), straightforward and without ambiguity (12:1). God also confirms that He Himself will explain the Quran to genuine believers (55:1-2 and 75:19).

The Emergence of the "New Wave" Interpreters

This deep-rooted corruption in Quranic interpretation by traditional scholars led the good, the bad, and the ugly to dive in and attempt to research the Quran from a new perspective - one they hoped would be free from preconceptions, hadith influence, and cultural or traditional bias. Many sincere writers have indeed brought to light issues that were previously manipulated or misinterpreted. However, it is also true that many less sincere writers have embarked on ego-driven pursuits, publishing novel claims merely for the sake of being different - regardless of whether their findings are supported by Quranic truth. It is this latter group with which this article is concerned.

To arrive at their new claims, these "new wave" interpreters seem to employ a convenient formula:

The New "Golden Formula"

• Select any Quranic verse to serve as the foundation for your profound discovery.

• Choose a Quranic word within that verse on which to build your new doctrine.

• Look up the word in an Arabic dictionary.

• If the dictionary definition aligns with the accepted understanding of the verse, ignore it and select another verse or word.

• Repeat this trial-and-error process until you find a Quranic word whose dictionary definition does not perfectly match the current understanding - then BINGO! You have struck gold; The desired divergence has been found.

• Write a new article (don't forget to sign your name off on it :-] ) and perform interpretive acrobatics with the concepts found in that verse.

• Do not worry if your new doctrines lack Quranic authorization or contradict other Quranic verses - others have done it before you. You will not be the first, nor the last.

• Finally, if you cannot convince fellow believers, try to confuse them. The most efficient method is to write pages upon pages filled with convoluted arguments. If you run out of ideas, draw references from Roman mythology, ancient Egyptian biology, or anything else that sounds mysterious. Most likely, you will attract some audience, as many readers are impressed by what they do not understand.

The Fundamental Error

Let us pause and ask: If this is the formula - and if the entire endeavor is based on matching Arabic words with definitions in a reliable dictionary - how can these interpreters go wrong? After all, the Quran was revealed in Arabic.

The answer is that they can be very wrong. The error lies in placing the authority of a man-made dictionary above the Quran, which acts as its own lexicon. Many Quranic words, when looked up in a modern dictionary, yield meanings that differ significantly from how those words are used by God in the Quran. Modern dictionaries reflect contemporary usage, not necessarily the meanings prevalent fourteen centuries ago at the time of revelation.

The Quran repeatedly describes itself as "mufassal" (fully detailed), "tibyan li kulli shay’" (clarification of all things), and "la rayba fihi" (free of doubt). If the Quran is fully detailed, then its terminology must be internally coherent. A divine text would not rely on future lexicographers to define its essential concepts. Rather, its vocabulary must be self-contained and clarified through internal usage.

A dictionary records possible usages of a word across various contexts. It does not determine which meaning God intended in a specific revelation. The presence of multiple lexical possibilities does not grant license to select whichever meaning suits a preferred conclusion.

This is not to dismiss Arabic lexicons entirely. They are useful tools. However, they are secondary tools. The primary authority in determining Quranic meaning must always be the Quran itself. Dictionaries may assist, but they cannot override clear contextual evidence within the text.

Examples of Misinterpretation

Some who applied the "golden formula" looked up words such as Ramadan or Ujoor in an Arabic dictionary and began preaching that Muslims should fast during the hottest month of the year, regardless of the Islamic lunar month of Ramadan. They also concluded that husbands must pay their wives a continuous monetary wage throughout marriage rather than the customary one-time dowry - essentially reducing marriage to employment.

Please see: Ujoor for Women.

Other examples of manipulated Quranic terms include:

Khimar: In the Quran, this word means "cover." The related word khamr (intoxicants) is so named because intoxicants "cover" the mind.

The word khimar in 24:31 refers to a covering garment. A dress is a cover, a blouse is a cover, a coat is a cover, and so on. The command in 24:31 is to cover the chest with whatever garment the woman is wearing (dress, blouse, coat, scarf, etc.). However, the term khimar was later corrupted to mean specifically a woman's head covering.

For a detailed analysis, please see: The Misinterpretation of the Word "Khimar".

Other words that have been similarly misinterpreted include Ummi, Shaheed, and others.

These examples confirm that numerous words have acquired meanings over time that do not coincide with their Quranic usage. In many cases, such deviations stem from manipulation or misinterpretation, causing the meaning to drift from the one intended in the Quran.

The Correct Method

So how do we determine the correct Quranic meaning of any word? The method is to gather all Quranic verses in which the word appears and analyze them collectively to identify a consistent meaning that harmonizes with every occurrence. Drawing conclusions from a single verse in isolation can often be misleading.

The safeguard against both traditional corruption and modern improvisation is the same: methodological discipline. The Quran must interpret the Quran. No inherited authority and no modern novelty may override the coherence of divine speech. If we adhere to the Quran, we are guaranteed to arrive at the correct and straightforward meaning.