The Truth About The Study Quran - Part 1 - Shaykh Atabek Shukurov An Nasafi

29/04/2016
The Truth About The Study Quran: Part 1: The Quransploitation Industry | Shaykh Atabek Shukurov an Nasafi
The Truth About The Study Quran:

Part 1: The Quransploitation
Industry
APRIL 25, 2016 / SHAYKH AT ABEK
Written by
Shaykh Atabek Shukurov
and
Sulaiman Ahmed
The recent controversy over the release of The Study Quran by Sayed Hossein Nasr and his
team has really shown Muslims at their worst both in their academic incompetence and in their
readiness to anathematise and declare Nasr and others heretics and unbelievers based on the
flimsiest, or rather no, evidence a Godsend to Islamophobes who wish to prove that Muslims
as a whole are violent and intolerant. Though legal restraints in the West have prevented Muslim
groups and scholars from complementing their open or veiled declarations that Nasr is an
https://shaykhatabekshukurov.com/2016/04/25/the-truth-about-the-study-quran-part-1-the-quransploitation-industry-2/
1/21
29/04/2016
apostate or non-believer with the violence that they would prefer to be visited upon him, it is ever
present in the background of their vile ejaculations.
Perhaps even more repugnantly, many of those who have spoken on the issue or previously
endorsed the book, have used the controversy and the rabid reaction of many in the Salafist
establishment which is acting as a financial and ideological hydra in Islamic circles, to pose as
arbiters or impartial judges while in fact using the issue to gain exposure and to play both
sides. Numerous well-known scholars have on the one hand played to the heresy hunting gallery
by claiming that the book kind of, may be questionable or by couching their endorsements and
comments in such politically expedient language that it would make most Republican
Presidential candidates blush, and on the other benefited from the exposure the Study Quran
has received and tried to bask in its glow. Some of the endorsers have claimed that they were
merely given samples, so didnt in fact know what they were endorsing and any critique of the
book by them would be a worthless endeavour as they would never place it on the book jacket.
The Muslim laity and intelligentsia alike have reflexly made use of phrases such as perennialist
to impugn the most outrageous enormities upon Nasr and his cohorts while at the same time
never taking the trouble to define this term, except by their own unverifiable definitions, but then,
who doesnt want to argue their opponents case as well as their own, all the better to expedite
victory. Thank goodness the criminal justice system doesnt proceed in a like manner although
it in fact does in those countries or rather monarchies from whence many of these people
receive or hope to receive patronage.
Neither have these individuals taken the time, nor do they seem to possess the expertise, to
compare the purported errors of Nasr and his teams tafsir (commentary of the Quran) with those
which one can find with ease in many of the so-called authentic or classical ones. As a further
unacademic and reactionary failsafe, they simply brand any dissenters also as perennialists
(one slur fits all in Muslim discourse nowadays) and heretics, again, never having to trouble
themselves with a definition nor engagement with perennialists themselves. Examples of this
can be seen in this Facebook post made on behalf of a notable scholar:
2/21
29/04/2016
As well as this vile, ranting takfir, based on the solitary evidence of the commentators from The
Study Quran merely stating thatsome people (not even necessarily them) hold a controversial
opinion: http://mahdinnm.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-accommodation-and-promotion-
of.html.
This level of academia will no doubt delight Islamophobes and the enemies of religion in
general: merely stating that there is a view held by some, without even endorsing it, is enough
for Muslims to become a lynch mob. The ease with which Muslims and their erstwhile scholarly
interlocutors declare people to be unbelievers and targets will likewise delight this contingent.
Sadly they are right: the entire Study Quran incident showed at the outset, and continues to
show the lax, authoritarian, sectarian and self-interested way that Muslim discourse is
conducted. It is very obviously academically degenerate and based on considerations far
removed from truth and beauty of any sort.
My aim in this series of articles is to highlight the inconsistencies and errors brought to the fore
by, but not limited to, the response to The Study Quran in a way which I feel more befits the
heritage of Classical Islam, which today is sold for the cheap price of endowments and chairs
funded by petro- dollars or for the interests of sectarian partisans.
I make no apologies for naming offenders just as they have made no apology for the affronts to
Nasr and his faith nor for the confusion and discord they have sown amongst Muslims and nonMuslims alike. It goes without saying that I am neither particularly a supporter of Nasr nor a
perennialist nor even a Traditionist before this incident I hardly knew who they were. But
unlike the vast majority of Muslim scholars purporting to refute them, I at least bothered to look
up who they were before spewing hatred. The Study Quran, like any work of man, also contains
errors. So do many of the famous commentaries of the Quran (see below) that get a free pass
from the same people who pour bile on Nasr and company, such as Tafseer Ibn Katheer or
Tafsir Qurtubi because they serve these groups anti-rational, sectarian and authoritarian
agenda. Throughout these articles, I will also endeavour to speak of the ease with which
Muslims call for killing and anathematisation (which sadly are very closely related concepts in
the Salafist influenced mainstream Islam of today) and try to illustrate this with easily
apprehended and contemporary examples.
You
can
read
my
students
article
on
the
Study
Quran
here:https://sulaimanahmed.com/2015/11/29/the-study-quran-and-muslim-
intellectualism/. Since it proved insufficient to restrain the ramblings of bloggers, scholars

3/21
29/04/2016
and organisations alike, I must endeavour to elaborate.

The Quran to Muslims is the very word of God and thus in Islam it has the foremost importance.
Yet it seems that amongst Muslims today it is the least appreciated source of knowledge. The
Quran has become effectively a secondary or tertiary source within the religion, easily side-lined
either by the statements of scholars who state that the Hadith literature (sayings and acts
attributed to the Prophet Muhammad ( )) can abrogate the Quran, or more subtly when people
take the statements of scholars, the Hadith ortafseer (exegesis or commentaries) over and
above the Quran.
In the very first instance, one must realise that there are different levels within
the mufasireen (Quranic commentators). Thus Imams such as Shaykh Abu Mansoor al-Maturidi
and Imam Jassas wereMujtahid (of the highest rank or learning) Mufasir scholars. Then we had
people who were muqalid mufasireen (scholars not qualified to set up principles but rather
those who follow theMujtahids at least in theory). It may surprise readers to know that even
famous Imams such as Qurtubi and Ibn Kathir fall into this category. Then we have those who
wrote tafseer but in fact their expertise did not lie within this field, such as the widely translated
and published (especially by Salafis) Ibn Kathir. Even after all of this, a Mufassir is just a human
and humans can be right or wrong about any particular matter. No one should make the
monumental error, sadly widespread amongst Muslims today, of thinking that the Book of God is
understood by only a few people from the past or that after this period one cannot be inspired to
gain understanding from the Quran. The wisdom of the Quran is not limited to the understanding
of a few scholars. Therefore having a few opinions from the scholars of the past does not
exclude the possibility of them being wrong or incomplete and thus it should never block further
research.
Furthermore, in many cases we may only have one opinion which has been translated into
contemporary languages, but there are in reality many other opinions too, equally authoritative
and equally classical which have not been translated, or have been accidentally or deliberately
ignored or have not been discovered as they remain in manuscript form. The much berated
Study Quran was at pains to plead for this manuscript research and translation. Sadly, most
Muslims are very aware of the sectarian interests and state sponsored translation and
publication that afflicts Muslim works.
Another aspect that must not be overlooked is that there are many factors that affect the
4/21
29/04/2016
statements of any scholar and human being and make no mistake, despite the pseudoinfallibility attributed to their favourites by most Muslim groups today, scholars most avowedly
are both humanly frail and fallible and scholars were affected by things such as the political,
social and economic landscape of his time, his psychological condition, his academic standard,
his hidden tendencies which he may occult due to fear of punishment or death from the ruling
class or the possibility that he may want to please the ruling class by providing interpretations
that may support their political or social agenda. Most of us today are taught that our favourite
scholars were above such considerations, but even a cursory glance at much of their output
establishes otherwise and in any case, being completely above such considerations is the
province of Prophets or angels. God provided no such assurance for the scholars, not that this
has stopped Muslims furnishing it regardless.
Therefore the Quran is very obviously there for humans to contemplate today as always. They will
continue to reach conclusions of various degrees of veracity and utility.
Furthermore, I in no way agree with the common (mis) understanding amongst many today that
the entire religion of Islam will be preserved. Rather it is the Quran alone which will be
preserved because it was this and not the religion that God assured us would be guarded
against corruption. Yes, I do agree that throughout time at least some of the scholars will get
issues right, but that does not mean that the opinion of that scholar will necessarily
be preserved for posterity. It could have been lost, destroyed or the scholar was killed (as was
the fate of many of the greatest Islamic luminaries such as Abu Hanifa and Imam Razi at the
hands of their ideological enemies). So it is entirely plausible that there was disagreement
between scholars, and a thousand of them stated one thing and this position was only opposed
by one person and yet in fact he alone was in the right but we do not have his book and his
explanation was not preserved.
A good example of this is theological issue regarding whetherpracticing the religion is a part
of belief. Imam Abu Hanifa was alone in opposing thousands of scholars in saying no it isnt
and he was right. We are lucky that his opinion was preserved. Yet it is entirely possible that
under different circumstances his opinion may not have reached us. This is how it is possible
that there were many great scholars who we do not know of because their enemies burnt their
books and erased them from history.
Consider that many scholars were killed and imprisoned, their books destroyed. We no longer
have the book of Eisaa ibn Abaan on Usul (epistemic principles), though we have people such
5/21
29/04/2016
as Imam Jassas quoting from his book but the book itself has been destroyed not lost,
but destroyed. The reason for this is obvious those in power wanted to destroy all of his works
and diminish any influence his ideas and opinions had on the general public. Therefore, often,
the Islam that was preserved was that which had the backing and support of the political elite.
Today Imam Al Ghazali is famous amongst most Muslims and Orientalists, but what of the ruling
made by Qadi Iyaad and his teacher Qadi Mazari which can be found in their books such as
The refutation of Al Ghazali both widely venerated and used as unimpeachable proofs by
Muslims on issues such as the alleged necessity of killing apostates and those who insult the
Prophet ( ) that all of Ghazalis books especially his iconic Ihyaa be destroyed as it
propagated heresy and kufr (disbelief)? Now if it had not been for the popularity, influence and
following of Imam Ghazali his books may also have not been preserved. This is further
compounded by the fact that we have a large number of manuscripts of the works of Ibn
Taymiyyah such as his erratic and violent work Majmu al-Fatawa, yet we are hard pressed to
find the same for people such as Imam Abu Hanifa, Eisaa ibn Abban and Shaykh Abu Mansoor
al-Maturidi.
Lets look at a classical text and verdict from the time of the Salafin Muheet al-Burhani a
foundational text in the Hanafi school, which establishes the aforementioned principle, today
widely ignored, which states that a solitary scholar may be the only correct opinion and
likewise, proof is based on academic rigor and not majority or a head count: Volume 6,
page14:
This is well known by genuine scholars but kept from the laity by Salafists Imam Abu Hanifa
holds the position that opinion of the majority of Muslims is not superior to the opinion of one
person. Rather the most important determining factor in one opinion being accepted over
another is the strength of the proof for the position that is held. His student Imam Muhammad
disagrees and states that as long as both sides have some evidence then the opinion of the
majority is taken.
6/21
29/04/2016
This brings me nicely to the particular verse that we will be analysing as an example of what has
gone before. The ultimate irony here is that this is one of verses which demands peaceand
has instead somehow been used by people, including senior scholars, to support their
commitment to bloodshed and war. We are seeing the regretful continuation of this wilful
manipulation and exploitation of the Quran to this day.
In this verse, used to refute Nasr and perennialists as well as by extremists, God says;
O the ones who have believed! All of you! Enter into a treaty of peace! Do not follow the
footsteps of Satan! Indeed he is an obvious enemy of yours. (2:208)
The word Silm here is translated by many people, including early ones such as Ikrima,
Mujahid and others as Islam. They attribute this position to the companion of the Prophet
( ) Ibn Abbas, therefore making their position seem stronger. Most of the Sunni Mufassireen in
fact also took this position and ignored the understanding based on Arabic language the
language of the Quranic revelation. But in reality this order is basically forbidding any type of
anarchy and bloodshed, be it rebellion or military methods of resolving issues between nations,
tribes or families.
So on the one hand we have an understanding that says that people must enter into Islam, i.e
change their religion or become Muslims. This is understandably a favourite ayat of
Islamophobes and orientalists of a certain bent to try and prove that Islam demands conversion
by the sword. Many Muslims backed this understanding too or provided various glosses. But
linguistically none of this is called for in the very first place, since it means not enter into Islam
but enter into a treaty of peace. The difference is important, as we shall see.
7/21
29/04/2016
The word used in this passage of the Quran Kaaffah is very strong. It could be used as
a Haal (description) of a command, or as a description of the ones commanded. In the first
case it will meanPeace in all aspects, in the second everyone accepting it. There are no
other licit options in the Arabic language of the Quran.
In my opinion it is the first one, because linguistically the second is mentioned by the pronoun of
the command. So in the first case there is no repetition. But in the second case it will
be Tawkeed(emphasising) which means repeating. Those who have studied even basic Arabic
grammar will know that if we have an option of repeating and not repeating, we take the first as it
is the Asl(initial condition). Thus, God is ordering the ones who have believed to accept
peace kaaffah from all of its angles. All of its angles means:
Peace with other nations
Peace with other races
Peace with the members of other religions
Peace with the people from other countries
Peace between the citizens and government
Peace between heads of the country and parliament
Peace with the members of other schools of thought
Peace with the followers of other scholars
Peace between committee members and lay people.
Peace with neighbours
Peace with relatives
Peace between parents and children
Peace with your teachers
Peace with your students
Peace between the doctors and patients
Peace between buyers and sellers
Peace with yourself
Peace between the brain and heart
Peace between the intellect and emotions
And so on
Yet God doesnt stop on this order, but goes even further by saying: And do not follow the
footsteps of Satan! The reasoning which comes after the order given means that one is
8/21
29/04/2016
connected to the other by one of the means (basic level of grammar). Therefore it means that
either accept peaceor you are a follower of Satan.
There is even another critical point pertaining to this verse, namely that God is attaching this
order with belief. It therefore means that it has been given the utmost level of importance
according to Quranic terminology it is one of the pillars (faraidh) of Iman (belief).
Irrespective of what people may claim in Islam or any other system of thought or belief, ultimately
what you choose to believe is your choice alone. Many people have clearly chosen to, as God
puts it, follow the footsteps of Satan by abusing this verse to propagate bloodshed. So Satan
actually has a huge number of people who followed him, and one does not need to increase this
number by causing yet more bloodshed on the Earth. My question is; where are the People of
God, since the Prophet ( ) said: The People of God are the People of the Quran! We have
ended up in the current situation as Islam has mainly been presented by people who are not
qualified. Be it so called Sufis, hadith-hurling narrators, isolationists, haters of philosophy or
mediocre Humanities graduates who have taken their entirety of their knowledge from
newspapers such as The Guardian and plagiarise the Far Left and anarchists while claiming
to establish a Khilafa, the most important point is that none of them are suitably qualified. As a
result they will damage the real meaning of the Quran and produce a totally different religion.
To continue with the above verse and the linguistic vs. sectarian understanding of it:
According to the famous Tafsir i Jalalayn, one of the few Quranic commentaries translated into
English, the following verse was revealed regarding Abd Allh b. Salm and his companions,
who after converting to Islam from Judaism allegedly still observed the Sabbath with reverence
and were averse to the consumption of camels:
O you who believe, come, all of you, into submission [read al-salm or al-silm, that is, Islam;
kffatan is a circumstantial qualifier referring to al-silm, meaning, into all of its precepts] and
follow not the steps, (the ways), of Satan, (that is, his temptations to you by way of creating
divisions), he is a manifest foe to you, (one whose enmity is obvious)
The fabrication of this narration explaining the verse is obvious from its silly content. Apparently
one of these sahaba who wanted to continue celebrating the Sabbath was Abdullah bin
Sallama, a former Rabbi. Even a muhadditheen partisan Ibn Kathir did not accept this
9/21
29/04/2016
interpretation due to the defamation attributed to this companion of the Prophet ( ).

Silm and Salm mean exactly the same thing which is peace. One merely needs to look at
the context. Sadly it was one of the interpretations of the verse which the scholars of the
Umayyad Empire presented to the Umayyads so that they were given legislative permission to
kill anyone and everyone they wanted to (and they wanted to kill a lot of people). During my
research I checked many tafseers such as Tabari who translate silm as Islam. But the meaning
of the word never meant Islam. Can someone bring me any verse or a poem from pre-Islamic
Arabia where silmmeans Islam? One merely needs to read the five verses before after this
verse and the meaning and context of the verse is very obvious.
Some may ask how does this differ with verse 131 in Surah Baqarah.
When his Lord said unto him: Surrender! He said: I have surrendered to the Lord of the
Worlds. (2:131)
Aslim is the word in the form of a verb whose noun is al-islam. It means submitting, but it is
not referring to the theological meaning of Islam. In clear contrast, Verse 208 of Surah
Baqarah is speaking about the noun al-silm whose verb is salima and saalama (which is
derived from analogical reasoning qiyaas) which means peace through safety and peace
treaty.
Monopolies in Islam and Quran-splaining
Unfortunately, most Muslims seem to believe that there is a monopoly in all Islamic subjects
beginning with grammar through theology through to fiqh (jurisprudence) and the many other
10/21
29/04/2016
Islamic sciences, restricted to their favourite scholars or group of scholars almost invariably
today those who are particular to a certain Salafi friendly hadith methodology of rather late
providence. So people will bizarrely insist that maters of law and creed should be settled by
hadith scholars or matters of war or killing settled again by people who are hadith experts as
opposed to legists etc. This is akin to giving historians a monopoly on law, theology and
metaphysics, along with language, grammar and anything else you could think of. This sort of
unilateral omni-competance and monopoly has never existed and would be laughed at in
todays academic institutions. We have discussed many such issues in Islam in the past and
have been able to prove that no such monopoly exists. Here I wish to display another example
using the books of Tafseer.
The following text is from Tafseer Nasafi written by Imam Nasafi, a Hanafi Maturidi Scholar
born in the middle of the eleventh century.
(O the ones who have believed, enter in al-Silm) it is read by fathah [al-Salm] by
the Hijazis and Ali (RA), it means to surrender and obey, i.e. Surrender to God and obey
him.
Or it could mean Islam, then this verse will be addressed toAhle Kitab (people of the
book), because they have believed in their Prophet and book.
Or it addresses the hypocrites because they have believed by their tongue but not their
hearts.
So Imam Nasafi gave three possible meanings for the word al-Silm which are surrender,
obedience and Islam. The question that is brought to the fore is that if the meaning of this
word contained within these three possible meanings, then is it permissible to leave two of the
possible meanings? Is it possible that scholars have given even more alternative meanings?
We are going to see many other interpretations when we look at thetafseer of Razi, Asbahani,
Baidhawi and the many others.
The following is a text from Imam Ibn Aashur, a Maliki Ashari scholar born in the middle of the
nineteenth century.
11/21
29/04/2016
(al-Salm) Read by Fatha on Seen and Kasrah too, by sukoon ofLamThe real meaning of alSilm is not fighting, as Abbas bin Mirdaas [poet] said. The word [Silm] with kasrah and its
other varieties mean safety from pain or being hurt or stubbornness
Ibn Aashur continues on the next page;
This is why the Imams of the Arabic Language said that all of the forms of Al-Silm regardless
if it is with fatha or kasra with sukoonof Lam or its harakah all of them are synonymous. Some
of them said that all of three forms are used for Islam and they have attributed it to Ibn Abbas,
Mujahid and Qatadah. They supported their position with the poem of Imri Qays.
But this meaning of the word is supported only by the writers of the books of tafseer. But Raghib
12/21
29/04/2016
and Zamakhshari and Ibn Manzoor did not even mention this. That is why this meaning is in fact
not reliable.
It is easy for a layman to become confused not knowing of the sectarian wrangling that took
place between the grammarians and linguists of the Arabic language and the partisans of
hadith. The hadith scholars jealously and violently [see the famous hadith scholar Ibn Hajar
Haythamis Fatwaa p207 onwards] tried to proscribe analysis of the Quran as per the linguistic
requirements of Arabic pre-Islamic poetry (as is in fact mandated by reason since the Quran
was revealed to non-Muslims who did not have a ready-made glossary of novel Islamic terms
they understood words like al Silm in the way that they used them before Islam. Otherwise we
are faced with the bizarre scenario that the Prophet ( ) had to teach the Arabs the Quran and
Arabic too, which no doubt silly people will nonetheless assert).
Therefore Al-Silm is one of the words that is used for Peace Treaty by the consensus of the
Imams of Arabic in contrast to Quranic exegetes. Peace treaty is in fact what this verse is
talking about without any other option. As for the possibility of this word meaning Islam, if that
is authentic we can consider it too: it will then have to be used as a Mushtarak (a homonym) with
two meanings which means Islam is used to mean peace treaty which would be most
strange!
Based on this al-Silm meaning a peace treaty, the Arabic language necessitates that this
verse means; O the ones who have believed, meaning Muslims, go for peace and not for
fightingand as I (and the consensus of the Imams of Arabic language) stated, this meaning
is necessitated by the context.
Hopefully, as you can see, the most authentic position is that the meaning of the word is peace.
But if you use it to mean Islam then you have to accept that Islam has two meanings; namely
religion and peace. And therefore it is still used in this verse to mean Peace. This is
according to Ibn Aashur. You also saw that Imam Nasafi gave three meanings for the word of AlSilm, but he supported the meaning of surrender. According to both of these scholars though,
the strongest opinion is that al-silm does notmean Islam.
The following text is from Ibn Kathir, the aforementioned Shafi scholar born in the fourteenth
century.
13/21
29/04/2016
In the first and second paragraphs he supports the opinion that it means Islam. He mentions
that it is narrated from several Tabeinsuch as Ikrima, Qatada, Mujahid and Ibn Abbas. In the
third paragraph he mentions a second meaning which is obedience and said that it is
[narrated] from Dhahhak, Ibn Abbas, Abu Aaliya, and Rabea. He then mentions a third possible
meaning from Qatadah where he states that it means peace treaty. In the last paragraph he
mentions that a group of ex-Jewish sahabahasked the Prophet ( ) if they can continue
practising their Jewish rituals (as Tafsir Jalalayn stated). But on the next page he emphatically
states that it is not possible that Abdullah bin Sallam would make such a request.
Even those scholars such as Ibn Kathir who are super followers of hadith narrations
mentioned three possible meanings of the word al-silm and even they did not accept the
narration about the reason of revelation of being due to the Sahabah wanting to continue their
Jewish rituals. Ibn Kathir supporting the meaning of Islam is his personal opinion. His approach
is from the context of deference to Hadeeth narrations, this is why his opinion is based on the
narrations, as opposed to the rules of Arabic language, which hadith scholars are wont to
overrule in favour of ahadhadith. We have narrations from several Tabein (people after the time
of the companions of the Prophet ( )) that it means Islam, so he took the side of the majority of
narrators as opposed to the Arabic language experts. However, we know with certainty that
the tabein mentioned are not in fact the sources of Arabic language rather this is taken from
Imams who are the specific experts of Arabic language.
Ibn Manzoor, born in the thirteenth century, was a lexicographer of the Arabic language and the
author of the famous Arabic dictionary called Lisan al-Arab. He therefore was an expert of
Arabic language.
14/21
29/04/2016
He confirms that Silm, Salm and Salam all mean peace, peace treaty and safety. He
also mentions the incident of Hudaibiya (where a treaty was signed between the Prophet ( )
and the pagans) where this word is used to mean Peace treaty. This opinion is also supported
by Ibn Atheer, an Asharite scholar from the thirteenth century.
Baidawi, another Shafi Ashari scholar from the thirteenth century, confirms that both Silm and
Salm mean surrender and obedience, which is why it is used for peace treaty and Islam.
Then he gave several possible meanings of the verse.
Imam Zamakhshari a scholar from the eleventh century supports the meaning of surrender and
mentions the meaning Islam as being a weak opinion.
15/21
29/04/2016
Imam Razi, who came five centuries after the time of revelation gave many more possible
meanings which the previous Mufassirsdid not even mention (of course, he is derided and
insulted by the Salafis and Muhaditheen who may have been responsible for his
assassination, as the Hanbali mob of Bagdad and elsewhere where was well known for its
violence see in English for example The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in A
World Civilization, Hodgson, Marshall GS (Volume 1 Page 386-9).
Asbahani a Shafi scholar from the eleventh century confirms that Silm, Salm mean peace:
This proves that one should not insist on the approach that we can only take what was
16/21
29/04/2016
mentioned before, that we should just follow the salaf, or that the earlier scholars did not leave
any room for us to contemplate and reflect on the Quran, or that it is not permissible to bring new
interpretations and understandings and the many other Bedouin type statements that are made
on behalf of Islam and the Quran nowadays.
As you can see, it is a narrow minded understanding to insist that it means Islam. To restrict
your understanding only to what themuhaditheen (hadith scholars) mentioned and rejecting all
other possible meanings means ignoring important Islamic sciences, in this case the Arabic
language. It demonstrates a lack of academia to hold the position that there is only one
legitimate translation of Quran and to think that this contains all possible meanings and
understandings.
This verse has been used to kill many people in order to make them to enter into Islam.
Extremists have used the word Kaffahand tried to convince everyone that it means; O you
mankind, enter in Islam, all of you and that Muslims are responsible for the practical
implementation of this verse by the sword. This interpretation is also beloved of Islamophobes.
But as you see this verse is actually speaking about doing the opposite of killing or coercing,
which is entering into a treaty of peace. To be clear: this verse does not mean that all people
should forcibly enter the religion of Islam. This verse also is not proof for those who use it as a
method of refuting the so called perennialists. Sadly the monopoly of Islamic understanding is
given to a few individuals and the scholars who come after these merely copy them. Salafis,
Hanafis, Shafis, Malikis, Hanbalis and Shia give this right to a few scholars within their own
school. So I have tried to give holistic examples where many renowned later scholars were able
to conduct their own research.
The word of Islam has two meanings, it has a linguistic definition and then
a theological understanding. The Quran never uses the word Islam with the second meaning
it only uses the linguistic definition. Sadly, some people who understand it to be the second
meaning cannot even imagine that it could have any other. This verse has been abused by
schools of thought and sects. What I mean by this is that if anyone does not agree with you then
he is classed as an innovator and this innovator is not obeying this verse because it says
kaaffah which according to them means that you must agree with them in each and every issue
because of this word kaaffah. So extremists claim they are therefore responsible to apply the
punishment of God on that person.
The question is that opposing whom is classed as
innovation? Andwho is responsible to apply this punishment? The answer to this question is
17/21
29/04/2016
almost always the sect or group of scholars who are attached to the people in power. So
disagreement with those in power is innovation and heresy and they can and will punish you
for not following the scholars endorsed by the rulers.
For example, Imam Abu Hanifa was considered an innovator and heretic when his opponents
were in power. Then the Mutazilatook power so the others became known as heretics, and
then they took power backand so onBut genuine people seeking knowledge and truth do
not get distracted by such things.
My position is quite clear, analyse all verses of Quran without any preconceived prejudices. I find
it immature that many people are taking two extremes, one is to assume that all
classical tafseers are infallible and therefore one should follow them blindly or they tell people
not to read certain works as they do not agree with certain aspects of that tafseer. Let me be
clear, one would find it difficult to find any tafseer that does not contain monumental theological
errors i.e the most serious kind of error. Most of the time, these scholars who issue dire
warnings and declare people such as Nasr and Co. disbelievers and heretics are not able to
differentiate between what is a theological error and what fits into the differing orthodox Sunni
theological schools of the Maturidis and Asharis. And yet these same people are advising
others not to read certain tafseers of the Quran.
So my question is: how come Nasr deserves such censure and a torrent of internet abuse but
the errors of the previous mufasireendeserve such impunity? And is encouraging forced
conversion or violence somehow more palatable than Nasrs purported deviations? Isnt it just
sectarian insistence on turning a blind eye to the errors of our preferred authorities and
reserving all of our bile for Nasr and others that we dont like?
I dont have a problem with robust criticism, but the attacks on Nasr as we can all see above,
go well beyond that. How would Salafis and the aforementioned scholars bathing in the limelight
at the expense of Nasr react to a similarly robust criticism of the inevitable (and serious) errors
of their favourites such as Ibn Kathir, and Ibn Taymiyya not to mention their own error-ridden
publications and pronouncements? Tafsir Ibn Kathir which has some theological issues
contained within it has been translated into English and mass produced (by the Saudi
Government). Do we have the same level of condemnation or warnings about mistakes
contained within it? Is it that these scholars are not aware or are there other reasons for them
speaking about certaintafseers in a negative manner whilst remaining quite about others?
18/21
29/04/2016
An example of this is the story of Harut and Marut. It is found in the Quran 2:103. Here God
speaks about the false accusations levelled against Solomon (who amongst other things, is
accused of being an occultist). It mentions that two angels taught men dark arts or sorcery along
with the warning that these arts were prohibited by God. People nonetheless paid no heed to
their warnings and indulged in them. There is no mention of fallen angels like the Bible (2 Peter
2:4 and Jude 1:6) or any mention of angels sinning or having sex etc in the Quran whatsoever.
In the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir however, he says God sent them to earth after commanding them to
avoid wine, idolatry, fornication and murder. Harut and Marut eventually succumbed to their
human lusts (despite not being human) and fell into the sins of fornication, murder and even
associating partners with God (very similar to the Bible, from where many Quranic exegetes
would borrow egregiously and without concern for the Qurans major differences with that book).
Ibn Kathir argues that committing sins does not conflict with the infallibility of angels because the
both of them were exempt from that general ruling (which begs the question of why God warned
them off the sins in the first place and how come angels dont understand theology). In one place
he mentions that the relevant narrations are from Kab and senior sahaba such as Ali, Ibn Umar
and others in authentic and inauthentic chains and confirms it, but in other places he mentions
many Tabein narrated extra details which are taken fromIsrealiyaat (essentially plagiarised
narrations from Christians and Jews or the Bible). So Ibn Kathir does not question the so called
authentic narrations attributed to the sahabah but he does question the extra details mentioned
by the Tabein. I dont need to point out the glaring error of saying that murder and associating
partners with God does nothing to scratch ones infallibility, and this is a good illustration of the
kinds of contradictions a militant approach to following each and every hadith or narration can
lead one into.
Other issues mentioned in Tafsir Ibn Kathir are the narration that the Earth is on the back of a
whale (I am told that the Saudi publication of his works in English has curiously left this out. Lets
hope the atheists dont notice eh?) he narrates it from the Prophet ( ) and Ibn Abbas and
confirms its authenticity.
He further narrates from the scholars of Tafsir that the Earth is on top of a herd of bulls who have
thousands of horns. And that these bulls are standing on top of a whale.
The reason for relaying this is not to disparage scholars such as Ibn Kathir but it is to
demonstrate the double standards of contemporary scholars.
19/21
29/04/2016
It is one of lifes great ironies that it is usually the most puritanical who usually are the most
lenient when it comes to their own partisans.
Another issue that was presented to me was that some scholars illustrated mistakes within
the fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) that was presented in the Study Quran. Again, if the litmus test
is a mistake within a tafseer for a work to be thrown out then this means all tafseer books
should be banned never mind the more important theological mistakes that are contained
within thetafseer collections. If the fall-back position is that only scholars should have access to
these tafseers, then who is categorised as a scholar? Are many of them able to ascertain
mistakes made within these collections?
Recently my student presented a theological mistake in TafseerQurtubi, where Qurtubi (image
can be found at the end of the post) attributes direction to God and then states that this was the
position held by the Salaf, but some of the scholars, and others who can speak Arabic
nonetheless did not have the requisite grammar skills to be able to determine the mistake and in
fact were presenting the issue opposite to what was mentioned in the tafseer of Qurtubi. Each
topic requires an understanding of the terminologies contained within the subject, sadly most
contemporary scholars have shown a lack of ability in understanding the source texts. So does
this mean only one or two people should have access to any tafseer or is it that this information
should be open to all, so that there is open debate and discussion about the issues presented
and strong analyses of the ideas?
It seems hypocritical to change ones principles based on whether or not we agree with
a certain book of tafseer.
We have seen in the verse above how the meaning of peace was used for the slaughter and
death of many Muslims. So a person should not blindly trust any tafseer or any scholar. We have
seen very clearly with the Study Quran episode that scholars too are a sectarian and selfinterested group. There are levels of survival a self-interested religious elite is prepared to
accept which would nonetheless be profoundly harmful for the masses. Essentially, many
scholars from all religions have a myopic and career-minded approach, which the response to
Nasr brought to the fore as long as they have someone to listen to them, pay and attend for
courses, they do not really care, beyond the necessary lip service, about the wider doubts and
concerns of Muslims nor the general reverses suffered by religion. We can see this with the
Salafi movement in the West, which has gone from publically debating atheists and doing
20/21
29/04/2016
dawah by using science and the Quran, into virtual hiding after suffering some embarrassing
reverses, with their own little clique of fans that they have attracted. Having grabbed some
supporters and subscribers, they are happy to run back to their little isolationist corner of the
world or internet.
They are much like those Midwestern Preachers in the US, who are completely ignorant of
having lost the Culture Wars and in fact dont really care just as long as they can fill out a hall
or a prayer revival. But what of wider society? The job of the Muslim scholars and intelligentsia is
the service of the people, not justsome of the people.
I would suggest that one should be able to read all tafseer and then use ones God given intellect
to analyse and deduce the correct understanding of the issue as best as one can. One should
learn what the various theological schools mention about a particular issue and then make a
judgement. All issues should be analysed based on their own merit. The Quran is a source of
enlightenment. People who are misguided by it, are only so due to their own egos and their own
ideology which they force into the understanding of the Quran, and as such PEACE turns into
bloodshed.
21/21

The Truth About The Study Quran - Part 1 - Shaykh Atabek Shukurov An Nasafi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Truth About The Study Quran - Part 1 - Shaykh Atabek Shukurov An Nasafi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

29/04/2016

The Truth About The Study Quran:

intellectualism/. Since it proved insufficient to restrain the ramblings of bloggers, scholars

and organisations alike, I must endeavour to elaborate.

interpretation due to the defamation attributed to this companion of the Prophet ( ).

Monopolies in Islam and Quran-splaining

The question is that opposing whom is classed as

You might also like