Theological Approaches to Quranic Exegesis: A Practical Comparative-Cont Analysis by Hussein Abdul-Raof (review)

Herbert Berg

Journal of Shi'a Islamic Studies, Volume 6, Number 3, Summer 2013, pp. 343-346 (Article) Published by ICAS Press DOI: 10.1353/isl.2013.0022

For additional information about this article

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/isl/summary/v006/6.3.berg.html

Access provided by Rutgers University (6 Dec 2013 11:38 GMT)

Journal of Shia Islamic Studies

Summer 2013 Vol. VI No. 3

Theological Approaches to Quranic Exegesis: A Practical ComparativeContrastive Analysis by Hussein Abdul-Raof, 2012. London & New York: Routledge, x + 287 pp., 90.00, $145.00. isbn 978-0-415-44958-8 (hbk).
HERbERT BERG
University of North Carolina Wilmington, United States

This analysis of Quranic exegesis purports to describe the distinct theological schools of exegesis using the major tafsir works by prominent classical and modern exegetes. What Hussein Abdul-Raof has produced is a thoroughly conservative Sunni-centric theological analysis of Quranic exegesis. Shia (including according to the author Ismaili, Zaydi, and Huthi), Mutazili, Ibadi, Sufi, and modern schools of exegesis are all categorized as rational because in the authors view they use al-tafsir bi al-ray, which Abdul-Raof translates as hypothetical or personal opinion: Rational exegetes consider intellect as a fundamental source of knowledge, promoting deduction (al-istinb), rejecting imitation, questioning the reliability of adth, and as an insufficient source to explain the Qurn. However, mainstream exegetes have been skeptical about the school of rational exegesis and have criticized it as being subjective because it is primarily based on personal judgement which is classified as hypothetical (dall anni). (28, no italics in original) Not surprisingly, having created this straw man of his opponents, Abdul-Raofs critique of them follows predictable lines. Chapter 1 focuses on defending what Abdul-Raof calls traditional or mainstream exegesis. By this he means exegesis that employs the Quran (or Quranic intertexuality), the Sunnah (particularly the elaborations, explanations of ambiguous passages, lexical paraphrases, and so forth by Muhammad), and the exegesis of the Companions and Successors (especially Ibn Abbas, Ubay ibn Kab, Ibn Masud, and Hasan al-Basri). Many examples for each of these sources are provided by Abdul-Raof, though he rarely cites the primary texts. Nor is there any reference to the
343

Book Reviews

vast secondary scholarship on these materials. Each hadiths and texts authenticity is simply accepted by ascription. For example, he accepts Tafsir Ibn Abbas as the authentic record of the exegesis of Ibn Abbas despite the serious doubts raised by Andrew Rippin. And such ascription has consequences. It also allows him to employ anachronisms such as the Meccan school or Medinan school and to describe them as using ray and ijtihad. Having defined mainstream, non-mainstream are described as those who minimize the role of hadith, use weak hadith, use personal opinion, fabricate and ascribe opinions to earlier authorities, and advocate anthropomorphic, esoteric, allegorical meanings, or have a political and theological agenda. In a tree diagram of all Quranic exegesis, AbdulRaof has one branch that contains traditional exegesis mainstream Sunni, whereas the other contains hypothetical opinion exegesis non-mainstream various branches of the aforementioned Sunni and non-Sunni approaches (32). The following chapter on rational exegesis examines all these so-called non-mainstream exegetical approaches. Those labelled as practicing al-tafsir bi-l-ray include the Mutazili, Shia, Sufi, Ibadi, and modern linguistic and scientific exegesis, all of whose proponents are doctrinally suspect and whose esoteric exegesis is heresy (29). Abdul-Raofs justification for this characterization is simply a statement by Muhammad on the authority of Ibn Abbas against the use of ray which conveniently highlights the need for critical scholarship, in this case on hadiths, to be included, and has significant implications. A similar sanguine attitude towards the sources is evident in his description of tawil in contrast to tafsir as hypothetical, belying the more nuanced history of the two terms. AbdulRaof then treats each of the non-mainstream approaches to exegesis in turn: the Mutazili, the Shii, the Ibadi, the Sufi, and the modern. For each there is a brief history, a list of the main exegetes, a list of the political or dogmatic views, and then a list of examples of exegesis that illustrate some of these views. Citations are rarely given for the examples; and the history, the brevity of the history, and dogmatic views obscure the complex history and divisions within each of these forms of Islam. For example, Abdul-Raof writes, In their attempt to promote Shiism, Shii exegetes resorted to esoteric exegesis [] based on [] interpretation and personal opinion (tawl) in order to substantiate their support to Alis household (37). Although no doubt true, this was hardly the sole concern of every Shia exegete, nor was each influenced by the Mutazilis and
344

Journal of Shia Islamic Studies

Summer 2013 Vol. VI No. 3

Persian philosophy as is implied. The inclusion of sub-sects of Shiism is also odd. The presence of Ismailis and Zaydis is not surprising, but that of the Huthis described as a sleeping volcano in the Yemen, politically and militarily active in our time, and advocating violence against Israel and the United States (49) does seem out of place. For none of the three does Abdul-Raof provide examples of their exegesis, leaving the reader to wonder why they were included. The modern school, which for AbdulRaof includes al-Afghani, Muhammad Abduh, Muhammad Rashid Rida and even Sayyid Qutb, receives similar short shrift. Far more attention is given to those within the modern school who use science to try to prove the inimitability of the Quran. Missing from those who engage in number-oriented approaches is a discussion of Rashad Khalifa and his work on the importance of the number 19 in the Quran. Chapters 3 and 4 are Abdul-Raoufs strongest. The former examines linguistic exegesis and is the most detailed though it again relies repeatedly on lists with little analysis. Nevertheless, it does highlight the variety of approaches that have been used to interpret the Quran, with succinct summaries of the development and roles of modes of reading, dialects, and the development of doctrine of inimitability, along with making an intriguing distinction between a phonetically based mode of reading versus a semantically based mode of reading (177-188). Chapter 4 seeks to be a holistic and methodological comparative-contrastive practical exegetical analysis (143). By that Abdul-Raof seems to mean lists of Quranic phrases and passages along with the examples of the relevant approaches used to interpret them. Although this is the most informative chapter, it does suffer from a few weaknesses. First, it fails to make mention of some of the approaches mentioned in Chapter 2, most notably those of the sub-sects. Second, some of the examples are problematic: Imran b. Mthn was a Prophet and it was customary among Prophets of the Children of Israel to select one of their children to be consecrated for the church, and the Rabbis used to take charge of these children while they were being raised in the church. (163) Even though Abdul-Raof is paraphrasing al-Khazin, these peculiar translations and historical anachronisms pass without comment and are
345

Book Reviews

extremely jarring. Third, there is no reference to the abundant secondary literature, and many of the examples do not have references to the primary sources. Chapter 5 seems out of place in this book since it is not discussed as a theological approach. Moreover, its stated goal is the critical assessment of Western scholarship on Quranic exegesis. Although Abdul-Raof lists Hirschfeld, Nldeke, Bell, Wansbrough, Adams, Paret, among others, the focus is almost entirely on Richard Bells re-arrangement of the Quran. When the others are mentioned, the key approaches or conclusions are not addressed. For example, when Wansbrough is referenced, AbdulRaof takes issue only with his claim about the fragmentary nature of many Quranic passages. The description of Bells methodology is very good, but it does not delve into some of his premises, such as the development of ideas on which his chronology of the Quranic passages depends. Abdul-Raof argues that the arrangement of ayahs and surahs is well-structured and coherent, by showing the importance context and co-text by which he means, the linguistic habitat of lexical items that co-occur with other lexical items within a given linguistic and textual environment (248). Perhaps the most instructive lesson of Abdul-Raofs exercise is that one finds what one looks for: Bell sees incoherence whereas he sees coherence. For Abdul-Raof, A text hangs together through a network of thematically interrelated notions at both the micro and macro textual levels (235). In other words, the thematic consistency and cohesiveness of any text, in this case the Quran, is simply assumed, not demonstrated. The value of this chapter is limited, of course, since Bells approach and conclusions have not achieved widespread acceptance among scholars. Perhaps a better means of integrating this chapter would have been to make the claim that Bell had a theological agenda in his scholarship, highlighted with examples from his two volume commentary on the Quran. Overall, this book is plagued by repetitive and awkward language, far too many lists of examples rarely with citations, and a dearth of the relevant secondary literature. Nevertheless, Abdul-Raof has some interesting analysis and insights, and this book serves to highlight a traditional Sunni understanding of permissible and non-permissible Quranic exegesis. Yet it is ironic that his dismissal of Shia exegesis is based largely on its dogmatic or theological agendas, for his heresiographical analysis is likewise informed by a dogmatic and theological agenda.
346