MODERN QUR’AN EXEGESIS
A STUDY OF BINT AL-SHAT1”S METHOD
Dr. ‘K’isha ‘Abd al-RahmGn, widely known by her pseudonym
Bint al-Shlti’, has distinguished herself in recent years by her literary
and exegetical studies of the Qur’kn. She was Professor of Arabic
language and literature a t the University of ‘Ayn Shams in Egypt
and sometime Visiting Professor a t Umm DurmBn Islamic University
in the Sudan and is presently a t Qarawiyyin University in Morocco.
On lecture and conference tours, she spoke to scholarly audiences
in Rome, Algiers, New Delhi, Baghdad, Kuwait, Jerusalem, Rabat,
Fez, Khartoum and other places in the 1960’s. Her publications
include studies of Abii ’l-*Alii’al-Ma‘arri, al-Khans&’and other poets
or writers; biographies of the Prophet’s mother, his wives, his daugh-
ters, his granddaughter and his great-granddaughter ; monographs
and stories about the Islamic understanding of woman’s liberation;
and historical writings on the life and times of the Prophet. She has
also written on contemporary issues in the Arab world such as the
value and authority in the present of the past cultural heritage, the
Arabic language in a modern changing world, and the historical
and intellectual dimensions of the Arabs’ battle against Western
imperialism and Zionism. 1
1 Among her publicationa are the following:
&-Hay& d-Insciniyya ‘in& Abi’l-‘-4kis, Cairo: DBr al-Ma‘Brif, 1944. (M.A. thesis at
Fu’ad I University, Cairo, 1941.)
Riedlat al-Ghufrzn li AbT’l-‘Aki.Giro: DEr al-Ma‘irif, 1950. 2nd ed. 1957, 3rd ed. 1963,
4th ed. 1968, Gth ed. 1969.
al-Ghufr&nli Abi’l-‘Aki’ al-Ma‘arri. Cairo: DBr al-Ma‘irif, 1954. 2nd ed. 1962, 3rd ed.
1968. (Ph.D. diasertation at Fu’ad I University, Cairo, 1950.)
Ard al-Muj‘izr?t, Rihb f i Jazirat d-‘Arab. Cairo: DBr aI-Ma‘irif, 1966.
Nid’ al-Nabi. Cairo: DBr al-HilB1, [1961 PI.
Umm al-Nabi. Cniro : Dir al-HilBI, [1961 23.
Baniit d-Nab;. Cairo: Dir 81-HilBl, 1963.
Sukayna bid rd-Husayn. Cairo: DBr at-HiliI, [I965 13.
Batald Karba&i’. Cairo: DBr al-HilBI, [1965 21.
Aba’l-‘Al&’ al-Mu‘arri. Cairo: AI-Mu’assasa al-Mipriyya al-‘kmmn, 1965.
al-KhunaZ. Cairo: Dirr al-Ma’$rif, 11965 ?].
al-MafhGm al-IakimC li Tahrir al-Xar’a. Cairo: Matba‘at Mukhaymir, 1967.
TurEthmZ bayna M q i n wa H+ir. Cairo: League of Arab States, Ma‘had aI-Dir&Bt
al-‘Arabiyya, 19GS.
A‘@ al-Bashur. Cairo: Higher Council for Islamic Affairs, Lajnat al-Ta‘rif bi’l-IalBm,
1968.
103
104 THE MUSLIM WORLD
Born in Dumylt on the Eastern branch of the Nile Delta, she grew
up in a pious Muslim family and was educated a t Fu'ad I University
in Cairo. Though conservative in manner and outlook, she has all
the charm of a cultured modern Arab lady who stands to be counted,
and she is characterized by forceful and articulate self-expression,
inspired by Islamic values and informed by sound erudition.
Her book on Qnr'an exegesis, al-Tafsir al-BayGnT li'l-Qur'8n al-
Karim, Vol. I (1962), has been reprinted twice (1966, 1968) and an
unauthorized edition of it appeared in Beirut. Volume I1 (1969) has
been received with as much enthusiasm, and it is hoped Dr. 'A'isha
'Abd al-Rahmln will continue her exegesis to cover the whole Qur'Bn,
not only the fourteen short suras which she has treated so far.
What is significant about her exegesis - even though she may
stop her work before completing the whole Qur'gn - is her method
which has won many adherents. She dutifully confesses that she
acquired it from her professor at Fu'ad I University in Cairo (later
her husband), the late Amin al-Khiili (d. 1966), and she summarizes
its principles as expounded in his book Man8hij Tajdid (Cairo :D k
al-Ma'rifa, 1961) under four points : 2
1. The basis of the method is the objective treatment of what is
to be understood of the Qur'iin and it begins by the collection of all
suras and verses on the topic to be studied.
2. To understand a particular Qur'anic notion, in context, verses on
al-Ab'cid al-Tdrikhiyya wa'l-Fikriyya li Ma'rakatind. Cairo: Matba'at Mukhaymir, 1968.
h g W u n Z wa'l-Hay& Cairo: League of Arab States, Ma'had aI-DirBGt al-'Arabiyya,
1969.
Ma'a al-dlustajd j i 'Agr al-Mab'ath. Cairo: DLr al-Ma'Brif, 1969.
Bayn al-'Aqida wa'l-Ikhtiycir. Beirut: DBr al-NajBh, 1973.
Her books on Qur'anic studies include the following:
al-Tafair d-BayEni li'l-Qur'rin al-Karim, Vol. I. Cairo: DBr al-Ma'Brif, 1962. 2nd ed.
1966, 3rd ed. 1968. Henceforth referred to as al-Tajair, I.
al-Tajsir al-Baydni li'l-Qw'dn al-Karim, Vol. 11. Cairo: DLr al-Ma'irif, 1969. Henceforth
referred to as al-Tajair, 11.
Kitdbunci al-Akbar. Umm DurmBn: JBmi'at Umm DurmBn al-IslBmiyya, 1967.
MqEl fi'l-Imrin, Diraa Qur'dniyya. Cairo: DBr al-Ma'&rif,1969.
al-Qur'cin wa'l-Tajair d-'Asri. Cairo: DLr al-Ma'iirif, 1970.
al-Ij'aiz al-Baydni li'l-Qur'rin. Cairo: D P al-Ma'&rif, 1971. Henceforth referred to as
d-rjdz.
at-Skkhsiyya al-Islrimiyya-Dir%a Qur'dniyya. Beirut: DLr al-'Ilm li'l-MalByin, 1973.
2 al-Tajair, I, 10-11. For Amin al-Khfili's method, see also his monograph which
appears following the article on "Tafsir" in Dri'irat al-Ma'ririf al-Islcimiyya (Cairo:
Matba'at al-I'timLd, 1933-cont.), the Arabic translation of E.I., V, 348-374, esp. 365.
For an implementation of his method, me his book on money, wealth and property in
the Qur'En, 2% AmwElihim, Cairo: D&ral-HanL, 1963.
MODERN QUR’AN EXEGESIS 105
it are placed in the chronological order of their revelation so that
circumstances of time and place may be known. Traditional reports
on the “occasions of revelation” are taken into consideration only
as far as these occasions are the contextual circumstances associated
with the revelation of a verse, for they are not its purpose or cause
sine qua non,, the significance being in the generality of the words
not the specificity of the occasions.
3. To understand the meanings of words, Arabic being the language
of the Qur’iln, the original linguistic meaning is sought which gives
the sense or feeling of Arabic for the word in its various material
and figurative uses. The Qur’anic meaning is then noted by collecting
all forms of the word in the Qur’ltn, and studying their particular
context in specific verses and suras and their general context in the
Qur’ln as a whole.
4. To understand the subleties of expression, the text in its Qur’anic
setting is studied for what it may mean, both the letter and the spirit
of the text being considered. The sayings of exegetes are then examined
in relation of the text thus studied, and only what agrees with the
text may be accepted. To be avoided are all sectarian interpretations
and all intrusive IsrE’Ziyy~it(Jewish-Christian materials) that were
forced on the books of Tajsir. I n the same manner, grammatical and
rhetorical usage in the Qur’ln is to be considered the criterion by
which the rules of grammarians and rhetoricians are judged, not
vice versa, since most of these were people for whom Arabic was
acquired and not natural.
Basic t o this exegetical method, as may be seen from this summary,
is the dictum which some classical exegetes held in the past, namely,
that “the Qur’ln explains itself by itself”-?though they did not
practice it systematically. Basic to it also is the principle that the
Qur’ln should be studied and understood in its entirety as an entity
with distinctive dictional and stylistic characteristics. Basic to it
finally is the acceptance of a chronological order of Qur’anic material
which helps cast historical light on its content but without temporal
limitations of contingency.
It may be argued against this method that to take the Qur’ln in
its entirety and in its chronological order of revelation to explain
some parts of it by other parts is to belittle or ignore the fact that
it was revealed in about twenty-two or twenty-three years so that
its diction and style in the earlier revelations may not necessarily
be the same as in later ones. Dr. ‘A’isha ‘Abd al-Rahmln answers
3 “al-qur’bu yufaseiru bs‘guhu ba‘dii,)’ al-Tafsir, I, 18.
106 THE MUSLIM WORLD
such argument by emphasizing that the deductive process used in
order to bring out the meaning of the Qur’iin’s linguistic or stylistic
phenomena collated chronologically as parts of a whole has proved
to be a sound guide to the Qur’anic meaning of those phenomena
and that they are consistent throughout 4. She quotes S. 4:82, “Will
they not then ponder on the Qur’iin ? If it had been from other than
God they would have found in it much incongruity.” This position
is not a result of any doctrinal Muslim belief in the sg’& of the Qur’Bn
though such belief may reinforce it. But it is an outcome of the unity
of the Arabic language of the Qur’iin and its consistence as an organon
to convey a very special message.
Another argument that may be brougbt against this method is
that classical authorities do not seem always to agree on the “occasions
of revelation” and if these are to be used in the exegesis, the results
will be vitiated by this disagreement. Dr. ‘A’isha ‘Abd al-Rahmgn
counters that disagreement on the “occasions of revelation” is mostly
due to the fact that those who were contemporaneous with the reve-
lation of a verse or sura associated it with what each thought to be
the cause of its revelation; 6 whereas, her method refuses t o consider
any occasion the cause or even the purpose of revelation but merely
the external circumstance of its revealing, and hence the emphasis is
on the universality of meaning and not on the specificity of the
circumstance. Furthermore, her method treats traditional reports on
the “occasions of revelation” in a free manner only to see what support
they may offer for meanings arrived at without them.
A third argument that may be raised t o weaken this method is
that the Arabic language of Muhammad’s times as preserved in oral
poetry and prose recorded in later centuries exhibits certain vocabu-
lary characteristics or stylistic usages that do not appear in the Qur’tin
or that are different from those of the Qur’iin. Hence to depend on
the sense or feeling of Arabic for a word in its various uses will intro-
duce extraneous elements into the understanding of the Qur’anic
text. Dr. ‘A’isha ‘Abd al-Rahmtin concedes the existence of Arabic
forms and usages outside the Qur’gn and grants that they are not
wrong or unacceptable because the Quf’iin does not employ them or
prefers others to them. 6 She observes, however, that such material
must be used in conjunction with the Qur’anic material itself and
that it should be sought for the support it may lend to the under-
4 lbid., 11. 8.
lbid., I. 10.
8 Ibid., 11, 8-9.
MODERN QUR’AN EXEGESIS 107
standing of the Qur’anic text, though she recognizes that the Qur’ln
has its own distinctive diction and its own particular usages that
are Qur’anic par excellence. For this reason she would rather adjudicate
the Qur’ln in matters of grammar, rhetoric and style and not the rules
elaborated by later grammarians, rhetoricians and literary critics
whose works need to be reviewed, even revised, in the light of Qur’anic
guidance. 7
It is obvious that there is here a modern method of Qur’ln exegesis.
Although founded on a classical precept which, however, was never
taken seriously in practice in systematic exegetical efforts, this method
brings freshness to the field of Qur’ln exegesis in modern times.
It will be recalled that Qur’Zn exegesis from the earliest written
works in the 9th century A.D. to the most recent ones in the 20th
century A.D., mostly follow the pattern of a running commentary
and interpretation. The Qur’iin is treated seriatim verse by verse,
the exegete giving first the verse or even part of it and then his
exegesis after it, a method which runs the risk of atomism by taking
individual words or usages cut off from the general context of the
Qur’ln as a whole, though some exegetes included occasional cross-
references to other Qur’anic words or usages in their exegesis.
Great care is taken in Bint al-Shlti”s method to let the Qur’ln
speak for itself and be understood in the most direct of ways in the
manner of the Arabs of Muhammad’s time. Qur’anic references to
the Prophet’s contemporaries or to events of his times are minimized
as historical data in order that their religious significance be under-
stood in the total context of the Qur’anic message, the emphasis
being on God’s intention above and beyond the particular historical
occasion. The opinions of past exegetes, mainly al-Tabari, al-Zamakh-
shari, Fakhr al-Din al-Riizi, al-Riighib al-Igbahlni, Nizlm al-Din
al-Nayslbtiri, Abii Hayyln al-Andalusi, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya,
al-Suyiiti and Muhammad ‘Abduh, are occasionally mentioned either
to point out their confusion and refute their far-fetched explanations
that do not agree among themselves or with the Qur’anic text as
she understands it in her method, or else on rare occasions to choose
an opinion from among them that seems most likely or one that
agrees with her understanding and lends it support. Such opinions,
whether on grammatical and linguistic matters, or on rhetorical
and stylistic phenomena, or on the meaning of the contents, are
subjected to a rigorous analysis in the light of her findings resulting
7 For details see Kitcibului al-Akbar. For examples of particulars see “Mm AerOr
al-‘Arabiyyn fi‘l-BaySn al-Qur’ini,” al-Liscin al-‘Arabi, VIII, 1 (1971), 11-37.
108 THE MUSLIM WORLD
from a deductive survey of all Qur’anic material on the particular
point.
In her effort to eliminate all extraneous elements from her under-
standing of the Qur’ln, Bint al-Shiti’ refuses in her exegesis to engage
in detailed discussions of Biblical material and of Arab and non-Arab
mythical or historical accounts when reference is made to them in the
Qur’in. If the Qur’in had intended detailed history, she maintains, it
would have given it, but the Qur’in uses such material in a usually sum-
mary fashion intending what is beyond it of moral examples to be learnt
or spiritual lessons to be derived. She does not want to fall in the
error of many past exegetes who accepted Isri’Zliyycit and foreign
materials from Muslim converts, thus introducing into their exegesis
what was never intended in the Qur’in. Similarly, she refuses to engage
in detailed discussions of how certain verses of the Qur’iin agree with
modern science and technology, for this according to her was never
intended in the Qur’in either. Such verses which describe the wondrous
phenomena of nature, of human, animal and plant life, and aspects
of space, matter and so on are not intended t o be lessons in the different
modern sciences or proof texts to agree with the latest theories in
the various fields of modern empirical knowledge but they have
their intrinsically Qur’anic and religious meanings to be arrived at
by studying them in their context.
Her stance against what she calls tafszr ‘api has engaged her in a
series of articles published in March and April, 1970, in the Friday
issues of al-AhrGm newspaper of Cairo in response to a series of weekly
articles published at that time in Sabih al-Khayr magazine of Cairo
by a physician called Dr. Mustafii Mahmiida who, adopting some
modern scientific notions, tried to find them in his understand-
ing of a number of Qur’anic concepts as expressed in several verses
which he studied. Bint al-Shiti’ not only criticized his resort to
extraneous and so-called scientific material and Isri’zliyyat to under-
stand the Qur’Bn but questioned his very knowledge of Arabic and
the Islamic disciplines of Qur’anic studies, and severely faulted his
unfounded personal opinions which he freely distributed. 9 Then she
a ‘gifiha ‘Abd al-Rahmkn’s articles were collected in her book, ai-Qur’iin wa’l-Tajsir
al-‘Api. Mu@afS Mahmiid’s articles were collected in his book, al-Qur’dn: Muhdcala
Zi Fahm ‘ d p i li’1-Qurw6n,Cairo: Riiz aI-Piisif Press, [1970]. He is more popularly known
for his many novels. For more on him, fiee Marc Chartier, “Un essai recent d’interpre-
tation du Coran: Mustafi Mahmiid,” Oriente Moderno, LII, 11/12 (1972). 718-728. See
also ‘Atif Ahmad, Naqd al-Fahm al-‘d+rili’l-Qur’dn, Beirut: Dir a1-Tali‘a, 1972.
E.g., his opinion that in S. 20 12 (“SO take off thy shoes. for thou art in the holy
valley of Tuw6”) the word ‘shoes’ means ‘spirit and body.’ d-Qur’tin: Muhdwda, p. 104;
MODERN QUR’AN EXEGESIS 109
raised the more important question of whether anybody may embark
on an exegesis of the Qur’ln and argued that while it is each person’s
right to understand the Qur’Ln according to his own mental capacity
and knowledge, 10 it is only for specialists to offer an exegesis t o the
public. An exegete is required t o be well versed in the sciences of the
Arabic language such as grammar, rhetoric and stylistics and in the
sciences of the Qur’ln such as the various readings and orthography,
the occasions of revelation, knowledge of the clear and the allegorical
verses, etc. He should also be well versed in the Hadith sciences,
theology, law, heresiology and Islamic history. 11 She argued against
the objections of Dr. ‘Uthmln Amin, formerly professor of Islamic
philosophy a t Cairo University, who had come to the support of Dr.
Mustafi Mahmiid by claiming that Muhammad’s cousin Ibn ‘Abbls
was a n authority on exegesis but was no specialist, his only qualifi-
cation being a sound natural common sense which Dr. Mustafl
Mahmfid had. 12 Bint al-Shiiti’ answered that Ibn ‘Abbls and other
Companions were educated in what she called “the school of prophecy,”
Muhammad himself being their teacher, and they possessed a sound
and remarkable knowledge of Arabic. Then in the name of modernity
and science which respect specialization, she refused the validity of
any Qur’anic exegesis if it mas not the outcome of specialization. 13
After this account of Dr. ‘h’isha ‘Abd al-Rahmiin’s method in
Qur’Ln exegesis and her qualifications for the exegete, it may be
useful to present some of her exegetical findings that are the result
of this method.
One of her important findings is that what certain linguists usually
call synonyms never appear in the Qur’ltn with the same meaning.
When the Qur’ltn uses a word, that word cannot be replaced by any
other normally called synonym in Arabic dictionaries and books of
exegesis. An example is the word aqsama and its supposed synonym
halafa which means ‘to take an oath.’ Bint al-Shl$’ has shown by a
deductive survey of all places in the Qur’ln where these two words
occur in their various forms 14 that apsanaa is used of a genuine oath
or his opinion that S. 24:30-31 (telling believing men and women “to lower their gaze
and be modest”) is very difficult in the age of mini-skirts and bare breasts and that
looking is harmless if the hewt and the mind do not have wicked intentions, ibid., p. 86.
See her criticism in al-Qur’dn wa’l-TaJsir aL‘ApC, pp. 52 and 57.
lo al-Qur’dn wa’l-TafsC al-‘Agri, pp. 46-48.
l1 fbid.. pp. 32-36.
12 lbid., p. 68.
Is I b X , pp. 82-88.
l4 d-Tafair, I, 172-174. See also her al-rjiizpp.
, 194-198.204-207.
110 THE MUSLIM WORLD
that is not intended to be broken while halafa is invariably used of
a false oath that is broken. I n a similar fashion, she has found that
ni’ma in Qur’anic usage refers to the blessings of this world while
na‘im to those of the next, 15 that na’y in Qur’anic usage is always
distance associated with hostility or unfriendliness while bu‘d is mere
distance in time or place, 1s that h u h is used in the plural to denote
confused dreams while ru’yc2 is used in the singular to denote a clear
and truthful vision. 17 These observations agree with earlier ones
made by philologists such as al-Jihiz, Abii ‘Ali al-Firisi, Abii Hilil
al-‘Askari and others that there are no exact synonyms in any one
language.
Another important finding of Bint al-Shlti’ is that the verbs in
Qur’anic descriptions of the events of the Last Day are either in the
passive vciice (majhcl) or else their action is attributed to other than
the actual doer by passive Forms VII and VIII (mu@wa‘a) and by
metonymic predir,stjon (is& majc2zT).18 Thus, for example, in S.
94:1, “When EGrth is shaken with earthquake,’’ zulzilat is passive; in
S. 82:l-2, “When the heaven is cleft asunder, And when the planets
are dispersed,” infatarat is Form VII and inkztharat is Form VIII;
in S. 52:9-10, “On the day when the heaven will heave, And the
mountains will move away,” tamcru and tas;iru are verbs predicated
to the heaven and the mountains, respectively. Bint al-ShSti’ says
that exegetes and rhetoricians have busied themselves with gram-
matical considerations about the subject in such instances and thus
missed the stylistic phenomenon of the Qur’anic emphasis on the
passivity of the universe on this great Day of Resurrection when all
creation is spontaneously obedient to the powerful, overwhelming
events of the Day. The passive voice furthermore concentrates the
attention on the event irrespective of the doer, Forms VII and VIII
strongly denote the obedience in which the event is happening, and
metonymic predication gives the event such certainty that there is
no need to mention the doer, the action and the thing acted upon
being so vividly pictured in activity together.
1s al-TaJsir, I, 221-234; al-I’jciz, pp. 218-219.
16 aZ-Liscin aZ-‘Arati. VIII, 1 (1971), 26-27.
17 lbid., 24-25. See other examples in ibid., 24-29: Ena.sa and abpra; al-ina and
al-inscin; zuwj and imra’a. Also in al.I3ciz, pp. 198-220, paeaim. In Part I11 of al-Ij’Zz.
she comments on the famous questions of NBfi‘ b. al-Azraqto ‘Abd Allih b. ‘Abbb con-
cerning rare Qur’anic words, and on tbe latter’s exegetical answers quoting pre-Islamic
poetry that used these worde. She dubs Ibn ‘Abbis’s synonyms as “approximations.”
See al-I3iz, pp. 278-507, passim.
l* al-Lisdrc al-‘Arabi, VIII, 1 (1971). 29-30; al-Tafsir, I, 84-86; d-I’jiz, pp. 222-226.
MODERN QUR’AN EXEGESIS 111
Bint al-ShL$’ has made other striking observations in her Qur’anic
exegesis such as on the use of the w6w for oaths, 19 the significance
of the negative oath 16 upsimu, 20 the functions of the so-called otiose
particle b6’ in the predicate of laysa and mxi, 2 1 and many other
remarks that enhance the understanding of the Qur’in, though they
often disagree with earlier exegetical views. It may be true that her
attention was mostly directed t o the literary and stylistic characteris-
tics of the Qur’Ln but this is so because her method concentrates on
the given and avoids speculation. Yet the outcome of her exegesis
is not without importance to religious, legal, theological or philo-
sophical concerns, let alone linguistic, grammatical and rhetorical
ones. For example, in her exegesis of S. 90:4, “Verily We have created
man in affliction,” the word kabad which is rendered here as ‘affliction’
and which has been variously translated is the occasion for a long
discussion. 22 Though linguistic, the discussion has a definite theolo-
gical outcome because after reviewing and occasionally refuting what
earlier exegetes have said about it she concludes that, in the light
of its setting, the word refers t o man’s natural quality for bearing
responsibility and choosing between good and evil. This is his kubad,
his burden, his affliction if one likes. The verses which follow this one,
particularly S. 90:8-9, bear out this interpretation : “Have We not
assigned unto him two eyes, And a tongue and two lips, And guided
him t o the two highways?” Bint al-Shiti’ remarks that the two
highways, al-najdayn, are those of good and evil which are clearly
19 d-T#ir, I, 24-28,el passim. nint al-Shiti’ maintains that Qur’anic oaths using
wiiw are not predicated to God but are mere rhetorical dcvices employed for other than
their original oath meaning in order to draw attention dramatically to the perceptible
phenomen&taken for granted that are the subject of the oaths, the purpose being to
introduce after them metaphysical or abstract phenomena which, though they sre not
perceptible to the senses, are as indisputable as the natural phenomena. Thus, S. 93.
for inbtance, begins with oaths by the forenoon and the still night, both of which are
material images perceived daily by the unquestioning senses, only to introduce a similar
unquestionable fact though not perceived by the senses and that is that God has not
forsaken the Prophet. See al-X’jZz, pp. 226-234.
20 al-Tufsir, I, 171-172.See also al-Lisdn. uZ-‘Arabi, VIII, 1 (1971),35-36.Bint al-
Shi$i’ argues that Qur’auic oaths negated by Id are demonstrably predicated to God only,
since He alone does not need t o make an oath, being Himaelf the source of all truth.
Thus she disagrees with all exegetes who tried t o explain away the negation in such oatha.
To her it is a clear negation. God’s saying, ‘‘I do not swear by this city” (8. 9O:l. for
example). means, “I need not swear by this city,” and this is a strong affirmation of the
truth that follows and is similar, rhetorically, to human affirmative oaths confirming
what follows them. See al-X‘jiz, pp. 259-264.
21 al-LbZn al-‘Arabi, VIII, 1 (1971),12-16.
28 al-Tajair, I, 183-190.
112 THE MUSLIM WORLD
demarcated so that man by his innate power of perception may choose
one or the other, having seen with his own eyes and thus bearing
the full responsibility €or his choice.
This theological stance of free will and human responsibility which
Bint al-ShLti’ adopts in her exegesis, basing herself on the strictly
linguistic and contextual understanding of words, finds expression in
other instances of Qur’anic material. This is particularly so in her
“Essay on Man, A Qur’anic Study” 23 which follows the same exege-
tical method. In the course of her exegesis of S. 3352, “Lo! We
offered the trust t o the heavens and the earth and the mountains,
but they refused to carry it and were afraid of it ; and man carried it.
Surely he is tyrannical and foolish,” Bint al-ShLti‘ studies the words
amdna (trust) and hamala (carry) 24 in their several occurrences in
the Qur’Ln and surveys the interpretations of earlier exegetes but
refuses their far-fetched explanations. Amdna according to her does
not refer to material things entrusted t o man, or to the religious
duties required of him, nor is it the intellect of man or his obedience
as interpreted by some exegetes, but it is his free will, his responsibility
of choice, his accountability. To carry this anEma means to assume
its results as man takes his position of “viceroy in the earth” (S. 2:30)
and achieves the fullness of his humanity by being free and responsible,
in contrast to all other creatures, though he is foolish and does not
know the extent of the burden undertaken and does not realize the
difficulty of handling it.
Again in her Qur’anic study of the verb arGda (to want, to intend,
to will) Bint al-Shlti’ stands staunchly by the free will of man. 25
She notes that the verb occurs about, 140 times, about 50 of which
are predicated to God and about 90 to creatures. It never appears as
an abstract verbal noun irdda but only as a verb in the past tense
(perfect, mG@) or the present-future tense (imperfect, mudiri’). It
never appears in the imperative or in any derivative form. Attempting
to explain this phenomenon which she says no previous exegete or
theologian ever noticed, she holds that the Qur’Ln recognizes will
only as an act, not as an intellectual abstraction or an attribute;
furthermore, the act of willing cannot be forced upon a subject by a
command or an imperative mood, for then it would cease to be free
and would no more be will.
Her method leads her, by further studying the Qur’anic occur-
28 M q E l fi’l-Insdn, Diriisa Qur’ciniyya, esp. pp. 101-117.
Ibid., pp. 51-60.
25 Ibid., pp. 107-117.
MODERN QURAN EXEGESIS 113
rences of ‘azama (to determine) and raghiba (to desire) - neither
of which is ever predicated to God but only to creatures - to the
understanding that man’s willing is associated with determination
and is preceded by desire and forethought, hence man’s accountability,
whereas God’s willing is not, because He wills by Himself. 26
These and many other observations have theological overtones in
the exegesis of Bint al-Shiiti’ though, as was said above, her attention
may have been directed mostly to the literary and stylistic charac-
teristics of the Qur’in. While there is no doubt that some of her views
may be controversial, it is perfectly clear that her exegetical method
is a courageous and refreshing attempt in this field in modern times.
Speaking of the development of Islamic learning metaphorically
as the cooking of food, Arabs used t o say : “Islamic sciences are of
three kinds: a science that has been done and burnt and that is
grammar and sources of jurisprudence, a science that has been done
but not burnt and that is law and Tradition, and a science that has
not been done or burnt and that is rhetoric and exegesis.” Dr.
‘A’isha ‘Abd al-Rahmin is fortunate - she has a lot of cooking to
do, and for that we are the luckier.
The Hartford Semina,ry Foundation ISSA J. BOULLATA
2.s Ibid., pp. 107 and 109.
