According to a general definition, ‘ulūm al-qur’ān1 denotes studies concerned with the book of revelations sent down upon the last Prophet Muḥammad,2 namely:
— Its revelation.
— Its collection.
— Its order and arrangement.
— Its writing down.
— Information about the reasons and occasions of revelation.
— About what was revealed in Makka and what in Madina.
— About the abrogating and abrogated verses.
— About the ‘clear’ and the ‘unclear’ verses.
The term also covers Qur’ān-related studies, such as:
— The explanation of verses and passages by the Prophet himself, his Companions, their followers and the later exegetes of the Qur’ān.
— The methods of explanation.
— The scholars of exegesis and their books.
The aim of this book – as all ‘ulūm al-qur’ān – is to help towards a better understanding of the Qur’ānic message by providing information on its setting, framework and circumstances. To a great extent it is a descriptive account of the traditional subject of ‘ulūm al-qur’ān. Some branches of ‘ulūm al-qur’ān, such as the divisions of the text, style, literary form etc., have only been touched upon briefly, while others that seemed more important have been dealt with in more detail. In particular such topics related to the understanding of the text (asbāb al-nuzūl, al-nāsikh wa al-mansūkh, etc.) have been treated more extensively while others, such as the ‘seven aḥruf’ or the ‘Uthmānic writing, which are of benefit only to readers with a good knowledge of classical Arabic, have been introduced, but not elaborated upon.
I have restricted myself to presenting the generally accepted views on the issues and, where no consensus exists, have referred to the most important of the divergent opinions. Although I do have my own views on some questions, my basic aim in this ‘Introduction’ is generally to inform the reader about the subject, and not to guide him – overtly or covertly – towards my own conclusions.
There are a number of matters related to the study of the Qur’ān to which I have drawn special attention since this ‘Introduction’ to the ‘ulūm al-qur’ān is aimed at a special readership, namely, young educated Muslims with little or no access to the original sources on the subject. I have therefore included several topics, of special relevance for that readership, such as:
— Orientalists and the Qur’ān.
— Translations of the Qur’ān.
— Modern interpretation of the Qur’ān.
— Language of the Qur’ān.
— Reading and recitation of the Qur’ān.
Again, particularly for the benefit of these readers, I have often quoted typical examples to illustrate the various points discussed and make them more easily comprehensible.
Finally, to assist readers not familiar with Arabic, I have supplied references to English translations, where available (such as translation of ḥadīth books, etc.). However, on certain topics (e.g. asbāb al-nuzūl or al-nāsikh wa al-mansūkh) there is no literature available as yet in English and references had to be restricted to Arabic sources only.
I have also attempted to note in the bibliography at least one or two books in English for each section, from which more insight may be gained on the topic discussed.
May this volume (to the best of my knowledge, the first of its kind in a European language) fulfil its purpose and assist you to grasp fully the message of the Qur’ān and to apply it in your life, and may Allah accept this humble effort and forgive its shortcomings.
| Leicester | Ahmad Von Denffer |
| Ramadan 1981/1401 |
REVELATION AND SCRIPTURE BEFORE THE QUR’ĀN
God’s Communication with Man
God communicated with man. This is the key concept of revelation upon which all religious belief – if more than a mere philosophical attempt to explain man’s relationship with the great ‘unknown’, the ‘wholly other’ – is founded. There is no religious belief, however remote it may be in time or concept from the clear teachings of Islam, which can do without or has attempted to do without God’s communication with man.
Man denies God
God’s communication with man has always accompanied him, from the earliest period of his appearance on this planet, and throughout the ages until today. Men have often denied the communication from God or attributed it to something other than its true source and origin. More recently some have begun to deny God altogether, or to explain away man’s preoccupation with God and the communication from Him as a preoccupation with delusion and fantasy. Yet, even such people do not doubt that the preoccupation of man with God’s communication is as old as man himself. Their reasoning is, they claim, based on material evidence. Following this line of thought they feel that they should deny God’s existence, but are at the same time compelled to concede the point – for material evidence is abundant – that man has ever been preoccupied with thinking about God and the concept of God’s communication with man.
Empiricism and Reality
Their general approach – to emphasise material evidence – in the search for reality and truth, is surely commendable. Not only empiricist philosophy but also commonsense tell us that one should accept as real and existent what can be grasped empirically, that is, by direct experience, by seeing, hearing, touching and so on. While there may be in other systems of thought, other criteria for the evaluation of reality, at present it is a materialistic philosophy that rules the day, and though many people (especially the ‘religious’ type) are saddened by this and wish back the ‘old days of idealism and rule of the creed’, I personally think that we have to accept the present state of affairs – not as ideal and unchangeable, but as our point of departure – and moreover that doing so is of some advantage to us.
Creation is Material Evidence for God
Many now accept empiricism as their guiding principles and God gives ample evidence, material evidence, capable of verification by all empiricists, for His being and existence. The wide earth, the whole universe of creation, are evidence, material evidence, for God. No empiricist would deny that the earth and the universe do exist. It is only that he does not always perceive them as ‘creation’, for then he would have to argue from the material evidence that he has to a mighty and puissant cause,
