The Farahi school of thought and its current chief scholar ustadh Javed Ahmad Ghamidi sahib hold the opinion that there’s only one objectively true interpretation of the Quran! Other interpretations aren’t correct, and the errors, according to them, stem from:
1.Genuine human errors.
2.Inadequate knowledge.
3.Inadequate analysis.
4.Incorrect methodology of dealing with ‘kalaam’ (speech).
The summary of their primary arguments being as follows.
The Quran is a speech (of God): Hence it must be understood only according to the rules pertaining to speeches/language. Not according to the rules of philosophy, science, or social science, for example.
The Quran wasn’t revealed in a vacuum: It came in a certain given context of 7th century Arabia, with a prior Abrahamic background. Thus the message of the Quran can be best understood through the rules of language (particularly pre-Islamic and Muhammadan era Arabic), in the context in which it was revealed.
Pre-Islamic and Muhammadan era Arabic literature: Is the repository of the Arabic lingo that can lead us to what the Quran actually intended/meant when it said something to its immediate audience, because the Quran addressed the seventh century Arabs directly, and its communication must have been in their lingo for them to clearly understand what it wanted from them. Later/modern Arabic cannot thus provide us the true Quranic meaning/interpretation!
The Quran doesn’t speak to us directly: But through its characters, through the parties involved, that is, God, the Prophet, and the seventh century Arabs. Just like any masterpiece of Shakespeare doesn’t speak to us directly, but through its characters. It’s through the story that we uncover great lessons from his plays. Likewise, we extract meanings/lessons/rulings from the Quran not in the sense that it’s speaking to us live, but through what ustadh Javed Ahmad Ghamidi sahib calls ‘sarguzasht-e-inzaar’ of the Prophet, that is, the 1400 year old staged unfolding of the astounding 23 year drama of the mission of prophethood of Muhammad as documented as a speech (of God, in the language of pre-Islamic Arabia)!
Therefore, they contend that: the philosophical, mystical, scientific, socio-economic-political lenses of interpretation that were developed later in much different contexts, cannot be as authentic as the method that employs the precise rules of seventh century Arabic on the then prevalent milieu of Arabia.
Moreover, the Quran claims to be in clear Arabic (“bil-lisaani Arabiyim-mubeen”). It also claims to be the ‘furqaan’ (the criterion between truth and falsehood), the ‘hakm’ (the judge), etc. That implies its meanings must be absolutely clear, without any ambiguities. Hence there’s no scope for multiple interpretations except in a very few cases!
Although this proposal sounds theoretically alluring due to its homogenizing and unifying potential, the ground realities clearly discredit! And here are my reasons for disagreeing with this idea, with the first question, that I always ask being:
What causes/caused differing interpretations?
Genuine human failings like inadequate knowledge, non-exhaustive analyses, uncontrollable human errors, of course form one main set of reasons. But if it were due to errors alone, then the differences wouldn’t have persisted despite the 1400 years of incessant peer review! My chief contention therefore is based on the role of consensus, as follows!
The critical implication of the lack of consensus: Clear matters ultimately garner consensus, inevitably! It’s the same reasoning that I’ve applied to the issue of God’s existence too. That is, if the matter were clear/unambiguous, consensus would have surely emerged after the millions of expert man hours exhausted on this topic!
No matter how big the human errors plaguing a matter, if the matter is inherently clear then it inevitably emerges out of all the clutter and eventually gives way to consensus! Although the consensus could still not be a decisive proof for the truth of the matter, as sometimes consensus is garnered even over falsehood! A consensus would nevertheless be decisive evidence for the clarity of the matter (see my previous article for a detailed discussion on the role of consensus in finding the truth)!
Thus, if the Quran still lends itself to differing interpretations, despite millions of man hours spent on its analysis, it’s implied that the Quran itself is inherently malleable/interpretable, that is, there are verses that can genuinely have multiple valid interpretations! That’s what the Quran too hints at in 3:07!
But then, doesn’t this contradict the Quran’s claim that it is a clear book? If multiple interpretations can be extracted from the same verses then doesn’t it imply that the Quran is vague/unclear? So then, does the Quran make a false claim?!!? One false claim should disqualify it from the label of the Book of God!
The role of the reader’s mindset: The mindset of the reader cannot be totally divorced from the reading and interpretation of a text! No matter how hard you try, you cannot approach a text completely free of biases/inclinations or preconceived notions!
When a person with a philosophical mindset approaches the text, he interprets it in one way. And that interpretation is clear to him! So the Quran is indeed clear to a philosopher.
When a mystic approaches the Book, he interprets it according to his preconceived notions and methods. And what he understands from the text is clear to him!
When a social scientist approaches the Quran, his understanding through a socio-economic-political lens is different from the above two, but it’s absolutely clear to him in his own context!
When a natural scientist approaches the Quran, he does a naturalist interpretation that makes clear sense to him.
When a historian approaches it, through a prior established lens of the ahadith, he understands it differently, but his understanding is clear to him. Therefore:
The Quran is clear to different people according to their own different ways/methods/mindsets!
This is rather an ‘ejaz’ (advanced feature) of the book that it is able to originate different viewpoints for different people according to their different approaches to the same text; a testament indeed to its great depth and versatility!!
It’s not necessary that a clear book would allow only one interpretation: If a book allows multiple differing yet clear interpretations then too it can be called a clear book, subjectively clear to its reader as per his individual context and mindset/approach/method. I’ve discussed this mindsets/approaches point in detail in my article #25!
And this variety of interpretations is a beauty, not a defect, as it spawns several flavours of Islam that are all useful in different ways in different times and places, an apparently irritating but fascinating issue that I’ve discussed in detail in my articles #25 and #26! And an objection to this POV that I’ve responded to therein, I’ll regurgitate here again.
The objection: If interpretation of scripture is dependent upon mindset then the scripture is not inherently ambiguous and subjective; rather it’s the differing tastes and mindsets of different people that interject and project ambiguity and subjectivity onto the scripture.
The response: The fact that mindsets/perspectives and methods play/can play a role in extracting guidance/truth from the scripture, proves the malleability and subjectivity of the scripture. Otherwise, if there was no malleability inherent in the scripture, then despite differing mindsets and tastes, scholars would have ultimately reached the same conclusions, since there is no scope for mindset and taste to forever affect the extraction of truth in clear-objective matters. 2+2=4 is equally true to people of all mindsets and tastes!
Guidance of God extracted from the Word (Scripture) is thus a subjective endeavour that suffers from great scholarly/ academic differences (‘ikhtilaaf’) in law (‘fiqh’) as well as theology (‘aqeedah’).
These academic disagreements have stayed for over a millennium now. They cannot be the result of simply the ill-will and/or errors of scholars as in that case these would have been erased through the more than a thousand years of peer reviewed scholarship! It is the very sources/scriptures that are interpretable/malleable hence ikhtilaaf arises naturally and inevitably!
Besides different mindsets/approaches, time too plays an indispensable role in deciding the interpretation(s) that the readers arrive at!
Effect of time and cultural context on the interpretation of the Quran: As time alters ground realities, new data comes up, new knowledge is produced; verses of the Quran could accordingly be understood differently from the past.
God told the Muslims who were preparing for war to ready their steeds, as it was an era wherein people fought battles on horseback. Today, it would be interpreted to mean preparing tanks and jets!
The natural phenomena described in the Quran would be understood today in the light of modern knowledge, differently from seventh century Arabia. For example, verses of the Quran that describe the Sun, the Moon, and the Earth, when interpreted in light of seventh century cosmology of the Arabs, gives an impression that the Earth is flat and static while the Sun and the Moon move around the Earth! And this picture of the solar system as extracted from the Quran was pretty clear to the seventh century Arabs.
While the same verses interpreted in the light of current scientific knowledge also support the idea that the Earth and the Moon move around the Sun! While a more philosophical approach upholds both to be contextually correct, like what I have done in my article here!
Hence the Quran supports different interpretations that are appropriate for different people across time and knowledge bases. Its meanings are extremely dynamic and it’s incorrect to restrict it exclusively to interpretations in the context of seventh century Arabia alone!
To demonstrate more clearly how context (time and culture) and mindset play a crucial role in any interpretation of the Quran, I’ll discuss three more cases, the cases of slavery in Islam, jihad, and patriarchy in Islam, in much more detail in my next article(s).
To conclude as of now: The way the Quran (and the ahadith) are written, makes them inherently malleable, susceptible to multiple interpretations, based upon the approaches/mindsets, methods, time and cultural contexts, knowledge base(s) of the readers. If it were not inherently malleable, 1400 years of sincere scholarship would have surely uncovered the one true interpretation of it!
The sheer variety of people further projects/interjects subjectivity into the scripture, thus originating different interpretations that are equally valid and clear to its different interpreters at different times and places.
There’s no ‘one true’ interpretation of the scripture(s). All interpretations are valid to different degrees, suitable to different people possessing different mindsets and tastes at different times and contexts.