herbert berg on hussein abdul raof

8/13/2019 Herbert Berg on Hussein Abdul Raof

1/5

Theological Approaches to Quranic Exegesis: A Practical Comparative-Con

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

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

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


2/5

343

Journal of Shia Islamic Studies Summer 2013 Vol. VI No. 3

Theological Approaches to Quranic Exegesis: A Practical Comparative-

Contrastive Analysisby Hussein Abdul-Raof, 2012. London & New York:

Routledge, x + 287 pp., 90.00, 145.00. 978-0-415-44958-8 (hbk).

H E R B E R T B E R G

University of North Carolina Wilmington, United States

This analysis of Quranic exegesis purports to describe the distincttheological schools of exegesis using the major tafsirworks 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 sourceof 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


3/5

344

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 Abbasdespite 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, Abdul-Raof has one branch that contains traditional exegesismainstream

Sunni, whereas the other contains hypothetical opinion exegesis

non-mainstreamvarious 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 practicingal-tafsir

bi-l-rayinclude 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 thischaracterization 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. Abdul-

Raof then treats each of the non-mainstream approaches to exegesis in

turn: the Mutazili, the Shii, the Ibadi, the Sufi, and the modern. For eachthere 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 Alishousehold (37). Although no doubt true, this was hardly the sole concern

of every Shia exegete, nor was each influenced by the Mutazilis and


4/5

345

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, politicallyand 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 Abdul-

Raof 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 innumber-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 ofreading 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 areproblematic:

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


5/5

346

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, Abdul-

Raof takes issue only with his claim about the fragmentary nature ofmany 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 andsurahs 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 whereashe 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 agendain 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 basedlargely on its dogmatic or theological agendas, for his heresiographical

analysis is likewise informed by a dogmatic and theological agenda.

herbert berg on hussein abdul raof

Documents