Professor Emiritus P.S. van Koningsveld
(Leiden Institute for the Study of Religion: LISOR)
One of the major methodological principles of the humanistic tradition of the study of texts, is often quoted in Latin as “e mente auctoris”. This principle underlines the necessity to understand texts “from the mind of the author”. Researchers are supposed not only to identify the author of a text, but also to study his/her biography, the society he or she was living in, in short his/her biography in order to grasp the text as fully as possible. This principle was also applied to the study of Biblical texts which for a long time, were regarded to be of Divine origin, a belief which is still shared by millions of people today. The de-sacralisation of the Divine Revelation formed an essential part of the process of secularization resulting in various forms of separation between State and Religion. This was a painful process marked by many conflicts and even wars. In view of the existing Christian fundamentalist movements and the political power they are able to mobilize until this very day, we cannot claim that this process has come to a full completion, even today. A Biblical scholar denying the resurrection of Jesus Christ, for instance, may still meet serious opposition.
In their endeavor of studying Islam, orientalists, from the 19th century onwards, many of whom had been educated initially in the tradition of Semitic and Biblical scholarship, have been trying to apply the principle of “e mente auctoris” and the instruments of historical criticism coming with it, also to the study of Islamic texts, including the Koran. As they used to be non-Muslims, while their society, including their students and readers, used to consist (with very rare exceptions) of non-Muslims, as well, they hardly experienced any religious or social problem in applying this principle, quite contrary to the experiences of many Biblical scholars. Accordingly, orientalists like Theodor Nöldeke who founded the scientific study of the Koran in the West during the 19th century, interpreted the Koran and other sacred Islamic texts, like the prophetic Hadîth, as the product of the society and culture, as well as of the human minds of their respective authors, including Muhammad. This does not mean that they did not understand and did not recognize the importance as well as the complexity of the concept of Revelation, especially in direct relation to Muhammad’s own understanding of it, as well as that of his followers. But also the concept of Revelation including the way it was understood by those who believed to be involved in it, was studied as part and parcel of the society and culture in which it functioned and made sense. This is the tradition that is still followed by many today. According to this approach, to mention just one example, the old versions of the Koran which were in existence before Caliph Uthman introduced his standard edition may reflect some other (earlier or even later) stages of development in the message of the Koran and may therefore be highly relevant to understand the early meaning or meanings of the text, even of the standard Uthmanic edition.
In a broader sense, we may say that the humanistic study of religious texts forms part of the comparative historical study of religion, a discipline that works on the basis of the assumption that religion is an aspect of human civilization, not only Christianity or Islam, but all the religions of mankind. Historians of Religion who follow this assumption are not per se atheists. Historians of Religion often stipulate that they make a separation between their scholarly work and their personal beliefs, using for this separation the term of “methodological agnosticism”. This position implies that a researcher of religion rejects the scientific relevance of eventual claims to the Divine origin of the objects of his research, as it is only the human nature of the Bible, the Koran, the Veda’s, the Book of Mormon, etcetera, which is accessible to the instruments of this type of scholarship. This does not mean, however, that this same researcher would reject the religious claim to a Divine origin of any text or rule in an existential sense. It only means that personal beliefs are considered to fall outside the scope of scientific research.
Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, a profoundly creative and original scholar in the field of Arabic and Islamic Studies and an ornament of various universities, including the University of Leiden and now also the University for Humanistics in Utrecht, became the object of accusations of atheism and unbelief, and even of official proclamations and verdicts to that same effect. I should like to point out that, from the perspective of a historian of religion, everything written to prove or disprove these claims and accusations is of no relevance whatsoever for an impartial judgment of the work of professor Abu Zayd as a scholar.
In fact, quite apart from the profound social, cultural and even political relevance of his works, especially in relation to Islam and its believers all over the world, in his scholarly works he is drawing attention to a series of important points that have been neglected or at least remained in the shadow, also in the studies of orientalists. Let me illustrate this by discussing one of his viewpoints on the Koran.
I am referring to Abu Zayd’s view of the oral nature of the Koran, because the Koran, in the understanding of Muhammad and of Muslims in general, was originally transmitted to him in an oral form and was then recited by him to his Companions orally, as well. Although these orally transmitted passages were finally crystallized in written form in order to protect its integrity, the Koran continued to be an orally transmitted and orally recited and reproduced text in the first place. “Even now”, says Abu Zayd, “with the Koran being a printed text, what is important for every Muslim is the memorization of the Koran by heart and the capability of reciting it according to the classical principles of recitation”. Together with the aspect of the aesthetic characteristics of the Koran, especially in view of its poetic language, this elementary view of the oral nature of the Revelation, enables us to grasp the spiritual meaning of the Koran for Muslims, both individually and collectively. The Islamic practice of the recitation of the Koran was historically based, as is argued by Abu Zayd, on the first five verses of Sura 96, where Muhammad was ordered to recite, the act of recitation having been indicated to him as the channel through which God’s message would have to be transmitted to mankind, or, in other words, the Word of God was to be humanized. The process of revelation understood by Muhammad to include recitation preceded by “listening” (“not merely a passive action, but rather representing the internal, intimate and heart-felt act of comprehension”) became the historical prototype for the genuinely Islamic pattern of communication between man and God. It is only on the basis of this understanding of the oral nature of the Koran and of the prototypical role of the revelation process, as is demonstrated eloquently by Abu Zayd, that one can really proceed towards a correct interpretation of the nature and meaning of some of the most basic rituals of the Islamic religion, viz. as communication channels. Recitation of the Koran became the very heart of all kinds of prayers including the salat, as well as of the practice of dhikr, the repeating of God’s name and of tasbîh, glorification.
These are views that can rarely be found in the writings of orientalists, who are usually unable to grasp the full meaning of the spiritual dimension of the Koran, while dealing with it as a written source for the history of early Islam, of Islamic theology and law, in the first place. The Western, non-Muslim understanding of the Koran and of Islam in general continues to depend, to a large extent at least, on the writings of scholars who as a rule made their first acquaintance with the Mushaf in the lecture hall of a university, trying to struggle with the Arabic grammar and dictionary to decipher the contents of the text at least to some extent. Abu Zayd’s work contains essential additions and indeed corrections that deserve to be taken into account to their fullest: they show Islam as a spiritual heritage in the first place, even before being a set of doctrines and rules.
The second point I should like to mention here is about Professor Abu Zayd’s role as a modern theologian. I am referring, as an example, to his discussion, at many different occasions, of the notion of the Koran as the “the Word of God” (kalâm Allâh). One of the questions to be answered here, as Abu Zayd sees it, is: Are the “Word of God” and the Koran identical concepts? Abu Zayd draws the attention to various passages in the Koran where it is emphasized that the Words of Allah are infinite and non-exhaustible (18:109 and 31:27). Even if all the trees on earth were pens, and all the oceans were ink, with seven oceans to add to its supply, the Word of God could not possibly be exhausted. “Therefore”, he concludes, “if the Word of God is impossible to be confined whereas the Koran as a text is limited in space, the Koran should only represent a specific manifestation of the Word of God”. Another question according to him calling for attention is related to the linguistic nature of the Koran. Repeatedly, the Koran emphasizes that it is revealed in “plain Arabic”, according to Abu Zayd, “simply because God always considers the language of the people to whom a messenger is sent: ‘We never sent a messenger –thus the Koran- but with the language of his people, that he might make it clear for them’. It is then not likely –concludes Abu Zayd- to assume that the Koran presents literally and exclusively the word of God. According to this assumption the word of God would be limited to the Koran only, thus excluding previous scriptures from the same right of presenting the Word of God in their own original languages. This will automatically lead to hold Arabic, as has been in fact done by Arab Muslims at least, as a sacred language (…) The Koran is then one manifestation of the Word of God inspired to the prophet Muhammad (…). Thus we can safely distinguish between three aspects of the Koran, namely its content, its language and its structure. There should not be any disagreement that the divinity of the Koran is confined to its source. The content, however, is strongly correlated with the linguistic structure, which is culturally and historically determined. In other words, if the divine content of God’s Word has been expressed in human language, it is the domain of language that represents the essential human dimension of all scriptures in general and the Koran in particular”.
What we see here, I believe, is how a Historian of Religion (of Islam in this case) who accepts the main assumption of religion as a fact of human civilization, attempts to introduce his scientific position into the normative circle of Islamic thought, resulting in a contribution to a modern, liberal Islamic theology in the tradition of religious humanism. Rather than being highly original in the strictest scientific sense, this is an operation with great potential impact in Islamic culture and society, it being one of the prerequisites of the harmonious development of a genuinely modern Islamic identity.
Today we honor a man combining a profound commitment to the methods and principles of modern scientific research on the one hand, with an equally profound commitment to the spiritual wealth of the Islamic tradition, on the other hand. The secret code of his ability to combine between the two, lies perhaps in the humanistic nature of both!
(The quotations are from N.H. Abu Zayd, The Qurán: God and Man in Communication. Inaugural Lecture, Leiden 2000).