Interpreting the Qur'an by the Intellect

In the exploration of various types of interpretation, the demonstrative intellect (ʿaql burhānī) emerges as one of the sources for the science of exegesis and foundational research principles leading to an understanding of Qur'anic teachings. This particular intellect, safeguarded from the misconceptions borne of illusion and fancy, refers to the faculty that establishes the existence of the Universe's Origin, along with His attributes and beautiful names, through empirical scrutiny and rational proof.

Research on interpreting the Qur'an through the lens of intellect necessitates not only a deep understanding of Qur'anic sciences but also a thorough examination of the conditions for valid logical reasoning and the barriers that hinder it. This is crucial for leveraging rational thought effectively while safeguarding against the pitfalls of logical fallacies. The intellect functions as God's internal messenger, analogous to external prophets. Just as outward messengers may either truly embody prophethood or falsely claim it, the intellect's messages can be genuine, guided by strict demonstrative standards, or flawed, marred by fallacies and conjecture. In this state, like a false claimant of prophethood, it has no share of the divine message. However, unlike external messengers, who are invariably infallible and cannot deviate into falsehood, the intellect's infallibility is not guaranteed. It is susceptible to errors, mirroring a false prophet, in moments when it strays from the path of sound reasoning.

Rational interpretation of the Qur'an, as previously discussed, can manifest in two main forms. Firstly, it might occur through the intellect's discernment of internal and external cues, where the intellect, acting wisely and insightfully, deduces a verse's meaning from the amalgamation of other Qur'anic verses and ḥadīths. In this situation, the intellect serves as a guiding light rather than the source of interpretation, rendering this approach an interpretation grounded in narrated evidence rather than independent intellectual reasoning. Alternatively, interpretation can arise from the intellect extracting certain conceptual and theoretical underpinnings directly from the realm of demonstrative intellect and established academic disciplines. In this method, the intellect assumes the role of a foundational source, contributing unique insights and premises. Thus, the verse is interpreted in light of these specific insights, signifying a deeper level of interpretation where the intellect's role is foundational and creative, beyond mere elucidation.

In the realm of Qur'anic exegesis, an essential principle of methodology emerges: while each exegete relies on their certainty to interpret verses according to their understanding, it's crucial within the study of Qur'anic sciences and exegetical methods to discern the type or level of certainty that legitimizes the interpretation of the sacred text. Not all forms of certainty wield the authority to redefine the apparent meaning of a verse. Some do possess this capability, while others do not. It's noteworthy that a certainty allowing for the alteration of a verse's apparent trajectory might be fallacious and not aligned with reality. However, provided that the interpreter has exercised due diligence in establishing the premises of their interpretation, their effort remains valid, even if it diverges from conventional understanding.

When certainty concerning a propositional premise arises from the realms of theoretical mysticism, philosophy, theology, logic, or mathematics—where affirming a predicate of a subject is deemed necessary, and its disassociation from the subject is inconceivable—this level of certainty culminates in necessity. The rationale underpinning this is the logical axiom that two contradictory statements cannot both be true, making it impossible to negate the predicate from the subject. Consequently, any Qur'anic verse or transmitted ḥadīth must be interpreted in alignment with this type of certainty, which dictates necessity.

When certainty regarding a propositional premise is based on empirical evidence, it's important to recognize, firstly, that achieving certainty in empirical matters is exceptionally challenging. This is because complete induction is difficult, and acquiring the implicit syllogism that differentiates experience from mere induction is equally demanding. As a result, logical certainty concerning empirical matters is not readily attainable. Secondly, even if one were to reach empirical certainty concerning the affirmation of a predicate to a subject, this certainty tends to be one-sided. This means that while certainty may be established about the predicate's affirmation to the subject, it's rare to confine the predicate exclusively to the subject or to restrict the subject's attribution solely to that predicate. The outcome of repeated experiments typically indicates that, up to the present moment, whenever tested, a specific subject possesses a certain predicate, and a particular predicate has been affirmed for a specific subject—this is certainty regarding continuity. However, certainty concerning the necessity of the predicate's affirmation to the subject, to the extent that an alternative state of existence, breaking the norm miraculously, would result in an impossibility, is not achieved. Thus, empirical certainty generally refers only to a necessary understanding of continuity or habit, not to an inevitability. Consequently, this form of knowledge does not conflict with the concept of miracles or other supernatural phenomena.

Given empirical certainty, it's not viable to interpret a Qur'anic verse as contradicting science or its apparent meaning based on the premise that it opposes habitual experience, because a miracle, by definition, deviates from habit but does not contravene rational necessity. Take the empirical observation of fire: the common experience is that fire burns the human body upon contact. The question arises, is this burning a result of necessity or merely a habit? Does the interaction of fire with human skin inherently cause burning in such a way that the effect is inseparable from the cause, or does this observation simply reaffirm the consistency of habit without establishing it as a rational necessity, thus implying the impossibility of separation? (96)

Thus, the incident of Abraham (a.s.) remaining unscathed after being cast into the fire, while habitually improbable, does not defy rational possibility. This places it squarely within the realm of miracles, rendering unnecessary any interpretation of the verse, O fire! Be cool and safe for Abraham (21:69) that contradicts its direct meaning. Similarly, narratives such as the halting of flowing water to reveal a dry path through the Nile, and other instances of miraculous intervention, represent instances of habitual, not rational, improbability.

The general principle in all these cases is that no logical proof has definitively established that a predicate must necessarily belong to a subject or be exclusive to it. This implies that a predicate can be disconnected from its usual subject or be attributed to an unusual one, due to the lack of evidence for necessity in the first scenario and for exclusivity in the second. Therefore, when interpreting a verse in a way that diverges from its obvious or direct meaning, it's essential to determine whether the certainty involved is logical or simply psychological. If logical, it's crucial to ascertain whether this logic dictates necessity or habitual occurrence, and if it suggests necessity, to question whether this is exclusively so. Should the logic only indicate habitual occurrence, not necessity, it allows for the predicate to be miraculously separated from the subject. Similarly, if necessity isn't exclusively tied to the usual subject, attributing the predicate to an alternative subject through breaking of normality becomes viable. Consequently, reinterpreting a verse or ḥadīth against its straightforward or specified meaning cannot be justified solely on the basis of certainty regarding a matter.

In cases where a Qur'anic verse seemingly addresses a standard situation without intending to showcase a miracle, interpretation can follow established principles. This perspective assumes the verse aims to convey a natural phenomenon, orchestrated by the divine, where the occurrence is feasible through various means, none of which contradict rational principles of impossibility or necessity. If future evidence contradicts this interpretation, the discrepancy is attributed to the interpreter's comprehension rather than to divine revelation. This scenario resembles deriving secondary laws from primary principles, where interpretations may align with reality or diverge from it. When an error in understanding is identified, responsibility lies with the interpreter, not the religious law itself. In attributing interpretations to divine law, one must consider the interpreter's depth of understanding, the textual evidence supporting their interpretation, and the level of certainty in their conclusion—distinguishing between interpretations made with absolute certainty and those based on conjecture. A definitive association is warranted in cases of unequivocal certainty, while conjectural associations are applicable in instances of speculative understanding.

The Harmful Effects of the Isolation of the Prophet's Household (a.s.)

Discussing the principles and conditions for interpreting the Qur'an, as well as emphasizing the essential roles of the Qur'an, rationality, and the Sunnah of the Infallibles (a.s.) in this process, naturally leads to a deeper understanding of the adverse impacts resulting from marginalizing the Infallibles (a.s.).

The point is that the loss that has befallen the world of humanity, especially the Islamic umma, due to the isolation of the Infallible perfect human beings is beyond counting, for those luminous essences have been the compilers of all three sources of religion. But others are not the compilers of knowledge of the sources, and if supposedly they can gather knowledge of them, their gathering is not sound; rather, their gathering is definitely or probably broken.

The Pure Progeny (a.s.) represent the epitome of human perfection and the full embodiment of divine representation, uniquely mastering the essential elements of the religious triangle: the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and rational thought (demonstrative intellect). Their rightful leadership and scholarly guidance within the Islamic community would have ensured the holistic transmission of these profound sources to humanity. For, on the one hand, those sacred essences, in interpreting the Qur'an by the Qur'an, akin to the Prophet (s.a.w.), viewed the Qur'an as a harmonious whole, with its verses intricately connected, speaking, testifying, and confirming one another. This understanding would have led to comprehensive arguments drawing from the Qur'an's interconnected verses. Additionally, their Sunnah, deeply ingrained and better understood by them—echoing the adage, "The people of the household are more aware of what is in it"—would serve as a crucial interpretative tool. Furthermore, as the true successors of the prophets (a.s.), they held a significant role in unlocking the potential of human intellect, thereby fostering the growth of rational thought. This is encapsulated in the words of the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.): "Hasten to knowledge before the withering of its vegetation and before you become occupied with yourselves, from the one who elicits knowledge from its possessors."