A Unique Sufi Interpretation DECODING THE

BYU Studies Quarterly, 2001

In his 2011 work, Is Allah a Man? The Islam Debate, Dr. Wesley Muhammad engages in a discussion with a pair of “Orthodox” Muslims, the aim of said discussion being to address the question of whether or not Allah (God) is a man. His primary interlocutors were two Sunnī Muslims, both of whom are members of the Community of W. Deen Mohammed. Said Community was founded by its namesake, whose father was Elijah Muhammad, the long time leader of the Nation of Islam (NOI); the NOI happens to be the community Dr. Muhammad is a high ranking member of. In this debate, Dr. Muhammad is taken to task concerning his staunch advocacy of “Elijah Muhammad’s anthropomorphist melanotheosis,” that is to say his defense of Elijah Muhammad’s highly controversial notion that Allah (God) is in fact a black human being. Dr. Muhammad, in this debate, was able to successfully defend his position. I concur with the Professor when he states that such a discussion was “long overdue,” however, it became apparent to me that, despite the fact that, in his words, "it was always necessary and inevitable that an open, scholarly dialogue on the subject with qualified individuals take place," after examining this debate several times, I must admit that there is one aspect of that “inevitable necessity” that was not met: it did not take place between qualified individuals. While my aim is not to discredit his interlocutors, their community or challenge the sincerity of the effort they put forth in defending their respective position, it is the case that, in my opinion, the arguments put forth by Dr. Muhammad would have been refuted in a scholarly manner had they been qualified to engage in such a task. Rather, Dr. Muhammad (for better or worse) was able to successfully defend his position, as well as engage the arguments advanced by his interlocutors in a scholarly and profession manner. From my perspective, they were unable to indulge him in a similar fashion. With that in mind, it virtually goes without saying that the question of how one is to understand the God of Islam is still open to discussion. Is Allah a Man? In the past, Dr. Muhammad has at times rhetorically spoken of the Death/Burial/Putting to Rest of the “Mystery God.” Such rhetoric expresses what he sees as an academic triumph of anthropomorphism over the notion that God is an immaterial being. For this reason I have decided to title this work ‘Exhuming the Mystery God,’ that we may properly judge if “foul play” was involved in the death of said deity. By foul play, of course, I mean arguments or evidences that cannot stand up to critical scrutiny, and I do not mean to suggest that Dr. Muhammad has deliberately misled anyone. This is the context in which I have decided to offer a critique of the arguments put forward by Dr. Muhammad in the aforementioned debate. However, it should be understood that I am not writing this paper as a member of either community (NOI or CWDM), and this critique in no way puts an end to the discussion at large; if anything, it simply calls for Dr. Muhammad to reevaluate the grounds upon which he has defended his claim.

Modern Theology, 2021

In this review, I first describe and analyze the Reynolds’ argument. I then situate his approach within the burgeoning scholarship on Allah. Finally, I conclude with a brief discussion of some methodological limitations of __Allah: God in the Qur’an__.

Against the prevailing ‘mystical symbol’ view, this paper argues that the Qur’ān’s disconnected letters originally functioned as meaningful abbreviations. Diachronic analysis indicates that the letters facilitated and accompanied transitions in quranic revelation theology. Each set of letters is analyzed and their referents are proposed. Because the letters primarily functioned to communicate revealed prophetological assurances in the face of political weakness, it is argued, their function became obsolete with the prophet’s ascension to power.

Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 2007

2015

In his passionate devotion to the task of inviting others to Islam, Muhammad al-Ghazali (1917-1996) presented Muslims with a powerful critique of themselves, not only in their endemic failure to project Islam in the best, most reasoned light, but also in their betrayal of the Qur'an's spiritual principles and the highest standards set by the Prophet Muhammad.

translations of the Quran and realizing the sincere efforts of the translators in this great, divinely blessed task, it became clear to me that English translations lack internal consistency and reliability. Clearly no translation of the Quran can compare in beauty and style with the original Arabic, which has been described as: " by turns, striking, soaring, vivid, terrible, tender and breathtaking. " 1 Recognizing this, a translation of a sacred text which will never equal the original still has certain criteria it should meet. I found, when the context is the same, if the same English word is not used for the same Arabic word throughout the translation, it becomes difficult for someone who wants to learn to correlate the English and the Arabic to be able to do so. In other words, the twenty or so English translations put emphasis on interpreting a Quranic verse without precisely representing the original Arabic word. For example, in one translation , the English verb " to turn " is used for over forty-three different Arabic words and the noun " sin, " twenty-three. The Arabic language is much more precise than present translations would indicate and God used a different word in each case. Therefore, a translation should do the same to the extent possible in order to give the English reader more of a sense of the depth to the Quran. This Arabic-English version of The Sublime Quran is the best way for a student of classical Quranic Arab to learn to read the Quran because of the internal consistence and reliability of the translation. For the Muslim, the Quran is the Word (Logos) of God. It is this Word of God that has inspired artists, artisans, poets, philosophers and writers, those who had been the exponents of Islamic culture and civilization for almost 1500 years. Yesterday and today's Muslim wants to know more about each Word that God chose for His revelation through the Quran. This realization, in turn, prompted

Ideas Inspired by the Qur'ān, 2023

The Qur'an is a dhikr - a reminder of our own true Mind and Minder. GOD is telling us, in a voice that we can almost remember from our primal past, that He loved us before He made us, that we belong to Him as surely as our thoughts belong to us, and that we know GOD better than we know ourselves.

2018

Qurʾanic Hermeneutics argues for the importance of understanding the polysemous nature of the words in the Qurʾan and outlines a new method of Qurʾanic exegesis called intertextual polysemy. By interweaving science, history, and religious studies, Abdulla Galadari introduces a linguistic approach which draws on neuropsychology. This book features examples of intertextual polysemy within the Qurʾan, as well as between the Qurʾan and the Bible. It provides examples that intimately engage with Christological concepts of the Gospels, in addition to examples of allegorical interpretation through inner-Qurʾanic allusions. Galadari reveals how new creative insights are possible, and argues that the Qurʾan did not come to denounce the Gospel – which is one of the stumbling blocks between Islam and Christianity – but only to interpret it in its own words. There is a debate among academic and religious scholars alike on the reliability of classical Qurʾanic exegesis for interpretation. This book proposes a new and innovative method of Qurʾanic exegesis called intertextual polysemy, using provocative examples. It breaks away the shackles of classical exegesis and tries to demystify the concept of Muhammad’s revelation and allegories by adopting concepts of neuropsychology. It introduces Psychological Qurʾanic Criticism as a field, similar to that found in Biblical Studies. The book proposes a method that argues the importance of understanding the polysemous nature of the words in the Qurʾan and uses intertextuality between the Qurʾan and itself, as well as between the Qurʾan and the Bible to identify how words and their various morphologies are used. It also gives insightful but controversial examples using this methodology. To argue in favour of such a method, the book touches very crucial and sometimes controversial subjects. An example of such, contrary to recent scholarly debates, the book argues that “taḥrīf,” according to the Qurʾan, perhaps means turning away (inḥirāf) from Scriptures, and not necessarily changing either the words or their meanings. This is a diverging thought from existing literature that did not look at this as a possible definition of the term. The book also presents few working examples of intertextual polysemy for Qurʾanic hermeneutics. It gives examples for intertextualizing the Qurʾan with itself, as well as between the Qurʾan and the Bible. Many of the stumbling blocks between Christianity and Islam when it comes to Christology and the theology are completely reinterpreted showing that in fact the Qurʾan did not come to denounce the Gospel, but only interpret it in its own words. With those examples, it shows how new creative insights on understanding possible deeper meanings to the Qurʾan along with its Biblical subtext. As examples adopted in the book, it shows how the term Ibn Allah in the Qurʾan is defining the Temple of God, not actually the Son. It also mentions how the concept that God neither begets nor is begotten in the Qurʾan is an attempt to interpret the Logos in the Gospel of John and not denying it, as it is currently assumed by both academic and religious scholars. This book is very different than existing literature in Qurʾanic studies in that it proposes and argues in favour of a new method of Qurʾanic hermeneutics using a linguistic approach that is not found in any other books in the field, stemming from a possible neuropsychological basis.

Toshihiko Izutsu