An analysis of Mr. Ghamdi’s Basic Principles of Interpretation of Quran

Mr. Ghamdi employs various principles of interpretation of Quran. Without going into details how far these principles are valid, we would analyze some basic principles of interpretation employed by Mr. Ghamdi, and see how far these basic principles are valid.

First such basic principle employed by Mr. Ghamdi is there are verses which are individually and specifically addressed to our Nabi (s.a.w.w); the commandments contained in such verses are not follow-able by the Ummah. But he does not have any ‘sanad/ legal text’ to determine as to which verses are individually and specifically addressed to our Nabi (s.a.w.w), and which are not. He has left differentiation between these two types of verses totally on the understanding of the reader; as a result he has opened a Pandora box through which every reader/ thinker, according to his own best judgment, may declare any number of verses as Nabi (s.a.w.w) specific, and, resultantly, may reduce follow-able Quranic commandments to the minimum. Actually a legal determinant/ ‘sanad’ needs to  apply to differentiate between what verses are Nabi (s.a.w.w) specific and what are not. In the absence of required legal determinant/ ‘sanad’, Mr. Ghamdi has applied this principle of interpretation almost arbitrarily to many such verses  which are not specifically addressed to our Nabi (s.a.w.w), and as such commandments contained therein are follow-able by the Ummah. For instance, applying this principle to many verses of aggressive qattal, he says that “aggressive qattal done by our Nabi (s.a.w.w), in order to establish a political domination, was something specific to our Nabi (s.a.w.w) and as such it is not follow-able by the Ummah; it means Ummah is not to undertake aggressive qattal in order to establish political domination”. Without going into many fallacies in  applying this principle of interpretation to ‘qattal’, we would constrain ourselves to point out the fallacies of this principle as employed by Mr. Ghamdi as a whole.

There is no second opinion that some verses are individually and specifically addressed to our Nabi (s.a.w.w) e.g. verses relating to number of wives, and as such commandments contained in such verses are not follow-able by the Ummah. But the principle of interpretation- based on the Quran- is that every verse individually addressed to our Nabi (s.a.w.w) cannot be taken as specifically addressed to our Nabi (s.a.w.w); only such verses are to be taken as specific to our Nabi (s.a.w.w), if commandments contained in such verses are separate and contradictory to commandments given to the Muslims. For instance Quran says:

“O Prophet (s.a.w.w), indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you [of captives] and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who emigrated with you and a believing woman if she gives herself to the Prophet [and] if the Prophet wishes to marry her, [this is] only for you, excluding the [other] believers. We certainly know what We have made obligatory upon them concerning their wives and those their right hands possess, [but this is for you] in order that there will be upon you no discomfort. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful” (al-ahzab-50).

This verse has been individually addressed to our Nabi (s.a.w.w) but some of its commands are not specifically addressed to our Nabi (s.a.w.w). For instance commandment regarding legality/permission of marrying daughters of paternal and maternal uncles and daughters of maternal and paternal aunts is not specific to our Nabi (s.a.w.w) though marrying these (relative) women, and a Muslim woman (other than mentioned relatives)), without payment of ‘mehr’, is the commandment specific to our Nabi (s.a.w.w). This is the only verse in Quran which specifically permits marrying daughters of maternal/paternal uncles and aunts. There is no other command for the Muslims, which is contradictory to command of permission of marrying daughters of paternal/ maternal uncles and aunts; therefore this command is not specific to our Nabi (s.a.w.w) though it is individually addressed to our Nabi (s.a.w.w).

Therefore, in order to determine whether or not a verse is specifically addressed to our Nabi (s.a.w.w), it is not enough to see whether the verse has been addressed individually or not; for the purpose, we also have to see whether or not the commandment contained in such verse is contradictory to the commandment given to general Muslims; if yes, such verse will be taken as specific to our Nabi (s.a.w.w); otherwise it will NOT be taken as our Nabi (s.a.w.w) specific.

In the light of foregoing, the principle of Nabi (s.a.w.w) specific verses, as adopted by Mr. Ghamdi without having the legal determinant/ ‘sand’ to ascertain whether or not any verses can be declared as Nabi (s.a.w.w) specific, and many applications of this principle- as employed by him- cannot be seen as valid principle of interpretation of the Quran.

The second principle of interpretation employed by Mr. Ghamdi is that “Quran has two types of commandments; some are permanent-which are to be followed by the Ummah for ever. Whereas the others are situation specific- which are not to be followed by the Ummah for ever- such commandments are/were to be followed only in the situation described in the Quran (or described in the Sunnah; it is a contradiction in Ghamdi’s views; in most cases he gives primacy to Quran, while rejecting Sunnah). In other words, if there are two verses/clauses, one containing description of a situation, and the other containing commandment regarding such situation, Mr. Ghamdi declares that application of such commandment is conditional to the situation described in the other verse/clause. In other words, he links application of one verse with the existence of situation described in the other verse. For instance, he links application of commandment contained in verse 59 of al-ahzab with the situation described in verse 58. These verses state as follows:

“And those who harm/ torture mentally believing men and believing women for [something] other than what they have earned have certainly born upon themselves a slander and manifest sin (58). Prophet (s.a.w.w), tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be identified (as Muslims) and not be tortured. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful (al-ahzaab-58,59)”.

The verse 59 states about the commandment of ‘hijab’; whereas verse 58 states about a situation of baseless allegations leveled against Muslim women. Mr. Ghamdi states that Muslim women are to observe hijab under this verse only if situation of likelihood of baseless allegations exists; otherwise Muslim women do not have to observe ‘hijab’ under commandment contained in verse 59. In other words, Mr. Ghamdi has treated verse 59 as principal clause and verse 58 as subordinate/ conditional verse/ clause. But again Mr. Ghamdi is applying the principle of principal/subordinate clause, without applying valid Arabic grammatical principles in this regard. In Arabic language, if a clause is to be made principal or subordinate clause, there are specific grammatical rules/principles for that purpose; it is like we make principal/subordinate clauses in English language. For instance, al-ahzaab-60 states:

 “If the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is disease and those who spread rumors in al-Madinah do not cease, We will surely incite you against them; then they will not remain your neighbors therein except for a little.

In this above stated verse, the underlined portion is the principal clause whereas the remaining portion is a subordinate clause. This linkage of principal and subordinate clause has been created according to Arabic grammatical principle.

But when we see at verses 58 & 59 of al-ahzaab given above, we do not find any such linkage of principal and subordinate clause (under Arabic grammar rules) . In the absence of any Arabic grammatical rule, Mr. Ghamdi is creating this linkage of principal/subordinate clause, on the basis of his whims only which are, of course, based on his own  understanding of the Quran. But the point is  if every religious scholar starts interpreting Quran on the basis of his whims, without applying valid Arabic grammatical principles (in cases where grammar principles apply), there would emerge thousands of sects among the Ummah, and follow-able Quranic commandments would be reduced to the minimum. For applying principal/subordinate clause rule, we have to take into consideration that if suggested principal and subordinate clauses are at one place, Arabic grammar rules have to be applied to declare principal/subordinate clauses. But if suggested principal/conditional clauses are at separate places,  the suggested conditional clause should be applicable through its  words (NOT through inference only)  to the command(s) contained in the principal clause (s) {one must not declare Allah's Words as non-applicable through his own wisdom, though one can declare Allah's Words as non-applicable through Allah's Words}. In no case contradictory meanings of two verses should be adopted.  

Thirdly, the above stated and explained both principles of interpretation employed by Mr. Ghamdi are based on the concept that all commandments given in the Quran are not permanent; some are Nabi (s.a.w.w) specific and some are situation specific. But actually this is not the right way to look into permanence of Quranic commandments. The right way to look into permanence of Quranic commandments is that Quranic commandments are permanent in the sense that addressees of such commandments are always under obligation to implement these commandments, whenever time for implementation of these commandments comes; this principle of interpretation would keep us away from declaring  some Quranic commandments as non-applicable. We should keep in mind that it is only Allah's right to declare His commandments as non-applicable. Quran says:
“We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent”?(al-baqra-106).

We may conclude that Mr. Ghamdi’s basic principles of interpretation,  explained above,  either lack in valid ‘sanad’/ legal text or lack in valid grammatical principles, and as such are not tenable in the light of valid legal texts and valid Arabic grammatical rules.