Tradition Through the Looking Glass: Part 3

Thomas Bauer’s Culture of Ambiguity and how not to talk about Religious Tradition

May 13, 2023

This is part 3 of a what is a long-form review work-in-progress of what may be one the most important Islamic Studies book of the last 10 years in academia. It has already inspired quite a few books.

NB: This is a long-form review as I wanted to wrestle with some of the issues without worrying about details such as word-count, details that are not so lightly dismissed by editors. Perhaps I can spin it off into the wider world, as I would like.

I would also like any feedback for if, as I intend to, seek to publish in a different format, any feedback would strengthen or highlights it’s - I’m sure - many shortcomings.

Part 1 of the review can be found here.

Part 2 of the review can be found here.

5. The Elimination of Polyvalence in Quranic Commentary

Perhaps we can dismiss this as an isolated incident, who can blame a scholar of Bauer’s ambition to not make a mistake or two. Let us instead focus our efforts on more substantive grounds, does Bauer’s claims stand up: Is it true that that modern Islam has lost the tolerance of ambiguity that it’s earlier predecessor? Yet to answer this question, we are forced to ask another - how ever would we answer such a claim? And even as we mentioned the lack of charity he extends to Al Uthaymeen, perhaps we can’t help but ask; is this the best way of substantiating his claims? I suspect most people would not adopt the method that Bauer does, by comparing one pre-modern scholar to one our contemporaries. It immediately raises the charge of arbitrariness; it is very hard to confident that these texts - or any in fact - are truly representative of their respective time period. Indeed it takes enormous amount of confidence to suggest two authors are representative of their time, and it requires an enormous of deference to take someone’s word that they are.

So how does Bauer ensure he is comparing like for like, and, not as the case maybe, apple with pears? To see, let's consider the chapter Bauer discusses the science of the commentary of the Quran, or tafseer literature. Delightfully, with a lithe touch, Bauer delicately describes the extent Quran lends itself to multiple interpretations. In doing so, he also attempts to bolster his broader thesis and arguing that classical commentators of the Quran were far more tolerant to divergent interpretations than modern ones. More specifically, he argues his case by presenting Al Uthaymeen, once again the representative scholar, placing his spare understanding side by side this time with abundance of interpretation offered by the great Shafi’ jurist and judge Imam Mawardi (d. 1058)1, [famous in some circles for his Ahkaam Sultaniya]. So how does Bauer's claim hold up?

By now, we've already had a taste of Bauer and he doesn't disappoint. He takes the reader by the hand and reveals the virtuosity of Mawardi, and explicating his choices and locating his commentary within the genre, giving us the uninitiated glimmers of a scholastic world hitherto unknown. As a guide, he shines a light on the literary quality of the Quranic language, its consequent vagueness, and how faced with the mass of interpretations this results, how commentators all exerted themselves trying to discern the intentions of the Divine. Bauer further notes how Mawardi, representative of commentators before him, confronted with the scholarly heritage of previous scholars, would assiduously record their interpretations, and on occasionally proffer his own. He tells us, that whilst Mawardi would occasionally discuss the legitimacy of an opinion, he would mostly present them side by side without comment, the reader left awed with the plenitude of the Quran.

Yet even while we marvel at Bauer’s elucidation, one can't help wondering, does this really advance his argument, why should we take this tafseer as representative of the genre? Why should we take Imam Mawardi as exemplifying commentary of his century let alone classical scholarship in 11th century? And even if he was, why should we accept Al Uthaymeen as representative of the modern era? Now Bauer’s book is a short one, and one imagines that the reader should be willing to make concessions to the author who may have sacrificed detailed evidence for the sake of accessibility. Yet, even so, the unlettered reader is forced to take Bauer by his word, that Mawardi and Al Uthaymeen are really representative of their respective historical eras and anyone who says otherwise merely indulges in the usual academic squabbles.

Unfortunately for Bauer, it's hard to see exactly why he chooses these commentaries above others. Firstly, methodologically, it's just not very clear what makes for a representative commentary anyway? There are large commentaries and there are small ones; some inhabit 29 volumes and others only one. Further more and this is perhaps most pertinent, anyone with as much as passing knowledge of Quranic commentary would be aware of different genres, focusing on say, legal derivations, or those attributing relevant hadeeth literature, others may derive spiritual lessons and so on, in the modern era, others ponder on the verses in light of modern knowledge including science. We note then with some surprise, that Bauer is seriously comparing Al Uthaymeen's commentary that aims to impart a unified vision of the Quran without much discussion of the previous scholarly heritage, and comparing that with Al Mawardi encyclopaedic commentary that deliberately collects at times up to 10 interpretations presenting them side by side.2 One is clearly not like the other. It's almost as if the Mawardi's commentary was written in a time where small literate elite themselves educated in the scholarly sciences would know what to do with all these opinions, whereby Al Uthaymeen's mass reading audience would not have undergone the same training. Even more surprising is the choice in using Al Uthaymeen as a representative tafseer of the modern era. For whilst Mawardi is certainly an influential scholar, judge and political notable in his own right, yet the influence of Al Uthaymeen's influence is restricted to salafist circles, nor is his tafseer an especially notable one, or popular.

But whilst we may be at a loss with Bauer's choice of Al Uthaymeen and Mawardi respectively, we may perhaps have sympathy towards Bauer. How do we make sure we are comparing like for like, how can we go about picking one representative commentary of one era comparing it with the commentary of another? Do we go about reading the surviving books of an era and then choosing the commentary exemplifying the attributes of that era? Does ‘representative of an era’ mean the most notable amongst fellow scholars or the most popular amongst laymen? These problems seem insurmountable, and accepting any such judgment is to defer to the judgments, as well as prejudices, of sages rather than scholarships. Perhaps we ought to despair, without some kind of scholarly basis, no such comparison can be made, and from which there could be no grounds to draw the conclusion that early commentaries were more tolerant of ambiguous than contemporary ones.

5.1 A Panoramic Comparison to Tafseer

To this impasse, Walid Saleh’s 'panoramic approach' to tafsir' rides to the rescue. In The Formation of the Classical Tafsir Tradition Saleh’s introduces a panoramic approach to approaching the tafseer literature by removing the scholar as the sole representative of the age or mediator to the whole tradition. It does this by bringing to the tafseer tradition to the fore and allowing us to trace how exactly one scholar base their judgments on the state of commentary and locates their individual contribution on the commentary tradition. We can compare say Mawardi's contribution by noting how the tafseer literature came to him, and thereby seeing his individual contribution in relation to them - what did elide, what did he keep, what if any did add. Once we have located Mawardi's imprint, we can detect his imprint on the tafseer literature after him, by seeing the extent to which his own influence can be detected by those that succeed him. Such a method has the added advantage that it gives appropriate allowances for different genres within the commentary tradition, example summary text books, versus glosses versus encyclopedic commentaries and so on. One would expect, say an influential sufi commentary to have an imprint on later sufi literature, but not expect that same imprint in commentaries that focus on grammar or legal derivation. A further advantage and one that particularly recommends itself, is that Saleh’s panoramic approach has the advantage of scholarly transparency; this is evidence not sagacity.

A sparkling application of such an panoramic approach can be found in an academic paper3 authorities by a young Dutch lecturer based in University of Amsterdam, Pieter Coppens. He has rolled up his sleeves and examined over 52 commentaries from the earliest to the most recent, to see if he can see a corresponding decline in the multiple meanings offered by the commentators, and see if Bauer thesis is right; has there been a decline in ambiguity in Quranic commentaries.

To test Bauer's hypothesis, Coppens selects the controversial first 18 verses of Surah Najm, to see how these discussion were treated by the commentary tradition, and if there was change in the way that modern commentaries recorded them. These discussions attracted great controversy as they allude to the possibility of the Prophet Muhammad SAW seeing Allah during the Night Journey of Isra’ and Miraaj, or whether in fact it was the Arch-Angel Gabriel that was seen. These controversies were not academic, and whilst there was great diversity in the earliest generations, the positions adopted eventually became sectarian-identity markers. As Coppens characterizes it, theologians were divided; Sunni theologians all accepted the possibility that God could be seen in this life and the Hereafter, there controversy was whether He was seen in actuality in this Life. The Mu’tazilites, and Ibadi schools on the other hadn't, were unequivocal in denying the possibility that God could be seen at all.

Coppens characterises the debate as having three options, that the Prophet SAW did see Allah with his blessed eyes, his heart or whether the verses refer in fact to archangel Gabriel. For our sake, the question is not the positions the commentator prefers or adopts, but whether he acknowledges the historical reality that there was deep diversity within sunni scholars: that prominent Companions, the pious predecessors, otherwise known as the salaf, as well as prominent Sunni scholars all adopted positions on all three. Does the commentary tradition then acknowledge recorded that multiple opinions were held or one meaning s presented and if it does, can we detect changes? If Bauer's thesis is right, we would expect to see a preservation of various opinions, with or without a nod to the author’s preference, with a decline in the modern period, either with a) one reading presented in preference to others, or more radically still, b) only one reading mentioned to the exclusion of others.

So how was this discussion recorded in the commentary literature, and was there a change in modern commentaries as Bauer alleges? Coppens demonstrates that yes, Bauer is correct, there is sadly a decline in ambiguity, and that ‘there is indeed something remarkable happening from the nineteenth century’. Aside from theologically and linguistically focused commentaries such as al-Zamahksharī and Abū al-Suʿūd, and some summarizing commentaries, prior to the nineteenth century commentators would largely recording multiple opinions and offer more than one interpretations as being a plausible meaning. Most authors decline to offer their preference, and when they do offer their opinion, there seems be preference for a vision of God (mostly by his ‘heart’), just as much as there is preference for it meaning a vision of Gabriel. After al-Aulusi (d. 1270/1854) however, in the tafseer literature begins to adopt the vision of Gabriel as the preferred opinion even if there is an acknowledgement that other meanings exist. After 20th century, Coppens notes that ‘monovalence [i.e. one meaning] prevails, with Gabriel as the practically only remaining standard option.’ It would seem that tragically, Bauer was right.

5.2 Some lternative explanations for the Loss of Ambiguity

What is notable however, is that while Coppens agrees and indeed substantiates the loss of ambiguity thesis, he disagrees on the reasons Bauer offers. Whilst Coppens' discussion is not detailed, he presents different reasons why tolerance of ambiguity disappears. One possibility, is that with the there emerges a notable theological inflection with Gabriel being subject of the vision alone, or perhaps another reason could be that perhaps it was the rise of hadeeth-centred hermeneutical shift that could explain why this position was adopted .

Regarding the latter, Coppens, ultimately dismisses this possibility, and he notes that Ibn Kathir, despite contemporary popularity was rather obscure historically and despite its hadeeth-centric emphasis, he was thorough in explicating all of the positions and he recorded more diverse material than Tabari. Modern readers who read him through summaries that Ibn Kathir was as Coppens notes ‘firmly polyvalent' in the meanings the offered.

Coppens further explains, while hadeeth-centred hermeneutics may indeed narrow the range of possible interpretation by ruling out for example certain rational or mystical interpretation, on the other hand the transmitter narrations reveal how diverse the opinions were held previously. In that sense while hadeeth-centred hermeneutic would narrow the range of interpretation, with perhaps discussion or comment on the strength of opinion or the narration, the diversity of opinion is revealed to go all the way down the khalaf, to the salaf, further still to the companions. The pre-modern literature shift towards the hadeeth-centric model did not lose this early diversity, instead it diligently reflected it. Furthermore, despite summary commentaries growing in popularity with the rise of madrassa teaching, the numerous commentaries or glossaries on these commentaries ensured that much of the nuance and preserved was kept and made available to its students. It's for these reasons, why Coppens does not find the rise of hadeeth-centric paradigm as a convincing explanation for the loss of ambiguity in modern commentary literature.

So what does Coppens furnish as an explanation? While his discussion is brief, Coppens instead suggests much can be explained by modern commentators tendency to treat surahs, or clusters of verses, as possessing coherent unity rather than previous tendency for commentators of explaining verses atomistically. Instead of interrogating the different possibilities for each verse of Surah Najm; modern commentators treated these verses as possessing unified unity all of whom are discussing Gabriel rather individual verses referring to Allah with this verse, and Gabriel being referred here, and so on.

Another reason Coppens suggests, though clearly related, is the way that texts were written and consumed. Whilst before, scholars would dictate their Quranic commentary to bands of students quite often with a line-by-line commentary interrogating their meaning; by contrast with the onset of mass literacy, authors would assume that their readers would be individuals would read their works on paper. With the latter, Coppens suggest it's ‘not hard to imagine that in the reading strategies associated with the latter[,] the sura emerges as a coherent structure to the reader much more'. It would seem to Coppens, that there is more to the loss of tolerance than salafi-inspired Islam; that the rise of literacy, print and mass education had something to do with it as well.

In this brief discussion, we begin to see historical causes that is suggestive to a far richer and more careful discussion of why the tolerance of ambiguity was lost. With the onset of technological innovations of mass-print, modern communication and the rise of the mass education are partial explanation for the transformation in commentary literature. Not for the first time then, we see how a tradition is transformed by modernity, with subsequent gains and losses as a result. Yet even if we were to disagree with him, Coppens' brief discussion is suggestive to what proper historical explanation should look like, a measured discussion of a range of possibilities combined with a measured evaluation of the plausibility of one historical explanation over the other. It is unfortunate, that's not something that can be said about Bauer. His work is unfortunately replete with shallow historical explanation, and one can't help but wonder if Bauers method of study of mentalities lends itself to facile historical analysis.

Part 4 - Coming soon, hopefully within the next two weeks. Please make share comments and any feedback. Criticisms are especially wanted. As are issues of editing.

Faheem’s Substack

Discussion about this post