He wrote the “Commentary on the Bible” and published in 1862-1865. Earlier Sayyid Ahmad Khan wrote exegesis of the Koran, which was written both in Urdu and English to address the readership of Muslims and Christians. He was not only a prolific reformist writer but also a visionary. He not only founded a translation society for the introduction of modern Western texts in 1864, he also founded Anglo-Muhammadan Oriental College at Aligarh in 1874. This college was modeled on the British university system. He also established Muhammadan Angelo-Oriental Educational Conference in 1886 to promote the Western education, the translation of Western scientific works and Women’s education.
His religious reorientations were the least popular and the most criticized elements of his reformist program. The principles of Koranic exegesis are the keynote of his approach to rationalist, neo-Mutazilite understandings of Islamic scripture. The views presented in the interpretation of Koran are in harmony with science and reason (“between the Word of God and the work of God there can be no contradiction”). He questioned much of the corpus of Hadith (the Prophet’s traditions) as either apocryphal or relevant only to the Prophet’s day and age.
He rejects the validity of ijma’(consensus of the theologians), but broadened the horizon of ijthihad (use of individual reasoning) as the birthright of every intelligent Muslim, and as the principle that could be employed rationally for the revitalization and modernization of Islamic law and life.
The Commentary on the bible (Tabyin al-Kalam) offers a extremely rare efforts in Islamic history to interpret the Judeo-Christian Scripture from a sympathetic Muslim point of view. It also marks the beginnings of religious pluralism in Islamic India.
Here are some of the excerpts from his work to appreciate and recognize his efforts to modernize the Muslim minds.
Islam: The Religion of Reason
“I happen to believe that there is nobody who is well acquainted with modern philosophy and modern and natural Science as they exist in the English language and who at the same time believes in all the doctrines which are considered doctrines of Islam in present day understanding…. I am certain that as these sciences spread—and their spreading is inevitable and I myself after all, too, help and contribute towards spreading them—there will arise in the hearts of people an uneasiness and carelessness and even a positive disaffection towards Islam as it has been shaped in our times. At the same time, I believe firmly that this is not because of a defect in the original religion but rather because of those errors which have been made, willfully or not, to stain the face of Islam…. The person that states Islam to be true must also state how he can prove the truth of Islam….in order to arrive at the truth it is necessary that we discover a criterion and establish a touchstone which is related to all religions in the same manner and by which we can prove our religion or belief to be true…….
By this criterion I shall justify without any wavering what I acknowledge to be the original religion of Islam which God and the Messenger have disclosed, not that religion which the ‘ulema´ and preachers have fashioned. I shall prove this religion to be true and this will be the decisive difference between us and the followers of other religions…..the only criterion for the truth of the religions which are present before us is whether the religion [in question] is in correspondence with the natural disposition of man, or with nature. If yes, then it is true, and such correspondence is a clear sign that this religion has been sent by that person which has created man. But if this religion is against the nature of man and his natural constitution and against his forces and faculties, and if it hinders man from employing these profitably, then there can be no doubt that this religion is not sent by the person that crated man, because everyone will agree that religion was made for man. You can turn this and state to the same effect that man was created for religion.
So I have determined the following principle for discerning the truth of the religion, and also testing the truth of Islam, i.e., is religion in question in correspondence with human nature or not, with the human nature that has been created into man or exists in man. And I have become certain that Islam is in correspondence with that nature…. I hold for certain that God has created us and sent us his guidance. This guidance corresponds fully to our natural constitution, to our nature and this constitutes the proof for its truth.
After determining this criterion I clarified that Islam is in full accordance with nature. So I formulated that “Islam is nature and nature is Islam.” God is the Creator of all things, as He is the Creator of heaven and earth and what is in them, and of all creatures; so is He also the Creator of nature……… [This path is not entirely new in the history of Islam.] Can anybody say’ that the path I have outlined above is not apt to strengthen Islam?…. No doubt it is new path, and yet in it I have followed the ancient ‘ulama.’ As they developed a theology [‘ilm-al-kalam’] in a new fashion, so I, like them, have developed a new method to prove the same truth. We cannot exclude the possibility of a mistake. Yet future ‘ulema’ will render it fully correct and will help Islam. In my view Islam can be reaffirmed against doubters in this way and not in any other.”
Principles of Exegesis
Introduction
The first part of the work is a correspondence between Sir Sayyid and his close associate, Muhsin al-Mulk Mahdi ‘Ali Kahn’ who was notable contributor to Sir Sayyid’s journal “Tahdhib al-akhlaq”. This part voices utter disappointment with principles of exegesis formulated by classical Islam and so does injustice to them. No one can dispense with a great deal of sound ideas formulated in classical exegesis. Sir Sayyid himself draws freely on those resources.
Sir Sayyid’s Commentary is in fact a collection of essarys and not a word by word Tafsir. He comments only on his limited selection of verse relating to the questions which he considered most important for his times. The bulk of the Tafsir deals with interpretation of everything which according to him appears to involve supernatural phenomena (Khariq al-adah). He tries to explain these in terms of natural causation and that is why he was called Necharil [“Naturalist”] by his opponents. The question of Muslim-non-Muslim relations and of religious warfare also occupy considerable space in this Commentary. The influence of this Tafsir has been great. It forms a major bais for Amir Ali’s polemical work The Spirit of Islam……..
The Translation
The First Principle
It is accepted that the One God, the creator of beings, is existent. “And He is One, the Lord Resort of the needy (al-Samad). He has neither begotten, nor is He begotten: He is the necessarily existing, the living One who does not die, eternal in the past and eternal in the future. He is the primal cause of all causes of the entire creation as they are and as they will be.”
The Second Principle
It is also accepted that He sent Apostles for the guidance of man and that Muhammad the elect (al-Mustafa) is a true Prophet and the seal, or the last, of the Prophets.
The Third Principle
It is also accepted that the glorious Koran is Divine Speech, which was sent down to the heart of Muhammad or was inspired into him and that he upon whom be peace and blessing, “speaks not out of lust. It is but an inspiration inspired” (Sura 53:3 and 4).
The Fourth Principle
It is also accepted that the glorious Koran alighted on the heart of the Prophet or was inspired into it, whether it is believed that the Angel Gabriel transmitted it to the Prophet or that the faculty of prophecy which has been given the appellation of the faithful spirit—al-Ruh Al-Amin—- has poured (or infused) it on the heart of the Prophet. This last is the belief I personally follow. The result of both the alternatives positions is the same and therefore discussion about it is unnecessary.
But I do not accept the view that only the subject matter (madmun) was poured on the heart and that the (actual) words f Koran are Prophet’s own, whereby he has expressed that subject matter in his tongue which was Arabic.
It is surprising, immensely surprising, that the “Dominating Argument of God among Men” (Hujjat Allah al-Baligha) Imam Shah Wali-Allah of Delhi says in his book, al-Tafhimat al-ilahiyya: “ And in this category (of tajalliyyat) (means of God’s nearness to man) is the great Koran in the sense that the words of the Koran are only in the form of the Arabic language which was familiar to Muhammad and in which he could think, while the ideas flowed from the unseen to teach him as a means of God’s nearness to man. And these (the words or the ideas?) became Divine speech. They became so only because the intention of the welfare of men became fixed in his thought: and this is what collected the words and composed them and then it became unfolded in this composition and wore a dress of words suitable for the mighty greatness of God. And by virtue of this it became a means of God’s nearness to men and was called the Speech of God.”
But what Shah Wali Allah has said here is opposed to reason and the actuality of the matter. The Koran itself says: “And verily it is a revelation from the Lord of the worls: the faithful Spirit came down with it upon they heart that thous shouldest be of those who warn: in plain Arabic language.” (Sura 2:192-195). In another place it says: “Verily We have revealed it an Arabic Koran; haply ye may understand.” (12:2) This clearly shows that the Koran alighted upon the heart of the Prophet in the Arabic language, and it cannot be said that it was merely a pouring down of ideas (ma’na’) and that the words which were the medium of expression of these ideas were the Prophet’s.
It is opposed to the fact of the matter because no idea divested of words can come to mind, nor can it pouring (into the heart) take place. The imagining and conceiving of any subject demand as a concomitant the imagination and conception of the words, which are indicative of that subject. The occurrence of a content divested of words is a rational impossibility. Therefore the glorious Koran was poured upon the Prophet’s heart in actual words as they are and the Prophet recited these same words in the same (original) order to the people.
The Fifth Principle
The glorious Koran is absolutely true. Nothing wrong or contrary to reality is registered in it. The Koran itself says: “And verily it is glorious book, Falsehood shall not come to it, from before it nor from behind it… a revelation from the Wise, the Praiseworthy One.” (Sura 41:42) And if the Koran cites someone’s (objectionable) speech by way of narration or by way of contradicting it, or argues from, or uses as compelling rhetoric, such beliefs of men as are not opposed to its intent, admitting them without scrutinizing their reality and true nature, or if it states apparent happenings in terms of their outward appearance without examining their true validity, or if it includes in its discourse words which are not maqsud (the thing ultimately meant?), all this is not verity of the Koran.
The Sixth Principle
The positive and negative attributes of God, the creating essence (dhat bari) which are stated in the Koran are all true and right, but to know the exact nature of these attributes is beyond human intellect. Therefore, these attributes, as they present themselves to our minds and which we have understood from the world of temporal possible, cannot be predicated of God, Who is the necessarily existing. And, therefore, we say only that these attributes exist in (God) the creating essence in their infinitival sense, (ma’na masdari)):’ilm Knowing), ijad (creating), qudra (power), hayat (life). Moreover, we regard the existence of these attributes in the necessarily existing essence as necessary.
The Seventh Principle
The attributes of the Creator are the essence itself and, like the essence, are of an infinite past and of an infinite future and the manifestation of the attributes is necessarily demanded by the essence by whatever reason (the demand) be and whatever be the manner.
It is the belief of the scholastic dogmatists (al-Mutakallimun) that the attributes of the Creator are neither the essence itself nor other than the essence. But the theosophists regard then as the essence itself and declares their manifestation to be necessarily demanded by the essence. But this is all merely a dispute over words and the result is the same. No doubt, there is no clear evidence or conclusive argument supporting the view adopted by the scholastics. The revered Shah Wali-Allah in his al-Tafhimat al-Ilahiyya says: “The dispute between the theosophist philosophers and the scholastics, as to whether God the exalted is Creator by choice or by necessity, is no important matter in the realm of meanings, when, according to the philosophers, will is identical with essence and origination (by will) is necessary causation.
The Eighth Principle
All the attributes of God are infinite and absolute. “He does what He wills and decides what He wills.” Hence He had the choice of making the promises He has made and the choices of instituting the law of nature under which He might have created (another) universe, made the present universe, or may yet make a universe of another form in the future. But the violation of that law of nature, so long as the law exists, is impossible. If it does occur then it implies defect of the perfect attributes of God, the creating essence. Making these promises and setting up a universe under a law of nature cannot be contrary to the absoluteness and infinitude of His power. (Here Sir Sayyid Quotes Suras 5:12-13; 9:69 and 73; 19 :62; 2:74; 7:42; 41:45; 3:7; 73:18; and 40, 57 and 77.) It is proved by these verses that God the exalted has made promises, and infringements of promises will never be. In spite of these promises and the impossibility of their infringement, He describes Himself as the omnipotent and the efficient Doer of what He will (Sura 11:109 and 95:16.), which proves that promise and the impossibility of breach of promise are not inconsistent with the omnipotence and the absoluteness of His attributes.
The same is true of the law of nature, upon which this universe is made. The formal is the verbal promise, while the law of nature is procedural (operational) promise. Much of this law of nature God has told us and some of it man has discovered, even man has not discovered much. But whatever is discovered is undoubtedly the operational promise of God, the infringement of which is equal to the infringement of verbal promise and cannot happen. God has said: “Verily everything have we created by measure.” (Sura 54:49). Hence the meaning [concept] by which God created things cannot be infringed. It is not possible that the time which is appointed for a thing be put off (Sura &:32). It is not possible that the nature with which God has created man be altered (Sura 30:29). In another place He says: “There is no changing the words of God.” (Sura 10:65). In our opinion “the words of God” and “the creation of God” are two synonyms, which means that no changes can occur in nature. Again He has said: “… and thou shalt never find in God’s course any alteration.” (Sura 33:62). Hence no alteration is possible in the course of things established by God.
Such was the general guidance concerning the law of nature. But God has also told us specific laws of nature. (Sura 23:12 – 14; 22:5; 30:20). Besides these there are numerous other verses on the same subject in which God has declared to us the law of nature that man is born from mates, i.e., male and female… so the violation of this law of nature cannot be, just it does seem: nor is it possible for the moon not to become a crescent after covering its stages, as it always became: nor is it possible for the sun and moon to collide: nor for day and night to be confused. And when it is proved that the sun seems to move because of the movement of the earth, it necessarily follows from this very verse that the earth cannot cease to move at any time for anyone. This is contrary to the law of nature and is as impossible as a breach of the verbal promise (of God). [Sir sayyid then goes on to cite Suras 2:47, 7:132; and 25:50 – 51 to confirm that it is not possible for rain to fall without clouds.] The violation of these laws is as impossible as the infringement of the verbal promise of God. We have cited these verses as examples. There is much (of that import) in the Koran besides these and God has declared the law of nature to us.
Apart from these man has made known to himself the law of nature within the creation of God, from experience of the things God has created. Undoubtedly he cannot claim that he has discovered all the laws of nature. Some of them are well ascertained to the limit of infallibility. It is not known how many of these laws of nature are still undiscovered. Commenting on the law of nature, which, we have pointed out from the verses of the glorious Koran some one, may say that this law of nature is not universal and that there are exceptions to it. But such a person must prove these exceptions from the Koran. Our claim is that the occurrence of exceptions to this law of nature is not proved from the Koran. We shall explain this later. It may be said about a low of nature upheld by men from experience that our knowledge of the laws of nature being limited only to a few, there may be a law of nature proving exceptions. But saying this is not enough, since a possibility conceived by the intellect is no ontological reality: it is only an idea, the realization of which is unascertained. Supposition does not make us dispense with the least bit of the truth. Besides, (the word) possibility is applicable to a thing, which sometimes occurs and sometimes does not. But a thing whose occurrence is never established cannot be called possibility, and the application of this word to it is mere sophistry. So if a man claims that there exceptions to laws of nature, it is upon him to prove that these exceptions do occur sometimes.
The Ninth Principle
There is no matter in the Koran disagreeing with the law of nature. As of the miracles, it is proved from the Koran that the Prophet did not bring forth any claim to the miracles. He said, “Say, I am only a mortal like yourselves.” (Sura 18:110). Therefore the most illustrious authority, Shah Wali-Allah, said in al-Tafhiat al Ilahiyya: “God the Glorious has not mentioned anything of miracles in His Book and never referred to them.” But it is difficult to understand from theses words of Shah what he means by this negation: whether he means that in the glorious Koran there is no mention of any miracles of any Prophet, or that it has no mention of any miracle of Muhammad. But we take it by inference that he does not mean to negate the miracles only of the Prophet. But we should see what his view about miracles in general is. He writes” “…of the things ascertained with us is that causes have never been abandoned and will never be. Mu’jizat (miracles of the Prophets) and Karamat (miracles of saints) are things causal which are dominantly characterized by fullness of causal relation” (p. 53). So the Shah believes that miracles are caused by natural causes and according to this view the occurrence of miracles conforms to the law of nature. We do not question this view. What we question is whether miracles be regarded as ma fuq al-fitra. i.e., ‘supernatural’ in English. We negate is and consider its occurrence as impossible as the infringement of the verbal promise of God. We declare openly that there is no proof of the occurrence of anything supernatural, which, it is asserted, is the miracle. And if – although the hypothesis is impossible—we did accept miracle in this sense, referring to the omnipotence of God (as an argument), it would be a useless matter, which would neither prove anything nor silence the adversary.
No doubt some of our brethren will feel indignation at this and they will come forward declaring some matters in the Koran to be miracles, understanding them to be supernatural. They will say there are supernatural miracles in the Koran. We will listen to this opinion of theirs and ask politely whether, according to the language, idioms, usages and metaphors of the Arabs, there are no other meanings of the words of the Koran which they bring forth as an argument for supernatural miracles. If it is shown (conclusively) that no other meanings are possible, we will admit that our principle is wrong. If it is found that other meanings are possible, we shall say with great respect that they have not been able to prove the presence of supernatural miracles in the Koran. If, as proof of their claim, they come forth with the assertion that during the thirteen centuries of Islam neither the Companions, nor their immediate successors, nor their successors, nor the learned interpreters, nor the exegetes, nor God Himself, set forth these leanings which we do, we shall say with respect: “Spare us this argument and tell us if the meanings we have explained are proved true by the words, idioms and metaphors of the Koran or not.” In short, unless they can prove to us that no that no meanings of a verse quoted are possible than the ones they have set forth and that the verse is an unequivocal evidence of the occurrence of the supernatural, we shall not accept that it is the supernatural (which is intended). To offer a meaning of a verse and to refer to God’s omnipotence in proof, will not be right. For in our view God does all that He does, as He has promised, according to the law of nature, which He has established.
As for the nature of man’s soul and the faculties belonging to it, and what happens to it after death by way of resurrection and how the day of the hereafter will be and what the reality of paradise and hell and what the nature of the rewards and punishment of the hereafter, all these things are beyond the comprehension of man. For all of them are what no eye has seen, no ear has heard and the conception of which has not occurred to any human mind. That is why He Whose state is great and glorious has unfolded them by allegories, which suit human understanding and has disclosed the pleasures of the hereafter in terms of the highest men yearn after, and the pains thereof in terms of the utmost of what horrifies. So all this is not outside the law of nature. Rather, all these are allegories and metaphors of the states of the hereafter, its pleasures and punishments… This is the contexture of the glorious speech (of God) in striking allegories, in various matters, to make men understand and to make the discourse perspicuous for them, as far as possible. This fact is not obscure to anyone who reads the Koran penetratingly and ponders.
This is my vie of the natures which God, the glorious and exalted, has determined. We do not put any limits to the attributes of the Creator. Rather we say: “If He will, He will take away the heavens and the earth at a time of His appointment and bring about a new creation as He pleases.” (Sura 4:131—132.)
The Tenth Principle
Whatever of the glorious Koran was sent down is extant in its entirety. Not one of its letters has been omitted or interpolated. Generations after generation and century after century have passed on it consecutively till our time. God the exalted has said: “We have sent down the reminder, and verily We will guard it.: (15:9)
The Eleventh Principle
The arrangement of verses within every Sura is authentic (mansus) in my opinion. Whenever some verses came down, the Apostle of God indicated that this belonged to such and such a Sura. The memorizer committed it to his memory in that arrangement in the lifetime of the Prophet. The Companions and their successors and those after them never ceased to recite the Koran in this order. So the order of the verses became firmly established in this manner by consecutive testimony, generation after generation and century after century, till this times of ours. The same is the view of Shah Wali-Allah who says in Fauz al-Kabir: “In the times of the Prophet every Sura was preserved and recorded.”
The Twelfth Principle
There is no abrogating (nasikh) and no abrogated (mansukh) in the Koran. No verse (in it) is abrogated by another of its verses. There is no indication (about abrogation) in the Koran. As for Sura 2:100 and its like, they refer to (abrogation of things in ) pre-Islamic laws and not to (the abrogation) of verses of the Koran. No doubt the people with books of revelation among the Jews, Christians and the polytheists, did not like such ordinances of Islam, as are contrary to their religious laws. So He, the glorious and exalted, has said first: “Those who disbelieve, whether of those who have the Books or of the idolaters, would fain that no good were sent down to you from your Lord: but God specially favors with His mercy whom He will, for God is Lord of might graces: (Sura 2:99). And then He said: “Whatever verse we may annul or cause thee to forget, We will bring a better one than it, or one like it.” It is manifest that the abrogation in the said verse relates to the pre-Islamic religious laws and not to the verses of the Koran. There is no argument to justify the view that in Sura 16:103 (“Whenever We change one verse for another…”) the word aya means a verse of the Koran. Nor is there any argument that the words of God (Sura 13:39: “God blots out what He will, or He confirms…”) relate to the abrogation of verses of the Koran. Give thought (to this matter).