At the turn of the century the periodical Al-Manâr started to publish on its pages the first instalments of a tafsîr (interpretation of the Qurʾân) by Shaykh Muhammad ʿAbduh, compiled (and later to be completed) by his Syrian disciple Shaykh Muhammad Rashîd Ridâ. This tafsîr became since known as Tafsîr al-Manâr. Breaking with a tradition of an exclusive circle of exegetical scholarship and discipline-specific epistemology sacred scripture was offered here to a lay scholarship in digestible bits. To accommodate the eternal message of Islam to the concerns of the day it was written in the vernacular and could, thereby, address a lay audience. At the heart of this break lay a new way of thinking which held that the meanings of the Qurʾân were open to any public readership on the condition that it is familiar with ‘media’ Arabic, that is, has a fuzzy knowledge of early Islamic history and epistemology and an even fuzzier knowledge of later historical periods and Islamic juristic knowledge. It, furthermore, had to be able to follow the rational arguments put forward by ʿAbduh and Ridâ to authenticate their interpretations. Within a century, through the demise of the traditional methods for the dissemination of religious knowledge, through the ever-growing accessibility of ever-cheaper publications of Qurʾân tafsîrs and pocket-book Qurʾân editions with their multi-functional indices and glossaries, and through online websites offering more and facile explanation, Qurʾân tafsîr has become the staple fodder of all factions from which they seek to find justification for their beliefs, biases, and actions. This is particularly so with the growing appeal of the neo-Salafi literalist call to go back to the pure original sources of the Qurʾân and to a limited number of historically accredited hadith corpus, the Sunnah akîdah, as the only legitimate and authentic sources of religious knowledge, which goes hand in hand with the marginalization and the discrediting of traditional religious scholarship and its various interpretative communities.
The reformers’ departure from those whom they identified as the culprits for the decline of Islam and the Muslim nations, namely, the ulama, the scholars of the outward sciences like jurisprudence, the sufi shaykhs, transmitters of the knowledge of the heart, and non-Arabic infiltrators breaking up the Arab-centric coherence of the message of Islam, lead to the search for an Islam that would be suitable for modern times: One that would be simple, unified, standardised, unambiguous, containable, and accessible to all alike. To realize this, it was seen as necessary to hold on to language-based literal interpretations of the Qurʾân. Almost all of the Qurʾân tafsîrs that have been written in the last century, together with the translations that catered to an increasingly globalised Salafi Islam, share the above features, with very minor differences in their interpretations. The reformers dream of a definitive understanding of Allah’s speech seems finally realisable.
At the same time, there was and is a dire lack in contemporary scholarship of a critical appreciation of the assumptions that underlie such a trend. Where are the expressions of surprise over the fact that the meanings of sacred texts can be harnessed and indexed and footnoted and offered once and for all for a mass audience without any regard for the semiotic historicity of those who are producing those meanings. Yet what seems missing most of all is a sense of the enormity of the undertaking, of the potential fitna expressed in a claim to know the definitive version of Allah’s meaning.1
There are, however, a few rare exceptions. One of these is the Amîr ʿAbd al-Qâdir. Reading the signs of the times and recognizing the serious implications of a seemingly simple call to go back to the ‘pure’ sources, he left his contemporaries in his Kitâb al-Mawâqif a precious legacy of subtle and explicit allusions to hermeneutical principles to remind us of what was forsaken in the name of ‘reform’ and ‘progress’.2
In a sense, one may describe ʿAbd al-Qâdir’s Kitâb al-Mawâqif3 as a commentary of the Qurʾân and sacred sayings uttered by the Prophet Muhammad. Its hermeneutical peculiarity, however, lies in the fact that it does not fit into the classical Islamic scheme of types of commentary (linguistic, circumstantial [asbâb al-nuzûl], etc.). It actually presents itself as a text that is itself the result of revelation. A revelation, furthermore, wherein both the originally revealed text (the Qurʾân) and its interpretation are revealed. Describing in the first Mawqif the modality of this kind of hermeneutics, ʿAbd al-Qadir writes: Allah “takes me from my self, despite the remaining of the [external] form, and then casts on me ( yulqî ilayya) what He wishes by alluding (ishâra) to a noble verse of the Qurʾân. Thereafter, He returns me to my self and I meditate on the verse with delight and satisfaction until He inspires me ( yulhimnî) to what He meant in the verse.” He states that he had received over half of the Qurʾânic verses in this fashion ( yastazhir, literally being the place for the appearance of these verses) and in a footnote added by one of the disciples of ʿAbd al-Qâdir and the scribe of the manuscript he indicates that his wish to have the whole Qurʾân verses revealed to him in this fashion was granted him before his death. However, only the parts he had been spiritually permissed to communicate appear in the text of a seemingly random collage of 372 mawaqif of varying lengths, styles, and content. The mawaqif are neither ordered following the sequence of the Surahs or verses of the Qurʾân nor in the historical order in which they occurred to ʿAbd al-Qadir; some of the verses occur several times in different mawâqif and with different interpretations depending on the meanings ‘given’ to him on these occasions. Like the Surahs in the kitâb marqûm, that is to say the Qurʾân, the mawâqif are only given numbers and no thematic headings—a detail that those readers who rely on translations of the text miss since almost all translations introduce thematic headings.
I. Allah’s Speech
Certainly, the Qurʾân poses a serious challenge to any attempt to interpret it. Since the third century of Islam the issue of the nature of this text has been debated by Muslim theologians and made into a subject of contention: To what extent does the written text as held by the book covers relate to its divine author? ʿAbd al-Qâdir sees that the Qurʾân, which has been revealed by a creature (Gabriel) to a creature (Muhammad) and a muhdith (created being) to another muhdith (created being), partakes as Kalâm Allâh (Allah’s Speech) in all of Allah’s divine nature, eternal and uncreated. He bases his certainty on the authority of its divine author Himself—bi’l-tafhîm ar-rabânî (through divine instruction)—who ascribes this particular divine status to this particular text specifically—in distinction from other revelations to Prophet Muhammad, like ahadîth qudsiyyah, which were not granted the same status as the Qurʾân—and, more importantly, not based on any human reasoning which tries to find a munâsabah (affinity or correspondence) between what manifests as words written and recited by human agency and their maʿnâ annafsî al-qâʾim bi’l-dhât (the meaning it-self which subsists in the supreme Essence) of its authorship.4
While Kalâm Allâh an-nafsî (Allah’s speech breathed by nafas ar-Rahmân) is azalî (eternal and uncreated) what reaches us and is heard by us and understood by us are the zilâl (shadows) cast by His Speech and created in us by Him. One should therefore not mistake the actual azalî Speech that is not bound by time or space for the maʿlûmât (intelligibles) which appear in time and correspond to the contingencies of time and space and which ‘translate’ the eternal irâdah (Will) and ʿilm (Knowledge) to the creatures into words.5 Thus His immutable eternal Speech casts shadows or kalimât (words) that are multiple and varied, tâmmah (complete) and nâqisah (incomplete) and which are apprehended by the heart of the one inspired. Such was the case of the Prophet’s revelation and of the inspiration of his inheritors, the awliyâʾ of the Ummah Muhammadiyyah. It is in this modality that ʿAbd al-Qâdir ‘tasted’ the Qurʾânic tanzîl (descent of the divine words/ revelation) and which thereby guaranteed the purity of his sources for “shaytân cannot ‘bring down’ the words of Allah”.6 In this way, ʿAbd al-Qadir is reassured and reassures his “brethren” that his understanding, his revealed “fahm jadîd”, is safe from being distorted by the devil or the egoistic self (nafs).
There is an important difference between the other divine revelations, the other sacred books brought by other prophets, and that of the Qurʾân. With the exception of the Qurʾân, all holy “books” descended as pure meanings to their prophets which they expressed in turn “in their own languages like Hebrew or Aramaic” and so on. Since this process was one of “translation” their scriptures or texts were liable to corruption (while their meanings remain incorruptible and partake of the nature of their original author). The Qurʾân, though, was created in the heart and hearing of Gabriel as an Arabic composition which he in turn delivered to Prophet Muhammad as is. Since Allah was its composer and no creature translated it from its divine author, the Qurʾân is and remains incorruptible and immutable in both its form and meanings. It is this particular feature of the Qurʾân as text that keeps the possibility of new and ever-lasting meanings to manifest in this world with no limit or finiteness to them: a fahm jadîd of eternal immutable words. ʿAbd al-Qâdir’s hermeneutics then rests on this stable ground, where both the text and its meanings are revealed by its very Author and even though appearing within the contingencies of the times and place are not held by them nor by human will. It is what Allah has given him and taught him, according to His Will and His Knowledge as needed for the times.
But what of the prophets’ words which do not fall within the category of Allah’s speech, which are translations of the meanings of Allah’s words and are, therefore, open to corruption in their created form?
II. Prophetic Speech
At no time should we forget that we have come to know Allah’s words through Prophet Muhammad. For it is only through him that we know where the Qurʾân as words begins and where it ends, and which of his words were conversations with His Lord and which were for our benefit. Whereas all of Allah’s words were and are for all of humanity for all times and situations—each to understand what Allah has made them capable of understanding—the words of all prophets appear and address peoples of their times in specific contexts for particular ends. As a doctor needs to apply his knowledge to his patients’ particular ailment and needs, so did the Prophet who is al-hakîm al-mâhir wa’l-tabîb al-aʿzam (the dexterous sage and the greatest doctor) speak, advice, reprimand, consent, and warn each, relative to his/her needs and capabilities. Accordingly, his words vary and are multiple in their meanings. For, after all, the Prophet spoke bi-lisân qawmihi (lit. in the tongue of his people), at their level, in order to be understood and deliver Allah’s message to his people, and so it is not possible that he would have spoken to his people of that which they could not have understood or comprehended or that which would be have bred confusion or sickness in their hearts.7
Thus, while the transmitters and scholars of hadith have preserved and studied the words of his sayings as they have heard them and limited to their muhdith forms, arbâb al-qulûb, the “folk of the heart”, know in addition—through an unveiling, mukâshafah8—who was addressed by each hadith, at which martabah (level) was the addressee, and at which maqâm (spiritual station) he or she is. This added knowledge of the context in which the Prophet spoke prevents their experiencing any confusion or difficulties that others may experience when presented with conflicting prophetic reports and disparities in the answers of the Prophet. Knowing that his answers varied in accordance with the variances in his addressees, and granted the knowledge of their contexts, the ʿârifûn or ahl-al-kashf, the folk of unveiling, know that all of the prophetic words are open to interpretation “kulluhu yahtamil al-taʾwîl” and, therefore, do not confuse the incorruptible meanings with the contingent forms.9 Those who miss the point are those who do not know their own level and think they are addressed by all speech.10
III. Determination of Allah’s Meaning
Abd al-Qâdir repeatedly points to the grave responsibility that lies in any human endeavour to claim to know the meanings of Allah’s words or to exclude other interpretations as incorrect. The Qurʾân as the ancient words (kalam al-qadîm) corresponds to Allah’s knowledge (ʿilm), i.e. it is all-encompassing and contingent on what is necessary, possible, and impossible.11 As such Allah’s intentions expressed in His words are possibly all that can be understood by the folk of appearance (ahl al-zâhir) and the folk of the hidden (ahl albâtin) as well as that which both have not understood . . . and this will be so until the hour rises.12 This understanding is essential to ʿAbd al-Qâdir. It means that no human understanding can encompass the meanings of the sacred words or impose a limitation on their meanings and even more importantly, whatever one understands must perforce veil one from the other meanings. Thus all those who claim to understand must recognise that the interpretive act circumscribes itself with every new understanding.
If Allah’s words can encompass all meanings and human understanding cannot exhaust the meanings of the divine words, then how would it be possible to determine the meanings for any given specific occasion? One implication is certainly that no one can claim any meaning as fixed and bound for all times and occasions. ʿAbd al-Qâdir’s answer is grounded in the realization of the enormity in making any claim to understand Allah’s intentions and the incumbent humble awareness of all the possible limitations that such a claim is subject to.
One of the most dangerous assumptions is to suppose that only ‘right’ answers are delivered through its words. For, Abd al-Qâdir explains, the very nature of the sacred text includes both possibilities of guidance (hidâyah) and of error (dalâl) “yudill bihi kathîran wa yuhdî bihi kathîran”. This distinction is due to the fact that the Qurʾân is most often “pursed for other than itself . . . primarily for its pragmatic value as a guidance to what is halâl and harâm, ahkâm and hudûd, and true accounts of the early prophets and their peoples and of the day of judgement and heaven and hell”.13 Precisely because it is sought to settle matters that pertain to this world—contrary to other forms of worship—those who seek the meanings of the Qurʾân to serve their ends are vulnerable to the temptations of shaytân and their interpretations are tainted by their desires. The results of this can be clearly seen in the contending “seventy-three factions of Muslims” who all derive their justifications for oppositional views using the same divine source. Thus, the motives of the reader interfere with the reading of the text and subtlety determine the meanings. Understandably, those who claim to settle disputes by resorting to the Qurʾân should know that their claim is already biased by their attempt to have the Qurʾân serve them instead of them serving it.
ʿAbd al-Qâdir distinguishes the knowers of Allah, the ʿârifûn, who know Allah both in His immanence and transcendence through his Prophet and not through their reason and who accept all of what Allah has sent through his Prophets, from the above mentioned selfserving way of reading: Only the realised Gnostic, al-ʿârif al-kâmil, recites the Qurʾân in such a way that “it discloses to him the secrets, sciences, and knowledges (maʿârif)”. For he seeks Allah’s pleasure and not his own. 14
IV. Reprehensible taʾwil
ʿAbd al-Qâdir goes on further in his criticism of the current trends in Qurʾânic hermeneutics which have affected the scholars of the day. Unable and unwilling to accept the implications of some of the literal meanings of the sacred words or sceptic of their zâhir (apparent) meanings, often supposedly on “rational ground”, religious scholars prefer instead the metaphorical interpretations (taʾawîl). Elaborating on the traditional distinction between the two main types of verses of the Qu’ran, the clear (muhkamât) one and the ambiguous (mutashâbihât) one, ʿAbd al-Qadir turns the tables on the detractors of Sufism who say that the Sufis mainly rely on the mutashâbihât verses in their interpretations.
There are, according to him, four types of interpreters: those who follow what the messengers have brought forth; those who imitate them; those who follow their reason/opinion; and those who imitate them. Those who accept the meanings given by the Messengers of Allah and do not defy their authority, like the Sufis, read the Qurʾân with three lights: the “light of their penetrating faith” and the “light of their acquiescent reason” and a third light which is born from their coming together and is neither identical to nor different from each, a barzakh between both lights of revelation and reason.15 Allah unveils for such believers the place of all things and their proper contexts so that “what appeared to be discordant is found to be harmonious” and “the whole Qurʾân becomes for them muhkam and a remedy (shifâʾ) and mercy (rahmah)”.16 Not only do they understand the verses according to their literal meaning but also with something more, something beyond, a fahm jadîd. Those ʿârifûn bi-llâh (knowers of Allah), who know Allah through His transcendence and His immanence as His prophets have brought forth, are not said to have committed what the Amir ʿAbd al-Qâdir calls “the reprehensible taʾwîl”, since they do not reject His words in any respect and aspect but hold on to what they had been given, as it was given.17
The sacred words confuse and mystify only those who rely on their “limited” reason to understand the meanings of their Lord’s speech and are sceptic of what the Qurʾân and Prophet of Allah have brought; unable to accept the authority of the Prophet, they try to “interpret” and determine the meanings according to their understanding so that these meanings become more palatable to their minds.18 Ironically, the more they doubt the literal meanings of the words the more the verses become impenetrable to them and more of doubt grows in their hearts. They are those for whom the Qurʾân increases their ailment and increases them in errors. For them all of the Qurʾân verses become mutashâbihât, confounding and perplexing.
ʿAbd al-Qâdir refers here to the verses of tashbîh or immanence which mention Allah’s Face, Hands, Throne, His ascension and descent, and so on. It is these references to the immanence of Allah in opposition to his transcendence (laysa ka-mithlihi shayʾan) that the rationalists/reformers of all couleurs find the hardest to accept as being literally true. Rather than hold on to the literal meanings, they resort to a reprehensible form of taʾwîl, says Abd al-Qâdir, which conveniently allows them to sidestep these problematic verses and retain the semblance of rationality. He identifies four types of Qurʾân interpreters who try to mask their ‘disbelief ’ through a false hermeneutic:19
Those who interpret are of several types: those who say that the prophets are the most knowledgeable of Allah from amongst all of humanity and thus have had to lower the level of their speech in accordance to the level of peoples’ understanding and not to convey matters as they truly are. That is impossible. Those have given the lie, in a polite form, to Allah and His messengers in what He has informed about Himself. As one would say if one were polite to another whose account the former does not accept to be so; such a [polite] one would not say: you have lied, rather: Sir, you have spoken correctly, but matters are not really so. In reality he does not believe [him] and calls him a liar and an ignorant one.
Another type says that what is intended with this speech is only such and such and not what the commoners would normally understand, and this meaning can be found in the Arabic language that the Prophet spoke. Such interpreters control Allah by referencing the linguistic meanings. Those have only worshipped the god which their reason has harnessed, encompassed and restrained. Another type has claimed to believe in the phrase as it has come [to them] without their understanding what it means . . . this [claim] leaves them in the [legal] category of those who have not heard of it and thus they remain with what their reason has established for them as impossible to understand. Such have retorted to Allah with an elegant turn of phrase. Another type has claimed to believe in those words in so far as what Allah and His Prophet know. Those have [actually] said that Allah has spoken uselessly since He has spoken to them what we cannot understand. All of them [the above types of interpreters] are Muslims [emphasis mine]. The one who attributes the last saying to the as-salaf as-sâlih has lied. The righteous salaf have said: Al-Haqq has only addressed us with what we know and understand, however, since we are ignorant of His Essence we are therefore ignorant of how these matters relate to His Essence. Similarly, one cannot claim that the tâʾifah al-ʿaliyya, i.e. the Sufi Masters, has committed taʾwîl when they say concerning His words “to what I have created with My Hands” (Sûrat Sâd, v.75) that what is meant by the two hands are the names of Majesty and Beauty and other like-sayings, because—we are saying—the tâʾifah al-ʿâliyya is taught by Allah; He is their teacher as He says: “Be fearful of Allah and Allah will teach you” (Sûrat Al-Baqarah, v. 282), and: “We have taught him a knowledge from Us” (Sûrat al-Kahf, v. 66). So they have not made such statements from themselves or their own deductions; it is Allah who interprets and reveals to them His intended meaning.20
Thus the danger comes for Islam from within Islam on Muslim turf: contending Muslims claiming to legitimize their interpretations and understanding of Allah’s meanings over and above everyone else. ʿAbd al-Qâdir exposes their very interpretation as testimony to their disbelief and rejection of a god that does not confirm to their ideas of what a transcendent god should be like. The neo-Salafi reform movement initiated by Muhammad ʿAbduh sought in human reason the tool by which to draw the lines of and for Allah. No wonder then that the real enemy to the emerging neo-salafism qua reform movement was not the Western rational sciences that had won the wars against religion in the West, but rather the great Sufi Masters, al-tâʾifa al-ʿâliyyah, who in affirming that reason was insufficient to determine god’s meanings and that only the submission of human will to the guidance of the Prophets and sincere belief in their immanent and transcendent God could open their hearts to the incorruptible meanings of Allah’s Speech exposed their subterfuge. But how to write for such purposes in such difficult times?
V. Erecting Walls over Buried Treasures21
These are spiritual inspirations, and divine revelations of granted knowledges (ʿulûm wahbiyya) and hidden secrets (asrâr ghaybiyya) from beyond the norms of intellects (tawr al-ʿuqûl); beyond the kinds of acquired [knowledges] and deliberated thinking over a book; I have recorded them for our brothers who believe in our signs (Sûrat al-Anʿâm, v. 54; Sûrat Al-Aʿrâf, v. 156),22 who, if unable to reach to pluck their fruits, leave them [hidden] in their secured places until such a time that they reach their maturity and excavate their own treasures (Sûrat al-Kahf, v. 82).23 I have not written them for him—who would say that these are old lies and legends of the ancient ones (Sûrat al-Ahqâf, v.11) and imposes constraints on Allah (Sûrat al-Furqân, v. 22) saying [in scorn]: “Are those the ones that Allah has graced from amongst us?” (Sûrat al-Anʿâm, v. 53)—[such are those] who belong to the scholars of the outward inscription (rasm) and who are satisfied to remain with merely the epithets of knowledge. Those we leave behind together with that which Allah has ordained for them (Sûrat al-Zukhruf, v. 32). If they were to take fault with us and show an animosity toward us (Sûrat al-Zumûr, v. 31; Sûrat al-Mâʾida v. 54), we would recite (Sûrat al-Ahqâf, v. 11): “And if the ignorant ones address them, they reply: ‘salâman’ ” (Sûrat al-Furqân, v. 63). We turn towards them deaf ears and blind eyes and say to them: “We believe in what has been brought down to us and what has been brought down to you and our god and your god is one and the same and to Him we submit (muslimûn)” (Sûrat al-ʿAnkabût, v. 46); We do not argue with them, but rather have compassion for them and ask forgiveness for them and excuse them for their denial of our [special] knowledge. For we have come to them with matters that are different from what they have received from their earlier teachers and what they have heard from their forefathers (Sûrat al-Muʾminûn, v. 68). For the matter is grave and the situation is calamitous, and the intellect is binding and imitation is an affliction; [in such times] there is no protection except for him upon whom my Lord has mercy (Sûrat Hûd, v. 43).24
In such times, how will these brethren find their treasures that are hidden under the restored walls? What and who will guide them? What will uncover that which is hidden?
ʿAbd al-Qâdir does not offer any fully formulated methods for uncovering these treasures that are the fahm jadîd of eternal speech. He gives instead hints (ishârât) as to what it might take to uncover something which we should not shy from calling a new hermeneutics.
It becomes also clearer why ʿAbd al-Qâdir who wrote towards the end of the nineteenth century and witnessed the gatherings of Muhammad ʿAbduh and Jamâl al-Dîn al-Afghânî with their young disciples in which they sought, under the auspices of their supportive colonial powers, to form a definitive “original” Islam, went in his writings another way. The Emir followed the example of Khidr, the “Green Man”. According to his interpretation of a passage from Sûrat al-Kahf, v. 82, this figure whom Moses asked to be his teacher, saved the inheritance of small orphans by letting “the wall fall in ruins over the buried treasures so that they may be found by him who has exerted himself and faced his own tombstone may find it” (daʿ al-jidâr yanqadd ʿalâ al-kinz, hattâ lâ yastakhrijahu illa man atʿaba nafsah wa ʿâyana ramsah).25
The allegoric nature of the introduction to the text of Kitâb al-Mawâqif may just be such a ruined “wall” that covers and veils the treasures of its author so that they are passed on to other generations. The shibh-maqâmah, which belongs to a literary genre that straddles prose and poetry, fiction and non-fiction, speaks of a spiritual gathering of the people of the night ‘musâmara’, meaning the Sufi Masters, and of their perilous quest for the beloved ʿanqâʾ mughrib, the veiled unveiled, existing non-existing Reality. ʿAbd al-Qâdir’s attainment of his own quest of the famed phoenix (ʿanqâʾ) allows him to become a place for the reception of Qurʾânic verses and some of their meanings, according to the will of Allah and His beloved Prophet.26 The introduction also determines who is the intended audience for this book on the secrets of the Qurʾân and the required adab (etiquette) with which they should read a text that is inspired.
VI. The Key to the Lock
Deeply buried in the end of his Kitâb al-Mawâqif, in mawqif 358, ʿAbd al-Qâdir finds it important to recount to his brethren the good tidings he had received in a dream which came to him when he started to interpret the difficult passages of “The Wisdom of the Heart in the Word of Shuʿayb”, from Ibn Al-ʿArabi’s Bezels of Wisdom: “I saw myself standing in front of a house whose door was fastened with an iron lock which had no key. I turned the lock with a few movements (tahrikât) which unfastened the lock. I entered [through the door] and inside the house found the key [to the lock]. I held it in my hand and wondered at that [matter]. I interpreted the house to be the Bezel of Shuʿayb and that it was closed indicated that none of those who had attempted to speak about had really accessed its meanings. My finding the key inside it signified that I had been given permission to enter this house which is the Bezel of Shuʿayb [on the Wisdom of the Heart]”.27
The dream is certainly important for us in our attempt to determine the principles of a hermeneutics of the sacred words of the Qurʾân. The text is closed and guarded by an iron lock, which for our purposes here would be the muhdith or created words that resemble our mundane human speech. However, what unlocks the lock is not of the same nature as the lock or the key: the tahrikât or movements do not causally correspond to the unlocking or breaking of the lock.28 To put it mildly, the unlocking of the meanings of the divine words does not belong to the world of causality: there is nothing that would necessarily tie the movements of the interpreter to the unfastening of the lock. Thus the opening of the text is not up to the determination of the one who attempts it. It would seem to be rather the realization, the “motioning” of one’s inadequacies and limitations of the mind, that is to say, one’s spiritual poverty, which allows the lock to open for one. The function of the key that is found inside the house is not to unlock what is locked but rather to reassure one of what has been granted. The proof that ʿAbd al-Qâdir finds inside the Wisdom of the Heart serves to reassure him that he was meant to receive it and that its treasures were meant for him. He leaves them buried for us to find.
1Many scholars have noted the paucity of studies on the hermeneutics of the Qurʾân and have attempted to initiate discourse on this subject. Khaled Abou El Fadl investigates the interpretive processes revolving around the text of the Qurʾân which took place primarily in the field of jurisprudence in the pre-modern era, and the decline of such practices in the last century in his book, Speaking in God’s Name: Islamic Law, Authority and Women (Oxford: Oneworld, 2001); Hamid Nasr Abou Zayed calls for a rethinking of the hermeneutic tradition that evolved around the text of the Qurʾân and to shift towards the “spoken” Qurʾân in Rethinking the Qurʾân: Towards a Humanistic Hermeneutics (Utrecht: Humanistics University Press, 2004). His thesis echoes that of Gerlad L. Bruns’ examination of al-Ghazali’s journey towards the primacy of mystical experience as against the authority of established exegesis in “Sufiyya: The Mystical Hermeneutics of al-Ghazali”, in Hermeneutics Ancient & Modern (Michigan, Yale University Press, 1992).
2Its title was later expanded—through an inspiration as mentioned in Mawqif 360– to Kitâb al-Mawâqif fi baʿd ishârât al-qurʾân ilâ ’l-asrâr wa ’l-maʿârif [The Book of Halts on Some of the Subtle Allusions of the Qurʾân to the Secrets and Knowledges].
3There are several editions of Kitâb al-Mawâqif all of which, with the exception of the latest one edited by ʿAbd al-Baqî Muftah and published by the Foundation of Emir ʿAbd al-Qâdir in Algiers 2005, are poorly edited and with many typographical errors. I have kept all references to the number of the individual mawqif rather than go by the pagination of any particular edition. The only complete translation of the text is that of Michel Lagarde’s French translation published in three volumes by E.J. Brill, vol. 1, 2000, vol. 2, 2001, vol. 3, 2002.
4Mawqif 209. ʿAbd al-Qadir alludes to the term “muhdith” which occurs in Sûrat Al-Anbiyâʾ, v. 2 and Sûrat Al-Shuʿarâʾ, v. 5.
8Mawqif 211. ʿAbd al-Qadir explains what he means by this added knowledge “ʿilm” that Allah grants His servants, the ʿulamâʾ bi’l-lâh: it is the knowledge by which one is made to witness ones place and ones need for Allah with every breath and ones spiritual poverty.
11Mawqif 1, which can be considered both a second introduction to the book and central to the text as a whole.
13Mawqif 41 referring to verse 98 from Sûrat al-Nahl which tells believers to seek refuge in Allah from shaytân when reciting/reading the Qurʾân.
18Mawqif 358: “the rationalists, from amongst the philosophers or theologians, are those whose beliefs limit Al-Haqq to their understanding (i.e. tailor Allah to their thoughts) and deny that He is other than what accords with their own conviction . . . it is they who call each other kafir and curse each other whether they are from the different Muslim factions or from other beliefs and religions”.
21Mawqif 248, sub-heading: Erecting a wall so as to extract treasures and Secrets (Iqâmat jidâr li-ikhrâj kunûz wa asrâr).
22But what does such a “revealed” text on the meanings of the Qurʾân look like? The allegoric maqâma-like introduction to the Kitâb al-Mawâqif alludes to what it might look like. Already in the first passage embedded Qurʾânic allusions and phrases are discernible to the careful eye. Both the words and the meanings refer to the Qurʾânic passages and context by which they can be fully understood: they are the keys to interpret the interpretations of ʿAbd al-Qadir’s Kitâb al-Mawâqif.
23This verse refers to the story of Khidr whose inspired (laddûnî) knowledge allows him to seemingly act against the prescriptions of the law (represented by the Prophet Moses) and repair the garden wall so that the buried treasure under it remains hidden till its rightful owners, the young orphans, mature enough to claim it for themselves.
26Though extremely important for understanding the text and holding key clues on how to read it, this introduction has been curiously neglected by translators and scholars of Kitâb al-Mawâqif. One can only suppose that the allegorical and poetic nature of its text did exactly what ʿAbd al-Qadir may have intended it to do: “to erect a wall [over the treasure] . . . so that only those who have reached their level of [spiritual] maturity can extract their treasures”.
