8/4/2019 Quran Morality and Critical Reason by Muhammad Shahrur

1/2

Quran Morality and Critical Reason by

Muhammad Shahrur

See: www.islam-and-muslims.com/Quran-Morality-Critical-Reason.pdf

Critique

I had a chance to read some of Shahrur's book. Specifically the part on 4:34 and I wasn't

impressed. In fact, his understanding has significant flaws. The following are my brief notes:

States:

nushuz = neglect of responsibility.

Where is this from? Likely interpretation.

Tries to make a case for al-rijal referring to both men/women in the context of 4:34.

Whilst seemingly plausible, provides no Classical Arabic Dictionary evidence other than the

dual can sometimes refer to male & female.

Cites 9:37 which is a different root for nisa compared to others yet does not explain

reasoning/evidence for this.

Neglects to comment on "guard in the unseen". Probably because it causes significant

problems for his understanding.

Neglects to mention why it is "fears nushuz" (imperfect tense), implying something not

blatant/direct/obvious.

Inserts his own made-up clause: "and if a woman is married a refusal to share her bed".

States:

Finally, if these things fail, she should be punished by the withdrawal of her right of

guardianship/qiwamaqiwama = the provision of strong leadership and financial power

God is the one who bestows it upon some, not it is something taken away (and thus given) by

another.

How this so-called punishment even works is anyone's guess. It is explained as "civilized

conveyance of discontent and rebuke".

It says DRB them, not DRB right of guardianship.

When discussing 4:128, mentions:

8/4/2019 Quran Morality and Critical Reason by Muhammad Shahrur

2/2

The text does not use the sexually charged terms for wife/husband (zawja/zawj)

In classical arabic, zawj (pl. azwaj) are NOT sexually charged terms. Akin to

"spouse/mate/pair" in English.

Inserts bal as provider with no evidence.

His point about bal being non-conjugal husband andzawj being conjugal husband is refuted

by 2:232.

Not to mention the logical implications of this understanding and cites no Classical Arabic

Dictionary evidence.

Does not mention the context of 4:128, i.e. linked to 4:127 with "wa".

Adds a significant amount of explanation, most likely in order for his view to make sense.

Inadequate explanation of 4:129.

States:

This is exactly how the previous verse defined mens nushz and neglect as the two reasons

why men have lost their qiwama.

Technically it is nushuz OR neglect. Lost qiwama is not mentioned, and is an

insertion/interpretation.

Provides no resolution strategy for the wife, in terms of divorce. Seemingly misunderstandsQuranic divorce procedure.

Does not explain coherence (if any) of 4:34 and 4:128, nor of 58:1-4.

#################

However, he does bring up some interesting points. If you compare his analysis with

www.Quran434.comthere is a big difference.

http://www.quran434.com/http://www.quran434.com/http://www.quran434.com/