Why Nasser Ahmed cannot Speak in the Name of God and why Noone Else Can

 

Why Nasser Ahmed cannot Speak in the Name of God and why Noone Else Can

 

In order to make my response as objective as possible I have used AI to respond to Nasser Ahmed’s Secret Lies article by feeding the AI the following articles of mine that I published on newageislam over the last few months ( that were actually meant to broaden the intellectual horizons of people like Nasser) :

1.      https://www.newageislam.com/debating-islam/tawhid-divine-unity-multiplicity/d/135530

2.      https://www.newageislam.com/debating-islam/origin-story-understanding-quran/d/135455

3.      https://www.newageislam.com/debating-islam/philosophy-metaphysics-islamic-theology/d/135259

4.      https://www.newageislam.com/islamic-ideology/developing-islamic-process-human-relationship/d/133643

5.      https://www.newageislam.com/interfaith-dialogue/interpretation-sacred-texts-linguistics/d/134006

6.      https://iqsaweb.org/2015/03/23/duderija_hermeneutics/

 

It should be noted that these articles are often based on my own academic scholarship and expertise in Qur’anic hermeneutics and broader Islamic intellectual tradition as evident in my google scholar profile

 

 

Why Nasser Ahmed cannot Speak in the Name of God and why Noone Else Can

Engaging with sacred texts is a profound human endeavor, often driven by a search for divine truth and guidance. However, the assertion that one can approach such texts in a manner entirely devoid of presuppositions, relying solely on internal linguistic and logical analysis to arrive at a definitive, unmediated understanding – and thereby speak directly in the name of God – is a position challenged by a deeper understanding of interpretation itself. The sources provided highlight the inherent complexities of textual engagement, demonstrating that meaning is not simply extracted from the words but is constructed through a dynamic interplay of text, context, external knowledge frameworks, and the interpreter's own situatedness.

The notion that a "presuppositionless intra-Qur’anic, linguistic-logical methodology" could bypass the complexities of interpretation and yield an unassailable, divinely authorized truth is, according to insights from the sources, a simplification of how understanding is generated. Far from being a simple, direct transmission of fixed meaning, the process of interpreting sacred texts like the Qur'an is shown to be deeply embedded in historical circumstances, reliant on external intellectual traditions, and inevitably shaped by the human subjectivities of those who read and engage with it. Therefore, any claim to speak for God, based on a supposedly pure, unmediated reading, appears untenable when the multifaceted nature of textual interpretation is fully appreciated.

The Essential Role of Context and Intertextuality

A key challenge to the idea of a purely internal, presuppositionless interpretation lies in the recognition that the Qur'an did not emerge in a historical or cultural vacuum. The sources emphasize that understanding the Qur'an requires embracing the "vibrant tapestry of continuities and interactions" with the existing religious and cultural landscape of late antique Arabia. Interpreting Muhammad and his early followers must be done within their "specific Arabian context," a context illuminated by contemporary epigraphic and other sources. The traditional depiction of early Islam as a sudden, complete break from prior beliefs is presented as a "tendentious and ideological creation" of later generations, rather than a historically grounded reality.

Crucially, the sources stress that the "earliest audience" would have understood the revelations within the framework of their time, informed by the presence of Jewish, Christian, and indigenous Arabian traditions. This pre-existing context is fundamental to grasping how they might have perceived the message. Recent research increasingly positions late antiquity as integral to understanding Islamic connections and allusions to other Near Eastern texts. A valid interpretation, therefore, necessitates a deep dive into this pre-existing context.

This engagement with the surrounding environment highlights the critical role of intertextuality. Intertextuality refers to the relationships between texts and how they inform one another. The Qur'an is described as being in "dialogue" with earlier traditions, including Arabian paganism and Judeo-Christian heritage. This relationship is considered "vital" and "crucial" for understanding the Qur'an's narrative strategies, theological assertions, and ethical prescriptions. The text "relies on the audience’s familiarity with these pre-existing narratives," which serves as a "foundation" for interpretation. Concepts are conveyed through "familiar motifs" that would be opaque to a reader unfamiliar with the cultural and religious contexts of the time. Examples cited include the story of the People of the Cave and references to pre-Islamic deities and figures.

The engagement with Judeo-Christian traditions is seen as a "sophisticated theological dialogue and reinterpretation," not mere borrowing. Understanding the Qur'an's relationship with previous scriptures is part of this complex intertextual engagement.

The sources explicitly state that a "proper approach to Qur’anic interpretation should recognize the importance of understanding the text’s deep engagement with pre-existing cultural, religious, and literary traditions". Ignoring this leads to the limitations of "intra-Qur’anic Qur’an Text Based Methodology". A purely text-based fundamentalist approach, it is argued, often "fail[s] to appreciate the Quran’s intertextual nature, leading to rigid and potentially distorted interpretations". It misses the "nuanced ways in which the Quran engages with and transforms pre-existing traditions". An intertextual approach, in contrast, "provides historical context for proper interpretation," "reveals sophisticated literary and rhetorical strategies," "illuminates the text’s engagement with contemporary debates," and "demonstrates its dynamic adaptation of earlier traditions".

Furthermore, understanding the text transcends mere linguistic analysis. While mastery of classical Arabic is essential, it is deemed insufficient for comprehensive understanding. The text's "rich tapestry of metaphors, allusions, and cultural references requires familiarity with the historical, social, and religious contexts that informed its composition in the first place". Semantic ambiguity exists for key terms, whose meanings are debated or unclear from internal context alone, necessitating consideration of broader linguistic and cultural contexts. Ethical concepts also exhibit "significant polysemy," taking different meanings depending on context, which complicates purely text-based readings.

Therefore, the idea of a reading that is strictly "intra-Qur'anic" and "presuppositionless" is shown to be problematic because the text itself is deeply interwoven with its external environment and relies on pre-existing knowledge. The historical context and intertextual relationships are not external additions to be ignored but are integral to accessing the text's intended meaning for its original audience and understanding its enduring significance.

The Indispensable Foundation of Philosophy and Metaphysics

Beyond historical and cultural context, the sources argue that interpreting and systematizing the theological content of sacred texts inherently requires intellectual tools drawn from philosophy and metaphysics. The claim that a complete theological system can be built solely from scriptural pronouncements, "devoid of the rigorous conceptual tools and frameworks offered by philosophy," is deemed "profoundly naive".

The "very act of interpreting and systematizing religious texts, especially when grappling with abstract concepts like the Divine attributes," inherently involves philosophical assumptions and metaphysical commitments. Even the "arguably most fundamental concept in Islamic theology, Tawhid (God’s Unicity)" has been subject to "vary different interpretations and conceptualisations" that rely on these external frameworks.

Describing God presents universal challenges for monotheists. Sacred texts offer descriptions but also create "interpretive challenges". How are seemingly anthropomorphic descriptions reconciled with God's absolute transcendence? How can attributes like justice, mercy, power, and knowledge be understood in a rationally coherent way faithful to scripture? These questions cannot be answered by simple recitation or literal application; they "necessitate a deeper engagement with the tools of reason and philosophical inquiry".

From the earliest centuries, Muslim intellectuals recognized this need, drawing on Greek philosophy (Aristotelian and Neoplatonic thought) to develop a "robust and rationally defensible framework" for understanding the Divine. The development of Islamic metaphysics became "inextricably linked" with articulating God's nature and attributes. Debates on divine omniscience, including God's knowledge of particular events, future contingencies, and human free will, demonstrate this reliance on philosophical discussions about the nature of knowledge, its relation to its object, and the implications of God's eternal nature for a changing world. Concepts from philosophical traditions provided the "intellectual scaffolding" for theological positions. To suggest these "intricate theological formulations arose purely from a literal reading of scripture, without the mediating influence of philosophical concepts and logical reasoning," ignores historical trajectory.

Similarly, the doctrine of divine simplicity, prominent in early Islamic philosophical circles drawing from Neoplatonism, deeply influenced how God's attributes were conceived. Reconciling multiple attributes with absolute simplicity required sophisticated metaphysical reasoning. Critiques of this doctrine also relied heavily on philosophical arguments. This shows that even fundamental theological tenets are "deeply intertwined with philosophical and metaphysical considerations".

The idea that one can develop an "objective" theology solely from texts also overlooks the "inherent need for interpretation and the unavoidable influence of pre-existing philosophical and metaphysical conceptual frameworks". Selecting verses, drawing connections, and deriving rulings all involve interpretive choices guided by underlying philosophical assumptions about coherence, consistency, and reality. Legal methodologies in Islam are themselves rooted in principles of logic and reasoning.

The sources explicitly counter the idea that philosophy and metaphysics are "external additions" to Islamic theology, stating they are "the very intellectual tools that have enabled and continue to enable believers to deepen their understanding of God and His relationship with the world". Grappling with concepts like the divine varies across traditions; understanding God's attributes like omniscient or immanent requires considering underlying metaphysical assumptions. Epistemology, a branch of philosophy concerning knowledge, further enriches interpretation by exploring how we understand truth and meaning.

Therefore, the claim to an interpretation that bypasses philosophy and metaphysics is challenged by the historical development of Islamic theology and the very nature of conceptualizing the Divine. Theological language and thought are shown to be deeply indebted to these intellectual traditions, making a purely "text-based" theological understanding without these frameworks appear incomplete or even incoherent.

The Subjectivity of the Interpreter and the Multiplicity of Meaning

Another critical factor undermining the possibility of a single individual speaking definitively in the name of God through textual interpretation is the unavoidable role of the interpreter's subjectivity. The sources emphasize that interpretation is not a passive process of retrieving fixed meaning but an active one shaped by the reader.

Each interpreter brings their own "subjectivities—personal experiences, cultural backgrounds, emotional states, and biases—that inevitably shape their understanding". This "subjective lens can enrich interpretation but also poses challenges". The historical context of the interpreter is also crucial; someone in the 21st century will approach ancient texts differently than someone from the original cultural milieu. Interpretation is thus a "dynamic nature," evolving as society's values and concerns shift.

Modern hermeneutical approaches recognize that readers "actively participate in producing the text’s meaning(s)". These meanings can only "approximate authorial intent but can never completely and objectively capture it". While the text's form is fixed, its meaning is "not fixed by the author". Even if a core meaning were considered static, the "significance" of that meaning is contextually dependent and changes. This inherent dynamism and reader participation mean the text "can sustain a large number of interpretations". Different schools of thought and theological traditions have always existed within Islam, offering varied interpretations rooted in differing philosophical assumptions and resulting from this interpretive process.

Hermeneutics, the theory of interpretation, provides a framework that acknowledges this complex interaction between the text, the interpreter, and the context. It encourages a "reflexive approach," prompting interpreters to consider their own biases, assumptions, and methodologies. Different hermeneutical approaches offer diverse lenses, and comprehensive understanding often requires synthesizing them. Interpretation is an "ongoing process" where interpretations evolve as new contexts and perspectives emerge.

The idea of a single, objective meaning waiting to be retrieved by a "text-loyal reader" is thus challenged by the understanding that meaning is co-created in the encounter between the text and the situated interpreter. The interpreter's background, context, and intellectual tools (including philosophical ones) inevitably colour their reading, making any claim to a purely objective or divinely authorized interpretation (that bypasses human mediation) appear unfounded.

Revisiting the "Spider's House"

Naseer Ahmed employs the metaphor of the "spider's house" (Qur'an 29:41) to dismiss theological interpretations he finds unsound, specifically targeting the synthesis of panentheism and Tawhid as intricate but flimsy "webs spun without anchor". He portrays his own reading as anchored directly in the "raw force of Qur’anic coherence", distinct from the "metaphysical embroidery" of others. He suggests his approach upholds the "pillar of Tawhid" which stands "untouched, unbent, and shining in its glory".

However, based on the comprehensive view of interpretation presented in the other sources, the "spider's house" metaphor might more aptly describe any claim to possess a direct, unmediated line to divine truth through sacred texts. An interpretation that disregards the essential need for historical and cultural context, ignores the pervasive influence of philosophical and metaphysical frameworks, and denies the unavoidable subjectivity of the interpreter is arguably the one lacking "anchorage".

A method that claims to be purely "intra-Qur'anic" and "presuppositionless" overlooks the very foundations necessary for robust theological understanding identified in the sources: the intertextual nature of the Qur'an, its embeddedness in late antiquity, and the indispensable role of philosophical reasoning in interpreting its abstract concepts. To strip away these elements in the name of a supposedly pure textual reading is not to reveal an unembellished truth but potentially to construct a framework that is simplified and detached from the complexities that the sources demonstrate are inherent to the process of understanding.

The sources present Tawhid itself not merely as a simple declaration of "Divine Oneness" but, in a more nuanced interpretation, as recognizing "Divine unity in multiplicity". This understanding involves appreciating God's diverse "manifestations" (Zhuhur) and attributes (Sifat) across creation. Such a nuanced view stands in contrast to a "simplistic understanding" or "strict singularity" and requires engaging with complex theological and philosophical questions. It is achieved through the kind of dialogue and philosophical engagement that a rigid, purely text-based approach might dismiss.

Conclusion

The sources reveal that interpreting sacred texts is an inherently complex, mediated, and dynamic process. It requires engaging with the historical and cultural contexts in which the texts emerged, recognizing their intertextual relationships with prior traditions, employing philosophical and metaphysical tools to grapple with abstract theological concepts, and acknowledging the unavoidable influence of the interpreter's own situatedness and subjectivity.

Any claim to bypass these essential dimensions and arrive at a singular, objective interpretation based on a purely "presuppositionless intra-Qur'anic" method runs contrary to the understanding of interpretation presented in the sources. Such a claim, while perhaps asserting authority, paradoxically risks constructing an interpretive framework that lacks the necessary intellectual and contextual anchors described as vital for a profound and accurate understanding of the sacred text.

Therefore, based on the provided sources, no single individual can definitively speak in the name of God by claiming a direct, unmediated access to divine truth through textual interpretation. The very act of reading and understanding sacred texts is a human endeavor, shaped by the tools, contexts, and perspectives available to the interpreter. While the texts themselves are foundational, their meaning is accessed and articulated through processes that are inherently complex and mediated, precluding any claim to absolute, unchallengeable divine authority residing solely in one's personal reading. Understanding the Qur'an, and concepts like Tawhid, involves a continuous engagement with this complexity, not a retreat into a seemingly simple, but ultimately unsupportable, claim of presuppositionless objectivity.