Summary

Farāhī school of Qur’ānic hermeneutics, is a significant intellectual movement that emerged in the Indian subcontinent to challenge the prevailing "atomistic" or "fragmentarian" approach to Qur’ānic exegesis (tafsīr). The traditional method often treats Qur’ānic verses as standalone units and prioritizes received interpretations from tradition (tafsīr ma‘thūr).

At the heart of this school is the seminal work of Ḥamīd al-Dīn Farāhī (1863–1930), who advanced the principle of naẓm (coherence). Farāhī posited that the Qur’ān is a perfectly structured and internally consistent text. His central thesis holds that:

1. Each sūrah (chapter) is a complete and well-knit unit revolving around a specific central theme, which he termed the ‘umūd (pillar).
2. The Qur’ān as a whole exhibits structural and thematic coherence, with its sūrahs arranged in a deliberate, divinely guided order, often in distinct groups.
3. The Qur’ān is its own best interpreter. The Qur’ānic text itself, its language, and its demonstrable coherence are the foundational and conclusive resources for interpretation. Secondary resources—such as Ḥadīth (prophetic traditions), previous scriptures, and reports on the occasion of revelation (shān-i nuzūl)—are non-conclusive and must be subordinated to, and never contradict, the clear meaning of the Qur’ānic text.

Farāhī’s work was systematically developed and expanded by his students, most notably Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī (1904–1997), who authored a comprehensive nine-volume commentary, Tadabbur-i Qur’ān, and Jāvēd Aḥmad Ghāmidī (b. 1954), who further refined the concepts. This school offers a viable alternative to traditional methodologies, proposing a scientific framework for accessing what it argues is the univocal, coherent message of the Qur’ān.  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. The Challenge to Traditional Exegesis

For centuries, the dominant approach to Qur’ānic exegesis has been characterized by atomism. Scholars operating within this framework tended to analyze the Qur’ān on a verse-by-verse basis, often in isolation from the surrounding text.

• Preference for Tradition: The traditional model, often termed tafsīr ma‘thūr (exegesis based on tradition), shows a "pronounced preference for authority over rationality and tradition over originality." Exegetes primarily relied on received interpretations from the Prophet's Companions and their successors.
• Fragmentarian Approach: Most scholars viewed the verses as "individual stand alone independent verses," which fostered the belief that the Qur’ān lacks a discernible structure. Sheikh ‘Izzuddīn al-Salām articulated this perspective, stating: "The Holy Qur’ān came down piecemeal over a period of more than two decades, with different commandments issued for a variety of purposes. A book revealed in this fashion does not afford any correspondence in its components."
• Consequences of Atomism: This view led to significant challenges in interpretation. Without the anchor of textual coherence, verses could be subject to multiple, often contradictory, interpretations. It also exposed the Qur’ān to criticism from heretics and Western scholars who claimed the book was a "disjointed, incoherent discourse." Farāhī argued that this disregard for the Qur'ān's orderly arrangement was the primary source of sectarian differences among Muslims.

II. The Core Principle: Naẓm (Coherence)

Ḥamīd al-Dīn Farāhī revived and systematized a suppressed tradition of interpretation that emphasized the Qur’ān's inherent textual unity. His central concept is naẓm, a term he used to denote both structural and thematic coherence.

A. Defining Naẓm vs. Munāsabah

Farāhī carefully distinguished his concept of naẓm from the older, more limited concept of munāsabah (correspondence or interrelationship) explored by scholars like Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī.

• Munāsabah refers to a linear connection between adjacent verses or sūrahs. A scholar seeking munāsabah might find a link between two verses but miss the overarching structure that unifies the entire chapter.
• Naẓm is a far more comprehensive concept. In Farāhī's words: "By niẓām we mean that each sūrah is a single well-knit composition. Moreover, a sūrah corresponds to the preceding as well as the following one... Considering this principle one can see that the whole Qur’ān is a single discourse with perfect correspondence between and proper arrangement of its parts, from the beginning to the end."

B. The Sūrah as a Coherent Unit

The foundational application of naẓm is at the level of the individual sūrah. Farāhī argued that every sūrah, regardless of length, is a self-contained and perfectly coherent unit.

• Central Theme (‘Umūd): Each sūrah revolves around a central theme, or ‘umūd (lit. pillar). This theme acts as a unifying thread that connects all the verses and subjects within the sūrah. The ‘umūd is not always the most conspicuous topic but is the one that receives the most comprehensive treatment and provides the hermeneutical key to the entire chapter.
• Arguments for Unity: Farāhī presented several arguments for the unity of the sūrah:
  1. The Qur’ān's division into sūrahs of varying lengths implies that each is designed to address a specific subject to its completion.
  2. The name sūrah itself means a "wall enclosing a city," suggesting a self-contained unit.
  3. The divine challenge to the Arabs was to produce a sūrah like it—a complete, meaningful discourse—not merely a collection of verses of a certain length.

C. The Structure of the Qur’ān as a Whole

The principle of naẓm extends to the entire Qur’ān. Farāhī and his successors argued that the arrangement of the sūrahs is divinely ordained and thematically significant.

Scholar	Conception of Qur’ānic Structure
Ḥamīd al-Dīn Farāhī	The Qur’ān is divided into nine distinct groups of sūrahs. Each group deals with a specific central theme, and sūrahs within each group are ordered logically, often with Makkan sūrahs following Madīnan ones.
Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī	Modified Farāhī's structure, proposing seven groups of sūrahs. He introduced the concept that nearly all sūrahs are arranged in pairs, which complement each other thematically. Within each group, Makkan and Madīnan sūrahs form distinct blocks, with the former preceding the latter.
Jāvēd Aḥmad Ghāmidī	Further developed the seven-group structure. He posits that the Qur’ān’s central theme is the prophetic admonition (indhār) and that the seven groups depict the distinct phases of Prophet Muhammad’s mission: general admonition, culmination of argument, migration, and final reward and punishment.

III. Farāhī's Hermeneutical Methodology

To access the Qur’ān's coherent message, Farāhī established a rigorous methodology that re-prioritized the sources of interpretation. This marks a major departure from traditional hermeneutics (uṣūl al-tafsīr).

A. Classification of Interpretive Resources

Farāhī divides all resources for exegesis into two distinct epistemological categories.

1. Conclusive (Foundational) Resources: These are absolutely authentic and form the basis of interpretation.
   • The Holy Qur’ān Itself: The primary principle is interpreting the Qur’ān with the Qur’ān. Farāhī states, "whatever part of the Book is ambiguous in one place has been made clear in another place."
   • The Language of the Qur’ān: A deep expertise in classical Arabic, derived from the Qur’ān itself and classical poetry, is essential to grasp the text's univocal meaning.
   • Coherence (Naẓm): The orderly arrangement of the text is the ultimate guide to its intended meaning and a shield against misinterpretation.
2. Non-Conclusive (Secondary) Resources: These are supportive resources that must be used for corroboration only. They can never override or contradict the meaning derived from the conclusive resources.
   • Ḥadīth (Prophetic Traditions): Farāhī refrains from basing his commentary on ḥadīth narratives, using them only to support conclusions already reached from the Qur’ān. He argues, "Any Ḥadīth that contradicts the interpretation reached by an expert... in the light of the coherence in the book has to be abandoned."
   • Occasion of Revelation (Shān-i Nuzūl): Farāhī redefines this concept. It is not merely a specific incident that "spurred" a revelation, but rather the broader "circumstances encompassing the addressees." The sūrah itself is the best guide to its occasion of revelation, and historical reports must harmonize with its context.
   • Previous Scriptures: The Torah and Gospels can be used to corroborate Qur’ānic statements and understand common themes, but they must be abandoned where they contradict the Qur’ān, which is the final, uncorrupted revelation.
   • Classical Disciplines (Grammar, Rhetoric, etc.): Farāhī critiques these disciplines as inadequate for analyzing the divine discourse, arguing that the Qur’ān should not be "chained" to rules devised for "ordinary non-Qur’ānic discourses of a mundane nature."

B. The Univocity of the Qur’ānic Text

A cornerstone of Farāhī's approach is his conviction that the Qur’ān is a univocal text.

"Every single verse gives a single definitive message. It is only the lack of research and study of a verse on the part of the exegetes that makes it seem subject to various interpretations." — Ḥamīd al-Dīn Farāhī

He rejected the practice of listing multiple, conflicting interpretations for a single verse without deciding between them. Instead, he argued that rigorous analysis, guided by the principles of language and naẓm, would lead to a single, correct understanding.

IV. Key Themes and Applications

Farāhī’s methodology led him to novel interpretations of several fundamental Qur’ānic concepts.

• Jihād: Farāhī offers a view that diverges from both the traditional "abrogation" model and the modern "defensive-only" model. He argues that the command to fight was specifically given to Prophet Muhammad to fulfill Abraham's covenant: liberating the Ka‘bah and reviving pure monotheism in the Arabian peninsula. This was only permitted after the message had been conclusively delivered, leaving the polytheistic Arabs with no excuse. For other nations, fighting was permitted to uproot oppression and establish justice, not to compel conversion. He stresses that Jihād must be conducted by a sovereign power to avoid becoming mere "disruption and nuisance."
• Ma‘rūf and Munkar (Good and Evil): Farāhī defines ma‘rūf as the virtues universally recognized by pre-Islamic Arabs and munkar as the vices they detested. He argues that the Qur’ān did not introduce a completely new moral code but rather "complemented their moral values." The divine revelation then confirmed, refined, or abrogated aspects of this existing framework, purifying it and grounding it in divine guidance. This approach reflects a method of gradual improvement rather than radical revolution.
• Structure and Meaning: Farāhī demonstrates that naẓm is not merely an aesthetic feature but is crucial to meaning. The juxtaposition of concepts creates meaning that would otherwise be lost. For example, he cites Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq’s argument for fighting those who refused to pay zakāh. Abū Bakr reasoned that since the Qur’ān almost always mentions zakāh alongside ṣalāh (prayer), the two obligations hold a similar legal status, justifying the use of force for both.

The seven divisions are as follows:

Group	From	To	Central theme
1	Al-Fatiha [Quran 1:1]	Al-Ma'ida [Quran 5:120]	Islamic law
2	Al-An'am [Quran 6:1]	At-Tawba [Quran 9:129]	The consequences of denying Muhammad for the polytheists of Mecca
3	Yunus [Quran 10:1]	An-Nur [Quran 24:64]	Glad tidings of Muhammad's domination
4	Al-Furqan [Quran 25:1]	Al-Ahzab [Quran 33:73]	Arguments on the prophethood of Muhammad and the requirements of faith in him
5	Saba [Quran 34:1]	Al-Hujraat [Quran 49:18]	Arguments on monotheism and the requirements of faith in Allah.
6	Qaf [Quran 50:1]	At-Tahrim [Quran 66:12]	Arguments on afterlife and the requirements of faith in it
7	Al-Mulk [Quran 67:1]	An-Nas [Quran 114:6]	Admonition to the Quraysh about their fate in the Herein and the Hereafter if they deny Muhammad

 

•