Download - Izutsu’s Study of the Qur’an from an
Izutsu’s Study of the Qur’an from anArab Perspective
Eisa Al-Akoub
UNIVERSITY OF ALEPPO
The least Muslim researchers could do in this field is to expose the
good work of the fair-minded and the genuine and the bad work of the
ill-intentioned and the unfair.1
Born in Tokyo, Toshihiko Izutsu graduated from Keio University, Tokyo. He taught
at Keio University (1954–68), the Institute of Islamic Studies McGill University
(Montreal, Canada) and the Royal Institute of the Study of Philosophy (Iran), and was
Professor Emeritus of Keio University and a member of Japan Academy. His English
works include God and Man in the Koran, Ethico-religious Concepts in the Qurʾān,
The Concept of Belief in Islamic Theology, Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study
of Key Philosophical Concepts and The Concept and Reality of Existence. In
Japanese, he wrote History of Islamic Thought, Mystical Philosophy, Islamic Culture,
Consciousness and Essence, Cosmos and Anti-Cosmos and others. He also translated
the Qur’an into Japanese.
In all these works, Izutsu’s profound knowledge of Islamic culture and thought is
noticeable. Also evident is the vast expanse of knowledge across which his mind
roamed. He was said to have mastered a number of Eastern and Western languages
and this allowed him to be acquainted with essential textures of many an Eastern and
Western culture. As for Islam, its cultures, and the Arabic language, his works show
an apparent knowledge of Arabic culture and its various sources. It is quite evident
that he knew the language of Jāhilī poetry as well as that of the Qur’an. God and Man
in the Koran, Ethico-religious Concepts in the Qurʾān, and The Concept of Belief in
Islamic Theology: A Semantic Analysis of Īmān and Islām, have been translated into
Arabic and they provide strong evidence of Izutsu’s ability to understand classical
Arabic texts, enabling him to give to some of the texts modified readings which may
be deemed closer to the truth in meaning.2
Journal of Qur’anic Studies 14.1 (2012): 107–130Edinburgh University PressDOI: 10.3366/jqs.2012.0039# Centre of Islamic Studies, SOASwww.eupjournals.com/jqs
In his study of the Qur’an especially, Izutsu applied a method of analysis based on a
theory of semantics. He explained his approach saying:3
Semantics, as I understand it, is an analytic study of the key-terms of a
language with a view to arriving eventually at a conceptual grasp of the
Weltanschauung or world-view of the people who use that language as
a tool not only of speaking and thinking, but, more important still, of
conceptualizing and interpreting the world that surrounds them.
Semantics, thus understood, is a kind of Weltanschauungslehre, a
study of the nature and structure of the world-view of a nation at this or
that significant period of its history, conducted by means of a
methodological analysis of the major cultural concepts the nation
has produced for itself and crystallized into the key-words of
language.
From the responses of a number of Arab researchers of the Qur’an over the last three
years, it has become apparent that Izutsu’s studies are of great importance because,
through their theoretical and applied principles, they form the basis of a new and
scientific approach to studying the Qur’an. This essay will shed light on the details
contained in these responses.
Izutsu, Orientalism, and Qur’anic Studies
The achievements of orientalist thought have, since the eighteenth century, induced
many Muslim thinkers to take note of what Western scholars have to say about
Islam, its twin sources of the Qur’an and the ḥadīth, and its Arab prophet.4 Some
Arab researchers have identified four factors in this temptation to give consideration
to orientalist studies. One, they considered it to stem from curiosity to know the
opinions of non-Muslim thinkers regarding Islam, its scripture and prophet. Two,
they thought that it aimed to answer arguments stemming from those who were
prejudiced against Islam, against the prophecy of its prophet and his connection with
the Qur’an, in addition to refuting and unveiling their allegations, and showing
the truth behind their so-called religious, scientific or historical surveys which
hide colonialist and crusading tendencies. Third, they considered it in order to
draw attention to linguistic, scientific or historical mistakes, some of which were
made out of ignorance, misunderstanding, narrow-mindedness, or far-fetched
assumptions. Four, they wished to make use of their research, especially those
studies which show freedom from the ideological pressures of the colonialist church,
and are characterised by a scientific approach free from emotion and preconceived
judgements.5
Many Arab thinkers classify orientalists who have written about Islam, the Qur’an,
and the Prophet into three categories: those who conduct neutral scientific studies;
108 Journal of Qur’anic Studies
those who undertake moderate and fair-minded studies; and those who write from a
polemic standpoint.6
Although the time frame during which Arab researchers have come to know Izutsu’s
works on the Qur’an is only eight years, and the whole picture of Arab researchers’
attitude toward his works is not complete, yet, we do note that there is a controversy
among Arab researchers who have been acquainted with his books. This controversy
centres on whether or not to consider him one of the orientalists. A few Arab writers
have lumped him in with other orientalists who have studied the Qur’an claiming that
what applies to them applies to him in terms of making egregious mistakes when
writing about Islam.7 Many people, however, refuse to place him in the arena of
orientalist scholarship of Islam and its culture.
This thoughtful contemplation of excluding Izutsu and his works from the orientalist
circle comes, in part, as a way of showing appreciation and approval of his works,
classifying them as belonging to those characterised by a scientific and objective
approach that seeks nothing but the truth. Some Arab researchers have specified their
reasons for not classifying Izutsu’s works as ‘orientalist’. They pointed to the
difference of the motive behind Japanese studies as compared to orientalist ones. In
their opinion, Japanese studies of Islam and the Arab World have arisen as an answer
to Western orientalist studies which do not adhere to an objective research
methodology. They also point out that Izutsu himself asserted in the introductions
to his books that his intention was to present something new which offers a better
understanding of the Qur’an’s message to the people of its time and to us, the people
of this age. He often affirmed his reliance on an empirical and inductive approach in
reaching his conclusions, avoiding in the process preconceived judgements. Finally,
they cite the scientific objectivity that characterises his works, and his respect for the
Qur’an displayed in his attitude of admiration for its language and for the precision of
its verses.8
We can say that Izutsu’s motives in studying the Qur’an were truly different from the
motives of many orientalists who studied it. On the basis of what we are told by those
who knew him personally, and from looking closely at his works, we may conclude
that he was trying to establish an Eastern philosophy which can provide a comparison
and a balance to Western philosophies. Given the number of Eastern languages he
mastered and his knowledge of much of their philosophical and intellectual heritage,
this seems evident. As well, the period in which he lived, a period that witnessed the
colonialism of Japan and the blows it had to face from American military power,
certainly would have had its impact.
There is another reason that suggests that we should distinguish his studies of the
Qur’an from those written by some orientalists, namely his reliance on modern
Izutsu’s Study of the Qur’an from an Arab Perspective 109
semantics, a Western discipline, German and American; this method allowed him to
reach important conclusions in understanding the Qur’an and identifying its
worldview. A careful look at the scientific methodology Izutsu employed in
his studies of the Qur’an, as well as the results he came up with shows that his
approach and findings were the main reasons that his works were tempting and
appealing to Arab scholars of the Qur’an in the first decade of the twenty-first century.
Thus, many Arab researchers do not consider Izutsu an orientalist based on the fact
that to them:9
Orientalism, in some of its stages, was nurtured in the Church. It
played a dangerous intellectual role in paving the way to political,
cultural and military colonialism. It further made some dubious moves,
aiming to shake the confidence of the colonised peoples in their
religions, cultures and heritage.
Arab Attitudes Toward Izutsu’s Works
Arabic translations of Izutsu’s studies of the Qur’an were met with significant interest
shortly after they became available to researchers. One manifestation of this interest
came in the form of complaints from some researchers, asking why it took so long to
translate these works into Arabic, given that the original English books date back to
the middle of the twentieth century.10 Most of these complaints came in the context of
introductions to the translations of each of Izutsu’s studies of the Qur’an, or in the
context of academic research which showed the possibilities of employing semantics.
One reaction that we know of arose in the context of a book criticising orientalist
approaches to the Qur’an. In sum, there were expressions of admiration and
appreciation as well as those of denigration and caution expressed by Arab researchers.
Positive Responses to Izutsu’s Works
The year 2007 witnessed the release of two translations of Izutsu’s book God and Man
in the Koran, one published by al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿArabiyya li’l-Tarjama in Beirut,11
and the other by Dār al-Multaqā in Aleppo.12 This was followed in 2009 by the
release of the Arabic translation of Izutsu’s book Ethico-religious Concepts in the
Qurʾān.13 2010 witnessed the release of the Arabic translation of The Concept
of Belief in Islamic Theology.14 These two latter works were also published by Dār
al-Multaqā.
Owing to the proximity of the presses and the availability of the books, responses
to the translations came mainly from Syrian researchers, but also from one
Lebanese one. A common characteristic among Syrian researchers who reviewed
Izutsu’s translated works on the Qur’an is that they were professors in the Faculty of
110 Journal of Qur’anic Studies
Sharīʿa at Aleppo University; all had a keen interest in applying modern approaches in
linguistics to Qur’anic studies. However, in fact, the first positive response to the
Arabic translation of Izutsu came from the Lebanese researcher Masʿūd Ḍāhir, author
of the book al-Yāban bi-ʿuyūn ʿArabiyya 1904–2004 (‘Japan through Arab Eyes
1904–2004’). He published an essay in which he introduced to the Arab audience the
Beirut translation of Izutsu’s book God and Man in the Koran, entitled ‘al-Yābānī
Izutsu wa’l-ruʾya al-Qurʾāniyya li’l-ʿālam’ (‘The Japanese Izutsu and the Qur’anic
World-View’). The essay was published in al-Mustaqbal, a Lebanese paper.15 In this
essay, the author shows clear enthusiasm for the translation of Asian works of
criticism and creativity, especially from China and Japan. He believes that the long
overdue release of the Arabic translation of Izutsu’s God and Man in the Koran
provides a flagrant example of Arab and Muslim researchers’ negligence of Asian
studies, as is confirmed, in his view, by noting the fact that the English original arrived
in 1964 while the Arabic translation was not released until 2007.
Ḍāhir was preoccupied with showing Izutsu’s well-established scientific approach and
the tools he employed so effectively in his study. To him, Izutsu was one of the
leading and most prominent Japanese scholars of Islamic studies. Izutsu’s works are
said to be characterised by precision and objectivity, and it is noted that he was one of
the first to translate the Qur’an into Japanese, and that his studies of the Qur’an,
Ṣūfism, and Islamic thought reveal his profound knowledge. Even today, it is noted,
his studies continue to be received with special admiration by researchers who
consider him one of the founders of a wide-ranging trend among Japanese scholars
interested in Arabic and Islamic studies in the second half of the twentieth century.
Ḍāhir was keen to show Izutsu’s profound knowledge of Arabic and Islamic culture as
well as Asian cultures. He was also impressed by his immense experience in European
semantics, which enabled him to analyse Qur’anic linguistic concepts and their social,
cultural, and spiritual connotations. Izutsu is put forward as one of the pioneers of
semiotic analysis in Japan.
The most salient feature characterising Ḍāhir’s perspective on Izutsu’s works is that he
presented it to Arab readers within a general framework introducing the cultural
relationships between Arabs and Asians. He was bothered by Arab translators’
negligence of important works on Arab and Islamic heritage by Asian authors.
Izutsu’s study of the Qur’an seemed, to Ḍāhir, appealing and invited greater attention
to wider Eastern scholarly studies.
There still remains a legitimate question as to whether Izutsu really represents a
sizable cumulative tradition of scientific, objective and well-established Japanese
study of the Qur’an based on profound knowledge of the Arabic and Islamic heritage.
The answer to this query warrants careful research into the quality and quantity of
such work. An observant reader would not stray too far from the truth if he concluded
Izutsu’s Study of the Qur’an from an Arab Perspective 111
that Arabs are still investigating the features of Japanese scholarship in Islam. Izutsu’s
works, translated into Arabic, certainly offer a chance to get to know these
characteristics, and encourage Arab scholars to be more open toward orientalist
works, even if they might consider Izutsu not to be within that tradition. However, the
orientalist tradition of studying the Qur’an has historically evoked in Arabs a feeling
of suspicion and this has affected the way they view Izutsu’s works. This could also
explain why Ḍāhir refuses to call Izutsu an orientalist. Whatever the case may be,
what Ḍāhir has presented regarding Izutsu is no more than an essay in a Lebanese
paper introducing him to Arab readers, and is not intended to provide an in-depth
analysis of one of Izutsu’s translated works. Having said that, his discussion reveals
many elements of the general cultural framework in which Izutsu lived and amassed
his academic and research qualifications.
Three more extended and positive attitudes toward Izutsu’s works, which stem from
academic professors who teach at faculties of Sharīʿa in Syria, tell us more about the
reception of these works. This is especially so since professors at these faculties are
generally known for their rather historically entrenched and traditional approaches.
These three researchers represent a new trend in the tradition of Qur’anic scholarship,
one which seeks to benefit from the findings of the various branches of Western
linguistics in the study of the Qur’an. To them, Izutsu’s works represent a potentially
useful theoretical methodology that can have many applications. Notably, all three
researchers are graduates of Arab universities who have not received any Western
education in methodological matters.
The first researcher, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Ḥilalī, discussed Izutsu’s works in an essay
entitled ‘Istikhdām ʿilm al-dalāla fī fahm al-Qurʾān: qiraʾa fī tajribat al-bāḥith al-
Yābānī Toshihiko Izutsu’ (‘Using Semantics in Understanding the Qur’an: A Reading
into the Experience of the Japanese Researcher, Toshihiko Izutsu’). This essay was
presented by Ḥilalī at the International Conference on ‘Dealing with Religious Texts
for Contemporaries’ organised by Jordan University’s Faculty of Sharīʿa in 2008.16
The title of the essay suggests that Ḥilalī is interested in tools and methodologies that
can be helpful in providing a correct understanding of the Qur’an. He draws attention,
from the start, to the fact that applying modern linguistics in the study of the Qur’an
has not always yielded reassuring scientific results, owing to the non-academic
motives that sometimes lie behind these applications. Ḥilalī gives ample examples of
orientalists and those apprenticed at their hands who are guilty of this.17 He shows that
there are exceptions to this rule when speaking of well-established and important
academic works which are, nevertheless, rare and unknown in the Arab world and
have not had their share of attention and recognition. These have been obscured,
undermined, or had their academic merits questioned because they did not satisfy
prevalent orientalist views, or were contrary to the objectives of orientalist work.18
From the start, Ḥilalī favours Izutsu’s work and shows that his approach aims at
112 Journal of Qur’anic Studies
introducing ‘a type of modern Qur’anic studies which represents a qualitative shift in a
Qur’anic scholarship in dire need of semantics as a methodology’.19
In order to understand Ḥilalī’s position on Izutsu’s works, it is necessary to point out
that he presented them in the context of showing the importance of semantics and its
potential use in the understanding of the Qur’an. This was in spite of the fact that he
realised that a great number of his colleagues objected to the application of semantics
to the Qur’an, and that others would object on the basis of their previous encounters
with orientalist studies of the Qur’an. This explains why he begins by stressing that
Izutsu’s works are not to be classified among those studies written by orientalists on
the Qur’an and Islam.20
Once Ḥilalī has introduced Izutsu, the thinker, to the Arab reader, and spoken about
his life, academic qualifications, and his works in both English and Japanese, he
sets out to talk about semantics and the study of the Qur’an from Izutsu’s perspective.
He acquaints the reader with some of the most important points in Izutsu’s
methodology as explained by Izutsu in God and Man in the Koran. He presents
Izutsu’s views of semantics and explains to the reader some of its basic principles.21
Ḥilalī speaks extensively about these basics, realising that the theoretical principles
Izutsu relied on to deduce the Qur’an’s worldview – its Weltanschauung – need to
be clearly presented to the Arab reader because they are profound while also being
part of the Western tradition of semantics that is unknown to the Arab reader. Clearly
Ḥilalī wanted to sow the seeds of this scholarly approach in an Arab cultural
environment.
Ḥilalī is frank in his admiration for what Izutsu has presented in God and Man in the
Koran. He especially praises Izutsu’s easy language and simplified style, confirming
the impression the translators had when they translated his works into Arabic. (It
seems that the smoothness and clarity of his style in the original convey through into
the Arabic translation.22) Ḥilalī recognises that the accuracy and scientific precision
characterising Izutsu’s work comes from his direct reliance in his study on ‘Arabic
which he mastered in detail, and his rejection of studying Qur’anic concepts through
another language’.23 In fact, reliance on the original Qur’anic text and mastery of it
prove somewhat reassuring to the Arab reader in terms of the effort any orientalist or
Arabist makes in the study of the Qur’an or any other Arabic book; frequently
orientalist work is mistrusted in this regard.
Ḥilalī wants to reassure the Arab reader of something very important: Izutsu’s respect
for the Arabic language and his knowledge of and acquaintance with Islamic heritage
sources. He quotes Izutsu: ‘Classical Arabic is one of the best-known languages in the
world, explored to the minutest details of both grammar and vocabulary. We have
good dictionaries; much philological work has been done; and, in the domain of
Qur’anic exegesis in particular’.24 To Ḥilalī, therefore there is nothing insidious about
Izutsu’s Study of the Qur’an from an Arab Perspective 113
Izutsu to be afraid of; to emphasise the point, he mentions a famous Aristotelian
saying that people do not learn from someone they dislike.
Ḥilalī also intends to demonstrate the contribution of Izutsu’s works to the cumulative
knowledge of Qur’anic scholarship. He wants to explain how the theoretical and
practical principles presented by Izutsu ‘add scientific and methodological value to the
study and the understanding of the Qur’an, unveiling the precision and perspicuity of
its verses’.25 He points out that the principles Izutsu introduced had their precursors in
Arabic philology but had only been applied partially and did not allow the study of the
overall structure of the Qur’an as a whole. For Ḥilalī, semantics in Izutsu’s approach
are more comprehensive than familiar sharʿī (‘religious’) concepts; they aim primarily
to identify the nature of conceptual change, and how that has been employed in the
Qur’an, bringing about a new worldview.26
In making this analysis Ḥilalī wishes to reassure his Arab readers concerning Izutsu’s
works in the sense that he makes a comparison between the Arab tradition of studying
the Qur’an and Izutsu’s approach, one that unveils new dimensions in the sphere of
Qur’anic studies. This reveals the efforts undertaken by a generation of Arab Qur’an
scholars eager to make use of new approaches from any environment regardless of
where they come from. That does not matter to this generation, but what matters more
is the outcome that may be obtained from applying these approaches within the
capabilities and possibilities permitted by the text being studied.
Ḥilalī insists on providing his audience of Arab Qur’an scholars with a description of
what the semantic approach, as employed by Izutsu in the study of the Qur’an,
promises. He points out the benefits that stem from applying this approach, benefits
that help reinforce the principles of Islam in the behaviour of Muslims so that they can
be more righteous and can fulfil what the Qur’an enjoins upon them. He speaks about
a new recognition for the methodology of the Qur’an in employing concepts and
transforming them within the Qur’anic context, which helps unveil the Qur’an’s
course of social and cultural change, achieving the establishment of the Islamic ethos
in society as it does so.27
Ḥilalī keeps in mind that Izutsu’s study of the Qur’an aims primarily at exposing the
change the Qur’an has made in the vocabulary of Arabic. Hence, key-terms used in
the Qur’an with certain connotations are noted to have had different connotations in
pre-Islamic Arabic. His focus on this point mirrors that of many Muslim thinkers, who
insist on knowing the mechanisms with which the Qur’an managed to change the
hearts, the minds, the lifestyle and the behaviour of pre-Islamic Arabs. When Izutsu
embarked on his semantic study of the Qur’an and its worldview he already had a
positive belief that the key-terms in the Qur’an express a worldview different from
that of pre-Qur’anic Arabic. Izutsu stated at the beginning of God and Man in the
Koran, when speaking about the main reason that prompted him to embark on
114 Journal of Qur’anic Studies
the study: ‘I was guided by the hope that … I might still be able to contribute
something new to a better understanding of the Koranic message to its own age and
to us’.28
When Ḥilalī discusses Izutsu’s linguistic thinking through this pragmatic inclination,
he presents himself as representative of a wide spectrum of Muslim thinkers. This
point might help us discover a fundamental reason why many Arab and Muslim
Qur’an scholars chose to turn away from Western, orientalist studies of the Qur’an
and Islam, believing that quite often those studies were meant to shake Muslim
confidence in their faith and to present an adverse and incorrect image of their Prophet
and sacred beliefs.
Based on this pragmatic intention, Ḥilalī points out another merit in Izutsu’s
work, namely the fact that it acts as a tool of profound development in Islamic
studies:29
… for it contributes to the development of objective interpretation, and
it can be viewed as a type of literary study of the Qur’an’s style. At
best, it is a study of Islamic philosophy presented in the Qur’an to the
world and a course of change contained in the Qur’an, a course of
change that did take place in the age of its revelation.
In fact, the hopes Ḥilalī has for applying Izutsu’s methodology in future studies of the
Qur’an clearly express the eagerness of Muslim Qur’an researchers for new
methodologies which can help them solve the research problems they face. Among
these issues is the fact that:30
… this methodology can be employed in the criticism of concepts in
Islamic sciences in light of their connection with the Qur’anic concept,
especially those problematic ones that belong to the field of theology.
Izutsu pointed that out, and saw that it could be applied in a special
study on īmān (‘faith’, ‘belief’) in theology. Thus, Izutsu opens a
window in this approach to study the fundamental concepts in certain
related fields derived from the Qur’anic text, such as those of Ṣūfism,
theology and philosophy, among others, and to compare the
relationship of the concepts of these fields to Qur’anic concepts.
Ḥilalī’s speculations on Izutsu’s work on the Qur’an express a strong tendency toward
an objective scientific methodology which avoids preconceived judgements, whims
and subjective tendencies. These speculations show that this type of semantic
approach, which studies the meaning through the Qur’an itself, as applied by Izutsu,
contributes ‘a great deal to the scientific objectivity in the study of the Qur’an, since
the very nature of this methodology, right from the start, steers clear from
preconceptions on part of the reader and makes him surrender to wherever this
Izutsu’s Study of the Qur’an from an Arab Perspective 115
conceptual system and the relation between Qur’anic words in their connotative
sphere may lead him’.31
In summary, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Ḥilalī’s position on the methodological innovations
presented by Izutsu and his application of this methodology to the Qur’anic text,
maintains that this Japanese thinker’s semantic approach provides Arab researchers
with theoretical methodological principles in the sphere of semantics, in addition to
successful examples of their application in the study of the Qur’an. This promises
significant potential for developments in the study of the Qur’an:32
Izutsu’s works can offer a methodological framework which accepts
further development and application in Qur’anic studies. This
framework can also offer a qualitative addition to the understanding
of the Qur’an, its rulings, and its details, especially through the angle
of studying Qur’anic concepts.
The second positive reaction toward Izutsu’s works came from the Syrian researcher
Sāmir Rashwānī, a lecturer in the Faculty of Sharīʿa at the University of Aleppo, in the
context of an essay published on the internet entitled ‘“Allāh wa’l-insān fī’l-Qurʾān:”
tajriba majhūla fī ʿilm al-dalāla’ (‘God and Man in the Qur’an’: An Unfamiliar
Experiment in Semantics’).33 The title clearly suggests some sorrow and regret for the
fact that Izutsu’s works remained unknown to Arab researchers for so long.
From the very beginning of his essay, Rashwānī draws attention to the differences
between the orientalist approach and Izutsu’s. For over a century, orientalist studies
focused a great deal of attention on the history of the Qur’an in terms of its origin,
development and sources. These studies neglected reading the Qur’an as a coherent
whole or as a religious reference with a comprehensive message for all of humanity.
Rashwānī points to a few such orientalist studies, and his take on them is that they
often compared the Qur’an to the Jewish and Christian scriptures, seeing the latter as
the source through which the Qur’an derived its doctrines. However, Izutsu, the
Japanese scholar who was well-read in Arabic (as Rashwānī portrays him) presented
many studies of the Qur’an as an independent religious text in terms of its own
linguistics, trying to apply the findings of theories in semantics as they were
developing at the time he was working on his Qur’anic studies.
When Rashwānī introduces Izutsu’s book God and Man in the Koran, he summarises
the main idea of the book by saying:34
The Qur’an’s message, its worldview, and philosophy about existence
are found in its vocabulary – key-words, or more precisely in the
connotations found in the vocabulary used by the Qur’an to explain its
message. A semantic study of these key-words will unveil the change
116 Journal of Qur’anic Studies
in the connotations the Qur’anic usage has introduced in pre-Islamic
Arabic, giving these key-words a new worldview and a different
philosophy.
Rashwānī introduces his Arab readers to the basic assumptions on which Izutsu bases
his work, especially the idea that views language as a means of reasoning and a basic
instrument for presenting concepts and interpretations of the world surrounding its
speakers. He provides what he thinks are the most important elements of Izutsu’s
approach, namely that his intention is to uncover the initial perception or reception of
revelation as manifested in the time of the Prophet and his companions. In this way
semantic analysis unveils the Qur’anic worldview.
It appears that Izutsu’s appeal, according to Rashwānī, is attributable to the core of the
knowledge presented by his Qur’anic studies. Rashwānī considers this a major
breakthrough when he says:35
Izutsu’s Qur’anic studies prove that the Qur’anic text stands on its
own, having a comprehensive message and outlook to humanity and
the universe, an outlook that cannot be attributed to Jāhilī thoughts, nor
to the Judaeo-Christian tradition. This outlook, he believes, is clear
from the wide-ranging semantic change the Qur’an has produced in the
Arabic lexicon, thus reflecting its view toward the universe and
existence.
It is in this very essential point that Izutsu’s appeal lies, because Muslim scholars have
a belief that the Qur’anic worldview is one that is divine and sublime, stemming from
the greatest Creator, Designer of the universe, who taught man language and
eloquence.36 This Qur’anic worldview is not derived from the original speakers of
Arabic, the pre-Islamic Arabs, nor from the divine scriptures predating the Qur’an,
even though there might be some agreement and similarity between those scriptures
and the Qur’an. The idea that the contents of the Qur’an are derived from the
previously revealed scriptures, and that Jews and Christians are the ones who inspired
or taught Muḥammad the ideas and contents of the Qur’an, is a fundamental source of
the apprehension the Muslim intellectuals feel regarding orientalist work on the
Qur’an. Therefore, researchers who have approached Izutsu’s studies have
emphasised that the tools employed by Izutsu and his objectives are generally
different from those of orientalists. Rashwānī, furthermore, attributes the negligence
that many orientalist researchers of the Qur’an displayed towards Izutsu’s work to the
fact that he was not working according to the general orientalist assumption that
presents the Qur’an as part of the Judaeo-Christian scriptural tradition.37
The merits of Izutsu’s approach lead this Syrian researcher to call for a serious Arab
study of Izutsu’s works, a reading that explores the potential of semantics and its
Izutsu’s Study of the Qur’an from an Arab Perspective 117
application to the Qur’an. Izutsu’s works are, in his view, much deeper and more
useful than many Arab studies of the Qur’an that have appeared in the last two
decades of the twentieth century which have tried to make use of modern linguistics.
The problem is that those attempts had two major drawbacks: one, they distorted the
Qur’anic text or interpolated things into it; and, two, they distorted linguistic research
in its various branches. Overall, the trouble was ideological exploitation.38
Thus, what can be understood from Rashwānī’s overall position on Izutsu is his
enthusiasm for the practical application of Izutsu’s semantic approach to the Qur’an.
Rashwānī belongs to a group of modernist Qur’anic researchers who are inclined to
make use of modern linguistics in the study of Muslim scripture. This new group
combines the veneration of the Qur’an and belief in its teachings with an appreciation
of modern Western scholarship and methodologies when applied scientifically,
objectively, and without any preconceived notions or narrow ideological objectives.
The third positive reaction to Izutsu’s studies on the Qur’an comes from ʿAbd al-
Raḥmān al-Ḥājj, a Syrian researcher working on his PhD in Qur’anic studies at the
International Islamic University in the Malaysian capital of Kuala Lumpur, having
spent his undergraduate university years at the Faculty of Sharīʿa in Damascus
University. Al-Ḥājj’s discussion of Izutsu’s work can be found in a short essay
published on the internet entitled ‘al-Taḥlīl al-anthrūbūlūjī al-lisānī li’l-Qurʾān’
(‘Anthropological Linguistic Analysis of the Qur’an’). What characterises al-Ḥājj’s
discussion of Izutsu’s work is his emphasis on presenting a comprehensive framework
for Western Qur’anic scholarship while including Izutsu’s efforts within this
scholarship. We do not find in al-Ḥājj the emphasis we find with the other scholars
who excluded Izutsu from the orientalist circle of Qur’anic studies. Rather we find the
focus is on a different issue, namely his concern about what he calls a tendency of
modern Qur’anic studies in the West toward anthropological scholarship in response
to global politics and the climate of what is called ‘terrorism’ and ‘Islamic
fundamentalism’, the intention of which, he suggests, is to prove that violence is an
inherent phenomenon in Qur’anic discourse.39
Al-Ḥājj is supportive of objectivity, scientific neutrality, and the avoidance of
preconceived judgements, and the use of scientific methodologies to seek results that
will support the researcher’s hypotheses. Certainly here we see an additional reason
why Muslim scholars have had qualms about orientalist Qur’anic scholarship: it keeps
reminding them of the Western colonialist era in their countries, an era preceded by or
accompanied with constant orientalist attempts to shake trust in their beliefs, their
intellectual and cultural heritage, and the strength of their character. They appreciate
Western scientific work seeking to expose the facts, and solve the riddles of
ambiguities; however, they feel they have been stung too many times by orientalist
studies and they have become very cautious of them.
118 Journal of Qur’anic Studies
With this taken into consideration, we realise the reason al-Ḥājj includes Izutsu’s
Qur’anic studies within the framework of attempts at combining both anthropology
and linguistics. Al-Ḥājj views these attempts as scientific to a large extent. This is
attributable to the fact that linguistic studies have given a scientific tilt to
anthropological research.40 Al-Ḥājj puts Izutsu’s works God and Man in the Koran
and Ethico-religious Concepts in the Qurʾān at the forefront of studies that have taken
this track and sets these two works apart from what is called ‘the concept of
interpretation’ and from ‘the interpretative and illustrative approach’. This is because
they both aim at unravelling grand concepts and speculations, rather than merely
understanding texts. Al-Ḥājj highly appreciates Izutsu’s employment of both
synchronic and diachronic semantic approaches, synchronic for understanding the
discourse, and diachronic to track down its developments,41 and believes that Izutsu’s
studies have made important discoveries for the understanding of the Qur’an’s
language. For al-Ḥājj, God and Man in the Koran explains the details and the
application of Izutsu’s approach, while his Ethico-religious Concepts in the Qurʾān
presents an extensive explanation of the principles of the approach Izutsu relied on in
his study of Qur’anic language.42
After providing an extensive account of Izutsu’s semantic approach and pointing out
the Western sources which Izutsu himself refers to, al-Ḥājj draws the conclusion that
Izutsu’s leaning toward philosophy is what explains his choice of a methodology that
is based on a special kind of semantics. He believes that Izutsu started his journey with
the study of ethics in the Qur’an and then he went on to explore the overall speculative
dogmatic sphere which constitutes the basis for studying ethics. He sums up Izutsu’s
approach as a philosophical perspective that blends with anthropology and leads to
linguistic methodological tools.43
Al-Ḥājj sees that Izutsu’s Qur’anic studies have achieved two things. First, they have
resulted in the localisation of methodological tools so that these tools can read the
Qur’anic text as a self-sufficient cultural discourse. Second, his approach is one which
was able to preserve the text itself and displayed the least possible intrusion of
preconceived notions.44 He describes Izutsu’s findings as surprising, and as proving
that modern sciences, especially linguistics, can help develop Qur’anic studies to a
large extent. This, he suggests, is in contrast to the aims of modern ideological
anthropological studies which assume modern linguistic research methodologies and
tools intentionally while leaning on preconceived notions about Islam in the name of
science.45
The opinions these three researchers hold of Izutsu’s works suggest that there is a
great appreciation of the type of semantics he used in his studies of the Qur’an. This
appreciation is attributable to Izutsu’s precise use of language, his methodology, his
scientific neutrality, and his objectivity. This is in addition to Izutsu’s ability to apply
Izutsu’s Study of the Qur’an from an Arab Perspective 119
and deal with his data, which has helped, these researchers believe, to bring about
some amazing findings, findings that call for further research and investigation into
the theoretical and intellectual bases Izutsu depended on in the special type of
semantics he chose. Izutsu’s model is one that could be followed by many Arab
Qur’anic studies which could offer important discoveries in understanding the Qur’an
and the way it changed the hearts and minds of people, elevating believers closer to
the truth and making them more adept at striking a balance between the spiritual and
the material worlds. Also expressed are an appreciation for Izutsu’s neutrality, his
leaning toward science, his respect for the Qur’an and its teachings, and his admiration
for Arab language and culture. As has been noted several times, there has also been an
insistence on excluding Izutsu from the orientalist circle whose work on the Qur’an
was often viewed with suspicion and caution.
A third study by Izutsu has been translated into Arabic and has been well-received in
many intellectual Arab environments; The Concept of Belief in Islamic Theology: A
Semantic Analysis of Īmān and Islām. Its translation is fairly new, having only been
published in 2010, so only a limited assessment of the response it has garnered is
possible. Nevertheless, it is possible to mention here two Syrian researchers who
introduced this book in a seminar held at Aleppo University in the spring of 2010
arranged by a professor at the Department of Arabic, Ṣalah Kazzāra, who also
provided important input regarding Izutsu’s work on the Qur’an.
The Concept of Belief has also received a positive general evaluation from Maḥmūd
Miṣrī, a Ṣūfī and researcher into the history of Arab sciences and Sharīʿa, as well as a
practicing physician.46 Because he is from a circle interested in Ṣūfism with an
extensive experience into its research and aims, he finds Izutsu’s distinction between
the two levels of belief in Islamic culture very appealing. Previously, this concept has
been dealt with in two ways. First, on a scholarly level based on theology, which is a
dry, rational approach for an issue that is deeply rooted in the self, and secondly on a
profound Ṣūfī level, based on the premise that belief is a personal existential
phenomenon, as Izutsu himself believed. In fact, Izutsu knew well as he was preparing
his study that the essence of what he was doing was to pursue the process of the
rationalisation of belief, and that aspect of the concept of belief in Islamic thought
warrants another study which deals semantically with the concept of taqwā (‘piety’)
and its development, in addition to other key-terms in Ṣūfī literature. This point,
which Izutsu found interesting, resulted in Miṣrī quoting a passage that occurs towards
the end of Izutsu’s study:47
All through this book we have been pursuing the process of the
intellectualization of īmān, the process, in other words, by which the
Muslims went on gaining an ever keener analytic and rational insight
into the nature of īmān, as reflected in their own consciousness.
120 Journal of Qur’anic Studies
By doing so they succeeded in laying bare the conceptual structure of
īmān, but something deeply personal, something really vital, escaped
the fine mesh of their analysis … If, therefore, one wishes to obtain a
really comprehensive’ grasp of Belief or Faith in Islamic thought, one
will have to conduct an analytic work similar to the present work on
the nature and development of taqwā, i.e., ‘pious fear of God’, and
other key concepts in Sufism. Only when the results obtained on both
sides, theological and, mystical, are put together and coordinated with
each other, can we hope to get a fairly complete picture of Belief as
understood in Islam.
Miṣrī also expressed his admiration for the way Izutsu deals with the issue of calling
others ‘infidels’, which is a thorny issue that many Muslims have found problematic in
the past, and still do. He showed that Izutsu was aware of the fact that the key-terms
used by the Khawārij (who propagated the idea of calling Muslims who differed with
them in opinion ‘infidels’) had two different sides, with each pointing in a totally
different direction. The first is political, and the second is theological. In the
beginning, that is, in the early Umayyad period, the political aspect was more
important. With time, however, the theological aspect started to gain prominence.48
Miṣrī discusses in detail how Izutsu deals with the issue of calling others infidels in
Islamic history through a semantic analysis of the key-terms in the two semantic
fields, belief and unbelief.
The third and last point which Miṣrī talked about regarding Izutsu’s study was the
relationship between the action of the heart and that of the body through belief, an
issue Izutsu dealt with in chapter seven of his study, ‘Īmān in the Meaning of
Believing’. This issue was particularly appealing to Miṣrī who, in his expositon,
expressed his agreement with Izutsu’s aims. In fact, Miṣrī’s admiration for Izutsu’s
The Concept of Belief in Islamic Theology is particularly notable because he is
interested in this special kind of discipline as a result of his degree in Islamic sharīʿa
sciences, and is working on his PhD in this field. He explicitly expresses support for
translating works by prominent authors of Izutsu’s calibre, and believes such
translations have ‘their importance in allowing Arabs to get to know the creativity of
others in the East or West in dealing with Arabic and Islamic intellectual as well as
cultural issues’.49 Miṣrī is in agreement with the translator of the book (and author of
this essay), Eisa Al-Akoub, who ‘considers the author as one of the contemporaries
establishing a ground of knowledge for a good reading of the Holy Qur’an and the
culture it has promoted, a reading that is careful, profound, and follows a scientific
methodology’.50
The second researcher who participated in this seminar about Izutsu’s The Concept of
Belief in Islamic Theology was Aḥmad Qaddūr, a professor of Arabic at Aleppo
Izutsu’s Study of the Qur’an from an Arab Perspective 121
University with a major in Arabic Language and an interest in Arabic and Western
semantics. He is also a member of l’Académie Arabe de Damas. He provided a brief
survey of each chapter in Izutsu’s study and introduced his audience to the main idea
in each chapter. He was particularly impressed with the approach Izutsu had applied in
his study of the concept of belief in Islamic theology and the findings he arrived at.
Qaddūr also summarised his opinion of this study in the end of his presentation by
indicating that he found the book profound and meticulously comprehensive. He
thought it one of the best books he had read in the last years, especially because in the
way it applied the ideas of semantic field in a skilful analysis of main concepts of
belief and Islam.
It is worth mentioning here that Qaddūr’s primary goal was to attract the attention of
graduate students and instructors at the Arabic department to the importance of
semantics and the great potential it has in similar studies that can be applied based on
the special type of semantics Izutsu had used in his Qur’anic studies. Hence, his
appreciation of Izutsu is an expression of the benefit that can be obtained from
applying modern techniques of semantics whatever their source.
Negative Responses to Izutsu’s Works
Earlier we mentioned how orientalist scholarship of the Qur’an and of Islam as a
whole is often viewed with suspicion, seen as having the smell of conspiracy
emanating from it. There seems to be a consensus of opinion among Arab researchers
that orientalist scholarship of the Qur’an has often been motivated by ideological and
preconceived goals, designed to denigrate Islam through its two sources, the Qur’an
and the ḥadīth, and distorting the image of Islam’s prophet. There has been a prevalent
impression among Muslim thinkers that the technological and scientific advances
attained by the West through totally neutral methodological tools were not paralleled
by equally neutral, intellectual and scientific approaches when the issue related to
Islam and Muslims. This, of course, does not mean that a good number of Muslim
thinkers forgot that there are a few scholars of Islam in the West who stayed on the
path of truth, freeing themselves from prejudice and racism, while being biased only
toward objective scientific research.
We also pointed out earlier that many Muslim researchers who have discussed
Izutsu’s Qur’anic studies tended to exclude Izutsu from the orientalist circle for the
reasons we have mentioned. However, this general inclination does not include
everyone who has had the opportunity to come to know Izutsu’s work in the Qur’an.
We acquired access to a study titled Min akhṭāʾ al-mustashriqīn wa-khaṭāyāhum
(‘Some of the Errors and Sins of the Orientalists’) by an Arab Muslim researcher by
the name of Aḥmad ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, a university professor and a well-known
Muslim dāʿī from Egypt. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān is a specialist in the field of Islamic ethics
122 Journal of Qur’anic Studies
and it seems he received some advanced education from a Western educational
institution. His study was first published in Cairo in 2002, at which point the author
supplemented the title of the study with Naqd al-istishrāq: dirāsāt taṭbīqiyya
(‘Criticism of Orientalism: Applied Studies’). ʿAbd al-Raḥmān included Toshihiko
Izutsu among the group of Western orientalists who presented a misconstrued
understanding of Islam, its culture, and its prophet. The material he depended on in his
criticism of Izutsu was the introduction to Izutsu’s Ethico-religious Concepts in the
Qurʾān in its English original. He translated into Arabic the introductory part of the
book entitled ‘Language and Culture’. After presenting this introduction to the Arab
reader, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān credits Izutsu with two positive points. One, he supports
Izutsu’s reliance in his study of ethico-religious concepts in the Qur’an on what is
known by Muslim exegetical scholars as:51
… the interpretation tradition which means that the Qur’an interprets
itself, so if we want to explore the meaning of the word ‘mercy’ for
example, we should study, analyse, and compare all the verses where
the word is found and rely also on aḥādīth which speak about this
word, so that we can arrive at the meaning of ‘mercy’ and its
connotations.
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān points out that Izutsu had applied in his study an approach that was
‘the defining principle in the schools of Qur’anic interpretation tradition that were
prevalent in Mecca in the time of the Companions and those who came after them,
may God bless them all. This approach continues to be applied to this day.’52 He
holds it against Izutsu that the latter did not acknowledge having borrowed this
approach from Muslim scholars. Two, Izutsu’s reliance on the Qur’an itself, in its
Arabic original text, in his study, is praised because thereby he avoided any foreign
translation of it. In fact, Izutsu went to a great length to explain the dangers of relying
on translations in trying to understand a philosophy. In this regard, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
points out the possibility that Izutsu’s good command of Arabic would have rendered
him able to read what Muslim scholars had to offer regarding the issue of translation
of Qur’anic terms, starting with Imām Shafīʿī, then Ibn Qutayba, along with al-
Shāṭibī, in addition to Imām al-Ghazālī and Imām al-Rāzī in their original studies. All
these scholars have pointed out that translation is an unreliable approximation,
something which Izutsu repeatedly mentioned in his study.53
After exposing these two positive points in Izutsu’s work, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān moves
on to point out four mistakes Izutsu makes in this introduction. First, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
notes Izutsu’s lack of scrutiny in studying the relationship between the human mind
and language on one hand, and the real world on the other. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān believes
that Izutsu has made mistakes in his discussions of this relationship. The first mistake
is that he based all of his theory on the word ‘weed’ meaning ‘wild herb
Izutsu’s Study of the Qur’an from an Arab Perspective 123
springing where it is not wanted’. The whole theory, as Izutsu summarises it,
maintains that:54
Each one of our words represents a particular perspective in which we
see the world, and what is called a ‘concept’ is nothing but the
crystallisation of such a subjective perspective; that is to say, it is a more
or less stable form assumed by the perspective. The perspective here
is social, for it is the common possession of the whole community,
handed down from preceding ages by historical tradition. And yet it
is subjective in the sense that it brings in something of the positive
human interest which makes our conceptual representation of the
world not an exact duplicate of objective reality. And semantics is an
analytical study of such perspectives crystallised into words.
What Izutsu was trying to base his semantic theory on was that the vocabulary in any
given language reflects the speakers’ special perspective through which they view the
world, and that concepts represented by words are the crystallisation of this special
perspective. Izutsu gave many examples besides the word ‘weed’ regarding this, but
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān seems keen to accuse Izutsu of a lack of scrutiny in emphasising his
view that:55
… the immediate reality of existence, whatever it is, is not presented to
our ideation as it originally and naturally is, but rather through the
prism of symbols registered in our vocabulary. This prism of symbols
is not a mere imitation, a mere duplicate of the original reality, and the
symbols do not correspond exactly to the forms of reality; they are
rather ideational forms, by the sole agency of which anything a real
object for our intellectual apprehension.
A careful reader might conclude that ʿAbd al-Raḥmān was not fortunate in his rebuttal
of Izutsu in this particular point, and that it was ʿAbd al-Raḥmān who was making a
mistake when he suggests that Izutsu ‘should rely on scientific books in identifying
the concepts because scientists, each in his respective field, offer us the scientific and
objective properties of things, without any subjective additions’.56 Those who assign
names to things in any given language do not wait for specialised scientists in the
various fields to present them with the objective properties to give things names
corresponding to those properties. In fact, this is a thorny issue in philology, and
philologists have often pointed out the arbitrariness of names and what they refer to.
We believe Izutsu was right in this. He presented references and examples that
supported his approach in a way that leaves no doubt. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān is in error
when he comments on Izutsu’s work saying, ‘Is this what scientific scrutiny supposed
to be? This, in fact, is the most terrible generalisation a researcher may come across in
any scientific field.’57
124 Journal of Qur’anic Studies
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān also criticises Izutsu’s opinion of relativist philosophy and its
opposite, absolutist philosophy. In ʿAbd al-Raḥmān’s opinion, Izutsu combines two
contradictory extremes when he states that morality is not relative and that he is not a
believer in the extreme historical relativist theory which maintains that everything
changes according to time and place. This can be seen in Izutsu’s own words when he
says:58
I am not an extreme historical relativist. ‘The more we study moral
codes,’ writes Nowell-Smith, ‘the more we find that they do not differ
on major points of principle and that the divergences that exist are due
to different opinions about empirical facts … Thus all codes agree that
we have a duty to requite good with good; but obedience to this rule
will involve behaving in ways that will differ according to the view
that a society takes of what it is to do good to someone.’ … I shall
strongly incline to a pluralistic theory which holds that people’s views
of what is good and bad, or right or wrong, differ from place to place
and from time to time, and differ fundamentally …
Here again, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān makes a hasty judgement regarding Izutsu’s meaning
without basing this judgement on a sound basis. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān offers evidence that
is not very convincing:59
Facts do not change because they are eternal, but man’s knowledge of
them change, for Newton’s laws existed and were in effect ever since
God created the earth and that was on it. So these laws did not change
when Newton discovered them, not will they change if another
scientist comes and modifies them.
As for facts being unchanging despite people’s knowledge or lack thereof, this is
correct. However, people’s views and attitudes as well as their assigning concepts and
names to them change in time and place. The assumption that people do not give
concepts, names and meanings to things unless specialised scientists in the various
fields explain those things to them is a different matter. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān seems to be
guilty of the contradiction of which he accuses Izutsu. This becomes clear when he
says:60
Moral values are absolute and unchanging, even though some may or
may not know them. Man is the same in every place and time … the
structure of the human brain is the same in all peoples. Truisms are
also the same for everybody. However, the degree of cultural
development and the differences in the natural and geographic
environments vary, but that does not justify constructing a relativist
pluralistic theory in ethics or knowledge.
Izutsu’s Study of the Qur’an from an Arab Perspective 125
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān’s refutation of Izutsu’s point in this regard could be attributed to his
lack of sufficient background in semantics, the fundamental principles of which Izutsu
had sufficiently explained to readers of his works on the Qur’an. Izutsu offered
detailed accounts of the hypotheses he relied on, presenting supporting evidence
derived from studies by notable linguistic philosophers in the West. In addition,
Izutsu’s strong analytical ability, which can be discerned by his attentive reader,
rendered him able to offer acceptable assumptions.
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān also accuses Izutsu of contradiction when he asserted that the mind
plays a big role in the formation of concepts of reality as we express these concepts in
the vocabulary of our language. To ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, this idealist approach in
knowledge belongs in the absolutist rather than the relativist school of ethics. That is,
Izutsu had chosen, according to ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, elements from both contradictory
schools, idealism and relativism.61 Here again, the discerning reader will find no
justification for this accusation. Saying that the mind interferes in people’s view of
reality, thereby resulting in changes of their concepts of things and the words
expressing them, does not go against the relativity of moral codes and their differences
according to time and place. These two statements do not contradict one another.
Rather, they lead to the same thing. Classifying things in reality and giving them
concepts and names, as well as judgements about kinds of human behaviour are all
subject to a mental process based on the special perspective of speakers of every
language. Therefore, accusing Izutsu of contradiction in adopting these two views is
unjustifiable altogether.
It appears that two issues prompted ʿAbd al-Raḥmān to attribute these shortcomings to
Izutsu. The first issue is that he wanted to present Arab readers with samples of bias
and lack of objectivity on the part of some orientalists, so he rushed into classifying
Izutsu as one of those Western orientalists who committed overgeneralisations,
perpetrated misconceptions and avoided thorough investigations. He then went ahead
in his judgement to the extreme, attributing to Izutsu things that were either not true or
did no harm to scientific methodology and research.
The fourth issue concerning which ʿAbd al-Raḥmān thought Izutsu was incorrect
related to his allegiance, as he says, to the dominant existential philosophy, reflected
in his outlook toward existence and its relation to the mind and language. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān explains his criticism of Izutsu saying:62
He has given into the assumption that the world is a paste of dough
which only causes nausea, and that the human mind has carved out of
this undifferentiated whole separate and individualised forms giving
them meanings … Man has found this world to be divided and
arranged by the Creator in a very precise manner, following a strict
system, days follow nights, planets rotate, and life is born, grows, gets
126 Journal of Qur’anic Studies
sick and dies, creatures breed, fight for survival, come together and part
from each other. Man found himself to be equipped with many abilities
one of which is his gift of giving names to things, of adding concepts
to them, and of erecting linguistic and ideational systems. How can it
be said that the world was a paste of dough, and that man carved and
classified it into pieces? This theory, as we said, is partially true and
partially erroneous.
Here ʿAbd al-Raḥmān accuses Izutsu of something grave that, again, he is not
guilty of. He referred to the opinion of existentialists in the context of those who claim
there is great interference by the mind in language. He gave the examples of
less-known words and those words which express a high level of abstraction, such as
the Greek word ‘logos’ which Dr. Faust, in the first part of Goethe’s book,
found difficult to translate into German. Izutsu talked about the idea in this context,
saying:63
Our immediate experience of reality is in itself an undifferentiated
whole, as Henri Bergson has said. The ancients called this hulé or
‘materia prima’ (the Hayula of the Arabs), and quite recently the
French existentialists saw in it a chaotic, amorphous mass, where all
things lose their contour, and the world transforms itself into an
obscene, nude, blind mass of paste or dough which only causes nausea.
The human mind has carved out of this undifferentiated whole a
number of separate and individualized forms.
It is clear here that Izutsu does not fully adhere to the opinion of existentialists. It
could be that he did not agree with them in this rather exaggerated concept of theirs. If
that were the case, then it would be imprecise to say:64
It is also regrettable that Izutsu was influenced by the existentialist
philosophy in his view of the world and its relation to the mind and
language. He has given in to the assumption that the world is a paste of
dough which only causes nausea.
In fact, this statement was said by Izutsu in the context of his speaking about those
who believe in the influence the mind has over language.
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān’s opinions about Izutsu stem, then, from an erroneous
assumption which maintains that those who take language and give names to
concepts do so after taking those concepts from expert scientists who know the
properties of things. This assumption may lead us to say that expert scientists in the
various fields of knowledge in this existential reality are the ones who make and
invent language, and that people take language from them, a claim with which no
scientist agrees.
Izutsu’s Study of the Qur’an from an Arab Perspective 127
Clearly, Izutsu’s works have stimulated Arab researchers to give serious consideration
to works written within the scholarly world. Many see the merits of his methods
and his approach. Others are not convinced, but may well have their own
preconceptions that are influencing their assessment. The translation of these works
has certainly enlivened Arab discussions about the future of linguistic study of the
Qur’an.
NOTES
This article was originally written in Arabic by Eisa Al-Akoub and translated by Dr MunzerAbsi of the English Department, Aleppo University.
1 Al-Tuhāmī Naqra, ‘al-Qurʾān wa’l-mustashriqūn’ inManāhij al-mustashriqīn fī’l-dirāsāt al-ʿArabiyya al-Islāmiyya (Riyadh: Arab Organization for Education, Cultures and Sciences,1985), vol. 1, p. 25.
2 Publishing details for these are provided later in the article.
3 Toshihiko Izutsu, God and Man in the Koran (Tokyo: The Keio Institute of Culture andLinguistic Studies, 1964), p. 11.
4 Naqra, Manāhij, vol. 1, p. 21.
5 Naqra, Manāhij, vol. 1, pp. 21–4.
6 Aḥmad ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, Min akhṭāʾ al-mustashriqīn wa-khaṭāyāhum (Cairo: WahbaPublishing House, 2002), p. 3.
7 Among those who classified him as an ‘orientalist’ are ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, author of Minakhṭāʾ, and Hilāl Muḥammad al-Jihād, translator of Allāh wa’l-insān fī’l-Qurʾān (Beirut: al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿArabiyya li’l-Tarjama, 2007), p. 10; this latter translation appeared the sameyear as ʿĪsā al-Ākūb’s translation, Bayn Allāh wa’l-insān fī’l-Qurʾān (Aleppo: Dār al-Multaqā,2007).
8 This is the opinion of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Hilalī, Madkhal ilā dirāsat al-mafhūmāt al-Qurʾāniyya (Aleppo: al-Multaqā, 2011), pp. 67–8.
9 Naqra, Manāhij, vol. 1, p. 25.
10 See, for example, Masʿūd Ḍāhir, ‘al-Yābānī Izutsu wa’l-ruʾya al-Qurʾāniyya li’l-ʿālam’, al-Mustaqbal al-Lubnānīya 2639 (2007).
11 Published under the title Allāh wa’l-insān fī’l-Qurʾān.
12 Published under the title Bayn Allāh wa’l-insān fī’l-Qurʾān.
13 Published under the title al-Mafhūmāt al-akhlāqiyya al-dīniyya fī’l-Qurʾān.
14 Published under the title Mafhūm al-īmān fī ʿilm al-kalām al-Islāmī.
15 Ḍāhir, ‘al-Yābānī Izutsu’.
16 The essay is available at www.tafsir.net/mlffat/files/752.doc.
17 See Hilalī, Madkhal, p. 60.
18 Hilalī, Madkhal, p. 60.
19 Hilalī, Madkhal, p. 60.
20 Hilalī, Madkhal, pp. 67–8.
21 Hilalī, Madkhal, pp. 70–82.
22 Hilalī, Madkhal, p. 60.
23 Hilalī, Madkhal, p. 69.
128 Journal of Qur’anic Studies
24 Hilalī, Madkhal, p. 69.
25 Hilalī, Madkhal, p. 83.
26 Hilalī, Madkhal, p. 84.
27 Hilalī, Madkhal, p. 84.
28 Toshihiko Izutsu, God and Man in the Koran (Tokyo: Keio Institute of Cultural andLinguistic Studies, 1964), p. 52.
29 See Hilalī, Madkhal, p. 84.
30 Hilalī, Madkhal, p. 85.
31 Hilalī, Madkhal, p. 85.
32 Hilalī, Madkhal, p. 85.
33 Sāmir Rashwānī, ‘Allāh wa’l-insan fī’l-Qurʾān: tajriba majhūla fī ʿilm al-dalāla’, http://www.almultaka.net/ShowMaqal.php?id=395&cat=11.
34 Rashwānī, ‘Allāh wa’l-insān’.
35 Rashwānī, ‘Allāh wa’l-insān’.
36 The Qur’an clearly states that it is God who taught man language and eloquence, and taughtAdam the names of all things. See Q. 55:4 and Q. 2:31.
37 Rashwānī, ‘Allāh wa’l-insān’.
38 Rashwānī, ‘Allāh wa’l-insān’.
39 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Ḥājj, ‘al-Taḥlīl al-anthrūbūlūjī al-lisānī li’l-Qurʾān’, http://ebn-khaldoun.com/article_details.php?article=565 and http://www.almultaqa.net/Writer.php?writer = 36.
40 al-Ḥājj, ‘al-Taḥlīl’.
41 al-Ḥājj, ‘al-Taḥlīl’.
42 al-Ḥājj, ‘al-Taḥlīl’.
43 al-Ḥājj, ‘al-Taḥlīl’.
44 al-Ḥājj, ‘al-Taḥlīl’.
45 al-Ḥājj, ‘al-Taḥlīl’.
46 He has praised the Arabic translation of the book as well as the translator.
47 Toshihiko Izutsu, The Concept of Belief in Islamic Theology: A Semantic Analysis of Īmānand Islām, (Tokyo: Keio Institute, 1965), pp. 286–7.
48 Maḥmūd Miṣrī, unpublished paper.
49 Miṣrī, unpublished paper.
50 Miṣrī, unpublished paper.
51 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, Min akhṭāʾ al-mustashriqīn, p. 53.
52 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, Min akhṭāʾ al-mustashriqīn, p. 53.
53 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, Min akhṭāʾ al-mustashriqīn, pp. 53–4.
54 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, Min akhṭāʾ al-mustashriqīn, pp. 53–4.
55 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, Min akhṭāʾ al-mustashriqīn, pp. 53–4.
56 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, Min akhṭāʾ al-mustashriqīn, p. 55.
57 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, Min akhṭāʾ al-mustashriqīn, p. 55.
58 Toshihiko Izutsu, Ethico-religious Concepts in the Qurʾān (Montreal: McGill UniversityPress, 1966), pp. 5–6.
Izutsu’s Study of the Qur’an from an Arab Perspective 129
59 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, Min akhṭāʾ al-mustashriqīn, p. 55.
60 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, Min akhṭāʾ al-mustashriqīn, p. 56.
61 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, Min akhṭāʾ al-mustashriqīn, p. 56.
62 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, Min akhṭāʾ al-mustashriqīn, pp. 55–7.
63 Izutsu, Ethico-religious Concepts, p. 10.
64 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, Min akhṭāʾ al-mustashriqīn, p. 56.
130 Journal of Qur’anic Studies