Can a Muhkamat Verse Support Multiple Material Interpretations While Preserving Its Plain Meaning and Internal Coherence?

By Naseer Ahmed, New Age Islam 6 October 2025 Opening: The debate over Qur’anic interpretation has long engaged scholars, but a focused question has dominated recent discussions: Can a Muhkamat (clear, unambiguous) verse be interpreted in materially different ways, while remaining faithful to its plain meaning and internally coherent? In this ongoing debate: Ashrof advocates for hermeneutics and interpretive plurality, maintaining that multiple readings of a verse can coexist without disagreeing with the plain meaning or contradicting other verses. Rasheed counters that Muhkamat verses are, by definition, clear and self-explicit according to the Qur’an itself. He argues that two materially different interpretations cannot both faithfully reflect the plain meaning; if they do diverge materially, one of them will necessarily create a contradiction, with another verse or with empirical fact. The debate has continued for several months. Ashrof has tested his approach across various verses, but without success in demonstrating dual validity. While the existence of multiple interpretations in classical and modern Tafsir is acknowledged by both, Rasheed contends that only one reading is correct, and the others are demonstrably inconsistent with the Qur’an’s linguistic and logical structure or violate another verse or empirical fact Ashrof was invited to present evidence for his position, should he be convinced of its validity, and to defend it rigorously. From the previously debated verses, he selected 4:34 and 2:228—verses where his reading materially differs from Rasheed’s and where he personally believed his interpretation to be correct. Summary and Evaluative Conclusion of the Debate between Ashrof and Rasheed I. Summary of the Arguments A. Ashrof’s Position Core thesis: There can be materially different yet equally valid readings of even Muhkamat (clear) verses, owing to the polysemy of Arabic and the interpretive tradition of the Qur’an. Fidelity to the text, for him, means engaging with its semantic depth and moral coherence. On 4:34 (Daraba) Argues that Daraba can mean not only “strike” but also “to separate,” “to withdraw,” or “to set forth.” Sees the verse as a moral escalation—admonish → separate beds → final symbolic act of distance—rather than physical violence. Supports this by citing Qur’anic usages of daraba in non-violent contexts (e.g., 43:5, 13:17, 2:273, 38:44). Claims the “strike” reading contradicts other Qur’anic injunctions of kindness, mercy, and justice (e.g., 30:21, 4:19, 16:90). Concludes that ethical coherence and linguistic range justify the non-literal reading. On 2:228 (Qurūʾ) Notes that Qurūʾ means both “menstruation” and “period of purity” in Arabic. Hence, both Hanafi (menstruation) and Shafi‘i/Maliki (purity) readings are valid. Argues that both yield a legitimate waiting period (Iddah) and preserve the verse’s intent. Uses this as proof that the Qur’an accommodates multiple valid readings within divine wisdom. B. Rasheed’s Position Core thesis: The Qur’an’s fidelity lies in accepting its plain, contextual sense and internal logic. To impose one’s own ethical preferences upon it is to substitute human judgment for divine wisdom. On 4:34 (Daraba) Points out that the woman’s agency to refuse to change her behaviour is not compromised by the verse. The process comes into play only if the woman agrees to reform. At any stage, she can take the process to the final stage of divorce, skipping the intermediate steps. The process is with her willingness only and not without. Affirms that Daraba means “strike” in this verse; if God meant “separate,” He would have said so directly. Argues the verse legislates a structured, conditional process of conflict resolution in cases of marital betrayal (Nushuz), not domestic violence. The act of Iḍribūhunna is symbolic, corrective, and controlled—embedded in a sequence that culminates in arbitration (4:35). He appeals to empirical validation—through studies like Michael P. Johnson’s work on “common couple violence” as a boundary-resetting act in young marriages. This demonstrates his conviction that Quranic ethics are based on human psychology and behaviour and Allah knows best what works. His argument that by ruling out “strike” and replacing it with nothing beyond the first two steps—which have already failed—we effectively push the marriage towards arbitration and divorce, which the Qur’an was trying to prevent. Most women, he says, would call that outcome more cruel than striking. The purpose is to delay divorce, not enable cruelty; removing this step, he says, makes the verse’s process incoherent. Balances the ethic of mercy (30:21) with justice and discipline (4:34), claiming no contradiction—just functional realism. On 2:228 (Qurūʾ) Argues that qurūʾ must mean menstruation because it directly fulfills the verse’s biological rationale—determining pregnancy. The “purity” interpretation, he says, is irrational, inconsistent with physiology, and contradicted by 65:4 (which specifies other categories of women). Concludes that juristic disagreement arose from human error, not divine endorsement of pluralism. Only one meaning passes the test of internal coherence. II. Nature and Scope of the Debate This debate is not about policy safeguards or the prevention of misuse but about the correct meaning of the Qur’anic text itself—its intended message and internal coherence. Both participants appeal to fidelity to the Qur’an, but they differ on what such fidelity demands: Ashrof equates fidelity with interpretive openness and moral idealism. Rasheed equates fidelity with the Qur’an’s internal logic and linguistic precision. For him, the ethics is embedded in the plain meaning and produces the best moral outcome. III. On 4:34 – “Daraba” Ashrof’s Strengths He demonstrates genuine concern for the Qur’an’s ethical consistency, seeking harmony between 4:34 and verses like 30:21 and 4:19 that emphasize affection and kindness. He rightly notes that Daraba in Arabic has multiple meanings and appears in various non-violent contexts across the Qur’an. His approach appeals to modern readers wary of patriarchal misuse of scripture. Ashrof’s Weaknesses His linguistic argument does not withstand scrutiny. In Qur’anic usage, “Daraba al-marʾa” cannot mean “to separate” or “to withdraw.” When the Qur’an intends physical or emotional separation, it uses iʿtazala (2:222). The sequence Waʿiẓūhunna – Wahjurūhunna – Wa-Iḍribūhunna indicates escalation within a single relational context, not a shift to distance or absence. By subordinating the plain sense of the verse to an external moral preference, his method risks reinterpreting revelation to fit modern sentiment rather than discerning its wisdom within context. His notion of “multiple valid readings” collapses linguistic discipline into ethical relativism—mistaking polysemy for equivalence. Rasheed’s Strengths He preserves the structural coherence of the verse: admonition (verbal correction), separation (emotional distance), and Iḍribūhunna (a final symbolic corrective act). Removing this step renders the verse incomplete and undermines its purpose of reconciliation before divorce. He insists that the act is not unilateral coercion. The woman’s moral agency remains intact throughout: she can, at any point, demand that her husband either accept her as she is or initiate divorce. The process proceeds only with her willingness to reform; otherwise, it culminates in separation by mutual recognition. His invocation of empirical psychology (e.g., Michael P. Johnson’s research on “common couple violence” functioning as a boundary-resetting act among young couples) is not semantic proof but ethical vindication—demonstrating that Qur’anic law reflects realistic human psychology and aims at relational restoration, not harm. He effectively turns the accusation of cruelty on its head: “By ruling out ‘strike’ and replacing it with nothing beyond the first two steps—which have already failed—you are effectively pushing the marriage towards divorce, which the Qur’an was trying to prevent. Most women would call that outcome more cruel than striking.” This shows that cruelty lies not in the verse, but in moral overcorrection that disables its reconciling function. He reads the verse intra-textually, aligning it with 4:35 (arbitration) and 30:21 (tranquil partnership), showing no contradiction between mercy and discipline. Rasheed’s Weaknesses None IV. On 2:228 – “Qurūʾ” Ashrof’s Strengths He correctly identifies that qurūʾ has been historically read both as “menstruation” and “period of purity.” His appeal to interpretive flexibility reflects sensitivity to the diversity within the Islamic exegetical tradition. Ashrof’s Weaknesses His pluralistic claim collapses when tested against the Qur’an’s biological and contextual logic. Linguistically, qurūʾ—like its English cognate “periods”—naturally denotes menstrual cycles, not intervals of purity. The verse’s function is to determine pregnancy, which only menstruation confirms. Verse 65:4 further supports this biological logic. Hence, his claim of “equal validity” between both meanings mistakes juristic divergence for linguistic ambiguity. The “purity” reading arose from interpretive plurality, and taking the alternative meaning requires justification based on reason which is absent. Rasheed’s Strengths His interpretation of Qurūʾ as menstrual periods aligns perfectly with language, physiology, and Qur’anic coherence. He ties 2:228 and 65:4 together, demonstrating the Qur’an’s internal consistency and rejecting readings that would make the legislation physiologically meaningless. His conclusion is philologically sound and contextually grounded: “Interpretive pluralism must have a strong justification; here, it has none.” Rasheed’s Weaknesses None V. Final Judgment The Qur’an’s ethics are not abstract ideals but tested truths—principles that prove their mercy in practice. Rasheed’s reading preserves that realism, coherence, and divine authority; Ashrof’s reading preserves sentiment but dissolves structure. The Qur’an, being both word and wisdom, stands with Rasheed. VI. The Question of Dual Validity and Final Verdict Can two materially different interpretations both remain true to the Qur’an’s plain meaning and to its internal or external coherence? Verdict: No—not when the interpretations produce materially different legal or moral outcomes. The Qur’an allows semantic breadth, but not ethical contradiction. Two readings may both be possible linguistically, but only one can be true contextually. Coherence as the Qur’an’s own test: “Had it been from other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.” (4:82) Internal coherence, not interpretive pluralism, is the Qur’an’s proof of divine authorship. Context restricts meaning: Polysemy (Daraba, Qurūʾ) does not license arbitrariness. In 4:34, Daraba within the sequence of escalating measures cannot mean “withdraw,” for the Qur’an uses Iʿtazala when it means that. Likewise, Qurūʾ in 2:228 must mean menstruation, as 65:4 confirms. Moral unity of divine law: The Qur’an’s moral logic—mercy with justice, affection with accountability—forms an integrated system. Interpretations that collapse its sequence or its biological realism fracture that unity. Pluralism vs. divine singularity: Juristic pluralism reflects human limitation, not divine intent. God’s message in each context remains singular and self-consistent. Therefore: Two materially divergent interpretations cannot both be faithful to the Qur’an’s plain sense and its internal or external coherence. Only the one that preserves the verse’s structure, realism, and moral balance expresses divine intent. By this measure, Rasheed’s interpretation passes both tests; Ashrof’s fails the second. The Qur’an’s word and wisdom converge in coherence—not multiplicity. ------ A frequent contributor to NewAgeIslam.com, Naseer Ahmed is an independent researcher and Quran-centric thinker whose work bridges faith, reason, and contemporary knowledge systems. Through a method rooted in intra-Quranic analysis and scientific coherence, the author has offered ground-breaking interpretations that challenge traditional dogma while staying firmly within the Quran’s framework. His work represents a bold, reasoned, and deeply reverent attempt to revive the Quran’s message in a language the modern world can test and trust. URL: https://www.newageislam.com/debating-islam/muhkamat-verse-interpretations-meaning-internal-coherence/d/137115 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism