The Enduring Quest for Meaning in the Muhkamat

By V.A. Mohamad Ashrof, New Age Islam 8 October 2025 Ali Ibn Talib purportedly hears the Khawarij proclaim, “All rule belongs to God alone” (Inna Al-Ḥukm Li Allah). ‘Ali responds, this statement is correct but what they [the Khawarij] intend by it is wrong. It is true that all rule belongs to God, but these people claim that the act of governing belongs to God as well. In another report, members of the Khawarij state: ‘Ali followed the judgment of people while judgment [should] belong to God alone.” In response to this accusation, ‘Ali gathered the people and brought a large copy of the Quran. He touched the Quran and proclaimed, “O, Quran speak to the people” (i.e. inform the people of God’s judgment). The people gathered around ‘Ali exclaimed, “What! ‘Ali, do you mock us? It is but paper and ink, and it is we (human beings) who speak on its behalf.” At this point, ‘Ali stated, “the Quran is written in straight lines between two covers. It does not speak by itself. [In order for the Quran to speak] it needs interpreters, and the interpreters are human beings.” (Esack, p.50, Abou El Fadl, p.60-61) The historicity of these statements is beside the point. The real challenge is discerning what God actually said. As to their claim that sovereignty belongs solely to God (La Ḥukm Illa Li Allah) that we will not concede. It is a part of God’s law that He delegates sovereignty to people in interpreting what God said. Since God’s sovereignty is represented by human beings who interpret and implement this sovereignty, effectively, this slogan became a rallying cry not for God, but for a specific political cause. Naseer Ahmed’s article, "Can a Muhkamat Verse Support Multiple Material Interpretations While Preserving Its Plain Meaning and Internal Coherence?” poses a fundamental question that resonates through the annals of Islamic thought: Can the clear, decisive verses of the Quran (Muhkamat) yield more than one substantive interpretation while retaining their inherent clarity and internal consistency? This is not a novel debate; it forms the bedrock of Usul al-Fiqh (principles of Islamic jurisprudence) and Usul al-Tafsir (principles of Quranic exegesis). However, its urgency in the modern era, with its complex ethical dilemmas and diverse socio-cultural landscapes, lends new gravity to its exploration. The premise that a Muhkamat verse, by definition, implies a singular, immutable meaning often leads to rigid and anachronistic applications of divine law. My response seeks to challenge this restrictive view. I will argue that the very Muhkam quality of a verse—its capacity to provide clear, enduring guidance—is often manifested through its inherent semantic flexibility and its ability to inspire ethically superior and practically viable interpretations. This approach, far from undermining the Quran, elevates its universality and timeless relevance, portraying it not as a static legal code but as a dynamic source of wisdom for all humanity. The Nature of Muhkamat Verses: Beyond Monosemy to Purposeful Polysemy Naseer Ahmed assert that Muhkamat verses are inherently clear and self-explicit, limiting the scope for diverse interpretations. This foundational understanding is traditional and valid in its initial premise. Indeed, verses establishing the oneness of God (Tawhid), the obligation of prayer, or the prohibition of murder are undeniably clear in their core message. However, the leap from "clear" to "monosemic" (having only one meaning) is where the argument often falters. Classical Arabic, the language of the Quran, is renowned for its linguistic richness and polysemy. Many words possess a spectrum of meanings, and their precise import is determined by their context (Siyaq), the broader thematic flow of the text (Nazm), and the overarching ethical and legal objectives (Maqasid al-Shariah). To assume that a word in a Muhkamat verse must carry only one, singular meaning—often its most common or literal—is to deny the very genius of Arabic. The Quran often employs words with multiple semantic fields, strategically allowing for interpretations that, while materially different in their outward manifestation, converge on the verse’s essential message. This is not ambiguity; it is precision at a higher level, allowing for adaptability. Divine Intent and Adaptability: If God intended absolute linguistic singularity for every Muhkamat verse, the Quran would likely be a more technical, less profound, and less universally applicable text. The inherent polysemy, I contend, is a deliberate design feature, enabling the Quran’s message to resonate across diverse cultures, historical epochs, and human experiences. This adaptability is itself a form of internal coherence – a coherence of divine wisdom anticipating the evolving needs of humanity. The interpretive tradition, far from being a deviation, is a testament to this inherent flexibility. Interpretive Tradition: A Legacy of Pluralism and Engagement I wish to emphasize its profound richness of interpretive tradition. The history of Quranic exegesis (Tafsir) and Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh) is replete with examples where scholars have derived multiple meanings, legal rulings, and ethical insights from single verses. This plurality is not a sign of weakness or human error, but rather a robust testament to the dynamic nature of language and the contextual application of the sacred text. The very existence of diverse Sunni and Shia schools of law (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali, Ja'fari, etc.) is the most compelling evidence of interpretive pluralism. These schools, all rooted in legitimate scholarly traditions, often derive different rulings from the same Muhkamat verses due to varying hermeneutical principles, linguistic analyses, or reliance on different Hadith reports. Yet, all are considered valid within the broader Islamic intellectual tradition. This implies that the text itself, even its clear verses, possesses the capacity to support such reasoned divergences. The prophetic tradition, "Difference of opinion among my Ummah is a mercy," further validates this pluralism. It suggests that interpretive diversity is not merely tolerated but is a divinely sanctioned aspect of Islamic intellectual life, providing comprehensive guidance for varying circumstances and fostering intellectual vitality. By acknowledging and celebrating this tradition, we move beyond a restrictive view of the Quran and embrace its capacity to speak to the multiplicity of human conditions. The Case of Verse 4:34 (Daraba): Reclaiming Ethical Coherence Naseer Ahmed’s analysis of Daraba in Quran 4:34, and argument that it must mean “strike,” represents a critical juncture in this debate. I contend that this rigid interpretation not only overlooks the vast semantic range of Daraba but also fundamentally misunderstands the Quran’s overarching ethical framework. Linguistic Spectrum of Daraba is significant here. The verb Daraba (ضَرَبَ) is exceptionally polysemic in Classical Arabic. While it can indeed mean “to strike” (e.g., Daraba Bi'l-`Asa – he struck with the stick), it also carries meanings such as: “to go forth,” “to travel,” “to journey” (Daraba Fi Al-Ard – he travelled through the land, Q 3:156, 4:101), “to set forth an example,” “to illustrate” (Daraba Mathalan – he set forth a parable, Q 16:75, 16:76), “to separate,” “to isolate,” “to withdraw” (Daraba Al-Sitr – he drew the curtain, Q 57:13), “to hit” (as in hitting a target, not necessarily with violence). Lexicons like Lisan al-Arab and Hans Wehr amply document this semantic breadth. Therefore, limiting Daraba in 4:34 exclusively to physical striking is a linguistic reductionism not supported by the rich usage of the word elsewhere in the Quran. Ethical consistency (Maqasid al-Shariah) is also to be considered here. My interpretation aligns with the broader ethical principles of the Quran, which emphasize love (Mawaddah), mercy (Rahmah), kindness (Ihsan), and justice (Adl) in marital relations (Q 30:21, 4:19). To interpret Daraba as physical harm fundamentally contradicts this explicit ethical framework. The pluralistic reading (Daraba as non-physical) is not an imposition of "modern sentiment" but an intra-Quranic resolution of an apparent contradiction. It prioritizes the theological coherence—the absolute imperative of kindness and mercy—over a purely literal interpretation of a single, polysemic word. This method acknowledges that the Quran's ultimate Muhkam quality lies in its flawless moral unity. Thus, an interpretation preserving this ethical unity is arguably more coherent in the ultimate theological sense. The sequence in 4:34 describes steps for addressing Nushuz (recalcitrance) from the wife: Contextual Escalation (Admonish → Separate → Daraba): verbal admonition (Waʿiẓuhunna), separation in beds (Wahjuruhunna), and then Wa-Iḍribuhunna. The traditional "strike" interpretation suggests a physical act. However, if the aim of the sequence is reconciliation before divorce (as implied by the subsequent call for arbitration in 4:35), a final, non-physical, symbolic act—one that clearly sets the marital boundary or withdraws completely as a last resort—can be a stronger precursor to arbitration than a physical strike, which often leads directly to irreconcilable conflict, contrary to the verse's apparent reconciling purpose. Interpreting Daraba as "to separate entirely," "to withdraw," or "to set forth an example (of severity)" maintains both the dignity of the spouses and the Quran's ethical emphasis on preserving marriage through non-violent means. The Role of Human Agency: Empowering, Not Diminishing Naseer Ahmed maintain that the woman’s agency is preserved within the context of the verse even with a "strike" interpretation. However, my interpretation does not merely preserve agency; it actively enhances it by advocating a non-violent, communicative approach to conflict resolution. The Quran frequently emphasizes mutual respect and reciprocal rights and responsibilities within marriage (Q 2:228). An interpretation that includes physical violence, however minor, inherently diminishes the dignity of one spouse and creates an unequal power dynamic, which is difficult to reconcile with the spirit of Quranic marital ethics. A non-violent reading of Daraba acknowledges the woman's ability to choose and advocate for herself at every stage of conflict resolution. It provides a framework where mutual understanding, separation, and ultimately, external arbitration (Q 4:35) are the mechanisms for resolving marital discord, rather than recourse to physical force. This reinforces her agency not just by allowing her to respond to violence, but by preventing the initial act of violence altogether, fostering a safer, more equitable marital environment. The Case of Verse 2:228 (Quruʾ): Legal Utility and Flexibility In the analysis of Quran 2:228, Naseer Ahmed argue that Quruʾ must refer to menstruation due to its biological implications for determining pregnancy. While this is a valid interpretation, it is crucial to recognize the lexical flexibility of Quruʾ and its implications for legal utility. The term Quruʾ (قُرُوء) in Arabic is a Mushtarak (homonym), possessing dual meanings: "menstruation" and "period of purity (between menstruations)." This linguistic reality gave rise to the divergent interpretations among the classical schools: Hanafi School interprets Quruʾ as "menstruation," thus the Iddah (waiting period for divorced women) is three menstrual cycles. Shafi‘i/Maliki Schools interpret Quruʾ as "period of purity," thus the Iddah is three periods of purity. The key insight here is that both readings yield a legitimate, fixed, and verifiable waiting period (Iddah), thereby preserving the verse's fundamental intent: to establish a non-arbitrary duration for the divorce waiting period to ascertain paternity and provide a cooling-off period. The coherence in this instance is the coherence of legal utility—the capacity of the revealed word to support different, yet equally valid, practical schools of law without compromising the fundamental legal objective. The existence of Ikhtilaf on Quruʾ validates, rather than invalidates, the inherent pluralism of the Quranic text. It signals not human error, but the divinely-sanctioned scope for human reason (Ijtihad) to operate within the text’s linguistic capacity, leading to equally valid material legal outcomes. This flexibility is not a weakness but a reflection of the Quran's comprehensive and merciful approach to human experiences, acknowledging diverse circumstances and individual physiological variations while ensuring legal certainty. Coherence and Contextual Integrity: Dynamic Application, Not Rigid Interpretation Naseer Ahmed emphasize that interpretations must adhere to the Quran's internal coherence and linguistic precision. I wholeheartedly agree that coherence is essential. However, it is critical to differentiate between coherence and rigid interpretation. The Quran’s richness lies in its ability to address diverse contexts and circumstances without compromising its core message, a testament to its divine origin. The application of Quranic principles must evolve with the changing realities of society. Scholars have a profound responsibility to interpret the text in a manner that resonates with contemporary ethical standards while remaining faithful to its original intent. This means distinguishing between immutable principles (e.g., the command for justice) and their variable manifestations or applications (e.g., specific laws governing commercial transactions, which might adapt to modern finance). This dynamism ensures the Quran's continued relevance and avoids its ossification into an anachronistic text. Coherence means ensuring that specific interpretations do not contradict the broader ethical and moral Maqasid al-Shariah (higher objectives of Islamic law), such as the preservation of life, intellect, dignity, faith, and property. An interpretation that aligns with these overarching goals, even if it diverges from a narrow literalist reading, contributes more to the Quran’s true coherence than one that maintains linguistic precision at the cost of ethical integrity. Empirical Validation: A Descriptive, Not Normative, Tool Naseer Ahmed reference empirical studies, such as those by Michael P. Johnson, to support his interpretation of 4:34. While empirical validation can enrich our understanding of social phenomena and human psychology, it is crucial to understand its limitations in scriptural interpretation. Empirical studies describe what is (e.g., patterns of common couple violence), not what ought to be according to divine guidance. The Quran transcends mere human psychology and engages with divine wisdom that may not always align with empirical findings, especially when those findings describe undesirable human behaviours. To use empirical observation to validate a normative scriptural command risks reducing divine revelation to mere sociological observation, stripping it of its transformative and elevating function. My approach seeks to frame interpretations within an ethical framework that prioritizes compassion, justice, and human dignity—principles explicitly enshrined in the Quran. This framework is vital for ensuring that our readings of the sacred text do not inadvertently perpetuate harm, injustice, or social discord. Empirical data can inform how we apply ethical principles in a given context, but it cannot dictate what those ethical principles are, especially when the text itself provides clear moral guidance. The Question of Pluralism vs. Singular Interpretation: Embracing Divine Wisdom Naseer Ahmed conclude that only one interpretation can be contextually true, arguing against interpretive pluralism. However, this stance risks limiting the Quran's profound ability to speak to diverse circumstances, experiences, and intellectual capacities across time and space. The history of Islamic jurisprudence and theology reflects a continuous, dynamic interplay of interpretations that have adapted to changing contexts while remaining faithful to the Quran's core message. To insist on a singular, "true" interpretation for all time and all people is to deny the intellectual vitality of our tradition and the inherent flexibility divinely embedded in the text. The Quran's message is inherently multifaceted. Its divine wisdom allows for diverse interpretations that can legitimately coexist as long as they align with its ethical and moral core, its linguistic possibilities, and its broader thematic coherence. This pluralism is not a weakness but a strength, ensuring that the Quran remains a living, relevant, and inspiring guide for all generations. It speaks to humanity's varying levels of understanding and diverse experiences, offering guidance that is both profound and adaptable. Multi-Dimensional Coherence – The Mark of Divine Revelation Naseer Ahmed’s rigorous analysis has provided an invaluable platform for this detailed scholarly engagement. While I appreciate his defence of what he perceive as a singular, contextually true interpretation, I maintain that the richness of the Arabic language, the profound depth of the Quran's ethical framework, and the established interpretive tradition collectively affirm that Muhkamat verses can indeed support multiple, materially distinct, yet valid, interpretations. These interpretations coexist precisely because they collectively ensure the revelation’s fidelity to its own ethical and legal mandates. Internal coherence is thus a multi-layered achievement of multiplicity, not a simple proof of singularity. The challenge for us is not to constrain the Quran's meanings to a singular, rigid point, but to engage with its interpretive possibilities thoughtfully and responsibly. We must employ comprehensive hermeneutical tools—linguistic analysis, ethical consistency with Maqasid al-Shariah, historical context (Asbab al-Nuzul), and the broader thematic coherence of the Quran (Nazm al-Quran)—to validate these multiple interpretations. By doing so, we remain faithful to the Quranic message while acknowledging and celebrating the vast diversity of human experience. Let us strive for a dialogue that embraces this complexity, fostering a more profound, progressive, inclusive, humanistic, and ultimately liberatory understanding of our sacred text. The Quran, as a Muhkam book, offers clear guidance precisely because its profound wisdom can be understood and applied in various ways, all leading to justice, mercy, and human flourishing. This is the ultimate testament to its divine origin and timeless relevance. Bibliography Abou El Fadl, Khaled. Speaking in God's Name: Islamic Law, Authority, and Women. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2001. Esack, Farid. Qur'an, Liberation and Pluralism. Oxforf: Oxford University Press, 1997 ----- V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an independent Indian scholar specializing in Islamic humanism. With a deep commitment to advancing Quranic hermeneutics that prioritize human well-being, peace, and progress, his work aims to foster a just society, encourage critical thinking, and promote inclusive discourse and peaceful coexistence. He is dedicated to creating pathways for meaningful social change and intellectual growth through his scholarship. URL: https://www.newageislam.com/debating-islam/enduring-quest-meaning-muhkamat/d/137147 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