Introduction

After a general discussion about the interpretation of the Quran, followed by a brief look at the historical background of Quranic exegesis, this chapter will introduce a number of classical and modern exegetes with the aim of exploring their interpretation of the concept of ḥuzn.

The interpretation of the Quran by the Quran itself is considered to be the most reliable and authentic method of exegesis. Given that the tenets of faith are formulated in the Quran itself, providing all that is needed for moral regeneration in both one's social and personal life, it is clear why, as revelation itself argues, the Quran would be seen as the criterion upon which everything should be based. Although the Quran invites all individuals to use their intellect to understand the purpose of their existence, it states that God alone has knowledge of its true meanings:

It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise – they are the foundation of the Book – and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah. But those firm in knowledge say, “We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord. “And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.

Moral guidance, however, is only one dimension – the exoteric or zāhīrī dimension – of the Quran; the overwhelming majority of Quranic verses are more ethicotheologically oriented, and have an esoteric dimension or batin which is considered to be timeless and not limited to a specific historical period or event. There are also verses in the Quran which are described as being ‘clear in meaning’ (muḥkam), as opposed to verses which are more ambiguous or allegorical (mutashābih). Differences of interpretation and disagreement among exegetes concern in the main these mutashābih verses and how they are understood. The principle of ‘abrogation’ (naskh), where certain Quranic verses are considered to be supersedable by others revealed later, further complicates matters, particularly it concerns verses which are considered to have been abrogated textually but not conceptually. While some scholars link the abrogating verses with the muḥkam verses and the abrogated verses with the mutashābih verses, there is no actual consensus among the exegetes as to which verses abrogate and which verses are abrogated.