Jurisprudential Singularities and Anomalies: A Critical Comparative Analysis of Tafeer-ul-Quran and Matalib-ul-Furqan in the Light of Tafseer-e-Haqqani and Tafseer-e-Sanai

Abstract

The paper aims at analyzing the jurisprudential singularities and anomalies arising from the individualistic opinions of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan and Ghulam Ahmad Pervaiz in their exegeses of Quran, namely Tafseer-ul-Quran and Matalib-ul-Furqan respectively, in critical and comparative light of Tafseer-e-Haqqani by Maulana Abdul Haq Haqqani and Tafsser-e-Sanai by Maulana Sana Ullah Amratsari. It has remained a common practice throughout Islamic history that various sects have moulded Quranic interpretations according to their beliefs and ideologies. Consequently, different kinds of exegeses of Quran appeared on the horizon. In the context of the Sub-Continent, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan is considered the torch bearer of the first era and Ghulam Ahmad Pervaiz led the second era of the reason-based deviant school of thought. Their Quranic commentaries are full of ideological and jurisprudential anomalies as they preferred their opinions over the interpretations of majority of Muslim scholars and jurists. The main reason for the jurisprudential anomalies in their exegeses is that both of them negate authentic Hadith as a basic source of Islamic law, whenever it is in contrast with their personal preferences. However, the orthodox scholars like Maulana Abdual Haq Haqqani and Maulana Sana Ullah Amratsari have critiqued such individualistic opinions by criticizing their authenticity in light of the teachings of the mainstream Islam. Moreover, they have tried to explain jurisprudential ordinances, such as Hajj, Sacrifice, Compensation of Fasting, Food of Ahl-e-Kitab (people of the book) and Usury, in the true Islamic spirit.