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


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


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


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 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


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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.


20 Hilalī, Madkhal, pp. 67–8.

21 Hilalī, Madkhal, pp. 70–82.








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.




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’.


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.



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’.






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.


53 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, Min akhṭāʾ al-mustashriqīn, pp. 53–4.





58 Toshihiko Izutsu, Ethico-religious Concepts in the Qurʾān (Montreal: McGill UniversityPress, 1966), pp. 5–6.






63 Izutsu, Ethico-religious Concepts, p. 10.



izutsu’s study of the qur’an from an

Documents

izutsus studies

izutsus study

centre of islamic studies

translatedthe quran

history of islamic thought

ethicoreligious concepts

taughtat keio university

arabic language