The Reception of Toshihiko Izutsu’s Qur’anic

The Reception of Toshihiko Izutsu’s Qur’anicStudies in the Muslim World: With SpecialReference to Turkish Qur’anic Scholarship

İsmail Albayrak

AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY, MELBOURNE

TheMuslimworld came to knowToshihiko Izutsu’s works at a timewhenmany Islamic

disciplines were undergoing methodological crises; it was a period of stagnation, an

interregnum, with respect to Muslim linguistic approaches to the Qur’an. Izutsu’s

approach brought rapid change to the field; almost immediately, his works on theQur’an

became standard textbooks in several divinity faculties. Theses related to the semantic

analysis of variousQur’anic concepts proliferated and new courses devoted to semantics

were established at both graduate and postgraduate level. This article mainly deals with

Izutsu’s works on the Qur’an and exegesis, and with his extraordinary reception in the

Muslim world, primarily in Turkey, because Izutsu was writing from a background

unconnected with the Judeo-Christian world, he seems to have a conceptual world that

puts aside some classic issues raised by the so-called ‘orientalists’. This article focuses on

the question ‘how are we to explain Izutsu’s remarkable acceptance in many Muslim

circles?’ First, we briefly consider his life, his works and his interest in Islamic and

Qur’anic studies. Next, the paper analyses his methodology. After summarising critical

evaluations of the legitimacy of his methodology, we will discuss why Muslims

have welcomed Izutsu’s works on the Qur’an with such enthusiasm, critiquing

certain important works by Izutsu and some scholars’ uncritical responses to those

works. Finally, the paper offers a short critical analysis of Izutsu’s approach to the

Qur’anic concept of kufr (‘unbelief’, ‘ingratitude’).

A Brief Biography

Izutsu was born on 4 May 1914 in Tokyo, where his father was a master of Zen

Buddhism. Izutsu was introduced to Zen Buddhism at a very early age1 and his

Journal of Qur’anic Studies 14.1 (2012): 73–106Edinburgh University PressDOI: 10.3366/jqs.2012.0038# Centre of Islamic Studies, SOASwww.eupjournals.com/jqs

interest in Islamic studies began during his high school years. He regularly visited the

mosque and the Turkish Islamic Centre in Tokyo and learned both Turkish and Arabic

there (it is important to note that his first teachers of Islam were Tatar Turks who had

escaped from Russia after the Bolshevik revolution).2 An important early mentor was

the eminent Muslim scholar and reformist Musa Carullah Bigiyef,3 with whom Izutsu

studied Sībawayhi’s al-Kitāb and Muslim’s al-Ṣaḥīḥ together with other classical

Arabic texts and Jāhilī poetry.4 The extent of Musa Carullah’s influence on Izutsu

requires further research. Izutsu studied English Literature at Keio University and in

1942 started working as an expert in Eastern languages at the University’s Institute of

Cultural and Linguistic Studies. He became Head of the Arabic Studies Department

in 1945. In 1950 Izutsu became an Assistant Professor; in 1954 he was appointed full

Professor at Keio and worked there until 1968.5

After being granted a Rockefeller Fellow scholarship in 1959, Izutsu stayed in Egypt

and Lebanon until the end of 1961. He met many scholars there, including Rashīd

Riḍā, Ibrāhīm Madhkūr, Aḥmad Fuʾād Akhwānī and Muḥammad Kāmil Ḥusayn.

In 1962 Wilfred Cantwell Smith invited him to Canada, where he was an occasional

Guest Professor at McGill University until 1969; he was then awarded a full-time

Professorship at McGill, and worked there until 1974. It was at McGill that he met

scholars such as Seyyed Hossein Nasr, A. Rusen Sezer and Hermann Landolt. Izutsu

taught at the McGill branch in Tehran during 1972, and late in 1974 he left McGill for

Tehran at the invitation of Hossein Nasr. Whilst there, he met many scholars including

Sayyid Jalāl al-Dīn Ashtiyānī, Henry Corbin, James Morris and Mohammed Arkoun.

He left Iran on the eve of the 1979 Iranian Revolution and moved to Japan, where he

was appointed Professor Emeritus at Keio University in 1982. He published various

books during this period and passed away at home on 7 January 1993.6

Izutsu’s Work on Qur’anic Studies

Izutsu was a versatile scholar. His astonishing knowledge of many languages7 allowed

him to comprehend works written by Muslims from very different cultural and

linguistic backgrounds. His interest in Islamic studies ranged from philosophy to

Qur’anic studies, mysticism to theology, culture to history. In what follows we list

some of his works on the Qur’an.

1. The Structure of the Ethical Terms in the Quran: A Study in Semantics (Tokyo:

Keio University, 1959).

2. God and Man in the Koran: Semantics of the Koranic Weltanschauung (Tokyo:

Keio Institute of Cultural and Linguistic Studies, 1964). This book was translated

into Turkish by Süleyman Ates (Ankara: Ankara İlahiyat Fakültesi Publication,

1975), into Persian by Aḥmad Arām (5th edn. Tehran: Sahami `Enteshar Pub.,

2002) and into Arabic by Eisa Al-Akoub (Aleppo: Dār al-Multaqā, 2007).

74 Journal of Qur’anic Studies

3. The Concept of Belief in Islamic Theology: A Semantic Analysis of Īmān and Islām

(Tokyo: Keio Institute of Cultural and Linguistic Studies, 1966). Zahrā Pursina

translated the book into Persian (2nd edn. Tehran: Sorush Pub., 2001). The Turkish

translation is by Salahaddin Ayaz (Istanbul: Pınar Publication, 1984).

4. Ethico-religious Concepts in the Qurʾān (Montreal: McGill University Press,

1966), this work is a reworking of (1) above. This book was translated into Turkish

by Salahaddin Ayaz (Istanbul: Pınar Publication, 1984), into Persian by Faridun

Badrayi (Tehran: n.p., 1981) and into Arabic by Eisa al-Akoub (Aleppo: Dār

al-Multaqā Publication, 2008). M. Khālid Masʿūd translated some parts into Urdu;

these were published in al-Maʿārif magazine in 1993. He later translated the whole

text into Urdu (Lahore: Idara Thaqafat Islamiyya, 2004).

Izutsu did not write many articles on the Qur’an and exegesis, and only one

was published in English: ‘Revelation as a Linguistic Concept in Islam’.8 He wrote a

few articles about the Qur’an in Japanese (‘Revelation and Reason in Islam’;9

‘Muḥammad and the Qur’an’;10 ‘The Qur’an and Arabian Nights’;11 and ‘Reading the

Qur’an’12) but his most important work in Japanese is arguably his three-volume

translation of the Qur’an, published 1957–8 (the revised version was published in

1964 in Tokyo).13 Because of the language barrier I have no access to this translation,

and I am not aware of any study by Muslims using this translation.

Izutsu’s Methodology

Izutsu explains his methodology in great detail in the introductions to his two

major books on the Qur’an: The Structure of Ethical Terms in the Quran: A Study

in Semantics and God and Man in the Koran: Semantics of the Koranic

Weltanschauung. Although Izutsu believes that the Qur’an can be read from

various perspectives such as the theological, the philosophical, the sociological and

the grammatical,14 he specifies his own approach as semantic. According to Izutsu,

semantics is a methodology which examines analytically the key terms of a specific

language. Since Qur’anic concepts are closely interdependent and derive their

concrete meanings precisely from the entire system of relations, Izutsu says that these

concepts form among themselves various groups, large and small, connected with

each other in various ways so that they constitute an ultimately organised and

extremely complicated network.15 Among the outstanding key terms (and focus

words) he identifies are Allāh, islām, īmān, kāfir, nabī, rasūl and waḥy. He admits that

a certain degree of arbitrariness in choosing the Qur’an’s keywords is unavoidable,

but nonetheless considers that all the keywords he has selected are central to the

Qur’anic worldview.16

Moreover, to show the continuity and change in the meanings of various words and

concepts between the semantic worldviews of the pre-Islamic and Qur’anic periods,

Toshihiko Izutsu’s Qur’anic Studies in the Muslim World 75

Izutsu introduces another important methodological approach, namely a technical

distinction between a word’s basic meaning and its relational meaning. While the

basic meaning is something inherent in the word itself and always remains with it, the

relational meaning is connotative: it comes to be attached and added to the word

because the word takes a particular position in a particular field.17 Be that as it may, in

Izutsu’s general approach, semantics is neither an etymological analysis nor a simple

analysis of the formal structure of the word; when the multiple interrelations and

overlapping sectors of a grouping of words are examined, they are seen to form what

Izutsu terms a semantic field.18 In addition, one semantic field is related to another

semantic field and may ultimately be organised and integrated into the largest multi-

strata system; i.e., that of the whole Qur’an.19 In Izutsu’s own words, ‘semantics is,

therefore, a study of the nature and structure of the worldview of a nation in significant

periods of its history, conducted by means of a methodological analysis of the major

cultural concepts that the nation has produced for itself and crystallised into keywords

of its language’.20 None of the keywords that play a decisive role in the formation of

the Qur’anic worldview was unfamiliar to the Arabs of the Jāhiliyya. Izutsu draws

heavily on pre-Islamic poetry in elucidating the semantic structure of Qur’anic

vocabulary.

Izutsu’s analytical methodology, as he himself states, is not his original discovery. In

fact his approach to the Qur’anic concepts stems from the combination of various

theories in semantic analysis, notably the ethno-linguistic theory originated by Edward

Sapir in the United States, which interrelates linguistic and cultural patterns; and the

theory of linguistic worldview promoted by Leo Weisgerber in Germany, which

considers human language to be the intellectual process of world formation.21 Briefly,

this latter theory posits that the grammatical categories of a language determine or at

least greatly influence the general manner of conceiving the world of those who speak

it.22 Drawing on these methodologies, Izutsu’s analysis focuses on a triple relationship

between language, thought and reality; and influenced by the above-mentioned

proponents of the socio-linguistic hypothesis who hold that language determines (or

shapes) our perceptions of reality. Because Izutsu does not state unequivocally that

there is a direct relationship between language and reality, it is difficult to locate him

in circles that display extreme relativism in their approaches to language.23 He prefers

to work out the meanings within the relational system.

It is also worth noting Izutsu’s hermeneutical approach to the Qur’an which can be

found in his Japanese work Kôran o Yomu (‘Reading the Qur’an’);24 here we can

grasp his hermeneutical attitude towards the event and rhetoric of the Qur’an.

According to Izutsu, the Qur’an represents a revelation given by God to the Prophet

Muḥammad which consists of the spoken language as ‘parole’ (‘word’); this is the oral

level of the Qur’an. When the Qur’an became a text during the time of the third caliph,

the revelation was put into the form of a literary text as écriture (‘writing’). The


Qur’an’s transition from the style of parole to that of écriture has allowed many ways

of interpretation to be followed during the developments of the post-Qur’anic period.

The multiple interpretations permitted by reading the Qur’an as écriture might lead

many to miss the meanings of the Qu’ran as parole. Izutsu therefore developed an

approach focusing on the horizon of the Qur’an rather than the horizons of the people

who lived later, perhaps centuries after the time of the Qur’anic revelation.25

One characteristic of Izutsu’s hermeneutical perspective with regard to the Qur’an as

écriture is his three types of rhetoric, which are intended to help readers understand

the Qur’an’s content and ways of expression: realistic (an actual, factual and

declarative level), imaginal (a fanciful, fantastic and mythical level) and narrative (a

narrative and legendary level). Although the lines between these three rhetorical types

are somewhat blurred, awareness of this distinction will help the reader understand the

multilayered meanings of passages in the Qur’an and the characteristics of the Qur’an

as a whole.26 Izutsu also seeks to establish a very strong relationship between these

rhetorical styles and the consciousness of the Prophet during the process of revelation.

For instance, according to Izutsu, the first revelations reflect the imaginal type of

rhetoric while the later revelations reflect the period of prophetic consciousness

(realistic), which is more vivid, awake and steadier. The narrative type is represented

by the passages revealed during the middle period of the Prophet’s ministry.27 This

classification is different from the classical division between the Meccan and Medinan

periods and it is also not compatible with Izutsu’s semantic approach. However, for

Izutsu, this approach operates more on the level of the sentence rather than that of the

word, discussed earlier in this section.

Muslim Qur’anic Scholars’ Uncritical Acceptance of Izutsu

Izutsu’s various works have been, and are still being translated into many Muslim

vernaculars. We will discuss a few of the problems related to these translations, but

at this juncture it is vital to note that most Muslim scholars have only encountered

Izutsu in translation. In other words, they have met a copy of Izutsu, not the real

Izutsu. Nevertheless, they have relied on these translations, some of which are

mistranslations, as being identical to Izutsu’s original work and as a consequence

have sometimes developed an erroneous approach to exegesis, thinking that they are

scrupulously following Izutsu. In what follows we shall discuss how and why many

Muslims have warmly embraced Izutsu, approved of his approach, read his works

avidly and taken them seriously, not offering any criticism. First, however, we shall

briefly consider one of the most influential Turkish translations of a work by Izutsu.

Izutsu’s works on the Qur’an are used not only by academics but also by many lay

people and civic religious leaders, preachers, imāms and other groups in Turkey. If

one were to search Turkish web pages for suggested texts on the Qur’an and exegesis,


one would find Izutsu’s works high on the list; indeed Izutsu’s works are the sine qua

non of Qur’anic studies in Turkey, and have dramatically changed the direction of

Qur’anic studies in that country. A review of the theses prepared by postgraduate

students of the Qur’anic studies in Turkish Divinity faculties, during the last

thirty years shows that those focusing on semantics have increased by more than

seventy percent.28

A decade before Süleyman Ates’s highly influential translation of Izutsu’s God and

Man in the Koran: Semantics of the Koranic Weltanschauung appeared in 1975,

Yasar Kutluay was the first academic to introduce this work to his Turkish colleagues

in a short review in 1966 which emphasised that Izutsu was not only an expert on

semantics but also extremely knowledgeable and well informed about Islamic culture;

Izutsu’s achievement was to show competently how the meaning of Qur’anic words

changed with the passage of time. Kutluay claimed that Izutsu dealt with the Qur’an

objectively and that his bibliography testified to his authentic scholarship.29 The most

striking aspect of this review is that it lacks any critical evaluation of the book.

Moreover, in his translation of God and Man in the Koran, Ates occasionally critiques

the text in footnotes, but generally speaking these criticisms are related to peripheral

issues rather than Iztutsu’s main methodological approaches.

In the years following the publication of Ates’s translation there were few criticisms

of Izutsu, and even these were weak. Interestingly, they were made by people who

were not members of religious studies departments in Turkey, but were either

freelance authors or newspaper columnists. Ali Bulaç’s article ‘Semantik Yöntem

ve Cahiliye Siiri Üzerine Notlar’ (‘Semantics and Notes on Jāhilī Poetry’) and

Mustafa Armağan’s ‘Izutsu’nun Semantik Çözümleme Yöntemi’ (‘Izutsu’s Semantic

Analysis’) are two cases in point.30 Bulaç, for instance, criticises Izutsu’s

methodology for disregarding ḥadīth traditions in the analysis and putting extreme

emphasis on Jāhilī poetry. Bulaç argues that Izutsu’s way of looking at the Qur’an is a

kind of anthropological interpretation, and that such an approach prioritises the

historicity of the Qur’an and consequently disregards its universality.31 Although

Bulaç finds Izutsu very successful in his application of semantics, he is rather sceptical

about the legitimacy of this methodology. In addition, he also discerns an orientalist

agenda in Izutsu’s re-reading of the Qur’an.32 Although some of Bulaç’s criticisms are

justified, they seem to reflect a tendency to reductionism. Armağan, however,

considers Izutsu a scholar who allows the Qur’an to speak for itself; thus he is not

convinced by Bulaç’s criticism of Izutsu’s treatment of the ḥadīth tradition.33 Halil

Çiçek, an expert in Qur’anic studies at a Divinity faculty in Turkey, has praised

Izutsu’s work highly, offering very limited criticism; according to Çiçek, Izutsu

should have analysed some important Qur’anic concepts such as nafs, munāfiq,

maghfira, tashbīh, ṣawm, zakāt, ṭāghūt and khashya.34 Apart from this point, Çiçek is

extremely satisfied with Izutsu’s achievement.


By the late 1990s and early 2000s, however, scholars were engaging in a serious

and, we might say, healthy evaluation of Izutsu’s works. This development began

nearly 25 years after the publication of the important translations of Izutsu’s works.

Necmettin Gökkır’s recent article summarises the reception of Izutsu in Turkey very

well.35 Gökkır raises many questions related to Ates’s translation of God and Man in

the Koran. For example: was Turkish religious scholarship at that time ready to grasp

Izutsu’s method theoretically?36 To what extent was Izutsu’s technical terminology

correctly translated into Turkish? And, most importantly, how legitimate were the

works on Qur’anic semantics written by Turkish scholars on the basis of the Turkish

translations of Izutsu’s works? In other words, had Turkish scholars been applying

Izutsu’s methodology to their works authentically?37 Gökkır remarks that Western

works on critical linguistic theories and methods were available in Turkish when

Ates’s translation appeared, but due to their fabricated language and ill-defined

terminology, many academics in Turkish theological institutes did not use (and

perhaps did not even understand) them. Thus Ates’s translation of Izutsu’s work

has caused, and is still causing, some serious problems for succeeding generations.

First of all, the lack of a theoretical background and terminological uncertainities

in this translation has misled many people in their analysis of Qur’anic concepts.

For instance, Gökkır quotes from the translator’s preface to Izutsu’s book,

which shows that Ates’s understanding of semantics is significantly different from

Izutsu’s:38

… This book that we have translated into our language is an

investigation of the study of the historical development of meaning

within the field of Semantics … the book investigates the Qur’anic

vocabulary in terms of historical changing of meaning and new

meanings within the nine chapters. The author calls the first meaning

an essential meaning while he explains the new [second] meaning

which is in the siyaq and sibaq [context] as izafi [relative].

Here Gökkır draws our attention to how Ates mistranslates some very important

key concepts in Izutsu’s structural approaches to the Qur’an. First of all, Ates

translates the expression ‘semantics of the Qur’an’ as ‘kelimelerin kazandıkları anlam

dereceleri’ (‘degrees of meaning that the words gain’) which does not exist in the

original text. Furthermore, the technical word ‘relational meaning’ used by Izutsu is

translated by Ates as ‘izafi’ (‘relative’, iḍāfī). Gökkır rightly argues that the word

‘relational’ implies an explicitly structural reading of the Qur’an whereas ‘relative’

does not. Thus Izutsu’s emphasis on a structural and relational reading of the Qur’an

is lost in the translation.39 Unfortunately the same mistake has been repeated by

many scholars up until today. It is also important to note that the majority of the

works composed by Turkish academics under the influence of Izutsu’s works

have confusingly mixed Izutsu’s methodology with their own misunderstandings


of his meanings. Gökkır cites an interesting example: a researcher who studied

under Ates’s supervision applied what he thought was Izutsu’s semantic method;

but as he worked in a very eclectic way on the basis of incorrect translations of

some key terms, he reached quite different conclusions. Gökkır remarks that generally

what these scholars did can be classified as a peculiar hybrid form of structural

semantics.40

To summarise, with the exception of a few scholars, Muslims scholars in Turkey

made no serious critical evaluation of Izutsu’s works until the late 1990s or

early 2000s. While Izutsu’s works on the Qur’an were standard textbooks and widely

read, no one had questioned either the legitimacy of his methodology or the

conclusions he reached on the basis of that methodology. Why was this? Firstly,

it seems that his works were accepted virtually without question largely because

he was not a Westerner and so could not be accused of orientalist prejudices.

Parvez Manzoor’s evaluation is a good illustration of Muslim distrust of Western

scholars:41

Out of the vast corpus of Orientalist works, only a few deal with the

contents of the Qur’an, and even these are peripheral to the Orientalist

effort and worldview. Apart from some recent Christian works that go

a long way towards the revision of earlier Islamophobic sentiments,

there is one scholar whose work recommends itself highly to the

Muslims. Against all the canons of Western academism, the Japanese

scholar Izutsu, as an outsider to Orientalism and sharing none of its

historical prejudices or emotional phobias, has allowed the Qur’an to

speak for itself. The result also speaks for itself! The moral élan of

the Qur’anic worldview, ritually masked by the Orientalist method,

here shines through with dazzling luminosity. Professor Izutsu’s

work provides the most cogent argument against the claim that the

truth of a scripture is accessible only to those who are inside its sacred

tradition.

Since Izutsu wrote from a non-Western perspective, Muslims have tended to take

the view that he managed to distance himself from the so-called orientalist traditions

that had, in their opinion, long dominated non-Muslim Islamic studies. Many Muslim

scholars frequently refer to this point, regarding Izutsu as a man who changed the

Western orientalist perspective on Qur’anic studies,42 but acknowledging that they

are unsure where to locate Izutsu, who does not seem to fit within the classical

categorisation of Western scholarship of Islam. Some go so far as to suggest that

because of Izutsu a new categorisation of non-Muslim Islamic studies is urgently

needed.43 Nevertheless Muslim scholars are generally confident that Izutsu did

outstanding work and left a legacy genuinely different from, and largely unstained


by, the prejudice of the orientalist tradition.44 In other words, Izutsu is an

exceptional phenomenon: a non-Muslim scholar unlimited by orientalist agendas

and concerns. Atalay argues that Izutsu cannot be placed in the orientalist tradition for

two reasons: first, he did not assume Islam to be a false religion; second, his works

have been warmly welcomed by Muslims.45

Besides praising Izutsu’s non-orientalist approach, many Muslim scholars consider

his works to be the epitome of objectivity. According to Halil Rahman Açar,

the difference between Izutsu and other scholars lies in his objective method of

uncovering the Qur’anic worldview.46 Many of Izutsu’s admirers believe that it is

essential that Muslims adopt Izutsu’s view of the Qur’an as a self-sufficient text. They

regard Izutsu as a leading scholar who developed an entirely new systematic

interpretation treating the Qur’anic text as an internally coherent, self-sufficient

system of words into which all words have been integrated.47 Also, some scholars

have applauded Izutsu for his decision not to read the text of the Qur’an in the light

of the post-Qur’anic thought and traditions developed by the generations of

Muslims following the revelation.48 Many regard Izutsu as unique among scholars

for ‘permitting’ the Qur’an to ‘speak for itself’,49 and some believe that this is the only

way to discover the real and authentic meaning of the Qur’an. Ismail Yakıt, a

Professor of Islamic Philosophy in Turkey, states that the only method with

which we can understand the Qur’an objectively and authentically is the semantic

method, which is based on reliable criteria; in fact, this semantic method, used

extensively by Izutsu, should be seen as the Qur’an’s own method in genuine

interpretation.50

There are many other Muslims who consider Izutsu’s methodology a turning point in

Qur’anic studies. Some hold the view that the publication of Izutsu’s works was

timely because of the serious initiative taken by Muslims to go back to the Qur’an

(similar to the notion of sola scriptura). Influenced by the great Indian Muslim

reformer Shāh Walī Allāh al-Dihlawī, many Muslims (for example ʿUbayd Allāh

al-Sindhī, Ḥusayn ʿAlī and Aḥmad ʿAlī Lahurī, Ḥamīd al-Dīn Farāḥī and Amīn

Aḥsan Iṣlāhī) made great efforts to find thematic and logical coherence in the Qur’an.

These scholars and others such as Muḥammad ʿAbduh and Rashīd Riḍā tried to

protect Muslims from blind imitation of the tradition. Their methodologies were also

in conformity with the centrality of the Qur’an among Muslims. Instead of following

the path of jurisprudence and theology or the traditions established by later scholars,

they found a way to interpret the Qur’an in the light of the Qur’an and understood

it systematically and comprehensively. Today, Izutsu represents the anti-atomist

approach of these scholars.51 Some consider Izutsu’s holistic and integrated approach

to the Qur’an to be the sole remedy for Muslims during the current period of

intellectual crises.52 Indeed some who hold this view go so far as to put Izutsu in the

same category as the forerunners of Muslim reformism. Izutsu’s works have another


great merit in the eyes of many Muslims, namely his attempt to derive ethical

principles from the Qur’an by applying his methodology to it. Instead of focusing

on grammatical analysis, Izutsu, according to many modern Muslim scholars,

concentrated on ethical issues. From this perspective, he is similar to Muḥammad

ʿAbduh in seeking to revive the Islamic way of life.53 It appears that some Muslims

have regarded Izutsu as the latest link in the chain (mufassir) of modern Qur’anic

scholarship that started with al-Dihlawī.

Moreover, Muslim scholars have discussed Izutsu’s empathetic and sympathetic

approaches to Islam in general and the Qur’an in particular in great detail. Izutsu

himself stated in some of his works that he approaches the subject with an attitude of

‘empathy, a particular kind of sympathetic intention’.54 Briefly, a sympathetic or

empathetic standpoint is a kind of tolerant perspective with which one can understand

the other’s text from inside, or the insider’s own standpoint on the same common

ground, rather than to see them from one’s own viewpoint.55 According to Mohamed

Ben Nasr, Izutsu’s empathetic approach allows him to discover the deep logic of the

Qur’an. This is a very important point for Nasr because in his view many Muslim

intellectuals have failed to do so.56 According to Mehmet Soysaldı, Izutsu succeeded

admirably in establishing an objective, authentic method and in forming a strong

relationship between the words of the Qur’anic parts and the whole. Soysaldı

concludes that Izutsu’s works achieve something regrettably few Muslim intellectuals

have achieved.57

This highly positive perception of Izutsu’s work not only makes it acceptable

to Muslims but also makes him an honorary if not actual Muslim. For example,

Mohamed Ben Nasr comments, on the basis of his reading of Izutsu’s works, that

Izutsu seems to speak from a Muslim background;58 and Mehmet Bayrakdar

insists that there is no doubt that ‘from various perspectives, Izutsu is one of us’.59

Indeed it is held in many Muslim circles that Izutsu was a Muslim.60 Furthermore,

many Turkish scholars believe that Izutsu had first-hand knowledge of Islam

via the Tatar Turks, and that this relationship, viewed from a nationalistic

perspective, also gives Izutsu a special place, different from that of any other

Western scholar.61 For others, the fact that Izutsu stayed for a while in Iran and

was attracted to many Persian works brings him close to the Persian world.62

There were also more personal relationships such as between friends, or mentor

and pupil in the case of Khālid Masʿūd, a translator of Izutsu’s work into Urdu.63

To see the admiration and respect in which Izutsu was held by many Muslims we

need only look at the short anecdotes about his life which remind us of

Muslim ṭabaqāt literature: Izutsu was hardworking, patient, kind, decent, a lover

and collector of books, a gentleman with a fine temperament, and so on.64 Clearly, the

Muslims’ perception of Izutsu as a Muslim has played a significant role in his

acceptance.65


Izutsu’s Works on the Qur’an: Critical Re-evaluations in Recent MuslimScholarship

As noted above, Izutsu’s works enjoyed supremacy in Turkish academia for a long

time without attracting any serious criticisms. By the late 1990s and early 2000s,

however, critical evaluations of his works and methodology had begun to appear.

Although there are still many scholars who simply accept that Izutsu’s works

represent a unique approach to Qur’anic studies, others adopt a more nuanced and

critical attitude, drawing on their expertise in the main linguistic theories and reading

Izutsu’s original writings; this new generation of scholars is thus quite different from

its predecessor. Some of them address general issues in Izutsu’s works while others

focus on specific topics and discuss them in great detail. In my opinion the efforts of

both groups, far from devaluing Izutsu and his writings, will present a more authentic

picture of Izutsu than we have previously had. In what follows we shall consider their

critical evaluation of Izutsu’s methodological approach to the Qur’anic concepts.

We shall consider four questions that seem particularly pertinent to critical discussion

of Izutsu’s methodology: first, how legitimate is Izutsu’s synchronic reading of

Qur’anic concepts based on his semantic approach; second, how successful is Izutsu’s

use of references as a control mechanism against the risk that the simple and clear

meaning of the text will evaporate due to his method, which seeks to decode the deep

structure of the text; third, is the nature of Izutsu’s approach exegetical or

methodological; finally, where can Muslims place the ordinary believer’s main

concern: to understand the will of God (murād ilāhī) or at least what God requires

from His addressees according to divine revelation? Considering these questions will

also help us understand Izutsu’s approach as presented in his concept analyses.

In contrast to some of those who embrace Izutsu wholeheartedly, these scholars have

drawn the attention of readers to the fact that Izutsu was following the literary fashion

of the period when he produced his studies on Qur’anic semantics. It was obvious to

many that text-centred studies were gaining exceptional importance in the West;

Izutsu was no exception and strictly applied this Western method to the Qur’an. By

focusing on the semantic field of the Qur’anic vocabulary, Izutsu implicitly declares to

his readers that he is taking the Qur’an on its own terms; his method is to ‘permit’ it to

interpret its own concepts and speak for itself.66 As Solihu has noted, this implies that

the Qur’an is internally coherent.67 Such a view automatically attracts many Muslims

to this kind of methodology, but many have not grasped the significance of Izutsu’s

use of one of the vital instruments of this method, namely structuring. There was a

tendency among academics of this period to structure and model at every opportunity,

and indeed there is no difference between Izutsu’s analysis of the text of the Qur’an

and any text analysis made by any other practitioner of structural semantics. Halis

Albayrak rightly argues that in Izutsu’s system the Qur’an is a very passive text,


waiting to be discovered or decoded.68 For recent critics of Izutsu’s treatment of the

Qur’an as a purely linguistic phenomenon, this is a problematic issue because

Muslims believe that the Qur’an has a priority above their own existence, and a true

understanding of the text guides their lives in this world. Thus, the Qur’an is not only

an epistemological source for them but also a guide to the ethics of right living and

existence.69 As mentioned above, from this point of view, the placing of the ordinary

Muslim’s need to understand the will of God is not an issue in Izutsu’s semantics.70

Furthermore, the idea that the actual use and function of the language will emerge in

the discovery of deep structure requires seeing the language as a mirror, and Izutsu’s

process of interpretation neglects contexts outside the Qur’an, regarding them as

obstacles to understanding.

At this point, it is important to note that younger scholars of the Qur’an in Turkey

have frequently expressed their dissatisfaction with Izutsu’s methodology. Having

thoroughly explored the Western roots of Izutsu’s semantic theories, they first draw

attention to the need to critique the models adopted by Izutsu that deal with the

relationship between language and culture. These hold that the language of a society is

an inseparable part of its culture and the lexical differentiations determined by each

language reflect important characteristics of the objects, concepts and activities of that

society in cultural terms. In Sapir’s words, a universe with different names is not the

same universe. This theory of different languages, different cultures and different

worlds as articulated by von Humboldt is generally interpreted as linguistic

determinism. Albayrak and Ekin observe that referring the fragmentation of the

world of societies to the determinism of linguistic structures is a hypothesis whose

rigidity cannot be accepted by many researchers today.71 Moreover, they argue

that the relationship between language(s) and culture(s) is much more complicated

than Izutsu’s general analysis allows. As Lyons remarks, political borders will not

coincide with linguistic borders even if we accept that there is a grain of truth in the

concept of a compound linguistic society; therefore, a cultural identity may be found

in different social classes in different countries.72 In other words, there can be a

cultural overlapping between two societies speaking different languages if these are

from the same language family;73 overlapping can occur because no society is

completely homogeneous.74 There may be special groups bearing similar linguistic

equipment within a nation but it is inaccurate to consider that all individuals making

up a society are equally able to encode language codes.75 Izutsu discusses this

distinction when considering the different linguistic groups of the pre-Qur’anic

period but does not do so with respect to the Qur’anic period. Recent scholarship

is more interested in Izutsu’s methodological relativism than in asking whether or not

such a distinction (at least between Meccan immigrants – predominantly traders, and

Medinan anṣār – predominantly peasant farmers) is necessary with regard to the

Qur’anic period.


Another critical issue is that, like almost all of the Structuralists, Izutsu seems to

ignore the historical conditions of the period as well as the influence of the divine

revelation on the Muslim community.76 Izutsu’s critics argue that the meaning of the

Qur’anic text cannot be limited to its textual content; it is important to consider how

the first addressees of the revelation (the first Muslims) read the Qur’an, their

relationship with it, how they performed their daily prayer with the Qur’an, and even

how and when they used Qur’anic verses as talismans in time of need. In short,

Izutsu’s type of analysis has always not only ignored what happens in the Muslim’s

existential relationship with the Qur’an but also neglected the role of the Qur’an in

social relations as a whole.

Another negative aspect of Izutsu’s methodological approach, according to these

critics, is that he discusses the relationships between the concepts of the Qur’an within

a timeless framework as if they did not exist within a temporal process. This is

particularly shown by the verses he selects for his analysis; for example, when

discussing relationships between concepts, he refers to certain Meccan suras and the

late-Medinan sura al-Tawba (‘Repentance’) without any reservations.77 In addition,

he is frequently criticised for sacrificing to his methodology extra-textual materials

that might play a significant role in understanding the Qur’anic concepts. Thus almost

all the recent criticism of Izutsu points out that the Prophetic traditions and practices

sharing the same process with the Qur’an’s divine revelation are deliberately

neglected in Izutsu’s analyses.78

Another important topic discussed by these younger critics is Jāhilī poetry,79 which is

almost the only non-Qur’anic source referred to with any frequency in Izutsu’s

analysis of Qur’anic concepts. Izutsu draws heavily on pre-Islamic poetry in

elucidating the semantic structure of the Qur’anic vocabulary; however, before we

consider Izutsu’s treatment of this source, it is important to note that his structural

semantic analysis divides early Arabic vocabulary into three phases: pre-Qur’anic

(or Jāhilī), Qur’anic and post-Qur’anic (particularly ʿAbbāsid).80 Furthermore, he

subdivides the pre-Qur’anic vocabulary into Bedouin, Mercantile and Judeo-Christian

(including the ‘Ḥanifitic system’).81 This classification puts synchronic analyses

involving different periods (surfaces) through a diachronic analysis in order to capture

the development of thought and culture. In contrast to the general orientalist

classification (early, middle and late Meccan, and Medinan), Izutsu seems to prefer a

classification he regards as more reliable; but others have disagreed. First of all he has

been criticised for his frequent and excessive reliance on Jāhilī poetry.82 Clearly, for

Izutsu, Jāhilī poetry is the second source after the Qur’an.83 Izutsu gives this poetry

the place held by the Prophetic tradition in classical interpretations of the Qur’an. He

also notes occasionally that although there are some breaks between the Jāhiliyya and

Islam, the Qur’an adopts tribal moral terminology and makes it an integral part of its

new system of ethics.84


Another severe criticism directed against Izutsu in this connection concerns his

attitude to the ‘Ḥanifite system’. Despite the emphasis given by various Qur’anic

verses to the relationship between the Abrahamic faith and the ḥunafāʾ, some scholars

argue that Izutsu deliberately missed the point of these and disregarded any

connection between Abraham and Ishmael and the ḥunafāʾ.85 Furthermore, some

academics have criticised Izutsu’s comment on the notion of ‘being a middle umma or

the best umma’ in Q. 2:143 and Q. 3:110. Briefly, Ḥanifism, according to Izutsu, was

the original pure religion of Abraham which was corrupted by the People of the Book

(the Jews and Christians) and turned into a kind of disbelief.86 This astonishing

conclusion, derived by Izutsu from the Qur’an, is supported by reference to the status

of the ḥanīf Umayya b. Abī Ṣalṭ, who lived in a spiritual environment composed

entirely of Jews and Christians.87 In short, Izutsu’s argument in this regard does not

convince the new generation of scholars, who associate ḥunafāʾ mainly with Abraham

via Ishmael.

Recent scholarship also addresses some core linguistic issues in Izutsu’s semantic

understanding, such as basic and relational meanings,88 key terms, focus words,

synonyms and semantic fields. For instance Izutsu states that there are certain key and

focus words which play a decisive role in making up the basic conceptual structure of

the Qur’anic worldview.89 Having stated the importance of the selection of these key

terms, Izutsu also confesses the difficulty of this task. In addition, he accepts that the

choice of these key terms is to some extent arbitrary.90 Briefly, key terms create

semantic fields from the very different relations between them, and these fields form

the Qur’an’s vocabulary. Furthermore, each semantic field, according to Izutsu, has a

special key term creating its conceptual sphere.91 Some scholars argue that here

Izutsu’s system creates a vicious circle, pointing out that while Izutsu claims that these

terms determine the whole system needed to understand the Qur’anic worldview, he

neglects to acknowledge that the actual determinant of the mentioned terms is the

system itself. So, what characteristics determine how to select a word as a key term or

focus word? How many terms are there which Izutsu has either not noticed or ranked

as simple and plain key terms, which really deserve to be central-focus terms?92 Even

though forgetting or neglecting the meanings of words can be accepted as a part of

text reading93 in a structuralist approach, it seems that this standpoint produces serious

gaps in Izutsu’s systematic framework.

Here we should cite some concrete examples, beginning with some scholars’ critiques

of Izutsu’s identification of the Qur’anic worldview as theocentric while identifying

the Jāhilī worldview as homocentric.94 Supporting Fazlur Rahman,95 they argue

that Izutsu’s analysis of the ethical relationship between God and humankind seems

to imply a relationship between two equal parties; they affirm that whereas the

Qur’anic worldview focuses on the notion of tawḥīd (‘divine unity’), shirk

(‘paganism’) occupies the centre of the Jāhilī worldview. Thus Ekin accuses Izutsu


of introducing some sort of pantheism into his conception of the God-humankind

relationship.96

Moreover, the question whether it is possible to determine the focus words within the

frame of a principle of conceptual contrast (good/bad, belief/unbelief, etc.) is

frequently raised in recent scholarship. For example, following Daniel Madigan’s

recent work,97 some scholars consider kitāb (‘book’) to be one of most significant

focus words of the Qur’an, but Izutsu only occasionally refers to it and always regards

it not as a focus word but as a simple key term contributing to the understanding of

other significant key terms.98 So, what is the conceptual opposite of the term ‘book’

according to Izutsu? There are many other similar examples, for instance Ibrahim

Shogar questions Izutsu’s approach to the concept of hudā (‘guidance’). Izutsu

explains the term hudā within the semantic field which centred on the term āya as

focus word. Although Shogar finds Izutsu’s analysis successful in identifying the

general framework, he remarks that Izutsu’s investigation only reflects one side of this

term (divine guidance/revelation) and neglects other types of hudā such as common

guidance, guidance by reason and so on.99 This unawareness of different types of

hudā leads Izutsu to misunderstand the real status of this very important Qur’anic

term. There are many other terms which do not find a proper place in Izutsu’s

semantic analysis; for example, Ibrahim Abū Bakar, writing from a different

perspective, discusses the concept of imām, a fundamental principle of Shīʿī school of

thought found in al-Ṭūsī’s and Ṭabaṭabāʾī’s works. Abū Bakar is astonished that

Izutsu can disregard the imāmate’s place in the relationship between God and man in

his three major works on the Qur’an.100

Similarly, Izutsu regularly describes the Qur’anic world as the ‘dark night of the

living’,101 neglecting the symbolism of success (najāt), deliverance (fawz) and

salvation (falāḥ), and their meaning potentials in the Qur’an, where there are three

main themes (divine unity, prophethood and the hereafter); this seems to show the

subjectivity of his selection of key terms and focus words. However, it is clear that

Izutsu’s preferences exclusively serve the pragmatic purposes of the method he uses.

The contrast between the domain of the unseen (ʿālam al-ghayb) and the seen (ʿālam

al-shahāda) is a very good illustration of Izutsu’s pragmatism. According to Izutsu,

this is the second major conceptual opposition discernible in the worldview of

the Qur’an.102 Halis Albayrak accuses Izutsu of introducing these two terms (ʿālam

al-ghayb and ʿālam al-shahāda) as if they were Qur’anic terms, although they do not

occur in the Qur’an; he observes that the notion of the unseen (ghayb) is not a name

for a specific domain in the Qur’an but is mentioned to indicate where humankind

stands in the universe: our position, condition and states.103

We see a similar pragmatism in Izutsu’s analysis of two contrasting terms, namely

dunyā and ākhira. Ekin claims that Izutsu’s evaluation of these two terms reflects


Christian influence.104 Briefly, Ekin argues that firstly Izutsu defines dunyā (‘world’)

as the place within which humankind experiences and lives, confusing dunyā with arḍ

(‘earth’). Secondly, Ekin notes that Izutsu explains dunyā as having two connotations,

namely ‘lower’ and ‘nearer’; however, when Izutsu comments on the Qur’anic phrase

al-ḥayāt al-dunyā, he always prefers ‘lower’ (‘life of the lower world’) to ‘nearer’.

Ekin asks why Izutsu does not justify his preference and goes on to argue that this

preference is deliberate and intentional. According to Ekin, Izutsu, following the

cosmological structures of the Philosophers of Illumination (ishrāqiyya), locates

dunyā at the bottom where the first level of becoming appears. For Ekin, this approach

is closer to Christianity than to Islam and it is definitely not Qur’anic. Ekin also

criticises Izutsu for making the concept of hayāt (‘life’) subordinate to the term dunyā.

He points out that in the Qur’an al-ḥayāt is not merely appended to dunyā; in the

combination al-ḥayāt al-dunyā, the term dunyā is actually of secondary importance.

Ekin concludes that Izutsu’s effort to introduce al-ḥayāt al-dunyā as a lower,

corrupted place in comparison with the higher place of the ākhira (‘the hereafter’) is

not consonant with the Qur’anic world view. The Qur’an, Ekin says, never negates

al-ḥayāt al-dunyā (as connoting wealth and many other legitimate worldly gains), but

it does question human beings’ relationship with dunyā. Ekin also criticises Izutsu’s

evaluation of Jāhilī poetry with regard to al-ḥayāt al-dunyā and al-ākhira.105

Before moving on to critical scholarly evaluations of Izutsu’s understanding

of synonyms, it is worth noting another important point that scholars make about

Izutsu’s methodology, which they consider fragile. Izutsu’s basic argument relies on

forming the semantic world of the Qur’an on the basis of a complicated system of

oppositions. In his words, ‘… we feel that there is some intense spiritual drama going

on. And a “drama” always occurs only where there is a dynamic opposition between

the principal actors.’106 Ekin, for example, considers these ‘two polar conceptual

frames of the Qur’anic worldview’ as problematic and an alien tradition in Islam. In

addition, Ekin accuses Izutsu of disregarding the notions of ṭibāq (‘correspondence’/

‘concord’) and muqābala (‘reciprocation’) in the Arabic language, and in Qur’anic

style and rhetoric (badīʿ, balāgha). For Ekin, Izutsu draws a very philosophical

picture nurtured by using a non-Islamic instrument.107 In my view, Izutsu seems

unaware of the basic narrative technique of Qur’anic rhetoric, balāgha.

Izutsu’s unawareness of some basic information about Qur’anic sciences is not limited

to the notions of ṭibāq and muqābala. Another criticism directed against Izutsu

concerns his dealing with the topic of tarāduf (‘synonyms’). The questions arising

here are: how does he perceive the notion of synonyms in the Qur’an? To what extent

does he observe the differences and various colours among words whose meanings are

very close? For instance, Kara asks whether or not Izutsu takes all corresponding

words (mutaqārib) that occur on the same level into consideration. Does he clearly

identify the nuances among these words? How realistic is his distinction between


complete synonymy and near synonymy; in other words, what criteria does Izutsu

use to make this distinction and are they in conformity with classical Muslim

counterparts? Does he use the textual context of the verse or passages effectively

when referring to near synonyms (mutaqārib)?108 Since his aim is to allow the Qur’an

to interpret its own concepts and speak for itself109 it is vital to assess his analysis of

the Qur’anic concepts from this perspective. It is necessary to note that Muslim

scholars argued that pure synonyms (al-tarāduf al-tāmm) are very limited and many

words which are considered synonyms are actually partial or near synonyms

(al-tarāduf al-juzʾī or al-shibhī).110

According to Kara, Izutsu’s approach to the notion of tarāduf (‘synonyms’)111 is

very problematic and it is not easy to reach a coherent picture on the basis of his

methodology. First of all, the definition of tarāduf is not very clear in Izutsu’s

analysis. In the Arabic language, certain conditions are needed to call particular words

mutarādif.112 Secondly, Kara criticises Izutsu for rushing to identify many words as

synonymous on the basis of similarity and contrast.113 His random association of

some words with tarāduf automatically affects his conclusions in the context of his

semantic analysis. Moreover, Izutsu occasionally contradicts himself by describing

the synonymy of terms as ‘complete’, ‘perfect’ or ‘exact’, ‘almost identical’, ‘near or

roughly the same’ or ‘partial’ when referring to the same cluster of words.114 Kara and

Reza Dad provide many examples of how Izutsu ignores or neglects a very basic rule

in relation to the notion of synonyms. For instance, munkar, sharr, sayyiʾa and

khabītha are mutaqārib words. Their opposites (taḍād) are maʿrūf, khayr, ḥasana and

ṭayyiba respectively. If the opposite of munkar is maʿrūf, other words such as ḥasana,

khayr, ṭayyiba are muqābil (‘corresponding’) of munkar and mutaqārib of maʿrūf.115

Izutsu frequently confuses taḍād and muqābil, and this confusion leads him to

disregard the differences between general and particular, or many tones of other

colours in the nuances of the words. Thirdly, Izutsu is generally very selective in his

designation of mutāqarib words. There are for example 26 words related to the notion

of ‘fear’ in the Qur’an and Izutsu uses only six of them.116 In addition, Izutsu’s

disregard of the muʿjam, khaṣāʾiṣ, wujūh, naẓāʾir, tarāduf and furūq literature

together with his visible neglect of classical exegesis is seen as a serious oversight in

his analysis. Curiously, Izutsu rarely uses al-Rāzī’s and al-Bayḍāwī’s exegeses and the

nineteenth-century Lebanese Maronite scholar Butrus Bustānī’s Muʿjam. According

to Albayrak, Izutsu’s main reason for this limited usage is to confirm his

conclusions.117 These scholars argue that if Izutsu had benefited efficiently from

these sources (furūq and tarāduf), his conclusions would have been very different and

richer. Another issue is Izutsu’s erroneous identification of words connected by a

conjunction (al-ʿaṭf) as synonyms: al-ʿaṭf necessitates difference/otherness

(al-mughāyara), but Izutsu seems not to be aware of this basic rule of balāgha.

Moreover, if mutaqārib words are mentioned together with the conjunction wāw, they


cannot be synonyms (mutarādif). Kara says that when Izutsu attributes synonymy to

two (or more) words on the basis of conjunctions, this attribution is considered a

defect (al-ʿayb) in balāgha.118 In brief, these scholars frequently express their

dissatisfaction with Izutsu’s semantic analysis on the basis of his selectivity, disregard

of classical sources, serious technical mistakes, limited observation of the Qur’anic

context, and so on. They argue that Izutsu uses alien hermeneutical devices in his

semantic analysis, and conclude that his analysis sometimes tends to blur rather than

clarify these Qur’anic concepts.

Semantic Analysis of the Concept of kufr (‘Unbelief’)

Izutsu describes the semantic transformation of the concept of the kufr in the Qur’an as a

process by which the word loses its original meaning, becoming a brand new term,119

central to the Qur’an’s conception of ethics and morals. Izutsu states that the concept

of īmān (‘belief’), which is the highest religious moral virtue, can even be analysed

from the perspective of the term kufr.120 In short, Izutsu selects the notion of kufr as a

prototype (uswa ḥasana) for semantic analysis and applies his theories by reference to

this concept. For this reason, it is a necessity to critically analyse Izutsu’s argument

here, as he attributes great importance to the assessment of the concept of kufr.

Izutsu asserts that kafara originally meant satara (‘to cover’) in the Arabic language

in pre-Islamic times. The basic and primary meaning of the term is to show ingratitude

towards some good done or some favour shown by some other person.121 In this

sense, kafara is the total opposite of gratitude or thankfulness. In the Qur’an, this term

represents an idea which covers the area of faith in the Creator. In this semantic area,

kufr is not just a simple act of ungratefulness; it is wilful ignorance of the good given

to us by God and of the blessings He bestows upon us. Izutsu offers this explanation

as the first phase of the semantic development of this term in the Qur’an.122

The second stage of development is related to the frequent references to the main

condition of achieving true faith according to the Qur’anic message; this lies in

learning to understand the seemingly quite ordinary and commonplace natural

phenomena we observe in the world as manifestations of divine goodness for which

we should be thankful. Thus the word kufr gradually loses its original meaning of

ungratefulness and becomes the opposite of īmān. According to Izutsu, kufr becomes

completely divorced from its core meaning of ungratefulness and towards the end of

the Prophet Muḥammad’s life, it becomes the opposite of belief.123

There are various weaknesses in Izutsu’s view of the concept of kufr, which does not

take account of the richness in meanings of the word. Kufr meant ‘unbelief’ as well as

‘ungratefulness’ in the Jāhiliyya.124 In the pre-Islamic poem about the incident of the

elephant composed by Umayya b. Abī Ṣalṭ, who was well known as a ḥanīf, we find a

usage akin to the Qur’anic meaning of kufr: ‘No doubt that the verses of God are


permanent. Nobody other than the stubborn unbeliever (kafūr) can discuss them with

doubt.’125 It is difficult to believe that Izutsu was unaware of this poem because

Umayya was the central figure among the Jāhilī poets frequently quoted by Izutsu.

Another deficiency is that Izutsu ignores the Abrahamic tradition despite his

evaluation of Arab society independent of the Age of Ignorance. However, the word

ḥanīf, which is a Qur’anic concept, appears in twelve verses, seven of which relate to

Abraham. When we look at the verses that include this word, we notice that it is

mostly used as an opposite to the concept of polytheism (shirk), and expresses

meanings parallel to purification in two places relating to sincerity and one place in

Islam and gratitude in another.126

The second point is that Izutsu frequently ignores Qur’anic chronology in his

analyses. The division between the Meccan and Medinan periods is very

ambiguous.127 The Qur’an’s usage of kufr is dynamic: this word, together with its

derivatives and other forms occurs about 500 times, yet Izutsu virtually ignores the

main lines of historical processes; such an approach reveals methodological

deficiencies, especially when one realises that considering the historical conditions

seriously will contribute greatly to the analysis of kufr. When we examine the verses

from the early Meccan period, we encounter kufr as just one of the words describing

the state of the unbeliever who denies God (kidhb, fujūr, ẓulm, ṭughyān, fitna, ithm,

kayd); therefore, kufr is not seen as a dominant word in hierarchical terms. At this

period, words such as kidhb (‘lie’) are used as well as kufr to describe those who deny

the greatness of the Prophet, notably in Sūrat al-Inshiqāq (Q. 84:22, bal alladhīna

kafarū yukadhdhibūn) and Sūrat al-Burūj (Q. 85:19, bal alladhīna kafarū fī takdhīb),

unbelievers deny or tell a lie.128 In Q. 85:19, the word takdhīb is seen as a

characteristic of the unbeliever. If kufr is the most apparent opposite of īmān, this

meaning is also present in kidhb.129 Also, the concept of kidhb is defined before the

concept of kufr as referring to the denying of God’s blessings. On the other hand, kufr

is frequently used in early Meccan verses, together with kidhb, within the frame of

denying doomsday, and predominantly appears as the opposite of the concept of

‘gratefulness’ or ‘thankfulness’ (shukr), as Izutsu mentions.130 Also, in the early

Meccan period kufr is found as the opposite of the term shukr in reference to denial,

kidhb. Regarding kufr as an antonym of īmān: in the penultimate two verses of Sūrat

al-Balad (Q. 90:17–19), this oppositeness is apparent: To be one of those who later

gain faith (alladhīna āmanū) and who advise patience and mercy to each other. These

are people of the right. And those denying our verses (alladhīna kafarū bi-ayātinā)

are people of the left.

Although many different meanings of the word kufr are used in the verses given

toward the middle of the Meccan period, kufr is most frequently connected with the

concept of shirk (‘polytheism’). The emphasis in the first verse of Sūrat al-Kāfirūn

(Q. 109:1) clearly shows this. Unlike in the first period, kufr is the strongest concept


defining disbelief (‘placing oneself in the place of God’). The notion of ungratefulness

is also more clearly used in connection with this term than in the earlier verses.

Towards the end of the Meccan period the concept of kufr is dealt with in more detail.

Here, the discussion concerns the main characteristics of kufr, particularly the

stubbornness, blindness and deafness of unbelievers as a result of their unfaithfulness;

the Prophet Muḥammad is not authorised to change them; because of their kufr they

will not reach the right way, which is described as the absence of kufr and the

presence of īmān.131

As for the Medinan period, we find (contrary to Izutsu’s opinion) that while the

opposition of kufr to shukr continues, unbelief as opposed to faith is mentioned much

more often. This period needs to be analysed in detail because different groups (the

People of the Book, hypocrites) are mentioned in relation to the previous use of kufr.

Because a strong Muslim community had been established in Medina, generally the

Qur’an addresses the believers while the unbelieving are always excluded from

Qur’anic commandments. While the muʾminūn (‘believers’) constitute an orderly

society, the kāfirūn (‘unbelievers’) are seen as opposing that society. According to

Izutsu’s generalising evaluations, kufr in the sense of ‘ingratitude’/‘ungratefulness’

slowly lost its original meaning and came to denote disbelief; but Izutsu’s assertion

that it became only an antonym for faith seems to neglect the historical process of

revelation. For this reason, Izutsu’s assertion that the original meaning was superseded

by new meanings appears quite weak if we accept Waldman’s opinion that in

the Qur’an the concept of kufr accumulated meanings;132 in the long Medinan verses

kufr is still used in such a way as to involve the meanings of ingratitude and

ungratefulness. Q. 2:152, So, remember Me, and I will remember you; thank Me,

avoid ingratitude/ungratefulness, serves as a good example of this. Also, one of the

last Meccan period verses, Q. 14:7, shows the use of kufr as the opposite of

thankfulness.133 This is also true of Q. 14:28 (which classical commentators134 say is

Medinan).135 Interestingly, although Izutsu states that the concept of kufr is not used

for believers, a verse from a later Medinan period sura, Q. 3:101, uses the concept

when referring to believers’ ingratitude: God’s verses are being read to you and how

do you dare show ingratitude while His Prophet is among you? He who holdeth fast

to God, he indeed is guided unto a right path (wa-kayfa takfurūna wa-antum tutlā

ʿalaykum āyātu’llāh). It is obvious that here God is not charging believers with

disbelief,136 but with ingratitude. On the basis of this evidence it appears that either

Izutsu’s interpretation is idiosyncratic or entails ignoring those verses which are

incompatible with the systematic he has established.

Another problem in Izutsu’s analysis of the term kufr is his approach to the Prophetic

traditions. One of the few sayings of the Prophet Muḥammad analysed by Izutsu

demonstrates this approach, which seems to ignore the historical process. The ḥadīth

is as follows: ‘The Prophet said: “I was shown hell in my dream. I saw that most of the


inhabitants of hell were ungrateful women (yakfurna).” They asked: “You mean they

did not believe in God (yakfurna bi’llāh)?” The Prophet Muḥammad said: “No, they

were ungrateful towards their husbands and their good behaviour (yakfurna al-ʿashīra

wa-yakfurna al-iḥsān).”’137 According to Izutsu, this example reveals the confusion

of Muslims concerning the concept of kufr during the early period of Islam. This

confusion was inevitable as they did not know which of the two meanings of kufr

(‘ingratitude/ungratefulness’ and ‘unfaithfulness’) was emphasised.138 Let us

elaborate a little on this report. According to al-Qasṭalānī, a commentator on al-

Bukhārī, all of the narrators of this report apart from Ibn ʿAbbās were from Medina.139

As Ibn ʿAbbās’ place of residence is very well known it is fairly certain that this

dialogue took place in Medina where, according to Izutsu, the meaning of kufr

changed from ingratitude to disbelief. Then why does Izutsu find strange the question

the companions asked the Prophet Muḥammad: ‘Do they not believe in God

(a-yakfurna bi’llāh)?’ The problem is not the ambiguity of the concept, as the concept

is richly used with its two meanings both in the Qur’an and in the Prophetic traditions.

Also, many variants of this report use a different form of the question: ‘bi-mā yā rasūl

Allāh’ (‘What is the reason for this, O Messenger of God?’).140 Perhaps in asking this

the companions only wanted to understand the Prophet’s purpose more clearly.

Although Izutsu accepts that the Qur’anic concepts have dynamic characteristics, he

sees a significant transformation of meaning in the difference between the Arabic of

the time of ignorance and the Qur’anic language, and generally ignores the view that

the differences of meaning seen in the concepts in question (particularly the concept of

kufr) enrich the meanings; they do not indicate a fundamental transformation that

replaces one with another.141

An interesting aspect of Izutsu’s analyses of the concept of kufr is his stereotyped

diagrams, notably the circular diagram in his work titled The Concept of Belief in

Islamic Theology: A Semantic Analysis of Īmān and Islām, where he states that he is

propounding the Qur’anic view. The diagram shows the opposition of belief and

unbelief. The circle is precisely divided into two; in one semicircle he places the

believer (indicated by M) and in the other the unbeliever (indicated by K).142

M K


The usefulness of such a simple schematisation is questionable; moreover, the

diagram omits the hypocrites, an important Quranic concept in the Qur’an. Izutsu does

elsewhere address the notion of hypocrisy from other perspectives; for him, hypocrisy

(nifāq), unlike disbelief, is acting mischievously, with a mask of piety, in the heart of

Islam.143 Another word that evokes hypocrisy in the Qur’an is ‘sinner’ (fisq). Izutsu

cites the verses where these two concepts occur, but concludes that neither sinners nor

hypocrites are actually unbelievers as they are on the Muslim side, and thus he

evaluates them as hesitant and unreliable Muslims. In another place, hypocrisy is not

semantically categorised as belonging to either unbelief or belief but as constituting a

wide field of meaning with porous borders. Thus, hypocrisy is a dynamic concept

encompassing both kufr and īmān. Izutsu, using historical data, states that while the

Meccan followers of the Prophet Muḥammad were pious and sincere; many of the

Medinans were hypocrites, including some who were enemies of all religion and some

who were hesitant opportunists.144 Thus, to return to the diagram, some of the

hypocrites fall within the area of belief, others within the area of unbelief. Here we

notice an important limitation of Izutsu’s conceptualisation. Despite his dynamic

treatment of the concept of hypocrisy, in his Qur’anic studies he views human

characteristics in terms of binary oppositions: good and bad, right and wrong, and so

on; and the most important of these are belief and unbelief. This strict attitude

unfortunately does not allow space for shades of grey. Moreover, Izutsu associates

hypocrisy with sinners, and goes no further. If he had approached the issue differently

by examining the understanding of hypocrisy during the time of the Prophet, he would

have seen the difference between practical hypocrisy (ʿamalī nifāq) – which means

the sins committed by Muslims – and dogmatic hypocrisy (iʿtiqādī nifāq), and then

his system would have given a place for dogmatic hypocrisy which has a more

specific meaning than unbelief.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that Toshihiko Izutsu is one of the most influential and versatile

scholars in contemporary Qur’anic scholarship, both in the West and the Muslim

world. Furthermore, no one can deny that Izutsu was largely successful in applying

semantic theories in his analysis of the Qur’anic concepts. Although Izutsu seems

stuck to his method a bit narrowly, there is no doubt that he did find the Qur’an and

the Muslim worldview a positive arena for the application of the semantic and

linguistic perspectives that he held dear. In this article we have mainly focused on his

Qur’anic studies and on how Muslim scholars have evaluated and used these works,

with special reference to Turkish Qur’anic scholarship. We have shown that Izutsu’s

works enjoyed supremacy in this field for a long time without any serious criticism

from Muslim scholars, who tended to view Izutsu as a leading scholar and exceptional

researcher who produced outstanding works on the Qur’an, was extremely


sympathetic to Muslim traditions and the Qur’an, which he read sensitively and in an

unprejudiced way, and – in contrast to many orientalists – always allowing the

Qur’an to speak for itself and seeking to give a complete picture of Islam on the basis

of his semantic analysis of the text. In addition, Izutsu’s analysis succeeds in drawing

attention to the various ethical and moral issues addressed in the Qur’an, an area many

Muslim scholars have neglected. Thus, many Muslims have seen Izutsu as the ‘last

seal’ of Islamic revivalism in Qur’anic scholarship. There is no doubt that for these

scholars, Izutsu left a legacy genuinely different from the biased works of many

Western scholars. They regarded Izutsu as ‘one of us’ and thus as an exceptional

phenomenon.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, however, although many continued to admire

Izutsu’s achievements, criticisms began to be directed at Izutsu’s works, concentrating

on different aspects of his methodology and findings and raising many questions

about the authenticity or suitability of Izutsu’s analysis. Izutsu was criticised for

his complete disregard of the Prophetic traditions, exegesis of the companions or

followers, Muslim exegetical traditions and many other early sources. Furthermore,

these scholars took issue with his excessive reliance on Jāhilī poetry and his approach

to the notion of Ḥanifism. Most importantly, they unanimously agreed that the

methodology used by Izutsu does not adequately represent the complete process of

tafsīr (‘exegesis’) and taʾwīl (‘interpretation’). They regarded this methodology as

entirely Western, insufficient for its purpose and very reductionist in its application. In

their view the relativism of his distinction between basic and relational meanings, and

of his selection of focus and key words damaged both his theoretical and his practical

analysis of the Qur’anic text. They strongly believed that his extreme text and reader

emphasis diminished the value of his results. So it is necessary to ask why many

Muslim scholars continue to follow Izutsu uncritically, unaffected by these recent

serious critical re-evaluations.

First of all, many Muslim admirers of Izutsu do not understand his methodology. As

we have indicated, these scholars use faulty translations of some of Izutsu’s works and

not being very well acquainted with key aspects of his methodology, especially

structuralism and semantics, they cannot see its shortcomings, although Izutsu himself

was well aware of them. It seems that they are ignorant of Izutsu’s critical approach to

his own methodology, and this, in addition to the deficient translations mentioned

above, sometimes lead them to attribute to Izutsu opinions that cannot be found in his

works. They mix various approaches and methodologies and create many illusory

Izutsus rather than a single real Izutsu. It is no exaggeration to call what they produce

a hybrid analysis.

The second reason for this uncritical acceptance lies in Izutsu’s presentational style.

Due to his methodological approach, Izutsu, unlike many Western scholars, never


raises sensitive questions about the origin of the Qur’an and other Islamic sources (the

so-called ‘borrowing theory’). Furthermore, characteristics such as his soft rhetoric,

his seemingly non-judgemental attitude to basic Islamic faith, his reference to God as

a central theme in the Qur’an (the Qur’anic worldview is theocentric),145 and his

concern to discover the original meaning of the Qur’an during the time of its first

readers have attracted many Muslims, but have also blinded them to the deficiencies

and gaps in Izutsu’s works.

Third, it is important to note that many Muslims embrace Izutsu for emotional

reasons. As our analysis has shown, Muslim scholars frequently refer to Izutsu’s non-

orientalist background. Although it is very difficult and inadvisable to reduce Western

scholarship of the Qur’an to one all-inclusive category, no one can deny that a

stereotypical classic orientalism exists that focuses mainly on the borrowing theory.

Angered by such works, many Muslim scholars have been delighted to find in Izutsu’s

books a fresh and very sympathetic rhetoric. As the classical expression has it:

‘lā li-ḥubb ʿAlī walākin li-bughḍ ʿUmar’ (‘Not through love of ʿAlī but from hatred of

ʿUmar’). Some Muslim scholars who rejected Western scholarship turned to embrace

Izutsu, who relies heavily on Western methodology and sources.

The fourth reason why Izutsu is very welcome among Muslims is related to their

understanding – or rather misunderstanding – of their own tradition. At the risk of

going beyond the scope of this paper, I would argue that many works about Izutsu in

the Muslim world clearly show how far Muslims have strayed away from tradition; I

consider the reaction to Izutsu to be a litmus test of Muslim scholars’ familiarity with

their own tradition. I can say with confidence that at least the works on Izutsu

produced in Turkey before 2000 fail to pass this test. To identify Izutsu’s semantic

methodology as the only and uniquely reliable way to understand the Qur’an is to

deny the existence of a very well-established exegetical tradition, rhetorical works,

lexicons and many other genres such as khaṣāʾiṣ, lugha, tarāduf, wujūh and naẓāʾir.

Like Izutsu, these scholars also narrow the scope of their analysis in disregarding this

literature. Nonetheless, the difference between Izutsu and them is very clear. Granted

that Izutsu stuck to his method too narrowly; but he did find the Qur’an and the

Muslim worldview a positive arena for the application of the semantic and linguistic

perspectives that he held dear. Thus, it is not my aim to protect the Qur’an from being

the focus of application for various theories and methodologies. Our primary goal is to

show the deficiencies in the works of Muslim scholars who misunderstand,

mistranslate and distort Izutsu’s methodology and then claim that this is the best

method to approach to the Qur’an.

In conclusion, it seems that while Izutsu cannot see beyond his semantic approach to

the Qur’an, many Muslim scholars cannot see beyond Izutsu, and so they view the

Qur’an from a single perspective and neglect the holistic approaches of the very well


established Muslim exegetical tradition. Thus while Izutsu’s semantic analysis of the

Qur’an did further an understanding of some aspects of the Qur’anic text, those who

take Izutsu as their foundational source have achieved only a copy of Izutsu rather

than a good understanding of the meaning of the Qur’an. It is expected that recent

critical studies will shed more light on the authentic picture of Izutsu in the very near

future.

NOTES

1 Mehmet Bayrakdar argues that because of his father’s constant insistence on discipline inaccordance with Zen Buddhist principles, Izutsu expressed his dissatisfaction with this way oflife (Mehmet Bayrakdar, ‘Toshihiko Izutsu: Hayatı, Eserleri ve Düsünceleri’, İslamiArastırmalar Dergisi 18:1 (2005), pp. 1–15). However, an examination of his works showsthat Izutsu maintained a lifelong interest in Zen Buddhism.

2 Bayrakdar, ‘Toshihiko Izutsu’, p. 4. The Turkish Islamic Centre served as a school, mosqueand publishing house in the late 1920s and early 1930s.

3 Musa Carullah was born in Russia in 1875 and passed away in Egypt in 1949. He isconsidered one of the leading scholars of that time. He was trained in madāris in Bukhāra(today’s Uzbekistan) and published many journals, newspapers and books. He mainly workedon the history of the Qur’anic text, the future of Muslims in Russia, the status of women inIslam, and various legal issues. It is reported that he met Muḥammad ʿAbduh and Muḥammadal-Bakhīt in Egypt and studied with them. He also met Muḥammad Iqbāl and Mawlānā Sindhīin India. He travelled extensively in the Muslim world, participated in many congresses andalso represented Russian Muslims in various organisations. He stayed in Japan for several yearsand left the country on the eve of the Second World War.

MusaCarullahwasoneof the pioneer translators of theQur’an in theTurkishworld.His translationof the Qur’an into Tatar Turkish in 1912 was applauded by Ottoman Turks in Turkey, whocompared him with Martin Luther, the initiator of the Reformation. Unfortunately this translationseems to have vanished without trace, and it is not known whether Izutsu was aware of it. Weshould note that Musa Carullah, an important part of whose life was spent in a multi-religiouscommunity in Russia, argues for the universality of God’s forgiveness. In his Rahmeti İlahiyeBurhanları (‘The Evidences of God’s Mercy’, written in 1911) he bases his opinion on Q. 39:56,Say:OMy slaves, who have been prodigal to their own hurt! Despair not of themercy ofGod,Whoforgives all sins. Lo! He is the Forgiving, the Merciful; God’s Mercy will embrace everybodybecause the word ʿibād used in this verse is not specific but general. See Ahmet Kanlıdere, art.‘Musa Carullah’ in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı Pub.2006), vol. 31, pp. 214–16; Adnan Arslan, ‘Dini Çoğulculuk Problemine Çözüm Önerisi’,Müslümanlar ve Diğer Din Mensupları (Ankara: Türkiye Dinler Tarihi Derneği Pub., 2004),p. 348; Dücane Cündioğlu, ‘Matbu Türkçe Kur’an Çevirileri ve Kur’an çevirilerinde YöntemSorunu’, 2. Kur’an Sempozyumu (Ankara: Bilgi Vakfı Y, 1996), pp. 164–5.

4 Ibrahim Kalın, art. ‘Toshihiko Izutsu’ in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul:Diyanet Vakfı Pub. 2001), vol. 23, p. 552.

5 Bayrakdar, ‘Toshihiko Izutsu’, p. 4.

6 Bayrakdar, ‘Toshihiko Izutsu’, p. 5.

7 It is generally agreed that Izutsu knew more than 20 languages, though some assert that heknew nearly 30. See Makino Shinya, ‘Foreword’ in Sayyid Jalāl al-Dīn Ashtiyānī, HideichiMatsubara, Takashi Iwami, Akiro Matsumoto (eds), Consciousness and Reality: Studies inMemory of Toshihiko Izutsu (Leiden: Brill, 2000), p. ix.


8 Studies in Medieval Thought 5 (1962), pp. 122–67.

9 Nippon Shogaku Kenkyu Hokoku (1944), pp. 53–67.

10 Bunko (1957), pp. 15–17.

11 Bunko (1958), pp. 19–21.

12 Tosho (1982), pp. 2–11.

13 Eisa Al-Akoub, ‘Marjiʿiyyat taqrīr al-mafhūm ʿind al-ustādh Izutsu: mafhūm Allāhnamūdhajan’ in Anis Malik Thoha (ed.), Japanese Contribution to Islamic Studies: The Legacyof Toshihiko Izutsu Interpreted (Malaysia: IIUM Press 2010), pp. 229–30; ‘Bibliography ofToshihiko Izutsu’s Writings’ in Sayyid Jalāl al-Dīn Ashtiyānī, Hideichi Matsubara, TakashiIwami, Akiro Matsumoto (eds), Consciousness and Reality: Studies in Memory of ToshihikoIzutsu (Brill: Leiden, 2000), pp. 441–7; Bayrakdar, ‘Toshihiko Izutsu’, pp. 6–9; MuḥammadKhālid Masʿūd, ‘Izutsu’nun “Ethico-religious Concepts in the Qur’an” Adlı Kitabının UrducaÇevirisi Üzerine’, Abdülhamit Birısık (tr.), İslami Arastırmalar Dergisi 18 (2005), pp. 128–30.

14 Izutsu, God and Man in the Koran: Semantics of the Koranic Weltanschauung (Tokyo:Keio Institute of Cultural and Linguistic Studies, 1964), p. 9.

15 Izutsu, God and Man, p. 12.



18 Izutsu, God and Man, pp. 24–35.



21 Izutsu also includes Morris Cohen, John Ladd and Roger Brown in his list of semanticists.See Toshihiko Izutsu, Ethico-religious Concepts in the Qurʾān (Montreal: McGill UniversityPress, 2002), pp. 6–9.

22 For a detailed analysis of this theory see Abdul Kabir Hussain Solihu, ‘The LinguisticConstruction of Reality: Toshihiko Izutsu’s Semantic Hermeneutics of the Qur’anicWeltanschauung’ in Anis Malik Thoha (ed.), Japanese Contribution to Islamic Studies: TheLegacy of Toshihiko Izutsu Interpreted (Malaysia: IIUM Press, 2010), p. 22.

23 Ibrahim Shogar, ‘Ethical Discourse in the Qur’an: An Analytical Study of the Term Hudā inIzutsu’s Conceptualization’ in Anis Malik Thoha (ed.), Japanese Contribution to IslamicStudies: The Legacy of Toshihiko Izutsu Interpreted (Malaysia: IIUM Press, 2010), p. 193.

24 This work was originally given as a series of public lectures in Japan and was laterpublished as a book. See Masataka Takeshita, ‘Japanese Works of Toshihiko Izutsu withSpecial Reference to Reading the Koran’, Annals of Japan Association for Middle East Studies2 (1987), p. 491.

25 Sawai Makoto, ‘Izutsu’s Hermeneutical Perspectives of the Qur’anic Interpretation’ in AnisMalik Thoha (ed.), Japanese Contribution to Islamic Studies: The Legacy of Toshihiko IzutsuInterpreted (Malaysia: IIUM Press 2010), pp. 100–3.

26 Makoto, ‘Izutsu’s Hermeneutical Perspectives’, pp. 104–7; Takeshita, ‘Japanese Works ofToshihiko Izutsu’, pp. 496–7.

27 Takeshita, ‘Japanese Works of Toshihiko Izutsu’, pp. 499–500.

28 For example: ‘Semantic analysis of the Qur’anic concepts Allāh, nabiyy, imān, ʿamal,furqān, hidāya, irshād, dhikr, shukr, kufr, fikr, taqwā, waḥy, dīn, qiyāma, ḥilm, ḥaqīqa, khalīfa,imtiḥān, ʿilm, nifāq, infāq, fasād, ithm, thawāb, jazā, ḥashr, nashr, ākhira, janna, jahannam,aʿrāf, ṣalāḥ, iṣlāḥ ṣalāt, zakāt, ʿurf, maʿrūf, nūr, ẓulumāt, ẓulm, tāghūt, jibt, etc.’ It isalso common to find several researchers working on certain Qur’anic concepts at the same time,


as, unfortunately, the influence of Izutsu has prompted Turkish academics to spend a good dealof their energy on duplication. It is also important to note that there has been a significantdecrease in works by Turkish academics on methodology and the history of the Qur’anicexegesis.

29 Yasar Kutluay, ‘Review of Izutsu’s God and Man in the Qur’an’, Ankara Üniversitesiİlahiyat Fakültesi 14 (1966), pp. 293–4.

30 Ali Bulaç’s ‘Semantik Yöntem ve Cahiliye Siiri Üzerine Notlar’ was published as thepreamble of the Turkish translation of Izutsu’s Ethico-religious Concepts in the Qur’an tr.Salahaddin Ayaz (Istanbul: Pınar Publication, 1984); it was also republished with slightemendations in Ali Bulaç, Kutsala, Tarihe ve Hayata Dönüs (Istanbul: İz Publication, 1995).Mustafa Armağan’s ‘Izutsu’nun Semantik Çözümleme Yöntemi’ was published in Yönelisler39 (1985), pp. 36–46, and in Mustafa Armağan, Gelenek ve Modernlik Arasında (Istanbul:İnsan Publication, 1995).

31 Bulaç, Kutsala, Tarihe ve Hayata Dönüs, pp. 108–14.

32 Bulaç, Kutsala, pp. 113–15.

33 Armağan, Gelenek, pp. 186–96.

34 Halil Çiçek, http://www.darulkitap.com/oku/kuran/v3/20-asirda-kuran-ilimleri-calismalari/#_Toc125342103.

35 Necmettin Gökkır, ‘The Legacy of Toshihiko Izutsu in Turkey: Application of Semanticsin Contemporary Qur’anic Studies’ in Anis Malik Thoha (ed.), Japanese Contribution toIslamic Studies: The Legacy of Toshihiko Izutsu Interpreted (Malaysia: IIUM Press 2010),pp. 293–306.

36 Because of the lack of understanding of technical semantic terms among Turkishtheologians, Dücane Cündioğlu compares Ates and his translation of Izutsu with a person whobrought television to Turkey despite there being no electricity at the time. See Dücane Cündioğlu,Kur’an, Dil ve Siyaset Üzerine Söylesiler (Istanbul: Kitabevi Publication, 1998), p. 16.

37 These questions are taken from Gökkır’s article. See Gökkır, ‘Legacy’, pp. 293–306.

38 Quoted from Gökkır, ‘Legacy’, p. 297. The original text is available in Izutsu, Kur’an’daAllah ve İnsan, tr. Süleyman Ates (Ankara: Ankara Ünversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Publication,1975), p. 5.

39 Gökkır, ‘Legacy’, p. 298.

40 Gökkır, ‘Legacy’, pp. 304–6.

41 http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?print=1350.

42 Gökkir, ‘Legacy’, p. 294. It is very interesting to note that in his discussion of thedifficulties of analysing the perspective of the Malay Islamic concept of mankind and universe,Hussain Othman explicitly criticised the modern Western perspective established by colonialscholars as a real obstacle. Othman therefore considered himself fortunate when he discoveredIzutsu’s book (God and Man in the Koran), which seemed to offer once and for all the solutionto his analytical problem. Curiously, Othman used Izutsu’s discussion of the terms ʿālam al-ghayb and ʿālam al-shahāda (‘unseen and seen worlds’, in contrast to the Qur’anic usage ʿālimal-ghayb and ʿālim al-shahāda (‘Knower of the unseen and the seen’) to establish the status ofthe Malay king. See Hussain Othman, ‘Unveiling the Concepts of Man and Universe in theClassical Malay Islamic Texts Using Izutsu’s Approach’ in Anis Malik Thoha (ed.), JapaneseContribution to Islamic Studies: The Legacy of Toshihiko Izutsu Interpreted (Malaysia: IIUMPress, 2010), pp. 278–86. Although we will discuss these terms in our analysis of Izutsu’smethodology and outcomes, the Qur’an never uses these concepts (ghayb and shahāda) todefine two different realms. However, Othman is convinced that Izutsu’s analysis of these twoterms can solve his problem.


43 Some have criticised Edward Said’s framework and asked that it should take Izutsuinto consideration. See Mehmet Atalay, ‘Between Orientalism and Islam: Shortcomingsof Toshihiko Izutsu’ in Anis Malik Thoha (ed.), Japanese Contribution to IslamicStudies: The Legacy of Toshihiko Izutsu Interpreted (Malaysia: IIUM Press 2010), p. 266,p. 269.

44 Atalay, ‘Between Orientalism’, p. 275.

45 Interestingly, Atalay identifies only two major mistakes in Izutsu’s analysis. One isrelated to the pagan life of the Prophet before Islam while the other concerns Izutsu’s dealingwith the marriage of the Prophet with Zaynab (Atalay, ‘Between Orientalism’, p. 264,pp. 271–4).

46 Halil Rahman Açar, ‘Qur’anic Worldview Deserves More Research’ in Anis Malik Thoha(ed.), Japanese Contribution to Islamic Studies: The Legacy of Toshihiko Izutsu Interpreted(Malaysia: IIUM Press 2010), pp. 53–4.

47 Açar, ‘Qur’anic Worldview’, p. 61; Solihu, ‘The Linguistic Construction of Reality’, p. 17.Eisa al-Akoub argues that Izutsu believed that the Qur’an in our hands today is the same as theQur’an revealed to the Prophet Muḥammad, preserved in the maṣāḥif and the most authenticwords. He then reminds us of Q. 4:87, God! There is no God save Him. He gathereth you allunto a Day of Resurrection whereof there is no doubt. Who is truer in statement than God?(al-Akoub, ‘Marjiʿiyyat’, p. 246).

48 Açar, ‘Qur’anic Worldview’, p. 57.

49 Ali Galip Gezgin, ‘Toshihiko Izutsu’nun Kur’an-ı Kerim’i Anlama ve YorumlamaYöntemi’, İslami Arastırmalar Dergisi 18:1 (2005), p. 15; Solihu, ‘The LinguisticConstruction of Reality’, p. 37.

50 İsmail Yakıt is an ardent supporter of the semantic method; he invited many participants inthe first religious consultation in 1993 (in Ankara organised by the Presidency of HighReligious Affairs) to encourage people to start as quickly as possible to apply the semanticmethod to their work on the Qur’an, including translations. See İsmail Yakıt, ‘Doğru Bir Kur’anTercümesinde Semantik Metodun Önemi’, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İlahiyat FakültesiDergisi 1 (1994), pp. 19–20.

51 The atomist approach to the Qur’an ignores the general meanings of similar and identicalQur’anic concepts that occur in different chapters of the Qur’an, and eventually each subject(concept/theme) is restricted within the frame of its own context, where the meaning formedcannot be captured as a whole.

52 Masʿūd, ‘Izutsu’nun’, pp. 128–31.

53 Masʿūd, ‘Izutsu’nun’, pp. 131–2. Some scholars have tried to apply Izutsu’s semanticsto value-oriented Islamic economic studies. See Hafs Furqani-Mohamed Aslam Haneef,‘Developing the Ethical Foundations of Islamic Economics: Toshihiko Izutsu’s Approach andContribution’ in Anis Malik Thoha (ed.), Japanese Contribution to Islamic Studies: The Legacyof Toshihiko Izutsu Interpreted (Malaysia: IIUM Press, 2010), pp. 208–9.

54 Kojiro Nakamura, ‘The Significance of Izutsu’s Legacy for Comparative Religion’ in AnisMalik Thoha (ed.), Japanese Contribution to Islamic Studies: The Legacy of Toshihiko IzutsuInterpreted (Malaysia: IIUM Press, 2010), p. 177.

55 Nakamura, ‘The Significance of Izutsu’s Legacy’, p. 179.

56 Mohamed Ben Nasr, ‘Manhaj al-bahth al-dilālī fī dirāsāt Izutsu al-Qurʾāniyya wa’l-Ṣūfiyya’ in Anis Malik Thoha (ed.), Japanese Contribution to Islamic Studies: The Legacy ofToshihiko Izutsu Interpreted (Malaysia: IIUM Press, 2010), p. 77.

57 Mehmet Soysaldı, ‘Toshihiko Izutsu ve Semantik Anlayısı’, İslami Arastırmalar Dergisi18:1 (2005), p. 72.


58 Ben Nasr, ‘Manhaj’, p. 77.

59 Bayrakdar, ‘Toshihiko Izutsu’, p. 1. Al-Akoub says that, in contrast to many orientalists, ofall the experts on Eastern cultural studies, Izutsu is the closest to Muslims (see al-Akoub,‘Marjiʿiyyat’, p. 250).

60 Bayrakdar is one of those who believe that Izutsu was a Muslim, although when he metIzutsu’s widow and asked her about her husband’s religious affiliation, she preferred to keepsilent. According to Bayrakdar, she did not want to talk about her husband’s religionbecause the interview took place just after the tragic events of 9/11 (Bayrakdar, ‘ToshihikoIzutsu’, p. 1). I should mention that Prof. Yoshiaki Sasaki from Japan told me personally thatIzutsu was a Muslim but never spoke about this issue explicitly. On this point we can only sayAllāhu aʿlam.

61 Bayrakdar, ‘Toshihiko Izutsu’, pp. 1–4.

62 Muḥaqqiq Mahdī, ‘Izutsu hem reft’, Taḥqīqāt-i Islāmī, Tehran, 7:1 (1371/1952) pp. 152–6;Seyyed Hossein Nasr, ‘Preface’ in Sayyid Jalāl al-Dīn Ashtiyānī, Hideichi Matsubara, TakashiIwami, Akiro Matsumoto (eds), Consciousness and Reality: Studies in Memory of ToshihikoIzutsu (Leiden: Brill, 2000), pp. xi–xv.

63 Masʿūd, ‘Izutsu’nun’, pp. 128–30.

64 Soysaldı, ‘Izutsu’, 62; Mahdī, ‘Izutsu’, p. 155.

65 It is important to note that one Islamically-oriented TV channel in Turkey broadcasted atwo-hour program about the life and the works of Izutsu (Hilal TV, 21 Eylül 2009). Thisprogram introduced scholars from early period of Islam to up until modern times such asal-Bukhārī and Ibn Ḥazm to Ḥasan al-Bannā, ʿAlī Sharīʿatī, etc. Interestingly, Izutsu is given avery special place in this program.

66 Izutsu writes: ‘We must try to grasp the structure of the Qur’anic world conception in itsoriginal form, that is, as it was read and understood by the Prophet’s contemporaries and hisimmediate followers. Strictly speaking, this must always remain an unattainable ideal, and yetat least we should do our best to approach this ideal even a step nearer’ (Izutsu, God and Man,p. 74).

67 Solihu, ‘The Linguistic Construction of Reality’, p. 37.

68 Halis Albayrak, ‘Müzakereler III’, 2. Kur’an Sempozyumu 4–5 Kasım 1995 (Ankara: BilgiVakfı Publication, 1996), p. 141.

69 Tahsin Görgün, Anlam ve Yorum (Istanbul: Gelenek Publication 2003), p. 126.

70 İsmail Albayrak, ‘Doğulu Bir Oryantalist: Toshihiko Izutsu ve Kavram Çalısmaları’, İslamiArastırmalar Dergisi 18:1 (2005), pp. 108–21.

71 In order to support this claim, both Albayrak and Ekin use the Turkish translation ofJohn Lyons’ book Kuramsal Dilbilime Giris, tr. Ahmet Kocaman (Ankara: TDK Publication,1983), pp. 386–7; see also Albayrak, ‘Doğulu’, p. 112.

72 Lyons, Kuramsel, p. 387.

73 Lyons states that, as a result of these overlappings, even a society’s strongest terms, whichare resistant to translation can be easily understood by another society. See John Lyons,Language and Linguistics: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985),p. 323.

74 Thus Fazlur Rahman criticises Izutsu for not differentiating between the rich Meccan tradersand the bedouin during the Meccan period. He states that the reason for the difference is that thebedouin imagination of God and that of the Meccan elites were very different, and that theQur’an primarily addresses the Meccan elites (see Fazlur Rahman’s review of God and Man inthe Koran at http://www.islamicbookstore.com/b7210.html).


75 Lyons argues that the exemplifications adduced to support the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis areunsatisfactory, and therefore one should approach its extreme emphasis on the role of languagein the human mind and perception with caution. See Lyons, Language, pp. 307–8.

76 Solihu clearly states that most of the key words forming the structure of the Qur’anicworldview, as Izutsu has presented them, can be studied from a comparative historicalperspective. Otherwise, a synchronic reading of a book that takes history very seriously, or amethod that reduces the history of the book’s concepts to the immediate history of the Arabs,will highlight, at best, a Qur’anic worldview in transition and how the Qur’an was first received,not necessarily how it wants itself to be conceived. See Solihu, ‘The Linguistic Construction ofReality’, p. 39.

77 See Izutsu, Ethico-religious Concepts, p. 86.

78 Yunus Ekin, ‘T. Izutsu’nun Kur’an Semantiği Çalısmaları Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme’,İslami Arastırmalar Dergisi 18:1 (2005), pp. 96–107; Albayrak, ‘Doğulu’, pp. 108–21.

79 Izutsu’s analysis of the concept of jāhiliyya is very interesting. This term occurs four timesin the Qur’an and all of them occur in the suras revealed in the second part of the Medinanperiod (Q. 3:154; Q. 5:50; Q. 33:33; Q. 48:26). Other derivatives of the root j–h–l (jāhil,jāhilūn, jahāla, yajhalūn/tajhalūn) occur nearly 20 times. According to Izutsu, without anunderstanding of this term the Qur’an cannot be understood. Izutsu considers a non-Qur’anicterm ḥilm (‘calmness’) to be an opposite of jahl and holds the view that ḥilm forms a basis forīmān (‘faith’) while jahl provides a basis for kufr (‘unbelief’) (Izutsu, God and Man, pp. 203–9). The word ḥalīm in the Qur’an is generally used to refer to God and occasionally to theprophet Abraham (Q. 9:114; Q. 11:75; Q. 37:101). Izutsu’s heavy reliance on these two terms indiscussing the nature of the Qur’anic worldview seems very problematic.

80 Ekin criticises specifically the last category (ʿAbbāsid), arguing that here Izutsu is clearlyinfluenced by orientalism, and that thus Izutsu implies that Islamic disciplines and rules becameossified during the ʿAbbāsid period, and therefore that the Islam promoted by the ʿAbbāsid’swas not the same as the one preached by the Prophet (Ekin, ‘Izutsu’nun’, p. 103).


82 According to Ekin, Izutsu damaged his Qur’anic analysis by the unnecessary usage of Jāhilīpoetry (see Ekin, ‘Izutsu’nun’, p. 103).

83 Al-Akoub, ‘Marjiʿiyyat’, p. 246; Because of ongoing discussion between jurists andlinguists during the era of the Followers (tābiʿūn), many scholars raised a similar objectionagainst the excessive usage of Jāhilī poetry in the interpretation of the Qur’an, ‘idhā faʿaltumdhālika jaʿaltum al-shiʿra aṣlān li’l-Qurʾān’. See al-Suyūṭī, al-Itqān, http://www.alwarraq.com, vol. 1, p. 143.

84 Izutsu, Ethico-religious Concepts, p. 213; Albayrak notes that although Izutsu makesfrequent references to the Judeo-Christian tradition, he associates Islam mainly with theJāhiliyya. Thus Albayrak concludes that, in contrast to Western scholars who see Islam asevolving under the constant influence of Jewish or Christian traditions, or both, Arabism is thedriving force behind Izutsu’s semantic analysis. First of all, Izutsu says that the term jāhiliyyacannot be properly translated as ‘pre-Islamic period’ because it is associated with personalqualities (Izutsu, God and Man, p. 201), meaning simply that some qualities continued whileothers did not. For instance, in the Qur’an there are some significant shifts in the meanings ofterms such as ajal (‘complete disappearance’ during the Jāhiliyya, ‘beginning of new life afterdeath’ in Islamic times) and sabīl (‘road’ (material) during the Jāhiliyya, ‘way to God’(immaterial) in Islamic times) in the Qur’an (Izutsu, God and Man, p. 32, p. 45, pp. 128–30,p. 144). However, Izutsu considers the most important Qur’anic term to be the continuation ofthe term as used in the pre-Qur’anic period: ‘the view of One God (Allāh) generally prevalent inpre-Islamic Arabia on the eve of Islam, was surprisingly close in nature to the Islamic one’


(Izutsu, God and Man, pp. 97–104). Similarly he sees the Prophet’s seclusion in the cave Ḥirā(taḥannuth) as the pre-Islamic stage of the ritual prayer, ṣalāt (Izutsu, God and Man, p. 148).For a discussion of Arabism see Albayrak, ‘Doğulu’, p. 111.

85 Albayrak, ‘Doğulu’, p. 111; Izutsu, Kur’an’da Allah ve insan, tr. Ates, p. 131.

86 Izutsu, God and Man, p. 80–1.


88 Ali Bulaç states that even when words are considered in isolation, they cannot be given asingle basic and relational meaning because just as words in different cultures can have differentperceptions, positions and associations, this is also true of personal expectations in individualswithin the same culture (Bulaç, Kutsala, pp. 109–10).




92 Shogar, ‘Ethical Discourse’, pp. 195–6; Albayrak, ‘Doğulu’, p. 116; Ekin, ‘Izutsu’nun’,p. 104.

93 Roland Barthes, Göstergebilimsel Serüven, tr. M. Rifat-S. Rifat (Istanbul: Kaf Pub., 1999),p. 221.

94 Izutsu, God and Man, pp. 75–6. The Pakistani scholar Daud Rahbar focuses on Izutsu’sviews on the centrality of the Qur’an in his doctoral study God of Justice: A Study in theEthical Doctrine of the Qur’an (Leiden: Brill, 1960). Rahbar’s study is among the mainsources for Izutsu. Other scholars have gone further, criticising Izutsu for referring to onlyone type of tawḥīd (tawḥīd al-rubūbiyya) and neglecting many others. See Ahmad MoyiGada-Isa Muḥammad Maishanu, ‘An Assessment of Izutsu’s Understanding of the Concept ofAllāh in His God and Man in the Qur’an’ in Anis Malik Thoha (ed.), Japanese Contributionto Islamic Studies: The Legacy of Toshihiko Izutsu Interpreted (Malaysia: IIUM Press, 2010),p. 261.

95 Rahman, ‘Review’.

96 Ekin, ‘Izutsu’nun’, p. 104.

97 It is interesting that some scholars have used Western scholarship to attack Izutsu’smethodology. Some refer to another of Madigan’s criticisms of Izutsu, namely regarding theconcept of yawm (‘day’). For Izutsu, yawm, which simply means ‘day’ in the Qur’an’ssemantics, also connotes Judgement Day, the Resurrection (qiyāma), day of religion (dīn),day of reckoning (ḥisāb) and eschatological field or colour (Izutsu, God and Man, p. 20).Madigan considers how relative Izutsu’s distinction of basic and relational meaning is: ‘whileacknowledging that there can be a simple, “neutral” meaning for the word yawm (pl. ayyām),one surely must question whether it is this everyday word that was introduced into the semanticfield of eschatology, or whether it was a more complex word already coloured by its connectionwith Arab military exploits – ayyām al-ʿarab – and also by its eschatological use in Judeo-Christian discourse- the “day of the Lord”. Perhaps, it reflects the eschatological use in thecontext of God’s day in Jewish-Christian discourse.’ See Daniel A. Madigan, The Qur’an’sSelf-image: Semantic Analysis and the Understanding of Kitāb (Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress, 2001), p. 82.

98 Albayrak, ‘Doğulu’, p. 115. Madigan further says ‘I propose to view kitāb as a focus word,however; indeed as one of the most important focus words of the Qur’an’s vocabulary, since itplays a significant role in defining not only the nature of the sacred text but also the mission ofthe Prophet, the relationship of Islam to other religions, the characteristic manner of God’sinteraction with humanity, and the relationship between the Creator and creation’ (Madigan,The Qur’an’s Self-image, p. 90).


99 Shogar mentions four kinds of hidāya: instinct, sense, reason and revelation. The first twoare common to all creatures, while reason and revelation are particular to humankind (Shogar,‘Ethical Discourse’, p. 201, p. 203).

100 Ibrahim Abū Bakar, ‘God and Man in the Works of Toshihiko Izutsu’ in Anis MalikThoha (ed.), Japanese Contribution to Islamic Studies: The Legacy of Toshihiko IzutsuInterpreted (Malaysia: IIUM Press, 2010), p. 154. Presumably Abū Bakar is basing his view onthe verses where the words imām and aʾimma occur.

101 Takeshita, ‘Japanese Works of Toshihiko Izutsu’, p. 500.


103 Halis Albayrak, Kur’an’da İnsan-Gayb İliskisi (Istanbul: Sule Pub., 1993), p. 159.


105 According to Izutsu, such a view is surely not consonant with pure Arabian paganism,whose fundamental outlook on human existence may be aptly described as pessimistichedonism stemming from the deep-seated conviction that there can be absolutely nothing afterdeath (Izutsu, God and Man, p. 86). For Izutsu, this view must therefore have originated fromthe Christians in Hijāz. Ekin is very critical of Izutsu’s approach to the matter (Ekin,‘Izutsu’nun’, pp. 105–6).



108 Ömer Kara, Izutsu’nun Kur’an Semantiğinde Mühmel Boyut: el-Furuku’l-Luğaviyye’,İslami Arastırmalar Dergisi 18 (2005), pp. 16–21.

109 Izutsu, Ethico-religious Concepts, p. 3.

110 See Ömer Kara, ‘Arap Dilbilimindeki Teradüf Olgususunun Furuk Paralelinde TarihselSüreci ve Arkaplanı – el-Furuku’l-Luğaviyye’ye Giris (I)’, Erzurum Kültür ve Eğitim VakfıAkademi Dergisi (EKEV) 7:14 (2003), pp. 197–220.

111 Izutsu gives seven cases which are strategically very important for semantic analysis. In hissecond case he refers to the particular value of synonyms for the purpose of analysis. In Izutsu’sapproach, if a word x substituted for a word y in the same passage or in exactly the same kind ofverbal context, whether its range of application be wider or narrower than that of y, thesubstitution is helpful to us in investigating the semantic category of either word (Izutsu,Ethico-religious Concepts, p. 37).

112 For instance, the words should be singular, equal in time and space, in completeconformity as to meanings, and so forth. See Kara, ‘Izutsu’nun’, p. 25.

113 Kara mentions Izutsu’s association of words such as ḍalāla, istikbār, shirk, ghayy, zaygh,ghafla, baghy, baṭar, ʿutuww, ʿuluww, ṭughyān, istighnā, fisq, ẓulm, fujur, iʿtidā and isrāf withthe word kāfir. According to Kara, the Qur’an uses some of these words in connection with thedescription of Muslims such as zaygh, ghafla, ẓulm, isrāf, baghy and fisq (Kara, ‘Izutsu’nun’,p. 27).

114 Word groups like jurm-dhanb, najas-rijs, khayr-ḥasana, khashya-taqwā, asrafa-kufr,ṭayyib-ḥalāl, ṭughyān-kufr, istikbār/bahgy/ʿadw/baṭar/ʿutuww/istighnā etc., are very goodillustrations of this approach. (See Izutsu, Ethico-religious Concepts, pp. 156–240).

115 Kara, ‘Izutsu’nun’, p. 27.

116 See Izutsu, Ethico-religious Concepts, p. 196; Similar attitudes are observed in relation tothe words ‘sin’, ‘mocking’, ‘unlawful’ and ‘stingy’.

117 Albayrak, ‘Doğulu’, p. 113; Aliyya Reza Dad and Kara also provide a similar argument.See Aliyya Reza Dad, ‘Ẓāhirat al-Tarāduf bayn al-Mufradāt al-Qurʾāniyyah fī ʾārāʾiToshihiko Izutsu’ in Anis Malik Thoha (ed.), Japanese Contribution to Islamic Studies: The


Legacy of Toshihiko Izutsu Interpreted (Malaysia: IIUM Press, 2010), p. 118; Kara,‘Izutsu’nun’, p. 28.

118 Kara, ‘Izutsu’nun’, pp. 31–2.


120 Izutsu, Ethico-religious Concepts, p. 119, pp. 156–7.


122 Izutsu, God and Man, pp. 22–3; Izutsu, Ethico-religious Concepts, pp. 119–20.


124 On looking up the term kufr in classical lexicons, we find about 40 meanings. See IbnManzūr, Lisān al-ʿArab; Zabīdī, Tāj al-ʿarūs (8 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1994), vol. 7, pp.450–6; Abū Bakr ibn Durayd, Kitāb Jamharat al-Lugha (4 vols. Haydarābād: Maṭbaʿat MajlisDāʾirat al-Maʿārif, 1345 AH), vol. 2, pp. 401–2.

125 Al-Jāḥiẓ, Kitāb al-ḥayawān, Qiṣṣat al-fīl, II, p. 152 (http://www.alwarraq.com).

126 See Q. 16:120–3; Q. 6:79; Q. 6:161; Q. 2:135; Q. 3:67; Q. 3:95; Q. 22:31; Q. 98:5.

127 Although Izutsu praises Nöldeke’s studies on the historical development of the Qur’an’slanguage, he does not follow Nöldeke’s clear-cut division. See Izutsu, God and Man, p. 39.

128 Q. 84:22, On the contrary, those unbelievers are denying (bal alladhīna kafarūyukadhdhibūn).

129 See Q. 80:42, Now, they are unbelievers, they are those deviating from God (ulāʾika humal-kafara al-fajara).

130 Marilyn Robinson Waldman, ‘The Development of the Concept of Kufr in the Qur’an’,Journal of the American Oriental Society 88 (1968), p. 445.

131 See particularly Q. 30:52–3: Dead people will not obey you, deaf people who turn theirback and leave will not hear your voice. And you cannot bring blind people onto your kneesfrom their deviance. You can only hear those who believe in our verses and they will becomeMuslims (they will surrender).

132 Waldman, ‘Development’, p. 453.

133 If you thank Me, I will be more giving and provide more blessings and if you areungrateful, the pain will be very compelling.

134 Ibn ʿAṭiyya al-Andalūsī, al-Muḥarrar al-wajīz (5 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub, 1993), vol. 3,p. 321.

135 Look at those who have changed God’s blessings into ingratitude (alam tara ilā alladhīnabaddalū niʿmata’llāhi kufran).

136 Likewise, in Q. 27:40, the statement of the Prophet Solomon, ‘… This is the considerationof God who tests me in choosing gratefulness or ingratitude …’ (… ashkuru am akfur…)should be evaluated in this way.

137 Al-Bukhārī, al-Ṣahīh (4 vols. Istanbul: Çağrı Pub., 1992), Kitāb al-īmān, vol. 1, p. 13. Mytranslation.

138 Izutsu, Ethico-religious Concepts, p. 124.

139 Al-Qasṭalānī, Irshād al-sārī li-sharh Ṣahīh al-Bukhārī (15 vols. Beirut: Dār al-ʿArabī,1323 AH), vol. 1, pp. 114–15.

140 See ʿAynī, ʿUmdat al-qārī bi-sharh Ṣahīh al-Bukhārī (11 vols. Egypt: Maṭbaʿa andMaṭbuʿāt Muṣṭafā al-Bābī, 1982), vol. 1, p. 229.

141 In a similar fashion, Izutsu mentions another ḥadīth in Sunan al-Tirmidhī, ‘One whointerprets the Qur’an according to his personal opinion, that is, rather than established


knowledge, has proved himself by that very fact to be a kāfir’ (‘man fassara al-Qurʾān bi’l-raʾybi-ghayri ʿilm fa-qad kafara’); see Izutsu, God and Man, p. 55. Unfortunately, this quotation isnot authentic. There are two versions of this report in al-Tirmidhī; one ends fa-qad akhtaʾa(‘has made a mistake’), while the other ends ‘fa’l-yatabawwaʾ maqʿadahu min al-nār,(‘prepares himself a chair of fire’); see al-Tirmidhī, Sunan, Bāb mā jāʾa fī alladhī yufassiru al-Qurʾān, (http://www.al-islam.com), vol. 10, pp. 208–10.

142 Izutsu, The Concept of Belief in Islamic Theology: A Systematic Analysis of Īmān andIslām (Tokyo: Keio Institute of Cultural and Linguistic Studies, 1966), p. 101.

143 Izutsu, God and Man, pp. 75–9; Izutsu, The Concept of Belief, p. 157.

144 Izutsu, The Concept of Belief, pp. 203–30.

145 Izutsu, God and Man in the Koran, p. 95.


The Reception of Toshihiko Izutsu’s Qur’anic

Documents

Transcript of The Reception of Toshihiko Izutsu’s Qur’anic