Pak Tea House » Pakistan » The Hope of Hermeneutics
The Hope of Hermeneutics
A.A Khalid
The great religions of the world all have a central text which the faithful adhere to and interpret constantly as their companion in the quest for meaning. Islam is the proto-type example of this typology of religion, a faith with an unmistakably central and crucial text, the Quran. The Quran the ultimate example of a Sacred text which guides intimately the life of Muslims, offering peace and tranquility and its message of mercy.If one is to refine our understanding of religion to tear down assertions of patriarchy and autocracy then a new framework of Quranic hermeneutics has to be established.
Hermeneutics is quiet simply the philosophy of interpretation, it recognizes human agency in the act of encountering the text. Hence in this respect hermeneutics is known within the Islamic traditions as tafsir operating in a traditional exegetical setting. However, the first to use this concept was German Protestant theologian and philosopher, Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), whose founding role is now widely recognized. Others include the great German philosopher and hermeneuticist Gadamer, a modern exponent of hermeneutics. The art of interpretation is a delicate act with many factors and variables in play with the assumptions and presumptions of the reader, the intricacy of the text and the interaction of the two.
The encounter of both reader and text is an event that one can neither foresee nor define. The greater the work, the richer is the meaning which is for generations of its readers to disclose. The reader brings to the text assumptions and presumptions, intelligible ideas of justice and ethics and these inevitably mesh into the interpretive scheme. Hence interpretation is a fully human act.
We must be careful in what respect we talk of a Quranic hermeneutic. A framework of hermeneutics is needed to understand the ethico-legal content of the Quran (as Abdullah Saeed puts it), to do with the issues of law and society. The beliefs of the religion (the Five Pillars for instance) cannot be re-interpreted, that is heresy and sacrilege. What is at stake here then is the interpretation and subsequent implications of the ethico-legal content of the Quran. How to determine the law, who determines it and how to implement it are some important questions to be asked.
Within the Islamic tradition it has become difficult to introduce hermeneutics within the framework of Quranic exegesis. Many have tried from Nasr Abu Zayd, AbdolKarim Soroush, and Mohammad Arkoun who have advocated very novel frameworks which have been extremely controversial to say the least. Others such as the Pakistani professor Fazlur Rahman have tried a synthesis of traditional and modern techniques of literary analysis and theory, but even they have found it difficult to break through the conservative hold on the interpretation of the Quran. In recent times Tariq Ramadan’s presentation of the text and context and the systematic exposition of this in his recent new works can also be an example of a cautious but transformational reformism. Also Khaled Abou El Fadl’s specific and robust presentations of the role of interpretation in the fiqhi discourse have also been illuminating.
There are many major differences between classical tafsir and the new exegetical efforts of modern intellectual in the domain of hermeneutics, but one of them is of history and social context. Historically, Muslim exegetes and jurists often relied on linguistic criteria only to interpret the ethico-legal content and to determine whether a particular ruling in the Quran is to be universally applicable or not, hence framing their exegetical inquiry in atomistic terms, interpreting solitary verses without taking into context the holistic message, the global message of the Quran. This of course is not totally true; there is the school of Maqasid in medieval Islam with the likes of al-Juwayni, al Shabiti and the great Al Ghazali. The Maqasid (the objectives of the Sharia) has now taken centre stage in many of the modern hermeneutic schemes constructed by Muslim scholars and intellectuals, indeed Ramadan has used the framework of the Maqasid quiet effectively.
Hence the question of social and historical context in which the ruling was given at the time of the revelation of the Quran was seen as irrelevant or unimportant, bar a few exceptional cases.
Hence the quarrels of interpretation lie in the area of fiqh and law, (with some associative issues in theology) rather in the core principles and beliefs. Hence fundamentalism in this sense alone means a negation of history, and the role it has in the shaping of our religiosities and interpretations of law. It means a negation of human agency and free will, human beings do not and should not have the capability to reason independently rather should do what God tells them to because it is clearly self evident. In this respect fundamentalism refuses to take social change and the evolution of societies into account.
But as many historical inquiries by modern scholars show the interpretation of Islamic law (jurisprudence) has been in constant flux with an irreducible diversity hence the many schools of law.
The recognition of socio-historical contexts in the act of interpretation is the barrier preventing any dynamism and creativity in the discourse of faith in Pakistan today. Unquestioning reverence of past authorities and clerics of law and theology has stifled any dynamism and pluralism.
One of the doyens of modern Quranic hermeneutics Fazlur Rahman suffered a great deal of hostility and persecution in Pakistan; hence he pursued the rest of his scholarship in the West. His influence though minimal in Pakistan has been great across the Far East in Indonesian and Malaysian scholars. His influence on the American discourse of Islam too has been greatly felt; hence this sad event was a loss to Pakistan but a gain to other discourses across Muslim communities elsewhere.
If the issues of gender relations, war and peace, democracy and political philosophy, ethics and pluralism are to be resolved one needs to take the hard road of hermeneutics. By introducing hermeneutics into Islamic discourse, clerical authoritarianism can be countered and more penetrating and holistic interpretations of the Quran can surface. We must constantly remember that Revelation is infallible and from God, but interpretation is fully human endeavour, capable of fault and error, a fallible expression of human reasoning. Hence reform is never in the context of religion itself but in our understanding of faith. By taking the road of a pluralistic and liberal hermeneutical framework we will give the respect and sanctity that our central and Sacred scripture deserves, whilst engaging with our Scripture in a contemplative manner.
The hope that a sensitive and reformist hermeneutical framework can bring is enormous. A comprehensive hermeneutical framework can counter the assumptions of conservative jurists in their exegetical endeavours. Piece meal reforms will never succeed (for instance questioning one aspect of the pre-modern fiqh framework but leaving the other aspects untouched is counter-productive), a wholesale ijtihad on ijtihad will need to take place, and the pre-modern paradigms of fiqh though useful have perhaps outlived their purposes in a new world where the epistemological (epistemology refers to the theory and framework of knowledge) realities are very different.
Filed under: Pakistan · Tags: Hermeneutics, Islam, Religion
71 Responses to "The Hope of Hermeneutics"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- Mohan
said Ex Paki,
Thanks vm for telling us the future of Af... - Mohan said Ex Paki,
Thanks vm for telling us the future of Af...
- Maggu
said Ex-paki, you wrong the Taliban. Why would they nee... - it is important to have the best golf shoes possible-spun1
said certainly like your website however you have to te... - kaalchakra
said Tajender, to their credit, TTP have played not a... - Ex-Paki
said Tajender,
muslim rulers absorb themselve in indian... - Ex-Paki said Maggu,
Only a narrow visioned person like you will...
- Ex-Paki said Maggu,
Only a narrow visioned person like you will...
- Marlene said I absolutely love your blog and find nearly all of...
- tajender said rex an interesting intructions from london to brit...
Islamic society seems to fall apart repeatedly into contesting power centres (with much violence, groupism and propaganda as concomitants). Laws in islamic societies are a hotch-potch of colonial, sharia, tribal, feudal etc. whims and interest-groups. Jesus says someplace (in the NT) : law is for man and not man for law. This realization does not come to the muslims. They try to fit man into (old and older) laws and not laws to fit to the needs of modern man. Muslims claim to honour Jesus, but have little regard for certain things he really says. The muslims’ relationship to him is more about how to disprove, ridicule, devilize and humiliate the christians (what to speak of jews and hindus).
Why does islamic society have this tendency to repeatedly fall apart? Is it because of some inconsistencies, ambiguities etc. in their faith-texts? Unless they acknowledge the existence of these inconsistencies, ambiguities etc. no progress towards a peaceful co-existence among muslims themselves (what to speak of one with non-muslims) will take place.
Once you call something as holy-final-perfect then honesty (in regard to this something) takes a backseat, or gets no seat at all.
Krishnan:
The muslims’ relationship to him is more about how to disprove, ridicule, devilize and humiliate the christians (what to speak of jews and hindus).
Nice, really good, nice stereotyping Krishnan, you must be doing a lot of good in the world with this sort of attitude……….
Real sophisticated……..
Can we get a little bit of nuance in this place please, it seems to be running on empty on this forum…………..
AA Khalid, can you point to some writings of yours of how we got to the current situation (that new hermeneutics might solve?)
@ AA Khalid
It’s clear from these questions that the burden of the religious reformer is not only to challenge the orthodoxy within his own religion but to also answer the genuine concerns that have arisen amongst non-muslims because of the attitude and statements of the orthodoxy.
You are clearly very well informed and it seems unfair that you are being held to account or answerable for views or practices of Muslims that you clearly reject or have problems with just because you answer to the same label of Islam.
Unfortunately some of the wrath is ridiculously sweeping and aimed at the wrong person e.g “The muslims’ relationship to him is more about how to disprove, ridicule, devilize and humiliate the christians (what to speak of jews and hindus).” or “You are trying very hard to redefine various well known terms like democracy to include a theological state running under religious laws and pretending that semantic tomfoolery like “hermeneutics” will fix the problem, but you are not fooling anyone but yourself.”
I guess it goes with the territory. Hang on in there.
It is rather a simple point that AA Khalid was making. Vengaayam and Krishnan seem determined to steer discussion into other directions.
I doubt what worked in Morocco will work in Pakistan simply because Pakistan does not have a tolerant enlightened monarch, but if conditions arise it may be a way of doing it.
I wonder if Pakistan would have as much difficulty absorbing a liberal legal system had events after 47 followed a different course. Supposing it had had elections early on and got done with its constitution making at the speed India did with no scope for the army to intervene, would it not have been a liberalish Pakistan anyway?
@ Tilsim and Hayyer
Religious reformers can only extend their hand to those who are willing to engage in dialogue and wish to diffuse the political theologies of conservatives.
Because religious reformists engage in a double critique, they are targeted by both religious conservatives and strong secular fundamentalists who see that liberalism cannot acheived by religion because religious people are frankly barbaric (another prejudic I find quiet shocking).
The reason I enlisted the Morocco case is because the reforms in Morocco were not even backed by extra-textual reasoning. There was no reason to go beyond the texts, every change was backed by chapters and verses from the Quran and Hadith. That is a great sign of hope, and shows the true power that an alternative hermeneutical framework can bring .
to A A Khalid
When I came to know that islam respects Jesus I had some hope (although I am no christian or Jesus lover). I had read the NT as a hindu and was much impressed by it – even recommended it to my hindu friends. How many muslims in Pakistan have been told to read the NT (New Testament) and not be swayed by what kuran writes about Jesus? Why does the muslim say that if there is a statement conflict between the two then the NT is a falsification and the kuran alone is right? Why this fixation? How can there be an honest islamic hermeneutics with this attitude among muslims?
Hermeneutics will make sense in islam only after this kuran-fixation is whittled down.
I have given only one example here.
May be Khalid is an exception among muslims – hence what I wrote was not stereotyping. The muslim majority is programmed to downgrade/dismiss anything that does not stay in total harmony with and subservience to the kuran. I have taken part in dialogues with muslims and I know this concrete difficulty.
Krishnan you may not be aware of the scholarly literature on the NT, by the likes of Bart Ehrman and others. Many Christians now accept the New Testament is not the Word of God itself, but is an ” inspired” of literature.
As for why Muslims think only the Quran is right, well that goes for any mass of religious believers who believe that their religious text is right when compared to other texts. Theologically I agree.
But morally and spirituality I think all world religion scriptures have something important to say. We may disagree on theology but on morality, ethics and spirituality we can converge and come to common understanding (as the Quran uses this phrase aptly).
Rejecting moral aspects of the NT I think would be wrong, we need to as sincere partners in dialogue contemplate on the spiritual and moral aspects of scriptures.
Indeed many Muslim scholars in the past used to study the Christian and Jewish scriptures along side the Quran, and many like Al Ghazali used to quote from these scriptures when talking about ethics, virtue, morality, knowledge and spirituality.
@ J Krishnan
Not sure how much an exception AA Khalid is in his views. I agree with him too. Certainly AA Khalid’s detailed knowledge of his subject is a refreshing exception to the norm – we need the same love of enquiry amongst a much greater number of muslims.
I am no exception by the way, there is a tradition of Islamic liberal thought built up over the last 150 years starting with the likes of Muhammad Abduh who reintroduced rational theology.
I advise you to read, ”The new voices of Islam: rethinking politics and modernity ”and ”Reformist Voices of Islam: Mediating Islam and Islam”.
Also read John Esposito’s ”Future of Islam”.
Read these three books and you will realise a great number of Muslims are thinking seriously and rationally about their faith and believe in the spirit of a liberal ijtihad in the pursuit of equality, mercy and pluralism enshrined in the global message of the Quran. (and I believe in other religious traditions aswell)
respected Khalid
“…a great number of Muslims are thinking seriously and rationally about their faith and believe in the spirit of a liberal ijtihad in the pursuit of equality, mercy and pluralism enshrined in the global message of the Quran.”
I am reading such sentences from the muslims since some years.
When does the “action part” come?
The action part is happening, it is you who is willing to close your eyes, greet xenophobic Hindu nationalists as ”defenders”, and does not wish to see the activism of Muslim reformers.
Enough about Muslim reformers. Where are the Hindu reformers? Where are Hindus who combat discriminatory practices in the Hindu tradition? Which religious leader in Hinduism in India has condemned the caste system in certain terms?
See Esposito’s work for the action part, he documents Muslim reformist activism and social work in great detail……
See Fetullah Gulen for example, who has a massive grass roots network in Turkey promoting tolerance, peace, respect and democracy.
I hope you are not going to use Nietchze to justify the caste system…..
In fact go ahead, it might be quiet funny actually!
But tragic aswell that in this day and age people still justify inequality and barriers to social mobility…….
”When does the “action part” come?”
I have given you great number of references in this post and thread about the details of social activism among Muslim reformers.
I still ask you, which Hindu religious leader has condemned the caste system in certain terms?
Khalid
You are not being sincere. You are confusing (intentionally?) between justification and explanation. This is what I call sentimentality and show-off of pious anger. You do not understand the sub-conscious workings of the human mind and society. No one ever succeeded in creating an egalitarian society. If someone did – it fell apart rapidly and brought in its aftermath worse social relations/conditions. Even egalitarianism needs a totalitarian outlook and practice for its management and survival. Neither communism nor islam were/are/will-be an exception to this.
Nietzsche justifies nothing, never – he only describes incisively. Wishful thinkers regard him as their enemy because he exposes hypocrisies.
Krishnan, continue to be an apologist for the caste system, Hindu nationalism, xenophobia continue to be an apologist for Nietchze’s distasteful writings, I am just happy to note there will always be Indians who will turn around and note your absurdity……..
Funny, Krishnan, those who excuse the bigotry of others are a bigot themselves.
Do you think human beings have no free will or reason? That we have no conscience?
Yeah keep blaming ”nature”……
@ Hayyer
“Supposing it had had elections early on and got done with its constitution making at the speed India did with no scope for the army to intervene, would it not have been a liberalish Pakistan anyway?”
I would like to think more liberal than now. However, fundamentalism’s onward march has been there in the background. The lack of a coherent vision, apathy and intellectual poverty of the ‘liberal’ establishment which we inherited at the dawn of independence makes me suspect that we would still have a problem with religious facism. The establishment has always played with Islam as some sort of glue to bind the nation. Since the late 60s, they started to initially appease and then coopt the Islamists.
However, what happened then does not matter as much as what is happening and needs to happen now.
Elsewhere, if I understood you correctly, you have said that you have a problem with the idea that fostering liberalism in the religious discourse in Pakistan might not be the way forward. Could I kindly ask you to expand on the reasons for your misgivings?
To Khalid
OK you abolish the caste system. I am with you. Try it. Don’t blame me if you don’t succeed.
Islam cannot fulfill its promises. Muslim liberals cannot fulfil their promises. Muslim orthodoxians cannot fulfill their promises. It is one huge bunch of liars since 1400 years. And there are too many simple-minded, gullible, opportunistic or timid guys salivating to salute them and kiss their knees and look at them with starry eyes and face them with begging arms. This hypocrisy will not come to an end so soon.
”””””’An Indian made this observation:
“Shabana Azmi, Javed Akhtar, MJ Akbar can never win a doctrinal debate on Islam with Zaid Hamid, Mullah Omar or Shahi Imam Bukhari. As long as they call themselves Muslims they can never win a debate with them. The power these (latter) individuals exert is not drawn from the sword. It’s drawn from doctrine.”
Any comments? If it is true, it does not bode well for the future.”””””””’
Absolute nonsense, and typically basing the faith of so many individuals on the barbaric acts of a few. This is typical, the violent one is the true Muslim and the peace loving one must be out of the fold of Islam. What nonsense. Who gives the right to other people to define my faith and religiosity for me?
Read John Esposito’s ”Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam ”, and ”Arguing the Just War in Islam ” by John Kelsay. Open your eyes and stop generalising and actually read scholarly literature from accredited professionals, professors, intellectuals and scholars. What qualification do the likes of Hamid and Omar have?
Doctrinally, Hamid and Omar go against traditional Islam let alone the new reformism which is coming into form. On matters of war and peace, traditional jurisprudence makes it clear the aggression is unwarranted.
Barbaric acts of the few are going on uncontrolled. No muslim can stop them.