Opening the Qur'an: Introducing Islam's Holy Book

Seven. Interpreting the Qur’an

seven Interpreting the Qur’an A revelation from (Allah) Most Gracious, Most Merciful, A Book whereof the verses are explained in detail, a Qur’an in Arabic for people who understand, giving Good News and Admonition: yet most of them turn away and so they hear not. They say:“Our hearts are under veils (concealed) from that to which thou dost invite us and in ours ears in a deafness and between us and thee is a screen: so do thou (what thou wilt); for us we shall do (what we will!).” Surah 41:1–5, Ha Mim Our study opened with references to the risks involved in opening the Qur’an and raised questions about who can interpret the Qur’an. To this point, we have located the Qur’an in the context of Islamic faith and its geographic and historical settings, introduced the Messenger, and gained basic information about the Qur’an’s content and structure.Along the way, we have heard numerous translated passages that provide some idea of the Book’s rhetoric and intensity. In this chapter, we return to and build on the issue of interpretation. Major concerns cluster first around Christian and Jewish interpretations past and present and on the freedom and responsibilities of interpreters.1 Because Muslim interpretations of the Qur’an were and are influenced by Jewish and Christian interpretations of their 168 Interpreting the Qur’an 169 Scriptures,I make some generalizations on the course of Jewish and Christian interpretation with an eye toward how the People of the Book’s handling of their sacred books could be used and also rejected by Muslims. Second, I deal with interpreting the Qur’an with regard to issues in and types of Quranic interpretation. Third, I suggest a procedure that nonMuslims may find helpful for interpreting the Qur’an. Westerners and Muslims often do not understand each other’s views of freedom and responsibility in matters of interpretation, conduct, and expression. Put simply, the question is, Are there differences between the Western and Islamic approaches to the freedom and accountability of interpretation ?2 The short answer is “Yes.” The freedoms of religion,speech, expression,and association are construed differently in theWest than in the IslamicWorld. Those differences have a substantial impact on interpreters and their interpretations. Interpreters seek to provide,in comprehensible and accurate ways,the meanings of a written or oral text. The interpreter participates in making sense of the materials.Who the interpreters are,what their cultural,historical , social, and religious contexts and views are, sometimes implicitly and sometimes explicitly influence their renderings of and comments on texts. Even the sparest interpretation is a commentary on the meaning of the material .These observations raise the issue of responsibility:To whom or what are interpreters accountable?What are the constraints,if any,on their freedom and autonomy in arriving at and then stating their results? The responses with regard to the Bible and the Qur’an are shaped by history. WESTERN VIEWS OF THE INTERPRETER’S FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY Always aware of the many exceptions to generalizations, I think it is helpful to consider the topic of Western views of interpreter’s freedom and responsibility first in terms of a pre-Renaissance Christian perspective and Jewish perspectives during the Ages of Definition and Cogency. Next we move to Renaissance-modernWestern perspectives (not specifically Christian ) and then Jewish perspectives in the Second Age of Diversity. THE PRE-RENAISSANCE BACKGROUND: A WESTERN CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE Pre-RenaissanceWesterners almost uniformly assumed the divine origin, continuity, and harmony of the Bible, the teachings of the Church, and the social-political structure.From the fourth through fourteenth centuries CE,the mutual support and frequent animosity between church and state was widely accepted.3 Nevertheless,the political governing authorities and the ecclesiastical authorities understood themselves as bound to scripturaldoctrinal norms for the sake of salvation and the good order of society. Except in the views of schismatic and heretical groups,the church was the custodian of the Bible and its interpretations and the guardian of Christian doctrines.The Bible and doctrines were studied and discussed within limits determined by interpretations of the canonical books of the Bible, creeds,concilliar decisions,and the hierarchy’s teaching offices.Those who flagrantly and persistently transgressed the boundaries were liable to punishment by both state and church. Given the context, earlier and revered commentators’ works were valued...