Reading the Qur'an in the Twenty-First Century

Front matter

READING THE QURAN IN THE

TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

A CONTEXTUALIST APPROACH

PART IV Concluding remarks Bibliography Index

184 191

List of figures

5.1 Revelation 5.2 Text and context 6.1 Hierarchy of values: Context independent and context dependent 10.1 Interpretive framework

58 60

70 95

Acknowledgements

In writing the book, I have benefitted from the work of many scholars and thinkers, many of whom are referred to in this book. In presenting their views, while I have tried to be as faithful as possible, it is inevitable that some distortions can occur, for which I seek their understanding and forgiveness.

A number of friends and colleagues have assisted me in various aspects of writing the book. Their research assistance, identifying relevant material, documenting them, checking sources, going over translation of texts, reading the drafts and commenting on them have shaped the final look and feel of the book. Without their help and this significant contribution, this would not have been possible. In this regard I am very grateful for the work of my research assistants and colleagues Rowan Gould, Patricia Prentice, Adis Duderya, Redha Ameur, Cara Hinkson, Helen McCue, and Andy Fuller. Of course, any errors and mistakes in the book should be entirely attributed to me. I thank Adam Hulbert for editing of the first draft and Katia Houghton for copyediting of the text.

This would not have been possible without the support of Lesley Riddle who was the Senior Editor at Routledge and encouraged me to complete the book despite a range of personal difficulties that prevented me from completing the book on time. Her wonderful support kept me going. I am also very grateful for the kind support and assistance provided by Katherine Ong and Emma Hudson of Routledge through all stages of the production of the book.

Finally I am grateful for the wonderful support provided by my wife, Rasheeda and son, Isaam who have always demonstrated an unusually high degree of patience with my never-ending projects of writing with little time for them.

Part I Background and examples of contextualism

Past and present

1 Introduction and modern emphases in Qur’anic interpretation

This book makes the case for a contextualist approach to interpreting the Qur’an. It also provides, broadly speaking, a theoretical and practical guide for undertaking contextualist interpretation. The contextualist approach reads the Qur’an in light of the historical context of its revelation and subsequent interpretation. In doing so, it strives to understand the underlying objectives and spirit of the Qur’an and thereby highlights the ongoing relevance of the Qur’an to our own time. A contextualist interpretation seeks not to reduce but to expand the contemporary significance of Qur’anic teachings.

In making the case for the contextualist approach, this book explores a perspective on Qur’anic interpretation in which there is widespread interest, particularly among Muslims. Many basic ideas associated with this contextualist approach already exist — and the literature is growing. In this book, I bring together many of these ideas, skilfully advanced by other scholars, and place them in a coherent, easily accessible system. In doing so, I also incorporate a wide range of my own ideas, which I hope will enrich the current debate and clarify some of the difficult issues associated with a contextualist approach.

Contextualism provides a critical alternative for contemporary Muslims to textualism, the dominant mode of interpretation of the Qur’an today. Textualism ranges on a continuum from approaches that place an almost exclusive reliance on the literal meaning of the Qur’anic text (“hard textualism”) to perspectives that take some contextual elements into account and so provide a degree of interpretive flexibility (“soft textualism”). As I discuss briefly in Chapter 15 (Epilogue), there are a number of political, intellectual, and cultural reasons for the prominence and popularity of a textualist (particularly the “hard textualist”) approach to the interpretation of the Qur’an today.

A textualist approach that relies largely on the “literal” meaning of the text, with some consideration given to the complexities of practical application, has been the chief approach within the tafsir (Qur’anic exegesis) tradition, particularly regarding ethico-legal texts, and in the Islamic juristic literature (fiqh). But in all its forms, a textualist reading fails to do full justice to certain texts it interprets. The result is that those texts of the Qur'an are viewed as irrelevant to many of the vexing problems contemporary Muslim societies face, or are applied inappropriately, in ways that distort basic Qur’anic principles. This

DOI: 10.4324/9781315870922-2 This chapter has been made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.

should be considered a strong justification for embarking on an approach to interpretation that emphasises the continuing relevance of all Qur’anic texts to the twenty-first century.

Contrary to the hard textualists’ position that new ideas or approaches to the interpretation of the Qur’an are un-Islamic or even anti-Islamic, I argue throughout the book that a contextualist approach is very Islamic, and is in fact rooted in the tradition. There are many such ideas in the Islamic juristic and Qur’anic exegetical literature which attempt to relate the Qur'anic texts and their teachings to the changing circumstances and contexts, even though there is no systematic contextualist approach as such in that literature. Both jurists and Qur’an commentators attempted to understand the circumstances in which particular Qur’anic texts were revealed as well as the specific people those texts were addressing and the time of the revelation. Even in the first century of Islam, immediately after the death of the Prophet, figures like Umar b. al-Khattab (d. 23/644), the second caliph, interpreted a range of Qur’anic texts in a manner that could be considered “contextualist”. Umar understood Qur’anic revelations in terms of their fundamental principles or objectives and, critically, his understanding was highly contextual.

Such ideas remain at the heart of the contextualist approach to the interpretation today as well. But the contextualist approach of today takes this idea of context much further and develops a method of interpretation based on the notion of context both of the time of revelation and of the twenty-first century.

When presenting arguments in favour of a contextualist interpretation of the Qur’an, I do not argue for a wholesale rejection of the authority of pre-modern Muslim scholarship, theology, or law. Instead, this book should be considered a contribution to the evolving scholarship on the Qur’an that assigns greater emphasis to the idea of a contextually relevant reading of the Qur’an. I argue that a contextualist approach provides a valid method of interpreting the Qur’an: one that gives due recognition to earlier approaches to interpretation while also being aware of changing circumstances and social, political, and cultural conditions which need to be considered before any interpretation of the Qur’an may be deemed contemporary and more importantly relevant as well.

Key ideas of a contextualist approach

Contextualists place great hermeneutic value on the historical context in which the Qur’an was revealed — the early seventh century CE — and subsequently interpreted. They argue that scholars should be highly sensitive to the social, political, economic, intellectual, and cultural circumstances of the revelation, as well as the setting in which interpretation occurred in the past and occurs today. Contextualists thus tend to see the Qur’an as a source of practical guidelines. They believe that these guidelines should be implemented in new ways whenever changing circumstances warrant them, and so long as these novel implementations do not impinge on the “fundamentals” of Islam.!

Central to the contextualist approach is the idea of context. Context is a broad concept which may include, for instance, the linguistic context, and also what I call the ““macro-context”. The linguistic context is related to the way a particular phrase, sentence, or short text is situated within a larger text. Usually, this involves situating the text in question within the texts that immediately precede or follow it. This type of context, while important for getting a basic understanding of what the text is conveying, is not the primary focus of the contextualist. Instead, more interesting and useful for a contextualist is what I call the “macro context”. This refers to the social, political, economic, cultural, and intellectual settings of the Qur’anic text under consideration. The macro context considers also the place in which the revelation occurred and the people to whom it was addressed. In addition it includes the ideas, assumptions, values, beliefs, religious customs, and cultural norms that existed at the time. An understanding of these elements is important to the process of interpretation, as the Qur’an responded to, interacted with, and praised or rejected these contextual connections.

The purpose of studying the macro context is to obtain a reasonably good sense of the overall setting in which the particular Qur’anic text was given and to understand how the “meaning” of the text was related to that setting. We can term this context of revelation as “macro context 1”. Equally important is the macro context of the present period, that is, the context in which the act of interpretation is occurring today. We can term this “macro context 2”. This context also has various elements, which include: the period in which the interpreter is living; the physical places in which society functions; contemporary cultural and religious norms; political ideas; economic institutions and ideas; and other systems, values, and norms. This context also includes the kinds of educational, economic, and political opportunities that are available, and the protection of the various rights that are afforded in modern societies.

For the contextualist, it is important to compare the two macro contexts as thoroughly as possible, in order to “translate” the meaning of the Qur’anic text from macro context 1 to macro context 2 without bypassing the context of the intervening periods. This involves drawing a close connection between the Qur’anic text at the time of the revelation and the context of the time of interpretation, without divorcing either context from the other. The connecting elements for these are the intervening historical periods. These can be understood in terms of the ideas, scholarship, and interpretations that have continuously adapted the Qur’an to emerging contexts. I term this the “connector context”. Without the connector context, it would not be possible to link macro context 1 and macro context 2. The intermediary role of the connector context demonstrates how successive generations of Muslims have applied the Qur’anic text and its norms to their lives. In a sense, the accumulated tradition, experience, and practice are always there to help the interpreter to connect with the context of the Qur’an at the time of revelation. With this framework, it is possible to read the Qur’an in a way that emphasises its ongoing relevance to society in the present and to the generations that will follow.

It is worth noting that many parts of the Qur’an do not require a contextualist reading, as they are immediately relevant to different contexts. Thus, only certain texts need to be read contextually. The historically oriented texts that occupy such a large portion of the Qur’an, for example, do not usually require a contextualist reading. These historically oriented texts could reasonably be expected to contain many specific details in order to make sense of the events, figures, and concerns to which the Qur’an is making reference. However, the Qur’an on the whole does not provide such specific details about places, people, or events. Nor is it concerned with presenting the life story of the prophets or even of the Prophet Muhammad. The historical references in the Qur’an, almost always, do not refer to dates or place names. The Qur’an has a tendency to avoid those specifics and often uses such narratives to expound universal ideas and values. For instance, the story of the creation of the universe and of Adam is concerned with God’s creative power, which can be understood as such in any context. Similarly, the story of Moses and Pharaoh highlights the idea that ultimately good overcomes evil. Such broad ideas and lessons can be readily understood from the text, and applied within a wide range of contexts, cultures, times, and places, as they tend to be universal in nature. These may be considered as the trans-historical or universal aspects of the Qur’anic text.

Other text types, such as those related to theological concerns related to God or those that relate to the afterlife are also not context-dependent or culturally specific. Most such texts can be immediately read, understood, and applied within a whole range of different contexts in different times, places, and circumstances. Believers can easily relate to them regardless of their specific contexts. For instance, the Qur’an has a number of texts that discuss God’s names and attributes and show how God relates to creation. The Qur’an discusses life after death and accountability. It talks about universal ethical and moral values such as honesty. The Qur’an also contains a range of texts about “Unseen” (ghayb) which refer to a world that exists beyond human experience. Although some difficulties have arisen in the modern period in relation to a number of these texts, perhaps because of our contemporary understanding of the communities or figures that are alluded to in the Qur’an or our scientific take on the nature of the universe and life on earth, these texts by their very nature do not seem to attract many problems or challenges when interpreted and applied to our modern context. This does not mean that we do not, for instance, require other theological interpretations of at least some of the Quranic teachings.

However, certain texts in the Qur’an seem to be addressing specific situations and concerns that were strictly pertinent to the time of the revelation or, in other words, that relate to certain aspects of macro context 1 primarily. These texts are within the broad category of what I call “ethico-legal” texts, that are more about ethical, moral, social, or legal matters. Examples of such texts include those that relate to legal matters such as marriage and divorce or inheritance as well as those that refer to the roles of men and women in society, or slaves and slavery, or the status of non-Muslims in Muslim societies. These kinds of texts would have been directly relevant to and meaningful in the context in which they were revealed; however, the relevance of these texts is reduced if they are interpreted literally in contemporary times due to the significant differences between macro context 1 and macro context 2. Essentially, then, the contextualist approach to interpretation is needed largely for those ethico-legal texts in the Qur’an that, by their very nature, are closely connected to the Arabian society of the early seventh century ce. For some of these specific texts, most forms of traditional interpretation dominated by a textualist approach, even the most flexible of them, tend to be problematic in both process and results. A contextualist approach emphasises the organic and symbiotic relationship between the original commandments, instructions, and advice and their context in the seventh century. If this approach is adopted, these texts could be appropriately contextualised by examining the radical difference and continuities between the original context and that of today. This process would then allow for a useful new set of meanings to emerge that remain true to the original teachings of the Qur’an.

An example of this approach can be applied to the institution of zakat, which is one of the fundamental institutions of Islam. Zakat is understood as the giving of a certain percentage of one’s income, savings, or earnings from business to certain categories of people who have been explicitly mentioned in the Qur’an. The Qur’an repeatedly emphasises that Muslims must give zakat to the community, the poor, and the needy. Yet the Qur’an does not provide sufficient details about how zakat should be managed. The Prophet, however, has provided plentiful advice and instruction about this issue, and interpreters of today therefore have a reasonably clear understanding of how zakăt was practised in the early period of Islam. The system that was introduced in Mecca and Medina as a result of the Qur’anic command to pay zakat was appropriate to those circumstances and to that context. The items that the Prophet spoke about as appropriate for attracting zakat were also very specific to the context, such as sheep, cows, camels, gold, and silver. Although the Qur’an does not specify a percentage of, for example, one’s savings to be given as zakat, the Prophet introduced a percentage — 2.5 per cent — that appears to be specific to the context. At that time, there was no formal system of taxation, and the Prophet and the Qur’an were introducing a new tax system in a society where people did not have stable or regular jobs or income, and most people functioned at a subsistence level. Although some individuals were involved in business, these were a minority in that society. The Prophet therefore introduced a tax system that was based on the guidelines set by the Qur’an and also in line with the specific economic, social, and cultural conditions of the time.

Islamic juristic literature (fiqh) reveals how the jurists managed the interpretation of zakăt-related texts. Although some discussions in the figh literature seem to take the context of the seventh century into account (for instance, when extending the scope of goods susceptible to zakat), there is still a high degree of rigidity when it comes to the key issues. For instance, the rule that

2.5 per cent of a person’s annual savings are subject to zakat seems to have been inflexible, as no consideration was given to the idea that this percentage may have been relevant to the context and therefore could be susceptible to change. In fact, much of the discussion about zakat in the fiqh literature is concerned with the specific types of goods that attract zakat and whether the list of these could be extended beyond those specified by the Prophet. However, the analysis does not extend much beyond this.

Although post-prophetic Muslim states have introduced a range of new taxes, zakat has remained sacrosanct, with minimal or no change, into the modern period. Thus the methodology that was adopted by the early jurists in relation to zakat (including the system, framework, key ideas, categories of goods, and percentages) has been retained in a similar form to that of the earlest period of Islam. A common argument for preserving zakat in this form is that it is a religious institution that Muslims have no authority to change.

What is noticeable here is that instead of taking the context, ethos, and spirit of the time into account when interpreting the instructions provided in the Qur’an and by the Prophet, both early and modern commentators of the Qur’an and the jurists adopted a rather literalist and textualist approach to the interpretation of zakat. If they had in fact taken the context of the time into account, then the commentators and jurists would have been able to ask a range of questions about key aspects of zakat. Why only 2.5 per cent and not a progressive tax? Why only focus on the goods that existed at the time of the Prophet with only limited recognition that this list could be expanded, rather than considering zakat as an Islamic taxation system that could respond to changes in society? These and similar questions were not often asked. It is evident that there could be room for rethinking many aspects of zakat, while still retaining the basic idea of zakat and the underlying values it embodies as one of the most fundamental pillars of Islam. In areas such as these, a contextualist reading of the text will produce remarkably different results in new contexts.

Managing communities in our time has become a complex task, and the state is expected to provide a whole range of new services to its citizens. States must continuously work on developing, adjusting, and improving the infrastructure of the community, providing everything from health and education to security services. Given the vast difference between ways of organising societies now and during the time of the Prophet, arguably, a new way of thinking about zakat is required if this institution is to remain relevant to our own context. These new meanings and ideas cannot be generated by an approach that is totally committed to the letter of the law, because the methodology it uses gives minimal or no consideration to contextual factors. In relation to zakat, a contextualist approach to the texts could reveal a dynamic system of Islamic taxation. The emphasis and importance given to zakat at the time of revelation and the values it stands for in the Qur’an will always remain, and the contextualist approach will significantly expand the scope and the purpose of zakat from the discussion on goods and items that were subject to zakat in the early seventh century to a whole new set of items and goods that could be subject to zakat in the modern period. Such interpretations could also address the question of the percentage in order to ensure that it is commensurate with the needs of the community today.

Equally problematic are the interpretations of those Qur'anic texts that discuss the role and status of men and women. This includes the relative status and power of men vis-a-vis women at the time of revelation, the dependence of women economically and socially on men, and the lack of opportunities for women at the time compared with that of the modern period. The Qur’an provided a range of instructions regarding women in the areas of marriage, divorce, inheritance, and child custody, just as it provided instructions in many other areas. Although the bulk of these texts do not disadvantage women, there are a few texts that could be read as doing so if interpreted literally without due consideration given to the context. It is crucial to remember that the Qur’an provided these texts at a time when the conditions of society were very different from those of our own. A textualist approach interprets these instructions in a way that gives a kind of permanence to the way things were in the early seventh century regarding women. Here, a contextualist approach will provide a better understanding of the intentions and underlying objectives of these texts, again by taking into account the context of the time, place, and circumstances, perhaps more so than even the soft textualist approaches adopted by many in Qur'anic interpretation and Islamic jurisprudence.

Muslims hold the view that the Qur’an is a text for all times and places. Contextualist interpretation will help to realise that ideal by providing a systematic methodology of Qur’anic interpretation that will at times depart from the literal meaning of some of the Qur’anic injunctions, while retaining the underlying objective and spirit of these injunctions. When interpreting Qur’anic texts that appear to be applicable in a range of different contexts, a mere literal reading can become an obstruction to realising the higher objectives embedded in Qur’anic values. This is potentially harmful to both Muslim individuals and societies. Following a textualist reading for these texts only increases the gap between what the Qur’an seems to be saying on a particular issue and what Muslims, in their everyday lives, see as relevant, important, and necessary. The two examples above demonstrate a need for a contextualist approach, which will yield significantly better results than a textualist reading as we deal with such contemporary challenges facing Muslims today.

Structure of this book

This book comprises four parts. In Part 1, I outline the development of Qur’anic interpretation up to the modern period. This provides the context in which modern debates on interpretation are taking place and some of the key ideas associated with those debates. I examine some of the concepts and tools that existed in the pre-modern interpretation of the Qur’an, and show how a textualist mode of reading the Qur’an developed in the exegetical tradition. In this first part, I examine a historical example of a quasi-contextualist interpretation of Qur’anic texts: namely, that of Umar b. al-Khattab, the second caliph and a close adviser to Prophet Muhammad. This example is significant, as he was one of the earliest and most important figures in Islam. In general, this shows that the contextualist approach to the Qur’an is not entirely new, and that its roots go back to the earliest period of Islam.

Keeping Umar’s precedent in the background, I explore then how the dominance of textualism in the interpretation of women-related Qur’anic texts led to the emergence of a counter position and, in fact, a contextualist approach to interpreting Qur'anic texts in the modern period. I present alternative readings of the relevant Qur'anic texts by female and male Muslim scholars who have questioned key aspects of traditional interpretations in this area and have argued for new interpretations that are more appropriate for today.

In Part II of the book, which forms the most important part, I present the key ideas and principles associated with contextualist interpretation: how revelation was related to its context; the hierarchical nature of the Qur’anic values and how such values can be used in a contextualist framework; the use of parallel texts and the challenges associated with using hadith in contextualist interpretation as well as the criteria for using hadith; the variety of ways in which one can think about the issue of meaning; and the need to maintain the immutable aspects of Qur’anic teaching and the fundamentals of the religion in contextualist interpretation. The final chapter in this part is, in a sense, a summary of the key ideas regarding contextualist interpretation, and is presented as a practical guide for such interpretation.

In Part III of the book, I provide four examples of Qur’anic interpretation that highlight the idea that different interpretations of specific texts emerge in different contexts: a social issue (the authority of men over women), a theological issue (the crucifixion and death of Jesus), a political issue (consultation and democracy), and an economic issue (riba and interest). These examples compare the pre-modern and present day approaches to interpretation that Muslim scholars have adopted.

These examples do not examine the pre-modern or modern interpretations in a comprehensive manner. Instead, I have chosen a small number of commentators to give a sense of how various commentators approached the text and to highlight the degree of diversity among them. The pre-modern commentators selected include Tabari, Zamakhshari, Razi, Qurtubi, and Ibn Kathir. Commentators from the Shi‘a tradition are also included. The ideas of these scholars reflect how these very important issues, which Muslims are debating in our time, were explored in traditional Qur’anic scholarship. For the modern period, scholars such as Abul Ala Maududi, Tabataba’i, and Sayyid Qutb — names that will be very familiar to students of Islamic thought — are presented. These scholars have, on occasions, emphasised different issues to scholars of the past, as they have responded to the issues that have arisen in the modern era and context.

My purpose in this exploration is to highlight the evolving nature of Muslim thinking on the issue of Qur’anic interpretation, with particular reference to the issues that have become important to modern debates. Each of these four chapters presents various interpretations of a verse (or a part of a verse) that deals with a specific issue. Given the limited space that is available in this book, detailed commentaries are not given for any of the texts. Rather, I summarise the views that each scholar presents on the issue, in order to give a sense of the kind of thinking that may have existed in relation to the interpretation of the verse or phrase in question.

The first example is the first part of Qur’an 4:34. This text of the Qur’an has given rise to debates on issues that are related to gender. Traditional scholarship has tended to emphasise the dominance of men over women’s affairs, with some scholars even suggesting that women are inferior to men, based on biological or nature-based arguments. In the modern period, such arguments are largely being sidelined, with new interpretations emphasising gender equality or, at least, complementarity.

The second example examines accounts of the crucifixion and death of Jesus. Pre-modern interpretations of the relevant verses of the Qur’an are uniform in their rejection of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, and usually suggest that someone else was crucified in his place. Although these ideas still dominate in the modern period, a range of perspectives are emerging that are not entirely comfortable with the pre-modern treatment of this issue. A more contextualist approach appears to be gaining ground, even in this controversial area.

The third example shows that pre-modern Qur’anic scholarship had, by and large, a very different focus in its understanding of shiira (consultation), and examines how shiira was conceptualised in comparison to the modern period. Today, Muslims have moved significantly away from pre-modern understandings and now expand its meaning to cover contemporary ideas about democracy and governance.

The fourth example is the interpretation of riba (usury or interest). The emphasis has shifted in the modern period from the approaches of early commentators to the issue as a result of the changed context. Although a large number of Muslims still consider riba to be equivalent to any form of interest, a range of views now emphasise the ethical and moral nature of the prohibition of riba, and the importance of identifying specific transactions and forms of interest that may or may not be acceptable from a Qur’anic point of view.

In Part IV (the Epilogue), I offer some concluding remarks. These highlight some of the key contributions of this book.

The contributions of this book

In this book I hope to demonstrate that a contextualist approach to the interpretation of the Qur’an allows for greater scope to interpret the Qur’an and to question some of the rulings of earlier commentators. This approach has growing support. Over the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, contextualist ideas and methodologies have been adopted by an increasing number of Muslim scholars and thinkers. Although some may not refer to the term “contextualist” as such, their methods of interpretation show that they are engaging with the Qur’an in new ways that reflect this approach.