Preface

This research addresses the study of the origins and development of the science of interpreting scriptural texts within religious thought in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It also examines the historical stages, social factors, intellectual conditions, and philosophical currents that coincided with the developments this science underwent in both Western and Islamic thought. The study adopts a historical-analytical approach to this subject, relying on authoritative references from the adherents of these religions to reach an objective, neutral perspective in tracking, explaining, and detailing the matter as much as possible.

The research focuses on one of the most important pillars of religious thought, attempting to provide a qualitative contribution in a serious effort to understand "the Other" and the background and dimensions of their perceptions of their scriptural texts. The impact of this understanding becomes clearly evident when some contemporary writers attempt to transplant and apply Western interpretive methodologies to the texts of the Holy Qur’an without distinction or differentiation. They ignore the differing nature of scriptural texts on one hand, and the danger of adopting Western methodologies and applying them without considering the differences in the environment of discourse, its nature, and other factors that should not be overlooked. Through its comparative approach, the study attempts to provide a distinct contribution to understanding the dimensions and risks of adopting Western interpretive methods and "implanting" them without realizing the situational environment and nature that produced them.

Introduction

Followers of different religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—have agreed on the necessity of understanding and interpreting their sacred texts, as these represent to their adherents the infallible reference from which legal rulings can be derived and extracted. Undoubtedly, the interpretive path of texts varies according to many factors, including: the cultural heritage of the interpreter themselves with all their scientific and religious backgrounds; the prevailing social, political, and cultural conditions during the emergence of various interpretations; and the scriptural text itself in terms of its credibility and legitimacy among its followers, as well as its clarity and the indication of its meaning.

These differences stem from various other factors that collectively formed the nucleus of an independent art known in Western thought as the art of interpretation or "Hermeneutics." The art of interpretation has passed through different stages throughout history, and several factors have intertwined in shaping it and influencing the course of its themes. This study aims to identify the most important pillars around which the art of interpreting sacred scriptural texts revolves in the different Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The study also examines a number of historical and intellectual conditions that influenced its course in a historical tracking that extends to the current era.

The importance of this study at the present time specifically lies within attempts to understand the Other and track the backgrounds of their intellectual and doctrinal schools. The importance of this approach in the process of dialogue with the Other, based on understanding and enriching their various backgrounds, is self-evident.

The Concept of Scriptural Texts

In the Jewish Religion

Scriptural texts in the Jewish religion include:

1. The Old Testament: This is the collection of books gathered by the men of the Great Assembly, which was established following the return from the Babylonian captivity; they were collected in 444 BC. The total number of these books is 39 (or twenty-four according to those who consider double books as one). The Old Testament is divided into three sections: the Torah (Law), the Prophets (Nevi'im), and the Writings (Ketuvim) (1). There are varying theories regarding the period in which these books were collected, including those linked to the issue of the Babylonian captivity where the need for collection arose (2). Many criticisms have been directed at the credibility of the Old Testament and the authenticity of its attribution, but its credibility for followers of Judaism is established, as it constitutes the Written Law.
2. The Talmud: The Talmud constitutes the Oral Law in Rabbinic doctrine. Both Torahs (the Written and the Oral) form an important legislative core. It consists of oral narrations transmitted through the ages via a chain of trustworthy narrators, and was collected 150 years after Christ in the book of the "Mishnah." Many modifications were introduced to it by the scholars of Palestine and Babylon. There are many commentaries on it known as the "Gemara." Thus, the Talmud consists of the Mishnah and the Gemara. The Talmud most widely circulated today is the Babylonian Talmud. The legal reasoning (Ijtihad) of Jewish scholars, their reports, and their interpretations of those texts constitute an almost absolute authority to conduct any modification, alteration, or even abrogation of some Torah scriptural texts.

In the Christian Religion

In the Christian religion, the Gospel is considered their Holy Book. Most historical accounts indicate its loss, and in its place, dozens of gospels appeared in the period between 60-125 AD. Most of these gospels were banned from circulation except for four: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. However, despite the doubts surrounding its authenticity even among some followers of Christ (peace be upon him), the Gospel remains the representative of the infallible reference for them, as their consensus was established at the Council of Trent in 1545 AD. The majority hold that the number of its books is twenty-seven, with a total of 260 chapters, consisting of the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the thirteen Pauline Epistles, and the Catholic Epistles.

In Islamic Sharia

As for texts in Islamic Sharia, what is meant is the discourse of the Holy Qur’an or the Prophetic Sunnah. Scholars have adopted this meaning for "texts," as all other legal evidences return in their entirety to individual texts within the Book and the Sunnah (3).

The Concept of Interpretation (Hermeneutics)

This is the art known in English as Hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is a theory concerned with explaining and understanding sacred or scriptural texts in particular (4). The Catholic Encyclopedia suggests that the word Hermeneutics (5) traces its roots to the Greek name of the god Hermes, which in Latin means the interpreter of the gods (The interpreter of the gods). However, the usage of the term specified the word and made it a science indicating the interpretation of sacred texts (6).

As for Ta’wil (interpretation) in Islamic religious thought, among the early scholars, it meant only the explanation of a word and the clarification of its meaning. However, later scholars agreed that Ta’wil is the diversion of a word from its apparent meaning to something that contradicts it. Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya (may Allah have mercy on him) says regarding this:

"Interpretation (Ta’wil) is diverting the word from its apparent and literal meaning to its metaphorical meaning and what contradicts its appearance. This is the intent of the Mu'tazilites, Jahmites, and other groups of theologians (Mutakallimun), and it is what is common in the convention of later scholars of principles (Usul) and jurisprudence" (7).

Early Interpretive Trends in Western, Jewish, and Christian Thought

The interpretation of texts fundamentally rests on an important issue addressed by philosophers and scholars ancient and modern: the dialectic between Reason ('Aql) and Revelation (Naql). This dialectic has been present in every revealed religion in particular. Indeed, the Greek world, despite its roots being distant from divine revelation, also witnessed a struggle between a similar duality, such as the conflict between reason and the gods, and between reason and matter. This is the conflict inherited by Western philosophy and its traditions (8).

Within these intellectual and philosophical conflicts, a number of Greek philosophers relied on reason, its estimates, and its judgments. Among them appeared figures like Chrysippus (205 BC), who attributed the determination of good and evil in things to reason alone. His idea is considered the first seed of the dialogue regarding Text and Reason: a thing is not good because God commanded it, but God commanded it because it is good. Right and wrong are independent by nature, not a matter of condemnation or imitation. The law of nature, represented by the law of God, is honored by the reason that commands what must be done and forbids what must be avoided.

Early Interpretation in Judaism

Early interpretive trends appeared from an early age. In Judaism, the sect of the Pharisees emerged, flourishing in Palestine since 160 BC. The Pharisees were known for their strict adherence to the unwritten Torah (the Oral Torah). They also tried to isolate themselves—as evident from their name in Hebrew—from Hellenistic, Greek, and Roman cultures and philosophies through their adherence to the Torah (9). Their doctrine still forms the basis of Jewish theological thought today.

The Pharisees consider the "Mishnah," collected in the second century AD, an important part of the Jewish law revealed to Moses (peace be upon him). The Pharisees see themselves as the Jewish group most committed to the Torah, without standing on the literalness of the texts; thus, they were called "Liberal Reformers" in understanding and interpreting the Torah (10). Revelation to them includes both Torahs: the Written and the Oral.

The Pharisees advocate the necessity of using reason to interpret and explain the Torah to suit and face contemporary problems. Accordingly, they interpreted texts according to the "spirit of the law" instead of adhering to the literalness of the texts, to adapt Judaism to the demands of the age and changing circumstances (11). This flexible path toward texts was the reason for the continuity and wider spread of the Pharisaic doctrine. They conducted their behavior according to the interpretations of Ezra and Nehemiah of the Five Books, taking into account in their understanding and interpretations the historical transformations produced by the Babylonian captivity. They were also known for their boldness in legal reasoning (Ijtihad) and deriving rulings; thus, they were accused by other Jewish sects of innovation, as they issued rulings for people on matters for which there was no text in the Written Torah, and tried to adapt Judaism to the requirements of social challenges through their modern interpretations of texts (12).

Interest in establishing rules for interpretation in Judaism also appeared at the hands of the great teacher Rabbi Hillel (70 BC – 10 AD), who is considered the greatest teacher and jurist of that era. To Hillel goes the credit for laying the foundations of what could be known as the "lenient school" in Judaism, known for its moderate path compared to the opposing school, which could be called the School of Shammai, led by his contemporary Rabbi Shammai, which was known for its strict path. Hillel emphasized the importance of regulating the process of interpreting and explaining the Torah (13) by presenting the seven rules (14) known as the Seven Middot of Hillel. Hence, the Hillel school was characterized by its ability to achieve an interpretation and understanding of sacred texts that aligned with the spirit of the law and Jewish Sharia without focusing on the literalness or rigidity of the law, through what it was known for: a rational interpretation of both the Written and Oral Torahs. It also focused on the ethical and spiritual outcomes and objectives of every Torah law or ruling.

Foreign cultures had a prominent impact on determining the path of interpretation in Judaism. Philo of Alexandria (20 BC – 50 AD), the leader of the Jewish Alexandrian school, investigated the dialectic of the connection between Revelation and Reason (15). Philo is considered the first to invent the "Law of Interpretation" as a methodology to determine the relationship between revelation and reason in his famous saying: "Wisdom is the companion and foster-sister of revelation." Philo emphasized that revelation and reason are two paths leading to the truth in the end. He also criticized the literalist trend that adhered to the letter of the scriptural text (16). He concluded that the relationship between religion and reason must be based on reason following the dictates of revelation (17). He likened revelation to Sarah and reason to Hagar, and cited the words of Abraham (peace be upon him): "Behold, your maid is in your hand; do to her as it pleases you" (18); thus, reason is subservient to revelation.

Another trend of interpretation appeared in Judaism with the emergence of the Karaite sect in Babylon in the eighth century AD. The origin of this sect goes back to Anan ben David, who appeared during the days of the Abbasid Caliph al-Mansur (d. 158 AH / 775 AD). He was known for extremism and a tendency toward radicalism, rejecting the legitimacy of the Talmud based on his rejection and prohibition of interpretation and his adherence to the literal meanings of the texts; hence his followers were called "Literalists" (19).

Early Interpretation in Christianity

In the Christian system, a number of early Church Fathers emerged who adopted Philo’s law of interpretation based on reconciling reason and revelation, including Clement of Alexandria (d. 245 AD) and Saint Augustine, who assigned a realm for reason and a realm for revelation. Reason alone cannot reach the whole truth, while revelation gives complete wisdom about God. In the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274 AD) also appeared, arguing that there is no conflict between reason and revelation at all. Philosophical knowledge is based on rational principles that God placed in man, so revelation must be consistent with them, because the source for both is God.

However, opposing currents to this reconciliatory path appeared in the arena of religious thought in Judaism and Christianity. Some established a rupture between reason and revelation, relying on the necessity of commitment and adherence to the literalness of revelation and sacred texts. The trend of rejecting interpretation found a listening ear in Christianity with Tertullian (d. 225 AD), who took a hostile stance toward wisdom and attempts to rationalize faith (20). Tertullian saw in revelation a sufficiency that precluded any other knowledge; he attacked philosophy and declared its enmity to religion. He is famously quoted as saying: "After Christ and the Gospel, we have no need for anything." Centuries later in Judaism, Yehuda Halevi (1080–1141 AD) (21) repeated this saying almost verbatim, and his writings and ideas found wide resonance and acceptance within the Roman Catholic Church (22).

Later Interpretive Trends in Western Thought

The art of interpretation in Judaism and Christianity inaugurated a new stage with the beginnings of the Reform movement. This movement opened the way for multiple interpretations and modern theories based on the receiver's freedom of understanding and interpretation. Martin Luther (1483–1546 AD), Zwingli (1484–1531 AD), and other pioneers of the Reform movement called for the receiver's freedom to understand and interpret the text. The reformers' calls aimed to limit the role of the Church and reject its monopoly on interpreting texts, asserting that the individual mind is capable of dealing directly with the text, understanding it, and absorbing it. This movement also aimed to assert the unity of the source represented in the Holy Bible (Sola Scriptura), thereby effectively nullifying the heritage of the Church.

The idea of freedom of interpretation and the assertion of interpretive pluralism within the circle of religious texts emerged among many figures of the Reform movement, with varying degrees of reliance upon it (23). The reformers' attempt to rely on the Bible alone is considered the first of its kind in the history of Christian theology (24). However, these calls took different paths among Protestant ranks in subsequent centuries. They paved the way for the acceptance of various modern critical theories, most of which began to threaten and challenge the sanctity of scriptural texts. Despite the general agreement on the primacy of the Bible, Protestants differed on the issue of its interpretation. Those who accepted the results of the Historical-Critical school of the Gospel, which appeared during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, applied and passed the results of those methods onto scriptural texts, concluding the inauthenticity of many of them, while interpreting others with metaphorical and allegorical interpretations. As for conservative Protestants and the majority of Anglicans, they insisted on adhering to the absolute literalness of the Book in matters of doctrine, history, geography, and others (25). These trends met with violent reactions from followers of the "Salafi" (traditionalist) approach in modern Jewish religious thought in particular, who considered following such interpretive freedom as undoubtedly leading to religious apostasy, through which all linguistic, national, and religious characteristics of the Jews would be dropped (26).

With Europe entering the Renaissance and the receding role of the Church, religion in the Western consciousness moved from being a source of knowledge and truth to being a historical accumulation and an echo of a time and reality that should be surpassed; reason replaced religion. Thus, all knowledge was subjected to the laws, conditions, and postulates of reason. This positivist trend represented the peak of the attack on the Church and its men, calling for the rejection of both religion and philosophy. Religion was seen as mere invented superstitions (Myths of Superstitions), and philosophy as a futile, wasted effort of no avail. Many Western thinkers engaged in this trend (27).

Reason regained the freedom it had lost under the authority of the Church and the legislation of its men. This freedom granted reason the right to review all prevailing beliefs and put them to the test of criticism, analysis, and interpretation. Thus, science became the axis of Positivism, the foundations of which were coined by famous positivists such as Auguste Comte, Sigmund Freud (1856–1939 AD), and others. Scriptural texts were viewed anew through the lens of reason and its laws. The Western mind alone was deemed capable of reaching knowledge and truth without the need for unseen or metaphysical texts. Accordingly, many positivists excluded any possibility of the supernatural or miracles, which resulted in a scientific-positivist interpretation of scriptural texts, their events, and their figures. They considered all supernatural events described in the Torah to be the invention and fabrication of the early Church Fathers.

Despite the various and sometimes contradictory reactions to Positivism (28), its echoes and influences remained clearly defined in Western thought. Here, the problem of interpretation returned to centrality once again. Interpretive conflicts in Western thought also extended to the field of literature in the twentieth century. Later reformers in both Judaism and Christianity—such as Spinoza and Hobbes—presented complex studies on sacred texts, through which they concluded various means for Biblical criticism. Through these, texts containing some supernatural events and miracles suggesting the greatness and power of the Lord were viewed as myths, sorcery, and perceptions indicating the incapacity of the human mind at that stage.

Historical Criticism is considered one of the most prominent and dangerous trends in the field of text criticism. It appeared in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries AD, particularly in Germany, and its influence later spread to various regions. The lives of Jews in the West changed at that time due to new and foreign ideas spread by Jews raised in foreign environments. These individuals engaged in non-Jewish philosophy and, based on that, proposed new analyses of Torah texts and declared an explicit challenge to the authority of Jewish rabbis. Progressive Jewish circles in Berlin, Paris, and Vienna began to enjoy the Enlightenment, in which traditional Jewish life was rejected along with the Yiddish language (the language of the Jewish ghetto), rituals, and ceremonies. Indeed, some of them converted to Christianity. The Enlightenment brought many challenges that reached the point of challenging sacred texts in Christianity and Judaism in order to keep pace with development and modernization (29).

In this way, the methods of Biblical Criticism abolished the divine authority of scriptural texts in both the Old and New Testaments. This school resulted in viewing scriptural texts as an echo of a past, vanished, and extinct history, and revelation as nothing more than a historical accumulation subject to the laws of time, place, and transformations. The Torah became a historical book recording the history of Israel, the life of Jesus in Nazareth, and the history of the early Church in human texts inspired by the Lord. Since the Torah is a historical work, it is subject to historical investigation and the results of historical research (30).

These trends coincided with the spread and influence of Darwin's theory of evolution, which many Western thinkers tried to project onto various fields of science and knowledge; its impact extended to include the circle of interpreting sacred texts as well. Protestants tried to find new interpretations of religious experience and an understanding of history that kept pace with the applications and results of the theory of evolution. They also largely denied that the Torah was divine revelation, denied the historicity of Jesus and the Gospel, and focused on moral behavior instead of adhering to formal doctrines as the basis of Christian life (31).

However, the aforementioned trend of Theological Liberalism was opposed by two other currents that emerged as a reaction to the Reformist trend:

1. Fundamentalism: Fundamentalism considered the sanctity of the text as a primary principle; the results of science and the pressures of changing reality, in whatever form, were of no consequence. Fundamentalist Jews believe that complete devotion should be to the Bible. Jewish fundamentalism is also connected to the Talmud, the large body of law and legend compiled between the first and fifth centuries AD. The Jewish fundamentalist sanctification of texts extends to include commentaries, principles, the words of the congregation, and religious sermons even to this day. Accordingly, criticism does not touch the writings of the twelfth-century philosopher Maimonides or the sixteenth-century mystic Isaac Luria. Nor does criticism touch the rabbis who wrote the Talmud, whether living or dead, as they are considered the embodiment of the sacred texts containing in their entirety the word of the Lord (32). Adherents of this fundamentalist trend in Christianity also believe in the absolute nature of sacred texts, which should not be bypassed or replaced by the variables of reality (33). This conservative movement rejected the historical interpretation of the Gospel and its consideration as mere historical accumulations; it also rejected attempts to interpret it in light of contemporary scientific changes and developments. Many proponents of this trend demanded the prohibition of teaching Darwin's theory of evolution in an attempt to support their principles in preserving the sanctity of the Gospel.
2. Crisis Theology or Neo-Orthodoxy: (The text did not elaborate on this second current).

However, the Western critical mind in modern times continued in the circle of doubt, built its foundational elements upon doubt, and launched from it. It became a mind that does not care for faith in a sacred text or otherwise; all texts to it are equally subject to all types of criticism without distinction between the sacred and the profane. Thus, sacred texts were equated with literary and other texts, and the possibility of subjecting them to various critical laws and rules without any difference was established. The reader or receiver became the one with the first and last word in judging different interpretations (34).

Umberto Eco is considered a founder of the theory calling for opening the horizons of the text to various interpretations. He traces the roots of his ideas back to the era of beginnings and ancient philosophical schools, performing a bold excavation of ancient Greek philosophy to prove that most of what is currently circulated regarding concepts of interpretation and the double interpretation of texts existed potentially or actually in those ancient philosophies and doctrines. Every text, according to the conception he sought to root in antiquity, is an open horizon for all interpretations. Interpretations multiply with the multiplicity of interpreters; indeed, they change with the change of a single interpreter within their own shell and are colored by their state, according to the strategy of reading, and the process of their own self and consciousness (35).

Later Interpretive Trends in Islamic Thought

Early Deviations in Islamic Interpretation

Interpretation (Ta’wil) shifted, in some cases, from being a compliant tool for the sound understanding of texts, their goals, and their objective application, into a tool for passing meanings distant from the Lawgiver's objectives and imposing preconceived judgments and ready-made orientations upon them. This deviation, laxity, and arbitrariness in interpreting texts means extracting a meaning that does not align with the text—and may even contradict it—while the interpreter lacks the necessary motives and mechanisms, and fails to adhere to the recognized standards of Ijtihad (legal reasoning) and interpretation.

Often, the issues delved into through interpretation in this manner revolved around matters of the unseen (Sam'iyyat) that reason cannot independently understand, interpret, or grasp their modality and the purpose of their mention. Delving into their interpretation has no evidence; rather, they must be taken according to their apparent meanings. This orientation should not be understood as a call to restrict minds or Ijtihad, or a call to close its door. Rather, it is intended to call researchers' attention to the fact that freedom in Ijtihad and interpretation does not mean abolishing standards and proceeding according to desires or purely rational reasoning. Rather, standards must be invoked that preserve for interpretation and understanding their scope and objectivity. Furthermore, discipline does not mean in any way the abolition of the role of reason or its restriction, but rather the reconciliation between them, which is established by both Sharia and reason.

These early abstract conflicts in Islamic thought (such as the dispute over Divine Attributes and Predestination) gave rise to a new type of interpretation that leads the interpreter to a desire for self-vindication through the arbitrary interpretation of the text and its adaptation to their personal motives and tendencies. The interpreter starts with a preconceived understanding from the self and goes to the text to extract an interpretation that suits and supports what they advocate (Justification).

What happened in Islamic thought during that era paved the way for shaking the "Law of Interpretation," not only in matters of Attributes and Predestination but in general. These disputes and disagreements opened the door wide for (unregulated) freedom in interpreting texts, which extended to include the circle of unseen texts, and the process of interpretation became multifaceted in its means and diverse in its methods.

With the accumulation and spread of this type of interpretation, texts were no longer a starting point toward the receiver or the addressed, but rather a focal point and a center of justification for principles and ideas preconceived in the mind of the reader or interpreter. Thus began the shift from direct interest in texts and their apparent meanings and attempts to apply them to reality to refine and guide it (as was the case with the Companions and those who followed them), toward a focus on the interpreter and the interest in refuting and debunking their interpretations, ideas, and doctrine if necessary.

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (39) alluded to the danger of this type of interpretive trend, and his student Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya pointed to the spread of this phenomenon by saying:

"Every proponent of falsehood has made what the interpreters interpreted an excuse for him in what he himself interpreted, saying: 'What forbade interpretation to me and permitted it to you?' ... And they said: 'How can we be punished for our interpretation while you are rewarded for yours?'" (40).

Proponents of this type of interpretation found in some prevailing concepts an entry point to bestow legitimacy and acceptance upon their distant interpretations, such as the saying that "every Mujtahid (diligent jurist) is correct." The origin of the matter is the Hadith mentioned to encourage judges: "If a judge exercises Ijtihad and is wrong, he has one reward, and if he is right, he has two rewards" (41). Proponents of this trend considered performing these interpretations as pure Ijtihad for which they are rewarded, whether in error or correctness. However, they overlooked the importance of coming to the texts with a mindset capable of submitting to the objectives of the texts and the conditions of correct Ijtihad.

The danger of this interpretive path did not fully appear in that era, as a group of past scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) confronted many false trends in interpretation in an attempt to demonstrate their falsity and deviation. Deviant interpretations related to issues of creed and Attributes in Islamic religious thought were contained by establishing rules and standards for interpretation. However, efforts were not continued to discuss and develop these standards outside the scope of the issues of Attributes and the like; thus, multiple interpretations continued without a governing standard in other aspects of the texts, which focused on transactions (Mu'amalat), regulations, and so on.

Modern Interpretive Trends in Islamic Thought (Influenced by the West)

Muslim societies in later periods of their history witnessed major transformations with the creep of the modern Western civilizational challenge. Modernity emerged in society during the nineteenth century and thereafter as a trend attempting to propose change to the Muslim mindset in all fields. Modernity is a phenomenon of Western origin and growth, revolving around the complex of "Western-centrism" and considering it a reference to be consulted in every minor and major matter (42). The responses of many thinkers in the Islamic world varied, either attempting to refute it, investigate it, or adapt to it. Modernity as a concept did not emerge from the texts of the Holy Qur’an or the Prophetic Sunnah, nor did it provide an original view that invokes the objectives or goals of those texts; rather, it proposed the comparative approach with the West, adopted it, and appealed to its logic in many cases.

Many writings called for change and the adoption of progress and civilization in its prevailing Western sense to escape the state of weakness and backwardness that Muslim societies suffered at that time. Proponents of this trend resorted to interpreting many Qur’anic texts and Prophetic Hadiths according to the philosophies prevailing then. This is clearly evident in texts related to women in particular.

The trend of "semantic autonomy" of the text and the receiver's freedom in understanding and interpretation also emerged, even granting full freedom to the interpreter to view texts and the validity of that autonomy regardless of its transgressions. This trend had a prominent impact on the multiplicity and openness of interpretations and the destruction of the central authority of sacred texts in Christianity. Among those who supported the trend of semantic autonomy in Western thought was Gadamer, who, in his view of the text, sufficed with the receiver's relationship to it. Gadamer dedicated his works to researching Greek philosophy and the problem of interpretation (45). Gadamer's theory found a listening ear among many critics who did not see in scriptural texts—as we indicated before—any difference from other literary writings; therefore, they should be judged and subjected to various critical rules in the literary field.

Gadamer's theory gave immense importance to interpretation, challenging the importance and sanctity of scriptural texts. Despite the many criticisms and objections directed at the theory of the semantic autonomy of the text, it ultimately led to the assertion of freedom of interpretation and understanding: everyone understands what they want and however they want. Multiple theories in interpretation emerged that found their legitimacy in the principles of the reformers, as well as in modern Western society based on individualism, the sanctification of individual opinions, and respect for individual freedom of expression and others (46). Interpretation became a subjective mental effort in which the religious text is subjected to the receiver's perceptions, concepts, and ideas. This new philosophy desires to make the interpretation of the Bible a right for every person. What the text means to one person does not mean it is exactly what it intends for another. Everyone has the freedom to interpret and understand scriptural texts according to their own heritage and human experience. According to this new doctrine: there is no specific measure for authority; rather, every receiver becomes a law unto themselves.

"Religion offers a premise that suggests an inspiration, and human science takes it as a working hypothesis that must be verified in reality. This means that interpretation is a discovery and a penetration of reality; it is no longer a path descending from the text to reality, but rather becomes a path ascending from reality to the text. In this way, our view of religion is corrected: it is the product of reality, arising from it and returning to it. Thus, religion is positioned as a human science, and the transformation of theology into anthropology is but a prelude to transforming religion into ideology" (43).

Many of these interpretive trends moved to some intellectual circles in Muslim societies through the influence of Enlightenment and Renaissance thought coming from the West, in addition to many accompanying philosophies. Martin Luther, through his reformist thought, argued that every difference in interpretation is given in advance and exists in the text; he spoke of a multi-pathed hermeneutics in interpretation that helps in understanding the history of interpretations as a "fusion of horizons" (past and present) (44), in an attempt to limit the role of Church men and their absolute authority in interpretation. Thus, the spread of Protestantism contributed to the emergence of the phenomenon of the semantic autonomy of texts.

What many proponents of modern critical trends fell into when dealing with the texts of the Qur’an and Sunnah is due to an inability to understand the possibility of the Holy Qur’an addressing different generations throughout the ages with a single fixed text that has specific rules for its interpretation and the indication of its words for its rulings. Hence, many writers turned to new interpretations in an attempt to "twist the necks" of the texts in many cases to suit the requirements of the age, its variables, and the philosophies prevailing in it (47). Proponents of this trend in interpretation relied on the claim that the meaning of the text is variable according to the receiver's circumstances, differences, cultural environments, and different eras. A single text may take on different meanings according to the stages of a person's life and their private experiences; thus, the text is concurrent with the individual's development in their life stages and concurrent with the total changes in every era (48).

Thus, these theories, with all the roots they carry that are contrary to the principles of Islam, moved to the philosophy of interpretation in Muslim societies through writers and authors who saw in departing from what the Islamic Ummah had agreed upon for long centuries a freedom of opinion and thought that must be practiced through their interpretations of the texts of the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah. Texts were viewed as a human construct that suited the "childhood stage" of the mind; then, as the mind surpassed that stage, the texts became "historical," matching the stage in which they appeared.

"The rulings of legislation in the Qur’an are not absolute and were not abstract absolute legislations; every verse related to a specific incident is specified by the reason for revelation and is not absolute. All verses of the Qur’an were revealed based on causes, i.e., for reasons that necessitated them, whether they included a legal ruling, a fundamental rule, or an ethical system. They are temporary and local rulings that apply at a specific time and in a specific place... With the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), revelation ended, inspiration ceased, authentic Hadith stopped, and thus the divine legislative authority fell silent" (49).

The attempt of the proponents of this trend is focused on transferring and translating Western critical methods verbatim for their scriptural texts, and then applying them to the texts of the Book and the Sunnah without distinguishing the enormous differences—which were not hidden from Westerners themselves—between those texts and the Qur’an and Sunnah. Additionally, methods by their nature have a social and cultural dimension; they are an expression of the environment and the need that called for their emergence. The process of transferring and "implanting" them into Islamic sciences is a process not devoid of grave caveats, numerous risks, and failed, futile attempts, in addition to its confiscation of the originality of Islamic thought.

Universal concepts and perceptions are not Platonic ideals, nor are they meteors falling from the sky from one field of circulation to another. Rather, the general universal perceptions of any civilizational circle have two characteristics: a historical dimension, meaning the environment produces them in a specific historical circumstance; and a collective dimension, as they are the product of a joint collective effort of that environment. Historical evidence and facts have shown that "implantation" processes end in three combined evils:

1. They cause a departure and abnormality from the nature of things from a psychological perspective.
2. They are a futility of no avail from a practical perspective.
3. They pose grave risks from an ethical perspective.

Thus, interpretation remained an open project for various intellectual and philosophical currents, and a thorny issue in need of concerted efforts to agree upon a law that governs its course and guides its role.

Conclusion

This study adopted the problem of interpretation in religions, which is one of the most prominent problems in dealing with the text in various circles of religious thought, ancient and modern. The study revealed the extent of the influence of social circumstances and intellectual and philosophical currents on the course of interpretation and the formation of its various trends.

The study resulted in highlighting the danger of adopting Western methodologies and their ways of interpreting their scriptural texts, and then applying them to the texts of the Holy Qur’an without realizing the enormous differences between them. The study highlighted the urgent need to agree upon a general framework and a law that regulates the various trends of interpretation in Islamic thought in particular, and guides its course according to an original methodology derived from the texts of the Holy Qur’an and the Prophetic Sunnah.