Issue No. 4 - Volume 40 - Winter (October - December 2005 / Ramadan - Dhu al-Qi'dah 1426 AH)
Islamic Research Institute, International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan

The Problematic of Interpretation in Religions

Ruqayya Taha Jabir al-Alwani

Prelude:

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 Western and Islamic thought. The study adopts a historical-analytical approach in presenting this topic, returning to the authoritative references of the followers of these religions to reach an objective, neutral perspective in tracking, explaining, and detailing as much as possible. By focusing on one of the most important axes in religious thought, the research attempts 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 becomes clearly evident when some contemporary writers attempt to project and apply these methodologies to the texts of the Holy Qur’an without distinguishing between the nature of scriptural texts on one hand, and the danger of adopting Western methodologies and applying them without considering the differences in the environment and nature of the discourse and other factors that should not be bypassed. Through its comparative approach, the study attempts to provide a distinct contribution to understanding the dimensions and risks of adopting Western interpretive methodologies and transplanting them without realizing the situational environment and nature that produced them.

Introduction:

Followers of different religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—have agreed on the importance of understanding and interpreting their sacred texts, as they represent for their adherents the infallible authority from which legal rulings can be derived and extracted. Undoubtedly, the interpretive path of texts varies according to numerous 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 indication of meaning. This stems from various other factors that collectively formed the nucleus of an independent art known as the art of interpretation or Hermeneutics in Western thought.

The art of interpretation has passed through different stages throughout history, and several factors intertwined in its formation and influenced its course and the progression of its themes. This study aims to identify the most important axes around which the art of interpreting sacred scriptural texts revolves in the different celestial religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The study also examines a number of historical and intellectual conditions that affected its course in a historical tracking that extends to the current era. The importance of this study at the present time lies specifically 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 undeniable.

The Concept of Scriptural Texts:

In Judaism, these include:
The Old Testament: This is the collection of books compiled 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, and the Writings.[^1] There are varying theories regarding the period in which these books were collected, including those linking it to the Babylonian captivity when the need for it arose.[^2] Numerous criticisms have been directed at the credibility of the Old Testament and the authenticity of its attribution, but its authority for followers of Judaism is established; it constitutes the Written Law, just as the Talmud constitutes the Oral Law in Rabbinic belief, and both Torahs form an important legislative core.

The Talmud: This consists of oral traditions transmitted through the ages via a chain of trustworthy narrators. It was compiled 150 years after Christ in the book of the Mishnah, and 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 in making any modification, alteration, or even abrogation of some Torah scriptural texts.

In Christianity, the Gospel is considered their Holy Book. Most historical accounts indicate its loss, and dozens of gospels appeared in its place between 60-125 AD. Most of these gospels were banned from circulation except for four: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Despite the doubts surrounding its authenticity even among the followers of Jesus (peace be upon him), it remains the representative of infallible authority for them, as their consensus was affirmed 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, comprising the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the thirteen Epistles of Paul, and the Catholic Epistles.

As for texts in Islamic Sharia, what is meant here 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 one of these texts in the Book and the Sunnah.[^3]

The Concept of Interpretation (Ta’wil):

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, referring to the name of the god Hermes, which in Latin means the interpreter or mediator 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]

In Islamic religious thought, Ta’wil (interpretation) for early scholars meant only the explanation of a word and the clarification of its meaning. However, later scholars agreed that Ta’wil is the shifting of a word from its literal meaning to something that contradicts it. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "Interpretation is diverting the word from its literal and real meaning to its metaphorical meaning and what contradicts its literal sense; this is the intent of the Mu'tazilites, Jahmites, and other groups of theologians (Mutakallimun), and it is common in the convention of later scholars of principles (Usul) and jurisprudence."[^7]

Early Interpretive Trends in Western 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 celestial religion established by revelation in particular. Indeed, the Greek world, despite its roots being distant from revelation, also witnessed a conflict between a similar duality, such as the conflict between reason and the gods, and between reason and matter. This conflict was inherited by Western philosophy and its traditions.[^8]

Amidst these intellectual and philosophical conflicts, a number of Greek philosophers relied on reason and its estimations and judgments. Among them was Chrysippus (200 BC), who attributed the determination of good and evil in things to reason alone. His idea is considered the first seed of the ongoing dialogue between the text and reason. A thing is not good because God commanded it; rather, 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, was known by reason, which commands what must be done and forbids what must be avoided.

Early various trends in interpretation 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. 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, compiled in the second century AD, an important part of the Jewish law revealed to Moses (peace be upon him). The Pharisees view themselves as the most committed Jewish group to the Torah without standing on the literalness of the texts; thus, they were called "liberal innovators" in understanding and interpreting the Torah.[^10] For them, revelation includes both the Written and Oral Torahs. The Pharisees advocate the necessity of using reason in interpreting and explaining the Torah to suit and confront 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 era and changing circumstances.[^11] This flexible path toward texts was a reason for the continuity and wider spread of the Pharisaic doctrine. They followed the interpretations of Ezra and Nehemiah of the Five Books, taking into account the historical transformations produced by the Babylonian captivity. They were also known for their boldness in legal reasoning (ijtihad) and deriving rulings; for this, they were accused of innovation by other Jewish sects. They issued rulings for people on matters for which there was no text in the Written Torah and attempted to adapt Judaism to the requirements of social challenges through their newly developed 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), the greatest teacher and jurist of that era. Hillel is credited with laying the foundations of what could be known as a "lenient school" in Judaism, known for its moderate approach 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 approach. 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, Hillel's school was characterized by its ability to achieve ijtihad and an understanding of sacred texts that aligned with the spirit of Jewish law and 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 (Maqasid) 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 dialectical link 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." He emphasized that revelation and reason are two paths leading to the truth in the end. He also criticized the literalist (Zahiri) 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, citing Abraham’s (peace be upon him) words: "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 (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 (Ta’wil) and his adherence to the literal meanings of texts; hence his followers were called "literalists."[^19]

In the Christian system, a number of early Church Fathers emerged who adopted Philo’s interpretive law based on reconciling reason and revelation, including: Clement of Alexandria (245 AD) and Saint Augustine, who gave reason its sphere and revelation its sphere; reason alone cannot reach the whole truth, while revelation gives complete wisdom about God. In the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas (1274 AD) 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 in the field of religious thought in Judaism and Christianity appeared on the scene. 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 (died 225 AD), who took a hostile stance toward wisdom and attempts to rationalize faith.[^20] Tertullian saw in revelation a sufficiency that made any other knowledge unnecessary; 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, Judah Halevi (1080–1141 AD)[^21] repeated this saying almost verbatim, and his writings and ideas gained wide popularity and acceptance within the Roman Catholic Church.[^22]

Later Interpretive Trends in Western Thought:

The art of interpretation in Judaism and Christianity entered a new phase with the beginnings of the Reform movement. This movement opened the way for multiple interpretations and newly developed 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; 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 Bible, thereby rendering the Church's heritage null. The idea of freedom of interpretation and interpretive pluralism within the circle of religious texts emerged among many men of the Reform movement, with varying degrees of reliance on 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 accepting 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 over 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 methodologies onto scriptural texts, concluding that many were not authentic; they also interpreted others metaphorically or allegorically. Conservative Protestants, along with the majority of Anglicans, insisted on adhering to the absolute literalness of the Book in matters of creed, history, geography, and more.[^25]

These trends met with violent reactions from followers of the "Salafi approach" in modern Jewish religious thought in particular, who considered following such interpretive freedom as leading undoubtedly 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 shifted from a source of knowledge and truth to a historical accumulation and an echo of a time and reality that should be bypassed; reason replaced religion. Thus, all knowledge was subjected to the laws, conditions, and axioms of reason. This Positivist trend in Western consciousness represented a rupture with the Church and its men, calling for the rejection of both religion and philosophy. Religion was seen as mere "Myths of Superstitions," and philosophy as a futile, wasted effort. Many Western thinkers joined this trend.[^27] Reason regained the freedom it had lost under the authority of the Church and the legislation of its men—a freedom that granted reason the right to review all prevailing beliefs and subject them to the test of criticism, analysis, and interpretation. Thus, science became the axis of Positivism, whose foundations were established by famous positivists such as Auguste Comte and Sigmund Freud (1856–1939).

Consequently, scriptural texts were viewed once again through the lens of reason and its laws; the Western mind alone is capable of reaching knowledge and truth without the need for unseen or metaphysical texts. Accordingly, many positivists excluded any possibility of miracles or the supernatural, resulting in a positivist scientific interpretation of scriptural texts, their events, and their figures. They considered all supernatural events described in the Torah to be the invention and creation of the early Church Fathers. Despite various and sometimes contradictory reactions to Positivism,[^28] its echoes and influences remained clear in Western thought, and here the problematic 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 extensive studies on sacred texts, through which they concluded various means for biblical criticism. Through these, texts containing some miracles that suggest the greatness of the Lord and His power were viewed as myths, sorcery, and perceptions indicating the incapacity of the human mind at that stage.

The Historical-Critical theory is considered one of the most prominent and dangerous trends in the field of text criticism. It appeared in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, 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 it, proposed new analyses of Torah texts and declared their explicit challenge to the authority of Jewish rabbis. Progressive Jewish circles in Berlin, Paris, and Vienna began to enjoy the Enlightenment era, in which they rejected traditional Jewish dress, the language of the Jewish ghetto, rituals, and rites; some even converted to Christianity. The Enlightenment era brought many challenges that reached the point of challenging sacred texts in Christianity and Judaism to keep pace with development and modernization.[^29]

Thus, Biblical Criticism methodologies abolished the divine authority of scriptural texts in both the Old and New Testaments. This school resulted in viewing scriptural texts as echoes of a past, vanished, and extinct history. Revelation is nothing but a historical accumulation subject to the laws of time, place, and transformations. The Torah is 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 is divine revelation, the historicity of Jesus and the Gospel, and focused on ethical behavior instead of adhering to formal doctrines as the basis of Christian life.[^31]

However, the aforementioned trend of Theological Liberalism saw two other currents emerge as a reaction to the reformist trend: the first represented in Fundamentalism and the second in Crisis Theology or Neo-Orthodoxy. 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 also connects to the Talmud—the large body of law and legends 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 to this day. Accordingly, criticism does not touch the writings of the twelfth-century philosopher Maimonides or the sixteenth-century mystic Isaac Luria. Criticism does not touch the rabbis who wrote the Talmud, whether living or dead, as they are considered the embodiment of the sacred texts that collectively contain the word of the Lord.[^32] Adherents of this fundamentalist trend in Christianity also believe in the absoluteness of sacred texts; they should not be bypassed or replaced by the variables of reality.[^33] This conservative movement rejected the historical interpretation of the Gospel and viewing it as mere historical accumulations, and it rejected attempts to interpret it in light of contemporary scientific changes and developments. Many followers 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.

However, the Western critical mind in modern times continued in the circle of doubt, built its components upon doubt, and launched from it. It became a mind that does not care for faith in a sacred text or otherwise; all texts are equally subject to all types of criticism without distinction between the sacred and the profane. Thus, an equivalence was established between sacred, literary, and other texts, and the possibility of subjecting them to various critical laws and rules without any difference at all. 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" in ancient Greek philosophy to prove that most currently circulating concepts regarding interpretation and "over-interpretation" of texts existed potentially or actually in those ancient philosophies and creeds. Every text, according to the perception he sought to root in antiquity, is an open horizon for all interpretations. Interpretations multiply with the multiplicity of interpreters and even change with the change of a single interpreter within their shell, colored by their state, the strategy of reading, and the progression of their self and consciousness.[^35] Eco starts his presentation of the concept of "unlimited interpretation" by opening any text or any truth wide to accept all interpretations, even the most contradictory, to reach the conclusion that interpretation is unlimited. With this orientation, scriptural texts lost their sanctity through the consideration of absolute equality between them and any other literary text; scriptural texts in Western thought at that time did not come from outside history or transcend it, and whatever applies to others can be applied to them. The danger of this orientation in confiscating the sanctity of the text and abolishing its legitimacy from the outset is undeniable.

Interpretive Trends in Islamic Thought:

The problematic of interpretation in Islamic religious thought was also linked to determining the connection between Revelation (Naql) and Reason ('Aql). The dialectic of interpretation is the axis of dispute between the followers of the Salaf (predecessors) approach and the general theologians (Mutakallimun). Followers of the first approach removed reason from the circle of interpreting texts except to the extent led by expressions and reports, followed by belief, compliance, and submission. Pioneers of the Salafi approach in Islam warned against the consequences of rational inquiry into the foundations of religion and creed. However, this orientation did not mean, for them, a denial of the Holy Qur’an’s call to reflection and contemplation supported by numerous verses; rather, they intended to guard against following reason and its judgments in the foundations of religion and creed, which can only be known through revelation and transmission.[^36] Thus, they preserved the absoluteness of the texts.

Interpretation in Islamic religious thought was linked to the first problematics that appeared in eras where direct contact and friction with foreign heritage occurred through translation and the transfer of Greek philosophy and the like. Among those problematics were: issues of predestination (Qada’ wa Qadar), divine attributes, the creation of the Qur’an, and so on. From here, followers of various Islamic sects resorted to religious texts—represented in the Holy Qur’an and the Prophetic Sunnah—to support their views in most cases or to respond to the views of their opponents. Early attempts began, often aimed at adapting the texts; this is a phenomenon that spanned religions and emerged in religious thought, as everyone seeks legitimacy by linking their ijtihad to the predecessors and the first or previous generation. However, the expansion of this trend led—in many cases—to the emergence of a number of "corrupt interpretations" far from the aims and objectives of the texts.

A corrupt interpretation is that which contradicts what the texts indicate and what the Sunnah brought. It is in itself a type of semantic distortion (tahrif ma'nawi) that involves diverting speech from its proper face and correctness to something else without any evidence at all, or based on a suspicion that the interpreter thinks is evidence but is not.[^37] Accordingly, corrupt interpretation—distant from the aims, goals, and higher objectives of the texts—was one of the greatest intellectual evils that afflicted Muslim societies throughout the ages and history. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (may Allah have mercy on him) says in describing the problematic of interpretation and what resulted from it at that time in his work I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in:

"It is enough for those who interpret the words of Allah and His Messenger with interpretations He did not intend and which His words do not indicate, that they spoke about Allah with their opinions and prioritized their opinions over the texts of revelation, making them a standard for the words of Allah and His Messenger. If they knew what door of evil they opened upon the Ummah with corrupt interpretations, what building of Islam they demolished with them, and what strongholds and fortresses they violated, it would be more beloved to one of them to fall from the sky to the earth than to engage in any of that. The root of the ruin of religion and the world is only from the interpretation that Allah and His Messenger did not intend with His words, nor did He indicate it was His intent. Did nations differ with their prophets except through interpretation? Has any great or small fitna (trial) occurred in the Ummah except through interpretation? From its door it entered. Was the blood of Muslims shed in trials except through interpretation? This is not exclusive to the religion of Islam alone; rather, all the religions of the Messengers remained on uprightness and correctness until interpretation entered them, bringing upon them such corruption as only the Lord of servants knows. The glad tidings of the truth of Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) prophethood were inherited in the previous books, but they subjected them to interpretations and corrupted them, as Allah the Almighty informed about them regarding distortion (tahrif), alteration (tabdil), and concealment (kitman). Distortion is the distortion of meanings through interpretations not intended by the speaker; alteration is replacing one word with another; and concealment is denying it. These three diseases are what changed religions and creeds. If you contemplate the religion of Christ, you will find that the Christians only managed to corrupt it through interpretation in a way that is almost never found in any other religion, and they entered through the door of interpretation. Likewise, the heretics of all nations only managed to corrupt the religions of the Messengers (prayers and peace be upon them) through interpretation; from its door they entered and on its basis they built."[^38]

It is clear from Ibn Qayyim’s statement that unregulated, corrupt interpretation was a gateway to change and distortion in various religions; it is a general phenomenon witnessed by all celestial religions. Through this deviation, laxity, and arbitrariness in interpreting texts, interpretation shifted from being a compliant tool for the sound understanding of texts and their goals—instead of imposing preconceived judgments and ready-made orientations upon them, and then exerting effort to understand the text and extract its meaning and the rulings resulting from those meanings with the availability of the necessary motives and mechanisms for the interpreter—to something else. This is in addition to the importance of adhering to the recognized regulations in ijtihad and interpretation. This orientation is not to be understood as a call to restrict minds or ijtihad, or a call to close its door; rather, it is intended to call the attention of researchers to the fact that freedom in ijtihad and interpretation does not mean abolishing regulations and proceeding according to desires or purely rational reasonings. Rather, it is necessary to summon the regulations that preserve for interpretation and understanding their field 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.

What happened in Islamic thought during that period 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 freedom in interpreting texts, which extended to include the circle of traditional unseen (ghaybi) texts, and the process of interpretation became multi-faceted and multi-pathed. Thus began the shift from direct interest in the 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 the interpreter and interest in responding to and refuting their interpretations, ideas, and creed if necessary. The danger of this interpretive path did not appear in that era, as a group of previous scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) confronted many false trends in interpretation in an attempt to clarify their falsehood and deviation. Deviant interpretations related to issues of creed and attributes in Islamic religious thought were besieged by laying down the rules of the regulating law of interpretation. However, efforts to discuss and develop those regulations did not continue outside the scope of issues of attributes and the like, so multiple interpretations continued without a governing regulation in other aspects of the texts, which focused on transactions (mu'amalat), organizations, and so on.

Later Interpretive Trends in Islamic Thought:

Muslim societies in later periods of their history witnessed major transformations with the march of the modern Western civilizational challenge. Modernity emerged in society during the nineteenth century and beyond as a trend attempting to propose change to the Muslim mindset in all fields. Modernity is a phenomenon of Western origin and birth, revolving around the complex of "Western-centrism" and considering it a reference to be consulted in every small and large matter.[^42] The responses of many thinkers in the Islamic world to modernity varied: either by attempting to refute it, ground 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 authentic view that summons 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 afflicted Muslim societies at that time. Adherents of this trend resorted to interpreting many Qur’anic texts and Prophetic Hadiths according to the philosophies prevailing at the time, and this appears clearly in texts related to women in particular.

The trend of the semantic autonomy of the text and the receiver's freedom of understanding and interpretation also emerged, even giving full freedom to the interpreter to view the texts and the validity of that autonomy regardless of its transgressions.

"...Religion provides a suggestion that inspires, 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 (ilm al-kalam) into anthropology (ilm al-inasah) 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, and he spoke of a multi-pathed hermeneutics in interpretation useful for understanding the history of interpretations as a circulation of the horizons of the past and present,[^44] in an attempt to besiege the role of the Church men and their absolute authority in interpretation. Thus, the spread of Protestantism contributed to the emergence of the phenomenon of semantic autonomy, which 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 relationship of the receiver to it alone. Gadamer dedicated his works to research in Greek philosophy and the problematic 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 also gave extreme importance to interpretation, thereby challenging the importance and sanctity of scriptural texts.

Despite the many criticisms and challenges 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 how they want. Multiple theories in interpretation emerged, finding their legitimacy in the principles of the reformers as well as in modern Western society based on individualism and the sanctification of individual opinions and respect for individual freedom of expression and others.[^46] Interpretation is a subjective mental effort in which the religious text is subjected to the receiver's perceptions, concepts, and ideas. This new philosophy wishes 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 standard; rather, every receiver becomes a law unto themselves.

What many adherents of modern critical trends fell into when dealing with the texts of the Qur’an and Sunnah is due to the inability to understand the possibility of the Holy Qur’an addressing different generations throughout the ages with one 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 era, its variables, and the prevailing philosophies.[^47] Adherents of this trend in interpretation relied on the claim that the meaning of the text changes according to conditions, circumstances, 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 commensurate with the development of the individual in their life stages and commensurate 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 Qur’an and Sunnah. Texts were viewed as a human construct that suited the "childhood stage" of the mind, and then the mind bypassed that stage, so the texts became historical, corresponding to the stage in which they appeared. The rulings of legislation in the Qur’an are not absolute and were not legislation of a mere absolute act; every verse relates to a specific incident, so it is specified by the reason for revelation (sabab al-nuzul) and is not absolute. All verses of the Qur’an were revealed for reasons—i.e., for reasons that necessitated them—whether they included a legal ruling, a fundamental principle, 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 be upon him), revelation ended, the Sunnah ceased, and thus the divine legislative authority fell silent.[^49]

The attempt of the adherents of this trend focuses on transferring and translating Western critical methodologies in their entirety for their scriptural texts and then applying them to the texts of the Book and the Sunnah without distinguishing between the massive differences—which were not hidden from Westerners themselves—between those texts and the Qur’an and Sunnah. In addition, methodologies 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 transplanting them into an Islamic environment is a process not without grave caveats, numerous risks, and failed futile attempts, in addition to its confiscation of Islamic intellectual authenticity. Universal concepts and perceptions are not eternal Platonic ideals, nor are they meteorites falling from the sky from one sphere of circulation to another. Rather, the universal perceptions inspiring any civilizational circle have two features: a historical dimension, meaning the environment produces them in a specific historical circumstance, and a collective dimension, as they are the product of a common collective effort of that environment. Historical evidence and facts have shown that transplantation processes end in three combined evils:

They bequeath a departure and abnormality from the nature of things from a psychological perspective.
They are a futility of no avail from a practical perspective.
They pose grave risks from an ethical perspective.[^50]

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 problematic of interpretation in religions, which is one of the most prominent problematics of dealing with the text in various circles of religious thought, ancient and modern. The study revealed the extent of the influence of social situational factors and intellectual and philosophical currents in forging interpretation and shaping its various trends. The study resulted in the danger of mimicking 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 massive differences between them. It highlighted the urgent need to agree upon a general framework for a law that regulates the various trends of interpretation in Islamic thought in particular, and guides its path according to an authentic methodology derived from the texts of the Holy Qur’an and the Prophetic Sunnah.

[^1]: See Irfan Abdul Hamid: Judaism: A Historical Presentation and Modern Movements in Judaism, Dar al-Bayariq, Beirut, 1417 AH / 1997 AD, p. 71. See also our published research, Ruqayya Taha Jabir: "Family Rulings between Islam and Western Traditions: A Comparative Analytical Study within the Historical Path," Journal of Islamic Studies, Islamic Research Institute, International Islamic University, Islamabad, Issue 3, Autumn, 2000 AD.
[^2]: Ahmad Shalabi: Judaism, Maktabat al-Nahda al-Misriyya, 8th Edition, Cairo, 1988 AD, p. 254.
[^3]: For the definition of texts among scholars of principles (Usul), see Ruqayya Taha Jabir: The Impact of Custom in Understanding Texts... Women's Issues as a Model, PhD thesis under publication, International Islamic University Malaysia, 2000 AD, p. 22 onwards. See also: Khalifa Babikr al-Hassan: Specifying Texts with Interpretive Evidences among Scholars of Principles, Maktabat Wahba, Cairo, 1993 AD, p. 5; Muhammad Adib Salih: Interpretation of Texts in Islamic Jurisprudence, al-Maktab al-Islami, Beirut, 3rd ed, 1984 AD, vol. 1, p. 50.
[^4]: Webster's International Encyclopedia 99 Cd, Hermeneutics.
[^5]: Hermeneutics in the definition of: Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, trans; Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids: Eardmans, 1964, II, 661-666. Carl R. Holladay, Harper's Bible Dictionary, Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1985, p. 384. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1979, 1:59.
[^6]: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII. Online Edition, 1999, Kevin Knight. Hermeneutics.
[^7]: Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya: Al-Sawa'iq al-Mursala 'ala al-Jahmiyya wa al-Mu'attila, edited by: Ali bin Muhammad al-Dakhil, Dar al-Asima, Riyadh, 1991 AD, vol. 1, p. 79.
[^8]: Arberry. A. J. The Revelation and Reason in Islam, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1957, pp. 8-9.
[^9]: Gretchen A. Shapiro, The Pharisees and their Wisdom, p1.
[^10]: See: Irfan Abdul Hamid: Judaism, p. 100.
[^11]: Encyclopedia Britannica Cd, 1999, Hillel. (Translated with adaptation).
[^12]: See Irfan Abdul Hamid Judaism, p. 101.
[^13]: Robert M. Seltzer, 1980, p218.
[^14]: A number of writers believe that these rules existed at an early time preceding the era of Prince Hillel, but the reason for attributing them to him is that he was the first to record them. See: http: yashanet.com/studies/revstudy/hillel.htm, The Seven Rules of Hillel. (Link no longer active).
[^15]: Britannica Cd, Philo Judaeus.
[^16]: Encarta Encyclopedia Cd, 97. Philo.
[^17]: Britannica Cd, Philo Judaeus.
[^18]: Old Testament, Genesis: 16/6.
[^19]: Irfan Abdul Hamid: Judaism, previous reference, p. 97. See also by the author: "The Salafi Approach in Religions and the Rules of Religious Philosophy," al-Tajdid, Year 3: Issue 5 (1999 AD). See also: Britannica Cd, Antirabbinic reactions.
[^20]: Britannica Cd, Tertullian, assessment. Encarta Cd, 97, Tertullian.
[^21]: Irfan Abdul Hamid: The Scientific Method and its Approaches in the Holy Qur’an, p. 21.
[^22]: Jacob Neusner, The Way of Torah, Ibid, p. 127.
[^23]: G. R. Potter, Zwingli, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984, p. 295. See also: W. G. Kummel, The New Testament; The History of the Investigation of its Problems, Nashville, New York, 1972, pp. 22-23.
[^24]: G. Ebeling, The Meaning of Biblical Theology, Word and Faith, SCM, London, 1963, p. 82.
[^25]: Encarta Cd. Protestantism.
[^26]: Irfan Abdul Hamid: The Salafi Approach, previous reference, pp. 17-18.
[^27]: Encarta Cd, Genesis. (The reference here seems general, perhaps referring to the context of the Enlightenment and the challenge to religious texts).
[^28]: Among the Church figures who addressed this issue: Pius XII (1939-1958) Encarta Cd. Pius XII.
[^29]: David Landau: Jewish Fundamentalism: Doctrine and Power, translated by Majdi Abdul Karim, Maktabat Madbouli, Cairo, 1414 AH / 1994 AD, p. 33.
[^30]: E. Krentz, The Historical Critical Method, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1975, p. 1. I. H. Marshall, New Testament Interpretation, Paternoster Press, Carlisle, 1992, p. 126.
[^31]: Encarta Cd, Modernism and Protestantism.
[^32]: Landau, previous reference, vol. 2, p. 88 onwards.
[^33]: Encarta Cd Fundamentalism.
[^34]: Umberto Eco, Interpretation and over-interpretation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994, p. 23.
[^35]: Quoted from al-Hassan al-Mukhtar, "Umberto Eco and Infinite Interpretation," al-Bayan magazine, Issue 64.
[^36]: See details in: Irfan Abdul Hamid, The Salafi Approach, p. 24.
[^37]: See Ibn Qayyim: Al-Sawa'iq al-Mursala, vol. 1, p. 187; Muhammad bin Ahmad ibn al-Najjar, Sharh al-Kawkab al-Munir, edited by: Muhammad al-Zuhayli, Nazih Hammad, Scientific Research Center at King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia, 1400 AH / 1980 AD, vol. 3, p. 461.
[^38]: Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya: I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in, edited by: Taha Abdul Ra'uf, Dar al-Jil, Beirut, 1973 AD, vol. 4, pp. 249-250 onwards.
[^39]: Ibn Taymiyyah: Muqaddima fi Usul al-Tafsir, edited by: Fawwaz Ahmad Zumurli, Dar Ibn Hazm, 1994 AD, p. 73.
[^40]: Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya: I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in, vol. 4, p. 249.
[^41]: Muhammad bin Ali al-Shawkani: Al-Sayl al-Jarrar al-Mutadaffiq 'ala Hada'iq al-Azhar, edited by: Mahmoud Ibrahim Zayid, Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, Beirut, n.d., vol. 1, p. 20. It is worth noting that the origin of this hadith is found in the encouragement of judges and rulers and has been reported with all its wordings in this field.
[^42]: Ruqayya Taha Jabir: "Modernity and its Impact on Women's Issues," al-Bayan magazine, August, 2001 AD.
[^43]: Mohammed Arkoun: The Dialectic of the Qur’an, Dar al-Tali'a, Beirut, p. 206.
[^44]: Mustafa Taj al-Din: "The Qur’anic Text and the Problematic of Interpretation," Islamiyat al-Ma'rifa, Issue 14, 1998 AD, p. 19.
[^45]: Gadamer, Hans George. Truth and Method. Trans. By Weinsheimer, Joel and Marshal. Donald, Continuum, New York, 2nd ed, 1989.
[^46]: Wilfred Cantwell Smith, What is Scripture? Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1993, p. 87.
[^47]: See the articles of the adherents of this trend: Nasr Abu Zayd, The Philosophy of Interpretation: A Study in the Interpretation of the Qur’an by Muhyi al-Din ibn Arabi, Beirut, 1983 AD, p. 5 onwards; and see by the author, Problems of Reading and Mechanisms of Interpretation, Beirut, 1992 AD, p. 228.
[^48]: See Muhammad Shahrur: The Book and the Qur’an: A Contemporary Reading, al-Ahali for Printing, Publishing and Distribution, Damascus, 1st ed, 1990 AD, p. 580. The author says in this context: "Islamic legislation is a civil, human, Hanifi, evolving legislation that is consistent with people's desires and their degrees of historical, social, economic, and political development and recognizes people's customs..." p. 580. See also Dr. Hassan Hanafi: Heritage and Renewal... A Position on the Ancient Heritage, al-Anglo Egyptian Bookshop, Egypt, 3rd ed, 1987 AD, p. 33 onwards.
[^49]: Muhammad Said al-Ashmawi: Landmarks of Islam, Cairo, 1989 AD, p. 112 onwards. He has other works revolving around the same ideas and proposals; see for example: The Islamic Caliphate, Cairo, 1990 AD. For more examples of these statements, see: Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, Critique of Religious Discourse, Sina Publishing House, Egypt, 1992 AD, p. 82 onwards.
[^50]: (These three points are a conclusion or summary by the author; there is no direct reference for them in the footnotes).