14 July 2003
Don't Take This Literally
Via Graham Lester, a knowledgeable and detailed analysis by "Fatima" of the Qur'an's role in Islamic law that is well worth reading. Fatima's key point is that "the Qur'an itself contains rather little actual law, and much of that is either vague or contradictory...". Intrepretation must therefore derive from other sources and authorities:
This is where hadiths, tafsir, and fiqh take over. They decide which verses are to be taken literally and which are to be taken more symbolically (and even which verses are to be taken as binding law and which as mere suggestions), but more importantly, they also mention the context and the time the verses were revealed to Muhammad. The guiding principle is that the later verses supercede the earlier ones; thus, wine is strictly forbidden because the verse prohibiting it was revealed later than the ones that grudgingly permit it. This is called the principle of abrogation. The context of revelation also helps to know when the law should be applied.
She also discusses at length the complete integration of Islamic law with Islamic life, a point which Bernard Lewis has made again and again.
Fatima contrasts the role of authoritative interpretation and historical sources in Islam with what she calls the "literalist approach" of (evangelical) Protestant Christianity. But I think her contrast is mistaken. In fact, I think one lesson here is that sacred documents, by their nature and history, are replete with vagueness and contradiction and thus require a brutal act of interpretation if they are to be implemented. This applies as well to the religious and the secular, to the Bible and the U.S. Constitution. Whether one hopes to use a "literal interpretation" or "original understanding" of the text, the text alone is insufficient. The sources and authorities that supplement the text may vary, but the basic action is the same. The histories of Christianity, Islam, and American Consitutional law show in each case an ongoing struggle for dominance among different interpretations. Some rise, some fall, some rise again, others are forgotten. This is an evolutionary process.
When a societal philosophy privileges a current or historical authority above all else, there is no recourse to the judgment of the dominant interpreters, no frame of reference by which those interpreters can be assessed. For example, the incompatibility between creationism and science rests not only on their different views of life but on a fundamentally different basis of truth, evidence, and argument. One cannot be falsified by its own rules, the other can. Conversation between these two views can thus lead in one direction only. Similarly, the precepts of liberal democracy and of shari'ah can co-exist but not overlap. One does not have to accept a "clash of civilizations" to see that overlapping interests will lead to a conflict that cannot be resolved through dialogue alone. I find this thoroughly troubling.
Posted by Chris at 03:32 AM on 14 July 2003
