Guest post by ZEESHAN RESHAMWALA
Many Interpretations are Still Better Than One
[Hasan Suroor suggests in an op-ed that one of the causes of Islamist violence is the ambiguity of the Quran and the hadith, adding that perhaps it is time to develop an “authorised” version of the Islamic tradition. This article critiques Suroor’s assumption that it is possible to achieve a “pure” interpretation of a text, whether it be from a religious tradition or otherwise. In addition, it argues against Suroor’s tendency to imagine violence as a “medieval” phenomenon, and world-history as a deterministic forward-moving arrow.]
Hasan Suroor suggests that the problem of Islamist fundamentalism and the violence that follows in its wake can be solved by untangling the multiple interpretations of ambiguous Islamic texts. In his op-ed in The Hindu (29 September), “Islam and its Interpretations,” Suroor points out this apparent paradox: that although on the one hand Muslims cite verses and hadith that provide injunctions against violence, on the other hand a more violent strain of believers (such as the Taliban) are also able to cite Quranic verses and hadith that justify their violence. The problem, he claims, does not lie completely with the manner in which Islamic texts are interpreted, but instead with the fact that the Quran is an extremely ambiguous text, arranged athematically, and whose meaning is often dependent on the context of each individual revelation. More so the hadiths, written down from the sayings of Mohammed, are of variable authenticity. The lack of a single authoritative version of Islamic texts, says Suroor, leaves the tradition “open for fanatics to distort at will.”
Suroor laments that unlike Christianity, which surpassed its violent origins through the Renaissance and Enlightenment, Islam has been unable or unwilling to revise its traditions, and thus remains not only violent, but historically backward. And so Suroor suggests a remedy: Let us compose a standard version of the Islamic tradition, he argues:
“The way out is for an Islamic equivalent of the New Testament. Learned Islamic scholars need to put their heads together and present basic scriptures in a manner that the meaning and context of every “aayt” and every Hadith is made unambiguously clear, leaving no room for misinterpretation or misrepresentation. This annotated text should then be declared as the authorised version of Islamic beliefs”
In making this argument Suroor relies on the comfortable fiction that it is possible to produce an unambiguous interpretation of any text. In truth, the question of interpretation, be it for the Quran or for Beowulf, is always open. Furthermore, Suroor outright ignores the relationship between interpretation and structures of power and authority. Who are the “Learned Islamic scholars” in his imagined conference–from where do they derive their authority? The extremists have their scholars as well. Moreover, Islam and Muslims are not a monolithic, organized entity. Were such an “authorised” version of Islamic tradition to be produced, how would the thousands of diverse Islamic communities be induced to follow that version–and more specifically, what sort of violence (both physical or conceptual) would that entail?
I have one other criticism of Suroor’s argument. He implicitly subscribes to a teleological vision of history that uses the trajectory of Western Europe and Christianity as the normative yardstick for the development of civilization. This is why he is able to pretend that the violence committed in the present day by people claiming to be Muslims is a sign of medieval backwardness unmitigated by the salutary effects of cultural development such as the Enlightenment and the Renaissance. This idea: that extremists are violent because Islam is stuck in a medieval time-warp, is the very one which allows fundamentalists of another sort to tar all Muslims with the same brush and imagine they are all backwards, out of step with the tide of history. Of course, this characterization of “medieval” itself is problematic and does disservice to the individuals and cultures that lived in what we call the medieval period. The pretense that violence is medieval allows us to comfortably shield ourselves from the possibility that the institutions, structures of power, and political formations and decisions of our present supposedly enlightened times are complicit to some extent in the occurrences of violence around the world.
Finally, Suroor’s impulse towards an “authorised” version of Islamic tradition is in itself a dangerous fundamentalist impulse. In my opinion, if we are talking of ideals and fantasies, it is more enlightened to imagine an Islamic renaissance in which the essential ambiguity of the source texts is recognized and celebrated, where multiple and conflicting interpretations are not only allowed to co-exist, but also encouraged. Because, so far as the extremists are concerned, much of their violence seems to embody their attempt to force their monolithic interpretation of the text onto the plural, diverse, disorderly world.
Zeeshan Reshamwala is a PhD student at the University of Denver, Colorado.
KAFILA - COLLECTIVE EXPLORATIONS SINCE 2006 
Zeeshan very rightly pointed out the flaw of Hasan Suroor’s article, what Hasan suroor is prescribing is not a solution, it is a problem in itself, for example Jamaat -e- Islami Hind and other organizations like this interpreting Islam according to his political orientation and they want people accept it. They want a singular narrative, because a singular narrative helps their agenda. I think this is impossible for any body to eliminate the scope of different interpretation of a text, if text is there, interpretation is there. A text is always moving with time and time has context. And time tells you how to interpret the text. With a same text you show the flaw of the interpreter of the same text. This is the beauty of text.
LikeLike
Is Sarwar Khan suggesting that the violent interpretation is acceptable?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reshamwala is right that it would be very difficult for Muslims to produce an unambiguous interpretation of our holy texts. We do not have institutions that have the authority to speak for all Muslims. However just as the extremists have their interpretations which they tout from the rooftops, we the moderate-liberal-progressive Muslims too must continue to articulate and advocate our understanding as derived or gleaned from our scriptures. We must especially put emphasis on denunciation of violence, coercion and intolerance. We must condemn all apostasy laws and blasphemy laws. We must be strong advocates of gender equality, respect for the religions of others, minority rights and human rights. Being reformers, we may even go a step further than medieval laws and advocate abolition of the death penalty. And we should declare allegiance to the country we live in to be a fundamental Islamic principle.
LikeLike
Well put. Suroor’s article made me uncomfortable right away when I read it.
LikeLike
I too disagree with Mr. Suroor, but on a different level. I think too much emphasis on the texts is the real problem with all religions, including Islam. What is the guarantee that an “authentic” and “correct” interpretation of the scriptures will lead to a new testament that is pure and devoid of violent and regressive ideas?
My rather shallow reading on Prophet’s life tells me that he and his army has done everything that IS is doing today. They have raided caravans, kept war prisoners and their women and kids as slaves, executed or exiled tribes in Medina that went against him. On his return to Mecca he conquered neighboring areas and converted virtually the whole of Arabia to Islam at the tip of the sword, and destroyed their temples and idols. So, is an “authentic” interpretation of Quran and Hadiths going to yield a more peaceful version of Islam. I am afraid not. In my view, an inaccurate, but more tolerant version of scriptures is preferable if that is possible :)
I think the key is to identify that these are man-made texts and Prophet was but a normal man like us, perhaps a wise one and a great leader, but nevertheless a product of the violent culture that existed in Arabia at the time. Treat the scriptures for what they are worth, archaic philosophical texts with ideas on personal conduct, charity, God etc. Read them if you must, but accept only time-tested and progressive values and reject the rest, just as you would do on reading a philosophical text by Plato, Kant, or Bertrand Russel.
If this seems like a pipe-dream the only other option is probably for the liberal-progressive Muslims to start a ‘misinformation’ campaign that tries to interpret Islam as a religion of peace(pun intended).. And perhaps some political stability and the onslaught by the ‘religion of materialism’ would do some good too…
Forgive my irreverence, but being a rational thinker, I have the same irreverence for all religions including the one I was born into…
LikeLike
Zeeshan, well written (quite elaborately you have challenged his analysis and the yardsticks he has used as a parameter and also the childish simplicity of his idea of uniformity – quite reminds me of the days of discussions on changing the Quran / interpretations – at my law school in Kolkata). Hasan Suroor’s article on Islam and its interpretation” should be read in the context of his analysis (rather a shabby one) of ISIS in his article “Under the Shadow of the Caliphate”.
According to me, the real issue is that Islam (unlike other religions) challenges the concept of “nation states” and empowers an individual to claim the rights and freedoms bestowed on the individual under his religion, if need be through struggle through Jihad – which concept has been used in varying contexts. Given the present stage of development of some modern nation states where human rights have taken a back seat and economic growth (perceived or momentary) are prioritised and in regions which have seen the infusion of democratic processes and co-opted revolutions – the need is of a conformist populace and for this purpose one needs to render entire populations pacifist – what better precedent than to begin with “taming” Islam – is thought of this school. Suroor’s article tries to propagate this school’s objectives from an Indian context – Hindutva groups want submission and a pacifist minority derobed of its theological inspiration (read minus Islam).
Suroor in his second last paragraph states as follows: “The Koranic text, in the form of “aayts’’ (verses), is not thematically linked nor provides context with the result that an “aayt” which might have originated in a specific context is sometimes contradicted by another “aayt” on the subject but stated in a different context.” Then he goes on to propagate that a human interpretation of the Quran(-e-pak) will fix the problem of what Quran(-e-pak) has to say.
Let us take the example of the above qoute from his article and present an analysis of what Suroor is trying to convey: “1. Aayat’s are not thematically linked in the Quran(-e-pak); 2. Quran(e-pak) does not provide the context of the Aayat’s. Now let us stop here for a second. If the Quran(e-pak) does not provide the context of an “Aayat”, I fail to understand how Suroor could even write the next part of the sentence i.e. “with the result that an “aayt” which might have originated in a specific context is sometimes contradicted by another “aayt” on the subject but stated in a different context”. It is a “logical suicide”. If contexts are not provided then how did he Suroor conclude that the contexts are different? An assumption might very well have been the case, but to conclude on a topic that is real and tangible – one cannot rely on assumptions!!!
Anyway wonder, if Suroor at all researched well on his article!!!!
LikeLike