Interpreting Qur’an Literal vs Contextual
By Azher Quader
President Community Builders Council (CBC)
Chicago, IL

 

Not sure how many are familiar with Hillsdale College. It is a conservative think tank and provides free educational courses to the public on various topics dealing with the constitution and conservative themes. It has been in existence for over 150 years.

This is the first time I have seen an article dealing with Islam and Muslims in Imprimis, their official newsletter. I suspect with the open expressions of Mr Trump in the public domain against Muslims, we will see a lot more of this kind of writings in the official publications of well-heeled institutions. It is open season now. We have become the menu on the table and they are feasting on us.

What is interesting is that what is being said by Mr Trump is not only resonating among a lot of the common folks, who we may think know no better, but is being echoed by some very well educated people who have served in some very high positions of our government, and who have done their research in our scriptural texts and arrived at their conclusions after due deliberations. We may lament they are biased, but they should at least require us to review their arguments to see if they hold much water.

What is distressing on the other hand is, that while all this has been happening as an undercurrent in America for the past several years, we have had little else happening in our community except our preoccupation with interfaith dialogues, bill board messages, open mosque days and similar image building, feel good efforts. A serious discussion on at least opening ourselves up to contextualizing the verses of the Qur’an to the historic times of their revelation has rarely occurred. Instead, our mantra continues to be defensive, that every verse is for all times, has to be accepted in the literal and that our laws are frozen in time and cannot be interpreted for change with the passage of time or the changing of circumstances. Does this not remind us of the nine cloaked folks (now eight) closeted in the highest court of our nation, who ceaselessly argue between the literal and the rational, when it comes to interpreting the articles of our constitution?

So whose interpretation should we accept? The one promoted by a 'blind' sheikh, or the ones who claim to ‘see’ things differently from the perspective of changing times and current circumstances?

In medicine and science there is a principle we follow, where we value outcomes to determine the validity of our theories and beliefs. When outcomes are bad we rethink our theories and review the understanding of our beliefs. If there is no conflict between Islam and science, we should at least be willing to open our eyes to the reality of our experiences in the world we live in, to determine the validity of our interpretations, and see if these are the outcomes intentioned by the Qur’an and desired by us. Can we honestly say that such debates or discussions are even occurring in our community at any public level today? Or do we really believe that there is nothing amiss here and our outcomes will someday change for the better on their own?

If we remain resigned to the way things are, articles like the one in Imprimis defining our beliefs and us will become more common and more damaging.

May Allah guide us to a better understanding of His Guidance.