By V.A. Mohamad Ashrof
This article examines how puritanical, literalist, and intolerant interpretations of the Quran have contributed to Islamophobia and explores the scholarly arguments advocating for more contextual, pluralist, and human rights-based readings of Islamic texts. Scholars such as Abdolkarim Soroush, Mohammed Arkoun, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, Fazlur Rahman, and Mohammad Abed al-Jabri argue that rigid interpretations can perpetuate stereotypes, fostering misunderstanding and hostility toward Islam. These scholars advocate for a dynamic approach that respects historical contexts, embraces diversity, and promotes rational and inclusive perspectives. This paper seeks to articulate these scholars’ contributions to reframing Islamic thought in ways that challenge Islamophobia.
The issue of Islamophobia—an irrational fear, hostility, or prejudice against Islam and its followers—has escalated in recent decades, exacerbated by political, social, and cultural misunderstandings. A significant contributing factor to this phenomenon is the existence of rigid, literal, and exclusivist interpretations of Islamic texts. Prominent Islamic scholars have argued that such interpretations can fuel misrepresentations and even contribute to global Islamophobia. This article examines the perspectives of five notable scholars—Abdolkarim Soroush, Mohammed Arkoun, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, Fazlur Rahman, and Mohammad Abed Al-Jabri—who critique puritanical readings of the Quran and advocate for a more contextualized, inclusive, and human-centered approach to Islamic thought. Their insights show that a shift in Islamic interpretative methodologies can help counter the spread of Islamophobia by promoting a more compassionate, pluralistic, and human rights-oriented image of Islam.
The Problem of Literalist Interpretations in Islamic Thought
Literalist interpretations of the Quran are often “set in stone,” adhering strictly to the surface of the text without considering the historical, cultural, and social layers beneath it. Such interpretations have been compared to “blinders” that restrict a broader understanding, turning the Quran’s flexible and adaptable principles into “narrow paths” that leave little room for the winds of change. Abdolkarim Soroush, an Iranian philosopher, argues that a rigid, dogmatic understanding of Islamic texts contributes to hostility and misunderstanding, thereby fuelling Islamophobia. According to Soroush, “When religion is taken literally and reduced to a rigid doctrine, it becomes an instrument for division and hostility rather than unity and peace.” (Soroush, p. 65).
Similarly, Mohammed Arkoun, an Algerian philosopher, critiques traditionalist readings of the Quran as reductionist, often ignoring the Quran’s diverse interpretive history and potential for adaptation to modern contexts. Arkoun proposes a pluralistic approach that values critical inquiry and embraces multiple interpretations, arguing that such an approach not only counters intolerance within Muslim societies but also mitigates Islamophobic perceptions from outside. He argues that “an inclusive and pluralistic approach to Islamic thought allows for a deeper understanding and the dismantling of the myths that have historically divided people of different faiths.” (Arkoun, p.47).
By moving away from rigid literalism, Arkoun believes Islamic scholarship can present a more inclusive, compassionate, and humane face of Islam, one that can serve as a “bridge across troubled waters,” helping to dispel prejudice and mistrust.
Advocating for Contextual Understanding
Fazlur Rahman, a Pakistani-American scholar, has been one of the most vocal proponents of understanding the Quran within its historical and social contexts. Rahman argues that many Quranic verses addressed the immediate needs and circumstances of 7th-century Arabian society and thus cannot be meaningfully interpreted without acknowledging this historical context. He states, “Understanding the Quran in its historical context is not a way of abandoning tradition, but rather a means of renewing it for each new generation.” (Rahman, p.147) For Rahman, contextualization is like breathing new life into ancient wisdom, keeping the spirit of the Quran alive while avoiding what he calls the “trap of rigidity.”
By advocating for a contextual understanding, Rahman counters the dangers of a static, decontextualized interpretation that risks turning Islamic teachings into a “stumbling block” for Muslims and non-Muslims alike. His approach encourages Muslims to embrace a dynamic, evolving interpretation of the Quran that respects the principles of justice, equity, and mercy in line with modern ethical standards. A contextual approach helps challenge Islamophobic narratives by portraying Islam as a faith capable of adapting to diverse cultural and social realities without compromising its core values.
Promoting Pluralism and Diversity in Islamic Thought
Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, a Sudanese-American scholar, emphasizes the importance of pluralism in Islamic jurisprudence and interpretation. An-Na’im argues that literalist readings of Islamic law often contribute to Islamophobia by reinforcing stereotypes of Islam as a monolithic, intolerant faith. His work underscores the potential for an inclusive, human rights-centered approach to Islamic law that respects cultural diversity and supports coexistence.
An-Na’im’s scholarship encourages Muslims to recognize and celebrate the diversity of Islamic traditions, interpretations, and practices that have historically coexisted within Muslim societies. “Variety is the spice of life,” and this idea of pluralism, at its heart, acts as a balm against the negative narratives often spun about Islam. By painting Islam as an “open tapestry” that weaves together diverse strands of belief and practice, An-Na’im’s approach can challenge Islamophobic narratives, demonstrating that Islam, like other major religions, accommodates a variety of cultural and intellectual perspectives.
An-Na’im emphasizes the importance of a secular state in fostering an authentic Islamic expression based on individual choice, rather than state-imposed mandates. He argues, “Forcing Islamic principles on the public does a disservice to those principles” and that Islam should “play a positive public role unfettered by state control,” thereby supporting a humanistic approach that respects freedom of belief and rejects compulsion in religion. (An-Na’im, pp. 5-7)
Emphasizing Critical Rationalism and Openness to Knowledge
In their critiques of literalist interpretations, scholars like Mohammad Abed Al-Jabri and Mohammed Arkoun advocate for a rational and critical approach to Islamic thought. Al-Jabri, a Moroccan philosopher, emphasizes the need for a rational framework within Islamic philosophy that promotes openness, flexibility, and intellectual rigor. Al-Jabri argues that critical rationalism is essential to “clearing away the cobwebs” of outdated assumptions and prejudices, thereby dispelling myths and misconceptions about Islam, both within Muslim societies and in the broader global community. In Arab-Islamic Philosophy, Al-Jabri advocates for a critical reinterpretation of religious thought, suggesting that an inclusive and pluralistic understanding of Islamic philosophy is essential for the intellectual revival of the Arab-Islamic world. He posits that “religious thought must evolve in dialogue with human rights and modernity,” reinforcing a liberal and tolerant perspective that values intellectual openness. (Al-Jabri, pp.12-14).
Arkoun similarly promotes a critical and rationalist approach to Islamic scholarship that questions dogmatic assumptions and engages with modern knowledge and scientific advancements. His vision encourages Muslims to “think outside the box” when interpreting Islamic teachings, in ways that resonate with contemporary values of equality, democracy, and human rights. This perspective provides a counter-narrative to Islamophobia by portraying Islam as a faith grounded in reason, compassion, and intellectual openness, a faith with “roots in the past but eyes on the future.”
An-Na’im’s human rights-based approach argues that the Quran’s core values align with universal principles of justice, compassion, and equality, making it compatible with modern human rights frameworks. By framing Islamic law and ethics in a manner consistent with human rights, An-Na’im demonstrates that Islam’s teachings can complement, rather than conflict with, contemporary human rights ideals. His approach is akin to “building bridges” between Islamic principles and universal human rights, showing that Islam, far from being at odds with human dignity and justice, actually upholds these values at its heart.
Breaking the Mould of Exclusivism
The collective insights of Abdolkarim Soroush, Mohammed Arkoun, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, Fazlur Rahman and Mohammad Abed al-Jabri underscore the imperative of nuanced, contextualized and inclusive interpretations of Islamic texts to effectively counter Islamophobia. Their scholarly contributions emphasize transitioning from rigid literalism to a dynamic, pluralistic and human-centered understanding of Islam, thereby dismantling exclusivist narratives. By embracing these principles, Islamic thought can project an authentic, compassionate image to the global community, reversing Islamophobic misconceptions and cultivating cross-cultural and interfaith understanding, respect and solidarity.
Bibliography
Al-Jabri, M. A, Arab-Islamic Philosophy: A Critique of Religious Thought, London: I.B. Tauris, 1999
An-Na’im, A. A. Islam and the Secular State, New York: Harvard University Press, 2008
Arkoun, M. Rethinking Islam, Boulder: Westview Press, 1994
Rahman, Fazlur, Islam and Modernity, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982
Soroush, A. Reason, Freedom and Democracy in Islam, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000
V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is a renowned Indian scholar of Islamic humanism, regularly contributing insightful articles to Counter Currents.
9 November 2024
Source: countercurrents.org