Necessity of Forging a Humanistic and Liberatory Quranic Hermeneutics

By V.A. Mohamad Ashrof, New Age Islam 20 August 2025 In the crucible of South Africa’s anti-apartheid struggle, progressive Muslim activists faced a profound hermeneutical challenge. Their deep solidarity with non-Muslim comrades in the fight for justice seemed to clash with a surface reading of Quranic verses like 5:51, which warns against taking Christians and Jews as awliya’ (allies or protectors). Rather than abandoning either their faith or their struggle, these activists engaged in a dynamic act of reinterpretation. They understood the verse not as a timeless ban on interfaith cooperation, but as a historically specific warning against political alliances that could betray the community during a period of existential conflict. In their context, justice required solidarity, and they interpreted their sacred text in a manner that affirmed this ethical imperative. This act of contextual, justice-oriented interpretation was not a departure from tradition but an embodiment of its deepest, most dynamic spirit—a spirit rooted in the fundamental reality that a sacred text requires human engagement to become a living guide. This paper argues that the interpretation of the Quran is an irreducibly human, historically situated, and ethically demanding enterprise. It builds upon the foundational insight articulated by the fourth Caliph, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, amidst the political and hermeneutical crisis at the Battle of Siffin. Faced with opponents who weaponized the physical scripture by hoisting it on their lances, ‘Ali declared, “This is the Quran, written in straight lines... it does not speak with a tongue; it needs interpreters and interpreters are people” (Al-Razi, p.248). This statement captures the central thesis of this paper: the divine text, in its material form, is silent. It only acquires a voice through the active engagement of human interpreters who are themselves shaped by the “inescapable baggage and conviviality of the human condition.” This interpretive process is not a neutral act of excavation but an active construction of meaning, profoundly influenced by the prevailing power structures and ideologies of any given era, including patriarchy, autocracy, and modern capitalism. By deconstructing the myth of a single, "plain text" meaning and drawing on the insights of philosophical hermeneutics and contemporary reformist Muslim thought, this paper will chart a course for a progressive, liberatory, and humanistic hermeneutic. Such an approach does not abandon tradition but engages it critically, seeking to unlock the Quran's overarching ethical vision of justice, compassion, and human dignity for the challenges of our time. It is a call to embrace our role not as passive recipients of a fixed meaning, but as responsible trustees of a divine message that must be understood and actualized anew in every generation. From Mute Text to Fused Horizons The debate over Quranic meaning is not a modern phenomenon. The crisis at Siffin, where the Kharijites’ slogan La Ḥukma Illa Li-Llah (“Judgment belongs to God alone”) championed a form of literalism, established the central problematic from the dawn of Islamic history: who interprets, and by what method? ‘Ali’s response—that “interpreters are people”—was an early acknowledgment of the human element that is philosophically unavoidable in any act of reading. This reality gave birth to the sophisticated Islamic sciences of Tafsir (exegesis) and Usul al-Fiqh (principles of jurisprudence), which are, in essence, methodologies for managing the human role in understanding the divine word. The classical tradition itself developed tools that implicitly recognized the historicity of the text and the necessity of context. The science of asbab al-nuzul (occasions of revelation) sought to anchor verses in the specific historical circumstances that prompted them, preventing decontextualized and universalized application. The distinction between Meccan verses (focused on theology and ethics under persecution) and Medinan verses (focused on law and social order in a nascent state) demonstrated an awareness of the text’s diachronic development in response to the community's evolving reality. Furthermore, the Prophetic tradition itself sanctioned interpretive reasoning (ijtihad). In the famous hadith regarding the Banu Qurayza expedition, the Prophet Muhammad instructed his companions not to pray the afternoon prayer until they reached their destination. When some companions, fearing the prayer time would lapse, reasoned that the Prophet’s intent was to urge haste and prayed en route, while others took the command literally and prayed late, the Prophet validated both sincere efforts, rebuking neither group (Bukhari 946). This event established a foundational precedent for legitimate interpretive diversity based on reasoned attempts to discern divine intent. The German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer provides a powerful philosophical framework for this process with his concept of the "fusion of horizons" (Gadamer, p.306). A text possesses its own "horizon"—the world of its origin, with its language, culture, and immediate concerns. The Quran's horizon is 7th-century Arabia. The interpreter, in turn, brings their own horizon—their contemporary world, with its unique knowledge, questions, and "prejudices". For Gadamer, these prejudices are not merely negative biases but the very starting point for any understanding. Meaning is not simply found in the text; it is produced in the dialogical event where these two horizons meet and merge. Applying this to Quranic hermeneutics is revelatory. It explains why the great classical exegetes like al-Tabari (d. 923) and modern reformers like Fazlur Rahman (d. 1988) could produce vastly different, yet intellectually rigorous, interpretations. They were engaged in different fusions, asking different questions born of their distinct historical horizons. This Gadamerian model dismantles the positivist myth of a purely objective interpretation, which presumes an interpreter can shed their own context to discover the singular "original intent" of the author. As Khaled Abou El Fadl argues, claiming to have perfectly captured God’s singular, unchanging intent is a form of theological arrogance that "silences God" by replacing the infinite potential of the divine text with a single, finite human construction (Abou El Fadl, p.15). The interpretive act thus becomes an ethical one, demanding humility and a conscious awareness of one's own historicity. The authority of an interpretation, from this perspective, derives not from a claim to finality but from the transparency of its methods and its coherence with the text’s overarching moral vision. Hegemony and the Distortion of the Sacred Word While Gadamer highlights the productive nature of the interpretive dialogue, a critical sociological lens reveals that this dialogue is never conducted on a level playing field. It occurs within a web of power relations. Drawing on Antonio Gramsci’s concept of hegemony (Gramsci, p.12) and Jurgen Habermas’s theory of ideology critique (Habermas 1, p.100-105), we can see how dominant social structures—patriarchy, autocracy, capitalism—have consistently shaped Quranic interpretation to produce meanings that legitimize the status quo. These hegemonic interpretations are then naturalized and presented as the only authentic, "common sense" reading of the text. Patriarchy: The most pervasive hegemonic force in the history of Tafsir has been patriarchy. For centuries, a scholarly tradition produced almost exclusively by men living in patriarchal societies has interpreted the Quran in ways that reinforce male authority. The verse stating that men are Qawwamun over women (4:34) has been overwhelmingly read as a divine sanction for male rule and female subordination. This reading, however, required systematically downplaying the Quran’s powerful and repeated assertions of the ontological equality of men and women, who are created from a "single soul" (Nafsin Wahidah, 4:1) and are presented as equal partners in faith and righteousness (33:35, 3:195). Feminist Muslim scholars have performed a powerful ideology critique of this tradition. Asma Barlas, in "Believing Women" in Islam, argues that patriarchal interpretations rest on a flawed theological premise that implicitly conflates divinity with masculinity. By "unreading" these patriarchal layers, she demonstrates that a God who is absolutely just and beyond gender cannot sanction the systemic injustice of patriarchy (Barlas, p.184-188). Amina Wadud, in Qur’an and Woman, pioneers a holistic methodology that insists on reading individual verses within the context of the Quran’s overarching worldview. When 4:34 is read through the lens of the Quran’s core principles of justice (Adl) and mutual partnership (Awliya’, 9:71), the meaning of Qiwamah shifts from hierarchical authority to a functional responsibility of financial provision, contingent and not absolute (Wadud, p.69). Their work reveals that patriarchal readings are not derived from the text but imposed upon it by the hegemonic assumptions of the interpreters. Autocracy and Feudalism: Following the early Caliphal period, the Islamic world was largely ruled by dynastic monarchies and empires. In this context, interpretations that legitimized the ruler’s absolute authority flourished. The command to "obey God, and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you" (uli al-amr minkum, 4:59) was transformed from an injunction for orderly governance under a just, consultative leadership into a divine mandate for unconditional obedience to the sovereign, no matter how tyrannical. This quietist hermeneutic, which prioritized stability over justice, served the interests of the ruling elite by neutralizing the Quran’s potent critiques of tyranny, exemplified in the recurring narrative of Moses confronting Pharaoh. The Quranic principle of consultation (42:38), a cornerstone of political ethics, was similarly reinterpreted and reduced from a broad-based requirement for participatory governance to a mere formality at the ruler's discretion. Capitalism and Modernity: In the contemporary era, the hegemony of global capitalism has subtly shaped new interpretive trends. The Quran’s radical critiques of wealth concentration (9:34), exploitation, and usury (Riba, 2:275-279) are often reinterpreted to accommodate modern financial systems. The Islamic finance industry, for instance, has developed complex instruments that formally comply with the letter of the prohibition against interest while arguably replicating the function and spirit of a debt-based capitalist economy. This formalistic hermeneutic stands in contrast to a more justice-oriented reading, which sees the prohibition of Riba as part of a broader call for economic justice and the circulation of wealth throughout all layers of society, not just "among the rich among you" (59:7). This demonstrates how even in the modern world, interpretations can be moulded to align with the dominant economic ideology, often blunting the text’s potential for systemic social critique. Deconstructing the Myth of the 'Plain Text' One of the most powerful rhetorical tools employed to enforce hegemonic interpretations is the appeal to the "plain," "literal," or "obvious" meaning of the text. This move attempts to shut down debate by framing one’s own interpretation as self-evident and divinely mandated, while dismissing all others as subjective deviation. However, a closer look at language, the Quranic text itself, and the sociology of knowledge reveals the "plain text" to be a potent myth. First, language itself is inherently polysemic and metaphorical. The Arabic of the Quran is particularly rich in semantic depth, where a single root word can carry a wide range of meanings depending on context. The verb Daraba in 4:34, for example, is often translated monolithically as "to strike," but its semantic field in classical Arabic includes "to set forth an example," "to travel," and "to separate." The choice of which meaning to apply is an interpretive act, guided by the reader’s broader ethical and theological commitments, not a simple linguistic fact. To claim one meaning is the only "plain" one is to obscure this interpretive choice. Second, the Quran itself attests to its own interpretive complexity. Verse 3:7 famously distinguishes between foundational, clear-cut verses (Muhkamat) and ambiguous, allegorical, or multi-layered ones (Mutashabihat). It explicitly states that the text is not uniformly "plain," thereby inviting and necessitating a process of thoughtful interpretation (Ta’wil). The Quran’s frequent use of parables (Amthal) further underscores that it is not a simple rulebook but a rich literary text that demands contemplation (47:24) to unlock its deeper meanings. Third, the very perception of "plainness" is socially located. What seems plain and obvious is often a reflection of the interpreter's own ingrained cultural assumptions and social position. The South African scholar Farid Esack, developing a liberation theology from the context of the anti-apartheid struggle, powerfully demonstrates this point. Esack argues that a truly authentic engagement with the Quran requires praxis—active struggle for justice in solidarity with the oppressed (mustad`afun, 4:75). From this vantage point, the "plain" meaning of the text is radically different. For a privileged reader, verses on charity may seem to plainly call for minimal almsgiving. For those struggling against systemic poverty, the same verses, read alongside the Quran’s fierce condemnations of hoarding wealth, plainly call for a radical restructuring of the economic order (Esack, p.82). The text has not changed, but the interpreter's horizon, shaped by their commitment to the oppressed, illuminates its liberatory potential. The appeal to a "plain meaning" is thus a political act that often seeks to universalize the perspective of the powerful and render the experiences of the marginalized invisible. Principles for a Progressive Engagement Acknowledging the human and historical nature of interpretation does not lead to a nihilistic relativism where any meaning is valid. Instead, it demands a more conscious, rigorous, and ethically accountable methodology. Drawing together the philosophical, historical, and critical insights of this paper, we can outline a set of principles for a humanistic and liberatory Quranic hermeneutics for our time. 1. Historical-Critical Consciousness: A progressive hermeneutic begins by historicizing the entire interpretive tradition. We must engage the works of classical scholars with respect for their intellectual prowess but with a critical awareness of their historical context. Their conclusions on gender, governance, or science were products of their time and are not eternally binding. This frees the modern Muslim to emulate their ijtihad by seeking new answers for new questions, thus participating in a dynamic, living tradition rather than being imprisoned by its past formulations. 2. The Tawhidic Paradigm as Ethical Compass: The Quran’s central principle of Tawhid—the absolute oneness and transcendence of God—must serve as the ultimate ethical criterion for interpretation. If God is one and no created being can share in divinity, then the radical equality of all human beings is a direct theological corollary. Any interpretation that establishes or justifies an ontological hierarchy—between men and women, races, or classes—is a violation of Tawhid and must be considered hermeneutically suspect. This principle provides a textually grounded tool for rejecting interpretations that lead to injustice. 3. A Holistic and Thematic Reading: We must move beyond atomistic proof-texting and read the Quran as a coherent whole. The meaning of any particular verse must be understood in light of the Quran's major recurring themes, such as justice (Adl), compassion (Rahmah), human dignity (Karamah), and wisdom (Hikmah). This method prevents specific verses, particularly those related to law or conflict, from being isolated and used to subvert the text's overarching ethical message. 4. A Purpose-Oriented (Maqasid) Approach: Building on the holistic method, a progressive hermeneutic prioritizes the higher objectives (Maqasid al-Shari'ah) of the divine message. Classical scholars identified the preservation of faith, life, intellect, lineage, and property as key objectives. Modern reformers have expanded this to include justice, freedom, and human welfare. This approach insists that the letter of the law must always serve its spirit and purpose. Any literal interpretation that violates these higher objectives—for instance, an application of a penal law that results in manifest injustice in a modern context—must be reconsidered in favour of one that fulfils the ultimate purpose of the legislation. 5. Inhabiting the "World in Front of the Text": Drawing inspiration from the philosopher Paul Ricoeur, this principle suggests that the ultimate goal of interpretation is not simply to reconstruct the text’s past meaning but to inhabit the just and ethical "world" that the text projects. The Quran does not just describe reality; it re-describes it, opening up new possibilities for being human. The stories of prophets challenging tyrants, the vision of a justly balanced community (2:143), and the imperative of caring for the orphan and the poor project a moral universe. A liberatory hermeneutic involves interpreting all parts of the Quran in a way that helps actualize this moral vision in our own world. The Continuing Dialogue The history of Quranic interpretation is the story of the ongoing dialogue between a timeless divine message and the ever-changing human condition. It is a history filled with moments of brilliant insight and moments where human prejudice has obscured the text's liberatory light. The great hegemonic forces of patriarchy, autocracy, and capital have left their mark on this history, demonstrating that interpretation is never a purely scholastic exercise but a site of intense social and political struggle. The choice facing Muslims today is not between a mythical, "pure" tradition and a wholesale adoption of modernity. The real choice is between an uncritical hermeneutic that unconsciously reproduces the injustices of the past and a self-aware, critical hermeneutic that courageously seeks to align its understanding of the Quran with the text’s deepest commitments to justice, mercy, and human flourishing. Forging such a hermeneutic is the great intellectual and spiritual task of our generation. It requires humility, intellectual honesty, and a profound ethical commitment to the oppressed. By embracing our role as active, responsible interpreters, we can move beyond the paralysis of literalism and the dangers of hegemonic distortion. We can participate in a living tradition that is constantly renewed by its engagement with the challenges of the present. In doing so, we can work to ensure that the Quran remains what it has always promised to be: not a static monument to the past, but a guidance, a healing, and a mercy for all worlds (21:107). The mute text awaits a new generation of interpreters; the world we build depends on the voice we choose to give it. Bibliography Abou El Fadl, Khaled. Speaking in God's Name: Islamic Law, Authority and Women. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2001. Al-Razi, Abu’l-Hasan Sayyed Muhammad (Compiler). Peak of Eloquence: Nahjul Balaghah - Sermons, Letters and Sayings of Imam Ali. Translated by Askari Jafery. New York: Islamic Seminary for World Shia Muslim Organizations, 1979. Barlas, Asma. "Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002. Esack, Farid. Qur'an, Liberation and Pluralism: An Islamic Perspective of Interreligious Solidarity Against Oppression. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 1997. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. 2nd rev. ed. Translated by Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall. New York: Continuum, 2004. Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith. New York: International Publishers, 1971. Habermas, Jurgen. The Theory of Communicative Action. 2 vols. Translated by Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press, 1984. Rahman, Fazlur. Islam and Modernity: Transformation of an Intellectual Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982. Ricoeur, Paul. Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1976. Sahih al-Bukhari. Translated by M. Muhsin Khan. Riyadh: Dar-us-Salam Publications, 1997. Wadud, Amina. Qur’an and Woman: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman's Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. ----- V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an independent Indian scholar specializing in Islamic humanism. With a deep commitment to advancing Quranic hermeneutics that prioritize human well-being, peace, and progress, his work aims to foster a just society, encourage critical thinking, and promote inclusive discourse and peaceful coexistence. He is dedicated to creating pathways for meaningful social change and intellectual growth through his scholarship. URL: https://www.newageislam.com/debating-islam/forging-humanistic-quranic-hermeneutics/d/136547 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism