An Egalitarian Hermeneutical Response to Naseer Ahmed’s “The Trade of Ambiguity”

By V.A. Mohamad Ashrof, New Age Islam 15 December 2025 Naseer Ahmed’s incisive critique, “The Trade of Ambiguity: How Hermeneutics Turned Clarity into a Marketplace,” presents a formidable indictment of contemporary interpretive methodologies in Islamic thought, advocating for a return to a presumed pre-hermeneutical “plain meaning” of the Quran. While his call for intellectual honesty and his exposure of potential scholarly parasitism are both laudable and necessary, this paper argues that his proposed solution rests on a foundational and debilitating paradox: his critique is itself an unacknowledged, and therefore unaccountable, hermeneutical act. This response systematically deconstructs the philosophically naive notion of an ahistorical, self-interpreting “plain meaning” and posits that a principled, transparent, and ethically-anchored hermeneutics is not a corrupting marketplace but an intellectual and moral imperative. It is the essential, disciplined mechanism for realizing the Quran’s enduring and dynamic commitment to universal justice (‘‘Adl), compassion (Rahmah), and innate human dignity (Karamah). I accept Ahmed’s challenge to scrutinize the potential for intellectual commodification but issue a more profound counter-challenge: to expose how claims of unmediated “clarity” have, throughout history, been effectively co-opted to sacralise patriarchal, authoritarian, and exclusionary social structures. The true, transcendent clarity of the Quran lies not in the static literalism of its individual pronouncements but in its dynamic moral teleology—a teleology that can only be faithfully accessed and implemented through a conscious, academically rigorous, and ethically-guided hermeneutical engagement that prioritizes the liberation of the human spirit. Unveiling the Hermeneutical Paradox Naseer Ahmed’s provocative article functions as a necessary and potent gadfly within the often-stagnant corridors of contemporary Islamic discourse, challenging what he perceptively identifies as a burgeoning industry of obfuscation built around Quranic interpretation. His central thesis—that modern hermeneutics has deliberately convoluted divine clarity for various intellectual, material, and political gains—is a potent accusation that demands a serious response. He champions a return to the Quran’s inherent, self-evident meaning, positing this return as the ultimate antidote to what he terms “scholastic machinations.” This paper accepts the urgency and validity of Ahmed’s call for intellectual integrity and his critique of those who would use complexity as a shield for intellectual laziness or a tool for authority. However, it contends that his proposed solution is both epistemologically untenable and practically perilous. His ideal of a fixed, ahistorical “plain meaning” is not an objective reality waiting to be uncovered by stripping away interpretive layers; it is itself a specific, albeit unstated and unexamined, interpretive choice. This very choice, when left unarticulated and unscrutinised, becomes a vacant vessel, all too easily filled with the very contemporary biases, cultural assumptions, and power structures his work likely seeks to dismantle. Therefore, this analysis will advance a robust counter-thesis: far from being a nefarious distortion or a mere “trade,” a consciously applied, humanistic, and egalitarian hermeneutics is the very instrument through which the Quran’s liberatory and ethical potential is activated, sustained, and applied across the vast and varied landscapes of time and human context. I will engage in a rigorous, point-by-point deconstruction of Ahmed’s core premises, demonstrating with logical and textual precision that: 1. Hermeneutics is an inherent and inescapable dimension of engaging with any profound, linguistically-rich text, and is doubly necessary for divine revelation that addresses an evolving humanity. 2. The simplistic dichotomy he erects between “clarity” and “ambiguity” is a false one, eclipsed by the Quran’s own sophisticated internal hermeneutical framework that invites nuanced, multi-layered, and deeply reflective engagement. 3. Hermeneutics, when ethically anchored in the Quran’s own overarching values, serves not as a source of confusion but as a powerful engine for justice, inclusion, and continuous societal reform. 4. The claim to access a “plain meaning” is itself an unacknowledged hermeneutic, one that often masks patriarchal, authoritarian, or culturally-conservative assumptions under the guise of pious fidelity, thereby evading critical accountability. Ultimately, this paper seeks to reclaim hermeneutics not as a marketplace of confusion, but as a disciplined sanctuary for divine truth—a conscious, intellectually rigorous, and communally accountable Jihad al-Nafs (struggle of the self) and Jihad al-‘Aql (intellectual struggle) that is essential for ensuring the Quran remains a vibrant, living, and morally coherent source of guidance for an evolving humanity. The choice is not between interpretation and non-interpretation, but between a hermeneutics of hegemony and a hermeneutics of liberation. The Inevitability of Interpretation: The Myth of the Self-Evident Text Ahmed’s critique hinges almost entirely on the foundational premise that a “plain meaning” exists, accessible to any sincere reader without the mediatory—and potentially corrupting—influence of interpretation. This assumption, while intuitively appealing, collapses upon any rigorous linguistic, historical, or epistemological examination. The act of interpretation is not a parasitic addition to the text; it is the very process of comprehension itself. The classical Arabic of the Quran, while described as Mubin (clear) in its ultimate moral and theological purpose, is linguistically rich with polysemy, metaphor, and semiotic depth. Key operational terms like Daraba (which can mean to strike, to travel, to set an example, to separate), Qiwamah (responsibility, maintenance, standing over, support), and fitnah (trial, persecution, discord, civil war) possess vast and context-dependent semantic fields. To insist on a singular, immutable “plain meaning” for such terms is to ignore the inherent dynamism and generative capacity of the language God chose for His final revelation. The Quran’s divine eloquence (Balagha) resides precisely in its profound capacity for multi-layered meaning that invites continuous reflection (Tadabbur), not passive, robotic reception. A text that could be reduced to a single, univocal reading for all times would be a finite, human text, not the infinite speech of the Divine. The Quran was not revealed as an abstract, detached legal code in a historical vacuum. It occurred in real-time, over 23 years, within the specific socio-cultural crucible of 7th-century Arabia. Its verses engaged with specific events (Asbab al-Nuzul), addressed prevailing tribal customs, negotiated existing power structures, and initiated a profound, grassroots civilizational transformation. To surgically extract these verses from their historical context and impose a static, literalist reading across all epochs and societies is to disregard the very pedagogical method of the revelation itself. It freezes the divine word in the past, rendering it a historical artefact to be observed rather than a living guide to be implemented. It is telling that Ahmed’s own analysis, where he compellingly contextualizes the differential punishments in Q 4:15-16 within specific demographic concerns of a nascent community, is, in fact, a sophisticated hermeneutical act that acknowledges this very historical embeddedness—an act he performs brilliantly even as he decries the practice. The scripture itself explicitly and repeatedly mandates active, intellectual engagement. Verses such as “Will they not contemplate the Quran, or are there locks upon their hearts?” (Q 47:24) and “Do they not ponder on the Quran? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy” (Q 4:82) are not mere suggestions; they are divine calls for Tadabbur (contemplation) and Tafakkur (reflection). These are not passive acts of receiving data but active, critical, and interpretive processes that involve reason, conscience, and context. The Quran’s clarity, therefore, is primarily teleological; it is unequivocally clear in its foundational mission—the establishment of Tawhid, justice, and human accountability—not in the alleged self-evident simplicity of every individual injunction. To claim otherwise is to reduce an ocean of meaning to a puddle of literalism. Hermeneutics as an Ethical Imperative: Beyond the Marketplace Metaphor Ahmed’s characterization of hermeneutics as a “trade of ambiguity” is a dramatic but profound misrepresentation of its foundational role within the Islamic intellectual tradition. Genuine hermeneutics, at its best, is not a mercenary exercise but a sacred trust (Amanah) driven by an unwavering pursuit of truth (Haqq) and a responsibility towards humanity. From the earliest companions and their successors, the interpretation (Tafsir) of the Quran, the search for its deeper meanings (Ta’wil), and the derivation of legal rulings through independent reasoning (ijtihad) have been regarded as collective religious obligations (Farḍ Kifayah). This pursuit was normatively guided by humility, deep linguistic and historical knowledge, and a profound consciousness of God (Taqwa). The sophisticated methodologies of Usul al-Fiqh (principles of jurisprudence) were developed not to create ambiguity, but to impose discipline, consistency, and intellectual rigor on the interpretive process, ensuring it was not merely an exercise in subjective opinion or arbitrary preference. They were designed to be a bulwark against the very chaos Ahmed fears. Unlike a marketplace focused on profit and transaction, authentic Islamic hermeneutics is ideally governed by overarching ethical imperatives drawn directly from the Quran’s own value system. The Maqasid al-Shariah (higher objectives of Islamic law)—classically defined as the preservation of faith, life, intellect, lineage, and property, and expanded by contemporary scholars to include the preservation of justice, liberty, and human dignity—form the non-negotiable bedrock of legitimate interpretation. Any reading, no matter how “plain” or literarily defensible, that contravenes these fundamental goals is considered suspect, if not invalid. The ultimate aim is to realize divine justice (‘‘Adl) and mercy (Rahmah) in the lived reality of society, a process that requires constantly aligning the eternal principles of revelation with the evolving complexities of the human condition. If hermeneutics is a “marketplace,” one must ask with surgical precision: who are the primary beneficiaries of this alleged trade? Often, it is ironically those who most vociferously insist on a rigid, singular “plain meaning” who establish the most potent and insidious monopoly—a monopoly on truth itself. This approach, by its very nature, suppresses intellectual diversity, spiritual inquiry, and theological dissent, creating an authoritarian interpretive regime where specific, often patriarchal, culturally-conditioned, or politically-expedient understandings are presented as the only valid ones, divinely-sanctioned and beyond critique. The real “trade of ambiguity” may, in fact, be the intellectual stagnation of Taqlid (unquestioning imitation) that resists the dynamic, intellectually demanding engagement that genuine ijtihad requires. It is a trade where the currency is not ambiguity, but the illusion of certitude. Deconstructing the Patriarchal ‘Illah: A Case for Egalitarian Re-reading The most potent demonstration of a justice-oriented hermeneutics lies in its application to specific texts that have historically been used to justify inequality. Here, we move beyond Ahmed’s valid but limited critiques to a systematic deconstruction of the patriarchal ‘illah (the effective cause or ratio legis) that often underpins classical readings. Ahmed correctly critiques traditionalists for turning a historically-situated concession into a universal, ontologically-grounded rule. However, an egalitarian hermeneutics must go further. It rigorously identifies the ‘illah behind the suggestion of a second female witness. The most plausible ‘illah, acknowledged by many classical scholars themselves, was the prevalent lack of professional exposure and familiarity with complex commercial contracts among most women in 7th-century Arabia. The text itself is conspicuously silent on any inherent intellectual or moral deficiency in women. Given that the ‘illah has demonstrably lapsed in modern societies where women are doctors, judges, CEOs, and equal economic actors, the specific ruling (Hukm) must revert to the foundational, universal Quranic principle of equal moral and legal agency (Q 33:35, 9:71). To insist on the 7th-century application is to prioritize a historical accident over a divine principle, committing the very error of literalism that Ahmed elsewhere condemns. The traditional reading of Daraba in Q 4:34 as a license for discrete, non-injurious physical “striking” represents a profound hermeneutical failure to apply the Quran’s own hierarchical value system. The Quran establishes the marital relationship on the foundational (Muhkam) principle of “love and mercy” (Mawaddah wa Rahmah) (Q 30:21). This is the ontological foundation of the Islamic marriage contract. Any interpretation of a specific, context-bound (Mutashabih) verse that effectively obliterates this core principle and violates the inherent dignity (Karamah) of a human being cannot be theologically or morally valid. A hermeneutics of justice and coherence therefore demands that Daraba be understood in one of its other, equally legitimate linguistic meanings, such as “to separate” (as in Daraba fi al-ard, to travel in the land) or “to turn away.” A reading that permits any form of coercive harm or violence is not a “plain” reading; it is an unethical and contextually-blind reading that violently contradicts the Quran’s overarching ethos of compassion and mutual respect between spouses. Ahmed’s demographic explanation for the gendered distinction in punishment in Q 4:15 is sociologically insightful but stops short of a full hermeneutical commitment. A humanistic hermeneutics notes a crucial, often-overlooked clause: the verse concludes with “until God ordains for them another way” (Aw Yaj‘Ala Allahu Lahunna Sabilan). This is an explicit, self-abrogating mechanism embedded within the text itself, signalling its temporary, contingent, and conditional nature. The “other way” (Sabil) can be hermeneutically understood as the full maturation and culmination of the divine law, which later culminates in the establishment of universal, gender-blind equality in the penal code for the same offense, as explicitly outlined in Q 24:2. The verse is not cryptic; it is teleological, pointing prophetically toward its own evolution in favour of a higher, more absolute principle of equal human accountability before the law. To ignore this trajectory is to freeze the law in its earliest, most contextual form. The Unacknowledged Hermeneutic of “Plain Meaning” and Its Dangers Ahmed’s insistence on a monolithic “plain meaning” is itself a particular hermeneutical stance, one that remains unexamined and therefore immune to critique, making it potentially more dangerous than the “scholasticism” he decries. When Ahmed upholds verses on charity (Q 2:215) or moderation (Q 7:31) as paragons of universally “plain” and actionable guidance, he is performing a fundamental hermeneutical act: selection and prioritization. Every reader, including Ahmed, must consciously or unconsciously decide which verses are ethically foundational and which are historically specific, which are literal and which are metaphorical, which are universal and which are limited. This choice is inherently interpretive. He implicitly foregrounds certain ethical imperatives while simultaneously arguing for the critical re-evaluation of others (like penal laws or gender roles), demonstrating a selective and inconsistent application of his own “plain meaning” methodology. What is the coherent criterion for this selection if not an underlying, unstated hermeneutical principle that itself requires justification? The primary danger in Ahmed’s approach is that by presenting his interpretive choices as transparent “revelation” itself, he implicitly claims an unmediated access to divine intent. When such choices are deemed self-evident and beyond dispute, they become unchallengeable dogma. This creates a new, potentially more insidious form of authoritarianism, where one individual’s or one school’s reading is elevated to an absolute, incontrovertible truth, effectively substituting the perceived tyranny of classical exegetes with the tyranny of an uncritical, a priori literalism. This stance exhibits what can be termed epistemic arrogance, closing off the possibility of dialogue, correction, and intellectual growth. True intellectual and spiritual integrity demands that all interpretive premises—especially those claiming the mantle of “plainness”—be made explicit, transparent, and subjected to continuous ethical and academic scrutiny within the community of believers. The Maqasid as the Supreme Hermeneutical Lens: From Text to Teleology Ahmed’s article confines the Maqasid al Shariah to the role of resolving external moral conflicts, like choosing between two goods. This is a severe truncation of their function. In a robust hermeneutical framework, the Maqasid are not external ethical checks but the very internal compass that guides the interpretive process from the outset. In advanced Islamic legal theory, the Maqasid function as the supreme Usul (foundations) of all interpretation. They represent the overarching ethical framework and teleological aims of the entire divine revelation. When a specific textual ruling (Hukm), derived from a seemingly unambiguous (Zahir) or allegorical (Mutashabih) verse, appears to contradict a foundational (Muhkam) Maqsad—such as universal human dignity (Karamah), justice (‘‘Adl), or the removal of hardship (Raf‘ Al-Haraj)—the Maqsad must take hermeneutical precedence. This is not about undermining textual authority but about ensuring deep interpretive consistency with the Quran’s own deepest moral grammar and ultimate purpose. Hermeneutics, guided by Maqasid, thus becomes the science of preventing historically-conditioned Tafsir from contradicting the Divine Ta’wil of universal justice and mercy. Without a Maqasid-based hermeneutics, legal verses risk degenerating into barren, mechanistic formulas detached from their living moral purpose. The Quran itself powerfully challenges such empty formalism in verses like Q 2:177, which defines righteousness not in ritualistic terms but in profound ethical and spiritual commitments. Freeing the divine meaning from the shackles of patriarchal rigidity or ritualistic literalism is not an act of “textual manipulation” but an act of profound obedience to the divine telos. For instance, any interpretation of Islamic financial rules must ultimately uphold the Maqsad of economic justice and prevent exploitation, even if specific contractual forms from the 7th century evolve or become obsolete. The Counter-Challenge: Whose Plain Meaning? Ahmed challenges his readers to abandon the labyrinth of hermeneutics and embrace the clear path of “plain meaning.” My counter-challenge is more incisive, direct, and fundamental: Demonstrate, with systematic rigour, why your particular set of “plain readings” should be privileged over those of countless generations of traditional scholars who used the same methodology of “plain meaning” to justify the oppression of women, the institution of slavery, and the consolidation of unaccountable clerical authority—all while claiming the identical mantle of textual transparency and fidelity. This counter-challenge can be broken down into three non-negotiable demands: Naseer must prove that your methodology is not simply another form of ijtihad by publicly articulating the explicit, transparent, and consistent criteria by which you distinguish a “clerical distortion” from a “plain meaning.” What is your systematic, principled mechanism for preventing patriarchal or authoritarian distortion, beyond ad-hoc, post-hoc corrections of specific verses you find objectionable? Without a transparent framework, your call for clarity risks degenerating into a call for conformity to a different, but equally human, set of unstated and unexamined assumptions. Naseer must prove that your “plain meaning” framework can coherently account for the Quran’s own rich internal complexity—its gradual evolution of law (e.g., the progressive prohibition of intoxicants), its profound contextual specificity (e.g., Q 4:15’s self-abrogating clause), and its sophisticated use of metaphor, allegory (Mutashabihat), and parables, without resorting to the very tools of historical contextualization, linguistic analysis, and ethical synthesis that you dismiss as hermeneutical “trades.” The final and most pressing challenge is this: Move beyond criticism to construction. Identify three contemporary hermeneutical decisions that you defend and that, if implemented as law or social policy today, would demonstrably and significantly improve the concrete reality of human dignity, justice, and welfare across genders, economic classes, and religious minorities. Furthermore, you must show the decisive textual, linguistic, and historical-contextual evidence that rules out competing, less egalitarian interpretations. Make your hermeneutics operational, ethically accountable, and testable in the real world, moving from declamatory critique to constructive exegesis with measurable, positive outcomes for human well-being. Hermeneutics as Disciplined Ethics, Not Commerce Naseer Ahmed’s critique performs a vital service by highlighting the very real risks of scholarly obscurantism, intellectual parasitism, and the commodification of religious knowledge. His voice is a necessary corrective in an era of often unquestioned tradition. However, the central crisis he identifies is not the advent of hermeneutics itself, but the collective failure to apply it consistently, courageously, and with unwavering ethical grounding in the Quran’s own supreme values. The real “trade of ambiguity,” it can be argued, is the insistence on upholding the literal letter of historically contingent rulings while deliberately ignoring their violent contradiction of the liberating spirit of the Quran—a spirit defined from its first revelation by justice, Rahmah, and the inherent dignity of all human beings. A conscious, academically rigorous, and justice-oriented hermeneutics is not the problem; it is the only viable solution. It is the only true path to restoring the Mubin (clear) nature of the Quran, ensuring that its divine message remains sharp, penetrating, rational, and logically coherent, uncompromised by the ambiguities and injustices of history and fully aligned with the Tawhidi mandate for an equal, just, and profoundly humanistic social order. The choice facing modern Muslim intellectuals is not, and has never been, between interpretation and non-interpretation. It is between an unconscious hermeneutics of hegemony that sacralises the status quo and a conscious hermeneutics of liberation that seeks to emancipate the human spirit in all its diverse forms. A living, breathing, and morally vibrant tradition does not fear this demanding dialogue; it demands it. We must, therefore, reclaim hermeneutics as a sanctuary for divine truth, transforming it from a perceived marketplace of ambiguity into the very architecture of justice for our time. ---- 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/egalitarian-hermeneutical-naseer-trade-ambiguity/d/137252 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