Seminar in Tunisia discusses limits of interpretation of religious text
2008-12-17
Tunisia was host last Friday to a discussion on the perils of religious interpretation in modern society.
By Jamel Arfaoui for Magharebia in Tunis – 17/12/08
 [Jamel Arfaoui] Islamic scholar Olfa Youssef says interpretations of the Qur'an are always coloured by the individuals who make them. |
Experts in Islamic studies debated the limits of Qur'anic interpretation at a seminar organised by the Forum of Progress in the People's Unity Party Friday (December 12th) in Tunis.
Olfa Youssef, an Islamic scholar, asked Muslim thinkers and issuers of fatwas if they possess precise answers to the meanings of the Holy Qur'an. "No one can claim that they possess the truth in interpreting the contents of the Qur'an," she said.
The text of the Qur'an, Youssef argues, is interpreted according to the inclinations and whims of the reader, noting that verses are interpreted by Shiite scholars in a completely different way from that of Sunni scholars.
"There are many disagreements on the application of punishments," she said, such as the punishment for adultery and the punishment for nushuz (violation of marital duties) by women.
The same applies to the punishment for theft; many countries choose to send violators to prison rather than cut off their hands.
"Does this mean these countries don't apply sharia? All Muslim countries claim to apply Islamic law, but if we looked carefully, we would not find two countries that apply it in identical ways."
Youssef also noted that slavery is banned in the laws of countries that claim to be applying Islamic sharia, although neither the Qur'an nor the Sunna bans it.
"Why, then" she asked, "hasn't this sort of ijtihad entered into other fields, such as execution and inheritance?"
God and religion should be removed from conflicts, Youssef said, calling on intellectuals to confront attempts at spreading illusions.
"We say that there is an ultimate meaning for the religious text, [but] there is nothing called 'truth', and there isn't just one Islamic law," Youssef concluded.
Differences in Qur'anic interpretation aren't new, said Belgacem Hacen, a general inspector with the Tunisian Ministry of Education. "This dates back to the beginning of the Muslim state. At that time, jurisprudents and Companions differed in the interpretation of the religious text."
Sami Brahem, a researcher in Islamic studies, echoed Olfa Youssef’s conclusions, saying "the refusal to acknowledge multiple meanings of the Qura'nic text establishes a real dictatorship".
"There is no such thing as 'correct interpretation' and 'wrong interpretation'," he said. "We need to secularise our religious knowledge; something that has become a demand by most of the elites. This process is understood to mean the separation of religion from the authorities, but the real aim should be to separate knowledge from sanctity."
Academic Adel Haj Salem, however, derided the raising of such issues in the 21st century. "Is there any use in returning to the religious text while the world today is governed by laws and legislations which are the cream of human thinking?" he asked. "Wouldn't it be ridiculous to speak today about cutting off a thief's hand?"
Haj Salem called on the authorities "not to interfere in religion and to leave it to religious people". He added that the budget of the Ministry of Religious Affairs in Tunisia is equal to the budgets of nine other ministries combined.
Zied Krichen, a specialist in Islamic issues and editor-in-chief of the weekly magazine al-Haqaiq, spoke of a conflict over these official religious institutions. "It is unreasonable to leave religious affairs to just anyone," he said. "No state can get rid of religious affairs just like that."
"Intellectuals don't have to accept what people of the past accepted, as their real role is to think and to discuss," he continued.
On the other hand, Krichen advocated the formation of a "rational" state religious policy, to "force the religious institution to abandon the old interpretations".
He noted that no religious modernisation can take place in just one country, and that Tunisia, with its 10 million people, will not be able to impose its reforms on 1.5 billon Muslims.
Email to a friend
Print version
مسلم من المغرب Posted 2008-12-17
Peace and mercy of God be upon you. God prayers be upon the last prophet our master Mohamed, the best of all creatures. Those who are guided by God, no one can mislead them. Those who were misled by Him, no one can guide them. Praise be to God for the grace of Islam. Praise be to God for the grace of Islam. Since when have vulgar and shameless people begun to debate? Since when have you begun listening to them and re-diffusing their inanities? There is no power and no will but from God.
SERGHOUN Posted 2008-12-18
Mr Arfaoui presented Olfa Youssef as an Islamic scholar. In my opinion, he should have presented her as an intellectual interest in matters relating to Islam. Modestly, I will allow myself to give arguments concerning the interpretation of the Qu’ran. First, I agree with her that “no one can claim that they possess the truth in interpreting the contents of the Qu’ran”. But, I must add that the interpretation of the Qu’ran should not be done by any which person. This belongs to scholars who know Arabic, the fundamentals of the fikh, the historical contexts under which such and such surah or verse took place, the Sunna and so on perfectly. This is in order to avoid a situation wherein the interpretation serves the wishes of the reader. Second, no country applies the shariah, and that goes for theft, adultery or any other case. This is because we find enormous differences between the way a problem is dealt with two Muslim countries. The shariah cannot be applied in two different ways. Third, she demands that ijtihad be applied to slavery, understood to be a legacy, because, as she says, it is prohibits by the legislation of countries that apply the shariah. However, this is not prohibited in the Qu’ran or Sunna, and is thus false. She needs only refer to Surat 90 “Al-Balad”, verse 12. This legacy, as decribed by the Qu’ran, is so detailed and precise that it des not need require tendentious interpretations or contradictions. In the end, I am pleased to have met someone who had the courage to raise a theme she considered to belong to unbelievers. Thank you. –See you soon
Ahmed Posted 2008-12-18
Yes there is only one way of interpreting the quran, and people need to realize that the interpretation of our prophet Muhammad(saws) was the only true interpretation and it was followed by his example in life situations, Mercy and Moderation is the two main characteristics a muslim has to have... For instance one says the ayah indicates you must cover in hijab and the other says hijab isn't even in the Quran? you say what? That is a disagreement on the texts while the prophet(saws) said differences are a mercy, disagreements in the actual text are a deviation. So yah examine the quran and Allah has said hold on to the rope of Allah tightly and do not deviate. La hawla wala kuwata illa billah in our days we have not united, when will we muslims start building our bridges and closing our gaps, we take religion as complete but dont stop short if its not complete in your life your still a muslim we all have flaws noone is perfect but together we can perfect it
العين الناقدة Posted 2008-12-19
The assertion of Mrs Olfa Youssef by her absolute statement “No one can claim that they possess the truth in interpreting the contents of the Qur'an” without excluding the messenger, peace be upon him, becomes an allegation. The Qur’an was sent in parts as it was accompanying events in order to modify, adjust and establish definitive answers to its meaning. The allegation of the lady is not far from the wish of those who did not believe in the messenger, peace be upon him, as they wished it was sent in one set (Al Furqan, verse 3) so that it would be a raw material from which they would design a tailored religion by interpreting it according to their whims and interests. If this were the objective of God, He would have sent it among people and let everyone free to interpret it following his knowledge or whims. But He sent it through His messenger to show people how to implement it, benefit from it cut the way of ribald, whimsical and dissidents. If you study the biography of the messenger, peace be upon him, his companions and wise caliphates, you will see the Qur’an walking in earth. We can compare this to the creator of a device. He sends an agent to the buyers to show them how to use and maintain it. He gives him a catalogue, as a reference which he and his children can check or a modern user whenever it stops, breaks down or when it becomes impossible to use it. Generations inherit the way of use from grandfather to father. They hold on to the document because if it is lost or distorted, it will be impossible to use the device. If it is used without the document, the answer is known: total corruption. However, this document remains written in the language of the creator. As time passes, its language is affected by the creation or new words or introduction of foreign words which hides original words. Therefore, late generations ask for an explanation. And who will explain? Is it not a member of the late generation? With which language? Is it not the modern language known by the late? Will it an explanation or interpretation? Is it not worthier to have an accumulation of interpretations with current limited language or master the original language, remove extraneous words, fabricated, strange which hinder or hide the understanding of the document and benefit from it as the forefathers did? I hope that commentators do not address insults, humiliating or sarcastic descriptions which hinder dialogue especially because we are building a democratic society implementing the content of Al Hujorat (verses 10-13).
SERGHOUN Posted 2008-12-19
Olfa Youssef’s involvement in the seminar on the limits of interpretation of the Qur’an is, for me, an opportunity to contribute in the utmost modesty to the dialogue. First, certainly, no one possesses the truth when interpreting religious texts, but, to be able to do so, it is imperatively necessary to master Arabic in order to better understand the Qu’ran and the Sunnah, to have a deep understanding of fikh and to be overflowing with the writings of the ancients. This imperative would avoid interpretations reflecting the readers’ inclinations. We see how illness is treated by doctors and machines by mechanics, but only religion is explained and interpreted by everyone, including the illiterate. Second, no Muslim country applies the Shariah in its spirit and to the letter. It is for this reason that we find ourselves faced with the fake application of the Sharia, as is pretended in certain countries. The Qu’ran is clear about the thief having his hand amputated, but the society needs to be fully Muslim. Third, ijtihad on slavery cannot be understood as legacy for the simple reason that slavery is prohibited in Islam (see surat 90, verse 12). This legacy is so detailed and precise that it cannot be subject to multiple interpretations. Fourth, the problem between Sunnis and Shiites is another subject deserving of long discussions to better understand how different interpretations of the Qu’ran came about because, to be brief, the latter say they have a Qu’ran different than that of the Sunnis (see the collections or Hadith of the prophet, may peace be upon him). In the end, I am happy to have a discussion with a specialist who has the courage to deal with such a subject, through which simpletons may consider her a nonbeliever.
ديني هو يقيني Posted 2008-12-20
Peace, mercy and blessings of God be upon you. What is wrong with you people of the Great Maghreb? You were the western citadel of Islam and Muslims. You throw yourselves in the breast of Europe and the West, say about your religion things which are not satisfactory for the God you worship. I read that you are calling for the abolition of the capital sentence, cutting the hand, stoning and other sentences in the Islamic Sharia. Is it reasonable that we put our minds to judge and decide upon rules which were ordered by God? Who are we to pretend that these orders do not agree with human rights? God the Almighty has created man and He is more merciful to him than your body which alleges defending this creature. Are the acts perpetrated in Guantanamo or Abou Ghraib humane acts in any way? (And the perpetrators of these acts who allege defending human rights). My brothers, repent all to God and I with you. Let’s announce that we will hold on to our religion, our book and the tradition of our prophet even if hold flames (as our dear prophet, peace and prayer be upon him, said). We call for Jihad but we don’t approve that young people exaggerate in the war against the enemies of religion to the point of killing their brothers in religion. My dear Maghreb brothers, do not give in and we pray for your triumph and steadfastness, God wiling.
احذرو سخط الله Posted 2008-12-22
According to what I heard about our Arab country (Tunisia), it is in continuous decline to the abyss until they receive the discontent of God against them. So fear the anger of God the Almighty, Lord of heavens and Earth.
We welcome your comments on Magharebia's articles.
It is our hope that you will use this forum to interact with other readers across the Maghreb. In order to keep this experience interesting, we ask you to follow the rules outlined in the comments policy. By submitting comments, you are consenting to these rules. While Magharebia.com encourages discussion on all subjects, including sensitive ones, the comments posted are solely the views of those submitting them. Magharebia.com does not necessarily endorse or agree with the ideas, views, or opinions voiced in these comments. This is a moderated forum. Comments deemed abusive, offensive, or those containing profanity may not be published.
Magharebia's Comments Policy