“I would like to focus on rousing the silent majority from this state of paralysis and dormancy”
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/review/review4.htm
- Dr Riffat Hasan
Q: Why is the Muslim world wary of starting an issue-related debate?
A: Partly, it has to do with intellectual decadence. We have just lost that tradition of intellectual critique we had in the first 300 years of Islam’s growth. Look at Muslim Spain: that was the precursor of European renaissance.
An intellectual critique is basically about asking questions, analysing the data and making room for discussion and dissent. Going back to the Aligarh Movement and modern renaissance of 1850 to 1950, not only in the subcontinent but also in Eygpt and Turkey, we saw the reopening of all the old questions and re-evaluating them. As recently as the freedom movement in the subcontinent, we had different points of view without the passing of fatwas on dissenting opinions. We had the atmosphere of debate as recently as 1930 when Iqbal died, moving on to the progressive ideas of Maulana Fazlul Rehman who was the architect of the Muslim Family Laws in Pakistan. He was later hounded out of the country. The last five decades in Pakistan have seen a period of darkness.
Q: In the light of numerous exegeses of the Quran, how can you validate your interpretation as correct?
A: My position on the Quran is that it is a sacred text, revealed through the agency of the archangel Gabriel to the Prophet (PBUH). So, he is the recipient of the revelation. The source of the Quran is God. What we have received through the Prophet(PBUH) is the text. Now, that text is made up of words. Every Arabic word has a root and every root has multiple meanings. Theoretically it means that everything in the Quran is capable of being interpreted in many ways. It is inherent in the nature of the language because it is a Semitic language and such languages work like that.
Given this fact, the question is, how does a person do an exegesis of the Quran? It involves a methodology called hermeneutics, which is a science of interpretation of Scriptures. When I started doing the interpretation, I felt that the existing hermeneutics, developed by scholars, was not quite applicable to Islam because our beliefs are different. I developed my own hermeneutics and criteria. In order to know the meaning of a word, we have to see what it meant in 7th century Hijaz, not what it means today. Then, I applied the method of philosophical consistency to interpret the different meanings of the same word used more than once in the Quran.
But the most important principle I developed is the ‘ethical criterion’. That is, if you believe God is just, which to me is His essence, and the Quran is His word, it must reflect His justice as well. The Quranic text cannot be used as a means to perpetuate injustice, nor can the Quranic text justify injustice in any way. If a certain verse of the Quran is being interpreted to justify, for example the Hadh crimes, then it is in contravention to the idea that God is just. Therefore, this interpretation can’t be accepted no matter who is doing it. Besides, I have never ever stated that my interpretations are the absolute truth, are final and have to be accepted.
Q: Keeping in view your progressive stance on Islam the irritation of the extremists is understandable, but why are the feminists of Pakistan so critical of you?
A: Now let me just focus on Asma Jehangir. I divide Asma’s work into two or three different categories. There’s Asma who is a human rights activist, who has taken cases, gone to courts and fought for women. For that I have a lot of respect for her. Our differences are ideological. I differ with Asma and other champions of human rights when they take a position that human rights and Islam are incompatible. Words like secularism, fundamentalism and feminism change their meaning from region to region. For instance, secular in India means anti-communalist, while in Pakistan and the rest of the Muslim world it means anti-religious.
There are many paradigms, many models possible for human rights. You can make a model of human rights on secular grounds, you can make it on humanistic grounds, you can make it on Marxist grounds and so on. They are all possible and within the realm of legitimacy. I am not saying that it is only by staying within Islam that the human rights paradigm can be created.
Theoretically these people are not wrong. My contention with them arises when they exclude Islam in a country that is 99.9 per cent Muslim. You’ve lost it when you begin your discourse by taking out Islam from the discourse.
Q: Why can’t your progressive ideology, which you say represents the silent majority, fill that gap?
A: I have certain disadvantages in a sense that I don’t live in Pakistan. I’m an academic. I don’t have anybody backing me. My life is so much formulated and dominated in its core by Iqbal who said that when you want to start a movement you have to start with few, like-minded people.
What I’m trying to advocate is a vision of Islam as a moderate and rational religion. Such a thought can only be understood by educated and aware people. If I had the opportunity and a permanent base in Pakistan, I would like to go from one college to another, starting with the progressive institutions, to talk about a progressive Islam. I’m sure the impact would be phenomenal. We just don’t have the same amount of money.
Q: Just as you believe that education is every Muslim’s fundamentalright, no matter which exegesis is being followed, a majority of the Muslims feel the same way about the hijab. Most of the letters TR received challenged your interpretation of the hijab. How can you defend your interpretation of the Quranic verses to mean otherwise?
A: The word hijab means curtain. The law of hijab laid down in Surah Nur applies equally to men and women. ‘Lower your gaze and guard your modesty.’ The Quran puts a lot of emphasis on dignity, elevating the position of human beings, calling them the children of Adam and putting them above the rest of Allah’s creations.
In Surah Nur, the Quran has instructed that if human beings don’t want to be treated and seen as sex objects they should not act like one. It is not restricted to dress code, it includes the way you talk, walk and how you conduct yourself in public space. The message is to be mindful of your human dignity. Of course, there is more elaboration in the context of women, but it is not gender specific neither is it related to age.
I’d like to refer to a verse in Surah Ehzab which incites a lot of discussion. ‘Prophet tell your wives and the believing women that when they step out of their homes they should wear the jilbah(which was a cloak not covering the face) so that they are seen as chaste women and not molested.’
Now, the point is that was a society in which women were molested. That was a society in which female infanticide was practised, a society where women were bought and sold and could be inherited. So, when a woman in such a society stepped outside it was assumed that she was prey to all. The Quran did not order the women not to step out of home. It was not restrictive but enabling of protective legislation. ‘You should wear a garment so that when people see you they are able to recognise you and leave you alone’. Nowadays, what you wear is not a guarantee of morality. The reason for which jilbah was prescribed no longer exists, which does not mean that the law of modesty does not exist. That is still the primary law, only the expression is no longer mandatory.
Q: It is believed that the Quranic injunctions are for all times. Do you think with the change in time the Quranic injunctions have also changed their meaning?
A: This question can only be treated if we pose another question which is more relevant and that is about the Quran itself. What is the Quran? How can a person see and approach it? The Quran is not an encyclopaedia, it is not a book of history neither is it a book of law. It’s a bit of everything. There are some ethical principles in it instructing you to act. And then there are basic values, starting from the principle of Tauheed and one God. God is the universal Creator, everybody is created equally, importance of reason, importance of education and social justice. These are some of the ethics of the Quran with which you can build a framework. Those ethical values are for all times and are universal principles.
A major part of the Quran refers to the conflicts of that time. The Prophet’s (PBUH) struggle with the Meccans, his struggle in Medina, his struggle with the Jews and other historical phases which are basically references and are not principles. They have to be read in a certain way and are meant for our instruction.
I’ll give you another example from the Quran where it is written ‘take not the unbelievers for your friends’. Today, that has been turned into a principle. It is not a principle and was revealed in a certain context. How can such a principle be for all times? In several verses Allah has referred to the Ahlul Kitab and given them a lot of importance. People who pick Quranic verses out of context have twisted the verse. In any case, Jews and Christians are not unbelievers.
A lot of times the Quranic text is superimposed. For example, the Quran talks about kafereen and munafiqeen. If you read the translation you will find the words have been translated as Jews and Christians. That is what I’m trying to say here. It is not in the original text but has been superimposed.