Aliaa Ibrahim Dakroury

Although claims questioning whether religious sacred books can be “translated” or not have been heard for quite some time, they have increased with the emergence of globalization and the increasing openness and flow of information due to modern technology. In the context of the relationship between hermeneutics and communication, one could argue that interpreting the Qur’an is an interesting case study for many reasons. Among them is the number of debates and discourses that have been raised both for and against its translation. Another reason, perhaps one of the largest barriers according to some religious Muslim groups, is that the Qur’an is fundamentally revealed and written in Arabic, and, therefore, its true meaning cannot be translated into another language. Certain verses, such as “It is a Qur’an in Arabic, without any crookedness (therein): in order that they may guard against evil” (28:39), have been presented to support this argument.1

Introduction

What is hermeneutics? Etymologically, the term hermeneutics comes from the Latin hermeneuin or hermeneutica, which mean the “process of mediating meaning that proceeds from the outside to the inside of the meaning.”2 Along these lines, one could see hermeneutics as not simply translating or uttering a meaning, but rather as explicating and interpreting a given text’s spirit and inner meaning. I will begin to illustrate this study’s importance by pointing out the amount of controversy surrounding the issue of interpreting the Qur’an. Following that, I will propose a possible philosophical foundation for a hermeneutics of the Qur’an through synthesizing two different streams of the approaches to the philosophy of hermeneutics. The first one will be the Muslims’ collective appropriation and understanding, as seen through two exegeses: those of al-Ghazali (1058-1111) and Muhammad Abduh (1849-1905). The second will be the western perspective through the standing points of Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) and Jürgen Habermas (1929- ). The study will conclude by discussing a possible position that one can adopt when dealing with the issue of interpreting a sacred text, in general, given their “sensitivity,” especially for its followers and believers.

The Problematic

This study’s problem is represented in the following two passages. The first, by Kenneth Cragg, says that

[The] Qur’an is an ancient document, remote and uncongenial, suited only to sheikhs and specialists. Even the sympathetic reader, who is external to its people, will perhaps be dubious. It could be that he has already found his interest baffled and frustrated for lack of the necessary clues.3

On the other hand, Sayyed Hosein Nasr, argues that

[The Qur’an] is the tissue out of which the life of a Muslim is woven; its sentences are like threads from which the substance of his soul is knit.4

Indeed, these claims are important signals, as they highlight the boundaries of language and the importance of not approaching a given language (even a sacred one) only from a single approach, such as the literal, philosophical, or linguistic approach. Instead, one must possess the Heideggerrian fore-understanding before starting to interpret a text, especially a sacred text that occupies a unique position, as the Qur’an does for Muslims. The non-being (i.e., unfamiliarity) with the Arabic language, its style, and the Islamic faith may be one of the barriers to a true interpretation of the Qur’an. In his book The Sublime Qur’an and Orientalism, Mohammad Khalifa explains some of the reasons behind this. For example, he says that Orientalists may see the Qur’an’s literary style as

… mechanically repetitious, of limited lexical range, filled with clumsy syntax, unjustifiable pleonasm and rhetoric embellishment in many parts and with ellipsis and hysteron proteron in many others.5

He adds that others found that the Qur’an contains “‘many literary defects’; filled with ‘obscure sentences and strange words’ ... ‘faults of grammar and style’ ... ‘wearisome jumble, crude, and incondite.’”6 Among the reasons for this lack of understanding, as Khalifa explains, are the differences between how Arabic sentences, and their counterparts in English and other languages, are constructed. Thus, an English reader can easily find the Qur’anic text “clumsy” if it has not been interpreted and understood clearly,  or find it repetitive and full of rhetoric, whereas an Arab reader would find the text uniquely constructed and beautiful. According to Khalifa, al-Baqillany says, in his Miracle of the Qur’an, that “no one could appreciate its miracle like the well-versed Arabic linguists.”7

Another interesting point raised by Khalifa is that a particular text’s beauty and perfection is not totally up to the reader, especially if he or she is not familiar with its type, language, and genres. He says that it is not appropriate or fair to compare the Qur’an with other works, such as Homer’s The Iliad and The Odyssey or those of Shakespeare, for he believes that these works, although unique pieces of poetry and drama, were aimed at entertaining readers. Contrary to this, the Qur’an is not “intended to entertain or amuse. It was revealed as a guide for worship, a code for behavior, good tidings for the believers who do benevolent work.”8 Besides, he adds, the Qur’an is also a source of joy, happiness, and satisfaction for Muslims who lived centuries ago as well as for those who live today. Clearly, the Qur’an is a special book for its people.

• click for a full paper in pdf