**4. Tracing a New Methodology**

#### *4.1. Facing the Difficult Texts*

After this general survey, let us address the complicated knots of interpretation, revisiting and criticizing the different methodologies in classical and modern thought.

The classical abrogation theory (cf. Burton 1990) cannot solve what seem to be contradictory texts. Instead, it is part of the problem, which is the fragmented reading of the Qur" an. Abrogation, a classical tool used to solve contradictory juridical and practi- ¯ cal verses, cannot be a theological method. God's promises cannot be abrogated. Sunni theology strongly condemned the so-called *bada¯* " , changing the divine mind, seen as an anthropomorphist deviation.9 Another problem is that abrogation is based on an uncertain chronological order of the Qur" anic verses. ¯

The theory of the higher finalities of Islamic law, *Maqa¯s.id al-Šar¯ı* " *a*, <sup>10</sup> is to a certain extent helpful but not sufficient to solve the problem. It is a *Šar¯ı* " *a*-oriented theory and does not deal with the more inclusive Qur" anic finalities. ¯ <sup>11</sup> Indeed, violence and exclusivism have juridical aspects; however, theology seeks to understand the philosophical and hermeneutical roots behind the concrete manifestations. To note here that the five general finalities, *al-kuliyyat¯ al-h*" *ams*, are aimed to protect: religion, life, reason, family and property. The Tunisian Muh. ammad al-T. ahir Ibn ¯ ¯" Ašur (d. 1973) added a sixth finality: protecting freedom ( ¯ Ibn Ashur 2006, pp. 154–64). These categories of protection present a basic form of nonviolence compared to the biblical Decalogue; however, the protection itself may either assume violent forms or tolerate some. The finalities are often correlated to the traditional view of *Šar¯ı* " *a*, which accepts the defensive war, and sometimes justifies the preventive one. Nevertheless, as seen previously, some Muslim reformists use the finalities theory to overcome some traditional issues such as slavery and corporal punishment (Duderija 2014).

Another modern attempt to resolve the historical–hermeneutical challenge is the theory of the Sudanese Mah. mud Mu ¯ h. ammad T. aha (d. 1985)<sup>12</sup> concerning the Meccan and Medinan Qur" an. The Meccan verses represent, in his view, the universal message, ¯ and the Medinan ones represent a historical and contingent application of the Meccan principles (Taha 1987). This theory does not seem helpful because principles and historical applications are present in both periods. Life is not divided into two chapters: first ideal and then practice. In the Medinan Qur" an, we find fundamental principles of religious ¯ pluralism and freedom, such as the well-known verse: "There is no compulsion in religion". (Q 2, 256)

*4.2. Recognizing the Text's Limits*

There is no radical nonviolent model in the Qur" an, at least no explicit one. The ¯ Gandhian model was unthinkable in the Qur" anic context; radical nonviolent interpretation ¯ comes from a modern necessity in a dialogue with the text's potentials. The historical moment opens new horizons of understanding and makes the unthinkable thinkable. New questions and challenges require new answers. As mentioned above, the "Gandhian moment" is a new cross-religious awareness of the immensely devastating character of modern war. The Qur" an seems to accept the defensive war: ¯

Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not commit aggression; God does not love the aggressors. (Q 2, 190)

Fight them until there is no oppression, and worship becomes devoted to God alone. But if they cease, then let there be no hostility except against the oppressors. The sacred month for the sacred month; and sacrilege calls for retaliation. Whoever commits aggression against you, retaliate against him in the same measure as he has committed against you. And be conscious of God and know that God is with the righteous. (Q 2, 193–194)

If they incline towards peace, then incline towards it, and put your trust in God. He is the Hearer, the Knower. If they intend to deceive you, God is sufficient for you. It is He who supported you with His aid, and with the believers. (Q 8, 61–62)

Based on the above mentioned verses, in the case of an aggression or attack on the community, reacting to violence with violence is permitted under certain ethical conditions:


What makes the interpretative endeavor more complicated is the existence of some verses that encourage the believers to fight:

O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. (Q 8, 65)

Fighting is ordained for you, even though you dislike it. (Q 2, 216)

When you meet the disbelievers in battle, strike them in the neck, and once they are defeated, bind any captives firmly. Later you can release them by grace or by ransom until the toils of war have ended. (Q 47, 4)

The historical background to these verses is a painful transition from a tribal system based on blood alliances, in which man defends his tribe regardless of any consideration, to a system based on a solidarity within a faith. Under the attack of Qurayš, the Prophet's tribe, and its allies, the new community of Medina was obliged to fight as an act of survival, which meant fighting against their families and tribes, a taboo in Arab society at that time. This contextualization is necessary in order to avoid the transformation of these verses into an appeal for perpetual war, also considering the ethical conditions mentioned above. This social transformation is summarized by a H. ad¯ıt narrated by Anas b. Malik:

God's Messenger said, "Help your brother whether he is an oppressor or an oppressed". A man said, "O God's Messenger! I will help him if he is oppressed, but if he is an oppressor, how shall I help him?" The Prophet said, "By preventing him from oppressing [others], for that is how to help him". (Buh" ar¯ ¯ı 1980, K. al-ikrah, h ¯ . . 6952, vol. 4, p. 287)

The genius of the Prophet is to transform a pre-Islamic proverb that summarizes the "group feeling", *al-* " *as. abiyya*, <sup>13</sup> changing its meaning radically and endowing it with a moral purpose.

However, recognizing the defensive war in the Qur"anic text does not necessarily ¯ mean its insuperability or dogmatization. Contextualizing these kinds of verses makes it possible to distinguish between principles and historical forms, between theory and historical examples.<sup>14</sup>

A similar problem is faced in feminist hermeneutics in this emblematic verse concerning domestic violence:

Men are *qawwam¯ un¯* on women, as God has given some of them an advantage over others, and because they spend out of their wealth. The good women are obedient, guarding what God would have them guard. As for those from whom you fear disloyalty, admonish them, and abandon them in their beds, then strike them. But if they obey you, seek no way against them. God is Sublime, Great. (Q 4, 34)

There are extensive modern debates about the meaning of the adjective *qawwam¯ un¯* (sing. *qawwam¯* ) <sup>15</sup> and the noun *qiwama ¯* , which indicate man as the head and the person responsible for the family. The most sensitive and arguable question in the verse is the permission to beat wives. The primary strategy used by feminist interpretations is to criticize the patriarchal interpretations of the Qur" an, showing other possible ways of ¯ understanding it. The entrance of women into the realm of interpretation can change the situation in a field historically dominated by men; however, changing perspective is necessary but not sufficient to solve the problem. The question concerns not only the dominant patriarchal character of Tafs¯ır literature, but the Qur" anic text itself that contains ¯ patriarchal elements.16 The Qur" an was not only revealed in the Arabic language but also ¯ in the Arabic culture of the seventh century, marked and formed by the patriarchal society. It is not a defect but a part of divine communication. God reveals Himself in history and culture, and revelation is not a *sopra*-cultural or an a-historical phenomenon. The Word of God is an active agent running through history that transforms history, people, and cultures. It is necessary to go beyond the patriarchal commentaries and to recognize the text's historicity and patriarchal language and models. The text is not modern, and it cannot be; only our reading is modern.

#### *4.3. Textual Hierarchy*

The Qur"an asserts that its verses are not equal and recognizes an internal textual hier- ¯ archy, which is an essential hermeneutical key. Other traditions do the same, considering a part of their Scripture to be the primary reference for interpretation, just like the Johannine and Pauline part of the New Testament for some Christian theologies. In the Qur" an, the ¯ main referential or the theoretical part is not a chapter or a group of chapters or suras. It is ¯ dispersed throughout the entire text, complicating the hermeneutical task. Let us analyze the key verse concerning this question:

It is He who revealed to you the Book. Some of its verses are *muh. kam*; they are *umm al-kitab¯* (the mother/foundation of the Book), and others are *mutašabih ¯* . As for those in whose hearts is deviation, they follow the *mutašabih ¯* , seeking descent, and seeking to derive an interpretation. But none knows its interpretation except God *and* those firmly rooted in knowledge say, "We believe in it; all is from our Lord". But none recollects except those with understanding. (Q 3, 7)

The traditional explanation, which is still more widespread, is that the *muh. kam* verses are clear and explicit with just one meaning. The *mutašabih ¯* verses, instead, are the ambiguous ones that afford different interpretations. This definition is problematic and needs to be revisited. The verse mentioned, (Q 3, 7), seems to be *mutašabih ¯* , applying the standards of ambiguity/clarity. Historically, there is no consensus on what is clear or ambiguous, more or less essential, or even on the meaning of the two terms.17 The main objections to the traditional definition are the following:

This definition transforms many practical and juridical verses from concrete and historical cases and examples into definitive and "eternal" meanings and instructions that cannot be changed. Because of their practical nature, these verses are clear and explicit, which does not make them doctrinal and ethical principles. At the same time, this definition marginalizes the theological verses; their general character could be considered "ambiguous". This approach is one of the causes of the priority of law over theology, reversing the pyramid, and it might be appropriate when relatively slow change occurs within the same paradigm or system. Nowadays, this conservatism leads to subtle or manifest violence, the violence of old models and patterns in a changing world and totally different contexts. The examples of corporal punishment and the death penalty are eloquent. They became part of the so-called *al-ma* " *lum min al-d ¯ ¯ın bi al-d. arura ¯* , "what is recognized necessarily as part of religion".18 The same approach is expressed in the juridical rule: *la i˘ ¯ gtihad ma ¯* " *a al-nas.s.*, which means: "there is no *i˘gtihad¯* , interpretation, with an explicit text".19

The dogmatization of law, attributing a theological status to certain historical practices, may cause a hermeneutical chaos. The so-called "sword verse", *ayat al-sayf ¯* , <sup>20</sup> is a significant example. Some traditional views declare that this verse abrogates all verses concerning mercy and peace. This abusive use of abrogation theory is none other than an expression of a fragmental reading of the Qur" an, the bitter fruit of the absence of an inclusive theory ¯ that defines the hierarchical values in the text. This arbitrary approach is the sole Qur" anic ¯ justification of the expansionist and imperialistic war.

A more reasonable definition is possible, avoiding risks and inconveniences:

The *muh. kam* verses are the hermeneutical principles, definitions, and criteria. In other terms, the Qur" anic theory, ¯ *umm al-kitab¯* , the mother/foundation of the Book, as (Q 3, 7) called them.

The *mutašabih ¯* verses are the contingent and historical applications of the values and principles. These verses are *mutašabih ¯* because they may create confusion when exchanged with the principles. Indeed, absolutizing this category leads to *fitna*, conflict, and violence and prevents radical *i ˘gtihad¯* .

In this manner, the doctrinal verses of peace and nonviolence are *muh. kam*, interpretive and theological criteria, and the verses concerning defensive warfare are *mutašabih ¯* , i.e., contingent and historical applications of the ethical and doctrinal principles, as will be explained further below.

The use of the Sunna as the primary reference for interpreting the Qur"an is a widespread ¯ methodology in Tafs¯ır literature, particularly among traditionalist and Salafi circles.<sup>21</sup> The Sunna is indeed predominant in modelling the Islamic mind. It offers more details and challenging texts, sometimes contradicting the Qur" an itself. This excessive use risks over- ¯ turning the hierarchical textual order, especially in the absence of a Qur" anic theory and ¯ criteria. The correct methodology is to read the Sunna in light of the Qur" an; then to read ¯ both of them in light of clear Qur" anic principles and values (cf. ¯ Ghazali 2009).
