Two Perspectives on Interpreting Women Issues in Quran
Speaking at a local conference in Tehran, Dr. Fatemeh Tofighi, a lecturer at the University of Religions and Denominations, referred to a host of points with regard to the issue. Here is a summary of her remarks:
Today’s discussion centers on the ethics of Tafseer (interpretation) in the framework of normative ethics, trying to determine which dos and don’ts interpreters should take into account.
There are two main groups of thinkers here: the first one is those interpreters who have written social and historical exegeses on the Quran; these were people who felt some needs in the society and wanted the increased presence of the Quran in social life. These thinkers tried to draw answers with regard to issues such as corruption in society and political tyranny from the Quran.
For instance, with regard to the issue of democracy, these people referred to verse 38 of Surah Ash-Shura which reads: “those who answer their Lord, establish the prayers, and their affairs are by consultation; who spend of that which We have given them,” without paying attention to the history and root of the Western civilization and the basis for this verse. Their interpretation may imply imposing a meaning on the text.
When encountering issues relating to women and gender justice, this group says that the Quran has no problem in this regard as it has ensured justice for women. However, the problem relates to our understanding as we have failed to get the fair message of the Quran. Many of the interpretations are the result of this social view.
The second group of thinkers did not explicitly oppose the first group but a review of their opinions shows that their stress on ethics of interpretation refers to observing scientific accuracy and the ethics of research; i.e. they are concerned about transferring the message correctly.
They believe that if some individuals try to understand issues such as democracy and gender justice from the Quran while the text has not talked about them, the ethics of research has not been fulfilled. An important point is that there has been no constructive dialogue between members of the two groups.
Relation between religious and social reform
The first group’s assumption is that if we adopt religious reform and find a new understanding of religious texts, social and political reform will follow suit. They believe that the problem arises as we are following a version of Islam that does not allow social reform; for instance, the realization of democracy or gender justice. Accordingly, they have sometimes imposed meaning on the text as they sought to draw something about justice while there was no mention of that in the text.
I do not agree with this perspective; i.e. any political and social reform does not require religious reform. Meanwhile, there may be some relations between the two issues.
Failure to adhere to fairness in interpretation can harm individuals; meaning that the text can become a tool for some people to wage oppression. When I talk about scientific accuracy and moral responsibility, I am concerned about the negative impacts that can be produced as a result of an interpretation.
