Nasları Anlama ve Yorumlamada Nesnellik Arayışında İ‘tidâl
I'tidāl in the Search for Objectivity in the Understanding and Interpretation of the Texts

Summary/Abstract: The ontological distinctiveness of revelation and the linguistic articulation of the divine will have placed interpretation at the center of Islamic civilization. Given that interpretation is a human activity, efforts have always been made to pursue objectivity in order to address the problems arising from subjectivity. During the time of revelation, objectivity was ensured by referring matters to the Prophet. In later periods, this objectivity was sought through the development of methodological frameworks. However, some approaches that ignore the inherent subjectivity of interpretation in the historical process have sought methods in the name of pure objectivity. One such approach is the Ẓāhirī school, systematized in the fifth century AH by Ibn Ḥazm (d. 456/1064). Another appears in the modern era, influenced by the positivist approaches in the 19th century Western natural sciences, and is reflected in the interpretive methods proposed by contemporary scholars such as Fazlur Rahman (d. 1988) and Naṣr Ḥamid Abu Zayd (d. 2010). The Ẓāhirī approach, which advocates for literal meaning in the name of objectivity, avoids reasoning based on underlying causes in religion and language and instead proposes an interpretation centered on indication (dalāla), thereby narrowing the scope of revealed texts. In contrast, recent researchers who argue that traditional interpretations are inadequate and propose new methods have placed what they call historical meaning or meaning -in other words, values- at the centre of their methods by establishing an objective starting point in the name of objectivity. Based on this premise, they have developed interpretive methods that detach the text from its original context and authorial intent, assigning new meanings and aims to it and thus broadening its scope. In contrast to these perspectives, the general mainstream approach in Islamic interpretation has adopted a balanced notion of objectivity, not rejecting the subjectivity inherent in interpretation but rather seeking to avoid boundless and arbitrary subjectivity by establishing a coherent methodology for interpreting texts. This article aims to analyze the aforementioned approaches using a data-based method to demonstrate the consequences of deviating from moderate objectivity and to argue for the necessity of maintaining this balanced objectivity. While both the Ẓāhirī school and contemporary scholars like Fazlur Rahman and Abū Zayd are addressed under the theme of “pure objectivity,” the study argues that, in fact, Fazlur Rahman and Abū Zayd ultimately fall into subjectivity, specifically into an excessive interpretation lacking clear boundaries. The study concludes that the Ẓāhirī approach falls into excess in the form of undue literalism, while the contemporary scholars’ methods represent the opposite extreme, leading both to interpretations that contradict the intended purpose of the texts and render some scriptural statements ineffective.

• Details
• Contents