Humanizing the Koran

This article was published in Indonesian at 30/8/2004

No one denies that the Koran is a metamorphosis from an oral text (al-nashshus syafahy) to a written text (al-nashshul maktûb). This metamorphosis process indicates that the Koran is a lingual text (nash lughawiy), using language as its medium. All texts are historical phenomenon and have specific contexts, including the Koran. As a human revelation (ta’ansan), the Koran was not born in a vacant space of culture, but born in cultural space and time. So, the Koranic text, unlike other linguistic texts, is a historical text (nash târikhiy).

The historicity of the Koranic text can be observed from its ‘revelation’ over more or less twenty three years, to the Prophet who afterwards disseminated it to his society (ummah). In that verbal dissemination process, the Koran materialized graphically in a written form, and was codified as a “closed formal corpus” according to Arkoun. In this context, the existence of Koran has shifted from the divine text (nashsh ilâhi) to the humane perception or text (fahm/nash insâniy).

It is Nasr Hamid Abu Zaid, an Egyptian thinker who concluded this. Through several of his works he asserted that although the Koran originated from God (therefore it is sacred), but the sacredness will be real when it is made human (tamawdha’a fîhâ basyariyan).

The process of this Koranic humanization happened when the Prophet Muhammad conveyed the divine ‘verbal’ revelations in Arabic language, the language of people in Arabic peninsula. Without pretending to desacralize Koran absolutely, Abu Zaid wanted to affirm the immanence of the Koran, as it is perceived by human without denying its transcendental source. In this context, Abu Zaid wanted to repeat the ‘manifesto’ of his in absentia teacher, Amin al-Khulli, who said that the Koran is “the Arabic great book”(Kitâb al-‘arabiyyah al-akbar). The word “ Arabic book” indicates the immanence of Koran, and “the great book” indicates its transcendental aspect. By believing that Koran is a historical Arabic text, Abu Zaid positioned Koran as text which maybe analyzed through linguistic apparatus.

Textuality and historicity of the Koran

Koranic immanence and transcendence conveyed by Abu Zaid through his explanation about textuality and historicity of the Koran. To Abu Zaid, Koranic textuality can be explained through three things. First, the Koran is a message revealed to the prophet Muhammad in the Arabic language via Gabriel.  As a message, Koran assures itself as text. Second, the order of the Koran is dissimilar to the chronology of its revelation (tartîb al-nuzûl). The chronology of the revelation indicates the realistic nature of text, while the structure of reading (tartib al-tilawah) indicate its textuality. Third, the fact that Koran contains mu

hkamât verses that have only one meaning which is clearly known which are the core of text, and mutashâbihât verses that can have many meanings according to the rules of the Arabic language and which must be perceived based on the muh

kamât verses.

By asserting the textuality of the Koran, Abu Zaid wanted to relate Koranic studies with the context of critical studies in literature. It means that like other texts, the Koran might be approached with the apparatus of modern textual studies. Abu Zayd said that the Koran is a lingual text (nashs lughawiy) illustrated as the central text (nashs mi

h

wariy) in Arabic civilization. Therefore, positioning it as a historical text does not mean to reduce its divinity. It is text historicity that makes the Koran a subject of understanding and interpretation. So, social historical analysis is needed in the process of understanding the Koran, and using modern linguistic methods is becoming a necessity in interpretation. Here is the important meaning of textuality and historicity of the Koran. Neglecting the textuality of the Koran will congeal the meaning of the message. When the message is congealed, it will be easy to direct it to the reader’s ideological direction and interest.

On the other hand, neglecting the historicity of the Koran will be implied upon the extraction of the Koranic meaning from its context. The conservatives often did it in reading Koran. They, quoting Asma Barlas (2003), a Pakistani intellectual, like to de-contextualize the Koran teaching by de-historicizing the Koran itself because of a particular view of time.

Against Authoritarian Hermeneutics

Disconnection between the message of the Koran and its context, the historical context of the reader, and the ignorance of the reader upon the ‘textual meaning’ of a text, lead to the authoritarianism in understanding the text. “Textual meaning” here is visualization in linguistic structure. By denying the textual meaning and extra textual meaning of the text, the reader or interpreter will be trapped into what has been called by Abu Zayd as the ideologist-tendentious reading (qira’ah talwiniyah mughridlah) of the text. This ideologist and tendentious reading eventually delivers an authoritarian hermeneutic as Khaled Abou el-Fadl said. To him, an authoritarian hermeneutic happens when the mechanism of investigating the meaning of text is subjugated from the text by subjective and selective reading. Subjectivity and selectivity by neglecting the textual and extra textual reality of text vacillates the text according to the reader’s interest. Such a model of reading must be refused and it is Abu Zayd who is the loudest thinker who raises this refutation.

Therefore, beside observing the inter-textuality of the Koranic text in its various dimension, it is also important to observe the extra-textual factor of text, including various contexts inside, not only the revelation but also the context of the historical text as read by people in time and place. Using the hermeneutical steps of Barlas, there are three steps to do in reading the Koran: 1) to read the Koran as text, 2) to read behind the text, to reconstruct the historical context in which the text was born; and 3) to read in front of the text, to re-contextualize the messages of text in the current context.

In such an attempt, the subjugation of the text for the interest of the reader can be avoided. Abu Zaid wanted to inform us about the productive model of reading the text which is the opposite of the ideologist-tendentious reading. []

* Ahmad Fawaid Sjadzili, Researcher of Lakpesdam-NU and Student of Postgraduate Program of State Islamic University Jakarta.

(Translated by Lanny Octavia, edited by Jonathan Zilberg)