"But to ignore the conditions of the Prophet's community when verses treating such topics as gender relations, religious diversity, and political authority were revealed is to risk misunderstanding the Quran. For this reason, one must not be hasty in drawing conclusions about legal judgments and other norms on the basis of a surface reading of a few verses from the Quran. As is explained in the essay 'The Quran as Source of Islamic Law,' the Quran is a source of law; is is not a book of law. Even apparently unambiguous declarations might, in fact, be limited in application or scope."
Ingrid Mattson, "How to Read the Quran," in Seyyed Nasr, The Study Quran, p. 1595.
Once again I'm dipping into Mattson's wonderful essay that kicks off the Essays section at the end of Nasr's The Study Quran. (Once again, it would just be simpler if you just went ahead and bought a copy.) Now, I'm an historian, so of course this note calling for context would appeal to me; I mean, seriously, this is essentially what we do with our time. But it's always tougher when we're dealing with a religious text, especially one that is supposed to be read as the direct revelations from God. That said, I would argue that understanding the historical and cultural and intellectual worlds that gave birth to that document (even if you think that document was inspired by God, it still passed through that age) is more important than a non-religious text. I mean, you might look like a fool at a party (or in a Twitter feed) by commenting upon the Constitution and the Bill of Rights without understanding the historical and cultural and intellectual worlds of 18th century America, but you would (probably) not do as much harm as someone who was trying to make legal judgments, some which might theoretically call for punishment, based on the world that existed in seventh-century Arabia.
Ingrid Mattson, "How to Read the Quran," in Seyyed Nasr, The Study Quran, p. 1595.
Once again I'm dipping into Mattson's wonderful essay that kicks off the Essays section at the end of Nasr's The Study Quran. (Once again, it would just be simpler if you just went ahead and bought a copy.) Now, I'm an historian, so of course this note calling for context would appeal to me; I mean, seriously, this is essentially what we do with our time. But it's always tougher when we're dealing with a religious text, especially one that is supposed to be read as the direct revelations from God. That said, I would argue that understanding the historical and cultural and intellectual worlds that gave birth to that document (even if you think that document was inspired by God, it still passed through that age) is more important than a non-religious text. I mean, you might look like a fool at a party (or in a Twitter feed) by commenting upon the Constitution and the Bill of Rights without understanding the historical and cultural and intellectual worlds of 18th century America, but you would (probably) not do as much harm as someone who was trying to make legal judgments, some which might theoretically call for punishment, based on the world that existed in seventh-century Arabia.
No comments:
Post a Comment