Does the Qur’an Requires Hermeneutics?

In a seminar in UMY, (04/10/2003), the panelists, Dr. Ugi Suharto firmly refused the application ‘hermeneutics’ to the interpretation of the Koran. At that time supporter of ‘hermeneutics’ is Dr. Amin Abdullah. This is the opinion by Dr. Ugi Suharto *)

Hermeneutics, who borrow the English word hermeneutics, and who also comes from the Greek word hermeneutikos not a neutral term that is not charged view of life (world-view; weltanschauung). If the word is associated with al-Qur’an, nor by the Biblical Studies, the meaning of hermeneutic understanding of the language has changed from merely a term which has its own meaning. Therefore, before we discuss more about the hermeneutics of the Koran, it is better we discuss first the meaning of differences in language (linguistic meaning) and the meaning of terms (technical meaning) hermeneutics itself. In terms of language such as Aristotle never used the word to the title of his Elves Hermeneias later translated into Latin as De Interpretatione who then translated in English as On the Interpretation.

However, long before the Latin translation, al-Farabi (d. 339/950), a leading Muslim philosophers, has been translated and commented the works of Aristotle first into Arabic under the title al-’Ibarah Fi.

Aristotle himself when using hermeneias words do not mean to suggest the meaning of terms as it developed in modern times now. Hermeneias which he argued that his work menyusuli Kategoriai, simply discuss the role in understanding the expression of thought, and also discussion of the units of language such as nouns (noun), verb (verb), sentences (sentence), the expression (proposition), and other other-related to grammar. When Aristotle discussed hermeneias, he did not make the text or make a criticism of the text. So the topics discussed by Aristotle is on the field of interpretation itself, regardless of the text that was interpreted. In terms of language, al-Farabi perfect hermeneuias transliterate as’ ibarah which gives the connotation of the expression language indicated certain meanings. That sense of hermeneutics which originally referred only to the meaning of the language alone.

Transfer of meaning from the notion of hermeneutics to pengetian term language is a later development. Lexicography sources agree that the meaning of the term that begins the transition from the efforts of Jewish and Christian theologians in critically reviewing the texts in their scriptures. A dictionary of philosophy, for example, states:

Hermeneutics. . . . Originally Concerned with more narrowly interpreting sacred texts, the term acquired a much broader significance in its historical development and Finally Became a Philosophical position in Twentieth Century Germany philosophy.

A Ph.D. thesis about hermeneutics also states that:

Originally, the term ‘Hermeneutics’ was employed in reference to the field of study Concerned with developing rules and methods biblical Exegesis That Can guide. During the early years of the Nineteenth Century, ‘Hermeneutics’ Became ‘General Hermeneutics’ at the hands of the philosopher and Protestant theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher. Schleiermacher transformed into a Philosophical Hermeneutics field of study by elevating it from the confines of narrow Specialization as a Theological field to the higher ground of General Philosophical concerns about language and its understanding.

So the term ‘hermeneutics’ and then is transferred meaning than just the meaning of language, into the meaning of theology, and now the meaning of philosophy. Interesting to explore a little background why hermeneutics used by Jewish and Christian theologians to understand the Bible texts. Encyclopaedia Britannica states clearly that the main goal of hermeneutics is to seek “the truth value of the Bible.”

For both Jews and Christians throughout on their historical, the primary purpose of hermeneutics, and of the exegetical methods employed in interpretation, has been to Discover the Truths and values of the Bible.

Why does the hermeneutic that these theologians seeking Bible truth value? The answer is because they have some problems with the texts of their holy book. They questioned whether the Bible’s literal Word of God can be thought or word of man. Flow, which believes that the Bible is the Word of God lafaz criticism and is considered extremely hard to understand the Bible. Encyclopaedia Britannica states again:

That literal interpretation asserts a biblical text is to be Interpreted according to the “plain meaning” conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context. The literal meaning is held to correspond to the intention of the authors. This type of hermeneutics is often, but not necessarily, associated with belief in the verbal inspiration of the Bible, according to Which the individual words of the divine message divinely Were Chosen. Extreme forms of this view are criticized on the ground That they want do not adequately account for the evident individuality of style and vocabulary found in the Various biblical authors.

Note the last phrase which reads “individuality of style and vocabulary found in the Various biblical authors” (the style and vocabulary found in each of the various authors about the Bible). The big difference is what causes the author can not be said Bible Word of God (the Word of God) literally (literally). Therefore, Christian theologians need a hermeneutic for understanding the actual Word of God. They almost agree that the Bible is literally not the Word of God. Therefore they feel the need to read the Bible “Between-the-line” in order to understand the actual word of God. Here the role of hermeneutics in helping to understand the Bible for Christian theologians.

The situation is different with Muslims, who can understand the Word of God from the Qur’an both “on-the-line” or “Between the line.” Muslims agree that the Qur’an is the Word of God to the Prophet Muhammad ditanzilkan (PBUH). Muslims also agree that the Koran literally from God. Also, Muslims agree, reading the Koran is literally the worship and be rewarded; reject the literal reading is a mistake; read it literally in prayer is a requirement, and understands the Koran literally is also justified, while the literal translation and alihbahasanya not be said as the Koran. Ibn Abbas, for example, has stated that among the understanding that the Koran is a kind of commentary that everyone can understand it (He ya’dziru fahmihi fi ahad). Such understanding is of course referring to the literal understanding lafaz. Therefore Muslims, unlike Jews and Christians, never feel troubled by lafaz-lafaz Koran literally.

The next difference is that the Bible is now written and read is no longer the language of origin. Original language Bible is Hebrews to the Old Testament, New Testament Greek for, and Prophet Jesus himself spoke Aramaic. This later translated the whole Bible in Latin, then into the European languages such as German, English, French and other people, including Indonesian language much to the English Bible. Hebrews Bible texts also have a problem with the issue of originality, expressed by a reviewer sepertimana Bible history:

The Hebrews text now in our Possession has a special one peculiarity: notwithstanding its considerable age, it comes to us in relatively late manuscripts Which are therefore far removed in time from the originals (Sometimes by more than a thausand years). . . . None of These manuscripts is Earlier than the ninth century CE

Likewise the New Testament, has the same problem with the Old Testament:

The New Testament Scriptures Also similar problems as Reflect Those of the Hebrews Bible. These Scriptures, particularly the Gospels, Were written after the period of Jesus, in the Greek language, that he most probably did not speak. Moreover, it is acknowledged by authorities Prominent Christian That the purpose of the gospel writers was not to write objective history but for the Evangelical purpose, Which in part led to the profusion of allegorical commentaries.

Hebrews Bible is also about language, because no one present in the native language of the ancient Hebrews, the Hebrews to understand the language of the Bible that Jewish and Christian theologians need help with language that is allied with the Hebrews (Semitic languages). And language that can bring hope to be able to reveal the language of the ancient Hebrews was none other than Arabic, because Arabic is still living up to this day.

. . . The search for the ‘original Semitic language’ was on. . . and Arabic with its ‘primitive’ inflections SEARCH Became the firm favorite as the primary witness to what the original language That must have looked like.

We know that Arabic is alive because of the influence that is enabled by the Koran itself. So the Koran in Arabic was the one who saves, while in the case of the Bible, they should save first before you can save the Hebrews language Bible. Therefore, in the absence of original language Bible on this day, it was natural that the Jewish and Christian theologians find ways and methodologies to understand the Bible back through hermeneutics. In this case hermeneutic possibilities can help a work of translation, even more so if the native language is not found anymore. Schleiermacher himself been linked with the notion that the task of hermeneutics was to understand the text “as good or better than the author himself,” or “to understand the author better than he understood Himself.” So it is natural if the Bible is authored by many people it takes hermeneutics to understand it in a way that is better than the authors of the Bible itself.

As for the Qur’an, how could terfikir by the Muslims that they can understand the Koran better than God Almighty or s.a.w. Messenger? Therefore, in an effort to more in-depth understanding of the Koran, the Muslims actually only require interpretation, and not hermeneutics, because they have received the literal truth of the Koran as the Word of God. If you need a deeper understanding of another, for example mutasyabihat verses, that is needed is ta’wil. It should be emphasized that in the Islamic tradition, ta’wil also not the same as hermeneutics, because ta’wil mestilah based and not contrary to the interpretation, and interpretation lafaz literally standing on the Koran. So as a term, can mean a deepening of meanings ta’wil (intensification of meaning) of the commentary.

Al-Jurjani (d. 816/1413), for example, in the famous phrase dictionary, Kitab al-Ta’rifat, stating the relationship of meaning and interpretation ta’wil as follows:

Ta’wil a meaningful return home. However, in syara ‘he turned bekmakna Zahir lafaz of significance to the meanings that may be contained therein, if the meaning is probably that in accordance with the [spirit of] the Book and Sunnah. Examples such as the word of God “He took out a living from the dead” (al-Anbiya ‘: 95), if that meant there was a bird out of the egg, then that interpretation. But if that meant there was the issue of the faithful from the infidel, or someone knowledgeable from the ignorant, then that is ta’wil.

From the information given above it is clear that ta’wil deeper than interpretation, and interpretation was based on the literal meaning of Zahir lafaz verses of the Koran. Although there are differences of opinion among the scholars regarding the interpretation and meaning ta’wil, but they never questioned the text of the Koran as the Word of God. Strictly speaking, “textual criticism” to the Koran does not exist in Islamic tradition. Therefore, in this case, still not comparable between the interpretation or hermeneutics ta’wil with departures from the “textual criticism” in the Bible. A book published Kanisius Hermeneutics, for example, could equate the Koran with the Bible and other religious books, and claimed that the same interpretation of hermeneutics. The author of the book says:

The first discipline that many use hermeneutics is the science of biblical interpretation. For all the work that such divine inspiration of the Koran, Torah, the books of the Vedas, and Upanishads to be understood requires interpretation or hermeneutics.

Opinion that say that the Koran is “the work of divine inspiration” as well as the Bible, clearly can not be accepted by the Muslims. Islamic people do not ever understand that the Koran was a “work” so it takes a hermeneutic for understanding the work. Conversely, the idea came from the Orientalists who deceive Muslims to assume that the Koran was the work of Muhammad and the religion of Islam also states that Muhammad aka artificial Muhammadanism. Whereas Christians sendiripun, who still have a problem with Bible texts, never says that the Gospel was the work of Jesus Christ.

So, the tradition of interpretation in Islam is not the same as in the Christian tradition of hermeneutics. A prominent Muslim scholar, Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas, clearly stating the difference between interpretation and hermeneutics:

Indeed, it was Because of the scientific nature of the structure of the language That the first science Among the Muslims – the science of Exegesis and commentary (Tafseer) Became possible and actualized; and the kind of Exegesis and commentary not quite identical with Greek hermeneutics , normal Indeed with the hermeneutics of the Christians, with any normal ‘science’ of interpretation of sacred Scripture of any other culture and religion.

In short, hermeneutics used in Christian theology that has its own background is different from the interpretation of the Islamic tradition. Perhaps these findings through the hermeneutics of the Bible, that will be more shows again the truth of the Koran. So what’s missing in the Bible can be found in the Koran.

Back to the meaning of the term hermeneutics, as stated before, the displacement of meaning from the scope of hermeneutics to the scope of philosophical theology dibidani by philosophers of the nation of Germany, Friedrich Schleiermacher. Berfahaman Protestant philosopher who is considered the founder of the ‘general hermeneutics’ that can be applied to all areas of study. However, as stated by Aref Nayed, displacement hermeneutics of theology to philosophy that was not separated from the motive of Christian theology professed by Schleiemacher. “He founded the General Theological hermeneutics for Reasons.” Schleiermacher that Protestants certainly do not agree with Catholic interpretations of the Bible that was dominated by the Church and papal institution. For her Protestant interpretation of the Bible was closer to the true teachings of Prophet Jesus.

That made the Theological concerns Schleiermacher undertake the project of general hermeneutics are made very clear in his: Brief Outline of the Study of Theology. . . . In his work, the General Hermeneutics is supposed to supply the basis for a biblical hermeneutics That would make possible a knowledge of primitive Christianity, and vindicate Protestant claims to being more faithful to the original Teachings of Christ.

Certainly when the Bible texts is a problem, then his interpretation would be more problematic. Not surprisingly, in this case if Werner G. Jeanroad never talked about the “crisis of interpretation of the Bible” and hoped that hermeneutics can contribute to overcome them. He said:

Hermeneutics, the study of proper means of text-interpretation, is not the cause of the current biblical studies, rather it points indirectly to May Some Airways out of this crisis.

If later became the subject of philosophical hermeneutics, it gives birth to a variety of ideologies. Although Schleiermacher (1768-1834) was the first scholar who brought the level of hermeneutics of theology to the level of philosophy, but Schleiermacher hermeneutics is ultimately became one of the existing flow of hermeneutics. There is a Hermeneutics of Betti are proposed by Emilio Betti (1890-1968) an Italian national scholar of Roman law; there Hermeneutics of Hirsch that proposed by Eric D. Hirsch (1928 -), a literary critic of the American nation; there Hermeneutics of Gadamer that proposed by Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900 -), an expert on philosophy and language, and no more streams flow of the hermeneutics of the other like Dilthey (d. 1911), Heidegger (1976 m.), and others.

If hermeneutics hermeneutics-it wants applied to study the Koran, hermeneutics which one wants to be taken? So why only take a certain hermeneutic and reject the other? Then, what guarantee is hermeneutics taken it really showed the true sense of the Koran? Is not if taking a particular hermeneutic, meaning it was already entered in the “school of thought” in particular? If so where objektifitasnya? And many more other problems.

Take the example of Fazlur Rahman. He further agreed to the hermeneutics of Gadamer’s hermeneutics Betti instead. But he also disagreed with the Betti which says that the original meaning of a text lies in the sense that the author of the text. For Rahman, the original meaning of the text lies in the context of history when the text was written. If so, what is your opinion about Fazlur Rahman philosophical hermeneutics which endorsed the conclusions of a major problem called the “hermeneutic circle”, ie a kind of vicious circle objects of historical understanding which says that “if the interpretation is also based on the interpretation itself, then the circle’s interpretation can not be circumvented. ” The result is one’s understanding of texts and historical cases that will never arrive, because if someone can understand the context, the context is the interpretation of history that was as well. When this is applied to study the Qur’an, then eternity Koran can never be understandable and understood.

Hermeneutic circle: The problems in the process of interpretation Pls Arise That one element, for instance in a text, can only be understood in terms of the meanings of Others or of the whole text, yet understanding These other elements, or the whole text, in turn presupposes understanding of the original element. Each Can only be understood in the light of the others. . . . . The Phenomenon Germany has preoccupied thinkers from Schleiermacher and Dilthey through Heidegger and Gadamer.

In the Koran there are verses which muhkamat, there are proposals to Islam, there are things that are tsawabit, all the verses are, and there is a portion-show bahagiannya qat’iyy al-dilalah, there are matters which included in al-ma’lum min al-din al-darurah bi, there is something that consensus about the Koran, and there are understood as the al-Quran delivered by road mutawatir, all of it can be understood and understood by the Muslims with certain degrees bahwasannya it is the teaching of the Koran are desired by God. If the philosophy of hermeneutics used to the Koran then that would be mutasyabihat muhkamat, which suggested a furu ‘, which became mutaghayyirat thawabit, which qat’iyy become zanniyy, which ma’lum become majhul, the consensus became deviation, which mutawatir become munday, and which will become zann yaqin, even syakk. The reason is simple, the philosophical hermeneutics does not make an exception to the things above axiomatic.

In a more extreme position, philosophical hermeneutics has entered the plateau ended epistemological understanding sophist as opposed to the worldview of Islam (Islamic weltanschauung). Philosophical hermeneutics leads to a universal conclusion that “all understanding is interpretation,” and because it depends on the person interpretatsi, the result of understanding (understanding, verstehen) it becomes subjective. In other words, no one can understand anything with it objectively.

Aqidah al-Nasafi, for example, in the first paragraph states: haqa’iq al-asya ‘wa al-’ilmu thabitatun Biha mutahhaqqiqun, khilafan li al-sufata’iyyah (all the essence of all things that Thabit existence, and the knowledge he [is that] actually, awry with the [opinion] the sufasta’iyyah). One faction sufasta’iyyah (sophist), it is class’ indiyyah (epistemological subjectivist) embracing ideology that there is no objective truth in science, all science is subjective, and the truth about something is merely the opinion of someone. If all of this is associated with the study of the Koran, so consequently there are no Muslims who have the same understanding of the Koran, because it all depends on the understanding that their own interpretations. Of course the Muslims did not mean it when manafsir or mena’wil al-Qur’an.

Surat al-Ikhlas in the Qur’an, for example, can be understood easily by the Muslims that Allah is One, God does not give birth and be born, and no one setanding with Him. Although there are differences in deepening understanding of the unity between the laity and clergy, but no-one a Muslim who said God is one among the three or three out of that one. An ordinary Muslim who understands the unity of God with the “mathematical oneness” is not out of true Islamic aqidah, although less refined understanding. To memperhalusnya, Muslims do not need to hermeneutics. Instead, it requires the trinity concept of hermeneutics to understand it, because at the level of the Zahir lafaz though, it’s hard trinity understood.

In conclusion, hermeneutics or interpretation is different from any ta’wil in Islamic tradition. Hermeneutics is not suitable to study the Koran, both in terms of theological or philosophical. In a theological sense, hermeneutics will end with a question that Zahir verses from the Koran and take it as problematic. Among the theological hermeneutics in the impression is that there is any doubt against the Ottoman manuscripts that have been agreed upon by all Muslims, whether Sunni or Shia by Muslim, as the “Textus Receptus.” Muhammad Arkoun desire, for example, to download the “deconstruct” Ottoman manuscripts, is the influence of this theological hermeneutics, apart from the influence of Jacques Derrida. In a philosophical meaning, hermeneutics will confront again the Muslim faith who hold that the Qur’an is the Word of God. Opinions of the late Fazlur Rahman, who said that the Koran was “both the Word of God and the word of Muhammad” is the impression from this philosophical hermeneutics. All Muslims are not profitable, and only lowered the degree of validity of the Koran as if the same with another book. Actually there is a possibility of advancing the Christian hermeneutics, but the Muslims will almost certainly be dropped back with a hermeneutic that. Sepertimana Arabic has become the standard language of Hebrews and Semitic languages other, then the Qur’an should also become the benchmark for the other scriptures, because the Koran is the sacred book of the last and that among the books of authentic another book. In other words, study the Koran, especially regarding its interpretation, does not require hermeneutics. We worry about these days we are so excited to import the term hermeneutics to study the Koran without first investigating the background of the term itself having to charge different view of life the Islamic worldview. Actually if you want to use foreign languages as well, hence the term Exegesis or any commentary that has been used is sufficient to al-Qur’an. Why now Exegesis or commentary should be exchanged with hermeneutics?

I will conclude this paper with a warning from the Hadith the Holy Prophet which reads:

You will follow the roads before you, cubit by cubit, inch by inch, so that when they entered the pit lizards once you will follow it too. Then the Messenger of Allah s.a.w. asked: “Are they [that followed] that the Jews and Nasara?” Rasulullah replied: “Who else [if not them].” (H. R. Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Majah, Ahmad)

*). The writer is a researcher INSIST, Lecturer in Kuala Lumpur, ISTAC-UIA. This paper is taken from INSIST.Com.

Hot Post:

lafaz meaning in english ,meaning of darurah