이슬람 텍스트 해석하기: 합의의 문제

### 이슬람 주석에서 해석의 윤리: 꾸란 구절에 대한 대안적 견해에 대한 사례 연구
* 📚 이 토론은 특히 주류 해석에 도전하는 대안적 견해를 고려할 때 **꾸란 구절을 해석하는 윤리**에 중점을 둡니다.
* 🕌 이슬람 법학에서 합의(이즈마)라는 개념은 매우 중요하며, 일부 해석은 **허용 가능한 차이의 범위를 넘어서는 것**으로 간주됩니다.
* 🤔 학자들은 특히 꾸란의 비실용적인 측면에 관해서는 **전통을 존중하는 것과 새로운 해석을 탐구하는 것 사이에서 균형**을 잡아야 합니다.
* 👥 이 연구는 수라 2장에 나오는 아브라함과 새 이야기에 대한 새로운 해석을 제안한 **아부 무슬림 알 이스파하니의 사례**를 조명합니다.
* 🧐 이 글에서는 문맥, 본문 증거, 신학적 함의를 고려하여 **대안적 견해를 받아들이는 기준**을 살펴봅니다.
* 🌐 저자는 **전통적인 무파시룬, 모더니스트 사상가, 비무슬림 학자 등 다양한 학문적 관점**을 다루고 있습니다.
* 🤝 꾸란에 대한 이해를 깊게 하기 위해 **지적 개방성과 다양한 출처**를 활용하는 것이 중요하다는 점을 강조합니다.
* 🤲 궁극적인 목표는 텍스트와 더 넓은 이슬람의 가르침에 충실하면서 **해석 전통을 풍부하게 하는 것**입니다.

이 기사에서는 이슬람 주석에서 대안적 해석의 장점을 살펴보고 특정 구절에 대한 합의에 이의를 제기합니다.

okay, yeah, so I want to turn to that question of consensus. Also, I'm really interested in the question of the tolerance for difference. My understanding is that within the Islamic Sciences, the Arabic term difference oftentimes is applied to judicial debates. So, you know, not condemning a different ruling or norm, maybe of a different legal school. But I mean, at least in a general sense, tafsir is a lot about dealing with difference. And in a sense, as I see in your article, I mean, that's part of the really important points of, or one of the really important points of your article, that there's almost a merit to difference in exegetical views. Let me ask though more about this question of consensus. I'll just read a bit from the article here. You write, This is in regard to the alternative opinions as you mentioned in these two passages from Bak Quran Surah 2, and you say, um, in

regard to the opinions that are not majority, uh, these are sometimes described as in contrast with Aaj, a preponderant opinion or even a sh have um a barent. This type of opinion may well be narrated in the manner of the fabricated modur category of Hadith solely to warn people against it, um, so yeah. So, I mean, what um interest me is that your article deals with a question of um views which existed from an early period of the Islamic community, and then um you're sort of resuscita them um. And so, I mean, your arguments and you're careful, you know, you, you're, you don't eliminate either the majority views, you just say here are some merits to the the less well-known views, um, but then you have cases of Scholars, and we spoke about this in our last chat, who come up with really novel interpretations for onic verses. Uh, we spoke about the case which you've written about as well of ABD shahin, uh, is sort of trying to um.

find a place for evolution to a certain extent in the Quran so that's an interpretation that has really no uh precedent within uh the community's reflection on on the Quran so I mean um could you just speak about in light of principles like a consensus um sort of the weight of tradition you know how much Freedom does someone who's working sort of as a Muslim believing scholar have to offer new interpretations yeah so it it is part of the ethics of the tradition to try to record things even if you're recording them for a positive reason for a negative reason because there could be some reason later on that it becomes useful to know that something has been Advanced so an idea has popped up that could be something you revisit in future it could be something that has some utility even if the utility sometimes as they said is just to to let you know that sometimes people have bad ideas right so ironically Abu Muslim himself who whose view I defend at length in the second half of the paper this is the the

M thinker so he's quoted as saying uh about a certain view. I only quoted this so that you know that there are people who claim knowledge but are actually idiots. So some people have treated his view about Abraham and the birds in a similar way. So they've quoted it and then they've said, but this is pointless and silly and based on nothing and misses the point of the verse and isn't in context and all sorts of things um. But what I value is that actually that discussion continues to happen. Uh, one of the complaints against and one of the core complaints that you see again and again in the discourse around Abu muslim's view is that he doesn't have anyone before him who said that. So that's seen as something that almost disqualifies his uh his right to say what he said, right. Of course, we can then query, could it be that somebody might have said that before and we just don't know it hasn't been recorded. We've it's been lost to history, you know, do that.

Abu Muslim necessarily was the first person to think of that even though he doesn't tell us about anyone he heard saying this before. But let's suppose that he did come up with that. I think there needs to be a more rigorous framework within the traditional Paradigm as to where is the scope for new opinions. There is some discussion around this, but on the one hand, there would be the type of thing where a new interpretation would clash with existing interpretations in a way that would be unacceptable. Now, this would be the most the case when it pertains to practical rulings. Okay, so for example, people are doing their Salah every day. They're praying five times a day. This particular ruling is associated with the Salah, the instruction to Salah. If someone were to come along and say, Well, no, Salah is nothing to do with prayer. It's actually something completely different, you can understand why people will say, Well, that's impossible because how could the whole Muslim Community have misunderstood all these verses about Salah for all these centuries?

right from the beginning, they didn't know what these verses were talking about. That is absurd because they were acting upon these verses. They were talking about these verses. They were using them in a practical sense. And theologically, God would not have misled people or allowed them to miss the point of these verses, which they need in order to be Muslims, in order to live correctly. So that's on one side of the scale. Now let's say the question of uhas, which is in the first half, that is actually a juridical question. How do you deal with, you know, if in cases of murder, how is retaliation to be sought and so on. That is a practical question. However, it is also possible that actually in the time of the Prophet, peace be upon him, they actually did implement it in the way that IB T later on says that they did. There are reports that indicate that. So going with this alternative view of his, which maybe not get into in detail, but going with the

alternative view doesn't necessarily say that some disaster has happened with with people perhaps missing the direct meaning of the verse. Uh because the Practical ruling doesn't change too much but let's say Abraham and the birds. This is about a story. It is about an event that happened, you know. It's it's about understanding what's going on in a particular moment in Abraham and his relationship with God. Uh it could be understood in different ways without having any practical effect. So if you like the stakes are much lower on uh in a way the community having if it's possible having failed to record the actual meaning of the verse. And if there are even some people who got it right then in a way the community has not been left uh to misunderstand it. So I think that when it comes to the question of consensus we do need to uh have some distinction between different types of cases where is consensus uh something which is absolutely binding and violation of it is uh highly problematic but where is it possible to say another interpretation.

could comfortably fit in alongside the mainstream or even be seen to be better than what has been understood until now. And the way I tend to look at this is kind of Case Files, you know, as you well know, is a cumulative tradition. People tend to say, This is what has been said before, and they might feel the need to add something to that. They might not, in fact. What they might do is condense what has been said before. A lot of the tradition is like that. You know, they look at the more extended discussions in the past, like, say, is a bit more discursive actually than people recognize. And then IB cath will condense those opinions because there's no need to provide quite as much data as in the earlier T. So it's not always about adding, but generally if an opinion gets brought up earlier, then there will be some works that capture that opinion later on and add it to the roster of things that have been said about the

verse um so when they have seen that okay this verse is understood for example to mean that Abraham killed and chopped up the birds and this is describing a miraculous event a supernatural event of Resurrection uh as long as everyone was satisfied with this view mhm they had no uh no reason to dispute it or to challenge it or to change that could have just kind of continued to be passed along and yeah so they pass it along and in a way that that adds to the sense that there's a consensus here I think a genuine consensus you know in in a strong sense is when people have Scholars have independently assessed something and then come to the same conclusion like in the schools of f for example you've got the four famous uh Sunni schools for example of Juris Prudence if those four schools agree on a ruling each one has got its own way of thinking methodology basis it's methodology even sometimes there's competition between uh scholars in the schools and sometimes in our history

that's been the case. There might be a reason why they'd like to be different from each other in some way. I don't know, but the point is despite that if they agree on something, you feel a reasonable, uh, you know, assurance that this is the right ruling because why is everyone converging on it from these independent sources. However, if within one school, everyone just keeps, uh, telling you the ruling of the school, this is not strengthening the view in any way. It's just repeating it. It's reinforcing it by, by sheer number and The Passage through time. Passage through time and you know opinions that are tested by time. I think that's also a valid consideration, but let's say that, for example, you brought up the ABD sabur shahein example about evolution. You know, there might be a reason in the future that makes people say let's look again at this. Let's, as I say, reopen the case File, and then if we find that there's another way that we could have understood the verse, let's actually put

that on the table and let's consider it um so with regards to Abraham having chopped up birds and then called them and God resurrected them and on a from myself I have zero objection to that being uh a fact right right but I do have an objection to that being the meaning of this verse that's all. I have no objection to the event so uh for me revisiting the case. File is not based on uh let's say oh well such a such an event couldn't have happened on a supernatural level and because I don't subscribe to any school that questions uh the supernatural so there are some who let's say like you pointed out that uh in the paper obviously uh we have certain bad fellows who have who have advanced the same view MH and I'm not necessarily at all sympathetic to where they're coming from larer system of thought or what has motivated them to take that view for me it's just a question of the view itself and then the evidence for that view

then as for your personal motivation to incline towards that view, that's beside the point for me. One of the main reasons to incline to the alternative view about Muslims' view about Abraham and the birds is that contextually it is most appealing, and that it seems to answer Abraham's question more directly and fit in with the purpose of show me how you give life to the dead. Because in the beginning of the verse, he says, Abraham says to God, show me how you give life to the dead. Yes, so I think that Abu Muslim's view is what gives the answer to that question, whereas the mainstream view just describes how God just went ahead and gave life to the dead. Yes, without showing him how, it just showed him the fact that he can do it, right? That's really enlightening to understand more clearly your sort of thinking through the logic of considering alternative explanations. I think I don't know if we should spend much time with it here, but I think some

of the sort of um some of of the folks on your side of this debate on on that verse the Abraham and the Birds verse by the way uh there's nice Punchy title to the article which maybe our viewers already figured out fights and flights fights because I assume the retaliation flights because of the birds and then there's all sorts of I mean so is a master of them play word plays and things in the article about about fighting and birds and flights uh but I mean two of the people who seem to be on your side of this question are two modern thinkers one is uh the Syrian Lebanese Egyptian Rashid and the other is the Austrian Pakistani Muhammad Assad and both of them I think probably thought through that question a little differently since for their own reasons that have to do with certain arguments in their historical context about uh the Quran and Science and things they're less inclined to find Supernatural or they're more inclined to find nons Supernatural for things right does that does that

strike you as right, yeah that's fair. And then, um, in addition to them, there were the Ahmadiyya thinkers, and they have also some, if you're like, theological perspectives on life and death, which relates to their view about Jesus and the second coming of Jesus. And so, there's a whole background as to what is motivating some people to adopt this feud with Abu Muslim, you know, going back to the early centuries. He's, and at the same time, I try to, you know, push against the idea that this is a view because there's nothing particularly about Abu Muslim's view as opposed to the other. And importantly, it seems that the other, um, sects didn't follow Abu Muslim. And this, in fact, they seem to most famous symbol of M. I think he just doesn't mention it, right? He doesn't mention it. Okay, um, it seems that when Al-Razi, who's of course Sunni Shafi scholar, Ari mentions, uh, Abu Muslim's view, and then he quotes, uh, some points against Abu Muslim's view, which I

surmise to be quoted from Al ABD Jabar who's also one of the leading M thinkers who I I know you've written about as well. And then we have who's who's also work was published more recently. He also argues against Abu Muslim's view, right, so it doesn't seem that this is like something that Mah feel the need to sign up to because it's it is a point of view. Uh, then you've got Rashid who you mentioned, um, you know, is it is it a kind of modernist view, uh, is it a naturalist view. I mean, not necessarily because one could subscribe to this view and then still believe that many many other Miracles Happ happened. You just don't think that that's what's happening in this particular verse. That's where that's where I am on it. I just think this verse is not describing the killing and resurrection of birds, um, but plenty of other verses. Maybe the verse just before it, somebody dies and is brought back 100 years later. So yeah.

I don't see any need to present a new interpretation of those things. Um, but I think that Abu Muslim just got the sense of this verse better, and everybody else was distracted by certain narrations, and then just comfortable with the explanation that continued to be echoed through the history. So Rashid is the one who, so you mentioned that I resurrected, you know, nice choice of words. I've resurrected The View. I mean, in both cases in my paper, there's somebody who's come along centuries later and resurrected The View. So in the case of Abu Muslim, it is Rashid because everybody before him is just basically, if they mention Abu Muslim at all, they're just like, and Abu Muslim said something crazy, but let's not talk about that. Um, and then Rash comes and he makes a very clear, well-argued case that Abu Muslim is right, and you know, the argument is clear in its own merits. So I've adopted a lot of that and then added.

some of my own thoughts um, but he get some Flack for that, right Rashid, some later thinkers, uh, yeah, bully Rashid for, uh, yeah, yeah, exactly, yeah, and then, but then some of the Quran translators, you mention Muhammad Assad, but then you can see also Professor abim, uh, numerous other translators have adopted a Muslims view into their translations, so again, it might be those with a more, let's say, rationalist or naturalistic bent, but I just don't see any reason why it needs to be based on, on that theology or that perspective or, or, or that motivation, uh, I think you can just be completely a mainstream traditionalist Sunni affirm all the, the, the Creeds and everything that we need to do and still believe, as I, as I argue, okay, that what happened here is not, uh, a case of Resurrection, yeah, so I mean, we, we get clearly sort of your, your Vibe of, um, uh, you know, intellectual engagement with the text evidence, um, but also attentiveness to the community and the tradition and the principles of earlier.

Scholars, but you do something in this article, which is, um, I mean, even if it's not a matali view per se, you're still engaging with matali thinkers, principally Abu Muslim Mahani, but, uh, as you mentioned, you mentioned Jishi and, uh, Abd Jabar and others, um, and then you even engage not only here but in your other scholarship with non-Muslim, uh, Western Scholars, and of course, you know, uh, we spoke a little bit about, obviously, from this book, yes, we spoke a little bit about your intellectual journey last time. I mean, your life has brought you both through, uh, traditional Islamic institutions, and, you know, um, the sort of world of critical academic scholarship in the West. I mean, do, do was this, is this something you care about, namely, um, as, uh, maybe setting an example for other Muslim thinkers that it's okay to, um, uh, find knowledge wherever you find it with so-called heterodox, you know, Shia M views with non-Muslim thinkers, um, is that something sort of

that you do consciously, uh, or um, do you just, uh, you know, don't have sort of a mission to send a message about that? It's just how you work. Yeah, I'm not sure I'm that conscious about it. I think the motivation is to try to get to the bottom of understanding what the Quran is saying as best I can, and anyone who has anything to say, you know, let's hear it and let's, uh, make use of it. If it's got something right in it, then good, um, and you know, when it comes to, you know, the identity of who you take from, I think that there's a kind of discourse that might be suitable for, let's say, common members of the Muslim Community, that, you know, you know, if I'm on the, uh, on the minbar, on the pulpit, and delivering a speech, and I'm looking after the flock as it were, I might say to them, you know, best not to read from that person or listen to that, or you know, even within the Muslim, uh

you know, within the Muslim community, different sects or people who might be confusing for you, or you might get confused by, but I think if you want to be a scholar, you really have to transcend that kind of uh attitude. As a scholar, you've got to be open to everything, uh, because the idea that only people in your own group are saying anything useful, uh, and useful to you, right? So, I might be wary about uh quoting the same figures again on the minbar, right? Uh, but that's an academic article, and I think it's important to, obviously within the, you know, the way academia works, um, it's important to demonstrate your awareness of the sources. Um, the Ahmadiyya part, for example, I uh, wasn't aware of initially until a colleague who was working with me at the Global Quran Project in Freiburg, uh, he told me that, you know, the view that you're talking about is also found with Ahmadiyya, and then I had to try to figure out was it first said by some of the Ahmadiyya or was it said first by

Rashid which of them because they're round about the same time and there's also some there's some you know cross-fertilization of uh of ideas, but also competition and uh, you know, uh, you know who is taking from whom. I couldn't quite determine, but it became important then not to just, you know, uh, ignore the fact that the Ahmadiyya were involved in advancing this view albeit with uh some kind of symbolic and esoteric reading of the verse, which to me doesn't fit. So I don't sympathize with the symbolic reading advanced by various people, including the Ahmadiyya, whereby the birds represent something else other than, you know, the human body and the human soul, which I think is what the verse is talking about, what Abu Muslim says is talking about. Then others are saying maybe it represents different nations, maybe it represents, um, one of them even represents the Ahmadiyya, for example, that's what they're saying. I don't find myself at all inclined to these things, um, not just as a matter of

principle, but just because I just don't find that it helps to understand the verse. Uh, to turn it towards another type of symbolism beyond what was already there. The symbolism of the verse is, take four birds. Now, why four is not entirely clear from the verse itself, but take four birds and place them on every hill. But the idea being, place them alive, right, and call them back. They'll come to you. Why? Because you have trained them. You have made them familiar with you. That's the words in the verse.

The Ingenuity of the Islamic Tradition | Tafsir and the Quran | Dr. Sohaib Saeed and G.S. Reynolds

Exploring the Quran and the Bible

이슬람 주석적 견해의 차이의 중요성

이 글에서는 특히 사법적 논쟁과 타프시르와 관련하여 이슬람 과학 내에서 다양한 주석적 견해의 장점에 대해 논의합니다.

또한 향후 새로운 해석의 가능성을 열어두기 위해 다수가 아니더라도 대안적인 의견을 기록하는 것이 중요하다는 점을 강조합니다.

아부 무슬림의 견해에 대한 저자의 옹호와 그에 대한 비판은 이슬람 학계 전통에서 계속되는 논쟁과 차이에 대한 관용을 보여줍니다.

무슬림 커뮤니티의 전통적 패러다임 재해석

특히 살라와 같은 실용적인 판결에 관해서는 전통적인 무슬림 패러다임 내에서 새로운 의견에 대한 보다 엄격한 프레임워크가 필요합니다.

일부 해석은 주류에 편안하게 부합하거나 심지어 현재의 이해보다 더 나은 것으로 여겨질 수도 있기 때문에 합의의 문제는 매우 중요합니다.

의견을 재해석하고 압축하는 전통은 무슬림 커뮤니티 내에서 새로운 관점을 통합할 수 있게 해줍니다.

종교적 텍스트를 해석할 때 합의의 중요성

학자들 간의 합의는 종교 텍스트의 해석을 강화하여 독립적인 평가에 기반한 진정한 합의를 나타냅니다.

서로 다른 학파의 학자들이 동일한 결론에 수렴할 때 진정한 합의가 형성되어 해석의 타당성에 대한 강력한 확신을 제공합니다.

종교적 텍스트의 해석을 재검토하는 것은 특히 대안적인 설명이 보다 직접적이고 맥락적인 이해를 제공할 때 유효합니다.

꾸란 구절의 해석을 둘러싼 논쟁

현대 사상가 라시드와 무함마드 아사드는 아흐마디야 사상가들과 달리 이 구절의 해석에 대해 덜 초자연적인 접근 방식을 취합니다.

아부 무슬림의 견해는 라시드에 의해 부활했는데, 그는 역사적 서술에 이의를 제기하면서 그 타당성에 대해 잘 논증된 사례를 제시합니다.

알 라지를 비롯한 다른 학자들도 아부 무슬림의 견해에 반대하며 해석에 대한 의견 차이를 보이고 있습니다.

꾸란 해석에 대한 학자의 접근 방식

이 학자는 꾸란 번역과 해석에 있어 다양한 사상가 및 학자들과 교류하고 있습니다.

그는 꾸란의 메시지를 이해하고자 하는 깊은 열망에서 동기를 부여받으며 무슬림이든 비무슬림이든 모든 출처의 지식에 열려 있습니다.

그의 접근 방식은 꾸란의 진정한 의미를 밝히는 것을 목표로 하며, 다른 무슬림 사상가들에게 특정 메시지를 전달하는 데 의식적으로 초점을 맞추지 않습니다.

학술 연구에서 개방적 사고의 중요성

학자로서 자신이 속한 그룹에 관계없이 다양한 관점과 지식의 출처에 개방적인 태도를 취하는 것이 중요합니다.

학문적 진실성은 다른 그룹의 견해가 자신과 다르더라도 다른 그룹의 기여를 인정하고 고려하는 것을 포함합니다.

학술 연구에서는 다른 해석을 강요하기보다는 텍스트의 원래 상징과 의미를 이해하는 데 집중하는 것이 중요합니다.