Contextualism

What strikes me in my studies of religion the most is this problem of contextualism. In chapter seven of Clark’s book he addresses skinner’s understanding of ‘context’. He outlines, “[Skinner] privileges linguistic, generic, and ideological contexts, attempting to ascertain the range of meanings that particular words would have conveyed to the people of the society in which the text was produced”. In outlining the ways in which I agree with this assertion for the rest of my discussion I would look more closely at the Quran as a text.

To Muslims the preservation of the Quran implies a direct relationship to who interprets it. In other words, the question here is who has the authority to interpret the Quran? Many Muslims would agree on the fact that the person who is bestowed with such a privilege of interpreting the Quran is one who is well learned. Put more precisely, the person who gets to interpret the Quran is one who has mastered several disciplines. He is the one who is a musician, knows aspects of law, a theologian, knows rhetoric, grammar, mythology, the Hadith, is very pious etc… What remains important here is that the Quran is to be interpreted by someone who can dissect the text in its original form, to allow the tradition to speak for itself. The key to understanding the Quran is not only language (Arabic) but also, the ‘context’.

More precisely, when western scholars interpreted the Quran, they were criticized for their misrepresentations. This was mainly because most scholars were not versed in the language of the book, so the context in which they were interpreting the text was misrepresented. For example, scholars tended to interpret the Quran through a chronological method because that was the way history was understood. However, the Quran was not compiled chronologically so to apply such a method to understanding the Quran would seem irrational to many Muslims. As skinner puts it, “what are the authors doing?” or “where is the linguistic action?” becomes the central focus. To put it more simply, a word can have different meanings, but the meaning should imply a direct relationship to the context in which it is used. For example if I say to someone “don’t forget me when you are marking the tests”, ‘forget’ can have many meanings it can mean to not put me out of your mind, or in this context, remember me when you are marking the tests.

Keeping this in mind, Muslims also interpret the Quran with specific references to social, economic, and political circumstances. For example, there are many stories in the Quran that are told based on the assumption that the audience already have some background knowledge of that particular story. What is important here is that there is a background force that works together with linguistics in guiding one to the right interpretations. For example, in the Quran there is a verse that states, “They forgot God, but God forgot them”. In this light, the context in which this should be interpreted is theological. In the theological sense, God cannot forget because his divineness presupposes that he is all knowing. Therefore, one who knows little about theology could not make such a sound interpretation.

In conclusion, interpreting any text calls for an informed opinion not an unformed opinion. To illustrate, if one wants a more accurate description of a particular religion they would consult a religious practitioner, just as one who wants a proper diagnosis of their illness will consult a doctor. It all boils down to the fact that an informed opinion depends on the author’s background and their field of specialty. One would not regard an anthropologist making claims on scientific matters more rational than a scientist making the same claims.