''We Are Calling for a New Interpretation of the Koran''
介紹該機構的成立動機：根基於伊斯蘭的復興(tajdid)。強調重新詮釋【古蘭經】並結合當前情況(Context)，提出倫理性(ethic)的方案。
A new research centre in Qatar seeks to focus
more attention on the ethical dimension of Islam. The founders of the centre
and its director, Tariq Ramadan, are calling for a new interpretation of the
Koran in order to advance a contemporary Islamic understanding of matters such
as environmental ethics and gender issues. Christoph Dreyer spoke to the
centre's deputy director, Jasser Auda
Early this year, the Research Centre for
Islamic Legislation and Ethics, of which you are deputy director, started its
work within the Qatar Foundation's Faculty of Islamic Studies. Why is there a
need for such a centre?
Jasser Auda: The idea
behind the centre is renewal. Islamic law and Islamic ethics require
renewal from both sides: from the side of Islamic law, the ethical
dimension is not stressed enough. And the ethical philosophy in Islam is too
abstract and not applied enough to be a law, because the word "law"
in Islam means more a code of ethics than a legal system in the modern sense.
When you emphasize the ethical dimension of
Islam so pointedly, what is it you are distancing yourselves from?
Auda: We differentiate
between looking at Islamic law in terms of the letter and in terms of the
purposes, or maqasid in Arabic. We think that once
we look at the purposes versus the letter of Islamic law, we give
Islamic law the necessary dynamism to cope with current changes and to meet the
expectations of Muslims and non-Muslims in today's world.
Auda: This is exactly what
we are trying to do. Contemporary ijtihad cannot be an ijtihad
based on scriptures alone, it has to be based on the scriptures and the
reality of the people – based on the text and the context. We bring
the dimension of context to ijtihad so that it is not only about the
text and the linguistic interpretation, but also about more, in light of the
realities that the different sciences – social sciences, natural sciences – are
revealing to us. This is not something new, but we are redefining it in the
contemporary sense.
What might your approach look like in
practice?
Auda: For example, the way
many Islamists approach politics today is taking the letter, whether the letter
of scriptural sources or sometimes the letter of history. They think in terms
of making a khilafa (caliphate) in the way it was made after the time of
the Prophet Mohammed. But if we look at the meaning of khilafa,
it is – as the ancient scholars also said – a state that is based on justice.
So if we look at the purpose of the "Islamic state",
which is justice, then it could take the form of a modern state where
institutions each play their role and where powers are separated etc. But if we
take things literally and try to build a state that is very similar to the
Islamic states that existed 1,000 years ago, then we will miss out on justice
and freedoms and we will miss out on issues that are themselves core issues in
Islam.
The same applies to other issues, like women or human
rights. If we focus on the Koranic message of mercy and love and so forth, then
we are able to deal with contemporary issues in a better way. That is
true especially in the area of politics and women in Islam or the general area
of rights, and these are the two areas we think are crucial in the current
renewal debate.
Why these two areas in particular?
Auda: The area of politics
and the area of women in Islam are full of historical constructs that are not
necessarily congruent with Islamic ethics. For example, the
Koran describes the marriage between men and women as something that is based
on love and mercy. This is not exactly what you find in fatwas from the old
times that describe marriage as a contract – and there are all sorts of
conditions that are put in that contract, some fair and some unfair. If you take
the essence of the Koranic message, you can renew these contracts and these
social norms to make them more equitable, and to give women a greater role in
the family and to take care of children's welfare.
Of course we are not saying the Koran is unfair, but the Koran
was interpreted in an unfair way, and we are calling for a new interpretation,
or for a renewal of interpretation, in order to build today's Islamic discourse
on ethics. We think that this is the core of Islam.
One of your centre's first seminars was on
environmental ethics. What does Islamic ethics have to say about that?
Auda: If you read Islam in
terms of the letter, you will find little evidence in scriptural sources that
will help solve environmental problems. But there is a difference if you read
Islam in terms of its values and ethics – the values of equity, cleanness,
purity, the stress on the purity of water sources and the encouragement in the
Islamic tradition of greenery and health. If we take these values and activate
them, I believe we can make some pretty good policy recommendations.
You recently published a book on Sharia and
politics in the post-revolutionary Arab states. What's your message
with regard to their situation?
Auda: The question of the
application of the Sharia comes to the fore in countries like Egypt, Tunisia or
Libya. The first question at this stage is: what do we mean by the
Sharia? Do we mean the history of Islamic law or do we mean the values and
purposes of the Sharia? If we mean the values and purposes and
philosophy of the Sharia, then we are talking about justice and freedom and
what we call in the Sharia language the preservation of soul and mind,
intellect, offspring and wealth and all these values that are about the welfare
of society. So if we are defining the Sharia in this way, then we are able to
approach the new legislation and the new constitutions that people are drafting
for their countries in a way that is Islamic in that sense.
Other questions relate to the standing of non-Muslim
minorities in this part of the world. I don't want to see the application
of the Sharia compromise their rights, but religions differ, especially in the
field of family law. Therefore I draw a number of circles: a public circle, in
which everybody has to be equal and nobody should be discriminated or
differentiated against because of their religious background, and a private
circle, in which people sometimes opt to be treated differently because of
their religion
How far would you take this kind of argument?
For example, would you say that the president, in a state like Egypt, has to be
a Muslim?
Auda: From the
Islamic law point of view, I don't see any problem in allowing anybody –
including a non-Muslim man or woman – to run for president. Most of the
opinions in the Islamic heritage did not allow that. However, these opinions
were not referring to the president of a republic, they were talking about a khaleefa
(caliph). But the president of Libya or Syria or Egypt is not a khaleefa,
and he would never claim to be one.
We have a nation state, and the nation state has a
president based on the foundation of this nation state, which is the equality
of all citizens. As long as the state is defined, the president will not change
the nature of the state. Realistically speaking, will the Egyptians elect a
Coptic president? It's impossible. It's as impossible as the Germans electing a
Muslim chancellor or the Americans electing a Muslim or Buddhist president.
But then the Islamists come along with their
own definition an Islamic state. So who is to decide whether or not a certain
polity can be called an "Islamic
state"?
Auda: I think it
is important to have an Islamic state in the sense of justice and freedom and
equality for all. You want to call this Islamic, or democratic,
or modern – the names are not important; it is the values that are important. In this
part of the world, the values of equity and justice are viewed through the
understanding of Islam; you might as well call it "Islamic state".
That's why this research is important: because the
Islamists are calling for an Islamic state anyway. So if we define it for them
in a way that is compatible with human rights, civil rights and all of that,
then everybody wins. Actually, the revolutions did not happen for
Islamic reasons. The revolutions were meant to bring social justice etc. When people
elected Islamists, they elected them with an understanding that they will bring
social justice. If they don't bring that, I'm sure they will fail in the next
elections.
Interview conducted by Christoph Dreyer
© Qantara.de 2012
Jasser Auda is deputy director of the Centre
of Islamic Legislation and Ethics at the Qatar Foundation in Doha. He is a
founding member and member of the executive board of the International Union of
Muslim Scholars and has lectured on Islamic law, especially its maqasid (intentions),
at dozens of academic institutes around the world. He has authored and
published numerous articles and several books in Arabic and English, most
recently Between Sharia and Politics: Questions in the Post-Revolutions
Era.
Editor: Aingeal
Flanagan/Qantara.dehttp://en.qantara.de/We-Are-Calling-for-a-New-Interpretation-of-the-Koran/19594c20841i0p9/index.html
留言
張貼留言