Subjective Interpretation and Philosophical Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics is the theory and practice of ta’wil. The factors which gave rise to widespread ta’wiland the possibility of interpreting religion in different waysin the West,particularly in the history of Christianity, include ambiguity in religious teachings, contradictions and conflicts related to the life and character of Jesus (AS), the challenge of religion and reason, incompatibility of religion and knowledge, and restriction in the Christian religion.However, due to its revealed nature, unity and uniformity, compatibility with wisdom and knowledge, comprehensiveness, dynamism and enjoymentof the principle of ijtihad, Islam is not certainly threatened by any restriction and insufficiency to be repaired by the secretions of ordinary human thought and to bemingled with the worldly rules. Thus,hermeneutics emerged in the contestof Christianity with its previously-mentionedbackground and historical courseto help it overcome the obstacles put in its way. Moreover, relativist epistemology and the possibility of interpreting religion in different waysstrongly contributed to the development of philosophical. The outcomes of philosophical hermeneutics are: 1) interpreter-orientedness, 2)instability of understanding and interpretation of texts, 3)lack of understanding and perception of the very text, 4)limitless interpretive perceptions and discernments, 5) lack of any logic and criterion for the soundness of understanding and interpretation, and 6) relativism.Interpretation denotes clarification of the meaning and intention of God’s book andta’wil refers torenderingthe likely meaningof the Quranic verses from their apparent meaning. Subjective interpretationrefers to erroneous explanation of the word God on the basis of guess work, preference and whim of the soul, which will be naturally inconsistent with reason and Sharia’ and contrary to the aim and intention of God and the owner of the text.The position of those who believe inphilosophical hermeneutics is more radical and destructive than the followers of subjective interpretation since they resort tota’wilboth to clarify allegorical and unambiguous versesand denigrate objective andfaithful-to-authorinterpretation. They both believe inlimitless readings and consider no boundary and criterion for discriminating valid understanding and interpretation from the invalid ones. They both believe that interpretation is unstable and are plagued with relativism and confusion in understanding religious texts.