Differing Responses to Western Hermeneutics: A Comparative Critical Study of M. Quraish Shihab’s and Muḥammad ‘Imāra’s Thoughts

Sahiron Syamsuddin
{"title":"Differing Responses to Western Hermeneutics: A Comparative Critical Study of M. Quraish Shihab’s and Muḥammad ‘Imāra’s Thoughts","authors":"Sahiron Syamsuddin","doi":"10.14421/ajis.2021.592.479-512","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article deals with Muslim scholars’ responses to Western hermeneutics and its application to the Qur’an. It focuses on the thoughts of two thinkers, i.e. M. Quraish Shihab from Indonesia and Muḥammad ‘Imāra from Egypt, and discusses them in a comparative critical way. On the basis of the available data, its author comes to the following conclusions. First, the two scholars have different receptions of the Western hermeneutics. While ‘Imāra rejects it totally only because it is rooted in the Western tradition that is different from the Islamic tradition, Shihab accepts it with some considerations on the basis that it can widen horizons of Qur’an interpreters, so that they might understand the Qur’an in a more careful way. Second, ‘Imāra’s arguments for his rejection of it are not strong enough, and even constitute misunderstandings of hermeneutical theories, whereas Shihab’s arguments can be considered more plausible, even though in some cases he does not give enough elaborations. Third, these responses have a certain impact on the dynamics of hermeneutical approaches in Indonesia. [Artikel ini membahas respon ilmuwan muslim mengenai ilmu hermeneutik barat dan penerapannya pada Qur’an. Tulisan ini fokus pada dua pemikir muslim yaitu M. Quraish Shihab dari Indonesia dan Muḥammad ‘Imāra asal Mesir serta mendiskusikannya dalam kerangka perbandingan kritis. Berdasarkan data yang diperoleh menunjukkan bahwa pertama, dua ilmuwan tersebut berbeda dalam penerimaan hermeneutik barat. ‘Imāra menolak sepenuhnya karena berakar pada tradisi barat, sedangkan Shihab menerimanya dengan beberapa pertimbangan selama dapat memperluas cakrawala penafsiran Qur’an dan dapat memahaminya dengan berhati-hati. Kedua, argumen penolakan yang diajukan ‘Imāra tidak cukup kuat dan kadang terdapat kesalahpahaman teoritikal, sedangkan argumen Shihab lebih masuk akal, walaupun dalam beberapa bagian ia tidak memberikan penjelasan lebih lanjut. Ketiga, kedua respon ilmuwan tersebut mempunyai dampak signifikan pada dinamika pendekatan hermeneutik di Indonesia.]","PeriodicalId":42231,"journal":{"name":"Al-Jamiah-Journal of Islamic Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Al-Jamiah-Journal of Islamic Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14421/ajis.2021.592.479-512","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

This article deals with Muslim scholars’ responses to Western hermeneutics and its application to the Qur’an. It focuses on the thoughts of two thinkers, i.e. M. Quraish Shihab from Indonesia and Muḥammad ‘Imāra from Egypt, and discusses them in a comparative critical way. On the basis of the available data, its author comes to the following conclusions. First, the two scholars have different receptions of the Western hermeneutics. While ‘Imāra rejects it totally only because it is rooted in the Western tradition that is different from the Islamic tradition, Shihab accepts it with some considerations on the basis that it can widen horizons of Qur’an interpreters, so that they might understand the Qur’an in a more careful way. Second, ‘Imāra’s arguments for his rejection of it are not strong enough, and even constitute misunderstandings of hermeneutical theories, whereas Shihab’s arguments can be considered more plausible, even though in some cases he does not give enough elaborations. Third, these responses have a certain impact on the dynamics of hermeneutical approaches in Indonesia. [Artikel ini membahas respon ilmuwan muslim mengenai ilmu hermeneutik barat dan penerapannya pada Qur’an. Tulisan ini fokus pada dua pemikir muslim yaitu M. Quraish Shihab dari Indonesia dan Muḥammad ‘Imāra asal Mesir serta mendiskusikannya dalam kerangka perbandingan kritis. Berdasarkan data yang diperoleh menunjukkan bahwa pertama, dua ilmuwan tersebut berbeda dalam penerimaan hermeneutik barat. ‘Imāra menolak sepenuhnya karena berakar pada tradisi barat, sedangkan Shihab menerimanya dengan beberapa pertimbangan selama dapat memperluas cakrawala penafsiran Qur’an dan dapat memahaminya dengan berhati-hati. Kedua, argumen penolakan yang diajukan ‘Imāra tidak cukup kuat dan kadang terdapat kesalahpahaman teoritikal, sedangkan argumen Shihab lebih masuk akal, walaupun dalam beberapa bagian ia tidak memberikan penjelasan lebih lanjut. Ketiga, kedua respon ilmuwan tersebut mempunyai dampak signifikan pada dinamika pendekatan hermeneutik di Indonesia.]
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对西方解释学的不同回应:古莱什·希哈卜先生与Muḥammad Imāra思想的比较批判研究
这篇文章讨论了穆斯林学者对西方解释学及其在古兰经中的应用的回应。本文以印度尼西亚的古莱什·希哈卜和埃及的Muḥammad’Imāra两位思想家的思想为重点,以比较批判的方式进行探讨。根据现有的数据,作者得出以下结论。首先,两位学者对西方解释学有不同的接受。虽然' Imāra完全拒绝它,只是因为它植根于与伊斯兰传统不同的西方传统,但Shihab接受了它,并考虑到它可以扩大古兰经解释者的视野,以便他们可以更仔细地理解古兰经。其次,Imāra对他拒绝的论据不够有力,甚至构成了对解释学理论的误解,然而,即使在某些情况下,他没有给出足够的详细说明,什叶派的论点也可以被认为是更合理的。第三,这些回应对印度尼西亚解释学方法的动态产生了一定的影响。[原文如此][原文如此][原文如此][原文如此][原文如此][原文如此]Tulisan ini fokus pada dua pemikir muslim yitu M. quuraish Shihab dari Indonesia (Muḥammad ' Imāra) asal Mesir serta mendiskusikannya dalam kerangka perbandingan kritis。Berdasarkan数据yang diperoleh menunjukkan bahwa pertama, dua ilmuwan tersebut berbeda dalam penerimaan hermeneutik barat。' Imāra menolak sepuhnya karena berakar paada tradisi barat, sedangkan Shihab menerimanya dengan beberapa pertimbangan selama dapat memperperlua cakrawala penafsiran古兰经dan dapat memahaminya dengan berhati-hati。【翻译】:当你想要了解更多的情况时,请告诉我我的朋友,我的朋友是谁。Ketiga, kedua的反应将会是一个很好的例子,但是mempunyya dampak是一个很重要的例子。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Ismail Mundu on Islamic Law ff Inheritance: A Content Analysis of Majmū‘ al-Mīrāth fī Ḥukm al-Farā’iḍ The Impact of Al-Albānī’s Revolutionary Approach to Hadith on Islamic Militancy in Indonesia The Politics of Moderate Islam in Indonesia: Between International Pressure and Domestic Contestations A Critical Approach to Prophetic Traditions: Contextual Criticism in Understanding Hadith The Minority and the State: Chinese Muslims in the Modern History of Indonesia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1