Pieter Coppens

In premodern times, hermeneutical authority was structured along relatively clear interpretive rules, with a near-monopoly for religious scholars. These all had their own interpretations, but generally recognized the possible validity of others’ interpretations and relativized their own position.

From the 19th century onwards, due to technological and societal changes, hermeneutical authority and methods became more fragmented. Qur’an interpretation became an accessible field for literati, activists, academics and lay people, who did not necessarily follow traditional methods and had more diverse motivations in interpreting the Qur’an.

I intend to show how this not necessarily led to more ‘tolerant’ understandings of the Qur’an, or recognition of the relativity of one’s own interpretation, but rather to harder truth claims by all these different interpretive communities. I have dubbed this the ‘Mexican stand-off’ of Qur’an interpretation in Islamic modernity, between ‘religious liberals’, who try to bring back the message of the Qur’an to a set of universal values, ‘religious utilitarians’ who look for pragmatic interpretations to make the Qur’anic message fit within the demands of modern times, and neo-traditionalists, who try to uphold the hermeneutical authority of religious scholars according to what they perceive as premodern standards.