What an evil prompt you've given us this week! If there's one thing I've learned from this class it's that there is no "correct" when interpreting ancient texts. I've seen opinion, irrational opinion, textually supported opinion, and outright absurdity, but no "correctness." I have learned to respect the argument that places a text in context, and looks at it as more than just words. Language structure, attitudes of the time, and translation errors all must be analyzed to truly understand the meaning of a text.
Mawdudi draws many interpretations about various Surahs based on the way they sound, what they seem to imply, without really diving into the language and structure of the text. The argument about menstruation references lines that merely state that "it is a state of impurity, so keep away from them and do not approach them till they are cleansed" (E&A 414). Mawdudi then talk about how the "explanation of this injunction by the Prophet makes it clear . . . " that the impurity only refers to sexual intercourse. Unless he is referring to uncited textual evidence, his notion of a clear explanation is completely unrepresented in the text. The terms "keep away" and "do not approach" are completely neutral and justify no inferences about the spheres in which they apply. While Mawdudi's interpretation is perhaps more uplifting than some, and favors women being treated the "normal way," whatever that is, his delusions of clear and concise textual explanations are merely reflections of his own conviction regarding an ambiguous passage.
Even when Mawdudi attempts to incorporate language structure into his argument, his speculations are purely interprative and not factually based. In his interpretation of female equality he references the definition of a verb, "a derivative of the root fdl", [that] is not used to mean . . . . Rather it means . . . " (E&A 418). Where is the credability in his statements? His interpretations for all we know are based on what he feels something means, and does not merit credability.
Hassan is the polar opposite in her arguments for female equality, elagently weaving language usage and meaning with exposing misconceptions and false incoporations. However, she too, in her grace of argument, ignores key texts that refute her cause, as most feminist authors seem to do. The clear statements that Mawdudi refers to in Surah 4:34 are not touched upon by Hassan, who only discusses misconceptions and instances of equal creation. Her assumption that if man and woman were created equally, they could not become unequal, does little to provide insight into the later references of women as subordinate and obedient to men.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Very nice.
"Her (Hassan's) assumption that if man and woman were created equally, they could not become unequal, does little to provide insight into the later references of women as subordinate and obedient to men."
Her remark reminds me of Grimke and Stanton, the sense that if we only looked at the foundational text correctly, we could clear up social inequalities. But somehow the power of the text is uni-directional in that it is much stronger when used to bolster generally accepted
social norms than to challenge them.
Post a Comment