Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legacy

by Jonathan A.C. Brown

The professor and the shaykh were delivering the same message. Both rejected categorically the evident meaning of Qur’an verse 4:34, refusing to accept that Islam’s sacred scripture could condone domestic violence. But the approaches and appeals of the two speakers differed dramatically. The first speaker attacked tradition from outside it, appealing to the authority of ‘this day and age.’ The second mounted a defense of tradition from within, deriving authority by acting as an indigenous and trusted bearer of sacred knowledge. The first speaker, in effect, defied the text of the Qur’an, restricting it to its pre-modern origins by admitting its anachronism and breaking the yoke of tradition. The second speaker claimed that there was no contradiction between the Qur’an and modern justice. There was no anachronism, just misunderstanding. It was the ulama, the qualified interpreters of God’s law, who could point this out and resolve it.