[Aysha A. Hidayatullah] work questions the foundational assumptions and methodologies employed by feminist interpreters who attempt to reconcile sacred scripture with contemporary ideals of gender justice.
By Dr. Tim Orr
Aysha A. Hidayatullah presents a critical and often controversial examination of Islamic feminist reformist exegesis of the Quran, challenging the notion that modern egalitarian readings can be seamlessly harmonized with the text. Her work questions the foundational assumptions and methodologies employed by feminist interpreters who attempt to reconcile sacred scripture with contemporary ideals of gender justice. While acknowledging the intentions behind feminist reform, Hidayatullah argues that such efforts are fraught with interpretive challenges, including methodological pitfalls, the problem of authority, and an often selective engagement with the Quranic text.
Islamic feminist scholars have argued for an egalitarian ethos within the Quran, suggesting that traditional interpretations have misrepresented the text’s original intent. Amina Wadud, for example, interprets Quran 4:1, which speaks of men and women being created from a single soul as evidence of spiritual and moral equality between genders. Feminist interpreters posit that any apparent gender disparities in the Quran should be understood within the overarching principle of equality and contextualized within the socio-economic conditions of 7th-century Arabia.
However, Hidayatullah challenges this approach, suggesting that feminist exegesis often involves a revisionist project that risks imposing contemporary ideals onto the text. This can border on eisegesis, where the interpreter reads their values into the Quran rather than drawing out the original meaning. For instance, feminist reinterpretations of polygyny in Quran 4:3, framing it as a protective measure for orphans and widows, gloss over the fact that the Quran itself does not explicitly limit polygyny to such circumstances. By doing so, Hidayatullah argues that feminist exegesis risks distorting the text's meaning to align it with modern sensibilities, leading to an anachronistic reading that projects present-day values onto an ancient scripture.
Feminist reformist exegesis often positions itself as a corrective to a male-dominated interpretive tradition, asserting that traditional readings are products of socio-cultural biases rather than reflections of the Quran’s true message. Scholars like Asma Barlas argue that patriarchal interpretations have deviated from the Quran’s inherent ethos of justice and equality, positioning their work as a return to the text's original intent.
Hidayatullah critiques this stance by questioning the authority and legitimacy of such reformist readings. Islamic scholarship has traditionally operated within a framework of interpretive pluralism, yet it is grounded in rigorous methodological principles. Feminist exegesis, in presenting itself as an alternative or even a corrective to centuries of established exegesis, must grapple with its place within this broader tradition. For example, feminist reinterpretations of Quran 4:34, which challenge centuries of consensus around male authority in marriage, must contend with the weight of that interpretive history. Hidayatullah raises the provocative question: can feminist exegesis claim a more "authentic" understanding of the Quran, or does it merely represent one of many interpretive possibilities that may lack the legitimacy of traditional scholarship?
One of the central critiques Hidayatullah raises is the selective engagement with the Quranic text by feminist reformists. The Quran contains verses that appear to endorse patriarchal norms, such as Quran 2:228, which states that "men have a degree [of responsibility] over them [women]." Feminist scholars attempt to reframe these verses, arguing that they must be read within the broader Quranic context of justice and compassion. For example, they interpret Quranic inheritance laws (Quran 4:11-12) as measures meant to protect women and ensure fair distribution of wealth in a historical context rather than as timeless prescriptions.
However, Hidayatullah points out that this approach often involves a kind of selective reading that glosses over the text's more challenging aspects. While feminist interpreters emphasize the Quran's egalitarian themes, they may downplay or reinterpret verses that do not fit neatly into this framework. This is particularly evident in discussions around Quran 4:34, where feminist scholars argue that disciplinary measures mentioned should be understood symbolically or in light of historical context. Yet, Hidayatullah questions whether such reinterpretations can fully account for the text's apparent endorsement of practices that many modern readers find problematic. This raises the issue of whether feminist exegesis is willing to confront the possibility that the Quran contains elements that resist easy reconciliation with contemporary egalitarian ideals.
Hidayatullah delves into the hermeneutical strategies employed by feminist reformists, particularly their tendency to emphasize certain Quranic themes while downplaying others. Feminist exegetes argue for a reading of the Quran that foregrounds justice, mutuality, and human dignity, suggesting that these themes should guide the interpretation of specific verses, especially those that appear to support patriarchal norms.
However, Hidayatullah critiques this approach as potentially ideologically motivated, raising concerns about the integrity and coherence of the interpretive process. For example, when feminist scholars reinterpret Quranic directives on the testimony of women (Quran 2:282) or inheritance laws, they often seek to align these verses with contemporary notions of gender equality. Yet, this selective emphasis can lead to an interpretive bias that distorts the text's original meaning, leading to an interpretation more reflective of modern ideological commitments than the Quran's actual content. Hidayatullah suggests that feminist exegesis must confront the possibility that some elements of the Quran cannot be easily reconciled with modern feminist ideals without engaging in interpretive practices that may appear forced or contrived.
Feminist reformists argue that understanding the Quran’s historical context is crucial for properly interpreting the text. They contend that many of the Quran's seemingly patriarchal directives were, in fact, responses to the specific socio-cultural conditions of 7th-century Arabia and should not be taken as prescriptive for all times. For instance, they argue that the Quran’s allowance of polygyny was meant to provide social and economic support for women and children in a society marked by war and loss.
Hidayatullah acknowledges the value of contextual readings but critiques how feminist exegesis sometimes uses context as a tool for ethical reinterpretation. This approach suggests that the Quran's message is dynamic and responsive to changing circumstances. However, Hidayatullah warns that this can lead to a selective engagement with the text, where certain verses are relativized or reinterpreted to align with modern ethical concerns. This approach raises a critical question about the nature of the Quranic text: is it a fixed, immutable set of divine guidelines, or does it invite continual re-engagement and reinterpretation? By using context to align the Quran with modern values, feminist reformists risk undermining the text's claim to timelessness and universality, a concern that Hidayatullah suggests needs to be more fully addressed.
Hidayatullah’s critique extends to the theological implications of feminist reformist exegesis. By challenging traditional interpretations, feminist scholars also engage in a broader conversation about the nature of divine revelation and human understanding. If feminist exegesis suggests that previous interpretations were fundamentally flawed or biased, it raises questions about the Quran's accessibility and the possibility of objectively understanding its message.
This is particularly relevant in the context of verses like Quran 4:34, where feminist readings challenge the long-standing interpretive consensus that has viewed the verse as granting men authority over women in marriage. Hidayatullah raises a provocative theological question: Does feminist exegesis imply that the true meaning of the Quran has been obscured for centuries by patriarchal interpretations? And if so, what does this say about the nature of divine guidance and the role of human reason in understanding it? By questioning the traditional interpretations, feminist explanation opens up a theological debate about the nature of revelation and the limits of human interpretation, a debate that Hidayatullah suggests requires careful and critical engagement.
Aysha A. Hidayatullah's critique of Islamic feminist reformist exegesis presents a challenging but necessary examination of the movement's underlying assumptions and methodologies. She raises critical questions about the interpretive authority, methodological soundness, and theological implications of feminist attempts to align the Quran with modern ideals of gender justice. While acknowledging the efforts of feminist scholars to uncover a more just and egalitarian reading of the Quran, Hidayatullah argues that this project is fraught with interpretive complexities and risks distorting the text’s original message.
Her critique calls for a more rigorous and reflective engagement with the Quran, which is willing to confront the possibility that the text may contain elements that resist easy reconciliation with contemporary values. In doing so, Hidayatullah challenges feminist reformist exegesis to engage more deeply with the intricacies of the Quranic text and the interpretive tradition, acknowledging the limits of human reason in understanding divine revelation. This critical reassessment, she suggests, is essential for a more authentic and faithful engagement with the Quran that does not compromise its integrity in the pursuit of ideological goals.
The ideas in this article are mine, but AI assisted in writing it.
Tim Orr is an Evangelical minister, conference speaker, and interfaith consultant with over 30 years of experience in cross-cultural ministry. He holds six degrees, including a master’s in Islamic studies from the Islamic College in London. Tim taught Religious Studies for 15 years at Indiana University Columbus and is now a Congregations and Polarization Project research associate at the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University Indianapolis. He has spoken at universities, including Oxford, and mosques throughout the U.K. His research focuses on American Evangelicalism, Islamic antisemitism, and Islamic feminism, and he has published widely, including three books.
