Orientalism can be understood in at least three interconnected fields. First, it encompasses the evolving historical and cultural interactions between Asia and Europe. Second, it related to the Western academic field that emerged in the early 19th century, focusing on the study of diverse Oriental cultures and traditions. Third, it involves the ideological assumption, portrayals, and imaginative constructs about a significant and crucial region: the Orient. Edward Said pointed out that the formal inception of Orientalism can be traced back to the Church Council of Vienne in 1312. They decided to create a set of academic positions in Arabic, Greek, Hebrew, Syria language at Paris, Oxford, Bologna, Avignon, and Salamanca.
One important aspect of Orientalism is Quranic Studies. In this case, Andrew Rippin showed that the Qur’ān itself recognises that there are some people that approach the Quran for different reasons. These people can be divided into those who respond to the message of the Quran and those who do not. In his work, The Cambridge Companion to the Qur’ān, Rippin pointed out that in the history of Muhammad’s life, Orientalists played an important role in giving a challenge to the Prophet. He tends to see Islamic Studies, particularly Quranic Studies from a dichotomic view. Some scholars accept the truth of the Qur’ān, while, the rest give the challenge to the truth.
Even, in the pre-modern era, some unbelievers challenged the Qur’ān. The Jews of Medina at an early period of Islam challenged the meaning of the mysterious letters in the Qur’ān and used the to make numerical predictions. Rippin wrote:
“In this episode, the truth of the text might seem to be accepted but the text is twisted so as to be used against Islam itself. Those who do not accept Islam on the basis of the clear evidence that the Qur’ān presents, it might be suggested, are portrayed as wanting to undermine Islam and the Qur’ān itself”.
In this review, I will describe several Orientalists who have a big role in the development of Qur’ānic studies in the West according to Rippin’s work. In 1832, Abraham Geiger wrote Was hat Mohammad aus dem Judenthume aufgenommen? (Judaism in Islam). In this book, he examined the Qur’ānic references originating from Jewish and Christian traditions. Departing from this research, he concluded that religion in its various forms is a result of historical and societal influences.
After Geiger, in 1844, Gustav Weil published his work, Historisch-kritische Einleitung in den Koran. In this book, he contextualized the Qur’ān within its historical background by refining the categorization of the sūras into Meccan and Medinan origins.
Theodor Noldeke in 1856 authored Geschichte des Qorāns (History of the Qur’ān). The book concentrated on revealing the historical mechanism that led to the creation of the Qur’ān. As Rippin wrote, this topic is similar to what al-Kindī did before but the results are totally different. Noldeke as well as Weil concentrated a good deal of attention on constructing the critical history of the text of the Qur’ān.
Richard Bell in his work The Qur’ān, Translated, with a Critical Re-arrangement of the Sūrahs took one of the basic tenets of the Muslim tradition regarding the Qur’ān and examined it with logical framework. He tried to reconstruct a document formed from scraps of parchment with writing on both sides and speculated about where scraps may have been misplaced. This method has faced severe criticism and in some cases, mockery because he perceived it as undermining of the Qur’ān’s authenticity and its stance toward the early Muslim community.
In order to respond to these trends above, Mohammed Arkoun took a different position. As an Islamic scholar who was born in Western academic culture, he took a distinct position from both the Orientalist position and the Islamic scholars position. On one hand, he disagreed with the Western discipline of Quranic studies. He believed that Muslim traditions about the text are not adequately challenged by modern Western scholars. Furthermore, he stated that the scholarly discipline has had no significant change since the fifteenth century.
On the other hand, he rejected the dogmatic orthodox frameworks. Then he called for a protocol of interpretation that was free from dogmatic orthodox frameworks and the constraints of modern scientism, moving away from rigid dogmas and orthodox interpretations and avoiding the limitations of purely scientific or empirical approaches.
Protocol of interpretation that he proposed contains three steps. First, the historical-anthropological interpretation. Second, the linguistic-semiotic and literary interpretation. Third, the theological-exegetic or religious interpretation. The goal of the first step is to relate the Qur’ān with the social context. This step is similar to what Orientalists have done. In the second aspect, he tried to demonstrate the historicity of the Qur’ānic language. Moreover, in the last, he proposed that the theological exegetic interpretation has to come as the last step. This reading must be based on the findings of the first two readings. This attempt will be led to more open, flexible interpretation, and broader exploration of certain texts.
To some extent, this notion is similar to the notion of some Orientalists. For instance, John Wansbrough challenges the traditional assumptions and dogmas of Qur’anic scholarship. Moreover, he proposed an observation of extended historical development far longer before and after Muhammad’s life. This proposal has a profound impact on Quranic studies, opening up new modes of examining the text with broader religious and literary models.
It can be clearly seen several challenges faced by scholars in studying the Qur’ān, namely interpretation and understanding of the text, historical context, readers’ and societies’ responses, religious and cultural sensitivity, and methodological diversity. This Rippin’s document also discusses the historical development of the disciplines and various approaches used to study the Qur’ān.
