MR Cracks the Code: Juan Cole Is Not "Wrong" - He's Just "Deploying the Technique of the Hermeneutical Circle"
Not a single mention of Juan Cole yesterday - MR's brand recognition is on the line. We've got something special to make up for it though. People often criticize Cole for the close proximity with which the following three things appear in his posts: (a) absolutist statements about what Islam and the Koran really mean (b) implicit or explicit mockery of people who disagree with him for not being experts like he is and (c) having said interpretations of Islam and the Koran be the opposite of what hundreds of millions of Muslims seem to believe and what influential Muslim scholars explicitly say. So for instance, Cole sniggers at unsophisticated 'neocons' and warlike 'Likudniks' because they don't know - as he's patiently explained over and over again - that the Koran is case-closed, full-stop peaceful. Yet millions of Muslims and not a few clerics say that the Koran actually compels them to riot, burn, and murder. Well, if you dig deep in one of his posts (smugly titled "Quran Quote of the Day on Peace), you get the explanation:
Note that I am explicating the Quran itself. Later Muslim commentators have interpreted it in many ways, and much Muslim law and practice are based on later customs and traditions. I am here deploying the technique of the hermeneutical circle, using texts from the book to illuminate other texts from the book... Much later Quran interpretation was done by persons who lived in militaristic, feudal societies, or who lived in empires where Muslims were a ruling caste, and their interpretations were shaped by these circumstances. They also tended to lack the techniques of contextual and causal thinking typical of contemporary academic writing.
You see - the Koran is inherently peaceful. It's the people who lived in "militaristic, feudal societies" that screwed the whole thing up. And they screwed it up (this is really beautiful - he can't avoid being a pretentious academic even to ancient Muslims)... they screwed it up because they "lack[ed] the techniques... typical of contemporary academic writing". You see, the readings of the Koran that are used for "much Muslim law and practice" - those readings are just too unsophisticated to be taken seriously. Because they "lack[ed]... contextual and causal thinking".
This absurd "technique of the hermeneutical circle" excuse is presumably his preempt against people who point out that what he says the Koran means is sometimes exactly the opposite of what the hadith says the Koran means. This is a problem for Cole, since Muslim theology holds that the hadith is a recording of divinely inspired interpretations (which is why it serves as the basis for sharia for the vast majority of Muslims).
So it's not that he's "wrong" or "lying" or "desperately looking for any possible reason why the West should lower its defenses against radical Islam". No, it's that he's "deploying the technique of the hermeneutical circle" (and have you ever heard anything more insufferably pretentious). But that begs a very fundamental question: if his interpretation of the Koran has nothing to do with how the Koran is actually interpreted by anybody but him, why should we care about his interpretations?
He's outright and explicitly admitting that the interpretations that guide Muslim law and practice (practice (!!(!!))) are unrelated to the interpretations that he's passing off as sophisticated insights. He's got a "contextual and causal" interpretation of the Koran: good for him, but there are hundreds and millions of Muslims all over the planet who (a) have a different interpretation and (b) have an interpretation that tells them that they should violently protest when public figures deny that the Koran is revealed and literal truth (i.e. when public figures insist on "contextual and causal" interpretations). So it's not only that the 'understanding' he presents about the Muslim world is the understanding of a world that would be nice but is not this world - it's also that if certain people (like, say, the Pope) were to pop off that Muslims should embrace this new interpretation, they would very likely take it as an insult.
But let's ignore all the ways that Cole's interpretation of Islam is contrary to the basic tenets of Islam (after all, who are we to criticize him for being "academic"). Just focus on the one overwhelmingly important implication of this post: everywhere else on his site, Cole is inexplicably insisting that contrary to appearances, there is no unique link between political Islam and violence. Here he admits that what he really means is that there's no unique link between his ideal version of political Islam and violence. Which is very nice, but not useful for dealing with really existing Islam - and he ought to stop implying otherwise.
Note that I am explicating the Quran itself. Later Muslim commentators have interpreted it in many ways, and much Muslim law and practice are based on later customs and traditions. I am here deploying the technique of the hermeneutical circle, using texts from the book to illuminate other texts from the book... Much later Quran interpretation was done by persons who lived in militaristic, feudal societies, or who lived in empires where Muslims were a ruling caste, and their interpretations were shaped by these circumstances. They also tended to lack the techniques of contextual and causal thinking typical of contemporary academic writing.
You see - the Koran is inherently peaceful. It's the people who lived in "militaristic, feudal societies" that screwed the whole thing up. And they screwed it up (this is really beautiful - he can't avoid being a pretentious academic even to ancient Muslims)... they screwed it up because they "lack[ed] the techniques... typical of contemporary academic writing". You see, the readings of the Koran that are used for "much Muslim law and practice" - those readings are just too unsophisticated to be taken seriously. Because they "lack[ed]... contextual and causal thinking".
This absurd "technique of the hermeneutical circle" excuse is presumably his preempt against people who point out that what he says the Koran means is sometimes exactly the opposite of what the hadith says the Koran means. This is a problem for Cole, since Muslim theology holds that the hadith is a recording of divinely inspired interpretations (which is why it serves as the basis for sharia for the vast majority of Muslims).
So it's not that he's "wrong" or "lying" or "desperately looking for any possible reason why the West should lower its defenses against radical Islam". No, it's that he's "deploying the technique of the hermeneutical circle" (and have you ever heard anything more insufferably pretentious). But that begs a very fundamental question: if his interpretation of the Koran has nothing to do with how the Koran is actually interpreted by anybody but him, why should we care about his interpretations?
He's outright and explicitly admitting that the interpretations that guide Muslim law and practice (practice (!!(!!))) are unrelated to the interpretations that he's passing off as sophisticated insights. He's got a "contextual and causal" interpretation of the Koran: good for him, but there are hundreds and millions of Muslims all over the planet who (a) have a different interpretation and (b) have an interpretation that tells them that they should violently protest when public figures deny that the Koran is revealed and literal truth (i.e. when public figures insist on "contextual and causal" interpretations). So it's not only that the 'understanding' he presents about the Muslim world is the understanding of a world that would be nice but is not this world - it's also that if certain people (like, say, the Pope) were to pop off that Muslims should embrace this new interpretation, they would very likely take it as an insult.
But let's ignore all the ways that Cole's interpretation of Islam is contrary to the basic tenets of Islam (after all, who are we to criticize him for being "academic"). Just focus on the one overwhelmingly important implication of this post: everywhere else on his site, Cole is inexplicably insisting that contrary to appearances, there is no unique link between political Islam and violence. Here he admits that what he really means is that there's no unique link between his ideal version of political Islam and violence. Which is very nice, but not useful for dealing with really existing Islam - and he ought to stop implying otherwise.
