91not to favor this view but merely to demonstrate
the surprisingly fl exible way in which traditional
jurists with clout were able to interpret the Qur’an,
and to shed light on some methodological ap-
proaches that have been lost to most of us today.
In fact, by refusing to budge from the linguistic,
literal meaning of khamr, and by refusing to apply
its prohibition to anything but grape wine, these
early Hanafi s were making an extremely literalist
yet nonvacuous argument. This is why I said
earlier that in interpreting scripture there’s a juris-
prudential methodology and also a linguistic
methodology.
The Hanafi school was strong in its linguistic ap-
proach to interpreting Arabic scripture. This rein-
forces a point made by Quentin Skinner: One
cannot approach scripture by imposing upon it
meanings that words have come to acquire today
while ignoring what they meant then.
The argument carries on. There’s a doctrine
called qiyas in Islamic interpretation, which means
“juristic analogy.” Jurists after the Hanafi s said: Yes,
we can see that khamr meant only wine, but by
qiyas—by analogy—we can say that intoxication
was actually the reason behind the prohibition on
Bereitgestellt von | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
Angemeldet