At five in the afternoon, Cairo time (64).. Islam and Freedom of Opinion and Expression (3)

Is the Problem in the Text… or in the Reading?

When Interpretation Becomes Authority

After the long debate over freedom of opinion in Islam, the most pressing—yet most frequently ignored—question remains:

If the religious text is fixed, why have practices diverged to such an extent?
And why is the text sometimes invoked to justify repression, while at other moments it is set aside in favor of freedom?

At its core, the answer does not lie in the text itself,
but in the reading produced around it,
and in the context in which this reading gradually shifted from a human interpretation—open to acceptance and rejection—into a binding authority that must not be approached.

The Text Does Not Speak on Its Own

One of the greatest methodological errors in this debate is to treat the religious text as though it were a self-speaking entity that directly exercises authority over reality.

In truth, the text neither rules, nor represses, nor liberates.
What does so is the one who reads the text,
the one who monopolizes its meaning, and the one who presents his interpretation as “the only truth.”

Hence the revealing and pivotal statement of Imam ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib—may God be pleased with him:

“This Qur’an is but a written line enclosed between two covers; it does not speak with a tongue, and it must have an interpreter—men speak on its behalf.”

That is to say: it is human understanding that gives it voice, not the sanctity of paper.

Here, the flaw begins.

The Qur’an, as a foundational text, presents itself as a field for reflection—not as a closed document to be recited without understanding, nor as a tool to silence questions.
But when a reading is detached from its context,
and frozen in a specific historical moment,
it shifts from an instrument of understanding into an instrument of control.

Between Text and Practice: The First Problematic

Here we return to the essential issue overlooked by many discussions on freedom of opinion in Islam:
the overlap between the theoretical framework of the texts
and the practical framework of historical practice.

In the Qur’an and the Prophetic tradition, there is much that elevates the human being, affirms his dignity, and confirms his right to choice and expression.
Yet Islamic history—like any human history—has presented contradictory practices: some approached this horizon, while others drifted far from it.

The dilemma is that defenders of Islam often suffice with citing the texts,
while its critics suffice with citing the practices.
Both sides avoid the most difficult terrain:
the historical responsibility for interpretation.

From Ijtihād to Guardianship

In the early stages of Islamic history, differences in understanding were natural—indeed healthy.
Schools multiplied,
opinions diverged,
and questioning was accepted, even encouraged.

But over time, as jurisprudence drew closer to political power, disagreement ceased to be a source of richness and became a source of anxiety.

Here occurred the most dangerous transformation:
interpretation shifted from a human effort open to discussion into a discourse demanding obedience.

What had been opinion became ruling.
What had been interpretation became sacred.
From that moment, the catastrophic confusion began between the sanctity of the text and the humanity of understanding.

When Questioning Is Suffocated in the Name of Religion

The most perilous aspect of this transformation is that it was not presented as repression of opinion, but as protection of faith.

Fear of “sedition,”
of “destabilizing constants,”
of “confusing the masses,”
became ready-made justifications for silencing any dissenting voice.

Thus, opinion was not suppressed because it was wrong,
but because it was different.
The door of questioning was not closed because it was destructive,
but because it unsettled the prevailing narrative and troubled those who held symbolic power.

Who Protects Whom—and for Whose Benefit?

In many cases, prohibition was not a defense of religion, but a defense of position, influence, or moral authority accumulated over time through interpretation.

A reading that cannot tolerate criticism
is not a religious reading,
but a project of domination.

When questioning becomes a threat,
religion itself is no longer protected;
rather, it is used as a shield to prevent accountability
and as a cover to protect authority from scrutiny.

The Text Is Broader Than Its Readings

In its internal structure, the Qur’an is a text open to contemplation.
It addresses the intellect,
engages in dialogue with humanity,
and acknowledges difference as a universal law.

It is the reading that narrowed this breadth
that constricted the horizon of freedom—
not the text itself.

Hence the distinction becomes imperative:
between the sanctity of the text
and the humanity of understanding.

The text is constant,
but understanding is variable.
Confusing the two lies at the root of many of our intellectual crises and is one of the major keys to understanding the dilemma of freedom of opinion in our societies.

Why Do We Need to Restore the Status of Interpretation?

Because liberating the text does not mean altering its wording,
but freeing its reading from monopoly.
Reopening the door to questioning
does not mean chaos;
it means restoring reason to its natural place within the structure of faith.

After the previous article in this series raised the issue of accusation and bad faith, this article places its finger on the true wound:

When interpretation becomes authority, freedom is confiscated in the name of religion.

In the next installment, we will return to a deeper root and seek an answer to the question:

The human being in the Qur’an… a free creature or a compelled one?

To be continued tomorrow…
Paris: 5:00 p.m. Cairo time.