Four Paradigms for Understanding Quran

From my studies, people appear to utilize four paradigms when understanding scripture and settling disputes. I don’t believe this is limited to the Quran, but for the sake of this article, I will limit the references to the Quran. These four different approaches serve as a coping mechanism to keep the subscribers to any of these paradigms aligned for the sake of the congregation. While some may be 100% of the mindset of a single paradigm, many will straddle or bounce between paradigms. The reason for these paradigms is because understanding the scripture is not always cut and dry and often leads to confusion, ambiguity, and in-fighting among adherents.

Paradigm #1 – Traditionalism

The most common paradigm people utilize in understanding Quran is attempting to understand the scripture based on how the people who initially received the scripture understood the material. If the Quran states a command, a traditionalist will try to understand how the first generation who received the Quran understood the command. A hallmark of this approach is the infatuation many Muslims have with Hadith, tradition, and Sunnah. They are of the impression that their ability to understand the Quran solely depends on uncovering how the earliest recipients of the Quran understood the verses. So anytime a new moral question arises, they try to find an analogous situation in the tradition that they can apply to their current situation. Additionally, people of this paradigm will attempt to apply the verses of the Quran based on how they understood it was applied at the time of revelation.

Paradigm #2 – Leaderism

The next paradigm in how one can choose to understand the Quran is by means of following an authority. This paradigm requires a sole individual or group of individuals (council) with the authority to settle disputes. Sunnis rely on the ulama (scholars) who create ijma (consensus), which becomes law among their adherents. Shias have imams who they believe are representatives of God’s will and are authorized to make rulings for their followers regarding any disputes that arise. Additionally, you have followers who consciously or subconsciously follow the understanding of some leader. This person doesn’t even have to be widely recognized, but their followers will outsource any points of contention to them for them to settle. This paradigm is also seen in the different schools of thought (madhabs).