خلاصه ماشینی:
These latter range from “How to Read the Quran” and “The Islamic View of the Quran” to “Quranic Ethics, Human Rights, and Society” and different aspects of the text’s interpretation, such as “The Qur’an and Sufism” and “Quranic Commentaries.
However, the use of particular elements from those commentaries only gives an ancient air to what is essentially a modern interpretation.
Yet when we examine how these views are presented in the actual interpretations, it becomes clear that at least some of the editors were uncomfortable with the idea of presenting views formed in the tenth to fourteenth centuries as they really were; instead, these views are modified in ways that suit a specific sensibility about what it means to be a modern conservative Muslim.
The commentary on the verse then combines medieval understanding with modern conservative sensibility.
Like other modern conservative interpreters, Dakake agrees with the hierarchy between the sexes that the verse establishes in its opening (“men are qawwāmūn…”), which is in line with the precedent established in the com mentaries that she cites (here she relies mostly on al-Tabari and al-Qurtubi, but also mentions Ibn Kathir, al-Tabrisi, al-Zamakhshari, and others).
However, like other modern conservative interpreters, she also does not mention the reasons given by the medieval commentators to justify the hus band’s superior position in the marital hierarchy.
It obviously cannot be understood as a representation of the medieval commentarial tradition or of the full range of modern thought; rather, it is a fine example of current conservative trends in Qur’an inter pretation.