Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.23
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Dirasah: International Journal of Islamic Studies
Teddy Yusuf
Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Gunung DJati Bandung
Religion Arts Humanities

Published : 1 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 1 Documents
Search

 1 
From Tafsīr to Takfīr: When Differences in Interpretation are Regarded as Differences in Creed in the Literalism of the Divine Names and Attributes Teddy Yusuf; Dadang Sudana; Mohamad Zaka Al Farisi; Aceng Ruhendi Saifullah
Dirasah International Journal of Islamic Studies Vol. 4 No. 2 (2026): Islam, Human Development, and Social Change
Publisher : Perkumpulan Dosen Tarbiyah Islam Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.59373/drs.v4i2.142

Abstract

Debates over asmāʾ wa ṣifāt (divine names and attributes) have produced lasting differences in Islamic theological interpretation, particularly over terms such as istiwāʾ, yad, and wajh. A problem arises when such differences are no longer treated as legitimate disagreement but become grounds for defining orthodoxy, deviation, and, in some cases, takfīr. This study aims to clarify how semantic reduction in tafsīr discourse may contribute to religious exclusion and how literalist hermeneutics relates to exclusive interpretive authority. It employs a qualitative conceptual-documentary design based on close reading and analytical synthesis of scholarly literature and one official document, the Qur’an translation guideline of the Lajnah Pentashihan Mushaf Al-Qur’an. The analysis combines semantic–pragmatic analysis, philosophical and contextual hermeneutics, and Bourdieu’s theory of symbolic power. The analysis suggests that literal interpretation does not in itself constitute takfīr. Exclusion becomes possible when one interpretation is positioned as the sole criterion of theological legitimacy and alternative readings are characterized as deviant. The study distinguishes four forms of judgment: criticism of an interpretation, the judgment that it is incorrect, the labeling of it or its adherents as deviant, and explicit takfīr. It concludes that the movement from disagreement to exclusion is conditional rather than automatic, shaped by interpretive authority and the construction of boundaries of legitimate belief. As the study does not analyze primary texts or digital discourse directly, it offers a mechanism to be tested in future research.
Co-Authors Aceng Ruhendi Syaifullah Mohamad Zaka Al-Farisi Sudana, Dadang