Qur’anic Reinterpretation in Contemporary Indonesia and Malaysia: A Response to Radical Islamic Discourse

Abstract

Indonesia and Malaysia, as Muslim-majority countries in Southeast Asia, face significant challenges from radical interpretations of the Glorious Qur’an, including literalist, liberal, deviant, contextualist, and hermeneutic approaches. These radical interpretations have fueled ideological polarization, sectarian conflict, and religious extremism, threatening social cohesion and national stability. This study addresses the pressing issue of how moderate Qur’anic reinterpretation can counteract these radical narratives and provide a framework for peaceful coexistence and religious harmony. The research aims to examine and compare the roles of two distinct actors: M. Quraish Shihab, a prominent Indonesian exegete whose contextual hermeneutics advocate wasatiyyah (moderation), and key Malaysian religious institutions such as JAKIM, State Muftis, and the National Fatwa Council, which institutionalize moderate interpretations through systemic frameworks. Using a qualitative, comparative, and multidisciplinary methodology, the study draws upon primary sources, including Shihab’s Tafsir al-Mishbah and thematic works, official khutbahs, fatwas, and policy documents. Van Dijk’s Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) was applied to explore how these reinterpretations function as counter-discourses to radical ideologies, with particular focus on themes such as fitna (discord), awliyāʾ (leadership and alliances), and gender relations. The findings reveal that while Shihab’s scholarly charisma and contextual approach foster intellectual engagement and voluntary acceptance among the public, Malaysian institutions use state-backed religious mechanisms to embed moderate Qur’anic interpretations into official policies, education systems, and legal structures. Both models reject ahistorical literalism and radical extremism by emphasizing maqāṣid al-sharīʿah (higher objectives of Islamic law) and promoting civic harmony. However, their approaches differ: Shihab’s method excels in depth and nuance but lacks enforcement power, whereas Malaysia’s institutional framework ensures nationwide reach but risks politicizing religious discourse. In spite that, both should be applauded for the sanctity of the Qur’an.