The Hermeneutic Process as Not Applied to the Chris Stevens Murder

We spoke yesterday about hermeneutics – the study of interpretation; the very core of what it means to be observant, to be able to count oneself among a certain population while still allowing oneself to think about, grapple with, be critical of, and marvel in the intricacies of religious text.

We spoke, also, of the notion that anything can be a “text.” Anything can be read or analyzed, shared or scrutinized, worshipped or decried. 

It strikes me as appropriate to have engaged in such a conversation just hours after President Obama’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly. In his remarks, the president memorialized the life and death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, a man who “joined the Peace Corps and taught English in Morocco, and he came to love and respect the people of North Africa and the Middle East.”

Chris Stevens, of course, was killed two weeks ago in the midst of violence in Benghazi, Libya. That violence was the result of radical anger over a film that had poorly and disrespectfully depicted the Prophet Muhammad. The film was produced by bigoted people whose agenda consisted of propagating intolerance. It indirectly caused a man with an markedly antithetical goal to lose his life.

I suppose I’m just very disturbed by these discrepancies between motives, causes, and actions here: the film was a misinterpretation of Islamic religious norms. The murder or Chris Stevens was a misinterpretation of the causes of the film. According to Ingvild Sælid Gilhus, “The first guideline in using a hermeneutic method is to read the text slowly and thoroughly,” the goal, according to Gilhus, being to modify one’s initial prejudices regarding the text, and to digest it in all its meanings before ruling on it or judging it. (Gilhus  276)

Shouldn’t observant, virtually orthodox practioners of a faith be the ones to understand the hermeneutic process? Shouldn’t those who adhere strictly the Muslim tradition have digested, studied, and researched the video before deciding that they were going to protest? It seems like hypocrisy of the highest order that individuals (and groups) – “students of faith” –  were the first to impulsively and injudiciously respond. Thoughts?