Abu Zayd was a man of faith. Ever since he was accused of apostasy by Islamist extremists and forced to divorce against his will in Egypt in 1959 because of his historical and humanist interpretation of the Koran, he was afraid he would be considered a sort of “new Salman Rushdie”. In his opinion, religion and politics are elements that must remain distinct, and that critical thought is the most important antidote against instrumentalisation. He believed in the Koran’s divine origin and did not wish to change Islam, but rather the manner in which the Koran is understood. According to Abu Zayd, the values expressed in Islam’s Holy Book do not diverge from principles of freedom and justice in a way that can become compatible and shareable within the context of other cultures. This on condition that research on the holy text be open to methods involving informed and critical analysis undertaken in total freedom. 

This application of a critical method to the Holy Book consists of three points: 1) a clarification of its historicity, 2) The need for an interpretation or hermeneutics, the ta’wil, 3) Placing the verses in order on the basis of temporality.

Abu Zayd followed the ideas of the Mu’taziliti (a school of thought that asserted itself between the 8th and the 13th centuries), according to which the holy text was the result of a historical context rather than the eternal and untouchable word of God. In order to make Himself understood to humankind He had revealed Himself to, God was obliged to use language and announce His Word in a form comprehensible in that particular context and time. Every era has the sacrosanct right to read the Koran through its own eyes, thereby escaping impositions passed down by tradition. Abu Zayd wanted to free religion from the encrustations and traditionalisms linked to an instrumental use of religion which effectively prevent it from being what it could be, a guide for creating a society founded on a sense of justice and fairness while respecting the freedom of individuals.

Abu Zayd, in agreement with Gadamer and Ibn Arabi, believed that there is no objective interpretation for each text, none exempt from the limitations of the interpreter’s perspective. There is no interpretative judgement that is free of prejudice. “The application of hermeneutics to the Koran means battling against the monopoly of its meaning.” On the contrary, it is precisely the contextualisation of interpretations that opens paths allowing those belonging to different cultures to establish a dialogue with one another.