A study and critique of the claim of opposition between Quranic ethics and modern rationality in the thought of modern orientalists.

Modern Orientalists with humanistic assumptions consider Quranic ethics to be incompatible with modern rationality due to its emphasis on revelation and to promote restrictions on individual freedom, gender discrimination, and violence. This study aims to criticize these claims by critically analyzing them from the perspective of the Holy Quran and authoritative interpretations. The research method is content analysis of Orientalist texts and Quranic-interpretative reasoning with a comparative approach. The research findings showed that the claim of incompatibility with individual freedom, citing the verse “There is no compulsion in religion” (Al-Baqarah: 256) and the Quran’s emphasis on human agency, is invalid because Quranic ethics promotes responsible freedom within the framework of social justice. The claim of gender discrimination, based on the laws of inheritance and martyrdom, is rejected in light of the verse “And for them is the like of him who has shown them favor” (Al-Baqarah: 228) and the contextualization of the laws, because the Quran establishes gender justice based on social roles, which is consistent with modern distributive justice. The claim of violence-based violence is also refuted by citing the verse “And if they turn aside to peace, then turn aside to it” (Anfal: 61) and explaining that jihad is defensive; this approach is consistent with Western just war theories. Methodological analysis revealed that cultural biases and lack of contextualization in the interpretations of Orientalists have led to one-sided conclusions.