Compared with only a handful of works on the principles of interpretation of the Qur’an (us??l tafs?r) compiled over the first twelve centuries, the contributions to the field swelled during the last two centuries, reflecting a sudden surge of interest in the modern notion of “method.” Fazlur Rahman (1919-1988) took up the hermeneutical question by putting forth his so-called Double Movement Method (Islam and Modernity 1982; Major Themes of the Qur’an 1980). Fazlur Rahman proposed resolving the contentious issues arising at the intersection of the traditional and the modern, through the binary of interpretation and application. The first movement proceeds from the reader’s locus back to the historical locus of the sacred text, and the second movement is constituted by the return to the readers’ contemporary reality. The first movement takes up the problem, moves to the text and interprets it in the light of the then-existing historical reality (decoding the language, comprehending all relevant passages, examining the occasions of revelation), and thus “distilling” the underlying “moral” principle. The second movement consists of a return to the reader’s contemporary reality in order to apply the “distilled” moral principle to contemporary problems. In cases where the attempt fails, Rahman suggested repeating the process. Although never defined by Rahman himself, it seems that ‘failure’ meant the failure to resolve the mutual alterity of the Qur’an and the condition of modernity. Rahman also found himself in conflict with Hans Georg Gadamer (Wahrheit und Methode) and vigorously defended his position. This conflict also exposed the friction between Rahman’s method and the Muslim tafs?r tradition, as well as between the Aristotelian theoria and phronesis. Later, Fazlur Rahman’s method was adopted by the Muslim feminist scholars, such as Amina Wadud (Qur’an and Women; Inside the Gender Jihad), and was sometimes applied repeatedly to the same issue, as Rahman had suggested. It is interesting to see that the application of the double movement to feminism-related exegetical issues led to modification and extrapolation of the theory itself. The paper examines the double movement theory, attempts to determine its continuity or departure with the classical tafs?r, studies its intersection with Gadamer, and brings out its implications. The paper shows, that despite the limitations of the double movement method, it was a hermeneutical intervention particularly well-suited to Rahman’s larger interpretative objectives, and had the flexibility to enable its evolution in directions Rahman might not have anticipated.