In the PDF, the steps of interpretation are mentioned as following:
Stage 1st : The encounter with the world of text
Stage 2nd : Critical analysis
- Linguistic
- Literary Context
- Literary Forms
- Parallel of texts
- Precedent
Stage 3rd : Meaning for the first recipients
- Socio Historical context
- Worlview
- Nature of the message: Legal, theological, ethical
- Message: cotextual versus universal
- Relationship of the message to the overall message of the al-Q ur'an
Stage 4th: Meaning for the present
- Analysis of present context
- Present context versus socio historical contest
- Meaning from first recipients to the present
- Message: cotextual versus universal
- Application today
Reading the PDF and analyzing these points mentioned and explained we could draw the conclusion that most cultural and socio-historical parts at the time of the Quran could be reinterpreted to fit our time. This seems to be true to moral and ethical questions, which are not interpreted to be universal as mentioned:
- Third Stage, explore how the understanding of the text by the first receiver, with search tools that consider socio historical context, welstanchang, the essence of the message of the text in question (whether including legal texts, theological or ethical), investigating whether the text is universal or local temporal and look for the text relationship with other texts in the Qur’an.
Examples of matters that would be affected and changed by this interpretation
- The Hijab
Here huge possibilities would be given of how to interpret the hijab. By analyzing (#1, #2,#3) why the hijab first was adopted by the Muslims, they would clearly use stage #3 to understand it in its context (why was it implemented, what if it just was a temporary solution to protect the women from the hypocrites of that time? was it cultural accepted already?), see the three points in this answer, and then going to stage #4 analyzing the present context (do we got slaves? do people harm people when they notice they have no hijab?). Following these methods its highly likely that they wouldn't applicate it today or at least not saying it is wajib. Abdullah Saeed seems to express this here, while the speech is more related to niqab. Also in part 1, and part 2 he speaks about gender equality.
In His book "The Qur'an: An Introduction", page 229, he writes about Khaled Abou El Fadl which he seems to address as a ‘contextualist’ scholar:
He has also argued against the common position among traditionalist scholars regarding the compulsory wearing of the veil (hijab) for women, on the basis that women are not explicitly instructed to do so in the Qur’an. Abou El Fadl also speaks out strongly against all cultural practices that make women occupy subordinate positions in society.
- Womens inheritance
Even though there are some (minority) scholars who think that a woman might have the same amount of inheritance as the men, it is clearly that by these steps of interpretation, a woman will have the same amount of inheritance as men. - Womens right to travel alone
We already have opinions that a woman may travel alone if safe. Clearly with these methods, there would be no doubt that a woman may travel completely alone. - Eating with right hand
Now this is not in the Quran, but applying these methods to the ahadith would derive that what hand one eats with, clearly has to do with cultural manners and hygienic circumstances applied in a certain time (stage #3), by the methods at stage #4, one would say that it doesn't matter which hand you eat with today (if its hygienic at least).
This list could go on. But clearly this methods would as most affect the matters regarding fiqh and how to live your life, it seems not to be much related on questions regarding creed or belief.