Faith
Critic:-
The Qur'an claims, in 11:16, that it is a book that is unmatchable in its content, and is hence miraculous. When Muslims are challenged regarding their faith, they turn to this claim as an irrefutable proof. Their defense is based almost wholly on this, since the Qur'an itself does not offer any evidence for it's claim to be of divine origin. And Muslims see this as powerful enough, to stand on its own. Just as the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the one point on which the Christian faith rests, so the entire Islamic faith rests on this. The book is so sure of its uniqueness, that it challenges any man or spirit to produce one like it, or a passage like any one in it.
Comment:-
This is a very naive understanding.
The Quran tells us that it is an inspiration in the heart of the believers and that only those who read it correctly will have faith in it. The insincere and those with prejudices and fixations will not be able to understand it. This obviously applies to this critic.
Apart from this it cannot be denied that the Quran is unique.
Critic:-
In what way then, one would ask, is the Qur'an miraculous? I have heard many responses to this, the most common being: 1) In its literary eloquence. 2) In its subject matter. 3) In its preservation over the centuries.
In the following article, I want to consider only response number one.
Comment:-
Literary eloquence? You select phrases according to your own understanding. The Quran is eloquent to the hearts of sincere seeker not to the hostile and prejudiced.
Critic:-
CASE-1 :- Ali Dashti, the famous Iranian-Arab scholar, has the following to say: "Neither the Quran's eloquence, nor it's moral precepts are miraculous."
Comment:-
Most people know that there are all kinds of opinions and these vary with the nature of the person. So you have selected the opinions of someone hostile because that is in agreement with your hostility! So what!
Critic:-
CASE-2 :- There is evidence to the effect that Suras 1, 113, and 114 are not originally part of the Quran, but later additions. It is a well known fact that Abdulla ibn Masud, a man described by Muhammed as one of the, if not THE, highest authority on the Qur'an (Bukhari), did not consider these to be part of the it (Bukhari), but rather liturgical in nature, the latter point being evident from his writings. Critics in the 1930s, approaching the problem from a different perspective, also arrived at the same conclusions.
Comment:-
There is no real evidence for these stories. They are speculations based on faulty reasoning. The Quran is the revelation to Muhammad (saw). Sura 1 has always been part of Islamic prayer as taught by the Prophet (saw). What was included in the written book or left out at some point is not very significant. If Sura 113 and 114 were removed because of doubt it would not really make any difference to the message of the Quran. The Quran is as Allah wants it to be. That is the faith and its effect depends on that.
Critic:-
There is a third reason why I believe Muslims cannot consider Sura 1 a part of their book. Muslims believe that the Qur'an is God's DIRECT revelation - it is exactly His words; it is Him speaking . Hence, according to their concept of inspiration, God speaks directly in the first person, and passages that do not convey this cannot be His words.
Comment:-
Some passages begin with "Say: " e.g. Quran 112 "Say: He Allah is One..." In others this is understood specially when it is prayer. There is nothing wrong with Allah referring to Himself in the third person when speaking to the second person.
The critic here is implying that he would have believed the Quran if it had said:- "All praise belongs to Me, the Lord of the Worlds." Would this be a prayer?
Critic:-
"The Quran contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning; adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the concords of gender and number; illogically and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent; and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects."
Comment:-
The critic has presupposed what the Quranic language should be like. It is as if a person who understood only prose criticized poetry, or those who use only common speech criticize literary language. When it departs from his expectation then he rejects it, preferring his own standards instead of trying to think and discover what the significance of this might be. Did he really think that the Muhammad (saw) did not know how to speak Arabic?
Critic:-
"In the field of moral teachings, however, the Qur'an cannot be considered miraculous. Mohammad reiterated principles which mankind had already conceived in earlier centuries and many places. Confucius, Buddha, Zoroaster, Socrates, Moses, and Jesus had said similar things." (p. 54)
Comment:-
If what they said was true and good does the critic wish that Muhammad (saw) should have denied or ignored these? Does he not know that Islam is the religion brought by all the genuine Prophets through the ages and in all places and that the Quran confirms their teachings while removing the misinterpretations? How does he think this can be done without affirming some things and denying others? Are the teachings of Jesus false or uninspired because they can be found in the Old Testament?
Critic:-
"The Qur'an is miraculous because it enabled Mohammad, single-handedly and despite poverty and illiteracy, to overcome his people's resistance and found a lasting religion because it moved wild men to obedience and imposed its bringer's will on them." (p. 57)
Comment:-
Ah! So it is miraculous after all. But miracles are attributed to God not to man. And most of mankind is even now wild and undisciplined and needs to be brought to obedience to God.
Critic:-
A WORD TO MUSLIM READERS
I am aware that many Muslim readers will still refuse to face the objective conclusions, reached in this article. I will ask them the following question: Is your conclusion based on the facts, or on your faith? Are you a person who says - The challenge will never be met. If such is the case, then your conclusion is based on faith, and not reasoning.
Comment:-
This naiveté in a self proclaimed educated person is unbelievable. Which religion is not based on faith? And why does he think that faith and reason are contradictory?
He attributes reason to himself when it is obvious that it is product of bias. Anyone can select his objective facts and interpret and organize them according to his own desires. And that is what the rationalizer calls reason. He starts from false assumptions and draws irrelevant conclusions.
Let us spell things out so that he can, hopefully, understand:-
It is the power of perception and discernment which determines whether the Quran is accepted or not. Faith is not, as this critic supposes, a blind belief (though he has such faith in his own powers of reason), but arises when what he experiences forms some kind resonance in his nature.
Critic:-
Ask a Muslim - How do you know that Muhammad is a prophet? Answer: Because the Quran says so, and the Qur'an is the word of God. Ask them then: How do you know that the Quran is God's word? Answer: Because Muhammad says so.
Comment:-
Nonsense. The critic has made up the answers himself.
This argument can be applied to any other religion - Christians, Hindus, Buddhists.
Most people are simply brought up in a religion and accept it because it is traditional.
But if they practice it and it has beneficial effects then they accept it because of these practical considerations.
If they apply reason then they either try to establish for themselves that the founder is a person with some kind of superior qualities of discernment or that the teachings he brings are valid. But both these judgements may depend on the value system that has been conditioned into him.
True faith depends on the correspondence between the inherent nature of human beings and the understanding of the teaching. This teaching is not concerned with dead facts or logical proofs but with the process of living.
Those who do not understand this when speaking of religion have wholly missed the point.
Conclusion:-
The critic is making excuses. He would be more honest if he simply said he does not wish to understand the Quran because his own opinions and prejudices accidentally acquired are more comfortable, or that he wishes to practice self-indulgence and must, therefore, reject anything that interferes with it, or that the Islamic discipline is too difficult for him.
Their criticisms can be dismissed as wholly irrelevant.
----------<O>----------