The more Islam
spreads the greater the number of hostile critics and the more frantic,
superficial and irrational they get. Yet despite them, or perhaps even because
of them, Islam makes progress.
Someone quoted
extracts from: The Origins of the Koran, Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book.
Editor: Ibn Warraq. (Prometheus Books).
Comment:-
This article
tries to prove that the Quran is bad literature, makes no sense and is not
unaltered and that, therefore, it cannot be inspired particularly because this
contradicts everything which the Quran says about itself.
But to support
this theory the writer quotes sceptical non-Muslim researchers who did not
understand the Quran and started their researches with assumptions that
effectively closed their minds. They searched for, selected, interpreted and
organized the data according to these assumptions. It is not surprising that
they ended with conclusions that were already in their assumptions - a thorough
waste of time. None of the great masters who understood and use the Quran to
teach were quoted.
They completely
ignored the instructions that the Quran itself gives about how it should be
read. Indeed, the Quran predicts what the result of ignoring those instructions
would be. And these were fulfilled.
Even if it is
true that some verses which were originally revealed got lost before the Quran
was compiled into the present form, it should be obvious that if it was not in
a book form originally then the verses which state that the Quran will remain
protected by God cannot apply to the written book. The Quran was originally a
recitation and a teaching. It is the truth contained in the "Preserved
Tablet" i.e. it refers to something which is integral to the structure of
the Universe itself. It is this or its ideas that are preserved.
It seems obvious
also that words have no meaning apart from how they
are understood. Since people understand the Quran to various degrees according to their various intelligence, insights and
efforts, then this preservation of the Quran cannot refer to these words but
how they are understood. There are always people on earth who understand the
teachings of the Quran and can transmit it. It is, therefore, preserved.
Those who wish
to know what the Quran teaches will go to consult those who understand it. If
they do not do so, then clearly they do not wish to know. What then is their
motive in occupying their time with the Quran?
How is it that
they make pronouncements about the Quran that it is not understandable when many
people do? Obviously, they mean that it is they themselves who cannot
understand it. Is it rational to mistake their own
subjective state for an objective fact?
Can those who do
not understand the subject be called scholars of that subject?
Can one believe
the opinions of people about things they do not understand or when they have
negative motives?
And these so
called scholars are quite unaware of these absurdities!!!
This article and
many others are part of an intensive propaganda war against Islam by frightened
people whose self-interest is threatened by the continuing expansion of Islam
despite all their efforts. Though they are able to recruit some hypocrites
among supposed Muslims there are still people who are able to discern and
respond to the truth. All praise be to Allah.
Several people
have quoted various Hadith to show that the verses of the Quran were collected
to form the present book under the Caliph Uthman, that some of the original
verses were lost and that the Quran was standardized by removing all
variations. Therefore, they argue, we do not have the original Quran and it was
not preserved as the Quran claims. This, they say makes the Quran as unreliable
as any other scripture.
Comment:-
(a) There is no
evidence that it contains anything other than what was revealed.
(b) The Quran
was also memorized by thousands of people. If it had been changed then there
would have been widespread protests and controversies. There is no evidence of
this.
(c) The Quran
was also incorporated into the life of the people. Everything required for the
religious life remains fully intact in Islam.
(d) Quran means
recitation. The Quran is not, in essence, a material book, but refers to the
truths to which it refers.
(e) Many of the
ideas in it were repeated several times and this can be seen even in the
present version. The loss of some verses does not, therefore, imply any loss of
ideas. The Quran tells us that if a verse is forgotten then it will be replaced
with something like it or better. 2:106
(f) The verses
of the Quran are intended to have multiple meanings and meanings at several
levels. Variations refer to this.
(g) The Quran is
a self-consistent book in which the ideas are inter-related. Anything which is
incompatible with this system of ideas would show up as alien.
(h) The verses
are meant to make listeners or readers aware and to stimulate them to make the
efforts to understand, not to spoon feed with details.
(i) If there is a record that something was in the Quran and
is not now there, then this record itself proves that the idea is preserved.
(j) The critics
get their ideas from Islamic sources. Obviously this knowledge did not make
them abandon Islam. The Hadith are well known as having various levels of
reliability and there is a whole Science of Hadith concerned with the
reliability and significance of the Hadith. Critics ignore this but select,
accept and quote these in accordance with their prejudices. They have little
significance even for the hostile as it leaves them where they were.
(k) The written
Quran has changed in that diacritical marks have been added and there are some
minor variations in the text. This does not alter the meaning. As the Quran
promises the preservation of the Quran then it must be supposed that it is in
exactly the state in which it is supposed to be. It is a matter of faith.
So the
criticisms of articles like this can be dismissed.
Someone quoting
a great number of articles from various scholars wrote:-
Since Islam
began, people have charged Muhammad with borrowing stories and religious
materials and repeating them as the Quran. Muhammad's contemporaries had heard
those stories before. And, during the last two hundred years or so, modern
Islamic scholars continued the assertion. These scholars come from Atheist,
Jewish, Christian, and even Muslim backgrounds. They've all agreed that
Muhammad borrowed material from other religions.
Comment:-
These assertions
have been made and answered several times before. But hostile persons continue
to return with the same naive objections hoping, perhaps, to wear us down. All
one can do is to repeat the answers:-
1. If people (a)
do not believe in God, or/and (b) do not believe that revelation is possible,
or/and (c) do not believe that Muhammad (saw) received revelation then they
must come up with all kinds of speculations about the origin of the Quran.
These are speculations and not facts.
2. It is
necessary to know what is meant by revelation and how it occurs. One way of
looking at it is that a person who receives it is in a heightened state of
consciousness so that he is in greater contact with reality, with the
underlying causal world. But he has to translate his experiences into terms
that his ordinary consciousness can understand and again into terms that other
people can understand. To do this he must use the current language including
its imagery, legends, stories etc., and there are also what may called
neologisms - new words or novel use of old words because some extra-ordinary
experiences have to be described. But it is also possible that this heightened
consciousness has penetrated into his sub-conscious or unconscious mind, where
the synthesis of experiences produces what have been called Archetypes. These
arise into the consciousness as myths and stories and sometimes as pictures,
designs and emblems, and can be found throughout the world. This is because
they relate to something that is common to all human beings and to the common
characteristics of the world they live in. They refer to certain truths. It is
not necessary, therefore, that these myths should be transferred from one
person to another or from one culture to another. But there will be variations
in the way they are formulated because of differences in culture and purpose.
3. There is no
doubt that some of the stories in the Quran are to be found in the New and Old
Testaments and even in much more ancient literature. But the point of interest
is not so much that they are there but:-
(a) Why just
these have been selected
(b) How and why
they vary from other versions
(c) Their
context, arrangement and what use have been made of them.
(d) Does the
Quran also contain new insights.
(e) Is it true
or not.
One could pick
up any book, novel or text book and find that it contains the same words,
phrases, ideas and stories which are contained in many other books. This does
not invalidate them. Some of these are regarded as great literature, some
convey the same truth better than others, some correct
errors or misunderstandings. Does one discard a text book because it contains
the same truths as other books? If a person in the U.S.A sees the moon is the
person in China
who claims to have seen the moon lying because it is only possible for a person
to receive the information from someone else? But then how did the person in
the U.S.A get his information? There is a great amount more in the Quran and in
a most compact and economical form than exists in any other scripture of the
world. This has been demonstrated numerous times.
4. The Quran
itself tells us that it contains things which were contained in previous
scriptures and came to confirm the truth in them, rectify the accumulated
misunderstandings and stand as guard to preserve the truth. It should not,
therefore, be surprising that it contains what seem to be the same things. But
it is necessary to examine these things more closely to see where the amendment
or rectification has been made.
5. No one can
pretend that the Quran is not a unique book. It was originally a recitation.
The rhythm and sound of it are an integral part of it. The claim of the Quran
that it is a part of the Preserved Tablet must also be taken seriously. The
implication is that the Quran is not the book of paper and ink, and not even
the recitation, but refers to a certain basic universal force which affects
people spiritually and transforms some of them. This is an idea not understood
by the mundane mind, including scholars, and is, therefore, unacceptable to
them. But what is more obvious is that the Quran is a completely different form
of Art from all others. People who criticise it do so from the standpoint of
the art forms they are familiar with and owing to the tendency of the mind for
rigidity, cannot accept or recognise unfamiliar forms. This, of course, has
been a difficulty throughout human history in all fields including religion,
politics, commerce, culture and even sciences and art.
6. Although some
of those who study the Quran are called scholars, the fact is that they are not
trying to understand the Quran and they ignore everything said about the Quran
in the Quran itself. And they ignore all those who have made a study of it and
do understand it. There are a considerable greater number of these latter
scholars. The non-believing scholars have certain (a) pre-suppositions, (b) motives
and (c) procedures that are quite alien to the Quran and its purposes. Whereas
they want to study things like the structure of words and sentences, grammar
and the antecedents to the stories in a purely intellectual manner without
personal involvement, the purpose of the Quran is to convey certain meanings,
values and motives, to engage the person, his thoughts, feelings, and actions,
his consciousness, conscience and will and to affect and transform man. This
scholarship is, therefore, totally irrelevant. It is like an examination of the
wrapping paper around some highly nutritious food,
food which is itself totally ignored and discarded - hardly a sign of
intelligence.
Even monkeys do
not keep the peel and throw away the banana.
Another Critic
objected:- Muslim Fundamentalists are fond of claiming
that the Koran miraculously predicted the findings of modern science, and that
all of its factual scientific claims are flawless. There are two important
objections to this claim that I will make, one pointing to a general problem,
the other a specific example of the failure of the claim.
Comment:-
(1) Claims can
be made by all kinds of people from the stupid and naive to the very
intelligent and sophisticated. Is it worth refuting naive and stupid ideas and
ignoring the others? Does it not show the inadequacies of the refuters?
(2) The Quran
itself tells us that it contains that which was taught before. It does not
claim to bring anything new. But what is new is the selection of ideas and the
way things are formulated and restated. In particular it concentrates several
layers of meaning into the verses.
(3) The
miraculous nature of the Quran is based on the fact that it a revelation,
something inspired into the Prophet, not something he invented and thought out
using his mundane mind. It came to him through a higher mind, one that is
normally in our unconscious but is in interaction with the real world.
(4) The Quran is
about religion and tells us about other things in so
far as they serve the religious or spiritual life, and in a manner best suited
to do this. It is not a text book in science.
(5) The Quran
was written in a pre-scientific language designed to be understood by the
people among whom it was revealed. If it had been given in scientific language
it would not have been understood.
(6) It is wholly
naive of the critics to expect that true statements can only be expressed in
modern scientific language. In fact, the critic appears to be just as naive as
the people he criticizes.
(7) It is a
perfectly legitimate exercise for contemporary Muslims to try to understand the
Quran in modern terms, to extract its meanings and significance and present
these in concepts that modern people can comprehend. These interpretations need
not be taken as literal absolute truths. There is as much doubt to the
correctness of the interpretation as to the accuracy of the scientific theory
itself, and both refer to the correspondence between what people understand and
the real objective truth - they are not identical. Indeed, a close study of the
Quran shows that there is more in it than has yet been discovered by science,
and could perhaps be confirmed in the future.