Chowk Special

``You can not teach an old dogma new tricks`` - Dorothy Parker, founder and editor of the magazine, The New Yorker.

The article was interesting, but before I respond to it, I will have to read the links to the supporting materials and conflicting opinions to the orthodox Islamic view interpretations of Qu`ran. The enightenment of Islamic thought, or the age of Islamic Renassiance, will not come from emotionally reacting to conflicting opinions, but from a willingness to admit that the present domatic nature of Islam, and the Ou`ran, does not answer all the questions.

I was more interested by the fact that it was the non-Islamic scholars, Germans, who are doing most of research into the early history of Qu`ranic interpretations. That in itself says a lot about Islamic intellectual tradition, a tradition which ushered in the European renassiance, and which presently lies either stifled in the name of conformity, or is being silenced in the cause of intellectual xenophobia.

Iconoclast:

My sarcasm was directed at the Tobys of this world. Sorry, it did not sit well with you.

Our renaissance, if it ever comes, will come from within, not without.

Do you know that in Muhammed`s time there were no IMAMS, hereditary or otherwise. The first person of the neighbourhood entering the mosque would lead the prayers. The emphasis was on earning your living, following a or any profession first, and leading the prayers next.
The mohalla mosque was more than a mosque -- it was a community hub. Waking up in the year 1999 of the alleged death of the other prophet, we find a well entrenched Muslim clergy. That has to be destroyed first, to be replaced by enlightened
knowledgable working persons. These people will come forward from amongst us.

regards

Temporal:

``Have these papers been carbon dated?``

Good question to ask. I ask the same question to Muslims who claim that scripts of the Qur`an from the times of Uthman, or someone else are housed in Tashkent, Topkapi, etc.

I think the analysis of the script is also a valid way to find out about the time-frame of when a manuscript was written. That method seems to be employed here. But again, I don`t know. I am just suggesting that Toby Lester`s or Puin`s assertions are not as preposterous as you seem to imply.

``As a written document, it could be re-interpreted according to changed circumstances (as long as one

adheres to its basic principles). Too bad the vested clergy has all but stopped this process down the centuries. ``

`Re-interpretation` is a nice euphemism for suggesting to ignore anything that is not `basic principle`. Qur`an doesn`t say anywhere that this is a basic principle and that isn`t so you can throw the latter one out.

It is fashionable today among confused Muslims to blame the clergy for everything. The reality is that YOU are educated in the modern tradition, thereby inheriting the secular sensibilities of modernism. Yet you believe in the holy book, probably based on hearsay from family, parents and those around you. To resolve this glaring contradiction in your inner thoughts you hold on to a few flimsy props like `re-interpretation`, `ijtihaad`, etc. For you it means throwing out what you don`t like.

Let me pretend to be a Muslim for a sec here..

This is God`s word you are talking about. Before suggesting `re-interpretation` and filtration of secondary (as opposed to `basic`) principles, think again. For if an iota of this suggested enterprise is motivated by your own whims, or if you have a pre-conceived direction in which the re-interpretation should go, then let me remind you again that you are suggesting to twist the word of god to your whim. Whither is your submission brother Temporal?

Iconoclast:

``The Quran is as liable to be fallible as the Bible since both were written and compiled by the followers of the religion and not by the prophets.``

`Zaalika al-kitaab laa-raib fi-hi` (2:2) Qur`an itself claims infallibility for itself. That`s why Muslims believe it to be infallible.

You could suggest that the original version of the Qur`an revealed by infallible god to infallible prophets was infallible. The compilers could make mistakes and the Qur`an in it`s present form is corrupted and liable to have problems. Well that`s fine and good except that it makes you wonder why god just didn`t keep sending books as the older ones got obselete or corrupted. Why stop at the Qur`an?

And if you consider the present form of qur`an to be fallible, I fail to see how you can still maintain that there was an original uncorrupted qur`an that was the word of god, verbatim, delivered to the prophet by a messenger angel.

Why this dilly-dallying? Few are bold enough to ask the central question. How do I know that Qur`an is the word of god? Have I met Muhammad? Have I met anyone who has met Muhammad? Is there really any compelling reason to believe in the divinity of a text except for what I heard when I was a kid. That`s the ostrich mentality.

Mohammad Noorul Islam

Why is it that divine revelations, visitations by angels, lengthy interactions between God and humans and similar occurences have always been a good millenium or so before our times? In Islam, the lengthy, divine messages have been conveyed to an illiterate bedouin trader, who recited them to his followers, who in turn wrote them a hundred years later down as the quoran. Hmmm... even with the most modern equipment, we see so many errors and infractions in the simple documents we create and yet a few hundred pages of material direct from God to prophet to follower to book is considered infallible.

iconoclast:

Please re-read the last paragraph of my post. Your outburst is unjustified.

regards

Re: temporal

I concur with your last paragraph save the last line. My outburst if you could call it that was directed at the last line. Apart from it, the rest i do agree and appreciate. Getting back to the last line, so what`s wrong if a non-muslim studies and tries to interpret age old documents on Islam and Quran. He is not at any point slinging dirt on islam (correct me if i am wrong). If a non-believer is interested in understanding the glories of an ancient religion then so be it.

Apologies in advance if my comments are wrong , unjust or hurting

iconoclast

Re: Rehan, Temporal

Are you suggesting that the Quran is absolute ? Is`nt there an iota of chance that over the years, Quranic interpretations could have changed according to the times and people who were instrumental in defining and re-defining it.

The scourge of islam is not the Quran but the xenophobic nature exhibited by most of us Muslims. Probably it stems from the inferiority complex that most of us have when we look at the liberated west. Something that we would long to be but something we know we cannot and will not accepted to be (liberal, modern etc). Hence if a non-muslim studies islam we dismiss it as unacceptable and if a muslim does it we ban him/her as a heretic worthy of a fatwa. The Quran is as liable to be fallible as the Bible since both were written and compiled by the followers of the religion and not by the prophets.

This Ostrich mentality would only be retroactive when the need of the hour is to evolve and adapt islam to modern times.

Iconoclast

Toby Lester:

Another plain `brilliant` article stroking both sides, with quotes and references. What? There is more to it? Oh yes, reading between the lines, one can clearly see the agenda you are pushing in the guise of...........

Have these papers been carbon dated?

Compilaton of the Koran was done under the third Caliph Othman. How come this `historical` evolution stopped so early? Not a comma has changed since? Or has it?

As a written document, it could be re-interpreted according to changed circumstances (as long as one adheres to its basic principles). Too bad the vested clergy has all but stopped this process down the centuries. When the educated Muslims reclaim their turf the bigots would be forced to flee. Islamic renaissance! But in that we do not need your help.

keep trying

Muslims need not worry about this article. If they know even a little bit about their own history, they should not be alarmed by what Toby Lester suggests. And what he suggests is quiet amusing. He sounds more like agent Fox Mulder in The X-Files, than a scholar or a journalist. Here`s the essence of what he`s suggesting:

(Imagine the theme music of the show is playing in the background.)

There was a massive government conspiracy in the ninth and tenth centuries to rewrite the history of Qur`an and Islam by inventing the myths about their super-natural origin. The rulers of that time were visited by the aliens, better yet, perhaps they were the aliens who had possessed the bodies of those rulers. They had a special interest in the spread of Islam so they could colonize the planet and rule over it forever once it converted to Islam.

And to accomplish this, they brought extraterresterial technology to erase and destroy everything ever written about Islam and Qur`an before that time and to systematically brain-wash every single of the tens of millions of Muslims spread all over the globe into believing their version of Islamic history, Qur`an and Islam.

But as the aliens were not omnipotent, some genetically resistant Muslims could not be brain-washed. By virtue of their genetic superiority, they were wise and far-sighted enough to hide the true version of history and Qur`an in the secret burial chambers of a mystical mosque to leave a legacy for the world. So that when and if the world eventually would defeat the aliens, people would know what REALLY happened centuries ago.

And now that time has come. The time to know the true Islam. Because...The Truth is Out There.

I am not dismissing Toby Lester as a lunatic out to buy his fifteen minutes of fame...OK may be I am. Now that I`m in the mood, I have another theory. There`s a rival and much superior alien race who`s trying to colonize earth with its own specie by destroying the first aliens` influence through systematic discrediting of Islam. Guess which part of the world they`ve already colonized.

Rehan.

A very interesting article. I found the article to be rather well researched. I am sure many are going to blame this `attack` on anti-islam elements; however, I don`t think the article had any (atleast obvious) overt agenda.

Having said that, some of the content does seem oversimplified. One observation I will make is about every fifth verse being unclear, or one part of the Quran being simply incomprehensible. The theme of the article was that the Quran evolved, and did not come from a single source. Part of the proof of this is, supposedly, the fact that part of the Quran is unclear. These two issue seem to be at odds with each other. They seem to disprove the magazine`s argument rather than discredit the Quran. If the Quran is a product of evolution, would the `strange` structure not have smoothed out over time?

This is just one observation after quickly reading the article.

What worries me is that after such `discussions,` the extremist elements (perhaps the general population) will fail to differentiate between those who want to change Islam (The Quran is great, but not divine) and those who want to re-intrepret what the society believes to be the essence of the Quran (Justice, Honesty, Mercy, Kindness might be more important than having one`s shalwar above his ankles for namaz to be valid).

Shahbaz Chaudhary

Perhaps the rumblings of a revolution in Islamic epistemology? One can only hope...

Islam is probably the only religion where the majority of its believers still believe in the eternal inimitability and literal absolutism of its holy book. The result has been a stultefying paralysis of Islamic thought and culture within the last few centuries. That the Qur`an is a created, historical text reflecting the concerns and mores of its socio-cultural milieu is obvious to any casual observer who hasn`t been indoctrinated into the Islamic faith. Why would the Word of God, if it did descend from heaven in a pure, unadulterated form, be so full of contradictions, inconsistencies, and disorganization? Why didn`t God spell out his plan for humankind more clearly and with more organization? For a person of faith who wants a rational basis of belief, it is more more sensible to view the Qur`an as divinely INSPIRED rather than divinely revealed. Thus, it becomes a product of the human mind, fallible and amendable.

What might be some consequences of accepting the created, historical nature of the Qur`an?

1. The harmony of religion with the scientific method and the acceptance of scientific truths such as biological evolution, the material basis of mind, etc.

2. A re-examination of entrenched cultural mores such as the necessity of hijab, purdah, the abstinence from pork and alcohol, rigid legalism, etc.

3. A reconsideration of the validity of any `Islamic` state or constitution whose structure and laws are based solely on Qur`anic revelation rather than reason and historical experience.

4. A greater tolerance for religious diversity within and without Islam.

For an excellent discussion of a mature, holistic, and scientifically informed approach to ethics and religion, I recommend all open-minded Muslims to read `Consilience` by the renowned Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson (especially the latter chapters).