Chowk Special

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).

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

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.

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

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

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

iconoclast:

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

regards

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.

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

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

``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.

Noor:

You misinterpreted my `re-interpretation`.

Let me illustrate. The founding fathers in these Excited States drafted an eight thousand word document in 1776. They could not even have dreamt of life as it exists today. The Supreme Court judges were entrusted to interpret ( or re-interpret) that written document according to the changed times and needs. In an oversimplification (much as I hate it) Supreme Court Judges give their verdict on changed circumstances and needs based on the wishes of the founding fathers and the spirit of the document.

Now, let us go back to Koran. The religious scholars would drink coca cola. It didn`t exist in the Arabian desert then. They use a simple formula---- the ingredients are permissible therefore the whole is okay too. This is basic ijtihad. My problem with them is their selective use of logic. Today charts exists, all neatly printed and scientifically calculated, that will give you the time for any prayer on any day of the year. One can find these charts even in village mosques. Nobody calculates prayer times the old fashioned way. Yet when one demands to extend the same logic for the new moon all hell breaks loose.

There are tons of examples where the original spirit of the document can be `re-interpreted` according to the needs of the times. We have to understand this. The mechanism exists. We have to overcome mental barriers.

It is too bad a book that tells time and again to read, understand and practice largely remian unread. I blame myself and yourself for this predicament. The educated have abandoned their turf to the vested clergy.

Sorry Feroze, how can one be not emotional?

regards

Re: Temperol post # 13

My explication of the term ``emotion`` was not meant to deny you, or anyone for that matter, your values or believes but was intended to convey a sense of objectivity. It has been my experience that emotions, rightly or wrongly, tend to prejudice opinions and they do make people less receptive to opposing ideas or viewpoints.

I am still forming my opinion about the article, but I have, in the mean time, come to the following conclusions. The article`s rationale, and for that matter its rasion d`etre, not with standing, this whole discussion touches upon the validity of a person`s belief system(s). That is a highly subjective field and it is not neccessarily open to dissent, specially if that dissent is aimed at questioning a person`s core believes. Depending on our personal interpretations, we may agree or we may disagree with the intent of the article and that in itself neither proves or disproves anything.

The exposition of the ideas, which Toby Lester suggests, are grounded in the ``traditionalist`` school of western histrography which seeks to chronologically document past events within a narrative linear progressive timeline. The biggest flaw of the article, in my opinion, is that it relies on the interpretative skills of Puin. As the article clearly estabishes the fact, Puin is an expert in the restoration of historic Islamic documents and in the field of Islamic calligraphy. No where in the article does it mention Puin`s credentials as an Islamic
scholar capable of posulating an opinion upon the history of Quranic thought and interpretative development.

Intellectually, the article does posit some interesting questions about the early theological evoloution of the Quranic doctrine, but its ``adventurism`` in speculating a fundlemental re-think in the Islamic scholarly tradition, based on the Yemeni discoveries, is highly improbable. The discovery of the Yemeni Quranic verses, said to be the earliest form of Quran, will not alter the basic perceptions of Sunna or Hadith as we understand them, but may offer an understanding towards their eventual evolvement into their present religious doctrinal codifications.

This is where, in my opinion, the efficacy of the article lies in. The article does raise an interesting point about the growth of Islamic doctrine, based on Sunna and Hadith, and how that has morphed, over the centuries, into its present incarnation. It is hoped that these discoveries, when taken in the context of other scholarly Islamic works, will shed some new light upon the evolution of the Islamic religious heirarchy and how its has influenced the interpretations of Sunna and Hadith since the time of the Prophet.

The only point of the article with which I agree is that Islam needs to undertake a critical self study to determine the history and chronology of its own Quranic interpretative traditions. The point I am interested in is whether Quran should be strictly interpretated as a devine revelation, or it should be seen as a contempory historic document, and whether it should be considered as the ``word`` of God or the ``intent`` of God as given to the Prophet. All in all, Islamic orthodoxy needs to engage in a debate and in doing so, it should seek to find a way out of the dogmatic rigdity that is constricting its traditions of intellectual expressiveness.

As said before, this is an extermely prima facie analysis of the article. I still have to read all the supporting documents which Toby Lester used to augment his arguments in the article.

Temporal, again I am sorry for the lenght of this post!

Sincerely, Feroz

re: temporal

I am in complete agreement with you regarding ijtihad. Using the same logic and applying it to Shariah; in the old days 4 witnesses were required to prove rape. Advances in DNA technology can now provide much more accurate and reliable conclusions regarding rape then the testimony of any four witnesses. As such, if DNA evidence exists, then four witnesses should no longer be required as a matter of law. But try and tell that to the mullahs.

Upfront let me apologize for the length of this posting. In what follows, quotes from the article are indicated by `` ``

A criticism of the Atantic Monthly article can occur on at least three different levels:

1. For its reliance on a small group of self-referential scholars

2. For the implausability of the claims of these scholars

3. For some of obvious incoherence of what the article says

The first critique is simple: The article revolves around the work of a band of scholars: Puin, Crone, Rappin, Wansborough. if you follow the links to the pubhlished work of these scholars, they are in turn citing each other as ``authorities``. The whole situation is curiously reminscient of what Crone herself decries about the traditional analysis of the Quran: ``This is no mean feat, of course; the Koran has come down to us tightly swathed in a historical tradition that is extremely resistant to criticism and analysis``

The article makes little mention of what other scholars have said about the critical analysis of the above, aside from quoting Manzoor Qadir (whose work is available on the Web and hence readily accessable unlike that of traditional Muslim scholars). This seems to speak of either

a) an intellectual laziness on the part of Mr. Lester (this is, after all, a review article: Its title is `What is the Koran?`. It`s not `Here`s what Crone et. al. think of the Koran`)

or b) an intellectual dishonesty. But we will let that pass.

The second critique: Let us agree with what the main thrust of the article. Let us assume that the Koran was in fact compiled over a couple of centuries and that the doctrine of infallability was really only adopted in the tenth century. This then leads to the following absurd situation: The compilers of the Hadith (the major compilations of which were complete around h250 or 900 AD) were meticulosly careful in documenting the exegesis of the Hadith. Detailed multi-dimensional categorizations of the Hadith were made. See the USC MSA Web site for an article on this.

This then begs the obvious question: if the muslim scholars were so careful in documenting and attempting to discern between alternative versions of the Hadith (which while central to Islam pale in comparision to the Quran), then was no such effort done in this alleged long-term compilation of the Quran? Did these very scholars just proceed to add and subtract the Quran in a cavalier manner? Did they not try to deduce the reliability of the these hypthetical ``additions`` to the Quran? Is this probable that they they would treat the main source document, the very fount of the religion, in such an arbitrary manner?

If that does not seem likely, then perhaps there is another possibility: that such work on the exegesis of the Quran was done by the scholars but whoever, whenver decided upon the Quran as having reached its final version (say in the tenth century), they then went out and so systematically destroyed all traces of any such scholarly work that not even one fragment or mention of it can be found today!

The reader is left to judge the plausbility of this argument...

The third critique of the article can be made on the basis of the incoherence of what is says.

Consider first, what the learned scholar Mr. Puin has to say: ````The Koran claims for itself that it is `mubeen,` or `clear,``` he says. ``But if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn`t make sense. Many Muslims -- and Orientalists -- will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible. the Koran is not comprehensible -- if it can`t even be understood in Arabic -- then it`s not translatable. People fear that.``

This statement literally does not make sense. For example, I can take the position that the Theory of Relativity simply does not make sense. I would then say: `Many physicists -- and indeed my friends -- will tell you otherwise, but the fact is that half the Theory of Relativity is just incomprehensible` And no matter how louldly the physics faculties of half the world may protest, I can blithely maintain that no, you physicists are wrong, the theory is incomprehensible. So similary, Mr. Puin can confidently assert, that no, you Islamic scholars are wrong, the Quran is incomprhensible. And it is incomprehensible because I say so, because I cannot comprehend it. Ok. That statement is literally worth about as much as the fact that I don`t comprehend the Theory of Relativity. So what?

Now consider yet another criticism voiced in the article: ``It sometimes makes dramatic shifts in style, voice, and subject matter from verse to verse, and it assumes a familiarity with language, stories, and events that seem to have been lost even to the earliest of Muslim exegetes (typical of a text that initially evolved in an oral tradition).``

let us not dispute the assertion that this familiarity with events etc. is lost even to Muslim scholars. Regardless, this loss of familiarity would also be typical of a text which was revealed at a specific time and a place: in a certain milieu, addressing a certain group of people as a living reality. Indeed, if the Quran had been added to and modified over the course of a couple of centuries one would expect that later `copy editors` would reject material which they and everyone else could not comprehend.

Now consider: ``As a result, the Koran has traditionally not been translated by Muslims for non-Arabic-speaking Muslims. Instead it is read and recited in the original by Muslims worldwide, the majority of whom do not speak Arabic. The translations that do exist are considered to be nothing more than scriptural aids and paraphrases.``

Again, this betrays an absolute lack of understanding of Islam and its culture. If Quran is the infallible word of Allah, then by definition, its canonical and indeed only version can exist in its original language. Translations do exist, they always have. However, both translater and reader understand that this not the Quran.

And finally: ``He concluded that the Koran evolved only gradually in the seventh and eighth centuries, during a long period of oral transmission when Jewish and Christian sects were arguing volubly with one another well to the north of Mecca and Medina, in what are now parts of Syria, Jordan, Israel, and Iraq.``

Hmmm. Interesting subtext. Of course the Koran could not have been devised by that ``provincial band of pagan desert tribesmen``. Surely it took some of the great Judeao-Christian civilization (who of course in a grand Socratic tradition were ``arguing volubly`` on theological matters) to write all of this up.

Mr. Lester`s article fails on almost every count but for challenging muslims to address this issue and dispell some of his manifest ignorance.

Interesting article. Following the nature of scientific endeavours, we can be sure that there will be much more to see in terms of both the evidence and conclusions as time goes by. It seems to me that the more enduring legacy of these Yemeni scripts will be the debate they give rise to.

I do wish to point out three interesting points for people to mull over, I am sure that many people are already aware of them.

1) There is almost a complete consensus amongst Biblical scholars that the concept of Trinity was a later invention. Jesus never talks about it directly in the New Testament. Yet, there are a billion or so people who swear by the Trinity. This shows the weight one can attach to ``popularity`` as a means of identifying the ``objective truth`` of a concept.

2) There is also a great deal of evidence that supports the conclusion that the concept of virgin birth of Mary is again a later invention. This is interesting given that Islam (and the Quran) openly espouse the concept of virgin birth.

3) In all religious issues, there is always more than what is obvious. The aims of religions and science diverge on some issues. Whereas science strives for an ``objective truth`` that can be backed by hard evidence, religion recognizes other ``truths`` that cannot be readily substantiated. Much of the mythology of a religion serves a different reason than gaining an objective understanding of the universe. It tries to provide a foundation for a unifying ideology, that can be referenced in the everyday lives of the believers. Sort of saying that: ``I believe in so-and-so because it makes me a better person or more able to handle the everyday life``. In terms of their effects on the world and the lives of people, these ``imaginary truths`` are more influential and long-lasting than the ``objective truths``.