Chowk Special
Chowk P Room January 13, 1999
#17 Posted by SaimaShah on January 16, 1999 3:08:44 pm
I found the articles pretty fascinating and and intuitively exciting because it always seemed strange that the Quran was not a text so many centuries after its revelation.
Knowledge is not a stagnant pool. If it were languages would not evolve. Objective truth and mythological truth have to interrelate at some point, over the centuries of human evolution. Words like revelation have gently changed to inspiration, experimentation, deduction, hypotheisis and probable conclusion. I do not understand why rationalism is a threat to God or the concept of one. Surely IT is all the Almighty? If so than what is the harm in ijtehad? or criticism?
I find S. Pervez Manzoor too emotionally challenged and too verbose to be convincing on the rightist side. Covering up obvious gaps with verbose diatribes does not further the cause of Islam. It would be far better to criticize in a mellower tone. I wonder if he can explain why a rationalist society still has the generousity to study faith but the faithful have such little paitience for the questioner. I thought it would be otherwise because of the `deep spiritualism` that organized religion has to offer. Of-course I do not have the special insight that a muslim male would probablt have on the matter.
A renaissance or reform from within Islam is a great hope. I have always felt that there is too much man in the Quran anyway. I wish the author had used a better word than feminism.
Unfortunately, most women who raise their heads are hounded by the orthodox. From Asma Jehangir to Taslima Nasrin.
And what about the Sufis? The Sufis were pretty anti-orthodox way back when. There is an article about Sufi kafirana-pan at Chowk.
What about poets who always put down the maulvi and the vayiz e.g., our genius Ghalib? How come renaissance did not and does not happen? there has been enough within Islam to carry a revolution in the Sub-continent and Turkey, then why does it not happen that a rationalist and tolerant civization is born out of these threads? Why do so many Islamic countries again and again go back to orthodoxy after becoming more modern or more tolerant, eg., Iran, Turkey, the sub-continent, Afghanistan.
Knowledge is not a stagnant pool. If it were languages would not evolve. Objective truth and mythological truth have to interrelate at some point, over the centuries of human evolution. Words like revelation have gently changed to inspiration, experimentation, deduction, hypotheisis and probable conclusion. I do not understand why rationalism is a threat to God or the concept of one. Surely IT is all the Almighty? If so than what is the harm in ijtehad? or criticism?
I find S. Pervez Manzoor too emotionally challenged and too verbose to be convincing on the rightist side. Covering up obvious gaps with verbose diatribes does not further the cause of Islam. It would be far better to criticize in a mellower tone. I wonder if he can explain why a rationalist society still has the generousity to study faith but the faithful have such little paitience for the questioner. I thought it would be otherwise because of the `deep spiritualism` that organized religion has to offer. Of-course I do not have the special insight that a muslim male would probablt have on the matter.
A renaissance or reform from within Islam is a great hope. I have always felt that there is too much man in the Quran anyway. I wish the author had used a better word than feminism.
Unfortunately, most women who raise their heads are hounded by the orthodox. From Asma Jehangir to Taslima Nasrin.
And what about the Sufis? The Sufis were pretty anti-orthodox way back when. There is an article about Sufi kafirana-pan at Chowk.
What about poets who always put down the maulvi and the vayiz e.g., our genius Ghalib? How come renaissance did not and does not happen? there has been enough within Islam to carry a revolution in the Sub-continent and Turkey, then why does it not happen that a rationalist and tolerant civization is born out of these threads? Why do so many Islamic countries again and again go back to orthodoxy after becoming more modern or more tolerant, eg., Iran, Turkey, the sub-continent, Afghanistan.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#18 Posted by wasiq on January 16, 1999 4:06:17 pm
I mailed the following reply to the author of this article:
It appears to me that the discovery of the Yemeni scripts can be potentially very important in elucidating this critical part of Islamic history. The most enduring legacy of this discovery will most probably be the debate and thought it will generate.
Like everything else in a scientific endeavour, however, the evidence and its interpretation will invariably change over time.
Although I found the article itself to be very interesting and thought-provoking, I clearly came off with a sense that the presentation of the evidence and its interpretation was improper by scientific standards.
The article suffers from two fatal flaws:
First, it elevates hypotheses to the rank of facts. Preserved copies of the Quran, and their differences from the present day versions, can have a multitude of explanations. However, in the article, the evidence itself is never discussed in any meaningful detail. Neither is any other hypothesis presented. For example, there are no comments from any Islamic scholar who does not agree with these interpretations. From a scientific point of view this is entirely unacceptable.
Second, very importantly, we have to consider the whole issue in light of the nature of the evidence at hand. The evidence is isolated and fragmented. A close analogy to this case would be the case of evolutionary debates. Even within the scientific and non-creationist circles, the interpretation of evidence has been problematic, with no one clear point of view, simply because the evidence is not chronologically uninterrupted. The interpretation of isolated evidence is very tricky and susceptible to many potential pitfalls. The author of the article, it appears, does not appreciate the importance of this issue. In addition, if the original researchers are making strong claims based upon their evidence then they too are falling into this trap. Again in analogy with the evolutionary debate, a clearer picture of what is going on will appear only after a long period of scrutiny and verification of the evidence at hand, and by corroborating it with other clues within the Islamic tradition.
That increasingly diverse interpretations of the history of the Quran will appear is inevitable. Like any other scientific endeavour, however, one also must have the prudence and intelligence not to dwell on any one hypothesis but to seek an honest and scientific approach to the issue where all hypotheses are taken into account appropriately, and the evidence available is treated with due caution.
The article unfortunately leaves one with the impression that the author and the researchers have already made up their minds on what the outcome should be, independently of the evidence at hand.
I must also comment on your inappropriate choice of timing for this article. Clearly this publication is not a scholarly venue for scientific and arcane discussions, however, one would have expected a better sense of timing from a popular publication like yours. Sensationalism has the potential benefits of improving the number of hits to your site, however in the long run it leaves a sense of distaste about the motivations of the publication. I hope that we have evolved past the days of Orientalist discourse where Islam was viewed through the myopic and biased lens of Western academia.
It appears to me that the discovery of the Yemeni scripts can be potentially very important in elucidating this critical part of Islamic history. The most enduring legacy of this discovery will most probably be the debate and thought it will generate.
Like everything else in a scientific endeavour, however, the evidence and its interpretation will invariably change over time.
Although I found the article itself to be very interesting and thought-provoking, I clearly came off with a sense that the presentation of the evidence and its interpretation was improper by scientific standards.
The article suffers from two fatal flaws:
First, it elevates hypotheses to the rank of facts. Preserved copies of the Quran, and their differences from the present day versions, can have a multitude of explanations. However, in the article, the evidence itself is never discussed in any meaningful detail. Neither is any other hypothesis presented. For example, there are no comments from any Islamic scholar who does not agree with these interpretations. From a scientific point of view this is entirely unacceptable.
Second, very importantly, we have to consider the whole issue in light of the nature of the evidence at hand. The evidence is isolated and fragmented. A close analogy to this case would be the case of evolutionary debates. Even within the scientific and non-creationist circles, the interpretation of evidence has been problematic, with no one clear point of view, simply because the evidence is not chronologically uninterrupted. The interpretation of isolated evidence is very tricky and susceptible to many potential pitfalls. The author of the article, it appears, does not appreciate the importance of this issue. In addition, if the original researchers are making strong claims based upon their evidence then they too are falling into this trap. Again in analogy with the evolutionary debate, a clearer picture of what is going on will appear only after a long period of scrutiny and verification of the evidence at hand, and by corroborating it with other clues within the Islamic tradition.
That increasingly diverse interpretations of the history of the Quran will appear is inevitable. Like any other scientific endeavour, however, one also must have the prudence and intelligence not to dwell on any one hypothesis but to seek an honest and scientific approach to the issue where all hypotheses are taken into account appropriately, and the evidence available is treated with due caution.
The article unfortunately leaves one with the impression that the author and the researchers have already made up their minds on what the outcome should be, independently of the evidence at hand.
I must also comment on your inappropriate choice of timing for this article. Clearly this publication is not a scholarly venue for scientific and arcane discussions, however, one would have expected a better sense of timing from a popular publication like yours. Sensationalism has the potential benefits of improving the number of hits to your site, however in the long run it leaves a sense of distaste about the motivations of the publication. I hope that we have evolved past the days of Orientalist discourse where Islam was viewed through the myopic and biased lens of Western academia.
#19 Posted by ferozk on January 16, 1999 5:22:40 pm
Re: Saima Shah
In answer to your question, ``how come renaissance did and does not happen?`` in the Islamic world. Also, I apoligise for the tedious lenght of this post.
A basic ingredient for it to happen is the ability to question the offical legitimacy of the day. The reason most ``modern`` Islamic Muslim countries regress to an orthodoxy is, because western secularism does not readily afford answers to certain basic questions and because the Muslim clery, in these countries have been more articulate in fostering their ideas upon the population. The intelligensia are to be blamed for this regression, because instead of highlighting the points of seclurism, they arrogantly dismiss these teachings and are content with their own sense of enlightenment. Just as nature abhors a vacuum, the gap vacated by these ``Islamic modernists`` is filled by the clergy, because they utilize the publics` dissatisfaction for their own ends and more importantly, because they do not allow a tradition of dissent within their own ranks.
Furthermore, the modern Islamic Muslim intelligensia tends to treat their breathen as a group of provincial cousins, to be tolerated and is not interested in educating them to the benefits it is enjoying. The creation of a socio-economic class from this perspective breeds a sense of alienation and resentment at the growing disparities between the classes. This creates a fertile breeding ground for the denoucement of the western tradition and the idea of secularism is discredited, because its proponents do nothing to defend it.
The key to these countries reversion to Islamic orthodxy lies in the failure of the intelligensia to present a crediable argument against the orthodoxy. This battle is being waged and lost on the battlefield of ideas, because the western educated intelligensia itself is divided on this issue and hence, can not formulate a coherent defense of its positions. Also, most of their understanding of religion is shaped by the western tradtions of a seperation of church and state, and consequently, they tend to see Islam with a priori assumptions and some how seek to fit it within their own world view. This then raises the question, how can they argue Islam and the Quran, upon which the ideas of Islamic traditions are based, when they do not even understand what Islam and the Quran means?
This brings us back to your original question. For there to be renassiance in Islam, the basic principles of Islam have to be critically debated and dispassionately argued. For example, the present day version of Quran did not originate till the time of the caliphate of Uthman. His rule started nearly a decade after the death of the Prophet (PBUH). He is said to be responsible for codifying Quran into a written copy, but there is enough documentation to suggest, that some of the suras were written down during the life of the Prophet (PBUH), the early drive to compile a written record came from Abu Bakr.
Also, as you rightly noted, Arabic as a script was in a process of evolving and consquently, this raises the possibility whether the Uthmanic Quran was based on written records or was it based on the oral tradition of recitations. I do not doubt the versacity of oral tradition, but I also know that human memory is not perfect. Another point is that Uthman ordered a copy of the Quran to be made to bridge the gap between the differences in its recitations. We also know from the early Islamic jurisprudence that their idea of a Sunna was one of a living evolving one much like the consitutional interpretation in the present age.
This is the key question: what was the level and scope of the dissent within Islam itself between the time of the Prophet`s death and the emergence of the Quran during Uthman`s reign. If the Quran was meant to standardize recitation, that implies there was a variance of thought on what it meant and hence a possibility of a discussion. Since Uthman`s compliation of Quran, all discussion ceased and it has since then become posio officio not to question the intent of Quran. To usher in an Islamic renaissance, we need to revitalize that debate and we need to question the process that lead to the Quran being created as it is today.
Hope this helps...
In answer to your question, ``how come renaissance did and does not happen?`` in the Islamic world. Also, I apoligise for the tedious lenght of this post.
A basic ingredient for it to happen is the ability to question the offical legitimacy of the day. The reason most ``modern`` Islamic Muslim countries regress to an orthodoxy is, because western secularism does not readily afford answers to certain basic questions and because the Muslim clery, in these countries have been more articulate in fostering their ideas upon the population. The intelligensia are to be blamed for this regression, because instead of highlighting the points of seclurism, they arrogantly dismiss these teachings and are content with their own sense of enlightenment. Just as nature abhors a vacuum, the gap vacated by these ``Islamic modernists`` is filled by the clergy, because they utilize the publics` dissatisfaction for their own ends and more importantly, because they do not allow a tradition of dissent within their own ranks.
Furthermore, the modern Islamic Muslim intelligensia tends to treat their breathen as a group of provincial cousins, to be tolerated and is not interested in educating them to the benefits it is enjoying. The creation of a socio-economic class from this perspective breeds a sense of alienation and resentment at the growing disparities between the classes. This creates a fertile breeding ground for the denoucement of the western tradition and the idea of secularism is discredited, because its proponents do nothing to defend it.
The key to these countries reversion to Islamic orthodxy lies in the failure of the intelligensia to present a crediable argument against the orthodoxy. This battle is being waged and lost on the battlefield of ideas, because the western educated intelligensia itself is divided on this issue and hence, can not formulate a coherent defense of its positions. Also, most of their understanding of religion is shaped by the western tradtions of a seperation of church and state, and consequently, they tend to see Islam with a priori assumptions and some how seek to fit it within their own world view. This then raises the question, how can they argue Islam and the Quran, upon which the ideas of Islamic traditions are based, when they do not even understand what Islam and the Quran means?
This brings us back to your original question. For there to be renassiance in Islam, the basic principles of Islam have to be critically debated and dispassionately argued. For example, the present day version of Quran did not originate till the time of the caliphate of Uthman. His rule started nearly a decade after the death of the Prophet (PBUH). He is said to be responsible for codifying Quran into a written copy, but there is enough documentation to suggest, that some of the suras were written down during the life of the Prophet (PBUH), the early drive to compile a written record came from Abu Bakr.
Also, as you rightly noted, Arabic as a script was in a process of evolving and consquently, this raises the possibility whether the Uthmanic Quran was based on written records or was it based on the oral tradition of recitations. I do not doubt the versacity of oral tradition, but I also know that human memory is not perfect. Another point is that Uthman ordered a copy of the Quran to be made to bridge the gap between the differences in its recitations. We also know from the early Islamic jurisprudence that their idea of a Sunna was one of a living evolving one much like the consitutional interpretation in the present age.
This is the key question: what was the level and scope of the dissent within Islam itself between the time of the Prophet`s death and the emergence of the Quran during Uthman`s reign. If the Quran was meant to standardize recitation, that implies there was a variance of thought on what it meant and hence a possibility of a discussion. Since Uthman`s compliation of Quran, all discussion ceased and it has since then become posio officio not to question the intent of Quran. To usher in an Islamic renaissance, we need to revitalize that debate and we need to question the process that lead to the Quran being created as it is today.
Hope this helps...
#20 Posted by SaimaShah on January 17, 1999 2:43:59 am
Re: Ferozk
Thanks for such an articulate and comprehensive reply. I quote, ``For there to be renassiance in Islam,the basic principles of Islam have to be critically debated and dispassionately argued.``
I guess it is the word `dispassionately`, which is the problem. Islam evokes immense passion, be it the lilt of the quran or the call to prayer.
It is also difficult for people who have had no tradition of an alternative philosophy or world view to understand the quran at a philosophical level and argue in `rational` terms. I agree whole-heartedly that the west and the east speak different languages and for constructive debate to take place a more rigorous standard of debate/argument has to be applied than the current one.
I feel that the root of the problem that the Muslim world faces is what you highlighted i.e., the absolutism of the quran after the Khalifa Usman, which precluded any healthy debate on the issue. I also wonder if these Korans are actually the ones which were destroyed in order to preserve the one true copy. It would be fascinating to find out what the exact points of divergence are in the old copies.
I think it would strengthen the Islamic world to know the alternative points of view.
Saima
Thanks for such an articulate and comprehensive reply. I quote, ``For there to be renassiance in Islam,the basic principles of Islam have to be critically debated and dispassionately argued.``
I guess it is the word `dispassionately`, which is the problem. Islam evokes immense passion, be it the lilt of the quran or the call to prayer.
It is also difficult for people who have had no tradition of an alternative philosophy or world view to understand the quran at a philosophical level and argue in `rational` terms. I agree whole-heartedly that the west and the east speak different languages and for constructive debate to take place a more rigorous standard of debate/argument has to be applied than the current one.
I feel that the root of the problem that the Muslim world faces is what you highlighted i.e., the absolutism of the quran after the Khalifa Usman, which precluded any healthy debate on the issue. I also wonder if these Korans are actually the ones which were destroyed in order to preserve the one true copy. It would be fascinating to find out what the exact points of divergence are in the old copies.
I think it would strengthen the Islamic world to know the alternative points of view.
Saima
#21 Posted by Goga on January 17, 1999 3:52:29 am
I am just amazed that how credulous the crowd at Chowk is. Very few people are asking incisive questions:
Should we believe everything that is written in the article?
Has the author done justice to subject matter?
I think that the author has complete failed to tell what is so different between the Yemeni script and the ``common`` Quran.
For example, are there any additional verses, contradictory verses, or additional suras? What is so different about the Yemeni script?
I see him present all kind of ``information`` to basically discredit the traditional view of early history of Islam: he even questions the migration of the Prophet (PBUH) and the beginning of the use of the Higra era. I do not see him presenting any solid evidence as to why one should not believe in the traditional view of Islam.
I am just amazed at disdain that people are showing for the Islamic intellectual tradition. People are saying strange things like that Quran was compiled hundreds of year after Prophet (PBUH) passed away. That is not true. Hazrat Abu Bakr had the Quran compiled. Prophet`s wife and Abu Bakr`s daughter Hazrat Hafsah got the possession of this copy after her father died. The so-called Uthmanian Quran was actually copied from Hazrat Hafsah`s copy.
Some people have made it a struggle in the name of feminism to prove that Quran is not the word of God. By the way, Taslima Nasrin has said that she is against all religions (but she did appeared at a Jewish Community Center in Washington where her poems where read, against the common enemy); she is an atheist not a scholar of Islam whose advice real Muslims should care about. I got this information from a Washington Post article on her not from a Bangladeshi newspaper as Mr. Lester would probably have done.
People are using Ijtihad in a very wrong sense. Ijtihad is trying to find a solution to a problem within the framework of Quran and Sunna. You cannot used ijtihad to start making modifications to Quran. People educate yourself in your religion before you make any claims. That is, if you have not already forsaken it.
Please, also understand that being a Muslim is not being born to Muslim parents (like Judaism and Hinduism) but it requires belief in certain things. People who want to include what they like in the Quran are out of the folds of Islam.
By the way, Patricia Crone is probably at Princeton Theological Seminary not at Princeton`s Institute of Advanced Study as the Author claims, which is revered for the study of natural sciences and people like Einstein resided there.
Should we believe everything that is written in the article?
Has the author done justice to subject matter?
I think that the author has complete failed to tell what is so different between the Yemeni script and the ``common`` Quran.
For example, are there any additional verses, contradictory verses, or additional suras? What is so different about the Yemeni script?
I see him present all kind of ``information`` to basically discredit the traditional view of early history of Islam: he even questions the migration of the Prophet (PBUH) and the beginning of the use of the Higra era. I do not see him presenting any solid evidence as to why one should not believe in the traditional view of Islam.
I am just amazed at disdain that people are showing for the Islamic intellectual tradition. People are saying strange things like that Quran was compiled hundreds of year after Prophet (PBUH) passed away. That is not true. Hazrat Abu Bakr had the Quran compiled. Prophet`s wife and Abu Bakr`s daughter Hazrat Hafsah got the possession of this copy after her father died. The so-called Uthmanian Quran was actually copied from Hazrat Hafsah`s copy.
Some people have made it a struggle in the name of feminism to prove that Quran is not the word of God. By the way, Taslima Nasrin has said that she is against all religions (but she did appeared at a Jewish Community Center in Washington where her poems where read, against the common enemy); she is an atheist not a scholar of Islam whose advice real Muslims should care about. I got this information from a Washington Post article on her not from a Bangladeshi newspaper as Mr. Lester would probably have done.
People are using Ijtihad in a very wrong sense. Ijtihad is trying to find a solution to a problem within the framework of Quran and Sunna. You cannot used ijtihad to start making modifications to Quran. People educate yourself in your religion before you make any claims. That is, if you have not already forsaken it.
Please, also understand that being a Muslim is not being born to Muslim parents (like Judaism and Hinduism) but it requires belief in certain things. People who want to include what they like in the Quran are out of the folds of Islam.
By the way, Patricia Crone is probably at Princeton Theological Seminary not at Princeton`s Institute of Advanced Study as the Author claims, which is revered for the study of natural sciences and people like Einstein resided there.
#22 Posted by mubbashir on January 17, 1999 3:52:29 am
I am skeptical about much of this project that is being conducted by learned sources; i.e. `specialists`, orientalists, etc. However, the gist of these earth shaking conclusions has been reached by thousands of other muslims. Especially those of us who question the contradictions of Qu`ran as well as the life of Mohammed. A life which included a marriage to a wealthy independent women at a time when women were not suppose to have any rights yet, marrying 99 women (``social-welfare reasons``) some as young 9 or 11. Moreover the absolute confusion, contestation and fissures (shi`a, sunni, Kharijite) after his death are markers of the very limitations (if you want to call it that) of the very secular roots of Islam.
The special interest given to a scientific debunking of Islam is not good for the creation of more open constructive space for dialogue. this kind of conversation has to be internal and to take place in less threatening ways. Iranian revolution is a perfect example of how `top-down` secularizing projects have the opposite effect. So those who are interested for the creation of stronger civil societies, righs based governments have to incorporate these tenets withing pre-existing belief systems (whether that be a call to re-interpretation or creative inscription). Their needs to be a foundational basis for basic rights before we can engage in such conversations.
non-muslim muslim
The special interest given to a scientific debunking of Islam is not good for the creation of more open constructive space for dialogue. this kind of conversation has to be internal and to take place in less threatening ways. Iranian revolution is a perfect example of how `top-down` secularizing projects have the opposite effect. So those who are interested for the creation of stronger civil societies, righs based governments have to incorporate these tenets withing pre-existing belief systems (whether that be a call to re-interpretation or creative inscription). Their needs to be a foundational basis for basic rights before we can engage in such conversations.
non-muslim muslim
#23 Posted by tahmed321 on January 17, 1999 8:12:40 am
I wonder how many Chowk readers knew about the Yemeni Quran (found 1972, seriously studied starting 1979) before reading about it here (I certainly had not heard about it). How come it takes a German scholar and a US magazine to bring it to our attention? Why was there such a lack of interest in learning more about this among the thousands of Islamic scholars, not to mention the millions of mullahs? I believe the answer to these questions may prove a bit troubling.
#24 Posted by noor on January 17, 1999 1:08:40 pm
Mubbashir:
``The special interest given to a scientific debunking of Islam is not good for the creation of more open constructive space for dialogue. this kind of conversation has to be internal and to take place in less threatening ways.``
Islam is a religion based on a set of ontological claims: that there is one God who sent prophets to this world; that there`s an after-life; that Muhammad was God`s prophet and the book Qur`an is the exact verbatim word of God sent to Muhammad. It seems to me, that it is entirely appropriate to critique these assertions and scrutinize them using scientific method. You may call it `debunking` but that`s your choice of words :-)
``This kind of conversation has to be internal and to take place in less
threatening ways``
I have a point or two to make about this..
In the replies to the article, I see a strong undercurrent of doubt, question, and at times complete rejection of traditional Islamic belief. Those who are guilty of the latter might dispute that their comments amount to rejection. That`s okay ;). Pretty much everyone has rejected the orthodox classical version of Islam because they see it as impractical in this age. Yet there is this suspicion and distrust of anything that bears the label `West`. It`s fashionable to give an East or West label to everything. That way it`s convenient to draw the battle lines based on race and geography. Existence of any objective truth can then be a priori dismissed. Then the Pervez Manzoors and Sam Huntingtons of this world can prepare for the East - West Armageddon.
Any secularization of Muslim society has to include the realization that rationalism is not a Western daemon ready to engulf our culture. There were rationalists and freethinkers among Muslims when the West was still in the dark ages. The likes of al-Farabi and al-Razi learned from, and extended the works of ancient Greeks. There were free-thinking secularists in Muslim societies who hadn`t seen the face of Oxford or Harvard. Ghalib is an excellent example pointed out by Saima Shah. Those people, more than us, realized that rationality and reason transcends geographic boundaries. They are also proof against the claim that rationalism is a `Western` value.
Pervez Manzoor never speaks out against rationalism when those rationalist scientists make those computers on which he can write his articles. The ONLY occasion when rationalism comes under attack is when it is offered as a counter-point against religion. That confrontation cannot be avoided because Islam (as well as Christianity and Judaism)is not only normative, but dogmatic religion as well. There`s a dogma that encroaches on the turf of science. So it is entirely appropriate for science to reclaim its turf. In fact, any rennaisance in the Muslim world will have to include a scientific challenge to the basic dogma of Islam. Yes, that challenge has to come from within. That`d happen if the non-muslim kaafirs and the Saima Shahs speak out before Toby Lesters. Why did it take Mr.Lester to write that article. Why didn`t Mr.Mubbashir discover this little Yemeni thing before?
Wasiq:
``The evidence is isolated and fragmented. A close analogy to this case would be the case of evolutionary debates. Even within the scientific and non-creationist circles, the interpretation of evidence has been problematic, with no one clear point of view, simply because the evidence is not chronologically uninterrupted. The interpretation of isolated evidence is very tricky and susceptible to many potential pitfalls.``
It is true that the alleged evidence is isolated and a coherent picture cannot be developed. But it is possible that an outline is taking shape, just like in the evolution case. And the evidence -even if it doesn`t completely support a single alternative explanation- might well cast doubt on the current belief system. For example, Newtonian mechanics didn`t explain the precession of the orbit of Mercury. Should we have then have canned Newton and stuck to good old Ptolemy? Likewise, in this case of Yemeni evidence, it is very likely that a coherent alternative history will not emerge. It could still pose a great challenge for the prevailing beliefs about the history of the Qur`an.
Ferozk and Saima Shah:
About the question of Rennaisance in Islam..
I think there have been many times where the prevalent belief system has been questioned in Islamic societies. For example in the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries Muslim rationalists were taking hold in different parts of the Islamic world. But a `Rennaisance` didn`t take place; for the same reason that it didn`t take place in ancient Greece and Rome IMO. My theory about this is that the common man will take basic science/philosophy seriously, as a challenge to religion, only if he reaps substantial tangible benefits from its corollary i.e. applied science. Esoteric treatises on metaphysics cannot spur a rennaisance. And when science had to offer the practical benefit, a Rennaisance occured. This is only a theory of course, and your attempts to debunk it are welcome :-)
Temporal:
I think the examples you gave of ijtihaad are trivial. That kind of ijtihaad is not going to make any meaningful difference in the way Muslims societies are. When it comes to substantive issues like women`s rights, criminal punishments, rules concerning witnesses and the rights of minorities, ijtihaad comes dangerously close to `filtering` the Qur`an. These are the issues that have held us in the back-waters and you cannot so easily `ijtihaad` them away.
``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.``
Please speak for yourself. I have done my share of reading, thinking, and reading again. I have read through books of Hadith and volumes of tafaaseer. And I came to a conclusion that was, at that time difficult and painful: that this book does not seem to have any miracle in it, nor does it seem to be the work of God. And it is my belief that many more would agree with me only if they read this book in it`s entirity; not just some selected excerpts couched in apologist spin or polemic.
Rgds
Mohammad Noorul Islam
``The special interest given to a scientific debunking of Islam is not good for the creation of more open constructive space for dialogue. this kind of conversation has to be internal and to take place in less threatening ways.``
Islam is a religion based on a set of ontological claims: that there is one God who sent prophets to this world; that there`s an after-life; that Muhammad was God`s prophet and the book Qur`an is the exact verbatim word of God sent to Muhammad. It seems to me, that it is entirely appropriate to critique these assertions and scrutinize them using scientific method. You may call it `debunking` but that`s your choice of words :-)
``This kind of conversation has to be internal and to take place in less
threatening ways``
I have a point or two to make about this..
In the replies to the article, I see a strong undercurrent of doubt, question, and at times complete rejection of traditional Islamic belief. Those who are guilty of the latter might dispute that their comments amount to rejection. That`s okay ;). Pretty much everyone has rejected the orthodox classical version of Islam because they see it as impractical in this age. Yet there is this suspicion and distrust of anything that bears the label `West`. It`s fashionable to give an East or West label to everything. That way it`s convenient to draw the battle lines based on race and geography. Existence of any objective truth can then be a priori dismissed. Then the Pervez Manzoors and Sam Huntingtons of this world can prepare for the East - West Armageddon.
Any secularization of Muslim society has to include the realization that rationalism is not a Western daemon ready to engulf our culture. There were rationalists and freethinkers among Muslims when the West was still in the dark ages. The likes of al-Farabi and al-Razi learned from, and extended the works of ancient Greeks. There were free-thinking secularists in Muslim societies who hadn`t seen the face of Oxford or Harvard. Ghalib is an excellent example pointed out by Saima Shah. Those people, more than us, realized that rationality and reason transcends geographic boundaries. They are also proof against the claim that rationalism is a `Western` value.
Pervez Manzoor never speaks out against rationalism when those rationalist scientists make those computers on which he can write his articles. The ONLY occasion when rationalism comes under attack is when it is offered as a counter-point against religion. That confrontation cannot be avoided because Islam (as well as Christianity and Judaism)is not only normative, but dogmatic religion as well. There`s a dogma that encroaches on the turf of science. So it is entirely appropriate for science to reclaim its turf. In fact, any rennaisance in the Muslim world will have to include a scientific challenge to the basic dogma of Islam. Yes, that challenge has to come from within. That`d happen if the non-muslim kaafirs and the Saima Shahs speak out before Toby Lesters. Why did it take Mr.Lester to write that article. Why didn`t Mr.Mubbashir discover this little Yemeni thing before?
Wasiq:
``The evidence is isolated and fragmented. A close analogy to this case would be the case of evolutionary debates. Even within the scientific and non-creationist circles, the interpretation of evidence has been problematic, with no one clear point of view, simply because the evidence is not chronologically uninterrupted. The interpretation of isolated evidence is very tricky and susceptible to many potential pitfalls.``
It is true that the alleged evidence is isolated and a coherent picture cannot be developed. But it is possible that an outline is taking shape, just like in the evolution case. And the evidence -even if it doesn`t completely support a single alternative explanation- might well cast doubt on the current belief system. For example, Newtonian mechanics didn`t explain the precession of the orbit of Mercury. Should we have then have canned Newton and stuck to good old Ptolemy? Likewise, in this case of Yemeni evidence, it is very likely that a coherent alternative history will not emerge. It could still pose a great challenge for the prevailing beliefs about the history of the Qur`an.
Ferozk and Saima Shah:
About the question of Rennaisance in Islam..
I think there have been many times where the prevalent belief system has been questioned in Islamic societies. For example in the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries Muslim rationalists were taking hold in different parts of the Islamic world. But a `Rennaisance` didn`t take place; for the same reason that it didn`t take place in ancient Greece and Rome IMO. My theory about this is that the common man will take basic science/philosophy seriously, as a challenge to religion, only if he reaps substantial tangible benefits from its corollary i.e. applied science. Esoteric treatises on metaphysics cannot spur a rennaisance. And when science had to offer the practical benefit, a Rennaisance occured. This is only a theory of course, and your attempts to debunk it are welcome :-)
Temporal:
I think the examples you gave of ijtihaad are trivial. That kind of ijtihaad is not going to make any meaningful difference in the way Muslims societies are. When it comes to substantive issues like women`s rights, criminal punishments, rules concerning witnesses and the rights of minorities, ijtihaad comes dangerously close to `filtering` the Qur`an. These are the issues that have held us in the back-waters and you cannot so easily `ijtihaad` them away.
``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.``
Please speak for yourself. I have done my share of reading, thinking, and reading again. I have read through books of Hadith and volumes of tafaaseer. And I came to a conclusion that was, at that time difficult and painful: that this book does not seem to have any miracle in it, nor does it seem to be the work of God. And it is my belief that many more would agree with me only if they read this book in it`s entirity; not just some selected excerpts couched in apologist spin or polemic.
Rgds
Mohammad Noorul Islam
#25 Posted by Altaf on January 17, 1999 1:08:40 pm
sallam
This letter is a response to the article, hilighting the misunderstandings of the Quran by the authors of the article... It is written by Jeremiah McAuliffe, a frequenter of alt.religion.islam.
altaf
From: alimhaq@city-net.com (Jeremiah McAuliffe)
Letters to the Editor
The Atlantic Monthly
77 North Washington Street
Boston, MA 02114
December 30, 1998
To the Editor,
As a convert to Islam with a background in academic religious
studies, it was with great excitement and enthusiasm that I opened
your January 1999 cover article ``What is the Koran?`` by Toby Lester.
It seems clear that much of Muslim theology has stagnated into a dry
legalism over the last few centuries, as represented by the famous
phrase ``closing the doors to ijtihad``. ``Ijtihad`` refers to the
interpretation of the Qur an. (The phrase is famous among Muslims,
and is central to understanding many issues facing contemporary
Muslims, but this was not mentioned by the author.)
And so, I approached the article anticipating an exciting
exploration. However, I was very disappointed. It clearly exhibited a
confused understanding of some aspects of Muslim thought-- including
statements that were simply misleading-- and a confusion between two
interesting topics: the history of the Qur an and the interpretation
of the Qur an. In addition, Lester makes use of references that are
out of print and/or written by self-proclaimed antagonists to Islam.
In other words, there is no way to check many of the author s major
references, and some of them are clearly bigoted-- not academic.
First, the problematic references. Lester refers to the seemingly
authorless The Origins of the Koran. This lapse in attribution is
understandable given that this collection of essays is edited by none
other than the infamous, pseudonymous ``Ibn Warraq`` author of Why I am
Not a Muslim. This earlier work cannot be described as anything
resembling valid academic scholarship, as I show with my online
review available at: http://idt.net/
This letter is a response to the article, hilighting the misunderstandings of the Quran by the authors of the article... It is written by Jeremiah McAuliffe, a frequenter of alt.religion.islam.
altaf
From: alimhaq@city-net.com (Jeremiah McAuliffe)
Letters to the Editor
The Atlantic Monthly
77 North Washington Street
Boston, MA 02114
December 30, 1998
To the Editor,
As a convert to Islam with a background in academic religious
studies, it was with great excitement and enthusiasm that I opened
your January 1999 cover article ``What is the Koran?`` by Toby Lester.
It seems clear that much of Muslim theology has stagnated into a dry
legalism over the last few centuries, as represented by the famous
phrase ``closing the doors to ijtihad``. ``Ijtihad`` refers to the
interpretation of the Qur an. (The phrase is famous among Muslims,
and is central to understanding many issues facing contemporary
Muslims, but this was not mentioned by the author.)
And so, I approached the article anticipating an exciting
exploration. However, I was very disappointed. It clearly exhibited a
confused understanding of some aspects of Muslim thought-- including
statements that were simply misleading-- and a confusion between two
interesting topics: the history of the Qur an and the interpretation
of the Qur an. In addition, Lester makes use of references that are
out of print and/or written by self-proclaimed antagonists to Islam.
In other words, there is no way to check many of the author s major
references, and some of them are clearly bigoted-- not academic.
First, the problematic references. Lester refers to the seemingly
authorless The Origins of the Koran. This lapse in attribution is
understandable given that this collection of essays is edited by none
other than the infamous, pseudonymous ``Ibn Warraq`` author of Why I am
Not a Muslim. This earlier work cannot be described as anything
resembling valid academic scholarship, as I show with my online
review available at: http://idt.net/
#26 Posted by Goga on January 17, 1999 3:29:32 pm
Mubashir:
``married 99 women (``social-welfare reasons``) some as young 9 or 11.``
I don`t know where you get your information (some prehistoric tabloid may be) but Prophet (PBUH) married 11 woman. Among them only Hazrat Aisha was very young. But if you look at the life of Aisha (May Allah be pleased with her), she grew out to be one of the most influential woman in early Islam.
Noor, Wasiq, and others:
Those people who want to take a scientific study of Islam and Islamic history would have to deconstruct to present views of them. And then have to make judgements about what is true and what is not with the presuppositions and prejudices of the present age. I think such task would be very detrimental to the common Muslims who have passionate love for their religion. They will surely revolt against the merciless slicing of their belief with the scientific scapulae.
Following is the passage from ``The vision of Islam``, written by non-Muslim historian who caution against such endeavors.
-------
If we ask why we should learn lesson x instead of lesson y, we will soon realize that historians -- those who make it their profession to write about the past -- have points of views, presuppositions, and ideologies. Of course. This is no less true for the study of contemporary society, or psychology, or bacteria. When we find meaning, we do so on the basis of preconceived ideas about what can be meaningful; otherwise we are left with a disconnected jumble of information.
In the modern world, we have witnessed the birth of the critical study of history. A host of new methods for studying the past have given many scholars confidence that human being, for the first time, are able to look at the past ``objectively`` and ``scientifically.`` The self-congratulation involved in this view of things should be obvious, and it should also be enough to put us on our guard.
... To focus on reason is to focus on the quantitative dimension of reality; it is to divide, dissect, and take apart. Herein lies the genius and the power of modern civilization, but also its nemesis. The underlying thrust of all critical scholarship (not simply the school that has adopted the term as its own) is to deconstruct. The net result is the exponential increase exponential increase of information, midst of this world without a center and without an origin (as Eliade uses these terms), all sorts of claims are made for every subdiscipline of learning. Among historians, the claim is simply ``We know better,`` whatever the specific methodology that is pursued.
One cannot object to the idea that modern methodologies that uncovered information that has heretofore been unknown or ignored. One can object, however, when a historian speaks of significance in terms that have religious or cosmic repercussions.
... Some historians may declare that they are simply recording events, but in this day and age, most are willing to admit that objective history is an illusion: It is impossible to record an even without making judgements about its significance. When information has been handed down from the remote past, such judgements are made at every stage. The historians set for themselves the laudable goal of uncovering the actual event under the accumulated layers of interpretation, but this simply means that they present us with their own interpretations: To conceptualize is to interpret.
(Murata and Chittick,``The Vision of Islam.`` (New York, Paragon House, 1994), p. 321-323)
I would recommend this book to everyone.
``married 99 women (``social-welfare reasons``) some as young 9 or 11.``
I don`t know where you get your information (some prehistoric tabloid may be) but Prophet (PBUH) married 11 woman. Among them only Hazrat Aisha was very young. But if you look at the life of Aisha (May Allah be pleased with her), she grew out to be one of the most influential woman in early Islam.
Noor, Wasiq, and others:
Those people who want to take a scientific study of Islam and Islamic history would have to deconstruct to present views of them. And then have to make judgements about what is true and what is not with the presuppositions and prejudices of the present age. I think such task would be very detrimental to the common Muslims who have passionate love for their religion. They will surely revolt against the merciless slicing of their belief with the scientific scapulae.
Following is the passage from ``The vision of Islam``, written by non-Muslim historian who caution against such endeavors.
-------
If we ask why we should learn lesson x instead of lesson y, we will soon realize that historians -- those who make it their profession to write about the past -- have points of views, presuppositions, and ideologies. Of course. This is no less true for the study of contemporary society, or psychology, or bacteria. When we find meaning, we do so on the basis of preconceived ideas about what can be meaningful; otherwise we are left with a disconnected jumble of information.
In the modern world, we have witnessed the birth of the critical study of history. A host of new methods for studying the past have given many scholars confidence that human being, for the first time, are able to look at the past ``objectively`` and ``scientifically.`` The self-congratulation involved in this view of things should be obvious, and it should also be enough to put us on our guard.
... To focus on reason is to focus on the quantitative dimension of reality; it is to divide, dissect, and take apart. Herein lies the genius and the power of modern civilization, but also its nemesis. The underlying thrust of all critical scholarship (not simply the school that has adopted the term as its own) is to deconstruct. The net result is the exponential increase exponential increase of information, midst of this world without a center and without an origin (as Eliade uses these terms), all sorts of claims are made for every subdiscipline of learning. Among historians, the claim is simply ``We know better,`` whatever the specific methodology that is pursued.
One cannot object to the idea that modern methodologies that uncovered information that has heretofore been unknown or ignored. One can object, however, when a historian speaks of significance in terms that have religious or cosmic repercussions.
... Some historians may declare that they are simply recording events, but in this day and age, most are willing to admit that objective history is an illusion: It is impossible to record an even without making judgements about its significance. When information has been handed down from the remote past, such judgements are made at every stage. The historians set for themselves the laudable goal of uncovering the actual event under the accumulated layers of interpretation, but this simply means that they present us with their own interpretations: To conceptualize is to interpret.
(Murata and Chittick,``The Vision of Islam.`` (New York, Paragon House, 1994), p. 321-323)
I would recommend this book to everyone.
#27 Posted by temporal on January 17, 1999 6:58:37 pm
TO NO ONE IN PARTICULAR:
Can any one of the learned interlocutors here define ORTHODOXY, DOGMA, SECULARISM, OBJECTIVITY and BELIEF?
Unless we agree on some working definitions that would establish the parametres we could go on honking our two pennies` worth till doomsday.
regards
Can any one of the learned interlocutors here define ORTHODOXY, DOGMA, SECULARISM, OBJECTIVITY and BELIEF?
Unless we agree on some working definitions that would establish the parametres we could go on honking our two pennies` worth till doomsday.
regards
#28 Posted by Anita Zaidi on January 17, 1999 10:06:09 pm
Outstanding discussion. One has to commend Lester, Puin and associates for stirring this hornet’s nest again (it was about time). However, that doesn’t excuse Lester’s poorly substantiated and obscurely referenced writing. The article comes across as overly sensational, unscientific, and extrapolative. After all, all that has been found are some very old copies of the Quran with ``small but intriguing aberrations from the standard Koranic text``. The rest is all speculative. So Muslims need not worry yet. Of course, the downside of using science to discredit the infallibility of the Quran may have the ill-desired effect of complete abandonment of the scientific method as a means of progress among the Muslim world (shudder). Needless to say, the woman in me waits with bated breath to find out what these intriguing aberrations are.
Some in this discussion have said that all discussion about what constituted the text of the Quran ceased after Uthman’s compilation. This is simply not true - you are forgetting the Shia angle. Early Shia (7th and 8th century) actively discussed what had been omitted from the Quran by Ali’s enemies. They believed parts of the text praising Ali and pointing to his Imamate had been deliberately excised, and that the Quran had been altered so that the names of the Imams and the hypocrites (munafiqeen) had been dropped. Some examples of these early beliefs and statements are compiled by Muhammad Baqir Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar.
For instance:
a) In the verse ‘God has chosen Adam and Noah and the families of Abraham and Imran in preference to others’ (Quran 3:33, Ahmed Ali translation), the phrase ‘and the family of Muhammad’ is considered to have originally have been present.
b) Regarding the verse ‘Woe alas, ah would I had not taken so-and-so as friend!’ (Quran 25:28, Ahmed Ali translation), the Sixth Imam, Jafar as-Sadiq said that in Ali’s copy, this verse read as ``Woe alas that I had not chosen the second as a friend``.
Some of these early Shia believed that whole verses and suras from the Quran are missing.
The later Shia abandoned arguing this position for unclear reasons and accepted the standard Uthmani Quranic text (perhaps relentless Abbasid persecution was a contributing factor). However, very intriguing is the fact that some of the most rebellious and Ghullaat-influenced Shia belonging to the Zaydi sect (relatives of mine - who knows?) settled in Yemen, and formed an independent kingdom there. Here’s an alternative hypothesis: May be these wayward Qurans belonged to them!
Anita
Some in this discussion have said that all discussion about what constituted the text of the Quran ceased after Uthman’s compilation. This is simply not true - you are forgetting the Shia angle. Early Shia (7th and 8th century) actively discussed what had been omitted from the Quran by Ali’s enemies. They believed parts of the text praising Ali and pointing to his Imamate had been deliberately excised, and that the Quran had been altered so that the names of the Imams and the hypocrites (munafiqeen) had been dropped. Some examples of these early beliefs and statements are compiled by Muhammad Baqir Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar.
For instance:
a) In the verse ‘God has chosen Adam and Noah and the families of Abraham and Imran in preference to others’ (Quran 3:33, Ahmed Ali translation), the phrase ‘and the family of Muhammad’ is considered to have originally have been present.
b) Regarding the verse ‘Woe alas, ah would I had not taken so-and-so as friend!’ (Quran 25:28, Ahmed Ali translation), the Sixth Imam, Jafar as-Sadiq said that in Ali’s copy, this verse read as ``Woe alas that I had not chosen the second as a friend``.
Some of these early Shia believed that whole verses and suras from the Quran are missing.
The later Shia abandoned arguing this position for unclear reasons and accepted the standard Uthmani Quranic text (perhaps relentless Abbasid persecution was a contributing factor). However, very intriguing is the fact that some of the most rebellious and Ghullaat-influenced Shia belonging to the Zaydi sect (relatives of mine - who knows?) settled in Yemen, and formed an independent kingdom there. Here’s an alternative hypothesis: May be these wayward Qurans belonged to them!
Anita
#29 Posted by temporal on January 17, 1999 11:34:52 pm
Anita:
Thanks for introducing the Shia perspective. (subconsciously) in the Sunni induced mindset I almost forgot one incident. In mid eighties, Dr. Abid Reza Baidar, then the Director of Khuda Bakhsh Memorial LIbrary in Patna showed me some manuscripts of Qur`an that reportedly had more surahs than the standard text. Wonder if any translations exist.
regards
Thanks for introducing the Shia perspective. (subconsciously) in the Sunni induced mindset I almost forgot one incident. In mid eighties, Dr. Abid Reza Baidar, then the Director of Khuda Bakhsh Memorial LIbrary in Patna showed me some manuscripts of Qur`an that reportedly had more surahs than the standard text. Wonder if any translations exist.
regards
#30 Posted by Mujahid on January 18, 1999 12:28:36 am
Dr Anita Zaidi
I alway thought that the bit about the Quran having inferences to Hazrat Ali and his Imamate was a Shia joke. I grew up with people jokingly saying that the real Quran had 40 suparas with the last ten devoted to the praise of Hazrat Ali, and that the enemies of Hazrat Ali had destroyed those sections.
Mujahid Ali Rizvi
I alway thought that the bit about the Quran having inferences to Hazrat Ali and his Imamate was a Shia joke. I grew up with people jokingly saying that the real Quran had 40 suparas with the last ten devoted to the praise of Hazrat Ali, and that the enemies of Hazrat Ali had destroyed those sections.
Mujahid Ali Rizvi
#31 Posted by wasiq on January 18, 1999 12:06:09 pm
Anita has brought up a very interesting point, which I did not want to bring up because it inevitably collides head on with deep-rooted religious convictions of the majority of Muslims. But here it goes, nevertheless.
Let us suppose for a minute that no-one had ever discovered any ``non-standard`` copies of the Quran. Just by reading about the procedure that was followed in the time of Caliph Uthman to standardize the Quran would have convinced any reasonably intelligent person that the process could not be perfect. Consider the following:
1) By the time the Quran was compiled, the Prophet had already been dead for about 30 years. Most of his closest companions had also passed on. The compilation of the Quran, its chronology and the definition of the context of different injunctions and verses were left to the interpretation of the committee of people chosen to be the compilers, none of whom I might add can be called great Quranic scholars. According to tradtions, people brought Quranic verses in for compilation in various formats, written on tree barks or hides, or memorized etc. The possibility for (a) omission (b) addition (c) loss of proper ordering of verses (d) definition of the context of different verses is therefore quite present.
2) In a move that continues to astound history, Caliphs Abu-Bakr, Omar and Uthman systematically and consistently secluded the family of the Prophet from this process. The family members of the Prophet were his closest companions who had seen the rise of Islam from its very inception. They were the ideal keepers of the Quran and the Hadith. After the death of the Prophet, Caliph Ali asked that he be left alone so that he could compile the Quran. That wish was vehemently denied. (It resulted in a bunch of people storming the house of Ali). People who are aware of the compilation of the Hadith will also recall that although the Prophet considered his household (Ahl-ul-Bait) to be sacred and closest to him, the number of Hadith associated to Hadrat Fatima, Ali, Hassan and Hussein are minute compared to the ones attributed to people of much lesser stature in Islamic history.
3) The question arises why should this have been done? The compilation of the Quran served an immensely important political purpose. Although people on pulpits from across the Muslim world never cease to paint a picture of the companions of the Prophet being sinless and untainted beings, nothing could be further from fact. They were people who had grown up in a highly politically active atmosphere, and frankly the vast majority of them were out for themselves. Doesn`t sound too different from what we are today!
The compilation of the Quran fell into the same fate. Immediately after the death of the Prophet a slogan was invented (whose inventor remains anonymous but loyally followed to this day): ``Prophethood and Caliphate can never go to the same family``. This slogan encapsulated the traditional tribal jealousies that the Prophet had tried to eradicate but was unsuccessful. It also betrayed the fact that people never understood the meaning of Prophethood and Caliphate, and kept on equating Caliphate with Temporal Kingship (with all its benefits).
A historical parallel to this example is found again in the Banu Umayya, who were the cousins by lineage of the Banu Hashim family, and had been deported from their ancestral lands by a multi-tribal judgement. After the fall of Makkah, Abu-Sufyan who was from the Banu Umayya family became a ``Muslim`` because it was politically expedient for him to do so. His son Muawiya was installed by Caliph Omar in Syria, where he enjoyed a virtually autonomous rule as a governer for about twenty years. Why Muawiya should have been given such a politically important post by Caliph Omar given that his father was an arch-enemy of Islam is not so surprising if one considers the enormous political benefits the Caliph stood to reap from the presence of Muawiya, if there was a strong pro-Hashim movement in the Hejaz. This is exactly what happened during the Caliphate of Ali when Muawiya wrongly, unlawfully and unjustifiably revolted against the Caliph of Islam and brought in the dark ages of Imperialism into Islamic history, whose legacy hounds us to this day. (When Maudoodi came to the same conclusion, his book ``Khilafat-o-Malukiat`` was immediately silenced by his own companions.) The case of Imam Hussein and Yazid was the next logical link of this scenario. Being the good son of Muawiya, Yazid did what his father taught him well.
This discussion adds a new political dimension to Islam and the Quran. One distinctly comes off with the feeling that the Family of the Prophet was decidedly ill-treated by essentially everyone after the Prophet`s death. (Muawiya for example started a tradition where Caliph Ali was verbally abused in every khutba delivered by every mosque imam. This tradition went on for almost forty years before it was abrogated by Umar bin Abdul-Aziz. Almost all of the Shi`a Imams, for example, died unnatural deaths. In Kerbala, for example, one saw the ludicrous and ironic situation that the soldiers of Yazid`s army would praise the Prophet and his family in their prayers, and then rise up to kill the same family of the Prophet.) The traditional point of view on all of this is to present a harmonious picture that makes everyone pure and pristine. Such a point of view can only be supported in a fairy tale, and not in the real world. In the past (and sadly even in the present) to say something like this was suicidal -all opposition was brutally crushed. The reason, again that religion was deeply interconnected with the politics. The State derived its legitimacy and power from religion, and therefore, religious dogma served the exact purpose that propoganda served in Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany. (Think about Saudi Arabia for a second in the modern days.)
I think we are lucky that we are born in an era where ideas can be accepted or rejected based upon their scientific merit. That the traditional histories of Islam will be re-written is inevitable, and perhaps the increasing rise of fundamentalism in the Islamic world is partly also due to the anticipation of this change.
Let us suppose for a minute that no-one had ever discovered any ``non-standard`` copies of the Quran. Just by reading about the procedure that was followed in the time of Caliph Uthman to standardize the Quran would have convinced any reasonably intelligent person that the process could not be perfect. Consider the following:
1) By the time the Quran was compiled, the Prophet had already been dead for about 30 years. Most of his closest companions had also passed on. The compilation of the Quran, its chronology and the definition of the context of different injunctions and verses were left to the interpretation of the committee of people chosen to be the compilers, none of whom I might add can be called great Quranic scholars. According to tradtions, people brought Quranic verses in for compilation in various formats, written on tree barks or hides, or memorized etc. The possibility for (a) omission (b) addition (c) loss of proper ordering of verses (d) definition of the context of different verses is therefore quite present.
2) In a move that continues to astound history, Caliphs Abu-Bakr, Omar and Uthman systematically and consistently secluded the family of the Prophet from this process. The family members of the Prophet were his closest companions who had seen the rise of Islam from its very inception. They were the ideal keepers of the Quran and the Hadith. After the death of the Prophet, Caliph Ali asked that he be left alone so that he could compile the Quran. That wish was vehemently denied. (It resulted in a bunch of people storming the house of Ali). People who are aware of the compilation of the Hadith will also recall that although the Prophet considered his household (Ahl-ul-Bait) to be sacred and closest to him, the number of Hadith associated to Hadrat Fatima, Ali, Hassan and Hussein are minute compared to the ones attributed to people of much lesser stature in Islamic history.
3) The question arises why should this have been done? The compilation of the Quran served an immensely important political purpose. Although people on pulpits from across the Muslim world never cease to paint a picture of the companions of the Prophet being sinless and untainted beings, nothing could be further from fact. They were people who had grown up in a highly politically active atmosphere, and frankly the vast majority of them were out for themselves. Doesn`t sound too different from what we are today!
The compilation of the Quran fell into the same fate. Immediately after the death of the Prophet a slogan was invented (whose inventor remains anonymous but loyally followed to this day): ``Prophethood and Caliphate can never go to the same family``. This slogan encapsulated the traditional tribal jealousies that the Prophet had tried to eradicate but was unsuccessful. It also betrayed the fact that people never understood the meaning of Prophethood and Caliphate, and kept on equating Caliphate with Temporal Kingship (with all its benefits).
A historical parallel to this example is found again in the Banu Umayya, who were the cousins by lineage of the Banu Hashim family, and had been deported from their ancestral lands by a multi-tribal judgement. After the fall of Makkah, Abu-Sufyan who was from the Banu Umayya family became a ``Muslim`` because it was politically expedient for him to do so. His son Muawiya was installed by Caliph Omar in Syria, where he enjoyed a virtually autonomous rule as a governer for about twenty years. Why Muawiya should have been given such a politically important post by Caliph Omar given that his father was an arch-enemy of Islam is not so surprising if one considers the enormous political benefits the Caliph stood to reap from the presence of Muawiya, if there was a strong pro-Hashim movement in the Hejaz. This is exactly what happened during the Caliphate of Ali when Muawiya wrongly, unlawfully and unjustifiably revolted against the Caliph of Islam and brought in the dark ages of Imperialism into Islamic history, whose legacy hounds us to this day. (When Maudoodi came to the same conclusion, his book ``Khilafat-o-Malukiat`` was immediately silenced by his own companions.) The case of Imam Hussein and Yazid was the next logical link of this scenario. Being the good son of Muawiya, Yazid did what his father taught him well.
This discussion adds a new political dimension to Islam and the Quran. One distinctly comes off with the feeling that the Family of the Prophet was decidedly ill-treated by essentially everyone after the Prophet`s death. (Muawiya for example started a tradition where Caliph Ali was verbally abused in every khutba delivered by every mosque imam. This tradition went on for almost forty years before it was abrogated by Umar bin Abdul-Aziz. Almost all of the Shi`a Imams, for example, died unnatural deaths. In Kerbala, for example, one saw the ludicrous and ironic situation that the soldiers of Yazid`s army would praise the Prophet and his family in their prayers, and then rise up to kill the same family of the Prophet.) The traditional point of view on all of this is to present a harmonious picture that makes everyone pure and pristine. Such a point of view can only be supported in a fairy tale, and not in the real world. In the past (and sadly even in the present) to say something like this was suicidal -all opposition was brutally crushed. The reason, again that religion was deeply interconnected with the politics. The State derived its legitimacy and power from religion, and therefore, religious dogma served the exact purpose that propoganda served in Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany. (Think about Saudi Arabia for a second in the modern days.)
I think we are lucky that we are born in an era where ideas can be accepted or rejected based upon their scientific merit. That the traditional histories of Islam will be re-written is inevitable, and perhaps the increasing rise of fundamentalism in the Islamic world is partly also due to the anticipation of this change.
#32 Posted by shafqat on January 18, 1999 3:23:36 pm
Wasiq Bohkari writes: ``Just by reading about the procedure that was followed in the time of Caliph Uthman to standardize the Quran would have convinced any reasonably intelligent person that the process could not be perfect.``
Indeed.
And if one concedes this point, then the imperfections in compiling the sayings of the Propeht become even more obvious. It`s a little unsettling to think that for centuries Muslim jurists and scholars have been invoking the Hadith as a bedrock of Islamic doctrines when the compilation of the Hadith falls short of any reasonable standards of historiography.
There was once a Christianity versus Islam debate at the Duke Divinity School in which the Christian view was being predicated on the apostle Paul. Finally the Muslim debator, an Egyptian academic, asked the Christian debator, ``What is more important, what Paul said or what Jesus said ?``
To which the Christian said, after a pause, ``They are both equally important.``
It is hard to ignore that individuals other than the Prophet may well have embellished, consciously or unwittingly, the contents of the Hadith. In continuing to attribute to the Prophet statements that we cannot be absolutely certain came from him, we are being not much different from that Christian scholar at Duke.
Saad
Indeed.
And if one concedes this point, then the imperfections in compiling the sayings of the Propeht become even more obvious. It`s a little unsettling to think that for centuries Muslim jurists and scholars have been invoking the Hadith as a bedrock of Islamic doctrines when the compilation of the Hadith falls short of any reasonable standards of historiography.
There was once a Christianity versus Islam debate at the Duke Divinity School in which the Christian view was being predicated on the apostle Paul. Finally the Muslim debator, an Egyptian academic, asked the Christian debator, ``What is more important, what Paul said or what Jesus said ?``
To which the Christian said, after a pause, ``They are both equally important.``
It is hard to ignore that individuals other than the Prophet may well have embellished, consciously or unwittingly, the contents of the Hadith. In continuing to attribute to the Prophet statements that we cannot be absolutely certain came from him, we are being not much different from that Christian scholar at Duke.
Saad
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- MantoLives: PS you might want... Politics of PPP and
- hamidm2: Re: # 143 tahmed mian, ....... The Correct Turn
- KaalChakra: NB, at the end... The Correct Turn
- MantoLives: Afat, Marxist historian Hamza... Politics of PPP and
- tahmed32: kaalchakra sahib #140 the... The Correct Turn
- nb: Kaalchakra, she is no... The Correct Turn
- tahmed32: #139 nb: it is... The Correct Turn
- mistaken_enigma: @ #118 laddu I didn't... The Muslim Protagonist and
