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``.

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.

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.

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...

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

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.

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

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.

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

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/

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

The Atlantic Monthly article on the Koran, I believe, justifies neither religious frenzy nor `secular` complacency! It offers, after all, a misinformed, indeed tendentious, summary of an academic debate that is far from over. Any Muslim retort of Lester`s inconclusive statement would therefore be premature. In fact, our rebuttal, even of its factual distortions and half-truths, is likely to be construed as a Muslim attempt to quell the scholarly controversy. Before anything, then, let every Muslim, speaking from the depth of Islamic conscience, affirm the academic community`s right to pursue its researches in full freedom and peace. Islam is not a faith that shuns the light of history. The believer, however, is justified in demanding from the scholars that they, prior to entering into any ideological polemics through journalistic mouthpieces, resolve the methodological and textual issues! Only then may an unqualified and frank dialogue between the historian and the believer take place; for only then can it be an enriching and sobering experience for both.

At present, however, when Muslims do not own `the free press`, retribution can only come through the good will of others! Let`s hope that some non-Muslim publicist, of impeccable integrity and erudition, responds to Lester`s slanted article in a spirit of impartiality and fairness. Let him/her bring home the fact, long accepted within the scholarly community, that what Lester projects as reputable scholarship of the Qur`an is but a rabidly fundamentalist _tariqa_ of the Orientalists. The revisionist theories of Wansbrough and his ilk, it must also come to the attention of the unsuspecting reader`s of the American journal, have been flatly rejected by an overwhelming majority of their academic peers and mentors. The revisionist stance is questionable, in other words, not because of its ideological inflamability, but because of perfectly valid epistemological, methodological and historical counter-arguments. Of course, there no denying that Wansbrough/Crone thesis is ideologically suggestive and carries great appeal for the Islamophobic zealot. Nevertheless, its reckless debunking of established authorities fails to answer the very questions that it raises. In short, there is no sound reason - academic, humanist, Western, Islamic - for surrendering to this irredeemable `fundamentalism of doubt`.

The Muslim interest in the debate, let it be spelt out unequivocally, transcends the purely academic squabbles over matters of historical detail and textual variations. It reaches to the very heart of foundational, moral and metaphysical, argument. For, it remains to be seen whether an immanentist conception of `historicity` is able to sustain any conception of `truth`, any edifice of values, or whether the atomization of history into pure - secular – temporality robs human existence of all meaning and normativity. Little wonder that our tradition conceives of historicism and temporalism (_dahriyya_) as the opposite of God-consciousness. The really stimulating debate, I believe, will start when modernity/postmodernity succeeds in superimposing the square of _norm_ on the circle of _history_ and proclaims a normative doctrine of its own! Until then, the hallowed cult of historicism may be rightfully deposed by the silent sneer of Muslim irony!



The Muslim`s stake in the history of the Revelation, let it also be spelt out, is as paramount as it is in its truth. Thus, it is not merely Muslim squeamishness that insists that of all the sacred texts of the world, Western scholarship singled out the Qur`anic revelation for carrying out its senseless acts of vandalism, an academic hooliganism that shocked even its own champions. For instance, a scholar like Ignaz Goldziher, hardly to be accused of pro-Islamic partiality, had to cry out in protest exclaiming: `What would be left of the Gospels if the Qur`anic methods were applied to them?` Given this insight, then, it is really baffling that in the face of a highly circumspect, perforce subversive, neo-Orientalist movement that seeks under the pretext of critical scholarship to untie the Muslim from his historical moorings, all that the scholars of Islam seem to be doing is to bury their heads in the proverbial sand.

Much of the present craze to dismiss early Muslim sources as `unreliable` is based on a tendentious view of Islam`s role in world history. Thus, even in purely academic studies, dealing with the first two centuries of Muslim rule in the Near East, one comes across indictments like `the ideological intransigence of Islam vis-à-vis the Western world today` (P Crone & M Hines). Or, there is a feeling of utter despair at the scholar`s ability to sift the Islamic material and reconstruct a plausible historical scenario. The Islamic source-material, we are told, `has an extraordinary capacity to resist internal criticism...: one can take the picture presented or one can leave it, but one cannot _work _ with it.` (P Crone) Occasionally, one encounters even the confessional: `The overall situation is thus an unfortunate one... _Instead of the data serving to determine our general notions, it is our general notions which determine the way in which we interpret the data_.` (M Cook.) One is reminded of Rumi`s famous tale in the Mathnawi: Like blind en feeling an elephant, each revisionist has his/her particular view of Muslim history.

For instance, Wansbrough`s own pupil, John Burton advocates, most paradoxically and more than any traditional Muslim claim, that the entirety of the Qur`an in its present textual arrangement is the work of the Prophet himself! Understandably, the Orientalist establishment has reacted with caution, circumspection and scepticism to Wansbrough`s chronology that relies not on history but on `literary analysis`. The Encyclopaedia of Islam, for instance, sums up the majority-view of the Orientalists as: `Neither [Wansbrough or Burton] has given convincing reasons for his own hypothesis, or for the shared assertion that the Muslim accounts should be rejected altogether` More outspoken dismissals of Wansbrough`s startling assertions have not been lacking either. R.B. Serjeant, for instance, expresses the gist of the counter-argument against Wansbrough as such: `An historical circumstance so public [as the appearance of the Qur`anic revelation] cannot have been invented`! Not to be overlooked in this regard is the position of the late Professor Fazlur Rahman of Chicago, whom Lester puts in the revisionist camp (!) but who delivered on more than one occasion very firm, pithy and scholarly rebuttals of Wansbrough`s `methodology`. Indeed, FR accused Wansbrough of straight-faced duplicity, `of running with the hare and hunting with the hound.`

That all historical narratives contain an irreducible element of interpretation is not a point of dispute with Islamic consciousness. Hence, the classical Muslim account of the genesis of Islam is a historical narrative that is also a criterion of revelation. The event of the Koran is simultaneously a theory of truth. For historicist consciousness and method, on the other hand, there is no God, only the world; no transcendence, only time; no truth, only history; no values, only facts. Hence, unless we totally submit to the immanent truth of historicism, or like the postmodernists discard all distinctions between `fact` and `fiction`, we are obliged to resist any disfigurement of our history in the name of a morally vagrant and non-committal relativism. Our silence in the face of the current subversive movement merely confirms the fact that our traditional intellectual establishment is incapable of meeting the modern assault. We do not even have academically competent scholars of Arabic any more! In our intellectual hierarchy, the scientist and the technician rank much higher than the historian and the humanist. Let no one forget, however, that the nation that prefers its topmost brains to become nuclear physicists may acquire the Bomb, but it is sure to loose its soul.



ends -

Italics are contained within _XXXX_ marks.

Wasiq: since you did bring up this point; in early Shiah traditions there are questions about the ``original Quran.`` It would indeed be intriguing to say the least, if there was a Quran out there with sustantial diffrences. Unfortuantley the Atlantic Montly article doesnt go much into this... and Muslim scholars may be too scared to go into this territory.

There is a book that explores some of the questions of a Quran with some additional verses:

The Divine Guide in Early Shiism by Mohammad ali Amir-Moezzi -This is an

excellent book to understand the esoteric tradition in Islam. The book also

briefly discusses the implications of the esoteric becoming exoteric. i.e. the

original ideas being taken over by the current jurist-ulemas.

-altaf

Re: Noor

A fascinating reply. Your response about renaissance was thought provoking. The idea that the absence of practical gains from rationalism was the primary reason why renaissaince did not happen begs the question; We must remember that it was `reason` that yielded practical S and T.and not the other way round. My bone is that every time someone challenged basic orthodoxy, he was killed or ridiculed or the books were burnt. Belief is a self-fulfilling prophecy, would you agree? and the entire belief structure was so strong that a few dissenters could not tip the balance.

What is the fundamental difference between Eastern and Western Philosophy? The first is that in the East, the individual ego is negated. Self-negation and denial is considered spiritual nirvana whereas the West had self-affirmation and the value of the individual. Instead of ethics our morality was derived from ratified belief. Instead of plato`s greater good = ethical, we had divine good = ethical. Instead of society sanctioning and defining ethics we had an obscure God approving or disapproving behaviour.

This value fits neatly in the structure of a
feudalist society. Both co-relate and are interdependent. I feel this is the reason for the parallels between Hindu, Muslim and other Eastern society as far as marginalization of the individual is concerned.

IMO this self-negation eventually led to stagnation in intellectual, economic and cultural
institutions. If you notice, Ghalib wrote poetry not essays. Poetry is a relatively less direct
form of expression. The pre-partition intellectuals grafted more `western` ideas in their poltical ideas e.g., Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Iqbal. The process stopped after the creation
of Pakistan--which was to be the ideological utopia a la the Western model of democracy.

One reason why change or any form of Ijtehad is extremely difficult in the Islamic world is the
belief that the Q as is, is the entire word of God. I remember when I first read SNisah, I more or less accepted that I am a subordinate individual since that is the will of God and divinely legitimate. Fear is a powerful force and is easily manipulated to form belief.

I agree that we will have to be more tolerant of disbelief in order to reform and adapt to the
demands of the new era. Unfortunately historically anyone who has said this has been called a non-muslim or kafir, and therefore their arguments are rendered invalid. This is the very reason why belief suffocates what it seeks to
preserve--brotherhood and community. It is sad to see how many have seen the west as anti-east rather than just `west` or viewed them as white, therefore anti-brown.

Some questions to Temporal. We dont need common definitions to debate. I know that common
definitions are considered scientific. We will never as a society or as a community speak the
same language. We just need to recognize that fact. Social sciences are not lab experiments. The
words change with the advent of new ideas. I have a few questions for you. Is random the same
thing as irrational? Is belief the same as love? Is trust always, if ever blind?

If you said no to all these, we are on the same wave length. If you said yes than that is even
better, because you may have something new to tell us.

Thats rationality. Anything else is usually some level of bigotry or dogma.

Re: Anita and Wasiq

Thanks for the Shitte point of view. A friend recently educated me a bit on this and I find what
you said stunning. Can we conclude that it is not the Quran at fault but the lack of tolerance
of diversity within the religion?

Re: Saima Shah response to Noor

``Can we conclude that it is not the Quran at fault but the lack of tolerance
of diversity within the religion?``

I think you have nailed a very significant point which explains the lack of an internal debate within Islam itself.

Thanks for brining it up!

Saima Shah:

You ask is random the same thing as irrational? Is belief the same as love? Is trust always, if ever blind?

The way you phrase it, there is no simple yes and no answer. Qualifiers can fill pages. But I do see and appreciate your perspective.

You have said it LACK OF TOLERANCE. I`ve said the same thing in different words elsewhere on the Chowk. INTOLERANCE is the single common characterstic of the Muslims around the globe these days.

I am all for a renewal, if not a renaissance, from within, not without. That is why we need tolerance, debate & inquiry. God knows we have enough view points here to sustain a healthy debate.

regards

RE: Some more incidentals about the Shia perspective :

Usman (Uthman) was a feeble old man of almost eighty, when he was accepted as a `compromise candidate` after Omar`s assassination. The powerful families with close ties to the House of Abu Sufyan (Muawia`s father, and Yazid`s grand-papa) managed to keep the poorer but devoted followers at bay. The have-nots from among the `ansar` and the `muhajirin` (i.e., those who had given refuge to the fleeing Muslims in Medina, and those who fled Mecca, as did Mohammed himself) who had served as the front line soldiers during the persecution years, were loosely aligned with the pro-Ali forces. These more `puritanical` elements felt that they should have more of a say in determining the future of the evolving Islamic society since they were the ones who had followed the Prophet through thick and thin. These partisans represent the leftist view in early Islam as opposed to the establishment `capitalists` from the ruling elite of Mecca. They were resentful that the ruling Quresh elite who opposed the Islamic movement for years was now suddenly, after the fall of Mecca, given such importance that they had virtually taken over the Islamic movement. Abu Bakr, Omar and then Usman (though personally close to the Prophet and migrants to Mecca), all three, represent the established Mecca families with wealth and influence. Old family ties were proving stronger than the revolutionaries would have liked.

Abu Sufyan`s wife, Hinda, of course, is a hated figure by the Ali group, and one of the very few individuals whom Mohammed had to punish despite the general clemency which he issued after the conquest of Mecca. Hinda had ripped open the fallen Hamza and bit into his liver in the aftermath of the battle of Uhad. Hamza, a dear uncle of Ali (and Muhammad, of course), was the heir apparent and would likely have taken precedence over Abu Bakr had he survived and out-lived Mohammed. This sad fact the revolutionaries already begrudged.

Usman, even though he was a close relative of Abu Sufyan, was accepted as a compromise because no one viewed the decrepit old fossil as a threat and it was thought that he will soon pass away and that will clear the way for Ali. The first two, Abu Bakr and Omar had been Mohammed`s fathers-in-law, while Usman was a son-in-law. Thus the other son-in-law, Ali, who was also a first cousin, would surely have the most legitimate claim after Usman. However, upon becoming Caliph, Usman appointed his nephew, Mirwan, as his executive assistant. Mirwan, who was Muawia`s cousin, was a clever little bugger. (He, incidentally, was also Yazid`s main advisor, years later, when Ali and Fatima`s son, Hussein, was killed at Karbala.) It was this Mirwan who actually chaired the commission which was entrusted with the official compilation of the Quran.

In olden days when publishing houses didn`t exist, a `book` consisted of several serially numbered rolls of parchment assembled in a `book-bucket`. This is how the Greeks and Romans maintained `books`. Each roll of parchment was of a fixed size. Chapters and verses could overflow from one to the next, since the scrolls were only physical space delimiters, much like today`s floppy disc. It was also customary to divide things up in 40s. Forty was a convenient number for the camel herders. Presumably, that was as far as most felt comfortable counting. (Thus for example, we see `zakaat` described as one part in forty, etc.) Presumably following this thinking, it has been suggested that the original compiled Quran was divided in 40 equal physical parts (siparah), ten of which, or 25%, were lost. It is said that Mirwan had a goat and he let the goat loose on the ten siparah`s of the Quran that vanished. They were supposedly written on dried leaves which the ignorant goat mistook for gourmet, rather than God`s Book. [Was it God`s Book or was it a facsimile copy (`HQ` as one reader imaginatively suggests) of the original manuscript (he calls it `EQ`), which must be preserved in the Heavens, presumably on microfiche, since even acid free paper wouldn`t last till eternity.]

RE: Noor,

Thank you for raising the real fundamantal issues. Its good to see your name again. As long as you are there no one will get away with supersititious bullshit without being taken to task.

RE: Wasiq,

Great commentary. You hardly left anything for me to add. ``Khilafat-aur-Mulukiat`` is also available in Nasim Hijazi`s version.

In an earlier message you mentioned the evolution of the Christian creed and implied a parallel with Islam. They are somewhat different because of the respective time lapse involved. The First Council of Niece was held in 325 AD, after the Aryan controversy had been raging for some years. It was at Niece the God-the-Father, and God-the-Son issue was decided and they were deemed to be ``of the same substance``. The third leg of the Trinity did not come till the Council of 387 AD. ( If memory serves me, that was the Council of Constance.) In Islam, by contrast, most such matters were decided within a Century of the Prophet`s death. (Of course, the notable exception is that whole episode of the 12th Century when Al-Ghazali spearheaded the brutal, barbarious but successful assault against the scientific and intellectual revolution in Islam, and abolished `Ijtihad`. But that`s another story altogether.)

Jesus in his short life was not successful in establishing the Christian religion. He was, as Vidal says, only ``a renegade Jew from Bethelham``. Paul is the real founder of Christianity, not Jesus.

The Prophet, on the other hand, is a success story. He is one of only two people in history who started life as destitute orphans with absolutely nothing, and within their lifetimes became powerful founders of new empires. The other is Changiz Khan.

...SR

Zayd ibn Thabit said: Abu Bakr [Caliph 632-634 C.E.] sent to me at the time of the battle al-Yamama, and Umar ibn al-Khattab [Caliph 634-644 C.E] was with him Abu Bakr said: Umar has come to me and said: ``Death was rampant at the battle of al-Yamama and took with it many of the reciters of the Quran in the provinces and so large part of Quran be lost. I think you should give orders to collect the Quran.``

``What,`` I asked Umar, ``do you wish to do something which the Prophet of God himself did not do?``

``By God,`` replied Umar, ``it would be a good deed.``

Umar did not leave off urging me until at length God opened my heart to this and I thought as Umar did.``

Zayd continued: Abu Bakr said to me: ``You are a young man, intelligent, and we see no fault in you; more, you have already written down the revelation for the Prophet of God, may God bless and save him. Therefore go seek the Quran and collect it.``

By God if he had ordered me to move a mountain, it would not have been harder for me than his order to collect the Quran. ``What,`` I asked, ``Will you do something which the prophet of God himself, may God bless and save him, did not do?

``By God,`` Abu Bakr replied, ``it would be good deed.``

Umar did not leave urging me until God opened my heart to this as He had opened the hearts of Abu Bakr and Umar.

Then I searched out and collected the parts of the Quran, whether they were written on palm leaves of flat stones or in the hearts of men. Thus I found the end of the ``Sura of Repentance`` (Quran 9:129-130), which had been unable to find anywhere else, in the possession of Abu al-Khuzayma al-Ansari. There verses ``There came to you a Prophet from amoung yourselves. It grieves me that you sin ...`` to the end.

The (collected) leaves remained in the possession of Abu Bakr until his death, then in Umar`s for as long he lived, and then with Hafsa, Daughter of Umar.

Anas ibn Malik said: Hudhayfa ibn al-Yaman accompanied Uthman [Chaliph 644-656 C.E.] when he was preparing the army of Syria together with the army of Iraq to conquer Armenia and Azarbayjan, Hudhayfa was astonished by the differences in the (two armies`) reading of Quran, and said to Uthman, ``O Commander of the faithful, catch hold of this community before they differ about their Book as do the Jews and the Christians.``

Uthman send to Hafsa to say, ``Send us the leaves. We shall copy them in codices and return them to you.``

Hafsa sent them to Uthman, who ordered Zayd ibn Thabit, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, Sa`ad ibn al-As and Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Harith ibn Hashim to copy them into codices. Uthman said to the three of them who were of the tribe of Quraysh, ``If you differ from Zayd ibn Thabit on anything in the Quran, write it down according to the language of Quraysh, for it is in their language the Quran was revealed.``

They did as he bade, and when they had copied the leaves in to codices, Uthman returned the leaves to Hafsa. He sent the copies of the codex which they made in all directions and gave orders to burn every leaf and codex which differ from it. (Bukhari, Sahih 3,392-394)

All this talk of Mohammad`s family and the Caliphs, and who did what to whom, sounds more like an episode of Jerry Springer Show than beginning of a great religion. I, for one, don`t give a crap. Knowing the pea-brain Arabs of today, why the Arabs of yesteryears be any different.

Re: Parvez Manzoor (34)

Your diatribe will fill the heart of the faithful with pure light. That is, if one believes in God and the Koran as His divine words. If one doesn`t, than your argument is pure silly.

You cleverly say ``...let every Muslim, speaking from the depth of Islamic conscience, affirm the academic community`s right to pursue its researches in full freedom and peace.`` Hey, wait a minute! ``from the depth of Islamic conscience``! Sounds to me like anything that questions Koran or Mohammad is not ``from the depth of Islamic conscience``! It`s more like, if a Muslim deviates ``from the depth of Islamic conscience,`` put a price on his head.

Toby Lester did an excellent job. I hope there are Muslims like him and other western infidels who are objective in their quest, yes, even when it comes to the Koran. It is only then that Islam can get out of the jihalat that it has been mired in for centuries.

Wasiq and others... if the history that Wasiq relates is correct/true, and if the current Quran we have is merely a compilation that is prone to error, and may indeed be incomplete in some ways (though we do not know to what extent). If that is so, can we or should we still look towards the Quran as a source of wisdom, or spirituality? It appears to me, and even though we have this history, the quran has played a remarkable role in developoing people`s inner being, and even with what we have, there have been profound mystics... such as Ibn `al Arabi, who`ve expounded upon the esoteric aspects of the Quran... But what are your and others thoughts? -Altaf

Re: Goga (40)

Interestingly enough Sahih Bukhari does not mention that Ali had volunteered to collect the Quran immediately after the Prophet`s death, but was forcibly disallowed to do so. The family of the Prophet always claimed to have the Quran, but they were neither consulted in the process (on the contrary were forcibly kept away from it) nor were they allowed to proceed with the compilation. Again the reason was the political clout that such an undertaking would have endowed on the person responsible.

It is ironic that Marwan was chosen by Uthman to head the compilation of the Quran. Marwan ``converted`` after the fall of Makkah, and his hypocricy and enmity to Islam was very well known. He fell into the same group of people like Hinda and Abu Sufyan. He along with his other family members were forgiven by the Prophet. Uthman superceded all scholars of the Quran and the loyal followers of the Prophet to appoint one of the biggest enemies of Islam to co-ordinate the compilation of the Quran!! Of course our neighbourhood Mullah would not let us think about this!

Another point, unfortunately Sahih Bukhari repeatedly makes the Prophet look like a complete idiot. A man of his intellectual caliber, who kept his other records (of deeds and agreements) somehow forgets to keep track of the Quran?! He who often stressed the importance of not giving in to rumors and to getting reliable information, somehow contends that the memory of people will be sufficient? This guy who was a merchant and knew the importance of accounting leaves the most important thing in his life to the memory of desert beduins?? Extremely unlikely given his achievements in his lifetime. The Prophet was ``deconstructed`` later on by the Hadith writers and inventors so that others may look larger in comparison. Who was there to defend him, his family (who had been killed off) or his trusted companions (who had been marginalized)??

Re: Godot (41)

You write:

``All this talk of Mohammad`s family and the Caliphs, and who did what to whom, sounds more like an epi