The Qur’an and the Latests Orientalist Assumptions

61 Pages·1999·1.663 MB·English

by  Muhammad Mohar Ali

m
%
m
THE QUR’AN
■m.
y■■
■M
AND -f »'
m
THE LATEST 4

ORPSf JJv/,. (■ j{K'F ABSUMmMO.N.S«B
'
:■
Iwccriy,a review o-Oftjfoy IL^4ier^'5awffl8te: .v ' m
”Wfea4fsdtec-IK«Mranii# '

•• ’ V;
■ ■ -m-Ok

V. : ,

..
:
BY
Dr. MUHAMMAD MOHAR ALI
v
JAM'IAT IHYAA' MINHAAJ AL-SUNNAH
June, 1999
THE QUR’AN

AND
THE LATEST

ORIENTALIST ASSUMPTIONS

Being a review of Toby Lester's article:
"What is the Koran?"
BY
Dr. MUHAMMAD MOHAR ALI
(Formerly Professor of the History of Islam, Madina Islamic University, Madina,
and Imam Muhammad Islamic University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Author of STrat Al-NabT And The Orientalists, The Bengali Reaction To Christian
Missionary Activities, A History Of The Muslims Of Bengal,
A Word For Word Meaning Of The Qur’an
{Surahs 1-2}, etc., etc.)
JAM'IAT IHYAA' MINHAAJ AL-SUNNAH
June, 1999
THE QUR’AN AND THE LATEST ORIENTALIST ASSUMPTIONS i!
Published By Jam'iat Ihyaa' Minhaaj Al-Sunnah
P.O. Box 24, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP3 8ED
■
Tel. & Fax: [phone]
Website: http://www.jimas.org
i
Email: [email protected] ;
Registered Charity No. 1060695
i
!
i
i
i
First Edition 1999
©Jam'iat Ihyaa' Minhaaj Al-Sunnah
ISBN 0 9533019 1 0
:
t
I
Printed by: Finite Logistics Ltd Unit, 14 Boston Court, Kansas Avenue, Salford Quays, M5 2GN
Tel [phone] Fax [phone] ISDN 0161 876 7150
.
<131 (1—2
Juu j <3T j Xov* LuJ j l)Ju^ j ^Ip a^La3lj ^~«JIaJI t^>j <13 x*_>Jl
The Qur’An
and
THE LATEST ORIENTALIST ASSUMPTIONS
In the January 1999 issue of The Atlantic Monthly an article
appeared under the caption "What is the Koran" written by Toby
Lester. The writer informs us that in 1972 during the restoration of
the Great San‘a’ Mosque in Yaman an "unappealing mash of old
parchment and paper documents — damaged books and individual
pages of Arabic text" — was discovered in "a loft between the
structure's inner and outer roofs". This find is said to consist of,
"among other things, tens of thousands of fragments from close to a
thousand different parchment codices of the Koran." Some of the
parchment pages, he observes, "seemed to date back to the seventh
and eighth centuries A. D.", being "perhaps the oldest Korans in
existence". It is said that "some of these fragments revealed small but
intriguing aberrations from the standard Koranic text" which are at
odds with the orthodox Muslim belief that the Qur’an is the perfect
and unchanging Word of God. He further says that secular efforts to
reinterpret the Qur’an by textual analysis is "disturbing and offensive
to many Muslims", but such an effort will nonetheless amount to
"placing the Koran in history", "provide fuel for an Islamic revival"
and, "as the histories of the Renaissance and Reformation
demonstrate", "can lead to major social change".
Thus having introduced the subject Toby Lester discusses under 7
sub-headings two European scholars' examination of the San‘a’ find
and some other orientalists' studies regarding the Qur’an and drives
at the conclusion that like the Bible the Qur’an is a text prepared by
human hands working over a couple of centuries.
4 THE QUR’AN AND THE LATEST ORIENTALIST ASSUMPTIONS
Before taking up one by one the materials and arguments
marshalled by Lester it will be worthwhile to make some
observations on his above mentioned introductory remarks. The
statement that a reinterpretation of the Qur’an based on textual
evidence or rather accepting it as a man-made document will provide
fuel for an Islamic revival leading to major social change comparable
to the Renaissance and the Reformation is misconceived and
misleading. It is misconceived because it fails to recognise the origin
and nature of the two European movements. Every serious student
of the European Renaissance and Reformation knows that both the
movements had their origin to a large extent in the European
contact with Islam and the Islamic civilzation, and both the
movements derived their inspiration and impetus from the
intellectual and rational influences exerted by the Islamic East.
Moreover, the Reformation took place essentially because of the
corruption of the then Christian church and the pretensions of the
Papacy. The eclipse of the individuality of man and the stagnation of
human intellect and reason which characterized the Dark Ages in
Europe and which the Renaissance and Reformation sought to
remove or reform cannot be said to obtain in any part of the Muslim
world and the East in general. If the Muslim world is in need of an
"Islamic revival", as the writer implies, that revival lies not in the
transfer of the present day Christians' view of their scripture to the
case of the Qur’an but in the adoption and implementation of the
teachings and instructions of the Qur’an itself. After all, whatever
may be the material progress and technological advancement made
by the Renaissance-and Reformation-oriented West, in the Muslim
eye it has not yet attained that state in theology and culture which
can expect in turn to bring about a renaissance and reformation in
the Muslim society.
In fact, it is not an "Islamic revival" but "major social change" to
the liking of the West which the attempt to reinterpret the Qur’an
has in view. And to that extent the statement is misleading; for it
THE QUR’AN AND THE LATEST ORIENTALIST ASSUMPTIONS 5
seeks to convey to an unwary reader the impression that Islam is in
need of reorientation on the model of the European Renaissance
and Reformation and that the progress of the Muslim peoples lies in
it. What is overlooked is that, if it is merely a question of material
progress and technological development, even non-Muslim peoples
and countries in Asia and Africa are catching up in both the fields;
while Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian and other peoples of both
these continents are not impressed by such aspects of the affluent
society of the West as the gradual break-up of families due to the
acceptance of pre-marital and extra-marital sexual relationships as a
norm, the growth of single parent families (more appropriately
bastard children), recognition of lesbianism and homosexuality as
individual rights, eschewing or condoning of adultery and fornication
as matters of personal or private life, degradation of womanhood to
a commodity for sex-appealing advertisement, and the like. Such
developments are in fact an outcome of over-emphasis on
individualism which is, on the one hand, an extreme reaction to the
suppression of individualism under the Medieval European Church
and Papacy and, on the other, a by-product of the notion that
religion is merely a matter of private and personal life. Before
attempting to bring about a "major social change" in other parts of
the world the Western society would do well to rethink if all the
legacies of the Renaissance and Reformation have been beneficial to
itself or if these would be palatable to the rest of the world.
As regards the allegation that the Qur’an is a product of human
mind and hand, it is as old as the Qur’an itself. The Makkan
unbelievers, the immediate audience of the Qur’anic revelations,
made exactly the same allegation, saying that these were only a
man's utterances,1 that their trustworthy but unlettered young man
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be on him) had turned a
poet or a sorcerer2 or someone else had composed the passages of
* Qur’an, 74:25.
1 Qur’an, 10:76, 21:5, 21:36, 37:4, 47:7; 51:52-53,74:24. 5230.
6 THE QUR’AN AND THE LATEST ORIENTALIST ASSUMPTIONS
the Qur’an which he memorized in the morning and the evening and
gave out as Allah's revelations or that these were mere ancient
fables.1 The Qur’an categorically denies these allegations and gives
appropriate replies to this particular objection. In general the
Qur’an's response to this allegation takes at least seven principal
forms, (a) Allah declares that the Qur’an is not the composition of a
human being nor did the Prophet turn a poet.2 (b) Allah repeatedly
says that it is He Who sent down the Qur’an and that also in the
Arabic language.3 (c) Allah repeatedly asks the Prophet not to move
his tongue hastily in order to memorize what was being delivered to
him and to listen patiently and carefully till the completion of the
communication, assuring him that He would enable him to
remember what was being delivered to him.4 This group of the
Qur’anic passages clearly prove that what was being delivered to the
Prophet was in the form of particular texts, (d) Allah consoles the
Prophet and asks him to bear with patience the objection and
rejection of the unbelievers by reminding him that in the past there
had not been a single Prophet who had not been similarly
disbelieved and objected to.5 (e) Allah asks the Prophet to declare
that if he fabricated anything himself and then gave it out in the
name of Allah he would be severely punished.6 (f) Allah asks the
Prophet to tell the people that He is the witness between him and
them and that there could be no better a witness of this matter than
Allah.7 This is very significant; for God's communication with His
Messengers is essentially an intimate affair which no outsider can
witness or vouchsafe for. (g) Allah asks the Prophet to throw out a
challenge to listeners of all times to come up with a text similar to
that of even a single surah of the Qur’an if they had any doubt about i
its being the words of God.8 The challenge remains open till today.
1 Qur’an, 25:5.
2 Qur’an, 36:69; 69:40-41.
* Qur’an, 4:166; 6:96; 122; 14:1; 20:113; 2216; 21:50; 24:1; 25:6, 38:29; 44:3; 97:1, among others.
4 Qur’an, 20:114; 75:16.
‘ Qur’an, 3:183-84; 6:34; 13:23; 21:41; 36:30, among others.
4 Qur’an, 69:44-46.
7 Qur’an, 6:19; 4:76; 4:166; 13:43; 17:96; 29:52, among others.
THE QUR'AN AND THE LATEST ORIENTALIST ASSUMPTIONS 7
Ever since the time of the Prophet unbelievers and critics have
merely rehearsed the Makkan unbelievers' view about the Qur'an.
And since the middle of the nineteenth century modern European
scholars, the orientalists, have repeated the same objections and
arguments. Foremost of these nineteenth and early twentieth century
orientalists are A Sprenger, William Muir, Theodor Noldeke, Ignaz
Goldziher, W. Wellhausen, Leone Caetani and David S. Margoliouth.
Their work and conclusions have been further developed and
summarised in the middle and later part of the present century
principally by Richard Bell and his pupil W. Montgomery Watt. All
these scholars have attempted to show, by one device or another,
that the Qur'an is Muhammad's (peace and blessings of Allah be on
him) own composition. The facts and arguments adduced by these
scholars have recently been closely examined and it has been shown
that their conclusions are totally untenable because these are based
on faulty logic and a gross misunderstanding or misinterpretation of
the facts and texts.2
By the very nature of their arguments and by implication the
above mentioned scholars and their contemporaries at least
recognize that the Qur'an came into existence during the lifetime of
the Prophet. Toby Lester's article goes much further than that. By
referring to a few recent writings and on the basis of the "fragments"
found in San‘a' Lester advances the theory that the Qur'an is a text
which evolved over the first couple of centuries of the Islamic era!
As will be seen presently, he does so, (a) by means of a misleading
and equivocal description of the San‘a' find and (b) by citing the
writings of some other orientalists who draw on the untenable and
outmoded assumptions of their predecessors and attempt to cast
doubt on the whole course of the history of Islam during the first
two centuries of its existence. Let us now consider one by one the
various sections of Lester's essay.
' Qur’an, 2:23; 10:38; 11:13.
2 See M. M. Ali, Strut al-Nabt and the Orientalists, 2 Vols., King Fahd Qur’an Printing Complex, Madina,
1997.
8 THE QUR’AN AND THE LATEST ORIENTALIST ASSUMPTIONS
"LOOKING AT THE FRAGMENTS"

Under the above noted sub-tide Lester first discusses the work so
far done on the San‘a’ fragments. He says that two German scholars,
Gerd-R. Puin and H.-C. Graf Von Bothmer of the Saarland
University, who worked on the restoration and preservation project
for the find, have seen them. So far more than 15,000 sheets have
been "flattened, cleaned, treated and assembled" for preservation. It
is said that although the Yamani authorities "seemed reluctant" to
allow detailed examination of the sheets, Bothmer has taken "more
than 35,000 microfilm pictures of the fragments, and has recendy
brought the pictures back to Germany." (What does Lester mean by
saying that these pictures have been brought back to Germany? Were
they originally taken out from that country?) Lester says that Puin
and Bothmer have published "only a few tentalizingly brief articles"
on the Yamani fragments, that Puin "recognized the antiquity of i
some of the parchment fragments" and his "preliminary inspection"
revealed "unconventional verse orderings, minor textual variations,
and rare styles of orthography .... also palimpsests — versions very
clearly written over even earlier and, washed-off versions." Therefore
Puin "began to feel" that the picture that was emerging was that of
"an evolving text rather than simply the Word of God revealed in its
entirety..." Lester ends this section of his article by quoting Puin as
i
saying that since the Muslims "like to quote the textual work that
shows that the Bible has a history", the San‘a‘ fragments "will help
us" to "prove that the Koran has a history too."
Now, it is clear that Puin, Lester and their collaborators simply
wish to prove that like the Bible the "Koran has a history too" and
they state that they are thrilled at the "prospect" that the SanT
fragments will enable them to do so. As regards the proofs for the
realization of their wish, practically nothing valid or convincing has
been presented. It is said that Pilin's preliminary inspection of "some
of the parchment fragments" revealed (a) unconventional verse
THE QUR’AN AND THE LATEST ORIENTALIST ASSUMPTIONS 9
orderings, (b) minor textual variations, (c) rare styles of orthography
and (d) over-writings on earlier washed-off versions. Not a single
specific instance of any of these things have been mentioned.
As regards the first point, since the inspection was confined to
"some of the parchment fragments", the alleged variation might as
well be due to mistaken arrangement of the fragments themselves.
There are many identical passages in the Qur'an, sometimes with
minor variation in the wording. One has to be sure if the fragments
in question are not merely a jumble of such identical passages but are
parts of a continuous text of a particular surah. At least a more
careful and thorough examination of the alleged group of fragments
is necessary before hazarding a conclusion on them. It is also
worthwhile to remember that slighdy unconventional ordering of
some verses in a few passages points at the most rather to
carelessness or deliberate tampering with the text than to its
evolution over a period of time. Most important of all, no mention is
made of the exact passage or passages wherein the allegedly
unconventional verse-orderings have been noticed.
Regarding the second matter, again, no specific instance has been
cited. We know that there are variant readings (or rather
vocalization) with regard to some words or expressions in the
Qur'an; and these are meticulously noted in almost all classical
commentaries on the Qur'an. One has to be sure whether the "minor
textual variations" spoken of relate to these variant readings of some
words. As regards the rare styles of orthography, these are still there
in the Qur'an and they are indicative of the fact the Qur'an has
continued to be transcribed exacdy as it was transcribed during the
time of Caliph ‘Uthman. That is why it is often referred to as
al-Mushaf al- Uthmdni. Puin or Lester has not mentioned any specific
word or expression in the San‘a' fragments which differs in
orthography from that in al-Mushaf al-'Uthmani. Again, slight variation
in orthography with regard to some words is no sufficient ground for
sustaining a theory of gradual evolution for any text. Similarly