Criticisms of the Quran

Critic:-

We could wait for Dr. Heger's research regarding the interpretations of the Quran as someone suggested.. But why wait for Dr. Heger's next post for the meaning of Samad (Quran 112:2)? I imagine other posters (both Muslim and non-Muslim alike) would like to see what you have on this. I, for one, would like to know why at-Tabaree is the wrong source to consult when trying to gauge how the earliest Quranic commentators understood the relevant word.

Comment:-

The opinions of Dr Heger have no relevance to Muslims. Nor have they any use for himself or for non-Muslims.

As for the article by Shamuon or Tabaree we see different points of view by different people that are not necessarily mutually exclusive and there are speculation without insight, understanding or authority.

When it comes to Religion, and particularly the Quran, what counts is not verbal speculation but how things are understood by a person and how they affect them. There are different degrees of this. That is what superficial critics like Dr. Heger do not comprehend.

According to the Prophet, who ought to know, the chapter Quran 112 is a third of the Quran. The ideas in it are therefore, to be understood with respect to passages in the rest of the Quran.

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: The Prophet said to his companions, "Is it difficult for any of you to recite one third of the Quran in one night?" This suggestion was difficult for them so they said, "Who among us has the power to do so, O Allah's Apostle?" Allah's Apostle replied: "'Allah (the) One, the Self-Sufficient Master Whom all creatures need.' (Surat Al-Ikhlas 112.1--to the End) is equal to one third of the Quran." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 534)

The Quran tells us:-

"Nay, but it (the Quran) is a clear revelation in the hearts of those who are endowed with knowledge, and none deny Our revelations save the wrongdoers (or unjust)." 29:24

"Those unto whom We have given the Scripture, who read it with a right reading, those believe in it. And whoso disbelieves in it, those are the losers." 2:121

"This is indeed a noble Quran in a Book kept hidden which none touches save the purified, a revelation from the Lord of the Worlds." 56:77-80

"This (Quran) is naught else than a reminder unto creation, unto whomsoever of you wills to walk straight. And ye will not, unless it be that Allah wills, the Lord of Creation." 81:27-29

If these assertions of the Quran are not accepted then obviously commentaries about the Quran are futile and irrelevant. They are not about the Quran but about the misconceptions of the commentator, which is useless for anyone including the commentator.

Is this so difficult to understand?

Critic:-

I am not claiming Dr. Heger's arguments are sound, but Abdallah did not do much to make anyone believe they are necessarily false either. The same could be said about the statements you have provided above, with all due respect.

Actually, you should be more careful with our claims. You should change the above to: "according to a certain Hadith, Muhammad is alleged to have said that Soorat al-Ikhlas is equal to one third of the Quran."

Comment:-

The answer is still the same:-

The opinions of Dr Heger have no relevance to Muslims. Nor have they any use for himself or for non-Muslims.

It is well known and has been known from the beginning among Muslims that Soorat al-Ikhlas is regarded as one third of the Quran and that the Quranic verses are to be interpreted with respect to the rest of the Quran. Even if there is doubt as to whether the Prophet made this statement, we can believe the statement because we can read the Quran and see that much of it is concerned with describing the nature of Allah. We do not need to believe it because the Prophet said so, but because it is true.

Critic:-

Let me set an analogy. Suppose a Christian said the following: "The Apostle John, who ought to know, said that Jesus described himself to him as the First and the Last; go see Revelation 1:17 & 2:8." In reality, however, a person who is not a committed Christian would comment that what we have is a book which claims that John said he met Jesus, and that Jesus told him that he is the First and the Last. Serious scholars would not believe that necessarily tells us who the author of Isaiah 44:6 was referring to when he spoke of "the First and the Last".

To explain how my analogy is relevant to your statement about what "the Prophet" said, note that the hypothetical Christian in my analogy merely made an appeal to the assumptions of his faith when he spoke of what "the Apostle John" said. So too, your statement about the Quran and Muhammad was also nothing more than appeal to your own personal dogmas.

Comment:-

You still appear not to have understood:- You are speaking about a non-Christian. Does it matter to Christians what he says? Or does it even matter to the non-Christian? It is obvious that this non-Christian has not understood what "the First and the Last" refers to.

Islam, or Real Religion (not one based on conditioning or mere verbal acquiescence) is about faith, perception, understanding, insight, inspiration, revelation and not verbal speculation or arguments.

Critic:-

You said that if the assertions about the Quran in the Quran are not accepted then obviously commentaries about the Quran are futile and irrelevant. Really, Hamid, what kind of an argument is this? It seems to me, in light of the Quranic passages your post put forth, you are hoping to argue premises such as one (or more) of the following:-

(1) Soorat al-Ankaboot says that the Quran is a clear revelation, and only wrong doers can deny that, so the arguments of anyone who disagrees with this statement from Soorat al-Ankaboot are automatically false.

(2) Soorat al-Baqara says that those who disbelieve in the divine authorship of the Quran are khaasiroon (losers), so the arguments of anyone who disagrees with this statement from Soorat al-Baqara are automatically false.

In other words, your tacit argument is along the lines of "the Quran is the word of God because it says so, and anyone who does not accept that can not possibly have anything useful to contribute regarding the origins or intended meanings of any passage in the Quran."

Comment:-

You still do not understand. It is not an argument. It is pointing to something that you can see, understand and accept or not. We have a book that is written to be understood in certain ways. If you do not accept that then you do not read the book correctly. What would you say about a person who looks at a book on physics and criticises it supposing it to be a book on poetry, or if he reads a book of poetry and criticises it as a book of science or economics.

I do not suppose that you will understand. It is NOT an argument. It is NOT being argued that the Quran is the Word of God because the Quran says so. The Quran is simply stating a fact that you can perceive or not. If I say: "I am looking at this computer." I am stating a fact and NOT arguing that you must accept it because I say so. You can accept it or not. If you deny it, it makes no difference to me, it is still true. Is this so difficult to understand?

Critic:-

Honestly, and I sincerely intend no disrespect by this statement, what I am having difficulty understanding is how you ever thought the arguments put forth in your post would persuade anyone other than those who already presuppose that the Quran is the word of God and not subject to any scrutiny.

Comment:-

I am not putting forth an argument. Repeat: I am NOT putting forth an argument. I am simply stating a fact which I hope some people with intelligence can understand.

Repeat: Those who perceive the Quran to be true regard it as the Word of God which by definition is Truth. They are believers in the Quran and the Quran has relevance to them. Those who do not perceive the Quran to be true, for them the Quran has no relevance and their opinions about it are irrelevant to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

To understand all this you need to change the way you see - it is like the ambiguous pictures in black and white of a vase where a change of attitude reveals two faces in profile facing each other. You can see one and not the other at the same time. Some people cannot see the other picture at all.

The difficulty arises because you, like most people, educated in the Western style, tend to think in verbal terms, logical or not, whereas religious literature written in the past are concerned with experiences, effects on the psyche.

Critic:-

Since extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, if a person claims to be a prophet of God or aliens or whatever, the burden of proof lies on him and it is rational to disbelieve him until we see positive evidence for his case.

Comment:-

The Prophet by their teachings and lives provide the evidence. It is for others to prove it for themselves, and accept it or not. Religion is about faith, personal experiences, insight and understanding, relevance to oneself. It is not about impersonal logical or scientific proof to give others. The first 10 verses in the second chapter of the Quran and many others make this clear.

Critic:-

Those of us who practice "higher criticism" are interested in discovering "the historical truth that lies behind the text" and relatively indifferent as to whether or not Muslims like or dislike our efforts. We feel that, if a faith is so weak as to be threatened by the search for truth, it is of no value to mankind.

Comment:-

It has been pointed out several times that the Quran is to be understood through meditation and insight as it demands. It requires receptivity not activity. The application of personal presuppositions and prejudices in order to criticise it is wholly inappropriate. It is like criticising the skin of an apple instead of eating it. Those who do so are not reading it or endeavouring to understand the Quran.

What is annoying is that these critics falsely claim to be speaking about the Quran, thereby misleading others as well as themselves. As was pointed out to Dr. Heger, he is like one who mistakes a plastic duck for a real one because there is a superficial resemblance. But no doubt this also will not be understood by those who cannot understand the Quran.

Whereas, it might be interesting from a linguistic point of view that Arabic words have a history of evolution from past or other languages, this has no relevance to the understanding of the Quran or Islam. That is a different subject all together.

Certainly the Quran claims that it confirms the teachings of past religions and so it should not be surprising that the ideas of these other religions are also found in the Quran. But it also claims to rectify the misinterpretations and corruptions of these. So it is not possible to admit interpretations of the past religions that contradict the teachings of the Quran.

Critic:-

Many of us see the Quran as condoning slavery. You mention Quran 90:13 as indicating that the Quran teaches the freeing of slaves. This does not seem to be referring to any kind of expiation as other verses do, and may be an indication that the Quran does indeed oppose slavery. But I wonder, is it referring to slaves or captives or both? Could it mean no more than that Muslims should pay the ransom of Muslim captives, held by others, thereby releasing them?

Comment:-

I understand the verse as speaking of all kinds of slavery, political, economic, financial, social, cultural, ideological, mental, psychological and spiritual. The context makes it clear that it is speaking about spiritual ascent. We are all trapped in various kinds of physical and mental limitations, attachments, prejudices, superstitions, habits, addictions, compulsions, conditioning, ignorance, errors, follies, narrow mindedness and so forth.

The Quran is not to be interpreted in only a naive narrow literal sense. Most verses are similitudes for something more general.

Critic:-

I presume a modern, Western, Muslim would agree with you (regarding Quran 90:13), while one who was involved in the slavery business himself would not. Where does that leave us?

Comment:-

It leaves us exactly where we were before - namely that different people understand things differently according to their various levels of intelligence, perception, knowledge and motives. Religions come to sinners in order to enlighten them and cause their spiritual development. This happens according to how they apply their religion. Some take it more seriously than others. Some do not know, understand or apply it at all. There have always been a range of people from saints to criminals in all religions. There have also been self-deceivers and hypocrites - there appears to be a majority of these now a days.

Critic:-

Since in the seventh century slavery was accepted all over the world, I would say, as a first guess, that the Quran accepts it also. If you want to prove to the doubters that this is not so, you will probably need a clearer proof than you have offered so far.

Comment:-

I did point out that the Quran allows slavery because in the past when things were less organised there were costly wars requiring reparation and prisoners had to be dealt with. But the Quran also requires the compassionate treatment and freeing of slaves.

No. I do not have to offer any proof - only point to the Quran and present my interpretation of it. Others can understand, accept or not according to their preferences and capacities. Even the Prophet (saw) had no other mission. Ultimately it is Allah who guides.

"And say to those who have been given the Book, and unto the unlearned: Have ye, too, surrendered. And if they surrender, then are they truly guided. But if they turn their backs, then your duty is only to convey the message unto them. Allah is Seer of His servants." 3:20 Also 16:82, 29:18

Critic:-

We see the Quran as contradicting the teachings of Jesus. But you say that the Quran is a confirmation of the teachings of Jesus. Unfortunately this is not true. Muslim understanding of Injeel is a holy book dictated to the Prophet Jesus through Angel Gabriel, direct words of God, verse by verse given to Jesus to preach, not to add anything from himself, but just as a messenger, just to deliver the verses of God exactly as given to him. On the other hand Christians believe that Jesus did NOT get any revelation from God, because he was not a Prophet but the Son of God.

Comment:-

Unfortunately you do not know your own scriptures and follow false speculations. Jesus said:-

"I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." John 5:30

(Note: This is not something said of God or by someone who thinks he is God)

"For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." John 6:38

"..I do nothing of myself; but as the Father hath taught me, I speak these things." John 8:28

"Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." John 7:16

"For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." John 12:49

"If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." John 10:37-38

Is this clear?

Therefore, if you wish to be a good follower of Jesus you have to "Surrender to God". Christians who know and understand their scriptures become Muslim.

Christians claim that Deuteronomy 18:18 applies to Jesus. It states:-

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

This is the same as what Jesus claimed. It is also similar to what Jesus says about one coming after him:-

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you." John 16:12-14

Note that Jesus taught the religion of love but tells us that the one to come will lead them into Truth. Islam brought by the Prophet Muhammad is the Religion of Truth. Quran 9:33, 61:9

Critic:-

As I stated before, I am not anti-Muslim, I am anti-Islam. There is a difference. I believe there are many good, kind, and tolerant Muslims in spite of the teachings of Islam, not because of the teachings of Islam. But some Muslims have problems distinguishing between the words "Muslim" and "Islam". Any opposition is collectively lumped as "Islamophobia" by them.

Comment:-

You have got things in the reverse order. A Muslim is by definition one who accepts and leads his life by Islam. So if someone attacks Islam, he attacks Muslims.

It is, of course true, that there is a difference between a teaching, Islam, and people, Muslims, who may understand and practice their religion to different degrees or not at all. We can blame Muslims when they do not adhere to the teaching. But we cannot blame the teaching for the behaviour of those who claim to adhere to it. Nor can one blame the teaching for the prejudices of those who do not or will not understand it. We can only blame them.

Critic:-

The sad fact is that the Islamic world lacks a theology. It has lots of definitions but no living authorities. When Muslims start defining these terms properly and have them published, when there are concordances when there are commentaries on each Surah and these are published and can be discussed and taught then we will be able finally start a cross religion discussion, until then its going to be the role of the pathetically ignorant on both sides who waste space.

Comment:-

Islam does have a Theology and there are commentaries on each Sura. The fact that you do not know them is not proof of their non-existence.

As Islam is for personal development, therefore, it does not have an organised Church or Priesthood (though self appointed ones arise) to determine what an official doctrine should be. The idea is meaningless.

Unlike Christianity, Islam is Universal in that it is for the common man, not an elite priesthood, and recognises all religions as having been sent originally by God. So the only thing you are going to get from Muslims is their various points of view according to their various perception, understanding and knowledge. This will range from the most naive to the most sophisticated.

A Muslim:-

Some people seem to think that an angel sent by God came down to each of the prophets carrying in his angelic hands an actual book (or scroll or parchment or set of sheets). That is not what happened. The books received by the prophets were spiritual books that were the revelation to each of them of God's uncreated divine speech (called the Mother of the Book). The created letters and sounds by which those books were circulated among men took the form desired by God so that they would be intelligible to the people in the time and place where the message was revealed.

Critic:-

What you describe is called a Hadith Qudsi in Islam. It is when God gives only the meaning of what he wants to reveal and the prophet puts it into words. However, Quran is not Hadith Qudsi. The words also belong to God. Neither the Quran nor the Injeel are Hadith Qudsi. God does send an angel and give an entire book to his prophet as you say. Not all of them in one night though, but piece by piece throughout years. In Islam the belief is that the Angel Gabriel came to Prophet every Ramadan to review that past year's revelation, word for word. What Muslims pride most about their scripture is that "not one jot has changed since God revealed it, it is the literal word of God."

Comment:-

Yes there is this difference between the Hadith Qudsi and the revealed book. The revelation is received through the Holy Spirit in general and that might be Gabriel in particular. The revelation refers to the recitation. It does not refer to the written book. The Word of God is the creative force and is not like human words, though these also have effects. But note:-

"We never sent a Messenger save with the language of his people, that he might clarify the message to them. Then Allah leads whom He will astray, and guides whom He will; and He is the Mighty, the Wise." 14:4

Critic:-

God names His books and He did. In the Quran there are names of 4 holy books, and this is orthodoxy. We want to know how these relate to the names in other previous religions.

Comment:-

You know very well that Islam recognises that Allah sent Prophets to all people and that their original messages were true, but misunderstandings and adulterations and conflicts caused corruption. Names refer to something. The 4 Holy Books named in the Quran refer to the revelations received by the Prophets to whom they relate. The etymology of the names is irrelevant - what is important is that to which they relate in the Quran.

----------<O>----------

Contents