Attack on Islam
Critic:-
One can
hardly believe the lack of logic in the Muslim mentality. Look at some of their
arguments:-
(1)
"The Quran did not change; therefore it must be the Word of God."
(2)
"The Quran contains no contradictions; therefore it must be the Word of
God."
(3)
"Millions of Muslims memorise the Quran, therefore it must be the Word of
God."
(4)
"Mohammad could not read or write, therefore the Quran must be the Word of
God."
(5)
"Mohammad was known to be trustworthy; therefore the Quran must be the
Word of God."
(6
"The Quran says it is the Word of God, therefore it must be the Word of
God."
(7)
"No one can write something similar like the Quran, therefore it must be
the Word of God."
When will
people who defend such ludicrous arguments grow up intellectually?
Comment:-
The same
could be said about you. It is YOU who have misunderstood. Or are you
desperately trying to make a negative point by deliberately ignoring the
context of the argument.
It is NOT
these assertions that prove the Quran to be the Word of God. But if people
accept the Quran as the Word of God by perceiving the truth in it, then the
features mentioned in these assertions must exist. If they do not, then it
might be untrue that "The Quran is the Word of God". So if these
features are present then it is true.
Has it
occurred to you that the statements were not meant to be logical proofs, but
presentation of evidence, or refutations, or defence against attack or
confirmations of belief?
Have you
considered that you may have misunderstanding the statement "The Quran is
the Word of God"? What you understand by "The Quran" and
"The Word of God" is not what others understand or what is originally
meant. Perhaps the statement is not literal, but symbolic. Perhaps it is an
"As if" statement. Perhaps it refers not to physical facts but to
meanings or significance, or to thought, experience or spiritual states.
Perhaps it is an instruction or a value statement.
Critic:-
It is
silly to assume that if a book helped unite the Arab tribes through threats of
hellfire and promises of a great life in paradise plus the booty and slave
girls that will be gained from attacking right and left, and a promise to even
defeat the legendary Romans and thus appealing to their national pride, must be
necessarily of divine origin. It is even sillier to accuse anyone for expecting
that such a book or anything else in the world will just disappear out of
sight, since such a thing is contrary to the laws of physics. Yet falsehoods
can be pointed out.
Comment:-
You are
speculating and we see that you are making a lot of assumptions. As you say
this is silly. Since when has Physics become a Scripture? Or is that your god?
Did you not know that much that is now discovered in physics owing to
Relativity and Quantum Theories was contrary to Physics as described by Newton?
Where in
Physics are the different states of consciousness explained. Since when have
statements based on ignorance become a virtue or acceptable truths.
Critic:-
Look at
the following false arguments:-
(1) All
books written by men necessarily contain contradictions.
(2) The
Koran does not contain any contradictions.
(3)
Therefore the Koran must be the Word of God.
(1) If a
book is written by men then people can not memorise it from cover to cover.
(2)
Millions of people memorise the Koran.
(3)
Therefore it must be the Word of God.
And so on.
Comment:-
I would
call the above examples of Pathetic Criticisms.
Were you
quite unable to understand the answer to your criticism?
A Muslim
accepts and believes that the Quran is the Word of God, because of perception
of the truth in it or a feeling in his heart or because of his upbringing. It
is his first premise. Arguments can be based on this:-
(1) The
Quran is the Word of God
(2) If it
is the Word of God it would not contain contradictions.
(3) There
are no contradictions in the Quran.
(1) The
Quran is the Word of God
(2) If it
is the Word of God it would not change.
(3) The
Quran has not changed.
(1) The
Quran is the Word of God.
(2) If it
is the Word of God many people would memorise it.
(3) Many
people do memorise it.
(1) The
Quran is the Word of God.
(2) If it
is the Word of God it could have come through an illiterate person.
(3) It did
come through an illiterate person.
(1) The
Quran is the Word of God.
(2) If it
is the Word of God it must come through a trustworthy person, not one who lies
about it.
(3) The
Quran did come through a person known to be truthful.
Critic:-
You say
that to rationally justify one's belief that the Koran is the Word of God one
must first accept that the Koran is the Word of God? Can you see circular
reasoning here?
Comment:-
I am sure
you know very well that a logical argument can only be valid when the truth of
any premise is established by perception. Logical arguments begin only after
you have chosen premises, and you can choose them to justify whatever goal you
have.
It is a
question of understanding, insight, inspiration or of affects on the heart that
the Quran is accepted as the Word of God. Rational arguments can follow from
that premise.
Another
Critic:-
I too find
it incredible that the Quran should be regarded as the Word of God, not written
by a man, wholly unbelievable in fact. It is much more likely that if Muhammad
was illiterate, then his friends wrote the "poetry" in his name,
rather like Francis Bacon who, many now believe, wrote on behalf of
Shakespeare.
Comment:-
You are
making false conclusions based on false assumptions and ignorance. There is
sufficient eye witness account that the Prophet recited the verses of the Quran
which others wrote down and memorised. Apart from that, as in the case of Bacon
and Shakespeare it is the work that count whatever names the supposed author is
given.
What a
person finds unbelievable or incredible depends on his assumptions and cannot
really concern others or the truth. Is it not a false argument:- "I find
it incredible, therefore it is false."
Critic:-
Your
remark about rejecting something based on it sounding incredible to the person
reminds me of the classical Teleological Argument for God: "Oh wow, look
at nature, the flowers and the trees, the perfect movement of planets, I find
it INCREDIBLE to believe all this happens without a Creator."
It also
reminds me of how people reject the theory of evolution because it sounds
INCREDIBLE.
Comment:-
This is
exactly the same position as yours: You find it incredible that the Quran is
the Word of God.
Can you
tell me what is wrong with these arguments?
The
assertion by the person is that:- he finds it incredible, which means that he
does not believe it. This may be because it does not fit in with his knowledge
or power of perception or thinking. So it depends on his capabilities.
As for the
Teleological Argument I accept it on the grounds that I have sufficient
evidence that Order is produced by ordering forces. When I see a nest, I know a
bird has made it. If I see patterns in the sand, I know the wind has made it
and so on. I find it wholly absurd that anyone can believe that things have
arisen without causes. So now refute my argument.
Critic:-
Have you
considered that the name "The Quran" is actually pointing at a book
that you can obtain from any bookstore? What can it mean to say that "the
Quran" is "symbolic"? Symbolic of what?
So if
"the Word of God" is not to be taken literally, then do you accept
that the Quran is not a revelation from God, but just wisdom of the ancients so
it is okay to refer to it as the "Word of God"? I can not see how you
can both have orthodox belief in Islam and have the phrase "Word of
God" symbolically. You can not have your cake and eat it too.
Comment:-
Have you
not understood that the Book you get from the Bookstore is a RECORD of what was
revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (saw) when in a certain state of
consciousness?
No I do
not accept what you say. It is the Word of God. Muslims do not think that God
is like a human being. Therefore, we do not think that His Word is like human
words. The Word of God refers to His creativity. To say that the Quran is the
Word of God is to say that it comes from an Objective source, that the Prophet
had contact with Reality owing to heightened consciousness.
You make
assumptions and then try to knock down your own assumptions. You have trapped
yourself. I find this wholly farcical, tragic as well as amusing.
Critic:-
The Quran
contains false arguments. Consider the SURA LIKE IT ARGUMENT:
P1 - If a
book is written by men than it is possible for any other man to write a portion
that is like it.
P2 - No
one ever succeeded in writing a chapter like the Koran.
C3 -
Therefore the Koran was not written by men.
Now this
argument has been attacked in various points, especially in
(a) The
ambiguity of the "likeness"
(b) Lack
of clarity on how many tried and failed to succeed, and who decided that they
failed
(c)
Whether up until now no one succeeded to produce a chapter like it proves that
no one else will in future.
But I want
to point at a more deadly flaw in the argument.....
Comment:-
The
trouble with your arguments is that you have not understood that the Quran is
not a work in Logic or Philosophy or Science or Poetry or Engineering or
Economics or Politics. It is about existence and about human function with
respect to it.
It is
about spiritual development, about rectification and enhancement of perception,
motivation and behaviour. It uses instructions, illustrations, similitudes,
symbolism, allegories, stimulations, appeals to consciousness, conscience and
will. The reader is required to observe, think, ponder, meditate and pray and
undertake the recommended religious discipline.
In view of
this understanding your criticisms are ridiculous. If you cannot read the Quran
according to its purposes then your opinions about it are wholly futile. They
cannot possibly impress Muslims or anyone who reads things more intelligently.
It is as
if a very naive Philosopher or scientist was given a piece of poetry and one
criticised it on grounds of logic and the other on grounds of literal facts. Or
a person given a medicine proceeded to criticise its structure instead of
taking it. Or a person given a fruit to give him nutrition, studied and
criticised the skin instead.
The
problem you are attempting to deal with is entirely your own. You are
rationalising, desperately trying to find excuses why you should not accept the
Quran. Some of us can see through these attempts. O.K. We understand that you
do not accept the Quran as the Word of God. There are many like you. Is that a
reason why others should not?
A Muslim:-
If you are going to use syllogistic logic to
demonstrate an argument against the
Quran then you must conform to its 'knowledge' rules, such as, for starters: (p
= proposition)
(1) The statement p must be true.
(2) We must believe that p is true.
Comment:-
This is a very good point.
But it should also be added that:-
(3) The statement is understood correctly as it was
meant to be understood. What do the words and phrases refer to?
(4) The field, level and the purpose of the statement
must also be understood. Something might be an instruction rather than a
statement of fact, or a condition, or something that is useful, an instrument,
technique or way of seeing or expressing something, or a suggestion, a
hypothesis or symbolism. It may refer to sense data, physical facts, meanings,
values, or experiences or to thoughts, concepts or images, or to feelings or
abstract spiritual things.
(5) The context, the whole Framework of Reference,
including the conceptual system must also be understood. The appropriate study,
training, education, discipline etc. must have taken place. The experiments, or
exercises, appropriate practices etc. should have been done under the correct
condition in order to gain the experiences and the data.
(6) The seeker must have the capacity for perception,
the correct motives and make the correct efforts.
(7) Ultimately things depend on the Will of Allah
which determines the historical and evolutionary context - physical, social,
and cultural environmental conditions and circumstances and the development and
capabilities of people in the times and places.
Another Muslim:-
Islam forces us to make belief at the start of one's
thinking. The challenge for man is that does he have the strength to take that
risk. The belief could be false or could be right, but is he willing to
gamble on it.
Comment:-
The idea of belief or faith in the Quran is different
from the ordinary or Western idea of it.
It is perfectly true that one needs to believe
something if it is to be regarded as true and that in order to lead a life and
do anything one does have to believe something. One also needs love of
something, even if it is as mild as interest, and one needs hope without which
there can be no conscious action (only reflex or impulsive ones). So faith,
love and hope are inter-connected and basic to human life.
In the Quran belief refers to something true. It must
be consistent with other experiences and with the knowledge built-in our own
inherent nature. Belief in what is not true is a Prejudice and like unbelief it
is regarded as a kind of disease. Doubt is a contradiction of something already
known. Doubt has the function or ought to have the function in a healthy
person, to activate us to dispel it by seeking truth.
There is a difference between Logic, Reason and
intelligence. Intelligence refers to the ability to adapt to Reality, and includes
perception, motivation and action. Reason is a small part of Intelligence and
refers to the ability to think, of data processing. Logic refers to verbal
reasoning according to certain rules and is only a small part of Reason.
Religion is concerned with adaptation to Reality, to Allah, and this,
therefore, refers to intelligence.
Muslim:-
It is true that in Islam, belief must be a reasonable
belief based on observations of one's own life, history, politics,
society, philosophy, art, literature, nature and so many other things. My point
is that God does not want us not to use our reason. But people speak of proving
God's existence. Such an argument puts Logic as the judge of truth and
falsehood. God will never allow to be judged by anyone. A God that can be
proved is not a God. It is for the unbelievers who worship Logic to prove that
Logic is to be worshipped and the Quran is false. The fact is that they can
never prove that.
Comment:-
God has placed in us the capacity to receive
inspiration, to reason and to experience through our senses. We are required to
use all three. We also need, apart from perception, correct motivation and correct actions
(which cause the reactions that provide data from which we learn.). If one does
not have love of truth and seek it, and if one does not do the kind of things
that will provide knowledge then we do not get knowledge. We must also apply
it.
True, that for some people Logic is god, for others it
is science or art or money or some other thing. There are all kinds of
idolaters. There are no Atheists only believers in false gods. For Muslims
Allah is the fundamental Reality. This does not require proving. If it did not
exist, nothing would. Therefore, existence - the Universe, matter, energy,
order, life, consciousness, the Messengers are all signs of God. They are
proofs.
Christian:-
How is a stranger who picks up and reads the Quran to
understand it and know that it is from God?
Answer:-
You study the Quran, you ponder, meditate and pray.
You do so with sincere motive and desire for enlightenment and you obey and
surrender.
“The dwellers
of the desert say: We believe. Say: You believe not, but rather say, 'We
submit'; for faith has not yet entered into your heart; and if you obey Allah
and His Messenger, He will not diminish aught of your deeds; surely Allah is
Forgiving, Merciful.” 49:14
Faith does not exist in the beginning. Many people
read passages in the Quran and are affected by it. They read on and are
converted. It all depends on the inner state a person is in, his efforts,
motives and on his circumstances. But ultimately it is Allah who guides those
who are sincere:-
"It is not your
duty (O Muhammad) to guide them; but Allah guides whom He will. 2:272
"Surely it is
for Us to collect it (the Quran) and to recite (or enact) it. Therefore when We
have recited it, follow its recitation.
Nay, more, it is for Us to explain (and clarify) it." 75:17-19
"When My
servants ask you concerning Me, then, verily, I am near; I listen to the prayer
of every suppliant when ever he calls to Me. So let them also, with a will,
listen to My call, and let them believe in Me; per chance (or possibly) they
may be directed aright." 2:186
"How can you
disbelieve while unto you are recited the revelations of Allah, and among you
is His Messenger? But whoever takes tight hold on Allah, he is guided into the Straight Way."
3:10
"O you who
believe! Respond unto Allah and His Messenger when He calls you to that which
quickens you; and know that Allah comes in between a man and his own heart; and
that He it is unto Whom you shall be gathered." 8:24
Critic:-
Several Western
Scholars of the Quran have shown that the Quran has changed since it was first
compiled, that we do not know what the original was and that there is much
obscurity and confusion in the Quran owing to the fact that the original ideas
were borrowed from Christianity but written using words in the Syriac language
not Arabic, that different parts of the Quran have different authors.
Comment:-
There is really no
evidence for these assertions.
(1) Firstly, as has
been pointed out before, the Quran is not an ordinary book in prose or poetry. Essentially
it is not a book of paper and ink, but a body of ideas that was originally a
recitation revealed over a period of time with respect to circumstances. These
have been transmitted down the ages by word of mouth and in the fabric of the
Muslim community and not just through the written word. It was meant to have a
spiritual effect - to produce a transformation of being, a certain awareness,
understanding, motivation and behaviour. Muslim read it, or ought to read it
from that point of view. Non-Muslims do not have that attitude and the book is
irrelevant to them in that respect.
(2) It is not
denied that various passages in the Quran are not understood by various people.
This varies according to their various capacities, attitudes and the efforts
they make. What they do not understand cannot have any effect on them, though
what they misunderstand can be damaging. In either case that is not the
Quran. There are Muslim scholars
who study the Quran from the above point of view. This is relevant to Muslims
and non-Muslim seekers. The non-Muslim scholars do not. Their opinions cannot
have any objective relevance (in the sense given above) either to Muslims or
non-Muslims, though there may be political, economic or other motives and
effects.
(3) It is necessary
to know exactly which passages the critic thinks are not understandable in
Arabic but make sense in Syriac. These different versions have to be assessed
as to whether they are consistent with the rest of the Quran or not. Some of
the instances of the reinterpretation I have come across show (a) that the
author did not understand the passage (b) that he took it out of its context
and (c) that his interpretation contradicted the rest of the Quran. It is
likely that the critic cannot understand the Arabic but prefers the Syriac
version because, unlike scientists and religious persons, he has no background
of experience that relevant practice brings, and to which his purely verbal
studies relate.
(4) The Quran
affirms that (i) the teachings in it are the same or similar to those that were
brought to mankind by previous Messengers from Allah, the Real, but also that
(ii) each of these including the Quran is a different formulation adapted to
the times and people and that (iii) it rectifies certain misunderstandings and
corruptions that have entered into these dispensations of Truth. But the
critics do not seem to understand this. They suppose that concepts and ideas
are "borrowed" or "copied" from other scriptures. So when
they find that there are differences between the Quran and these other
scriptures then this must be because they have been misunderstood. It does not seem
to have occurred to them that these ideas are in the Quran because (i) they are
true (ii) have been understood as true (iii) are relevant and useful for the
times and (iv) that things must be explained to people in terms and concepts
that are familiar to them. No study has been made of whether the Quran is
self-consistent or consistent with other systems as originally taught. The
critics also have failed to see that some of the ideas they read into the Quran
are not those to be found in these other scriptures but are corruptions taught
by modern sects.
(5) The idea that
there must be different authors for different passages is based on the fact
that there are different styles in different parts of the Quran. This does not
prove multiple authors. It is perfectly possible to change styles for different
purposes and moods.
(6) It is necessary
to show that the questionable passages were not the ones which the Prophet
Muhammad (saw) dictated to be put into the Quran, but that they got into the
Quran by mistake or deliberately when the fragments were collected into a book.
This does not, however, prove that the rest of the Quran is not preserved or
that the ideas in those passages are inconsistent with the rest of the Quran.
The verses of the Quran were memorised and recited from the very beginning and
it is highly unlikely that anything was introduced into the Quran that does not
belong to it, even when transliterated.
(7) If it cannot be
proved that these passages are additions or adulterations then they derive from
the Prophet. They are either revelations or something the Prophet added from
himself. This difference can not possibly be accepted because the non-believers
do not believe that they are revelations and the believer puts his faith in the
veracity of the Prophet that they are revelations and that his behaviour was
based on the revelations.
(8) It is highly
improbable that the Prophet would have left something in the Quran that was not
understandable. Though ideas exist in the Quran that are certainly in previous
scriptures and elsewhere this does not mean copying. It is perfectly possible
for different people to perceive the same thing, but to describe it in
different ways and it is also a personal thing to make a selection for
different purposes from among innumerable ideas, and to arrange and organise
them to produce something new. Inspiration and Revelation can well be
responsible for this.
(9) The Quran was
composed to be read and understood in a certain way. There are instructions in
the Quran as to how it should be read. If it is not read according to these
instructions then the result is not as given in point 1 above and what is being
read is NOT the Quran.
(10) The critic's
opinions are based on speculation and cannot be proved but are based on inappropriate
presuppositions and assumptions and probably also have ulterior motives behind
them. It is these that prevent the critics from understanding parts of the
Quran. Instead of taking this as being a result of their own false assumptions
they project it on to the Quran to say that it is obscure. They then proceed to
reinterpret the Quran according to their own whims and fantasies. For instance,
they see Christian doctrines such as the Vicarious Atonement and salvation
through the crucifixion of Jesus in the some verses of the Quran when, in fact,
this idea is wholly incompatible with the rest of the Quran.
(11) The critics
wish to apply meanings to the words in the Quran (a) which they are supposed to
have had in previous languages such as Syriac or Aramaic (b) or look or sound
similar to words in other languages (c) while ignoring their context in the
Quran. We know that all modern languages have words that are derived from
previous language or resemble words in other languages. But we also know that
their meanings and uses change and are different in different contexts. The
meaning of the words in the Quran must be studied by (a) comparing their use in
different parts of the Quran, (b) in the context of where they appear and (c)
with respect to the understanding of the people who read, use or deal with
them.
(12) It is well
known that the verses of the Quran have, and were meant to have multiple
meanings and that the interpretation of the verses differs with the capacity
for perception and insight of the readers. The fact that different commentators
give different meanings to the verses has been naively regarded by the critics
as proof that there is controversy and no agreed meaning to the verses and that
gives them the right to give them their own interpretation even when it
contradicts the rest of the Quran.
(13) A system of
ideas is understood correctly by persons who have experience of it when applied
and within an environment in which it is applied. This is because this engages
the total person, his intellect, feelings and actions. It is, therefore, widely
understood that a science is best understood by the scientist who works in that
science and not by non-scientists who have no training and experience in it and
that business is understood by businessmen. The same applies to Religion. Those
who do not apply and practice the Quran cannot be regarded as true scholars of
it.
(14) Those who have
made a correct study of the Quran find it to be a comprehensive self-consistent
system. The criticisms of it that that flout that self-consistency must be
rejected as in any other system of thought. They are speculations based on
inadequate knowledge.
(15) Human actions
depend on their capabilities for perception and on motives and experiences. To
judge a work it is necessary to know these facts about them. Do these critics,
who probably have ulterior motives such as a desire for sensationalism,
political approval or an anti-Islamic agenda, really expect Muslims to read the
Quran according to the critic's criteria instead of those given in the Quran?
----------<O>----------
Contents