Charlie Hebdo Terror Attack: Nothing to do with Islam, but something to do with the Imams.

You can read and hear a range of reactions from the public on the Charlie Hebdo terror attack. All sane voices, Muslims and others have condemned it.

 

Muslims will say that this is a terrible atrocity. Some will use it as yet another proof that ISIS and Al-Qaeda have nothing to do with Islam.

 

 

Our moderate leaders and organizations will condemn it as an attack on free speech. Most of them will also say that this has nothing to do with Islam. Far-right groups, religious bigots and populist columnists will blame Islam, Muslims and Immigration policies for the attack.

 

 

And then there are two groups which will use this as another ‘told you so’ moment to further their agenda of hatred and intolerance.

 

 

On one hand, we have the perpetrators of the attack and their supporters, who believe that their religion justifies such violence. They would say that Charlie Hebdo’s cartoonists had crossed all bounds when they mocked the Prophet of Islam and their religion in such derogatory cartoons over the years. They had it coming.

 

 

The other group, the militant atheists will say that all religion including Islam are backward and superstitious. Their pontiff-in-chief Richard Dawkins says that not all religions are violent, only Islam is. And yes, Charlie Hebdo and their likes had it coming because our society is too scared to insult or ban Islam.

 

 

Blame the religion of course. How logical! 

 

 

I am going through the back catalogue Charlie Hebdo’s cartoon covers. I never saw one of them before, and do not wish to be subjected to such vulgarity again. It is a veritable collection of cheap humour masquerading as journalism. Graffiti has a place in human history, but it belongs to the doors and walls of public toilets, not on your local news stand.

 

 

Why would anyone need to insult a religion is beyond me. But if they want to do so, I would rather be reading, viewing or listening to something less offensive.

 

 

But there are those who are compelled to mock and ridicule the ideas they don’t like. 

 

You can mock politicians for their behavior or policies. You can ridicule a celebrity for the latest fad they are into. Or you can make poignant observations through the medium of cartoons to draw your viewer’s attention to a controversial subject. And there are no limits to what you want to express. From the sublime to the blasphemous, you can do what you like. As a viewer or a reader, I can choose not to read or view such works. As a Muslim, this is what Quran tells me to do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I will be very curious to learn the views of certain Imams of mosques of various denominations in the UK on this subject. I suspect that a majority of them would rather not express themselves honestly in the media. The truth is very uncomfortable to both these Imams and those politicians who go to them begging for votes every election season.

 

Most orthodox Muslim scholars do support very draconian punishments for the act of blasphemy. 

 

This has to change. Quran does not consider blasphemy as a crime. It is a sin of course, the punishment of which if not repented, will be in the afterlife.

 

 

 

But if you look at certain interpretations of some well-known scholars, and you will be surprised that their opinions contradict the Quran.

 

Mufti Obaidullah Qasmi of Darul Uloom Deoband  writes

 

‘The death punishment assigned for blasphemy is agreed by all Islamic scholars of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah and, is normally covered in Kitabul Hudud in Islamic juridical texts’.

 

 

Deoband school of though is followed by a large number of Muslims from the Indian sub-continent.

 

The more ‘moderate’ Barelvi sect which makes up a large proportion of the Immigrant Pakistani Diaspora in Britain is no different.

 

Sadanand Dhume of the Wallstreet Journal observes in a recent news report

 

‘ Clerics from Pakistan’s majority Barelvi stream of Islam—widely regarded as more tolerant than the rival Deobandi school associated with the Taliban—are among the loudest defenders of the country’s blasphemy laws.’

 

 

Pakistan’s blasphemy laws condemn the accused to death by hanging.

 

 

Same is true for the wide range of Sunni and Shia sects which have sway over the Muslim world.

 

 

Such interpretations of Quran which ignore its actual content but rely on the various medieval interpretations imposed upon it through the centuries have to be rejected. Ahmadiyya Muslim movement has denounced such notions of violence in the name of religion for many decades now. And it is heartening to see more and more Muslims coming closer to our way of understanding the Quran.

 

 

I am happy that our Muslim friends will stand up and condemn this horrendous and murderous attack, but please also ask the Imams and clerics in your mosques to denounce the ideas of punishments for blasphemy and apostasy in their Friday sermons.

 

 

For Muslims, this is another opportunity to think and question their faith leaders. This menace and hatred ISIS and Al-Qaeda have manifested in their extreme acts may need to be rooted out form their own mosques and homes first.

Quran and the West - A history of prejudice.

When UKIP’s Lord Pearson says that Muslims should address the violence in the Quran, he is most definitely not pretending to be ignorant. He should know that there is a counter narrative available for those who wish to listen; that of a peaceful, non-political Islam in which Quran and the Sunnah (conduct of the Prophet of Islam) still hold a central, fundamental position.

Even Lord Pearson’s critics can’t help but defend his ‘intellectual’ message.

Andrew Brown says that in a ‘literal sense’ the Quran does contain an ‘unpleasant and violent political message’. I wonder what exactly he means by the phrase ‘in a literal sense’. What is literal? Is it ‘taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or exaggeration.’ as Google informs us?

Or in the case of the Quran it must mean contextomizing the text?. i.e., the literal reading of the Quran which teaches its readers a violent political message can only be done if each ‘problem’ verse is read in its usual and most basic sense… without any context: Both historic and textual.

Let us discuss a bit of historic context.

The first contact of the Muslims with the West was a hostile one. The Byzantine Empire shrank and eventually retreated under the onslaught of Muslim armies from the time of Umar, the second Caliph. Since then, misrepresenting Islam has become an age old western tradition.

We have a Greek-Syriac text from the time of Umar which informs its readers of a ‘false prophet of the Saracens’ whose armies have invaded Palestine.

That was an inevitable, unavoidable war. Empires did not suffer barbarian tribes for too long before sending armies to neutralize them. But these were no barbarians. They were a society of converts to a religion which taught morality and required its followers to proselytize it to the world. A clash was inevitable. And for the Byzantines, it resulted in a defeat.

By now you must be wondering why I am digressing from the issue of context to the problematic Quranic verses. If you want that discussion, pick up a copy of the Quran and a book on the Sira of the Prophet.

I want to discuss the historical context of these periodic statements put out by politicians and academics about revising the Quran, discarding some of it, denouncing it, even banning it. That is the real problem here.

So where were we? Yes, Islam’s encounters with the Byzantine empire...

Centuries later, by the time Islamic civilization was in decline, Orientalist missionaries started producing literature on Islam. They belonged to many denominations of the Christian faith, but had one thing in common. They could not bear to accept any virtues in the Holy Prophet or his message.

According to them the rise of Islam had nothing to do with the actual message of the Quran. Socio-economically speaking, Islam was a product of an Arab renaissance of sorts. With a culture in love with its language and tribes taking pride in their poets – A nation was aching to unite under a cause to challenge the Byzantine and Persian Empires who had dismissed them as illiterate nomads for too long.

Add to the mix a poet who aspired to be a prophet the same as those who came to the Israelites.

D C MacDonald writes about how Quran came into being;

‘Muhammad’s brain had for long been treasuring up such things (sic. segments of Old Testament); but treasuring them up with the most singular, most unparalleled inaccuracy; and then making them over with the utmost freedom of imagination.’

Take SW Koelle for example, another 19th century Orientalist who faithfully reproduces passage after passage from Ibn e Ishaq’s Sira while commenting on the person of the Prophet with the aim to negate any heroic quality that was apparent or implied in those writings.

In the 17th Century, George Sale translated the Quran into English and in his opening notes introduced it as ‘the Book what that false prophet very grosly invented’.

Title page of Sale's translation of the Quran

With such a rich history of academic prejudice, no wonder that the western scholarship never could look at the Quran in a neutral light. They hated and feared both the book and its bearers.

The same thought process has been inherited by the present day Orientalist-Historians. No longer burdened by Christian faith, they do not want to glorify Christ the Saviour and demean all the false prophets who came after him. But because Islam challenges the perceived notions of those who research it with an open mind, it does take a lot of effort to oppose it.

The first reaction is to reject the text as a forgery; something post-scripted to fit a changing geo-political landscape of Arabia. Any parallels with the older scriptures are considered plagiarisms and interpolations by unknown editors of the Quran. Any departures from the Bibilical narratives are just mistakes and evidence that the author of the Quran must have taken any apocryphal stories and adopted them for their new book.

Patricia Crone accepts that the Quran was indeed uttered by a person called Muhammad, but she is not convinced if Mecca ever existed. Similar doubts have been raised by Tom Holland in his recent work. Another attempt to discredit the Quran was made by Luxenberg,who thinks that it originated as a Syriac text outside of Arabia and transformed into classic Arabic over a period of time.

One of the new theories states that Islam was in fact a doomsday cult which just carried on growing. Early Muslims were awaiting the Armageddon imminently. Maybe this explains the fanaticism of the Muslim armies who conquered the world.

 

However, the message of the Quran, its conviction on absolute justice, equality of human kind, rights of women and social justice, has all been ignored due to prejudice. Muslims did not come out of Arabia with a nationalist cause; they came out because they had something to share with the world. And they made sure the world knew of this treasure - the Quran.

We cannot deny that there is a problem with the Muslim world today. It is a problem of literal reading: but not of the Quran itself. It is of the disparate Hadith texts which require even more context and validations than the Quran. The creed of Salafis and Wahabis, the two factions of Sunni Islam providing almost all the fighters in ISIS and Al-Qaeda, are Hadith-centric. i.e. They believe the Quran to be the word of God, but they dare not understand its words without a Hadith reference. This means that if a verse’s explanation is not accompanied by an alleged explanation by the prophet himself or his esteemed companions, or those who came immediately after them - it is not a valid interpretation.

In fact, in Orthodox Sunni Islam, the Quran has been the secondary source of doctrinal authority for many centuries.

This approach restricts the understanding of the Quran to a particular era of history which is only remembered for its violence. Nations were at war with each other, slavery was still a common practice and society was still being ruled by very tribal traditions. The ideas of citizenship, loyalty and national identities were very different then.

 

In fact it was the Quran which spurred on the Muslim civilizations around the world to take huge leaps in philosophy, science, arts and culture which benefited the whole of mankind.

How strange it must be to live in the 21st century; in the era of the Internet and smartphones and idealizing a medieval lifestyle at the same time.

So the next time someone blames Quran for the punishment of beheadings and hanging for apostasy, blasphemy and heresy, or stoning to death for adultery or homosexuality, please remember that Quran does not prescribe such punishments at all.

This debate on how to interpret Quran has been going on among theMuslims for many centuries, and it will continue for the time to come. But if history has taught us anything, it is that reform is an ongoing process which may take centuries.

The problem is not the Quran, it never has been. The problem has been those who twisted the meanings of the Quran to create suspicions, and those who ignored its message. And above all, those Muslims who were given this gift and they chose to replace it with the opinions of men.

'There should be no compulsion in religion'

Mariam Yehya Ibrahim Ishag is a Christian who is facing the death penalty in Sudan for the crime of apostasy. Mariam claims that she never was a Muslim, bur raised as a Christian from her childhood. I admire her courage for standing firm on her faith and refusing to bow to the immense pressure she has been put under by the Sudanese authorities. I also hope that the judicial system in Sudan sees some sense and drops all charges against her. Whoever she choses to marry regardless of her faith or that of her husband is no business of the state.

This judgment is inhumane, un-Islamic and beyond doubt, an insult to the Quran and the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

As always, such incidents generate a lot of media attention, and rightly so. Thankfully there are people in this world who give their time and energies for the sake of freedom and human rights. But sadly there are also those who take this as an opportunity to push ahead with their anti-Islam agenda under the cover of protest.

According to Elizabeth Kendal, a Canberra-based Christian rights activist, the death sentence for Mariam Yahya is in accordance with Islam and must be condemned as Islam's 'inherent inhumanity'. She further states that the real reason for the exponential growth of Islam is due to its apostasy laws.

The article in question also makes some fantastic assumptions about Islam.

Lets begin with her comment on the Quranic verse 13:15.

'And to Allah prostrates whoever is within the heavens and the earth, willingly or by compulsion, and their shadows [as well] in the mornings and the afternoons.'

According to Kendal, this verse is the evidence that Quran supports compulsion in the matter of faith.

The particular passage of Quran in question is describing the Majesty of God. i.e., everything in the universe follows the laws He has created, just like the shadows which submit to the movement of the sun in the mornings and in the evenings. There is no mention of apostasy here.

In fact, Quran does not deal with any worldly punishment for people who abandon their faith in Islam.

There is an unequivocal commandment in the Holy Quran 'There should be no compulsion in religion' (2:256) which should remove any doubts about the Islamic position on this matter.

But Kendal finds another concept in the Quran which proves that the Sudanese court is following the true Shariah.

She states that apostasy is equal to 'Fitnah' which according to the verse 2:217 is worse than killing. This surely means that apostates must be killed.

Lets start with the word 'Fitnah' first. According to this verse, Fitnah is

'but to hinder men from the way of Allah, and to be ungrateful to Him and to hinder men from the Sacred Mosque, and to turn out its people therefrom..'

i.e., stopping Muslims from performing pilgrimage and declaring war on them is the 'Fitnah'.

Thus, Fitnah clearly means Persecution.

The verse further states that 'and persecution (Fitnah) is worse than killing.’

And what of the persecutors, the Meccan chiefs who had vowed to finish Islam and a handful of its followers? The verse continues,

'And they will not cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith, if they can.'

And what happens to any apostates?

'And whoso from among you turns back from his faith and dies while he is a disbeliever, it is they whose works shall be vain in this world and the next. These are the inmates of the Fire and therein shall they abide.'

i.e., their fate rests is with their Lord in the afterlife. No worldly punishment has been recommended for them whatsoever. In fact the verse guarantees them the freedom to live out their life in disbelief.

Kendal then tries to use the next source of Islamic jurisprudence, the Hadith, sayings of the Holy Prophet Muhammad to prove that he founded a totalitarian religion which should be feared by the world.

For example she quotes a Hadith, '

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him'

Firstly, the narration is highly dubious and has been rejected as weak or even fabricated by many scholars, and secondly the Hadith in question has been mistranslated by inserting the word 'Islamic' which doesn't exist in the original text. One argument which has been used to dismiss this narration as a fabrication is that if it the commandment was taken based on the actual text, no one would be allowed to change their faith. i.e., a person converting to Islam would deserve death as much as someone apostasizing from Islam.

There is no sound basis for any penalties for apostasy in Hadith literature. Many jurists and classical scholars have made the error of equating apostasy with treason and declaration of war; an error which should have been rectified long time ago. But thanks to the medievalist regimes that still exists in many Islamic countries, we find ourselves lamenting the plight of human rights there almost on a daily basis.

Unfortunately, the scattered and disconnected leadership of the orthodox sects of Islam is still busy pushing the Muslims back into the dark ages. Such judgements against religious freedom only expose their insecurities about their own faith and its place in the modern world. It is astonishing to see them openly contradicting the clear commandments of the Quran and the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him).

But people like Kendal are also guilty of misleading their readers about their own religious texts and the skeletons (often stoned to death) hidden in them. Unlike the Quran which allows complete religious freedom, the Bible is very clearly against such notions.

For example Deuteronomy says;

'but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the Lord your God'

Many Christians may object to this as not applicable to them anymore, but St. Paul wasn't so fond of apostates himself. He condemned them to death too, and the Church complied gladly for many centuries.

What the contemporary orthodox Islam is suffering from is the same malaise which the medieval Christianity suffered for a long time; a departure from the source of guidance and the politicization of religion. If anything, such punishments are only the artefacts of Judeo-Christian ideas which seeped into the Islamic thought during the early centuries of Muslim expansion.

I belong to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, which has been striving to correct such errors for more than a century. Under the guidance of the Khalifatul Masih, Ahmadiyya Muslims are working tirelessly to educate not only their fellow Muslims, but other communities as well, about the true and peaceful message of Islam.

I advise Elizabeth Kendal to seek the correct information about the real message of the Quran and help the persecuted Christians like Mariam by putting forward a logical and forceful argument against those transgressors who claim to follow Islam. There is nothing more logical and forceful than the Word of God.

'There should be no compulsion in religion'.

Further Reading: Punishment of Apostasy in Islam, by Sir. Muhammad Zafrulla Khan

In the Shadow of the Sword IV- Crone, Holland and the despots:The C4 Documentary.



Abd al-Malik constructedthe Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem Courtesy: Wikipedia



Having watched the C4 documentary based on Tom Holland’s book I am none the wiser and I find myself asking the same question as many of my Muslim friends. What was it all about?

Patricia Crone’s annoying smugness made it a difficult viewing. It was hard to sympathize with Mr. Holland’s earnest efforts to be original as Crone and her ilk have chosen the age-old orientalism of ignoring the obvious.

According to Holland and Crone, Islam went through a sustained period of evolution after the demise of its founder. The Arabs conquered the fertile lands and sought to convert the locals through amalgamating their new faith with that of the Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians. Their focus is squarely on the machinations of Islamic conquests during the Umayyad times. A time of ascention for Arabs politically, but of theological confusion for the Muslim masses.

Crone’s book ‘Hagerism: The Making of the Islamic World’ cites the first non-Islamic reference to the existence of the Prophet of Islam (pbuh) from Doctrina Jacobi written a couple of years after his death. The reference is indirect, and the narrators unsound based on the quality of the text. But it refers to the Prophet (pbuh) as a warrior and his message was the news of a Messiah to come. The narrator, a Jew by the name of Abraham makes enquiries about the ‘Saracen Prophet’ and concludes from the information that this prophet prefers wars and bloodshed, so he could not be a prophet. Also, being a Jew he treats the coming of the “anointed one” as a significant finding.

Crone, an ‘unbiased’ academic should have done better than poor Abraham. But she calls the Muslim conquest of Palestine under Caliph Umar (ra) a Messianic campaign. The fact is, Muslim tradition also foretells of a Muslim Messiah to appear in the latter days. Quran tells Muslims to expect their Messiah to appear at the time of their spiritual and moral decline (11:18, 61:7, and 62:4). The same Quran also repeats time and again that it is the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) who is the best example, the Seal of Prophets, the bringer of the final revelation, the Mercy on all mankind; his people are called the best of peoples and his religion (deen) the complete way of life. So coming of a Messiah could wait for Muslims until the moral and spiritual decline. Surely a man of Umar’s stature, one of the scribes of Quran and the most highly regarded Sahabi (companion of the Prophet) could not claim to be that Messiah. That would be tantamount to admitting failure, merely two years after the message was completed.

But in early Islamic history, there were internal conflicts where rumors second coming of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) were spread and also the return of the assassinated fourth Caliph, Ali (ra). The existence of such stories in early Islamic history does prove a significant Judeo-Christian influence on early Islamic thought. But Quran, the core of all Islamic beliefs and the perfectly preserved scripture not only debunked such rumors during the early days, but also refutes the orientalists of our times. Umayyads, with all their wealth and influence could not produce a reliable claimant for the Mahdi, the Muslim Messiah. If Islamic faith was so pliable in those early days, surely the Umayyads would have greatly benefited from having Divine Sanction. In fact, we do find evidence of fabricated Ahadith to support one dynasty or the other, but Quran is free from such interpolations. If we could draw a parallel with Christianity, dynastic Muslim rulers failed to match St. Paul's success in re-interpreting and even adding to the original scriptures.

Arabs were poor recorders of history. Their history was an oral tradition of poetry. Some of which was written down. We are talking about Arabs of the late antiquity here. A people who did not read or write, did not mint coins and did not indulge in drawing frescoes and writing letters to each other. So we can rely on the earliest written evidence on the origins of Islam, which was spoken by Muhammad (pbuh) and written by his scribes; The Quran.

As far as I know both Crone and Holland accept that Quran was ‘uttered’ by a person called Muhammad (pbuh). They may dispute his location (Mecca or somewhere else), but they cannot dispute its authenticity as the scripture handed over to early Muslims from their prophet. I have discussed this in more details here.

Both Crone and Holland quickly jump to the nearest despots history could offer i.e., the Umayyads. Fortunately, not many Muslims get their religious inspirations from them. Early Islamic scholarship has always been at odds with the ruling classes. Both Umayydis and later Abbasids had suppressed the direct descendants of the Prophet (pbuh) and independent scholars like Abu Hanifa and Ahmad ibn Hanbal as well. Whatever Marwan did in Jerusalem, was done by an Arab-Umayyad who happened to be Muslims.

The best source of Islamic beliefs is the Quran; the historical artifact, the best evidence of the existence of the Prophet (pbuh) and the best method to verify the Hadith accounts. So it is no surprise that Tom Holland did not discuss the Quran in his documentary. He cited it a couple of times in passing, but there is much more in it then the mention of olives and grapes and the town of Bakkah. Surely, Quran has far more to offer than only geographical maps Arabia.

Silver Jubilee of the Yiddish Quran

Muslim sect celebrates 25 years since Koran translated into Yiddish


Group's Israeli leader says aim was to show different face of Islam.

By Revital Hovel
Aug.28, 2012
2:08 AM Courtesy: Haaretz.com  

Ahmadiyya Muslim Community leader Muhammad Sharif Odeh with the Yiddish text in Haifa in August 2012. 'We had to make sure our neighbors could read the Koran too.' Photo by Haggai Frid

Members of a Muslim sect that translated parts of the Koran into Yiddish are marking 25 years since that translation was published.

The president of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in Israel, Muhammad Sharif Odeh, said the group translated select parts of the Koran into Yiddish in order to present a different face of Islam. In addition, said Odeh, "We decided we had to make sure that our neighbors could also read the Koran."

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is the only Islamic community that believes the Messiah has come. Adherents believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, born in 1835, was the "metaphorical second coming of Jesus ... whose advent was foretold by the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad," according to the website. "God sent Ahmad, like Jesus, to end religious wars, condemn bloodshed and reinstitute morality, justice and peace," say believers.

There are some 2,000 Ahmadiyya Muslims in Israel; most of them reside in Haifa's Kababir neighborhood. The sect says it has tens of millions of followers in more than 200 countries.

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community translated parts of the Koran into Yiddish in 1987. The sect chose Yiddish, one of 100 languages into which it has translated parts of the sacred book of Islam, so that "Yiddish speakers who wanted to know about us would be able to do so without language being an obstacle," Odeh explained.

The decision to translate the Koran into Yiddish was made by the community's religious leader at the time, the fourth Caliph, Mirza Tahir Ahmad, who was living then in Pakistan. The current Caliph, the fifth, Mirza Masroor Ahmad, resides in the United Kingdom.

Odeh said the particular selections that were translated show that Islam is "not the way it is presented in Afghanistan." He noted, for example, "Before the Koran, women did not have rights. The Koran gives women full protection on the spiritual level and gives her an independent status." Odeh has been head of the local Ahmadiyya community for 13 years.

Most Israelis know little about the sect, which is considered peaceful and non-proselytizing. Haifa Mayor Yona Yahav has gone so far as to call them "Reform Arabs." The community's motto is "Love for all, hatred for none."

"You don't hear about us because we don't throw rocks at buses," Odeh said. "We believe that nothing can be achieved through hatred and hostility." He said he is very worried about the talk of a possible war with Iran, and that the Caliph recently appealed to all world leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to avoid a war. "Netanyahu didn't respond, Queen Elizabeth actually did," Odeh reported.

Odeh said the concept of secularism is foreign to the Ahmadiyya community. "Everyone prays, some come to the mosque and others pray at home." Believers express their faith in concrete ways as well. Wealthier members tithe at least 10 percent of their monthly income to the community; everyone else gives six percent. The sect does not accept government funds, on principle. One quarter of the money collected from local members is passed on to fund the sect's international activities.

Kababir is considered a mixed neighborhood, with a significant minority of Jews in addition to the Ahmadiyya majority, and city officials view it as a model of coexistence.

"Haifa is an example par excellence of living together," Odeh said, adding, "It's not coexistence, it's monoexistence, as it were. What is coexistence? In my view it's when everyone keeps their distinctiveness and does not seek to assimilate. Residents of the neighborhood don't feel different, it's a matter of education, that's the idea of Ahmadiyya." According to Odeh, there is a growing trend of West Bank Palestinians joining the Ahmadiyya community.

"Ideology is not fought with weapons," he said. "Even if you're under occupation Islam does not allow you to hurt others. Nothing can be solved with hatred."

In the Shadow of the Sword II; Quran and Sana'a manuscripts



A segment of the "Sana'a Papyrus"



Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem: In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful; This verse appears in Quran 114 times, at the beginning of each Surah or chapter apart from one exception. Surah Tauba (Chapter 9) starts without this verse. But Bismillah, as this verse is commonly referred to, also appears in the middle of another Surah. Completing 114 appearances in Quran, equaling the total number of Chapters in it. An interesting trivia which I learnt as a child growing in a Muslim household.

While reading Tom Holland’s “In the shadow of the sword” it never occurred to me that the total number of “Bismillah’s” in Quran will have any relevance to his critique of the origins of Islam. The book itself is a very interesting read. The author has complete mastery over the era which saw the end of the glory days of both Roman and Persian empires. Be it Peroz’s last ditch attempt to regain lost prestige of the house of Sassan, or Justinian’s endeavors to bring Rome back into the Roman Empire, the book paints a picture so well defined and detailed as far as Romans and Persians are concerned. But when it comes to Mecca, Mr. Holland resorts to broad brush strokes. He laments the lack of historic evidence, ruins, engravings, coinage etc. but still assumes so much based on what little “secular” evidence exists.

So, what of the authenticity of Quran? Tom Holland observes that the paradise of Quran sounds very similar to the Greek myths. Why are there so many frequent references to agriculture, olives etc? Could it be that the author(s) of Quran had an eye on the Fertile Crescent, or even better, was it written in Mesopotamia? To a Muslim, such questions are obviously bordering the ridiculous, but a secular reader should also be taken aback by the naivety of such fantastic assumptions.

Mr. Holland’s assertion that Quran is not as infallible and unchanged as Muslims would like to believe because

a. There is no evidence that Quran ever existed as a single text during the life of the Prophet of Islam (pbuh) and

b. The Sana’a manuscripts, discovered in 1970s have evidence that Quran was revised and amended.

As for the first argument, it can be said that the author has willingly ignored the distinctly oral tradition of the Arabs. The fact that thousands of verses of classic Arab poets were preserved without much adulteration in pre-Islamic Arabia: The fact that even in this day and age, millions of Muslims have memorized the full text of the Quran, and can recite it whole without consulting a paper copy.

And when it comes to Sana’a manuscripts, Mr. Holland gets a bit overexcited due to the knee jerk Muslim reaction to the German scholar in charge of the restoration of the Sana’a scrolls. Gerd Puin stated that the scrolls were re-written where various alterations were made to the spellings and order of the verses. Also, in his opinion Quran is not a clear book, its vague and may contain texts from before the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Tom Holland has taken a similar stance in his book. But Sadeghi-Gourdarzi critique of Puins’ work (Gerd’s wife published more material recently) debunks the theory that Quranic text has been inconsistent and also confirms the mainstream Muslim understanding of how Quran was compiled and its recitation standardized. If anything at all, Sana’a scrolls are a testament to the early Islamic efforts to ensure Quran was preserved on paper (Papyrus) and disseminated far and wide for the new converts. Sana’a scrolls were washed and re-written with the Mushaf-e-Uthman. And residual traces of old ink show the older version of Quran where many words were spelled differently and some verses/surahs were in different order.

One thing struck me while reading the research on the manuscripts. Scholars working on a particular section of the manuscripts found that they were looking the earliest written version of the end of the 8th and beginning of the 9th Surah. There was no Bismillah written at the beginning of the 9th Surah. So in addition to finding no textual contradictions (additions or deletions) between the Sana’a scrolls and the modern day Quran, there is consistency in minutest details which takes us back to the time of the Prophet of Islam (pbuh). For those insterested I would recommend looking into the "absent" Bismillah before Surah Tauba, which links the revelation of the Surah with cetain events int he life of the Prophet (pbuh). Regardless of what Tom Holland thinks of the authenticity Hadith and Seerah literature, this evidence alone can refute the myth of the "authored Quran".

In his book, Tom Holland also poses a number of other questions which I will address in near future. InshaAllah

In the shadow of the sword

I recently heard a radio interview of Tom Holland speaking about his new book, In the shadow of the sword, which presents his own interpretation of the origins of Islam. From what Mr. Holland said, it appears that he was very excited to present to the world this new idea that Islam borrowed heavily from older religions. The assertion is that Makkah, a town in the middle of the desert could not produce a man who could write such elegant prose.  

For a secular/atheist writer and researcher, arriving at such a conclusion does not require in-depth research. This is how the world works. Empires rise and fall, major centres of learning produce big poets and philosophers. Major civilizations attract the scholars and scientists to their cities. Anyone unconvinced by the Divine origins of any world religion should have doubts on the authenticity of any Holy Book.

But for me, Quran is the word of God, and it proves itself to be so. It does not need interpretation of historical events and what was happening around the world to prove its authenticity. Any book claiming to be the Word of God should have the evidence of its authencity within it.

So, in an unknown town in the middle of the desert, a man proclaims to be God’s prophet, just as Moses was a prophet to Israelites. Quran not only acknowledges this link, but also tells the Muslims that they must learn from the mistakes of the Jews and Christians. Quran also claims to be the continuity and culmination of the same message which was sent from the One God to all the nations and tribes before. So any similarity and resemblance between Islam and other world faith is not coincidental at all, but very deliberate. Islam is to the world faiths what human beings are to the rest of life on this planet. We share the same roots, but we evolved into better forms over the years.

Take the Islamic ritual of daily prayers. Muslims stand still, bow down, kneel, prostate, sit in submission with heads bowed, hands folded etc. etc. All done during the same prayer. You can find a hint of all faiths in this ritual.

Just like Hindus, Muslims believe in many attributes of God. Just like Buddhism, Islamic philosophy teaches to suppress the ego to find One True God. Just like the Zoroastrianism, Islam focuses on the fight between the good self and the evil self within us. Just like Judaism, Islam teaches to fast and pray on regular times during the day. Just like Christianity, Islam tells us to forgive and be meek and humble.

My point is, Muslims already know that Islam shares many values, rituals and ideas with the older religions. It is because all faiths came from the same God, who over many millennia sent His Guidance to mankind still getting to grips with its new found evolutionary superiority.

Anything to do with documented history will not resolve this question. Let us examine the content of Quran. If it stands the test, it is real, authentic Word of God. If it doesn’t, it is a fabrication, a work of elegant prose if you like.

There are many verses which I can quote. But I will only mention a few. I will not even attempt to interpret them. But please feel free to tell me which city in the world 1500 years ago had the knowledge such as I quote below?

 

We created them and strengthened their make; and when We will so decide, We will change their form to something completely different. (76:29)

 

Woe to every backbiter, slanderer,

Who amasses wealth and counts it over and over.

He imagines that his wealth will make him immortal.

Nay! he shall surely be cast into the "hotamah". (tiniest of the particles)

And what should make thee know what the "hotamah" is?

Allah's fire as preserved fuel,

Which will leap suddenly on to the hearts.

It is locked up in outstretched pillars to be used against them.(104:2-10)

 

Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together,

then We clove them asunder and We created every living thing out of the water.

Will they not then believe? (21:30)

 

And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with Might,

and it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an 51:47)

 And after him We said to the Children of Israel, 'Dwell Ye in the promised land; and when the time of the promise of the Latter Days come, We shall bring you together out of various people. (17:105)