Friday, January 14, 2022

The 3 concepts of Jihad

To understand the concept of physical struggle/jihad, we have to analyze the context of its use in the times of the last prophet and before.

It is the unalterable law of God that when He sends a messenger in a people, these particular people are left with no option, but to hearken His warnings and calls during an interval of time whose expiry can not be hastened nor delayed except by Allah 15:5,16:61,53:58. Allah states about this period that His messengers show the community, starting from the leaders in mischief greatly responsible for the general moral degradation of their people down to the poorest and most insignificant elements of the community 17:16,73:11 the signs of the truth in the heavens and earth, as well as in their own deepest selves 41:53,51:27 to the point that the people must recognize it and mend their evil ways. 

They are seized with affliction or tried with a sign from God when they reject the messenger 11:52-60,64-68 sent to them in order to humble themselves and mend their ways 7:94. They are urged to reason and ask for God's forgiveness lest the fate of past sinful nations each greater than other in might 43:8, befalls them. They all received God's messengers with the bayinat ie the undeniable evidence, but on account of persistent rejection, were all uprooted by a grasp so encompassing and violent that it is pictured as beginning from their foundations up 
16:26,40:22,18:55,22:42-8"And if they reject you, then already before you did the people of Nuh and Ad and Samood reject (prophets). And the people of Ibrahim and the people of Lut, As well as those of Madyan and Musa (too) was rejected, but I gave respite to the unbelievers, then did I overtake them, so how (severe) was My disapproval. So how many a town did We destroy while it was unjust, so it was fallen down upon its roofs, and (how many a) deserted well and palace raised high. Have they not travelled in the land so that they should have hearts with which to understand, or ears with which to hear? For surely it is not the eyes that are blind, but blind are the hearts which are in the breasts. And they ask you to hasten on the punishment, and Allah will by no means fail in His promise, and surely a day with your Lord is as a thousand years of what you number. And how many a town to which I gave respite while it was unjust, then I overtook it, and to Me is the return". 
Mankind is continuously encouraged to research and analyse the history of past nations, unavoidably seeing in it the divine pattern. History is the only extensive evidential base for the contemplation and analysis of how societies function. Proper contemplation of that evidence leads to moral reform, providing a background for one to test his own moral sense against that of individuals and societies of the past when faced with similar situations. The past causes the present, and so the future.

This shows that even in this life, the Creator's relationship with man is not merely based on the physical law, as with other creatures devoid of moral accountability and freewill. The moral law is working side by side with it. Sometimes that higher reality is clearer than at other times, and the clearest manifestation of it is during the times of the prophets. Past nations to whom messengers were sent become means by which the evidence for the hereafter is presented. If moral acts have results in this world, and these results never manifest fully in the world, then it necessitates that another world must exist where the consequences of sin and righteousness will fully appear.
 
If these nations mend their ways during their time of respite, the Divine affliction is removed, as happened in the prophet Jonas' lifetime during which they all believed 
10:98"When they believed, We removed from them the chastisement of disgrace in this world's life and We gave them provision till a time". 
If they dont and in addition try uprooting or killing the messengers sent to them with the undeniable bayinat, continuously oppose them and conspire against them to prevent the establishment of the way of God 42:13 then those pinpointed as the guilty ones by the prophets 44:22 in these nations will incur Divine affliction. They may be put to the sword by the believers themselves as in Moses and Muhammad's time, or completely annihilated by natural cataclysms. At other times God might send a powerful enemy to bring destruction as happened to the Israelites that rejected Jesus, or they are subjugated to the followers of the messengers for generations to come. Concerning this reality, the Psalmist states 
Ps46:9"Go and see the works of the Lord, that He has wrought devastation in the earth". 
Allah in the Quran alludes to all these potential outcomes, including the one that will be inflicted upon the rejecters of the prophet Muhammad, similarly to what He had decreed in the times of Moses 
6:65-7"Say: "He has the power that He should send on you a chastisement from above you or from beneath your feet, or that He should throw you into confusion, (making you) of different parties; and make some of you taste the fighting of others." See how repeatedly We display the signs that they may understand. And your people call it a lie and it is the very truth. Say: "I am not placed in charge of you." For every prophecy is a term and you will come to know (it)".
As regards implementing the divine will by the sword, the Quran retells the stories of past nations who were ordained, against a mightier enemy and with God's help, to uproot unrighteousness and establish the will of God in a specific land. Such was the case with the Israelites back in the times of Moses. They had to cleanse the blessed land of Canaan from its unrighteous dwellers, and the same command was issued to Saul/Talut and David 2:246-252, then finally the Ishmaelites. 

Under the Ishmaelite prophet and just as was commanded to the previous semitic prophets, Muslims had to purge the ancient temple of monotheism in Mecca from its unworthy guardians who had swayed into the ways of polytheism 
22:40-1"Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah. And had there not been Allah's repelling some people by others, certainly there would have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques in which Allah´s name is much remembered; and surely Allah will help him who helps His cause; most surely Allah is Strong, Mighty. Those who, should We establish them in the land, will keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and enjoin good and forbid evil; and Allah´s is the end of affairs". 
So just as Muhammad and the Children of Ishmael were commanded, Allah previously ordered in the days of Moses and the prophets of the children of Israel to fight in His way, see Deut1:41,Deut7,9:4-6,12:1-3,20:16-18 and all throughout Deuteronomy. The Israelites are commanded to cleanse the land from idolatry, destroying all altars and not leaving a physical trace of idolatrous practices. All subsequent Israelite prophets were to purge all remaining traces of idolatry and evil from the land, by the sword without holding back whether it involves killing Jews or non Jews as prophecised in Isa1:25. 

In the HB, we read that God's established way of eradicating idolatry is so forceful that He sometimes even tasks non-Jews to do the job when the Israelites failed Jer48:10. This happened when the Chaldeans were sent to destroy the Moabites 
"Cursed be he who performs the Lord's work deceitfully, and cursed be he who withholds his sword from blood" 
or again when the Assyrians of Sennacherib were raised by God so as to destroy, exile and enslave the idolatrous Kingdom of Israel Amos6:11-14. 

This reoccurred with the Babylonians of Nebuchadnezzar whom God calls His servant for performing His will, sent firstly to inflict massacre upon the Israelites for their repeated transgressions, and then upon those Ammonites and Edomites that occupied the holy lands and reintroduced idolatry in it Jer25:9,49:19. Later on it would be the non-Jew Cyrus, king of Persia who would be divinely aroused and commanded to wage war against the Babylonians until their defeat, expulsion from the holy land and the return of the Jews to Israel so as to re-establish monotheism in it Jer50:14-21,51:1,53. 

The same semitic pattern of prophethood is thus found in regards to Muhammad, the Ishmaelites and the Kaaba. God does not and never did tolerate the presence of idolatry in a land declared sacred and dedicated to monotheism. So God tasked His prophet with re-establishing the monotheistic practice at the Kaaba, and should his opponents try fighting and exiling him and his followers, they will consequently be uprooted from the land they had complete dominion over 17:76-7. It was not the prophet's job to relocate the uninvited idols of the Kaaba, especially after years of warning those that put them there, against their corrupt practices, and the impending forceful expulsion. 

Besides the people of Jonas/Yunus all nations recorded in the Quran, to whom messengers were sent with such warnings, faced the punishment of death and sometimes complete annihilation as described for the messengers of old throughout sura 7 and 
11,26,29,40:5,14:13-15,58:5"Surely those who act in opposition to Allah and His Messenger shall be laid down prostrate as those before them were laid down prostrate; and indeed We have revealed clear communications, and the unbelievers shall have an abasing chastisement" 
26:208-9"And We did not destroy any town but it had (its) warners, To remind, and We are never unjust". 
This divine scourge does not befall the sinful nation so long as all the righteous and the prophets have fled the land 4:165,8:33,11:58,12:110,17:15,19:46-50,20:77,28:59.

God makes sure his messengers are protected, assisted along with their followers. They will be successful over the rejectors, by the establishment of the revealed message, and eventually, the destruction of a nation that continues to reject 37:171-3,40:5,51. That system is assured during the various phases of warning, augmented and pronounced warning, communicating the truth to the extent that no one is left with an excuse to deny it, migration and acquittal. Between each phase the messenger and his followers are told to wait for God's instructions as only He knows when each step has reached its term. In fact in 68:48 Muhammad is told to 
"wait with patience for the command of your Lord, and be not like the Companion of the Fish". 
This excellent institution of prophethood in spite of its accompanying clear evidence and miracle, is not able to eradicate the differences of people in belief and disbelief because this difference is caused by the people themselves 2:213. Such a difference cannot be removed by those arguments and evidence because it is not based on reason but on envy and rebellion. The fact remains that if Allah had so wished He could have prevented this difference 2:253,5:48,6:35,149,11:118 but He has established a system of cause and effect in the universe, endowed man with freewill, this resulted in differences among the people, some were resolved through the sending of prophets but not all as God doesnt compel mankind to follow a certain path, it depends on each person's will. As a result of these differences created by the people came conflicts, and fighting was ordained on the believers and their prophets in the way of Allah as a criterion of faith 
8:37"so that Allah might separate the impure from the good” 
29:3“and most certainly Allah will know those who believe and most certainly He will know the hypocrites”.
The Quran addresses the Arabs in no uncertain terms and in a time where none would have imagined for such an outcome to materialize, telling them that the result of their rejection will be similar to the peoples of the Messengers of old such as Noah, Hud, Lot, Shuayb, Salih, Moses etc. Just as these people were judged on a lower but nonetheless terrifying scale for rejecting God's communications and attempting to kill the message bearers, a day will come where God's judgement will be even greater 69:1-12. 

The Quran places Muhammad and his followers right inside that pattern since the very beginning of the prophetic mission. It would remind them of this reality and comfort them by saying this Law of God will never change. The rejecters are not denying the messenger, the individual; they are denying the Lord of the Universe 
6:33-4"We know indeed that what they say certainly grieves you, but surely they do not call you a liar; but the unjust deny the communications of Allah. And certainly messengers before you were rejected, but they were patient on being rejected and persecuted until Our help came to them; and there is none to change the words of Allah, and certainly there has come to you some information about the messengers".
But a prophet's function isnt to bring God's retribution, rather to create spiritual reform before a day comes where no reform will be possible. The prophecies of destruction are warnings that can be undone depending on the people's answer. A prophetic warning is not irreversible. The Quran gives the example of the nation of the prophet Yunus/Jonas to demonstrate that reality. As shown earlier, they reformed themselves prior to the expiry of their time of respite, leading to the prophecies of destruction being nullified. A prophet thus, first and foremost conveys clear warnings. The Quran would call this step a verbal jihad 25:52 because it was so hard and dangerous for the messenger and his early followers.
Once all the stages of warning and thorough explanation of the truth pass, as the era of calls to reform reaches its end and the prophetic warnings are about to unfold, the prophet must declare his unambiguous acquittal from the rejecters. This was emphatically done in sura Kafirun by the prophet towards the enemies among the Quraysh. Abraham had done the same before as he dissociated himself from his nation and family to demonstrate that no common ground exists between the 2 positions and nor would there ever be 60:4, as Hud did before him 11:54-5. For the very first time in the prophet Muhammad's career, his rejecters are addressed with the phrase 
"Say: O kafirun". 
The label of "kafirun" at this specific time of the prophetic mission makes it now clear that no reform will come from the addressees, that their continuous animosity and opposition to a messenger of God and the arguments sent with him, after long years of admonition was not really due to the attachment and respect, as they claimed, to their ancestral ways. Only their desires and worldly interests that had shaped their religion was what stood in the way. Many verses reveal how little consideration they had for their inherited ways. They were ready to bargain and compromise their system so long as their worldly interests were preserved. They suggested that for them to embrace faith then the only possible option was to either bring another Quran or to make some changes in it which would be acceptable to them 
68:9"They wish that you should be pliant so they (too) would be pliant" 
17:73"And surely they had purposed to turn you away from that which We have revealed to you, that you should forge against Us other than that, and then they would certainly have taken you for a friend" 
10:15"those who hope not for Our meeting say: Bring a Quran other than this or change it". 
The prophet was divinely protected and firmly established in his faith 17:74, to face these moral challenges 
10:104"If you are in doubt as to my religion, then (know that) I do not worship those whom you worship other than Allah! But I worship Allah Who causes you to die and I have been commanded that I should be of the believers". 
The people of Muhammad were now clearly rejectors of faith and would soon be subjugated as the nations of past messengers.

As shown earlier, the philosophy of armed struggle/jihad as a form of divine punishment is confined to the prophetic era during which a previously warned nation is to be destroyed. 

The 2nd type of jihad is the establishment of the will of God on a specific land (Canaan in the times of Moses, Mecca in the times of Muhammad). It is enforced by a prophet, and his followers makes sure that the new order established is maintained for that land.

Outside these 2 scenarios, the 3rd and last context to which armed jihad is applicable, is in self-defence, when war is waged against a Muslim community solely for its religion. This type of armed struggle covers the prophetic era and beyond. In that context, if their opponents engage them in battle they will be defeated, provided their objective purely is the end to religious persecution. This was Allah's way before 
48:22-23"Such has been the course of Allah that has indeed run before, and you shall not find a change in Allah´s course". 
It is to be noted that even the most zealous proponents of Jihad as the struggle to spread Islam to all the world, including nations that do not pose an explicit threat to the Islamic mainland, still maintain that this form of struggle aims at removing all obstacles a human being may face in his freedom to choose Islam or not. If a nation opposes the objective presentation of Islam to its people, so that they may freely choose to adopt or reject it, then an armed struggle by the Islamic state against that oppressive nation is justified. Once the Islamic state is established, then its citizen are free to choose between Islam and payment of zakat, or their own religion and payment of jizya. We thus see that even this view of jihad contains the element of self-defence as well as freedom of religious expression, in accordance with the Quranic axiom of no compulsion in religion. Another thing to note is that this interpretation of Jihad basically is what the western "civilized" world has been doing throughout history, whether the imperialists, christian colonizers, communists or democrats. Contrary to the Islamic model, the invaded people are not given the choice on whether to choose the new system or not, except for the "democratic" invasions to some extent.

God gives glad tidings of success 24:55 in this armed struggle. It is a great test of resolve and faith 9:14,16. 2:153-157 was specifically revealed to prepare the believers for the trials they would have to bear for having chosen he path of truth. They are told to remain firm in their faith so as to find the inner strength to bear that burden, because their opponents will not give up. They have realized that to stop Islam's spread they had to annihilate the Muslims themselves. The verses indicate that the great trial is near, it mentions martyrdom in the way of Allah, and praising it, saying that it is not a death, it is life. It lays great emphasizes on the virtue of "sabr" which is one of the most praiseworthy characteristics of the believer. 

2:190-5 allowed retaliation for the first time 
"And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you" 
the root qaf-t-l means to kill. But used in the form qaatilu entails interaction, killing opposite killing or killing against killing. Literally speaking it should be rendered "engage in killing opposite killing" and because of a lack of non-Arabic word conveying that sense, the interactive word "fight" has been preferred and used by both Muslim and non Muslim translators, in all instances where the same form is used. In 9:111 for example, the consequence of qaatilu/"engage in killing opposite killing" either results in killing the opposite party, or being killed and that is because there is a clear will to kill from the opposite side. When the original order to qaatilu was issued in 2:190, it came with 2 important messages:
- do it against those who yuqaatilunakum
- do not transgress the limits when applying the command to qaatilu

What constitutes transgression in that context? To apply the command of qaatilu in a different way than prescribed in the verse, ie against people other than those who "yuqaatilunakum".
This again, not only agrees with what was said about the verb being interactive in nature, as attested by its usage and the dictionaries stating that the word is used "in a context of a counter-effort to kill", but also with the Quran's overall message, which is to live at peace with anyone, Muslim or else, that does not aggress the Muslims unjustly, and defend against those that engage in hostilities without any reason other than hatred for the religion.

The ethics of war as laid down in the verse is to remain within the bounds of 
"and do not exceed the limit. Verily, Allah loves not those who exceed the limit". 
This principle applies to Jihad in all of its aspects;
- whether for the establishment of God's will in a specific land, as was the case in Mecca with Muhammad or Moses in Canaan
- whether for the punishment of rejecters in the prophetic era, as was the case with the Ishmaelites and the Israelites
- or the timeless right to self defence. At that point it became inevitable that the early persecuted Muslims should fight in self-defense or they would be destroyed. It is the natural right of all Muslims and every human being to 
26:227"defend themselves after they are oppressed". 
The divinely sanctioned right, throughout the ages and nations, of jihad in self defense has a clear objective. It isnt for any material gain or territorial expansion, but to dispel mischief, and corruption/fasad on the earth and stop religious oppression 
2:251,22:40,3:167"Come, fight in the way of Allah or [at least] defend". 
It is inadmissible that man be prevented from choosing or practicing Islam due to pressure and fear. In such a society, war is justified until one is free to choose or reject Islam 
2:256"There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error". 
This shows that under no circumstances should be be forced in spiritual matters, whether it is to accept or reject Islam. 

The Quran would therefore stir up the believers for battle based on the reality of their physical and spiritual oppression, whether men, women, old and young alike 2:217,4:75,8:26,22:39-40,28:57,60:1,85:8-10,96:9-10. God commands to fight for justice. Any other reason to fight is oppression and fighting "in the way of the devil" 4:76. This was an undeniable reality and necessity. They had to overcome any fear and trust that Allah's help will come at the battlefield. He will weaken the struggle of the oppressors no mater the forces they can muster 4:84. Even when this was established, the prophet still did not expect the Muslims to shed their blood for a decision from which they were excluded. Consensual agreement, referred to in the Quran as shuraa, always preceded the final decision to go to war, as here stated in the context of the battle of Uhud 
3:159"and seek their advise in all matters of public policy". 
Once the decision is attained by common agreement, the plan must be launched with an absolute trust in God 
3:159"then when you have decided upon a course of action, trust in Allah; for surely Allah loves those who place their trust in Him". 
Even the prophet after that point may not revoke the covenant and act according to his whims 3:161-4. It is to be noted that in that particular context of Uhud, the prophet was the minority opinion. He advised confronting the Meccan alliance within Medina, instead of meeting them at Uhud. Yet he never protested the decision once it was mutually agreed upon, nor did he blame the majority once the battle was over and the Muslims were defeated. No matter how supreme the wisdom of the Muslim community's ruler is, in this case a prophet of God, the right of the remaining members of society to be consulted can never be waved off. We see here that in this defeat of the Muslims at Uhud, an important lesson was implemented as to the conduct of a Muslim leader.

Once everybody is set to leave with a full trust in their decision and the will of God, then their physical, mental, financial capacities as compared to their enemies only become secondary issues. Only if these conditions would result in overburdening and harming the person and the people depending on him, even before engaging in fighting, then such person is justified in holding back from fighting 9:91,48:17.

The others rely on Allah, who knows their material and physical limits, and will assist them 8:66. They are fully justified in fighting back, and will be helped in the process 
22:38"Surely Allah will defend those who believe; surely Allah does not love any one who is unfaithful, ungrateful". 

Part of the 613 Jewish commandments is to similarly be fearless in battle and fully trust in God Deut3:22,7:21,20:3. It was their failure to trust in God's capacity to defeat, through a weak army, a much stronger adversary that caused their 40 years desert wandering prior to entering the land promised to Abraham. God calls mankind to fight in His way first to solve the worldly obstacles to which a particular people is confronted, but these worldly obstacles are connected to the spiritual aspect of man's existence. This means that fighting in God's way liberates man from both physical and spiritual obstacles. That is why those who fear worldly losses in the process, are told that this world is ultimately ephemeral whether in case of victory or loss. They would thus have certainly reason to fear should their battle be solely aimed at achieving worldly objectives. But since fighting in God's way includes spiritual objectives, then one has no reason to fear because the Hereafter in which the benefits of that struggle will be certainly found, is everlasting 4:74. 

Choosing to serve God in this way, putting one's own life on the line to defend the oppressed and advance the cause of truth is the most selfless material and spiritual sacrifice one can do. But even then, as in any army, there are degrees among soldiers, hence the prophet saying that military participation is ranked 3rd in terms of divine appreciation 
"I asked the Prophet 'Which deed is loved most by Allah?" He replied, 'To offer prayers at their early (very first) stated times.' " `Abdullah asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" The Prophet said, "To be good and dutiful to one's parents," `Abdullah asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" The Prophet said, "To participate in Jihad for Allah's Cause." `Abdullah added, "The Prophet narrated to me these three things, and if I had asked more, he would have told me more". 
However those among the voluntaries going to such extent in their selfless sacrifice that they are martyred, the prophetic sayings describe them as meriting the highest reward. worldly gains certainly follow as a collateral result of wars, and although are certainly the just compensation of those sacrificing their wealth and resources on the way, the Quran stresses that these worldly gains must never be the motive. In a hadith the prophet even answered about someone fighting in God's cause but also seeking material reward, that in the hereafter 
"He would receive no reward" (sunan Abu Dawud). 
The Prophet's conflict with his tribe was not because of any worldly reason; it was only for the freedom to practice the religion of God 4:74,94 in the place originally dedicated for it. The Quraysh had to fulfil their obligations towards the Kaaba because they were its custodians. If they were not ready for this, then they had no right to keep it in their custody nor did they have any right to prevent people from returning to the pure Abrahamic legacy through intimidations, or stopping others from worshiping on a land settled for that purpose since the days of Ibrahim 22:25-9. This was Allah's way before in regards to Canaan, even prior to the Israelites settling in it, when its natives progressively abandoned the ways of righteousness, despite knowing it, perverted it beyond recognition Gen15:16,Deut9,1Sam4:7. The Israelites were sent in precisely to purge the sacred land from its unworthy custodians. When the prophetic warnings materialized upon the Quraysh and their grip on the lives and freedom of the people was loosened, then the people hastened to accept Islam in multitudes now that they were suddenly afforded with the liberty to choose their own religion. 110:2 predicted this reality long before the conquest of Mecca "And you see men embrace the religion of God in multitudes", and this was through the guidance of the Heavenly Book that transcended all obstacles to give life to the spiritually dead 6:122.

Accepting to fight in Allah's way results in reward in this world as well as the next 48:18-21, but turning one's back to the enemy and refusing to shoulder that duty makes a person 48:16,8:16"deserving of Allah's wrath" in this world as well as the next. Here are the prophet Jeremiah's words 
Jer48:10"A curse on anyone who is lax in doing the Lord’s work! A curse on anyone who keeps their sword from bloodshed". 
As already pointed, history bares testimony to this fact with the example of the Israelites who had refused to put their trust in the prophet Musa to go forth and fight in Allah's way. Their worldly reward was consequently taken away and they were forbidden entry into the blessed land and sent to wander 40 years in the desert until the last one of those who had shown cowardice was dead. A new generation was then raised instead, one that would willingly take up arms, fight and conquer as divinely ordained. See the Quran in 2:243,5:21-26 as well as the Hebrew Bible in Numbers13:28-33,14:1-35,21:14-35,26:64-65 and Deut2:7,14-19,Josh5:6.

The Muslims are warned that the very same fate awaits those who turn their backs to the prophet when they are called to struggle in Allah's way 
9:38-39"If you do not go forth, He will chastise you with a painful chastisement and bring in your place a people other than you, and you will do Him no harm; and Allah has power over all things". 
True Believers rejoice at any opportunity of serving God's cause, like Joshua and Caleb who rent their clothes telling the remaining cowards among the Israelites to stand up for battle. In the end, what God wishes to accomplish is independant of the direct addressees of a prophet. As demonstrated with Musa and the Israelites, He could easily uproot them in case of disobedience and rise another people instead. 

However, those who followed the prophet Muhammad in times of peace and war are the opposite example. Contrary to the majority of Israelites in Moses' time who refused to march forth despite witnessing all kinds of divine miracles, the majority of Muhammad's followers fought when ordered to. This is corroborative of their desperate situation, leaving them no choice but to fight for their survival, the survival of their families and their rights to worship Allah. Because of all their sacrifices and because they went forth when they were commanded to, they were made successors in the land 6:133-134 and they earned Allah's rewards in this world as well as, God wills, in the next.

In addition, the Muslims are commanded not to neglect the obligatory prayers, even when facing the enemy at the battlefield 4:101-3. This shows the true objective of these warriors fighting to free themselves and their people from religious bondage; fighting was not their primary occupation for when the time of holding the timed and ordained communion with their Lord arrived, they performed their spiritual obligations despite the imminent danger.
 
Even though the object of the enemies of Islam when they take on arms and engage Muslims in war is to exterminate them entirely, the Muslims are told that the Divine object in assisting the believers in punishing the disbelievers at war is not to exterminate them, but to deliver a blow that would deter them from continuous aggression 3:127. They are therefore told to fight only the people who attack them 
60:9"those who made war upon you on account of (your) religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up (others) in your expulsion". 
Defensive warfare cannot be predicated on personal whims or desires. War ethics also include not fighting near the Kaaba except if initially attacked. If the enemy desists from deliberate aggression then fighting must stop. This in turn indicates that there should be no rancor against the enemy when they correct themselves or even when they end the hostility. The Muslims, even though oppressed should not seek blind revenge at all costs, rather they should try engaging in peaceful negotiations before 8:39-40. In a dominant position, Muslims must remain conscious of their past weakness before Allah strengthened them and not refuse the hand of peace from non-muslims 4:94. In all cases retaliation must be 
22:60"with the like of that with which he has been afflicted and he has been oppressed".
2:194"Thus, if anyone commits aggression against you, attack him just as he has attacked you - but remain conscious of God". 
This means that even while seeking just and equal retribution, one must remain conscious of God's limits. The Quran's supreme realism reflects even in such situations, telling those whose spirituality is of a high degree, that if they are able to be patient and forgive for Allah's sake, instead of exercising their legitimate right to retaliation when they have taken the upper hand then Allah will compensate them for their magnanimity 
42:39-43,16:126-8"but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient..Surely Allah is with those who guard (against evil) and those who do good (to others)". 
The sensitivity of the issue is pictured in God's address to David, the prophet-king 34:10-11. As he was given mastery over a crucial component in warfare -iron-, he and all those after him are told that in their use of that martial technology, God is ever seeing of what they do, indicating that they should use this means in the path of righteous deed, not in the way of oppression, cruelty, and sin.

Fighting cannot be directed at those 
60:8"who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes..show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice". 
Al-Tabari states that this applies to people of “all ways of life and religions". Nothing abrogates this principle. This is because being friendly and lenient with non-Muslims does not contradict severing ties with those same ones and even fighting them if it is to establish justice and claim one's rights. The Arabic birr/compassion is the same one the Quran uses when instructing Muslims on how to treat their own parents 17:23-4. Others towards whom defensive jihad cannot be directed are those who come in peace without any desire to fight 4:90. Not all of Islam's opponents are alike, some do not strive actively for the extermination of Muslims and should therefore not be fought in the same way as one would engage an armed enemy. They, as well as others could have been deliberately misinformed and are thus given the benefit of the doubt 
60:7"It may be that Allah will bring about friendship between you and those whom you hold to be your enemies among them; and Allah is Powerful; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful". 
We see how the Quran engages the issue of warfare in the most sublime and pragmatic of ways. The very foundations of the divine law, as taught by all Prophets, is the establishment of justice and to argue a person has no right to seek his rights is an absolute wrong. The Quran has taught the best attitude, and that is to forgive and continue calling people to right and goodness, even if the people try and persecute another but when the persecution becomes unbearable and life threatening, hindering one from religious freedom then retaliation is permitted, but never above and beyond what a person has himself received.

The early Medinite Muslim community lived in an atmosphere of constant threat from inside and outside the city. They would never lay down to sleep except with their weapons with them and had to be in constant preparation for attacks from all sides, by the pagans of all Arabia, and their allies among the people of the book 
8:60"And prepare against them what force you can and horses tied at the frontier, to frighten thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them, whom you do not know (but) Allah knows them". 
The noble prophet, seeing himself as the guardian of the community was very often at the forefront in the case of a potential attack 
"Once the people got frightened, so Allah's Messenger rode a slow horse belonging to Abu Talha, and he set out all alone, making the horse gallop. Then the people rode, making their horses gallop after him. On his return he said, "Don't be afraid (there is nothing to be afraid of) (and I have found) this horse a very fast one." That horse was never excelled in running hence forward".
This is one of the features of defensive Jihad, as is done by most governments around the world today; dissuasion through constant military readiness of any potential enemy, known or hidden. In the case an attack is launched, then the Muslims counter attack will not delay so as to imperil the community. This deterring method creates an atmosphere where diplomacy might be preferred than risking confrontation. However even in such an atmosphere, Muslims themselves should never beg for peace when they are in an state of inferiority. This is simple common sense from a military perspective, as it would expose a weak mindset to the enemy who would in turn be further emboldened in his belligerent attitude. Only in a state of superiority should they go and seek peace from the enemy in order to avoid further bloodshed. This is exactly what the prophet would instruct the soldiers to do when about to confront an open enemy. 

But should on the other hand the opposite party come with a peace offer then the believers are told to rely on Allah and "incline", ie be receptive to it 
8:61"And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in Allah; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing". 
God will strengthen and protect those who actively rely on Him, as He did in the past, in case their aggressors seek to deceive them 8:62.

Sunday, December 5, 2021

The corruption of the previous scriptures

3:78"There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah. It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it" 
6:91"the Book which Musa brought, a light and a guidance to men, which you make into scattered writings which you show while you conceal much". 
The rabbinical world is divided up to this day on whether their sacred texts should be shared with non-Jews. There is consensus that non-Jews may study the Torah as far as the noachide laws are concerned. These laws are considered binding on all of humanity. The mosaic laws on the other hand concern strictly the Jewish people, hence the oddity of Pauline doctrine and its obsession with freeing mankind from a cursed law that isnt binding on anyone but Jews. Rabbinic opinion suggest that besides the noachide laws, only general and vague answers may be provided to a non-Jew inquiring about the Torah. The prohibition is discussed in the Talmud, which is considered God-given to Moses. The Talmud itself is on a higher level of restriction with even Jewish women forbidden from attempting to learn it due to the household activities they are expected to fulfill 
2:75"but when they find themselves alone with one another, they say. "Do you inform them of what God has disclosed to you, so that they might use it in argument against you, quoting the words of your Sustainer?" 3:187"And when Allah made a covenant with those who were given the Book: You shall certainly make it known to men and you shall not hide it; but they cast it behind their backs and took a small price for it; so evil is that which they buy". 

2:75-79 "..and a party from among them indeed used to hear the Word of Allah, then altered it after they had understood it, and they know (this)..And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but only lies, and they do but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!--Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby". 

The Quran in those verses points to several types of misusing the scriptures; 

-those who conceal the greater part of the book, reluctantly sharing as little as they can 6:91 

-those who throw it completely behind their backs, ignoring it so as to not compromise some worldly profit. In the process, they are also guilty of failing to make it known to the world, as per their function of being the torch bearers of the truth to mankind 3:187. 

-those who orally change or insert words in the book while reading it to the layman, passing something off as being part of the book while it isnt 3:78 

-those who misinterpret the word of Allah after having fully understood it 2:75. Whether that information was canonized or not is irrelevant. This misinterpretation thus concerns both oral and written material. In Medina, members of the Jewish community were sent to the prophet Muhammad, by their religious authorities, with a hidden agenda. They were trying to settle grave disputes in matters heavily punishable in the light of the Torah. This was just another of their ploys to avoid its harsh laws, which they perfectly understood, hoping that the prophet might have a different ruling "they alter the words from their places, saying: If you are given this, take it, and if you are not given this, be cautious". 

This compromising, complacent attitude is a deeply ingrained transgression they have been committing ever since the law was bestowed upon them and throughout their history, despite the scolding of the prophets and the few righteous remnants among them whom the Quran mentions and praises 
7:169-170"Then there came after them an evil posterity who inherited the Book, taking only the frail good of this low life and saying: It will be forgiven us. And if the like good came to them, they would take it (too). Was not a promise taken from them in the Book that they would not speak anything about Allah but the truth, and they have read what is in it; and the abode of the hereafter is better for those who guard (against evil). Do you not then understand? And as for those who hold fast by the Book and keep up prayer, surely We do not waste the reward of the righteous" 
Virtually all prophets that came to them decried the corruption of their elite, their neglect towards their own justice system 
"A Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah's Apostle on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked them. "What is the legal punishment (for this sin) in your Book (Torah)?" They replied, "Our priests have innovated the punishment of blackening the faces with charcoal and Tajbiya." 'Abdullah bin Salam said, "O Allah's Apostle, tell them to bring the Torah." The Torah was brought, and then one of the Jews put his hand over the Divine Verse of the Rajam (stoning to death) and started reading what preceded and what followed it. On that, Ibn Salam said to the Jew, "Lift up your hand." Behold! The Divine Verse of the Rajam was under his hand. So Allah's Apostle ordered that the two (sinners) be stoned to death, and so they were stoned. Ibn 'Umar added: So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess". 
According to another version, when the Torah was brought to the prophet who was now seeking to expose the innovations of the rabbis in the specific matter of punishment for adultery, he first respectfully put it on a cushion then said 
"I believed in you and in Him Who revealed you". 
A holistic understand of both the hadith corpus and the Quran demonstrates that this statement of the prophet is not to be taken in the absolute sense. When in Medina he noticed that Jews would come and read the Torah and explain it to the Muslims, he advised them to adopt a neutral stance, neither believing nor disbelieving in it 
"Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.' " 
This is because the scriptures of the Jews are an amalgam of truth and falsehood, the truthful parts being covered by the statement "whatever is revealed to you". Ibn Abbas would reprimand the Muslims who would seek information from the people of the book in religious matters, on the basis that
 "Allah has told you that the people of the scripture changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything?" 
The Quran, the prophet, the companions therefore all advise caution when approaching the previous scriptures, as they contain both truth, which the prophet confirmed and revered in the aforementioned statements, and falsehood.

The prophet then proceeded with exposing the learned ones by making them read by themselves the truthful part of the Torah which they had been hiding 
"Bring me one who is learned among you. Then a young man was brought. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the tradition of stoning". 
This hadith depicting the prophet's reverence for the Torah should this be understood in light of other ahadith, as well as the many Quran passages stating that the Torah isnt absolutely corrupt, that despite the manipulations it still contains remnants of truth, hence the Quran being its guardian/muhaymin. The prophet declared his belief not in the entire Torah, but in the specific ruling on the punishment for adultery, and which Ibn Salam, the Jewish convert to Islam instantly recognized as the "divine verse".
It is this corruption in the absolute sense, which some scholars might have been referring to when they said, while commenting on the above report 
"if the Torah was corrupted he would not have placed it on the pillow and he would not have said: I believe in you and in the one who revealed you". 
This is speaking of complete corruption, which is not what the Muslims believe happened to previous scriptures and traditions. 

In legal issues, Jews and Christians living in the Muslim state are not bound by the Islamic law when resolving their own internal affairs. That is how matters were conducted in many parts of the Muslim empire. Dhimmis could deliberate, individually deny, or reform their religious laws to their liking and to fit their desires without any concern about the laws of the state, so long as no conflict occurred between the 2. The historical, and clear Quranic context of these verses 5:41-50 is that of legal retribution. As stated earlier, it begins by telling the prophet that he was not under any obligation to judge their matters when they came to him insincerely, meaning to seek different and more lenient verdicts than what is found in their traditions. It is to be noted that in matters of equal retribution the Quran says that the oppressed or the victim may show magnanimity and forgiveness in order to grow spiritually, an issue the Torah, which also mentions the law of retaliation, does not contain in its proper context. The passage continues telling the prophet that he may turn them away if he wishes, leaving them to resolve their own disputes. But he is nevertheless to judge between them with equity should he decide so, notwithstanding their severe enmity towards him and the fact they were always plotting with the enemies of Islam with the hope of uprooting and exterminating it. What the prophet did at that point was to masterfully expose them for their corrupt mindframe. Had they came to him in truth, he would have judged them in accordance to the Quran, the last revelation superseding all previous ones. But due to their hypocritical stand towards both the Quran, which they didnt believe in, and their own scriptures, whose clear rulings they denied, he referred them back to the law of their Torah, thereby exposing this double game. One might come back with the question that, if the Torah and Injil are corrupt, as the Quran, traditions and history itself attest, why tell Jews and Christians to judge their own internal affairs in light of those scriptures? The answer is firstly because they are not obligated to believe in anything other than what they want to believe. If it suits them to remain in their faith, despite the Quran coming and exposing their falsehood, then they are free to do so. Second, that corruption is not absolute, the passage itself tells them the Torah and Injil contain guidance and light. How then are they to distinguish the right from the wrong? 
5:48"And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it". 
The Quran is the criterion, confirming certain parts OF/MIN those scriptures, ie those parts containing guidance and light. The last revelation came down showing them the truth and falsehood of their books, the abrogated and the valid. This isnt circular reasoning as the things which the Quran confirms from the Bible are for the most part empirically testable, prophecies, past events and stories whose Quranic version make more sense in light of data both external (archaeology, manuscripts etc) and internal (contradictions) to the biblical text that expose the distortions of the transmitters of the Bible.

Once again:
1. the Quran clearly says that the corruption of previous scriptures and traditions, canonized or not, is not absolute
2. reference to previous traditions doesnt entail full endorsement or that they are wholly true, just as is the case with the Bible's known use of apocryphal material
3. there is no circularity in determining truth from corruption in light of the Quran, as the parallel passages and references can be for the most part independently attested. When for example a common story or principle is internally and externally contradictory in its biblical version but is internally coherent, consistent philosophically, theologically, ethically, with many times even scientific and archaeological backing in its Quranic version, then the probability is that the Quran is in the right.
4. the Quran doesnt need to go around fact checking everything stated in past written and oral traditions so as to determine truth from corruption. When certain broad principles and stories common to both the Quran and previous traditions are established as more sensical in their Quranic version, then big swaths of these previous traditions become highly questionable too.
5. then there is the personality of the message bearer, his high degree of credibility among his nation, the miracles he performed, the miraculous aspect of the Quran, still testable today (contrary to prophetic miracles, including those of Moses, Jesus and Muhammad that are lost in time), all major reasons for its contemporaries to pay very close attention to its statements and give it the benefit of the doubt.

That is why the Quran then continues saying that, although the option of judging their matters in light of their scriptures if they reject the Quran's authority is their full right, they will be held accountable for it 
5:49"And judge, [O Muhammad], between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations and beware of them, lest they tempt you away from some of what Allah has revealed to you. And if they turn away - then know that Allah only intends to afflict them with some of their [own] sins. And indeed, many among the people are defiantly disobedient". 
As the prophet told Umar 
"I have come to you with that which is pure and clear proof. And if Musa was alive, and then you were to follow him and abandon following me, you would certainly have strayed". 
If the last revelation supersedes the previous one even if the previous one is still in its pristine state, delivered by its prophet, then how much more should the Quran be authoritative over the previous revelations in their corrupt state?

-the uneducated/ummiyun, who have no access to the text and therefore only know the distorted lies of the learned ones 2:78. 

-those who alter the book physically, passing off their modifications as coming from God 2:79. These alterations may be additions and/or subtractions. Al-kitab, the writing/book alludes to a specific text, as the definite article implies, which is subjected to physical corruption. Al kitab is used for the Bible in the same sura. The Quran accuses the Jews of misinterpreting Al kitab while claiming it is from God 3:78 in reference to the HB, just as it exposes the physical corruption of Al kitab 2:79 in reference to the HB. This accusation the Quran makes is the climax of scriptural abuse, fitting into its overall polemic against Jews and Christians. Interestingly, we find similar statements  as regards the integrity of the biblical text among early Christians themselves. Justin Martyr in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew made that exact accusation against the Jewish elite whose responsibility was to preserve the Hebrew Bible.

Ibn Abbas, in comment to the verse said 
"O the group of Muslims! How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about anything while your Book which Allah has revealed to your Prophet contains the most recent news from Allah and is pure and not distorted? Allah has told you that the people of the Scriptures have changed some of Allah's Books and distorted it and wrote something with their own hands and said, 'This is from Allah, so as to have a minor gain for it". 
However there is another statement attributed to ibn abbas saying 
“No one can corrupt the text by removing any of Allah’s words from his Books, but they corrupted it by misinterpreting it”. 
This is a known defective narration, without any chain of reporters, as noted by the scholars of hadith, including Al Asqalani. What can at most be construed from that statement, assuming it is authentic for argument's sake, is that the incorruptibility is in reference to the heavenly tablet. It can obviously not be speaking of the worldly text which anyone can change. The Quran says all the revealed scriptures are inscribed in umm al kitab/the mother book, inscribed on the heavenly tablet. None can change the words therein but only twist their meaning. Ibn Kathir understood that nuance between the 2 ahadith of ibn Abbas very well. He quotes the weak hadith in his tafsir of 3:78 which speaks of oral misinterpretation. But he also refers to ibn Abbas' authentic comment on 2:79 that speaks of textual corruption by the people of the book. Ibn Kathir quotes other companion views on 2:79, including that of Uthman saying that 
"they (the Jews) distorted the Torah. They added to it what they liked and erased from it what they hated and they erased the name of Muhammad peace be upon him from the Torah and for that Allah became angry". 
Ibn Kathir and the earliest Muslim belief regarding the oral and textual corruption of the Bible is therefore clearly established, based on the Quran itself. That Muslim position is even reflected in the polemical writings of John of Damascus, some 100 years after the prophet's death 
"But some of them say that it is by misinterpretation that we have represented the Prophets as saying such things, while others say that the Hebrews hated us and deceived us by writing in the name of the Prophets so that we might be lost". 
As already noted, anyone can remove and alter words from any worldly text at any point in time. And if that is done when not enough human and textual witnesses can independently detect that corruption, then it can easily be disseminated and passed off as true. That is what happened during the successive destructions of the Israelite nation, followed by the attempts of their scribes to re-write what was lost. Al-Razi rightly noted 
"It is impossible to have a conspiracy to change or alter the word of God in all of these copies without missing any copy. Such a conspiracy will not be logical or possible". 
Al-Razi here is talking of a time when previous scriptures, although in their corrupt state (see his commentary on 5:41), were already widely disseminated and could be independently attested by countless witnesses. Nobody could remove Allah's word nor any other man-made word from it then, without being detected. Corruption of the Torah at that point became only possible through misinterpretation. 

Similarly, some stated that the Torah cannot be corrupted, based on the verse saying God's words cannot be changed 6:115. Again, any worldly copy of the Torah can be altered. But so long as there exists the possibility for the original to be reproduced, God's words remain unaffected, only the copy of these words. 

The Quran is the speech of Allah, and that speech is with Allah, uncreated, eternal, unchanged like any other attribute of His. The analogy of God's speech to the Quran we touch with our hands or recite from our minds, is as God's mercy which manifests in tangible and abstract things. Both types of manifestations are created means through which God's uncreated attributes of speech and mercy are made known to humans. These attributes arent limited to those particular manifestations 
31:27"and If all the trees on the earth were pens, and the sea replenished with seven more seas [were ink], the words of Allah would not be spent". 
God's speech is therefore inexhaustive. It can potentially bring into existence a limitless number of words of revelation, among them the Hebrew Torah of Moses or the Arabic Quran of Muhammad 
14:4"And We did not send any messenger but with the language of his people, so that he might explain to them clearly". 
Allah further states about the revelation to Muhammad, that He 
43:3"made it an Arabic Quran". 
The eternal speech of Allah takes on in this world the form that is relevant to the divine purpose. The Arabic Quran was thus not continuously spoken since eternity. It is the manifestation in time of God's eternal attribute of speech. Just like we may say a healthy newborn is the manifestation in time of God's eternal attribute of mercy. Assuming for argument's sake that all things in the heavens and the earth are destroyed, including all Torahs and Qurans, the mother of the book that contains all revelations, and even the preserved tablet/lawh mahfuz. So long as the potential to generate a true Quran and Torah exists, then Allah's words that were revealed to Moses and Muhammad remain unaffected. As stated earlier, the physical and abstract things in which God's attributes manifest in this world do not exhaust the attributes themselves, neither do these manifestations share the uncreated essence of the attributes they are representing. This is the problem of Trinitarians. Jesus, a created being, is not merely a manifestation of God's word, rather he incarnates it fully, becoming this divine "person" with contradictory attributes Trinitarian thinkers have been struggling to explain for over 2000 years. Christians are quick to try and parallel the notion of uncreatedness of God's speech as manifested in the Quran, with their idea derived from the Gospel of John where God's uncreated word manifested in Jesus. The two concepts, arent comparable.  Further, why would trinitarians even need the Quran to explain the logical and philosophical problems of their theology.

Not a single group within Islam says the Quran was a separate entity floating around next to God since eternity past. This is how some Christians, with their trinitarian worldview, misrepresent the statement that the word of Allah is uncreated. In Christianity, the word is not an attribute but a divine person among others like the father and holy spirit, each with distinct attributes. One man with multiple attributes isnt many men just as One God with multiple attributes isnt many gods. This is tawhid. Yet Trinity says each person is divine but with different attributes, resulting in 3 different gods. The analogy Christians attempt between tawhid and trinity stops at the word of God being eternal. Christians made that word a person with attributes among other distinct persons, while Muslims kept the word as an attribute among others within the essence of the One God. As an aside, since the word or speech of God is not an attribute within the divine essence but a separate divine entity along with 2 others, does it mean that only this divine entity called "word or speech" has the ability to speak and that the other 2 divine entities are mute?

 If God's word is a separate divine entity that became flesh in Jesus, what about the words uttered by Jesus who is now divine? Are his words separate divine entities? Further, if the Torah is God's word, as Jews and Christians believe, does that make it divine as Jesus is? These are the kinds of problems Trinitarians are entangled with due to their conjectures on ambiguous matters, instead of relying on firm statements on God's oneness and unity. Muslims on the other hand, despite the early disputes as to whether the Quran was created or not, never went out of the way to declare the attributes of God, like His word, separate divine entities. No Muslim ever believed God's speech to be a separate conscious part. The reason why this issue is often brought up by Trinitarians is that the Quran is the only book that claims to be Allah's direct speech. The Bible doesnt make that claim. The closest one finds is an anonymous claim made about Jesus being God's word. Muslims on the other hand stick to clear and firm statements of scriptures to define their cardinal beliefs, including that "nothing is like a likeness of Him".

2:79 is a timeless warning, addressed to any corrupt scribes among the Jews who would in addition reap profit from such an evil deed. It is not specific to the Jews of the time of the prophet. This means, although that type of corruption did occur, it may have happened before or during the prophet's time as well as both. No contemporary 7th century Jewish writing has survived so as to compare with older manuscripts to know whether this was done during the time of the prophet. And even if such 7th century writing is found, agreeing with older manuscripts, then it still does not negate that the corruption might have occurred much longer before the prophet's time. Another thing to note is that this verse doesnt target the writings of the Christians. The books that these groups follow are not the singular Gospel of Jesus of which the Quran speaks. As the Quran repeatedly says, they follow but mere conjecture. This conjecture has taken the shape of the Greek writings compiled as the New Testament. They are writings that interpret and re-interpret Jesus' words and singular Gospel, giving them a completely different intent. Sometimes this conjecture doesnt take for basis Jesus' Gospel at all, such as with the notion of human depravity and sin atonement. 

The Quran thus appropriately tells the Christians to abide by the singular Gospel of Jesus to find the right path that will lead them to the truth of the Quran. When they did so, in contrast to the corrupt aforementioned groups, when they remained truthful to the scriptures in anyway, shape or form it reached them, trying to follow it to the best of their ability, then their sincerity, unprejudiced reading and understanding of their books led them to inevitably believe in the revelation bestowed on the prophet Muhammad 2:121,83,3:113-115,199,4:162,5:13,66,69,83,7:159-170,17:107-9,28:52-4. This is what occurred in the times of the prophet, even among their most learned figures, just as it occurred throughout time and in our days.  The Quran thus expects the Jews and Christians to recognize the truth based on what is in their hands first and foremost. The prophethood of Muhammad and the truth revealed to him make ample theological sense within their own written and oral traditions.

When they behaved with insincerity, hypocrisy towards their books 2:85, then despite having sources of light and guidance in their hands, it availed them nothing
 "The Torah and the Gospel are with the Jews and the Christians but what do they avail of them?" (Tirmidhi 2653). 
They become followers of deliberate corruption and lies, or mislead by conjecture. 

The term Muhayminan, derived from H-M-N means witness and arbiter where the arbiter would be the one to let know which is right and wrong. Besides witnessing and arbitrating it carries at the same time the notion of protecting. So, when the book that came to Muhammad is declared as muhayminan upon the book it means it is the ultimate arbiter in case of dispute or potential misunderstanding in regards to whatever came before it. It declares what truly came from God vs what truly is not from God 
45:16-8"And We did certainly give the Children of Israel the Scripture and judgement and prophethood, and We provided them with good things and preferred them over the worlds. And We gave them clear proofs of the matter [of religion]. And they did not differ except after knowledge had come to them - out of jealous animosity between themselves. Indeed, your Lord will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that over which they used to differ. Then We put you, [O Muhammad], on an ordained way concerning the matter [of religion]; so follow it and do not follow the inclinations of those who do not know". 
We see the same pattern of Allah revealing a system, those supposed to uphold it end up turning away from it, in addition causing its corruption. Hence the need for the religion to be restored through the revelation of a new system.

The reoccurring phrase musaddiqan lima bayna yadayhi/declaring true what is before it, is always preceded by a word referring to the Quran either directly as in 
10:37"this Quran" 
or indirectly as in 
12:111"this narrative" 
or 
3:3,5:48"this book". 
It is the Quran in itself that declares the truth of what is before it. Not by pointing to a specific book or tradition and declaring it true, which it never does, but by selecting elements from what came before it, then stating the truthful version. What agrees with it, from whatever source that came before it, is then declared as truly from God and what disagrees with it is truly not from God. Then through its function as a protector of what came before it, the Quran brings back to light what was entirely forgotten or purposefully obscured in the chaotic transmission process of these oral and written traditions. The phrase bayna yadayhi, lit. between his hands, is an old Arabic metaphor implying presence, availability of several things at the same time. It does not imply concrete, physical presence of the things in question, rather their knowledge or information. It is often translated as "what is before it" in the context of the Judeo-Christian traditions because they were present, whether orally or written in the time of the prophet, and they preceded him in existence. Many have taken this metaphor as referring specifically to the Torah or the Injil, although it never states so. It speaks of "what is between his hands" in a general sense, all that was available. Whether that information was canonized or not is irrelevant. 

So there is a truth, present in the time of the Quran and before, scattered in oral and written tradition, which the Quran declares to be true. It is the common thread that the Quran shares with all these contemporary and previous sources. To further corroborate, in 5:48-9 above, it is the only place where it explicitly says what it is referring to with the general statement "between his hands". In this context where it speaks of, and names the scriptures of the Jews and Christians, it would have been the perfect occasion for it to point to the Torah and Injil by name, had the expression been a reference to them both specifically, anytime it is used. Instead of that it points to PART OF/MIN THE Book in the singular 
"musaddiqan lima bayna yadayhi MINAL kitab/declaring true what is before it OF the Book". 
It doesnt even say part of the books in the plural, in reference to both Torah and Injil present at the time. 

The passage opposes 2 Books -Torah and Injil- to one Book which the Quran confirms and guards. It is different to every other context where the Quran says Jews and Christians follow one book. This is because they both read one Bible from their perspective, not many, and the Quran does not name their different books in these passages, contrary to the singular Book which is contrasted to the Torah and Injil in 5:48-9. This singular book is thus the very one repeatedly alluded to, of which past scriptures and traditions, including the Quran, the Torah and Injil, are part of. A section of this global Book was revealed prior to the Quran, and was present in the time of the Quran, scattered in both written and oral tradition. It is this section previously revealed, of this global Book that the Quran guards, protects, confirms. The Quran is that against which anything oral or written, claiming spiritual truth can be measured. It is al-Mizan -the Balance- and al-Furqan -the Criterion/distinguisher 25:1,42:17. It gives weight to the Truth and separates between it and falsehood. 

The Quran is therefore the official preserver of the Book and this means that if something is claimed to be in the Book but the Quran says otherwise, then it is not from the Book. If the Quran is silent then it may or may not be of the Book and if the Quran approves it then it certainly is part of the Book. 

Furthermore, an important Quranic axiom is that every fragment of revelation is fully revelation. A single word or verse of the Quran is called kitab and Quran. So is the case with Torah and Injil. A single genuine passage of any of these 2 revelations can be termed kitab and Torah or Injil. That is why when it urges the Jews to stand by the Torah and the Christians to stand by the Injil, it does not necessitate the totality of these books is endorsed by the Quran. 

A long time ago, the prophet Muhammad explained how to approach the previous scriptures and traditions 
“Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them. Say: We have faith in Allah, in what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the tribes of Israel, in what was given to Moses and Jesus, and in what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims surrendering to Him (2:136)”. 
This hadith encapsulates the notion of muhaymin/arbitrer. Muslims unambiguously believe in what was revealed to the prophets 2:211,4:136. However, Muslims do not believe nor reject the current scriptures and traditions of the people of the book. This is because by rejecting them, they could inadvertently reject an authentic remnant of the teachings of the prophets. By believing in them on the other hand would carry the risk of accepting things that were never sent by God, nor approved by the prophets. The perfect way for Muslims to maintain the middle ground and not commit any faulty judgement would therefore be to hold fast by the Muhaymin/the arbitrer that has preserved the truth of the previous revelations. This reflects even in the attitude of the classical exegetes. They exhibited no interest in the Jews and Christians of whom they must have had some contemporary knowledge. With very few exceptions such as Ibn Kathir and Zamakshari, we find no reference to the varieties of Jewish and Christian belief and practices. 

After declaring its status as the Guardian and Watcher, the Quran states that those legitimate differences between the scriptures that are not the subject of human corruption, were because the laws were subject to their respective time frames 
"for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way". 
Allah could have prescribed one and the same Law for all, making all of humanity into a single nation but He did not do so for many good reasons. One of these reasons is to test people whether they obey or not what is given to them. Those people, who understand the real nature and spirit of the Divine Way and the position of the regulations in it and are not prejudiced, will recognize and accept the Truth in whatever form it comes. Such people will never hesitate to submit to the new regulations sent by Allah to replace the former ones. To demonstrate the unbiased nature of the Quranic message, it even tells its prophet in a hypothetical scenario that should a revelation be sent from God superseding both the Quran and the Torah, then Muhammad should be the first to follow it and nothing else 28:48-9. This verse isnt arguing from the angle of authenticity, that the new scripture supersedes the previous due to them being flawed. Neither does it give an indication as to whether one of the 2 is partially flawed while the other is pristine. The verse is arguing from the viewpoint of unconditional obedience to God, regardless of the level of authenticity of the current scriptures. Those, who do not understand the true spirit of the Way, whether Muslim or else, but consider the regulations and their details alone to be the Way and who have become static and prejudiced because of their own additions to it, as is the case with the Torah, will reject every new thing that comes from Allah to replace what they already possess 
5:48"and if Allah had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed"
 22:67"therefore they should not dispute with you about the matter". 
But the unbiased, who understand that God's guidance is indiscriminate, not only accept the new revelation but also 
13:36"rejoice in that which has been revealed to you". 
They read the book 
2:121"as it ought to be read". 
Consequently they cannot but recognize it as the truth 4:162,5:83. Just like when the Bani Israil were ordered to follow the Injeel when it was revealed, the same proclamation is made regarding the Quran, now that it has been revealed. It guides them out of the labyrinths of assumptions and conjectures 
27:76"Surely this Quran declares to the children of Israel most of what they differ in". 
It brings them back to the path they deviated from, when they failed upholding both the Torah and the Injeel 5:66. The only way they can rightly say that they are following their own scriptures is by believing in the Quran as well because these revelations are interconnected: 
5:68"Say: O followers of the Book! you follow no good till you keep up the Taurat and the Injeel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord; and surely that which has been revealed to you from your Lord shall make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; grieve not therefore for the unbelieving people". 
5:69"If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: But many of them follow a course that is evil." 
This distinguished group from among them is the one that was led to believe in 
"that which has been revealed to you from your Lord" 
due to their sincere adherence to their own books. While the other group is the one that not only rejected the Quran, but also increased in their already existing inordinacy consequent to their neglect and distortion of their own books. 
2:89-93"..but when there came to them (Prophet) that which they did recognize, they disbelieved in him; so Allah's curse is on the unbelievers. Evil is that for which they have sold their souls-- that they should deny what Allah has revealed, out of envy that Allah should send down of His grace on whomsoever of His servants He pleases..And when it is said to them, Believe in what Allah has revealed, they say: We believe in that which was revealed to us; and they deny what is besides that, while it is the truth verifying that which they have. Say: Why then did you kill Allah's Prophets before if you were indeed believers? And most certainly Musa came to you with clear arguments, then you took the calf (for a god) in his absence and you were unjust. And when We made a covenant with you and raised the mountain over you: Take hold of what We have given you with firmness and be obedient. They said: We hear and disobey. And they were made to imbibe (the love of) the calf into their hearts on account of their unbelief Say: Evil is that which your belief bids you if you are believers" 
The corruption of the HB and NT is a historical fact. This corruption is not dictated upon what the Quran says, i.e. it is an objective reality. The Quran simply confirms this objective reality. Even if, for argument's sake we assume that the Quran endorses the Bible's authenticity, despite it speaking of the corrupt writings of the Jewish scribes and the singular Injil of Jesus, which has nothing to do with the multiple Gospels and other Greek writings assembled into the NT, then there is still the inescapable notion of the Quran superseding and abrogating previous revealed, authentic laws and scriptures. The corruption of the Bible is nothing but the natural outcome of the moral degeneration of the Bani Israel, their heedlessness and carelessness in matters of religion, confirming Moses' predictions Deut31:25-29, Jeremiah's and other prophets' accusations, their lamentations Isa48:8.  

When the Quran states scriptures of the past were corrupted and tampered with, it never asserts corruption in an absolute sense. This is precisely why the Quran refers to itself as the Muhaymin (Guardian/Arbitrer), when talking about what is contemporary to it in terms of revealed truths, whether available in oral or written tradition, such as the Torah and Injil. It points out major mistakes in them, filters the Truth from falsehood 
21:24"this is the reminder of those with me and the reminder of those before me". 
The Quran confirming the past scriptures, as well as any tradition, oral or written, in which divine truths still remain 2:41, means that the principles thought by Muhammad come from a common source and can be found throughout these textual and oral traditions. It is in this same sense that Jesus confirmed parts of the Torah available to him. He confirmed the truth, by exposing the falsehood, both in the scriptures and traditions of the Bani Israil. Those among them that rejected Jesus were in reality rejecting their Torah which he confirmed. Now that the Quran came, if the people of the book do not stand firm by it, then they will be violating even their own scriptures which it confirms and fulfils. 

In 46:10 the Quran refers to a witness from among the Israelites that believed in the like of his scriptures, meaning the Quran. According to tradition, the verse is speaking of the learned rabbi Abdullah ibn Salam's conversion to Islam. Given his religious knowledge, he knew the Quran abrogates and supersedes, exposes and denies, confirms in places while contradicting in many other places his own scripture, the Torah. But yet it literally says, this rabbi believed in the like of his scriptures. That "likeness" between the Torah and the Quran therefore can only be the statements that fully agree with one another. This is exactly what is meant by Quran confirming the past revelations. It confirms the truth in them in several ways, including exposing what is from God and what is man-made, hence its function as the Muhaymin/guardian,arbitrer as well as fulfilling its prophecies, which the Quran repeatedly echoes and which of course the learned rabbi knew applied to Muhammad 
2:146"those to whom We have given the scripture recognize him as they recognize their own sons". 
That is also why the minority commentators that rejected the application of the verse to ibn Salam, rather see in it a reference to Moses himself. He was the Israelite witness that testified to one like himself/mithlihi, as clearly stated in the prophecy of 
Deut18:18"I will set up a prophet for them, from among their brothers like you and I will put my words into his mouth and he will speak to them all that I command him". 
But as attested in history, not all of them remained obdurate 
3:199"And most surely of the followers of the Book there are those who believe in Allah and (in) that which has been revealed to you and (in) that which has been revealed to them, being lowly before Allah; they do not take a small price for the communications of Allah; these it is that have their reward with their Lord; surely Allah is quick in reckoning". 
These are the righteous among the followers of previous scriptures and who remained truthful to their Books. This sincerity inevitably led them to believe in the Quran 
4:162,5:83"But the firm in knowledge among them..believe in what has been revealed to you and what has been revealed before you...and when they hear what has been revealed to the apostle, you will see their eye overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize. They say; our Lord, we believe so write us down with the witnesses". 
A subtle aspect worth noting in 2:121 is that since the righteous among them are mentioned, the expression used is "We have given them the Book" not "They were given the Book" conveying the idea that it is God who gave it to them and guided them on account of their righteousness, contrary to those who were given the book without identification of the giver or instructor. This pattern is present throughout the Quran and is actually one of the many examples of its linguistic precision. This is why the people of the book are never told to reject their scriptures in 5:68,69 but rather to stand by not only the Torah and the Gospel, but the Quran, to which the previous scriptures naturally lead to. This has been pointed to in the words "and that which is revealed to you from your Lord". Because it is the "Muhaymin" of their revelations, the guardian of the truth which God himself has pledged to preserve unlike any holy book, the reminder of the pure way of Ibrahim. As to those who would claim, and still do, that they only believe that which has been revealed to them then the Quran answers them that even Prophets that came from among their own people, preaching adherence to their own books were killed by these men, as Jesus put it Mk12:1-12,Matt23:31-37. This charge was levelled against them in the earliest Meccan revelations such as 37:37 before the interaction with them in Medina. 

In summary, the passage 5:43-68, states the following; 
1. God reveals the Torah. 
2. God then reveals the Gospel, and the Bani israel are required to judge by it. They cannot ignore it, despite the fact that they have the Torah. Further, this rejection would be even more grievous considering the fact that the Gospel confirms the Torah as a Book of God. 
3. Now God has revealed the Quran, and the people must judge by it, irrespective of the fact that the Gospel and Torah are present, even though in their corrupted forms. The Quran states that the new revelation confirms the Torah and Gospel and guards them. That is why the whole passage ends in 5:69 with a statement that success in the Hereafter is independent of any appellation, so long as one is obedient to God's revelations throughout time. 

Rejecting the last Revelation does not only result in rejecting their own scriptures. It also entails rejection of Gabriel who has revealed it to the Prophet's heart by Allah's Command, not by his own wish. So they were ultimately disbelieving in God 
6:33,2:98"Whoever is the enemy of Gabriel for surely he revealed it to your heart by Allah's Command, verifying that which is before it, and guidance and good news for the believers. Whoever is the enemy of Allah and His angels and His apostles and Gabriel and Michael - so surely Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers". 
To reject any messenger, as is here stated concerning Moses against whom the Israelites rebelled 44:19 is equal to rejecting the One that sent him. Similarly, Gabriel is one of Allah's honored servants, just like Michael and others; they have no authority except to follow and obey the Divine Commands. That is why the Quran speaks of the belief in the carriers and transmitters of revelation -angels or human messengers- as an article of faith 2:177,285. The verse 2:98 exposes another side of the Israelites' rejection. Their hatred and grudge against Muhammad's prophethood took them to the extent of inventing the tale that Gabriel was an enemy of theirs because he was the Angel of destruction. This in their eyes was among the justified reasons for rejecting Islam. Had the angelic messenger been Michael, who brings prosperity, they would have believed. Whether Islam was true or false, this argument was ludicrous. Angelic messengers, as corroborated in their own books, have no free will and act only according to God's directives. They do not willingly take sides, much less among humans.

Further reading

Thursday, December 2, 2021

Understanding the Quran

Among the well known features of the Quranic text are its repetitions.

The primary purpose of that feature is to stress some important pillars of belief 
25:50"And certainly We have repeated this to them that they may be mindful, but the greater number of men do not consent to aught except denying". 
The first objective of that literary feature is thus enhancing man's remembrance of Allah 39:23. It also is a way of explaining itself 
17:41"We have explained (things) in various (ways) in this Quran". 
According to the Quran therefore, its master exegete is none but the Book itself, explaining itself 75:19,16:89. The Prophet is its second exegete and interpreter 3:164,16:44,62:2. There are reported cases of the prophet using verses of the Quran to explain other verses 
"When the Verse:-- 'Those who believe and mix not their belief with wrong.' was revealed, the Muslims felt it very hard on them and said, "O Allah's Messenger! Who amongst us does not do wrong to himself?" He replied, "The Verse does not mean this. But that (wrong) means to associate others in worship to Allah: Don't you listen to what Luqman said to his son when he was advising him," O my son! Join not others in worship with Allah. Verily joining others in worship with Allah is a great wrong indeed 31:13".
The Quran being primarily self-explanatory establishes from the onset 2 conditions for its proper understanding; the importance of considering the context of a verse and the fact that the Book is one integral whole; every verse and sentence has an intimate bearing on other verses and sentences, all of them clarifying and amplifying one another. Consequently, its real meaning can be grasped only if we correlate every one of its statements with what has been stated elsewhere in a different context. A full picture of its ideas can be appreciated by means of cross-references. 

Allah warns the prophet, in the context of exposing the followers of previous scriptures for their transgressions, not to withhold anything of what he is commanded to convey, or else it would be as if he did not convey the entirety of the message from beginning to end 
5:67"O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message. And Allah will protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the disbelieving people". 
This holistic approach was considered by the earliest Quran scholars, down to the contemporary ones. This means the Quran and its meaning isnt locked to the common man's comprehension, provided it is effectively pondered upon. Al-Tabari for example states that the Quran has 3 kinds of material: that which is only known to God, but irrelevant to hermeneutics, that which only the Prophet could explain, but extremely marginal, and that which any knowledgeable person of Arabic language can explain, practically all of the Quran. Al-Tabari included a chapter even refuting the position of those who claimed that only the Prophet can interpret the Quran. As a side note, the tafsir section in Bukhari includes many interpretations without isnad, and that are not even those of Muhammad, his Companions, or his Followers.
 
A note on the Tafsir literature. 

Hundreds of Quran commentaries were written during the long history of Islam. Most are now lost and only partially survive either as incomplete manuscripts or quoted in other tafsir works. This is because tafsir is a genealogical literary genre. It has always been dependent on an ancient inherited corpus of material. This inherited corpus constituted a core that was continuously cited. It is important to add that this core itself was born in a different environment than that of the Quran's composition. In a matter of a few decades following the prophet's death, the scholars of Islam were studying the Quran in Palestinian and Babylonian centers of learning next to Jewish and Christian experts on rabbinic and patristic texts. The successive scholars of Islam that inherited that core added to it, refined, reassessed or simply rejected it. This occurred anytime a new commentator read his own dogma into a passage. What was purposefully discarded still was determinative since it was foundational. This core was ascribed to individual authorities who were invoked to legitimize a specific interpretation, even if that particular interpretation seemed shaky when scrutinised closely. But this hierarchy of authorities was in constant shuffle, because their authority to interpret the Quran was in constant challenge by other centres of authorities; like jurists, reformists, theologians and more particularly linguists. In medieval Islam, the linguists voiced their own opinions in disregard to what the authorities in tafsir had to say. This general principle in regards to tafsir literature applies to the 3 main exegetical currents, the Sufi core, the Sunni inherited core and the Shi'i core. These were not always distinct but coexisted and competed, and at many times fused into a coherent unit.

Here is an example of how a core of material was inherited in tafsir works. Ibn Abbas' commentaries on the Quran is one of the most cited. Yet that work itsef is composed of multiple early authorities. Later, and well after al-Tabari, al-Zajjaj would become as essential a component of the tafsir core as Ibn Abbas was, thus becoming a defining part of the tafsir corpus. This shows the evolving nature of the tafsir core. Al-Tabari’s commentary didnt become an essential component of the tafsir core prior to the modern era and the publication of his work in 1905. Today, ibn Kathir far surpasses even the likes of al Tabari yet his ascent in the Islamic world is quite recent. His work was even almost forgotten, until discovered and reintroduced in the 19th century. Ibn Kathir also drew mainly from al-Zamakhsahri, al-Qurtubi and al-Razi, who themselves drew from earlier works. For instance al-Qurtubi quotes from al-ThaÊ¿labi. In more modern times, Tafsir efforts have more and more disregarded, criticized and refuted many facets of the inherited exegetical tradition. But this was and is done using the same philological tools at the disposal of the medieval and ancient exegetes. The same approach was adopted by the earliest works that reported, discussed, selected, discarded previous views, as Attabari does for instance.  
Al-Ghazzali lists 4 main obstacles in understanding the meaning of the Quran; exaggerated focus on the correct pronunciation of the text, dogmatic adherence to a madhhab, state of sin, pride and attachment to worldly passions, not admitting of there being additional meanings than those transmitted from earlier generations like Ibn Abbas or Ibn Masud.

As a further note on a particular angle of interpretation; the meaning of the Quran is not dependant on a commentator's projection of his own understanding of nature. Science is a field in constant reevaluation, and thus is not part of the exegetical tools of a mufassir. If however a commentator chooses to integrate it in his reading of a passage, then a commentator today, using the same tools available to his predecessors, added with current knowledge of nature, can supersede older interpretations in which the commentator projects his outdated scientific knowledge.  

Among the most skilful commentators of our times are the likes of ibn Ashur or Tabataba'i. The Quran allows such endeavour because it isnt a text whose meaning and applicability is locked in time. And that is why the Muslims have not attached much importance to transmitting the minute detailed meaning of every passage, from the prophet and his companions, but they have instead focused on transmitting the text of the Quran itself. It was always the purpose of the Quran and its sharia to be adaptable across time and space. That is why we have very few reports by the prophet giving his interpretation of the Quran. We are not talking of the core messages which are agreed upon, but of passages with multilayered meanings and implications, whose interpretations are open depending on the socio-cultural background or even the scientific knowledge of its contemporaries. These passages are open to many interpretations so long as they do not contradict the firm and unambiguous verses, which the Quran calls muhkam. Again, the Quran itself states that certain verses are more ambiguous and open to disagreement whilst others are decisive and clear. 

It is these supposedly "obscure" parts of the book, that most modern critics of Islam use to build their theories on the origins of the Quran. They begin by discrediting the oral transmission process of the Quran based on the presence of these "blind spots" of Quranic exegisis. They think this constitutes proof that the oral transmission chain was broken, hence the absence of a consensus on the meaning of these passages. These critics then dismiss centuries of accumulated Muslim scholarship, debates on all levels of the religion, textual, historical, sectarian, juristic, exegetical, theological, that led to the conclusions Muslims hold today as regards the Quran's authenticity, and all this, despite their awareness of various layers of meaning to certain passages. The critics then propose readings based on emendation of the text, changing letters and words so as to prove that "their" reading is more in line with what they individually think the message of a specific passage should be. The effortless cohesive theological structure of the text, the intricate connections between all of its passages and words is irrelevant and not worth considering. What is primordial is that their "improved" reading be violently forced into the text so as to integrate the Quran in the wider socio-religious context in which they suppose it came. The main purpose being the find their holy grail, to reveal the underlying sources that inspired it. The end result is an incoherent new book that has nothing to do with the original, with sometimes theological implications that Muslims of the past and today would never agree with. But in their minds, the purpose has been accomplished. The uniqueness of the Quran as a religious text orally transmitted, is now a pious legend, regardless of the thousands around the world in our own time doing just that, emulating their predecessors. 

The reality of the matter is that as a result of that revisionist approach to the Quran, all these critics converge on the same grounds; they do not know how the Quran originated, where it came from, and when it first appeared, how and in what language it was written, what form it first took, who was the first audience, how was it transmitted from one generation to another, especially in its early years, when, how, and by whom it was codified. These are all basic issues taken for granted by scholars dealing with other texts, much older than the Quran. Muslim tradition has for long resolved all these issues. Recent critical scholarship will eventually go back to the initial, much more constructive approach of pionneers in the field, by considering the historicity of the events agreed upon over the centuries by the Muslim scholars, and then try and build up their claims, whatever these might be. The Quran in many places is like a live transcript of a religious community being established. It reflects the context in which it was revealed and that is why the controversial methodology of stripping it from the historical context that the authentic Muslim sources have described for it results in inability to ascertain its context of revelation. 

Another similar helpless situation in which the revisionists have put themselves in, but are now progressively back pedaling from, is due to the dismissal of the near totality of the pre-Islamic poetry corpus as unreliable. This left scholars virtually nothing with which to compare the Quran. Western Islamicists were then left with the limitation of etymological studies in order to derive the original, more proper, and of course extremely biased meaning of its words. They began digging for cognates from common Semitic languages like Hebrew or Syriac, presuming that the vocabulary of the Quran is misused and derivative. Its theology too was seen as defective, due to borrowing from Judaism and Christianity, and was thus similarily in need of reinterpretation.

Saturday, July 24, 2021

The challenge of the Quran

The Quran pronounces about itself that all of its words, phrases and sentences are God's speech. It makes clear that the Prophet was not its author; rather the Prophet only related whatever was brought to him by Jibril, with the permission of God.   

When Muhammad was challenged by his fellow countrymen to present a miracle, in keeping with the tradition of other prophets, he presented the Quran to them 
28:48"But (now), when the Truth has come to them from Ourselves, they say, "Why are not (Signs) sent to him, like those which were sent to Moses?" Do they not then reject (the Signs) which were formerly sent to Moses?". 
The Quran tells its opponents 
4:82"Will they not then ponder on the Quran, Had it been from other Than God, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy". 
The Quran is specifically meant in this verse, not books in general. It speaks of a wide variety of subjects spanning thousands of years, all having a profound bearing on every aspect of human life. One cannot claim errors in it unless as the verse says, following deep reflection. And just as nobody will try refuting theories in an advanced physics manual without mastering the tools needed to derive the proper conclusions, studying the Quran, especially with the purpose of finding flaws in it, necessitates a deep mastery of all areas of the Arabic language, let alone knowledge of the wide variety of fields the Quran uses in its argumentation. 

After acquiring these tools one may still encounter perceived contradictions in it. But these will always be a few. The statement "much discrepency" indicates that were one to study this Quran and find only a few errors, it would not negate it being from God. This is because the verse is addressing the human intellect, which is prone to change, mistakes and improvement. A student physicist may find a few perceived errors in his teacher's book, but it would not negate it being from the teacher. If the Quran aligns with the truth in all of its statements, then the few perceived contradictions must eventually resolve through further reflexion, until none remains and one inevitably concludes that only God could have woven this intricate discourse flawlessly.  

This Quran would not have escaped with only a few errors had it been the product of the human mind, hence the appropriateness of the statement "much discrepancy". For example in a similar category of writing, there is the current Bible. One with the complete tools to understand it, and who reflects upon it, will not find few, but many statements that, after further contemplation do not align with internal or external truths, leading to the conclusion that it is man-made. 

The verse does not give a point of reference to determine how many would be "much". Neither does it give an exact number. This is so as to widen the challenge to anyone. Had it given a specific number, it would inevitably have been a high one so as to keep it unfalsifiable, revealing a lack of confidence in its claim. The verse however, through its general wording, leaves it to every person's subjectivity to define how many would be "much". For example, the higher is a person's mastery of the fields required to understand the Quran, the less errors would constitute "much" to him. This Quranic method of throwing the gauntlet of challenge to include every type of intellect is remarkable in strength, baffling if one considers that it was uttered by someone known for everything except mastery of the fields that constitute this Quran. 

This all-inclusive style is similar to the challenge to produce a Book like it.

This challenge is directed to all humans and jinn to produce a similar book 17:88. It was then reduced to 10 Suras 11:13 and finally 1 Sura in 2:23. Some Suras are very short the shortest being al-Kawthar with only 3 sentences and about a total of 10 words. The Quran again, in all confidence, offers the possibility to every intellectual potential of choosing between various levels of difficulty 
52:34"Then let them bring a discourse like it if they are truthful". 
Sura is the feminine of sur meaning the wall that surrounds a valuable area for protection, that used to be built by kings and rulers. The particularity of that wall, besides being built by the king of the universe, is that instead of being raised from the foundations up like a regular fortress, was built from the sky down, it has descended/nazzalna from the far heaven, thus further stressing its impenetrability. The word sura was never used in a literary context, to describe a literary structure. Here the Quran challenges the masters of eloquence of the time by using a striking word in an innovative manner, loaded with implications at its onset.

Let us consider one who decides to produce 3 lines as in sura kawthar. For validation, he would need to additionally bring the testimony of his god(s) just as the Quran claims to come from God 
10:38,11:13"and call upon whom you can besides Allah, if you are truthful". 
There are thus 2 conditions for validation. One is unfalsifiable as it relates to the unseen (calling upon other gods) and the other is falsifiable as it relates to the written text. It is interesting to note that, instead of making the falsifiable criteria difficult, the Quran actually makes it easy. It does not even define in what specific way the likeness to the Quran must be. It is left to the critic's choice. What is made explicit however is to bring the testimony of other gods. Yet the challenger (the Quran's Author) does not recognize them as true, in addition warns His addressees of certain failure should they try calling these other deities for support 
64:13,2:24"But if you do (it) not and never shall you do (it), then be on your guard against the fire of which men and stones are the fuel; it is prepared for the unbelievers".
There potentially existing other deities besides the one claiming authorship of the Quran isnt even an issue at this point since the challenger's premise is that anything worshipped besides Himself is a falsehood, a created "lie" that He will never consequently recognize.

To make it simpler, even if 3 lines are produced like those of sura kawthar, with this "likeness" criteria left to the author's own appreciation, and in addition alleged testimony of other gods is brought, it will still be rejected by the Quran's author. To simplify it further, it does not matter what the level of difficulty is because whether it is as hard as bringing a whole book like the Quran or bringing 3 lines like sura kawthar, the challenge cannot be completed due to the impossibility to falsify the condition related to the unseen.

The challenge is therefore a test, of what hatred does to one's reasoning skills. It exposes to the person itself and to the world, the extent at which one is ready to go to deny the One God.

This claim of the Quran that its God is the only True deity and that based on this, any claim of having completed the challenge will be rejected, is obviously something none will be able to verify in this world whether for the Quran's claim of Divine origin or the forged sura's. This will only become fact in the Hereafter, in accordance with the principle that the whole purpose of life is to have faith before seeing the facts. This is why Muslims are told to believe in the Quran's Divine authorship no matter what answer the critic gives to the challenge, whether he brings his suras (which the Quran says can never be true 2:24) or whether he remains silent 
11:14"But if they do not answer you, then know that it is revealed by Allah's knowledge and that there is no god but He".
This is similar to other instances where the Quran, to test if its addressees still have any sense, issues a simple challenge that a person can easily meet if he disbelieves and rejects the Quran. In 6:150 it asks those who have heavily innovated in religious regulations to bear witness, and bring others to testify with them that God Whom they claim ordained these laws, has effectively sanctioned their laws. At the same time, it tells the prophet that if they do bear witness it doesnt mean they have passed the challenge successfully, rather they have lied and exposed their degree of disbelief 
"then if they bear witness, do not bear witness with them; and follow not the low desires of those who reject Our communications and of those who do not believe in the hereafter, and they make (others) equal to their Lord". 
The challenge, like that of bringing a similar sura, is therefore one of faith, meant at exposing the extent at which one is willing to go in his rejection. Those with some integrity left in them realize that what they follow is without divine basis; God never sanctioned their innovations. And effectively, in the following verse, the Quran lays down Allah's basic regulations into which they have innovated. Like the sura challenge where God issues the challenge and explains at the same time that it is impossible to pass, here they are challenged to bear witness that God has sanctioned their innovation, while at the same time they are told what God has sanctioned in reality.

As stated earlier, the likeness to the Quran was not clearly defined. This allows for the challenge to remain accessible to any critic's subjectivity, and stay valid across time and space. 

In the time of the prophet for example, that likeness would have immediately been taken to be in terms of literary excellence. Those were people whose command of balagha was nothing short of perfection. They were regarded as masters of eloquence at a time when life of the desert was nothing but poetry. They were the only people who walked this earth with the linguistic capacity to challenge the Quran from that perspective. Every Arab in our time and before, admits to their being "puppets' compared to them. The force of this challenge becomes clear when we realize that it is issued by an unschooled orphan, unable to read or write. None among the prophet's critics could claim otherwise as he lived among them for 40 years prior to revelation. The Quran advances the argument that not only the most advanced in literary knowledge could not achieve something similar, but the medium of the text himself, was among the most unlikely persons of that time and place to do it.

Muhammad was known among his peers for many qualities, including trustworthiness, but not for eloquent speech, literary knowledge, poetic training. It was unthinkable for such an aspect of a person to be hidden from the public, especially when eloquence was a sought after quality of an individual in the desert life, one that could bring prestige and eminence. He in addition, given his lack of knowledge in that field, had no possibility to retract and edit, improve and correct any part of what he was conveying as God's revelations. Shakespeare for instance, was known long before his famous works for his training in his field, he improved and edited his masterpieces. Further, what he produced is not unanimously recognized as the climax of eloquence by experts of the english language. 

If according to the contention of the Arabs, someone like Muhammad can author such a discourse, then it should not be difficult for people of their caliber to do likewise. But they failed, not only failed but admitted it could not be done. They could not ascertain how something could outweigh their mastery. Every single word, both in its choice and form, is perfectly chosen and cannot be expressed any other way to produce the maximum effect that it does. This is something that the Arabs at the time understood immediately and is the reason why they often accepted Islam upon hearing a few verses or fled from hearing it, calling it madness, sorcery, jinn-inspired poetry. They knew and were tacitly admitting that someone like Muhammad, who was neither mad, magician, or possessed poet, and certainly not a deceitful liar, could not have authored it. Here it should be noted that "min mithlihi" may also be rendered "from like him". In that case the challenge would cover that the competing Quran should be brought, not by an educated critic in the field of eloquence but by someone with a similar "blank" background as the prophet. 

Another thing to note is that the literary challenge is not about beauty as often misunderstood by critics who then argue that the challenge is unfalsifiable due to subjective criteria. The parameters of the Arabic language are very intricate, they were known to the prophet's addressees and are still known and objectively testable today. 


Further reading;