Return
to Main Page
Return
to List of Readings
KARAMAH: Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights
Contact: Azizah al-Hibri, President
(804)
STATEMENT
ON THE RECENT ARTICLE
IN THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY ABOUT THE QUR'AN
by Dr.
Azizah Y. al-Hibri
T. C. Williams School of
I have been asked by many concerned Muslims and non-Muslims to provide my views on the recent article, entitled "What is the Koran?" published by The Atlantic Monthly in its January issue. I have reviewed the article and find that it presents highly speculative arguments based on remarkably selective data supporting a point of view hostile to Islam. Furthermore, it relies on stereotypical assumptions about Islam, rooted in a biased perspective deeply offensive to Muslims.
Of course the author, Toby Lester, is entitled to his opinion on Islam. In a free market place of ideas, anyone may say almost anything. However, articles like his do not contribute positively to the ongoing efforts of building bridges of trust, compassion and understanding within our pluralistic society. For this reason, it is important for American Muslims to make their views and feelings known to their compatriots. This is essential for the robust exchange of ideas.
Early
Constitutional Debates. In fact, even
the constitutional debates referred to Islamic constitutional precedents. In
particular, Webster, Henry and Dollard spoke of the evils of Turkish despotism.
Hamilton, on the other hand, exhibited greater insight into the Turkish empire
when he argued that the Turkish Sultan was weak and had limited powers. This
position led
In short, for centuries, Islam and Muslims have been regarded in the West negatively and suspiciously. This negative and untrustworthy image has led to numerous serious consequences. It has, for example, impacted the civil rights of American Muslims, and most recently, has facilitated the use of airport profiling and secret evidence against many of them.
In earlier times, a significant Muslim slave population in the
"Otherizing" Muslims. In this context of harmony and public civility on the part of most religious leaders, the Atlantic Monthly article represents a serious lapse into earlier modes of "Otherizing" the Muslim through the eyes of Orientalist writers. While this press release is not intended to be a detailed scholarly criticism of the article, some problems will be highlighted. Many scholars in the field have made it clear through private correspondence that they intend to address the claims made in the article in a scholarly arena, eschewing journalistic sensationalism. I now turn to some salient problems in the article.
From Stereotyping Muslims To Defective Logic. First, the article opens with a picture of the desert and sandals, silently evoking a stereotypical image of a primitive people. Then, the first part of the article describes an important find, which we are told suggests that the Qur’an was not revealed, a central belief for Muslims. What sort of a find could suggest that? Some writings, reportedly from the seventh and eighth century, which differ in some respects from the Qur’an as Muslims know it. As a logician, I fail to see the logic of this highly speculative argument. At best, the find could suggest a set of possible interpretations.
For example, one interpretation is that the writings represent a defective
attempt by some Muslims to write down the Qur’an from memory. History tells us
that the Qur’an, which was revealed orally, was first committed to memory, then parts of it were written down by various individuals.
During the rule of the third khalifah (Caliph) ‘Uthman, it became clear
that those who knew the Qur’an perfectly by heart were passing away. So,
‘Uthman called the most knowledgeable and reliable Muslims, such as the
surviving Companions of the Prophet, and gave them the task of putting together
in writing a fully and completely accurate version of the revealed Qur’an. They
did, and ‘Uthman ordered all other written versions destroyed. Could it be that
a few copies in
Conflation of Issues. Another problem with the article is its attempt to conflate issues within Islamic jurisprudence to make the claims of Puin and others more sympathetic. For example, the article conflated the claim of the historicity of the Qur’an, which is rejected by Muslims, with the issue of Qur’anic interpretation which is essential to Muslim jurisprudence. There are many respected jurists, past and present, who have engaged successfully in Qur’anic interpretation. I have personally argued for its necessity, based on the statements of classical jurists. I have even stated this position in various Muslims countries, and at times at Shari’ah schools. My statement was accepted as unexceptional.
Qur’anic Interpretation. The rub in
Qur’anic interpretation is not its possibility, but rather in the ability to do
it properly. Interpretation based on ignorance of the Arabic language, rules of
grammar or historical context (asbab al-nuzul) amount to bad
scholarship. Colonialism, especially in
Distorted Analysis of Individual Cases.
Fazlur Rahman, an important Muslim scholar, never identified himself with any
particular school of thought, including the Mu’tazilite. He carried the torch
of Islamic modernization and thus angered supporters of the status quo in
Additional Harmful Consequences. Most significantly, articles of the type published by The Atlantic Monthly seriously complicate the work of those of us who are truly interested in bringing democracy, freedom and tolerance to Muslim countries. By casting Qur’anic interpretation as a rebellious act against tradition, it gives ammunition to those reactionaries who would like to preserve the status quo, and their tyranny over the people, in the name of religion.
For all these reasons, as an American Muslims jurist, I am deeply offended and injured by this article.
Wassalamu alaykum (Peace be with you).
Copyright © 1999
Al-Hewar Center, Inc. All rights reserved.
For more information, please
contact Al-Hewar via e-mail
at alhewar@alhewar.com