Return to Main Page
Return to List of Readings

To the Editor, 

As a convert to Islam with a background in academic religious studies, it was with great excitement and enthusiasm that I opened your January 1999 cover article "What is the Qur'an?" by Toby Lester. 

It seems clear that much of Muslim theology has stagnated into a dry legalism over the last few centuries, as represented by the famous phrase "closing the doors to ijtihad". "Ijtihad" refers to the interpretation of the Qur’an. (The phrase is famous among Muslims, and is central to understanding many issues facing contemporary Muslims, but this was not mentioned by the author.) 

And so, I approached the article anticipating an exciting exploration. However, I was very disappointed. It clearly exhibited a confused understanding of some aspects of Muslim thought--including statements that were simply misleading-- and a confusion between two interesting topics: the history of the Qur’an and the interpretation of the Qur’an. In addition, Lester makes use of references that are out of print and/or written by self-proclaimed antagonists to Islam. In other words, there is no way to check many of the author’s major references, and some of them are clearly bigoted--not academic. 

First, the problematic references. Lester refers to the seemingly authorless The Origins of the Koran. This lapse in attribution is understandable given that this collection of essays is edited by none other than the infamous, pseudonymous "Ibn Warraq" author of Why I am Not a Muslim. This earlier work cannot be described as anything resembling valid academic scholarship, as I show with my online review...   "Warraq" articulated his purpose in writing this earlier book: "This book is first and foremost an assertion of my right to criticize everything and anything in Islam--even to blaspheme." One can only assume his goals have remained unchanged, and one can only question the validity of such types of writing.

Indeed, one of his own references in that earlier book distanced herself in no uncertain terms from his misrepresentation of her work. I had a personal conversation with Dr. Ann Elizabeth Mayer at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania regarding "Warraq’s" reference to some of her work. She was quite clear in disdainfully classifying "Warraq" as a hate-monger, not a legitimate academic. Details are available at the web address listed above. 

Similar problems abound with reference to the works of Patricia Crone--neither of which are in print. Also out of print are the books by John Wansbrough referenced in the article. Given this, I have to question Lester’s assertion that anyone "engaged in the critical study of the Koran today must contend with Wansbrough’s two main works..." (emphasis mine) Am I to assume there are so few people engaged in such study that two such seminal works cannot be kept in print? Or at least, that there is no recent work based on Wansbrough’s books the author could have referenced? Were there no mainstream authors or current works to reference that the diligent student could easily obtain for him or herself? 

In the beginning of the article Lester discusses issues that would involve the possibility of a historical development to the Qur’anic text that continued after Muhammad’s death. At the end of the article, however, it appears the topic has changed to issues related to the interpretation of the Qur’anic text--as that text’s history is currently understood. In both arenas, the article raised for me more questions than it answered. Questions pertaining to the author’s grasp of both topics. They are not the same. The general and usual understanding of the historicity of the text is that the Qur’an is a collection of Muhammad’s utterances at discreet, identifiable times over a period ofabout twenty-three years. A proper understanding must then always refer back to the historical context, situation, or questions being asked by his contemporaries at the time of each "incident of revelation." In that sense, Muslims have always understood the Qur’an as being bound by history, time, place, and context. (There is absolutely no similarity between the Muslim understanding of the process of this alleged revelation and a Christian understanding of revelation by "verbal
inspiration" as is stated by the author.) 

It is known and accepted among Muslims that there are several versions of the Qur’anic text. These variations have to do with differing diacritical marks, and do not seem to significantly effect meaning. It is also alleged that two or three copies of the original ‘Uthmanic recension of the Qur’an still exist. To my best understanding, one is in Turkey and perhaps two in the old Soviet Union. It would have been helpful for the author to mention these variations and texts and how they may or may not relate to the discovery of the Yemeni texts. Are the Yemeni textual variations simply among the known and accepted readings of the Qur’an? Do they differ from the texts alleged to be ‘Uthmanic? Or are these completely new, hitherto unknown variations? (That would indeed be significant!) In other words, which "standard Qur'anic text" is Lester discussing and comparing with the Yemeni texts, exactly? We do not know, and have thus failed to actually learn much of anything. 

Lester’s discussion of orthodoxy in Islam seems highly problematic, in that technically Islam has no priestly caste within which resides interpretative authority. In other words, who’s "orthodoxy" is the author referencing? Shi’a? Sunni? Wahabi? Sufi? We don’t know. It may be safe to assume the author is prey to the common misconception that Muslim thought is one huge monolithic entity as defined by the classical ulema and their ideological descendants. It isn’t. And had the author read or referenced any of the varieties of Sufi theology he would know that metaphorical interpretations of the Qur’an are alive and well and quite popular among many, many Muslims. 

In an article that attempts such detailed analysis, it was very disturbing to find two errors in the presentation of the basics of Islamic thought. The author defines "sunna" as "the body of Islamic social and legal custom." This is incorrect. Sunnah is the example of Muhammad--communicated both through the hadith literature and the practical example of the living Muslim community. Shariah, or Muslim Law, is the body of social and legal customs and behaviors. While the Shariah is partially derived from what is considered to be the sunnah of Muhammad, it also incorporates several methods, such as use of analogy, to apply that example to various situations. This appears to be a significant error on the part of the author. 

Another error is found in a quote from Gerd-R. Puin who questions the Qur’anic self- description of being "clear" when "every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense". This was shocking to me from an academic studying the Qur’an, for the Qur’an is quite explicit that some verses of the text are clear in meaning, but some are not clear in meaning. (Surah 3: Ayat 7) Indeed, Muhammad Asad, in his masterful and contemporary English commentary on the Qur’an states that this passage "may be regarded as a key to understanding the Qur’an" and yet Puin seems to have completely ignored it in his assessment of the intelligibility of the Qur’an--and clearly misleads with his statement on the issue of clarity. One can only question the validity of Puin’s grasp of and awareness of the text. In addition, on the same point, Qur’anic Arabic is not the same as Modern Arabic. Are some of the sentences "incomprehensible" to Puin and others today because of a loss of ancient meanings and words due to the natural development of spoken Arabic? We don’t know, this important issue is not even mentioned. 

Additional errors, or at least statements open to question, are made by the author in his understanding of the status of a translated Qur’an, the "doctrine" of abrogation, the understanding of what is actually done with Islamic symbols in Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, and a number of other not-so-minor points that need not be detailed here. 

Suffice it to say that this article has failed to deliver a substantive report on the issues facing contemporary Muslims as they begin to look at the foundational text of their religious tradition in a fresh, contemporary way, and has failed to communicate the actual significance of the discovered Yemeni texts. 

I must refer your interested readers to a fascinating recent work surveying contemporary Muslim debates on the interpretation of the Qur’an (though not on the allegations of a significant post-Muhammadan historical development of the text) by Daniel Brown entitled Rethinking Tradition in Modern Islamic Thought. 

The acceptance of the Qur'an as the word of God suggests that the so-called historical and textual study of the Qur'an is tantamount to questioning the historical existence of Jesus Christ, as some people in the West have claimed. The rules of biblical criticism do not apply to the Qur'an as God's revelation because what corresponds to the Bible is the hadith collection, which comprises the words and deeds of the Prophet of Islam as the Bible comprises the words and deeds of Jesus Christ. Both the hadith books and the Bible were compiled after the revelation, whereas the Qur'an has existed in its present form from the very beginning of Islamic revelation. To claim that the so-called history of the Qur'an undermines or casts doubt on its being a divine revelation is not only to misunderstand the nature of the Qur'an but also to go against the historical evidence.

Besides these fundamental points, the author confuses many issues. First of all, the so-called textual and historic study of the Qur'an does not entail the rejection of the Qur'an as God's word. Classical scholarship, especially the Sciences of Arabic grammar, lexicography and Qur'anic exegesis, is peerless. To claim that Muslims have not studied the historical and textual dimensions of the Qur'an is to admit an ignorance of Islam and Muslims - unless one intends to blame Muslims for taking their sacred book seriously. The author's mention of some modern Muslim thinkers as proof for his claim that the Qur'an is not the word of God is flawed and misleading. Although the historicist and modernist reading of the Qur'an represents only a small minority in the Islamic world, not even this perspective abrogates the divine origin of the Qur'an, as the author seems to imply. To claim to read the Qur'an from a certain historical point of view without denying its sacred character is one thing; to see the Qur'an as a text devoid of any divine substance and written by human beings - in the way many modern Westerners claim the Bible was written - is another. -- Atlantic Monthly, April 1999.

Subject: dc: ON THE LATEST ASSAULT ON THE QURAN
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 14:13:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Washington DC Area Muslim Network

The coming issue of The Atlantic Monthly (Jan 1999) launches a major assault on the authenticity of the Qur'an. By arguing that The Qur'an is a historical document, it is trying to prove that Qur'an is not the word of God and therefore Islam is nothing but a historical construction that served the political interests of certain vested interests, like Pagan Arabs etc.

Needless to say Muslims are going to be disturbed and justifiably angered by this abuse. There might be angry and reactionary responses, which I believe could do more damage to the mission of Islam than The Atlantic Monthly article. Remember foolish knee jerk reactions from Muslims will always undermine the image of Islam and Muslims. Defamatory propaganda by non-Muslims (particularly from those with known sympathies for Israel) should be taken as routine. This kind of propaganda by some Jews and some Christians, all Marxists, and more recently some Hindus, has been an ongoing challenge for ambassador's of Islam.

The discursive assault on Islam in the last 30 years has been so virulent and consistent that its hostility and venom that it can only be compared to the actual hatred of Islam that prompted the Crusades. Yet, by the grace of Allah, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the U.S., Canada, in Europe, in Asia, Australia and Africa. This phenomenalglobal growth of Islam, through conversions not migration, is indicative of two important facts, that Muslims should draw reassurance from:

1. One that Islam grows through an exchange of faith and ideas and not through the sword as many non-Muslim, secular, and Marxist historians imply.

2. Two, anti-Islamic propaganda does little to stem the Islamic tide, on the contrary it seems to invite more interests and conversions.

Not many of the readers of the Atlantic monthly are going to be Muslims with weak faith who will simply discard their faith based on this article. Muslims who care little about their faith can find many other reasons to leave. I doubt if the general audience of the magazine will be knowledgeable enough about Islam's history to actually use it to undermine Muslim faith. The only damage that it may do is to perhaps dissuade those non-Muslims who might be beginning to take interest in Islam and provide a rationale for those Muslims who have ceased to be believing/practicing Muslims anyway.

It is possible that the article, which studiously avoids discussing the substantive contents of the Quran, may actually provoke many to read The Quran and inshallah discover its truth.

How should Muslims respond to such assaults. We should use them as motivations to work harder in the cause of Allah and pay special attention to the study, memorization and recitation of Quran in Muslim halaqas.

I propose that all Islamic organization of N. America come together And organize a World conference on Quranic Appreciation in the Year 2000. We can invite prominent scholars of the Quran from all over the world, of course excluding the anti-Quran crusaders, and create a major event that will enhance to understanding and appreciation of the Quran amongst Muslims everywhere. A huge event would also generate great curiosity in the Word of god amongst others too. In fact, I think we should declare the 21st century as the Century of the Quran and launch a global movement that will tighten the embrace between Muslims and the Quran, Inshallah.