Return to Main Page
Return
to List of Readings
Supplement to the Notes:
Additional Points on the Case
against UNC & Approaching the Qur'an
The
Case Against UNC. In the video clip from PBS News Hour, Mr. Glover
from the Family Policy Network, the organization that sued the University for
assigning the book, articulates the case against UNC. He emphasizes
three points:
· That reading this book a form of "religious indoctrination" and that by law the University “cannot force students to submit to religious indoctrination”; he calls this book by Sells “a religious text.”
· That if UNC or some other school had assigned a similar book on the Bible, the ACLU would be quick to sue.
· That
this book covers only the early revelations and thus leaves out the much harsher,
militaristic aspects of Islam from the latter phase of Muhammad’s career,
giving students a one-sided (rosy) view of Islam.
What
Sells Omitted. Obviously Sells’ book leaves out a lot of the
Qur’an (as he concedes), both “peaceful” and
“militaristic” passages. In the wake of September 11th,
I think it important to point out that:
· Specific passages in the Qur’an forbid the murder of innocent civilians in war—even forbid the destruction of buildings!
· The Qur’an obligates Muslims to protect Christian and Jewish places of worship, i.e. churches and synagogues, as well as mosques.
· Suicide
is also forbidden, etc. etc.
But the
Qur’an clearly contains a militaristic side as well, just as both Judaic
and Christian traditions do as well. Here are passages to consider that
are not in Sells’ book (the 8th Sura or chapter):
· [8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
· [8.13]
This is because they acted adversely to Allah and His Apostle; and whoever acts
adversely to Allah and His Apostle—then surely Allah is severe in
requiting (evil).
· [8.14]
This—taste it, and (know) that for the unbelievers is the chastisement of
fire.
· [8.15]
O you who believe! When you meet those who disbelieve marching for war, then
turn not your backs to them.
· [8.16]
And whoever shall turn his back to them on that day—unless he turn aside
for the sake of fighting or withdraws to accompany—then he, indeed,
becomes deserving of Allah’s wrath, and his abode is hell; and an evil
destination shall it be.
· [8.17]
So you did not slay them, but it was Allah Who slew them, and you did not smite
when you smote (the enemy), but it was Allah Who smote, and that He might
confer upon the believers a good gift from Himself; surely Allah is Hearing,
Knowing.
It is
important to emphasize that the "disbelievers"--or
"infidels" as they often referred to--in the context of the
Qur’an referred primarily to the pagan Arab Bedouin tribes with which the
early Muslims were at war. The problem is that these passages allow for
broad interpretation by the likes of Bin Laden & Co. in later
contexts. That leads to another point of emphasis: any canonical text for
any religion is first and foremost open to interpretation, and the
interpretation(s) of it change with time. The Qur'an, like the old and
new testaments of the Bible, is complex and full of contradicitions, which is
true of any textual body we use as historical evidence, religious or otherwise
(i.e the writings of Karl Marx). The important point is how Muslims interpret
the Qur'an and apply its message in everyday life, which obviously varies
greatly.
Other Issues/Themes
A
militaristic and intolerant side. Whereas the Qur’an repeatedly
calls for tolerance for “people of the book” (Jews and Christians),
it also contains tirades against them, especially in the
WEBLINK:
The Noble Qu’ran; check out passages 5.073–5.075
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
Change.
Also, along with cultural continuity the Qur’an reflects change, i.e. the
pre-Islamic concept of karim (generosity), the warrior-hero sharing his
wealth with the community as a whole through the ritual sacrifice of his camel
and feast, etc. This concept is carried over but modified with generosity
for God the central act, etc.
Differences
from the Judaic-Christian tradition. For one, the Qur’an itself
is a very different type of text from the Hebrew Bible and Christian New
Testament. Unlike those texts, which uphold a narrative structure with a
clearly defined beginning, middle, and end, the Qur’an does not have nor
does it seem to strive to maintain such a structure. Also, and perhaps
more importantly from a philosophical point of view, the Qur’an—and
by extension Islam—does not propound a doctrine of the original sin or of
the essential sinfulness of humanity. As Sells points out, “Human
beings are not born sinful, but they are forgetful.”
Humanity’s forgetfulness replaces the notion of “original
sin” in Islam, because humans must be reminded by prophets that there is
only one God, otherwise they will forget and fall into idol worship and
sinfulness. Muslims believe that Muhammad was the final prophet God will
send to remind humans not to worship idols.
Translations
inherently flawed. The other aspect of importance is captured in the
title of Sells' book—Approaching the Qur’an.
Why does Sells say he gave the book precisely this title? Because
translations are inherently flawed and incomplete, and thus are merely an
approach to the Qur’an, not a definitive rendition thereof.
Sells notes that the Qur’an, first of all, is inherently vague and
understood variously even in its original Arabic, and secondly, very, very
difficult to translate, especially into a gender neutral/male language like
English. As noted on the aforementioned web site The Noble Qur'an, which includes
three separate translations of the Qur'an: "any translation of the Qur'an
immediately ceases to be the literal word of Allah, and hence cannot be equated
with the Qur'an in its original Arabic form. In fact, each of the translations
on this site is actually an interpretation which has been translated."
Gendered
language. Finally, along those same lines, Sells makes a very
interesting point regarding the gendered language of the Qur'an that is totally
lost in English translation. He asserts that the gendered language of
the Qur’an exhibits far greater sensitivity to gender equality (and
grants women a central role throughout) than is conveyed in Western stereotypes
of the religion that focus on the male-dominated aspects of the Qur’an
and of Islam in general. Specifically, he says the three most formative
moments of the Qur’an, the revelation of the prophecy to Muhammad on the
“night of power,” creation, and the “day of reckoning,”
are linked through the gendered language of the text to “the feminine
spirit,” so to speak (through the personification of women that is lost
in translation)—to women conceiving, giving birth, and losing their
children through premature death.
To sum
it up in his words:
The loss of the Qur’anic gender dynamic in translations reinforces one of the most misleading stereotypes about Islam and the Qur’an—that the Qur’an is based on rigid, male-centered language. Yet this stereotype of a language of “he-God and he-man” is at odds not only with Islamic theology (which denies that God is male or female) but also with the intricate and beautiful gender dynamic that is a fundamental part of Qur’anic language. [Michael Sells, Approaching the Qur’an, p. 202.]
Sells' Approaching the Qur'an, like any text--which is perhaps the central lesson in this first unit--is also open to interpretation. In the Discussion Board relay your thoughts on the book candidly. What did you think of his argument? Does he make a convincing case, in your opinion? Why or why not?