In the Spirit of the Gracious and Compassionate
Creator of the Heavens and the Earth
It is easy to overlook the weaknesses in arguments when we agree with the conclusions. The article entitled, “What is the Koran?” in the January 1999 issue of The Atlantic Monthly is full of weaknesses, but if we agree with its conclusions, we may find those weaknesses easy to overlook.
The article is the cover story for the issue, and on the cover the following text appears:
“Scholars are scrutinizing the Koran in the same manner they have long scrutinized the Bible. They must tread very carefully.”
These comments are designed to attract attention, arouse curiosity and sell the magazine, and therefore — perhaps — we should not take them too seriously. But after reading the article I have concluded that these comments do accurately reflect the tone of the article. What do these comments mean?
First of all, the comments imply that scholars have not previously studied the Qur’an. One of the remarkable characteristics of the Muslim civilization which excelled the rest of the world for approximately six centuries is the prodigious output of so many of its scholars. In addition to exploring every conceivable subject in depth, several scholars made encyclopedic attempts to incorporate all knowledge into comprehensive schemes. We may thank these scholars for the foundations of every aspect of knowledge upon which our contemporary civilization is based.
Only a facile acceptance of some feeble of notion of inherent European superiority (so-called “white supremacy”) would allow anyone with an awareness of Europe’s Dark Ages and its rise into civilization after extensive contact with Muslim scholars to believe in some “Western Civilization” continuum independent of the Muslim civilization which preceded the rise of modern Europe. We are the heirs of Muslim scholars, more so — certainly — than of the ancient Greeks (who were, primarily, students of the Egyptians).
One of the problems of today’s Muslims is that in the early centuries of the Muslim civilization the Qur’an was studied so intensively by scholars that Muslims have become dependent on those many tomes of ancient analysis and unwilling to believe that there is still more to be gained from further study.
In contrast, scholarly study of the Bible can be traced to the beginning of the nineteenth century. Up to that time, the biblical scripts were accepted at face value. Instead of studying the Bible in conjunction with knowledge of history and science, history and science were studied with the intention of confirming the Bible: the search for Noah’s ark, and for evidence of the flood, was a central theme of archaeology and geology into the mid-nineteenth century, for example.
Is it really necessary to remind anyone of the oppressive history of Christian authorities from the time of Emperor Theodosian (Constantine’s successor) to the Scope’s “Monkey” Trial in our own time. The man who first began translating the Bible into the English language, William Wycliffe, is still branded a “heretic” in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Did scholars feel free to examine the Bible during the centuries of burnings at the stake, inquisitions and witch-hunts?
Nowadays, many Muslims feel dominated by alien (i.e., European and American) forces. Part of the reaction to this is the establishment of an orthodoxy some of whose adherents are willing to kill in its defense. This is unfortunate, but it is not typical of the history of Muslim society. And, in particular, it is not representative of the beginnings of Muslim society.
One of the things I find most remarkable about the Atlantic Monthly article is its effort to create the impression that the beginning of the Muslim community is lost in the mists of legend. The origin and early history of the Muslim community is better documented than the early history of England. We have names and personal biographies of thousands of specific individual human beings who were witnesses and participants in the events of those times. This is not the stuff of legend.
Most remarkably, the article mentions the compilation of the definitive edition of the Qur’an without mentioning that a complete copy of this 14-century-old Qur’an rests in a museum in Istanbul. This book is concrete proof that the Qur’an has not been changed in the 14 centuries since the death of the Prophet. This is the only edition of the Qur’an. I personally confirm this by comparing every Qur’an I encounter in a museum, however ancient, with the Qur’an I carry in my pocket.
One of the most recent in a long line of European Christian scholars to study the Qur’an is a French physician named Maurice Bucaille. (European scholars have been studying the Qur’an since the Middle Ages, which the article also fails to mention.) Bucaille wrote a book entitled, The Bible, the Qur’an, and Science, with the intention of comparing the content of the Bible and the Qur’an, on the one hand, with the findings of modern science, on the other.
As you may know, we encounter many problems if we attempt to reconcile many statements in the Bible with the findings of modern science. Bucaille documents these contradictions, as well as the problems of multiple authorship, which arise upon close examination of the biblical texts. What astonished Bucaille was that, upon examining the Qur’an, he found no contradictions between the Qur’an and the findings of modern science.
[Note, added August 20, 2020: The text of the Qur’an makes it clear, as does Bucaille, that many parts of the Qur’an are not to be taken literally. They were not taken literally by the people of Muhammad’s time and place, not even by those who rejected the Qur’an and opposed Muhammad. Such incidents as Noah’s flood (not world-wide in the Qur’an, whether taken literally or not), Moses’ staff turning into a snake or parting the sea, or Jonah being swallowed by a fish (not a whale, as in the New Testament) and living in its belly, are what I call “teaching stories” (similar to but more far-reaching and profound than Aesop’s fables) and not to be taken literally — hence, not to be compared to the findings of modern science.]
How is it possible for any human being or group of human beings to write a book in which no errors of fact will be found fourteen centuries later? This is the case with the Qur’an. There is nothing in the Atlantic Monthly article, which deals with this question. When The Atlantic Monthly stated that “scholars are scrutinizing the Koran” it would seem that they excluded scholars, such as Bucaille, who do not share their orthodoxy.
Lester A. Knibbs
17 Shaban 1424 / 13 Jumada al-thani 1433
October 13, 2003 / May 5, 2012
Which Way Is Up? 