Authenticity of the Qur'an

Material on the Authenticity
of the
Qur’an & Allah

by
Shaikh ‘Abdur-Raheem Green[size=9]All
praise is due to Allah, we praise Him and we seek his help and ask
His forgiveness. We seek refuge with Allah from the evil of our
selves and from the evil results of our actions. I testify that
Allah alone is worthy of worship and that Muhammad is His slave
and final Messenger. May Allah’s salawaat (peace and blessings)
be upon the last and final messenger Muhammad, his family and his
followers. Ameen!
To
begin: The best discourse is the book of Allah, and the best way
is the way of Muhammad, and the worst of the matters in the religion
are those newly introduced innovations, for every innovation in
the religion is misguidance, and every misguidance is going astray
and every going astray is in the Hellfire.
I have
embarked on my commentary on the The Economist magazine’s survey
“Islam and the West” (large insert in the August 6, 1994 issue)
after some considerable deliberation, and find myself confronted
with a considerable task, and indeed Allah is the best of helpers.
Brian Beedham is able to rely on what Noam Chomskey calls “manufactured
consent”. While dictatorships use force in order to achieve consent
from the people and prevent opposition, “democracies” manufacture
consent through the media by using it to providing a particular
world view which conforms to the interests, by and large, of the
ruling elite. He is able to get away with a short, condensed, article
because he doesn’t need to prove much of what he is saying, he only
has to repeat the prefabricated conventional platitudes. For example,
when he talks the Algerian Muslims as “a singularly intransigent
bunch of Islamic rebels, fundamentalists of the most bloody minded
sort” he doesn’t have to prove it, because the establishment has
already ensured that people believe this is the case. In fact the
statement in not at all true. The Algerian fundamentalists proved
willing to go to elections and seek a peaceful way re-establish
the Islamic Sharee’ah . Recent events, such as the meeting of the
opposition groups, including the “rebel fundamentalists”, in Rome,
calling for talks and a return to free elections - which was even
supported by the French government and was rejected by the Algerian
government - shows that it is the Algerian government that has proved
bloody minded. In spite of such obvious discrepancies Mr. Beedham
is able to get away with it because consent has already been manufactured
that the fundamentalists are rebellious and bloody minded.
Similarly
he never feels he has to prove that democracy is an advantage, it
is taken almost completely for granted, knowing his audience is
already “captive” so as to speak. In the age of the “sound-bite”
(or perhaps in this case “word-bite”), opposing the conventional
wisdom is not easy, for what the likes of Mr. Beedham can say in
a sentence opposing it would take a book. Even then it would be
of doubtful effectiveness, for opposing the norms of society is
perhaps one of the hardest paths to take for an instinctively societal
creature like ourselves. Thus I shall be writing a series of letters,
and not just one, thus enabling me to break down the commentary
into more manageable pieces. I shall also refer certain topics to
appendices, which may include video and audio tapes.
Islam:
An Idea!
Of
course no Muslim could accept Islam merely as an idea. As the survey
itself mentions, Islam is based on the "word of God, revealed syllable
by syllable to Muhammad fourteen hundred years ago" (p.4 c.2). Thus
it is no mere idea, rather it is the idea, the ideology, the truth,
exclusive of all others. As the Qur’an states: "Indeed the religion
before Allah is Islam" . . . "Whoever wishes for a way of life other
that Islam, never will it be accepted from them and in the hereafter
they will be amongst the losers" (Surah Al Imraan 3:85). The religion
has been completed and perfected, and has no need for alteration
or adjustment: "This day we have completed your religion for you
and perfected our favour upon you and chosen for your way of life
Islam" (Surah Al Imraan 3:85). The Prophet, peace be upon him, also
said: "There is not one thing that shall bring you closer to the
Paradise and away from the Fire without me having informed you of
it, and there is not one thing that will take you away from paradise
and towards the fire except that I have warned you about it." It
is indeed true that Islam does not allow its followers to draw a
distinction between the "inner" and "outer" aspects of life, between
belief and actions, religion and politics, because in reality such
distinctions are totally fallacious. Man’s beliefs are the foundations
and prime motivators for actions, for what is held to be true on
the inside must manifest itself outwardly. Indeed the very first
task given to Muhammad, peace be upon him, was to correct the false
beliefs. It was not that the pagan Arabs did not believe in Allah,
or God the Creator. In fact the Qur’an tells Muhammad, peace be
upon him,: "If you ask them who sends down rain from the sky, and
gives life therewith to the earth after its death? They would certainly
say ‘Allah!’ Say: ‘All the praise and thanks be to Allah!’ Nay!
Most of them have no sense" (Surah al-Ankaboot 29:63). "Say: ‘Who
provides for you from the sky and from the earth? Or who owns hearing
and sight? And who brings out the living from the dead and the dead
from the living? And who disposes the affairs?’ They will say: ‘Allah.’
Say: ‘Will you not them be afraid of Allah’s Punishment (for setting
up rivals in worship with Allah)?’” (Surah Yunus 10:31). Indeed
the pagan Arabs used to worship Allah, pray to Him and sacrifice
to Him in times of need and distress, as did the Jews and Christians,
and they even claimed to love Him, but Allah rejected all of this
from them and referred to them as senseless, and astray, and as
disbelievers. So this is the reality concerning most of the men
and jinn , that they claim to believe in Allah, and worship Allah,
but what they believe about Him is incorrect, and the way they worship
Him is incorrect . . . "Most of them do not believe in Allah except
while joining partners with Him" (Surah Yusuf 12:106) . . . and
it’s manifestations are many and the evil consequences numerous.
All
of this has one common cause, or origin, and that is thinking and
speaking about Allah without knowledge, and thus ascribing to Him
that which should not be ascribed to Him, such as sons, or daughters,
or human qualities and weaknesses, or claiming that some of the
creation possess His powers and abilities, or by claiming that He,
the Majestic, is pleased by some action that in fact angers Him,
or that He is angered by some action that in fact pleases Him. So
thus the idol worshippers call upon that which can neither benefit
nor harm them, and the Christians call upon Jesus, and the Jews
believe their racial origins guarantee His good pleasure, and those
who believe that power, wealth and the such are means of success;
all have put their faith and trust in something vain. This in itself
is a great evil, for they have only wasted their time and effort,
yet this is least of the evil consequences. As for that which is
most severe . . . those who have fallen into associating partners
with Allah have earned His anger and wrath, and upon them shall
fall humiliation in this life and a most terrible fate in the next:
"Surely Allah will not forgive as-shirk (the association of partners
with Him), but He forgives sins less than that of whomever He wishes"
(Surah an-Nisa’ 4:48). So "as-shirk", or ascribing partners to Allah
(in whatever form it may take) is the unforgivable sin, because
it is in reality the source of all evil, the greatest injustice,
the worst oppression and wrongdoing. For if one is unafraid of speaking
about Allah without knowledge, and this is a knowledge unattainable
except through Him, for He is the best knower of Himself and His
will, and that which pleases and displeases Him, then about what
and about whom will one be afraid of speaking about ignorantly?
For truly, as is obvious to anyone witnessing the destructive forces
of nature, and untold misfortunes and miseries over which Allah
alone has ultimate power and control, both in this life and the
next, Allah is the most terrifying and most worthy of being feared.
And also anyone witnessing the miraculous order, and precision,
and symbiosis within the earth and universe, must realize the unparalleled
knowledge and wisdom of its Creator. So if one is heedless of transgressing
the laws of Allah, and thinks them of little or no importance, or
worse considers them bad, evil, and outdated, then what of the laws
conceived in the limited minds of men? If one is ungrateful to his
Lord, the provider of all, then of what little consequence to such
a one is ingratitude to the creation? If one denies the rights and
dues of Allah, which are the most worthy of being fulfilled, then
what rights and dues will such one be fearful of denying then? Thus
imagine the case of a worker in a company run by yourself , who
believes you are the lavatory cleaner, and the lavatory cleaner
is the director! Would there not be evil results? Would you tolerate
such a person? If so, for how long? Now envisage this fool teaching
this to others, and insisting on it, so that the majority of the
company came to believe it, ignoring your orders and prohibitions,
and inventing them for themselves, and making their guide the lavatory
cleaner who is moreover deaf and dumb!
The
true cause of the evils that beset mankind are disbelief, sinfulness
and ingratitude to Allah: “And whatever of misfortune befalls you,
it is because of what your hands have earned. And He pardons much”
(Surah as-Shura 42:30). “Evil has appeared on the land and sea,
because of what your hands have earned. That Allah may make them
taste a part of that which they have done, in order that they may
return” (Surah ar-Rum 30:41). As the saying of the Prophet, peace
be upon him,: "There is none who has a greater sense of ghira (a
feeling of great fury and anger when one’s honour and prestige is
injured or challenged) than Allah, and so He has forbidden shameful
deeds and sins. And there is none who likes to be praised more than
Allah does" (Reported in Saheeh Al Bukhari). Allah is more infuriated
by the disobedience of His slave than a man of honour is finding
his wife fornicating with another man. So how is His fury with those
who insult Him by ascribing rivals, and partners with Him, while
He is glorious above such things! And the evil consequences are
not limited to this life: "Verily, those who disbelieved, and die
while they are disbelievers, the whole earth full of gold will not
be accepted from anyone of them even if they offered it as a ransom.
For them is a painful torment and they will have no helpers" (Surah
Al Imran 3:91). The Prophet, peace be upon him, explained: "On the
day of judgement a disbeliever will be asked: ‘Suppose you had as
much gold as to fill the earth, would you offer it to ransom yourself
from the hell-fire?’ He will reply: ‘Yes!’ Then it will be said
to him: ‘You were asked for something easier than that, that you
should join none in worship with Allah, and submit yourself to Him,
but you refused’" (Reported in Saheeh al-Bukhari).
Indeed
the message of all the prophets is one and the same: "Verily, We
have sent to every nation a messenger saying: ‘Worship Allah and
avoid false objects of worship’" (Surah an-Nahl 16:36) and indeed
this is the very purpose for which Allah created mankind: "I did
not create the jinn and mankind except for My worship" (Surah ad-Dhaariyaat
51:56). So “as-shirk” (i.e. ascribing partners to Allah) is in contradiction
to that reason for which Allah has created us, and the purpose for
which we exist, which is to choose to single out Allah for worship,
avoiding all false deities, and to worship Him completely, with
sacrifice, supplication, submission, subjugation, obedience and
compliance, and with love, fear, hope, trust and reliance upon Him,
seeking only His pleasure and not the admiration of His creatures,
and to do all of that according to that which was revealed to His
last and final Messenger Muhammad, peace be upon him,, and not according
to whims and desires and mere conjecture.
Furthermore,
and of immediate relevance to the discussion, are those qualities,
unique to Allah, that single Him out, such as "al-Hakim", the Judge;
"al-Hakeem", the Wise; "al-’Aleem", the All Knowing and "as-Shariy",
the Legislator. Not only is Allah the Creator and Controller and
Sustainer, but also the sole possessor of the wisdom and knowledge
to legislate for mankind and to determine what is good and what
is evil, what is right and what is wrong, what is lawful and what
is prohibited, and thus what laws we should judge by, what social,
economic and political system we should utilize . . . "And no partner
in legislating has He-He is alone" (Surah al-Kahf 18:60) . . . "Indeed,
the ruling is Allah’s" (Surah Yusuf 12:40). Allah admonished the
Jews and Christians, and called them disbelievers, for " . . . taking
their priests and rabbis as lords besides Allah" (Surah at-Tawbah
9:31). The Prophet, peace be upon him, went on to explain that the
priest and rabbis "made lawful that which Allah had made unlawful,
and made unlawful that which Allah had made lawful and the people
accepted it...So that was their (i.e. the people’s) worship of them.”
Thus to ascribe legislative power to people is a clear and obvious
form of disbelief, and “shirk”, or setting up rivals to Allah, and
is the unforgivable sin, and a contradiction of the purpose of creation.
If Allah blamed the people from the Jews and Christians for accepting
from those among them who were learned in the Scripture and Divine
legislation changes and alterations, and the making the forbidden
allowed and visa versa, as we see them doing until this day, then
how about those who accept such actions from every Tom, Dick and
Harry, who have no scripture, and no wisdom and only pure speculation,
whims and desires, as is the case of Democracy?!?
So
the The Economist magazine’s survey admits that Islam makes no distinction
between outward and inner, private and public life, yet goes on
to suggest Muslims should abandon this, and adopt the ways of the
worst error: disobedience to and rebellion against Allah, and commit
the unforgivable sin of ascribing partners to Him. Truly Allah speaks
the truth when He says: "Never will the Jews or the Christians be
satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion” (Surah
al-Baqarah 2:120) and we seek refuge with Allah from that, for surely
we would be of the losers.
To
Clash or Not To Clash?
Will
there be a confrontation between Islam and the West? Mr. Huntington’s
clash of civilizations claims “yes”, but the survey is "not convinced".
It is true that the world of Islam and the West have more in common
with each other than they do with the Confucian and Hindu ones,
but in reality both Mr. Huntington’s and Mr. Beedham’s comparisons
are unhelpful in understanding the reality of the matter. What Mr.
Beedham’s admits are important differences (Westerners not believing
that God dictated the Qur’an and Muslim’s not believing the Jesus
is the son of God) are in fact irreconcilable differences, at least
from the Muslim stand point . . . “And they say the Compassionate
(i.e. Allah) has taken to Himself a son. Certainly you utter a disastrous
thing, whereby the heavens are almost torn asunder, and the earth
split open and the mountains crumbles to ruin, that you ascribe
to the Compassionate a son! When it is not befitting the majesty
of the Compassionate that He should choose a son. There is none
in the heavens or the earth but comes to the Compassionate as a
slave” (Surah Maryam 19:88-93). Islam does not regard Christians
who claim that Jesus is God, or the Son of God, as “monotheists”
any more than Hindus who claim that Krishna is a “manifestation
of God” or Buddhists who claim that Buddha is God. All of this is
disbelief and polytheism. It is this that is the basis of conflict.
It is a conflict not only sanctioned, but ordered in the Qur’an:
"Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor the last day,
nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger
and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people
of the Book , until they pay the jizya (i.e. protection tax) with
willing submission and feel themselves subdued" (Surah at-Tawbah
9:29).
This
is not a confrontation of civilizations, nor is it a clash of cultures.
Islam does not oppose the West, or anyone else, because of revenge
over past hostilities, out of a desire to restore injured pride
or because of the desire to amass their wealth and lands. The fight
is for one purpose only and that is to establish the religion of
Islam in its totality, as the Prophet, peace be upon him, explained
when a man came to him and asked: "One of us fights for booty, another
for his tribe and another to be known as brave, which one is fighting
jihad?" The Prophet, peace be upon him, replied: "None of them.
Only the one who fights to make Allah’s Word the highest is fighting
jihad." It is clear to any believer acquainted with Allah’s Book
(i.e. the Qur’an) and His Prophet’s Sunnah that jihad (i.e. struggling
to the utmost of ones ability) is an intrinsic part of faith, and
a duty among the duties in Islam. The Prophet, peace be upon him,
said, as reported by Tariq bin Shihab: "He who amongst you sees
something evil should change it with his hand; and if he is unable
he should change it with his tongue; and if he is unable to do that
he should at least hate it in his heart, and that is the weakest
form of faith" (Reported in Saheeh Muslim, No. 79).
Jihad
has three characteristics. The first form is jihad of the heart,
or jihad of the self. This is the internal struggle to acquire the
correct creed, and to remove from one’s self all doubts and misconceptions
concerning this creed, and also the commands and prohibitions enjoined
on the believer. It further more encompasses the purifying of the
soul from base desires and acquiring noble qualities. The second
level is the jihad of the tongue. This is the struggle against evil,
and wrong beliefs and actions through preaching and writing books
and the like. This form of jihad is characterized by its use against
the deviants from among the Muslims, but also extends to the unbelievers.
The final form of jihad is that of the hand, or sword, where one
expends life and property. It is characterized by its use against
unbelievers, but can also be used against deviant groups under the
authority of the Muslim ruler. This jihad of the hand, often termed
"Holy War", is further compartmentalized into three stages. The
first is that of it being forbidden, as it was in the early days
of Muhammad’s prophethood. If the Muslims are weak, and fighting
is liable to cause only harm and no benefit, then they should desist.
Such is the case of those dwelling in non-Muslim lands. The second
stage is that of self-defense, or restricting the fight to "those
who fight you" (2:190), and releasing the lands of the Muslims from
the control of their enemies. This is the condition of the Muslims
today. The final stage is that of fighting in order to open the
path for establishing Allah’s rule in the lands of the unbelievers,
as was done by the Prophet’s companions and the Muslim rulers after
them. "And why should you not fight in the cause of Allah when there
are weak and oppressed, old men, women and children whose cry is
‘Oh Lord save us from those who oppress, and send to one who will
aid and send to us one who will help!’" (Surah an-Nisa’ 4:75). Thus
one the Prophet’s companions, Rab’ia ibn Amer, went to meet Rostrum,
the famous Persian general, at his request and the general offered
camels, and women and asked them to return to the desert. Rab’ia
refused, and Rostrum asked him why then were they fighting. Rab’ia
replied: "We have come to take mankind from the darkness to the
light and from the worship of the false gods to the worship of Allah,
from the narrowness of this world the wide expanse of this world
and the next, and from the injustices of man made religions to the
justice of Islam."
So
this Jihad is the peak of the matter and fulfilling it is part of
fulfilling the covenant with Allah, and abandoning it is the cause
of humiliation and defeat for the Muslims. As Allah said: "If you
march not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment and will
replace you by another people and you cannot harm Him at all, and
Allah is able to do all things" (Surah at-Tawbah 9:39) and the saying
of the Prophet, peace be upon him,: "When you deal in “al-ainiya”
(i.e. become complacent and satisfied with a domestic life) and
hang on to the cows tails, and abandon jihad, then Allah will permit
your humiliation at the hands of your enemies and will not lift
it from you until you return to your religion." So today we find
Muslims leading a life as if they had no prophet, nor belief in
any Divine Message or Divine Revelation, nor expectation of any
reckoning, nor is fear of the hereafter. They resemble the pre-Islamic
nations, against whom they used to fight in the past. So they have
turned on their heels as apostates from Islam and have imitated
the ignorant nations in their civilization, in their social affairs,
in their political systems, in their character and in the pleasures
of their lives. So Allah hated them and forsook them, as He promised
He would. He had warned them of this clearly in His Book, and on
the tongue of His Messenger Muhammad, peace be upon him,: "Soon
the nations will gather to take from you the same way you invite
others to share from a feast!" A person asked the Prophet, peace
be upon him,: “Is that because we are small in our numbers?" The
Prophet, peace be upon him, answered: “No! You will be many, like
the foam on the sea, but you will be rubbish, like the rubbish carried
down by the flood water. And certainly Allah will remove from the
breasts of your enemies the fear of you and into your breasts He
will cast enervation." A person asked: “What is enervation?" The
Prophet, peace be upon him, replied: "It is love of life and fear
of death." This has come true exactly, as the Prophet, peace be
upon him, predicted, and if there is a “Revival of Islam”, then
that is because anyone with ears and eyes can see how the Muslims
are humiliated - their lands a feast for their enemies, ruled by
laws and ways nothing to do with that which Allah has revealed.
The solution to these problems has been given by the Prophet, peace
be upon him, himself one thousand four hundred years ago: "Return
to your religion", enjoin what Allah has enjoined and forbid what
He has forbidden, prefer the next life to this, and for the Muslims
to once again struggle with their lives and properties to bring
themselves and others out of the oppression of man made ways of
life to the justice of that which has been revealed by the All-knowing
Creator!
So
the matter of conflict between Islam and the West is not at all
as the survey suggests, i.e. factors such as geography, past enmities,
culture clash and so on; nor is the Islamic Revival some search
for identity, coupled with some sort of inferiority complex. To
the believer the conflict is one of truth against falsehood, justice
against oppression, the way to Paradise against the way to Hellfire,
the perfection of Allah’s revealed way against the misguidance of
human ignorance. Furthermore, all of this should make it clear that
there is indeed an "insuperable reason why Muslims and Westerners
cannot live peaceably with each other" (p.5 c. 2). Mr. Beedham’s
survey, for all its optimism, has made an oft-repeated mistake.
He has judged the Muslims by his own standards, believing they want,
as do the West, to reach some sort of compromise. The truth is that
Islam teaches its followers to seek death on the battle field, that
dying whilst fighting jihad is one of the surest ways to paradise
and Allah’s good pleasure. It is as Khalid bin Waleed, whom the
Prophet, peace be upon him, called the ‘Sword of Allah’ and hero
of every good Muslim child, said in response to a Roman letter inviting
him to surrender: “We have with us people who love death as you
love wine.” It was Ronald Reagan who quite rightly pointed out that:
“How do you expect to defeat a people who believe that when you
kill them they go to a paradise filled with beautiful virgins and
rivers of wine?” Whether the believer sees the result in his or
her life time is irrelevant, for their duty is to carry on the jihad,
and so be saved from Allah’s wrath in this life and the next.
The
conflict will be there as long as there are those who stubbornly
resist submission to their Lord and Creator. If all of this seems
intransigent and fundamentalist that’s because IT IS. With Islam
you are dealing with absolutes. This conflict, however, may not
necessarily be a violent one, in the sense of war, causing loss
of life, limb and property. Islam does not necessarily demand a
change through violence if the end can be effectively achieved through
other means. So perhaps there is cause for the surveys optimism,
but the solution can only lie in a very different direction from
what it suggests! Allah has promised in His Book that if the Muslims
fail to keep their covenant, and fight against the foolish disbelief,
then He will destroy them and "replace them with a people who will
love Him, and He will love them, and they will be hard against the
forces of disbelief and kind to the believers, and unafraid of those
who find fault" (Surah al-Ma’idah 5:54). And Allah speaks the truth,
and His promise comes true, and this has proven so in the past,
as when the Muslims left their religion, fought amongst each other,
and revelled in the delights of worldly life . . . then the calamity
of the Tartars feel upon them, destroying utterly the Muslim lands,
and its capital Baghdad. Yet from these same conquerors, Allah made
them the defenders and upholders of Islam, and from them to the
Turks, who in their turn lapsed, and so Allah destroyed them at
the hands of the Europeans. Thus is situation in which Muslims find
themselves today. It is quite possible that history will repeat
itself, and that Islam will be given its strength again through
those who had formally tried to destroy it.
The
whole issue of whether the West will accept Islam or not has been
a topic of debate amongst Muslim scholars and thinkers. It seems
unlikely that there will be any sort of military conquest of the
Western world, at least in the foreseeable future, but conquest
is not always through arms. Indonesia and Malaysia never saw invading
Muslims armies. Islam "conquered" these lands with a different weapon
altogether . The weapon was Islam itself. The real threat from the
growth of “fundamentalism” to those in the Western, and other, parts
of the world who would like to see Islam far removed from influencing
the way they run their countries, is not of invading hoards of Muslim
militants, but rather the effect of a practical example of Islam
in operation in the form of a true Islamic state. Also the probability
of these same "fundamentalist" states utilizing their resources
to inform the world of the reality of what Islam is, as opposed
to the lies and distortions it has been fed until now! How likely,
then, is it for this true Islamic state to materialize, and how
do people following a religion one thousand four hundred years old
possibly expect it to work in the twentieth century?
The
Strange Case of the Fundamentalists
The
Muslim world is at present a patchwork of competing nation sates,
ruled by political, social and judicial systems that can by no means
be termed "Islamic". Indeed in many of these countries there are
laws in direct opposition to what has been revealed by Allah to
His Messenger Muhammad, peace be upon him,. It seems the only Islamic
quality about some of these nations is that they happen to have
Muslims in them. A large portion of the Muslim World has, for the
last two hundred years, been under the occupation, or “protectorate”,
of one or another of the European powers, who gradually dispensed
with the Sharee’ah (Islamic Law) and supplemented it with various
Western systems. After gaining so called “independence” these alien
political and judicial systems remained, or were replaced by other
Western influenced hybrids. The “Nationalism” of Attaturk in Turkey,
the “Ba’athism” of Iraq and Syria, the “Pan-Arab Nationalistic Socialism”
of Egypt’s Jamal Abdel-Nasr, and its various offshoots such as Qaddafi’s
"Islamic Socialism". All of these movements freely used “Islamic”
slogans when, and if, it suited their aims. The simple multitudes
were caught up in the fervor of the new found "freedom", and in
order to maintain it they were told they must "modernise". To the
so-called “intellectual elite” this meant abandoning everything
from the past, and taking on board everything that was new. Thus
the “Modernist” movement arose, lead by the likes of Muhammad Abdu,
that explained away every miracle of the Prophet, peace be upon
him, and even many of the basic acts of worship. For the first time
riba (dealing usury/interest) was legalised and the adoption of
Western dress and lifestyles was encouraged. They tried to make
all of this acceptable by bypassing the traditional methods of Islamic
scholarship for personal itjihad (i.e. juristic reasoning) and interpretation
of the texts.
For
others, Islam itself was merely an enemy to progress, especially
in the Soviet Union where veils were burnt, mosques demolished and
scholars exiled to Siberia - or executed. Street walls were painted
with the words: "There is no God and Lenin is His Prophet". In many
places throughout the Muslim World mosques, became empty, and women
walked in mini-skirts on the street. Then things started to change.
In the face of Western and Communist power, medicine and technological
wizardry, of men on the moon and aircraft that could circle the
globe in days, of weapons of mass destruction that combined were
able to destroy the world seventeen times over, the computer chip
and nations that seemed to have reached unrivalled material prosperity
and personal freedom, there was a gradual, yet unavoidably noticeable
return to Islam. Not, mind you, only by the uneducated, impoverished
peasants, but the educated, prosperous, middle classes. Furthermore,
this was not merely a return to the mosque five times a day, and
the veil for the woman, but a call for Islam in its TOTALITY - to
be re-implemented once again. For indeed the reality that Islam
makes no distinction between the private and public, between the
religious and political, had been apparent to Muslim scholars long
before the The Economist’s survey deemed to point it out. Indeed
it was obvious that the situation within the Muslim countries, with
their hybrid socio-judicial-political systems, was in contradiction
to the very essence of Islam itself! So various movements started
to seek to bring the Muslims back to the correct state of affairs.
This of course met with some considerable opposition from the various
governments supporting such systems. This opposition was, and still
is, often brutal in the extreme. These governments received either
direct, or tacit approval from their Western and Communist overseers,
who in reality were more aware of the potential threat of such a
Muslim revival to the status quo, and their own virtual world economic
and political domination which they had striven so hard to achieve.
The last thing they wanted to see were the Muslims back on their
feet. Yet the revival continues . . .
Perhaps
the reason why the rise in Islamic fundamentalism has been so phenomenal
is because the point the fundamentalists are making is so, well,
FUNDAMENTAL! After all, once a Muslim has become aware that believing
in the validity of laws and ways other than those ordained by Allah
is to commit the unforgivable sin of “shirk”, then, as the Qur’an
states: "It is not for a believing man or woman, once Allah and
His Messenger have decided on a matter to have any choice therein"
(Surah al-Azhab 33:36) . . . "and their response is none else than
we hear and we obey" (Surah an-Nur 24:51). Indeed, that is exactly
what makes a Muslim what he or she is: someone who submits him or
herself to Will of Almighty God. Of course the incompetence, corruption
and brutality of the governments, the inevitable failure of their
ideologies, and their frequent national and international humiliation
has made the task of the fundamentalist easier. Yet it is naive
to presume that this alone has given impetus to the rise in fundamentalism.
Surely, if anything, the poor and desperate condition of the Muslim
masses should drive them more earnestly to "modernization", "Westernisation"
and "Democracy", of which their countries have hardly been shinning
examples! Indeed, even the most common peasant sees daily a barrage
of images on the television screen (that has become as essential
as a bed in even the most humble households) portraying the materialistic
success of the Western World!
The
true reasons for this persistent rise in Islamic awareness are not
at all those to which Western analysts constantly refer. The reason
for their inability to understand this phenomena is part due to
their submergence in the purely material. Science and the “Theory
of Evolution” has given them, so they believe, proof that man is
at most no more that an advanced animal, a progressive monkey, and
man’s basic needs are little different, fundamentally, to those
of our supposed ancestors: food, drink, sleep, safety from predators
and sex. Satisfy these, and man should be content. The Muslim World
still has, by and large, kept more in touch with the reality of
the human condition: that happiness is not at all merely a material
thing, but in fact something more profound, and that understanding
this is as important, perhaps more important, to the well being
of the human condition, than mere material gratification. The evil
results of this materialistic attitude is all too apparent in the
rotting social conditions of Western society. Its effects have also
become apparent in the Muslim lands themselves.
The
second reason that the Islamic revival has proved so popular is
that it is obvious to many of the Muslims, especially the more literate
and educated, that the West itself does not really believe in “democracy”,
or indeed any of those ideals, such as “Freedom of Speech”, “Human
Rights” and so on, which it claims to cherish so dearly - except
when it suits their self-interest. Both of these points of view
are not confined to the Muslim fundamentalists. Indeed a growing
number of Westerners are beginning to voice similar sentiments.
In fact, past defeats, the need to prove oneself, incompetent and
corrupt governments is hardly an explanation for the phenomenal
rise of Islam among Westerners. Recent estimates have, on average,
put the numbers at three converts to Islam every day in England
alone. The rise is even higher in the U.S., and all this in spite
of the incessant distortions and fabrications against Islam by politicians
and the media. Indeed in those very countries were Islam is growing
most visibly (Egypt and Algeria), the government, radio, T.V. and
press are all firmly controlled by the Secularists. In spite of
all of this, millions and millions are dying (sometimes literally)
to go back to a book fourteen hundred years old. How can this be?
Surely “science” and “reason” has dealt a death blow to the Qur’an
and Islam, the same way it has the Bible and Christianity? It seems
not, and there are good reasons why!
This
brings us on to the third reason, and in fact the most important
of all, why there is a phenomenal growth in fundamentalism, and
that is Islam itself. As the The Economist article said: " . . .
there is good reason why the culture of the Muslim world is regarded
by many people as the West’s only real ideological competitor at
the end of the twentieth century. Unlike the Confucians-and even
more unlike Latin Americans, Slavs and Japanese - Islam claims to
be based upon a transcendental certainty. The certainty is the Word
of God, revealed syllable by syllable to Muhammad" . . . "As a means
of binding a civilization together, there is no substitute for such
a certainty. More-over, and this is not happening anywhere else
- new recruits are flocking to join this claim to certainty" (p.
4, c. 2).
Why
is it then that the survey does not, before its call for Muslims
to practically abandon their religion and commit the unforgivable
sin of “Shirk” - by replacing the laws of Allah with the laws of
men - simply illustrate the Qur’an is not the Word of God, or at
least some good parts of it, so that a few adjustments hear and
there would only be in tune with what has happened before. After
all, this has already been thoroughly accomplished with the Bible.
Recently some of world’s top Biblical scholars delegated a good
seventy percent of the words of Jesus as never having been said
by him, and priests with impunity state that sections of the Bible,
such as God’s destruction of homosexuals in Sodom and Gomorrah,
are not from God. Indeed science and modern Biblical scholarship
has cast so much doubt upon the authenticity of the Biblical text
as a whole that a derogatory term was coined for those who persisted
in the untenable position that it was the "Word of God": Fundamentalists!
Indeed the Christian fundamentalists claim about the Bible what
the Muslims claim concerning the Qur’an. Why could the Christian
claim not prove an equally powerful force, and a similar ideological
competitor? The reason is that merely making a claim is no basis
for anything. The claim needs to be proven, and the weight of evidence
gives the claim force. It is very hard for the Christian to maintain
the claim that the Bible is the Word of God, because the evidence
belies it. The illusion of "Gospel" truth was maintained in the
Middle Ages because it was only available to very few, and they
were priests! Others were forbidden by Papal Decree from reading
it, sometimes on pain of death. With the spread of literacy and
the dawn of the “Age of Enlightenment”, the Bible reached the hands
of the people. Its internal contradictions and scientific discrepancies
became apparent and thus it gradually became discredited.
The
Modern World’s claim to certainty is “science” which, it claims,
has been the cause for advancement in medicine and technology. Its
results are proof of its worth, and the results have been achieved
under the wing of “democracy”. Thus the two are intertwined. One
of the other arguments in favour of “democracy” is the lack of major
conflict between those democratic nations for the past fifty years,
and another is the material prosperity it seems to have provided.
Indeed, it was in the The Economist where I recall reading that
"the Western nations have, more than any other civilization, succeeded
in satisfying the material needs of man". All powerful arguments.
Thus there is a claim, and evidence provided to support it. ( We
shall, insha’llah, examine the validity of these claims later.)
However things do not stop there. From the claim and subsequent
supporting evidence, the ideology should then be implemented, otherwise
the author of the survey would not be so audacious as to suggest
that anyone (let alone the World of Islam) should adopt his ideas,
merely because of his say so! He believes the weight of evidence
in support of the “Modern Way of Life” is sufficient to give his
suggestions force. Part of what makes “democracy” what it is, is
the spirit of compromise and pragmatics: quite rational in the light
of human ignorance and fallibility. The problem is that the The
Economist survey somehow expects Islam to operate within a similar
frame work. Islam, however, is built upon the certainty that it
is revealed by Almighty God. This has consequences, the most important
being that Allah is not ignorant and fallible like the human being,
rather He is All-Knowing and completely perfect, and therefor when
it comes to His Word there can be no question of compromise, nor
a philosophy of pragmatism except were specifically allowed.
The
survey tries to get round this obstacle by putting it all down to
a matter of interpretation, but in fact Allah had already pre-empted
this supposed loop hole when He revealed Islam fourteen hundred
years previously by appointing someone to explain the verses of
the Book: "We have revealed to you (O Muhammad) the Reminder (i.e.
the Qur’an) and we have made you the one to explain it" (Surah an-Nahl
16:44). So the explanation of the Qur’anic text is given exclusively
to Muhammad, peace be upon him,, and things were not left there.
The Qur’an also explains: "Whoever contends with the Messenger and
chooses a path other than the path of the believers, then Allah
will leave them in the path they have chosen and land them in Hell
what an evil refuge!" What is this path of the believers? The Prophet,
peace be upon him, explained: "That to which I and my companions
are upon". The Prophet, peace be upon him, furthermore told the
Muslims to cling to his way and the way of the rightly-guided successors.
These successors have transmitted the knowledge and the way from
generation-to-generation until this day, just as the Prophet, peace
be upon him, said they would: "There will always be a group among
this Ummah (nation of believers), firm upon the truth, unharmed
in their faith by those that oppose them". It is exactly this type
of comprehensiveness that makes Islam so frustrating to its critics
and so convincing to its adherents, and this comprehensiveness extends
through all the various aspects of Islam and its disciplines. The
claim of Islam to be based on the certainty that it is from the
All-Knowing Creator is no mere claim, but it is rather a claim backed
by powerful evidence. Powerful enough for its adherents to prefer
it over that offered by the Modern Word!
No
Doubt About It!
So
what is this evidence that Islam claims to present that is so convincing?
The first issue is authenticity. Purity of text is quite vital to
the whole spirit of “fund”. This is because once a text has shown
to have been corrupted and altered in order to make it comply with
doctrinal or political expediencies, and if there is no reliable
means to distinguish the corrupt from the pure, then there is not
one passage of that text that cannot be called into question. This
is not so easy with a pure and preserved text. This is well understood
by the Christian fundamentalists. If it is not the “Word of God”,
then what real value does it posses as guidance, except as a collection
of wisdom? Few serious scholars, even from Islam’s opponents, have
tried to dispute the Qur’an’s historical authenticity . Indeed it
would be a pointless exercise, since anyone who cares to take a
trip to Tashkent (in the former Soviet Union) will find there a
complete copy of the Qur’an written by one of the Prophet’s scribes,
Zayed ibn Thabit, upon the order of the first Caliph Abu Bakr within
two years of the Prophet’s death. The manuscript in Tashkent is
a copy of that first manuscript, also written by the hand of the
same Zayed, but some twelve years later under the order of ‘Uthman
bin Affan, the third Caliph, with the consensus of over fifty companions
of the Prophet who also had written portions of the Qur’an, and
also others who had memorised it in total. This "Uthmanic" Qur’an,
as it later came to known, was accepted without exception by the
surviving companions of the Prophet, peace be upon him, as being
one and the same that was revealed by Allah to his Final Messenger
Muhammad, peace be upon him,. One can take any copy of any Qur’an,
from any mosque anywhere in the word and compare it with the mushaf
of Zayed, and find it exactly the same - word for word. It is even
recited in the same accent in which the Prophet, peace be upon him,
recited it. Furthermore Arabic, the language of the Qur’an, is a
living language, and the Book has always been in the hands of the
people - not merely the domain of a few priests.
Thus
anyone reading the Qur’an can be certain beyond reasonable doubt
that they are reading the same words revealed to Muhammad, peace
be upon him, over one thousand four hundred years ago. "Verily!
It is We Who have sent down the Qur’an and surely, We will guard
it" (Surah al-Hijr 15:9). The reality of the fruition of this statement
is a clear sign to mankind, and one of the manifest miracles of
the Qur’an. Moreover this preservation is not limited to only the
Qur’an, but also its explanation, the Sunnah, i.e. the actions,
sayings and tacit approvals of the Prophet, peace be upon him,.
These were meticulously memorised and written down by his wives
and companions, and passed down until they were collected in the
more famous books of hadeeth some two to three hundred years after
the Hijra.. The body of hadeeth literature has not enjoyed, quite
unjustly, the same general acceptance of authenticity as the Qur’an.
This is simply because the means by which the hadeeth became preserved
was a longer and more complicated affair than that of the Qur’an,
and therefore became a relatively easier target of attack by Islam’s
enemies. Some Orientalists have even claimed that Hadith authenticity
rates the same as the Biblical texts . This is, however a very superficial
comparison, even if there are some apparent similarities. For example
the major books of hadeeth such Saheeh al-Bukhari, Saheeh Muslim
and the Sunan of Abu Dawood, did not appear until just over two
hundred years the Hijra. Those who compiled the books were not themselves
eye witnesses. Many hadeeth within the entire body of hadeeth literature
are clearly fabricated and of dubious authenticity, and ,as a whole,
contain contradictions.
These
statements are true in general, but a more detailed study of the
history of the preservation of the hadeeth makes it immediately
clear that the reality is quite different.