Assalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
[center]The Qur'an - 10
[i]Promises on the fate of nonbelievers[/i]
By Dr. M. Abdullah Draz[/center]
In the last few articles we gave examples of the prophecies given in the Qur'an and how they always came true. The examples we have given so far were in two A R C H I V E S
Putin and Bush
Madina Archives
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board
| Putin and Bush | | Danyala | | 05/31/03 at 04:48:59 | [slm]
'Bush decided within two hours of meeting him that Putin was a man he could trust. Bush's remarks--"I looked the man in the eye," he said, and "I was able to get a sense of his soul"--elicited snickers from journalists and grimaces from his advisers, who feared Bush was swooning over Putin the way they had accused Clinton of falling for Yeltsin. Former Clintonites rolled their eyes at the irony. "I've known Putin for seven years," says Sandy Berger, who held Rice's job under Clinton. "I've looked him in the eye many times. And all I've ever seen is him looking back at me." '
:D :D :D :
Taken fd by Al-Bukhari on the authority of Abdullah ibn Massoud)
Now read the verses that come later in the Surah: "We are lifting the scourge for a while. You will return (to your old ways). But the day will come when We will inflict on them the sternest punishment. We will exact revenge." (44: 15-16)
There are three separate prophecies in these verses: lifting the scourge, their return to their old ways and a sterner punishment to befall them as a result. All this occurred as outlined in the authentic Hadith to which we have already referred. They first came to the Prophet seeking his help and praying passionately to God, saying: "Our Lord, lift up this scourge from us. We are now believers." (44: 12). God gave them plenty of rain and their land was fertile. But they soon returned to their erring ways, behaving very arrogantly. God then inflicted His punishment on them causing their heavy defeat in the Battle of Badr, when seventy of their bravest soldiers were killed and seventy others were taken prisoner.
References to this revenge are given in different forms in verses of the Qur'an revealed in Makkah, long before it actually took place. Sometimes the reference is given in general terms, or an implicit threat. "As for the unbelievers, because of their misdeeds ill-fortune shall not cease to afflict them or crouch at their very doorstep until God's promise is fulfilled." (13:31). "So turn away from them for a while, and look at them (to see their affliction), for they shall surely see (your triumph)." (37:174-5)
In other references the scourge is specified as a military defeat: "The army shall be routed and put to flight." (54: 45). This is a piece of news that sounded highly improbable in Makkah. There was no thought of raising armies and engaging in armed conflict, let alone defeat of Quraish and putting its army to flight. Omar said when this verse was revealed: "What army is meant here?" On the day of the Battle of Badr, he heard the Prophet repeating this verse. (This is reported in a Hadith related by several scholars, and its end is related by Al-Bukhari and Muslim.)
A similar reference occurs in verse 20 of Surah 73, which is one of the earliest to be revealed in Makkah: "He knows that among you there are those who are ill, and others who will be traveling on the road seeking God's bounty, and still others who will be fighting for God's cause."
At times references are made to particular details of this revenge. This is even more remarkable, as in the case of the man, generally believed to be Al-Waleed ibn Al-Mugheerah, who is described as being illegitimate and who used to describe the Qur'an as "fables of the ancients." The Qur'an says about him: "On the nose We will brand him." In the Battle of Badr he received a nose injury with a sword and that gave him a permanent mark in his nose for the rest of his life.
Similar to these news about the unbelievers of Quraish are those that speak of the Jewish unbelievers. The Qur'an says about them: "They will not be able to harm you except for some injury, and if they fight against you they will turn their backs and run away. Then there shall be none to help them." (3: 111). That is exactly what happened. But the Surah goes on to say in the next verse: "Ignominy shall befall them wherever they are found, except through some link with God and some link with other people." (3: 112). "Your Lord declared that He would raise against them others who would oppress them cruelly till the Day of Resurrection." (7: 167)
One wonders whether these verses are composed of letters and words, or are they chains tied to their necks and fetters put in their hands for ever. Ever since these verdicts have been passed against them, they have been in their Diaspora, scattered, humiliated in most countries, unable to establish a state at any time, or to gather themselves in a single country.
Today, they own nearly half the global wealth, but they continue to be dispersed all over the world, unable to establish for themselves even a very small country. In fact, they have been subjected to great suffering in the Christian countries of the West. Eventually, they are kicked out. Muslim countries, which are normally the most hospitable of countries, accept them only as subjects, not rulers. (Perhaps it should be mentioned here that this was written several years before the establishment of the state of Israel. Nevertheless what the Qur'an says holds true.)
And have you heard their latest news? In their wild dreams, they came up with the idea of establishing a national homeland in the holy land of Palestine, so that their communities in different countries could gather there. When a large community has been settled there for sometime without being ousted, they would try to rid themselves of their historical disgrace by re-establishing their old kingdom in that land. In pursuit of this dream, emigrants have been arriving into Palestine, individually and in groups, to settle there.
The question here is: have they been able to take this initial step, or may be the first and the last, relying on their own power alone? Definitely not. They have taken it when support was granted by others, or by "some link with other people", as the Qur'an says. What do we say to that? We only say that God tells the truth. "Whose statements are more truthful than God's?" They may think that by competing with the indigenous people in their land they pave the way for usurping their sovereignty. But insurmountable difficulties will stand in their way. They want to change God's words, but God's words are unchangeable. "Do they have a share in the Kingdom? If so, they will not give so much as the speck on a date-stone to other people." (4: 53). But God has power over them. Reflect, if you will, on the amazing nature of Qur'anic prophecies and how they penetrate into the near and distant future. They are so precise with respect to the timing and the nature of events they predict. In fact, the passage of time provides proof of their accuracy in substance and detail, whether they speak of near or distant future.
Indeed whatever the Qur'an mentions of news goes beyond the reason and the senses of the Prophet, whether they relate to the past, present or future. Whenever the Prophet speaks of the past, the evidence of history confirms what he says, and when he speaks of the future, the passage of time gives credence to what he says. When he speaks of God, His angels and the world that lies beyond the reach of human perception, other prophets and revelations confirm what he says.
We will continue this discussion tomorrow,God willing.
[i]"Islam in Perspective" - Arab News - 02 November 1998[/i]
Wassalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
Haniff (with 2 f's) | | | Re: The Qur'an | | Haniff | | 01/07/02 at 00:00:07 | Assalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
[center]The Qur'an - 11
[i]Divine revelations to the Prophet through the noble angel[/i]
By Dr. M. Abdullah Draz[/center]
At the end of our last article we said that whenever Muhammad (peace be on him) gives any piece of information, whether related to the past, present or future, it is always confirmed by past history or by future occurrences and events. When he talks about God, the angels or the world beyond, confirmation is readily available by earlier prophets and scriptures.
Now we should ask ourselves: Could this man, unlettered and uneducated as he was, have coined up all this discourse himself? The ready, immediate and unhesitating answer is that he must have derived such information from an accurate scientific source, and relied on broad and careful study. Such information could have never all come out of his own intelligence and ingenuity. Never had any person, intelligent and resourceful as he might be, been given a guarantee of immunity from error in revealing past historical events or future one, ancient as the former might have been, or distant as the latter may be.
The prophets themselves, who were among the most intelligent people in history as all their contemporaries have testified, have not received such a guarantee, even concerning events that were close to them in time and place. Apart from conveying God's revelations, when prophets exercised their own discretion concerning what might have taken place away from them, their judgment might be right or wrong.
Jacob, for example, accused his sons of fabrication twice: when they produced Joseph's shirt with blood stains on it and when they told him that his other son had stolen. Each time he said to them: "No, but your minds have tempted you to evil. Sweet patience!" (12: 18 & 83). He was right concerning the first incident, but wrong with regard to the second. They were innocent of the fabrication he accused them of having perpetrated. Moses (peace be on him) said to the sage he met: "You will find me patient, if God so wills, and I shall not disobey you in anything." (18: 69). He soon forgot his pledge and showed little patience. Indeed he did not obey his orders at all.
Muhammad (peace be on him) himself was subject to people's attempts to give him false evidence so that he would issue and unjust verdict or defend a guilty person, thinking that he is innocent. He only corrected himself when God, who knows all, has given him the right information.
If anyone doubts this, let him read verses 105-106 of Surah 4: "Do not contend with those who are false to their trust, but pray God for forgiveness. God is indeed much-forgiving, merciful." An authentic report on the reason for the revelation of these verses says that a thief entered the place of an Ansari man called Rifaah, forcing his entry and stealing all the food and weapons that were there. In the morning the Ansari looked for his belongings until he was certain that it was all in a house belonging to the Ubairiq clan, some of whom were hypocrites. He sent his nephew to complain to the Prophet, who told him: "I will took into the matter."
When that clan heard this, they came to the Prophet and said: "Messenger of God, Qatadah ibn An-Numan and his uncle Rifaah have been accusing a certain family of our clan of theft, without evidence or proof, although that family are good Muslims." Qatadah later came to the Prophet who told him: "You have been speaking about a Muslim family, who have been mentioned to me as people of piety, and accusing them of theft without evidence or proof." Qatadah went back to his uncle and told him what the Prophet said. His uncle simply said: "I appeal to God for help." Shortly after that, the verses quoted above were revealed, making it clear that the Ubairiq clan were making false statements and commanding the Prophet to seek forgiveness for what he said to Qatadah. (This Hadith is related by At-Tirmithi and Al-Hakim, with the latter classifying it as highly authentic.)
Now look at what the Prophet says about himself in a Hadith related by Ahmad and Ibn Majah: "I am only a man like you whose opinions may be right or wrong. But when I tell you, 'God says', then know that I will never tell a lie against God." He also says: "I am only a human being and you bring your disputes to me. It may be that some of you may have a stronger argument or a better evidence than others, and I would then think that he is telling the truth and rule in his favor. If I give any of you something that belongs by right to another Muslim, I am only giving him a brand of fire. He may then take it or leave it." (Related by Malik, Al-Bukhari, Muslim and others.) A person who is so unable to know the truth of what might have taken place between two people whom he has seen and heard in his own time and place is undoubtedly less able to know what had taken place in past history or what will take place in the future.
All that indeed belongs to a different realm, the realm that lies beyond the reach of human perception. As we approach the boundaries of that realm, insight and intelligence have no role. The human mind becomes powerless. It might hit upon the truth once in every several cases where it would be wrong.
Moreover, when it happens to point to something right, there is no guarantee that it will remain free of any change. Indeed it may disappear by coincidence as it was hit upon by coincidence: "Had it (i.e. the Qur'an) been issued from anyone but God, they would surely have found in it many an inner contradiction." (4: 82)
It is inevitable that anyone who seeks to learn the source of the Qur'an should expand the area of his investigation. If he cannot establish that source when he considers the insight and intelligence of the person who brought the Qur'an, he should surely look for it, and find it, inevitably, in his education and study. A speaker either composes what he says or copies it from another source. There is no other alternative.
The man reciting the Qur'an and conveying it to people was not one who could himself refer to books and encyclopedias. Even his enemies admit that he grew up and lived without receiving any education. He was indeed unlettered. At no time did he learn to read a book or to write anything with his hand. He must, then, have had a teacher who has taught him all this information, not by writing but by reading them to him. That is the logical conclusion.
You may say: "Who is this teacher?" That is indeed the second point in the question about the Qur'an. Now if you reflect on the proofs and evidence we have given on the first point of this question, you will find with it a proof relevant to this second point. Indeed you will know who this teacher is. But we will try to make him better known to you so that you will agree with us when we say about him: "This teacher is no human being! This is indeed a noble angel, delivering a message from God, the Lord of all worlds."
We will talk about Muhammad's teacher next, God willing.
[i]"Islam in Perspective" - Arab News - 09 November 1998[/i]
Insha Allah, more to follow...
Wassalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
Haniff (with 2 f's) | | | Re: The Qur'an | | Haniff | | 01/08/02 at 05:25:17 | Assalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
[center]The Qur'an - 12
[i]The ignorance in Arabia before advent of Islam[/i]
By Dr. M. Abdullah Draz[/center]
We have mentioned in our last article that Muhammad [saw] could not have produced the Qur'an relying on his own insight and intelligence. He must have learned what the Qur'an contained from some teacher, as he, unlettered as he was, could not refer to books or other written work. We concluded with posing the question: who was Muhammad's teacher?
That Muhammad [saw} could not have had a teacher from among his illiterate people is something everyone readily accepts. Perhaps no one needs to seek any evidence to prove it beyond the fact that Muhammad's [saw] people were generally called, "the illiterate", which is an appellation indicating that they had no knowledge of religion and faith. The period that preceded the advent of Islam in Arabia is described as jahiliyah, which means the period or the state of ignorance.
Such people who lacked even the very basis of knowledge to the extent that a description was coined for them from the word, "ignorance", can never stand in a position to teach others, let alone teach their own teacher who describes them more than once in his book as ignorant, and relates some aspects of their ignorance in several Surahs of that book. It has been said by some people: "If you want to know the extent of the Arabs' ignorance, read what comes after verse 100 of Surah 6, entitled, "Cattle". As for the fact that he had no teacher from among any other community we say that it is sufficient for us to refer to anyone who seeks such information to any history source, old or new, Islamic or international. After he has exhausted all possible sources we will ask him whether he has read a single line saying that Muhammad ibn Abdullah [saw] had met, before declaring himself as Prophet, any scholar and learned from him any religious knowledge, or heard from him accounts of past nations and communities.
We do not have to give any evidence other than throwing this challenge in order to prove that nothing of this had ever taken place. The burden of proof is fairly and squarely on anyone who makes a different claim. Let anyone show us his proof if what he claims be true. We certainly do not say that he never met or saw any such scholar either before or after he became a prophet. We know that in his childhood, he met a monk called Baheera in Busra in southern Syria.
In Makkah also, he met a scholar named Waraqah ibn Nawfal shortly after he began to receive revelations from on high, which was about 30 months before he announced his prophethood. We also know that after he received his message, he met numerous Jewish rabbis and Christian priests in Madinah. But the claim we are making is very specific: Muhammad [saw] did not learn from any such scholar anything, neither before nor after he was chosen to be a prophet. Indeed before his prophethood he never heard from them anything whatsoever related to religion.
As for those whom he met after prophethood, he spoke and listened to them, but they were the ones who asked and he was the one who answered. He indeed taught, admonished and warned them, and also gave some of them happy news. In the case of those whom he met before or shortly after his prophethood, he had a witness with him on each occasion.
His uncle, Abu Talib, was his companion when he met the monk from Syria, while his wife, Khadeejah, was in his company when he met Waraqah. So what did his two companions hear of the teachings of these two teachers? Should we not find in history an account of what had taken place in these two meetings? How come that history remains silent on such a remarkable encounter in which all the knowledge of the Qur'an and its accounts of events taking place from the beginning to the end of the world was summed up in a short interview?
Besides, why did not his opponents, keen as they were to refute his argument, take such an encounter as a clear proof against him? After all, they did not hesitate to drum up even the slightest hint of suspicion in order to give him the lie. This was an easy proof. Indeed, had it been true, it would have been much more forceful in disproving his claims than all the stubborn opposition they put up. The fact that history has remained silent on this point is sufficient proof that it did not happen. It is not something simple to be overlooked even by those who were keen to find anything which could be used against the Prophet and his message.
But history has not remained silent. It tells us exactly what happened with these two people. It relates that the Syrian monk saw in the young boy he met sufficient evidence of his future prophethood, as described in earlier scriptures. That prompted him to tell his uncle: "This boy shall have a great future." History also tells us that when Waraqah ibn Nawfal listened to the Prophet [saw] giving him a detailed account of how revelations were given to him, he identified the characteristics of the angel who brought revelations to Moses. He acknowledged him as a prophet and expressed his wish to live longer so that he could be among his supporters.
Whoever respects history and believes in its events as they took place will find that historical events provide an argument in our favor. But the one who is so shameless as to add to history something he invents may say that Muhammad [saw] was a learner in these encounters. Let such a person say what he wants. What his fabrication will produce is, inevitably, a self-contradictory account. What logic would support a claim that a man who has seen in someone signs of prophethood long before it became a reality and gave him such news, or one who believed in him after he began to receive his message, would assume the position of a teacher of such a prophet! Do such people not reflect on the import of their false claims?
We ask again: was there at the time any scholar who could impart his knowledge to Muhammad [saw] and leave the stamp of that knowledge on the Our'an?
Even the atheists say: "The Qur'an is the single historical work that most accurately reflects the spirit of its age." This is indeed true insofar as its literal meaning goes. The Qur'an reflects that spirit, but is not influenced by it, or we may say that the Qur'an reflects that spirit before it destroys it completely.
We accept their admission and call on them to contemplate the clear picture the Qur'an draws as an example of contemporary scholars. We ask them to read Surahs 2 and 3, respectively, entitled, The Cow and The House of Imran, and reflect on the arguments they put to the Jewish and Christian scholars concerning faith, history and religious laws and rules. Or let them read any Surah which contains a reference to the people of the earlier scriptures, whether they are of the Makkah or Madinah revelations, and consider how the Qur'an describe them. Indeed, the Qur'an describes their knowledge as sheer ignorance, their beliefs as errors and superstition, and their deeds as abominable crimes.
Should you need more and clearer information, here are some examples of how the Qur'an refutes their historical errors. "O people of earlier revelations! Why do you argue about Abraham, seeing that the Torah and the Gospel were not revealed till long after him? Will you not use your reason?" (3:65). "Do you claim that Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and their descendants were Jews or Christian?" (2: 140). "The first House of worship ever set up for mankind was indeed the one at Makkah." (3: 96) This refutes their claim that their place of worship which they face in their prayer pre-dated the Ka'aba. "All food was lawful for the children of Israel, except what Israel had made unlawful to himself before the Torah was revealed from on high" (3: 93). This verse refutes their claim that camel meat was forbidden to Abraham.
We will continue our discussion tomorrow, God willing, giving examples of how the Qur'an refutes their religious errors.
[i]"Islam in Perspective" - Arab News - 16 November 1998[/i]
Wassalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
Haniff (with 2 f's) | | Re: The Qur'an | | Haniff | | 01/09/02 at 05:23:28 | Assalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
[center]The Qur'an - 13
[i]Who taught Muhammad[/i]
By Dr. M. Abdullah Draz[/center]
The claim of the atheists that the Qur'an merely reflects its age was shown last week to be false. We have also stated that since Muhammad [saw] could not produce the Qur'an with all the knowledge that it contains depending only on his intelligence and insight, he must have had a teacher. We looked at his encounters with followers of earlier religions and showed how he could not have received any instruction from them. Indeed, the Qur'an speaks about those people denouncing their errors and false beliefs that they have introduced in their religions. Such denunciation comes in clear, uncompromising terms. Had Muhammad [saw] been taught by any scholar of the followers of earlier religions, he would not have denounced their attitude so strongly. We gave some examples of refuting their historical errors.
Let us now look at how the Qur'an refutes their religious superstitions. "We have created the Heavens and the Earth and all that is between them in six eons, and no weariness has ever touched Us." (50: 38). This refutes their claim that after God had created all creation in six days, He rested on the seventh day. "It was not Solomon that denied the truth." (2: 102). This vindicates Solomon against their false claim that he was not a prophet, but merely a magician who was able to ride the wind. "God has heard those who said, 'God is poor and we are rich'." (3: 181). "The Jews say: 'God's hands are fettered'." (5: 64). "The Jews said, 'Ezra is son of God,' while the Christians said, 'Jesus is son of God'." (9: 30). "The Jews and the Christians say, 'We are God's children, and His beloved ones'." - "Disbelievers are they who say, 'God is the Christ, son of Mary'." - "Disbelievers are they who say, 'God is the third of a trinity'." (5: 18, 72 & 73). "Say: 'People of earlier revelations! Come to an equitable agreement between you and us: that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall associate no partners with Him, and that we shall not take one another for lords beside God'." (3: 64)
Consider now how the Qur'an describes the faith of religious leaders at the time of its revelation, particularly those who were Christian. The elements of polytheism were so clear in their religion. Indeed, the illiterate Arabs noticed that and consoled themselves on account of their own polytheism: "When the son of Mary is set forth as an example, your own people raise an outcry on this score, and say, 'Which is better - our deities or he'?" (43:57). Indeed, they used him in their argument that the monotheism which the Qur'an advocates is an innovation without precedent in all religions. They said: "Never did we hear of a claim like this in any faith of latter days." (38:7). In this they are referring particularly to Christianity.
Here is yet another series of their offenses which the Qur'an relates as a long chain of crimes: "And so for their breaking of their pledge, their disbelief in God's revelations, their killing of prophets against all right, and for their statement, 'Our hearts are sealed'. Indeed, God has sealed their hearts on account of their disbelief. As a result they have no faith except for a few of them. And for their disbelief and uttering against Mary a monstrous falsehood and their saying: 'We have killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, God's messenger.' They did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it only was made to appear so to them. Those who disagree about him are certainly in doubt concerning it. They have no real knowledge about it, but they only follow mere conjecture. For, of a certainty, they did not kill him. God raised him up to Himself. God is indeed almighty, wise. There is not one of the people of earlier revelations but will, at the moment of his death, believe in him, and on the Day of Resurrection he will bear witness against them. So, then, for their wrong doing, We forbade the Jews good things of life which had been formerly allowed them; and, indeed, for their barring many people from God's path, and for their taking usury although it had been made forbidden to them, and their wrongful devouring of other people's property. We have prepared for the unbelievers among them grievous suffering." (4: 155-161)
Do we see in all this a picture of teachers imparting their knowledge to the one who conveyed the Qur'an to mankind? Indeed the reverse is true. He is the one who teaches them and points out their errors and their poor knowledge.
We do not deny that there were among them some scholars of rich knowledge. But those of them who were deeply rooted in knowledge declared their belief in the Qur'an and the prophet who delivered the Qur'an: "None can bear witness between me and you as God does; and anyone who possesses knowledge of the revelations." (13: 43). Had they been his teachers, they would have believed in themselves, instead of believing in him.
We should also raise the question: was the knowledge possessed by scholars available to anyone who sought it? Indeed, they were so secretive about their knowledge, guarding it more than they guarded their own lives. They were reluctant to impart it even to their own children, fearing for their positions or hoping to be chosen for the role of the prophet whom they knew would be soon coming.
Let us refer to the Qur'an which the atheists have accepted as an arbiter between them and us. It provides the complete answer to this question. It tells us that in their keen desire to keep their scriptures and knowledge to themselves they would "write down, with their own hands, (something which they claim to belong to) the scriptures, and then say, 'This is from God,' in order to acquire a trifling gain." (2:79). At times they would "distort the Bible with their tongues, so as to make you think that what they say is from the Bible, the while it is not from the Bible; and they say, 'This is from God,' the while it is not from God." (3: 78).
At other times they would "distort the meaning of (God's) words." (5: 13). They would also resort to divide their scriptures, revealing some parts and keeping others secret: "Say: Who has bestowed from on high the scriptures which Moses brought to men as a light and a guidance, and which you treat as mere leaves of paper, making a show of them the while you conceal much." (6: 91). Sometimes they argue citing what they have learned by heart. They look dumbfounded when they are told to bring the Torah and read it to prove their point if they can. Or they may bring it and read the verses preceding and following the relevant one, concealing that verse with their own hands. This actually took place when they denied that the Torah does not specify stoning as a punishment for adultery. (This story is related by Al-Bukhari in his Saheeh.)
The Qur'an accuses them openly of deceit and concealing the truth: "O people of earlier revelations! Why do you cloak the truth with falsehood and conceal the truth of which you are so well aware?" (3: 72). Indeed, the Qur'an lays into the open what they had concealed and arbitrates on that over which they dispute. "O people of the Bible! Now Our messenger has come to you to make clear to you much of what you have been concealing of the Bible." (5: 15)."The Qur'an explains to the Children of Israel most of that over which they hold divergent views." (27: 76). "By God, even before your time We sent messengers to various communities; but Satan has made all their own doings seem goodly to them; and he is their patron today. Hence, grievous suffering awaits them. And upon you have We bestowed from on high this Book so that you may make clear to them all questions on which they hold divergent views, and provide guidance and bestow grace on people who will believe." (16: 63-64)
Reflect, if you will, on these last two quotations, from Surahs 27 & 16, entitled "The Ant" and "The Bee," respectively. Both were revealed in Makkah, i.e. in the early period of Islam. Yet both make it clear that an essential purpose of the revelation of the Qur'an is to explain to the people of earlier scriptures questions on which they dispute. Indeed, they make this the first purpose, followed by providing guidance to the believers and bestowing mercyon them.
So once more we ask those who claim that Muhammad [saw] had a human teacher to name that teacher.
We will have reason to return to this question tomorrow, God willing.
[i]"Islam in Perspective" - Arab News - 23 November 1998[/i]
Wassalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
Haniff (with 2 f's) | | | Re: The Qur'an | | Haniff | | 01/09/02 at 23:49:54 | Assalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
[center]The Qur'an - 14
[i]A human teacher for the Prophet![/i]
By Dr. M. Abdullah Draz[/center]
Once more we say to anyone who claims that a human being taught Muhammad [saw] what he preached: tell us the name of that teacher, and who saw and heard him, and what did he hear him saying. When and where did this teaching take place? To us, the term, "human", refers to those people who walk on the Earth, and whom we see as they come and go. Hence, we do not accept such a claim without naming the man in question.
Otherwise, the claim would be the same as that made by people who allege that God has partners who do not exist anywhere other than in their imagination.
Hence, they are required to name those partners: "Yet they ascribe to God partners. Say: Name them. Would you tell Him of anything on Earth which He does not know; or are these merely empty words?" (13: 33)
And we ask: was this prophet born in Mars, or was he brought up in a remote corner of the world, and then came to his people after he had attained maturity.
Were they seeing him only sparingly after that? Was he not in fact born in their midst? Was he not among them all the time, meeting them morning and evening? Were they not seeing him coming and going? "Or is it that they have not recognized their messenger, and so they disavow him?" (23: 69)
Yes, indeed. In their hostility to his cause, his people contrived to make such a claim: "It is but a human being that teaches him!" (16: 103). But were they serious about their claim? Were they referring to a person whom they knew to have such great knowledge? No. They were not even concerned about being right or serious. They only wanted to defend themselves against being unable to make a serious reply to his call. Hence, they tried to make whatever defense came to their minds, be it true or false, serious or trifling.
Then, who was this human being they said was teaching him? Did they dare to attribute this teaching to one of their numbers? No. They realized that their ignorance was so manifest that they could not teach a man who spoke to them about things that neither they nor their ancestors knew anything about.
Or do you think that having found Makkah devoid of any scholars of religion and history at the time when Muhammad [saw] was sent with his message, they attributed that teaching to a scholar in Madinah or Syria or some other place? They were unable to make such a claim either. Then who could that teacher be?
They realized that they had to seek a person who meets two conditions. The first is that he should be living in Makkah, so that it would be plausible for them to allege that he met him
morning and evening to impart his instruction. The second condition is that he should belong to a different race and faith. That would make it easier for them to claim that such a person could impart to him knowledge that they themselves lacked. When they looked for a person who met these two conditions they only came up with a Greek blacksmith.
Yes, they were able to produce none other than a young man who was well-known in the marketplace, but not in study circles. Unlike them, he was neither illiterate nor idolater. He was a Christian who could read and write. Hence, he could be, according to them, a suitable teacher to Muhammad [saw] , and a scholar who could teach all Christian monks and Jewish rabbis, as well as the world at large.
Let us now inquire about this man: was he given to scholarly pursuit, studying books and able to distinguish the truth from falsehood in what they contained? Was he equipped with the mental faculties of perception and understanding that would make him suitable for this role? Our investigation shows that he was an ordinary blacksmith using his tools for his living.
His mental power was that of an ordinary uneducated laborer, whose knowledge of books and learning did not exceed wishful thinking. Besides, he read in a foreign language which was unknown to Muhammad [saw] and his people. But none of that was sufficient to deprive him of the title of teacher and mentor of Muhammad [saw] , which they conferred on him.
Thus the serious circle was too narrow for them. They could only function in the open fields of the absurd. Indeed they went so far in absurdity that they could not be taken seriously by anyone.
They were just like one who said that knowledge could come out of ignorance, and that man may receive the faculty of speech from a parrot! We need say no more. "We certainly know that they say, 'It is but a human being that teaches him!' (notwithstanding that) the tongue of him to whom they so maliciously point is wholly outlandish, whereas this is Arabic speech, clear in itself and clearly showing the truth." (16:103)
They simply found the whole idea so funny that they approved the falsehood it implied. The whole picture looked to them full of mockery, and they laughed loudly at it as they felt it gave them their revenge.
Little did they realize that they were mocking at themselves. In fact, it was an admission by them that they were the most ignorant community on Earth. They actually acknowledged that any foreigner, even an uneducated blacksmith, has greater knowledge than what all their community had. They were much better off remaining silent than making such a claim that backfired at them.
The truth, with which they were at loggerheads, has gained in power as a result of their false allegation. When they tried to find a human being whom they could allege to have imparted knowledge to Muhammad [saw] , they could not claim that his source of knowledge was a foreigner. They wanted him to be from within his home town. When they could find none, their last resort was to produce that blacksmith.
The point arises: if that young blacksmith had such a great treasure of knowledge, what prevented them from learning from him like Muhammad [saw] , as they claimed, did? That would have easily solved their problem, as they would have the same knowledge as Muhammad [saw] . Indeed if that young man was the sort of teacher they claimed, what prevented him from opening his knowledge to the world, so that he would be acknowledged as a teacher or a leader of mankind.
Besides, why did they not attribute those disciplines unknown to them to the people who spend a lifetime learning them, such as the Jewish rabbis in Madinah or the Christian priests in Syria? That would certainly have been more plausible and more convincing. The claim could have been promoted much more easily than attributing them to a blacksmith in Makkah.
Was the whole Earth too narrow for them that they could not find a more knowledgeable person in religion and history than that blacksmith? The fact is that they considered a claim of foreign teaching even less plausible and certainly unacceptable.
Had they resorted to it, they would have been more forcefully accused of arrogant obstinacy. Hence, they felt that they needed to narrow the circle of their accusations. But their falsehood has been easily seen for what it is.
These were Muhammad's [saw] people, his most hardened opponents. They were fully aware of his travels, movements and other actions. Yet they were totally unable to establish any learning contact between him and the people of knowledge in his own time. Nevertheless, the atheists of today, more than thirteen centuries after his message, when all events have been determined and all accounts settled, persist in trying to establish such a connection. What is even more singular is that they try to find such a connection in historical garbage, and in the area which his own people could not bring themselves down to investigate.
We tell them to spare themselves such efforts. Quraish, Muhammad's [saw] tribe, had exhausted it long before them. Let them turn away from this area, for logic and history have shown that all such attempts are destined to miserable failure. If they persist, they should know that any doubt that is raised against the clear truth, the truth will turn it to its advantage and make of it an argument in its favor.
[i]"Islam in Perspective" - Arab News - 30 November 1998[/i]
Insha Allah, more to follow...
Wassalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
Haniff (with 2 f's) | | Re: The Qur'an | | Haniff | | 01/12/02 at 05:35:53 | Assalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
[center]The Qur'an - 15
[i]Worthless & false allegations[/i]
By Dr. M. Abdullah Draz[/center]
We have discussed over the last three articles the accusation leveled at Prophet Muhammad [saw] that his message, and the Qur'an in particular were taught to him by a teacher. We explained how they tried hard to prove their allegation that he had someone teaching him all that he conveyed, but their allegations came unstuck. Today, we are finishing with the discussion of this point.
Had the allegation that Muhammad [saw] received all the knowledge contained in the Qur'an from a human teacher been an expression of an idea or a doubt felt by those who make it, they would have held on to it without moving to something different. If the human mind were to try to explain the total break between Muhammad's [saw] life before receiving his message and after it, it will inevitably conclude that the new knowledge Muhammad [saw] expressed must have been imparted to him by fresh instruction. Since people do not know of any teachers on Earth who are not human, the first thing that comes to mind is that there must be a man who has undertaken this fresh instruction and imparted its contents to Muhammad [saw].
Had there been even the slightest possibility that a person making such an allegation could find real or plausible factors which would give him even little conviction within himself that this was the case, he would stick to it and would not seek a different explanation. But those who make such allegation continue to be, even to this day, uncertain as to what to say about the Qur'an: should they claim that it was taught to Muhammad [saw] by another man, or should they say that it is the product of his own intellect, as mentioned earlier, or should they combine the two claims together, describing the Prophet as being "taught" and a "madman", as the Qur'an reports in Verse 14 of Surah 44.
When we follow the arguments of those who denied that the Qur'an is revealed by God, as these arguments are reported in the Qur'an itself, we find that the allegation that the Qur'an was taught to Muhammad [saw] by a human being was the least frequent. Their most frequent argument was that it was self-inspiration, although they could not agree on what psychological condition experienced by the Prophet led to the production of the Qur'an, and whether it was poetic inspiration or mere dreaming.
Hard indeed they tried to look into all possibilities so that they could come up with something to support their rejection of the Qur'an's message. They did not stop at the limits that might reasonably be applied to serious speech like the Qur'an, or to a highly serious and wise mind like that of the Prophet. They went even to the most extreme psychological conditions that produce human speech, whether the speaker is rational or irrational.
That is clear evidence that they were not trying to prove an allegation they truly believed. They simply raised all possibilities and exhausted all options, overlooking all their defects, and heedless of all their improbability. They simply wanted to raise doubt in the minds of those who sought to know the truth and to learn the true faith.
Yet they were never satisfied with any opinion they advanced. Whenever they took up any opinion and tried to apply it to the Qur'an, they found that it was far from suitable. No plausible argument could be used to prove it. Hence, they would quickly move to try a different opinion, then a third one, and every time they realized that all their attempts were futile. Hence, they remained in doubt, torn between these views which they knew to be false. If you wish to look at a picture describing their persistent confusion, you need only to read the following verse of the Qur'an: "They say: 'Nay, (Muhammad [saw] propounds) the most involved and confusing of dreams! Nay, but he has invented all this! Nay, but he is only a poet'!" Look at how many times the conjunction indicating a switch of direction is used. That on its own depicts their state of confusion and how they were totally unable to agree on anything. It simply describes how a perjurer switches from one extreme to another when he feels that his lies are about to be discovered.
He would try haphazardly to seek anything to help him to support his untenable position. "See to what they liken you, (Prophet), simply because they have gone astray and are now unable to find a way (to the truth)." (17: 48 & 25: 9)
This is the same position adopted today by modern atheists who attribute the Qur'an to "self-inspiration." They allege that their view relies on modern scientific discoveries. But theirs is no new opinion. It is, in substance and detail, the same as the old one advanced by opponents in the society of ignorance. Those people of old described the Prophet as a man with great active imagination and profound sensitivity, which made of him a poet.
Then they added that his emotions overpowered his senses to the extent that he could imagine that he was seeing and hearing someone speaking to him, while the reality of what he saw and heard was no more than his own emotions and feelings. Thus they attributed it all to madness or dreaming. But they could not persevere with such "explanations". So they abandoned the notion of "self-inspiration" when they realized that the Qur'an included accounts of past and future communities.
They thought that he might have heard these from scholars whom he met in his travels. That means that a human being has taught it all to him. So what is new in all that? Is it not all a new version reflecting the old allegation of the ignorant people of Quraish? Indeed. neo-atheism is no more than an updated or distorted version of the old type in its oldest guise. The modern ideas are fed by the left-over of past, ignorant days: "Even thus, the same as they say, spoke those who lived before their time; their hearts are all alike." (2: 118)
Yet they acknowledged, in spite of all what they said about him, that Prophet Muhammad [saw] was exemplary in his honesty. They added that he could be excused in attributing his vision to Divine inspiration because his dreams were so vivid that he thought it so. Hence, he only said what he believed. In the Qur'an, God tells us that their forerunners took the same attitude: "It is not that they give you the lie, but the evildoers simply deny God's revelations." (6: 33). If he is justified in describing what he saw and heard as revelation, what justification had he in saying that neither he nor his people ever heard such news, when they alleged that he had heard them before? In fact, to be consistent, they have to claim that it was all fabrication, but they do not wish to make such a claim in order to give themselves a guise of fairness and objectivity. Yet by adopting such an attitude they practically make that accusation, although they may not perceive it so.
All that we have said so far confirm the fact that there is no human source for the Qur'an, neither from within the man who delivered it nor from any human being. Anyone who tries to make it a "human production" comes unstuck. Ending up confused, overweening and stubborn, his failure is manifest. Hence, we need to move on and look for a source of the Qur'an outside the human domain altogether.
We must not stop at the point where disbelievers, old and modern, reached, attributing the Qur'an to self-inspiration at times, and to human teaching at other times, and to a mixture of both on other occasions.
They simply move from one false assumption to another, then to a third which is even further from the truth as it is composed of two false assumptions. Logic dictates that we should reject what strong evidence has proved to be false. In fact, we should follow the logical argument until we find the clear truth.
The disbelievers claim that they have refrained from following the logical argument only because they respect natural laws and understand the reasons for people's speech. Faithful to natural science as they claim themselves to be, they would not go beyond its domain in order to look for something they do not see or experience. We have seen that this attitude has turned against them. For it causes them to overstep the natural limits of reason and history, leading them to self-contradiction, changing history, and forcing things out of their nature. What reasonable person would adopt such an attitude, spurning his reason in order to follow his habits!
The truth is that they have another reason which prevents them from joining us in our pursuit, but they try to conceal it. That reason is that they feel too proud to acknowledge the leadership to a man who all of a sudden claims himself to be God's messenger, having the right to be obeyed in what he orders or forbids. He also puts the hard facts before their eyes, separating them from their past to which they want to cling, and from their desires which they want to fulfill: "He has brought them the truth, and the truth do most of them detest!" (23: 70). Therefore we will leave them where they wish to remain. We will continue our pursuit of the truth, praying God to guide us to it. By His grace we shall have that guidance.
[i]"Islam in Perspective" - Arab News - 07 December 1998[/i]
Insha Allah, more to come...
Wassalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
Haniff (with 2 f's) | | | Re: The Qur'an | | Haniff | | 01/13/02 at 03:23:05 | Assalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
[center]The Qur'an - 16
[i]How revelation was made to Muhammad[/i] [saw]
By Dr. M. Abdullah Draz[/center]
Today we move into a third area of our discussion about the source of the Qur'an. The first tried to establish whether the Qur'an could have been the result of some factors from within the Prophet's own self. In the second we looked at the possibility of it being taught to Muhammad [saw] by a human teacher. In the third area we will look at the possibility of the Qur'an having a source higher than the human realm. But we will not be wandering aimlessly here, nor will our pursuit lead us to remote corners or distant places. We will limit our investigation to a certain area where we feel we may find the secret we are looking for. We will simply study the direct situations when the Qur'an was being issued through Muhammad. [saw]
We have all heard of the remarkable phenomenon which was visible in his noble face every time a Qur'anic revelation was sent down to him from on high. It was apparent to everyone who looked at him. They saw his face turning red suddenly, and he would turn hot to the extent that sweat drops gathered on his forehead. He became heavy, to the extent that his thigh would press hard at the thigh of the person next to him. If he was riding, his mount would sit down. At the same time, babbling noises were heard near his face, sounding like the buzzing of bees. (All these descriptions have been confirmed in authentic Hadiths related by Al-Bukhari, Muslim and others.) Soon after that, he relaxed and he recited new Qur'anic verses that had not been known prior to that point.
This is the nearest area in which to look for the source of the Qur'an. It is here that investigation should proceed, because here the truth will be determined. When we have a causal relationship between two different matters, so as whenever one takes place the other materializes, then a proper investigation of that relationship will show us the true cause of the effect we have.
Let us now consider that phenomenon: was it deliberately affected, even as a preparatory means to achieve high concentration? Or was it something entirely involuntary? If the latter was the case, then was it induced by any normal situation, such as lethargy or drowsiness, or an abnormal one such as mental disturbance? Or was it a reaction to something totally external?
A glance at the components of that phenomenon is sufficient to show that it could have never been the result of affectation. This appears even more clearly when we reflect on that aspect of babbling noises being heard near the Prophet's face. Moreover, if such a condition was affected, it would have been easily resorted to at any time. Whenever he wished to have more of the Qur'an, he would have been able to produce it by resorting to this method of preparation. Thus the Qur'an would be available to him at will, while we know that on many occasions he desperately needed it, but he could only receive it when God willed to reveal it. Hence, it is clearly an involuntary process.
If we took at it again we find that it is in no way like the case of drowsiness which we experience when we are in need of sleep. The Prophet experienced this condition in all situations, sitting or standing, walking or riding, morning and evening, and even when he was talking to others, whether they were friends or opponents. It came all of a sudden and it went just as suddenly.
It lasted only for a very brief period. It was not gradual like lethargy. And it was accompanied by those strange noises which were not heard from him or from anyone else when they went to sleep. That is a condition so unlike that of sleep in all its aspects, times and features. Hence, it is a totally strange condition.
We also find it totally unlike any episode of mental illness or fits, for these are normally accompanied by loss of color, cold limbs, trembling teeth, involuntary exposure of parts which a person would rather remain unseen, and mental blackout. The difference, as we have seen earlier, is that Muhammad's [saw] experience involved increased physical strength, brightness of color, increased body warmth and resulted in giving light and knowledge. In fact, every time it produced compelling wisdom which the human mind readily accepts.
We are nearly there, but we will pause a little to determine the source of this light which appeared occasionally, with the man emanating it having no say when it would appear. Could it originate from the nature of Muhammad's [saw] soul? If so, it would have been a permanent light that shines all the time, and it would have been more likely to shine when Muhammad [saw] was fully alert, or engaged in deep thought, instead of coming only in brief spells when he is under that thin cloud which might have seemed like sleep or loss of consciousness. The inevitable conclusion, then, is that this thin cloud must have a source of light beyond, which focuses on Muhammad's [saw] soul every now and then, elevating him to a sublime horizon that transcends his senses, and imparting to him whatever God wills of knowledge. Then Muhammad [saw] is back to himself having acquired this new knowledge which he had not had before. The whole process is repeated time after time.
We all believe that the moonlight does not emanate from the moon, but it is a reflection of the sun, because we see that the moonlight differs all the time according to its position in relation to the sun. In the same way people should believe that the light of this Prophetic moon is a reflection of the light of a sun which they only see its effects. Indeed they do not see that sun rising in the day, and they do not hear its voice in clear, understandable speech. However, they have seen an aspect of its light in Muhammad's [saw] face and heard its sound near his noble face. That is sufficient as a guiding indication for those who are keen to have guidance.
It is, then, an external force, because it comes in contact with Muhammad [saw] only from time to time. It is, inevitably, a knowledgeable force, because it imparts knowledge.
It is higher than him because it has such powerful effects on his body and soul as we have described: "That is but a Divine inspiration with which he is being inspired, something that a very mighty one has imparted to him: one endowed with surpassing power." (53: 4-6)
Moreover, it is a good and noble force that has been made infallible. It inspires only the truth, and orders only what is wise and beneficial. Hence, it has nothing to do with evil forces such as the jinn and devils. What access do the jinn have to the realm beyond the reach of worldly perception: "The jinn saw clearly then that, had they but understood the reality which was beyond the reach of their perception, they would not have continued to toil in the shameful suffering." (34: 14). Besides, how can the devils have any knowledge of what goes on in the heavens when they have been denied access to them: "No evil spirits have brought it down: for, neither does it suit their ends, nor is it in their power to impart it to man). Indeed they have been utterly debarred even from hearing it." (26: 210-212). Besides, spirits are like soldiers who remain together when they are on the same side and move apart when they have nothing in common. A man is known by the company he keeps, and birds of same feather flock together. How can evil spirits be in contact with Muhammad's [saw] clearly pure heart, or with his sagacious and perfect mind? "Shall I tell you upon whom it is that those evil spirits descend? They descend upon all sinful, great liars who eagerly listen (to what the evil spirits say), and most of them are certainly liars." (26: 221-223)
What could this force be other than a noble angel? We will continue our discussion of this point tomorrow, God willing.
[i]"Islam in Perspective" - Arab News - 14 December 1998[/i]
Wassalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
Haniff (with 2 f's) | | | Re: The Qur'an | | Haniff | | 01/14/02 at 02:31:42 | Assalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
[center]The Qur'an - 17
[i]The human experience of meeting an angel[/i]
By Dr. M. Abdullah Draz[/center]
In our discussion on the source from which Muhammad [saw] received the Qur'an, we have concluded that it could not have come from him personally. It was taught to him by someone who met him at different times, when Muhammad [saw] had no choice whatsoever of the timing. The experience was unlike any other human experience, with effects that could be felt and seen by those around him, always giving him new information which was hitherto unknown to him or to anyone else. It always gave him something good and beneficial. The source was definitely a noble angel.
That is all that we can say about that imperceptible source on a clear and rational basis. A content believer does not need more than this to satisfy his own scientific curiosity, or to reaffirm his faith. Anyone who needs further description of this angelic power and wants more information about its nature should not seek that through logic and reason. He should seek it through what has been authentically reported of the statements of the man who received the light brought by that angelic power, i.e. Prophet Muhammad [saw]. He is the only one who can give us first hand information about the angel who came to him, and whom he had seen with his own eyes and heard his speech with his ears. Indeed he sat with him on many occasions as a student sits with his tutor.
A person who has no qualms about believing in what lies beyond the reach of human perception, i.e. ghaib, will accept such information about the angel Gabriel even though he himself cannot see him. His acceptance is based on what he sees of the effects of the experience of revelation and on his own belief in the Prophet who has given us that information. On the other hand, the ignorants, who possess limited knowledge pertaining only to the outer surface of this world's life yet think themselves to be in possession of unlimited knowledge encompassing everything in the universe, will deny anything that goes beyond their limited knowledge. They may say, "It may be some visual condition which made Muhammad [saw] think that he sees something where there is nothing to see." Our response to this is a prayer to God to save us from all types of blindness, whether it be in our eyes or our minds. We repeat what the Qur'an says: "(His) eye did not waver, nor yet did it stray. (53: 17). Or they would say, "It may all have been some mental disorder that portrayed to him the meanings of words as clear apparitions, and made him see dreams as if they were real." We dissociate ourselves from all such crazy thoughts and repeat: "His heart did not give the lie to what he saw." (53: 11).
Those nonbelievers of old could not accept that a human being could see the angels face to face and speak to them directly. In fact, they could not accept that there existed creatures whom they could not see with their own eyes or voices they could not hear. They wondered how Muhammad [saw] was able to see and hear what they could not.
Perhaps we should be more amazed at those who advance such ideas. These might have been plausible in the early days of ignorance. But we have today plenty of scientific evidence which may be relied upon to explain the mysteries of the world beyond the reach of our perception. One of the new inventions that may be cited in this connection is the telephone which enables two persons at the opposite ends of the world to speak to each other while those sitting with either one can see nothing and hear only some noise similar to that of the buzzing of bees which is the one said to be heard near the Prophet's face at the time when he received revelations.
They may still want an even clearer scientific evidence which brings the phenomenon of revelation closer to their minds. They ask to be shown by controlled experiment, which is to them the only basis of certainty, that a link between the human soul and a higher power may produce the same effect, imparting to it information of which it had no previous knowledge, either through physical experience or mental perception. This is clearly seen today in hypnotism where a person of stronger mental power can impose his will over someone weaker than him, getting him into deep slumber during which he may not even feel the prick of needles.
The hypnotized person remains under the influence of the stronger person, doing his bidding. He will have no will of his own. Should the hypnotist want the person he has hypnotized to forget an opinion or a belief he had held, he would do so. In fact he could give him a new name which the other person would accept as his own, forgetting all about his real name. He will have the new name, responding when he is called by it and stating that it is his own name. If one man can do this to another, what can be done to man by a much stronger being?
This is a true analogy of the one bringing down the revelation and the one receiving it (peace be on them both). What we have in that process is a willing human being, with a clear heart and soul, ready to have all new information imprinted on his mind. The other is a mighty angel endowed with surpassing power, bringing him His message and teaching it to him in such a way that he would forget nothing of it, except as God wills. (This provides further evidence to disprove the claim that it is all a matter of "self-inspiration" which is advanced by atheists. One essential element to make hypnotism possible is that it should be between two widely different natures, one of them stronger than the other. Self-hypnotism cannot be administered unless we assume that two opposites can meet within the same soul, or that one entity can be two).
But there is a world of difference between the revelation received by God's messenger and the way people inspire one another. People may, indeed, whisper to one another some dazzling half-truths meant to delude the mind. It is often the case that such whispering or revelation may end up in giving the receiver some mental or physical disorders that are very difficult to cure. Different is that indeed from revelation that is transmitted between two empowered messengers whom God has chosen to convey His message: One is an angel and the other a human being. The angel messenger brings nothing but the truth and orders nothing but goodness. The human messenger, on the other hand, remains after the revelation like he was before it: Strong, fully possessed of his exceptional mental strength, and in full command of his physical power. "God knows best on whom to bestow His message." (6: 124).
So far our method of investigation has not touched upon the Qur'an itself or dealt with its nature. All we have done is to follow the route through which it has come. All our investigation has shown that the Qur'an cannot be attributed to anyone or anything on the face of the earth. It must be attributed to God who has revealed it to Muhammad [saw]. That is the point which we will sum up next, before discussing some aspects of the Our'an testifying to its origin.
[i]"Islam in Perspective" - Arab News - 21 December 1998[/i]
Insha Allah, more to follow...
Wassalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
Haniff (with 2 f's) | | | Re: The Qur'an | | *sofia* | | 01/14/02 at 12:30:47 | JazaakAllahu khairan, brother Haniff, for these highly informative posts.
Wassalaamu alaikum wa rahmatullah
| | | Re: The Qur'an | | Haniff | | 01/15/02 at 08:39:57 | Assalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
[center]The Qur'an - 18
[i]A prelude to the study of a unique book[/i]
By Dr. M. Abdullah Draz[/center]
Our method of investigation concerning the source of the Qur'an and how it came to be preached by Prophet Muhammad [saw] has so far refrained from tackling the Qur'an in its nature and substance. All that we have done is to study the route it has come through. We have found in the statements of its bearer, his moral values and discipline, his scientific means and sources, as well as his public and private circumstances much accumulating evidence confirming that no one on Earth could be described as the author of the Qur'an. Its author is none other than God.
Our study so far has been external. It is perhaps satisfactory for a person who has learnt some of the circumstances of the Prophet's life and manners. Such a person should have at the same time a sound nature, recognizing matters for what they really are and linking like with like in order to arrive at the right conclusions. Such a person will be satisfied with what we have said and accept the truth of the revelation of the Qur'an by God.
Yet many are those whose knowledge of the Prophet's life is scanty. Such people do not accept the self-evident argument which the Qur'an provides for its author. With these we must move further to show them that by its very nature, the Qur'an cannot have been authored by a human being. It has a very eloquent appeal confirming its being the message of the Almighty. If someone finds a copy of it left in the desert and reads it carefully, without having ever known anything about it, he would realize that it has no worldly origin and that it does not belong to any author on the face of the earth. It originates on high, and from on high it is sent down.
Wide ranging as human ability is, it remains within certain limits beyond which it cannot reach, while the power of the Creator is limitless. Everything that goes beyond the ability of mankind remains within God's ability no doubt. There is no other situation. Examples of this fact abound. A man may be able to physically overcome another man or two men, or several men, but no single man can stand to a whole army or nation. God causes the sun to rise in the east. Can anyone cause it to rise in the west? Anyone of us can switch the light on and off at will. But can all mankind bring the sun out before its time, or hold it beyond its setting time, or switch off its light, or come out with a similar sun, even though they would harness all their physical and mental power for the purpose? They certainly cannot create as much as a fly, even if they were to join all their forces to that end. If a fly robs them of anything, they cannot even rescue it from him. How can they match those superior beings which they cannot reach with their hands or missiles. They can only look with admiration at these, make use of them and be influenced by them. This total inability to come up with anything similar to God's creation is an irrefutable proof that it is the work of no human being. It is that Divine quality that distinguishes the work of the Creator from anything that people can make which is the criterion we wish to apply to the Qur'an.
There are people, however, who remain as stubborn as a brick wall. Such are the ones who said to prophets: "Whatever sign you may produce before us, with which you aim to cast a spell upon us, we shall not believe you." (7: 132). The Qur'anic description of such people goes like this: "Even if We were to send down angels to them, and if the dead were to speak to them, and even if We were to assemble before them, face to face, all the things (that can prove the truth), they would still not believe unless God so wills." (6:111).
There are others who are given to doubt. They cannot find their peace in a situation of certainty. They say: "We think it is no more than an empty guess, and so we are by no means convinced." (45: 32). "If We opened for the nonbelievers a gateway to heaven and they had ascended higher and higher, still they would surely say: 'It is only our eyes that are spellbound! Indeed, we must have been bewitched'." (15: 14-15). "If We had sent down to you a writing on paper, and they had touched it with their own hands, the disbelievers would still say, 'This is clearly nothing but deception'." (6: 7).
With neither group we can make any headway. Our counsel is of no benefit to them if God wishes to leave them to go astray. It is not in our power to make the deaf hear or the blind see. Indeed, we cannot reach out to those who put their fingers in their ears so that they would not hear, or put their hands over their eyes so that they would not see the sun rising up in the middle of the sky. "If God wills to let anyone to be tempted to evil, you can be of no help to him against God's will." (5:41). All we can do is to set the argument clear to anyone who wishes to seek to know the truth. We only indicate the way to those who wish to travel along.
We call on anyone who truly wishes to arrive at the truth to look with us at the Qur'an from any angle he chooses, its literary style, or the information it provides, or its impact on the history of the world, or from all these angles together. He will then be free to look at it within the constraints of the period of time and social environment in which it appeared, or to assume that it appeared in the most advanced period in history. It is also the same to us if he takes into account the personality of the man who brought it or attributes the Qur'an to an imaginary personality that combines all the adeptness of the best literary talents, the authority of leaders, and the total sum of research made by the best scientists in all branches of science. We will then ask him if he finds in the Qur'an less than a unique surpassing power, compared to which the strength of all scientists, leaders, poets and authors dwindle into insignificance. Besides, the world will come to its appointed end while the Qur'an's glitter remains a source of admiration to all. Indeed life may end before people can grasp its whole truth: "On the day when its final meaning is unfolded, those who had previously been oblivious to it will say: 'The messengers of Our Lord have indeed told us the truth'." (7: 53)
We will now embark on the study of these three aspects of the unique nature of the Qur'an and its surpassing excellence: The literary, the scientific, and the moral and social one. We will concentrate more on the literary and linguistic excellence, because it is the one where the challenge was thrown to mankind in substance and detail.
[i]"Islam in Perspective" - Arab News - 28 December 1998[/i]
Insha Allah, more to follow...
Wassalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
Haniff (with 2 f's)
| | | Re: The Qur'an | | Haniff | | 01/16/02 at 06:16:10 | Assalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
[center]The Qur'an - 19
[i]A linguistic and literary miracle[/i]
By Dr. M. Abdullah Draz[/center]
We seek a clarification from anyone who has the slightest doubt that the Qur'an is a miraculous piece of linguistic and literary excellence. We ask such a person why does he doubt that? Has he ever thought that he can come up with a masterpiece of equal literary excellence? Or does he acknowledge his inability to do so but assumes that other people may be able to produce what he cannot? Or is he fully aware that all people have not tried to come up with something of equal literary value to the Qur'an, but he does not accept that this is the result of their inability to achieve that, and that their inability is due to the unique nature of the Qur'an itself? Or does he know that it is the Qur'an that placed them in this position of inability, but he does not know that their admission of their inability is due mainly to the Qur'anic style? Or he may recognize that the Qur'an has always been, and still is, a miracle defying all people to come up with anything similar to it, but he does not recognize that that includes the person who brought it to us? Or he may be convinced of all that, but he does not know the reasons behind it all.
These are six different situations, and we have a separate answer for each. We will outline our answers in the same order.
1. It may be that his doubts arise from the fact that he might have tried his hand at poetry or literary writing, and found out that he has good ability at both. Perhaps a combination of self-admiration and ignorance of the true literary value of the Qur'an has deluded him into thinking that he can produce something of similar excellence. If so, we have a surprise for him. Such thoughts are never entertained by anyone of accomplished and proven literary talent. It occurs only to young upstarts who are yet to prove their merit. To such a person we have a piece of advice. He should study in depth all Arabic literary styles then try to gather a better grasp of these by making a serious study of literature. Thus he will equip himself with sound critical ability, and realize what is needed to judge literary works, and their excellence or otherwise.
When he has done all that, let him have a fresh look at the Qur'an. I assure him that every step he takes in this pursuit will increase his appreciation of his own ability and remove more of his doubts about the Qur'an. What he will realize is that the more he knows of literary refinements, and the more adept he is at producing fine speech and excellent style, the readier he is to admit his weakness and to submit to the superb excellence of the Qur'an. This may sound odd. How is it possible that an increase of knowledge and a fine polishing of acknowledged talent lead to an increased conviction of personal weakness and incompetence? But there is nothing peculiar about that. It applies to everything of God's own making.
The more you know about what God has created, and the deeper you go in understanding their nature, the more ready you are to acknowledge their superb nature and the inability of man to produce anything similar to them. Different indeed is everything human beings do. A good knowledge of these will enable you to produce something similar to them and put you on the way to improve on them. When we bear this in mind we understand why the magicians in Pharaoh's court were the first to declare their belief in God, the Lord worshipped by Moses and Aaron. A person given to arrogance may continue to stubbornly refuse to acknowledge his inability to produce anything similar to the Qur'an. We challenge such a person to have a try and produce for us the best that he can compose so that he may prove his talent and we may be able to judge his claims. But here we have another word of advice for him. He will do well not to show his work until he has considered it very carefully, and reviewed it thoroughly. He must be certain first that he is coming up with his best. That would give him a better chance of recognizing his mistake and covering up his error. Otherwise, he would only injure himself.
There are several examples in history telling us about people who made similar attempts. What they came up with was something that resembled neither the Qur'an nor their own style. In fact it was so manifestly flawed and inferior as to rebound on its author. Some of them soon recognized that it would be much wiser to stop their attempts. They folded their parchments and broke their pens. Others who were more cunning realized that their people were too wise to accept their false inventions. They hid their falsehood for a time. A third type did not hesitate to publish their work, earning people's ridicule. Whoever may think of trying his hand at that should look at these examples and choose the best one to follow. But a person who has no sense of shame may do what he likes.
Of the first type the names of Ibn Al-Muqaffaa, Al-Mutanabbi and Al-Maarri are mentioned. These were men of letters of undoubtedly great talent. Hence, we believe that these had sufficiently wise judgment and fine literary taste to preclude the possibility that any of them would make such an attempt, unless it aims to satisfy themselves that the Qur'an is inimitable.
Of the second type we may cite the examples of the books produced by the founders of the Qadiani and Bahaii creeds. These are meant to provide a religious constitution for their followers to implement. These are no more than a fabricated mess in which they use some Qur'anic verses coupled with slang terms. They distort in them some of the fundamentals of Islam and some of its details. They also claim prophethood or even divinity for themselves. Nevertheless, their followers could not publish their falsehood at a time when standards of literary education were high. Therefore, they concealed them in the hope that a time would come when ignorance is far more common. They realized that only at such a time they could market their merchandise. Well, they may have to wait to the end of human life on earth.
The best example of the third type was Mussailamah, an impostor who claimed that he was a messenger of God. He was a contemporary of the Prophet, and he alleged that he received revelations similar to the Qur'an. But all he did was to take some verses of the Qur'an, retaining most of their words and changing some. He would also retain the same rhythm, but use some slang words to express some stupid meanings. An Arab living at a time of high literary standards as he was, he could not maintain his own style. He went so low as to produce something similar to what children do when they change the words of songs and poems to give them different meanings. Needless to say that this is no more than distorting the work of others, similar to one who makes a human statue without even the slightest artistic touch in order to replace a living human being. A person who seriously wishes to take up the challenge to produce something similar to the Qur'an should take a particular idea expressed in the Qur'an, then express it in a different style of equal or greater merit to that of the Qur'anic text. Anyone who wishes to try this with the ideas of the Qur'an will only try what is impossible. Experience provides an irrefutable proof. In fact anyone who tries to express other ideas in a style similar to that of the Qur'an, without confining himself to what is true and wise, will see that his efforts are fruitless. That is why the Qur'anic challenge to the Arabs required them to produce ten surahs similar to the Qur'an, but "invented by yourselves." (11: 13)
We endorse what Ar-Rafie, a contemporary authority on literature, believes regarding what Mussailamah produced. He says that Mussailamah did not wish to produce anything of similar literary merit. It was clear to him that that was impossible. Moreover, the result would be only too clear to the Arabs. He simply wanted to win favor with his own people, playing on their weak point. He realized that in pre-Islamic days the Arabs held monks in high esteem. Since monks produced rhyming phrases which they attributed to the jinn, he resorted to the same style in imitating the Qur'an. He hoped to delude his people into believing that, like Muhammad [saw], he also received revelations, thus equating being a prophet with being a monk. Even in this he was not successful. Many of his followers were aware that he was a liar devoid of wisdom. They acknowledged that as a monk, he fared very poorly, and as a prophet he was a clear liar. Yet they followed him because to them, "the liar from the Rabeeah tribe is dearer than the truthful man from the Mudhar tribe."
We will look into the other aspects of the miraculous nature of the Qur'an next, God willing.
[i]"Islam in Perspective" - Arab News - 04 January 1999[/i]
Wassalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
Haniff (with 2 f's)
| | Re: The Qur'an | | Haniff | | 01/19/02 at 00:40:16 | Assalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
[center]The Qur'an - 20
[i]A work of inimitable merit[/i]
By Dr. M. Abdullah Draz[/center]
Three days ago, we started discussing the miracle of the Qur'an as a linguistic and literary masterpiece. We mentioned that doubt concerning this statement may be based on six different assumptions. We dealt with the first one, which is doubt based on one's feeling of one's own ability to produce something similar to the Qur'an. Any such claim has been shown to be at least ill-advised. It will soon prove to be false as any attempt to achieve it will end up in miserable failure. We will now move on to discuss the second basis of such doubt.
2. A person's doubt may be based on his recognition that there are people who are of exceptional literary merit. He may think, "If I am personally not the right one to take up such a challenge, the task may be better addressed by one who is better in speech and finer in literary merit." We advise such a person to put a question to those who are recognized as having the best literary talent in his age, asking them whether they are able to imitate the Qur'an and produce a literary piece of a similar standard. If they claim that it should not be too difficult for them, we will ask them to prove their claim. If, on the other hand, they admit their inability to do so, we say that such an admission is the best proof.
Let us then look back in history wondering if anyone was ever equal to the task. History will tell us that never did anyone stand up to the Qur'an in a competition of excellence. The few individuals who attempted anything of the sort were soon to end their attempts recognizing their utter failure. None of them managed to achieve a position of even moderate fame. Indeed history records that the Arabs themselves failed to produce anything like the Qur'an even in the same period of its revelation, which is univenally recognized as the period of the highest linguistic ability and the finest literary achievements. No language or literary academy anywhere in the world took as much care of its language as the Arabs did in that period of time. In fact it was then that Arabic attained its most superb standard in vocabulary and style refinement. They had special fairs which they organized regularly for their best products, which were made of nothing other than letters and words. Their merchandise in these fairs was nothing other than poems and speeches, which they exhibited, competing for honor and high position. The competitors were both men and women of superb literary talent, such as Hassaan ibn Thabit and Al-Khansaa who are well known to any student of Arabic literature. But when the Qur'an was revealed all such fairs came to an end, and literary gatherings were no longer held. From now on, the Qur'an was the only work to command people's attention. None of them could challenge or compete with it, or even suggest that a single word be changed, or a word be added or omitted, or be moved forward or backward in the sentence where it occurs. Yet the Qur'an has not closed the door against competition. Indeed it left it wide open, calling on them, individually and collectively, to take up its challenge and produce anything similar to it. It repeated the challenge in different forms, berating their inability to take it up, and reducing the task for them time after time. It required them first to come up with a similar Qur'an, then asked them to produce ten Surahs like it, then one Surah only, then it asked them to produce a Surah comparable to it. This last case means that it actually went down from asking them to produce a Surah like those of the Qur'an to one that may resemble it in one way or another, as if to say to them, "You are only asked to produce something that has some similarities, vague as they may be, to the Qur'an." That is indeed the lowest grade to which such a challenge can be reduced. Hence it was, chronologically, the last one to be revealed, as it occurs in Surah 2, which was revealed in Madinah. The previous challenges all occur in Makkah revelations. That is a subtle, but important difference.
The challenge goes further than that. Each time, they are expressly allowed to seek the help of anyone they cared to call in for support. It then tells them in a most emphatic way that they will remain totally unable to meet the challenge: "If all mankind, and all the jinn, would come together with a view to producing the like of this Qur'an, they would not produce its like even though they were to exert all their strength in aiding one another." (17: 88)
"If you are in doubt regarding what We have bestowed from on high upon Our servant (Muhammad [saw]), then produce a Surah comparable to it, and call upon anyone other than God to bear witness for you, if what you say is true. And if you cannot do it - and most certainly you cannot do it - then be conscious of the Fire whose fuel is human beings and stones which awaits those who reject the truth." (2: 23-24)
Consider this challenge carefully and look how it is expressed in a most provocative way. It states a final verdict of total failure at all times: "And most certainly you cannot do it." It then threatens them with the Fire and puts them in the same position as stones. Had they had even the slightest chance of meeting the challenge, they would not have held back, considering that they were its avowed enemies who were known to be always ready to defend their honor. Here the Qur'an is hitting at their central point of pride and honor. But they could not find even a way to compete with it. They simply found themselves at the bottom of a high mountain with absolutely no means to climb. When they realized their total inability to take up the challenge and produce anything similar to the Qur'an, the only answer they had was to resort to arms instead of letters, and risk their lives instead of their literary talent. That is indeed the resort of anyone who has no argument to present, knowing that he stands on shallow grounds, and cannot justify his position with pen and paper, or speech and argument.
The revelation of the Qur'an was then completed, with the challenge still standing for anyone who wanted to try. That period of time was followed by one when the edges of the Arabian desert were still inhabited by people who maintained their purity of race and language. These had an intrinsic quality of appreciating fine style and literary expression. Among them were people who would not have hesitated for a minute if they could undermine the very foundation of the religion of Islam. Had they been able in any way to improve on their predecessors and come up with anything that competes with the Qur'an for literary merit, they would have not hesitated for a minute. But they continued to hang down their heads in recognition of their utter failure. In fact a barrier has been set between them and what they desire, as it has been the case with their predecessors.
Generations followed generations, and the Arabic language passed on to new folk. However, the latter have been even more powerless to meet this lasting challenge. They recognized that they are no match for it. Their own admission is added to the testimony history gives of their predecessors. The proof of their inability is two fold: A conscious realization and a rational argument proving that no one can ever produce anything similar to the Qur'an. That remains a fact lasting to the end of time.
[i]"Islam in Perspective" - Arab News - 11 January 1999[/i]
Insha Allah, more to follow...
Wassalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
Haniff (with 2 f's) | | | Re: The Qur'an | | Haniff | | 01/20/02 at 06:19:39 | Assalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
[center]The Qur'an - 21
[i]Anyone to take up the challenge?[/i]
By Dr. M. Abdullah Draz[/center]
Over the last few days we discussed two aspects of doubt which may be entertained about the impossibility of producing anything similar to the Qur'an. These were a person's feeling that he himself is able to do so, or his feeling that others, endowed with exceptional literary talent may be up to the task. In both cases we dispelled any such doubt, showing that there would have been no shortage of attempts, had the task been within human, or even superhuman, ability. We will now discuss the third aspect of doubt in this regard.
A person may acknowledge that no one ever produced anything like the Qur'an, but that does not mean that such an objective lies beyond human ability. Any person may simply choose not to do something either because he does not like to do it, or because there has been no motivating reason, or because something beyond his own control diverted his attention or weakened his resolve despite adequate motivation, or it may be that an unexpected event interfered with his means or ability to do it after he has resolved to do so. The two first situations indicate that people did not produce anything like the Qur'an because they did not care to do so, rather than a result of inability. The third situation indicates disability to complete the task, not because of any excellence that places the Qur'an beyond human ability, but because of the intervention of an external power. Such an intervention by the Supreme Power (i.e. God) aims to protect the Qur'an from contention and competition. If this barrier were to be removed, people would be able to produce something similar to the Qur'an, or so the argument contends. (This last view was advanced by An-Nizam of the Mutazilah school of philosophy. Although this view admits the inimitability of the Qu'ran, it can only be advanced by a non-Arab or someone who has no literary taste. This explains why even his student, Al-Jahith, a famous man of letters, did not follow him in this view. Nor did any one conversant in the Arabic language and literature. It is contrary to what the Arabs accept.)
None of these situations applies to our present discussion. As for the first situation, we say that the motives for producing something with which to challenge the Qur'an were too strong to ignore. What can motivate an opponent more than your repeated challenge and ridicule, in which you declare that, try as he may, he can in no way produce anything similar to your work? Such ridicule is sufficient to motivate even a coward to muster his strength, rise and defend himself. What effect would it have on a person who is well known for guarding his honor and defending his position? What if you are challenging him over something in which he is particularly adept and takes exceptional pride? What if you couple your challenge by accusing him of following erroneous ideas and false concepts? And what would be his attitude when he realizes that your aim behind all this verbal warfare is to demolish his faith and to cause a split between his future and his past?
As for the second situation, we see here that there were strong reasons motivating opponents to the extreme. In fact, the position of Muhammad [saw] and the Qur'an he recited was their top preoccupation. They resorted to every possible method to oppose him, peacefully or violently. They were keen to appease him so that he would give in a little and lessen his opposition to their religion, and they offered him money and the position of a king in return for stopping his message.
On the other hand, they made a solemn pact agreeing to boycott him and his clan until they all perished or his clan would surrender him to them so that they would kill him. They tried hard to prevent the voice of the Qur'an when it was recited by Muslims, so that it would not be heard by their sons or women. They also waged a smear campaign against the Prophet, accusing him of being a sorcerer, or a madman, hoping by so doing to prevent him from influencing any pilgrims that might come to Makkah. They also plotted to imprison or kill him or to send him into exile, as the Qur'an reports: "The unbelievers were scheming against you, in order to restrain you, or to kill you, or to drive you away." (8: 30) They even went to war repeatedly against him, risking their lives and putting their families to much hardship. Was all this a mark of being preoccupied with something different to the extent that they could not be bothered to produce something as powerful as the Qur'an? Moreover, why would they go to all this trouble when he had told them time and again that the only way to silence him was to produce something similar to the revelation he brought them? That seems to be the proper and easier way out for them, had they been able to do it. The fact remains that they resorted to every method except this one. Sacrificing their lives and risking being taken captive, and suffering poverty and humiliation were much easier for them than the alternative which he indicated for them. For they found that extremely difficult, indeed impossible. That was then the attitude of total powerlessness.
The whole campaign of opposition was not directed against the Prophet and his companions in person. There were family and tribal bonds between the two sides, and the high moral standards the Muslims upheld earned them much respect even among the non-believers. Nor was the campaign launched against the Qur'an when a person learns it by heart and recites it at home. The Quraish nonbelievers were prepared to accept that everyone was free to worship their Lord at home as they wished. This whole campaign was directed to achieve one single goal, which was to prevent the propagation of the Qur'an among the rest of the Arabs. This is clearly indicated by the Prophet when he approached different tribes requesting them to protect him in his endeavor to make his message known to mankind. He used to say to them: "Would you be prepared to take me to your quarters, for Quraish have prevented me from conveying the message of my Lord." (Related by Abu Dawood and At-Tirmithi)
We must not imagine for a moment that their opposition for publicizing the Qur'an was based merely on the fact that it preached a new faith. There were among them a number of highly endowed poets and speakers who did not indulge in idolatry, such as Qoss ibn Saidah and Umayyah ibn Abi As-Salt, who included in their speeches and poems much of the moral values advocated in the Qur'an. But they did not give such advocates of moral values the same attention as they gave to the Qur'an. Nor were they bothered or concerned with their preaching. The fact is that they felt that the Qur'an was different from any other type of speech. Its argument was overpowering. It removed everything that stood in its face and imposed its authority wherever it reached. They could not stand up to it in the way they were undoubtedly adept, which was to produce something of equal merit and power. Since this was the subject matter of the challenge put to them, then the only way to resist it was to suppress it by all means, making any sacrifice required to ensure that. That was indeed their policy, and it was the policy of all enemies of the Qur'an ever since.
The third situation supposes that an external cause prevented them from producing what they needed, and had the ability, to produce, i.e. a piece of equal merit. Had this been true, they would not have recognized their inability until they have tried. No one feels that he is no longer able to do something that he used to do as easily as sitting and standing, until he has tried it at least once. We know that they have not even tried to produce anything similar to the Qur'an. The only ones among them to ever try were a few individuals who were the least wise among them. That indicated an instinctive recognition that their inability to accomplish this task was total, just like their inability to move mountains, or to reach out to the stars. That recognition was the cause of their lack of attempt.
Had they not been aware, right from the outset, of their inability to produce anything similar to the Qur'an, and had they realized that after having initially felt that it was of the same standard as their own speech, they would have wondered at this incidental inability, and how they were held back when they were always able to meet the challenge. They would have asked themselves, "What is the matter with us that we are unable to match the Qur'an which is like our normal speech?" Or they would have resorted to what they said in the past, prior to this unexpected inability, and produced out of that something similar to the Qur'an. But they failed to produce anything old or new. The Qur'an itself was their constant source of wonder and their center of admiration. They would even prostrate themselves in submission to God, its Author, when they heard it, before they had time to reflect. Some of them candidly acknowledged: "This could not have been said by any human being."
We have so far replied to three of the six types of doubt that may prevent people from acknowledging that the Qur'an is a linguistic and literary miracle.
[i]"Islam in Perspective" - Arab News - 25 January 1999[/i]
Insha Allah, more to follow...
Wassalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
Haniff (with 2 f's)
| | | Re: The Qur'an | | Haniff | | 01/21/02 at 08:12:19 | Assalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
[center]The Qur'an - 22
[i]New material from old fabric[/i]
By Dr. M. Abdullah Draz[/center]
The doubts that may be raised concerning the statement that the Qur'an is miraculous from the linguistic and literary point of view are six, and we have enumerated these at the outset of our discussion of this particular aspect. We have replied to the first three, and we will look now at the next type of doubt which may be argued as follows: A person may say: I accept that people have not managed to come up with anything similar to the Qur'an because they are incapable of doing so. They may have found in the Qur'an something of a miraculous nature which puts it beyond their reach. But I cannot understand that the linguistic aspect can be part of the secret in the Qur'anic miracle. When I read the Qur'an I find that it is no different from the language of the Arabs. Its words use their own letters and alphabet, and its verses and sentences use the same words they use, and indeed it follows their own modes of expression. The Qur'anic vocabulary have the same roots and derivation as the Arabs use in their language. The construction of its sentences comes in patterns that have been always familiar to the Arabs. How can you say, then, that the Qur'an confronts them with something beyond the reach of their linguistic ability?
In reply we acknowledge that, in vocabulary and construction, the Qur'an follows the same pattern as the Arabic language has always used. That is undoubtedly true. But it is this that makes its challenge clearer, leaving no room for excuses: "Had We willed to express this Qur'an in a non-Arabic tongue, they would surely have said, 'Why is it that its verses have not been spelled out clearly? Why (a message in) a non-Arabic tongue, and (its bearer) an Arab'?" (41:44). But are we not ignoring here the basic similarity between literature and architecture? No architect comes up with a building material that has not been available on earth. Nor do architects steer away from the basic rules of their profession. What they make is no more than raising walls, laying ceilings, and putting up doors and gates. But the quality of their work varies a great deal, depending on the choice of the best and longer-lasting material, giving residents protection against extreme heat and cold. They choose how deep to lay their foundations and how high to make their buildings, how to make the load lighter for the supporting parts, how to make the best use of the space provided in order to fit more facilities, how to arrange the interior so as to bring light and ventilation to all rooms and halls. Some of them may achieve all that, or most of it, while others may have one or more defects. Then they add decoration which varies a great deal according to taste and personal choice. In the same way the people of the same language may express the same meaning in different ways with varying degrees of excellence and acceptability. Yet none of these goes beyond the vocabulary or the grammatical rules (i.e. the basic material) of their language. It is the talented choice of the material they use that elevates their speech to the extent that it attracts audience and generates enchantment and admiration. On the contrary, vulgar choice may make it totally unattractive to the extent that it jars on your ears and causes you to turn away in disgust.
In its great variety of expressions, a language uses different constructions and styles, such as the general and the peculiar, the restricted and the unrestricted, the concise and the detailed. It spells out things, or it may point or refer to them in general terms or even implicitly. It uses the reporting or statement forms, nominal or verbal sentences, negation and confirmation, fact and allegory, the verbose and the concise styles. It may spell out certain things or delete them leaving only an implied reference to them, and it may give a sentence an abrupt start or may use a conjunction. It uses nouns with definite or indefinite articles, and it uses inversion putting words ahead of, or later than, their usual place. In their speech and written forms people may use any combination of these forms and modes of expression to convey the meanings they have in mind. In none of these, however, do they go beyond the framework of the language. In fact they take their own routes within its limits and they confine themselves within its boundaries.
Yet none of these various forms and modes befits every situation, and none is deemed unsuitable to all. Had that been the case, the matter would have been easy for everyone. Fine style would have had the same taste to all, sounding the same tune in all people's ears. The same route may lead you to the place to which you are heading on one occasion, and may prove to be the wrong way on other occasions. A word may seem to be the missing jewel in a certain situation, while it has no particular significance in another. This means that the choice of style depends on the meaning a person wishes to convey and the certainty that it is the best to convey it accurately. If you are involved in an argument, you want to choose a style which presents your case clearly, leaving no room for ambiguity. If you are presenting a description, you need the style which is more accurate in outlining details. In a friendly situation you choose what people find easy and gentle, while in a dispute you may need what is strong and uncompromising. In all situations we look for what expresses our purpose more clearly and is likely to retain its appeal for a long time to come. Such a choice is by no means easy, because the variety on offer is great indeed, using a wide range of colors and styles in vocabulary and construction. People do not have the same ability to examine all these styles, let alone making an informed choice between them. One person may hit on something that eludes the other, while each may remain unaware of the choice of the other. One form you miss here may be equal to two you use there, and vice versa.
All the elements that a person observes when he speaks combine to generate a special picture bringing together certain mental constituents. It is similar to the "mode" in material constituents. This mode of speech is what we call style. It is in style that people differ in their speech and its degree of excellence and acceptability.
What is new in the language of the Qur'an is that in every purpose the Qur'an tackles, it selects the best material and the closest to the meaning intended, bringing together all required shades that can really mix together. It puts every little element at its most suitable and fitting place. Its meaning is reflected superbly in its words, as if the words erect a mirror showing its complete and true picture. To a word, its meaning is its secure home where it is permanently settled. The home does not look for a different dweller, and the resident does not aspire for a better home. The Qur'anic style gives you the perfect example of literary excellence.
Proof of that is in abundance, but we will not look into such evidence for now. We will come to it later. We are only concentrating for the present on the point that not all Arabic speech is the same. Linguistic and literary excellence may sink to the point of total inadequacy or may rise to a most sublime standard which defies imitation.
If someone wishes to look for a proof of the Qur'anic excellence in this aspect, when he is not qualified to be a judge of literary styles, then he has to realize that only through a fine sense and a wealth of experience can judgment be fair. Hence, his only alternative is to accept the verdict of its people and to be content with the testimony of those who are qualified to return a verdict. Therefore it is pertinent to give here one such testimony.
Al-Waleed ibn Al-Mugheerah was one of the chiefs of the Quraish tribe in Makkah. He came once to the Prophet who read a passage of the Qur'an to him. It seems that Al-Waleed softened his hostile attitude to the Prophet. When Abu Jahl, the most unyielding opponent of Islam among Quraish, heard of this, he went to Al-Waleed and said: "Uncle, your people are collecting some money to give you, because you went to Muhammad [saw] seeking what he may have to give you." Al-Waleed replied: "Quraish is aware that I am among the richest people here." Abu Jahl suggested: "Then you have to say something about him which would indicate to your people that you are hostile to him." Al-Waleed said: "What can I say? There is none among you who is a better judge of poetry, with all its forms and styles, including the poetry said by the jinn, than me. By God, what Muhammad [saw] says is nothing like any of that. What he says has its own sweetness and refinement. It is all light at the top, shining at the bottom. It is surpassing, overpowering. Nothing can stand up to it."
Abu Jahl insisted: "Your people will not be satisfied until you have said something against it." Al-Waleed asked for time to think, and when he has finished his thinking he said: "This is sorcery that he has learnt from someone else."
In comment on this, the following verses were revealed to the Prophet: "Leave Me to deal with him whom I have created alone, and to whom I have granted vast resources, and children as witnesses, and to whose life I gave so wide a scope; and yet, he greedily desires that I give yet more! No, indeed. It is against Our revelations that he knowingly, stubbornly sets himself. So I shall constrain him to endure a painful uphill climb! Behold, (when Our revelations are conveyed to him,) he reflects and meditates - and thus he destroys himself, the way he meditates. Yes, indeed, he destroys himself, the way he meditates! Then he looks around (for new arguments), and then he frowns and glares, and in the end he turns his back and glories in his arrogance, and says,"All this is mere spellbinding eloquence handed down to him (from olden times)! This is nothing but the word of mortal human beings'." (74: 11-25). Consider for a moment how the Qur'an describes how hard the man labors in order to reach his latter verdict on the Qur'an: He reflects and meditates, looking around for argument, frowning and glaring, turning his back and behaving most arrogantly. All that shows how he was struggling with his own nature, trying to come up with a verdict that his own conscience is bound to disapprove. That constrained him no end. Yet finally, he had to succumb to his people's desire and return a hostile verdict. Consider also the wide gulf between this arbitrary verdict and the one that comes naturally from the same person when he expresses his opinion freely: "It is surpassing, overpowering. Nothing can stand up to it." That is a final testimony for anyone who does not have the qualification to distinguish styles and judge literary expression. Sufficient to say that it is a testimony given by one who knows, a person from among the people whose native language was the language of the Qur'an. And yet he was as hostile to Islam as its hardest enemies.
On the other hand, if you are qualified to judge styles and distinguish literary excellence, then all you have to do is to read whatever you wish of speeches, poetry, epistles, proverbs, dialogues, fiction and non-fiction, from pre-Islamic days to the present. Then take any page of the Qur'an and consider what you find there.
You will find a remarkable style and a unique mode of expression. It is as if all other styles are well familiar, while among them it stands out in a unique position. You will not find anything similar to it in what earlier literary figures had composed. Not did a latter day man of letters produce anything akin to it in any way. If a verse of the Quran is given in the midst of a rich collection of what the most eloquent people have composed in speech or writing, it will prominently stand out. It will be readily distinguished, just like a fine tune will stand out among what may be described as 'run of the mill', or like a fresh ripening fruit among different types of food. Perhaps what we have just said will heighten the argument, and cause a doubter to come up with a new argument.
[i]"Islam in Perspective" - Arab News - 01 February 1999[/i]
Insha Allah, more to follow...
Wassalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
Haniff (with 2 f's) | | | Re: The Qur'an | | Haniff | | 01/23/02 at 05:58:26 | Assalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
[center]The Qur'an - 23
[i]Miraculous even to the one who preached its message[/i]
By Dr. M. Abdullah Draz[/center]
In our discussion of the miraculous nature of the Qur'an and its style we showed that the Qur'anic style is unlike any other in the Arabic language at any time in its history. As one of its contemporary opponents describes it, "It is surpassing, overpowering. Nothing can stand up to it." Our discussion was in reply to a person who expresses doubt about the source of the Qur'an, saying that it may be inimitable, but does not recognize that its style is an important element of its surpassing excellence. Now we will discuss the fifth of the six types of doubt that may be expressed in this regard.
Someone may say at this point that we have addressed one type of doubt but opened another. He may go back to what we have said that literary styles differ a great deal, and people may achieve varying degrees of excellence in their modes of expression. His argument may run in the following fashion. Since literary expression varies among people, then literary excellence is accessible to all people, and we find it in all sorts of writings and speech, as we find it in the Qur'an. Indeed every speaker and writer puts into his style something of his mind and conscience, in the form which his talent chooses. Since people have different talents and experience, their styles differ when they express their thoughts. In fact, we can count as many forms of Arabic speech as Arabic native speakers. It is impossible to find two writers or speakers using exactly identical styles. Everyone has his own method of expression. A bedouin is unlike a city dweller, nor is an intelligent person like a man of poor intelligence. A rash or an ill person has a different style from that of a wise or healthy man. One of inferior taent cannot rise to a high standard, and one who enjoys a superior talent cannot reach a level well beneath him. Indeed two persons may have very similar modes and natures, and identical education, yet they may have the same experience but use totally different styles of expression. How do you challenge them to produce something similar to the Qur'an when they cannot produce each other's styles? How do you consider this inability a proof of its Divine source when you do not attribute their inability to imitate each other as indicative of any Divine intervention that gives the speaker no say in what he utters? Indeed this analogy tells us that the Qur'an is the word of a human being and, in this respect, it is not different from what human beings say or produce. It simply reflects certain characteristics that are applicable to the one who said it in the same way as every literary piece reflects the characteristics of its author. In reply to the person advancing such an argument we acknowledge that whatever a person says is a product that is influenced by his nature and talents which, as they differ from one person to another, are reflected in different styles and standards. Yet even when such natures and talents are closely similar among a group of people, dictating similar types of speech, still the final products they have are widely different.
All this we readily accept, but it takes nothing away from our own argument. But when we challenge people to produce something similar to the Qur'an we do not ask them to come up with exactly the same mode and style. That is something we know to be well beyond anyone's reach. What we challenge them to produce is a speech that may take any form or style, in which the speaker, by mode and nature, feels at case, provided that such a speech has literary merits that are similar or near to that of the Qur'an. The challenge is concerned with literary merit, which is the field in which men and women of letters compete, attain similar or widely different standards. That is a different issue from that of methods and figures of speech which vary from one speaker to another.
If anyone finds it hard to understand how comparability can be achieved with such difference, we cite the example of athletes running along a track, and each one of them sticking to his lane so that he does not step over the toes of his competitor. They are all following parallel lines, aiming to reach the same point. Yet we find among them one who comes top, and others who follow in rank until we have the last who trails them all. Some may run neck and neck. Yet while each maintains his lane, similarity and excellence are easily identified among them, according to how fast they approach their common finishing line. The same applies to those who compete in literary expression. Each one of them selects the route he wants to follow and the format he wishes to work with in order to achieve the goal he has set for himself. They will show themselves, then, to be either of the same standard or of different standards in as much as they fulfill the requirements of fine literary writings.
Let us suppose that those who are called upon to produce something like the Qur'an include some who are equal to the Prophet who received the message of the Qur'an in their native Arabic literary talent, or perhaps some of them are even better. Or let us suppose that they are all of lesser standard than him. Those whose talent is superior should be able to produce something better than what he recited to them, and those who are equal should come up with something similar to it, while the rest should not find it impossible to compose something that has some similarity to it. Anything of any of these three degrees would have been sufficient to refute the argument of the uniqueness of the Qur'an and defeat the challenge posed. Yet the first one has not been mentioned in the Qur'an because the impossibility of the task is taken for granted.
It may be said that it is better to accept that the Arabs, with all their varying talents, could not rise to the standard of Muhammad's [saw] superb literary ability. Let us also accept that their recognized inability to come up with something similar to his own speech generally caused them to fall short of trying to imitate the Qur'an. Yet this cannot be used as argument in support of the claim that the Qur'anic style is Divine, just as it has not been used to claim any Divinity for the Prophet's own style.
In reply we say that Muhammad [saw] was certainly the most eloquent of all Arabs. His was the top place among them all in literary excellence. That is a fact universally accepted among all who know Arabic and its literary standards. But the question that should be asked here is about the degree of his superiority: is it of the type that is usually seen between human beings in different areas? Or is it totally supernatural?
If it is of the type we normally recognize between a fine style and one that is even finer, or between degrees of beauty, we say that such distinction as he enjoyed would not have precluded that, having been unable to come up with something similar to all that he said, they would still be able to compose a single piece like it. Even if they find it impossible to achieve the same degree of excellence, they could have achieved a comparable degree. We have accepted from them to produce anything similar to the Qur'an, in whole or in part, whether it is long or short, exactly similar or showing only some aspects of similarity. Nevertheless, their inability to come up with anything like it has been total. And if it is said that the difference between Muhammad [saw] and all talented experts of fine speech was such that put him on a sublime level to which none can ever rise, because of his unique nature which is totally unlike the nature of all other people, then that is akin to saying that some human being are superhuman, or to admitting that what such a human being produces is not the work of human beings. The fact is that all human beings share in what we term generally as human nature. Within that, personal natures exhibit similarities that come up time after time, in one person after another, at least over different periods, if not in the same period of time.
This applies at least to some aspects of expression, if not to all of them. Many are those who have similar thoughts and views, and they express them in similar styles that, at times, they may use identical phrases and expressions. A reader may even think that the products of such writers have the same feel and aura. This is particularly seen in the works of those who imitate some earlier literary figures who had highly distinctive styles.
Had the Qur'an been the work of the human being who conveyed it to us, producing something similar to it would not have been difficult for one who is akin to that person in mood and character, sharing the same values and conducting himself according to his guidance, or to one who is closely related to him and who learnt much from him. Indeed it would have been appropriate for Muhammad's [saw] companions who learnt the Qur'an directly form him, appreciated its excellence, understood and implemented its message and conducted their life in accordance with its guidance to try to make their own styles similar to that of the Qur'an. That would have been the natural response to what man's instinctive desire to imitate what he considers to be superior. But nothing of this was attempted. The most that their literary figures tried was to copy an expression here or there to add to the power of their argument or the beauty of their style. The same is done by the best literary talents in our modern times.
[i]"Islam in Perspective" - Arab News - 08 February 1999[/i]
Insha Allah, more to follow...
Wassalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
Haniff (with 2 f's)
| | Re: The Qur'an | | Haniff | | 01/26/02 at 05:15:18 | Assalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
[center]TheQur'an - 24
[i]The Prophet's superior literary style[/i]
By Dr. M. Abdullah Draz[/center]
We last discussed about the fact that the Arabs have always been unable to produce anything similar to the Qur'an, showing that the superiority of the Qur'an was not anything like the superiority of one literary style to another. We will now develop our argument even further.
Had the Qur'anic style been a reflection of Muhammad's [saw] own nature, that reflection should have shown itself, following the above argument, in every thing that Muhammad [saw] said. A person's nature cannot be two different natures, nor can a person's soul be two souls. When we consider the Qur'anic style we find it the same throughout, while the Prophet's own style is totally different. It does not run alongside the Qur'an except like high-flying birds which cannot be reached by man may "run" alongside him. When we look at human styles we find them all of a type that remains on the surface of the Earth. Some of them crawl while others run fast. But when you compare the fastest running among them to the Qur'an you feel that they are no more than moving cars compared to planets running in their orbits.
You may read a piece of the Prophet's own words and you feel tempted to imitate it, just like a sharp shooter being tempted to shoot a flying bird, or a fast runner tempted to run with it. You may, on the other hand, read a wise saying and you wonder whether it is part of the Prophet's statements, or it was said by one of his companions or their successors (i.e. Tabieen). Yet you know that the Prophet's style is distinguished by superior literary excellence, with its vocabulary being most fitting to the subject matter it tackles, and with fine construction. Yet its distinction may not be readily appreciated except by literary experts. Nevertheless, literary sense alone may not be sufficient to appreciate its full excellence immediately. So we may resort to reference books in order to ascertain whether it is directly attributed to the Prophet or its chain of reporting stops at one of the Prophet's companions or their successors.
The Qur'anic style, on the other hand, has its own distinctive features which make it unlike any other style. No one ever tries to come near it. People may wonder how they can produce something similar to it, but they will soon give up any attempt.
Anyone who is in full possession of his senses and endowed with a literary sense and a critical linguistic taste needs only to listen with one ear to the Qur'anic style and with the other to the style of the Prophet's statements (i.e. Hadith) and to other people's styles. He will then readily acknowledge the indisputable fact that the style of the Qur'an is far superior to any other. We think that once he has admitted this fact, he will also admit the next one which considers that a product with nothing similar to it in any way must be the work of the One to whom no similarities apply. That is God, who hears all and sees all.
Perhaps we should add here an objection that may be raised by someone who says that a person may have two types of speech. The first may occur instinctively and is uttered directly, without any refinement.
The other is produced after deliberation and careful selection. The difference between the two may be wide indeed, to the extent that a listener may judge that the two types are said by two different people. Such a person may add that this could be applied to Muhammad's [saw] heritage, with the Hadith being of the first type and the Qur'an of the second.
In answer we say that classifying the Hadith and the Qur'an according to these two types of style does not fit at all with what happened in practice. Most Qur'anic revelations addressed topics which the Prophet had not expected. He had not thought about them earlier. It would come all of a sudden, without him expecting revelation at all. It may answer a question that had been put to him, or may give a verdict on a particular incident, or may relate something of the history of an earlier community, etc. It rarely addressed a topic on which the Prophet had been looking for some revelation, when exercising care and meticulous refinement was possible, as in the case of the false accusation against his wife and in the change of the direction in prayer. When we consider the Qur'anic style in both these situations we find it of the same nature, construction and excellence.
The same applies to Hadith, which was said in different situations and under widely different circumstances, but its style remains the same. The Prophet may speak after long reflection and consultation with his companions, as happened when he faced the problem of the false accusations leveled at his wife, and also when he spoke after consultations regarding war and peace and other matters.
Or he may speak after a short wait for revelations to be given to him. This is clearly seen in the event of a man who came to the Prophet at Al-Jiranah, near Makkah, in year 8 and asked him about the Umrah. He had applied much perfume and was wearing a garment. The Prophet looked at him intently and kept silent until he received revelations. When that was over, he inquired: "Where is the man who asked about the Umrah?" When the man came over, the Prophet said to him: "As for the perfume, you wash it three times; and as for your garment, take it off and wear for Umrah what you wear for pilgrimage." (Related by Al-Bukhari and Muslim.) At times, he spoke directly on matters which were clear, or which have been considered before, whether relating to religion or thought. In all this his style followed the same pattern. One cannot distinguish a style for what he had thought about himself, or what he had been given by revelation, or what he spoke instinctively in his discussions with his family or with his companions, or what he said in speeches he made before large crowds or on great occasions. That shows the fallacy of trying to distinguish the Our'an from Hadith in this way.
Indeed if for argument's sake we accept this division, it would not serve as a basis for doubt. Dividing a person's speech into what is said extempore and what is composed with care and deliberation would not result, among true Arabs, in such a wide difference which would give the impression that the two types have been said by two different people. Such a wide difference appeared only when true Arabic speakers have died out. They have been replaced by people who had not learnt this language from their mothers. Hence, the language they spoke was different from the one they wrote. This has given each one of them two different styles, with one sinking to the level of natural dialect and the other elevated to learnt Arabic standards.
A pure native speaker of Arabic at the Prophet's time would have only concentrated on his topic and gathered its different aspects as a result of careful thinking and deliberation. That would not have caused him to change his style, method of expression or his natural language which comes to him without affectation. That sort of style is the one which specialized people among us attempt after study and consideration. Among the Arabs of that time, there might have been a few who would resort to affectation when they speak, but that affectation would not have taken them completely out of their natural style. There would remain in what they produced some characteristics indicating the type of style they have. Moreover, affectation would not have improved their standard. On the contrary, it decreased its rank in the scale of excellence, although the speaker might have thought otherwise. In fact, the Arabs used to praise literary style that came to the speaker naturally, without affectation.
The Prophet himself never resorted to affectation in any situation. Indeed affectation was abhorrent to him in all matters. He used to say: "The pedantic have perished!" A man from the tribe of Huthail spoke to him about having to pay blood money for causing the death of a foetus, saying: "How is it possible that I should pay money in compensation for one who neither ate nor drank, neither spoke nor cried? That is surely one whose blood is of no value!" The Prophet said disapprovingly: "That is the brother of fortune tellers, using rhyme like theirs." His reference to fortune tellers is aimed at the rhyming phrases they used in order to give their prophesies an air of mystery. It was of the type where the meaning is made subservient to the words, not the reverse.
What we have said so far about the wide gulf between the style of the Qur'an and the style of the Hadith indicates that they could not have both belonged to the same person. It is as we have said: The Qur'an, which has no similar or parallel in the language, is the product of the One who Himself has nothing bearing any similarity to any of His attributes, the Almighty who hears all and sees all.
[i]"Islam in Perspective" - Arab News - 15 February 1999[/i]
Insha Allah, more to follow...
Wassalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
Haniff (with 2 f's)
| | | Re: The Qur'an | | Haniff | | 01/27/02 at 05:25:47 | Assalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
[center]TheQur'an - 25
[i]The secret of the Qur'anic miracle[/i]
By Dr. M. Abdullah Draz[/center]
When we started tackling the doubts that may be raised about the fact that the Qur'an is a linguistic and literary miracle we mentioned that these are of six types. We have, over the last few days, answered the first five showing that nothing stands up to the Qur'an in its literary excellence which surpasses all that humanity has ever known, or will ever know.
Let us now assume that a person who seeks the truth has followed our line of argument and made his own research, looking into all evidence, making comparisons of style and language, distinguishing fine and superb styles from what is inferior to them, yet he remains in doubt.
Such a person would now say to us: I have indeed looked at all different styles of expression and examined them all very carefully. I admit that there is nothing as powerful or as fine and enchanting as the Qur'an. I accept that it is, as you describe it, absolutely unique, surpassing, overpowering and that nothing stands up to it. Nevertheless, I feel something within me which I cannot explain making me eager to study the special characteristics and features that distinguish the Qur'an from all other speech. For these form the secret of its miraculous nature. Would you explain some of these to me for reassurance.
Such a request is by no means easy. It is a goal that has preoccupied scholars and men of letters of past and present generations. Yet they have not achieved their whole purpose. All that they could do is to give examples and analogies. They have admitted that what remained hidden, after all their efforts, is greater than what they have fathomed. They also say that what they describe of the portions they have learnt is less than what they felt to be indescribable.
Now that the task has fallen to us, we cannot do better than to follow in their footsteps. We certainly cannot outline the whole secret that makes the Qur'an so miraculous, nor can we present all miraculous aspects people have defined, nor all that we ourselves feel of these aspects.
We will only attempt to describe some aspects which we feel whenever we listen to the Qur'an, or read parts of it, or reflect on the meaning of its verses. You may find in the few of these what you will not find in many aspects outlined by other people. If people would outline many more aspects, we hope that our discussion of one type will give you more benefit and firmer conviction.
The first thing that attracts attention in the Qur'anic style is its sound structure in form and substance. Let a fine reciter of the Qur'an begin his recitation, with proper care, letting himself follow the drift of the passage he is reading, not making it follow his own preferences. Now move away from him and sit in a place where you cannot distinguish the sounds of different letters, but you are able to hear the general sound, with its vowels and their elongation, nasalized consonants, sequences of sounds and stops. Listen very carefully to such a cluster of sounds as they are left idle, unidentifiable as letters and words. You will find in them a remarkable tune that you can never find in any other speech heard in the same way, superbly recited as it may be.
What you find in these unidentifiable sounds of a Qur'anic recitation is a coherence akin to that of music and poetry, but it reflects neither musical tunes nor poetic meter. But you will also find something that is found neither in music nor in poetry. When we listen to a poem we find that it follows the same meter, line after line. Similarly, a musical tune must have a uniting rhythm. Hence we get tired of it when it is repeated time after time. In the case of the Qur'an, you have a varied and ever renewing tune which moves between single or clusters of consonants, followed by short and long vowels, and culminating with the ending of verses. These follow a wide range of patterns, each of which is so appealing that you do not feel any boredom when it is recited time after time. You will always ask for more.
Such rhythmic excellence in the Qur'anic language is appreciated by everyone who listens to the Qur'an being recited, even though such a person does not speak Arabic. How can it be unnoticed by the Arabs?
Some people may wonder why, in their disputes about the Qur'an, the Arabs compared it to poetry in order to prove their point or to disprove the opposing point. Why have they not compared it to any other form of address, including public speeches. Can we identify here the secret the Arabs have felt, but remained overlooked by those for whom Arabic was not their native language?
The first thing the refined Arabian ear felt in the composition of the Qur'an was that remarkable sound order which arranges consonants and short and long vowels in varied patterns that keep the listeners alert.
Longer vowels and nasalized sounds are interspersed in between in a most appropriate proportion that ensures refined tuning and easy flow until the ending of a verse is reached. The Arabs of old have attempted something of this nature in their poetry, but they carried it to extremes that cause boredom as a result of endless repetition. But the Arabs never used such refining in prose, whether it was left free or maintained a rhyme. Indeed the reverse is true. In prose, we always find defects that detract from the easy flow of speech. Such defects make it impossible to recite prose without adding something here or deleting something there.
It is no wonder, then, that the nearest classification of the Qur'an in the Arab's imagination was to say that it was poetry. They have found in its rhythm something that can only be found in poetry. Yet when they reflected a little, they readily admitted that it was no poetry. As Al-Waleed ibn Al-Mugheerah stated: It is unlike all forms and styles of poetry. Again it is no wonder that when they were at a loss how to describe it, they called a type of sorcery, because it achieves a happy medium between what is free and what is constrained. It portrays the power of prose with the beauty and refinement of poetry.
Now if you draw nearer to the reciter so as to hear each sound accurately realized at its proper place of articulation, you will be surprised at how these sounds are superbly arranged. Voiced, voiceless, fricative and plosive sounds flow in an easy and powerful arrangement that presents a case of superb language beauty that leaves no room for any defect in the line of speech. The Qur'anic style follows neither the soft urban pattern, nor the rough bedouin one. Indeed it combines the power of the language of the desert people with the refinement and easy flow of urban speech, without allowing either pattern to dominate. Thus it gives us a perfect mixture, as though it includes the best characteristics of both types of language. It may be described as the meeting point of all Arabian tribes. It is appreciated and admired by all.
[i]"Islam in Perspective" - Arab News - 22 February 1999[/i]
Insha Allah, more to follow...
Wassalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
Haniff (with 2 f's) | | | Re: The Qur'an | | Haniff | | 01/30/02 at 05:53:53 | Assalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
[center]The Qur'an - 26
[i]The inimitability of the Qur'anic style[/i]
By Dr. M. Abdullah Draz[/center]
We started a discussion on the characteristics which give the Qur'an its unique nature as an inimitable and miraculous work of linguistic and literary excellence. We said at the outset that a full presentation of these has remained beyond the ability of scholars and men of letters throughout history.
Therefore, we limited ourselves to a few of these. We spoke about the fine arrangement of sounds in the Qur'anic style, highlighting it in different ways, and pointing out that it combines the power of Bedouin style with the easy flow of the urban one.
In fact these two aspects form the outer surface of the beauty of the Qur'an, but this covering is similar to a beautiful shell hiding a superb and precious pearl. It is part of the laws God the Almighty has set for this world that He would cover great secrets with a screen that reflects beauty and brings enjoyment.
That helps to preserve them and heighten competition to learn and treasure them. Consider how He made the desire for food and the bond of love a means to ensure the survival of the individual and the human community. Similarly, as He has willed to protect the treasured wealth of knowledge He has placed in the Qur'an, He in His wisdom has determined to give it a superb framework which endears it to people and enhance their eagerness to grasp it.
It serves as a motive which urges them to work for it and makes their effort easier to exert. He has undoubtedly selected a superb pattern of the Arabic language. This will ensure that the voice of the Qur'an will continue to be heard by people as long as they have tongues to articulate it and ears to listen to it, even though most of them continue to fall short of appreciating its inner meaning and recognize its message. "It is We Ourselves who have bestowed this reminder from on high, and it is We who shall truly preserve it." (15: 9)
Are you now fully aware that the construction of the Qur'an combines with its beauty an element of power and peculiarity? And do you know that this beauty of the Qur'an has served as additional strength, which God has granted, to protect the Qur'an and preserve it intact?
In fact that peculiarity has served as an element adding more power to the argument of the Qur'an as it challenged people to produce anything similar to it. It has given the Qur'an protection against those who would imitate it or alter its arrangement.
Its beauty would not have been sufficient, on its own, to deter them. In fact it would tempt them to do that. The point is that when people admire something, they try to imitate it and compete in following its pattern. We have seen how literary figures follow one another in their fine styles.
A man of letters living in a later age may achieve the same or a higher standard than an earlier figure he admires. This is the case among writers and public speakers. Indeed all styles in prose and poetry follow trodden paths. These they do learn, and in imitating them they train, just like they do in any trade or skill.
What, then, has stopped people from attacking the Qur'an with their tongues and pens, when they have always admired its style, and many of them would have loved to meet its challenge and refute its argument?
The reason is that the Qur'an has a natural immunity which restrains all people from imitating it. The first element in this immunity is that which we have already described of its unique arrangement of sounds, and its remarkable construction starting with letters and words and extending to phrases, sentences and verses. These are arranged in a particular thread, giving the Qur'an its unique character that is unlike any style people have ever used or are likely to use. Hence, they have not found a pattern to follow in order to imitate the Qur'an.
It remains impossible to follow its own pattern. The proof of that is in the fact that if anyone tries to introduce into it anything that people have composed, in old time, now or in future, be that of the work of men of letters, earlier prophets or anyone whomsoever, its mode will be apparently distorted to all readers. Its rhythm will jar in every ear.
The phrases so introduced will stand out as alien to it. The Qur'an will not assimilate any of it. "It is a sublime, Divine book. No falsehood can ever attain to it, neither openly nor in a stealthy manner. It is bestowed from on high by One who is truly wise, ever to be praised." (41: 4 1)
If you are not distracted by the outer beauty and the fine coverings, and you continue to pursue the secret inside, trying to open the shell in order to find the treasured pearl, you have to move from the vocal pattern to the order of meanings. There you will find what is vastly superior and far more appealing.
We will not talk here about what the Qur'an includes of scientific fact that remains beyond the attainment of ordinary mortals.
That is a subject which we will tackle when we speak about the scientific challenge of the Qur'an. For now we are concentrating on the linguistic challenge, and here we are only concerned with words and sentences.
Words are sometimes considered from the point of view of their being an utterance composed of sound clusters indicating vowels and consonants, without looking at their meaning. We have already discussed this aspect. Alternatively, words are considered from the point of view of their meanings which the speaker wants to convey to those whom he addresses. This is the aspect which we will be tackling presently. This is undoubtedly the aspect which reflects far more clearly the linguistic challenge that we are considering. Language is all about the expression of meaning, and it is in this respect that styles are evaluated, rather than their rhythm and music.
As for the meaning of the Qur'an from the point of view of wealth of scientific knowledge it includes, that is a different area altogether. It goes beyond the linguistic study. Literary excellence relies on the accuracy of the images portrayed and the fine expressions conveying the intended meaning. It is immaterial in this respect whether the meaning is of the nature of human thoughts or something that goes beyond that, a practical fact or an allegory, true or false. (In fact the Qur'anic expression of what the nonbelievers said is as superb in style as the rest of the Qur'an, because it describes their thoughts most perfectly.) Scientific excellence, on the other hand, relies on the meaning itself, regardless of the way it is expressed. It is true that linguistic styles may differ in expressing the meaning fully, which means that an excellent expression of a scientific idea may add to its value, but then we are speaking about the mode of expression, not the subject to be expressed. Let us, then, leave that scientific point for now in order to concentrate on the linguistic one.
We will begin now to describe some aspects of the Qur'anic method of expression, tackling these in four different categories: 1) a passage; 2) a Surah; 3) a group of Surahs; and 4) the Qur'an as a whole.
Perhaps we should explain here that when we speak of a passage we are talking about a portion that conveys a complete meaning like what is conveyed in several verses or a long verse. That is the minimum the challenge thrown in the Qur'an for imitation has required. It asks the doubters to produce "a single Surah like it", not a long or a medium length Surah. This general statement includes the short Surahs, most of which were revealed in Makkah, including the shortest ones.
Some people have suggested that the challenge does not refer to any Surah, but to one "in which the quality of literary style is clearly seen." This suggests that such quality does not appear fully in three verses or so.
This does not detract from the superiority of the Qur'an. Yet whoever said this has based it on his own thought to which he has no proof. He simply excluded the short Surahs from being miraculous in nature. He has seen no peculiarity in their style, and as such could not see how the challenge applies to them as well. But this is evidence of his own inability. Such a person should have reflected on the fact that the Arabs at the time of the Prophet could not produce anything like the short or long Surahs of the Qur'an. In their view, all were infinitely superior to their own talents. This is sufficient evidence if he wishes, but he could also try to assimilate the meaning of a short Surah and express this meaning in words of his own choosing. He will inevitably find that he has only two alternatives: either he will not be able to express its meaning in a similarly effective style and appropriate arrangement, or he will have to use exactly the same words as the Qur'an has used, and in the same order.
This exercise will show him that the secret of the superior excellence of the Qur'an is apparent in its longer Surahs as in the shorter ones. It is just like the secret of creation being evident in an ant as it is evident in an elephant. Ibn Atiyyah says: "We appreciate the excellence in most of the Qur'an, but we are unaware of it in some places, because our linguistic taste falls short of that of the Arabs at the time. The argument has been proven for all mankind when the Arabs of the time demonstrated their inability to produce anything like the Qur'an. They were the most eloquent of all people." We will look at the first of the four categories next week, God willing
[i]"Islam in Perspective" - Arab News - 01 March 1999[/i]
Wassalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
Haniff (with 2 f's)
| | | Re: The Qur'an | | Haniff | | 02/03/02 at 02:16:22 | Assalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
[center]The Qur'an - 27
[i]Surpassing excellence in every passage[/i]
By Dr. M. Abdullah Draz[/center]
It is very difficult to try to describe the style of the Qur'an which defies imitation. It is perhaps sufficient to say that it combines every good quality in literary style, even though such qualities may move in opposite directions. This needs a full explanation, which is easily felt but more difficult to express. We will, however, try to give a partial explanation as best we can. But before we do that, we will outline some aspects of human speech which are easily understood by everyone who attempts literary expression. This will enable us to contrast the shortcomings of human style with the perfection of the Qur'an.
Concise but fully expressive: These are two widely different aims. Whoever tries to combine both of them together finds himself like one caught between two women: he cannot maintain justice between them, without finding himself constantly leaning toward one or the other. When one tries to economize with words, using only what is adequate, one must inevitably lose part of the meaning. He may try to express his meaning in general terms. If he is making an argument, he may say, "believe this, or do not believe that." In description, he would confine himself to saying: "This is beautiful, and that is ugly." If he is making a report, he would say: "This has taken place, and that did not." When he makes a request, he says: "Do this, and do not do that." Alternatively, he may add some details, but will continue to be very cautious of saying more than he needs. Thus he leaves out whatever he can, dispensing with preliminaries and omitting tools of raising expectation, adding emphasis, generating interest and similarly essential elements of fine speech. Thus, what he comes up with is akin to a garment that is too short or too tight, or like a skeleton that has not been fleshed up. Sometimes the omission of a particle will considerably reduce the beauty of a sentence, leaving it too dry or dull. It is often the case that an attempt to shorten a piece of writing will leave it too vague to understand.
On the other hand, a person who tries to express his meaning fully, doing justice to its finer details, as far as he understands or feels it, must allow himself sufficient space. He will not find economy of words serving his purpose. He feels the need to explain his thoughts fully. When he tries that, he will inevitably use an expansive style. He may take his time before he arrives at the conclusion he wants to make. You may begin to lose interest before you complete reading.
Most men of letters, of old and modern times, often err on the side of saying more than they need in order to express their meaning. They rarely choose to be too concise. Indeed most of them find it tempting to show their literary ability. Some resort to using unfamiliar words and constructions, forcing the reader to read a sentence more than once in order to gather its meaning. Thus the extra words or expressions used make the meaning less clear. Others use too many words, thus making their style verbose, long-winded or effusive. Or they make their reader stumble in his attempt to grasp the meaning because they use too many synonyms or analogous words. They think that by so doing, they make their meaning succinct, while in fact they make it too thin. Perhaps the best among these is one whom you could delete half of what he says without losing anything of what he wishes to express.
Hard as they try, people of fine literary talent rarely, if ever, achieve their target. The maximum they can achieve is a relative perfection, "in as much as they can fathom or reflect a moment of inspiration." To express a certain idea fully and perfectly, without falling short in one or more aspects of it, or adding something that does not really belong to it, allowing no room for suggesting anything new, is something no one who has attempted fine literary expression will ever claim for himself, let alone for others. If he were to review what he has written, time after time, he would inevitably find something to modify, or an omission to be redressed, or some thought to be brought forward or taken backward, in order to make it better flowing. If he were to review it 70 times, as the pre-lslmnic Arab poet, Zuhair ibn Abi Sulma, used to review his poems which he called, "the annuals", he would have something to change every time. The more refined he is, the less satisfied with his product he will be. He will always feel that he is short of the ideal to which he aspires. He is like the one described in a Qur'anic analogy, "stretching out his hand to the water in the hope that it will reach his mouth, but it will never reach it."
This is what he may feel about his own product. What will his critics and competitors say? We should remember here that in all this he is striving to achieve one aim. What will be the result if he tries to achieve the other end at the same time, putting his wealth of meaning in the most concise form? How can he achieve both ends when he is a prisoner to his human nature which cannot get nearer to one end of the road unless it goes further away from the other end?
If you find that someone has managed to achieve both ends in one or two sentences, consider carefully what he says after that. You will find that he soon tires out. His powerful style will give way, and his bright style will soon lose its shine. He will achieve that great height only occasionally, just like we find a piece of precious metal in a great heap of rock. When you consider what such a writer has written you will say to different parts of it: "This is good, and this is superior, but that is the finest piece."
Ask any literary critic of recognized high standing: "Have you ever confer across a poem or a piece of literary prose with clear meaning, concise expression and fine construction throughout?" They are all unanimous that even the finest of poets achieve real excellence in a few lines of a few poems. Beyond that, they may have what is average, run of the mill or even of lower standard. They would say the same about speakers and writers. Indeed such shortcomings are clearer in their case.
If you wish to see how these two qualities of precision and concise construction, go hand in hand in perfect measure, throughout a piece of work, you only need to look anywhere you wish in the Qur'an. You are bound to find literary expression that fits the purpose perfectly, without leaning toward expansion or inadequacy. Every idea and every point is given in a clear and full picture. It is clear in the sense that it has no trace of anything alien to it. It is also full, omitting nothing of its essential elements or complementary requisites. Yet at the same time, it is expressed in finest and most concise style. Every word, particle or letter has a purpose to serve. The place of every word in every sentence, and the position of every sentence in a verse is carefully selected so as to produce the finest meaning, flowing from one idea to the next.
Put your hand over any page of the Qur'an you choose, and count the number of words you have covered. Then select an equal number of the most expressive human speech other than the Qur'an and compare the meaning in both cases. (Although the Prophet's own style is the most concise and eloquent human speech, it is far less concise and rich in meaning than the Qur'an.) Consider then how many words you may delete or replace in this second passage without loss of meaning, and consider if you can do the same with the Qur'an.
Tle fact is, as stated by Ibn Attiyah, a famous Arab literary critic, that if you were to screen the whole Arabic language in search for a word to replace one word of the Qur'an expressing the meaning equally, let alone more fully, you will find none. It is aptly described by God Himself. "This is a Scripture with verses which have been set out with perfection and then expounded in detail, bestowed on you by Him who is wise, all aware." (11: 1) If you look at this verse very carefully you will find that the whole idea we have discussed is combined here in two phrases, each expressed in a single Arabic word in the original text: "set out with perfection", and "then expounded". That is a most apt description of the Qur'anic style. It is perfected by One who is "wise" and who leaves no defect in what He produces. It is also expounded by One who is "all aware", and who knows every detail of every living thing.
[i]"Islam in Perspective" - Arab News - 15 March 1999[/i]
Insha Allah, more to follow...
Wassalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
Haniff (with 2 f's)
| | | Re: The Qur'an | | Haniff | | 02/04/02 at 06:20:22 | Assalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
[center]The Qur'an - 28
[i]Combining opposite features[/i]
By Dr. M. Abdullah Draz[/center]
We started outlining some features of the Qur'anic style that distinguish it from any other literary work in human language. We spoke of its combination of characteristics that do not co-exist in any writing. The first feature we mentioned was its combination of full and precise meaning with economy of vocabulary. Now we will discuss other features combining other divergent characteristics.
Addressing the general public or select groups: These are two widely differing aims. If you were to speak to highly intelligent people in a simple style, explaining every little and simple detail, as you need to do when addressing people of average intelligence, you will offend them, as they will consider this approach to be beneath them. On the other hand, if you were to address the general public in a concise manner, making only a hint here and a brief reference there, as you should do when you speak to educated and intelligent people, you will heavily tax their mental faculties. Hence, if you want your meaning to be equally understood by both groups, you have to address them separately, using different styles and approaches. The matter is the same as addressing children and adults. No single style is good for both.
To address highly educated, intelligent people in the top echelon of society with the same words addressed to people who are uneducated, of limited intelligence and occupying a lower position on the social ladder, and to fully satisfy them all is something beyond human ability. Indeed, it is not found anywhere other than in the Qur'an. It is the same book found most satisfying by those who appreciate literary refinements. At the same time, ordinary people find it easy to grasp, free of ambiguity or confusion. It gives pleasure to both groups, placing no burden on either. "Indeed, We made this Qur'an easy to bear in mind: who, then, is willing to take it to heart?" (54:17)
Logical conviction and emotional satisfaction: Two forces are always active within a human being: the intellectual and the emotional. They have different roles and directions. The first aims to know the truth, and to identify what is good and beneficial so as to adopt it. The other records its feelings of pain and pleasure. A perfect style is that which satisfies both needs at the same time, giving you intellectual satisfaction and emotional pleasure, like a bird flying with two wings.
Do we find such perfection in human style? We have seen the writings of scientists and philosophers, and works of poets and men of letters, but we find it all tilting to one side or the other. The former present to us their thoughts in a direct manner, addressing our intellect with the facts, without in any way trying to appeal to our emotions. Thus when they present scientific facts, they do not care that they may sound dull and uninteresting. Poets, on the other hand, try to appeal to our feelings and emotions. They do not care whether what they present is fact or fancy, real or imaginary. They sound serious when they are jesting, inviting tears without weeping themselves, enchanting their audience without being enchanted. "Poets are followed only by those who are lost in grievous error. Do you not see that they roam confusedly through all the valleys (of words and thoughts), and that they say what they do not do? Except for those who believe and do good deeds, and remember God often, and defend themselves after having been wronged,"(26: 224-7)
Everyone is a kind of a philosopher when he thinks, and a kind of a poet when he feels. Ask, if you will, psychologists and psychiatrists if they have ever seen anyone in whom the intellectual power is of the same strength as the emotional one, and as all other psychological forces. If these powers are somehow of comparable strength among a small number of people, do they influence a person in the same way at the same time? They will all answer you that this does not happen at all. These forces will only act one at a time. Whenever any one of them is dominant, the others dwindle into the background, making practically no influence on what is taking place. When a person is deeply involved in his intellectual thoughts, he does not give much way to his feelings and emotions. A person enjoying some pleasurable experience, or enduring pain, will not have much time for intellectual thought. The fact is that human beings do not pursue these two aims simultaneously. Otherwise, they would be going forward and backward at the same time, and this is not possible. It is just like God says: "Never has God endowed any man with two hearts in one body."(33: 4) How can we, then, expect a human being to address both pursuits with the same vigor when they do not co-exist within him with the same strength at any one time? Indeed, whatever we say reflects our mood at the time of speaking.
In fact, this is a standard which gives us an idea of the force a writer or a speaker was under at the time of writing or speaking. If he tries to establish a theoretical premise or a practical method, we conclude that his writing reflects an intellectual mood. If, on the other hand, he tries to excite feelings, playing on emotions of pleasure and grief, happiness and sadness, we determine that his work reflects an emotional mood. If he moves from one aspect to the other, giving each one his total concentration, we realize that logical thinking is alternating with emotional feeling within him. For the same style to maintain both aspects at the same time, like one branch of a tree carries leaves, flowers and fruits all together, or like the spirit permeates the body, or water goes through a green plant, is unknown in human speech. Indeed it is incompatible with human nature.
Who, then, can come up with a discourse that presents hard facts in an argument which is well accepted by the most intellectual of philosophers, and combines it with emotional pleasure that satisfies care-free poets? That is something that can only be achieved by God, the Lord of all worlds. He is the One who is never preoccupied with something to the exclusion of another. He is the One able to address the intellect and the emotion at the same time, and to mix beauty with the truth in a way that neither trespasses over the other. The drink mixed out of them is most enjoyable. That is what we all find in His glorious book, whatever part we read. Read, if you will, surah 12 which is devoted entirely to the story of Joseph, or surah 28, which devotes more than half its verses to the story of Moses. In both you find that relating at leisure the details of the story does not lead to missing out on the moral of the event or blurring the lessons to be drawn from the story.
Even in the midst of providing intellectual proof, or outlining legal provisions, the emotional aspect is not overlooked. We have even in these instances what arouse our interest, heighten our feelings, or even a warning, or to a statement of amazement or reproach, etc. All these are provided at the beginning or the end of its verses, or within them. Hence Qur'an is aptly described as a book that: "makes the skins of those who stand in awe of their Lord shiver; but in the end, their skins and hearts soften with the remembrance of God." (39: 23) "This is surely a decisive word; it is no frivolity." (86: 13-14)
Let us now take two examples in support of what we have just said. The first is one which mixes logical proof with emotional address. Verse 22 of surah 21 may be given in translation as follows: "Had there been in heaven or on earth any deities other than God, both would surely have fallen into ruin! Exalted is God, Lord of the Throne, above what they describe." Consider how these few words provide logical proof and excite amazement at the enormity of what is alleged. In fact the evidence given brings together undoubted and fully accepted premises with a vivid description of the ruin that results from an inevitable conflict. Thus the evidence is given in a poetic style. Do we ever find anything like this in a book of theoretical wisdom?
The second example is a text outlining legal provisions: "Believers, just retribution is ordained for you in cases of killing: the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the woman for the woman. And if something (of his guilt) is remitted to a guilty person by his brother, this (remission) shall be adhered to in fairness, and restitution to his fellow-man shall be made in goodly manner. This is an alleviation from your Lord, and an act of His grace. And for him who, nonetheless, willfully transgresses the bounds of what is right, there is grievous suffering in store." (2: 178) Consider how the verse opens with emphasis on obedience reflected in making the address to "believers". The element of grievance is then reduced between the families of the killer and the victim by using such words as, "his brother", "in fairness", and "in goodly manner." Then there is a reminder of God's favors in the statement, "This is an alleviation from your Lord, and an act of His grace," which is then followed by a warning at the end of the verse. Now consider the subject matter of this verse. It is speaking about duties in a case of killing. The same applies to all verses outlining legal provisions, including those speaking of strained marital relationships, divorce and other methods of separation. In what book of law do we find such a spirit? In what language do we find such a mixture? If anyone tries to make such combination, exerting every effort and straining himself as much as he can, all what he will come up with is a host of contradictions that make his writing look like a torn garment that has been patched up. Yet the Qur'an combines other elements and characteristics which are not easily mixed.
[i]"Islam in Perspective" - Arab News - 22 March 1999[/i]
Insha Allah, more to follow, when I have access to a scanner :)
Wassalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
Haniff (with 2 f's)
| |
Individual posts do not necessarily reflect the views of Jannah.org, Islam, or all Muslims. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster and may not be used without consent of the author.The rest © Jannah.Org |
|