Salaams, Ramadan Mubarak. Welcome to the Muslimsworldwide newsletter.
For all of you who join me today, the article entitled Qur'an,
and the West: was written by www.iad.org (The religion of Islam). The
two articles that are posted today are retrieved from that very site.
It offers many issues, controversial or given on Islam and Islamic
do's and don't's. It supports information by citing the
interested, browse through the many articles.
May Allah be with you every step of the way...
QUR'AN, ISLAM AND THE WEST
Muhammad (pbuh) had been the subject of ridicule and attack since the
declaration of his Prophethood. Alongside the pagan Arabs, the Jews
and the Christians joined hands to humiliate the Prophet, called him
impostor, magician, poet, bewitched and an epileptic. This trend
carried on until the early and middle ages, when some learned
orientalists, biblical scholars and theologians made statements that
are baseless, unfounded and non-scholarly. They accused him of
plagiarising from the Jewish and Christian sources. Here are some
Sale in his book "Preliminary Discourse" says:
"Muhammad was really the author and chief contriver of the Qur'an is
beyond dispute; though it be highly probable that he had no small
assistance in his design from others."
Numerous authors echoed the same statement without justification and
unfounded assumptions as recorded by Muhammad Khalifa in his
book "The Sublime Qur'an and Orientalism".
"(the Qur'an is) nothing else but a pure creation and concoction of
Muhammad and his accomplice."
We have discussed at a high level, in previous section some of the
techniques used in recording the Qur'anic revelation, putting it in
writing, compiling it in one volume and finally making multiple
copies of the Qur'an during the time of Othman.
We have also provided enough evidence to prove that the above process
was meticulous and that the Qur'an, in our hands today, is identical
in contents to the one revealed to Muhammad (pbuh). We have also
substantiated our arguments by presenting numerous scientific
statements that are present in the Qur'an that would not have been
possible for an Unlettered Prophet to make fourteen hundred years
ago - Yet the talkers of vanities have doubt.
"And thou wast not (able) to recite a Book before this (Book came)
nor art thou (able) to transcribe it with thy right hand: in that
case indeed would the talkers of vanities have doubted." (29:48)
Orientalist like Palmer in his introduction writes:
"Apart from its preposterous arrangements, the Qur'an is not so much
a book as a collection of manifestos, diatribes, edicts, discourses,
sermons and such-like pieces".
Dr. Khalifa in his book "The Sublime Qur'an" responded adequately to
Palmer's comment. He wrote:
"Describing the sacred Book (the Qur'an) as "preposterous" shows how
far away from the scholarly approach prejudiced commentator can
There are others who even go to the extent of disagreeing with the
Qur'anic textual order and they have taken the liberty to propose how
the Surahs are to be rearranged in the Qur'an. But it is ironic that
these so-called scholars do not even agree amongst themselves. The
following statement from Dr.Khalifa in his book, "The Sublime
Qur'an"; proves the point. He says that many orientalists attempted
to suggest the location of the First Surah of the Qur'an as follows:
Muir thought it should be Surah 6.
Rodwell thought it should be Surah 8.
Noldeke thought it to be Surah 48.
While Jeffery excluded it from the Qur'an completely.
Some claimed that Muhammad (pbuh) learnt the stories that are in the
Qur'an from the Torah and the Bible or got help from his Jewish or
Christian contacts. Modern writers like Anderson and Watt concluded
that the Qur'an was the result of the Prophet's "wishful thinking or
Ricaldo went to the extent of accusing Islam of polytheism. He
wrote: "The Qur'an speaks of God in plural. Thus God is more than
one." He came up with such a preposterous statement, based on his
misunderstanding of the word "we" when referring to "Allah". For
example in the following verse "Allah" is referring to Himself
"(Remember) Noah when he cried (to Us) aforetime: We listened to his
(prayer) and delivered him and his family from great distress."
The Arabic word ( in'na ) when translated as "We" is used as a mark
of respect. Even mortal kings have used the word "we" when decreeing
a judgement. A king would say "we will hang you to death". This in no
way indicates that there are more than one king decreeing the order.
Islam, and Muslims to this day and age are accused of:
. being uncivilised
. being cruel to women
. harsh in punishment (cut hands and chops head)
. bombing innocent people
. and etc.
The list goes on and on. Take for example the gathering for Jesus
recently held in London (Ontario), Reverend Miguel Sanchez of London
Gospel Temple publicly referred to Islam as the darkness and
deception of the spirit of Islam (London Free Press, May 27, 1996).
The Mayor of London, Diane Haskett bowed her head and appeared to
join him in prayer as he said these words.
Rushdie, a heretic himself, called our beloved Prophet a heretic and
his wives adulteresses and the Qur'an a revelation given by the
Devil, thus reviled Islam to the extent that the Muslims considered
his act as blasphemous.
The Western media, including many government officials rushed
headlong to support this man (Rushdie) to defend his work under the
pretext of 'freedom of speech'. It was yet another occasion of
the 'double standard' the west has been playing against Islam. It was
only one month prior to the publication of Rushdie's book, The
Satanic Verses, the partisans of free speech violated the freedom of
expression when they banned the book, Spy Catcher by Peter Write.
Why? Because it was against their interest!
To the millions of Muslims, Muhammad (pbuh) is more beloved than
their own fathers, and his wives are more dearer to them than their
own mothers - so what does a Muslim do to a man who reviled his
beloved Prophet and his wives?
His book not only reviled Islam, but also others. He wrote in his
book, "Niger eats white man's shit", he mocked the Blacks as "Black
man's shit is bad", he used the word "fucking" fifty-two times and on
page 80 he writes "the sister fucking British-shits" and called
Margaret Thacher a "bitch". In spite of such filthy expression in his
book, he received a literary award as the best among the play stages
among writers and novelists.
Victoria Gleninning in the times, wrote: "Rushdie has the power of
description, and we succumb".
Bill Buford, in the Sunday Times, called his work "A masterpiece".
Hyam Maccoby, in The Sunday Telegraph, Wrote: "command of every
variety of English - and width of intellectual reference have been
well exercised before, but never on such a scale".
This only goes to prove two things - Either the intellectuals of the
west have lost their sense of judgement or that they have also
started acting Devilish like Rushdie to recognize such filthy words
as "Fucking"; "Shit"; and "Bitch" worthy of receiving the literary
award and be classified as the "Masterpiece".
Islam is not a terrorist group as the stereotype would have one
believe. The heinous crime committed by some Muslims is in no way a
reflection of the teachings of Islam. We are told that Muslims are
terrorists, barbaric and what not. But let us recall what the
Christian authorities did. Misha'al in his book "what did Jesus
Really Say" states that: "A single decree of the Trinitarian Church
in 1568 would later condemn 3 million men and women of the
Netherlands to the scaffold as heretics. In the end; over 12 million
people were put to death through the authority of the "Inquisitions".
Such barbaric act has never been committed by any Islamic authority
in the history of Islam. Where was the media then and where are they
now let us judge. Who is barbaric, who chops heads....
When Muslims condemned Rushdie and called for his death for his
atrocious book, "The Satanic Verses", the Western media classified
Muslims as cruel, unjust, not broad minded and without any sense of
freedom of speech - Muslims were criticised right, left and centre.
It is not at all difficult to asses that in general the journalists,
the TV programs, the Hollywood movies and many learned biblical
scholars have ganged up against Islam. In the past it was the Soviet
Union, now it is Islam. The crusade seems to be renewed.
Nevertheless, the office of the non-Christian affairs at the Vatican
council turned to Islam with some justice. In a document
titled "Orientation for a dialogue between Christians and Muslims"
third edition dated 1970 states: "γγ clear away the outdated
inherited from the past, or distorted by prejudice and slander that
Christians have of Islam."
Dr. M.Bucaille. in his book "The Bible The Qur'an And Science" stated
that: "the document recognize the past injustice towards Muslims, for
which the west, with its Christian education is to blame".
It is about time that the west, in particular, the Jews and the
Christians, turn to Islam in truth and justice and denounce the
stereotype once and for all. The Qur'an has been crying loud for the
last fourteen hundred years to the people of the Book (the Jews and
Christians) to come to common terms with the Muslims, the Qur'an
"(Muhammad) Say: "O people of the Book! come to common terms as
between us and you: that we worship none but Allah; that we associate
no partners with Him; that we erect not from among ourselves Lords
and patrons other than Allah." If then they turn back say: "Bear
witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's will)."
Both the Bible and the Qur'an directs us to reason with one another.
Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, let us reason together" says the Lord.
"Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful
preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most
gracious.... " (16:125)
sites of recognition