Major Issues of The Qur'an - Assignment Example

?The Quran by John Lester, is an interesting piece of article during the restoration of Great Mosque. The Quran according to Lester is the manifesto of Islam in a document.  In Islam, theology and philosophy are the main components that define religion through theology rather than tradition. Lester’s main argument in this paper consists of many elements. First and foremost, he attempts to question the credibility both of the Biblical traces that eventually lead to the completion of the Koran. He starts off by stating that the Bible is deemed as a ‘rough analogue of stories’ that later become evident in Koran, as ‘divine scholarship.’ (Lester 6) His attempt is not to only shoot holes in the Koran itself, but understand the credibility of sacred textures that are present in the Abrahamic faith. According to Lester, the Koran’s prosperous claim of word as the final word of God is highly misconstrued by both Islam and Christians.  In order to first understand Koran itself, it is essential to understand Islam. To understand Islamic creed, Muslim scholars must therefore be educated in theology and the science of fiqh through the extraction of Koran. However, Lester argues that the Koran lacks this substance and provides a comprehensive overview of his justifications that may seem to be controversial in neo-modern Islamic era (Lester 2 ). The Quran is claimed to be revealed to the last prophet, is a testament of sharia since he claims the word of God that is seen through his wisdom and knowledge. To extract these rulings, Lesters gives a historical account regarding the existence of Koran. He gives a narration stating that the compilation began in Yemen, as laborers begin to accumulate parchments that were fused in rain and damp. The major positions of the origins of the Koran trace back to the era of Muhammed, when the Koran was revealed to him in the cave. This is when the first revelation was revealed through Angle Gabriel, who forced Muhammed to read (Lester 8). After the death of Muhammed, there was a panic within the Islamic community t ocomppile the Koran in a written manuscript, a monumental feat no doubt (Lester 3). These fragments were collected from the all corners of Yemen in order to compile Koran itself. The biggest controversy of putting the Koran together was the fact that no one of it was written until the death of Muhammed (Lester 8). After the death of Muhammed, the calpsh Uthman took it upon himself to compile the Koran. However, it was apparent that the standard version of Koran may have been incomplete as majority of the Muslims that served during Muhammed’s prophet hood were not present during this compilation. Furthermore, the Koran was put together by only Arab speakers that held the authority of non-imitating. Moreover, the Koran was divided into 114 sections, which make no chronological sense. The events and stories that Koran discusses within the scripture lack substance and grammatical incongruities (Lester 9).         Before understanding the arguments that Lester proposes, it is essential to understand the background of the Quran. The Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammed through the Angel Gabriel, and was never written down but was retained through the method of memorization. Islam therefore parallels the judgments of God with those of His final messenger because the medium through which both travel is a man who God has trained to embody perfection. A prophet or a messenger is a testament of sharia since he claims the word of God that is seen through his wisdom and knowledge. The Koran is the ultimate book, a guide for humanity that discussed past, previous and the future. It is not a scientific miracle, but a complementary lesson to Muslims about the teachings of life (Lester 5). The original Koran defends its prophets, depicts the paganism in a negative way, takes an unorthodox approach towards the death of Jesus, and relays the stories of the prophets. All of these rulings are against the contemporary Biblical stories. For instance, there is no mention of Paul the apostle in the Koran itself. The Koran takes a very strong stance in these issues and deems the people of Christ, in a path that is diluted with illusion (Lester 4). To extract these rulings, scholars define the study of “usool-al-fiqh” which also relies on interpretations from the Qur’an and Hadith. Utilizing this leverage, Lester argues that Quran is not the word of God because it is transcribed by humans themselves, which loses the direct chain of revelation. Lester justifies his arguments as he references the Yemeni scholars, who compiled the Quran after picking up parchments of the Arabic verses. As the revealed word of God, according to the Islamic tradition, the Qur’an requires translation from its original Arabic revelation. Because verdicts are based on interpretations, readings may be skewed so many variations exist and therefore different rulings are derived from the same verses. However, to bridge these differences of opinions, Islamic jurists focus on emphasizing the importance of consensus. This work has been silenced in the Muslim community as Lester shares that this information has not been shared. The compilation of these parchments is the project that has been undertaken by other parties such as Germany, who are in the effort of analyzing this also. Therefore, Lester argues that the Bible is not the final word of God, a misconstrued element that is followed by majority of the Christians.         The second proposal of Lester’s argument about Koran is the fact that Koran lacks the historical relevancy and contains many unexplained gaps that are considered to be heresay in the Islamic society. Lester along with other scholars argue that the revelation of Koran was very hard to follow and creates a gap in Islamic history that Muslims themselves cannot explain. Even at the time of Muhammed, Muslims did not fully understand the Koran (Lester 3). This statement is fully supported by Particia Crone, who defends this thinking by stating, “The Koran is a scripture with a history like any other—except that we don't know this history and tend to provoke howls of protest when we study it” (Lester 4). In this statement, Crone is defending her position about the gaping holes in the historical relevancy of the Koran. It is clear that both scholars are proposing that questioning the accuracy of Islam and the Koran is the focal point in this argument, not the actual religion itself. Dismissing the accuracy of Koran undoubtedly has led to a blacklash in the Islamic society (Lester 6). As Lester transitions to his arguments, he takes time to propose the arguments from the side of the Muslims (Lester 7). From the Muslim perspective, the arguments have been clear. For centuries, Muslims have defended these allegations saying that most Western historical scholars take the scripture of Quran out of text. It is clear that in fact as depicted in this statement made by Patricia Crone states, “Nobody would mind the howls if they came from Westerners, but Westerners feel deferential when the howls come from other people: who are you to tamper with their legacy? But we Islamicists are not trying to destroy anyone's faith." Undoubtedly, Lester solidifies his arguments by stating that Muslims are quick to judge the perspective of Westerners because of the bias that they do not understand Arabic. This grand argument is the focal point of dismissing any arguments that Lester and his colleagues proposed about the historical tradition of Koran (Lester 9). Lester continues to offer many insights and examples throughout his work about the discrepancies that slowly unravel themselves. One of the biggest discrepancies he outlines is the ambiguities that lie in the subjectivity of the Koran itself (Lester 11). One can derive the fact that Koran is explicitly subjective in some areas, which has led to madhabs, or difference in opinions in Shariah ruling (Lester 11). Lester interjects by stating that it is clear that many subjective perspectives were intertwined.  As mentioned above, Lester argues that pieces of parchments cannot explain the discrepancies that justify the accumulation of the Koran. He argues that during the time of compilation, the subjective view of many Muslims, which has lead to personal interpretations along with the creation of difference of opinions. Therefore, seeking guidance from personal interpretations could lead to erroneous conclusions, which according to Lester can be depicted in the Koran. Therefore, he argues that the Muslims cannot contemplate that Koran is the book for God. Lester further solidifies his argument by giving an example by stating the issue of divorce in his work in which a Yemeni was granted a divorce because of subjectivity that was diluted in the higher courts. The court then proceeded, on the grounds of an Islamic law forbidding the marriage. This was a decision that was deemed illogical and contradicted the ruling straight from the teachings of mainstream Muslims (Lester 7). Lester continues to propose that the Koran is highly critiqued for patriarchy that oozes from the Koran. He insists that these cultural values manifested themselves. The fact that few individuals, that were native Arabic speaking were held responsible for scribing the text is the true icing on the cake of the subjectivity that is prevalent in the Koran (Lester 7). Lester insists that in order to comprehend Quran is a monumental task itself. For example, it mentions prophets—Hud, Salih, Shu'ayb,Luqman, and others—whose origins seem exclusively Arabian, and it reminds readers that it is "A Koran in Arabic.” It is clear that only few explicit individuals had the power to translate and recite Koran (Lester 10). Furthermore, Lester argues that the Koran does also does not make sense, contrary to what Muslims state. He argues that Muslims are delusional when they state that the Quran makes sense. Lester quotes, “it sometimes makes dramatic shifts in style, voice, and subject matter from verse to verse.” It is clear that an ordinary non-Arabic speaker would not notice, let alone can comprehend this. To read the Koran just in Arabic defies the idea of analyzing it because of the difficulty of translating it. The Koran shifts its tone in so many places that analyzing seems to be extremely dramatic. Even educated speakers in Arabic have a difficult time comprehending the earlier texts. Lester than transitions into the concept of jihad, in which he defines the word “jihad” as the literal meaning for striving or effort; and not as “holy war.” Lester tells how in the Holy Qur’an, the word jihad is used in the phrase as “striving in the path of God” (30). He explains how during the Meccan period of the Prophethood, the Muslims were struggling and striving to co-exist in a society where they were oppressed by idol worshippers. Then he further explains that the Prophet became the head of the state of Medina and how the Muslims strived to defend themselves against those who would oppress them. Lester shows how the meaning of struggling is abused by the Muslim conquest. As Muslims continued their conquest to expand, the scholars were often perplexed at the meanings along with the unfamiliar vocabulary, grammatical discrepancies, deviant readings, and ambiguities within verses. In order to rectify these discrepancies, a certain group of scholars deemed that the Koran is more in terms of metaphoric elegance that is lacked by other scriptures. By the end of tenth century, this same group also warned the mass populus that Koran has become very easy to imitate, which lead to a phobia of dismissing Koran from the perspective of ‘ajam’ or non-Arab. As a result of this, Muslims have always been translating the Koran in Arabic. It is clear that the translations that do exist are considered to be nothing more than scriptural aids. Lester also quotes other historians such as Puin, who reinstates “The Koran claims for itself that it is 'mubeen,' or 'clear’...But if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn't make sense.” (Lester 11) He continues to insist as he states that if the Koran is not comprehensible, then it is not translatable. Here he brings Crone’s points stating that Muslims assume that Koran is completely accurate. Again, this is an assumption that all Muslims possess. If Muslims drop that assumption, then the credibility of Koran itself becomes an issue (Lester 13). To further support his point, Lester justifies Crone’s claims by stating that the combustion of Islamic expansion occurred so quickly that historians never had a valid chance to accumulate all the remnants of the Quran. This has been depicted in fiqh and defined in facets of Islam such as prayer, divorce and other shariah rulings. It is clear that these controversies will haunt Muslim attitudes towards Islam because it will deter the young generation from understanding the Koran itself. Young Muslims are encouraged to read the Koran and read the meaning that is also associated with it. The problem is that majority of Muslims do not understand, read, or write Arabic (Lester 13). Their analysis of the Koran will always lack understanding because of these factors. Furthermore, it will short sight the younger generation of Muslims with shariah and fiqh (Lester 13). Since Koran is the book of ultimate guidance, the historical ambiguities will serve as a barrier to implement Islam in their lives. The Koran is not clear as Lester describes which makes it incomprehensible to follow (Lester 11). The Future of Study of the Koran as is to question the authenticity of the Koran itself and to challenge it against individuals that make it seem as the eternal Word of God. Lester makes it clear that individuals need to take their subjectivity out and understand the Koran that is based on assumption. Without a doubt, Muhammed’s history is different than what the Koran describes. The theological convictions that are associated with the origins of the Koran is to question the framework of Islamic history and not to take it as a scripture of ‘methodological assumptions and parameters’ (Lester 12). Going forward, it is imperative that revisionism within the Islamic world must be executed. The young Muslims historians have already provided a framework that questions the divine authenticity of Koran and questions the history of Islam itself (Lester 13). It is pivotal to re-examine the Islamic history and question the understanding of Islamic history. Islam’s own accounts of history depicts that the other scriptures were antagonistic. As historians and Muslims, the Koran cannot explicitly diminish the important of Biblical scholarships as it would nullify its original argument of revelation (Lester 13). Lastly, this should serve as rejuvenation for Muslims, which should serve as demystifying the text in order for the mass populous to comprehend the Koran. Works Cited "The Atlantic." The Atlantic. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2013. . Read More