Key to any understanding of the Quranic position on inerrancy is, of course, a knowledge of the claims which the Quran makes for itself. And the claim which it makes for itself is very clear: "Will they not then meditate upon the Quran? Had it been from other than Allah they would have found therein much discrepancy" (4:82).[23] Surah 41:42 says in part that "No falsehood can approach [the Quran] from before or behind it." Muslims understand by these texts that "Here God challenges people to find an error in the Quran. If it contains errors then it cannot be from God."[24] Muslims allow for error in interpretation, but not error in content.[25] With this in mind, we take up the challenge, and look for error not playing on the wording of any text, but on its content.
There are two kinds of inaccuracies which are usually brought up by scholars critiquing the Quran: 'internal' and 'external' contradictions withing the text, and incongruencies and anachronisms between the quran and earlier documents. There are a number of examples of apparent contradictions within the Quran. Aside from the type mentioned in note 22 of this paper, we also see simple things like the discrepancy between six and eight day creation accounts,[26] the creation of man out of water or clay[27] etc. However there are possible interpretations that can deal with these problems, and therefore I will not spend any time on them.
The majority of alleged errors occur in the area of history. Those familiar with the culture and education of seventh century Arabians notice that there tends to be massive "time compression" in the narration of events. The content of stories was regarded as more important than the chronology of the accounts. In Surah 28:35-42 for example, we see Pharaoh commanding Haman (a Persian ruler born about a thousand years later)[28] to build a tower that closely resembles the Biblical account of the tower of Babal (which was erected hundreds of years before) all in the time of Moses.
The standard method of analyzing historical documents is to accept the older documents as authoritative, unless there is strong evidence of corruption. This brings us to the heart of the issue. When compared with the ancient writings of the Bible, Josephus, and Biblical Archaeology, there are vast areas of disagreement - see Appendix B for some examples. The standard method for Muslim apologists - understandably - has been to deny the accuracy of these ancient texts, and to assert the reliability of the newer text - the Quran. Generally the Muslim apologists appeal to the "higher criticism" which was very much in vogue (in the last century),[29] pseudo-scholastic groups such as the Jesus Seminar,[30] and the generic nobody-really-believes-the-Bible-is-accurate-anymore type arguments.[31] The object of this paper is not to critique the validity of this manoeuvre as a tool of historical analysis. Rather, I raise a more fundamental question for Muslims. Can a Muslim hold that the Bible[32] is corrupted - and still hold an orthodox interpretation of the Quran? I say you can not - and the reason is simple.
The Quran is very clear about a number of facts. Allow me to list them. Fact one: God's Word cannot contain err, and cannot change. Allah is said to preserve the Quran in Surah 15:9; 41:41-42;[33] 85:21-22; 56:77-78[34] and later the words of Allah are said to be unalterable: "there is none that can alter the Words (and Decrees) of Allah..."[35] and "...none can change His Words..."[36] Let's stop here for a moment. If the Quran is true, then what Allah inspires cannot change, and cannot be corrupted. So we ask the obvious question: are the Torah and the Gospels said to be inspired? Any Muslim who knows the Quran, knows the answer.
Surah 3:3 tells us that Allah "...sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, Confirming what went before it; And he sent down the Torah and the Gospels." Typical of every mention of the Torah and the Gospels, there is no word about textual corruption. Surahs 3:7, 21, 23, 48, 84, 65, 93, 184, 199; 4:44, 51, 136; 5:15, 43-49, 57-59, 66-69, 113; 6:91, 154; 10:37; 11:17; 16:43; 17:2; 20:133; 21:7, 33; 23:49; 26:196; 32:23; 41:42-45; 46:10-12; 54:43; 57:27; 80:11-16; and 87:18-19 all confirm, rather than repudiate the Torah and Gospels.[37] Surah 5:43-49 for example starts off with a revealing passage:
But why do they come to thee for decision, when they have Torah before them? Therein is the plain command of Allah; yet even after that they would turn away.
It is plain that the author of the Quran believed the text of the Torah was fine in the seventh century. The same fact is echoed in the following verses, while verses 66, and 68-69 make it crystal clear that the problem with the Jews was their refusal to "stand fast by the Torah, The Gospel, and all the revelation[38] that has come to you from the Lord.[39]" Verse fifteen records that they "pass over" the truths of Allah. The Quran commands the Jews to remedy their misunderstandings by a study of the Torah: "Bring ye the Torah and study it, if ye be men of truth."[40] Further evidence of the integrity of the text is found in Surahs 16:43; 21:7; and 46:10, 12 where Muhammad's detractors are told to "ask of those who possess the Message"[41] as a confirmation of the Quran. This point cannot be overstressed, but I will stop short of flogging it to death.
For a Muslim to be in accordance with the Quran in his theology, he cannot maintain that the Torah and the Scriptures are corrupted - unless the corruption took place after the Quran was written. Muslims must make a distinction between ignorance of, and rebellion against the Quran and the Bible, and corruption of the Quran and Bible. Already in the days of Muhammad, there was "a section who distort the Book with their tongues,"[42] - when it comes to the Quran, Muslims are quick to point out that false teaching is not to be equated with textual corruption. A consistent interpretation of the Quran requires that the texts used to support textual corruption in the Bible[43] must be treated in the same way.
The Muslim is not given a pleasant choice either way. The one fork in the road leads to historical inaccuracies between revelations - the three books that the Quran says are inspired by God. The other allows a Muslim to account for the differences between the revelations - but it leaves him with an equally serious dilemma. It gives him a Quran which says the Word of God is uncorrupted, yet Muslims are belying that revelation in their zeal to defend that revelation. It leaves the Muslim with a god that cannot preserve his word from interpolations and errors.[44] Furthermore, the apologist who holds to the corruption of previous inspiration is left without a theological court of appeal when he is faced with allegations of textual corruption within the Quran itself. And there are such allegations. He can't announce that God's revelation is incorruptible - for he defends that revelation by maintaining that God's Word was corrupted. Clearly, this argument is not in accordance with the Quran. Clearly, it is not orthodox.
This short paper has only concentrated on two out of seven arguments the two unorthodox ones. The 'scientific proofs' require an unorthodox translation of the Quran and the 'corruption' position on inerrancy requires an unorthodox treatment of the Quran. If Muslims wish to defend an orthodox faith honestly, they need to reconsider one argument - and forget the other. Does this critique offer solutions for these problems? No. I simply don't think there are any.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق