Jeffrey Lang – Is the Quran the Word of God 175
AI: Summary ©
AI: Transcript ©
May I have your attention please? Can we
get started?
Can we get started, please?
Half hours. Come on. You
didn't eat good?
Yeah.
It can break
Cookie or something? Come on. Give us a
cup of coffee.
How about a cup of coffee?
Now, folks, and on this one we'll be,
discussing
part 2, which is it's the Quran, the
word of God.
And, we'll have a presentation by
doctor Jamal Badawi first, and then
by
doctor,
Whitberry,
and then we'll start the
discussion after that.
Thank you. Go ahead, please.
Can you please,
close the door so that we get no
noise from outside?
Just as it happened with many other topics,
of course, 10 minutes is not an awful
lot of time for a major topic like
this.
So it's, of course, it's not possible to
respond to many of the points that were
raised about the Quran before, and I hope
this will be coming through the discussion. So
my purpose in this
capsulized
discussion starter, you might say,
is to directly address the question,
is the Quran
the word of God, and if so, how
or why?
In doing this, I think there are 2
related issues,
which I mentioned before, that I apply them
with a great deal of impartiality. I hope
I'm not applying double standard here.
I can apply the same critical question to
the bible as well as to the Quran,
so I applying them now to the
Quran. And I'd say, I begin with 2,
and then I conclude with one additional point,
that at least there are 2 fundamental issues,
which would be also comparative issues.
The question of authority
and authenticity.
By authority means,
is that evidence that this
sufficient
convincing evidence
that this is the word of God. It's
not the word of some other humans or
followers of the prophet.
To answer that question, we can examine both
internal evidence and external evidence.
As far as the internal evidence is concerned,
we find that the Quran and again, I'm
not going to bore you with so many
citations, I have the numbers if you like.
There are several verses in the Quran that
affirms
that the Quran
has come from Allah.
Secondly, there are many verses in the Quran
that specifically and explicitly
deny
that it is from any source
other than Allah.
Thirdly,
the style of the Quran,
if you look at it generally speaking, you
notice that actually it is not somebody's writing
and says Muhammad went, Muhammad did that.
It's nothing like that. It is actually God
directly speaking to mankind like versus, we created
the heavens and earth, and we created you,
and so on. So the style itself,
in many cases even it addresses the Prophet
himself and say, say O Muhammad.
Which means that somebody else is telling the
Prophet what to say.
Which remind me with the Deuteronomy, God will
put the word in his knowledge, he's not
speaking on his own.
As far as the external evidence, some people
would say look, internal evidence may not be
enough because
somebody could concoct
a book or a document and just make
it look as if coming from God. So
we have to look at the external evidence
as well.
When we look at the external evidence, there
are a number of points that,
strikes
us as muslims.
1,
is that that claim is not only in
the Quran, but it was also made by
the one through whom the Quran was revealed,
Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.
And as indicated earlier,
his reputation even among his enemies,
it was a death of a man of
a great deal of integrity and trustfulness.
Even in the night, when he was supposed
to be assassinated by the pagans,
he let Ali to sleep in his bed
to return the deposit to the people who
wanted to kill him.
They used to belign him as a prophet,
yet they keep the deposits
with him. So that shows that there were
some other prejudice that's preventing them from following
him, yet,
on a personal level, they fully trusted
Him. Secondly, as indicated earlier, and I'd be
willing to discuss any objection to this, there's
absolutely no credible evidence to show that, yes,
He was truthful, but epileptic or have some
psychological phenomena or
psychic element
or hallucination. There is no evidence of that
whatsoever.
3,
that the Quran surprisingly
contains some chastisement of the prophet for a
small mistake of interpretation as was mentioned earlier.
Nobody writes a book
chastising himself for a small mistake that nobody
even noticed. Because nobody noticed even that the
prophet was, you know, getting crowned a little
bit because of the interruption of that, blind
man. That shows the trustfulness
of communicating exactly what reveal what was reveal
to him.
Secondly, the prophet peace be upon him, as
one of my colleagues also men
mentioned earlier, has gone through periods of great
pain,
False accusation made against his wife. People challenging
him with questions yet, if he were to
concoct something, he did not just appear as
someone who knows all and answer, he would
wait until the revelation comes. Sometimes, a great
deal of mocking on the part of his
enemies.
7th,
that the Quran contains the Quran and the
saying of the prophet through whom the Quran
was revealed both contain
numerous prophecies.
Many of which
have already come to pass during the lifetime
of the prophet or shortly after. Not a
single one, whatsoever,
was proven to be false.
And some of which could have been very
very unlikely,
given the circumstances and context in which they
were made.
Number 8, the Quran itself makes a challenge.
1 of my brothers mentioned that earlier, that
if the Quran was from any source other
than Allah, they would have found that in
many contradictions.
I mean, they I haven't seen any credible
they have been alleged contradiction. I have never
seen any credible thing that you could say
this is a contradiction of fact, something that
could not be explained,
reasonably,
without
going into great lengths explaining it
out. Number 9,
that the Quran challenged his contemporaries,
and the Arabs were excellent in their expression,
and the prophet was never a poet or
a speech maker,
that when they claimed that this Quran comes
from human source, it was challenging them in
a very provocative way to produce something like
the Quran, they failed. Then said 10 chapters
like the Quran, they failed. Then 1 chapter,
even then they failed. So even the smallest
part of the Quran, anyone who tried to
imitate the Quran made himself a laughing stock
of his people. And that was the witness
and testimony of people who excelled historically.
That's the the epic of eloquency.
That must say something about the nature of
the Quran, and that has never been met
to my knowledge for the 1400 years since
its revelation.
But that's not all because you could have
beautiful thing that is not necessarily true or
not revelation.
But one of the most amazing thing that
one of the sister raised in her questions
which could not be brushed aside even though
it is not the main mission of the
Quran,
is that unlike any previous scripture, quite frankly.
There is no single verse in the Quran
that you could say it comes into conflict
with an established
established
scientific fact. I refer you to a book
by Maurice Bouquet, the bible, the Quran and
Science, where he make a study made a
study for both scriptures.
But more amazingly even is the testimony given
by Christian scientists.
I'm not saying about the church group, the
scientist of Christian faith.
Specialist in their area.
Like,
doctor Keith Moore, an internationally known authority
on anatomy and embryology.
When the Quran speaks in
amazing accuracy
about the early embryonic stages that were discovered
only after the discovery of the electronic microscope.
Something that was definite. According he was challenged
once in a lecture. Could this have been
known before? He said no. There's no way
from the history of science we know. There's
no way. And the same thing applies to
geology, astronomy, and many other areas that are
so amazing, many of which are mentioned in
Bouquet's book, that definitely the prophets could have
not known it because not only religious people
but even,
scientist
could not understand this that the Quran described
in a great,
great accuracy.
In addition to this, we find that
the question of authenticity also was alluded to
earlier about the Usman copies, I'll be glad
to address that. I mean, there's not enough
time, the remaining few minutes to address it.
But I could only put it in a
nutshell by saying that uniquely speaking, the Quran
was preserved simultaneously
via two means at the same time. Memorization
which is even the more important as well
as writing in full. There have been no
Quran's, no versions of the Quran.
Versions, there have been and I'll address that
some people mix
with with versions. There's nothing like versions as
such
of the Quran.
And there is even documentary evidence on it
today
that shows that the Quran belief that we
have today is the same as was revealed
to the prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam if
you take the combined evidence
by preservation in memorization
and writing altogether.
But to conclude,
it is not the issue simply of saying
that there is
evidence of authority of the Quran, it is
from Allah which in itself is sufficient.
It is not simply to say that it
is not only from Allah but has been
preserved intact
without
adaptation,
nor to say that it challenged people from
the scientific
standpoint, or the
literal standpoint, which even means a lot because
it it point out to something about its
source.
But I think what is more important also
for the average Muslim,
is the fact that the Quran
provided
what is best for the guidance of humanity
in our understanding.
On the issue of belief,
belief in God, it restored
the true monotheistic faith of all of the
prophets prior to prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa
sallam.
It discussed in no unclear terms that the
aberration that has taken place in history, correcting
them.
It corrected the vision of the prophets and
restored them to the proper status without deifying
them on one hand, or downgrading them and
accusing them of terrible sins on the other.
It provided a better in our humble understanding
explanation of the question of salvation.
The, the removed the notion of original sin
and blood sacrifice
and gave in hope to millions of people
to reach for God and seek his help
in overcoming sin.
It provided a vivid description and explanation
of the life hereafter
punishment and reward, individual responsibility and the hope
in the mercy and compassion of God.
It gave a proper structure for worship
that stands
in the way in in the way in
the middle between
the extreme of formalism and ritualism practiced by
Jews at the time of Jesus, and between
simply talking about love love without really giving
some structure and organization
in the life of the individual making a
daily diet,
spiritual diet, devotion, and prayer 5 times every
day. Takes a few minutes, but it's tremendous
has tremendous impact in the life of people.
It provided
comprehensive guidance, practical guidance in the lives of
people. Not only in the case of love
and peace, but how to behave in war,
how to behave in peace with friends, with
enemies, with people living in peace who are
not Muslims. And that is more practical if
it were to be a total guidance for
all mankind at all times.
Finally,
the fruits of that has been amazing. Just
like my christian brother has been talking about
the impact on the disciples
encountering Jesus.
The same claim has been made throughout history.
People who have been most evil
responding to the Quran, they were totally changed.
Ramaz,
a person who was going to kill the
Prophet, on his way to kill the Prophet,
hearing the Quran, his whole heart has been
transformed and became one of the most pious
people in history. In contemporary history you find
the same. People in prison. And I happen
to know more closely about that because I
have been in touch with the Islamic teaching
center. There are 100 and 1000 of people
actually
who are in prison on very serious crimes
and problems. They have been totally changed when
they read the Quran.
There have been people like,
Yusuf Islam or formerly Cat Stevens who report
many of the Cat Stevens is only one
of them, who reported
that just by reading the Quran they said
it's different from any book we read before
religious or non religious. I feel that God
is speaking to me. So that testimony also,
even though it cannot be taken alone because
personal experience could be quite subjective.
But in line with all of the other,
evidence that has been given,
If we consider the millions and millions of
people throughout history, in all countries, in all
cultures,
whose life have been totally transformed by the
Quran,
To me as a Muslim, that is much
more than sufficient reason
to say yes, it is the word of
God. Thank you, the president.
Once again, I have to say that I
speak with considerable
hesitation
because it is not my pattern to,
say,
things about Mohammed or the Quran,
negatively.
But,
and I see it a great deal that
I feel very positive about too. But, this
isn't a sign topic. And so,
I think I need to explain why,
I do not accept the Quran as the
word of God,
even though I do,
see the word in Christ and as it
is testified in scripture.
Let let me just say that, I studied
Arabic in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia under a Muslim
professor
who would give us the rules of grammar,
and then would on occasion
say, the Quran is is different here.
I also studied under Dawud Rahfar,
who was a Muslim when I studied under
him.
But he had given a paper where he
encouraged,
Muslims to be like Christians in really looking
at the,
textual evidence,
for the Quran and analyzing it to construct
as faithful a text as possible. And,
he was told to recant
and,
was
his paper was not, included
in the,
proceedings of the conference. And that was one
of the things that ultimately,
led him to become a Christian was because
he, felt he could not really study the
Quran
as a Muslim and really look
for, an an analyze the textual sources and
so forth.
But, let me say, first of all, on
internal evidence,
why I have questions about the Quran.
First of all,
page 4 70
3, mentions, again, a Muslim,
author mentions about a secretary's
exclamation
that gets,
added to Surah 23,
an exclamation by Uthman's,
foster
brother,
Abdullah ibn Abi Sahar.
Furthermore,
I understand you just in case what it
is just to get the clear information on
it. Okay. I'll I'll have to check,
check my source here a little later, and
I'll be happy to do that.
Then I find,
what appear to me as
a reader of the Bible,
to be confusions
in the Quran, and it is always up
to the second scripture, the burden of proof.
Always writes with the second scripture to prove,
that it has not made a,
mistake,
it seems to me. But Haman, for example,
is put in the court of pharaoh rather
than in the court of Ahasuerus
in Surah 40
verse 36 or 3038,
depending on your translation.
Pharaoh said, Haman built for men,
a tower.
Then it certainly, the obvious evidence it would
seem
for, Surah 19 verse 28 or 29
is that,
when Mary or Miriam in Arabic,
is referred to as a sister of Aaron,
that this is,
would seem to be in a, confusion
certainly on the surface,
there rather than,
the mother,
of of of Jesus. It seems to be
entirely different,
periods.
And then talking about scientific
evidence, since Surah 12 verse 49,
the fertility of Egypt is described as resulting
from rain
rather than the inundation of the Nile.
What do you that?
Sort of 1249
if, I've written it down correctly.
And then there are certain passages
in the Quran which,
it seems to me that an unbiased
reader would see are taken from Jewish folklore
rather than being in the scriptures,
that the Quran says it affirms.
For example, the story of Cain and Abel
in Surah 5 verses 27 through 32.
Verse 31,
turn,
then God sent a raven
scratching up the ground to show him how
to hide his brother's naked corpse.
Well, this is found in
chapter 21,
not in
the, scriptures
of the the Bible.
Then in surah 5 verse 32,
for that cause, we decreed
for the children of Israel that whoever killeth
a human being for other than manslaughter or
corruption in the earth, it shall be as
if he killed all mankind. And so whosoever,
saveth the life of 1, it shall be
as if he saved the life
of all mankind.
And, again, this seems to be,
taken largely from the mission of the Sanhedrin
4,
5,
rather than
scripture.
Furthermore, it, it
I would say anybody coming from the outside
and looking at,
the story of Abraham in Surah 21 verses
52 through 70,
being saved from a fiery furnace,
would see that it is from the Jewish
scribe, Jonathan Ben Uzziahl,
who apparent who mistook
Ur for Ur
and thought
the that Abraham come came from for,
or a fire.
Then a second reason
I
have some problems
is because of the,
report that the texts are,
without
that the texts are exactly the way we
have them from the time of Mohammed,
and this seems to ignore,
historical
records Muslim historical records.
First of all, in in,
volume 1, page 21,
he indicates that there is no collected arranged
and collated
body of revelations,
at that at the death of Mohammed.
Then when we read Ibn Abi Dawood
in the,
kit
tab Masahif,
page 83,
it indicates that many of the companions of
the prophet of God had their own reading
of the Quran, but they did but they
died, and their readings disappeared
soon afterwards.
Then again, as we read, Ibn Abi Dawood
in Katab al Masaheth,
page 23,
Portions were
lost when some reciters died at the Battle
of Al Yamama,
and,
the text was only collated
after Mohammed's death by a number
of companions.
Again, there they would seem to be essentially
consistent,
but a large number of variant readings.
No
two texts are identical
at that time.
And, this is not just reciting different dialects
without the, vowel points there.
And so you have 19 years after the
death of Mohammed, the 3rd caliph,
under, that is Uthman,
attempting a standardized
text.
Now he took the codex of Said,
which was closed and was, kept,
in relative seclusion with the Hasa.
But,
it had it was not
well known at that time.
But you had
the courtesies of Abdullah ibn Masood and Ubay
ibn Kab,
with considerable
variance.
Furthermore,
after Uthman's death, Al Hallaj, the the governor
of Cupa, made 11 amendments
and,
corrections.
I have had,
church? Al Hallaj, governor of Cutha Koopa made
11 amendments
and,
now
one of my students once, just,
compared, and here is a volume by Arthur
Jeffrey, materials for a history of the text
of the Quran. This is a book just
on the variance now, I I mean, in
Arabic.
We're not, somebody said yesterday produce,
another Quran. Well, this is at least,
producing the variance
And, it is interesting that,
one of my students on his own,
compared
3 ancient
manuscripts,
and came up with the
he com
compared,
a number of
Christian
manuscripts of the New Testament and,
some of the Muslim manuscripts. He compared the
Sinaiticus
codex,
an ancient one of the New Testament and
a large part of the Old Testament, Codex
Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus
and
the Ephraemi,
rescript. He compared them in the New Testament
for the number of verses omitted, the number
added,
and the number of texts affected.
He compared the codex ibn Masood
and ibn,
Ubay ibn Kab,
with the text the way we have it
today.
And he found out
that,
there the
as for the number of verses in the
New Testament as compared to the number of
verses in the Quran, that the textual problem
was even a slighter great slightly greater one
for the Quran
than it was for the New Testament. And
I have the details,
of that here. Now this is amazing, particularly
when,
Othman
burned,
the
manuscripts
that tried to get them all burned, the
ones that,
differed.
So, it is amazing to me that although
Muslims have tried to get rid of,
the variants, there are still
New
New Testament,
manuscripts.
And, I could give a a number of
illustrations of how,
this has been suppressed.
For example, in 1947,
a student at the University
of Cairo,
wrote a thesis
on, textual criticism.
And
he never was given his degree.
He was threatened with disciplinary
action, and his adviser was dismissed from the
university. Name? What does he I do not
have his name, but he is recorded.
You can find the record of it in
Arthur Jeffrey who was there. Is Arthur Jeffrey
a Christian reference or a Muslim
reference? It is a Christian reference, but it
is, you've got the Thank you.
You've got the record right here
so that, I wouldn't make too much of
a point with it. Yeah.
I think I have
used I think I have used my,
time,
here just to show that basically in the
internal evidence and the textual evidence,
I am not saying that the Quran is
inaccurate. I'm just saying that their textual problems
are,
as great
as the,
Christian textual
problems.
And, certainly, the inconsistencies
to me within the text are harder for
me to accept,
than,
what you point out in the Bible.
Okay. Well, first of all, several remarks have
been made about,
Rahbar who did not get his paper published,
or the students, even if that's the story.
Suppose even the story is true, who could
not get his degree.
This has nothing to do really with the
great effort of textual criticism that has already
been done by the predecessor, and you did
refer yourself to Jalal Ad Dinus Realty and
others. In fact, that Jeffrey's book is based
itself
on a book written by Muslim Abu Dawud
Sijistani,
the book of Kartab al Masahid.
And that's why doctor Drehs
criticized this contradiction sometimes is found in some
non muslim writers about the Quran. When they
said on one hand, they say that the
textual criticism
of the Quran is in its infancy, yet
in the very same books they write, you
look at only the bibliography
of the hundreds and hundreds of Muslim references
about the sciences of the Quran and preservation,
which seem to indicate a great deal of,
not a very straight scholarship in that sense.
That's one thing. The other thing when you
talk about the, internal evidence, I cannot respond
to that because you haven't given me what
exclamation or what exactly you're referring to in
Surah 23. So until you get that, I'll
reserve
the answer to that.
Thirdly,
you said that it caused confusion to the
Christian writer because it confuses haman with pharaoh
or this.
I think this is the same argument that
one sister commented on before that this is
a very unfair thing to relate to the
Quran because
it has that presumption
that the record in the bible is absolutely
accurate 100%.
So anything in the in the Quran that
is different from the bible,
is not to be taken as accurate. Not
the other way around which is a distinct.
In fact, in to must to the Muslim,
it is a real thing that the the
error is the other way around.
Secondly, you refer to one instance where you
say there is confusion between the sister of
Aaron. This is one, a very interesting question
that you raised because since you said you
know Arabic,
you know that the expression in the Arabic
language and in the Quran itself when it
says brother of or sister of, does not
mean the blood brother.
Just like the bible when it calls the
Elizabeth,
the mother of John the Baptist, the daughter
of of Aaron not the immediate daughter but
it means in the family.
And
Mary
mentioned in the Quran of course as coming
from a priestly family, you are a sister
of Aaron not Aaron of Moses, the brother
of Moses, sister of Aaron like you've seen
Aqal Arab, oh brother of Arabs, not necessarily
referring to one particular
the children of Israel, not necessarily the immediate
children. So this is really not a problem
at all.
Then there was a question that you say
that in in surah 12 aya 49,
it says that the source of fertility was
the rain, not the Nile. The verses are
here, it has nothing to do with that
what you're talking about. It speaks about prophet
Joseph alaihis salam, has nothing to do with
what he said. It say Joseph when there
was fear of shortage of food,
when the king saw that dream,
he said he will plant for 7 years
and whatever you don't eat, keep keep it,
and then there will be 7 years where
it's very difficult, and then there will be
a year where there will be great deal
of shortage of food. It has nothing to
do with fertility. But even if it were,
which is not.
Yeah. I never mentioned the night or anything,
but even if it were, what's the problem
of fertility being both based on the rain
as well as the night? But in any
case, that is not the case. The, the
quotation doesn't say what you're talking about.
And then you have a number of points
that you raised
that you somehow insinuated that the Quran must
be based on previous scriptures
or on,
on for example, the apocryphal writings or Jewish.
Yeah, I have two responses to that. 1,
I have no problem whatsoever
if there is anything in the Quran that
has parallel in the bible because the one
who revealed the bible in its original form
is God, the one who revealed the Quran
is God,
and the Quran But you
I must say with due respect doctor Woodbury,
that you have a habit of quoting half
verses of the Quran.
In the previous session you were saying the
Quran says it came to confirm the scriptures
before it, but you forgot to read the
other part
a criterion, a guardian over it, which means
you don't accept everything except that which is
meet the criterion
of the Quran.
So I have no problem with this so
called parallel so long as it's consistent with
the Quran because the revelation come from the
same source not because one copies from the
other. As far as the other,
apocryphal, some people even say the gospel of
infancy and this and that, My answer to
that is very simple. It has been admitted
earlier and it is quite clear
that the choice of books to be included
as canonized
versus apocryphal,
was a decision made by human beings sitting
down. And imagine human beings sitting in a
council to decide what is God's revelation and
what is not. This is not a matter
for voting. So we don't know whether these,
things classified as apocryphal were not in in
its original form, really, at least containing parts
of the truth, whether it relates to Abraham
or other points that you raised. Raised. Now
coming to the question of preservation,
you referred to Jalal ad Din al Suyut
is a lit conquer, a rumored Quran.
And I think again there is the confusion
that, I see in many western writings about
the Quran.
In some cases it may be innocent, in
some cases it is deliberate.
When they mix,
make a big mix
between recording or writing the Quran
in full on one hand and between compiling
the Quran I e bringing all the manuscript
under one roof.
All the authentic sources including the most authentic
hadees and Bukhari, Muslim and others. There's no
doubt about it
historically. Clearly indicate that whenever any verse or
portion of the Quran was revealed,
the prophet peace be upon him had more
than one scribe of Revelation and some historian
give as many as 70
scribes of Revelation. Some people were writing simultaneously
in addition to multitudes memorizing
the verses of the Quran as they heard
it from the Prophet.
It mentioned also in the same sources,
that by the time the prophet died, the
entire Quran
was committed to writing. Yes, it was not
under the same roof, but it was brought
under one roof. Not 19 years after the
Prophet but during the caliphate of Abu Bakr.
And it is well known historically that the
caliphate of Abu Bakr is only 2 years,
only 2 years, which included the battle of
Yamama that you were referring to.
Secondly, when you refer to Abu Dawood, the
Kuttab al Masahir,
I think again the mix up here arises
with respect to versions versus kira'at.
And if you care to check the more
authentic sources than these books even, the hadith,
the authentic hadith that had been subjected to
the most scrutinous
accuracy, standard of accuracy, you will discover
that what happened there is that the Prophet
himself said, nazalaluquranu
aala Sabati aharuf,
the Quran was revealed on 7 harf. The
word harf is doesn't have a very clear
english translation.
I'll give you an explanation what it means
and then you can use whatever word. I
use it is not exactly that's mixed up
that some people have sometimes.
But akhruv actually refers
to the fact that because many tribes at
the time of the Prophet were not used
to certain words,
that it's not in their tribe.
The Prophet gave the concession to them not
on his own, under the guidance of Gabriel
to allow them to use a variant word
to express exactly the same thing. An example
that has been given of that, watakunur jibalu
kalainal manfush.
And soof
both mean wool, but the Prophet gave the
concession to those tribes.
Now does that mean that there were 7
versions of the Quran or 7 Quran? Absolutely
not. And I challenge anyone to produce really
something that gives a different kind of theology
or different kind of,
message of the Quran different except for this
alternative
very minor variation. Yet,
you must remember also that according to the
most authentic sources in habeas,
that these were not the official copy. These
were concessions made specifically to those people because
people grew up in that tongue
and to insist on this particular word or
that might have been very difficult and demanding
for them. Yet,
the official copy official copy that was written
under the supervision of the prophet himself,
remained in the tongue of Quraysh which we
have until today.
The memorization of the Quran
did allow for this
variations, some people had this different qira'at, no
question about that. It is quite true also
that some people wrote for themselves
on this Quran.
What happened in the time of asman was
not a way of suppressing
other Quran. But I give you a very
simple example, suppose you don't know a word
of French.
Now
if you have been living in Quebec for
example you might learn Quebecan
French. If you go to France you learn
classical
French. If you're a new young person after
Islam started to spread it doesn't make a
difference to you which one. So it's better
to learn classical French.
Now for many of those who embraced Islam
in variety of countries,
there there was no problem there for them
to learn the classical
Qurashayi tank in which the official copy of
the Quran was written. And Osman has a
good reason to do that because some people
reported to him that even though these variations
are very minor, doesn't change the meaning and
iota,
yet he said that some people started to
conflict with each other's, my recitation is better
than yours. So they suggested to him. Osman
did not suppress. And if you read history
and the hadith also that speaks about this
what happened,
that Osman actually consulted with the companions of
the Prophet. And let us remember that there
were multitudes
of them who were eye witnesses
who still memorize the Quran directly from the
mouth of the Prophet. All of them believe
that the Quran is the exact word of
God, they would put sacrifice their life for
it if anyone is trying to suppress any
portion
of it.
And all of them Okay, I'll leave the
other points. All of them unanimously
agreed with Asman, even Ali himself, that some
people say he had a different Mus'haf himself,
praised
what Usman did to unify people. Yet, there
is evidence that not everything even was burnt
down on this other variation that was temporary,
not everything. And the evidence is that any
sageshtani,
kirtab al masaheb and others, he still reports
some of these, this is not different Quran.
And if you open it and you look
at it, you find that some of which
as doctor Drehs have given a very scholarly
article that are of very minor nature, even
though they were not not official,
copies of the Quran. Other points I'd reserve
for other time. Thank you.
You like to
one of you please.
Either
way, I I I Well, I wanna deal
with some of the larger issues myself.
And I would maybe be a little bit
more Okay. I'll close
it. A 100
Go
ahead.
I wanted to deal with some of the
larger issues.
My interest, of of course,
is finding out, is there a revelation from
God? Is there something I am missing?
Is it possible that God has given something?
And,
as I said before, if God has given
a prophet,
I can't lose by following that prophet or
that revelation or whatever.
And so I have an interest in finding
out what is true. Now I don't know
whether that will mean that I will sincerely
understand it all, but there are a couple
of things that I encountered as I
read the scriptures.
And it first of all, the thing that
constituted a problem for me
was the teaching
that, about the Quran itself.
We have a,
something that
was was a a puzzle for me. And
even though I came, or I was in
a,
context where there were Christians who had a
concept of revelation,
Still,
this, this this teaching about
Islam, and this is Al Nasafi's creed. And
he speaks here,
God most high speaks with Excuse me. Who's
creed?
Al Nasafi's. Nasafi. Nasafi.
Nasafi. Okay.
God most high speaks with his word,
commanding
and prohibiting and narrating. And the Quran is
the uncreated word of God
repeated by our tongues,
heard by our ears, written in our copies,
memorized in our hearts,
yet not simply a transient state in these.
And it goes on other things, talking about
creation and other things.
And I was trying to figure out how
I could believe
that there are basically were 2 uncreated entities
in the universe. Ultimately, you do have a
picture that there is the God God himself,
and then there is this uncreated book.
Well,
in addition to that, there maybe there is
some link between the 2. But ultimately, god
must be different from his book. God is
not a book.
You do not worship the book.
There is a difference between the 2. So
I have inevitably
some kind of a dualism in God.
And, this is a problem for me. Another
problem for that I faced was a fact
that the Quran is eternal.
Just a second please. Do you do you
understand the fact I think that the point
is totally out of line really. Well, can
I Because
god? Okay. That's fine. That's what I'm saying.
To this and I want to know if
this is the word. You don't have this
problem. This I'm talking about what what as
I read and perceive the teaching of Islam
on the Quran as I read the book.
The second thing was that it's eternal.
Somehow or this book is eternal, and yet
it's dealing with incidents
that
are locked in time. They're the particulars of
history.
And how you get that which is eternal
and infinite
and link that up with the finite,
that constitutes a problem for, I think, for
Islam.
But, particularly when you have a doctrine of
abrogation.
This was another issue.
It was hard for me to understand
if this book was eternal
and if it indeed
was uncreated.
Then how
could you,
have God, as it were, taking away a
verse and then giving a better one? It
would and it seemed to suggest in any
open and honest reading of of the Quran
that God is improving.
God is doing better. And,
that was a problem to me.
There are other issues we could speak to
on the matter of, scientific,
things. I didn't
know at that time,
Bukayo's book or other things like that. And
maybe I'll lay leave that for another point.
But as I read the book, then apart
from these issues, which were a problem in
the back of my mind,
I thought, well, maybe I don't understand this
correctly. What will is there some way I
can get at the truth of it? And
as I found, as I read the book,
it was very difficult to understand.
I would read it. It didn't seem to
have a beginning or an ending.
It was not clear.
I frankly found many of the passages are
muddled.
Passages that only could be understood if you
already had, perhaps, the Old Testament or the
New Testament, then they might make sense. But
for most people who come to read the
Koran, it's very difficult to,
make heads or tails out of most of
it. There are passages which are very good
and very, beautiful,
but, other passages which are a complete muddle.
So it does
reflect on the idea that this is the
perfect
and,
the ideal book. And so coming at this,
I my conclusion was, there are other things
I could say to you, I'll cut it
short, that,
I I found it difficult to believe that
this was a unique revelation from God. And
what would be our equal time? Because we
want to share that, some brothers want to
have committed. Well, just go ahead. You have
5 minutes
to fly.
Doctor Chatham,
you have a problem
of knowing,
what the word of God is. Is it
created or uncreated? Right?
Well, he says it's uncreated.
This is traditional Muslim theology, you know? Yes.
It is uncreated. Right? Right.
Okay. What's your what's your problem with that?
Well, I said you have 2 uncreated entities
in the universe. There's God and His word.
There's a book,
and, there are 2 things. And so you
have a dualism
that is eternal.
And to me, this constitutes an intellectual problem.
Okay. In brief in brief, the word of
God
is what God
revealed to the prophet,
and the prophet received it through and
it has been compiled in the book from
cover to cover that's known as the Quran.
This word is eternal.
It has been with God since ever because
God does not,
come up with things after a while. He
has anything that he wants to do tomorrow,
to him there is no time, there is
no place, there is no space.
And being eternal, being the Word of God,
does not contradict
being uncreated.
On the contrary, if it is created,
it cannot be eternal.
Well, you didn't get my Okay. Let me
let
me have a chance to respond to. You
see, if you wanna make a point jump
in. Well, I can't now that's unfair.
Criticizing the commentary of a writer about the
Quran or interpreter.
The man is entitled to his opinion number
1.
Number
2, the Quran is eternal, created or uncreated.
This is a theological
argument that happened at one stage in the
history of Islam. Again, I emphasize it is
not an article of faith, it is not
mentioned as an article of faith. Muslim
theologians
might argue points
but that does not mean that we have
to criticize the Quran for argument among theologians.
It's extremely unfair
to criticize the Quran Quran in the light
of the history of the Bible for the
following reasons.
The Quran has been always in the hands
of the people,
From day 1, people were encouraged to memorize
it, people were encouraged to keep it. This
is not the history of the bible. For
a 1000 year, Christians
were killed for having a copy of the
bible, that's the historical fact.
The Quran is in a living language,
More than 200,000,000
people speak Arabic fluently.
The Bible is in original, the original Hebrew
and the original Aramaic are these languages, maybe
a handful of scholars can speak them today.
Now the Quran, Muslims had fought,
had argued, had political differences,
but I have never heard of the Quran
being the subject of a conflict, or different
groups or different
groups of the Muslims that had fought among
each other because they agreed or disagreed about
the contents of the Quran.
Now we keep ignoring the fact that the
Quran is the only
revelation
that is still available in our hands today,
in the original language and precisely
as it was taught by the Prophet. The
same cannot be said about the teaching of
Moses in his original language
or precisely as was taught by Moses
or the revelation that was given to Jesus
and was taught by
Jesus. Now I want to read one single
thing about one of the most critical people
even of Islam
who wrote
the life of Prophet Muhammad, his name is
Sir William Meyer. Now when I use a
reference, you notice that I use Christian references
and I give you a specific name and
everything
instead of just giving you a a
unknown reference.
There is probably this was written 2 centuries
ago.
There is probably in the world
no other book
which has remained
12 centuries
with so pure a text.
Now this was 2 centuries ago, now we
can say it is 14 centuries now. Now
you produce for me
a book
using the same measuring stick, the same criteria
that can match the Quran, I will be
more than delighted
to discuss it with you. Thank you. My
remaining minute will be just used to comment
on this question of abrogation.
Well, if you look into the bible quite
clearly, you will find that there have been
abrogation within the old like changing the place
of killing
or
sacrifice.
You will find abrogation between the old testament
and new testament when Jesus is interpreted to
have said that he forbid
divorce. You will find abrogation within the New
Testament itself. Jesus never ate pork yet. Paul,
you know, said that,
or Peter have his dream. And, Jesus himself
was circumcised. Paul, he said it was not
it was not beneficial. Now why on one
hand for example, we hear some of our
christian brethren like doctor Woodbury says, no, but
this is progressive
revelation, but when it comes to Islam, no.
This is a difficulty
with Islam.
In fact, if you look at it, in
the, in the proper sense really, you'll find
that one meaning of abrogation, one meaning of
it, actually is that nothing really is abrogated
but there have been a rule that superseded
the other for a certain purpose to get
people used and to move them from a
lower state to higher state. The classical example
of this is in the Quran.
The Islam came when people used to drink
like fish.
Now how could the Quran say stop drinking
immediately and you know that you need time
for detoxification?
So it started to discourage them. The first
verse say that
wine and alcohol may have benefits and harms
but the harms are more than benefit. And
then it moves one step further. Don't go
to prayer
when you're intoxicated. And since you have to
pray 5 times a day, the only time
you can drink is after night prayer so
that you can be sober enough for the
more early morning prayer.
Then finally came the final verse say don't
stop. It doesn't mean that the first two
are obligated. Still, you don't pray while you're
intoxicated.
Still it is true
that drinking
has more harms than benefit, but in terms
of legal
rule,
it has been totally forbidden for the muslim
to do. But there are more to be
said about abrogation also. Thank you.
All of you,
please. Okay.
Doctor.
Let me just say,
in reference to,
the text being the original
exactly as it was,
said by,
Mohammed
or conveyed
through Mohammed.
Again, I'm quoting from a Sayyuti
Itt Khan
part 2,
page 1.
Abdullah
ibn Umair reportedly
said, let none of you say I have
got the whole of the Koran.
How does he know what all of it
is?
Much of the Quran has gone.
Let him say instead,
I have got what has survived.
So, I'll give the reference in hadith because
there is a particular methodology to distinguish between
weak and fabricated,
words, and is a scholar who could make
the mistake. Can you give me whether this
is in the two important references in Habiz?
Is it in Bukhari or Muslim? But I
will give you yes. Bukhari,
give you an example. No. No. This is
not in Bukhari. What you're saying is not
in Bukhari. I know that question. No. No.
No. I said I will give you an
example
of the kind of thing. I'm not just
saying this part's missing. I think if you
have some familiarity Are you finished with this?
You finished with this? Yes. No. I'm not.
Sorry. I'm not. I'm not. I respond to
that. I'm merely saying
that, you were talking about
Sayyuti as being an example of textual criticism.
And Sayyuti, first of all,
quotes Abdullah ibn Amr is saying
that,
I have what has survived.
Let none of you say I have got
the whole Quran. How does he know what
it is? Much of the Quran has gone.
Now,
let me give 2 examples
of verses that are given
that are no longer
in the Koran.
One is This is this,
please.
One is Bukhari
quoting
Zaid,
A verse from Surah Ashab
was missed by me when we copied the
Quran.
I used to hear Allah's Apostle recite it.
So we searched and found it with
Al Ansari.
Sahih al Bukhari, volume 6, page 479.
It was
Surah 33 verse 23.
So here was one they found, but hadn't
been in the collection.
Here's another one, though, that,
Umar
this is in Ibn Ishaq,
Sirat,
Rasula,
page 684.
Umar refers to, quote, the passage on stoning,
end quote,
for adultery
and quoted in Ibn Ishaq.
But, apparently, it's not, in the present text.
So here are at least examples
of where Muslim scholars
are finding that, there are gaps
Okay. In the text.
Okay. First of all, I think we should
make it clear.
Again, that most of these references are none
of which is made to one
and a single authentic reference in Islam and
I respond to the quotation that you refer
to Bukhari which is again misunderstood,
misinterpreted.
When you refer to as Syyuti,
ibn Isha or ibn Kathir,
lots of scholars have indicated that these were
scholars. They tried their best, but many of
them included in their collection
weak narration. They included sometimes a strong narration
and weak narration. That's why I was asking
you, what source of that?
Suppose you ought to say that, what is
his reference?
And since the science of hadith methodology and
verification has gone through a very meticulous stage.
Later scholars were able to sift through all
of these reports,
including whatever asyouth is a human being,
or others,
to point out to some of the weak
narration that they mentioned, and the stronger ones.
Furthermore, some scholars even would go farther than
that, And they say that some of those
writers,
including Abdelkater for example, might have assumed
that their readers are scholarly and they have
the means of verification and examining the authenticity
of stories so they just reported the stories
as they are without making commentary. This is
sometimes had been said about Ibn Isha.
Secondly,
when you're talking for example about the,
the narration
that somebody says that,
I don't have all the Quran, this was
a mistake on the part of Ibn Umar
and the other companions corrected him,
and like I said it does not appear
anywhere in any authentic collection of habeid.
The only one that you mentioned is the
one in Bukhary and that is gravely misunderstood.
That actually proves
that the main way of preserving
the Quran has been memorization.
Writing in full was there but the most
important single one was memorization.
How did Zayd know that there is one
verse missing?
He meant he meant here missing in writing.
In other words, his function
was to verify the written manuscript
with the memorizers of the Quran in public.
So he knew that there is one verse
missing that means he memorized it, He knows
it and that's why he's looking around. And
it happened
that unlike other verses in the Quran that
you find 5, 6 or more
manuscripts
containing the same verse many people have written
at that time, it so happened that that
aya or that verse at that time was
only available with Khuzayna. By the way, it
doesn't mean that this was the only writing
because other companions were away in other parts
of the Muslim land and maybe they had
the manuscripts with them. So he found that
written one which means that he knew that
something was there. So all of these arguments
really seem to miss 2 important points. 1st,
the methodology of verification of hadith, and many
of the christian writers unfortunately keep fishing for
some of those weak narration, and they leave
aside the tremendous
consistent evidence that is found
in the Quran itself about itself, as well
as in the more authentic side of hadith.
The second problem with them also
is again the
the lack of understanding that the Quran was
preserved by memorization,
and Al Hallas did not have any modification
of the Quran for your information,
what was added later on was vowel signs
in accordance with the way Muslims memorized the
Quran generation
after generation directly
from the mouth of the Prophet.
Well, I'm not gonna
jump in to the, this phrase, but I
would say that,
please do it if you have some. No
problem. That, if you would say, you know,
here's the Quran, the word of God and
underline the the, then, of course,
if I believed it was the word of
God as Muslims do, then, of course, one
would become a Muslim.
So I think we come back to the
whole idea of, the concept of revelation.
Can it be a word from God?
Is there a word of God in the
Quran
for me? I would say yes.
I would say that there are verses and
and
sections that are very moving.
And when I read them,
I feel that,
there is a a message that God, can
have a word for me through through the
Quran.
For me, of course,
the the norm is the is the New
Testament,
is the the gospel.
If in a sense,
the Quran,
denies
or contradicts
or goes against
what I have
believed to be true about Jesus the Christ,
about the gospel? Let me suggest that we
stick to the topic.
Because we keep staying to the minister. Okay.
Yes. Let's stay. Yes. That's fine. He's still
having a point. I see his point. He
does have a point.
That that that is the that is the
New Testament that norms
that norms my reading of the Quran. So
I would say, yes, it can be for
me a word from God.
And that there are
parts of it,
where I feel that that this is true.
I mean,
obviously, if I believe it like you did,
then one would become a Muslim. I'll take
a few seconds and let my colleague say,
I think you're like Are you finished doctor
Vagular first? Technically, technically. Are you done with
your statement?
Well, then I I would also want to
say that,
I think that within as as I read
the Quran and listened to Muslims that talk
about the Quran
as the uncreated word of God, that there
is the same problem there as Christians have
within the incarnation.
That is,
there is the the.
There are the words, the paper, the the
ink, which can be torn up and
burned if you will, destroyed.
But there is also the Kalam
of God in the Quran, which cannot be
destroyed.
Okay? Even if you destroy the Quran as
a book,
you cannot destroy as it were the column
of God.
And Muslims have gone on to say that
there is a distinction between the Kalam of
God and the that of God.
Okay?
It's a distinction,
a
there. I would say that from a Christian
point of view, as I've reflected on this
over the years, that Christians have said
that there is the the the Kalima, if
you would, would be like the humanity
of Jesus.
And that the Kalam
God would be like the divinity
of Jesus.
And that just as Muslims make a distinction
between the column of God and the that
of God.
So Christians make a distinction between
the son of God or Jesus as we
we use the analogy, the son of God,
and the,
the the father. It's a distinction.
It's not a difference.
It's not 2 gods.
God stayed in heaven and sent Jesus.
But that there is this distinction
that is drawn
between the 2. That's why we
need the, the the doctrine of the trinity.
Thank you.
Thank you. Sure. I think, it would be
unfair to the Muslim side to raise many
questions about the Quran, and take the time
to make testimonial about topic that has been
covered before.
We heard that so many times, the testimony.
Let's
devote the time to respond to the questions
raised. And I believe that
doctor Bogler, I think you have been nitpicking
when you say, 3 books. I never said
or implied at all that the Quran is
the only word of God, that would actually
contradict what the Quran it says itself says
that God revealed His revelation, I. E. His
word also to previous prophets. But since you
know Arabic, when you read for example in
in the surah Allah, here does not appear
with the article
yet when you translate it into English, you
have to use to make the meaning flowing.
Otherwise, you translate it so that he hears
word of God or words of God. You
have to use that. So I think it's
a sort of sticking really to to technicality.
Even the Quran in Surat Al Baqarah, when
it says
The Book. It does not mean that there
was no other book, because the Qur'an said
to say the word. But it means that
book, far excellence,
at the present time, when the Quran was
revealed, this is that only book that is
purely and completely word of God, purely and
completely
preserved. So it's not really nitpicking on the
use of that. Thank you.
To read in English.
As his norm to when he approaches
the Quran.
I have no no problem with that none
whatsoever but we have to put things in
perspective
and we have to compare apples with apples.
So when it comes to the authenticity
of the books and the wood comes to
the preservation of the books, we have also
to compare apples with apples.
So I have here with me the King
James version of the bible with to which
I have referred to earlier and I have
the reference for, doctor Woodbury about the date
also of John.
And I find it very interesting
that in the book of Revelation, in the
introduction of it, it says
through the ages
some doubt has been cast about upon the
authenticity
of this book.
Now,
I don't see how you can compare that
into the Quran, How how or how can
you use that to judge the Quran if
the Christian writers themselves and Christian theologians themselves
in the King James version,
telling us us
that authenticity
of it has No, it is not on
the topic, I'm I'm responding to his remark,
that he's judging it based on the new
testament.
So how can you judge the Quran based
on the new testament in which Christian scholar
themselves are doubting the authenticity of the books
of
the
New
Testament?
Say, first of all, whatever notes are in
there weren't put in by the King James
writers because they only translated,
the scriptures. So I don't know who put
in the notes there.
But I read you more recent scholarship,
which makes the writing of John
even earlier than previously thought
and, certainly within the lifetime of John. And
then what's interesting about that is we have
the John Rylands papyri from,
the year
130.
We've got
written materials
in a very comparable way to what you
have for the Quran.
Written materials
that
come,
after a period of oral tradition.
I'm just Doctor, that will just be Plaster.
Yeah.
Well, in any case, I think that all
belonged in the last,
session anyway. And the discussion about the New
Testament or the Bible.
But in any case, I just wanted to
say that I think that now and then
both sides have been guilty of one thing,
and that's sort of in I don't know.
You know, probably myself as well.
Been guilty of interpreting things to suit ourselves.
And just to give 2 quick examples. 1,
as doctor Bedouet mentioned, is the one about
Mary,
being the sister of Aaron. I think when
we take an approach like that, we do
have to realize that we have to give
the benefit of the doubt to the the
culture that it comes from and the setting
that it comes from.
When we say that, you know, Mary is
the and the Muslim offers in response that
that's a typical type of expression
in the Semitic culture. That has to be
taken with a high degree of legitimacy. And
it always pains me when I see,
critics of, Islam make those sort of statements.
Similarly, I could say about a statement in
the New Testament, for example, just as comparison.
I don't
believe that this is, the office intention. But
when Paul says, Jesus is the rock from
which the children of Israel received water in
the desert,
I don't think he's committing a terrible anachronism
there or that he's, committing pantheism.
I know that in that cultural setting that
that,
symbol was used before to say something about
the divine word. And knowing that, I know
that he's not, guilty of what I say.
So I think we have to give some
benefit to the context, the cultural context.
The other point I wanted to make is
though I do wanna stress one other point
doctor Bedouin made. And I think it's
for American Muslims, those that have become Muslim,
this is a very important point.
And they've been very impressed by this part
about the Quran. I wish we could discuss
it more. If people have objections, they could
raise it more. The Quran does seem to
always leave itself,
out and out or not even an out.
As doctor Bedouin said, when it discusses certain
elements of,
a natural
science, for example, it seems to be,
have a remarkable,
similarity to what we have come to know.
And the other thing is even more importantly,
it doesn't really seem to contradict
what we what we have, accepted as
scientific fact. And this has really impressed,
many American Muslims. For example, I mean, in
the,
there's just no blatant contradictions.
For example, in the new testament at some
place, Paul says that,
if you,
just like our resurrection is sort of like
a seed. A seed has to die before
it could come to life.
And any scientist today will tell you, no,
that's not true. If a seed dies, it'll
never come to life.
The Quran uses similar sort of, and I
think it's a beautiful,
comparison anyway. But the Quran uses similar sort
of similarities, you know, from nature and things
to make, a greater points and reveal greater
truths. But the Muslim American Muslims that have
become Muslim
American that have become Muslim have been very
impressed by the fact that it doesn't really
like I said, it really can never be
cornered into showing that it's,
contradict some, well established,
fact or, contradicting something.
You know, I I'm not trying to, sell
Islam here, but I just think it's an
important point that doctor Bedouy made, and I
think it should be addressed.
Thank you. Please.
Well, I just wanna work The floor is
here. We'll work on two levels here. Dudley
was speaking some of the specifics
of the,
Quran
And, showing there are specific,
references
in the Quran that would give reason for
any honest observer to say that there appeared
to be inconsistencies and errors.
I was trying also to deal on this
higher level, and I frankly am not yet
quite satisfied that I have gotten an answer
to this whole issue of abrogation.
Because
even though you say that the abrogation is
in the Bible itself, remember the Bible is
spread out over centuries
and the the Koran is given in a
period for 22, 23
years. And so if there's a major change,
then this is something quite different,
in scope. And then another thing, in the
the Bible itself
never makes
it's
the book itself
in any way
to be a a manifestation
of an attribute of God.
So that for for a Christian
to,
have a change over time is something that
is within reason. A historical process is taking
place. But when almost within the blink of
an eye as it were within a short
23 year period,
you have presumably God saying one thing, which
is perfect and been there for eternity, and
then reverse
maybe not reversing it, but adding something
or changing something.
That raises the question philosophically
of, well, surely God could have done better
at the at the beginning.
Surely God, if he intended, he would know
this and he would be able to give
that, which is the, the perfect rendition of
his will rather than
making a correction. And then there was always
the problem of which, if there is abrogation,
which versus abrogate, what? And this is very
fuzzy and unclear.
It then renders the Koran itself subject to
anyone coming along in the name of Islam
and saying these verses are abrogated and these
are not. And then all the debates about
which, verses are aggregated. So then you're left
theoretically
with an authority.
But,
in practice, you don't of any any obligation
that causes theological problems. Just one example. Okay.
Well, if we ever get an eye or
consign it to oblivion, we offer something better.
Now No. I'm I'm giving you an example.
Okay. The wine. Something that's called this problem.
About the wine. Yeah. You talked about the
wine. So, this is one case,
where you have,
differences
there. Now your explanation maybe for you. It
doesn't stand for you. There's no difference. But
but you Are you denying that there's obligation?
What what is the difference? Are you denying
that there's obligation? You're asking me because because
I understand abrogation is different from the way
you're talking about. But I'm asking you something
for any more. What is the contradiction about
it? He's offering something better.
So there was something better. I have to
comment on that verse. And then, God gives
something better. Mhmm. Well,
why didn't God You know what? They were
best in the first place. I think Can
can you give an example? The question is,
is there an example so that we can
of an obligation that causes any theological argument?
Just the second one, Dejean. One example. That
there is no example, we can move to
another point. That is not a problem. 3
different standard kids. Well, I'm sure it's all
the movie. No problem. But I'm dealing with
the issue of aggregation itself. Can you do
that, sir? Which is principle of philosoph well,
you're getting off on a,
an issue that avoids the the thrust of
my point. My point is philosophically
here,
the the fact that you have an unchangeable
God,
a God who is omniscient.
He knows the end from the beginning.
He's creating he well, it's not creating. There
is a book that is that is eternal
with God. Okay. Well Fair enough. How what
is the explanation for this? Fair enough. Fair
enough. I must say in all due respect
that you seem to confuse
2 things.
One is known as nazq or abrogation, and
the other is known as bada.
Bada means actually basically
that God did something or decided on something
then he discovered that he was mistaken
and so so he had to change that
in a later time.
This idea is totally contrary to Islam. This
idea actually was upheld by Paul. For example,
in Hebrew chapter 7 verse 18, he says
that, when some, commandments has been, neglected or
negated, it is either because it is weak
or unusual, which means God at one time
give us weak or unusual commands.
Or for example, in Hebrew chapters,
8 verse 7, when he says that if
the first testament
was perfect, you would have not needed a
second testament.
So this,
nazk or obligation in that sense, that's not
nazk, that's actually bada. It is totally contrary
to Islam. They have been in the history
of Islam, some people who made that claim
but they were regarded as really totally out
with very minor
bubbles that came and went.
As far as our understanding of Nasq,
there are different views, yes on that, there's
no question about that. But I must bring
to your attention that if you look at
the context of the verse that you are
reciting to us,
that it doesn't deal with that at all.
It deals
with the jealousy that was shown by the
people of the book
when Allah chose to send a messenger from
the Arabs. You can go to the verses
before that.
See?
About the rahma of Allah of sending a
messenger from the Arabs,
then it says,
when Allah decides to again, nazkiyah does not
abrogate. The word abrogate is not quite correct.
Actually, I called it in my tips,
supersession. When Allah sends a command to supersede
a previous one,
he bring something
like it or better.
Which means,
that if Allah chose to send the Quran
because you they used also to question the
authority and authenticity of the Quran saying, why
do we need the Quran? The Bible is
there. So the Quran came to respond to
them,
Whenever we supersede a previous revelation, I. E.
The Bible,
we would bring something like it or better
I. E. The Quran. This is the context
of the verse.
The example you have given us which is
the sole example, you didn't give actually, The
sole example I gave myself. I took initiative
of raising it, about drinking.
Has absolutely nothing to do with the question
of implementation of Islamic law or any theological
question. No theology involved.
Nor does it have anything to do with
the implementation of Islamic law because there is
ample information
available
And have
this about what happened about the gradual prohibition
of drinking.
It does not negate the first two verses
because still, like I said earlier,
you should not pray while while you are
in touch again. It's not abrogated.
It's simply superseded that you get a stronger
command from Allah as He, in His divine
wisdom also, they use the term progressive,
used also commands to get people gradually from
the state of jahriyah or ignorance they were
on to the state of purity which required
to give them some time to get detoxified.
But as far as implementing the law,
now of course drinking is totally prohibited.
But it doesn't mean actually the fact that
it remains in the Quran shows that it
is the word of Allah. As far as
saying that Allah did not know that, this
is totally irrelevant. Allah knew also that human
being evolved in stages,
at some times he might reveal certain things
to certain people.
The legal aspect could change over time, but
the basic theology, the basic
information about Allah, the hereafter,
purity, moral teaching, we don't believe that this
has been subject to any obligation. Legal aspect
could undergo some superstition as I prefer to
call it. We have some medical experts today.
This is what medical experts today talk
about gradual withdrawal
from alcohol
and this was established in the Quran 1400
years ago.
So this actually
confirms
1400 years ago there was no medical doctor
in Arabia
to to fully understand that if you are
an alcoholic,
you cannot just
get away from the bottle like that there
was a gradual
thing. So that in itself is a miraculous
arrangement
and that shows that God Almighty knows the
nature of alcohol and knows the nature of
the human more than you and I knew
and more than the scientist knew. Thank you.
So tell me now, please.
Well,
I was troubled
when I was studying,
at the University of Riyadh under a Muslim
professor
when,
he would say
on occasion,
here are the rules of Arabic,
and then he would,
say the Quran is different here.
Because
this only
concerns me because,
the Quran is given as the standard
of,
Arabic.
And, let me just refer to,
one which,
Muslim scholars themselves
are aware of,
and there are others like this.
But for example, in
Sura 2,
verse 177,
you have
2
words that are in a parallel
structure.
And, you have,
in the nominative
or the,
yes.
In the non
in the non adjective
case. But then in the the same grammatical
structure,
in a poetic grammatical structure,
you have,
which is
accusative or genitive. It is not the normative
case.
And,
if,
one of the evidences
that the Quran is the word of God
is that it is
perfect Arabic,
unless you just say that this is
perfect, and so the grammar rules are wrong.
This
this at least raises questions.
Would you please, just just a second. Would
you explain
this problem? It's it's a grammatical
It's not problem at all. Problem and grammar.
So It's not problem at all. No. No.
For for the,
for the benefit of the audience, explain the
first No. I'm not going through that. Essentially,
the 2 words,
the first word is Mufun and Nami. That
is the subject. It should be instead of
Salve.
Would put it, the parallel word in the
nonlinear. That's what you're saying. It should should
have been instead of
normal rules of grammar.
Number 1, I must say that actually,
when the Quran challenged the Arabs,
it was so beautiful and so perfect that
the Quran itself
was used
by the literalists themselves
to set new rules even of the Arabic
language, number 1. Number 2, I'd like to
refer to you to a book that I
did check,
by doctor
the one who was fascinated in Lebanon,
doctor
And you find that some of the superficial
remarks made sometimes by some literalists, I'm not
talking about non muslims, even some muslims themselves
about rules of Arabic are too superficial because
he this is a very scholarly work
that indicates that in fact, there are sometimes
lots
of exceptions to the rules which is built
in in the Arabic language, which is acknowledge
even in terms of the literally works that
has been done even before Islam. So there
is no problem at all with that. Number
3, I refer you also to another thing
that even explains it further and better.
The works of, Sheikh Mohammed Mutwali Shaharawi,
whose specialty,
specialty actually, is the analysis. Why the Quran
put it this way and not that way?
So on the superficial service on the surface
of it. A linguist might say, alright, that
seems to be a departure from the commonly
held rule in the Arabic language. But it
is the duty of a mufassil
like Sheikh Jarrah when he points out in
the most amazing way that for each of
these variations in terms of the departure from
a common,
grammatical
rule, which is not ultimate anyway, common grammatical
rule, there's a very good and awful reason
behind that. Let me just give you one
quick example of this that may sound on
the surface again as contradiction. I have an
answer. You have an answer also? Okay. I'll
explain myself.
Okay.
We haven't hear the the the answer yet
to the to the example that he called
it. So, please I say, he referred to
the linguist.
Walmophon
refers to,
people who fulfill their commitments. Right?
It's coming in the, subjective way.
The word
it is a reflection of a status.
That's why it use the edge
the the adverb rather than
the the subject status.
And that is very well known grammatically in
Arabic,
I can check with you, I have the
references, I can show them to you. If
you're not satisfied, I'll take you home at
my own expenses.
But as you are, you see,
the sovereign, those who are patient, we're talking
about a continuous status.
But the ones who are Mufun,
they fulfill,
they fulfill.
It is talking about a subject
versus an object, they fulfill their promises, they
fulfill their commitment. But the Sabrine it is
not they they Sabaro,
it is they have been sovereign.
Did I answer your question, doctor Ben? Well,
you gave an answer. I'm not sure it's
the correct answer. And, again, I'm not a
great Arab scholar, but,
it's certainly if the Quran is in plain
Arabic as it says it is, so that
the,
common reader should be able
to understand it in that day. Not necessarily
so. Excuse me. The common reader
of the Bible
cannot understand the Bible without asking a scholar.
Just apply the simple rule to the Quran.
Give us what you give to the Bible
reader. Leader. Well, I'm I'm saying I'm quoting
the Quran when it says it is in
plain Arabic.
What We have we have 4 minutes, please.
So let's just restrict ourselves to Yeah. Concluding
this part. Let's just say this has caused
Muslim scholars,
and this is just one example,
has caused Muslim scholars
the the example that has linguists.
Thank you. May I may I, Salim?
May I, please?
Thank you. There's another verse I want to
draw your attention to the verse that says,
It uses the same thing, an emphasis of
the repetitive act.
This is a rule that is known in
Arabic as well. In poet, people use the
same thing in poet. The poet use
the special rules of the special meaning
by giving the continuous,
status of something rather than giving it the
normal one. Thank you. Doctor Gaglar, please. Just
a question, when,
when Muslims approach the Quran from a hermeneutical
point of view, what are some of the
questions that are asked of the text?
And I think, you know, if we could,
have a list of those questions that
that the Mufasa run would ask of any
text as they approach it. I think this
might help us to see how we perhaps
approach
the the text in different ways. What would
be some of questions, the hermeneutical questions that
they ask?
I'd rather address the question that was raised
earlier because I think that is more important.
I think there is a distinction between grammar
as one of the sub areas in the
study of Arabic, and
the science of eloquence or Balaga. And Balara
does not necessarily follow all the rules of
gram and that's well known in Arabic, again
you can check
by doctor Sofia Salih on this. And just
to give you one example of this, that's
something that would strike a superficial observer at
something which is untenable in the Quran.
Yet,
not the grammar would solve that problem. 2
verses in the Quran.
One says, don't kill your children
because of feminism. Don't kill your children
for fear
of poverty
because we provide for them
and for you.
Another verse says, don't kill your children because
of
poverty,
we provide
for
you
and for them. And some people say that
what what is that repetition, the Quran? Why
in one time it says,
we provide for them and you, even though
they have not been born yet
or just small. In one case, it says
we provide for you and them. Why is
the difference? Is that just a kind of
playing with words? No. If you look at
it carefully as Sheikh Jarrah explained, and that
again no no grammatical,
grammatician can explain.
It says in the first verse, it says,
don't kill your children
for fear of future poverty, which means you
may not be poor now,
but you're afraid if you have children that
you may get poor, that you will share
the the wealth that you
have. So the more appropriate thing is to
assure you that when the child arrives, he
arrives with a provision, with the risk. So,
what is needed to assure the person more
is that, don't worry about the future provision
for that child, God will provide for that
child as He provides for you. Whereas in
the other verse, it says don't kill your
child because of poverty, because you are poor
now, because we provide for you and them.
Don't worry, you are poor now. We provide
for you and for them. This is one
of the most amazing and there are hundreds
of examples like that, so let's not call
gram officials, let's refer also to those who
understand the Quran. Thank you. You still have
a have a point here to make? Can
you repeat your question, doctor Khan? I didn't
really get your point. Well, when, when a,
a preacher or a, Mufassar,
interpreter in approaches the Quranic text, what are
some of the questions that he asks of
the text? How are the texts? In order
to in order to interpret it properly,
What?
Okay. There are number of questions, and actually
many of this question developed into separate sciences
of the Quran. It is wrong to say
that there is a science of the Quran.
There are sciences of the Quran that are
voluminous, and I get surprised when people say,
Oh Muslim did not expose the scripture in
the same way that Christian did for critical
examination. And one of those sciences, first of
all, to interpret the Quran, first of all,
you have to read it and refer to
the linguistic
origin.
The word,
what do these words mean in the Arabic
language.
Secondly,
you have to consider Balakah because Quran is
the ultimate of eloquence.
You have to consider also the usage, and
the variations of use, and what secrets could
be behind it just like the 2 verses
I analyze now.
Number 3,
if there is information available and often times
it is, about the reasons for revelation,
that is the Quran was revealed to comment
on certain events. It doesn't mean that it's
not eternal, because God knew
from time immemorial that these events are going
to happen, and this His word to give
the command.
So you have to find out the reason
of revelation or else you will be misinterpreting
the verse.
Number 4,
you have to consider also
how that particular verse fit in the section
where it is mentioned. Just like,
the comment made earlier
about the Quran, about abrogation or bringing something
better. If you relate it to the verse,
it speaks about God replacing the Bible with
the Quran. Simple and pure, so you have
to see the context of the section.
5, you have to see the context of
the surah also, or the chapter of the
Quran, where it deals with this. 6, you
cannot interpret it in a way that would
contradict
other texts in the Quran because the Quran
was not written by several authors, it's all
revealed at one time through one person. So
if Quran explains itself, so one cannot pick
and choose and say the Quran says here
and then ignore other verses that deal with
the sense of ji, collect all the text.
Number 6, and this is very important,
as that as the Quran itself direct muslims,
whoever obeys the Prophet, he is obeying Allah,
which means that a second primary, not secondly.
I mean, a second primary source
of Islam,
is the authentic authenticated.
I'm not saying the we. Authenticated
hadith of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him,
because he shed light
on, on the interpretation and understanding
of the Quran.
Number 8, you could also re ask a
question as to how, if you don't have
enough indication of this, how did the companions
of the Prophet who were close to him,
who absorbed the knowledge of Islam through the
example, words and the action of the Prophet,
understood it. Not necessarily that I decided decisive
as his word, but he shed some light
on that understanding. These are some of the
fundamental questions before
one starting up to conclusion that it's Thank
you.
I have to ask some We have to
conclude, so I have to ask some quick
points, 1 minute or less. 1 minute.
Make it less then. Okay. See,
one one major point doctor Jaggal is that
the Quran has been revealed in Arabic.
So if,
doctor Chastain cannot say as
I say it, I wonder how would he
do when he goes into the Quran, reading
the Quran itself. And that's a simple word.
I'm
not speaking, but just it is the the
fact that,
the language is important. I don't know Arabic.
If I have a book in Arabic, and
I study Arabic for 2 years or 10
years, that doesn't make me an Arabic.
But I go to the references.
So being an Arab,
is important.
And the Arab is a person
who can read,
write, speak, and understand Arabic. Anyone who can
is finished. Okay. Now may I just respond
to that since you referred to me?
I am very sorry I'm not an Arab
expert. I'm sorry about that. But there's an
implication here that's that's very important.
If god is giving a book
that is showing the way of light,
and then
if there's no way that that can be
adequately translated.
It means that there's an ethnocentrism
built into the very revelation of God. There
is a limitation. Only the person
who has the money or the opportunity
or the chance
to learn Arabic
can actually get at the truth. And this
is fundamentally unfair to the bulk of the
world, which is not Arabic. And so the
the very idea shows a certain,
ethnocentric,
ethnocentrism,
which to me suggests
that this is not,
given to the entire world or is given
to the entire world.
It imposes upon them
an obligation which they will not be able
to fulfill because how can I judge the
Koran if I live
in,
Zimbabwe
or if I live in China Get the
translation in your language? Opportunity,
and I have and I cannot evaluate whether
this is a unique, book at all.
So,
your your point, I think, is a double
edged,
weapon. It is a disprove of the uniqueness.
I beg your pardon, please.
And I would like to conclude. Exactly. So
we have to conclude and then come back.
We still have I have one and a
half hour. We can extend that. Topic. Please.
Okay.
We'll come back to the same topic. Please.
We have now a break. It's the time
for the break. Thank you very much, and
we'll come back to the same time. A
chance.
A
say a little bit more that development of
things I've already said further, but I don't
need to.
Is there, do you wanna raise the question
of,
of what are their struggles and so forth?
Or don't you feel they'll be willing to
answer?
Herman Eunice?
I mean, he he listened, but he knows
when you approach the pranic text.
And,
when we approach the bible,
what are the questions that we even ask
of the text
to say? Historical grammatical
historical?
Yes. Historical
grammatical.
Authorship.
And we have a lot of I think
we have a part of different set of
questions.
And we
Okay. But is there anything more you're anxious
to say? Well, I was just gonna I
thought it might be we'd have somebody at
the end to go over and maybe bring
up the I don't know
him to Getting time out now.
I thought the minimum, the other 5 at
the minimum number, and then all the 30
or something. I wanted to acknowledge in general.
So I didn't expect to have to justify
that because I Yes. So I didn't bring
a list with me. I looked at what
I have list.
But I do have 2. Couple of them
right here. Did you have your car on
this?
You finished your thumb log? 186
You'll have to repeat it so we can
repeat it.
I mean, you want me to repeat my
statement?
You want me to repeat my statement? But
No. I I have to challenge me and
I I answered back. I have Is that
what you want me to repeat or what?
I thought I would start raising my hand
now. Okay.
Is that tense?
Oh, well,
I just wanted to make an observation about
the
business of translations of the Quran.
For Muslims,
this, had been a an important issue at
some stage.
Muslims have always
guarded somewhat not a painful issue, but a
very important issue. It was there was a
slight bit of controversy attached to it.
The question arose,
faced with the fact that over 85% of
the Muslim population was at some at at
a certain stage, non Arab.
How to,
get the Muslim,
Ummah
to the great majority of the Muslim Ummah
to understand,
their revelation.
And after some debate, it was finally decided
that,
it was alright, of course, to interpret the
Quran and other languages and such interpretations were
were made.
And, of course, I'm a product of that.
And the
at least my becoming a Muslim.
And, the only thing I would like to
contribute to that, and the only other
only further observation I would like to make
is that it does show that with what
strictness,
Muslims always try to guard the integrity of
the Quran.
They felt that,
they even considered the fact that by interpreting
it on other languages,
you somehow could, lead to misunderstandings.
But of course, the necessity outweighs that caution.
The last point I would like to make
about that is,
let's see. What else do I have around
him? No. I guess that's a more or
less about it. Is this true? Yeah. If,
shocker, you would like to add something to
use?
Excuse.
Oh, I know what I wanted to say.
Shaka, just let me finish this point. There
is a critical issue that Muslims always stress.
And that is when, since the Quran is
the revealed word of God in
Arabic, any, translation of the Quran is not
really considered,
Muslims avoid using the term translation.
They would rather use the term interpretation.
Because every translation, technically,
from any language into another language, really is,
interpretation in any case. But once again, that's
the idea of being technically correct in saying
that a translation or an interpretation is not
the same as the original word of God.
I I don't know. I just thought that
was, a point that I should,
address. You have something?
Likewise with with any
language,
the language is a vehicle of meanings.
And there is no 2 languages who are
100% compatible.
So when, the Quran was named
as a clear pure Arabic tongue in which
the Quran was revealed.
It is also a hint from God Subhanahu
Wa Ta'ala.
That this Quran is there to be
forever in this tongue forever.
And that's also one of the miracles of
the Quran that for 1400
years until today, it is still recited in
Arabic. Those who memorize the Quran from the
non Arabs
are much more outnumbered
to the number of Arabs who memorize the
Quran.
Not only that,
Bukhari who is the first,
book recognized after the Quran as the most
authentic collection of the teachings of the Prophet,
is collected and compiled by a man called
himself,
attributed to him. He is a non Arab.
2nd to it is a book, Muslim,
also is made by
an imam from Nasivor,
little bit in southern Russia.
The great mufakter Al Khortobi
is from Spain. He was also a non
Arab. So, Arabic has never been
a hindrance
factor
in the way of understanding
or even reaching the degree of scholarship,
in, the knowledge and the the mastery of
the Quran and the knowledge of Islam. I'm
not talking about scholarship. I'm sure there are
many profound Muslim scholars
or non Arab Muslim scholars.
My point that I was making is that
Christians
glory in the fact that the Bible is
translatable,
and it is authoritative in the various languages
that it goes into.
We are not locked into 1
necessarily one,
language. And this is a kind of a
linguistic ethnocentrism
that Christianity doesn't have, because the premise from
the very beginning is that this is going
to be a universal faith.
But I, as an American, feel that if
forever I will be locked out,
because I I don't have the time or
the opportunity or what, for whatever reason, the
money it takes to go study Arabic,
that I will never be able to assess,
really,
whether the Quran meets its claims. Because all
ultimately,
the the coup the Islamic religion is based
on the Quran. And if I can't get
at the source then,
according to to Islamic doctrine,
then I am always, in a sense, a
second class citizen spiritually.
And unless I am willing to be Arabized,
and then this is what you may have
to have. The world has to be, as
it were, Arabized in order for it to
come into the fullness of the understanding of
the Islamic of, the religion.
Now this this to me is an argument
against,
my accepting the religion.
Yes. Americans,
or non non Arab speaking Muslims,
I'm sure don't feel left out of the
community. But if you if that's your interpret
or if that's what your fear is, they'll
assure you they're not. But the point of
it is, is is that
even they do even a non Arabic speaking
Muslim acknowledges that, you know, he he could
he'll might approach this in several ways. He
might get 6 or 7 different interpretations and
compare them and try to get a little
bit closer. Like you said, many do try
to learn Arabic. I've been studying it for
4 years now. But the issue is really,
he knows that sometimes what he's reading
is somebody's understanding of it. And this is
the best he could do with.
It's a practical,
disadvantage.
But on the other hand, we do appreciate
that sometimes what we might be reading is
not quite accurate. For example, there's a verse
in the Quran that says,
and it goes like that. And it says,
read in the name of your Lord who
created created,
created man from a and it's the word
used is alak.
And in most English translations, so this is
just a brief example. In most English translation,
they translate that word as blood clot
because it rhymes with the thing and it
sounds nice,
in English. But a matter of fact, that
word does does not say God created you
of a blood clot. The original Arabic, if
you go back to the ancient Arabic lexicons,
is created you from a clinging, tiny worm
like creature. That's the way it was understood
in the early days of,
of,
beef in the even before Islam. So, before,
the Quran was revealed. The point of it
is is that for that's a significant statement.
For
for Muslims,
that's a very significant
sign. It's here the Quran is saying that
we created you from a tiny little clinging
thing. Now some,
worm like
clinging creature. And for Muslims, they see that
as, rightly or wrongly, as a sign. They
see that as a sign of when we
are first created in the womb. We are
indeed a tiny little clinging worm like
creature clinging to their the sides of the
uterine wall. And there are other verses in
the Quran that definitely show that when the
Quran speaks of alak, it's talking in the
context of a creature in the womb
because it talks about the various stages of
development in the womb. And again, it uses
this word, alak.
The only point I'm trying to make,
strictly speaking, is is that that if you
divert when you translate into another language, that
what for Muslims
is a potent sign
of the divine origins of the Quran is
lost.
But that doesn't mean that doesn't mean he's
not going to learn the fundamental moral virtues
that he's Correct. Supposed to pursue,
or what the meaning of life is for
a Muslim. What is the meaning of the
purpose of life? All these things could probably
be gained through, translation. If that is so
important, apparently, has been lost upon,
it will, it will be lost upon all
those Muslims who don't know Arabic or and
other people who were thinking about it. It
also apparently has been lost upon to millions
of Muslims in the century.
Let me ask you the question. Doctor. Was
god was man created from a clot or
a worm or dust?
I thought there were two references in the
Quran to Yes. Well, let me let me
answer this. Is there is there a contradiction
there? Maybe not. You would say no, of
course. No. That's a beautiful question. And you
know I'm gonna say no. You don't go
after the question you answered it. Yes. Thank
you. Okay. I'll find out But the point
here is is that the Quran does say
that all human beings are made of, clay.
Of course, that means that our,
not not just our ancestors, but actually our
body composition is very much similar to clay.
But the other point is is and you
missed my point is that when the Quran
uses the word alak in other context,
it's talking
about the individual in the womb
very clearly in several places in the Quran.
So we're we have a differentiation
here. But like I said, I don't expect
you if you don't wanna agree with that
or you wanna disagree with that, that's fine.
But the point is still valid that for
Muslims, they feel
that, a knowledge of Arabic helps them to
appreciate some of these beautiful signs. They could
gain knowledge of those signs to the works
of Muslim writers who write and translate into
English and help share that with them. I'm
sure, but the point of it is is
I think what we're doing here is we're
harping on a very obvious point.
That yes, you don't have the same access
to the divinely revealed word if you don't
understand Arabic fluently. But nonetheless,
you could still appreciate
it on a very high level and you
could eventually gain. I think we're just grabbing
for straws here. Don't we have anything more,
vital to talk about? Okay. I think we
have some I think we have some more
vital.
Oh, thank you.
Is it possible to allow another minute or
2 just to add something to this? Just
to finish with this. I think as the
Quran itself
explains, We have not sent God says, we
have not sent any messenger except in the
language of his people, so as to explain
to them. And the same thing happened with
all of the prophets. If prophet Moses started
to speak, Polish,
they want to understand him. If Jesus was
speaking in Chinese,
he would not be able to communicate with
them, number 1. Number 2, in the case
of the Quran in particular, there are many
aspects that it challenged people, their spirituality, their
mind,
their, attitude towards the Quran.
And, of course, to come in a place
in the world at that time that used
to pride itself on the ultimate of eloquence
of the Arabic language. It has to be
in that language to challenge them and to
show them indeed that it is not from
Allah.
3, the question of translation of the Quran
is no problem. And the fact that some
scholars were hesitant to that, they may have
their own reasons, but there is nothing in
the Quran that say that you cannot translate
the meaning and communicate it to other people.
In fact, Muslims did when they went to
other parts of the most of the world.
Fourthly, there is nothing ethnocentric
about it as the prophet explained
to listen.
Arabic is a tongue, which means that they
have been in history, and names has been
given already by brother. There are many other
names even in in now in Pakistan and
India. I find some people who speak Arabic
more fluently and know it better. So they
it is not to be tied to 1
ethnic group, but simply to the language, original
language of revelation, which is open for all
Muslims.
And finally, just took the two points. 1
is the question of,
how do you know, how do you assess
the miraculous ness of the Quran, and could
that cause confusion? The answer is no.
If I don't know much about medicine,
and I find that all the people who
are really most famous in the medical field
admitted certain fact. I don't have to be
a physician myself. I don't have to understand
their jargon.
So by the same token, for a person
who doesn't even understand Arabic, including some Arabs,
oh, by the way, who are not well
well ingrained in the language.
Having seen the witness and testimony of the
best
minds, the best epoch of Arabic eloquence, that
should be sufficient,
indication that indeed it was a challenge. But
if I if I'm not happy, we learn,
we take courses, I can learn Arabic and
challenge it myself if I'm not, pleased with
this. On the other hand, when it comes
to the,
variations and understanding,
this is not existent in the matter of
centuries of faith.
Whatever translation of meaning of the Quran you
get, you're still talking about the 5 daily
prayers, you're talking about Zakah, about siyam. In
the matter of belief, there is no confusion.
But it could make a difference, sir.
It could make a difference. Yes.
In some of the verses pertaining to science,
which lead a scientist really to understand and
to dwell as doctor Buke and others did,
with Biden's or with the help of Arabic
scholars. Can we make it shorter? Yeah. What
was the original, expression on this? Finally, the
question that you say about, a possible contradiction.
No contradiction. If you read the verse completely,
that's the problem again with you and with
due respect to doctor Woodbury also.
Quoting one half of the verse. Doctor Woodbury
sometimes calls the first half, this time you
quote it the second half. Because in surah
al Noon, in surah number 23 it
says,
we created the human from a quintessence
of dust, which means of the same material
of dust or could be the primordial type
of creation. And then,
Then we made explosion
of Again, the question of Allah or
the liquid. This is in the same verse,
but you caught it the second half without
the first. Oh, thank you, doctor Dimas.
You just winded the worm understanding of the
Okay. I didn't say worm. The word What?
Alap in Arabic has two meaning. Where, the
Alaq has two meaning. 1, just just explain,
I think he was just was approximating the
meaning.
And this we find in the book by
doctor Bokeh and his article.
Alak literally Alak literally mean something that's cleanse.
And anyone who knows Arabic,
Something that clings which is a very accurate
description of the fertilized ovum as it clings
to the lining of the uterus.
Another meaning of also is the leech.
A leech leech like. And doctor Bouquet has
produced and have it also in an article
here. Amazingly, My question is when did this
occur? Just a minute. Leech like, he produced
a shape of the embryo in the early
stages, and surprisingly it looked exactly
like the leech. So whether you interpret it
as leech like, you're correct.
Whether you interpret it as something that clink,
it's correct because that leech like
thing clinks.
Just for the people When did they translation
that to Jiffy Carr? We never heard this
before. It was before Bukhail or is this
just since his writings? No. I
can answer that because I heard doctor Bouquet
speaking about that himself.
Doctor Bouquet and other scientist in Egypt as
well,
they were not satisfied with the available translations
when it came to examination of areas that
they do have background on. And what they
did, they consulted the Arabic lexicon.
That there were deficiencies
in this translation. But it did not affect
the beliefs, it did not affect the Muslim
prayers,
it did affect
our understanding. It increased our understanding and our
reflection on the Quran the more we discover
about it. I I think the analogy could
seem May I may I just move to
them first before we come to you? I
would like to No. I will. I Oh,
at least let me correct myself
on a reference. I gave you the wrong
reference. It's supposed to be in the 90
thing story.
This is not there. About this point. Yeah.
I I just wanna know the time when
this occurred. Is it a new interpretation? Because
it seems like it begins with the time
of this book. Can I answer that for
him, please? Sure. Go ahead. Okay. No. I
think he's right. We do not have to
argue about the scientific fact in it. The
little scientist, the people who specialize in science,
non Muslims speak for themselves. Oh, well, what's
the This is doctor Keith Moore,
professor of embryology,
the head of the dean
of the School of Medicine,
the University of Toronto.
He is a Baptist. He is the son
of a Baptist preacher. He is not a
Muslim.
Now the man who is the top, one
of the top 3 experts in his field,
in the world,
writes a book known as the developing embryo
and you are more than welcome to examine
it. And he makes a specific statement
that all modern research has not been able
to come up with one
single
statement that contradicts
one single verse in the Quran
or in the Hadith. Now doctor Buke,
embryology.
Now doctor Buke,
a French Catholic,
he is not a Muslim.
He write, he deals with all the scientific
facts. Now he write a book, the Bible,
the Quran
and modern science.
And you can read his own conclusion
that he cannot find one single
or modern science cannot come up with one
single statement that contradicts one single
verse in the Quran and this is not
true for the bible.
This is a French catholic,
this is a Canadian birth. These are not
muslims, and you are more than welcome to
examine their work. Well, you see, the point
is, if you look at biblical,
interpretation of the old testament, you can find
people who will find prophecies of automobiles,
tanks,
airplanes,
all kinds of modern inventions. Okay. And they
find these in the Old Testament.
And basically, they're largely ridicule because
if as you understand God's revelation,
what he is doing,
he is not trying to make,
a book, a a little mystery thing that
has no relevance to the people at the
time that it's written. Because as you're saying,
this this understanding only just occurred within our
lifetime.
All those centuries of Muslims before this never
understood this should translate this interpretation you're just
giving me now. This So it has no
relevance. Okay. So it is really speak for
the Quran, that it is the living miracle,
the ultimate miracle for all signs. There is
a verse in the Quran that we will
show them our signs in themselves and in
the horizon that means every generation
that came since Prophet Muhammad till the day
of judgement are going to find new revelations
in the Quran that the previous generation does
not know. Now I'm not giving you prophecies
in the old testament that people had ridiculed,
I am giving you 19
90 editions
of Christian,
scientist
who are still living today and you can
go and speak to them in person, now
this is not compared to the prophecies that
you can find in the old testament to
each one. I don't know what point
Can I finish?
So if you are going to compare, you
must compare apples with apples. That is the
only
logical way and this is the only fair
way to talk about this. The the the
point I was trying to make, I I
didn't mean to introduce the subject. I was
trying to give an example that would show
why Muslims feel that they have a great
advantage in having the revelation in the language
that it was originally revealed.
The only other point analogy
I'd like to draw is the fact that
Christians that have,
that understand
Hebrew
and that understand
coin Greek might have a better access to
the original to to this
text, which they, believe to be their scripture.
I think the analogy is obvious. I don't
think it's anything difficult to understand why why
we might feel that we have an advantage
if, we're not relying on a translation, but
in a on the original, text. Thank you.
Go ahead, Victor.
Alright. Let me, just
preface my remark by saying, it would be
well if you're going to read book
to read an answer to it by a
doctor,
William Campbell.
It is now in French. He spent 3
years preparing his response to that book.
And basically
concludes
that you end up,
according to your presuppositions,
that
bouquet has certain presuppositions
which pretty much determine his conclusions.
And if you start out with different
presuppositions,
you end up with different conclusions. Is it
available in English? In English, it is now
in an English manuscript.
It was sent to me 2 days ago
by a somebody to ask, should it be
published?
I have not had a chance to go
through it other than this initial introduction
to see whether I think it should be,
in English.
But, I would suggest that,
if you read 1, you read both. Yeah.
I
would strongly recommend for everyone to read both
of them and judge for themselves. Yeah. Now
one more point that I would like to
make. The Quran is not a medical book
or a medical textbook, and this is not
a point that we are bringing to show
you that the Quran is more accurate or
it is so on. This is a drop
in the pocket, that even the Quran challenges
us today in 20th century in America, the
most advanced nation in technology, in this space,
in geology, in oceanography,
and no human being on the face of
the earth had been able to produce one
valid scientific
theory, even space technology
that
that our fact that can contradict
1 single verse in the Quran. But we
are not selling the Quran to you as
a scientific book, so you can if you
want to go to space you should read
it. Now we are mentioning that
as
a sign from God to a generation after
generation. But obviously, this is a book of
teaching, spiritual book, and the book of ethics,
and the book that can
reform
the life of the individual and bring him
closer to God. Okay.
Quick, let me, please. Yeah. Let him go.
Let let me just enter something else that,
is related, but is another step,
having to do with research and scholarship.
If Muslims are so sure that the text
of the Quran is correct,
why do they not encourage
or at least accept
the study of, a textual analysis?
Instead, they started out burning the evidence.
Histo
evidence
of any,
alternative
readings, including the texts that were much more
widely accepted at the time.
And then when people like,
Ibn Shannabuth,
who lived in 245
to 328,
who did refer to some of those,
earlier readings, which he thought
were valid ones.
He was forced to recant.
And
furthermore,
I could give so many examples of this,
but,
Arthur
Jeffrey here has a list of,
over a page, about a page and a
half of books that just describe some of
the variants.
He himself has devoted the book to showing
variants,
in the text.
Other scholars,
if if this is true when scholars approach
it, they should arrive at the same conclusions.
But here, the book by Burton, the collection
of the Quran,
comes up up with totally different conclusions,
than have been,
mentioned here. And yet, Well,
about Burton's Just just Would you would you
what, please?
Can I mention Burton? I read the word
off. You your turn at bat. Alright. Now
we have our turn at bat. We gave
you 3 turns of bat. Well, give me
another turn after you.
Yep.
Repeatedly, we find this problem.
Professor Bergstrasser,
a German scholar of the Quran,
He knew of had heard of a text
at Al Azhar
that had variant readings,
and yet he was not allowed to withdraw
it
to see what those were.
Nilde Gesualis,
Geshehta De Quran,
is
certainly,
in the West, one of the groundbreaking
books on the history of the text and
so forth.
And, it received so much opposition,
that it was not even allowed to be
published in
Arabic.
And, I've given you other examples before, but
Tahoe Hussein's paper to the
17th
Congress of Orientalists,
where he discussed,
critic critically certain grammatical features of the text
of the Quran,
was bitterly
attacked and so forth.
So that,
this it seems to me that if you
are sure of something,
you should allow it to be studied.
If you're not sure of it, then you
burn the evidence, and you don't let anybody
study it. But if I'm sure of something,
I let other pea I would let other
people study it. And,
in this way, would be sure that it
would be,
confirmed. And I think this is one of
the things that, concerns us.
We
share,
our grappling with the text.
But
we don't find the same
to us openness,
in the Muslim community.
And I realized that
when essentially the word became booked, you might
say, and for us, the word became flesh,
that this is a sensitive issue. And and
I can appreciate this. I feel very awkward
even mentioning it. But having,
all that being put aside,
it is a concern to to us. Okay.
The different first one.
No. No. I have a quick comment, so
make it. No. I I I'm gonna let
doctor Bedaway take right away, but please don't
feel shy about raising a point like that.
I mean, this that's the purpose of this
whole adventure.
I think we seem to be dwelling on
something that has already been answered before.
Into the incident in the time of Osman,
I did answer that. And they said it
was done in consultation.
And the companion agreed to bring their own
personal copies that had the variant readings,
the variant which were permissible by the prophet.
But again you tend to forget again what
I said quite clearly and repeatedly,
that the original let me finish. The original
copy,
the official copy written under the supervision of
the prophet,
Which was compiled together even though it was
fully available in writing, and kept in the
house of Abu Bakr the first caliph within
the first two years after the prophet.
And then moved into the custody of Umar
the second caliph, and after his death went
to the house of Hafsa, the wife of
the prophet. Which was the same copy from
which the Usmani copies were compiled and or
written or copied and sent to the various
parts of the Muslim world. This was the
official copy which was only in the reading
of of Quraysh, that is the tongue of
the Prophet peace be upon him. That was
the official copy. I don't know on what
basis are you saying that other
variant readings with much more common. There is
no support for that. You go to Bukhary,
you go to muslim, you find something straightforwardly
contradicting
what you're saying. The most common reading has
been the,
the tongue of Quraysh,
and after Asmar, of course, it became the
most predominant one. So there's no problem at
all with the question of, of, this question
of burning. Let me add also one more
point because you threw some points earlier, really,
which give a perhaps a false impression.
When you said that the copy or the
codex of Ibn Mas'ud is drastically different. That's
not true. What I read about the codex
of Ibn Mas'ud which was his personal collection,
that he put one surah before the other
or forgot to put the al Fataha in
the very beginning which is every Muslim memorized
and uses in his prayers.
And some scholars actually say that it's quite
possible that he put it this way because
he heard the Prophet, which is permissible. Sometimes
reciting in the in the prayer one surah
or one chapter before that. What's what's the
trivial difference
even then?
But to put all of these
massive evidence from the most authentic sources,
and to pick some of these less authentic,
type of narrations, and to try to raise
doubt about the Quran, I think it's it's
not a very fair approach. It was the
insignificant Please.
Just okay. No. Please.
As far as being insignificant,
Ibn Masood Can you give us an example
of the I'm I'm
I'm giving you right here, the numbers of
verses.
Okay.
The source. I like the source first. Okay.
With the authentic book of Hadith, does it
say that?
Don't tell me some. The other writer wrote
that. What authentic original sources of Hadith say
that? What what the evidence for this is
all in
material
for a history of the That's not evidence,
you're referring to secondary sources. I'd like original
sources. And if those secondary sources
have mentioned original words of hadith, I'll buy
that. Here are the listing of the actual
words and so forth. So that,
the word comes from a source. What we
need is the source first. Okay. Doctor,
let me just mention that,
has
omitted 19 verses and added 6 that are
not
you'll find it in here. No. I'd like
to know. Even, Ubay ibn Kab
has not omitted any verses, but has added,
13
verses.
So that,
this is all based on Arabic sources,
And these are based on sources by Muslims.
Arabic Arabic Muslim sources have been subjected to
the
scrutiny or verification,
some of which are called weak, some of
which are called fabricated. And you will find
it in the writing of muslims, and actually
some of them write it to warn people
about those week. You have never given me
one single authentic agreed to sources. Got a
couple of books on here. I don't you
can give me a pile of books.
I'd like the source. That's the point. You
have no right to organize
To force him to give or to give
his arguments No way, no, listen to you.
He can give you what he Anyone who
knows the ABC, anyone who knows the ABC
about Islam knows
that widely and most acceptable, scientifically speaking, in
terms of the verification,
are Bukharin and Muslim. There are lesser sources,
there are weak sources, and even some of
the books of hadith for your knowledge,
when they mention a hadith, they say this
one is strong,
medium,
you know,
or this is weak, and sometimes even say
fabricated. You have not given me a single
authentic source that support this. In on the
other side, Bukharian Muslim are full of contradictory
things to what you have been referring to
and quoting, and the the point that should
be remembered again and again,
the Quran was preserved
mainly by memorization. This is something
unequal when you compare it to the bible.
Until today you find children whose mother tongue
is not Arabic. In India, Pakistan and Africa,
10 years old, memorizing the entire Quran from
A to Z, and that's now.
Let alone the past. The Quran has been
preserved by memorization, generation after generation, to say
this all should be thrown out because of
some flimsy references,
that's not a good argument. I gave you
an example from Al Bukhari,
before I explained it to you also. Yeah.
Let me give another example. Please show there
were some gaps.
The collection that Zaid was making,
and in addition to memorization by Zaid himself,
Zaid ibn Fabbel.
And all the other memorizers that were verifying
this, he wanted to make sure also that
it should be available physically in writing.
And the very fact that he says, I
was looking for one verse, and I found
it with 1 person. What does that mean?
That he memorized that verse, it was not
lost, It was memorized by him and by
others. But he wanted some documentary evidence, and
he kept looking for it until he fetched
it. I have to ask something here. Okay.
Go ahead. And it's just for the purpose
of But please, can they can they remember
that they have an equal chance as you
do. So Well, I'm answering to the question.
I'm not making new points. That's fine. Go
ahead. Doctor Woodbury, you mentioned
a COD,
you know,
volume 2, page 1.
And you mentioned Abdullad Nourg.
Part 2. I'm sorry. Part 2, page 1.
Mhmm. I said volume. That's okay.
Because sometimes the volume and the parts are
different in Arabic, I should know. Granted. I
have no
problem. Abdullah Nohmar, you said that he said
let not anyone of you claim
that he has the entirety of the Quran.
Did you go to the Sayuri himself? Or
do you have the text
under which this statement was made? Not on
this particular one but he does refer to
it, he gives his sources in here. But
but I'm asking
did he mention the circumstances
under which Abu Al Nahmad made such a
statement?
Under the caliph of Omar, Abu Bakr,
Osman or whom? At what time? If you
if you if you if you have the
reference. If you don't find, I will help
you with it.
It is on page I can give you
the reference here and I don't remember the
historical. Okay.
Why don't you put it in there? Start
here. But it's on page 17. That's a
good laugh. It's on page 117
at the bottom.
And,
Abdullah ibn Umar reportedly said, let none of
you say I have got the whole of
the Quran. How does he know what all
of it is?
Much of the Quran has gone. Let him
say instead,
I have got what has survived.
Siyuti,
part 2, of page 1. Let me,
clarify one point.
This statement was made by Abdullah Nohmar
after the battle of Yamah.
He got
with some of the sahaba,
and he was discussing the issue of
and this was before
the compilation of Afman,
okay?
He said, Do you think let not any
of you think that he's got the entire
the Quran because we cannot verify it. He
thought
that many of the memorials of the Quran
have been killed because he didn't know what
happened in the battle at that time. Because
Osman,
the cleric at that time, he did not
let many of the memorials actually go to
the battle anyway,
because of this particular purpose. So, Abdulazhm Omar
was expressing his fear. Do you think that
he memorized all the Quran?
Don't you know that many of the memorializers
have been killed? He didn't know what happened
exactly. But actually
he was corrected and al Suyuti
has been also revised on this, and has
been corrected by other authors and jurists, who
said Alsiyuti
was not quoting the entirety
of what happened at that incident. I wanted
to correct this one point. The other point
I would like to bring, can can we
move to them before we move to get
to the other one? Well, I just just
neither Jeffrey nor, Burton who are not trying
to disprove Islam. I mean, these are not
missionaries
here. No. These are just,
these are just
secular scholars. Yeah. Jeffrey was at Columbia University.
Burton's book is published through Cambridge University.
I've forgotten where he is. Right? The Saint
Andrews, I believe, is where he is. Right.
But these are not people who are,
trying to find anything wrong. Objecting They're unbiased,
interpreters, and they come to,
quite different conclusion from looking at those same
texts,
which is that
numbers of people were killed
in the battle of El Yamama
who did know parts of the Quran. And
this led to the great concern at that
time
to bring together
copies which were quite different
as is evidence. Now,
I'm not saying that
the Quran is not a faithful rendering
of
basically what,
was said and done
at the time. I'm not saying it's not
a faithful rendering,
but you are,
claiming more for the text
than,
unbiased scholars,
who look at it, conclude looking at the
very same sources. That's all I'm saying. But
there is See, there is one thing that
I was pointing out, and this is the
importance of the remark I made. That scholars
can reach sources,
but they can never say we exhausted all
sources. This is the point. The research is
always research.
But the assertion of the Quran,
and the challenge of the Quran to anyone,
is a challenge that still stands until today.
The challenge of purity, the challenge of the
unalterations,
the challenge of physical,
scientific and other kinds of miracle,
the the challenge of eloquence,
all the challenges of the Quran stand
still not faced by one single scholar with
a Christian, missionary or non missionary. So what
I'm saying is, yes, he can be a
scholar, but he can miss the point. And
I think this I think this point is
exhausted so
we'll have to, to move to another point.
Can I move to another point?
They It's their turn. This side will have
to go. Okay. Go ahead, and I would
respond to it.
Just, some questions that, have come to me
as I've been speaking in different churches.
1
is the idea that,
that there is nothing of Mohammed in the
Quran.
Is this is this a Muslim physician? Nothing
of. Of Mohammed? Light of light of darkness.
I mean, the the the the Mohammed was
just a a conduit, a a tape recorder.
There is absolute absolutely nothing
of Mohammed in the Quran.
And was it the father of Mohammed who
suggested that perhaps there
there was and he was thrown out of
Pakistan or so? Many Christians have real problems
with this.
Yeah. And I I would like to hear
how you, you know, how you explain that
or not. Sure they understand. I think they
are thinking inter that,
it does not include the personality or literary
talents of of him as what he Please.
Let let doctor And then but I have
a second question, and that is with,
Mahmoud Daha from, the Sudan.
I'm I'm sure that, you know, all of
you know him.
Would would you I mean, how
do you how do you relate to what
he was trying to do?
Is is this legitimate
exegesis interpretation?
Was,
was he violating the tax?
How do you feel about that? That? What
did he why don't you tell us a
little bit what did he do?
Okay.
Okay.
What did Mahmutaha do?
I don't know. As far as I could
read and understand that somehow the,
the Meccan,
Suras
contain the the essence, the lub of of
the Quran.
And that in Medina, there is the first
as it were
of that essence.
And that actually now there there can be
other applications
of that,
of those meccan Suras in different places, in
different contexts. It doesn't have to follow the
pattern, as it were,
of Medina.
Medina was one example. It can be used.
It can be,
a guide,
but it In other circumstances.
Yeah. But but actually, elsewhere, it can be
applied perhaps in different ways. I think what
he was trying to do is is to
open up the possibility for
new, applications, new understandings, new interpretation
of what he called the essence of the
Quran,
which was the Mecca's. So what if I
understand it correctly, he's a Muslim scholar that's
trying to do more research on the Quran,
just like 100 maybe 1,000 of other Muslim
scholars who have done 100 of research on
the Quran expressing his own understanding and expressing
his own opinion. Is this is this essentially
what you are saying?
No. I don't I don't think that that's
Okay. What are you saying then?
I don't know. I,
apparently, whatever he tried to do in the
Sudan, they thought it, almost heretical and he
was, he was killed and and, I think
the point is you see, the point is
I just want to Research is not allowed.
And we get this This is the point.
We get questions on this, and I just
want to So what you are trying to
say what you are trying to say that
he was prosecuted because of his views, right?
Exactly.
No. No. It's it's To some extent.
What is it then? We have a brother
from Sudan. And then the Islamic authorities had
the man put to death because he was
some modernizing influence.
Something like that. As far as I'm concerned,
Mahmoud Ahmad Bahad is a big nut because,
he he stepped 7 houses away from where
I live exactly.
He's, retired engineer and he thought,
I think he studied too much as far
as I'm concerned. So he started telling, the
religion at just 1+2.
For example,
the
He said, if you don't do
there is no for you. No prayer. There
is no prayer for you. And And then
you can even have to say,
because everybody have self control within him. So
I don't even consider him, him, a scholar
in Islam. Even the Muslim, they don't even,
consider him but a piece of dirt. That's
all. Well, anyway, I don't think we have
to be that critical. I think, we should
not, over dwell on this
and a policy taken by a government,
we may you may or may not agree
with it, but I think if, what you
said in terms of the application, I think
that would fall within the broad boundaries of
and Sharia. Of course, this thing would be
totally outside of Islam. But if it's just
a matter
of application, there is no problem because the
early companions of the prophet themselves were very
dynamic, and very adjusting in their interpretation.
An example of this is the choice of
the first four caliphs.
Each one of them was chosen in a
different way, yet all of them apply the
principle in the Quran of or mutual consultation.
So there's no problem with that. As far
as your earlier question, which I think is
more pertinent than that, I like that you
you raised it, as to whether the Quran
includes anything about the prophet.
Well, to start with, we must realize that
the Quran is not like, for example, the
gospels where the center there is to speak
about a particular person.
The Quran is the word of God. It
does interact with the humans commenting on events,
giving directions.
Sometimes they say, they ask you, oh, Mohammed,
say this. So there is the divine human
interaction, dynamically
found in in the Quran.
Yet, I think it would be an exaggeration
also to say that there is nothing about
Mohammed, the person in the Quran.
For you find, for example, mentioned in the
Quran about his character.
You have good great character.
And this is not in human criteria. That's
the the word of God.
When the Quran describe him as as
a good example or role model for mankind.
That he was sent as a mercy to
all mankind.
There is also the, scholars of that is
the biography of the prophet. Actually, they refer
to the Quran as number one authentic source,
even though it's not entirely about but in
terms of authenticity, it's number one source because
there is mention there on some of the
battles in which the Prophet was included.
There is mention there of some of the
arguments and discussion that went between him and
Christian deputations
with Jewish communities.
So in one sense, we could say that
there is quite a bit in the Quran
about the the prophets and the directives that
he was receiving from. But, yes, it is
not a biography. The Quran is not a
biography. But it's not my my question was
not about, Mohammed. It
that that Mohammed himself was engaged in the
the the writing, the composition
No. No. Of the Quran. No. No. No.
Absolutely not. There is absolutely no evidence of
that. In fact, the Quran
as an internal evidence mentioned it and all
external evidence seems to refer to it that
he was unlettered and the Quran also called
him unlettered
and
and more importantly,
you know it's Arabic.
Arabic.
That you, Muhammad, never
were able beforehand, before the liberation kept you
able to write any book,
recite any book even, religious book, or write
with your hand. Because if that were the
case, some of those who want to create
trouble would have raised any suspicion
about you. There is no question about that.
Some mention is meant at times in hadith
literature
that for example, in later, Madani period, later,
in like the treaty of Hudaybayah,
that they said that the pagans were arguing,
and the prophet said, no, remove that word
or something like that. But even that narration
say,
even towards the end of his life, even
if he learned a few things,
he was not involved in writing the Quran
at all. And the greatest evidence actually he
will remain as Umni. But but if if
Muslim suggest that, or or, you know, write
that, is this is this considered a grave
heresy or,
to say that Mohammed wrote?
That there was some some part of Muhammad
in the
As the Quran say, say, bring forth your
evidence if you are truthful. If anyone claims
that, let them bring your evidence. Yeah. Okay.
And there's no evidence. The evidence is stolen
in the country. I I read, Fazlur Rahman's
book, and he's a distinguished scholar at the
University of Chicago.
The statement for which he got thrown out
of, Pakistan
was, his statement that the Quran was revealed
through the mind of Mohammed. And, just to
make that clear so we could discuss. He
felt that I he didn't clarify what he
meant, but he's that was the statement that
it was revealed through the mind of Mohammed.
In other words Why is that so dangerous?
I I really don't know. But the other
point I just wanted to make, just clarify
one other issue. Burton, whom you refer to,
he's also, I think, a very brilliant scholar.
But the his position he finally arrived at
was rather radical.
He believed that,
much more than Muslims believe. He believed that
prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, actually
made sure that the compilation and the arrangement
of the Quran, that was his thesis, was
actually done in his lifetime and not with
the death after his death by Zayd and
etcetera.
So he was,
debating against that traditional belief.
So but in anything many he's been criticized
for that, but the point of it is,
is if anything, he felt that the Quran
would perhaps had more integrity
than Muslims,
perhaps
in some strange way were willing to
admit.
And, finally, just in terms of authority,
you know, arguments from authority are weak, of
course. I know that, but since we're using
that, many Western scholars have have,
maintained that the Quran is
authentic
representation of what Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon
him, said what he under what he believed
to be inspiration. I think that's what I
usually put it.
Give and what and Esposito and Denny and
Gold to hear and Kenneth Craig is a
great,
dialogue,
Christian Muslim dialogue expert, and William
Moore, who's quite an overzealous well, in any
case and and Richard Burton. Not all Western
scholars have agreed with that.
Person, for example, Crone, who wrote the book,
Hadrianism, comes up with a very different point
of view. But, yes, many Western scholars have
felt that it's a document of a tremendous
integrity.
And,
I don't like I said, I think these
arguments from authority don't really go very far.
But, you know, I'm just saying that some
have. As you said, doctor Woodbury, I don't
know if they're going to far as far
as to say that every
they made sure they might differ agree with
you in that. That he may have missed
the date detail here too or verses or
something like that. But they do believe that
what Muslims have in their possession is the
authentic utterances of,
they at least are
their possession is the authentic utterances of,
they at least are authentic utterances of his
under divine inspiration.
Yeah.
Yeah. Let me,
go ahead. But what I'm suggesting is we
we wanna move to Okay. No. I'm sorry.
Please go ahead. Question answer to ask to
me that I cannot answer. That's I'm just
reminding you that we have to move to
this
I was asked,
what specific,
verses
or Suras were missing,
in Ibn Saud, Ibn Masood. Excuse me. He
omits,
Suras 1, 113,
114.
That's 18 verses.
He omits Sura 94 verse 6. And then
he adds
verses,
and I could give you the places, but,
I won't I have them here before me
if you want to know what they
are. As to all of
the texts being given up to be burned,
Ibn Masud
refused to have his codex destroyed by Uthman
as it had already become the standard text
of Kufa.
Ubayi ibn Kaab Kaab destroy it was destroyed
by Uthman, but copies are said to have
existed in the 3rd Islamic century. That is
the 900.
And,
a codex of Abu Musa Al Ashari
differed substantially
from both of those and from the text
of, Ibn Mas'ud. And I've got,
the list of verses here, but there are
a 143
verses that it differs from. So we're talking
about,
manuscripts
with substantial
differences,
and not all of them given up readily.
And, certainly a record of
many of them in in books like,
Jeffrey.
Again, I would agree that, what we have
in the Quran, I believe, is essentially what,
came through Mohammed. I'm I'm not basically arguing
that, but I'm arguing that
if you say,
you've got it all exactly the way it
came from God,
And
then historically have squelched
many of the opportunities
to study it.
Even then, still so many of these evidences
creep up that it wasn't as neat
as,
the
what's
theory
that, you're present I'm sorry. That's not a
good choice of words, but I'll I'll use
it. I did not mean it in a
derogatory way. Mhmm. K. This is the last
point to be discussed Yeah. Yeah. I on
on the panel. Yes.
There there seem to be respond to that
because that was not my question. Yeah. There
seem to be That's
fine. You must contradiction. There seem to be
quite a bit of emphasis about the burning,
of Osman, and I like to present
a comparable
situation here.
For more than a 1000 years,
we had only the Catholics around and when
the protestant movement 15 100 years ago, there
was considerable amount of persecution,
by the Catholics and burning and persecution. Yet
the movement and the protestant,
and you are living here now to be
witness to it,
the Catholic church has not been able to
burn or remove or eliminate the Protestant movement.
Even the Protestants today have their King James
version that contains 66 books, which is different
from the Catholic 73
books of,
bible. My point is
that burning or persecution or abuse or violence
does not destroy movements and does not destroy
beliefs.
If it is true that the movement or
the burning of Osman
had a changed version like you say, that
would have survived especially if the history of
the Quran is to memorize it by heart.
This other version that you are talking about
had been memorized, it would have been published
today and we would have had somebody just
like the protestants
today among
them. This is not a muslim, he is
not publishing anything, he is not memorizing the
Quran, this is a Christian writer, he is
entitled to his views. This is number 1.
Number 2, I resent the insinuation
that in Islam, if someone
is expressing an opinion,
then they are prosecuted for their beliefs or
their writing and two names have been brought
up here. I can bring for you 100,
can I, gentlemen,
I can bring for you 100 maybe 1,000
maybe 1,000,000
of Christians that had burned had were burned
by the church for their beliefs or for
Galileo who spoke of a scientific fact was
burned for heresy
by the Christian,
church? This is number 1. I can bring
for you the history of the crusaders.
I can bring for you the history of
the Catholic church. I can bring for you
the history of Spain.
I can bring for you the fact that
the Muslims who constitute
30%
of the country of Ethiopia, they are never
allowed a government job under Haile Selassie who
was the emperor of Ethiopia and who was
the official member of the the text We
are talking about right now, and the point
was brought by by reverend Vogler about Mahmoud
Taha, this is not the text in Mahmoud
Taha. This is number 1. Number 2, even
the the fundamentalist
in this country, they burn
abortion clinics,
and in France
Why don't you ask him why was what
did Mahmoudi Ata have to do with the
text?
May I interfere, please? We wanna We're answering
a point brought by your side.
Why why don't you tell us what it
has to do with the text?
And, let me address the the question. I
think, the question then is there. You should
move to the second have to move to
the Right. Question and answer. So I'd like
you to respond to it. Yeah. I respond
that I am not going to deal with
the burning of the bomb or Mahmoud Allah
or anyone else.
I think I must say that, doctor Woodbury
misunderstood
my question.
My question was very specific and very clear.
He said that he claimed that they have
seen variations and that the variations are right
there in the book.
And I said that in spite of the
unauthenticity of this, I said they are so
trivial, and I asked him to give us
one single
example where there is any variation that would
have any consequences in belief. I know some
variations if you don't know them. For example,
in one case it
says, there is no blame for you to
seek provision from your Lord.
And one of those it
adds
in occasions of Hajj, which scholars of the
Quran like doctor Drehs clearly indicated that this
probably was a glossary.
This was not the official copy, it was
a glossary observation, but they probably didn't have,
the, the use of the bracket. When you
refer to the collection of Ibn Mas'ud, what
does it mean dropped?
You can say that a manuscript that was
available to him might have been losing parts
of it. And don't forget that you talk
about the first chapter which is
and 113 and 114, the last page, which
is a few verses at the end of
the Quran, it's quite possible that any collection
would be missing those particular,
portions.
However, what is more important, which I the
point I emphasize, you could give me a
pile of books, but unauthentic. No. This is
This is in the middle though. I said
I didn't list. This is no. Let me
give you the, the the answer to this.
The, the
or the narration about,
Ibn Was'ud was mentioned by Ibn Hagar and
the scholars of verification of narrations.
Said Lamni Asahi,
it is not
correctly attributed to him. It is wrongly attributed
to him. And 2 great scholars like,
scholars of hadith specialist, and Ibn Hazlm, the
famous andalusian
scholar,
they criticized it and they proved that to
be a fabricated or false
type of, of narration. Secondly, they give another
very q very interesting,
evidence
that the recitation of the Quran today which
is the riyat or the the way of
recitation of a haps,
and asad,
actually were taken and based on Ibn Mas'ud.
And ask any recital of the Quran, get
any
recording of the Quran, anywhere in the Muslim
world, in the way of asan, it has
the entire Quran. Number 3, there is total
illogicality about that assumption on the part of
the writer. Total illogicality.
Nobody ever denies that muslims pray 5 times
a day, and that the compulsory requirement in
each prayer nobody denies that. Ibn Mas'ud prayed
like that, Memorized Al Fataha. Is it possible
that Ibn Mas'ud assumed that he doesn't have
to write that because everybody memorizes only a
few lines? There is no question at all
that atataha is part and parcel,
of the Quran. But the final comment I'd
like to add, which many scholars of the
Quran, if you've read for them also
say, said even those weak, flimsy
can never stand in the face of And
let me explain to those who don't understand
the word
means that you get information
consistently, the same, through groups of people
who picked it or learned it from other
groups, large group, from large group, in a
way that would make it impossible for them
to cooperate
and and collaborate or conspire
to lie. You get any copy of the
Quran anywhere
in the Muslim world, published at any time,
and compare it with the 2 documents that
goes back to the time of Osman.
The 3rd caliph.
One in Tashkent, one in Tafkafe Museum in
Istanbul, Turkey. It has exactly identical
things
which is consistent again with the generation after
generation of the memorizer of the Quran. We
have all that correct, you know, complete,
overwhelming
through various sources, the same thing. And you
get some lengthy reports here and there, and
that could be presented an argument I think
from the standpoint of Thank you, doctor Dilma.
Please no no more comments, please.
Doctor Woodbury, I have a final question. It's
just these are not we're not just talking
about,
source at the beginning and the end. We're
talking about added verses,
next to 37,
verse 169,
next to 52.
These are the commentaries that these are these
are basically the Quranic commentaries
that, Commentaries is not necessarily source commentary means
somebody
making his own or explanation. They are they
are human beings. That's not an ethical. I
am an authentic,
recognize authentic sources. Throughout all these arguments you
have failed to give me a second one,
and the one you gave was this understood,
and I explained that already.
Well, it seems somewhat illogical that a page
and a half of
sources,
would all be wrong.
And the And it's not sources.
Okay. I think I think the point is
clear. I guess I guess the point is
clear. No, please. No, no.
Please.
No, please. Please. Let me manage it, so
that we can we're running out of time.
Please.
Make it in the question and answer. Keep
it for the question and answer. Please. I'd
like to give you the final comment to
that. Okay.
Well, I I have little little more to
add here, but
I,
what it seems to be is the
well, let let's just put it this way.
When
non Muslim
scholars,
who are not trying to disprove Islam,
study the same evidence,
They do not come up with the official,
Muslim view. I think that's all we are
saying. And thank you.
Please doctor Jamal,
please let's move to the question and answer.
Doctor
Ali.
So,
please bear with me. I have to a
lot of things happen writing down here. I'd
like to summarize in this past word. Regarding
the sources,
the most latest comment over here, just last
week I was in a discussion seminar in
the night. We were discussing about the meaning
of jihad.
And one
fellow who was the instrument of Narsil al
Bani,
he brought in 5 books,
and he read the translation of one particular
point about meaning of jihad After he finished
I said, he said, I have given you
5 sources.
I said, Yaqi, I have given you only
1 source, not 5.
Because they all copied from each other.
And he immediately accepted, he is right. I
give only only 1 source.
That's the result they got the source.
Now,
about the memorials of the Quran,
I met 1,
hapist
in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia,
who had learned Quran from his father.
And his father learned by verbally,
his father, and their chain goes back all
the way to Prophet Musula,
and it's the same Quran.
Now,
about
the about the,
the Haman.
Haman, you said that,
Quran says it was in Egypt and it
was from Persia, something to that effect.
Now, doctor Maurice Bucaille,
who wrote that book, there's no old version,
a new edition of his book has come
out, and he has not given anybody right
to publish except he publishes from France,
and a seller's publication,
and you you need the the the seller
publication,
variation.
He was my guest,
in January
1987,
and he visited
many places, and he came to Chicago, and
Chicago was my guest, and he gave many
lectures, many places.
And I have all his lectures and personal
conversations
on the video tape.
And one of the at the University of
Illinois, he gave a talk, and that talk
he presented
from the Greek heloglyphs
The
exact shape of the word, and it's taken
from the tablets, and the haman is mentioned
on one of the tablets in Egypt, and
it says people jumping on it, but it's
there. Finally Quran proved to be right, and
all the people who were criticizing were
wrong. See, this is this is the typical
about the Quran.
See, at one time Yeah, I'll finish it.
At one time,
the time of the Kepler's
theory of the of the sun and the
moon,
and people said that now we found out
that sun is stationary,
and all the other plants going all around.
But as well as Quran said,
that the sun and the moon are moving
in their arkits.
And so people of this call at the
time, they jump on the Quran, the Muslims,
they look the Quran is wrong, and now
we know this is this is for sure.
Now, in this century we find out that
even the sun is moving
within the
galaxy.
So we find out
that for that science has to catch up
with the Quran. Quran doesn't need to catch
up with anything else.
Yeah. This this is this is my final
final final
and he talked about the Prophet Maslachs, he
was talking about it, that he what one
has to say about it. We learned that
the prophet Muslasa was not just like a
postman who delivered the Quran and walked away.
He interpreted,
he lived the life of the Quran, and
Quran is a witness, and hadith is a
witness for it.
Thank you. That was a statement.
Okay.
Hamakpa?
Just getting back again on Muhammad Tahir.
He was existing during the Numeri regime, as
you know.
And he's not only been defined by the
high Sudan
councils that he is Mushrik,
It's only been by Egypt
and Saudi Arabia.
And they give him the chance to repent,
and he insisted even when they take him
to the to,
fulfill the, the judgment on him, he still
didn't wanna repent back. And not only that,
his policy
went to get all the Jews
That's, those are the people,
they didn't have a lot of knowledge,
or the people there just
striving to get some knowledge, and that's what
his audience was. And it was so disturbing
to the country that put their attention, and
even his his texture, is so disturbing to
the point that not only the Muslim,
anybody have,
any kind of godly view, they will not
agree with what he's coming up with.
Thank you. Alright.
Thank you.
I have 2 questions. 1 for the Muslim
side and the other for the Muslim
Christian side.
For the Christian side,
what are the contradictions
within the Quran
that you see?
And for the Muslim side, for the Muslim
side, what are the scientific facts in the
Quran or within the Quran?
I'm,
not sure if you would want to use
the word,
contradictions,
but I do have,
a list of
20,
abrogated
and abrogating
verses,
which at least
suggest a change.
I'm not sure you put it under the
you might
okay. Okay. Well, some some might interpret those
as He considers the obligation as well as
interpret
them in the light of progressive revelation.
But, that's what I have. Okay. Could you
give an example, please?
The,
Qibla is 1, the fast of, Ramadan.
What is the fast of Ramadan?
What is it?
You mean what actual passages? I mean, what
what what is concerning? It's the changing of
the fast from a few days to the
month of Ashariah.
Ramadan.
Slang of enemies in the sacred mosque, imprisonment
of the adulterers,
and on and on. I don't see I
guess not. You know, I that there there
are 20 here. I don't know how much
is
accomplished by just reading up all the tea.
Okay. Let's move. I I must say, you
want
what happened is that the Kaaba actually was
intended by God to be the place to
which people direct their faces because it is
the most ancient built by Abraham, the father
of monotheism.
Yet,
at the time of the prophet, peace be
upon him, the Kaaba was desecrated by the
pagan Arabs who placed their idols inside that.
So that the Muslims directed their faces toward
the prayer, towards another temple, that is towards
Jerusalem.
And that was also to test the faith
of those people who became Muslims after paganism,
to make sure that their hearts are not
attached to the idols in the cover.
And then when the time came, when their
they this detachment
of the idol and idol worship in the
Kaaba was already established in their hearts and
their minds. Then the Quran came, and by
the way, if you read the Quran, you'll
find explanation to that.
That the the order came to the Muslim
that now they can direct their faces towards
I don't see that whatsoever as,
contradiction.
The question of, or fasting. I think you're
probably referring to the fact that on one
hand, the Quran says, shahrur Ramadan, that you
fast the months of Ramadan,
but on the other hand it says, ayaamamadudah,
a few days. There is no contradiction.
Because a month
Yeah. A counted days. Actually, it doesn't say
a few days, a counted days, marudah. Specified
number of days. A specified number of days
and a month is not really a contradiction
because those specified number of days comes to
1 month. And he could go on and
on this. I I couldn't believe generally understood
to be the fast, leading into Yom Kippur
though that the Jews No. It has no.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the
Yom Kippur. It is the All scholars would
agree. Islamic calendar and it goes for a
whole month. It's not connected in any way
shape or form with the Yom Kippur. No.
But it's not anymore. Using that, doctor Woodbury.
I think you are using that
with the fasting of Ashura, which is a
voluntary fasting. Yes. When the prophet went, I
think, don't mix more. Many scholars would would
No. No. No. No. With that. Scholars who
don't know make that mix. Well The Quran
is quite huge. The compulsory fasting on Muslim
is the month of Ramadan.
It is specified number of days, and those
specified number are 1 month. But the other
instance which is totally unconnected with that, is
when the Prophet went to Medina, he found
that the Jews are fasting. So he asked,
why are those people fasting?
So he was told that they are fasting
when Allah saved them from the Egyptians.
So the Prophet said,
We are closer to Moses than they.
And he asked Muslims to fast that. But
this was a voluntary
fasting. The
the tense
of Ashura. So there is absolutely no connection
between Okay. I think we are not answer.
Not
okay. Here is another No questions. Yes. The
second what was the second part? Okay. Alright.
Well, the scientific fact I think we we
we dealt with that enough. So please give
a give a quick example. Okay. I I
was just going to introduce this book and
touch on Sure. This little thing that I
got here. The scientific fact, you can read
without too much trouble in this book,
but I would like to use that one
minute of answer to,
again
express my surprise
that there was certain amount of insinuation that
Muslims are persecuted because of their religion and
things like that,
or expressing views and it came from,
my dear friend,
who
lived in Egypt for 18 years. He was
a missionary in Egypt
and among the Muslims and from what I
understand, he was very much welcome and has
a lot of friends,
highly honored and highly respected so obviously he
lived through it. No one had killed him.
I want to bring also to his attention
that it is not the muslims
that are spreading these kind of publications,
in the name of Islam.
This one here is coming from the fundamentalist
by the name of the prophet which is
a severe insult
to the Muslim and
that you write to them, they have a
post office box, they never answer you, muslims
do not do that to Christians.
This is unsolicited
mail from someone who calls himself sheikh Abdullah.
And then in the same time he starts
his pamphlet by saying Allahu Akbar
and he writes it in an Islamic terminology
and trying to deceive people apparently to give
them the impression
that he is a Muslim. So Muslim.
Christian sources in this country and it is
not the Muslims really that are abusing the
freedom and the freedom of speech and
the the, that the Muslim Thank you. Is
good citizen. But even Muslims are too wrong,
they are wrong. Yeah. If all the leaders
that is wrong. Right. K. My my point
certainly was not persecution. I mean, there's enough
of that going around over way. But but
the idea of perhaps a new a new
hermeneutic,
new ways
of nuance in the Quran.
And what I heard you say is that
if anyone suggests
that somehow Mohammed participated
in the in the creation of the Quran,
that at this point, anyway, this is this
is just totally
well, I was
unacceptable
and
I simply said that
the consistent
evidence
is that the prophet did not write the
Quran. There is even scientific evidence,
not only just historical,
that the Quran was not flowing from his
own knowledge or his own background, or else
how can he speak about these things.
What we're simply saying that if someone I'm
not not closing the door. I say, if
someone
makes a claim
that indeed the Quran is a product of
the mind of the Prophet or his own
ideas, By the way, in fairness to late
Fazur Rahman, I I looked at that section
in his book and I I don't think
that he came out right and said that
the Prophet Muhammad
wrote the Quran. He puts it in a
very complex philosophical way. But anyway,
it still admits the divine origin of the
Quran. That's what I'm saying. If anyone makes
any claim
that the Quran was a product of the
inform the mind of the Prophet or his
own,
work,
I simply quoted the Quran, let them bring
their evidence if they are truth. I'm not
closing the door, but I'm simply saying I
haven't seen that evidence. If there is any,
let it be brought. I'd like to thank
you all for being so nice and so
patient. What I'd like you to do, finally,
is for each
of you over here to make a statement
in 1 minute, and we'll conclude by that.
Okay. Please, who wants to start first?
And no new topics, please. No new topics.
We can stay
here till tomorrow.
I I I will start. 1 from each
of us or just one from everybody? I
will start. Okay. I will start. Okay. Go
ahead.
Muslims,
my my one minute statement
will be
Muslims
are like everyone else, scholars.
They can do as much research as they
can like to do, they can make as
many claims as they like to Muslims, non
Muslims about the Quran, they are more than
welcome.
The Quran invites everyone to examine it and
be critical of it and analyze it.
Yet all what we ask of them to
do is do it on a scholarly level,
proof,
documentation
instead of just making false accusation. We will
not only say that about the Quran but
we will say it about the bible, we
will say it about any other sacred book
of any
religion.
So the Muslims are not excluded from research
or excluded
from
doing studies on their books or on other
books. As a matter of fact, they are
more than welcome. And I think if you
examine the Islamic history, you will find out
the Islamic people are the most tolerant, not
only within their own religion, but with other
religion. Jews flourished under the Thank you, sir.
Christians flourished under the Muslims and they lived
in complete tolerance. Thank you.
Anyone who feels so is ready, please do
it. I would say that, for many of
us,
there is this struggle of, of how to
read the Quran.
A Christian reading of the Quran.
Obviously, it's going to be different from a
Muslim reading. If it wasn't, then then
it wouldn't be Christian, and we would be
Muslims.
So does this mean that that,
that as we try to read the Quran
from our own
point of view, from our own experience,
that somehow
what we say and what we do is
wrong? Is it unacceptable?
Can there be
a a Christian reading of the Quran? A
legitimate,
honest Christian reading of the Quran.
And, I would hope that perhaps that there
could be.
But, obviously, it's going to be different. It
must, by nature, be different from the, the
Muslim reading.
But, you know, how can we work this
out, and how can we come to some
kind of
understanding that it's alright for Christians to try
to have their own reading
of the Koran?
Thank you, doctor Wagner.
Yes, please. Go ahead, doctor.
I think that,
as a as a convert to Islam, I
think that my own and I think the
panel the Christian panel tried to bring this
out that sometimes
we could be a little bit overprotective, over
defensive about things.
And, sometimes that could
stifle,
innovative thinking. You know?
I think that to some
extent, maybe we are sometimes a little bit
too defensive.
And,
what else did I wanna say? The only
other point I wanted to address was the
comment just made by doctor Vogler. So, you
know, personally, I've
read a lot of Kenneth Craig,
and I find that when he writes about
the Quran, I usually discover something extremely enlightening.
And even though I don't agree with everything
he says, I find that his ex his
experience of the Quran has proven to be
very illuminating
for me, and I've and I've gained from
it. So I think the answer to your
question,
I think that there could be,
you know, a Christian reading of the Quran.
Muslims may not agree with it, but I
think, we should invite that,
in dialogues like this, that opinion. Thank you,
doctor.
Yeah. Can can we have one of you,
doctor?
Fine.
See,
we've just concluded the 2nd day of discussions.
We've gone through discussing,
our different conceptions of God,
the prophets and the books. Almost we have
finished,
except for 1,
discussion that's left.
I think it's due,
to say that the test
that the Quran established
for itself and other scriptures
is still yet to be met.
The test of authenticity,
the test of
non contradictory
text and context
of the scripture is yet to be met
by other scriptures as the Quran made its
own test.
Also the searching and the assertion of the
conclusions of those searching
about the Quran and Islam
from the so called,
non Muslim
researches.
Yet to prove,
I'm not talking about intentions here, but to
prove scholarship
in terms of
researching
to the depth of the point of Thank
you, madam. To the mid source. Thank you.
Please, model you, please.
One thing that concerns me a little bit
is, my Muslim friends
use many of these same authors
as authorities
in some cases,
but only where they agree with them, it
seems.
The sources for these various authorities, which it
is it is is not. It's related to
this.
The actual Arabic words are added here that
are missing
or,
added to the present text.
And the sources of these are men like
al Badawi, Fakhreddin
al Razi,
Nasafi,
Sayyuti,
Tabari.
These are all
people that would be used as authorities
if they said what,
people wanted to hear. But when they,
give some of these evidences of change in
the text, then they're no longer authorities.
This,
concerns me. But having said that, let me
say that I have read work through the
Quran,
many, many times
with great personal profit.
And, I do hope,
that my Muslim friends are also reading through
the Bible, not to see what they disagree
with, but, what can we learn from? Thank
you,
doctor. Doctor Jamal Benoit. This evening, we have
touched on a number of aspects about the
Quran in terms of its authority, authenticity,
its contents,
and its impact in the past and at
present.
What was mentioned was not rhetorical, was not
testimonial, was solid, direct, straightforward facts.
Secondly, we have heard also
some of what I like to call,
some of the doubts that were raised by
our brethren,
and it became quite distinctly clear that once
you go beyond the surface,
and you give more weight to hadith literature
than opinion of people, even they are authorities
authorities are not always right and everything,
when you defer to more authentic sources, you'll
find the futility of trying to raise any
dawat really, about the integrity of the Quran,
whether authority or authenticity, and I believe that
has been answered tonight.
But I agree also that the greatest challenge,
both for muslims and non muslims, is to
forget about what we panelists here said,
to get hold of a copy of the
Quran. I don't mind, you get copy copy
of the bible as well. Get hold of
a copy of the Quran.
Read it on your own, you have difficulty,
ask some Muslim who is knowledgeable, and I
think the greatest challenge here is try to
find out whether the Quran is concocted by
someone, written by someone, or is it as
many who accepted Islam concluded
that for the first time they discovered that
this is Thank you, doctor.
That God is speaking to them. Thank you,
doctor.
Reverend Justin. I am interested in some claims
of the Quran. One is, of course, that
it is the perfect and final book.
But I find as I read it, I
think really, it should be much better if
it is the final source and final authority.
I think I frankly am disappointed.
Secondly, I the claim of being in continuity
with the with Judaism, with the Old Testament,
I find that the Koran fundamentally
denies the the basic religious thrust, which is
the teaching of worshiping God through the sacrificial
system. I don't find the continuity there. In
the New Testament, of course, the fundamental
thing is that Jesus is the one who,
fulfills the
the old the old testament.
And I see him being displaced,
and made as another prophet when his main
role was to come as savior and mediator.
My personal needs are not met because I
do not find in the Koran
that which will give me certainty
and hope, clarity of salvation.
I find a legal system
which
has already been bypassed by Paul, and
I also find,
I am disappointed with the doctrine of God,
in that God. I find
a dualism. You have an eternal book and
you have something that,
is,
I'd like to thank you very much. And
I don't find why I need it.
I hope you understand the Quran better to
correct these views. Well, I'd like to thank
you all. Really, we enjoyed your discussion and
appreciate all the time you gave for us,
and we hope