By Azizah Y. al-Hibri
T. C. Williams School of Law
University of Richmond
January 7, 1999
I have been asked by many concerned Muslims and non-Muslims
to provide my views on the recent article, entitled "What
is the Koran?" published by The Atlantic Monthly in
its January, 1999 issue. I have reviewed the article and
find that it presents highly speculative arguments based
on remarkably selective data supporting a point of view
hostile to Islam. Furthermore, it relies on stereotypical
assumptions about Islam, rooted in a biased perspective
deeply offensive to Muslims.
Of course the author, Toby Lester, is entitled to his opinion
on Islam. In a free market place of ideas, anyone may say
almost anything. However, articles like his do not contribute
positively to the ongoing efforts of building bridges of
trust, compassion and understanding within our pluralistic
society. For this reason, it is important for American Muslims
to make their views and feelings known to their compatriots.
This is essential for the robust exchange of ideas.
Early America and Islam. I would also like to note that
this sort of writing is not new in the United States. In
fact, it has a long history, not unrelated to the writing
which was being generated in colonialist Europe. For example
in the Eighteenth century, during the days of the Founding
Fathers, this country was reading works by Voltaire, Prideaux,
and others that created an atmosphere of disdain, hostility
and distrust of Muslims. There were books about the Prophet
Muhammad, with titles such as The Nature of the Imposture,
stating that Islam was a false religion. Another book, Cato’s
Letters, argued that the Prophet was a tyrant and that tyrants
like him opposed the free expression of ideas. Several American
novels featured fictional Muslim spies in America or oppressed
Muslim women saved by Western men.
Constitutional Debates. In fact, even the constitutional
debates referred to Islamic constitutional precedents. In
particular, Webster, Henry and Dollard spoke of the evils
of Turkish despotism. Hamilton, on the other hand, exhibited
greater insight into the Turkish empire when he argued that
the Turkish Sultan was weak and had limited powers. This
position led Hamilton to argue for a strong central government
in the United States.
In short, for centuries, Islam and Muslims have been regarded
in the West negatively and suspiciously. This negative and
untrustworthy image has led to numerous serious consequences.
It has, for example, impacted the civil rights of American
Muslims, and most recently, has facilitated the use of airport
profiling and secret evidence against many of them.
In earlier times, a significant Muslim slave population
in the United States was in no position to respond to distortions
or even freely practice its faith, despite constitutional
protections for freedom of religion. A secondary consequence
of that situation was that claims hostile to Islam went
unchallenged. These claims remain till this day generally
unrecognizable as hostile by the average reader for lack
of adequate familiarity with Muslim history, values and
beliefs.
America Today. Fortunately, today’s America is enjoying
the fruits of the seeds of constitutional liberties planted
by the Founding Fathers. Today, a Muslim response to civil
rights violations and Islam bashing has become possible,
in fact welcome to some, in this country. With pluralism
as an established fact in our society, Americans have found
it necessary to re-examine earlier myths about other religions.
Serious interfaith efforts have proliferated to build bridges
of trust, understanding and compassion among the various
faiths. Muslims, a significant segment of the American population,
have been active participants in this effort for civic as
well as religious reasons. For, despite stereotypical views
of an intolerant Islam, our religion does order us to engage
in interfaith dialogue and enjoins us to use the best words
in such dialogue. (Qur’an 29:46)
"Otherizing" Muslims. In this context of harmony
and public civility on the part of most religious leaders,
the Atlantic Monthly article represents a serious lapse
into earlier modes of "Otherizing" the Muslim
through the eyes of Orientalist writers. While this press
release is not intended to be a detailed scholarly criticism
of the article, some problems will be highlighted. Many
scholars in the field have made it clear through private
correspondence that they intend to address the claims made
in the article in a scholarly arena, eschewing journalistic
sensationalism. I now turn to some salient problems in the
article.
From Stereotyping Muslims To Defective Logic. First, the
article opens with a picture of the desert and sandals,
silently evoking a stereotypical image of a primitive people.
Then, the first part of the article describes an important
find, which we are told suggests that the Qur’an was
not revealed, a central belief for Muslims. What sort of
a find could suggest that? Some writings, reportedly from
the seventh and eighth century, which differ in some respects
from the Qur’an as Muslims know it. As a logician,
I fail to see the logic of this highly speculative argument.
At best, the find could suggest a set of possible interpretations.
For example, one interpretation is that the writings represent
a defective attempt by some Muslims to write down the Qur’an
from memory. History tells us that the Qur’an, which
was revealed orally, was first committed to memory, then
parts of it were written down by various individuals. During
the rule of the third khalifah (Caliph) ‘Uthman, it
became clear that those who knew the Qur’an perfectly
by heart were passing away. So, ‘Uthman called the
most knowledgeable and reliable Muslims, such as the surviving
Companions of the Prophet, and gave them the task of putting
together in writing a fully and completely accurate version
of the revealed Qur’an. They did, and ‘Uthman
ordered all other written versions destroyed. Could it be
that a few copies in Yemen were buried instead? That would
be a more logical interpretation, since it is consistent
with known facts from Islamic history. Could it be that
the writings were executed later (in the eighth century)
by someone with a defective memory who did not have access
to the written ‘Uthmani Qur’an? Sure, yet the
story of ‘Uthman’s mandate is mentioned at the
end of the article without pointing out its devastating
significance to the highly controversial conclusion drawn
by Mr. Puin, a calligrapher, from such flimsy evidence.
The article also refers to the group appointed by ‘Uthman
as "an editorial committee of sorts," thus suggesting
an editorial as opposed to an authenticating function. Such
subtleties are not lost on Muslims, but they would be easily
missed by the average reader.
Conflation of Issues. Another problem with the article
is its attempt to conflate issues within Islamic jurisprudence
to make the claims of Puin and others more sympathetic.
For example, the article conflated the claim of the historicity
of the Qur’an, which is rejected by Muslims, with
the issue of Qur’anic interpretation which is essential
to Muslim jurisprudence. There are many respected jurists,
past and present, who have engaged successfully in Qur’anic
interpretation. I have personally argued for its necessity,
based on the statements of classical jurists. I have even
stated this position in various Muslims countries, and at
times at Shari’ah schools. My statement was accepted
as unexceptional.
Qur’anic Interpretation. The rub in Qur’anic
interpretation is not its possibility, but rather in the
ability to do it properly. Interpretation based on ignorance
of the Arabic language, rules of grammar or historical context
(asbab al-nuzul) amount to bad scholarship. Colonialism,
especially in Algeria, has had the effect of forcibly divorcing
the people from their Arabic language, the language of the
Qur’an. As a result many attempts at interpretation
have been patently defective logically or linguistically.
Distorted Analysis of Individual Cases. Fazlur Rahman,
an important Muslim scholar, never identified himself with
any particular school of thought, including the Mu’tazilite.
He carried the torch of Islamic modernization and thus angered
supporters of the status quo in Pakistan. Abu Zaid’s
problems and the violence against some Egyptian writers
deserve a deeper analysis of the situation in Egypt which
suffers from a blatant absence of democracy. In a country
which has for decades executed without due process hundreds
of members of the Muslim Brotherhood, most notably the great
jurist Abd al-Qader ‘Awdah, it is clear that the problem
is not Qur’anic interpretation. It must be also clear
that non-democratic governments engender non-democratic
responses. By oversimplifying and misconstruing the deep-rooted
problems there, we continue to justify American support
for non-democratic regimes in the region.
Additional Harmful Consequences. Most significantly, articles
of the type published by The Atlantic Monthly seriously
complicate the work of those of us who are truly interested
in bringing democracy, freedom and tolerance to Muslim countries.
By casting Qur’anic interpretation as a rebellious
act against tradition, it gives ammunition to those reactionaries
who would like to preserve the status quo, and their tyranny
over the people, in the name of religion.
For all these reasons, as an American Muslims jurist, I
am deeply offended and injured by this article.
Wassalamu alaykum (Peace be with you).
