Why does the Quran call itself a "book" when it was not a book but then became a book?
This is nagging me at the moment.
To be honest I have only come to even ask this question since I left brand 'Islam'. It never occurred to me once as a practicing Muslim.
I wish I had kept my Arabic. I spent 6 years studying it in the Middle East in my 20s but got married in late 20s and once you have to start earning money and raising kids, you stop speaking, reading and learning and before you know it, your language skills have pretty much vanished!
I digress.
If I had kept my Arabic up then maybe I could answer this question in more detail. But I can't. So I'm doing my best with the tools I have. (And surely this is all Allah can expect of us otherwise He sounds like He doesn't know His own creation.)
What I was taught about the Quran.
I was not born a Muslim. I converted in my very early twenties.
Looking back I think I know why, although I can't be sure. This gave me a unique perspective into Islam. I wasn't tied to cultural understandings of Islam. I did however after a few years of getting confused by reading lots of books decide to follow a Sheikh - a teacher or guru that guides you through all aspects of Islam, this worldly and other worldly.
I then spent a good 15 years studying and living Islam intensely according to an orthodox understanding. By this I mean I followed one of the four madhabs, studied aqeeda, the Quran and upheld the principles of the Ahle Sunna - the Sunnis.
I had teachers from the following countries over those years who all came from the traditionalist, orthodox Sunni understanding of Islam: Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. I also studied Shia Islam under some Shia in Medina in Saudi Arabia as well as in Iran (but I never became Shia - only wanted to get their point of view as I was asking questions at one point about Ali and the split).
So I think I have a good understanding of what most mainstream Muslims are taught.
We are taught that Muhammad received revelations from Allah through Gabriel. That this happened for some 20 years or so and during this time these revelations were memorized and recorded by Muslims. It was not until the 2nd Caliph, Umar that the different verses written down were collected and formed into a book. There are mentions of Umar ordering copies of the Quran being burnt under his leadership, but that's a topic you can find answers to yourself, should you wish.
The orthodox Muslim view of the Quran is clear - it was an oral transmission - which only became a book later.
In fact, Arabs take great pride in this. They love to wax lyrical about the fact that Islam is really an oral tradition; passed from generation to generation keeping the sacred bond between God and his chosen people. Sounds suspiciously like another religion in the neighbourhood.
So, it is incontestable that the Quran was never ever a book - it was a series of recitations that have become known as "ayat" or verses that have then been brought together and later canonized as an "approved" book to be used by the masses.
In conclusion, "Islam" confirms that the Quran was not a book.
So, why does the Quran call itself a book???
Yes, why? Like what the f@Ck akhi!?
And I am not just making this up. The Quran doesn't call itself "book" only once. This is just a selection:
“A book revealed unto you, so that your heart be not in any difficulty on that account, (so that) with it you may warn (the sinful) and teach the believers”. (7:2).
“This Qur’an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah, on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that were sent before it, and a full explanation of the book, wherein there is not doubt from the Lord of the worlds”. (10:37)
“And We sent down the book to you for the express purpose that you should make clear to them those things in which they differ, and so that it should be a guide and mercy to those who believe”. (16:64).
“We have revealed for you (O men) a book in which there is a message for you, will you then not understand”. (21:10).
“These are the verses of the book that make things clear”. (26:2).
“... A book which We have sent down unto you with full of blessings so that they may meditate on its signs and that man of understanding may receive admonition”. (38:29).
“Verily We have revealed the book to you in truth for instructing mankind. He that receives guidance benefits his own soul, but he that strays injures his own soul”. (39:41).
Are you confused? Yes; this was my life everyday for about 2 years until I decided to entertain other possibilities.
So let's just agree on one thing before we continue.
The Quran clearly refers to itself as a book yet we are taught by Islamic history that the Quran was a recitation.
(For the record another interpretation of the word Quran is something like "collection" which would make sense in the context of collecting together all the written verses. If this were the case, then it should again raise questions as to what the Quran really is for Muslims - something I am coming onto.)
So, we have a contradiction.
Now this is what my Muslim head would have responded with a year or so ago:
"Allah knows all things and is beyond time and space. He works in mysterious ways. He meant these revelations to become a book and knew they would become a book so refers to it as a "book". Simple." It's quite easy to find answers.
This is what my head tells me now:
"Islam, as it was spreading, came up against other forces. For ex. the Persians, the Jews and Christians. They had to defeat all of them militarily and theologically.
We need to understand Islam in context. It was shaped by certain outside forces very much as Trump's America is today in 2018. It uses "another" or "the other" to give it shape, meaning and purpose. Islam was no different.
'Islam' had a Prophet but it didn't have a book.
You see where I am going with this don't you?
Look, remember this is just a theory. A stab in the dark. But why else would the Quran call itself a book it it wasn't always meant to be a book?
Does that not seem perfectly reasonable? Seems not outside the realms of possibility to me.
If you believe the Quran is the word of God, accurately recorded as it was relayed to Muhammad, then OK, I respect your right to believe that. I did. But this makes no sense. You have to admit it at least smells a few days past the sell by date, no?
I believe the idea that the Quran is, was or is meant to be a book was added in by the early Muslims after Muhammad.
It's that simple.
They needed a book to match up to the local rivals, which would better their book, and hey ho presto, the Quran goes from becoming recorded recitations to a book!
This is where possibly the understanding of the Quran fundamentally changes in nature. Is this the point where the message all goes wrong?
If you approach the Quran as the eternal, literal word of Allah, the Almighty Creator, captured in a book to become the reference point for all mankind until the end of time, you have nowhere to go in terms of your understanding of what the Quran is. You are locked.
However, if you approach the Quran as a collection of oral recitations, as written versions of Muhammad telling his followers the words he heard in his head (or from an angel or whatever he likes) and simply as capturing his personal experience of God - we have something completely different in our hands. It no longer is this all-holy rule book that binds all mankind to some sort of eternal covenant with God - again sounds very much like a neighbouring religion.
What use is a religion that teaches you to have a personal experience with God?
None.
Any good religion knows you need a book and some scholars to interpret the book.
It's a theory anyway. Whatever the Quran is, it isn't what most Muslims believe it to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment