Critical Analysis

The views of Muslim scholars are divided regarding the manner of the “revelation” of the Qur’ān into three views:

Jibril (Gabriel) memorized the Qur’ān from the Preserved Tablet and brought it down to Muhammad in word and meaning.

Jibril came down and shared with Muhammad only the meanings, which he learned and expressed them in the Arabic language.

Jibril alqa (“sent down”) the meanings to Muhammad, who then expressed these meanings in the Arabic language.

To say that Jibril came with the content of the Qur’ān to Muhammad and the latter expressed these meanings in his own language is a potentially dangerous theory. It could be the prelude to the task of the critical analysis of the Qur’ān, for such a theory would consider the Qur’ān to be Muhammad’s text and not a divine book. If the Qur’ān, in terms of structure, style, and formulation is a text authored by Muhammad and not a text from Allah, it means it is a man-made book, subject to research and criticism.

This view could have helped scholars to understand the Qur’ān free from any previous restrictions. But few Muslims dared to tackle the consequences that would result from pursuing this view of Qur’ānic revelation.

In spite of the limitation of intellectual freedom for those seeking truth regarding the Qur’ān, this suppression did not prevent the emergence of fearless figures in Arabic and Islamic studies who expressed opinions with deeper insight than the above theory. ‘Abd Allah Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ (d. c. AD 756), one of the geniuses in the Arabic language, wrote a book opposing the Qur’ān. History also gives us the name of Abu al-Hussain Ahmad Ibn Yehya Ibn Ishaq al-Rawandi, from the third century AH (ninth century AD), who wrote a book titled al-Zumurrud. In it, he addressed the biography of Muhammad and dubbed him the false prophet. Ibn al-Rawandi also criticized the Qur’ān in his book al-Damigh, a work that is, unfortunately, no longer extant, though scattered excerpts of it are found in the books of his critics.

In the third century AH, Abd al-Masih Ibn Ishaq al-Kindi wrote his famous apology known as Risalat al-Kindi in Arabic. It is a response to a letter by a Muslim scholar called Isma‘il al-Hashemi. In this apology, al-Kindi tackles many issues, defending the Christian doctrine, examining the biography of Muhammad, and critiquing the Qur’ān. In the context of refuting the eloquence of the Qur’ān, he poses this provocative question:

When the poets compose their poetry, and weigh it to make sure that it is to the proper scale, which is harder and more precise in meaning, it stays cohesive. Their choosing the pure, crystal clear, and completely Arabic words with good consistent meaning is more perfect in adhering to the rules and better formed. For your book [the Qur’ān] is full of broken rhythm, incongruent words, and exaggerations in meanings that are meaningless. If you say its meanings are the most accurate, we ask you: what strange meaning did you come up with? Show it to us and inform us about it so we can learn it from you.

Later in the fourth century AH (tenth century AD), Muhammad Ibn Zakaria Abu Bakr al-Razi, the physician and chemist, critiques the Qur’ān in all its various aspects. He rejects the claim that says that the Qur’ān is a miracle and responds to the demand to produce a religious book like it with the following comment:

If you want one like it in terms of better words we can get you a thousand like it from the words of the rhetoric, the eloquent, and the poets: words that are more fluent, more precise in meaning, more eloquent in function and expression, and more formed in rhythm. If that was not acceptable to you, then we demand of you to tell us what this “one like it” is that you are demanding of us to present.

He also remarks that “we find the words of Aktham Ibn Saifi [an Arab known for his wise sayings and proverbs] better than some of the suras of the Qur’ān”.

Al-Razi writes against the lengthiness, repetition, and contradictions within the Qur’ān. He also objects to it containing myths from ancient sources. He refers to them as matters that are of no benefit. He states that anyone who studies history is forced to agree that the stories of the Qur’ān are merely myths and tales that are not true.

This painful criticism led a contemporary Islamic researcher, Muhammad Ahmad Khalafallah, to try to find a way out of this trap. In his book al-Fan al-Qisasi fi al-Qur’ān al-Karim, he presents the view that behind the stories of the Qur’ān are practical purposes, and the aim is not for historicity but for admonition. He concludes, therefore, that they are true stories from the perspective of the end result but not from the historical perspective. At any rate, the theory of Khalafallah refutes the depiction of the Qur’ān as a false, mythical book by quoting from it: “...falsehood shall not come to it, from before it, nor from behind it - a revelation from the wise, the praiseworthy One” (Q 41.42).

We also learn from Ibn al-Nadim that other writers were critical of the Qur’ān’s authenticity. They include Yahya Ibn al-Harith, Ibn Shabib, Ahmad Ibn Ibrahim al-Warraq, and Yaqub Ibn Abi Shayba. Sadly, their works are lost, or more precisely, were intentionally disregarded and disposed of by a culture of a singular authoritarian religion.

The critical approach in this book is inspired by the courageous tradition of these scholars, while also incorporating the contemporary intellectual productions available in Arabic and foreign sources. The discoveries made through these scholarly critical methods are directed both to Muslims and non-Muslims equally:

To Muslims who seek genuine choices far from the culture of “indoctrination,” this book seeks to open the whole wide world to them, so that they can decide for themselves their intellectual and doctrinal path.

To non-Muslims who want to know and truly understand Islam, this book presents information that the Islamic sources and online links often attempt to hide—intentionally or not—to allow those who seek the truth to see and comprehend the full picture with all its outlines, colors, and dimensions.

References

1. al-Zarkashī 1: 229-330; compare with Abū Zayd 42, 45 and al-H. addād I‘jāz al-Qur’ān 14-15.

2. Badawī 80.

3. Ibid. 90-93.

4. Muir, Apology of al-Kindy 78-80.

5. Badawī 250.

6. Ibid. 250-251.

7. Ibn al-Nadīm 39.