Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
M S M Saifullah, Jason W Hannan, & Elias Karîm
Assalamualaikum wa rahamtullahi wa barakatuhu:
The Christian missionaries have an objection to the statement of John Burton's
startling conclusion at the end of his book that says:
What we have today in our hands is the Mushaf of
Muhammad. [1]
According to the Christian missionaries:
But there is a problem with using this statement. Every conclusion is only as good as the basic
assumptions and presuppositions it is derived from. If my set of axioms are logically
incompatible we might as well forget all conclusions derived from them. And that is the
blunder many Muslims have committed when quoting Burton.
As long as you consider the Sahih Hadith collections as an authoritative source, you cannot
possibly refer to Burton as evidence without losing intellectual integrity. Make sure your
results are derived from a consistent presuppositional basis.
The Christian missionaries have fantasized that the Qur'ân we read today is
not the same Qur'ân that Muhammad left, an obvious attempt to imitate the
(P)
Muslim criticism of the Bible. Hence, diligently following the dictum: I will
be in your dreams if you can be in mine. However, the question is whether or
not these missionaries have taken the time to consider the repercussions of
such actions. A simple reflection upon the logic and intentions of their ideas
reveals a very sinister theme. For starters, the Muslim has a basis for the
textual criticism applied to the Bible: the Muslim states that the Bible is mostly
a collection of corrupted accounts of certain events of history. Had the
accounts been accurate, the Muslim would accept them. However, modern
New Testament scholarship has quite candidly emphasized its textual
corruption, which only strengthens the Muslim's belief on this issue. There
are no fabulous conspiracy theories from the Muslims. This is not the case
with Christian missionaries and their baseless attacks on the Qur'ân. Despite
the conclusions of the vast majority of orientalists, Christian missionaries still
insist on the authority of a few isolated conspiracy theorists. Should the
textual integrity of the Qur'ân be proven to them with out a shred of doubt, it
would still not change their minds as to the truth of the Qur'ânic message.
This is indisputably a perverse attempt at debunking a Muslim's faith rather
than a genuine pursuit of the truth.
It is to be said that the Christian missionaries' quoting of the
sources/references is based on a marriage of convenience. Any source which
is antiIslamic or that says the Qur'ân is 'corrupted' and 'borrowed' from the
JudeoChristian sources is good and 'logical'. A good example is the Christian
missionary use of the book of (or rather 'Gospel' of) Tisdall which has lots to
[2]
say about the 'sources' of the Qur'ân. The 'logic' of this book is that if a
similarity is shown between the Qur'ân and an outside source, the former has
borrowed from the latter. Logically, similarity does not imply borrowing. It
could even mean that outside source, e.g., God is the source of the Qur'ân.
This, of course, is unacceptable to the Christian missionary's 'logic'. The issue
of 'logic' and 'intellectual integrity' comes only when anything that contradicts
their preconceived ideas.
Tisdall's book does not make an effort to show the presence of such a source
in Arabia or the people who taught Muhammad . But the 'logic' still is that
(P)
Muhammad borrowed even though they can't show the evidence for
(P)
borrowing.
Regarding the issue of what Burton had said above concerning the Qur'ân, the
'logic' of the missionaries is that we should accept his premises that, i.e.,
rejection of the traditional sources concerning the origin of the Qur'ân as
forgeries. The Muslims, therefore, can't use Burton's thesis without accepting
the issue that the Islamic sources are forgeries.
The issue here is that the Islamic sources say that the Qur'ân as being read
today is same as what Muhammad recited. This, of course, is unacceptable to
(P)
the Christian missionaries. Now when Burton rejects the Islamic sources as
forgeries and still declares that the Qur'ân that we have in our hands is same
as that of Muhammad , it is still unacceptable to the missionaries. The reason
(P)
of nonacceptance in both these cases is not that of 'logic'. It has more to do
with a preconceived notion of showing that the Qur'ân is not the same
throughout the history even if it takes to surpass all the limits of logic.
The Christian missionaries have used the service of a Mr. Andreas Goerke. A
point needs to be made on Christian missionaries and Goerke's logic: Goerke
concludes his dissertation:
"[Burton's] assumptions seem to be rather arbitrary to me. I didn't find his argument
convincing that all hadiths on this subject were forged and not a single hint survived of what
really happened".
Brilliant conclusion, but to the missionaries' ill fate. Attempting to debunk the
authenticity of the Qur'ân by handing the Muslims a double edgedsword, he
didn't realize that he gave them the handle instead. If Burton has concluded
that the textual integrity of the Qur'ân can be proven without any of the
hadîths, and if Mr. Goerke rejects the notion that all of the hadîths were
forged, then what is Goerke defending? Answer: Hadîths, the "premises",
which support the Muslim belief in the first place. So, where does this leave
the missionaries? Back in the cradle.
It must be said that the Christian missionaries have developed a very poor
habit of adopting unknown individuals from the Internet and basing the most
pretentious ideas on their fragile statements. They have invented their own
academic convention of using Internet newsgroup postings, of all silly
resources, as a scholastic basis upon which to parade their attacks on the
Qur'ân. This bizarre attempt at vindicating their argument, by relying on
some newsgroup posting, is only insulting to themselves and any unfortunate
individuals who follow in their footsteps.
The missionaries have attempted to demonstrate for us their own exceptional
skills in geometric reasoning,
Every conclusion is only as good as the basic assumptions and presuppositions it is derived
from. If my set of axioms [is] logically incompatible, we might as well forget all conclusions
derived from them.
Their mentor seems to have been Mr. Goerke,
Well, accepting Mr. Burton's conclusions implies accepting his premises.
A beautiful idea. Since the missionaries introduced the principles of
syllogistic argumentation into this particular discussion, why don't they
maintain rational integrity and apply such logic to all points in the
discussion? Mr. Goerke began his argument,
if I remember correctly...
Is this how we begin a foundational argument? Can't the fellow at least
provide us with a genuine list of quotations and references to verify? No
discussion based on Goerke's memory of unreferenced statements should be
open for entertainment. No one should be at liberty to even bother.
We will briefly mention here the Christian missionaries' fatal attraction to
John Wansbrough, whose methodology is very similar to that of John Burton.
Wansbrough & Burton: A Tale Of Two ConspiracyMongers
Wansbrough suggested an alternate version to the traditional Islamic account
of the collection and composition of the Qur'ân. John Burton, a former student
of Wansbrough, was occupied with the same question at the same time and
his very different conclusions appeared in the same year, i.e.,1977. Burton
argued that the Qur'ân had been collected and composed in the life time of
Muhammad . Wansbrough, on the other hand, said that the Qur'ân did not
(P)
get canonized until 800CE. Both reject the traditional accounts of the process
in which the text was assembled, and both rely heavily on speculation as
the basis of their opinions. The Christian missionaries, who love to talk
about 'logic' and 'intellectual integrity', surprisingly enough, use
Wansbrough's thesis without compunctions and have nothing to say about
the his methodology. Thus, 'logic' and 'intellectual integrity' are conveniently
forgotten when the conclusions suit their scheme.
The theories that emerge from John Wansbrough's analysis are, in his own
words "conjectural" , "provisional" and "tentative and emphatically
[3] [4]
provisional" . Nevertheless, the implications are enormous: neither the Qur'ân
[5]
nor Islam are the products of Muhammad or even Arabia. During the early
(P)
Arab expansion beyond Arabia, there is no evidence that the conquerors were
Muslim. Almost 200 years later "early" Muslim literature began to be written
by the Mesopotamian clerical elite. The implication may be that the hitherto
secular polity discovered and adopted a new movement which, though a non
Jewish, nonChristian movement, was a product of JudeoChristian milieu.
This movement and its history were soon Arabicized. The Qur'ân however
took somewhat longer to canonize not until circa 800 CE. Most formidable is
the conclusion, not stated explicitly but inescapable from Wansbrough's
analysis, that the entire Muslim tradition about the early history of the text of
the Qur'ân is a pious forgery.
Conclusions
Simply stated, Wansbrough's reconstruction of the early Islamic history is
based on a massive conspiracy. So, if that is what Christian missionaries
believe then they have no right to use the hadîth material. Using the Christian
missionaries' own statement: There is a problem with using Wanbrough's
methodology. Every conclusion is only as good as the basic assumptions and
presuppositions it is derived from. If the set of axioms is logically
incompatible we might as well forget all conclusions derived from them. And
that is the blunder the Christian missionaries have committed when quoting
Wansbrough.
Finally, it would be worthwhile to add what Wansbrough thinks about
Burton's thesis, The Collection of The Qur'ân:
This remarkable work is the fruit of many years' study,
much discussion, and not a little tenacity. To my
persistent efforts at demolition, or at least modification
of his thesis, Dr. Burton has reacted by seeking even
closer definition and more extensive documentation. Its
final form is truly impressive. [6]
One is also tempted to add the Christian missionaries use of Crone and Cook
material to show the rise of Islam. Crone and Cook inform us that
[7]
Christianity is an amalgamation of various different cultures, namely
Judaism, Roman Imperialism and Hellenism, which clash together to form
Christianity, but over time has lost its cohesion and has now fallen apart. The
Christian missionaries should now accept this view of history, part and parcel
with the one they are now propounding.
References
[1] John Burton, The Collection of The Qur'ân, 1977, Cambridge University
Press, pp. 239240.
[2] Rev. W. St. Clair Tisdall, The Original Sources Of The Qur'ân, 1905, Society
For The Promotion Of Christian Knowledge, London.
[3] John Wansbrough, Qur'ânic Studies: Sources & Methods Of Scriptural
Interpretation, 1977, Oxford University Press, pp. xi.
[4] Ibid., pp. ix
[5] John Wansbrough, The Sectarian Milieu: Content & Composition Of
Islamic Salvation History, 1978, Oxford University Press, pp. x.
[6] John Wansbrough, Review of John Burton's The Collection of The Qur'ân,
Bulletin Of The School Of Oriental & African Studies, 1978, Volume 41, pp.
370.
[7] P Crone & M Cook, Hagarism: The Making Of The Islamic World, 1977,
Cambridge University Press.
And Allah knows best