The Holy Qur’an – Its Historical Authenticity
Nadir Aqueel Ansari
Fundamental Sources of Knowledge in Religions
No systematic study of a religion is possible without first determining its sources. Therefore, before we make an attempt to understand Islam, we have to be sure of the source material with us. We should first know what are the basic and fundamental sources from where reliable knowledge can be obtained about the teachings of this great world religion.
Since our understanding and study of Islam is to be based on them, these sources must qualify certain criteria. As we shall see in this chapter, they must be
1. Well defined
2. Authentic and
3. Intelligible.
In other words, they should be so specific, reliable and meaningful that a matter so important as religion can be based on them.
Well Defined
The source material of a religion should be well defined, specifically known and its boundaries should be marked clearly. The genuine material should not be mixed up with spurious material.
When we say that the sources are not well defined, it means that it is difficult to determine whether something is part of the source material or not. It also shows that the source material may be so widely spread, dispersed, diffused and confused with other material that it is not possible to sift the genuine material from the fake.
Examples of such a source material (which is not well defined) can be found in a number of religions. The sacred books of the Jews include Talmud, Mishnah and Gemara which are spread over thousands pages. Talmud has two versions (Babylonian and Palestinian) and many a times the different reports and versions do not agree. According to their scholars, their book Talmud is still incomplete and is still being developed by the Jew Rabbis [i]. There are several versions of the literature and it is painstaking to determine what is genuine and what is not.
Similarly among Hindus, the sacred literature is even more voluminous than that of Jews and again has many versions.
Many tribal religions have no defined sources of their faith at all. Their religious source material consists of a large treasure of songs, stories and myths.
Similar is the case of faiths where the fundamental teachings of a religion are kept secret. For instance a few Muslim sub-sects and mystics like Hallaj, believed that the beliefs should not be preached in public. They always kept them secret and only a few people in every era knew the true teachings. It is reported that Imam Jafar said, ‘This affair of Imamat is occult and veiled by a promise, and whoever unveils it will be disgraced by God.’ [ii] On another occasion he is reported to have said,
‘Keep our affairs secret, and do not divulge it publicly, for whoever keeps it secret and does not reveal it , God will exalt him and whoever divulges it publicly and does not keep it secret, god will disgrace him in this world and will take away light from his eyes in the hereafter. Verily, taqiya (concealing) is of my religion and one who does not keep taqiya has no religion. One who reveals our affairs is the one who denies them’. [iii]
Obviously in such cases the source of religion is not only poorly defined, but is also hidden. A student or follower of such a faith would not be able to access its sources of information freely.
To summarize, the source material of a religion should be well defined, which means that:
• Its boundaries should be clear.
• It should not be concealed.
Authentic
The sources also have to be authentic in historical terms. They should be so authentic as not to leave any shadow of doubt about their genuineness. If the fundamental sources of a religion do not come up to the standards of historicity, they are mere stories and myths and are of little use for guidance and salvation.
The sources of Greek religion are myths which have little element of historical truth in them.
The Old Testament of Jews and the Bible of Christians have been so severely criticized by the modern historians and scholars that a large number of Christian scholars themselves no more believe that their sacred books were conveyed to them through reliable sources. Moreover, the Christian religious literature consists of both canonical (declared authentic) and apocryphal (doubtful) books. The debate as to which of them is genuine and which is apocryphal is the one of the most important points of difference between the Protestants and the Roman Catholics.
To summarize, the Authenticity of religious source material means that the historical process through which the material has reached us should be reliable. The external historical evidence should support that the material is not based on hearsay, is not based on the evidence of a small number of people, and is backed by sound documentary and/or oral evidence.
Intelligible
The sacred books of a religion must also be intelligible to us if at all they can guide us in the spiritual as well as day to day matters. Religion is not meant for scholars, philosophers and linguists only. It is meant for the common man also who is equally in need of correct moral guidance. The sources should therefore be intelligible to all. The Intelligibility describes the language as well as the contents of the sources.
The language should be comprehensible. In addition to the source material, sufficient literature in the same language should also be available. The additional literature helps determine the usage, precise meanings of words, idioms and shades of meanings. This is intelligibility of the language.
The contents should also be intelligible, that is, the substance should not be complex, riddled with ambiguities, too symbolic, and so obscure that it renders the literature of no practical worth. Similarly, the contents should be free of contradictions, errors, and inconsistencies and should be in accordance with common sense.
For instance it is not possible to understand the religious scriptures of Buddhists and Hindus in the modern age. They were written in Sanskrit and Paali languages, thousands of years ago. These languages went into disuse centuries ago. There are few people who can understand these scriptures, written in these dead languages. Moreover their content is deeply philosophical and complex. Even if we are able to learn Sanskrit or Paali languages, we will find their message very ambiguous, elusive and difficult to understand.
Same is the case with Jewish literature, which was written in classical Hebrew, which only a few modern people can understand.
Similarly the books of mystic religions are also written in complex manner, employing difficult terms and concepts, which make them unintelligible. Moreover, they interpret their religious texts in a gnostic manner, that is they read hidden meanings in the text which are far from the apparent meanings being conveyed by the words of the text.
In case of Jewish and Christian scriptures (Old and New Testaments) the number of textual errors, internal inconsistencies and disagreements with known history and common sense have been pointed out by a number of scholars.
Such original sources may be revered by the followers but are of no practical use to us in finding the way to salvation. An intelligible piece of material should also be free of inconsistencies and statements that simply violate the common sense. It should not contain contradictory information on any subject. Such contradictions also rob the source material of its intelligibility.
To summarize, Intelligibility requires that the scripture be:
• written in a live language
• comprising comprehensible contents
• free of inconsistencies
• should have apparent meanings and not ‘hidden’ meanings
Sources of knowledge on Islam
To identify the sources of Islam, we turn to the Holy Qur’an, which says:
“O ye who believe, if you believe in Allah and the Day of Judgment, obey Allah, obey the Messenger and the rulers among you; and if any dispute arises among you on a matter, refer it to Allah and his Messenger” (Sura Nisaa Verse 59).
This verse is the cornerstone of Muslim faith and society. It means that the ultimate source of our religion is Allah and his Messenger. In this verse Allah has clearly outlined the sources from where we should derive our religious faiths and practices.
This verse ordains Muslims to obey
• Allah
• the Messenger (Holy Prophet) and
• the Rulers.
Immediately, it clarifies that in case of a dispute, we have to submit the dispute before
• Allah and
• his Messenger.
This time, even the rulers are excluded. This shows that in fact, the Muslims are required to obey only Allah and his Messenger who are thus considered by the Muslims as the only sources of Islam.
Addition to these or deletion of any one, would amount to transfiguring the faith of Islam. Even the companions of the Holy Prophet (Pbuh), the best people in Muslim history, used to go back to these sources if there was any dispute.
What do we have with us that represent the will of Allah and his Messenger?
God has never communicated with us directly. He does not communicate with human beings directly except through his chosen ones. It was Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) who received wahee (revelation) from God, which the Muslims have with them now. It was through the Holy Prophet that Allah has expressed and conveyed His will and commandments for humanity and His designs about the universe. The only source of knowledge about Islam, therefore, is the personality of the Holy Prophet Peace be upon him. A Muslim has to believe and follow whatever commands of Allah the Prophet communicated to him.
This means that we have to look for what the Holy Prophet has left for us. Now whatever we have received from the Prophet can be classified into the following three source materials. The Holy Prophet did not leave anything else to us except these three, i.e.
1. The Holy Qur’an - Muslim Scripture,
2. The Sunnah - the practices of the Holy Prophet and
3. Hadeeth - the sayings, actions, biography of the Holy Prophet.
We would attempt to analyze and investigate the Holy Qur’an, to ascertain whether it is Authentic, Well Defined and Intelligible.
The Holy Qur’an - its revelation and history of compilation
The Holy Qur’an was presented to the people of Arabia by the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). It was presented in parts during 23 years of his prophetic life. The Book presents itself as the word of God and the Holy Prophet also presented as such.
The Muslims believe that the Holy Qur’an, being the revealed word of God, is the cornerstone of their faith. They get their philosophy, beliefs and laws from this book - it is their lifeblood. It is the Word of God revealed to his Messenger Muhammad Peace be upon him, who read it out before the world loud and clear. He not only recited it to the people of Arabia, he also made elaborate arrangements to ensure that it’s contents be preserved and his companions should learn it by heart and should also reduce it to writing. The Holy Prophet’s stress on the supremacy of the Book of Allah, over all other sources of religious knowledge, was unequivocal and categorical.
The Muslims believe that the Holy Prophet actually heard or received the divine words. The Holy Qur’an was communicated to the Holy Prophet
• either through Wahee (Revelation), or
• through an angel or
• through words spoken by God Himself.
All these three forms of communication, the Muslims believe, are verbatim in nature, that is to say, that the Holy Qur’an consists of actual words of Allah, communicated to the Holy Prophet.
The Holy Qur’an is not like the writings of the New Testament, where God inspired a scribe to write down the scripture; the idea and words were those of the scribe while God only supervised the scribe. In other cases, the Christians would like to say that the scribe was inspired by God and revealed a certain idea to him. The scribe then wrote it down in his own words. In case of the Qur’an, the words and ideas are both divine.
The words and verses of the Holy Qur’an were preserved, through the oral as well as the written traditions, in the Holy Prophet’s lifetime. A very large number of companions of the Prophet participated in this preservation process and the text was safely handed over to the next generation. The process was so immaculate and tremendously sound, that the preservation of the Holy Qur’an has become an established fact of history.
What do the Muslims mean when they say that the Holy Qur’an in their hands today is exactly the one that was revealed to the Holy Prophet, and that this is an established fact of history? The meaning and significance of this statement can be explained in the terms of history where we would like to know when an historical fact is established beyond any shadow of doubt.
Chains of reports consisting of individuals
Usually reports about the past have reached us through oral reports, written reports, practical tradition or archaeological artifacts.
For instance, the views of Socrates originated as oral reports (words of mouth) which were later recorded by Plato and other writers. The plays of Shakespeare have reached us through documentary evidence (written words). The report that Buddha used to meditate in a certain posture has reached us through archaeological remains (pieces of art - artifacts - like statues and engravings). The Christian institution of Baptism and the way a newborn is baptized has traveled through centuries to us through practical continuity (practice). These reports are considered as micro-history. They are to be judged in the light of the authenticity of the narrators (in case of oral evidence), the scribes (in case of written evidence), the clerics (in case religious rites) or the artists that created the pieces of art (in case of archaeological evidence).
Discussions in micro history hinge on detailed and incisive discussions on individuals (scribes, narrators and artists etc.). The authenticity of the report depends upon the veracity of these individuals. The lives of these individuals are examined to get an idea of the authenticity of the report they have conveyed us. Their character, capabilities, resources, environment, and location at a certain place and time are studied. Obviously, the individual being the kingpin in such instances of micro-history must be shown to be reliable, truthful, unprejudiced and intelligent (to confirm his ability to comprehend, retain and truly express the facts).
Once the personal traits of the individuals are investigated, the historians turn to the question of continuity. Continuity means that the individuals involved in collecting and then transmitting the report to us must be shown to be in a state of uninterrupted contact and communication. We are referring to the fact that there should be an immediate proximity in time and place between the two reporters who form one ring of the chain of transmission. There should be no time when the report remained with anonymous narrators because then we cannot investigate the personal traits of the individuals. It should also not suffer from oblivion because, in that case, any change or corruption in the report, during the time it remained hidden from us, cannot be ruled out. If the communication between two consecutive reporters is smooth, continuous and uninterrupted, the report gathers strength. This evidence for continuity is however to be produced in respect of each stage of the chain of reporters, enabling us to say with a fair degree of confidence that the report is worth consideration.
If the investigation of individuals and continuity of the report leads to positive conclusions, we have established one chain of the report. Sometimes two or more such chains of reports, leading to the same event, can be established. For example, two courtiers of Akbar the Great may narrate the same incident. In such cases, the supporting narration should be identical or at least similar. If the individuals involved in the chain and the continuity of their transmission has been investigated, these corroborating reports strengthen and reinforce each other and we are able to place more confidence in the substance brought out by them.
We can summarize our discussion by saying that in micro history, the following components are vital:
• Individuals
• Continuity of the report
• Corroboration (if any, by way of multiple chains of individuals)
If an event or a substance is supported by this investigation it becomes worth considering for a historian. However, information obtained through chains of individual to individual transmission can never establish a fact beyond any shadow of doubt. The primary reason is that in such examinations, the historicity of the report ultimately depends on one or two individuals. If our assessment about even one of the individuals in the chain of reporters is faulty, the entire chain is shaken. These individuals may be widely known as men of reasonably good character, fairly reliable memory, relatively sound understanding and relatively free of prejudices. However, they cannot be assumed to be of infallibly good character, unfailing memory, perfect understanding and absolutely free of prejudices. This makes our assessment of individual reports somehow subjective and introduces an element of probability in our judgments.
Similarly, our investigation (and finally our judgment) about them can be extremely cautious, scientific and objective, yet it cannot be infallible and indubitable. We were told that an individual was known to be honest, truthful and reliable, but we know that individual behavior is not predictable. After all we are dealing with human beings. One may be honest and truthful throughout one’s life but stumble in the end. One may have a sound memory yet he may sometimes be forgetful also.
Moreover, how are we going to collect evidence about the personal traits of these individuals? Obviously we would be looking for more parallel chains of reporters to learn about a certain individual. These sources would suffer from the same limitations, thereby compounding our problem.
Before proceeding ahead let us summarize our discussion. The chains of reports consisting of individuals, may lead us to a fair degree of plausibility of an event, yet they cannot lead us to the knowledge of the event that is beyond any shadow of doubt because of the following reasons:
1. The reliability of the report hinges on one or two individuals
2. These individuals are not infallible.
3. Our investigation and judgment about these individuals can also be incorrect.
The Hadeeth Scholars of early Muslim History were alive to the above discussion and they termed Individual to Individual Report as Khabr-e-Wahid (or Individual Report). Almost the entire Hadeeth literature consists of Akhbar-e-Ahad (Individual Reports).
Chains of reports consisting of Generations
On the other hand in macro history we deal with facts, incidents and reports transmitted, not by one or two individuals to another individual, but by one generation that witnessed a fact and testified it to the next generation. For example, the fact that the Crusades did take place between Christians and the Muslims is a fact transmitted by generations to generations. The generation that actually fought and witnessed the wars conveyed this knowledge to the next generation and so on till it reached us. This communication to succeeding generations can be through any means - oral, written or through any mode of art. But the important condition is that there should be no interruption between the successive generations that were involved.
Here we may note that the units of such chains of transmission are not individuals, but generations. This singular difference changes the very character of such a report.
Historical facts are empirical observations of men. This means that they communicate to other people facts they had observed through their senses. The limitations of senses are known. However, in Generation-to-Generation Transmission, we are talking of the empirical observations of the entire generations and not of a few individuals. Such testimony, obviously, provides us the surest and the most reliable knowledge of a past event. Such knowledge is as definite as anything can be in human matters.
When we are talking of scientific principles of history, an important condition of Generation-to- Generation Transfer is that it should not deal with opinions and ideas of individuals but the hard facts, which were witnessed, seen and/or heard by the first Generation (empirical facts). [iv] This condition eliminates the possibility of mythologies and opinions being included in the Generation-to-Generation Transmission.
Generation-to-Generation transmission is thus marked by:
1. The fact is witnessed by a large number of people, sometimes the entire generation.
2. The fact consists of an empirically observed (seen or heard) phenomenon and does not consist of any opinion.
3. The generations continue to transfer the fact to the successive ones, without interruption and at all stages the number of the people involved in transmission is so large that it is impossible to assume that they misperceived the fact or agreed to tell a lie or forgot the truth.
Summarizing the salient differences between Individual-to-Individual Transmission and Generation-to-Generation Transmission are:
1. The reliability of the report from generation to generation does not hinge upon one or two individuals. It rather depends on the hundreds and thousands of people that lived together in a known place and time.
2. It is no more necessary to investigate the character, understanding, memory or impartiality of individuals involved in a Generation-to-Generation transmission. The entire generations can neither be investigated not should it be necessary. When such a large number of people convey a fact, it is impossible that all of them could have wrongly reported it, forgotten it or could have developed a consensus on telling lies.
3. There is no need to establish the continuity of reporting chain consisting of individuals. One generation is so perfectly enmeshed into another, and the contact and proximity with the next generation is so intimate and obvious that conducting an inquiry to prove it is not required, and the continuity should be taken as granted.
4. When hundreds and thousands of people are conveying a fact to the next generation, we do not need any corroborating evidence. Agreement of the entire generation is so overwhelmingly strong that it renders further corroboration redundant.
5. An Individual-to-Individual Report only makes a fact probable and therefore remains open to further investigations and is revised in the light of fresh discoveries, whereas a Generation-to-Generation Transmission proves the fact beyond any shadow of doubt.
To further elaborate the issue, these differences between an Individual-to-Individual Report and Generation-to-Generation Transmission have been represented graphically also.
Subject matter of books on history
The ordinary books of history we read apparently consist of narration of, investigation into and compilation of individual to individual reports. Such reports by the dint of being only probable at best require investigation and reconciliation between different accounts. They catch most of the historian’s attention and interest. That is why, normally history is considered to consist of Individual to Individual Reports.
A closer examination would however reveal that the books of history actually rest on the foundation of Generation to Generation Reports, around which the details, gathered from Individual to Individual Reports, are built. The Generation to Generation Reports are historically established facts and therefore historians seldom question them or contest them. Since they are taken as known facts, a superficial reader of history may miss them. But seen more carefully, the history books are like flesh of Individual to Individual Reports, put on the skeleton of Generation to Generation Reports.
In a way, we are talking here of Historical Foundationalism, which signifies the fact that most history accounts have a foundation, which is self evident and need not be proved because of overwhelming empirical evidence. The details of the historical account constitute the pyramid of history, which rests on this firm, secure and certain base. These details are mostly obtained through Individual to Individual Reports and are selected out of the huge mass of reports, preferring those that fit well with the foundation. This is Historical Coherentism where, the details must be in harmony with the foundation of history. The Individual to Individual Reports then fit into a jigsaw puzzle with an observable interlocking strength. Historical Coherentism thus governs our selection and preference of Individual to Individual Reports out of the conflicting and divergent mass available. Once an individual report fits well with the structure and is not in conflict with the Foundation, it becomes acceptable as a probable report. Obviously, Historical Foundationalism provides the basic framework while Historical Coherentism helps us fill in the details.
Due to excessive debates on the probable reports, and because most of the facts about the past are based on them, the Individual to Individual Reports assume an apparently conspicuous position, whereas the foundation goes unnoticed by a common reader. Although if asked, we learn that he fully accepts the foundation (Generation to Generation Reports) with full certitude.
An illustration would help us understand this. If an historian writes a book on Hitler, guess how much volume of the book would be devoted to the details of the personality, life events, wars, family, views and character of Hitler? Probably the whole book! On the other hand, how many pages would be employed to answer the questions - whether Hitler really existed? Did Hitler live in the twentieth century or the Middle Ages? Was Hitler a German or a Red Indian? Obviously, we should except not even a sentence on these issues. Why? Because the foundation of writing Hitler’s history is know with certainty. It should therefore be taken without debate. If not mentioned in the book, the readers take these facts for granted. As a result the book would almost entirely consist of Individual to Individual Reports while the Foundation (Generation to Generation Reports) is not mentioned. In this way, historians work more on Individual Reports and the significance of self evident (Generation to Generation) Reports are not brought to the fore. But the core of the book consists of a number of historically established facts and any Individual Report that tends to call these facts into question is conveniently shelved. Reports such as those suggesting that Hitler never existed or that he was a Chinese by descent or that he lived in Middle Ages would all be termed as unfounded in reality and would be seen as myths.
Similarly, while studying the history of the Holy Qur’an, we have to see the Foundation which is common to all reports, and then see the Individual Reports that fit in with the foundation. Obviously, any Individual Report that contradicts the Generation to Generation Report cannot be accepted.
Terminology of the Muslim Historiography
In the Historiography (Ilm-e-Hadeeth) developed by the Muslims, the Individual to Individual Report is termed as Khabr-e-Wahid (Individuals’ Report) whereas the Generation to Generation Report is called Mutawatir, and the process of Generation to Generation Transmission is known as Tawatur.
The entire history is seen as divided into these two broad categories. It is believed that Tawatur is above all suspicion and there is no need to investigate the individuals involved in communicating it. Rather, a Mutawatir report is defined as one in which there is no need to examine the individuals constituting the chain, because there is no chain of individuals that can be termed as the basis of the tawatur. [v] We would, henceforth, use these terms in our subsequent discussions.
Tawatur is thus defined as the process by which one generation communicates a fact (observed or heard) to another, and so on, without interruption. This communications is achieved in such a manner that the number of communicators in each generation is so large that there is no possibility of the fact being misperceived, misconstrued, forgotten or their having agreed to tell a lie or
The Holy Qur’an has reached us through Tawatur
The Holy Qur’an has reached us through the process of tawatur - historical continuity and perpetuation achieved through transfer from generation to generation. When we say that the Qur’an has reached us through tawatur, we mean to say that so many people in every generation conveyed it to the next and so on that there can be no doubt about its authenticity. It would be incorrect to believe that a few persons in one generation transmitted it to a few persons in the next. It was handed over by the entire generations to the successive generations. The Generation of the Companions of the Holy Prophet witnessed the revelation and compilation of the Holy Qur’an during the life of the Holy Prophet and then handed it over to the next generation and so on.
The authenticity of the Holy Qur’an has far exceeded the need for any debate. In the presence of established history, we would not accept any individual reports and rumors that assail the Mutawatir Foundation. Since it has achieved the status of Tawatur, no odd Individuals’ Report would affect its credibility. When generations and generations of people without interruption hold the Qur’an as the one and only version of the divine guidance received from the Holy Prophet, such dissenting individual reports would not infringe upon its authenticity. The overwhelming evidence of millions of people would simply override the evidence of a few individuals.
.
مشاركة: جمع القرآن ...هل من مساعدة؟؟
رد مع اقتباس
المفضلات