The Qur'an: An Eternal Challenge

1

The Qur’ān: Its Definition and How It Differs from Ḥadīth

The word Qur’ān in Arabic is a form of the infinitive, which means ‘to read’. The term is used in this infinitive sense in the two verses: "It is for Us to gather it and to cause it to be read. Thus when We recite it, follow you its recitation. (75: 17–18.) The term has come to acquire a new sense, which denotes the glorious Book revealed by God. Today, this is the most common usage of the word. It also occurs in God’s statement: This Qur’ān shows the way to all that is most upright." (17: 9.)

In fact, it is called ‘The Qur’ān’ because it is actually read by mouth, and it is called ‘The Book’ because it is written down with pens. Both names are derived from what actually takes place with regard to it. The fact that these two descriptions have come to be treated as names of the Divine Book refers to its rightful treatment which requires that it be kept and preserved in two places instead of one: people’s memories and the pages of a book. Thus, should an error find its way into one, the other will correct it. We do not trust what a reciter learns by heart unless it is confirmed by the written text which has been unanimously approved by the Prophet’s Companions and which has come down to us, through the generations, in its original form. Nor do we trust the writings of any scribe unless it is confirmed by what scholars who memorise the Qur’ān have shown to be its correct version through uninterrupted chains of reporters.

This double care, which God has ensured, imparts to the Muslim community a keen desire to keep the Qur’ān intact, in conscious following of the Prophet Muḥammad’s guidance. This exceptional care has ensured that the Qur’ān remains in an unassailable position with regard to its accuracy and purity from all distortion. This is a practical aspect of the fulfilment of God’s promise to preserve the Qur’ān in its original form, as is clear in His statement: "It is We Ourselves who have bestowed from on high this reminder, and it is We who shall truly preserve it [from all corruption]. (15: 9.) Hence, it has remained free from all manner of distortion, corruption and interruption of reporting which befell earlier Scriptures. Those Scriptures God did not take upon Himself to preserve. He left it to people to guard and keep. He says: And so did the [early] men of God and the rabbis, inasmuch as some of God’s writ had been entrusted to their care; and they all bore witness to its truth." (5: 44.) This distinction has a reason. All former Divine revelations have been meant to apply for a period of time, not for all times. The Qur’ān, on the other hand, was sent down from on high to confirm the truth of what was revealed earlier and to supersede them all. Thus, it contains all that they established of true fact, adding whatever God has willed by way of addition. It takes over their roles, but none of them may play its role. It is God’s will that the Qur’ān should remain the final arbiter until the Day of Judgement. When God wills something, He, Wise and All-Knowing as He certainly is, brings together what ensures that His will is done as He pleases.

In this fine sense, the Qur’ān may be described as particular and true, as may be said in logic. Hence, it is difficult to define it by any standard logical definition which speaks of kinds, parts and characteristics. This applies to all that is true and particular: they cannot be defined in this manner, because each part of a logical definition is universal in itself, and what is universal cannot, conceptually, be exactly like what is particular. This is because the universal applies to all that is mentally considered identical to it in that sense, even though it may not exist in reality. Thus, it does not distinguish it from everything else. As such, it does not become a truly definitive description.

A particular object is defined by reference to it when it is physically present or familiar to our minds. Thus, if you want a definitive description of the Qur’ān, you have no way of doing so unless you refer to it as it is written down in its book or read by mouth. You will then say: It is what is contained between this front cover and this back cover. Or you may say: "It is the following text – [and then you read it all from the first word in Sūrah Al-Fātiḥah, or The Opening, to the last word in Sūrah AlNās, or Men.]"

The definitions used by scholars in terms of kinds and parts, which are normally used to define universal facts, are mainly intended to make it easier to understand and to distinguish it from whatever may be given a similar name, even falsely. All books revealed by God, sacred aḥādīth and some of the Prophet’s aḥādīth are, like the Qur’ān, revelations by God. Someone may, on the basis of this fact, imagine that these may also be called by the same name, the Qur’ān. Hence, scholars try to explain that the name applies only to it by highlighting its qualities and characteristics that distinguish it from all others. They may define the Qur’ān as follows: The Qur’ān is the word of God, which He has sent down to Muḥammad [peace be on him] and the recitation of which is a form of worship.

When we analyse this definition we find that the term ‘the word’ refers to a type that includes all speech, but when it is attributed to God, it excludes the speech of everyone else, human, jinn or angels.

That this word of God is ‘sent down’ excludes all other words of God that He has kept to Himself or addressed to the angels to implement without imparting it to any human being. Not every word of God has been revealed or sent down. Indeed, what has been sent down is only a small portion: "If all the sea were ink for my Lord’s words, the sea would indeed be exhausted before my Lord’s words are exhausted, even though We were to add to it sea upon sea. (18: 109.) If all the trees on earth were pens, and the sea were ink, with seven more seas yet added to it, the words of God would not be exhausted." (31: 27.)

The definition makes a further exclusion by saying that it is ‘sent down to Muḥammad.’ This excludes what has been sent down to earlier prophets, such as the Torah revealed to Moses and the Gospel revealed to Jesus, and the Psalms revealed to David and the scrolls sent down to Abraham [peace be on them all].

The last exclusion is indicated by the phrase which describes its recitation as a form of worship. This means that the Qur’ān includes only the part of revelation that we are ordered to read in prayer and at other times as part of our worship. Thus, everything that we are not required to recite is excluded, such as the methods of recitation which have been transmitted by single reporters at a time, unlike the methods of recitation transmitted by large numbers of reporters in every generation. Also excluded are the sacred aḥādīth, which are aḥādīth quoting God Himself, if we take the view that their wording was revealed by God.

Ordinary aḥādīth said by the Prophet may be divided into two categories according to their meanings: the first is ‘deduced’, which includes those aḥādīth the Prophet stated on the basis of his understanding of God’s word or his contemplation of the universe. This category is certainly not part of the word of God. The second category is ‘received’. The import of such aḥādīth is given to the Prophet through revelation and he has taught it to mankind in his own words. This means that in meaning and content, this second category is attributed to God, but in its phraseology should be attributed to the Prophet [peace be on him]. Normally speech is attributed to the speaker who constructs it in its style, even though the meaning it expresses may be one that is very familiar and has been transmitted from one person to another. Thus, the two categories of ḥadīth are excluded because the first qualification in the definition of the Qur’ān is that it is ‘God’s word’.

Similarly excluded is the sacred, or qudsī ḥadīth, if we say that it is revealed in meaning only. This is the weightier view in our judgement. Had it been revealed in wording as well, it would have had the same sanctity as the Qur’ān. There would be no grounds for distinguishing two types of revealed speech attributed to God. Had the case been so and the qudsī ḥadīth been revealed in word and meaning, it would have been imperative to preserve it intact, and it would not be permissible to quote it in meaning only, and its narrator would not have been allowed to handle its sheets without performing ablution. No scholar has ever claimed that.

In addition to the fact that we are required to implement the Qur’ān in practice, it also has another purpose, which is to set a challenge by its superior style and to perform worship by its recitation. Hence, it had to be revealed by word and text. The qudsī ḥadīth has no such additional purposes of challenge and worship. It is simply revealed for the implementation of its message. For this purpose, understanding the meaning is sufficient. To claim that it is revealed in word as well is to claim what is unnecessary and without a solid basis, except perhaps the phrases mentioned in some of the qudsī aḥādīth attributing the statement to God. But what we have already said tells us that this applies to the meaning rather than to the wording. It is, in fact, common usage in Arabic. When one explains a line of poetry, for example, one says, ‘the poet says so and so’, and when we explain in our own words a verse of the Qur’ān we say, ‘God tells us this and that’. In the same way God tells us what Moses, Pharaoh and others said, stating the import of what they actually said, but expressing it in words and styles other than those they used. He nevertheless attributes those words to them.

If we were to claim that nothing other than the meaning is sacred in a qudsī ḥadīth, we would be right to use the same description, i.e. qudsī, in reference to some of the Prophet’s aḥādīth as well, because they include meanings revealed by God. The answer to this is that we know for certain that a qudsī ḥadīth has been revealed in meaning. We have clear statements by the Prophet which attribute it to God Himself. In this it is distinguished from ordinary aḥādīth which have no such attribution. Thus, it is possible that an ordinary ḥadīth may be taught to the Prophet by revelation or deduced by him through reflection. Hence we describe all aḥādīth as statements by the Prophet, because this is what we are certain of. Had we had a distinctive mark to indicate the part that is revealed to the Prophet, we would have called it qudsī or sacred as well.

However the division of ḥadīth into these categories does not entail any practical distinction. We must act on every ḥadīth, whatever its category is. The Prophet is honest and truthful in what he conveys of what is revealed to him and he is always right in what he deduces. He is also supported by the Holy Spirit, who does not allow a mistake to pass, should the Prophet make any such mistake in matters of religion. This means that in both respects, what the Prophet says has its origin in what is revealed to him, either by instruction or by confirmation. Hence, we must accept all his Sunnah and act on it, as we are commanded in the Qur’ān: "Take whatever the Prophet gives you and refrain from whatever he forbids you. (59: 7.) Whenever God and His Messenger have decided a matter, it is not for a believing man or a believing woman to claim freedom of choice insofar as they themselves are concerned." (33: 36.)

2

The Source of The Qur’ān: Divine Text, Divine Meaning

It is universally known, beyond any shred of doubt, that this sublime book, the Qur’ān, was delivered to mankind through Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib [peace be on him], an unlettered Arab man born in Makkah in the sixth century. This much is not subject to disagreement between believers and non-believers. No other book or event in history is so universally accepted as such.

Now the question arises: was Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdullāh [peace be on him] its author, expressing his own thoughts? Or was it given to him by a tutor? If so, who might that tutor have been?

We read in this very book that it is not the composition of the man who brought it to us. It is described as: "The word of a noble and mighty Messenger, who enjoys a secure position with the Lord of the Throne. He is obeyed in heaven, faithful to his trust." (81: 19–21.) This Messenger is Gabriel, the angel, who received it from God, the Wise, the All-Knowing. He then brought it down in a clear and lucid Arabic style and conveyed it to Muḥammad. Muḥammad [peace be on him] received it from him as a student receives a text from his teacher. What he did with it after he received it was: 1) to learn and memorise it; 2) to report and convey it; 3) to explain it; and 4) to implement it in practical life. He had nothing to do with the creation of its meanings or the setting of its purpose. It is all an inspiration which was revealed to him.

There are numerous references to this fact in the Qur’ān itself, such as: "When you [O Prophet] do not produce any miracle for them, they will say, ‘Why do you not seek to have one?’ Say: ‘I only follow whatever is being revealed to me by my Lord.’ (7: 203.) Say: It is not for me to alter it [i.e. the Qur’ān] of my own volition; I only follow what is revealed to me. (10: 15.) There are many other texts that refer to the revelation of the meanings of the Qur’ān. We also have references to its being revealed by word as well: We have sent it down from on high as a discourse in the Arabic tongue. (12: 2.) We shall teach you to read, and you shall not forget. (87: 6.) Do not move your tongue in haste [repeating the words of the revelations], for it is for Us to gather it and to cause it to be read. Thus when We recite it, follow you its recitation. Then it is for Us to make its meaning clear." (75: 16–19.) The Prophet is given instructions such as ‘read, convey, recite,’ all in connection with the Qur’ān and its verses. All these, as well as ‘moving his tongue’ and the text being in Arabic apply to the wording and the text, not to its meanings.

The Qur’ān states very clearly and unequivocally that neither Muḥammad [peace be on him] nor any other creature had anything to do with the composition of the Qur’ān. It was revealed by God, in word and meaning.

It is very peculiar that some people still require evidence to prove the first part of this question, which is that Muḥammad did not write it himself. Had this been a case looked into by any judge whose sole aim is to establish the truth, the judge would have done no more than to accept this testimony by Muḥammad himself. He would not have required any further evidence, material or logical. There is no claim being made here to require irrefutable evidence. It is an admission that is binding on the one who makes it. Neither friend nor foe would hesitate to accept it from him. No rational person who makes a claim to leadership and supports his claim with miraculous events would attribute his finer goods to someone else, disowning them totally and completely. In fact, the opposite is true: his position would be enhanced if he were to claim such goods for himself. Moreover, he would meet no objection to his claim from any person on earth.

What we know is that many writers resort to plagiarism in order to claim for themselves what other people have written. Or they plagiarise what gives their writings some finer qualities when they feel that their action is unlikely to be detected. In fact, some of them resort to grave digging, in order to claim for themselves stuff written by authors that have been long dead. No one in history has ever attributed to someone else the finest pieces of his own thought, or his most superb writings, or the most precious jewel in his crown. This is unheard of. If we were to suppose that this could happen, we cannot find any reasonable or even semi-reasonable justification for it.

A naïve person may suggest, however, that such an aspirant to leadership might have thought that by attributing the Qur’ān to Divine revelation he may find it easier to win people’s obedience for his orders. Such a claim, it might be thought, would give his orders a special sanctity which could not otherwise belong to them had he declared that he himself had issued them all. But this is false, both in essence and in nature.

It is essentially false because the man who brought the Qur’ān to us made statements that he attributes to himself, and others that he attributes to God Almighty. What he claims to be his own is no less binding on us than what he attributes to God. Nor is obedience of the latter more imperative. In fact, he claims the same degree of obedience for both types without distinction. Their sanctity is the same. To obey him is to obey God, and to disobey him is to disobey the Almighty. If it is a question of obedience that is behind the claim of Divine authorship, then why has he not claimed it for everything he himself said?

This is also false in nature because it relies on an unfounded assumption that such a leader is one who wishes to establish reforms, but who does not mind giving his reforms a foundation of lies and falsehood. Historical truth disproves this. Anyone who monitors his conduct in all that he says and does, explicit or implicit, in situations of pleasure or anger, in private and in public, can only conclude that no one could be further from cunning or deviousness. In fact, he was always very truthful and accurate, in small and serious matters, whether alone or with others. This was the most pronounced and clearest of his characteristics, both before and after prophethood. In fact, both his friends and enemies testified to this, in his own lifetime and up to our present day. "Say: Had God so willed, I would not have conveyed this [Qur’ān] to you, nor would He have brought it to your knowledge. Indeed, a whole lifetime have I dwelt among you before this [revelation came to me]. Will you, then, not use your reason?" (10: 16.)

It may be useful to give here some very clear examples from the Prophet’s own conduct which testify to his truthfulness in stating that the Qur’ān is God’s revelation and that he could not have produced any part of it on his own initiative. Sometimes he went through hard times which required some statement to be made. In fact, the need was so urgent that had the matter been left to him, he would have found the words to say and the occasion to make such a pronouncement. But days and nights went by and he could not find any Qur’ānic statement to recite to people concerning the emergency he was facing.

The hypocrites in Madinah fabricated their false accusations of adultery concerning his wife, ʿĀ’ishah. Nothing was revealed to him concerning this for a while. Time passed and people continued to talk, and those affected were in utter distress. He, himself, had to be so reserved in what he said about his wife: I have seen nothing evil from her. He did his best to investigate the matter and consulted his trusted Companions. A whole month passed by, and everyone said that they knew her to be of good and honest character. At last he could say to her nothing more than this: ʿĀ’ishah, I have heard this and that being said about you. If you are innocent, then God will make your innocence clear. If you have done something wrong, then seek God’s forgiveness.

These are his own words as he could view the matter. We realise that this is the statement of a human being who has no knowledge beyond what his faculties of perception give him, and one who would not make a conclusion without firm evidence, and would not say what he does not know to be true. But he had hardly uttered these words when the opening part of Sūrah 24, ‘Light’, was revealed to him declaring her complete innocence, and giving a clear verdict of her purity and faithfulness. [The relevant ḥadīth is related by al-Bukhārī, Muslim and others.]

Had the matter been up to him, what would have prevented him from producing such a verdict earlier to protect his own honour and his own wife. He could have attributed that verdict to Divine revelation in order to silence those who continued to spread such rumours. However, Muḥammad, a man who had never lied to other mortals, would not lie to God: "Had he dared to attribute [falsely] some sayings to Us, We would indeed have seized him by his right hand, and would indeed have cut his life-vein, and none of you could have saved him." (69: 44–47.)

There were times when the revelation he received ran contrary to what he preferred. It might declare his view to be wrong, or permit him something to which he was disinclined. Had he delayed acting on it for a short while, he would have been strongly reproached and criticised, even though it might have been a matter of little consequence. Several examples may be quoted here:

• Prophet, why do you impose on yourself a prohibition of something that God has made lawful to you, only to please your wives? (66: 1.)

• You would hide within yourself something that God was sure to bring to light, fearing [what] people [may think], whereas it is God alone whom you should fear . (33: 37.)

• May God pardon you, [Prophet]! Why have you granted them permission [to stay at home] before you come to realise who was speaking the truth and before you come to know the liars. (9: 43.)

• It does not behove the Prophet and the believers to pray for the forgiveness of those who associated partners with God, even though they happened to be their near of kin, after it has been made clear to them that they are destined for Hell . (9: 113.)

• But to the one who considered himself self-sufficient you were all attention. Yet the fault would not be yours if he remained uncleansed. As to him who comes to you with zeal and with a feeling of fear in his heart – him you ignore and busy yourself with trifles . (80: 5–10.)

Let us reflect on these verses and the reproach they contain. Had they been the expression of Muḥammad’s remorse and feelings of guilt and sorrow, when he realised his mistakes, would he have spoken about himself in such a strongly reproachful manner? Would he not have preferred to keep quiet in order to maintain respect for his own views and orders? Indeed, had the Qur’ān been the product of his own conscience, he would have suppressed some parts of it when the need arose. And had he wished to suppress any part of it, then such verses would be the first to be so suppressed. But the