It has now been two years since the Atlantic Monthly put out this article critiquing the Quran. Not only that, but absolutely zero Islamic scholars have yet to respond to it, either formaly or informaly. Doesn’t their silence serve to convict them, so to speak? What do you guys think? I know the article is long, but if you just read a part of it, you can get the gist pretty easily.
Or perhaps they have simply chosen not to dignify the article with a response?
Bingo. If a fat, short guy said “I could take anyone in the NBA 1-on-1,” the league would have no comment simply because of the preposterousness of the claim. My guess is that nobody who’s anybody in Islam is dignifying the article with a thorough trashing. That would imply anything about the article was worthy of their time.
Not dignify with a response? andros and iampunha: Did either of you read the article or were you being pre-emptively sympathetic to what you presumed would be offended Islamic sensibilities?
I found the article to be well researched and, more importantly, respectful. It was not at all an attempt to besmirch Islam or the Quran. If so, do you really think that the Atlantic Monthly would have published it?
What parts did you find particularly odious?
I’ll go with KarlGauss on the treatment the Qu’ran received in the Atlantic Monthly. On the other hand, I can think of no reason why any Islamic scholars would feel compelled to challenge the article. It lays out the various re-evaluations of the Qu’ran from several perspectives, while noting that there is resistance within parts of the Islamic community to different aspects of those re-evaluations.
Beyond that, Atlantic Monthly hardly has the circulation of Time so it is not as though the article would draw a response from the more outspoken defenders of Islam, and the article was sufficiently well-balanced and respectful so as not to draw the wrath of literate Muslims.
As for responses, the following are found in the Letters section of the Atlantic Monthly, itself:
Since I found no “debunking” of the Qu’ran, I am curious as to what response the OP sought.
I find it interesting that the Koran, as one with a brain should expect, had been written by inspired people over the ages and, just as almost every other form of much copied text, has been altered by those doing the rewriting. People just hate to not add their own views to religious texts, it seems.
One must admit that the basics of the Muslim religion enforces conformity. The holy book is the exact word of God. No further discussion allowed. (Though, who wrote it in the first place?) The Muslim religion is the True religion, all others are infidels and if you are swayed towards another belief, then you are to be killed (to prevent contamination by free thought)?, no other religion is allowed in a Muslim nation, missionaries from other religions are to be killed. In other words, prevent any influence from giving you a different view. Make free thinking concerning the religion a punishable offense.
The Muslims have had a particular history of hostility towards anyone not believing their way and the basics of the religion has clung determinedly to the old ways while the rest of the worlds primary religions have moved on and modified.
Any religion which does not allow questioning of itself and it’s origins has something to fear. A species with intelligence cannot remain stagnant for 2 or 3000 years, locked away in time, doing as the fathers, fathers and fathers before them did, scrabbling in the dry sands for a living, building with mud bricks and restricting knowledge to that accepted by the religious leaders.
An active religion grows, changes and adapts with the people as they advance, yet does not loose its’ essential design or purpose.
When synthetic thread arrives, there is no need to wrap oneself in homespun robes. When dyes become simple and easy to produce, one need not dress in somber basic colors of white, black and brown. When education becomes easily available to all, one needs not to restrict what is discovered or discourage free thinkers.
The Moslem religion has been doing that for centuries. It’s due to be shaken up.
I cannot see where much of the Islamic community is not any different than the Christian community on the subject of their religous writings or even their archeological history. When Frontline did their series on the early Christians many people including some in scholarly circles criticized the program for it’s “secular” nature. Seems that it isn’t enough to simply report archeological findings and pose therories based on scientific evidence. Christianity and Islam are all about faith and when historians, be they secular or theological, do not take this into account they are most certainly going to recieve criticism from some.
Needs2know
Needs2know, you kinda hit on the point i’m wondering about. You see, when “higher” criticism of the Bible has come down, Christian scholars are almost immediate in their response. My understanding is that the Bible and God do not discourage doubt, but understand it and expect it. I wonder if Islam is the same.
I know the Quran commands Muslims to read the New Testament, but few do. And now they aren’t even responding to attacks on their own book. Isn’t this atleast a silent admittance to problems?
– Quran 2:26
AVSC:
The Quran was supposedly composed by only one person, Mohammed. However, it was written down only after Mohammed died. Many people had memorized it, so it was possible to reconstruct it on paper with a high degree of accuracy.
I am not an Islamic scholar, but it seems highly possible that the Quran was composed by a single human being (I’ll leave aside the question of wether that human being was divinely inspired).
And it is NOT true that no other religion is allowed in a Muslim nation. Read your history, Muslims have historically been much more tolerant religiously than Christians. It IS true that it is illegal under Islamic law to try to convert Muslims, and Islamic law calls for death for any Muslim who converts to another religion. But Muslims explicitly recognize that monotheistic religions like Judaism and Christianity are imperfect approximations of Islam. As such, they are given special respect that, say, Hindus would not get.
Muslims don’t believe that unbelievers deserve death, they believe that unbelievers should be converted. If they won’t convert they have to answer to God, not man.
And Islam is not thousands of years old, it began in the 7th century (unless one takes the view that Adam was the first Muslim). And Islam is not inherently anti-scientific, as can be seen from the history of the middle ages. In fact, Islam is explicitly in favor of learning. Islam is also explicitly in favor of commerce, after all, Mohammed was a merchant.
The current problems that the middle east is facing have nothing to do with the essential character of Islam.
Just another atheist trying to set the record straight. I often think that Europe might have been better off if Charles Martel had lost the battle of Tours and the Moors had spread Islam to the rest of Europe. However, we seem to have muddled through anyway…
Yes, honey, I read it. I’m sorry if I misled with my use of the word “dignify.” If Islamic scholars and theologians agree with the piece, they’s already said so in other forums, more suited to Islamic theology than the Atlantic. If they disagree with it, they have no need to respond to it.
IOW, what Tom said.
“Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.” – Quran 2:62
“And there are among them illiterates who know not the Book but only lies, and they do but conjecture.” – Quran 2:78
I don’t know about you, but I refuse to wear polyester. JDM
On the The True Religion website we have Comments on Atlantic Monthly’s ‘What is the Koran?’ by Dr. M.S.M.Saifullah.
Then there’s The Qur’an and the Latest Orientalist Assumptions by Dr. Mohammed Mohar Ali, which looks to be pretty much of a book, and about which the True Religion website comments
This website (which also has a lot of Muslim critiques of Christian beliefs, if grienspace happens to be reading this thread) has a link to the Atlantic Monthly article with this comment:
In other words, the reaction of theologically conservative Muslims to the Atlantic Monthly article was pretty much what you’d expect: they didn’t like it much, and said so, at some length. Note that I have no idea of the validity of these critiques of the AM article; I don’t know beans about the Qur’an. My prejudices incline me to think the Western scholars are probably more objective and more accurate than Muslim apologits. Certainly this seems to be the case in the analogous disputes between the textual scholars and Christian inerrantists with respect to the Christian Bible (about which I know at least more than I know about the Qur’an).