# The Attack on the Quran **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 4, 2001, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-the-quran/48315 "2001-01-04T00:02:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2001, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-the-quran/48315/1 "2001-01-04T00:02:58Z")
> **[What Is the Koran?](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/01/what-is-the-koran/304024/)** > > Researchers with a variety of academic and theological interests are proposing controversial theories about the Koran and Islamic history, and are striving to reinterpret Islam for the modern world. This is, as one scholar puts it, a "sensitive... 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. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2001, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-the-quran/48315/2 "2001-01-04T01:40:47Z")
> [@](#): > > Doesn’t their silence serve to convict them Or perhaps they have simply chosen not to dignify the article with a response? ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2001, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-the-quran/48315/3 "2001-01-04T02:11:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by andros \* > \*\*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. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2001, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-the-quran/48315/4 "2001-01-04T02:58:14Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2001, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-the-quran/48315/5 "2001-01-04T03:37:48Z")
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: [April Letters](http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99apr/9904lett.htm) Since I found no “debunking” of the Qu’ran, I am curious as to what response the OP sought. ---
**Author:** ![AVSC916](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f0a364/32.png) [@AVSC916](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AVSC916)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2001, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-the-quran/48315/6 "2001-01-04T04:39:11Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Needs2know](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5e925/32.png) [@Needs2know](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Needs2know)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2001, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-the-quran/48315/7 "2001-01-04T14:36:51Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2001, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-the-quran/48315/8 "2001-01-04T16:22:40Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2001, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-the-quran/48315/9 "2001-01-04T17:42:58Z")
> [@](#): > > Surely Allah is not ashamed to set forth any parable-- (that of) a gnat or any thing above that; then as for those who believe, they know that it is the truth from their Lord, and as for those who > disbelieve, they say: What is it that Allah means by this parable: He causes many to err by it and many He leads aright by it! but He does not cause to err by it any except the transgressors – Quran 2:26 ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2001, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-the-quran/48315/10 "2001-01-04T17:46:20Z")
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… ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2001, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-the-quran/48315/11 "2001-01-04T17:59:31Z")
> [@](#): > > Did either of you read the article or were you being pre-emptively sympathetic to what you presumed would be offended Islamic sensibilities? 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. ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2001, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-the-quran/48315/12 "2001-01-04T18:08:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lemur866 \* > Muslims have historically been much more tolerant religiously than Christians. “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 > [@](#): > > Islam is also explicitly in favor of commerce, after all, Mohammed was a merchant. “And there are among them illiterates who know not the Book but only lies, and they do but conjecture.” – Quran 2:78 ---
**Author:** ![JDM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/90db22/32.png) [@JDM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JDM)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2001, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-the-quran/48315/13 "2001-01-04T18:26:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by AVSC916 \* > \*\* > When synthetic thread arrives, there is no need to wrap oneself in homespun robes. > \*\* I don’t know about you, but I refuse to wear polyester. JDM ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2001, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-the-quran/48315/14 "2001-01-04T19:13:35Z")
On the [The True Religion](http://thetruereligion.org) website we have [Comments on _Atlantic Monthly_’s ‘What is the Koran?’](http://thetruereligion.org/atlantic.htm) by Dr. M.S.M.Saifullah. Then there’s [_The Qur’an and the Latest Orientalist Assumptions_](http://www.afi.org.uk/Orient/1%20Contents.html) by Dr. Mohammed Mohar Ali, which looks to be pretty much of a book, and about which the True Religion website comments > [@](#): > > A book that thoroughly refutes Toby Lester’s article in Atlantic Monthly, ‘What is the Qur’an?’. Some while ago, Christian missionaries and orientalists got themselves thoroughly over-excited about the discovery of some Yemeni manuscripts. As is invariably the case, their attempt to discredit the preservation of the Qur’anic text falls embarressingly flat on its face. [This website](http://www.mostmerciful.com/index.html) (which also has a lot of Muslim critiques of Christian beliefs, if **grienspace** happens to be reading this thread) has [a link](http://www.mostmerciful.com/reply-ans-islam.htm) to the _Atlantic Monthly_ article with this comment: > [@](#): > > Here you will find an article entitled ‘WHAT IS THE KORAN?’ that was published in an American magazine ‘THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY’ in January 1999. The article was written by Toby Lester. Many Muslim scholars and readers had responded to this article. I had e-mailed my response to the editor. I remember having read a scholarly indepth reponse to this article by a learned scholar. I am not sure if that was published in ‘The Atlantic Monthly’ or in a Muslim Magazine. If some one has a copy of those response(s) please send them over to me. If you were to down load and print the entire article, which is in three parts, the total number of printed pages would be around twenty-four. 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).