Samir Rauf

Tutor: Heidi Walcher

December 2001

The Qur’an:
A Divine Text

Or

Words of Man?
A celebrated historian of antiquity in the 1920’s had noted that the historian’s

evidence is at the mercy of chance and that there is no rational correspondence

between intrinsic importance of an event and the quantity of evidence about it at the

historian’s disposal. The historian is in danger therefore of becoming bound by the

evidence available to him like a potter becomes slave to his clay1. The

methodological paradox that he is referring to is like the story of Juhaa – who had

lost his ring inside his own house but was searching for it outside in the moonlight,

because he had no lamp to light up his house.

Many historians have illustrated such irrationality in approaches to history and

historical sources and many have fallen short of achieving their objectives.

The primary objective for me then is to be as rational as possible and impartial in my

approach to the theme at hand.

When exploring the Qur’an and its origins, I believe it is essential to correct the

intention with which one may undertake such a task. This is because firstly, such a

monumental task for a student like myself should only be confined to the realms of

‘useful knowledge’. Useful knowledge is ethical as it enables a person to do what is

good and ethics should not be restricted to the domain of action but should encompass

all aspects of human behavior, inward and outward. In this way, we may have an

ethics of thought, study and even research, just as we have an ethics of day-to-day

social interaction. However, it should be emphasized that in this present information

age, to seek out beneficial knowledge is to avoid all that is worthless and detrimental.

1
A study of History, Edward Meyer, 1:7
Secondly, I am not qualified to present in this essay a conclusion based on all the

evidences for and against the origin of the Qur’an. To do so would only take me out

of the realm of beneficial knowledge and enter me into a world of endless debate,

dispute and controversy. In the hope of avoiding this and owing to my scholarly

limitations, I have chosen primarily to focus on evidences that would pertain to the

Qur’an being a divine text with divine meaning and then, to consider how the west

has reacted to this claim by taking the central figure of Islam’s final Prophet as the

focal point.

To begin with, it is worthwhile to look at the word ‘Qur’an’ itself. It means ‘to read’

and in Arabic it is a form of the infinitive. In fact, it is called the ‘Qur’an’ because it is

actually read by mouth and has since come to acquire a new meaning denoting

‘book’, because in the present day it is written down with pens. Both meanings it

seems are derived from what actually takes place with regard to it. The fact that both

descriptions have that been given, refer to a fair treatment that it be kept and

preserved in two places instead of one: in people’s memories and in the pages of a

book. Thus, should an error find its way into one, the other would correct it.

Muslims will feel that this double care that God has ensured will impart a dedicated

desire to keep the Qur’an intact. This may be seen as a practical aspect of the

fulfillment of God’s promise to preserve the Qur’an in its original form when he says:

‘It is We Ourselves who have bestowed from on high this reminder, and it is We who

shall truly preserve it (from all corruption)’2. Hence, Muslims believe that it has

remained free from all manner of corruption, distortion, and interruption of reporting

which had befallen earlier scriptures – scriptures that He did not take upon Himself to

preserve.
2
Al-Qur’an, (15:9)
Now, it is universally acknowledged that this book, Al-Qur’an, was delivered to

mankind through an unlettered Arab man born in Makkah in the sixth century,

Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah. This much is not subject to disagreement between

believers and non-believers. Disagreement rises on whether this man from Makkah

was its author (expressing his own thoughts) or whether he had received it from

another source – and if so, what could that source have been?

If we look at the Qur’an itself, it states very clearly and unequivocally that neither

Muhammad nor any other creature had anything to do with the composition of the

Qur’an. It was revealed by God in its entirety in word and in meaning. For Muslims,

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.’3

This Messenger is the angel Gabriel, who received the Message from God and then

brought it down in a clear and lucid Arabic style to convey it to Muhammad. After

receiving it from him, Muhammad was then to learn and memorise it, to report and

convey it, to explain it, and finally to implement it in practical life.

As for him being a part of its creation in meaning and setting of its purpose, Muslims

feel that it is false to the point of absurdity as the Qur’an testifies; ‘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’4 and

further, ‘Say: ‘It is not for me to alter it (i.e. The Qur’an) of my own volition; I only

follow what is revealed to me.’5

3
Al-Qur’an, (81:19-21)
4
Al-Qur’an, (7:203)
5
Al-Qur’an, (10:15)
The first part of the question on whether Muhammad had authored the Qur’an has

throughout the years received much criticism and response from the Muslims.

However, it seems somewhat reasonable that had this been the case looked into by a

judge, for example, then the judge himself would have done no more than to accept

this testimony from Muhammad himself.

The claim Muhammad is making doesn’t require the need for irrefutable evidence

since such an admission is binding on the one who makes it. No rational person who

makes a claim for leadership and supports his claim with miraculous events would

attribute his finer goods to someone else, disowning them totally and completely. In

actual fact, the opposite is true: his position would be enhanced if he were to claim

such goods for himself.

To further elaborate, one can explore plagiarism and the reasons why people would

resort to it. This is where somebody claims for himself what other people have written

either totally or taking from it portions only to fine tune whatever they have written.

No single person in history though has ever attributed to someone else the finest

pieces of his own thought, or his most superb writings. This is unheard of. However,

if it were to happen then we would be hard-pressed to find any reasonable or even

semi-reasonable justification for it.

It may still seem to some that such an example still does not explain that whilst

aspiring for leadership, Muhammad may have thought that by attributing the Qur’an

to Divine revelation, he would find it easier to acquire people’s obedience. It might be

accepted therefore, that this would give his orders a special sanctity which would not

have otherwise belonged to them had he declared that he himself had issued them all.
It is for this reason that to know about Muhammad and his life is intrinsic to the

central theme of Qur’anic origin. A detailed and careful examination will not be

given, but it will be useful to cite and consider a few examples from Western scholars

that would help us reach a better conclusion.

A major part of the Western problem in accepting Muhammad as a Prophet, is that for

centuries he has been seen as the antithesis of the religious spirit and as the enemy of

decent civilization. Maybe, as Karen Armstrong states, we should try to see him as a

man ‘of the spirit’, who managed to bring peace and civilization to his people. 6 Take

Prideaux for instance who (repeating all of the irrational obsessions that preceded

him) wrote of Muhammad that he had ‘led a very wicked and licentious course, much

delighting in Rapine, Plunder and Blood-shed.’7

In the year 1697, when at the very beginning of the Enlightenment, a very influential

work was published that as an Islamic source and point of reference, and was

authoritative as it was important. Under the heading ‘Mahomet’, a then familiar entry

written by Barthelmy d’Herbelot was found; ‘This is the famous imposter Mahomet,

Author and Founder of a heresy, which has taken the name of religion, which we call

Mohammadan’.8 Other scholars such as Simon Ockley and George Sale were both

convinced that he was a ‘very subtle and crafty man’ and that Islam was no more than

a ‘human invention’.9

During the 18th and 19th Century however, there were people who were trying to

promote a more accurate picture of Muhammad. In 1751 for instance, Voltaire

6
Muhammad, A Biography of the Prophet, Karen Armstrong, p44
7
The True Nature of Importune fully importuned in the Life of Mahomet, Humphrey Prideaux, p80
8
Quoted in Edward W. Said. Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient’ p66
9
Muhammad, A Biography of the Prophet, Karen Armstrong, p37
defended Muhammad as a profound political thinker and founder of a rational religion

and concluded his positive description of Islam by observing that Muhammad had

been ‘regarded as a great man even by those who knew that he was an imposter and

revered as a Prophet by all the rest’.10 The Dutch orientalist Johann Reiske who was

an unrivaled scholar of Arabic could also see a quality of the divine in Muhammad’s

life and the creation of Islam.11

Muhammad in the Qur’an has often been referred to as the nabi ul-ummi – the

unlettered Prophet. Those that advocate the idea of Muhammad being its author, have

come to argue that as a merchant, Muhammad may have mastered the rudiments of

writing – heralding him as the prophet for the ‘unlettered’ people who had not yet

received a scripture from God. Others have interpreted ‘ummi as being derived from

the same root as ‘umma – community, thus him being named as the ‘prophet of the

people’. Armstrong in her biography opposes this usage as would probably most Arab

grammarians. She goes on to say that ‘there is no mention in the early sources of

Muhammad reading or writing – if he had to send a letter, he would dictate it to Ali

who was literate’12. In any case, claiming illiteracy would have proved very difficult

to sustain, considering the close proximity with which he was living amongst people

and conducting his daily affairs with.

The few descriptions that have been given about Muhammad clearly present two

opposing schools of thought at extremes with each other. There are those that have

evidently had a negative position to Muhammad and those that have had a somewhat

positive one. However, positive does not necessarily mean that he was accepted as a

Prophet – but positive in the sense of his character and nature.

10
Les Moeurs et L’espirit des Nations, Françoise Voltaire
11
Muhammad, A Biography of the Prophet, Karen Armstrong, p37
12
Muhammad, A Biography of the Prophet, Karen Armstrong, p88
Traditional Muslim sources relate that throughout his Prophethood, Muhammad had

encountered difficult and arduous times that had required some sort of statement or

response to be made by him. At times the need was of such urgency that had it been

up to him, he would have found the words to conclude such pronouncements. But

days and nights would go by and he would remain silent and would not respond to

people concerning the emergency he was facing, apparently, in anticipation of Divine

revelation.

There is the famous occasion where his wife A’ishah was faced with serious

accusations of adultery. He remained silent on the matter yet at the same time

reserved in what he said about his wife: ‘I have seen nothing evil from her.’13 It is

reported that he did his best to investigate the allegations and even consulted his

companions and after a whole month passed by when finally all he could say to his

wife was no more than this: ‘I have heard this and 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.’14

It seems quite sensible to deduce that if these are his own words then they are the

words of a human being who has no knowledge beyond what his faculties of

perception give him. It is said that no sooner had he uttered these words that the

opening part of Surah 24,‘Light’ was revealed to him professing her total innocence.

Had the matter been up to him, what would have prevented Muhammad from

producing such a verdict earlier and hence protecting his own honour and his wife’s

13
Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim, Hadith
14
Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim, Hadith
purity? It would have made more sense pronouncing such a judgment earlier, thus

silencing those who continued to spread such rumours.

There were times when the revelation he received ran contrary to what he preferred. It

might have declared his view to be wrong, or permit him something to which he was

disinclined. To quote from the Qur’an, ‘Prophet, why do you impose yourself a

prohibition of something that God has made lawful to you, only to please your

wives?’15 and in an earlier chapter, ‘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’16

These verses clearly reveal Muhammad’s mistakes in a strong and reproachful

manner. Does it seem likely then, that had they been the expressions of his remorse

and feelings of guilt after realising his errors, he would have spoken about himself in

such a critical way? On the contrary, it would be natural for a person to remain silent

in order to maintain respect for his own views and in Muhammad’s case, for the

people to follow his orders. Had the Qur’an been the product of his own conscience,

he would have certainly suppressed some parts of it when the need arose.

This can be seen again on another occasion when Abdullah ibn Ubayy who was the

leader of the hypocrites died and Muhammad wanted to pray the janaaza17 for him

and also pray for his forgiveness. ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (who later was to become the

second caliph) objected vehemently against this saying to him, ‘Are you to pray for

him when your Lord has forbidden you that?’ to which Muhammad replied: ‘He has

not forbidden me, but has given me a choice, saying ‘Pray that God may forgive
15
Al-Qur’an, (66:1)
16
Al-Qur’an, (9:43)
17
The prayer offered for a deceased person shortly before burial
them, or do not pray for their forgiveness. If you pray for them seventy times that they

be forgiven, God will not forgive them.’18 I will pray for him more than seventy

times’.19 And so he did. But revelations later revealed to him opposed this, saying:

‘Never shall you pray over any of them that has died, and never shall you stand by his

grave.’20 He was never seen praying over the hypocrites again.

Muhammad may have felt that the earlier verse offered him an option and then chose

the more sympathetic of the two. He does not resort to the other course of action until

he is clearly ordered to.

At times, there were statements given to him in general terms or an order that sounded

highly problematic. Neither he nor his companions could find a clear interpretation

for it until an explanation was given at a later time.

A verse in the Qur’an says: ‘Whether you bring into the open what is in your minds

or conceal it, God will call you to account for it.’ 21 The people became very disturbed

by this as they thought it meant that they would be accounted for every fleeting

thought they had. When they approached their prophet with this burden, he simply

told them to say ‘we hear and we obey. Our Lord, grant us forgiveness’. They

continued to say this until an explanation in a subsequent verse had reached them

(2:286).

They realised that they were only held to account for what they could bear of thoughts

and feelings – held responsible for what they resolved to do and take steps to fulfill

and not for momentary thoughts and hopes that were entertained without choice.22

18
Al-Qur’an, (9:80)
19
Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim, Hadith
20
Al-Qur’an, (9:84)
21
Al-Qur’an, (2:284)
22
Sahih Muslim, brief description in Bukhari, Hadith
The point being that had Muhammad known the interpretation of the verse to start

with, he would have explained it to his companions – rather than leave them in a state

of anxiety and concern. It is useful to see how the particle ‘then’ is used in the

following verse that indicates the delay in revelations: ‘when we recite it (the Qur’an)

follow you its recitation (with all your mind). Then it will be for us to make its

meaning clear.’23

To prove the origin of the Qur’an, in conclusion, I am forced to recognize quite

simply that it is an undertaking of immense proportions. One that requires an

exhaustive treatment of source material available and more importantly, close scrutiny

of the man that was Muhammad. Why is this so paramount to the issue at hand? Well,

in it lies the central challenge of establishing the origins of the Qur’an itself.

Critics study the life of a poet through his poetry, forming a complete picture of his

beliefs, habits, manners, line of thinking and lifestyle. The fine images he includes in

his poetry will not stop them from discerning the reality behind all the imagery. The

truth has an overpowering force, one that will shine through screens and curtains

revealing itself between the lines. Hard as he may try to conceal his real personality, a

human being will inevitably allow a slip or an oversight in what he says or does which

will show his natural reaction to any situation. The same must be applied to

Muhammad in his life. Only after a thorough and unbiased examination of a

reasonable number of events has been carried out, will a clear picture emerge about

the authenticity of Qur’anic revelation.

23
Al-Qur’an, (75:18-19)
My choice to avoid using Muslim references and analysis on Muhammad has been

because most of them pertain to the single truth of his prophethood and testify to its

soundness.24 The group from which such views emerge, as Waines informs us, may be

called the ‘faithful’ or perspectives of the ‘insider’. This belief, held to be true by

hundreds of millions of Muslims, all were (and still are) guided in their daily lives by

the Qur’an and the example of their Prophet in his sunna25. The ultimate source for

them in this life is therefore divine whether transmitted by direct revelation or by

inspired commentary reflected in the life of the Prophet himself. For modern western

scholars, on the other hand, it is a different perception altogether, that of an

‘outsider’. Waines goes on to say that it is simply because ‘they are not Muslims and

cannot share the commitment of the Faithful’ that their approach would differ so

considerably when handling earlier sources.26

Armstrong, when talking about the literary brilliance of the Qur’an reveals of how

western scholars and people have found this ‘very difficult to understand’. The likes

of Gibbon and Carlyle who may have been reasonably sympathetic to Islam, were

baffled by it. She explains that ‘there is something about Arabic that is

incommunicable…the mundane utterance of ordinary Arabic is not true of the Qur’an

which is written in highly complex, dense and allusive language. Some Arabs

themselves converted immediately believing that divine inspiration alone could

account for the extraordinary language.’ An aspect I have not covered in this essay is

that of the Arabic language itself. These views clearly address the need for a close

24
See the biography of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq, and Ash-Shifa of Qadi Iyad
25
Literally ‘his way’. Refers to the sayings and teachings of Muhammad that have been authenticated
by ahadith (traditions)
26
An Introduction to Islam, David Waines, p267-68
study of the language in which the ‘Qur’an’ was communicated to the rest of the

world by, in the hope that it may help decipher its correct origin.27

If I have failed to prove the origin of the Qur’an, at least I have recognised that

without accurate knowledge of Muhammad and knowing exactly who he was – and

an appreciation of the Arabic language - it will be futile to carry on this discussion.

In the end, I am left with an even greater task than I had begun with. Sooner or later

though, a realisation is achieved, that to find certainty and truth, the boundaries of

‘beneficial knowledge’ must be crossed and one must venture deep into the endless

realm of knowledge – without knowing what it may bring.

Bibliography

Muhammad, A biography of the Prophet Karen Armstrong

27
Muhammad, A Biography of the Prophet, Karen Armstrong, p49
In Search of Muhammad Clinton Bennet

An Introduction to Islam David Waines

Hadith Literature, Its Origin, Development and Special Muhammad Siddiqi

Features

Ash-Shifa, Biography of the Prophet Qadi Iyad al-Andalus