Answering Rachel – Part 2
Reading The Quran or a Koran?
I found that I was having to repeat myself with regards to references to the Quran, when really what was meat was a Koran. This is how the 2 are distinguished:
Quran – what Muslims believe in; the original Arab Word of God
Koran – a translation of the Arabic original – the translation may be decent, but it won’t be The Quran
Henceforth, to make that distinction – between the Quran as the Word of God, and a translation, I will refer to the two as Quran and Koran respectively.
So, Rachel – you have read a Koran, but NOT The Quran.
Your first objection to the Quran is that it is confusing, disorganised and hard to read.
I dealt briefly with this point in my first post, but I intend to go through this objection in more detail today.
The Quran is unique – in every way. Not least in its arrangement. It is not chronological, nor is it laid out by topic. It is God talking to us, individually.
The Opening, the first chapter of the Quran, is a prayer – and it’s remarkable how like the Lord’s Prayer it is, when the two are examined side by side. This opening chapter has us, humanity, asking God for guidance.
Immediately following this Prayer for Guidance, the second chapter of The Quran opens: “THIS is the Book in which there is no doubt – a Guidance”.
So, the Quran is an answer to our request for Guidance. God is saying, here it is! Now let’s talk.
Once you have accepted that the Quran is an intimate conversation between God and “me”, it becomes less confusing.
While I can understand that you found the Koran confusing, I cannot accept your assertion that it is not well written. Let me qualify that: the Quran is extremely well written as has been testified by many non-Muslim scholars of Arabic – such as Arberry.
However, a Koran, such as one that you have read, may be poorly written, poorly translated, but it is not The Quran.
You cannot say that the Quran is not well written because you have not read it in Arabic, and you are not an expert in Arabic. And, if you were an expert in Arabic, while you are free to express your opinion about its literary merits, you cannot state that as a matter of objective fact because there are plenty who would disagree with you.
Abrogation
The theory of abrogation is just that – a theory. A device that exegetes have resorted to when they find some verses difficult to reconcile. Islamic scholars cannot even agree on how many verses have been abrogated, numbering them from dozens to just three.
Muhammed Asad, the Austrian Muslim scholar, did not accept the concept at all – not in the sense that one verse in the Quran is made redundant by another. Incidentally, if you are interested in knowing the Quran, then I would highly recommend his The Message of the Quran.
Asad accepts the latter type of abrogation you mention – an earlier revelation being abrogated by a later one. For instance, alcohol was not explicitly prohibited in earlier times, but the Quran came and explicitly banned its consumption.
Your conclusion from the discussion on abrogation, that “contradictions are ubiquitous” is simply wrong. Forgive me for being pedantic, but contradictions are far from “ubiquitous” – I would argue, and believe, that there are no contradictions. But I would also say that it is categorically, and objectively, wrong to suggest that the contradictions are “ubiquitous”, even imagined contradictions.
Your concluding remarks are telling. Reading the Koran is not “fun or entertaining”. Engaging with holy scripture is not done for entertainment or fun. As Proverbs says: Above all else, guard your heart – for everything else flows from it. Fun and entertainment have their place, but guidance is far too important to be reduced to entertainment.
As for your aside remark about Islam being violent. It took about 500 years for Egypt to become majority Muslim. Five Hundred Years! If Islam were violent, it would have been converted in just one generation – as Spain was converted to Christianity by the Reconquista.