Returning to the claim in the Mishkat al-Masabih that the Qur’an was “second to none in the world in points of Diction, style, rhetoric, thoughts and soundness of laws…”, scholars like Dr Carl Pfander believed that the Qur’an, when read in any non-Arabic language had little to no eloquence, and thus would not be on a par with other notable pieces of literature from other cultures. He also considered this argument from another angle. If, according to Muslims, the Qur’an’s supposed superiority proved it was the Word of God, then would that not suggest that other writings in other languages which were superior could also be called ‘God’s holy word’? Would not, he continues, Greek, and Latin writings, or the Hindu Vedas, all thus have similar claims to that which Muslims were making for their Qur’an?
Conversely, he continued, are there not many spurious books with ideas which are untrue and blasphemous, though, nonetheless, well written? Should we consider these also ‘God’s holy words’?
Ironically, we now know that many stories and passages in the Qur'an were borrowed, sometimes word-for-word, at other times idea-for-idea from second to sixth century apocryphal documents of Jewish, Christian, and Zoroastrian origins (to be discussed in our study on the External, Historical Critique of the Qur’an). Can Muslim scholars be so easily duped that they would claim divine origins for that which has proven quite finite and, indeed, quite human? It seems so.
To support this elevated belief in their scripture, many Muslim Qur'anic translators have an inclination to clothe their transla¬tions in a style that is rather archaic and ‘wordy’, so that the average person today must run to the dictionary to enquire their meanings. Yet, these transla¬tions were not conceived hundreds of years ago. This is possibly a ploy by the translators to give the text an appearance of dignity and age; which, they hope, will in turn inspire trustworthiness. Or perhaps they hope that it will preserve the form of the text, since form takes priority over content for many Muslims.
In response, we must begin by asking whether the Qur'an can be considered a miracle written by one man, when we know from Muslim Tradition that the Qur'an which we have today was not written by Muhammad but was collated and then copied by a group of men, who, fourteen to twenty years after the fact, took what they found from the memory of oth¬ers, as well as verses which had been written on bones, leaves and stones, and then burned all evidence of any other copies (Al Bukhari 6:509-510, to be taken up later). Where is the miracle in that?
More current research is now eradicating even this theory. According to the latest data, the Qur'an was not a document which was even given to Muhammad. Much of what is included in the Qur'an were additions which slowly evolved over a period of 50-200 years, until they were made a canon sometime in the 20th century (to be discussed in our Historical material). If this is true, and it looks to be the best theory which we have to date, then the authority for the Qur'an as a miracle sent down from heaven is indeed very slim.
© Pfander Centre for Apologetics - US, 2019
(24,300)
0 Comments