Earlier this week I posted a write up I did on what the Qur’an says, based on my first reading of the Qur’an (That I might have better titled, “My First Reading of the Qur’an”).  You can read that HERE.

The post sparked a conversation on Facebook with one of my old seminary friends that I haven’t heard from in a long time.  I wanted to share that conversation with you.  He is an assistant instructor of Arabic at the University of Texas and has spent years studying and living in the Middle East.  You can read more about him on his page at the University of Texas HERE.

At first, he didn’t know where I was coming from and where this post on the Qur’an fit into my Journey into Islam – this year-long goal of trying to learn more about Islam – but, as you will see Phillip is a sharp guy and seriously informed on this topic that I am just beginning to explore.

We didn’t wrestle out to a conclusion every issue that came up – that wasn’t the point – but I hope our conversation is beneficial to you in your own journey to be more informed about the world and your own faith.

Phillip:

Well Nathan, to Amy’s point, you don’t get to have it both ways. My issue with your argument/perspective (and others’, it’s a very common one) is that, throughout Christian history (well, at least since the 3rd century CE), the different church traditions have affirmed and reaffirmed the entirety of the canon (different as their canons have been) as a reflection of God’s character, as well as a revelation of his interaction in human history. Taken as a whole, there is absolutely just as much violence/misogyny/damnation in the biblical texts as you find in the Qur’an. How could there not be? Ancient Israel was a part of the ancient Near East, where, for example, violence and the divine were inseparable. In the Psalms Yahweh is referred to as איש מלחמה “man of war.” I trust we needn’t review the numerous passages where God is said to fight and kill for Israel, where he tells them to kill every living thing, and when, according to Jeremiah, he rouses the Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzer II to come destroy the temple, and scatter the leading citizens, all for their lack of faithfulness. This is all quite natural for a small state in the ancient Levant. Even in the NT, you overlook quite a bit that doesn’t support your sharp distinction. I mean, on numerous occasions Jesus (Matt 8; Matt 13; Matt 22; Mark 9 etc etc etc) talks about the idea that those who don’t believe and follow him will be punished in eternal fire (and these are all common associations with eternal punishment that had been widely discussed in the intertestamental period; I have tons of resources discussing the development of this concept in the second temple period if you’d like). Paul comes across as every bit the ‘god-man’ that you accuse Muhammad of being. He is the one, after all, who claimed that even if an angel from heaven tells you something different from what I’ve preached, don’t believe him! Then of course there are issues like slavery, which is divinely sanctioned in the Bible (even in NT, Paul sends Onesimus back to Philemon, and doesn’t tell Philemon “release him, idiot, slavery is bad!” That would’ve been ridiculous in a Roman context; exactly why context, which you didn’t provide in your comments on Islam, is so important). The BIble isn’t exactly a source text on women’s equal rights either. Simply put, everything you said about Islam is equally true of the biblical text. You don’t get to say, on the one hand, the entirety of the Bible is a reflection of God and his plan, and on the other say, well when it comes to the stuff we don’t like, we’re just going to focus on Jesus. And even if one’s personal theology is such that certain parts of the Bible don’t reflect God’s character/plan, that certainly hasn’t been the case for the church writ large, and ignoring/marginalizing that fact is unhelpful and misleading.

On a side note, I have a lot of problems with what you wrote, not because of the question you pose in your title, nor because you decide to rely on quotes form the Qur’an. I have a problem because you start off saying you’re just going to lean on quotes and leave your thoughts to the end, but then your polemical comments are all over the place (go read the first sentence of your section on women and tell me how one is going to approach the entire section after that). My problem is you quote without any ability to deal with the issues of context, not only of these verses in the larger sections of which they are apart, but also of the verses in the larger scheme of Qur’anic interpretive tradition. You mistakingly assume that because you include some commentary from Abdel Haleem (whose name, by the way, is not first Abdel, second Haleem. The entirety of his family name is AbdelHaleem – a compound of “slave” and one of the 99 names of Allah), that somehow that means you’ve represented Islamic traditions adequately. You picked his translation and rely on his comments, but he is a traditionalist Qur’anic scholar and relies on traditional interpretations and historiography. That’s fine, but he is not a scholar of 6/7th century Arabia, nor is he a scholar of late antiquity, old arabic, etc. What you included, simply put, doesn’t fairly represent how Muslims have dealt with these issues (in the way you would when we talk about these topics from the Bible). Finally, you chose these topics it seems to me to deliberately cast Islam in a negative light. Why not investigate and document the Qur’an’s teachings on respect for human life, the importance of non-aggression, friendship, or love (there’s a decent book written in the traditional style called “Love in the Holy Qur’an” – I’d be happy to send you a copy if you’re interested)? Were I to chose the same topics and list verses from the Bible, I could make a similar case against the Bible. These topics are important ones, but you focused on only some of the topics that the Qur’an addresses (and again, without any contextualizing of the issues within 6th century antiquity, when the church was teaching and doing the same kinds of things). And if you’re interested in understanding the issues with which Muslims communities are dealing, then you cannot stop at plucking verses out of the Qur’an – you must engage the interpretive traditions and lenses through which various communities are understanding these issues. No one reads a sacred text without some set of lenses.

I don’t disagree with you that there are significant differences between the two faiths. That point, I believe, is fully valid. And I recognize and respect your belief that Christianity is true and Islam is not. My problem essentially is 1) You are not trained in the issues surrounding interpreting the Qur’an, early islam, etc. so your presentation suffers. As a seminarian, I assume you would agree that someone who wants to learn about Christianity, who picks out a translation, and relies on the marginal notes in that translation, and even reads the whole thing through, would still not be considered by anyone to have the necessary knowledge background and understanding of critical issues (I mean, to start off, you don’t read the language of the texts, just a translation) to meaningfully represent what the Bible says. There are, as you and I both know, too many critical issues in historical reconstruction, translation, etc. And 2) You criticize things in the Qur’an that are also a part of your sacred texts, and things that have been a part of Christian tradition.

Nathan:

Great to hear from you. I appreciate you taking the time to put together such a thoughtful response. I think this is a great contribution to the discussion. With your studies and experiences, you writing about the Qur’an and me writing about the Qur’an are two very different things. If you have read any of my other writings on this topic, you’ll see that this is a journey that I am just starting out on, while you are pretty far down the road.

I don’t want to “have it both ways,” where the Bible can’t be read and critiqued but the Qur’an can. I see no benefit in that for anyone. What I wouldn’t want to have is a situation where no one really talks about anything because they are afraid of someone pointing out the dirt under their rug. I wouldn’t want the pursuit of truth to be lost in the “we’re all the same so let’s not talk about anything” idiocy either. I also don’t think we always benefit from having the discussions limited only to the PhDs (not that I would advocate the championing of ignorance). Sometimes the people who ask the most profound questions and have the most surprising insights are the children sitting on the rug at the foot of the teacher.

I realize that it is impossible to do a write up on a book without inserting your own perspective. After all, I am writing about what I “heard” when I read the text – the things that stuck out to me as major themes, the things that appear noteworthy, etc. I tried to balance that out by encouraging other people to read the Qur’an for themselves and included a lot of quotes with their references so people could read anything that I quoted in its context.

My understanding and impression of the message of the Qur’an will surely be better informed after I read more history and interpretive materials. However, these still are my impressions of the Qur’an, its central message and major themes. I am troubled by it. I would love to read the book you mentioned, “Love in the Holy Qur’an.” I didn’t see much of that there. I would love to read the book. I would also love for you to recommend other books on Islam. I have a stack on my desk that I am working through and would love to add your suggestions.

Even if after years of study I come to the conclusion that the overwhelming message of the Qur’an is very different than I initially thought it was, and that it is really about sacrificial love, forgiveness, and the redemption of humanity, then I think these initial observations are at least an illustration of my last concluding thought in the paper – that the Qur’an is particularly susceptible to dangerous interpretations. If an educated (in the general sense), well meaning person who does his best to seek out a reputable and favorable interpretation of the Qur’an, walks away with the troubling understanding of the Qur’an that I have, despite their preferences otherwise, then my last point holds true – and this is concerning.

I don’t know that I will get over the astonishing differences I see between Muhammad and Jesus. Perhaps further study will be able soften the perceived difference to a degree, but they are worlds apart.

I don’t deny the significance of the Biblical scriptures outside of the Gospels for Christians or Christianity, nor do I deny the moral problems in them. However, it is significant, that Joshua for example is not the Christian role model, nor is the book of Joshua meant to be used as a guide to live by for “all times and all places.” The entire Bible is Holy Scripture for Christians, but we interpret scripture through the life, death, resurrection of and teachings of Jesus. It doesn’t take a seminary education to know this. Anyone who reads the Gospels will see Jesus in a debate about which scripture is the greatest (meaning some are less great) and he tells them the commands to love God and love your neighbor as yourself are the greatest commandments, and everything else comes after that. The theme of self-giving love and doing what is right by others dominates the rest of the New Testament.

Christians also understand the nature of God primarily through Jesus as well. The nature of God revealed through Jesus and the nature of God revealed through Muhammad seem at odds to me in most places. Even if Jesus is at times talking about God damning people to eternal torment, which I don’t think that he is (see http://onechristianlife.com/2016/02/04/does-god-torture-people-forever/), this is not something that is presented in the Gospels with the active hatred that one sees in the Qur’an. There is no story in the Qur’an of a lost sheep or a lost son, no image of God longingly loving and pursuing the redemption of what is lost: most importantly there is no Jesus, no God-with-us, giving his life up to safe people from their fate.

Either way, we acknowledge that it is evil when humans burn people alive and it would be a sick God (whatever god it may be) who would burn people without end as well.

I don’t agree that Paul comes across as the ‘god-man’ that Muhammad in Medina seems to be. Paul comes across as full of himself at times, but he is also a man who spent his post-conversion life working and sacrificing for the good of others. He had no slaves or harem, he never threatened people for not following him to war, he often went hungry, was beaten and imprisoned many times, and was eventually executed. He went through all of this out of his love for people and his love for a God that he believed gave his life up for others. His letter to Philemon is one of my favorites. Paul masterfully uses every power of persuasion in advocating both for Onesimus’ freedom and for him to be welcomed like a brother. The New Testament doesn’t condemn slavery but its message of loving people as you love yourself and giving yourself up for others, undermines the institution of slavery. Many early Christians even sold themselves into slavery to free others.

I appreciate your participation in this discussion Phillip. Please send your book recommendations (in order of what to read first would be great too).

Thanks!

Phillip:

Hi, Nathan, thanks for your response. In fact, I wish I’d read a bit more of this perspective in your article; I think it would have contextualized your perspective a bit and I would have read it more in the spirit in which it was intended. But let me start off by saying that, as a non-Muslim, I am not critiquing your perspective or how you read the Qur’an. I am certainly not threatened by non-specialists reading anything for themselves. I encourage everyone to read as much as they are able/interested from as many different viewpoints as possible. For that I say, Bravo. It is more problematic when someone that is a non-specialist, hasn’t put in the time wrestling with all of the interpretive issues, issues surrounding understanding the Arabic of the Qu’ran (which is at times incredibly opaque), etc. takes it upon him/herself to write something that is presented as “what the Qur’an says,” etc. Again, simply the fact that you are presenting someone else’s interpretation of what the text means (which is really what a translation is) means that you aren’t presenting what the Qur’an says. There is no one answer to the question “what does the Qur’an say about…” because a text doesn’t say anything – it must be interpreted. Or maybe a better way of saying it is that a text only says something when there is a reader to impart meaning to it. The same applies, in my opinion, to the biblical text. I would be happy to send you some books, but what I send will depend a lot on what it is you are looking for. There is of course a lively debate in the scholarly field of Qur’anic studies (as there is in biblical studies), but much of the literature is dense, technical, and requires a knowledge of Arabic. Then there is the literature that is most common in print, which is usually written by various Islamic scholars, which are all useful if it is remembered that none of them can actually represent the entirety of opinion about the Qur’an, Islam, etc. Much of this literature rests on traditions that have been sacrosanct in the Islamic community for centuries, and much current scholarship has called these narratives into question. Currently everything from the nature of the Arabic of the Qur’an, to the understanding of the pre-Islamic communities in the Arabian peninsula, to the history and development of the early Islamic communities, has been radically reexamined in the past few decades and scholarly opinion on them is changing still. So I agree that you don’t need a PhD to read and decide what the Qur’an (or any text) means for you personally, but I cannot say the same when it comes to attempts to understand the content of the Qur’an in a historical context. For that, I would suggest it is absolutely the realm of those of us who spend our lives working in these areas.

As for your comments on the Bible, I suspect we’ll end up agreeing to disagree on a lot of it. I mean, I don’t disagree that many Christians throughout history have attempted to deal with morally problematic portions of the Bible by appealing to the “broader message,” etc., but, with respect to your beliefs, that strikes me of a special pleading. The violence in the biblical text is not limited to Joshua; indeed, it is found throughout Israel’s story. Divine violence, or divine sanction of the use of violence, cannot be marginalized by simply saying “Jesus is our role model.” I certainly like the sentiment that Jesus is the role model and guide for the Christian life, but it is all too easy to find places in which God does indeed sanction violence, slavery, infanticide, etc. The entire narrative of Israel’s election and redemption is laced with violence. Since most Christians are unwilling to go so far as to suggest that these portions of the bible are simply wrong about God (so many of them so central to the story of redemption, like the whole killing of Egyptian first borns, for example). If that is the case, that is, if they are truly representations of God and his interaction in the world, then Jesus does not in fact reveal the full nature of God (since of course Jesus did not advocate such activities). In short, I simply don’t share the perspective that Jesus’ teachings fundamentally change the nature of the deity we see in the Bible – one who kills, orders/sanctions killing, slavery, and ultimately punishes those who don’t follow or believe to eternal punishment. If the entirety of the canon was the gospels, that would be one thing. But the fact that the story of God and his interaction with man stretches from Genesis to Revelation means the entirety of that story tells us something about God and, I believe, it is equally as problematic as what you see in the Qur’an (which, btw, as a personal aside, I find much that I dislike as well. For me, the disagreement isn’t that I don’t see what you see; rather, it’s that I think any objective analysis of the sacred texts of all three Abrahamic faiths are unfortunately full of the same set of promising possibilities and sad catering to the darker angels of our nature).

I must respectfully disagree with your conclusions concerning eternal punishment. The dichotomy you set up is, I believe, a false one. There wasn’t one “Roman” or “pagan” concept of the nature of man, anymore than there was only one “Jewish” concept. There are in fact many different Jewish perspectives evidenced in the literature written by Jews in the Second Temple period. While some Jews seemed not to believe in an afterlife at all, there were other Jews who believed solely in a bodily resurrection (but that the nefesh, or soul/spirit went to a nice paradise to rest until the resurrection), and there were still other Jews who believed that the spirit would (in some form or fashion) dwell with God, with no thought of a resurrection. In fact, John J. Collins (Yale Univ. – see his books “The Apocalyptic Imagination,” and “The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls”), the leading expert on Jewish eschatology in the Second Temple Period, argues that the most common set of associations with the afterlife reflect the notion of a spirit living on after the body dies (pace N.T. Wright et al). The Qumran sect, in the sectarian texts they produced, mention reward and punishment after death, but never mention resurrection. Rather, they anticipate becoming like the heavenly hosts who serve God in the real temple, which is in heaven. In the Book of Jubilees, a non-Qumranic text, it is remarked of the righteous at death that “their bodies will rest in the earth, and their spirits will have much joy.” (Jub 23:31). In 1 Enoch 104:1-6, the righteous are said also to die and join the heavenly angels, becoming like them. This also is a prominent interpretation of reward of the maskilim in Daniel 12, when it says they will shine like the stars in the heavens. This is an allusion found in other literature that typically refers to the angelic host. Another text, the 4th Sibylline Oracle (1st century CE) endorses the notion that the soul is immortal as well. In short, there is much diversity in the first centuries BC and 1st century AD, but there is no justification for the assertion that all Jews thought one way (only bodily resurrection, for example) and all pagans thought another. The passages in the gospels, as well as other NT passages, especially in Revelation, are fully within the apocalyptic traditions of Second Temple Judaism, and fit much better with the notion of an everlasting torment (found, for example, in texts like 4th Ezra, and 1 Enoch 6-36). Even if one insists on the notion of a bodily existence in the afterlife, the idea that the spirit of one whose body was deceased could be tortured and punished in anticipation of the day of judgment is found all over the place in Jewish literature of the time as well (in 1 Enoch, their spirits are stored in a really hot, burning cave, until they are reunited with their bodies and tortured some more). There are multiple stories that fit well in this tradition (the parable of the rich man and lazarus, one tortured, the other resting comfortably in the bosom of Abraham, awaiting the judgment day). Thus I can think of no justification for arguing that Jesus’ threats of punishment in eternal fire, etc. are not fully in line with these dominant trends.

We don’t have to belabor each point I think, though I would say that I’m not sure why, say, having slaves, or more than one wife, makes some one come off as “god-like.” I mean, Muhammad was the quintessential Sheikh in a number of ways, but there were also real limitations to his power, and in fact he faced many rebellions and challenges. He was disowned by multiple members of his family (and his broader family, the tribe) – again, all of this according to the traditional stories about him (recorded much later, usually centuries, and of dubious historical value). The reality is we know very little of his life from actual contemporary sources (really almost nothing outside of the Qur’an references, which aren’t biographical); much of it is shrouded in mystery and will probably never be fully known.

I do salute you and your endeavor to understand Islam, the Qur’an, etc. more fully. I agree that such initiative is needed. I just disagree with the ways in which you present the material because I think you are presenting what is essentially your own reading, totally legitimate as a personal exercise, as if it were instead a voice in the dialogue over what the meaning(s) of the Qur’an was/were historically, which I don’t believe it is/can be. Your articles are read by many I’m certain, and you have the potential to influence many. The task you’ve set about doing is very large, and complex, and there are probably no cut and dry answers to these questions. I wish you well, and do let me know what specifically you are interested in. I assume the books you’re reading currently are the most widely-known/used, so you’ve probably got a good set of texts to introduce traditional Qur’anic interpretation, etc. It’s just that these types of works rarely represent the current scholarly work going on in the field, and are usually just repackaged versions of the same traditional material. Esposito is a solid scholar who has written a lot on the subject, but once you’ve read one of his books, you’ve basically read them all. Jonathan A. C. Brown is another accessibly scholar – he is solidly within traditional Islamic scholarship, but addresses many of the issues that western audiences typically have when approaching topics like understanding Muhammad and his legacy, the early interpretive canonization process, Another good scholar, more active in academic circles is Gabriel Said Reynolds. He edited several volumes on the Qur’an in its historical context, and these articles can give you a good flavor of some of the work that goes on. There are revisionist scholars, like Patricia Crone (who recently passed away), Wansborough, etc. I would suggest staying away from Luxembourg (a pseudonym) and his Aramaic reading of the Qur’an. Linguistically unjustified as far as we can tell. Devin J. Stewart at Emory is a good scholar. Also see the 5-Volume work called “Voices of Islam,” edited by Vincent Cornell, also at Emory. It’s a work that approaches the topic in a completely different way, though written by Islamic scholars (a number of whom are western). It’s an interesting contrast with the typical introductions to the topic.

Nathan:

Sorry for the delayed response. I’ve been in meetings since early this morning. I’m so glad this post got us reconnected. I’m glad you saw it and am grateful for all your contributions. I think it has made the discussion more enlightening for everyone. I’d like to go back and forth with you about a few more things and pick your brain some more, but maybe we can move forward together in a whole separate post – one we can work on together. Maybe an interview of some sort?

With your permission, I would like to attach our conversation to the end of the blog post that we have been discussing, so whoever reads it in the future will get the benefit of our discussion as well.

Let me know if that would be okay with you. If you would be okay with me sending you some interview questions could you PM me your new email address? I still have your old one from seminary.

Phillip:

Hey, Nathan, no worries at all, I’m sure you’re super busy. Absolutely, and I’d be glad to do anything I can/share what I can in any way you’d like. I’ll PM you my new email (though I still have the old one from seminary, too!). I certainly appreciate the space you’ve made for disagreement; it’s rare these days, especially on facebook!