Return to: Home | Culture | Television

2 comments from readers

Sharif
17 July 2008 at 16:08

I agree you when you say:" Quran as:"It had its striking moments, of course. How could it not? The Quran is the most ideologically significant and influential text in the world: beautiful, captivating, deeply confusing." I would have agreed more if you had added that Quran also contradicts itself in many Suras, just like other so-called 'holy#' books.

Then you talk of somebody who said that: "An Egyptian human rights activist, Ghada Shahbandar, recalled that, in the 1970s, it was rare to see women in Cairo who were veiled " Really, people say many things just impress the 'audience' The fact is that more women in Cairo are out in the streets today than they were back then. It is similar in other Muslim countries. Yes, there is a minority which makes itself conspicuous by wearing a burqa or hijab. Mullahs make sure that their voice is heard thru the minarets to all, to scare them. What are you trying to prove? Islam has become worse? It imposed restrictions since the days of Muhammad's life. The way things are today, it can only get better, if only if the likes of taliban would disappear from the scene. I know one thing for sure; it won't happen in my life.

Ali Husseini
20 July 2008 at 04:00

As always when non-Arabophones make documentaries about the Qur'an or Islam, we always seem to get the most sanitised version possible. The most worrying thing is that people like yourself, and you're by no means alone (Tony 'read the book 2 times' Blair and Ms Blears are others), lap up this sort of regurgitated propaganda. This is very worrying indeed. A few points for your research Ms Cooke (not a criticism!):

'It was also amazing, if horrifying, to see the clattering might of the King Fahd printing press in Saudi Arabia, turning out Qurans to be sent around the world, all of which had been subtly edited to include new, anti-Semitic verses.'

There is no 'editing' of the Qur'an to include anti-Semitic verses. I can only guess at the sort of propaganda that was being played out during this documentary (alas I haven't seen it yet - sorry) if this is information from the programme itself. The King Fahd Press use the same 'template' for the printing of the Qur'an as was used in the 30's when King Faruq of Egypt commissioned Azhar to produce a standardised copy. This version of the Qur'an is the most widely circulated in the world today. The template was written in Ottoman calligraphy. The copies of the Qur'an in evidence today do not differ from one another by virtue of the fact that they virtually all are based on this template. You are probably referring to the supposed addition of 'verses' to a translation of the Qur'an...perhaps the Al-Hilali/Khan translation known as the Noble Qur'an (al-Qur'an al-Karim)? If you are, or this suggestion was made in the programme, it is a clever deception. To my knowledge, and I have a copy of the 'Noble Qur'an' beside me, you could not find a more accurate translation into English from the Arabic. I am an Arabic scholar, not as accomplishd as the gentlemen who rendered this version, but accomplished enough to know what I am talking about. The reason this version (published by Darussalam, Riyadh KSA) is controversial amongst Muslim and non-Muslim 'apologists'...like Mr Ramadan for example, is that it contains literally hundreds of anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-Pagan verses. Yet, these are all present in the Arabic text. The translators have accurately conveyed the essence in English, as accuarately as any other version today (more accurate than the semi-sanitised Muhammad Abdul Halim SOAS version). The deception comes thus: when 'apologists' want to explain away the unconcealed violence, bigotry and charnel in the Qur'an and claim that the Qur'an unreservedly exhorts peace, they produce verses such as 2:256 and 5:32 or 17:33 stripped of context or notes on time/place of revelation. If the doubter knows a little more, the apologist/deceiver will claim that the translation is a 'so-called 'Wahabi' version (c.f. this documentary) or is 'inaccurate'. This is more fraud, as they can rely on the lack of knowledge of Arabic of most people who see only squiggles and dots, and couldn't even use a dictionary to check the 'apologist's' claims.

There is no codex of the Qur'an dating from before the 8th century c.e. The oldest partial manuscripts available today were discovered at a mosque in San'a, Yemen, in the 70s. One of the German paleographers uncovered startling differences between the parchments he examined and the current King Faruq template. It may well have been Gerd Puin who was shown anonymously in the documentary...I wonder why? Needless to say he was shut up after making his conclusions, received death threats and had to semi-retire from his tenure at Saarland Uni. in Germany. He is still doing the rounds though along with other brave Qur'an critics. The whole history of the compilation of the Qur'an according to Muslim sources is very doubtful and collapses like a stack of cards, as many dogged linguists and historiographers have proved despite constant threats against their person, when exposed to modern textual criticism. A documentary about the non-Muslim, Western (and some courageous M-Easterners) version of the Qur'an, its import and theories about its compilation would be very much welcomed here in the UK...but don't hold your breath. There is too much at stake for the Qur'an to be exposed to the general public, weened on a diet of soundbites and Big Brother, for the fraud that it is and the violence and bigotry filling its pages. Its 'greatest strength' as you put it is also its greatest weakness and that is why people are threatened and killed for exposing the fraud.

Not sure if this your interpretation of the doc. or a suggestion made in the programme itself:

'...and the role of clerics (a relatively new class in Islam)' This is NOT true. There have been clerics with whom less knowledgeable Muslims would consult since Muhammad's death, the 'Ulama are even mentioned in the Qur'an itself (viz 35:28). Muhammad encouraged Muslims to consult 'learned men' and even did so himself. This deception has two motives: 1) as a critique of the 12er Shi'a who have evolved a pre-eminent clerical class, disapproved of by most orthodox Sunnis or 2) to give authenticity to the myth that there are no 'classes' or 'castes' in Islam and to distance it from Christianity and Hinduism as obvious examples. If anything, despite the exhortation to 'seek no partners with God' or 'seek no intercessors', Islam is more dependant on clerics who are grounded in Arabic and the legal sciences. My advice is not to ask a Muslim for information on Islam - do the research yourself and then consult if necessary...but check your facts; don't expect to get them from people whose whole theology is based on deceit.

Last point. Ramadan, who as many have written, is a clever deceiver, cannot be trusted despite his scholastic training to give an accurate interpretation of Qur'anic verses; the man has no classical Arabic experience in commentary, philology or terminology. The 72 virgins are quoted in a hadith collected by at-Tirmidhi in his Sunan (2687) and mentioned in Ibn Kathir's commentary on 55;72. Many interpretations have been given...and rather odd that all of the earliest commentators and philologers give the meaning as 'virgin'...does Mr Ramadan, with no classical Arabic training, presume to know more about the etymology and denotation of an Arabic word than someone like at-Tabari writing 1200 years ago...? Ramadan ever the deceiver....

I wait for Channel 4 or someone else to promote a balanced or even critical documantary on the Qur'an and Islam with significant contributions from Western scholars not apologists. Let's hope we get one!

Thanks for the article though Ms Cooke, I wish I could write as well as you!