Quranic Foundations And Structure Of Muslim Society
BOOK 1 -
FUNDAMENTALS
PART 1
HE TO WHOM THE QUR’AN WAS REVEALED
PART 2
THE NECESSITY OF DIVINE REVELATION
PART 3
THE QUR’ANIC REVELATION
PART 4
ISLAM: THE RELIGION—IN
TERMS OF THE SCOPE AND NATURE OF QUR’ANIC GUIDANCE
PART 5
CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS
PART 1
HE TO WHOM THE QUR’AN WAS REVEALED
Chapter 1
CHRISTIAN-JEWISH
CAMPAIGN OF VILIFICATION
In projecting the discussion about the Holy Qur’an it is necessary to introduce first the personality and the mission of him who was the recipient of its revelation. To do so with any degree of justice would require volumes because of the extreme richness of the personality as well as the mission. The limitations of the present work, however, permit only the briefest introduction. In that connection, again, it seems advisable to present only certain facts, and those too in the words of such Western scholars who, unlike others who were thoroughly drowned in blinding prejudice, felt hesitant in concealing or perverting certain very obvious truths, and exerted, with all their background of inherited prejudice, to adopt fair-mindedness in whatever degree possible.
In their words, because no judgment can be regarded as more critical than their judgment, and because “the best testimony is that which comes from the enemy’s camp”, and the Western scholarship in general,—indeed, Christendom and the international Jewry, has exhibited, and continues to exhibit, such limitless cruelty in terms of a planned campaign of misrepresentation and vilification of Islam and the Holy Prophet that in a very brief assessment only this course seems to be beneficial for all those who fall victim to Western propaganda,—such persons existing in large numbers in all the communities.
The campaign of vilification has,
indeed, staggering dimensions. Because, it is not only the Christian priests of
the medieval ages and the orientalists of the present day,1 but also
scholars totally unconnected with the polemics against Islam, who have
continued to participate in this filthiest and the most degrading job. Just to
cite a few examples selected at random, we may refer to four of them:
1 “During the
first few centuries of Mohammadanism,” observes Bosworth Smith, “Christendom
could not afford to criticize or explain, it could only tremble and obey. But
when the Saracens had received their first check in the heart of France, the
nations which had been flying before them faced round as a herd of cows will
sometimes do when the single dog that has put them to flight is called off; and
though they did not yet venture to fight, they could at least calumniate their
retreating foe. Drances-like, they could manufacture calumnies and victories at
pleasure.” (Mohammad and Mohammadanism. p. 63. 3rd ed., London, 1889). After
this remark, Bosworth Smith records those calumnies (pp. 63-72). To say merely
that they are vulgar, wild and obscene would not do justice to their atrocious
nature. The Dutch orientalist Snouck Hurgronje supports Bosworth Smith’s
verdict when he says : “The pictures which our forefathers in the Middle Ages
formed of Mohammed’s religion, appear to be a malignant caricature.” (Mohammedanism,
p. 4). But neither Hurgronje nor the other orientalists could cleanse
themselves of the poison inherited from their medieval forefathers, with the
result that the West, even after the debacle of Christianity, remains on the
whole an inveterate enemy of Islam and Muslims and continues to spread poison
against them through all the available media.
1.
Dr. J. H. Muirhead of the University
of Birmingham has written a text-book on ethics named “The Elements of Ethics”,
where, just for the sake of insulting Islam, he has irrelevantly inserted the
following false statement: “In the lives of the saints among the Turks, as
Locke reminds us in his celebrated chapter entitled ‘No Innate Practical
Principles’, the primary virtue of chastity seems to have had no place” (p.
231). This allegation applies actually to Christian monasticism of the Middle
Ages. But, instead of referring to it, both Locke and Muirhead have foisted a
falsehood on Islam!
2.
In his book: “The Theory of Good and
Evil”, which is throughout a work of academic interest on ethical philosophy
and which deals only with the western moral theories, Dr. Hastings Rashdall of
New College, Oxford, has, without any relevance, hurled a slur on Islam with a
touch of innocence thus: “When the Caliph Omar (if the story be not a myth)
ordered the Alexandrian library to be burned,[1] it
is probable that he knew [2]
very imperfectly what the Alexandrian library or any other library really was”
(vol. 1, p. 137).
3.
Max Weber, who enjoys a very high
place among modern sociologists, has shown a vulgar ignorance of Islam, if not
devilish perversion, in his book: “The Sociology of Religion” (E. T., Ephraim
Fischoff), wherein it was his duty to adopt scientific objectivity and to
acquire a thorough knowledge of Islam before speaking about it. His entire
statement on Islam, from p. 262 to p. 266, is, to say the least, abusive. Just
to quote a few sentences, picked up off-hand: “… a national Arabic warrior
religion … a religion with very strong class emphasis … Even the ultimate elements
of its economic ethic were purely feudal … Muhammad’s attitude in opposition to
chastity sprang from personal motivations … the ethical concept of salvation
was actually alien to Islam … An essentially political character marked all the
chief ordinances of Islam … the original Islamic conception of sin has a
similar feudal orientation. The depiction of the prophet of Islam as devoid of
sin is a late theological construction, scarcely consistent with the actual
nature of Muhammad’s strong sensual passions and his explosion of wrath over
small provocations … he lacked any sort of tragic sense of sin … unquestioned
acceptance of slavery, serfdom, and polygamy; the disesteem for and subjection
of women ….”[3]
4.
Arnold J. Toynbee, whose academic
labours in the field of history are gigantic, and who was naturally expected to
be objective in his approach to all religions, displays in respect of Islam the
Crusader’s zeal rather than the spirit of intellectual honesty. Indeed, the
distortion of facts in his hands and the perversion of truth by him is fully
reminiscent of the dark minds of those Christian priests of the Dark Ages for
whom the more flimsy a cock-and-bull story that was invented about Islam the
more spiritually enjoyable it was. Just to quote a few stray samples of
Toynbian rubbish from “A Study of History”, vol. 12: “Hatra had been under the
protection of the trinity of goddesses who, in Muhammad’s day, were the
protectresses of Makka. Their potency was so great that Muhammad almost
succumbed to the temptation to stultify his mission by proclaiming them to be
daughters of the One True God of the pure religion of Abraham” (p. 466). “In
the Arabia of Muhammad’s day there was a widespread feeling that it was high
time for the Arabs to become ‘People of the Book’,[4] such
as the Jews and the Christians were” (p. 467). “Thus. by the time of Muhammad’s
hijrah to Madina, the Arabs already possessed all the requisites for becoming
world-conquerors except one, and that was political unity” (p. 469). “If the
Hijazi prophet Muhammad had failed, the Najdi prophet Maslamah might have done
the equivalent of Muhammad’s work; and, if Maslamah, too, had failed, some
other prophet would have arisen, in some other part of Arabia, to step into
Maslamah’s and Muhammad’s shoes” (p. 468).[5]
However, we may proceed now to the
findings and judgments of some of those Western scholars who could show some
fairness in respect of the different aspects of the Holy Prophet
Muhammad’s personality and mission, to
provide a very brief introduction in that behalf.
[1] It was Dr. Rashdall’s duty as a scholar, if he was not following
Paul’s principle of “speaking lies for the glory of God”, to be absolutely sure
about the veracity of his statement before falsely insulting a people who
brought the light of learning to Europe. The truth is that the said library was
burnt by the co-religionists of Dr. Rashdall, who did so to promote
Christianity. “… Muslims were friends to learning … It was not Muslims but
(Christian) monks who burnt the Greek library at Alexandria.” (G.D.H. Cole and
M.I. Cole: The Intelligent Man’s Review of Europe Today, London 1933, p. 31).
[2] Mark how a second insult has been added to the first!
[3] A perusal of the present book will reveal even to a casual reader
as to how baseless is Max Weber’s indictment.
[4] Mark how a historian of world renown is projecting a myth!
[5] Toynbee’s vituperative concoctions are so baseless as hardly to
deserve any refutation. They are actually based on the old and extremely
irrational and groundless Christian accusation of imposture attributed to the
Holy Prophet
. Some of the modern Western scholars have,
however, felt ashamed of it and have controverted and refuted it in strong
terms. We will quote later in that connection Montgomery Watt who, in contrast
to Prof. A.J. Toynbee, is an Arabicist and specialist in Islamic history,
though he too is not a friend of Islam and Muslims.
to be continued . . . . .
