The Muslim intellect has fallen into two deviant approaches in its recent civilizational role. The first is a revolt against heritage, attempting to disown and discard it as obsolete, disconnected from the present, and hostile to the future. In their view, heritage includes the Quran and Sunnah, considering them a historical endeavor only suitable for its original time and place.
The second approach is the sanctification of heritage, hindering Muslim intellect from ijtihad (independent thought), and disciplined renewal essential to human progress.
Initially, these approaches appear contradictory, but in fact they are two sides of the same flawed coin, depriving the Ummah of the prerequisites for civilizational advancement that can only come through preserving foundational principles and constants, which the first group seeks to dismantle, in addition to the extensive ijtihad in keeping pace with temporal changes, opposed by the second group. Thus, the nation remains caught between two grinding stones: diluting constants on the one hand and cementing changes on the other, both undermining the pillars of civilizational witness.
The skeptics have sought to make history a common property to deprive Islam of its civilizational achievements and attribute them to other people’s creations.
Our focus here is on the first methodology, which has evolved over the past century into a genuine intellectual battle that continues to grow since its inception in Western Orientalism. This movement was eager to complete its colonial project by erasing identity and dismantling the solid social structures of Muslim societies, making them fragile enough to control and manipulate. This has led the Ummah into a state of dependency along with intellectual and social surrender at once.
Questioning the Authenticity of Heritage
The Orientalist movement and its imitators from our own people have adopted numerous methodologies and techniques in this context. However, two central methodologies were pivotal in their intellectual battle.
Firstly, they cast doubt on the authenticity of Islamic heritage as a whole, alleging that it is a historical imitation of earlier civilizations products. They argue that the Islamic political system is a replica of the views of Greek philosophers, that Islamic teachings about the Day of Judgment, Jannah, Hell, and the names and attributes of Allah are borrowed from Jewish beliefs, and that the foundations of Islamic Fiqh (jurisprudence) mimic Aristotelian logic. Furthermore, they claim that Islamic Fiqh, with its legislations, is derived from Roman law!
Despite these methodological flaws that do not even deserve serious discussion, the absurdity of the claim that Islamic legislation is borrowed from Roman law remains particularly astonishing. This overlooks the fact, as confirmed by historians of Roman civilization themselves, that Roman legal systems emerged in the early 12th century AD, several centuries after the establishment and consolidation of Islamic Fiqh and its schools. Therefore, if there are any similarities or influences, it is undoubtedly the later that benefited from the earlier!
We, therefore, are not facing a serious inquiry into truth or a fair historiography. Instead, we confront a preconceived outcome intended to be propagated to serve as the origin of intellectual projects that call for abandoning a heritage that has done nothing but reproduce old ideas without creating anything distinctive or original. If the matter is merely about imitation, then why shouldn't Muslims also imitate contemporary Romans as they imitated their ancestors?
Through this methodology, some have attempted to make history a tool to deprive Islam of its civilizational achievements and attribute them to other people’s creations, suggesting that Islam did not contribute original innovations nor did Muslims have the honor of revelation in any of those achievements. The achievements of the Greeks, Romans, Ancient Egyptians, and Assyrians are all rightfully attributed to their own people, but this historical appropriation can only be applied to Islam. Even terms like “Archaism” and “Historicism,” according to their own definitions, cannot describe Aristotle or Plato, only Malik, al-Shafi'i, and their contemporaries.
“Reinterpretation” is a big lie, and the true intent is “disabling” heritage and depriving the Ummah of its capacity for civilizational progress.
As for the second methodology, it involves widespread skepticism regarding the authenticity of texts, the accuracy of historical facts, and the reliability of heritage's constants, aiming to deter and dissuade from it. Those who advocate this approach have a significant agenda; they cast doubt on the authenticity of the Sunnah, the methodology of narration, and the chain of transmission, and question the credibility of narrators, even prominent companions like Abu Huraira and Aisha (may Allah be pleased with them). They also challenge the reliability of Hadith compilers such as Al-Bukhari and Muslim.
Furthermore, they question the sources of Islamic history. The broad skepticism serves to pave the way for their own narratives of historical events and interpretations of religious rulings and facts. This skepticism about transmission is also a prelude to promoting the idea of prioritizing reason over transmission, which is the ultimate goal for those skeptics.
Claims of Arkoun
As evidence, it is enough to present a text by Mohammed Arkoun, which I find myself in need of quoting in its entirety due to the gravity of its content. He says, “When Muhammad transmits a Quranic surah, he is then nothing more than a pure tool for transmission, without any personal intervention. He merely articulates the words of God; thus, he is the speaker of God's words in the Arabic language. There were witnesses and companions surrounding him during this, and they memorized surah after surah. It is appropriate for the transmitted heritage to mention that in certain cases, some surahs were immediately recorded on animal skins, palm leaves, flat bones, etc. This work continued for twenty years.
It was natural, after the Prophet's death, for the issue of compiling these surahs into a complete manuscript to arise. This was because the era of conquest had begun and the companions were spreading across different regions. The first Caliph, Abu Bakr, thought to gather the largest number of surahs and write them down for preservation. Thus, the first Mushaf (in its primitive form) was compiled, and it was placed with Aisha bint Abi Bakr, the Prophet's wife. These Quranic surahs would directly be used in contentious formats aimed at political power struggles. This is what can be deduced from the transmitted heritage, despite the strict control surrounding this heritage.
The sacred duty of the Ummah is to preserve its constants from tampering and to open the door to genuine ijtihad that stems from the foundations of the religion.
Caliph Uthman (one of the members of the opposing family to the Prophet's family!) made a final decision to compile various previously written parts and oral testimonies that could be captured from the mouths of the early companions. This compilation, in the year 656 CE, resulted in the formation of a comprehensive text that was definitively established as the true Mushaf but as the words of God as revealed to Muhammad. Subsequent caliphs rejected all other testimonies seeking to assert their credibility, making any modification of the established text under Uthman’s rule impossible.”
This is the narrative of heritage, representing today's general Islamic stance that possesses unquestionable authority that is neither debated nor touched. Let us reframe this narrative once again: every word of God revealed to Muhammad was conveyed with complete sincerity and fidelity, then meticulously preserved in writing in the compiled Mushaf during Uthman's time, twenty-five years after the Prophet's death.
Thus, Arkoun wants to open the door to questioning the authenticity of the Quranic text, both implicitly and explicitly.
- He finds it odd that the Prophet, peace be upon him, was merely a transmitter for revelation without any personal intervention in its texts!
- He finds it strange that the companions would cite every Quranic verse and memorize them immediately upon the Prophet's recitation.
- He notes that the collection of the Quran during Abu Bakr's era included the largest possible number of surahs, but not all, suggesting that these surahs were gathered with the intention of using them in political battles.
- The complete compilation of the Quran occurred during Uthman's time, who belonged to a family opposed to the Prophet, peace be upon him!
- Uthman's compiled Mushaf was based on rejecting all other testimonies and silencing the mouths of their bearers!
- Arkoun is incredulous at the idea that Muslims consider Uthman's compiled Mushaf as “all the words of God revealed to Muhammad!” He questions their belief that this text was transmitted with complete sincerity and fidelity and meticulously preserved in the Mushaf compiled during Uthman's era, twenty-five years after the Prophet's death.
- He concludes with a mockery of the consensus of the Muslim community, Sunni and Shia alike, regarding Uthman's compiled Mushaf.
Casting Doubt on the Quran
All these points constitute a path to casting doubt on the Quranic text, gathered by the man in a few lines. Arkoun finally dismisses the consensus of the Ummah on the Quran and mocks anyone's inability to critique it. Here lies the crux of the matter: consensus did not grant sanctity to the Quran; rather, the Quran itself is the creator of consensus, the center of unity, and the shield that protects the Ummah's core and forges its unity. To doubt it in such a crude manner aims to deprive the Ummah of its foundation for existence and its strongest elements.
All this skepticism, falsification, and distortion is termed “reinterpretation of heritage,” yet the word reinterpretation here is a major deception. The real intention is to “disable” the heritage and deprive the Ummah of the elements of its unity and the factors enabling its constructive cultural action, leading towards progress and excellence.
The holiest duty of this Ummah remains to safeguard its constants from tampering and to open wide the doors to genuine ijtihad that enriches historical assets without subtracting from them. This should stem from the foundational tenets of the religion and not rebel against them.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Read the Article in Arabic
