Ancient manuscripts no substitute for the Quran 

 Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mahamad, of Malaysia, recently delivered another keynote address at an IKIM conference Facing the 21st Century: Reformation and Challenges for Muslims

The PM began his address by asking the audience to learn lessons from the pasts. As one Chinese sage it ‘To adjust our hat we look in the mirror, to plan our future we look into our past’.

The Prime Minister’s point was that the jahil, or ignorant Arabs, became a dynamic people only when they followed the pure Islam that was revealed to the Prophet. Once they started following other teachings that came later, which also deviated from Islam’s true path, they became lost again. They reverted to being Jahil.

The main causes of the deviations, according to the Prime Minister, were the different interpretations and teachings that arose later. Most of these divergences were also cause by political struggles and intrigues, which really had nothing to do with the religion of Islam at all. Over the 1400 years of Islamic history, these different interpretations and opinions came to be written down almost in stone as part of a much larger Islam than was originally revealed to the Prophet.

The Prophet never knew these scholars because they were all born or came into prominence much longer after his time (say two hundred years or so after him). Hence it is most likely that the Prophet himself would never be able to recognise some of the differing opinions and interpretations that have gone into making the expanded Islam of the scholars.

Coincidentally over the weekend I happened to meet a young woman from a certain Islamic institute who was very proud that her institute had in it’s possession 800 year old ‘Islamic’ manuscripts. She had double degrees from an American university and she was also convinced that her 800 year old manuscripts were worth more than diamonds. From a monetary point of view she was definitely right, especially since those manuscripts were bought using public’s hard-earned tax money. Their antique value would certainly be high. Her institute allows the public only restricted access to these precious manuscripts.

But how much guidance or good judgement can we get from 800 year old information contained in 800 year old manuscripts that were written by predominantly Persian and some Arab mortals? Over the past 800 years, these types of manuscripts have not been able to raise the Muslims out of the pits of despair, poverty and ignorance. Can they perform any better now at the threshold of the 21st century?

Mahathir, in his well researched speech, said the corruption and confusion crept into Islam even less than 200 years after the Prophet’s death, i.e. 400 years before any 800 year old manuscripts.

The scholars of the oral traditions started collecting their body of literature within 200 years after the Prophet to help sieve out the corruption that had already crept into their system. And yet as the Prime Minister has pointed out again, there are still disagreements among the scholars. What was accepted by some scholars was rejected by other scholars and of course, vice versa.

These disagreements have arisen because too-numerous scholars have desired to hold onto too many different opinions. But can the intellectual desires of mortal human beings, no matter how well intentioned, be a substitute or a compliment to true guidance? Perhaps the Qur’an, which contains much older but certain knowledge, provides some clarification:
“We have sent this as a clear judgement in Arabic. But if you follow their desires, now that you have been given knowledge, you will have no friend or protector against God’ (13:37).

Therefore to follow desires and opinions can be quite disastrous. Further to this, the Qur’an also says the following:
“Surely, We have sent down this message and We will safeguard it”. (15:9).

And the following:
“Falsehood cannot enter it from any side. It is a revelation from the All Wise, the Praiseworthy of God” (41:42).

The Qur’an is therefore safeguard against any corruption by no less a personality than God Himself. No other book carries this guarantee. Only the Qur’an then is a source of perfect knowledge for our guidance. There is nothing even remotely close to human inspired desires or opinions in the Qur’an.
 

No Muslim of any shade or description will likely dispute these facts. Their differences only arise when they stick to their own desires and opinions. One of the greatest differences which has also been highlighted by the prime minister is the difference between eggs and sausages and the Sunnis and Shias.

Professor Jamal Badawi pointed out that Sunnis and Shias perform the Hajj at the same place at the same time. They greet each other with the same greeting. Both their food is halal and they do marry each other often and they both accept the Qur’an. Yet they have their differences, because the one thinks lesser of the other as a Muslim. This can only be due to their holding different opinions.

The Qur’an says further:
“Relate to them the plight of the man to whom We gave Our revelations, but he ignored them so that Satan went in after him and he went astray. We could have exalted him with Our revelations if We pleased, but he love the world more and followed his own desires. His likeness is that of a dog who hangs out his tongue if you drive him away and hangs out his tongue even if you ignore him. Such is the case of the people who deny Our revelations. Narrate this history to them so that they may reflect” (7:175-176).

Therefore we have to narrate this history from the Qur’an so that, once again, people may reflect over it. These were harsh words indeed that were told to us by God and the messenger. The harshness can only be substantiated if we understand the importance of the message accompanying it.

The older but certain knowledge and guidance that is provided by the Qur’an cannot be substituted or complimented by the old information contained in the opinions of mere mortals, no matter how well-intentioned or learned they were. If we insist on sticking to our man-made opinions, then we run the danger of being looped into the canine example above.

Old manuscripts may make good antiques but thousand year old opinions cannot be deemed to be written in stone.