The Jewish and Malay Connection: Lost Tribes of Israel

I was amused and a little curious reading a blog which was forwarded by a friend.  Writing with a catchy title, “Who Are Malays and What Is Their Origin…We Are Feared By The Jews,” the blog states that the Malays are originated from the ten lost tribes of Israel.

The blogger, who does not reveal his name or identify and write in Malay language, says that, Malays mean hill people, from Mala or Malai, which means hill (or mountain).  And that they are descended from Abraham (Prophet Ibrahim) through Keturah. 

The origin for the word Malay has been a matter of contention.  A few theories have been put forward, but that it comes from the word Mala/Malai is news to me.  That the Malays are supposedly descended from Abraham through Keturah, however, is not new.  I have heard of it before.

The first time I heard about the idea that the Malays are descended from Abraham through Keturah was two decades ago, from one University professor who suggested the same.  This University professor said that these descendants of Abraham had fled their birthplace and lived for a time in a hill to the north of India.   The hill is known as Himalaya, the “highland of the Malays.”

Though curious, I did not pursue the matter.  Since I did not maintain the relationship with that University professor, the matter stopped there, until a few days ago; that is, when a piece of an article in the blog pejuangbangsa31 came to my attention. ⁽¹⁾

But pejuangbangsa31 is apparently not the reader of history.  There are too many “historical” errors in his writing.  For instance, he says Malays are descended from Keturah, the third wife of Abraham, but he also says that Malays are descended from one of the alleged ten lost tribes of Israel, through the line of Menasseh, the son of Joseph.

Now, if we learn Biblical history (or perhaps Biblical story), then we know that Abraham is the father of many nations.  He was the father of Ishmaelite Arabs through his oldest son, Ishmael, whose illustrious descendant was our very own Prophet, Muhammad bin Abdullah.  He was also the father of the Israelites, through his grandson, Jacob, also known as Israel.  He was also the father of many nations or tribes now extinct or assimilated with other nations.

One of these assimilated tribes is known as the people of Madyan.  We know about Madyan because it is mentioned in the Quran.  Allah sent Prophet Shuaib to them.  The Bible also mentions about this tribe, especially in the story of Moses (Prophet Musa), when he fled Egypt having accidentally killed one of the Egyptians in his effort to help one of his own people, the Israelites. 

In Madyan, Moses lived with an elderly called Jethro, tended his flocks and married one of his daughters, Zipporah.  The Muslim scholars identify this Jethro as the Prophet Shuaib, and his daughter, Zipporah, as the wife of Prophet Musa, Safura.

As for the name Madyan (or Midian), it was referred to one of the sons of Abraham, whose name was Madyan.  His mother was Keturah, the third wife of Abraham, whom Abraham married after Sarah died.

Now, if the Malays were truly descended from one of ten lost tribes of Israel, through the line of Menasseh, the son of Joseph (Nabi Yusuf), in what way can they be descended from Keturah?  The name Israelites, or Bani Israel in the Quranic lingo, is referred to the children of Israel.  Israel, whose given name is Jacob, is the son of Isaac (Nabi Ishak), the son of Abraham, through his first wife, Sarah.

Keturah is not the Matriarch for the Israelites.  Their Matriarch is Sarah, the first wife of Abraham.  Or perhaps more properly, their matriarchs are the four wives of Jacob.

Pejuangbangsa31 probably cannot be faulted for his error.  He is writing a socio-political blog, not a blog on history.  His entry on the origin of Malay appears to be a cut and paste from somewhere else. 

After doing a little search, I found a site which contains a lot of ideas mentioned by pejuangbangsa31.   The blog is known as mistisfiles.   This site delves in mysteries, conspiracy theories, extraterrestrial matters, paranormal activities or something like that.  Though I don’t normally indulge in such matters, I find the blog rather interesting and spent a few hours reading some of the entries.

Mistisfiles does not rush to the conclusion like pejuangbangsa31, but the site is full of conjectures, though I must admit that whoever is authoring the blog, he or she must have read history quite a bit.⁽²⁾

Reading the mistisfiles (or mystical files in English), I am quite amused to learn that this young girl, Keturah, whom Abraham married, was not from the Middle East, but actually from the Far East.  In his twilight years, Abraham had travelled from Canaan (current Israel and Palestine) to somewhere in ancient Cambodia and married this girl.  Through that marriage, they were given six sons.  One of them was Madyan. 

We have to bear in mind that Abraham married Keturah after the death of Sarah.  According to the Bible, Sarah lived up to 127 years, and Abraham was about ten years older than Sarah.  Abraham used to travel far and wide, but mostly around Middle Eastern region.  Whether he traveled to a far away and unknown land during his time, about 4,000 years ago, would be anyone’s guess.

Biblical story also narrates that when Abraham died, he was buried in Hebron (al Khalil in Arabic), which is currently in Israel.  We can assume that either he came back from the Far East, or his dead body was carried thousands of miles to be buried in his chosen place.  Islamic traditions also relate that he frequently visited his son Ishmael in Makkah.  The Bible meanwhile suggests that he spent his old age in Canaan. 

Mistisfiles, however, does not try to reconcile this mystery.

There is also amusing hypothesis about the people of Madyan.  According to mistisfiles, Madyan was actually the ancient Media. 

If you read conventional history, Media was a Persian Civilization that flourished around 700 or 800 BC, that is, about 2,700 or 2,800 years ago.  It was located somewhere in the Northwestern Iran. 

The location of Madyan that we know, that is, the place of refuge for Prophet Moses, as per Biblical story, and the country of Prophet Shuaib, as mentioned in the Quran, however, was located in the Northwestern Arabia, to the East of Sinai Peninsula, and Southwest of Jordan.  It was not in the Northwestern Iran, as Media was.

If we try to make sense of the Biblical story against the story of mistisfiles, we can see the followings.  The story of Moses took place sometime around 1,300 BC.  There was no Media Civilization at that time.  Suppose the people of Madyan were truly the ones creating the Civilization of Media, then these people must have migrated from Northwestern Arabia to Northwestern Iran, about a thousand miles to the north. 

This is not impossible, but highly improbable.  What makes it more improbable is that the Media people, being of Iranian stock, were considered to be Japhetic, while the people of Madyan, being the descendants of Abraham, were Semitic.  Japhetic and Semitic people are referred to the descendants of Noah (Prophet Nuh).  Japhetic from the line of Japheth, the third son of the Prophet Noah, while Semitic from the line of Shem, the second son.

Biblical story does tell us that Abraham and his descendants travelled quite a bit, but mostly in the Middle East and North Africa (Egypt).  Mistisfiles, however, seems to suggest that the descendants of Abraham through Keturah not only travelled a great deal, but they somehow travelled in a somewhat mysterious manner. 

First, they were born in the Far East, somewhere in the ancient Cambodia, because this was where Abraham met and married Keturah.  This took place about 4,000 years ago.  Then one of Keturah tribes, Madyan, must have travelled west and resided in Northwestern Arabia.  This region was thereafter known as the land of Madyan.   Moses came to them about 600 or 700 years after their forefather, Madyan, was born.  Next, they travelled northeast to the North of Iran. 

About 600 or so years after the chance meeting between Moses, the descendant of Israel (Prophet Jacob), and Shuaib, the descendant of Madyan, we heard about these “people of Madyan” forming a civilization, the ancient Persian civilization of Media.  Finally, they must have gone to South East Asia (their place of origin, assuming the ancient Cambodia was in South East Asia), and the Pacific Islands.  In these regions, they also formed one empire after another.  Their last great empire was the Empire of Malacca.

As a Malay, I would love to believe all that, but at the moment, I have more questions than answers.  It turns out that this theory on Malays owing their origin from Keturah and the lost tribe of Israel is gaining currency.  Pejuangbangsa31 and mistisfiles are not the only ones writing about it. 

It also turns out that some African people likewise believe that they were descended from Keturah.  The Bahai people, too, believe that their founder was the descendant of Keturah.  Every nation appears to have the desire to be descended from this great Patriarch, Abraham the Prophet. 

The Jews have hijacked their right to be descended from Abraham through his first wife, Sarah.  Their claim is too strong to be rejected since they have ancient scriptures to throw to our face.  The Arabs too have hijacked their right to be descended from Abraham through his second wife, Hagar.  Their claim too is too strong to be rejected since Prophet Muhammad, who is an Arab, says that he was descended from Abraham through Ishmael.

We are left, therefore, with Abraham’s more obscure wife, Keturah. 

If it can make us feel good, we can still claim to be the descendants of Abraham, but we have to choose only one: either we were descended through Keturah, or through Sarah.  We cannot owe our origin to the Lost Tribe of Israel through Menasseh and yet descend from Keturah.  That would show our total ignorance of ancient history.

I don’t know whether you find all these exciting, or confusing.  But you may wonder why the Jews fear us the Malays, as pejuangbangsa31 says?  It turns out that the current Jews in Israel were descended from the “bad apple” among the Israelites.  They were descended from, or the followers of, the bad Samiri who influenced the Israelites to worship the Golden Calf when Moses went to Mount Sinai to receive the Ten Commandment.

We are the good guys, because we came from Menasseh, the line of Prophet Joseph.  From this line, some other Malay bloggers theorize, will appear Imam Mahdi who will crush the Jews.

Unfortunately we don’t know when that is going to take place.  In the meantime, we can only satisfy ourselves watching the Israelis (as oppose to Israelites) crushing our brothers and sisters in Palestine.

Notes:

(1)     http://pejuangbangsa31.blogspot.com/2011/12/siapa-melayu-dan-asal-usul-melayu-kita.html

(2)     http://www.mistisfiles.blogspot.com/2009/03/alter-terahsia-bangsa-melayu-iv.html

Related Articles:
Ralph Olsen on Mormon Events: Malay Hypothesis and the Lost Tribes of Israel
The Jewish and Malay Question: The Promised Land 

Innocence of Muslims

When the world was torched with fire as a result of a movie called “Innocence of Muslims,” I paid only scant attention to it.  I first came to know about it a few hours after the US Diplomat in Libya was killed in Benghazi, along with his three staffers.  The Breaking News stated that those four were killed during violent demonstration against the movie.

Somewhat curious, I searched the net looking for the movie, and managed to have a look at the short trailer.  Having watched the trailer, and seeing that all news channels were focusing on the massive and often violent demonstrations especially in the Muslim countries, I thought that this reaction, though massive, will be a short one.

True enough, about three weeks later, it was no longer news.  By the time I write this piece, about two months after the death of the American Diplomat, which purportedly caused by the movie but was later proven to be false, practically no one talks about it anymore.

That the movie elicited such a massive reaction by the Muslims is not surprising.  The cheaply made movie has insulted the Prophet Muhammad.  You can insult the Muslims, but not their Prophet.  We have seen it many times before. 

That the reaction would be brief is also not surprising.  We have seen it many times before as well.

Since it is no longer news, why writing about it?  You may ask.  Because there is something sinister, which I am afraid to be quite true, about us as the Muslims.  We the Muslims are rather "innocent," if you know what I mean.

Now, the first thing that comes to mind when the word “innocence” is used is that it means “not guilty.”  Of course it makes no sense to employ that meaning to this movie.  The second and more subtle meaning is therefore intended.  Innocence also means “naïve” or plain “stupid.”  Employing this meaning, then the movie can be retitled “Stupidity of Muslims.”

The film is essentially saying that the Muslims are not only naïve, but plain stupid.  They have idolized a horrible man like Muhammad the Prophet (God forbid) to be their model.  No wonder the Muslims were so angry.  Not only that the maker of the movie has insulted their Prophet, he has called the Muslims stupid and naïve as well.  Yet, I am very certain that the majority among the Muslims who have demonstrated did not even watch the movie, which does not appear to exist in the first place.  There was only a 13 minute or so trailer. 

Whatever the case may be, we have reacted in a very predictable fashion: innocently, one might say.  The maker of the movie appears to have a sinister theory to test, and he has practically proven it.

When the movie was made, it seems that the title was different.  The actors who had been duped into acting were under the impression that they were acting in a movie called the “Desert Warrior.”  When the movie came to the public, it has been dubbed differently.  Insulting references to the Prophet were inserted, which were not in the script when the actors were playing their roles.  No wonder many of the actors came forward to claim their “innocent.”

The movie maker who at first went with the false name of Sam Bacile, claiming himself a Jew, turned out to be a conman by the name of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a 55 year old Coptic Christian living in California.  He was sent to a one year jail a few weeks after the debacle, but not for making the “Innocence of Muslims.”  He was jailed for breaking his parole, having earlier served his time in prison for financial fraud.

Nakoula is probably laughing in the prison now, having seen how successful his “experiment” had been.  He may not have intended his movie to be a sort of experimentation, but he worked hard to bring it to the public, despite having so little fund to do it.  When he finally managed to get the attention of the world, thanks no less to unsuspecting Muslims who helped made him notorious, Nakoula must have felt great satisfaction in the process.

Whatever motives he may have had, it is clear that he knew the kind of reaction such a movie would elicit.  We have seen it many times already, and so must have he.  When the US Diplomat and his three staffers were killed, the mass media quickly pointed out that it was the reaction to the movie.  Such is the perception of the people on Muslims.  The Muslims are easily agitated, emotional and cannot think straight.  All you need to do to make them go crazy is to insult their Prophet.  And you can do it in the most stupid way, such as making a very stupid movie.

It is also for this reason that when another conman, by the name of Walid Shoebat, a self-styled ex-Islamic extremist turned Conservative Christian, claimed that the movie is actually made by Islamic terrorists with the purpose to agitate and provoke violent reaction from the Muslims, his view got the hearing from the media.  No doubt many believed him, until it was proven that his theory was baloney.

What all this signifies is that we the Muslims are quite “innocent.”  We are not innocent in the sense of “not guilty,” but in the sense that we are quite “naïve.”  Had we watched the movie with an objective view, we would come to the conclusion that it was made by a desperado who did not worth our attention.  No one of note would have paid attention to such silly movie had we just ignored it.

But there is also a bright side in all this.  It shows that we love our Prophet.  We can still keep our cool if the joke is on us, but all hell would break loose if the joke is on our Prophet.  In that sense, it is not all that bad to be "innocent," is it?

Whether or not Nakoula has purposely attempted to show that the Muslims are stupid, his "innocent" approach has brought the other subtle "innocence" side of the Muslims.  You see, "innocence" also means "pure" in some unsophisticated way.  What this episode suggests is that the Muslims' love to their Prophet is pure, irrespective whether they really follow his teachings or otherwise.  In one brief period, all observant and non-observant Muslims were united in showing their anger to those who have insulted their Prophet.  

This kind of approach is always counter productive.  We have seen it many times already.  Every time the Prophet is insulted, the Muslims would strongly protest in unison.  Even those Muslims who have paid little attention to Islam in their daily lives rise to the occasion.  In that sense, we can say that Nakoula's approach shows only his "innocent," read naive and plain stupid, in dealing with the matter.

The not so "innocence" way is the subtle approach by the Orientalists.  Hiding behind scientific and scholarly works, these people have, to a large extent, succeeded in desanctifying Islamic Scripture and secularized Islamic Law.  They have gained many adherents among the "innocence" Muslims who thought that they are sophisticated.

For that reason, I am not concerned with the "innocence" work such as the movie "Innocence of Muslims."  Because it is too sickening, even the non-Muslims are embarrassed with it, as signified by the response made by Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State.  My concern is the subtle works made by the Orientalists.  Through their white magic, many Muslims have "innocently" fallen into their traps, as we have seen in al Mu'awwidhatayn.

The Four Quls: al Mu'awwidhatayn, Chapters On Seeking Refuge (3/3)

In Part 1, we have seen how Rodwell thinks that Quran arrangement is gibberish, and he sets out to correct it.  In Part 2, we have seen how Jeffrey attempts to discredit the authenticity of the Quran that we presently have, claiming that it has been tempered like other scriptures.

In this part, we shall try to understand what exactly they are trying to do, what might be their motives, and how these relate to surahs al Mu’awwidhatayn.

Let’s try to uncover their motive first.  One Internet site by the name answering-islam.org seems to provide at least some of the clues.

On the topic, Contradictions in the Quran, the opening paragraph of the above site says:

We do not reject the Qur'an because of this list of contradictions. There are many reasons of much more substantial nature why we do not believe the Qur'an to be from the one true God... This page is not intended as an attack on the Qur'an. Sadly, many Muslims have become unnecessarily aggravated because they did not understand the purpose of this collection.

Sounds good so far, but the author of the above article (who wish to remain anonymous) does have an issue with the Muslims.  He says:

Muslim web sites abound in articles and collections attacking the integrity of the Bible by means of contradiction lists. Many have the attitude that "because the Bible is riddled with contradictions, errors, absurdities and problems, there is no need for me to make the effort to understand it." With such an attitude no real dialog can develop.

Now we know what is the issue.  The above author does not like our "attitude."  He then proceeds by delineating the problems that he has with this “attitude,” which for the sake of brevity, need not be quoted.  The author then continues:

If both sides can come to the recognition that their own book, the scripture which is the basis of their faith, be it the Bible or the Qur'an, contains some very difficult passages which might even look like plain errors or logical contradictions (depending on the level of hostility employed when looking at it), then we might be more forgiving towards the other and be motivated to not judge prematurely but to make a serious effort to understand each of the books and the essential teachings of the respective faith in a deeper way before we come to a decision why we do or do not believe them. ⁽¹⁾

Ah, it is not really about our "attitude" then.  The bone of contention is our refusal to recognize our Holy Scripture to be flawed, just like theirs.  

But anyone who is familiar with the Bible Study would know that the Bible has been proven NOT to be the words of God.  The Christian scholars have already admitted as much.  They still believe Bible to be the words of God, though, but not the exact words of God, for the Bible has been tempered with scribal errors over time.  In other words, they believe the meaning and the intent of the Bible are what God has intended, although its words are not exactly His.

The above author is irritated and incensed because, not only that the Muslims refuse to recognize that the passages in Bible are indeed what God has intended, although its wordings may not have been exactly how God has worded them, but the Muslims are also adamant in claiming that their Quran contains the exact Words of God, has not been tempered with, and without any contradiction whatsoever.

It sounds more like being envious, is it not?

Since the Bible has been tempered with, and there is no way they can prove that it contains the genuine words of Gods, much less to correct it, because the Original has been lost, the Quran too, must be the same.  Any claim to the contrary only shows that the Muslims are incorrigible, arrogant, and incapable of admitting that the Quran too has been tempered with human errors, though none of these is done with ill intention.

If we ponder about it, we must say that they have every reason to be envious.  They know that they cannot claim the words in their Scripture to be authentic, exactly as revealed by God Himself, but we can.  And they have admitted that their Scripture has been tempered with during the compilation, but we have no ground to admit as such, because we know that the Quran has been preserved as it should have been preserved, the way God has intended.  Since they are humble enough to admit scribal or whatever errors have crept into their Scripture, they are quick to label us as being arrogant when we insist that our Quran contains no error.

It is this envy that has led them to attempt to discredit Islam by reducing Quran to the status of their Bible in the most subtle way.  In the process, they have managed to gain some influence among the so-called Muslims, which is why Allah asks us to seek refuge with Him so as to be protected from their envy and their conspiracy. 

Which is what al Mu’awwidhatayn is all about.

In al Falaq, Surah 113, Allah says:

Say: "I seek refuge in the Lord of Daybreak, [1] From the evil of that which He created; [2] From the evil of the darkness when it is intense, [3] And from the evil of the witchcrafts when they blow in the knots, [4] And from the evil of the envier when he envies.” [5]

In an Nas, Surah 114, Allah says

Say, “I seek refuge with the Lord of mankind, [1] The King of mankind, [2] The God of mankind, [3] From the evil of the whisperer who withdraws, [4] The one who whispers in the hearts of mankind, [5] From among the Jinn or Mankind.” [6]

Surah al Falaq is about seeking protection from the witchcraft or from the envier who envies.  In practice, these two are generally inseparable.  The witchcraft is usually performed by a witchdoctor upon the request from the envier who envies with what his friends, adversaries or competitors have. 

As we know, the black magic works on mind and perception, which has the effect on the body.  In the surah above, they recite whatever mantra required and blow in the knots, pretty much like the witchcraft or voodoo as currently performed.  The Surah asks us to seek refuge from this evil by reciting it.

As al Mu’awwidhatayn are said to be revealed together, there is a remarkable connection between these two surahs as far as our current observation is concerned.

While Surah al Falaq talks about the black magic, Surah an Nas talks about the “white magic.”  The “white magic” in question is the Arabic word “waswas”, translated as “whisper” in Verse 5 above.  “Waswas” of course is not “white magic.”  It is generally translated as “whisper” or “conspire” with the intent to create doubt, but its effect has been magical, as we shall see shortly. 

The Malays also use this word in their vocabularies, but with a very confined meaning.  When they are not sure whether something has already been done, or already happened, or in fact hasn’t, then they are in the state of doubt.  This state of doubt is called “waswas.”  For instance, they are being “waswas” (in the state of doubt) about the number of cycles in their prayer, whether they have performed three or four cycles already.  And they attribute this forgetfulness to the “whisper” of the Devil who put doubts into their hearts.

This is one meaning of “waswas,” but a very confined one.  The harm in that is minimal, and concerns mostly an individual.  A more harmful “waswas” is the active effort of creating doubt in the hearts and minds of the Muslims by the Orientalists and the enemies of Islam.  Among such works are the ones made by Rodwell, as we have seen in Part 1, and Jeffrey, in Part 2, of this series.

While the crafts employed by Rodwell and Jeffrey do not involve blowing the knots, they still use the mantra, either spoken or in writing, with the intent to blow the mind and create a set of perceptions which eventually lead to certain type of behaviour.  

What motivates them to do this would be anyone’s guess, but envy is definitely one of the reasons.  Since their scriptures cannot be proven to be the actual Words of God, then might as well make the Holy Scripture of Islam to be tempered with human errors as well.  Since Christianity has been successfully secularized after the Renaissance, then might as well secularize Islam as well, as their kinds have been doing with much success for the last few centuries.

Their “white magic” has succeeded in confining Islam to a mere set of beliefs or rituals.  Their works have succeeded in desanctifying and secularizing the daily life of the Muslims, which should have been governed by Syariah or Islamic Law.  Many portions of the Words of Gods and the Prophetic Traditions that govern the laws of their daily lives are abandoned, on the pretext that these are unsuitable to the modern times.

That, at least, is the impression one can gather from Surah al Falaq and an Nas combined together. 

We can seek refuge from the effect of the black magic by reciting Surah al Falaq.  We can also seek refuge from the effect of temporary doubt and forgetfulness (ordinary “waswas”) by reciting an Nas.  The harmful effects of “white magic,” devised by those who are envious and hostile to Islam, can only be sought by understanding the inherent meaning of these two surahs.  A mere recitation of them would bring no desired result. 

Incidentally, among the famous arguments made by these whisperers is that al Mu’awwidhatayn are not part of the Quran.  They are just invocations to seek refuge, as we have mentioned in the IntroductoryRemarks.  But they mention only one part of the story.  It seems that there are spurious reports containing Ibn Mas’ud’s allegation, that Surah al Falaq and Surah an Nas are not part of the Quran.  What they do not tell is that the same spurious reports also indicated that  Ibn Mas’ud had made an error, and later repented, as Sayyid Qutb explains in his famous commentary.  Al Azami devotes a whole chapter on this issue in his book, The History of the Quranic Text: from Revelation to Compilation, in case you are interested in the subject.

This concludes our remarks and observations on al Mu’awwidhatayn as well as the series of the Four Quls. 

Note:

Quotations above taken from: http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/

The Four Quls: al Mu'awwidhatayn, Chapters On Seeking Refuge (2/3)

While Rodwell sets out to rearrange and reinterpret Quran according to his fancy, and in the process discredits the effort made by Zayd bin Thabit, as we have seen in Part 1, a more virulent effort is to discredit the Quran itself by desecrating it.

Allow me to make the above sentence more readable.

To the Muslims, Quran is regarded as Words of God.    All these words were preserved in the hearts of the Companions as well as in the written parchments, before they were compiled into a book by Zayd bin Thabit, under the order of the first Caliph, Abu Bakar as Siddiq.  What we have--since then up to  these days--are the exact words as revealed to the Prophet in their genuine and unadulterated form.

Since every word which makes the whole Quran is regarded as the exact Word of God, the Muslims consider every word of it to be sacred (or holy).  Thus, a mere reading of its verses, even without understanding them, is considered a good act which will be rewarded.  The Muslims would generally not touch it without having an ablution, for that would be considered as disrespectful.  If the Quran needs to be destroyed for whatever reason, they would not tear or shred the pages, but would instead burn them.  This is to avoid the Quran from being thrown into a dumpsite and mixed with filthy things.

It short, the whole Quran is considered sacred, including the printed verses on the papers, because they are the exact Words of God which need to be respected.

Desecrating means taking the sacred out of the Quran.

How this is done?

By putting doubt into the authenticity of the Quran, saying that in the process of compiling it, the original Words of Gods have been lost due to many variations that had been in existence when Zayd compiled it.  Thus, what we have is only the version as compiled by Zayd, which is allegedly not agreed upon by all companions.  The present Quran is still considered as the words of God, but not the exact ones.  They are only “mirrors” to the Original Words of God.  Since these words are only mirrors, they are not, in themselves, sacred.  And since they are not sacred, they don’t have to be treated with such reverence, much less to be taken literally and verbatim.

The efforts to discredit the authenticity of the Quran have been going on since the advent of Islam itself.  In our times, one of the leading protagonists is an Orientalist by the name Arthur Jeffery. 

It is not the scope of this article to talk about this subject per se, but an allusion to Jeffrey’s work would be handy to illustrate my present purpose, which is an observation (rather than a commentary) on al Mu’awwidathtayn.

In his lecture, “The Textual History of the Qur'an,” Jeffrey opens his talk innocently enough: 

Wherever we find a religion that has a Scripture, that fact presents scholarship with the problem of the textual history of that Scripture. There are no exceptions to this among the historic religions.

Having said that, he proceeds by giving examples on the Scriptures of  Buddhism and Zoroastrianism :

In the case of Buddhism, for example, we have the problem of the Pali Canon, the Sanskrit Canon, the Tibetan Canon, and the Chinese Canon. In the case of Zoroastrianism there is the liveliest dispute among Iranian scholars at this very moment as to the Avestan text, and, as is well known, the text of the Pahlavi books is an exceedingly complicated problem.

And the problems with Biblical Scripture too:

Each generation of students for the last hundred years has found itself faced with new problems concerning the text of the Old Testament, and our own memories are still fresh with the excitement caused by the discovery of the Chester Beatty Papyri and the Ryland's Gospel fragment, both of which raised lively discussions on matters related to the textual history of the New Testament. 

Having thus described the problems with all religious scriptures, he concludes his opening paragraph by saying:

Whether we face the text of the Book of the Dead, coming from the ancient Egyptian religion, or the text of the Qur'an coming from the youngest of the great historic religions, we have the problem of the history of the text.

Now we have some ideas where he is leading to.  Since all historic religious scriptures have problems with the authenticity of their texts, the Quran too must have similar problem. Jeffrey thus proceeds:

In the case of none of the historic religions do we have the autographs of the original Scriptures. What we have in our hands are the documents that have come down in the various communities, and which have been more or less tampered with in transmission.

Read the above again, and observe that Jeffrey uses the word NONE.  In case you still need translation, it means that Quran is also tempered.  But to show that he means well, Jeffrey says:

This tampering does not mean tampering with evil intent; it may, indeed, have been with very good intent, but nevertheless it was tampering. The Avesta, for example, was written out in Sassanian times in a new alphabet based on the characters of Sassanian Pahlavi, and we have no knowledge whatever of what the original Avestan script was like. Similarly the Hebrew Scriptures as we know them are in the "square script", but this was not the script used when their originals were written.

After explaining how the other scriptures are tempered with, all without malice or ill intention, Jeffrey proceeds with the matter in hand:

When we come to the Qur'an, we find that our early MSS [read, handwritten manuscripts] are invariably without points or vowel signs, and are in a Kufic script very different from the script used in our modern copies. This modernizing of the script and the orthography, and the supplying the text with points and vowel signs were, it is true, well-intentioned, but they did involve a tampering with the text. That precisely is our problem.

Having thus explained how the “tempering” processes took place with the Quran, Jeffrey asserts his point:

We have a received text, a textus receptus which is to be found in all the ordinary copies in popular use. It is not, however, a facsimile of the earliest Qur'an, but a text which is the result of various processes of alteration as it passed down from generation to generation in transmission within the community.

In short, just like other scriptures which are known and proven to be tempered with, the Quran too has been tempered.  What we have, therefore, is not the Original, but an adulterated version due to the alterations that were being passed down from generation to generation.

We shall end our quotation here, because the rest are mere details.  Those interested may go the source itself, which is provided below.^(*)

At this point, it suffices to say that, like the accusation on the authenticity of the Quran in the old days, the contemporaneous claims have also been refuted.  The contemporary scholar, Muhammad al-Azami, has written a scholarly work on this subject.

Al- Azami’s scholarly work deserves a topic on its own, and is not the place to discuss it in this piece.  But the point to make is this.  If you read what Jeffrey says, you will notice that he has put the matter rather “innocently” and, as one might say, scholarly.  Likewise with Rodwell, as we have seen in the earlier part. 

This is the characteristic of the contemporary approach in discrediting Islam. Whatever subjects in hands, be it about Quran, Hadith, Seerah, etc., the approach appears innocent, with scholarly intonation, unlike the days of the old, whereby their scholars simply called the Muslims the infidels and the Quran as the work of an impostor. 

Their innocent and scholarly approaches, needless to say, have influenced a great many Muslims who are not aware of their agendas.  Many among the Muslims no longer believe in the authenticity of our Hadith collections.  Many more have taken out the sanctity and sacredness of the Holy Quran, regarding its passages, especially on the Syariah Law, as unsuitable to the modern times.  Quran has been desanctified, desacretized, and secularized.

But are these scholars, who are predominantly Western Christians, driven by scholarly reason?  Are they that innocent?  Could they be driven by something more sinister.

A look at one of the sites devoted to discrediting Islam and defending Christianity would reveal at least some of the reasons. 

But we shall explore that in our concluding part.

Stay tuned.

Notes:

*Those who are interested with the rest of what Arthur Jeffrey says may go to this site:

http://www.bible.ca/islam/library/Jeffery/thq.htm

The Four Quls: al Mu'awwidhatayn, Chapters On Seeking Refuge (1/3)

The last two of the Four Quls, known as al Mu’awwidhatayn, are also the last two chapters of the Quran. 

The first thing to observe is that these two surahs are about seeking protection.  The first of al Mu’awwidhatayn, al Falaq (Surah 113), is about seeking protection from something supernatural (such as black magic) and from the envy of the envier; while the second, an Nas (Surah 114), is about seeking protection from the genie (or devil) and the mankind who whisper or conspire.

It is a fitting way to end the Quran, as far as its arrangement is concerned.  The Quran opens with the prayer seeking guidance (Surah al Fatihah) and ends with seeking protection.  What a nice way to arrange the book, if we ponder about it. 

But it is perceptible only to the believers and those seeking guidance.  To the disbelievers and those who seek otherwise, the arrangement appears to be gibberish.  Worse, some claim that this arrangement is part of the sinister ways to brainwash the believers to become terrorists bent on world domination.⁽¹⁾

We can ignore the second claim above, because it has no value even to the disbelievers, but the first claim, namely that the Quran is arranged in a nonsensical way, is a common view.  Even some Muslims find the arrangement somewhat odd.  What more can be expected from disbelievers.

In this regard, some have attempted to rearrange the chapters in the Quran.  I don’t find it strange when the non Muslims do it, but I have seen some “professed Muslims” make similar attempt, which say a lot about their faith. 

Anyway, let’s not get carried away too far.  Let’s straight away proceed to illustrate one example. 

Rev. J. M. Rodwell has translated and made a commentary on the Quran.  But he does more than that.  He also rearranges its chapters completely.  His translation and rearrangement is available in the Internet, in case you are curious.⁽²⁾

In the Rodwell’s translation, Surah No. 1 is no longer al Fatihah, but al Alaq, which is Surah 96 in the normal Quran.  Surah No. 2 is no longer al Baqarah but al Muddaththir (Surah 74 in normal Quran).  The two last concluding surahs are no longer al Mu’awwidhatayn, but at Tawbah (Surah 9 in normal Quran) and al Ma’idah (Surah 5 in normal Quran), respectively.

In other word, according to Rodwell, the Quran should not be opened with al Fatihah and followed by al Baqarah, and closed with al Falaq and an Nas, as have always been the case, but by al Alaq followed by al Muddaththir, and closed with at Tawbah and al Ma’idah.

But why does he think that Quran should be arranged that way?

He explains it in his Preface.  It is quite a long Preface, so I shall quote only the gist.

He opens his Preface by saying:

It is necessary that some brief explanation should be given with reference to the arrangement of the Suras, or chapters, adopted in this translation of the Koran. It should be premised that their order as it stands in all Arabic manuscripts... is not chronological...

Now we get some idea as to why he rearranges the chapters in the Quran upside down.  His foremost contention is that Quran is not arranged chronologically.  Rodwell then goes on narrating the story of Quran compilation which was performed by Zayd bin Thabit (none of substance to be quoted here), but he continues, saying:

Zaid and his coadjutors, however, do not appear to have arranged the materials which came into their hands upon any system more definite than that of placing the longest and best known Suras first, immediately after the Fatihah...although even this rule, artless and unscientific as it is, has not been adhered to with strictness.

Anything approaching to a chronological arrangement was entirely lost sight of. Late Medina Suras are often placed before early Meccan Suras; the short Suras at the end of the Koran are its earliest portions; while...verses of Meccan origin are to be found embedded in Medina Suras, and verses promulgated at Medina scattered up and down in the Meccan Suras.

In other word, Rodwell thinks that Zayd was a scribe who did not seem to know any nut or bolt about book arrangement.  Zayd seemed to arrange it by the length of the chapters: the longest first, then the shorter one.  But since this is not quite the case, for Quran is not actually arranged in that way, then Zayd, to Rodwell’s view, must have arranged it according to “first come first serve” basis.  Whatever he got first, that would be the beginning.  Or, in Rodwell’s words:

It would seem as if Zaid had to a great extent put his materials together just as they came to hand, and often with entire disregard to continuity of subject and uniformity of style. The text, therefore, as hitherto arranged, necessarily assumes the form of a most unreadable and incongruous patchwork...and conveys no idea whatever of the development and growth of any plan in the mind of the founder of Islam, or of the circumstances by which he was surrounded and influenced.

Having thus described the artless and unscientific method of Zayd’s Quranic arrangement, resulting in “a most unreadable and incongruous patchwork”, Rodwell switches his thought.  Perhaps this artless arrangement is actually Zayd’s way of being honest with his work.  Or, as Rodwell says:

It is true that the manner in which Zaid contented himself with simply bringing together his materials and transcribing them, without any attempt to mould them into shape or sequence, and without any effort to supply connecting links between adjacent verses, to fill up obvious chasms, or to suppress details of a nature discreditable to the founder of Islam, proves his scrupulous honesty as a compiler, as well as his reverence for the sacred text, and to a certain extent guarantees the genuineness and authenticity of the entire volume.

Zayd’s honesty, however, had not only make Quran unreadable, but appeared to do disservice to the Quran itself.  His methodology had inadvertently caused Quran to have many contradictions as well as inaccurate statements.  If only Zayd had been more critical:

...it is deeply to be regretted that he did not combine some measure of historical criticism with that simplicity and honesty of purpose which forbade him, as it certainly did, in any way to tamper with the sacred text, to suppress contradictory, and exclude or soften down inaccurate, statements.

Seeing thus the artlessness, unscientific and uncritical mind of Zayd, Rodwell proceeds to correct these deficiencies.  With that in mind, he continues:

The arrangement of the Suras in this translation is based partly upon the traditions of the Muhammadans themselves, with reference especially to the ancient chronological list printed by Weil in his Mohammed der Prophet, as well as upon a careful consideration of the subject matter of each separate Sura and its probable connection with the sequence of events in the life of Muhammad...

For fear that the readers would get bored, I shall stop the quotations up to this point.  Rodwell goes on and on, but the gist of it all is that Rodwell thinks Quran is a history book, and therefore should have been arranged chronologically.  And Zayd, not being a historian in the mind of Rodwell, had uncritically inserted many errors and contradictory statements in the Quran.

To Rodwell’s eyes, Zayd should have known that the Quran, which Muhammad claimed to have been revealed by God, is in fact the work based on the Jewish scriptures.  If Zayd had known histories and Jewish Scriptures, he would not have made that kind of mistakes perpetrated by Muhammad himself, who did not seem to know the Jewish Scriptures any better.  Putting it differently, had Zayd known history and Jewish Scriptures, he would have corrected the mistakes and inaccuracies made by Muhammad.

Everything that Rodwell says sounds logical and reasonable enough, if viewed from his angle.  He thinks that Quran is a book of history, which is why it should have been arranged chronologically.  He also believes that Quran is based on the Jewish scriptures.  Hence, if some of the contents do not match the Jewish scriptures, then these must be inaccurate statements. 

But Quran is not a history book; it a book of guidance.  One reads and studies it for guidance to the path that can achieve progress and harmony in this world, and salvation in the Hereafter.  One who approaches the Quran along that line would find that every time he reads it, he would find some guides in it.  No matter how many times he reads it, there will always be something “new” in it.  It is pretty much like a well that is never dried, no matter how much one extracts water from it. 

It is an acknowledged fact that since the Quran was first compiled into a book form, it is opened with Surah al Fatihah.  This Surah is a prayer, a prayer seeking guidance to be on the straight path; not the path of those who incur Allah’s wrath, nor the path led by the misguided ones.  If one is looking for a guidance to be on the straight path, then Quran is the book.  On the other hand, if one is looking for history, then he should go to history books.  In the case of early Islamic history, he should go to Seerah.

After this short prayer, al Fatihah, Quran in fact goes straight to tell what the book is all about. 

Opening with the three letters, whose meaning is known only to Allah, namely Alif, Lam, Mim, the Quran straightaway declares itself, that “this is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance to Godfearing people”  (al Baqarah: verse 2).  It then proceeds by delineating what it means by Godfearing people (the first condition is that they must be the believers), and declares that these people are the successful ones.

Then, starting from the verse 6 of al Baqarah, it talks about the opposite groups: the disbelievers  (of various kinds) and the hypocrites (also of various kinds), and declares that these are the losers.

From thereon, the rest of the Quran are the details of these, of what it means and what it takes to be the believers, and to be wary of disbelieving and hypocrisy.  These are the indispensable details by which all Muslims must know, at least the basic of them.   After, or more properly while, learning and knowing as much as they could about these details, they must practice and act upon these as well as they could. After all of these are done, the Quran concludes by telling those seeking guidance to seek protection from Allah. 

If only Rodwell accepts that Quran is book of guidance, then its arrangement would not only be logical to him, but clear as well, because it is Allah Himself who wants it arranged that way.  Zayd bin Thabit merely compiled it. 

Zayd was the best man for the job.  He was among those who had memorized Quran by heart, and knew about its arrangement, also by heart.  But the responsibility of compiling it had weighed on him enormously.  Moving a mountain would have been easier and more preferable, as Zayd himself was quoted as saying.   And Zayd was not joking.  

Moving a mountain during his time was impossible, but still it was more preferable than compiling the Quran, although he already knew it by heart.  Being a true believer, Zayd knew that if he made any mistakes, then the consequence would not only be disastrous to him as a believer, but to Islam as a whole.  That’s why he said that moving mountain would have been easier.

In any case, Zayd was not alone in doing the work.  He was assisted by his “coadjutors,” as Rodwell puts it.  And he was supervised by the leading companions, including Abu Bakar, Umar and Ali. 

Rodwell has approached the Quran wrongly.  He starts by having a wrong notion about the Quran itself.  He thinks it is a history book, and proceeds to rearrange it accordingly. He is not even successful in that endeavour, for in his own words, he says:

I have, however, placed the earlier and more fragmentary Suras, after the two first, in an order which has reference rather to their subject matter than to points of historical allusion...

Even the scholarly Rodwell sometimes has to depart from his “scientific” approach of arranging the chapters chronologically. 

As to his conjecture that Quran is based on the Jewish Scriptures, this is the common position held by the Orientalists.  We need not delve too much on this, other than saying that any similarity between the two is due to the fact that both the Quran and the Jewish Scriptures came from the same source, Allah Himself.  But the Jewish Scriptures had been badly tempered with, which had led to the many differences between the two.

As to how the study of the Quran should be approached, I find the Introduction to Al-Maudoodi’s tafsir provides an extremely good guide.  His Introduction, however, is rather too long to be quoted without losing its essentials.  Those interested may go straight to the source, with the link provided below.⁽³⁾

At this point, you may wonder as to why I write this observation vis-à-vis the last two of the Four Quls.  The answer will come in the subsequent parts.

Stay tuned.

Notes:

(1)       If you are interested in the idea why Quran arrangement is designed for terrorism and world domination, here is the site:

http://www.pi-news.org/wp/uploads/2010/04/0418-Abrogation-in-Quran-anders-denken.pdf

(2)       If you are a serious reader and have time to spare, here is Rodwell’s site quoted above:   http://thriceholy.net/Texts/Rodwell_Koran.html

(3)       The Introduction to Maudoodi’s tafsir, a must read for anyone who wants to understand how to approach the study of the Quran, is available here:

 http://www.islamtreasure.com/uploads/5/0/2/9/5029153/introduction_to_the_study_of_quran-syed_abu_ala_maududi-www.islamchest.com.pdf