In this article,
the "Islamic Awareness" team attempts to use the work
of "Modern Scholars" (in this, case book reviews!), in their never-ending
attempt to extricate the Qur'an from the charge of borrowing from other
religious traditions. One must always read "Islamic Awareness" articles
with scepticism. More often then not, these papers "quote-mine" several
sources, selecting only phrases which fit their agenda, while ignoring
the context in which these statements appear as well as the general
theme of the article. Sadly, this article is no exception.
Herbert Berg's review of Ibn Warraq's The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book was, generally positive. Berg was very critical of W. St. Clair-Tisdall's essay. However, Berg praised Geiger's essay - a fact not mentioned by Dr. Saifullah. Perhaps this did not fit Dr. Saifullah's agenda? Berg tells us:
Herbert Berg does not save the Qur'an from the accusation of borrowing. In fact, he suggests that Ibn Warraq should have included other essays which would have supported this charge:
Herbert Berg's book review, when honestly quoted, does not provide any criticisms of Rabbi Geiger's work. In fact, Berg praised Geiger's essay! So, the "Islamic Awareness" team must now go on a "quote-mining" expedition in order to attack Geiger. The "Islamic Awareness" team turns, once again, to an article by Norman Stillman, which they have badly misquoted in other articles.
According to the "Islamic Awareness" team, Stillman says:
... it did tend to give exaggerated view of the Jewish contribution to the Qur'an. Many of the traditions that he cites are in oriental Christian as well as talmudic and haggadic literature. Our chronology of rabbinic literature is better today than in Geiger's, and many more texts - Muslim, Jewish, and Christian - have since being published. In the light of this we know now that in some instances what was thought to be a Jewish haggadic influence in an Islamic text might well be quite the reverse. The Pirqe de Rabbi Eli'ezer, for example, would seem to have been finally redacted after the advent of Islam.[5]
Does this mean that Stillman completely dismisses the borrowing of Jewish material by Muhammad and his Qur'an - as the Islamic-Awareness team implies in so many articles? No, the paragraph previous to the one quoted above tells us:
The "Islamic Awareness" team continues to partially quote Stillman:
In conclusion, it should be emphasized that one should be extremely cautious about assigning specific origins to the story discussed here - or for that matter, any other story in the Qur'an.[6]
However, this quotation is not complete because Stillman's conclusion continues:
Norman Stillman's article does not save the Qur'an from the charge of borrowing. In fact, the article supports the claim. To learn more about Stillman's article, and how it has been gross misquoted and intellectually abused by the "Islamic Awareness" team, please read this article.
Feigning concern for good academic research, the "Islamic Awareness" team concludes:
Good research, whether "classical" or "modern" stands, or falls, on its merits. Good and honest research must accurately quote source material and not simply "quote-mine" phrases, out of the context of the paragraph and article in which they appear, to support a narrow agenda. These tactics are not practiced by honest academics or by followers of a Holy God.
Please remember,
God not only knows best, He knows everything, including what we think, say, and write.
Maybe you should also ponder the words of Jesus:
The members of "Islamic Awareness" might want to argue this warning does not apply to them, because they have not been careless at all, but have invested much effort in their work and had chosen their quotations extremely carefully. But somehow, I doubt, carefully crafted deception will fare any better.
Responses to Islamic Awareness
Answering Islam Home Page