Keith Small - Misquoting Islam, Forging a Disgraceful Image in the Name of God (Thank you Bart!)
“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”
__ Benjamin Franklin
I believe Keith Small acquired a respectful reputation in the apologetic circles shortly after publishing his book (a Ph.D. dissertation) Textual Criticism and Qur'an Manuscripts. This is a positive sign of a growing interest in academic studies about Islam. However, it is also a grave sign that these apologists are unaware of what constitutes a true academic study —all that glitters is not gold.
All of Small’s claims, methodology, and goals were scrutinized in the book, Hunting for the Word of God. This book makes clear that Small was taking the wrong road, leading to inaccurate conclusions with the goal of deluding Christian readers with the false comfort that the Muslims’ claims about the preservation of their book was worse than their own. Small showed an incredible lack of knowledge about Islamic early resources. He was unable to reference any of the Arabic resources, with the exception of a handful of translated resources, though the main Arabic resources have been edited and published. He gave a superficial reading of the history of the Qur’an. In fact, all of his assumptions were scientifically discredited in Hunting for the Word of God.
A few days ago, Small posted a lecture he had delivered a while ago, in which he repeated the same unfounded accusations, and arrived at a conclusion that no serious scholar would agree with. After listening to the lecture myself, I thought, “Muslim scholars must have been wrong! They claimed that studying the history of the Qur’anic text requires collecting and critically studying received traditions about the Uthman/ibn Mujahid/al-Jazari projects and goals as well as a deep knowledge of the science of Qur’anic readings. These are the basic elements from which you begin.” As it turns out, that was completely wrong! If you are a Christian apologist, you can start from nothing! Even if you are giving wrong information about the number of accepted readings, as Small does, you are still on the safe side! Yes, even if you do not know their number, your intentions are enough of an excuse to write a Ph.D. dissertation on the early history of the Qur’anic text. As the French proverb says: “la fin justifie les moyens” (The end justifies the means).
I discovered, to my surprise, that I did not know Keith Small well. All of the erroneous statements and biased conclusions made by him in his book were just samples. In this lecture, Small opened new windows into who he really is. I discovered many fraudulent statements made by him (close to forty), and I will note a few of them here:
Fideism, a feature of Islam?
To convince his audience that Muslims are an easy target, Small repeatedly accuses Muslims of being fideists (followers of blind faith). I have responded to this accusation in Hunting for the Word of God,
“Small portrayed Islam and Christianity as opposite in their views on truth. He dared to say, ‘Muslims and Christians usually start from different points when it comes to considering and defending the authenticity and integrity of their scriptures. Muslims tend to work from a position known as “fideism,” that the truth of a religion rests ultimately on your faith in that religion. Christians have traditionally worked from a position known as “evidentialism,” that the truth of a religion can be demonstrated by appealing to evidence, and especially historical evidence.’
It is indeed strange to put forth such a claim about Islam when its holy book, the Qur’an, repeatedly calls for evidence to be provided for any claim, such as the verse, “Bring your proof, if you are truthful!” (Q. 2:111; 27:64). It is bizarre to accuse Muslims of embracing “fideism” while anyone familiar with Islamic literature is well aware that Muslims have written scores of books on what they termed, “proofs of prophethood.” In these books, they provided overwhelming evidence for the prophethood of Muhammad, in addition to answering all of the objections made by Christians, Jews, idol-worshippers, Zoroastrians, and atheists. It is even more peculiar to claim that Christians are evidentialists. Why did Small not address Paul’s statements that Christianity is not compatible with man’s wisdom? For example, Paul said, “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect” (1Corinthians 1:17); “For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1Corinthians 1:21); “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness” (1 Corinthians 3:19).
How could Small ignore the well-known statement made by Tertullian, the greatest Christian theologian of the second century: “Certum est, quia impossibile est”,[1] and the scandalous statement of the Doctor of the Church, Anselm of Canterbury: “Neque enim quaero intelligere ut credam, sed credo ut intelligam. Nam et hoc credo, quia, nisi credidero, non intelligam.”[2]? These statements themselves have probably been drawn from Saint Augustine's Homilies on the Gospel of John (on John 7:14-18): “Therefore do not seek to understand in order to believe, but believe that you may understand.” … Is Small unaware that Jews were dependent on Muslim arguments in their debates with Christians, as revealed by the prominent “Israeli” orientalist, Hava Lazarus[3], and others?” (p.199).
Muslims, these stupid creatures:
I disagree with Christians in matters of faith, and one can easily compile an “Encyclopedia of New Testament Errors” by quoting extensively from my published books, yet I do not think that Christians are “stupid beings” or “retarded believers.” I think the majority of Christians do not yet know what “Christianity” truly is, and have not had the opportunity to ask serious questions regarding the integrity of the faith and its scriptures. Christians are content with what is said during the Sunday sermon—that we should love God and love our neighbors. That is a wonderful commandment, but it does not make illogical Christian dogmas agree with rational thinking.
When I heard the missionary Keith Small addressing enthusiastic adult missionaries, I discovered how ugly Muslims are in the eyes of those who preach the Good News of the crucified God. Small was spontaneous and sincere in his description of these “Muslims”: They are ignorant, brain washed; they refuse willingly to listen to the truth. They are Muslims merely because Islam, though it fails as a true religion, is “the best of bad”! Small advised his audience warmly. He told them, “don’t expect them to know our view … they are often very, very ignorant.”
He claims that the evidences for Islam used by Muslim are faulty and incapable of convincing those outside their faith. I am wondering if Small is aware that Islam is the most widespread religion in the world today, and that tens of thousands of Christians and atheists are converting to Islam every year in Europe, Australia, the USA and Canada.
It would seem Muslims are not only ignorant and stupid, but they are also oppressed! They are not allowed to possess the tools to check the credibility of their faith. I can imagine the situation in the Islamic world now - no books, no lectures, no discussions, no debates; nothing is allowed. Any who dare dig for a buried book or CD is anathema and should be burned at the stake, similar to what the pious Christians did to the Unitarian Michael Servetus in the year 1553.
You might be starting to be sympathetic towards Muslim? Ok they are evil spirits too. They hold double standards when they defend their book while critiquing the Bible. It looks like Muslims believe that a book is worthy of being considered the Word of God despite being full of discrepancies and errors. Woe to these Muslims!
Unshocking News:
Small was trying to prove to his audience that he had unearthed unknown facts that should demolish the credibility of the claim of the preservation of the Qur’an and should shock every Muslim today.
He said that the companions of the Prophet had their own Qur’ans and that the Sanaa palimpsest has readings other than what we have in the Uthmanic Mushaf. Hence, the Qur’an of today is corrupted.
I say, firstly, the old Islamic books available today in the market such as Kitab al-Masahif by ibn Abi Dawud (d. 316 H.) did mention that the companions had their own Mushafs. What Small did not tell his audience is that the companions had copies of the Qur’an with a miniscule number of readings different than the one in the Uthmanic Mushaf. The editor of ibn abi Dawud’s book, Dr. Muhib al-Din Wa’dh, (1995) revealed that most of the narrations about the companions’ readings are not authentic.
Secondly, Hunting for the Word of God discussed the issue of the palimpsest, and, to sum up, this palimpsest is a very good argument for the credibility of the Islamic tradition. It was written before the caliphate of Uthman, and it has non-Uthmanic readings, some of them already mentioned in Islamic literature. The great Imam ibn al-Jazari (d.1429 CE-833 H.) wrote that many readings that were not consonantal with the text of the Uthmanic mushaf were indeed read by the companions and the Prophet. [4] We, as Muslims, have believed all along—for 14 centuries—that there were other readings of the same texts used by the companions, and that the Uthmanic project was made to unify Muslims around one text. The real objection here is that the omission of the other readings should be considered as an alteration of the Qur’an! The answer is, no! Muslims were in fact allowed to read the text with multiple readings in some passages, but they were not ordered in any mandatory way to keep them; rather it was a رخصة, concession, not an obligation. That is why the companions voluntarily gave up their copies to be burned, with the exception of ibn Mas’ud, who kept his along with[5] the Uthamnic recension.
Muslim scholars never denied that some passages in the Qur’an have multiple readings. These are multiple authentic readings, not contesting readings such as the ones found in the New Testament manuscripts. Hunting for the Word of God offers a full and detailed answer. The news is that today we have a virtual proof that shows that these orientalists who doubted the accuracy of the Islamic tradition are wrong.
Gross lies:
Delusion and ignorance are the most dangerous combination to fuel preaching. While I can forgive some exaggerations, kindled by the uncontrolled enthusiasm of “a believer,” I cannot forgive a state of catastrophic ignorance about well-known details about Islam, known even to the lay readers. Some of this inaccurate information makes me believe that Small did not exert the least amount of effort to know about the basics of Islam. If we are supposed to think that Small is a good representative of Christian scholars, or even of mere believers in the interfaith dialogue with Muslims, then it is time for Muslims to think about the fruitfulness of this dialogue. “Without knowledge even zeal is not good; and he who acts hastily, blunders.” (Pro 19:2 NAB).
Here are some of Small’s lies and misinformation:
(1) Small’s claim:
Islam discourages its followers to ask about their faith. The Qur’an 5:101, forbids questioning, so people will stay forever in the state of ignorance:
{يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ لاَ تَسْأَلُواْ عَنْ أَشْيَاء إِن تُبْدَ لَكُمْ تَسُؤْكُمْ }
“O you who have believed, do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you.” Q. [Qur’an] 5:101
Comment:
Never have Muslims understood the previous verse as a commandment to not ask about their faith. Small says that an individual in North Africa told him that Muslims use this in school to prevent students from questioning!
Small has to refer back to the Sunnah to know the context of why this verse was revealed. Al-Mawdudi in his commentary, Tafheem, writes, “People used to ask the Prophet (peace be on him) many questions which were of no practical relevance to either religious or day-to-day affairs. Once, for instance, a person asked the Prophet (peace be on him) in the presence of a crowd: 'Who is my real father?' Likewise, many people used to ask unnecessary questions about legal matters. Through these uncalled-for inquiries, they sought knowledge of matters which had, for good reasons, been deliberately left undetermined by the Law-giver.”[6]
The incident mentioned by al-Mawdudi, was reported by al-Bukhari and Muslim as the reason why Q.5:101 was revealed to the Prophet. This verse teaches Muslims to be serious and responsible when asking questions. It does not teach them to refrain from seeking the truth regarding the Islamic faith. In fact, all of the Meccan chapters and many Medinan chapters offer detailed discussions of the veracity of Islamic dogma. No Muslim scholar throughout the history of Islam held Small’s interpretation of Q.5:101. The Prophet of Islam used to make the following supplication:
“اللهم إني أعوذ بك من الأربع من علم لا ينفع ومن قلب لا يخشع ومن نفس لا تشبع ومن دعاء لا يسمع."
“O’ Allah! I seek refuge with you from [these] four: from knowledge that has no benefit, and from a heart that has no humility, and from a soul that cannot be satiated, and from a supplication that is not heard.” [Reported by al-Nasai].
The Prophet of Islam also said:
"سلوا الله علمًا نافعًا، وتعوذوا بالله من علم لا ينفع"
“Ask Allah for a useful knowledge and seek refuge with Allah from useless knowledge.” [Reported by ibn Majah].
The fact is that Islam urges Muslims to keep seeking knowledge. The Prophet said:
"من سلك طريقًا يبتغي فيه علمًا سهل الله له طريقًا إلى الجنة، وإن الملائكة لتضع أجنحتها لطالب العلم رضا بما صنع، وإن العالم ليستغفر له من في السماوات والأرض حتى الحيتان في الماء، وفضل العالم على العابد كفضل القمر على سائر الكواكب، وإن العلماء ورثة الأنبياء وإن الأنبياء لم يورثوا دينارًا ولا درهما وإنما ورثوا العلم. فمن أخذه أخذ بحظ وافر"
"He who follows a path in quest of knowledge, Allah will make the path of Jannah easy to him. The angels lower their wings over the seeker of knowledge, being pleased with what he does. The inhabitants of the heavens and the earth and even the fish in the depth of the oceans seek forgiveness for him. The superiority of the learned man over the devout worshipper is like that of the full moon over the rest of the stars (i.e., in brightness). The learned are the heirs of the Prophets who bequeath neither dinar nor dirham but only knowledge; and he who acquires it, has in fact acquired an abundant portion." [Reported by Abu Dawud and al-Tirmidhi]
In addition, to not answer other people’s religious questions is a major sin [kabirah] in Islam.
The Prophet said:
"من سئل عن علم فكتمه ألجم يوم القيامة بلجام من نار"
"He who is asked about knowledge (of religion) and conceals it, will be bridled with a bridle of fire on the Day of Resurrection." [Reported by Abu Dawud and al-Tirmidhi]
(2) Small’s claim:
The Prophet of Islam urges Muslims not to pose questions, because that would make them fall into doubt. He said:
"دع ما يريبك إلى ما لا يريبك"
“Abandon that which leaves you in doubt for that which does not cause you doubt.” [Reported by al-Tirmidhi].
Comment:
Small claims that the previous hadith means that a Muslim should stay away from any disturbing question about his faith. However, this hadith is about what is lawful [halal] and unlawful [haram] regarding Muslims’ actions [not the faith]. If a Muslim has doubts about the permissibility of an action, he is advised against it, and to go for another option which he is certain is permissible (halal). Al-Fudhayl ibn Iyadh (d.803 CE), the great scholar of the third Muslim generation, said:
" يزعم الناس أن الورع شديد ، وما ورد عليّ أمران إلا أخذت بأشدهما ، فدع ما يريبك إلى ما لا يريبك "
“People are claiming that it is hard to be pious. If I encounter two matters, I will choose the hardest one of them, so abandon that which leaves you in doubt for that which does not cause you doubt!”
Does Islam teach Muslims not to use rational thinking? On the contrary, numerous Qur’anic verses ask human beings to use their brain and common sense so they will reach the right belief. For example,
{وَفِي الأَرْضِ قِطَعٌ مُّتَجَاوِرَاتٌ وَجَنَّاتٌ مِّنْ أَعْنَابٍ وَزَرْعٌ وَنَخِيلٌ صِنْوَانٌ وَغَيْرُ صِنْوَانٍ يُسْقَى بِمَاء وَاحِدٍ وَنُفَضِّلُ بَعْضَهَا عَلَى بَعْضٍ فِي الأُكُلِ إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لآيَاتٍ لِّقَوْمٍ يَعْقِلُون}[الرعد:4]
“And within the land are neighboring plots and gardens of grapevines and crops and palm trees, [growing] several from a root or otherwise, watered with one water; but We make some of them exceed others in [quality of] fruit. Indeed in that are signs for a people who reason.” Q.14.4
{أَفَلَمْ يَسِيرُوا فِي الأَرْضِ فَتَكُونَ لَهُمْ قُلُوبٌ يَعْقِلُونَ بِهَا أَوْ آذَانٌ يَسْمَعُونَ بِهَا فَإِنَّهَا لاَ تَعْمَى الأَبْصَارُ وَلَكِن تَعْمَى الْقُلُوبُ الَّتِي فِي الصُّدُور}[الحج:46]
“So have they not traveled through the earth and have hearts by which to reason and ears by which to hear? For indeed, it is not eyes that are blinded, but blinded are the hearts which are within the breasts.” Q.22.46
{أَفَلاَ يَتَدَبَّرُونَ الْقُرْآنَ وَلَوْ كَانَ مِنْ عِندِ غَيْرِ اللّهِ لَوَجَدُواْ فِيهِ اخْتِلاَفًا كَثِيرًا}[النساء:82]
“Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.” Q.4.82
Ibn Hibban narrated on the authority of ‘Atarah that he entered with Ubaidullah Ibn Umayir upon Aisha, and then Ubaidullah Ibn Umayir said: “Tell us about the most astonishing thing you had ever seen from the Prophet.” She wept then said: “One night, he stood up (to perform prayer) and said: ‘O ‘Aisha, let me worship my Lord.’ So I said: ‘By Allah I love being close to you and whatever pleases you.’ Then he purified himself and began performing prayer. He wept till he wetted his lap, and continued weeping till he wetted the earth. Then Bilal came to tell him that the time of (dawn) prayer had come, but when he saw him weeping he said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, do you weep while you’ve been forgiven by Allah your past and coming sins?’ the Prophet said: ‘Should I not be a thankful slave? There are verses which have been revealed upon me tonight, woe to whoever recites them without carefully considering them:
Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day are signs for people of reason. Those who remember Allah while standing or sitting or [lying] on their sides and give thought to the creation of the heavens and the earth, [saying], Our Lord, You did not create this aimlessly; exalted are You [above such a thing]; then protect us from the punishment of the Fire.’ [Q.3: 190-91]. ”
In Islam, if the believer does not use rational thinking he could be in big trouble, not the opposite way around as Small claims .
(3) Small’s claim:
The reason why Muslims are convinced that the Qur’an is linguistically miraculous is that they were born in an Islamic environment where they used to hear its recitation and were influenced by its text from an early age.
Comment:
Firstly, can we take his claim about the linguistic features of the Qur’an seriously when it is evident in his published book that he does not know the difference between an accepted Arabic construction and an awkward construction?
Secondly, I am not going to refer to the highest masters of Arabic at the time of the Prophet, nor to the very long list of scholars who wrote extensively about the linguistic quality of the Qur’an, I will only ask if Small ever heard about [Ahmad] Fares al-Shidiyaq (d. 1887). He was one of the founding fathers of modern Arabic Literature, reaching the highest level in Arabic literature expertise. After translating the Bible into Arabic and publishing it, he converted to Islam and acknowledged the miraculous aspect of the Qur’an. I have more astounding testimonies from eminent Christian and Jews men of literature, and they will, insha Allah, be quoted in my forthcoming book, Why I am a Muslim.
(4) Small’s claim:
Small told his audience that the miraculous scientific aspect of the Qur’an is a delusion because these are late interpretation of vague texts.
Comment:
It is sufficient to answer this with one sole example: Ibn Taimiyyah (d. 1328 CE) reported the existence of a consensus among Muslim scholars, from the dawn of Islam, that the earth is a sphere, because of the clear Qur’anic and hadith statements. He wrote in his Fatawah (25/193):
" ثبت بالكتاب والسنة وإجماع علماء الأمة أن الأفلاك مستديرة"
“It was proven from the Quran, the Sunnah and the consensus of scholars that orbits are circular”
And in his Fatawah (6/586) he clearly said that the earth was a sphere (كرة).
Three centuries earlier, ibn Hazm (d.1064 CE) in his Fisal (1/352, published by Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, 1999, 2nd edition) reported the same consensus. He even wrote an entire chapter to prove, from the Quran and Sunnah, that the earth has a spherical shape (1/352-361), under the title: “بيان كروية الأرض” “Explaining the spherical shape of the Earth.”
In contrast, Saint John Chrysostom (d. 407 CE) wrote in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews 1/8:
“Where are they who say that the heaven whirls around? Where are they who declare that it is spherical? For both of these notions are overthrown here.” [7]
(5) Small’s claim:
There are only two printed Qur’an readings today, Hafs and Wursh.
Comment:
Firstly, it is Warsh, not Wursh!
Secondly, It is hard to believe that a “scholar” who is writing pioneering studies about the text of the Qur’an does not know that the reading of Qalun (the official reading in Libya) was printed many times in millions of copies, and its copies are used widely in Tunisia too! (Here you can read a printed copy of the Qalun reading)
The reading of al-Duri, recited in Somalia, Sudan, Nigeria and other African countries by millions of Muslims, was published in Sudan and by King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Quran. The same complex also published the readings of al-Susi and Shu’bah!
Small is taking us back to the age of Obscurantism when Peter the venerable (d. 1156 CE) and his students were writing their apologies in the darkness of isolated monasteries. The windows need to be opened to obtain a fresh look and broaden the view to observe what is really around.
(6) Small’s claim:
Small asserts that the concept and mechanism of abrogation was used by Muslims to get rid of contradictions in the Qur’an.
Comment:
Abrogation is a Qur’anic and prophetic concept, and it shows that the Qur’an and the prophetic tradition were revealed to take the newly born Islamic nation from one step to the next. That is the mercy of Allah to take people through easy steps to the happy ending. It would have been very difficult for the new Muslims to leave their inherited paganism for the desired status with just the click of a button or a sudden commandment.
The real problem I have with Small’s objection is not that he distorts the concept of abrogation itself (it was no surprise given his abundant misinformation and his apparent ill intentions) but why, as a believing Christian, does Small not accept the concept of abrogation himself? In the New Testament, Jesus supposedly said: “You have heard [alluding to the Old Testament]. But I tell you,” (Matthew 5:33-37)! It is evident from this that the abrogation of the Law is there, shining bright in the New Testament!
Still, this is not the real problem with Small! Abrogation reflects God’s knowledge of how people should act or be treated in different situations, but that is not the fundamental claim of Christianity. Christianity is not based on “abrogation by design”, rather it is founded on the claim that God is limited in His knowledge; He is, apparently, not omniscient! He had made the first Testament (covenant) with his people so they will be justified by observing the Law. That Old Testament surprisingly failed, so God had then to put in place a New Testament by hanging his innocent Son on the Roman cross! Jehovah did not go for the second bloody option, plan B, until plan A had failed. I know the Christian theologians will try to use their acrobatic, exegetical games to make Jehovah omniscient. However, their games will not succeed based on the following passages:
· Jehovah promised to keep an everlasting covenant with Abraham: “then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.” (Gen. 17:19 NIV)
· The law will not be dismissed: “Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands.” (Deut. 7:9)
· Paul repeatedly stated that the Old Testament (covenant) was not beneficial: 2 Corinthians 3:6: “He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” (2Co 3:6 NIV)
We should listen to the voice of Paul, rather than the fabrications of later theologians, when he said: “For if there had been nothing wrong [ἄμεμπτος= without fault= the Syriac Peshitta: ܕܠܐ ܪܫܝܢ] with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.” (Heb 8:7) This a good, modern English translation for a text attributed to Paul.
Yet another statement attributed to Paul points out that God made a mistake in making the first covenant: “The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless” (Heb 7:18). Weak and useless! Thank you Paul, you could not have made it more clear!
(7) Small’s claim:
Muslims think that the Bible is not worthy of being considered the word of God, only because the Qur’an said so.
Comment:
I would ask Small, “Is the reputable Tyndale House Library so poor that they do not have any old Islamic book in comparative religion for you to read?” Did Small not read the encyclopedic Islamic study, al-Fisal, written ibn Hazm in 1048 CE.? Muslims were the first, in the history of biblical studies, to systematically discredit the authenticity of the Bible. Ibn Hazm’s studies were used by Christian theologians in the middle ages as a source of knowledge. Yitzhak Baer, the German-Israeli historian and expert in medieval Spanish Jewish history, proclaimed that, “Christian theologians and polemicists relied, it appears, to a large extent upon the anti-Jewish writings of the eleventh century Mohammedan scholar Ibn Hazm.“[8] Most of the modern objections held by the liberals and the non-Christians are present in the old, Islamic literature. Muslims in the Middle-Ages used logic, history, theology, redaction criticism, etc. to prove that the Bible is a blend of divine words and human additions.
(8) Small’s claim:
“Muslims have consistently chosen a mechanical model of inspiration.” They consciously chose that model of inspiration in order to protect the divine character of God’s revelation to Muhammad.
Comment:
When I first heard this allegation, I thought there must be something wrong with my hearing, or that this speaker is talking about creatures called Muslims whom I had never met. Firstly, Muslims did not consistently choose a mechanical model of inspiration; they do believe that the Sunnah (the prophetical tradition) is divine in its essence, and that the prophet of Islam transmitted the divine message verbally through the Qur’an and by meaning through the Sunnah!
The Prophet said:
" ألا إني أوتيت الكتاب ومثله معه"
“I have been given the book and what equals it, along with it” [Reported by Abu Dawud].
Secondly, Muslims did not create the mechanical dictation of the Qur’an, it is the statement of the Qur’an itself:
{لاَ تُحَرِّكْ بِهِ لِسَانَكَ لِتَعْجَلَ بِه إِنَّ عَلَيْنَا جَمْعَهُ وَقُرْآنَه}
Move not your tongue with it, [O Muhammad], to hasten with recitation of the Qur'an. Indeed, upon Us is its collection [in your heart] and [to make possible] its recitation. Q. 75.16 That was the Islamic belief from the time of the Prophet.
(9) Small’s claim:
The mechanical model of inspiration was consciously adopted by the Prophet of Islam from Gnostics, and he chose not to follow the Christian and Jewish view.
Comment:
First, this statement contradicts what was claimed previously - that it is the choice of Muslims, not the choice of their Prophet.
Second, it is evident that the Jews in the seventh century believed in mechanical inspiration, at least in regards to the Pentateuch, and this is still the view of the orthodox Jews.
Third, many of the extant holy books of the Gnostics do not claim that they are dictated by God or an angel. Here, Small confuses the source of Gnostic knowledge with the model of inspiring the scriptures. I do not know who inspired Small with this supposition about Gnostics. Did he ever read through Robinson’s Nag Hammadi Library? I really doubt it!
(10) Small’s claim:
Sunni Muslims believe that the Qur’an was written in an eternal, heavenly tablet.
Comment:
This claim entails that Muslims believe that it is not God alone who is eternal, it is the tablet too! I can say with certainty that these “Sunni” never existed.
(11) Small’s claim:
Small attributed the belief that the Qur’an is eternal to the Sunni.
Comment:
Sunni rejected the claim that the Qur’an is created, as well as the claim that it is eternal. The Sunni view is that the “genre” (نوع) of God’s speech is eternal, but that the special words of the Qur’an are not eternal. Ibn Taimiyyah, an authority in the matters of the Islamic creed, said in regards to the view of the earliest Muslim generations (which is the sound and accepted view):
"ولا قال أحد منهم القرآن قديم."
“And no one of them said that the Qur’an was eternal”[9]
(12) Small’s claim:
Small accused the early Islamic tradition of giving inaccurate details, such as the narration in al-Bukhari that the Uthmanic project to make a unified copy of the Qur’an chose Quraish dialect when there are authentic readings in different dialects. Small sees this report as an apparent anachronism because the old Arabic script [the hijazi script] could not record the main features of the dialects of that time, since it does not bear the short vowels!
Comment:
It is obvious to anyone [not just a scholar] who knows what the Arabic dialects are, that Small knows almost nothing about what “a dialect” is! The differences between the Arabic old dialects (and even the modern dialects) is not limited to the short vowels, it often extends to the following:
- having differences in the consonantal skeleton of the words, such as the phenomenon of “ʿAjʿajah”: changing the Y to J /”ṭumṭumāniyyah”: changing the L of the article to M, etc.
- to add letters: such as the phenomenon of “kashkashah”; to add a K to the end of the word when a female is addressed.
- to delete letters: such as the phenomenon of “Quṭʿah”: to delete the end of the word.
- to use of totally different words [synonyms]: such as “Sayhah” and “Zuqiyah” = scream.
This is completely obvious! And here is a book (available to download) where you can read about this in detail and go through examples.
The question now is, is Small that ignorant that he would miss such commonly known facts, or is he just distorting history to throw doubt on the Islamic tradition? I would go with the first explanation, as I cannot imagine that someone would lie intentionally in such an apparent matter!
(13) Small’s claim:
It took three hundred years to introduce the short vowels in the Qur’anic manuscripts.
Comment:
This claim is a big lie. Small has seen with his own eyes earlier manuscripts that contain short vowels. He wrote in his book that the short vowels were used beginning in the year 705 CE, about 76 years after the death of the Prophet. (Textual Criticism, p.172) The establishment of this basic system of short vowels is attributed to al- Hajjaj ibn Yusuf during the reign of the Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik (r.65-86 Islamic calendar, about 76 years after the death of the Prophet.)[10] which indicates that Small agrees with that!
(14) Small’s claim:
We are not supposed to trust the Islamic version of the preservation of the Qur’an during the caliphate of Uthman, because the same tradition says that the first Caliph, Abu Bakr, already collected the Qur’anic text; so why collect the Qur’an again?
Comment:
I do not know if Small is ignorant of the answer that was given by Muslim scholars or not, because if he knew what Muslim scholars said, he was supposed to mention it and then discuss it! It is evident from the Islamic tradition that Abu Bakr compiled the Qur’an with all its readings so to be preserved. The reason for Uthman’s compilation is completely different. The Uthmanic copy limited the accepted readings to what the skeleton of the Arabic consonantal (text without vowels or diacritical marks) read. This was because, as the Islamic territory was greatly expanding, many new Muslim did not know the multiple received readings and thus they would argue about the authenticity of the readings they did not receive from their teachers.[11]
(15) Small’s claim:
Ibn Mujahid said about the seven readings which he chose himself, “these seven of all of this [the mass of the readings known in the fourth century] have the best claim of going back close to Muhammad.”
Comment:
First, Ibn Mujahid never claimed that he chose seven particular readings because they are the most trustworthy. Attributing such a view to him is not acceptable because Ibn Mujahid’s project did not start from a need to know what was original and what was not. He never claimed that the other readings were forgeries. His goal was to limit the used readings, because the mechanism of Ikhtiyarat, (the selection by certain qualified scholars of one or more readings from among a number of existing original readings.) was generating new readings.
Second, Ibn Mujahid believed that these seven readings were indeed original, not that they go back close to the time of Muhammad. That is a conscious distortion of a fundamental view of a famous Muslim scholar.
(16) Small’s claim:
Each of the ten readings has ten accepted ways.
Comment:
This is not true; every reading (قراءة), of the ten, have only two accepted reports (رواية). I do not know Small’s fantastic sources. I was looking for a reason for his unusual and odd claim. I had one sole possible answer, which is that he heard someone saying that each of the ten readings have two accepted reports, but he thought he heard “ten” instead of “two.” I do not think that Small was fabricating lies here, because it was an obvious error that could be easily caught. As was demonstrated in Hunting for the Word of God, Small did not use any Arabic resources in his book, and he made childish mistakes in reading the manuscripts. This mistake must come from the oral “tradition,” but the tradition was right and he is the one to blame.
Perfidious silence:
Small’s lecture was not really about “The Bible and the Qur’an” as the title on YouTube suggests. It was, in fact, spindled around the subject of the preservation of the Qur’an—that it was not well preserved because we know it has many variant readings! Small did not talk or even hint in his lecture to a hadith narrated by twenty companions of the Prophet that stated the Qur’anic text has in some verses multiple authentic readings.
The Prophet [Peace upon him] said:
" إِنّ هَذَا الْقُرْآنَ أُنْزِلَ عَلَى سَبْعَةِ أَحْرُفٍ ."
“Indeed this Qur'an has been sent down on seven ahruf [letters/words].”
The companions who narrated this hadith are:
Umar b. Khatab (the second caliph).
Uthamn b. Affan (the third caliph).
Ali b. abi Talib (the fourth caliph).
Ubay b. abi Kab.
Abd Allah b. Masud.
Abu Hurayira.
Muadh b. Jabal.
Hisham b. Hakim b. Hizam.
Ibn Abbas.
Amr b. al-As.
Hudhayifa b. al-Yaman.
Ubadah b. al-Samit
Sulaiman b. Sorad al-Khuzai.
Abu Bakrata al-Ansari.
Abu Talha al-Ansari.
Anas b. Malik, through Ubay.
Samurah b. Jundub.
Abu Juhaim al-Ansari.
Abd Arrahman b. Awf.
Um Ayiub...[12]
Why did Small skip this essential hadith, without even trying to refute its validity? I have no doubt that the reason is that it would have ruined his allegations about a fluid state of the text in its early history. This hadith tells us that we had multiple authentic “readings” of some passages, not conflicting variant readings.
Conspiracy theorist:
The conspiracy theory in deconstructing and reconstructing the history of the formative era of Islam is prevalent in some Orientalist circles. Small chose to join the team. He claimed that “there’s something fishy” in the accounts of the preservation of the Qur’anic text, especially with al-Hajjaj’s contribution.
Suspicions without positive arguments cannot be the means to refute the integrity of the Islamic tradition. The Muslim historians of the past would have been very happy to record any tampering with the text if made by al-Hajjaj, because al-Hajjaj was considered one of the most horrible characters in Islamic history due to his bloody biography.
Small assured us that Uthman chose the reading that would support his side in the civil war that occurred during his lifetime. What evidence does he have for this claim? None! The Islamic tradition preserved many non-Uthmanic readings, none of which could be seen as a threat to Uthman’s status or interests.
Ignorance of the New Testament Textual Criticism outcomes:
1- Small claimed that textual criticism today reached the conclusion that we have in our hands the original text! That is not the case. Many textual critic leaders refuted this desirable dream. After the publishing of the newest revision of the Nestle-Aland text (NA28), which has always reflected the views of mainstream scholars, we can declare that those who say that it is impossible to recover the original text now have the upper hand.
2-Small said that there is a gap of almost a century between “the earliest available manuscripts and the time of Jesus.” This statement is absolutely inaccurate!
The century gap of time is between, not the time of Jesus, but the date of composition of the books of the New Testament (60-90 CE) and the earliest manuscripts (except for a very tiny papyrus (P52) that many, although not all, dated at the first half of the second century). The earliest manuscript of Mark, for instance, (P45) goes back to the first half of the third century.
3-Small concluded that the variant readings found in the New Testament manuscripts do not prove that the New Testament was corrupted.
Do they prove that the New Testament was well preserved? When scholars announce that no two manuscripts are 100% alike, what does that prove to you?
4-Small challenged Muslims, if they want to prove the veracity of their view, to answer this question: who corrupted the Bible? How did they do it, and when?
This is a Middle-age polemic that no textual critic scholar dares to pose in a debate. Even Small’s teachers [the apologists] state that the text was indeed corrupted and that the aim of textual criticism was to bring it back to its initial state.
Unfamiliarity with the Christian theology:
Small stated that Christians chose the model of plenary verbal inspiration, while Muslims chose the divine dictation model.
I say, what about the model of divine dictation held by some church fathers? [13] That is also a Christian view! And what about “the dynamic inspiration” model held by many evangelicals today?[14] Is it really hard to be accurate?
After listening to Small’s lecture, I reached the following conclusion. If someone is ignorant of the basics of Islamic history and teachings, and has a little knowledge of the New Testament studies in the West and East, he is the first enemy of his own faith if he dares lecture about Islam. There is a basic need to seek knowledge so a man does not give credit to his opponent gratis!
All of my previous objections cannot negate the fact that I completely agree with one of Small’s central statements regarding the belief that the New Testament is the word of God, “We take it by faith … it is a matter of faith, you cannot prove this.” Yes, you cannot prove it!
Sami Ameri
1st March- 2013
[1] “It is certain, because impossible,” Tertullian, De Carne Christi, v. 4
[2] “Nor do I seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand. For this, too, I believe, that, unless I first believe, I shall not understand.” Anselm, Proslogion, ch.1
[3] Hava Lazarus-Yafeh, “Some Neglected Aspects of Medieval Muslim Polemics against Christianity,” in The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 89, No. 1 (Jan., 1996), pp.65-70
[4] See:
ابن الجزري، منجد المقرئين، تحقيق علي العمران، دار عالم الفوائد، 1419هـ، ص94
[5] Ibn Mas’ud’s students used their teacher’s copy along with the Uthmanic recension and were not rebuked for doing that. No one among the companions, not even Uthman, accused Ibn Mas’ud of having a tampered text, nor did Ibn Mas’ud accuse Uthman of making an adulterated text. Uthman was working to avoid the trouble that might be caused by the ignorance of Muslims who lived far from the Islamic old cities of the other readings, without denying that the copies of the companions contained the readings they had heard from the Prophet, while Ibn Mas’ud felt that the reading he had heard from the Prophet was so dear to his heart that he would not want to give it away for whatever reason.
[6] Mawdudi, Towards Understanding the Qur’an (Tafheem al-Qur’an), tr. Zafar Ishaq Ansari, UK., The Islamic Foundation, 1989, 2/197
[7] John Chrysostom, ‘Homily xiv on Hebrews,’ in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, New York: The Christian Literature Company, 1890, 14/433
[8] Yitzhak Baer, History of the Jews in Christian Spain, Philadelphia : Jewish Publication Society of America, 1967, 1/281
[9] The full statement:
السلف قالوا : القرآن كلام الله منزل غير مخلوق وقالوا لم يزل متكلما إذا شاء . فبينوا أن كلام الله قديم ، أي : جنسه قديم لم يزل .
ولم يقل أحد منهم : إن نفس الكلام المعين قديم ، ولا قال أحد منهم القرآن قديم .
بل قالوا : إنه كلام الله منزل غير مخلوق .
وإذا كان الله قد تكلم بالقرآن بمشيئته ، كان القرآن كلامه ، وكان منزلا منه غير مخلوق ، ولم يكن مع ذلك أزليا قديما بقدم الله ، وإن كان الله لم يزل متكلما إذا شاء ؛ فجنس كلامه قديم. فمن فهم قول السلف وفرق بين هذه الأقوال زالت عنه الشبهات في هذه المسائل المعضلة التي اضطرب فيها أهل الأرض " مجموع الفتاوى (12/54) .
[10] Claude Gilliot, “Creation of a fixed text”, Jane Dammen McAuliffe, ed. The Cambridge Companion to the Qur'an, Cambridge, UK ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 2006, p.48
[11] Akram al-dalīmī, Jamʿ al- Qurʼān, dirāsah taḥlīliyyah li-marwiyyātihi, Lebanon: Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmiyyah,, 2006, pp.214-15
[12] See:
عبد العزيز القاري، حديث الأحرف السبعة، بيروت: مؤسسة الرسالة، 2002، ص10
[13] Roger E. Olson, The Westminster Handbook to Evangelical Theology, Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004, p.156
[14] Ibid.
