Salman Rushdie Controversy

John P. Crossley Jr. made one valid point towards the end of his column “Rushdie Is Only an Early Voice in Islam’s Evolutionary Rediscovery of Its Origin” (Op-Ed Page, March 7). He said, “Those who know Mohammed and the Koran best are and will be Muslims.” However, Crossley’s general treatment of the subject matter suggests that he has yet to accept Muslim scholarship and writings.

Crossley contradicted himself when he supported the following points: “Islam has not had its 19th Century (science of religion) . . . scientific revolution can restore the texts to their original status as the inspired writing of inspired human beings . . . Every Islamic scholar knows that Mohammed incorporated in early version of the Koran a few verses . . . One of the crucial battles taking place in Islam today is over the authorship of the Koran.” Apparently, Crossley exposed his own weaknesses to comprehend Islamic history, for all of these claims have been rejected by Muslim scholars with unanimity on the basis of facts and scientific scrutiny.

To set the record straight, Islam’s “19 Century” began during the first years of the revelation of the Koran (7th Century), remained throughout Islamic history, and continues to develop today. Throughout the history of Islam, scholars vigorously applied the scientific and rational tools to study the two sources of Islam, the Koran and the traditions of the Prophet (Sunna). Many Muslims interpreted revelation differently from mainstream thought, and they were never deprived of the right to pursue their studies according to their own intellectual depth.

Crossley’s reference of “an early version of the Koran” is nothing more than a fallacy. The Koran has only one version today which is identical to the version which was revealed to Prophet Mohammed 14 centuries ago--no other religious document has met such supreme standards in authenticity.

Crossley’s perspective on the scientific survey of al Tabari also proves the shallowness of the professor’s ideas and access to historical facts. No reference to the incident of “satanic forgery” had ever occurred in the Koran nor was it mentioned by the high authorities of Islam: al-Bukhari, Ibn Ishaq, Bayhaqi, Abu Hayyan, Ibn Kathir, Al-Fakhr, Al-Razi, Ibn al-Arabi, Iyad Al-Shakawni, Abusi, and so on.

Additionally, from a linguistic standpoint, an insertion of the so-called “satanic verses” would have disturbed the contextual flow of the Koran. The 53 sura (chapter), “The Star,” which had allegedly contained the forged verses, had been revealed with all of its verses simultaneously as a whole.

Finally, the professor misconstrued the debate between those who believe in either the “created” or “uncreated” Koran. Both sides agree that the Koran was not written by Mohammed. Crossley, however, conveniently overlooked the fact that the argument about the “creation” was aimed to emphasize the Koran’s “creation” by God and to negate any “eternity” should be exclusive for God himself and not attributed to revelation.

The authorship of the Koran is an issue among those of other philosophies who found the rise of Islam a challenge to their dogmas and doctrines. The Koran contains several verses which authentically describe its origin as from God who would ultimately preserve his message. Crossley’s article, nonetheless, raises fundamental questions on the nature of Orientalists’ scholarship and academic depth in religion. In general, they have denied sources that challenge the stereotyped images about Islam and Muslims made popular during the Crusades and other tense moments in the history of relationships among religions.

FATHI OSMAN

General Counselor

Islamic Center of S.C.