Perhaps I'm splitting a hair?
S.A.M said:
Perhaps you may be interested in this, as an example of my point of view
It's another tile in the mosaic. I find myself in what feels like an awkward position, although it probably isn't. To the one, I am a critic of religion generally, especially monotheism, and especially beyond that Abramic monotheism. To the other, though, I find a number of the bases of anti-religious rhetoric swirling around me inappropriately founded. And, to yet a third, as your own view emerges, it's an interesting line you walk because, while I am not unsympathetic to it, I don't yet understand it.
For instance, Allah or Muhammad? It's hard to get a grasp on the dimensions of the issue. (Q)'s take—a cult leader—is a very modern assignation. Consider several Hindu-derived figures in American history. Vivekananda set the stage in the late nineteenth century with an American tour, and in his wake came three important swamis: Yogananda, Parmananda, and Krishnamurti. In their wake, many nefarious "cults" would arise, and Krishnamurti, who was the most definitively cultish a leader among them, was somewhat thrust into the role in youth by theosophists. Still, at least in American lore, there is a transition that occurs insofar as Joseph Smith was either the last major prophet or the first major cult leader. How we assess a religious foundation—was Jesus Christ a cult leader?—is often a question of applying either modern sensibilities, or attempting to sympathize with conditions contemporary to the alleged prophet. I don't think of Yogananda and Parmananda as cult leaders in a twenty-first century context, although it is easy to see how infamous pseudo-Hindu cults of the American twentieth century found inspiration and guidance in their work.
For practical purposes, Islam is a religion, and I have no specific objections to referring to the Qur'an as a revelation. To speculate (I cannot hypothesize, as we cannot test the hypothesis) about Muhammad, we can say that the Qur'an was a revelation from God, or perhaps that it was a striking outcome of mental or neurological illness. The idea that Muhammad calculated the whole thing himself—inherent to the "cult leader" accusation—is extraordinary not only because of its modern connotations, but in consideration of the prophet himself and the magnitude of the task.
There are some issues about the history described in the Qur'an that suggests the perspective is, indeed, Muhammad's. However, when we look at the language used, it is a difficult proposition that Muhammad should have been included in the "We" that narrates. For instance, the excerpt you provide from "Faater", if read in the context of Allah communicating with and through Muhammad, seems to draw a clear distinction between the revealer and he unto which a truth is being revealed. Unfortunately, "Al-`Alaq", which I understand to be the first sura revealed, is not so specific.
I think in part I'm just missing something, but also we might be doing that thing where we argue about whether the wheels are turning clockwise or counter- while we stand on opposite sides of the road. It's not, in this case, that I'm proposing that "we're both right", as I'm operating from a comparative position of ignorance and cannot rightfully make that claim, but there are many occasions of a collective first person (e.g., "We") that do not appear to include Muhammad, such as:
An-Nisaa — 4.131
And whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is Allah's and certainly We enjoined those who were given the Book before you and (We enjoin) you too that you should be careful of (your duty to) Allah; and if you disbelieve, then surely whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is Allah's and Allah is Self-sufficient, Praise-worthy.
(Shakir translation)
• • •
To Allah belong all things in the heavens and on earth. Verily we have directed the People of the Book before you, and you (o Muslims) to fear Allah. But if ye deny Him, lo! unto Allah belong all things in the heavens and on earth, and Allah is free of all wants, worthy of all praise.
(Ali translation)
Muhammad was simply not in a position to direct the 'ahl al-Kitab as suggested in this passage.
Prophets of the Old Testament did not claim original authorship. Even Aleister Crowley attributed
Liber AL vel Legis (CCXX) to a strange being named Aiwaz or Aiwass. Many critics of Islam tend to have some sort of personal issue with Muhammad, such as (Q)'s suggestion of a cult leader, which would put the entire composition of the Qur'an as some sort of deliberate effort on the part of the Prophet. Whether it was Allah speaking to and through Muhammad, or simply a byproduct of epilepsy or some similar seizure disorder—or even mundane migraines—the difference I see between Michael's assertion that the Qur'an contains "the thoughts and ideas of 'The' Creator" and the primary alternative, that Muhammad deliberately calculated and wrote the thing himself is very important to resolving any number of questions about what constitutes Islam, legitimate Muslim faith, and so on. And these questions become very important in the contemporary context, when so many people would pretend that the long ills of the human condition are somehow the fault of Muhammad or Muslims.
____________________
Notes:
The Koran. M. H. Shakir, trans. Emhurst: Tahrike Tarsile, 1983. University of Michigan. September 30, 2009. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/koran/
The Holy Qur'an. Abdullah Yusuf Ali, trans. 1934. Islam101.com. September 30, 2009. http://www.islam101.com/quran/yusufAli/index.htm
