Q. In a question about
the length of time that Noah preached to his people (950 years), you seem to
indicate that given that this time span was also mentioned in the Bible, this
was a well established story among the generations,
and the Qur'an pretty much left it as is. As such, it was a parable that was
used as an example to build morality and spirituality. Some rationalists
(Muslim and non-Muslim alike) could point to several such examples in the
Qur'an (and Bible) that qualify as well established myths, and using the same
logic, argue that these fables were not necessarily accurate but repeated,
given that they were already prevalent among the people (e.g., Solomon
communicating with birds, Moses parting the Red Sea, Jesus’ miraculous birth,
and a host of others). How do you respond to that argument?
A. It is one thing to
say that something is in the past, and comes from sources that we are supposed
to accept. It is quite another to disbelieve outright and claim that stories
are false. In the case of Jesus for example, the Qur'an is unequivocal about
the birth episodes, referring to Jesus speaking in the cradle, etc. indeed
going into more detail than the Christian canon on the matter. This is NOT
something for which the Qur'an tells us to get the version from the people of zakhor (16:43, 21:7), and so it must be taken as a
narrative that is part of our belief system. The same goes for Solomon, the
parting of the Red Sea, etc. In the last case, some Jewish scholars have stated
that there has been hyperbole in the vast figures narrated, while others have
tried to reduce the phenomenon to a natural occurrence. Note that the Qur'an
does NOT go into too much detail on this. In the case of Jesus, Muslim exegetes
have long questioned the story, but have NEVER doubted it, and have sought
rather to show, in some cases, that Mary was a hermaphrodite, etc. This is the
problem with rational thought -- it seeks to reduce everything to that which we
can explain. In some ways, this is the height of arrogance, for if we feel that
God is the All-Knowing, then certainly we must admit that this limits our
knowledge, as we are NOT like God in terms of completeness.
The end result is this:
regarding Mary, the Qur'an leaves NO doubt about the virgin birth,
and we therefore cannot question it. In the case of Moses, the Qur'an does NOT
report the details, so we can accept the story and say that certain mythical
dimensions have been added. In Solomon's case, we are noting that our communication
with the other species is on such a level now that chimpanzees can communicate
with us. Despite Ahmed Ali's view (The Qur'an: A Contemporary Translation) that
Solomon was communicating with people whose tribal names were reflective of
birds, and that therefore the communication with the lapwing was actually his
discourse with a tribesman (the same way we may speak of communicating with
some Native people as having spoken to the Crows -- that being the name of a
particular tribe), I personally find it unappealing because of the Qur'anic detail. Imam Malik (and later Imam Hanbal) made famous the concept of "bi laa kayf" -- without
asking how. They were trying, I think, to let us know that the MIRACULOUS is
one of the hallmarks of the Abrahamic religion. We may question the full extent
of a happening in terms of details that come from extra canonical sources, but
we may not disbelieve outright. May Allah give us the knowledge to accept that
which is sometimes beyond us.
Posted
November 27, 2005