The Criticisms on the Orientalists’ Shubha and the Arguments on the Authenticity of the Qur’an

Abdul Mustaqim
{"title":"The Criticisms on the Orientalists’ Shubha and the Arguments on the Authenticity of the Qur’an","authors":"Abdul Mustaqim","doi":"10.22515/DINIKA.V5I1.1646","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article reconsiders the shubha (misgrounded conceit) proposed by the orientalists. The first shubhais about the revelation of the Qur’an; the second shubhais about the differences of qira’at (recitations or readings) claimed by the orientalists as proof that the Quran is not entirely authentic for the existence of false readings. The third shubha is about the authorship and the relationship of the Qur’an with previous divine books (Tawrat and Bible) showing that the Qur’an is a plagiarism work of The Prophet Muhammad or the notion of influence or borrowings from Judeo-Christian tradition. Employing the theological-historical approach, this article argues that, firstly, that the Qur’an is a Divine Revelation is evident from the linguistic style in which it very often uses direct speech to Muhammad, such as “Say, (O Muhammad to the mankind)”, and from the criticism posed by the Qur’an to Muhammad as the recipient of the revelation. Historically, the process of the writing of the Qur’an has started since the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad and was based on reliable sources, either oral or written, supported by oaths from witnesses from the companions affirming the reliability of the existing records of the Qur’an during that period. Secondly, concerning the variation of the readings, if they are transmitted in mutawatir, they are the accepted readings, because theologically the Qur’an was revealed with differences of readings of sab’at ahruf, in which there are a lot of hikma and there is no contradiction. Finally, concerning the similarities (either the content or dictions) between the Qur’an and previous divine books, the notion of plagiarism is not relevant; it suggests the consistent and reliable chains of Divine Revelation between the messengers, making they are not in contradiction to the revelation received by the Prophet Muhammad (Q.S. Al-Nisaʾ[4]: 163-164). From the historical-philological perspective, the similarities of concepts or content between the Qur’an and Bible indicate that the Qur’an is in dialogue with the textual discourses found in its environment. It is reasonable because the Qur’an was not revealed in a vacuum context. ","PeriodicalId":31248,"journal":{"name":"Dinika Academic Journal of Islamic Studies","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dinika Academic Journal of Islamic Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22515/DINIKA.V5I1.1646","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article reconsiders the shubha (misgrounded conceit) proposed by the orientalists. The first shubhais about the revelation of the Qur’an; the second shubhais about the differences of qira’at (recitations or readings) claimed by the orientalists as proof that the Quran is not entirely authentic for the existence of false readings. The third shubha is about the authorship and the relationship of the Qur’an with previous divine books (Tawrat and Bible) showing that the Qur’an is a plagiarism work of The Prophet Muhammad or the notion of influence or borrowings from Judeo-Christian tradition. Employing the theological-historical approach, this article argues that, firstly, that the Qur’an is a Divine Revelation is evident from the linguistic style in which it very often uses direct speech to Muhammad, such as “Say, (O Muhammad to the mankind)”, and from the criticism posed by the Qur’an to Muhammad as the recipient of the revelation. Historically, the process of the writing of the Qur’an has started since the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad and was based on reliable sources, either oral or written, supported by oaths from witnesses from the companions affirming the reliability of the existing records of the Qur’an during that period. Secondly, concerning the variation of the readings, if they are transmitted in mutawatir, they are the accepted readings, because theologically the Qur’an was revealed with differences of readings of sab’at ahruf, in which there are a lot of hikma and there is no contradiction. Finally, concerning the similarities (either the content or dictions) between the Qur’an and previous divine books, the notion of plagiarism is not relevant; it suggests the consistent and reliable chains of Divine Revelation between the messengers, making they are not in contradiction to the revelation received by the Prophet Muhammad (Q.S. Al-Nisaʾ[4]: 163-164). From the historical-philological perspective, the similarities of concepts or content between the Qur’an and Bible indicate that the Qur’an is in dialogue with the textual discourses found in its environment. It is reasonable because the Qur’an was not revealed in a vacuum context. 
对东方学的批判与《古兰经》真实性之争
本文对东方学家提出的the shubhaÂ(错误的自负)进行了反思。firstÂ书是关于《古兰经》的启示;second shubhais关于东方学家所声称的qiraz€™at(背诵或阅读)的差异,以证明古兰经并不完全真实,因为存在错误的阅读。third shubhaÂ是关于作者和古兰经与以前的神圣书籍(Tawrat和圣经)的关系,表明古兰经是先知穆罕默德的抄袭作品或影响或借用犹太教-基督教传统的概念。本文采用神学-历史的方法,认为,首先,古兰经是一个神圣的启示,从它经常使用直接对穆罕默德说话的语言风格,如 - œSay,(穆罕默德对人类) -”,以及古兰经对穆罕默德作为启示的接受者所提出的批评中可以看出。从历史上看,古兰经的写作过程始于先知穆罕默德的一生,并以可靠的来源为基础,无论是口头的还是书面的,并得到同伴见证的誓言的支持,以肯定古兰经在那个时期的现有记录的可靠性。其次,关于读数的变化,如果它们被传送in mutawatir,Â它们是被接受的读数,因为从神学上讲,qur€™an是用不同的读数揭示的of sab€™在ahruf,Â其中有很多hikmaÂ并且没有矛盾。最后,关于《古兰经》和以前的神书之间的相似之处(无论是内容还是措辞),抄袭的概念是不相关的;它表明使者之间的神圣启示的一致和可靠的链,使他们不矛盾的启示接受先知穆罕默德(Q.S. Al-Nisaʾ[4]:163-164)。从历史文字学的角度来看,《古兰经》与《圣经》在概念或内容上的相似性表明,《古兰经》与所处环境中的文本话语处于对话状态。这是合理的,因为qur€™an不是在真空中暴露的context.Â
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信