Portal to a plain
Recital
a critical approach to religion & mysticism
the reception, composition & redaction of the Koran &
a vertical approach of
spirituality
© Wim van den Dungen
Antwerp, 2002 -
2008.
"Our messengers came to Abraham with good
news. They said : 'Peace !'
'Peace !' he answered. And he waited not long before he brought a roasted calf."
Koran :
11:72
"The servants of
the All-Merciful are those who walk on the earth
with modesty and who, when the ignorant address them, say : 'Peace !'"
Koran
: 25:64
"Those who believe,
and do deeds of righteousness,
shall be admitted into gardens underneath which rivers flow,
therein dwelling forever, by the leave of ALLAH.
They shall be greeted there by this word : 'Peace !'"
Koran
: 14:28
Introduction
|
This essay serves to introduce an
English redaction of the Koran, of which the first two chapters (The
Opening & The Cow) are published on the internet.
The intention to move towards a
plain English redaction of the Koran (or Qur'ān), the
recital of Islam, came with the discovery of different
original Arab redactions of the Koran, as well as various
translations of the canonical Arab text. Sound translations in Dutch,
English & French evidenced various possible "approaches", whereas in Sufism, the
great mystics of Islam made use of the "roots" of the Arab
words of the Koran to justify their theologies & mystical
philosophies (their champion in this being Ibn'Arabī). Moreover, for a number of "key
problems" there is -as usual- no other way left than to decide on
the basis of the original language of the text.
Everytime a problem was encountered which demanded the command of Arab (both linguistically & intuitively),
native speakers were called upon. A plain redaction on the basis of
different translations in English, French & Dutch could thus continue and be
completed. The outcome of this is therefore a redaction rather than a new
translation of the Koran. For is the Book translatable
?
Clear semantics, a fluent style, the identity of the author and a critical
reading were important
general hermeneutical guidelines.
clear semantics : a lot of translations prefer complex sentences and a complicated choice of words, while maintaining the "Thee" and "Thy"-forms of the biblical tradition. This obstacle had to be removed if a plain text had to be the outcome ;
a fluent style : when it was discovered that a plain English text could be arrived at, no trouble was avoided to make sure that the overall style remained simple and straightforward ;
identity of the author : besides focusing on the meaning of the text we must try, by means of the text, to catch a glimps of the identity of the Author of the Book. It is inevitable that every book contains traces of the psychology & philosophy of its author. This is also the case with the Koran, a book in which ALLAH is speaking in 113 of the 114 chapters. To remember the Author of the Koran is the most challenging, interesting & rewarding feature of this work ;
critical
reading : let us distinguish between
three kinds of signs :
(a) in green : the essence of
the Recital, considered transhistorical, like all spiritual themes, stories and verses touching upon the unity of the Divine
as well as these elements which constitute the particular form of Islam
worship (like the direction of the Ka'ba, the food laws, the fast, the
pilgrimage, etc.)
(b) in orange : containing elements which need
to be reinterpreted in the light of historical circumstances, like the
laws for slaves and by extension all legal matters ;
(c) in red :
conflicting with the universal declaration on human rights and
possibly interpolated and/or purely historical & circumstancial, like
severing the limbs of thieves, whipping adultors, beating women, placing
woman a degree below men.
My study of Middle Egyptian enabled me to understand
the functional role of an unvoweled consonantal system, as well as appreciate
certain grammatical features which Egyptian has in common with
Arabic : the absence of the verb
"is", some of its verb & noun roots, its pronouns, two genders
with the feminine marked by the ending -t, the system of number and the endings
used to denote plural & dual, the presence of the stative as well as the
important aspectual distinction between "perfective" (state) and
"imperfective" (action) forms.
Egyptian verbforms recorded two aspects : the perfective singleness
(momentariness) of state or the imperfective continuity of action,
once considered to be fundamental (cf. the outdated verbal system of Sethe &
Gardiner). Particular forms
to indicate past and future time existed. However, as in Arabic, Dutch, German and
French, Middle Egyptian had a "static" verb form,
expressing a state of being and the result of a completed action. In
English, the past participle of most intransitive verbs can be used
instead, but this always expresses an action, never a state. Hence, English has
no stative. The French sentence : "Le soleil est paru." can
easily be translated into Dutch ("De zon is verschenen.") or
German ("Die Sonne ist erschienen."). In English, it has to be
rendered as "The sun has appeared.", for "The sun is
appeared." makes no sense.
Egyptian belongs to the Afro-Semitic languages such as Arabic, Ethiopic,
Hebrew & Hamitic -North African- languages such as Berber and Cushitic.
With the discovery of the bones of the free Egyptians who had built the Great
Pyramids (to erect, ca.2500 BCE, the pyramid of Khufu, ca.20.000 workers had been
placed in rotation for 20 years) and the comparison of its ancient DNA with that
of contemporary Egyptians, geneticians could prove a direct ancestral
relationship between the Ancient Egyptian builders and their Arab speaking
off-spring (although ca.4500 years stands between them).
In previous studies of Ancient Egyptian spirituality
(cf. the theology
of Memphis, the Aten of Akhenaten, the constitution
of man and To Become a Magician) a distinction was
made between the mythical, pre-rational & proto-rational stages of cognition (Piaget) and
their co-relative presence in the genesis of Ancient Egyptian language and its
"magical" (power).
In her recent publication, Sagesse Sémitique : de l'Égypte ancienne ą
l'Islam (1998), the French egyptologist Claire Lalouette tried to define the
broad "Semitical" horizon on which the images of the ancient
Middle-East dawned to enlighten the heart of both Ancient Egyptian, Judaic,
Christian & Islamic spirituality.
The re-assimilation of Ancient
Egyptian civilization also allows African civilization to be part of the total
picture of a possible multi- and meta-cultural model on human spirituality. This allows for a more refined understanding of the two major
historical events of Mediterranean Antiquity : Greek rationality and the birth of Jesus,
"the Christ" :
With Greek rationality, proto-rationality was superceded, i.e. the concrete particularism and/or geo-sentimentalities and their patronizing influence on cognition were eliminated by abstraction and stable concepts used in a formal scheme. The Greek temples were finished constructions, whereas the Egyptian ones were always open to allow context & concrete eventualities to demolish, add or reconstruct structures. The Greeks liberated the mind by linearizing it.
The teachings of Jesus "Christ" introduced the principle of one's personal conscience in the face of God. Everybody could be forgiven & saved. Everybody could be damned. To each human his choice.
In Ancient Egypt, the theological realization of the Great One with many forms came
with
the New Kingdom, although the mythical and pre-rational forms of the "Great
One" were attested in the Old Kingdom and continue to play a role
throughout Egypt's long history. Ramesside theologians invented the idea of a
"divine trinity", which returned in its rational form in neo-Platonism
(or substance by itself, in relation & as returning).
The various forms of this "hidden"
"King of the gods" called
"Amun") were his outer manifestations or epiphanies and first among
these was the creator-god Re, visible to us as the sun (hence,
"Amun-Re"). They are the gods &
goddesses of creation. Only in Amarna theology (under the reign of the heretical
king Akhenaten), was Egypt briefly forced to accept that
the "Aten" (the physical light of the sun) was the sole god and
that Akhenaten was his only prophet. The experience was repressed but is,
thanks to the climate of Egypt, a fact of history (whereas Moses is completely
of memory).
In Genesis, the theology of Akhenaten was perfected with great success by
excluding all imagery of the Divine (cf. next to the inevitable pictorial
features of Ancient Egyptian culture, Akhenaten's theology had made ample use of
"light", "disk of the sun", "rays as live-giving
arms" etc to explain his concept of the One). The Hebrew "name" of the "Great One Alone"
was "YHVH ALHYM" (or : "Yahweh Elohīm"). "YHVH"
referred to the "hidden" Essence (or Face) of God, whereas
"Elohīm" was a plural to indicate the Divine Names or Existences of
God. In the Greek translation (the Alexandrian Septuagint),
"Elohīm" was replaced by "Theos" or "God" (i.e. a
plural by a singular), eclipsing the modi operandi of Divine Presence !
In Greek rationality, the Supreme Being was the object of philosophical
discourses. The ultimate idea in Platonism, the unmoved mover for Aristotle ...
This Ultimate Being or "first cause" was understood to be identical
with the material world (as in Stoicism, allowing for a "logos" of a
subtle material nature) or transcending the order of being (as in Platonism &
neo-Platonism). These philosophical conceptions did not offer redemption &
salvation. For Plotinus, liberation was understood as the outcome of a purification of the
soul, a return to its original state. The soul was able to do this unaided.
Although helped & guided, nobody could and should take away
that which prevented the soul from reuniting with the One. Contrary to the
Semitical theologies, Greek mysticism needed no salvic archetype (as was
Pharaoh in Ancient Egypt and the Messias in Israel). This intellectual
approach (cf. Plotinus), was clearly for an elite and did not attempt to understand
the devotional difficulties & barriers encountered by ordinary people who
trusted in the national deities of Greece or Rome.
In Ancient Egypt, Greece or Rome, the deities
were the occupation of only 10% of the population. Popular devotion existed, but
could not compete with state religion, on the contrary, it was at work at its
periphery. And so the rich and powerful could more easily win the favor of the
deities. In Q1 however, the historical Jesus only speaks of the
merciful "Father"
and teaches utter simplicity, renunciation of the world, charity &
unconditional trust in His love. He reduced the complex Hebrew law to a few
precepts : the love of God and the love of the other as your own self. In
Paulinian Christianity,
everybody was called to be baptized & reborn
"in Christ" (also uncircumcized males and criminals). Jesus "Christ" liberated the soul
irrespective of anything the bodily passions and the ruses of the mind might
have done or do. After the "Deus ex machina" of baptism, the old
world was eliminated, for the kingdom of Elohīm had come to light in one's most
inner chambers of intimate consciousness (that's why later Constantine was
baptized just before he died !) ...
Around the time Jesus
was born, the ancient gods and goddesses seemed to have become powerless and philosophical
discourses were unable to put the soul at ease (quite on the contrary). The
spiritual vacuum of the time being an indication that an epoch had ended. With the
rapid rise of an organized Christianity (late 3th century), the institutional phase
of Christianity (initiated by First Clement) was consolidated by Constantine as
Roman Catholicism (making the actual Catholic & Pontifical Church the last imperial
order on earth).
As Early Christianity indicates, Jesus was
a Jew who founded a Jewish sect (and there were many around). Among the Jews, Messianic expectations ran high, for Hellenized Judaism
under Roman occupation failed to satisfy the
Semitical vision of the "golden age". The first
followers of Jesus (the embryonic social formation of original folk witnessing
Jesus at work) were Jews interested in his teachings. They must have been much
impressed by his spiritual force and charisma, often forgotten by those
intellectuals who, two millenia later, never experience spiritual states and/or
never witness the charisma of mystics and those humans adept to be truly
themselves, called "saints", "guru's", or
"masters" etc. To them, Jesus was the Messiah. They composed Q and
the various stories told about Jesus. Paul, who never witnessed Jesus while he
was alive, universalized Jesus and transformed the adjectival use of the word
"Christ" (by the original Jewish Christians, as in "Jesus, the
Christ") into a nominal one : Christians are told that they are
"in" Christ, or belong to the mystical body "of" Christ. If Jesus "Christ" was the Messiah of Israel, then Judaism ended were
Christianity began.
Christianity had answered the call of late Hellenistic astral millenarianism (and Jewish Messianism)
and it had successfully superceded the boundaries of race, gender & nationality.
It was a "universal" religion of the One Supreme Being and would
subsequently try to use rational thought to justify its claims (early Christian
philosophy till Thomas of Aquinas). However, ironically, early Christian
churches were fundamentally divided regarding the nature of Christ, both
onto-theologically (Where does Christ stand in the salvic model ?) as well as anthropologically (What is the nature of Christ ?). Also Christ's miraculous
presence in the holy host remained a crucial matter of debate, for East
(Constantinopel) and West (Rome) differed regarding the precise moment this
miracle actually happened during Mass (and thus had conflicting liturgical
practices concerning an essential spiritual enactment, namely the true &
continuous Presence of Christ during Holy Mass !). These scandalous division of Christianity
fixated the dogmatic attitudes and many "consensual" Christ-models saw
the light (of which, in both churches, a lot were condemned as heresies).
How can the religion of the "One Being" remain justified, if inner
conflicts divide it ? It can not. Hence, around the time of Constantine,
Christianity became divided (in accord with its neo-Platonic schemes) in clergic
(active) and monastic (contemplative). Is it surprising that the Christian
monastic tradition was initiated in the South of Egypt ? Or that those who
started it, had enough of the administrative centrism of Rome and Constantinople
? Of course, monasticism had to follow the rules of the bishops, patriarchs
& popes. Hence, the early monastics (and later the mystical monastics) were
not trusted (for heresy and non-centrist "gnostic" -read : prophetic-
uprisings had to be avoided - cf. the 5the century Nag Hammadi hiding). The
"monastic rules" and the "walls of Pachomius" were indeed
invented to keep the monks within certain centrist parameters. But these
were apparently broad enough to allow genuine Christian spirituality to blossom and so
let us affirm that the purest expression
of Christianity is found in monasticism. For it is close to the true life of its founder, the laconical
wisdom-teacher who taught Q1.
The Christians who, in the 6th century, spoke with prophet Muhammad, peace be with him, were probably not
Roman Catholics. But it is likely that they spoke about them. Scholars found spurious data of so-called heretical sects, like
the Christian Gnostics
of Basilides and the Marcionites. We also know that Muhammad had a Coptic
handmaiden called Mary (Coptic was the last phase of Ancient Egyptian).
So it is also likely that the prophet of Islam was aware of the schisms and
conflicting views within the Jewish faith and had knowledge of Zoroastrism.
Marcion, who founded his own church,
was excommunicated by the church of Rome in 144 CE. He had reinterpreted
the gospels, did not accept the writings of the apostles and claimed that they
had misunderstood Jesus (apparently Marcion was right). In his
teachings, he eliminating the physical body of Jesus (early docetism).
Monophysite theories must also have circulated. In these teachings, Jesus had
another kind of physical body than ordinary people, i.e. he was primarily Divine
and not human as other humans. The Christian gnostic elaborated all kinds of
fantastic notions about Jesus and maintained that an evil deity had created the
universe, not the merciful Heavenly Father of Jesus "Christ".
These various schisms within early Christianity were answered by Muhammad's
fundamental teaching (in accordance with the Koran) that ALLAH has no second. The
Philonic "logos as second God"-model (rooted in Ancient Egyptian
filiation between Pharaoh and the creator-god Re and Jewish reverence for the
Messiah)
was radically rejected. The monophysite model (Jesus is only Divine) as well as
the Nicene "son of God"-model were discarded as the most serious
basphemies ever ! If a monophysite model was used, then in it, Jesus was a human
like us all.
For how could ALLAH have a second and be the One Being ? Either ALLAH is ALL or
He is not ALLAH. If there would be a place for the "son of God" to be
really this son, then the absolute would somehow be limited by this filial reality. As
ALLAH is absolute and unlimited there can really be no "son of God".
Ergo, to claim that there is a "son of God" is to deny the absolute
His Absoluteness. What can be worse ?
When Islam started to conquer foreign nations, it usually considered those who
adhered to any of the "false" ideas about Jesus "Christ" as
its enemies. For the Koran contains many signs dedicated to Jesus, a
prophet gifted with the spirit of holiness, and who is called "the
word" (i.e. "logos"). This adjectival use of "logos"
being in harmony with how first century Jewish Christians had seen Jesus, namely
as "the Messiah". For them, the name "Jesus" was powerful
(in Hebrew, this name "splits" the secret Name of God : YHshinVH = Yeheshua, with the spiritual letter "shin" as copula).
"Christ" was the Greek version of "Messiah", or : "the
anointed one".
So in Islam, the
expression : "Jesus, the logos", is orthodox, if under "logos" is understood one of
the many revelations (albeit exceptional) of ALLAH through the spirit of holiness (and
not the "second God" of Philo of Alexandrian, one of the
teachers of Paul). The Paulinian contribution, a nominal use of
"Christ", is rejected by the Author of the Koran, who insists
upon a radical definition of the absolute.
What follows is divided into three parts :
a general outline of the use of criticism in religion & mysticism ;
a critical study of the authenticity of the Koran ;
a few major themes : hermeneutical levels, vertical approach, etc.
At the end of this webpage, there is a link to Towards a Plain Recital. This publication contains an English edition of the first two chapters of the Koran, based on several Dutch, French & English sources and assisted, whenever necessary, by capable native speakers. The publication of the complete text (although finished) was avoided in view of the overall balance of this website.
1
The critical approach in religion & mystical experience.
1.1
The importance of critical philosophy.
The advent in Western Europe of critical philosophy has dramatically influenced
all subsequent scientific endeavours. The core of Kant's "Copernican
Revolution" and its impact on epistemology has been studied in Kennis (1995).
This fundamental
reorientation has placed its stamp on nearly all scientific disciplines, and
altered our views on the possibility and the expansion of knowledge
fundamentally.
Especially in the last century, has the critical (anti-dogmatic &
anti-sceptic) perspective been assimilated by all major
disciplines like physics (Kopenhagen interpretation), psychology
(depth-psychology), sociology (Wertheimer) and biology (psychosomatism). In
philosophy (Wittgenstein), Kant triggered the "linguistic turn", rooted
in the transcendental method initiated with the Critique of Pure Reason
(and culminating in the work of Fregge & Husserl).
Before Kant, empiricism held the conviction that the conditions determining the processes of
thought (sense-data) are themselves part of the real world "out
there", and hence constitutive for our knowledge (realism). In Hume's scepticism,
only mathematical truths and direct observation are doors to knowledge. For him
there are no universal empirical statements. The so-called "law" of
causality is nothing more than a psychological habit. Kant's revolution attacks
and refutes exactly that, for he showed that what we usually call
"reality" is not the result of a perception of the real as if it were
an open book, but is undoubtedly co-determined by the normative, conditional structure of
cognition rooted in the subject of experience itself. So nature does not
condition us, but it is we who impose our categories upon nature ...
Kant
still hoped to radically escape scepticism by trying to universalize these conditions
themselves (reality would then be "our reality"), but this was of no
avail. For in the 20th century epistemology and the psychology of observation
clearly demonstrated that observation itself is never before or after subjective
theoretical connotations, but rather happens within the context of expectation
itself.
Insofar as the latter are standardized in a particular historical method
of investigation (set of rules for observation and dialogue conventionally
accepted by the majority of relevant sign-interpreters), a relative,
conventional "reality-for-us" may be arrived at when both observation (testing) and
dialogue (discussion) yield a common experience of reality (for-us and its a
posteriori criteria of knowledge-production). But
this is not the same as our personal, intimate "reality-for-me" (the
realities of my personal "Lebenswelt"), neither necessarily identical
with "reality-as-such", i.e. reality as it is for and by itself
without any subjective influence (also called "absolute reality").
In Rules for the Game of True Knowing (1999), the rules
involved with this critical, normative theory on the possibilities knowledge
(theoretical epistemology) and the methodology of producing facts (practical
epistemology) are summarized. The latter are further elaborated and encompass both a
hermeneutical technique (to understand various "religious" texts) and
participant observation of actual communities in which particular ideas, beliefs
& myths circulate (to understand the major "religious"
communities).
1.2 The major difference between religion, religious experience and mysticism.
Religions experiences (re)connect the individual or a group with a
fascinating larger, totalized whole which is experienced as awesome and
mysteriously transcending the ordinary (cf. Otto's "mysterium tremendum et
fascinans"). This whole may be certain particularly intense
natural phenomena, nature as a whole, the state, the god-man, the deities or one
Supreme Being. All these components may have different relationships and
operational contexts. Let us call this larger whole "radical otherness".
Religious experience reveals this as a "Gegenstand", which opposes
one's everday
conscious identity (the realm of the "others").
In the case of mystical experience, "otherness" can in no way be compared with our
(socio) nominal
experience of the otherness of nature, our fellow human beings, the forces of
nature or the world, for here, the other is experienced as outstandingly exclusive
and this has a dramatical impact on its subject of experience. Hence, in
mysticism the "other" is
"radical" & "rhetorical".
Religion is always socially organized. A good reason for this is the fact that the
approach of radical otherness may affect the religious singleton so intensely,
that he or she may become physically ill, psychotic or in other ways unfunctional
(cf. the experience of the desert fathers). Hence, social formations become
necessary to embank this possibly dangerous flow towards transcendence and
soften the ill effects of too much loneliness on a social animal expressing its
humanity. Special
places to gather and express this religiosity as a spiritual community emerge (communal
caves or gathering places, loose spiritual groups, monasteries, temples, churches, synagogues,
mosks, lodges, etc.). Specific rules are found which allow the individual
to save him or herself (soteriology) within the context of the religion at
hand.
This salvation is generally preceded by adhering to a variety of rules touching
upon the physical, psychological and moral characteristics of the person
(virtues). This also implied purification, leading to or inviting salvation. In
most religious systems the latter can only be realized as long as the individual
accepts the rules of the game (each religion having its own set of rules and
rationally conflicting themes).
In the
20th century, comparative religion has shown that the source of most (if not
all) religions is the direct experience of radical otherness by a single or a
few individuals. Their experience is not limited by the need to reconnect the individual
in group with a
larger, numinous whole (as does religion). Exclusive theologies (only one
religion saves) were replaced by inclusive, pluralist models (each religion
saves in its own way). The speculative quest for the "nuggets of gold"
radiating a meta- & multi-cultural theology is just beginning.
The founders of the religions either
belong to myth (like Osiris in Ancient Egypt or Krishna in India), to history (Akhenaten
& Amarna, Jesus in Christianity, Muhammad in
Islam) or to memory (like
Gautama in Buddhism, Lao Tzu in Taoism and Moses in Judaism). Insofar as this
special individual has a more or less permanent experience of radical otherness
(= the mystical state), he or she is called a mystic.
Mystical
experiences are far more independent of the imaginations and conceptualizations
of a religious group than are religious experiences. The act of adhering to a
religion is impossible without assimilating a particular religious doctrine or
code. This indicates that religious experience calls for a group standard
(a totem, flag, waymarks). Mystical experiences move beyond a particular religious doctrine,
which does not mean that (a) the mystical individual has no theoretical superstructures (cf. Staal) or
(b) that he or she does not adhere to a religion (the latter condition is
however not necessary for the experience to happen). Inner ideas and (to
say the least) adherence to the philosophical longing satisfied by the
unconditional (absolute reality), often serve to prepare and to (afterwards) understand
the direct experience of radical otherness. But also : these
superstructures may (in the case of a social mystic who reveals Divine signs in
the different phases of a prophetic life) become the dogmatic
articulations characteristic of a particular religion, fideistically considered
holy and eternal ... wereas only the absolute can be named such.
So religious experiences are always mediated by a doctrine. The latter
is "invented" (in the constructive sense) by those who really witnessed the radical experiences of the founding
mystic(s) and collected the necessary information to save their insights for
posterity and to formulate a common picture for the group to imitate.
Nevertheless, the limitations of their religious experiences are such that they
are not really (only allegorically or metaphorically) entitled to say anything
about the contents of the mystical experience of any mystic (which is an
exclusive, vertical matter between this mystic and the absolute). Hence, religious
experiences are not radical because they are always more indirect than direct (i.e.
more determined by explicit or implicit religious dogma). They are a
door and an opening. At their best, they do offer a safe straight road when
one's house is left. But if the soul's love of absolute unity is answered,
can anything else than that absolute exist ? And what if the straight path is
left ? Peaceful religions indeed represent the aspiration of human groups, their
inner quest for the experience of the Divine. Only if they are in
"permanent revolution" are they able to cope with the "spiritual
lag" between the intentions of the mystical founder and the subsequent
generations of theologians ... This points to a religion which fosters
mysticism.
Let
us distinguish between, on the one hand, the extraordinary experiences
associated with orgasm, strong & intense emotions, awe, falling in love,
serendipity,
aha-experience, inventivity, synchronicity, intuition, etc. and, on the other
hand, the experience of radical otherness. The former are clearly
stations, i.e. intermediate, dynamical states of consciousness, prone to
change and determined by continuous (linear, cyclic, chaotic) processes (or
changes of events in their phase-space). These extraordinary
"everyday" experiences contain clear traces of the element of
transcendence and the co-relative tendency to break through barriers, which
seems inherent in the autostructuration which is operative (as the
unconditional) in intelligent beings. In the direct & radical experience of
the mystics, has the radical and completed form of this urge to move beyond
limitations become observable.
The waking consciousness of the individual who at least had one mystical
experience (a mystic) differs from
that of a non-mystic insofar as the past mystical state is always remembered.
The radical experience was so profound that it left a trace or deposit in consciousness (cf. the deposit
in classical yoga or the "reshimu" in qabalah). This deposit
influences the morality of the "one time" mystic, more focused now to
serve his fellow living beings (the criteria to decide between genuine and bogus
mysticism are to be found in ethics). Mystical states alone are powerful enough
to immediately and permanently influence the morality of the subject of experience, raising his or
her level of ethical engagement and charity (cf. Burcke).
Recurrent mystical experiences not only allow consciousness to encompass
the "process" of the transcendent experience, but they also make it
possible to observe the relationships between the color of the glass and the
water poured into it. At some point the mystical stations (always ending in
waking consciousness) rotate around one central mystical state, constantly enlightening the waking state (like an open door through which light
enters into the rather dark room of nominal consciousness). The
pendulum-movement characteristic of the stations is replaced by the integrated
state.
This
analysis raises the following points :
a gifted mystic has more or less an immediate access to the direct experience of radical otherness, triggering superstructures which may or may not be made explicit ;
the companions are guided by the mystic and collect (after his or her death) the stable components of what they think (or have been told) the superstructure of the founder looked like, making it into a religious dogma or a particular canonical discourse on radical otherness ;
those who adhere to the dogma -which usually calls for an imitation of some of the practices of the founding mystic- may indirectly experience radical otherness through the eye-glasses of the particular dogma, veiling & limiting the real thing. This is then their religious experience ;
a religion is born if the soteriological (salvic) power of the dogma triggers the formation of a solid spirito-social structure (i.e. the companions have followers). This can only mean that the eye-glass was strong enough to allow for a succesfull albeit derived and indirect imitation of the founder's mystical experience, transforming it into the religious experience of the disciples who claim to walk the path of the master ... ;
the more time has elapsed between the mystical experiences of the founder and the religious experiences of the followers of the companions, the more likely it is that the original superstructures (of the founder) become intermixed with elements which are foreign to the original direct experiences of radical otherness, moving the religion away from the message of its founder (as has been the case in all world religions).
1.3 Religion & criticism : a few historical remarks ...
It took more than a century to fully understand how critical thought might play a
constructive role in the study of comparative religion and mysticism.
In
fact, in the 19th century this was deemed impossible, for around 1850, religious
experiences were seen as an outdated mode of relating with the world (Compte), a
projection of humanity (Feuerbach), an epiphenomenon of the brain, an instrument
used by the upper classes to keep the masses sedated (Marx, Engels), a
psychopathology (Freud) etc.
In the
same way, mystical experiences were considered psychotic, i.e. involving
delusionary thinking, hallucinations and the construction of an illusionary
world (a theory unfortunately still popular in some conservative psychiatric circles
in Belgium today) ...
At
the end of the 19th century, psychic research (later called parapsychology) was
born, and materialistic science was confronted with the inadequacies of its own
model of the world. Also from the inside did the Newtonian monolith show its
first cracks, namely as (a) the ultra-violet-catastroph, suggesting that nature jumped (cf. Planck's quantum), and (b)
the experiment of Michelson & Morley, proving the constancy of the speed of
light. In the last quater of the 20th century, chaostheory added the insight
that very small changes in the initial conditions could produce massive effects.
It took till the end of the previous century, to realize that no advancement of
science is possible if both object and subject of observation are not taken into
consideration, meaning the end of reductionistic approaches, i.e. exclusive
materialism (objectivism, positivism, realism, scientism) and spiritualism
(subjectivism, idealism). Pushed too far, this relativism became absolute
itself, giving way to "anything goes" (Feyerabend), radical scepticism
regarding "all-emcompassing stories" (Lyotard) and the denial of
absolute standards for reason (Rorty).
The postmodern approach allowed for
"double coding" (Jameson & Derrida's deconstruction) and a new
king of spectrology (the study of the invisible, the unseen, the absent).
Furthermore, contemporary parapsychological studies proved the existence of
extraodinary individuals able to read minds & objects at a distance (remove
viewing, psychometry), project themselves out of their physical body (astral
projection), cause small and large changes in objects inexplicable by the
current laws of physics (telekinesis), etc.
|
Axiom :
Given are :
(1) each p(x)f is an elemental building block of
C : |
The moderate postmodern position of this system*
implies that objectivity is only guaranteed if, on
the one hand, it
is understood that observational statements are impossible without some
extra-linguistic, absolute reality, which -so do we believe- makes itself known
to us through the letters of belief provided by the facts observed during
experiments and which correspond with our ideas & discussions about reality.
On the other
hand, no knowledge can be gained without subjective linguistic activity (the
articulation of theories, dialogue, discussion and consensus), for both the
organization and the assessment of an experiment are impossible without (a) a
particular theoretical background which, by mutual agreement, is considered
constant (cf. the "ceteris paribus"-clause) and (b) opportunistic
rules-of-thumb allowing one to measure (cf. the Kopenhagen interpretation of the
experimental context and the work of Knorr-Cetina).
Hence, science does not
produce eternalized knowledge (Kwant), but knowledge which we can consider as
true for the time being (Polyani).
Moreover,
the discovery of the fallibility of knowledge (Popper), the dependence of
science on the relative, historical context of knowledge-production
(Knorr-Cetina) and the theory-ladenness of observation (Lakatos, Kuhn) have
paved the way for the notion that the language of science and the language of
religion are two separate language games (Wittgenstein) with their own set of
realities ... The two may thus exist next to each other, but should never
interact. In this view, science mainly deals with the objective, significant
state of affairs of the world, whereas religion is concerned with the
subjectively relevant conditions of life, like values, morals and personal
salvation (seen as subjective well-being). Science, finally awakened out of its
dogmatic slumber, no longer claimed to have access to absolute reality. But, the
language game of science was and is considered to be superior, for
inter-subjectively valid and dealing with a reality shared by all concerned
sign-interpreters (i.e. a "reality-for-us").
1.4 The challenge of comparative mysticism.
In the 20th century, comparative mysticism showed how this artificial dichotomy
between science and religion was not satisfactory and possibly flawed.
Firstly,
because mystical experiences (independent of their different religious contexts)
share common characteristics, proving that some objective elements
are present
in the subjective process of enlightenment (as classical rationalists and
intuitionists had claimed - cf. the role of intellectual perception and
intuition). Especially the fact that (besides parapsychological and other
internal constants) the mystics of the world articulate a more or less common
cognitive model of reality (based on unity-in-differentiation or bi-polarity,
the coincidence of the opposites & un-saying) suggested that mystical
experiences may be significant to understand the rather hidden and mysterious
layers of the real (constantly veiled by our inalienable subjectivities which
colour the water of life).
Secondly,
mystics claim to experience absolute reality, i.e. the experience is so radical
that most if not all subjective & objective conditions of the mystic are
temporarily cancelled and a paradoxical "station of no station"
(Ibn'Arabī) beyond subjectivity and objectivity is -ex hypothesi- attained. If this is truly
the case, then it would mean that mystical experience probe deeper into reality
than do scientific theories. Do mystics catch glimpses of the real as it is for and
by itself ? Science always remains dependent of the subjective conditions of
observation & dialogue (which always change) and hence a forteriori deals
with aspects of reality conditioned by subjectivity. Ironically, this is
exactely what was said about religion in the 19th century, when science was
still thought to be founded on the rock-bottom of the "absolutely
objective" sense-data and the various conflicts between the religions were
seen as sufficient proof of their fundamental subjective conditionings, deemed
incommensurable and ideosyncratic.
We had to wait for Bergson to understand that
the world religions all share the same core, namely the mystical experiences of
their respective founder.
Indian classical yoga was systematized by Patańjali ;
Buddhism goes back to prince Gautama ;
Judaism is unthinkable without Moses ;
Christianity would not be without the historical Jesus ;
Islam came with Muhammad.
|
The basic mysticological rule is : |
1.5 The ontological illusions of the religions.
The
difficulties involving the confrontation of religion with critical
thought circumambulate the fact that most if not all religious authorities and
their traditions were and are deeply rooted in what Kant called the
"ontological illusion", namely the confusion of the conditions of
knowledge which are rooted in the subject of experience with objective states
exclusively belonging to the world (and hence independent of any subjective
condition).
This
illusion is not surprising.
Firstly, because the superstructures developed by the
religions are all pre-critical. This means more precisely that they make use of
a conceptual realism which claimed a direct, one-to-one relationship between our
thoughts (assumptions, theories) and reality. Hence, what we think is a
reflection of what is. Plato and Aristotle were both conceptual realists,
although not in the same way (for Plato, ideas existed outside our minds in a
world of ideas and for Aristotle, ideas were abstractions produced by the active
intellect). Plato had a major influence on Hellenistic Judaism (Philo of
Alexandria) and Christian neo-Platonism, whereas Aristotle influenced the Arabs
(Ibn Sina, Ibn Roesjd) and Thomism. Proto-critical sounds, like Dionysian
negative theology in Christianity or Nagarjuna's views on vacuity in Buddhism
never became mainstream.
Secondly,
religions are meant to organize the masses ... they end up serving political
ends. So simple answers to complex
problems are necessary. Apologies based on critical thought are bad marketing
tools and so the religions prefer to accept the escape-route of the
"mysteries" than to attack the core : a continuous adaptation of the
dogma in the light of other mystical experiences (i.e. continuous reformation).
Thirdly,
religions tend to sanctify the founder in such a way that s/he becomes too far
removed from the disciples to stimulate them to imitate the mystical
experience of the founder. For this is considered as an exclusive matter
between radical otherness and the founder, and hence the dogmatic
superstructures developed by the religions themselves, become a system which barrs
one from the core of the matter : the experience of otherness, either directly
(mystical experience) or indirectly (through an everchanging and adaptive,
flexible religious model).
What happens is that dogma becomes fixed for ever. Without criticism it is thought that
religious concepts represent the absolute reality to which they refer (in
fact they are just one inter-subjective historical interpretation of this reality, not the
reality itself).
1.6 Two examples : Buddhism & Christianity.
Let
us take Buddhism and Christianity as two histoical examples of the principle.
Although a more extensive list of criteria has been published elsewhere, we
focus on (1) the conceptual structure of the salvic theory (not
the method) and (2) the authenticity of the historical sources.
Buddhism
For most Buddhists, so-called "objective reality" is a sheer construction.
They conceive that a "real object" is actually a rapid succession of vacuous, singular and
momentary aggregates which rise and vanish with no substantial, continuous or
self-subsisting features. No two points or states are
identical. The continuities witnessed are psychological habits constructed by
our own minds and have no foundation in the "outer" world. The only
reality mentioned is called "Buddha-nature" and it dwells deep down
inside ourselves. To bring it to the surface and to let it permeate our whole
personality being the sole goal of Buddhism. With the individual having awakened to
Buddhahood, absolute reality (cf. "nirvana")
is attained and all has been said.
criticism of the historical authenticity of
Buddhism
No
objective criterion exists to isolate the original teachings of Siddhārtha
Gautama, called "the Buddha" (the awakened one), probably born in
566/563 BCE in Kapilavastu in present-day Nepal (and who probably died at 80
after eating spoiled food). His birth, life & work is shrouded in legends
(like the stories in the Buddhavamsa of the Khuddaka-nikāya of many
Buddha's before Gautama, the historical Buddha or "Shākyamuni
Buddha").
The
history of the first four Buddhist councils ("samgīti") remains
partially obscure. Tradition holds that the first council (480 BCE) was that of Rājagriha
which was held shortly after the Buddha entered "parinirvāna"
(coinciding with his physical death around 486/483 BCE). It is said that the
first collection of writings took place on that occasion (the Vinaya-patika -Upāli's
responses- and the Sūtra-pitaka -Ānanda's responses- of the Tripitaka).
Some
of the oldest part of the Tripitaka, the "canon" of Buddhist
scriptures -the Vinaya-patika which mentions the first council- probably did
originate relatively early, i.e. in the first decades after the death of
Gautama. He himself did not write a single word and the problems discussed
during the first council were related to the fact that his pupil Ānanda had
neglected to ask the Buddha for precise instructions concerning certain less
important rules and the latter's contention to found an order of nuns !
At
this council, Ānanda was the object of forceful reproaches.
The "Basket of
Discipline" (Vinaya-patika) only contains accounts of the origin of
Buddhism and the rules and regulations needed for the communal life of monks and
nuns. Although some collections did see the light relatively early, it remains
unknown whether the discourses said to have come from the mouth of Gautama the
Buddha (the Sūtra-patika or part two of the Tripitaka, the "Basket
of Writings") are part of this, as tradition claims without no real textual
evidence. It is interesting to mention that tradition also claims that Ānanda
at the time of the council had not yet realized arhathood, which happened during
the council. What does this mean for the "Basket of Writings" composed
on the basis of his responses ? All historically
authentic texts of Buddhism were written in the context of a spirito-communal entity. This
is something different than the original teachings of the first historical
Buddha, apparently lost or unknown.
criticism of the salvic ideology of Buddhism
This
salvic theory has an idealistic structure. Objectivity is the result of
subjectivity, for all of reality is constructed, except for absolute reality,
which is identical with the Buddha-nature, part of each subject of experience.
Because of its idealism and the fundamental ineffable features of Buddha-nature,
Buddhism is a priori unable to articulate a consistent ideology. It is forced to
absolute silence, for every word or thought is only a reflection of a particular
construction and thus irrelevant in the awakening of Buddha-nature. Hence,
Buddhism is not a religion, neither a theology, philosophy or a morality. It is only
a state of mind.
Christianity
We
are told by the Christian churches and other groups of Christian denomination
that Christianity was founded by Jesus Christ, the unique son of God, born in
Bethlehem. He came to this world to redeem all those who believe that He is God
become flesh (God-with-us) who died on the cross for the sins of those who
believe in Him, who
resurrected and ascended to heaven. Without Him and His church there is no
salvation ...
criticism of the historical authenticity of
Christianity
The teachings of the
historical Jesus can be found in Q (especially Q1).
When he died (ca.30 CE), his teachings were written down as well as the many
stories told about him. Although in Q1, Jesus
does not
want to be associated with Solomon or the Messianic "Teacher of Righteousness"
invoked by the Qumrān-people, he nevertheless defines himself as belonging to another
spiritual level. His message was at least proto-Christic (Q1 27).
Jesus, as son of man, announced the Kingdom and sent his chosen disciples out to do their
work of peace and healing (Q1 32 - 41). The salvic factor was their missionary
work, showing that the Kingdom of Elohīm had come over the world (with Jesus).
Saving the world from the oblivion of unawareness (Q1 23-25, 54, 61) which
represses the memory of the fact that the Father does not forget us (Q1 49,
53, 63-71) is all what was needed to experience the Divine Presence (realized without
people being open enough to notice it).
Jesus' Jewish adherents recognized the expected Messiah of Israel in Jesus, but
these original Christians continued go to the temple to sacrifice and to accept
the Jewish law, and also the verses related to circumcision, as Genesis
17:14 : "And the uncircumcided man child whose flesh
of his foreskin is not circumcized, that soul shall be cut off from his people ;
he hath broken My convenant." It was this double morality at work in
the church of Jeruzalem headed by James (i.e. the mixture of "old" and
"new" convenant) and the fact of painful circumcision as
"natural" deterrent, which Paul intended to eliminate to allow gentile
Christianity to prosper.
The
difference between the Jesus of history and the Christ of
Paul is not
small. It is very likely that a lot of the teachings of the historical Jesus
were lost or did not fit into the centrist plot. The differences between the orthodox and the gnostic churches became
clearly visible after the apostolic period (the death of John), but shortly after the "son of
man" was gone, a lot of
different opinions circulated about Jesus. The massive output of fantastic &
mythological texts, makes it probable that it was very difficult for anybody to really
understand what had happened
or what had been said. Does their later destruction suggest that the texts of those who
burned the originals (the orthodox male bishops) can not be trusted either ? Is
this not the original sin against truth ? The Jesus of history was clearly too
quickly recuperated by these "new" Christians (orthodox centrists, gnostics, self-proclaimed
apostles, pneumatics and wandering prophets alike).
Historically, the earliest movements around Jesus
(first century CE) were (cf. Mack, 1995) :
1) an oral, "lore" tradition (20 - 50
CE), especially interested in
the teachings of Jesus and less in his biography ;
2) several major textualizations pre-dating the synoptic gospels of Mark, Matthew and
Luke, such as :
Q1 (ca. 50 CE, in Galilee) : this is the earliest layer of the sayings or source Q &
Miracle-stories (ca. 50 CE in the North of Palestine) ;
3)
the "kerygma" or "announcement" of Paul in his authentic
letters, introducing a "gospel of Christ" (ca. 50 CE in Greece &
Asia Minor - cf. Romans, Corinthians I & II, Galatians,
Philippians, Thessalonians I &
Philemon) ; the investigation of the historical, psychological, sociological &
political influences on the formation of the religions ; and
a hermeneutical study of their major texts and traditions and the
participant observation of the practices of the living religions.
It
must be said that in the previous century, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism &
Buddhism have been scrutinized using sound critical standards, thus allowing for
a clearer perspective on the original and even suggesting ways to perfect the
tradition. the critical atheist has to remain open and flexible enough to be able to change
his or her position. If the study of revelation is undertaken with a prejudice
(or hate) against the absolute, then clearly some points will be missed and
although the worse blunders (if any) will be put forward, it remains extremely
unlikely that a total picture will be attained. The critical atheist often
forgets that the existence of the absolute has not been disproved by science,
which deems itself unfit to answer that question (in the same way as scientific
language is inadequate to describe what happened before the Big Bang). This begs
the question whether atheists, and sceptics in general are valid investigators
of the religions, mysticism and the peripheral disciplines in particular. For
unlike critical minds, sceptics already have a proposition to prove (albeit a
negative one) and hence come nearer to dogmatism (as Kant so admirably
demonstrated) ; the critical theist, deist, pantheist or pan-en-theist has to be rational
enough to be able to see the contextual and personal elements which may creep in
during the reception of the revelation. This can be guaranteed if the
investigator is not set in advance to "prove" this or that creed. In
fact, all historical creeds, being manmade, contain falsehoods ... It is clear
that this type of scientist has to focus on the direct experience of radical
otherness itself, and hence will not throw the child away with the bathwater,
meaning that errors in superstructures not necessarily dismiss the experience of
the mystic or (in the case of Islam), the prophet Muhammad. As Staal suggested, the
true critical investigator of the religions in general and of mystical experience
in particular has him(her)self to experience (directly or indirectly) radical otherness in order to erect a
firm inner foundation, which then may be contrasted with the historical creeds (rooted
in the mystical experiences of their founder). The
author of the present text tries to belong to the second category and his experiences
and studies have turned him into a critical pan-en-theist disciplined enough to
daily perform a series of spiritual exercises (the one remembrance of the
absolute).
the texts of the
"al-Qurra", a class of men in Medina, who lived near the prophet, and
had a fairly complete knowledge of the revelations and of the rules of life
(Caetani, 1915). It is possible that they memorized most of their knowledge but
also recorded parts of it. It is not unlikely that independent collections of
"al-Quarra" texts existed before the first redaction under Abu Bakr. the independent texts on
"pieces of papyrus, flat stones, palm leaves, shoulder blades and ribs of
animals, pieces of leather and wooden boards, as well as from the hearts of
men" mentioned by Zaid ibn Thabit. the private, first redaction of
Zaid ibn Thabit : a codex of what he had collected on sheets or leaves made
under Abu Bakr, caliph between 632 & 634, and given to
the second caliph 'Umar when Abu Bakr died in 634 and upon 'Umar's death to his
daughter Hafsa. the
second, "official" redaction of Zaid ibn Thabit under 'Uthman (650
- 656 CE). In
1 - 3, all textual elements were in "scripta defectiva" meaning
that the consonantal text was unpointed, so that the distinction between letters
was blurred and several others indistinguishable. The 'Uthman collection was
meant to standardize the text, changing it into a "scripta plena" (a
fully voweled and pointed text). The
last redaction, official collection or
second reaction of Zaid ibn Thabit was completed between 650 and 'Uthman's death in
656. This collection was sent to Kufa, Basra & Damascus, and all other versions were ordered to be destroyed ! The collection
of Ibn Mas'ud of Kufa survived (he was indignant that the text was established
by someone like Zaid), as did many others. In fact, scholars like Jeffery (1937)
listed fifteen primary codices, and a large number of secondary ones. The
"official" text of modern Islam is based on Asim of Kufa
through Hafs (cf. Egyptian edition of 1924). The presence of an authentic
koranic tradition before the official redaction, the probability of
different collections in Arab before
the one made by Zaid under Abu Bakr, as well as testemonies of trustworthy
sources, make it clear that we do not possess the complete text of the Koran.
the Koran ;
the "Sunna" (the way) of the
prophet as recorded in the
Tradition (the "hadīth") ;
the "Ijma'", or universal agreement, which probably has been the
most important factor in defining what the Koran and the straight path
imply but which itself has remained the least clearly formulated religious
institution of Islam. Its full nature and implications have never been really
analyzed neither in Medieval Islam nor by modern scholarship. Far from working as
unique standard, "Ijma'" came to operate as a principle of toleration
of different traditions within Islam ;
"Qiyas", or analogical reasoning, is the genuine basis of
interpretation and thought ("ijtihad") in Islam. It is this which
makes progressive "Ijma'" possible. Its earlier form was personal
thought and opinion, criticized by traditional authorities as
"arbitrary."
Four new sciences, known as the
"sciences of the Sharī'ah", saw the light : the prophetic tradition
("hadīth'), koranic exegesis ("tafsir"), theology
("kalam"), and law ("fiqh").
As a result of increased
exposure to other religious systems, a cleavage occurred between the law and the
doctrine, and the former, which ideally presupposed the latter as its base, came
not only to be an independent discipline but to claim for itself the title of
the science of the Shari'ah par excellence and was even identified with the
Shari'ah itself. Thus "fiqh", which originally meant an understanding
of the entire range of the faith, came to be applied to law alone.
3) the
teachings of the Jewish Christians of the Didache (ca.
50 - 100 CE, in Galilee), containing traces of Q1 ;
4) the synoptic gospels of Mark &
Matthew (between 75 & 90 CE), of which Mark is the first to introduce the
Jeruzalem drama and the suggestion (voiced by the demon) that Jesus is the
"son of God" ;
5) textualizations which reflected the
intimate realizations of some of his apostles which were not fully integrated in
the narrative gospels of Mark & Matthew, neither in the letters of Paul,
namely the Gospel of Thomas (75 - 100 CE), the Gospel of John and
the Apocalypse of John (ca.90 - 100 CE).
However, the escatological mythology found in Paul, John, Thomas & the Didache
was not part of Q1. Especially the
authentic writings of Paul (strongly influenced by Philo of Alexandria) suggest
this "pneumatic" interpretation of the historical founder (cf.
"being in Christ"). Paul
never met Jesus as a man. The first Christians were Jews. The so-called
"church of Jeruzalem" was a Jewish sect. Paul was therefore the true founder of Christianity as a
universal church. Jesus came to fulfill the Jewish laws.
Only
after Paul, did the Christian myth gain social & ideological body and focused
(in the early years) on the "Holy Spirit". The contradictions which
emerged when the teachings of these new prophets "in Christ"
confronted each other led to more orthodoxy and also to the notion of "false
prophecy" (cf. Didache, ca. 100 CE).
It is very likely that this
orthodoxy was largely a political invention
which became necessary to divulgate the new myth in more civilized subcultures
& societies (rich intellectuals & administrative people became
Christians too).
More
than one scholar showed that the Christian myth mostly contains (often
recuperated) superstructures that clash with what is really known about the
historical founder "malgré lui". For the impression is, that
Christianity was not founded by Jesus born in Bethlehem but by his Jewish
apostles and by the apostle of the gentiles.
In
the second century "heresy" and "apology" were invented. The
"power" of the bishop of Rome was not built on some spiritual fact but
only on the (sacramental or sympathetic ?) magic of the dead bones of Peter
& Paul (cf. the early cult of celebration on graves, the cult of the relics
of the bloody martyrs which rapidly became part of the liturgy of the altar).
The "canon" of the "sacred" texts of the New Testament
emerged rather late (and this after a lot of other texts had been probably
burned, perhaps hidden away or fled with their rejected authors).
Moreover, the narrative gospels themselves contain
contradictions concerning the genealogy of Jesus and (not unlike contemporary
political agreements) develop the "Christ of compromize". How to trust
a constructed account like this ? Only blind authoritarian dogma maintains the
authenticity of the evangelical, biblical figure of Christ. The Christian
churches failed history, Jesus and of course ... the truth ! Only their radical
transformation may alter things.
This implies the reformulation of Christian theology on the basis of Q1,
the Gospel of Thomas & the Christ of the Didache. Of the
traditional canon, only the authentic letters of Paul, the Gospel of Mark
and the Gospel of John are important, but already reveal a wide gap
between the historical Jesus and the "Christ" of salvation. Hence, to
reveal Jesus "Christ" is a delicate exercise in balance for, on the
one hand, the more "gnostic" & "soteriological" we allow
this "Christ" to become, the less historical the total picture
becomes. On the other hand, the more the Jesus of Q is put into
perspective, the less universal Christianity is. To unite the best of both
worlds is the task and the reward.
criticism of the salvic ideology of Christianity
How
to erect a coherent ideology with self-defeating texts ? Does "Credo quia
absurdum est" summarize "Christian philosophy" ? Can philosophy
be "Christian" and still be philosophy ? In Western theology, the problem of
the nature of Jesus Chris (being a complete but sinless human and
also completely God) and the neo-Platonic "mystery" of the "Holy
Trinity" (three Divine Persons but One God) have caused the dialogue
between genuine intuition ("gnosis", intellectual perception,
unveiling, universal prehension etc.) and modern empirical-formal operations to
be nearly impossible.
Although
with Vaticanum II, Roman Catholicism tried to incorporate modernism, recent
developments prove its inner orthodoxy, dogmatism and fixation on largely
Medieval concepts like primordial sin, the ordained patriarchy, unworldly
sexuality, papal authority, a celebate male priesthood and many other more
sectarian concoctions. This slip into the wood of the Cross and not into its
resurrection has caused massive disbelief in Europe.
Moroever,
the conjunction of this ideological poverty with Roman pump and circumstance
remains shocking, unacceptable and a permanent object of criticism by all honest
intellectuals.
Recently, in full Constantinian regalia, with golden cross
& ring, the pope, his cardinals & bishops confessed that their church is
holy but that its "sons & daughters" have been very sinful (cf. the
recent "mea culpa" of Rome for 2000 years of the most terrible &
unspiritual activity, like sins against the truth). The pontifex asked God to forgive
these "sons & daughters" and to "purify our memory". In
the so-called "orthodox" East, emphasis on apophatism & change
through pneumatic experiences are present but fossilized orthodoxy is even more
omnipotent ! The Protestant movement at large remained biblical and hence
largely mythical and fantastic (Paulinian). What is necessary is a theology of Jesus based on what
is known. In this historical picture, the ascetical, laconical &
hermetical teacher of wisdom is far more prominant that the mythical savior. The
Jesus of history was hence more the "son of man" rather than the unique "son
of God".
1.7 Main areas of critical study of the religions :
For example. The
qabalah of Judaism refers to a universal model of existence (the Tree of Life)
which can be used outside the dogmatic formulations or rabbinical Judaism. It is
largely mathematical and hence open to adaptions and critical expansions.
The
mass of critical studies show that Christianity, being today an unsound amalgam
and unworkable hybrid, can not be recuperated without assimilating gnosticism
and the results of the seminars on Jesus. This however would make Christianity move away from the particularities
of the institutionalized aspects. But as so little is known, how to avoid that the
nugget of gold (Jesus) is again immersed in irrelevant myths
and metaphysics ? Moreover, the valid elements of the creed were mostly forms of
worship recuperated from Jewish debris and pagan cults and subsequently
"christified" ("in the name of Christ" or "through
Christ" added). In that respect, Christianity offers the best example of
the drama of the difference between the founding experience and its
superstructure (namely life & teachings of Jesus son of Mary) and the
resulting religion.
Hinduism
(if such a term may be used) is a complex phenomenon. Nevertheless, of the six
schools of philosophy, classical yoga proves to be a fairly independent, ortho-practical
and workable approach of the absolute. It focuses on practice, not on theory,
and although its classical form calls for a theistic component, Ishvara's
role is reduced to that of being the archetypal yogi. This shows that the
realization of the direct experience of the absolute is the only goal of yoga.
This makes yoga to be the oldest conceptualization of the methods leading the
individual to his or her own direct experience. I.e. instead of promoting an
ideology (orthodoxy) based on past direct experiences (of some extraordinary individual),
classical yoga promotes the direct experience of the absolute by every individual during
his or her lifetime (orthopraxis). Hence yoga is mystical and the most honest & practical
traditional path leading to enlightenment.
Insofar
as Buddhism is limited to the realization of Buddha-nature, it has a lot
in common with yoga, except for the latter's theist component and the acceptance
of the material world as real and substantial.
1.8 The criticism of Islam ?
Let us now turn to the matter at hand : Islam or the complete and irreversible
submission to ALLAH, the Merciful, Compassionate Most High. The first thing to
be remarked is that a critical understanding of Islam by Muslim scholars is
still on its way. Studies by Western scholars on the other hand are available
since the 19th century. They focus on the reception of the Koran and the
trustworthiness of the historical information about Muhammad, the prophet of ALLAH.
Indeed, these are the two main sources necessary to approach Islam : the
revelation sent down to Muhammad (the Koran) and the traditions ("hadīth) ascribed to
the latter, believed to clarify the Koran ...
One
of the reasons why a critical study by Muslim scientists of the Koran
poses difficulties (and this despite the fact that to increase knowledge is
explicitly mentioned in the Koran) is their devotional approach of the
book, described by Western critics a superstitious (like putting it on the
highest shelve in a library). For Muslims, the Koran, also called
"the book" is the most important text ever, while critical literary atheists
have described it as boring, nonsensical and of a very poor literary quality ...
and its author as a fraudulent man who devised revelations for convenience sake
...
It
goes without saying that a critical mind must remain open enough to understand
why believers understand the Koran as the highest form of literature, for
in its 114 sūra's or "series" there is only one in which ALLAH is not speaking (namely the
first one, called "al-Fatihah", the Opening). Hence, because of
this direct textual contact between the Divine and humanity offered through the book,
it must a forteriori be the excellence of excellences. This claim has to be
weighed against the historical authenticity of the text as we have it, which
brings us to the criticism of the reception of the Koran. Along with this
study is the question of originality.
Furthermore,
it is not because one adheres in the field of rational research to the methods
of criticism, that one has to reject theism or the existence of the Supreme
Being for that matter. So although critical minds may be atheists (making their
position easier), it is certainly not a necessary condition or a requirement. It
is not because one accepts the existence of the absolute (the Supreme Being
exists) that every revelation
is a priori accepted as genuine. In fact, how can an atheist develop enough
sensitivity to understand the deeper layers put into revealed texts ? Hence, critical "friends of God" are the best guarantee for an
honest and open study of the relevance of any revelation. These friends may even
adhere to none of the religions at all, and propose a rational concept of the
Absolute (cf. the "God of the philosopher") based on what the mystics
of all traditions claim and on the best of the religions.
Their honesty can only
be doubted if it has been proved that their critical study is a mask or apology
for a particular creed.
So
two things have to be avoided here :
criticism of the historical authenticity of Islam
§ 1 the redactions of the Koran.
Several redactions have to be
distinguished :
"It must be emphasized
that far from there being a single text passed down inviolate from the time of
'Uthman's commission, literally thousands of variant readings of particular
verses were known in the first three (Muslim) centuries. These variants affected
even the 'Uthmanic codex, making it difficult to know what is true form may have
been."
Adams, C.J. : "Quran : The Text and Its History", in Eleade, M. (edit)
: Encyclopedia of Religion, Macmillan - New York, 1987, p.157-76, my
italics.
§ 2 The absence of a
redaction ordered by Muhammad.
If Muhammad had wished for a
collection of his independent revelations
he would have ordered its redaction himself. This does not mean that the
text we have is totally untrustworthy, but to consider it as complete and of
inviolate origin (as fundamentalists do) runs against its historical criticism
and, as we shall see, against what is written about it in the Koran
itself (cf. infra).
"... the Prophet, who was
more probably an unlettered man, had never thought of writing a book, or of
gathering together, in a complete code, the scattered verses which he had
recited to his friends, in some circumstances of his life ..."
Mingana, A. & Smith, A. : Leaves from Three Ancient Qurāns Possibly
Pre-'Othmānic with a List of their Variants, Cambridge, 1914, introduction,
pp.xi-xxxii.
§ 3 The originality of the contents of the Koran.
Critical studies of the Koran prove that many of its themes, as well as
the stories about the Hebrew prophets largely came from the Jews of Arabia (cf.
the Bani Quraiza, Qainunqa'a, Nadhir near Medina), whereas parts of the sections
on Jesus & Mary were influenced by certain Christian opinions circulating at
the time of Muhammad (spurious data of so-called heretical sects like Gnostics
of Basilides and Marcionites or of plain domestical origin - cf. his Coptic
handmaiden Mary). Muhammad himself confused Miriam, the sister of Moses, with
Mary, the mother of Jesus and he makes the fertility of Egypt depend on rain
instead of the inundations of the Nile (12:49). Furthermore, the content of
certain passages is at times purely for the sake of rhyme. Instead of the usual
seven angels around the Throne, sometimes eight are introduced in order to
assure that "thamaniyah" happens to fall in with the rhyme (69:17). This
shows its underlying poetical (recitatoric) intention.
The Book claims that Christ announced to his followers to expect a prophet named
Ahmed ("the praised one"), because they fancied that the word
"Paraklete" meant "Periclete" (praised, celebrated) etc.
Apparently, the Christians around Muhammad did not know the book of Revelations,
nor the role of the Holy Spirit in Christian theology. The tales of Christ's
childhood were taken from the non-canonical (i.e. heretical & fabulous)
literature of early Christianity (with its variety of non-centrist, gnostical
sects depending heavily on the gift of prophesy).
Moreover, some koranic verses have without doubt been taken from poems anterior
to Muhammad. Passages from the Sabaa Mu'allaqat of Imra'ul Qays appear in
the Recital. The story goes that it was the custom of the time for poets to hang
up their compositions upon the Ka'aba and it is known that the seven Mu'allaqat
were exposed. Fatima (the daughter of the prophet) was repeating a verse and was
overheard by the daughter of Imra'ul Qays, who said : "O that's what your
father has taken from one of my father's poems, and calls it something that has
come down to him out of heaven.", a story told amongst Arabs until today.
Moreover, before the time of Muhammad, at Mecca, Medina & Tayif, the
Hanefites had stressed the unity of The God and abandoned their idols. Their
influence upon the prophet is beyond doubt (especially Zaid ibn Amr).
Arabian and Greek historians tell us that previous and during his life, many
parts of the peninsula were ruled by Persian kings. Undoubtedly, many of the
Eastern descriptions of the garden of paradise were overheard and known by the
prophet, as well as the "balance" of judgment (of Ancient Egyptian
origin via the so-called The Testament of Abraham, originally written in
Egypt). Traditions tells us how often Muhammad conversed with people of every
nation in their own tongue.
The principle of theology of the Book is a radical dogmatic articulation of
monotheism hand in hand with the idea that The God sent many messengers with His
messages (or clear communications) before Muhammad.
The first part of the "declaration of unity" can also be found in the Torah
and even in the Amarna religion. Was the idea of the
multiplicity of communications (sealed by Muhammad) developed properly ? Indeed,
nothing is said about the scriptures of the Hindus (Vedas), Buddhists (Tripitaka),
Ancient Egyptians (Pyramid Texts) or Assyrians (to name but a few of the
great & pre-Arabic religions). If one concludes that these religions were
unknown to Muhammad, then he too had his limitations and reflected what he knew
through the forms of his own mind & senses (cf. the Sūfī dictum : "water
takes the color of the glass"). He never got in touch with the Ancient Egyptian
quest for the Great One Alone, nor with the monotheistic monuments of
enlightened Brahmanism or the teachings of the historical Buddha.
Some scholars conclude that the Koran was filtered by the mind of its
prophet (cf. the koranic distinction between the prophet as a human being and
Gabriel as "rasul karim ALLAH") ...
These and other examples (like the verse on beating women) have been thoroughly
criticized by contemporary scholarship. Changes very probably occured as soon as
the text was canonized.
§ 4 And what after Muhammad
died ?
As soon as Muhammad died in 632 A.D., important
organizational problems rose. It was unclear who the rightful successor
("khalīfa") of the prophet was ("khalifah rasul Allāh" or
"successor of the Messenger of God").
Would the emergent Arab
culture relapse into its former ancestral tribal consciousness ? A central focal
point seemed necessary.
"Canonization and
stabilization of the text of the Koran go hand in hand with the formation
of the community, according to Wansbrough. A final fixed text of the scripture
was not required, nor was it totally feasible, before political power was firmly
controlled ; thus the end of the second/eighth century becomes a likely
historical moment for the gathering together of oral tradition and liturgical
elements leading to the emergence of the fixed canon of scripture and the
emergence of the actual concept 'Islam'."
Rippin, A. : "Literary analysis of Koran, Tafsir, and Sira :
The Methodologies of John Wansbrough", in Martin, R.C. (edit) : Approaches
to Islam in Religious Studies, University of Arizona Press - Tucson, 1985,
p.155.
Those who's interests had been
purely political, argued that the death of Muhammad meant the end of their
allegiance with the community of ALLAH. This shows that the historical
community was not the unity of ALLAH Muhammad had projected it to be (the
rejection of hypocrisy is often repeated in the Koran). But most of the
Muslims gathered around Abu Bakr, the first calyph, or successor of Muhammad as
spiritual leader of the Islam. He was very clear about his authority, claiming
no Divine status, nor human excellence (cf. Ibn Ishaak's account in 1017). But
only two years later he died and was succeeded by 'Umar & 'Uthman.
In 656 (only 24 years later)
'Ali became the last of the founding calyphs of Islam after Muhammad.
'Ali,
Muhammad's son-in-law who married Fatima, Muhammad's only daughter, had stressed
that the leader should in all cases care for his people. But 'Ali never quite
received the allegiance of all the Muslims. He had to wage increasingly unsuccessful wars to maintain himself
in power. He was murdered in 661, and Mu'awiyah, his chief opponent, became
caliph.
After Ali's murder, Mu'awiyah
-the governor of Syria during the early Arab conquests, a kinsman of 'Uthman,
and a member of the Quraysh lineage of the prophet- proclaimed himself caliph
and established his capital in Damascus.
From there he conquered Muslim enemies
to the east, south, and west and fought the Byzantines to the north ! He is
considered by some as the architect of the Islamic empire and a political genius
(the Constantine of Islam). Under his governorship, Syria became the most prosperous province of the
caliphate. Mu'awiyah created a professional army and won the undying loyalty of
his troops (like Alexander the Great, he paid them their generous salaries on
time). Heir to Syrian shipyards built by the Byzantines, he established the
caliphate's first navy. He also conceived and established an efficient
government.
'Ali's second son, Al-Husain,
refused to recognize the legitimacy of Mu'awiyah's son and successor as caliph,
Yazid. This led to the schism between Sunnites and Shiites (the later party of
'Ali). The community of the direct followers of the prophet had considered
themselves to be the guardians of the orthodox core or spiritual
"sunna" (the habitual practices) of the prophet. These Sunnites were
in the majority. This unity was breached when the dynasty of the Omayyads
(initiated by Mu'awiyah) ruling the Empire of the Caliphate (CE 661 - 750) was rejected by the Shiites.
The followers of 'Ali claimed
that only the direct relatives of 'Ali could inherit the caliphate. The Shiites
stressed (not unlike the Zoroastrians) inspired leadership ("imam")
and actually venerated Husain, the second son of 'Ali.
As a result a fundamental
division rose between the orthodox majority (following the "sunna" of
the prophet) and the growing opposition, condemned for heresy. At present 60 to
80 million people (or 10% of Islam) are Shiites.
The first four calyphs,
so-called rightly guided, had more or less assured the unity of the community which had also been very important to the prophet. With the rise of the Shiites this unity was broken and would never
be restored again ...
The prophet's direct
successors, the "perfect caliphate" and later Mu'awiyah
effected the expansion of the Islamic state beyond Arabia into Iraq, Syria,
Palestine, Egypt, Iran, and Armenia and, with it, the development of an elite
class of Arab soldiers. They were also responsible for the adoption of an
authoritative reading of the official Koran, which strengthened the
Sunnite Muslim community and encouraged religious scholarship. By 732, the dynasty founded by
Mu'awiyah had conquered Spain and Tours in France and stretched in the east to
Samarkand and Kabul. It exceeded the
greatest boundaries of the Roman Empire.
The Omayyads followed the
traditions set by the Hellenistic monarchs and the Romans. The conqueror's
(Muslim) law applied only to those of the same faith or nationality as the
conquerors. During the 89 years of Umayyad rule, most Syrians became Muslims,
and the Arabic language replaced Aramaic. The Omayyads minted coins, built
hospitals, and constructed underground canals to bring water to the towns.
Foreign trade expanded, and educated Jews and Christians, many of them Greek,
found employment in the caliphal courts, where they studied and practiced
medicine, alchemy, and philosophy.
However, during their
expansion the Muslims encountered Zoroastrism in Persia, monophysite
Christianity in Syria & Asia Minor (especially in Anatolia), Nestorian
Christianity in the Euphrate region, Buddhism & Hinduism in Nordwest India,
fertility cults in North Africa and Roman Catholicism in Spain.
All these religions influenced Islam, especially its mystical current (Sufism).
§ 5 The rise of orthodoxy
...
A century after Muhammad's
death, Islam was not considered to be a religion for all of humanity. Only Arabs
could convert. But, the other religions "of the book" ("ahl
al-kitāb") received freedom to practice and were protected minorities
("dzimmī"). Moreover, especially after the period of the
"ar-rāsjidun" (the first four so-called rightly guided successors), when all of Muhammad's
companions had died, one argued that the text of the official Koran could
not be understood properly without the oral tradition or "hadīth's" (the stories
about the "sunna" of the prophet).
So the "Sharī'ah",
or sacred codex of Islamic practices was written down (9th - 10th century).
It
was based on :
Later, several new disciplines
focused one the more philosophical aspects of these scriptures and these
fractions often disagreed. Heresy became in effect in Islam. Although Islam stresses the importance of a political organization in accord with the
laws of ALLAH, i.e. unity, it lacks the necessary tools to realize this : no
canon, no centralized authority and many fractions and sects fighting each other
for supremacy. Even today in our secularized societies this remains a problem.
In France, Muslims were till
recently not represented in the national council for religions because it
remained unclear who represented the
community as a whole. The same happened in Belgium, were till 1999 the
Muslims could not benefit from the official support offered to Judaism,
Catholicism, Protestantism & Orthdox faith. Moreover, often after these
councils have been established, they do not receive the support of everybody,
diminishing their executive power.
"According to general
belief, ahādīth were orally transmitted at least for one hundred years. (...)
On the authenticity of this statement, there are differences of opinion among
orientalists. Muir accepts it with the remark that there are no authentic
remains of any such compilation of an earlier date than the middle of the 2nd
century of the Hijrah. While Guillaume
in referring to this statement says, 'The hādīth must be regarded as an
invention', Ruth also refers to Guillaume and some other scholars who doubt the
trustworthiness of the report."
Azami, M.M. : Studies in Early Hadīth Literature, American Trust
Publications - Washington, 1992, chapter II, pp.18-19.
Moreover, the famous imam
Malik Ibn Anas (born in Medina in the 8th century A.D.) never stopped saying
that he did not record any of the Hadith
they recounted, because he saw that they were dealing in matters for which
they were
not qualified.
"After having tried to
set straight the historical record - the line of transmitters and witnesses who
gave their account of a troubled historical epoch - I can only advise redoubled
vigilance when, taking the sacred as an argument, someone hurls at the believer
as basic truth a political axiom so terrible and which such grave historical
consequences as the one we have been investigating. Nevertheless, we will see
that this 'misogynistic' Hadith, although it is exemplary, is not a unique
case."
Mernissi, F. : The Veil and the Male Elite, Perseus - Massachusetts,
1991, p.61. (She is talking about the Hadith that states : "Those who
entrust their affairs to a woman will never know prosperity !"
Is it strange that political matters like succession, power & territory
played such an important role after the prophet of ALLAH died ? Anyway, these
considerations make Western scholars prudent enough not to blundly accept as
genuine all (oral) stories in circulation after 632. Furthermore, it discredits
any attempt to sanctify them.
The Recitation ended when Muhammad died and the
Muslims did not regress by reconstituting the tribal mosaic and its worship of
the 360 gods, although polytheist practices prevail (cf. the kissing of the
Ka'aba). During his lifetime they believed that Muhammad was a very
evolved human, perhaps the archetype of the emerging Arab spiritual state of
mind able to confront & transcend all former revelations. Apparently the
language Muhammad used guaranteed the survival of a pan-Arabic cultural form. In the light of this achievement, all
conflicts between the political fractions seem irrelevant. But they
continue to exist till today.
2
The Koran's authenticity : intra- and extra-textual evidence.
2.1 The intra-textual evidence : guarded tablet, transmission of sence,
abrogated and Satanic verses, Muhammad's limitations, variations and the Arabic
tongue.
§ 1 The guarded tablet versus the revealed copy.
To most traditionalists, asking questions about the authenticity of the Koran is considered
as blasphemy. The same incredible attitude is found in Christian fundamentalists. It is part of the complex of fossilizing effects which
install themselves after the process of canonization of the superstructure
erected by the followers
of a founding mystic is over. In
the case of the Koran, this is surprising, for the Koran itself contains a
lot of information concerning its own authenticity. Is it not strange then that
the learned doctors of Islam did not develop their theories on the basis of
these data ? Why ? Instead of answering this question, let us focus on what the Koran
teaches.
In it is made the fundamental distinction between the revealed text (a recitation
or "qur'ān") and its original guarded by ALLAH :
"Yes
! This glorious Koran is written on a tablet guarded with great
care."
(85:21-22)
This
is confirmed :
"Recite
what has been revealed to you of the book of ALLAH. Nobody can change His words.
Apart from Him, you will find no refuge."
(18:26)
The
"book" of ALLAH or "kitāb" is a written piece, not the
historical text
to be recited (or a "qur'ān"). Nobody can change these words or
decrees ("kalimāt"). Hence, there are two entities : an original,
celestial writing which never changes and which is guarded by ALLAH and its
copy
revealed to Muhammad through Gabriel. This original is given a special name :
"Ha
Mim By the clear book. We have made it an Arabic Koran so that you would
understand it. The mother of the book is with Us. It is indeed sublime and
wise."
(43:1-3)
The
word "mother" implies center, source, origin. The mother of the book
is hence the matrix from which the copy is made. This distinction is
suggestive of the genetical relationship between an unchanging original and a
copy exposed to all kinds of risks ... Although the copy may be in peril, its
mother remains the same all the time.
The
relationship between both is expressed by the verb "saddaqa", i.e. to
be loyal to the celestial original. But this conformity is not a literal
reproduction, for the same verb is used to indicate that the scripture of the
Jews and those of the Christians are conform ("musaddiq"). Hence, the
copy revealed to Muhammad is far from being a literal reproduction of the book
written on the guarded tablet, although the copy conserves the general sense of
the guarded tablet ...
§ 2 The guarded tablet and the celestial library.
When Pharaoh asks Moses about the past generations and their teachings :
"Moses answered : 'The
knowledge of them is with my Lord, in the book. My Lord goes not astray, nor
forgets."
(20:54)
That
ALLAH possesses and guards the scriptures of the ancient peoples of 'Ād, Thamūd,
etc. is thereby confirmed. The "book" mentioned is nothing less than a
complete celestial library containing all the spiritual knowledge of humanity.
The guarded tablet is the most revered book in it, but it does not stand
alone. Nevertheless, the original tablet is the object of special care :
"No
! I swear by the falling stars, (And this is indeed a mighty oath, did you but
know !) that the noble Koran, the prototype of which is in a hidden book,
should be touched by none except the purified. Its a revelation from the Lord of
all being."
(56:74-79)
Nowhere
is it said that the purified angels occupy themselves to guard the revealed copy of the
hidden tablet. Hence, alterations during its transmission are not excluded.
§ 3 Transmission of the sense only.
The notion of conformity is used in the Koran to indicate the
relationship between the revelations of the ancients, namely those that became
before the revelation to Muhammad. Also : the Gospel is said to be
conform ("musaddiq") with the Koran.
This
potential non-conformity between the original and the copy (the written book and
the revealed recital) has been confirmed by Muslim theologians.
Suyūtī (who
died in 1505 CE) put forward three possibilities : (1) there is a literal
conformity ; (2) Gabriel received the sense which Muhammad put down in Arab and
(3) Gabriel received the sense and expressed it in Arab (the inhabitants of
heaven read the book in Arab) ... The latter two options imply that
the sense of the book is unlike the words of Muhammad ... Al-Juwaynī proposed
to settle the argument, by conjecturing that part of the Koran is literal
and another was transmitted in accordance with the sense of the revelation only
...
§ 4 Abrogation of verses and the Satanic revelations.
Two other important intra-textual problems prevail : (1) the Koran itself
mentions the fact that ALLAH abrogates and confirms certain verses and (2) some
revelations were caused by Satan with the accord of ALLAH.
"Before you, We sent
messengers, and We assigned to them wives and a lineage. None of them brought
signs, except by ALLAH's leave. Every period has had its sacred book. ALLAH
blots out or maintains whatever He will. In His hands rests the essence of the
book."
(13:38-39)
If
every period has its sacred book, then clearly the distinction between the
guarded, unaltered tablet and a revelation which adapts to historical
circumstances (the law of periods - "ajal") becomes acute. Without
solving his dilemma, the Koran merely points out that those who are of bad faith see in this the proof of prophetic imposture.
"And
when We exchange in this Koran a verse for another verse (ALLAH knows
very well what He is sending down), they say : 'You are a mere forger !' No !
Most of them have no knowledge.
Tell them that the spirit of holiness sent it down from your Lord