{"id":6792,"date":"2012-01-07T21:42:09","date_gmt":"2012-01-07T21:42:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/?p=6792"},"modified":"2012-01-07T21:42:09","modified_gmt":"2012-01-07T21:42:09","slug":"reading-lessons","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/reading-lessons\/","title":{"rendered":"Reading Lessons"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>To say that Muslims tend to have an exalted view of the Koran is, to say the least, an understatement. As the Economist<\/em> explains<\/a>:<\/p>\n

But when it comes to parsing holy writ, there is one big difference between Islam and most other text-based faiths. Barring a brief interlude in the ninth and tenth centuries, and a few modern liberals, Muslims have mostly believed that the Koran is distinct from every other communication. As God\u2019s final revelation to man, it belongs not to earthly, created things but to an eternal realm. That is a bigger claim than other faiths usually make for their holy writings.<\/p>\n

The Koran may be interpreted but from a believer\u2019s viewpoint, nothing in it can be set aside.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As an invitation to intellectual rigidity that is hard to beat, but at least in the West, some scholars are taking a different tack:<\/p>\n

At least in the calm, superficially courteous world of Western academia, debating the precise text of the Koran is increasingly common\u2014as at a conference hosted by the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), part of the University of London, in November. Most [participants]were non-Muslims who study the text as they would any other written material\u2014as prose whose evolution can be traced by comparing versions. New techniques, such as the use of digital photography, help compare variations and solve puzzles. All participants implicitly accepted the idea that methods used to analyse Homer, say, or German myths might elucidate the Koran.<\/p>\n

In much of the Islamic world, even the agenda of such a meeting would be controversial. What can be debated in most Muslim countries differs hugely from what is discussed in the West. Staff at a London-based Islamic research body, the Institute for Ismaili Studies, have ranged from radicals like Mohammed Arkoun, a leader of the French deconstructionist school, to traditional Sunni or Sufi scholars. They follow the trail of al-Suyuti, a 15th-century Egyptian who accepted the existence of slightly different versions of the Koran.<\/p>\n

Such diversity under a single roof would be impossible now in Karachi or in Cairo, the bastion of Islamic scholarship. There, the interpretation of Islam and its history is strictly a task for believers. Non-Muslim offerings would be called \u201corientalism\u201d, based on colonial arrogance. Muslims in such places who take a different view face not only academic ostracism but physical danger. Egypt\u2019s leading advocate of a liberal reading of the Koran\u2014Nasr Abu Zayd, who died in 2010\u2014was denounced as an apostate, forcibly divorced from his wife and had to spend his later life abroad. The rise of Islamism in Egypt offers no prospect of a friendlier climate.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, scholars in Europe, stimulated by the manuscripts in great European libraries, are working hard to find out how and when the Koran\u2019s written form was standardized\u2026<\/p>\n

A burst of new Koranic scholarship erupted at SOAS in the 1980s. These days, it is one of several British campuses where scholars say they find it hard to get funding for work that threatens orthodoxy\u2014a change they ascribe to the influence of conservative Saudi donors.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Saudi Arabia, always Saudi Arabia:Iran with money \u2013 and patience. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

To say that Muslims tend to have an exalted view of the Koran is, to say the least, an understatement. As the Economist explains: But when it comes to parsing holy writ, there is one big difference between Islam and … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":64,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false},"categories":[9,711],"tags":[50,499,507],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6792"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/64"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6792"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6792\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6795,"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6792\/revisions\/6795"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6792"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6792"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6792"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}