The Miracle of the Qur’an…
August 17, 2006 | 23 Rajab 1427
…as explained by a hot dog vendor. By no means am I trying to be bourgeois. A hot dog vendor, in theory, is just as capable of understanding the Glorious Qur’an as I am. He or she is free to develop their own interpretations. Heck, for all I know, they used to be a scholar and just fell on hard times. Rather, this is just a reflection on observations I’ve made of non-indigenous Muslims attempting to give da’wah or information about Islam to non-Muslims. This recent observation came today while I was ordering a (turkey) bacon, egg and cheese on a long roll with salt and pepper (regardless of the brother’s oratory skills, he does make a killer breakfast sandwich).
Islam means many different things to many different people. That goes without saying and yet, when it comes to the face of Islam it is presented as a monolithic entity, devoid of diversity. So how is it that the brothers that love to quote the Qur’an when it tells us, “…and We made you into tribes and nations so you may know one another”, somehow forget this when they talk about the role of Arabs in the history of Islam. This quote is the Trump card, the proverbial rabbit in the hat for many foreign Muslims who attempt to “call people to Islam (hereafter referred to as da’wah)”. I mean, if God created diversity then it’s got to be good! But this seems to be the limit (intentional or unintentional, you decide) of their invitation. Instead, they embark on a mission of propaganda that in the end they would have you believe that it was the Arab people, vis-a-vie, the Arabic language, that produced the Marvelous Qur’an and even the Prophet himself.
To make this clear let me explain a little further. The case that was brought before me while my eggs were meshing with the cheese was that the English language was or is incapable of holding the Word of God (i.e., the Qur’an could not have been revealed in English). Arabic language, because of its rich lexical purity was chosen by God as the vehicle to carry God’s Word to humanity. The implication is that if a people attain a high enough level of whatever (piety, exemplary communal behavior, etc) then they can garner the attention of God and influence His actions or decisions, versus the traditional understanding (small “t” not capital) that Revelation is a top-down phenomenon.
Yeah…, now ya feel me’h. There are many topics that stem from this line of thought. I will attempt to highlight a few of them.
One of the first thoughts that comes to mind is that the Arabs as a people some how had a hand in producing and influencing Revelation. By this, I mean that their language was so spectacular that God simply had to use it as the vehicle of His Word to man. Running parallel to this thought is that it was the Arabs and not God who made the Arabic language so noteworthy. My train of thought does not stop here, though. For if the Arabs were responsible for this then does this not compete with God as al-’Alim and al-Khabir? In other words, does the concept of the Arabs making the determination that their language influenced this decision, does this not attempt to grasp power from God? Yeah, now I know ya feel me’h. Hold on to yer butts ‘cus I’m not through with ya just yet.
Another stem to this tree of thought is that if the Arabs were some how able to achieve this level of influence or recognition then why haven’t or why couldn’t any other group of people do so? Would this imply that there is something inherent in the Arabs, vis-a-vie the Arabic language, which garners this recognition? And that conversely other peoples are not as privileged? And perhaps most importantly this suggests that it was the Arabs who produced the Prophet or influenced God’s decision in choosing His Messenger. This is a most dangerous concept. Imagine, if you will, that while we think of the Prophet as being sent to all mankind, by God’s own choice, that instead, the Arabs just “earned enough credit” through history and God picked a winner! Through this process Revelation has been down graded to a competition between the races instead of a top-down directive, chosen by God, Who is Alone without partners, and without influence, man is able to influence God. Yeah. Ouch. I could see this making a great reality show: Last Tribe Standing.
The third point I will make is that when one examines this process of influencing God it smacks of shirk or associating partners with God. To explain this, I will illustrate the definition as I received it from Dr. Sherman Jackson. Shirk: the process of extracting services through nature via supernatural means. In an example Dr. Jackson gave, imagine if you will, the Bushman. He and his fellow mates, before they go out to hunt, engage in various rituals. They might do a special dance. Throw some bones on the ground. Abstain from sex with their wives for six days and six nights and so on. The reason is extract favors or services (in this case a successful hunt) from Nature or in our parlance, God. And while the Arabs of modern day times might not engage in such actions it was the Arabs of days yonder (i.e., pre-Islam Arabs) that (holding to their argument) were the squeakie wheel that received the divine grease and it is present day Arabs who present this phenomenon as proof that the Arabs are a great and powerful people.
So the point to this little rant is more of an observation. I have seen how Arab pride and nationalism have been translated into either a tacit or active causality for their role in the Revelation of Islam. And my encounter with the hot dog shaykh is not unique. Over and over I have seen it portrayed in the above light. Is God not All-Powerful that He could not manipulate the English language, or any other language, to deliver this miracle? After all, it was the Miracle of the Arabic language which drove home this point to the Arabs of the Prophet’s time. They had never heard an Arabic language like the one that they were encountering when the Prophet recited to them. They would say to the Prophet, “Surely, this is manifest sorcery!” It is precisely that it was a form of Arabic that was Divinely manipulated that makes the Arabic language what it is (at least that in the Qur’an). Pre-Islamic Arabic would not fall into this category (i.e., it was before it was “touched” by God). My point in this is that it would seem in today’s world people often talk and speak in transcendent terms. They act as if their religious interpretations are an extension of Revelation. That they informed or influenced God’s choices or actions and that they are the Chosen People (we’re heard that one before). And while I have stated all this, in hopes some of you may leave feedback and comments, it in no way influences me in my choice of eating from the brother’s food cart. His (turkey) bacon, egg and cheese sandwich, on a long roll, is scrumptious. And his shawarma cheese steak is to die for! Now if that’s not fostering religious dialog I don’t know what is.
August 17th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
I’ve had discussions with Desis, Arabs, etc where they start acting authoritative about Islam with no real knowledge, and I’ll back up what I’m saying with Qu’ran and Hadith, and they’ll STILL take this attitude like “You’re a revert, what do you know?”. It’s just petty nationalism and superiority complexes.
I think a strong argument would be that the Rasul went to the Arabs because they were such a messed up, evil people at the time, and needed him the most! I think Arabic, from what I do know, is a lovely language with interesting features, but it does not seem to me to be demonstratably the best language or anything like that.
August 18th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
[14.4] And We did not send any apostle but with the language of his people, so that he might explain to them clearly; then Allah makes whom He pleases err and He guides whom He pleases and He is the Mighty, the Wise.
whenever God sent a revelation we would expect it to display a clarity, eloquence and beauty befiting God’s word. And God didn’t just speak in Arabic.
August 21st, 2006 at 12:19 am
the problem with your post was not you validating yourself, your assertions about the Quran (which i agree with by the way), but in general the illogical manner in which you started the post, as it can be said that the Arabic language was chosen for its lexical dexterity to carry the FINAL message of Allah to creation. The others may have been inferior based both lexical and anthropolgical reasons.
not the word “may”
The hot-dog man stating this does not imply that he or all arabs are superior or somehow brought about the greatness of the Quran. This is the fallacy of your argument. No one denies that Allah is capable of stating what ever he wishes to us in whatever language he likes.
Your statements above show that you are extremely sensitive to being charged with racism, yet you had no problem insinuating this against the arabs in general or the hot-dog man in particular.
Oh unless there is a part of the conversation we didnt hear about.
Otherwise implicit statements do not always neccesitate thier supposed implications.
You should have given your brother the benefit of the doubt.
August 21st, 2006 at 10:07 pm
Salaams, Thabet.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re talking about. Which prayer concerning Abraham? You mean at-Tashahhud?
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Like I said before, I agree with your point concerning the Quran and Arabic, so no I didnt miss your point, I wasnt addressing it in the first place.
The illogical approach I am speaking of is not your opening sentence, I am not here to critique your grammar and level of eloquence, You are mashallah very eloquent and a good writer. The conclusion that you present in your post is both valid and correct. The problem is with your argument.
“What implication was that? You seemed to have left it out.”
the same one that I will now cut&paste for you here as i did before:
This is the claim of the Hot-Dog man, as stated by you:
“The case that was brought before me while my eggs were meshing with the cheese was that the English language was or is incapable of holding the Word of God (i.e., the Qur’an could not have been revealed in English). Arabic language, because of its rich lexical purity was chosen by God as the vehicle to carry God’s Word to humanity.”
This is the implication that stems from that, as stated by you:
“The implication is that if a people attain a high enough level of whatever (piety, exemplary communal behavior, etc) then they can garner the attention of God and influence His actions or decisions, versus the traditional understanding (small “t” not capital) that Revelation is a top-down phenomenon.”
I said to you:
“There is no relation between the fact of X being Y, and that Z influences M. So I am sorry but your logic is flawed.”
In simpler terms:
There is no relation being Arabic being of rich lexical purity and then chose by GOd…
And the fact that when people are of “a high enough level of whatever” they then “garner the attention of God and influence His actions or decisions”
You then took from this that”
1. “the Arabs as a people some how had a hand in producing and influencing Revelation”
2. “it was the Arabs and not God who made the Arabic language so noteworthy”
3. “Would this imply that there is something inherent in the Arabs, vis-a-vie the Arabic language, which garners this recognition? And that conversely other peoples are not as privileged?” rhetoricl questions?
4. “it was the Arabs of days yonder (i.e., pre-Islam Arabs) that (holding to their argument) were the squeakie wheel that received the divine grease and it is present day Arabs who present this phenomenon as proof that the Arabs are a great and powerful people.”
5. “That they informed or influenced God’s choices or actions and that they are the Chosen People”
None of these points nessecarily is a result of Hot-Dog Man’s statement. These points in no way logically follow that point, as his statement is open to more than one interpretation, and ca can be describe in more than one way. He may be stressing the importance of learning the Arabic. You never know, you would have to ask him.
But his statement does not nessecarily follow a line of arab-supremacy.
Your postulation that this was his line of thinking insinuates that he did have arab-supremacy in mind, you then extented this to other arabs, and therefore by making blanket accusations against a particular race, include everyone of that race (you figure the rest out.)
It would have better for you to clarify the possibilties of his statement, debunk them one by one, and establish the fact that you stated above and was even better proven by the verse the
brother mentioned.
You now said “Not all arabs!” Ok and I believe you.
So its not fun when it happens to you and thats not what you meant, and thats not what Hot-dog man, Pizza-boy, and Shawerma-Girl mean either, necessarily. Unless of course, theyre arabs, and you know what that means…..
August 23rd, 2006 at 10:35 am
Asalaam alaikum brother,
very thought provoking blog. I’ve experienced the ‘hot dog vendor shyk’…beeing a revert that is on her DEEN and who is mistaken for somolian on the regular..lol. anywhoo.. i ponder this as i put my 3 year old in school. she’s starting montessori school, not traditional school, and we’re placing her in quranic classes on the weekends. As a bilingual speaker of spanish, i will say that learning the arabic makes the understanding of the Qur’an complete. Not at all implying that Arabic is more superior to any other language.
Great post non the less.
ma salaam
August 24th, 2006 at 12:54 am
adivce,
i feel like you are splitting hairs in order to avoid a certain conclusion… let me try to be more crude in the hopes that the issue might be seen more clearly.
If we are all Muslims, then we all agree that Islam is great and the Quran is beautiful and the word of God.
But then there is a question of to what we attribute this greatness and beauty?
As a non-Arab, I have noticed that there are multiple ways in which Arab Muslims frame certain issues or explain certain topics in ways which suggest that the greatness of Islam is related somehow to the achievements of Arabs as a people.
I would suggest that this is a really messed up way to present Islam and as Muslims we should do what we can to avoid this way of thinking.
In my experience, I think I’ve seen a lot of this, and it definitely happens, so I’m not sure what is accomplished by trying to carefully suggest that maybe Hot Dog man doesn’t really believe what Marqas is ascribing to him.
If we are really talking about the greatness and power of Allah, then God can be equally eloquent in Navajo, French, Hebrew or Ebonics. God could have sent his last messenger to 17th century China or Sibera or the tribespeople in the Central American rainforest.
But when we move away from that and suggest that God prefered one language over another, arguing that certain cultural traits are more appropriate for divine revelation, that really does start to be a problem.
August 24th, 2006 at 9:46 pm
Marqus,
Thank you for clarifying yourself and the context.
I may have overlooked that.
Yes I agree that the approach of Hot-dog man is ignorant.
Abdul-Halim
Yes as Marqus said, you have made some good points. ANd I agree that where ever and to whomever Allah sends his revelation than it will be the most eloquent in that particular language.
Why Allah chose the Arabic language is known only to him. We may infer reasons, but that does not detract from the level of other languages.
My point in essence is one of approach, I get just as PO’ed at Arabs trying to give the “we are so much better than you thats why you should be a muslim” type of dawah as Marqus does.
So I’m not saying dont address the issue, just when it is addressed it should be done in the best manner.
All in all, its been beneficial.
Marqus I think you should do more on AbdulHakim Jackson defiinition of Shirk. That would be benficial and interesting, seeming that it is a novel defintion.
peace