8 Feb 2008
Hugh Fitzgerald
I look forward to Part Two. But this part has already provided enough grist for the outraged mill run by the usual suspects, i soliti ignoti. Few of them, however, would wish to draw attention to this article. For even if the differences between, say, the Warsh and Nafs readings are small to us, for Muslims they are deeply unsettling, even impossible to consider. Such variants, if understood and accepted, would imply or mean that the Qur'an is not uncreated and not immutable, but a text brought together in time, a historical text. And it is to history that you are now helping, through such study, to return it. If the Qur'an can come to be seen, by Muslims for what it is -- as a product of men and of time -- and other conclusions are then reached, then there may, just, be hope for some convivencia. Of the real, not the fabled, kind.
13 Feb 2008
ZZMike
Does this mean that the Qur'an is not inerrant - even in the original?
