Ladies and Gentlemen,

I begin by quoting a few verses of the Quran:

“Those who disbelieve from among the people of the book and the idolaters will not desist from disbelief, until there came to them the clear evidence---A messenger from Allah reciting to them the pure Scriptures. Therein are lasting commandments.”  (Quran 98: 2—4).

The reference here is to the eternal character of the Quran. It is a claim made by the Quran fourteen centuries ago-- a claim which in my opinion is quite extraordinary in the light of more or less established truths. The bulk of humanity has witnessed and attested to these truths over time: that societies perpetually evolve and social norms change, therefore all societies need to reconsider the laws regulating altered ethics.  It is also a claim that has not as yet been tested, as undoubtedly scripture is often treated as sacrosanct, demanding abject loyalty from the faithful.

Today I speak as a sceptic.  And as a sceptic, I want to examine the validity of such claims, both in the light of modern circumstances, and in the light of the many theological constructs that have thus far attempted to confer some legitimacy to such claims.

Islam discourages critical inquiry of the Quran. By contrast, Christianity and Judaism, the other two great monotheistic faiths, permit a liberal theology to scrutinize scripture without penalty. Islam rejects the idea entirely.   But I wonder. Why must any document, old or new, religious or secular, be exempt from the scrutiny of intellectual processes that could enable an understanding of its true essence?

Such thoughts have inspired me to delve into today’s topic, which seeks to either establish or dismantle the notion that the Quran relates well to modern times.

I would first like to consider the very concept of relevance, and what exactly it may mean in a particular context.  At the very outset, I can say that when we speak of the relevance or otherwise of something, we are in fact making a harsh judgment on it, one that forces us to take sides.  Additionally, relevance may not necessarily be positive. Something can also be relevant in a negative way.

When we read about the history of Nazi Germany, for example, it is relevant to us in the way that it evokes conditions that spark genocide. It helps us understand the social conditions that ignite contempt for others in the hope of preventing such outrages in the future.  Last of all, the term “relevance” connotes a relationship. Concepts, beliefs, ideologies, philosophies and social systems have to be relevant to something or the other. With that in mind, it is appropriate to ask, is it modern society that we are trying to determine the Quran’s relevance to, is it our modern sensibilities, human nature, our contemporary legal framework, our political institutions, modern ideals of humanism and universalism? What exactly is it that we are trying to establish this relevance to?

I believe that most contemporary human societies and communities are headed towards an acknowledgement and appreciation of our common worth and dignity that seeks to transcend barriers of race, tribe, gender and creed.  It is an idea stemming from the Jeffersonian tradition of recognizing all interpretations of a particular faith, as well as diversity of faiths and absence of faith, as valid; hence the need to create, as Jefferson said, a “wall between church and state”. Such a recognition affords an individual the freedom to believe anything according  to his or her preferences, experiences and temperament, without fear of recrimination and persecution. By devising such a model, a system of governance has recognized all faiths, opinions and creeds, or lack of faith, as both valid and worthy of respect.

Thus, humanity has come to an understanding of freedom of choice and conscience as being an inalienable right for all. And this new “all’ includes women, minorities and any other types of underprivileged people. According to our modern sensibilities, therefore, a woman can have the same rights and privileges as men. For example, she can enter into a marriage contract by her own free will, as opposed to being required to seek permission from her father or male guardian, as Orthodox Islamic law requires.

Societies built on these principles are known to work for the maximum number of people. As John Stuart Mill noted in his great humanistic essays, the most moral societies are those that deliver the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This number must of necessity include people of either gender, and all races, colours and creeds. It is this social framework that I am attempting to determine the Quran’s relevance or irrelevance to.

One finds traces of these ideals in the Quran, but - dare I say - they exist only sporadically? Dare I say they have not been developed to the point where our modern sensibilities can accept them?  The Quran embodies some of these principles in a rudimentary form, but dare I say that the way in which these have been fine-tuned in contemporary societies far exceeds the standards set by the Quran?

Modern societies accord equal rights and dignity to all of their citizens, at least in principle, and strive not to discriminate on the basis of race, gender or religious affiliation. They do so without qualification, without preconditions and without threat of recrimination.

Dare I say that societies proposed by the Quran on the other hand are hierarchical, differentiating between the rights of men and women, the rights of Muslims and non-Muslims, and the rights of the free and the captive?

Advocates of the Quran will argue that everybody is treated the same in the Quran. But this leads me to discuss what I have often found to be a discrepancy between the stated ideals of the Quran on the one hand, and their exposition on the other, between the general and the specific, between the principles and their details. 

The Quran no doubt speaks of all the ideals that modern societies espouse. It speaks of compassion, kindness, charity, social justice, benevolence, but how does it actually define these?  In other words, is social justice really social justice the way it is described in the Quran?

Let me explain my point further by providing an example of an oft-quoted verse of the Quran.  It states that  there is no compulsion in religion. But then throughout the rest of the Quran God demands total submission, warning mankind of an everlasting hellfire if there is no compliance. This principle is therefore certainly not relevant to our modern sensibilities where choices are to be regarded as genuine, if and only if they are exercised freely, without duress, without hell as a sword of Damocles hanging over people’s heads.

A secular perspective sees it as vital to acknowledge that societies never remain static. Indeed they are constantly evolving.  From this perspective alone, any system of belief that has a built-in stasis such as that embodied in the Quran cannot be relevant to our times.  Orthodox Muslims regard the laws and injunctions of the Quran as being relevant for all times. But even a cursory examination of the antecedents of some of these injunctions will clearly demonstrate that they were meant to be very time-specific. I will only briefly mention a few in order to prove my point.

My approach to the Quran is the same as it is towards other scripture. Most advanced societies acknowledge that laws must be based on the needs of evolving and constantly changing societies. Even countries such as the United States, that are avowedly religious, have recognized the need to separate politics from religion. It is these societies that have made social progress--progress being measured by the extent to which the minorities and women have been lifted out of their state of marginalization. These societies have been able to evolve an attitude towards religion and its literature that is respectful,  yet mindful of the consideration that laws must address the needs of the contemporary world.

For example, does the Quranic injunction enjoining women to wait four months before ramarrying after the passing of their husbands have relevance for modern times? This provision was put in place for seventh century Bedouins to be able to make determinations of paternity and lineage in the absence of medical tests.  But now, with all the medical advances that enable such determinations through a simple test, I question the relevance of such a provision to our modern circumstances.

Take the issue of inheritance rights.  While the reforms introduced by the Quran acknowledged some inheritance rights to women and were hence laudatory for the time, can they be deemed fair now, when women are sometimes the sole bread winners for their families?

What about slavery? Do our modern sensibilities not recognize slavery as morally repugnant? Yet it has received some affirmation in the Quran when it says, slaves are to be treated kindly.

The people who promote the idea of the eternal relevance of the Quran feel compelled to do so because of its purported divine origin.

However, I am at the very least, familiar with one such “divinely inspired” injunction that was very much in place before the existence of the Quran. I am referring to the punishment of severing  the hands of thieves for the crime of theft . This was a punishment in vogue in seventh century Arabia that the Quran simply retained. It has its origins in tribal and customary law rather than in a supposed  divine revelation. My contention here is supported  by the fact that most Sunni Muslims  acknowledge this to be the case.

According to the Sunni view, and most Muslims subscribe to the Sunni view , the Quran in fact did retain many of the customs and traditions of pre-Islamic Arabia. These were mostly tribal laws and customs, tailored to the needs of seventh century societies. They may have worked well for those societies, but is the cutting of hands for theft relevant now, when we have prisons and other correctional facilities? It is these same injunctions of a customary nature that are now accepted unquestioningly  as divine writ,  whereas their origin can be clearly linked to customs and traditions.  Furthermore, the faithful believe these cannot and must not be amended as they regard them as divine and therefore perfect. Their “relevance” to modern times therefore, must be contrived  through specious arguments and  rationalizations that seek to justify the unjustifiable such as  polygamy and concubinage.  Since these laws cannot be changed according to the die-hard orthodoxy, they want societies to revert to being the way they were so as to ensure conformity and relevance to these medieval and archaic laws.

 But is such a scenario achievable, or even desirable?

There is yet another school of thought within Islam which seeks to establish the Quran’s relevance to contemporary sensibilities through newer interpretations. The objective is to  align the Quran to modern notions of gender equity, civility, tolerance and humanity. This constitutes the progressive discourse within Islam. There seems to be a growing body of literature which attempts to seek solutions to long standing issues through such reinterpretation. In my opinion however, these interpretations  are often  forced. They are unfounded in their lack of fidelity to the letter and spirit of the text,  while at the same time being intellectually devoid of the rigours of logical scrutiny  as they tend to be highly subjective. A modernist approach for example, would seek to reconcile religion with science, but is there truly a basis for such an interpretation other than the ramblings of an over-active imagination?

I am not indicting the Quran.  The Quran like other holy books contains words of wisdom and axiomatic truths.  And for its time, the Quran sought to improve the conditions of the downtrodden. But once again, I ask. Are these time-honored truths uniquely Quranic?  Aren’t truthfulness, honesty, trustworthiness  and selflessness virtues that are  universally acknowledged as worthy?  Indeed they are.   These  time-tested moral principles can, and very often are, arrived at with or without scripture.

I have already alluded to a new-age theology within the Judeo-Christian tradition which approaches the Bible critically, treating it as a book of wisdom and folklore, perhaps divine, but still one that is subject to scrutiny. There is no comparable approach towards the Quran among the adherents of Islam.   The result is, the Quran and all that it contains, is accepted without question, rendering  the Muslim psyche totally resistant to change.  But change is paramount.  We need to see past each other’s religious, cultural, ethnic and social differences. That is the way of the future and the way to a better world.  Scripture with all its trenchant hierarchy does not allow for such humanitarian principles to flourish. Societies are now striving to be more pluralistic, more humane, less hierarchical, less dictatorial in order to accommodate the happiness of the greatest number of human beings. For these ends to be achieved, a certain evolution of thought must be permitted, one that is free to identify and challenge injustices wherever they occur. It is only when societies encourage new visions of a better world that these visions have any hopes at all of ever materializing. Scripture, and the Quran is no exception, contains injunctions that discourage a free exploration of ideas. But it is new visions that often enable us to become better human beings living in peace and harmony in a better world, because it is a freer and more tolerant world.