Irshad Manji on the Qur'an

After Newsweek backtracked on their story about American interrogators at Guantanamo Bay flushing a copy of the Qur'an down a toilet, the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan is still unstable. Irshad Manji tries to provide some perspective:

Still, at least one more question needs to be asked: Even if the Qur'an was mistreated, are violent riots justified?

"What do you expect?" my critics will declare. "Abusing the Qur'an is like abusing basic human rights. If you're a good Muslim, your identity and dignity are bound up in revering the Qur'an. It's the literal word of God. Unsullied. Untouched. Unedited. Unlike the other holy books."

Sorry. That argument just doesn't wash. One can appreciate the Qur'an's inherent worth, as I do, while recognizing that it contains ambiguities, inconsistencies, outright contradictions — and the possibility of human editing. This is not simply a reform-minded Muslim speaking. This is Islamic tradition talking.

For centuries, philosophers of Islam have been telling the story of the "Satanic Verses." The Prophet Muhammad accepted them as authentic entries into the Qur'an. Later, he realized they deify heathen idols rather than God. So he belatedly rejected the verses, blaming them on a trick played by Satan. Which implies that the Prophet edited the Qur'an.

Let's push this point further. Because pious Muslims emulate Muhammad's life, those who compiled the Qur'an's verses after his death might have followed his example of editing along the way. The compilers were, after all, only human — as human as Muhammad himself.

Hat tip to Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs.