Holy Qur’ān as the Most Authentic Historical Evidence

At this instance, the doubt may arise in someone’s heart that as the Qur’ān is the religious scripture of the Muslims themselves, how can its testimony be given such a rank so as to base such a significant historical account upon it. The response is that such a doubt can only arise in the heart of such a person who is completely ignorant of the science of history and Islāmic literature. The standing of the Holy Qur’ān is such that no other record of Islāmic history possesses any value in comparison to it. In comparison to the Holy Qur’ān, what weight could the narrations of Ḥadīth and history possibly possess, despite the extensive scrutiny of the Muḥaddithīn1 and historians? This is not merely a biased claim; rather, it is a clear truth, which has been accepted by both friend and foe. The fact is that here, there is no question of a religious issue, whereby a non-Muslim can reject the idea of the Qur’ān saying that he does not believe the Qur’ānic teaching to be from God. Rather, on this occasion, it is a question of historical testimony. As such, it is accepted that the most authentic and genuine historical testimony is that which is from the era in which an occurrence has taken place, it is related by those people before whom the occurrence has taken place, it is put to writing immediately and then remains pure from all types of interpolation afterwards as well. The standard therefore, which the Holy Qur’ān enjoys in this respect, is not at all enjoyed by any other book. The Holy Qur’ān was not only put to writing in the era of the Holy Prophet(sa), rather, many Ḥuffāẓ2 had preserved its every word in their minds as well. Thereafter, it has remained pure from every kind of interpolation to this day, and is present even today, in the exact form and condition as in the era of the Holy Prophet(sa), and the Companions. As this is an accepted fact, I do not wish to spend too much time on this discussion, otherwise I would have spoken about how very magnificent the status of the authenticity of the Holy Qur’ān truly is, and how it is an insult of the truth to present any other testimony in comparison to it. I present two testimonies, merely by way of example, and even they are of such people who are critics of Islām. 3

Sir William Muir, who was a famous English Historian, and whose book on the life of the Holy Prophet(sa) is perhaps most widely circulated among all western literature on this subject, writes in his book ‘The Life of Mahomet’:

“We may upon the strongest presumption affirm that every verse in the Corân is the genuine and unaltered composition of Mahomet himself.”

Then he writes:

“To compare (as the Moslems are fond of doing) their pure text, with the various readings of our Scriptures, is to compare things between the history and essential points of which there is no analogy.”

Then he writes:

“There is otherwise every security, internal and external, that we possess a text the same as that which Mahomet himself gave forth and used.”4

It should be remembered that Sir William Muir is not from among the friends of Islām, rather, on countless occasions, he has made grave attacks upon Islām and the Founder of Islām. The Qur’ān however, is of such lofty grandeur as cannot be tainted by the prejudice of a single person.

Nöldeke who was a very renowned German-Christian orientalist, and who is accepted as an authority in this field, writes with regards to the Qur’ān:

“The Qur’ān present today is exactly the same as in the time of the companions of the Prophet.”

Then he states:

“All efforts of European scholars to prove the existence of latter interpolation in the Koran have failed.”5

This is the testimony of the people of the West as regards to the general authenticity of the Holy Qur’ān. However, particularly from a historical perspective, Sir William Muir writes:

“The Corân becomes the ground-work and the test of all enquiries into the origin of Islām and the character of its founder.”6

Then he states:

“Of Mahomet’s(sa) biography the Corân is the key-stone.”7

Then, Professor Nicholson, who is a Christian-British orientalist, and whose book ‘Literary History of the Arabs’ has been widely published and introduced, writes in his book:

“Here [i.e., in the Holy Qur’ān] we have materials of unique and incontestable authority for tracing the origin and early development of Islām - such materials as do not exist in the case of Buddhism or Christianity or any other ancient religion.”8

Therefore, the Holy Qur’ān is a completely honest and most authentic record of early Islāmic history, and it possesses a rank which is not enjoyed by Ḥadīth, Sīrat, or history. Thus, when the Holy Qur’ān very clearly and invariably states in this verse, which was the first to be revealed allowing Jihād by the sword, that it was the disbelievers who were the instigators and the Muslims only took up the sword in self-defense, to search for evidence of Muslim instigation, through flimsy and weak argumentation, cannot be considered an honest deed.