My first acquaintance with the Qur’anists was more than ten years ago, when a heated discussion broke out between me and an Islamist former fellow detainee about the future of non-Muslims in Syria. At that moment, a Qur’anist who held a university degree in psychology jumped in and said: “Ultimately, we are all Muslims”. We did not pay much attention to him due to the tense atmosphere and because what he said lacked real meaning; in fact, it was somewhat provocative.
Later, I heard that Islam honors women and that all violations against them are merely a misunderstanding because:
- The Qur’an did not command the beating of women, and the word “beating” (darb) in the verse “As for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them, separate from them in bed, and beat them” (An-Nisa: 34) does not mean physical striking as we commonly understand it.
- Qawamah (guardianship/authority) in the verse “Men are responsible for the care and oversight of women because God has favored some of them over others “ (An-Nisa: 34) does not mean that men hold authority over women.
- The male’s share in the verse “Allah instructs you concerning your children: for the male, what is equal to the share of two females” (An-Nisa: 11) does not mean double the female’s share of the inheritance.
- “Women” (al-nisa) in the verse “Beautified for people is the love of that which they desire—of women and sons, heaped-up heaps of gold and silver…” (Al-Imran: 14) does not mean females, but rather something else.
- A woman’s testimony is fully equal to a man’s testimony in the verse “And bring to witness two witnesses from among your men. And if there are not two men [available], then a man and two women…” (Al-Baqarah: 282), meaning the verse states that the testimony of two women is sufficient in the absence of any man.
- A woman does not invalidate the prayer like a dog or a donkey, contrary to the authentic Hadith: “The prayer is severed by [the passing of] a woman, a donkey, and a dog” (Sahih Muslim: 511).
Recently, I came across the “Mujtama” (Society) channel on YouTube through recommendations from some non-religious friends who described it as a platform offering something new and important. I followed parts of its episodes, and a few errors caught my attention—I say errors out of politeness, as they are fabrications that I cannot detail here. However, I will content myself with mentioning their claim that the word Mushrik (polytheist) in the Qur’an does not mean what we commonly understand it to mean, but rather refers to those who share the marital bed with others. They also claim that “Abraham” can be considered a myth, that Abrahamic religions are an imperialist project, and that God tested Abraham in the verse “And when Abraham said, ‘My Lord, show me how You give life to the dead.’ [Allah] said, ‘Have you not believed?’ He said, ‘Yes, but [I ask] only that my heart may be satisfied'”.
I had never thought about reading the book Al-Kitab wa-l-Qur’an by Mohamed Shahrour before, despite all the controversies it generated, as I did not see it as worthwhile. However, I recently noticed a growing admiration for the results of his “methodology” even among non-believers with high academic backgrounds.
Therefore, I decided to read the book and engage with it critically to uncover and trace the mechanisms that lead to the “surprising” results mentioned above.
I began reading with an epistemological question: What is the methodology that Mohamed Shahrour followed to reach his results? However, I was appalled by what I read in the introduction and in the appendix “Secrets of the Arabic Tongue.” As a result, the question turned into: Is there a coherent conceptual framework used by Shahrour to construct his imagination of the Qur’an and Islam?
So, I decided to work on a methodological research paper titled: A Critique of ‘The Book and the Qur’an’ by Mohamed Shahrour.
The fundamental flaw in Mohamed Shahrour’s approach—and that of the entire Islamist elite with him—is that he wants to extract from the sacred text (Qur’an and/or Hadiths) solutions for everything that can confront humans, starting from fate and destiny to freedom, the theory of knowledge, the theory of the state, society, economics, democracy, and the interpretation of history.
I have done nothing more than expose the collapse of his cognitive tools. Shahrour presents a model of the worst kind of scientific research. The peak of fabrication occurs when he conflates the semantic verbs Ballagha (to convey) and Ablagha (to deliver), claiming linguistic differences between them that do not exist. He then applies this same arbitrary dynamic to the terms Anzala (sent down) and Nazzala (revealed). As Shahrour himself stated: “Explaining the difference between Al-Inzal and Al-Tanzil is considered one of the main keys to understanding the book in both its parts: Prophethood and Message, as it heavily relates to the principles of interpretation.”
I feel sorrow for those kind Muslims who have grown weary of the tension between their desire to maintain their faith on one hand, and the contradiction of mainstream Islam with human rights in general, and women’s rights in particular—not to mention the contradiction of this Islam with science. The movement of Mohamed Shahrour provided an answer to their troubling questions and a solution to this tension.
I am also saddened by those non-religious individuals who believe that Shahrour’s movement might represent an Islamic Lutheranism—an exit strategy from the moral, political, and scientific deadlock taking place today in the Islamic world.
Indeed, Mohamed Shahrour’s book and his entire movement express the depth of the crisis in the Islamic world in two ways:
- First: The crisis is so profound that both believers and non-believers embrace a book with a broken methodology, viewing it as a potential salvation simply because it claims to be scientific and contemporary.
- Second: The weakness of critical thinking capabilities, and a poor understanding of the principles of scientific thinking and research methodologies required to reach justified results away from fabrication. I firmly say that this book should be taught in universities as a case study on how scientific research should not be conducted.
Shahrour resembles someone who erected a building that appears modern from the outside, but its foundations are crumbling. Furthermore, this person did not respect the harmony of the elements, adding to the building everything he liked from modern architectures. Once the foundations face the slightest test, the entire building will collapse. The danger is that those who yearn for modern structures believe this is the correct way, so they build their structures in the same manner, resulting in a city that collapses over our heads at the first minor tremor.
The solution does not lie in Shahrour’s movement or any other. Rather, it lies in critically engaging with contemporary reality and its problems, far from the authority of the religious text or any authority that imposes predefined conclusions as inputs for thinking. The solution is to admit our ignorance and dare to think, or else we perish.
By clicking the link here, you can read the full research paper.
Translated by AI and reviewed and corrected by me