If God Has Undertaken to Preserve the Qur’an, Where Has the Struggle Shifted?

Introduction: The Shift in the Arena of Struggle from the Book to the Human Being

According to this hypothesis, the “greatest conspiracy in human history” is not a particular political conspiracy or a project tied to a single historical period. Rather, it is an enduring struggle between the forces of guidance and the forces of misguidance, which began with Iblis’s confrontation with the human being and continued throughout history through the interaction between satanic temptation and human choices.

The essence of this struggle, according to the Qur’anic conception, is not merely control over the earth or possession of power. It is also the shaping of human consciousness, the estrangement of the human being from revelation, and the transformation of the relationship with God from a direct relationship grounded in guidance into one controlled by human authorities, conflicts, and interpretations.

This conception rests on the Qur’an’s presentation of an ongoing struggle between the human being and the forces of temptation:

﴿وَكَذَٰلِكَ جَعَلْنَا لِكُلِّ نَبِيٍّ عَدُوًّا شَيَاطِينَ الْإِنسِ وَالْجِنِّ يُوحِي بَعْضُهُمْ إِلَىٰ بَعْضٍ زُخْرُفَ الْقَوْلِ غُرُورًا﴾ (Thus We have appointed for every prophet an enemy: devils among humankind and jinn, inspiring one another with embellished speech as a deception.) [الأنعام: ١١٢]

The Qur’an also records the acknowledgment of the inhabitants of the Fire that some among the jinn and humankind led them astray:

﴿رَبَّنَا أَرِنَا الَّذَيْنِ أَضَلَّانَا مِنَ الْجِنِّ وَالْإِنسِ نَجْعَلْهُمَا تَحْتَ أَقْدَامِنَا﴾ (Our Lord, show us those two among jinn and humankind who led us astray, so that we may place them beneath our feet.) [فصلت: ٢٩]

On this view, the greater struggle consists not merely in attempting to distance human beings from religion, but in reshaping their understanding of religion so that they become followers of human systems that claim to possess the truth in the name of revelation.

From here, the central question emerges:

If God has undertaken to preserve the Qur’an, where is the arena of struggle?

First: The Preservation of the Text and the Shift of the Struggle to Its Interpretation

Among the most profound questions in the history of religions is this: if God has preserved revelation, does the real struggle concern the survival of the text, or the human being who bears and interprets it?

The Qur’an declares the promise of preservation:

﴿إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ﴾ (Indeed, it is We who have sent down the Reminder, and indeed We will preserve it.) [الحجر: ٩]

And it says:

﴿إِنَّ عَلَيْنَا جَمْعَهُ وَقُرْآنَهُ﴾ (Indeed, upon Us rests its collection and its recitation.) [القيامة: ١٧]

And it says:

﴿سَنُقْرِئُكَ فَلَا تَنسَىٰ﴾ (We shall have you recite, and you will not forget.) [الأعلى: ٦]

According to this conception, the Qur’an presents itself as a text preserved through divine care, whose survival does not depend on human power, a religious institution, or a historical authority.

Yet the preservation of the text does not mean the end of the struggle; rather, it means its transfer to another domain. If altering the Book becomes impossible, the most consequential domain becomes the interpretation of the Book, the transmitted accounts surrounding it, the authorities claiming to possess its correct meaning, and the bodies speaking in the name of revelation.

The most dangerous forms of struggle are not always attempts to bring down the text, but the construction of human systems around it that cause human beings to receive God’s words through layers of interpretations, interests, and authorities.

From this premise, the hypothesis sets out to examine the course of the struggle in religious history: from the struggle over revelation within the history of the Children of Israel, to Jesus’s—peace be upon him—confrontation with certain manifestations of religious authority, to the message of Muhammad ﷺ and the restoration of revelation’s centrality, then to the shift of the struggle within the Muslim community toward questions of authority and interpretation, and finally to its effects on contemporary civilizational and political realities.

The question governing this hypothesis is:

If God has preserved the Qur’an from alteration, who possesses the right to interpret the Qur’an?

And does the real test lie in the survival of the text, or in the human capacity to engage with it without making human understanding the arbiter over revelation?

Second: The First Root of the Struggle—From Revelation to Religious Authority

This hypothesis proceeds from the premise that the Qur’an does not speak of the Children of Israel as a race or a human lineage, but presents a religious and intellectual history within which a struggle arose between two tendencies: one that maintained its connection to revelation, and another that placed human authority and religious interpretations above God’s command.

According to this reading, Qur’anic criticism is directed not at affiliation or descent as such, but at intellectual and religious positions that emerged among certain groups affiliated with the Children of Israel.

Within the framework of this hypothesis, the Qur’an’s mention of Jews is presented not as a discussion of a race or a human group in terms of origin, but as an intellectual and religious model that emerged within the history of the Children of Israel. The Qur’an made this model an example warning against the transformation of the relationship with revelation from guidance into authority, and from submission to God into human control over the understanding of God’s command.

In its accounts of the Children of Israel, the Qur’an presents multiple models: models of faith and uprightness, as well as models of deviation when human interests, desires, or religious authorities take precedence over revelation.

From this standpoint, the “Jewish model” criticized by the Qur’an becomes a symbol of an intellectual approach based on distorting meanings, monopolizing religious knowledge, or making human intermediaries arbiters over the divine message.

For this reason, the Qur’an repeatedly warns against certain practices that appeared among some groups affiliated with Judaism:

﴿مِنَ الَّذِينَ هَادُوا يُحَرِّفُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَن مَّوَاضِعِهِ﴾ (Among those who are Jews are some who displace words from their proper places.) [النساء: ٤٦]

And His saying:

﴿اتَّخَذُوا أَحْبَارَهُمْ وَرُهْبَانَهُمْ أَرْبَابًا مِّن دُونِ اللَّهِ﴾ (They took their rabbis and their monks as lords apart from God.) [التوبة: ٣١]

What is intended in this context is not human identity, but the intellectual model: when ultimate authority shifts from God to a human authority speaking in God’s name, and when human interpretation of revelation becomes a rival to revelation itself.

According to this reading, the Qur’an mentions this model as a recurring pattern in history. Deviation does not always begin with the rejection of revelation; it may begin within the religious sphere itself, when divine guidance is replaced by human systems claiming to possess the truth.

Third: Jesus, Peace Be upon Him, and the Confrontation with Certain Manifestations of Religious Authority

According to this hypothesis, Jesus son of Mary, peace be upon him, came into a religious environment marked by a struggle between the message of revelation and certain practices associated with a portion of the religious leadership among the Children of Israel.

Jesus, peace be upon him, did not come to abolish the Torah or invalidate the foundation of previous messages. Rather, according to the Qur’anic conception, he came to confirm the revelation that preceded him and to correct the rigorism or human interpretations that had entered religion and diverted divine law from its purposes.

﴿وَمُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيَّ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَلِأُحِلَّ لَكُم بَعْضَ الَّذِي حُرِّمَ عَلَيْكُمْ﴾ (And confirming the Torah that came before me, and to make lawful for you some of what was forbidden to you.) [آل عمران: ٥٠]

According to this reading, the essence of the disagreement concerned neither faith in God nor the foundation of divine law, but the source of religious authority and the manner of understanding revelation.

The message of Jesus, peace be upon him, contained criticism of certain practices that gave human traditions and outward religious forms precedence over the purposes of divine law. This appears in the Gospels in his saying:

“You have abandoned the commandment of God and held fast to human tradition.” (Mark 7:8){1}

His criticism of certain scribes and Pharisees is also recorded, on account of their concern with religion’s outward form while neglecting the substance of justice and mercy:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you clean the outside of the cup and the dish, while inside they are full of plunder.” (Matthew 23:25){2}

According to this hypothesis, the confrontation was not between Jesus, peace be upon him, and all the Children of Israel, nor between him and everyone affiliated with Judaism. Rather, it was with a religious current that saw his call as a threat to the system of authority that had formed around the interpretation of religion. Restoring human beings to direct divine authority meant reducing the capacity of any human authority to monopolize the understanding of revelation.

The essence of the struggle thus becomes: is divine law to be a path toward realizing guidance, justice, and mercy, or does it become a human system possessing the authority to control its interpretation and determine its relationship with human beings?

From here, this hypothesis places the message of Jesus, peace be upon him, within a succession of messages that confronted the deviation of authority when human traditions came to rival or obscure revelation.

Fourth: Muhammad ﷺ and the Return of the Struggle to Its Roots

When the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ came, Islam did not present itself as a message detached from the history of revelation, but as a continuation of previous messages and a correction of the human deviations that had entered them:

﴿وَمُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَمُهَيْمِنًا عَلَيْهِ﴾ (And confirming the Scripture that came before it, and as a guardian over it.) [المائدة: ٤٨]

The Qur’an reordered the relationship between human beings and revelation, locating supreme authority in God alone and restoring human beings to the primordial nature upon which God created them:

﴿فَأَقِمْ وَجْهَكَ لِلدِّينِ حَنِيفًا ۚ فِطْرَتَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي فَطَرَ النَّاسَ عَلَيْهَا﴾ (So set your face toward religion, inclining to the truth—the primordial nature of God upon which He created humankind.) [الروم: ٣٠]

According to this hypothesis, the emergence of Islam posed a challenge to religious systems that had built their authority around the interpretation of revelation. The new message did not come from outside the Abrahamic context, but from within it, bearing a call to restore authority directly to God.

For this reason, the Prophet ﷺ encountered resistance from multiple quarters, including the Jewish rabbis in Medina who entered into conflict with the Islamic call. The Qur’an records positions taken by some of these groups, including their refusal to believe in the message despite their knowledge of the Prophet’s characteristics mentioned in their scriptures according to the Qur’anic conception, their disputation over revelation and the message, and their attempts to cast doubt on the call.

﴿وَلَمَّا جَاءَهُمْ كِتَابٌ مِّنْ عِندِ اللَّهِ مُصَدِّقٌ لِّمَا مَعَهُمْ وَكَانُوا مِن قَبْلُ يَسْتَفْتِحُونَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا فَلَمَّا جَاءَهُم مَّا عَرَفُوا كَفَرُوا بِهِ﴾ (And when a Book came to them from God, confirming what was with them—though previously they had sought victory over those who disbelieved—when there came to them what they recognized, they disbelieved in it.) [البقرة: ٨٩]

He also said:

﴿وَدَّ كَثِيرٌ مِّنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ لَوْ يَرُدُّونَكُم مِّنْ بَعْدِ إِيمَانِكُمْ كُفَّارًا حَسَدًا مِّنْ عِندِ أَنفُسِهِمْ﴾ (Many of the People of the Book wish they could turn you back into disbelievers after your belief, out of envy arising within themselves.) [البقرة: ١٠٩]

According to this hypothesis, the struggle was not merely over accepting a new messenger, but over the collapse of an old system of authority before a message that returned human beings to revelation as the supreme point of reference.

Yet bringing down the Qur’anic text was not possible, according to the divine promise of preservation. The arena therefore shifted to the human being who bears the text: how does one understand the Qur’an? Who determines its interpretation? What transmitted accounts enter into its understanding? And who possesses the authority to speak in the name of religion?

Here the fundamental shift emerges: from attempting to bring down the message to attempting to influence its understanding.

Fifth: The Shift from Confronting the Text to Influencing Understanding

If the Qur’an is preserved, altering the text becomes impossible. The struggle therefore shifts to the domains surrounding the text.

Transmission: because it is a human domain in which positions and disagreements may multiply and become part of the formation of religious understanding.

Interpretation: because the interpretation of the text determines how human beings engage with it and influences rulings and the overall conception of religion.

Authority: because the body possessing the right to interpret the text possesses considerable capacity to shape religious and social consciousness.

Here the central question emerges:

Does the human being follow the Qur’an, or an interpretive system surrounding the Qur’an?

Sixth: Applying the Hypothesis to Islamic History

After the Prophet’s ﷺ death, political disagreements arose over leadership and the administration of society. These disagreements subsequently developed into major intellectual and confessional schools, each with its own conception of religious authority.

Thus emerged the Shi‘i tendency, which made the imamate a central axis in the construction of religious and political authority, and the Sunni tendency, which made the caliphate, the community, and the authoritative status of the Sunna a central axis in the construction of authority.

Over time, transmitted accounts, interpretations, and theological and jurisprudential schools became part of the construction of identity for each tendency.

According to this hypothesis, the Qur’an did not change, but the bodies speaking in its name multiplied. The text remained one, while human readings of it proliferated.

Here the question returns: is the disagreement a disagreement within the Qur’an, or a disagreement in human understanding of the Qur’an?

Seventh: Applying the Hypothesis to Contemporary Reality

According to this reading, the struggle over authority did not remain within books and confessional schools, but extended into political and civilizational history, where religious ideas and cultural identities became part of projects of power and influence.

Among the most prominent examples proposed by this hypothesis is the Palestinian question. It holds that the establishment of the Jewish Zionist project in Palestine was not merely an isolated political event, but arose within an interweaving of religious and political ideas and international interests.

The question posed by this reading is: how did the relationship between certain Western Christian forces and the Jewish Zionist movement move from a long history of conflicts to a level of political and military cooperation?

According to this hypothesis, the explanation for this transformation rests not on the religious factor alone, but on the interweaving of religion with political and strategic interests. Certain Western Christian currents, particularly those supporting Christian Zionism, saw the establishment of Israel as the fulfillment of religious conceptions specific to them, while Western political powers saw in supporting Israel interests connected with influence and geopolitics.

From this perspective, the question becomes not one of the relationship between religions, but of how religious ideas are deployed within political projects.

This hypothesis also holds that divisions within the Islamic world, particularly political and sectarian conflicts, have weakened the capacity to build a shared vision regarding major issues and created an environment that helped sustain influence in the region.

Here the hypothesis returns to its fundamental idea: if the initial struggle is for control over the understanding of revelation, its historical effect becomes apparent when human divisions over religion turn into instruments of political struggle.

The issue thus becomes not only: who possesses the land? But also: who possesses the capacity to shape human consciousness? And who can direct human choices, divide human beings, and keep them within conflicts that prevent them from recognizing shared interests?

Conclusion: The Preservation of the Text Does Not End the Struggle, but Transfers It to the Human Being

According to this hypothesis, the greatest struggle in the history of religions has not concerned only the existence or survival of the sacred text, because revelation—according to Qur’anic faith—is preserved by God’s protection. Rather, the struggle has shifted to the most consequential domain: the human being who interprets the text.

If altering the Book proves impossible, influence is exercised through the manner in which it is understood, the transmitted accounts surrounding it, the authorities speaking in its name, and the groups that make their own interpretation the criterion of truth.

For this reason, the most important question is not: has the Qur’an survived? The answer, according to Qur’anic faith, is yes. Rather, the question is:

Has the Qur’an remained the supreme point of reference in human consciousness? Or have the human systems surrounding the Qur’an come to rival it in shaping understanding and belief?

The Qur’an is one, but history has shown a multiplicity of schools and tendencies speaking in its name, each presenting its reading as the closest to the truth.

Hence the great battle—according to this hypothesis—is not with the divine text, for the text is preserved, but with the human susceptibility to turning one’s understanding of the text into an authority above the text.

The pivotal question therefore remains: if God has undertaken to preserve the Qur’an, where has the struggle shifted?

The answer proposed by this hypothesis is: it has shifted from altering the Book to interpreting the Book, from confronting revelation to controlling the understanding of revelation, and from the sacred text to the authority speaking in its name.

The real test for the human being remains: does one make revelation the arbiter over one’s ideas, heritage, and interests, or make one’s ideas, heritage, and interests arbiters over revelation?