The Infinite Loop Problem

The Infinite Loop Problem

Article:

In one of his writings,

Mr. Jochen Katz has pointed out a contradiction in Al-Shu`araa 26: 192,

195 – 196. He writes that in the referred verses, the Qur’an says:

“It (the Qur’an) is indeed a

revelation from the Lord of the Worlds, … in clear Arabic speech and indeed

IT (the Qur’an) is in the writings of the earlier (prophets).” 

After citing the verses, Mr. Katz writes: 

Now, the ‘earlier writings’ are the Torah

and the Injil for example, written in Hebrew and Greek. HOW can an ARABIC

Qur’an be contained in books of other languages? Furthermore, it would have to

contain this very passage of the Qur’an since the Qur’an is properly contained

in them. Hence these earlier writings have to be contained in yet other

earlier writings and we are in an infinite loop, which is absurd.

Before I give my relatively detailed

opinion regarding this objection raised by Mr. Katz, I would just like my

readers to note that in all four Gospels — Matthew, Mark, Luke and John —

there are consistent references to the writings of the Old Testament. For

instance, Matthew writes:

This is the one of whom the prophet

Isaiah spoke when he said: ‘The voice of one crying out in wilderness:

“prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight”.’

(Matthew 3: 3)

Mark writes:

As it is written in the prophet Isaiah: ‘See,

I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way; the voice

of one crying out in the wilderness: “Prepare the way of the Lord, make

his paths straight”.’ (Mark 1: 2 – 3)

Luke writes:

As it is written in the book of the words

of the prophet Isaiah: ‘The voice of the one crying out in the wilderness:

“Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight…”.’

(Luke 3: 4)

John writes:

This was to fulfill the word spoken by

the prophet Isaiah: “Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom

has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”

The reader is requested to keep in mind

that the book of the prophet Isaiah, which is being referred to in all the above

quotations, (in the underlined portion) was written in the Hebrew language,

while none of the Gospels was written in Hebrew. It obviously means that the

Greek, Aramaic or Latin words used in the cited parts of the Gospels, were

probably unknown and incomprehensible for the prophet Isaiah, toward whom these

words are being ascribed. How, in heaven’s name, could these Latin, Greek or

Aramaic words be ascribed to the Hebrew speaking prophet Isaiah?

Thus, as far as Mr. Katz question: “HOW

can an ARABIC Qur’an be contained in books of other languages?” is

concerned, the answer to this question is: ‘Exactly in the same way as the

statements cited from the Gospels‘.

I am sure, with the kind of extra-ordinary

genius that Mr. Katz has dug out the referred contradiction in the Qur’an, he

must also have had a tough time and a number of sleepless nights in resolving

the above ‘incorrect’ references in not just one, but all four of the Gospels.

However, as should be clear to the lay-man, there is no contradiction in either

the referred part of the Qur’an, nor in the cited verses of the Gospels. It is

actually not the particular languages, but the subject matter that is being

referred to in both the Qur’an as well as the Gospels.

The particular verses of the Qur’an, which

Mr. Katz holds as the basis for the referred contradiction are reproduced below

for a better understanding. Al-Shu`araa 26: 192 reads as:

And indeed it is a revelation of the Lord

of the worlds — brought down by the trustworthy spirit — upon your heart, so

that you may be one of the warners — [revealed] in a clear Arabic dialect —

and indeed it is [also] in the scriptures of old.

The problem statement in the above verses,

for Mr. Katz, as should be clear from his objection, is: “And indeed, it is

also in the scriptures of old”. According to Mr. Katz, this statement can only

mean that the whole Qur’an is in the previous scriptures. However, it may be

interesting that Mr. Randy Desmond has

already responded to this criticism of Mr. Katz (his response is posted at Mr.

Katz’s page) in the following words:

Simply put, when it says *it* is in the

writings of the earlier prophets, it may be referring to the teachings of the

Qur’an, a reference to the Qur’an, etc.

When we say something is *in* something

else do we mean it is literally and completely in it?

YOU are *in* trouble!”

Now do I mean YOU are somehow

interrelated and a part of the concept trouble? Or do I mean the word

“YOU” is a subset of the word “trouble”? Or is the meaning

of “YOU” the same as “trouble”? Or have I told you *how*

YOU are in trouble? No. Well in a similar manner, the author of the

contradiction should not assume “it is in” means “it is”.

That is assuming one particular understanding of *how* it is in the writings

of earlier prophets. A contradiction is not proven again. All praise is due to

God.

Do we throw out the verse as illogical

(that is what the contradiction’s author proposes) or do we throw out the

author (of the contradiction)’s analysis of the verse as illogical?

Although I do not fully agree with Mr.

Desmond’s explanation, nevertheless, what seems quite interesting to me is what

Mr. Katz wrote in response to it:

… Saying that I am in my room, then

this means I am fully located inside this room, a physical entity. I am either

in it or out. “Trouble” is not a location, it is a

“state”. Being “in trouble” means to face difficult

circumstances. Now, the question is: Are the Torah and the Gospel (physical or

at least clearly defined) entities or are they “states” or

“circumstances”? If we want to ask whether a quotation, a paragraph,

or a chapter is in certain book, then it either is or it is not. This is a

clear cut black and white question. No need to confuse the issue with other

uses of the word “in” [even taken from the English language when

usually the emphasis is that we have to look to the Arabic!!]. The question is

not other possible ways of using the word “in” in English, but what

this Surah means and if it makes sense…

The way I understand Mr. Katz’s response (I

repeat here so that I do not misconstrue his point), he has actually stressed

that in the English language, when we say that something is ‘in’ another, if the

‘another’ is a real (i.e. a physical or a clearly defined) entity then the

sentence can only mean that the ‘something’ (the subject) is fully (and

completely) in the ‘another’. Nevertheless, Mr. Katz does agree that if the

‘another’ is a state or circumstance then, obviously, it is not necessary that

the ‘something’ be fully and completely present in the ‘another’. I hope I have

accurately summed up Mr. Katz’s argument (I would request Mr. Katz to correct me

if that is not the case). In the end Mr. Katz has written: “This is a clear

cut black and white question. No need to confuse the issue with other uses of

the word “in” [even taken from the English language when usually the

emphasis is that we have to look to the Arabic!!].” I would request Mr.

Katz to allow me to give a few examples of of the word ‘in’ [in the English as

well as the Arabic language] so that the matter is fully appreciated by my

non-English [and non-Arabic] mind.

I would request Mr. Katz to take a look at

the following usages of the word ‘in’ [and ‘fi‘ in the Arabic language]

and correct the faulty meanings that I have been ascribing to these usages [with

the hope that I shall be forgiven for it… English, after all, is not my native

language]:

He left his pen in the ink.

I never knew that the

sentence implied the ‘whole pen’, neither did I ever know that ‘ink’

was a state or a circumstance.

A man in the hat.

I never knew that the

sentence implied “A whole man (engulfed) in a hat”, neither

did I ever think that ‘hat’ was a state or a circumstance.

A woman in uniform.

I never knew that the

sentence implied “A whole woman (wrapped from head to toe) in a

uniform”, neither was I ever informed that ‘uniform’ was a state

or a circumstance.

There is a beautiful

cow in the book.

I never knew that the

sentence actually implied “A whole (complete and probably living)

cow (trapped) in the book”, neither did I ever find out that a

‘book’ was a state or a circumstance.

He returned in a

minute.

I never knew that the

sentence actually implied “the man returned completely engulfed

in something called a ‘minute'”, neither was I ever told that a

‘minute’ was a state or a circumstance.

He found Shakespeare

in the Encyclopedia.

I never knew that the

sentence actually implied “He found Shakespeare — in flesh and

blood — in the Encyclopedia”, neither was I ever told that an

‘encyclopedia’ was a state or a circumstance.

Can you find Mecca

in/on the map?

This sentence

according to the rule expounded by Mr. Katz should imply that the

whole of Mecca, in its physical form, should lie on the map, as

obviously, a ‘map’ is not a state or a circumstance.

He found the

complete project in the files.

This sentence

according to the rule expounded by Mr. Katz should imply that the

whole project in its physical form, should lie in the files, as

obviously, ‘files’ is not a state or a circumstance.

These examples can go on forever (Sitting

in a chair; leave the key in the lock; A cigarette in his mouth; A knife in his

hand). But, obviously, they would only prove my ignorance of the English

language, which should already be well established in view of my ignorance of

such a basic rule of the language expounded by Mr. Katz. I guess the only way to

save myself from severe criticism is to confess that in ‘our’ Asian English, the

rule expounded by Mr. Katz doesn’t hold good. Does it hold good in the American

English is for Mr. Katz to decide for himself.

It should be quite clear that the rule

expounded by Mr. Katz is absolutely baseless and does not hold good for either

the English or the Arabic language.

When the Qur’an says that “it is

[also] in the scriptures of old”, the meaning is quite close to that which

we imply by saying “Shakespeare in the Encyclopedia”, “complete

project in the files”, “Mecca in the map” and “beautiful cow

in the book”. In each of these sentences, an explanatory word which is

quite obvious for someone with a basic sense of the working of a language has

been suppressed. If the suppressed word is expressed, the sentences would then

read as:

• There is ‘a picture (or ‘depiction’) of’

  a beautiful cow in the book.

• Can you find ‘reference to’ (or ‘mention

  of’) Mecca on/in the map?

• He found the ‘details of’ (or

  ‘specifications of’) the complete project in the files.

• He found ‘the mention of’ (or ‘reference

  to’ or ‘information on’) Shakespeare in the Encyclopedia.

Based on the same principles, when the

Qur’an says: “It [i.e. the Qur’an] is in the scriptures of old”, it

simply means ‘it is ‘referred to’ (or ‘mentioned in’, or ‘foretold in’) the

scriptures of old.

It may be mentioned here that this

interpretation of the verse is not something new. Most of the interpreters of

the Qur’an (including Al-Zamakhshuriy, Al-Raaziy, Al-Qurtabiy,

Ibn Katheer, Abu Hayyaan, Al-Qummiy, Al-Buroosuwiy, Al-Maraaghiy

and Al-Tabrasiy) have explained the referred verse to imply the same

meaning as is given in the foregoing paragraph. It is quite strange that Mr.

Katz has not only ignored this explanation of the verse, without giving any

reason for doing so, but has also interpreted the verse to imply something

absolutely unknown to the interpreters of the Qur’an. In this case, what

actually entails a logical fallacy is, obviously, not the Qur’an, but Mr. Katz’s

interpretation of the cited verses.

I am sure that Mr. Katz’s next question

would be “Where have the scriptures of old mentioned the Qur’an”, I am

also greatly tempted to write on the subject. However, the scope of this article

was only to explain the cited verses of the Qur’an. The mentioned question shall

be answered, in time.

© Copyright June 2000. All Rights Reserved with the Author