The Three Contradictions in Al-Baqarah 2: 97 & Al-Nah’l 16: 101 – 103

In one

of his articles, Mr. Jochen Katz has pointed out not just one but three

contradictions in two sets of verses of the Qur’an. Al-Baqarah 2: 97

reads as:

Say (O Prophet):

‘Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel — as it is he who revealed it (the Qur’an) on

your heart according to God’s directions, confirming the previous scriptures,

a guidance and glad tidings for those who believe….’.

While Al-Nahl 16:

101 – 103 reads as:

When We change one

verse for another — and God is fully aware of what He reveals — they say:

‘You are an imposter’. Indeed most of them know not. Say: ‘The Holy Spirit

brought it down from your Lord in truth to reassure the faithful, a guidance

and a glad tiding for those that submit’.  Indeed We know that they say:

‘A mortal has taught him’. But he to whom they falsely ascribe it is a

non-Arab (an `ajamiy), while this is eloquent Arabic speech.

The three contradictions

pointed out by Mr. Katz in his brief article are:

1. In 2: 97, the Qur’an

   says that the revelations are brought to Muhammad (pbuh) by the angel

   Gabriel, while in 16: 102, the Qur’an says that the Holy Spirit brings these

   revelations to Muhammad.

2. In 2: 97, the Qur’an

   says that the revelations to Muhammad (pbuh) confirm the previous

   scriptures, while in 16: 101, the Qur’an says that the new revelations

   substitute the previous revelations.

3. In 16: 103, the Qur’an

   says that it is in pure Arabic language, while anyone can see that there are

   a number of non-Arabic words in the Qur’an.

In the following article,

we shall present an analysis of the contents of the referred verses, with

reference to the contradictions pointed out by Mr. Katz.

‘Gabriel’ And

‘The Holy Spirit’

The Qur’an while

mentioning the source of the revelation to the Prophet (pbuh) has mentioned the

name of one angel — Gabriel — and has also referred to that source through

attributive words like ‘Ru’h al-Qudus‘ (i.e. ‘The Holy Spirit’ as in Al-Nahl

16: 102), ‘Rasu’lun Kareem‘ (i.e. ‘An Honorable Messenger’ as in Al-Takweer

81: 19), and ‘Al-Ru’h al-Ameen‘ (i.e. The Trustworthy Spirit’ as in Al-Shu`araa

26: 193). Muslims have generally interpreted these attributive words to denote

the angel called Gabriel in Al-Nahl 16: 102. The reason for this

interpretation is quite simple (and, in my opinion, not even too presumptuous).

The Muslim commentators, on the basis of the fact that there is nothing

incorrect in interpreting all the attributive phrases to be the attributes of

the angel that revealed the Qur’an to the Prophet (pbuh), are of the opinion

that all the attributive nouns refer to the same angel, who has been called ‘Gabriel’ by the Qur’an. It is the very angel Gabriel, who, at other

places has been called the ‘Ru’h al-Qudus‘, ‘Rasu’lun Kareem‘

and ‘Ru’h al-Ameen‘. Interestingly, Mr. Katz has also mentioned

this interpretation of the Muslim commentators. He writes:

BECAUSE of these two

verses Muslims usually identify the Holy Spirit with Gabriel and say that this

is just another name for Gabriel. However, in another context they completely

forget that they have made this identification already and they ALSO want

Muhammad to be the Holy Spirit and comforter who promised by Jesus in John

14-16 in order to desperately find somewhere the prophecy of Muhammad claimed

in Surah 61:6. But obviously the Holy Spirit cannot be both, Gabriel and

Muhammad.

It should, however,

remain clear that the phrase ‘Holy Spirit’ is not another name for Gabriel,

as Mr. Katz has interpreted but an attributive phrase in which a major quality

of Gabriel has been stressed[1].

In other words, the combined effect of both the verses under consideration is

that, according to the Qur’an, the name of the angel who delivered God’s

revelation to Muhammad (pbuh) was Gabriel, who is qualitatively or attributively

introduced by the Qur’an as ‘The Holy Spirit‘. This, combined

effect, as anyone can see, is not contradictory. It can only amount to a

contradiction if:

1. The Qur’an had given

   two different (contradicting) names of the angel, who revealed the Qur’an

   to Mohammed (pbuh); or

2. There is a sound basis

   to believe that anyone by the name of ‘Gabriel’ could not be the ‘Holy

   Spirit’.

It should, however,

remain clear that such an attributive phrase (as ‘Holy Spirit’ etc.) does

not necessarily mean that ONLY the person being so attributed is holy,

or, in other words, that holiness is restricted to the person so attributed. We

all know that the same attributive phrase, can, in a different context, imply a

different personality. Thus, in John 14: 16, if the context had so required, the

same phrase could have been used for a different personality. However, it might

be of interest to note that John 14: 16 does not entail the phrase ‘Holy

Spirit’. The King James Version translates the verse as:

And I will pray the

Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you

forever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive… (John 14:

16 — 17)

The New Revised Standard

Version translates the verse as:

And I will ask the

Father and He will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever. This is

the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive… (John 14: 16 — 17)

The New English Version

translates the verse thus:

And I will ask the

Father, and he will give you another Counsellor to be with you forever– the

Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him… (John 14: 16 — 17)

Thus, it is actually not

the phrase ‘Holy Spirit’, but ‘the Spirit of the Truth’ that the Muslims

have interpreted as a reference to the Prophet (pbuh). The phrase, ‘Holy

Spirit’ has, generally been interpreted by the Muslims as a reference to the

archangel Gabriel[2].

 

“Confirmation”

and “Substitution”

Mr. Katz contends that

the Qur’an cannot confirm as well as substitute the previous scriptures at the

same time. The reason for this contention is that Mr. Katz has taken the word ‘confirm’ to imply

‘to approve, to sanction or to endorse’. The word,

however, is also used to mean: ‘to verify, to prove and to certify’. Mr.

Katz is correct in contending that the Qur’an cannot “confirm”

(i.e. approve/sanction/endorse) the old scriptures as well as substitute or

abrogate them. However, I am sure all would agree that there would be no

contradiction in saying that ‘even though the Christians “confirm”

(i.e. verify/certify) circumcision to be a part of divine law, yet consider the

obligatory nature of this law to be abrogated.’ In the same way, there is

obviously no contradiction in the statement that “the Qur’an, on the one

hand “confirms” the divine origin of the previous scriptures, and on

the other, substitutes its laws with the new laws”.

Although

the above explanation should suffice in resolving the contradiction pointed out

by Mr. Katz, nevertheless, for a better understanding of the contents and the

style of the Qur’an, it may be of interest to note that the phrase ‘confirming the previous scriptures’ (Arabic:

“Musaddiqan limaa bayna

yadaihe“) has generally been used in the Qur’an as an evidence for the

prophethood of Mohammed (pbuh), presented to the people of the book. However, it

is obvious that merely the fact that the Qur’an confirms the divine origin of

the previous scriptures is not a sufficient evidence of the prophethood of

Mohammed (pbuh). In view of this fact, we are faced with the question that what

exactly is the nature of the evidence for the prophethood of Mohammed (pbuh),

given in the words: “confirming the previous scriptures”? Some of the

commentators of the Qur’an have given an answer to this question. However, to

fully understand the answer given by these commentators, it is important to note

that the Qur’an has given three different kinds of evidences to prove the

prophethood of Mohammad (pbuh) to its three different categories of addressees:

1. The

   quality of the language and the content of the Qur’an are presented as an

   evidence for the Quraish and the other local Arab groups of the time

   of the Prophet (pbuh);

2. The

   Qur’an being void of all human deficiencies — like development and

   evolution in thought as well as in the presentation of that thought — is

   presented as a general evidence of the Divine origin of the Qur’an; and

3. Finally,

   for the Jews and the Christians of the time of the Prophet (pbuh) the

   Qur’an has evidenced the prophethood and the Divine origin of the Qur’an

   on the basis of the fact that the Prophet (pbuh) is a clear manifestation of

   the prophecies and predictions of the Bible regarding the final prophet.

Thus,

the Qur’an has admonished the Jews and the Christians, of the time of the

Prophet (pbuh), of the fact that because the Prophet (pbuh) has come according

to the prophecies and predictions of their own books therefore, rejecting the

Prophet (pbuh), under these circumstances, would imply rejecting their own

books.

It

is in this background that these commentators have interpreted the verses

entailing the referred phrase. For instance, Al-Raazi, in his commentary “Al-Tafseer

al-Kabeer“, while explaining the referred phrase in Al-Baqarah

2: 41, writes:

There

are prophecies regarding the Mohammed (pbuh) as well as the Qur’an in the Torah

and the Gospel. Thus, belief in [the prophethood of] Mohammed (pbuh)

and in the Qur’an, in effect, confirms belief in the Torah and the Gospel….

Ibn

Katheer, in his commentary “Tafseer Ibn Katheer“, explaining the

referred phrase, in Al-Baqarah 2: 41 writes:

Abu

Al-`aaliyah has said that in the phrase “believe in that[3]

which I have revealed, which confirms that which lies with you[4]“,

God says: ‘O People of the Book, believe in that which I have revealed now,

which confirms that which existed with you’, [the Qur’an confirms the

Torah and the Gospel] because of the prophecies regarding Mohammed (pbuh),

which they [i.e. the people of the book] found written in the Torah and the

Gospel. The same opinion is also ascribed to Mujahid, Al-Rabiy`

and Qatadah.

Thus,

if seen in the correct perspective, the phrase actually implies that because the

Torah and the Gospel entailed prophecies of the coming of the Prophet (pbuh) and

the revelation of the Qur’an, the Prophet (pbuh) and the Qur’an have, in

effect, “confirmed” these prophecies of the Torah and the Gospel. It

is obvious that the word “confirmation”, in this connotation is by no means

contradictory to “substitution” or “abrogation”.

“`Arabiyyun

Mubeen” and the Use of Foreign Words

The third contradiction,

in the referred verses, which is pointed out by Mr. Katz is that in Al-Nahl

16: 103, the Qur’an has emphatically stated that it is in the pure Arabic

language, whereas anyone can see that there are a number of foreign words in the

Qur’an. In this context, Mr. Katz has given some examples as well. He writes[5]:

“Pharoah”

comes from the Egyptian language and means king or potentate. The word for

“king” in Arabic is different.

“Injil“,

which means “gospel” = “good news”, comes from the Greek

language. The correct word in Arabic is “bisharah“.

In my opinion, the above

contention is primarily due to a lack of correct understanding of the phrase “Lisaanohu

`Arabiyun Mubeen” as well as a poor appreciation of developments in

languages.

As far as the phrase ‘Arabiyun

Mubeen‘ is concerned, it should more accurately be translated as: ‘Clear

Arabic’, rather than ‘Pure Arabic’[6].

Mr. Katz has already received this response. In response to Mr. Katz’s

article, someone wrote

to him:

About Qur’an being in

“pure” Arabic. Yet another misunderstanding of quran caused by

looking a “translated” copy rather than arabic! the word “mobeen”

means clear with explanation, understandable, NOT pure (in the way you

percieve).

In response to this, Mr.

Katz wrote:

Let us look at the

context and not just at one word. Isn’t the point verse 103 makes exactly that

it cannot originate from this person charged to be behind the forgery, because

this person is a foreigner, not speaking pure Arabic, while the Qur’an is pure

Arabic? If this means not “pure” then the whole point this verse is

trying to make falls to the ground. There is no reason why a foreigner cannot

explain and speak “clearly” and “understandably”. The

contrast is “that this foreigner who doesn’t speak pure Arabic” and

the “purity of the language of the Qur’an”. And exactly this is what

Yusuf Ali says in his footnote 2143…

The major point

highlighted in Mr. Katz’s response cited above is that the context of the

verse requires that the verse be referring to the quality of language, rather

than the quality or the clarity of ideas. Therefore, the verse should be taken

to imply ‘purity of language’, rather than mere ‘clarity’ of ideas.

It is indeed true that

the context of the verse clearly requires that the implication be one of clarity

(or purity) of language, rather than that of ideas. Nevertheless, the point that

needs to be understood is that the referred verse, in response to the allegation

of the rejecters that the Qur’an is forged by a non-Arab, has stated that the

clarity of its Arabic is an evidence that it cannot be forged by a non-Arab.

I am sure that Mr. Katz

would agree that it is not the lack of words borrowed from other languages that

makes good and pure literature, but the clarity and the purity of the dialect.

In fact, words of foreign-origin, when adopted by the literati of a language,

become a part of that language.  The

Qur’an, in the referred verse has indeed stressed the clarity and the purity

of the dialect to refute the allegation of the rejecters that a non-Arab has

forged the Qur’an. Nevertheless, the fact that some of the words of the

Qur’an are of a foreign-origin does not refute the purity of the Qur’anic

Arabic, unless it is proven that such words had not already been adopted by the

Arabs in there speech and/or literature.

Obviously, the clarity

and the style of the language of “Julius Caesar” is a clear evidence of the

fact that its writer has a classical English background. The mere fact that ‘Caesar’ is a word of Roman (?) origin does not make Shakespeare any less an

English writer. In fact, if any one criticizes Shakespeare for not using ’emperor’ or

‘ruler’ (or any other pure English synonym for ‘Caesar’) in place of ‘Caesar’, to make it pure English, such a person

not only has no sense of literature but is not even aware of the fact that the

word ‘Caesar’ was used in the English language not merely to imply ‘ruler’ or ’emperor’, but as a title for the Roman emperors.

Exactly in the same

manner, any one who thinks that the Qur’an has used any foreign words actually

is mistaken by the fact that some of the words in the Qur’an have a

foreign-origin. Nevertheless, the Qur’an has used only such foreign-origin

words, which had not only been introduced in the Arabic language but were also

commonly used by the Arabs. Thus, it should be kept in mind that it is not the

origin of words used by a literature, that effects the purity or otherwise of

that literature. On the contrary, it is whether such words of foreign-origin

have been adopted in the language or not. If such words have generally been

adopted as a part of the language, usage of such words would not affect the

purity of the language or the dialect. For instance, when I say:

• Democracy is a good

  system of government

• I hate Biology.

• Islam does not support

  slavery.

• The Qur’an is a book

  of God.

No one, in his right

senses should criticize these sentences to be less than pure English. Even

though the words: ‘democracy’, ‘system’, ‘biology’, ‘Islam’, and ‘Qur’an’ are all words of a foreign-origin, yet because of the fact that

they have been adopted in the English language, their usage, now, does not

affect the purity of the language.

Keeping the above

explanation in perspective, it should be clear that usage of all such words,

even if they are of a foreign-origin, that had already been adopted by the Arabs

do not affect the purity of the Qur’anic Arabic. In fact, not using such words

when the context and the content so requires would not only be against eloquence

but would reduce the purity and the clarity of the dialect. For instance,

substituting ‘pure’ English synonyms for the words ‘democracy’, ‘system’, ‘biology’,

‘Islam’, and ‘Qur’an’ (or Koran) in the

sentences above, shall not only ruin the structure of these sentences but would

also, in most cases, alter the connotation of these sentences.

The word ‘Injil[7]‘

is a ta`reeb (an Arabization) of the Greek word “yoo-ang-ghel-id’-z”

or “yoo-ang-ghel’-ee-on” which in the Greek language means ‘Good

news’. In the Arabic language, however, Injil does not mean ‘good

news’. In fact, in the Arabic language, ‘Injil‘ does not have any

meaning at all. The word is used merely as an Arabic title (or name) for the

book that was revealed on Jesus (pbuh). Had the Qur’an used the word ‘Basharah‘

(the Arabic word for ‘Good News’) in place of ‘Injil‘, no one

would have understood it to imply the book revealed on Jesus (pbuh), as that

book was (and is) not called the ‘Basharah‘ in the Arabic language[8].

The same is the case with “Fir`awn” (Pharaoh). The word is not used

in the Arabic language to imply ‘a king’. On the contrary, it is used as a

title for the Egyptian rulers. All such words like ‘Injil‘, ‘Tawraat‘,

‘Fir`awn‘ etc. are adopted and used in the Arabic language, exactly

in the same way as the words ‘Islam‘, ‘Qur’an‘, ‘Jihad‘

etc are used in the English language. Translating such words or replacing them

with synonyms of the English language is likely to create more confusion than

purity of language.

It should be interesting

to note that if the Qur’an were to replace all nouns of foreign-origin with

their meanings (in their original language), it would then have been more a book

of riddles than guidance to mankind. Consider the following statement:

After God will hear,

Father of the multitude was blessed with laughter. Let him add and heel

catcher are of the family of Father of the multitude from the seed of

laughter. (ooops!!!)

Don’t laugh. This

ain’t a joke. It is only a completely translated version of:

After Ishmael, Abraham

was blessed with Isaac. Joseph and Jacob are of the family of Abraham from the

seed of Isaac.

Translating or replacing

words like ‘Injil‘, ‘Tawraat‘, ‘Fir`awn‘ etc.

with their ‘pure’ Arabic synonyms would have had an effect no different from

the one demonstrated above.

In view of the preceding

discussion, to establish his contention that the Qur’an has used non-Arabic

words, Mr. Katz needs to establish that such foreign words had not already been

adopted and used in the Arabic language. The mere presence of words of

foreign-origin, if these words had already been adopted and were generally used

by the Arabs, do not, in any way, adulterate the purity of the Qur’anic

Arabic.

© Copyright May 2000. All Rights Reserved with the Author