The Three Contradictions in Al-Baqarah 2: 97 and Al-Nahl 16: 101 – 103

The Three Contradictions in Al-Baqarah
2: 97 and Al-Nahl 16: 101 – 103

A Response to a
Criticism on the Qur’an

by

The
Learner

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

Home
Page

Use this
“Home Page” link only if you have opened this page by following an
external link