Chapter Eleven
The
Contradictions of the Qur’an
Christian orientalist researchers allude
to dozens of Qur’anic contradictions. They indicate that there
are many contradictory verses in the Qur’an. Maybe they are
right. Yet, here we are going to examine only a few of these
contradictions mentioned by these orientalists, mainly because
we would like to quote Muslim scholars, as we agreed upon at the
beginning of the book. It is sufficient that these Muslim
scholars acknowledge the existence of these contradictions even
though they attempted to justify them. Their justifications
proved to be feeble, as the reader will soon discover Also, they
completely ignored some other contradictions.
However, concerning the contradictions to
which they produced some sensible justifications, we will accept
what they offer since we are bound to recognize their
interpretations of the Qur’an. Still, we believe that the
refutations of the Orientalist researchers are more convincing
in many cases. Never-the-less, we will continue to employ the
same strategy we have been applying since the beginning of this
study. We will cite Muslim scholars and refer the reader to
their views.
The First
Contradiction
In several verses the Qur’an indicates
that it was revealed in the Arabic tongue; that is, in the
Arabic language (refer to 14:4; 29:192-195; 13:37; 42 7; 39:28,
and 43:3). Yet, in at least two plain verses, the Qur’an
commands the deletion of any dialect other than the Arabic
language in the Qur’anic text (16:103; 41:44). In his book, "The
Itqan" (part 2, p. 105), the Suyuti tells us that many scholars
(among them the Shafi’i, ibn Jarir al-Tabari) Their claim is
based on these verses. In his book, "al-Risala", edited by Ahmad
Shakir (p. 41), the Shafi’i says,
"It is said, ‘What is the proof that
the Book of God is in the Arabic language without being
mixed with any (foreign words)?’ The proof is the Book of
God itself."
Then the Shafi’i quoted the above
mentioned verses (16:103 and 41:44). The Shafi’i want to defend
these verses but he is not able to ignore the facts which all
Muslim scholars verify along with the companions and the legists
such as ibn ’Abbas, Mujahid, ibn Jubayr, ’Akrama, and ’Ata. Also
included in this group is the Suyuti as well as other scholars
like Dr. Muhammad Rajab who expressed his views in "Solidarity"
(al-Tadamun) magazine (April, 1989 issue). In his book, "The
Itqan" (part 2, pp. 108-119), the Suyuti lists 118 non-Arabic
words recorded in the Qur’an. Ibn ’Abbas, himself (along with
other great Companions) asserts that some Qur’anic words are
Persian, Ethiopian and Nabatean (p. 105). Dr. Bayyumi also
confirms the Suyuti’s opinions and views. Faced with these
contradictions what does the Suyuti say to justify them? He says
in p. 106,
"The existence of a few non-Arabic
words does not make the Qur’an non-Arabic as the verses
indicate."
And we say to Suyuti: "We know that the
Qur’an is an Arabic book, but the Qur’an denies that it
contains non-Arabic words (refer to verses 16:103; 41:44). It is
obvious that this is a contradiction, especially since there are
about 118 non-Arabic words—not just five or ten words. The
simple explanation for this contradiction is that Muhammad
himself did not know that the origin of the words he employed in
the Qur’an were non-Arabic. He was not aware that some of them
were Persian, Ethiopian, Berber, Turkish and Nabatean; thus, he
claimed that the entire Qur’an was revealed in pure Arabic
language!
The Second
Contradiction
In part 3, p. 83 of "The Itqan", the
Suyuti designated many pages under the title, "What is Mistaken
For a Contradiction in the Qur’an." He remarks that there is
something in the Qur’an to which ibn ’Abbas stopped short of
giving any answer. A man told him that one verse in the Qur’an
mentions that the length of the day of resurrection is one
thousand years and another verse says it is 50 thousand years
(al-Sayda: 5 and al-Ma’arij: 4). Ibn ’Abbas said, "These are two
days which God—may He be exalted—has mentioned in His book, and
God knows best." This is an honest acknowledgment by ibn ’Abbas
without any attempt of justification.
When ibn Musayyib, one of the great
companions, was asked about these two days and why they
contradict each other, he said,
"Ibn ’Abbas avoided talking about them
and he is more knowledgeable than me." Yet we find some
contemporary scholars who endeavor to justify this
contradiction and claim that they are more knowledgeable
than ibn ’Abbas! !
The Third
Contradiction
In the same part (p. 79), the Suyuti says
that the Qur’an states in chapter 6:22-23 that in the day of
judgment, infidels attempt to conceal some thing from God while
in chapter 4:42 the Qur’an contradicts that and indicates that
they do not conceal anything from God. The Suyuti tries to
justify this contradiction by saying that ibn ’Abbas was asked
about it and he answered that they conceal it by their tongues
but their hands and their limbs admit it. Yet the question is
still without answer because if their hands admit it in spite of
themselves, it should not be said that they did not conceal any
fact from God because they did try to hide, but their hands gave
it away, as ibn ’Abbas says.
The Fourth
Contradiction
In chapter, "al Waqiha," the Qur’an talks
about those who are destined to enter paradise. It states in
verses 13 and 14 that the majority will be from the nations who
came before Muhammad and the minority will be from peoples who
believed in Muhammad. But in the same chapter (verses 39 and
40), it is said that the majority will be from those people who
came before and after Muhammad also. This is a contradiction in
the same chapter. Verse 14 says, "... a few of those of later
time", but in verse 40, the Qur’an says just the opposite,
"... a multitude of those of later time."
I have tried to limit this discussion by
quoting the interpretations of these verses by Muslim scholars,
but they never presented any clear cut justification for this
obvious contradiction (refer to the commentary of the Baydawi,
p. 710; Zamakh-Shari in his Kash-Shaf, part 4, p. 458; and the
Jalalan, p. 453). All of them just say that "... the formers are
the nations from Adam to Muhammad and the latters are the people
of Muhammad." Thus, one time the Qur’an remarks, "A minority
from others," then it says "a majority or multitude from
others." This is an obvious contradiction observed by many and
no one has found any refutation against it among Muslim
scholars.
The Fifth
Contradiction
Pertaining to marriages, it is clear that
the Qur’an calls for the possibility of marrying four women at
the same time. In Chapter 4:3,
"But if ye fear that you shall not
treat them fairly, then only one."
But in Chapter 4:129, we read,
"You will not be able to deal
equally between your wives however much you wish to do
so."
In his book, "The Itqan", the Suyuti says,
"In the first verse we understand that
fairness is possible while in the second, we perceive that
fairness is not possible" (Itqan, part 3, page 85).
Actually, from the Qur’anic point of view
as well as according to Muhammad and the rest of the Muslims,
"fairness is possible" to be practiced by the evidence that they
got (and still get) married to four women. Even Muhammad’s
companions and his successors did so. Therefore, "fairness"
seemed to be possible for them because it is not reasonable
that all of them, including ’Umar, ’Ali, ’Uthman and Muhammad
violated the Qur’anic teaching.
Then why does the Qur’an say in chapter
4:129 that "fairness" is not possible? This is an obvious
contradiction which Muslim scholars, among them the Suyuti,
realized and comprehended. In order to solve the problem, the
Suyuti argued,
"The first verse (meant) fairness in
regard to fulfilling the pledges while the second verse is
related to the heart’s inclination and it is not within the
ability of a man to be fair in this matter."
The Jalalan (page 82) and Baydawi (page
130) agree with him. The Baydawi reiterates the same statement
and adds,
"Muhammad himself was fair with his
women in the matter of human rights, but in the inclination
of the heart, he used to say to God, ‘Forgive me in regard
to that over which I have no control.’"
Because Muhammad, according to all the
scholars, favored A’isha over the rest and he did not harbor any
inclination toward Sawda bint Zamea. The Zamakh-shari asserts
Muhammad’s favoritism for A’isha and states that some people
have interpreted the second verse to mean that you cannot be
fair in love. Sheik Kashkak indicates in his book of "Opinions"
(part 5, page 52), that some favoritism is permissible! Yet, the
Zamakh-shari gives another significant opinion when he
explicitly says in the Kash-shaf (part 1, pages 568 and 69),
"God has relieved you of
(implementing) complete fairness to that which you are able
to carry out because it is obligatory to treat the women
equally in dividing their portions, expenses and pledges and
many other things hardly uncountable. It is something which
is beyond (human) ability even if they all were beloved. How
would the situation be if the heart inclined toward but some
of them!"
Then the Zamakh-shari indicated, "The
second verse which indicated that you will not be able to be
fair" could mean "to be fair in love" as in what happened to
Muhammad and A’isha. Yet, we understand from Zamakh-Shari’s
statement that "fairness" is not possible in division of
portions, financial support, and pledges even if they were all
beloved. How much harder it would be if the man’s heart was
inclined to some of them more than others. He said what is
really required is to abstain from being fully inclined toward
one woman which would be conducive to neglecting the rest of
them. Zamakh-Shari’s interpretation here is fully in congruence
with the remainder of the verse.
Muslim scholars cited Muhammad as an
example, and the issue became more complicated, for what would
happen to the poor wife if her husband devoted his love to
another wife? She cannot object because, based on the Qur’anic
text and by the example set by Muhammad, her husband is innocent
of any wrongdoing. The Qur’an asserts that you cannot, from an
emotional point-of-view, treat women justly, and Muhammad
himself has rejected the request of his daughter, Fatima, to
treat all his wives alike and not to bestow on A’isha, his
favorite spouse, more than the rest of them. He expressed his
favoritism publicly several times. He planned to divorce Sauda
(one of his other wives). Some said he already did then he
reinstated her when she agreed to relinquish her night for
A’isha. What a pity for the Muslim women!
Western orientalists also say that the
Qur’an contradicts itself when it alludes to the creation of
earth and heaven by saying on the one hand that heaven was
created after the earth (many verses) then on the other hand, in
one verse, it says the earth was created after the heavens. We
have not used this but have attempted and continue to attempt to
quote only the Muslim scholars such as Suyuti, Baydawi, Jalalan,
and Zamakh-Shari, who endeavor to explain these verses to negate
any contradiction against the proper usage of the language, such
as by saying the word ‘after’ means ‘before’. Or, as we read in
Sura 90:1, they said that God does not swear in the sacred land
(that is, Mecca), then in Sura 95:3 we see Him swearing in Mecca
the sacred land. The contradiction between these two verses is
evident, yet the Suyuti (along with other scholars) denied that
there is any contradiction because the word ‘no’ in Chapter 90
is redundant. It is not intended to negate but to affirm!! The
Suyuti mentioned this issue among many others, under the title,
"What Was Mistaken to be Contradiction." He summarizes the
opinions of the scholars in response to this criticism by
saying:
"The people did not reject what you
rejected because the Arabs may use ‘not’ in the context of
their conversation and abolish its meaning."
|