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:
قُلْ مَن كَانَ عَدُوًّا لِّجِبْرِيلَ فَإِنَّهُ نَزَّلَهُ عَلَىٰ قَلْبِكَ بِإِذْنِ اللَّـهِ مُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ وَهُدًى وَبُشْرَىٰ لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ
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:
وَإِذَا بَدَّلْنَا آيَةً مَّكَانَ آيَةٍ ۙ وَاللَّـهُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا يُنَزِّلُ قَالُوا إِنَّمَا أَنتَ مُفْتَرٍ ۚ بَلْ أَكْثَرُهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ ﴿١٠١﴾ قُلْ نَزَّلَهُ رُوحُ الْقُدُسِ مِن رَّبِّكَ بِالْحَقِّ لِيُثَبِّتَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَهُدًى وَبُشْرَىٰ لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ ﴿١٠٢﴾ وَلَقَدْ نَعْلَمُ أَنَّهُمْ يَقُولُونَ إِنَّمَا يُعَلِّمُهُ بَشَرٌ ۗ لِّسَانُ الَّذِي يُلْحِدُونَ إِلَيْهِ أَعْجَمِيٌّ وَهَـٰذَا لِسَانٌ عَرَبِيٌّ مُّبِينٌ ﴿١٠٣﴾
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 stressed1. 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:
- The Qur’an had given two different (contradicting) names of the angel, who revealed the Qur’an to Mohammed (pbuh); or
- 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 Gabriel2.
“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:
-
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);
-
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
-
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 that3 which I have revealed, which confirms that which lies with you4“, 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 writes5 ):
“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 language8. 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
- For further explanation, please refer to Zamakhshuri‘s explanation of the related verse, in his commentary ‘Al-Kashaaf‘, Al-Raazi‘s explanation of Al-Baqarah 2: 87, in his commentary Al-Tafseer al-Kabeer‘ etc… [↩]
- It may be of interest to note here that even in the Greek version, the word used in this verse is “aletheia“, whereas the word used for “Holy Spirit” is “haglos“. The word “Holy Spirit” has been used at a number of places in the New Testament. Even in John, the word can be seen at: 1: 33, 7: 39, 14: 26, 17: 11 and 20: 22 and at each of these instances, it is the translation of the word “haglos“. However, it may be contended here that the word used in John 14: 17, although is not “haglos“, but it does imply “haglos“, as is mentioned in John 14: 26. Nevertheless, this contention, could only be made by making the same ‘presumption’, which Muslim scholars have made in explaining the issue under consideration. [↩]
- i.e. the Qur’an. [↩]
- i.e. the Torah. [↩]
- This is also one of the points stipulated in the Encyclopedia Britannica. The Encyclopedia writes:
It is often emphasized that Muhammad brought to his people “an Arabic Qur`an”; i.e., a book or set of recitations in the Arabs’ own language comparable to those of Judaism and Christianity. Also the vocabulary of the Qur`an is overwhelmingly of Arabic origin, but there are, nevertheless, borrowed words, mostly from Hebrew and Syriac, bearing witness to Muhammad’s debt to Judaism and Christianity. These loan words are primarily technical terms such as injil, “gospel” (Greek evangelion); taurat, “the law, or Torah” of Judaism; Iblis, “the Devil” (Greek diabolos); or translations or adaptations of theological terms such as amana, “to believe” (Hebrew or Aramaic); salat, “prayer” (probably Syriac). Such explanations are usually regarded with suspicion by Muslims, since orthodox doctrine holds that the language of the Qur`an is the purest Arabic. (Note on “The Qur’an” [↩]
- Although, as we shall see later, it is a fact, even if it is not mentioned in the verse under consideration, that Qur’an is undoubtedly in pure Arabic. [↩]
- It may be noted that when words or phrases are adopted in another language, their pronunciation may be altered to suit the style and the convenience of the speakers of the borrowing language. For instance, ‘democracy’, ‘biology’ etc. have been slightly changed from their original pronunciations. [↩]
- The same is the case with the word ‘Tawraat‘ (Torah) in the Arabic language. The word does not imply ‘law’ in the Arabic language. It is used merely as a title for the book revealed to Moses (pbuh). [↩]