A Plain Error and Contradiction in the Qur'an - By Jochen Katz

8/6/2019 A Plain Error and Contradiction in the Qur'an - By Jochen Katz

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-plain-error-and-contradiction-in-the-quran-by-jochen-katz 1/29

A Plain Error and Contradiction in the Qur'an:

Who suffers loss if Muhammad was wrong?

In Sura 34:50, Muhammad is commanded to say the following:

Say: µIf I go astray, I go astray only to my own loss ; if I am guided, it is by what my Lordreveals to me. He is All-hearing, Ever-nigh.¶ Arberry

Say: " If (even) I go astray, I shall stray only to my own loss . But if I remain guided, it is because of the Inspiration of my Lord to me. Truly, He is AllHearer, Ever Near (to allthings)." Hilali & Khan

The error in this verse should be obvious to anyone pondering this statement for a little bit.The issue here is not whether, objectively, Muhammad went astray or was guided; Muslimsand non-Muslims will continue to disagree about that. This verse is logically wrong ,independent of whether Muhammad was guided or not.

T he Error

Who suffered and still suffers loss if Muhammad was wrong?

The first point is somewhat trivial. Muslims are commanded in the Qur'an to takeMuhammad as their model, and therefore many Muslims imitate him in the smallest details of life. They dress like Muhammad, they use a miswak to brush their teeth like Muhammad did,etc. If Muhammad was wrong, then this would mean a life of unnecessary inconvenience for millions of Muslims.

There are, however, a lot of not so trivial aspects. If Muhammad's message and regulationswere wrong, he has subjected millions of Muslim women to a life of misery (see the variousarticles on Women in Islam ) without any reward in return! Moreover, not only those whofollowed Muhammad have lost, but millions of the so-called "unbelievers" have suffered

because Muslims have either killed them for their lack of faith, or forced Muhammad'sregulations on them and subjected them to live as second-class citizens (see the section on

Non-Muslims under Islamic Rule ).

Ironically, these people have suffered loss even if Muhammad had been a true prophet.Whether Muhammad was astray or guided, many lives have been destroyed by Muslimattacks on unbelievers, so that this statement is not only logically false, but false also in

factual history.

Putting aside all the atrocities and suffering in this earthly life that resulted fromMuhammad's teachings, the intention of this verse was certainly to make a statement aboutthe loss suffered in eternity, i.e. whether people will be punished or rewarded in the LastJudgement based on their acceptance or rejection of God's message.

Under the assumption that Muhammad was a true messenger, those who were killed asunbelievers because they did not accept his message on the spot have lost not only their lives

but also the opportunity to become convinced by the truth of Islam by having the time tostudy the message of Islam in-depth. [Had Islam restricted its method of expansion to



peaceful proclamation and intellectual persuasion instead of using (also and much tooquickly) violence and force, the situation would be vastly different.] As it is, these peoplehave lost their lives on earth, and they will suffer eternal punishment because they died inrejection of God's message. Thus, many unbelievers will suffer eternal loss even if Muhammad was right. Though Muslims may argue that in the quranic view this may be

justified, it is unquestionable that they did suffer temporal and eternal loss due to the violent

nature of Islam.

If, on the other hand, the Bible is true and Muhammad was a false prophet then the number of those who suffer eternal loss increases vastly: (1) The unbelievers (idolaters, atheists, ...) whowere killed for rightly rejecting Islam still lost their opportunity to hear, understand andaccept the true message of God. (2) Millions and millions of Muslims who have rejected theauthentic Gospel of Jesus based on Muhammad's message will be lost forever because theyrejected the salvation from sin offered by God through Jesus' death on the Cross.

Thus, an enormous number of people will suffer both earthly and eternal loss if Muhammadwas wrong, in stark contradiction to Sura 34:50.

After pondering these facts there can hardly be any doubt that Sura 34:50 is an objectivelywrong statement. It is a plain error in the Qur'an.

Does God make errors? Would God inspire a statement as wrong as this one?

This verse exposes the very human nature of the Qur'an. It obviously did not come from God, but from Muhammad himself, and it can easily be explained why Muhammad would addsuch a statement into his revelation. If time permits, I may later write an appendix to thisarticle dealing with the psychological aspect of this error.

Finally, there is one more crucial observation to be made in this section. Simply looking athow Muhammad dealt with those who propagated a different message than Islam, or voicedcritique of Islam (cf. these articles ), exposes that Muhammad did not even believe thisstatement himself . In particular, Muhammad's instruction is: Wh oever leaves Islam, kill h im (e.g. Sahih Al-Bukhari 4.260; for detailed discussions on the issue of apostasy in Islamconsult the links at the bottom of this page ). Obviously, Muhammad considered apostasy, and

publically speaking of a belief other than Islam such a grave danger to the Islamic communitythat the harshest possible measures had to be instituted against it. Nowhere in an Islamicsociety is open preaching of another religion permitted. Why not, if those who do so will"only go astray to their own loss"? The laws in the Shariah, and the reactions of Muslimstowards those who want to publically invite (Muslims) to another faith prove t h at t h ey do not believe Sura 34:50 to be true .

T he Contradiction

Yet, there is more. Sura 34:50 is not only a factual error (i.e. contradicting objective reality)as outlined above, it is also part of an internal contradiction in the Qur'an which will be thetopic for the remainder of this article.

Though the statement "If I go astray, I go astray only to my own loss" is hypothetical (i.e. theassumption is that Muhammad is not astray but on the right path), it stands in obvious tensionto a multitude of verses in the Qur'an that demand that believers should obey and follow the



messenger (Muhammad), i.e. Muhammad's words and example are supposed to directlyimpact those who believe in Allah. Some examples:

Say: Obey Allah and the messenger. But if they turn away, lo! Allah loveth not thedisbelievers (in His guidance). S. 3:32 Pickthall

And obey Allah and the messenger, that ye may find mercy. S. 3:132 Pickthall

These are the limits (imposed by) Allah. Whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He willmake him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow, where such will dwell for ever. Thatwill be the great success. S. 4:13 Pickthall

They ask thee (O Muhammad) of the spoils of war. Say: The spoils of war belong to Allahand the messenger, so keep your duty to Allah, and adjust the matter of your difference, andobey Allah and His messenger, if ye are (true) believers. S. 8:1 Pickthall

It is not for any believer, man or woman, when God and His Messenger have decreed amatter, to have the choice in the affair. Whosoever disobeys God and His Messenger hasgone astray into manifest error. S. 33:36 Arberry

O believers, obey God, and obey the Messenger, and do not make your own works vain. S.47:33 Arberry

There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will makehim enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He

punish with a painful doom. S. 48:17 Pickthall

Whoso obeyeth the messenger hath obeyed Allah, ... S. 4:80 Pickthall

Establish worship and pay the poor-due and obey the messenger, that haply ye may findmercy. S. 24:56 Pickthall

Those who swear fealty to thee [Muhammad] swear fealty in truth to God; God's hand is over their hands. Then whosoever breaks his oath breaks it but to his own hurt; and whoso fulfilshis covenant made with God, God will give him a mighty wage. S. 48:10 Arberry

Whatsoever spoils of war God has given to His Messenger from the people of the cities belongs to God, and His Messenger, and the near kinsman, orphans, the needy and thetraveller, so that it be not a thing taken in turns among the rich of you. Whatever theMessenger gives you, take; whatever he forbids you, give over. And fear God; surely God is

terrible in retribution. S. 59:7 Arberry

And there are many more like these, see S. 4:59, 69; 5:92; 8:20, 24, 46; 9:71; 24:51-52, 54;33:33, 71; 49:14; 58:13; 64:12, etc.

The Qur'an does not only make it mandatory to obey Muhammad's explicit commands(whether they are verses found in the Qur'an or Muhammad's own words, see S. 24:45, 57:9),it makes everything Muhammad does and says the standard to emulate:



Your Companion is neither astray nor being misled. N or does h e say (aug h t) of ( h is own)desire. It is no less t h an inspiration sent down to h im: He was taught by one Mighty inPower, ... S. 53:2-5 Yusuf Ali

And verily, you (O Muhammad) are on an exalted standard of character. S. 68:4 Hilali &Khan

Indeed in the Messenger of Allah (Muhammad) you have a good example to follow for himwho hopes in (the Meeting with) Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah much. S.33:21 Hilali & Khan

Based on verses like these, Muhammad is considered the perfect and divinely endorsed rolemodel, and he is followed in the minutest details of life. To claim, therefore, that if he goesastray it will still not result in any harm to those who follow him in everything (S. 34:50), ishardly coherent.

As stated above, these verses do not yet posit a clear-cut contradiction to S. 34:50, but theyare in considerable tension. The plain contradiction arises when we add the following versesinto the equation:

And those who disbelieve say to those who believe: Follow our path and we will bear your wrongs. And never shall they be the bearers of any of their wrongs; most surely they are liars.S. 29:12 Shakir

That they may bear their burdens entirely on the day of resurrection and also of the burdensof those whom they lead astray without knowledge; now surely evil is what they bear. S.16:25 Shakir

These verses make it clear that "following those who lead you astray" does not absolve you

from your own responsibility. On Judgement Day, those leaders will not bear the punishment(burden) for your going astray. Nobody will be able to excuse himself completely with "but Ionly followed this or that false prophet or teacher". S. 16:25 seems to indicate that some part of the burdens of those who were led astray may be put on the one who had misled them, butit still shows that the remainder has to be shouldered by the person who followed the false

prophet into transgression and disobedience to God. Thus, those who lead astray causetheir followers to suffer divine punishment and eternal loss .

Therefore, Sura 34:50 ("If I go astray, I go astray only to my own loss"), together with themany verses that command believers to follow and obey Muhammad, strongly and obviouslycontradicts Sura 16:25 and 29:12.

[ Side remark: This is not a trivial contradiction of whether Allah's day equals 1000 or 50000years , or whether Allah created the universe in six or eight days . This is a contradiction at thevery core of the religion, i.e. what happens to those who follow a false prophet! ]

Suras 16:25 and 29:12 also play a significant role in a somewhat different but closely relatedcontradiction which is discussed in the article Who Suffers the Consequence of Sinsaccording to the Qur'an?

There are a considerable number of additional verses which state that those who follow otherswho are astray (the reference is usually to the ancestors) are not therefore excused as beingonly victims, but are condemned by Allah for following them into falshood:



When it is said to them: "Follow what God hath revealed:" They say: "Nay! we shall followthe ways of our fathers." What! even though their fathers were void of wisdom and guidance?S. 2:170; cf. 5:104

They said: "Comest thou to us, that we may worship God alone, and give up the cult of our fathers? bring us what thou threatenest us with, if so be that thou tellest the truth!" He said:

"Punishment and wrath have already come upon you from your Lord: dispute ye with meover names which ye have devised - ye and your fathers, - without authority from God? thenwait: I am amongst you, also waiting." S. 7:70-71

And when they commit an indecency they say: We found our fathers doing this, and Allahhas enjoined it on us. Say: Surely Allah does not enjoin indecency; do you say against Allahwhat you do not know? S. 7:28

So be not thou in doubt concerning that which these (folk) worship. They worship only astheir fathers worshipped aforetime. Lo! we shall pay them their whole due unabated. S.11:109

We bestowed aforetime on Abraham his rectitude of conduct, and well were We acquaintedwith him. Behold! he said to his father and his people, "What are these images, to which yeare (so assiduously) devoted?" They said, "We found our fathers worshipping them." He said,"Indeed ye have been in manifest error - ye and your fathers." S. 21:51-54

Lo! We have appointed it a torment for wrong-doers. Lo! it is a tree that springeth in the heartof hell. Its crop is as it were the heads of devils And lo! they verily must eat thereof, and fill(their) bellies therewith. And afterward, lo! thereupon they have a drink of boiling water. Andafterward, lo! their return is surely unto hell. They indeed found their fathers astray, But theymake haste (to follow) in their footsteps. And verily most of the men of old went astray

before them, And verily We sent among them warners. Then see the nature of theconsequence for those warned, S. 37:63-73 Pickthall

Here, these people are following the religion taught to them by their fathers, and some evendoing shameful acts passed on to them by their forebears, so they have been misled. Yet,Allah still condemns them for these beliefs and practices, and they will still have to bear their full punishment (S. 11:109). It does not even help them to claim that it was Allah whoenjoined it on them (S. 7:28), perhaps through some prophet in the past who claimed to bringcommands from Allah, but who was actually a false prophet.

People who follow false teachers or prophets will suffer loss and punishment caused at leastin part by those who led them astray. This is a common sense principle which is contradicted

by Sura 34:50, a severe error and a glaring contradiction in the Qur'an.

Jochen Katz



Qur'an Contradiction:

What will be the food for the people in Hell?

The Qur'an makes the following statements regarding the food that unbelievers will have inhell:

No food will there be for them but a bitter Dhari S. 88:6 Y. Ali

Nor hath he any food except the foul pus from the washing of wounds, S. 69:36 Y. Ali

In a footnote, Yusuf Ali gives the following explanation for D h ari :

It is a plant, bitter and thorny, loathsome in smell and appearance, which will neither givefattening nourishment to the body nor in any way satisfy the burning pangs of hunger. ...

Other translators render the term as "bitter thorn-fruit" (Pickthall) "dry, bitter and thornyherbage" (Sher Ali), "cactus thorn" (Arberry), "the foul thorn" (Palmer).

Obviously, both kinds of µfood¶ are chosen to evoke a feeling of horror when thinking aboutHell. However, the contradiction is in the double claim that this or that will be t h e only food ,i.e.

y No food except Dhari (88:6).y No food except foul pus (69:36).

There is yet another passage that is relevant to this discussion:

Is that the better entertainment or the T ree of Zaqqum ?

For We have truly made it (as) a trial for the wrong-doers.For it is a tree that springs out of the bottom of Hell-Fire:The shoots of its fruit-stalks are like the heads of devils:T ruly they will eat thereof and fill their bellies therewith.Then on top of that they will be given a mixture made of boiling water.Then shall their return be to the (Blazing) Fire. S. 37:62-68 Y. Ali; cf. 56:52

Thus, regarding this one topic alone, the Qur'an contains three contradictions:

1 . "Eating of the tree of Zaqqum" (37:66) contradicts "eating only Dhari" (88:6).2. "Eating of the tree of Zaqqum" (37:66) contradicts "eating only foul pus" (69:36).3. "Eating only Dhari" (88:6) contradicts "eating only foul pus" (69:36).

Jochen Katz



T wo Pharaohs who crucified?

Further discussion ...

Our newsgroup posting:

From: Jochen KatzSubject: Re: ****Crucifixion in Moses' Time?!*****Date: 1999/02/24Message-ID: <[email protected]>Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam

To establish the relevance for the following, here is again thereason for the whole thread.

Various passages in the Qur'an tell the story that Pharaoh'ssorcerersbelieve in the signs and message of Moses, and then Pharaoh tries tothreaten them with these words (Shakir's translation):

I will certainly cut off your hands and your feet on oppositesides,

then will I crucify you all together. [Surah 7:124]

Said he: You believe in him before I give you permission;most surely he is the chief of you who taught you the magic,so you shall know: certainly I will cut off your hands andyour feet on opposite sides, and certainly I will crucifyyou all. [Surah 26:49]

In the story of Joseph, about 400 years earlier we also read ofanothercrucifixion in this passage:

O my two mates of the prison! as for one of you, he shall give hislord to drink wine; and as for the other, he shall b e crucified,so that the birds shall eat from his head, the matter is decreedconcerning which you inquired. [Surah 12:41]

The argument has been so far, that crucifixion as a form of capitalpunishment was only introduced in about 520 AD, nearl y 1000 yearsafter the time of Moses, and this is an anachronism in the Qur'an.This should make clear the relevance of the arguments followingbelow.

By the way, one thought just now: On the basis of what Qur'anicstatement would a Muslim be able to DATE the story of Moses orJoseph?If not from the Qur'an, are there sayings in the Hadith that wouldhelp?I think Muslims would have very little to go on and probably not beableto date this at all, if they didn't have the Biblical information.Butfeel free to show me wrong in this guess. That observation might bepartof the explanation for Saifullah's logical errors below.

In article <7aukk9$lnb$1@wal tz.rahul.net> ,



" Dr. M S M Saifullah " writes:

} Interestingly, the Encyclopedia Judaica under 'Crucifixion' says:}} " There are reports of crucifixions from Assyrian, Egyptian,Persian, Greek,} Punic, and Roman sources. "

}} So, how did the compiler of the article on crucifixion say thatthere are} reports of it from Egypt?}} Now let us see what Katz has to 'say' about crucifixion in Egypt.}} >Until then, there is no record of crucifixion in the time of Moses} >as claimed by the Qur'an.}} If that is the case why do some Judeo -Christian sources talk aboutreports} of crucifixion in Egypt?

There was never a denial that there are reports of crucifixion fromEgypt " at some time " .

The issue is that the earliest crucifixion reports are around520 BC, see the Encyclopaedia Britannica quotation that I havecited. This is nearly 1000 years after the time of Moses.Egypt came in later times to be Roman province, and so no wonderthat the Roman punishment of crucifixion also will be found inEgypt. But that is not the issue. The issue is Egyptiancrucifixion in the time of Moses.

Maybe the observation of the Qur'anic " timelessness " of the storiesis the explanation that Saifullah is satisfied with an encyclopaediaentry stating that there was c rucifixion in Egypt " at some time " because he can't say more about the event in the Qur'an either,

than that it was"

at some time"

? That might explain this logicalerror, and make it understandable that it occured many timesalready with several Muslim s in this discussion, but it doesn'tmake it less of an error.

} >I have had these quotes on my page} >} > http://answering -islam.org/Quran/Contra/h005.html} >} >for a long time and nothing has been done to show them} >wrong so far, even though Dr. Saifullah makes a large} >noise about the topic as usual. But he has not shown these} >quotations to be wrong. Where is the reference that shows} >otherwise?

}} What do the quotes in the above mention page prove? Do they saythat} crucifixion never occured in Egypt?

Your reasoning is so incredibly bad. And I don't know what to doelse but be very sarcastic about this. You have give the sametype of response before. Maybe you should a course on " How toread an encyclopaedia entry 101 " . When it is said that theearliest report of a crucifixion is from 519 AD in Persia, thenthis implies that crucifixion reports in Egypt around 1400 are notknown. Simple logic.



} Well, that is anyone's guess. *None* of} the quotes say that the crucifixion did no t take place in Egyptduring the} time of the Pharaoh.

So you would actually propose to the Encyclopaedia Britannicaand other encyclopaedias to write one volume on each entry and

structure for example the entry on crucifixion such:crucifixion did no t take place in Egypt in the year 2000 - 1992 BCcrucifixion did not take place in Egypt in the year 1992 - 1963 BCcrucifixion did not take place in Egypt in the year 1962 - 1932 BCcrucifixion did not take place in Egypt in the year 1932 - 1899 BCcrucifixion did not take place in Egypt in the year 1899 - 1873 BC

...

crucifixion did not take place in Japan in the year 2000 - 1992 BCcrucifixion did not take place in Japan in the year 1992 - 1963 BCcrucifixion did not take place in Japan in the ye ar 1962 - 1932 BCcrucifixion did not take place in Japan in the year 1932 - 1899 BCcrucifixion did not take place in Japan in the year 1899 - 1873 BC

...

crucifixion did not take place in Australia in the year 2000 - 1992BCcrucifixion did not take pl ace in Australia in the year 1992 - 1963BCcrucifixion did not take place in Australia in the year 1962 - 1932BCcrucifixion did not take place in Australia in the year 1932 - 1899BCcrucifixion did not take place in Australia in the year 1899 - 1873BC

...

or whatever other countries and regions and times of reigns of kingsthere might have been. What riveting and informative articlesthese would be. And everybody would rush to buy such anencyclopaedia.Examples of excellent data compression. Actual ly, one should mainlywrite about things that have not taken place and forget about whatdid take place altogether, how about that?

To you your way of looking at it and to me the way it is usuallydone. They say the earliest report was in 519 BC in Persia andthat is an easy step of reading comprehension that no crucifixionwas known in Egypt in 1400 BC. At least it is easy to most people

who know how to read an Encyclopaedia.} But the quote that we have provided at:}} http://www.geocities.com/Athen s/Olympus/5603/crucify.html}} say that the crucifixion was a part of punishment in Egypt.

It is not only the place, it is the TIME. I have had to say sonow half a dozen times already. It is about THE TIME OF MOSES,not any later time. Your web page do es not give any evidencefor crucifixion at a time anywhere near that.



The Genesis reference is not sufficient since that refers to theputting to public exposure a DEAD BODY, somebody who was killedby another method, not putting to death on a cross.

} So, it is Katz} who is making noise about the topic. Has Katz shown thatEncyclopedia

} Judaica is wrong in saying that"

There are reports of crucifixionsfrom} Assyrian, Egyptian, Persian, Greek, Punic, and Roman sources. " ?

No. And I have no need to . It is an issue of TIME as much as ofplace.WHEN does the EJ say were those reports about crucifixions in Egypt?

} Katz says Bible is an amazingly accurate book.

I was not discussing this here at all. Now comes your strawmanargument again.

} Of course, this statement is} to be taken without proof. Everything taken without proof isamazingly} accurate; therefore the story of Joseph's dream is amazinglyaccurate in} the Bible. Now what if we ask him to show some of the historicalevidence,} i.e., extra-Biblical evidence for the details in that story? Katz,of} course, has *none* to show. The Bible is amazingly accurate becausethe} Katz says so and hence we have to accept it!

I never made any argument by appeal to authority, and certainlynot by appeal to my authority. You are only mocking in lieu ofgiving an argument in response to what I actually say. Rather

pitiful.

} As I said do not expect Katz to bring evidence to show thehistorical} reliability of the Bible. This is because if he g ets into thoseissues} every error in the Bible would be classified as either error fromthe} scribe due to faulty eye -sight or slip of the tongue or the pen orwhatever} cheap excuse one can think of. And then boast that the Bible isinerrant} word of God!

Silly again. Where have I ever boasted that that Bible is theinerrant word of God? I don't think I have ever made that claimhere on this newsgroup, let alone " boasting " this issue. You areagain inventing arguments so that you then can ridicule them.In particular, you love to give everything an emotional touch.One does not " claim " one " boasts " . Maybe you do. I don't. I preferto discuss factually.

So: Why don't you stick to the issues discussed?

Should I add this to the long lists of claim f rom youabout what I supposedly said and for which you never broughtany evidence? Believe me, it is a very long list by now.



Jochen Katz

Qu r'an Contradiction:

S ix or eight days of creation?

Sura 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, and 25:59 clearly say that God created "the heavens and the earth" insix days. But then there is also the following passage:

2 Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in TWO Days And do ye join equals with Him? H e is the Lord of (all) the Worlds.

+He set on the (earth), mountains standing firm, high above it,and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measured therein all things

4 to give them nourishment in due proportion, in FOUR Days

in accordance with (the needs of) those who seek (Sustenance).Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky,and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth:" Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly. " They said: " We do come (together), in willing obedience. "

+2 So He completed them as seven firmaments in TWO Days ,

and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command.And We adorned the lower heaven with lights,and (provided i t) with guard.Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.

-- Sura 41:9-12 (Yusuf Ali)

= 8 altogether these are EIGHT Days .

Two days for the creation of the earth, then four days to fill the earth with mountains, blessings and nourishment for all its inhabitants, and in the end two more days to create theseven heavens and create the stars in them. This adds up to 2+4+2 = 8 days in contradictionto the 6 days mentioned in the other verses.

The structure is very clear: These are the three "layers" which are created bottom up:

*** FIRMAMENTS [the sky, the " roof " over the earth] in 2 days----------

:-) BLESSINGS [filling the earth with everything needed for life] in

4 days ---------=== The EARTH [the foundation] completed in 2 days

Yusuf Ali starts out his commentary with "This is a difficult passage..." before he tries toexplain away the problem. But it just doesn't look like the first two days are part of the four day period since the second period presupposes the existence of the earth which is now to befilled after it had been created.



Had the first period been four and the second two days, the second could be included in thefirst, since "filling the earth" is part of "creating the earth", but the other way around doesn'tmake sense. The earth that isn't existing yet cannot be filled. But mathematically it is just not

possible to include four days in two days. And it is very clear from the text that the first twodays are connected with "creating" the next four days are characterized by "putting ON it","bestowing on it", "giving them".

That verse 9 and 10 describe different stages is further supported by the text structure sincethe two phases are "separated" by the second line of verse 9 asking a rhetorical question tothe listener/reader based on what has been done in this first stage. Before it goes on to look atthe second stage of creation.

That is how the structure of the text presents itself (to the reader without an agenda to fit itinto six days).

The full explanation from Yusuf Ali's footnote 4470 is:

The Commentators understand the "four Days" in verse 10 to include the two Days in verse 9, sothat the total for the universe comes to six Days. This is reasonable, because the processes describedin verses 9 and 10 form really one series. In one case it is the creation of the formless matter of theearth; in the other case it is the gradual evolution of the form of the earth, its mountains and seas,and its animal and vegetable life, with the "nourishment in due proportion", proper to each.

As explained, I don't think this explanation is acceptable. But I would welcome a clearer presentation based on the text by anybody who can give one.

Yusuf Ali reports this as THE opinion of the commentators. For the major commentatorsthere does not even seem to exist the possibility of this second attempt below given by someMuslims to reconcile the number of days from eight to six:

Here, the commentators generally have been confronted with this question: If it is admitted that thecreation of the earth took two days and the setting up of the mountains and placing of theprovisions and blessings in it took four days, and the creation of the heavens, took another two days,the total number of the days would be eight, whereas at several places in the Quran Allah has saidthat the creation of the earth and heavens took six days in all. (For example, see 7:54, 10 :3, 11 :7,and 25:59). This question can easily be answered as follows:

The two days of the creation of earth are not separable from the two days in which thisuniverse as a whole was created. If we consider the following verses, we see that in them thecreation of both the earth and the heavens has been mentioned together, and then it has beenstated that Allah made the seven heavens in two days. These seven heavens imply the wholeuniverse, one part of which is also our earth. Then, when like the other countless stars and

planets of the universe this earth also took the shape of a unique globe within two days, Allah began to prepare it for animate creatures, and in four days created in it all those provisions,which have been mentioned in the above verse.

It is interesting to note that this second theory is sharply contradictory to the (usual) onegiven by Yusuf Ali, who includes the first two days in the second period of four days.



Why did Yusuf Ali not think that explanation was at least worth mentioning? In other difficult passages he does give several options on how different scholars have explained it.The very fact that there exist contradictory explanations defies the above remark that this

problem could "easily" be explained this way.

Anyway. Above I have expressed my doubts about the validity of Yusuf Ali's

"harmonization", So let me explain why this explanation also falls short of being satisfactoryfor several reasons:

The beginning of verse 11 is translated by Pickthall and Shakir by "THEN turned he to theheavens..." which does for sure indicate a temporal sequence. For example Pickthal:

Then He turned to the heaven, which was only smoke at that time. He said to the heaven and theearth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly."

It is specifically said, that the heavens were only smoke "at that time" (as this translation saysit) or "when IT was smoke" or "and IT was vapor" (as others say) [i.e. no stars and planetsformed together yet out of the smoke], which is stated in contrast to the earth whoseformation was already finished as described in the immediately preceeding verses. If all of itwere to be smoke and the forming of the earth and the heavens is a parallel action, then itwould have to be something like "He turned to the heavens and the earth, when THEY wereonly like smoke ..." but that is not so, the smoke stage explicitely only refers to the heavenwhile the earth is addressed as a "finished" entity when God calls heaven and earth together.The earth was finished, only the firmament or "roof" was left to be finished up, and "all of itto be pulled together".

Is that not a fair interpretation?

That the earth is finished before God turns to the creation of the heaven is confirmed in Sura

2:29 which says,

He it is Who hath created for you all that is on earth.Then He turned to the heaven, and made them into seven heavens.

This makes again clear that all that is in/on the earth is created BEFORE God turns to thecreation of the seven heavens. God cannot create things ON the earth before the earth itself isin existence. The Qur'an explicitly denies the second of the above proposed theories trying tosolve the problem by identifying the first and the last two days.

Having gotten a Muslim's response that the word "thumma" translated above as "then" canalso mean "and" and not necessarily indicates an "after" in time, I want to respond that in thisverse, the meaning is crystal clear to be a sequence. It doesn't even depend on the word"then" but the verb itself indicates the sequence of doing one thing and then TURNING to thenext. If several tasks are done parallel then there is no "turning" from on to the other.

Furthermore, there is yet to be found a verse in the Qur'an where "thumma" does signify a"parallelism" and not a "sequence".

The existance of contradictory explanations is always the result of confusion and the sign thatno theory is really fitting the data. If one explanation would really make full sense, then allothers would have been abandoned long ago. This is not the case. The problem is still there



and there is no solution that really captures the features of the text as it is given into acoherent interpretation.

I acknowledge that I am not able to read the Arabic and I investigated this passage from theEnglish translations only but the translators are experts in the Arabic language and usuallyone can trust them. I invite anybody who can give a clear exposition based on the (Arabic)

text which makes good sense and solves the problem. But reading several translations whichall agree on the basic features of the text, I do feel that my interpretation is coherent with thetext, and all would be fine if this were the only text in the Qur'an about creation of heavensand earth, but since other Qur'an passages say that it was six days and not eight, therefore it isindeed a rather obvious problem.

But this scenario also has its scientific problems. If we want to believe that the earth wasfashioned and filled with life first before the "smoke" was gathered into forming the heavens[stars, planets] then this contradicts very clearly all (current) scientific theories of astronomy.

Further there is a hadith in Sahih Muslim, Chapter MCLV, T h e beginning of creation and t h ecreation of Adam , Hadith No. 6707 :

Abu Huraira reported that Allah's Messenger (mpbuh) took hold of my hands and said: Allah theExalted and Glorious, created the clay on Saturday and He created the mountains on Sunday and Hecreated the trees on Monday and He created the things entailing labour on Tuesday and createdlight on Wednesday and He caused animals to spread on Thursday and created Adam (pbuh) after'Asr on Friday; the last creation at the last hour of the hours of Friday, ie. between afternoon andnight.

From Saturday to Friday there are seven days . Now this doesn't say that these are all the daysof creation, but there are at least seven days , maybe eight or more. But it does disagreewithout reconciliation with the account of the six day creation. And within these seven daysAllah hasn't done anything on the heavens yet.

Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 3, Number 1041 & 1042 also mention the creation of Adam onFriday. This does not square with the interpretation of days as "long periods". A Friday is notlonger than a day and the other weekdays are not either.

In Tafsir Al-Jalalyn we find this explanation:

41:9 2 days meaning Sunday and Monday41:10 4 days meaning Tuesday and Wednesday

[fourth day instead of four days? he declares it to be two days, clearlyin order to avoid just the above pointed out difficulty. He probablymeans that God created " the earth AND what is in it " in 4 days, just asYusuf Ali reports it as the general opi nion of the commentators.]

41:12 2 days meaning Thursday and Friday.



Furthermore, there is yet to be found a verse in the Qur'an where " thumma " does signify a " parallelism " and not a " sequence " .

If we look at Surah 102. You will notice " thumma " is used twice (verses 3and 4, and verses 6 and 7). In Ab dullah Yusuf Ali's translation it istranslated as " again " , and it signifies a parallelism (in fact the samethings).

Thus, knowing that in the Qur'an the number of days of creation is six inall other places, we can know what meaning to apply to " thumma. " And if wecare to take notice, we will find that the heavens and the earth were alsocreated concurrently...

Surah 21:30

" Have not the disbelievers seen that the heavens and the earth were onepiece and We parted them? And we made every living thing fr om water. Willthey not then believe? "

Jochen mentions this alternate meaning of " thumma " ( " furthermore/moreover " )and rules it out by saying that God _then_ turned to the heavens. Theimplication being that turning is a sequential act. The problem is thatonly the " then " meaning of " thumma " wo uld indicate a sequential time domaindependency. The result is we know " He turned " but we don't know when. " Heturned " is one word in Arabic and does not imply any sort of sequentialactivity. It only denotes an activity that happened in the past.

Now, going on to verse 11 of surah 41, if you have the Arabic along sidethe English, you will see the first word has a round letter with a dotabove it and a slash above that. That prefix is what has been translated as" so " at the top of this web page. The mean ing of that prefix is that whatcomes next is a conclusion based on what has already been given - like theEnglish word " so " . This " so " in no way implies a time dependency like atime dependent " then " . Now please notice that the Qur'an is concluding, " SoHe completed them as seven firmaments in two days " .

Taking all the verses which talk about the creation of the Heavens and theEarth, it becomes obvious which meaning of " thumma " fits the data best.Therefore, any claim that a contradiction exists is purel y speculative atbest and ignores all the data.

As for conflicting with scientific theories, when we don't ignore otherverses in the Qur'an regarding the subject matter the " contradiction " dissolves and the meaning can fit with scientific theories of astronomy.

Okay, the "embarrassing version" is removed. And my comment on it as well. But I have to point out that I amnot ignoring all the data. On the basis of what did I do my exposition? It wasn't Shakespeare 's Hamlet. I havelooked in quite some detail at several Qur'an passages.

I know that Muslims have to come up with some response to this. I feel it is pretty weak. If normal language has any definite meaning then my interpretation is rather straight forward.Does Arabic not have words to express something like "at the same time"? The aboveharmonization is extremely forced. Does he really want to read Sura 2:29 as



He it is Who hath created for you all that is on earth.M oreover (and at the same time as creating the earth and everything on it) He t u rned to theheaven, and made them into seven heavens.

You decide for yourself whether turning to together with then or with moreover makes a better translation. Both in Surah 41 and here the natural interpretation seems to be the one I presented. Harmonization with the "six day creation verses" does force this artificialconstruction. It is an ad h oc argument and not convincing in my eyes. If the creation of theheavens is indeed supposedly concurrent then the verb "turning to" is an extremly odd choiceof words.

Maybe I am willing to trade this contradiction for the admission that the Qur'an is indeedvery unclear and quite hard to understand ... contradicting the statement that it is in clear Arabic.

But I am not the only one. The following online Muslim website, which is devoted toanswering questions on Islam, argues along the same lines of Y. Ali:

This is a misunderstanding, and the answer to it is as follows:

There is no contradiction between the time period mentioned in these verses and the other verse which says that it was six days.

In these verses ± from Soora h Fussilat ± we see that Allaah is telling us that He ³created theearth in two Days´.

Then He ³ placed t h erein (i.e. t h e eart h ) firm mountains from above it, and He blessed it, and measured t h erein its sustenance (for its dwellers) ´ in four days equal± i.e., in two days thatwere added to the two days in which He created the earth, so the total is four days. It does not

say that the creation of the mountains and the measuring of the sustenance took four days.

Perhaps the confusion which is mentioned in the question stems from this, i.e., from thinkingthat the four days are added to the two days in which the earth was created, equaling six, andthen adding the two days in which the heavens were created (³ T h en He completed and

finis h ed from t h eir creation (as) seven h eavens in two D ays ´) ± making a total of eight days,not six days. But this confusion can be dispelled by dealing with this mistaken notion. So theearth was created in two days, and the mountains were created and the sustenance measuredin two more days which makes a total of four, i.e., this took the other two days. Then thecreation of the seven heavens took two days. So the total is six days of the Days of Allaah,may He be glorified and exalted.

The mufassireen commented on this fact which deals with the mistaken notion. Al-Qurtubisaid:

³ in four days ´ ± this is like someone saying, ³I set out from Basra to Baghdad in ten days andto Kufa in fifteen days, i.e., a total time of fifteen days.´ ( al-Jaami¶ li A h kaam al-Qur¶aan ,vol. 15, p. 343).

Al-Baghawi said: ³ in four days ´ means the creation of what is in the earth. The measuring of the sustenance was on Tuesday and Wednesday, which along with Sunday and Monday add



up to four days. This is like saying ³I married a woman yesterday and today I married two´ ± one of whom is the woman whom he married the day before.

T afseer al-Bag h awi , 7/165

Al-Zajjaaj said: ³ in four days ´ means two days added to the previous two days.

Al-Kas h sh aaf , vol. 3, p. 444

These verses ± from Soora h Fussilat ± confirm the other verse, which says that the creationof the heavens and the earth was completed in six days. So there is no contradictionconcerning the period in which Allaah created the heavens and the earth. There cannot be anysuch contradictions in the Qur¶aan..

And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A (www.islam-qa.com)

(Question #31865: Were the heavens and the earth created in six days or eight? )

Thus, this Muslim site argues that the four days of v. 10 include the first two days of v. 9, andthat the heavens were created after the earth and its provisions. The above websiteunderstands t h umma to be sequential in nature , which contradicts modern scientific theorieson the origin of the universe.

In regard to the remark on Surah 102: We find there a repetition of the same statementseveral times, making it again and again , and that means it is said several times one after theother. It is the sequence of utterance. The event refered to is one and the same, that is true,

but the "thumma" is justified nevertheless because it structures a sequence . And it still is

nowhere used in connection to several parallel events. Here it is only one event, refered to ina sequence of repetitions, one coming after the other.

Arabic dictionary entry on t h umma .

In regard to "parting the earth and the heavens" as proof for the concurrent creation, that isargument from silence. is "parting" the same as creating, forming and filling? It doesn't seemso. In Sura 41 again, as discussed above, there is first the creation of the earth andsubsequently the filling of the earth as seen in 41:9 and 10. So maybe Allah first "parted"them, then did all his forming and filling work on the earth, and then does do the details of forming and filling on the heavens. But this is not indicated anywhere to be concurrent. Howlong does "parting" take? And still you have not explained why all the major commentators

include the first two days with the next four, and not as you do the first two concurrent withthe last two. Were they all not able to understand the Arabic properly? Did they maybeindeed read t h umma to mean "then" and this was not an option for them?

Actually it is seemingly getting worse all the time. Thanks for pointing out this verse. I hadn'tseen that before. Look again at these two verses 41:11 & 21:30 and see how a newcontradiction arises before our very eyes.



Another response was: "God created the universe in 6 days & the next 2 days were for finaltouches."

Several articles in response were produced by Moiz Amjad [ *, *, ...].In separate articles we answer to responses given by Moiz Amjad , Zakir Naik and MENJ .

Qu r'an Inconsistency

T he 'Iddah rules for divorced and widowed women

As a general rule, when a marriage ends ² whether by a divorce or by the death of thehusband ² Islam prescribes a waiting period ('iddah) for the woman before she can marryagain.

Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods . Nor is itlawful for them to hide what God Hath created in their wombs, if they have faith in God andthe Last Day. ... 2:228 Yusuf Ali

O Prophet ! when you divorce women, divorce them for the prescribed period, and thereafter reckon the period; and fear ALLAH, your Lord. ... And if you are in doubt as to the

prescribed period for such of your women as have despaired of monthly courses, then knowthat the prescribed period for them is three months , and also for such as do not have their monthly courses yet. And as for those who are with child, their period shall be until they aredelivered of their burden. And whoso fears ALLAH, HE will provide facilities for him in hisaffair. S. 65:1,4 Sher Ali

If any of you die and leave widows behind, they shall wait concerning themselves four

months and ten days : when they have fulfilled their term, there is no blame on you if theydispose of themselves in a just and reasonable manner. And Allah is well acquainted withwhat ye do. S. 2:234

A woman who was divorced by her husband has to wait (at least) three monthly periods and awoman whose husband died has to wait (at least) four months and ten days before they canmarry again. The main objective appears to be that there should be no doubts as to theidentity of the father if the woman gives birth to a child later on. Within this period it should

become obvious whether or not a woman is pregnant. If she turns out to be pregnant, then her waiting period lasts until the birth of the child, otherwise she is free to remarry after the threemonths are over.

One could certainly wonder why a widow has to wait longer than a divorced woman, andview this as an inconsistency or injustice, but this issue shall not be our concern in the present

paper.

More interesting is the observation that the Qur'an makes an explicit exception to the abovementioned rule for divorced women:

O you who believe: When you marry believing women and then divorce them before youhave touched them, no period of idda (waiting) have you to count in respect of them : sogive them a present and set them free in a graceful manner. S. 33:49



In other words, if the marriage was not yet consummated, i.e. there was no sexual intercourse,there cannot be an unborn child. In this case, the woman does not have to observe the 'iddah

period; and the husband who does not like to keep her (for whatever reason), does not have to pay her expenses for another three months, which would otherwise be his obligation (cf. S.65:6-7).

However, this exception is made only for divorced women, not for widowed women. Thefocus of the present paper is to discuss this inconsistency . In the following I will presentsome quotations from Muslim commentators in regard to the waiting period for widows inorder to understand the Islamic regulations on this topic.

The classical Qur'an commentator Ibn Kathir states in his commentary on 2:234:

T he Ìddah (Waiting Period) of the Widow

This Ayah contains a command from Allah to the wives whose husbands die, that they shouldobserve a period of Ìddah of four months and ten nights, including the cases where themarriage was consummated OR OTHERWISE, according to the consensus (of the scholars).

The proof that this ruling includes the case where the marriage WAS NOTCONSUMMATED is included in the general meaning of the Ayah. In a narration recorded

by Imam Ahmad and the compilers of the Sunan, which At-Tirmidhi graded Sahih, IbnMasùd was asked about a man who married a woman, but he died before consummating themarriage. He also did not appoint a Mahr (dowry) for her. They kept asking Ibn Masùdabout this subject until he said, "I shall give you my own opinion, and if it is correct then it isfrom Allah, while if it is wrong it is because of my error and because of (the evil efforts of)Satan. In this case, Allah and His Messenger are innocent of my opinion. She has her fullMahr." In another narration, Ibn Masùd said, "She has a similar Mahr to that of the womenof her status, without stinginess or extravagance." He then continued, "She has to spend theÌddah and has a right to the inheritance." Ma`qil bin Yasar Ashjaì then stood up and said, "Iheard Allah's Messenger issue a similar judgment for the benefit of Barwa` bint Washiq."Àbdullah bin Masùd became very delighted upon hearing this statement. In another narration, several men from Ashja` (tribe) stood up and said, "We testify that Allah'sMessenger issued a similar ruling for the benefit of Barwa` bint Washiq."

As for the case of the widow whose husband dies while she is pregnant, her term of Ìddahends when she gives birth, even if it occurs an instant (after her husband dies). This ruling istaken from Allah's statement«

<And for those who are pregnant, their Ìddah is until they lay down their burden.> (65:4)

There is also a Hadith from Subayàh Al-Aslamiyah in the Two Sahihs, through variouschains of narration. Her husband, Sa`d bin Khawlah, died while she was pregnant and shegave birth only a few nights after his death. When she finished her Nifas (postnatal period),she beautified herself for those who might seek to engage her (for marriage). Then, AbuSanabil bin Ba`kak came to her and said, "Why do I see you beautified yourself, do you wishto marry By Allah! You will not marry until the four months and ten nights have passed."Subayàh said, "When he said that to me, I collected my garments when night fell and went toAllah's Messenger and asked him about this matter. He said that my Iddah had finished whenI gave birth and allowed me to get married if I wished." ( Source ; capital and underlineemphasis ours)



Ibn Kathir also confirms what was stated above, i.e. that the reason why this period was prescribed is to find out whether or not the woman is pregnant:

T he Wisdom behind legislating the Ìddah

Saìd bin Musayyib and Abu Al-Àliyah stated that the wisdom behind making the Ìddah of

the widow four months and ten nights is that the womb might contain a fetus. When thewoman waits for this period, it will become evident if she is pregnant. Similarly, there is aHadith in the Two Sahihs narrated by Ibn Masùd stating «

<(The creation of) a human being is put together in the womb of his mother in forty days inthe form of a seed, and next he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period, and next amorsel of flesh for a similar period. Then, Allah sends an angel who is ordered to breathe lifeunto the fetus.>

So, these are four months and ten more days to be sure, as some months are less (than thirtydays), and the fetus will then start to show signs of life after the soul has been breathed intoit. Allah knows best. ( Source )

The late contemporary Muslim scholar Abu A¶la Mawdudi basically reiterated this same position since he wrote in reference to this Quranic passage that:

259. The waiting period owing to death of the husband is obligatory EVEN FOR A WOMANWITH WHOM CONSUMMATION OF MARRIAGE HAS NOT TAKEN PLACE. A

pregnant woman, however, is exempted from this. Her waiting period expires with childbirth,irrespective of whether the time between the husband¶s death and the childbirth is less thanthe waiting period prescribed by Law. (Mawdudi, T owards Understanding t h e Qur¶an:

Englis h Version of T af h im al-Qur¶an , translated and edited by Zafar Ishaq Ansari [TheIslamic Foundation, Leicestershire, United Kingdom, Reprinted 1995], Volume I, Surahs 1-3,

pp. 182-183; capital emphasis ours)

To summarize: The reason for instituting the 'idda h is the possibility that the woman may be pregnant at the time of the divorce or the death of her husband. Therefore, if the womandelivers a child, then her 'idda h is automatically over. It has served its purpose. This holdsequally for the divorced and the widowed woman.

The other case in which one can be certain that there will be no child in regard to whom theMuslim community does not know the identity of the father, is if no sexual intercourse hastaken place between husband and wife. Therefore, the exception found in S. 33:49 is logical.

Here, however, is the inconsistency: The Qur'an does not grant the widow the same

exception as the divorcee. If the marriage is terminated before it was consummated ² whether by divorce or by the death of the husband ² why does the widow have to undergo awaiting period of four months and ten days, but the divorcee is free to marry as soon as shelikes? Why are these two women not treated equally?

The commentators quoted above merely follow the Qur'an in this inconsistent regulation, andseek to support this regulation for widows with reference to the practice of Muhammad. Thisdoes not resolve the inconsistency as such, but simply means that Muhammad followed theQur'an in being inconsistent in regard to this issue.



The Qur'an states explicitly that divorced and widowed women have to observe a waiting period of three months or four months and ten days respectively, see S. 2:228, 65:4 and 2:234quoted above. There are no exceptions stated for widowed women. There are two exceptionsstated for divorced women: (a) If the woman is pregnant then her waiting period ends withthe delivery of the child (S. 65:4), (b) if the couple has not consummated their marriage, thenthere is no waiting period at all (S. 33:49).

This reveals the second inconsistency. Both exceptions are stated for the divorced womanonly but the commentators apply exception (a) also to widowed women, while they do notaccept that exception (b) is also applied to them.

To summarize again: There are two inconsistencies. (1) When a marriage is terminated beforeit is consummated, the women are treated vastly differently. The divorcee can marry againimmediately, but the widow has to wait at least four months and ten days. (2) In the Qur'an,there are two exceptions to the normal waiting period for a divorced woman. There are noexceptions mentioned for the widowed woman. The Muslim commentators and jurists applyone of the exceptions that is given for the case of a divorce also to the case of the widow, i.e.they extend the application of the law based on analogy, but they refuse the application of thesecond exception even though the same kind of analogy could be used.

[ Excursus: For illustration, imagine the following two cases: Couple A and couple B just married. As is stillcommon in many parts of the Islamic world, it may even be a marriage arranged by relatives, i.e. husband andwife may hardly have known each other before the wedding ceremony. Shortly after the wedding somethinghappens which greatly upsets the husband and he becomes very angry at his wife. Husband A pronounces adivorce against his new wife. Husband B has a weak heart, and before he can divorce his wife, he dies of a heartattack. The situation is very similar in both cases, but the quranic ruling is very different. None of the couplesever consummated their marriage. Both women find themselves without husband shortly after their wedding.Yet, the first one is free to marry immediately, while the second one has to observe a waiting period of over four months. ]

The Islamic data are clear. The question remains: Wh y is the ruling so different in these two

similar cases?

The marriage is terminated before it is consummated. That is the same in both cases. What isit that makes them different? Perhaps the reason for the waiting period will provide a clue.The main concern is apparently that there should be no child whose father is in doubt. In bothcases, no sexual intercourse was performed by the couple. But how do we know that this isindeed so?

That is the crucial question: How can we be sure? Here is the difference:

In case of the divorcee we have the testimony of the ex-husband, a Muslim man's testimony,that no intercourse has taken place. In case of the widow we only have a woman's testimony.

Could t h e real reason for t h e different treatment be t h at a woman's testimony is not sufficient?

Jochen Katz



Confusion and/or Errors in the Qur'an?

Were Believers Really Called Muslims Before the T ime of Muhammad?

The following article is a work in progress. My thoughts are not yet finalized on every issuethat I am going to raise. I want to invite the feedback and thoughts of the readers in regard tothe meaning of Surah 22:78 and the observations that I am presenting here.

The Qur'an makes the following claim:

And strive in His cause as ye ought to strive, (with sincerity and under discipline). He haschosen you, and has imposed no difficulties on you in religion; it is the cult of your father Abraham. It is He Who has named you Muslims, both before and in this (Revelation); thatthe Messenger may be a witness for you, and ye be witnesses for mankind! So establishregular Prayer, give regular Charity, and hold fast to Allah! He is your Protector - the Best to

protect and the Best to help! S. 22:78 Yusuf Ali

and struggle for God as is His due, for He has chosen you, and has laid on you noimpediment in your religion, being the creed of your father Abraham; He named youMuslims aforetime and in this, that the Messenger might be a witness against you, and thatyou might be witnesses against mankind. So perform the prayer, and pay the alms, and holdyou fast to God; He is your Protector -- an excellent Protector, an excellent Helper. S. 22:78Arberry

The topic of this discussion is the part that I underlined in the above quotations. First, weneed to recognize that there is a certain amount of ambiguity in the formulation of thestatement. Reading it with the statement that comes before, the first question is, "Who namedyou Muslims?" Most interpreters believe it is Allah, and in my opinion this is probably theintended meaning, but there are other Muslims who think the pronoun "he" refers to

Abraham, the nearest antecedent to the pronoun, i.e. "it is the cult of your father Abraham. Itis he (Abraham) who has named you Muslims, both before and in this (Revelation)". At leastone Muslim translator of the Qur'an, Rashad Khalifa, understood it in this way. The followingis Khalifa's translation of S. 22:78 together with his interpretation given in a footnote:

Abra h am: Original Messenger of Islam*

78. You shall strive for the cause of GOD as you should strive for His cause. He has chosenyou and has placed no hardship on you in practicing your religion-the religion of your father Abraham. He is the one who named you "Submitters" originally. Thus, the messenger shallserve as a witness among you, and you shall serve as witnesses among the people. Therefore,you shall observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), and

hold fast to GOD; He is your Lord, the best Lord and the best Supporter.

*22 :78 Alt h oug h all messengers preac h ed one and t h e same message, `` W ors h ip God alone,'' Abra h am was t h e first messenger to coin t h e terms "Submission" (Islam) and "Submitter" (Muslim) ( 2 :1 2 8). Wh at did Abra h am contribute to Submission? W e learn from 16:1 2 3 t h at all religious duties in Submission were revealed t h roug h Abra h am (see Appendices 9 & 2 6). (Source )

Other Muslims have followed this interpretation and teach it in their publications, e.g. in thisarticle by A. Muhammed:



The misunderstanding and poor interpretation here stems from their lack of understanding of the word Islam (Submission). In spite of the fact that God tells us in the Quran that Islam(Submission to God Alone) is as old as Abraham who was the first Muslim (see 2:128, 2:131,2:133) and who was the first to name us Muslims (22:78), still the Muslim scholars todayinsist that Islam is confined to being the religion of the Quran !!!

By creating such a false statement, the Muslim scholars claim to be the custodians of themessage! In 3:67 God specifically tells us that Abraham was neither Jewish nor Christian, buta monotheist Muslim. God also tells us in 5:111 that Jesus and the Disciples were Muslim. In27:44 tells us that Solomon was Muslim and in 5:44 we are told of all the prophets who weregiven the Torah and who were all Muslim.

What all these verses are confirming is that there are Muslims who followed the Torah andthe Bible and who knew nothing of the Quran. These Muslims were submitters to God Alone,Lord of the universe. ( Source ; underline emphasis mine)

For contrast, here is Ibn Kathir's classical interpretation:

(He has named you Muslims both before and in this (Qur'an),) Imam Àbdullah bin Al-Mubarak said, narrating from Ibn Jurayj, from Àta', from Ibn Àbbas: concerning Allah'ssaying, (He has named you Muslims before) " T his refers to Allah , may He be glorified."This was also the view of Mujahid, Àta', Ad-Dahhak, As-Suddi, Muqatil bin Hayyan andQatadah. Mujahid said, "Allah named you Muslims before, in the PREVIOUS BOOKS andin Adh-Dhikr, (and in this) means, the Qur'an." This was also the view of others, becauseAllah says: (He has chosen you, and has not laid upon you in religion any hardship) Then Heurged them to follow the Message which His Messenger brought, by reminding them that thiswas the religion of their father Ibrahim. Then He mentioned His blessings to this Ummah,whereby He mentioned them and praised them long ago in the Books of the Prophets whichwere recited to the rabbis and monks. Allah says: (He has named you Muslims both before)meaning, before the Qur'an, (and in this.) Under the explanation of this Ayah, An-Nasa'irecorded from Al-Harith Al-Ashàri from the Messenger of Allah , who said: (Whoever adopts the call of Jahiliyyah, will be one of those who will crawl on their knees in Hell.) Aman said, "O Messenger of Allah, even if he fasts and performs Salah" He said, (Yes, even if he fasts and performs Salah. So adopt the call of Allah whereby He called you Muslims and

believers and servants of Allah.) ( Source ; bold, capital and underline emphasis mine)

Implicitly, Ibn Kathir testifies to the fact that it is not immediately clear whom the pronoun"he" refers to, since otherwise, he would not have had to explain and cite various authoritiesin support of his interpretation that "he" refers to Allah.

To summarize the first issue connected with this verse, the formulation in the Arabic is such

that it could be Allah or Abraham who named the believers "Muslims". Allah is probably theintended subject in the naming process, but the Qur'an is ambiguous. Had the Qur'an said"WE named you Muslims ..." or "ALLAH named you Muslims ..." instead of "he named youMuslims ...", the confusion could have been avoided. Since clarity is always better thanconfusion, either one would be a definite improvement compared to the current formulation.

The second issue with the statement, "He named you Muslims before and in this", is this:Whom exactly does the pronoun "you" refers to?

There is no question that the Qur'an gives the name "Muslims" to those who believe in it andobey its message. It certainly includes the companions of Muhammad and all believers in his



message from then on. Does it also include monotheist believers before Muhammad's time?The Qur'an considers earlier prophets and believers to be Muslims ² and it actually makesseveral statements to that effect (cf. the article, Who Was the First Muslim? , for a detaileddiscussion). The author of the Qur'an exerts great efforts to connect Islam with Abraham,claiming that Muhammad brings the same message and practice of religion that was preachedand observed by Abraham and all the prophets of God. In fact, the first part of S. 22:78, the

verse under discussion, claims exactly that: "And strive hard in Allah's cause as you ought tostrive. He has chosen you, and has not laid upon you in religion any hardship. It is thereligion of your father Ibrahim." ( Ibn Kathir ) Thus, those who were Muslims beforeMuhammad ² according to the understanding of Islam ² seem to be included in the "you"of this statement. Somehow one has to account for the word "before" in the phrase, "Henamed you Muslims before and in this". The natural understanding is that this refers at leastto those believers in Allah who are called Muslims in the Qur'an, even though they lived along time before Muhammad.

Would it not be fair to understand the statement, "He named you Muslims before and in this",in a corporate sense, i.e. saying that Allah named YOU Muslims BEFORE (meaning all

believers past) and IN THIS (all believers present)? The YOU, although referring first of allto the Muslims in Muhammad's time, those directly addressed, includes all believers past and

present, the YOU being viewed much the same way that the author of the Qur'an used it inreference to the Jews of Muhammad's time when he accused them of killing the prophets

before their time and of making the golden calf during the Exodus etc. (cf. these articles: *,*), i.e. the YOU is used in a corporate sense which includes both the past, present and

perhaps the future members of a particular religious or secular group.

We need to reflect a bit on the term "Muslim" as well. Literally it simply means "one whosubmits" and it is at times used in a very generic sense. It should not be a surprise that allreligions which teach the existence of one God or even of multiple gods, also call the

believers to worship the deity or deities and submit to his or their will. The concept of submitting to God is nothing that is distinctive of Islam. It is an essential part in nearly everyreligion. Buddhism is an exception in some sense, since original Buddhism does not have adeity, but it still has rules/laws/principles that a true believer is supposed to follow, i.e. tosubmit to.

The New Testament explicitly calls believers to submit to God. In the Epistle of James weread:

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings. ...SU BMI T yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.Come near to God and he will come near to you. James 1:1, 4:7-8

Christians are clearly called to "submit to God". Should Christians therefore call themselvesMuslims, even though they worship Jesus as God and call him the Lord? In the generic senseof the word Muslim , one who submits to God, that would certainly be justified. Nevertheless,Muslims will usually not be comfortable with the thought that the word Muslim should beused in such a general way that somebody in submission to the old Egytian gods Isis andOsiris, to the Greek gods Zeus and Poseidon, to the Hindu goddess Shiva, or to any other godthat is clearly not the Allah of Islam, could or should be called "a Muslim". If everyone whois religious in some sense and submits to the will of some kind of god, i.e. the god of any religion, should therefore be called a Muslim, then the term loses all its distinctiveness andtherefore its meaning. If everyone is a Muslim, what point is there to call myself a Muslim?



With that said, we turn to the verb in the statement, "He named you Muslims before and inthis". Names are always given for the purpose of distinguishing and identifying. Allah is saidto have named the believers in his message "Muslims", he did not merely call them Muslims,

but this term was given them as a name to distinguish them from disbelievers, those whoreject his message, and from believers in other gods. In fact, the Arabic does not simply say"Muslims" but "THE Muslims ( AL-muslimeen )" with the definite article. Therefore, the word

cannot be understood in the generic sense as "submitted ones" but must be taken as thedefinite name, MUSLIMS. Apart from asking some Arab friends, I looked at about a dozendifferent English translations of the Qur'an and every single one of them translated the Arabicverb, sammâ , as "named".

What is the difference between calling and naming? A husband may call his wife "darling" or "honey" (very common in America), but that is not her name, and it does not become her name by calling her this way. On the other hand, many people are fond of using insultsagainst others. They may be calling people "idiot", "dirt bag", or use even worse terms thatthe readers will no doubt be familiar with. Yet, gladly, those terms of insult do not therefore

become their recognized name.

Naming has a legal aspect. A person is usually named after his birth, and then this is hisrecognized name, it is part of his legal identity. The procedure of naming establishes a legalfact, your name. When a person is born, he enters a new realm. He is given a name thatidentifies him.

It appears to me that in Islam it is understood in a similar way, that if a person decides to believe in Allah, his message and his messenger(s), and speaks the Shahada as an expressionof his faith, this establishes a new "relationship" to Allah, so it would be appropriate thatsomeone who enters Islam would get a new name or identity, i.e. being from then on called"a Muslim". After all, being a Muslim or not being a Muslim has a lot of consequences interms of rights and obligations as specified in Shariah. In many Islamic countries, one'sreligion is printed on the identity card! Whether it states "Muslim" or "Christian" will oftenmake quite a difference in these countries. It is a legal issue. Allah did not call everyoneMuslim in a generic sense, simply because he submitted to whatever god or gods, but henamed those Muslim who believed in Allah and his very distinctive message of Islam.

In Islam, it is understood that everyone who worships (the true) God without associatinganyone else with him is a Muslim, even those who did not know of Muhammad yet, becausethey lived before his time. However, there is an important historical difference between"being something" and "being called something". People or other entities can already be something before they are called by that name.

I want to illustrate this last point. For example, the Bible reports the creation of the animals

before they are later given their names by Adam. The existence and essential identity is notdependent on whether the name that we have today was already known in earlier times. (Thehorse was a horse even before anyone gave it the name horse.) Some people first appear in

public under a pseudonym and only later reveal the ir real name. Yet, their true identity, whatand who they really were, does not change by the fact that they are only given their real or final name at a later time. A Biblical example would be the identity of the Angel of the Lord ,a figure that appears several times in the Hebrew Scriptures. Christians believe that thosewere appearances of Jesus, the eternal Son of God, but before his incarnation, and before hewas given the name Jesus which happened after his birth. Therefore, assuming thisidentification to be correct, it is acceptable to say that Jesus appeared to Abraham and toGideon (even though he did not bear this name at that time), since he is the same person.



However, it would be wrong to say that the Angel of the Lord was named or known under t h ename of Jesus in the Hebrew Scriptures. The name Jesus only appears in the New Testament.

Similarly, the author of the Qur'an may claim that the believers and prophets of earlier times,e.g. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, and others were truly Muslims, i.e. thatfrom the later Islamic perspective they are considered Muslims in a generic sense ² though

they have not been called that way in their lifetime. This would be a theological or religiousclaim which people may agree or disagree with, and it could not easily be proven or disproven. People will believe it if they consider Islam and the Qur'an as a whole to betrustworthy, but will probably reject this claim, if they do not believe in Islam. Such a claimwould basically be a matter of faith.

However, the statement that they were called and even named Muslims already before thetime of Muhammad, is a historical claim. That can be checked against the known historicalfacts. It is not a matter of faith, it is a question of history, and it is either true or false based onobjective reality.

At this point, we have arrived at the main problem with Sura 22:78. To say, "He named youMuslims before and in this", contains a historical claim and is therefore subject to historicalevaluation.

The above quoted tafsir (commentary) by Ibn Kathir explains what "before" and "in this"refers to when it states: "Allah named you Muslims before, in the previous Books and inAdh-Dhikr, (and in this) means, the Qur'an" and "... whereby He mentioned them and praisedthem long ago in the Books of the Prophets which were recited to the rabbis and monks."There is no question that the books studied by the Jewish rabbis and Christian monks are theOld and New Testaments of the Bible.

When we turn to the previous books, when we examine the Bible, we see that it never usesthe term Muslims, neither the Arabic word nor its Hebrew or Greek equivalent. Given thatAbraham, Solomon, Jesus, and summarily all the prophets and even all believers of biblicaltimes are called Muslims in the Qur'an, and it is explicitly stated that they were namedMuslims not only in the Qur'an but also before , this appears to be a rather glaring and a quiteconsiderable historical error in the Qur'an.

As explained above, there is a considerable difference between calling somebody somethingand naming somebody something. Yet, there is not even one case of God addressing the

believers as "submitters", "Oh ye who submit", or similar.

The command or expectation that believers should submit to the will and laws of God isfound in every religion. That is not the issue. The claim of the Qur'an is more specific. It

claims that already before the time of Muhammad, Allah had named the believers "Muslims".This is false. There is not a trace of it found anywhere in the Bible.

This is particularly interesting when we realize that (re)naming is a very important feature inthe Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments. God actually does give new names to keyfigures at decisive moments, particularly at the time when they take a major step in their

journey of faith. Even more interestingly, it is reported that God gave a new name toAbraham and to Jacob.

When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, "I am GodAlmighty; walk before me and be blameless. I will confirm my covenant between me and you



and will greatly increase your numbers." Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, "As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. No longer will you

be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations.I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. Iwill establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your

descendants after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give asan everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God."Genesis 17:1-8

"You are the LORD God, who chose Abram and brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans andnamed him Abraham. You found his heart faithful to you, and you made a covenant with himto give to his descendants the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Jebusitesand Girgashites. You have kept your promise because you are righteous." Nehemia 9:7-8

Abram is given his new name Abraham at the time when God makes his covenant with him, acovenant that will change the history of mankind, an everlasting covenant that is not onlyabout Abraham personally, but also about his descendants. It is explicitly connected with theissue of who will be the God of Abraham's descendants. This is the context of Abramreceiving his new name, Abraham. His new name is an important feature of this event, but hewas not called a Muslim.

The Qur'an also claims that Abraham is first called a Muslim when he prays for himself andfor his descendants to be in the right faith ( S. 2:127-133 ). The Qur'an, however, knowsnothing of God's covenant with Abraham, nor that Abraham was a name given to him by Godhimself. The Qur'an tells a completely different story without any historical basis. It stands itstark contradiction to the Torah.

God also gives a new name to Jacob:

... But Jacob replied, "I will not let you go unless you bless me." The man asked him, "Whatis your name?" "Jacob," he answered. Then the man said, "Your name will no longer beJacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome."Jacob said, "Please tell me your name." But he replied, "Why do you ask my name?" Then he

blessed him there. So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face toface, and yet my life was spared." Genesis 32:26-30

Based on this event, the descendants of Jacob are called "the children of Israel". Interestingly,the Qur'an regularly uses this name, Bani Israil , but does not provide any clue as to wherethis name comes from. Based on the Qur'an, one would not be able to know why thedescendants of Jacob are called the children of Israel.

Here is an example from the New Testament, where Jesus gives a new name to Simon, whowill later become one of the most important apostles of Christ:

Jesus went up on a mountainside and called to him those he wanted, and they came to him.He appointed twelve²designating them apostles²that they might be with him and that hemight send them out to preach and to have authority to drive out demons. These are thetwelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter), James son of Zebedee and his

brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder) ... Mark 3:13-17



And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. Youwill be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter). John 1:42

Obviously, the Bible puts quite an emphasis on God's acts of re-naming important men of faith. This makes it all the more glaring that they are never called Muslims. Driven by thedesire to connect his message with that of the earlier prophets of the Jews and the Christians,

and particularly with Abraham, the author of the Qur'an made the claim that these earlier prophets were not only considered to be Muslims, but that they were actually called Muslims.This is an obvious historical error. If the Qur'an is wrong on such an essential issue, it hastherefore to be rejected as a revelation from God.

As mentioned in the introductory paragraph, I welcome feedback, be it in confirmation of or in opposition to the thoughts presented above. All correction, clarification, etc. will beappreciated.

Jochen Katz

A Plain Error and Contradiction in the Qur'an - By Jochen Katz

Documents

Transcript of A Plain Error and Contradiction in the Qur'an - By Jochen Katz