Mr Katz in one of his articles^* has stated that some verses of the Qur’an regarding the abode of Allah are mutually contradictory. Mr Katz has based his objection on the following verses of the Qur’an:

He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in Six Days, and is moreover firmly established on the Throne (of Authority). (57:4)

We created man and We [even] know the promptings of his mind. We are closer to him than his life vein. (50:16)

And He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days -- and His Throne was upon the water -- that He might try you, which of you is best in conduct. (11:7)

He rules [all] affairs from the heavens to the earth: in the end will [all affairs] go up to Him, on a Day, the space whereof will be [as] a thousand years of your reckoning. (32:5)

The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a Day the measure whereof is [as] fifty thousand years: (70:4)

    Comparing 57:4 with 50:16, Mr. Katz writes: 

Is the throne of Allah at your jugular vein? That question is silly, so it seems. Obviously one can easily understand these verses to mean that Allah is near to you and to everyone equally since he is not in any location in particular. Allah is "everywhere" in the sense that there is no place that is without His presence. What about the throne?

    Then, referring to the meaning, generally understood by the translators of the Qur’an of the word "throne" as used in 57:4 (which is no different from what I have implied in my translation, i.e. it refers to "control"), Mr. Katz writes:

The throne symbolizes the power and sovereignty of Allah's rule. One does not need to understand it as a physical location. And in fact, Yusuf Ali translates it as if it is not an act of sitting down on the throne (which is the literal meaning of the Arabic), but as a metaphorical expression for his power:

He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in Six Days, and is moreover firmly established on the Throne (of Authority). (57:4)

    He goes on to write:

This would solve the question if each mentioning of Allah's throne could always be understood metaphorically. But what then do we make of this verse:

And He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days -- and His Throne was upon the water -- that He might try you, which of you is best in conduct. (11:7)

Is the water also metaphorical? Even if it might not be entirely clear where this water was (the ocean, the rain clouds, ...?), this seems to be clearly a statement of location for this throne and no longer to be metaphorical. Also, the Arabic is past tense, and the question is then: Is the throne still upon the water, and if not, where has it moved to?

    Mr. Katz further elaborates:

    And then there are these verses:

He rules [all] affairs from the heavens to the earth: in the end will [all affairs] go up to Him, on a Day, the space whereof will be [as] a thousand years of your reckoning. (32:5)

The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a Day the measure whereof is [as] fifty thousand years: (70:4)

If Allah is nearer to us than our jugular vein, why is there any need for the "affairs" (?),angels and the spirit to travel at all to reach Allah? Is there any interpretation of 32:5 and 70:4 which does not involve a physical "distance" between the earth and Allah that has to be bridged? 50:16 could be understood that Allah is equally near everywhere, and there is no place you can go to be nearer to Him than where you are at this time. Then why does anyone or anything have to travel to reach Allah?

    Thus there are three basic objections that Mr. Katz has levied on these verses:

    1. 57:4 and 50:16 are mutually contradictory. One says that Allah is closer to humans than their life veins, and the other says that He is firmly established on His throne; The meaning of the throne generally taken by the translators, including myself, cannot be taken in verse 11:7; and if Allah is closer to His creation than their life veins then why do the angels have to travel to Him in periods extending over one thousand to fifty thousand years. In the following paragraphs, I shall present my point of view regarding the meaning of the referred verses.
    The usage of Arabic word "`arsh" to imply authority is commonly known. Thus when the Qur’an says: "... Allah established Himself on His throne", it means that He took charge of controlling His creation. This phrase has generally been used in the Qur’an to negate the belief of those who thought that Allah did create everything that exists, but after creating everything He delegated the management of His creation to others. This belief is quite close to the belief of those that say that God is only the "First Cause". The Qur’an has negated this belief by emphasizing that Allah not only created everything that exists, but the total control of the affairs of His creation also lies solely in His hands. Thus, the word "`arsh" does not in itself signify a particular place in (or outside) the universe. Furthermore, when the Qur’an says that God is closer to humans than their life veins, it basically refers to His omniscience. A close look at 50:16 shall support this point of view. The Qur’an says:

We created man and We [even] know the promptings of his mind. We are closer to him than his life vein. (50:16)

    Obviously, the verse is referring to God’s knowledge of human thoughts and actions. It is in this particular context that the referred words are said. Thus, the words: "We are closer to him than his life vein" do not signify the physical position of God, but His omniscience. Thus, neither of the two verses (57:4, 50:16) are relating to us the physical whereabouts of God. Therefore, in my opinion, there does not arise the question of mutual contradiction.
    2. The second objection raised by Mr. Katz is that the meaning generally implied by the word "`arsh" cannot be taken in verse 11:7, where the Qur’an says:

It was He Who made the heavens and the earth in six days, and [at that time] His throne [of control] was on the waters.

    This, according to Mr. Katz, "seems to be clearly a statement of location for this throne and no longer to be metaphorical". I tend to disagree with Mr. Katz that this is "clearly a statement of location for this throne". In my opinion, like the first verse (57:4), this verse too refers to the control of God over His creation. What this verse is telling us is not "where" was God's throne at that time, but that at that time His creation, with reference to the universe consisted primarily of water, and therefore His control, at that time was on the waters. This statement is quite close to what the Bible says regarding the beginning of the creation. The book of Genesis starts with the following words:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (1:1-2)

    Unfortunately, we do not have the original words of the Bible; In all probability, the original words here might not have been any different from those used in the Qur’an.
    3. Finally, Mr. Katz says that if God is closer to His creation than their life veins, then why do the angels have to travel to Him in periods extending over one thousand to fifty thousand years.
    My point of view regarding this objection should be quite clear from the explanation given above. But to clarify even further, I would like to reiterate that "closer than life vein" refers to the omniscience of God. Whereas the other verses (mentioning that the angels spend thousands of years to reach Allah) refer to His magnificence and grandeur (70: 4) and to the fact that God's operational time scale is far wider and far greater for us -- humans -- to fully comprehend and understand due to our inherent limitations (32: 5). Obviously, being omniscient does not automatically imply that God has lost His grandeur. The two verses are referring to two separate phenomena. Just as if I say at one place: "I am aware of every move that you make", and at another place I say: "You cannot reach me easily", the two sayings cannot be termed as mutually contradictory. One refers to the perfection of my knowledge and the other to the other person's imperfections.
    Therefore, in my opinion, there does not arise the question of contradiction in the two statements. I do hope my clarification shall be considered with a neutral mind.