In one of his writings*,
Mr Jochen Katz has pointed out a contradiction in 26:192, 195-6. He writes
that in the referred verses, the Qur’an says:
It [the Qur’an] is indeed a revelation
from the Lord of the Worlds (26:192), ... in clear Arabic speech and indeed
IT [the Qur’an] is in the writings of the earlier [prophets] (26:196).
After citing the verses, Mr. Katz writes:
Now, the ‘earlier writings’ are the Torah and
the Injil for example, written in Hebrew and Greek. HOW can an ARABIC Qur’an
be
contained in books of other languages? Furthermore, it would have to contain
this very passage of the Qur’an since the Qur’an is properly
contained in them. Hence these earlier writings have to be contained in
yet other earlier writings and we are in an infinite loop, which is absurd.
Before I give my relatively detailed opinion
regarding this objection raised by Mr Katz, I would just like my readers
to note that in all four Gospels -- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- there
are consistent references to the writings of the Old Testament. For instance,
Matthew writes:
This is the one of whom the prophet Isaiah spoke
when he said: ‘The voice of one crying out in wilderness: "prepare the
way of the Lord, make his paths straight".’ (Matthew 3: 3)
Mark writes:
As it is written in the prophet Isaiah: ‘See,
I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way; the
voice of one crying out in the wilderness: "Prepare the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight".’ (Mark 1: 2 - 3)
Luke writes:
As it is written in the book of the words of
the prophet Isaiah: ‘The voice of the one crying out in the wilderness:
"Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight...".’ (Luke 3: 4)
John writes:
This was to fulfill the word spoken by the prophet
Isaiah: "Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of
the Lord been revealed?"
The reader is requested to keep in mind
that the book of the prophet Isaiah, which is being referred to in all
the above quotations, (in the underlined portion) was written in the Hebrew
language, while none of the Gospels was written in Hebrew. It obviously
means that the Greek, Aramaic or Latin words used in the cited parts of
the Gospels, were probably unknown and incomprehensible for the prophet
Isaiah, towards whom these words are being ascribed. How, in heaven’s name,
could these Latin, Greek or Aramaic words be ascribed to the Hebrew speaking
prophet Isaiah?
Thus, as far as Mr. Katz question:
‘HOW can an ARABIC Qur’an be contained in books of other languages?’
is concerned, the answer to this question is: ‘Exactly in the same way
as the Hebrew book of Isaiah can contain the referred Greek, Latin or Aramaic
statements cited from the Gospels.’
I am sure, with the kind of extra-ordinary
genius that Mr Katz has dug out the referred contradiction in the Qur’an,
he must also have had a tough time and a number of sleepless nights in
resolving the above ‘incorrect’ references in not just one, but all four
of the Gospels. However, as should be clear to the lay-man, there is no
contradiction in either the referred part of the Qur’an, nor in
the cited verses of the Gospels. It is actually not the particular languages,
but the subject matter that is being referred to in both the Qur’an
as
well as the Gospels.
The particular verses of the Qur’an,
which Mr. Katz holds as the basis for the referred contradiction are reproduced
below for a better understanding:
And indeed it is a revelation of the Lord of
the worlds -- brought down by the trustworthy spirit -- upon your heart,
so that you may be one of the warners -- [revealed] in a clear Arabic dialect
-- and indeed it is [also] in the scriptures of old. (26:192-6)
The problem statement in the above verses,
for Mr Katz, as should be clear from his objection, is: ‘And indeed, it
is also in the scriptures of old’. According to Mr Katz, this statement
can only mean that the whole Qur’an is in the previous scriptures.
However, it may be interesting that rmd4islam@aol.com
has already responded to this criticism of Mr Katz (his response is posted
at Mr. Katz’s page) in the following www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/qi012.html:
Simply put, when it says *it* is in the writings
of the earlier prophets, it may be referring to the teachings of the Qur’an,
a reference to the Qur’an, etc.
When we say something is *in* something else
do we mean it is literally and completely in it?
YOU are *in* trouble!"
Now do I mean YOU are somehow interrelated and
a part of the concept trouble? Or do I mean the word ‘YOU’ is a subset
of the word ‘trouble’? Or is the meaning of ‘YOU’ the same as ‘trouble’?
Or have I told you *how* YOU are in trouble? No. Well in a similar manner,
the author of the contradiction should not assume ‘it is in’ means ‘it
is’. That is assuming one particular understanding of *how* it is in the
writings of earlier prophets. A contradiction is not proven again. All
praise is due to God.
Do we throw out the verse as illogical [that
is what the contradiction’s author proposes] or do we throw out the author
[of the contradiction]’s analysis of the verse as illogical?
Although I do not fully agree with Mr.
Desmond’s explanation, nevertheless, what seems quite interesting to me
is what Mr Katz wrote in response to it:
... Saying that I am in my room, then this means
I am fully located inside this room, a physical entity. I am either in
it or out. ‘Trouble’ is not a location, it is a ‘state’. Being ‘in trouble’
means to face difficult circumstances. Now, the question is: Are the Torah
and the Gospel (physical or at least clearly defined) entities or are they
‘states’ or ‘circumstances’? If we want to ask whether a quotation, a paragraph,
or a chapter is in certain book, then it either is or it is not. This is
a clear cut black and white question. No need to confuse the issue with
other uses of the word ‘in’ [even taken from the English language when
usually the emphasis is that we have to look to the Arabic!!]. The question
is not other possible ways of using the word ‘in’ in English, but what
this Surah means and if it makes sense...
The way I understand Mr Katz’s response
(I repeat here so that I do not misconstrue his point), he has actually
stressed that in the English language, when we say that something is ‘in’
another, if the ‘another’ is a real (i.e. a physical or a clearly defined)
entity then the sentence can only mean that the ‘something’ (the subject)
is fully (and completely) in the ‘another’. Nevertheless, Mr Katz does
agree that if the ‘another’ is a state then, obviously, it is not necessary
that the ‘something’ be fully and completely present in the ‘another’.
I hope I have accurately summed up Mr Katz’s argument (I would request
Mr Katz to correct me if that is not the case). In the end, Mr Katz has
written: ‘This is a clear cut black and white question. No need to confuse
the issue with other uses of the word ‘in’ [even taken from the English
language when usually the emphasis is that we have to look to the Arabic!!].’
I would request Mr. Katz to allow me to give a few examples of the word
‘in’ [in the English as well as the Arabic language] so that the matter
is fully appreciated by my non-English [and non-Arabic] mind.
I would request Mr. Katz to take a
look at the following usage of the word ‘in’ [and ‘fi’ in the Arabic
language] and correct the faulty meanings that I have been ascribing to
the usage [with the hope that I shall be forgiven for it... English, after
all, is not my native language]:
English
|
Arabic
|
1. He left his pen in the ink.
|
|
I never knew that the sentence implied the ‘whole
pen’, neither did I ever know that 'ink' was a state or a circumstance.
2. A man in the hat.
|
|
I never knew that the sentence implied ‘A whole
man (engulfed) in a hat’, neither did I ever think that ‘hat’ was a state
or a circumstance.
3. A woman in uniform.
|
|
I never knew that the sentence implied ‘A whole
woman (wrapped from head to toe) in a uniform’, neither was I ever informed
that ‘uniform’ was a state or a circumstance.
4. There is a beautiful cow in the book.
|
|
I never knew that the sentence actually implied
‘A whole (complete and probably living) cow (trapped) in the book’, neither
did I ever find out that a ‘book’ was a state or a circumstance.
5. He returned in a minute.
|
|
I never knew that the sentence actually implied
‘the man returned completely engulfed in something called a minute’, neither
was I ever told that a ‘minute’ was a state or a circumstance.
6. He found Shakespeare in the Encyclopaedia
|
|
I never knew that the sentence actually implied
‘He found Shakespeare -- in flesh and blood -- in the Encyclopaedia’, neither
was I ever told that an ‘encyclopaedia’ was a state or a circumstance.
7. Can you find Makkah in/on the map?
|
|
This sentence according to the rule expounded
by Mr. Katz should imply that the whole of Makkah, in its physical form,
should lie on the map, as obviously, a ‘map’ is not a state or a circumstance.
8. He found the complete project in the files.
|
|
This sentence, according to the rule expounded
by Mr Katz should imply that the whole project in its physical form, should
lie in the files, as obviously, ‘files’ is not a state or a circumstance.
These examples can go on forever (Sitting
in a chair; leave the key in the lock; A cigarette in his mouth; A knife
in his hand). But, obviously, they would only prove my ignorance of the
English language, which should already be well established in view of my
ignorance of such a basic rule of the language expounded by Mr Katz. I
guess the only way to save myself from severe criticism is to confess that
in ‘our’ Asian English, the rule expounded by Mr Katz doesn’t hold good.
Does it hold good in the American English is for Mr Katz to decide for
himself.
It should be quite clear that the
rule expounded by Mr Katz is absolutely baseless and does not hold good
for either the English or the Arabic language.
When the Qur’an says that ‘it
is [also] in the scriptures of old’, the meaning is quite close to that
which we imply by saying ‘Shakespeare in the Encyclopaedia’, ‘complete
project in the files’, ‘Makkah in the map’ and ‘beautiful cow in the book’.
In each of these sentences, an explanatory word which is quite obvious
for someone with a basic sense of the working of a language has been suppressed.
If the suppressed word is expressed, the sentences would then read as:
There is ‘a picture (or ‘depiction’)
of' a beautiful cow in the book.
Can you find ‘reference to’ (or ‘mention
of’) Makkah on/in the map?
He found the ‘details of’ (or ‘specifications
of’) the complete project in the files.
He found ‘the mention of’ (or ‘reference
to’ or ‘information on’) Shakespeare in the Encyclopaedia.
Based on the same principles, when
the Qur’an says: ‘It [the Qur’an] is in the scriptures of
old’, it simply means ‘it is ‘referred to’ (or ‘mentioned in’, or ‘foretold
in’) the scriptures of old.
It may be mentioned here that this
interpretation of the verse is not something new. Most of the interpreters
of the Qur’an (including Zamakhshari, Razi, Qurtabi, Ibn Kathir,
Abu Hayyan, Qummi, Burusawi, Maraghi and Tabrasi) have explained the
referred verse to imply the same meaning as is given in the foregoing paragraph.
It is quite strange that Mr Katz has not only ignored this explanation
of the verse, without giving any reason for doing so, but has also interpreted
the verse to imply something absolutely unknown to the interpreters of
the Qur’an. In this case, what actually entails a logical fallacy
is, obviously, not the Qur’an, but Mr. Katz’s interpretation of
the cited verses.
I am sure that Mr Katz’s next question
would be ‘Where have the scriptures of old mentioned the Qur’an’.
I am also greatly tempted to write on the subject. However, the scope of
this article was only to explain the cited verses of the Qur’an.
The mentioned question shall be answered in time.
|