Contradictions in the Qur’an

[فداء الرسول]

Contradictions in the Qur’an

Contradictions in the Qur’an
Syed Iqbal Zaheer
It has dawned upon someone, as it dawns upon many from time to time, that the qur’an has many contradictions. Eleven have been cited by him. The writer places an introduction to his findings. We shall, in a series of articles, take up these contradictions for answer. But in this issue we shall discuss the writer’s introduction. It runs as follows:

“The Qur’an, with its many ambiguous statements, is an ideal scripture to find contradictions. At the same time, its ambiguity provides a good opportunity for Muslims to find some explanation or the other to negate a contradiction. Some of the contradictions mentioned below might have already appeared on other Web Sites with slight variations.

Though Muslim scholars emphasize on the need to understand the CONTEXT of every verse to understand its implication better, the job is easily said than done. The innumerable repetitions and frequent appearance of irrelevant verses make the CONTEXT-finding task indeed difficult. One would expect a scripture to be organized in some logical manner to enable people to understand it better. Unfortunately the Qur’an, often projected by Muslims as the FINAL TESTAMENT from God, fails in this criterion too.

“Better than a thousand verses devoid of meaning is a single meaningful verse which can bring tranquility to the one who hears it” (Dhammapada, 101).

Our answer, point by point is as follows:

Ambiguity

Apart from the Qur’an, take any other literature, human or Divine. What is ambiguous to one is deeply meaningful to others. Let us cite a simple example. The Prophet said, “God says, He is Time.” How many billions are not there, even in our own times, to whom this is an ambiguous statement? But when Dr. Iqbal mentioned it to Bergson, he, despite his handicapped state, almost jumped out of his chair in sheer amazement.

The mere fact of the Theory of Relativity being ambiguous to a billion, does not render it ambiguous.

What makes a statement ambiguous? It is, when it apparently sounds so to mankind, by consensus, educated and uneducated alike; and when explained by an expert, the great majority should think that it is a far-fetched explanation, or that the explanation is too philosophical, or, simply incomprehensible. When a majority thinks of a statement in these terms, then it is ambiguous.

On the other hands, so long as there is an explanation which employs reason, logic, and common sense, which explanation satisfies not the exponent himself, or a few of his followers, but an educated people, in sufficient numbers, then the statement is not ambiguous. It does not mean such a statement is true, or false. It is merely unambiguous. It could as well be false.

Someone might quickly cite as example the famous huruf al-muqatta`at of the qur’an as ambiguous, e.g. “Alif. Lam. Meem,” “Taa. Haa.” The answer is, is there a consensus over their ambiguity? A second answer is, “Do you know something about meters in poetry?” And a third, “Have you heard them recited along with the texts that follow? Get the text recited without them and with them and note the difference.

Repetitions

This is a common feature in many kinds of literature, especially in poetry and oration. Since the Dhammapada (a Buddhist literature) has been cited, let us cite an example from Dhammapad istels:

”He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me,” – in those

who harbor such thoughts hatred will never cease.

“He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me,” – in those

who do not harbor such thoughts hatred will cease.

Far from innumerable repetitions, there is not one repetition in the qur’an removing which will not cause damage to the text. There may be repetitive use of words forming sentence, or even verses using exactly the same words, but placed in different contexts, each sentence yields several meanings and implications, and therefore, it cannot be called a repetition.

We can take the example of so-called repetitive verse of the chapter Al-Rahman (the Most Merciful): “Then which of your Lord’s blessings you two (men and jinn) will deny?” It appears 31 times in all, out of 78 verses. Is it a meaningless repetition when we notice that every time a blessing or blessings are mentioned, this question is asked? In fact, the repetitive verse of this chapter is one of the factors that enhance its beauty, popularly chosen for public recitation.

Further, apart from the psychological effect, reasons of rhyme and rhythm, do these verses have any other function? Are they not saying, “Look! You are tired of the repetition of this verse; but We were not tired of providing you with the innumerable blessings. And these countless blessings are for a life lasting seconds. Imagine what has not your Lord prepared for the everlasting Next life?”

Context

If a person is ‘out of context’ then, obviously, difficulties multiply.

Why a sentence? Take whole paragraphs or several of them out of context from any book, say one on String Theory in cosmology, and try to make sense.

Let us cite one or two simple examples. When the fuller implications of the Quantum Theory struck the leading scientists, Einstein remarked, “God does not play dice.” This was decades ago. But how many educated millions are not there, to whom this non-scientific statement is still ambiguous? Niels Bohr hung a sign on his door saying, “Philosophers keep out. Work in progress.” How many people understand what he meant?

If these simple sentences are “out of context” for many, it is because, they do not understand the context. Context is half the meaning. Why blame the Qur’an?

Irrelevant Texts

To some people, not passages, but the whole qur’an is irrelevant. A recent work (“The Field”, Lynne McTaggart, Harper Perennial, 2002) states that when realities of the same theory (Quantum Mechanics) first dawned upon the scientists who discovered it, it led them to look into “classic philosophical texts in their attempt to grasp the deeper truth about the strange subatomic world they were observing. Pauli examined the psychoanalysis and archetypes and the Qabbala; Bohr, the Tau and Chinese philosophy; Schrodinger, Hindu philosophy; and Heisenberg the Platonic theory of ancient Greece (p. xvi).” But none, at least as reported, took the qur’an as another candidate for study. The qur’an was irrelevant to them. Little do people understand that they are irrelevant to universal phenomenon.

The Qur’anic Law replaced the Arab, Roman, Greek, Persian, Hindu and Hammurabi laws. It is still the legal system of several countries. On the other hand the Arab, Roman, Greek, Persian and Hammurabi laws have either become irrelevant, or are on the verge of becoming so, while the Qur’anic Laws are being increasingly cited as relevant to modern times. But of course, if a reader does not know the Law, the people, the psychology of the human race, their spiritual yearnings, and dozens of other disciplines, then, much of the qur’an will sound irrelevant to him.

Qur’anic Logic

The qur’an is primarily a Book of Guidance. It is not a book of Law, nor of science, nor philosophy. It follows the commonly applied logic only where Law or science are involved. As for its compilation (putting together of its various parts), it does not follow the methodology that the humans have adopted for themselves, especially for their writings. The qur’an follows the sequential thought in which human mind works.

To explain, in normal circumstances, the human mind follows a system of thought that involves a logic that is different from that which they use in their writings and speeches. We can illustrate with the following example how a man’s mind works: “It starts thinking of the qur’an and makes the inner statement that it is incomprehensible because it follows a sequence that seems illogical. The word ‘logic’ reminds him of the Greek philosophers who did the seminal work on this topic; which reminds him that one time the Greeks made huge contributions to science and fine arts, which reminds him of his father who used to say that education makes a man out of an animal. The mention of his father reminds him of Australia where his father died. Having never been into that country he wonders what kind of a place it is, which reminds him that he hasn’t traveled for a long while, which leads him to resolve that he should save enough money to be able to travel, which reminds him that the establishment he works for is not doing well, and, far from a promotion, he could face retrenchment. Then his mind reminds him that he was considering the point of the illogical proceeding of the Qur’an, and he wishes it was simpler.”

Of course, from person to person, the mind will follow a different track of thought, but the process will remain. In many of its part, the mind works largely through association of thoughts. It might sound illogical to some people, but is it so? Is there no sequence in the working as illustrated above?

Let us now take an example from the Qur’an. After Surah al-Fatiha, Surah al-Baqarah starts by saying that this is a Book of guidance (verse 2). It describes believers (v. 3-5), unbelievers (6-7) and the go-in-between (8-20). Next it invites to worship of one God (21-22); throws a challenge at those who do not believe in the Divine origin of this Scripture (23), says Allah is not ashamed of citing a mosquito as an example (26), reminds of Him who created the world (29). It moves on to describes Allah’s intention to place Adam on the earth as the vicegerent (30), prostration of angels before Adam, Shaytan’s refusal to prostrate (34), and the expulsion from Paradise (35-39). Thereafter, by verse 40 it begins to speak of the Israelites, lasting for a good length (about 65 verses).

The mind of a novice will ask, “What’s going on here? Could it not be arranged in a logical manner?” This is because of lack of familiarity and insistence upon understanding the qur’an on one’s own conditions.

To a frequent reader, the sequence is perfectly logical, although it does require some application of the mind: “In Surah al-Fatiha, man asked for guidance. This second Surah says, ‘If you are looking for guidance, then, here is the Book of Guidance.’

Now, since this is a Book of Guidance, the verses that follow state the basic qualities of those who will draw guidance from it, and those who will not; so that, if the reader finds himself in the wrong bracket, he might change sides, or he will miss the guidance.

The go-in-between are described in greater details because (a) it is difficult to identify them, as they feign belief, (b) the like of them will always be there in every Muslim society and (c) they are more dangerous to Islam and Muslims than open unbelievers.

The above division is also to impress on the believers that mankind should not be divided on the basis of race, language or region. The only division accepted to Islam is on the basis of faith. This principle is maintained throughout the Qur’an: it ignores geographical, racial and linguistic divisions.

It is after having first informed the reader of the primary qualities of the class of people who will benefit from this Book, that the qur’an opens up the main door to guidance: It is to worship none but Allah, Lord of the worlds.

Now, there can be skeptics. What is the proof that this is from God? The answer is simple and emphatic: If you bear any doubt, bring a chapter of similar qualities as this Book. Consider, if Muhammad wrote it, then, Muhammad was, according to your beliefs, a man, far from exemplary, no Prophet, and hence, was either lying when he said that this was a Revelation, or was hallucinated, or deluded, or suffered from some sort of hitherto unknown mental disorder under the influence of which he produced the Qur’an.

Fine, everyone has the legitimate right to doubt; and the answer is, what was possible for Muhammad is possible for any other. What was possible for one man is far more easily possible for entire mankind. What was possible during 23 years of Muhammad’s life is possible for humanity given 1500 years, and what was possible for an unlettered man, should be possible for the highly literate people. So, why should you not produce a chapter, a passage, a verse of equal beauty, diction, style and theme? After all, Arabic is not a dead language like the languages of the other well-known ancient Scriptures! After all, there is no University worth its name in Europe and America, which does not have an Arabic/Islamic department, headed by highly educated unbelieving experts in Arabic language. After all, Muhammad was, according to you, lacking in many good qualities, and endowed with several evil ones, but you ALL are of noble lineage, noble qualities, noble standing. Why do you not – O learned, O pious, O noble ones – jointly produce something equal to the Qur’an? If you cannot answer this simple challenge, then know that a Fire has been lit for you.

Having presented its Call, and answered the doubt about the Call from being other than God, the qur’an – the Book of Guidance – next turns to the believers to reward them with the initial reward for their belief by removing questions that worry every individual, of every race, of all times: “Who am I? Where am I from? Why am I here? Where do I go after death? Am I an animal as the scientists say? Am I leading a meaningless life, to die a meaningless death?” No human ever escaped these questions, and no human escaped restlessness, unsettledness and dissatisfaction as a result. He is informed that he is not an animal, he is not incidental, he is no less than a vicegerent of God with responsibilities on him. Angels have prostrated themselves before him. He should not follow the Devil’s path. He will, if he keeps the tryst, next be proceeding to a vast place of pleasures and permanent residence. These answers release the mind of perplexity, anxiety and frustration.

But what’s the mosquito-example doing here? Well, a little thought would have done. Despite undeniable evidences in favor of this Book as a Revelation, despite the un-met challenge to produce its equal, what could be the basis for the people to disbelieve? Well, the reasons for rejecting this Revelation are no stronger than a mosquito. People disbelieve because they want to disbelieve. They will use evidences as weak and as evil as a mosquito, as pretext to disbelief.

Next, the passage informs the newly guided believers that now that you have accepted the guidance, you must realize that the same guidance was given to others in the past. Take for example the Israelites. They received the same guidance, but look, how they treated it. Be warned. If you treat this guidance in the same manner as they did, We shall treat you as we treated them: accursed.”

Now, the question is, is this sequence of ideas in this passage, illogical? Is the explanation far-fetched, or the mind accepts it as reasonable. One may go back to verses 1-104 to judge.

There is no passage of the qur’an but which reveals, with proper application of reason, a well connected theme, story, illustration, lesson, concept, or pieces of guidance. Indeed, experts demonstrate that there isn’t any verse in the qur’an which cannot be shown as reasonably well connected with the preceding or following texts. Yes, there are passages that require support of the Hadith literature for fuller understanding, but the primary meaning is there for the layman.

Ambiguity

It is true that not everyone has the intellectual capacity to study, analyze and deduct while studying the Qur’an. So, what about them? Is it a Book for philosophers? The answer is that if the primary function of the qur’an viz., guidance, is kept in mind, it becomes easier to comprehend and get over the problem of ambiguity.

As for an educated person trying to understand the Qur’an, its initial ambiguity can be removed through familiarity. That is, read it several times over. After all, merely to break the Arabs from the Turks, Lawrence of Arabia read the voluminous Arabia Deserta ten times. What ambiguity is there in the book which merely describes the Bedouin-Arabs in good detail, which led him to read it ten times over? Should not the qur’an be given equal opportunity?

One may put it to test. Open a page, from anywhere, and write down what he understands of it. The page over, he may read his own notes. The yield will be surprising.

One may also do a simple comparative test. He may open it from any page. Take any other Scripture of the past, holy to its believers, and open a randomly selected page. Read line by line: the qur’an and other Scriptures. Make notes of what one understand of both. If one cares, he may also make notes about the incorrect, unscientific, or questionable statements in the qur’an and other Scriptures. One may repeat the exercise with two more randomly chosen pages. Once again, one will be surprised to find how meaningful the qur’an is when compared to other Scriptures.

Tranquility

As regards the quote from the Buddhist Dharmapada, we may point out that the passage has been modified to suit the context. The original, as translated by no less than F. Max Muller, reads thus:

Even though a speech be a thousand (of words), but made up of

senseless words, one word of sense is better, which if a man hears, he

becomes quiet.

Even though a Gatha (poem) be a thousand (of words), but made up

of senseless words, one word of a Gatha is better, which if a man

hears, he becomes quiet. (100-101)

The above has been modified (e.g., from “poem” to “verse”) perhaps because “verse” sounds more Scripture-like. Secondly, the first part of the stanza was ignored perhaps to avoid contradiction within the two, and, secondly, because there is no word in human literature which will make a man quiet.

Nevertheless, although it sounds nice to hear that a single meaningful verse can bring tranquility to the one who hears it, in reality none exists in human literature, religious or secular. One might add that, given the restlessness of the human soul, and the condition of its existence, no single verse can ever be there to bestow tranquility. These nice sounding proverbial statements do not contain even half the truth. They sound nice because they demand no action, invest no responsibility, and remind of no questionability.

Interestingly, while discussing tranquility in all earnestness, none ever of the non-Muslims would quote the Qur’anic verse:

“Lo! In Allah’s remembrance do hearts find comfort.” (13: 28)

This is because of the condition that the qur’an places in its previous verse for obtaining tranquility. It says,

“And say those who have disbelieved, ‘Why a (miraculous) sign has not been sent upon him (Muhammad) by his Lord?’ Say, ‘Allah leaves unguided whom He will and guides unto Himself anyone who turns (to Him) in penitence; those who have believed, and whose hearts find comfort in Allah’s remembrance. And lo! In Allah’s remembrance do hearts find comfort.’” (13: 27-28)

The Qur’anic verse is not given credit because it demands that the seeker turn to his Lord in penitence, and believe in Him, before seeking tranquility. Most humans decide that they would rather go without tranquility, than submit. They would rather seek tranquility in a fabricated verse, than follow a Divine commandment.

As stated earlier, the contradictions in the qur’an shall be dealt with in future issues, Allah willing.

للمزيد من مواضيعي

 

الموضوع الأصلي : Contradictions in the Qur’an     -||-     المصدر : مُنتَدَيَاتُ كَلِمَةٍ سَوَاءِ الدَّعَويِّة     -||-     الكاتب : فداء الرسول

[فداء الرسول]

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

الشبهة الأولى :


To answer, let us take the first objection. It says: “Note the conspicuous absence of ovum required for fertilization in the first quote.” Of course the absence of ovum is conspicuous, but its presence is also so very obvious. It says, “That He did create the pairs – male and female – from a sperm-drop when lodged.” One has to ask himself, “lodged where?” or, “lodged into what?” The answer that the mind will supply is, “lodged into the ovum.”

This position is confirmed by modern findings which state that a new human is created out of contributions made by the male as well as the female. The male contributes a single cell called spermatozoa while the female’s contribution is called ovum. Both the male as well as female cells carry what are known as DNA, 23 chromosomes each. When fertilization of the ovum with the spermatozoa occurs, the new cell has 46 chromosomes, which are needed as the Master Instruction copy to make up a new human. The entire information about what the new human will be – in physical terms – is there in these 46 chromosomes.

Now, the sex-chromosomes contributed by the female is called XX, while the sex-chromosome contributed by the female is called XY. If the combination turns into XX, or XXX, then the fetus will be female, and if it is XY, or XXY, it will be male. Thus the future sex is decided at the fertilization stage still. This is clearly stated in a hadith in which the Jews asked the Prophet why a child is male or female. How is it determined? The Prophet’s answer was, “If the woman’s liquid overcomes man’s it is a female, but if a man’s liquid overcomes woman’s, it is male.” Thus the hadith confirmed against the belief of the time of the Prophet that a woman contributes nothing, that a woman also offers something (ovum), while it confirmed the modern findings that sex is determined at fertilization.

Let us discuss the second objection. The second Qur’anic passage quoted here is as if saying that sex is determined after several biological transformations of the fertilized ovum. This is confirmed by a Hadith also, which counts even the stages. So, according to the antagonist, there is contradiction between the first passage and the second passage plus the Hadith put together.

Now let us compare the two passages (53:45-46) and(75:38-39). First passage makes a general statement. Second passage expands upon the first. The first passage is saying: When the sperm-drop is lodged into the ovum, pairs are determined: male and female. The second passage (and the Hadith) is saying: several stages are involved in between the sperm-drop stage to creation of male and female. Where is the contradiction between the two?

To illustrate, let us take the help of science, what does it say? It says that “in a way” sex determination takes place at the time of fertilization itself, right in the fallopian tube (before it travels to the safe lodge, the womb).

Look at the Qur’anic words once again: “He did create the pairs – male and female from a sperm-drop when lodged.” (53:45-46). So, according to science, and according to these verses, sex determination occurs when the spermatozoa is lodged into the ovum, or, in scientific terminology, at the precise moment of fertilization. Thus, science confirms what the Qur’anic says here.

[Does the Qur’anic statement evoke any wonder? No one knows when exactly fertilization occurs, nor can anyone know about it. In fact, it is not possible for anyone to know. For, at that moment, it is a single cell, like a hundred billion others. It cannot be identified, cannot be isolated with the help of any machine. It is then in the fallopian tube, and even the woman does not know that fertilization has occurred. She will need a couple of weeks before she can seek the help of scientists to determine whether she is pregnant or not. So, if Prophet Muhammad wrote the Qur’an, how did he know that sex is determined right with conception?]

To proceed, let us consider the second passage (and the hadith) further. Although what the biologists call as “genetic sex” can (and in most cases does) determine the sex of the developing embryo (now in the womb), yet, one cannot be one hundred percent sure of what will emerge in the end.

This is because future sex of an embryo depends “largely” (but not wholly) on the class of spermatozoa that is lodged into the ovum. The female contributes only an X chromosome, while the male spermatozoa can be either X or Y. If it happens to be an X-bearing sperm from the male also, then the fetus should develop into a female. If it is a Y-bearing sperm from the male, the fetus should develop into a male. So, XX combination is female, while XY, or YY, is a male. But, this does not guarantee the sex of the embryo as one or the other. Various malfunctions can finally determine what the infant will be.

The scientific finding is that the primary determination of sex, through primary ingredients of the zygote (being XX or XY/YY) is one thing, actual development of sex gonads (organs) is another. It is the actual development of the primary sex organs (gonads) that will ultimately tell us what it will be. That does not happen at fertilization. It takes painful 6 weeks to happen: “Before the seventh week of embryonic life, the gonads of both sexes are identical in appearance and are referred to as indifferent gonads.” (The Developing Human by Keith L. Moore, p. 273).

During what the scientists call “indifferent gonad stage” (lasting 6 weeks), the genitalia are similar in both sexes. Thereafter, sexual characteristics begin to develop. If it is going to be a male, then male gonads begin to take shape. On the other hand, “In embryos lacking a Y chromosome, gonadal development occurs slowly. The ovary is not positively identifiable until about the tenth week.” (Ibid, p. 274) See the diagram on the next page




Schematic sections illustrating the differentiation of the indifferent gonads into testes or ovaries. ‘A’ (six weeks), shows the indifferent gonad. Sex of the embryo cannot be determined at this stage. ‘B’ shows seventh week development. This is the first sign of what the sex of the fetus is going to be; that is, if any malfunction does not take place during the following stages. ‘C’ shows signs of femaleness, and is not easily distinguishable from ‘B’ until 12 weeks. ‘D’ and ‘E’ are 20 weeks old. ‘F’ is Sectional view of the seminiferous tubule of D while ‘G’ is Section from the ovarian cortex of 20 week fetus. (Illustration courtesy of The Developing Human, p. 273)

Thus, by the 7th week alone it is possible to know whether the fetus will develop into a male or not. If it does not show the signs of male-ness, it will be female. However, during the same 7 weeks, other organs are also developing: brain-tissue formation has begun, heart begins to beat (within 3 weeks), upper lip is formed, arms and feet start to take shape, etc. This agrees with the Qur’anic and hadith descriptions.

To put it in yet simpler words, the sexual organs (gonads at this stage) appear only after 6 weeks. Male gonads can be recognized after the 7th week. However, the genitalia remain similar in both sexes until the 9th week. External sexual characteristics begin to develop thereafter. Development of the external genitalia is not complete until the 12th week, by which time models of the bones have formed and the muscles have become attached to them.

The following may also be noted: “Although it is commonly stated that the sex of gonads can be distinguished during the embryonic period, it must be emphasized that a diagnosis of femaleness can be made only after failure to observe testicular characteristics in a gonad from an embryo known to be older than seven weeks…Testes can be recognized as such in embryos around the end of the seventh week.” (Ibid, p. 276).

Let us now look back at the second Qur’anic passage quoted by the skeptic and ask ourselves whether they agree with the scientific findings of past 50 years. It says, “Was he not a drop of sperm emitted? Then did he become a leech-like clot; then did (Allah) make and fashion (him) in due proportion. And of him He made the sexes, male and female?” (75:38-39)

And the Hadith:

“When 42 nights have passed over the drop (nutfah), Allah sends an angel to it, who shapes it and make its ears, eyes, skin, flesh and bones. Then he says, ‘O Lord, is it male or female?’ and your Lord decides what He wishes.”

We need to consider how closely the Qur’an and Hadith are stating what science confirmed 1400 years later!

We have sated above: “future sex of an embryo depends ‘largely’ (but not wholly) on the class of spermatozoa that is lodged into the ovum.” Why do we use the word ‘largely?’ It is because malformations can take place right from the time the gonads begin to develop: “Because an early embryo has the potential to develop either as a male or a female, errors in sex development may result in various degrees of intermediate sex, a condition known as intersexuality, or hermaphroditism.” (Ibid, p. 283). Of the intersexual variety, there are various kinds: true hermaphrodites, male pseudohermophradites, female pseudohermophradites. Or the fetus can suffer from ‘testicular feminzation’ (despite XY sex chrosomes), or there may occur what is known as mixed Gonadal Dysgenesis, Hypospadias (one in every 300 males), Turner’s syndrome, etc., etc. There are so many malfunctions that one wonders how true males and females arrive at all. The point in any case is that, to re-state: “future sex of an embryo depends ‘largely’ (but not wholly) on the class of spermatozoa that is lodged into the ovum.”

But more interestingly for the biologists as well as for Qur’an students, it has been discovered that presence of XX chromosome in the zygote does not guarantee a female. Males have been discovered who carry XX chromosome alone with no trace of Y-chromosome. (Adam’s Curse, a future without Men, Bryan Sykes, p. 88, Corgi Book UK, 2004, and Know Your Genes, Aubrey Milunsky, p. 41, Penguin, 1980). On research it was discovered that although the Y-bearing chromosome was absent, a small segment of it (and not the whole) was found attached on some other chromosome. In fact, quite a few male fetuses could have been aborted by male-desiring parents (largely in India and China) if they went by the tests revealing that the fetus was XX. There is a chance they were male, despite discovery of XX. Similarly, there can be “superficially female people with an X and a Y, but they are exceptions that prove the rule. The key masculinising gene on the Y chromosome is missing or broken in such people’ (Genome, Matt Ridley, p. 108, Fourth Estate Ltd., UK, 1999). That is to say, the Y chromosome is missing but is represented by a functionless strand.

The above is the explanation of why an ovum fertilized by a Y-bearing sperm can still result in a female, or other classes of intersex.

Now, one may ask, when exactly is the decision made about how the gonad is going to develop? The answer is, perhaps no one knows. One has to cross the fingers and wait for the outcome of the embryonic developments, and, in the meantime remember Allah’s words in all humbleness, “Was he not a drop of sperm emitted? Then did he become a leech-like clot; then did (Allah) make and fashion (him) in due proportion. And of him He made the sexes, male and female?” (75:38-39).

[فداء الرسول]

2. Width of the Garden
There is a clear discrepancy with reference to the width of the Paradise or Garden in the Qur’an. Verse 3:133 says that it is all the heavens (Samawath: plural) and the earth combined. Verse 57:21 says that the width is the (lower?) heaven (Sama: singular) and the earth combined.

(3:133)
“…. a Garden whose width is that (of the whole) of the heavens and the earth, prepared for the righteous,”

(57:21)
“…. a Garden (of Bliss), the width whereof is as the width of the heaven and the earth, prepared for those who believe in Allah …. “

Answer to Contradiction no. 2: The word سماء (heaven) of the second instance has been used as اسم الجنس (generic noun) which, following grammatical rules attached to this ‘particular kind of noun,’ (of which there are several kinds in Arabic), generates the meaning both in singular as well as in plural. A little knowledge of grammar will come handy to understand the Arabic Qur’an.

[فداء الرسول]

شبهة 3 هل الله يظلل الناس؟
3. Who misleads people? Satan or Allah?
According to verse 4:119-120, Satan (the rejected one) is the one who creates false desires and misleads people. Refer also 15:42. However, according to verse 16:93, it is God who leaves people astray as He wills! See also 4:78.

(4:119-120)
“I will mislead them, and I will create in them false desires…..” (says Satan)

“Satan makes them promises and creates in them false hopes….” (vouched by Allah)

(16:93)

“If Allah so willed, He could make you all one people. But He leaves straying whom He pleases and He guides whom He pleases ….”

Answer to Contradiction no. 3: The first verse of these quotes (4:119-120) is speaking of Shaytan’s will, his intention, and his resolve: He will attempt to misguide. But will he succeed or fail? That will depend on Allah’s Will, which is expressed in (16:93). Allah has allowed Satan the opportunity to do his work but not the power to impose his will. It is Allah who decides the outcome of his prompting, and man’s response to it. Sometimes, He intervenes to fail them, sometimes He does not. When He does not intervene, allowing Satan to succeed, and man to implement, it is like Himself having led the man in question into error. After all, if He wished, He could have come in between the man and Satan, but He did not, so, in a way He became responsible.

But, we have to be clear about what exactly Allah is responsible for? He is merely responsible for not having intervened. He is not responsible for the misguidance itself, which was the work of Satan and choice of man.

He had ordered man not to take the company of Satan and not to follow his promptings. Man answered, ‘Does Satan exist, and, assuming that he exists, how should I know it is Satan’s prompting?’ He was answered, ‘Use My Revelation.’ Man said, ‘Ah! Your Revelation!? Well, I shall find fault in Your Revelation.’ So Allah abandoned the man to the Devil.

Yet, how often it is not that man and his Devil-friend intend to do wrong, injustice, and oppression to others, but Allah intervenes. If He did not, life would become Hell for others. It may be objected that man should have freedom to do his will. The answer is, he has the freedom of will, but not full freedom of evil action. In the interest of other creations, Allah intervenes at the time of man’s execution of evil.

Thus, misguidance comes from Satan (and is accepted or rejected by the humans), while the permission for it to take effect comes from Allah. In contrast, guidance never comes from Satan. Allah is the sole Cause, Provider and Executer of Guidance. Therefore, one of Allah’s Name is “Al-Hadi” (الهادي: the Guide), but not “Al-Mudill” (المُضِل: the misleader/deluder).

.................................

شبهة 4 تناقض في معاملة الوالدين الكفار


4. Attitude towards unbelieving parents

Al-Qur’an givens contradicting information as to what a believer should do when unbelieving parents and brothers insist on worshipping their gods. Verse 31:15 asks believers to keep company with unbelieving parents even if they insist (on following their religion?), but verse 9:23 asks believers not to take their fathers and brothers as protectors if they disbelieved!

(31:15)

“But if they strive (Jahada) to make thee join in worship with Me things of which thou hast no knowledge, obey them not; yet bear them company in this life with justice (and consideration)…”

(9:23)
“O ye who believe! Take not protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above faith: If any of you do so, they do wrong”

These verses of course appear in different contexts. Apologists can argue that verse 9:23 is applicable only in the context of hostilities and not otherwise. Then we have to define what is hostility. We must not forget that many passages in the Qur’an reflect an hostile environment of fluctuating fortunes between believers and unbelievers. Since neither the Suras nor all the verses within Suras are arranged chronologically, the contexts of these `revelations’ become that much difficult to understand. Interestingly, verse 31:15 also seems to appear in the context of `Striving’ from the Unbelievers’ side. Note the word `Jahada‘!

Answer to Contradiction no. 4: There are many things that are difficult to understand; but that does not make them any less worthier. It is said that at one point of time (in fact, even now), Quantum Theory was understood by as many scientists as could be counted on a single finger. But that did not make Quantum Theory false. What makes a writing unworthy of study is not the difficulty in understanding it, but the fact that after subjecting it to hard study, the understanding you achieve is worthless in your own eyes as well in the eyes of the great majority of people, (leaving out those who wish to believe in its grandiosity, say what you will).

As regards the verses quoted, we fail to perceive any contradiction. The two are discussing different issues. Quote (31:15) says: treat the parents well, but do not obey them if they ask you to ascribe partners to Allah; while quote (89:27-30) directs the believers not to treat them as close allies if they remain unbelievers.

Treating somebody well is an outgoing activity, while taking somebody an ally is an incoming activity. Treating well is a positive work, not taking an ally is a negative attitude. Treating well is generosity, not taking an ally is precaution that does not preclude good treatment. You can treat well, but keep your secrets to yourself: one is ordered, another is prohibited.

The two verses put together are creating a one-way traffic of goodness flowing from the believer to his parents (and homefolk). He sends across good, but when it comes to sharing secrets, which normally ends in seeking some sort of help from them, he is directed not to try and get back any good from them for the good he does them. Should he continue sending forward benefits to them? The answer is, yes. He should.

.............................................

]الشبهة 5 هل تدخل الروح او الجسد او كلاهما الجنة


5. Which enters the Paradise: Soul or Body or Both?
After resurrection, it is the body (after reuniting with the soul?) which enters the Paradise. This has been emphasized throughout the Book. See verses 13:5, 17:98-99, 20:55, 34:7, 75:3-4. However verses 27-30 in Sura 89 state that it is the Soul (Nafs)* which enters the Garden!

(17:99)

“See they not that Allah who created the heavens and the earth has the power to create the like of them (anew)? ….”

(75:3-4)
“Does man think that We cannot assemble his bones? Nay we are able to to put together in perfect order the very tips of his fingers…”

(89:27-30)
(To the righteous soul will be said) “O (tho) soul, in (complete) rest and satisfaction! Come back thou to thy Lord – well pleased (thyself), and well-pleasing unto Him! Enter thou, thee among my Devotees! Yea, enter thou My Heaven!”

(31:28)
“Your creation and your rising (from the dead) are only as (the creation and the rising of) a single soul…” (Pickthall)

In Islam, the bliss in Paradise is not complete without the corporeal and sense pleasures. Otherwise, how can one drink Zanzabil (76:17), feel the moderate temperature (76:13), enjoy maidens (55:56) and drink honey and milk (47:16-17). These are all joys in state for the faithful.

Yousuf Ali (note 6128 for verse 89:27-30) also says that it is the soul which enters the heaven, and not the gross body which perishes (His comment is contradictory to what verse 75:3-4 says!). Read verse 31:28 also. It says man’s creation or resurrection is in no wise but as an individual soul*. Pickthall’s translation (see box above) is more clear.

_____________
* Unlike in Vedic scriptures, the Qur’an does not clearly recognize the SOUL as a distinct entity from the BODY. The soul is often referred as a source of all inclinations and desires (3:61, 12:53). The Arabic word `Nafs‘ has been translated differently by different translators: as SOUL, MIND, SPIRIT and even as HEART! The word `Nafs‘ at times refers to the individual (12:53), sometimes to the Soul (6:93, 39:42), and sometimes to God Himself (6:12,54)!. Of particular interest is verse 21:35 which says “Every soul shall have a taste of death…. “. This verse could mean: (i) that the Soul gets a taste of death after separation from the body, as Yousuf Ali interprets or (ii) that the Individual gets a taste of death as it is generally implied on most occasions (3:61, 51:21). Those who are of the opinion that `Nafs‘ in 21:35 only mean the real Soul would then have to consider this verse as another contradiction to verses 39:42 and 89:27-30 which imply that the Soul is taken back by Allah, momentarily during sleep and decisively at death. Does it mean that the Soul has no death?

Answer to Contradiction no. 5: We do not feel oblige to defend what the commentators of the Qur’an wrote, if they put forward their personal opinions. We can only answer objections raised against the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and the unanimous opinions of the first three generation Muslims.

As for the opinions (about Nafs or anything else) derived from the Vedas, it is a matter of common knowledge that you can derive any kind of opinion you like from the Vedas. The vast literature, and variety of opinions expressed therein, allows great leeway. Further, there is no central authority to refer to, so one is free to interpret and say, e.g., there are a million gods, or that there are three, or that there is only one, or that there is none; there is no authority to accept or reject your opinion.

You have yourself given the various meanings in which the word Nafs has been used in the Qur’an. Herewith, translation of the verses you have quoted, with the right meaning chosen for the world Nafs.

5a/1. Do they not see that Allah, who created the heavens and the earth, has the power to create the like of them? He has appointed a term for them, there is no doubt about it; but the unjust refuse except that they should reject. (17:99) & 5a/2. Does man think that We cannot assemble his bones? Nay, We are able to shape together the very tips of his fingers. But rather, man desires to continue sinning (in days) ahead of him. (75:3-4)

5b/1. O tranquil soul!1 Return to your Lord, well-pleased and well-pleasing (unto Him). Enter you among My (chosen) slaves. Enter My Paradise.’ (89:27-30) & 5b/2. Your creation and your upraising are not but like (that of) a single individual. Surely, Allah is All-hearing, All-seeing. (31:28)

Do you see any contradiction now between the two set of verses under 5a and 5b?

The Qur’an does not leave room for doubt that the Resurrection will be with the body and soul, except that it will happen in a world of different dimensions, of different kind of matter, of different laws, and different forces. Ibn `Abbas has said that nothing of the Hereafter resembles its counterpart in this world except that they share the same names. The Qur’an is after all, for the humans, and, therefore, it was inevitable to use the terminology employed by them. Deriving a literal meaning of terms used in connection with the Hereafter is inadvisable.

.............................

شبهة احتياج الله للانسان ( تعالى الله عما يصفون)


6. God needs man or man needs God?

A very clear contradiction exists between verses 51:56 and 35:15. While the former verse says that God created Jinns and mankind for His own reasons (read also 67:2), the latter one says it is man who is in need of God! Read also 51:57.

(51:56)

“I have only created Jinns and men, that they may serve me” *

(67:2)
“He who created Death and Life, that He may try which of you is the best in deed”

35:15
“O mankind! It is you that have need of God: but God is the One Free of all wants, worthy of all praise”

_____________

* Of interest in this regard is the popular (but probably fabricated) Hadith: “I was a secret treasure, and I created the creatures in order that I might be known” (*, *)

Answer to Contradiction no. 6: The translation of 51: 56 is incorrect. It should read, “I have not created men and Jinn but that they should worship Me alone.” That is, Allah did not create men and jinn because He wanted to be worshipped, but rather, since He created them – all by Himself – it is expected that they will not worship any but Him. This is the meaning intended by the verse.

Aren’t the zillions upon zillions of angels that He created, who worship none but Him, enough for Him, if at all He stood in need of devotion? If He needed men and Jinn to worship Him, for His satisfaction, would He not have forced them to do so? Would He not have broken the head of every foolhardy who bowed his head before false gods? Would He not have made mankind perish out of thirst and hunger by withholding rains, until, after the death of millions, the rest had axed down every idol, smashed every false god’s picture, reduced to dust every temple; and everyone bowed in obedience his starved bones, and broken will, before Him?

It is man’s self-centeredness, his egoism, his bigotry, his conceit and his overestimation of the self which led to the belief in the West that God needs him. This led the Church to persecute those scientists who demonstrated that the earth goes around the sun. Man was all too important for them to allow the earth, in which they lived, to go around the sun. The sun – they thought – should be slavishly going around the earth because they lived upon it.

Islam does not allow man any such self-delusion. Says the Qur’an (35: 17): “O people! You are the ones who are in need of Allah, while Allah is the Self-sufficient, the Praiseworthy. If He wishes, He can take you away and bring about a new creation. And that is not at all hard upon Allah.”

As for the Hadith of your quote: “I was a secret treasure, and I created the creatures in order that I might be known,” it is a fabricated one. We may remind ourselves of another, but trustworthy Hadith: Allah said,

“O My slaves, I have forbidden oppression unto Myself and have made it unlawful to you, therefore do not oppress each other. O My slaves, all of you are misguided save him whom I guided. Therefore seek guidance of Me, I shall guide you. O My slaves, all of you are hungry save him who I fed. Therefore ask food of Me and I shall feed you. O My slaves, all of you are naked save him I clothed. Therefore seek clothes of me and I shall clothe you. O My slaves, you sin by the day and by the night and I forgive all of your sins. Therefore, seek forgiveness of Me and I shall forgive you. O My slaves, you can never be in a position to harm Me that you might (attempt to) harm Me, neither can you ever be in a position to be of benefit to Me so that you might (try and) cause Me benefit. O My slaves, were the first of you and the last of you, the men of you and the jinn of you to become as pious as the most pious of you, that will not cause increase in My kingdom by any amount. O My slaves, were the first of you and the last of you, the men of you and the jinn of you to become as corrupt as the most corrupt of you, that will not cause decrease in My kingdom in the least. O My slaves, were the first of you, the last of you, the men of you and the jinn of you to gather together in a plain field and ask Me, and I were to grant everyone of you what he asked, that would not cause any decrease in My kingdom more than what would if a needle were to be dipped into the sea. O My slaves, it is nothing but your own deeds that I keep record of and then return them to you (in the form of retribution: good or bad). Therefore, let him who finds good, thank Allah, and let him who finds it other than that, blame none but himself.”

[فداء الرسول]

شبهة 7 الخير والشر من أين اتوا؟

Contradiction 7: EVIL AND GOOD: Where do they come from?
While one verse says that both Evil and Good issue from Allah, the very next verse says only Good comes from Allah!

(4:78)
“…. If some good befalls them, they say “This is from Allah”. But if evil, they say “This is from thee” (O prophet). Say: “All things are from Allah…..”*

(4:79)
“Whatever good, (O man!) happens to thee, is from Allah. But whatever evil happens to thee, is from thyself”

________________

* Interestingly, the remainder of this verse goes like this: “But what has come to these people. That they fail to understand a single fact?” Can anyone understand what God says here? The fact that both Good and Evil are from Allah or only Good is from Allah?

Contradiction 9. Who has to be blamed for the wrongs done?
From verses 35:8, 16:93, 74:31, 2:142, we learn that it is Allah who has to be blamed for all the misguidance. While other verses hold man himself responsible for the wrongs done (30:9, 4:79).

(35:8)
“Allah leaves stray whom He wills and guides whom He wills”

(30:9)
“It was not Allah who wronged them, but they wronged their own souls”

[COLOR="rgb(255, 140, 0)"]Answers to objection Nos. 7 and 9:

Since contradictions 7 and 9 are similar, we have combined the answer.

It is asked, “Can anyone understand what God says here?” The answer is, anyone can understand what God says here, only if he will give up being arrogant before a Book which is a Revelation meant for people with profound minds and noble souls.

The question that is dealt with in the first verse (4: 78) is that of the Prime Cause. Who causes things to happen? Did Prophet Muhammad have any say in what happened to the people, good or bad? The pagans alleged that the cause of good things that happened to them was Allah, but the cause of evil things was Prophet Muhammad.

In actual fact, what they were trying to say is that although God was pleased with them, ready to send down good, and good, and more good, it was Prophet Muhammad who had spoiled the situation by causing evil things happen to them. In short, they were trying to say that he was an evil omen, if not evil himself.

The Qur’an corrected them – at this point – only about the powers of Muhammad, ignoring the surrounding insinuations, because, in the scheme of Guidance, Tawheed (Oneness of Allah) comes first. It informed them that Allah alone was the Prime Cause. Muhammad had no say in the affairs.

In this connection, the question that arises is, (and which the pagans actually put forth, as stated in another part of the Qur’an), if Allah is the Prime Cause, then, He must take the credit for all that happens, meaning, if some people are unbelievers, worshippers of snakes, cows, stones or sun and moon, (add: dollars or credit cards), the credit goes to God. He caused it. If they are unbelievers in Muhammad and his Message, is it not because God so willed it? Isn’t He the Prime and Final Cause?

The question is a clever maneuver: “If we are unbelievers,” the pagans were saying, “and you don’t like it, ask God why. Think about it. God is the cause of all, as you claim; and God cannot cause evil. Therefore our worship of stone deities is not evil. It has God’s approval. So are you not contradicting God? He is so open, but you are so closed?”

This is the reason why the very next verse demolished this argument by saying, ‘Yes, God is the Prime Cause, but some of what He causes (in this case, evil) is occasioned by what you do.’

To clarify: If good things happen to you, or evil, what occasions them? Is the system arbitrary? But God is All-wise. He cannot be arbitrary. So, listen to the rules: God’s sending down of the good is occasioned by His own Kindness and Mercy. His kindness is not caused by anything except His Attributes. He sends down the good because He is Good. He grants in abundance because He is the Generous; and so on. His grant of the good things is not hinged on to how the humans behave. He feeds the good as well as the evil, the oppressed as well as the oppressor, believers in Him as well as the unbelievers.

So, what about evil? What causes it to descend? The answer is, “It is God who causes it to descend, but it is the acts of you humans which occasions it. Human action is the immediate cause while Allah’s is the Final Cause.”

What happens when the humans act badly? Two situations arise with respect to the consequences: either Allah should step in between the physical and spiritual reactions and responses, so as not to let any evil happen, or He should not. Most of the time He does come in between the evil consequences of evil actions of the humans, and prevents them from taking effect. So that, to give a simple example, when men smoke, He comes in between its effects and they escape cancer. This is what happens most of the times. This is the demand of God’s mercy. But at other times, He allows the reactions to evil actions take place. He does not come in between. To go back to the example of smokers, a few get cancer. So, what caused cancer? The answer is man’s own evil action – that of smoking, although it can be attributed to Allah since He did not intervene. This explains the words, “Whatever good, happens to you, is from Allah. But whatever evil happens to you, is from yourself.”

Another verse of the Qur’an says (42: 30): “And whatever of evil strikes you, is by what your hands have earned, although He forgives a lot.”

The Prophet further strengthened this point by reporting His Lord, in a long report, as having said (in a hadith of Muslim): “My slaves, it is your deeds that I reckon for you and then compensate for them. Therefore, if someone finds good, he may thank Allah, while he who finds other than that, may blame none but himself.”

When it is said in the above Hadith, “If someone finds good, he may thank Allah,” it is implied that although your deeds are not good, but Allah prevents adverse reaction and hence, let the men say thanks to their Lord.

How pertinent it is of the Qur’an, therefore, to end the verse 78 quoted above by saying (4: 78): “What then is the matter with these people that they come nowhere near to understanding the discourse.”

---

شبهة 8 لماذا يلام الانسان على كفره وخطاه وهو مسير؟



8. Who has to be blamed for BELIEF AND DISBELIEF ?

(6:12)
“It is they who have lost their own souls, that they will not believe”

(10:100)
“No soul can believe except by the will of Allah”

No explanation required for this contradiction!

Answer to contradiction No. 8:

Perhaps in the light of the explanation offered above (for objection nos. 7 and 9), no explanation is required for objection no. 8.

Yet, to add: whether a soul would believe or not is its own decision. When a soul (the inner self, the mind) has decided on disbelief no one can make it believe.

The decision to believe or not comes ex tempore. Sometimes, the truth is brought, but the man immediately rejects it. Why is it so? Well, there can be many reasons; but one of them is that some people are given to material and animal pleasures: of this life, they mere desire wealth, power, food and sex. They are poor in relationships with others, withholding from the poor and oppressing those over whom they have power. They form gangs, guilds, corporate organizations, consortiums, clubs and leagues of their own kind of men and women, in order to draw the best advantage of the system they design for the proletariats. They do not understand any language but that of money, guns, prisons, tortures, shares and stocks. They will mow down any number of people, to achieve their targets. They are lost souls.

When Truth is shown to them, in first instant they realize that it threatens what they have been working on for generations, and so “they will not believe.”

The second verse that has been quoted, “No soul can believe except by the will of Allah,” expresses another fact, a Law, viz. all power is in the Hands of Allah, and so no soul can believe unless Allah wills. Accordingly, when a man has decided to believe, it is Allah who grants him the permission before the man can spell out his belief.

That’s His Power and Control. They can be characterized as total, comprehensive and complete.

But so is His love of man. When a man decides to believe, God is happy with his decision and helps him on. If he moves an inch towards Him, He comes forward by a foot. He is too ready to forgive and facilitate belief.

But most men decide to disbelieve.[/COLOR]

[فداء الرسول]

شبهة 10 اضطهاد الكفار
Contradiction No. 10
UNBELIEVERS: To be persecuted or forgiven?
Verses 23:117 and 98:6 say that unbelievers will not prosper and are the worst of creatures!. Verse 9:29 also asks believers to fight those who do not believe in Allah, the Last Day, His rules and His religion of truth. But verse 45:14 says otherwise. Read also 16:128.

(9:29)
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth …..”

(45:14)
“Tell those who believe, to forgive those who do not hope for the Days of Allah; It is for Him to recompense (for good or evil) each people according to what they have earned”

Apologists can argue that verse 9:29 was revealed in the context of war and 45:14 perhaps towards the end of hostilities. The fact is that the Quran does not specify what verses are applicable in the context of war and what is to be followed during other occasions. And also what rulings were for the past, what are for the present and what are for the future! God has unfortunately left everything to our discretion. Ironically, Apologists claim that the Quran contains solutions for the problems of the Past, Present and Future. There is little doubt that their claim is more emotional than factual.

Answer to the Contradiction No. 10

The antagonist guesses “that verse 9:29 was revealed in the context of war and 45:14 perhaps towards the end of hostilities,” but the case is just the reverse.

Verse 45:14 was revealed at the end of the Makkan mission of Prophet Muhammad, just before migration and beginning of hostilities. These were to be sort of the last words of admonition and farewell before the Prophet would abandon his tribe to the fate of Time and move on to Madinah. He had already received revelations at Makkah to the effect that he might have to – after he had left the town – take up arms as the Makkans wouldn’t tolerate his presence and much-feared influence anywhere in Arabia.

On the other hand 9:29 was not revealed in the context of war, but rather, at the end of the Prophet’s hostilities with the Arabs. It was at the end because in the 9th year after Hijrah (when these verses were revealed), the Prophet’s mission itself was coming to an end. His wars with the Arabs had ended and Islam had overcome their resistance. His last days were spent receiving Arab delegations streaming into Madinah (some 96 of them), every few other days, declaring their submission to Islam.

Who understood the Qur’an better than the Prophet and his Companions? They knew that verse 9:29 was actually addressing not the Prophet but the believers. They were required to take up arms against the enemies outside the Arab Peninsula: the Ahl al-Kitab; because, if they did not, they would attack, and the Muslims would have the disadvantages of a defender. They were commanded to subdue them, and plant Islam in the heart of their stronghold. It is because nothing was left in them of the religion of Jesus Christ but what they had invented: the cross representing the Trinity. Note the collective noun used in the verse: “You all should fight..”

Who but the Prophet and his Companions understood the Qur’an better? They understood very well the implications of verse 45 “Say to those who have believed to forgive those who have no hope in the Days of Allah, that He may recompense a people for what they were doing.” Following this decade-old instruction, when the Prophet and his followers entered Makkah triumphant, the Prophet on his part forgave them in the profound peace overture he made at entry: “Go, you are all free.” On their part, his Companions also forgave the Makkans, and left for Madinah 3 weeks later, as empty handed as they were when they had escaped from them ten years ago. They laid no claim on the houses they had left, the businesses, the properties, the cattle, and orchards spread here and there – which had been confiscated by the Makkans. They remembered Allah’s words, revealed 10 years ago, and forgave all, forgot all, placing their hope in the second half of the verse: “that He may recompense a people for what they were doing.”

Had they understood the Qur’an as poorly as the present-day antagonist understands, they would not have left their properties and wealth in the hands of the confiscators, who were not even Muslims, and gone back to Madinah as hungry as they had arrived: 10,000 of them. It would not have been for the Companions the most pleasant thing to do, noting that the Makkans remained pagans, even as they – the immigrants – departed with their wealth of every denomination in Pagan hands! Does the antagonist understand now when we say he understands nothing of the Qur’an?

That verse 45:14 is Makkan, is written on its face; apart from the statement at the head of the Surah in which it occurs, which states, “A Makkan Revelation.” That apart, the content of the Surah is also speaking, though in undertones, of its early period of revelation. But antagonism blinds the eye: “It is not the eyes that go blind, but it is the hearts in the breasts that go blind” (22:46), and shuts the door to guidance.

The words of the antagonist, “God has unfortunately left everything to our discretion” is unfortunate for the human race. He wants more details. (Perhaps he wants equivalent of the Torah which we are told is in 50,000 pages). But such a desire is unfortunate because it is a Christian priestly evaluation of the humans who – according to the evaluation – are: sinners from the beginning; condemned as a species, unworthy of trust, unreliable for reasoning power, and helplessly waiting for a Savior to lift them off the curse of the first Guilt. In this priestly system of thought, every individual, of every race, of all times, is judged before trial – and condemned.

In contrast, the Qur’an trusts the human beings. It implies this in several places. The objection then of the antagonist that “God has unfortunately left everything to our discretion” echoes Christian sentiments about the human beings. It is not at all unfortunate – but rather an honor – that Allah has trusted us, given us a comprehensive, little work. A 30-volume work would not have been the best of gift to mankind. Allah left us to work out the details in the light of its guidance, our reason, armed with our intellect and our sincerity. The details that the antagonist is demanding, speak of distrust in man. It is as if to say, “If you did not give us the details O God, mankind will twist Your message.” He may have certain class of men in his mind. But all are not alike.

The words of the antagonist: “The fact is that the Quran does not specify what verses are applicable in the context of war and what is to be followed during other occasions. And also what rulings were for the past, what are for the present and what are for the future,” are true. God has done what the antagonist blames God for, because God gave us the reasoning power, and, trusting our honesty, left us to do our own home work.

The antagonist also says, “Apologists claim that the Quran contains solutions for the problems of the Past, Present and Future.” Yes it does, provided men do not distrust their own intellectual capabilities. If one of them does not have the ability to look for guidance in the Qur’an, he should seek help from the specialists, instead of arguing against the Qur’an by suggesting what more the Qur’an should have contained, or asking, why it placed trust in the reasoning power of the humankind, or why it is not an “Idiot’s Guide to Islam?”

---

شبهة 11 لا اكراه في الدين
Contradiction No. 11

God’s advice to Muhammed on propagating Islam
We have seen apologists quoting verses from the Quran in support of their claim that the Quran does not recommend forceful conversions. The verse they often quote is 2:256 which says “There is no compulsion in religion”. There are also many verses in the Quran which suggest otherwise and these have already appeared on web pages. Here we see two contradicting directives from God on conveying Allah’s religion to the people:
(3:20)
“So if they dispute thee, say: “I have submitted my whole self to Allah and so have those who follow me”….. “Do you (also) submit yourselves? If they do, they are in right guidance. But if they turn back, thy duty is to convey the message. And in Allah’s sight are (all) His servants”

(8:38-39)
“Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from disbelief), their past would be forgiven; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning to them). And fight them on until there is no more persecution and the religion becomes Allah’s in its entirety… “

Is verse 8:38-39 an abrogation of verse 3:20? If that is the case, can we recommend the directives in verse 8:38-39 as the standard method to be followed by all Muslims? Or is the latter verse given during the context of war? To me, these verses reflect the changing moods of the prophet in response to the public reaction he received. We see a content & tolerant messenger in verse 3:20 and a contempt and aggressive messenger in verse 8:38-39!

Answer to contradiction No. 11

As regards forceful conversion, there has never been any in Islamic history. It has been the other way round. When the first Muslim Empire – the Umayyad Dynasty – imposed a special tax on New Muslims because the officials thought the non-Muslims were converting in droves to escape Jizyah; it was pointed out by the scholars that Islam had not arrived to collect taxes.

The antagonist insists that common sense should not be lost sight of. But what he states in this regard makes no sense at all. Is it forced conversion that is leading thousands to embrace Islam in the West in our times? Is it not forced conversion to Western culture which is demanding that Muslim women confirm to its norms by shedding the veil or leave the country? Is it not the moral power of Islam which is behind the conversions in Europe and which leads to the antagonists predicting Muslim governments in France, Germany, Britain, Holland, and several other countries within a few generations? Force never works, was never ordered, never happened, and is not going to happen any time in future. If force could work, there should have been no Jew today after what they have had to go through at the hands of the Christians during the past 2000 years. It is time now for the antagonists to come up with newer ideas to combat the Qur’anic influence with more intelligent arguments. The old arguments are failing them.

The two passages quoted above are dealing with two aspects: the first is guiding the believers, while the second is informing the unbelievers of the dangers they expose themselves to if they decide to confront this Message. They are being told that two religions will not be tolerated in the Arabian Peninsula.

The first passage (3:20) stresses on the fact that everyone needs to correct himself, the Caller as well as the Called. Before the Call begins the Caller has to submit himself to the Will of God. It should not be what others have been doing: if somebody takes a shirt from them, they take away his estate from him while they preach just the opposite, “If someone takes away a shirt from you, give away your coat to him.” The Qur’an demands from the Caller, greater submission to God than the kind of submission the Caller demands from those Called.

As regards the next passage (8:38-39), there is no difference in opinion among the scholars of Islam that it was revealed in reference to the Pagans of Arabian Peninsula. They had two choices, either live in this part of the world or start packing their idols along with their luggage. If they chose to live on, the condition was that they lived without their idols. If they refused, they could kill the Muslims.

When the idol-lovers were given the choice, they were in great majority. So, it was more than a fair deal. They could fight and finish off the Muslims for good. When a poorly equipped minority challenges a well-equipped majority, then, it is not forcing the majority to bend to its will but rather, suggesting that they wipe them out. If those of Red Indian origin give the rest of the Americans similar choice, saying that they either embrace their ancient religion or leave America, we cannot say that they are forcing their religion upon the Americans, but rather, they are inviting their own extinction. When the Qur’an announced that either the pagans embrace Islam or leave the country, the Muslims were in a sort of hopeless minority, perhaps 1:10. So, in truth they were saying, “Come and massacre us.”

Sword? What sword?

Why are the unconcerned people of today angry now, after a millennium and a half, that the Arab pagans with 10:1 majority did not win against the Prophet? Why are the Pagans of today angry that after the pagan Arabs lost against the Prophet, they promptly threw away their idols in such a whole-hearted manner as to never pick them up again? Why are the antagonists protesting on behalf of the Arabs? Is it not a matter of indignity on the part of the antagonists that when they protest on behalf of the Arabs, to express sympathy for their supposedly historical forced conversion, the Arabs look at them as an inferior class of stupid people?

---

هذه الردود على المقال بقلم دكتور اشرف جزاه الله خير