Contradictions in the Koran
"Do they not consider the Koran? Had it been from other than Allah,
they would surely have found therein much discrepancies." (Sura 4:82). This
verse is further amplified by the already quoted texts:
"No change can there be in the Words of Allah (Sura 10:64) "There
is none that can alter the Words of Allah (Sura 6:34) We Christians believe this
too. Let us assume for a moment that there is no discrepancy between the message
of the Bible and the Koran, which, as we have seen, is not the case, and
consider the Koran on its own.
The problem of abrogation.
"When We substitute one revelation for another, - and Allah knows best what
He reveals, - they say 'Thou art a forger: But most of them understand not. Say,
the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation from thy Lord in truth."
"None of our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We
substitute something better or similar--Knowest thou not that Allah hath power
over all things?....Would you question your Apostle as Moses was questioned of
old?" (Suras 16:101 and 2:106,108).
We should like to find out how a divine revelation can be improved. We would
have expected it to have been perfect and true right from the start. Yusuf Ali
tries to explain:
"....it means that God's message from age to age is always the same,
but that its form may differ according to the needs and exigencies of the time.
Some commentators apply it also to the Ayat (revelation) of the Koran. There is
nothing derogatory in this if we believe in progressive revelation. In Sura 3:7
we are told distinctly about the Koran, that some of its verses are basic and
fundamental, and others are allegorical, and it is mischievous to treat the
allegorical verses and follow them (literally)." (comm 107). This is fully
acceptable. God has revealed His Word progressively, the revelation being
levelled at the comprehension and culture of the people to whom it was first
given. Everybody will agree that an allegory should not be taken literally. But
what about the law of 'mansukh' (=abrogated verse; please note Sura 2:106 does
not speak of intellect, culture or progressive revelation with reference to
scriptures given prior to Mohammed, but to Koranic verses only!) and 'nasikh'
(=the verses that take the place of the mansukh verses)? .
We must recognize one important principle: If we want to know what a certain
passage really means we have to make a proper exegesis. We have to establish
what exactly the text in question was intended to say to the original hearers.
How did they understand it? Only having done that can we interpret a text in
today's situation without distortion. There are various possible ways of
establishing the original meaning, but one should also look at the very old
commentaries and see how they understood and interpreted the text.
The "Tafsir-i-Azizi" explains three kinds of
abrogations (=cancellations):
i) where a verse has been removed from the Koran and another given in its
place;
ii) where the injunction (command) is abrogated and the letters of the verse
remain; !
iii) where both the verse and its injunction are removed from the text
Jalalu'd-Din, says that the number of abrogated verses has been variously
estimated to range from 5 to 500 ("Dictionary of Islam", page 520)
In his 'Itqan' he furnished a list of 20 verses, which are acknowledged by
all commentators to be abrogated ("Dictionary of Islam", page 520).
Just a few be mentioned here:
The Qibla (prayer direction) was changed from Jerusalem to Mecca (Sura
2:142-144); The division of inheritance left by parents or other relatives
according to Sura 4:7 had to be equal (a share and a share which has to be
determined). This was abrogated and replaced by verse 11, where it is commanded
that males must get double the share of females.
The night prayer performed by reciting the Koran ought to be more or less
half the time of the night (Sura 73:2). This was changed to as much as may be
easy for you (verse 20).
The treatment of adulteresses is to be life imprisonment (Sura 4:15), which
was changed to flogging with 100 strokes (Sura 24:2). This despite the leniency
prescribed for homosexuals (Sura 4:16) on repenting.
The retaliation in cases of crime, particularly murder, was to be confined
to people of equal rank (slave for slave, free for free etc.) (Sura 2:178) This
is in disagreement with Sura 5:48 and Sura 17:33 where retaliation is allowed
against the murderer only.
The Jihad or Holy War was forbidden in the sacred months (Sura 9:5) but is
allowed, even encouraged in verse 36 which replaces the former.
"Sura 2:106 occurs immediately before a series of sweeping changes, or
rather modifications, introduced by Muhammad in both the ritual and the legal
spheres.The verse thus precedes a change in the Qibla (vss. 115,177,124-151); in
the pilgrimage rites (vs. 158); in the dietary laws (vss. 168-l74); in the law
relating to talio (vss. 178-179); in bequests (vss. 180-182); in the fast (vss.
182-187); and again in the pilgrimage (vss. 191-203).
Similarly, Sura 16:101 is followed by allusions to modifications in the
dietary laws (vss 114-119), and in the Sabbath laws (vs.124)" ("The
Collection of the Koran" by John Burton).
Elaborating on this we note that the fast is compulsory "but if any of
you is ill or on a journey, the prescribed number (should be made up) from days
later. For those who can do it (with hardship) is a ransom, the feeding of one,
that is indigent." (Sura 2:184).
"'Here one can hardly escape the conclusion that the first verse (i.e.
184) allows a rich man to buy himself out of the fast." ("Islam"
by A. Guillaume). The next verse is said to replace the former. It allows no
compensation of any kind for the fast.
In verse 180 of the same Sura "it is prescribed, when death approaches
any of you, if he leaves any goods, that he make a bequest to parents and next
of kin....". This is said to be replaced by Sura 4:11, according to which a
double portion of inheritance falls to males compared to that of females.
The much discussed "verses of the sword": "....fight and slay
the pagans wherever ye find them and seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait
for them in every stratagem (or war)." (Sura 9:5) and "....when you
meet the unbelievers (in fight) cut off their necks..." (Sura 47:4) are
"said to have cancelled no less than 124 verses which enjoined toleration
and patience." (A. Guillaume).
To us it is surprising to find the mansukh and nasikh verses often near to
each other. We judge these to be cases of interpolation.
As stated earlier, we do believe in progressive revelation. The Old Covenant
of the Law, as given to Moses, was superseded by the New Covenant of grace,
which Jesus introduced. But these developments took place over a considerable
time (1 500 years) with many prophetic warnings and predictions in between, so
that no arbitrary action may be assumed on the side of God. In the light of this
we find it unacceptable that within a space of 20 years a need for change or
correction can become necessary. This surely suggests that God is either not
all-knowing or else the recorder made a correction.
There are other verses which further add to the
confusion:
"If we wished, we could make away with what we have revealed to
you!" (Sura 17:86). "We shall teach you to recite it (i.e. the Koran)
and you will not forget - except that Allah wills (Sura 87:6-7). Why should
anything be forgotten of an eternal revelation? To "substitute for it
something better"? We do admit that an inspired man can err at times, but
an inspired book (nazil) cannot!
Zarkasi explains the above concept more deeply. He states (vol. I p. 235):
"The 'naskh' (sic) of the wording and recital occured by means of God's
causing them to forget it. He withdrew it from their memories, while commanding
them to neglect its public recital and its recording in the mushaf. With the
passage of time, it would quite disappear like the rest of God's revealed Books
which He mentions in the Koran, but nothing of which is known today. This can
have happened either during the Prophet's life so that, when he died, the
forgotten material was no longer being recited as part of the Koran; or it might
have happened after the death of the Prophet. It would still be extant in
writing, but God would cause them to forget it. He would then remove it from
their memories. But, of course, the naskh of any part of the revelation after
the death of the Prophet is not possible." ("The Collection of the
Koran" by John Burton p.97). We suggest that Allah could have spared us a
lot of confusion, doubt and explaining, had He given the better text right from
the beginning.
"There was a series of Hadiths designed expressly to give the
impression that Muhammad had forgotten part of the revelations. The reports were
specific and detailed enough to identify the actual wording of the verses in
question. Anas is reported in the two Sahih's (i.e. al-Bukhari and Muslim) as
declaring: There was revealed concerning those slain at Bi'r Ma'una a Koran
verse which we recited until it was withdrawn: "Inform our tribe on our
behalf that we have met our Lord. He has been well pleased with us and has
satisfied our desires.' ("al-Itqan by Jalal al Din). 'Abdullah b. al Zubair
therefore asked 'Uthman what had possessed him to include Sura 2:240 in the 'mushaf'
(document or canon), when he knew it to have been abrogated by Sura 2:234.
'Because', he replied 'Uthman, 'I know it to be part of the Koran text.'
'(ibid.). ("The Collection of the Koran" by John Burton).
A further problem arises from the fact that there is by no means any
certainty which verses are mansukh and which nasikh, since the order in which
the Koran was written down is not chronological, but according to the length of
the Suras. However, even the Suras were not necessarily given in one piece. It
happened that a certain portion of a Sura was given, and the next given text
would be directed by Mohammed to be added to another Sura, and later again
another addition was made to the first again, etc. The Hadis gives no conclusive
information about the chronological order either, so that strictly speaking,
there is no means of determining which of two disagreeing texts is mansukh, and
which nasikh.
In any case we Christians see in this whole subject just a theological
gimmick to "explain" contradictions. The quotation:
"No change can there be in the Words of Allah" and "There is
none that can alter the Words of Allah. Already hast thou received some account
of those Apostles." or "the other Apostles also said so." (Suras
10:64 and 6:34). is contradicted by all those Muslims who claim that the Bible
which is admitted to be a revealed book, has been altered and corrupted.
To underline our point let us just look at two passages of the Koran that
have not been reconciled in terms of the law of abrogation.
In Sura 41:9-12 we read that the world was created in eight days, in Sura
7:54 we are told it were six days. It is, we suppose, up to the believer to make
up his mind which of the two he will accept.
QUESTION: Must we assume that God is
inconsistent? Knowing all things, such contradiction surely does not originate
from God?
Problems regarding the consistency of Revelation.
The Koran is inconsistent regarding commitments on the part of Allah on
which the believer can reckon or on which he can build his life. Commitments
that are given are contradicted elsewhere:
"Allah has inscribed for himself (the rule of) mercy" or
"Allah has prescribed for himself as law to act merciful" (Sura
6:12). is contradicted in the same Sura: (verses 35-39):
"If it were Allah's will, he would gather them into true guidance....
Whom Allah willeth he leaves to wander, whom he willeth, he placeth on the way
that is straight". As we shall see (pp 21ff.), the Muslim's hope rests on
that despairing word:
"IF it pleases Allah." This is striking, for even in the Old
Testament the believer was aware of the Law of cause and Effect. Once a believer
broke any of God's Laws he was cut-off from God, and was lost and perishing. But
if he atoned therefor in repentance according to God's prescribed ordinance (the
sacrifice) his sin was forgiven. God had committed Himself to it. This is even
further elaborated in the New Testament:
"If we confess our sins (while we have fellowship with God: vs. 6), He
is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all
unrighteousness." (I John 1:9). We see a definite regression from this
standard in the Koran.
We also find it strange to read:
"Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews
and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those
who say, 'we are Christians'." (Sura 5:85) This is supported to some extent
by an explanatory note in the "Mishkat" (IV page 103, note 2380) where
we are told that "nearly two-thirds of paradise" will be filled with
"the followers of the Holy Prophet and the followers of other prophets will
form one-third." In strange contrast to this are the words of Sura 5:51
"Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends." What
about being together in Paradise? The reason is just as strange:
"They (Jews and Christians) are but friends and protectors to each
other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily
Allah guideth not a people unjust. It can hardly be said that Jews and
Christians have ever protected each other, except that they agree on the
authenticity of the Old Testament.
It is said of Mohammed that he was the first to bow down to Allah (in Islam)
(Sura 6:14, 163, 39:12). But it is also said of Abraham, his sons and Jacob that
they were Muslims (Sura 2:132), and of all earlier prophets who brought 'books'
(i.e. Moses, David and Jesus) (Sura 28:52-53). Again it is reported of the
disciples of Jesus that they were Muslims (Sura 3:52).
All these we view as contradictions. Some would not be of a serious nature,
were it not for the claim that the Koran is "nazil" or "brought
down" from heaven to Mohammed without the touch of human hand - except for
the act of writing itself.
QUESTION: Is there any non-contradictable
statement in the Koran on which a Mulsim can rely to have eternal life in
heaven?