Haste Makes Waste [1]
Revisiting “Is half the Qur'an already fully detailed?”
Bassam Zawadi decided to respond to my article "Is half the Qur'an already fully detailed?" and tries to explain the problematic verses in the Qur’an with reference to a Bible verse. However, he compares apples with oranges and totally missed the main point. In particular, he does not answer at all to part two of the outlined dilemma.
To fully understand the argument, the reader may want to first read my original article (*) and Zawadi’s response (*), and ponder the arguments on both sides, before proceeding with my answer to Zawadi’s attempt to rescue the Qur’an from this logical problem.
I am going to answer piecemeal to Zawadi’s response. He writes:
Jochen argues that since the Qur'an had been revealed gradually and Surah 12:111 and 16:89 state that the Qur'an is fully detailed while they were revealed in Mecca, it therefore means:
(A) If the book was sent down complete, i.e. the whole book at once, then this claim could still be true or false but it would at least be meaningful. Or, (B) within the theory that the Qur'an was revealed piecemeal, such verses would make sense when they were revealed at the end, as the final verses added to the Qur'an.
Jochen summarizes his argument:
Here now is the reason why the repeated claim of the Qur'an to be "a detailed explanation of everything" (cf. this article) conflicts with the understanding that it was revealed piecemeal. Particularly the timing of the two verses S. 12:111 and 16:89 in the Makkan period causes the following dilemma:
A. If the Qur'an was already "a detailed explanation of everything" at the time these particular verses were revealed, what purpose does the rest of the Qur'an serve? Why was the Qur'an not finalized at that time? What more is there to add to a book that is already "a detailed explanation of everything"? Is at least a third of the Qur'an merely redundant repetition?
B. However, if the Quran was NOT YET "a detailed explanation of everything" at the time this claim was made, then the author of the Qur'an made statements that are clearly false. "God revealed" (?) something that was wrong -- at least it was wrong for some time, maybe even for several years until the Quran finally became complete and fully detailed and an explanation of everything. In other words, for at least ten years the Qur'an contained these statements that were false until the book was finally completed.
Jochen bases this whole argument on the assumption that when verses 12:111 and 16:89 say that the Qur'an is fully detailed and explains all things that the verses are trying to define "Qur'an" as only what has been revealed up to that point. The verses in no way give that indication. Here are the verses:
Indeed in their stories, there is a lesson for men of understanding. It (the Quran) is not a forged statement but a confirmation of the Allah's existing Books (the Taurat (Torah), the Injeel (Gospel) and other Scriptures of Allah) and a detailed explanation of everything and a guide and a Mercy for the people who believe. S. 12:111 Al-Hilali & Khan
One day We shall raise from all Peoples a witness against them, from amongst themselves: and We shall bring thee as a witness against these (thy people): and We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things, a Guide, a Mercy, and Glad Tidings to Muslims. S. 16:89 Y. Ali
No where do these verses state that only the Qur'an revealed up to that particular point in time is the Qur'an that explains all things. Rather, the verse is making a general statement about the Qur'an. The Qur'an is everything that was revealed before and after this verse. It is as simple as that.
This is the first problem with Zawadi’s response. He refuses to ask the crucial question: What did these verses mean to the Muslims present at the time when they were first recited? How would they have understood them?
Zawadi does not take the nature of his own scripture seriously. Although advocating that the Qur’an was given piecemeal over time (see his response to Sam Shamoun), he is still thinking about it in a static way. On one hand, he wants us to believe the standard Muslim theory that the Qur’an was revealed piece by piece over a period of 23 years, i.e. there was a historical development of the text of the Qur’an. On the other hand, he argues that when the word Qur’an is used within the Qur’an, it refers to the whole book in its final form, even in early suras, at a time when only a small part of the (final) Qur’an was available to the Muslims.
In Qur’anic exegesis, knowledge of the "asbab al-nuzul" (the occasions of the revelation) is necessary for understanding the meaning of individual verses or passages. Over and over again we read in the commentaries that this verse or passage was given at a certain occasion, in order to answer a certain problem or question, and taking this historical context into account is crucial when we want to arrive at the correct interpretation of a passage. Moreover, the historical sequence of certain verses is absolutely essential for "resolving" plenty of contradictions in the Qur’an by appealing to the doctrine of abrogation. Verse A supposedly does not contradict verse B, but (the earlier) verse A is abrogated by (the later) verse B. (See our discussion on the topic of abrogation in these articles.)
If the Qur’an, i.e. the available body of its text, developed by adding piece after piece over many years, then Zawadi cannot simply remove that interpretative framework when looking at these two verses. He does not give any justification for doing so. Apparently, he does this for the one and only reason that taking the timing of their revelation seriously would have uncomfortable consequences. That is inconsistent. And that is unacceptable.
We have to ask what did the audience understand them to mean at the time when these two verses were first recited by Muhammad? Clearly, at the time of their revelation, the Qur’an consisted exactly of the body of text revealed up to that point in time. And it is certainly a valid question to ask whether a statement or claim made in a given verse was factually true at a time when it was issued.
Let me quote Zawadi’s last couple of paragraphs again with some added emphasis:
Jochen bases this whole argument on the assumption that when verses 12:111 and 16:89 say that the Qur'an is fully detailed and explains all things that the verses are trying to define "Qur'an" as only what has been revealed up to that point. The verses in no way give that indication. Here are the verses:
Indeed in their stories, there is a lesson for men of understanding. It (the Quran) is not a forged statement but a confirmation of the Allah's existing Books (the Taurat (Torah), the Injeel (Gospel) and other Scriptures of Allah) and a detailed explanation of everything and a guide and a Mercy for the people who believe. S. 12:111 Al-Hilali & Khan
One day We shall raise from all Peoples a witness against them, from amongst themselves: and We shall bring thee as a witness against these (thy people): and We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things, a Guide, a Mercy, and Glad Tidings to Muslims. S. 16:89 Y. Ali
No where do these verses state that only the Qur'an revealed up to that particular point in time is the Qur'an that explains all things. Rather, the verse is making a general statement about the Qur'an. The Qur'an is everything that was revealed before and after this verse. It is as simple as that.
Zawadi has it completely backwards. He is accusing me of importing unnatural assumptions into the text which are not stated there. In reality, it is Zawadi who does exactly what he accuses me of. Remember, these verses were first spoken at a specific time and to a specific audience, and at that time, the available Qur’an, i.e. the body of "revelation" accessible to the Muslims, consisted of only those parts of the (final) Qur’an that had been recited by Muhammad up to that time.
Naturally, any reference to "the Qur’an" would first of all mean the currently available text of revelation. The possibility that the Qur’an may grow later by addition of further revelation is certainly understood by the Muslim community, but the Qur’an nowhere speaks of the Qur’an as an entity that is "not yet available" and will only be given later on. It always speaks about the Qur’an as something that is already there, and this makes sense only if it refers to the extent of the Qur’an as it is available at that time.
My interpretation that it refers to the body of text revealed up to that particular point in time is the natural understanding. It is what everyone present at the first recitation of those verses would automatically have understood. It is not an arbitrary, unwarranted or unnatural assumption forced upon the text.
Zawadi argues that he cannot see that ‘restriction’ stated explicitly in the text itself. But to even make that complaint means that he is looking backwards, with the knowledge of what the Qur’an is today. From the viewpoint of the final Qur’an, earlier stages may appear like restrictions. But that is not the proper historical understanding from within the development.
It is Zawadi who makes unnatural assumptions that are not stated in the text. Nowhere are these verses giving as much as a hint that their claims about the Qur’an will only become true in the future and should not be taken at face value at the current time, i.e. at the time they were revealed.
Does it really say:
Indeed in their stories, there is a lesson for men of understanding. It (the Quran) is not a forged statement but a confirmation of the Allah's existing Books (the Taurat (Torah), the Injeel (Gospel) and other Scriptures of Allah) and IN ABOUT TEN YEARS IT WILL EVEN BECOME a detailed explanation of everything and a guide and a Mercy for the people who believe. S. 12:111
No, the part in capital letters is not there in the Arabic text (or any English translation). On the contrary, the verse is formulated in a way that those who first heard it would automatically have understood that it refers to the Qur’an which they had access to, i.e. the portion (of the final Qur’an) that was recited up to that time. This is even clearer in the second verse:
One day We shall raise from all Peoples a witness against them, from amongst themselves: and We shall bring thee as a witness against these (thy people): and We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things, a Guide, a Mercy, and Glad Tidings to Muslims. S. 16:89 Y. Ali
The underlined part of the verse is formulated in the past tense. It is exactly the book/text which had already been sent down to Muhammad for which this claim is made. It does not say:
One day We shall raise from all Peoples a witness against them, from amongst themselves: and We shall bring thee as a witness against these (thy people): and WE ARE CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF SENDING DOWN TO THEE the Book THAT EVENTUALLY WILL BE explaining all things, a Guide, a Mercy, and Glad Tidings to Muslims. S. 16:89
Clearly, it is Zawadi who is forcing upon those verses an unnatural assumption that nobody present at the time of their first recitation would have made.
When looking at these verses in their historical context, my original interpretation is the natural one. I am not restricting the meaning of the word "Qur’an" as it is used in these verses, but I am taking it in the meaning that it would have had to its original audience. It is Zawadi who expands and enlarges the meaning of the term to something that it could not have meant at the time of revelation of these verses, because the entity known as the Qur’an today (i.e. its final shape) was not in existence at that time.
Clearly, it is Bassam Zawadi who forces unwarranted assumptions and an anachronistic interpretation on these verses.
The problem with these two verses still remains: The Qur’an was clearly not an explanation of all things, not even an explanation of all things of importance in Islam, at the time this claim was made. Mutee’a Al-Fadi wrote another rebuttal to Zawadi’s response, and in his article he lists more than 15 essential areas of Islamic revelation which were not yet part of the Qur’an at the time when S. 12:111 and 16:89 "came down".
Turning to the Bible for help
Zawadi isn’t done yet and attempts to support his misinterpretation of the Qur’an by appealing to a Bible verse:
We can give a similar example from the Bible. In 2 Timothy 3:16 it is said that all scripture is God breathed. Note that this statement was uttered before the book of Revelation (which is scripture) was written. If we were to use Jochen Katz's logic then that means that we should say that the book of Revelation is not scripture because it came after the statement uttered in 2 Timothy 3:16.
Zawadi misrepresents me badly when he puts the label "Jochen Katz’s logic" on the silly argument above. I never said anything like what he claims in this paragraph, neither about the Bible nor about the Qur’an. Zawadi is attacking a straw man argument. I did not say that the text "revealed" chronologically after S. 12:111 and 16:89 cannot be considered (part of the) Qur’an today (which would be the equivalent of concluding that the book of Revelation is not Scripture since it was written after 2 Timothy). I merely said that the entity that was referred to in the verses 12:111 and 16:89 by the word "Qur’an" is the body of text that had been recited as Qur’an (by Muhammad and the Muslim community) until that time. Responsible exegesis needs to take the historical context into consideration when interpreting a text.
Zawadi continues:
However, as Jochen might rightfully argue back, 2 Timothy 3:16 did not limit what scripture is until that particular point in time. Rather it was making a general claim regarding scripture and scripture would include all those that came before and after 2 Timothy.
Similarly, I will argue that Surah 12:111 and 16:89 does not limit the meaning of "Qur'an" to only refer to the revelations up to that particular point. Rather, it is making a general statement about the Qur'an and the Qur'anic Surahs were defined by our Prophet (peace be upon him).
Although he has not formulated it carefully, Zawadi’s explanation works for the Bible verse; but this same explanation cannot validly be applied to the Qur’an verses in question. The situation is not parallel. It is a false analogy. Zawadi is mixing apples and oranges.
In the following I am going to analyze some essential differences that invalidate Zawadi’s alleged similarity.
There are attributes or properties that remain true under division or partition, and others that don’t. For illustration: IF the Qur’an (as a whole) is of purely divine origin, i.e. God is the sole author of it, then this implies that God is the author of each individual sura (chapter), and that God is the author of each individual aya (verse). Divine authorship is an attribute which remains true for the smaller units (parts) if it is true for the whole. Formulated differently, divine authorship is an attribute that is stable under division.[2] Another attribute that is stable under division is the property of being "free of contradictions". If the whole book does not contain statements that contradict each other, then smaller parts of the book are necessarily contradiction free as well.
The property of "explaining all things" is not stable under division. Assuming that the (full) Qur’an does indeed contain explanations for all things, we cannot conclude that therefore each individual sura or each individual aya also has the property of "explaining all things".
However, "explaining all things" is an attribute that is stable under addition or unification. If two suras had this property, both suras together, when combined into one book, would still have that property.
On the other hand, the property of being "free of contradictions" is not stable under addition. It is possible that two suras are free of contradictions when examined separately, but plenty of contradictions arise when the two are combined and then examined together.
This above analysis shows that the two Qur’an verses speak about something fundamentally different than the Bible verse that Zawadi appealed to as an analogy.
Finally, the property of being of divine origin (or inspired or God breathed) is also stable under addition – when defined carefully.[3]
Anyway, here comes the crunch: As stated a number of times already, we need to interpret the verses in the Qur’an and the verses in the Bible in their historical context. The original meaning of these verses cannot simply be discarded. And that means that the above quoted Qur’an verses and the above quoted Bible verse speak first of all about the Qur’an and the Scripture (respectively) that was available to the intended audience at the time when these verses were first recited or written, i.e. they speak about the Qur’an that was revealed up to that time and the body of biblical books available up to that time. And for those entities the difference between S. 12:111 and 16:89 on one side and 2 Timothy 3:16 on the other is striking: The claim made by the Qur’an verses is definitely wrong, but the statement in the Bible is true – assuming in both cases, that the statement is true for the larger entity of the final book.[4]
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
The property of being "God breathed" is true for the body of Scripture available at that time, and then naturally expands to the full Canon of Scripture as God’s revelation is completed. As shown with a number of examples in the original article, the claim that the Qur’an is "explaining all things" was clearly wrong at the time it was issued (regardless of whether it ever became true upon the completion of the Qur’an).
Therefore, Zawadi used a false analogy and his appeal to 2 Timothy 3:16 does in no way support his argument for the Qur’an.
Regarding 2 Timothy 3:16, the statement in this verse originally refers to the Scriptures (biblical books) that are available at that time. But, as Zawadi himself said, "it was making a general claim regarding scripture", and as such the meaning of this statement is naturally expanding to finally cover the full Canon of Scripture. The statement was true at the time when it was issued, and it naturally grew as the body of revelation expanded.
A similar dynamic occurs in the Qur’an with regard to a different claim:
Do they not then consider the Quran carefully? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much contradictions. S. 4:82 Al-Hilali & Khan
This verse makes the claim that the Qur’an is free of contradictions. But not only that, it is a challenge to carefully examine the Qur’an and search for contradictions. It claims that none will be found (or rather: that none have been found so far), and that this constitutes evidence that the Qur’an came from God.
At the time this verse was "sent down", what exactly was it that the people had examined? What entity did they ponder, and in what book exactly had they supposedly not found any contradictions? It should be obvious even to Bassam Zawadi that they could only have examined the Qur’an that was available up to that time, and not those parts of the (final) Qur’an that had not been revealed yet. Nevertheless, this entity is simply called "the Qur’an".
This verse clearly has in mind the "current Qur’an" (current at the time this verse was first recited), but it does not say so explicitly. It does not say "the Qur’an up to this point in time". And it does not have to state this explicitly because that is obvious. This verse speaks first of all about the body of text available at that time. That is the original meaning of the verse, but the meaning of this verse naturally expanded as the Qur’an grew into its final form. There was no restriction put on this verse that it should not apply to what would be added later. It is a general statement (and in regard to its generality it is similar to 2 Timothy 3:16). As such, today this claim clearly covers and refers to all the text found in the final Qur’an, but that does not deny the fact, that originally this verse spoke only about the Qur’an that was available at the time when this verse was first recited.[5]
Let’s look at a couple of additional verses (out of many which could be referenced) that clearly show that the name "the Qur’an" is applied to the book already in its early stages when it was far from complete:
Verily! It is We Who have sent down the Quran to you (O Muhammad SAW) by stages. S. 76:23 Al-Hilali & Khan
Note that this verse is again formulated in the past tense. It refers to the Qur’an that had been sent down up to the time of revelation of this particular verse. According to Maududi (*) and Yusuf Ali, Sura 76 is from the early Makkan period. Yusuf Ali then adds the following footnote to this verse:
5855. The Qur-an was being revealed stage by stage as the occasion demanded and at the date of this Sura it was still one of the earlier stages. … (underline emphasis mine)
Although, at that time, the Qur’an was at most 10 percent of its final volume, this early portion of it is already called "the Qur’an". The past tense of the verb makes it impossible to employ Zawadi’s approach that this has to refer to the final form of the Qur’an. Still, the statement is a general one, and it "remains true" as the rest of the Qur’an is also sent in stages. Nevertheless, there cannot be any doubt about the original meaning of this verse. The first hearers, including Muhammad, would have understood by "the Qur’an" only the portion of the final Qur’an that was available to them at that time. They would not have connected the past tense verb with some future time, nearly two decades away. To my knowledge, nowhere did the early Muslims mention a belief in "a book that will eventually become the Qur’an". No, they always employed the name "the Qur’an" to what they already had.
Here is another verse:
… Say: "Allah (the Most Great!) is Witness between me and you; this Qur'an has been revealed to me that I may therewith warn you and whomsoever it may reach. …" … S. 6:19 Al-Hilali & Khan
Just like Sura 12 and 16, Sura 6 is from the late Makkan period. Again, the past tense makes it clear that this verse, in its original meaning, refers to the Qur’an available at that time. Moreover, it should be obvious that Muhammad can warn the unbelievers at that time only with those messages that he had already received up to that time. Still, this not yet complete book is called "this Qur’an".
For now, just one more verse with the same feature, also from the late Makkan period:
Say: "If the mankind and the jinns were together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they helped one another." S. 17:88 Al-Hilali & Khan
Again, the people can only be challenged to bring a book like the Qur’an that is currently available. It makes not sense to call on people to produce a book like another book that cannot be accessed because it is not even revealed yet. How could the people know what "like it" means if "it" is not in existence yet? That would be like asking Zawadi to rebut my next article before he has seen it, indeed, before I have even written it.
In the next section, I will present yet another verse that will be the final nail in the coffin of Zawadi’s argument that "the Qur’an" refers to the final form of the Qur’an instead of the Qur’an available at the time of the revelation of the verse.
To conclude: It is absolutely essential to ask what a certain verse meant at the time of its revelation, i.e. what it meant to its first hearers or readers. That has to be the first step of any responsible interpretation; that is the scholarly approach. Only when this has been achieved, then can we discuss whether the meaning of the verse may legitimately be expanded or adapted if certain entities mentioned in the verse have changed their nature in the meantime.
Zawadi finishes his rebuttal with these words:
In conclusion, I don't find Jochen's argument to be convincing and I find his mishandling of the Qur'anic text to be unprofessional and unscholarly.
I leave it to the readers to make that judgment. It is for them to evaluate the strength or weakness of our respective arguments. I am confident they will easily recognize who really is mishandling the Qur’anic text and interpreted these verses in an unprofessional and unscholarly manner.
Back to the main problem
To make sure that this matter does not get lost in the shuffle, I want to emphasize again the most important point of my original article which Zawadi basically ignored in his response: The statements found in S. 12:111 and 16:89, claiming that the Qur’an is "an explanation of all things", were definitely not true at the time when they were issued, and they were false for quite some time to come (for at least several years). In my opinion, that is a serious problem for the credibility of the Qur’an.
How about this formulation – just to get Zawadi’s attention: For the considerable time of several years, the Qur’an lied about its own nature and Muslims were therefore reciting a lie about the Qur’an for about ten years.
Another substantial problem is that the Qur’an is still not an explanation of all things, even in its final form – see the various instances of incompleteness that are listed at the end of the original article (*).
Let me tell a simple story to illustrate the issue. If a father asks his son who wants to go play with his friends: "Have you done your homework?" and the son answers, "Yes" despite the fact that he has not done it, then his answer is a lie even if the son genuinely intends to do the homework later. The story could continue in different ways. One possibility is that the son manages to do the homework later and the father never finds out that the son didn’t tell the truth. Another possibility is that some unforeseen circumstances prevent the son from doing the homework later on, and he is not able to hand it in when it is due. The teacher then tells the father, so that the father knows that the son lied, and the son is punished. Although the consequences may be different, the son’s answer was a lie in either case. Similarly, even if the author of the Qur’an intended to make the Qur’an a book containing "a detailed explanation of everything", when the author claims that the Qur’an (already) is the book that explains all things before it actually provides an explanation of all things, then that is a lie. Does that not bother Bassam Zawadi?
But in the case of the Qur’an the story continues with the second of the above mentioned options (the worst case scenario): Leaving aside the question whether it would even have been possible to deliver a book that is "explaining all things", it is obvious that Muhammad died before the Qur’an became such a book since there are a lot of things that the Qur’an does not explain. So, the lie is exposed for all to see. Whether it was a lie with good intentions to deliver the goods later on, or it was merely a false claim that was used because it looked like good rhetoric … fact is: The claim was a lie and the author got caught.
Against this background, it is quite ironic to find the following exhortation in the Qur’an:
Supremely exalted is therefore Allah, the King, the Truth, and do not make haste with the Quran before its revelation is made complete to you and say: O my Lord! increase me in knowledge. S. 20:114 Shakir
Apparently, the author of the Qur’an did not heed his own advice. He was far too hasty by including the claim of S. 12:111 and 16:89 into the Qur’an before it was justified to do so. He claimed "the job is done" or "everything explained" before he had actually done his homework. (This verse is also the above mentioned final nail into the coffin of Zawadi’s argument.[6])
And, again, not only had the author not done his homework when he made the claim, he never delivered on the promise – if we want to consider it a promise instead of simply being a lie about the status quo.
In fact, even Zawadi himself gives evidence that he does not believe that the (final) Qur’an is "explaining all things". Otherwise he would not insist that the Sunnah is essential in Islam. He would not have to appeal to outside theories in order to explain away the tension between the statements about the mode of revelation of the Qur’an that are found in the Qur’an. The Qur’an does NOT explain how it can be true that it was sent down piecemeal AND that it was sent down as one complete book. The Qur’an makes both statements about itself, and this contradiction can only be resolved with appeal to outside texts (if they provide a solution at all). Again, the kind of answer that Zawadi has given in his response (*) to Sam Shamoun’s article (*) on this matter is in itself evidence that the quranic claims in regard to "explaining all things" are wrong. Just a couple of quotes from Zawadi’s article to illustrate this, underline emphasis being mine:
Shamoun after studying Islam for more than 15 years still doesn't understand that the Qur'an is not the only source of religious authority for Muslims. Or perhaps he does know this, but as usual he is inconsistent in his methodology. …
If Shamoun doesn't like the idea of how Muslims derive their religious teachings, then that is just too bad. If Shamoun strictly believes in "Quran only" then that means that he should remove all of his arguments that are based upon either hadith or Muslim commentators (we estimate this to be around 90% of his arguments or possibly more). …
Secondly, Muslims don't believe that we interpret the Qur'an only by using other Qur'anic verses. We also interpret verses in the Qur'an by appealing to the statements of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his companions. How many times do we have to repeat our selves to Shamoun?
In other words, Zawadi was not able to provide an explanation or resolution for these problems by referring to the Qur’an alone because the Qur’an does not even contain a coherent and satisfactory explanation for the mode or manner of its own revelation, let alone being an explanation of all things. In fact, Zawadi even wrote a separate article titled "Refuting The Argument That The Quran Is Complete; Therefore, We Don't Need Hadith" (*).
Even more drastic implications?
The problem raised in my original article remains: The claim that the Qur’an is explaining all things is at odds with the understanding of a piecemeal revelation of the Qur’an which places this claim chronologically in the first half of the Qur’an because at that time it was obviously wrong.
Thus, as I already stated in my original article, these verses are inconsistent with the common piecemeal theory and therefore indirectly support the theory that the Qur’an was not revealed piecemeal over the 23 years of Muhammad’s prophetic career but "at once" (in some sense).
Therefore, let’s explore other possible implications of these observations. If the standard theory is not satisfactory, maybe there is another explanation of how the Qur’an originated which makes more sense of these verses than the common Muslim understanding?[7]
For several decades now, there have been scholars of Islamic studies who gained the impression that the Qur’an does not fit well into the theological and linguistic environment of 7th century Arabia, and that it may rather have originated in the Iraq/Iran of the 8th or 9th century ("the revisionist school"). Just a couple of weeks ago, while I started to draft this rebuttal article, Muhammad Sven Kalisch, a professor of Islamic studies in Germany, who was a conservative Muslim until recently, has been making headlines because he has now come to the conclusion that Muhammad probably never existed (see these links).
Without entering into the details of the different theories proposed by various revisionist scholars, could the observations in this article perhaps provide support for the thesis that the Qur’an was not first recited by a person named Muhammad, but actually originated from some later time? The verses 12:111 and 16:89 obviously do not fit well with the orthodox Muslim understanding of a piecemeal revelation of the Qur’an. Within the alleged chronology of the revelation of the Qur’an, these verses seem to be misplaced, and this in turn supports a theory in which the Qur’an was completed as "one book" before it was released, and the piecemeal theory was only added to it for the purpose of placing the book into a historical development, projecting its supposed origin back a couple of centuries, so that it would look more credible. But in reality, both the book and the accompanying "history of revelation" was an invention of an individual or a group of people – perhaps because they wanted to create a useful religion that would help them support their claim to power. Without doubt, there are still many question marks in regard to the revisionist theories.[8] Nevertheless, the following scenario might explain these verses better than their setting in the late Makkan period according to the orthodox piecemeal revelation of the Qur’an to Muhammad.
"Explaining all things" is apparently an attribute which the author(s) of the Qur’an considered to be a rather important property for a divine revelation; the perfect or ideal religion should provide an explanation of all things. Therefore the author(s) included that claim in the Qur’an, not only once but several times, and formulated in a number of variations. (Many of these verses are listed here.)[9] In fact, one of these claims is listed alongside the claim of the "inimitability of the Qur’an" as one of the proofs of the alleged divine origin of the Qur’an:
Say: "If the mankind and the jinns were together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they helped one another. And We have explained to man, in this Qur'an, every kind of similitude: yet the greater part of men refuse (to receive it) except with ingratitude!" S. 17:88-89
On the other hand, the author(s) apparently felt that every revelation needs some kind of historical setting. How did it "come down" from God to mankind? The story created for or around their new revelation, the Qur’an, was placed into an obscure corner of the world, the Arabian desert. Few people would know much about this place and its actual history, so that few would be able to challenge any claims of what allegedly happened there – over a century ago. Those "explaining all things" verses were included into the book as a claim about the Qur’an as a whole.[10] But when the originators of this religion were weaving their story of the revelation of the Qur’an to a man called Muhammad in Arabia, they simply did not realize the logical problem they would cause within their construction of a piecemeal revelation. When they were making up those verses, they thought of the whole of their religion, but they put them into the wrong place, accidentally.
Are there any viable alternatives?
Most Muslims will certainly not be willing to accept the above radical thesis of the origin of the Qur’an that I just outlined as a possible explanation for the logical problem that is the reason for this discussion. However, it will be difficult for Muslims to avoid a smaller version of this conclusion: Allah was careless; Allah messed up.
If it was not that mysterious group of authors in the 8th century who accidentally put those verses into the wrong place (chronologically) within their invented story of a piecemeal revelation of the Qur’an, who was it? If they claim that Allah is the one who authored the Qur’an in its entirety, and it was Allah who determined at what time Muhammad received which part of the revelation, then it was Allah who accidentally released certain verses prematurely, i.e. at a time when they didn’t make sense and when they were objectively wrong.
If it was Allah who composed the Qur’an as a whole, and intended the statements in these verses to refer to the Qur’an as a whole (as claimed by Zawadi) then he didn’t take into account that the Qur’an would eventually be revealed in stages, and in consequence some of the claims that might be true about the whole, but not about the parts, would be revealed at the wrong time when they were not true about (the section of) the Qur’an that would be available at that time.
That is what I call carelessness, and that is not befitting the omniscient and all-wise God. Or would Muslims feel comfortable to call Allah sloppy? Therefore, these verses constitute evidence against the alleged divine origin of the Qur’an.
These verses, together with many other reasons (*), imply that the Qur’an did not come from God. And if one comes to accept that the Qur’an did not come from God, then the theory that it was a later invention as proposed by revisionist scholars doesn’t sound entirely impossible anymore.
In other words, the Quran could well be a later forgery that tries to appear ancient, but it was put together in a sloppy way. In any case, the Qur’an is inconsistent and betrays the incompetence of its human originator (be it Muhammad or some later authors) instead of exhibiting the claimed divine authorship.
Odds and ends
In connection with these thoughts, I want to point to an interesting statement that Zawadi made in his response to Sam Shamoun:
NOW OBVIOUSLY, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his companions all knew that he received the Qur'an gradually. So OBVIOUSLY the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his companions weren't all morons to the extent that they believed that the entire Qur'an was revealed to the Prophet (peace be upon him) at one go and at the same time it was being revealed gradually. (Source)
Zawadi assumes that the companions of Muhammad were people of sound mind and a healthy common sense. They would never have accepted statements that are clearly wrong. However, we have seen that the claim for the Qur’an to be an explanation of everything was a claim that was clearly wrong at the time it was made.
From this we can draw two possible conclusions: Either the mind of the companions was not as sound as Zawadi wants us to believe, or, these (alleged) companions did not protest because the Qur’an was not revealed in stages, or was not even revealed through Muhammad to these companions at the times and places claimed in the orthodox Muslim understanding of history, since Muhammad and these companions did not exist.
If much of the Islamic structure is a forgery, this would also explain why we are not told that so many allegedly sound-minded companions did not protest against the many inconsistencies and contradictions within the Qur’an (1, 2).
But even if the "history of Islam" is not a later invention, Zawadi’s argument is still weak.
There are a lot of devoutly religious people who believe a lot of nonsense. Zawadi would probably agree with me that Mormons or Buddhists or Hindus or … have some really strange beliefs, and we could wonder together how educated people in the 21st century could believe such things. In my opinion, there are a lot of strange teachings in Islam as well, and hundreds of millions of Muslims believe them simply "because God said so in the Qur’an" or "if Muhammad said it, I believe it" (for statements found in the Hadith). There are plenty of contradictions in the Qur’an (*), and Muslims back then and also today believe in the Qur’an anyway.
There are Mormons, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and Christians who are university professors; intelligent people with high academic achievements, but they all believe certain teachings that many of those outside their special group would consider silly. So, Zawadi’s argument based on the alleged reasonableness and intelligence of Muhammad’s companions may not be as strong as he imagines.
Notes:
1. "Haste makes waste" is an English idiom conveying the meaning that "when we do things too quickly we are likely to end up with poor results" (source). In this article, we will learn something about hasty Allah, hasty Muhammad and hasty Zawadi, and why Zawadi’s all too hasty argument was rather poor.
2. Obviously, we have to stop before we reach individual letters. I suggest units of clear meaning, like a paragraph; something that can still be discerned as a meaningful message. Mere words or even letters of the alphabet would be too small. In any case, my argument is certainly valid for the division of the Bible into its books, or for the division of the Qur’an into suras.
3. If two suras, A and B, that are both of divine origin are combined they will result in a book of divine origin in the sense that the content is of divine origin but not necessarily the sequence of suras, i.e. whether the book first lists sura A and then sura B or the other way around is the result of human action. Here is a difference between the Muslim understanding of the Qur’an and the Christian understanding of the Bible. Christians believe the individual books of the Bible to be inspired, but the sequence in which they are put together was a human decision, while most Muslims would believe that even the sequence of the suras in the Qur’an is a matter of divine revelation.
4. And that is a rather generous assumption since we already know that the statement is still wrong for the final Qur’an.
5. I want to point out one more rather strange statement in an earlier paragraph by Zawadi. As quoted already twice, he had written about S. 12:111 and 16:89:
No where do these verses state that only the Qur'an revealed up to that particular point in time is the Qur'an that explains all things. Rather, the verse is making a general statement about the Qur'an. The Qur'an is everything that was revealed before and after this verse. It is as simple as that. (Bold and underline emphasis added by me)
It seems that Zawadi does not even know the meaning of the word "general". A general statement is called general because it is applicable in all or most circumstances or at all times. The Wikipedia dictionary defines the adjective "general" as:
- not specific or particular
- concerned with, applicable to, or affecting the whole or every member of a class or category (Wiktionary, entry "general", as accessed on 6 December 2008)
A statement about the Qur’an could be called general when it is applicable to all stages of development of the text of the Qur’an, i.e. to the Qur’an in the first five years of Muhammad’s prophethood, and to the Qur’an at the end of the Makkan time, and to the Qur’an as it was at the middle of the Madinan time, and to the final Qur’an as it was collected by Uthman. For example, if the (full) Qur’an was contradiction free as claimed in Sura 4:82 then each part of the text would automatically be contradiction free as well (since this attribute is stable under division or restriction). Therefore, this would be a general statement about the Qur’an, a statement that was true at all times.
Zawadi apparently meant exactly the opposite of what he said. He wants to say that this statement does not refer to the Qur’an that was available at the time when the verse was revealed, but only refers to the final state of the Qur’an. Therefore, according to Zawadi, this statement was not general but very restricted and highly specific. However, as we observed before, there is no indication in those verses that their meaning or validity was supposed to be restricted to some future time, many years after they were revealed. There is no justification for Zawadi to force such a restriction on these verses.
On the other hand, the statement in 2 Timothy 3:16 that "all scripture is God breathed" is indeed a general statement. And it is not only general but true; true at the time it was made, and remaining true for each further book of genuine divine revelation that was written later.
And Zawadi said again:
Similarly, I will argue that Surah 12:111 and 16:89 does not limit the meaning of "Qur'an" to only refer to the revelations up to that particular point. Rather, it is making a general statement about the Qur'an and the Qur'anic Surahs were defined by our Prophet (peace be upon him). (Bold emphasis mine)
No, that is not the meaning of "general". It is not Jochen Katz who is limiting the meaning of those verses. It is Zawadi who wants to restrict their applicability and desires that they may refer only to the one unique state of the "final Qur’an" (many years later) but not to the many states or stages that the Qur’an had prior to the death of Muhammad, and certainly not to the Qur’an available to the Muslims at the time when these verses were first uttered.
6. Sura 20:114 clearly says that Muhammad was not supposed to recite hastily, he should not start reciting a new piece of revelation when he had only received the first few words. Instead he should wait until the revelation of the current portion of the Qur’an is finished, then it is his turn to recite it to his followers. However, according to Zawadi, when the Qur’an mentions "the Qur’an" then it refers to the full Qur’an in its final form. If we apply Zawadi’s rule of interpretation to this verse then Muhammad was permanently disobedient to Allah because this verse would then say that Muhammad was supposed to wait until the revelation of the FULL Qur’an is completed for him before he can pass it on to his companions. Obviously, that is not what Muhammad did. Therefore, he is a transgressor of Allah’s command. This should make it rather obvious to Zawadi that his argument is woefully lacking. He made a hasty argument without checking carefully how the Qur’an uses the term "the Qur’an"; and self-referential expressions are often problematic (cf. the infinite loop problem).
Clearly, in this verse "the Qur’an" refers to only that portion (verse, paragraph or sura) of the (final) Qur’an that is in the process of being revealed to Muhammad. In this case, it does not even refer to all of the Qur’an revealed up to that time, but only to a very small part which is currently revealed. This understanding is confirmed by classical Muslim commentaries:
(Then exalted be Allah, the True King) He exonerated Himself from having children or partners! (And hasten not with the Qur'an) do not hasten, O Muhammad, to recite the Qur'an (ere its revelation hath been perfected unto thee) before Gabriel finishes reading the Qur'an to you. This is because when Gabriel used to bring new revelations, the Prophet (pbuh) would start to repeat them after Gabriel even before the latter finished his reading, for fear of forgetting what was recited to him. Allah therefore told him to stop doing this, saying: (and say) O Muhammad: (My Lord! Increase me in knowledge) and memorisation and understanding of the Qur'an as well as in judging by the Qur'an. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs, source, underline emphasis mine)
So exalted be God, the King, the Truth, above what the idolaters say. And do not hasten with the Qur’an, that is, to recite it, before its revelation is completed for you, [before] Gabriel is through delivering it, and say, ‘My Lord, increase me in knowledge’, that is, [knowledge] of the Qur’an: thus every time something of it was revealed to him his knowledge increased because of it. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn, source, underline emphasis mine)
… This is a command to the Prophet to listen quietly: ‘Then, when the angel (Jibril) completes reciting to you, you recite it after him.’ … (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, source)
Again, reading this verse with Zawadi’s rule of interpretation, Muhammad was a perpetual transgressor of Allah’s command, being disobedient with every single portion of revelation he received. [At least for every portion of revelation given after Muhammad was informed by this verse that he should wait; and Sura 20 is a rather early sura, dated about 7 years before the hijrah according to Yusuf Ali’s introduction to this sura, cf. the intro by Maududi (*)] This shows how absurd Zawadi’s interpretation is.
7. What follows is admittedly speculative, but not impossible. I do not say this is definitely true, but the orthodox theory about the Qur’an has so many problems that it is not really credible either. Therefore, we have to explore alternatives.
8. Even Muhammad Kalisch says, it will be difficult to prove one way or other, but for him the cumulative evidence points to the conclusion that Muhammad probably never existed (and, consequently, the Qur’an must have been created some other way).
9. In other words, they are claiming about it what it should be, so that the book may have the appearance of being what it is supposed to be. Actually, that could be a definition of "forgery".
10. So, Bassam Zawadi would be correct after all, but only in this quite different interpretative framework, not when looking at them in the orthodox Muslim framework.