The Qur'an makes the following general statement about the way Allah communicates:

And We have sent no Messenger
        save with the tongue of his people,
                that he might make all clear to them;
then God leads astray whomsoever He will,
and He guides whomsoever He will;
and He is the All-mighty, the All-wise. S. 14:4 Arberry

This paper has the purpose to examine some aspects of this verse that are usually overlooked. The classical commentator Ibn Kathir states in his exposition of this verse: "This is from Allah's wisdom with His creation, every Prophet He sent to a people spoke their language and everyone of these Prophets were only sent to their people. Muhammad ... was sent to all people." It is my intention to show that this interpretation is not as obvious and straight-forward as it may initially appear.

In order to better understand the issues involved, let us transform the statement regarding the characteristics of Allah's messengers into the form of a first-person speech, i.e. how one such messenger would explain to the people why he is sent to them in the way specified in this verse. Pay attention to the pronouns.

I am sent to you
        with the language of my people
                so that they can clearly understand.

Does that seem satisfactory? Hardly. What about this version:

I am sent to you
        with the language of my people
                so that you can clearly understand.

Does that sound better? Not really. In order to make sense, the messenger should say:

I am sent to you
        with a message in your language
                so that you can clearly understand.

But that last version is not the equivalent of what is stated in Sura 14:4. The formulation that is found in the Quran is rather strange and incoherent, and says something different.

{ Side remark: There is another strange feature in this verse. Just about everyone has the language of his people, i.e. his own language, with him wherever he goes. For that purpose one doesn't have to be specifically sent by God. A messenger is not sent with a language, but with a message (that is formulated) in a certain language. In fact, the messenger doesn't have to bring his language to his people, because it already is their language. Someone who brings a language to people who don't know this language yet, is not a messenger but a language teacher. Be that as it may, for the rest of the discussion, we will assume that the author of the Quran meant to say "with a message in the language of his people" when he used the deficient formulation "with the language of his people". }

Any event of communication has the following elements:

WHO (1): The speaker or sender of the message
WHO (2): The recipient of the message, the target audience
WHAT: The message (content)
HOW: The means by which the message is conveyed
        (1) direct personal encounter and communication ("face to face"),
              by personal messenger with an oral or written message (envoy, ambassador),
              sending a letter by postal service, making a phone call, an email,
              newspaper advert, on a billboard, via radio or tv broadcast, etc.
        (2) the language in which the message is delivered (though it may have been composed in a different language and then translated)

Whatever means [HOW (1)] are employed to transport the message from the sender to the recipient, the message will only be understood if it is delivered in a/the language of the recipient [HOW (2)].

With this analytic structure in mind, let us look again at the verse in question:

And We have sent no Messenger
        save with the tongue of his people,
                that he might make all clear to them; ...

In S. 14:4, the Quran specifies that the sender [WHO (1)] is Allah ("We"), the means [HOW (1)] is by personal messenger, and [HOW (2)] is the language of the people of the messenger.

However, this last piece of the specification is rather strange. Since the Quran agrees that the purpose of sending the messenger is that the message is clearly understood ("that he might make all clear to them"), the message needs to be delivered in the language of the people to whom the messenger is sent, not the language of the people the messenger belongs to.

A messenger is associated with two groups, (a) the people he belongs to (i.e. his people) and (b) the people he is sent to. These two groups of people may or may not be the same. If the message should be understood, it needs to be in the language of the people that the message is delivered to. That is always necessary. This may also be the language of the people whom the messenger belongs to, but that is only incidental, not essential. As such, the Quran includes in its specification something that is irrelevant, but forgets the most important condition for achieving its stated purpose.

Note also that an individual messenger may well be multi-lingual, i.e. able to speak several languages fluently, but only one of these languages will be "the language of his people". Thus, even if the messenger was able to speak various languages, Sura 14:4 is clearly restricting the messenger to speak only the language of the people he belongs to when delivering the message that he is sent with. Frankly, this makes little sense.

How then should we view the first statement of S. 14:4? There are at least these two possibilities.

The first one is that the author of the Quran messed up in the formulation. He really wanted to say:

And We have sent no Messenger
        save with the tongue of the people he is sent to,
                that he might make all clear to them; ...

Such a statement would merely be common sense. That is what one would expect. It would not be in any way surprising, let alone a miraculous revelation. No, one does not need "divine wisdom" to arrive at such an action plan (see the commentary of Ibn Kathir above). Anyone with an average intelligence would do the same. One could even say that such a statement would be trivial. But at least it would not cause all the problems which S. 14:4 is causing (see below).

Actually, it is only one little pronoun that needs to be changed to save that verse from the massive problems it causes.

And We have sent no Messenger
        save with the tongue of the people,
                that he might make all clear to them; ...

i.e. saying "... save with the tongue of THE people" instead of "save with the tongue of HIS people" would be sufficient to make the statement at least ambiguous (which people?). The natural interpretation would then have been that "the people" refers to the people the messenger is sent to, and the last pronoun, "them", naturally refers back to "the people".

Maybe the composer of the Quran was so engrossed in getting right the rhyme and the rhythm, that this little detail simply slipped his mind?

Obviously, that interpretation is not an option for Muslims. They have to believe the Quran to be without error since it is coming from the perfect and omniscient God. They need to make sense of the statement without changing it.

The verse states explicitly that

1. every messenger was sent with his own language,
2. this was in order that they may clearly understand.

The only meaningful way to understand this verse and fulfill both stated conditions, is to assume that all messengers were sent to their own people. In that case, the target audience can clearly understand when the messenger speaks in his own language.

Again, this is not stated explicitly, it is an attempt to understand the statement in a way that makes it meaningful and avoids turning it into immediate nonsense. Thus, it is no surprise that the Islamic commentators understood it in exactly that way. Again, Ibn Kathir's explanation: "... every Prophet He sent to a people spoke their language and everyone of these Prophets were only sent to their people." However, Ibn Kathir used a more meaningful formulation than the Qur'an when he states that the Prophet spoke their language, while the Qur'an claims that he spoke his own language. So far, so good. It is certainly possible to understand S. 14:4 in this way when taken in isolation.

The case of Muhammad

The serious problems begin when Ibn Kathir continues in his next sentence with breaking the rule he just stated, i.e. by claiming that there is one exception: "Muhammad ... was sent to all people." This exception flies in the face of the very clear and general statement of Sura 14:4 that NO messenger was sent except with his own language and for the purpose that they may understand. The Qur'an does not make this exception for Muhammad. Sura 14:4 is formulated as an absolute statement.

Ibn Kathir and other commentators had no choice. They had to claim that Muhammad was exceptional in this regard, because that is what Muhammad himself taught. Thus, Ibn Kathir continues:

It is recorded in the Two Sahihs that Jabir said that the Messenger of Allah said …

(I have been given five things which were not given to anyone else before me. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for worship and a purifier. The war booty has been made lawful for me and it was not lawful for anyone else before me. I have been given the right of Intercession (on the Day of Resurrection). Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only, but I have been sent to all mankind.) (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged; online source; bold emphasis mine; cf. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331, Book 8, Number 429, Sahih Muslim, Book 4, Number 1058)

Let's look at the passage again:

And We have sent no Messenger
        save with the tongue of his people,
                that he might make all clear to them; ...

Here are a couple of reasons why the claim that Muhammad was sent by Allah to all mankind is in conflict with this passage. In history, many people have claimed to be messengers of God, and far too many of them were actually false prophets who were not sent by God — no matter whether they were pretenders, i.e. deliberate deceivers, or themselves suffering from some kind of delusion. This verse can be read as a criterion: "WE sent no messenger except ...", i.e. do not believe everybody's claim to prophethood. If he doesn't satisfy the following conditions, then we have not sent him. Thus, claiming an exception to Allah's criterion for messengership is more than dangerous, to say the least. If Ibn Kathir's explanation of the meaning of this verse is correct, then the criterion is that every messenger of Allah was sent only to his own people with a message in their own language. If Muhammad then claims that he is sent to all people of all languages, then he is not one of the Messengers of Allah, since he does not satisfy the explicitly stated conditions.

One should also not overlook that the conditions are stating that he (the messenger) might make all clear to them. Granted, Muhammad fulfills the absolutely trivial and irrelevant condition that he brought the message in his own language (Arabic), but it is simply not true that Muhammad personally went to all mankind and made it clear to them. This verse does not say that Allah ordered his messenger(s) to teach and appoint others who then in turn would go out to the people to make it clear to them. No, the formulation is personal. It is the messenger himself who does it. Though Muhammad personally spoke to many people from various Arab tribes, he never went to other people groups, let alone all people groups of mankind, in order to make Allah's message clear to them. So, how can he satisfy the criterion? According to this verse, he could at most be a messenger to the Arabs.

{Side note: This is reinforced by related passages:

Just as S. 14:4 connects the language of the messenger with the purpose that the audience should understand his message, so the language of the book, the Quran, is connected here with the purpose that the readers/hearers should understand it. The implication is again that the book is intended for the Arabs only. It makes no sense to say to the Germans, Russians and Japanese that "we sent you this book in Arabic so that you may be able to understand".}

Still, although it will hardly be very convincing, Muslims will have no choice but to argue Muhammad's personal (mis)interpretation of S. 14:4, i.e. that "every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only, but I have been sent to all mankind." In other words, the rule only holds true for the prophets before Muhammad, but does not apply to Muhammad. Nevertheless, the problem remains that Sura 14:4 does not make any exceptions; it does not contain Muhammad's additional words "used to be sent". One might even wonder whether adding these words does not constitute tahrif, i.e. corrupting the Qur'an with one's tongue.

Exceptions over exceptions, or rather contradictions?

Even if Muslims should in some way be successful to let Muhammad escape from this verse by some backdoor, the troubles are not over. Sura 14:4 is in conflict and clear contradiction to several other passages in the Qur'an which speak of messengers of Allah who were sent to nations other than their own. It is particularly ironic that the general rule about Allah's messengers that is proclaimed in S. 14:4 fails already with the messenger mentioned in the verse that follows directly after it:

And We sent Moses with Our signs -- 'Bring forth thy people from the shadows to the light and remind thou them of the Days of God.' Surely in that are signs for every man enduring, thankful! And when Moses said to his people, 'Remember God's blessing upon you when He delivered you from the folk of Pharaoh, who were visiting you with evil chastisement, slaughtering your sons, and sparing your women -- and in that was a grievous trial from your Lord. S. 14:5-6 Arberry

Here we see Moses being sent to his own people, but that is not his complete mission. Moses was also sent to Pharaoh and his people as the following passages clearly state:

Then We sent forth, after them, Moses and Aaron to Pharaoh and his Council with Our signs, but they waxed proud, and were a sinful people. So, when the truth came to them from Us, they said, 'Surely this is a manifest sorcery.' Moses said, 'What, do you say this to the truth, when it has come to you? Is this a sorcery? But sorcerers do not prosper.' They said, 'Art thou come to us to turn us from that we found our fathers practising, and that the domination in the land might belong to you two? We do not believe you. Pharaoh said, 'Bring me every cunning sorcerer.' Then, when the sorcerers came, Moses said to them, 'Cast you down what you will cast.' Then, when they had cast, Moses said, 'What you have brought is sorcery; God will assuredly bring it to naught. God sets not right the work of those who do corruption. God verifies the truth by His words, though sinners be averse.' So none believed in Moses, save a seed of his people, for fear of Pharaoh and their Council, that they would persecute them; and Pharaoh was high in the land, and he was one of the prodigals. S. 10:75-83 Arberry

And We sent Moses with Our signs, and a manifest authority, to Pharaoh and his Council; but they followed Pharaoh's command, and Pharaoh's command was not right-minded. S. 11:96-97 Arberry

The contradiction between S. 14:4 and the mission of Moses is discussed in more detail in this article.

In fact, those Egyptians are particularly troublesome, because the Qur'an reports about yet another foreign messenger who was sent to them:

Then said a certain man, a believer of Pharaoh's folk that kept hidden his belief, 'What, will you slay a man because he says, "My Lord is God," yet he has brought you the clear signs from your Lord? If he is a liar, his lying is upon his own head; but if he is truthful, somewhat of that he promises you will smite you. Surely God guides not him who is prodigal and a liar. O my people, today the kingdom is yours, who are masters in the land. But who will help us, against the might of God, if it comes upon us?' Said Pharaoh, 'I only let you see what I see; I only guide you in the way of rectitude.' Then said he who believed, 'My people, truly I fear for you the like of the day of the parties, the like of the case of Noah's people, Ad, Thamood, and those after them; and God desires not wrong for His servants. O my people, I fear for you the Day of Invocation, the day you turn about, retreating, having none to defend you from God; and whomsoever God leads astray, no guide has he. Joseph brought you the clear signs before, yet you continued in doubt concerning that he brought you until, when he perished, you said, "God will never send forth a Messenger after him." Even, so God leads astray the prodigal and the doubter.' S. 40:28-34 Arberry

Another messenger sent to a foreign nation is Jonah, the Hebrew prophet who was sent to the Assyrian city of Nineveh. This story is discussed in detail in this article.

Clearly, these three messengers are sent to people other than their own, and as such, they contradict at least the classical interpretation of S. 14:4 as given by Ibn Kathir and others, and also contradict Muhammad's statement that "every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only".

Again, at least these latter three contradictions could have been avoided if the author of the Quran had only made the minor change in S. 14:4, saying "with the language of the people" instead of "with the language of his people".[1]

As it is, the Quran now teaches that Joseph and Moses went to the Egyptians and spoke to them in Hebrew (in the language of the people of the messenger), and Jonah went to the Assyrians and addressed them in Hebrew, so "that he might make all clear to them". I am sure the Egyptians and the Assyrians highly appreciated the divine message in a language they did not understand. This is even more ironic, since Joseph and Moses were able to speak the Egyptian language due to having lived there for a long time, and Jonah was probably able to speak Aramaic, as it was a common language in the Middle East at that time, just as many people speak English today, even though it is not their mother tongue.

In order to make clear ...

Irony of ironies, the very verse that claims that the purpose of sending a messenger is that he might make (the message) clear to the people, is itself full of problems, messed up, and rather unclear.

In fact, the Arabic is even more cryptic than one would think when reading Arberry's translation that was used so far. Here are several translations for comparison:

And We never sent a messenger save with the language of his folk, that he might make (the message) clear for them. ... Pickthall

We sent not an apostle except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people, in order to make (things) clear to them. ... Yusuf Ali

And We sent not a Messenger except with the language of his people, in order that he might make (the Message) clear for them. ... Al-Hilali & Khan

And We did not send any apostle but with the language of his people, so that he might explain to them clearly; ... Shakir

And WE have not sent any Messenger except with revelation in the language of his people in order that he might make things clear to them. ... Sher Ali

We did not send any messenger except (to preach) in the tongue of his people, in order to clarify things for them. ... Rashad Khalifa

And never have we sent forth any apostle otherwise than [with a message] in his own people's tongue, so that he might make [the truth] clear unto them; ... Muhammad Asad

And We have sent no Messenger save with the tongue of his people, that he might make all clear to them; ... Arberry

We have not sent any apostle save with the language of his people, that he might explain to them. ... Palmer

We have sent no apostle but with the language of his people, that he might declare [their duty] plainly unto them ... Sale

Obviously, the object for the verb "to explain" or "to make clear" is missing in Arabic, but various translators decided to supply one anyway: "the message", "things", "all", "their duty", etc. Even if there had been a pronoun, i.e. "that he might make it clear to them", it would still be a problem to determine what "it" refers to. Most probably, the intended object is the message, but since the message is not mentioned in the verse, the pronoun "it" would be left hanging without a proper referent. In fact, there is a referent, but it is unsuitable. Taking only the information that is supplied in the statement, then the messenger is sent "with the language of his people" so that he might explain (it, the language?) to them. The author of the Quran certainly failed in making clear what he meant.

To repeat, most of these problems could have been avoided if the author of the Quran had only made the minor change of "language of his people" to "language of the people". In that case, none of these inner-quranic contradictions would have arisen. Just a few more words would have removed all ambiguities and would have made things fully clear:

And We have sent no Messenger
        except to speak in the language of the people he was sent to,
                that he might make the message clear to them; ...

Furthermore, to allow for the alleged universal mission of Muhammad, he would simply have had to say it just like Muhammad did it in the hadith. "Every prophet was sent to his nation only, in their own language, so that they may clearly understand; only you, Muhammad, are now sent to all mankind." That is not difficult to state. Muhammad could say it himself, so why could the author not include this simple sentence into the Quran? But he did not, and so the Quran has plenty of problems because of this verse.

Finally, Muslims claim that one of the strongest proofs for the divine authorship of the Qur'an is its inimitable eloquence, and this miracle of eloquence does not only refer to some passages in the Qur'an but every verse of the Qur'an is a miracle. After observing the incoherent and unclear formulation of Surah 14:4, one has to ask the question whether one can really believe with full conviction that it is a miracle. What is the inimitable and unsurpassable eloquence of this verse? Or is the eloquence of the Qur'an unrelated to the question of whether or not the verses are meaningful? For a detailed discussion on this topic, see the section Is the Qur'an miraculous?

And those into the fire!

The oddities are not over yet. So far we have looked only at the first half of that verse. Let's read it again in its full beauty:

And We have sent no Messenger
        save with the tongue of his people,
                that he might make all clear to them;
then God leads astray whomsoever He will,
and He guides whomsoever He will;
and He is the All-mighty, the All-wise. S. 14:4 Arberry

In the first half of the verse, Allah makes an effort so that certain people may understand his message, and in the second half he says it doesn't really matter, because after he has made it clear to them, he then leads astray whomever he will, and guides whomever he will. So, one wonders, what really was the point of sending that messenger?

Even several of the Muslim translators were bothered by the statement that Allah leads astray whomsoever He will, that they decided to mistranslate that part of the verse in this way:

... Now God leaves straying those whom He pleases and guides whom He pleases: ... Yusuf Ali

... Then ALLAH leaves to go astray whom HE wills and guides whom HE wills. ... Sher Ali

... but God lets go astray him that wills [to go astray] and guides him that wills [to be guided] ... Muhammad Asad

The Arabic is clear that Allah is actively misleading some people, not merely leaving alone certain people who are going astray by their own decision.

Here is a hadith on this matter:

Narrated Alhassan bin Sewar, narrated Laith (Ibn Saad), from Maawia, from Rashed bin Saad, from Abdelrahman bin Qotada Alsalmi that he said: I heard the prophet of Allah saying: "Allah created Adam, then he took the creation (the people) from his (Adam's) back , and said: ‘These into paradise and I do not care, and these into the fire (hell) and I do not care.’" (Musnad Ahmad, No. 17000)

However, this issue leads beyond the scope of this paper. Those who want to pursue the discussion about Allah's activity of misleading people, may consult the following articles:

http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/allah_deceiver.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/command_evil.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/deceptive_god.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/preserved-crucifixion.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/god.htm

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Matthew 28:18-20 NIV

He said: "So (it will be), your Lord said: ‘That is easy for Me (Allah): And (We wish) to appoint him as a sign to mankind and a mercy from Us (Allah), and it is a matter (already) decreed, (by Allah).’" S. 19:21 Al-Hilali & Khan

And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples. S. 21:91 Yusuf Ali

It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, ... S. 3:3-4 Yusuf Ali

And remember God took a covenant from the People of the Book, to make it known and clear to mankind, and not to hide it; ... S. 3:187 Yusuf Ali

Appendix: In the language of the people?

Messages are (usually) sent in order to be understood. One necessary condition for a message to be understood is that it is formulated in a language that the audience can comprehend without difficulty. This is nothing but common sense.

The Quran agrees with this general principle and claims explicitly that Allah's intention in sending messengers or books is that the people may understand them. The Quran over and over makes the claim that it is clear, and has the purpose to make things clear (5:15, 6:114, 10:24, 15:1, 16:64, 25:33, 30:28, 36:69, 44:2, etc.) Although having formulated it rather akwardly in S. 14:4, the author of the Quran agrees also that the language of the message is a major aspect that determines whether or not the message is understood, e.g. 14:4, 12:2, 43:2-3 (all quoted above), 26:192-195, 41:44, etc.

Despite the emphasis of the Quran on the importance of the language so that people may understand, the Arabic of the Quran is NOT the vernacular of the people. It is (maybe?) a "high literary form of the language", but it is definitely not the language spoken by the common people. The language of the Quran is difficult to understand for the common people. Even Arabs need special training in "the language of the Qur'an" if they want to understand it. In fact, it was not even the language of the common people in the time of Muhammad and his companions.

The hadiths give testimony that Muhammad was asked ever so often what this or that word or sentence or verse is supposed to mean, i.e. it was not clear to the audience. And the Tafsir (commentary of the Qur'an by Muslim scholars) give many more examples of words that are unknown even to the scholars, let alone the common people. This is a large topic, and I will not attempt to be comprehensive in this appendix. I merely want to make the reader aware of the issue since it is relevant to the verse that was discussed in the main article.

For example, the Qur'an, in S. 4:12 and 176, refers to a kalalah, yet the Arabic word kalalah left many Muslims baffled:

Narrated Al-Bara' ibn Azib:
A man came to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah, they ask thee for a legal decision about a kalalah. What is meant by kalalah? He replied: The verse revealed in summer [i.e. 4:176] is sufficient for you.
I asked AbuIshaq: Does it mean a person who dies and leaves neither children nor father? He said: This is so. The people THINK it is so. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 18, Number 2883)

A literal translation of Muhammad's answer would be: "The summer verse is sufficient for you." The footnote by the translator says:

2299. The last part of the verse of al-Nisa (Surah iv) was revealed in summer and the first in winter.

Muhammad's refusal to give a clear answer is an implicit admission that he did not know the meaning either. And, quite understandably, this issue kept on bothering the Muslims, since most people have to deal with inheritance issues at some time in their life, many even several times. Here is another hadith mentioning the same issue:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
'Umar delivered a sermon on the pulpit of Allah's Apostle, saying, "Alcoholic drinks were prohibited by Divine Order, and these drinks used to be prepared from five things, i.e., grapes, dates, wheat, barley and honey. Alcoholic drink is that, that disturbs the mind." 'Umar added, "I wish Allah's Apostle had not left us before he had given us definite verdicts concerning three matters, i.e., how much a grandfather may inherit (of his grandson), the inheritance of Al-Kalala (the deceased person among whose heirs there is no father or son), and various types of Riba (usury)." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 69, Number 493)

Note that the text in parentheses is not found in the Arabic, it is supplied by the translator as a possible explanation of the word. After all, the whole point of that narration is that it is not clear what is actually meant by this expression.

S. 39:63 speaks of maqalid:

<To Him Belong the Maqalid of the heavens and earth.> Mujahid said, "Maqalid means ‘KEYS’ IN PERSIAN." This was also the view of Qatadah Ibn Zayd and Sufyan bin 'Uyaynah.

As-Suddi said ...

<To Him belong the Maqalid of the heavens and the earth.> "The TREASURES of the heaven and the earth." Both OPINIONS mean that the control of all things is in the Hand of Allah, may He be blessed and exalted, for His is the dominion and to Him is the praise, and He is able to all things ... (Tafsir Ibn Kathir(Abridged), Volume 8 (Surat Al-Ahzab, Verse 51 to the end of Surat Ad-Dukhan), First Edition, September 2000, pp. 415-416)

In S. 40:18 the word kazimin is used:

<Kazimin> means SILENT, for no one will speak without His permission ...

Ibn Jurayj said:

<Kazimin> "It means WEEPING." (Ibid., p. 459)

As the final example, out of many more, let's see what Ibn Kathir has to say about the word 'as'as in S. 81:17, a word that allegedly has two meanings that are diametrically opposed:

<And by the night when it ‘As'as.> THERE ARE TWO OPINIONS ABOUT THIS STATEMENT. One of them is that it refers to its advancing with its darkness. Mujahid said, "It means its darkening." Sa'id bin Jubyar said, "When it begins." Al-Hasan Al-Basri said, "When it covers the people." This was also said by ‘Atiyah Al-‘Awfi. ‘Ali bin Abi Talha and Al-‘Awfi both reported from Ibn ‘Abbas ...

<when it ‘As'as> "This means when it goes away." Mujahid, Qatadah and Ad-Dahhak, all said the same. Zayd bin Aslam and his son ‘Abdur-Rahman also made a similar statement, when they said ...

<when it ‘As'as> "This means when it leaves, and thus it turns away."

I believe the intent in Allah's saying ...

<when it ‘As'as> is when it approaches, even though it is correct to use the word for departing also. However, approachment IS A MORE SUITABLE USAGE HERE. It is as if Allah is swearing by the night and its darkness when it approaches, and by the morning and its light when it shines from the east. This is as Allah says ...

<By the night as it envelops. By the day as it appears in brightness> (92:1-2)

and He also says ...

<By the forenoon. By the night when it darkens.> (93:1-2)

Allah also says ...

<Cleaver of the daybreak. He has appointed night for resting.> (6:96)

And there are other similar Ayat that mention this. Many of the scholars of the fundamentals of language have said that the word ‘As'as is used to mean advancing and retreating, with both meanings sharing the same word.

Therefore, it is correct that the intent COULD BE both of them, and Allah knows best. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) Volume 9, Surat Al-Jathiyah to the end of Surat Al-Munafiqun), First Edition, September 2000, pp. 381-382; bold and capital emphasis ours)

That is like claiming that a word means both black and white, to begin and to end, or to love and to hate. Frankly, this is nonsense and is only revealing the desperation of the Muslim scholars who do not know what to do when being faced with unintelligable words. Instead of openly admitting that they do not know the word, they make up meanings.

Although the Qur'an claims that "this is Arabic, pure and clear" (S. 16:103), there are many more statements in the Qur'an which are unclear because they contain incomprehensible words. The above examples are mostly taken from this article which provides a long list of words in the Quran that leave even the foremost scholars of Islam baffled. Whether all of these are foreign words (see Arthur Jeffery's scholarly work on The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'an) or some of them are actually nothing more than gibberish may never be known, but all this data makes it questionable whether the Qur'an can be considered as being in the language of the people of the messenger as claimed in Sura 14:4.

And We have sent no Messenger
        save with the tongue of his people,
                that he might make all clear to them; ...

As before, if we read this statement in the first half of S. 14:4 as a criterion to test whether a certain text could be a message from Allah, and we observe that a substantial part of the Quran is not in the language of the people of the messenger, i.e. is not Arabic, does that mean these parts of the Quran are not from Allah, they are corruptions? Or do we need to conclude even stronger that Muhammad was not sent by Allah at all, because his message is not truly in the language of his people?

But incomprehensible words are not the only problem with the quranic text. Other verses in the Qur'an consist entirely of clear words, i.e. each individual word in them is known, but the meaning of the statement as a whole is still unclear.

Narrated 'Urwa:

I asked 'Aisha the wife of the Prophet about the meaning of the following Verse: -- "(Respite will be granted) 'Until when the apostles give up hope (of their people) and thought that they were denied (by their people)..............." (12.110) 'Aisha replied, "Really, their nations did not believe them." I said, "By Allah! They were definite that their nations treated them as liars and it was not a matter of suspecting." 'Aisha said, "O 'Uraiya (i.e. 'Urwa)! No doubt, they were quite sure about it."

I said, "May the Verse be read in such a way as to mean that the apostles thought that Allah did not help them?" Aisha said, "Allah forbid! (Impossible) The Apostles did not suspect their Lord of such a thing. But this Verse is concerned with the Apostles' followers who had faith in their Lord and believed in their apostles and their period of trials was long and Allah's Help was delayed till the apostles gave up hope for the conversion of the disbelievers amongst their nation and suspected that even their followers were shaken in their belief, Allah's Help then came to them." Narrated Ibn 'Umar: The Prophet said, "The honorable, the son of the honorable, the son of the honorable, (was) Joseph, the son of Jacob! the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 603)

Sura 12:110 was and remains rather unclear. Just compare some current translations of this verse.

Narrated 'Abdullah:
When the Verse:-- 'Those who believe and mix not their belief with wrong.' was revealed, the Muslims felt it very hard on them and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Who amongst us does not do wrong to himself?" He replied, "The Verse does not mean this. But that (wrong) means to associate others in worship to Allah: Don't you listen to what Luqman said to his son when he was advising him, "O my son! Join not others in worship with Allah. Verily joining others in worship with Allah is a great wrong indeed." (31.13) (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 639)

Narrated Abdullah:
When there was revealed: 'It is those who believe and confuse not their beliefs with wrong.' (6.82) It was very hard for the companions of Allah's Apostle, so they said, "Which of us has not confused his belief with wrong?" Allah's Apostle said, "The Verse does not mean this. Don't you hear Luqman's statement to his son: 'Verily! Joining others in worship, with Allah is a great wrong indeed.' (31.13) (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 299)

There are different ways to understand this incident. Taking the narration at face value, the verse was formulated so unclear that the Muslims misunderstood it. Muhammad needed to inform them of its "actual meaning". But, in this case, that doesn't sound credible to me. I think there is another, more convincing, explanation which is discussed in this article.

Again, as we have seen above, oftentimes even Muhammad's own people did not understand his message clearly. Those were not people of a foreign language at a different time; these were Muhammad's companions, Arabs of Arabs, in whose language the Quran was allegedly sent. Yet, they did not understand it. In fact, the Qur'an itself admits to being unclear:

It is He Who has sent down to you (Muhammad SAW) the Book (this Qur'an). In it are Verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the Book [and those are the Verses of Al-Ahkam (commandments, etc.), Al-Fara'id (obligatory duties) and Al-Hudud (legal laws for the punishment of thieves, adulterers, etc.)]; and others not entirely clear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the truth) they follow that which is not entirely clear thereof, seeking Al-Fitnah (polytheism and trials, etc.), and seeking for its hidden meanings, but none knows its hidden meanings save Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord." And none receive admonition except men of understanding. S. 3:7 Al-Hilali & Khan

In other words, the Qur'an admits to contain (a substantial number of) unclear verses which cause all kinds of problems for the Muslim community.

The Qur'an clearly fails its own explicitly stated purpose to be sent in the language of the people so that it may make its message clear to them.

I have heard it said that about 25% of the Quran is unclear and can hardly be understood without consulting the commentaries; and those commentaries provide little more than a collection of guess work for those unclear passages. Whether it is actually 5 or 10 or 25 percent is not the issue, the above narrations show that the author of the Quran all too often failed in his purpose and promise to make his message clear.

Examples of Incoherence in the Qur'an
Answering Islam Home Page