بسم
الله الرحمن
الرحيم
In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
Answers to Alleged Contradictions in the Quraan
Part One
A
Christian missionary web-site contains a
list of what are claimed to be internal contradictions in the Quraan.
The list
contains forty-nine numbered items authored by Jochen Katz. Readers may
access
this list at www.answering-islam.org. Here is a reply to each item of
Katz’s
list. We will see that not a single item on the list is a genuine
contradiction
in the Quraan. On some items Katz simply misunderstood the Quraan.
Sometimes he
has taken verses out of context to support that misunderstanding. Often
he
simply did not exercise the thought necessary to distinguish between a
real
contradiction and a resolvable difference.
In preparation for this response I have benefitted from reading the
responses
offered by Ishak Mermerci, Misha’al Al-Kadhi, Randy Desmond,
and Khalid.
Mr. Katz's purpose
Katz’s
purpose in listing these claimed
contradictions is to get Muslims to stop claiming that the Quraan is
superior to
the Bible. In his response to Randy Desmond, Katz wrote:
"There are a number of questions in regard to the Bible for which I do
not
know a fully satisfactory answer. And I will admit that I
don’t know, should
you ask me one of these. But I hate the pretence of having answers if
there are
none. And I hate the often pridefully displayed and claimed superiority
of the Quraan
over the Bible. If these contradictions pages help Muslims to become
more humble
and realistic and especially stop claiming the corruption of the Bible
because
they have found a few difficult passages, then the goal of this page
has been
reached."
Part Two
Mr. Katz’s failure
I think that Katz will, however, be disappointed. The contradiction
list he
provides does not contain a single real contradiction among the 49
claims. On
the other hand, the list of 101 Bible contradictions that appear in my
book
could not be satisfactorily answered by Christian missionaries. Four
missionaries have attempted, and their attempt is published on
Katz’s web-site
answering-islam.org. The reply by Smith and others actually admits that
some of
the contradictions I pointed at really do exist in today’s
Bibles. They
maintain, however, that the original copies of the Bible did not
contain
contradictions. Such contradictions entered the Bible, they say, due to
the long
process of transmission of the Bible. Over the centuries copies were
made from
copies which were again made from further copies. Today we do not have
the
original texts, they admit, and the texts we do have actually contain
contradictions which were not in the originals. Never mind how they
know what
the non-existent originals used to contain. Consider their admission
that the
present texts of the Bible, all of them, contain some contradictions.
A Hostile Approach to the Quraan
For Katz to be successful, he has to get Muslims to admit that the
Quraan
likewise contains contradictions. But he himself admits that the
contradictions
he arrives at were reached only if one takes a hostile approach to the
Quraan.
He writes: ". . . I will make the strongest possible case for something
being contradictory and wrong . . . ." Moreover, he says that even when
he
discovers that an item on his list is not a real contradiction he will
keep it
on the list. He writes: ". . . I will not remove even those
contradictions
that I find answered to my personal satisfaction." Why? For two
reasons.
One, so that readers can decide for themselves what is and is not a
real
contradiction. Two, so that Muslims and Christians can both find a
ready
reference to the claimed contradictions and possible responses.
It should be clear, however, that in order to find the responses and
evaluations
on Katz’s pages requires painstaking effort. At first glance
all one
encounters is the glaring list of 49 numbered claims. The format in
which the
materials is displayed ensures that only the most serious of students
will
painstakingly pore over the full range of responses and evaluations.
Hence the
average browser will be left with the impression that Katz believes in
the
reality of those contradictions. For this reason I would advise Katz to
remove
the items which he finds answered to his satisfaction."
No Hostility to the Bible
This brings me to now explain some of the key differences between
Katz’s
approach and mine. First, my list of 101 contradictions in the Bible is
not
motivated by hostility to the Bible. I believe that the Bible is a very
good
book. I am aware that many people have been positively motivated by the
Bible.
Many people have become better persons by reading the Bible. The world
has
become a better place because of that book. My wish often is that more
people in
the western world should have followed their Bibles. Then we would have
less
drunkenness, adultery, gambling and a number of vices which Islam and
Muslims
stand firmly against.
Reverence for God
My motivation springs from two things. First, my reverence for God.
Both Muslims
and Christians revere God enough to want to defend his dignity. We
recognize
that it is not right for anyone to claim something about God which is
below his
dignity. Since we both believe that God is not the author of
contradictions, it
would be an insult to his dignity to claim that he authored a book
wherein there
are contradictions. I genuinely believe that the Bible contains
contradictions
and errors. Bible footnotes and commentaries generally admit that such
contradictions and errors exist in the text of the Bible. For these
reasons I am
persuaded that it is my duty along with Christians to defend the honour
of God.
To do this we need to advise everyone that it is not appropriate to
claim that
God wrote the entire Bible. To do so would be to attribute the errors
and
contradictions to God. Since many people would deny that such
contradictions
exist, the best way to convince them was to show them where such
contradictions
do exist. Some people would usually dare me to show them one such
contradiction,
just one, and yet when I show them they are still not moved from their
position.
Just one little contradiction is not usually enough for the faithful.
But how
about 101? My purpose has been served, I think. The four missionaries
who
attempted a reply to my list of 101 Bible contradictions do admit that
some of
the contradictions are genuine.
Moral Obligation to Warn Others
The second source of my motivation springs from my moral obligation to
save my
fellow human beings from the Fire of Hell. If they are following a book
which
contains much good and also some human teachings which can lead a
person into
that fire it becomes my moral duty to warn them that the book contains
human
elements. One way of doing this effectively is to show actual content
which
could not come from God. Contradictions are foremost among such things.
The
method works. Smith and others admitted that some of the contradictions
are due
to the human copyists who way back in history made mistakes when they
copied the
texts.
A Correct Methodology
Motivation is not the only difference between Katz’s approach
and mine. A
second difference is in the methodology. The approach of Katz has been
to pore
over the Quraan translations and the translators’ notes and
other commentaries
to find any mention of a possible difficulty in understanding the text.
Then he
adds this to the list even if the difficulty is already worked out and
a
satisfactory solution is mentioned in the source.
Seriously Studying the Bible
On the other hand, my approach has been to seriously study the Bible. I
have
then listed only those contradictions which I find personally
convincing or for
which Bible commentaries admit that they have no satisfactory answer. I
have not
included any item for which the commentators have offered a convincing
explanation. This explains why Smith and others despite their
painstaking work
could not come up with solid answers. Even where they attempt to deny
that a
contradiction exists, they usually draw two or three answers from
different
commentators and lump them all together to make a single answer. But
often the
answers are mutually exclusive. It cannot be both ways. Smith and
others only
show their inability to decide on a solution when they offer such
mutually
contradictory answers in an attempt to clear up the contradictions.
Such indecision is a sure sign of lack of personal conviction. Where
Katz
noticed that Muslims in dealing with Claim #4 offer different
explanations for
the apparent difficulty, he remarked:
"The existence of contradictory explanations is always the result of
confusion and the sign that no theory is really fitting the data. If
one
explanation would really make full sense, then all others would have
been
abandoned long ago."
Katz said this in reference to Muslims when for a single problem
different
explanations are found in different sources. What would Katz think of
the fact
that Smith and others lump different explanations in the same answer
and then
pretend that they have an answer? Differences among Muslim commentators
may be
attributed to the fact that various writers have different
perspectives. What
accounts for the differences found within the combined answers of Smith
and the
rest of his team?
Judgement Against Falsehood
The third main difference between Katz’s approach and mine
lies in my refusal
to claim a Bible contradiction which I am not sure of, and my
willingness to
forthright withdraw any claim which I discover to be false. I have
already cited
Katz’s explanation of his reasons why he might list a
contradiction which he
himself is not convinced is a contradiction, and why he would maintain
an item
on the contradiction list even after his discovery that such an item is
not a
real contradiction. I must now explain my reason why I had to adopt an
approach
different from Katz’s. I am fully convinced that I will have
to answer on the
Day of Judgement for every word I utter whether it be by speech or in
writing. I
cannot promote something I do not believe in. Only where I believe a
contradiction exists in the Bible can I continue to circulate my
booklet
containing that item. If not for my conviction that what I write is
true, I
cannot continue to write, or to circulate my booklet. As it is now, my
booklet
is about to be reprinted because, having read the response from Smith
and
others, I am sure that the contradictions are real. I am more sure than
I have
ever been. Smith and others, I must admit, have been more studious than
me,
checking out many sources of possible answers for the contradictions.
Their
failure to answer any of them to my satisfaction, and their admission
that some
of them are real, gives me the assurance that my work is based on solid
ground.
Moreover, if ever I receive a satisfactory answer to any of the claimed
contradictions I would have a moral obligation to inform the public of
the
falsity of my previous claim. To satisfy my obligation I would have to
circulate
an apology as widely as my original work was circulated. All of this I
am
prepared to do if only someone would respond with satisfactory answers.
How to Answer Claims
Having explained the difference between Katz’s approach and
mine, I must now
turn to Katz’s specific claims and show where he is further
mistaken. But
first, a word about the method of my answer.
Katz’s list has each proposed problem explained in brief. My
answers will also
be brief in the main section. Behind each of Katz’s summary
of the problem is
a more detailed explanation. That explanation, however, is accessible
only after
a click of the mouse. I will insha Allah answer those under the
headings
"More Objections Answered." On the web such sections will also be
accessible with a click of the mouse.
This method will have the advantage of demolishing the main points
quickly and
effectively in a short list of answers. All of Katz’s main
points are in the
summary, and as such it would be a needless distraction to deal with
the
subsidiary issues in the main list of answers. The subsidiary points
will then
be dealt with equally effectively in the subsidiary sections.
Two Approaches
To answer Katz we do not initially need to get into detailed
explanations of
Quranic verses and Islamic practices. Katz represents his list as a
list of
contradictions. To demolish that list, it is sufficient to show that
the items
do not establish contradictions. This we can do in two ways.
First, we can question the criticism itself. If we can show that
Katz’s claim
is not based on a proper foundation, then his claim stands dismissed;
and a
further defense of the Quraan becomes unnecessary. Often we will see
that Katz
makes the following types of mistakes:
(a) he misunderstands the Quraan
(b) for the Quranic passages in question he relies on a faulty
translation which
supports the misunderstanding or
(c) he takes the passages out of their context to support such a
misunderstanding.
If we can demonstrate any of this, then Katz’s criticisms
fall flat, and the Quraan
stands tall.
Moreover, we will demand of Katz that the Quraanic statements which he
claims to
be mutually contradictory must satisfy a basic condition. The
statements have to
be such that they cannot be said to be true of the same thing at the
same time.
We will see that often what Katz presents are statements which appear
to be
different but not contradictory. But unless our basic condition here
can be met,
we shall have to remind Katz that a difference is not a contradiction
unless it
is a contradiction. If one passage claims A and another claims B they
are no
doubt different. But for them to be contradictory, it has to be shown
that A and
B cannot be true of the same thing at the same time. This Katz will
have to
show. Since Katz is proposing a contradiction, we shall demand of him
to prove
not only that a difference exists, but a contradictory difference. If
he fails
to show this, then his claim falls flat and the Quraan stands tall.
The Positive Explanation
The second way in which we can answer the claimed contradictions is to
show that
a reasonable understanding of the text in question proves them
harmonious. If we
can show that a reasonable reading does not lead to a contradiction,
then we
will have demolished Katz’s claim. As long as such an
explanation is
reasonable, one can no longer claim that the passages are contradictory.
An Illustration
To illustrate these two approaches in constructing a response, consider
Katz’s
claimed contradiction #20. He cites one verse to show that the losers
on the Day
of Judgement will receive the record of their deeds behind their backs.
Then he
cites another verse to show that such losers will receive their records
in their
left hands. Our first approach is to question Katz’s claim.
It is up to Katz
to show not only that the verses say two different things. He also has
to show
that the verses say two contradictory things. We notice that he has
shown the
difference, but he has not shown a contradiction. To show a
contradiction, he
has to explain why it is unreasonable for both verses to be true. Katz
has to
argue that it is impossible for a person to receive something behind
his back if
he also gets it in his left hand. Until Katz says this he has not laid
a real
claim to a contradiction, and the claim he makes us pointless. We do
not need to
say more.
The second way of approaching the same problem is to offer a reasonable
explanation showing how both verses can be right at the same time. In
this
example we can argue that it is quite reasonable that a person can
receive his
record behind his back and in his left hand. He can obviously do this
by simply
putting his left hand behind his back and waiting for the angels to
place his
record therein. This explanation makes further sense when you realize
that a
loser in this case is doubly disgraced. He is disgraced getting his
record in
his left hand, and he is further disgraced by not having at least the
honour of
advancing face forward.
Notice that anyone of the two approaches would be sufficient for the
purpose of
demolishing the claimed contradiction. Yet we will often look at the
matter both
ways so that a variety of approaches may be available for the serious
student.
Bible Comparisions
Moreover, we shall under separate heads include comparisons with the
Bible where
appropriate. Where Katz objects to a Quraanic statement or principle
and we find
something similar in the Bible in which Katz believes, then we ought to
bring
this to the attention of Katz and other readers. For example, whereas
Katz
objects that the Quraan prescribes for daughters half the share for a
son, the
Bible allows no share for the daughters if sons exist. In the Bible a
daughter
inherits only if there are no sons. If sons exist they take all
(Numbers
27:8-11). If there are no sons then the daughters will inherit, but
they are
required to marry within their father’s tribe (Numbers 36:6,
11).
So, since Katz calls the Quraan unjust for what it awards daughters
(half what
their brothers get) we should be interested to know what he will call
the Bible
for what it awards daughters (nothing).
Nor does the Bible prescribe anything for the mom or wife. Following
the
Bible’s prescriptions, if a man dies we would pass over his
wife and mother
and give his property to his brothers or to his fathers’
brothers.
On the other hand, the Quraan specifies shares of inheritance for the
wife and
mother. What does Katz think of that?
Part Three
Now we move on to
consider and demolish Katz’s claims one by one.
PRIMARY CLAIM #1: Inheritance shares
totaling more than
100%
Katz
claims that there is a contradiction in
the matter of inheritance. He says that the shares allotted to
individual heirs
in a particular case would add up to more than 100% of the available
estate. If
a man dies leaving behind three daughters, his parents, and his wife
the
allotments total one and one-eighth. Surah 4, verses 4:11-12 shows that
in this
case the three daughters together will receive 2/3, the parents
together will
receive 1/3, and the wife will receive 1/8. Hence a numerical
discrepancy.
REPLY: Adding two unknowns
Katz
misunderstood what he read in the Quraan.
The verses he refers to do not say what the parents will receive in
this case.
Nor does it say what the wife will receive in this case. To arrive at
his
understanding, Katz insists that he must take the Quraanic statements
in the
most literal sense. Yet the text even when taken in a literal manner
does not
support his misunderstanding. The Quraan does not literally prescribe
what the
parents will receive in the case which Katz proposes. It is true that
the Quraan
literally prescribes that the parents will share 1/3 when a man dies
leaving one
child (4:11). But the case which Katz proposes is different.
Katz’s case
involves three daughters, and the literal Quraanic prescription
involves only
one child. Hence Katz’ proposed numerical discrepancy is
built on his
confusing one case for another.
If we were to follow the Quraanic prescriptions literally, in
Katz’s case the
wife’s share is also not specified. The Quraan literally
prescribes a 1/8
share for the wife if the husband leaves only one child. But
Katz’s case
involves three daughters. And the number three happens to be more than
the
number one.
Katz thinks that the stated shares in this case would be 2/3 + 1/3 +
1/8,
whereas in fact since two of these shares are not actually stated in
the Quraan,
the shares are 2/3 + ? + ? = ? Since the Quraan does not make a
statement on
this specific case, it is impossible for the Quraan to be wrong. The
details of
this case is left to the comprehensive nature of the Islamic Shariah
which does
not depend on the Quraan alone.
A note about the Islamic Law
My answer
here does not enter into the
details of the Islamic rules governing inheritance for that is not what
the
objection is about. Katz explains that his objection is only that if
the Quraanic
statements about inheritance are taken literally then they yield
numerical
discrepancies. All we had to do here was to show that his objections
are
baseless. Even if we take the Quraanic statements literally we find
that the
numerical discrepancies that Katz speaks of are not in the Quraan but
only in
Katz’s mind.
The source of Katz's confusion
Katz’s
confusion apparently springs from
his reliance here on the translation of the Quraan by Arthur Arberry.
But
Arberry in his translation of these passages mistakenly renders walad
as
"children" whereas walad is singular: "a child"(4:11, 12).
CLAIM #1b: The man with no direct
heirs
Katz
claims that there is a further
discrepancy in this matter in the case of a man who leaves a mother, a
wife, and
two sisters. If the allotted shares are added up the total exceeds the
total
estate. In this case the mother gets 1/3 (4:11) the wife gets 1/4 (
4:12) and
the two sisters together receive 2/3 (4:176). These shares altogether
total
15/12, more than the available estate.
REPLY: Dead mother gets no share
Katz is
again mistaken. To arrive at the said
allotted shares Katz refers to the shares allotted in Surah 4, Ayah 176
of the Quraan.
But that ayah refers to a man who leaves neither parent nor child. At
the time
of his death his mother already lays in her own grave and as such can
lay no
claim to a share of inheritance.
Katz’s misunderstanding is again due to Arberry’s
translation. In the Quraan
in 4:176 the case described is that of a man who is called in Arabic
"kalalah" which is correctly translated by Yusuf Ali as one who leaves
"no descendants or ascendants."
More Objections Answered
Wasting Words
Many of
Katz’s subsidiary objections fault
the Quraan for not providing a complete list of all possible cases and
every
detail. Then, after wasting many words on this, he concludes: "But
since
these cases are just not stated, let us not speculate about it and only
look at
the cases for which we are explicitly given instructions . . . ." What
then
was the point of raising such an issue?
Islamic Law Not Based on the Quraan
Alone
Katz
objects that in many cases the Quraan
does not allot the entire estate to designated recipients. He thinks
that the Quraan
ought to have given more detailed instructions. But here he misses a
key point
about the Quraan. The book was sent along with its interpreter, the
prophet,
sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. He came to teach us the details of what
the Quraan
lays out in general principles. After much discussion of his need for
details in
the Quraan, however, Katz concludes: "Anyway, as long as the shares add
up
to less than one, things can be settled still ‘relatively
easily.’"
Again, why the wasted discussion?
The Question is not About Islamic Law
His
persistent question in a number of cases
is, "Who gets the rest?" The text itself and the Shariah on the whole
has ways of dealing with this. In his response to Randy Desmond, Katz
himself
admits: "I want to repeat again. Experts on Islamic law are just as
intelligent as everybody else and they have found ways to distribute
inheritance
to the heirs in generally accepted ways."
The Rulings of Muslim Scholars
Often Katz
objects that the Muslim scholars
rule differently than what the Quraan prescribes. This is a different
objection
that proving a contradiction or numerical discrepancy in the Quraan
itself. This
matter he should take up with the said Muslim scholars themselves. Then
such
scholars will either have to correct themselves or teach Katz the
details of Quraanic
interpretation. To deal with this is not my expertise. Nor is it
required here.
Keeping to a Consistent Frame of
Reference
Katz
failed to remain consistent on his basic
frame of reference. On the one hand he thinks of the prophet Muhammad
as an
intelligent man who wrote the Quraan; on the other hand he cannot
assume a basic
level of intelligence for the prophet. Katz writes:
"Even if one would not put standards of perfection on these rules as is
fitting for a revelation from God but only think it to be from
Muhammad, it is
strange that this successful business man, in charge of whole caravans
for a
number of years, was not able to correctly add up a few fractions."
Contrary to Katz’s ambivalence between attributing
intelligence and ignorance
to the prophet, it is established practice that as we read a work we
assume for
the author a reasonable degree of intelligence consistent with our
knowledge of
the author’s biography. Since we know from history that the
prophet was a
successful business man in charge of whole caravans for a number of
years we
have to assume that he had more than a child’s intelligence.
Yet in order to attribute error to the Quraan, Katz pretends that its
author has
not even a child’s intelligence. On this basis Katz objects
to 4:11 which
prescribes that a daughter will get half of the entire estate available
for
inheritance. Since the same verse also prescribes that a son gets twice
the
share of a daughter, Katz thinks that in the case of one son and one
daughter
the shares of inheritance would be 50% for the daughter and 100% for
the son
thus totaling 150% of the available estate. Then he wonders how the
parents and
spouse will inherit when more than the whole is already allotted. He
does not
here allow for the author of he Quraan to know that if a daughter gets
half of
the whole thing only the other half will remain for a son. Yet every
child knows
that if they have to share a cake and one person gets half the other
person
cannot get twice as much from the same cake. If Katz is to assume that
the
prophet is the author of the Quraan and Katz admits at least a basic
level of
intelligence for him, how does Katz imagine such an idiotic explanation
for the Quraan?
Does Katz want to have his cake and eat it? Here Katz’s
method has gone beyond
even his admitted intention to approach the Quraan with hostility.
"Daughters Only" Implies "No Sons"
Actually,
again, there is no problem in the
scripture itself, only in Katz’s approach. The passage (4:11)
first mentions
the general principle that a son gets twice what the daughter gets.
Then it goes
on to prescribe in cases when only daughters remain. Only when there is
no son,
and only one daughter, does the verse prescribe half the estate for the
daughter. So Katz’s goings on about the double share for the
son is mistaken.
In this case there exists by definition a total number of zero sons and
one
daughter, and no other children.
The fact that this is a case of no son can be immediately seen from the
Quranic
text. Speaking of the children, the Quraan moves over to a use of the
feminine
plural pronoun "kunna" which by definition cannot include males.
Arberry’s translation again did not sufficiently emphasize
this reference to
females alone. Yet the translation is not alone to blame here. The
problem rests
with Katz. On the one hand he calls the prophet a successful
businessman and the
author of the Quraan. Surely such a man would know that if you put half
of the
camels on one side the other side cannot have twice the number. Or,
that if he
already paid for half his merchandise he should not again pay for the
remainder
twice what he paid for the first half. Such a man would know that if he
gave
half his wealth to his daughter he cannot also give twice as much to
his son.
The Author Must Have Some
Intelligence
Katz ought
to here align himself with the
world in this matter. When we read a work we assume for the author a
level of
competence consistent with his biography. Those who believe that the
Quraan came
from Muhammad and know anything about his biography cannot justifiably
take the
words of he book in the most silly meaning possible. Even a person like
Katz who
decided to use the approach of a hostile critic must have his limits.
It is due to his own such misunderstandings that Katz in his response
to
Al-Kadhi repugnantly states that "the author of the Quraan shows
incompetence at a very basic level." On the other hand, both Katz and I
have to recognize our own incompetence. I cannot claim competence in
fully
understanding either the Bible or the Quraan, and I am willing to be
corrected
if I overstep my competence in dealing with both books. Similarly, if
Katz does
not know the Arabic language, and if he is dependent only on English
translations he should judge whether or not he is competent to be a
justifiable
hostile critic of the book. Hostile critic yes -- but justifiable?
Katz’s Excessive Diligence
in the Wrong Direction
Credit
goes to Katz for his excessive
diligence in searching for errors in the Quraan. The allotment of
inheritance
shares involves a very detailed system. It itself is an area of
specialization
within Islamic studies. To sort through all the prescriptions in the
Quraanic
text and decide individual cases based on the general Quraanic
principles takes
much careful study. To invent hypothetical cases which would result in
the
apparent numerical discrepancies as Katz has done requires tremendous
zeal. Yet
Katz did not stop at that. He generally uses Yusuf Ali’s
translation of the Quraan
to analyze the difficulties he deals with. But in the matter of
inheritance he
turned to Arthur Arberry’s translation. Why? Katz explains:
"because
Yusuf Ali was even more difficult to follow." Yet my review of the two
translations convinced me that whereas the inheritance law is itself
complex,
the two translations were roughly similar in their level of persistence
needed
to comprehend the subject.
Why Arberry’s Translation?
The key
difference between the translations,
however, was that whereas the discrepancies Katz sought could be
pressed on with
the help of Arberry’s translation, this often was not true
for Yusuf Ali’s
translation. Though not itself perfect, Yusuf Ali’s
translation is in the
relevant verses closer to the original Arabic. Katz may have turned to
Arberry’s translation not only because he found it easier to
follow, but
because he also found it easier to use in support of claimed
contradictions.
What Katz needed to do was to channel his diligence in the search not
for error
but for truth. He should have compared the translations to make sure
that the
one translation on which he relies should not itself prove erroneous on
this
issue. This way he would have avoided skewering his results in the
erroneous
direction he took. But, then again, perhaps here again Katz did not put
a
reasonable limit on his diligence for locating internal Quraanic errors.
Comparing Translations
Normally
in Biblical studies it is demanded
that studies be based on the texts in the original languages. Students
who have
no access to the original languages are advised to compare translations
so as to
ensure that a particular mistaken slant of one translation does not
affect the
general understanding. Moreover, a particular emphasis may be captured
well in
one translation but not in another.
If Katz had used this principle in studying the Quraan he would have
suspected
that some of the discrepancies he points to are found in
Arberry’s translation
but not in Yusuf Ali’s. Then he might have sought
clarification from the
original text to find out the source of the apparent discrepancy. But
Katz’s
excessive diligence was apparently not in the direction of establishing
truth.
Even a Hostile Critic Needs Limits
We do not
expect Katz to take an overly
friendly approach to the Quraanic text. Yet he ought not to take such a
hostile
approach either. Surely there is a happy medium between these extremes.
How
about an unbiased reading of the Quraan? Apparently Katz abandoned
Yusuf Ali’s
translation precisely because in this case Arberry’s
translation was more
useful to the extreme hostile approach.
Katz Knew the Solution
In fact,
Katz was aware that Yusuf Ali’s
translation and notes if followed would remove one of the problems
cited above.
We have already shown how Katz in one case due to his misunderstanding
counted a
share for an already dead mother. His misunderstanding depended on
Arberry’s
translation which did not make sufficiently clear that the prescription
in 4:176
dealt with a person who left neither a parent nor a child. While Katz
was busy
establishing that the total share including the mother’s
share would exceed
the available inheritance, he showed no awareness of the possibility
that the
mother is no longer around. Only later, when Katz was dealing with a
different
problem, did he show that he had this knowledge. He wrote that 4:176
deals with
the situation when "there are no direct heirs (i.e. parents or children
according to Muslim understanding – see Yusuf Ali’s
translation and
footnote)." If Katz knew of this understanding why did he not suggests
that
if the Muslim understanding is based on the Arabic reading then the
claimed
discrepancy disappears?
CLAIM: Brothers can inherit if only
no direct heirs remain
Katz
thinks that "according 4:12 and
4:176 the siblings of the person who died only then share in the
inheritance if
there are no direct heirs (i.e. parents or children . . . ). Thus he
concluded
that a brother cannot inherit if a mother is alive. But he finds this
conclusion
to contradict 4:11 which seems to allot a brother a share along with
the mother.
REPLY: Searching for the word "only"
Here Katz misunderstands both 4:12 and 4:176. Neither of these verses state that a sibling can inherit "only" if there are no parents or children. Hence Katz’s contention is without basis. This time his contention is not even based on Arberry’s translation.
Part Four
CLAIM: Sibling share suddenly doubled
Katz
claims that 4:12 contradicts 4:176.
According to 4:12 when there is no direct heir a brother or a sister
would
receive 1/6 each; thus 1/3 altogether. But "4:176 says in the same
situation that ‘they shall receive two-thirds of what he
leaves’ [double of
what 4:12 says]."
REPLY: Read Carefully
Contrary
to what Katz claims, there is a key
difference in the two situations. The pronoun "they" in 4:176 refers
to two sisters whereas 4:12 refers to a brother and a sister. Since a
brother
and a sister is not the same thing, a brother plus a sister is not the
same as
two sisters.
The Arabic text clearly says, "in kanataa ithnatayn" which literally
means "if they are two--females." Hence Yusuf Ali renders it: "if
there are two sisters." Even Arberry’s translation renders
the passage:
"if there be two sisters they shall receive two-thirds of what he
leaves
(4:176)." So the translation also made the matter clear. But in order
to
press home his claim of contradiction, Katz wrenched a phrase out of
its context
hence giving it a different meaning. He skipped the conditional "if
there
be two sisters" and quoted only "they shall receive two-thirds of what
he leaves." Then Katz went on to argue as though the pronoun
"they" refers to a brother and a sister. A quick review of the text,
however, reveals that Katz’s point is based on a
misrepresentation of the Quraan.
Lest You go Astray
I am
struck by Allah’s mention in the same
verse: "Allah makes clear to you, lest you go astray." I wonder now,
by Katz’s muddying the verse how many internet browsers may
have gone astray.
I pray that my humble effort here may become the means by which Allah
may guide
many.
To be sure, 4:176 then goes on to prescribe for the case of more than
two
siblings including brothers and sisters. But then the verse does not
prescribe
the specific shares to be allotted them except to reiterate a general
principle
that the males get twice what their sisters receive. Since the specific
shares
are not allotted they cannot be said to be different from the allotted
shares
elsewhere. Either way you look at it, Katz is very wrong.
The Commentators
Katz goes
on to report the commentary of Razi
to show how Razi got around the perceived problem with the assumption
that the
two verses speak of two different sets of brothers and sisters. Whereas
4:12
refers to a brother or a sister from the mother, 4:176 refers to full
siblings
or siblings from the same father. If Razi is right, then of course
there is no
problem. Katz thinks that Muslim commentators simply invented this
explanation
to get around the problem.
But even if Razi is wrong, there is still no problem. My clarification
above
does not depend on any commentary. I have just simply shown that if we
took the
verse literally as Katz wants to do then it speaks of two different
things.
Whether we take the verse literally or we take Razi’s
commentary as correct,
either way Katz is wrong.
CLAIM: One year’s
maintenance not same as 1/8
Katz
claims a contradiction between 4:11 and
2:240. A man leaves an eight of his estate to his widow if he also
leaves a
child. But 2:240 prescribes "one year’s maintenance for her."
And
this, except for some remarkable coincidence, will always be different
from a
1/8 share.
REPLY: Why should they be the same?
Katz
failed to distinguish between the
inheritance shares and a bequest. In 2:240 the maintenance for one year
is
prescribed as a bequest (Arabic: wasiyyah). On the other hand 4:11
prescribes
the 1/8 share to be given only after debts and bequests (wasiyyah) are
settled.
Even Arberry’s translation on which Katz depends says that
men leave to their
widows "an eight after any bequest they may bequeath, or any debt
(4:11)."
Selective Recall
It is sad
to notice again that the problem is
not Katz’s lack of knowledge of the terms. Elsewhere he
acknowledged "the
rule that at most 1/3 can be given as a bequest to a person which is
usually not
an heir." Then he even goes on to provide links to sites which deal
with
Islamic inheritance law. So the problem is not that Katz does not know.
The
problem is that while he is concentrating on establishing one
contradiction at a
time he forgets anything he knows that could possible demolish the very
claimed
contradiction.
CLAIM: See Yusuf Ali’s
footnote
Katz
claims that since many commentators
recognized that they cannot in practice make a year’s
maintenance for a widow
equal to a 1/8 share of inheritance, they saw here a contradiction
between 2:240
and 4:12. To support this claim, he writes: "According to Yusuf
Ali’s
footnote on 2:240, many commentators for this reason consider 2:240
abrogated by
4:12."
REPLY: It does not say what you say
The
support for that claim is based on a
false allegation. I have checked more than one editions of Yusuf
Ali’s
translation for the opinion which Katz attributes to Yusuf Ali. And I
could not
find it. Katz’s claim is that according to Yusuf Ali many
commentators deemed
the two verses to be mutually contradictory, and that "for this
reason" they consider 2:240 to be abrogated by 4:12. On the contrary,
Yusuf
Ali’s footnote on 2:240 reads:
"Opinions differ whether the provision ( of a year’s
maintenance, with
residence) for a widow is abrogated by the share which the widow gets
(one
eighth or one-fourth) as an heir (Q. iv. 12). I do not think it is. The
bequest
(where made) takes effect as a charge on the property, but the widow
can leave
the house before the year is out, and presumably the maintenance then
ceases."
That is the full extent of Yusuf Ali’s note #273 on 2:240
(American Trust
Publications, 1977). Notice that the quoted words from Yusuf Ali do not
imply
anything about contradiction, only about abrogation. Yusuf Ali does not
say that
the commentators recognized here a contradiction and that "for this
reason" they consider 2:240 to be abrogated. Here Katz’s
enthusiasm
overshadowed his caution, and he attributed to Yusuf Ali an opinion
which Yusuf
Ali did not hold.
Katz harbours the idea that abrogation means contradiction. But
abrogation is
not the same as contradiction. The difference is explained under the
next head.
CLAIM
Katz
claims that 4:7 contradicts 4:11. In 4:7
daughters are given an equal share with their brothers whereas in 4:11
they are
given only half what their brothers get. This is clear from the
parallel
construction in 4:7 which says "to the men a share . . . and to the
women a
share."
REPLY
It seems
that Katz is willing to go to
desperate lengths to keep making more claims. Why does he think that
4:7 awards
an equal share to daughters? He thinks "the parallel construction makes
that obvious." On the contrary, the only thing it makes obvious is that
sons and daughters each get a share. Where does it say that the shares
are
equal?
On the other hand, it is reasonable to see that both statements are
correct. One
says that the son and daughter will each get a share. Another says that
the
share which the son gets will be double what the daughter gets. Putting
the two
statements together, we have this final instruction: Both the son and
the
daughter will have a share, the son’s share being twice that
of the daughter.
Where is the contradiction?
CLAIM
Katz
supports his finding of a contradiction
here by referring to Muslim commentators. He noted that all
commentators
recognized 4:7 to be abrogated by 4:11. This pair of verses is listed
as pair
#20 in the book Itqan. According to Katz, then, 4:7 was recognized by
all
commentators as an abrogated verse. This to him means that its content
is
contradicted by another verse, in this case 4:11. Hence he can claim
the
following: "That this was a contradiction was recognized by all
commentators . . . ."
REPLY
But surely
here Katz misunderstands what an
abrogation is in the view of Muslim commentators. Many used the term
abrogation
in the sense of specification. Hence if one verse gave a general
instruction and
a later verse gave a more specific instruction the latter is called an
abrogating verse and the former is called an abrogated verse. However,
this does
not mean that the commentators recognized here a contradiction as Katz
alleges.
It only means that they recognized the later verse as being more
specific where
the former was more general. We have already seen that this is the case
with the
verses being discussed. Whereas the former verse 4:7 said in general
that the
son and daughter both inherit, the latter verse 4:11 specified that the
share of
the male would be twice that of the female. There is hence no
contradiction
between the two verses.
Moreover, even if commentators think that there is a contradiction that
does not
help Katz. His method was, as he stated, to ignore the commentators and
take the
Quraanic statements in their most literal sense. If he cannot show a
contradiction using this method, it is pointless to appeal to the
commentators
in desperation.
Furthermore, all commentators are not agreed that this is a case of
abrogation.
According to Shah Waliullah of Delhi, there are only five pairs of
abrogated and
abrogating verses, and this pair is not one of the five (Ahmad Von
Denver, Uloom
al-Quraan, UK: Islamic Foundation, 1994; p. 108). So what does that
prove? The
crux of the matter here is not what the commentators said but what the
verses
actually say. Since the verses themselves do not contradict each other,
Katz’s
claim is ruined.
CLAIM
Katz
complains that the Quraan often does not
provide for the estate to be exhaustively distributed. When the
allotted shares
are added they amount to less than 100%. His persistent question,
therefore, is
"Who gets the rest?" Since the Quraan claims to be a complete
guidance, it should provide instructions on such details.
REPLY
The Bible
is a much larger book than the Quraan.
Yet it contains less on inheritance than the Quraan. And it too claims
to be a
complete guidance. How does Katz regard this?
The Quraan is said to be about 4/5 the length of the New Testament. The
Old
Testament is much longer than the New Testament. And the Bible is made
up of
both testaments. Why is it that a book of such size include so little
on a
subject that Katz considers so important?
CLAIM
Katz feels
that the allowance in Islamic Law
for a person to bequeath up to 1/3 of his property "can lead to gross
injustices." One can theoretically bequeath away his property thus
leaving
his elderly parents with no support. He further complains that the
limit of 1/3
is not prescribed in the Quraan.
REPLY
Katz would
be on better ground here if he
took into consideration the entire Quraan. The Quraan does in fact
prescribe
that charity is first to one’s parents, then to
one’s near relatives, then
to others. If anyone disinherits his parents he would be going against
this
important directive.
Moreover, Katz should be able to demonstrate that the Bible is better
at
ensuring justice. On the contrary, the Bible in the Gospel of Luke
shows that
when a matter of injustice involving inheritance was brought to Jesus,
on whom
be peace, he refused to settle the matter (Luke 12:13). Muslims of
course
believe that Jesus stood for justice. Muslims would question any detail
of the
gospels which contradict this noble portrait of Jesus. But how does
Katz feel
about this gospel report?
CLAIM
Katz
devoted an entire page complaining about
how it is "very unjust" to allot a man twice the share of his sister
as Islamic law does. His complaining may lead a reader to expect that
his Bible
teaches differently.
REPLY
On the
contrary, according to the Bible if
there are sons they should take everything and the daughters should get
nothing.
Only if there are no sons can the daughters inherit (Numbers 27:8-11).
However,
such a daughter is required to marry into a family of her
father’s tribe
(Numbers 36:6, 11).
Katz complains of injustice because the Quraan gives the woman only
half of what
her brother gets. How does he react to the Biblical prescription that
the woman
gets nothing if she has a brother?
Moreover, the Quraan prescribes for a woman to inherit as a daughter,
as a
mother, as a sister, and as a wife. The Bible offers no such
prescription.
Rather, the Bible allots the entire inheritance to male relatives where
such
exist, leaving nothing for wife or mother. So why do Bible believers
complain
about the Quraan?
CLAIM
In his
reply to Randy Desmond, Katz comments
on an interpretation of a hadith which directs us to give the allotted
shares as
designated and then to give the undistributed remainder to the nearest
male
relative. Katz stretches this to mean possibly a male cousin of an
uncle. Then
he concludes that if he dies leaving a daughter as his only child his
daughter
would get half the estate and such a remote male relative would get the
other
half. Then comes his expression of incredulity:
". . . this remote male relative would get half the inheritance? As
much as
my daughter? That is what the hadith would suggest."
Aside from his misunderstanding of the said hadith and of Islamic
inheritance
law, Katz should be advised that if he follows the Bible on this matter
his
daughter may get nothing and the male relative would take all if the
daughter
marries outside her father’s tribe. Katz may think this law
no longer applies
today, but that does not help his position. Since Katz believes that
this
prescription came from God in the first place, and Katz thinks it
incredible,
then by implication he thinks that God’s prescription in the
Bible is
incredible.
Based on his misunderstanding of the hadith and of Islamic law, Katz is
able to
remark:
"According to my taste, this is not justified. [Neither do I know of
any
country’s civil or religious law where things are dealt with
that way.] But
then, maybe I am not the one to define what is justice."
Neither is it done that way in Islamic law. On the other hand, has Katz
read his
Bible lately? According to the Bible, if a man has no kids his property
goes to
his brothers, or to his father’s brothers (Numbers 27:8-11).
How does Katz
feel about this? Wife and mother are not mentioned in the list of
inheritors.
According to this list we should pass over a man’s wife and
mother and give
his entire property to his father’s brother. Perhaps Katz
will explain to us
how this fits his taste of what is justified.
Anything Left Unanswered?
I have in the foregoing discussion answered every significant point raised by Katz regarding the matter of inheritance. If there is anything left unanswered I would like to know. Then I can get to work on it right away.
Fasting during Ramadan on the North or South Poles during their Summer:
Reference: http://www.islamicity.com
Topic : Fasting: Two Poles
First and foremost, we’d like to make it clear that the religion of Islam seeks not to cause any hardship to its adherents or burden them beyond their capabilities. Easiness and facilitation are of the main characteristics of Islam. Almighty Allah says: (Allah would not place a burden on you, but He would purify you and would perfect His grace upon you, that ye may give thanks.) (Al-Ma’idah: 6)
When a person lives in such an area (i.e. near the two poles), he/she should follow the prayer timing and fasting of the nearest country that has a regular schedule or he can pray and fast according to the timings of the cities that are nearest to them in the normal time zone, i.e. below 64 degrees north or above 64 degrees south.
In his well-known book, Fiqh As-Sunnah, Sheikh Sayyed Sabiq states:
Scholars differ about what the Muslims who are in areas where the day is extremely long and the night is short should do. What timings should they follow? Some say they should follow the norms of the areas where the Islamic legislation took place (i.e. Makkah or Madinah). Others say that they should follow the timings of the area that is closest to them which has normal days and nights.
Elaborating more on the issue, Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America, adds:
At the poles, that is at 90 N and 90 S the sun does not set for six months continuously, with the exception of one day of the first equinox and then remains risen above the horizon for the other six months continuously with the exception of one day of the second equinox.
Even below 90 N down to 60 N and above 90 S up to 60 S the days and nights are abnormally long or short during the summer and winter seasons respectively. At one time, this was a theoretical issue, but now, Alhamdulillah, Islam has reached to these regions and many Muslims are living there.
Muslim jurists considered this situation long time ago. They based their Ijtihad on the verse of the Quraan that says, (Allah does not burden a person beyond his/her capacity.) (Al-Baqarah :286)
There is also a Hadith, reported in the books of Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud and Ibn Majah, in which the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, described the situation at the time of the appearance of Dajjal. He said, “When the Dajjal will come to deceive the people, he will remain on the earth for forty days, one of which will be as long as a year, the second as long as a month, the third as long as a week and the remaining days as your normal days.” One of the Companions stood and asked the Messenger of Allah, 'On the day which will be as long as a year, would it be sufficient to offer only five prayers of the day?' The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, replied, “No, but calculate.”
The aforementioned Hadith gives a principle of determining the times of prayers and fasts in abnormal situations. Thus, according to the Ijtihad based on the above verse of the Qur'an and the Hadith, Muslim jurists have given the name 'abnormal zones' to the areas where the days and nights are unusually long or short.
A conference of Muslims jurists and astronomers was held in Istanbul about 35 years ago. All the jurists gathered there agreed that the areas above 64 degrees latitude in the north and below 64 degrees latitude in the south should be considered 'abnormal zones' whereby people should not follow the movement of the sun, BUT they should follow the movement of the clock for their five daily prayers and fasting. They can pray and fast according to the timings of the cities that are nearest to them in the normal time zone, i.e. below 64 degrees north or above 64 degrees south.
If
you are still in need of more information, don't hesitate to contact
us. Do keep in touch. May Allah guide us all to the straight
path!
Wassalam and Allah Almighty knows best.
Reference:
Islam Online