ACCORDING to its own testimony, the Quran was sent down from heaven by the same One who gave the children of Israel the Pentateuch and Christians the Gospel. However, the Quran, unlike the Pentateuch and the Gospel, had no miracles to support its claim of divine origin. The claim of some that the Quran itself is a literary miracle we found in a previous issue of this magazine to be untenable. However, other Muslim authorities hold that ‘the language itself is not beyond rivalry apart from the truths conveyed, the like of which it would be impossible to produce without a miracle’.

If the Quran is indeed the repository of divine truth, then we should expect to find it, above all else, consistent with itself, should we not? We certainly should. But do we? No, we do not. In fact, we find, upon careful study, not only much discrepancy in the Quran, but a tacit admission of that fact by its efforts to explain away the existence of such. For example:

“When We substitute one revelation for another [verse, sign, Rodwell]—and God knows best what He reveals (in stages),—they say, ‘Thou art but a forger’: But most of them understand not.” (An explanatory footnote in Rodwell’s version states: “The Muslims admit that there are 225 verses cancelled by later ones.”) And again: “None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that God hath power over all things?”—Sura 2:106; 16:101, Ali.

But why should Allah find it necessary to change, substitute, cancel, annul or abrogate any revelations or verses? Does not that provide a strong argument against divine authorship? Did Moses, Christ Jesus, the apostle Paul, or any other servant used by Jehovah God to give us divine truth find it necessary to resort to cancellation or abrogation? Would not such be an indication of defective power? And is there not a tacit admission that the Quran contains at least some contradictions in the following: “Do they not consider the Qur-an (with care)? Had it been from other than God, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.”—Sura 4:82, Ali.

NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION?

Perhaps the most obvious example of discrepancy in the Quran is in the matter of compulsion in religion. Note the following forbidding compulsion: “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” “Thy duty is only preaching.” “We have not made thee keeper over [the Unbelievers].” “What! wilt thou compel men to become believers? No soul can believe but by the permission of God.” “Thy duty is to make (The Message) reach them: It is our part to call them to account.” “Obey not the Infidels and Hypocrites—yet abstain from injuring them.” “Summon thou to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and with kindly warning: dispute with them in the kindest manner.” (Sura 2:256; 13:40, Ali; Sura 3:19; 6:106, 107; 10:99, 100; 16:126; 33:44, 47, Rodwell) Surely the foregoing are unequivocal and in harmony with the principles of justice.

But how can we harmonize the foregoing with the following texts commanding the use of force in religion? “Fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: Kill them wherever ye find them . . . Fight therefore against them until there be no more civil discord, and the only worship be that of God.” “I will cast a dread into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads then, and strike off from them every finger-tip.” “Believers, wage war against such of the infidels as are your neighbors, and let them find you rigorous.” “And when the sacred months are passed, kill those that join other gods with God wherever ye find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay in wait for them with every kind of ambush: but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way, for God is Gracious.”—Sura 2:186-190, 212, 213; 8:12; 9:5, 124; 47:4, Rodwell.

Indicative of the kind of reasoning used by Muslim commentators in endeavoring to harmonize these texts is that of Râzî’s comment on one of the foregoing: “‘Abstain from injuring them’—that is, leave it to God to punish them, either at your hands or by hell fire.”

PREDESTINATION AND THE “KEBLA”

Equally difficult to harmonize are the discrepancies in the Quran relative to predestination. On the one hand the Quran holds out that man can choose his destiny. Otherwise why should a warner be sent to them? Muhammad was commanded: “The truth is from your Lord: let him then who will, believe; and let him who will, be an infidel.” “O my people! how is it that I bid you to salvation, but that ye bid me to the fire?” “Those who shall repent and believe and do righteous works—for them will God change their evil things into righteous things.”—Sura 18:28; 25:65-71; 40:44, Rodwell.

On the other hand there are many, many texts which indicate predestination and that man is without choice. For example: “This is truly a warning: And whoso willeth, taketh the way to his Lord: but will it ye shall not, unless God will it, for God is knowing, wise. He causeth whom He will to enter into his mercy.” “Some of them there were whom God guided, and there were others decreed to err . . . God will not guide him whom He would lead astray.” “Had thy Lord pleased, He would have made mankind of one religion: but those only to whom thy Lord hath granted his mercy will cease to differ. And unto this hath He created them; for the word of thy Lord shall be fulfilled, ‘I will wholly fill hell with Djinn [Spirits] and men.”—Sura 11:120; 16:38, 39; 76:29-31, Rodwell. See also Sura 6:39, 150; 13:30, 31; 14:4; 74:34, Rodwell.

And not only a predestination regarding eternal destiny but also a fatalism regarding the present life is taught in the Quran: “No one can die except by God’s permission, according to the Book that fixeth the term of life.” “No mischance chanceth either on earth or in your persons, but ere we created them, it was in the Book;—for easy is this to God.” And to Muslims who complained to Muhammad: “Were we to have gained aught in this affair [war], none of us had been slain at this place,” he was told to reply: “Had ye remained in your homes, they who were decreed to be slain would have gone forth to the places where they [now] lie.”—Sura 3:139, 148; 57:22, Rodwell.

These contradictions regarding predestination are apparent not only to those who do not recognize the Quran as inspired but also to Muslims. They have given rise to various sects in Islam and much blood was shed in times past over this controversy.

Another discrepancy is found in the Quran as regards the kebla, or direction Muslims should face when praying. On the one hand the Quran states: “The East and the West is God’s: therefore whichever way ye turn, there is the face of God.” “There is no piety in turning your faces toward the east or the west.”—Sura 2:109, 172, Rodwell.

But we also read: “We have seen thee turning thy face towards every part of heaven: but we will have thee turn to a kebla that will please thee. Turn then thy face towards the sacred Mosque.” “And from whatever place thou comest forth, turn thy face toward the sacred Mosque; for this is the truth from thy Lord.” (Sura 2:139, 144, 145, Rodwell) Is it or is it not vital which direction one faces when praying? The Quran gives contradictory instructions and reasons in support of each.

OTHER DISCREPANCIES

Then again, according to some verses the apostles of Jesus Christ were Muslims (that is, those “who surrender themselves to God”) ; and also Abraham: “neither Jew nor Christian; but he was sound in the faith, a Muslim.” (Sura 3:60; 5:48, 111, Rodwell) But according to Sura 39:14 (Rodwell), Muhammad was the first Muslim: “SAY: I am bidden to serve God with a sincere worship: and I am bidden to be the first of those who surrender themselves to him, (Muslims).”

Again, according to Sura 2:59 (Rodwell) salvation is for others besides Muslims: “Verily, they who believe (Muslims) and they who follow the Jewish religion, and the Christians, and the Sabeites,—whoever of these believeth in God and the last day, and doeth that which is right, shall have their reward with their Lord: fear shall not come upon them, neither shall they be grieved.”

But other parts of the Quran teach exactly the opposite: “Whoso desireth any other religion than Islam, that religion shall never be accepted from him, and in the next world he shall be among the lost.” “Infidels now are they who say, ‘God is the Messiah, Son of Mary!’ . . . Whoever shall join other gods with God, God shall forbid him the Garden, and his abode shall be the Fire. They surely are Infidels who say ‘God is the third of three,’ for there is no God but one God.” (Sura 3:79; 5:76, 77) According to these latter texts, practically all of so-called Christendom is doomed to eternal torment. Is that harmonious with the attributes of mercy and compassion that the Quran ascribes to God?

Again in Sura 2, verse 285 (Rodwell), we read, “We make no distinction between any of His Apostles,” whereas in verse 254 of the same sura we are told, “Some of the Apostles have we endowed more highly than others.” And another instance of a discrepancy within a sura is found in Sura 56, where we first read that “a crowd of the former and FEW of the latter generations” will gain paradise; while further on we are told that “a crowd of the former and a CROWD of the latter generations” will gain it. See verses 11-16 and 37-39, Rodwell.

These discrepancies are apparent not only to those who do not recognize the Quran as the divine revelation. Muslim commentators are hard put to try to explain and harmonize the various passages and so resort more or less frequently to “abrogation”; the later abrogating the former. “None of the revelations [verses] do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten but we substitute something better or similar.” In view of what we have seen, how many verses then would have to be abrogated? And both the abrogating and the abrogated verses remain in the Quran, all of which supposedly existed from eternity. And it cannot even be definitely stated in every case which is the abrogated and which the abrogating, as it is not definitely known where and when each verse of each sura was written.

Some Muslim commentators, such as Râzî, condemn others for resorting too readily to abrogation to solve the problem. A favorite device, therefore, is to list the various explanations as does Ali on Sura 7:46, which is generally held to teach something akin to purgatory. Says Ali: “This is a difficult passage, and Commentators have interpreted it in various ways.” Sometimes these commentators will indicate which explanation they themselves lean to, but more often than not they will refuse to commit themselves. As the Imam Râzî once put it: “These are the various explanations—the Lord only knoweth the true one.”

When commentators of the Quran are also translators we find them making use of free translations so as to tone down these discrepancies. For example: Sura 4:157, 158 reads (in part): “For of a surety they killed him [Jesus] not:—Nay, God raised him up unto himself.” (Ali) But Sura 3:55 plainly states, according to the original Arabic and Sale’s version: “When God said, O Jesus, verily I will cause thee to die, and I will take thee up unto me.” Note now how skillfully Ali covers up this matter: “Behold! God said: ‘O Jesus I will take thee and raise thee to myself.’”

However, as Ali himself admits in his footnotes there are many doubts, conjectures and differences of opinion among Muslim theologians on the matter; some holding that Jesus did die; others that he did not. Says one Imam on the subject: “Upon the whole, the views we have given expression to land us in the midst of doubtful and perplexing questions; but when we remember that the inspiration of Muhammad has been established, in all that he hath revealed to us, by an invincible miracle [the Quran] the existence of such doubts can in no wise militate against the text of the Quran. And after all, with the Lord is the true direction.” But how can the inspiration of Muhammad support the authenticity of the Quran when the Quran itself is held to be the best proof of Muhammad’s divine mission?

In Sura 2:2 we read, “There is no doubt in this book.” (Sale) But such certainly cannot be said about the Muslim commentators on the Quran. All of which is a tacit admission that the discrepancies are real and do not merely seem to be such because of lack of faith or lack of understanding by the “infidels”.

To some the history of Islam explains some of these discrepancies. For example: The verses telling Muhammad that he is but a warner and prohibiting the use of force in religion are chiefly found in the earlier or Meccan suras. At that time Muhammad had no recourse to the secular arm, but was himself persecuted.

Among Muhammad’s early converts were some pilgrims from Yathrib, who, returning to their home city, proselyted for him and gained quite a following there. Soon they were able to offer the outcast of Mecca a royal welcome to their city, even changing its name to Medina, the “city of the prophet”. Gradually Muhammad maneuvered himself into the position of ruler of the city. And so we find the suras written in Medina advocating force in religion.

In view of all the foregoing we cannot escape the conclusion that neither the message of the Quran itself nor its literary merit recommends it to us as of divine origin, for, above all else, the Word of God must be consistent with itself, must it not?

Every good gift and every perfect present is from above, for it comes down from the Father of the celestial lights, and with him there is not a variation of the turning of the shadow.—James 1:17, NW.