Ikhtilafaan katheeran
asimm...@yahoo.com
I have been reading the discussion on 4:82, and it is obvious that the
meaning of the verse is lost. Instead of pursuing the Quran from a
literary perspective, without any flavour of literary appreciation,
our critics are defining the verse from a purely logical point of
view. It is similar to those who claim that Dhul Qarnayn actually saw
the sun set in the lake. The actual reality which is supressed, but
is known through the phenomenon, is that he reached a point where he
could not proceed westward any further because of the lake's size.
The Quran expresses it through a style which is common throughout
literature, poetry being a perfect example of it.
This is also the problem in Muslim interpretation in this day and age.
Instead of understanding the Quran from the literary standpoint, our
OWN missionaries will tell us the nature of quarks from a verse in the
Quran and derive the speed of light also. In english, I may say "the
vein is throbbing on his forehead." I am not expressing the physical
feature of the face to describe his face, but am actually expressing
the deep anger that the person is now feeling through a visual
characteristic.
One may ask what this has anything to do with the verses? If anyone
takes any note of the discussion about it, the majority of the
criticism revolves around syllogisms and the like. They do not
understand the flexibility of language, especially when it comes to
literary masterpieces.
The verse is meant to be making a statement through a rhetorical
question:
"Do they no ponder over the Quran? Had it been from other than God,
they would have found therein much discrepancy."
The meaning of the verse does NOT imply that, because the Quran has no
erros, it is a book of God. The actual meaning of the verse is to the
effect:
"Because the Quran is the book of God, it contains no errors, because
if it wasn't from God and was from humans, it would contain MANY, an
ABUNDANCE (katheeran) of discrepancies, errors, and so on
(ikhtilaafan)."
Now, one may ask, why is this verse positioned where it is. If one
takes a look at verse 4:81 and verse 4:83, in which the particular
verse is situated, the topic of discussion is about plotting and the
spreading of news by people based upon hearsay. As is obvious, the
spreading of information by the people not taking proper means to
determine if its credible or not, and not passing that information to
those that were qualified to determine the credibility of its news,
led to plenty of CONFLICTING information or IKHTILAAFAN KATHEERAN. At
a time when the Medinan state was facing various hostilities and
circumstances, there was plenty of scope for human beings to spread
information that was contradicting and conflicting. These verses
themselves lead into the observation made in verse 4:83.
The actual implications of the verses takes into account the dynamic
nature of the revelation of the Quran with respect to the
circumstances of the Prophet (S) and His Companions. It is a
statement made upon observable fact.
Wa salaam
Mete Gulenoglu
> erros, it is a book of God. The actual meaning of the verse is to the
> effect:
>
> "Because the Quran is the book of God, it contains no errors, because
> if it wasn't from God and was from humans, it would contain MANY, an
> ABUNDANCE (katheeran) of discrepancies, errors, and so on
> (ikhtilaafan)."
Let's reconstruct what you say:
"BECAUSE [a]the Quran is the book of God, [b]it contains no errors,
BECAUSE [c]if it wasn't from God then it would have many
discrepancies."
[[b] because [a]] because [c]
Now as you see [b] is deduced from [a], and the deduction of [b] from
[a] is based on [c]. That means [b] is inferred from the minor premise
of [a] and the major premise of [c] in a deductive inference:
Argument in 4:82
1) If Quran was NOT from God then it would have many discrepancy. [c]
2) Quran is from God. [a]
3) Therefore it has NO discrepancy. [b]
Now "If (p)Quran wasnt from God then (q)it would have many
discrepancy." is equivalent of "If (~q)Quran has no discrepancy then
(~p)it is from God" because of a standart theorem of symbolic logic:
[p -> q] = [~q -> ~p]
(~ means negation--if it is positive then this sign makes it negative,
if it is negative then this makes it positive)
To make it clear by an example:
1) IF (p)I am a Muslim THEN (q)I believe Allah exists.
2) (~q)I do NOT believe Allah exists.
3) Therefore (~p)I am NOT a Muslim.
1) p -> q
2) ~q
3) ~p
Now for "If Quran wasnt from God then it would have many
discrepancy.":
1) IF (p)Quran was NOT from God THEN (q)it would have many
discrepancy.
2) (~q)Quran has NO discrepancy.
3) Therefore (~p)Quran is from God.
As you see "Quran has no discrepancy" implies that "Quran is from God"
according to your major premise. Now if we put the equivalent of "If
Quran wasnt from God then it would have many discrepancy" in the
argument:
Argument in 4:82
1) IF (p)Quran has NO discrepancy THEN (q)it is from God.
2) (q)Quran is from God.
3) Therefore (p)Quran has NO discrepancy.
Now this argument's inference is INVALID and such an inference is a
recognized logical fallacy called "Affirmation of the Consequent".
Here is an example of Affirmation of the Consequent fallacy:
1) IF (p)his pet is a cat THEN (q)it has four legs.
2) (q)His pet has four legs.
3) Therefore (p)his pet is a cat. (can't it be a dog?)
Affirmation of the Consequent fallacy is:
1) p -> q
2) q
3) p
Correct inferences from p -> q are:
1) p -> q
2) p
3) q
and
1) p -> q
2) ~q
3) ~p (because [p -> q] = [~q -> ~p])
Fallacy in 4:82 is clear.
Mete
asimm...@yahoo.com
> > The meaning of the verse does NOT imply that, because the Quran has no
> > erros, it is a book of God. The actual meaning of the verse is to the
> > effect:
> >
> > "Because the Quran is the book of God, it contains no errors, because
> > if it wasn't from God and was from humans, it would contain MANY, an
> > ABUNDANCE (katheeran) of discrepancies, errors, and so on
> > (ikhtilaafan)."
>
>
Your whole deduction is wrong. You are making the assumption that
every book is LIKE the Quran. This leads you to deduce that if a Book
has no errors in it, it must be from God.
The verse is NOT saying that because a book is error free than it must
be from God. What it is saying is that the type of Book the Quran is,
is one that if it were from humans, it would have errors. The Quran
was revealed over a 23 year period, not in a vacuum, but according to
various situations answeing various objections. It maintains its
position all throughout, and each of the verse are mutually supportive
of each other.
The logical deduction is WRONG. You are arguing that:
The Quran is a Book.
There are books that do not contardict each other.
Thus, the Quran is not from God.
You argument is over the word Book. But there is no Book that is of
the nature of the Quran, revealed over a twenty three year period, not
in a vacuum but according to various circumstances.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> Now this argument's inference is INVALID and such an inference is a
> recognized logical fallacy called "Affirmation of the Consequent".
> Here is an example of Affirmation of the Consequent fallacy:
>
> 1) IF (p)his pet is a cat THEN (q)it has four legs.
> 2) (q)His pet has four legs.
> 3) Therefore (p)his pet is a cat. (can't it be a dog?)
>
To summarize:
This statement is false because it is asserting that a cat is defined
by four legs. The statement is saying that because a things has four
legs it must be a cat.
The verse of the Quran is this "Had this Quran been from other than
God, it would have many discrepancies." There is no definition in the
statement of the
and this "Affirmation of the Consequent fallacy" is totally invalid
and inapplicable. The verse is saying "You know full well that this
Quran has been revealed over time, according to various circumstances,
yet you find no contradiction. On the other hand, what you find are
verses that mutually support each other, and the Book is totally
integrated. Who else but God could compose such a work?" It is
rhetorical.
When I said that you were stripping it out of discourse, this is
exactly the nature of your logic. It is taking a statement out of its
totality and making a logical fallacy over something that is not
there. It is assuming that people do not know what the Quran is. In
your Affirmation you are attempting to define a thing as a cat. In
the verse of the Quran, one already knows the NATURE of the Quran.
One knows its qualities, one knows that it was being revealed even
according to various situations and various questions. That is the
problem with logic. It spearates the discourse from reality and tries
to tear it apart devoid of a acontext, i.e. this type of logic works
in a VACUUM.
There is NO fallacy.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> As you see "Quran has no discrepancy" implies that "Quran is from God"
> according to your major premise. Now if we put the equivalent of "If
> Quran wasnt from God then it would have many discrepancy" in the
> argument:
>
That is exactly the premise. Once again, I will repeat, you are
isolating the statement from the knowledge of the audience. You are
assuming one does not KNOW THE NATURE OF THE QURAN. This is the
problem with logic, it isolates and takes things in a vacuum. When
the Quran makes this statement, it is making this statement to people
who KNOW what the Quran is.
They know fully well the circumstances in which the Quran is being
revealed, i.e. over a twenty three year period, devoid of any
inconsistencies. You are assuming they do not.