Does seven ikhtilaafs count as ikhtilaafan katheeran? Thoughts on 4:82.
Denis Giron
Contradictions, Context & Internal Relationships" by Dr. Sayfullaah:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/Internal/contexinter.html
The article is with regard to Soorat an-Nisaa' 4:82, and its statement
that seems to say that had the Qur'an not been from Allaah, it would
have had many errors, or much discrepancy. This interpretation of the
verse is problematic, and the reasons why were explored in the thread
"Logic of Allah" started by Mete Gulenoglu, which lasted from January
of 2002 to March of 2002. That thread (in which both Dr. Saifullaah
and myself took part) has been archived here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3Da327hv%248nh%241%40samba.rahul=
.net
In short, the gist of the argument by Mr. Gulenoglu (a Turkish Mulhid)
was that there is no reason to accept the premise that a text devoid
of errors is divine (and no amount of special pleading on behalf of
the Qur'an specifically can change this). Of course, as was alluded to
by Dr. Saifullaah in his article linked to above, other
interpretations can be taken to Soorat an-Nisaa' 4:82's "ikhtilaafan
katheeran".
One interpretation that Dr. Sayfullaah did not cover in the article on
his site is one where "ikhtilaaf" is thought of as variance,
differences of opinion, disagreements. Of course, the verse still does
not work, as then the argument would be that if the Qur'an was not
from Allaah, many would disagree. Of course, there are those who
disagree about the books meaning (though of course this does not allow
us to affirm the consequent and move backwards towards asserting that
the Qur'an is not from Allaah), and even the Qur'an itself aknowledges
the existence of people who disagree or are at variance with regard to
the book ("ikhtalafoo fee al-Kitaab" - Soorat al-Baqarah 2:176). I
wonder if this might cause a problem with notions of the Qur'an being
"mubeen," but I will not explore that route any further.
Anyway, while the route that Dr. Saifullaah took was shown to not
escape Mr. Gulenoglu's argument in the thread from January to may
mentioned above, there is more to be said about what Dr. Saifullaah
wrote in his artilce. Dr. Saifullaah points out that we can interpret
"ikhtilaafan katheeran" as "many ikkhtilaafan," and then notes that
the word "ikhtilaafan" only appears once in the Qur'an. As proof, he
calls to witness page 305 of Muhammad Foo'ad Abdul-Baaqee's
"Al-Muahjam al-Mufahris li al-Faadh al-Qur'aan al-Kareem."
I would argue that there might be a problem here. Is not the word
"ikhtilaafan" sort of the plural of "ikhtilaaf"? If so, wouldn't a
better translation of "ikhtilaafan katheeran" be "many ikhtilaafs"? So
rather than counting the word "ikhtilaafan," shouldn't we be counting
instances of the word "ikhtilaaf"? Imagine if the introduction to a
New York phone directory said "were this book not from God you would
find many Jacksons"; would you look for the word "Jacksons," or the
word/name "Jackson"? I would wager the latter.
So, how many times does the word "ikhtilaaf" appear in the Qur'an? I'd
like to present a loose (and probably incomplete) list: Soorat
al-Baqarah 2:164 speaks of the various ayaat (signs, proofs), and
lists among them "the alteration of the night and day" (ikhtilaafi
al-layli wa an-nahari). Four more examples using this exact same
wording would be Soorat Ale-Imraan 3:190, Soorat Yunus 10:6, Soorat
al-Muminoon 23:80, and Soorat al-Jaathiya 45:5. Soorat ar-Rum 30:22
talks about more signs, and includes, "ikhtilaafu as-sinatikum wa
al-waanikum," or the difference of your languages and colours.
So, it seems I have found seven examples. Now, there are only two
questions that can be asked:
(1) Does seven instances of the word "ikhtilaaf" amount to
"ikhtilaafan katheeran"?
(2) Can one avoid all this by making an appeal to the alif at the end
of "ikhtilaafan" in Soorat an-Nisaa'?
With regard to the first question, when working in the framework that
Dr. Saifullah has provided us (the only motivation for searching for
instances of "ikhtilaaf" or "ikhtilaaf"), we have no way of telling
what "many" implies. I would think that the implication offered by Dr.
Saifullaah is that more than one would count as many. If that is so,
we have found "ikhtilaafan katheeran". Now the only question would be
if we can affirm the consequent, or at least (in light of the alleged
challenge that this verse is putting forth according to Muslims) use
the biconditional as the main connective when we translate the
proposition into a formal language (making the existence of seven
instances of ikhtilaaf imply that the text is not a of a divine
origin).
With regard to the second question, this may by Dr. Saifullaah's way
out. He can note that in the seven instances I have cited, the six
that have "ikhtilaaf" in the singular render it alif-khaa-taa-lam-faa,
while the verse in Soorat an-Nisaa' renders it
alif-khaa-taa-lam-faa-ALIF. Everything hinges on this point, but I
would think that if this is indeed just the plural of "ikhtilaaf," it
would be analogous to splitting hairs over the 's' at the end of
"Jacksons" in my phone directory analogy. However, if I am wrong
(which is possible), I guess much of the above crumbles.
Food for thought...
-Denis Giron
http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/home.htm
Denis Giron
(ikhtilaaf with an alif at the end, with fatHataan - two fatHas), not
once, but TWICE did I say it was the plural, and even asked if it was
the plural. That'll be problematic when the responses start coming in.
It was right after I hit the submit button that I looked in an Arabic
dictionary and found the plural to be ikhtilaafaat. So, my mistake.
People just learning Arabic (especially those like myself who are
making an attempt at being self-taught in light of a knowledge of
Hebrew) I imagine often have problems with writing words in the
plural. I'm sure some remember my past examples, one including
assuming because Mushrik becomes Mushrikeen (as in
"Faqtulul-Mushrikeena," from Soorat at-Tauba), so too Shahid becomes
Shahideen (I forget who, but somebody I recall corrected me saying it
was Shuhadaa'). Of course this assumption was of much more erroneous
nature.
Okay, confessions of my ignorance and mistakes behind us, I would like
to still discuss "ikhtilaafan" in Soorat an-Nisaa' 4:82 vs "ikhtilaaf"
(ikhtilaafi/ikhtilaafu) in such ayaat as Soorat Ale-Imraan 3:190,
Soorat Yunus 10:6, Soorat al-Muminoon 23:80, Soorat al-Jaathiya 45:5,
and Soorat ar-Rum 30:22.
How much does an alif (and the diacritical marks[?]; fatHataan) remove
it from still being ikhtilaaf? Is this not another rendering of the
same word only in a accusative or adverbial sense?
Altway
"Denis Giron" <kaa...@godisdead.com> wrote in message
news:asgun2$d9$1...@blue.rahul.net...
> The article is with regard to Soorat an-Nisaa' 4:82, and its statement
that seems to say that had the Qur'an not been from Allaah, it would
have had many errors, or much discrepancy
> In short, the gist of the argument by Mr. Gulenoglu (a Turkish Mulhid)
was that there is no reason to accept the premise that a text devoid
of errors is divine (and no amount of special pleading on behalf of
the Qur'an specifically can change this). Of course, as was alluded to
by Dr. Saifullaah in his article linked to above, other
interpretations can be taken to Soorat an-Nisaa' 4:82's "ikhtilaafan
katheeran".
Comment:-
The Quran is not a work in logic. It is revelation.
It is something to be understood
It tells us to meditate on the Quran, not to make silly arguments.
"Do they not meditate on the Quran? If it were from other than Allah they
would find
in it many a discrepancy (inconsistencies, contradictions)." 4:82
What the verse is saying is that there is no contradiction or errors in the
Quran.
Those people who think there are, for them it is not the Quran
i.e. it is not from God for them.
--
Hamid S. Aziz
Understanding Islam
www.altway.freeuk.com
.
Yusuf B Gursey
: I would argue that there might be a problem here. Is not the word
: "ikhtilaafan" sort of the plural of "ikhtilaaf"? If so, wouldn't a
: better translation of "ikhtilaafan katheeran" be "many ikhtilaafs"? So
ixtila:fan is just ixtila:f in the accusative. the last suffix is a case
ending. so in ka*th*i:ran. classical arabic always uses a case ending (teh
nominative is usually -un) but it is dropped in pausal reading.
traditional lexicography freqeuntly lists verbal nouns in the accusative.
Yusuf B Gursey
: How much does an alif (and the diacritical marks[?]; fatHataan) remove
the alif is due to an old pausal reading as long a, i.e a: (i.e. instead
of not pronouncing it at all).
: it from still being ikhtilaaf? Is this not another rendering of the
: same word only in a accusative or adverbial sense?
it's just the verbal noun in the accusative, which is also used for
adverbial usages.
Denis Giron
ke.uk.clara.net>...
>=20
> The Quran is not a work in logic.=20
I agree with you 100%. The claims originally put forth by Mr Gulenoglu
(and later carried by myself) were that the Qur'an employs
propositions that are logically problematic. A book does not have to
be a logic textbook to have problems with the logic of its statements
(in fact, a logic text book would be expected to be free of such
problems, thought they are not always that way). If I write a book on
how to properly cook rice and beans, one can still argue that there
are logical problems with some of my statements (like if I imply that
putting rice in the pot and stomping your foot three times guarantees
it will not stick when done cooking).
> It is revelation.
Here is the problem. While I agree it is not a necessary truth, most
of us hold to the premise that revelation would be free from logical
errors. Based on this premise, we can take a text with a logical error
and conclude, via modus tollens, that it is not revelation. It was
within this paradigm that Mr. Gulenoglu was working with regard to the
Qur'an.
> It tells us to meditate on the Quran,=20
> not to make silly arguments.
Whether and argument is "silly" or not can at times be hard to
determine. Mr. Gulenoglu (and later myself) was actually trying to
exhibit the fruits of his proverbial "meditation" on the Qur'an (or at
least a specific verse, that being Soorat an-Nisaa' 4:82).
=20
> "Do they not meditate on the Quran? If it were from other
> than Allah they would find in it many a discrepancy (inconsistencies,
> contradictions)." 4:82
>=20
> What the verse is saying is that there is no contradiction or errors in=
the
> Quran.
This is where it becomes obvious that you have missed the finer points
of Mr. Gulenoglu's simple logic (you're making a mistake similar to
that which was made by Mr. Mahdi when he took part in the discussion).
If the proposition found in Soorat an-Nisaa' 4:82 was written by a
human author living in the 7th century (which I assume is the case), I
would have no problem conceding that this said author *MEANT* to say
that the text of free of contradictions (as would be expected from a
divine work). Unfortunately, this is *NOT* what the verse implies.
The verse states simply that if the Qur'an was not from God, it would
have errors. It tells us nothing about whether or not the Qur'an
actually has errors. You may want to point out that the Qur'an also
declares itself to be the word of God; however, that does not in turn
allow you to deny the antecedent and conclude that the text is thus
free of error (at least not by the logical structure of Soorat
an-Nisaa' 4:82). The only way you could get the verse to imply what
you claim it implies would be to treat it as a biconditional
proposition and say that a text that is devoid of errors and
contradictions is equivalent with a text that was authored by Allaah.
However, in light of all the false statements that would in turn
imply, I doubt you want to go that route.
In short, the verse in Soorat an-Nisaa' puts forth a proposition that
is demonstrably false. You have taken the route many others (Mahdi,
Gary Miller, much of the Ummaah over the last thousand years) have
taken, which is to argue that the verse means that there are no
errors, and it challenges you to find one (and if you do, you will
have proven the text to not be from Allaah). However, if this is what
the text is supposed to mean, the uncareful nature of the structure of
the proposition would imply a human author (as I doubt God would mean
to say one thing and say something else that is not logically
equivalent).
-Denis Giron