Categories
Internal Errors Refutation of Qur'an Contradictions The Qur'an

Worshipping the Same or a Different God?

This is a response to the missionary article on a so-called “error” in the Qur’an. We basically feel that this claim of theirs with regard to this being an “error” in the Qur’an is best described as an “inconsequential polemic”. They claim that “the problems that this surah poses should be apparent to anyone familiar with both the Qur’an and the Islamic traditions”, and to reproduce the missionary rhetoric, they identify the “first problem” as:

First problem: Whom exactly is this Surah referring to?

(a) The People of the Book (Jews, Christians, perhaps Sabians)?
(b) The Meccan idolaters?

First, let us establish the correct methodology in our interpretation of the above verse. We will use the Qur’an to interpret the Qur’an, as this is the perfectly accepted methodology as adopted in Qur’anic exegesis. Therefore, if we use the Qur’an to interpret the Qur’an, it can easily be noted that the Qur’an presents many different types of disbelievers. Therefore, a person should go back and look through the Qur’an to identify which type of “disbeliever” fits the category of surah 109. This is the correct way of understanding the Qur’an.

Now, moving on to the “disputed” surah, we read that:

“Say: O disbelievers! I worship not that which ye worship; Nor worship ye that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which ye worship. Nor will ye worship that which I worship. Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.” (Q. 109:1-6)

It is established in any authoritative surah of the Prophet (P) that this verse is a Makkan surah which was revealed when the idolators in Makkah confronted the Prophet(P) with a “proposal” to counter his public preaching in the city.Therefore the answer to the missionary rhetoric is (b). We certainly do not see how the missionaries could claim that there are “problems” in this verse in regard to who it is directed at, when it is clear that anyone who understands the asbab an-nuzul of this surah sees no problems in it!

It should be noted that if a religion’s concept of God is incorrect even though there are some elements of truth in its conception of God, then Muslims will neither worship that God nor will the disbelievers worship our different concept of God (or otherwise it will negate their religion).The Qur’an never stated that any other religion’s concept of God is completely correct. This is clearly noted in ‘ayah 4:36, “…worship Allah and join none with Him in worship”.

The so-called “second problem” generated by the missionaries is the claim that the above s?rah contradicts verses such as:

“…our God and your God is One, and unto Him we surrender.” (Q. 29:46)

To make things clear, the missionary is really claiming that his interpretation of ‘ayah 29:46 is in contradiction. Therefore, in order to arrive at the correct interpretation it is very important that we do not look at verses in a vacuum, and divorce it from the context — ‘ayahs 3:64 and 5:74 informs us that there is something false about the Christians’ understanding of God, and that they have too many gods in their belief (Trinity). This “God is One” has been clearly defined and excludes the Trinity or “sons of God”.

Therefore, ‘ayah 29:46 is not stating that the Christians have a correct understanding of God in this verse or the correct number of Gods and Muslims share in that understanding. That is a false and twisted interpretation. Rather, the only other valid interpretation is that the Qur’an is teaching the Christians the truth about the God which they read about in the Bible, by reaffirming:

“Our God and YOUR God is One.” (Q. 29:46)

This phrase “God is One” has already been defined in the Qur’?n as one being without Trinity or a Son:

“O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of Allah aught but the truth. The Messiah ‘Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah and His Word, (“Be!” – and he was) which He bestowed on Maryam (Mary) and a spirit (Ruh) created by Him; so believe in All?h and His Messengers. Say not: “Three (trinity)!” Cease! (it is) better for you. For All?h is (the only) One Il?h (God), Glory be to Him (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is All Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs.” (Q. 4:171)

Here we see God directly addressing both the Jews and Christians (with special reference to the latter). Notice how the phrase “Allah (God) is one” is being used here to condemn the Christian understanding of God (Trinity, Sonship, Divinity of Christ), and also, to correct the false Christian understanding of the Christians but emphatically stating “for Allah is (the only) One Ilah! Therefore, if Christians believe that Jesus is God, part of a Trinity, or has a Sonship with God, they obviously do not belive in one God as defined by the Qur’an. Therefore, it is clear that when the Qur’an pronounces “God is One” to the Christians it is not agreeing with the Christian concept of God, rather it goes on the offensive in condemning and correcting their beliefs.

Therefore, to rephrase this statement:

    If God is One = the God, without partners or a Trinity

    then

    Our God and your God, is God without partners or a Trinity

The author of the Qur’an is pronouncing to the Christian that GOD IS ONE! It is completely irrelevant as to what the Christians already believed about their God, it means nothing to the author of the Qur’an in ‘ayah 29:46 because the Qur’an is telling them what is the truth. Nevertheless, it is admitted that the Christians do worship this God but they worship this God in tandem with additional partners (‘ayahs 3:64, 5:74).

It will always be a missionary fantasy to find “incoherance” or “problems” within the Noble Qur’an. The biggest problem in these types of discussions, however, is that the Christians have been duped into believing that they are strict monotheists who worship only one God, which is a totally false assumption from the start. Please also keep in mind that the Qur’an also clearly states that the Bible has been corrupted (‘ayahs 2:79, 4:157), which would explain how the Christians fell into false doctrines about God.

We have used the traditional method of Qur’anic exegesis, i.e., al-Qur’an yufassiru ba’duhu ba’dan (different parts of the Qur’an explain each other). What is given in a general way in one place is discussed in detail in some other place in the Qur’an. What is dealt with briefly at one place is expanded in some other place.

And only God knows best!

Cite this article as: Bismika Allahuma Team, "Worshipping the Same or a Different God?," in Bismika Allahuma, October 14, 2005, last accessed September 25, 2022, https://bismikaallahuma.org/quran/worshipping-the-same-or-a-different-god/
Categories
Internal Errors Refutation of Qur'an Contradictions The Qur'an

“Six or Eight Days of Creation” Revisited: A Collection of Major Commentaries on Qur’an, 41:10

We have noted in our earlier rebuttal to a Christian missionary fantasy that A. Yusuf Ali had alluded to the commentaries of the major commentators for his explanation of Qur’?n, 41:10. Unfortunately, Yusuf Ali did not cite the precise quotations of the Commentators that he was referring to. Here, we would like to fill in that gap by citing the relevant commentaries of the Qur’?nic verse in question.

In his commentary, Imam Ibn Kathir explains that Qur’?n, 41:10 talks about events taking place in two days and adds that


They (both) with the previous two days complete four that’s why He says “in four Days”[1]

Al-Qurtubi says in his commentary that


“in four Days” – In completion of four days as one says: I walked from Basra to Baghdad in ten days and to Kufa in fifteen days meaning in completion of fifteen days. This has been said by Ibn-ul-Anbari and others.[2]

Al-Zamakhshari says that


“in four Days” – This is conclusion of the period of creating earth and things which are in it, as if He says all this took place in exactly four days no more and no less.[3]

In Tafsir-un-Nasafi, we read that


“in four Days” – In completion of four days, He means by completion the two days as you say: I walked from Basra to Baghdad in ten days and to Kufa in fifteen days meaning in completion of fifteen days.[4]

Al-Baidhawi notes that


“in four Days” – In completion of four days as you say: I walked from Basra to Baghdad in ten days and to Kufa in fifteen days. Probably, He said this and did not say in two days in order to to connect them with the previous two days. This expression is for (the purpose of) conclusion.[5]

Finally, we quote Imam Ash-Shawkani in his famous Tafsir, “in four Days”:


In completion of four days including the previous two days. This has been stated by Az-Zajjaj and others. Ibn-ul-Anbari says that this is as one says: I walked from Basra to Baghdad in ten days and to Kufa in fifteen days meaning in completion of fifteen days. So, the meaning is that occurrence of creation of earth and what followed it took four days.[6]

Now, we come to a relevant question: what is the reason for saying “in four Days”? Imam Az-Zamakhshari answers as follows:


If you say: Wouldn’t it be better said: ‘in two days’? And what is the benefit of this conclusion? I say: If He says in four days after He have said that earth was created in two days, it is acknowledged that things in it were created in two days. So, the choice between saying in two days and saying in four days becomes equal. But (saying) in four days has a benefit over (saying) in two days; it is the indication that they were exactly four complete days no more and no less. If He said: in two days, while (the term) two days can be given to most of the two days, it would be possible that He meant by the first and the last two days the most of them.[7]

And only God knows best.

All praise is for God, the Lord of the Worlds and Master of the Day of Judgement. God’s wrath is invoked upon those who say “God has a Son!”, for He is free from all the attributes they have ascribed to Him. And since there was never such thing as a “Triune” god, we also reject the petty threats of its worshippers and denounce that the non-existent sterile “Triune” pagan god is a fantasy. And it is to our Rabb alone that we submit in total obedience, even though the disbelievers may dislike it. Am?n! Am?n! Thumma Am?n!

References

[1] Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vo. 7, p. 108

[2] Tafsir-ul-Qurtubi, Vol. 15, p. 290

[3] Az-Zamakhshari, Tafsir-ul-Kashaf, Vol. 4, p. 104

[4] Tafsir-un-Nasafi, Vol. 2, p. 491

[5] Tafsir-ul-Baidawi, Vol. 5, p. 25

[6] Ash-Shawkani, Fath-ul-Qadir, Vol. 4, p. 665

[7] Az-Zamakhshari, op. cit., p. 104

Categories
Internal Errors Refutation of Qur'an Contradictions The Qur'an

Can There Be A Son Without A Mother Or Father? Responding To Banal Missionary “Logic”

The missionaries in their latest alleged claim of contradictions in the Qur’an have certainly outdid themselves in their travesty of logic and idiocy.

To cite the missionary claim, word-for-word:

    In the realm of the natural this is not possible, but for God it is possible; actually, it is not only possible, it is easy for God. It is rather ironic that, when discussing the identity of Jesus, the Quran says that Allah cannot have a son without a consort, but Mary can have a son without a consort, because all things are easy for Allah.

They have quoted Qur’an 6:100-101 as follows:

“And they make the jinn associates with Allah, while He created them, and they falsely attribute to Him sons and daughters without knowledge; glory be to Him, and highly exalted is He above what they ascribe (to Him). Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could He have a son when He has no consort, and He (Himself) created everything, and He is the Knower of all things.”

This, they claim, contradicts the general nature of the following verse:

He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son. She said: How can I have a son when no mortal hath touched me, neither have I been unchaste? He said: So (it will be). Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me. And (it will be) that We may make of him a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained. Sura 19:19-21 Pickthall

Unfortunately for the missionary, an understanding can be reached if a little more thought can be put into their argument. The missionary has taken the understanding of these verses out of its intended context and is confusing Mary’s nature (since she is only human, and hence procreates) as a creation of the Almighty, with God Himself, who is the Uncreated. Certainly, God Almighty could have taken a “wife” and have “children” or have “children” without any consort whatsoever (nau’zubillahi min zaalik).

However, if this were to happen, it would mean that the Uncreated nature of God would be affected, as anything that is “procreated” by God (as the Qur’an argues in 6:100) is created. In other words, to expect the Uncreated to “procreate” children, whether with or without a “consort” (which would also be part of the Creation) is not only an affront against what God Almighty has told us about Himself, it is also a preposterous position only held by pantheists and the idolaters. It is most certainly not in conformity with pure monotheism or on how Islam understands divine transcedence.

Isma’il al-Faruqi described it perfectly when he says that:

“This is the first assertion of the Islamic creed that “There is no god but God” which the Muslim understands as denial of any associates with God in His rulership and judgeship of the universe, as well as a denial of the possibility for any creature to represent, personify or in any way. express the divine Being. The Qur’an says of God that “He is the Creator of heaven and earth Who creates by commanding the creature to be and it is…He is the One God, the ultimate… (2:117, 163). There is no God but He, ever-living, ever-active (3:2) May he be glorified beyond any description! (6:100)…No sense may perceive Him (6:103)…Praised be He, the Transcedent Who greatly transcends all claims and reports about Him (17:43).” In fulfilment of this view, the Muslims have been all too careful never to associate in any manner possible, any image or thing with the presence of the divine, or with their consciousness of the divine; and in their speech and writing about the divine to use only Quranic language, terms and expressions which, according to them, God has used about Himself in the Quranic revelation.”1

Hence, we say that the claim that:

    S. 6:101 stands not only in tension to S. 19:21, but conflicts with several other passages as well.

is not only a premature conclusion from the missionary, but an obvious ignorance of the doctrine of tawheed and what Islam actually stands for.

And only God knows best!

Cite this article as: Bismika Allahuma Team, "Can There Be A Son Without A Mother Or Father? Responding To Banal Missionary “Logic”," in Bismika Allahuma, October 26, 2005, last accessed September 25, 2022, https://bismikaallahuma.org/quran/son-mother-father-responding-banal-missionary-logic/
  1. Ismail Faruqi, Al-Tawhid: Its Implications for Thought and Life (IIIT, 1992), p. 24 []
Categories
Internal Errors Refutation of Qur'an Contradictions The Qur'an

The Event of Worship to the Golden Calf

In their tendentious list of “Qur’an Contradictions”, the padres at “Answering Islam” had pointed out some contradictions in the Qur’anic narrative of the worship of a Golden Calf by the Israelites, which they find “very confusing”. An attempt will therefore be made in the following to address these two “contradictions” and help the padres overcome their “confusions”.

Part (I): Before or After Moses Returned?

According to the missionaries:

    …in 7:149, the people repented about worshipping the golden calf BEFORE Moses returned, but according to 20:91 they refused to repent but rather continued to worship the calf it until Moses came back. (Emphasis already in the quote)

Here is an accurate rendering of the Qur’anic verses alluded to in the above quote:

But when they fell on their hands, and they saw that they had gone astray, they said: “Assuredly, if our Lord does not show mercy to us and forgive us, we shall be of the losers.” (7:149)

When Moses returned to his people angry and grieved, he said: “I’ll have ye acted as my successors after I left you…” (7:150)

They said: “We shall not cease to cleave to it until Moses return to us.” (20:91)

Even a brief look at them is sufficient for a diligent render for the identification of the fallacy in the reasoning of the author of the above-cited quote: his misapprehension of the factor, the occurrence of which caused the Israelites to repent.

That factor, after whose occurrence Moses’(P) people repented, is specified in the verse 7:149 as their realization of their having gone astray:

“But when they fell on their hands, and they saw that they had gone astray, they said:…”

Does this verse, or the verse 7:150, or any other verse in this context, say that the Israelites realized they had gone astray at a point in time before Moses’(P) return? Or, in other words, does the verse 7:149 or 7:150 tell us that the Israelites realized their error before Moses’(P) return?

No. What the verse 7:149 describes as the factor, which caused the Israelites to repent, was their realization of their error (i.e., “when they stumbled/ repented”).

No information is given in these verses as to whether they stumbled/ repented BEFORE or AFTER Moses’(P) return. Just because the verse 7:150 begins with the words:

“When Moses returned to his people, angry and grieved…”

does not imply that the stumbling/repenting of the Israelites was sequentially earlier than Moses’(P) return to them. In short, the only factor, which the verse 7:149 actually mentions as having caused the Israelites to repent, was their realization of their having gone astray, which is independent of Moses’(P) return.

On the other hand, since the (above-cited) other Qur’anic verse 20:91 clearly makes the Israelites say that they would not abandon the golden calf until Moses’(P) return, therefore, this additional information leads us to conclude that the realization by the Israelites of their having gone astray, when Moses(P) told them that they had grievously sinned, is what caused them to repent, and which occurred only after Moses’(P) return.

Therefore, the verses 7:149-50 and 20:91 are complementary, and not contradictory.

Part (II): Did He or Didn’t He? Aaron and the Making of the Golden Calf

According to the missionaries:

    In Sura 20:85, Allah told Moses “We have tested thy people in thy absence; the Samiri has led them astray”. Allah did not place any blame on Aaron. Aaron admitted that he did no wrong: “O my people! Ye are being tested in this … so follow me and obey my command” (20:90).

    Since Moses knew this (because Allah told him already), why did he place the blame on Aaron? “O Aaron! What kept thee back, when thou sawest them going wrong, from following me? Didst thou then disobey my order?” (20:92). And why did he drag him by the hair (7:150)? These two accounts contradict.

    According to (7:151), Aaron was partly responsible for the sins of his people because Moses prayed for Aaron’s forgiveness. And this time (contrary to his other confession), Aaron admits to idol making/idol worshipping in verse 150 “because of the people who nearly killed him when he tried to resist it. But seemingly he gave in and did as they said.

Allah told Moses(P) that his people were being tested in his absence. That test was in the form of Samiri’s fraud. By definition, those submitted to a test can either pass or fail it depending upon their training and capability. So, the reason why Moses(P) upon return reprimanded Aaron(P) was not that he was holding the latter responsible for leading his people astray. On the contrary, the reason why Moses(P) rebuked Aaron(P) was that he had been made the man in-charge in his absence by Moses(P) (see 7:142) and was therefore expected by Moses(P) to have rescued his people by dint of his leadership, which he had been unable to do.

In contrast to Exodus 32, at no place in the Qur’an was Aaron(P) blamed for the sin of the Israelites. In 7:151, Moses(P) prays for forgiveness, not just for Aaron(P), but for himself as well — not because they were responsible for making the Israelites sin, but because they were unable to stop them from sinning.

We have thus used the traditional method of Qur’anic exegesis, i.e., al-Qur’an yufassiru ba’duhu ba’dan (different parts of the Qur’an explain each other). What is given in a general way in one place is discussed in detail in some other place in the Qur’an. What is dealt with briefly at one place is expanded in some other place.

Further Observation: The OT and NT Contradicts on Aaron’s Guilt?

It is further interesting to note that the New Testament contradicts the Old Testament on the matter of blaming Aaron(P). Exodus 32 squarely puts the responsibility of making the calf on Aaron:

He [Aaron] took this from their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool and made it into a molten calf.” (Exodus 32:4)

Compare this with Stephen’s speech in the Acts of the Apostles, which clearly shifts the blame on the Israelite people themselves by employing the plural number:

“At that time they made a calf and brought a sacrifice to the idol, and were rejoicing in the works of their hands.” (Acts 7:41)

And only God knows best!

Cite this article as: Bismika Allahuma Team, "The Event of Worship to the Golden Calf," in Bismika Allahuma, October 14, 2005, last accessed September 25, 2022, https://bismikaallahuma.org/quran/the-event-of-worship-to-the-golden-calf/
Categories
Internal Errors Refutation of Qur'an Contradictions The Qur'an

Six or Eight Days of Creation?

The gist of the missionary claim is as follows:

    Two days for the creation of the earth, then four days to fill the earth with mountains, blessings and nourishment for all its inhabitants, and in the end two more days to create the seven heavens and create the stars in them. This adds up to 2+4+2 = 8 days in contradiction to the 6 days mentioned in the other verses.

Response

The problem of the missionaries with their so-called findings of “contradictions” in the Noble Qur’an is that they fail to note the methodology of how tafsir is performed. In response to this alleged “contradiction” in the aforementioned verses, we would like to cite Harun Yahya’s “How Do The Unwise Interpret The Qur’an?” for a refutation.

    The Subject of Creation in Six Days

    It is stated in various parts of the Qur’an that the universe was created in six days. Particular attention is often drawn to one section however, where the number of days in the separate verses mentioning the different stages of creation adds up to 8. Those who are unable to grasp the evident logic behind these verses assume them to conflict with all the other Qur’anic verses, which state the creation to have occurred in six days. These verses are as follows:

    Say: ‘Do you reject Him Who created the earth in two days, and make others equal to Him? That is the Lord of all the worlds.’ He placed firmly embedded mountains on it, towering over it, and blessed it and measured out its nourishment in it, laid out for those who seek it — all in four days. Then He turned to heaven when it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, ‘Come willingly or unwillingly.’ They both said, ‘We come willingly.’ In two days He determined them as seven heavens and revealed, in every heaven, its own mandate. We adorned the lowest heaven with lamps and guarded it. That is the decree of the Almighty, the All-Knowing. (Surah Fussilat: 9-12)

    If the days mentioned in the above verses are calculated, they add up to 8. Whereas it is stated in verse 3 of Surah Yunus and others that the Earth, the skies and everything in between were created in 6 days. This situation could appear incomprehensible to a superficial reader who refuses to use his mind and logic or to pay close attention. Those who approach the Qur’an to try to discover faults and contradictions frequently cite the above verse.

    Yet, if a person concentrates and uses wisdom he can readily see that there is absolutely no paradox at all. If we pay attention to the periods of time stated in the verses we can reach the following calculations:

    – It took four days from the time the universe was started until the sustenance had been made ready, or rather the necessary environment for living things was suitable, along with the creation of plants and animals.

    – The beginning of this period, namely the shaping of the Earth along with the universe, or in short the creation of the world, took the initial two of these four days. So, these two days are not a separate time frame from those first four days. They are, to be more precise, the first two days of the four days mentioned in the next verse.

    – In the 11th and 12th verses state that the sky was formed in 2 days. In conclusion, they add up to 6 days.

    In short, the verses explain the separate time frames for each of the events that take place within the six days of creation.

    It is imperative to clarify the point that the term “day” mentioned in these verses is not used to refer to a 24 hour-day but instead to indicate the different periods and phases.

We have used the traditional method of Qur’anic exegesis, i.e., al-Qur’an yufassiru ba’duhu ba’dan (different parts of the Qur’an explain each other). What is given in a general way in one place is discussed in detail in some other place in the Qur’an. What is dealt with briefly at one place is expanded in some other place.

And only God knows best!

Categories
Internal Errors Refutation of Qur'an Contradictions The Qur'an

"Six or Eight Days of Creation" Revisited

A Short Response To The Missionary Confusion

The missionaries have once again amused us with their attempt to “rebut” the solution to their claimed “contradiction” in the Qur’an. In their latest treatise, as per their tradition of incoherent reasoning, they say:

    The first thing we would like to point out is that Yahya’s claim that the four days of v. 10 are not separate from the first two days is simply an assumption.

If that is the best that the missionaries can bring up with in their “rebuttal”, then there is nothing else to “rebut” except for their obstinate refusal to accept the proposed solution to the so-called “contradiction”. As Yusuf Ali duly notes in footnote 4470:

The Commentators understand the “four Days” in verse 10 to include the two Days in verse 9, so that the total for the universe comes to six Days. This is reasonable, because the processes described in verses 9 and 10 form really one series. In one case it is the creation of the formless matter of the earth; in the other case it is the gradual evolution of the from of the earth, its mountains and seas, and its animal and vegetable life, with the “nourishment in due proportion”, proper to each.1

We have no problems accepting this explanation, so there is indeed nothing further to discuss if the missionary refuses to accept this explanation. If the major commentators of the Qur’an had understood the verses in question as noted by A. Yusuf Ali, there is nothing left for the missionary use as an objection tool. See our Appendix for the specific quotations of these major commentators.

It is also worth noting that the missionary tradition relies on character assasination, made apparent by the description of the cited author Harun Yahya as a “contemporary Muslim propagandist”. Whether he is a “propagandist” or otherwise as per the missionary claim, it is the argument that really matters and the missionaries has failed to respond to the solution proposed apart from their “reluctance” to do so. This behaviour is no different from the attitude of the so-called “apostle”, Paul of Tarsus, when he made several venomous attacks and character assasinations in his epistles on those who recognise his teachings for what it is and opposed him. This is a topic that we will, insha’allah, discuss in the near future.

The next argument of the missionaries is that they had purposely distorted the context of Qur’an, 41:9-12 by translating thumma as “then”. The following is the distorted translation belonging to the missionaries:

THEN (thumma) He turned to the heaven, and it had been smoke: He said to it and to the earth: “Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly.” They said: “We do come (together), in willing obedience.” So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.

In his translation Yusuf Ali has translated thumma as “moreover”, which is more suited for the context of the verse in question. This is further confirmed by The Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic2. Therefore this certainly lends support to the earlier contention, that “…the processes described in verses 9 and 10 form really one series”.3

Imam Al-Baidawi himself had something to say on the issue:


It is apparent that thumma here refers to difference of the two creations (i.e., that of earth and that of Heaven) not to laxity in time.4

So Imam Al-Baidawi asserts that thumma in this context separates the creation of earth and things in it from creation of Heaven as two distinct processes, not that they were separated with time interval.

In light of the above explanations, we have duly followed the principles of the Qur’an explains the Qur’an, in accordance to how tafsir is performed, i.e., al-Qur’an yufassiru ba’duhu ba’dan (different parts of the Qur’an explain each other). What is given in a general way in one place is discussed in detail in some other place in the Qur’an. What is dealt with briefly at one place is expanded in some other place. Hence there is little to add from here.

To conclude this short response, our prescribed methodology as explained by “contemporary Muslim propagandist” Harun Yahya is consistent with the majority of the Qur’anic commentators and had indeed resolved this imagined “contradiction” that exists within the purid mind of the missionaries. It leaves us with a conclusive explanation of the Qur’an, and hence swiftly refutes the missionaries’ lie that “the Qur’an is not God’s word”. And only God knows best.

All praise is for God Almighty, the Lord of the Worlds. He has no Son and has no need for a Son. For they are among those who disbelieve when they say “God has a Son!” and yet He is free from all the attributes the missionaries have ascribed to Him. And it is to Him alone we submit in total obedience, even though the disbelievers may dislike it. Amin! Amin! Thumma Amin!

  1. A. Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an: Text, Translation & Commentary, p. 1288 []
  2. J. M. Cowan, The Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, p. 106, under “thumma”. []
  3. Yusuf Ali, op. cit. []
  4. Tafsir-ul-Baidawi, Vol. 5, p. 26 []