The section coming up in this third part of my reply to Jones is the reason why I even bothered to answer her illogical ramblings. For years, I have been challenging biblical inerrantists to cite some examples of errors in nonbiblical writings so that I could use their same "apologetic" methods to show that by their own logic their examples of errors are not errors, so when I saw Jones's attempt to expose errors in the Qur'an, I couldn't resist replying to her, although I had some rather pressing obligations at the time.

As I have been doing, I will use Till(1), Jones, and Till to label the parts so that readers will know who said what when.

Till(1)
Jones went on to "explain" the enlightment that came to her after she had read Carroll's Through the Looking Glass.

It was New Year's Day, 1998. I made a resolution to read the entire Bible again, only this time I was going to read it as I would poetry or fiction, and not as a proposal of fact.

Well, of course, that was a proper decision on her part, because in reading the Bible she would be reading a lot of poetry and fiction, but apparently Jones failed to recognize that much of what she was reading was fictional, because she seems to believe that everything that the Bible said about God and Jesus was factual, although she claimed that she was no longer reading the Bible "as a proposal of fact." We can determine from what she went on to say that although she had stopped reading the Bible as if it were "a proposal of fact," she nevertheless apparently considered what it said to be factual.

In the months that followed, I kept my resolution and I began noticing a change in my way of interpreting the Bible. I found that my mind could logically accept two very different interpretations of almost everything I was reading. One interpretation of any verse or passage would render the whole story as nonsensical. But the other interpretation allowed the whole story to make sense.

Jones apparently doesn't realize that what she said here could be applied with equal validity to the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, the Zoroastrian Avesta, the Hindu Vedas, or any other collection of religious writings. Indeed, if she is not willing to apply the same principles of interpretation to all other "holy books," then she is guilty of the fallacy of special pleading. Hence, the amazing experiences that led Jones to see that everything in the Bible makes sense should also enable her to find sensibility in everything that the Book of Mormon or the Qur'an says. If not, why not?

Jones:
Allow me to tell you why not. There is a difference in the type of contradictions that are to be found in the Bible than are found in the Quran and Hadith, and for that matter, in the Vedas. I haven’t read the Zoroastrian Avesta, and so I can’t comment on it. The Book of Mormon doesn’t even contain Mormon theology and so I won’t bother to address it.

With Mohammed, we find contradictions that have a ping pong effect;

Till:
At this point, Jones proceeded to cite some examples of contradictions in the Qur'an, which she claims are different from those in the Bible. She claimed, as we will notice later, that so-called biblical contradictions result from the failure of readers to understand "progressive revelation." She claimed that these "contradictions" can be viewed as "progressive revelation because they progress to a point where they had not been before" (whatever that means). As we will see when we get to it, her "progressive revelation" theory is just another quibble intended to make the Bible not mean what it clearly says, but first, we will look at her examples of Qur'anic contradictions, which as I will show, she has cut and pasted from websites and other sources without giving credit to them. In other words, she has flagrantly plagiarized.

Jones:
Examples of Internal Contradiction in the Quran:

1. Heavens or Earth? Which was created first? First earth and then heaven [2:29], heaven and after that earth [79:27-30].

Till:
To show that this was plagiarized, I will simply quote from "Contradictions in the Quran," which reads exactly the same as "Jones's example" above.

Heavens or Earth? Which was created first? First earth and then heaven [2:29], heaven and after that earth [79:27-30].

As readers can see, the two are identical down to the brackets, instead of parentheses, that were used to enclose the Qur'anic verses. Is that just a coincidence, or did Jones plagiarize someone else's work and present it to us as her own, as if she were knowledgeable enough in the Qur'an to rattle off a list of "contradictions" and document them?

She didn't quote the references cited from the Qur'an, so I will do that now.

Sura 2:29 He it is Who created for you all that is in the earth. And he directed Himself to the heaven, so He made them complete seven heavens.

Sura 79:27 Are you the stronger in creation or the heaven? He made it. 28 He raised high its height, and made it perfect, 29 And He made dark its night and brought out its light. 30. And the earth, He cast it after that.

This is an example of the kind of "contradiction" that makes Jones believe that the Qur'an cannot be inspired of Allah, but anyone who has done much reading at all in the kind of "apologetics" that biblical inerrantists use to "explain" contradictions in the Bible, can use the same methods and explain away this and any other Qur'anic contradiction that Jones or anyone else wants to identify. I am by no means an expert on the Qur'an, but I do know the antics of biblical "apologists," so one of their popular "explanations" immediately occurred to me when I checked the Qur'an to see what the verses Jones had cited said about the creation of the heavens and earth. Sura 2:29 is simply a "dischronologized" narration. This text does not say that Allah created all that is in the earth, and then he directed himself to creating the heavens. The author "chose" to tell about the creation of the earth first because the earth was the primary focus of what he was saying in Section 3, where verse 29 is found. Anyone can read the verse in context and see that this is so. The writer therefore related the creation of the earth first and then made a parenthetical mention of the creation of the heavens before continuing on to tell about the creation and fall of Adam and his wife in the garden that Allah had made for them on the earth.

Is Jones so hyperliteral that she thinks that verse 29 has to be in a chronological context? If she doesn't know about "dischronologized" narratives, she should contact Robert Turkel, who seems to be one of her favorite apologists, as can be verified by checking the titles on her index page. He can tell her all about "dischronologized narratives" and his use of this "explanation" to resolve alleged biblical discrepancies.

Is Jones really so naive that she thinks that Qur'anic apologists would not have an explanation for this discrepancy? If she had looked a little harder when she was browsing the web to locate her examples of Qur'anic contradictions, she might have noticed "Response by Randy Desmond to Heaven or Earth? Which was created first?" which gives the following explanation of this "contradiction" that has convinced Jones that the Qur'an just can't be "Allah's word." I will retain Desmond's grammar, spelling, and punctuation.

The reader has to understand two things:

First, the word translated "then" is the Arabic word "thumma". It can be rendered "Moreover/Furthermore". Jochen shows this in his web page disputing the number of days of creation. I mention it again in my response to that page. It is also true that "thumma" can be rendered "then" (as in a subsequent "and").

Second, the Arabic word for "he turned" can be rendered as "he turned", "he has turned", or "he had turned". The implication being a past action has occured [sic]. See "Written Arabic - An Approach to the Basic Structures" by A.F.L. Beeston (cost about $25.00), Chapter 3, note 22.

So what does this mean with respect to the verses quoted by Jochen?

It means that Surah 2:29 may be read as follows:

He it is Who created for you all that is on the Earth. Furthermore, he had turned to the heaven and had made them into seven heavens.

That is an acceptable translation of the Arabic and it does not conflict with Surah 79:27-30. In fact if we assume it "thumma" means "then", the sentance [sic] could potentially be awkward. (i.e. "...then he had turned...")

So which is the most accurate rendering? I assume there is no contradiction in the Qur'an and so if I can find a legitimate context that renders all the data coherent, I accept that as a proof that contradiction has not been proven. I don't think anyone can claim "contradiction" on anything unless there is no alternative explanation which legitimately explains why a proposed contradiction is not a contradiction.

This all sounds very familiar, doesn't it? How many times have we heard biblicists argue that if they can show what seemingly inconsistent biblical passages could have meant, then they will have shown that there are no real inconsistencies, and who hasn't encountered biblical "apologists" who argue that the Hebrew or the Greek could have meant this or that or that the "nuances" of the Hebrew or Greek will remove whatever discrepancy has been identified? Let's take just one example of this kind of "apologetics" as it has been used by biblical inerrantists. When confronted with the conflict between Genesis 1, which says that animals were created before humans, and Genesis 2:19, which says that Yahweh created man and then the animals, biblical inerrantists will say, "Well, if you just understood Hebrew, you would see that there is no conflict." They argue, as Robert Turkel did, that a correct translation of Genesis 2:19 will take care of the problem.

Problem? G1 says that animals were created before man; G2 says that man came first, there was a need to designate a helpmeet, then animals were created for the first time...or does it? For quite some time now the classical solution to this problem has been to do what the NIV (but no other version that I know of) has done, and that is to render the verb in verse 2:19 not as simple past tense, but as a pluperfect, so:

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.

So Turkel and other inerrantists use the same kind of quibble that the Qur'anic apologist used above to show that there is no contradiction between Sura 2:29 and 79:27-30. Desmond argued that the Arabic verb translated turned should have been translated with the past perfect "had turned"; hence, the Arabic text, so Desmond claimed, was actually saying that Allah created the earth but that before this, he had turned to [directed] the creation of the heavens. In the same way, biblical inerrantists appeal to the Hebrew text and say that the verb formed in Genesis 2:19 should have been translated with the past perfect; hence, Yahweh had formed every beast of the field before he formed man in the verses before this. The Muslim "explanation" and the Christian "explanation" are two peas in a pod, and the Muslim apologist explained away a contradiction in the same way that Turkel and his ilk have "explained" the discrepancy in Genesis 2:19. If Jones rejects the solution of the Qur'anic apologist, perhaps she will tell us why she rejects his explanation but accepts an exact parallel of it when it is used to defend the Bible?

For the benefit of those who may click the link above to read Turkel's "solution" to the problem in Genesis 2:19, a little background information would be in order. Readers of his article will see that he refers to Skeptic X's internet forum where this issue had been discussed. I am Skeptic X, and the internet forum was ii errancy. When this issue was debated there, Turkel had taken the position on his website that some translations have correctly rendered "formed" in the pluperfect [past perfect] to reflect the proper meaning of "had formed," but when a member of the ii errancy forum later pointed out that the NIV was the only translation he could find that had used the past perfect tense in this verse, Turkel revised his statement to make it read as it does in the quotation above: "For quite some time now the classical solution to this problem has been to do what the NIV (but no other version that I know of) has done, and that is to render the verb in verse 2:19 not as simple past tense, but as a pluperfect." In other words, the some translations became just one translation after Turkel's overstatement had been pointed out.

This weakened Turkel's argument substantially, because it forced him to say, in effect, that the solution to the problem was to translate it away as one--and only one--English version had done, but I suspect that there wouldn't be too many readers of Turkel's forum who would have the critical-thinking skills to see the damage done to his position by the admission that the NIV was the only translation he knew of that had so rendered this verse. Turkel, of course, didn't bother to mention that the NIV had a habit of translating problem passages in ways that would eliminate discrepancies. The Masoretic text, for example, says in 2 Kings 8:26 that Ahaziah was 22 when he began to reign in Jerusalem, but 2 Chronicles 22:2 says that Ahaziah was 42 when he began to reign. English translations have retained this discrepancy, but the NIV took care of the problem by incorrectly translating 2 Chronicles 22:2 to read that Ahaziah was 22 when he began to reign. I could cite other examples of NIV "corrections," but this is sufficient to show that a biblical apologist doesn't have much weight on his side if he has to admit that the NIV is the only English version to render a verse in a way that would remove a discrepancy. Some people, however, just don't care how flimsy apologetic evidence is. If it will remove a discrepancy, that is all that they want.

Now here is Jones's second Qur'anic contradiction.

Jones:
2. In the process of creation, heaven and earth were first apart and are called to come together [41:11], while 21:30 states that they were originally one piece and then ripped apart.

Till:
Well, well, well, just look at what I found here, at the same site where Jones plagiarized her first example.

In the process of creation heaven and earth were first apart and are called to come together [41:11], while 21:30 states that they were originally one piece and then ripped apart.

As readers can see, Jones's statement of the contradiction is worded exactly as the one in the website just quoted. I have to wonder if she knows what plagiarism is, or if she even cares what it is. Was she so desperate to leave the impression with us that she has studied the Qur'an enough to know why she rejects it that she would copy verbatim the Qur'anic debunkings of other writers and present them as her own?

Jones did not quote the Qur'anic references on which she based her second contradiction, so I will do that so that we can see what this unsolvable contradiction is.

Sura 41:11 Then He directed Himself to the heaven and it was a vapor, so He said to it and the earth: Come both, willingly or unwillingly. They both said: We come willingly.

Sura 21:30 Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were closed up, so We rent them. And We made from water everything living. Will they not then believe?

I just have to quote here something that Jones said, which I replied to in Part Two of this series.

What I find as truly surprising is that an English teacher, such as yourself [sic], seems to be unable to detect these types of nuances in the Bible, while having no problem understanding the works of the poets. It seems to me that it is you, not I, who is [sic] not applying the principles of reading comprehension evenly across the board.

So Jones was truly surprised that an English teacher could see nuances and figurative language in the works of poets but couldn't see them in the Bible. She never gave any examples of where I failed to see "nuances," but, as I have shown, Jones doesn't bother to support her assertions; she just makes them. Anyway, right after saying this about me, she then posted some examples of what she considers unequivocal contradictions in the Qur'an, and her second one turns out to depend on a literal reading of an obviously figurative passage. Did Jones not notice that in Sura 41:11, Allah spoke to heaven and earth, telling them to come willingly or unwillingly, and they both answered, "We come willingly"? Does Jones think that heaven and earth had mouths, with lips and tongues, that enabled them to speak to Allah? If she were not such a hyperliteralist, she would have seen that she was basing this contradiction on an obviously metaphorical text, or did she even bother to read the text? Why do I suspect that she didn't?

At any rate, Jones would have to be hopelessly naive if she really thinks that no explanation can be given for this "contradiction." She surely doesn't think that a biblical inerrantist would be left tongue-tied if a "contradiction" like this were pointed out in the Bible, so why should she think that Islamic apologists would be stumped by it? If she will check the Answering Christianity website, she will find the following explanation of the figurative language in Sura 41:11.

This is another strange one. First of all, I am assuming that you mean [41:11] not [4:11]. The verse of Fussilat(41):11 says that God commanded the heavens and the earth to submit to Him. The command to "come" unto God in this verse is equivalent to such verses as:

Al-Saffat(37):83-84: "And verily, among those who followed his (Noah's) path was Abraham. When he came to his Lord with a pure heart. When he said to his father ..."

So how exactly did Abraham "come" to his Lord? Did he physically come to Him? This is equivalent to many similar verses in the Bible. For example:

Luke 17:4 "And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him."

What is meant here by "turning to God"? Does the man turn "left" or does he turn "right"? Which direction should he face from now on? Should he spend the rest of his days facing North or South? Is this what the verse means?

Similarly, in Ezekiel 14:6 we read: "Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Repent, and turn [yourselves] from your idols; and turn away your faces from all your abominations."

So which direction should mankind "face" in order to have "turned away their faces" from their "abominations"? In which direction do their "abominations" reside? Are they in the South and we should face North?

(Also read Jeremiah 3:21-22, etc.)

God created the heavens and the earth and then commanded them while they were still in a simple gaseous form ("when it was smoke [vapor]") to submit to His will either voluntarily or involuntarily so that He would fashion them as He wished. How did He command them and how did they answer? That is beyond our understanding. Indeed we are told in the Qur'an in Al-Isra(17):44: "The seven heavens and the earth and all that is therein glorify Him, and there is not a thing but glorifies His praise, yet you understand not their glorification. Truly, He is Ever-Forbearing, Oft-Forgiving"

Now, after the heavens and the earth were first created as a "smoke," and after He commanded them to submit to his will, and after they submitted to His will, now we are told that God extracted from that smoke the features of the heavens and the earth which we know today. Actually, this is indeed one of the scientific miracles of the Qur'an, as it describes issues which are known by astronomers today as being scientific fact. Today, through the development of twentieth century radio telescopes, mankind has actually photographed this process in action and recognize that planets are created from the condensation of spiraling celestial "mists."

It is further interesting to observe the precise term use by God in his description of this phenomenon. He did not say "mist" as current scientific terminology would have it, and which implies a spray of cool water, rather He described it as a "smoke," which implies a hot gas with airborne particles. This is exactly what scientists have been photographing for a couple of decades now, specifically, a tremendously hot cauldron of spiraling celestial gasses and other suspended matter which condense at the center of the spiral into a molten core which then cools down to form a star, and from them, planets. This planet, after many centuries of cooling down may then develop an atmosphere and other detailed features such as streams and valleys, etc.

After having explained the figurative language in Sura 41:11, this Islamic apologist went on to explain the second citation in Jones's example of an unsolvable Qur'anic contradiction.

Further, as stated in the noble Qur'an, Al-Anbia(21):30: "Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were fused then We ripped them asunder, and We created from water every living thing, do they not believe?"

This once again appears to conform exactly to current scientific understanding. As seen in much more detail in chapter 13 of "What Did Jesus Really Say?," currently, as discovered by the renown 20th century physicist Stephen Hawking, the universe is not static rather it is expanding. The rate of expansion of the universe is measured by a constant termed "the Hubble constant." This is part of the evidence that has led them to conclude that the most likely origin of the universe was in a condensed state of matter which then "expanded" or "exploded," forming our current "expanding universe." This is known as the "big bang" theory. And this indeed appears to be what the verse is saying. It appears to claim that the heavens and the earth were once a single mass then were "ripped asunder," The exact root words used in the Qur'an are the words "ra-ta-qa" and "fa-ta-qa," or "the heavens and the earth were 'ra-ta-qa' then we 'fa-ta-qa' them"

"Ra-ta-qa" is an Arabic word which has the general meaning of "to fuse, to sew, to mend, to patch up, to repair." ("Lisan Al-Arab," by Ibn Mandoor, Vol. 10, Dar Al-Fikr, p. 114, and also "A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic," Hans Wehr, Librairie du Liban, p. 325)

Similarly, "fa-ta-qa" has the general meaning of "To rip, to undo sewing, to unstitch, to tear apart, to rend, to rip open." ("Lisan Al-Arab," by Ibn Mandoor, Vol. 10, Dar Al-Fikr, p. 296, and also "A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic," Hans Wehr, Librairie du Liban, p. 695)

Amazing how science tends to support the words of God in the Qur'an so strongly wouldn't you agree? Isn't it interesting that although no one knew these facts until the discovery of radio telescopes in 1937 CE, and it is impossible to see these things with the naked eye, still, God has told us about them in the noble Qur'an over 1400 years ago?

Since Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was an Arab from the middle of the desert, and since neither he nor any of his countrymen new [sic] the first thing about radio telescopes or planetary development, or space travel, and the neighboring Greeks were still philosophizing in theories which would only be exposed as erroneous by nineteenth and twentieth century scholars, still, in spite of this he has managed to prove us with such a detailed and accurate description of these matters. Did the "Martians" come down and take Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) on a tour in their space ship?

"And those who have been given knowledge know that that which has been revealed to you from your Lord is the Truth" The noble Qur'an, Saba(34):6

"Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care) or are there locks upon their hearts?" The noble Qur'an, Muhammad(47):24

If Jones were not such a hyperliteralist, maybe she could see that some of her plagiarized Qur'anic contradictions aren't really contradictions.

Jones:
The Qur'an makes contradictory statements whether on the Day of Judgment intercession will be possible. No: [2:122-123, 254; 6:51; 82:18-19; etc.]. Yes: [20:109; 34:23; 43:86; 53:26; etc.].

Till:
Look what I found at "Difficulties in the Qur'an."

The Qur'an makes contradictory statements whether on the Day of Judgment intercession will be possible. No: [2:122-123, 254; 6:51; 82:18-19; etc.]. Yes: [20:109; 34:23; 43:86; 53:26; etc.].

It reads exactly like Jones's statement. Now isn't that a coincidence? Two writers working independently just happened to word this "contradiction" exactly the same way, even down to the use of etc.?

I could find no Islamic reply to this contradiction, so I will just use the apologetic methods of biblicists to show that Jones still hasn't found a real Qur'anic contradiction. We need first to look at all the verses that Jones cited without quoting. This may get tedious, but to evaluate properly her claim of a contradiction, we need to see all of her "proof texts."

First, we will look at the passages that allegedly say that there will be no intercession on the day of judgment.

Sura 2:122-123 O Children of Israel, call to mind My favour which I bestowed on you and that I made you excel the nations. 123 And be on your guard against a day when no soul will avail another in the least, neither will any compensation be accepted from it, nor will intercession profit it, nor will they be helped.

Sura 2:254 O you who believe, spend out of what We have given you before the day comes in which there is no bargaining, nor friendship, nor intercession. And the disbelievers--they are the wrongdoers.

Sura 6:51 And warn with it those who fear that they will be gathered to their Lord--there is no protector for them, nor any intercessor besides Him--so that they must keep their duty.

Sura 82:18-19 Again, what will make thee realize what the day of Judgment is? 19 The day when no soul controls aught for another soul. And the command on that day is Allah's.

I will jump ahead for just a moment before I quote the texts that say there will be intercession on the day of judgment, because Sura 2:255, which followed immediately on the heels of one of Jones's proof texts quoted above, would have helped her through her confusion had she just read a little further. Biblicists have a favorite "explanation" of discrepancies that appear close together in the Bible. They argue that a biblical writer, like Moses or Paul or John or whoever, would surely not have contradicted himself over the space of just a few verses, and so they conclude that when two verses in close proximity appear to contradict each other, one of the verses must not have meant what it appears to say. Now with that in mind, scroll back up to Sura 2:254, quoted just three paragraphs above, and notice that it says that a day is coming when there will be "no bargaining, nor friendship, nor intercession." With that in mind, notice what the very next verse says.

Sura 2:255 Allah--there is no god but He, the Ever-living, the Self-subsisting by Whom all subsist. Slumber overtakes Him not, nor sleep. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. Who is he that can intercede with Him but by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them. And they encompass nothing of His knowledge except what He pleases.

Now let's apply the apologetics of the biblicists to this example of a Qur'anic contradiction. Does Jones think that the writer of Sura 2:254-255, whether Gabriel or Muhammad or whoever, would have said in verse 254 that there will be absolutely no intercession at all, of any kind, in "the day" that is coming, and then turn around in the very next verse and say that there will be intercession that Allah allows? Surely, Jones can see that the writer would not have contradicted himself within such a short space. Why is she so liberal in her reading of biblical texts but hyperliteral when she reads the Qur'an?

My translation of the Qur'an has a footnote by 255, which explains the Islamic doctrine of intercession in a way that removes Jones's contradiction just as surely as the "apologetics" of Robert Turkel, Glenn Miller, and other would-be apologists explain away biblical contradictions. They think that just quoting a writer who agrees with them should be sufficient to settle all disputes over textual meanings, so I will now use that tactic and quote an Islamic authority for Jones.

The principle is here recognized that there may be intercession with Divine permission. It is true that Islam does not recognize the doctrine that man stands in need of any mediator to reconcile him with God, and therefore mediation or intercession in the sense in which the Christian doctrine is held is unknown in Islam. But there is another aspect of it. The Prophet, to whom the Divine will is revealed, is the Model for his people. He is perfect and by pointing out a way enables others to attain to perfection. In this sense he is called a shafi' or an intecessor. Those who take the Prophet for their model may thus attain to perfection. But as all men are not equally gifted, nor have all equal occasion to attain to a state of perfection, though they exert themselves to their utmost, Divine mercy takes them by the hand and amends are made for such defects through the intercession of the Prophet. It is in this sense that Islam recognizes the doctrine of intercession in the life after death.

With this explanation of the Islamic doctrine of intercession now before us, let's look at the "proof texts" that Jones cited as evidence that the Qur'an contradicts itself by first saying there will be no intercession and then saying elsewhere that there will be intercession. As we go through them, let's notice that this next set of passages is saying what the footnote just quoted said: There will be no intercession after death except what Allah allows. I will emphasize in bold print the parts that so indicate.

Sura 20:109 On that day no intercession avails except of him whom the Beneficient allows, and whose word He is pleased with.

Sura 34:23 And intercession avails naught with Him, save of him whom He permits.

Sura 43:86 And those whom they call upon besides Him control not intercession, but he who bears witness to the Truth and they know (him).

Sura 53:26 And how many angels are in the heavens, whose intercession avails naught except after Allah gives permission to whom He pleases and chooses.

My position is that the same "apologetics" used by biblical inerrantists can be used by Muslims, Mormons, Zoroastrians, etc. to prove that their "holy books" are also inerrant, so in addition to my metaphorical explanation and the Islamic explication quoted above, I could use Robert Turkel's "paper-shortage" and "ma besay-il" explanations to prove that the Qur'an doesn't contradict itself on the subject of intercession on the day of judgment. Turkel's "paper-shortage" explanation would show us that in a time when scroll materials were scarce and expensive, the Qur'anic author just didn't have the space in the first set of quotations to mention that Allah could choose to make exceptions to the warning that there would be no intercession on the day of judgment, and Turkel's "ma besay-il" explanation would show that it just didn't matter to the people of that time if the Qur'an seemed inconsistent at times, because people then were more interested in the central message of a passage than they were in strict, slavish consistency. Furthermore, a popular explanation that inerrantists use--and Turkel has also used it--is that omission doesn't constitute error, so if we apply this "explanation" to the first set of Qur'anic quotations above, we could say that the author omitted the fact that Allah can choose to make exceptions to his warning that there will be no intercessions on the day of judgment, but the fact that this was omitted would not constitute error.

In a word, there are many "apologetic" arguments used over and over by biblical inerrantists that could be applied to the Qur'an to explain this error that Jones thinks she has found. On the index page of her website, she links her readers to "J.P. Holding's Tektonics Ministries," so she must respect Tukel's "apologetics." The fact that he uses "explanations" that can easily remove any Qur'anic contradiction that she can mention should give her pause to reexamine just how shallow her critical-thinking skills are.

Jones:
Will there be inquiry in Paradise? “…neither will they question one another…” [23:101], but nevertheless they will be “…engaging in mutual inquiry…” [52:25], “and they will… question one another” [37:27].

Till:
There is no need to keep quoting the verbatim quotations that Jones cut and pasted into her article, but those who want to see this same quotation can go to "Difficulties in the Qur'an" and find the exact wording. A check of the internet will find that Jones's examples of Qur'anic contradictions are used over and over in different articles, so these are apparently a standard set of examples that are making the rounds with biblicists who want to discredit the Qur'an. Certainly, these contradictions are not original with Jones.

First, let's look at the verses cited in Jones's example.

Sura 23:101 So when the trumpet is blown, there will be no ties of relationship among them that day, nor will they ask of one another.

Sura 52:25 And they will advance to each other, questioning--"

Sura 37:27 And some of them will turn to others mutually questioning--"

This is a quar'anic "error" that has been answered by different Islamic apologists. An explanation of this discrepancy can be found at part 15 in "The Answer to 'Answering Islam.'"

To expose this false claim of contradiction, let us analyse the 3 verses.

1- "When the horn is blown, no relations among them will exist on that day (Day of judgment), and they will not ask about one another." 23:101

What this verse is saying is that when the horn is blown to signal Judgment Day, all blood relations of this world be will [sic] meaningless, the verse is also speaking about the disbelievers (see 23:99-100) and that their grave misfortune on that day will mean that the last thing on their minds will be to inquire about their relatives or their next of kin. The time spoken of in this verse is the time just after resurrection and prior to the delivery of Judgment.

2- "They will come to each other, questioning and blaming one another." 37:27

The timing spoken of in this verse is the same as the timing of the previous verse (23:101). It is the time just before the delivery of Judgment. This is confirmed by verse 20 of the same Sura :

"They will say, "Woe to us; this is the Day of Judgment."

Here, we are told that the disbelievers will go about blaming one another for the miserable misfortune they find themselves in on the Day of Judgment (see verses 27-33).

I will interrupt here to quote verses 27-33.

27 And some of them will turn to others mutually questioning. 28 Saying: Surely you used to come to us from the right side. 29 They will say: Nay, you [yourselves] were not believers. 30 And we had no authority over you, but you were an inordinate people. 31 So the word of our Lord has proved true against us: we shall surely taste. 32 We led you astray, for we ourselves were erring. 33 On that day they will be sharers in the chastisement.

The Islamic explanation of this "error" now continues.

This kind of questioning and blaming is quite different in meaning to the meaning of 23:101 where we are told that the disbelievers will be overwhelmed by the awesome impact of Judgment Day, and the grave misfortune that awaits them, that the last thing on their minds then will be to ask about their relatives.

3- "They will meet each other and reminisce among themselves." 52:25

The subject, the time and the place spoken of in this verse are quite different to the previous verses. While as the previous verses speak about the disbelievers (awaiting Judgment), this verse speaks about the believers who are already in heaven (see verses 17-18). They ask one another and reminisce about their life on earth. This in indicated by verses 26-28:

"They will say, "We used to be kind and humble among our people.

"GOD has blessed us, and has spared us the agony of ill winds.

"We used to implore Him; He is the Most Kind, Most Merciful."

The claim of contradiction is a result of a very superficial insight into the Quran, which is undoubtedly a result of the naive and biased mentality of the author.

By using "will there be inquiry in paradise" as a key expression, one can do a google search and find several other explanations of this "error," which all say essentially the same thing, just as biblical apologists will often recycle the same "explanations" of bibical discrepancies. I am citing the Islamic explanations not to show that they satisfactorily explain the discrepancies, because I honestly think that most of them don't, but to show that Islamic apologists use exact parallels of "explanations" that biblicists use to remove discrepancies in the Bible. To accept them as satisfactory explanations, a critical thinker would have to stretch credulity a country mile, but both religions use them, and the gullible in both religions swallow them hook, line, and sinker.

Why does Jones consider these arguments appropriate for biblical apologists but not for Islamic apologists? Aside from this inconsistency in her apologetic views, Jones said in her article that she had wondered why the Bible didn't make sense to her in her atheistic days but did make sense to Christians, so when she decided to read the Bible with a view to accepting different interpretations of passages that seem contradictory, she experienced an epiphany that led to her enlightenment and subsequent conversion to Christianity. Now I have a question for her.

Why is she not willing to accord the Qur'an the same interpretative flexibility that she accorded the Bible?"

Jones:
Shirk (worshipping other gods) is considered the worst of all sins, but Mohammed seems unable to decide if Allah will ever forgive it or not. No: [4:48, 116], Yes: [4:153, 25:68-71]. Abraham committed this sin of polytheism as he takes the moon, sun and stars to be his Lord [6:76-78], yet Muslims believe that all prophets are without any sin.

Till:
Before I evaluate this grievous error she has uncovered, er, plagiarized, let's look at the Qur'anic verses that Jones cited . The word partners in these verses was used to denote idols or gods that worshipers considered partners or equals to Allah.

Sura 4:48 Surely Allah forgives not that a partner should be set up with Him, and forgives all besides that to whom he pleases. And whoever sets up a partner with Allah, he devises indeed a great sin.

Sura 4:116 Surely Allah forgives not setting up partners with Him, and He forgives all besides this to whom He pleases. And whoever sets up a partner with Allah, he indeed goes far astray.

Sura 4:153 The People of the Book ask thee to bring down to them a Book from heaven; indeed they demanded of Moses a greater thing than that, for they said: Show us Allah manifestly. So destructive punishment overtook them on account of their wrongdoing. Then they took the calf (for a god), after clear signs had come to them, but We pardoned this. And We gave Moses clear authority.

Sura 25:68-71 And they who call not upon another god with Allah and slay not the soul which Allah has forbidden, except in the cause of justice, nor commit fornication; and he who does this shall meet a requital of sin-- 69 The chastisement will be doubled to him on the day of resurrection, and he will abide therein in abasement-- 70 Except him who repents and believes and does good deeds; for such Allah changes their evil deeds to good ones. And Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful. 71 And whoever repents and does good, he surely turns to Allah a (goodly) turning.

Since my purpose in this section of my reply to Jones is to show her that the same "apologetic" arguments used by biblicists could be used by Muslims to explain errors in the Qur'an, I will just use a Turkel approach to explain the error just cited. The verses that speak of Allah's not forgiving those who set up "partners" with him means only that there will be no forgiveness for those who die guilty of shirk. In his translation of the Qur'an, Maulana Muhammad Ali explained the meaning of these verses with a footnote after Sura 4:48. Since Turkel thinks that quoting authorities that agree with him should be sufficient to settle disputes, Jones, who seems to like Turkel's methods, should be willing to let Maulana Muhammad Ali settle this matter.

It should be further remembered that the forgiveness spoken of here [4:48] relates to those who die while guilty of shirk, but even they will be received into the mercy of God after suffering the consequences of their deeds. If a man is guilty of shirk, and repents of it before his death all his sins including shirk, are washed off and forgiven because he gives a new turn to his life.

Notice that the last verses quoted above [25:68-71] seem to confirm Ali's spin on 4:48 and similar verses. Those who set up other gods will be more harshly punished but then eventually pardoned by the forgiving, merciful Allah. If Jones had understood that Islam does not teach eternal punishment in hell as her religion does, she would perhaps have been able to see that this error she plagiarized is not really an error. Islam teaches that punishment in hell will be proportional to the offenses committed, so after one has received chastisement proportional to his sins, he will be forgiven. In Islam, hell lies in wait for the inordinate, who will live there "long years" (78:23), where they will experience "requital corresponding" [to their offenses] (78:26). As Ali said above--and in the introduction to his translation--the punishment of hell is not everlasting. Hence, even those who die guilty of shirk, will be released after having served their proportional punishment, so as biblical inerrantists love to ask after they have "explained" biblical discrepancies, "Where is the contradiction?"

If Ali's explanation doesn't satisfy Jones, she can try some of the typical arguments of biblical apologists. Turkel, for example, likes to claim that a shortage of scroll materials made it necessary for writers to choose their material carefully, so at times they left out details that would have clarified meaning if those details had been included but that omission is not error. This quibble could be used to explain why the Qur'anic author didn't include the detail that Allah would not at first forgive those who set up "partners" [other gods] but would later after they had received suitable punishment. Turkel also likes to argue that specific details were not always necessary in a "high-context" society, because readers would have understood the meaning without having everything spelled out to them. Since Islam began in a Semitic culture, Turkel's "high-context" argument could be used to explain why Sura 4:48 et al didn't always give full and complete details. They were not needed in a "high-context" Arabic culture. Jones would understand that if she didn't try to judge Arabic culture with her low-context way of thinking.

There is yet another way to explain Jones's "contradiction" presently under consideration. There is a popular hemeneutic principle that biblical inerrantists will often appeal to: Let scripture interpret scripture. This principle simply means that when two or more scriptures seem to conflict--seem to conflict, because biblical inerrantists claim that contradictions are only apparent--the clearest text in passages that seem to be in conflict should be allowed to interpret the others. If this is an appropriate principle to use in biblical apologetics, fairness would require it to be allowed in Qur'anic apologetics. Since the last set of Suras in Jones's "contradiction" are very clear in saying that Allah will sometimes choose to forgive shirk, these clearer passages should be allowed to interpret the others.

Of course, if none of these explanations appeals to Jones, there is always the "ma besay-il" [it doesn't matter] "explanation," which has become one of Turkel's favorites. The "contradiction" that Jones pointed out would not have been a contradiction to the people of that time, because inconsistencies just didn't matter to them. They were more interested in the really important details in the Qur'an. The point is that Jones or anyone else cannot identify a contradiction in the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, the Avesta, the Bhagavad-gita or any other holy book that cannot be explained by using the same arguments that biblicists use to prove the Bible is inerrant. Biblical apologetics, then, will make everything ever written in any language inerrant.

Now let's take a look at Jones's claim that Abraham committed the sin of polytheism by taking the moon, sun, and stars to be his Lord. Here is her proof text.

Sura 6:76 And thus did We show Abraham the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and that he might be of those having certainty. 77 So when the night overshadowed him, he saw a star. He said: Is this my Lord? So when it set, he said: I love not the setting ones. Then when he saw the moon rising, he said: Is this my Lord? So when it set, he said: If my Lord had not guided me, I should certainly be of the erring people. And when he saw the sun rising, he said: Is this my Lord? Is this the greatest? So when it set, he said: O my people, I am clear of what you set up (with Allah).

Pardon me, but didn't Jones say something about her surprise that an English teacher could be so hyperliteral that he couldn't see "nuances" in the Bible? Was that the same Jones who thinks that the Qur'anic passage above taught that Abraham committed the sin of polytheism by thinking that the moon, sun, and stars were his Lord? Did she even bother to read the very next verse?

80 Surely I have turned myself, being upright, wholly to Him Who originated the heavens and the earth, and I am not of the polytheists.

Besides actually saying that Abraham was "not of the polytheists," the verses that Jones referred to never once said that Abraham took the sun, moon, and stars to be his Lord. The verses say only that Abraham looked at them and asked, "Is this my Lord?" Does Jones know the difference in a question and a declarative sentence?

This one is so obviously not a contradiction that I am not even going to quote what Ali and other Islamic apologists have said about the passage. Jones just can't see inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible, but she stretches imagination like a rubber band to find them in the Qur'an. So much for her objectivity!

Jones;
Concerning the practice of Abrogation: "The words of the Lord are perfect in truth and justice; there is NONE who can change His words." [Sura 6:115] Also see 6:34 and 10:64. But then Allah (Muhammad?) sees the need to exchange some of them for "better ones" [Sura 2:106, 16:101]. And it is not for ignorant people to question Allah because of such practices!

Till:
First, we would look at the verses that Jones quoted and then see how easy it is to explain her "contradiction" by just using popular Christian apologetics. She cited, er, copied, Sura 6:115--but actually quoted 6:116--so there will be no need to quote it.

Sura 6:34 And messengers were indeed rejected before thee, but they were patient when rejected and persecuted, until Our help came to them. And there is none to change the words of Allah. And there has already come to thee some information about the messengers.

Sura 10:64 For them [who believe and keep their duty] is good news in this world's life and in the Hereafter. There is no changing the words of Allah. That is the mighty achievement.

I will interrupt here to point out that the Islamic understanding of "the words" of Allah is that this refers to the prophecies of Allah. I will say more about that when I discuss all of Jones's proof texts together to show that there is no contradiction in the passages she cited. To understand the context of her next citation, I will need to quote the verse before it. The expression "people of the Book" refers to the Jews, who had received an earlier revelation.

Sura 2:105 Neither those who disbelieve from among the people of the Book, nor the polytheists, like that any good should be sent down to you from your Lord. And Allah chooses whom He pleases for His Mercy; and Allah is the Lord of mighty grace. 106 Whatever message we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or one like it. Knowest thou not that Allah is Possessor of power over all things?

Sura 16:101 And when we change a message for a message--and Allah knows best what He reveals--they say: Thou art only a forger. Nay, most of them know not."

Ali's footnotes in his translation will explain why these verses cannot be considered contradictory.

6:34 The context clearly shows that "the words of Allah" here are meant "the prophecies" foretelling the triumph of Truth and the overthrow of all opposition. As help came to messengers before the Holy Prophet, so would help come to him, and this was a prophecy which none could change and whose fulfilment [sic] was sure.

In his footnote to Sura 6:116, Ali referred readers back to his footnote just quoted in reference to 6:34. His footnote to 10:64 tells readers the same thing: "The words of Allah" signifies the "prophecies of Allah," so these verses were all saying that when Allah pronounced a prophecy, it was sure to be fulfilled and could not be changed. If Jones were not so hyperliteral in her reading of the Qur'an, perhaps she could see these things for herself. Maybe she should read Through the Looking Glass again and then read the Qur'an the same way that she read the Bible when enlightenment suddenly burst upon her.

Now here are Ali's footnotes on the verses that Jones sees as claiming that the words of Allah can be changed.

2:106 Reading the verse under discussion in the light of the context, it is clear that the Jews [people of the Book] are addressed here. The two previous sections deal, more or less, with a particular Jewish objection to the revelation of the Prophet, viz., that they could not accept a new revelation which was not granted to an Israelite. This is plainly stated in vv. 90 and 91.

For Jones's benefit, I will quote 2:90-91

90 Evil is that for which they sell their souls--that they should deny that which Allah has revealed, out of envy that Allah should send down of His grace on whomsoever of His servants He pleases; so they incur wrath. And there is an abasing chastisement for the disbelievers. 91 And when it is said to them, Believe in that which Allah has revealed, they say: We believe in that which was revealed to us. And they deny what is besides that, while it is the Truth verifying that which they have. Say: Why then did you kill Allah's prophets before (this) if you were believers.

Now Ali's footnote continues.

The same subject is continued, the Jews being addressed throughout. Their objection was: Why was another revelation sent down to Muhammad, and why was a law containing new commandments promulgated. That objection was to be answered. The answer is given partly in v. 105, and partly in the verse under discussion. In the former of these they are told that Allah chooses whom He pleases for His revelation. In the latter, that if one law (i. e., the Jewish law) was abrogated, one better than it was given through the Holy Prophet. It should be noted that the new law is here stated to be better than the one abrogated or like it. It us a fact that though the law of the Qur'an is decidedly superior to and more comprehensive than the previous laws in most respects, yet there are many points of likeness in the two. Hence the words "one like it" are added....

This footnote continued through another entire page, but the essence of Ali's commentary was that references to the "first message" that was changed or abrogated meant the previous scriptures and that references to the "second message" that could not be changed meant the Qur'an. Hence, Muslims like Christians always have explanations for discrepancies in their holy book. If Jones weren't so hyperliteral in her reading of the Qur'an--if she reads it at all--she might understand some of these things.

Jones:
Will Christians enter Paradise or go to Hell? Sura 2:62 and 5:69 say “Yes”, Sura 5:72 just 3 verses later) and 3:85 say “No”. [sic]

Till:
Jones has worded this rather ambiguously. The question was, "Will Christians enter paradise or go to hell?" A "yes" cannot answer this question, because it doesn't tell us if the Qur'an says, "Yes, Christians will enter paradise," Or, "Yes, Christians will go to hell." It turns out that Sura 2:62 and 5:69 say that Christians have nothing to fear at death and that the other two seem to indicate that Christians will go to hell. A little proof reading before posting her article would perhaps have caught this ambiguity.

Be that as it may, I can right away throw at Jones a popular apologetic argument that biblicists use to "explain" inconsistencies like this in the Bible. Would a writer say in Sura 5:69 that Christians will go to paradise and then just three verses later say that they won't? As biblical apologists would say, an inconsistency found in verses this close together probably means that the inconsistency is in the mind of the reader but was not in the mind of the writer.

Sura 2:62 and 5:72 are practically identical, so I will quote only 2:62.

Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the last Day does good, they have their reward with their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

Ali points out in a footnote to this verse that "belief in Allah and the last Day is equivalent to belief in Islam as the true religion." This salvation, however, will be given only to those who have a real, genuine belief and not to those who just give lip service to it. The latter will be judged by Allah on the day of the resurrection [22:17], but even they will be in hell only long enough to receive their proportional punishment. Jones's problem seems to be that she doesn't understand that Islam is a more compassionate religion than her hellfire-and-brimstone Christianity.

So I have shown that the "apologetic" arguments that Christians use to "prove" that the Bible is inerrant can be used to prove the inerrancy of the Qur'an or any other holy book, and Jones has shown that she will not give to the Qur'an the same generous leeway that she gives to the Bible when she encounters problem passages. Just any interpretation will do for her when she confronts a biblical discrepancy, but when she sees one in the Qur'an, she becomes Ms. Hyperliteral.

Jones
In my opinion, these types of contradictions cannot be appropriately thought of as ‘progressive revelation’, [sic] because the constant back and forth in the direction of what is being revealed, is anything but progressive.

Till:
Is Jones arguing that only "progressive revelation" can keep an inconsistency from being an inconsistency? I have shown above that the same apologetic methods that biblicists use can explain all of the Qur'anic contradictions that Jones identified; hence, her idea of "progressive revelation" is irrelevant.

Jones:
I would say that Mohammed’s ‘abrogation’ is nothing but a cover up for a poor memory.

Till:
I showed above that this "contradiction" can be explained by any of several apologetic arguments that one of Jones's heroes uses. Muhammad could have experienced a "paper shortage" that made it necessary for him to omit details that would have clarified this doctrine. He could have realized that he was writing for a "high-context" culture and therefore knew that his readers would understand what he meant without needing a lot of explanatory details. He could have known that minor details just didn't matter to an Arabic culture, which would have been more interested in central rather than minor details. It might also be that the original autographs of the Qur'an did not contain these problems. The Qur'anic author could also have been writing figuratively in language that would have been more understandable to those who are familiar with Arabic idioms and nuances. I mean, after all, if these kinds of explanations are okay for biblical apologists to use, why can't Islamic apologists use them too?

Jones:
In the Bible, however, the verses that are called ‘contradictions’ can be viewed as progressive revelation because they progress to a point where they had not been before.

Till:
All of them can? I will issue a challenge to Jones. If she will agree to answer them point by point, I will gladly post for her some examples of biblical discrepancies that can by no stretch of the imagination be thought of as discrepancies that "progressive revelation" (as I understand it) can explain, because they are discrepancies that occurred within the same general biblical time frame.

Jones:
The direction is forward. For example, a parent progressively reveals to a child how they [sic] are to conduct themselves [sic] at the table. When the child is young, he is permitted to place food into his mouth with his hand. As the child grows, he is taught to use a spoon, then a fork and then a knife.

Till:
With no kind of specific example of a biblical contradiction that can be explained by Jones's theory of progressive revelation, there is no way that I can evaluate it. I think that I might know what she means, but I am not really sure. Is she trying to explain why Yahweh once allowed incest and then banned it or why polygamy was once allowed and then forbidden? There is no way to know, because she didn't explain.

Jones:
In the Quran, we see revelations that would be the equivalent of demanding that a child use his hand, then a fork, then his hand again, then a spoon, then his hand…

Till:
We do? Like what? Without specific examples, there is no way to evaluate this claim. Like most biblicists, Jones finds it easier to assert than argue.

Jones:
Also, there is more to my acceptance of Christ as God than is to be found in the examination of contradiction within sacred texts. I recognize the difference between human nature and the divine nature that is described in the Bible. Mohammed reveals human nature; the Old Testament prophets reveal divine nature.

Till:
These too are all abstract comments that communicate nothing specific, so there is nothing to reply to here. I wonder if it is at all possible for Jones to be concrete and specific.

Go to the fourth and final part of my reply to Jones's article.