^clear contradictions in the Bible ^ Any kafir interested ?

[*Proud_Muslimah*]

Concerning the Food for the Inhabitants of Hell contradiction:
What will be the food for the people in Hell? The food for the people in Hell will be only "Dhari" [Sura 88:6], or only foul pus from the washing of wounds [S. 69:36], or will they also get to eat from the tree of Zaqqum [S. 37:66]? Together, these verses constitute three contradictions.


Verses in question:

88:6 No food will there be for them but a bitter Dari'
69:36-37 "Nor hath he any food except of Ghisleen. None will eat it except the Khati'un. (sinners)

37:62-68. Is that the better entertainment or the Tree of Zaqqum?
For We have truly made it (as) a trial for the wrong-doers.
For it is a tree that springs out of the bottom of Hell-Fire:
The shoots of its fruit-stalks are like the heads of devils:
Truly they will eat thereof and fill their bellies therewith.
Then on top of that they will be given a mixture made of boiling water. Then shall their return be to the (Blazing) Fire.

The first task is to define these three substances found in Hellfire. Imaam Ibn Kathir Ad-Damishqi (d. 1372CE) has given a thorough discussion of these terms in his renowned Tafsir Al-Qur'an Al-Azim. Concerning the Dari, he writes:

Ali ibn Abi Talhah reported from Ibn Abbas that he said, "A tree from the Hellfire." (fn. At-Tabari 24:383). Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, 'Ikrimah, Abu Al-Jawza' and Qatadah, all said, "It is Ash-Shibriq (a type of plant)." Qatadah said, "The Quraysh called it Ash-Shabraq in the spring and Ad-Dari in the Summer." Ikrimah said, "It is a thorny tree which reaches down to the ground." (fn. At-Tabari 24:384). Al-Bukhari related that Mujahid said, "Ad-Dari is a plant that is called Ash-Shibriq. The people of Hijaz call it Ad-Dari when it dries, and it is poisonous." (fn. Fath Al-Bari 8:570). Ma'mar narrated that Qatadah said, "No food will there be for them but Dari, this is Ash-Shibriq. When it dries it is called Ad-Dari." (fn. At-Tabari 24:384). Sa'id narrated from Qatadah that he said, "No food will there be for them but Dari, this is the worst, most disgusting and loathsome of foods." (fn. At-Tabari 24:384). (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2000, vol. 10, p. 457)

This detailed discussion clarifies the meaning of the word beyond any doubts. We can conclude that Ad-Dari refers to any of thorny plant, similar to a species know to the Quraysh, while it also carries the wider meaning of a disgusting and loathsome food. Moving on to Ghislin, Imaam Ibn Kathir once again provides a detailed commentary:

Qatadah said, "it will be the worst food of the people of the Hell-fire." (fn. At-Tabari 23:591). Ar-Rabi' and Ad-Dahhak both said, "It (Ghislin) is a tree in Hell." Shabib bin Bishr reported from ikrimah that Ibn Abbas said, 'Ghislin will be the blood and fluid that will flow from their flesh." Ali bin Abi Talhah reported from Ibn Abbas that he said, "Ghislin is the pus of the people of the Hell-fire." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2000, vol. 10, p. 148)

The discussion of Ghisleen seems to point out two different views. One is that it is a tree in Hell, while there are other views that it refers to a collection of foul liquids, especially those fluids from the victims of Hell. Meanwhile others refer to it as simply the worst punishment. This information will be useful later on in the discussion. Concerning the Tree of Zaqqum, there is little ambiguity here, and it is sufficient to quote the explanation of Shaykh Umar Sulayman Al-Ashqar, Professor at the University of Jordan, who says:


What we may understand from these âyât is that this tree is a repulsive tree, whose roots go deep into the bottom of Hell, and whose branches stretch forth all over. Its fruits are so ugly that they are likened to the heads of devils, so that everyone may easily understand just how ugly they are, even though they have never seen them. Although this tree is so vile and obnoxious, the people of Hell will become so hungry that they will have no choice but to eat from it until they are full. When they have filled their bellies, this food will start to churn like boiling oil, which will cause a great deal of suffering to them. (Al-Ashqar, The Final Day : Part 3 - Paradise And Hell In the Light of the Quran and Sunnah, International Islamic Publishing House 2000, p.104)

This is how it has been described in Surat Ad-Dukhan:

44:43-46. Verily, the tree of Zaqqûm, Will be the food of the sinners, Like boiling oil, it will boil in the bellies, Like the boiling of scalding water.

Various Qur'anic commentators mentioned that this will tear up the innards of the inhabitant of Hell. From this verse we note that eating from Tree of Zaqqum gives rise to boiling oil in the internal organs, which tear them apart, releasing bodily fluids. In concluding the descriptions, one should also note that the Hereafter - both Heaven and Hell - is beyond the limits of Human understanding, and therefore these descriptions are only meant to paint a vague idea of the actual torment, for it is torment, the like of which no human mind can conceive.

At this stage, there are several ways of explaining the alleged contradiction.


1. Linguistically, there is no contradiction between only eating Dari, and eating from the Tree of Zaqqum. Ad-Dari is a general term for the thorny plants found in Hell-fire, the greatest of which is the Tree of Zaqqum. There is also no contradiction if we understand Ghisleen to refer to a Tree, as many of the early scholars did. This is what has been narrated from Ar-Rabi and Ad-Dahhak about what verse 69:36 means, as they said, "It (Ghislin) is a tree in Hell."

2. We can also reconcile the verses by seeking a more comprehensive definition of Ghisleen. Muhammad Asad made an interesting comment on the meaning of Ghisleen:

The noun ghislin, which appears in the Qur'an only in this one instance, has been variously - and very contradictorily - explained by the early commentators. Ibn Abbas, when asked about it, frankly answered, "I do not know what ghislin denotes" (Razi). The term "filth" used by me contains an allusion to the "devouring" of all that is abominable in the spiritual sense: cf. its characterization in the next verse as "[that] which none but the sinners eat" – i.e. (metaphorically) in this world, and, consequently, in the hereafter as well. (Asad, Message of the Qur'an, The Book Foundation 2003)

This is a likely explanation since the punishments of Hell-fire are beyond human understanding, and therefore any reference to punishment in Hell is naturally a general reference. It is logical that Ghisleen is a comprehensive term used to refer to filth of any form.

3. Even if we state that Ghisleen does indeed refer to a collection of foul liquids, then it becomes clear that one source of Ghisleen is the Dari plants. In fact, Imaam Abu Abdullah Al-Qurtubi (d. 1272 CE) mentions in his commentary, Al-Jaami'li Ahkaam Al-Qur'aan, the following narration:

Khalid bin Ziyad said: I heard Al-Mutawakil bin Hamdan ask about this verse, "They will not have any food except from Dharee'" He said: It has reached me that Al-Dharee' is a tree in hell-fire [Jahanam] bearing blood and puss, with a bitter taste and that is their food. (SOURCE)

Thus, from this explanation of the early scholars it becomes clear that ghisleen is found in the Dari and the Zaqqum. It can be interpreted to describe another aspect of the same food. Therefore, ingesting Dari is equivalent to ingesting Ghisleen.

4. It should also be noted that the meaning of the verse in Arabic is meant to imply that there is no food other than food of such a nature. This is the beauty of the Qur'anic arabic, as Syed Qutb (d. 1966CE) notes:

They are "made to drink from a boiling fountain. Their only food shall be the fruit of Dhari', which will neither nourish nor satisfy their hunger." Dhari' is said to be a tree of fire in Hell. This explanation is based on what has been revealed about the tree of "zayqoom" which grows at the centre of Hell. It is also said to be a kind of cactus thorn, which when green is called "shabraq" and is eaten by camels. However, when it is fully grown it cannot be eaten as it becomes poisonous. Whatever it is in reality, it is a kind of food like "ghisleen" and "shabraq" (names given by the Qur'an to refer to the food available in Hell) which neither nourishes nor appeases hunger.

It is obvious that we, in this world, cannot fully comprehend the nature of that suffering and torture in the hereafter. The description is made in order to give our human perceptions the feeling of the greatest possible pain, which is produced by a combination of humiliation, weakness, failure, the scorching fire, drinking and bathing in boiling water, and eating food unacceptable even to the camels.

From all these aspects we get a feeling of the ultimate affliction. But the affliction of the hereafter is, nevertheless, greater. Its true nature is incomprehensible except to those who will actually experience it. May Allah never count us among them. (SOURCE)

Similarly, another scholar says:

Here there is a question that some other ayaat are talking about some other type of food people will have in the Hell-fire. Just like inna shajarata zaqqum - a tree that's called az-zaqqum. When Allah SWT says they will have only this thing to eat, it simply means they will have only these type of items in the Hell-fire. Nothing of real food. Everything that they will use for food over there will not be really food, just like they will go to that stream of pus and would start drinking from it - its not food. They would go to those trees that have poisoned fruits, full of thorns, and they will start chewing that - [but] it's not something to eat. So, it simply means nothing that deserves to be used as a food over there. People will just start taking things from here and there, whatever they find they will just start eating those.

Hence, the type of exclusion given in the verses does not exclude substances of a similar nature. If the verses were about this life, and one stated that a group of people would have no food but terrible thorny plants, while another verse stated that the same group would have roast chicken (or some other pleasant food), then it might be a contradiction. However, this is not the case here. The meaning of the Qur'an is clear that no matter what the food, it will be an unbearable torture beyond human imagination.

5. Lastly, it should be noted that there are different levels in Hell, and different groups in Hell. All these groups will recieve different punishments depending on what they deserve. The verse about Ghisleen states that none shall eat it except the khati'un (a category of sinners), who neither believed in Allah nor fed the poor and needy. Meanwhile, the chapter about Dari is only speaking about some people who will enter Naaran Haamiyah (88:2-4), which some scholars describe as a certain level of Hell-fire. As Imaam Al-Qurtubi mentions in his tafsir:

Allah has said: "Therefore he has not here today a true friend, Nor any food save filth" [Al-Haqqah, 35-36] Allah said here "Nor any food save filth" which is different than Ghisleen. It is believed that Hell-fire is made of levels, those who eat from al-zaqoom, those who eat from al-ghisleen, those who eat from Al-dharee', those who drink from hameem, and those who drink from As-sideed. Al-Kalbi said: Al-Dharee' is for those on a certain station [in Hell] and Al-zaqoom are for those on a different station. (SOURCE)

Therefore, this explanation from the earliest sources also refutes the alleged contradiction.

These points should demonstrate that these verses do not signify a contradiction at all.

[*Proud_Muslimah*]

Will there be Inquiry in Paradise contradiction:

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].
Verses in question,

23:101 Then, when the Trumpet is blown, there will be no kinship among them that Day, nor will they ask of one another

And 52:25 in context is:

52:21,22,25-28 And those who believe and whose offspring follow them in Faith, to them shall We join their offspring, and We shall not decrease the reward of their deeds in anything. Every person is a pledge for that which he has earned. And We shall provide them with fruit and meat, such as they desire....And some of them draw near to others, questioning.
Saying: "Aforetime, we were afraid with our families (from the punishment of Allâh). But Allâh has been gracious to us, and has saved us from the torment of the Fire. Verily, We used to invoke Him (Alone and none else) before. Verily, He is Al Barr the Most Generous, the Most Merciful."

And 37:27 in context is:

37:22,23,27-33. (It will be said to the angels): "Assemble those who did wrong, together with their companions (from the devils) and what they used to worship, instead of Allâh, and lead them on to the way of flaming Fire (Hell);
And they will turn to one another and question one another.

They will say: "It was you who used to come to us from the right side."
They will reply: "Nay, you yourselves were not believers. And we had no authority over you. Nay! But you were transgressing people (disobedient, polytheists, and disbelievers). So now the Word of our Lord has been justified against us, that we shall certainly (have to) taste (the torment).So we led you astray because we were ourselves astray."

Then verily, that Day, they will (all) share in the torment.



1. The first point that becomes obvious here, once the context is added, is that these verses are not referring to the same event. Verse 23:101 states that on the Day of Judgement, after the trumpet, no one will ask eachother for help. They will stand silently before their Lord, to be judged.
Meanwhile, verse 52:25 states that in paradise, the reward for the believers will include anything they desire, and they shall engage in mutual discussion. This obviously is not a reference to the Day of resurrection.
Likewise, verse 37:27 speaks of the disbelievers who will dispute with eachother about who is to blame for their terrible fate. This is obvious from the mentioning of assembling those who did wrong, and leading them to Hell-fire. Evidently, this would occur after the Day of Judgement.

2. The second point is that there is a different understanding of what is being asked in each verse. Verse 23:101 refers to the fact that they will not be able to ask eachother for help. Here, "ask" is understood to be a request. Verse 52:25 refers to the fact that they will engage in mutual discussion. Here "ask" is understood to be general inquiry and discussion, not a request. And finally, verse 37:27 refers to the disputes that will be held by the people of Hell-fire. here "ask" refers to harsh interrogation and argumentation, not a request. This is supported by the understanding of the arabic verb used, yatasa'aloon.

Does Allah forgive Shirk contradiction:

Does Allah forgive shirk? Shirk is considered the worst of all sins, but the author of the Qur'an seems seems unable to decide if Allah will ever forgive it or not. No [4:48, 116], Yes [4:153, 25:68-71].
Verses in question,

4:48 Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed.


4:116 Allah forgiveth not (The sin of) joining other gods with Him; but He forgiveth whom He pleaseth other sins than this: one who joins other gods with Allah, Hath strayed far, far away (from the right).

And:

4:153 ...Yet they worshipped the calf even after clear signs had come to them; even so we forgave them; and gave Moses manifest proofs of authority.

25:68,70-71 And those who invoke not any other god along with Allah...and whoever does this shall receive the punishment...Except those who repent and believe (in Islâmic Monotheism), and do righteous deeds, for those, Allâh will change their sins into good deeds, and Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
And whosoever repents and does righteous good deeds, then verily, he repents towards Allâh with true repentance.

Shirk is the sin of associating partners with Allah, i.e. attributing divinity or worshipping other than the One Creator.

The explanation of these verses becomes clear if we review the Islamic beliefs one at a time.

1. The first principle is that Allah will forgive ALL sins of anyone who repents sincerely during this life, before their death. This is made clear in the following verse of the Qur'an:

39:53-55 Say: "O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah. for Allah forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Turn ye to our Lord (in repentance) and bow to His (Will), before the Penalty comes on you: after that ye shall not be helped. And follow the best of (the courses) revealed to you from your Lord, before the Penalty comes on you - of a sudden while ye perceive not!

From the above verse we understand that Allah will forgive all of our sins if we repent before the coming of a "sudden penalty", which refers to death.

2. The second principle here is that after one dies, they are at the mercy of Allah, who may choose to forgive them of their sins or punish them for it, according to what is just. Allah may forgive all of one's sins after they die, except shirk. After a person dies, they will not be forgiven for shirk. The only chance of forgiveness for shirk is if one repents before they die.

3. The above understanding is derived from the Qur'an and the Sunnah, and can be found in many commom Tafsir of the Qur'an. For example, Ibn Kathir writes for this verse:

Allah does not forgive shirk, except after repenting from it.

And Muhammad Asad comments on the verse:

The continuous stress, in the Qur’an, on God's transcendental oneness and uniqueness aims at freeing man from all sense of dependence on other influences and powers, and thus at elevating him spiritually and bringing about the "purification" alluded to in the next verse. Since this objective is vitiated by the sin of shirk ("the ascribing of divine qualities to aught beside God"), the Qur’an describes it as "unforgivable" so long as it is persisted in, i.e., unless and until the sinner repents (cf. verses 17 and 18 of this surah).

And verses 4:17-18 read:

4:17-18 Allah accepts the repentance of those who do evil in ignorance and foolishness and repent soon afterwards; it is they to whom Allah will forgive and Allah is Ever All Knower, All Wise. And of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil deeds until death faces one of them and he says: "Now I repent;" nor of those who die while they are disbelievers. For them We have prepared a painful torment.

[*Proud_Muslimah*]

Did Abraham Commit Shirk contradiction:

Abraham committed this sin of polytheism as he takes moon, sun, stars to be his Lord [6:76-78], yet Muslims believe that all prophets are without any sin.
Verses in question:

6:76-78. When the night covered him over with darkness he saw a star. He said: "This is my lord." But when it set, he said: "I like not those that set."
When he saw the moon rising up, he said: "This is my lord." But when it set, he said: "Unless my Lord guides me, I shall surely be among the erring people."
When he saw the sun rising up, he said: "This is my lord. This is greater." But when it set, he said: "O my people! I am indeed free from all that you join as partners in worship with Allâh.

1. The general interpretation of the above verses is that this was an act done by Prophet Abraham to lead others to Islam. He had travelled to a land where people worshipped celestial bodies, and through this play, he demonstrated to them that only Allah is worthy of worship. He did not actually believe that these objects were His lord, but he wad pretending in order to drive home a point to his people in a special way. As Ibn Kathir writes:

We should note here that, in these Ayat, Abraham, peace be upon him, was debating with his people, explaining to them the error of their way in worshipping idols and images....When he proved that these three objects were not gods, although they are the brightest objects the eyes can see, he said: "O my people! I am indeed free from all that you join as partners in worship with Allah.'' meaning, I am free from worshipping these objects and from taking them as protectors. Therefore, if they are indeed gods as you claim, then all of you bring your plot against me and do not give me respite.


2. Even if we suppose that Abraham was not pretending, this still would not prove the claim. This event occured before Abraham became a Prophet, and furthermore, there is no evidence that he was worshipping the celestial bodies, but only pondering on what is truly divine.

3. While we are on the subject, we shall comment on the Islamic view on Prophets. Prophets are human beings who are selected to recieve revelation from Allah and guide people to the straught path. They are the best of humanity, so that their followers may take them as role models. Nevertheless, they are human, and thus, they are sometimes subject to a temporary lapse in judgement or minor mistakes. But they are believed to be free of sins, or infallible, especially after recieving revelation from Allah.
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyah said in Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 4/319:

The view that the Prophets are infallible and protected against committing major sins, as opposed to minor mistakes, is the view of the majority of Muslim scholars and of all groups. It is also the view of the scholars of tafseer and hadeeth and fuqaha’. Indeed, nothing has been narrated from any of the salaf, imams, Sahaabah, Taabi’een and those who followed them except that which is in accordance with this view.

[*Proud_Muslimah*]

Is Everything Devoutly Obedient to Allah contradiction:

Is everything devoutly obedient to Allah? That is the claim in 30:26, but dozens of verses speak of the proud disobedience of Satan [7:11, 15:28-31, 17:61, 20:116, 38:71-74, 18:50] as well of many different human beings who reject His commands and His revelations.
Verse in question,

30:26 To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and the earth. All are subservient to Him.

(Yusuf Ali translates subservient as devoutly obedient.)

It is obvious that there are many creatures that disobey God, so there is no need to quote the other verses. We need only examine the first verse.


1. The explanation of the verse will become clearer if we first explain some fundamental principles in Islam concerning Allah’s Will (Iraadah). Shaykh Muhammad bin Saalih Al-Uthaymeen writes the following:

We believe that Allah’s Will (iraadah) is of two types:

1. Universal will (kawniyyah): So whatever occurs, happens only by His Will. It is not necessary that what occurs is actually liked by Allah. Thus, it is similar in meaning to volition (mashee’ah); as in Allah’s statement:

And if Allah had so wished, they would not have fought eachother, but Allah does whatever He wills. [Al-Baqarah 2:253]
If Allah Wills to leave you astray, He is your Lord. [Hood 11:34]

2. Legislated Will (shar’iyyah): It is not necessary that this Will should occur. This Will does not happen, except in what He loves and desires, such as in Allah the Exalted’s statement:

Allah desires to forgive you [An-Nisaa 4:27]

In light of the above explanation, we can say that the interpretation of verse 30:26 is that this verse is an indication of the inescable and universal submission of creation to the Creator. This verse refers to the obedience and submission of all creation to God’s Universal Will (kawniyyah). All creation is obedient to Allah’s kawniyyah whether voluntarily or involuntarily. Allah is the Supreme Authority and all things in the heavens and the earth act under His power. Shaykh Abdul Azeez ibn Baaz writes about the Universal Will of Allah:

As for this Will, then nothing fails to fall under it. Thus, both the Muslim and the kaafir fall under this Universal Will; as do acts of obedience and disobedience, provisions and life-spans. They all occur by the Will of Allah and what He determines.

Therefore, a disbeliever is always obedient to Allah’s Universal Will, even when He disobeys God’s commands. If God had so Willed, the disbeliever could have obeyd the commands. But Allah has made this life a test for us. Shaykh Abdul Azeez ibn Baaz also explains the Legislated Will (shar’iyyah):

This covers what the Lord loves and is pleased with. This Will does not necessarily mean that what He Will will occur, rather it may or may not occur. So, for instance, Allah the Exalted Wills that He should be worshipped and obeyed. Yet some worship and obey Him, whilst others do not. This should demonstrate that these two wills [kawniyyah and shar’iyyah] are combined together in (i.e. acted upon by) the obedient person, but in the sinner it is only the Universal Will, since Allah did not desire for Him to sin, rather He forbade him from it

Therefore, although all human beings are powerless to act against God’s universal will, they may or may not be obedient to God’s legislated will, since the latter is not enforced. Hence, the test in life is to follow and obey God’s legislated will. This becomes even more clear when we examine the classic tafsir (exegesis) like that of Ibn Kathir, who writes:

(To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and the earth.) means, He owns it and it is enslaved to Him.
(All are obedient to Him.) they are humble before Him and submit to Him, whether willingly or unwillingly.

The phrase, "whether willingly or unwillingly" should make it clear for the reader. This verse is not speaking of the voluntary submission that Allah asks us to give Him, nor the devotion of the heart. It simply points to the fact that Allah's supremacy indicates that all creation is bound by His Universal will, either willingly or unwillingly.
So the difference between this verse and those verses which condemn those who are disobedient to Allah, is that this verse speaks of the obedience and inescapable submission to His kawniyyah, while the other verses speak of the voluntary submission to His shar’iyyah. Everything occurs by God's permission.

For example, if one were to commit a sin, we would say they have disobeyed God. But we know that God allowed them to perform that sin, and He was testing them. Therefore, they were not able to defy God's power and universal will, although they did disobey His command, or legislated will. If God wanted to, He could have prevented them from committing the sin. But life is a test.

Does this mean that there is no such thing as disobedience? Of course not. This verse only points out the different forms of obedience i.e. obedience to His kawniyyah and obedience to His shar’iyyah. We may be disobeying His commands, but we will always be involuntarily acting by His leave or permission. This has always been the understanding of this verse, as Ibn Kathir wrote, "willingly or unwillingly". It was God's will that we have a choice in the first place. He gave us the ability to choose to serve Him, or to become enslaved to the evil of our desires and the whisperings of Satan. Allah gave us the choice, and He allows us to do what we choose. But those who choose good will be rewarded, while those who choose evil will be punished.
So why does God criticize the disobedient when they are actually obedient? The answer is that God criticizes them for their disobedience to His legislated will, which they are not binded by, or forced to follow. It is the universal will, to which they are forever subservient and obedient.

2. A second point to note is the literal understanding of the word used in this verse. The arabic word used is "Qanitoon", which implies subordinate and submissive to Him. Hence, the meaning of this verse that all of creation is subservient to Him,
As Qur'an commentator, Abul A`la Maududi writes on this verse:

What is meant is that it is Allah alone Who has created man, and provided for his sustenance and others of his needs, that there is no god but He, and that He alone is man's Master and the only authority rightfully deserving of his worship. Therefore, it would be fitly in accordance with this natural fact that man should believe, and behave, as only Allah's creature and servant and not anyone else's at all.

And from a linguistic analysis, Sheikh `Abd al-Wahhab al-Turayr writes:

The word being translated as 'devoutly obedient' is the word qnitn (from qunt) which means 'to be subservient, subjugated'. This can be contrasted with the word ti`n (from t`ah) which means to be willfully obedient.

There are two types of subservience (qunt). There is the general subservience of all created things to Allah, since all things are subject to His decision and His determination. Then there is the specific subservience that is worship, where the servant willfully makes himself subservient and submissive before his Lord. The general sense is being used in this verse. All creatures are subservient to Allah's decision. If He wills, He can make then perish. If He wills, he can sustain their existence.

Yusuf Ali's translation of qnitn as 'devoutly obedient' is inexact in this context.


Mishaal ibn Abdullah writes:

The word used in 30:26 is "Qanitoon," meaning subservient or "under the mercy of." This can be verified very easily by reading any number of references such as the 18 volume encyclopedia of Arabic language, "Lisan Al-Arab," Vol. 2, p. 73. The verse does not use the word "aabidoon" or "mo'minoon" meaning "worshipful, believing, or devout."

If we view this verse in this light, there is no contradiction. Again, the case of disobedience to God is irrelevant to the fact that all creation is subservient to Him, and under His command.

3. The third point to be mentioned in response to this allegation, is on the subject of the verse. The critics claim that this verse is contradictory to other verses, because the verse states that all of creation is "devoutly obedient", i.e. voluntarily, while this is not the case with Satan and the evil humans and jinn, etc. But if we examine the various translations of the verse, we find that the majority do not translate it as "devoutly obedient", including Pickthall, Shakir, Daryabadi, Khan/Hilali, etc. Abdullah Yusuf Ali is the one who chooses this translation, therefore, it would seem logical that we examine his commentary on this verse.
Yusuf Ali writes the following in reference to verse 30:26:

35:32. All nature in creation not only obeys God, but devoutly obeys Him, i.e. glories in its privelage of service and obedience. Why should we not do likewise? It is part of our original unspoilt nature, and we must respond to it, as all beings do, by their very nature.

This comment on this verse makes the issue very clear. If we are to accept Yusuf Ali's translation, we must evaluate his interpretation of this verse as a whole. And his interpretation is that this is not a reference to creatures with a choice, but to the rest of creation. This is the suppressed meaning of the phrase used in the verse. His statement, "Why do we not do likewise" makes it manifestly clear that his interpretation excludes certain beings from the meaning of this verse. It is very common for the addressee of a statement to be excluded from its meaning.

For example, if two friends enter a room filled with people, one of the friends may comment to the other that the people in the room are very rowdy. And his companion would understand that this is a reference to everyone in the room, excluding themselves.

Another example is if a group of fire-fighters charge into a burning building and one calls out, "Everyone get out of the the building". We would not expect his fellow fire-fighters to exit the building, because it is understood that they are not included in the phrase, even though "everyone" would normally include them.

As these examples demonstrate, this interpretation of the verse is that certain groups are naturally excluded from the statement. If one chooses Yusuf Ali's translation of "devoutly obedient", they must accept the interpretation in its entirety. It is not acceptable to combine pieces of different interpretations in order to generate a contradiction.

[*Proud_Muslimah*]

The Sequence of Events in the Children of Israel Worshipping the Calf contradiction:

The event of worship of the golden calf: The Israelites repented about worshipping the golden calf BEFORE Moses returned from the mountain [7:149], yet they refused to repent but rather continued to worship the calf until Moses came back [20:91]
Verses in question:

7:149 When they repented, and saw that they had erred, they said: "If our Lord have not mercy upon us and forgive us, we shall indeed be of those who perish."

The context of this verse is as follows:

7:148-150. In his absence the people of Moses made a calf from their ornaments -- an image with a hollow sound. Did they not see that it could neither speak to them nor give them guidance? Yet they worshipped it and thus committed [a great] evil. When they repented, and saw that they had erred, they said: "If our Lord have not mercy upon us and forgive us, we shall indeed be of those who perish." And when Moses returned to his people, angry and sorrowful, he said: 'Evil is the thing you did in my absence! Would you hasten the retribution of your Lord? He threw down the Tablets and, seizing his brother by the hair, dragged him closer. 'Son of my mother,' cried Aaron, 'the people overpowered me and almost killed me. Do not let my enemies gloat over me; do not consider me among the wrongdoers'.

The next verse in question is:

20:91. They had said: "We will not stop worshipping it (i.e. the calf), until Mûsa (Moses) returns to us."


Neither of these verses give a chronological sequence for the events, hence there is no contradiction.

1. Verse 20:91 states that at one point during their worship of the calf, some or all of them announced that they intended to persist in this act until the return of Prophet Moses. This does not mean that they did persist in the act, they only intended to at one point in time. Moreover, some may have persisted while some may have repented.

2. Verse 7:149 also does not necessarily imply whether they repented before or after Prophet Moses's return, nor does it imply whether it was the whole group repenting or just a portion of the group. Many conclude that this verse implies that they repented before the return of Prophet Moses simply because the next verse mentions the return of Prophet Moses. All we can conclude from the verses is that at some point in time some of them repented, and at some point in time, Moses returned and was angry. There are a number of possibilites left to the reader. They may have all repented before Moses arrived. They may have all repented after Moses arrived. Some may have repented before, while some may have persisted until Moses arrived. The Qur'an gives no clear chronological sequence, which leads us to our next point.

3. The Qur'an is not clear on the chronological sequence because it has no reason to be. This is not what Allah wants us to ponder over. Rather, we should ponder over the lesson and moral behind the story. As Allah says about the number of sleepers in the story of the sleepers of the cave:

18:22 (Some) say they were three, the dog being the fourth among them; (others) say they were five, the dog being the sixth, guessing at the unseen; (yet others) say they were seven, the dog being the eighth. Say: "My Lord knows best their number; none knows them but a few." So debate not (about their number, etc.) except with the clear proof (which We have revealed to you). And consult not any of them about (the affair of) the people of the Cave.

Allah has purposely not given us these minor details because they are of no benefit to us. We should instead contemplate the message of the Qur'an.

4. Verse 7:149 has been interpreted in different ways as well. For example, Muhammad Asad renders the verse as follows:

4:179 although [later,] when they would smite their hands in remorse,"' having perceived that they had gone astray, they would say, "Indeed, unless our Sustainer have mercy on us and grant us forgiveness, we shall most certainly be among the lost!""'

This interpretation would indicate that this verse foresees a future event- that they would repent when prophet Moses would arrive. And commenting on the phrase in this verse, Walamma suqita fee aydeehim, Muhammad Asad writes:

Lit., "when it was made to fall upon their hands"-an idiomatic phrase denoting intense remorse, probably derived from the striking ("falling") of hand upon hand as an expression of grief or regret.

Ibn Kathir also implies the same message in his book Stories of the Prophets:

This animal was unable even to seak or answer them. It could not benefit them nor harm them, nor did it have any sign of life in itself. Then how could it be a god?

"And when they repented, and saw that they had gone astray, they said: 'If our Lord does not have mercy on us, and does not forgive us, we shall be among the losers.'" (7:149)

When Moses returned to his people, and saw their worship of the calf, he threw down the Tablets that contained the teachings of the Torah.

The underlined phrase seems to imply that he arrived when they were still persisting in the sin. his comment has been included with the context to demonstrate that he made the comment right after verse 7:149, but did not see any conflict between them.

[*Proud_Muslimah*]

The Guilt of Aaron in the Children of Israel Worshipping the Calf contradiction:

Concerning the worshippers of the Calf, does Aaron share in their guilt? No [20:85-90], yes [20:92, 7:151].
Verses in question:

20:85-90 (Allah) said: "Verily! We have tried your people in your absence, and As-Samiri has led them astray."
Then Moses returned to his people in a state of anger and sorrow. He said: "O my people! Did not your Lord promise you a fair promise? Did then the promise seem to you long in coming? Or did you desire that wrath should descend from your Lord on you, so you broke your promise to me (i.e disbelieving in Allah and worshipping the calf)?"
They said: "We broke not the promise to you, of our own will, but we were made to carry the weight of the ornaments of the [Pharaoh's] people, then we cast them (into the fire), and that was what As-Samiri suggested."
Then he took out (of the fire) for them a statue of a calf which seemed to low. They said: "This is your god, and the god of Moses, but (Moses) has forgotten (his god).'"
Did they not see that it could not return them a word (for answer), and that it had no power either to harm them or to do them good?
And Aaron indeed had said to them beforehand: "O my people! You are being tried in this, and verily, your Lord is (Allah) the Most Beneficent, so follow me and obey my order."

20:92 He [Moses] said: O Aaron, what hindered you from stopping them when you saw them going astray?

7:150-151 And when Moses returned to his people, angry and sorrowful, he said: 'Evil is the thing you did in my absence! Would you hasten the retribution of your Lord? He threw down the Tablets and, seizing his brother by the hair, dragged him closer. 'Son of my mother,' cried Aaron, 'the people overpowered me and almost killed me. Do not let my enemies gloat over me; do not consider me among the wrongdoers'. 'Lord,' said Moses, 'forgive me and my brother. Admit us to Your mercy, for, of all those that show mercy, You are the most merciful.'



1. Quite clearly, none of the verses of the Qur'an imply anything close to Aaron's guilt in the matter. Prophet Moses pbuh left Aaron in charge of his people when he went to recieve the revelation from Allah. Verse 20:90 indicates that Aaron struggled against the sin of his people and persisted in calling them back to the truth. As Abdul Majid Daryabadi comments on this verse:

This more than vindicates Aaron's unflinching monotheism against the aspersions of the Bible.

So the Qur'an clearly differs from the Bible in this regard, as the Bible states that Aaron was an accomplice in the crime, while the Qur'an maintains his constant opposition to evil, throughout this trial.

2. Verses 20:92 and 7:150-151 state that Prophet Moses pbuh was upset upon his return and was angry with Aaron for not preventing his people from worshipping the calf. We know that Aaron tried to stop them and called out to them, but they persisted in their sin and threatened to kill him. At no point does the Qur'an say that he joined them in their sin. Commenting on verse 7:150, Ibn Kathir writes:

(..and seized his brother by (the hair of) his head and dragged him towards him.) for Moses feared that Aaron might not have tried hard enough to forbid them from their evil action.

Therefore, Prophet Moses pbuh was angry with Prophet Aaron pbuh because he feared he did not try hard enough to prevent the sin. But, Aaron never committed the sin himself. As Moiz Amjad writes:

The words: "what hindered you from stopping them when you saw them going astray?" can by no means be taken to imply that Moses (pbuh) thought Aaron (pbuh) to be an accomplice in the crime of the calf worshippers. At the most they can be taken to signify Moses' (pbuh) anger at Aaron (pbuh) for not stopping the Israelites from committing the heinous crime. The same is the case of Al-A`raaf 7: 150.


3. Verse 7:151 shows Prophet Moses making a prayer of forgiveness for himself and Prophet Aaron. It is claimed that this is an indication that Aaron was part of the crime. If that was the case, why has Moses included himself in the prayer of forgiveness? Evidently, Moses is asking forgiveness for himself and Aaron because they did not prevent their people from sinning. The prayer of forgiveness does NOT mean that they were involved in the sin, themselves.

4. On the issue of who made the calf, it is claimed that the Qur'anic accounts are contradictory. The Qur'an states:

7:148 And the people of Moses made in his absence, out of their ornaments, the image of a calf (for worship). It had a sound (as if it was mooing). Did they not see that it could neither speak to them nor guide them to the way? They took it for worship and they were wrong-doers.

This verse indicates that the people of Moses made the calf in his absence, out of their ornaments or jewellery.

20:87-88. They said: "We broke not the promise to you, of our own will, but we were made to carry the weight of the ornaments of the [Pharaoh's] people, then we cast them (into the fire), and that was what As-Samiri suggested."
Then he took out (of the fire) for them a statue of a calf which seemed to low. They said: "This is your god, and the god of Moses, but (Moses) has forgotten (his god).'"

This verse does not contradict the former verse in any way. It clearly states that the Israelites participated in the making of the calf, when they threw the ornaments into the fire. Then As-Samiri shaped it for them. There are different interpretations on who As-Samiri was.


Muhammad Ibn Ishaq reported from Ibn Abbas that he said, "As-Samiri was a man from the people of Bajarma, a people who worshipped cows. He still had the love of cow worshipping in his soul. However, he acted as though he had accepted Islam with the Children of Israel. His name was Musa bin Zafar. (Tarikh At-Tabari 1:424)

Qatadah said, "He was from the village of Samarra. (At-Tabari 18:363)

A man from the among the Israelites, whose name was Aaron Samiri, came forth and took all the jewellery which had been borrowed from the Egyptians, and moulded it into a calf after he had melted them. (Stories of the Prophets:Israelites and the worshipping of the calf, Ibn Kathir)


According to Ibn Kathir's interpretation, As-Samiri was an Israelite himself, and made the calf with the help of his fellow Israelites. Either way, there is no contradiction between this verse and the above.

20:85 (Allah) said: "Verily! We have tried/tested your people in your absence, and As-Samiri has led them astray.

It is claimed that this verse suggests that it was Allah who made the calf, which contradicts the previous verses.
As we have mentioned in previous articles, Allah may test us in different ways. Allah tested the Children of Israel through the tricks of As-Samiri. Everything happens by the permission of Allah.
Some scholars also believed that the calf made by the Israelites made an actual sound, and moved, i.e. it became alive. If that is the case, then Allah made it come to life as a test for the children of Israel, and there is still no contradiction. But the majority of scholars believe that it did not come to life.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

You're doing great with some rapid cutting and pasting, wish you would take some time and boil it down to the essentials however.

But let me ask a couple of basic questions (requiring original thought, not cutting and pasting).

If God is Just, how can God be merciful? To apply mercy means to abbrogate justice.

If God created everything, If God knew everything in advance, if he controls all and knows all - why did God create beings he knew in advance would defy him? Why did he create beings he knew in advance, prior to their creation, that he would caste into eternal damnation? If God is just, how can a pre-ordained outcome of eternal damnation be reconciled with a just and merciful God?

Again, the position that it is all a test is illegitmate. Let me explain why. First of all, the results are pre-ordained. As I mentioned above, God is creating beings he knows in advance will fail the test. Rather pointless wouldn't you say - not to mention vicious and cruel.

Secondly, the test standards aren't universal. If the test is so important, if it is so important that man adhere to God's will, then why did he not distribute AND PROTECT his message evenly?

Thirdly, if it is a question of obedience in order to pass the test, why does he not insure there is no doubt to his very existence, let alone the discussion of which path is the legitimate one? Why create a situation of doubt and conflict (which obviously exists when you see how many different religions, philosophies and points of view there are) as a foundation for the test?

[*Proud_Muslimah*]

Was Jonah Cast on the Desert Shore contradiction:

Was Jonah cast on the desert shore or was he not? "Then We cast him on a desert shore while he was sick" [37:145] "Had not Grace from his Lord reached him, he would indeed have been cast off on the naked shore while he was reprobate." [68:49]

Verses in question:

37:145 But We cast him forth on the naked shore while he was sick

68:49 Had not a Grace from his Lord reached him, he would indeed have been cast off on the naked shore, while he was to be blamed/disgraced.

1. It is very clear from the ahadith and the tafsir, that Prophet Jonah (Yunus) was saved by Allah, and released from the belly of the whale, upon the shore. Verse 68:49 is not disputing this fact at all. In reality, when one examines the verse more carefully, it becomes evident that the claim of verse 68:49 is that had Allah not been merciful and forgiven Jonah, he would have been blamed and disgraced for his mistake. This interpretation has been emphasized very clearly in several commentaries on this verse. Muhammad Asad writes:

"[And remember:] had not grace from his Sustainer reached him, he would indeed have been cast forth upon that barren shore in a state of disgrace" Lit., "while he was still blameworthy", i.e., burdened with sin and unredeemed by repentance: implying that but for God's grace he would have died as a sinner.

Sheikh `Abd al-Wahhab al-Turayri comments on the verse by saying:

The pertinent phrase at the end of the verse is wa huwa madhmum. It means 'while in a state of disgrace' or 'while in a state of sinfulness'.
The verse mentions the state that Jonah (peace be upon him) would have been in when he was cast off had it not been for the mercy off Allah. The verse is not saying that he was not cast off at all, but that he was not in disgrace when he was cast off.
Indeed, Allah says immediately thereafter: Thus did his Lord choose him and make him of the Company of the Righteous. [Surah al-Qalam: 50]


The same interpretation is emphasized by Al-Qurtubi in Al-Jaami` le Ahkaam al-Qur'an:

(he would indeed have been thrown on the upon the barren shore, disgraced), that is to say that if he had not been blessed by his Lords favor he would then have been thrown in disgrace, however, he was thrown in a state of illness, not in a state of disgrace.

Ar-Raazi writes the same thing, in his Tafsir Al-kabir:

Had it not been for this [mentioned] favor [of his Lord], he would have been thrown on the naked shore with the attribute of disgrace. However, due to this favor [of his Lord], though the "throwing on the barren shore" was still there, yet it was without the attribute of disgrace. Thus, when the attribute of disgrace was not there, then he [Jonah] was not thrown on the barren shore in disgrace.

Ibn al-Jawzî writes in his commentary on the Qur'an [Zâd al-Masîr (8/369)]:

The meaning of the verse is that he was cast off without being in a state of disgrace, and this was on account of Allah’s grace on him due to his repentance and Allah’s mercy.


A more detailed list of quotes on this subject, is found in this article.

2. Ibn al-Jawzî then goes on to explain that Ibn Jurayj had an entirely different interpretation for the verse. Ibn Jurayj interpreted “al-`urâ’” (the naked shore) in this verse to mean the place of gathering on the Day of Resurrection. Therefore, he saw the verse as negating Jonah’s being cast forth from the whale on the Day of Resurrection. Ibn Jurayj, consequently, understood the verse to mean that had it not been for the grace of Allah, Jonah (peace be upon him) would have remained in the whale until the Day of Resurrection and then been cast off in a blameworthy state.

The interpretation of Ibn Jurayj is not an attempt to avoid any supposed contradiction between this verse and verse 145 of Surah al-Saaffat (chapter 37). Rather, it is derived from verses 143-144 of Surah al-Saaffat:

37:143-144. And had he not been one of those who glorify (Allah), He would have tarried in its belly till the day when they are raised.

Al-Qurtubî makes this clear, saying:

It has been claimed that the meaning is: Had it not been for the grace of Allah, He would have remained in the belly of the whale until the Day of Resurrection and then been cast off on the plain of the Resurrection in disgrace. This is derived from Allah’s words ‘And had he not been one of those who glorify (Allah), He would have tarried in its belly till the day when they are raised’. [Tafsîr al-Qurtubî]


Al-Alûsî [Rûh al-Ma`ânî (29/34)] also points this out and then astutely observes:

The far-fetched nature of this interpretation cannot go unnoticed.


Sheikh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî comments on the interpretations:

The opinion of the majority of commentators – and not that of Ibn Jurayj – is the most likely one and the one that is apparent from the Arabic language.


The opinion of the majority of commentators being referred to here, is that which was explained in the first portion of this article.

3. Another point to note is that of the arabic language. The verb being used in verse 68:49 and 37:145 for "cast off" is actually being used in two different implications. In verse 37:145, it implies the initiation of an action, while in verse 68:49, it implies the continuation of an action.

Moiz Amjad provides the following explanation:

Verbs in the classical Arabic language were used in varying shades of their meanings. Sometimes the verb may be used to imply only the beginning or the initiation of the action (relating to that verb), sometimes it may be used to imply the completion of the action (in that verb) and sometimes, it maybe used to imply the continuity or the perpetuation of the action (in that verb)...
If the above explanation is fully understood, it would then not be difficult to understand that the verb "nabadha" in the two referred verses is actually used in two slightly different implications. In the first verse (Al-Saaffaat 37: 145), the verb implies the initiation or the beginning of the action in that verb, while in the second verse (Al-Qalam 68: 49), it implies the continuity or the perpetuation or the permanence of the action. Thus, keeping this explanation in mind, the the second verse should actually have been translated in a slightly different manner. In my opinion, a more accurate translation of the second verse would be:

Had it not been for the favor of his Lord upon him, he would indeed have been left thrown away upon the barren shore, disgraced.

N. J. Dawood, who seems to be well aware of this usage of the verbs in the classical Arabic language, has translated Al-Saaffaat 37: 145 in the following words:

We threw him, gravely ill, upon a desolate shore.

and then has very accurately translated Al-Qalam 68: 49 as:

Had his Lord not bestowed on him His grace, he would have been abandoned in the open to be blamed by all.

This, in my opinion, is the correct translation of Al-Qalam 68: 49.


From the above explanation, we understand that the distinction between 68:49 and 37:145 is that the former states that he did not remain abandoned upon the desert, while the latter sates that he was cast on the desrt and recovered from his poor condition.

[*Proud_Muslimah*]

The Reference to the Injeel and the time of Moses contradiction:

Moses and the Injil? Jesus is born more than 1,000 years after Moses, but in 7:157 Allah speaks to Moses about what is written in the Injil [the book given to Jesus].
The verses in question:

7:155-158
And Moses chose seventy of his people for Our place of meeting: when they were seized with violent quaking, he prayed: "O my Lord! if it had been Thy will Thou couldst have destroyed, long before, both them and me: wouldst Thou destroy us for the deeds of the foolish ones among us? this is no more than Thy trial: by it Thou causest whom Thou wilt to stray, and Thou leadest whom Thou wilt into the right path. Thou art our Protector: so forgive us and give us Thy mercy; for Thou art the best of those who forgive.

156. "And ordain for us that which is good, in this life and in the Hereafter: for we have turned unto Thee." He said: "With My punishment I visit whom I will; but My mercy extendeth to all things. That (mercy) I shall ordain for those who do right, and practise regular charity, and those who believe in Our signs"

[It is they] who are [now] following the messenger - the Unlettered Prophet - whom they find mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel. He enjoins righteousness upon them and forbids them from evil. He makes clean things lawful to them and prohibits all that is foul. He relieves them of their burdens and of the shackles that had weighed upon them. Thus, those who have believed in him and have honored him and have aided him and have followed the light sent down with him, are the ones that shall indeed triumph.

Say [to them O Prophet,]: O people! I am God's messenger to you all. [The God] Who has sovereignty over the kingdom of the heavens and the earth. There is no god but Him. He ordains life and causes death. Therefore have faith in God and His messenger, the Unlettered Prophet, who believes in God and His commandments. Follow him so that you may be rightly guided.

1. The first point to note, is that this verse does not necessarily have to be part of Allah's dialogue with prophet Moses pbuh. It remains perfectly logical for verse 7:157 to be presented seperately from the two previous verses, or in relation to verse 7:158. For example, M. Farooq-i-Azam Malik renders verse 7:157 with the following interpretation:

(Now special mercy is assigned to) those who follow the Rasool, the unlettered Prophet (Muhammad)....

Hence, it is a seperate reference from Allah's speech to Prophet Moses. This interpretation is supported by the use of past tenses in the verse.

2. Even if this is interpreted as part of the dialogue with Prophet Moses pbuh, it can still be considered a prophecy of future times. As Abdullah Yusuf Ali writes:

In this verse is a pre-figuring, to Moses, of the Arabian Apostle, the last and greatest of the apostles of God. Prophecies about him will be found in the Taurat and the Injeel.

These translators also use the translation of "whom they will find" or "whom they shall find", indicating it is a future prophecy.

[*Proud_Muslimah*]

Concerning Forgiveness for Slander of Chaste Women contradiction:

Can slander of chaste women be forgiven? Yes [24:5], No [24:23].
Verses in question:

24:4-5. And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors;-Unless they repent thereafter and mend (their conduct); for Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful.

24:23 Those who slander chaste women, indiscreet but believing, are cursed in this life and in the Hereafter: for them is a grievous Penalty.

The offence being referred to here is called Al-Qadhf, in Islamic law. It is defined simply as an unproven allegation that another individual has committed adultery or fornication. The response to this alleged contradiction is as follows:

1. The first point to note is that forgiveness is offered for any sin from which a person sincerely repents. As Allah SWT says in the Qur'an:

39:53 Say: "O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah. for Allah forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

This is a point that has been unanimously agreed upon by the scholars of Islam. Allah is mercfiul and loves to forgive, hence Allah will forgive any sin, major or minor, so long as the believer turns to Allah with sincere repentance. In Islam, sincere repentance entails the following conditions:
a) The sinner refrains from the sin
b) the sinner must feel remorse for having committed the sin
c) The sinner vows never to return to that sin, fearing Allah's punishment
In the case of sins which involve other parties, the scholars have outlined another condition. As Shaykh Abdul Aziz Ibn Baz (d.1999), the late Grand Mufti Saudi Arabia, states:

If your sin involves a right of a human being, then we must add a fourth condition: you must return to them their rights, whether it is wealth or something else; otherwise, you must seek their pardon. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said, "Whoever has wronged his brother regarding his honor or something else, let him seek his pardon today..." (Bukhari #2449) (Fatawa Islamiyah, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2002, vol. 7, p.254)

Therefore, forgiveness is granted to one who commits Al-Qadhf, so long as he or she sincerely repents to Allah, which includes obtaining the forgiveness of the one against whom the allegation was made. If these conditions are met, there is no doubt that Allah will forgive such a person.

2. The point of confusion seems to arise from verse 24:23 because it mentions that those who commit Al-Qadhf are cursed (arabic: Al-Lanah) in this life and in the hereafter. However, the meaning of Allah's curse is not that such people will never be forgiven. A similar verse in the Qur'an also uses the same phrase:

33:57 Those who affront Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment.

Explaining the meaning of the curse, Muhammad Asad writes in his commentary:

In classical Arabic, the term lanah is more or less synonymous with ibad (“removal into distance” or “banishment”); hence. God’s lanah denotes “His rejection of a sinner from all that is good” (Lisan al-Arab) or “exclusion from His grace” (Manar II, 50). (Asad, Message of the Qur'an, The Book Foundation 2003)

Shaykh Muhammad bin Saalih Al-Uthaymeen gives a similar explanation in response to a questioner:

[The Questioner] asked whether he was cursed by Allah during the time he committed the acts of disobedience. We say that Allah's curse could have taken place while one is committing the act of disobedience or the warranted punishment could be delayed in accordance with what Allah's will decreed for him and His wisdom. But we do know that if Allah Almighty accepts his repentance, that the curse is non-existent. This is because Allah;s curse means banishment and exclusion from His mercy, and whoever repents in within Allah's mercy. (Fatawa Islamiyah, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2002, vol. 7, pp.237-238)

Therefore, there is no contradiction at all. On one hand, we have a verse that mentions sincere repentance as a means for forgiveness of Al-Qadhf, while on the other hand, we have a verse which states that those who commit Al-Qadhf are excluded from Allah's mercy if they do not repent. As Shaykh Muhammad Iqbal An-Nadvi, former Asst. Professor at the King Saud University in Riyadh, mentions:

The curse of Allah mentioned is a conditional curse, which only applies to those who do not repent. The curse is not on the one who repents with sincere repentance.

In his translation of verse 24:23, Muhammad Asad adds the phrase "without repentance" in parenthesis and provides the following comment:

According to Razi, the absence of repentance is incontrovertibly implied in the condemnation expressed in the sequence, since the Quran makes it clear in many places that God always accepts a sinner’s sincere repentance. (Asad, Message of the Qur'an, The Book Foundation 2003)

Moiz Amjad provides a similar explanation:

Keeping the above explanation in perspective, it should be clear that even though Al--Noor 24: 23 has not mentioned the exception clause, yet it is clear that even there the punishment mentioned is for such slanderers who do not repent on their past doings and do not correct their behavior. The verse, should more accurately be understood as follows:

Those who slander against chaste, innocent, believing women [and then neither repent for their slander nor correct their behavior], shall indeed be cursed in this world as well as the hereafter. For them shall be a grievous punishment. (SOURCE

Therefore, verse 24:23 is understood to refer to those sinners who commit Al-Qadhf and do not repent from it. It is not mentioned in the verse since it is already mentioned throughout the Qur'an, including the same Surah.

3. Before completing this discussion, it is also important to mention the position of repentance in Islamic law. The scholars have agreed that if someone commits a sin, it is better for them to repent before it is brought into the legal system, so that they may avoid the punishment. As Shaykh Muhammad Iqbal An-Nadvi mentions:

With regards to the sinner who repents, they may be pardoned if their repentance occurs before the case enters the legal procdure. After that, it must be dealt with according to the legal system.

Likewise, Shaykh Muhammad bin Saalih Al-Munajjid, a prominent Islamic scholar and author in Saudi Arabia, writes:

The offenses which the sultan (Muslim ruler) hears of are the ones for which the hudood punishments must be carried out. As for those of which he does not hear, then it is better to repent from them and to conceal oneself with the concealment of Allaah. (SOURCE)

The reason behind this ruling is obvious. When a case is submitted to the legal system, it is no longer private. Once it becomes public, it becomes a societal issue, and the danger of the sin spreading is greater if it is not dealt with. Therefore, anyone judged under the Islamic legal system can no longer be pardoned since their sin has become public. Once they are punished for their sin, the scholars are agreed that the sinner has been expiated for the sin, and thus purified. The punishment in this life will remove their punishment that they would have experienced in the next life.
If the sinner repents during the procedure, or once the punishment is applied to him, then the repentance removes their status of being "wicked transgressors" and they are accepted into society, once again. The majority of scholars agree that such a person may have their record cleaned, and regain their right to act as a witness. However, Imaam Abu Hanifa differed on this issue as Shaykh Muhammad S. Al-Awa, a former Assoc. Professor of Law at the University of Riyadh, notes:

According to the Hanafi school, this repentance does not affect the fact that the criminal's future testimony is to be rejected. (fn. Sarakhshi, Mabsut, vol. XVI, pp. 125-129). The Shafi'i, Maliki, Hanbali, and Zaydi schools hold a contrary view, according to which the testimony of the criminal can be accepted after his repentance. (fn. Shirbini's commentary on Nawawi's Minhaj al-Talibin, vol. IV, p.403 ff.; Mawwaq, commentary on Mukhtasar Khalil, vol. VI, p. 161; Mughni, vol. X, pp. 178-181; Al-Rawad al-Nadir, vol. IV, pp. 85-87.) (El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law; US American Trust Publications, 1993, p. 23)


4. Some Muslims also explain the alleged contradiction by stating that the verses refer to different cases of Al-Qadhf. As Misha'al bin Abdullah writes:

The general guideline is that Allah, who excels in mercy and forgiveness, does forgive all sins with repentance, as a general rule... Even this tremendous sin [of Al-Qadhf] can be forgiven if the person sincerely repents and turns to God in penitence before death. This is the general rule. However, there is an exception to this rule and this is found in the second set of verses a little further down this same chapter.
In the second set of verses we are dealing with a completely different context and situation. This set of verses was revealed regarding a group of hypocrites lead by Abdullah ibn Ubai ibn Salool who tried to frame Aisha the wife of the prophet (pbut) and cast doubt on her integrity and chastity by alleging infidelity with a Muslim by the name of Safwan ibn Al-Muattal...This was a time of severe discord and tribulation and was not resolved until God revealed their innocence in this set of verses. The difference is that in this case the sin shall not be forgiven since it was directed at the prophet's wife in an attempt to destroy both their reputations. (SOURCE)

And Shahid bin Waheed uses a similar explanation:

I would like to state that the verse 24:4 (which the claimant did not mention) is setting a general rule about false accusation against a chaste woman and its punishment, whereas verse 24:23 is about the exceptional rule for believing women, i.e. Muslim women. Verse 24:5 is about repentance and forgiveness. (SOURCE)

And Shaahin Amiri-Sharifi states:

verse 24:5 is about "women" in general, even unbelievers but 24:23 talks about "believing women". (SOURCE)

However, the agreed upon opinion is that which was already explained under points #1, #2, #3. That is the explanation which is in accordance with Islamic law.

[*Proud_Muslimah*]

Concerning How the Disbelievers will recieve their record on Judgement Day contradiction:

How do we receive the record on Judgment Day? On Judgement day the lost people are given the Record (of their bad deeds): Behind their back [84:10], or in their left hand [69:25].

Verses in question:

69:25-31 And he that will be given his Record in his left hand, will say: "Ah! Would that my Record had not been given to me! And that I had never realised how my account (stood)! Ah! Would that (Death) had made an end of me! Of no profit to me has been my wealth! My power has perished from me!"...
(The stern command will say): "Seize ye him, and bind ye him, And burn ye him in the Blazing Fire."

84:10-12 But he who is given his Record behind his back Soon will he cry for perdition, And he will enter a Blazing Fire.

1. It is strange how such verses can be considered contradictory at all! Is it not possible for someone to receive their record in both their left hand and behind their back at the same time? Indeed, this is what all the scholars of Tafsir have mentioned about these verses. Imaam Ibn Kathir Ad-Damishqi (d. 1372CE) explains in his renowned Tafsir Al-Qur'an Al-Azim:

(But whosoever is given his Record behind his back,) meaning, he will be given his Book in his left hand, behind his back, while his hand is bent behind him. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2000, vol. 10, p.417 )

Similarly, Abul 'Ala Maududi (d.1979CE) writes about verse 84:10 in his prominent Tafheem Al-Qur'an:

In Surah Al-Haaqqah (v.25), it was said that his conduct-book will be given to him in his left hand, but here it is "behind his back". This will probably be for the reason that in order to avoid the humiliation of recieving the conduct-book in the left hand, in front of mankind, he will withdraw his hand behind and so recieve the conduct book "behind his back". (Maududi, The Holy Qur'an Translation and Brief Notes with Text, Islamic Publications (Pvt.) Ltd., 1991, p. 1018)

Syed Qutb (d. 1966CE), a revolutionary Muslim writer, gives the same explanation as well in his commentary, Fi Dhilalil Qur'an:

The Qur'an usually makes a distinction between receiving the book with one's right hand or left hand. Here we have a new image: the book is given from behind the back. There is no reason to prevent the combination of anyone being given the book in his left hand and from behind his back at the same time. It is an image of one who feels great shame and hates to be confronted with what he has done. We have no real knowledge of the nature of this book or how it is given in one's right or left hand or behind one's back. But we comprehend from the first expression the reality of escape, and from the second the reality of doom. (SOURCE)

The above commentary should make it obvious that this allegation does not even approach a contradiction.

2. Even for the sake of argument, we assume that it is contradictory to recieve something in one's left hand and behind the back, there are still other explanations. Why must both verses be referring to the same group? it is entirely possible that they are not referring to the same group of "doomed people". Also, one may give a metaphorical explanation as Muhammad Asad states:

But as for him whose record shall be given to him behind his back;*
* At first glance, this seems to contrast with 69:25, where it is stated that the record of the unrighteous "shall be placed in his left hand". In reality, however; the present formulation alludes to the sinner's horror at his record, and his wish that he had never been shown it (69:25-26): in other words, his not wanting to see it is symbolized by its appearance "behind his back". (Asad, Message of the ur'an, The Book Foundation 2003)

IIndeed, this is plausible for human beings do not even know the nature of these records they will be given on the day of judgement. Will they be physical codices or scrolls? Or will they be in a different form, foreign to the human mind? If it is the latter, then we do not know what it means to "receive" such a record in one's hands because we do not know how one would hold it.

Insh'Allah (God willing), I will post up the external contradictions tomorrow I seriously hope you take the time to read my posts!

For now, I'm off to pray and head to bed Insh'Allah (God Willing)

Peace Mad Mac

[*Proud_Muslimah*]

Oh, one more thing Insh'Allah

Throughout the history of humanity, we see a continued pattern. Our Lord and Creator created us out of love, and placed us on this planet as His Viceroy, to enjoin what is good and to forbidwhat is evil. We maintain our loving connection with God through sincere worship to Him. Humanity is being tested through this life on earth. Those of us who believe in God and do righteous deeds will be rewarded in the next life. But those who persist in evil, even after recieving warnings, will be punished in the next life.

Man has continually deviated from the true path of righteousness, to become enslaved by his personal desires. Thus, God appoints Prophets and Messengers among humanity, who recieve divine revelation, to call people back to the path of truth, the path of loving submission to Our Creator. God's Messengers recieved the word of God, His message and commandments for humanity.

Muslims believe all of God's Messenger preached the same message of Islam (submission to the One God). This includes Prophet Adam, Prophet Noah, Prophet Abraham, Prophet Moses, Prophet Jesus, and God's final messenger Prophet Muhammad, may the peace and blessings of God be upon them all.

The Qur'an is God's last revelation to humanity, revealed to Prophet Muhammad pbuh, and is the spoken words of God, which He has vowed to preserve throughout time. All previous messages including the Torah and the Injeel were only intended for their respective nations and served as test for their respective nation to preseve the message. Unfortunately, this test was not succesfully completed and the previous messages have become corrupted, tampered and mixed with the work of human beings. This is why God has sent the Qur'an to confirm the truth, but reject all deviation that has crept in. It is a criterion. The test of the Qur'an is not its preservation, but in spreading the message to all nations.

Much has been said about the Qur'an, and both Muslims and Non-Muslims have praised it for its perfection and beauty. One may read about what has been said about the Qur'an, here.

The question arises, how can one be assured that a book is from God?

There are a number of reasons and much evidence which proves that the Qur'an is the word of God. These have been explored in many books, and on many websites, including here and here. For the purpose of this article, we will examine one of those reasons - consistency.

We must remember that the Qur'an was revealed to Prophet Muhammad pbuh over a period of 23 years. During that time, he passed through widely diverse periods of struggle and peace. It is inconceivable that any human being would be able to remain consistent in their teachings and thoughts during this period of time. All human beings go through development and evolution in their thoughts and works. It is natural to obsevre such changes, and we would expect to see even greater changes in the teachings of a man through periods of persecution, peace, migration, success, suffering, unity, support, opposition, etc.

Yet the Qur'an is free of all such human defficiencies and inconsistencies. And the only reason is because it is a revelation from Our Creator, Most Merciful.

20:4 A revelation from Him Who created the earth and the heavens on high.

69:41-43 It is not the word of a poet: little it is ye believe! Nor is it the word of a soothsayer: little admonition it is ye receive. (This is) a Message sent down from the Lord of the Worlds.

The Qur'an, itself, provides us with this criteria to use in evalutating its claim of divine origin:

4:82 Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy/inconsistency.

This criteria is acknowledged in previous revelations as well.

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace...."

God is perfect, and therefore we should expect inerrancy and perfection in His words. This article will demonstrate, God willingly, that the Qur'an is free of such inconsistencies and human deficiencies, and therefore can only be the word of God, Glorified and Exalted.

Often, we will see that there are multiple interpretations and explanations of certain verses. Consequently, we shall frequently present more than one explanation, each being sufficient to refute the allegation on its own.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

If God is Just, how can God be merciful? To apply mercy means to abbrogate justice.

If God created everything, If God knew everything in advance, if he controls all and knows all - why did God create beings he knew in advance would defy him? Why did he create beings he knew in advance, prior to their creation, that he would caste into eternal damnation? If God is just, how can a pre-ordained outcome of eternal damnation be reconciled with a just and merciful God?

Again, the position that it is all a test is illegitmate. Let me explain why. First of all, the results are pre-ordained. As I mentioned above, God is creating beings he knows in advance will fail the test. Rather pointless wouldn't you say - not to mention vicious and cruel.

Secondly, the test standards aren't universal. If the test is so important, if it is so important that man adhere to God's will, then why did he not distribute AND PROTECT his message evenly?

Thirdly, if it is a question of obedience in order to pass the test, why does he not insure there is no doubt to his very existence, let alone the discussion of which path is the legitimate one? Why create a situation of doubt and conflict (which obviously exists when you see how many different religions, philosophies and points of view there are) as a foundation for the test?

[SoMaLiSiZz]

Contradiction #21
How many were the children of Bethel and Ai? (a) Two hundred and twenty-three (Ezra 2:28). (b) One hundred and twenty-three (Nehemiah 7:32).

Contradiction #22
Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 agree that the total number of the whole assembly was 42,360. Yet the numbers do not add up to anything close. The totals obtained from each book is as follows: (a) 29,818 (Ezra). (b) 31, 089 (Nehemiah).

Contradiction #23
How many singers accompanied the assembly? (a) Two hundred (Ezra 2:65). (b) Two hundred and forty-five (Nehemiah 7:67).

Contradiction #24
What was the name of King Abijah's mother? (a) Michaiah, daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (2 Chronicles 13:2). (b) Maachah, daughter of Absalom (2 Chronicles 11:20). But Absalom had only one daughter whose name was Tamar (2 Samuel 14:27).

Contradiction #25
Did Joshua and the Israelites capture Jerusalem? (a) Yes (Joshua 10:23, 40). (b) No (Joshua 15:63).

Contradiction #26
Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary? (a) Jacob (Matthew 1:16). (b) Heli (Luke 3:23).

Contradiction #27
Jesus descended from which son of David? (a) Solomon (Matthew 1:6). (b) Nathan (Luke 3:31).

Contradiction #28
Who was the father of Shealtiel? (a) Jechoniah (Matthew 1:12). (b) Neri (Luke 3:27).

Contradiction #29
Which son of Zerubbabel was an ancestor of Jesus Christ? (a) Abiud (Matthew 1:13). (b) Rhesa (Luke 3:27). But the seven sons of Zerubbabel are as follows: I. Meshullam, ii. Hananiah, iii. Hashubah, iv. Ohel, v. Berechiah, vi. Hasadiah, viii. Jushabhesed (1 Chronicles 3:19, 20). The names Abiud and Rhesa do not fit in anywhere.

Contradiction #30
Who was the father of Uzziah? (a) Joram (Matthew 1:8). (b) Amaziah (2 Chronicles 26:1).

[SoMaLiSiZz]

Walaale Barak Allahu feeke