Rebuttal to Jochen Katz's Article "Is half the Qur'an already fully detailed? Verses in conflict with the theory of a piecemeal descent of the Qur'an"
By
Bassam Zawadi
Jochen Katz's article could be found here.
Jochen argues that since the Qur'an had been revealed gradually and Surah 12:111 and 16:89 state that the Qur'an is fully detailed while they were revealed in Mecca, it therefore means:
(A) If the book was sent down complete, i.e. the whole book at once, then this claim could still be true or false but it would at least be meaningful. Or, (B) within the theory that the Qur'an was revealed piecemeal, such verses would make sense when they were revealed at the end, as the final verses added to the Qur'an.
Jochen summarizes his argument:
Here now is the reason why the repeated claim of the Qur'an to be "a detailed explanation of everything" (cf. this article) conflicts with the understanding that it was revealed piecemeal. Particularly the timing of the two verses S. 12:111 and 16:89 in the Makkan period causes the following dilemma:
A. If the Qur'an was already "a detailed explanation of everything" at the time these particular verses were revealed, what purpose does the rest of the Qur'an serve? Why was the Qur'an not finalized at that time? What more is there to add to a book that is already "a detailed explanation of everything"? Is at least a third of the Qur'an merely redundant repetition?
B. However, if the Quran was NOT YET "a detailed explanation of everything" at the time this claim was made, then the author of the Qur'an made statements that are clearly false. "God revealed" (?) something that was wrong -- at least it was wrong for some time, maybe even for several years until the Quran finally became complete and fully detailed and an explanation of everything. In other words, for at least ten years the Qur'an contained these statements that were false until the book was finally completed.
Jochen bases this whole argument on the assumption that when verses 12:111 and 16:89 say that the Qur'an is fully detailed and explains all things that the verses are trying to define "Qur'an" as only what has been revealed up to that point. The verses in no way give that indication. Here are the verses:
Indeed in their stories, there is a lesson for men of understanding. It (the Quran) is not a forged statement but a confirmation of the Allah's existing Books (the Taurat (Torah), the Injeel (Gospel) and other Scriptures of Allah) and a detailed explanation of everything and a guide and a Mercy for the people who believe. S. 12:111 Al-Hilali & Khan
One day We shall raise from all Peoples a witness against them, from amongst themselves: and We shall bring thee as a witness against these (thy people): and We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things, a Guide, a Mercy, and Glad Tidings to Muslims. S. 16:89 Y. Ali
No where do these verses state that only the Qur'an revealed up to that particular point in time is the Qur'an that explains all things. Rather, the verse is making a general statement about the Qur'an. The Qur'an is everything that was revealed before and after this verse. It is as simple as that.
We can give a similar example from the Bible. In 2 Timothy 3:16 it is said that all scripture is God breathed. Note that this statement was uttered before the book of Revelation (which is scripture) was written. If we were to use Jochen Katz's logic then that means that we should say that the book of Revelation is not scripture because it came after the statement uttered in 2 Timothy 3:16.
However, as Jochen might rightfully argue back, 2 Timothy 3:16 did not limit what scripture is until that particular point in time. Rather it was making a general claim regarding scripture and scripture would include all those that came before and after 2 Timothy.
Similarly, I will argue that Surah 12:111 and 16:89 does not limit the meaning of "Qur'an" to only refer to the revelations up to that particular point. Rather, it is making a general statement about the Qur'an and the Qur'anic Surahs were defined by our Prophet (peace be upon him).
In conclusion, I don't find Jochen's argument to be convincing and I find his mishandling of the Qur'anic text to be unprofessional and unscholarly.
Recommended Reading
