The Qur’an claims to be perspicuous. Examples, among many others, include:
Lo! Those who hide the proofs and the guidance which We revealed,
after We had made it clear to mankind in the Scripture: such are accursed of
Allah and accursed of those who have the power to curse. (2:159 [Muhammad M.
Pickthall translation])
O People of the Scripture! Now hath Our messenger come unto you to
make things plain unto you after an interval (of cessation) of the messengers,
lest ye should say: There came not unto us a messenger of cheer nor any warner.
Now hath a messenger of cheer and a warner come unto you. Allah is Able to do
all things. (5:19)
And when Our clear revelations are recited unto them, they who
look not for the meeting with Us say: Bring a Lecture other than this, or
change it. Say (O Muhammad): It is not for me to change it of my accord. I only
follow that which is inspired in me. Lo! if I disobey my Lord I fear the
retribution of an awful Day. (10:15)
But it is clear revelations in the hearts of those who have been
given knowledge, and none deny Our revelations save wrong-doers. (29:49)
And We have made (this Scripture) easy in thy language only that
they may heed (44:58)
Against
this, Persian scholar ‘Ali
Dashti noted that:
The Qor’ān contains sentences which are incomplete
and not fully intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words,
unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning;
adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the concords of gender and
number; illogically and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have
no referent; and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the
subjects. These and other such aberrations in the language have given scope to
critics who deny the Qor’ān’s eloquence. The problem also occupied the minds of
devout Moslems. It forced the commentators to search for explanations and was
probably one of the causes of the disagreement over readings.
For example, in the first verse of sura 74,
“O you who are clad in a cloak,” the accepted reading of the word for “clad in
a cloak” is moddather, but there was a widespread opinion that it should
be motadathther; likewise in the first verse of sura 73, “O you
who are wrapped in garments,” the reading mozzamel prevailed over motazammel.
In verse 160 of sura 4 (on-Nesā),
“But those among them who are well-grounded in knowledge, the believers . . . .
. ., and the performers of the prayer, and the prayers of the alms tax,” the
word for “performers” is in the accusative case, whereas it ought to be in the
nominative case like the words for “well-grounded”, “believers”, and “payers”.
In verse 9 of sura 49 (ol-Hojorāt), “If two parties of believers
have started to fight each other, make peace between them”, the verb meaning
“have started to fight” is in the plural, whereas it ought to be in the dual
like its subject “two parties”.
Verse 172 of sura 2 (ol-Baqara),
which replies to Jewish protests against the change of the direction of prayer
from Jerusalem to Mecca, is beautifully and impressively worded but contains a
lexical difficulty. “Righteousness (berr) is not that you turn your
faces to the east and the west, but righteousness (berr) is he who
believers in God and the Last Day . . . . . .” The explanation given in the Tafsir
ol-Jalālayn is that the word berr in the second aprt of the sentence
means “possessor of righteousness”. The great early grammarian Mohammad b.
Yazid ol-Mobarrad (d. ca. 285/898) had timidly suggested that the word should
be read as barr, which is an acceptable variant of bārr meaning
“righteous (man”), but he had been accused of irreverence and reviled.
In verse 66 of sura 20 (Tāhā), where
Pharaoh’s people say of Moses and his brother Aaron “These two are sorcerers”,
the word for “these two” (hādhāne) is in the nominative case, whereas it
ought to be in the accusative case (hādhayne) because it comes after an
introductory particle of emphasis. ‘Othmān and ‘ā’esha are reported to have read the word as hādhayne.
The comment of a Moslem scholar illustrates the fanaticism and intellectual
ossification of later times:” Since in the unanimous opinion of the Moslems the
pages bound in this volume and called the Qor’ān are God’s word, and since
there can be no error in God’s word, the report that ‘Othmān and ‘ā’esha read hādhayne instead of hādhāne
is wicked and false.” The Tafsir al-Jalālayn more temperately pretends
that the dual suffix may be āne in all three cases and does not have to
be ayne in the accusative and genitive. Yet the great early Qor’ān
scholar and philologist Abu ‘Amr b. ol-Alā (d. ca. 154/770) read hādhayne
as ‘Othmān and ‘ā’esha had done.
A humane and salutary injunction in verse 33 of sura
24 (on-Nur) shows that a cruel and immoral abuse was practiced at the
time: “DO not coerce your slave-girls into fornication, when they desire
chastity, so that you may gain something extra in the life in this world! And
when someone coerces them, God, after their coercion, is forgiving and
merciful.” Obviously the verse prohibits the vile practice of slave-owners who
prostitute female slaves and pocketed the proceeds, and no less obviously the
words “God, after their coercion is forgiving and merciful” mean that God
pardons slave-girls for having unwillingly committed fornication. The outward
form of the words, however, is such that they can be taken to mean that God is
forgiving and compassionate to men who prostitute their female slaves. The
sentence is vague and does not adequately express the humane intention. (‘Ali
Dashti, Twenty Three Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohamad [tarns.
F.R.C. Bagley; Costa Mesa, Calif.: Mazda Publishers, 1994], 48-50)
