This Fact Will Never Change –

The Words of God Are Unchangeable! Pt. 1

Sam Shamoun

Zawadi recently added an appendix to his article in an attempt to cover up all the damage that his gross mistakes and dishonest handling of sources have caused to his integrity and to the truth claims of Islam.

Zawadi starts off his “rebuttal” by lying in order to avoid admitting the obvious. Zawadi denies that his article was aimed at refuting my exegesis of Q. 6:115 and Q. 18:27:

We invite the readers to take a look at all of Zawadi’s links so they can see for themselves that not a single one deals exclusively with Q. 6:115 and 18:27. All of these articles quote a plethora of Quranic texts to prove that Muhammad testified to the incorruptibility and reliability of the Holy Bible.

In fact, the first two links along with the last one do not even quote Q. 18:27 at all, while the third link doesn’t even mention Q. 6:115! That means that none of these articles actually cite both of these verses in order to establish that the Quran testifies to the textual incorruptibility of the Holy Bible! They quote one or the other, but not both together.

This certainly confirms (at least in my mind) that Zawadi was dealing specifically with my discussion of these particular Quranic verses. Zawadi needs to, therefore, man up to it and admit the fact that he was trying to rebut my article, but didn’t want to mention or link to it directly. He seemingly knew that linking to it would have done more damage than good, since his readers would then be able to read my exposition for themselves and see just how shallow Zawadi’s reply truly is.

Zawadi tries to deny that his point regarding anyone being able to take any book on earth and changing it undermines the Quran’s perfect preservation:

It is apparent that Zawadi is trying to cover over his blunder since his initial argument did imply that the Quran could be changed just like any other book. Notice his words once again:

Now if Zawadi is right that anyone can easily change and distort texts by picking up a book and a pen, so that God’s Words can be lost here on earth, then this means that the Quran can also be changed and corrupted as well.

Moreover, of what use is it to speak of God’s Words being preserved on a heavenly tablet when we no longer have access to them on earth? How can such words be of any benefit to us when we do not have access to them?

The only words that we have access to are the ones preserved in the Books which are with us. However, if these Books can be (and actually have been) corrupted then how can any of them be trusted to guide and instruct us concerning faith and salvation?

Does Zawadi even make sense at this point? Does he even understand what he is saying?

More importantly, Q. 15:9 doesn’t say that Allah has promised to preserve the Quran; that is simply Zawadi’s interpretation of the verse. Rather, the text says that Allah will protect the Reminder which he has sent down, a Reminder that also includes the previous Books in the possession of the Jews and Christians.

Therefore, if Zawadi is going to be consistent then he is going to have to admit that no one can change any of the Books of God that are with us here on earth.

We will have more to say about Q. 15:9 in our section on Ibn Kathir.

Zawadi still doesn’t understand how al-Tabari’s exposition of Q. 6:115 actually proves that none of God’s books can ever be corrupted. He responds:

Let me highlight some of Zawadi’s words here so the readers can see what he obviously couldn’t.

What does knowing what God's PREVIOUS PROPHECIES were have anything to do with the fact that Allah's prophecies are always fulfilled?

We KNOW some of these prophecies (e.g. the coming of Prophet Muhammad)

prophecies THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PREDICTED AND FULFILLED BEFORE the revelation of the Qur'an that no longer concern us

The message that this Qur'anic verse is trying to communicate to us is that things always happen THE WAY GOD SAYS THAY THEY WOULD HAPPEN and no one could stop that from happening

Since Zawadi is oblivious to the fact that his own statements presuppose the reliability and incorruptibility of the Scriptures it seems that I am going to have to break this down for him one step at a time.

How does Zawadi even know that God has made any promises at all? And how does he know that some of these prophecies have already been fulfilled?

Where is he getting this information from? Did God speak to him directly and inform him of his promises and predictions?

Is he not receiving this from the Scriptures which he believes were revealed by God, such as the Torah, Psalms, the Gospel and the Quran?

If so, does he not realize that the only way he can be certain whether the prophecies and promises contained in these very same Scriptures are truly from God is if these revelations remained uncorrupt?

If, in principle, every book on earth can be changed, how does he know that Q. 6:115 and 18:27 are part of the original Quran, the one in heaven? Perhaps human scribes who thought such statements would make a nice addition inserted them later? And so all his argument crumbles.

Does he not understand that his comments actually presuppose the accurate transmission and preservation of the previous Scriptures?

Can he not grasp how his statements only make sense if the Scriptures, which contain the promises that God has made and which he intends to keep, have remained unchanged?

Can he not see that if these Books have been changed then he has no sure way of knowing whether any of the promises contained therein are actually from God?

Is it really hard for him to comprehend that if the Scriptures have been tampered with then he cannot conclusively prove that the prophecies that are found within them were not put there by corrupt scribes who tried to pass them off as God’s revelations?

Hopefully, Zawadi will finally get it and understand that his exegesis of Q. 6:115 and 18:27 actually confirms the reliability and incorruptibility of the previous Scriptures.

As if Zawadi couldn’t get anymore desperate he next goes on a tirade about why I didn’t mention the fact that Ibn Kathir believed that the Holy Bible has been corrupted or what he had to say concerning passages such as Q. 5:15, 6:34, and 15:9.

Zawadi is clearly trying to obfuscate here, and is bringing up red herrings in order to divert attention away from the real issues and to mask his dishonesty and incompetency.

The reason why I didn’t quote Ibn Kathir’s commentary on these passages is because they are irrelevant to my discussion of the meaning and application of Q. 6:115 and 18:27.

However, since Zawadi himself cited Q. 18:27 we would assume that if he was going to quote Ibn Kathir’s explanation of any specific passage, then it would naturally have to be his exegesis of this particular verse. The last thing we would expect Zawadi to do is refer to Ibn Kathir’s interpretation of Q. 85:21-22, especially when that passage was never brought up by either Zawadi or myself!

Furthermore, there are gross problems with Ibn Kathir’s exegesis of Q. 15:9 and his position regarding the Holy Bible being corrupt, none of which seems to be of any major concern to Zawadi.

To begin with, Q. 15:9 does not say that Allah will only preserve the Quran. In fact, the word Quran is not even mentioned! Rather, what that verse says is that Allah will preserve the Reminder which he has revealed:

According to the Quran itself, this Reminder also includes the previous Scriptures which God sent down for mankind. Case in point:

Here, Muhammad is told to ask the people of the Reminder just in case he has any doubts whether the messengers before him were men. According to Muslim scholars, the Reminder that is spoken of here is actually the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians, specifically the Torah and the Gospel:

Now Zawadi may argue that, in light of verse 6, Q. 15:9 can only be referring to the Quran:

Here, the revelation that Muhammad received is expressly called the Reminder, which makes it certain that Q. 15:9 is also referring to the Quran.

On the contrary, verse 6 proves the exact opposite. It shows that Q. 15:9 cannot refer to the Quran alone, but must extend to all the Scriptures which God has sent down such as the Torah and the Gospel.

The fact that Q. 15:9 does not use the precise wording of verse 6 is highly significant, e.g. Q. 15:9 does not say that Allah is going to protect "the reminder which was revealed TO YOU [i.e. Muhammad]," nor does it say that he will protect "THIS reminder." Either of these expressions would leave absolutely no doubt that the Reminder here can only be referring to the Muslim scripture. Instead, the citation mentions THE Reminder, a statement which cannot be limited to just the Quran.

In fact, the verses that immediately follow right after verse 9 provide further substantiation that the Reminder here includes more than the Quran:

The author(s) mention(s) those that Allah sent and who were mocked like Muhammad, messengers who experienced trials similar to him. The reference to these apostles suggests that Allah’s promise to save the Reminder would also include the Revelation which he gave those who were sent before Muhammad.

To put this in simpler terms so that Zawadi doesn’t miss it, the context supports the view that the author of the Quran wanted to highlight the point of Allah protecting the entire Revelation which he gave to all his prophets, to the detriment of the unbelievers who mocked and slandered his messengers and who wanted nothing more than to destroy their Message.

It shouldn’t be hard for Zawadi to fathom that the word Reminder can be used in more than one sense or have a different referent even within a couple of verses from each other, since this is precisely what we find in the following citation:

Notice how some of the Muslim scholars interpreted the above citation:

Here is another example:

This is how the two Jalals explained this verse:

Just in case Zawadi thinks that we are making too much of a big deal of the difference in the wording, we only need to remind him what his fellow colleague and Arabic tutor, Jalal Abualrub, wrote in response to Zawadi’s former employer, Osama Abdallah, concerning Q. 15:9:

As Abualrub correctly noted, there is nothing in the immediate context which rules out that the Reminder here may actually be referring to the Torah; and yet there is every indication that it does include a promise to preserve all of the Scriptures which God revealed through those whom he sent.

Abualrub provides additional support that Q. 15:9 isn’t speaking only of the Quran since he uses this very reference to prove that Allah will also preserve the Sunna:

Hence, even though Abualrub defines the Reminder in Q. 15:9 as the Quran, he still feels that this passage also includes the promise to protect Muhammad’s Sunna.

Therefore, if Abualrub believes that Q. 15:9 includes a promise to preserve Muhammad’s Sunna, despite the fact that it is never mentioned anywhere in the Quran, how much more does this promise apply to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures as well? This is especially so when we keep in mind that the Muslim scripture itself calls these Scriptures the Reminder which Allah sent down!

In light of the foregoing, Zawadi must accept that Allah has sworn in Q. 15:9 to save all of the Scriptures which he sent down as a reminder for mankind. This, again, proves that the previous revealed Books could not have been corrupted according to the Quran, and must therefore still exist today.

Zawadi quotes Ibn Kathir’s claim that the Arabic Torah shows evidence of alteration, textual corruption, changes, additions etc. Ibn Kathir also derides the canonical Gospels on the same grounds.

We have already dealt elsewhere with Ibn Kathir’s assertion in respect to his exegesis of Q. 3:78, which we will simply repeat here. There he wrote:

Despite quoting the position of two renowned Muslims who candidly admitted that the Books of Allah can never be corrupted, and that the Torah and the Gospel therefore remain unchanged, Ibn Kathir still disagrees. He does so on the grounds that Arabic versions of the Holy Bible showed textual tampering in the form of additions and deletions!

This is equivalent to someone today claiming that the Quran has been corrupted due to the fact that the various English translations show evidences of disagreement, and that two particular versions omit Q. 9:128-129 (*, *, *, *)!

The scholarly thing to do is to examine the original languages of the Holy Scriptures to see if the text has remained intact. Once this is done, it will soon be discovered that the Holy Bible, much like the Quran, contains variant readings. However, these variants do not prove wholesale corruption to the Biblical text. To claim otherwise would actually prove that the Quran, not just the Holy Bible, has been thoroughly corrupted since it too has come down to us with variations, additions, omissions etc. (*, *).

More importantly, Zawadi doesn’t see (or deliberately chooses not to) that if Ibn Kathir is right about the Holy Bible being corrupted then this proves that the Quran is wrong. Keep in mind that Q. 6:115 and 18:27 both emphasize the fact that none can change the words of Allah. Neither text says that this refers only to the words revealed in the Quran; nor do they explicitly say that none can change the Quran.(1) Rather, both verses emphatically testify that no one is able to change the words of Allah. This would naturally extend to all the revelations that the Quran explicitly mentions, such as the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel.

However, if Ibn Kathir is correct that these previous Books have been corrupted then this means that the Quran is mistaken, and if it is mistaken then Muhammad was a false prophet.

This also implies that Allah is either a liar or an incompetent and impotent deity. He is a liar because he did not preserve his words even though he said he would. Or, he is incompetent because no matter how hard he tried to protect his revealed words he simply was incapable of doing so, since finite and imperfect human beings were able to change his words thereby thwarting his purposes in revealing them.

And Zawadi actually had the nerve to think that Ibn Kathir’s statements concerning the corruption of the Holy Bible was somehow relevant in establishing his point!

Here is what Zawadi says concerning my quoting from a commentary that is attributed to Ibn Abbas:

Two immediate responses. First, it is irrelevant to my point whether these are the actual words of Ibn Abbas or not, or whether there are other narrations that corroborate them. What is relevant is that whoever compiled or produced this work could easily see, and readily acknowledged, that the words which the Quran says can never be changed include the Books that Allah has revealed.

Second, Zawadi doesn’t see that if this passage is speaking of the Quran then by logical necessity it must also include all of the Books of God, and here is why.

Q. 6:114-115 speaks of Allah’s words never changing in a context which mentions the Book that was given to Muhammad. This means that there is a direct connection between the two, e.g. the Book is what is being referred to as the words of Allah.

Now the question that arises is why is this Book identified with Allah’s words. The answer is rather simple: the Book that Muhammad allegedly received is supposedly the revelation of Allah which conveys Allah’s words to mankind.

At the same time, however, the Quran mentions that the Book was also sent down to the Jews and Christians:

Now according to the Quran itself, the Book of the Jews and Christians includes the revelations that Allah sent down to them, namely the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel. Therefore, if the Torah, Psalms, and the Gospel are the Books which Allah revealed then this makes them his words. And if they are his words then they can never be corrupted.

However, the only Scriptures that the Jews and Christians have ever possessed are the writings of the Old and New Testaments. This means that these Scriptures must be the original, uncorrupt Words that God revealed.

Let us take this step by step in order to help Zawadi comprehend the logic behind our argument.

A. Allah’s words can never be changed.

B. These words include the Books that Allah sent down.

C. The Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel are Allah’s Books.

D. The Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel are therefore Allah’s Words.

E. Since Allah’s words can never be changed this means that the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel have never been, and can never be, corrupted.

In fact, this is exactly the same reasoning employed by some of Zawadi’s own scholars to prove that the Torah can never be changed:

Notice how these Muslim scholars appealed to Q. 6:115 to establish their premise that the Torah has never been corrupted, even though they all knew that within the immediate context this text is referring to the “revelation” given to Muhammad. They obviously saw what Zawadi refuses to see, namely, this verse also includes the rest of the Books of Allah, such as the Torah, since they too are his revealed Words.

This concludes the first part of our rebuttal. Please continue reading with part 2.

Endnotes

(1) Astonishingly, even though the Quran nowhere explicitly says that the text of the previous Scriptures have been changed, it does however testify to its own textual corruption!

The foregoing passage not only shows that the promise of Q. 15:9 cannot be limited to the Quran alone, it actually indicates that this specific promise doesn’t even apply to the Muslim scripture at all! These verses make it clear that Allah actually allowed certain individuals to change the Quran during the very lifetime of Muhammad!

Hence, if Allah didn’t bother or was unable to protect it at the time of Muhammad then how can Muslims know for certain that he did so after he allowed it to be changed?

What this means is that Muslims have absolutely no guarantee that the Quran has actually been preserved at all.

For a thorough examination of this specific text we recommend this article.