Rebuttal to Bassam Zawadi on “Allah’s Words do not Change”

By Keith Thompson

Bassam Zawadi has written an article in which he responds to the following Christian argument:

The passages read as follows:

Zawadi’s response is that these verses do not necessarily speak of corrupting texts, but rather, they refer to no one being able to “stop Allah’s promises from being fulfilled.” He then quotes al-Tabari’s commentary on 6:115 as stating, “no one who could change what He has informed in His books about anything which is bound to happen,”(1) and Al-Qurtubi on the same verse saying, “Al Ramaani narrated on the authority of Qataadah who said: There is no change in the judgment of God. Even if one were to change and substitute the words just as the people of the book did with the Torah and Gospel, God doesn't consider this.”(2)

Zawadi’s thesis, based on these two commentaries and his own reasoning, is that 6:115, and thus 18:27, are in no way affirming to the Muslims that the words of Allah (the Quran, Torah and Injil) would be preserved textually. However, such an interpretation of 6:115 is countermanded by Muhammad’s cousin Ibn Abbas. Ibn Abbas gives three interpretations of this text and the first one he offers is the one Zawadi emphatically denies:

If Ibn Abbas is correct and the emphasis is on the literal words of the Quran never being changed, in contrast to Allah’s promises always being fulfilled, then that would affirm that words of the Torah and Injil would likewise never be changed since Islam teaches they also are the words of Allah. Ibn Abbas, without question, refers to the text of the Quran never being changed because this first interpretation is given in contrast to the others he goes on to list which are more in line with Zawadi’s view:

Hence, Ibn Abbas, Muhammad’s cousin, offers early Muslim attestation to 6:115 referring to the words of the Quran never being changed and therefore since Islam asserts that the Torah and Injil were originally Allah’s words then that, logically and in principle, clearly means they could never be changed either. Therefore, Muslims must now accept the Bible as the word of God and receive the Lord Jesus Christ. It would have been helpful if Zawadi included Ibn Abbas’ remarks instead of omitting them. After all, I assume he is interested in all of what his sources say and not just selective snippets.

Commenting on 6:115 Zawadi asserts:

This is merely an assertion, not an exegetical argument. I could easily say that a clear reading of the text shows that there are two themes present; Allah’s promises being fulfilled and Allah’s word (Quran) never changing, in agreement with Ibn Abbas.

It seems very clear that Zawadi realizes that if the Quran says Allah’s words can never be textually corrupted then that means that the texts of the Torah and Injil could never be changed and so therefore he is trying to save face. If Zawadi is correct in his thesis that the two Quranic verses do not refer to Allah’s words never literally being corrupted, he would have to affirm that any Muslim who does interpret these passages in this manner is simply in error. By extension he also has to affirm that the Quran nowhere teaches that Allah’s words, with respect to manuscript transmission, will never be corrupted because if it did say that, then that would validate the Torah and Injil.

Zawadi’s comments also mean that two of his colleague’s, namely Sami Zaatari and Walid of Answering-Christianity.com, who both interpret 6:115 differently than him, and differently than each other (showing just how confused they all are on this issue), are mistaken. Zaatari states:

In responding to a critic who cites 6:115 and argues that Allah’s words cannot change Walid claims:

Notice, both Zaatari and Walid disagree with Zawadi and affirm that 6:115 is literally talking about not being able to change the words of Allah as opposed to no one being able to stop Allah’s promises being fulfilled – although they add their own contradictory untenable eisegetical mishandlings of the text in trying to answer this problem. For example Zaatari would need to show textually that everything in the Bible that does not agree with the Quran is a later addition and not found in the earliest manuscripts. Walid would need to refute both the existing case for the internal witness to the inspiration of the Bible as well as the external historical attestation to its divine apostolic inspiration. Merely making bold claims without engaging Christian scholarship that has already made such a case on this subject will not get very far with anyone seriously studying these issues. But that is off topic. Why should someone listen to Zawadi and his two sources over against Zaatari, Walid and Ibn Abbas? In fact, Zawadi claims to present al-Tabari’s position but omits these comments from him which destroys his own position:

Hence, even Muslims are admitting that 6:115 is literally talking about no one being able to change Allah’s words (Quran).

More importantly, Zawadi missed the fact that even his preferred interpretation actually presupposes the textual incorruptibility of all of the revealed books. Here, again, is what his own quotation from al-Tabari says:

Al-Tabari argues that there is not a person who is able to nullify anything which Allah has said in his books. Yet the only way a person can have any certainty that the promises which are contained in these books are actually from Allah is if these scriptures are completely reliable and trustworthy. 

If the scriptures have been corrupted over time then a person will have no way of being able to determine which of the promises that are mentioned within them actually come from God, and which of them do not. The only way anyone can know for certain that God’s promises have remained true is if the texts which contain them are still intact and have not been changed.

The second text Zawadi brought up, S. 18:27, states:

Zawadi does not provide any exegesis for this text, nor does he quote any Islamic authorities to substantiate his interpretation. He seems to think that if he can interpret 6:115 a certain way then that means 18:27 must be interpreted like that as well, even though it’s a completely different context, and even if his own scholars disagree with him. That is called the problem of induction fallacy – assuming that if an earlier one text means one thing then another text must mean the same thing. If he had researched the commentaries of Muslim scholars on 18:27 he would have seen Tafsir al-Jalalayn, for example, contradicting his thesis by offering the clear straightforward meaning, saying:

Or Ibn Abbas saying:

Or Ibn Kathir saying:

Notice that none of these Islamic scholars qualify their comments by adding what Zawadi has felt fit to add in – namely no one being able to “stop Allah’s promises from being fulfilled.” Very odd if indeed this is the Islamic position on this specific text. Moreover, the Islamic scholar Allama Ghulam Ahmad Parwez, when commenting on 18:27, interprets the meaning as no one being able to alter the text of the Quran (Allah’s words). Although he argues that only the Quran is Allah’s words, this scholar is in total disagreement with Zawadi:

Notice, Parwez doesn’t say Allah gives his vow to fulfill promises like Zawadi argued, rather, he argues that the vow is about protecting the literal words of Allah textually. In light of the comments of these scholars it should be clear that the original meaning is that no one can change the words of Allah literally; and hence by this reasoning, and in principle, the Torah and Injil could not have been changed since they were the words of Allah.

How could the Jews and Christians of Muhammad’s day be asked to perform what is commanded in the Torah and the Gospel if those Scriptures were not longer available in their pristine forms due to textual corruption?

Christ is Risen, He is Lord.

Footnotes:

1.) Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Jami' al-bayan fi ta'wil al-Qur'an, Commentary on Surah 6:115

2.) Abu 'Abdullah Al-Qurtubi, Tafsir al Jami' li-ahkam al-Qur'an, Commentary on Surah 6:115

3.) Tafsir Ibn 'Abbas, trans. Mokrane Guezzou on Surah 6:115, source.

4.) Ibid.

5.) Source

6.) Source

7.) Tafsir al-Tabari, on Surah 6:115; English translation with emphasis as provided by Sam Shamoun in the article, The incorruptibility of Allah’s words.https://www.answering-islam.de/authors/shamoun/word_incorruptible.html

8.) Tafsir al-Jalalayn, trans. Feras Hamza on Surah 18:27, source.

9.) Tafsir Ibn 'Abbas, trans. Mokrane Guezzou on Surah 18:27, source.

10.) Tafsir Ibn Kathir on Surah 18:27, source.

11.) Allama Ghulam Ahmad Parwez, The Fundamental Principles of the Islamic System, translated by Dr. Suhail Ala, source.