Āl-‘Imrān 3:3

The issue

These verses address Muhammad, stating that the book that came down to him “is confirming to what was sent down before of Allah’s books, which he had sent down upon his prophets and messengers.” It is “confirming…what they have told about Allah.”

It adds that Allah sent down the Torah and the Injīl of Jesus, which contain “guidance” to mankind. To prove the reliability of the Qur’ān, the verse presents the Qur’ān as equal to the other divine books and describes it as a witness to these books, not as a book that has contradicted, abrogated or exceeded all others. Then verse 4 warns the people of the danger of disbelieving in these books, which it calls “signs of God,” and threatens that the result of rejecting these books is “severe torment.”

Though the English translation uses the phrase “what was before it,” the Arabic original is “that which is between his hands,” thereby implying that Muhammad had access to (i.e., had in his hands) the other divine books at the time this verse was first recited. Therefore, this verse does not acknowledge any distortions in these other books or offer evidence that these books were not considered “distorted” during Muhammad’s lifetime.

Hence, there is obvious contradiction here. Although the Qur’ān uses the basis of its similarity to these books as a standard for its own authenticity and credibility, Muslims claim that the other books became distorted. Even if we assume that these books were distorted later on, then where are the undistorted versions? Why did Muslims neglect to keep copies of these undistorted books when their armies invaded vast areas of the Old World and their military and governmental authority included the confiscation of non-Muslim temples, churches, and their libraries?

The verse says that the Qur’ān is “confirming what was before it” (in the Arabic, “that which is between his hands”), meaning that Muhammad thought that his book was a continuation of prior books. Meanwhile, Islāmic reference books and the Qur’ān itself state that Islām has abrogated (cancelled) all preceding religions.

Question: How can the abrogator use the abrogated as its proof and reference?

The Furqān: An Obscure Phrase

Another issue avoided in some English translations but apparent in the Arabic text is the fact that this verse points to another book, called the Furqān, as shown in this translation: “revealed to you the Book with truth…and He sent the Furqān…” (Shakir trans. Q 3.3-4). The scholars state that the Furqān might mean all the heavenly books or another, a fourth book, which is al-Zabūr (Psalms). Furqān is also seen to mean the Qur’ān itself. “The text repeated the mention of the Qur’ān with the term Furqān to magnify its position and demonstrate its virtues.” Other scholars believe that the Furqān means the Torah.

If one is to accept that the Furqān is the Zabūr, then why does the verse use an adjective to describe it instead of mentioning it by name as it does with the Torah and the Injīl?

If we accept that the Furqān means the Zabūr, then what exactly is the Zabūr? There is no consensus regarding the meaning of the Zabūr, since the scholars have said that it was all the books of the prophets: the Torah, the Injīl, the Qur’ān, and the books of the Bible that were sent down after Moses and the Psalms of David. If one considers the Furqān to be a description of all the books mentioned in this verse, or only the Torah, or only the Qur’ān, all of these scenarios make the text very weak and redundant, because the word and in this sentence, “and He sent the Furqān,” was added to what preceded it. In the Arabic language, the word preceding and must be different from the word after it. This means that Furqān cannot mean the Qur’ān, or any of the books already listed, because this is “weak and far away from the eloquence of speech that should be appropriate for Allah’s words,” according to al-Rāzī’s point of view.

Thus, al-Rāzī tries to explain this obscurity by stating the following in his commentary: “What was meant by this Furqān are the miracles that Allah associated with sending down these books…so the miracle is the Furqān.” Since this meaning is never mentioned in any verse, this suggestion by al-Rāzī seems far from the truth. Most likely he was not satisfied with it himself and noticed some twisting of the meaning, so he adds, “This is what I have as an interpretation to this verse.” His excuse might have been that he was trying to rid the Qur’ān of the “weakness and redundancy that went against its eloquence.”

Dilemma of Nazzala Versus Anzala

In Q 3.3-4, two verbs are used to describe the revelation process. These two verbs are nazzala, translated by Palmer as “sent down” and anzala, translated by Palmer as “has revealed.” Muslim scholars say that nazzala means to send down a little at a time, time after time, and is used in reference to the Qur’ān because it was revealed to Muhammad in increments. However, they say anzala means to send down altogether at one time, which applies to the other books.

But since the Qur’ān came down in stages and it was appropriate to use the term nazzala, why then was the term anzala used in reference to the Qur’ān in another verse: “Praise belongs to God, who sent down [“sent down” is anzala in the Arabic Qur’ān] to His servant the Book and put no crookedness therein” (Q 18.1). If one argues it meant that the Qur’ān came down at one time to the lower heaven, we will answer that the verse makes this statement: “Who hath sent to [anzala] His Servant (Muhammad) the Book….” This verse also contains a historical error because the Bible, in fact, consists of sixty-six books. The process of inspiration and its documentation extended over fifteen hundred years. Therefore, the term anzala (sent down at one time in its totality) is not correct concerning any portion of the Bible.