One of the ways in which the Quran blew me away is the literary style in which it has claimed to be a correct book (thereby laying down its epistemological principles).
The Quran says in its fourth surah (or chapter) that if it were from any entity other than God then there would have been many contradictions (‘ikhtilaafan katheera’) in it (Chapter 4, verse 82).
In my agnostic days, this statement, especially the usage of the term ‘many contradictions’ seemed to me to be incomplete in its scope. I said to myself: If God is the speaker in this book then He should have made the claim in a more robust manner. This contradictions criterion seems to be lacking and hence it seems to be coming from Muhammad the man and not Muhammad the Prophet!
Let me elaborate.
(1.a.) Suppose a book says that New Delhi is the capital city of India and also says that Mumbai is the capital city of India. Then this is a contradiction in the book, an internal contradiction. Obviously, a book from God wouldn’t have any such contradictions in it. So the Quran’s statement is correct in this perspective.
(b.) But what if the book only said that Mumbai is the capital city of India without any mention of New Delhi? This would be a case of no contradiction within the book, yet the book would be false as Mumbai is not the capital city of India and hence the book makes an error in saying so.
(c.) My point is: a book can be false despite being free of any internal contradictions. This is so because a book might contain an error that doesn’t contradict any part of itself.
(d.) Thus, I contended that the Quran should have also said that if the Quran were not from God then it would have contained many errors in it. In addition to saying that it would have had many contradictions in it.
(2.a.) But with further thinking I realized that contradictions can be of two types: internal and external.
(b.) The case mentioned in (1.a) is an example of internal contradiction. And the case in (1.b) is an instance of external contradiction wherein a statement is false or erroneous because it contradicts an external reality/truth/fact.
(c.) Thus, if a book contains an error, in essence it contradicts an external truth although it doesn’t contradict any part of itself. That is, an error is nothing but a type of contradiction.
(d.) Therefore, the Quran doesn’t omit anything by not mentioning the criterion of error since it is by default contained within the criterion of contradictions!
Now let’s look into the matter a bit more philosophically.
(3.a.) In epistemology or the philosophy of knowledge, there are seven criteria which determine the truth value of a theory or framework of knowledge, or a book in our case (as we have been talking about a book until now).
I have listed these criteria under points 9a to 9h of my second article. The first two criteria being ‘correspondence’ and ‘coherence’.
(b.) Correspondence basically means that the testable things in a theory must be correct, that is, they should correspond with external truths. Example: If a theory of success says that ‘discipline is necessary for success’, then for the theory to be reliable, this part of it must be proven to be true.
(c.) And coherence basically means that the parts of a theory must fit into the framework without any contradictions, like the parts of a machine working together in tandem without any mutual obstructions. In other words, parts of the theory corroborating each other without any internal contradictions.
(d.) So, if one part of a theory of success says that discipline is necessary for success and another part of it says that discipline is not a necessary requirement for success then the two parts are contradicting each other and this internal contradiction renders the theory incoherent or inconsistent.
(e.) Moreover, only one of these statements can be true. Suppose the first one is true, then the second statement of the theory contradicts an external fact and hence it renders the theory non-correspondent too.
(f.) So here we have an example of a non-correspondent and incoherent theory.
(g.) Going back to our New Delhi-Mumbai example, (1.a) is a case of incoherence, and (1.b) is a case of non-correspondence.
(h.) And according to my arguments in (2.b) and (2.c), both coherence and correspondence entail the absence of contradictions! Hence, the Quranic statement regarding contradictions potentially contains within it the entire philosophy of coherence and correspondence.
(i.) Thus, far from being incomplete, it turned out to be a more complete and comprehensive statement than anything a human could ever make with such brevity, and beauty!
(j.) I mention here beauty too because this statement in the Quran is rhymed beautifully:
A-fa-laa ya-ta-dabbaroonal Quraana,
Wa lau kaana min i’ndi gairillaahi,
La-wajadoo fee hee ikhtilaafan katheera!
(k.) It’s wonderful elegance of the Quranic style that it makes profound statements of knowledge with such concise yet beautiful usage of words that are laden with layers of deep philosophical meaning. And coming to us from a man who had no interest, talent, and training in literature and philosophy, it’s nothing short of a miracle! And miracles like these point towards the Quran’s Divine origin as I’ve argued intensively in my articles 6 to 11.