Addressing The Unaddressed Arguments

By

Bassam Zawadi


Now Muslim apologists have generally provided two possible responses to this argument.



First Response (a more traditional response): Verse 10 of Surah 41 encompasses verse 9 where the two days mentioned in verse 9 are included under the four days mentioned in verse 10. Hence, verses 9 and 10 together do not speak about six days, but four days only. Then verse 12 speaks about two days, which then gives us six days.



Second Response (a more modern response): We assume that verses 9 and 10 are separate from one another and indeed add up to six days, however verse 11's mentioning of the word thumma (and then going on to speak about the seven firmaments of heaven) implies a parallel act as opposed to being a sequential act. So in this way it's not eight days, but six days of creation.



Most of my readers know me to be a person who usually favors traditional responses, hence in this paper I will be seeking to only address those arguments against the first response that have not been addressed already and will not be providing a defense of the second view.

Also at the end of this paper I will be dealing with some of the narrations I have observed missionaries putting forth regarding this topic.



Dealing With the Arguments Put Forth Against Response #1:

Jochen Katz states:

Had the first period been four and the second two days, the second could be included in the first, since "filling the earth" is part of "creating the earth", but the other way around doesn't make sense. The earth that isn't existing yet cannot be filled. But mathematically it is just not possible to include four days in two days. And it is very clear from the text that the first two days are connected with "creating" the next four days are characterized by "putting ON it", "bestowing on it", "giving them".

Jochen argues that it is not possible to include four days into two days and that "filling the earth" as mentioned in verse 10 is part of "creating the earth" as mentioned in verse 9. That's fine, but no one is arguing that the four days are included within the two days, but rather the two days are included within the four days. Even Jochen cites Yusuf Ali who says exactly that:

The Commentators understand the "four Days" in verse 10 to include the two Days in verse 9, so that the total for the universe comes to six Days. This is reasonable, because the processes described in verses 9 and 10 form really one series. In one case it is the creation of the formless matter of the earth; in the other case it is the gradual evolution of the form of the earth, its mountains and seas, and its animal and vegetable life, with the "nourishment in due proportion", proper to each.

However, Jochen thinks that we cannot include the two days within the four days because:

Had the first period been four and the second two days, the second could be included in the first, since "filling the earth" is part of "creating the earth",

Jochen's objection is that because verse 9 states "two" (according to Jochen this is the "first period") while verse 10 states "four" (according to Jochen this is the "second" period) that means we cannot include four within two. However, the simple response to Jochen is: Why should we rank the two days in verse 9 as the "first period"? There is no clear sequential order between verses 9 and 10. Verse 9 could be talking about the creation of the earth alone, but then in verse 10 elaborates that its creation plus furnishing took four days.

Christian apologist Dr. William Campbell even recognizes this possibility:

Therefore, it seems logical to make the basic assumption that in Muhammad's understanding some of these days were concurrent and going along together, thus allowing a total of only six days.

Sam Shamoun similarly is open to the validity of the argument:

The first thing we would like to point out is that Yahya's claim that the four days of v. 10 are not separate from the first two days is simply an assumption. Yahya assumes that the first two days are included within the four days, but provides no proof for his assertion. Assuming something isn't the same as proving it. As such, his assumption may or may not be true. In fact, if the Quran didn't have anything else to say regarding the order of creation, we would concede that Yahya's explanation may be a valid one. As such, one could not conclusively or dogmatically claim that the Quran is in error here. Nor could one conclusively or dogmatically deny that the Quran is in error. It would simply come down to one's prior assumptions about the Quran, whether they believed in it or not. A believer would obviously accept Yahya's harmonization, whereas an unbeliever might not.

Shaykh Al-Munajjid cites the classical scholars who explain how this is perfectly acceptable according to the language:

This is a misunderstanding, and the answer to it is as follows:

There is no contradiction between the time period mentioned in these verses and the other verse which says that it was six days.

In these verses - from Soorah Fussilat - we see that Allaah is telling us that He "created the earth in two Days".

Then He "placed therein (i.e. the earth) firm mountains from above it, and He blessed it, and measured therein its sustenance (for its dwellers)" in four days equal- i.e., in two days that were added to the two days in which He created the earth, so the total is four days. It does not say that the creation of the mountains and the measuring of the sustenance took four days.

Perhaps the confusion which is mentioned in the question stems from this, i.e., from thinking that the four days are added to the two days in which the earth was created, equaling six, and then adding the two days in which the heavens were created ("Then He completed and finished from their creation (as) seven heavens in two Days") - making a total of eight days, not six days. But this confusion can be dispelled by dealing with this mistaken notion. So the earth was created in two days, and the mountains were created and the sustenance measured in two more days which makes a total of four, i.e., this took the other two days. Then the creation of the seven heavens took two days. So the total is six days of the Days of Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted.

The mufassireen commented on this fact which deals with the mistaken notion. Al-Qurtubi said:

"in four days" - this is like someone saying, "I set out from Basra to Baghdad in ten days and to Kufa in fifteen days, i.e., a total time of fifteen days." (al-Jaami' li Ahkaam al-Qur'aan, vol. 15, p. 343).

Al-Baghawi said: "in four days" means the creation of what is in the earth. The measuring of the sustenance was on Tuesday and Wednesday, which along with Sunday and Monday add up to four days. This is like saying "I married a woman yesterday and today I married two" - one of whom is the woman whom he married the day before.

Tafseer al-Baghawi, 7/165

Al-Zajjaaj said: "in four days" means two days added to the previous two days.

Al-Kashshaaf, vol. 3, p. 444

These verses - from Soorah Fussilat - confirm the other verse, which says that the creation of the heavens and the earth was completed in six days. So there is no contradiction concerning the period in which Allaah created the heavens and the earth. There cannot be any such contradictions in the Qur'aan.

As for Jochen's comment:

since "filling the earth" is part of "creating the earth",

That is a possible method of categorization, however another way could be that "creating the earth" simply means creating the land mass and surface (i.e. its foundations), while "filling the earth" just simply means filling the earth with mountains, trees, etc.

Jochen also goes on to say:

That verse 9 and 10 describe different stages is further supported by the text structure since the two phases are "separated" by the second line of verse 9 asking a rhetorical question to the listener/reader based on what has been done in this first stage. Before it goes on to look at the second stage of creation.

Despite the question ending with verse 9 there is no grammatical indication that verse 10 must then be speaking about a completely different stage of creation excluding the 2 days mentioned in verse 9.

Sam Shamoun expresses objections as to why he thinks that the four days in verse 10 don't encompass the 2 days mentioned in verse 9:

To help the readers better understand the point, the author is essentially claiming that the four days of Q. 41:10 encompass the first two days of Q. 41:9, which means that these days are not intended to be added together since that would give us a total of six days.

There are at least two problems with the author's position. One problem is with the author's appeal to the preposition fee since this is simply being used in conjunction to the period of time it took for Allah to create the earth's nourishments such as vegetation, mountains etc. The Quran is basically using the preposition in relation to the creation of these things taking place within a period of four days, apart from the two days of the previous citation. To put it simply, the preposition, in and of itself, tells us very little regarding whether the two days of Q. 41:9 are included within the four days mentioned in Q. 41:10.

This leads us to the second problem with the author's harmonization. A careful analysis provides evidence against the view that the two days of Q. 41:9 are part of the four days mentioned in Q. 41:10. Carefully note what verse 10 says:

And He made IN (feeha) IT mountains above its surface, and He blessed therein (feeha) and made therein (feeha) its foods, in (fee) four periods: alike for the seekers. Shakir

This text presupposes the existence of the earth, otherwise how could Allah place mountains in an earth that didn't already exist? In other words, there must have been an earth in order for mountains and food to be placed therein, which assumes that the two days of Q. 41:9 are not part of the four days that it took Allah to create the earth's nourishments and provisions.