Qurʾānic Readings and the Theory of Contradiction: A Critical and Analytical Study of Ignaz Goldziher’s Perspective

قراءاتِ قرآنیہ اور نظریہ تعارض: اجناس گولڈ زیہر کے افکار کا تحقیقی و تنقیدی مطالعہ

Abstract

Orientalist scholarship has long sought to undermine the authenticity and divine preservation of the Qurʾān by drawing parallels with the Bible and Torah, both of which underwent textual alterations. Among the prominent figures in this discourse is Ignaz Goldziher (1850–1921), who argued that certain Qurʾānic readings (qirāʾāt) exhibit contradictions, thereby proving textual corruption within the Qurʾān. Goldziher claimed that, at times, two readings diverge to the extent that one negates the meaning of the other. This research critically examines his claim by contextualizing his arguments within the broader framework of orientalist motives, Qurʾānic studies, and Islamic scholarship on qirāʾāt. The study demonstrates that the examples presented by Goldziher do not belong to the category of authentic qirāʾāt mutawātirah, but rather fall under shādhdhah readings or even exegetical statements attributed to early companions such as ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAbbās (RA). Through textual, historical, and methodological analysis, it is shown that Goldziher’s arguments rest on weak evidence, selective interpretation, and preconceived biases against the Qurʾān. Furthermore, the diversity within authentic qirāʾāt does not amount to contradiction but rather enriches the interpretive depth of the Qurʾānic text, as recognized by classical Muslim scholars. The conclusion establishes that the Qurʾān remains free of contradiction and textual corruption, and that orientalist claims reflect methodological shortcomings rather than genuine textual issues. This study reaffirms the miraculous preservation of the Qurʾān and highlights the responsibility of the Muslim ummah to engage critically with orientalist discourse.