For an instance of serious internal contradiction in secular writings, I turn to the works of Karl Marx, who commands an immense following in the modern world. The famous American economist, John Galbraith, has written of him:

'If we agree that the Bible is a work of collective authorship, only Mohammad rivals Marx in the number of professed and devoted followers recruited by a single author. And the competition is not really very close. The followers of Marx now far outnumber the sons of the Prophet.'

But Marx's enormous popularity does not change the fact that his work is little better than a collection of glaring contradictions. For example, Marx considers the existence of class as the root of all evil in the world. According to his philosophy, class distinction is derived from the system of private ownership, and the control exercised by the bourgeoisie over the means of production enables them to plunder the lower labouring class.

The solution prescribed by Marx consisted of confiscating the properties of the capitalist class and putting them under the administration of the labouring class. Thus, he claimed, a classless society would come into being. But herein lies the basic flaw in Marx's philosophy. For what comes into existence as a result of this transfer is not a classless society, but a society in which one class takes over where the other leaves off where one class previously controlled the economy by virtue of ownership, another class now controls it by virtue of its right to administer. Marx's so-called classless society, was, in fact, one in which capitalist ownership was replaced by communist ownership.

What Marx had condemned in one place, he condoned in another. But due to his great antipathy for and antagonism towards the capitalist class, he was unable to see his own contradiction in thought. He was in favour of taking the control of economic resources away from capitalists and entrusting it to officials. But, blinded by prejudice, he failed to see what he was doing. He gave separate names to two different forms of the very same phenomenon: in the one case, he called it plunder of the many by the few, in the other, he termed it 'social order.'

The Qur'an, on the other hand, is completely free of self-contradiction of this nature, and there is absolute harmony in its content. Even so, opponents of the Qur'an have tried to prove that contradictions do occur in it. All the examples they cite in this regard, however, have no connection whatsoever with the case they are trying to prove. They say, for instance, that in the sermon of his Farewell Pilgrimage, the Prophet stated that all men were from Adam, and Adam was from the earth. According to this principle women should enjoy the same status as men. In practice, however, this is not the case, say opponents of the Qur'an, who point to the inferior position women have been allotted in Islamic society. They then cite the fact that the testimony of two women is equated in law with that of one man. It is true that this is so, but only in special sets of circumstances, as is made clear in the verse of the Qur'an where this rule has been laid down. The verse in question deals with the written recording of debts:

'And take two male witnesses. If there are not two men, then one man and two women - you may select the witnesses of your choice. If one woman forgets, the other will be able to remind her.'

The wording of the verse shows quite clearly that the basis of this rule is - not discrimination between the sexes - but rather allowances being made for the inferior memorizing ability of women. What is alluded to is a biological fact - that women are not as adept at remembering things as men. This is why, if women's testimony is to be accepted in loans cases, there should be two of them: so that if at any time subsequently, they are required to give evidence, one of them should be able to compensate for the other's poor memory.

It should be borne in mind that any other interpretation of this rule shows a total misunderstanding of the scriptures. It should be borne in mind that modern research has confirmed what the Qur'an asserts - that women's memory is weaker than that of men. Russian scientists have gone into this matter in great detail, and their conclusion has been published in book form. A summary, entitled 'Memorizing Ability', appeared in the New Delhi edition of the Times of India on January 18, 1985:

'Men have a greater ability to memorize and process mathematical information than women, but females are better with words,' says a Soviet scientist. (UPI) 'Men dominate mathematical subjects due to the peculiarities of their memory,' Dr. Vladimir Konovalov told the Tass news agency.

The Qur'anic rule, far from evincing any contradiction, proves in fact that the Qur'an has come from One who has absolute knowledge of he facts of existence. He sees things from every angle, and so is in a position to issue commandments that are in total harmony with nature.