Back to Reform_Islam
According To The Qur'an and The Hadiths
by Dr. Robert Morey
(C) Copyright 1997 REF
When seeking to understand what a particular organized religion teaches, it is important to distinguish between the official teachings of a religion from the personal opinions of someone who claims to follow that religion.
The Catholic View of Abortion
For example, what is the teaching of Roman Catholicism on the issue of abortion? The only way you can find out what it teaches on abortion is to examine general reference works and the official publications of the church to see what it has stated. Once you check out dictionaries, encyclopedias, theology books, etc., it is clear that abortion is condemned by the Catholic Church.
But what if you have a neighbor who is a Roman Catholic who believes in abortion? What if she says, "Catholicism does not deny abortion. I ought to know because I am a Catholic and I believe in abortion."
The only rational response you can give to this person is that her personal opinion on the issue does not alter the official teaching of her religion. She may disagree with her church's doctrine but the fact that she does not believe in it does not alter what the Catholic Church teaches.
The Same For Jihad
The same distinction must be made when discussing whether the religion of Islam teaches Jihad. The only way to find out if it teaches Jihad and what that word means is to examine reference works and official statements made by its representatives.
But what if you meet a Muslim who denies that Islam teaches Jihad or who gives a novel interpretation of it? His personal opinion has no logical or legal bearing on what the religion of Islam officially teaches concerning Jihad. He may disagree with what Islam teaches but this cannot alter the fact that Islam teaches it.
The First Step
Let us take a trip to the local library to do some research on the subject of Jihad. The first step in doing research on any topic is to establish the meaning of the key word. Thus you must go to the dictionaries to see how they define the word "Jihad." You first consult general dictionaries and then religious dictionaries which have an entry on the subject. What will you find?
I. The Dictionaries
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, p. 1216
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">A holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty; a bitter strife or crusade undertaken in the spirit of a holy war.
Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, p. 985.
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">A Moslem holy war; campaign against unbelievers or enemies of Islam.
Webster's New International Dictionary, p. 1336.
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">A religious war against infidels or Muhammedan heretics.
The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, p. 1029.
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">A holy war undertaken as a sacred duty to Muslims.
The Universal Dictionary of the English Language, p. 631.
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">"Contest, war". A Mohammedan war against unbelievers, campaign against the enemies of Islam.
The American College Dictionary, p. 657.
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">A war of Muhammedans upon others, with a religious object.
Britannica World Language Dictionary, p. 686.
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">A religious war of Moslems against the enemies of their faith.
The Oxford Dictionary, vol. V, p. 583.
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">[struggle, contest, spec. one for the propagation of Islam.] A religious war of Mohammedans against unbelievers in Islam, inculcated as a duty by the Koran and traditions.
Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary, p. 781.
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">A jihad is a holy war which Islam allows merely to fight against those who reject its teachings.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, p. 704.
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">A Moslem holy war against infidels.
Longman Dictionary of the English Language, p. 849.
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">A holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty.
The Harper Dictionary of Modern Thought, p. 327.
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">Jihad ('Holy War'). A fundamental tenet of traditional ISLAM obliging the believer to fight the unbeliever until the latter embraces either Islam or the protected status accorded only to those whose religions are based on written scriptures (i.e., Jews, Christians, Sabaeans), the 'peoples of the Book'. A Jihad must be officially proclaimed, by a recognized spiritual leader.
II. The Encyclopedias
Once you have consulted the dictionaries, the second step in research is to examine what the encyclopedias say on the subject. What will you find?
The New Encyclopedia Britannica, vol 6
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; ">jihad, also spelled jehad, Arabic jiohad ("fight," or "battle") a religious duty imposed on Muslims to spread Islam by waging war; jihad has come to denote any conflict waged for principle or belief and is often translated to mean "holy war."
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">Islam distinguishes four ways by which the duty of jihad can be fulfilled: by the heart, the tongue, the hand, and the sword. The first consists in a spiritual purification of one's own heart by doing battle with the devil and overcoming his inducements to evil. The propagation of Islam through the tongue and hand is accomplished in large measure by supporting which is right and correcting what is wrong. The fourth way to fulfill one's duty is to wage war physically against unbelievers and enemies of the Islamic faith. Those who professed belief in a divine revelation--Christians and Jews in particular--were given special consideration. They could either embrace Islam or at least submit themselves to Islamic rule and pay a poll and land tax. If both options were rejected, jihad was declared.
Collier's Encyclopedia, vol. 13, p. 587
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">Jihad, from an Arabic verb meaning to struggle and persevere, denotes, in the history of Islamic civilization, religious war waged against heretics, unbelievers, and the enemies of the state or the community of Muslims. In early Islamic history "jihad" meant holy war, and, as a strictly Islamic phenomenon, it bears a strict relation to the spread of the faith by Muslims arms...among the descendants of the Kharijits...it was ranked as a sixth pillar of religion.
The Encyclopedia Americana International Edition, vol 16, pgs. 91-92
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">Jihad, an Arabic word meaning "struggle." As a religious duty theoretically laid upon all followers of Mohammed, jihad is based on the concept that the Islamic faith, since it is of universal validity, must be spread to all mankind, by force of arms if necessary. In classical Islam, jihad was to be directed against "people of the Book" (that is, possessors of authoritative sacred writings, above all Jews and Christians) until they submitted to the political authority of Islam, and against idolaters until they became Muslims. Sufi mystics, however, often considered jihad as a spiritual struggle against the evil within the self.
The Cambridge Encyclopedia, p. 637
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">jihad - The term used in Islam for 'holy war'. According to the Koran, Muslims have a duty to oppose those who reject Islam, by armed struggled if necessary, and jihad has been invoked to justify both the expansion and defense of Islam. Islamic states pledged a jihad against Israel in the Mecca declaration of 1981, though not necessarily by military attack.
Academic American Encyclopedia, p. 418
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">In Islam, the duty of each Muslim to spread his religious beliefs is termed "jihad". Although the word is widely understood to mean a "holy war" against nonbelievers, jihad may also be fulfilled by a personal battle against evil inclinations, the righting of wrongs, and the supporting of what is good.
The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, p, 209
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; ">Jihad "Holy war", a Divine institution of warfare to extend Islam into the dar al-harb (the non-Islamic territories which are described as the "abode of struggle", or of disbelief) or to defend Islam from danger. Adult males must participate if the need arises, but not all of them, provided that "a sufficient number" (fard al-kifayah) take it up.
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">An important precondition of jihad is a reasonable prospect of success, failing which a jihad should not be undertaken. According to the Sunnah, a jihad is not lawful unless it involves the summoning of unbelievers to belief, and the jihad must end when order is restored, that is, when the unbelievers have accepted either Islam or a protected status within Islam, or when Islam is no longer under threat.
The Cyclopedia Of Biblical, Theological, And Ecclesiastical Literature, by McClintock and Strong, vol. VI, p. 417
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">War on Infidels.--The Koran abounds in contradictions respecting the right and duty of the faithful to make war on infidels; for Mohammed, while he was the weaker party, showed himself very tolerant, and commanded to convert only by the power of the word; but later, when he became more potent, he issued severer ordinances against those who would not submit to his faith. His successors, therefore, have established the following doctrines, and declared null and void the passages of the Koran adverse to them. Every major Moslem fit for military service is in duty bound to participate in holy wars against infidels who will not submit to the dominion of Moslems, and against the faithful who refuse obedience to the legitimate prince, or adhere to dogmas contrary to the faith. In a war against Moslemite rebels or heretics it is not allowed to kill prisoners of war, nor to attack the wounded or pillage property. As for infidel prisoners of war, who do not adopt the Islam before their capture, women and children are made slaves; men can, according to the pleasure of the prince or political exigency, either be killed, ransomed, or exchanged for Moslem prisoners; or even, as circumstances may dictate, be released or be made slaves. Children of infidels will be educated as Moslems, if their father or mother have been converted to Islam, if they have been captured without parents, or if they are found on Islamic territory.
III. Historical and Theological Works
Now that you have consulted the dictionaries and the encyclopedias, you look in the card catalog to see if there are any specific books which deal with the issue of Jihad. What do you find? There are books written by Muslims and non-Muslims on the subject of Jihad.
ISLAMIC INVASION by Robert Morey
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; ">Allah's apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">replied, "To believe in Allah and his Apostle." The
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">questioner then asked, "What is the next [in goodness]?"
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting]
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">in Allah's cause" (vol. 1, no. 25).
Ana bin Malik recorded that,
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; ">Allah's Apostle vanquished them by force and their
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">warriors were killed; their children and women were taken
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">as captives. Safiya was taken by Dihya Al-Kalbi and later
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">she belonged to the Allah's Apostle who married her (vol. 2,
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">no. 68).
A brief summary on Muhammad's teachings on Jihad should be informative to Westerners. The translator of the Hadith, Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, wrote an introduction to the Hadith which included a discourse on the subject of Jihad by Sheik Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Hamid, Sacred Mosque of Mecca, Saudi Arabia (vol. 1, pgs. xxii-xl). This is the most frank Muslim discussion of Jihad we have ever read. It does not deny or play down Muhammad's demand that Muslims must force Jews, Christians, and pagans to either embrace Islam or submit to political and financial suppression. Indeed, it tries to stimulate and motivate Muslims to engage in Jihad today. According to Sheik Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Hamid, Muhammad,
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; ">commanded the Muslims to fight against all the pagans as
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">well as against the people of the scriptures [Jews and
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">Christians] if they do not embrace Islam, until they pay the
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">Jizya [a tax levied on the Jews and the Christians who do
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">not embrace Islam] (p. xxiv).
There is the Jihad of the sword. People are to be either converted or subdued through the violence of military force (vol. 1, p. xxii). Chapter 19 of the Hadith speaks of those who convert to Islam, by compulsion or for fear of being killed (vol. 1, p. 27). Muhammad said,
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; ">I have been ordered to fight against the people until they
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">and that Muhammad is Allah's Prophet, and offer prayers
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">and give obligatory charity, so if they perform all that, then
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">they save their lives and property (vol. 1, no. 24).
This is why Muhammad warned the King of the Byzantines,
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">If you become a Muslim you will be safe (vol. 1, no. 6).
If the king did not convert, he and his kingdom would be destroyed and enslaved. The Hadith records how Mecca was conquered by force to Islam in vol. 1, no. 104. In vol. 3, no. 495, we read,
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">Allah made the Prophet wealthy through conquests.
When a Muslim murdered someone during a Jihad, he got to take the man's property. The Prophet said,
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; ">"Whoever has killed an enemy and has proof of that, will
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">possess his spoils" (vol. 4, no. 370).
This is the driving force behind Muslim violence in Africa today. In such countries as Nigeria and Sudan, hundreds of thousands of Christians and pagans have been brutally slaughtered or enslaved in the name of Jihad because they would not convert to Islam.
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; ">Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">fight you till you worship Allah alone or give Jizya (vol. 4,
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">no. 386).
There is the Jihad of taxation. Those who refuse to embrace Islam must pay a special tax called Al-Jizya (vol. 4, chap. 21, pgs. 251-252). This financial burden suppresses non-Muslims and makes their life as hard as possible.
There is the Jihad of financial reward. In Iraq, a free university education has been offered to any Christian or Jew who will embrace Islam. A "bounty" of one thousand dollars has been offered to any South African black who will renounce Christianity and embrace Islam. They will also be paid $500 for any other blacks they convert to Islam.
It has been quite common to tell Americans and Europeans that if they want to continue to work in the oil business in Saudi Arabia, they must convert to Islam. No church is allowed to be built on Saudi soil in the attempt to suppress Christian worship.
There is the Jihad of fear. The death penalty is applied to anyone who renounces Islam and embraces another religion such as Christianity. As this book goes to print, there are Christians being tortured in prison in Egypt whose only "crime" was to convert to Christianity.
There is the Jihad of slavery. The only place in the world where black chattel slavery is practiced today is in Muslim countries. The London Economist (1/6/90) reported that the Sudanese Muslims are presently capturing and then selling black women and children of the Dinka Christian Tribe for as little as $15 a head! Even the UN released a report on slavery that points out that the Muslims are still enslaving blacks. This has also been pointed out in the May 4, 1992 special edition of Newsweek on slavery.
Non-Muslim women who go to Saudi Arabia to work as maids are often enslaved by their Muslim employers, beaten, and raped at will. When they try to escape, the Saudi government will not let them leave the country but returns them to their masters.
There is the Jihad of the courts. Non-Muslims are denied equal access to and equal protection before the law because their testimony in court is not valid against a Muslim (vol. 3, chap. 31, pgs. 525-526). This applies even to murder!
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">No Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel (vol. 4, no. 283; vol. 9, no. 50).
There is a Jihad after death. A Muslim is "to fight on [Muhammad's] behalf in his lifetime and after his death" (vol. 1, chapter 43).
There is the Jihad of Paradise. Any Muslim who is killed while fighting in a Jihad will go straight to the sexual pleasures of Paradise (vol. 1, no. 35; vol. 4, no. 386).
"The Call To Jihad (Fighting For Allah's Cause In The Holy Qur'an) by Sheik Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Hamid (Sacred Mosque of Mecca, Saudi Arabia). The Translation of the Meanings of Sahih Al-Bukhari by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Vol. 1, pgs. xxii-xl.
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; ">Praise be to Allah, who has ordained "Al-Jihad)" (Fighting for Allah's Cause)
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">(1) With the heart (intentions or feelings),.
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">(2) With the hand (weapons, etc.)
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">(3) With the tongue (speeches, etc., in the cause of Allah) and has rewarded the one who performs it with the high rooms in the gardens (or paradise).
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">Then after that He made (Jihad) "fighting" obligatory against all those who fight you (Muslims) so He said:" And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you...(2:190)
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">Then Allah revealed in Sura Bara'at (Repentance, IX) the order to discard (all) the obligations (covenants, etc.) and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the pagans as well as against the people of the scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizya (A tax levied on the Jews and Christians who do not embrace Islam and are under the protection of an Islamic government) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (as it is revealed in the verse 9:29). So they (Muslims) were not permitted to abandon "the fighting" against them (Pagans, Jews and Christians) and to reconcile with them and to suspend hostilities against them for an unlimited period while they are strong and have the possibility of fighting against them.
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">So at first "the fighting" was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory--(1) against those who start "the fighting" against you (Muslims)...(2) And against all those who worship others along with Allah...as mentioned in Sura Al-Baqra (II), Al'lmran (III), and Bara'at (IX)...and other Suras (Chapters of the Qur'an).
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">Allah made "the fighting" (Jihad) obligatory for the Muslims and gave importance to the subject matter of Jihad in all the Suras (chapters of the Qur'an) which were revealed (at Medina) as it is in Allah's statement: "March forth whether you are light (being healthy, young and wealth) or heavy (being ill, old and poor) and strive hard with your wealth and your lives in the cause of Allah. That is better for you if you (but) knew." (9:41).
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">And He said: Muslim holy war (Jihad) is ordained for you (Muslims) and you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know. (2:216).
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">At first Muslims disliked it (Jihad), but later they loved it and said: "We listen and obey."
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">And it is they (Mujahidin) who fight against the enemies of Allah in order that the worship should be all for Allah (alone and not for any other deity) and that the word of Allah, (i.e. none has the fight to be worshipped but Allah and His religion Islam) should be upper most. And He has made them (Mujahidin) partners in reward along with all those who guard Islam with their weapons, along with their good deeds which they performed even if they sleep in their homes.
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">So fight in the cause of Allah (for) Islamic Faith (worshipping none but Allah Alone) and sincerely (for Allah's sake) and to make victorious Allah's Religion till it becomes superior over all religions, and mankind is brought out, (1) from the darkness into the light, (2) from the worshipping of the slaves (created false gods) to the worshipping of Allah Alone (the only true God) (3) from the distress of the world to its wideness (ease) and (4) from the injustices of the religions to the justice of Islam.
A GUIDE TO THE CONTENTS OF THE QUR'AN by Faruq Sherif,
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; ">The great expansion of Islam in the short time after its inception was largely due to the militant spirit of the new faith. A great many verses of the Qur'an enjoin on Moslems to take up arms against polytheists, unbelievers and hypocrites. The words used in expressing this commandment are 'Qital' (slaying, warfare) and 'Jihad" (going forth to fight in the holy war). This latter word is more typical as its original meaning is striving with might and main; and, as will be seen, the dedication of maximum effort to the holy undertaking characterizes the commandment. Although the wording of one verse (II.186) implies that fighting is justified when the enemy has attacked first, this is by no means the general rule. Nor is there any substance in the argument which is sometimes advanced to the effect that Jihad should be understood primarily in the sense of moral endeavor and self-discipline in the cause of service to Islam, and only secondarily in that of holy war. The verses quoted below will show that the emphasis is distinctly on warring against non-believers with the object of propagating Islam, this being, by the express injunction of the Qur'an, one of the primary duties of Moslems.
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">'O Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and hypocrites and deal rigorously with them; their home shall be Hell...' (IX.73). 'O believers, fight the infidels who dwell around you, and deal rigorously with them' )IX.124). 'Do not yield to unbelievers, but strive against them in a strenuous Jihad' (XXV.54). 'Fight for the cause of Allah with the devotion due to Him' (XXII.77). 'Fight valiantly for His cause so that you may triumph' (V.39). 'Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of Allah with your wealth and your person's (IX.41). 'Fight in God's cause; you are accountable for none but yourself. Rouse the faithful...' (IV.86). 'Fight against the (the idolaters) until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme' (II.189 and VIII.40). 'Fighting is obligatory for you, and you dislike it. But you may dislike a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you' (II.212). 'Allah loves those who fight for His cause in ranks as firm as a mighty edifice' (I.XI.4). 'The true believers are those...who fight for His cause with their wealth and their persons' (XLIX.15). 'O Apostle, rouse the believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred; if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the unbelievers' (VIIIl.67). 'When you meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks; at length when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them), thereafter is the time either for generosity or for ransom until the war lays down its burdens' (XLVII.4).
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">In a number of verses the command to fight is supported by promise of rewards. 'Who is he that will loan to God a beautiful loan which God will double to their credit and multiply many times?' (II.245-246). 'Allah has given those that fight with their goods and their persons a higher rank than those who stay at home. He has promised all a good reward, but far richer is the recompense of those who fight for Him; rank of His own bestowal, forgiveness and mercy' (IV. 97). 'Those who believe, suffer exile and strive with might and main in God's cause with their goods and their persons have the highest rank in the sight of God' (IX.20). 'Those who...fought in the path of God have the hope of the mercy of God...' (II.215). Those who fall on the battlefield in the course of holy war become martyrs. 'Those that...fought and died for My cause shall be forgiven their sins and admitted to gardens watered by running streams...' (III.194). 'Think not of those who are slain in God's way as dead; they are alive and well provided for by their Lord' (III.163 and II.149). 'As for those who are slain in the cause of Allah, He will not allow their works to perish...He will admit them to the Paradise He has made known to them' (XLVII.5).
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">Other verses show God's displeasure with those who shirk their duty of fighting. 'And how should you not fight in the cause of Allah and for the helpless...?' (IV.77). 'Those who were left behind [in the Tobouk expedition] rejoiced in their inaction behind the back of the Apostle of God; they hated to strive and fight with their goods and their persons in the cause of God. They said, "do not go forth in the heat;' say, "the fire of Hell is fiercer in heat"' (IX.81).
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">The above quotations are by no means exhaustive. Clearly the Qur'an makes it the inescapable duty of every Moslem to take part in fighting for the cause of God; only the blind, the lame and the sick are exempt (XLVIII.17).
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">Whoever disobeys this commandment or tries to compromise with the enemy is a 'hypocrite' and must be treated as an infidel. On the other hand whoever takes part in the fighting is not only promised the rewards of the Hereafter, but in addition receives here below a share of the booty taken.
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">Except for a few verses which are revealed with reference to particular events such as the battles of Badr and Uhud, all the texts concerning Qital and Jihad have a general import. The obligation to engage in holy warfare is meant to persist, in the words of the Qur'an cited above, until God's religion reigns supreme. Therefore if by God's religion is meant Islam in the specific sense, and if it is maintained that the commandments of the Qur'an go beyond the special circumstances and needs of the time of revelation, then it follows that the prescriptions concerning holy war place the Islamic community in a situation of potential hostility towards the non-Moslem world.
The Meaning of the Qur'an, by S. Abul A'La Maududi, vol. III, pgs. 40-41
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; ">"Exert your utmost" does not fully convey the meaning of Jahidu. It implies that the Believers should struggle against all the forces that stand in the way of Allah, as if to say, "You can please Allah and win His favor only if you exert your utmost in the way of Allah: struggle hard against all the persons, parties and forces which stand in Allah's way, which hinder you from Allah's way to turn you away from it, which do not let you follow Allah's way as His servants and force you to become their servants or servants of others. Such exertion and struggle will lead you to true success and become the means of obtaining the nearness of Allah."
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">Thus it must have become clear that this verse exhorts the Believer to fight his enemies on all fronts. On one side, he confronts Satan and a host of his followers, and on the second, his own self and its alluring temptations. On the third side, he has to fight many people who have swerved from the way of God, and with whom he is bound by close social, cultural and economic relations. On the fourth side, he is required to oppose all those religious, cultural and political systems that are founded on rebellion against God and force people to submit to falsehood instead of the Truth. Though these enemies employ different weapons, they all have one and the same object in view, that is, to subdue their victims and bring them under their own subjection. It is obvious that true success can only be achieved if one becomes wholly and solely a servant of God and obeys Him openly and also secretly, to the exclusion of obedience to all others. Thus there is bound to be a conflict with all the four enemies. Therefore the Believer cannot achieve his object unless he engages himself with all these hostile and opposing forces at one and the same time and at all events, and removing all these hindrances marches onwards on the way of Allah.
The Meaning of the Qur'an by S. Abul a'La Maududi, vol. VIII, p. 198
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; ">The Arabic words Jihad-i-Kabir imply three meanings: (1) To exert one's utmost for the cause of Islam,
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">(2) To dedicate all one's resources to this cause, and
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">(3) To fight against the enemies of Islam on all possible fronts with all one's resources in order to raise high the "Word of Allah". This will include Jihad with one's tongue, pen, wealth, life and every other available weapon.
Muhammad by W. Montgomery Watt, pgs 108-109
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; ">...the normal Arab practice of the razzia was taken over by the Islamic community. In being taken over, however, it was transformed. It became an activity of believers against unbelievers, and therefore took place within a religious context. The Emigrants were described as "striving with goods and person in the way of God.' They were promoting one of the purposes of the Islamic community in trying to establish a region in which God was truly worshipped.
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">This transformation of the nomadic razzia has wider implications than are apparent from the English translations used. The words translated 'strive' is jahada, and the corresponding verbal noun is jihad or 'striving' which came in the course of time to have the technical meaning of 'holy war'. The change from the razzia to the jihad may seem to be no more than a change of name, the giving of an aura of religion to what was essentially the same activity. Yet this is not so. There was a change in the activity which came to be of the utmost importance as time went on. A razzia was the action of a tribe against another tribe. Even if two tribes were very friendly, their friendship might cool, and in a few years a razzia might be possible. Jihad, however, was the action of a religious community against non-members of the community, and the community was expanding. If members of the pagan tribes raided by the Muslims professed Islam, they at once became exempt from further Muslim raids. Consequently, as the Islamic community grew, the raiding propensities of the Muslims had to be directed even further outwards. It was this 'religious' character of the jihad which channeled the energies of the Arabs in such a way that in less than a century they had created an empire which stretched from the Atlantic and the Pyrenees in the West to the Oxus and the Punjab in the East. It seems certain that without the conception of the jihad that expansion would not have happened.
Understanding Islam through Hadis by Ram Swarup, p. 99
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; ">The seventeenth book is the "Book of Religious Wars and Expeditions" (Kiotab al-Jihad Wa'l-Siyar).
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">Jihad is a divinely ordained institution in Islam. By many authorities it is counted as one of the pillars of Islam. Theologically, it is intolerant idea: a tribal god, Allah, trying to be universal through conquest. Historically, it was an imperialist urge masked in religious phraseology.
The Punishment Of The Apostate According To Islamic Law by Abul Ala Mawdudi, pgs. 17-19
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; ">To everyone acquainted with Islamic law it is no secret that according to Islam the punishment for a Muslim who turns to kufr (infidelity, blasphemy) is execution. Doubt about this matter first arose among Muslims during the final portion of the nineteenth century as a result of speculation. Otherwise, for the full twelve centuries prior to that time the total Muslim community remained unanimous about it. The whole of our religious literature clearly testifies that ambiguity about the matter of the apostate's execution never existed among Muslims. The expositions of the Prophet, the Rightly-Guided Caliphs (Khulafa'-i Rashidun), the great Companions (Sahaba) of the Prophet, their Followers (Tabi'un), the leaders among the mujtahids and, following them, the doctors of the shari'ah of every century are available on record. Al these collectively will assure you that from the time of the Prophet to the present day one injunction only has been continuously and uninterruptedly operative and that no room whatever remains to suggest that perhaps the punishment of the apostate is not execution.
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">A. The Proof from the Qur'an for the Commandment to Execute the Apostate
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">Here I wish briefly to offer proof that will quiet the doubt in the hearts of those who, for lack of sources of information, may think that perhaps the punishment of death did not exist in Islam but was added at a later time by the mawlawis (religious leaders) on their own,.
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">God Most High declares in the Qur'an:
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief--Lo! they have no binding oaths in order that they may desist. (9:11,12)
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">B. Proof from the Hadith (Canonical Tradition) for the Commandment to Execute the Apostate
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">After the Qur'an we turn to the Hadith. This is the command of the Prophet:
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">1. Any person (i.e., Muslim) who has changed his religion, kill him. This tradition has been narrated by Abu Bakr, Uthman, Ali, Muadh ibn Jabal, Abu Musa Ashari, Abdullah ibn Abbas, Khalid ibn Walid and a number of other Companions, and is found in all the authentic Hadith collections.
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">2. Abdullah ibn Masud reports:
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">The Messenger of God stated: In no way is it permitted to shed the blood of a Muslim who testifies that "there is no god except God" and "I am the Apostle of God" except for three crimes: a. he has killed someone and his act merits retaliation; b. he is married and commits adultery; c. he abandons his religion and is separated from the community.
Understanding the Arab World by Louis Bahjat Hamada, p. 164
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">Jihad, to struggle for a holy cause. According to Muslim belief, all healthy men, and occasionally women, must bear arms in the event of a holy cause that may or may not lead to war. Death in jihad is martyrdom. A warrior who gives his or her life for a holy cause will secure a beautiful place in paradise with special heavenly privileges. This is a good reason for foreign powers not to provoke the Muslims to wrath. Islam owes much of its popularity as a major world religion to this tenet.
The Dhimmi by Bat Ye'or
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">To the cry of JIHAD, the Arabs began their conquest of the world in the seventh century. This was the beginning of an extraordinary epic which brought vast regions of the Orient, Africa, and Europe under the rule of Islam. Jews and Christians who refused conversion became dhimmis: "protected peoples." Separating fact from myth in a vast study of their history, Bat Ye'or offers authentic documents from many periods and regions. A fully knowledge of the Jihad-War, its aims and regulations will provide an indispensable key to contemporary conflicts in the Muslim world, as well as to the wave of current Islamist extremism. The fourth reprinting of this essential book facilitates the study of their ideological roots, often obfuscated.
IV. Recent Examples of Jihad
Your next step is to go up to the librarian and ask if she knew of any examples of Jihad in modern times. She points out that all the wars against Israel were Jihads. All the recent terrorist acts from the blowing up that airplane over Scotland, the bombing of the World Trade Center, the suicide bombings in Jerusalem, the killing of American soldiers in Arabia and Germany, etc., were done in the name of Jihad. The Desert Storm War was itself proclaimed a Jihad.
She sends you to the computer to check out the newspapers and magazines that used the word "Jihad" in its report of recent terrorist activities. The computer comes up with thousands of references in newspapers and magazines where Muslims in the name of Jihad have caused death and carnage around the world.
But then she hits on a recent example that is crystal clear in revealing the violent nature of Islam: the Salman Rushdie affair! He is the author of a book entitled The Satanic Verses who was sentenced to death in the name of Jihad. Several of the translators of his book were hunted down and butchered in cold blood by Muslim fanatics. A price was put on Rushdie's head by the leader of Iran. He was forced into hiding for the rest of his life. His book is burned and banned in Muslim countries. Even the Muslims in the West called for his death and the banning of his book. If there was ever an example of the violent meaning of Jihad in modern times, this is it.
Once you type the name "Rushdie" into the computer, thousands of references come up. It was a hot topic and all the newspapers and magazines wrote on the Jihad against him. After looking at some of the articles, you find several books were also written on the issue. What do you find?
A SATANIC AFFAIR: Salman Rushdie and the Rage of Islam by Malise Ruthven
Sacrilege versus Civility: Muslim Perspectives on The Satanic Verses Affair by M.M. Ahsan and A.R. Kidwai
Evidently, there is a political element in the attack on The Satanic Verses which has killed and injured good if obstreperous Muslims in Islamabad, though it may be dangerously blasphemous to suggest it. The Ayatollah Khomeini is probably within his self-elected rights in calling for the assassination of Salman Rushdie, or of anyone else for that matter, on his own holy ground. To order outraged sons of the Prophet to kill him, and the directors of Penguin Books, on British soil is tantamount to a jihad. It is a declaration of war on citizens of a free country, and as such it is a political act. It has to be countered by an equally forthright, if less murderous, declaration of defiance.
...I gain the impression that few of the protesting Muslims in Britain know directly what they are protesting against. Their Imams have told them that Mr. Rushdie has published a blasphemous book and must be punished. They respond with sheeplike docility and wolflike aggression. They forget what the Nazis did to books--or perhaps they do not: after all, some of their co-religionists approved of the Holocaust--and they shame a free country by denying free expression through the vindictive agency of bonfires.
They have no right to call for the destruction of Mr. Rushdie's book. If they do not like secular society, they must fly to the arms of the Ayatollah or some other self-righteous guardian of strict Islamic morality." p. 75
"In Defense of Sacrilege
"If members of Britain's community of some two million Muslims do not want to read Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses, all they have to do is abstain from buying it or taking it out of the local library. They should not seek to impose their feelings about its contents--or, more probably, what they have been told about them--on the rather larger non-Islamic part of the population. Their campaign to have the book banned, on the grounds that it blasphemes Islam, led to a demonstration over the weekend in Bradford in which, following the example of the Inquisition and Hitler's National Socialists, a large crowd of Muslims burnt some copies of the book..." Source: ©The Independent, 16th January 1989--'Dangers of a Muslim Campaign'. p. 73
Not the Book but the Muslim Protest is Distasteful "If members of Britain's Moslem community wish to pay £12.95 for the privilege of burning a copy of Mr. Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses in the privacy of their own homes, that is a matter for them. Many Christians who have struggled with Mr. Rushdie's impenetrable novels will warm their hands at the fireside. But the state in a society which, as they knew when they entered it, grants total tolerance to all faiths so long as those faiths do not conflict with that very principle of tolerance.
Unite Against Islam!
Limits of Tolerance "There are few more difficult tasks, even or perhaps especially in a liberal democracy, than to define the limits of tolerance. A year after the Ayatollah Khomeini first pronounced sentence on Mr. Salman Rushdie, the difficulties for the author, his publishers, and our own society have become no easier to reconcile. Yet to almost all of us, Mr. Rushdie's right to publish his book was, and remains, beyond dispute. It has been dismaying to behold British Moslems publicly echoing the murderous threats of the Iranians. Only a month or two ago, several hundred Moslems gathered in Walthamstow to vote that the death sentence against the author should "remain in place". One Dr. Kalim Siddiqui has been strongly and openly associated with the call for Mr. Rushdie's death.
An Islamicist's Nightmare!
Rushdie Shemozzle is Attempt to Blackmail "Mary Kenny was last week surely mistaken for once. The Rushdie shemozzle is not just a matter of freedom of expression versus censorship. Islam is trying to blackmail us, with its preposterous death sentence and hints that hostages might be freed and diplomatic relations be restored if we ceased to protect Mr. Rushdie from its hit-men or at least consigned his book to oblivion.
The Rushdie File
Salman Rushdie Sentenced to Death by William J. Weatherby "Obviously I have a view of the world which is not theirs. I insist on my right to express it as I think fit." Salman Rushdie (Forward)
The Rushdie Affair: The Novel, the Ayatollah, and the West
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">Islamic fundamentalism is rapidly growing into a much bigger threat of violence and intolerance than anything emanating from, say, the [extreme right[ National Front; and a threat, moreover, infinitely more difficult to contain since it is virtually impossible to monitor, let alone stamp out, the bloodthirsty anti-Jewish and anti-Christian language being preached from the pulpits of many British mosques... Britain has landed itself with a primitive religious problem that we had every reason to suppose had been solved in the Middle Ages." pgs. 226-227
"Freedom of Speech: The other key issue concerns freedom of speech, both in the Muslim countries and in the West. For Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere, Khomeini's attack on Rushdie served as reminder of just how seriously personal liberties are lacking, and especially that of freedom of speech. As Amir Taheri has explained, Khomeini forced a debate on the long-deferred question, "can a man speak his mind without risking death or imprisonment?" p. 248
Well, by this time you have exhausted all the reference works on Islam that the library has. You have a good grip on what Jihad means according to the dictionaries, the encyclopedias, Islamic scholars, the popular press, historians, theological works, etc. .
First, Jihad is clearly a major doctrine of the religion of Islam. It is sometimes called the "sixth pillar of Islam." Its founder, Muhammad, stated that Jihad was the second most important thing in Islam (Bukhari, vol. 1, no. 25).
Second, Jihad is commanded in the Qur'an and in the Hadith. There are so many references to this fact that this is beyond all doubt.
Third, it is the moral duty of all Muslims to participate in Jihad. Any Muslims who says otherwise is voicing his personal opinion and not the official teaching of the religion of Islam.
Fourth, in its non-violent form, Jihad means to strive with all your might against such temptations as alcohol, and for the conversion of non-Muslims to Islam. In non-violent forms of Jihad, people are encouraged to convert to Islam or to return to Islam by gifts of money, the promise of a job or university education, sexual favors, intimidation, the distribution of tracts, books, tapes and videos promoting Islam, the promise of protection from rape in prison, etc.
Fifth, in its violent form, Jihad has been invoked to justify every act of terrorism imaginable. Waging war on a nation such as Israel or the United States is Jihad. The blowing up of school buses filled with children, bombing public transportation such as buses, trains, and planes, the killing of clergymen of other faiths, the murder of authors who speak out against Islam, the kidnapping and rape of women, the enslavement of non-Muslims, the assassination of political and religious figures, bombing buildings such as apartment houses and churches, gang rape, the looting of homes, businesses, cities and nations, the burning down of neighborhoods and cities, the use of chemical and biological warfare against civilian populations, putting people in jail for criticizing Islam, torturing them and mutilating their bodies, etc.
But what if you run across a Muslim who says that Islam is a religion of peace and that Islam does not teach or practice violent forms of Jihad? They are either ignorant of what Islam officially teaches or they are trying to deceive you. Either way, they are "apostates" because they have rejected the teaching of the Qur'an and the Hadith on Jihad.
How different is the religion of Jesus Christ, the crucified Son of God. He told His disciples to put away their swords and to use only the moral persuasion found in the preaching of the Gospel. Jesus did not come to found an earthly kingdom which could be forced on others against their will. He asks us to place our faith and hope in Him because of the love He showed on the cross when He died for helpless sinners. While Muhammad was the "prince of war," Jesus is the "Prince of Peace." Without Him, there can be no peace between God and man.
Dear Muslim Friend,
In an age when most people do not believe that Truth exists or that it is worth their time and effort to seek it, the mere fact that you have sought us out on the internet reveals that you want to know the Truth. The Truth about who and what God is and how to find acceptance before Him.
The Truth is important because it sets us free from ignorance and superstition. And, once free from these things, Truth can then set us free from the fear of death and bondage to sin.
We too share the same desire and love of the Truth that you have. Let us then search for the Truth together as fellow travelers on the road of life.
Religious Truth Claims
All religions make Truth claims, i.e. they all claim to tell us the Truth about God, man, salvation, and the universe. Yet, they do not make the same claims. One religion may claim that man is God or that the universe is God while another religion may claim that man and the universe were created by God and we are not God or gods at all. One religion may claim that there is only one God while another religion may claim that there are millions or even billions of gods.
Obviously, the religions of this world make different Truth claims. In fact, they contradict each other on almost every point. This is a sad but true fact of life that we both already understand and believe.
Yet, we all know people who claim: "All religions worship the same God." How foolish! How naive! The Hindu who worships millions of gods and goddesses is not worshipping the Allah of the Muslims. The Christian who worships one God in three Persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, is not worshipping the Allah of the Muslims either. Each religion makes its own unique claim about the nature of deity.
What Is A Religion?
By definition, a religion is a world view that tells us what to believe and how to live. It is composed of ideas, i.e. doctrines, and values, i.e. morals. A religion wants us to accept certain ideas as the True explanation of all that is. Intellectual assent to these ideas is what constitutes "faith."
But a religion not only wants our intellectual assent that certain ideas or concepts are true, but it also wants us to obey a list of commands and prohibitions. In other words, religions expect us to obey its laws and observe its rites and rituals.
Is Islam A Religion?
Is Islam a religion? Of course it is. It puts forth various ideas which it claims to be the Truth and it demands that all men believe them. It also demands that all men obey its laws and observe its rituals.
In order for us to dialogue, we have to begin with ideas that we both accept as true. The common ground that we have is the truth that "Islam is a religion." Do you accept that statement? We do. It seems self-evident to us that Islam is a religion. If you do not accept this first point, then the rest of this letter will be a waste of time.
Question #1 Is Islam a religion?
Islam's Truth Claims
Since we all agree that Islam is a religion, then we must also agree that it asks us to believe certain ideas or concepts as the truth. These ideas are its Truth claims. In other words, the teachings of Islam are either true or they are false. There is no middle ground. They are either one way or the other.
Question #2 Does Islam put forth various teachings that it expects us to accept as the Truth?
Blind Faith Will Not Do
Truth claims should not be accepted by blind faith. The issues are far too important for us to make a "leap into the dark" and just believe something because we were told to believe in it by our parents, some religious leader, the state or our culture.
If we are all supposed to maintain whatever religion our parents taught us, then no one should convert from it to any other religion. But no one really believes this. Hindus accept converts from other religions just as Muslims do. As a matter of fact, people are changing religions all the time. We personally know Muslims who became Christians, Christians who became Jews, Hindus who became Buddhists, etc. Some people go from one religion to another as easily as they change cars.
Question #3 Do you know of people who left the religion they were raised in and converted to a different religion?
People can and do change their religion. This is simply a fact of life that we must all deal with. Our own children may leave our religion and convert to another religion. It happens all the time. Only a fool would deny this.
Why would someone convert to another religion? Some people change religions because of marriage. They fall in love with a person of a different religion and they give up their religion to marry that person. It happens all the time.
Other people change religions due to coercion such as threats of violence or bribes of money, sex or political advantage. If you change your religion because someone threatens to kill you if you do not accept their religion, this is not good. If you convert to a religion in order to obtain money, sex or a job, this is not good either.
The only moral reason to change your religion is on the basis of the Truth. If you find out that your former religion was not telling you the Truth, then you should leave it. To continue to believe in a religion that you know to be false is to live an intellectually dishonest life.
If you find that another religion is telling you the Truth, then you should be willing to join it no matter what the price or consequences. To find and follow the Truth is the only way to get to ultimate reality.
The issue is thus reduced to whether you really care about the Truth. To believe in a religion for any other reason than the fact that it is the Truth is to cheat yourself. Convenience, habit, upbringing, fear or greed do not constitute a sufficient basis for belief in any religion. Something is not true simply because you believe it. You should believe in something because it is true.
Question #4 Is your desire for Truth so strong that you would be willing to leave your present religion if the Truth led you to do so?
This is where the "rubber meets the road." This is the ultimate test of your character and love of the Truth. If you are not willing to follow the Truth if it leads you to leave your present religion, then you do not really care about the Truth. If your attitude is, "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up," then you do not really want the Truth at all.
If you feel that you must blindly follow what your parents taught you until the day you die, then you will never know if what they taught you is really true or a lie. Why? For you it is irrelevant if it is true or a lie. It doesn't really matter to you. You were born a Muslim and you will die a Muslim. That is all you care about.
How sad to live your entire life without ever seeking the Truth. To have a closed mind that will not accept anything that contradicts what you want to believe. An unexamined faith is a worthless faith. It is no better than no faith at all for it comes from prejudice and ignorance instead of the joyous search for and the acceptance of the Truth.
Question #5 Could Islam be false in its teachings and rituals?
This question lays all the cards on the table. "All things are possible." This means that you must accept the fact that what you have believed all your life could be a lie.
If this is not even a possibility to you, then why pretend that you want the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth? A deep commitment to finding and following the Truth regardless of where it takes you is the only attitude consistent with intellectual honesty and integrity.
Face it, Islam could be a false religion. Two thirds of the people on this planet think so. Are you even open to this fact of logic? If not, then why are you reading this letter? It is addressed to open minded Muslims who are willing to examine the evidence against Islam with objectivity and intellectual honesty.
Question #6 Are you willing to examine the Truth claims of Islam?
Question #7 Are you willing to entertain the possiblity that Allah is a false god, Muhammad a false prophet and the Qur'an a false book?
If you react to these questions by getting angry, what does this reveal about you? Are you open or closed to the Truth? If Islam is false, why in the world would you want to continue to believe in it?
If you are still with us at this point, hopefully you feel the same as we do: There is nothing more important in this life than the Truth. It is worth whatever price we have to pay. We will follow it wherever it leads us.
The Importance of Questions
How can we test the Truth claims of Islam to see if they are true or false? By honestly seeking the answers to crucial questions we can find out if Islam is true or false. Remember, the Truth is never afraid of the light of research.
The following questions require you to think objectively about Allah, Muhammad and the Qur'an. Don't just answer them off the top of your head without doing any research. Cheap answers will always cheat you out of the Truth. Instead, go to a library and look up the answers in encyclopedias and dictionaries. Find history books on Arabia and on Islam that answer these questions. We found them. So can you.
1. The Qur'an refers to people, places, things, and events which are nowhere explained or defined within the Qur'an itself.
2. These things were not explained because it was assumed that the people hearing the Qur'an already knew of them.
3. Some passages in the Qur'an would be unintelligible without recourse to pre-Islamic history.
4. All Islamic scholars use pre-Islamic history to explain parts of the Qur'an.
5. Thus it is both legitimate and proper to use pre-Islamic history to explain the Qur'an.
6. Yusuf Ali does this when it comes to such things as the she-camel, the elephant army, the twelve springs, the youths in the cave, the blind man, and many other things found in the Qur'an.
7. Mecca was a pre-Islamic pagan center of worship.
8. The kabah in Mecca was a pagan temple filled with 360 idols.
9. Archeologists have found three other ancient kabahs in Arabia.
10. The pagans prayed by bowing down toward Mecca several times a day.
11. They made a pilgrimage to Mecca.
12. When they got to Mecca, they ran between two hills.
13. They ran around the kabah seven times.
14. They kissed and caressed a large black stone on the wall of the kabah.
15. They sacrificed an animal.
16. They threw a magical number of stones at a pillar of the devil.
17. They held their public meetings on Friday instead of Saturday or Sunday.
18. They fasted during the day and feasted at night for one month.
19. The pagan fast began and ended with the moon in its crescent phase.
19. They gave alms to the poor.
20. They performed ritual washings before prayers.
21. As one of their washings before prayer, they snorted water up and then out of their nose.
22. They cut off the hands of thieves.
23. They forbade marrying sisters.
24. They forbid the eating of swine flesh.
25. In pre-Islamic Arabian genealogies, Ishmael is nowhere mentioned as the father of the Arabs.
26. Abraham, the father of Ishmael, was not an Arab.
27. Hagar, the mother of Ishmael, was an Egyptian and not an Arab.
28. Since his mother and his father were not Arabs, Ishmael was not an Arab.
29. Ishmael could not be the "father" of the Arabs because they already existed before he was born.
30. According to the historical and literary evidence, Abraham and Ishmael lived in Palestine.
31. They never lived in Mecca.
32. They never built the kabah.
33. They never established the rituals connected with the kabah such as the pilgrimage.
34. According to Arab history, the kabah at Mecca was built by Kosia, the pagan great-grandfather of Muhammad.
35. The title "Al-ilah" was used by pagan Arabs in reference to one of the gods worshipped at the kabah.
36. The word "Al-ilah" was shortened into "Allah."
37. The moon-god was called "Al-ilah" and then "Allah" by some Arab pagans in southern Arabia.
38. Al-lat, Al-uzza and Manat were worshipped by the pagan Arabs as "the daughters of Allah."
39. Muhammad's father lived and died as a pagan and yet the word "Allah" was part of his name.
40. Yusuf Ali points out in his translation of the Qur'an that the moon was worshipped as a god by pagan Arabs.
41. Many of the pagan rituals associated with the worship of Allah and his daughters were incorporated into the Qur'an and are now part of Islam.
42. The religion of Islam has adopted the name, the rituals, and the crescent moon symbol of the pagan Arab moon-god.
43. Some of the material found in the Qur'an can be traced back to pre-Islamic pagan Arabian religions.
44. Infidels are recorded in the Qur'an as saying that Muhammad took old wive's tales and myths and put them into the Qur'an.
45. The Qur'an warns against asking questions about islam because if the answer are revealed, you will lose your faith.
We have discussed together some very important issues which touch upon the origins of the rituals and beliefs found in the religion of Islam. The burning question that confronted us was whether Islam was created out pre-existing pagan rituals and beliefs or was it revealed from heaven.
After studying the standard reference works on Islam, we must conclude that the rituals and beliefs of Islam are clearly earthly in origin, i.e. they were not brought down by Gabriel to Muhammad. The question of origins is the key to whether Islam is true or false. Your willingness to research this issue is an indication that you really do care about the Truth. Thank you for caring.
The Problem Of Sin
While the issue of the origins of Islam is an intellectual question that can be answered only by research into the historical evidence, there is another issue that confronts us all. Regardless of your religion, there is the inescapable fact that we have all failed to live up to our religious convictions. Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, etc, it doesn't really matter. We have all violated whatever moral standards we have adopted.
This means we have to find a way to be forgiven or cleansed of our sins. Why? If you believe in an afterlife and that there is a hell to escape and a paradise to gain, how can you gain entrance into heaven?
Two Problems We All Face
Our problem is twofold. First, our hearts are prone to evil. Thus we find it very easy to feel lust, jealousy, hatred, anger, and greed. Even when we try to be good, our own heart will betray us.
Question: Do you admit that your heart is prone to evil?
Second, God is keeping a record of all our evil thoughts, words and deeds. He will hold us accountable for these evil on the Day of Judgment. On that Day we will have to face the reality of our own failures and sins.
Question: Do you recognize that you will be held accountable for all your sins on the Day of Judgment?
How can you change your heart and clear your record in heaven? In order to come before a holy God with acceptance, you have to do these two things. Well, how are you going to do them?
Will Good Works Do The Job?
Some people think that if they do good deeds that this will change their hearts and clear their record. But can good works really change anyone's heart? We tried it and found that no matter how much good we did, evil was still present in our hearts.
Question: Haven't you found this true of your own heart?
No matter how many good deeds you perform, your heart still has evil thoughts and motives. No, doing good deeds will never stop your heart from thinking or feeling evil things.
The same problem confronts us if we think that we can erase the divine record of our sins by doing good deeds. How many good deeds are necessary to balance out our bad deeds? It all depends on whether you are thinking of the evil that God sees or the evil we see in ourselves.
When we look at our own lives, we all tend to cut ourselves some slack. We like to think that we are not as bad as some and better than most. We don't come off so bad as long as we compare ourselves to other people.
But what if we compare ourselves to a holy and righteous Deity? If we think in terms of all the sins that an all-knowing Deity sees and hears us do, we do not come off so well. Our sins are like the sand on the seashore- too many to count!
Question: Can doing a few good deeds really clear away the mountain of sin that is against us?
Question: Haven't you found it true that even when you do a good deed, you had evil motives such as pride?
Question: Can evil motives cancel out a good deed?
When we give money to be seen of men, this cancels out the good deed. Thus good deeds will never change your heart or clear your record.
A Mediator Needed
Since we have sinned, we are not allowed to come into the presence of a holy God. But if we cannot go to God for forgiveness, how will we obtain forgiveness? If good deeds will not work, how will we ever enter paradise?
What if someone went before God on our behalf? What if there was a mediator who could intercede on our behalf?
Question: Wouldn't a mediator solve our problem with sin?
Now, such a mediator must be sinless and without blame. Otherwise, he could not go before a holy God either. The mediator must be as righteous and as holy as God Himself or he cannot stand before God.
Even if this mediator could enter God's presence, how could he clear the record of all our sins? He would have to pay off our debt to justice somehow. One obvious way is for him to take upon himself the punishment due to us. In other words, in order for us to escape the fires of hell, he would have to smother the flames of hell in his own bosom.
This mediator would have to be the bridge between heaven and earth and between God and man. A mediator who is not quite God or not quite man is a bridge broken at either end. We need someone to represent God to us and us to God. This mediator has to be both God and man at the same time or salvation is not possible.
Have you ever heard the word "Gospel"? What is it all about? It is a word which means "good news." What is the good news? The good news is that Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and man. He did what we could not do. He entered into the presence of God on our behalf to obtain forgiveness for us.
How could he do this? On what basis? He bore our sins and iniquities in his own body on the cross. He died for our sins according to the Gospel. This is why salvation is a gift of God's grace.
Jesus paid the price for our salvation. Thus God now offers us eternal life free of charge. We become a Christian by simply asking Jesus to be our Mediator- our Savior- our Redeemer. You don't become a Christian by joining a church, getting baptized or doing some other good deed. No, salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. He brings us into the very presence of God.
Question: Haven't you ever wondered why the God of Islam seems so distant - so far off?
Without a mediator, God is far off and distant. A distant God is only feared, not loved. He is unapproachable and seems far away.
Question: Don't you see the need for a mediator to pay off your sins and clear your record?
Question: Does Islam offer you a mediator to take away your sins?
Question: If Islam has no mediator and no atonement, does it have any gospel, i.e. good news?
The End Of The Matter
Dear Friend, Islam leaves you high and dry with no way to deal with the corruptions of your heart here on earth or the record of your sins in heaven. It does not build a bridge between you and God. It does not have a mediator who is both God and man. With no Savior and no atonement, it can never give you any sure hope of heaven.
But all these things are found in the Gospel. Stop right now and ask Jesus to be your Mediator. Ask Him to come into your heart as your Lord and Savior. Receive forgiveness through His atoning work. Pray this simple prayer.
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">Lord Jesus, I ask you to reveal Yourself to me. Save me and cleanse me of my sins. Pay off my debt to God. Come into my heart and save me from hell and make a home in heaven for me. I acknowledge that you are the Son of God and that you died on the cross for me and rose from the dead on the third day.
If you sincerely prayed this prayer, you have become a child of God by faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus has now cleared your record in heaven and the Holy Spirit will now come into your heart to deal with the corruptions found in it. God is no longer distant and far off. He is your Father and you are his child. Welcome to the family of God! Contact us so we can share your joy.
Dr. Robert Morey
The art of asking questions is the very soul and substance of all scholarship and research. Asking questions is the only way to find out the Truth about any religion including Islam. We must always remember that Truth is never afraid of the spotlight of investigation.
In order to find an answer to the topic of our dialogue, we must be willing to ask some very hard questions. We must probe deeply into the sources of Islam. We must be willing to let history and science answer our questions instead of blindly following the dictates of dogmatism.
The Qur'an and Questions
O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things
In his famous commentary on the Qur'an, Maududi warns Muslims not to probe too deeply into Islam.
The Holy Prophet himself forbade people to ask questions ...so do not try to probe into such things.
The questions were not the problem. The answers "made plain" caused people to lose their faith in Islam. Whenever people tell you not to ask questions because if you find the answers you will lose faith in them, they are trying to hide something.
Bukhari's Hadith tells us how Muhammad responded to those who asked him questions:
The prophet was asked about things which he did not
We must ask ourselves, "What kind of god is Allah who hates people for asking questions? This is not like the God of the Bible who encourages us to seek, to ask, and to knock! Why is Muhammad pictured as hating those who asked him questions? Why were people warned not to ask any questions? What is Islam trying to hide? Is Islam so weak that merely asking questions threaten to destroy it? Do Muslims assume that blind faith is the way to Islam?"
The Freedom To Question
Thankfully, we live in a wonderful country where we are free to ask all the questions we want. We are free to probe deeply into the sources of Islam, its god and its religious ceremonies until we find the answer. Indeed, any Muslim who fails to ask questions about the sources of the Qur'an and Islam will be guilty of blind fanaticism and gross ignorance. He should remember that if his religion is true, then there is nothing to fear from asking questions.
The Infidel's Challenge
According to the Qur'an, the infidels of Muhammad's day rejected the Qur'an because it was composed of old stories and myths.
But the unbelievers say, "This is nothing but a lie
The accusation is quite clear: The Qur'an is not a "revelation" brought down out of heaven to Muhammad but it is a forgery composed of previously existing stories. The sources of the material found in the Qur'an was the main point of their accusation.
The Qur'an's Response
How did the authors of the Qur'an handle this accusation? Surprisingly, all they did was attack the character of those who made the accusation and then simply repeat that the Qur'an was brought down from heaven.
In truth, it is they who have put forward an iniquity
In his commentary, Yusuf Ali states,
3058 In their misguided arrogance they say, "We
3059 The answer is that the Qur'an teaches spiritual
The question of the sources of the Qur'an is crucial to whether Islam is true or false. Why? The famous Muslim commentator Maududi explains,
Apparently this is a weighty argument. For there can be no
The question of whether Islam derived its beliefs and ceremonies from heaven or from earth is crucial. If it obtained its god, its rites, and its doctrines from pre-existing pagan religions, then the claim that it was "brought down from heaven" falls to the ground.
1. We can all agree on this common ground: the Qur'an is literature.
2. Our interpretation of the Qur'an is subject to the same rules of analysis and exegesis that govern the interpretation of any other piece of literature: grammar, syntax, literary context, historical context, and cultural context.
3. One literary rule is that when a book refers to things without explaining them to the readers, the author is assuming that these things are so well known that no explanation is needed.
4. The Qur'an refers to gods, people, places, and things which are nowhere explained or defined within the Qur'an itself.
5. The authors of the Qur'an assumed that everyone already knew of these things and thus no explanation was needed.
6. There are many passages in the Qur'an which would be unintelligible if we did not go outside of the Qur'an to the historical and cultural context of pre-Islamic Arabia. Such surahs as "The Blind Man" (80), "The Elephant" (105), etc. are unintelligible if recourse is not made to historical sources.
7. All scholars use pre-Islamic history to explain the contents of the Qur'an.
8. What kind of literature is the Qur'an? Is it rational discourse or historical narative? Is a book of songs or poems? What is it? The authors of the Qur'an tell us that it is primarily composed of "pretty stories." Indeed, if we removed all the "pretty stories" from the text of the Qur'an, it would be reduced to a few pages of threats and warnings.
We relate to you the most pretty
9. From where did these "stories"originate? Were they "brought down" from heaven or were they derived from old myths and legends?
Many scholars are agreed that the stories found in the Qur'an were derived from the legends and myths of Arabs, Jews, Persians, and Christians. In other words, they did not come from heaven but from earth. Their source is not Allah but human story tellers. This is why many scholars view the Qur'an as a fanciful book of ancient tales.
This will not come as a surprise to anyone who actually reads the Qur'an. It is primarily composed of old fables and myths which convolute the names, dates, events, and places of biblical and secular history into incoherent fantasies. Such fantastic stories as the youths in the cave, the she camel, the monkey people and the night journey are only faint garbled reflections of the original tales.
Example: Yusuf Ali's translation and commentary on the Qur'an is well known and accepted all over the world. In his comments on the text, he traces the stories of the Qur'an back to the original Arab, Jewish, Persian or Christian legends from which they were derived. He does not deny the earthly sources of the Qur'an. Instead, he documents them!
If the Qur'an is a confused and jumbled record of ancient "stories" drawn from the various nations conquered by the Arabs, this becomes the most serious threat to Islam's claim of divine revelation. Maududi was right. Once we identify the sources of the Qur'an, it is no longer a revelation.
Yusuf Ali's Translation and Commentary
Surah verse source of story
2 60 Jewish and Arab legends
65 Jewish legends
125 Arab legends
158 Arab legends
189 Arab legends
194 Arab legends
196 Arab legends
197 Arab legends
198 Arab legends
200 Arab legends
259 Jewish legend
3 49 Christian legend
7 65 Arab legends
73 Arab legends
85 Arab legends
11 59 Arab legends
18 9 Christian legend
110 Persian source
74 32 Arab legends
10. It is thus proper and appropriate to apply the question of sources to the god of Islam. Did Islam derive its god from revelation or from previously existing sources?
Is it possible to believe that you are worshipping the true God when you are actually worshipping a false god? Yes.
Do most religions have sacred books which claim that the God, gods or goddessesrevealed in their books are true? Yes.
Does merely claiming that you worship the true God prove that you are in fact worshipping the true God? No.
Does the Qur'an claim that Allah is the true God? Yes.
Is it possible that the Qur'an could be in error and thus Allah is a false god? Yes.
Is it possible that Islam derived the name "Allah" from pre-Islamic sources? Yes.
Does the Qur'an define the word "Allah"? No.
Was the name "Allah" revealed for the first time in the Qur'an? No
Does the Qur'an assume that its readers have already heard of "Allah"? Yes
Should we look into pre-Islamic Arabian history to see who "Allah" was before Muhammad? Yes.
According to Mulism tradition, was Muhammad born into a Christian family and tribe? No
Was he born into a Jewish family or tribe? No
What religion was his family and tribe? Pagans
What was the name of his pagan father? Abdullah (Abd + Allah)
Did Muhammad participate in the pagan ceremonies of Mecca? Yes
Did the Arabs in pre-Islamic times worship 360 gods? Yes
Did the pagans Arabs worship the sun, moon and the stars? Yes
Yusuf Ali: pgs. 1619-1623 "The Forms of Pagan Worship." It will be noticed that the sun and the moon and the five planets got identified with a living deity, god or goddess, with the qualities of its own.
In his explanation of why the Qur'an swears by the moon in Surah 74:32, "Nay, verily by the Moon," Yusuf Alli comments, "The moon was worshipped as a deity in times of darkness"(fn. 5798, pg. 1644).
Did the Arabs built temples to the Moon-god? Yes
Did different Arab tribes give the Moon-god different names/titles? Yes
What were some of the names/titles? Sin, Hubul, Ilumquh, Al-ilah.
Was the title "al-ilah" (the god) used of the Moon-god? Yes
Was the word "Allah" derived from "al-ilah?" Yes
Was the pagan "Allah" a high god in a pantheon of deities? Yes.
Was he worshipped at the Kabah? Yes.
Was Allah only one of many Meccan gods? Yes
Did they place a statue of Hubul on top of the Kabah? Yes.
At that time was Hubul considered the Moon-god? Yes.
Was the Kabah thus the "house of the Moon-god"? Yes.
Did the name "Allah" eventually replace that of Hubul as the name of the Moon god? Yes.
Did they call the Kabah the "house of Allah"?
Did the pagans develop religious rites in connection with the worship of their gods? Yes.
Did the pagans practice the Pilgrimage, the Fast of Ramadan, running around the Kabah seven times, kissing the black stone, shaving the head, animal sacrifices, running up and down two hills, throwing stones at the devil, snorting water in and out the nose, praying several times a day toward Mecca, giving alms, Friday prayers, etc.? Yes.
Did Muhammad command his followers to participate in these pagan ceremonies while the pagans were still in control of Mecca? Yes (See Yusuf Ali, fn. 214, pg. 78).
Did Islam go on to adopt these pagan religious rites? Yes.
...the whole of the [pagan] pilgrimage was
Were al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat called "the daughters of Allah"? Yes.
Yusuf Ali explains in fn. 5096, pg. 1445, that Lat, Uzza and Manat were known as "the daughters of God [Allah]"
Did the Qur'an at one point tell Muslims to worship al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat? Yes. In Surah 53:19-20.
Have those verses been "abrogated" out of the present Qur'an? Yes.
What were they called? "The Satanic Verses." Yes.
Was the crescent moon an ancient pagan symbol of the Moon-god throughout the ancient world? Yes.
Was it the religious symbol of the Moon-god in Arabia? Yes
Were stars also used as pagan symbols of the daughers of Allah? Yes
Did the Jews or the Christians of Arabia use the crescent moon with several stars next to it as symbols of their faith? No
Did Islam adopt the pagan crescent moon and stars as it religious symbol? Yes.
As Islam developed over the centuries, did it adopt pagan names, pagan ceremonies, pagan temples and pagan symbols? Yes
Is it possible that most Muslims do not know the pagan sources of the symbols and rites of their own religion? Yes.
Are they shocked to find out the true sources of their ceremonies and stories? Yes
Can Islam be the religion of Abraham if it is derived from paganism? No
What then is Islam? A modern version of one of the ancient fertility cults.
Is the "Allah" of the Qur'an, the Christian God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? No
Do the Jews say that the Muslim "Allah" is their God too? No
Then whose god is Allah? Paganism
The following citations reveal that there is a general consensus among Islamic scholars that Allah was a pagan deity before Islam developed. He was only one god among a pantheon of 360 gods worshipped by the Arabs. Even if he was at times viewed as a "high god," this does not mean he was the one true God.
The word Allah was derived from al-ilah which had become a generic title for whatever god was considered the highest god. Each Arab tribe used Allah to refer to its own particular high god. This is why Hubal, the Moon god, was the central focus of prayer at the Kabah and people prayed to Hubal using the name Allah
"Historians like Vaqqidi have said Allah was actually the chief of the 360 gods being worshipped in Arabia at the time Mohammed rose to prominence. Ibn Al-Kalbi gave 27 names of pre-Islamic eities...Interestingly, not many Muslims want to accept that Allah was already being worshipped at the Ka'ba in Mecca by Arab pagans before Mohammed came. Some Muslims become angry when they are confronted with this fact. But history is not on their side. Pre-Islamic literature has proved this."
"Islam also owes the term "Allah" to the heathen Arabs. We have evidence that it entered into numerous personal names in Northern Arabia and among the Nabatians. It occurred among the Arabs of later times, in theophorous names and on its own."
"In any case it is extremely important fact that Muhammad did not find it necessary to introduce an altogether novel deity, but contented himself with ridding the heathen Allah of his companions subjecting him to a kind of dogmatic purification."
"The name Allah, as the Qur'an itself is witness, was well known in pre-Islamic Arabia. Indeed, both it and its feminine form, Allat, are found not infrequently among the theophorous names in inscriptions from North Africa."
"Allah" is a proper name, applicable only to their [Arabs'] peculiar God."
"Allah" is a pre-Islamic name. . ."
"Allah is found. . .in Arabic inscriptions prior to Islam."
"The Arabs, before the time of Muhammad, accepted and worshipped, after a fashion, a supreme god called Allah."
"Allah was known to the pre-Islamic Arabs; he was one of the Meccan deities."
"Ilah. . .appears in pre-Islamic poetry. . .By frequency of usage, al-ilah was contracted to allah, frequently attested to in pre-Islamic poetry."
"The name Allah goes back before Muhammed."
"The source of this (Allah) goes back to pre-Muslim times. Allah is not a common name meaning "God" (or a "god"), and the Muslim must use another word or form if he wishes to indicate any other than his own peculiar deity."
"Allah was already known by name to the Arabs."
"The name Allah is also evident in archeological and literary remains of pre-Islamic Arabia."
"In recent years I have become increasingly convinced that for an adequate understanding of the career of Muhammad and the sources of Islam great importance must be attached to the existence in Mecca of belief in Allah as a "high god." In a sense this is a form of paganism, but it is so different from paganism as commonly understood that it deserves separate treatment."
Dr. Robert Morey
When you pick up a copy of the Qur'an, several questions should
immediately come to your mind:
WHAT? LITERARY NATURE
WHERE? PLACE OF ORIGIN
WHEN? TIME OF WRITING
HOW? MEDIUM OF TRANSMISSION
WHY? JUSTIFICATION OF NEED
These questions are good and necessary. But how can we find answers to them? There are two different approaches to answering these questions:
1. The Muslim approach depends upon secondary sources which were put together generations after Muhammad died. The Sira and the Hadith supply the Muslim with the official answers to these questions. Thus while the Qur'an an does not answer the questions above, the Hadith does.
Note: Muslims are guilty of circular reasoning at this point: They prove the Qur'an an by the Hadith and then prove the Hadith by the Qur'an!
2. The secular approach focuses on the issue of primary sources. It questions the veracity of the Traditions as well as the veracity of the Qur'an. It does not want material written in the ninth or tenth century telling them what was written in the seventh century. They want actual material from the seventh and eight century. The failure of the Muslims to come up with anything has great implications.
Part I The Muslim Approach
The Hadith is sometimes called the second inspiration with the Qur'an being the first inspiration. The Hadith claims to be the record of the Muhammad's exposition and application of the Qur'an, biographical material on Muhammad, and the history of the writing, collection, and composition of the text of the Qur'an. (Bukhari vol. VI, no. 564). The authority and authenticity of the Qur'an depends entirely upon the integrity and teachings of the Hadith. In other words, the Qur'an is valid only if the Hadith is true. If it is false, then the Qur'an is automatically false.
A. The Integrity of Muhammad
The integrity of Muhammad is all important. He was either whom he claimed to be, a liar or a nut case (mentally insane or demon possessed).This is why the Traditions went to such great lengths to create a model of Muhammad that depicts him as a "super man" as well as a prophet. What do we find in the Hadith?
1. Muhammad's credentials for prophethood are unacceptable. The two prominent Hadithic "proofs" of his prophethood came from pagan ideas of what a shaman would look like and the manner in which he would be inspired.
A. The Hadith explains that when the Qur'an an refers to the seal of prophethood being upon Muhammad (Surah 33:40), the seal was a large hairy mole on his back. This is found in both Bukhari (vol. I, no. 189; vol. IV, no. 741) and Muslim (vol. IV, no. 5790,5793). This mole was the physical proof that Muhammad was a prophet according to Tabari and other later Muslim authorities. They even claimed that the mole was a fulfillment of such Scriptures as Isa. 9:6. We cannot accept this proof. While such ideas can be found in pagan traditions from many primitive cultures, it is not a part of the religion of Abraham, the prophets, the apostles or Jesus.
B. Both the Bukhari and Muslim Hadiths describe what happened to Muhammad when inspiration came upon him. He heard ringing in his ears, fell to the ground, turned red, sweated profusely, made moaning sounds, spit ran from his mouth, etc.. While ancient pagans placed a great deal of importance on such things, they were never a part of the biblical prophets.
2. He failed a direct test of his claim to prophethood. He was asked to explain why a child will look like one parent as opposed to looking like the other. He claimed that Gabriel came and gave the inspired answer. See Bukhari vol. IV: no. 546. So, we are dealing with revelation and not just his personal opinion. He said that the child will look like which parent reaches his or her sexual climax first. The study of genetics and DNA forever disproves this idea.
3. He believed in magic, the evil eye, amulets, omens, spells, etc. He was superstitious about many things and made up weird rules about bathroom duties (Bukhari vol. I, no. 144; vol. IV, nos. 110, 111; vol. VII, nos. 636, 648, 649, 650; Muslim vol. I, no. 458; vol. III, nos. 5424, 5427 ). He was afraid whenever a strong wind blew (Bukhari vol. II, no. 144) and of eclipses (Bukhari vol. II, no. 167).
While this is bad enough, the Hadith tells us that Muhammad was at times under magical spells, i.e., bewitched, and told lies and did things while under those spells. (Bukhari vol. IV, nos. 400, 490; VII, no. 660; Muslim vol. III, no. 5428) Once it is admitted that he told lies and did things while under satanic influence, then the entire Qur'an could be satanic in origin.
Later Muslim authorities even went so far as to say that he was at one time inspired by Satan to put some verses into the Qur'an. They were later removed because they were Satanic verses. (Surah 53:19,20)
4. The Hadith tells us that "Allah made the prophet wealthy through conquests." (Bukhari III: no. 495). Was he was in it for the money? Some Muslims are ignorant of this Hadith and claim that Muhammad was poor like Jesus.
5. He did not keep the rules he imposed upon others. He had more wives that four (Bukhari vol. I, no. 268) and did not write a will (Bukhari vol. IV, nos. 3,4).
6. He commanded that anyone who fell away from Islam should be murdered. (Bukhari vol IV, no. 260; vol. V, no. 630) Volume IX is filled with death threats against apostasy (pgs. 10,11, 26, 34, 45,50, 57, 341,342).These Hadiths contradict other Hadiths which say that no one ever leaves Islam (Bukhari vol. I, nos. 6, 48).
The punishment of apostates reveals that he did not believe in the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly and the freedom of the press. The fact that he commanded that no churches or synagogues be allowed in Arabia is a telling argument that he was not a man of peace.
7. The Hadith reveals that Muhammad had to ask forgiveness for sin more than seventy times a day. (Bukhari vol. I, nos. 711; 78; vol. V, no. 724) Since Muslims believe that prophets must be sinless, this means that Muhammad was not a prophet.
8. He was guilty of false prophecies.
1. The 100 yr. Prophecy. (Bukhari vol. I, no. 539)
2. The end of the world predictions. (Bukhari vol. IV, no.401)
9. He kissed and caressed the idol of black stone set into the wall of the Kabah. (Muslim vol. II, no. 2912,2916) We cannot imagine Abraham or Jesus kissing a pagan idol and then commanding their followers to do so.
10. While Muslims claim that Muhammad was illiterate order to make the Qur'an a miracle, the Hadith records that he could in fact read and write. (Bukhari vol. IV, no. 393)
II. The Teachings of Muhammad
Just as the Hadith gives us good reasons to question the integrity of Muhammad, his teachings recorded in the Hadith give us even more reason to doubt he was a prophet. The following is a brief list of some of the strange and absurd teachings of Muhammad.
1. Adam was 60 cubits tall! (Bukhari vol. IV, no. 543) Then how tall was Eve? If they were that tall, how did we get here? Is it medically possible for him to be that tall?
2. Muhammad was a dog hater. He thought that angels could not enter a house if a dog was there and that black dogs were devils. Thus he ordered dogs to be killed and forbid the selling of dogs. (Bukhari vol. IV, nos. 539, 540; Muslim vol. I, nos. 551,552; vol. II, nos. 3803, 3829)
3. Satan lives in the nose over night. He can be flushed out if you snort water up and then out the nose. (Bukhari vol. IV, no. 516; Muslim vol. I, no. 462) How big is Satan? Is he in everyone's nose? is he omnipresent?
4. Muhammad forbade the game of chess! (Muslim vol. IV, no. 5612) This makes no sense to me.
5. People turn into rats, pigs and monkeys. (Bukhari vol. IV, nos. 524, 627; Muslim vol. IV, no. 7135). Abraham's father was turned into an animal (Bukhari vol. IV, no.569)
6. Muslims have one intestine while non-Muslims have seven! (Muslim vol. III, no. 5113-5115)
7. If you lift up your eyes towards heaven while praying, your eyes will be snatched out! (Muslim vol. III, nos. 862-863)
8. One wing of a fly has poison but the other wing has the antidote to it. (Bukhari vol. IV, no. 537)
9. We should drink camel urine as a medicine. (Bukhari vol. 1, no. 234)
10. Fevers are from the fire of hell and can be cooled by water. (Bukhari vol. IV, nos. 483,486)
III. The Text of the Qur'an
Who wrote out the Qur'an? On what materials? Who put the Qur'an together? Where did he find the materials to do this? Why did he do this? Were others putting together their own Qur'ans? Did these Qur'ans contradict each other? How did one text gain dominance over all the others? What happened to the other Qur'ans? Only the Hadith gives us answers to these questions.
1. From Bukhari vol. VI, no. 509 we learn the following things:
a. Muhammad did not collect the fragments of the Qur'an and make them into a manuscript.
b. Some of the Companions of Muhammad were killed in battle and whatever surahs they had memorized died with them.
c. Abu Bakr asked Zaid to collect the fragments of the Qur'an and arrange them into a manuscript.
d. Zaid hesitated because the task was harder than sifting through an entire mountain.
e. The task was difficult because of:
1. the fragile nature of the fragments: palm leaves, stones, bones, etc.
2. the faulty memories of men (vol. VI, no. 527)
3. the false claims of men (vol. VI, no. 523)
4. conflicting versions of the Qur'an ( vol VI, no. 510, 514, 523)
5. contradictory orders of the surahs (vol VI, no. 515, 518)
6. God caused verses to be abrogated or forgotten. (vol. IV, nos.57,
62, 69, 299, 393; VI, nos. 510, 511, 527,
7. Muhammad himself forgot and missed various parts of the Qur'an
(vol. VI, no. 558, 562)
2. Even after the manuscript was put together, they found that they had missed some verses (Bukhari vol. IV, no. 62; VI, no. 510).
3. They tried to burn all the other Qur'anic fragments and manuscripts. (VI, no. 510)
4. Uthman is usually credited for making the present text. (vol. I, no. 63; vol. IV, no. 709; vol. VI, nos. 507, 510)
It is clear that the text of the Qur'an was not perfect and that conflicts arose which made it necessary to make one uniform text. That Uthman tried to burn all the other Qur'ans is clear. Yet, there are thousand of variant readings and there remains controversies about verses such as the one about stoning which were omitted by mistake.
IV. The Contradictions and Variant Readings in the Hadith
One problem all Muslims face is that there are contradictions in the Hadith, conflicting readings and abrogations of Hadiths (Bukhari vol. I, nos. 42, 47, 74, 78, 80, 81, 86, 102, 107, 112, 159 vs 160, 161, 179, 180; vol. III, nos. 159,161; Muslim vol. I, nos. 682,685, 689,699; vol. II, nos. 2547,2548)). The footnote on Bukhari vol. III, no. 159 says, "Hadith no. 159 contradicts the Hadith of Al-Hassan" Evidently Allah was not capable of preserving a perfect text of the Hadith. On what grounds then can we assume that the Qur'an was kept perfect?
V. The Inspiration of the Qur'an
The mistakes in the Qur'an are well known. I list over one hundred such problems in Islamic Invasion. The following is a few of the more glaring problems that the average person has no problem seeing. All we need is ONE factual error to disprove the Qur'an. We are not talking about conflicts with theories but with brute facts.
1. Theological errors: The Qur'an is mistaken about what Christians and Jews believe. (Surah 5:73,75; 9:30).
2. Historical mistakes: the Samaritans (Surah 20:85,97), Alexander the Great, etc.
3. Grammatical errors: Arabic scholars point out errors in Surahs 2:177, 192; 3:59; 4:162; 5:69; 7:160; 13:28; 20:66; 63:10, etc.
4. Linguistical errors: Even though the Qur'an claims to be in pure Arabic (12:2; 13:37; 16:105; 41:44;42:7 ), it has foreign words.
5. Scientific errors: sun in muddy pond (Surah 18:86), mountains never shake (Surah 16:15; 21:31; 31:10; 78:6,7; 88:19)
6. Moral errors: Muhammad justifying the taking of his daughter-in-law Surah 33:36,38)
7. Mathematical errors: Did creation take six days (Surahs 7:51; 10:3) or eight days (Surah 41:9, 10, 12)?
8. Chronological errors: Puts Muslim vocabulary put into mouth of Patriarch, prophets, etc. (Surah 2:128133; 7:124,126, etc.). The words did not exist in Hebrew or Arabic at that time.
9. Biblical errors: The convolution of names, places, events and times. Couldn't even get the name of Jesus right. He was the Son of God who died for our sins on the cross according to the Bible. The Qur'an contradicts this.
10. Political errors: Commands Jihad against apostates and non-Muslims (Surahs 4:91; 5:33; 9:5)
The Hadith and the Qur'an stand or fall together. The facts are clear that they are not from God and are false works.
Part II The Secular Approach
Modern scholars such as Crook, Crone, Wansbrough, Rippin, etc. are giving us a totally different model of the origins of Islam and the Qur'an. Once you put aside the Qur'an and the Hadith, you begin to see that Islam created the Qur'an instead of the Qur'an creating Islam. Islam created a mythological Muhammad who is nothing like the historical Muhammad, if that was his true name. The Qur'an had multiple authors from various locations who combined different legends and materials to make the stories found in it. It took 150-200 years for the Qur'an to appear. Muhammad never saw the present Qur'an and would disown it if show it. He is not the source of it. This explains the contradictions and mistakes in it.
570 Muhammad's birth
610 Muhammad's call to prophethood
632 Muhammad's death
650 Calif Uthman
691 Dome of the Rock
8th Century 700 legends myths
9th Century 800 traditions
850 Bukhari's Hadith
923 Tabari's Commentary
1. No references to Muhammad as a prophet have been found incontemporary literature, rock inscriptions or coins.
2. No manuscripts of the Qur'an exist before 150-200 years afterMuhammad. This allows opportunity for myths and legends to arise.
3. The claim that Uthman complied the Qur'an has no evidence tosupport it.
4. The claim that two "original" Uthman Qur'ans can be seen atTopkapi, Turkey and in Tashkent, Russia is false. The manuscripts arein the Kufic script which did not exist in the 7th Century. They are clearly fron the 9th Century and are in "landscape" format which was not used in the 7th century.
5. The present text of Qur'an came from multiple authors usingerroneous legends, myths, and stories. It has many additions, deletions,variant readings, and no primary source materials to support it. It isthus a corrupt text and cannot be trusted to tell us what Muhammadreally taught or did.
6. The text and stories of the Hadith are as corrupt as the Qur'an. Where is the evidence to support its claims?
Dr. Robert Morey
Muslims claim that the Qur’an is 100% the words of God to man and thus it does not contain any words from man to God. They are dogmatic that Muhammad is never the author of the words found in the Qur’an. They use this claim in two ways:
1. They conclude that the Qur’an is inspired by God because its comes 100% from God.
2. They also conclude that the Qur’an is superior to the Bible which contains prayers, sermons, letters and poetry from human authors.
For example, the Book of Psalms in the Bible is composed of human prayers addressed to God. They then argue that since the Qur’an is 100% the words of God, it is superior to the Bible which is a mixture of human and divine words.
Several comments are in order. First, logically speaking, it is irrelevant whether the words of the Qur’an are addressed to man or to God. Just because a book is written as an address to mankind from God, this does not prove that is in fact from God. For example, the following citation is addressed to man from God.
Listen then to the words I say;
Does this passage supposedly record the words of God addressed to man? Yes. The Lord is warning mankind that Muhammad was a false prophet. Does the mere fact that it claims to be 100% the words of God to man prove that it comes from God? No. Obviously, anyone can write a book in which he pretends that his words are 100% the words of God to man.
Second, there are many passages in the Qur’an which are clearly man’s words to God This means that the Muslim argument is not only logically irrelevant but also factually false.
The first Surah called Fatiha is a good test case. Is it 100% the words of God to man? Or, is it 100% the words of man to God? We read:
Praise be to Allah,
You do not have to be a rocket scientist to see that this passage is a prayer addressed to God from man. It is 100% the words of man to God.
This passage is so clearly a human prayer to God that Ibn Masud, one of the companions of Muhammad, rejected this surah as part of the Qur’an! But this surah is still part of the Qur’an to this day.
Again, in Surah 27:90-92, whoever is speaking says,
I have been commanded to serve
Obviously, Allah is not speaking. Muhammad is speaking. He is to serve the Lord of the city of Mecca, i.e., Allah. What is the alternative? If Allah is speaking, then who is commanding him? Who is "the Lord" he should serve? Obviously, the one speaking cannot be Allah.
Surahs 113 and 114 are further examples of passages which are obviously the words of man addressed to God.
I seek refuge with the Lord of
Who is the speaker? It has to be a human author and not God. This is so clear that some Muslim translators such as Yusuf Ali add the word "Say" to the first line when it is not in the Arabic. They thus commit two errors: First, they dare to add words to the Qur’an! Second, by this addition they try to cover up a passage which is clearly man’s words to God.
These and other materials are available from:
Dr. Robert Morey
If the Qur’an is the infallible Word of God, then it stands to reason that it would not contain factual errors of science. By "factual errors" we mean errors that can be physically examined. We are not talking about contradictions between scientific theories and the Qur’an. We are talking about hard evidence that can be checked out.
But first, there is a question we must answer: "Is it legitimate to judge the Qur’an?" Many Muslims believe in the Qur’an as a blind leap of faith. They really do not care if it is filled with mistakes and contradictions. As far as they are concerned, they were born Muslim and they will die Muslim. The more closed minded they are, the more fanatical they become in their religion. When ignorance unites with arrogance, fanaticism is born.
We pity those whose religion is only the product of an accident of birth and culture. They blindly follow whatever religion they were born into. How sad it is to have an unexamined faith; a faith that cannot stand up to reason and science; a faith that merely shouts slogans, stamps its feet and beats its breast in a mindless mob. They do not believe in Islam because it is true. To them Islam is true because they believe it.
A poor player that struts and frets his hour
Thankfully, there are millions of Muslims today who have received a university education and understand that an unexamined faith is a worthless faith. They are open minded to scientific facts and evidence. They want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
One of the questions which puzzled the ancient Arabs was, "Where did the sun go when night time came?" The Qur’an gave them Allah’s answer.
He [i.e. Zul-qarnain] followed,
We agree with Muslim scholars that Zul-qarnain refers to Alexander the Great (see Yusuf Ali’s appendix on this subject in his translation of the Qur’an). According to this surah, Alexander the Great traveled west until he found out what happened to the sun. It went down into and under the murky waters of a pond. When it was completely covered by the water, darkness fell upon the earth.
To the early Muslims, this surah gave the divine answer as to why darkness fell when the sun set in the West. They assumed that the sun like the moon was the size perceived by the human eye, about the size of a basketball. Darkness came when with a mighty hissing roar it went down under the dark waters of a pond. They boldly and proudly proclaimed that this marvelous answer proved that the Qur’an was indeed the Word of God.
Today, modern Muslims are quite embarrassed by this passage and try to ignore it or to quickly dismiss it as poetry. But the passage is not part of a poem. Thus it cannot be dismissed as figurative language or poetic license. In the context, it is part of a historical narrative which relates several historical incidences in the life of Alexander the Great.
The mistake was based on the erroneous assumption that the earth was flat. The authors of the Qur’an did not know that the earth was a sphere which revolved around the sun.
The reader must ask himself if he is prepared to believe and to defend the Qur’an in this passage. Either the sun sets in a pond or it doesn’t. It is either one way or the other. There can be no middle ground, no compromise, no evading the issue. If you agree with us that the sun is shining on the other side of the earth and thus it does not go down into murky water, then you must also agree with us that the Qur’an contains scientific errors.
"So what?" you ask. "Who cares!" you cry. Only those who are brave enough to seek the truth will care. Those who are intellectually lazy or dishonest will close their eyes and pretend to see nothing.
It only takes one error to disprove the Qur’an. That’s right. Just one little error and the whole book goes down in defeat! You have just discovered one irrefutable error in the Qur’an. What are you going to do about it?
There is only one place you can turn for the truth about God. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Accept Him as your Savior and Lord.
The Islamic Invasion by Robert Morey
The Canadian Institutute of Apologetics
We who attended the debates between Shabir Alli and Jamal Badawi witnessed many things. Both Shabir and Jamal lost their debate because they spent their time attacking Dr. Morey’s character and motives instead of setting forth a positive case for Islam. Their ad hominem attacks were against the rules of the debate, which they both signed. As Dr. Morey pointed out, even if he were the most wicked man who ever lived, he could still tell the truth. We hope that in future debates, Muslim apologists will spend their time setting forth an intellectual defense of Islam instead of shouting insults. We also witnessed some Muslims in the audience shouting out death threats and foul language in an attempt to interrupt Dr. Morey’s presentation. This was uncalled for and showed a terrorist mentality that denies the freedom of speech.
Dr. Morey easily refuted the ad hominem arguments of both Shabir and Jamal. Shabir called Dr. Morey “dishonest” and “deceptive” on the grounds that Dr. Morey did not quote the Hadith correctly. He and Jamal both seized upon the issue of the color of Muhammad’s penis. They spent a great deal of time on this issue although Dr. Morey repeatedly said that he was not interested in Muhammad’s penis. Morey’s translation of al-Bukhari’s Hadith was by Muhammad Khan, an internationally known and respected Muslim scholar. In vol 1, Khan translates Hadith no. 367 as “I saw the whiteness of the thing of Allah’s prophet.” Both Shabir and Jamal openly called Bishop Morey “a liar” and claimed that the Hadith did not say “thing” but “thigh.” In his debate with Jamal, Dr. Morey put a copy of the page in question on the overhead projector and had the entire audience read “THING.” But Jamal still claimed that it did not say “THING” but “thigh” -- even with the page set before his eyes. This is the kind of thing that upset the audience.
Shabir has printed up tracts and booklets attacking Dr. Morey’s character. His silly arguments do not address the issues raised by Dr. Morey. We have examined his arguments and found them to be erroneous and irrational. For example, Dr. Morey quoted from various encyclopedias to prove that “allah” was a word used by pagan Arabs IN PRE-ISLAMIC TIMES to refer to one of their pagan gods. Shabir ignored the fact that Bishop Morey was speaking of PRE-ISLAMIC TIMES and pretended that the point Dr. Morey was making was that TODAY Muslims knowingly worship the moon god. Then, with triumph (sic), he pointed out that the references did not say this. Of course, Shabir was taking Dr. Morey out of context and misapplying texts. This is the basic method of Shabir’s and Jamal’s attack on Dr. Morey. For this they should be ashamed.
We ask the Muslims to send us someone who has the intellectual ability to debate the issues without insulting the Christian side. The use of foul language and death threats reveal a lack of intellectual merit. The Truth is found by impartial research and not by barbaric antics, rude behavior and terrorist intimidation.
If you wish to purchase a video tape of these debates, call 1-800-41-TRUTH
Dr. Robert Morey
Christians must be prepared to answer the typical objections made against the Gospel. Most of the objections are based on simple logical fallacies. The following is a list of some of the most common fallacies used by Muslims.
1. The Fallacy of False Assumptions: In logic as well as in law, "historical precedent" means that the burden of proof rests on those who set forth new theories and not on those whose ideas have already been verified. The old tests the new. The already established authority judges any new claims to authority.
2. Arguing in a circle: If you have already assumed in your premise what you are going to state in your conclusion, then you have ended where you began and proven nothing.
If you end where you began, you got nowhere.
3. False Analogy: Comparing two things as if they are parallel when they are not really the same at all.
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; color: black; ">"If you are right, then you must also reject your biblical prophets for doing wicked things as well."
& nbsp What he is really saying is, "If you reject my prophet, then you must reject your prophets as well. If Muhammad was a false prophet, then your prophets are false as well."
4. The Fallacy of Irrelevance: When you introduce issues which have no logical bearing on the subject under discussion, you are using irrelevant arguments.
a. Factually, the text of the Qur'an has not been preserved perfectly. The text has additions, deletions, conflicting manuscripts, and variant readings like any other ancient writing.
o b. Logically, it is irrelevant whether the text of the Qur'an has been preserved because preservation does not logically imply inspiration. A book can be perfectly copied without implying its inspiration.
#2 When Muslims attack the character and motives of anyone who criticizes Islam, they are using irrelevant arguments. The character of someone is no indication of whether he is telling you the truth. Good people can lie and evil people can tell the truth. Thus whenever a Muslim uses slurs such as "mean," "dishonest," "racist," "liar," "deceptive," etc., he is not only committing a logical fallacy but also revealing that he cannot intellectually defend his beliefs.
a. It is a false analogy to parallel the pagan origins of the rites commanded in the Qur'an with the present day holidays nowhere commanded in the Bible. What some modern day Christians do on Dec. 25th has no logical bearing on what the Qur'an commands Muslims to do (eg. the Pilgrimage, the Fast, etc.).
o b. It is irrelevant that some Christians choose to celebrate the birth of Christ. Since the Bible nowhere commands it, it is a matter of personal freedom. But Muslims are commanded in the Qur'an to believe and practice things many things which came from the paganism of that day.
o c. The Muslim by using this argument is actually admitting that the Qur'an was not "sent down" but fabricated from pagan sources. This means he has become an unbeliever (Surah 25:4-6).
#4 Some Muslims argue that the Qur'an is the Word of God because it contains some historically or scientifically accurate statements. This argument is irrelevant. Just because a book is correct on some historical or scientific point does not mean it is inspired. You cannot take the attributes of a part and apply it to the whole. A book can be a mixture of true and false statements. Thus it is a logical fallacy to argue that the entire Qur'an is true if it makes one true statement.
5. The Fallacy of Equivocation: If we assume that everyone has the same definition of such words as God, Jesus, revelation, inspiration, prophet, miracle, etc., we are committing a very simple logical fallacy.
a. It can be used as a generic term like the English word "God." Thus it can be applied to any god or goddess regardless if if a true or false god is in view. (ex. The "Allahs" of Hinduism.)
o b. The Nation of Islam uses it to refer to Wallace Dodd Ford, Elijah Muhammad, and Louis Farrakhan as "Allah" and teaches that all black people are "Allahs."
o c. It has been used by some Christians in Arabic speaking countries as a generic name for the Holy Trinity.
o d. It was used in pre-Islamic times by pagan Arabs to refer to the moon-god whowas the father of al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat.
o e. It is used by Muslims to refer to their god.
Islam and Christianity do not worship the same God. The Christian worships the Holy Trinity while the Muslim worships a unitarian deity.
6. The Fallacy of Force: The Qur'an commands Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims and apostates (Surah 5:33; 9:5, 29).
7. The Fallacy Of Confusing Questions of Fact with Questions of Relevance: Whether something is factually true is totally different from the issue of whether you feel it is relevant. The two issues must be kept separate.
a. The "So what!" argument is dealing with the issue of relevance, not fact. You must stop the Muslim at that point and ask him, "Since you are now dealing with the issue of whether the pagan origins of the Qur'an are relevant, does this mean that you are now agreeing to the fact of the pagan origins of Islam?"
o b. The Muslim has also committed the fallacy of equivocation. The Bible is not threatened by historical sources. It freely refers to them and even quotes them (Acts 17: 28). But the Qur'an denies that it has any earthly historical sources (Surah 25:4-6).
o c. He also committed the fallacy of false analogy. The Bible and the Qur'an are two totally different books. The inspiration of the Bible does not depend upon the fate of the Qur'an because what Muslims claim for the Qur'an is not what Christians claim for the Bible.
8. Phonic Fallacies: The phonetic sound of a word should not be used to twist its meaning. For example,
9. "Red Herring" Arguments: When a Muslim is asked to defend the Qur'an, if he turns around and attacks the reliability of the Bible, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the Crusades, etc., he is introducing irrelevant issues that have no logical bearing on the truthfulness of Islam. He is trying to divert attention from Islam to other issues.
10. Straw Man Arguments: When you put a false argument into the mouth of your opponent and then proceed to knock it down, you have only created a "straw man" argument. Muslims sometimes either misunderstand or deliberately misquote the arguments Christians give them.
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; color: black; ">"The Qur'an teaches that Allah is the Moon-god and that Muslims knowingly believe in and worship the Moon-god and his daughters."
& nbsp They then knock down this "straw man" argument and claim victory. Of course, we never said such nonsense. What we have said is that while the Qur'an claims that Allah is God and Muslims think they are worshipping the one true God, in reality they are worshipping a false god preached by a false prophet according to a false book.
The average Muslim has been deceived by Muslim apologists who use such logical fallacies without regard to reason, fact or honesty. But there are many Muslims who want to be rational in their religion and thus have an open mind to rational discourse. Once they see that their arguments are based on logical fallacies, they will be open to the wonderful news that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for our sins on the cross.
Dr. Robert Morey
Modern scholars using sound principles of literary analysis have determined that the Qur’an did not come from Muhammad. He did not recite it and actually never saw a copy of it. It was not put together in its present written form until nearly one hundred and fifty years after Muhammad’s death.
This has come as quite a shock to Muslims. According to the legends, myths, and stories found in the Hadith, the Qur’an was written in heaven by Allah on a large stone tablet. The angel Gabriel brought it down and Muhammad recited it verbally but did not write any of it down. It was Muhammad’s companions who wrote down what he recited. After his death, it was gathered together and compiled by the Calif Uthman.
The insurmountable problem that Muslims face is that they do not have any documentary evidence from the 7th and 8th century to back up any of their claims. For example, if Uthman compiled the Qur’an as the Hadith claims (Bukhari I:63; IV:709: VI:507, 510), where is the manuscript evidence for this? Why have no Qur’ans survived from that period? Why do we have to wait over hundred years before we find even a scrap of the Qur’an?
The Muslims are also guilty of circular reasoning when they document the Qur’an by the Hadith and then document the Hadith by the Qur’an! But there is no documentary evidence to back up the Hadith or the Qur’an! They are both fraudulent as to authorship and dates.
Some Muslims have claimed that 7th century copies of the original Qur’an have been found in museums at Topkapi, Turkey and Tashkent, Russia. But when they were examined by manuscript scholars, they turned out to be 9th or 10th century manuscripts.
The Qur’an was invented in order to give spiritual unity to the vast empire created by Arab conquests. By borrowing liberally from the legends, myths and religious traditions of pagans, Jews, Christians, Hindus, and Persians, they created one religion to rule over all its citizens. Thus the Qur’an was the product of multiple authors from different times and places. These authors contributed stories and legends from their own cultural and religious background. The sources of these stories have been well documented by many scholars.
The burden of proof is now clearly on the Muslims. They must supply scholars with the documentary evidence to support their theories on the origins of the Qur’an and the Hadith. Until they do so, we cannot believe in the inspiration of either one.
How different is the situation with the New Testament. The manuscript evidence for it begins twenty years after the death of Christ. There are literally thousands of Greek, Latin, Syriac and Coptic texts which document the reliability of the New Testament.
The same holds true for the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. We have more than enough literary documentation for the life of Jesus from first century Jewish, pagan, and Christian manuscripts. This is in sharp contrast to the life of Muhammad. We find no references to him as a prophet until 150 year after his death. No one has ever found even the smallest fragment of the Qur’an from the 7th century. Thus much of what is said about the life of Muhammad must now be dismissed as fiction.
The truth will triumph in the end. The Qur’an and the Hadith were political tools used to subjugate non-Arab cultures by forcing them to accept a religion with elevated Arabian language, political laws, moral standards, dress codes, penal punishments and other cultural elements to the status of divine law. This is why to become a Muslim you must take an Arab name, dress like an Arab, speak Arabic, eat only what Arabs ate, treat your wife as Arabs treat their wives, etc..
The religion of Islam was thus born out of Arab cultural imperialism and is rooted in a racist attitude that all things Arab are good while all things non-Arab are evil. Until this is understood, the true nature of Islam cannot be grasped.
This is why Western dress, food, movies, hairstyles, etc., are zealously denounced by the Mullahs and Imams as Satanic. Such things as blue jeans are not really condemned because they are immoral but because they are not Arab.
The truthfulness of this observation is easily demonstrated by Islam’s demand that one bow in prayer in the direction of Arabia (Mecca) and make a pilgrimage to Arabia (Mecca). The religion of Islam is Arabian paganism and culture raised to divine law and imposed upon conquered nations.
Nations such as Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, etc. who had the misfortune of having Islam forced upon them by the sword, need to break free from Arab imperialism in order to regain their own identity and culture. Until they throw off the shackles of Islam, they cannot become free societies where human rights are honored.
How can this be done? The oppressed masses must return to their Christian heritage which was stolen from them by wave after wave of Arab armies. Why would anyone entering the 21st century want to continue to believe in a foreign religion that was forced upon his ancestors many centuries ago by violence, slavery, oppression and unjust taxes? It is time to break free from the darkness and ignorance of Islam and enter into the freedom and light of Christianity.
The Truth About The Nation Of Islam
by Dr. Robert A. Morey
Every major religion has its own set of cults or fringe groups which use the name and terminology of that religion while in fact denying the core beliefs of that religion.
Hinduism: Thuggees, Hare Krishnas
Buddhism: Zen Buddhist cults/masters
Christianity: Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons
Islam: Sufism, Bahaism
It is in this sense that we view the Nation of Islam, or, as they are popularly known, the
I. Its Origin And History
The Nation of Islam began in the early 1930s with the teachings of a white man by the name of Wallace D. Fard. His background and family heritage are still unknown.
The fact that both the Arab prophet Muhammad and Wallace Fard were white men is not generally known to most followers of the Nation of Islam. They have been fed the lie that Muhammad and Fard were black men. Since Wallace Fard and Muhammad were both white men, Islam and the Nation of Islam can both be called "a white man's religion."
The Watchtower Connection
Fard used the literature and teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses to attack the Trinity and to reduce Jesus Christ to a mere man. He also developed a theory of racism in which the white man was created by an evil black scientist/god by the name of YaKub. This is why the white man is a called "white devil." In contrast, black people are "gods" in that they sprang from the original black deities of the universe.
In 1931, one of his first converts was Elijah Poole, the son of a Baptist preacher. Fard changed Elijah's "Christian" name to the "Muslim" name of Kariem. But in 1934, Fard disappeared just as suddenly as he appeared. It is thought that Elijah had him murdered so he could take over the movement.
Karriem then changed his name to Elijah Muhammad and under his guidance the Nation of Islam made noteworthy converts such as Muhammad Ali.
One of the early converts of Elijah was a young man by the name of Malcom Little who, like Elijah himself, was the son of a Baptist preacher. Elijah changed Little's name to Malcom X and he became Elijah's chief spokesman. See the book Islamic Invasion for more details on Malcom X.
Elijah Muhammad was a superb businessman who made himself, his family, and his organization, fabulously wealthy. He continued using Jehovah's Witness doctrines such as the end of the world coming in the 1970's and 1914 as "the beginning of the end." This false prophecy proves that he was a false prophet.
Malcom X Leaves
Confronted with the gross immorality and greed of Elijah Muhammad, Malcom becomes disillusioned with the cult. He began to doubt many of its teachings particularly the idea that all white people were devils.
During a trip to Mecca, Malcom X discovered that the teachings of Wallace Fard and Elijah Muhammad had nothing in common with the religion of Islam. But while at Mecca, he saw black slaves being sold in chains to white Arabs in the slave market but said nothing about it to the black community in America. His "slavegate" cover-up is a blemish on Malcom's character to this day.
He left the Nation of Islam, became an orthodox Muslim and set up his own competing mosque. This meant that Elijah had to compete with Malcom for those black dollars. This is the bottom line as to why he was murdered by a Black Muslim death squad.
After the death of Elijah Muhammad, the Nation of Islam was taken over by Wallace D. Muhammad, a son of Elijah. But he changed many things to bring it into line with orthodox Islam. In particular, he threw out the doctrine that white people were devils.
Louis Farrakhan did not like the changes that Wallace Muhammad was making. He split off and formed his own group which he called the "Nation Of Islam." He even set up his own army which he called the "Fruit of Islam."
Since that time four competing groups all calling themselves "the Nation of Islam" have arisen each claiming to be the "true" successor to Elijah Muhammad. Since Elijah Muhammad said not to march on Washington, DC, Farrakhan was clearly not following his teachings when he staged his "The Million Man March."
Farrakhan Takes A Ride
During his speech during the 1991 Savor's Day Celebration, Farrakhan claimed that he was beamed on board a giant spaceship in orbit around the earth forty miles up into outer space. This is the space ship which will destroy the white man one day.
Among the thousands of people on board, he heard the voice of none other than "Master Elijah Muhammad!" Thus he is still alive and not dead according to Louis. The funeral for Elijah which was seen by thousands of people on TV was a deception according to Louis. He also claims that 1,500 little space ships follow him around at all times!
During this same speech, he attacked orthodox Islam as well as Christianity and preached his own unique doctrines.
II. Its True Nature
Some fringe groups are actually more racist than religious in nature. But they cloak their racism under religious terminology and paraphernalia in order to deceive and to manipulate people. This is particularly true of the Ku Klux Klan and the Nation of Islam. They are mirror images of each other in many ways. A comparison of these two racist organizations will be quite instructive.
The Ku Klux Klan
*The Nation Of Islam*
It began in times
of racial tension
and social upheaval.
* It began in times
of racial tension
and social upheaval.*
defender of the
defender of the
Has racist beliefs
and a racist agenda
*Has racist beliefs
and a racist agenda*
But it denies what
*But it denies what
It is condemned by
*It is condemned by
Uses Christian symbols
such as the cross
*Uses Islamic symbols
such as the crescent*
Claims to believe in
the Christian God
*Claims to believe in
the Muslim God*
Uses Christian names
*Uses Muslim names*
pointed hoods and gowns
*Wears "Muslim" costumes:
skull caps and gowns*
Uses racist slurs
against black people
niggers, coons, etc.
*Uses racist slurs
against white people:
devils, honkey, etc*
Has a special hatred
*Has a special hatred
Uses fear, intimidation
and violence to get its way
*Uses fear, intimidation
and violence to get its way*
of the races
of the races*
Wants a "Whites only"
*Wants a "Blacks only"
It has made its leaders wealthy
*It has made its leaders wealthy*
It is interesting to note that Elijah Muhammad sent Maclom X to talk with the head of the KKK to see if they could work together.
III. The Teachings Of The Nation Of Islam
I. On God
#1. The Nation of Islam is guilty of teaching polytheism which is the belief in more than one God. This is one reason why it has been condemned by Jews, Christians, and Muslims who believe that there is only one God.
According to Louis Farrakhan, the "24 elders" mentioned in the book of Revelation are actually 24 black godmen!
#2. The Nation of Islam is also guilty of teaching that all the gods including Allah are material in nature. This is in start contrast to the Bible which teaches that God is spiritual in nature (John 4:24).
#3. The Nation of Islam also teaches that all of the original gods were black men. This also is condemned by the Bible in Num. 23:19.
II. On Allah
Allah is not just one man but a succession of men beginning with Wallace Fard. He was the Allah of the Muslims, the Jesus of the Christians, the Messiah of the Jews and the coming Mahdi. Then after he departed from the scene, Elijah Muhammad was proclaimed as Allah, Jesus, Messiah, and the coming Mahdi.
Now that Elijah has ascended to his space ship, in the 1991 Savor's Day Celebration, Farrakhan was introduced as being "the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, the everlasting Father and the Prince of Peace." Farrakhan has now stated that he is Allah, Jesus, the Messiah, and the coming Mahdi all rolled into one!
III. On Christ
Jesus is reduced to a mere man. His virgin birth, divine nature and atoning work on the cross are not only denied but ridiculed.
IV. On Man
The white man was not created by the god Allah but by the god YaKub. He was the same black scientist who accidentally created the moon during a laboratory explosion. He made the white race out of the evil in the universe.
V. On The Resurrection
Elijah Muhammad denied the physical resurrection of the body and taught a "mental resurrection" instead.
IV. How To Respond To the Nation Of Islam.
A. Begin by pointing out that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the religion of Islam, Muhammad or the Qur'an. They have simply ripped off the names and symbols of Islam while denying the essential core of the Islamic faith.
B. Point out that Allah is not God, Muhammad was not the prophet of God and the Qur'an is not the word of God. Thus Islam is itself a false religion. When combined with the Nation of Islam, it is double error.
C. Tell them that, like the KKK, it is a racist organization that uses religion to deceive and to manipulate people.
D. The real problem which faces all of us is not the color of our skin but the reality of our sin. The solution is not one's race but God's grace.
E. Point out to them that according to the Muslim scriptures called the Hadith in vol. VI, no. 435, Muhammad was a slave owner of black slaves! Thus such names as "Muhammad" "Kariem" "Abdul" "Aisha" etc., are "slave" names! Contrast this with the fact that Jesus did not own any slaves and that He came to set all men free. Thus Bible names are better than slave names.
F. Tell them that the Nation of Islam stands opposed to everything that Martin Luther King Jr. ever believed or accomplished. They cannot follow both King and Louis. They have to choose which one they will honor.
G. Stand firm for what Dr. King said: "Do not judge us by the color of our skin, but judge us by the content of our character."
H. If the Bible is the "white man's book" as they claim, challenge them to find the words "white man" in the Bible. Such words never appear in the Bible because Jesus came to save all races and ranks of mankind.
I. Share the Gospel with them. Boldly tell them:
No other gods (Exo. 20:3)
No other name (Acts 4:12)
No other way (John 14:6)
J. Give them the tracts: "Islam: The White Slaver's Religion" and "Islam: The Religion of the Moon god." Challenge them to read and refute the book Islamic Invasion. Show them the REF videos on Islam. Go after them and win them to Christ.
We have the truth on our side. So take the high ground and seize the initiative. The NOI cannot give even one verse in the Qur'an or the Hadith which says that Muhammad was a black man. But we have lots of verses in the Hadith which state that he was a white man. Shout it from the rooftops and tell it on the mountains: Muhammad is dead while Jesus is alive!
First, thank you for honoring me by your article. My little essay on the typical logical errors found in Muslim apologetics was written as an aid for Christians involved in witnessing to Muslims. Thus it was not intended to be a refutation of Islam per se. I do that in other writings.
Second, you are to be commended for admitting that on many occasions I was right. Such statements as,
"Now, it is true that some Muslims use arguments
"This is true..."
"He is correct..."
For you to join me in condemning some popular but fallacious arguments used by Muslims took courage on your part. I will quote you in future debates when pointing out the logical errors of my debate opponent.
Third, the bulk of your paper is based on the fallacy called Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. You repeatedly accused me of building a straw man argument because you had never heard a Muslim give the argument I refuted. Thus you were admiringly arguing from ignorance. But your ignorance of contemporary Muslim apologetics does not prove that this or that argument is a straw man.
For example, you claim that the argument that "Allelujah" means "Allah-lujah" is a straw man argument because you never heard any Muslim using it. You have to be kidding! You have never heard of the Muslim apologist Ahmed Deedat? He gave that argument in his booklet What Is His Name (Durban , S.A.: IPCI, 1990) and in several debates on video. Thus I was not building a straw man.
I can document numerous other arguments which you evidently do not know are being used today. Check the tracts put out by Shabir at the Toronto Islamic Center. They are prime examples of the logical fallacies used by many Muslim apologists today.
Fourth, your use of the fallacy called Argumentum ad Hominem illustrates the dark side of Muslim apologists. Such slurs as "pernicious," "patronizing," and "arrogant" are clear examples of attacking the messenger instead of the message. The most arrogant man in the world can still tell you the truth. Thus your attack on me personally was unprofessional and irrational. You do not do Islam any favors by name calling.
Fifth, you make many factual errors. The doctrine of the Trinity does not teach three gods. This is sheer ignorance on your part. I have written a book called The Trinity: Evidence and Issues (Grand Rapids, World Pub., 1997) in which I point out that the Qur'an makes the same mistake. If you ever want to know if the Bible teaches the Trinity, get a copy of it.
The same thing is true of your ignorance of the Nation of Islam. It was founded by Wallace Dodd Ford who changed his name to Fard Muhammad. The NOI states in its writings that all black people are "allahs." Because you did not know this, you accused me falsely. Read my book Islamic Invasion for the details.
Sixth, every major religion has cults on the fringes of it that deny the central core beliefs of that religion. For example, the Nation of Islam claims to be Islamic but it denies what orthodox Islam teaches. You would cry foul if I quoted the NOI as being true Islam.
In the same way, Jehovah Witnesses are not Christians but apostates who do not represent Christianity in any sense. (See my book on them.) It is thus invalid for you to quote from the Diaglott published by them. By the way, it was written by a newspaper man and not a Greek scholar.
In closing, you committed most of the logical errors I listed in my paper. You should ask yourself why you and others such as Badawi, Deedat, Shabir, Kalid, etc. have to resort to name calling and logical fallacies to defend Islam? Could it be that Islam is irrational and incapable of a rational defense? If you are any example of the best apologists Islam has, then Islam is in deep trouble.
By Dr. Robert A. Morey
The Middle East will never have peace until the above question is honestly answered according to the historical facts. Myths and legends are fine as stories for children but in the real world we must have facts and documentation.
The Arab Claim
The Arabs' claim to the land of Israel rest entirely on three false assumptions:
1. All Arabs are the descendants of Abraham through Ishmael.
2. Ishmael and his descendants were included in the covenant God made with Abraham.
3. Since the Abrahamic convenant included the land of Israel, the Arabs have a legitimate claim to it.
Ten Historical Facts
1. According to the Torah, when Abraham left Ur of the Chaldees, he went West to what is now called Israel (Gen. 12 ff.). He became a dweller in tents in that land. It was in Israel that God made a covenant with him for the land in which he was living at that time. It was in Israel that he fathered Isaac, Ishmael, and many other sons and daughters. Isaac was the only son of Abraham chosen by God to be the heir of the covenant. Abraham took Isaac to Mt. Moriah to be offered up as a sacrifice to God.
2. The Torah is contradicted by Qur'an at nearly every point. According to Surah 2:119-121, Abraham and Ishmael did not dwell in tents in Israel but in the city of Mecca in Arabia. Together they rebuilt the Kabah and placed the black stone in the wall. It was Abraham who started the tradition of an annual pilgrimage to Mecca, throwing stones at the devil, etc.. Abraham took Ishmael (not Isaac) to nearby Mt. Mina to offer as a sacrifice to God.
3. Ishmael's twelve sons were named Nebaioth, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, Mishma, Dumah, Massa, Hadad, Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah. (Gen. 12:11-16) They intermarried with the local population in North Arabia and produced several nomadic tribes know as the "Ishmaelites."
4. It was prophesied in the Torah that Ishmael and his family would "live to the East of all his brothers." (Gen. 16:12) "And they settled from Havilah to Shur which is east of Egypt as one goes toward Assyria." (Gen 25:18) This broad area is the desert section East of Egypt in Northern Arabia toward the kingdom of the Assyrians.
5. The Ishmaelites are mentioned as a distinct tribe in the Assyrian records. They later intermarried with and were absorbed by the Midianites and other local tribes. In Gen. 37:25-28; 39:1, the Ishmaelites are called the Midianites and in Judges 8:22-24 cf. 7:1f, the Midianites are called the Ishmaelites. The identification cannot be made any stronger.
6. Arabia was already populated by the descendants of Cush and Shem long before Abraham or Ishmael were born (Gen. 10:7). Their cities and temples have been well documented by archeologists.
7. If all the Arab people descended from Ishmael as Muhammd claimed, where did all the original Arabs go? What happened to them? Who did Ishmael marry if the Arabs did not already exist? If Arabia was unpopulated, who built Mecca? Since he lived there, obviously it existed before he was born. The facts speak for themselves. The Arab people existed before, during, and after Ishmael moved started roaming the wilderness of North Arabia.
8. The descendants of Ishmael were scattered in Northern Arabia from the wilderness of Shur to the ancient city of Havilah. They were absorbed by the local tribes such as the Midianites (Gen. 37:25-28; 39:1; Judges 8:24). There is no historical or archeological evidence that Ishmael went south to Mecca and became the "Father" of the Arab race. Some modern Arab scholars admit that before Muhammad, Qahtan was said to be the "Father" of the Arab people, not Ishmael.
9. The Abrahamic Covenant was given only to Isaac and to his descendants. Ishmael and the other sons of Abraham were explicitly excluded by God from having any part of the covenant made with Abraham. (Gen. 18:18-21)
10. Therefore the descendants of Ishmael and the other sons of Abraham do not have any claim to the land of Israel because they are not included in the covenant God made with Abraham. Only the Jews have any claim to the land of Israel.
Muslims like to claim that Islam give them the right to claim the land of Israel as their own. This claim rests upon two false assumptions:
1. All Arabs are the descendants of Ishmael;
2. Muhammad went to Jerusalem.
Three Historical Facts
1. The first assumption has already been proven false. The Arab people are not all the descendants of Ishmael and hence they are not the heirs of the Patriarchs, the prophets, the Scriptures or the land of Israel.
2. The claim that Muhammad went to Jerusalem is false. According to the Qur'an and the Hadith, Muhammad had a dream in the middle of the night in which he traveled through the sky, visited seven heavens, met great people like Jesus, and visited the Jerusalem. Since this was only a dream, he was never actually in Jerusalem. The Mosque on the temple site in Jerusalem is a hoax built on the lie that Muhammad stood on the site.
3. Nowhere in the Qur'an does it state that Ishmael is the progenitor of the Arab race. Since it is not taught in the Qur'an, it cannot be a true Islamic belief.
The Arab people are not the children of Ishmael. Even if they were, they would still have no claim to Israel because Ishmael was excluded by God Himself from having any part in the covenant made with Abraham. Isaac was the only heir of the Abrahamic covenant.. Thus the Arabs as a people have no claim to the land of Israel.
The Muslims have no claim to the land of Israel either. Muhammad never went to Jerusalem except in a dream. The only ones with a spiritual and biblical claim to the land of Israel are the descendants of Isaac, the Jews.
"Arabian literature has its own version of prehistoric times, but it is entirely legendary." (Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 2:176)
"The pure Arabs are those who claim to be descended from Joktan or Qahtan, whom the present Arabs regard as their principle founder...The 'Arabu 'l-Musta'ribah, the mixed Arabs, claim to be descended from Ishmael..they boast as much as the Jews of being reckoned the children of Abraham. This circumstance will account for the preference with which they uniformly regard this branch of their pedigree, and for the many romantic legends they have grafted upon it...The Arabs, in their version of Ishmael's history, have mixed a great deal of romance with the narrative of Scripture."
"Muhammad was not informed about the family of Abraham."
"There is a prevalent notion that the Arabs, both of the south and north, are descended from Ishmael; and the passage in Gen. xvi.12, "he (Ishmael) shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren," is often cited as if it were a prediction of that national independence which, upon the whole, the Arabs have maintained more than any other people. But this supposition is founded on a misconception of the original Hebrew, which runs literally, "he shall before the faces of all his brethren," i.e., (according to the idiom above explained, in which "before the face" denotes the east), the habitation of his posterity shall be "to the east" of the settlements of Abraham's' other descendants...These prophecies found their accomplishment in the fact of the sons of Ishmael being located, generally speaking to the east of the other descendants of Abraham, whether of Sara or of Ketuah. But the idea of the southern Arabs being of the posterity of Ishmael is entirely without foundation, and seems to have originated in the tradition invented by Arab vanity that they, as well as the Jews, are of the seed of Abraham--a vanity which, besides disfiguring and falsifying the whole history of the patriarch and his son Ishmael, has transferred the scene of it from Palestine to Mecca." (McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, (Vol. I:339)
In the Qur'an, "Gen. 21.17-21...are identified with Mecca."
The Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 7, pg. 296 where the connection between the Midianites and the Ishmaelites is noted.
The Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam, pgs. 178-179.
A Popular Dictionary of Islam, p. 127.
California Institute of Apologetics
PO Box 7447
Orange, CA 92863
1. "You are a racist if you speak against Islam."
To be against Islam is not racism because Islam is not a race but a religion. There are more Asian Muslims than Arab Muslims in the world. In the US, African-Americans comprise over 50% of the Muslims. Thus Islam is not made up of "Arabs" per se. Many Arabs are Christians. Thus anyone who thinks that "Arabs" and "Muslims" are synonymous terms is a racist.
2. "To criticize Islam is hate speech."
To criticize the religion of Islam is not "hate speech" because Islam, like any other religion, criticizes other religions such as Christianity. True freedom of religion means the right to discuss what you believe about other religions as well as what you believe about your own religion.
3. The Liberal media contradicts itself.Liberal Media versus The Truth
1. It does not matter what you believe as long as you are sincere.
The terrorists were sincere in their beliefs. Their sincere beliefs led them to murder thousands of people. Thus it does matter what you believe if it leads to the destruction of the property and lives of others.
2. It does not matter what you believe as long as it makes you happy.
The terrorists were happy to kill and be killed in Jihad.
3. Religion is not a matter of true vs. false, or good vs. evil. It is a matter of subjective personal choice.
This statement refutes itself as it can be dismissed as someone's personal choice.
4. All religions are true.
Then the religion of Christianity is true when it says there is only one way to heaven, Jesus Christ.
5. We must not judge other religions.
Then you cannot judge our religion when it says to judge other religions. You cannot judge us and then pretend that you do not believe in judging others.
6. We must be tolerant of other views.
Great! Then you must tolerate Jesus when He said to identify and reject false prophets. But if you do not tolerate Him, then you are intolerant.
7. Islam is a religion of peace. This is a lie. Both the Qur'an and the Hadith teach Muslims to destroy the lives and properties of those who will not accept Islam. This is called Jihad. (For a complete list of references, Read My Book: “The Islamic Invasion,” Faith Defenders, P. O. Box 7447, Orange, CA 92863, Call 1-800-41TRUTH to order my book “The Islamic Invasion,”)
8. Jews and Christians fared better under Islam than in Christian lands.
This is refuted by Bat Ye'or in The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam (Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985).
9. The Terrorists are not true Muslims.
No! They are acting upon what the founder of Islam taught in the Hadith and what is found in the Qur'an. This is why they called "Muslim Fundamentalists" as opposed to liberal Muslims who do not believe in the Qur'an or the Hadith. It is the liberals who are not true Muslims because they deny the teachings of the founder of the religion they claim to follow.
10. But doesn't the Qu'ran say there is no compulsion in religion?
The Qur'an is divided into Meccan and Medinan Surahs. The Medinan Surahs abrogate the Meccan Surahs. For example, in Mecca Muhammad said there is not compulsion in religion. But, after he moved to Medina, he said to fight against the Jews and the Christians.
11. This is a war against terrorists and not against the religion of Islam.
This is absurd. National wars are fought for conquest: ex. Japan, Germany, etc. These terrorists have declared a religious Jihad against us. Their motivation is 100% religious. The ROOT is Islam while the FRUIT is terrorism.
Jews, Christians and Muslims agree; Abraham, the friend of God, is an example of pure and unconditional righteousness and faith. The love that Abraham displayed towards God is clearly seen in Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his only beloved son. All three religions do not dispute this fact. Where they do disagree on, however, is the identity of the sacrificial child. The Bible states that that child was Isaac:
“After these things God tested Abraham, and said to him, ‘Abraham!’ And he said, ‘Here am I.’ He said, ‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you’.” (Genesis 22:1-2, R.S.V.).
“By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son…” (Hebrews 11:17, R.S.V.).
“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered up his son Isaac upon the altar?” (James 2:21, R.S.V.).
Muslims on the other hand feel that Ishmael was the one offered up by Abraham. This fact, they believe, is presumed by the Bible’s declaration that Abraham offered his only son (see verses). It is therefore argued that this could not be Isaac, since Isaac was never an only child seeing that Ishmael was born fourteen years prior to him. (Cf. Genesis 16:16, 21:5).
Thus, Muslims believe that scribes later corrupted the original reading from Ishmael to Isaac. This idea stems from the Muslim misunderstanding of the phrase, “Only son”, in reference to Isaac, since the title is used to affirm Isaac’s unique status, a status based on the following:
l Isaac was the only promised child of Abraham, a fact which the Quran agrees with (cf. Genesis 17:15-21; S. 11:69-73, 37:112-113, 51:24-30).
Ishmael was never a promised child.
l Isaac was conceived miraculously to Sarah when the latter was old and barren, with the Quran likewise agreeing (cf. Genesis 17:15-17, 18:9-15, 21:1-7; S. 11:69-73, 51:24-30).
Ishmael was conceived in the normal process of sexual reproduction.
l God promised that it would be Isaac’s descendants who would inherit the land given to Abraham. (Genesis 13:14-18, 15:18-21, 28:13-14).
Ishmael had no part in the inheritance and promise given to Isaac through Abraham.
It is for these reasons that Isaac is called Abraham’s only son since God himself reckoned him as the child of promise and blessings, an honor never bestowed upon Ishmael.
Even more amazing is the fact that the Quran never mentions the name of the sacrificial child; amazing indeed considering how overzealous some Muslims have been in their attempts to prove that Ishmael, not Isaac, was that son:
“He said: ‘I will go to my Lord! He will surely guide me! O my Lord! Grant me a righteous (son)!’ So we gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.
“Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, He said: ‘O my son! I see in a vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!’ (The son) said: ‘O my Father! Do as thou art commanded: Thou will find me, if God so wills one practicing patience and constancy!’
“So when they had both submitted their wills (to God), and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice), we called out to him, ‘O Abraham! Thou hast already fulfilled thy vision’- thus indeed do we reward those who do right.
“For this was obviously a trial-And we ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice…”
The ambiguity of the text has left many Islamic scholars guessing as to whether the child was Isaac or Ishmael. Yusef Ali makes a note of this in his commentary:
“This (the sacrifice) was in the fertile land of Syria and Palestine. The boy thus born, was, according to Muslim tradition (which however is not unanimous on this point), the first-born son of Abraham, viz Ishmael…” (1: p. 1204, f. 4096).
Al-Tabari, considered to be one of the premiere Islamic historians, lists the divergent views held amongst the Muslim umma (community) in regards to this very issue:
“The earliest sages of our Prophet’s nation disagree about which of Abraham’s two sons it was that he was commanded to sacrifice. Some say it was Isaac, while others say it was Ishmael. Both views are supported by statements related on the authority of the Messenger of God. If both groups of statements were equally sound, then- since they both came from the Prophet- only the Quran could serve as proof that the account naming Isaac is clearly the more truthful of the two.” (2: p. 32).
Instead of listing both sides of the argument, our paper will focus primarily on those who said it was Isaac:
Al-Tabari gives several chains of transmitters, with some going back to Muhammad’s companions, i.e. Ibn Masud. Due to the fact that some of these lists are quite extensive, we will only mention the main source of the tradition in order to save time and space.
According to Abdul al-Mutallib, Muhammad in a conversation said,
“ ’Then we ransomed him with a tremendous victim.’ And he also said, ‘He is Isaac’.”
(Ibid. p. 82-83).
“A certain man boasted to Ibn Masud, ‘I am so-and-so son of so-and-so, son of the noble elders.’ And Abdullah said, ‘This is Joseph b. Jacob, son of Isaac the victim of God, son of Abraham the friend of God’.” (Ibid. p.84).
According to Abu Hurayrah:
“When Abraham was told to sacrifice Isaac, Satan said ‘By God! If I cannot deceive the people of Abraham with this, I shall never be able to do it.’ So when Abraham went out with Isaac to sacrifice him, Satan visited Abraham’s wife, Sarah, in the shape of a man whom Abraham’s people knew, and asked her, ‘Where is Abraham going so early with Isaac?’ She said, ‘He went off early on some errand.’ Satan said, ‘No, by God! That is not the reason he left so early.’ Sarah asked, ‘Then what is the reason?’ He said, ‘He took him out early to sacrifice him.’ Sarah said, ‘There is no truth to that, he would not…sacrifice his own son.’ Satan said, ‘By God it is true.’
“Sarah said, ‘And why would he sacrifice him?’ He replied, ‘He claims that his Lord ordered him to do it.’ Sarah said, ‘If his Lord ordered him to do that, it is best that he obey.’ Then Satan left Sarah and went to Isaac, who was walking with his father, and said, ‘Where is your father taking you so early?’ Isaac answered, ‘He is taking me on some errand of his.’ Satan said, ‘No, by God, he is not taking you out on an errand. He is taking you out early to sacrifice you.’ Isaac said, ‘My father would not sacrifice me.’ Satan told him, ‘Certainly he would.’ Isaac asked, ‘Why?’ Satan told him, ‘He claims that his Lord ordered him to do it.’ Isaac answered, ‘By God! If the Lord told my father to do that, he should certainly obey him.’
“So Satan left him and went on to Abraham, saying, ‘Why are you taking your son out early?’ Abraham said, ‘I am taking him on an errand.’ Satan answered, ‘By God, you took him out early only to sacrifice him.’ Abraham asked, ‘Why would I do that?’ Satan said, ‘You claim that your Lord ordered you to do it.’ Abraham said, ‘By God, if my Lord orders me to do that, I will surely do it.’ When Abraham took Isaac to sacrifice him, God stayed his hand and ransomed him with a ‘tremendous victim.’
“Abraham said to Isaac, ‘Arise, my little son, for God has released you.’ And God said to Isaac,
‘I will grant you any prayer you choose to make now.’ Isaac said, ‘My God! I pray to you that I be granted this, that you grant entry into Paradise to any worshipper, past or present, who encounters you and does not make anything a partner with you’.” (Ibid, p. 84-85).
According to Ubayd b. Umayr’s father:
“Moses said, ‘O Lord! Why are you addressed as “O God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?” ‘God answered, ‘Abraham never considered anything at all equal to Me, but put Me above all things; Isaac was generous to Me in the matter of the sacrifice and in other matters; and as for Jacob, the more tribulations I inflicted upon him the more good thoughts he thought about Me’.”
(Ibid, p. 85).
According to Abu Maysarah:
“Joseph told the king to his face, ‘You wish to eat with me when I, by God, am Joseph, son of Jacob the prophet of God, son of Isaac the victim of God, son of Abraham the friend of God’.” (Ibid, p.86).
According to Ibn Masud and some of Muhammad’s companions:
“Abraham was instructed in a dream to ‘carry out your promise that if God granted you a son by Sarah you would sacrifice him.” (Ibid.).
Finally, Tabari himself:
“As for the above-mentioned proof from the Quran that it really was Isaac, it is God’s word which informs us about the prayer of His friend Abraham when he left his people to migrate to Syria with Sarah. Abraham prayed, ‘I am going to my Lord who will guide me. My Lord! Grant me a righteous child.’ This was before he knew Hagar, who was to be the mother of Ishmael. After mentioning this prayer, God goes on to describe the prayer and mentions that he foretold to Abraham that he would have a gentle son. God also mentions Abraham’s vision of himself sacrificing that son when he was old enough to walk with him. The Book does not mention any tidings of a male child given to Abraham except in the instance where it refers to Isaac, in which God said, ‘And his wife, standing by laughed when we gave her tidings of Isaac, and after Isaac, Jacob’, and ‘Then he became fearful of them’. They said. ‘Fear not!’ and gave him tidings of a wise son. Then his wife approached, moaning, and smote her face, and cried, ‘A barren old woman’. Thus, wherever the Quran mentions God giving tidings of the birth of a son to Abraham, it refers to Sarah (and thus to Isaac) and the same must be true of God’s words ‘So we gave him tidings of a gentle son’, as it is true of all such references in the Quran.” (Ibid. p.89).
According to Muslim writer al-Massoudy, Ibn Abbas and Akrama debated each other over the identity of the son:
“Akrama asked: ‘Who was supposed to have been slain?’
Abdallah answered: ‘Ishmael!’
Akrama asked: ‘Why?’
Ben Abbas answered: ‘Because how can God pass the good news of Isaac’s birth to Abraham,
then order that he be killed?’
“ ‘I can bring you proof from the Koran that Isaac was supposed to have been slain’. Said Akrama,
‘Thus will thy Lord prefer thee and teach thee the interpretation of events, and perfect His grace upon thee and upon the household of Jacob as He perfected it upon thy fathers, Abraham and Isaac. Lo! Thy Lord is All-Knowing and All-Wise’. (Joseph 6).
“‘God’s blessing to Abraham was by choosing him, and saving him’, said Akrama, ‘and to Isaac by redeeming him from slaying’.” (3: p.p.52-53).
Another historian, al-Tha'labi, affirms that Muhammad’s companions, i.e., Umar, Abu Bakr etc., agreed with the Bible that Isaac, not Ishmael, was the sacrificial son. (4: p.153 ).
The differing views held amongst the Muslims as to the identity of the child only proves that the Bible is truly authoritative and reliable since what the Quran does not clarify, the Bible corrects and addresses, leaving no guesswork for scholars to work through.
Further, the Bible’s superiority is once again demonstrated by virtue of the fact that it even mentions the site where these events took place, Mt. Moriah, the future site of the Solomonic Temple; whereas with the Quran we are not given even the slightest hint as to where this sacrifice was to take place. This has also caused controversy and confusion amongst Muslim scholars as they desperately try to figure this problem out.
Yusef Ali notes:
“Where did this vision occur? The Muslim view is that it was in or near Mecca. Some would identify it with the Valley of Mina, six miles north of Mecca, where a commemoration sacrifice is annually celebrated as a rite of the Hajj on the tenth of Zul-Hijja, the Id of sacrifice, in memory of this sacrifice of Abraham and Ishmael… Others say that the original place of sacrifice was near the hill of Marwa… which is associated with the infancy of Ishmael.”
“At what stage in Abraham’s history did this occur?…It was obviously after his arrival in the Land of Canaan and after Ishmael had given up years of discretion. Was it before or after the building of
the Kabah…? There are no data on which this question can be answered. But we may suppose it was before that event, and that event may itself have been commemorative.” (1: p. 1204, f.f. 4098, 4099).
As Ali states, there is no data, especially from the pre-Islamic period or archaeology, which confirms the fact that either Abraham or Ishmael were ever in Mecca, let alone support the notion that Abraham instituted the rites of the pilgrimage. The late Egyptian Professor, Dr. Taha Husayn, considered one of the foremost authorities on Arabic literature, acknowledges this:
“The case for this episode (i.e., Abraham and Ishmael building the Kabah) is very obvious because it is of recent date and came into vogue just before the rise of Islam. Islam exploited it for religious reasons.” (5: p. 184).
Noted Christian Apologist, John Gilchrist states:
“Secular history knows of only one form of pre-Islamic veneration of the Ka'aba and that is the idolatry of the pagan Arabs. There is no corroborative evidence whatsoever for the Qur’an’s claim that the Ka'aba was initially a house of monotheistic worship. Instead there certainly is evidence as far back as history can trace the origins and worship of the Ka'aba that it was thoroughly pagan and idolatrous in content and emphasis… the Ka'aba was purely a shrine of thriving pagan idolatry.” (6: p.16).
Therefore, it is purely wishful thinking for Muslims to use the rites of the Hajj as proof that Abraham offered up Ishmael at Mecca near the Kabah, since pre-Islamic history indicates that these rites were nothing more than pagan customs adopted by Muhammad into Islam. Further, as was noted, Islamic scholarship strongly disagrees and much confusion still exists over the identity of the son, with some arguing for Isaac and others for Ishmael.
The lack of uniformity of opinion and the ambiguity of the Quran in regards to this issue helps to solidify the Biblical narrative as vastly superior and more trustworthy.
Finally, the Quran gives no clear reason why God would test Abraham in this fashion, and yet the Bible does. Abraham and Isaac were shadows of what was to eventually come nearly two thousand years later on the same mountain site where Isaac was offered.
Just as Abraham displayed unconditional love for God in his willingness to sacrifice his one and only son, God also gave up his only beloved Son on the cross of cavalry to prove to the world that He is the true source of unconditional, infinite love. Whereas God withheld the hand of Abraham from completing the sacrifice, He did not withhold his own hand from sacrificing his only Son, going to the extremes in displaying his love for mankind, an extreme that even Abraham did not cross.
Interestingly when Abraham was leading Isaac to the mountainside, Isaac asked his father where the Lamb was that was to be sacrificed, to which Abraham replied, “God will provide himself the Lamb
for a burnt offering, my son.” (cf. Gen. 22:8,13)
Yet instead of finding a Lamb, a ram was given instead.
This is primarily due to the fact that the Lamb of God was to arrive two thousand years later:
“The next day he (John) saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!’…‘Behold the Lamb of God’.” (John 1:29,36).
Here was the Lamb of God sent to atone for the sin of the world. This is the awesome ransom that the Quran alludes to; Jesus Christ, the Eternal Word of the Father, offering himself as a ransom of infinite value, covering the debt of sin from beginning to end and throughout eternity.
Tabari notes that the Islamic practice of animal sacrifice done in commemoration of Abraham and his son, “wards off an evil death, so sacrifice, O servants of God!” (2: p. 96).
How much more, then, will Christ’s sacrifice atone for mankind’s wickedness seeing that man’s worth is far greater in the eyes of God than animals. Because Christ is the Eternal Word animal sacrifices are no longer needed, since Christ’s atonement is sufficient for all time:
“When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from the acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.” (Hebrews. 9:11-15).
“But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God.” (Hebrews 10:12).
Thus, Abraham and Isaac were shadows of the things that were to come, pointing to the Father and Son’s willingness to sacrifice themselves in the greatest display of love the world has ever seen; the Father’s willingness in sacrificing his eternal love, with the Son giving up his own life on behalf of fallen humanity:
“For God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8 R.S.V.).
“…For God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so we might live through him. In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins.” (1 John 4:8b-10 R.S.V.).
This is indeed the greatest love story the world has ever known:
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16 R.S.V.).
1. 1. A. Yusef Ali- The Holy Quran, Translation and Commentary
2. 2. Al-Tabari- The History of al-Tabari, vol. II, Prophets and Patriarchs (trans. William M. Brenner)
3. 3. Brother Mike- Islam in the Balance
4. 4. Behind the Veil- Unmasking Islam
5. 5. John Gilchrist- The Christian Witness to the Muslim, vol. II
6. 6. John Gilchrist- The Temple, The Ka'aba, and the Christ
The Ahmaddiyya Sect of Islam was founded in 1882 by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of India. At first, Ghulam had no intention of starting a new religious sect, but focused instead on refuting Christianity and Christian Missionaries throughout India. From there, Ghulam wrote a book in 1879/80 titled Baraheen Ahmadiyya. In this two-volume work, Mirza promoted the Orthodox Islamic conception of Christ, Muhammad, Prophets, revelation, etc. while attempting to present a case against Christianity.
By the time his third volume was published in 1882, he claimed to have received revelations from God, eventually proclaiming himself to be God's reformer and chosen Messiah for this age. This caused an uproar amongst the Orthodox Muslims since it is an article of faith for all Muslims to believe that Muhammad was the last messenger of God and the seal of revelation. (S. 33:40).
Thus, for Mirza to make such claims was apostasy. Ghulam eventually died in 1908, leaving behind a group of dedicated followers who have since that time increased dramatically.
After his death, Mirza's first disciples Hakim Noor-ud-din led the movement until the latter's demise in 1914.
The group eventually split into two with the newly formed sect settling in Lahore, calling itself Anjuman Ishaate Islam (also known as the Lahori Party). This group tried to play down Mirza's self-styled prophetic claims, stating that Ghulam was nothing more than a reformer. The other group, calling itself Qadiani, continued to emphasize Ghulam's prophethood.
Unfortunately for both groups, they have been labeled heretics by conservative Muslims such as Sunnis and Shiites.
This has led to their persecution and to a denial of the Ahmaddiya's rights in Pakistan and in Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia. For instance, Ahmaddis are not allowed to enter Mecca to make Hajj, a required tenet of Islam. Further, in 1974 the National Assembly of Pakistan declared them non-Muslims.
In spite of this all, many Muslims have adopted their approach and polemics in defending Islam from Christianization and Evangelization.
It will be our intention to contrast some of the Ahmadiyya claims and teachings with that of the Bible and even the Quran in order to see for ourselves whether Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was indeed the Messiah of this age, or simply one of many false Christs that were prophesied to come before the great and terrible day of the Lord.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's Claims
Mirza claimed to be a Muhaddith, a kind of prophet. Although a Muhaddith is, in the words of Ghulam, a partial Prophet, this nonetheless contradicts the Quran (S. 33:40) (Tawzih Maram, p.18; Trans. “Explanation of Objectives”, p.11)
His claims outraged many, branding him a heretic. To avoid controversy he publicly denied prophethood, suggesting that his usage of the title " Prophet " was for the sake of simplicity. (Tabligh-i-Risalat, Vol. II, p. 95).
Yet, shortly afterwards he would go on to say that he had been given the names and attributes of all the prophets:
" No prophets came into this world whose name was not given to me. In Burahin-i-Ahmadiya God has affirmed me as Adam, Noah, Ibrahim, Ishaque, Yaqub, Ismail, Moses, Dawud, Isa, son of Mary, and Muhammad (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). I am the incarnation of all those Prophets. (Maududi, The Qadiani Problem, p.119).
He later declared:
Wherever I have denied being a prophet (Nubuwat), I have denied it in the sense that I am no independent bearer of a Law or Shariah nor am I an independent prophet in my own right... I am a Rasul (Apostle, messenger) and Nabi (Prophet) without a new Shariah. (Ek Ghalati Ka Tzala-A Misunderstanding Removed, pp. 11-12)
Thus in one sense, Mirza denies prophethood and in another affirms it.
B. Krishna of Hinduism
Mirza believed that he was Krishna as recorded in the Haqiqat-ul-Wahi: " I am Krishna whose advent the Aryans are waiting for in these days. I do not make this claim on my own. God Almighty has conveyed to me repeatedly that I am Krishna, King of the Aryans, who was to appear in the latter days. " (Appendix, p. 85)
C. God and Son of God
Mirza claimed to have a vision in which God is supposed to have told him: "You are to me in the position of offspring. You have a relation with me which the world does not know...”
(1) (1) “You are to me like my unity and uniqueness...”
(2) (2) "To me you are like my son..."
(3) (3) " God addressed me with these words: ' Listen! O my Son.’ " 4 " In a vision I saw that I was God and believed myself to be such... Divinity coursed through my veins and muscles... I then created the heavens and the earth... then I said: ' We shall now create man.’ " 5
D. Mirza is both Mary and Jesus
" In the third Vol. of Baraheen Ahmadiyya he (God) named me as Mariam. Then, as is evident from Baraheen... I was reared in the image of Mary for two years... Then I was filled with the soul of Christ and I became pregnant in a metaphorical sense. At last after a period of many months - I was delivered from Mary into the form of Christ... Hence in this way I became the Son of Mary. " (Kashti - Noh, pp. 46-47)
Mirza stated that God told him, " I created you from the same essence as Jesus was. “ (Hamamit- il - Bushra, p. 14)
Some other incredible claims either made by Mirza or his followers include the following:
∑ ∑ “Heaven and earth can move away but it is not possible that his (Ghulam’s) promise may not be fulfilled.” (Zafrulla Khan, Ahmadiyyat: The Renaissance of Islam, p. 38)
∑ ∑ "I am the water that has descended from heaven at its due time. I am the divine light that has illuminated the day. " (Ahmad, Baraheen Ahmadiyya, Vol. 5, p. 115)
∑ ∑ "He who does not accept me, does not disobey me, but disobeys him who has prophesied my coming. “ (Ahmad, Haqiqat-ul-Wahi, p.178)
∑ ∑ "We gave thee glad tiding of a gentle son, a manifestation of the true and high as if Allah had descended from heaven. His name is Emmanuel. A son will be born to thee and grace will come close to thee. " (Ahmad, Anjam Athem, p.62)
∑ ∑ The claims of Ahmad and his followers leaves little imagination as for the reason why Muslims consider the Ahmadiyyas heretics.
E. Denial of the Miraculous
Ahmadiyya's founder denied the miracles of Jesus and the prophets. His reason for denying the miraculous nature of the Prophets’ lives becomes obvious from his own words:
A matter which is not possible for the Holy prophet [Muhammad] - the best of prophets... how can it be so for the Messiah! [Jesus]? It would be so derogatory to the Holy prophet to think that what is impossible for him to attain, is possible for the Messiah. (Tawzih Miram, English tr. pp. 6-77)
Thus, Mirza denies both the Biblical and the Quranic evidence for Jesus' miracles (cf. S.5: 110, 3:50; John 10:25, 32, Matthew 11:20-24)
F. Denial of Jesus' Death, Resurrection and Ascension
Although the Bible and Quran disagree on the crucifixion of Christ, both books confirm the bodily ascension of Christ into heaven. (cf. Acts 1:9-11; S. 3:55)
The Bible states that Christ was crucified and killed for our sins and that he arose on the third day, never to die again (cf. Luke 24:36-48; Rev. 1:17-18). The Quran, however, declares that Christ was neither crucified nor killed but it so appeared to his enemies (S. 4:157-158)
Ahmadiyyas on the other hand accept Jesus' crucifixion on the cross, but deny he ever died. Instead, Christ swooned, only to resuscitate three days later. From there he went to India where he lived to a ripe old age and died in Kashmir.
There is a difference of opinion as to when Jesus actually died. According to Mirza, Muhammad said: " Jesus was 125 years of age when he died. " (Ahmad, Jesus in India, p. 53)
Yet Shams, Mirza'a follower, states that Muhammad claimed that " Jesus died at the age of one hundred twenty years. “ (Shams, Where did Jesus Die?, p. 153)
This is further complicated by the fact that in one of Mirza's earlier writings, Azala Auham, Ghulam stated that Jesus died in Galilee shortly after escaping death on the cross at the age of sixty or seventy. (pp. 473-474, 623-625)
Mirza confuses his readers even more by stating in Atman-ul-Hujjat that Imam Malik ( One of the founders of Islamic Jurisprudence ) believed that Jesus died at the age of 33, alleging that Jesus was buried in Syria sometime later. (pp. 17-19)
To make matters worse than what they already are , Mirza abandons the early age and Galilean death theory for Kashmir India. (Jesus in India , pp. 15-16)
The reader might be wondering as to the reason for such confusion and contradiction surrounding the Ahmaddiy's theory on Jesus' final days on earth. The answer is simple; Ahmaddiys are committed to disproving Jesus' bodily resurrection and Ascension since this would destroy their faith and position:
It is impossible for us to think that Jesus the Messiah, is alive in Heaven while Muhammad, our Holy Prophet, lies buried in the earth. We cannot think so... If it is true that Jesus is alive in Heaven, we cannot feel more dead. We cannot tolerate the thought that our Master is dead and buried, while Jesus is alive and in Heaven. We feel humiliated before Christians. ( Bashir-ud-din, Invitation to Ahmadiyyat, p. 15 )
Prove to Christians that Christ in reality is forever dead. Through the victory to be gained by this argument you will be able to wipe the Christian religion off the face of the earth... Do not entangle with other ideas to talk about with Christians. Just concentrate upon the arguments regarding the death of Jesus Christ, and by the use of powerful arguments put the Christians to silence. The day you will imprint this fact on the minds of Christians, you will know that the Christian religion has made its exit from the world. ( Ghulam, Azala Auham, pp. 560-61 )
G. The Return of Christ
Another point where Christians and Muslims agree upon is on the return of Jesus Christ to the earth as Judge and Executioner. This fact is documented in nearly every book of the New Testament and alluded to in the Quran ( cf. Matthew 25:31-45; Mark 13:26-27; Acts 1:10-11: S. 43:54,61 ). This is further elaborated in the authentic Traditions of Muhammad:
Abu Huraira reported God's messenger as saying " By him in whose hand my soul is, the son of Mary will soon descend among you as a just judge. He will break crosses, kill swine and abolish the jizya (polltax), and wealth will pour forth to such an extent that no one will accept it...” ( Sahi Muslim, Vol. 1, p.92 )
After his descension, the Muslims believe that Christ will marry, have children, die and be buried next to Muhammad in between Abu Bakr and Umar b. Al-Kattab, the first two Caliphs.
Since Ahmaddiyyas do not believe in Jesus' Ascension it comes as no surprise that they also deny his Second Coming. They believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has replaced Jesus as the Messiah and that all must turn to this Indian Messiah for hope. Claiming to be the answer to the anti-Islamic attacks he states:
"No wonder, therefore, God Almighty has chosen from amongst the true Muslims of our time this humble one and blessed him with his revealed word and with other divine favors that this vicious magic may be undone.” ( Ahmad, Victory of Islam, p.4 )
Addressing the West, Mirza declared:
" Ye Christians of Europe and America, and ye seekers after truth know for certain that the Messiah who was to come has come and it is he who is speaking to you at this moment. (Ahmad, A Review of Christianity, pp. 40-41)
H. False Prophecies
Believing himself to be Al-Masih Mawud ( The promised Messiah ) and a Prophet it is not surprising to find Mirza attempting to prophecy future events. Unfortunately, none of these prophecies came to pass, exposing him as a false prophet. Embarrassed by this fact, Ahmaddiyas have tried desperately to explain away these false predictions but to no avail as the following examples prove:
(1) (1) Maulvi Sana-Ullah
Fierce opposition broke out between Ghulam and one Maulvi Sana-Ullah over Mirza's claim. In 1907 Mirza advertised a prayer he made against the Maulvi:
O, my beloved Master!... If my claim to being the Christ is my own innovation then I am a liar... I pray to thee to kill me in Maulvi Sana-Ullah's lifetime and... if Sana-Ullah is not truthful in his allegations against me then I pray to annihilate him in my lifetime... not through human hands but through bubonic plague and cholera... ( Advert 15 April, 1907, Majmua Ishtiharat, Vol.3, p.579)
Exactly one year and twenty-one days later, Ghulam died, whereas Sana-Ullah lived on for an additional forty years.
(2) (2) A former Disciple
Dr. Abdul Hakim had been Mirza's pupil for nearly twenty years when he soon thereafter rebelled against his mentor, writing two books, Al-Masih Ad Dajjal and Kana Masih. On July 12,1906 Hakim published an advertisement stating that Ghulam would die within three years. Mirza retaliated by warning Hakim that calamity would soon befall and that the angels were ready to take his life with swords. (Advert 16 August 1906, Majmua Ishtiharat, Vol. 3, p.559 )
Intending to put fear into Ghulam’s heart, Abdul predicted that Mirza would die by August 4, 1908. In response to this, Ghulam predicted that God would increase his age while decreasing the age of his enemy. ( Chashma Marifat p.321 ff.)
Yet on May 1908 Mirza died unexpectedly, unlike Hakim who continued to live on for several more years after that.
(3) (3) Marriage Made in Heaven
Mirza prophesied that he was going to marry a young Muslim woman named Muhammadi Begum. Although the father refused, Ghulam claimed that like Muhammad's marriage to Zainab, Muhammadi was given to him in wedlock by God Almighty Himself:
" God Almighty will bring Muhammadi Begum to you as a virgin or a widow... He will certainly fulfill this and no one can stop him. " ( Azala Auham. p.396 )
After discovering that Begum was to marry someone else, another revelation from the Lord was given to warn the girl’s father:
“Tell him to establish a relationship with you by giving his elder daughter in marriage to you and thus obtain light from light... Tell him that if he persists in carrying out any different design, his household will become subject to some serious misfortunes, the last of which would be his death within three years of the marriage of his daughter to someone else... the husband of his daughter will also die within two years and a half. This is a divine decree.” ( Ayenah Kamalat Islam, pp.572-573 )
In spite of all these threats, the marriage never materialized and the father did not die as stated in the prediction, nor did the husband suffer any harm.
(4) (4) The Great Debate
In 1893, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad engaged in a series of debates with a Muslim convert to Christianity named Abdullah Atham lasting several weeks.
On the last day of the debate, Ghulam prophesied that whichever debater was lying would die within fifteen months unless that individual were to recant and accept the truth. ( Advert 5 June 1893, Majmua Ishtiharat, Vol. 1, p.434 )
Keeping in mind that Atham was an elderly man of sixty-five years and in poor health, the probabilities of him dying within fifteen months was surely high. Yet, fifteen months passed and nothing ever happened to Atham.
This embarrassment led Mirza to state that although appearing alive, Abdullah was in fact spiritually dead, being afflicted with inner fear and guilt. ( Anjam Atham, pp.10-11 )
Ghulam's son Bashir-ud-din boldly claimed that Atham, “stopped all his work in support of Christianity. He started doubting Jesus' divinity and began to realize the truth of Islam, thus escaping death.” ( Invitation to Ahmaddiyat, pp.249-251 )
Yet these statements were simply untrue since within those fifteen months Atham completed his book, Khulasa Mubahisa, in which he presented solid evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity and for Jesus' divinity. In a letter which Atham wrote to a local newspaper, he publicly stated that he was still a Christian and praising God for it. ( Prof. M.E. Burney, Qadiani Madhab ka Elmi Muhasabah, Ed. 9th, p.325 )
Hence, in briefly examining Ghulam’s predictions one thing is certain, Mirza is not the Messiah nor a Divine sanctioned Prophet of the True God since God would never allow any of his Prophets to make false predictions. ( Deuteronomy 18:20-23)
After reviewing the claims made by Ahmadiyyas in regards to their founder and reading Ghulam’s own writings we are reminded of the Lord Jesus' warning to his disciples:
" And Jesus answered them, ' Take heed that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying , “I am the Christ:” and they will lead many astray... and many false prophets will arise and lead many astray... Then if anyone says to you, “ Lo, here is the Christ!” or “ There he is!” Do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. Lo, I have told you beforehand... So, if they say,' Lo, he is in the wilderness,' do not go out; if they say, ' Lo, he is in the inner rooms, ' do not believe it. For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. Wherever the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together." Matthew 24:5, 11, 23-28
We submit in love that Mirza was not another Messiah, but one of the many pretenders that our Lord Jesus foretold who were coming into the world. The Bible and the Quran know of only one Messiah, Jesus the Lord ( cf. Matthew 16:16; S. 3:45 ). There shall be none after him, for " there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. “ ( Acts 4:12 ) That name being Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory, King of kings.
Keys to Numbers
1. Fountain of Christianity, 9.63
2. Baraheen Ahmadiyya, Vol. IV, p.489 ( Footnote)
3. Haqiqat-ul-Wahi, p.86
4. Al-Bushra, Vol.1, p.49
5. Kitab al-Bariyah, pp 85-87
by Dr. Robert A. Morey
The following material is to be used in conjunction with the book Islamic Invasion and "The Challenge of Islam Seminar." These supporting documents are taken from the Qur’an and the Hadith which are viewed by Muslim authorities as the "first" and "second" inspiration.
According to Muslim traditions, the Qur’an was written in pure Arabic in heaven by Allah on a large stone table. The angel Gabriel took the table of the Qur’an and made Muhammad recite it. His recitations were memorized or written down by others on whatever objects were on hand such as sticks, stones, bones, palm leaves, etc.. After Muhammad died, various conflicting Qur’ans were produced. It was the Caliph Uthman who made his own version of the Qur’an the official one (See Bukhari’s Hadith vol. 1, pg. 56, no. 63). He later burned all the other conflicting Qur’ans. The Qur’an sold today is the Uthman version.
The Hadith is the record of the teachings and example of Muhammad not found in the Qur’an and are thus authoritative for all Muslims. To deny the Hadith is to be guilty of apostasy under Islamic Law. The greatest of all Hadith scholars was Bukhari.
Since most people do not have access to the Qur’an or the Hadith, we have supplied some of the material that is referred to during the Seminar. It would be impossible to supply all the supporting documents as this would run into hundreds of pages. For more details on the history of the Qur’an and the Hadith, see the book Islamic Invasion.
Surah 2:23 And if you are in doubt as to what we have revealed from time to time to our servants, then produce a Sura like unto it.
The Doctrine of Abrogation
Surah 2:106 None of our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we substitute something better or similar.
Muslim Terms Before Islam
Surah 2:127-128 And remember Abraham and Ishmael raised the foundations of the House (with this prayer)..."Our Lord! Make of us Muslims..." Surah 2: 132 And this is the legacy that Abraham left to his sions, and so did Jacob ; "Allah has chosen the Faith for you; then die not except in the Faith of Islam."
Surah 2:190-194 Fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight you...and kill them wherever you catch them...if they fight you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who suppress the Faith...And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.
Surah 2:216 Fighting is prescribed for you
Surah 2:244 Fight in the cause of Allah
Surah 4:74 Let those who fight in the cause of Allah, who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter, to him who fighteh in the cause of Allah...Soon shall We give him a reward of great value.
Surah 4:89 If they turn apostates, seize them and kill them wherever you find them.
Surah 4:91 Seize them and kill them wherever you get them.
Surah 5:33 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his apostle...they shall be slaughtered, or crucified , or their hands and feet shall be struck off alternately, or they shall be banished from the land.
Surah 5:51 O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends.
Surah 5:72-73 They do blaspheme who say: Allah is Christ the son of Mary...They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three (gods)...Christ the son of Mary was no more than an apostle.
Ask No Questions
Surah 5:101 Ask not questions about things which, if made plain to you may cause you trouble...Some people before you did ask such questions, and on account lost their faith (in Islam).
The Greatest Deceiver
Surah 3:54 The greatest Deceiver (Makara) of them all is Allah
Surah 4:34 Men are the managers of the affairs if women...those you fear may be rebellious admoinsh; banish them to thier couches, and beat them.
People Turning Into Monkeys, Rats and Pigs
Surah 2:65 And you know well those among you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Become apes! Despised and rejected."
Surah 7:163-166 Ask them about the town which stood by the sea shore. Behold! They sinned in regard to the Sabbath. On their Sabbath day, the fish swan up to them and stuck their heads out of the water [to tempt the people to catch them]. But the fish did not do this on the day that was not the Sabbath. In this way We tempted them because they were devoted to sinning. When some of them said, "Why do you bother preaching to people whom Allah will destroy or inflict with a terrible punishment?" The preachers responded, "To fulfill our obligation to their Lord and they might yet fear Him." When they ignored the warnings given to them, We saved those who avoided evil, but We punished the evil-doers with a grievous punishment because they were devoted to sinning. When in their insolence they transgressed the warnings, We said to them, "Become monkeys! Despised and rejected."
Bukhari, vol. IV, chapter 32, p. 415 The statement of Allah: And ask them (O Muhammad) about the town that was by the sea, when they transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath. (1) when their fish came to them only on the Sabbath day and did not come.........."Become monkeys! Despised and rejected."
Bukhari, vol. IV, no. 524, pg. 333 The Prophet said, "A group of Israelites were lost. Nobody knows what they did. But I do not see them except that they were cursed and transformed into rats, for if you put the milk of a she-camel in front of a rat, it will not drink it, but if the milk of a sheep is put in front of it, it will drink it." (1) It was illegal for the Israelites to eat the meat or drink the milk of camels while they were allowed to eat the meat and drink the milk of sheep. The prophet inferred from the rat’s habit that some of the Israelites had been transformed into rats. (2) Later on the prophet was informed through Inspiration about the fate of those Israelites: They were transformed into pigs and monkeys.
Mohammed would hear ringing in his ears; his heart would beat rapidly; his face turn red; his breathing labored; he would fall to the ground or lie down; he would shake; his eyes would open wide; his lips tremble; spit drool from the corners of his mouth; he would sweat profusely; he saw and hear things no one else ever saw or heard; he would sometimes make a snoring noise like that of a camel; and he would be covered with a sheet.
vol I, nos. 1, 2, 3, 4
vol. II, nos. chap. 16 (pg. 354), 544
vol. III, nos. 17, 829
vol. IV, nos. 95, 438, 458, 461
vol. V, nos. 170, 462, 618, 659
vol. VI, nos. 447, 448, 468, 478, 481, 508
A Test Of Prophethood
Bukhari vol. IV. no 546 When Abdullah bin Salam heard of the arrival of the Prophet at Medina, he came to him and said, "I am going to ask you about three things which nobody knows except a prophet:
1. What is the first sign of the Hour (i.e. the end of the world)?
2. What will be the first mean taken by the people of Paradise?
3. Why does a child resemble its father and why does it resemble its maternal uncle?"
Allah’s Apostle said, "Gabriel just now told me of their answers."
Abdullah said, "He (i.e. Gabriel), from amongst all the angels, is the enemy of the Jews."
Allah’s Apostle said, "The first sign of the Hour will be a fire that will bring together the people from the East to the West; the first meal of the people of Paradise will be extralobe of fish-liver. As for the resemblance of the child to its parents: If a man has sexual intercourse with his wife and gets his discharge first, the child will resemble the father, and if the woman gets her discharge first, the child will resemble her."
The Seal Of Prophethood
Surah 33:40 Mohammed is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Apostle of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets (rests upon him).
Bukhari vol. I, no. 189; vol. no. 741 Narrated As-Sa’ib Yazid:..I stood behind him (i.e. Allah’s Apostle) and saw the Seal of Prophethood between his shoulders, and it was like the "zir-al-Hijla" (the size of a button on a small tent or a partridge egg."
Bukhari vol. IV, no. 741 Narrated As Sab’ib bin Yazid: ..standing behind him (i.e. Allah’s Apostle) I saw the Seal (of the Prophets) between his shoulders."
Muslim vol. IV, no. 5790-5793
THE FACT PERTAINING TO THE SEAL OF HIS PROPHETHOOD, ITS CHARACTERISTIC FEATURE AND ITS LOCATION ON HIS BODY.
Jabir b. Samura reported: "I saw the Seal on his back as if it were a pigeon’s egg." This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Simak with the same chain of transmitters.
As-Sa’ib b. Yazid reported: My mother’s sister took me to Allah’s Messenger and ...I stood behind him and I saw the Seal between his shoulders.
Abdullah b. Sarjis reported: I saw Allah’s Apostle and ate with him bread and meat...I then went after him and saw the Seal of Prophethood between his shoulders on the left side of this shoulder having spots on it like moles.
The Story Of A Giant She-Camel Prophet
Surah VII:73 To the Thamud people ...This she-camel of Allah is a sign unto you: So let her graze on Allah’s earth and do not let her come to any harm, or you will be seized by a terrible punishment.
Surah VII:77 Then they ham-strung the she-camel and insolently defied the order of their Lord...so the earthquake took them unawares and they lay prostrate in their homes in the morning.
Surah LIV:23 The Thamud rejected their Warners.
Surah LIV:27 For We sent the she-camel as a trial for them.
Surah LIV:29 But they called to their companion and he took a sword in his hand and ham-strung her.
Surah LIV:30-31 Ah! How terrible was my penalty and my warning! For We sent against them a single mighty blast and they became like the dry stubble used by one who pens cattle.
Surah XCI:11 The Thamud people rejected their prophets through their inordinate wrong-doing.
Surah XCI:13-14 But the apostle of Allah said to them, "It is a she-camel of Allah! Do not hinder her from drinking. But they rejected him and ham-strung her. So their Lord, on account of this crime, destroyed the traces of them and made them all suffer equally.
The Companions of the Cave
Surah XVIII:9-25 Do you understand that the Companions of the Cave and of the Inscription were wonders among our signs? Behold, the youths entered the Cave and said, "Our Lord, bestow upon us your mercy and deal with us in the right way." We drew a veil over their ears for a number of years in the Cave. Then we awakened them in order to test which of the two parties was best at calculating the number of years they had stayed in the Cave. We relate to you their story in truth...So they stayed in their Cave three hundred years and some add nine more years to that.
The Man Who Died For A Hundred Years
Surah II:259 Or take the similitude of one who passed by a village in ruins to its roofs. He said, "Oh! How shall Allah restore it to life after its death?" But Allah caused him to die for 100 years. The he raised him up and said, "How long have you stayed here?" He said, "A day or a part of a day." He said, "No, you have been here for 100 years! But look at your food and your drink, they show no signs of age. And look at your donkey! We have made you a sign unto the people. Look further at the bones (of your body) how We clothed them with flesh.
A 90 Foot Adam
Bukhari vol. IV, no. 543 Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Allah created Adam, making him 60 cubits tall."
No Dogs Or Cats Allowed!
Bukhari vol. IV, nos. 539 Narrated Abu Talha: The Prophet said, "Angels do not enter a house which has either a dog or a picture in it.
Bukhari vol. IV, no. 540 Narrated Abdullah bib Umar: Allah’s Apostle ordered that the dogs should be killed.
Muslim vol. I, no. 551 Ibn Mughaffal reported: The Messenger of Allah ordered killing of the dogs, and then said: "What about them, i.e. other dogs?" and then granted concession to keep the dog for hunting and the dog for the herd and said: "When the dog licks the utensil, wash it seven times and rub it with dirt the eighth time."
Muslim vol. I, no. 552 A hadith like this has been narrated from Shu’ba with the same chain of transmitters except for the fact that in the hadith transmitted by Yahya those words are: "He (the Holy Prophet) gave concession in the case of the dog for looking after the herd, for hunting and for watching the cultivated land," and there is no mention of this addition (i.e. concession in case of watching the cultivated lands) except in the hadith transmitted by Yahya.
Footnote # 486 The dog is one of the unclean beasts according to Islam and eating its flesh is forbidden and its keeping in the house as a pet is also prohibited for the Muslims. They have, however, been permitted to keep dogs for hunting, herding and watching.
THE PRICE OF A DOG...AND THE SELLING OF A CAT FORBIDDEN:
Muslim vol. III, no. 3803 Abu Mas’ud al-Ansari reported that Allah’s Messenger forbade the charging of price of the dog.
Muslim vol. III, no. 3806 Khadji reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: "The price of a dog is evil."
Muslim vol. III, no. 3808 Abu Zubair said: I asked Jabir about the price of a dog and a cat; he said, "Allah’s Messenger disapproved of that."
Muslim vol. III, no. 3809 Ibn ‘Umar reported Allah’s Messenger giving command for killing dogs.
Muslim vol. III , no. 3810 Ibn ‘Umar reported: Allah’s Messenger ordered us to kill dogs and he sent men to the corners of Medina that they (i.e. the dogs) should be killed.
Muslim vol. III, no. 3813 Abu Zubair heard Jabir b. Abdullah saying: Allah’s Messenger ordered us to kill dogs and we carried out this order so much that we also killed the dog coming with a woman from the desert... He said, "It is your duty to kill the jet-black dog having two spots, for it is the devil."
(See also Muslim vol. III, nos. 3814-3829)
Satan In The Nose Over Night
Bukhari vol. IV, no. 516 "Satan stays in the upper part of the nose all night."
Footnote (1) We should believe that Satan actually stays in the upper part of one’s nose, though we cannot perceive how, for this is related to the unseen world of which we know nothing except what Allah tells us through his Apostle Mohammed.
Muslim vol. I, no. 462 Abu Huraira reported: The Apostle of Allah said, "When any one of you awakes from sleep and performs ablution, he must clean his nose three times, for the devil spends the night in the interior of his nose."
Playing Chess Forbidden
Muslim vol. IV, no. 5612 Chapter CMXLVI
It Is Prohibited To Play Chess
Allah’s Apostle said, "He who played chess is like one who dyed his hand with the flesh and blood of swine."
Non-Muslims Have Seven Intestines!
Muslim vol. III, nos. 5113 Chapter DCCCLXII
A Believer Eats In One Intestine Whereas
A Non-Believer Eats In Seven Intestines
Ibn Umar reported Allah’s Messenger as saying that a non-Muslim eats in seven intestines while a Muslim eats in one intestine.
(see also nos. 5114-5120)
Don’t Pray Looking Up
Muslim vol. I, nos. 863 Chapter CLXXIII
It Is Forbidden To Lift One’s Eyes Toward The Sky in Prayer
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Apostle saying: "People should avoid lifting their eyes towards the sky while supplicating in prayer, otherwise their eyes would be snatched away."
The Wondrous Wings Of A Fly
Bukhari vol. IV, no. 537 Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "If a house fly falls into the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (into the drink) because one of its wings has a disease and the other wing has the cure (for that disease).
Burkhari vol. VII, no. 673 Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, "If a fly falls in the vessel of any of you, let him dip all of it into the vessel and then throw it away, for in one its wings there is a disease and in the other wing there is healing."
The Qur’an Forgotten By The Prophet
Burkhari vol. VI, no. 558 Narrated Aisha: Allah’s Apostle heard a man reciting the Qur’an at night, and said, "May Allah bestow His mercy on him, as he has reminded me of such and such verses of such and such Suras, which I was caused to forget.
Burkhari vol. VI, no. 562 Narrated Aisha: The Prophet heard a reciter reciting the Qur’an in the mosque one night. The Prophet said, "May Allah bestow his mercy on him, as he has reminded me of such and such verses of such and such Suras, which I missed."
The Setting Of The Sun
Surah 18:86 When he (i.e. Zul-qarnain) reached the setting of the sun, he found that it set in a pond of murky water.
Burkhari vol. VII. no. 658 Narrated Aisha: A man called Labid bin al-A’sam from the tribe of Bani Zaraiq worked magic on Allah’s Apostle until Allah’s Apostle started imagining that the had done a thing that he had not really done.
Burkhari vol. VII, no. 660 Narrated Aisha: Magic was worked on Allah’s Apostle so that he used to think that he had had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not..."He is under the effect of magic."
Burkhari vol, VII, no. 661 Narrated Aisha: Magic was worked on Allah’s Apostle so that he began to imagine that he had done something although he had not.
The Prophet Had Lice
Burkhari vol. IX, no. 130 One day the Prophet visited her (i.e. the wife of Ubada bin As-Samit) and she provided him with food and started looking for lice in his head.
Drinking Camel Urine
Burkhari vol. I, no. 234 The Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of camels and to drink their milk and urine.
The Crying Palm Tree
Burkhari vol. II, no. 41 Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah: The Prophet used to stand by a stem of a date-palm tree. When the pulpit was placed for him we heard the stem crying like a pregnant she-camel till the Prophet got down down from the pulpit and placed his hand over it.
Burkhari vol. IV, no. 783 Narrated Ibn Umar: The Prophet used to deliver his sermons while standing beside the trunk of a date-palm. When he had the pulpit made, he used it instead. The trunk started crying and the Prophet went to it , rubbing his hand over it (to stop its crying.)
The Fingers Of Life
Burkhari vol. I, no. 170 He put his hand in that pot and ordered the people to perform ablution from it. I saw the water springing out from underneath his fingers.
Burkhari vol. IV, no. 773 I saw water flowing from underneath his fingers
Burkhari vol IV, no. 776 So he placed his hand in that pot and the water started flowing among his fingers like springs.
Burkhari vol. IV, no. 779 ...no doubt, we heard the meal glorifying Allah, when it was being eaten (by Allah’s Apostle).
Burkhari vol. VI. no. 380 Mohammed has seen Gabriel with six hundred wings.
The Devil Urinates Into The Ear
Burkhari vol. II, no. 245 If one sleeps and does not offer the prayer, Satan urinates in his ears. Narrated Abdullah: The Prophet said, "Satan urinated in his ears."
No Garlic or Onions Allowed
Burkhari vol. I, no. 812 What has been said about uncooked garlic or onion. And the statement of the Prophet: "Whoever has eaten garlic or onion because of hunger or otherwise should not come near our mosque." (see also nos. 813-815)
Burkhari vol. VII, no. 362 Narrated Abdul Aziz: It was said to Anas, "What did you hear the Prophet saying about garlic?" Anas replied, "Whoever has eaten garlic should not approach our mosque."
Burkhari vol. VII, no. 363
Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah: The Prophet said, "Whoever has eaten garlic or onion should keep away from us."
Yawning Comes From Hell
vol. IV, no. 509 Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Yawning is from Satan."
Hell-Fire For Women
Burkhari vol. I, no. 28 The Prophet said, "I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful."
Burkhari vol. I, no. 301 Allah’s Apostle...said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you women...I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you."
Burkhari vol. II, no. 161 The Prophet then said..."I also saw the Hell-fire and I had never seen such a horrible sight. I saw that most of the inhabitants were women."
No Assurance of Salvation
Burkhari vol. V, no. 266 The Prophet said, "By Allah, even though I am the Apostle of Allah, yet I do not know what Allah will do to me."
What Made The Prophet Afraid?
Burkhari vol. II, no. 167 The sun eclipsed and the Prophet jumped up terrified that it might be the Hour [of Judgment].
Healing Palms Leaves
Burkhari vol. II, no. 443 The Prophet passed by two graves and those persons (in the graves) were being tortured...He then took a green leaf of a date-palm tree, split it into two pieces and fixed one on each grave. The people said, "O Allah’s Apostle! Why have you done so?" He replied, "I hope that their punishment may be lessened until they (i.e. the palm leaves) became dry."
What Color was Mohammed?
Burkhari vol. 1, no. 63 While we were sitting with the Prophet in the mosque, a man came riding on a camel. He made his camel kneel down in the mosque, tied its foreleg and then said, "Who among you is Mohammed?" At that time the Prophet was sitting among us leaning on his arm. We replied, "The white man reclining on his arm."
Burkhari vol. II, no. 122 Mohammed is described as "a white person."
Burkhari vol. II. no. 141 When the Prophet raised his arms in prayer "the whiteness of his armpits became visible."
Burkhari vol. IV, no. 744 Narrated Ismasil bin Abi Khalid: I heard Abu Juhaifa saying, "I saw the Prophet and Al-Hasan bin Ali resembled him." I said to Abu Juhaifa, "Describe him (i.e. Allah’s Apostle) for me." He said, "He was white and his beard was black with some white hair in it. He promised to give us 13 young she-camels, but he died before we got them."
What Color Was The Apostle’s Hair?
Burkhari vol. I, no. 167 About the dyeing of hair with henna. Without a doubt I saw Allah’s Prophet dyeing his hair with it and that is why I like to dye my hair with it. (See also vol. IV, no. 747 and vol. VII, no. 785)
A Child Bride
Burkhari vol. V, nos. 234 Narrated Aisha: The Prophet was engaged to me when I was a girl six years old...I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends...Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the afternoon and my mother handed me over to him. At that time I was a girl of nine years of age.
Burkhari vol V, no. 236 The Prophet...married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age and consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.
There exists within the Islamic community a major fallacy which has been circulating amongst the public in regards to Muslim Scripture, al-Quran. The fallacy relates to the supposed textual preservation of the Quranic text, and the notion that the Quran remains virtually intact, without additions or deletions, without any variant readings which would call into question the integrity of the Muslim text.
This fallacious argument, unfortunately, has convinced many lay people to believe that whereas the Bible has suffered textual corruption, the Quran is free from such tampering. It is thus claimed that based on this fact the Quran is rendered superior and is a more reliable document than the Holy Bible.
However, a close examination of the historical references regarding the compilation of the Quran, demonstrates that the weight of the evidence does not support the Muslim claims. On the contrary, the evidence tends to support the fact that the Quran has suffered much in the way of transmission.
The majority of our references will be taken directly from Islamic scholars and writings, in order to avoid the Muslim accusations of western scholarly bias. Such accusations are often promoted in an attempt to side-track the obvious implications on Muslim claims.
The first issue which needs to be addressed is the claim that a complete Quranic Codex existed during the time of Muhammad. This claim finds no support, since the first complete text was compiled during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr:
Narrated Zaid Bin Thabit,
“Abu Bakr sent someone to call me when Yamama people were killed. Umar was there with him. Abu Bakr said: ‘On the day of Yamama, Umar came to me and said that the reciters of the Quran were killed. He was afraid that others might be killed elsewhere. This indicates the loss of much of the Quran. He suggested that I command that the Quran be compiled.’ I asked Umar: ‘How would you do something that the Prophet of Allah did not do?’ Umar kept telling me to think about it until Allah made my heart cheerful. I took on Umar’s perspective. Abu Bakr said to me: ‘We do not doubt that you are a wise young man. You used to write down the revelation for the Prophet of Allah. So trace the Quran and compile it.’ I said: ‘By Allah, if they had chosen me to move the mountain from its place, it would have been easier than compiling the Quran. I argued: ‘How would you do something the Prophet of Allah did not do?’ He replied: “By Allah, this is good!’ Therefore, I continued compiling it from palm branched, thin stones, and the chests of men. I found the end of Sura al-Tawba with Abu Khuzaima al-Ansari. I did not find it with anyone other than him. The leaves (suhuf) were with Abu Bakr until he died; then they were handed down to Umar, then to Hafsah, Umar’s daughter.” (1: pp. 47-48, citing al-Bukhari)
According to another source, “During the battle of Yamama, 450 reciters of the Quran were killed.” (Ibid. p.47, citing Ibn Kathir’s Al-Bidaya wa al-Nibaya, chapter on Battle of Yamama)
From these sources we realize that:
6. No text had been compiled during Muhammad’s time. This is further solidified by the following tradition:
2. [Zaid b. Thabit said:] “The Prophet died and the Qur’an had not been assembled into a single place.” (Ahmad b. Ali b. Muhammad al ’Asqalani, ibn Hajar, Fath al Bari [13 vol., Cairo 1939], vol. 9, p.9)
3. A great majority of the Quranic reciters had been killed at al-Yamama, forever taking with them portions of the Quran that only they knew.
4. Zaid Bin Thabit collected the Quran from palm leaves, stones and from the memories of men.
5. Zaid was not the only person who had compiled the Quran in book form. Others such as Ubayy Bin Kab and Ibn Masud also compiled Qurans of their very own. In fact, both Ubayy and Masud had been singled out by Muhammad himself as two of the top four Quranic reciters:
We used to go to Abdullah Bin Amr and talk to him. Ibn Numair said: One day we made a mention of Abdullah Bin Masud, whereupon he said: you have made mention of a person whom I love more than anything else. I heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Learn Quran from four persons: Ibn Umm Abd (i.e., Abdullah Bin Masud - he started from him - then Muadh bin Jabal and Ubayy bin Kab, then Salim the ally of Ali Hudhaifa. (2: no. 6024)
Another tradition confirms that besides Masud, Kab and Thabit, there were at least two others who had also collected the Quran:
Anas is reported to have said: Four persons collected the Quran during the lifetime of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and all of them were Ansar: Muadh Bin Jabal, Ubayy Bin Kab, Zaid Bin Thabit, Abu Zaid. Qatada said: Anas, who was Abu Zaid? He said: He was one of my uncles. (Ibid. no. 6029)
Despite the fact that this tradition contradicts Zaid’s own testimony that no Quranic text had been compiled in Muhammad’s time it does confirm, however, that other Qurans were in circulation at the time of Zaid’s Codex. Owing to this fact, controversy evolved among the Muslims who began accusing each other of tampering with the Book of Allah, which eventually led to the third Caliph Uthman to take drastic measures.
During the conquest of Armenia and Azerbaijan, Hudhaifa Ibn al Yaman went before Uthman due to a controversy which had just been recently broken out between Muslims in relation to the Quranic text: “Hudhaifa therefore said to Othman: ‘Oh commander of the Faithful, be careful of the people.’ He answered, ‘What is the problem?’ Hudhaifa said, ‘I took part in the expedition against Armenia where there were Iraqis as well as Syrians. But the Syrians follow the reading of the Quran according to Ubai Ibn Kab, and they say some things which the Iraqis have not heard, so the latter accuse them of unbelief. In the same way the Iraqis who follow the reading of Ibn Masud, read some things the Syrians have not heard, and the Syrians accuse them of unbelief. Restrain this people before they differ in the Book, as do the Jews and Christians.
“Accordingly Othman sent to Hafsa, saying, ‘Send us the sheets that we may copy them into the volumes. Then we shall return them to you.’ Hafsa therefore sent them to Othman. Then he commanded Zaid Ibn Thabit and Abdullah Ibn Harith Ibn Hisham, and they copied them into the volumes. And Othman said to the copy of the three Quraishites, ‘When you differ, you and Zaid Ibn Thabit, in any portion of the Quran write it in the dialect of the Quraish, for verily it came down in their dialect.’ And they did so until, when they had copied the sheets into the volumes, Othman restored the sheets to Hafsa. And he sent to every region a volume from what they had copied, and commanded regarding everything of the Quran besides it, in every sheet and volume, THAT IT SHOULD BE BURNED.” (3: pp. 110-111, citing Mishkat and Bukhari) [emphasis ours]
Ikrima reported that Ali Ibn Thalib stayed at his house after the election of Abu Bakr, and it was told Abu Bakr that he resented his election! Therefore he sent for Ali saying, “Do you resent my election?” For which he answered, “No, by God!” Abu Bakr asked him, “What caused you to stay away from me?” He answered, “I saw the Book of God being added to, so I said to myself, ‘I shall not wear my mantle, except (to go) to pray, till I have collected it.” Abu Bakr said, “Such is a most wonderful thought.”
It becomes obvious from these traditions that contrary to popular Islamic teaching, contradictions and variant readings existed between the different texts. It is interesting to note that these variances gave rise to charges of corruption and textual perversion amongst the Muslim Umma, causing Uthman to burn texts written by eye and ear witnesses of Muhammad.
Uthman then proceeded to make Zaid’s Codex the official text, forcing others to accept his decision; a decision based not upon the wisdom of God but on one man’s choice. The question which begs to be asked is who gave Uthman the right to burn Qurans, standardizing Zaid’s text, when there were others who had more authority for receiving official standardization of their respective texts, such as Masud and Kabb?
Both Kabb and Masud were respected for their ability to memorize, with Kabb being referred to as “the Master of the Quranic Reciters” and Masud reciting 70 surahs without error:
Abdullah (bin Masud) reported that (he said to his companions to conceal their copies of the Quran) and further said: He who conceals anything shall have to bring that which he had concealed on the Day of Judgment, and they said: After whose mode of recitation do you command me to recite? I in fact recited before Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) more than seventy chapters of the Quran and the companions of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) know that I have better understanding of the Book of Allah (than they do), and if I were to know that someone had better understanding than I, I would have gone to him. Shaqiq said: I sat in the company of the companions of Muhammad (may peace be upon him) but I did not hear anyone having rejected that (that is, his recitation) or finding fault with it. (2: no.6022)
When informed that Zaid’s text was to receive official status, Masud reacted indifferently:
Abdullah Ibn Masud said, “I recited from the Messenger of Allah (saw) seventy surahs which I had perfected before Zaid Ibn Thabit had embraced Islam.” (4:p.66, citing Ibn Abi Dawud’s Kitab al-Masahif, p.17)
“I acquired directly from the Messenger of Allah (saw) seventy surahs when Zaid was still a childish youth - must I now forsake what I acquired directly from the Messenger of Allah?” (Ibid., p.15)
Masud during a religious sermon (khutba) declared:
“The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Quran. I like it to read according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth.” (Ibid., citing Ibn Sa’d’s Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, vol. 2, p.444)
In fact, the Muslim community at Iraq refused to receive Uthman’s text, preferring Masud’s instead. The matter becomes worse, since Uthman’s text omitted chapters and verses which the other texts included:
∑ ∑ According to Ibn Umar and Aisha, Muhammad’s wife, one chapter, Surah al-Ahzab  had 200 verses in Muhammad’s time. Yet, once Uthman was finished only 73 verses remained, eliminating nearly 140 verses. This tradition is also confirmed by Ubay Kabb. (1:p.61, citing Al-Suyuti’s al-Itqan fii ulum al-Quran on nasikh wa mansukh; Darwaza’s al-Quran Al-Majid)
∑ ∑ A verse on the stoning of men and women had been expunged from the Uthmanic text. It reads as follows,
“As for old men and women, stone them for the pleasure they have indulged in.” Umar al-Khattab stated, “But for people who may say that Umar adds to the Book of Allah, I would have written the verse on stoning.” (1: p.61)
∑ ∑ Muslim’s hadith collection solidifies that at least two surahs are missing:
Abu Harb b. Abu al-Aswad reported on the authority of his father that Abu Musa al-Ashan sent for the reciters of Basra. They came to him and they were three hundred in number. They recited the Quran and he said: You are the best among the inhabitants of Basra, for you are the reciters among them. So continue to recite it. (But bear in mind) that your reciting for a long time may not harden your hearts as were hardened the hearts of those before you. We used to recite a surah, which resembled in length and severity to (surah) Bara`at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: ‘If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust.’ And we used to recite a surah which resembled one of the surahs of Musabbihat, and I have forgotten it, but remember (this much) out of it: ‘O people who believe, why do you say that which you do not practice’ and ‘that is recorded in your necks as a witness (against you) and you would be asked about it on the Day of Resurrection.’ No. 2286
Confirmation of the legitimacy of the verse on the son of Adam comes from Anas b. Malik:
Anas reported Allah’s messenger as saying: If the son of Adam were to possess two valleys of riches, he would long for the third one, and the stomach of the son of Adam is not filled but with dust. And Allah returns to him to repent. No. 2282
Anas goes on to say, “I heard the messenger of Allah as saying this, but I do not know whether this thing was revealed to him or not, but he said so.” No. 2283 (c.f. 2284, 2285)
Yet according to al-Aswad it was revealed as part of a surah which no longer exists.
∑ ∑ According to Hamida bint Abi Yunus: “When my father was eighty years of age, he recited the following verse from the codex of Aisha: ‘Verily, Allah and His angels pray for the Prophet. O ye who believe, pray for him and earnestly desire peace for him and for those who pray in the front rows.’” She adds: “This verse had been there before the codices underwent change at the hands of Uthman.” (Ibid.: pp. 61-62, citing al-Suyut’s al-Itqan on nasikh wa mansukh [abrogating and the abrogated])
∑ ∑ According to Hudhaifa, Muslims read “only a quarter of Sura al-Tawba (9) i.e., meaning a great number of its verses are missing. (Ibid.: p.64 citing al-Mustadrak)
∑ ∑ Ubayy Kabb included two extra surahs, al-Hafd (the Haste) and al-Khal (the Separation) that were not included in the Uthmanic text. These surahs were also included in the texts of Ibn Abbas and Abu Musa. (4: pp. 74-75, citing al-Suyuti’s al-Itqan, pp.152-153)
∑ ∑ Ibn Masud refused to include surahs 1, 113 and 114, stating that these chapters were revealed as prayers and incantations to ward off evil. This fact is confirmed by al-Razi, al-Tabari and Ibn Hajar. (1: p. 58, citing Ibn Hajar, al-Tabari, al-Suyuti’s Itqan chapter on compilation)
∑ ∑ According to al-Hajjaj, “a sura as long as al-Tawba was revealed, and then it was lifted up,” i.e., lost. (Ibid.: pp.62-63, citing Bukhari, Riqaq 10; Zuhd 27; al-Tirmidi, al-Darimi Riqaq 62; and Ahmad Bin Hanbal, 111, 122, 176; iv. 368; v.117; vi.55)
∑ ∑ Aisha relates that, “Ten verses were revealed concerning a foster relationship. These were annulled and replaced by another five verses.” Yet both the abrogated and abrogating verses are nowhere to be found. She also stated: “The verses of stoning and fostering were revealed, and the sheet of paper on which they were written was under my pillow. But then the Prophet died. Overwhelmed with grief, a beast came in and ate the sheet of paper.” (Ibid.: p. 112, citing Muslim Hudud 15 and also No.3421; Ibn Maja Hudud 9) [emphasis ours]
∑ ∑ According to Zaid, two verses located at the end of Sura al-Tawba (9) had been missed by him when he collected the Quran. It wasn’t until after he had compiled it that he found the verses with Abu Khuzaima al-Ansari, the only person to have memorized them. This indicates that even Zaid’s initial collection was not perfect. (4: p. 31, citing Bukhari, vol. 6, p.478)
This process of burning eyewitness writings on the part of Uthman did not go well with Muslims in general as they declared that he had “obliterated the Book of Allah” because “The Quran was in many books, and you have now discredited them all but one.” (4: pp. 51, 58, citing Abi Dawud Kitab al-Masahif, p.36; al-Tabari, Bk.1, chpt. 6, 2952)
The late great Egyptian Professor, Dr. Taha Hussein, summarizes the atrocity of Uthman’s actions in his book, A-Fitnato Al-Kobra (The Great Sedition):
The Prophet Muhammad said: “The Koran was revealed in seven dialects, all of them are right and perfect.” When Uthman banned whichever he banned from the Koran, and burned whichever he burned, he banned passages Allah has revealed and burned parts of the Koran which were given to the Muslims by the Messenger of Allah. He appointed a small group of Sahaba (close friends of Muhammad) to rewrite the Koran and left out those who heard the Prophet and memorized what he said. This is why Ibn Massoud was angry, because he was one of the best men who memorized the Koran. He said that he took from the mouth of the Prophet seventy suras of the Koran while Zaid Ibn Sabit was yet a young lad. When Ibn Massoud objected to the burning of the other codices of the Koran, Uhman took him out of the mosque with violence, and struck him to the ground, and broke one of his ribs. (pp. 160-161, 181-182) [emphasis ours]
The problem does not end just yet. The traditions record that the governor of Medina, Marwan, confiscated Zaid’s text which remained in Hafsah’s possession when the latter had died and proceeded to destroy it. Ibn Abi Dawud quotes Salim bin Abdullah as saying that,
“When Hafsah died and we returned from her funeral, Marwan sent with firm intention to Abdullah Ben Omar (Hafsah’s brother) that he must send him those pages, and Abdullah Ben Omar sent them to him, and Marwan ordered it and they were TORN UP and he said. I did this because whatever was in it was surely written and preserved in the (official) volume and I was afraid that after a time people will be suspicious of this copy or they will say there is something in it that wasn’t written.” (3: p. 120)
We must ask who gave Marwan the authority to dare destroy an official, original copy of the Book of Allah, a copy written under the authority of Abu Bakr Siddiq, Muhammad’s personal friend and father-in-law? Further, if there was nothing missing in the transmission of the text then why was he afraid that the people would be suspicious of it?
On top of this great atrocity, the Quran underwent further revisions under Iraq’s governor al-Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf (A.D. 660-714). Abi Dawud notes,
“Altogether al-Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf made eleven modifications in the reading of the Uthmanic text... In al-Baqarah (Surah 2:259) it originally read Lam yatasannah waandhur, but it was altered to lam yatasannah... In al-Maj. (sura 5:48) it read shari ya’aten wa minhaajan but it was altered to shir ‘atawwa minhaajan.” (4: p.109, citing Dawud’s Kitab al-Masahif, p.117)
It appears that Muslims felt free in adding and subtracting from the Quran as they saw fit, irrespective of whether it was God’s word or not. This fact is made clearer by Arthur Jeffrey’s conclusion on Hajjaj’s revisions:
According to Arthur Jeffrey, “That the practice of pointing came generally accepted and consistently carried through the whole of the Codex is said to be due to activity of the famous official al-Hajjaj b. Yusif, who was perhaps the most remarkable figure in Islam during the Caliphate of ‘Abd al-Malik. When we come to examine the accounts of the activity of al-Hajjaj in this matter, however, we discover to our surprise that the evidence points strongly to the fact that his work was not confined to fixing more precisely the text of the Qur`an by a set of points showing how it was to be read, but he seems to have made an entirely new revision of the Qur`an, having copies of this new text sent to the great metropolitan centres, and ordering the destruction of earlier copies in existence there, much as Uthman had done earlier.” (The Quran as Scripture [New York: Books for Libraries, 1980], p.99)
Another issue which the Muslims had to deal with was variant readings. When the Quran was originally written, there were no vowel marks or diacritical points to differentiate the meanings of words. To help illustrate the kind of problems this style of writing can create in a text, we will write a sentence without vowels:
h gv hm bd
This sentence could be read in several possible ways depending on the context. For instance, it might mean “he gave him a bid” if he were a contractor, or “he gave him a bud” if he were in a florist’s shop, or “he gave him a bed” if in a furniture store. This textual style gave rise to thousands of variants between the codices which were available at that time.
Other variant readings stem from clauses which were either added or omitted from the text. A comparison between Uthman and Masud’s text will illustrate,
∑ ∑ S. 2:275 in Uthman’s copy begins with Allathiina yaq kuluunar - ribaa laa yaquumuuna - “those who devour usury will not stand.” Ibn Masud’s codex began in the same fashion but added “yawmal qiyamati,” The Day of Resurrection - i.e., “those who devour usury will not stand on the Day of Resurrection.”
∑ ∑ S. 5:91 in Uthman’s text reads Fusiyaamu thaalaythati ayyammin - “Fast for three days.” Masud included after the last word the adjective mutataabi’aatin, meaning “successive days.”
∑ ∑ S. 6:153 begins Wa anna haatha siraatii - “Verily this is my path.” Yet Masud’s version reads Wa haatha siraatu rabbakum - “This is the path of your Lord.”
∑ ∑ S. 33:6, in regards to Muhammad’s wives, states, Wa azwaajuhu ummahaatuhuu - “and his wives are their (the believers’) mothers.” Yet Masud adds Wa huwa abuu laahum - “and he (Muhammad) is their father.” (Ibid.: pp. 69-70; citing Arthur Jeffrey Materials; Abi Dawud’s Kitab al-Masahif)
It should be noted that in the four preceding examples, Ubayy Kabb, Ibn Abbas and Ibn Abi Dawud were in agreement with Masud’s reading. Other times when Masud’s reading found support with the other reciters are,
∑ ∑ S. 3:127, the standard version read Wa saari’uu (“be quick”), whereas both Masud and Kabb’s readings were Wa saabiquu (“be ahead”)
∑ ∑ Masud and Kabb both read Yusrifullaahu - “averted by Allah” - in replacement of Uthman’s Yusraf - “averted.” (S. 6:16) (Ibid.: p. 71, citing Maki’s Kitab al-Kasf and Arthur Jeffrey’s Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Quran)
This makes the case against the Uthmanic text receiving official status even more strong, since the evidence points to Masud’s codex as vastly superior.
To present a brief summary of our findings we note that,
∑ ∑ The Quran was not compiled perfectly.
∑ ∑ Much of the Quran’s contents are missing.
∑ ∑ More than one Quran was in circulation.
∑ ∑ Primary eyewitness codices were burned.
∑ ∑ An official text was decided upon by one man’s authority.
∑ ∑ Even this official codex was eventually destroyed and eleven revisions were made of it.
∑ ∑ Thousands of variants existed between these competing texts as documented by Arthur Jeffrey’s book who in turn cites Abi Dawud’s own work.
Before concluding, two fallacies need to be addressed. There are those within the Islamic community, such as Dr. Jamal Badawi of Nova Scotia, Halifax who claim that the memorization of the Quran insured its preservation and authority. It is claimed by these men that hundreds of individuals were alive who had memorized the Quran and who were personally taught by Muhammad, thus insuring the proper enunciation and contents of the Quran. This logic is fallacious for two reasons,
1. 1. The claim that memorization preserved the Quran is false due to the fact that a great number of the reciters (hafiz) were slain at the battle of al-Yamama, taking those parts of the Quran that they alone had memorized to the grave with them, never to be recited again. (See page number 1 for details)
2. 2. It was these same reciters i.e., Masud, Kabb etc., who were writing down codices from memory which led to contradictions, additions, omissions and to thousands of variant readings among the competing texts. This proves that memorization failed to preserve the Quran intact. This is why Ibn Umar would say, “Let none of you say ‘I have acquired the whole of the Quran. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Quran has disappeared? Rather let him say “I have acquired what has survived.’” (1: p. 109, citing al-Suyuti’s Al-Itqan Fii Ulum al-Quran [p.524])
The second fallacy is that these variants were simply dialectal differences between the different Arab tribes which did not effect the text, since Muhammad was allowed up to seven dialectal readings (Arabic - Sab’at-l-Ahruf). On the contrary, the evidence points to much more than simple dialectal variations, but to gross omissions of entire surahs, verses and lengths of chapters. Those who expound this theory are basing it upon purely wishful thinking with no solid evidence to back up such assertions.
Unlike the Bible which has over 25,000 manuscripts with copies dating over two thousand years (i.e., Dead Sea Scrolls), the Quran has no corroborating manuscript evidence dating back to the seventh and eighth centuries. The two oldest copies, Samarqand and Topkapi texts, date to approximately 160 years after the Uthmanic codex. The style of these writings is Kufic, a script which was not in fashion during Uthman’s reign (Al-Mail script was used at that time). Additionally, many pages of the materials differ extensively from one another, thus exposing the penmanship of multiple authors.
Due to the lack of any evidence until the ninth century, many scholars have come to question the integrity of the Quran. One such scholar, Dr. Robert Morey, draws a timeline illustrating why scholars reject the authenticity of both the Quran and the Traditions:
570 - The Birth of Muhammad
610 - The Call to Prophethood.
632 - Death of Muhammad.
650 - Uthman Made Caliph.
691 - Dome of Rock Sieged.
700 - Legends and myths are recorded in order to elevate Muhammad of history into the Muhammad of traditions.
800 - Nearly 700,000 traditions compiled.
850 - Imam Bukhari collects and compiles traditions.
923 - Al-Tabari’s Commentary.
A gap of nearly two hundred years exists between Muhammad’s death and any written record of Islam’s origins and the Quran’s compilation. This calls into question the whole issue of the reliability of the religion of Islam since more than sufficient time elapsed for legendary and mythological fables to develop around the historical events. This point is even more pertinent when we note that there were no eyewitnesses to these events still living who could expose any fraudulent tales.
Furthermore, no references to Muhammad as a prophet have been discovered in the contemporary inscriptions or writings, again casting doubt on the contents of the Quran. Yet, in the case of Jesus Christ and the New Testament documents, we have secular writings and manuscript evidence alongside church fathers’ scriptural quotations from within the latter part of the first and second centuries that establishes the reliability and preservation of these writings, being handed down within the first generation of eyewitnesses.
In view of all these considerations and facts, we are inclined to conclude that Islam and the Quran bear no solid and verifiable evidence which would support their authority or inspiration.
Keys to the numbers:
1. 1. The True Guidance, pt. 4 - An Introduction To Quranic Studies
2. 2. Sahi Muslim
3. 3. Dr. William Campbell: The Quran And The Bible In The Light Of History And Science
4. John Gilchrist: Jam Al-Quran- The Codification Of The Quran Text
Muslim Scholars Acknowledge Corruption Of Quranic Text
Not all Muslim scholars believe that the Quran has been perfectly preserved, but freely admit to wholesale corruption of the Islamic text at the hands of Uthman, Islam’s third Caliph. These Muslims are predominantly of the Shiite sect, a sect which believes in Ali ibn Abu Thalib’s primacy as the rightful heir of Muhammad, being his first cousin and son-in-law.
This fact is amazing since Muslims are fond of quoting liberal Christian theologians, Christians with an anti-supernatural bias, to prove that the Bible has suffered tampering. Yet, we find within Islam a group of God-fearing individuals who do believe in the inspiration and miracles, upholding Muhammad’s prophethood, who are still honest enough to acknowledge the fact that much is missing from the Islamic revelation.
One of the most famous Shiite books written on the subject of corruption is The Abridgement on the Distortion of The Book of the Lord of Lords, by Imam al-Nuri. According to him, many Imams such as al-Saduuq, al-Tubrusi, al-Sighaar, al-Kalleeni, Ibn Shahir Ashuub, al-Ayyaashi, al-Majlisi and al-Nu`maani agree that Uthman woefully tampered with the Quran, excluding and adding verses which best suited him. According to al-Nuri, “There were different collectors, the prince of the believers was the first among them, whose collection was at variance with all the other collectors. There are other three copies of the Koran collected by the caliphs, beside the copies of Ibn Ka`b, Ibn Mas`uud, which are four copies by themselves.”
“When these general and particular accounts are considered closely, we learn, from both their literal or suggested meaning, that the Koran now existing between the hands of the Muslims in the east and the west as it is bound by two jackets, and according to its collection and arrangement, was not so during the life of the Messenger.” (see Nuri’s book)
Other books include Ahmed Ibn Muhammad’s The Distortion and Muhammad Ibn Hasan al-Sairati’s Distortion and Substitution.
According to these Islamic sources, more than two hundred verses have either been tampered with or completely omitted. Here is a listing taken from the books of the Shiites:
∑ ∑ According to Shiite scholars, one whole sura titled al-wilaya has been expunged by Muhammad’s successors. It reads as follows:
O Apostle! Make known my admonition, so they will know. Truly, those who turn a deaf ear to my verses and judgment are the losers. Those who keep their pledge to you, I shall reward with pleasing paradises. Truly, Allah is forgiving and offers great reward.
Truly, Ali is of the pious, and he shall be granted his merit on the Day of Judgement. In no way are we ignorant of the injustice done to him. We gave him honour over all your household. He and his offspring are the patient. Their adversary is the leader of the criminals.
Say to those who disbelieved after they have believed: “Do you seek the worldly pleasures of life, running after it, forgetting what Allah and His Apostle have promised you, breaking the promises after reaffirming them?” We have given you parables that you may be guided. O Apostle, we have revealed unto you evident verses. In them are those whom Allah may claim as dead, and whoever shall stand by him will be exposed. Shun away from them as they avoid you. We shall bring them on a day where nothing will help them or grant them mercy.
In hell, they have a status which will befit them. Give praise to your great Lord and be of those who prostrate themselves. We sent Moses and Aaron, yet they wronged Aaron. May it be good patience! We have made monkeys and pigs out of them and cursed them until the day they shall be resurrected. Be patient, for they shall be granted victory. Through you, as it has been for former messengers before you, judgement is fulfilled. From them we have made a legal guardian to you, so that they may repent. Whoever turns his back on My commandment, I shall bring him back, so let them enjoy their disbelief for a little while.
You shall not be asked about the treacherous. O Apostle! We have made a pledge for you in the necks of those who have believed. Therefore, take hold of it and be of the thankful. Verily, Ali is one of the obedient, lying prostrate at night, warning of the Last Day, and hoping for the reward of his Lord. Say, shall these oppressors be treated equally while knowing of my torture? Feathers will be filled around their necks, and they shall regret their works. We have told you the good news that his offspring was to come. Our order they shall not break. Upon them and for me be prayers and mercy, whether they are alive or dead, until they are resurrected. Upon those who do them wrong after you is My wrath, for they are a losing folk. Upon those who follow their steps be mercy from Me, they shall be safe in the rooms. Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds. (The True Guidance, pt. Four, pp.65-66; Citing al-Nuri’s Fasl al-Khitab, p.110)
∑ ∑ According to one Abu Ja`far, the original readings of S. 2:59 is, “Those who transgressed against the family of Muhammad changed the word from that which had been given them, so we sent a plague from heaven upon who transgressed against the family of Muhammad.” (Ibid., p.67; Citing Ibrahim al-Qummi’s commentary, vol. 1, p.48)
∑ ∑ Abu Abdallah states that S. 2:91 correctly reads, “... What Allah has sent down concerning Ali, they say...” (Fasl al-Khitab, p.205)
∑ ∑ S. 2:143 is supposed to be, “We have made you justly balanced imams, that is, leaders that you might be witnesses over the nations.” (Ibid., p.213)
∑ ∑ S 3:128 begins with, “Not for you is the decision...” Yet, Abu Abdallah reads it, “For you is the decision...” (Ibid., pp.218-219)
∑ ∑ S. 4:65 is read by Abu Abdallah as, “... against your decision in the matter of rule but submit to Allah and accept them with the fullest conviction.” Yet Abu Ja`far reads it, “and find in their souls no resistance to what Muhammad and the family of Muhammad had decided...” (Ibid.,pp.225,226)
∑ ∑ Abdallah’s commentary on 3:110 is: “Will the best of peoples kill the Prince of Believers [Ali], al-Hasan and al-Husain [Ali’s sons]? The correct reading is: ‘You were the best imams evolved for mankind.’” (Ibid., p.217)
∑ ∑ The last clause in S. 4:79 according to Abdallah should have read, “... evil happens to you I have foreordained!” (Ibid., p.226)
∑ ∑ Abu Ja`far indicates that 3:185 should have had “and will be resurrected” as the concluding part of the sentence. (Ibid., p.219)
Although there are many more verses we can present, these examples are sufficient to demonstrate quite clearly that the Quran is far from being perfectly preserved, a fact affirmed by God-fearing Muslims themselves.
Sahi-Bukhari on the Quranic Text
Since the Hadith collection of Imam Bukhari is considered by Muslims to be the premiere collection of Islamic Traditions, viewing it as second only to the Quran itself, it is incumbent upon us to examine it in relation to the Quran’s compilation. On examining the evidence presented by Bukhari, we find that the statements given are in total agreement with the other Islamic reference works quoted within this study.
Far from affirming the Quran’s perfect compilation, Bukhari’s collection acknowledges the fact that the Quran did suffer much corruption during its transmission from oral to written format.
Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan’s nine-volume English translation of Sahi-Bukhari will be used throughout, more specifically volume six of his set:
6. no. 509
∑ ∑ A large number of reciters killed in Battle of Yamama (against Musailama).
∑ ∑ Portions of Quran feared lost.
∑ ∑ Quran to be compiled into a single collection, something not done by Muhammad.
∑ ∑ Zaid b. Thabit compiled the Quran.
∑ ∑ Could not find last verse of S. Al-Tawba except with Abi Khuzaima al-Ansari
6. no 510
∑ ∑ During war against Azerbaijan and Armenia, Hudhaifa bin al-Yamama informed Uthman that the Iraqis, who read Masud’s version of the Quran, and the Syrians, who read Kabb’s version, accused each other of adding and/or omitting from the Quranic text.
∑ ∑ Uthman commissioned Zaid, Abdullah bin Az-Zubair, Said b. al-As, and Abdur-Rahman b. Harith b. Hisham to rewrite the Quranic M.S.S. in the Quraish dialect.
∑ ∑ New copies sent to each province.
∑ ∑ Qurans of other companions ordered to be burnt.
6. no. 511
∑ ∑ Last two verses of S. Al-Tawba found with only one person, Abu Khuzaima. This fact destroys the myth that the Quran had been preserved perfectly through memorization, since if this were the case why was it that only Khuzaima had the last two verses of Al-Tawba at his disposal? Should these not have been in the possession of all the memorizers?
In fairness, it must be stated that according to certain other Islamic traditions, Ubayy b. Kabb also acknowledged the existence of these last two verses:
They collected the Quran into a mushaf in the reign of Abu Bakr, some men writing to the dictation of Ubayy. When they reached Q 9:127 some supposed that that was the last part of the Quran to have been revealed. But Ubayy pointed out that the Prophet had taught him two verses more and, since they were the last of the Quran to be revealed, the Book should close on the note on which it had begun. (John Burton, The Collection of the Quran, 1977, p.124 - citing Abu Bakr ‘Abdullah b. Abi Da’ud’s Kitab Al Masahif)
Yet, this actually confirms the fact that not everyone had memorized the Quran completely, since only two from out of all the community could remember these verses.
It is presumed that the Hadith is referring to the fact that only Khuzaima had written the verses out on paper, while the rest had committed them to memory. Again, this seems to be wishful thinking, since this Hadith says nothing about verses written on codices. Hence, this presumption cannot be taken seriously due to the lack of any evidence in support of such a view.
6. no. 515
∑ ∑ Contradictory order of surahs existed between the conflicting versions of the Quran.
6. no. 527
∑ ∑ Some reciters left out verses mentioned by Kabb, in spite of the latter’s reputation as the best reciter. This strongly suggests that many verses have disappeared.
6. no. 558, 562
∑ ∑ Muhammad himself forgot portions of the Quran.
All this evidence from the best and the most reliable Hadith collection leaves no doubt that the Quran is far from being a perfect compilation.
The debate continues to rage between Christianity on the one hand and Islam on the other. Charges upon charges are leveled between the two groups, hoping to convince each other of the superiority of their respective religious positions.
Due to this, many Muslims have taken up the pen in the attempt to disprove the divine inspiration of the Bible by exposing the apparent contradictions contained therein. Volumes of books have been written on this very subject, hoping to demonstrate the fact that the Bible cannot be the inerrant word of God.
Although the charges leveled against the Bible have been refuted time and again, Muslims continue to consistently present these same arguments. In this study we will not be dealing with the charges presented by Muslims against Christianity, but will deal specifically with the contradictions and inconsistencies contained within the Quranic revelation.
The object in doing so is to show Muslims the futility in presenting charges against the Bible which only hinders the Islamic position, since the very same accusations can be used against Muslims to disprove the Quran, Muhammad and Islam. The Quran, Hadith and Islamic expositors will be quoted at length here to emphasize the point more clearly that the Quran does contain contradictions, fables and historical inaccuracies within its pages. (At the conclusion of our study we will present several book titles that deal primarily with answering the alleged contradictions presented against the Bible by both the secular and religious communities.)
The length of a day
"And surely a day with your Lord is a thousand years of your counting."
This passage contradicts S.70:4:
"To Him the angels and the Spirit mount up in a day whereof the measure is fifty thousand years."
Ibn Abbas, considered the premiere Islamic interpreter, was incapable of reconciling these passages together.
Abu Ubaid said "A certain man asked Ibn Abbas about a day whose measure was 50,000 years to which he answered:
“‘They were two days which Allah has mentioned in His Book. Allah alone knows what they are. I do not know what they are, and I am afraid to say about them that which is not according to my knowledge.’”
Ibn Abu Mulaika stated:
“I struck the camel till I entered upon Said ibn Al-Musayyab. He was asked about this (matter), but he knew not what to say. Therefore I said to him: ‘Should I not tell what I heard Ibn Abbas say?’ And I told him so Ibn Musayyab said to the inquirer : ' Behold Ibn Abbas, who is more knowledgeable than me avoided to speak about it.' “(1: pt.5, pp. 215, 216; citing Al-Qurtubi and Al-Razi)
The Day of Judgement
The Quran indicates that human beings will be questioned on the day of reckoning:
"So We shall question those unto whom message was sent, and We shall question the envoy”S 7:6 "And halt them, to be questioned.”S. 37:24
Yet S 55:39 contradicts these passages:
"On that day none will be questioned about his sin, neither man nor jinn."
The creation of the Heavens and Earth
“Say : Is it that ye deny Him who created the earth in two days... and bestowed blessings on the earth and measured there in all things to give them nourishment in due proportion in four days.. Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been a smoke: He said to it and to the earth : ‘Come ye together willingly or unwillingly’.. so He completed them as seven firmaments in two days."
These verses imply that God completed the heavens and the earth in eight days (2+4+2) and that the heavens were fashioned after the earth. Yet other passages suggest that the heavens were created before the earth and that it took six, not eight, days to complete their formation:
"What are ye the more difficult to create or the heaven (above)? (God) hath constructed it on high. He raised its canopy, and He hath given it order and perfection... and the earth, moreover, hath He extended (to a wide expanse)”S. 79:27-28,30
“Your guardian - Lord is God, who created the heavens and the earth in six days. “S. 7 :51
"Verily your Lord is God, who created the heavens and the earth in six days.”S.10:3
Noah's family and the Flood
According to S 21:76, Noah and his family were saved from the flood:
"(Remember) Noah, when he cried (to us) aforetime: We listened to his (prayer) and delivered him and his family from great distress.”S 21:76
"And Noah verily prayed unto Us and gracious was the Hearer of his prayer, and We saved him and his household from the great distress, and made his seed the survivors...”S. 37:75-77
Yet, in S. 11 :42,43 and 66:10 we are told that Noah's wife and one of his sons did not survive:"...and Noah called out to his son, who had separated himself (from the rest) : 'O my son! embark with us, and be not with the unbelievers!'... and the waves came between them, and the son was among those overwhelmed in the flood."
"God sets forth, for an example to the unbelievers, the wife of Noah and the wife of Lut: They were (respectively) under two of our righteous servants, but they were fake to their (husbands), and they profited nothing before God on their account, but were told: 'Enter ye the fire along with (others) that enter!'"
Yusef Ali in his translation, The Holy Quran, tries to explain:
“Evidently his (Noah) contemporary world had been so corrupt that it needed a great flood to purge it, 'None of thy people will believe except those who have believed already; so grieve no longer over their evil deeds.' But there were evil ones in his own family. A foolish and undutiful son is mentioned in xi. 42-46. Poor Noah tried to save him and pray for him as one of his family, but the answer came: ' He is not of thy family: for his conduct is unrighteous.' We might expect such a son to have a mother like him, and here we are told that it was; Noah's wife who was also false to the standards of her husband, and perished in this world and in the Hereafter.”(Ibid., p. 1573, ft. 5546)
The dwellers of Paradise
S. 56:11-14 states that few of the later believers will enter paradise:
“Those are they who will be brought nigh in gardens of delight; a multitude of those of old and a few of those of later time..."
This is contradicted by verses 39 and 40:
“... a multitude of those of old and a multitude of those of later time."
The Position of the Jews and Christians
S. 5:82,83 holds Jews as hostile enemies to the Muslims whereas Christians are held in the highest regard:
“Thou wilt find the most vehement of mankind in hostility of those who believe (to be) the Jews and idolators. And thou wilt find the nearest of them in affection to those who believe (to be) those who say: ‘Lo! We are Christians.’ That is because there are among them priests and monks, and because they are not proud..."
Yet verse 51 puts both Jews and Christians on the same list of people whom Muslims are to avoid:
"O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who take them for friends is one of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk."
The question a Muslim must ask is whether Christians are their brethren or are they to be avoided at all costs, since a person does not avoid associating with his brother.
Fables and Inconsistencies
Throughout the Quran and Hadith we find fables reported as actual historical events and allegations brought up against prophets that would seem unbefitting to their characters. The latter part is interesting due to the fact that Muslims constantly attack the Bible for portraying prophets in a bad light. Muslims are often offended to read stories which attribute horrible sins to prophets (i.e., David's act of adultery, Lot committing incest etc.), while failing to mention the fact that both the Quran and Hadiths do likewise. A brief listing of some of the Prophets and their sins will be presented:
Adam and Eve
Adam and Eve were the first sinners, disobeying God by eating from the forbidden tree which caused them to be expelled from Paradise.(S. 2:35-36; 7:19-25)
In spite of this, Adam and Eve were also the first to associate equals with God, making them associaters (mushrikun), a sin utterly detestable to God:
"It was He who created you from a single being. From that being He created his mate, so that he might find comfort in her. And when he had lain with her, she conceived, and for a time her burden was light. She carried it with ease, but when it grew heavy, they both cried to God their Lord: 'Grant us a goodly child and we will be truly thankful.' "Yet when He had granted them a goodly child, they set up other gods besides Him in return for what he gave them. Exalted be God above their idols.!” S. 7:189-90 N.J. Dawood
According to Islamic expositors these verses are referring to the time when Adam and Eve listened to Satan's interjections who, appearing in the form of a man, deceived the two into naming their first son Abd Al-Harth, “the slave of Al- Harth,”Satan's angelic name. After losing their first three sons, named Abdallah, Ubaidallah and Abd al-Rahman, they decided to name their fourth son Abd al-Harth, who lived. Thus, they succumbed to Satan's wishes, disobeying the command of the true God to stay away from him. (1: pt.5, pp.130-31; citing Ibn Abbas and Al-Tabari).
The Quran and Hadiths accuse Abraham of being an idolator, deceiver and having doubts regarding God's ability to raise the dead:
"So also did we show Abraham the power and the laws of the heavens and the earth, that he might (with understanding) have certitude. When the night covered him over, he saw a star: He said, 'This is my Lord.' But when it set, He said: ' I love not those that set.'
“When he saw the moon rising in splendour, he said,’Is this my Lord?’ But when it set, he said: 'Unless my Lord guide me, I shall surely be among those who go astray.' When he saw the sun rising in splendour, he said, 'This is my Lord; this is the greatest (of all).' But when the sun set, he said ' O my people! I am indeed free from your (guilt) of giving partners to God.' “S. 6:75-78
(Note - To avoid charging Abraham with shirk [the association of partners with God which in Islam is the unpardonable sin] Muslims state that this occurred prior to Abraham's knowledge of the true God. This explanation is refuted by these same passages since the last verse records Abraham’s statement that he will not associate partners with God anymore, implying Abraham's knowledge of the true God.)
“Behold! Abraham said : ' My Lord! show me how thou givest life to the dead.' He said, 'Dost thou not then believe?' He said ' Yea! but to satisfy my own heart!..'“S. 2:260
It is for this reason that Muhammad would say: “We are more liable to be in doubt than Ibrahim (Abraham) when he said, 'My Lord! show me how you give life to the dead.' He (Allah) said: ' Do you not believe?' He Ibrahim (Abraham) said: ' Yes, (I believe) but to be stronger in faith.'“Bukhari Vol. 4:591
Narrated Abu Huraira:
“Ibrahim (Abraham) did not tell lies except on three occasions. Twice for the sake of Allah when he said, ‘I am sick,’ and he said, '(I have not done this but) the big idol has done it.' The (third was) that while Ibrahim (Abraham) and Sarah (his wife) were going (on a journey) they passed by (the territory of) a tyrant from amongst the tyrants. Someone said to the tyrant,' This man [i.e., Abraham] is accompanied by a very charming lady.' So, he sent for Ibrahim, and asked him about Sarah saying, 'Who is this lady? ' Ibrahim said, 'She is my sister'.....”Bukhari Vol. 4:578
Imam Zain-ud-Din explains the nature of the first two lies:
“The idolaters invited Abraham to join them in their celebration outside the city, but he refused, claiming that he was sick. When he was left alone, he came to their idols and broke them into pieces. When the idolaters questioned him, he claimed that he had not destroyed their idols but the chief idol had, which Ibrahim left undisturbed and on whose shoulder he had put an axe to lay the accusation on it."
(2: p. 665, ft. 1)
The Quran accuses Joseph of lusting after the wife of Potiphar (named Aziz):
"And (with passion) did she desire him, and he would have desired her, but that he saw the evidence of his Lord: thus (did We order) that We might turn away from him all evil and shameful deeds; for he was of Our servants, sincere and purified.”S. 12:24
The Bible on the other hand denies the idea that Joseph had lust in his heart, rejecting the maiden's advances by saying:
“Lo, having me my master has no concern about anything in the house, and he has put everything that he has in my hand; he is not greater in this house than I am; nor has kept back anything from me except yourself, because you are his wife; how then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?' “Gen. 39:8,9
Job is accused of punishing his wife with a band of grass. What makes it more astonishing is that the command to do so came from God himself:
“And finally We told him: Now take in thy hand a small bunch of grass, and strike therewith, and thou wilt not break thine oath!...”S. 38:44
Muhammad Asad in his Quranic translation notes: ".... according to the classic Quran- commentators, Job swore that, if God would restore him to health, he would punish her (his wife's) blasphemy with a hundred stripes. But when he did recover, he bitterly regretted his hasty wrath, for he realized that his wife's blasphemy had been an outcome of her love and pity for him; and thereupon he was told in a revelation that he could fulfill his vow in a symbolic manner by striking her once ‘with a bunch of grass containing a hundred blades or more.’ “(3: p.700, ft. 41)
Whether God told Job to hit his wife once or a hundred times is not the issue, but the fact that a merciful God would actually condone domestic violence is something which to the Christian is both an insult and an attack on the holiness of God, since the Bible portrays the Lord as a God who deals fairly with all his creatures, making no distinction between male or female, Jew or Greek (cf. Gal. 3:28; Col. 3.11)
Another example of stories attributing sins to prophets is the story of David and the two litigants:
“And yet, has the story of the litigants come within thy kin..? As they came upon David, and he shrank back in fear from them, they said: 'Fear not (we are but) two litigants. One of us has wronged the other.. Behold, this is my brother he has ninety-nine ewes, whereas I have only one ewe and yet he said, ‘Make her over to me’, and forcibly prevailed against me in this our dispute.'
“Said David: ' He has certainly wronged thee by demanding that thy ewe be added to his ewes!.. and suddenly David understood that We tried him: and so he asked his Sustainer to forgive him his sin, and fell down in prostration, and turned unto him in repentance; and thereupon We forgave him that sin....”S. 3:21-25
This story is very similar to the Biblical account of Nathan's address to David where he too used an analogy of a rich man taking away the ewe of another in order to slaughter it for the rich man's guest. This story was told to expose David's sin who, like the rich man, had everything he could ask for and yet still took Bathsheba, the only wife of Uriah the Hittite, into his bed, impregnating her and committing adultery. On top of this, David had Uriah killed to cover up this shame from the eyes of God and the Lord sent Nathan to rebuke David of his sin. After having his sin exposed, David cried out to Nathan and said, "I have sinned against the Lord. “Nathan replied,' The Lord has taken away your sin.”(2 Sam. 12:1-14)
The Muslims have consistently attacked this biblical passage as offensive and an insult to the prophethood and character of David, while failing to realize that the Quran itself bears witness to the truthfulness of this account.
Muhammad Asad's footnote is noteworthy:
“The story which, according to the oldest sources at our disposal, is alluded to in verses 21-26 affects the question as to whether God's elects, the prophets- all of whom were endowed, like David, with wisdom and sagacity in judgement- could or could not ever commit a sin. In other words, whether they, too, were originally subject to the weaknesses inherent in human nature as such or were a priori endowed with an essential purity of character which rendered each of them ' incapable of sinning '(masum).
“In the form in which it has been handed down from the earliest authorities (including, according to Tabari and Baghawi, companions like Abd Allah ibn Abbas and Anas ibn Malik, as well as several of the most prominent of their immediate successors), the story contradicts the doctrine- somewhat arbitrarily developed by Muslim theologians in the course of the centuries- that prophets cannot sin by virtue of their nature, and tends to show that their purity and subsequent sinlessness is a result of inner struggles and trials, and thus , represents in each case a moral achievement rather than an inborn quality.”(3: pp. 696-97 ft.22)
In other words, there is no Quranic support for the sinlessness of the Prophets since the Quran confirms, rather than denies, that the prophets were men who also succumbed to sinful passions and desires like everyone else.
Asad continues to say in regards to this Quranic narration:
“As narrated in some detail by Tabari and other early commentators, David fell in love with a beautiful woman whom he accidentally observed from his roof terrace. Upon inquiring, he was told that she was the wife of one of his officers, named Uriah. Impelled by his passion, David ordered his field-commander to place Uriah in a particularly exposed battle position, where he would be certain to be killed; and as soon as his order was fulfilled and Uriah died, David married the widow (who subsequently became the mother of Solomon). This story agrees more or less with the Old Testament, which gives the woman's name as Bathsheba (2 Samuel xi), barring the biblical allegation that David committed adultery with her before Uriah's death...an allegation which has always been rejected by Muslims as highly offensive and slanderous...”(Ibid., ft.22)
Regardless of whether David killed Uriah before or after his act of adultery, this fact is certain; the earliest Quranic expositors believed that David did sleep with Bathsheba and that Uriah was murdered at the orders of David.
(It should be pointed out that according to the Bible David was already guilty of committing adultery in the eyes of God since he had lusted for her in his heart and according to Christ, Bathsheba was still married to Uriah regardless of death. [Mt. 5:27-28,31-32])
Finally, we find it interesting to state that the Quran itself bears witness that Muhammad, whom Muslims claim was perfect, was a sinner in need of forgiveness. A brief listing of verses affirms this point. (S. 40:55; 47:19; 48:1-2; 80:1-11)
Throughout the pages of the Quran, we find fables reported as actual historical events, and stories pertaining to prophets and nations that border on myth and superstition. Here are a few examples:
Israelites turned into apes and swines
“And well ye know those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: ‘Be ye apes, despised and rejected.’”S. 2:65; 7:166
“Say: 'Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from God? Those who incurred the curse of God and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine.'“S. 5:60
According to these verses, a group of Israelites were transformed into apes and swine as a result of disobedience to God's commandments, i.e. the transgression of the Sabbath. That this story is nothing more than an old Jewish fairytale is even admitted by A. Yusef Ali:
"...there must have been a Jewish tradition about a whole fishing community in a seaside town, which persisted in breaking the Sabbath and were turned into apes.”(4: p.34, ft.79)
Mt. Sinai’s covering over Israel
“When We shook the mount over them, as if it had been a canopy, and they thought it was going to fall on them (We said) : ' Hold firmly to what We have given you, and bring ever to remembrance what is therein: Perchance ye may fear God.'“S.7:171
"And remember We took your covenant and raised above you (the towering height) of mount (Sinai): (Saying): 'Hold firmly to what We have given you and bring ever to remembrance what is therein: Perchance ye may fear God.'“S. 2:63 (see also S. 4:154)
The idea that God would actually raise a mountain above the Israelites in order to put fear in their hearts is incredulous to say the least.
Islam's Al-Khazin states:
“Historians have said that when the children of Israel refused to receive the statutes of Torah (the Law of Moses), because of the burden of the commandments, Allah sent Gabriel who raised a huge mountain until it became like a canopy above their heads. Looking at it, they bowed down in worship. Everyone bowed down on his left cheek and eyebrow and began to look with his right eye at the mountain for fear it would fall on them. The Jews, therefore, worship only on the left side of their faces.”(1: pt. 5, p.129)
One should compare this tale with the Biblical account and read for themselves what actually took place (cf. Exodus 20:18)
The Quran reports many fantastic details on the life of Solomon. For instance, Solomon was given power over the winds, had jinns (immaterial beings) and demons working underneath his supervision (S. 21:81-82; 38:36-38), spoke to ants and birds as one speaks to a friend, with the animals speaking back to him (S. 27:17-44), and had a lifeless body put upon his throne, forcing him to repent of his sins. (S.38:34-35)
Muhammad Asad was forced to admit to the mythical origins of these Quranic stories:
“In this as well as in several other passages relating to Solomon, the Quran alludes to the many poetic legends which were associated with his name since early antiquity and had become part and parcel of Judeo-Christian and Arabian lore long before the advent of Islam...these legendary accounts of Solomon's wisdom and magic powers had acquired a cultural reality of their own and were, therefore, eminently suited to serve as a medium for the parabolic exposition of certain ethical truths with which this book is concerned: and so, without denying or confirming their mythical character, the Quran uses them as a foil for the idea that God is the ultimate source of all human power and glory, and that all achievements of human ingenuity, even though they may border on the miraculous, are but an expression of his transcendental creativity.”(3: p. 498, ft. 77)
Asad's other notes are even more interesting. For example, he indicates within his notes that the idea that Solomon spoke to an ant and his threatening to kill the hoopoe in S. 27:17-22 must not be taken in the literal sense:
“In this instance with the ants Solomon evidently refers to his own understanding and admiration of nature as well as to his loving compassion for the humblest of God's creatures, as a great divine blessing: and this is the Qurnanic moral of the legendary story of the ant.”(Ibid., p. 579, ft.18)
The Quran recounts tales of people who were put to death for hundreds of years, only to be brought back to life once more:
“Or take the similitude of one who passed by a hamlet, all in ruins to its roofs. He said: 'Oh! how shall God bring it ever to life, after this its death?' But God caused him to die for a hundred years; then raised him up again. He said: 'How long didst thou tarry thus?' He said: '(perhaps) a day or part of a day.' “He said: 'Nay, thou hast tarried thus a hundred years; but look at thy food and thy drink they show no signs of age; and look at thy donkey; and that We may make of thee a Sign unto the people, look further at the bones, how We bring them together and clothe them with flesh.' When this was shown
clearly to him, he said: ‘I know that God hath power over all things.’'' S. 2:259
Not only was the man, who according to Islamic tradition was Ezra (Uzair), resurrected but also his food, drink and donkey were preserved for one hundred years as well.
Another fantastic tale found in the Quran is the story of the sleepers of the cave who, upon fleeing persecution, ran into a cave with their dog where they fell asleep for over three hundred years. (S. 18:9-22.
Even more incredulous is the Quranic teaching that Allah put thousands of Israelites to death and then proceeded to raise them back to life:
''Didst thou not turn thy vision to those who abandoned their homes, though they were thousands (in number), for fear of death? God said to them: ' Die'; then He restored them to life. For God is full of bounty to mankind, but most of them are ungrateful.'' S. 2:243
''And remember ye said: ' O Moses! we shall never believe in thee until we see God manifestly, but ye were dazed with thunder and lighting even as ye looked on. Then We raised you up after your death; ye had the chance to be grateful.'' S. 2:55-56
Although it is true that to see God in his essential glory means instantaneous death (Ex. 33:20), what the Israelites saw was a veiled manifestation of God in a cloud of thunder and fire which caused them to drop in fear and trembling. They did not die.(cf. Ex. 19:9-24, 20:18-2, 24:15-18; Dt. 5:22-30). That this tale finds its roots partly in the Jewish oral tradition, the Talmud (a collection of uninspired writings containing many myths), is admitted by A Yusef Ali:
“We have hitherto had instances from the Jewish traditional Taurat (or Pentateuch). Now we have some instances from Jewish traditions in the Talmud, a body of exposition in the Jewish theological schools. They are based on the Jewish scriptures, but add many marvelous details and homilies.'' (4: p. 30, ft. 70)
Certain verses of the Quran contain statements which are inconsistent with historical places and events. For instance, the Quran mentions Abraham being thrown into fire due to his refusal to acknowledge the deities of the land and of the king. God then proceeds to cool the fire down so that Abraham comes out from the blaze unharmed. (cf. S. 21:51-70).
It is not Abraham's passage into the fire that is at question, but it is the identity of the king who tossed Abraham into the blaze that concerns us:
''... traditionally the fire incident is referred to a king called Nimrud... if Nimrud 's capital was in Assyria, near Ninevah (site near modern Mosul), we may suppose either that the king 's rule extended over the whole of Mesopotamia, or that Abraham wandered north through Babylonia to Assyria.'' (4: p.837, ft. 2725)
“In Arab tradition there is the story of Abraham. Nimrud tries to burn him to death, but on account of Abraham's faith the fire became a means of safety for Abraham ...Can we localize Nimrud? If local tradition can be relied upon, the king must have ruled over the tract which includes the modern Nimrud, on the Tigris, about twenty miles south of Mosul. This is the site of the Assyrian ruins of great interest, but the rise of Assyria as an empire was of course much later than the time of Abraham. The Assyrian city Kalakh (Calah), and archaeological excavations carried out there have yielded valuable results, which are however irrelevant for our commentary.'' (Ibid., pp. 533, 1714, ff. 1565, 6055)
Nimrud, king of Babel/Assyria (i.e., Shinar /Sumer) whom Ali is alluding to lived centuries before Abraham, making it impossible for them to be contemporaries. This fact is confirmed by both the Bible and secular history. (cf. Gen. 10:6-12, 11:10-26)
Another example of this type deals with the idols that were worshipped at the time of Noah:
''And they (the people of Noah's day) said to each other, ‘Abandon not your gods: abandon neither Wa'dd nor Suwa, neither Yaquth nor Yauq, nor Nasr..’'' S. 71:23
The problem primarily arises with the names given to the idols of Noah's time. These are the names of the idols worshiped at the time of Muhammad in Mecca, nearly three thousand years later! How is it possible for Noah’s people to worship Arabic deities with Arabic titles several thousands years before these idols ever came into existence? The Muslims' attempts to reconcile this obvious anachronism have failed so far.
Also according to the Quran, Moses and the Israelites were to wait for the Gentile prophet (or the prophet of the Gentiles) to come, bringing salvation:
''And Moses chose seventy of his people for Our place of meeting: when they were seized with violent quaking, he prayed: 'O my Lord! if it had been Thy will Thou couldst have destroyed, long before, both them and me : wouldst Thou destroy us for the deeds of the foolish ones among us? This is no more than Thy trial: by it Thou causest whom Thou wilt to stray, and Thou leadest whom Thou wilt into the right path. Thou art our Protector: so forgive us and give us Thy mercy; for Thou art the best of those who forgive. And ordain for us that which is good, in this life and in the hereafter: for we have turned unto Thee.'
“He said: with My punishment I visit whom I will but My mercy extendeth to all things.. That mercy I shall ordain for those who do right, and practice regular charity, and those who believe in Our signs. Those who follow the Apostle, the unlettered Prophet  , whom they (i.e., Israelites) find mentioned in their own (scriptures)- in the Law and the Gospel; for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); he releases them from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honor him, help him and follow the light, which is sent down with him, it is they who will prosper.’'' S. 7:155-157
The obvious anachronism of the passage is the statement that the Israelites at the time of Moses were to await the coming of the Prophet of the Gentiles for guidance and salvation, whose advent was foretold in the Law and the Gospel. The question must be asked as to how it could have been possible for the Israelites to know of any prophecies of the Apostle to come within the pages of the Gospel, when the Gospel itself had not been revealed until fifteen hundred years after Moses and the Exodus?
The argument that the passage is referring to the descendents of the Israelites who were to receive the Gospel from Jesus Christ also fails to reconcile this anachronism due to the fact that the Israelites by and large have rejected the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, the Gospels that have been handed down to us from the Apostles of Christ are devoid of any references to Muhammad whatsoever.
It should also be noted that Muhammad and Islam have been a constant threat and burden to both Jews and Christians alike. In a Hadith, Muhammad is reported to have said:
'' Allah's messenger (Muhammad) may peace be upon him has commanded: Fight against the Jews and kill them. Pursue them until even a stone would say: Moslem, there is a Jew hiding himself behind me; kill him, kill him quickly.'' (5: p. 7)
Are we to believe that this is the salvation that God promised Israel would eventually come; the idea that the God of Moses would send an Apostle to slaughter them? Far from it!
Fuel for the Fire
The last inconsistency that we present before concluding this study is this passage from S. 21:98
“Surely you and what you worship besides Allah are fuel of Hell ; to it you will come.'' M. Muhammad Ali
At the surface level, there would seem to be no problem whatsoever with this verse until one realizes what the people of Mecca and the surrounding Arabian towns were worshiping. Astral worship was in vogue during that period as was Christianity and Judaism.
Notice that the verse states quite clearly that all which is worshiped i.e., the sun, the moon, the stars, Uzair (Ezra whom the Jews worshiped as the son of God according to S. 9:30), Mary and Jesus will be cast into Hell-fire, an idea which is both foolish and blasphemous.
Hence, we have discovered that the Quran and Traditions do contain factual errors contrary to the widely held belief amongst Muslims that Islam’s holy book is devoid of any contradictions or mistakes.
What Muslims must now do to prove the Quran's inerrancy is to give positive evidence form history, archaeology, and science to refute the arguments presented within this study. In most instances, Muslims respond by committing what is known in logic as the fallacy of equivocation. What this basically means is that the Muslim response is to attack the Bible by presenting, in this case, source material from pagan civilizations prior to the writing of the Bible that contain stories which are similar in nature, i.e., the Babylonian flood and Creation epoch and the Code of Hammurabbi. This is an erroneous argument due to the simple fact that the biblical view of inspiration is different from the Muslim view. The Bible was written by over forty different authors and over a fifteen hundred year period, whereas the Quran was written by one man over a twenty three year period.
According to Scripture, holy men of God were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the Bible within the context of the times, using the literary style of that period. The discovery of similar stories or events within the tales of the pagan civilizations does not destroy the Bible’s authority but actually reinforces it.
That these nations also had stories of the flood and codes to govern oneself confirms the trustworthiness of the biblical events due to the fact that the other civilizations knew that these events had taken place and proceeded to adopt them within their tradition. Furthermore, the similarities between the Mosaic law and Hammurabi’s codes or other documents, vindicate Mosaic authorship and the fifteenth century B.C. date, since the literary style does not fit in any other time period. This then sounds the death-knell on the documentary hypothesis theory, the idea that the Pentateuch is a post-exile editorial patchwork.
Yet the Quran denies any human source whatsoever, stating that God Almighty sent it down from heaven above. (S. 25:4-6) To find even one fable of the ancients recorded within the pages of the Quran would destroy Islam's foundation completely. This is clear from one Muslim writer’s statement in response to Surah 25:4-6:
''Apparently this is a weighty argument. For there can be no greater proof of the fraud of prophethood than to specify its source. But it looks strange that no argument has been put forward to refute this charge except a mere denial, as if to say, 'Your charge is an impudent lie: you are cruel and unjust to bring such a false charge against our messenger; for the Quran is the word of Allah who knows all secrets of the heaven and the earth.’'' (6: vol. 3, pp.178-179) That the source has been specified is clear to anyone who reads this study, proving that the Quran is not the word of God.
To conclude, we must say that the Bible has better and superior manuscript, historical, archaeological and scientific evidence than the Quran, making it more reliable than any other religious book. Hence, before Muslims try to attack the Bible’s credibility, they should first attempt to prove why we should believe in their religious text’s reliability and inspiration.
Fables of the Quran Identified
As noted, the Quran denies that it contains any tales from the ancients, and calls those who make such allegations liars:
"But the Misbelievers say: 'Naught is this a lie which he has forged, and others have helped him at it...' And they say, 'Tales of the ancients which he has caused to be written: and they are dictated before him morning and evening.' '' S.25:4,5
The Quran responds:
''... In truth it is they who have put forward an iniquity ... Say, ‘It is sent down by Him who knows the mystery that is in the heavens and the earth: verily He is oft-forgiving, most merciful.''' S. 25:4,6
Yusef Ali elaborates:
''In their misguided arrogance they say: 'We have heard such things before: they are pretty tales which have come down from ancient times; they are good for amusement, but who takes them seriously?' When the beauty and power of the revelation are pointed out, and its miracles as coming from an unlearned man, they again hint at other men who wrote them, though they could not produce any one who could write anything like it.''
“The answer is that the Quran teaches spiritual knowledge which can only come from God, to whom alone is known the mystery of the whole creation.'“ (4: p. 927, ff. 3058, 3059)
(It is noteworthy that throughout his commentary, Ali identifies the fables and traditions of certain passages within the Quran, disproving the very thing he tries to prove; namely no fables to be found in the revelation. [see study])
Maulana Ali adds,
''In the previous verse, their allegation is that the Quran is a forgery; here they allege that the prophet had caused some stories of the ancients to be written down by some people who helped him and it was these stories which were recited to him and which he gave out as a revelation from on high. How could mere stories bring about the transformation which the Holy Quran was working in the hearts of men?..'' (7: pp. 697, 698; ft. 1771)
It has been clearly demonstrated throughout the study that the Quran does find root in the tales of the ancients and, contrary to what Muslims are saying , contains nothing which would lead one to believe that it came down from heaven above.
In this appendix, we will present two more factors from the Talmud   that prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Muhammad was not being inspired but was in actuality receiving his information from different human sources.
“When Abraham saw the sun issuing in the morning from the east, he at first moved to think that it was God, and said, ‘This is the king that created me’; and worshiped it the whole day. In the evening when the sun went down and the moon commenced to shine, he said, 'Verily this rules over the orb which I worshiped the whole day, since the latter is darkened before it and does not shine anymore.'
“So he served the moon all that night. In the morning when he saw the darkness depart and the east grow light, he said, 'Of a surety there is a king who rules over all these orbs and orders them.'“Zohar, cen. 869
''So also did We show Abraham the power and the laws of the heavens and the earth. That he might have certitude. When the night covered him over, he saw a star; he said , 'This is my Lord. But when it set, he said, ''I love not those who set.' When he saw the moon rising in splendor, he said, ’This is my Lord.’ But when the moon set, he said , ‘Unless my Lord guide me, I shall surely be among those who go astray.' When he saw the sun rising in splendor, he said, ‘This is my lord; this is the greatest of all’; but when the sun set, he said , 'O my people I am indeed free from your error of ascribing partners to God. For me, I have set my face firmly and truly towards Him who created the heavens and the earth, and never shall I ascribe partners to God.'' S. 6: 75-79 Pickhtall
''Only one single man Adam was created in the world to teach that , if any man has caused a single soul to perish, scripture imputes it to him as though he had caused the whole world to perish, and if any man saves a life, a single soul, Scripture imputes it to him as though he had saved the whole world.''
Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4.5
''Therefore We prescribed for the children of Israel that whoever kills a human being, except to retaliate for manslaughter or for corruption done in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all of human- kind; and who so saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the lives of all humankind.'' S. 5:32
The striking similarities between the Talmudic and Quranic tales demonstrates the fact that one of Muhammad's sources of inspiration was a Jew who knew the oral traditions of the rabbis well.
The Drowning of Pharaoh In the Quran
Another fact often given by Muslims for the heavenly inspiration of Muhammad is the Quranic foreknowledge of Pharaoh's bodily preservation and its future discovery as a sign for unbelievers:
''And We brought the children of Israel over the sea; and Pharaoh and his hosts followed them insolently and impetuously till, when the drowning over took him, he (Pharaoh) said, 'I believe that there is no god but He in whom the children of Israel believe; I am of those that surrender.' Now? and before thou didst rebel, being of those that did corruption. So today We shall deliver thee with thy body, that thou mayest be a sign to those after thee. Surely many men are heedless of our signs.'' S. 10: 90-91 Arberry
Accordingly, Muslims argue that the body of the Pharaoh of the Exodus is believed to have been discovered by Loret at Thebes in the King's valley in 1898, nearly thirteen centuries after this Quranic verse was revealed. This, they claim, gives irrefutable proof for Muhammad's prophethood since it is not possible for Muhammad to have known this apart from Divine revelation.
This argument once more reciprocates back against the Muslims, since we find this same tale proclaimed in the Talmudic fables of the Rabbis, again pointing to the fact that Muhammad was not a God-inspired Prophet:
''Perceive the great power of repentance! Pharaoh, king of Egypt, uttered very wicked words-'Who is the god whose voice I shall obey? (Exod. 5:2). Yet as he repented, saying. ' Who is like unto thee among the gods?' (Exod. 15 : 2). God saved him from death; for it saith; Almost had I stretched out my hands and destroyed; but God let him live, that he might declare his power and strength. ' '' (Pirke Rabbi Elieazer, xliii; Midrash Yalkut, ccxxxviii).
If the passage is an indication of inspiration then it is the Talmudic compilers, not Muhammad, who were being inspired, since it is again obvious as to where Muhammad received his ''Revelations.''
(Note- It must be pointed out that it is impossible for the Pharaoh’s body to have been discovered, since there is a difference of opinion amongst theologians as to his identity. Some scholars are of the opinion that the Exodus took pace in the 19th dynasty period of Egypt, making Seti 1 and Rameses 2 the Pharaohs of the oppression and Exodus.
Others, citing 1Kings 6:1 as evidence, believe that the Exodus took place in 1446 B.C. due to the statement in 1Kings that Israel's deliverance from Egypt took place 430 years before, ''The fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel'' (i.e. 966 B.C.). This would make Thutmose 3 and his son Amuhotep 2 the Pharaohs of that period.
This is a fact that Muhammad Asad himself admits in his footnote to this Quranic passage:
“Lit. ‘We shall save thee in thy body’: Probably an allusion to the ancient Egyptian custom of embalming the bodies of their kings and nobles and thus preserving them for posterity. Some Egyptologists assume that the ‘evil Pharaoh’ of the Quran and the Bible was Ramses II (about 1324-1258 B.C.), while others identify him with his unlucky predecessor, Tut-ankh-amen, or even with Thotmes (or Thutmosis) III, who lived in the 15th century B.C. However, all these ‘identifications’ are purely speculative and have no definitive historical value. In this connection it should be remembered that the designation ‘Pharaoh’ (fir’awn in Arabic) is not a proper name but a title born by all the kings of ancient Egypt.” (3:p.306, f.112)
Even though the historical and archaeological evidence strongly suggests a 1446 B.C. date for the Exodus, the uncertainty amongst religious scholars should point out the wishful thinking on the part of some Muslims in their overzealous attempts to ''prove'' that Pharaoh's body has been found.)
The Listing of Christian Books:
∑ ∑ Dr. Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan
∑ ∑ Norman Geisler & Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask, Victor Books
∑ ∑ Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F.F. Bruce, Manfred T. Brauch
Hard Sayings of the Bible, Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois
∑ ∑ Robert Morey, Islamic Invasion, Harvest House, Eugene, OR
1. 1. The True Guidance - Comments on Quranic Verses
2. 2. Imam Zain-ud-Din bin Abdul-Lateef Az-Zubaidi:
3. 3. The Translation of the Meanings of Summarized Sahi Al-Bukhari (Arabic - English)
4. 4. Muhammad Asad: The Message of The Qur’an
5. 5. Yusuf Ali: The Holy Qur’an - Translation and Commentary
6. 6. John Ankerberg & John Weldon: The Facts on Islam
7. 7. Maududi: The Meaning of the Quran
8. 8. Maulana Muhammad Ali: Holy Quran
  The word which is often translated as unlettered, ummi, is more correctly translated as ''People without scripture'' (i.e., the non-Jews and Christians) or '' Gentile'' as the Quran itself bears witness:
''... for they (i.e., Jews) say: 'We are not bound to keep faith with gentiles (Ummiyun)..''' S. 3:78 Dawood
''It is He that has sent forth among the gentiles (Ummiyun) an apostle of their own to recite to them His revelation, to purify them, and to instruct them in the book and in wisdom, though they have hither to been in gross error, together with others of their own kin who have not yet followed them. He is the Mighty, the Wise.'' S. 62:2,3 Dawood
To assume that all the gentiles or Arabs were illiterate cannot be accepted, since history attests to the high level of literacy of the Arabs prior to and contemporary with Muhammad. This forces us to conclude that the word Ummi, when applied to both Muhammad and his times simply meant people who were ''unlettered'' i.e., not in the sense of reading or writing but in the sense that they had no knowledge of inspired scriptures like the Bible.
  The Talmud is a body of rabbinic teachings which were passed on orally and compiled in the second and third centuries, called the Mishnah and the Gemara. Within these traditions, one finds a variety of subjects ranging from agriculture to spiritual lessons. Also contained within these accounts are stories of the prophets and historical events which often diverge from the Biblical narratives, containing gross historical errors and anachronisms. That the Quran contains much in the way of Talmudic fables is indicative of its true source and worth.
On July 14, 1996, a debate was held in Toronto, Canada between the Muslim apologist Mr. Shabir Ally and the Christian apologist Dr. Robert A. Morey. They both signed an agreement to debate the following two issues:
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; ">1. Do some of the major beliefs and rituals of Islam come
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">from pre-Islamic pagan, Jewish, and Christian sources?
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">2. Is the Allah of Islam a true or false God?
They also agreed in writing that the debate would center on these objective issues and that they would not personally attack each other's character.
It is clear to everyone present that Dr. Morey won the debate. He presented twenty-five propositions that demonstrated that the Qur'an and its religion did not come down from heaven but were put together from various pre-Islamic sources. He also presented numerous citations from standard reference works that demonstrated that the Allah of Islam is a false god.
On the other hand, Shabir Ally did not debate the issues he had agreed to in writing. Instead, he spent his allotted time attacking the character of Dr. Morey, and then attacking the Bible, the Trinity, and the deity of Christ, which had nothing to do with the stated debate topics. His poor performance shamed all the Muslims present and even his support team fled the platform halfway through the debate.
Shabir's personal attack against Dr. Morey was shameful to say the least. In his response, Dr. Morey exposed Shabir's attacks as faulty for three reasons.
1. Shabir's personal attacks were based on a simple logical fallacy known as ad hominem. When Shabir called Dr. Morey "dishonest" and "deceptive," he was being irrational because he was attacking the man instead of refuting his arguments.
Shabir's use of ad hominem arguments revealed the intellectual bankruptcy of Islam. Dr. Morey correctly pointed out that even if he were the most wicked man on earth, he could still be telling the truth about Muhammad.
2. Shabir's attack on the Trinity, the Bible, and the deity of Christ committed the logical fallacy known as argumentum elenchi. Those issues had no logical bearing on the debate topics. Thus his statements were irrelevant.
3. Shabir took statements from Islamic Invasion out of context and misapplied the citations found in the book. For example, Dr. Morey quoted from many authorities such as the Encyclopedia Britannica to prove the point that the word "Allah" was not invented by Muhammad or revealed for the first time in the Qur'an. In fact, the word "Allah" was used in Arabia long before Muhammad was born.
It is clear that in the context of the Pre-Islamic meaning of the word "Allah," Dr. Morey was dealing with the historical origins and meaning of the term itself. Nowhere did he suggest that Muslims today knowingly worship the Moon-god.
Shabir pretended that Dr. Morey invented the idea that Allah was the Moon-god in pre-Islamic times. But there are over fifty reference works that state this historical point. For example, The Dictionary of Non-Classical Mythology states that Allah,
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-right: 48px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 48px; padding: 0px; ">originally applied to the moon; he seems to
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 48px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 48px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">be preceded by Ilmaqah, the moon god... Allat: the
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 48px; margin-left: 48px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">female counterpart to Allah. (p.7)
In his personal attack on Dr. Morey, Shabir pretended that the point Dr. Morey was making when he quoted these authorities was that "Allah" is today worshipped by Muslims as the Moon-god. Then he claimed that the authorities Dr. Morey quoted did not support the Moon-god theory.
For example, Dr. Morey quoted from the section in the Encyclopedia Britannica entitled "Pre-Islamic." But in his response, Shabir quoted from a different section that dealt with a different time period.
Most encyclopedias make the distinction between what Allah meant in pre-Islamic times and what it means now to Muslims. Thus there is no contradiction in the article or in what Dr. Morey quoted. The contemporary meaning of a word cannot be used to refute its original meaning in history.
In his response, Dr. Morey focused on the pre-Islamic existence and meaning of the word "Allah" and not on what the word means today. Thus it became clear to all present that Shabir had deliberately taken Dr. Morey's statements out of context and misapplied them.
Later on his website, Shabir revealed that he did not understand the meaning of "a" as opposed to the word "the." Dr. Morey quoted various reference works to document that in Pre-Islamic times, Allah was only one of many pagan deities worshipped by the Arabs.
The scholar H. A. R. Gibb on page 26 (Mohammedanism) refers to the Arabs as believing in "a supreme God Allah." Now, Gibb is correct that Allah was only "a" god and not the one and only true God. Yet, Shabir does not notice that Gibb is saying that Allah was only "a" god in the very passage he quotes! His claim that Gibb does not back up Morey on this point is absurd.
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-right: 48px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 48px; padding: 0px; ">Some scholars trace the name [Allah] to the South
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 48px; margin-left: 48px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">Arabian Ilah, a title of the Moon god...
Since Dr. Morey quoted Guillaume to prove that some scholars trace the word "Allah" back to the Moon-god, how could Shabir attack him on this point? But Shabir asks, "How could Dr. Morey misquote like this?" But to "misquote" someone means that if you put side by side what Morey quoted with what Guillaume wrote, it would be clear that Morey did not accurately quote Guillaume.
Did Shabir do this? No! Why not? Because Morey correctly quoted from Guillaume! To prove that Dr. Morey "misquoted" Guillaume, Shabir quoted a different sentence that had nothing to do with what Dr. Morey quoted! His accusations fell to the ground.
Shabir used the same tricks when he tried to overthrow what Dr. Morey quoted from Farah, Watt, etc. While Dr. Morey gave accurate citations from those sections dealing with Pre-Islamic Arab pagan religions, Shabir ignores the timeframe and quotes from later sections dealing with what Muslims believe today. He does this so often that we can only conclude that he convolutes the material in order to deceive people.
4. In his debate, later in a booklet, and on his web site, Shabir attacked Dr. Morey's character over the issue of the color of Muhammad's penis. He publicly charged that Dr. Morey lied when he claimed that the Hadith said, "I saw the whiteness of the thing of Allah's prophet."
Both Shabir and later Badawi claimed that the Hadith did not say, "thing" but "thigh." This proved (sic) that Dr. Morey was dishonest. Of course, this is logically absurd and just another ad hominem argument.
In his defense, Dr. Morey correctly pointed out to Shabir that if the "thigh" is white, so is the "thing." Thus his point that Muhammad was a white man was demonstrated either way.
In the Badawi debate, the same charge was raised against Dr. Morey. But this time he nailed Badawi on the point by demonstrating to all that he had correctly quoted from Bukhari, vol. 1, no. 365, as translated by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, published by Kazi Publications in Lahore, Pakistan. This translation of the Hadith said,
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-right: 48px; margin-left: 48px; padding: 0px; ">I saw the whiteness of the thing of Allah's prophet.
During the debate, Dr. Morey put an overhead picture of the page in question on a screen so everyone could read the words. He even had someone from the audience come up and verify the exact wording of the book. Yet, Badawi refused to accept the fact that Dr. Morey was 100% correct in his citation!
Shabir and Badawi both continue to send out tracts and booklets with the charge that Dr. Morey lied when he said that the Hadith said "thing." The reader can obtain a copy of Khan's translation of the Hadith and see for himself that it is Shabir and Badawi who are lying!
It is interesting to note that Dr. Morey has challenged both Shabir and Badawi to more debates, but they both run from every challenge! If Morey can be refuted so easily, why would Shabir and Badawi run from debating him? They know that their silly arguments would not hold water for five minutes!
To purchase a videotape copy of Dr. Morey's debates with Shabir and Badawi, contact the California Institute of Apologetics, P.O. Box 7447, Orange, CA 92863.
Interesting citations that confirm what Dr. Morey has been saying.
Encyclopedia of Gods
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; ">"Allah: Perceived in pre-Islamic times as the creator of the earth and water, though not, at that time, considered monotheistically... Allat: Astral and tutelary goddess. Pre-Islamic... One of three daughters of Allah." p. 11
style="border: 0pt none black; margin-top: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; ">"Manat: Goddess. Pre-Islamic... One of the so-called daughters of Allah." p. 156
Dictionary of Non-Classical Mythology
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">"Allah: Originally applied to the moon; he seems to be preceded by Ilmaqah, the moon god... Allat: the female counterpart to Allah." p. 7
Oxford Dictionary of World Religions
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">"Allah: Before the birth of Muhammad, Allah was known as a supreme, but not sole, God." p. 48
A Short History of Philosophy, (Oxford University Press)
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">"Before Islam, the religions of the Arabic world involved the worship of many spirits, called jinn. Allah was but one of many gods worshiped in Mecca. But then Muhammad taught the worship of Allah as the only God, whom he identified as the same God worshiped by Christians and Jews." p. 130
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">"al-Kindi believed that God's divine nature made it impossible for human beings to fully understand Him. Thus, al-Kindi's descriptions of God are primarily expressed in negative terms, like Philo's via negativa." p. 136)
In Response To Robert's: Islamic Invasion by Waliyyuddin Shareef
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">"Mr. Morey also claims that Muhammad forced people to give up their idols and accept Islam. This statement is not true. What Muhammad did was give a choice to the pagans and idol worshippers to either give up their idols or die. No force was used, just a choice. If you believe in your idols then are you willing to die for is the question that was faced...I put this question to Mr. Morey and his readers: are you willing to die for your faith in Jesus Christ?" p. 35
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">"The Ishmael Myth: In my research on this topic I have found a few interesting comments about Abraham, Ishmael and the Arabs. In pre-Islamic times, Ishmael was never mentioned as the father of the Arabs..." p. 3
The Muslim's Belief by Shaikh Muhammad as-Saleh al-Uthaimin
style="border: 0pt none black; padding: 0px; ">"It is our opinion that whoever claims the acceptability of any existing religion today-- other than Islam-- such as Judaism, Christianity and so forth, is a non-believer. He should be asked to repent, if he does not, he must be killed as an apostate because he is rejecting the Qur'an." p.22
For years Muslim scholars have objected to the Christian notion of the Lordship of Christ. They emphatically state that Christians are unaware of the prophecies in their own Scripture which point to the advent of Muhammad. Dr. Jamal Badawi’s pamphlet titled, “Muhammad in the Bible” is an obvious case in point.
In his narrative, Dr. Badawi attempts to point out and interpret passages within the Bible which in his opinion uphold the Muslim claims. He earnestly attempts to relate the Biblical passages to the notion that Muhammad was the promised Prophet. However, a deeper examination of the contents of his study, immediately reveal many major errors which though may be unintended, nevertheless serve to misrepresent the Biblical facts.
In the following study we will take the reader through a course of the specific passages alluded to by Dr. Badawi and provide a concise and systematic rebuttal to the claims he has laid out. We will further pose our own counter points and objections and in the process attempt to guide the reader into a more meaningful interpretation of God’s Word.
Once the objective reader is faced with the simplicity and the beauty of the Bible, it is hoped that one will begin to gain an important insight into the profound Biblical revelations. As one gazes more intently at the totality of God’s masterpiece - the Bible - a wonderful picture begins to emerge of God’s plan for the salvation of mankind through the blood of his Son Jesus Christ.
At this juncture we will delve into a point by point examination of Dr. Badawi’s pamphlet:
. Muslims state that the promise of blessings upon Ishmael confirms, or so it is believed, the prophethood of Muhammad since he is the only prophet to descend from him. Yet when read within context, it becomes quite clear that the blessings upon Ishmael were not prophetic tidings of Muhammad. They rather pointed to lineage and political prosperity.
Ishmael became blessed with twelve sons who ruled as mighty princes to the east of Israel, thus fulfilling God’s promises to him. (cf. Gen. 16:7-15; 17:20; 21:13;18)
Yet, Genesis emphasizes the fact that it would be Abraham’s descendents from Sarah that would be blessed with kings and prophets, serve in a foreign land for four hundred years, possess Canaan and become the nation of God. ( c.f. Gen. 12:1-3; 15:13-16; 17:15-16,19; 21:12; 22:17-18; 26:24; 28:13-15; 35:11-12)
This point is made crystal clear by God personally after Abraham’s prayer on behalf of his firstborn son, Ishmael:
Abraham fell down; he laughed and said to himself “will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?” And Abraham said to God, “If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!” Then God said, “Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him: I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the Father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year.” Gen. 17:17-21
Clearly the Ishmaelites cannot be the ones referred to in these passages, since God’s everlasting covenant was made with Isaac. No such covenant was ever made with Ishmael.
The Quran also bears witness that it was Isaac, not Ishmael, who was the chosen vessel for prophethood and kingship:
“And we bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and we established the prophethood and the Scripture among his seed.” S. 29:27
The fact that seed refers to Israel is clarified in this passage:
“O children of Israel! Call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all others (for My message).” S. 2:47
“O children of Israel! Call to mind the special favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all others (for My message).” S. 2:122
The fallacy of quoting the Mosaic law, as Badawi does, in regards to the rights of the first born (Deut. 21:15-17) to prove Ishmael’s precedence over Isaac does not apply since the law, which came four hundred years after Abraham, would also demand Abraham to observe Sabbath, Passover, sacrificial duties, the forbidding of marrying sisters (something that Jacob did) and so on. The Muslim position is extremely weak in this case.
This fact becomes evident in light of the fact that Genesis records God sovereignly choosing the younger seed over the firstborn. One such example is God selecting Jacob over his older brother Esau:
The LORD said to her (Rebekah, Isaac’s wife), “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older (Esau) will serve the younger (Jacob).” Gen. 25:23
Or Joseph’s son Ephraim chosen ahead of his firstborn, Manasseh:
“When Joseph saw his father placing his right hand on Ephraim’s head he was displeased; so he took hold of his father’s hand to move it from Ephraim’s head to Manasseh’s head. Joseph said to him, ‘No, my father, this is the firstborn; put your right hand on his head.’
“But his father refused and said, ‘I know my son, I know. He too will become a people, and he too will become great. Nevertheless, his younger brother will be greater than he, and his descendants will become a group of nations.’” Gen. 48:17-19
In light of these passages and the fact that the Mosaic injunction on the rights of the firstborn had not yet been given, exposes Badawi’s extremely weak arguments in support of Ishmael.
Muhammad, not the prophet like Moses:
“I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.” Deut. 18:18.
The verses on the prophet like Moses are often misunderstood to mean Muhammad for the following reasons:
The prophet was to be from among their “brethren” (i.e. Israelites) which would be referring to the Ishmaelites.
Muhammad spoke the words of God (i.e. The Quran) as the passages state the prophet would do.
Muhammad, like Moses, was rejected by his people, fled to Medina (Moses to Midian), came back victorious, establishing a nation, with a law and was head of state and military affairs.
The passage, however defines a prophet like Moses as one who will know God “Face to Face” and perform miraculous feats and wonders. (Deut. 34:10,11) These things Muhammad did not do, since Muhammad never saw God* nor did he perform any miracles whatsoever, as the Quran itself testifies. (S. 2:97; 17:90-93)
Secondly, the term “brethren” when read in context can only refer to the twelve tribes of Israel as the opening verses of chapter 18 show:
“The Levitical priests, that is, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion or inheritance with Israel...They shall have no inheritance among their brethren.” (v.v. 1-2)
Once more, in chapter 17:14-15 the Israelites are told to put one of their “brethren” as king over them, never a foreigner. The fact is that Israel at no time in their history have ever put an Ishmaelite “brother” as king, but always an Israelite i.e. Saul, David, proving that the word does not refer to any nation outside of the twelve tribes of Israel.
Finally, the Quran bears witness that Muhammad was not the Prophet like Moses, since he could not do what the latter did:
But (now) when the Truth has come to them from Ourselves, they say, “Why are not (signs) sent to him (Muhammad), like those which were sent to Moses?” S. 28:48
Even more amazing than the Quran bearing witness that Muhammad was unlike Moses, is the fact that the earliest Muslim biographer, Ibn Ishaq, in his Sira RasulAllah, testifies that Moses wrote of Jesus:
When the Christians of Najran came to the apostle the Jewish rabbis came also and they disputed one with the other before the apostle. Rafi said, ‘you have no standing, and he denied Jesus and the Gospel; and a Christian said to the Jews, ‘you have no standing’ and he denied that Moses was a prophet and denied the Torah. So God sent down concerning them: ‘The Jews say the Christians have no standing; and the Christians say the Jews have no standing, yet they read the Scriptures. They do not know on the day of resurrection concerning their controversy, i.e., each one reads in his book the confirmation of what he denies, so that the Jews deny Jesus though they have the Torah in which God required them by the word of Moses to hold Jesus true; while in the Gospel is what Jesus brought in confirmation of Moses and the Torah he brought from God: So each one denies what is in the hand of the other. (Alfred Guilliame, The Life of Muhammad, p.258)
The only person who fits this prophetic profile is Jesus Christ the Lord. This is due to the following reasons:
∑ ∑ Christ states that Moses wrote about him. (c.f. John 5:46)
∑ ∑ The Apostles quote this passage as being fulfilled in Christ. (c.f. John 1:45; Acts 3:17-24)
∑ ∑ On both their births, infant deaths were enacted. (c.f. Ex. 1:15-16,22; Mt. 2:13)
∑ ∑ Both were rescued by divine intervention. (c.f. Ex. 2:2-10; Mt. 2:13)
∑ ∑ Christ being the Son of God, knew God “face to face”- as did Moses. In fact, Christ is the image of God and is God’s exact representation. (c.f. Mt. 11:27; John 1:1-3,14,18; John 14:9; Col. 1:15-17; Heb. 1:2,3)
∑ ∑ God prepared Moses for his mission by his wandering in the wilderness for forty years; Christ for forty days. (c.f. Ex. 7:7; Mt. 4:1)
∑ ∑ Christ, like Moses, shone with glorious light at the Mount of Transfiguration. (c.f. Ex. 34:29; Mt. 17:2)
∑ ∑ Christ performed greater miracles than Moses. An example would be raising the dead. (c.f. John 11:25-26,43-44)
∑ ∑ Christ spoke the words of God alone. (c.f. John 8:28)
∑ ∑ Christ, like Moses, intercedes on behalf of men. (c.f. Exodus 32:30-32; 1 Tim. 2:5)
∑ ∑ Christ, like Moses, is the mediator of God’s covenant. (c.f. Exodus 24:4-8; Mark 14:24; 1 Cor. 11:23-25)
∑ ∑ Christ and Moses liberated their people from bondage; one from slavery, the other from sin. (c.f. Exodus; Isaiah 53; John 8:32-36; Gal. 5:1)
∑ ∑ Christ, like Moses, is an Israelite from the tribe of Judah. (c.f. Num. 26:59; Luke 3:22-38)
4. The prophecy of Sinai, Seir and Paran is not a prophecy of Judaism, Christianity and Islam:
Paran and Seir are located near Egypt in the Sinai Peninsula, as any good Bible map will demonstrate. It is purely wishful thinking to claim that Seir refers to Jesus’ ministry in Palestine, or that Paran is near Mecca, when Paran was thousands of miles away near southern Palestine in northeastern Sinai!
Proof of this can be found in the Holy Bible itself:
“And the children of Israel took their journeys out of the wilderness of Sinai; and the cloud (of God) rested in the wilderness of Paran.” Numbers 10:12
“And afterward the people (Israelites) removed from Hazeroth, and pitched in the wilderness of Paran.” Numbers 12:16
“And Moses by the commandment of the Lord sent them from the wilderness of Paran... And they went and came to Moses, and to Aaron, and to all the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the wilderness of Paran, to Kadesh...” Numbers 13:3,26
“These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel on this side of Jordan in the wilderness, in the plain over against the Red sea, between Paran, and Tophel, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and Dizahab.” Deuteronomy 1:1
All these verses prove that Paran could not possibly be Mecca but a locale near Sinai, since Moses and the Israelites never settled in that part of Arabia. Hence, Badawi’s assertion fails in the light of the biblical evidence.
Isaiah 42:1-13 does not prophecy the advent of Muhammad. It rather proclaims the coming of the promised Messiah.
There are four Servant passages in the book of Isaiah: 42:1-13; 49:1-9; 50:4-11; 52:13 - 53:12.
When read as a single unit it becomes obvious that the Servant spoken of can only be Jesus Christ. This point becomes forcefully clear after reading the 53rd chapter which speaks of the crucifixion, death and the resurrection of the Servant on behalf of fallen humanity - a deed fulfilled only in the life of Christ.
Further evidence which points to Jesus being the Servant of Yahweh is provided in verse 1 of chapter 42. This verse proclaims that God’s Spirit would rest upon the Servant. Several other passages in Isaiah establishes this Servant’s identity:
“A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a branch will bear fruit. The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him - the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD - and he will delight in the fear of the LORD. He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears; but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked. Righteousness will be his belt and faithfulness the sash around his waist.” (Isaiah 11:1-5)
“In that day the root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious.” (Isaiah 11:10)
“The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn.” (Isaiah 61:1-2)
Verses 1 and 2 of Isaiah 11 identifies the Servant as the root of Jesse, i.e. a descendant of Jesse. Jesse was the father of King David, and the passages point to the fact that the Servant of God will come from the house of David. (c.f. Ruth 4:22; 1 Sam. 16:1-3; Mt. 1:6)
It is Jesus, not Muhammad, who descended from David’s line. Jesus, not Muhammad, had the Spirit of the LORD descend upon him after emerging from the waters of baptism (Mt. 3:16-17). In fact one of these very passages of Isaiah, the one found in chapter 61:1-2, is quoted by Jesus as finding its fulfillment in him and in no one else. (Luke 4:14-21)
Isaiah 21:13-17 does not prophecy Muhammad or the battle of Badr, but is a prophecy about the judgement enacted upon Arabia by God through the mighty armies of Assyria and Babylon respectively. The Assyrian armies laid siege upon the Arabs in 732 B. C., with Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon following suit. In fact, Nebuchadnezzar defeated the people of Kedar during his reign in 599-598 B. C. (c.f. Jeremiah 49:28-33)
Furthermore, v.16 specifies the time this prophecy was to be fulfilled:
“For thus the LORD said to me: ‘within a year’, according to the year of a hired man, all the glory of Kedar will fail...”
Hence, the attempts to make this passage a reference to an event which took place nearly a thousand years later is soundly refuted when read in context.
Isaiah 28:11 does not prophecy the revelation of the Quran, which is in “another tongue”. Instead, it refers to the Assyrian takeover of Ephraim. (c.f. Isaiah 28:1-29).
God spoke to his people by bringing forth judgement upon them for their wickedness. He manifested his judgement by using a foreign nation which spoke a foreign tongue (i.e. Aramaic), to subdue and punish his rebellious people.
Furthermore, this passage on Israel being judged by a foreign tongue had been foretold centuries beforehand in the Mosaic Law:
“The LORD will bring you and the king whom you set over you to a nation which neither you nor your fathers have known, and there you shall serve other gods - wood and stone.” Deut. 28:36
“You shall beget sons and daughters, but they shall not be yours for they shall go into captivity.” Deut. 28:41
“The LORD will bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flies, a nation whose language you will not understand, a nation of fierce countenance, which does not respect the elderly nor show favor to the young... They shall besiege you at all your gates until your high and fortified walls, which you trust, come down throughout all your land: and they shall besiege you at all your gates throughout all your land which the LORD your God has given you.” Deut. 28:49-50,52
Thus to see Islam in any of these prophecies is purely wishful thinking.
The Paraclete does not refer to Muhammad, but to the coming of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. The Paraclete of John cannot be referring to Muhammad for the following reasons:
∑ ∑ The Paraclete could not be seen by human eyes, but would indwell the disciples at the same time. (14:17) This could not possibly be referring to Muhammad because people did see him. Secondly, the Paraclete could dwell within a group of individuals at the same time, making him immaterial and omnipresent. These, being the attributes of divinity, tend to suggest that the Paraclete is God.
∑ ∑ The Paraclete is the Holy Spirit (14:26). In orthodox Islamic belief, the Holy Spirit is the angel Gabriel. This fact would disprove the notion that Muhammad is the Paraclete, since this would make him Gabriel!
∑ ∑ According to the Holy Scriptures, the Paraclete was to bring glory to Jesus Christ, and yet Muhammad glorified Allah. (16:13-15) Taking the idea of Muhammad as the Paraclete to its natural conclusion, we may claim then that Jesus Christ is Allah, the God of Muhammad!
The Paraclete did arrive as promised, not 600 years later but ten days after the ascension of Jesus to heaven. (Acts 2:1-33)
The reference in Matthew 21:19-21,43 to the kingdom being taken away from Israel and given to a productive nation does not relate to the Ishmaelites. It rather points to the Gentile nations who would accept Jesus as Messiah, Lord and Savior:
“Again I ask: Did they (Israel) stumble as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. But if their transgression means riches for the world, their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring?” Romans 11:11-12
“Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called ‘uncircumcised’ by those who call themselves ‘the circumcision’ (that done in the body by the hands of men) - remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenant of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.
“But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace (salaam), who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.
“His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace (salaam) and in this one body reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace (salaam) to you who were far away and peace (salaam) to those who were near. For through him we both have one access to the Father by one Spirit.” (Ephesians 2:11-18)
“And they (the inhabitants of heaven) sang a new song: ‘You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God, from every tribe and language and people and nation. You have made them to be a kingdom of priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth.’” (Revelation 5:9-10)
10. Matthew 21:42,44 reference to the rejected stone which breaks those it falls upon and grinds those who fall on it, points to the Jewish rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus and does not refer to Islam or Muhammad:
“It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. He is, ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.’” (Acts 4:10-11)
“Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, with Christ himself as the chief cornerstone.” (Ephesians 2:19,20)
“As you come to him (Jesus Christ), the living stone - rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him - you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
“For in Scripture it says: ‘See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.’
“Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone,’
‘A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.’
“They stumble because they disobey the message - which is also what they are destined for.” (1 Peter 2:4-8)
11. Deuteronomy 33:2 does not prophecy Muhammad’s take over of Mecca:
The verse states that the LORD (Yahweh) himself will come with “ten thousands of saints”, not soldiers as Muhammad did. This prophecy is a reference to the second coming of Jesus Christ, the Lord, who will be coming with thousands of his saints. (cf. Mt. 16:27; 25:31-33; Jude :14; Rev. 19:11-16)
Secondly, this advent was meant to be a blessing from God to the children of Israel as indicated in v.1.
Again, this would nullify the notion of this being a prophecy of Islam, since Islam has been a constant thorn and threat to Israel, not a blessing!
The idea that Psalms 84:6 is referring to the Kabah when it speaks of “Baca” which, according to Muslims is an alternative name for Mecca is fallacious since Old Testament Baca is in northern Israel. This is stated within the text itself:
“They go from strength to strength, till each appears before God in Zion.” (Ps. 84:7)
Furthermore, the term Baca in Hebrew means either “weeping” or “balsam trees.” Hence, the valley of Baca can be translated as the valley of balsam trees. We find reference to such a place located within the Valley of Rephaim, an area approximately 3 or 4 miles south and west of Jerusalem:
“Once more the Philistines came up and spread out in the Valley of Rephaim; so David inquired of the LORD, and he answered, ‘Do not go straight up, but circle around behind them and attack them in front of the balsam (Heb. Baca) trees.’” (2 Samuel 5:22-23)
Noting that the valley of Baca is actually less than 5 miles away from Jerusalem, it makes sense that the Psalmist would speak of pilgrims making their way through Baca valley to appear before God in Zion. (v.v. 5-7)
Equally fallacious is the notion that Habakkuk 3:3 refers to Muhammad:
“God came from Teman, the Holy One from Mount Paran. His glory covered the heavens and his praise filled the earth.”
Muslims presume that the terms Teman and Paran refer to the advent of Islam in Arabia. Yet, it is clear from the context that it speaks of God coming from Teman and Mount Paran, not Islam or Muhammad. Furthermore, Paran as noted earlier is not near Mecca but thousands of miles away and Teman was a town close to Jericho in the territory of Edom.
Interestingly, in order to prove that Teman is an oasis north of Medina Badawi misquotes J. Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible, inferring that Teman being near Medina is a fact affirmed by Christian scholars as well. Yet, Hastings does not say that Teman is located north of Medina, since he was referring to the country of Tema! Badawi has confused the two.
On p.897 of his book we read:
TEMAN - A tribe (and district) of Edom (emphasis ours)
Further, on the same page we also read:
TEMA - In Gn. 25:15 (1 Ch. 7:30), a son of Ishmael. The country and people meant are still represented by the same name - modern Taima, a large oasis about 200 miles S.E. of the head of the Gulf of ‘Akabah, and the same distance due N. Of Medina in W. Arabia.
This exposes a deliberate attempt on Badawi’s part to misinform his readers, since he knows that most readers, especially Muslims, will take him at face value without checking out the truth of his claims for themselves.
If in spite of this Muslims still insist that all references to Teman find their fulfillment in Islam, then they must also take all the other references to Teman into consideration as well. For example, in Jeremiah 49:7 God questions Teman’s lack of wisdom and in verse 20 the LORD swears to destroy their pastures and flocks. In Ezekiel 25:13, God declares that He will lay the inhabitants of Teman to waste, sending fire to consume them (Amos 1:12), insuring no survivors (Obadiah 8-10). This would mean that Islam is futile since it lacks wisdom and that Muslims will be destroyed by a consuming fire!
Israelites during the time of Jesus were not expecting an Ishmaelite prophet:
Muslims, in an attempt to maintain that Muhammad is THE Prophet spoken of in Deut. 18:18, quote John 1:19-21 to support their arguments. They claim that this passage from the Gospel according to John, is the evidence that THE Prophet had not yet arrived during the time of Christ:
The Jews asked John the Baptist if he were the Christ or Elijah or the Prophet. In response John answered in the negative three consecutive times. Muslims maintain that Christ did arrive shortly thereafter and that John, although he was not Elijah in actuality, came in the spirit of Elijah (Luke 1:17; Mt. 11:14; 17:10-13), leaving one more that was to come, namely the Prophet. It is then surmised that this Prophet is Muhammad, since he is the only prophet to follow Jesus.
There are three logical arguments against this fallacious line of thinking:
If it were true that the Prophet was to be an Ishmaelite, why did the Jews ask John, an Israelite, if he were that Prophet? The very fact that they did ask an Israelite proves that the Prophet to come had to be from the nation of Israel and could not possibly be a descendant of Ishmael.
The passage does not indicate that the Prophet had not arrived during the time of Jesus’ ministry. It rather points to the fact that until the public ministry of Jesus had begun, there had been no prophet like Moses. It needs to be pointed out that when John had been asked this question, Christ had not yet been revealed. Following the initiation of Christ’s public ministry, the people knew without doubt that this was indeed THE Prophet spoken of by Moses:
“After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they began to say,
‘Surely, this is THE Prophet who is to come into the world.’” (John 6:14)
“On hearing his words, some of the people said, ‘Surely this man is THE Prophet.’” (John 7:40)
To quote these particular Jews as a reliable and infallible reference is problematic, since they were often mistaken in their exegesis of Scripture, frequently arriving at erroneous conclusions. For instance, they had been unaware of the fact that Scripture stated that Messiah would come out of Galilee:
“Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?” (John 7:41)
“They (the Pharisees) answered and said unto him, Art thou (Nicodemus) also of Galilee? Search and look: For out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.” (John 7:52)
Yet, nearly 800 years earlier, the Prophet Isaiah prophesied exactly this:
“Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan... For to us a child is born, to us a Son is given, and the government will be upon his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:1,6)
According to the Aramaic Targum of Jonathan, this passage is a prophecy of Messiah. Hence, to use fallible Jews who were often wrong in their interpretation of Scripture, is indicative of Badawi’s alleged proofs and exegesis of the biblical data.
Another alleged prophecy of Muhammad according to Muslims, comes from John the Baptist himself:
“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” (Matthew 3:11 N.K.J.V.)
Muslims erroneously assume that this passage could only be referring to Muhammad, not Jesus, due to the following three reasons:
Jesus did not come after John, but was his contemporary.
If Jesus was the one whom John was referring to, then why did he not become his follower, if indeed Christ was greater than him?
At one point John even doubted Jesus, sending two disciples to inquire if he was actually the one who was to come. (Matthew 11:1-3)
These factors, the Muslims presume, leave little doubt that it was Muhammad to whom John was referring.
Our responses to all these points are:
∑ ∑ .Although John and Jesus were contemporaries, Christ did not begin proclaiming the Gospel until after John the Baptist’s public ministry had already begun. Hence, Christ did indeed come “after” John. (c.f. Matthew 3:1,3,16; 4:12,17)
∑ ∑ It was not John the Baptist’s job to follow Jesus, but to prepare his way. (c.f. John 1:23) Further, John was arrested shortly before Jesus began his Galilean ministry, making it impossible for him to follow Christ. (c.f. Matthew 4:12-17)
∑ ∑ Although John had some doubts, Christ reassured him that he indeed was the expected One by appealing to the fulfillment of Isaiah 29:18 and 35:4-6:
“The blind see and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; the dead are raised up and the poor have the Gospel preached to them. “’And blessed is he who is not offended because of Me.’” (Matthew 11:4-6 N.K.J.V.)
To even offset this particular argument, it is surmised that John, being filled with the Holy Spirit, should not have doubted since the Spirit would clearly have told him all things regarding the Messiah beforehand.
This logic is fallacious since the Bible does not state that a prophet must have complete knowledge in regards to a particular situation, but only that which God wants him to know. (c.f. 1 Peter 1:10-12; Matthew 24:36; Acts 1:6-8)
Furthermore, being filled with the Holy Spirit does not mean that a prophet would not make mistakes, but that in spiritual matters he would be guided supernaturally to infallibly proclaim the word of God.
Finally, John himself bears witness that Jesus is indeed the one who was expected:
“The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. This is He of whom I said, “After me comes a Man who ranks higher than I for He was before me”...’I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize said to me, ”Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.” And I have seen and testify that this is the Son of God.’” (John 1:29-30, 33-34)
“He (Jesus) must increase, but I must decrease.” (John 3:30)
Even more amazing is that the Quran itself indicates that John came as Jesus’ forerunner. (S. 3:39)
Finally, the idea of a Prophet to succeed Christ is altogether denied in the Holy Bible. The Scriptures are clear in indicating that Jesus Christ, not Muhammad, is God’s final revelation to mankind and the seal of His approval. This is apparent from Jesus’ own statements:
He then began speaking to them in parables: “A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress, and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed. Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully. He sent still another, and that one they killed. He sent many others; some of them they beat, others they killed. He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But the tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard. What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others. Haven’t you read the scripture: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?” (Mark 12:1-11 N.I.V.)
In this parable Jesus Christ confirms his unique Divine Sonship, his rightful inheritance to God’s estate, and his preeminence over all creation as the last messenger from the Father.
“Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you; For on him has God the Father set his seal.” (John 6:27 R.S.V.)
In the light of the truth as presented from the Holy Scriptures, it now becomes clear that Christ is the seal of prophethood and the end of God’s revelation to the world.
Having examined Dr. Badawi’s pamphlet, one can easily reach the conclusion that it is filled with logical fallacies, textual misinterpretation and contextual errors. The narrative is attempting strongly to force the Bible into declaring things which it obviously is not, and prophecies which are simply not intended as Dr. Badawi is claiming. It is quite easy to read and interpret the Bible out of context and commit the popular mistake of trying to make it fit ones theology. It is quite another thing however, to consider the Bible in its entirety and allow it to speak for itself on any given topic.
We challenge the reader to search the passages in their true context and ponder whether the Bible indeed mentions Muhammad. In light of the truth, we trust that the reader can judge whether Muhammad is THE Prophet of the Bible, or is this an attempt by over-zealous Muslims to force their interpretation upon the Holy Scriptures.
DR. JAMAL BADAWI’S
JESUS IN THE QURAN AND THE BIBLE
Dr. Jamal Badawi is considered to be North America’s premiere Muslim apologist and spokesperson, having debated and lectured extensively throughout the world at some of the most prestigious universities and institutions. Although a professor of business management at St. Mary’s University, Halifax Nova Scotia, Badawi is perhaps best known for his achievements as one of the most capable and knowledgeable Muslim speakers in the world. Badawi is also regarded by Muslims as a scholar of comparative religion and inter-faith dialogue.
It therefore comes as no surprise to discover Badawi producing tracts and articles critiquing the Holy Bible’s authority and authenticity, as well as the Christian belief that Jesus Christ is God’s unique, divine Son. Due to his Islamic beliefs, Badawi cannot allow for a Jesus that is more than a prophet and hence must therefore interpret the Bible through Muslim lenses, disallowing the possibility of a divine Christ to emerge from its pages.
One such tract is Badawi’s Jesus in the Quran and the Bible. Throughout this tract, Badawi attempts to discredit Jesus’ uniqueness by producing verses from the Old Testament showing other prophets’ abilities to perform the same miracles which Christ performed. This would demonstrate, or so Badawi thinks, that to attribute divinity to Jesus due to his unique qualities or miraculous ministry is unnecessary since this would make the other prophets divine as well.
Although Badawi may indeed be a scholar of Islam, he is far from being qualified to critique the biblical portrait of Jesus since his approach is far from being scholarly or unbiased. The misinterpretation and misquotation of biblical passages is apparent to any serious student of the Bible. Badawi often ignores the context of the verses he cites since when the text is read in relation to the entire passage, the very point he hopes to make is often clearly refuted.
In this paper we will give a concise refutation of just some of Badawi’s points, exposing the deliberate mishandling of biblical quotations. From there we will briefly look at Muhammad’s career, contrasting it with both the ministries of Christ and the Old Testament prophets. This will be done to show that the very method Badawi uses to deny the divine nature of Jesus is the very method which proves that either Muhammad was not a prophet or at best, was not as great as those prophets which preceded him.
Note- It should be pointed out that Badawi does not quote the biblical text but alludes to it by giving the specific chapter and verse. In similar fashion, instead of quoting the entire passage we will give the specific references to the verses which will allow the reader to check them personally. The only passages that will be quoted are those which help clarify a specific point in our rebuttal. Finally, we will not be responding in chronological sequence to Badawi’s tract, but will be dealing with the main arguments presented by him.
RAISING THE DEAD
JESUS- Luke 7:11-17, 8:40-48; John 11:43-44
OLD TESTAMENT EQUIVALENT-
ELIJAH- 1 Kings 17:7-24
ELISHA- 2 Kings 4:18-37
It is presumed since both Elijah and Elisha raised the dead, there is then no basis to argue for Jesus’ divinity based on the fact that Christ was able to raise the dead since this would make the two divine as well.
Christians do not argue the fact that Jesus was the divine, unique son of God simply because he was able to resurrect the dead but on the statements which Jesus made in relation to his ability to resurrect individuals from death. Unlike Elijah and Elisha who beseeched God for the ability to perform the revivification of departed souls, Christ claimed to be the very source of life and the power which enables the dead to be resurrected:
Jesus said to her, “ I AM THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE; he who believes in me though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes shall never die...” John 11:25-26
Jesus said to him, “ I am the Way, and the Truth, and the LIFE. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6
“ Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead SHALL HEAR THE VOICE OF THE SON OF GOD; AND THOSE WHO HEAR WILL LIVE.” John 5:25
This is something which no prophet before Jesus would ever dare say. Yet Christ does, implying that he is more than a human messenger.
ASCENSION TO HEAVEN
JESUS- Acts 1:9
ENOCH- Genesis 5:24
ELIJAH- 2 Kings 2:11
Unlike Enoch and Elijah who were taken into heaven by the power of God, Christ ascended by His own power and authority. In fact, Christ indicates that he will personally come back and take all believers by his own power into heavenly glory:
“Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house there are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I GO TO PREPARE A PLACE FOR YOU. AND IF I GO TO PREPARE A PLACE FOR YOU, I WILL COME AGAIN AND RECEIVE YOU TO MYSELF; THAT WHERE I AM, THERE YOU MAYBE ALSO.” John 14:1-3
HOLY SPIRIT FILLED
Christians often point to the fact that Jesus was conceived miraculously by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary. This presumes the fact that Jesus was unique and therefore the Son of God, since there was no human father involved in the birth of Christ but God’s own miraculous hand who personally caused this supernatural conception.
Since it was God who replaced the male element in the birth process by causing Christ to be conceived supernaturally, without any sexual overtones whatsoever, Christ is rightly called the Son of God.
Badawi’s attempted rebuttal is to suggest that other prophets were filled with the Holy Spirit, and some like John the Baptist while still in their mother’s womb. (Luke 1:15) Hence, Badawi’s reasoning is that these men should also be considered the unique sons of God.
There are two responses to this assertion; 1) while some might have been filled with the Holy Spirit even while in their mother’s womb none of them were conceived by the Holy Spirit. 2) Christ was not only the only Holy Spirit conceived, virgin born child but he also had authority to grant the Spirit to whomever he chose to give it:
“And he (John the Baptist) preached, saying, ‘ after me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. ‘ “ Mark 1:7-8
“The next day he (John) saw Jesus coming toward him... ‘ This is he of whom I said, “ After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before “... this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit...’ “ John 1:29a, 30, 33b
“And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him or knows him; but you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.” John 14:16-17
(Note- The Spirit was already present with the disciples in the person of Christ since earlier the Spirit had descended and remained upon Jesus. Matthew 3:16-17)
“But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me...” John 15:26
“So Jesus said to them again, ‘ Peace to you. As the Father has sent me, I also send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said, ‘ Receive the Holy Spirit.’ “ John 20:21-22
It therefore becomes apparent that Badawi’s responses to theses biblical comparisons are thoroughly inadequate and fails to take in the overall picture of Christ as presented in the New Testament.
Badawi seems to imply that the title Lord in reference to Jesus is nothing more than a respectful way of saying master, since for him, this cannot possibly imply divinity since Jesus is no more than a prophet of Allah. To back up his assertion, Badawi often cites references in scripture wherein the title is used to refer to certain individuals such as Saul in 1 Samuel 24:8. Even angels are addressed as Lord in Acts 10:4.
The problem with this interpretation is that it presumes that the title Lord only means master, neglecting the fact that this is also commonly used throughout the New Testament as a synonym for Yahweh, the covenant name of God. Two examples demonstrates this point clearly:
Jesus answered him, “ The first of all commandments is: ‘ Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.’ “ Mark 12:29
The Lord is quoting the Shema found in Deuteronomy 6:4 where the term Lord is being used in place of Yahweh.
“Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Romans 10:13
Paul is quoting the Greek Septuagint version of Joel 2:32 where the literal Hebrew text reads, “Whoever calls on the name of Yahweh shall be saved.”
Hence, for Badawi to presume that the title only means or should simply mean master in relation to Jesus is erroneous.
In fact, the evidence indicates that the writers used Lord in the absolute sense of Jesus being God, not simply a teacher or master:
“But why is this granted to me (Elizabeth), that the mother (Mary) of MY LORD (Jesus ) should come to me.” Luke 1:43
Here, Elizabeth calls the unborn child her Lord. For a Jewess to say that would imply that the babe was actually Yahweh God, since the Jews knew only Yahweh as their Lord.
“For there is born to you today in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the LORD.” Luke 2:11
“For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.” Romans 14:9
“These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because he is Lord of lords and King of kings...” Revelation 17:14
That Jesus is the lamb is clear from John 1:29:
“The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, ‘ Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”
This can only mean that Jesus is called Lord in the sense that he is God, not just a great master. Compare the title given to Jesus with this reference in 1 Timothy 6:15-16:
“which He (God) will bring about at the proper time- He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords “who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see. To him be honor, and eternal dominion. Amen.”
Hence, both God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ are referred to as King of kings and Lord of lords, clearly demonstrating Badawi’s misinterpretation and misunderstanding of biblical theology.
MULTIPLICATION OF FOOD
JESUS- John 6:8-13
ELISHA- 2 Kings 4:42-44
Jesus’ miraculous ability to create bread from a few loaves, enabling him to feed thousands is astonishing all by itself. But even more astonishing is Jesus’ reason for performing the miracle, a reason which no prophet ever gave as the purpose of their miracles:
Jesus answered them and said, ‘ Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.
“Oh not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set his seal on him.” John 6:26-27
Not only can Christ provide daily bread to sustain the physical body, but he alone provides spiritual nourishment which endures to eternal life:
“I am the LIVING BREAD which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is MY FLESH, which I shall give FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD.” John 6:51
No prophet ever dared to speak like Christ.
Although Badawi also attempts to refute the biblical evidence for Jesus’ divine claims we will not be addressing it since we have already provided in-depth responses to these allegations in previous studies which are available upon request.
What we will do is contrast Muhammad’s life by the very criteria Badawi uses. In doing so, we will demonstrate that Muhammad does not measure up to the bible’s test of true prophethood.
RAISING THE DEAD
HOLY SPIRIT FILLED
It should be noted that the biblical teaching on the Holy Spirit is that He is fully God, being the third Person of the Trinity (Matthew 28:18-20; Hebrews 9:14), whereas in Islam he is not God but the angel Gabriel. So even the identity is garbled up.
Even the alleged night journey of Muhammad cannot be substantiated. The Quran only mentions his journey to Jerusalem and the Aqsa Mosque (S. 17:1), with the hadiths indicating that his heavenly ascent was simply a dream since his body never left the room. It should be also pointed out that the sura presents a historical anachronism since there was no mosque at Jerusalem during that time, seeing that the Solomonic temple had been destroyed in A.D. 70. Furthermore, Masjid-ul Aqsa was not erected until A.D. 691 by Abdul Malik, raising the question as to what temple did Muhammad allegedly visit?
Another point worth mentioning is the fact that Muhammad died a slow and painful death. The hadiths record that he was a victim of poisoning and illness. In contrast, we are told that Moses died in the peak of health and was personally buried by God at the age of 120. Deuteronomy 34:5-7
With Jesus, God raised him from the dead to immortal glory, never to experience the sting of death again. Acts 3:13-16; Philippians 2:9-11; Revelation 1:17-18
This strongly suggests that Muhammad was unlike Moses and Jesus, since he died disillusioned and lonely, leaving it up to his companions to bury him. Hence, as the Quran acknowledges, he was an apostle with no outstanding qualities, a mere mortal like us. ( S. 3:144; 18:110 )
At this point a Muslim might contest the fact that Muhammad never performed any miracles since both the Quran and hadiths document his miracles.
For instance, the Quran in 54:1, 3:13, as well as 8:9 mention Muhammad splitting the moon and the angelic intervention at the Battle of Badr. These miracles are further attested to in the hadith literature.
There are several responses to these alleged miracles. 1) The clear witness of the Quran is that Muhammad was given no miracles whatsoever ( S. 6:37, 109; 10:20; 13:7, 27; 17:59; 21:5-6; 28:48 ). To say that it does mention specific miracles of Muhammad is to imply an internal contradiction within the Quran. 2) The assumption that S. 54:1 is referring to the alleged miraculous moon splitting at the hands of Muhammad is not unanimously held by Muslim scholars themselves.
For instance, Yusef Ali in his commentary indicates that there are three possible interpretations commonly given by Muslims themselves. The first being that this is a sign which transpires on the last day. This is supported by the verse itself since it speaks of, “ the hour ( of judgement ) “ as being , “ nigh “, i.e. at hand.
Others view this allegorically, in the sense that the matter addressed has become as clear as the moon’s splitting.
The purported angelic aid at Badr is unverifiable since no one saw any supernatural beings descend on the battlefield. Furthermore, unlike the miracles of Jesus which are attested to by both ancient pagan and Jewish writings, we have no witnesses apart from the Muslims themselves to verify the historicity of this event.
The appeal to hadiths for the proof of miracles leaves more problems for the historian. This is primarily due to the late dating and composition of these Islamic traditions. For example, no literature compiled stems from the seventh century, but dates from the ninth century on. This leaves a gap of nearly two hundred years from Muhammad’s death in A.D. 632 to the first collection of traditions by Bukhari (d. A.D. 870 ). Even Ibn Ishaq’s biography on Muhammad, Sira Rasulullah which purportedly dates to the eighth century, only exists in edited form by Ibn Hisham from the ninth century.
Hence, due to the great time factor involved it is not hard to see how stories of Muhammad’s miracles could be forged and circulated, seeing that no eyewitnesses were present who could prevent any myths from taking place.
We must say with all due respect that Badawi’s attempt to discredit the biblical portrait of Jesus does not hold weight under a careful, scholarly exegesis of God’s Word, the Holy Bible. In fact, the criteria which Dr. Badawi employs actually serves to discredit Muhammad as a genuine prophet of God. Therefore, we strongly urge him to abandon his unfortunately unscholarly method if he wishes to maintain his belief in Islam.
To conclude, in his zeal to disprove the divinity of Christ, Badawi overlooked a very interesting fact; even though the Holy Bible presents certain prophets who were capable of performing some of the many miracles of Christ, none could combine all these qualities together. This honor belongs to Jesus alone, demonstrating clearly his preeminence and superiority over all, being the Christ the Son of the living God.
MUSLIM ATLANTIC MONTHLY ARTICLES RE ISLAM, Studying The Koran, New Ancient Scrolls cast doubt on reliability of Koran, challenging the idea that the Koran is literally the absolute and unchanging Word of God January 1999 .doc
Controversial theories about the Koran and Islamic history
OR IF THIS LINK ABOVE IS DEAD YOU MAY TRY THIS LINK BELOW
ALSO IN THIS MS-WORD DOCUMENT ARE THESE TWO ARTICLES LISTED BELOW:
"Turabi's Law," by William Langewiesche (August, 1994) http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/langew/turabi.htm
It has been argued that Islamic radicalism may at least bring a form of peace to some of the world's most troubled nations. But the Islamic regime in Sudan has created a nightmare -- one that may portend the real future of the Islamic world.
"The Roots of Muslim Rage," by Bernard Lewis (September, 1990) http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/90sep/rage.htm
Why so many Muslims deeply resent the West, and why their bitterness will not easily be mollified. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: "Todd Romanyshyn" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: America Under Siege...Help Fight Radical Islam!
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:09:21 -0600
This message is from SixtySecondActivist.com.
Here is today's ACTION ITEM:
ISSUE: One week before the 9-11 radical Muslim terrorist attack
on the World Trade Center, one man went on the Warren Duffy radio
show on KKLA in California, and warned that Osama bin Laden was
going to mount a massive attack against Americans.
Duffy took this warning seriously, because that same man had
predicted the first attack on the World Trade Center on live radio
TWO WEEKS before it happened in 1993.
That man was also the first one on national radio to point to
Osama bin Laden as the terrorist who was the mastermind behind
the attacks on our embassies in Africa.
That's right: this man fingered Osama bin Laden to the U.S.
government! He has been a consultant for both the FBI and Naval
Intelligence on Islamic terrorism, and has worked with Israeli
agents to counter Muslim terrorism against Jews in both Israel
and the U.S. He has been responsible for turning in some leading
terrorists in the U.S.
As a result, the Hamas has him on a death list, and the Pakistani
secret police even infiltrated his organization.
Who is this man?
His name is Dr. Robert Morey, of the Research and Education
Foundation (REF). He has a Doctorate in Islamic Studies, and
has written over forty books. One of those books, the hard-hitting
exposť "Islamic Invasion," was written because he foresaw that
America would soon be under attack by the growing menace of
radical Islam. This was the first fully-referenced book on Islam
that revealed the secret teaching of Mohammed in what the
Muslims call the Hadith.
The Research and Education Foundation has done more groundbreaking
research, written more materials, produced more tapes, and debated
more Muslims than any other organization of its kind . . .
. . . and now they're asking for help to mount a NATIONAL CRUSADE
AGAINST RADICAL ISLAM.
ACTION ITEM: The first step to help the REF is to get as many
copies of "The Islamic Invasion" out as possible. You can't order
this book through Amazon.com, but the REF is now offering its
contributors a free copy, PLUS a link for a free download of his
DYNAMITE "white paper" report, "Will Islam Cause WWIII?"
Please click through below to help the REF today. CLICK BELOW to
preview the first chapter of "Islamic Invasion", and to help the
NOTE: Your help is needed right away in this NATIONAL CRUSADE
AGAINST RADICAL ISLAM . . . now more than ever before. The Research
and Education Foundation, a nonprofit educational organization,
needs to supply educational books and audio & video tapes to be
used on university campuses and in the Federal and State prison
system to confront radical Islam. . . before it's too late!
Please forward this email to everyone you know that wants to help
in the FIGHT AGAINST RADICAL ISLAM. Thank you!+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++