Monday, June 13, 2011
Who is Jesus? Why It’s Important to Know!
Who is Jesus, and why is it important for us to know? We live in an age of religious pluralism and moral relativism. The popular spiritual philosophy, especially after the events of September 11th, is that all religious belief systems, as long as heart-felt, are equal. Pick one and follow it sincerely, and you’ll get to Heaven. That’s what the world believes, but Jesus teaches otherwise. Therefore, we need to examine who Jesus is by looking at some of the questions people frequently ask about Him. The answers are found in the Bible, the historical evidence people have trusted for over 2000 years.
Is there historical and scientific proof of Jesus?
It is interesting that when people seek historic and scientific proof of Jesus, they immediately discount the Bible as a reliable source.
If we look at the Bible simply as a historic document, it should be among the most reliable on record compared with others.
Historians routinely cite Herodotus as a key source of information. He wrote from 488 B.C. to 428 B.C. and the earliest copy of his work comes from 900 A.D. (1,300 years later). There are only eight known copies of his work.
By contrast, the New Testament of the Bible (with all its information about Jesus) was written between 40 A.D. and 100 A.D. The earliest known copy is from 130 A.D. and there are 5,000 known copies in Greek, 10,000 in Latin and 9,300 in other languages.
Still, to put to rest the notion that there is no historic and scientific proof of Jesus outside the Bible, we may look to Jewish historian Flavius Josephus and to Roman historian Carius Cornelius Tacitus - both well known and accepted.
Josephus, in the book Jewish Antiquities" wrote:
"At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. . . .And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists at this time" (Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 1).
Tacitus, in writing about accusations that Nero burned the city of Rome and blamed it on Christians, said the following:
". . .Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus (Christ, dm.), who in the reign of Tibertius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. . . .At first they were only apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards a vast multitude discovered by them, all of which were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind. . . ." (Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44).
If we look at the Bible simply as a historic document, it should be among the most reliable on record compared with others.
Historians routinely cite Herodotus as a key source of information. He wrote from 488 B.C. to 428 B.C. and the earliest copy of his work comes from 900 A.D. (1,300 years later). There are only eight known copies of his work.
By contrast, the New Testament of the Bible (with all its information about Jesus) was written between 40 A.D. and 100 A.D. The earliest known copy is from 130 A.D. and there are 5,000 known copies in Greek, 10,000 in Latin and 9,300 in other languages.
Still, to put to rest the notion that there is no historic and scientific proof of Jesus outside the Bible, we may look to Jewish historian Flavius Josephus and to Roman historian Carius Cornelius Tacitus - both well known and accepted.
Josephus, in the book Jewish Antiquities" wrote:
"At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. . . .And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists at this time" (Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 1).
Tacitus, in writing about accusations that Nero burned the city of Rome and blamed it on Christians, said the following:
". . .Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus (Christ, dm.), who in the reign of Tibertius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. . . .At first they were only apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards a vast multitude discovered by them, all of which were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind. . . ." (Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44).
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Muhammad's False Prophecies
The Holy Bible gives us a test to determine a true prophet from a false one:
"But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death. You may say to yourselves, 'How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?' If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him." Deuteronomy 18:20-22
In light of what God says in the preceding passage, we will examine several predictions made by Muhammad in the Quran and Islamic traditions to see if whether he passes God's test.
On the Roman Conquest of Persia
S. 30:2-4:
"The Roman Empire has been defeated - in a land close by: But they, (even) after (this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious - within a few years."
As the prophecy stated the Byzantines did become victorious over the Persians who had at first defeated them. Yet there are fundamental problems with this alleged prophecy:
- According to Yusuf Ali the Arabic word for "a few years," Bidh'un, signifies a period of three to nine years; yet according to the historical records the victory did not come until nearly fourteen years later. The Persians defeated the Byzantines and captured Jerusalem at about A.D. 614 or 615. The Byzantine counter-offensive did not begin until A.D. 622 and the victory was not complete until A.D. 628, making it a period between thirteen to fourteen years, not "a few years" alluded to in the Quran.
Renowned historian and Muslim commentator, al-Tabari, places the Roman victory in 628 A.D. (6 A.H.), right after the signing of Hudaiybiya:
According to Ibn Humayd- Salamah- Muhammad b. Ishaq- Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri- 'Ubaydallah b. 'Abdullah b. 'Utbah b. Mas'ud- 'Abdullah b. 'Abbas- Abu Sufyan b. Harb, who said: We were merchant folk. The warfare between us and the Messenger of God had prevented us from journeying, so that our wealth became depleted. After the truce between us and the Messenger of God, we feared that we might not encounter security. I set out for Syria with a group of merchants of Quraysh. Our specific destination was Gaza, and we arrived at the time of Heraclius' VICTORY over the Persians who were in his land - he expelled them and regained from them his Great Cross, which they had carried off. Having accomplished this against them and having received word that his cross had been rescued from them (he was staying at Hims), he set out from there on foot in thanksgiving to God for restoring it to him, to pray in Jerusalem. Carpets were spread out for him, and fragrant herbs were strewn on them. When he reached Jerusalem and performed his worship - with him were his military commanders and the nobles of the Romans - he arose troubled one morning, turning his gaze to the sky ... (The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael Fishbein [State University of New York Press, Albany 1997], Volume VIII, pp. 100-101; bold and capital emphasis ours)
The translator's footnote reads:
436. "In 627 Heraclius invaded the Persian empire, and in December of that year won an important victory near ancient Ninevah, but had to retreat shortly afterwards. In February 628, however, the Persian emperor was assassinated, and the son who succeeded him desired peace. By about March 628 Heraclius could regard himself as victorious, but the negotiations for the evacuation of the Byzantine empire by the Persians were not completed until June 629. In September 629 Heraclius entered Constantinople AS VICTOR, and in March 630 restored the Holy Rood to Jerusalem." (Watt, Muhammad at Medina, 113-114). See also Ostrgorsky, History of the Byzantine State, 103-4. (Ibid., capital emphasis ours)
The hadith collection of al-Bukhari provides further corroboration that Abu Sufyan's visit with Heraclius occurred after the signing of Hudaiybiya:
Narrated ' Abdullah bin 'Abbas:
That Abu Sufyan bin Harb Informed him that Heraclius called him and the members of a caravan from Quraish who had gone to Sham as traders, during the truce which Allah's Apostle had concluded with Abu Sufyan and the Quraish infidels. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 399)
Watt places Rome's complete victory at 630 A.D., fifteen to sixteen years after the so-called prophecy was given!
- The original Quranic text had no vowel marks. Thus, the Arabic word Sayaghlibuna, "they shall defeat," could easily have been rendered, with the change of two vowels, Sayughlabuna, "they (i.e. Romans) shall be defeated." Since vowel points were not added until some time after this event, it could have been quite possible for a scribe to deliberately tamper with the text, forcing it to become a prophetic statement.
This fact is solidified by Muslim commentator al-Baidawi. C.G. Pfander mentions Baidawi's comments on the variant readings surrounding this passage:
"But Al Baizawi shatters the whole argument of the Muslims by informing us of certain varied readings in these verses of Suratu'r Rum. He tells us that some read غَلَبَتِ instead of the usual غُلِبَتِ, and سَيُغْلَبُونَ instead of سَيَغْلُبُونَ. The rendering will then be: 'The Byzantines have conquered in the nearest part of the land, and they shall be defeated in a small number of years'. If this be the correct reading, the whole story about Abu Bakr's bet with Ubai must be a fable, since Ubai was dead long before the Muslims began to defeat the Byzantines, and even long before the victories which Heraclius won over the Persians. This shows how unreliable such Traditions are. The explanation which Al Baizawi gives is, that the Byzantines became conquerors of 'the well-watered land of Syria' (على ريف آلْشام), and that the passage predicted that the Muslims would soon overcome them. If this is the meaning, the Tradition which records the 'descent' of the verses about six years before the Hijrah must be wrong, and the passage must belong to A.H. 6 at earliest. It is clear that, as the vowel points were not used when the Qur-an was first written down in Cufic letters, no one can be certain which of the two readings is right. We have seen that there is so much uncertainty about (1) the date at which the verses were 'sent down', (2) the correct reading, and (3) the meaning, that it is quite impossible to show that the passage contains a prophecy which was fulfilled. Hence, it cannot be considered to be a proof of Muhammad's prophetic office." (C. G. Pfander, Mizan-ul-Haqq - The Balance of Truth, revised and enlarged by W. St. Clair Tisdall [Light of Life P.O. Box 18, A-9503, Villach Austria], pp. 279-280; emphasis ours)
This being the case, a Muslim cannot confidently tell us what the true reading of the text is and hence cannot insure us that this verse originally predicted the Byzantine victory over the Persians. Yet either rendering leaves us with a false prophecy within the Quran.
- It amazes us that a prophecy from God would not specify the exact time of the victory, seeing that God is all-knowing and all-wise, declaring the end from the beginning. When God specifies a time frame as an important part of a prophecy we would expect that it be precise, not a mere guess. For God to guess that the Byzantines would win at some time within "a few years" as opposed to specifying the exact year, is inconsistent with the belief in an Omniscient, Omnipotent Being. Hence, it is unlikely that the true God would actually make such a prophecy.
Interestingly, the phrase "a few years" serves to further discredit this alleged prophecy. Abu Bakr believed the term "a few years" meant that the Byzantines were going to win in three years:
"This passage refers to the defeat of the Byzantines in Syria by the Persians under Khusran Parvis. (A.D. 615 - 6 years before the Hegira). However, the defeat of the Persians should take place soon 'in a small number of years'. In the light of this prediction, Abu-Bakr undertook a bet with Ubai-ibn-Khalaf that this prediction would be fulfilled within three years, but he was corrected by Mohammed who stated that the 'small number' is between three and nine years (Al-Baizawi). Muslims tell us that the Byzantines overcame their enemies within seven years. The fact, however, is that the Byzantines defeated Persia in A.D. 628 (Al-Baizawi commentary). That was twelve years after the prediction of Mohammed. Consequently this passage does not qualify as a prophecy, particularly as the time between prophecy and fulfilment was far too short, and in addition the event was easily predictable." (Gerhard Nehls, Christians Ask Muslims [Life Challenge, SIM International; Africa, 1992], pp. 70-71)
On Entering Mecca
Sura 48:27 makes the following promise:
"Truly did Allah fulfill the vision for His Messenger. Ye shall enter the Sacred Mosque, IF ALLAH WILLS, with minds secure, heads shaved, hair cut short, and without fear. For He knew what ye knew not, and He granted, besides this, a speedy victory."
This verse was revealed in conjunction with the Muslims' failed attempt of entering Mecca to perform Tawaf (the ritual during Hajj of running between two mountains that was supposed to commemorate Hagar's fetching of water for Ishmael).
On their way to the Ka'bah, they were met with a Meccan deputation headed by Suhail b. Amr who forbade the Muslims from completing their journey. This meeting then led to the signing of the treaty of Hudaibiya.
Several problems arise from this whole incident. First, at the signing of the Hudaibiya treaty Muhammad agreed with the pagan Meccans to return to them those who had converted to Islam. At the same time Muhammad also bowed to their demands of replacing his signature of 'Muhammad, Messenger of God' with 'Muhammad, son of Abdullah' so that he might be allowed to make pilgrimage to Mecca the following year. The following is taken from Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891:
"When Suhail bin Amr came, the Prophet said, ‘Now the matter has become easy.' Suhail said to the Prophet 'Please conclude a peace treaty with us.' So, the Prophet called the clerk and said to him, 'Write: By the Name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful." Suhail said, 'As for "Beneficent," by Allah, I do not know what it means. So write: By Your Name O Allah, as you used to write previously.' The Muslims said, 'By Allah, we will not write except: By the Name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful.' The Prophet said, 'Write: By Your Name O Allah.' Then he dictated, 'This is the peace treaty which Muhammad, Allah's Apostle has concluded.' Suhail said, 'By Allah, if we knew that you are Allah's Apostle we would not prevent you from visiting the Kaba, and would not fight with you. So, write: 'Muhammad bin Abdullah.' The Prophet said, 'By Allah! I am Apostle of Allah even if you people do not believe me. Write: Muhammad bin Abdullah.' (Az-Zuhri said, 'The Prophet accepted all those things, as he had already said that he would accept everything they would demand if it respects the ordinance of Allah, (i.e. by letting him and his companions perform 'Umra.)') The Prophet said to Suhail, 'On the condition that you allow us to visit the House (i.e. Ka'ba) so that we may perform Tawaf around it.' Suhail said, 'By Allah, we will not (allow you this year) so as not to give chance to the Arabs to say that we have yielded to you, but we will allow you next year.' SO, THE PROPHET GOT THAT WRITTEN.
"Then Suhail said, 'We also stipulate that you should return to us whoever comes to you from us, even if he embraced your religion.' The Muslims said, 'Glorified be Allah! How will such a person be returned to the pagans after he has become a Muslim?'" (bold emphasis ours)
One of those forced to return to Mecca with the pagans was Abu Jandal. In Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasulullah (The Life of Muhammad, trans. Alfred Guillaume, Oxford University Press), p. 505 we are told:
'When Suhayl (the Meccan representative and the treaty's compiler) saw Abu Jandal he got up and hit him in the face and took hold of his collar, saying, 'Muhammad, the agreement between us was concluded before this man came to you.' He replied, 'you are right.' He began to pull him roughly by his collar and to drag him away to return him to Quraysh, while Abu Jandal shrieked at the top of his voice, 'Am I to be returned to the polytheists that they may entice me from my religion O Muslims?' and that increased the people's dejection'" (bold and italic emphasis ours)
And:
'While they were in this state Abu- Jandal bin Suhail bin 'Amr came from the valley of Mecca staggering with his fetters and fell down amongst the Muslims. Suhail said, 'O Muhammad! This is the very first term with which we make peace with you, i.e. you shall return Abu Jandal to me.' The Prophet said, 'The peace treaty has not been written yet.' Suhail said, 'I will never allow you to keep him.' The Prophet said, 'Yes, do.' He said, 'I won't do: Mikraz said, 'We allow you (to keep him).' Abu Jandal said, 'O Muslims! Will I be returned to the pagans though I have come as a Muslim? Don't you see how much I have suffered?'
Abu Jandal had been [previously] tortured severely for the cause of Allah' (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891)
We need to ask did Moses ever return a convert (especially one who was an Egyptian) back to the pagan Pharaoh in order to please the latter in obtaining what he wanted? Did Jesus ever compromise the truth of God by agreeing with the Pharisees in turning back all gentile seekers in order to be accepted by the Jewish ruling council? Would either Moses or Jesus go so far as to deny their apostleship in order to please the demands of pagans? Would these men refuse to glorify the true God in the manner commanded by the Creator and acquiesce to the request of addressing God in a manner pleasing to the unbelievers, much like Muhammad did?
As one would expect the Muslims were enraged, especially Umar b. al-Khattab who rebuked Muhammad:
'Umar bin al-Khattab said, 'I went to the Prophet and said, "Aren't you truly the messenger of Allah?" The Prophet said, "Yes, indeed." I said, "Isn't our cause just and the cause of the enemy unjust?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Then why should we be humble in our religion?" He said, "I am Allah's messenger and I do not disobey Him, and He will make me victorious"' (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891)
The anger of the Muslims is justifiable when we realize that Muhammad promised that his followers would have access to Mecca that very same year. When that did not occur, Muhammad attempted to justify his statement by stating, "Yes, did I tell you that we would go to Ka'ba this year?" (Ibid)
In other words, since he did not specify when they would enter Mecca this cannot be considered a false prophecy! This is simply erroneous since the Muslim contingent was on their way to Mecca when a deputation from the pagan Arabs stopped them. In fact, one of Muhammad's demands in signing the treaty was that the pagans permit the Muslims to complete their journey to Mecca in order to perform Tawaf. Suhail denied Muhammad's request and instead made an agreement that the Muslims could enter Mecca the following year. Ibn Kathir further supports this in his commentary on S. 48:27:
"In a dream, the Messenger of Allah saw himself entering Makkah and performing Tawaf around the House. He told his Companions about this dream when he was still in Al-Madinah. When they went to Makkah in the year of Al-Hudaybiyyah, none of them doubted that the Prophet's vision WOULD COME TRUE THAT YEAR. When the treaty of peace was conducted and they had to return to Al-Madinah that year, being allowed to return to Makkah the next year, SOME OF THE COMPANIONS DISLIKED WHAT HAPPENED. 'Umar bin Al-Khattab asked about THIS, saying, 'Haven't you told us that we will go to the House and perform Tawaf around it?'" (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Volume 9, Surat Al-Jathiyah to the end of Surat Al-Munafiqun, Abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, London, Lahore; first edition, September 2000], p. 171; bold and capital emphasis ours)
Al-Tabari writes:
"While the Messenger of God was writing the document - he and Suhaly b. 'Amr - suddenly Abu Jandal, the son of Suhaly b. 'Amr, came walking with short steps in shackles. He had escaped to the Messenger of God. The companions of the Messenger of God had set out NOT DOUBTING that they would conquer, because of a vision the Messenger of God had seen. Therefore, when they saw what they saw - the peace, the retreat, and the obligations the Messenger of God had taken upon himself - the people felt so grieved about it that they were close to despair. When Suhayl saw Abu Jandal, he went up to him, struck him on the face, and grabbed him by the front of his garment. "Muhammad," he said, "the pact was ratified between me and you before this fellow came to you." "You are right," he replied. Suhayl began pulling and dragging [his son Abu Jandal] by the front of his garment to return him to Quraysh. Abu Jandal began screaming at the top of his voice, "People of the Muslims, shall I be returned to the polytheists for them to torment me for my religion?" This made the people feel even worse. The Messenger of God said: "Abu Jandal, count on a reward, for God will give you and those who are oppressed with you relief and a way out. We have made a treaty and peace between ourselves and these people; we have given them and they have given us a promise, and we will not act treacherously toward them." (The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, Volume VIII, pp. 86-87; bold and capital emphasis ours)
This proves that Muhammad actually believed he was going to enter into Mecca, a plan that never materialized. In order to save face he had to deny admitting that he actually implied that the Muslims would enter Mecca that same year.
Second, to make matters worse Muhammad broke the treaty with the Meccans by refusing to return a Muslim convert from the Quraysh. This refusal was in clear violation of things expressly stipulated in the very document that Muhammad had agreed to sign:
"Umm Kulthum Uqba b. Mu'ayt migrated to the apostle during this period. Her two brothers 'Umara and Walid sons of 'Uqba came and asked the apostle to return her to them in accordance with the agreement between him and Quraysh at Hudaybiyya, but he would not. God forbade it." (Sirat Rasulullah, p. 509; italic emphasis ours)
Hence, Muhammad justified the breaking of his oath by claiming that it was God's will to do so. Unfortunately for Muslims, this would prove that Muhammad's God is not the God of the Holy Bible since breaking one's oath is strictly forbidden. (Cf. Numbers 30:1-2)
In light of all these considerations we are again compelled to ask the following questions. Did Moses ever bow down to Pharaoh's requests in order to bring Israel out of bondage from Egypt? Did Jesus ever deny his Messiahship to gain access to the Temple? Did any true prophet of God ever compromise with the unbelievers in order to fulfill the will of God? Did these men proceed to break their oaths and promises in order to gain an unfair advantage over the unbelievers?
One final problem with all this is that Muslims claim that every single word in the Quran was revealed directly by God to Muhammad through Gabriel. Based on this assumption Muslims further reason that one will not find Muhammad's words intermingled with the words of God. This being the case, how do Muslims explain the fact that S. 48:27 has Allah saying insha' Allah, i.e. "If Allah wills"? Does God not know what his will is? If so, is he uncertain whether his purpose shall come to pass necessitating him to then qualify his statement with the phrase, insha' Allah?
One can understand how fallible humans who are unaware of God's purpose can qualify their statements with the expression "If God wills" (Cf. James 4:13-15). But for God to make such a qualification is beyond reasoning.
Furthermore, if God is in fact speaking then whom is he referring to when he says "If Allah wills"? Is he addressing himself or someone else? If he is addressing someone else, than how many Gods are there? Or perhaps Allah is also a multi-personal Being seeing that there is more than one Person that make up the unity of Allah?
This leads us to conclude that Muhammad's prediction not only failed to materialize, but that his motives in concocting revelation were power, money and fame. This verse also proves that God cannot be the author of the Quran.
On the Appearance of the Antichrist and the End of the World
Muhammad allegedly claimed that the Antichrist (called the Dajjal) was to appear shortly after the Muslim conquest of Constantinople. The following traditions are taken from the Sunan Abu Dawud:
Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The flourishing state of Jerusalem will be when Yathrib is in ruins, the ruined state of Yathrib will be when the great war comes, the outbreak of the great war will be at the conquest of Constantinople and the conquest of Constantinople when the Dajjal (Antichrist) comes forth. He (the Prophet) struck his thigh or his shoulder with his hand and said: This is as true as you are here or as you are sitting (meaning Mu'adh ibn Jabal).
Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The greatest war, the conquest of Constantinople and the coming forth of the Dajjal (Antichrist) will take place within a period of seven months.
Narrated Abdullah ibn Busr:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The time between the great war and the conquest of the city (Constantinople) will be six years, and the Dajjal (Antichrist) will come forth in the seventh.
Accordingly, Muslims conquered Jerusalem in 636 AD. Constantinople was taken over by Muslims in May 1453 AD. Yet the prophecy regarding Yathrib (Medina) being in ruins and Antichrist's advent to take place seven months after the conquest of Constantinople did not materialize. Based on the preceding traditions Antichrist was to appear in November 1453.
Some may wish to argue that these events refer to future conquests. For instance some may wish to say that Constantinople is used as a synonym for the Roman Christian Empire. This would therefore be predicting that Muslims are to takeover Rome before Antichrist appears.
The problem with this is that if Muhammad was speaking of Rome he could have simply used the word Romans (Arabic: Ar-Rum). In fact, Romans/Ar-Rum is the name given to chapter 30 of the Quran. To call Rome either Constantinople or even Byzantium would be rather anachronistic. See above.
Hence, in light of the preceding factors we are forced to conclude that Muhammad's predictions failed to materialize, thus disqualifying him regarding his claim to prophethood.
Muhammad also believed in a young earth and that the world was about to end shortly after his advent. The following citations are taken from The History of al-Tabari, Volume 1 - General Introduction and from the Creation to the Flood (trans. Franz Rosenthal, State University of New York Press, Albany 1989), with all bold emphasis being ours:
"According to Ibn Humayd- Yahya b. Wadih- Yahya b. Ya'qub- Hammad- Sa'id b. Jubayr- Ibn Abbas: This world is one of the weeks of the other world - seven thousand years. Six thousand two hundred years have already passed. (The world) will surely experience hundreds of years, during which there will be no believer in the oneness of God there. Others said that the total extent of time is six thousand years." (Tabari, pp. 172-173; emphasis ours)
"According to Abu Hisham- Mu'awiyah b. Hisham- Sufyan- al-A'mash- Abu Salih- Ka'b: This world is six thousand years." (Ibid.)
"According to Muhammad b. Sahl b. 'Askar- Isma'il b. 'Abd al-Karim- 'Abd al-Samad b. Ma'qil I- Wahb: Five thousand six hundred years of this world have elapsed. I do not know which kings and prophets lived in every period (zaman) of those years. I aksed Wahb b. Munabbih: How long is (the total duration of) this world? He replied: Six thousand years." (Tabari, pp. 173-174; emphasis ours)
According to at-Tabari Muhammad believe that the end of the world was to occur 500 years after his coming:
"According to Hannad b. al-Sari and Abu Hisham al-Rifa'i- Abu Bakr b. 'Ayyash- Abu Hasin- Abu Salih- Abu Hurayrah: The Messenger of God said: When I was sent (to transmit the divine message), I and the Hour were like these two, pointing at his index and middle fingers." (Tabari, p. 176; emphasis ours, see also pp. 175-181)
Similar traditions are found in Sahih Muslim:
This hadith has been reported by Sahl b. Sa'd that he heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I and the Last Hour are (close to each other) like this (and he, in order to explain it) pointed (by joining his) forefinger, (one) next to the thumb and the middle finger (together).
Shu'ba reported: I heard Qatada and Abu Tayyab narrating that both of them heard Anas as narrating that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: I and the Last Hour have been sent like this, and Shu'ba drew his forefinger and middle finger near each other while narrating it.
Anas reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I and the Last Hour have been sent like this and (he while doing it) joined the forefinger with the middle finger.
At-Tabari comments on the meaning of the Hour being as close as Muhammad's index and middle fingers:
"Thus, (the evidence permitting) a conclusion is as follows: The beginning of the day is the rise of the dawn, and its end is the setting of the sun. Further, the reported tradition on the authority of the Prophet is sound. As we have mentioned earlier, he said after having prayed the afternoon prayer: What remains of this world as compared to what has passed of it is just like what remains of this day as compared to what has passed of it. He also said: When I was sent, I and the Hour were like these two- holding index finger and middle finger together; I preceded it to the same extent as this one- meaning the middle finger- preceded that one- meaning the index finger. Further, the extent (of time) between the mean time of the afternoon prayer- that is, when the shadow of everything is twice its size, according to the best assumption ('ala al-taharri)- (to sunset) is the extent of time of one-half of one-seventh of the day, give or take a little. Likewise, the excess of the length of the middle finger over the index finger is something about that or close to it. There is also a sound tradition on the authority of the Messenger of God, as I was told by Ahmad b. 'Abd al-Rahman b. Wahb- his paternal uncle 'Abd-allah b. Wahb- Mu'awiyah b. Salih- 'Abd al-Rahman b. Jubayr b. Nufayr- his father Jubayr b. Nufayr- the companion of the Prophet, Abu Tha'labah al-Khushani: The Messenger of God said: Indeed, God will not make this nation incapable of (lasting) half a day- referring to the day of a thousand years.
"All these facts taken together make it clear that of the two statements I have mentioned concerning the total extent of time, the one from Ibn Abbas, and the other from Ka'b, the one more likely to be correct in accordance with the information coming from the Messenger of God is that of Ibn 'Abbas transmitted here by us on his authority: The world is one of the weeks of the other world - seven thousand years.
"Consequently, because this is so and the report on the authority of the Messenger of God is sound- namely, that he reported that what remained of the time of this world during his lifetime was half a day, or five hundred years, since five hundred years are half a day of the days, of which one is a thousand years- the conclusion is that the time of this world that had elapsed to the moment of the Prophet's statement corresponds to what we have transmitted on the authority of Abu Tha'labah al-Khushani from the Prophet, and is 6,500 years or approximately 6,500 years. God knows best!" (Tabari, pp. 182-183, bold emphasis ours)
Hence, according to these traditions Muhammad believed that not only was the world less than 7,000 years old but it was to end on the seventh day, or seven thousand years from the time it was created.
Accordingly, the world should have ended sometime between 1070-1132 AD, approximately 500 years after the birth and death of Muhammad. This is based on the fact that according to at-Tabari and others, the advent of Muhammad took place approximately 6,500 years from the time of creation. This is clearly a false prophecy.
Yet this date contradicts the one approximated by Abu Dawood in his Sunan. There, we saw that Antichrist was to appear seven months after the conquest of Constantinople, an event that took place in 1453 AD. This being the case, how could Muhammad have claimed elsewhere that the world was to end 500 years after his own birth and death? To make matters worse, the Islamic traditions claim that Antichrist was actually present during Muhammad's lifetime. In fact, according to the traditions Antichrist was a man named Ibn Saiyad:
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 437:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
'Umar set out along with the Prophet (p.b.u.h) with a group of people to Ibn Saiyad till they saw him playing with the boys near the hillocks of Bani Mughala. Ibn Saiyad at that time was nearing his puberty and did not notice (us) until the Prophet stroked him with his hand and said to him, "Do you testify that I am Allah's Apostle?" Ibn Saiyad looked at him and said, "I testify that you are the Messenger of illiterates." Then Ibn Saiyad asked the Prophet (p.b.u.h), "Do you testify that I am Allah's Apostle?" The Prophet (p.b.u.h) refuted it and said, "I believe in Allah and His Apostles." Then he said (to Ibn Saiyad), "What do you think?" Ibn Saiyad answered, "True people and liars visit me." The Prophet said, "You have been confused as to this matter." Then the Prophet said to him, "I have kept something (in my mind) for you, (can you tell me that?)" Ibn Saiyad said, "It is Al-Dukh (the smoke)." (2) The Prophet said, "Let you be in ignominy. You cannot cross your limits." On that 'Umar, said, "O Allah's Apostle! Allow me to chop his head off." The Prophet (p.b.u.h) said, "If he is he (i.e. Dajjal), then you cannot over-power him, and if he is not, then there is no use of murdering him." (Ibn 'Umar added): Later on Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) once again went along with Ubai bin Ka'b to the date-palm trees (garden) where Ibn Saiyad was staying. The Prophet (p.b.u.h) wanted to hear something from Ibn Saiyad before Ibn Saiyad could see him, and the Prophet (p.b.u.h) saw him lying covered with a sheet and from where his murmurs were heard. Ibn Saiyad's mother saw Allah's Apostle while he was hiding himself behind the trunks of the date-palm trees. She addressed Ibn Saiyad, "O Saf! (and this was the name of Ibn Saiyad) Here is Muhammad." And with that Ibn Saiyad got up. The Prophet said, "Had this woman left him (Had she not disturbed him), then Ibn Saiyad would have revealed the reality of his case."
The traditions go on to positively identify Ibn Saiyad as Antichrist:
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 92, Number 453:
Narrated Muhammad bin Al-Munkadir:
I saw Jabir bin 'Abdullah swearing by Allah that Ibn Sayyad was the Dajjal. I said to Jabir, "How can you swear by Allah?" Jabir said, "I have heard 'Umar swearing by Allah regarding this matter in the presence of the Prophet and the Prophet did not disapprove of it."
Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 37, Number 4317:
Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:
Muhammad ibn al-Munkadir told that he saw Jabir ibn Abdullah swearing by Allah that Ibn as-Sa'id was the Dajjal (Antichrist). I expressed my surprise by saying: You swear by Allah! He said: I heard Umar swearing to that in the presence of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), but the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) did not make any objection to it.
Yet these traditions contradict the following traditions where Antichrist is described as being one eyed and as being locked up in chains:
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 553:
Narrated Ibn Umar:
Once Allah's Apostle stood amongst the people, glorified and praised Allah as He deserved and then mentioned the Dajjal saying, "I warn you against him (i.e. the Dajjal) and there was no prophet but warned his nation against him. No doubt, Noah warned his nation against him but I tell you about him something of which no prophet told his nation before me. You should know that he is one-eyed, and Allah is not one-eyed."
Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 37, Number 4306:
Narrated Ubadah ibn as-Samit: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: I have told you so much about the Dajjal (Antichrist) that I am afraid you may not understand. The Antichrist is short, hen-toed, woolly-haired, one-eyed, an eye-sightless, and neither protruding nor deep-seated. If you are confused about him, know that your Lord is not one-eyed.
Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 37, Number 4311:
Narrated Fatimah, daughter of Qays:
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) once delayed the congregational night prayer.
He came out and said: The talk of Tamim ad-Dari detained me. He transmitted it to me from a man who was of the islands of the sea. All of a sudden he found a woman who was trailing her hair. He asked: Who are you?
She said: I am the Jassasah. Go to that castle. So I came to it and found a man who was trailing his hair, chained in iron collars, and leaping between Heaven and Earth.
I asked: Who are you? He replied: I am the Dajjal (Antichrist). Has the Prophet of the unlettered people come forth now? I replied: Yes. He said: Have they obeyed him or disobeyed him? I said: No, they have obeyed him. He said: That is better for them.
Someone might interject here and claim that the traditions make mention of 30 Antichrists to come into the world:
Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 37, Number 4319:
Narrated Abu Hurayrah:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The Last Hour will not come before there come forth thirty Dajjals (fraudulents), everyone presuming himself that he is an apostle of Allah. (see also Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 237)
This implies that Ibn Saiyad was just one of the thirty antichrists, and not THE Antichrist that was to come right before the end of the world.
There are several problems with this assertion. First, none of the traditions claim that Ibn Saiyad is one of the thirty antichrists that were to appear. Rather, the traditions imply that he is THE Dajjal or Antichrist. Second, if we take either of the dates proposed by at-Tabari or Abu Dawood all thirty Dajjals needed to have appeared before either 1070-1132 or 1453 AD. Finally, according to the New Testament Muhammad is actually one of these Antichrists:
"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour… Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist-he denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also." 1 John 2:18, 22-23
Since Muhammad denied that Jesus is God's Son he is therefore one of the many antichrists that was to come according to the apostle John.
As if the preceding weren't bad enough, other traditions have Muhammad predicting that the end was to come within the lifetime of his followers:
Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 7050:
'A'isha reported that when the desert Arabs came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) they asked about the Last Hour as to when that would come. And he looked towards the youngest amongst them and said: If he lives he would not grow very old that he would find your Last Hour coming to you he would see you dying.
Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 7051:
Anas reported that a person asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as to when the Last Hour would come. He had in his presence a young boy of the Ansar who was called Mahammad. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: If this young boy lives, he may not grow very old till (he would see) the Last Hour coming to you.
Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 7052:
Anas b. Malik reported that a person asked Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him): When would the Last Hour come? Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) kept quiet for a while, then looked at a young boy in his presence belonging to the tribe of Azd Shanilwa and he said: If this boy lives he would not grow very old till the Last Hour would come to you. Anas said that this young boy was of our age during those days.
Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 7053:
Anas reported: A young boy of Mughira b. Shu'ba happened to pass by (the Holy Prophet) and he was of my age. Thereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be apon him) said: If he lives long he would not grow very old till the Last Hour would come (to the old People of this generation).
Muhammad clearly said that the young boy wouldn't have grown very old before the Last Hour came upon the people. Now let us be generous and suppose that the young boy was ten and lived to be hundred and ten years old, implying that the Last Hour was to take place a hundred years after Muhammad made these statements. Yet, centuries have passed and the Last Hour still hasn't come upon us.
But wait, there is more! According to the narratives of al-Bukhari, Muhammad announced that everyone would be dead within a hundred years:
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, Number 116:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
Once the Prophet led us in the 'Isha' prayer during the last days of his life and after finishing it (the prayer) (with Taslim) he said: "Do you realize (the importance of) this night? Nobody present on the surface of the earth tonight will be living after the completion of one hundred years from this night."
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 10, Number 539:
Narrated Abdullah:
"One night Allah's Apostle led us in the 'Isha' prayer and that is the one called Al-'Atma by the people. After the completion of the prayer, he faced us and said, ‘Do you know the importance of this night? Nobody present on the surface of the earth tonight will be living after one hundred years from this night.’" (See Hadith No. 575).
Nearly fourteen centuries have gone by and there continue to be human beings alive all around the earth! This particular hadith was so troubling that another narration tries to explain it away by arguing that Muhammad really meant that none of his generation would be alive in a hundred years:
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 10, Number 575:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
The Prophet prayed one of the 'lsha' prayer in his last days and after finishing it with Taslim, he stood up and said, "Do you realize (the importance of) this night? Nobody present on the surface of the earth tonight would be living after the completion of one hundred years from this night."
The people made a mistake in grasping the meaning of this statement of Allah's Apostle and they indulged in those things which are said about these narrators (i.e. some said that the Day of Resurrection will be established after 100 years etc.) But the Prophet said, "Nobody present on the surface of earth tonight would be living after the completion of 100 years from this night"; he meant, "When that century (people of that century) would pass away."
There are several points to note from this specific report. First, note the candid admission of the narrator that Muslims understood from Muhammad’s words that the world was going to end in a hundred years. This provides corroborating evidence that the plain meaning of Muhammad’s so-called prophecy was that the last day would occur within a hundred years.
Second, notice just how irrational this ad hoc explanation is. The hadith compiler really expects his readers to believe that what Muhammad meant was that no one of his generation would be alive within a hundred years when there is nothing amazing about such a claim. To say that one’s generation would all be dead within a hundred years doesn’t require supernatural knowledge. The only thing required to make such a claim is common sense since life expectancy was low in those days. Hardly anyone lived beyond the age of a hundred years. If it was supposed to be a statement ("prophecy") about the life expectancy of the people living around him, then it was trivial. What is the point?
Even though trivial, it would almost certainly be wrong. Muhammad said "on the surface of the earth" – that is a large place. Although centenarians are rare, they probably existed at all times. Even in the life of Muhammad there was at least one such person. Abu Afak is reported to have lived to the age of 120:
SARIYYAH OF SALIM IBN ‘UMAYR
Then occurred the sariyyah of Salim Ibn ‘Umayr al-‘Amri against Abu ‘Afak, the Jew, in Shawwal in the beginning of the twentieth month from the hijrah of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him. Abu ‘Afak, was from Banu ‘Amr Ibn ‘Awf, and was an old man who had attained the age of one hundred and twenty years. He was a Jew, and used to instigate the people against the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, and composed (satirical) verses. Salim Ibn ‘Umayr who was one of the great weepers and who had participated in Badr, said: I take a vow that I shall either kill Abu ‘Afak or die before him. He waited for an opportunity until a hot night came, and Abu ‘Afak slept in an open place. Salim Ibn ‘Umayr knew it, so he placed the sword on his liver and pressed it till it reached his bed. The enemy of Allah screamed and the people, who were his followers rushed to him, took him to his house and interred him. (Ibn Sa'ad's Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, English translation by S. Moinul Haq, M.A., PH.D assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar M.A. [Kitab Bhavan Exporters & Importers, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi - 110 002 India), Volume II, p. 31; bold and underline emphasis ours)
Did Muhammad really want to say: in a hundred years from now, there will be no more people who are older than a hundred years? Again: what would be the point of such an announcement? What has that to do with the message of Islam?
Moreover, Muhammad introduced his announcement with these words: "Do you know the importance of this night?" For that main reason, the alternative interpretation supplied by the narrator makes little sense. After all, in what sense would the observation that a time will come when nobody will be older than a hundred years be important for Muslims or Islam? It is simply irrelevant, and irrelevant is the opposite of important.
On the other hand, the proclamation of the Day of Resurrection and Allah’s judgment of all people is an essential part of Islam. If it had been revealed to Muhammad in his prayer that the world would end in exactly one hundred years, such a revelation would mark this night without question as being very important.
Only this interpretation really makes sense of the statement. The problem is, however, that the only meaningful interpretation of it has the consequence that Muhammad made a false prophecy. Muslims have tried to avert this by putting instead an utterly trivial, irrelevant – and most probably still incorrect – statement into Muhammad’s mouth.
Finally, it must be kept in mind that imam al-Bukhari collected these traditions roughly 250 years after Muhammad’s migration to Medina (c. 622/623 AD), long after the time that Muhammad said the world was going to end. In light of this, it is not surprising that he or someone else would provide an explanation in order to avoid having to admit that Muhammad was a false prophet for falsely claiming that the Day of Resurrection would take place a hundred years after his time.
Therefore, no matter from what angle one looks at it we are still left with irreconcilable contradictions and false predictions.
CONCLUSION
We have examined both the Quran and the Islamic traditions and found that both sources contain false predictions. In light of the prophetic criteria given by God in Deuteronomy 18 we discover that Muhammad fails this test. This means that Muhammad is neither a true prophet nor is he the prophet like Moses.
In the service of our Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, our risen Lord forever. Amen. Come Lord Jesus. We love you always.
Several Muslims have reacted to this paper in different ways. These responses are linked from within Sam Shamoun's answers to Hesham Azmy, Moiz Amjad, and Osama Abdallah.
Two Short, Sound, Simple Proofs that Muhammad Was a False Prophet
THE DEUTERONOMY DEDUCTIONS:
Two Short, Sound, Simple Proofs that Muhammad Was a False Prophet
By David Wood
"But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have
not commanded him to speak . . . that prophet shall die."
~GOD (Deuteronomy18:20)[1]"I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken."
~MUHAMMAD (Al-Tabari 6:111)[2]
Muhammad claimed that Jewish and Christian scriptures had predicted his coming (see, e.g., Qur’an 7:157). This has led Muslim apologists to comb the Old and New Testaments in search of passages that refer to their prophet. While all biblical evidence offered by Muslims in support of their prophet appears horribly strained to non-Muslims (provided the latter read the passages in context) and has been thoroughly refuted time and again, it is still common to hear Muslims claim that the Bible speaks about Muhammad.
The most popular "prophecy" about Muhammad is found in Deuteronomy 18. It is quite ironic, then, to learn that, according to Deuteronomy 18, Muhammad can’t possibly be a prophet. As we will see, this puts Muslims in an awkward position, and helps show the lengths to which they will go in their efforts to defend their prophet.
The purpose of this essay is to prove, based on Muslim claims (including their appeal to Deuteronomy 18), that Muhammad was a false prophet. I will begin by presenting two arguments against the prophethood of Muhammad, and I will follow this by carefully defending the arguments. Once I have shown that the arguments are sound, I will briefly discuss the options available to Muslims who want to reject the obvious conclusion.
I. THE DEUTERONOMY DEDUCTIONS
There are two elements to look for when examining deductive arguments: valid logic and true premises. To say that a deductive argument is valid is to say that, due to the logical form, true premises will always lead to a true conclusion. The most basic argument form is the syllogism, and the most basic valid form of the syllogism is Modus Ponens.[3] The logical form of the following arguments is Modus Ponens; thus, they are logically valid:
Argument A—false gods and false prophets
A1. If a person speaks in the names of false gods, that person is a false prophet.
A2. Muhammad spoke in the names of false gods.
——————————————————
A3. Therefore, Muhammad was a false prophet.
Argument B—false revelations and false prophets
B1. If a person delivers a revelation that doesn’t come from God, that person is a false prophet.
B2. Muhammad delivered a revelation that didn’t come from God.
——————————————————
B3. Therefore, Muhammad was a false prophet.
Since the logic of both arguments is valid, true premises will always lead to a true conclusion. Hence, if the premises of these arguments are true, Muhammad was a false prophet. Let us turn, then, to a careful discussion of our premises.
II. PREMISES A1 AND B1 DEFENDED
A1 and B1 seem intuitively obvious. That is, it seems clear that if a person speaks in the names of false gods or delivers revelations that don’t come from God, the person cannot be a true prophet. Nevertheless, by appealing to the Bible to bolster their belief in Muhammad, Muslims have inadvertently granted that A1 and B1 are true.
Deuteronomy 18 serves as the foundation of Islam’s "Argument from Biblical Prophecy," used by generations of Muslims to prove that Muhammad was a true prophet. Indeed, the popular Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam uses Deuteronomy 18 as its primary evidence that the Bible speaks of Muhammad. Author I. A. Ibrahim says,
The Biblical prophecies on the advent of the Prophet Muhammad are evidence of the truth of Islam for people who believe in the Bible.
In Deuteronomy 18, Moses stated that God told him: "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. If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account." (Deuteronomy 18: 18-19)[4]
The book goes on to argue that Muhammad fulfilled this prophecy in numerous ways. While such claims have been refuted ad nauseum,[5] I will simply note that Muslims have here granted that Deuteronomy 18:18-19 is inspired by God (since they regard it as a miraculous prophecy). Surely, then, we can’t ignore the next verse, where God says:
"But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die." (Deuteronomy 18:20)
Here we have two criteria for spotting a false prophet: (1) delivering a revelation which God has not "commanded him to speak," and (2) speaking "in the name of other gods." Since Muslims who appeal to so-called biblical prophecies of Muhammad have given this passage their stamp of approval, they cannot deny the truth of A1 and B1. To sum up, Muslims have appealed to a passage in Deuteronomy 18, and that passage entails premises A1 and B1. Thus, according to Muslim claims, the first premise of each of the Deuteronomy Deductions is true.
III. PREMISES A2 AND B2 DEFENDED
We have seen that, according to a passage regarded by many Muslims as divine revelation, a person who either delivers a message that does not come from God or speaks in the names of false gods must be a false prophet. But this means that Muhammad was a false prophet, since he did both when he delivered the infamous "Satanic Verses."
We learn about the Satanic Verses, not from Christian or Jewish sources, but from early Muslim writings. Accounts of the Satanic Verses are given in a number of early sources, including: (1) Ibn Ishaq, (2) Wakidi, (3) Ibn Sa’d, (4) al-Tabari, (5) Ibn Abi Hatim, (6) Ibn al-Mundhir, (7) Ibn Mardauyah, (8) Musa ibn 'Uqba, and (9) Abu Ma'shar.[6] According to the great Muslim scholar Ibn Hajar, three chains of transmission (isnad) in these accounts "satisfy the conditions requisite for an authentic report."[7] Moreover, Sahih al-Bukhari, Islam’s most trusted source on the life of Muhammad, gives indirect confirmation of the event (Number 4862, quoted below). Beyond this, certain verses of the Qur’an (17:73-5 and 22:52-3) were revealed in response to Muhammad’s embarrassing lapse into polytheism.
We therefore have compelling historical evidence that the story is authentic. (For a thorough discussion of the evidence for the Satanic Verses, see "Muhammad and the Satanic Verses.") In fact, the historical method virtually guarantees the legitimacy of the story. Historians examining the lives of leaders and religious figures employ what is known as the "Principle of Embarrassment," a principle which also carries much weight in legal investigations. Law professor Annette Gordon-Reed sums up the principle thus: "Declarations against interest are regarded as having a high degree of credibility because of the presumption that people do not make up lies in order to hurt themselves; they lie to help themselves."[8] Applying the Principle of Embarrassment to accounts of the Satanic Verses, we see immediately that Muslims would not have invented this story, since it calls Muhammad’s reliability into question. We also see that the story couldn’t have been invented by non-Muslims; for if non-Muslims had invented the story, Muslims would have exposed the story’s origin, instead of defending it in their earliest historical works.
The evidence for the general reliability of the Muslim accounts concerning the Satanic Verses is therefore too overwhelming to ignore. With this in mind, let us consider a condensed account of what happened, based on the History of al-Tabari.
According to al-Tabari,
When the Messenger of God saw how his tribe turned their backs on him and was grieved to see them shunning the message he had brought to them from God, he longed in his soul that something would come to him from God which would reconcile him with his tribe. With his love for his tribe and his eagerness for their welfare it would have delighted him if some of the difficulties which they made for him could have been smoothed out, and he debated within himself and fervently desired such an outcome. Then God revealed:
By the Star when it sets, your comrade does not err, nor is he deceived; nor does he speak out of (his own) desire . . .
and when he came to the words:
Have you thought upon al-Lat and al-‘Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?
Satan cast on his tongue, because of his inner debates and what he desired to bring to his people, the words:
These are the high-flying cranes; verily their intercession is accepted with approval. (Al-Tabari, p. 108)
The polytheists were delighted that Muhammad had at last approved of their gods. To return the kindness, they "prostrated themselves because of the reference to their gods which they had heard, so that there was no one in the mosque, believer or unbeliever, who did not prostrate himself" (p. 109).
Muhammad’s friendly relations with the polytheists were short-lived, however, for he soon learned that his verses praising pagan idols came not from God, but from Satan. Saddened to recognize his treachery against Allah, Muhammad lamented: "I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken" (p. 111). Yet "Gabriel" comforted Muhammad, informing him that all prophets fall for Satan’s tricks from time to time. This staggering and unbelievable claim even found its way into the Qur’an:
"And We did not send before you any apostle or prophet, but when he desired, the Shaitan made a suggestion respecting his desire; but Allah annuls that which the Shaitan casts, then does Allah establish His communications, and Allah is Knowing, Wise." (Surah 22:52)[9]
According to the next verse, Allah allows his prophets to receive revelations from Satan in order to test hard-hearted people.
Whatever we think of the preposterous Qur’anic explanation of the Satanic Verses (and its defense of Muhammad), it is clear that the Prophet of Islam, on at least one occasion, delivered a message that did not come from God. It is also clear that Muhammad, on at least one occasion, spoke in the names of false gods.[10] Thus, we can establish from Muslim sources that A2 and B2 are almost certainly true.
IV. POSSIBLE REPLIES
Since we have good reasons to accept premises A1, A2, B1, and B2, we have good reasons to accept conclusions A3 and B3, both of which claim that Muhammad was a false prophet. Muslims, however, will not want to accept this conclusion. Let us briefly discuss their prospects for rejecting it.
Muslims could, of course, claim that Deuteronomy 18:20 is a false teaching, not actually revealed by God. But if they take this route, it would be absurd of them to turn around and declare that 18:18-19 is an inspired prophecy. While it is alarmingly common for Muslims to pick and choose which passages in the Bible are correct (i.e. everything that agrees with Islam is correct, but everything that disagrees with Islam was corrupted by evil Jews and Christians), no one is going to be convinced by the claim that one verse in Deuteronomy 18 proves the prophethood of Muhammad, while another verse in the same passage is corrupted because it proves that he was a false prophet.
Thus, Muslims who want to deny A1 and B1 must abandon their claim that Deuteronomy 18 predicts the coming of Muhammad. The problem with this approach is that the prophecy of a coming messenger like Moses is one of the last remaining verses that Muslims—in spite of the evidence—cling to in their hopes of vindicating Muhammad. But if the Bible contains no clear prophecies about Muhammad, then Muhammad was a false prophet, since he claimed (in the Qur’an no less!) that the Jewish and Christian scriptures contain prophecies of his coming. This means that Muslims are caught between the horns of a dilemma. If they cling to Deuteronomy 18, then Muhammad was a false prophet. If they abandon it, then they are on the verge of having no biblical prophecies of Muhammad, which would imply that Muhammad was a false prophet.
Muslims who give up their most prized prophecy still wouldn’t be out of the water, however. For even if they abandon Deuteronomy 18 and declare it to be utterly corrupted, this wouldn’t refute A1 and B1, since, as I have already noted, these premises are intuitively obvious. Muslims who want to deny A1 and B1 must therefore show that these premises are false by arguing that genuine prophets can indeed deliver false revelations and speak in the names of false gods. I would love to see Muslims attempt to defend such an untenable position!
It seems, then, that Muslims who want to continue believing in Muhammad must deny not A1 and B1, but A2 and B2. But this means that they must reject the overwhelming historical evidence for Muhammad’s temporary support of paganism. Muslims who take this approach must do seven things. First, they must provide some reasonable explanation as to the story’s origin (e.g. they must make a plausible case that the story was invented by pagans, Jews, or Christians). Second, they must explain why Muslims, who had every reason to reject such a story, passed it on as if it were true (instead of exposing it as a fabrication). Third, they must show that Ibn Ishaq, Wakidi, Ibn Sa’d, al-Tabari, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Mardauyah, Musa ibn ‘Uqba, and Abu Ma’shar were sloppy historians (so amazingly sloppy that they included false stories about Muhammad that called his prophethood into question). Fourth, they must account for the various chains of authority to which the early Muslim biographers appealed in their efforts to demonstrate the story’s authenticity. Fifth, they must explain why al-Bukhari, Islam’s most trusted authority, confirms certain details of the story that only make sense if Muhammad really did deliver the Satanic Verses. According to Bukhari,
The Prophet performed a prostration when he finished reciting Surat an-Najm [Surah 53], and all the Muslims and Al-Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, and disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah and in His Messenger Muhammad) and jinn and human beings prostrated along with him. (4862)[11]
Though Bukhari understandably omits the embarrassing reason for the prostration of the pagans, he inadvertently confirms the account given by Ibn Ishaq and the others, who faithfully reported that the pagans bowed down because Muhammad spoke favorably of their gods. Sixth, Muslims must account for Surah 22:52, which, again, declares that all God’s prophets received revelations from Satan—a verse so preposterous that it could only have been offered to the Muslim community as an absurd explanation for something like the Satanic Verses. Seventh, they must show non-Muslims why we should reject all the available evidence and believe that Muhammad was spiritually reliable, when, as all informed Muslims will admit, Muhammad was the victim of black magic (a spell cast by a Jewish magician) and, at one point, was convinced that he was demon-possessed. Put differently, if the Prophet of Islam could mistakenly believe that he was demon-possessed, and was susceptible to spiritual attacks (such as black magic), why shouldn’t we believe that he could fall prey to revelations from Satan? (For more on Muhammad’s spiritual difficulties, see "A Bewitched Prophet?")
While I have witnessed Muslim attempts to explain away the historical evidence for the Satanic Verses, I have never seen anything remotely resembling a convincing refutation of the evidence. For instance, in my debate on the prophethood of Muhammad at U.C. Davis, my opponent Ali Ataie tried to respond to al-Bukhari’s indirect confirmation of the Satanic Verses by appealing to the miraculous power of the Qur’an. According to Ataie, the reason the pagans bowed down in honor of Surah 53 (which, in its present form, ridicules polytheism) was that they were overwhelmed by its majesty. But surely such a response is based on fantasy rather than fact. Muslims have been reciting the Qur’an for more than a thousand years, and unbelievers are typically quite unimpressed by Muhammad’s poetry. Indeed, Muhammad won remarkably few converts when he appealed to the Qur’an as evidence of his divine commission. He only saw large numbers of converts when he turned to other (far more bloody) means of conversion. Thus, for Muslims like Ataie to claim that the pagans, with one accord, bowed down at Muhammad’s recitation of Surah 53, is bordering on delusional. Bukhari’s hadith makes far more sense when read in the light of historical works like Ibn Ishaq (which, incidentally, predates Sahih al-Bukhari by many decades). The only conceivable reason the pagans would bow down in honor of Surah 53 is that the Surah originally supported paganism, and this is exactly what our earliest historical records claim.
All things considered, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the historical evidence is that Muhammad, in a moment of weakness, gave into temptation and actively promoted polytheism by delivering a revelation from Satan. But this means that we cannot rationally reject premises A2 and B2. Muslims, then, can have no good response to the Deuteronomy Deductions. We are therefore left with an unavoidable conclusion: Muhammad was a false prophet.
V. ASSESSMENT
To conclude, I would like to emphasize again that my entire argument (in two deductions) has been based on the writings and claims of Muslims. Early Muslim historians, in an astounding display of honesty and integrity, admitted that their prophet had delivered the Satanic Verses to his listeners. In acknowledging this, they provided all the evidence we need for premises A2 and B2. Modern Muslims, in an effort to defend Muhammad’s claim to biblical support for his ministry, have granted that a passage in Deuteronomy 18 was inspired by God. In doing so, they have given us all the evidence we need for premises A1 and B1. Since both of the Deuteronomy Deductions are logically valid, we have two proofs, based entirely on the claims of Muslims, that Muhammad was a false prophet.
Since the Deuteronomy Deductions are sound (i.e. logically valid with true premises), any honest seeker will have to admit that Muhammad was a false prophet. It should be an enlightening exercise, then, to present these arguments to Muslims. If a Muslim examines the arguments carefully, inspecting the premises and weighing the evidence, and then rejects the conclusion without refuting the argument, we can only assume that such a person is less interested in truth and more interested in the comfort provided by blindly accepting the faith he was raised in. Although my experience leads me to believe that most Muslims are of this type, my experience has also shown me that there are Muslims in the world who are actively dedicated to learning the truth about God. The first truth such Muslims must learn is that their prophet Muhammad was no prophet at all. The second is that their prophet Jesus is much more than a prophet. (But I’ll save that for another essay.)
Notes:
1 Bible quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition.
2 The History of al-Tabari, Volume VI: Muhammad at Mecca, W. Montgomery Watt and M. V. McDonald, trs. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988).
3 Modus Ponens takes the form:
1. If P, then Q.
2. P.
———————
3. Therefore, Q.
Here we may substitute various elements for P and Q, giving us, for instance:
1. If Fido is a dog, then Fido is a mammal.
2. Fido is a dog.
———————
3. Therefore, Fido is a mammal.
4 Ibrahim, I. A. A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam (Houston: Darussalam, 1997), p. 33.
5 See, for example, "Muhammad in the Bible?"
6 For references, see "Muhammad and the Satanic Verses."
7 Ibn Hajar, quoted in Allam Shibli Nu’mani, Sirat-un-Nabi, Volume 1, M. Tayyib Bakhsh Budayuni, tr. (New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 2004), p. 164.
8 Annette Gordon-Reed, Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1997).
9 Qur’an quotations are from the M. H. Shakir translation.
10 One might object that Muhammad did not actually speak in the names of the pagan gods. That is, he did not say, "I come to you in the name of Manat." Instead, he spoke in the name of Allah, and merely approved of the intercession of the pagan gods. However, the point of the passage in Deuteronomy is clearly that anyone who promotes polytheism is a false prophet. And Muhammad certainly promoted polytheism on this occasion.
11 Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume Six, Muhammad Muhsin Khan, tr. (Riyadh: Darussalam, 1997).
Articles by David Wood
Answering Islam Home Page
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
IS ALLAH THE GOD OF BIBLE?
This study examines the crucial question that needs to be addressed which is whether the God presented in the Quran is indeed the same God revealed in the Holy Bible. The Quran alleges that the God of Islam, Allah, is indeed the God of Abraham and hence the God of Scripture, Yahweh Elohim. But is this the case?
Are we to assume that just because the Quran states that Allah is Yahweh of the Bible that both Jews and Christians are obligated to believe this to be true? Or do we examine the nature and attributes of Allah in order to compare them with the biblical portrait of Yahweh to find if this is the case?
This process of examination is essential since our objective is to discover the true nature of God, a process whose outcome entails eternal consequences in regards to man's future destiny in the afterlife. After all, if Allah is the God of Abraham then Jews and Christians are wrong for not embracing Islam. But if Allah is not Yahweh, then Muslims are not worshiping the same God only with a different name.
We will examine certain qualities of Allah as stated in the Quran and briefly compare them to Yahweh and see where the evidence leads us. The reason why we are comparing Allah to Yahweh as opposed to contrasting Yahweh to the quranic portrait of Allah, using the Quran as the standard, is due to the fact that it is Islam that claims to worship the same God of the Holy Bible. Thus, the burden of proof rests upon the Muslims to defend this contention since they believe Allah is the same as Yahweh.
AUTHOR OF EVIL
The Holy Bible teaches that God cannot be tempted by evil and neither tempts anyone with evil; evil being understood as referring to immorality and sin. James 1:13 (c.f. Psalm 5:4-5; Habakkuk 1:13)
Yet, the Quran teaches that Allah is the author of evil:
Verily, the hypocrites seek to deceive Allah, but it is He Who deceives them. And when they stand up for As-Salat (the prayer), they stand with laziness and to be seen of men, and they do not remember Allah but little. S. 4:142 Hilali-KhanAnd (the unbelievers) schemed and planned, and Allah schemed also, and the best of schemers is Allah. S. 3:54
Are they then secure from Allah's scheme (makra Allahi)? None deemeth himself secure from Allah's scheme (makra Allahi) save folk that perish. S. 7:99 Pickthall
Remember how the unbelievers schemed against thee, to keep thee in bonds, or to slay thee, or get thee out (of thy home). They scheme and plot, but the best of schemers is Allah. S. 8:30
And when We make people taste of mercy after an affliction touches them, lo! they devise schemes (makrun) against Our communication. Say: Allah is quicker to scheme (makran); surely Our apostles write down what you plan. S. 10:21
And those before them did indeed scheme (makara), but all scheming (al-makru) is Allah's; He knows what every soul earns, and the unbelievers shall come to know for whom is the (better) issue of the abode. S. 13:42
So they schemed a scheme: and We schemed a scheme, while they perceived not. S. 27:50
The term for scheme in Arabic is makara which denotes one who is a deceiver, one who is conniving, a schemer. It is always used in a negative sense. Allah is thus seen as the best of deceivers, the premiere schemer and conniving one.
This is not simply a Christian perspective but one thoroughly endorsed by Muslim theologians as well.
For example Dr. Mahmoud M. Ayoub in his book, The Quran and Its Interpreters, Vol. II The House of Imran, brings up the question of "how the word makr (scheming or plotting), which implies deceitfulness or dishonesty, could be attributed to God." (Ibid. [1992 State University of New York Press, Albany], p. 165)
After listing several Muslim sources he quotes ar-Razi as arguing that "scheming (makr) is actually an act of deception aiming at causing evil. It is not possible to attribute deception to God. Thus the word is one of the muttashabihat [multivalent words of the Quran]." (Ibid., p. 166)
Moreover, here is how one of the earliest sources on the life of Muhammad interpreted Q. 8:30:
Then he reminds the apostle of His favour towards him when the people plotted against him 'to kill him, or to wound him, or to drive him out; and they plotted and God plotted, and is the best of plotters.' i.e. I DECEIVED them with My firm GUILE so that I delivered you from them. (The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth impression 1995], p. 323; capital emphasis ours)
In fact the Quran furnishes plenty of examples on some of the methods Allah adopts in devising evil:
Remember in thy dream Allah showed them as a few: if he had showed them to thee as many, ye would surely have been discouraged, and ye would surely have disputed in your decision: but Allah saved you: for He knoweth well the (secrets) of (all) hearts. S. 8:43
Allah is said to have shown the opposing fighting forces as few to Muhammad since if he had shown them as they actually were, the Muslims would have been afraid to fight. Hence, Allah had to use deception in order to encourage the Muslims to fight in his cause.
And when We desire to destroy a city, We command its men who live at ease, and they commit ungodliness therein, then the Word is realized against it, and We destroy it utterly. S. 17:16
Allah commands men to sin in order to destroy them completely.
They (Jinns- demon spirits) worked for him (Solomon) as he desired ... then when We decreed death upon him, nothing showed them his death except a little creeping creature of the earth, which gnawed away at his staff. And when he fell the Jinns saw clearly how, if they had known the unseen, they would not have continued in the humiliating penalty (of work). S. 34:13-14
Allah deceived the Jinns into working for Solomon by preventing the latter's death from being disclosed to them, otherwise they would have stopped their work.
Allah also deceived both Christians and Jews into thinking that Jesus was crucified when in fact "it was so made to appear unto them", seeing that he never was crucified or killed. S. 4:157
According to S. 9:51, nothing befalls Muslims except what Allah has ordained. And in S. 14:4, we are told,
"Allah leads astray whomsoever He will and guides whomsoever he will."
And,
"Whomsoever Allah guides, he is the one who follows the right way; and whomsoever He causes to err, these are the losers. And certainly We have created for hell many of the jinn and the men; ... Whomsoever Allah causes to err, there is no guide for him; and He leaves them alone in their inordinacy, blindly wandering on." S. 7:178-179, 186"If thy Lord had so willed, He could have made mankind one People: but they will not cease to differ. Except those on whom thy Lord hath bestowed His Mercy: and for this did He create them: and the Word of thy Lord shall be fulfilled: ‘I will fill Hell with Jinns and men all together.’" S. 11:118-119
Not only does Allah guide people astray, but also has created men specifically for hell. To make matters worse, he even ordains the evil one commits as we have already seen in S. 17:16 and further clarified by this Muslim tradition:
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Apostle as saying:Verily Allah has fixed the very portion of adultery which a man will indulge in, and which he of necessity must commit (or there would be no escape from it)." Sahih Muslim #6421, 6422
To even imagine that Allah causes adultery is not only horrendous but disqualifies him from being the God of Moses.
A keen reader might raise the objection that the Bible itself indicates in several places that God had intended to do evil to certain nations and individuals such as Absalom in 2 Samuel 17:14. Or that Jeremiah had been deceived by God in Jeremiah 20:7:
"O LORD, thou hast deceived me and I was deceived." King James Version
Firstly, in regards to 2 Sam. 17:14 as we had noted earlier God does not tempt anyone with moral evil in the form of sin but brings upon man calamity as a consequence of their sins. In fact, the term which the King James translates as evil is the Hebrew ra. Accordingly, some Hebrew scholars see it as being derived from the word ra'a which means to "break, smash, crush." (Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testaments, p. 232)
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible gives various meanings some of which include adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, evil, grief (#7451 of the Hebrew Dictionary Section).
Thus, the evil God poured out upon these individuals was not immorality like that of the Quran but judgement upon the wicked due to their persistence in sin and a refusal to come into repentance.
The Hebrew term for deceive used in Jeremiah 20:7 is pathath. Strong's lists it as #6601 in the Hebrew section with the following meanings; allure, enlarge, entice, deceive, flatter, persuade, silly. In light of the wide range of meanings, there is no reason to assume that Jeremiah meant that God was actually deceiving him.
In fact the context itself shows that the word can only mean "persuade" since Jeremiah is complaining that God is persuading him to continue his ministry, even though he doesn't want to:
"O LORD, You induced me, and I was persuaded;
YOU ARE STRONGER THAN I, AND HAVE PREVAILED.
I am in derision daily;
Everyone mocks me.
For when I spoke, I cried out;
I shouted, ‘Violence and plunder!’
Because the word of the LORD was made to me
A reproach and a derision daily.
Then I said, ‘I will not make mention of Him,
Nor speak anymore in His name.’
But His word was in my heart like a burning fire
Shut up in my bones;
I was weary of holding it back,
And I could not." Jeremiah 20:8-9 NKJV
God was therefore insisting that Jeremiah continue and did so by constant persuasion. This passage has nothing to do with deception whatsoever.
Another possible objection would be the King James rendering of Ezekiel 20:25 where God says to Israel that he "gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgements whereby they should not live." This strongly suggests that God is the author of evil.
The context of the passage is referring to Israel's reluctance in observing God's holy commands, which prompted God to hand them over to their own desires (all of chapter 20).
Scripture clearly teaches that when God sees that a nation refuses to embrace the truth he has revealed, the Lord then hardens their hearts that they might continue in their wickedness. This is done that he might bring upon them the judgement that they deserve for their evil (c.f. Romans 1:18-32; 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12).
Therefore, God does not give them unholy commands but allows them to embrace statutes which are evil. This is the meaning of the Hebrew text as accurately reflected in the New King James Version:
"Therefore, I also gave them up to statutes that were not good, and judgements by which they could not live."
Yet, the Arabic makara does not allow for other possible meanings. And the Quran itself gives examples of Allah using deception and sin to fulfill his will.
AUTHOR OF ABROGATION
According to the Quran Allah reveals a verse only to have it canceled out a short time later:
None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or similar- Knowest thou not that Allah has power over all things? S. 2:106When We substitute one revelation for another- and Allah knowest best what He reveals (in stages)- They say, "Thou art but a forger"; But most of them understand not. S. 16:101
This leaves us with the difficulty of having a God who does not remain consistent and often changes his revealed purpose. This being the case, how is one to know that the promises of such a Being in regards to eternal security can be trusted? Just as he changes his mind in relation to the revelation, he can also decide to change his mind in regards to the believer's ultimate destiny without anything stopping him from doing so.
This is different from Yahweh of the Holy Bible who does not change and as such can be totally trusted in fulfilling all his promises:
God is not a man that he should lie, nor a son of man that he should repent. Has he said, and will he not do? Or has he spoken, and will he not make it good? Numbers 23:19For I, Yahweh, do not change. Malachi 3:6
If we are faithless, he remains faithful; he cannot deny himself. 2 Timothy 2:13
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Hebrews 13:8
Because the God of the Bible is immutable he can promise, "Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will never pass away" (Matthew 24:35).
Two responses can possibly be presented and often are by Muslims. The first is the fact that abrogation is not referring to the Quran but to previous scriptures such as the Bible.
Unfortunately for the Muslims making this argument, this interpretation cannot be defended in light of S. 87:6-8:
By degrees shall We teach thee (Muhammad) to declare (the Message) so thou shalt not forget, except as Allah Wills: For He knoweth what is manifest and what is hidden. And We will make it easy for thee (to follow) the simple (Path).
It becomes obvious that certain parts of the revelation given to Muhammad will eventually be caused to be forgotten, since Allah later willed it.
The second response often presented is that the Bible clearly speaks of God regretting to create man or having repented of bringing on a certain disaster which he had planned to do. (c.f. Genesis 6:6; Exodus 32:14)
There are basically two responses for this assumed Muslim allegation. First, both the Holy Bible and the Quran use anthropomorphic language in describing both the nature and acts of God. For instance, both books speak of God's eyes, hands and feet without implying that these things are to be taken literally. The purpose of using such language is to communicate certain incomprehensible truths of God in human language in order for man to grasp certain realities of the divine nature. Hence, statements such as God having regrets is used to communicate certain realities to man in relational terms, i.e. that God identifies with our human condition and grieves for man's fallen state, having compassion for him.
Secondly, the reason for indicating that God refrained from fulfilling an act he had decreed is an indication of his divine patience. God does not desire to destroy the wicked but to save them, desiring that they come into repentance:
Say to them: "As I live", says the Lord God, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?" Ezekiel 33:11
Likewise, if a nation which has been promised prosperity turns to wickedness, God will also refrain from fulfilling his promises of blessing. This is pointed out in Jeremiah 18:7-10:
"The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster I thought to bring upon it."And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and plant it, if it does evil in My sight, so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I would benefit it."
An example of this is seen in I Kings 21:29 where God had sworn to destroy Ahab for his wickedness, but decided against it:
"See how Ahab has humbled himself before Me? Because he has humbled himself before Me, I will not bring the calamity in his days. In the days of his son, I will bring the calamity on his house."Or God deciding not to destroy Ninevah after seeing their sincere repentance and humbleness:
"Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it." Jonah 3:10
These examples indicate that certain warnings are given specifically to lead the person(s) into right standing with God, and are not given as a sign that the matter has been sealed and there is no averting the disaster.
AUTHOR OF HISTORICAL ERRORS
The Quran contains historical errors which implies that Allah is not an Omniscient Being, since an all-knowing Being would be able to accurately recall historical events. Below is a list of just some of the many problems we find in the Quran.
- In S. 17:1 we are told that Muhammad was taken to the farthest Mosque, Masjid al-Aqsa. The problem with this is that the Aqsa Mosque had not been erected since Abd al-Malik only built it in AD 691. It cannot be referring to the Temple in Jerusalem since that was destroyed by the armies of the Roman general Titus in AD 70.
- S. 18:9-26 alludes to several men and their dog who slept for approximately 309 years only to be awakened in perfect condition.
- According to S. 18:83-98, Alexander the Great called Zhul Qarnain, "the Two Horned One," was a Muslim who traveled till he found the Sun literally setting in a muddy spring. When we keep in mind that the title "the Two Horned One" was a title given to Alexander in pre-Islamic times, the Muslim attempts of trying to deny this fact utterly fails.
- According to S. 4:157 the unbelieving Jews boasted by saying, "We killed the Messiah Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of Allah." The only problem with this is that the unbelieving Jews never admitted that Jesus was Messiah and would not have killed him if they had believed that he was their long-awaited Messianic Deliverer. The unbelieving Jews had Jesus killed because they believed he was a false Messiah:
"And they began to accuse him, saying, ‘We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and CLAIMS to be Christ a king.’" Luke 23:2 NIV
- Christians are accused of worshiping Mary and Jesus as two gods apart from the true God:
And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, Worship me and my mother ... " S. 5:116
Christ the son of Mary was no more than an apostle- many were the apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His Signs clear to them ... S. 5:75
In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His Will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all - every one that is on the earth..." S. 5:17
This presumes that since Mary ate food and could be destroyed by Allah she could not possibly be divine. This gives the misleading impression that Christians believe that she is more than simply human.
In fact, the Quran proceeds to accuse Christians of worshiping three gods:
"They do blaspheme who say: Allah is the third of three (inallaaha thaalithu thalaatha)" S. 5:73"... so believe in Allah and His apostles. Say not three (thalaatha): desist: It will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah ..." S. 4:171
According to Muslim biographer Ibn Ishaq in his work, Sirat Rasulullah, a Christian deputation from Najran came to debate Muhammad on the person of Jesus. Accordingly, these Christians allegedly believed that Jesus, "is God; and He is the son of God; and He is the third Person of the Trinity, which is the doctrine of Christianity." (Alfred Guilliame trans., The Life of Muhammad [Oxford University Press, Karachi], p. 271)
He goes on to say, "They argue that he is the third of three in that God says: We have done, We have commanded, We have created and We have decreed, and they say, If He were one He would have said I have done, I have created, and so on, but He is He and Jesus and Mary. Concerning all these assertions the Quran came down." (Ibid., pp. 271-272)
The errors in the Quranic teaching on what Christians believe becomes apparent to anyone familiar with the basics of Christian doctrine. Firstly, Christians have never taken Mary as a goddess alongside God. Secondly, Christians have never said God is three or the third of three which is tritheism, three separate gods forming a unity; as opposed to Trinity, ONE God who exists in Three distinct yet inseparable Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Thirdly, Christianity has never taught as part of its doctrine that Jesus is the third Person of the Trinity. Rather, he is the Second Person, with the Holy Spirit being the third Person of the Godhead. Matthew 28:19
Fourthly, Muslims believe that Allah of the Quran is the same as God the Father of the Holy Bible since they do not believe in God the Son, Jesus Christ, nor in God the Holy Spirit who to Muslims is the angel Gabriel. This again causes a problem since if Allah is indeed the same Person as God the Father then the Quran is wrong in saying that Christians believe that the Father is the third of three. Christians teach that the Father is the First Person of the One True Godhead, not the third deity of three gods.
And finally, Christians do not believe that Allah is the Messiah, or that God is the Messiah since this implies that Jesus is the entire Godhead, which would be modalism. The correct and biblical statement is that Jesus is God, since this suggests that although Jesus is fully God by nature he is not the only Person who shares the essence of Deity perfectly. The Bible also teaches that both the Father and the Holy Spirit are fully God.
- Mary the Mother of Jesus is confused with Mary the sister of Aaron and Moses, the daughter of Amram:
Behold! The wife of Imran (i.e. Amram) said, "O my Lord! I do dedicate unto thee what is in my womb"... When she was delivered, she said: "O my Lord! Behold! I am delivered of a female child ... I have named her Mary... " S. 3:35, 36
"And Mary the daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity.." S. 66:12.
"... They said: O Mary! Truly an amazing thing hast thou brought! O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste." S. 19:27-28
"Then Mary (Heb. Mariam), the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took the timbrel in her hand ..." Exodus 15:20
"The name of Amram's wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, who was born to Levi in Egypt; and to Amram she bore Aaron and Moses and their sister Miriam." Numbers 26:59
This is an error of nearly 1400 years! How could Moses' sister Mary be Jesus' mother, making Moses his uncle?
Muslims give two responses in trying to deal with this anachronism. First, it is stated that the expressions "sister of Aaron" and "daughter of Amram" refers to Mary's lineage, i.e. that Mary was a descendant of Aaron and Amram of the tribe of Levi. Unfortunately for Muslims, this assertion cannot possibly be the case since Mary was a daughter of Judah and a descendant of David:
"Now Jesus Himself began his ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed the son of Joseph, the son of Heli ... the son of David ... the son of Judah." Luke 3:23, 31, 33
The words, "as was supposed," are given to clarify the fact that it is Mary's genealogy which is being presented, with Joseph acting as the male representative. This is supported by extrabiblical documents such as the Jewish tractate of the Talmud, Chagigah, where a certain person had a dream in which he saw the punishment of the damned. There, "He saw Mary the daughter of Heli amongst the shades." ( John Lightfoot, Commentary On the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica [Oxford University Press, 1859; with a second printing from Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1995], vol. 1, p. v; vol. 3, p.55)
In the book of Hebrews we are told that, "it is evident that our Lord ( Jesus ) arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood" Heb. 7:14.
And,
"I ( Jesus ) am the Root and Offspring of David, the Bright Morning Star." Revelation 22:16
It is therefore impossible for Mary to be a descendant of Levi, since both the orthodox Jewish understanding and the biblical record agree that Messiah would arise out of Judah (c.f. Genesis 49:10-12; Matthew 22:42-45).
Someone might interject at this point and suggest that the Bible calls Elizabeth a relation of Mary:
"Now, indeed, Elizabeth your relative also conceived a son in her old age..." Luke 1:36 NKJV
This seems to imply that Mary is of Levitical descent, since Elizabeth is addressed as one of Aaron's descendants. (Cf. Luke 1:5)
The term used for relative in the Greek is syngenes. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich define it as:
a. " The adjective refers to a person of common origin, i.e., belonging to the same family, race, tribe, or people. It can then mean 'related' in disposition, 'corresponding', 'analogous', or 'similar.'b. The noun means 'relationship' by descent or disposition, then more broadly 'analogy' (e.g. between deity and humanity, or ideas and the senses, or the stars and human destiny), whether in philosophy or popular belief." (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, abridged in one volume by George W. Bromiley [Eerdmans, 1985], p. 1097)
Hence, Elizabeth and Mary were related in the sense of being of the same race of people, i.e. the Israelites. But this meaning seems to be unlikely since this could be said about any other Israelite woman's relationship to Mary. It seems more likely that Elizabeth and Mary were blood relatives. This being the case, this still wouldn't prove that Mary was of the tribe of Aaron. All this would prove is that Elizabeth had Judean blood in her, since Levites were allowed to marry women from any of the twelve tribes:
"The woman he (the Levitical Priests) marries must be a virgin. He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his people." Leviticus 21:13-14 NIV
Ezekiel, in his vision of a restored priesthood and temple, further clarifies this point:
"They shall not marry a widow or a divorced woman, but only virgins of the offspring OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL, or a widow who is the widow of a priest." Ezekiel 44:22 ESV
The Holy Bible even provides an example of a priest who had married a woman from Judea, who was actually a descendant of king David:
"Now when Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she arose and destroyed all the royal family of the house of Judah. But Jehoshabeath, the daughter of the king, took Joash the son of Ahaziah and stole him away from among the king's sons who were about to be put to death, and she put him and his nurse in a bedroom. Thus Jehoshabeath, the daughter of King Jehoram and wife of Jehoiada the priest, because she was a sister of Ahaziah, hid him from Athaliah, so that she did not put him to death." 2 Chronicles 22:10-11
The foregoing demonstrates the plausibility of Elizabeth's mother being from the line of David, from the tribe of Judah, accounting for her being related to Mary.
Elizabeth could also be an aunt to Mary, see the entry on Luke 1:36 in the Bible Commentary section.
Muslims are not to be blamed for taking the phrase "brother of" as a reference to Mary's lineage since Muhammad also used a similar line of reasoning to cover up this error. In Sahih Muslim Mughirah ibn Shu'bah narrates:
"When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read ‘sister of Harun' (i.e., Mary), in the Quran, whereas Moses was born well before Jesus. When I came back to Allah's Messenger I asked him about that, and he said: ‘The (people of old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them.'" #5326
Again,
Ibn Abi Ahaybah and Ahmad and Abdel Hameed and Muslim and At-Tirmidhi and An-Nassaa'I and Ibn Al-Mundhir and Ibn Abi Haatim and Ibn Hibbaan and At-Tabaraani and Ibn Mardaweih ans Al-Bayhaqi in ad-dalaa'il, narrated that Al-Mughirah Ibn Shu'bah said: "The Prophet of God (PBUH) sent me to the people of Najran. They asked me: Do you see what you read? O sister of Harun while Moses precedes Jesus with such a long time? He (Al-Mughirah) said: So I went back to the Prophet and mentioned that to him. He told me: "Would you tell them the folk used to be called after Prophets and pious people who preceded them?" (Jalaaluddeen As-Suyuti, Ad-durr Al-Manthur)
The only difficulty with Muhammad's statement is that the Jews before and during the time of Christ never used this phrase in this manner at all. Not one single reference from the Bible, either Old or New Testaments, the Jewish literature before the birth of Christ, or even the Jewish Talmud and Targums after Christ can be found to support Muhammad's assertion. This is simply a gross error which cannot be swept away.
The second argument is actually a clarification of the first in that it is suggested that both the Bible and the Quran furnish further evidence for the term "sister of" being used to imply ancestry:
"His (Zechariah) wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth." Luke 1:5
It is obvious that the term "daughters" is speaking of Elizabeth's lineage and is not to be taken to literally mean that her father was actually Aaron the brother of Moses.
Again it is unfortunate for Muslims that this argument does not help them, but actually serves to weaken their argument. Although the Bible does use the phrases "son of," or "daughter of" to refer to ancestry, it never uses the terms "brother of" or "sister of" to indicate this fact. A few examples of the former usage include:
"So ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has bound- think of it - for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath'?" Luke 13:16"And Jesus said to him, 'Today salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham." Luke 19:9
"And behold, two blind men sitting by the road, when they heard that Jesus was passing by, cried out, saying, 'Have mercy on us, 0 Lord, Son of David.' " Matthew 20:30
Scripture never addresses a person as a "brother of Abraham," or "sister of David" when wishing to imply lineage. Hence, the Muslim position cannot be defended biblically.
The second example is from the Quran where Salih is called Thamud's brother:
"We sent ( aforetime ) to the Thamud, their brother Salih ..." S. 27:45
The term brother here refers to kinsmen, not actual bloodbrothers, exemplifying the many different ways the term is used.
Once again the problem is far from being resolved since the term "brother" is used to address Salih's contemporaries, not his ancestors. This implies that to call Mary Aaron's sister meant that Mary and Aaron were contemporaries, living at the same time.
Unlike the Quran, the Holy Bible contains no historical errors. Most attacks on the Bible stem from arguments from silence, i.e. the fact that no independent archeological research has been discovered in support of certain recorded biblical events. Yet, such arguments only prove that as of yet archeology has failed to furnish evidence against an event reported in the Bible. Other attacks center on the precise dating of certain archeological findings which some see as contradicting the Holy Bible's chronology. Again, one cannot say that the Holy Bible is in error when archeologists themselves are divided over the precise dating of certain discoveries. This is especially so when one realizes that there are certain archeologists who provide evidence which they feel proves that the data corresponds perfectly with the Bible's chronology of the events in question.
This is far different from archeology providing evidence to show that certain events did not occur in the same manner in which the Bible says it did. In fact, not one archeological discovery has ever proven the Bible wrong; discovery after discovery has demonstrated the amazing historical accuracy of scripture. The following quotations from the world's leading archeologists affirms this fact:
"Nowhere has archeological discovery refuted the Bible as history." ( John Elder, Prophets, Idols and Diggers [New York; Bobs Merrill, 1960], p. 16 )"Near Eastern archeology has demonstrated the historical and geographical reliability of the Bible in many important areas. By clarifying the objectivity and factual accuracy of biblical authors, archeology also helps correct the view that the Bible is avowedly partisan and subjective. It is now known, for instance, that, along with the Hittites, Hebrew scribes were the best historians in the entire ancient Near East, despite contrary propaganda that emerged from Assyria, Egypt, and elsewhere." (E. M. Blaiklock, editor's preface, New International Dictionary of Biblical Archeology [Grand Rapids, MI; Regency Reference Library/ Zondervan, 1983], pp. vii-viii)
The late William F. Albright, one of the world's foremost archeologists, stated:
"There can be no doubt that archeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition." (J. A. Thompson, The Bible and Archeology [Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans, 1975], p. 5)
Nelson Glueck, world renowned archeologist, concurs: "As a matter of fact, however, it maybe clearly stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible." ( Norman Geisler & Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask; A Handbook on Christian Evidences [Wheaton, IL; Victor, 1990], p. 179)
It should be noted that both Albright and Glueck were not conservative Christians and did not believe in the inspiration of scripture. Their conclusions were based strictly on the archeological data, forcing them to make the above admissions.
This cannot be said of the Quran with all of its historical and scientific mistakes.
AUTHOR OF CARNAL PLEASURES
The Quranic paradise is totally different from the biblical portrait of heaven. In Allah's paradise, we find sexual and carnal pleasures for believers to engage in throughout eternity:
But give glad tidings to those who believe and work righteousness, that their portions is Gardens, beneath which rivers flow, every time they are fed with fruits therefrom, they say: "Why, this is what we were fed with before," for they are giving things in similitude; And they have therein damsels (Arabic - Houris ) pure (and holy); and they abide therein (forever)." S. 2:25But to those who believe and do deeds of righteousness, We shall soon admit to Gardens, with rivers flowing beneath, their eternal home. Therein they have damsels pure and holy; We shall admit them to shades, cool and ever deepening. S. 4:57
Of a rare creation have We created the Houris, and We have made them ever virgins, dear to their spouses, of equal age with them for the people of the right hand. S. 56:35-38
But for those who fear Allah is a blissful abode, enclosed gardens and vineyards, and damsels with swelling breasts (Arabic - Kawa'eb), their peers in age, and a full cup. S. 78:31-34 (Arberry and Rodwell translate this part correctly, see also this overview page)
The orthodox Islamic understanding of these references are that Muslim men shall have a host of swelling breasted maidens to engage in sex with, who return to their virginal state after intercourse.
The paradise of Yahweh is one that is devoid of such carnality, being filled with the infinite love and joy of God instead. Hence, the believers' reward is to dwell with God forever in eternal glory:
"Jesus answered and said to them, 'The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection." Luke 20:34-36"The kingdom of God is not food or drink, but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." Romans 14:17
"And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, 'Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away." Revelation 21:3-4
AUTHOR OF FOREIGN WORDS
The Quran claims to be in pure Arabic speech:
We have sent it down as an Arabic Quran, in order that ye may learn wisdom. S. 12:2"An Arabic Quran, wherein there is no crookedness..." S. 9:28
And We know very well that they say, "Only a mortal is teaching him." The speech of him at whom they hint is barbarous- and this is Arabic, pure and clear. S. 16:103
But according to Arabic scholars the Quran is not in pure Arabic, containing dozens of foreign words:
Abariq, S. 56:18, Persian
Adam, S. 2:34, Akkadian
Araik, S. 18:31, Persian
Firdaus, S. 18:107, Pahlavi
Fir'awn, S. 73:15, Syriac
Habr, S. 9:31, Hebrew (Haver)
Istabraq, S. 18:31, Persian (Istabar)
Sakina, S. 2:248, Hebrew
Sijjil (baked clay), S. 105:4, Persian
Taghut (idols), S. 2:257, Syriac (Teghutha)
Zakat, S. 2:110, Syriac (Zkhutha)
Zanjabil (ginger), S. 76:17, Pahlavi
Muslims respond by presuming that all living languages adopt words from other cultures, and it is therefore not an error for the Quran to contain foreign words. This argument only works in regard to imperfect human beings who continually adopt and adapt to other cultures and customs.
Unfortunately for Muslims, this argument will not work for an all-powerful Being who is the Originator of human language. Such a Being is capable of inspiring his word in perfect Arabic completely devoid of foreign words, especially when he himself states that the Quran is in pure Arabic. This is even more so in light of the claim that the Quran is the eternal speech of God, i.e. that the Quran existed (on an eternal tablet) before the creation of human language. How can God's speech contain foregin words when these foreign languages did not exist in eternity? As one Muslim writer stated:
The Qur'an itself repeatedly asserts that it is a unique and inimitable "Arabic Qur'an" (12.2, 13.37, 16.103) in order to communicate its meaning in a perfect manner to a people who took great pride in the expressive quality of their language. Much of the early discussion about the linguistic components of the Qur'an centred on the presence, or otherwise, of non-Arabic words in it - of course, based on the premise that it was essentially an Arabic text. The verses referred to above became the key supportive texts for those who argued that the Qur'an did not contain any non-Arabic terms. The earliest exegetes, particularly those associated with 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas (d. 68/67-68), a cousin of Muhammad, freely discussed a large number of non-Arabic words in the Qur'an. Hadith literature credits Ibn 'Abbas and "his school" with having a special interest in seeking their origin and meaning. Later eminent scholars of the Qur'an such as the philologist/exegete Abu 'Ubayd (d. 838), however continued to argue that the Qur'an contained foreign words. Others such as Ibn 'Atiyyah (d. 541/1146), Suyuti (d. 911/1505), and 'Abd al-Rahman al-Tha'labi (d. 1468) tried to reconcile theology with linguistic principles. They argued that the foreign words in the Qur'an came into Arabic through the ancient Arab's contacts with other languages in foreign travel and commerce but that they had been thoroughly Arabized by the time of the Prophet [Sam- If this were so then there would have been no need to highlight the fact that these foreign words had become part of the language since this would have been common knowledge to native Arab speakers like Ibn Abbas. That an explanation was needed to explain why foreign words appear in the Quran demonstrates how weak this Muslim claim actually is!] Various theories were evolved to resolve THE CONTRADICTION between the notion ascribed to Ibn 'Abbas and the one which subsequently gained greater acceptance, i.e., that the Qur'an does not contain any foreign terminology. To deal with the actual occurrence of words in the Arabic language that were also found in non-Arabic languages, some of these scholars, such as Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi (d. 204/819) and Tabari, developed the notion of tawafuq (coincidence). They argued that both Arabic and other languages employ the same words with identical meanings and that this uniformity of meaning was purely coincidental.The idea of any language or discourse being absolutely free from expressions or words used in another language is alien to one of the most basic linguistic principles, i.e., the inter-relatedness of human speech. While this may sound trite, two factors, however, ensured that this notion was rejected by the "orthodoxy": first, the Qur'an IS NOT REALLY REGARDED AS HUMAN SPEECH BUT RATHER GOD'S AND GOD'S SPEECH CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO ANY LINGUISTIC PRINCIPLES. Indeed, as is commonly known, Qur'anic Arabic became the standard of Arabic grammar. (The problem of God's speech of necessity having to coincide with human speech for effect and meaning remains.) Second, for the "orthodoxy", God's own eternalness and self-subsistence fused with those of His revelation. The Qur'an and its language thus came to be viewed as equally timeless and independent of any "non-divine" elements, non-Arabic included. The fact of God's revelation occurring in Arabic (or any other language for that matter) alongside the insistence that this is the unmediated medium which was used by God raises an interesting question: If all comprehensible language and speech is the result of social interaction THEN DOES THIS IMPLY THAT GOD IS ALSO 'LIMITED' OR CONFINED TO THE LIMITATIONS OF LANGUAGE? If so, then WHAT DOES THIS IMPLY FOR THE ALL-POWERFUL NATURE OF GOD? (Farid Esack, The Qur'an - A Short Introduction [Oneworld Publications, Oxford 2002], pp. 68-69; bold and capital emphasis mine)
Not only does the Quran contain foreign words, but according to Arabic grammarians it also contains grammatical mistakes:
The Qor'an contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning, adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the concords of gender and number- illogically and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent- and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects ... To sum up, more than one hundred Qor'anic aberrations from the normal rules and structures have been noted... ( Ali Dashti, 23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Muhammad [Costa Mesa, Ca. 1994; Mazda Publishers], pp. 48, 50)
A few examples include the following passages:
- S. 7:56 - "The mercy of Allah is near"
Arabic - "inna rahmata Allahi qaribun min al-mohseneen."
The word qaribun is the predicate of rahmata Allahi, and as such should match in gender. Since rahmata is feminine the word qaribun (which is masculine ) should be qaribah, its feminine form.
- S. 7:160 - "We divided them in twelve tribes"
Arabic - "wa qata'nahom 'ethnata 'ashrata asbatan."
In Arabic, any noun which is counted by a number above ten should be singular, as is the case in S. 7:142; 2:60; 5:12; 9:36; 12:4. As such the Arabic asbatan should be sebtan.
- S. 5:69 - "Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Sabians, and the Christians, whosoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, and works righteousness- no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow."
Arabic- "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu was-Saabi'uuna wan-Nasaara man'amaana bilaahi wal-Yawmil Aakhiri wa 'amila saali-hanfalaa khaw-fun 'alay-him wa laa hum yah-zanuun."
According to scholars, the Arabic Saabi'uuna has been wrongly declined. Compare the same grammatical structure found in the following suras:
S. 2:62- "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu wan-Nasaara was-Saabi'iina..."S. 22:17- "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu was-Saabi'iina wan-Nasaara..."
In the last two suras the term was declined correctly, Saabi'iina, as opposed to Saabi'uuna. This is due to the word inna found in the beginning of the sentence causing a form of declension called "nasb" (as in the cases of accusative or subjunctive) with the "yeh" being the "sign of nasb". But the word Saabi'uuna is given the case of 'uu, a sign of "rafa" ( as in cases of nominative and indicative ). Accordingly, the verse in 5:69 is wrong.
- S. 91:5 - "By the heaven and that which built it."
Arabic- "was-samaaa-i wa maa ba-naahaa."
The word ma is impersonal in Arabic. Yet, the subject of the verse is Allah, heaven's Creator. As such the word man, meaning "him who", should have been used instead of the impersonal ma.
It should be pointed out that it is not only Arabic scholars who have discovered dozens of grammatical mistakes within the Quran, but Muhammad's very own companions in the past have also admitted this fact. The Muslim scholar Ibn al-Khatib in his book al Furqan quotes Muhammad's wife Aisha as saying:
"There are three grammatical errors in the Book of Allah, they are the fault of the scribe: In 20:63 ... And in 5:69 ... And in 4:162." (Muhammad M. abd al-Latif Ibn al-Khatib, Al-Furqan [Dar al-Kutub al-Elmiyah, Beirut], p. 91)
After seeing the first standard copy of the Quran, Islam's third Caliph Uthman proclaimed, "I see grammatical errors in it, and the Arabs will read it correctly with their tongues." (Ibid., p.90)
For the Quran to be the word of Allah and for Allah to be God one should find no grammatical mistakes, especially since Muslims claim that the Quran contains no human element whatsoever. Muslim view is that the Quran was dictated word for word to Muhammad, which implies that Allah is the Author of these grammatical errors. This disqualifies Allah from being God, especially Yahweh God of the Holy Bible.
To avoid this problem, Muslims assert that the Quran was revealed in a style called balaagha, which is an eloquent method of expressing the Arabic. Due to this feature, the Quran is not required to be grammatically correct since its aim is at eloquence.
Once again this assumption serves to undermine the Muslim position. It may be true that a document written by man cannot be both grammatically correct and still retain an optimum level of eloquence, since a human writer most often sacrifices one literary feature over the other. But this cannot be said of God since he can easily produce a book which contains both perfect grammar and eloquence without ever sacrificing one for the other. This the Quran fails to do.
ALLAH AND OATHS
A real point of difference between Allah and Yahweh is that Yahweh swears by himself, since there is nothing greater for him to swear by:
For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself. Hebrews 6:13For men indeed swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is for them an end of all dispute. Hebrews 6:16
Hence, every time God makes a pledge he swears only by himself to insure believers that he will do all that he promises:
"I have sworn by Myself; the word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that to Me every knee shall bow..." Isaiah 45:23"I swear by Myself, says the LORD." Jeremiah 22:5
Yet, Allah swears by things less than him:
Swears by the Quran
By the Quran, full of wisdom. S. 36:2By the Quran, full of admonition. S. 38:1
Swears by the sky and constellations
By the sky and the night visitant S. 86:1Nay verily: By the moon, and by the night as it retreateth, and by the dawn as it shines forth. S. 74:32-34
By the star when it goes down. S. 53:1
Swears by the pen
By the pen and by the record which [men] write. S. 68:1Swears by the city
Nay I do swear by this city. S. 90:1
Swears by the Creation
By the night as it cancels [the light]; by the day as it appears in glory; by the Creation of male and female. S. 92:1-3
The fact that Allah swears by practically anything and everything, while Yahweh swears only by himself, makes it very difficult for the two to be the one and the same God.
ALLAH IS NOT TRIUNE
The final proof that Allah is not Yahweh Elohim of the Holy Bible is that Allah is not a trinity. According to the Holy Bible, there is only One true God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Galatians 3:20).
Yet, at the same time Scripture affirms that this One God eternally exists in three Persons:
The Father
"...elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father..." 1 Peter 1:2
The Son
"... looking for that blessed hope and glorious appearing of our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ..." Titus 2:13
The Holy Spirit
"But Peter said, 'Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit... you have not lied to men but to God." Acts 5:3-4
Three in One
"... baptizing them in the Name (singular - implying unity) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit ..." Matthew 28:19
But the Allah of the Quran is not any of the three Persons mentioned above. For example S. 112 states,
Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, The Eternal, Absolute-, He begetteth not, Nor is He Begotten; And there is none like unto Him. S. 112: 1-4
Allah does not "beget" meaning that Allah has no children either in a spiritual or carnal sense. Thus, Allah can never be the Father. Nor does he allow himself to be "begotten", i.e. does not take on human nature such as God the Son did when he became man for our salvation. Finally, in orthodox Islam the Holy Spirit is not God, but the angel Gabriel. This fact separates Allah from ever possibly being the same God that Christians worship.
Furthermore, we read in I John 2:22-23:
"Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is Antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also."
Thus, to the Christians Allah cannot be the biblical God since the inspired New Testament record teaches that anyone denying the Father and Son as God is Antichrist.
One common Muslim allegation needs to be briefly addressed before concluding. In Exodus 31:17 it says that after Yahweh created the universe, he rested on the Sabbath and was refreshed. This description is not befitting God since he never fatigues nor does he need to be refreshed.
In response to this, as we have already noted scripture often uses anthropomorphic language in describing God's relations with man. The context of this passage deals with the necessity of Sabbath observance as a sign between God and Israel, and as such God is speaking to his covenant people in relational terms.
Just as God rested on the seventh day, it is important for Israel to do likewise especially in light of the fact that they are the chosen people of God and must imitate him by observing all his commands.
Furthermore, the term for Sabbath in Hebrew is shabat. It is listed in Strong's as #7673 with the following meanings: to stop, to cease, to rest, to end. Also, the term "refreshed" doesn't necessarily mean that God needed to take a breather after creating the universe anymore than the expression "my heart was refreshed" implies fatigue. Rather, it refers to God rejoicing over the goodness of his creation.
Thus, these terms do not imply that God literally needed to rest and be refreshed. It simply means that after the formation of man God stopped his work of creation and rejoiced at the fact that all creation up to that point was very good. (c.f. Genesis 1:31)
This interpretation is consistent with the clear teaching of Scripture that God never fatigues:
"He will not allow your foot to be moved- He who keeps you will not slumber. Behold, He who keeps Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep." Psalm 121: 3-4"Have you not known? Have you not heard? The everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, neither faints nor is weary. His understanding is unsearchable." Isaiah 40:28
To then try and use Exodus 31:17 as a prooftext while neglecting the overall context of scripture is rather poor exegesis and unscholarly, since the Bible is clear that God has inexhaustible power and energy.
Our brief examination of Allah as presented in the Quran leads us to conclude that he cannot possibly be the same God worshiped by Abraham and as described in the Holy Bible. The contradictions in attributes and nature between Yahweh and Allah are too numerous to pass over, and cannot be reconciled.
With that in mind, we must point out another major difference between the two; namely that the God of the Holy Bible gives an assurance of salvation through Jesus Christ the Lord, something which Allah never guarantees:
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes in him who sent me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgement, but has passed from death into life. John 5:24
And if anyone hears my words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. John 12:47
The Bible clearly teaches that there is no other way for man to be saved, since Jesus alone can guarantee eternal life, something which the Quran cannot promise any Muslim:
"Jesus said to him, 'I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through me.'" John 14:6"Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12
The reason why Christ alone can promise salvation is because he alone paid the penalty for sin which is death. By his death on the cross Christ provided the only acceptable sacrifice to God on behalf of sinners:
"Being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation) a sacrifice offered which satisfies the divine justice of God) in his blood ..." Romans 3:24-25"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23
It is therefore up to Muslims to decide whether to accept Jesus Christ as Yahweh's Son and the Savior of the world and receive the assurance of eternal salvation. Or continue to worship Allah of the Quran who never promises Muslims the joy of knowing that their sins have been forgiven, giving them the assurance of eternal salvation. The choice is left for the reader to decide.
NOTE TO THE READER
We are well aware that the name Allah is used by Arab speaking Christians for the God of the Bible. In fact, the root from which the name is derived, ilah, stems from the ancient Semitic languages, corresponding to the Mesopotamian IL, as well as the Hebrew-Aramaic EL, as in Ishma-el, Immanu-el, Isra-el. These terms were often used to refer to any deity worshiped as a high god, especially the chief deity amongst a pantheon of lesser gods. As such, the Holy Bible uses the term as just one of the many titles for Yahweh, the only true God.
Yet the problem arises from the fact that Muslims insist that Allah is not a title, but the personal name of the God of Islam. This becomes problematic since according to the Holy Bible the name of the God of Abraham is Yahweh/Jehovah, not Allah:
God spoke further to Moses and said to him, "I am Yahweh (YHVH) and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty; BUT BY MY NAME, YAHWEH, I did not make myself known to them." Exodus 6:2-3
Therefore, Christians can use Allah as a title or a generic noun for the true God, but not as the personal name for the God of the Holy Bible.
Articles by Sam Shamoun
Answering Islam Home Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)