ISLAM IS A LIE: HISTORICAL FACTS THAT PROVE THE TENETS AND FOUNDATION OF ISLAM ARE FALSE
Introduction
For too long, Christians have been complacent and unwilling to speak out against Islam due to fear of violence. But secondary to ignorance and apathy by the non-Islamic, peaceful world, Islam has now grown so large as to become a threat to civil society. Islamic hostility and violence have become commonplace in the Middle East, Africa, Pakistan, India, and is now taking root in Russia, Europe and England. If this religion was truly from God, as it spreads, it should bring peace and foster the growth of a society where education, freedom, art and human creativity flourish. But that is not what has occurred. Islamic society has brought cruelty to families, condemnation of marginal voices, brutality in the judicial system, murder of non-Islamic persons, suppression of individual expression and free speech, constant “religious” fighting, and war. While it is not within the Christian tradition to condemn those of other religions, it is also important to stand up against forces of evil that spread lies, suppress human freedom, and harm others.
In that spirit, this book is not an attack on Islam, but an educational treatise that explains the tenets of Islam, the fallacy of those tenets, the contradictions within the religion itself, and the history of how this has all occurred. If it offends, so be it. The truth must be told, and that is the responsibility of all Christians because Jesus, the Christ, is the Truth.
Both Christians and Muslims often mistakenly recite what they have erroneously heard time and time again, which is that Islam is an Abrahamic religion and that we worship the same God. This is a false narrative, and I will clearly and definitively explain that in this book. There is no real historical evidence that the Islamic religion derived from Ishmael. But there is very good evidence for satanic forces within Islam which have constantly and continuously been attacking and murdering Jews and Christians since 632 AD. It must stop for the sake of our Jewish and Christian brothers and sisters around the world. But this change will not occur through violence, just as Jesus did not bring down the Roman Empire by violence, but by the conversion of its constituents. So too, shall Islam be dissolved by the conversion of its followers to the Truth. It will only be when all Muslims convert to Christianity and realize that Jesus alone is the Truth that Islam will disappear from the earth and the world will have peace. And that is the purpose of this book. May it reach Muslims around the world who are lost in confusion within their search for God.
With the assumption that both Christian and Muslim readers will have access to this book and that both groups will have many questions, I have extensively referenced everything that I present, and I intentionally abstain from any reduction of the full reference, avoiding “ibid” and partial citations. Many citations have online links to the original source. Everything in this book is factual and thoroughly documented. If you doubt what I have written, then check the reference yourself. This book is not opinion, but fact. If you do not have time to read the entire book, then just read chapter 13.
Finally, and sadly, since almost anyone who points out an error in another’s belief system is often accused of “hate speech” or “hateful rhetoric,” I will have to put in writing that this book contains no hatred, but only education. It is up to the reader to absorb the evidence and decide the truth. May my Muslim sisters, whom I love, be free.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Chapter 1 Judeo-Christian Influence in Islam
Chapter 2 Can We Really Know Anything About God?
Chapter 3 The Quran Teaches a False Origin of Man
Chapter 4 The Delivery of the Quran Was Not a Divine Event
Chapter 5 Muhammad Was Not a Perfect Man
Chapter 6 The Quran Contradicts Itself
Chapter 7 Stories of Muhammad Are Lies That Mimic Jesus
Chapter 8 Most Muslims Have Never Read the Quran
Chapter 9 The Muslim God is Not the Christian God
Chapter 10 The False Narrative of Jesus in the Quran
Chapter 11 God as Trinity
Chapter 12 The Quran Claims That God Cannot Have a Son
Chapter 13 Muslims Say the Christian Bible is Corrupt
Chapter 14 Muslims Deny That Jesus Said He Was God
Chapter 15 The Quran Denies the Historical Crucifixion of Jesus
Chapter 16 Muhammad Was Never Mentioned in the Bible
Chapter 17 Other Considerations
Chapter 1
Error #1 The facts prove that the religion of Islam was not given directly from God to Muhammad because it shows extensive Judeo-Christian cultural influence.
Islam is the youngest of all world religions, only coming into existence about 1500 years ago when it was started by Muhammad, who was born in 570 AD and died in 632 AD. His name is sometimes spelled as “Mohammed” or “Mohammad.” Muhammad is credited with single-handedly creating the religion of Islam in the year 610 AD, but he did not write the Quran and never claimed to be divine. Muhammad lived in what is now Saudi Arabia and, at that time, this area was also colonized by Jews and Christians. The western province of Arabia, which was called “the Hijaz,” sometimes spelled “Hejaz” or “Hiyaz,” was a colonial dependency of the kingdom of Judah. [1] And the Himyarite (Persian) Kingdom of Saudia Arabia, which ruled the southern portion of the peninsula, welcomed the presence of the Jews due to the heavy trade and commerce that they brought into the region from the west. The Jewish immigrants also established agriculture along the western coast of Arabia, giving them greater economic power. [2] But many of the native Arabian tribes indigenous to the area still practiced their tribal religions and resented the Jewish presence as foreigners displacing their culture. [3] There is some historical evidence that the Jewish population in this area of the Hijaz became so concentrated that they formed their own sovereign Jewish state, but this is controversial. [4, 5] And it is important to realize that Christianity was spreading through the Jewish communities at this same time creating greater heterogeneity. Many Jewish converts to Christianity remained in the Arabia peninsula. As one historian wrote: Besides this [Christian] extension into much of Arabia of political spheres of influence, there was a cultural and religious penetration. The Ghassanids had long been Christians, and towards the year 600, the Lakhmid king became a Christian. With the encouragement of the great powers, and also apart from it, Christianity had been spreading among the nomadic tribes. By Muhammad’s time, there were Christians in many of the tribes, and some tribes, or sections of tribes, were largely Christian. [6] The cities of Mecca and Medina were within the western province of Hijaz, and there were three large Jewish tribes living within the province: the Banu Nadir, the Banu Qaynuqa, and the Banu Qurayza. The Arabic word, “banu,” means “descendants of” or “tribe of.” These (continued after references)
1. Ibn Khaldun. Kitab al-Ibar wa-Diwan al-Mubtada wa-I-Khabar. (Dar Al-Fikr Pub., Beirut, Lebanon, 1988), vol. 2, p. 342.
2. William Montgomery Watt. “Banu Kurayza”, in Encyclopedia of Islam. (Brill Academic Pub., Leiden, Netherlands, 1986) vol. 5, p. 436.
3. Norman Stillman. The Jews of Arab Lands: A History and Source Book. (Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, PA, 1979) pp. 22-28.
4. Butrus al-Bustani. Da’irat al-Ma’arif. (Dar Al-Marifa Pub., Beirut, Lebanon, 1876), vol. 11, p. 672.
5. Israel Wolfensohn. Tarikh al-Yahood Fi Belad al-Arab. (Al Nafezah Pub., Cairo, Egypt, 2006) p. 68.
6. William Montgomery Watt. Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 1974) p. 6.
tribes are mentioned in many Islamic writings, especially the Banu Qurayza which was slaughtered by a Muslim army led by Muhammad. [7] Muhammad, according to Muslim tradition, is believed to have been a descendant of the Quraysh tribe, sometimes spelled as “Qureshi” or “Quryshi” tribe, who had been living in the Saudi peninsula for hundreds of years. For the first twelve years after he started the Islamic religion, Islam was nothing more than a local cult and Muhammad tried to convert the nearby Saudi tribes, Jews, and Christians. But they did not convert and ultimately his own Quraysh tribe ran him out of the city of Mecca in 622. [8] He migrated to Medina that year and built an army with the indigenous Arab tribe, Banu Khazraj, who were already warring with the Jews. [9] The family of Muhammad were traders, with extensive experience traveling the trade routes of Saudi Arabia and having connections with merchants and natives all over the peninsula. Muhammad used these connections to convince the local traders, the merchants along the trade routes, and the indigenous natives traveling the trades routes that their country was being corrupted by the Jews and Christians living among them, and that they needed to take back their land by force. [10, 11] With thousands of men eventually accumulated under his military leadership, he went back and attacked and killed many local tribal, Christian, and Jewish colonies in Mecca, forcing them to convert to Islam or die. [12, 13] Islam was seen as the new creed that solidified the native inhabitants of Saudi Arabia against the foreign immigrants. He eventually used his new creed to gain followers who overtook the entire western Arabian coastline by military force. It is important to know that during his lifetime, Muhammad never claimed to be divine or to have miraculous powers, although he did claim to have been visited by divine spirits. After his death, his followers elevated him to the level of a divine prophet and organized his teachings and verses, that he claimed came from the divine spirits, into a “holy” book called the Quran, also spelled “Qur’an” or “Koran”. The Quran was not written until after the death of Muhammad who, being illiterate, did not write any of it. Recently, Muslim scholars have questioned if Muhammad was really illiterate. The Arabic script of the Quran used the word “ummi,” which had always been translated as “unlettered” or “illiterate.” But the word “ummi,” has several meanings, including “motherly,” “pagan,” “uneducated,” “heathen,” and “foundation.” [14] Thus, in the Quran, the phrase “al-nabi al-ummi” may mean “prophet illiterate” (continued after references)
7. Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 5, book 59, number 448.
8. Bernard Lewis. The Arabs in History. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 2002) pp. 36-37.
9. Francis Peters. Muhammad and the Origins of Islam. (State University of New York Press, New York, 1994) p. 94.
10. Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, eds. H.A.R. Gibb and J.H. Kramers, (Brill Academic Pub., Leiden, Netherlands, 1960) p. 80.
11. Ayman Ibrahim. “Muhammad’s Confrontations with the Jews” in, Muhammad’s Military Expeditions: A Critical Reading in Original Muslim Sources. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 2024) pp. 198-246.
12. Peters, Muhammad and the Origins of Islam, pp. 211-214.
13. Ibrahim, “Muhammad’s Confrontations,” pp. 198-246.
14. Rahmah Inestesyah Anwar. “The Word Ummi and Its Derivation in the Quran.” Eloquence: Journal of Foreign Language. 2022;1:1-6.
or “prophet to the heathens” or “prophet motherly.” The answer is unclear and remains controversial. Stories from the life of Muhammad were organized into other books called “hadiths” which are not considered to be divine. These hadiths are simply collections of historical events, legends, and admittedly exaggerated fabrications of incidents from the life of Muhammad. Several Muslim scholars openly admit that many hadiths are false. [15, 16, 17, 18] Other scholars believe that all of the hadiths were fabrications written in the 8th or 9th century and falsely attributed to Muhammad. [19] In fact, the Muslims have a word “maudu” which is applied to fabricated hadiths. And some hadiths were written even later, further chronologically distanced from the life of Muhammad and making their historical accuracy questionable. It is a historical fact that most of the hadiths are dated to the 8th and 9th centuries, long after Muhammad had died. [20, 21] This decreases the chances that truly factual information was retained. Because there are so many hadiths, well over 20,000, and some are believed to be factual and some erroneous, this has created many factions and denominations within Islam. While only the Quran is believed to be divinely inspired, the hadiths have created deep traditions in Islam, especially regarding the mistreatment of women, which have become part of the Muslim culture. The two collections of hadiths considered to be the most authentic are Sahih Al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. In fact, the Arabic word “sahih” means “sound” or “authentic.” Other hadiths considered less authentic, or unreliable, are described with the words “hasan” meaning “good” or “da’if” meaning “weak.” For this reason, when I cite the hadiths, I will mostly use Sahih Al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, or Sahih Al-Tabari, since Muslim authorities claim that these three collections are authentic in their stories and implications. Many of the hadiths are downright bizarre and include instructions about the correct way to “fondle a woman during her menstrual cycle,” [22] how to divide and distribute war booty, [23] how a man should urinate by holding his penis with his left hand only, [24] and many different ways a man can divorce his wife. [25] Although not considered to be divinely inspired, the hadiths often, whether true or false, quote Muhammad as saying, “Allah says this,” or (continued after references)
15. Muhammad Z. Siddiqi. Hadith Literature: Its Origin, Development, and Special Features. (The Islamic Text Society, Cambridge, England, 1993, originally published by Calcutta University Press, Kolkata, West Bengal, India, 1961) pp. 9-14, 31-43.
16. G.H. A. Juynboll. Studies on the Origins and Uses of Islamic Hadith. (Routledge Pub., London, UK, 1996) pp. 13-16.
17. William Muir. The Life of Mohammad from Original Sources, ed. T.H. Weir. (Voice of India Pub., Edinburgh, UK, 1912). Introduction, pp. xiii-xiv, xxi-xxiii.
18. Jonathan Brown. Hadith: Muhammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World. (Oneworld Pub., London, England, 2009) pp. 112-186.
19. Neal Robinson. Islam: A Concise Introduction. (Routledge, London, England, 1998) pp. 85-89.
20. Muhammad Z. Siddiqi. Hadith Literature: Its Origin, Development, and Special Features. (The Islamic Text Society, Cambridge, England, 1993, originally published by Calcutta University Press, Kolkata, West Bengal, India, 1961) pp. 9-43.
21. Jonathan Brown. Hadith: Muhammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World. (Oneworld Pub., London, England, 2009) p. 3.
22. Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 1, book 6, number 298-300. www.sahih-bukhari.com.
23. Sahih al-Bukhari vol. 4, book 53, number 324-412.
24. Sunan an-Nasa’i 24, book 1, hadith 24. www.sunnah.com.
25. Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 7, book 63, number 178-262.
“Allah says that,” which makes it seem like he is giving divine commands coming from God. Keep in mind that these hadiths, written long after Muhammad’s death, are quoting him as saying things from one hundred to three hundred years prior. [26] Thus, many Islamic groups treat the hadith rules and regulations like the laws of God, even though Muslim scholars admit to extensive fabrications and lies within the writings themselves. This is the very shaky foundation for “shia law,” “sharia law,” and “sunni law.” [27] However, regardless of which hadiths are true or false, it is a historical fact that from 632 until 732, Muslims, inspired by the military victories of Muhammad and their new national creed, took control of all of the territory from western Pakistan to central France, and intended to conquer the entire world. [28] And his Islamic followers have been trying to slowly do this ever since. Islam is best described as a culture deeply mixed with a religion. A religion which has its roots in indigenous Arabian tribal beliefs combined and heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs. And although Judeo-Christian beliefs are embedded within Islam, and the Quran itself often references the Bible, it is important to realize that, after the rise of Islam, the Arabian people were fighting against the same people who brought them these tenets of their faith. When the Muslims were still a small minority, and the Christians in Arabia outnumbered them, St. John of Damascus wrote a manuscript entitled, “Concerning Heresy” in which he discussed the “heresy of the Ishmaelites” referencing Islam. [29] And so it is very accurate to say that the Muslims were warring against people who brought them the foundations of their own religion. [30] How confusing would that be? Obviously, it would be impossible to wage a religious war against a group with the same, or a very similar, religion; and therefore, changes had to be made to separate Islam from the Judeo-Christian perspective. The new Islamic creed united the Arabian people against the foreigners. As William Montgomery Watt explains: The third law of cultural influence, the avoidance of a living culture of elements conflicting with its own fundamental values, emotional attitudes, or aesthetic criteria, is illustrated in the limited range of Biblical conceptions found in the Quran. There is nothing of the teaching of the writing prophets of the Old Testament, and practically nothing of the teaching of the New Testament. Such Biblical elements are relevant to a society with many centuries of settled life behind it. Meccan and Medinan society had only recently exchanged nomadism for a settled life, and it is not surprising that they most fully appreciated those parts of the Bible which reflect the experience of the Israelites in the period shortly after they had made a similar change. Islam thus stands within the Biblical or Judeo-Christian tradition, or to use a phrase which avoids any suggestion of inferiority, within the Abrahamic tradition. Yet it is no mere pale reflection of these older religions. It arises from the fusion of Biblical elements with an independent (continued after references)
26. Jonathan Brown. Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenges and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet’s Legacy. (Oneworld Pub., London, England, 2015) pp. 21-34.
27. Ashk Dahlen. Islamic Law, Epistemology and Modernity: Legal Philosophy in Contemporary Iran. (Routledge Pub., London, England, 2003) pp. 17-34.
28. Khalid Yahya Blankinship. The End of the Jihad State: The Reign of Hisham Ibn ‘Abd Al-Malik and the Collapse of the Umayyads. (State University of New York Press, New York, NY, 1994) p. 37.
29. Sidney H. Griffith. The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: Christians and Muslims in the World of Islam. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2010) p. 41.
30. Michael Nazir-Ali. Islam: A Christian Perspective. (John Knox Press, Westminster, England, 1984) p. 66.
movement of the human spirit arising from local conditions. All these aspects must be retained in explaining the birth of Islam. [31]
But this was not easy to do because, while many Jewish communities were seen as enemies of the Arabic tribal groups, many Christians had assimilated into Arabic culture and had acquired positions of power. The Nestorian Christian family of Bukhtishu served for eight generations as the private physicians to the caliphs and sultans of Arabia between the 8th and 11th centuries. [32] And Christian translators were crucial to expanding the knowledge of the Arabian people in the areas of medicine, science, and engineering since all of the texts at that time were written in the west. [33, 34] The transmission of classical wisdom through the establishment of centers of learning and libraries, where knowledge was translated into Arabic and taught to the students in Mecca and Medina, was all introduced by Christians. [35, 36] And the translation of Greek works into Arabic was almost exclusively performed by Christian scholars. [37] It was in this way that the Christian faith became woven into the foundations of Islam since the population was heterogeneous and the faiths intersected in education. Thus, the Arabia peninsula, at the time of Muhammad, was tremendously influenced by both Jewish and Christian religions which dominated in the area. The idea that Muhammad acquired the verses of the Quran completely independently as revelation from God is false. In fact, chapter two of the Quran, Surah Al-Baqarah, closely mimics the biblical chapters of Genesis and Exodus. [38] But there were gaps where Islamic culture had questions not answered by religion or tradition or science. And this is how the hadiths took root and became part of the fabric of Islam, since they “answered” questions that addressed problems within their culture, especially legal problems. [39] And these “answers,” for better or worse, came in the name of Allah. But it is exactly the mixture of culture with religion which makes those born into its creed hesitant to leave for fear of offending God. And that is why this book can go no further without talking about God.
31. William Montgomery Watt. Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 1974) pp. 54-55.
32. Poverty and Charity in Middle Eastern Contexts, eds. Michael Bonner, Mine Ener, Amy Singer. (State University of New York, New York, NY, 2003) p. 97.
33. Donald Hill. Islamic Science and Engineering. (Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, England, 1993) p. 4.
34. Remi Brague. The Legend of the Middle Ages: Philosophical Explorations of Medieval Christianity, Judaism and Islam. (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 2009) p. 164.
35. Karl Kaser. The Balkans and the Near East: Introduction to a Shared History. (LIT Verlag Pub., Munster, Germany, 2011) p. 137.
36. Philosophy in the Middle Ages: The Christian, Islamic, and Jewish Traditions, 3rd Ed., eds. Arthur Hyman, James Walsh, and Thomas Williams. (Hackett Publishing Co., Indianapolis, IN, 2010) p. 216.
37. Suha Rassam. Christianity in Iraq: Its Origins and Development to the Present Day. (Gracewing Pub., Herefordshire, England, 2005) pp. 83-84.
38. Quran, Surah Al-Barqarah, chapter 2.
39. John Hursh. “The Role of Culture in the Creation of Islamic Law.” Indiana Law Journal. 2009, vol. 84, issue 4, article 11, pp. 1401-1423.
Chapter 2
Can We Really Know Anything About God?
Before diving into the tenets of Islam and the motivation of Muhammad, it is important to understand some concepts about God. Right away, someone may ask what “facts,” if any, can be known about God? God is a mystery, and so isn’t one person’s opinion about God just as likely to be true as another person’s opinion? While it is true that a lot of authentic understanding of the nature of God is simply beyond human comprehension, there are many facets of the nature of God that we can understand simply based upon His creation alone. These are not scientific facts about God, but philosophical facts that we can discern based upon our human rational nature. Rational creatures do not come from an irrational God. We are rational because God is rational and His universe has order. Thus, we can use reason to understand a rational God.
The origin of this knowledge of the rational nature of God began with the writings of Aristotle, who sought to determine how the universe was created. Regardless of which religion you may profess, all people who believe in God will agree that God created the universe. I do not know of any religion, except pantheism and distorted interpretations of Taoism, that claims that God exists, but did not create the universe. With this in mind, we can examine the universe itself and learn things about the God who created it.
Let’s think about light. If you made the statement, “I do not believe that God knows anything about light,” most people would probably disagree. Since the universe is full of light and since God created the universe and light, He must know something about it, having created it. However, this is different from saying that “God is light.” Having made the universe, you could also conclude that God made rock. But God is not rock. The creator is not the created object, any more than the sculptor is the sculpture. However, the sculptor has knowledge of the sculpture, and God has knowledge of all created things. Thus, we could say God’s knowledge is complete and perfect since He lacks knowledge of nothing He created, and this includes emotions, feelings, and passions. Now, if for some reason, God did not have any knowledge of a certain object or emotion, then His knowledge would not be complete or perfect because he would be lacking this. Lacking a perfection that a thing should naturally have is called a privation. And the theory that evil is simply the privation of good (or the lack of God) was initially put forth by the Greek philosopher Plotinus [40] and later perfected by Augustine. [41]
If the human eye lacks vision, and is therefore blind, we would say that blindness is a privation. A perfect human eye naturally has vision, and so lacking vision is an abnormal state for the human eye. Blindness is exactly a “lack of vision” by definition. However, if you tried to instill some blindness into a balloon, that would be impossible because balloons don’t have eyes. No one would say that a cactus is blind, because vision is not associated with being a cactus, or a balloon. Only creatures with eyes, who have lost their vision, can be blind. Now
40. Plotinus. Ennead, transl. by A. H. Armstrong. (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1969), 1.8.5.
41. Donald Cress. “Augustine’s Privation Account of Evil: A Defense.” Augustinian Studies. 1989:20;110-115.
although you yourself may not be blind, you can understand and contemplate what blindness is since you have vision and can imagine what life would be like if you could not see: just close your eyes.
This concept is important when thinking about God. Just because God is not made of rock and does not have physical eyes, does not mean that He cannot understand rock, vision, or blindness. Further, it is important to understand that blindness, in itself, is nothing. You cannot instill blindness into a balloon and you cannot put some blindness on a shelf or mail it to a friend. Blindness is just a lack of vision, but that actual “lack” is nothing of itself. Now a person can become blind if someone or something takes away their vision, and their vision can be taken away because vision is a real entity. Blindness is just a lack of vision. Thus, vision is real, and it has “being.” But blindness is a privation and it is nothing of itself, and does not have “being.” [42] In a similar way, you may have some potato chips. Potato chips are real and have “being”. They exist. But if I do not have any potato chips, my lack of chips is nothing of itself. You can give me some potato chips, but you cannot give me a lack of potato chips. It is only by losing my potato chips that the “lack” now exists. Thus, “blindness” and “lack” are only descriptive terms that describe the absence of something that should be or could be present.
The reason that this line of thinking applies to God is because God is perfect. This will be explained more later on in the book, but since God is perfect, He lacks nothing. There are no privations in God. God cannot and does not lack anything that He should have and thus is perfect. We know that God has knowledge of all created things (since He created them) and therefore is not dumb. Stupidity is a lack of knowledge, but God does not lack any knowledge. Thus, “stupidity” is a privation which does not apply to God. In a similar way, God cannot hate. [43] Hatred is a lack of love or charity. Hatred is a privation. But since God is perfect, He never lacks love or charity, but is always full of love and charity. Thus, it is impossible for God to be dumb or to hate. Let me clarify that hatred is not an emotion. Anger is an emotion, and it may be theoretically possible that God could become angry. But hatred is intentional malice against another due to a lack of charity. Love is willing the good of another, and thus, the two are opposites. God can will the good of another, and He did exactly this by giving us life. God has proven His love by giving us life and all of creation. But God cannot hate because He would then have to will harm or perdition towards His creation which would imply a change. [44] And God cannot change, which will be explained below.
The Quran states that “God hates the non-believers in Islam” [45] and hates many other things as well, as found in Quran verses 3:57, 5:64, 5:87, 6:141, 8:58, 16:23, 31:18. Older translations of the Quran, such as the Saheeh International translation, used this original harsh language. But more recent English translations, like The Clear Quran: A Thematic English Translation, have softened a lot of the language, changing “hate” into “does not love” or “does
42. W. Matthews Grant. “Moral Evil, Privation, and God.” European Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 2017:9;125 145.
43. Paul Rorem. Pseudo-Dionysius: A Commentary on the Texts and an Introduction to Their Influence. (Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 1993) pp. 120-148.
44. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae. First Part, question 9, article 1 and 2.
45. Quran, Surah Al-Fath, chapter 48, verse 6.
not like.” A chapter in the Quran, Surah An-Nisa 4:34, describes how men should beat rebellious women, [46] but the newer translations changed the wording from “beat them” to “discipline them gently.” And chapter Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:60 describes how God will reduce “the Jews into apes and pigs.” The newer translations read, “…those who earned Allah’s condemnation will be reduced to apes and pigs.” [47] Since God does not hate, and would never encourage men to beat women, these statements are blatantly false.
But it raises some important questions about Islam. Muslims believe that the angel Gabriel dictated the Quran directly to Muhammad in Arabic, and so there was no translation. Thus, we must ask, did Gabriel really say to beat women or to discipline them gently? The two versions are very different. If Gabriel really said to beat women and to hate the Jews, then that is what the Quran should say without such variations in the language and meaning. Why has the language been changed? Did Muslims find it difficult to tell their young daughters that God wants them to be beaten?
It is irrational and erroneous to hypothesize that, “God can do anything and therefore God can hate.” No. God cannot deny Himself, He cannot change His nature or suddenly become an “evil god.” It is erroneous to apply human attributes to God as if he is an anthropomorphic deity living in heaven. As Pseudo-Dionysius used to write, “God is completely other.” [48] A completely different form of existence and being that we cannot completely fathom. But God cannot change. [49] Only things in time can change and God is outside of time. This will be explained in more detail later. Further, things that are eternal, like God, cannot change, and things that do undergo change cannot be eternal. [50, 51] More on that later, also. But for now, suffice to say that God cannot hate, or be dumb, or lack knowledge of anything. There are no privations in God.
How Did Aristotle Determine These Characteristics of God?
While we cannot know everything about God, and, in fact, can only know very little about God, we can learn some very important things about Him by just using our human rational nature. This is what Aristotle did. And one important thing to understand about Aristotle which gives his work a lot of credence is that he was Greek. In the ancient Greek society of his time, they worshipped many gods. But Aristotle did not conclude that any of those Greek gods was the real God. Further, Aristotle lived before Christianity in 300 BC. Islam didn’t even start until 610 AD. Although Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism co-existed on earth
46. Quran, Surah An-Nisa, chapter 4, verse 34.
47. Quran, Surah Al-Ma’idah, chapter 5, verse 60.
48. O’Rourke F. Pseudo-Dionysius and the Metaphysics of Aquinas. (University of Notre Dame Press, South Bend, IN, 2005) p. 29.
49. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae. First Part, question 9, article 1 and 2.
50. New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition. (Catholic Book Pub., New York, NY, 1970). Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8.
51. Eleonore Stump. “God and Time,” in Reasoned Faith: Essays in Philosophical Theology in Honor of Norman Kretzmann. (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 1993). p. 204.
at the same time that Aristotle was alive, there is no evidence that he was familiar with their ideas since he was living far away from the Middle East, India, and China, respectively. Thus, I think it is truthful to say that his ideas came from him alone untainted by monotheistic religions. Aristotle was raised in Greek society, like all the Greeks, as a polytheist.
Aristotle’s First Hurdle: Is God One or Many?
Living in a polytheist society that believed in many gods as Aristotle did, this is an appropriate question to ask. Even today, the Hindu religion believes in many gods. How did Aristotle figure this out? He thought about the concept of individuation. What makes one individual different from someone else? With living things like cats or dogs, we can tell one from the other by their different colors or different physical features. But even in the case of identical twins who look exactly alike, we can still tell them apart by their different personalities. We can conclude that although identical twins may look exactly alike and have identical bodies, biology, and DNA, they each have a different essence (soul) and a different act of existence, and are not the same being. With this in mind, how could we tell two gods apart from one another?
Since gods do not have bodies, we cannot tell them apart by any physical features. If gods have personalities, how would we get to know them? When Aristotle thought about God, he didn’t think of a person or a personality at all; but rather, he thought about “actuality.” Actuality is anything real, anything that is actual, or that exists. The opposite of this is potentiality, or something that just has potential to be, but is not real or currently actual. [52, 53]
Let’s say a little girl wants to be a pianist. Right now, she cannot play the piano. She is not a pianist in actuality, but she is a potential pianist. In the future, she may begin to take lessons. We can say that she has the potential to become a pianist, but is not an actual pianist currently. Three years later, after taking many lessons, she can really play the piano and is now an actual pianist. She went from having the potential to be a pianist, to being an actual pianist. She moved from potential to actual. This is what Aristotle thought corresponds to the behavior of God. He takes what only has potential (an essence without an existence), and makes it actual (an essence with an existence). [54, 55] Why would he think that?
Well, like most ancient Greek philosophers, he spent a lot of time in thought. He noticed that a small seed had the potential to become a huge plant, but it wasn’t a huge plant yet. It was only a seed. But somehow, inside that seed was all of that potential to become an actual plant. And he realized that this is true of everything. Wood has the potential to become a house. Bronze has the potential to become a statue. Everything has potential to become something else, but everything with potential needs something else to make it actual. The little
52. Aristotle. Metaphysics, transl. by Joe Sachs. (Green Lion Press, Santa Fe, NM, 1999). Book 12, chapter 6.
53. Joe Sachs. Aristotle’s Physics: A Guided Study. (Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ, 1995 ) p. 51.
54. Aristotle, Metaphysics, book 12, chapter 6.
55. Michael Durrant. Aristotle’s De Anima in Focus. (Taylor & Francis Pub., Oxfordshire, England, 1993) p. 206.
girl needed the piano teacher and the piano, and the seed needed the soil and water, and the wood needed a builder to make it into a house. Nothing in potential can actualize itself, but requires actualization by something that is already actual. If no one knew how to play the piano and if no one had a piano, then no one could teach anyone else. Someone has to already be an actual pianist with an actual piano in order to teach others. The seed came to be by another tree, which was already an actual tree. If there were never any actual trees or plants, there would never be any seeds. The wood became a house by a builder who was already an actual builder and knew how to build a house. If there were no actual builders, then there would never be any houses.
When you think about anything that exists, it was made actual by something else. When a couple gets married and thinks about their future children, their children are only in potential. The parents have the potential to create children. But right now, the children do not exist. But once they have a baby, now the child is an actual child. It exists. The baby required its parents to go from “potentially a baby in essence” (as an abstraction in the minds of the parents) to an actual baby in essence and existence. The baby could not make itself. A bronze statue cannot make itself. The statue requires the sculptor to create it. But Aristotle realized that if everything requires something else to bring it into existence, how did everything start in the first place? There must be something that has always existed that could make other things exist. Aristotle called this Thing the “unactualized actualizer”. [56, 57] In other words, something that has no potential at all and requires no actualizing itself, but is already fully actual, fully in existence, and can make other things exist.
Several hundred years later, another great intellectual named Thomas Aquinas concluded that God Himself is pure Existence, has always existed, and could never not exist. He concluded that the essence of God was pure existence itself. [58] And by being pure Existence itself, He could bring other things into existence just like a heat source can make other things hot. Another way to think of “existence” is “life.” God is fully alive and is life itself, and by this power can bring other things to life.
But how does this help us with the problem of one God or many gods? Well, if God is pure Existence or pure Life as Aquinas concluded, then can there be two gods of pure existence or two gods of pure life? Without material bodies to tell them apart like brown and black cats, we have to try to tell them apart by their essences, like we did with the identical twins. But if one god’s essence is pure existence, and another god’s essence is also pure existence, then that is the same thing. Again, without bodies or any material differences, spiritual realities are only separated by their essence. And so, if we have a god of pure existence and another god of pure existence, then we have the same thing. But there cannot be two gods of pure existence because there is only one existence which is life. Thus, two gods of pure existence would be the same god, the same entity of life, and so there is only one God of existence and life.
56. Aristotle. Metaphysics. book 9, chapters 7-10.
57. Edward Feser. Five Proofs of the Existence of God. (Ignatius Press, Fort Collins, CO, 2017). pp. 49-50, 66-67.
58. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae, part 1, question 3, article 4.
For Aristotle, there could only be one “unactualized actualizer” because if one god actualized another god (brought the other god from potential to actual and into existence), then the first actualizer is really God, and He created the other god who, by definition, is then not unactualized. [59] Any god created by another god is not God, but just a created thing. God is the first uncreated Existence, the original Life, of which there can be only one. And so, for Aristotle, polytheism died. There can only be one God.
Aristotle’s Second Hurdle: Is God Eternal?
Since God is pure existence and pure actuality, His existence has always existed. He is the uncaused cause of all other things. The eternal nature of God is probably more difficult for you to grasp than it ever was for Aristotle. But it is not hard to understand that pure existence could never not exist. And so it is silly to ask, “Who created God?” God has always been because the nature of pure existence is to always be. And since we know that many things do, in fact, exist, some “unactualized actualizer” must have brought everything into existence.
Second, it is important to understand that anything that changes is subject to time. If I move from the couch to the chair, then I used to be on the couch, but now I am sitting on the chair. I changed. And that change occurred in time. The person who I used to be on the couch is gone. I am now in a physically different location, I am very slightly older, and I have a new viewpoint. I am different. I changed. Similarly, if my hair slowly changes from brown to grey, it changes over time. It used to be brown, but now is grey. I am not the same person I used to be years ago. I look different now, I’m older, I’m wiser, and I’m not the same person. To say that anything is eternal implies that it cannot change. If God is eternal, you cannot say that God used to be merciful one thousand years ago, but now is vengeful. If that were true, then the “merciful God” is now gone, and has been replaced by a “vengeful God” and, thus, neither is eternal. The merciful God is now gone, and so is not eternal; and the vengeful God just came into existence, and so also is not eternal. What is eternal can never change. Keep in mind that God is outside of time. This idea was initially postulated by Boethius [60] in the year 523 AD and was later advanced and confirmed by Stump and Kretzmann. [61] Change can only occur within the reference frame of time. If you could imagine time standing still, then nothing would move and nothing would change. Once you enter into eternity, there is no change because there is no time. [62]
With God, He is always perfect and remains a perfect, uncreated Existence which does not change. Thus, we can safely say that God cannot hate for several reasons. First, if God suddenly becomes evil and begins to hate someone, He changed, and the previous eternal God
59. Aristotle. Metaphysics. Book 12, chapters 7.
60. Boethius. The Consolation of Philosophy, transl. H.F. Stewart, S.J. Tester, and E.K. Rand. (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1973).
61. Eleonore Stump, Norman Kretzmann. “Eternity.” Journal of Philosophy. 1981;78:429-458.
62. William Lane Craig. Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationship to Time. (Crossway Books Pub., Wheaton, Illinois, 2001). pp. 37-84.
changed into a new, hateful God and is no longer the same God. [63] Second, this would also imply that God is subject to time, which is false. If God went from loving to hateful, this would imply a “before and after” event within time. [64] But God is outside of time, and thus, is not subject to time and cannot change. [65] Third, God is pure actuality without potential. [66] If God had the potential to change, or a potential to become vengeful or hateful, then God is not a perfect Existence because He has the potential to err, to change, and to mess up. But this cannot be true because there is no other god to actualize God or bring His potential into actualization, and God cannot actualize Himself because that also would imply a change. If we believe that God is a perfect, everlasting Existence which has always been and always will be, then He cannot change because the change would annihilate the previous God. Suddenly, God would be a new and different God with different characteristics, and that is not the previous God, which means that God is not eternal after all. Thus, God does not change, does not have potential, but is a fully actual, pure, perfect existence without privations.
However, an interesting argument could proceed as follows. What if, rather than God having pure love and lacking the privation of hate, the truth was that God is full of pure hate, and does not have the privation of love? Maybe hate is the constant, and love is just a privation of hate? Or what if God does not love or hate, but is only justice and dispenses an unchanging justice throughout eternity? This idea actually may have crossed Aristotle’s mind. What makes us think that God is loving at all? Please keep in mind that Aristotle lived before Christianity and so the idea of a “loving God” was not a common belief in Greek society. [67] Here is a summary of Aristotle’s thought.
First, to exist is good. To not exist is bad. God’s ability to never go out of existence is a good thing. It would be bad if God could die. It would be bad for both God and us. And therefore, God’s pure existence has to be viewed as a good thing, and His bringing other things into existence was also a good thing. Thus, creation is good. I think everyone would agree that if God eternally existed by Himself and never created anything at all, that would be somewhat selfish and not good. By His creation, God has shown His goodness. But God did not just create objects, but also living things. He went as far as to share Life itself with creatures that could also live, think, judge, console, and show love. When a young couple has a baby, no one says, “How awful! More created life! I hate new life!” Or when someone drives by a large field full of growing crops, they do not think, “How horrible! Look at that terrible growth and bounty!” No. Humans view new life, growth, fruit, harvest, and nature showing its bounty as a good thing. Thus, life is good. God has not only showed His goodness by sharing His life, and creating new life, but also by making life itself good. [68]
63. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, part 1, question 3, article 6.
64. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, part 1, question 10, article 1.
65. Stump, Kretzmann, “Eternity,” pp. 430-7.
66. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae, part 1, question 3, article 7.
67. Walter Burkert. Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical. (Wiley-Blackwell Pub., Hoboken, New Jersey, 1991) p. 22-28.
68. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae, part 1, question 6, article 4.
It would be irrational for God to create a very vast universe and extensive amounts of life which He hates. If He did, then in turn, we should also hate life, and hate new life, and hate the world God created. And only when the fires of hatred have burned low would we occasionally see the privation of love pop up, and just for brief minutes until the hate returns. But this is really not the case as we see reflected in reality. Yes, we encounter hatred in life, but it is not the baseline.
Although I am not sure that I really hate anything, I can certainly stir up some great dislike for spiders. I really do not like them. However, I never go out and collect a bunch of spiders, bring them into my house, and then take pleasure in killing them. I would much prefer to just avoid them altogether, never see them, never kill them, and just keep them far away. And yet would anyone think that God would create the entire human race just to destroy them because He hates them? It seems unlikely and doesn’t make rational sense considering the natural love we have for life and creation. If we are made in the image of God, we love what God loves. And we love life, we love each other, we love our families, we love animals, and we love the earth. Thus, love is the baseline essence. Hate is the privation.
Aristotle’s Third Hurdle: Is God a Composition of Attributes?
If God is pure Existence, which I just proved was true and which Aquinas also believed, then how do we explain the “attributes” of God? In other words, if God is pure Existence, then how is God also love? If God is pure Existence, then how is God mercy? I have just proven that God is pure Existence and now I am left with a cold, impersonal, distant God that is not really the God I came to know, nor one that I could love. Further, if God is pure Existence, and again, I must insist that is true, then how does the pure Existence create, account for, relate to, or cause the forms of love, mercy, compassion, beauty and all of the other essences that we can abstract in our minds? It is actually easier to believe that a pure Existence could create matter, plants, and living things; but it is hard to understand how Existence created essences without containing those same essences within its own Being. After all, a fire has to be hot in order to make other things hot. Doesn’t God have to have love in order to instill love in others, or have beauty in order to make other things beautiful? Here is what Aristotle decided.
For anyone reading this book who does not have experience in philosophy, let me explain something very quickly. You may be asking yourself, “Why can’t God be pure Existence and also have the properties of love, mercy, and other attributes? What’s the big deal?”
Well, the reason is that God cannot be composite. [69] His essence must be singular. Let’s say, for example, that we claim that God is Existence plus some beauty and some mercy. Then God is now these three things (this is not true, but just an example). Well, two questions immediately arise. First, who put God together? In order for God to be a composite of three things, someone or something had to put the existence, beauty, and mercy together or somehow “assemble” God, which could not be God because God cannot be created by another
69. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae. Part 1, question 3, article 7.
entity. And an entity cannot create itself. If God created Himself, then He would have had to exist before He existed in order to create Himself, and that would be impossible. And so God cannot create God. God must always be.
Second, if you claim that God was just pure Existence, but then later added to Himself some beauty and then some mercy, then that would mean that God has parts. If God has parts, then you could theoretically say that the “mercy part” of God is not eternal because it was created some time after His existence. And that implies that He was not merciful before the “mercy part” was added. Further, as we previously discussed, whatever can change cannot be eternal. And so, if God changed, He is not eternal. Although our finite minds are limited, we do understand that God must be a singular entity without parts or composition.
The classical teaching from theologians would say that God’s simple unity as pure Existence is beyond the direct comprehension of our finite human minds. The essence of God is beyond our understanding. And so, while God is pure Existence, how that existence maintains the essence of God is incomprehensible. While that may seem like a copout, it would appear to be true for two reasons.
First, if we could completely understand God, then we would also be divine. It would take a god to understand God. Our intellect would have to be at least close to the intellect of God in order to understand God. But we can’t understand God and so this seems to be true. Second, since God created all things, He must have knowledge of what He created. How could God create a planet or a tree and know nothing about planets or trees? Thus, God must have knowledge of all things He created which includes mercy, beauty, courage, love, and all of the forms that Plato wondered about. [70] But exactly how this knowledge resides within God is unknown.
Some have used the analogy of white light passing through a prism with a rainbow of colors coming out the other side. The singular white light is broken down into its component parts of many colors by the prism, which represents the human mind. The “white light” is the existence of God, the prism is our human mind, and the rainbow of colors are the attributes of God. As the singular light of God enter our minds, we “break down” the light and interpret it through our human lens as beauty, mercy, goodness, justice, etc. But from God’s perspective, there is only one light of His Existence. From our perspective, through the prism of our minds, there are many “colors” of God. Thus, the attributes of God are really only a human interpretation of what God is. God is one essence of Existence, but we see many attributes on our end through the prism of our mind.
Aristotle’s Fourth Hurdle: How Does God Contain Goodness, Beauty, and Perfection?
I grouped these together because Aristotle and Aquinas both realized that to exist is a good thing. To never die is a good thing. To be eternal Existence is a good thing, and everything
70. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae. Part 1, question 14, article 5-6.
that God has imparted existence to, such as angels, planets, humans, whales, trees, and roses are all good. [71] Therefore, God must be good because to exist is good, and to give existence to other things is very good, and what He created is good. [72] It was nice of God to makes a bunch of things exist, rather than just to exist all by Himself. Further, God is beauty because beauty is both created and shared. While we can all agree on what is beautiful, like a sunset or a landscape, we didn’t create the idea of beauty or create our desire for it. We only enjoy it. But it came from God as the source of all existence. It is because the idea of beauty originates in God that His creation shares that same idea of beauty. [73] And this is why you and I agree on what is beautiful.
But is God perfect? If we say that an object is not perfect, that implies that it does not do what it should, or does not do it very well. But on the other hand, if an object is perfect, that means it does what it should, it works as it should, everything in it functions as it should, and it does all of those things very well. When something is broken, it is not perfect. A lack of perfection implies defects. But most things with defects or a broken part can be repaired and made perfect again. Thus, I could say that my clock is potentially perfect, but right now, it’s broken. Once the clock is fixed and keeps perfect time, then we say that it is perfect. If the clock could never break, it would always be perfect. Since God can never not exist, His existence is perfect. His existence has no defects. [74]
Philosophically, we call a lack of a perfection a privation, as I previously discussed. If God is not perfect because He begins to hate, then that would mean that God has the potential to be perfect again by fixing His hatred. But there is no potential in God. [75] God is pure actuality as described by Aristotle and pure action within a pure Existence. [76] He cannot “get better,” change or improve. Further, if God has a defect, or a privation, then that would mean that He is lacking something He should naturally have. But we have already discussed how God is pure Existence and lacks nothing, and so He cannot have privations and is therefore perfect. A complete lack of love is hatred. Hatred is a privation. A complete lack of generosity is greed. Greed is a privation.
A complete lack of wisdom is ignorance. Ignorance is a privation. You cannot give someone ignorance, but you can impart wisdom. You can teach someone something, but you cannot withdraw knowledge from them and leave them dumber. This is why the perfections of God are real essences with being, and privations are nothing except a lack of the opposite perfection. [77] This is important when we discuss the nature of God. It should now be immediately apparent to you that statements such as, “God hates,” or “God deceives,” or “God changed,” are false.
71. Aristotle. Metaphysics. Book 1, chapters 2-3.
72. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae. Part 1, question 6, articles 1-2.
73. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae. Part 1, question 4, article 1.
74. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Part 1, question 4, article 2.
75. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae. Part 1, question 4, article 1.
76. Aristotle, Metaphysics, book 1, chapter 9.
77. Duns Scotus. Treatise on the First Principle, transl. Thomas M. Ward. (Hackett Pub., Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2024). pp. 45-73.
Chapter 3
Error #2 The Quran teaches a false origin of man.
This chapter of the book will prove the following five points.
1. The Quran incorrectly describes how a human embryo forms.
2. Muhammad claimed that the “angel Gabriel” told him how a baby forms in the womb and how long it takes to form, but both answers are wrong.
3. One part of the Quran says that God formed man from a blood clot, while another section says that God formed man from black mud.
4. The Quran claims that there is a second species of humanoid creatures God created that are called “jinn.” This is mythology.
5. Muhammad claimed that the “angel Gabriel” told him that the reason that some children look like their mother, while some look like their father, depends upon which parent had an orgasm first.
By Islamic tradition, Muhammad was praying in a cave when the “angel Gabriel,” yes, the same angel mentioned in the Christian Bible, appeared to Muhammad and told him to read a message from God. The story does not say on what the message was written. However, Muhammad was supposedly illiterate and could not read or write, and told Gabriel that he could not read. Right away, this should cause you to wonder why, if this was a true account, would a divine being, such as an angel, not already know that Muhammad could not read? But the story continues that Gabriel revealed the verses to Muhammad who memorized them. At the initial encounter, Gabriel only revealed a few verses of the Quran (96:1-5), which are now known as the “first five verses” of the chapter “Al-Alaq” or “Surah Al-Alaq” and which translates as “The Clot”. Here are those first five verses:
In the name of your Lord Who created, Created man from a clot. And your Lord is the Most Generous, Who taught by the pen, Taught man that which he knew not. [78]
If God was going to give the human race a revelation, then Surah Al-Alaq is certainly an interesting choice and I am still wondering what it means. Unlike the Bible which has ordered stories and chronology, the Quran is just a mix of random poems, quotes, threats, instructions, and praises without any order, dates, or timeline. It is not a story at all, but just a collection of sentences or verses. But this opening line is very suspicious of fraud by historical anachronism. By fraud, I mean that the opening line was actually not a message from God, but simply a man made verse. Here is why. If God gives a revelation, naturally, it has to be true. God does not lie. At least no religion teaches that God lies. The Bible, from both Jewish and Christian antiquity, has taught that the devil is the “father of lies.” And so I want to focus on the line “created man from a clot.”
78. Quran, Surah Al-Alaq, chapter 96, verses 1-5.
The Quran was composed after Muhammad’s death around the year 650-680 AD. Other contemporary writings from this time show that human reproduction was believed to occur when the male ejaculate fertilized the female menstrual blood, or clot, inside the uterus. If a baby was not conceived, the female had a menstrual cycle and passed the unfertilized blood and clot. This notion that it was the female menstrual clot which produced life started with Aristotle’s writing of the Generation of Animals in the year 350 BC which erroneously described how animal reproduction occurs via male semen combining with menstrual blood. [79, 80] While Aristotle was an excellent philosopher, he was no biologist. Aristotle wrote:
If then the male element prevails, it draws the female element into itself, but if it is prevailed over, it changes into the opposite or is destroyed. But the female is opposite to the male, and is female because of its inability to concoct and of the coldness of the sanguineous nutriment (menstrual blood). And Nature assigns to each of the secretions the part fitted to receive it. But the semen is a secretion, and this in the hotter animals with blood… wherefore the recipient parts of the secretion in males are only passages. But the females, owing to inability to concoct, have a great quantity of blood, for it cannot be worked up into semen. Therefore, they must also have a part to receive this, and this part must be unlike the passages of the male and of a considerable size. This is why the uterus is of such a nature, this being the part by which the female differs from the male. [81]
Many writings from brilliant minds such as Aquinas and Albert the Great from antiquity also reflect this false notion. [82, 83, 84, 85] This idea that human procreation occurred via the mixture of semen with menstrual blood persisted until the year 1665 when it was discovered that male spermatozoa and female ova combine to form a human embryo. [86, 87] The caliphs who wrote the Quran after Muhammad’s death around 650 AD are reflecting the false reproductive scientific beliefs of the time. But God knows how humans actually reproduce. A divine message from God would not contain a scientific error, that He “created man from a clot.” Further, in order to create man from menstrual blood, a woman would have to already exist! Thus, this was not a true message from God, but a man-made lie. The authors would have been more truthful stating that God made man “ex nihilo” (from nothing, as Christians believe) or from the earth, if you are an evolutionist.
79. Aristotle. Generation of Animals. Books I-VI, transl. Arthur Platt. (Clarendon Press, Oxford, England, 1910).
80. Kremer J. “De hematogene voortplantingsleer van Aristoteles”, (The hematogenous reproduction theory of Aristotle.) Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. [Article in Dutch] 2003;147:2529-35.
81. Aristotle, Generation, book IV, 766, 15-25.
82. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, part I, question 118, article 1, objection 4 and reply to objection 4.
83. Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, book 2, chapter 89, article 8.
84. Albert the Great. On Animals, IX, 2, 3, transl. K.F. Kitchell Jr. and I.M. Resnick (The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 1999) p. 815.
85. Amalia Cerrito. Albert the Great and the Configuration of the Embryo. (Palgrave Macmillan, London, England, 2024).
86. Cobb M. “An Amazing 10 Years: The Discovery of Egg and Sperm in the 17th Century.” Reproduction in Domestic Animals.2012;47:2-6.
87. Clarke GN. “Assisted reproductive technology (ART) and history, 1678-1978.” Human Reproduction. 2006;21:1645-50.
This erroneous teaching appears for Muslims again in the hadith Sahih al-Bukhari when Muhammad, supposedly inspired by the angel Gabriel, tells his apostles how human beings are created. He says:
A human being is put together in the womb of the mother in forty days, and then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period, and then a piece of flesh for a similar period. Then Allah sends an angel who is ordered to write four things. He is ordered to write down his deeds, his livelihood, his date of death, and whether he will be blessed or wretched in religion. Then the soul is breathed into him. [88]
Again, neither God nor an angel would give a true prophet false information about how a human being is created in the womb. None of this information is accurate as regards the correct embryogenesis of a human fetus. Thus, we must conclude that either Muhammad was lying, or his “angel” was lying.
However, in a different part of the Quran, Surah al-Hijr chapter 15, it says that God, referring to himself as “We,” says, “Indeed, We created man from sounding clay molded from black mud.” [89] And, in a different passage, it repeats the idea, “Remember, O prophet, when your Lord said to the angels, ‘I am going to create a human being from sounding clay molded from black mud.’” [90] And while this passage is much different from “the clot” origin of man, the Quran says both. A reader must ask, which is it? Did God make man from a clot or from mud? Clearly, the Quran contradicts itself. In addition, while we are on the topic of creation, the Quran does copy the Bible and mentions the name “Adam” as the first human being, but never mentions the creation of “Eve.” [91] Only in a later verse does it mention that Adam has “a wife.” [92] It is rather strange that the Quran never mentions Eve, but mentions “the clot.” Thus, every rational person must conclude that at least this portion of the Quran is erroneous. And while this may not seem like a big deal to atheists or Christians, keep in mind that Muslims insist that every word of the Quran is exactly what God said.
But there are additional creation errors in the Quran. The Quran goes on to describe how, after the creation of man, God did not stop there, but also created another race of humanoid creatures called “jinn.” The jinn are mentioned as being created by God in two passages in the Quran without much explanation as to what or who they are. The first passage reads, “As for the jinn, We created them earlier from smokeless fire” [93] and the second passage reads, “I have only created jinn and men, that they may serve me.” [94] Neither the Quran nor any hadiths explain what the jinn are, but it is clear that they are not angels since angels are often mentioned in the Quran by name. In fact, this has confused Muslim scholars since there appears to be no rational explanation for what the jinn represent. The jinn must be some type of human-like creatures, since another passage in the Quran reads, “Remember, O prophet, when we sent a group of jinn your way to listen to the Quran. Then, upon hearing it, they said
88. Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 4, book 54, number 430.
89. The Quran, Surah al-Hijr, chapter 15, verse 26.
90. The Quran, Surah al-Hijr, chapter 15, verse 28.
91. The Quran, Al-Baqarah, chapter 2, verse 31.
92. The Quran, Al-Baqarah, chapter 2, verse 35.
93. The Quran, Surah al-Hijr, chapter 15, verse 27.
94. The Quran, Adn-Dhariyat, chapter 51, verse 56.
to one another, ‘Listen quietly!’ Then when it was over, they returned to their fellow jinn as warners.” [95] And another passage reads, “Say, O prophet, it has been revealed to me that a group of jinn listened to the Quran and said to their fellow jinn, ‘Indeed, we have heard a wonderous recitation.’” [96] And there is also a story in Sahih al-Bukhari where Muhammad supposedly caught a jinn, but then decided to let it go before anyone could see it.
The prophet said, “A strong demon from the Jinns came to me yesterday suddenly, so as to spoil my prayer, but Allah enabled me to overpower him, and so I caught him and intended to tie him to one of the pillars of the mosque so that all of you might see him, but I remembered the invocation of my brother Solomon: “And grant me a kingdom such as shall not belong to any other after me,” so I let him go cursed. [97]
Since they clearly have bodies, can be seen, can be potentially tied to pillars, can understand language and are not angels, Muslims are left confused by their own book. Is this not mythology? Early Muslim scholars all accepted the existence of the jinn as fact. But later Muslim scholars, likely strongly influenced by rationalism, totally rejected the idea of the creation of the jinn despite these passages still being present within the Quran. In fact, an entire chapter of the Quran, Surah Al-Jinn, chapter 72, is completely devoted to the jinn. [98] Many Muslims falsely believe that the jinn are spirits, but they are definitely not spirits according to the Quran and the hadiths since they can be seen, have bodies, and can learn. Further, an early Muslim holy man named Ibn Taimyya (Shaykh ul Islam Ibn Taymiyah), in his famous Muslim text, An-Nabuwat, wrote that humans could ride on the back of a jinn like a horse and fly to distant places, but they were not animals since they could understand teaching and some became his disciples. [99] At this point, it appears Islam has entered into science fiction or fairy tales. Contemporary Muslim scholars attempt to address the passages, but offer no real answers. One Muslim scholar wrote, “Could the jinn represent some earlier stage in the course of evolution? Be that as it may, mention of the jinn ceases in the Madinan period of the Quran, which continues to call itself ‘guidance for man’ and, in fact, never addresses the jinn primarily, or even directly.” [100] Muslims must answer the questions that if the Quran is the true revelation from God, what do the jinn represent, where are they, and why did God create them? Or does the Quran contain false information?
But the creation lies do not stop with the jinn. There is another odd passage in hadith Sahih al-Bukhari where a doubter in Medina asks Muhammad to prove that he is a prophet by answering three questions that only a prophet would know. The passage reads:
When Abdullah bin Salam heard of the arrival of the prophet at Medina, he came to him and said, “I am going to ask you about three things which no one knows except a prophet: What is the first portent of the hour? What will be the first meal taken by the people of paradise? Why does a child resemble its father?” Allah’s apostle said, “Gabriel has just now told me the answers.” Abdullah said, “Gabriel, from amongst all the angels, is the enemy of the Jews.” Allah’s apostle said, “The first portent of the hour will be a fire
95. The Quran, Surah al-Ahqaf, chapter 46, verse 29.
96. The Quran, Surah al-Jinn, chapter 72, verse 1.
97. Sahih Al-Bukhari, vol. 4, book 55, number 634.
98. The Quran, Surah al-Jinn, chapter 72.
99. Kausar Niazi. Creation of Man. (Ferozsons Ltd. Pub., Karachi, Pakistan, 1975) p. 26.
100. Fazlur Rahman. Major Themes of the Quran. 1st Ed. (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1979) p. 123.
which will bring together the people from the east to the west; the first meal of the people of paradise will be extra lobe (caudate lobe) of fish liver. As for the resemblance of a child to its parents: if a man has sexual intercourse with his wife and gets discharge first, the child will resemble the father; and if the woman gets discharge first, the child will resemble her.” [101]
Since we know that children do not resemble their parents due to the causes described by Muhammad, then either Muhammad lied or the angel lied to Muhammad. But we know that angels do not lie. Thus, either Muhammad lied, or the “angel” giving Muhammad these answers was not an angel after all. Again, I want to emphasize that Muslims believe that every word in the Quran came from God and is true! But clearly, these things are not true! The Christian Bible contains a passage in 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 which reads, “And no wonder, for even Satan masquerades as an angel of light. So it is not strange that his ministers also masquerade as ministers of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.” [102] Thus, these writings, which come from Islam itself, prove it is false.
101. Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 4, book 55, number 546.
102. The New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition. (Catholic Book Publishing, New York, NY, 1970). 2 Corinthians 11:14-15.
Chapter 4
Error #3 The delivery of the Quranic verses to Muhammad was not a divine event from God.
This chapter of the book will prove the following seven points.
1. The spirit that appeared to Muhammad in the cave at Hira was not the angel Gabriel because the interaction was angry and violent. The exchange between the spirit and Muhammad was not characteristic of the four appearances of Gabriel in the Bible, nor consistent with the appearance of Gabriel to Mary in the Quran (which is copied from the Bible).
2. After the spirit visited Muhammad, he became suicidal.
3. The spirit terrorized Muhammad and he would hide from the spirit.
4. Muhammad’s family and friends thought he was “demon-possessed.”
5. The same spirit told Muhammad to slaughter a Jewish tribe.
6. Two other spirits removed the “pollution of Satan” from inside Muhammad’s chest.
7. The Quran says that Muhammad doubted he was hearing direction from God.
There is a great deal of evidence that the delivery of the Quran to Muhammad in the cave at Hira was not a divine event from God, but more likely either a glorified exaggeration of his actual visit to the cave, just a fable, or a demonic event. There are several things to consider. If the event really happened, then it should be historically accurate and the message from God should be true.
The fourth line from the Quran, Surah Al Alaq (96:4), which was delivered to Muhammad in the cave states that God “taught by the pen.” When did God teach by a pen? Islamic scholars claim that “taught by the pen” refers to God’s earlier revelations in the Jewish and Christian scriptures, but the Quran actually denies many things in the Jewish and Christian scriptures. Muhammad was supposedly illiterate. He could not read, and so God could not teach him with a pen, and the Muslim hadiths record that the “angel Gabriel” recited the entire Quran to Muhammad who did not write it down. There was no pen. In the Old Testament, God spoke to the prophets, but never mailed them letters that He had written with His pen. Could this be some type of reference to God giving Moses the Ten Commandments which were written on stone tablets? It is impossible to say, but the bottom line is that the meaning is not clear.
The Islamic tradition teaches that “Gabriel” (the spirit) continued to appear to Muhammad many more times over 23 years and eventually revealed the entire book of the Quran which Muhammad memorized. He supposedly memorized thousands of verses after hearing them only once and never forgot a single line! Muhammad himself wrote nothing down since he could not read or write. However, the verses revealed to Muhammad were later organized and compiled by his followers after his death. According to Shia, Ali ibn Abi Talib compiled a complete version of the Quran shortly after Muhammad's death. [103] However, in Sunni tradition, other sources claim that the Quran was completed by a group of scribes headed by Zayd ibn Thabit in 655 AD. [104] While others claim that it was the Third Caliph Uthman (Uthman ibn Affan) who wrote the first copy of the Quran in 652. [105] But there is good evidence that the first copy of the Quran may have been written by Caliph Abu Bakr al-Siddiq in 645 AD. [106] It is safe to say that the Quran was written by one or more of Muhammad’s followers roughly 20 to 40 years after his death. But it is very important to keep in mind that the Jewish holy book, the Torah, was compiled roughly, very roughly, between the years 2200-1700 BC, and the New Testament of Christians documenting the life of Jesus, the Christus, the Jewish Messiah, was added between the years 23-70 AD. Muhammad was not even born until 610 AD, at least 2300 years after God’s initial revelation to Abraham, and over 600 years after Jesus revolutionized the world by elevating love above law.
If the Quran is correct, then God allowed humans to live under false beliefs and worship in error for millennia before deciding to correct them with the teachings of Muhammad. And despite the Jewish people believing that God was with them and protecting them for thousands of years, they were wrong. And the hundreds of thousands of Christian martyrs who died trying to protect and save their faith in the first five centuries after Jesus were also all mistaken about God.
In addition to the Quran, there are many, many stories about Muhammad and Muslim traditions written in books called “hadiths” which are historical works, and are not considered divine. But many Muslims treat the hadiths as sacred and believe what is written in them. Part of the reason that there are so many different sects and branches of Islam is because there are different translations/versions of the Quran (although Muslims deny this), and many hadiths which some sects believe and others do not. The hadiths within the book “Sahih al-Bukhari” are a collection of 7,379 stories. The hadith collection “Sahih Muslim” contains 7,165 hadiths. There are also “Al-Sunan al-Sughra” and “Sunan Abi-Dawud” which contain about another 10,000 hadiths. What is believed from the Quran and the hadiths are what make Sunni Islam different from Shia Islam (Shi’ites) and others, including Sufis, Whabbi, Salafi, Berelvi, and Deobandi.
One of the hadiths within Sahih Bukhari (Sahih al-Bukhari) volume 1, book 1, hadith number 3, tells the story of the “angel Gabriel” appearing to Muhammad in the cave in a slightly different way than what is recorded in other hadiths. It reads:
…in the cave at Hira, the angel came to him and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, “I do not know how to read.” The Prophet added, “The angel caught me forcefully and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it anymore.” He then released me and again asked me to read and I replied, “I do not know how to read.” Thereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read, but again I replied, “I do not know how to read.”
103. Sayyid Hossein Modarressi Tabatabai. Tradition and Survival: A Bibliographical Survey of Early Shi’ite Literature. Volume 1. (Oneworld Pub., London, England, 2003) pp. 331-4.
104. Ibn Sa’d. Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, ed. S. Moinul Haq. (Kitab Bhavan Pub., Delhi, India, 1990) vol. 2, 335.
105. Abu al Abbas al Baladhuri. The Origins of the Islamic State: Kitab Futuh al Buldan, transl. F.C. Murgotten. (Longmans Pub., New York, NY, 1924) p. 271.
106. Muhammad Mustafa al-Azami. The History of the Quranic Texts, from Revelation to Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments. (Islamic Academy Pub., Leicester, England, 2003) pp. 77-86.
Thereupon he caught me a third time and pressed me and then released me and said, “Read in the name of your Lord who has created all that exists, has created man from a clot. Read! And your Lord is the most generous.” [107]
This story is very unlike the four appearances of the angel Gabriel in the Christian Bible. When Gabriel appears in Daniel 8:16, Daniel 9:21, Luke 1:19, and Luke 1:26, he is polite, respectful, instructive, and not intimidating. And unlike this passage, the Quran also records the appearance of Gabriel to Mary to inform her that she will become pregnant by the power of God. The verses in the Quran read:
Then We sent to her our angel “Gabriel” appearing before her as a man, perfectly formed. She appealed, “I truly seek refuge in the Most Compassionate from you! So leave me alone if you are God-fearing.” He responded, “I am only a messenger from your Lord, sent to bless you with a pure son.” She wondered, “How can I have a son when no man has ever touched me, nor am I unchaste?” He replied, “So will it be! Your Lord says, “It is easy for Me. And so will We make him a sign for humanity and a mercy from Us. It is a matter already decreed.” So she conceived him and withdrew with him to a remote place. [108]
Ignoring the fact that this is an obvious plagiarism of the Bible verses Luke 1:27-38, which was written 600 years before the Quran, the attitude and behavior of Gabriel is much different. There is no yelling at Mary or demands for her to read anything, and there is no grabbing her or pressing her hard until she can’t breathe, and there are no threatening words.
For these reasons, some Christian and Muslim theologians wonder if it was not Gabriel, but a demonic force, that appeared to Muhammad in the cave. [109] This notion is further supported by the fact that, after the appearances, the Sahih al-Bukhari records that Muhammad tried to kill himself by throwing himself off the mountain. [110] Muhammad’s suicide attempts are also recorded in the hadith collection, Sahih Tarikh al-Tabari. [111, 112] But each time he tried to commit suicide, the spirit would appear and stop him. The hadiths record that whenever “the spirit” visited Muhammad, he was terrified and would hide. [113] There are no passages in the Bible where Gabriel terrified those he visited. Both relatives of Muhammad and Muhammad himself occasionally thought that he may be “demon possessed.” [114, 115, 116] And this left Muhammad often suicidal and haunted by suicidal thoughts. [117] This would hardly be
107. Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 1, book 1, number 3.
108. Quran, Surah Maryam, chapter 19, verses 17-22.
109. William Montgomery Watt. Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 1974) p. 21.
110. Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 9, book 87, number 111.
111. Sahih Tarikh al-Tabari, vol. 6, number 76.
112. The History of al-Tabari, Volume VI, Muhammad at Mecca, transl. William Montgomery Watt and M.V. McDonald. (State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, 1988) p. 68.
113. Ibn Ishaq. The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, transl. Alfred Guillaume (Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 2002) p. 106.
114. Ibn Ishaq. The Life of Muhammad: Apostle of Allah, transl. W. Montgomery Watt. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 1974) p. 72.
115. The History of al-Tabari, Volume IX, The Last Years of the Prophet, transl. Ismail Poonawala. (The State University of New York Press, New York, NY, 1990) p. 166-7, footnote 1151.
116. The History of al-Tabari, Volume VI, Muhammad at Mecca, transl. William Montgomery Watt and M.V. McDonald. (State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, 1988) p. 69, footnote 102.
117. William Montgomery Watt. Muhammad at Mecca. (Oxford University Press, Karachi, Pakistan, 1980) pp. 40-41.
the description of a prophet chosen by God. In the Bible, many people were recorded to have had direct interactions with God or angels, including Adam, Abraham, Noah, Moses, Isaiah, Zechariah, Mary, and Paul, but none of them became suicidal or depressed, but usually became filled with zeal or, at minimum, repentant.
Further, there is a passage in the Sahih al-Bukhari where Gabriel tells Muhammad to go slaughter a Jewish tribe. The passage reads:
When the prophet returned from the battle at Al-Khandaq, and laid down his arms and took a bath, Gabriel came to him while he was shaking the dust off his head and said, “You have laid down the arms?” By Allah, I have not laid them down. “Go out to them to attack them.” The prophet said, “Where?” Gabriel pointed towards Bani Quraiza (a Jewish settlement). So Allah’s apostle went to them. Then they surrendered to the prophet’s judgment but he directed them to Sa’d to give his verdict concerning them. Sa’d said, “I give my judgment that their warriors should be killed, their women and children should be taken as captives, and their properties distributed.” [118]
This is simply not the same angel Gabriel from the Bible. Was it a demon or Satan in disguise, or just a fable from the life of Muhammad? There are too many dissimilarities between the Biblical narratives of interactions with Gabriel and the Islamic verses to believe that it is the same angel. Since the Bible was written 600 years before the Quran, the Biblical text is not the counterfeit.
But there are also some outlandish interactions between Muhammad and other angels as well. This passage is recorded in Sahih al-Tabari:
Two angels came to me when I was somewhere in the valley of Mecca. One of them came down to earth while the other remained between heaven and earth. One of them said to the other, “Is this he?” And the other replied, “It is he.” “Weigh him against a man,” he said. So I was weighed against a man and outweighed him. “Weigh him against ten,” he said. So he weighed me against ten, and I outweighed them. Then he said, “Weigh him against one hundred.” So he weighed me against one hundred and I outweighed them. Then he said, “Weigh him against one thousand.” So he weighed me against one thousand and I outweighed them. People began to be scattered over me from the pan of the balance, and one angel said to the other, “If you were to weigh him against the whole of the community he would outweigh them.” Then one said to the other, “Open his breast.” He opened my breast and then he said, “Open his heart.” He opened my heart and took out from it the pollution of Satan and the clot of blood and threw them away. [119]
Thus, Muhammad himself states that “the pollution of Satan” was inside of him at one point, although the tale seems much more mythological in its writing than fact. But what is even more condemning is that Muhammad himself doubted that he was actually hearing a message from God. The Quran, Surah Yunus, 10:94 reads, “If you, O prophet, are in doubt about these stories that We have revealed to you, then ask those who read the scriptures before you.” [120] The voice is telling him to ask those who have read the Christian scriptures! Keep in mind that during the life of Muhammad, the Quran was not yet written. Any reference made by Muhammad to the “gospel” or to the “scriptures” is referring to the Christian Bible. But the
118. Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 5, book 59, number 448.
119. The History of al-Tabari, Volume VI, Muhammad at Mecca, transl. William Montgomery Watt and M.V. McDonald. (State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, 1988) p. 75.
120. Quran, Surah Yunus, chapter 10, verse 94.
Quran does not support what is in the Christian scriptures. Thus, this is very confusing as to why the voice would recommend that Muhammad talk to Christians. As a Muslim scholar wrote:
It is not surprising that Muhammad was reported to have been assailed by fears and doubts. There is evidence for this in the Quran as well as the narratives of his life… Another form of fear would be the fear of madness, that is, according to the Arab ideas of the time, of being possessed by spirits or jinn. Many of the people of Mecca explained his revelations in this way, and he must have wondered whether they were right. [121]
This is also in stark contrast with the prophets of the Old Testament, and Jesus, who never doubted their mission, but always steadfastly strove towards doing the will of God.
121. William Montgomery Watt. Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 1974) p. 21-22.
Chapter 5
Error #4 Muhammad was definitely not a perfect and holy man.
This chapter of the book will prove the following nine points.
1. Muhammad approved of the idol worship of the cranes at Mecca.
2. Muhammad admits to being deceived by Satan.
3. Muhammad claimed that Allah would never allow him to be poisoned. Muhammad was poisoned.
4. When Muhammad was unable to make a holy pilgrimage, his atonement to God was to shave his head and have sex.
5. Muhammad would curse and insult his own followers and orphans.
6. Muhammad physically tortured those who wronged him.
7. Muhammad approved of raping female prisoners of war.
8. Muhammad was a pedophile.
9. Muhammad approved of prostitution for one year.
In addition to the discussion above where Muhammad admitted to having the “pollution of Satan” inside of him, it is also a historical fact that Muhammad himself admitted to being deceived by Satan and approving of idol worship in order to convert some of his own people in the Quraysh tribe to Islam. These passages in the Quran are known as the original “satanic verses” of Islam. The Quraysh tribe, into which Muhammad was born, worshipped three goddesses and believed the goddesses, al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat were represented in nature by a beautiful high-flying species of crane called “gharaniq” in Arabic. The Quraysh tribe worshipped the cranes who they believed were the divine embodiment of the goddesses. In order to try to appease the tribe and soften their views towards Muhammad’s new religion of Islam, he decided to concede that worshipping the cranes was approved by Allah. Of course, idol worship is forbidden in Islam. But regardless, Muhammad began to recite to them what is now part of the Quran chapter Surah An-Najm (Quran 53:1-23). But while he was reciting it, according to the Muslim historian Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad was tempted by Satan to approve of the idol worship of the cranes, and he did so. This event is recorded by four separate early biographers of Muhammad: Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Waqidi, and Ibn Sa’d. [122] Modern translations of one of the original copies of the hadith authored by Muhammad’s follower, Ibn Ishaq, called the “Sirat Rasul Allah” have conveniently left out these passages since they are so condemning. But the original text from Ibn Ishaq within “Sirat Rasul Allah” read as follows:
When the apostle saw that the people had turned their backs on him and he was pained by their estrangement from what he brought them from Allah, he longed that there should come to him from Allah a message that would reconcile his people to him. Because of his love for his people and his anxiety over them, it would delight him if the obstacle that made his task so difficult could be removed; so he meditated on the project and longed for it and it was dear to him. Then Allah sent down (to Muhammad)
122. John Gilchrist. Muhammad and the Religion of Islam. (Benoni Publishers, South Africa, 1986) p. 117.
“By the star when it sets, your comrade errs not and is not deceived, he speaks not from his own desire.” And when he reached these words, (Muhammad said) “Have you thought of al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat the third, the other?” Satan, when he was meditating upon it and desiring to bring it to his people, put upon his tongue, “These are the exalted Gharaniq whose intercession is approved!” When Quraysh heard that they were delighted and greatly impressed at the way in which he spoke of their gods and they listened to him, while the believers were holding that what their prophet brought them from Allah was true, not suspecting a mistake or a vain desire or a slip. [123]
The text goes on to say:
Then Gabriel came to the apostle and said, “What have you done, Muhammad? You have read to these people something that I did not bring you from Allah and you have said what he did not say to you.” [124]
Compare this with a modern version of the same verses from the Quran, chapter Surah an-Najm (Quran 53):1-23 which reads:
By the stars when they fade away! Your fellow man is neither misguided nor astray. Nor does he speak of his own whims. It is only a revelation sent down to him. He has been taught by one angel of mighty power and great perfection, who once rose to his true form while on the highest point above the horizon, then he approached the prophet coming so close that he was only two arm lengths away or even less. Then Allah revealed to his servant what he revealed through Gabriel. The prophet’s heart did not doubt what he saw. How can you pagans then dispute with him regarding what he saw? And he certainly saw that angel descend a second time at the Lote Tree of the most extreme limit in the seventh heaven near which is the Garden of Eternal Residence, while the Lote Tree was overwhelmed with heavenly splendors! The prophets sight never wandered, nor did it overreach. He certainly saw some of his Lord’s greatest signs. Now have you considered the idols of Lat and Uzza, and the third one, Manat, as well? Do you prefer to have sons while you attribute to him daughters? Then this is truly a biased distribution! These idols are mere names that you and your forefathers have made up, a practice Allah has never authorized. They follow nothing but inherited assumptions and whatever their souls desire, although true guidance has already come to them from their lord. [125]
Thus, a modern reader of the Quran would not know from the text what Muhammad had originally said, approving of the worship of the cranes. Although this was admittedly due to a temptation from Satan, nonetheless, it seems odd that a prophet from God would speak words provoked by Satan. But the events are also mentioned in another hadith written by Ibn Sa’d:
One day he was sitting in their assembly near the Katbah (in Mecca) and he recited, “By the star when it setteth” until he reached, “have ye thought upon the idols of al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat the third, the other?” Satan made him repeat these two phrases: these idols are high and their intercession is expected. He repeated them and he went on reciting the whole surah and then fell in prostration, and the people also fell in prostration with him… then [the people] said, “We know that Allah gives life and causes death. He creates and gives us provisions, but our deities will intercede with him, and in what you have assigned to them, we are with you.” These words pricked the apostle of Allah… Gabriel, may peace be upon him, came to him (Muhammad) and revised the surah. Then Gabriel said, “Did I bring these two phrases?” And Muhammad replied, “I ascribed to Allah what he had not said.” [126]
123. Ibn Ishaq. Sirat Rasul Allah. p. 165.
124. Ibn Ishaq. Sirat Rasul Allah. p. 166.
125. Mustafa Khattab. The Clear Quran, Surah An-Najm, 53:1-23.
126. Ibn Sa’d. Kitab at-Tabaqat al-Kabir, vol. 1, number 237.
Why this passage is so important is because of what happens afterwards. Recall that Muhammad and his followers had been run out of Mecca by his own Quraysh tribe and had fled to Abyssinia. This was one of the first occasions in which Muhammad had returned to Mecca and was engaging his fellow Quraysh tribal members in the city to try to convert them to Islam. His previous attempts had failed. And according to Islamic tradition, after Muhammad had recited Surah an-Najm (Quran 53) to the people, the entire city of Mecca converted and bowed down in worship with Muhammad. The hadith Sahih al-Bukhari reads, “The prophet performed a prostration when he finished reciting Surah an-Najm, and all the Muslims and pagans and Jinns and human beings prostrated along with him.” [127] This allowed the refugees in Abyssinia to return to Mecca and Islam spread through the whole city. Ibn Sa’d wrote that the refugees returned to Mecca only because they had heard that the pagan Meccans had prostrated themselves with Muhammad to honor Allah. [128] Why the sudden conversion of the entire city?
Several authors have suggested that it was only by Muhammad approving of their idol worship that the Meccans bowed down in homage to both Allah and the pagan goddesses. Conservative Muslim authorities deny that Muhammad ever approved of idol worship, and that these hadiths cannot be factual. But other western authors disagree. Muir writes:
Pious Muslims scandalized at the lapse of their prophet into so flagrant a concession would reject the whole story. But the authorities are too strong to be summarily dismissed. It is hardly possible to conceive how the tale, if not in some shape or other founded in truth, could ever have been invented. The stubborn fact remains, and is by all admitted, that the first refugees did return about this time from Abyssinia, and that they returned in consequence of a rumor that Mecca was converted. To this fact, the narrative affords the only intelligible clue. [129]
Another author writes, “It is important to keep in mind that this story is not a calumny from without, but a report embedded in Muslim tradition itself. Its content requires us to hold that, being so apparently compromising, it could not have been fabricated.” [130] And another author declares:
What else could have prompted all present, both Muslims and pagans, to prostrate behind Muhammad but the concession made to the Meccan goddesses? One can understand the Muslims following any lead Muhammad gave, but it is hard, if not impossible, to believe that the pagan Meccans would have joined Muhammad in worship at the end of the surah if he had quoted it as it now stands with such a vehement denunciation of these same goddesses by name. The story does appear to have a compelling historical foundation. [131]
The evidence is rather compelling from these early hadiths that Muhammad did approve of the worship of the cranes, even though he later admitted that it was wrong. However, for Muslims who claim that Muhammad was a holy and perfect prophet, the evidence portrays an imperfect and confused man tricked by Satan.
127. Ibn Abbas. Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 2, book 19, number 177.
128. Ibn Sa’d. Kitab at-Tabaqat al-Kabir, vol. 1, number 238.
129. William Muir. The Life of Mahomet From Original Sources. (Voice of India Pub., 1894, reprint 2002) p. 80.
130. Kenneth Cragg. The Event of the Quran. 1st edition. (Allen and Unwin Publ., Australia, 1972) p. 142.
131. Gilchrist, Muhammad and the Religion of Islam, p. 117.
Further, in the hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Muhammad commanded his followers to kill anyone who leaves or abandons the religion of Islam and they will be rewarded for the murder on the day of resurrection. [132] And just as Muhammad was about to die, instead of trying to peacefully go to God, he spends his last breath asking God to curse the Jews and Christians. [133] Clearly, Muhammad was not a man of peace nor someone seeking the salvation of the world. He was simply a religiously-confused, Jewish and Christian-hating, military leader in Arabia.
The man who was Muhammad is elevated by Muslims as a perfect man. But both Islamic texts and tradition paint the picture of a man who was far from perfect. He was recorded to have committed robbery along trade routes, extortion, coercion, amputated a thief’s hand, blinded a man, scheduled contract killings, and committed mass murders of Jewish and Christian colonies. [134, 135, 136] While he was alive, Muhammad never claimed to be divine or to even be a prophet. He called himself a “messenger” although, in the Quran, the title of “messenger” is also given to Jesus. The title of “prophet” was assigned to him after his death by his followers when they wrote the Quran.
And it is very difficult for anyone to read the hadiths and to know what is true about Muhammad from what is false. Although it is often said that Muhammad was illiterate and did not write down anything as relates to the Quran during his lifetime, there is a passage in one of the hadiths where Muhammad claims to have been writing down what someone was saying to him when his pen dried out. [137] And Muhammad had nine wives and was praised for his sexual prowess, with hadiths claiming that he could satisfy all nine of his wives in one night. [138] But that seems unlikely. He did not die a martyr; but rather, according to Islamic hadiths, died after eating a poisoned leg of lamb given to him by a Jewish woman after he had attacked their village and killed her family. [139, 140] In fact, Muhammad himself falsely claimed that God would never allow him to be poisoned. The hadith reads:
Anas reported that a Jewess came to Allah’s messenger with poisoned mutton and he took of that what had been brought to him. When the effect of this poison was felt by him, he called for her and asked her about that, whereupon she said, “I had determined to kill you.” Thereupon he said, “Allah will never give you the power to do it.” [141]
132. Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 9, book 84, number 64.
133. Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 1, book 8, number 427.
134. Robert Spencer. The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion. (Regnery Pub., New York, NY, 2007). pp. 19-89.
135. Sunan Abi Dawud 2671, book 15, hadith 195. www.sunnah.com
136. F.W. Burleigh. It’s All About Muhammad: A Biography of the World’s Most Notorious Prophet. (Zenga Books Pub., Portland, Maine, 2014). 220-287.
137. Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 7, book 62, number 13.
138. Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 7, book 62, number 6.
139. Ibn Ishaq. The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, transl. Alfred Guillaume (Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 2002) p. 516.
140. Umar al-Waqidi. The Life of Muhammad, Ed. Rizwi Faizer. (Routledge Pub., New York, NY, 2013) p. 334.
141. Sahih Muslim, book 26, number 5430.
However, Muhammad did later succumb to the poison and died. [142] Thus, he incorrectly prophesized his own protection from Allah. None of this evidence depicts a divine prophet from God. But some Muslim historians argue that Muhammad did not die from the poison because he did not die until approximately four years after this event happened. And they ask how could the poison have killed him so long after he ingested it? But it is actually not important if the poison killed him immediately or much later, or if it was unrelated to his death. The fact is that Muhammad claimed that Allah would not allow anyone to poison him, and yet the Jewish woman succeeded.
And there is another hadith which describes how Muhammad was prevented from making a pilgrimage (umra in Arabic) to Mecca. His response was to shave his head, slaughter his traveling beast (hadi in Arabic), and to have sex with all of his wives. [143] How would this be atonement to God for his lack of pilgrimage? It really makes no sense. The gospels document that when Jesus was frustrated or exhausted by the questioning or harassment of the non-believers, his solution was to go away to an isolated place to pray (Mark 1:35, Luke 5:16, Luke 6:12-13, Luke 22:39-44). In distress, Jesus turned to God in prayer for support and renewal. In distress, Muhammad slaughtered animals and had sex.
Another passage in the Quran again refers to killing. It reads, “But once the sacred months have passed, kill the polytheists… capture them, besiege them, and lie in wait for them on every way.” [144] The follow passage from Sahih Muslim is very typical of writings about Muhammad:
Aisha reported that two persons visited Allah’s prophet and both of them talked about a thing, of which I am not aware, but that annoyed Muhammad and he invoked a curse upon both of them and hurled malediction (insults), and when they went out I said, “Allah’s prophet, the good would reach everyone, but it would not reach these two.” He said, “Why so?” I said, “Because you have invoked a curse and hurled malediction upon both of them.” [145]
And here is another example of Muhammad cursing and insulting an orphan girl:
That slave girl returned to Umm Sulaim weeping. Umm Sulaim said, “O daughter, what is the matter with you?” She said, “Allah’s prophet has invoked a curse upon me that I should not grow in age and thus I would never grow in age or in my length of life.” Umm Sulaim went out… she said, “Allah’s prophet, you invoked curse upon my orphan girl.” He said, “Umm Sulaim, what is that?” She said, “The orphan girl states you have cursed her saying that she might not grow in age or grow in life.” [146]
But unfortunately for Muhammad, another hadith says: I heard the messenger of Allah say: Men given to cursing will not be witnesses or intercessors. [147]
142. Ibn Jarir al-Tabari. The History of al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, Volume 8, transl. by Michael Fishbein. (State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, 1997) p. 124.
143. Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 3, book 28, number 34-36.
144. Quran, Surah At-Tawbah, chapter 9, verse 5.
145. Sahih Muslim, book 32, number 6285.
146. Sahih Muslim, book 25, number 2603.
147. Sunan Abi Dawud 4907, book 43, hadith 135.
And another hadith says:
Abu’d-Darda’ reported that the prophet said: Those who curse will be neither witnesses nor intercessors on the Day of Rising. [148]
And thus, it is obvious that Muhammad contradicts his own teachings on cursing. But cursing another is not nearly as bad as some other extreme cruelty Muhammad showed towards others:
Some people of ‘Ukl… killed the shepherd of the prophet and drove away all the camels. The news reached the prophet early in the morning, and he sent men in their pursuit and they were captured and brought at noon. He then ordered to cut their hands and feet off and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron. They were put in Al-Harra and when they asked for water, no water was given to them. [149]
What is especially unsettling for Muslims about this passage is that there is another hadith which describes “the three persons whom Allah will not look at on the Day of Resurrection, nor will he purify them and theirs shall be a severe punishment.” And the very first of those three persons described in the hadith is the person who “possessed extra water and withheld it from others.” [150] It looks like Muhammad is in big trouble on the day of Resurrection.
As Jesus was being tortured and crucified by the Romans, he prayed for them and even said, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” [151] Jesus forgave everyone, even those killing him! Muhammad tortured those who wronged him. Now ask yourself: who is really sent from God?
And there are additional passages documenting Muhammad’s cruelty like this one:
An-Nu’man or the son of An-Nu’man was brought to the prophet in a state of intoxication (drunkenness). The prophet felt it hard (was angry) and ordered all those who were present in the house to beat him. And they beat him using palm leaf stalks and shoes, and I was among those who beat him. [152]
And another verse reads, “The prophet cut off the hand of a thief for stealing a shield that was worth three Dirhams.” [153] And there is another, much darker passage in the Quran, Surah An-Nisa, where Muhammad is instructing his followers concerning which women they can, and cannot, engage with in sex. This particular passage is often intentionally mis-translated to avoid outrage. The passage reads, “Also forbidden are married women, except female captives in your possession.” [154] The phrase “female captives” refers to women prisoners of war. Thus, Muhammad is approving of the men taking and raping the female prisoners of war, both
148. Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 316, book 15, hadith 8.
149. Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 1, book 4, number 234.
150. Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 3, book 40, number 547.
151. New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition. (Catholic Book Pub., New York, NY, 1970). Luke 23:34.
152. Sahih al-Bukhari, volume 8, book 81, number 766.
153. Sahih al-Bukhari, volume 8, book 81, number 788.
154. Quran, Surah An-Nisa, chapter 4, verse 24.
married and unmarried. Supposedly, this was to incite the men to fight with him since they could rape any female prisoner, married or not.
You would think that it could not get any worse, but it does. In the Quran, Surah At Talaq, 65:4, Muhammad is explaining how long a man (or a woman) has to wait to have sex again after a divorce. The waiting time (called iddah in Arabic) is based upon the number of menstrual cycles the woman has had since the divorce. It reads, “As for your women past the age of menstruation, in case you do not know, their waiting period (iddah) is three months, and those who have not yet menstruated as well (have not reached adolescence)”. [155] This is in the Quran! This is the so-called “book from God”? Do Muslims really believe that God would approve of marrying and divorcing child brides who have not even reached adolescence? One of Muhammad’s wives, Aisha, was only 7 years old. He was a pedophile. Sahih Muslim describes this:
Aisha reported that Muhammad married her when she was seven years old, and was taken to his house as a bride and consummated the marriage when she was nine, and her dolls were with her. [156]
And another hadith continues the story:
Aisha said, “I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the prophet, and my girlfriends also used to play with me. When Allah’s apostle used to enter my dwelling place, they used to hide themselves, but the prophet would call them to join and play with me.” [157]
Contrast this with how Jesus interacts with children:
Then children were brought to him that He might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked them, but Jesus said, “Let the children come to me and do not prevent them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” [158]
Muslims still approve of the Quran and the Quran still approves of pedophilia with girls who have not yet reached adolescence, and teaches about how long to wait to have sex with them after a divorce. This is immoral. You would think that some Muslim leader, or imam, would have updated this, canceled this, deleted this, or changed this! But they haven’t. Muslims think that having sex with a girl before adolescence is acceptable. What father would allow his 7-year-old daughter to get married or his 9-year-old daughter to have sex? Why would Muslims think that God would approve of this? This is not religion. I have heard a Muslim say that Muhammad was not a pedophile because this was accepted practice at that time to marry very young girls. While this may have been the custom at that time, that does not make it ethical and God is always ethical. Further, Muhammad, according to Muslims, is supposed to be an example for all time, so his behavior should be appropriate for all time and it definitely is not. Natural law tells us that children should not be having sex. A female who is not physically mature enough to sexually reproduce should not be having sexual relations with anyone. And since emotional maturity follows after sexual maturity, it would be best to wait even longer. Even atheists know that! Islam has annihilated common sense. But Muhammad married Aisha
155. Quran, Surah At-Talaq, chapter 65, verse 4.
156. Sahih Muslim, number 1422c, book 16, hadith 83. www.sunnah.com.
157. Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 8, book 73, number 151. www.sahih-bukhari.com.
158. New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition. (Catholic Book Pub., New York, NY, 1970). Matthew 19:13-14.
at age seven, and had sex with her at age nine. This is the holy Muslim spiritual leader! No other reason is really needed for Muslims to abandon Islam and seek Jesus. Jesus truly is an example for all time.
Muhammad also developed a sneaky way to allow his men to solicit women for prostitution which he called “contracted temporary marriage” for up to three days. Here are the verses:
We were on an expedition with Allah’s messenger (Muhammad) and we had no women with us. We said: should we not have ourselves castrated? He, the holy prophet, forbade us to do so. He then granted us permission that we should contract temporary marriage for a stipulated period giving her a garment, and Abdullah then recited this verse, “Those who believe do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you. And do not transgress. [159]
And another passage reads:
Salama b al-Akwa and Jabir b Abdullah reported, Allah’s messenger came to us and permitted us to contract temporary marriage. [160]
And another passage reads:
Iyas b Salama reported on the authority of his father that Allah’s messenger gave sanction for contracting temporary marriage for three nights in the year of Autas, and then forbade it. [161]
And another:
Sabra Juhanni reported: Allah’s messenger permitted temporary marriage for us. So I and another person went out and saw a woman of Bana ‘Amir who was like a young long-necked she-camel. We presented ourselves to her for contracted temporary marriage, whereupon she said, “What dower would you give me?” I said, “My cloak.” And my companion also said, “My cloak.” And the cloak of my companion was superior to my cloak, but I was younger than he. So when she looked at the cloak of my companion she liked it, and when she cast a glance at me, I looked more attractive to her. She then said, “Well, you and your cloak are sufficient for me.” I remained with her for three nights and then Allah’s messenger said, “He who has any such woman with whom he has contracted temporary marriage, he should let her off.” [162]
Wow. Prostitution is approved, but only for three nights. They may have called it “contracted temporary marriage,” but it is payment for sex for a short period of time which is prostitution. The year of Autas, the year of victory, was the year when the army led by Muhammad conquered Mecca. And in order to celebrate, Muhammad allowed his men to solicit prostitution for one year, but then he said to stop it. Clearly, Muhammad is just making up the rules as he goes along. Why does anyone believe Islam when the writings are clearly not from a man of God?
There is such a stark difference between Jesus, who was always pointing to God the Father and to the ways of love and peace; while Muhammad was always pointing to himself, and to war, and to conquering the Jews. Jesus taught compassion. Muhammad taught
159. Sahih Muslim, Kitab Al-Nikah, chapter 3, book 8, number 3243.
160. Sahih Muslim, Kitab Al-Nikah, chapter 3, book 8, number 3247.
161. Sahih Muslim, Kitab Al-Nikah, chapter 3, book 8, number 3251.
162. Sahih Muslim, Kitab Al-Nikah, chapter 3, book 8, number 3252.
condemnation. Jesus gives blessings and Muhammad gives curses. Jesus taught love. Muhammad taught hatred. Jesus taught peace. Muhammad taught war. Jesus taught chastity. Muhammad taught pedophilia and prostitution. Jesus died promoting faith in God above all things. Muhammad died cursing the Christians and Jews. It seems impossible to claim that both Jesus and Muhammad were sent from the same God.
Another rather subtle, and vastly underreported, facet of Muhammad’s life is that after he conquered Mecca and had united most of the Arabian people under the flag of Islam, he seems to have quickly diminished in political power and fell out of the favor of the Muslim people for at least two decades until the Quran was later organized and promoted. One hadith reads:
The messenger of Allah forbade facing Qiblah when urinating. But I saw him, one year before he died, facing the Qiblah while urinating. [163]
This verse almost seems to be denigrating the reputation of Muhammad. Why would a Muslim even bother to write this about their respected leader? And another verse reads:
The prophet died while his armour was pawned for twenty ‘Sa of food that he got for his family. [164]
And a similar verse reads:
When the Messenger of Allah died, his armour was mortgaged with a Jew for thirty Sa’ (measures) of barley. [165]
It would be assumed that when a highly respected prophet dies, his belongings and personal effects would become treasures and preserved. But the hadith says that not only were they sold for a relatively small amount, but also sold to a Jew which would have been highly disrespectful for his armor to be sold to his enemy. This is further evidence that Muhammad was not as revered and honored during his lifetime as he was long after his death. In addition, the hadiths record, via various transmitters, that Muhammad died in the house of one of his wives, Aisha, and she buried him inside the house without any fanfare. And the only recording we have of a partial eulogy for Muhammad is:
When the messenger of Allah passed away, Abu Bakr was with his wife, the daughter of Kharijah, in villages surrounding Al-Madinah. They started to say, “The prophet has not died; rather he has been overcome with what used to overcome him at the time of revelation. Then Abu Bakr came and uncovered his face, kissed him between the eyes and said, “You are too noble before Allah for Him to cause you to die twice. By Allah, the messenger of Allah has indeed died.” Umar was in a corner of the mosque saying, “By Allah, the messenger of Allah has not died and he will never die until the hands and feet of most of the hypocrites are cut off.” Then Abu Bakr stood up, ascended to the pulpit and said, “Whoever used to worship Allah, Allah is alive and will never die. Whoever used to worship Muhammad, Muhammad is dead. Muhammad is no more than a messenger and indeed many messengers have passed away before him. If he dies or is killed, will you then turn back on your heels as disbelievers? And he who turns back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah; and Allah will give reward to those who are grateful.” [166]
163. Sunan Ibn Majah 325, book 1, hadith 59.
164. Jami at-Tirmidhi 1214, book 14, hadith 13.
165. Riyad as-Salihin 503, introduction, hadith 503.
166. Sunan Ibn Majah 1627, book 6, hadith 195.
Did some of Muhammad’s followers worship him? That would be blasphemy. Did they think that he would never die? That would be blasphemy. This hadith seems to hint that these things may have been true. However, this hadith, which was written by Ibn Majah, is unlikely to be completely accurate since it was written between the years 844-887 AD, roughly 212 years after Muhammad’s death. [167] But none of the hadiths record a large funeral with thousands of mourners or an entire city in grief. And we know that Abu Bakr, the eulogist, took over after Muhammad as the first caliph of the new Islamic community and life went on rather quickly. This adds very strong evidence to the historical facts that Muhammad was not considered to be a prophet during his lifetime, and that the Quran and hadiths posthumously elevated his status to a divine prophet much later.
This chapter has been focused on showing that Muhammad was not a perfect and holy man, and I have given the evidence to prove that. However, of course, Muslims will disagree and say that he was perfect. One Muslim author writes, “Muhammad stands in history as the best model for man in piety and perfection. He is a living proof of what man can be and of what he can accomplish in the realm of excellence and virtue.” [168] But show me that proof! Show me piety and perfection! And the Muslims respond by saying, “Read the Quran. It is beautiful and a source of wisdom.” But it is not. I have read the Quran and one verse proclaims that, “Allah is always merciful,” and the next passage proclaims, “Allah will condemn you to hell.” The contradictions are extreme and the verses chaotic. It is no beautiful literary work and contains no wisdom for mankind. In fact, I could not find any true wisdom within the Quran except for one verse. And that verse, 17:36 reads, “You shall not accept any information unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them.” The Muslims should take that verse to heart and find true wisdom in the teaching of Jesus.
167. Sunan Ibn-e-Majah, English Translation, transl. by Muhammad Tufail Ansari. (Kitab Bhavan, New Delhi, India, 1993) pp. 2-5.
168. Hammudah Abdalati. Islam in Focus. (American Trust Pub., Indianapolis, Indiana, 1975) p. 8.
Chapter 6
Error #5 The Quran is not the word of God. The Quran contains blasphemy and contradicts itself.
This chapter of the book will prove the following five points.
1. There are four examples in the Quran and one hadith which approve of idol worship.
2. According to the Quran, God doesn’t care which religion you practice if you pay a tribute tax, the jizyah. Apparently for Muslims, money cures heresy.
3. Muhammad is not in heaven, but barzakh. The Quran says Jesus is in heaven.
4. The Quran says that Muhammad is a liar by the way he died.
5. The Quran and hadiths contradict one another.
If you believe in the religion of Islam, then you are forced to admit two things. First, despite the Jewish people feeling that God was with them, leading them, protecting them, and loving them for 2000 years until He sent the Messiah to save them, they were wrong. Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Isaac, David, and most importantly, Jesus, were all wrong about God. God was actually waiting even longer to send His true revelation through Muhammad. Muslims actually do believe this very thing. Second, ever since Muhammad was alive, the Islamic religion has always been trying to eradicate the Jews. It seems rather strange that God would support the Jews for 2000 years, only to later tell Muhammad to wipe them out. Remember, the Bible tells us that God loved Abraham, and that Abraham loved both his sons, Isaac and Ishmael. And God blessed both Isaac and Ishmael. [169] But Islam claims that God “hates” the descendants of Isaac. We know that God cannot hate. This is wrong.
However, just like in Judaism and Christianity, the Muslims also believe that we should worship God alone. Muslims believe that to worship idols or other humans is a grave sin. It says this very thing in the Quran 1:5, which reads, “You alone we worship and You alone we ask for help.” [170] However, in the very next chapter, God supposedly tells the angels in heaven to worship Adam, the first human! At this point in time, according to the Quran, Satan is still one of the angels in heaven. However, the Quran does not always use the term “Satan,” but sometimes alternates with the term “Iblis.” Iblis was the name of the angel in heaven before he was thrown into hell by Allah, and his named changed to Satan. The Arabs believed Iblis, who became Satan, was the leader of all the devils and the enemy of God. The verse reads:
Allah said, “O Adam! Inform them of their names.” Then when Adam did, Allah said, “Did I not tell you that I know the secrets of the heavens and the earth, and I know what you reveal and what you conceal?” And remember when We said to the angels, “Prostrate before Adam,” so they all did- but not Iblis, who refused and acted arrogantly, becoming unfaithful. We cautioned, “O Adam! Live with your wife in paradise and eat as freely as you please, but do not approach this tree, or else you will be wrongdoers.” But Satan deceived them, leading to their fall from the blissful state they were in, and We said, “Descend
169. New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition. (Catholic Book Pub., New York, NY, 1970). Genesis 21:1-20.
170. Quran, Surah Al-Fatihah, chapter 1, verse 5.
from the heavens to the earth as enemies of each other. You will find in the earth a residence and provision for your appointed stay.” [171]
These passages are important in our critique of Islam since God is telling the angels to prostrate before Adam, to worship Adam, which violates the Quran’s own teaching to worship God alone, and it actually paints Iblis (Satan) in a good light, from a human perspective, for refusing to worship Adam. Further, the story closely mimics the biblical allegory of the fall of man in the garden of Eden, when Eve ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge. [172] While Muslims do not believe that angels worship humans, the Quran says otherwise. And it is important to remember that Muslims believe that the Quran was dictated to Muhammad by God through an angel speaking Arabic, and so there is no room to account for human transcription errors or mistakes made in translation. Thus, we have found another error for which there is no explanation, except that Islam is false. This is the first account of idol worship in the Quran.
This book has already discussed how the Quran documents that Muhammad approved of the idol worship of the cranes in Mecca, despite the Quran prohibiting idol worship. That is the second account of idol worship in the Quran.
The third is the pagan ritual of the Muslims kissing the Black Stone set in the Kaaba, the ancient building in the center of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, when they make their pilgrimage. Worshiping a stone is idol worship. Even honoring a stone is idol worship. The following passage shows that the stone is considered much more than just a symbol:
I heard Ibn Abbas say: The Messenger of Allah said, “This Stone will be brought on the Day of Resurrection, and it will be given two eyes with which to see and a tongue with which to speak, and it will bear witness for those who touched it in sincerity.” [173]
Thus, the stone comes to life as an intercessor, a god, and a witness. While the whole thing sounds mythological, this is also exactly what the pagans believed when they used to worship stone idols. They thought these idols could intervene with the gods and were alive. It is important to note that the stone is not a relic in the sense that it is not an object simply being honored like the boots of a war hero. Muslims believe the stone itself has power, and the stone itself “will bear witness,” which means it is a living god. This is idol worship. Thus, these are three examples of the idol worship in Islam, even though Islam claims that idol worship is a grave sin against God. The religion contradicts itself.
The fourth example is in the Quran 4:64 which reads:
And we did not send any messenger except to be obeyed by permission of Allah. And if, when they wronged themselves, they had come to you, O Muhammad, and asked forgiveness of Allah and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah accepting of repentance and merciful. [174]
171. Quran, Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:33-36.
172. The New American Bible, Saint Joseph Edition. (Catholic Book Publishing, New York, NY, 1970). Genesis 2:16-3:7.
173. Sunan Ibn Majah, 2944.Chapters on Hajj Rituals, book 25, hadith 63. www.sunnah.com.
174. Quran, Surah An-Nisa, chapter 4, verse 64.
Notice the words, “and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them.” Muhammad is now a necessary intercessor in order for Allah to forgive sin. But Islam teaches that God alone can forgive sin. So why would Muslims have to ask for Muhammad to ask for forgiveness from Allah on their behalf? Why can’t the Muslims just ask Allah directly for forgiveness? If Muhammad is a necessary intercessor for forgiveness, then either the Muslims think he is divine like God or they worship Muhammad; both of which are forbidden by Islam. The passage does not say that if they had asked forgiveness from Allah, they would have found Allah accepting of repentance. It says that if they had asked forgiveness from Allah and the messenger had asked forgiveness for them! Muhammad’s asking for forgiveness is also necessary. They are saying that Muhammad is more than human, because you would not require another human to ask on your behalf in order for you to be forgiven by Allah. Again, the Quran contradicts its own teachings.
And a fifth example is in the Quran 9:103 which reads:
Take O Muhammad from their wealth a charity by which you purify them and cause them increase, and invoke Allah’s blessing upon them. Indeed, your invocations are reassurance for them. And Allah is hearing and knowing. [175]
This verse says that Muhammad is the one to purify them, not Allah. But it is also saying that a Muslim should come and give Muhammad some alms, a charity, or some money and, by this money, he will purify them. “Purify them” means to forgive their sins. So we could reword this passage, and it would read: “Muhammad take my money and forgive my sins and bless me.” Muslims believe that only God can forgive sins, but this passage says that Muhammad will purify them. This is blasphemy and it is written in the Quran. Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of God and was God, and so Jesus could forgive sin. Muslims do not believe that Muhammad was God, so how could he forgive sin?
It has been argued that the Quran is just a very poor plagiarism of the Bible. This is what the famous atheist, Christopher Hitchens, thought. Hitchens, despite his atheistic beliefs, had an excellent working knowledge of both the Bible and the Quran. He thought the Quran was clearly and conclusively a very poor plagiarism of the Bible since the Quran makes no sense without the Bible. Hitchens wrote:
There is some question as to whether Islam is a separate religion at all. It initially fulfilled a need among Arabs for a distinctive or special creed, and is forever identified with their language and their impressive later conquests, which, while not as striking as those of the young Alexander of Macedonia, certainly conveyed an idea of being backed by a divine will until they petered out at the fringes of the Balkans and the Mediterranean. But Islam when examined is not much more than a rather obvious and ill-arranged set of plagiarisms, helping itself from earlier books and traditions as occasion appeared to require. [176]
If someone tried to read the Quran, without any prior knowledge of the Bible, then the verses would make little sense. Some working knowledge of Biblical characters is required to understand the Quran. In fact, most of chapter two of the Quran, Surah Al-Baqarah, is a close
175. Quran, Surah At-Tawbah, chapter 9, verse 103.
176. Christopher Hitchens. God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. (Twelve/Hachette Book Pub., New York, NY, 2009) p. 129.
mimicry of the chapters of Genesis and Exodus from the Bible. Quran verses 2:35-36 are copies of Genesis chapters 2-3, and Quran verses 2:49-61 directly references Exodus chapters 14-17.
There are many chapters in the Quran that are hard to explain, including “The Cow”, “The Cattle”, “The Bee”, “The Spider,” “The Ants” and “The Elephant”. It must be considered that Muhammad’s own pagan Quraysh tribe worshipped cranes, and these chapters of the Quran are devoted to different animals. Was the naming of the Quranic chapters after animals a second subtle approval of idol worship to his tribe? It is unclear why many chapters are named after animals because these animals are not discussed within the chapters themselves. But it also shows a lack of rational construction of the book.
There are chapters that discuss biblical characters, such as Mary, Jonah, Jesus, and Joseph. Unlike the Bible, there is very poor chronology in the Quran and no timeline such that trying to date any verses or events is impossible. There is also an extreme randomness to the verses and chapters which are like a compilation of confused instructions and warnings. There are no connecting stories or history to tie the chapters together, but only praises, threats, and instructions. Could a true revelation from God be so poorly constructed when the universe is so amazingly ordered?
When Islamic scholars want to try to trace anything in the Muslim tradition prior to Muhammad, they are forced to look at the older Hebrew texts written by the Jews from 1 AD to 650 AD, or extant copies of the Bible or early Christian works written by the Christian desert fathers from 23 AD to 380 AD! [177] Islamic scholars often refer to the Bible for the events post Abraham and pre-Muhammad. Thus, we can see that the Quran is clearly like a follow-up postscript to the Bible and requires the Bible to understand the ancestors of Islam that predated their own religion.
If the Quran really contained revelation from God to man, then Muhammad should have given divine instructions that contained deep truths reflecting the human condition, and how to live a moral life. This is probably the strongest reason why Christians believe the teachings of Jesus. He taught forgiveness, love, inclusivity of all people into the kingdom of God, and peace. The teachings of Jesus resonant with truth in the human heart. Jesus also never took a wife and knew His teachings would eventually cause the Jews to kill him. But he didn’t stop. What was his motive? What was his motive if not simply to spread the truth?
In the Quran, Muhammad teaches his followers not to make friends with Christians or Jews, [178] and to fight against non-Muslims until they are “utterly subdued” or pay the “tribute tax.” [179] The tribute tax, called jizyah in Arabic, was a monetary penalty that Jews and Christians would have to pay to the governors or caliphs of Muslim-run cities if they wanted to practice their faith within those communities. The Quran 9:29 reads:
177. Garth Fowden. Before and After Muhammad: The First Millennium Refocused. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2013) pp. 70-113.
178. Quran, Surah Al-Ma’idah, chapter 5, verse 51.
179. Quran, Surah At-Tawbah, chapter 9, verses 28-30.
Fight against those who do not believe in Allah or in the last day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and his messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture. Fight until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. [180]
But if Islam is the true religion, then why would Muslims want to accept the payment of money so that other religions could also be practiced if they felt that the very practice of those religions would offend God? Does money make heresy tolerable? And how can Islam be a religion of peace when the Quran says to fight against those of other religions?
Further, in the Sunni tradition of Islam, after Muhammad died, he did not go to jannah (Arabic word for “heaven” or “paradise”), but to barzakh (Arabic work for “barrier”). Barzakh refers to an intermediary waiting dimension between earthly life and judgment day. Muslims believe the human soul stays in barzakh till judgment day, while the body stays in the grave. [181] Only after judgment day do souls go to heaven. Therefore, it is not heresy for Muslims to say that Muhammad’s soul is currently in barzakh. Only Allah and the angels are in jannah, or heaven. That is what they believe.
But in the Quran, Surah Ali ‘Imran, verse 3:55 reads, “Remember when Allah said, ‘O Jesus! I will take you and raise you up to Myself. I will deliver you from those who disbelieve and elevate your followers above the disbelievers until the day of judgment.’” [182] If Allah takes Jesus and raises Him up to where Allah is, then Jesus is in heaven with Allah, while Muhammad waits in barzakh! This is from the Quran! If Muslims believe the Quran, then Allah has already taken Jesus to heaven and elevated Jesus above Muhammad. And a very similar thing is said in Quran 4:158 which reads, “Rather, Allah raised him (Jesus) up to Himself. And Allah is Almighty, All-Wise.” [183] In Arabic, the word “ittakhadha,” means “has taken to Himself,” and implies an adoption or possession of Jesus, rather than just a placement in heaven. Clearly, Muslims must admit that the Quran considers Jesus to be much more than just a prophet.
And in the Quran, Surah Al-Haqqah, verse 69:44-46 contains sentences where God is speaking and says, “Had the Prophet (Muhammad) made up something in Our Name, we would have certainly seized him by his right hand, and then severed his aorta.” [184] Recall that Muhammad died after he was poisoned. A passage from Sahih al-Bukhari describes Muhammad talking to one of his wives, Aisha, after he was poisoned by some food given to him by the Jewish woman after he had slaughtered their village. It reads, “The prophet in his ailment in which he died used to say, ‘O Aisha, I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.’” [185] And Muhammad did die. This evidence comes from within the writings of Islam, and not from external sources. Thus, according to the Quran, this hints that Muhammad was a liar about Allah.
180. Quran, Surah At-Tawhab, chapter 9, verse 29.
181. Sahih Muslim, Fiqh-us-Sunnah, vol. 4, Funerals and Dhikr, Fiqh 4.095.
182. Quran, Surah Ali ‘Imran, chapter 3, verse 55.
183. Quran, Surah An-Nisa, chapter 4, verse 158.
184. Quran, Surah Al-Haqqah, chapter 69, verses 44-46.
185. Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 5, book 59, number 713.
And here is an example of such a lie that Muhammad told. The Quran strictly forbids any kind of intercessor between humans and Allah. People are supposed to pray directly to Allah and Allah will hear them. The Quran 74:48 reads, “So the pleas of intercessors will be of no benefit to them.” And Quran 6:51 reads, “Warn with this Quran those who are awed by the prospect of being gathered before their Lord- when they will have no protector or intercessor besides Him- so perhaps they will be mindful of Him.” And Quran 39:43 reads, “Or have they taken others besides Allah as intercessors? Say, O prophet, ‘Would they do so, even though those idols have neither authority nor intelligence?’” And Quran 32:4 reads, “It is Allah who has created the heavens and the earth and everything in six days, then established himself on the throne. You have no protector or intercessor besides him.” And Quran 10:18 reads, “They worship besides Allah others who can neither harm nor benefit them, and say, ‘These are our intercessors with Allah.’ Ask them, O prophet, ‘Are you informing Allah of something he does not know in the heavens or the earth?’” And, after reading this, Muslims appropriately claim that they should not have any intercessors between them and Allah.
But Muhammad grossly contradicts this, and says, “I shall be pre-eminent amongst the descendants of Adam on the Day of Resurrection and I will be the first intercessor and the first whose intercession will be accepted by Allah.” [186] And again, he says, “I shall be the first intercessor in paradise, no prophet having been believed to the extent I have.” [187] And again, Muhammad says, “If anyone preserves for my people forty traditions concerning their religion, God will raise him up in the next world as a faqih, and I shall be an intercessor and witness for him on the day of resurrection.” [188] But Muhammad did not make just himself an intercessor, as the following hadith describes how Muhammad proclaimed, “If anyone recites the Quran, learns it by heart, declares what is lawful in it to be lawful and what is unlawful in it to be unlawful, God will bring him into paradise and make him an intercessor for ten of his family all of whom have deserved hell.” [189] And there are many other hadiths such as these. The contradictions are overwhelming. No wonder the Muslims are confused.
186. Sahih Muslim 2278, book 43, hadith 3.
187. Mishkat al-Masabih 5744, book 29, hadith 6. www.sunnah.com.
188. Mishkat al-Masabih 258, book 2, hadith 55.
189. Mishkat al-Masabih 2141, book 8, hadith 32.
Chapter 7
Error #6 Muhammad did not perform any miracles and many of the fake stories about him closely mimic stories of Jesus.
This chapter of the book will prove the following three points.
1. Muhammad never performed any miracles, but stories were later fabricated to closely mimic the miracles of Jesus.
2. Muhammad’s teachings oppose what Jesus said.
3. The Quran is a very bad plagiarism of the Bible.
Some of the narratives within the hadiths seem to closely mimic biblical stories. For example, there is a famous biblical story of Jesus being asked what to do with a woman caught in the act of adultery. The Pharisees said that the law of Moses commanded that they stone to death such women. Jesus tells them that the one among them without sin should cast the first stone. But since they were all sinners, they dropped their stones and left. Jesus then told the woman that He did not condemn her, and to go sin no more (John 8:3-11). [190] Jesus shows mercy and the woman lived.
Contrast that story with a similar story about Muhammad. A married man came to Muhammad and told him that he had committed “illegal sexual intercourse” with another woman. Muhammad ordered him to be stoned to death. [191] Muhammad recommends death, not mercy.
When Jesus taught about divorce, He said that whoever divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery (Matthew 5:31 32). And that whoever looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28-32). [192]
But Muhammad says the opposite: “Allah has forgiven my followers the evil thoughts that occur in their minds, as long as such thoughts are not put into action or uttered.” [193] And Muhammad gave men many different ways to divorce their wives. [194] Since Jesus gave His teachings first, centuries earlier, and since Muhammad was familiar with Christian traditions, it appears he was intentionally reversing the teachings of Jesus.
190. The New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition. (Catholic Book Publishing, New York, NY, 1970) John 8:3-11.
191. Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 7, book 63, numbers 195-196.
192. The New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition. (Catholic Book Publishing, New York, NY, 1970) Matthew 5:28-32.
193. Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 7, book 63, number 194.
194. Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 7, book 63, numbers 178-191.
Another example is Jesus telling his apostles that if only they had faith the size of a mustard seed, they could move mountains. [195] Muhammad stole this line and told his disciples that Allah would remove from hell anyone who had faith the size of a mustard seed. [196] Muhammad could have used many analogies, but chose the same one that Jesus used of a mustard seed. Is this just coincidence?
As compiled by the Islamic historians Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham, before Muhammad entered the city of Medina, he was said to have been given an oath of allegiance from twelve men in the city, which clearly appears to be an imitation of the twelve apostles of Christ. This story is called “The First Pledge of Aqabah” and it can be found in non-historical works like the hadith Tarikh al-Tabari. It reads:
Upon this, our holy prophet declared, “Choose twelve individuals from among yourselves who will stand by me in every matter as the representatives of their tribes. Moses also had twelve representatives from the sons of Israel.” [197]
Muhammad himself even admits to choosing twelve men only because Moses had chosen men from the twelve tribes of Israel! The Judeo-Christian influence can be clearly seen. And in “The Second Pledge of Aqabah,” Muhammad received an oath of allegiance from seventy men and two women who were sent out in pairs, just like Jesus sent out his seventy two disciples in pairs. [198] The story reads:
In the last stage, during the talks, one person named Abbas ibn Ubada, said to them, “Do you know for what you are taking this pledge? This is a declaration of war between the Arabs and non-Arabs.” They replied, “O prophet, if we fulfill the pledge, what is in store for us?” The prophet replied, “Paradise.” They said, “Hold out your hand,” then the prophet held out his hand and they pledged their allegiance.” [199]
By Muslim tradition, this was the start of jihad. Jesus sent out His seventy-two disciples to preach the kingdom of God, but Muhammad sent out his seventy-two disciples to make war. Again, Muhammad picking out 12 men to serve him and then having 72 disciples to send out seems too unlikely to be simply coincidence.
There is also the famous Biblical account of Jesus taking five loaves of bread and two fish and multiplying the loaves of bread and fish to feed 5000 of his followers. [200] One of the Muslim hadiths mimics this story:
At that time, they numbered 40 men more or less… When they had gathered together, he called on me to bring the food which I had prepared (a measure of wheat and a leg of mutton). I brought it, and when I had put it down, the prophet took a piece of the meat and broke it with his teeth and threw it towards
195. The New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition. (Catholic Book Publishing, New York, NY, 1970). Matthew 17:20.
196. Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 1, book 2, number 21.
197. Tarikh al-Tabari, vol. 2, p. 239.
198. New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition. (Catholic Book Pub., New York, NY, 1970). Luke 10:1.
199. Sirat Ibn Hisham, vol. 1, p. 446.
200. New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition. (Catholic Book Pub., New York, NY, 1970). Matthew 14:16-21.
the dish. Then he said, “Take in the name of God.” They ate until they could eat no more, and yet the food was as it had been, except for where their hands had been. [201]
The above quote from Sahih al-Tabari has a footnote after the text which reads, “This is an example of the miracles invented for Muhammad by later Muslim scholars in order to refute the Christian argument that he could not be a prophet because he had performed no miracles.” [202] The footnote was written by William Montgomery Watt who was a professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Edinburgh and one of the greatest and most prolific Islamic historians. He clearly did not believe that this story was true.
Other reported miracles have a much more magical, than historical, context. Another passage from al-Tabari reads:
“Do you wish me to show you a sign?” asked the prophet. “Yes,” said the man. “Summon that cluster of dates.” So the prophet looked at a cluster of dates hanging from a date palm and summoned it, and began to snap his fingers until it stood before him. Then the man said, “Tell it to go back,” and it went back. The Amiri said, “I have never seen a greater magician than I have seen today.” [203]
It is important to note that the above passage, if it were true, is really Muhammad just showing off. This is something Jesus never did. All of the miracles performed by Jesus were only done to help others, and usually consisted of curing the sick. But Jesus never moved trees around or levitated big stones to show off. Most contemporary Muslim scholars admit that Muhammad never performed any miracles, except the so-called “miracle” of receiving the Quran. [204, 205]
But there are many other stories that mimic biblical stories, such as the revealing of the Quran to Muhammad in a mountainous cave in similar fashion to God giving Moses the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai. Further, the angel Gabriel gave the initial message of the Messiah’s upcoming birth to Mary in the Bible, and it is oddly similar that the Islamic religion claims that Gabriel appeared to Muhammad as well with a message. Due to a large number of Christians and Jews living in the same area where the Islamic religion was created, it is easy to see how the Judeo-Christian narrative was stolen and adjusted to a more Arabic tradition using Ishmael as their father in faith to separate them from the Jewish tradition in Isaac.
The Bible is a series of stories with a relative timeline. It introduces people and reports the events of their lives and their relationship with God. But the Quran has no timeline and does not introduce any person with an explanation of who they are. If you did not know who Jesus, Joseph, Mary, Jonah, Abraham, Adam, or Gabriel were from the Bible, then the Quran would leave you clueless. The Quran requires knowledge of the Bible for understanding. And that itself should raise some questions in the minds of Muslims. The randomness and lack of order in the Quran is overwhelming. It is really just a book of quotations, instructions, threats,
201. The History of al-Tabari, Volume VI, Muhammad at Mecca, transl. William Montgomery Watt and M.V. McDonald. (State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, 1988) p. 90.
202. The History of al-Tabari, p. 90, footnote 142.
203. The History of al-Tabari, pp. 66-67.
204. Isma’il al-Faruqi. Christian Mission and Islamic Da’wah: Proceedings from the Chambesy Dialogue Consultation. (The Islamic Foundation, Leicester, England, 1982) p. 20.
205. Muhammad Husayn Haykal. The Life of Muhammad. (North American Trust Pub., Indianapolis, Indiana, 1976) p. xxvi.
and praises to God with some random stories thrown in that mimic the Bible. And it is certainly not a historical narrative nor a book of revelation. The more a Christian reads the Quran, the more it becomes very clear that the Bible is the authentic text and the Quran appears to be a poorly rewritten jumble of copied Biblical text with some very poignant insertions that claim certain verses within the Bible were wrong.
A good example of this is the Biblical story in the gospel of Matthew when the Pharisees, who did not believe that Jesus was the true Messiah sent from God, went to Pilate after the death of Jesus. In this passage, the Pharisees refer to Jesus as an “imposter” implying that He was not really the true Jewish Messiah. The passage reads:
The next day, the one following the day of preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate and said, “Sir, we remember that this imposter, while he was alive said, ‘After three days, I will be raised up.’ Give orders, then, that the grave be secured until the third day, lest his disciples come and steal him and say to the people, ‘He has been raised from the dead.’ This last imposture would be worse that the first.’” [206]
Of course, Jesus did rise from the dead and was witnessed to be alive by over 500 of his disciples which inspired them to spread the Gospel at the risk of their own lives. But the Quran has grossly twisted this into the following passage where they claim that, it was not Jesus that was actually crucified, but an imposter.
And because of their saying in boast “We killed Messiah Jesus son of Maryam, the messenger of Allah”- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Jesus was put over another man, and they killed that man, and those who differ therein are full of doubts. [207]
Muslims take this passage from the Quran to say that Jesus was not crucified, even though other historical sources prove that Jesus was, in fact, crucified. This is discussed further in chapter 10.
But that is not the only example when the Muslims tried to change up the characters in the Bible and write their own narrative. Another passage in the Quran reads:
The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah,” while the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah.” Such are their baseless assertions, only parroting the words of earlier disbelievers. May Allah condemn them! How can they be deluded from the truth? [208]
But the Jews do not believe, and never have believed, that Ezra was the son of God! This is yet another lie. Even in 860 AD, the Muslim scholar al-Qasim ibn Ibrahim al-Rassi, who studied and debated with Christian and Jewish scholars, admitted that he had never met a Jew who believed that Ezra was the son of God. [209] Ezra was a Jewish scribe and teacher who was taken captive to Babylon after Jerusalem fell. After the Babylonian Empire was conquered by the Persians, and the Persians released the Jews, Ezra led the remnant of the Jews back to Jerusalem. The Jews have never said that Ezra is the son of God. And for those who say the
206. The New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition. (Catholic Book Pub., New York, NY, 1970) Matthew 27:62-64.
207. Quran, Surah An-Nisa, chapter 4, verse 157, transl. by Mohsin Khan.
208. Quran, Surah At-Tawbah, chapter 9, verse 30.
209. Wilfred Madelung. Der Imam al-Qasim ibn Ibrahim und die Glaubenslehre der Zaiditen. (de Gruyter Pub., Berlin, Germany, 1965) p. 90.
Essenes believed that Ezra was the son of God, there is no proof of that either. Muslims will claim that the Quran is the exact word of God and has no mistakes. Well, this documents another big mistake. God knows who Ezra was, and God would not lie to Muhammad, so the Quran is wrong.
Another example of how Muslims have plagiarized the Bible would be the verses in Sahih al-Bukhari that copy what Jesus said when He was asked what is the greatest commandment in the law.
When the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together and one of them tested Him by asking, “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” And Jesus replied, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: love your neighbor as yourself. All the law and the prophets depend upon these two commandments. [210]
A similar question was supposedly asked to Muhammad.
Allah’s apostle was asked, “What is the best deed?” He replied, “To believe in Allah and his apostle.” The questioner then asked, “What is the next in goodness?” He replied, “To participate in jihad (religious fighting) in Allah’s cause.” The questioner asked again, “What is the next in goodness?” He replied, “To perform hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca). [211]
Clearly, the Biblical plagiarism is obvious. But we should also compare the answers. Jesus answered to love God and each other. Muhammad answered to believe in Allah and Muhammad, and to fight with his army. Since Muhammad was leading an army against the Jews in Arabia, it seems convenient for him to recommend that God would want all people to fight with him. But if Islam was true, wouldn’t it make more sense to try to convert the Jews to Islam with instruction and education, rather than kill them? It appears Muhammad preferred violence, while Jesus was a man of peace.
And there is another famous parable that Jesus gave about workers in a vineyard. Matthew 20:1-16 reads:
The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard. Going out about 9 o’clock he saw others standing idle in the marketplace and he said to them, “You too go into my vineyard and I will give you what is just.” So they went off. He went again around noon and at 3 o’clock and did likewise. Going out about 5 o’clock he found others standing around and said to them, “Why do you stand here idle all day?” They answered, “Because no one has hired us.” He said to them, “You too go into my vineyard.” When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, “Summon the laborers and given them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.” When those who started about 5 o’clock came, each received the usual daily wage. So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage. And on receiving it, they grumbled against the landowner saying, “These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who bore the day’s burden and the heat.” He said to one of them in reply, “My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last
210. The New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition. (Catholic Book Publishing, New York, NY, 1970). Matthew 22:34-40.
211. Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 1, book 2, number 25.
one the same as you? Am I not free to do with as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous? Thus, the last will be first and the first will be last. [212]
And Muhammad copied this and said:
And your example in comparison to the Jews and the Christians is like the example of a person who employed some laborers and asked them, “Who will work for me till midday for one Qirat each?” The Jews worked for half a day for one Qirat each. The person asked, “Who will do the work for me from midday to the time of the ‘Asr (prayer) for one Qirat each?” The Christians worked from midday till the ‘Asr (prayer) for one Qirat. Then the person asked, “Who will do the work for me from the ‘Asr till sunset for two Qirats each?” The prophet added, “It is you Muslims who are doing the work from the ‘Asr till sunset, so you will have a double reward. The Jews and the Christians got angry and said, ‘We have done more work, but have gotten less wages.’ Allah said, ‘Have I been unjust to you as regards your rights?’ They said, ‘No.’ So Allah said, ‘Then it is my blessing which I bestow on whomever I like.’” [213]
Any rational person can see that this is a copied passage from the Bible that has simply been changed to promote an Islamic idea that the Muslims are favored by Allah. And the plagiarism is too poor to believe that it is a unique story from the life of Muhammad without any Judeo Christian influence.
Another famous passage in the Bible is in the gospel of Matthew where Jesus describes who will be saved and who will be damned. The verses read:
When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne and all the nations will be assembled before Him. And He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on His right and the goats on His left. Then the king will say to those on His right, “Come you who are blessed by me Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, and I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me. Then the righteous will say, “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you or thirsty and give you drink? When did we you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison and visit you?” And the king will say to them in reply, “Amen, I say to you whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.” Then He will say to those on His left, “Depart from me you accursed into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison and you did not care for me. [214]
And here is the plagiarism by the Muslims:
Allah will say on the day of resurrection: O son of Adam, I fell ill and you visited me not. He will say: O Lord, and how should I visit you when you are the lord of the worlds? He will say: Did you not know that my servant so-and-so had fallen ill and you visited him not? Did you not know that had you visited him, you would have found me with him? O son of Adam, I asked you for food and you fed me not. He will say: O Lord, how should I feed you when you are the lord of the worlds? He will say: Did you not know that my servant so-and-so asked you for food and you fed him not? Did you not know that had you fed him you
212. The New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition. (Catholic Book Publishing, New York, NY, 1970). Matthew 20:1-16.
213. Sahih Al-Bukhari, vol. 4, book 56, number 665.
214. New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition. (Catholic Book Pub., New York, NY, 1970) Matthew 25:31-43.
surely would have found that the reward for doing so with me? O son of Adam, I asked you to give me drink, and you gave me not to drink. He will say: O Lord, how should I give you to drink when you are the lord of the worlds? He will say: My servant so-and-so asked you to give him a drink and you gave him not to drink. Had you given him a drink, you would have surely found that with Me. [215]
The plagiarism is obvious. This proves the Muslims read the Bible, they knew the Bible, and they changed the Bible. There is simply too much mimicry and plagiarism of the Bible in the Quran to believe that the Quran is an “independent” revelation from God. In fact, the Quran itself hints at the plagiarism in verse 6:105 which reads:
And so We vary our signs to the extent that they will say, “You have studied previous scriptures,” and We make this Quran clear for people who know. [216]
Indeed, the Christians do know: it is clear that the Muslims plagiarized the Bible.
215. 40 Hadith Qudsi, hadith 18. www.sunnah.com.
216. Quran, Surah Al-An’am, chapter 6, verse 105.
Chapter 8
Error #7 Most Muslims have not read or understand the Quran. The majority of Muslims have never read a translation of the Quran in their native language.
A Christian who knows nothing about Islam may believe that Muslims understand their faith and are happily and willingly going to the mosque and worshipping in sincerity. But worldwide, the majority of Muslims were either born into the tradition or forced into the tradition due to cultural, legal, or military force. Very few educated people voluntarily convert to Islam. In the United States in 2018, 23% of those raised as Muslim said they no longer practiced Islam, citing reasons such as lack of belief, disagreement with the tenets, interest in another religion, and maturity/education. [217] There is a strong connection between Islam and lack of education. According to the Pew Research Center, 43% of Muslim women and 30% of Muslim men worldwide have no formal education, and 43% were illiterate. [218, 219]
Within the mosque, the Quran is read in Arabic, but most Muslims in the world do not speak Arabic. This is actually similar to the early Catholic mass being said only in Latin. Most Catholics could not understand Latin. There are, of course, translations of the Quran into many languages, but sacred reading of the Quran is believed to require reading in Arabic since the translations are not considered to be trustworthy, only because Muslim tradition says that the Quran was recited to Muhammad by the spirit in Arabic. Many Muslims admit to reading the Quran in Arabic as a child, but not knowing what they were reading. Further, in Africa, many Muslims are illiterate in their own language, not to mention Arabic, and cannot read any translation. Since most Muslims either grew up within the religion or were converted under penalty of death, it makes sense that most have never made an attempt to read or understand the Quran themselves. Further, it is considered a grave sin to question or refute the Quran, so questions are never raised with the local imam. [220] This propagates a culture of ignorance of the Quran, and tradition and fallacy take over where knowledge is missing. The Quran is believed to be the direct word of God which was originally communicated in Arabic and therefore it cannot be reliably translated into other languages. [221] Thus, even a translation may not be considered as authentic by a Muslim, and leave them in a state of ignorance of their own religion. By
217. Besheer Mohamed and Elizabeth Podrebarac-Sciupac. “The share of Americans who leave Islam is offset by those who become Muslim.” Pew Research Center. January 26, 2018. www.pewresearch.org.
218. Religion and Education Around the World. Pew Research Center. December 13, 2016. www.pewresearch.org.
219. “Muslims least, Jains most literate: Census.” The Hindu: India & World News. September 1, 2016. www.thehindu.com.
220. Quran, Surah Al-Ma’idah, chapter 5, verse 101.
221. Malise Ruthven. Islam in the World, 3rd ed. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 2006). p. 89-90.
geographic region, here are the percentages of those Muslims who have never read the Quran. [222]
Southeastern Europe Russia, Kosovo, Albania 16-47%
Central Asia Turkey, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan 15-45%
Southeast Asia Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia 49-61%
South Asia Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh 4-14%
Middle East, North Africa Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, Tunisia 46-64%
Further, a little less than half of the Muslims in Africa say that they do not know anything about Christianity. [223] According to a Pew Forum analysis of the 2008 Nigerian Demographic and Health Survey, “the percentage of women of childbearing age who cannot read is three times as high among Muslims (71.9%) as among non-Muslim Nigerians (23.9%). Muslim women of childbearing age are also much less likely to have received a formal education than are other women in the country; 66.0% of Muslim women have no formal education, compared with 11.2% of non-Muslims. Only about 3% of Muslim women in Nigeria have attended college or university, compared with roughly 14% of non-Muslim women.” [224] By keeping the population ignorant of their own religion and preventing education, especially among the women, the followers of Islam sadly do not have the ability to educate themselves or come to know the truth. A Muslim who cannot read has little hope of discovering alternatives to Islam unless they meet a Christian missionary.
Of course, the Quran has been translated into English and more than 40 other languages. However, Muslim scholars are very careful to note that these “translations” are not true translations, but “interpretations” of the Quran, claiming that only in Arabic can the true meaning of the Quran be understood. [225] Why would this be? World renowned Islamic scholar Gerd Puin explains:
The Koran claims for itself that it is “mubeen,” or “clear,” But if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make any sense. Many Muslims, and Orientalists, will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Koran is not comprehensible, if it can’t even be understood in Arabic, then it’s not translatable. People fear that. And since the Koran claims
222. Pew Research Center. The World’s Muslims: Unity and Diversity. Chapter 2: “Religious Commitment.” Published August 9, 2012. www.pewresearch.org.
223. Pew Research Center. Tolerance and Tension: Islam and Christianity in Sub-Saharan Africa. Published April 15, 2010. www.pewresearch.org.
224. Pew Research Center. The Future of the Global Muslim Population. Region: Sub-Saharan Africa. Published January 27, 2011. www.pewresearch.org.
225. Malise Ruthven. Islam in the World. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 2006) p. 90.
repeatedly to be clear, but obviously is not, as even speakers of Arabic will tell you, there is a contradiction. Something else must be going on. [226]
Although Muslims will repeat over and over that the Quran was revealed to Muhammad in Arabic, the historical proof shows that the original texts of the Quran were written in an ancient script called Hijazi, which derived from Aramaic. [227] From Hijazi, it was translated into an ancient Arabic script called Kufic and then translated into modern Arabic. And this is the problem. Modern Muslims cannot read Kufic nor Hijazi. Thus, if a modern Muslim picks up an ancient copy of the Quran written in Kufic, they cannot read it! The original Kufic language was very crude, and meanings were difficult to transmit in writing. I explain this in much more detail in Chapter 13. But I write this to make the simple point that it benefits the Muslims to claim that most people cannot understand the Quran because they don’t read Arabic. And it benefits them to say that translations are unreliable. And it benefits the Muslims to prevent people from reading the Quran. Because the truth is that no one can understand the Quran, not even the Muslims. A Muslim scholar, who is a Muslim, wrote:
The Quran 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 inflicted 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 their subject. These and other aberrations in the language have given scope to critics who deny the Quran’s eloquence. [228]
I encourage everyone to go read some verses from the Quran and determine for themselves if it is a masterpiece of divine literature. Most readers agree that it is not.
226. Toby Lester. “What is the Koran.” The Atlantic. January 1, 1999. www.theatlantic.com.
227. Marijn van Putten. Quranic Arabic: From Its Hijazi Origins to Its Classical Reading Traditions. (Brill Academic Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts, 2020) pp. 99-149.
228. Ali Dashti. Twenty-Three Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad. (Mazda Pub., Costa Mesa, CA, 1994) p. 3.
Chapter 9
Error #8 Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God.
This chapter of the book will prove the following four points.
1. The Quran is not an extension of the Bible.
2. The Quran describes God very differently from the Bible.
3. Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God.
4. The timeline of salvation history diverges with Islam.
Muslims claim to have a faith tradition that comes from Abraham. The same Abraham that started the Jewish religion. How can that be? Is Islam an offshoot of Judaism? No. Here is the brief explanation.
Abraham was promised by God that his descendants would number more than “the stars in the sky” in Genesis 15:5. But Abraham and his wife Sarah were elderly and could not have children and had never had any children. But feeling that they now needed to somehow have children due to God’s prophecy, Sarah encouraged Abraham to have sexual relations with her maidservant (slave) Hagar, who was much younger. And so Abraham did have sex with Hagar, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Ishmael, Abraham’s first born son. But this was not God’s wish. In time, God had desired for Abraham and Sarah to have a child together, but they did not believe what God had told them and tried to make it happen in their own way using Hagar.
However, sometime after the birth of Ishmael, Sarah did become pregnant as the Lord had foretold and gave birth to Abraham’s second son, Isaac. Sarah, now being a mother, began to resent seeing Ishmael as the older and favored son of Abraham and thought Ishmael was a bad influence on Isaac. And, because of this, Sarah asked Abraham to send both Hagar and Ishmael away so that they would no longer live with them. Although he didn’t want to, Abraham did send Hagar and Ishmael away into the desert with only a little water, and the narrative paints a picture that they were being sent into the desert to die. But once in the desert with Ishmael, Hagar cried out to God for help. And God, being merciful, heard her cries and saved them both.
God then promised Hagar that He would use her son to “create a great nation”, and the tradition, or legend, is that Ishmael settled in the Arabia peninsula and became the father of the Arabian people. Now keep in mind that this occurred roughly, very roughly, between the years 2200-1700 BC. Muhammad was born in 610 AD, at least 2300 years later, in the Arabia peninsula! Now the Muslim tradition is that Muhammad was a descendant of Ishmael, who was the son of Abraham, and that is how Muslims claim a heritage from Abraham. But there is no real evidence that Muhammad was an actual descendant of Ishmael and there is no way to prove or disprove it. There are no complete genealogical records.
But here is where things start to fall apart. We know that it was only after the Babylonian exile that the Jews started to write down their stories and began collections of writings that would later become what we call the Old Testament or the Torah. This was roughly the year 500-600 BC. Keep in mind that written texts were rare, and usually confined to larger cities with wealthy people and libraries where scribes could write and copy texts. Since Muhammad did not start the Islamic religion until after his birth in 610 AD, 1100 years later, there were no Islamic texts in existence at the same time that the Torah was written because Islam did not exist! Now the Arabian people may have certainly had texts of their own, but these were not in any way related to Islam, which didn’t exist, or Muhammad who was not even born. Thus, we have Abraham with two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. The Torah only tells us that God saved Ishmael and that he would be the father of a great nation. The Torah really focuses more on Isaac, who led the Israelites after the death of Abraham, and then passed the leadership of the Jewish people on to his son, Jacob. This lineage is recorded in the Bible and documents the descendants. Could it be that oral tradition was sufficient to remember the true lineage of Abraham from the time that Abraham lived in 2000 BC until the Jews began writing it all down in 600 BC? Maybe?
The Torah documents that the great Jewish king David descended from Jacob, and that ultimately Jesus was born from the line of David. The Bible does tell us that Ishmael married an Egyptian wife in the desert and had 12 sons and one daughter, but that is where the lineage of Ishmael disappears from history, and enters into legend. There is no documentation in the Jewish, Arabian, nor Islamic literature of any other descendants of Ishmael beyond his 12 sons and one daughter. The Jews did not write it down, and no one else did either. If Muhammad did, in fact, descend from Ishmael is truly unknown and purely based upon geography. It is just a Muslim belief.
Ibn Ishaq, the original Muhammad biographer, did attempt to trace the genealogy of Muhammad back to Abraham. He recorded the descendants of Abraham found in the Bible, but could only record a potential eight other descendants from Ishmael’s son, Kedar, who is the purported founder of the Quraysh tribe from which Muhammad descended. [229, 230] Assuming that each generation did not have children until as late an age of 30, although it was probably much younger, there would be at least a minimum of 83 descendants between Ishmael and Muhammad. Al-Tabari, who likely used Ibn Ishaq’s writings as a reference, records twenty-one ancestors of Muhammad as follows. Muhammad’s father was Abdallah, whose father was Abd al-Muttalib, whose father was Hashim, whose father was Abd Manaf, whose father was Qusayy, whose father was Kilab, whose father was Murrah, whose father was Ka’b, whose father was Lu’ayy, whose father was Ghalib, whose father was Fihr, whose father was Malik, whose father was Al-Nadr, whose father was Kinanah, whose father was Khuzaymah, whose father was Mudrikah, whose father was Ilyas, whose father was Mudar, whose father was Nizar, whose father was Ma’add, whose father was Adnan, and the lineage stops there, well short of Kedar
229. Ibn Ishaq. The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, transl. Alfred Guillaume (Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 1955) pp. 7-9.
230. W. Montgomery Watt. “Banu Kurayza”, in Encyclopedia of Islam. (Brill Academic Pub., Leiden, Netherlands, 1986) vol. 5, p. 436.
and Ishmael by centuries. [231] Thus, there is really no evidence that Muhammad descended from Ishmael. But one of Muhammad ancestors, his great, great, great grandfather, Qusayy, deserves a special mention. Ancient Islamic writings give us some insight as to why Muhammad may have thought that he descended from Ishmael. Sprenger writes:
If an aspiring Bedouin finds no sphere of activity in his own clan, he joins a man of another tribe as a confederate. This gives him all the rights and imposes upon him all the duties of a man born in the tribe. Cases in which confederates became the leaders of the tribe are not rare. It is likely that Qusayy, actuated by ambitious views, entered one of the Kinanah tribes as a confederate. Mohammadian authors, however, say that he was the son of Kilab Kinanah Shaykh. Their story is very unlikely, but I give it as it is told by Arabic historians. Fatimah, the wife of Kilab, gave birth to a son, who was called Zohrah; after him she had no child for a long time. At length she bore another son, who was called Qusayy. Kilab died soon after, and his widow married Raby'ah of the Odzrah tribe, by whom she had a son called Rizah. Her new husband took her to his own clan, which occupied the country about Sargh in the highlands of Syria (Arabia Petrea). Zohrah her eldest son remained in the Hijaz, but Qusayy was taken away by his mother, and passed as the son of her second husband. When Qusayy had grown into a man, he had a quarrel with an Odzrite, who reproached him that he was a stranger. He went to his mother and, after many entreaties, she confessed that his father was Kilab. On this he determined to join his own tribe. When he arrived at Makkah, Zohrah was blind from age, but he recognized his brother by his voice and received him into the tribe. … It is in the interest of the family of a confederate to obliterate the memory of his foreign origin and it is, therefore, likely that the descendents of Qusayy invented this tale in order to be considered of Kinanah extraction. It was greedily adopted by Mohammadian authors, for it agreed with their notion, that Mohammad was a son of Abraham. Qusayy was his ancestor and if he had been an Odzrite he would have derived his genealogy from Jocktan, whereas the Kinanah tribes claim descent from Ishmael. [232]
While this may explain the erroneous notion that Muhammad descended from Ishmael, the bottom line is that there is no historical evidence for its truth.
But when the followers of Muhammad began writing down the Quran after his death and organizing it as a book, many interesting parallels began to emerge between the Quran and the Bible. Keep in mind that the Quran was composed 1200 years after the Torah, and 700 years after the earliest copies of the Bible which contained both Old and New Testaments and included the life of Jesus. So do both Muslims and Christians worship the God of Abraham? The short answer is “no”.
“Allah” is the Arabic term for God. Arabic-speaking Christians will also use the term “Allah” to mean God. Hebrews used the term “Yahweh” or “Adonai” to refer to God in the Torah. Interestingly, in pre-Islamic Arabia, from the years 10 AD to 600 AD, “Allah” was considered the chief god of many gods of the Quraysh tribe, from which Muhammad descended. But Allah was one of 360 different gods worshipped in Mecca before Islam eradicated the other tribes, beliefs, and cultures in the region. But the bottom line is that Allah is just another name for God, but now implies a monotheistic, almighty quality. A better question is if Yahweh, the God of Abraham and the God of the Old Testament, is the same God as Allah described in the Quran? And the answer is definitely not. This is because the God of
231. The History of al-Tabari, Volume VI, Muhammad at Mecca, transl. by William Montgomery Watt and M.V. McDonald. (State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, 1988) pp. 1-43.
232. Aloys Sprenger. The Life of Mohammad from Original Sources. (Presbyterian Mission Press, Allahabad, India, 1851) pp. 17-18.
Abraham, who slowly reveals Himself over the course of the Biblical narrative, is discovered to be a triune God subsisting as three separate divine persons in God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but remains a single living God. Muslims believe Allah to be a single God of one person or entity without a son. However, the differences prove to be much deeper and darker.
The God of Abraham or God the Father, as described by Jesus, His only Son and worshiped by Christians and Catholics alike, is a God of mercy, love, forgiveness, and faithfulness. The Bible is loaded with story after story of God’s forgiveness, love, and mercy. God is always faithful to His people and never abandons them, even when they sin against Him.
Let’s contrast this with the way God is described in the Quran. Some passages in the Quran do describe God as merciful and faithful, but the Quran quotes Allah in 3:54 describing himself as, “a schemer, the best of all schemers”. [233] But the Arabic word for “schemer,” “maakara” can also be translated in more than twenty different ways, including “planner,” “trickster,” “deceiver,” or a “shyster.” A Christian would never describe God as a deceiver and, in fact, the term “deceiver” is used to describe Satan, who is a liar and the Father of all lies in John 8:44. And 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 reads, “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.” [234] If the Allah of Muhammad calls himself “the best of all deceivers,” then the Allah of Muhammad is Satan in disguise. It is Satan who “deceives the whole world” (Revelation 12:9) and not the God of Jesus, the Christ.
Muslims like to believe that there have been many prophets over the centuries, and that all of these prophets were pointing to the one true God, but the original message was lost and had to be restored over and over again. One Muslim scholar writes, “Islam asserts that variations of space and time, acculturation by alien influences, and human whims and passions caused people to slip from the truth. The result was that the religions of history all erred more or less from the truth because none has preserved the original text of its revelation.” [235] But this simply isn’t true.
The Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus, both very early copies of the old and new testaments of the Bible from the mid-4th centuries, are very similar matches in content and meaning with modern versions of the Bible. [236] Although some words may have changed in translations, there is no evidence that the truth of Judaism or Christianity or its doctrines have changed over time. But the Muslims persist in this narrative that the original message from God has been corrupted and changed. Another Muslim scholar writes, “The differences between religions are due not so much to differences in revelation as to specific historical factors and in particular to the different people’s distortion of their prophets’ fundamentally identical
233. Marmaduke Pickthall. The Holy Quran: Transliteration in Roman Script and English Translation with Arabic Text. (Kitab Bhavan Pub., New Dehli, India, 1999).
234. New American Bible, St Joseph Edition. (Catholic Book Pub., New York, NY, 1970). 2 Corinthians 11:13-15.
235. Isma’il Al-Faruqi. Islam. (Argus Communications, Niles, Illinois, 1984). p. 10.
236. Kurt Aland. The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, transl. Erroll Rhodes. (Eerdmans Pub., Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1995) p. 109.
teachings.” [237] This false narrative benefits Islam since it allows a pretense to exist that Islam appears as an extension of Judeo-Christian beliefs under the same God, while they slowly go about banning, murdering, and destroying Jewish and Christian communities in the Middle East and Africa.
Further, if Christians and Muslims worship the same God, then that God would have given them the same teachings, the same principles, and the same values. But there are many examples in the Islamic literature, both in the Quran and in many hadiths, where God supposedly says things that are very non-Christian. One of most widely believed hadiths used by Muslims, Sahih Muslim, says, “Abu Ayyub Ansari reported that Allah’s Messenger (Muhammad) said: if you were not to commit sins, Allah would have swept you out of existence and would have replaced you by another people who have committed sin, and then asked forgiveness from Allah, and he would have granted them pardon.” [238] This is not something that Christians would believe about God. God does not want sin and does not need any creature to commit sin just to be forgiven in order to show His mercy.
Keep in mind that if the God of the Bible and Allah in the Quran are the same God, then this God should want the same things and send the same message. In the Bible it says:
In love, He destined us for adoption to Himself through Jesus Christ in accord with the favor of His will for the praise of the glory of His grace that He granted us in the Beloved. [239]
God is in favor of adoption. And there are many, many passages in the Old Testament when God speaks of always supporting the “orphan and the widow.” But one hadith reads:
The prophet said, “He who falsely attributes his fatherhood to anyone besides his real father, knowing that he is not the father, will be forbidden to enter Jannah (heaven). [240]
And another passage reads:
Whoever attributes his fatherhood to someone other than his real father, and takes someone else as his master other than his real master without permission, will incur the curse of Allah, the angels and all the people, and Allah will accept from him neither repentance nor a ransom on the Day of Resurrection. [241]
The Quran allows for what would amount to foster care for orphans, but not adoption. The Quran reads:
And test the orphans in their abilities until they reach marriageable age. Then if you perceive in them sound judgment, release their property to them. And do not consume it excessively and quickly, anticipating that they will grow up. And whoever when acting as guardian is self-sufficient should refrain from taking a fee; and whoever is poor- let him take according to what is acceptable. Then when you release their property to them, bring witnesses upon them. [242]
237. Jacques Waardenburg. “World Religions as Seen in the Light of Islam,” in Islam: Past Influence and Present Challenge. Eds. Alford Welch and Pierre Cachia. (State University of New York Press, New York, NY, 1979) p. 246.
238. Sahih Muslim, book 37, number 6621.
239. New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition. (Catholic Book Pub., New York, NY, 1970) Ephesians 1:5-6.
240. Riyad as-Salihin 1802, book 17, hadith 292.
241. Riyad as-Salihin 1804, book 17, hadith 294.
242. Quran, Surah An-Nisa, chapter 4, verse 6.
Adoption is a good thing for children and for society. Not adopting children in need is clearly not from God. Arguing over not calling someone their father is a dumb argument to prevent offering a good life and a loving home to a child in need.
And in another passage, the Bible speaks highly of chastity. Eunuchs, who are castrated men, were discussed by Jesus when He said:
For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it. [243]
But in a hadith, Muhammad says the opposite:
Uthman Mazun said, “Messenger of God, grant us permission to become eunuchs.” God’s Messenger replied, “He who makes another a eunuch, or becomes one himself, does not belong to us. [244]
And another hadith reads:
It was narrated from Aisha that the messenger of Allah forbade celibacy. [245]
But when one considers the harm that can come from unbridled sexual urges, such as incest, rape, child molestation, pornography, strip clubs, and prostitution, it would seem that a man wanting to become a eunuch, especially if he cannot control his urges, would not necessarily be a bad thing.
Regardless, since Muhammad often says the opposite of what Jesus commanded, both cannot be representing the voice of God. One is right and one is wrong. Thus, Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God.
Further, it is important to try to classify Islam within the entire timeline of salvation history, starting with Abraham. God chose Abraham to lead his chosen people and establish the Jewish nation. And when those people rebelled against God and became trapped within Egyptian slavery, God sent Moses to save them and free them both spiritually and physically and to lead them to the Promised Land. And there was peace. And when the Jewish people rebelled again and became trapped and sequestered by the Babylonians, God freed them both spiritually and physically and sent Ezra to lead them back to Jerusalem. And there was peace. And even later, the Jewish people became trapped again under Roman occupation, but this time God sent His son to free them both spiritually and (later physically with the fall of the Roman Empire) to lead them to the heavenly Jerusalem. And there was peace. However, unlike the first two times, the spiritual freedom brought by Jesus was permanent and eternal. Jesus said, “He who drinks the living water which I give will never thirst again.” [246] This means that no one needs additional spiritual freedom except for what Jesus gives.
But theoretically, if we assume that Jesus was just a prophet like the Muslims say, and that Muhammad was a prophet to follow Jesus, then the salvation timeline characteristics
243. Bible, New International Version, Matthew 19:12.
244. Mishkat al-Masabih 724, book 4, hadith 153.
245. Sunan an-Nasa’i 3213, book 26, hadith 18. www.sunnah.com.
246. New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition. (Catholic Book Pub., New York, NY, 1970) John 4:14.
should match. And, thus, one could ask the following questions. First, were the Arabian people under slavery or under military occupation by another culture from which they would need to be freed? No. Jews and Christians were living in Arabia, but the Arabia peninsula was not under military occupation. Second, did Muhammad free the Arabian people from hostile oppressors and lead them back to Jerusalem? No. In fact, Muhammad rejected Jerusalem for Mecca. Third, after the mission of Muhammad, was there peace? No. Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali all continued the Islamic fight against the Jews and Christians until 661 AD, and then the Umayyad Caliphate continued the fight, conquering portions of North Africa, the Middle East, and Spain. This does not have the fingerprints of God, and does not follow the salvation trend. Thus, it appears that Islam is not a part of salvation history.
Now the Muslims will object and say that Muhammad did go to Jerusalem. But did he really go? This is the “evidence” from two of their most reliable hadiths:
The prophet said, “While I was at the house in a state midway between sleep and wakefulness, an angel recognized me as the man lying between two men. A golden tray full of wisdom and belief was brought to me and my body was cut open from the throat to the lower part of the abdomen and then my abdomen was washed with Zam-zam water and my heart was filled with wisdom and belief. Al-Buraq, a white animal, smaller than a mule and bigger than a donkey, was brought to me and I set out with Gabriel. When I reached the nearest heaven (Muhammad flew to heaven on this mythical beast, al-Buraq), Gabriel said to the heaven gate-keeper, “Open the gate.” The gatekeeper said, “Who is it?” He said, “Gabriel.” The gate-keeper said, “Who is accompanying you?” Gabriel said, “Muhammad.” The gatekeeper said, “Has he been called?” Gabriel said, “Yes.” Then it was said, “He is welcomed. What a wonderful visit his is!” Then I met Adam and greeted him and he said, “You are welcomed O son and a prophet.” Then we ascended to the second heaven… Then I met Jesus and Yahya (John) who said, “You are welcomed, O brother and a prophet.” Then we ascended to the third heaven… There I met Joseph and greeted him, and he replied, “You are welcomed, O brother and a prophet.” Then we ascended to the fourth heaven… there I met Idris and greeted him. He said, “You are welcomed, O brother and prophet.” Then we ascended to the fifth heaven… and I greeted Aaron who said, “You are welcomed, O brother and prophet.” Then we ascended to the sixth heaven…There I met and greeted Moses, who said, “You are welcomed, O brother and prophet.” Then we ascended to the seventh heaven…There I met Abraham. Then I was shown Al-Bait-al-Ma’mur (Allah’s house). I asked Gabriel about it and he said, “This is Al-Bait al-Ma’mur where 70,000 angels perform daily prayers and when they leave they never return to it. Then I was shown Sidrat-ul-Muntaha (a tree in the seventh heaven) and I saw its Nabk fruits which resembled the clay jugs of Hajr and its leaves were like the ears of elephants, and four rivers originated at its root, two of them were apparent and two were hidden. I asked Gabriel about those rivers and he said, “The two hidden rivers are in Paradise, and the apparent ones are the Nile and the Euphrates. Then fifty prayers were enjoined on me. I descended until I met Moses who asked me, “What have you done?” I said, “Fifty prayers have been enjoined on me.” He said, “I know the people better than you because I had the hardest experience to bring Bani Israel to obedience. Your followers cannot put up with such obligation. So return to your lord and request him to reduce the number of prayers.” I returned and requested Allah for reduction and he made it forty. I returned and met Moses and had a similar discussion, and then returned to Allah for reduction and he made it thirty, then twenty, then ten, and then I came to Moses who repeated the same advice, but I said that I surrendered to Allah’s final order. Allah’s apostle was addressed by Allah, “I have decreed my obligation and have reduced the burden on my slaves.” [247]
It is odd that this passage paints Moses as logical and Allah as an illogical God who asks for excessive prayers. And I hope the reader is now asking themselves several questions, such as,
247. Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 4, book 54, number 429.
what was this mythical beast, al-Burqa, supposed to be, and do Muslims consider this a fable or a real event? And Muhammad being cut open and filled with Zam-zam water seems like a fairy tale. Do Muslims also believe that? But most importantly, the hadith did not even mention Muhammad going to Jerusalem! So where do they get that? The answer is in the following hadith which is very, very similar.
I was brought al-Buraq who is an animal white and long, larger than a donkey but smaller than a mule, who would place his hoof a distance equal to the range of version. I mounted it and came to the Temple (Bait Maqdis in Jerusalem), then tethered it to the ring used by the prophets. I entered the mosque and prayed two rak’ahs in it, and then came out and Gabriel brought me a vessel of wine and a vessel of milk. I chose the milk, and Gabriel said, “You have chosen the natural thing.” Then he took me to heaven. Gabriel then asked the gate of heaven to be opened and he was asked who he was. He replied: Gabriel. He was asked again: who is with you? Gabriel said: Muhammad. It was said: has he been sent for? Gabriel replied: he has indeed been sent for. And the door was opened for us and lo! we saw Adam. He welcomed me and prayed for my good. Then we ascended to the second heaven… When I entered, Jesus, Maryam, John, and Zechariah, cousins from the maternal side welcomed me and prayed for my good. Then I was taken to the third heaven… and I saw Yusuf who had been given half of world beauty. He welcomed me and prayed for my well-being. Then he ascended with us to the fourth heaven…and I met Idris. (And the story continues just like the one above, with Muhammad ascending to the seventh heaven and then going back and forth between Allah and Moses to reduce the number of prayers from fifty.) I then kept going back and forth between my Lord blessed and exalted and Moses till he said: There are five prayers every day and night. O Muhammad, each being credited as ten, so that makes fifty prayers. [248]
And, thus, the answer is “no.” Muhammad never went to Jerusalem, unless you count flying there on the back of al-Buraq, a mythical beast, as “going to Jerusalem.” Jesus never flew on the back of a unicorn or slid down rainbows or drank Zam-zam juice. This story is just a lot of nonsense. Remember that the first hadith starts out by stating the Muhammad was in his house in Mecca in a state between sleep and wakefulness, and therefore the hadith is not claiming that Muhammad actually rode a mule or a donkey to Jerusalem 900 miles away! In fact, another hadith records Muhammad’s wife, Aisha, telling a member of Abu Bakr’s family that, during this event, his body never moved from her side in bed. The passage reads:
One of Abu Bakr’s family told me that Aisha the prophet’s wife used to say: the apostle’s body remained where it was, but God removed his spirit by night. [249]
This is obviously just a Muslim fable, but sadly, the Muslims believe it. And if Muslims say that it was a “vision” or a “dream” that Muhammad had, well, lots of people have crazy dreams; but rational people don’t believe that they really happened. This is why it is important to understand the strong association between Islam and a lack of education as explained in Chapter 8. Further, just to end this issue, theologians will immediately notice that this entire passage from the hadiths is a bad plagiarism of biblical verses Genesis 18:23-33, where Abraham talks to God and also asks him to save the city of Sodom if he can find fifty righteous people within it, then forty, then thirty, then twenty, etc. Muhammad took yet another biblical story and changed it with some Islamic flair.
248. Sahih Muslim 162a, book 1, hadith 316. www.sunnah.com.
249. Ibn Ishaq. Sirat Rasul Allah. The Life of Muhammad, transl. by Alfred Guillaume. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 1955) p. 183. www.archive.org.
And in the interest of being fully transparent, there is also a passage in the Quran which supposedly describes Muhammad’s travels to Jerusalem. The different translations of the Quran verse 17:1 read:
Sahih International: Exalted is he who took his servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al Masjid al-Aqia whose surroundings we have blessed, to show him of our signs.
Pickthall: Glorified be he who carried his servant by night from the inviolable place of worship to the far distant place of worship the neighborhood thereof we have blessed.
Yusuf Ali: Glory be to Allah who did take his servant for a journey by night from the sacred mosque to the farthest mosque, whose precincts we did bless.
Moshin Khan: Glorified and exalted be Allah who took his slave for a journey by night from Al Masjid-al-Haram (at Makkah) to the farthest mosque (in Jerusalem) the neighborhood whereof we have blessed.
Not every translation mentions Jerusalem, and it appears that, from both the hadiths and the Quran, Muhammad never physically traveled to Jerusalem. Islam does not follow the salvation narrative. And further, the Bible instructs that salvation will come through the descendants of Isaac, and not Ishmael. [250] Is it excessive pride that prevents the Muslims from accepting a non-Arabian savior, or is it just hatred of the Jews that blinds them from accepting the truth?
Before concluding this discussion on salvation and the differences between the two true Abrahamic religions (Judaism and Christianity) and Islam, it is important for the Christians to understand that nowhere in Islam does the religion promise salvation. A Muslim scholar explains it in this way:
Great as it may be in the eyes of Islam for any person to make the decision to enter the faith, the entry constitutes no guarantee of personal justification in the eyes of God… there is nothing the new initiate can do which would assure him or her of salvation…Islam denies that a human can attain religious felicity on the basis of faith alone…only the works and deeds constitute justification in God’s eyes. [251]
Sadly, the only exception to this rule is to die while performing jijad, which assures the Muslim of salvation. [252] Hence, their desire to constantly engage others in war. But God does not want war. Jesus is the Prince of Peace. [253] And Psalm 11:9 says that God does not approve of those who love violence. According to the Quran 3:195, those who fight, murder and die for Allah are rewarded, but Jesus said that there is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for their friend. [254] Islam instructs its followers to murder someone for God to save yourself, and Jesus instructs His followers to sacrifice your life for someone to save yourself. Clearly, Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God.
250. New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition. (Catholic Book Pub., New York, NY, 1970) Genesis 22:17-18.
251. Isma’il al-Faruqi. Islam. (Argus Communications, Niles, Illinois, 1984) p. 5.
252. Quran, Surah Ali ‘Imran, chapter 3, verse 195.
253. New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition. (Catholic Book Pub., New York, NY, 1970) Isaiah 9:6-7.
254. New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition. (Catholic Book Pub., New York, NY, 1970) John 15:13.
Chapter 10
Error #9 Jesus is mentioned in the Quran under a false narrative that does not correlate with other historic texts, both Christian and non-Christian.
This chapter of the book will prove the following two points.
1. There is solid evidence that Jesus was a true historical figure.
2. No other book, except the Quran, denies the crucifixion of Jesus.
As mentioned previously, at the time of Muhammad in 655 AD, there were many Jews and Christians living in the Arabia peninsula among the pre-Islamic native tribes of what is now Saudi Arabia. Thus, the Arabic tribes were familiar with the Torah, the Bible, and the beliefs of the Jews and Christians. But no one was acquiring new quotes from Jesus over 600 years after his death! Since the Quran was written almost 700 years after Jesus’ death, the only quotes from Jesus available to the authors of the Quran, which are true, would be quotes from the Bible. If a quote from Jesus is in the Quran, but not in the Bible, then it has to be a fabrication since Islam did not exist at the time of Jesus. This is simply a historical fact. Having said this, Muslims still believe that the “Jesus” described in the Quran is the same Jesus described in the Bible. Now both Christians and Muslims believe that Jesus was born from the Virgin Mary by the power of God. Both believe that Jesus was the Messiah and refer to Him as the Word of God. Both believe He worked miracles. But Muslims believe that Allah physically took Jesus out of the world and ascended Him into heaven, and that Jesus did not die on the cross by crucifixion. In fact, the Quran 4:157 says:
And for their saying, ‘Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.’ And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but another was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following assumption. And they did not kill him for certain. [255]
But there are three big problems with this passage from the Quran. First, there are several non-Christian ancient sources from both the Jewish and the pagan Roman literature that document that Jesus was absolutely a true historical figure who died by crucifixion. The Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, in his work “Antiquities of the Jews” written about 93 AD documents the crucifixion of Jesus. [256] And there are the writings of a pagan Roman historian, Tacitus, in his work “The Annals” book 15, chapter 44, written around 116 AD that mentions Jesus the “Christus” who was executed by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. [257] And there was the Greek satirist Lucian of Samosata (170 AD) who had a great disdain for Christians and thought they were fools. He was no supporter of the Christians, and yet he wrote:
255. Quran, Surah An-Nisa, 4:157.
256. Flavius Josephus. The Antiquities of the Jews. Book 18, pp. 63-64.
257. Tacitus. The Annals. Book 15, chapter 44.
The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day, the distinguished personage (Jesus) who introduced their novel rites and was crucified on that account…You see these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them, and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sophist and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property. [258]
And there was also the Roman historian, Phlegon, who wrote an early Roman history called, “Chronicles,” in which he writes, “Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.” [259] None of these historians favored the Christians, and yet they all confirm the crucifixion of Christ. This denial of the crucifixion of Jesus in the Quran should really raise questions of its validity, since the man we know as Jesus absolutely died by crucifixion. This is a historical fact.
And we also have extensive testimony from the very earliest disciples of Christ who lived immediately after Jesus. Both Polycarp [260] (69-155 AD) and Ignatius [261] (30-107 AD) wrote letters documenting the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Christ.
Second, the Bible documents that both Mary, the mother of Jesus, and one of his apostles, John, were both present at the crucifixion of Jesus. Both of them would recognize an imposter if someone else was crucified instead of Jesus. There is simply no evidence that “another was made to resemble him” and this reflects yet another lie that Islam spreads.
Third, the Romans would not have made a mistake in executing the wrong person. Roman law laid the death penalty on any soldier who allowed a capital prisoner to escape. And many of the Pharisees who wanted Jesus to be killed were also there, both at the presentation before Pontius Pilate and at the crucifixion. They also would have noticed an imposter.
Although it is not documented in any authentic Christian sources, Muslim legend says that Judas, the apostle of Jesus, was actually the one crucified in place of Jesus. But there is absolutely no historical evidence for this. Islam is full of lies, and this is just another lie on the list. The truth about the origin of the “Judas legend” actually does not come from the Quran, but from two other inaccurate sources.
The first is a commentary on the Quran by Islamic scholar Nasir al-Din al-Baydawi (died 1319) called, “Tafsir al-Baydawi,” which was written in the thirteenth century. He writes:
It is related that a group of Jews reviled Isa (Jesus)… then the Jews gathered to kill him. Whereupon Allah informed him that he would take him up heaven. Then Isa said to his disciples, “Which one of you is
258. The Death of Peregrine: The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Oxford. (Clarendon Press, London, England, 1905) paragraph 13.
259. Phlegon. Chronicles, cited by Origen in “Contra Celsum” from The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. (Eerdmans Pub., Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976) vol. 4, p. 455.
260. Polycarp. “The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians,” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. (Eerdmans Pub., Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976) vol. 1, p. 33.
261. Ignatius. “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Tarsians,” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. (Eerdmans Pub., Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976) vol. 1, p. 107.
willing to have my likeness cast upon him, and be killed and crucified and enter Paradise?” One of them accepted and Allah cast the likeness of Isa upon him, and he was killed and crucified. It is said also that he was one who acted the hypocrite toward Isa, and went out to lead the Jews to him. But Allah cast the likeness of Isa upon him, and he was taken and crucified and killed. [262]
This passage refers to “the hypocrite [who] led the Jews to him,” meaning the one who betrayed Jesus, or Judas. But this begs the question of why would al-Baydawi think that this had occurred? And the answer to that question is found in the source that al-Baydawi used to review the “New Testament,” which was not an authentic text, but the Gospel of Barnabas. This is the second unreliable source.
The Gospel of Barnabas is a gospel forgery that is not approved by any Catholic or Christian church. The main theme of the gospel of Barnabas is that Jesus did not die on the cross and that Judas Iscariot was substituted for Jesus, which is found in chapter 217. The work is a forgery, was originally written in either Italian or Spanish, and has been carbon dated to the 13-15th centuries. [263, 264] Some scholars believe that it was written by Muslims to support the Quran, but the author is unknown. [265] The reason that some experts feel that the Gospel of Barnabas was a forgery written by Muslims is because the text also claims that Muhammad is the Messiah. [266] But this does not actually help the Muslim cause because the Quran itself insists in multiple different verses that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, and clearly Muhammad did not save the Jews. But as one expert on the Gospel of Barnabas noted, there is hardly a single chapter among the 222 that does not contain some type of an Islamic dimension. [267] And further, it has been noted that:
By using a lot of material from the prophets in the Old Testament and by referring in the preface to the early church fathers, he creates an “isnad,” (chain of transmitters in hadith literature) of authority and achieves, at the same time, an Islamic purpose by demonstrating that the Gospel of Barnabas and its Old Testament predecessors pass on an essentially identical message which finds its final expression in the Quran. [268]
One expert called the Gospel of Barnabas “a forgery by all definitions.” [269] The Gospel of Barnabas should not be confused with the Epistle of Barnabas which was written between 70-130 AD and is found in the Codex Sinaiticus. [270] Although both Muslim and Christian experts
262. Nasir al-Din al-Baydawi. Anwar al-Tanzil wa-Asrar al-Ta’wil (Tafsir al-Baydawi, The Lights of Revelation and the Secrets of Interpretation) transl. by Gibril Fouad Haddad. (Beacon Books, Shiraz, Iraq, 2016) p. 504.
263. Jan Joosten. “The Date and Provenance of the ‘Gospel of Barnabas.’” Journal of Theological Studies. 2010;61:200-215.
264. L. Bevan Jones. Christianity Explained to Muslims. (Baptist Missionary Press, Kolkata, India, 1964) p. 79.
265. Jan Slomp. “The Gospel in Dispute.” Islamochristiana. (Pontificio Instituto de Saudi Arabia, Rome, Italy, 1978) and “’The Gospel of Barnabas’ in recent research.” Christlich-Islamische Gesellschaft. pp. 9-10. www.bible quran.com.
266. Jan Slomp, “The Gospel of Barnabas,” p. 12, 15.
267. Luis F. Bernabe-Pons. El Evangelio de San Bernabe: Un Evangelio Islamico Espanol. (Universidad de Alacante Pub., San Vincente del Raspeig, Spain, 1995) p. 260.
268. Jan Slomp, “The Gospel of Barnabas,” p. 11.
269. Jan Slomp, “The Gospel of Barnabas,” p. 2. 270 James Carleton Paget. “The Epistle of Barnabas” in The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers. (Bloomsbury, London, England, 2007) p. 73.
consider the Gospel of Barnabas to be a forgery, [271] Muslim authors will refer to it as “highly recommended,” [272] “essential reading,” [273] and “the only known surviving gospel written by a disciple of Jesus.” [274] But this is where this false idea of Jesus being replaced on the cross originated. Bad sources lead to bad texts.
But additional proof of its lack of authenticity is that no Chrisitan or Muslim text references the Gospel of Barnabas prior to the 1500s. Famous Muslim writers and commentators on the Quran, such as Ibn Hasm (456 AH, 1078 AD), Ibn Taimiyyah (728 AH, 1350 AD), Abu’l Fadl al-Su’udi (942 AH, 1564 AD), and Hajji Khalifah (1067 AH, 1689 AD) all would have certainly referenced the Gospel of Barnabas if it had been in existence or available during their lifetimes. [275] But no one ever refers to it prior to the 15th century. [276] Experts on the Gospel of Barnabas summed up the situation by writing, “There is no textual tradition whatsoever of the Gospel of Barnabas. By contrast, the New Testament books are verified by nearly 5700 Greek manuscripts that begin in the second and third centuries.” [277] And since no reputable scholar believes the Gospel of Barnabas has any truthful historical facts, we can exclude the possibility that Judas replaced Jesus on the cross.
But in an interesting twist, one researcher who was studying the earliest copies of the Gospel of Barnabas in a collection of ancient manuscripts in the National Library of Madrid, came across another untitled manuscript simply labeled as “BNM MS 9655” with a “number of remarkable parallels” to the Gospel of Barnabas. [278] Some of these parallels include the “Al Fatiha” prayer being called the “Lord’s prayer” in both books, the watermarks on both manuscripts being identical, and notes in the margins of both documents that mark the chapters and titles being written in Arabic. [279] However, unlike the Gospel of Barnabas, the librarian historians knew the author of BNM MS 9655: it was Juan Alonso.
Alonso was born in Aragon, Spain, a child of Christian parents and a master of theology who became a Muslim and moved to Tetuan, Morrocco, to live among Muslims. He wrote several Islamic theological works for the Morisco (Spanish Moors) community and BNM MS 9655 has been dated to between 1602 and 1612. [280] G.A. Wiegers proposes that Juan Alonso is the author of the Gospel of Barnabas because “the similarities between the Gospel of Barnabas and MS 9655, which cannot be mere coincidence, seem to indicate the existence of an
271. David Sox. The Gospel of Barnabas. (George Allen & Unwin Pub., London, England, 1984) pp. 90-104.
272. Abdullah Yusuf Ali. The Meaning of the Glorious Quran, p.230.
273. Suzanne Haneef. What Everyone Should Know About Islam and Muslims. (Kazi Pub., Chicago, IL, 1979) p. 186.
274. Muhammad Ata ur-Rahim. Jesus, A Prophet of Islam. (Begum Aisha Bawany Waqf Pub., Karachi, Pakistan, 1981) p. 41.
275. The Gospel of Barnabas, transl. by Lonsdale Ragg and Laura Ragg. (Cosimo Classics, New York, NY, 2010).
276. Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb. Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross. (Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 2002) p. 305.
277. Geisler and Saleeb, Answering Islam, p. 304. 278 G.A. Wiegers. “Muhammad as Messiah: A Comparison of the Polemical Works of Juan Alonso with the Gospel of Barnabas,” in Bibliotheca Orientalis. (Brill Pub., Leiden, Netherlands, 1995) pp. 245-291.
279. Jan Slomp. “’The Gospel of Barnabas’ in recent research.” Christlich-Islamische Gesellschaft. p. 16. www.bible quran.com.
280. Jan Slomp. “The Gospel of Barnabas,” p. 15.
influence of MS 9655 upon the Gospel of Barnabas rather than vice-versa. [281] But whether or not this is true is only an academic curiosity at this point because, as Wiegers himself concluded, the idea that Judas died on the cross and that Muhammad was the Messiah had disappeared from all reliable historical texts by the 17th century, and the only remaining proof that this fallacy ever existed is “confined to a small group of Morisco writings and the Gospel of Barnabas.” [282] However, Wiegers went on to add that, “the impression is thereby created of a (false) gospel which really deserves to be seen as a worthy precursor of the Quran.” [283]
At this point, the reader may feel that the Muslims had bad sources of information and simply made an honest mistake. But it turns out that the Islamic corpus does not have only Judas as the replacement of Jesus on the cross. There are other erroneous documents that want to push this false narrative, including a commentary on the Quran by a man named Abdullah Ibn Abbas. Not only did he create a commentary on the Quran, but when he wrote his commentary, he also revised the text and the verses himself. As I have mentioned many times, Muslims say that there is only one version of the Quran and that it has been preserved perfectly since it was revealed, but this is clearly false. Below, I have quoted the translation of Quran 4:157 from Abdullah Ibn Abbas and notice how different it is from the previous one written above. The passage reads as follows:
And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, Allah’s messenger, Allah destroyed their man Tatianos. They slew him not nor crucified, but it appeared so unto them. Allah made Tatianos look like Jesus and so they killed him instead of him; and lo! Those who disagree concerning it, concerning his killing, are in doubt thereof, in doubt about his killing; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture, not even conjecture. They slew him not for certain, certainly they did not kill him. [284]
There is no mention of Judas as the replacement for Jesus, but “Tatianos,” who was not an apostle of Jesus and most Christians and Muslims will not even know who Tatianos was. But Tatianos was a real person and why the Muslims chose to bring him into the narrative is even more evil.
Tatianos was a disciple of Justin Martyr, who was one of the early Christian martyrs. Justin Martyr, also known as Justin the Philosopher, lived from 100-165 AD and was born into a Greek family who lived in Samaria, which is now the area of Palestine. Justin studied Greek philosophy and developed a very unique theology which proposed that the Christian religion existed on earth before Christ ever came. Christ, also known as the Logos, or the Word of God, as written in ancient Catholic texts, is also mentioned by Aristotle centuries before Christ ever lived. Aristotle writes about the Logos, meaning logic or rationality, which must have existed to create an ordered universe. An Aristotelian scholar writes, “there is a long tradition which goes back to the beginning of Greek philosophy and poetry that recognized Logos as a cosmic element and source of intelligibility, sometimes rivaling other archai, especially nous, for the
281. G.A. Wiegers, “Muhammad as Messiah,” pp. 245-291.
282. G.A. Wiegers, “Muhammad as Messiah,” pp. 290-291.
283. G.A. Wieger, “Muhammad as Messiah,” p. 291.
284. Abdullah Ibn Abbas and Muhammad al-Firuzabadi. Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas, transl. Mokrane Guezzou. (Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, Amman, Jordan, 2007) p. 109.
central position for the ultimate origin of order.” [285] In other words, Logos was the principal by which the universe came to be ordered and rational, and Aristotle believed this rationalism extended from the universe into creation and human beings. Justin Martyr believed this same Logos was the Word of God, the Christ, working in the world before Christ manifested in human form. He got this idea from the Bible, John 1:1-3, which says:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through Him, and without Him, nothing came to be. [286]
However, Tatianos, despite learning from Justin, rejected a lot of his teaching and became gnostic. The Gnostics believed a mixture of Jewish and Christian ideas, but one of the main tenets of Gnosticism was dualism, a separation of the material from the spiritual. [287] They believed that the material world was created by an imperfect god, while the spiritual was created by the transcendent, supreme God. Thus, Jesus, being both divine and human, was rejected by the Gnostics. They believed that Jesus was the divine Son of God, but was not really human. He just appeared human. And when Jesus was crucified, the Spirit of Christ left the body of Jesus, and an empty body, an “imposter,” hung on the cross.
Tatianos lived in Assyria, the land which is now northern Iraq. The most famous work of Tatianos was a book he wrote called the “Diatessaron,” which was a gospel harmony, combining all four gospels into one book of text. But there is nothing heretical in the work. The Diatessaron was read in the early Syriac-speaking Christian churches as a standard text from the second to the fifth century, until it was replaced by the four separate gospels in the Peshitta version. [288] Although Tatianos did not live with Jesus, but from 120-180 AD, it would be understandable how someone less educated reading his book, along with the gospels of Matthew and John, could think that he was also one of the apostles as well. The original version of the Diatessaron was written in Syriac, the native language of Tatianos, but was later translated into other languages due to its popularity. The very end of one of these translations contains the following passage:
Here endeth the gospel which Tatianos compiled and named Diatessaron, The Fourfold, a compilation of the four Gospels of the holy Apostles, the excellent evangelists (peace be upon them). It was translated by the excellent and learned priest Abu’l Faraj Abdullah ibn-at-Tayyib (may God grant him favor) from Syriac into Arabic from an exemplar written by ‘Isa ibn Ali al-Motatabbib, pupil of Honain ibn Ashak (God have mercy on them both). Amen. [289]
Abdullah Ibn al-Tayyib, the translator, was a Christian and also lived in Iraq from 980 - 1043 AD, when many of the hadiths of Muhammad were being written. Ibn al-Tayyib did not write any hadiths about Muhammad, but did write legal works based upon the Syriac legal
285. John P. Anton. “Aristotle on the Nature of Logos.” The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter. (The Open Repository Binghamton, Binghamton University, 1997) vol. 243, p. 3.
286. New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition (Catholic Book Pub., New York, NY, 1970) John 1:1-3.
287. The Nag Hammadi Scriptures. The Revised and Updated Translation of Sacred Gnostic Texts, ed. Marvin Meyer. (Harper One Pub., San Francisco, CA, 2009) pp. 3-17.
288. The Oxford Dictionary of the Chrisitan Church, eds. F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 2005) pp. 1-9.
289. Tatianos. Diatessaron, ed. Peter Kirby in Early Christian Writings. www.earlychrisitanwritings.com.
writings of Gabriel of Basra. [290] Many of these legal works covers topics of marriage, taxes, debts, deeds, and inheritance, and were used as a foundation for many Islamic hadiths on the same topics. [291]
And he wrote one other important book: an entire commentary on the Bible in Arabic called Firdaws al-Nasraniyya (Paradise of Christianity). This commentary was available in Iraq to Muslims at the same time that most of the hadiths were being written about Muhammad. But what is even more fascinating is that when Ibn al-Tayyib wrote the commentary in Arabic, his “authorial process consisted of translating the Syriac source into Arabic, often in an abridged form. The abridgement at times involved deleting explanatory material as well as often removing additional scriptural citations. Occasionally, Ibn al-Tayyib adds a clarifying citation to the Syriac source, though this is not as common as his condensing of material.” [292] Thus, Tatianos condensed the four gospels into one Arabic book, the Diatessaron, and then Ibn al Tayyib condensed and commented on that even further in the Arabic Paradise of Christianity, resulting in a very concentrated reduction of the biblical text for the Arabs to read. [293] This could potentially explain some of the confusion that the Muslims had in interpreting the Bible since the Arabic texts were not complete.
During the research for this book, I discovered this connection between these condensed Biblical texts and their distribution in the area of Iraq before the birth of Muhammad and wondered if they may have reached the Muslims in Arabia and contributed to their erroneous understanding of the Christian gospels. But it turns out that my idea was not original. This hypothesis, that Muhammad’s knowledge of the contents of the Gospels came through the Syrian Diatessaron and may have led to the polemics that eventually resulted in the production of the Quran, was originally put forward in 1964 by Dr. John Bowman, an Australian historian. [294] Prior to starting Islam, Muhammad often traveled the caravan trade routes to Syria, being employed by a wealthy widow named Khadija, who later became one of his wives. [295] However, Bowman could only prove a circumstantial connection and not a conclusive connection, and neither can I. But even without a definite connection, we know that Muhammad and the Muslims had access to the Bible since the plagiarism within the Quran and many hadiths is so extensive, as was proven in Chapter 7.
And there is also this fascinating little passage from Sahih al-Bukhari:
290. Hubert Kaufhold. “Sources of Canon Law in the Eastern Churches,” in The History of Byzantine and Eastern Canon Law to 1500, eds. Wilfried Hartmann and Kenneth Pennington. (Catholic University of America Press, Washington, DC, 2012) pp. 308-9.
291. David Wilmshurst. The Martyred Church: A History of the Church of the East. (East and West Pub., London, England, 2011) pp. 229-230.
292. Aaron Michael Butts. “In Search of Sources for Ibn al-Tayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity: Theodore Bar Koni’s Scholion.” Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies. 2014;14:3-29, (pp. 9-10).
293. Peter Joose. “An Introduction to the Arabic Diatessaron.” Oriens Christanus. 1999;83:72-129.
294. John Bowman. “The Debt of Islam to Monophysite Syrian Christianity.” Nederlands Theologisch TIjdschrift. 1964;19:177-201.
295. Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb. Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross. (Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 2002) p. 71.
The prophet returned to Khadija while his heart was beating rapidly. She took him to Waraqa bin Naufal who was a Christian convert and used to read the Gospels in Arabic. Waraqa asked the prophet, “What do you see?” When he told him, Waraqa said, “That is the same angel whom Allah sent to the prophet Moses.” [296]
Thus, we do have confirmatory evidence of Muhammad’s access to the Christian Gospels through Waraqa bin Naufal. And the influence of Waraqa upon Muhammad does not appear to be minor. Sprenger translated this passage from the earliest biographer of Muhammad:
In the introduction to the most ancient biography of Mohammad, we find a chapter inscribed "an account of four men, who without revelation (before Mohammad) saw the fallacy of paganism," which I translate here. "One day the Qorayshites celebrated an annual feast, and assembled before one of their idols. They expressed their adoration for it, slew sacrifices, surrounded it and went round it. Four men, however, kept secretly aloof, and said let us be friends and open our hearts to each other; and they agreed. These four men were Waraqa, a cousin of the first wife of Mohammad; Obayd Allah b. Jaish, equally a cousin of Mohammad for his mother Omaymah was a sister of the prophet's father; Othman b. al- Howayrith; and Zayd of the Adyy family. One said to the others, ‘By God, you see our tribe does not know the true religion. They have corrupted the religion of Abraham, and are worshipping a stone and walking round it, though it does neither hear nor see, and can neither do good nor harm. Friends, seek for yourselves; for you are not on the right path.' They consequently dispersed over the country, and went in search of the orthodox faith of Abraham. Their result was as follows: Waraqa embraced Christianity; he obtained the Scriptures from those who believe in them, and acquired a considerable share of knowledge from the followers of the Bible.” [297]
This passage says that Waraqa bin Naufal was “a cousin of the first wife of Mohammad,” which proves that Muhammad had Christian relatives, and also documents that Waraqa had copies of the Christian scriptures. All of these historical connections show that the overlap of the Christian and Islamic traditions is vast, and that Muhammad was not ignorant of the Gospel content.
But exactly why Abdullah Ibn Abbas originally decided to make Tatianos the imposter of Jesus remains unknown. Was he confused by the Gnosticism of Tatianos, or did he think that Tatianos was an apostle? Regardless, since Tatianos was not even born until 100 years after the death of Jesus, this event is fictitious and yet another fable from Islam. Additional reasons why someone other than Jesus being crucified cannot be true have already previously been given, such as Mary and John would have recognized an imposter and the Romans would have never allowed an imposter to be crucified. But this example shows how the authors of the Quran took a Biblical story and changed it to serve their growing anti-Christian narrative and to build up the Quran and reduce the divinity of Jesus. And then the Muslims will claim that “the Bible says” the man crucified was an imposter, taking the verses from the Gospel of Matthew out of context and using them without understanding, or quoting the fake gospel of Barnabas. I have also wondered, for a long time, why the crucifixion of Jesus is even mentioned in the Quran, except to deny it. But why deny it since it really happened? This is clearly the work
296. Sahih Al-Bukhari, vol. 4, book 55, number 605.
297. Aloys Sprenger. The Life of Mohammad from Original Sources. (Presbyterian Mission Press, Allahabad, India, 1851) pp. 39-40.
of a deceiver. Since the Quran itself denies the divinity of Jesus, and denies the crucifixion of Jesus, if, in fact, Satan did want to create an anti-Christian religion to combat the spread of Christianity, this would seem to be the perfect one. The Quran is very clear in denying the two most important events that prove the divinity of Jesus: the crucifixion and the resurrection.
It is one thing to discuss whether or not a certain person died in a certain way, but it is entirely another thing to talk about the “evidence” of someone rising from the dead. Right away, most rational people would simply dismiss this idea since no one has ever risen from the dead. However, if we assume that Jesus did not rise from the dead, then one of two things would have to be true. Either he did not actually die and was taken off the cross while still alive, resuscitated, and was then seen alive after he had recovered; or, he did die and his body was simply stolen from the grave and all of his disciples lied about him being alive again.
The first option is very unlikely since the centurion thrust his spear through the chest of Jesus before his body was taken off the cross (John 19:34) just as was predicted over 600 years earlier (Zechariah 12:10). Further, in order to recover from the scourging, crucifixion, blood loss, and nail and spear wounds, Jesus would have had to be nursed back to health over weeks, avoid infection, and have people attending to him continuously in or around Jerusalem. With the fame of Jesus, this would have been discovered. And how would a half-dead man have moved the huge stone covering the tomb and get past the Roman guards? All of this seems more improbable than Jesus rising from the dead! And Jesus was witnessed walking around and talking to his disciples just three days later, and none of the disciples reported a long recovery period. Further, if he did not die on the cross, he would have remained alive and would have continued to be seen for years and years before eventually dying later. How could someone as popular as Jesus just disappear? He was well known in Jerusalem and all of the surrounding towns as well. Where would He go? And it would be unlikely that his apostles would not have sought him out to continue to learn from him. For an excellent discussion on why Jesus could not have survived the crucifixion, please read the book by Kreeft and Tacelli. [298]
If we assume that Jesus did die, and that his body was stolen, and that all of the disciples lied about him rising from the dead, then the unarmed apostles must have overpowered the armed Roman soldiers guarding the grave in order to steal the body. But that event was never recorded by the Jews nor the Romans. And the soldiers themselves also must have lied about the body being stolen, because they denied it. It would be an enormous conspiracy involving both the disciples and the Romans. Why would these enemies agree to a common lie? And, of course, we would be forced to produce an incredibly motivating reason for eleven of his twelve apostles to die by martyrdom for the perpetuation of this lie. For more information on this topic, please read the work by Habermas and Licona. [299] Biblical historian N.T. Wright, after reviewing all of the evidence and the incredibly rapid growth of Christianity in the first 100 years after Jesus’ death, concluded that Jesus rising from the dead has a historical probability as
298. Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli. Handbook of Catholic Apologetics: Reasoned Answers to Questions of Faith. (Ignatius Press, San Francisco, CA, 2009) pp. 193-197.
299. Gary Habermas and Michael Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. (Kregel Pub., Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2004).
to be “virtually certain,” like the death of Augustus in 14 AD or the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. [300] And a British philosopher at Oxford University, Richard Swineburne, performed an extensive review of all the historical evidence of Jesus’ death and concluded that, on a strictly factual basis, there is a “97% chance that Jesus rose from the dead.” [301]
300. N.T. Wright. The Resurrection of the Son of God. (Fortress Press, Minneapolis, MN, 2003) pp. 815-817.
301. Richard Swineburne. The Resurrection of God Incarnate. (Clarendon Press, London, England, 2003) pp. 228-234.
Chapter 11
Error #10 The Quran claims that God cannot be a Trinity. The evidence shows that God is a Trinity of three persons within the singular divinity of God.
Christians believe in only one God which subsists as three separate and divine persons contained within the single Godhead. There is only one God. As Christians, we accept that the divine mystery of the Trinity is beyond our human comprehension to understand in a completely definitive way, but derive our beliefs from the Bible and the teachings of the Christ that He and the Father are one (John 10:30). But the Muslims will say, “You believe in God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And one plus one plus one is three. Thus, you believe in three gods.” But if we need to define God by math, which we do not, then we could also say that one multiplied by one multiplied by one is still one, and one to the third power is still one, but mathematics does not apply to the nature of God. Both the Bible and the Quran say that God is greater than all creation and beyond the understanding of man, so why can God not exist as three persons? It is inappropriate to compare God to man since God is not an anthropomorphic deity. God is completely beyond man. As humans, one being is one person, but this does not necessarily apply to God.
The Quran would say that believing in the Trinity is blasphemy, but Muslims do believe in the Trinity and simply do not realize it. First, Islam already teaches of God as “a trinity” of sorts. Muslims believe in a single god Allah, but also believe in his eternal word, which is written in the Quran, and his eternal spirit. That is three things. They believe that the word of Allah is written in the Quran, and that the holy spirit of God moves to inspire and awaken his people. The Arabic word, “ruh,” means “spirit,” and is very close to the Hebrew word, “ruah,” which also means spirit. In the Quran, the phrase, “al-ruh al-qudus,” means the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is mentioned twenty-one times in the Quran, and so clearly, they do believe in the Spirit of God. As Christians, we also believe in a single God the Father, and that His Word is not a book, but became the person of Jesus, and that the Holy Spirit also moves to inspire and awaken His people. The beliefs are actually very similar. While Muslims do not say that the eternal word and eternal spirit are separate persons, their beliefs show that God may manifest in more than one way: as God, as word, and as spirit.
However, the theology of Islam falls apart at this point. Muslims believe that the Quran existed eternally even before it was written down. It existed as the word of God and, even before being orally transmitted to Muhammad, it was in existence with God. It is eternal. But this is a problem, because the Muslims say that there is only one God. But if the Quran is also divine and eternal, then that means that it has existed forever just like God, and is therefore, also God. This means Muslims have two Gods: Allah and Quran. But Muslims will say, “No, no, the Quran is just a part of God.” Please refer back to chapter two, “Aristotle’s Third Hurdle: Is God a Composition of Attributes?” where I explain that God cannot be eternal and composite. God cannot have parts and be eternal. It can only be one or the other, not both.
This is why religion must have a sound philosophical basis: because humans are rational. We understand that something cannot both exist and not exist. A physical object cannot be both behind me and in front of me at the same time. These are what Aristotle called “a priori truths,” meaning things that everyone knows just due to the rational nature of human beings. Thus, an eternal “thing” that has always existed and transcends time, even if Muslims say that thing is a “book,” cannot have those properties and not be a divine being, a god. Your own brain will tell you this is true. But Muslims also say that Allah is God, but is not the Quran. So Allah is eternal and transcends time. And the Quran is eternal and transcends time. But they are separate things. Well, that is two gods. But Muslims say that believing in more than one God is blasphemy. So the religion contradicts itself.
In contrast, Christians do believe that Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God and the Father is God, but they are all the same God. And, therefore, there is only one God. But if Muslims try to say that the Quran is not God, and that only Allah is God, then according to philosophical and theological reasoning, either the Quran is a second god (regardless of what they may say) or the Quran is not eternal. It cannot be both ways.
But getting back to the Trinity, Christians believe that God has declared, or manifested, Himself to us as Father in the Torah (which Muslims also believe is a divinely inspired book from God), as Son when the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (Muslims also acknowledge the divine birth of Jesus), and as the Holy Spirit (which Muslims call the al-ruh al-qudus). Thus, Muslims also believe in “a trinity” that God can be Allah, his word in the Quran, and his spirit moving in action. Thus, there is some hypocrisy since Muslims also believe in a trinity, and that God reaches out to us as God, in word, and in spirit. The Trinity is not a violation of monotheism. There is only one God. Within the Quran 4:171, the verses actually refer to Jesus as “the word of God” sent unto Mary as a “spirit proceeding from Him (God)”. If Jesus is a “spirit proceeding from God,” then Jesus came directly from God and is divine! The Quran says it is so! Muslims will say, “We interpret it differently.” But the meaning seems rather obvious. In fact, early Christians used to use this passage from the Quran to show Muslims that Jesus was, in fact, the Word of God. And so the authors of the Quran later added verse 3:7 to the Quran which reads:
He is the one who has revealed to you O prophet the book of which some verses are precise, they are the foundation of the book, while others are elusive. Those with deviant hearts follow the elusive verses seeking to spread doubt through their false interpretations, but none grasps their full meaning except Allah. As for those well-grounded in knowledge, they say, “We believe in this Quran- it is all from our lord.” But none will be mindful of this except people of reason. [302]
302. Quran, Surah Ali ‘Imran, chapter 3, verse 7.
We know that this verse was added later to the Quran because the Quranic commentator who wrote it mentions that the Muslims needed to respond to Christian criticism. In a footnote to this verse in the Quranic commentary by Tafsir Ishraq al-Ma’ani, he writes:
Ibn Jarir prefers the opinion that by al-Furqan the allusion is to those arguments and proofs that differentiate the truth from falsehood, with special reference to the Christians and other sects (arguments and proofs). This opinion is based on Ja’far ibn Zubayr’s statement. [303]
In other words, the verse in the Quran is a response to “the allusion to those arguments and proofs” from the Christians which certainly could not have been presented to Muhammad by the Christians before the Quran was ever written! The Christians would not be interrogating Muhammad prior to the Quran, and thus the Muslim commentators feel that it was added later as a response. What better way to shut down an argument from the Christians than to simply say that only God knows!
And the same thing happens again in the Quran 32:3 where the verse preemptively is addressing unnamed people who believe that Muhammad simply made up the Quran. The verse reads:
Do they say, “He has fabricated it?” No! It is the truth from your Lord in order for you to warn a people to whom no warner has come before you, so they may be “rightly” guided. [304]
The verse itself does have quotations around the word, “rightly.” But there are two big problems with this verse. First, why would this verse be in the Quran when the Quran was supposedly dictated to Muhammad by the spirit? Who is questioning it? No one was in the cave at Hira except Muhammad, so how is someone already questioning it unless this verse was also added later as a refutation to its fabrication? And second, there were multiple “warners” who had come before since many Jews and Christians were living in Arabia at that time and the Arabic tribes were familiar with the Torah and Bible as I have already discussed.
When God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, God did not tell Moses what to say in case someone thought that Moses had made them up! There should not be refutations within the Quran like this. But some Muslims have answered that because the Quran was supposedly dictated to Muhammad over 23 years, the spirit told him this after some people had been questioning the portions of the Quran that had already been revealed. But that is an impossible argument since most historians say that no one wrote down the Quran until after Muhammad’s death. Thus, there was no Quran to question while Muhammad was alive and so no refutation would have been necessary. This is yet another contradiction within Islam that cannot be explained. But even if Muslims do not believe the Quran 4:171 that refers to Jesus as the Word of God and a spirit proceeding from God, then they also have to refute Quran 2:87 which reads:
303. Quran, Surah Ali ‘Imran, chapter 3, verse 7, by Ibn Kathir with commentary by Tafsir Ishraq al-Ma’ani.
304. Quran, Surah As-Sajdah, chapter 32, verse 3.
Indeed, We gave Moses the Book and sent after him successive messengers. And We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs and supported him with the holy spirit. [305]
Wow. Right there in the Quran it separates Jesus, the Word of God, from the “holy spirit” who supported him. And Muslims will also have to refute Quran 3:45 which reads:
Remember when the angels proclaimed, “O Mary! Allah gives you good news of the Word from Him, his name will be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary; honored in this world and the Hereafter, and he will be one of those nearest to Allah. [306]
Right there it also says that Jesus is the Word of God. And Muslims are supposed to believe everything in the Quran. Therefore, just like the Quran says, Muslims need to believe that God sent His Word, Jesus, and that He was supported by the Holy Spirit. God, His Word, and the Holy Spirit are three, and therefore, a Trinity. It is written in the Quran. Thus, the Quran itself proves that God is a Trinity of three Persons.
And in John 14:26, Jesus goes on to say, “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” [307] This not only documents the truth of the Holy Trinity and the three persons of God, but names them as Father, Holy Spirit and Son (Jesus). And in Mark 9:7, the verse reads, “Then a cloud came, casting a shadow over them; then from the cloud came a voice, ‘This is my beloved Son, listen to Him.’” Again, we see both the separation and the connection of the Father and the Son. And in Matthew 3:16-17 the verse reads, “After Jesus was baptized, He came up from the water and behold, the heavens were opened and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove upon Him. And a voice came from the heavens, saying, ‘This is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased.’” Thus, the Bible clearly describes Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Further, the Quran, when quoting the voice of God, very often refers to God as “we.” But the Quran insists that God is not a trinity, but a single God. Thus, God should refer to Himself as “I,” or “I Am,” as the Old Testament records. In fact, in just chapter two of the Quran, the voice of God refers to Himself as “We” thirty-three times. [308] “We” obviously implies more than one. Thus, if God is not a trinity, why does the voice of God in the Quran refer to God as “We?”
And finally, after the resurrection of Jesus, He tells the apostles to, “Go and baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” [309] God is a Trinity. Muslims who have read the Quran already know this. No more proof is needed.
305. Quran, Surah Al-Baqarah, chapter 2, verse 87.
306. Quran, Surah Ali ‘Imran, chapter 3, verse 45.
307. New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition. (Catholic Book Pub., New York, NY, 1970). John 14:26.
308. The Quran, Surah Al-Baqarah, chapter 2.
309. New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition. (Catholic Bood Pub., New York, NY, 1970) Matthew 28:19.
Chapter 12
Error #11 The Quran claims that God cannot have a Son, but also acknowledges the divine nature of Jesus and His virginal birth from Mary. This is a contradiction.
This chapter of the book will prove the following two points.
1. The Quran contradicts itself on the birth of Christ.
2. Both the Quran and the Bible confirm Jesus as the Son of God.
Why could God not have a Son? Why could this not happen? Muslims are doubting the very power of God! And they are assuming that, for some reason, God could not have a Son. The Quran 6:101 says:
He is the originator of the heavens and earth. How could He have children when He has no mate? He created all things and has perfect knowledge of everything. [310]
This verse from the Quran is limiting the very power of God’s creative omnipotence by requiring God to have sexual intercourse with a woman or another god (a mate) in order to create a human being! This, of course, is silly, but this verse from the Quran also contradicts another verse from the Quran which confirms the virginal birth of our Lord Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit! Quran 3:47 reads:
Mary wondered, “My Lord! How can I have a child when no man has ever touched me?” An angel replied, “So will it be. God creates what He wills. When He decrees a matter, He simply tells it, ‘Be! And it is!’” [311]
Which is it? Does God need a mate or can God create by simply telling it to be, and it is? The Quran says both. Thus, Muslims already know that God does not need a mate to have a Son, and they already believe in the divine virginal birth of our Lord Jesus. Further, chapter 19 of the Quran entitled “Maryam” is completely devoted to the blessed, virgin Mary. The Quran 19:16 22 reads:
And mention in the Book ‘o prophet’ the story of Mary when she withdrew from her family to a place in the east, screening herself off from them. Then We sent to her our angel Gabriel appearing before her as a man, perfectly formed. She appealed, “I truly seek refuge in the Most Compassionate from you! So leave me alone if you are God-fearing. He responded, “I am only a messenger from your Lord, sent to bless you with a pure son.” She wondered, “How can I have a son when no man has ever touched me, nor am I unchaste?” He replied, “So will it be! Your Lord says, ‘It is easy for Me. And so will We make him a sign for
310. Quran, Surah Al-An’am, chapter 6, verse 101.
311. Quran, Surah Ali ‘Imran, chapter 3, verse 47.
humanity and a mercy from Us.’ It is a matter already decreed.” So she conceived him and withdrew with him to a remote place. [312]
Again, the Quran itself is confirming that God can create a human without sex and without a mate and even says that it “is easy” for God to do this. The verses that follow these in chapter 19 then start to get a little crazy and drift away from the Biblical narrative as Mary then returns to “her people” who are outraged that she has had a son out of marriage. Mary does not answer them, but rather points to the baby Jesus in the cradle who begins speaking to them as a newborn, and declares, “I am truly a servant of God. He has destined me to be given the Scripture and to be a prophet.” [313] Thus, I think it is pretty clear that Muslims already know that God can indeed have a Son since the Quran declares this very thing. Denying that Jesus is the Son of God is another lie.
In addition, the Quran 4:171 says that Jesus is a divine spirit sent from God and the Quran acknowledges that Mary was a virgin. If the Quran admits that Mary was a virgin and that she had a son, then who is the father? It has to be God. Who else could it be? If God is not the father of Jesus, then logically Mary was not a virgin and she had sex with someone. Who? She was not yet married to Joseph. The Muslims need to think about this. If God cannot have a son, then Mary was not a virgin! This is the only logical conclusion. In order for Mary to have a son and retain her virginity, then she must have become pregnant by the power of God alone. And that would mean that the son of Mary is the Son of God.
Further, all of chapter 19 of the Quran is devoted to Mary. Mary is the only woman who is mentioned by name in the entire Quran. All other women are called by “his wife” or “his mother.” Muhammad’s wives are named in many hadiths, but not in the Quran. And Muhammad’s mother is not mentioned in the Quran. Why? Why is an entire book of the Quran devoted to Mary, Jesus’ mother, but Muhammad’s mother is never even mentioned? It would appear Allah favors Jesus and his mother over Muhammad, and certainly over Muhammad’s mother. The Muslims need to think about this, too. Regardless, we have all the proof we need in the Bible, Matthew 17:5 when God the Father speaks from heaven and says, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. Listen to Him!” [314] Thus, Jesus is the Son of God.
312. Quran, Surah Maryam, chapter 19, verse 16-22.
313. Quran, Surah Maryam, chapter 19, verse 30. 314 New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition. (Catholic Book Pub., New York, NY, 1970). Matthew 17:5.
Chapter 13
Error #12 Muslims claim that the Bible cannot be trusted because it has been “corrupted,” but the Quran instructs Muslims to believe the Torah and the Christian Scriptures. Both cannot be true. This is contradictory.
This chapter of the book will prove the following seven points.
1. Historical documents prove that the Old Testament has not been changed over time.
2. Historical documents prove that the New Testament has not been changed over time.
3. Historical documents prove that there have been different versions of the Quran.
4. Historical documents prove that the Quran was intentionally altered multiple times.
5. Historical documents prove that the Quran evolved from Biblical texts.
6. Theological events in the Bible can be chronologically correlated with other historical events. This is not true of the Quran.
7. The Quran says that Muslims are to believe the Jewish and Christian scriptures.
Muslims will very often claim that the Christian Bible has been “corrupted” and cannot be trusted because multiple translations and versions have been produced over time which has somehow introduced error and falsity within the text. The following comments from a Muslim commentator are very typical. “The fact is that the original word of God is preserved neither with the Jews nor Christians. Quran, on the other hand, is fully preserved and not a jot or tittle has been changed or left out of it.” [315] Of course, this is complete nonsense as I will prove.
And Muslims claim that no corruption or alteration could have happened with the Quran because it was supposedly dictated to Muhammad by the spirit in Arabic. These statements immediately create several questions that need to be asked. First, what is the evidence that the contemporary Biblical texts are radically different from ancient versions? Second, what is the evidence that the Quran, once it was finally written down after the death of Muhammad, was recorded accurately? Third, is it more accurate to think that Muhammad could really memorize the entire book of Quran after hearing it only once from the spirit, or that Matthew and John, who lived with Jesus, would have been more accurate in recording what Jesus actually said?
As far as history can prove, both the four Gospels of the Bible and the Quran were not written down until about 20-50 years after the death of Jesus and Muhammad, respectively. However, the narratives of John and Matthew may have been written down earlier since they
315. Alhaj Ajijola. The Essence of Faith in Islam. (Islamic Pub. Ltd., Lahore, Pakistan, 1978). p. 16.
lived with Jesus, but we simply do not have any physical manuscripts from earlier. We do know that Matthew knew how to read and write since he was a tax collector and would need to know how to do math and document that taxes were paid. Thus, it is possible that Matthew documented what Jesus said contemporaneously as it happened, but we cannot prove this. Whereas, authorities agree that no one wrote down the Quran until about 20-40 years after the death of Muhammad. [316]
However, St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians has been dated to around 51 AD, at which time eyewitnesses to Jesus’ miracles and teachings would have still been alive. Thus, falsification or exaggerations about Jesus could have been quickly dismissed by those who had direct interaction with Jesus. But there is no evidence that any exaggerations or lies about Jesus were ever circulated or that any renunciation of the early gospels ever occurred. While it is true that there were multiple copies of the early gospels, and that many non-canonical copies of early texts about Jesus, such as the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle of Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas also existed, all of them agree upon the divinity of Jesus and none of them deny it! Further, a very ancient writing by the pagan Roman historian Suetonius mentions an edict from the Emperor Claudius in 49 AD expelling the Jews from Rome due to an uprising over the “Christus.” [317] This event is also documented in the Acts of the Apostles 18:2 which reads, “There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome.” Thus, there is corroboration between the dates 49 AD and 51 AD, and the facts within the New Testament and other historical documents.
But there has been a long, long history of fables, falsifications, exaggerations, and lies written about Muhammad and his life, although Muslims have intentionally suppressed this uncomplimentary portion of their history. For example, as long ago as 1889, Ignaz Goldziher suggested that much of what was contained with the vast collections of hadiths was not historically accurate. [318] And in 1924, Carl Henrich Becker, who studied original copies of the Sirah written by Ibn Ishaq, concluded that the hadiths contained mostly already existing dogmatic and juristic hadiths and that to these had been added “expanded versions of historical
316. Karl Heinz Ohlig. Early Islam: A Critical Reconstruction Based on Contemporary Sources. (Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, 2013) pp. 4-17.
317. Suetonius, Volume II, transl. by J.C. Rolfe. (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1914) p. 53.
318. Ignaz Goldhizer. Muhammedanische Studien (Muslim Studies), transl. by S.M. Stern (Routledge Pub., London, England, 1889) pp. 6-37.
allusions in the Quran.” [319] And as previously discussed, multiple Muslim scholars openly admit that many hadiths are false. [320, 321, 322, 323]
Further, it is inaccurate for Muslims to claim that only one copy of the Quran was ever written. It is unclear, as was previously discussed, who, in fact, compiled the initial versions of the Quran, since different sources claim that it was different people. According to Shia, Ali ibn Abi Talib compiled a complete version of the Quran shortly after Muhammad's death. [324] However, in Sunni tradition, other sources claim that the Quran was completed by a group of scribes headed by Zayd ibn Thabit in 655 AD. [325] While others claim that it was the Third Caliph Uthman (Uthman ibn Affan) who wrote the first copy of the Quran in 652. [326] But there is good evidence that the first copy of the Quran may have been written by Caliph Abu Bakr al-Siddiq in 645 AD. [327] Thus, there have been, at minimum, four versions of the Quran, and not one. But the truth is that even more recent scientific evidence studying ancient Quranic fragments and texts have identified at least 40 different versions of the Quran. [328, 329] Thus, the claim that the Quran has been perfectly preserved since Muhammad is completely false. Famous Islamic historians Richard Bell and W.M. Watt, who were both experts on the Quran, have noted that the chaotic structure of the verses, the rapid change in subjects and tense, the “juxtaposition of contradictory statements,” and the “intrusion of extraneous subject matter into a passage otherwise homogenous,” all give “fundamental evidence for revision.” [330]
319. CH Becker. Islamstudien: Vom Werden und Wesen der Islamischen Welt (2 vols., 1924-1932), (Daigen Pub., Leipzig, Germany, 1924) I:520f.
320. Muhammad Z. Siddiqi. Hadith Literature: Its Origin, Development, and Special Features. (The Islamic Text Society, Cambridge, England, 1993, originally published by Calcutta University Press, Kolkata, West Bengal, India, 1961) pp. 9-14, 31-43.
321. G.H. A. Juynboll. Studies on the Origins and Uses of Islamic Hadith. (Routledge Pub., London, UK, 1996) pp. 13 16.
322. William Muir. The Life of Mohammad from Original Sources, ed. T.H. Weir. (Voice of India Pub., Edinburgh, UK, 1912) pp. xiii-xiv, xxi-xxiii.
323. Jonathan Brown. Hadith: Muhammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World. (Oneworld Pub., London, England, 2009) pp. 112-186.
324. Sayyid Hossein Modarressi Tabatabai. Tradition and Survival: A Bibliographical Survey of Early Shi’ite Literature. Volume 1. (Oneworld Pub., London, England, 2003) pp. 331-4.
325. Ibn Sa’d. Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, ed. S. Moinul Haq. (Kitab Bhavan Pub., Delhi, India, 1990) vol. 2, 335.
326. Abu al Abbas al Baladhuri. The Origins of the Islamic State: Kitab Futuh al Buldan, transl. F.C. Murgotten. (Longmans Pub., New York, NY, 1924) p. 271.
327. Muhammad Mustafa al-Azami. The History of the Quranic Texts, from Revelation to Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments. (Islamic Academy Pub., Leicester, England, 2003) pp. 77-86.
328. Hythem Sidky. “On the Regionality of Quranic Codices.” Journal of the International Quranic Studies Association. 2020;5:133-210.
329. Ala Vahidnia. “Whence Come Quran Manuscripts? Determining the Regional Provenance of Early Quranic Codices.” Der Islam. 2021;98:359-393.
330. W.M. Watt and Richard Bell. Introduction to the Quran. (Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1977) p. 93.
Further, there have been many ancient codices of the Quran discovered over the years that vary from one another and from the Uthmanic tradition. [331] In 1973, during the renovation of the San’a mosque in Yemen, hundreds of original parchment Quranic manuscripts were found hidden between the ceiling and the roof of the building. These ancient manuscripts, now known as the Codex San’a, or the San’a palimpsest, are remarkable because they contain earlier, written and erased Quranic text which had been covered and written over by newer Quranic text. “To this day, the text remains the only evidence of a separate textual tradition from the hundreds of early Quran manuscripts in which the text resembles the Vulgate.” [332] The Vulgate was the original Bible written in Latin. The San’a palimpsest differs from the canonical editions of the Quran in both the wording and the arrangement of the surahs. [333] This again proves that there was not only one version of the Quran and that the Quran has been changed and altered over the years.
A German Islamic researcher at Saarland University in Germany, Gerd R. Puin, also studied the San’a palimpsest and made the following conclusions. First, some stories appear to have been written long before Muhammad started Islam. Second, the text appears to have been altered and rewritten. Third, the surahs were out of order and appear to have undergone a textual evolution over time. And a fourth, very disruptive finding, is that the San’a mentions two non-Arabic, pre-Islamic tribes, the As-Sahab-ar-Rass who lived in pre-Islamic Lebanon and the As-Saha-al-Aiqa who lived in pre-Islamic Egypt around 150 AD, that were not part of the Arabic tradition and were not tribes that Muhammad would have known existed. [334] This fact clearly shows that these portions of the San’a Quran were written before Muhammad was alive. After Puin began to express his findings, the Yemen government would no longer allow him to examine the palimpsest. How academically dishonest is that!
In 2015, a 1400-year-old parchment containing parts of chapters 18-20 of the Quran was discovered in the Cadbury Research Library at the University of Birmingham. The University had acquired a series of ancient middle-eastern manuscripts called the “Mingana Collection” in 1920, but only recently were some of these pages of parchment identified as portions of the Quran when a doctoral student, Alba Fedeli, was doing research on the collection. [335] The portions of the Quran identified were written in an ancient script called “Hijazi.”
What is very interesting about this is that Muslims insist that the Quran was dictated to Muhammad by an angel in Arabic, and that it was preserved in Arabic ever since. But this very ancient manuscript of the Quran was not written in traditional Arabic, but Hijazi. As was
331. Abd Allah ibn Sulayman Sijistani. Materials for the History of the Text of the Quran: The Old Codices, ed. by Arthur Jeffery. (Leiden Pub., London, England, 1937) p. 245.
332. Eleonore Cellard. “The San’a Palimpsest: Materializing the Codices.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies. 2021;1:1 30.
333. Cellard, “The San’a”, p.1.
334. Abul Taher. “Querying the Koran.” The Guardian Newspaper. August 8, 2000. www.theguardian.com.
335. Alba Fedeli. “The digitization project of the Quranic palimpsest, MS Cambridge University Library Or. 1287, and the verification of the Mingana-Lewis edition: where is salam?” Journal of Islamic Manuscripts. 2011;2:100-117.
mentioned at the beginning of this book, the Hijaz province of Arabia was the western area of the peninsula heavily colonized by Jews and Christians at the time of Muhammad. Within the Arabia peninsula at that time, there were two major Arabian scripts, Hijazi and Kufic. Kufic, which pre-dated traditional Arabic script and originated in the city of Kufa in Iraq, was used to write most of the earliest surviving copies of the Quran. But Hijazi was a script that evolved from Aramaic, the language of Jesus and the Jews, originating in Aram in the area of northern Israel. [336, 337] In fact, the word, “Quran,” derives from the Aramaic word, “qariyun,” meaning a lectionary of scripture verses to be read at a religious service. Just because Hijazi script was being used in the Arabia peninsula does not mean that it originated there. It was not just the script of the indigenous Arabs, but also the Christians and Jews.
If nothing else, this shows the heavy cultural overlap between Jewish, Arabic, and Christian traditions that was occurring at the time of Muhammad and when the Quran was written. While it is understandable that Muslims would like to claim that their religion has a pure Arabic tradition, the facts show a strong Judeo-Christian influence that is undeniable. Many Muslims will say that Hijazi is an Arabic script, and that is true. But it originated from Aramaic and the Jews. Of course, it also proves that a pure Arabic pedigree is false since science has now found ancient manuscripts of the Quran that were written in Hijazi. In fact, many more copies of the Quran have now been found written in Hijazi. [338] If a Muslim doubts this, they may go to the University of Birmingham and see the parchment themselves.
Carbon dating has revealed the age of the Birmingham fragments of the Quran to be between 568-645 AD, and cited with 95% accuracy. [339] If these dates are accurate, and there is every reason to believe they are, then it is possible that these surahs from the Quran were written before Muhammad was born in 570 AD, or when he was just a child! How could that be? How could portions of the Quran have been written before it was ever revealed to Muhammad? This corroborates the findings of Gerd Puin that some of the San’a Quran verses were written before Muhammad. Oxford historian Keith Small also studied the Birmingham fragments and said, “This gives more ground to what have been peripheral views of the Koran’s genesis, like that Muhammad and his early followers used a text that was already in existence and shaped it to fit their own political and theological agenda, rather than Muhammad receiving a revelation from heaven.” [340] This is additional proof of the fallacy of Islam.
336. Marijn van Putten. Quranic Arabic: From Its Hijazi Origins to Its Classical Reading Traditions. (Brill Academic Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts, 2020) pp. 99-149.
337. Laila Nehme. “A Glimpse of the Development of the Nabataean Script into Arabic Based on Old and New Epigraphic Material,” in The Development of Arabic as a Written Language, ed. Michael Macdonald. (Archaeopress Pub., Oxford, England, 2010) pp. 47-88.
338. Shelia Blair. Islamic Inscriptions. (New York University Press, New York, NY, 1998) p. 13-19.
339. T. Higham, C. Bronk Ramsey, D. Chivall, et al. “Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: archaeometry datelist 36.” Archaeometry. 2018;60:628-640.
340. Beatrice Gitau. “Could this Quran fragment really be older than Muhammad?” Christian Science Monitor. September 1, 2015. www.csmonitor.com.
But there is even more. In 2018, French scholar Eleonore Cellard, who specializes in Arabic paleography and codicology, discovered a palimpsest from the 8th century where verses from the Quran were written over effaced copies of the Torah. This palimpsest parchment provides evidence of Coptic letters from the Book of Deuteronomy erased and covered over by Arabic script showing verses from the Quran. Unfortunately, the palimpsest was sold at auction by Christie’s Auction House to a private buyer and can no longer be studied. How convenient. The findings were not published in any academic manuscript. However, in an interview with the Guardian Newspaper, Christie’s employee Romain Pingannaud was quoted as saying, “It’s fascinating, particularly because it’s the only example where you have an Arabic text on top of a non-Arabic text. And what’s even more fascinating is it is on top of passages from the Old Testament… it shows the contact between communities in the first centuries of Islam; it’s very relevant.” [341] So clearly, the early Muslims knew the Bible and its contents and had access to copies of the Bible. And this explains why the plagiarized Biblical verses from chapters of Exodus, Genesis and Luke appear in the Quran.
But there is also more complicated and condemning evidence. There are many codices of the Quran from the late 7th and 8th centuries. There is a common false assumption that before this time, most people were illiterate and so no one was writing anything down. But there is strong evidence for literacy in Arabia from 400-500 AD. [342, 343] With this in mind, a side by-side comparison of pre-Islamic Arabic writings with post-Islamic writings of the Quran show that later copies of the Quran were intentionally changed by scribes as the language evolved. Specifically, van Putten documented seven orthographic developments in early Islamic writings that cannot be found in non-Islamic Arabic writings from the same time period. This reflects a formal sophistication in construction of the Quran and refutes an oral tradition during and after the life of Muhammad. Van Putten writes:
Especially the innovations 4 and 6 are quite complex non-phonetic morphophonological spellings, which could not have developed in a context of informal script learning, but rather point to a well-developed scribal practice that undoubtedly requires some form of formal education. In the second part of the article, I highlight several other cases of advanced morphophonological spelling that suggest the scribes had a sophisticated understanding of word formation… [this] all points to a single conclusion: Not only has the Arabic script had a long and storied history, it is clear that there was a formalized system of scribal practice with significant sophistication and idiosyncrasy that must have been present and developed already in the pre-Islamic period. This challenges the notion that the pre-Islamic Hijaz was a “non-literate” society… Neither the Quran, nor the pre-Islamic inscriptions of the centuries leading up to the rise of Islam show the kind of ad hoc non-literate literacy as one sees among the Tuareg or may hypothesize for the
341. Alison Flood. “Passages from the Bible discovered behind Quran manuscript.” April 25, 2018. www.guardian.com.
342. Michael Macdonald. “Literacy in an Oral Environment,” in Writing and Ancient Near Eastern Society. Papers in Honor of Alan R. Millard, eds. Piotr Bienkowski, Christopher Mee, Elizabeth Slater. (T & T Clark Pub., New York, NY, 2005) pp. 45-113.
343. Michael Macdonald. “Ancient Arabia and the Written Word,” in The Development of Arabic as a Written Language. (Archaeopress Pub., Oxford, England, 2010) pp. 5-28.
nomadic pre-Islamic Arabic writers that employed the Safaitic script. Instead, there was a formalized scribal practice that required formal education to properly execute according to the existing norms. [344]
Thus, this proves several things. First, even if Muhammad was illiterate, it is very likely that many people around him were not, and the Quran could have been written down during the life of Muhammad if anyone, including Muhammad, thought that it had value. Second, the Quran was systematically and intentionally composed by educated and sophisticated scribes using more advanced language and literary techniques than was commonly used among the Arabian people at that time. And as mentioned in the article by Cellard, the earliest codices of the Quran copied the style of the Vulgate, the earliest Latin Bible. [345] This shows intentionality in creating what was, at that time, an advanced document from educated scribes, and not from an oral tradition of the people as Muslims like to claim. Third, early copies of the Quran written in Hijazi were translated into Kufic and later into formal Arabic with diacritical marks to “purify” the book. The pure Arabic language legend, and the oral transmission legend, do not match the historical facts.
While this is sufficient evidence in itself to prove the Quran is false, still further, there is historical evidence that the Third Caliph Uthman destroyed multiple different versions of the Quran due to discrepancies between one version and another. [346, 347] Upon hearing that many versions were circulating within Arabia, he ordered all copies burned except the version written by Zayd Ibn Thabit. Thus, again, it is clearly legend, and not fact, that only one version of the Quran has ever existed. It is, in fact, the Quran which is corrupt.
And what will likely confuse Muslims even further is that the Quran says that Muslims are to confirm that the scriptures of the Jews and Christians are authoritative, the true revelation from God, and are divinely inspired by God. If a Muslim accepts the Quran, and the Quran says that the Bible contains true revelation from God, then a Muslim must accept the Bible as well as the Quran. Quran 2:40-43 reads:
O children of Israel! Remember my favors upon you. Fulfill your covenant and I will fulfill mine and stand in awe of me alone. Believe in my revelations which confirm your Scriptures. Do not be the first to deny them or trade them for a fleeting gain. And be mindful of me. Do not mix truth with falsehood or hide the truth knowingly. Establish prayer, pay alms-tax, and bow down with those who bow down. [348]
And Quran 2:62 reads:
344. Marijn van Putten. “The Development of the Hijazi Orthography.” Millenium. 2023;20:107-128.
345. Eleonore Cellard. “The San’a Palimpsest: Materializing the Codices.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies. 2021;1:1 30.
346. The Apology of Al-Kindy Written at the Court of Al-Mamun, transl. by William Muir. (Legare Street Press, New York, NY, 1887) p. 75.
347. Stephen Shoemaker. Creating the Quran: A Historical Critical Study. (University of California Press, Oakland, CA, 2022) p. 61-134.
348. Quran, Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:40-43.
Indeed, the believers, Jews, Christians, and Sabians, whoever truly believes in God and the last day and does good will have their reward with their lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve. [349]
And Quran 5:43-48 reads:
But why do they come to you for judgment when they already have the Torah containing God’s judgment, then they turn away after all? They are not true believers. Indeed, We revealed the Torah, containing guidance and light, by which the prophets, who submitted themselves to God, made judgments for the Jews. So too did the rabbis and scholars judge according to God’s Book with which they were entrusted and of which they were made keepers. So do not fear the people; fear me! Nor trade my revelations for a fleeting gain. And those who do not judge by what God has revealed are truly the disbelievers. We ordained for them in the Torah, “a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth- and for wounds equal retaliation.” But whoever waives it charitably, it will be atonement for them. And those who do not judge by what God has revealed are truly the wrongdoers. Then in the footsteps of the prophets, we sent Jesus, son of Mary, confirming the Torah revealed before him. And we gave him the Gospel containing guidance and light and confirming what was revealed in the Torah- a guide and a lesson to the God-fearing. So let the people of the Gospel judge by what God has revealed in it. And those who do not judge by what God has revealed are truly the rebellious. We have revealed to you ‘o prophet’ this Book (the Gospel) with the truth, as a confirmation of previous Scriptures and the supreme authority of them. [350]
And Quran 3:55 reads:
Remember what God said, “O Jesus! I will take you and raise you up to Myself. I will deliver you from those who disbelieve and elevate your followers above the disbelievers until the Day of Judgment. Then to Me you will all return and I will settle your disputes.”
These passages from the Quran show that the Quran itself says that Allah approves of the Torah and the Christian scriptures. If Allah so favors Jesus and wishes to “elevate His followers,” why do Muslims persecute Christians? Regardless, the Quran tells Muslims that they must believe in the Torah and the Scriptures. If they believe the Bible has been corrupted over time and that translations are no longer accurate, then the Quran, which references the Bible, is also corrupt.
But the Bible is clearly not corrupt. The Christian fathers from antiquity agonized over translating the Greek bible into other languages for fear of misrepresenting the Word of God. This fear of offending God by changing His words had an enduring effect in that the translations of the Bible today are almost exactly the same as the earliest copies of the extant Bible from the early centuries. We still have preserved copies of original handwritten manuscripts of the Old Testament from the early second century which have been recovered from Qumran, called the “Dead Sea Scrolls,” and written in a variety of scripts, including Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Arabic, and Latin. [351] And an even older copy, the Nahal Hever scroll, dates to 50 BC, well before Christ. [352] Also called the “Minor Prophets Scroll,” this important manuscript shows the integrity
349. Quran, Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:62.
350. Quran, Surah Al-Ma’idah, 5:43-48.
351. Geza Vermes. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Qumran in Perspective. (Collins Pub., London, England, 1977) p. 15.
352. Yohanan Aharoni. “Expedition B- The Cave of Horror.” Israel Exploration Journal. 1962;12:186-199.
and consistency of the Old Testament written before Christ and maintained ever since. One Jewish historian wrote about the dating of the document. He said, “Both hands give the impression of belonging to the late Ptolemaic period (100-30 BC) or early Roman period (after 30 BC). Some features favor an earlier, rather than a later date.” [353]
This ancient scroll has the same text as the current versions of the Old Testament. Not every word is exactly the same, for example in the book of Jonah, but the stories are the same and express the same message. The scroll contains the Old Testament books of Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and Zechariah. [354] Another scroll found at Masada written in Hebrew contained the books of Genesis, Ezekiel, Deuteronomy, Leviticus and the Psalms, dated to 74 BC, and is almost identical to the Old Testament of today. [355] All of these scrolls tell us several things. First, the Old Testament we read today is the same as it was in the Torah before Christ. Second, since many of the scrolls are written in both Hebrew and Greek, it proves that copies of the Old Testament were translated from Hebrew to Greek before the time of Christ. This is important because many Muslims believe that all of the Greek manuscripts were written in the fourth or fifth centuries, but that is not true. Third, the Bible is not corrupt, but has been miraculously preserved in its text and content for millennia.
But there is more. The oldest copy of the Torah, the Ketef Hinnom amulets, were discovered within an archeological site called Ketef Hinnom in 1979 on the southwest side of Jerusalem and date to 600 BC! [356] The ancient writings were still intact because they were not written on parchment, but on metal silver composite and are currently on display at the Israel Museum. One of the archeologists wrote:
Based on our new analysis and reading on these texts, we can affirm with confidence that the late preexile period is the proper chronological context for the artifacts. We can further reassert the conclusion reached by most scholars: that the inscriptions found on these plaques preserve the earliest known citations of texts also found in the Hebrew Bible and that they provide us with the earliest examples of confessional statements concerning Yahweh. [357]
Thus, we have proof of consistency within the Old Testament books from more than 2600 years ago!
But what about the New Testament documenting the life and teachings of Jesus, the Christus? There are multiple ancient copies of the New Testament. In fact, there are over 5700 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts, and over 9000 manuscripts written in other ancient languages like Syrian, Slavic, Coptic, and Armenian. The Codex Sinaiticus was written in 340 AD, and the Codex Vaticanus was written in 325 AD. The Codex Alexandrinus contains both
353. Emanuel Tov. The Greek Minor Prophet Scroll from Nahal Hever: The Seiyal Collection. (Clarendon Press, Oxford, England, 1990). p. 25.
354. Emanuel Tov. The Greek Minor Prophet Scroll from Nahal Hever: The Seiyal Collection. (Clarendon Press, Oxford, England, 1990).
355. Shemaryahu Talmon. “Fragments from an Ezekiel Scroll from Masada.” Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica. 1997;27:29-50.
356. Gabriel Barkay, et al. “The Challenges of Ketef Hinnom: Using Advanced Technologies to Recover the Earliest Biblical Texts and Their Context.” Near Eastern Archeology. 2003;66:162-171.
357. Gabriel Barkay, et al. “The Amulets from Ketef Hinnom: A New Edition and Evaluation.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. 2004;334:41-71.
Old and New Testaments of the Bible and was written in the late 4th century. All of these copies show no significant alterations from the current versions of the Bible. There are also fragments of papyrus with writings of portions of the New Testament dating from around 250 AD. The Chester Beatty papyrus is one such document which contains the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, the Pauline epistles, and the book of Revelation. [358, 359] The Bodmer papyrus collection includes the first 14 chapters of the Gospel of John and dates from 200 AD, or possibly even earlier. [360] And there is an even older portion of the Gospel of St. John, known as the “St. John fragment” or the “Rylands Library Papyrus” that was dated to the year 125 AD. [361, 362] These papyri match modern copies of the New Testament. Thus, there has been no corruption. But on the contrary, there is very good evidence that the translations of the Quran have been changed, altered, and corrupted many, many times and are nothing more than bad alterations and twisted versions of the Bible.
And it is rather easy to prove some changes that have occurred within the Quran. As I mentioned earlier in this book, The Quran 48:6 states that, as regards non-Muslims, “God has cursed them and prepared for them hell,” and hates many other human habits and vices as found in Quran verses 3:57, 5:64, 5:87, 6:141, 8:58, 16:23, and 31:18. Older translations of the Quran, such as the Saheeh International Translation, used this original harsh language. [363] But more recent English translations, like The Clear Quran: A Thematic English Translation, have softened a lot of the language, changing “hate” into “does not love” or “does not like.” [364] Quran verse 4:34 describes how men should beat rebellious women, but the newer translations changed the wording from “beat them” to “discipline them gently.”
Compare these different translations of chapter 4:34, Surah An-Nisa.
Sahih International: But from those wives whom you fear arrogance- first advise them, then if they persist, forsake them in bed, and finally, strike them. [365]
Pickthall: As from those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.
Yusuf Ali: As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them first, next refuse to share their beds, and last beat them lightly.
Mohsin Khan: As to those women on whose part you see ill conduct, admonish them first, then refuse to share their beds, and last beat them lightly if it is useful.
358. Geisler N, Nix W. A General Introduction to the Bible. (Moody Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1986.) pp. 389-90.
359. David Law. The Historical-Critical Method: A Guide for the Perplexed. (Bloomsbury Pub., London, England, 2012) p. 95.
360. B.M. Metzger. The Text of the New Testament. (Oxford University Press, New York, New York, 1968.) pp. 39-40.
361. H. Idris Bell and T.C. Skeat. Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and Other Early Christian Papyri. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 1935). p. 16.
362. Pasquale Orsini and Clarisse Willy. “Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Dates: A Critique of Theological Palaeography.” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses. 2012;88:443-474.
363. The Quran: With Surah Introductions and Appendices. Saheeh International Translation, ed. A.B. al-Mehri. (Maktabah Pub., Birmingham, England, 1997, revised 2010).
364. Mustafa Khattab. The Clear Quran: A Thematic English Translation. (Book of Signs Foundation, Lombard, Illinois, 2015).
365. Quran, Surah An-Nisa, 4:34.
Jesus would never have allowed anyone to beat his mother Mary or any of his female followers, and would never condone such behavior.
Quran verse 5:60 describes how God will reduce “the Jews into apes and pigs.” But the newer translations read, “…those who earned Allah’s condemnation will be reduced to apes and pigs.” I would consider it a significant change for one copy of the Quran to say, “the Jews” while another version says, “those who earned Allah’s condemnation.”
Compare the following different translations of chapter 5:60, Surah Al-Ma’idah.
Sahih International: Shall I inform you of what is worse than that as a penalty of Allah? It is of that whom Allah has cursed and with whom He became angry and made of them apes and pigs and slaves of Taghut. [366]
Pickthall: Shall I tell thee of a worse case than theirs for retribution with Allah? Worse is the case of him who Allah hath cursed, him on whom His wrath hath fallen and of whose sort Allah hath turned some to apes and swine, some who serveth idols.
Yusuf Ali: Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom he transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil.
Mohsin Khan: Shall I inform you of something worse than that regarding the recompense from Allah? Those Jews who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom he transformed into monkeys and swine, those who worshipped Taghut.
Thus, any reader can clearly see wording changes in the translations! Not every word is the same. It is very hypocritical that Muslims claim the Biblical translations have been corrupted, although there is no evidence for this. And meanwhile, there is clear evidence that many translations of the Quran have been changed over time, and more recently softened to not seem so sexist, violent, or uncharitable!
366. Quran, Surah Al-Ma’idah, 5:60.
Chapter 14
Error #13 The Quran claims that Jesus never said that He was God, but He did.
This chapter of the book will prove the following two points.
1. Jesus did say that He was God six times in the Bible.
2. The Quran also says that Jesus is a divine Being sent from God.
Jesus said He was God multiple times.
1) In Matthew 16:15, Jesus asks his apostles, “who do you say that I am?” And in Matthew 16:16, Peter responds, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Then Matthew 16:17 gives us Jesus’ response, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.” Thus, Jesus acknowledges that He is the Son of God. And to say that He is the Son of God implies divinity. If Jesus was not the true Son of God, it would have been appropriate for a pious Jew, like Jesus, to say that he was only a man, or to please not call him the Son of God. But Jesus didn’t say that. He acknowledged and agreed with Simon’s proclamation.
2) And in John 10:30, Jesus says, “I and the Father are one” also acknowledging his unity with God the Father and His divinity. Further, Jesus was always talking about the Father, which prompted Philip to ask, “Jesus, show us the Father.” And in John 14:9-11, Jesus responds, “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father?’ Don’t you believe that I am in the Father and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.” When Jesus said, “the Father is in me” he is acknowledging his own divinity. God is literally being contained within the body of Jesus.
3) After Jesus rose from the dead (only a divine person could rise from the dead; Muhammad never rose from the dead), he appeared to his apostles. The first time he appeared to his apostles after the resurrection, Thomas was not with them. And when the apostles told Thomas that Jesus was alive, he doubted, and said that he would not believe it until he put his finger into the nail marks in Jesus’ hands and placed his hand into the spear wound in Jesus’ side. And then Jesus did later appear again to his apostles and this time Thomas was with them. Thomas saw the nail marks in Jesus’ hands and put his hand into Jesus’ side, and Thomas fell to his knees and said, “My Lord and my God.” [367] And in the very next verse, John 20:29, Jesus does
367. The New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition. (Catholic Book Publishing, New York, NY, 1970). John 20:28.
not deny what Thomas said, but responds, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have still believed.” Clearly, Jesus means believed that He is “Lord and God” and blessed are those who believe this.
The Resurrection of Jesus from the dead deserves a further commentary. For those who deny that Jesus rose from the dead, an explanation of how Christianity spread so quickly and why His disciples risks their lives to preach the Gospel must be explained. Muhammad was able to spread Islam through fear of death if people did not convert, by offering sex with female prisoners of war to his soldiers, war booty, wealth, multiple wives, slaves, and “paradise” after death. Jesus offered poverty, risk of death to his followers by spreading the Gospel, no sex, and a hard life of fasting and prayer. And yet Christianity spread faster than Islam! An explanation must be given if Jesus did not rise from the dead. People don’t just sign up in droves for celibacy, poverty, fasting, and death.
4) In the gospel of John, chapter 8:57-59, Jesus was discussing God and Abraham and the Jews made fun of him for speaking about Abraham, denying that Jesus could possibly know anything about Abraham since he lived much earlier. The passage reads, “So the Jews said to him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abraham?’ Jesus said to them, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you before Abraham came to be, I am.’” [368] And then the Jews picked up stones to throw at Jesus. Why? What was so offensive to the Jews? The Jews had many names for God, such as Yahweh, Adonai, and “I am,” which implies the pure life or existence of God as creator. In the Torah, Exodus 3:13-14, God refers to Himself when speaking with Moses as “I am”. So this is a divine name for God. When Jesus, said “I am,” He was saying that He was God.
5) In Isaiah 41:4, God is talking through Isaiah and says, “Who has performed these deeds? He who has called forth the generations from the beginning. I, the Lord, am the first, and with the last I will also be.” Again, in Isaiah 44:6, He says, “Thus says the Lord, Israel’s King and redeemer, the Lord of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; there is no God but Me.” And God talks about being the “first and the last” again in Isaiah 49:12 when he says, “Listen to me, Jacob, Israel, whom I named. I, it is I, who am the first, and also the last am I.” Thus, there are three times in the book of Isaiah where God refers to Himself as the first and the last. This is important because in the Book of Revelation, St. John has a vision of heaven and sees Jesus. Revelation 1:17-18 reads, “When I caught sight of Him (Jesus) I fell down at His feet as though dead. He touched me with His right hand and said, “Do not be afraid. I am the first and the last, the One who lives. Once I was dead, but now I am alive forever and ever.” God the Father was never dead. Only Jesus died. But now He is telling John clearly that He is God, the first and the last! In Revelation 2:8, Jesus again speaks of Himself as the “first and the last.” This is a divine title that Jesus uses. And the Muslims are very familiar with this title for God because in the Quran 57:3, the passage also refers to God as the “first and the last.” The passage reads:
368. The New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition. (Catholic Book Publishing, New York, NY, 1970). John 8:57-59.
He is the First and the Last, the Most High and Most Near, and He has perfect knowledge of all things. [369]
Again, as I have said many times, the Bible was written almost 700 years before the Quran, and so the title of “the first and the last” was originally used in the Old Testament to refer to God, and then Jesus used it to refer to Himself, and then the Quran copied it and also referred to God this way and so no Muslim can claim that Jesus never said He was God. The proof is in the Quran.
6) In Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah is writing about the Messiah to come, who is Jesus. And Isaiah describes Him in this way, “For a child is born unto us, a son is given us; upon his shoulders dominion rests. They name Him Wonder-Counselor, Mighty God, Father Forever, Prince of Peace.” Jesus will be the Mighty God. In the very next chapter Isaiah 10:20-21, Isaiah says, “On that day, the remnant of Israel, the survivors of the house of Jacob will no more lean upon him who struck them, but they will lean upon the Lord, the Holy One of Israel in truth. A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob to the Mighty God.” Of course, this passage from Isaiah is talking about the birth of Jesus, who is the Mighty God.
7) In John 17:4-5, Jesus is talking to the Father and says, “I glorified You on earth by accomplishing the work that you gave me to do. Now glorify Me, Father, with you, with the glory that I had with you before the world began.” If Jesus was with the Father in glory before the world began, then clearly, He is divine and not just a human. He is the Son of God. This is also why in John 1:1 it says, “In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” 8) In Hebrews 1:5-8, Paul is writing a letter to the early Christians who were falling away from their faith. He wants to remind them that Jesus is the true Messiah. And so Paul writes:
For to which of the angels did God ever say: “You are my Son; this day I have begotten you?” Or again: “I will be a Father to Him, and He shall be a Son to me?” And again, when He leads the first-born into the world, he says: “Let all the angels of God worship him.” Of the angels He says: “He makes his angels winds and His ministers a fiery flame,” but of the Son: “Your throne, O God, stands forever and ever; and a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom.” [370]
In this passage, Paul is quoting God the Father calling Jesus His actual Son, and says, “Your throne, O God, stands forever.” God the Father is calling Jesus God, because they are the one God.
In addition, in the Quran 4:171, it says that Jesus was the Messiah, a spirit of God, and the Word of God. And yet Muslims will say that Jesus was “only a prophet.” But prophets are just human beings. All of the previous prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel were only human. The Quran itself says that Jesus was much more than a human being since it calls Him the “spirit of God” and the “Word of God.” The Quran translated by Yusuf Ali reads:
369. Quran, Surah Al-Hadid, chapter 57, verse 3.
370. New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition (Catholic Book Pub., New York, NY, 1970) Hebrews 1:5-8.
Christ Jesus the son of Mary was a messenger from Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary and a spirit proceeding from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. [371]
The Quran translated by Mohsin Khan reads:
The Messiah ‘Iesa (Jesus) son of Maryam was a messenger of Allah and His Word, which was bestowed on Maryam, and a spirit created by Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. [372]
If Muslims believe that the Quran is true, then they are being hypocritical if they say that Jesus was “only a prophet.” The Quran says otherwise. [373] The Quran says that Jesus was the very spirit of God. The important takeaway from this is not only that the Quran again contradicts itself, but that the Quran is filled with Judeo-Christian themes, simply altered and re-arranged passages from the Gospels reimagined to fill a historical and religious void in Arabic culture.
371. Quran, Surah An-Nisa, chapter 4, verse 171.
372. Quran, Surah An-Nisa, chapter 4, verse 171.
373. Quran, Surah An-Nisa, chapter 4, verse 171.
Chapter 15
Error #14 The Quran claims that Jesus did not have to die to take away sin because God can just forgive sin directly.
True. God does not require death to forgive sins. In His infinite love, God sent his Son to take away sin. It was by sin that death came into the world. God’s original plan was never for anyone to die! This is outlined in the Biblical account in Genesis. But human sin brought the penalty of death into the world, and it is by His death that sin is taken away. The message of the Gospel is that Jesus came to take away sin and this is why He forgave the sins of those who came to Him. Man cannot do enough good in a lifetime to merit eternal salvation nor can he or she repay the debt of their own sin because we are always sinning again and again. Even if you repent and do penance for past sins, you will commit future sins and have to repent again. By nature, we are fallen. A quick look at human behavior around the world will confirm this. Humans need a savior to save us from ourselves and our selfish nature. The only one who can save us from ourselves is God. And when God sent the Messiah, His Son Jesus, to teach us how to live, to stop being selfish, and to love one another, it is no surprise that the world hated Him and killed Him. The price of His teaching the truth was His death. But by that truth, we are saved. Someone dying out of love for others is heroic. This was the ultimate gift that God gave us of Himself.
It is really no surprise to man or God that when Jesus began preaching the truth, telling the Jews that they needed to repent, upsetting the Romans, and proclaiming the kingdom of God, that the authorities would be upset that people began following Jesus, and that there would be penalties. I think both Christians and Muslims do not really understand how the sacrifice of Jesus took away sin. It was the reaction of the world to Jesus that caused His crucifixion. And, yes, God may have known in advance that this would happen, but it did not stop the brave Jesus from proclaiming the truth.
God the Father would never want His Son Jesus to have to be murdered and die. But on the other hand, if the gospel of Jesus, which was necessary to save the world by His teaching and example, resulted in His death, then out of that great love for mankind, God paid this price. Jesus predicts this very occurrence in Matthew 21:33-46, where He describes the death of the son, which represents Jesus. In this passage God says, “Surely, they will listen to my Son.” And He says that because they killed the Son, the kingdom of God will be taken away from the Jews and given to the Christians who believe in Him. If there were fifty children trapped inside a burning building and I wanted to save them, then I would run into the building and pull them out two at a time, one in each arm. After saving all of the children, I may have second and third degree burns all over my body. I knew the building was on fire before I ran into it, but I would do it anyway to save the children. That does not mean that I lit the building on fire myself, or that I wanted the building to be on fire! I just wanted to save the children, and if the building had never been on fire, then I would not have had to do anything! Jesus ran into our “burning building,” the world, to save us.
If the world wasn’t trapped in sin, then Jesus would not have had to come save us and teach us the correct way to live. This is why Sahih Muslim 2749 is wrong. It reads:
By Him in whose hand is my life, if you were not to commit sin, Allah would sweep you out of existence and He would replace you by those people who would commit sin and seek forgiveness from Allah, and He would have pardoned them. [374]
But God did not create sin and does not want sin. Jesus made that clear. But knowing that the price to pay to save us would result in His death did not stop Him from teaching the truth. It was the Jew’s and Roman’s resistance to Jesus’ teachings that led them to kill Him. The will of the Father and the Son was to save us by bringing us to understand the need for repentance, how we are to live, and the incomprehensible love of God. And by God doing this, mankind responded with murder, rather than changing their ways. After hearing Jesus’ teachings, mankind could have repented just like the city of Ninevah repented after hearing the message of Jonah. But they didn’t. They just murdered Jesus. This is why Jesus said, “The men of Ninevah will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here.” [375] Yes, both Jesus and God the Father knew in advance that the message of Jesus would result in His death. But His message was necessary, and His death was the result. I don’t think that the death of Jesus was a ransom, but a consequence. But regardless of how you frame it: it was brave, it was heroic, it was love, and it was for our salvation. Jesus paid the debt only the Father knows.
374. Sahih Muslim, 2749, book 50, hadith 13.
375. The New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition. (Catholic Book Publishing, New York, NY, 1970). Matthew 12:41.
Chapter 16
Error #15 The Quran falsely teaches that the Bible describes a prophet to follow Jesus.
This chapter of the book will prove the following two points.
1. There is no evidence in the Bible of a prophet to follow after Jesus.
2. Combining evidence from the Quran and the Bible shows that Muhammad was the antichrist.
In the Quran 7:157, there is a passage that Muslims falsely interpret to claim the Bible prophesizes an illiterate prophet, believed to be Muhammad, who will come after Jesus. Muslims will say that the Bible itself declares that Muhammad will follow Jesus. This deserves some close scrutiny. The passage in the Quran 7:157 refers to two people: “the messenger” believed to be Jesus, and “the unlettered (illiterate) prophet” believed to be Muhammad. [376] The verse reads:
They are the ones who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whose description they find in their Torah and the Gospel. He commands them to do good and forbids them from evil, permits for them what is lawful and forbids to them what is impure, and relieves them from their burdens and the shackles that bound them. [377]
And in the Quran 61:6, there is another verse which reads:
And when Jesus, son of Mary, said, ‘O children of Israel, indeed I am the messenger of God to you confirming what came before me of the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad. [378]
But a different translation by Pickthall reads:
And when Jesus, son of Mary said, “And children of Israel! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah unto you, confirming that which was revealed before me in the Torah, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who cometh after me whose name is the Praised One. [379]
At this point, it is important to realize several things. First, we have four separate Gospel accounts from four separate authors in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John who either lived with Jesus or immediately after Jesus, and recorded what Jesus said. And there is a lot of overlap in what they each reported that Jesus actually said. None of the Gospels recorded that Jesus ever
376. Quran, Surah Al-A’raf, chapter 7, verse 157.
377. Quran, Surah Al-A’raf, chapter 7, verse 157.
378. Quran, Surah As-Saf, chapter 61, verse 6.
379. Marmaduke Pickthall. The Holy Quran: Transliteration in Roman Script and English Translation with Arabic Text. (Kitab Bhavan Pub., New Dehli, India, 1999).
said what the Quran claims He said. Further, all four Gospels were written within 20-70 years of Jesus’ death, while the Quran was not composed for over 600 years after Jesus’ death! Any quotes of what Jesus may have said in the Quran, which are not also found in the Bible, are purely fabricated lies. It is simply an impossibility that there could have been documented evidence of something Jesus said which was kept out of the Gospels, but preserved secretly for 600 years, moved from Israel to Saudi Arabia, and then discovered by the Third Caliph Uthman, Ali ibn Abi Talib, Zayd ibn Thabit, or Caliph Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (the four men believed to be the original authors of the earliest copies of the Quran) in 652-655 AD! Thus, neither Catholics, Christians, nor historians believe that any quotes from Jesus in the Quran are accurate. And so if a Muslim says, “Jesus says in the Quran…..”, the historical truth is that there is no evidence that anything quoted as coming from Jesus in the Quran is true unless it is also found in the Gospels.
But let’s go a little further. Muslims claim that there are two passages in the Bible that prophesize about an illiterate prophet to come after Jesus. Is this true? The first one they cite is Deuteronomy 18:15-19, where Moses is speaking and says:
The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers- it is to him you shall listen- just as your desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire anymore, lest I die.’ And the Lord said to me, ‘They are right in what they have spoken. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth and he shall speak to them all that I command of him. And whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him. [380]
There are many reasons why the Islamic interpretation is wrong. First, since the prophet will come “from among their brothers,” he will be an Israelite, a Jew, and of course, Muhammad was not an Israelite nor a Jew. Second, after Moses, there were many prophets sent to the Israelites, including Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Elijah. This passage could be referring to any one of them. Third, there is actually no mention that the prophet would be illiterate. Fourth, contrary to what the Quran claims, there is no mention in the Bible that the prophet would be named “Ahmad.” Fifth, Jesus Himself answers the question about who the prophet is in the New Testament passage, John 5:46, when He says, “For if you had believed Moses, you would have believed Me, because he wrote about Me.” Sixth, God established a covenant with Moses, which is referred to as the “old covenant,” which was the law of Moses. Jesus was the “new covenant” between God and man which superseded the law and established a new covenant such that all who believe in Jesus will be saved. The man that Moses is referring to, who will follow him, will establish that new covenant. God never established any covenant with Muhammad. The Quran never mentions any covenant between God and Muhammad. And seventh, when Moses saw God, his face shone and radiated light. [381] When Jesus underwent the transfiguration to show that He was God, His face also shone like
380. New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition. (Catholic Book Pub., New York, NY, 1970). Deuteronomy 18:15-19.
381. New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition. (Catholic Book Pub., New York, NY, 1970). Exodus 34:29-35.
the sun. [382] This never happened to Muhammad. Jesus is the light of the world. Muhammad was only darkness.
Other Muslims claim that the verse in the Quran which is prophesying a prophet to come after Jesus is based upon John 14-16, which refers to Jesus’ comment that after Him, a “helper”, “counselor”, or “advocate” will come to be with His people. Catholics and Christians have always interpreted this to mean the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity. There are many reasons why this also does not refer to Muhammad. First, Jesus says that this helper will be with us forever. Clearly, Muhammad did not live forever. Second, the Greek term originally used in the earliest extant copies of the Bible was “parakletos,” which implies a spiritual or angelic force from heaven, and not a human. The term, “parakletos,” which Jesus used, has been translated as “comforter” or “advocate”, but was never translated as “prophet”. Thus, there is really no evidence for what the Quran claims in verse 7:157. But third, in John 14:26, Jesus goes on to say, “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” This not only documents the truth of the Holy Trinity and the Three Persons of God, but also shows the unity of Father and Son, and mentions by name that the one to follow after Jesus is the Holy Spirit. Fourth, the apostles of Jesus received the Holy Spirit just ten days after the ascension of Jesus to heaven. [383] Muhammad was born over 600 years later and so he never knew any of the apostles and would not have been able to remind any of them what Jesus had said.
But I would like to point out a very strange, almost demonic, reverse interpretation that this claim from the Muslims brings to the surface. The reverse interpretation is this: rather than the Bible foreshadowing the coming of Muhammad as a prophet to follow Jesus, what if the Bible does foreshadow the coming of Muhammad in another way. In those same verses, John 14-16, which Muslims claim foreshadow the coming of Muhammad, let’s examine what else Jesus says in those same verses. In just these three passages alone, Jesus refers to His relationship with the Father 44 times! He explains that the Father will send the Holy Spirit, that He does the will of the Father, and that the Father and Jesus are one. I encourage you to read John 14-16 for yourself. Clearly, and without a doubt, Jesus claims a relationship with God as His Father.
Now contrast this with what the Quran says in verse 17:111, “Praise belongs to God who has neither had a son, nor is there any partner to him in his kingdom.” And Quran verse 23:91 reads, “God has not taken any son, nor has there ever been with him any deity.” And verse 6:101 reads, “He is the originator of the heavens and earth. How could He have children when He has no mate?” On this point, the Bible and the Quran are clearly opposed. Thus, it is important to know what the Bible says in 1 John 2:22-23, which reads, “Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist, denying the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.” Islam denies the Son. This makes Muhammad the antichrist, the Devil’s prophet. And Jesus warned us about this very thing in Matthew 24:24-26, when He said, “False messiahs and false prophets will arise, and they will perform signs and wonders so great as to deceive, if that were possible, even the elect. Behold, I have told it to you beforehand. So if they say to you, ‘He is in the desert,’ do not go out there.” And where was Muhammad? He was in the desert.
382. Bible, Matthew 17:1-9.
383. Bible, Acts 1:8 and 2:1-4.
Chapter 17
Other Considerations
Muslims will also say that the Bible cannot be correct because the Western world is mostly Christian and yet, within this “Christian” society, we see sinful behavior such as prostitution, murder, gun violence, pornography, corruption, and scandal. Why did a Christian society, if guided by God, end up in the depths of sin?
There are several reasons for this. First, not everyone in the West is Christian. Second, many people who claim to be Christians are not and never go to church or pray, and we have evidence of this from national polls. Third, it is actually a small minority of the West who are true to the Gospel of Jesus and walk in His ways. Thus, we cannot judge Christianity by the Western world, but only by the Gospel message itself. Some Protestant denominations teach that anyone who proclaims Jesus as their savior is saved, regardless of whether or not they lead an immoral life. But this is erroneous. Both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, the Torah, and the Quran all teach repentance, to turn away from sin, and to honor the Lord your God with your life by doing good works. Many Protestant denominations are actually leading people away from God by allowing them to falsely believe that God does not care about what they do as long as they “profess the name”. But Matthew 7:21-23 reads:
Not everyone who says to Me, “Lord, Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?” And then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from Me you who practice evil!”
And John 14:23-24 reads:
If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My word.
Further, it is very hypocritical for Muslims to call the Western world sinful when their religion teaches them it is appropriate, and in fact good, to murder apostates, to beat women, to hate Christians and Jews, and that jihadist murder gives glory to God. Even the Quran says not to kill. Is the Western world more sinful than this? Christianity teaches us to love one another, to hate no one, and to love and respect all women since they are our mothers, wives, and daughters. Who is more sinful then?
Ultimately, every religion is supposed to be bringing people together to serve God and build His kingdom on earth. And it is possible to imagine an entire world with only a single religion. What would that be like? There is an old adage that you can tell the health of a tree by its fruit. What has been the fruit of Jewish societies? What has been the fruit of Muslim societies? What if the entire world followed the teachings of Islam?
Of course, a Muslim will say that if the entire world followed the teachings of Islam, then there would be peace. But reality shows us that this is not true. Sunni Muslims fight Shi’ite Muslims, and Muslims murder Jews and Christians. Not just in the past, but the murders continue even now in the Middle East, Pakistan, India, and Africa. And all Muslim societies suppress the freedom of women, free speech, and individual liberty. An entire world of Islam would be hell for women. And the wars would continue between the Sunnis and Shi’ites. This is clearly not God’s kingdom.
It should not go unnoticed that when Muslim communities are a minority in Western countries, they demand free speech, freedom in worship, non-harassment policies, the right to wear face masks and head coverings in all public places, and leave from work for Muslim holidays. But in countries with a Muslim majority, there is little tolerance for other religions, no free speech, no freedom for Christians or Jews to openly worship or evangelize, no tolerance of other minorities, and extensive harassment for anything deemed non-Islamic. They are hypocrites. They do not want your freedom, but only theirs. And if certain laws are broken, the punishments are still the same as they were 1500 years ago with death by stoning, hanging, beheading or the amputation of limbs. [384]
In December 2014, a Jordanian pilot, Moaz al-Kasasbeh, was flying an F-16 over Syria in a raid on the Islamic State in Syria (ISIS) terrorist group when his plane was shot down. He was captured by ISIS and burned alive. There was international outcry against this atrocious act of barbarianism. But it almost went unnoticed, except in Egypt, that the pilot was also a Muslim. One reporter in Egypt asked the head of Sunni Islam’s most respected seat of Muslim education, Egypt’s Al-Azhar, what the appropriate punishment should be for the militants who killed this man. The grand sheik, Ahmed al-Tayeb, responded that the militants had broken Islam’s prohibition on the mutilation of bodies and, therefore, they deserved “the Quranic punishment of crucifixion or the chopping off of their arms.” [385] How is the “chopping off of their arms” not also the mutilation of bodies? This entire “religion” has no rational basis for its beliefs. It is a “religion” of murder, revenge, human cruelty, and hatred. Is this not the religion of Satan? Truly, a world with only the religion of Islam would be hell, indeed. If any “religious” book approved of the torture of prisoners of war and the rape of female captives, then any rational person should be able to acknowledge that this is not truly a religion, but a lie. And Islam is a lie.
The famous psychologist Jordan Peterson was invited to visit a mosque and discuss Islam with a prominent Muslim scholar, Mohammed Hijab. During the course of the conversation, after discussing Islam in detail, the scholar asked Peterson if he would consider converting to Islam if Hijab could provide enough “probabilistic evidence” that Islam was true.
384. “Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia,” in The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics, and Society. April 30, 2013. Pew Research Center. www.pewresearch.org.
385. Associated Press. “Jordanian pilot’s obscene burning death by ISIS sparks outrage in Mideast.” Cairo, Egypt. February 4, 2015. www.cbsnews.com.
I thought the answer of the psychologist was very telling. He said, “No. Because that isn’t how I evaluate the situation. For me, the proof of faith is the attractiveness of its adherents. That is something to think about.” Indeed, that is something to think about. Based upon “the attractiveness of its adherents,” which religion do you believe is true?
If we go back to thinking of the entire world as having only one religion, the truth is that things would only be slightly better with a completely Jewish world. Yes, there would be no more wars, and that would be a very good thing. But money and prestige have always held strong political power in Judaism, and the poor and marginalized are not supported. Compared to Christian charities, there are few Jewish soup kitchens, homeless shelters, or drug rehabilitation centers. [386] If you are homeless and penniless, you do not seek out a synagogue. You seek out a Catholic church.
The statistics would say that only a completely Catholic world would be the best place to live. Over 70% of all of the hospitals in the world were initially built or started by Catholics or the Catholic Church. [387] And over 50% of those in America were started by Catholic nuns or women. [388] And over 45% of homeless shelters and 70% of soup kitchens, crisis pregnancy centers, adoption agencies, orphanages, and prison ministries are run by the Catholic church. [389, 390] With the exception of the United Way and the Salvation Army, social services for the poor, homeless, marginalized, and children social services are almost exclusively Catholic agencies. [391] The Catholic Church is the original church started by Jesus, the Christ. And this is the fruit. Just one branch of the Catholic social services global network, Catholic Relief Services, provides free social services, food, health care and disaster relief to more than 200 million people in more than 100 countries on five continents. [392]
Now you can decide. Do you want to believe in the God of Jesus who preached love, forgiveness, equality, taught the sanctity of life, respect for women, and His church which has produced health care, social services, and care for the poor? Or do you want to believe in the God of Muhammad who preached hate, religious fighting, the suppression of women, polygamy, intolerance, torture and has only produced wars and jihad murder? Based upon the “attractiveness of its adherents,” what do you think?
386. 2019 Statistics. Global Jewish Assistance and Relief Network. www.globaljewish.org.
387. John Agnew. “Deus Vult: The Geopolitics of the Catholic Church.” Geopolitics. 2010;15(1):39-61.
388. Peter Levin. “Catholic Sisters and the Creation of American Hospitals.” J. Community Health. 2011;36(3):343-7.
389. Robert Calderisi. Earthly Mission: The Catholic Church and World Development. (TJ International Ltd., Padstow, England, 2013) p. 40-52.
390. Byron Johnson, William Wubbenhorst, Alfreda Alvarez. Assessing the Fatih-Based Response to Homelessness in America: Findings from Eleven Cities. Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion, Baylor, Texas, 2017. www.baylorisr.org.
391. “2016 Philanthropy 400”. The Chronicle of Philanthropy, 2016. www.philanthropy.com.
392. “About Catholic Relief Services.” www.crs.org.
Jesus is the world’s light,
He and none other.
Born in our darkness,
He became our brother.
If we have seen Him, we have seen the Father.
Glory to God on high!
-Fred Pratt Green
END